HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:40:00 EDT
From:         JHART@UMASSD.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Anger

Hi TimK

I don't usually get involved in the discussion, mostly because of
the time involved, however, I couldn't let this one pass.

>> whether God can be angry, and what constitutes righteous anger.

>Excellent post, IMO.

>James Dobson, if memory serves, in his book _ Emotions, Can You Trust Them
>_ also suggests that strong emotions, like anger, can be "redirected"
>towards righteous activities and motives.  (I'm sure he's not the only one
>who's ever mentioned it, but that was the first I'd ever read of the
>idea.)  For example, if my friend does something that makes me really mad,
>I have a choice:  I can get back at him, or I can make the situation right.

>In any case, I don't think we have to be afraid of strong emotions... only
>of needlessly offending or hurting someone else.  (Do I _ really _ have to
>provide scripture for this? :-)

Christians seem to have the idea that if they get angry, they are
somehow sinning.  While I agree that anger can lead to sin, it is
not in and of itself sin.  I believe that Ehpesians 4:26 makes
the point.  '"In your anger do not sin."  Do not let the sun go
down while you are angry, and do not give the devil a foothold.'
IMHO I believe this is saying that we are allowed to get angry
but we must also as the Bible and Dr Dobsin says, learn to use
this anger constructively.  BTW I have know people who get angry
and are in full control all the time.

I believe that question that was presented is "Can God get
angry?"   If anger is a sin then I guess that would be worng.  Is
God capable of sinning?  NO!!!
I think the Bible makes it clear that God does get angry, but is
in full control.   Want to test God's patience?? :-)) Not me!!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: YA67@FERRIS.BITNET (carol nemec)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: setting nomail
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:11:41 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

I'm going to see my first grandchild, which is already
a little past due.  Hopefully she will appear before I get
to Mississippi on Monday!

Anyway, I'm setting nomail for a 10 days.
You are in my prayers, please for us as we travel,
and for the Lord to work through us as we are with
my son and daughter-in-law.

God bless ...
Carol Nemec
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:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 17:38:03 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Praise Report...
              at Oct 6, 92 10:58 am

Congratulations Steven, I am so happy for you!!!

That was a beatiful message!


---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: University of Missouri-Columbia Campus Computing, 314-882-2000
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 08:13:54 CDT
From:         CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET
Subject:      The Story of Fatima, Part 2

Fatima, part 2

From the perspective of the early part of the twentieth century it was
difficult to accept the prophesies given, for some. The future was
outlined both with man following Our Lady's requests and with man not
following Our Lady's requests. This difficulty helped to impede the
spread of her message to all mankind. A great war was to begin in the
reign of Pius XI. While some maintain that WWII didn't begin until
Pius XII, the assasination of the archduke in Yugoslavia that helped
trigger WWII did take place during the while Pius XI was pope. Also,
there was the Spanish Civil War and it was basically a war
against God. Uncounted churches were destroyed, 14 bishops and over
7000 priests and religious were martyred. There was even the "execution"
of the famous Sacred Heart statue located in the geographical center
of Spain.
  The "great sign" of an "unknown light" given by God to warn of
impending punishment occurred on the night of January 25-26, 1938.
It appeared to be an enormous display of the Aurora Borealis which was
visible throughout the northern hemisphere and was viewed by millions.
Many believed it to be the end of the world. Newspapers gave extensive
coverage to the event, even the New York Times devoted nearly a full
page to the strange sight. Scientists tried to explain the light as
a spectacular yet natural occurance of the Aurora Borealis but Lucia
maintained they should investigate further. This was eventually done
and it was learned that, while the Aurora is associated with sunspot
activity, there was none at that time. The "Aurora" covered an
unprecedented 193,000 square miles, reaching heights of 250 to 440
vertical miles, far beyond the 185 mile height of prior "great"
Auroras. Dr. Carl Stoermer of the Institute of Theoretical Astro-
physics in Oslo, Norway, reported these findings in the September 9,
1938 edition of "Die Naturwissenschaften" and also stated that there
was an accompanying strange noise "similar to the sound of burning
grass and brush".

(To be continued)
From: K119TO@TAMVM1.BITNET (Stuart)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Death of Jesus! Entirely voluntary?
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:56:22 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Comments:     Comments: Resending note of Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:40:04 CST from

From:   Stuart T Oliver
*** Resending note of  10/16/92 11:4

> Before He died, the gospels say, He shouted, A crucified man doesn't shout !
> a crucified man is dieing beacuse he can't breath, obviously can't shout,
> that shout was a shout of victory and to show that He was giving His Life
> and it was not taken from Him.

And remember bretheren, as Hebrews 12:2 says "who for the joy set before Him
endured the cross, scorning its shame..."  Jesus gave up His life for _us_!
We are the joy He fixed His heart on as He bore our sins.  Look at it this way:
Jesus would rather die than live without us, and He did 2000 years ago.
Have an awesome weekend folks!

In His love,

Stuart T. Oliver
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 21:09:10 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      What is Truth?

Jesse comments that when confronted by two mutually contradictory statements,
only one can be true.  He further comments that while both may seem plausible,
of necessity one must be based on a correct interpretation of scripture,
and the other on an incorrect interpretation of scripture.  I agree with the
logic of these statements; however, I am not convinced that one can be ab-
solutely certain that one's interpretation of scripture is correct.  If the
correct interpretation is obvious, why is that Christians disagree?  One
side can say that the other is being deceived in some way, but how can one
be certain that he or she is not the one being deceived?

For this reason, I think that it is extremely important that we tread lightly
when we assert the truth of a particular theological viewpoint.  Paul himself
gave people room to disagree over issues concerned with food, drink, the
religious calendar, and related issues.  I think there comes a point where
all these disputations become vain speculations, against which Paul
explicitly warns us (2 Tim. 2:23).

Just a few comments from one who has seen a lot of controversy but has
never seen anything good come out of it...

Shalom (Peace, health, wholeness),

Lon Mendelsohn
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Theodore Penn, I Presume
Date: 16 Oct 92 11:40:53 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Dear Theodore ;

I tried to write you by your E-mail address, but the network said that
there was no such address this A.M. when my mail returned.

I was interested in finding out more about you, since you said you have been
a Christian only for a few months.
I just wanted to encourage you.


Jesse Carnes

(Romans 8:28-30 for your consideration)
From: JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Is my salvation the only thing that matters?
Date: 10 Oct 92 02:32:57 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Gareth McCaughan has asked (in substance):

 > Would you be willing to forfeit your own salvation if by doing
 > so you could secure the salvation of hundreds of others?

With respect, I believe that St. Paul (Romans 9:3) was speaking
rhetorically, expressing the depth of his anguish for his
unconverted brethren rather than treating this choice as a real
possibility.

I think the question is meaningful only if we think of salvation as
a reward handed out like a lollipop. It makes sense to talk about a
deal by which I give up a lollipop and thereby ensure lollipops for
everyone else, or give up my physical life and thereby save the
lives of hundreds of others. But salvation is not a harp and a halo
handed out as a reward for being in a right relation with God. It is
identical with being in a right relation with God. If I give
something, or suffer something, in order that others may come to
know and accept the love of God, my motive for doing so is
presumably the belief that God wants me to act like this, or, to put
it another way, my awareness of, and joy in, God's love for me moves
me to love God, and to love others for His sake (1 John 4:11; John
13:14,34). It is impossible that my loving response to God's love
should cause me to lose my salvation, impossible not because God
would never be so unreasonable as to take away my lollipop for being
nice, but impossible because knowing the love of God, and responding
to it in love, IS salvation (John 17:3).

(Here my internal critic interrupts to say: "Be careful. There are
all sorts of persons who are doing things they ought not, from
adultery to stuffing their children with sweetmeats to the detriment
of their health, and justifying it on the grounds that, since their
motive is Love, they can't be wrong. Your words are precisely the
sort of oratory they are looking for." I reply that a mother who
will not remove a splinter from her child's finger because she can't
stand to see the child suffer is motivated, not by love but by
squeamishness, which is not even close. Such a mother loves her
child too little, not too much, and the same may be said, mutatis
mutandis, for someone who justifies an adulterous affair on the same
grounds. The relevant work to read here is C S Lewis's THE FOUR
LOVES.)

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 10:13:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: John Michael Talbot

In a message of Thu, 15 Oct 1992 10:09:29 -0700
Received on Thu, 15 Oct 92 18:11 N
(MARK DRAKE) <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU> wrote:

> My brother just wrote me asking for information on John Michael Talbot's music
> style.  He is interested in buying his christmas album.  While the name is
> familiar to me, I don't know anything about him.

Some people have already answered this part quite correct. I'd just like
to add that his music is strongly guitar-based. For someone who plays
guitar him-/herself it is a real pleasure to listen.

> I am assuming he is a christian artist??

It was already said that he is a Catholic. And he indeed was a monk (of
which congregation I don't know). Some time ago (if I remember it
correctly about 2 years) he decided to leave the congregation and to
marry. He has been flamed for this very much, but is sure that this is
the way that God wants him to go. As far as I remember he has founded a
new group within the RCC that will be close to a monasterial
congregation, but without some of the restrictions (celibacy...).
This whole story is on the back of the cover of one of his latest
albums, if you want to read it for yourselves.

Hope this helps.

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 6 Oct 1992 20:57:22 EDT
From:         David Moreau <H8GQC@QCVAXA.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: What is clean?

Dan replied,

>Joe,
>
>I know that many Jews contend that the regulations regarding diet given to
>Noah are for everybody, but Paul says in Romans 14:14 that he is persuaded
>that nothing is unclean of itself.  In 1 Timothy 4:1-5 you get an even
>clearer picture of this.  There can be noreason for the dietary
>restrictions to be continued, so James was in error.  The other side of
>this is this:  If you feel it would be sin for you to eat blood, you must
>follow your conscience, Paul makes this clear, too in Romans 14.  James had
>a perfect right to adhere to the dietetic laws, but he had no right to ask
>gentiles to do this.
>
>Dan Graham

The commandment to abstain from eating blood is not merely a
'regulation regarding diet' as you chose to call it.  God did not give
blood as food in the first place!  Blood is for the remission of
sins, not for eating.  I'm curious - I'd like to know for my
reference, where in the old testament does God declare blood as
unclean.  I was unaware of that, if that is what you are saying.  I
know that God said that the life is in the blood, and we should not
eat the life with the meat (this is not the same as saying that blood
is unclean.)

  As for James, he was not merely the main administrator of the
congregation in Jerusalem, but he was the main administrator for the
whole Church of Christ in the first century (just as Jerusalem was
where the administration was centered.)

David Moreau
From: ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Marian stuff
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:26:09 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

Lon,

It is not my purpose to start on a discussion of Marian doctrine.  If
that were so, I would have written much more.

It was my purpose to complain first, the CRI's criticism of our doctrine
did not, IMHO, belong in a journal usually reserved for exposing cults.
Second, their article was inaccurate and could not represent all the
Protestantism.

No doubt many Protestants have objections to our doctrines.  I respect
that.  But CRJ is not the place to discuss them.  How would you like it
if CRJ wrote an article critical of Messianic Judaism?  Would you not be
offended?  Not so much because someone didn't agree with it, but because
it appeared in CRJ, and thus would seem to indicate that they wished to
exclude your group from orthodoxy.  What if they wrote an article that
said Calvinists were guilty of "scriptural blindness where
predestination is concerned" (substitute "Mary" for "predestination" and
you have an actual quote of theirs)?

Unless they wish to label Catholicism a heterodox cult, they should
refrain from criticizing it in CRJ, given my understanding of the
purpose of CRJ.  If they are worried about "injuring ecumenism" (which
they accuse us of), then they should refrain from writing misleading
critical articles about us, especially when they also in the process
criticize many of the great reformers of the Protestant faith.

Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 09:21:14 CDT
From:         "St. Jesse of Keesler" <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Yo' beez a Saint!

In all humour, I think my dear Brother Tom Brewer ought to be cannonized
... not to use a loaded argument as :

St. Thomas Iguanas  ... or mayby St. Thomas Sanguinas or how about
St. Thomas of Sangria????

:-)    :-)

I am merely an Airforce brat so I remain ;

St. Jesse of Keesler
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: mali@leland.Stanford.EDU (Mohamad Ali)
Subject: ASCII VERSION OF BIBLE
Organization: DSG, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA
Date: Mon, 12 Oct 92 04:01:03 GMT

does anyone have an ascii version of the bible (old and 
new testament--any version)?  if you do, could you please 
email it to me at mali@adobe.com.

or if anyone know of an ftp site where i could find it,
please let me know.

thanks,
mohamad.
From: U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET (Bernice Tennant)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Songrette - Delight In Him
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:29:23 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

THank you Vicki.  .....and my song shall ever be,'Praise the Lamb who died for
me', and I shall sing it as the ages shall roll.
From: clifton9220@iscsvax.uni.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Killing our wounded
Date: 16 Oct 92 22:02:26 -0500
Organization: University of Northern Iowa

We are the only army in the world who kills our wounded.  If we disagree, we
should go to them and talk or write to them.  Otherwise, it is just gossip. 
Who are we to judge others when we are comanded not to.

...Ken!
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: CHRISTIA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 19:19:35 -0700
From:         "(MARK DRAKE)" <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      asceticism

Eric,

I was wondering if you could say what the biblical evidence for acsceticism
is?  I can't remember ever coming across any.

Mark
From: U59919@uicvm.uic.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: legitimacy of certain preachers
Date: 15 Oct 92 16:13:21 GMT
Organization: University of Illinois at Chicago

Hi.  My name is Theodore Penn.  I've been saved for about 7 months.
I've been hearing things about certain preachers (?) that they do not teach
good doctrine.
Could someone tell me about the following people?:
Benny Hinn
Chuck Swindoll
Kevin Leal

I'd appreciate whatever you can tell me because I don't want to be deceived by
those who would corrupt.
Please give chapters and verses citing where these men may be correct or
incorrect.

thanx in advance.
From: GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL (DRCV06::GRAHAM)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: God and logic.
Date: 15 Oct 92 12:39:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

Jesse, I'd have to agree with Nancy on this one.  God certainly uses logic
and what we perceive as correct thinking when communicating with us,
because He created us to deal with that type of communication, but to
expand that to His entire thinking process is, I blieve, unjustified.

Such things as "My thoughts are not your thoughts" come to mind here.  By
definition, God is infinite.  Comparing His thought processes, if He has
them in our understand of them, to ours is sort of an exercise in futility.
 I love to speculate on the esoteric aspects of God's nature, but I have
finally dscided that it is unproductive.  Part of believing in His
sovereignty is believing that He does not think with the finite limitations
of our peewee minds.

Logic can help us understand that which God has revealed about Himself, but
logic cannot help us to know God.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 07:06:37 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Saint Jesso
              13 Oct 1992 15:22:41 EDT from <talaga@E5SB.OSDHW.SYR.GE.COM>

Dave ;

I hope I have been receiving your post ... have I missed somethin' ?


Jesse
From: jeffries@iastate.edu (Anthony G Jeffries)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Members of Christia
Date: 15 Oct 92 21:28:46 GMT
Organization: Iowa State University, Ames IA

Sorry for posting from USENET instead of e-mail...

This smells like political correctness to me.  Let's pray about this, that it
we will know what to do in this situation.  FOR THE RECORD, I agree with the
moderators' choice to allow discussion on this list of any topic related to
Practical Christian Living.  I do not believe in being politically "correct" 
if that means going against my Christian values, and I agree with the anti-PC
stance that I percieve the moderators taking.

If you feel I'm a little incensed about this, you're right on the mark.
If you wish to send HATE MAIL to me, you may address it to:
jeffries@iastate.edu
-- 
Anthony Glen Jeffries N0NRO  ><>   Amazing Grace, How Sweet The Sound!   ><>
Journalism and Mass Communication student  Iowa State University  Ames, IA
"For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to 
save the world through Him." John 3:17 (NIV)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 7 Oct 1992 09:35:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Clear thinking.

Jim, your clear and lucid posts on McDowell and apologetics that are short
on thought are marvelous!  Personally, I'm not fond of Christian
apologetics of any kind, but that is another topic.

Your analysis of 1 Corinthians 1:25 is exactly what is meant there.  I have
studied it in Greek thoroughly and agree completely.

It often seems that Christian thought and clear thought are mutually
exclusive.  This is tragic.  If the first chapter of First Corinthians
teaches us anything at all, it is that clear thinking is expected of the
Christian, thinking that is far clearer than anything the world has to
offer.  God didn't create brains as space fillers in the cranium.  As an
exercise, the claassmight read all of Paul's words in Acts and his
references to spreading the gospel in the various epistles.  It becomes
obvious that Paul used clear thinking and logic on a regular basis.  Even
when he preached the simple gospel of a crucified, risen and returning
Christ, he did so with clarity of thinking that couldn't be gainsayed by
the rabble.

Note in Acts that the gospel was proclaimed, not offered usually.  When
emotional appeals and emotionalism are in play, thinking is muddied and
logic usually flies out the window, maybe the same one that young man fell
out of whom Paul restored. [grin]

At the same time, the clearest of thinking realizes that only the Holy
Spirit can open the mind of a person to the truth of Jesus Christ.  Think
clearly, speak clearly, use "sanctified" logic and pray for the Spirit to
 inhabit your words and mind and the minds of your listeners, and you can't
go wrong.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 09:40:46 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Security of salvation?
              8 Oct 1992 09:10:27 -0500 from <rolfe@DSUVAX.DSU.EDU>

Dear Tim ;

My error.
I MEANT to say that the Word Obviously presents ONE idea.
There are verses, admittedly, which, OSTENSIBLY, present a problem,
but in reality ... in REALITY receive their definition from more
explicit verses.
This rule of hermeneutics is "The Implicit ALWAYS bows to the Explicit."

Besides, the very nature of Jesus' Sin-substitution/Propitiatory death
prohibits the notion of an Elect, Predestined person from Losing their
Salvation.



Jesse Carnes
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Re>Clement & Sola Scriptura
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 15:53:35 GMT

In article <9210062137.AA00354@gval1.pnl.gov> ng910@GVAL1.PNL.GOV writes:
>	What is the authority for the doctrine of "succession of bishops"
>within the Catholic church?

   Dave, this doctrine is scriptural.  Read the second half of Acts of
the Apostles, chapter 1, in which a successor for Judas Iscariot was
chosen.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu