HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU ((MARK DRAKE))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: ways to evangelize ( was Re: Some thoughts on commtment )
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:56:44 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"

Wolfgang quoting Doug Powless:

[...]
>>         My problem:  I used to go out and "evangelize" - and I see many
>>         people doing it today.  Most of what I see on the streets is
>>         terms of evangelization is pushy and leaves a bad taste in my
>>         mouth.  I imagine some people may turn to the Lord as a result,
>>         but there's something missing.
>
> I know these thoughts very well. I was thinking about our way of
> reaching people with the gospel, about the way we preach on the streets,
> about the way we hold our crusades. I was not satisfied with all of
> that.

I've never been satisfied either.  Lately, the morning sermons at my church
have been very evangelistic, and have been talking about evangelism.  One
of the things that my pastor said really caught my attention.  He was
looking at statistics.  He said that 70% of those led to Christ by a stranger
are never seen in a church again after a while.  The majority of those led
to christ by friends and family do stay with a church. ( 80% ? )  Those
led by a stranger hear the gospel presented about 2 - 3 times.  Those led by
a friend hear the gospel about 5 - 6 times.  ( on average )

It makes me wonder.  Should we be training our people to evangelize strangers
or should we be training them to talk to their friends about christ?

I'm not saying that we should stop trying to evangelize strangers.  I'm
just asking if that should be a focus.


Any thoughts?

Mark
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, 16 Oct 1992 16:32:57 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Christian Music
              "HADDAWAY@UMBC.BITNET" at Oct 15, 92 7:51 am

Todd,

You say that music that is honoring to God is 'christian' music. This
is a very broad term isnt it.. Can non christian artists therefore
write christian music?

Has it got something to do with the Spirit behind the music?? The good
ol black&white issue of God or the devil may be brought in here.. Is
the music inspired by
a) the Holy Spirit,
b) satanic spirit
or c) no spirit at all, simply the human psyche..

Now, I am not entirly sure that option c exists, however I am willing to
accept it for the purposes of argument, in that case I would gladly
listen to options A and C..

I would say that christian artists would in their lifetime probably include
music that is of all three of those options (even Jesus had to rebuke the
disciples for their wrong spirit at times)..

Its a complex issue, I dont think we can blandy categorise artists and
music by just saying secular and sacred!


---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:48:00 EDT
From:         "Joseph_I.Scully" <21010JIS@MSU.BITNET>

set christia nomail
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Is my salvation the only thing that matters?
Date: 10 Oct 92 17:27:46 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

James Kiefer refers to my article on this subject, and protests that my
hypothetical question is absurd because salvation consists not of any kind
of reward but of a right relationship with God.

Firstly, I should point out (which I thought I had done in the article in
question) that the question really was purely hypothetical; I said specifically
that I knew it was an absurd question. The situation is not impossible to
imagine, though. The import of the question was of course "Do you value your
own salvation above all else?".

Secondly, the idea of salvation as reward is a biblical one; of course there
is more to it than any sort of pie in the sky, but Jesus and Paul both speak
of salvation as being like a prize or reward. So it's not quite as either-or
as you suggest.

Thirdly, even with your modifications one can still ask: Do you value your
own right relationship with God above other people's? Like it or not, it is
possible to imagine circumstances in which an action would greatly endanger
one's own walk with God while being likely to bring others closer to him;
in such circumstances, should one do it or not?
 
-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
From: C4322LR@UMVMA.UMSYSTEM.EDU (Len Rugen)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Help please with a Marriage question....
Date: 16 Oct 92 19:56:46 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              16 Oct 1992 18:02:53 GMT from <mktjadx@GSUSGI2.GSU.EDU>

This situation is very similar to that of a friend about 6 years ago that
I still hold as a beautiful example of answered prayer.  For that reason,
I'll share a few thoughts...

Read on, 1 Cor 7:15 addresses an "unbelieving one".  Who is to
discern (or be judgemental?) of this situation?

Perhaps your marrage to this woman is in Gods will.  Couldn't this be
possible even thought the first marrage wasn't?  As best as possible,
both of you should seek God's will in this.  Your pastor could probably
be a big help in this, along with the normal pre-marrage stuff...

I'm not an authority, but felt I should say something...

Len Rugen, Sr. Systems Programmer      E-Mail-C4322LR@UMVMA
Information Technology                  Alias-C4322LR@UMVMA.UMSYSTEM.EDU
University of Missouri System             Alt-CCFLEN@MIZZOU1
401 Clark Hall                             or-CCFLEN@MIZZOU1.MISSOURI.EDU
Columbia, MO 65211

314-882-9237           cc:Mail Gateway-UMCCFGW.RUGENL@SSGATE.MISSOURI.EDU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
X-Acknowledge-To: <LIBSAC@EMUVM1>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 09:21:23 EDT
From:         "SHELBY A. CROSS" <LIBSAC@EMUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Reply-Prayer Request-Jonathan

Dearest Jonathan,

I will  be praying much  for your family. I  have five children  but have
experienced the  loss of a sixth  child. To Elaine, what  gave me comfort
in knowing  that the child I  did lose immediately was  ushered in before
the Master,  Jesus Himself. This child  is very special because  they did
not ever  have to experience any  discomfort, but were received  into our
Savior's hands right  away. The child that  I lost was my  second and God
blessed me with four children after this experience.

Dear Heavenly Father,
Give Elaine and Mike your peace, not as the world gives, but peace beyond
their understanding.  Let them know  Father that  all is well  indeed and
that they  should keep their  hands in yours as  they go forward  in You.
Let them  know that  through this  experience they will  be able  to help
others go  through and  be victorious. Precious  Holy Spirit  engulf them
now with your unchanging love and power to get them through this tragedy.
Father let them know that the baby is now in heaven with you and there is
no better place for them to be.  In Jesus Name I pray.  Amen.
Love,

Shelby Cross --Atlanta, Georgia--Emory University--USA
From: DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU ((MARK DRAKE))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: mistake RE: two nature post.
Date: 13 Oct 92 20:16:54 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: CHRISTIA


	Hi all,

I just read a confusing post that seemed to be a carbon copy from myself,
yet was a post by Dan Graham.  Then I realized that I forgot to delete
everything above the post I was quoting.

Sorry about that.

I'll try again

Mark
From: HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET (Wolfgang Hutter)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Hate mail?
Date: 15 Oct 92 09:53:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER

In reply to a message of Tue, 13 Oct 1992 20:36:43 MST
Received on Wed, 14 Oct 92 16:17 N
from Madge McBurney <ISPMOM@ASUACAD.BITNET>

Hi out there!

There have been quite some posts in answer to this information. I have
nothing new to say, but since I think that another affirmation won't be
of any harm I'd like to add my DM 0.03.

First of all I want to urge the "Great Unknown" to reveal himself and
talk to the people he is accusing himself. I know that there are people
who don't dare to speak out in public, but rather shoot from behind. If
this be the case then I would suggest prayers in the first place,
because this person has some serious personal problems.

Anyway. I enjoy being on the list very much and I think that it is a
very useful tool of God. Here we have a variety of people adhering to
different (! :-)) that I have never found before. I find this very
inspiring.

Of course this gives rise to discussions on various topics that
sometimes get quite heated and (as was pointed out before) in which some
people write things that they better shouldn't have written. But this is
yet another argument against the false claim of CHRISTIA being a
"hate-group", because I've seen many posters express their regret over
things they posted and even ask for forgiveness. Doesn't sound like
hate, does it?

Christians are to speak out the truth. Although we differ in our
understanding as to what the excat truth is, we struggle in finding it.
This truth has, is and will be offensive to some. This is a natural
thing. We can't change it and we should not restrict ourselves because
there are some bystanders who take offense in Christians calling sin
sin. However we should take this opportunity and ask ourselves, "Do our
writings reflect our Lord? Do they honour Him? Do they display His
love?" Paul says that "all things work together for good to them that
love God". So I think we should take this accusation as an occasion to
make our words less misunderstandable and think and pray even more
before posting.

A final word to Madge and Steven: Hold on! Your efforts are worth it!

Wolfgang <><
From: 11SRUST@GALLUA.BITNET (Scott A. Rust)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: ways to evangelize ( was Re: Some thoughts on commtment )
Date: 15 Oct 92 22:46:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

>>
>>Mark writes: "He (Mark's pastor) said that 70% of those led to Christ by a
>>stranger are never seen in a church again after a while."  Mark goes on to ask
>>"Should we be training our people to evangelize strangers or should we be
>>training them to talk to their friends about christ?"

>I'm not a big fan of evangelizing strangers, or street witnessing, or whatever
>you want to call it, and I am not so gifted anyway.  But in defense of those
>who are, if 70% of those led to Christ by a stranger are never seen in a
>church again, that means that the other 30% go on to find a church and remain
>in it.  If you were to tell 10 people (strangers) about Christ and only 3 of
>them decided to make a true lifetime commitment, would it be no less worth
>it because 7 of them reject God?  I think most of us would consider our time
>well spent for the sake of the 3.

>On the other hand, if your pastor's numbers are indeed correct, we will get
>a higher rate of return (so to speak) by evangelizing those who are our friends
>and family.  But we shouldn't be so concerned about how many we reach.  We
>should be concerned about those WHOM we reach.  Too often our emphasis is on
>the number of people we can evangelize rather than on the spiritual condition
>of those we DO evangelize.


        That last sentence says it all. So many times, I've visited a
church or gone to church with a friend only to sit and listen to the
"body count" of the last service. Many of my Christian friends love to
brag about "how many" they've converted or led to the Lord.
        Spreading the word of God is not a numbers game! I look at the
number of people who have not listened to me _period_, much less
actually gone to church with me and not returned, and the list is long!
For those 70% who came and left, perhaps at another time they will come
back and stay for their own reasons and not because they're going with
someone. They've at least got _some_ information, etc. The people we
need to concentrate on _are_ strangers. Our family and friends learn of
the Lord through us and our actions around them everyday! Strangers may
not be so lucky to have someone around them who knows the Lord and acts
for the Lord!

        My $.02.

        Peace, friends.


        Scott

11srust@gallua.gallaudet.edu

        "It could be today"
From: GE0110@SIUCVMB.BITNET (Tom Purcell)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: More on "hate mail"
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:47:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

I have watched today as numerous persons have verbalized their reaction
to the news that some unnamed person has accused CHRISTIA of being a
vehicle of hate.  I have another thought about all of this that I would
like to share.

A principle not yet identified is the difference between "corporate" guilt
(ie, CHRISTIA is at fault) and possible individual guilt (some particular
person has violated some ethic).  It seems clear to me that CHRISTIA
stands for appropriate principles pertinent to the open exchange of ideas
related to Christian living and clearly does not encourage inappropriate
behavior.  Everything I have observed suggests that the participants on
CHRISTIA and its owners have behaved in a fashion consistent with
those stated principles. Even the most cursory reading of the material
describing how the LIST operates communicates this.
In short, I see no evidence to suggest that there is "corporate" guilt.

On the other hand, some particular individuals may have on some
occasion over stepped the boundaries of acctptable behavior.  At least
someone may have on occasion offended or embarrassed another person or at
least shown poor manners in dealing with an issue or another person.
In such cases, the issue is individual guilt, not "corporate" guilt,
and the owners of CHRISTIA have dealt with such situations when necessary.
I might add that in the interest of freedom of speech, the owners are
somewhat limited in how they may deal with troublesome posts.
In my opinion, the owners of CHRISTIA have dealt with such
prblems when they have arisen in a mamner that is appropriate
to the purpose of the list while doing eveything reasonable
to protect the rights of the individuals involved.
I commend them for finding a proper balance in this regard.

We as Christians (and others) should refrain from stereotyping a group or
institution (like CHRISTIA) based on the unfortunate actions of a few.
Neither must we allow others to condemn us all (or CHRISTIA)
because there might occasionally be among us, those with
poor taste, hot tempers, and/or faulty thinking.

It seems to me that there was one in Galilee a long time ago who
encountered such situations.  As I recall, he showed both firmness of
principle and love of those who abused him.........Can we do any less?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 08:52:24 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New nature vs. two natures.
              9 Oct 1992 18:38:38 -0700 from <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>

Dear Mark Drake et al ;

I made a reply to your ideas on Romans 7 earlier today.
However, I never summarized.

In short, I was saying that there is NOT TWO natures for the true Christian,
due to the context given by Romans 6 and Romans 8.

So, the question remains : "Why do Christians sin at ALL?"
Despite the fact that the Christian is a new creation by the work of the Spirit
of God, as He applies the Saving work of Christ to our "Inner Man", our
physical bodies remain to be redeemed by the Lord on the last day.

If our bodies were as redeemed as our spirits (a.k.a., soul, mind,image of
God, etc), then we could have no point of attack by the enemy.
In heaven, God will give us our redeemed glorified bodies and we have NO
ability to sin nor would we have any desire to.
Sin, as a residual item, is not the norm nor lifestyle for the Christian,
but IS so for the unregenerate.


In Christ' love ;

Jesse Carnes
From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Faith and reason
Date: 8 Oct 92 11:23:34 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan) wrote:
> Every now and then one hears a Christian talking about faith and reason,
> or scripture and logic, as if the two were alternatives. It happened a day
> or two ago on CHRISTIA, which is what brings it to mind now.
> 
> It is my opinion that this kind of thinking completely misses the point.
> Reason and logic are not doctrines, or systems, or anything like that; they
> are part of how we think. 
> ...

As the writer of the offending post, I shall answer this.

I do not believe faith and logic to be in opposition. I agree with 
all of what you say, but I was pointing out that when you are talking
about God, our logic and reason are not adequate tools to form 
doctrine. 

It is necessary to begin with scripture and then use reason and logic.
If we start with logic and "baptize" our theories with a few scriptures
then we will come unstuck.

> -- 
> Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,

Stephen.
-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
From: GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL (DRCV06::GRAHAM)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: OLD BRAIN, NEW HEART.
Date: 14 Oct 92 12:35:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

Mark,

Let me try again.  We have a new heart, but an old, pre-wired brain that
must be rewired in the process of time.  Conversion does not automatically
rewire our brains to perfectly conform to the will of God.  I do admit that
t here are people who seem to receive some drastic rewiring that causes
them to cease particularly heinous sins, but for the vast majority of
Christians, this reprogramming process takes time.

Our brains are chemically programmed, it began before birth.  This old,
sinful programming does not change entirely the moment we are born again,
so we have the new heart and the old brain, no wonder Paul could exclaim
"Wretched man that I am."

Understanding how the brain works and how, in the context of scripture, it
may be reprogrammed, is a fascinating study, more some other time.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 22:58:00 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Is God Evil?

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757


>Alot of people think that to repent means to be ashamed of or to be sorry for
>but repent means to "turn away from".   God was angry but he turned away from
>his anger due to the prayers of ....


God was angry?  Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't anger one of the Seven
Deadly Sins?
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Catholic doctrine of predetination.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 1992 18:27:17 GMT

In article <01GPSREXN98I000D3P@LIFE.UAMS.EDU> BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU writes:
>In the back of the bible there is "A Practical dictionary of Biblical and
>General Catholic Information".  Under the heading Predestination the
>following definition is given.

[ definition omitted ]

>Would the Catholics on the list say that this is an accurate definition
>of what the Catholic church teaches about Predestination?  Let me assure
>those that may be wary that there is no trick question involved here.
>My only motive is curiosity.  (Actually, I find myself pretty much in
>agreement with the definition ...)

   I must admit that I hadn't heard too much about that doctrine
before as such, but I think I already did believe those things it
says.  I think the important thing to keep in mind about it is that it
in no way removes free will.  I did check my Catholic encyclopedia
(published 1991) that says pretty much the same thing.

   Before I do further study on this, I will put forward my personal
opinion on this (which I held before), that predestination should be
thought of in the sense that although God does not control how we act
in our lives, He still knows everything that we are going to do
through our own free will.  Therefore, He already knows which of us
are going to reject Him, and those who will follow Him.  I think this
explanation is closest to the sense in which predestination is meant.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:44:51 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Political Correctness

Just another thought on political correctness:  If we all tried to be
politically correct, we wouldn't have very much to discuss, would we?

Political correctness has always been a ludicrous concept to me, simply
because of its great deception.  While basing itself in the freedom of
individuality, it denies those with unpopular opinions the freedom of
expression.  Have we come so far (at least in the U.S.) that we are willing
to trade one freedom for another?  Can't both freedoms coexist?

Not much to do with Practical Christian Living, but ...

Brenda