HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 12:20:08 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Parents' rights (WAS Re: Feminist theology/little god movement

Liz,
One of the things I've been meaning to write about when I have the time
is the problem of heterodoxy in the Catholic Church today, and the organi-
zations that exist to oppose it and support orthodoxy and obedience to
proper Church authorities.  I don't have time to write a full essay
now, but I have a few comments on the situation you describe, and will
add some names and addresses when I get home and can check my files.

First, it is the teaching of the Catholic Church that parents have a RIGHT
to choose their children's education.  The people whom you mentioned are
violating that right.  They are not the only ones who are doing that.
A lot of people think they know better than everyone else, better than
parents, better than parishoners in general, better than the pope, and
(it seems) even better than God.  One of the organizations working to
promote orthodoxy has taken on the task of using canon law to protect
the rights of ordinary, orthodox Catholics.  I will post its address
tonight.  You can write for information such as the specific provisions
of canon law that assert the rights of parents and papal documents that
have affirmed them.  You can then go to your pastor again, and if he
still does not correct the situation you should write to your bishop
asking him to act to protect parental rights and to prevent the
teaching of false doctrine, which the Bible explicitly says it is
a bishop's responsibility to do (1 Tim 1:3).  Also, as Darryl pointed
out, there are laws restricting some psychological techniques to trained
licensed personnel, so it is illegal for teachers to use them.  One
of Phyllis Schlafly's organizations is directly concerned with having
laws passed and enforced that protect children from being subjected
to pychological treatment in schools without parental consent.  I will
post the address tonight.  Laws vary from state to state, but they could
tell you what legal recourse you have in your state.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 11:38:30 CDT
From:         Roy Jacobsen <NU021927@NDSUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      More info on my prayer request

I've got a few minutes online here, so I'll give you the
details I promised earlier.
     As I've said earlier, my position at NDSU is coming to
a close.  Right now, I'm not actually working here, but I'm
still an employee because they're paying me for my unused
vacation time.  Right now, I will go on "leave-without-pay"
status on May 1, which will streamline things _if_ my
boss gets some grant projects he wants me involved in.

     In the meantime, I have started working part-time with
the L.I.F.E. Coalition, a local educational pro-life organization.
I'm very excited about the ministry potential of this job . .

BUT . . . (There's always one of those with us humans, isn't there? ;-)

I am concerned about making enough to keep the wolf away
from the door.  God is faithful and things have been working
out extremely well these last few months, for which I praise
His Name.  (Do I hear an "Amen!"? ;-)
     Now it appears that I stand an _extremely_ good chance
of being offered a good-paying position with a national software
company.  Which, while it would ease our budget concerns,
_could_ (not definite) make it very hard, if not impossible,
to continue working with L.I.F.E.
     So I'm trying to decide if the new job is what God has
in mind for me, or if it is a trick of Satan to lure me away
from doing what God would have me doing.  The company is a great
one--stable, growing, and they take good care of their employees.
(Naturally, Satan wouldn't tempt me with a rotton job, would he?)
But maybe it _isn't_ a trick.  Maybe this _is_ the job God wants
me to have to give my family the financial stability we need so
I _can_ work with the (not very rich or large) L.I.F.E. Coalition.
     I hope I'm not rambling or boring you all.  I just wanted to
air my concerns with you and solicit your prayers.
     To God be all glory, honor and power, forever.

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 03:29:28 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      different creeds

Steve Hoell writes:

 > The Orthodox Church does not use the Apostles' Creed because of
 > the FILIOQUE clause.

I believe that he meant to write, "Athanasian Creed." I hope soon to
post some comments on the Nicene Creed (including some references to
the FILIOQUE clause, and to the Athanasian Creed).

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:14:16 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Easter timetable

James:
Please send the posting on the crucifixion.  I believe that Jesus was
crucified on a Wednesday, based on the three days and three nights he
spent in the tomb, the timing of the Sabbath day, and Passover.
Thank you.
          Love INC,
                   ---Kerry
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:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 23:47:00 EDT
From:         Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual and physical death

Allen Chen wrote:

>We Read the Bible.  In fact, no Catholic Church will baptize an adult unless
>after a bible study around 9 months which review the bible from the Genesis to
>the revelation.

Ian responded:

> In the NT, people were baptised immediately or soon after being converted.
> There was no 9 month 'bible study class' between salvation and baptism.
> What justification does your church have for such a class?

Although I don't agree that a 9-month class is necessary for baptism, I do
agree that a fair understanding of our Creator _is_ preferable.  We must
remember what the culture was like during the early Church.  For the first
half of Acts, only the Jews were being baptised, so they obviously had
a working knowledge of Old Testament Scriptures.  They couldn't accept
Christ as Saviour until they heard the Gospel, so in that regard, by the
time they were baptised, they had a thorough understanding of what was
Scripturally available at that time.

In the same regard, the Gentiles, even though they didn't believe, presumably
also had a working knowledge of Jewish beliefs, since it was so prevalent in
that area.

So, while there is no actual command or statement about knowledge, I do
believe that it accurately reflects the situation in the early church.

My own experience is that I was baptized two months after I was saved, and
three months after I started learning about God.  Looking back on it, I
regret not waiting longer so that with my additional knowledge of the God
I chose as my Saviour, my proclamation could have been bolder and meant
more to me.

Of course, there are exceptions, such as the Ethiopian Eunich who only
knew a section of Isaiah and a few minutes worth of the Scripture, but in
general, I believe that if we are going to proclaim someone as our Lord,
we would do well to have a working knowledge of who it is that we are
dedicating our lives to.

In Christ,
.------------------------v----------------------------------------------------.
| Jeff Shirton           | "Now it is God that has...given us the Spirit as a |
| shirton@McMaster.CA    |  deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."  2Cor.5:5 |
`------------------------^----------------------------------------------------'
From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Justification by Faith.
Date: 8 Apr 92 11:31:04 GMT
Reply-To: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.

I want now to deal with this subject of perseverence in more detail.
Firstly I will explain how this doctrine naturally follows from what
has gone before.

I have explained that salvation is a work of God, and not of man. Even
faith is not a work carried out by man but an inevitable consequence
of God's calling.

Now remember the verse I quoted from Romans? "Those whom he foreknew
he also predestined..." Even before God called us He knew that our
names were eternally written in the Lamb's book of life. He knew that
we would be with Him in eternity, and then he called us to that
position. 

Are we so foolish to think that God would let us go once he had called
us? Do we think that Christ's sacrifice would not be sufficient for us
if we did not top up on good works? If Christ's work is totally
sufficient (and it is), then there is *no place* for good works as
regards our election. We are saved by *grace*, not by works, lest any
man should boast. God will complete the good work he has started in
you.

Thus we see that this doctrine naturally follows on from the knowledge
of God's effectual calling. It also naturally follows on from our
justification by faith. This doctrine fits!

And yet you say it doesn't. You think of those passages of scripture
which seem to imply we can lose our salvation. I have to say that I am
satisfied that there are *no* scriptures which say we can lose our
salvation. I am also satisfied that there are *no* scriptures which
tell us we can be justified by works. Justification is by faith
*only*.

Now then, you immediately think of scriptures such as Hebrews 6,
Hebrews 10 or maybe James 2 as proof of the opposite view (often
called the Arminian view). I fully intend to deal with these passages
one by one in later posts, but first I must lay some groundwork.

In my next article I will talk about God's chastisement.

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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:16:25 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Adolescent sexuality

On 04/08/92 at 15:46:25 Steve Elliott said:
>In article <CHRISTIA%92040705224641@ASUACAD.BITNET> U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET
>(Bernice
>Tennant) writes:
>>Somewhere there is scripture about men "not spilling their seed upon the
>>ground"  -----forgive me if the quote is misquoted!

>I think it is very dangerous for us to quote half a verse and make a
>decision based on that. I could counter that verse by saying that
>it's alright if it's caught in a tissue - at least it hasn't hit the ground.
>Sorry, that's what happens when you take things literally.

>The story was that the man's brother had died, leaving a widow. According
>to the law of the time, he was expected to have intercourse with the
>widow so she would have a son. The man didn't, he masturbated and
>"spilled his seed on the ground".

Well Steve, I wasn't going to get into it, but yours being the second
letter to me on this, it seems like a red flag!  I don't think that God
intends for men to spill their seed for any reason other than to have
children or to create a oneness between a married man and woman.  I used
to think that in extreme cases of disenorientation of the male brain due
to an over production of hormone, that it would be ok for an unmarried
man to do this, but since I have grown and know that God takes care of
all of our needs, now I have changed my mind.  :)

>--
>se@uk.ac.lancs.comp
>Department of Computing, Engineering Building,
>University of Lancaster, Bailrigg, Lancaster, LA1 4YR, UK
>PHONE: +44 524 65201 ext 3783.

Your friend in Christ, Bernice
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 14:00:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion & Don't

In a previous post that slipped my grasp, I said:
In my opinion, it is just as cold a position to say that
we must kill off the unborn in order to make the world a
a better place for the old as it is to say that we must
kill off the unborn in order to make the world a better
place for those who are left.  Both have ZERO compassion
     This SHOULD have read: "In my opinion, it is just as
     cold a position to say that we must NOT kill off the
     unborn in order to make the world a better place for the
     old as it is to say that we must kill off the unborn to
     make the world a better place for those who are left"

     I apoligize for the error (I MEANT to go back and edit it,
     and I forgot), and for the numerous misunderstandings and
     replies this will generate.  In its uncorrected form it
     is near meaningless, as no one said that killing the
     unborn would help old people (no one on here.  It HAS
     been said).

     I'd better send this correction out quick!

     Darryl at TCU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Yoga & Medicine
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:59:04 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

"Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET> writes:

>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 think the issue with yoga is not its origin but its present practices.
Also, the non-Christian origin of certain symbols connected with medicine
(e.g. the caduceus) has nothing to do with the origins of modern medicine.
Barbers identify their shops with bleeding sticks but don't bleed any
longer.  Astronomy uses the traditional pagan astrological constellation
names but one could hardly say (except in a purely historical sense) that
astronomy derives (in any vicious way) from astrology.  Christ redeemed
sinful men who thus 'derive from' their own previous fallen selves, but they
are not to be rejected for that reason.

Yoga does not merely derive historically from non-Christian sources.  It is
non-Christian in its practices.  Even that is not the fundamental problem.
I might practise (non-Christian) Hopi basket-weaving without a problem.
Yoga is a spiritual discipline, and one not subject to the Holy Spirit.  It
is not (IMO) a sin for a Christian to participate in Yoga.  It may certainly
be unwise and dangerous, and may lead a Christian into sin.

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@aukuni.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:56:23 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CScience and the existence of Error
              5 Apr 1992 16:54:00 EST from <BSC92SPA18@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>

Jeff:
This process is utterly maddenning.  Every time I reply to something I
go on to find something else that should have been addressed.  I suppose
I'll get used to it.  The problem this time:

Where does the Bible say that God is freedom?  IMHO, freedom is an idolatrous
god of man's own invention.

Also, by equating mind with immortal, you imply that the mind does not
die.  If this is so, then no human ever dies and Jesus had no reason
to go to the cross.  If all people are mind only, then it makes no sense
for the Bible to say that it is appointed to man to die once and after
that the judgment, because "die" implies a cessation of SOME kind of life!
                           Love INC,
                                    ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: V063KC44
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:44:00 EST
From:         The Nuzz <V063KC44@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Becky and Mormonism

Doug Gould writes...

[... ...]

dg> The phrase "professors were all corrupt" I take to mean
dg> those who preached or taught the creeds God objected to, not
dg> everything about every person who found himself or herself an
dg> innocent member of those other denominations.
dg>
dg> Hope that helps to clarify what I believe.

        It rather obfuscates it.

        You are saying two distinctly different things. On one hand
you mourn, are deeply sorrowed and saddened that Becky would leave the
LDS. Next you say that there is much good fruit outside the LDS.

        On one side you say that those outside the LDS are not
abominable, and then you say, well yes, they are, but not everything
about every person.

        It appears that the reason for this imprecision is that you
are trying to give the actual teachings of the LDS a nice spin, trying
to make them more palatable than they really are. Instead of telling
us that the LDS teaches that the gentiles (=non-Mormons) are members
of the church of the devil, and that Catholics and Protestants are
nothing less than the whore of Babylon, you instead put forth that
there is much good fruit outside of the LDS.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 17:58:07 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: rally

Darryl:
  I truly hope I have misunderstood you.  Do you really believe that
members of the media are in constant contact with the truth?  Do you
mean to imply that the information we get from the media is not
affected by bias?  The members of the media have opinions, as well
they should.  We must, however, recognize that the studies that have
been done researching the opinions of opinion leaders (news anchors,
reporters, editors, management people, and so forth) demonstrate that
they do not have "mainstream" opinions.  The top opinion leaders in this
country reject Christianity, while two thirds of American adults consider
themselves to be religious and one-third call themselves born-again
Christians.  The majority of media members in the Lichter/Rothman study
reported that they voted for McGovern, Mondale, and Dukakis--clearly not
in agreement with the majority of Americans.  I'm not saying that makes
them _wrong_, I'm just recognizing that the media sees things through a
different (forgive me) lens than the rest of the nation.  And, by the way,
Ted Turner (CNN, TBN, TNT, etc.) has said that Christianity is for "idiots".
I consider that to be an important clue to understanding things over which
he has control.  Please investigate the research before you finalize your
opinion as to whether or not the media is proabortion (prolife/prochoice/
whatever).  I recommend Marvin Olasky's excellent study "The Press and
Abortion, 1838-1988".  If you like, after some investigation of the subject,
we can discuss this again.  But I will not base the conversation on what you
or I think is true, nor will I allow an opinion to remain unchallenged by
research.  Not my style.
                            Love INC,
                                     ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:46:13 EDT
From:         Andrew Brennan <BRENNAAA@DUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      radio preacher/music

      I suppose that the electric organ is in the Bible somewhere.

      It's amazing what a little translation can do, isn't it?

      andrew.  (brennaaa@duvm.ocs.drexel.edu)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 10:05:14 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      happy birthday to me

Hi all..

I would just like to celebrate my third birthday in the Lord...
I can't remember exactly what day it was now, but I remember giving my life
to the Lord and being born again over the  Easter break... I have a nagging
suspicion that it was Saturday..

Let us behold the meaning of the weekend..

On the Friday he died...


BUT ON THE SUNDAY HE ROSE!!!

_HE_IS_RISEN_
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:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 08:20:00 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:      JUST A THOUGHT

                Suppose He counted all the cost
                And never cared that we were lost
                And never died for you and me
                Nor shed His blood on Calvary
                                -Nicholson-

                Where would we be?

John Hart
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: V063KC44
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 18:52:00 EST
From:         The Nuzz <V063KC44@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      replying to the questions about Swaggert and Baker

Allen Chen writes...

ac>   When preacing to my nonChristian friends, I always have to face the
ac> question about the famous ministsers Baker and Swager.  Some of them
ac> did watch their program on TV and was finally very surprised at the
ac> things they do.  Some of them then conclude that preaching is only a
ac> cheating.  Can anyone help me to answer these questions?

        I usually respond that I didn't become a Christian
        because of Baker or Swaggert, that I became a Christian
        because of Jesus Christ. I am not a follower of Baker or
        Swaggert, I am a follower of Jesus Christ.

        Yes, Baker and Swaggert are sinners. I am too. I know that I
        need Jesus just as much as they do.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU