HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu"
X-VMS-Cc: AUTENRKL
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 15:04:00 CST
From:         "dr. Daniel Edward Taylor" <AUTENRKL@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Warnke and the "Contemporary Christian" scene
X-To:         CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu

>Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:41:37 PST
>From: FRANK%LAW.UCLA.EDU@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
>Subject: RE: Warnke and the "Contemporary Christian" scene


>Are there any DA, Swirling Eddies fans out there?

    Yes, but what does that have to do with Warnke?

dr. Daniel Edward Taylor
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
kevin autenrieth            U N D E R   T H E   G A Z E   O F   G O D
autenrkl@sluvca.slu.edu
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
so long and thanks for all the fish.  -- douglas adams
From: peacock5293@iscsvax.uni.edu (Greywolf)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: "New Covenant"
Date: 21 Jul 92 00:39:24 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

In article <1992Jul19.000310.16289@gboro.glassboro.edu>, kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
> Oh, good grief.
> 
> The word `covenant' was not copyrighted by the early Church.  It is entirely

Yeah, but when you hear "covenant", what do you usually categorize that word
as?  I mean, it's one of those "churchy" words.  It *sounds* religious to the
guy on the street (or to the guy in his basement typing on a computer keyboard,
in this case).

> twisting that goes on around us.  (Next thing somebody's going to discover
> that "William Clinton" adds up to 666.)

Hee!  =)  Give them time!

> And what about those graduation prayers recently struck down by the Supreme
> Court?  What about the prayers offered at the Republican Convention?

I know people are gonna hate me for this, but I'd have to go along with the
Supreme Court in theory.  Institutionalized prayer is not something to have in
a democratic society.  Exactly *who* we'd be praying to could change depending
upon who's in power.  Now, maybe if we happened to have a Christian King
appointed directly by God who would maintain the US as a Christian Nation,
then ... Well, I doubt that's going to happen for a while.  Really.

Now, what starts getting on my gall is when things are set up to prevent
"institutionalized religion", but when teachers interpret that as meaning that
they have to squash any Christian expression.  I had a few teachers who acted
like that in high school, who seemed rather defensive about anything that
seemed vaguely Biblical.  A *few*, mind you.  I wasn't a martyr or anything.

> sighted at best to speak as if this shows some kind of moral decay in the
> Democrats, while ignoring the numerous other situations where the same things
> are done.

Besides, *moral decay* in the Democrats?  I thought they had pretty much
reached rock bottom anyway.  =)
{duck!}
> 
> much church-state intermixing.  People who don't care about Christianity will
> act as if they do, in order to be more politically popular.  Religion

Unless you're on a college campus.

> eventually becomes a tool or an empty ritual -- people will sit piously during
> an invocation before some event, and then laugh at you for saying you believe
> in Jesus was bodily resurrected.

Hm.  Can't argue with *that*.

> use the Church.  "He who lives by manipulation . . ."

Manipulation?  Amazing how terms change depending upon whose values are being
promoted.  Churches manipulate the government.  Others use the democratic
process to influence their elected officials.  Or something like that.
-- 
-Jordan            ..      PEACOCK5293@iscsvax.uni.edu
                  .OO.     Jordan Peacock (Jordan Greywolf)
                  O/\O     (New Address):  1610 Parker
                   --                      Cedar Falls, IA  50613
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: HF.JLN@forsythe.stanford.edu (Janet Newman)
Subject: Re: THE ROMANCE THING
Organization: Stanford University, California, USA
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 17:43:37 GMT

Thanks for sharing your experience.  I still think I'm in love
with a guy I broke up with almost 2 months ago.  I just wasn't
sure if he was a "real" Christian.  Sort of like the situation
Fritz is in with Li.  The scripture that has spoken to me the
loudest is Psalm 147.  God PROMISES to heal our broken hearts and
bind up our wounds.  I have thought a lot about how this relates
to my emotions and boundaries.  I'm still healing.  After a month
I'm doing much better at eating and sleeping than before I put an
end to things.  I sort of wish my situation had been like yours
where you "naturally" drifted apart.  I guess I felt that I was
getting pulled in too deep emotionally and had to end it quick
and painfully.  I keep reminding God how I feel about him and
that evenso, I'm more committed to Him and tho I "feel" this way
I trust Him to provide what's best.

Love and prayers,

Janet
Yes, there are Christians in California!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:59:00 EST
From:         WKJ <JAMES@XAVIER.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: You have to preach in church to be a REAL reverend

Perhaps next time I may be enabled by the Holy One to " make it plain,
that they may run that read it "

        God's blessing on you.

WKJ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 19:21:36 EDT
From:         WJPOWELL@SUVM.BITNET
Subject:      Greetings

I am a new subscriber to "Christia." On my first day, I was deluged with
over 25 pieces of mail over the network. I read with interest and fascina-
tion the varied accounts of the work of the Lord in his children across the
globe. I am excited and eagerly await to get involved. I am truly grateful
to the Lord for this opportunity to communicate with christians using a
technology I thought was available only to the world. Praise God! Continue
to write.
In Him,
William.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:20:55 CDT
From:         CCCHRIS@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject:      Thanks God, I'm alive!

This morning, after a particularly gruling (sp?) weekend, I came in to work
ready to face the day.  Who cares if it's Monday, right?  Georgous day, lots
of sunshine, a job I enjoy... so here I sat, going about business as usual
when suddenly the ceiling fell in.  If not for the phone ringing when it did,
I would've been sitting directly underneath the skylight, which fell very
hard, along with live wires and ceiling tiles, right on top of my desk.
There must've been an angel at my shoulder, or maybe God has more for me to
do on this planet.  My entire desk was buried, but the total extent of my
injuries was a small scratch on the wrist and a *big* headache.  Everybody
was surprised to see me climbing out of the debris unharmed.  Wide eyed, but
unharmed.  Not only am I alright, but they're giving me the day off.

Since I've often felt angry with God when bad things happen, I think it's an
excellent time for me to be offering my thanks.  Of course, I should praise
Him in all things, but I have to admit, at the moment, I'm inspired to shout
it from the rooftops.  (Providing they're stable...)

Praise God!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  :)   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chris Reed
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: systematic theology
Date: 25 Jul 92 09:43:16 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Tom,

    Thanks for your input on systematic theology in reaction  to my previous
post quoting Watchman Nee, Richard Wurmbrand and Alfred E. Newman.
    A brief re-reaction:
>"Jn 8:32 tells us the Truth will set us free, but we must know the Truth.<

I'm glad you capitalized Truth, because He is a person, not a system of pro-
positional truths.

>A major weakness of commercial religion/...church is its lack of Truth.<

We have no lack of Truth, but you are right if you mean we are weak because
we have not opened ourselves in so many areas to Christ who is the Truth.
My problem with just "knowing truths" and KNOWING TRUTH (Christ) probably is
because of my personal experience.  I knew much about Christ before I was
illuminated.  I knew a lot about the Bible.  But I didn't have an existential
relationship with the Living Christ... He was distant like Allah.  He was in
a book like Plato.  He was in me but I didn't KNOW it, even though I knew it.
Like Martin Luther said, you can know all about Christ being born in Bethlehem,
but until you know Him born in you...  Peace, Zane.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 08:02:08 -0700
From:         jstahley@QUALCOMM.COM
Subject:      Re: Bible study deadline
X-To:         Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>

>Just a Reminder:
>
>The deadline for letting me know that you are interested in joining the
>Bible Study group is August 1 (Saturday.)  Thanks for your interest.
>
>We now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion.
>
>                                             Love INC,
>                                                      ---Kerry

I would be very interested in joining the Bible Study group.

                   Thanks,
                                JSTAHLEY@ATHENA.QUALCOMM.COM

                                RECEIVING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Subject: Thought categories for sceintific Christians (Was Re: wearing two hats)
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 16:00:58 GMT

In article <1992Jul21.235550.341@altair.selu.edu> scsd1055@altair.selu.edu writes:
>From: scsd1055@altair.selu.edu
>Subject: Re: wearing two hats
>Date: 21 Jul 92 23:55:49 -0600

>Billy C. writes :-)

> > We have Christians who will put on their scientist hats when they
> > study science, and accept all the claims of evolutionism. Then
> > with no qualms, on Sunday, they put on their Christian hats, and
> > study the claims of a Creator, and fail to see the dichotomy....

>                                                            
>        And?  What dichotomy?  Isn't evolution part of christianity?
>Won't we all evolve into something spiritual upon death?

Please pay attention to what I wrote.  I said "evolutionism," not
"evolution."  Though I agree with honest science, and accept demonstrable
things like adaptation that are part of the theory of evolution, I
do not agree with "evolutionism," the philosophy that all things happen
by chance occurrences.

There is a vast difference between saying that I evoluted out of
a primordal mass, am a product of chance chemical reactions, answerable
to no one, vs. saying I am a creature of a God who uses means that
can be scientifically studied, and I am answerable to Him.

That is the major dichotomy to which I was alluding.  No God vs. The God.
I do not want to throw out the baby with the bath water, i.e., I do
not want to do away with biology and geology, but I want to challenge
Christians to be sure the thought categories of their scientific
calling are not in conflict with those of their christian calling.

>        What happens, or has happened to planet Earth in the past 5 billion
>years, should be of little concern for the spiritually minded, for their 
>concerns are not of this Earth.  

Unless, of course, those concerns are part of God's concerns and
commands for us, e.g., fill the earth and subdue it..... and as
much as you have done it to the least of these my brothers, you
have done it unto me.

>        I hope we're not going to see a debate on evolution!  8-] 

That is not my intention.

--
Bill Chapman <BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>   (601) 325-2042
Computing Consultant <wcc1@Msstate.bitnet> P.O. Box 1262
Dept. of Housing & Residence Life          Mississippi State, MS  39762
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Temple University/SCT Computer Services
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 09:43:13 EDT
From:         "Roger A. Phyall" <ROGER@TEMPLEVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual leadership in the home

On Fri, 24 Jul 1992 06:47:00 CDT john d. wrbanek said:
>
>There was and is not one of us leading the direction of our spirituallity.  We
>are in the marriage together.  The leadership seems to come from God, not us.
>
>My two cents...
>
Thanks John, for sharing with us.  Question:  Have you noticed we are speaking
in terms of true spiritual leadership and also "headship" or **Who's the Boss**
in and of the family?  Scriptural family structure says the husband is the head
of the family, but when it comes to pure spiritual (church) then Christ is the
Head.  We husbands should love our wives even as Christ loves the church.  And
the wives should submit unto (there's discussion on this point) their husbands
and love their husbands even as they love Christ.  Lastly, you, John, are 100%
corect that the leadership does come from Christ, after all that's the Head of
the family structure.  But we mortals are still going to ask *Who's the Boss?*
So this mortal asks John (again) and others willing to share, who here on Earth
has the final word in your family with or without divine guidance??

**Caution there's a little trick in that question.

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|                            |    Cordially & Sincerely yours,  |
| Temple University (038-15) |                                  |
| Computer/Math Bldg. Rm 851 |         Roger A. Phyall          |
| Broad St. & Montgomery Av. |       VM System Programmer       |
| Philadelphia,PA 19122-2585 |          (215) 787-1292          |
|                            |                                  |
|        Internet:           |              Bitnet:             |
|   ROGER@VM.TEMPLE.EDU      |           ROGER@TEMPLEVM         |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 03:56:17 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      faith; fact vs opinion
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET, BSTUDY-L@UTARLVM1.BITNET,
              IVCF-L@UBVM.BITNET

Tim King offers (courtesy of Funk & Wagnalls) several definitions of
the word "faith". For a more extended discussion of ways in which
the word is used, see my paper FAITH KINDS in the Library. (To
obtain a copy, send the message GET FAITH KINDS to
LISTSERV@ASUACAD.)

     *     *     *     *     *

The statement, "It is a fact that God exists," made by one
listmember, has given rise to a thread on the list, and it seems to
me that not all the participants are using the word "fact" in the
same sense. I suggest that questions fall at least roughly into
three categories.

     (1) "What is the capital of North Dakota?" Here, there is a
correct answer and agreement on what that answer is. A child who
asks the grownups this question can expect to get the same answer
from all of them. If by any chance two of them disagree, they can
jointly check the atlas and other reference works, after which it
can be expected that one will give in and they will be in agreement.

    (2) "Did Lee Harvey Oswald kill President Kennedy, and was he
acting alone?" Here, there is a correct answer, but not all the
grownups are agreed on what the answer is, and no no one has an
argument that can be depended upon to convince his opponents.

     (3) "Is the music of Bach superior to that of Handel?" "Was
Grace Kelly more beautiful than Greta Garbo?" Here, not only is
there no agreement on the correct answer, it is even arguable that
there is no correct answer. Preferences differ, and why should they
not?  (If they did not, then all men would be in love with Meryl
Streep, and all women with Mel Gibson, and all marriages would be in
trouble.)

In trying to distinguish matters of fact from matters of opinion,
some listmembers draw the line between Classes (1) and (2) as given
above, some between Classes (2) and three. Perhaps both sides would
agree with me that the question "Does God exist?" belongs in Class
(2). Either it is an objective fact that God exists, or it is an
objective fact that God is a delusion. Room for objection, in that
not all persons have the same idea of what God is like, but I assume
that our disputants have sufficient common ground to make dialog
possible. In any case, just as it is clear that Earl Warren and Mark
Lane cannot both be right about the death of President Kennedy, so
Billy Graham and Madlyn Murray O'Hair cannot both be right about the
existence of God. In this sense, theism is a question of fact.  But
it is not a question of agreed-on fact, like the capital of North
Dakotah. (Bismark, for those who are curious.) Whether theism ought
to be agreed on is another question.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-Nupop-Charset: English
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:06:43 EDT
From:         gallowav@CC.GETTYSBURG.EDU
Subject:      Re: Remarrage After Divorce

Jeff,
I don't have any personal views that could help you, but I would like to
make a comment.  I attend a church that most would consider a conservative
protestant denomination, Reformed Presbyterian.  Our Minister was married
and divorced before becoming a Christian  (bending to God's will). His
wife was also divorced.  If it would help you I would be glad to ask him for
his comments (and they will be Scripture based) and post here or send to you
privately.  If you would like, reply privately by e-mail:
    gallowav@gettysburg.edu    (in case my signature block gets lost)

Vernon
Vernon Galloway
Gettysburg College
MicroComputer Technician
gallowav@gettysburg.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 08:31:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Psycho Witch Doctors.
X-To:         christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

Someone took rather serious exception to Jesse's calling most modern
psychotherapy witch doctoring.  They said sarcastically that he must be an
expert.  Well, I am an expert and I agree completely with Jesse.

I threw out six years of psychological training because it is pure,
unmitigated, bull.  I replaced it with the Bible and a good working
knowledge of neurophisiology and anatomy.  Most modern psychological and
psychiatric therapies are nothing but means to fatten the bank accounts of
the practicianers.

For those interested, I recommend reading the materials of Jay Adams.  He
is not perfect, and has some rather large gaps in his counselling methods,
but is far and away better than any worldly psycho-trash.  Now that I have
beaten up on the professional community, let me do the same on ministers
and so-called Christian counsellors.  Most of them have no idea of how to
counsel a disturbed person.  They neither know well the Scriptures or how
the brain works.  Knowing both are essential to giving good counsel.

Yup, I get fired up about this.  I feel deeply for the millions of hurting
people who waste their money, emotions and time on junk therapy only to
have their problems not touched at all.  If the purpose of counselling or
therapy is not to turn a person to Christ, or bring them back to Him, it is
a waste, worse, it is dangerous and malproductive.

One needs no long years of training to be a good counsellor.  I could
outline the basics in a dozen medium length posts, but perhaps that is
beyond the scope of this net.  That is not to say that a layperson could
easily deal with something so complicated as a multiple personality, but it
doesn't take a degree to do this, just some experience and a little hard
training.  The correct attitude for a Christian counsellor is this:  "You
came to me because the Lord led you, my job is to stay out of the way and
let Him heal you."

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: HENDRIX
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:10:07 -0500
From:         MARCI HENDRIX <HENDRIX@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: What's Important And What Do You Do?

Darren, I'll reply to your post because of a recent conversation I had
with a fellow employee.  I happen to know that my fellow employee, Ken,
is a member of a different church, but same denomination as I.  So, in
casual conversation I asked how church was (this was this past monday).
When I did, it clicked in his head that I attended the "fundamentalist"
church in town and he proceeded to slam dunk my church based on the
fact that we don't ordain women, we advocate the right-to-life, we believe
in the inerrancy of the Bible, and on and on.  He really wasn't attaching
me, but it got me to thinking, actually I felt quite drained after that
conversation.

Any-who:  I am very uncomfortable with a pastor who does not believe in
the inerrancy of the Bible.  I'm very uncomfortable with a pastor who
is pro-choice.  There are certainly pros and cons in any church.  You have
to have a vision of your church and realize that every church has quirks
and there is no perfect church.  So, if a church is weak in an area (say,
for example, their visitation program), I might not feel like that is a
justifiable reason to leave.  I go to an excellent church (in my opinion) but
it has its drawbacks too due to how big it is.

So, for me, the biggest issue would be the value the preacher puts into the
Bible (is the Bible true, or is the Bible false).  Plus, does the preacher
use the Bible in his sermons or does he preach and not even open the Bible.

Well, this is my viewpoint - and I hope my views don't get bashed -- they
were already bashed pretty good this week and once a week is dog-gone more
than enough -- smile.
Marci Hendrix
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 09:54:13 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "New Covenant"
              21 Jul 1992 00:39:24 -0500 from <peacock5293@ISCSVAX.UNI.EDU>

     Jordan writes:

Now, what starts getting on my gall is when things are set up to prevent
"institutionalized religion", but when teachers interpret that as meaning that
they have to squash any Christian expression.  I had a few teachers who acted
like that in high school, who seemed rather defensive about anything that
seemed vaguely Biblical.  A *few*, mind you.  I wasn't a martyr or anything.

       FYI, when my friend Mark was teaching middle school, he
       assigned his students to deliver a persuasive speech to
       the class.  He called the NEA and asked them, "What if
       one of my students decides to write a speech exhorting
       the members of the class to accept Jesus Christ as their
       Lord and Savior?"  Their reply?  (After a long pause.)
       "We would advise you to structure the assignment so that
       such an outcome would be impossible."

       Just thought you'd be interested.

                                        Love INC,
                                            ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU