HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Please Pay Attention Before Spouting Off
Summary: The incorrect statements are getting out of hand.
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 01:40:57 GMT


[ I am breaking my self-imposed one-article-per-day limit, but this is a
  relatively short one. ]

Andy someone writes:

> In a previous post, someone decried the WWCOG as a fringe religion that
> gets everything wrong.

Since I'm the only one who's mentioned the Worldwide Church of God, I assume
he is referring to me.  Unfortunately, he has grossly misrepresented my text.
I said that the WWCoG used some really bad arguments to support their ideas,
and that their books were seriously flawed.  I never said or implied that it
"gets everything wrong".

I do think a lot of their beliefs are incorrect, but at the same time I think
that some of what they have to say is well worth listening to.

 --

Steven Klepzig summarised my comments about Josh McDowell thusly:

> Darren has stated that Josh McDowell's books aren't that good, that some
> things he says are alright but on the whole there is more junk that good
> stuff.

> [...] Darren finds little of value in Josh's writings.

This is not correct.  I made no estimate of "good" material versus "bad"
material.  I am not even certain how such an estimate could be arrived at
or verified: number of words in each argument?  number of assertions?
sentences?  paragraphs?

All I said was that the books included many lousy arguments -- some which are
fallacious, some which are overstated, some which aren't even arguments.  I
have said (and apparently have to say again) that Mr McDowell's books include
useful and worthwhile material.  But they also include garbage.

Some of his material is quite good -- but that doesn't mean I can't complain
about the parts which stink.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Quotation, n.  The act of repeating erroneously the words of another.  The
 words erroneously repeated." -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Security of Salvation?
Date: 13 Oct 92 22:24:31 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <CHRISTIA%92101311304867@ASUACAD.BITNET> NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes) writes:
>Gareth ;
>
>Please be patient with me, but your argument is rather existential.

I'm afraid I don't understand. Do you mean "existentialist"? (Even if you
do, I don't understand. I'm certainly no existentialist.) What do you mean?

>Besides one of your statements should have been phrased in the form of
>an open question.  Else, in a court of law, youb would have been "leading
>the witness."

Come now. You are at liberty to disagree with any of my statements; that
doesn't mean I'm not allowed to phrase them as statements rather than as
questions. And we're not in a court of law, and there is no witness being
examined, and I wasn't trying to "lead" anyone.

>Fact is Gareth, I believe there are many facts out in the world, some
>proven by extrinsic data and other axiomatic facts proven intrinsically
>by the law of consistency.
>
>However, as I define "Truth", all truth that can be ascertained in this
>life can be found ONLY within the Word of God.

Oh. How, then, *do* you define "Truth"? If you mean that anything that doesn't
come directly from the Bible is not "Truth" then you are way out of line in
using the word like that without warning; it's bound to mislead.

>Obviously, the Lord has more Truth, but has revealed only a sufficient
>amount of it for the sake of those who will come to Christ by faith.

Fair enough.

>Anything extra-Biblical that can be proven via data is a fact and anything
>which is extra-Biblical which is proven false is either mis-information or
>a lie.

I completely agree, but I'm not sure how this relates to what you've been
saying. Do you regard "facts" as somehow inferior to "Truth" or something?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
From: SRAUTRY@SAMFORD.BITNET (Renee Autry)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Randall Terry's brochure
Date: 15 Oct 92 14:57:18 GMT
Organization: Samford University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

The following is a quote from an editorial in THE CRIMSON, our University
newspaper.


       "Christian beware . . . To vote for Bill Clinton
        is a Sin Against God."

        So said a brochure mailed last week (as a sermon
        suggestion) to 25,000 pastors across America as
        part of a campaign to fight Bill Clinton's presidential
        bid.


        The effort is headed by anti-abortion leader Randall
        Terry of Operation Rescue, and is peopled by
        various evangelical and Catholic groups.


I have had no luck in finding this brochure in its entirety.  Would anyone
on the list happen to know anything about this?


                                               Thanks,

                                               Renee Autry
                                               (SRAutry@Samford)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 23:28:27 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Secular Humanism

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757

(can anyone tell that I'm responding to old notes now?)  :)

>>*  We are committed to the application of reason and science to the
>>   understanding of the universe and to the solving of human problems.
>
>>*  We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain
>>   the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation.
>
>Okay...  Here's a question.
>
>Why does reason and science necessarily preclude the existence of the
>supernatural?  If there's even a possibility that the supernatural exists,
>then it should be considered a viable alternative and an acceptable belief,
>shouldn't it?
>
>In fact, one would think that reason and science would tend to lead us
>toward the supernatural.  There are very compelling arguments against
>denial of and for acceptance of the supernatural as fact.

If the supernatural were accepted as fact, there would be many theories
on "fact" that had no actual basis in fact, but rather were based on
what the human mind could make up.  For instance, in the middle of
typing this note, my account froze up and I had to hang up and call my
account again and start over.  If I believed in the supernatural, I would
think that "god" didn't want me to send this note (or "satan" didn't) and
I either would or wouldn't send it based on who I thought was preventing
me from sending it.  However, because of science and reason, I know that
my account locked up because the UofL computer system is old and cheap
and locks up for no apparent reason on a regular basis (ok, that wasn't
exactly a *serious* example, but it does make my point well).  Basically,
secular humanists believe in researching and experimentation toward finding
the "truth" rather than blindly following something "supernatural" that
was more than likely just made up to conveniently explain a situation
or occurance.
From: GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL (DRCV06::GRAHAM)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Atonement and sacrifice ARE necessary.
Date: 8 Oct 92 16:01:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

Michael, Your emphasis on the love of the Father for the Son and the Saints
is refreshing, something we all too often forget.

I think you have missed the essentials of the Gospel, though.  Atonement
and sacrifice and a substitutionary death are central, even pivotal to a
basic understanding of the Gospel.

In Peter's first sermon recorded in Acts two, he points out that everything
that happened to Jesus was predestined by the Father, and also says that
Jesus was in hell for our sins.  The entire book of Hebrews discusses the
nature of the sacrifice of Jesus.  If there were no sacrifice, why on
earth, or heaven, did Jesus have to die.  He did have to die, it was no
"neat idea," nor was it for an act of love that didn't involve the concept
of atonement and sacrifice.  Paul, who says his gospel came directly from
Jesus, speaks of the substitutionary death of Jesus many, many times.

Jesus said, in John 10, that He would lay down His life for His sheep.  If
there were no sacrifical aspect to this death, what was the point?  How
could a death without meaning be a sign of His love?

He came to "save His people from their sin."  His epeople, those elected
from eternity past, were born in sin, guilty before conception as Romans 5
makes very clear.  Atonement and sacrifice were absolutely essential for
there to be salvation for any human being.

Dan Graham
From: MAINPER7@UGA.BITNET (halima t)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Help please with a Marriage question....
Date: 16 Oct 92 21:38:14 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              16 Oct 1992 18:02:53 GMT from <mktjadx@GSUSGI2.GSU.EDU>

>Well, here is my question.  According to 1corinthians 7 10-11, should
>she never marry again after this situation?  The reason that I ask
>is that I have become reaquainted with her, we have been dating,
>and I wish to make her my wife.  We are very much in love, and both

    there are some details about your situation that are not mentioned
    so it is difficult to give a specific answer, but it seems that you
    (both of you) should be asking these questions of your pastor in
    a pre-marital counseling situation. wisdom from the pastor that knows
    the situation can be invaluable. there is a book that i would recommend
    entitled    Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible  by Jay Adams.
    it is a very thorough treatment of a difficult (and painful) subject.
    it begins with a short treatment of what marriage is, then quickly
    moves on to larger purpose of the book which is to examine divorce, and
    remarriage biblically. a few books which are very good for understanding
    what a marriage is and its purpose in our lives and how to have a good one
    have been written by Wayne Mack. i forget the titles.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Samford University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 15:11:59 CDT
From:         Renee Autry <SRAUTRY@SAMFORD.BITNET>
Subject:      Harold Bloom/THE AMERICAN RELIGION

Has anyone read Harold Bloom's THE AMERICAN RELIGION?  I would be interested
in comments . . .




                                   Renee S. Autry
                                   (SRAutry@Samford)
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Security, sin and two natures.
Date: 9 Oct 92 13:19:05 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              9 Oct 1992 08:48:00 EST from <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>

Dan Graham I presume ;

Dan, question here : "When Paul says that when we are in Christ "...the old
as PASSED AWAY, behold all things are become NEW" just WHAT is Paul
addressing?"

This seems to re-ignite the ONE NEW nature vs. DUAL NATURE controversey.


Jesse
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, 13 Oct 1992 11:15:00 EDT
From:         Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Catholic Truth from Holy Spirit within (was Absolution)

>A Catholic is a Catholic because of the free gift of Faith from God. As
>he or she is enlightened by the Holy Spirit, it is not possible for such
>inconsistent beliefs to be found in a Catholic.  The fact that someone
>doesn't believe in such an important truth is evidence that they are not
>a Catholic and of the absence of the Holy Spirit.

I disagree with you here.  A believer is a believer because of the
free gift of faith from God.  The Holy Spirit was promised to ALL
believers and not just Catholics.

When Jesus preached, he spoke before everyone.  He didn't pick and
choose groups of people to address.  He didn't request that you join a
church first and then His Word would be revealed to you.

                                        Liz Moreau
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:32:01 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Is God Evil?

Excerpts from christia: 8-Oct-92 Is God Evil? Angela Zimmerman@ULKYVM. (330)

> God was angry?  Maybe I'm mistaken, but isn't anger one of the Seven
> Deadly Sins?

Not righteous anger.  Recall Jesus and the moneychangers in the Temple.
Scripture says, "Be angry but do not sin," implying that it is possible
to be angry without sinning.

Eric
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: 4075_226@uwovax.uwo.ca
Subject: Re: John Michael Talbot's music style
Organization: University of Western Ont, London
Date: Fri, 16 Oct 1992 13:41:49 GMT

In article <921015100929.354d@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>, DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU ((MARK DRAKE)) writes:
> 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.
> 
> I am assuming he is a christian artist??
> Does anyone know anything that could help?
> 
> Mark

For one, I would heartily recommend John Michael Talbot's Christmas album.
It contains a mixture of traditional Christmas hymns/carols and contemporary
music, all very moving to listen to.  Since it hasn't been Christmas for a
while, I don't recall a lot of detail, but now that I've been reminded about
this CD, it'll probably be on tonight -- it's getting cold up here in the
north.

Dave Martin
Computer Science Department
University of Western Ontario
London Ontario Canada

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 16 Oct 1992 08:20:54 CST
From:         William Jordan <JORDAN@LATECH.BITNET>
Subject:      GOOD Books on Evolution and Science

There has been a recent continuing discussion on the subject of
evolution and creation science.  Several people have already pointed out
some of the problems with both views.  I would like to make the point that
it is possible to reject evolution (including theistic evolution) without
accepting the recent creation view of many creation scientists.

As a practicing engineer/scientist, I have no problems accepting the view
that the world is rather old (on the order of billions of years).  As a
practicing Christian, I find it impossible to reconcile the Bible with any
form of evolution.

There are a number of good books that advocate a middle ground, believing
in an old earth but rejecting any forms of evolution.  I would like to
recommend three books in this area.

_The Fingerprint of God_ by Hugh Ross.  Ross is a physicist by training
     and this book examines a number of physics based reasons why he
     believes the universe was created by God.  This book is not very
     technical and could be understood by non-scientists.

_Darwin on Trial_ by Philip Johnson.  Johnson is a law professor at
     the University of California (Berkeley).  He examines the arguments
     used to defend evolution and finds them seriously lacking.  This
     book has attracted a great deal of attention (partly because it is
     by someone at a very liberal school).  Johnson makes a major point
     to deal with what he calls the religion that evolutionists have
     created.

_The Mystery of Life's Origin_ by Charles Thaxton, Walter Bradley, and
     Roger Olsen.  This book has recently been reprinted and I cannot
     remember the name of its publisher (my copy is at home).  I have
     known one of the authors (Walter Bradley) for over 20 years, and
     can recommend this book without reservation.  This book does not
     deal with all of evolution, but only with the issue of the origin
     of life.  This book is highly technical, and definitely not for
     someone who does not have training in chemistry.  However, they deal
     with a number of significant issues.  This book would make an
     excellent gift for a scientist friend who is sympathetic to
     Christianity but is not yet able to believe in a God who is in overall
     control of the universe.

_Darwin on Trial_ is the best book for the the non-scientist.  It is also
the most philosophical of the three.  The other two books are aimed at
someone who is wiling to listen to more direct scientific evidence on these
issues.

If anyone needs more information (like publishers and ISBN numbers) send me
a note, and I can look that up over the weekend.

In Christ,
William M. Jordan            Voice       (318) 257-4304
Mechanical & Industrial      FAX         (318) 257-2562
     Engineering Dept.       Bitnet      jordan@latech.bitnet
Louisiana Tech University    Internet    jordan@engr.latech.edu
Ruston, LA 71272
Xref: sparky bit.listserv.christia:15403 bit.listserv.christia:15404
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 1992 00:40:53 EDT
From: ^[corrigible <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia,bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: christian paganism
 <92286.102058GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>

In article <92286.102058GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>, Peter Gogolek
<GOGOLEKP@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> says:
>   it is good to preserve this link to the Jewish roots.  You, Andy,
>   should agree that this is a good thing.  You might want to check
>   the attitude of the WWCOG towards Jews.
Don't worry Peter, I'm no fan of the WWCOG:) I still wonder though why
more Christians don't celebrate Saturday as the Sabbath and why Jewish
Holy Days are not commemorated or for that matter prohibitions on
eating Pork etc.
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Jesus' Death : Its Accomplishments?
Date: 16 Oct 92 12:03:20 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Today, Friday, I have a question concerning the Saving Work of Christ.
There has been months, literally, of discussion, debate, rambling, and outright
waffling on the issue of the "P" word, election, and so forth.

If we come to grips with   T W O  things, a great deal of difference can be
made.  Now, guys we have to be HONEST with the Scriptures and all TRUE
Christians have a love for Truth and long to know MORE of Christ and the
Written Word in general.

1) First, we have to come to grips with WHAT was the STATE of Man AFTER the
Fall in the Garden.

2) Second, we have to get a handle on the DESIGN of the Saving Work of Christ ;
in other words, what did GOD intend to have accomplished at the cross?
We can get to this be seeing what was accomplished at the cross.
Here, we get terms like : "Expiation", "Wrath", "Imputation", "Propitiation",
"Substitution", "Reconciliation" and so forth.

I challenge the people on the net to STUDY the saving work of Christ as a whole
and in its particulars and REALLY get a grip on this issue.
Less futile rambling and hesitation, equivocation and mental reservation.

Implications : If we have a handle on the state of Man AFTER the FAll, then we
will see the scope of what would have been needed to SAVE anyone from the power
and penalty of sin.


Let's look at it.


In Christ' love ;

Jesse Carnes
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-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 08:01:08 -0500
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      Re: That P' word again

Dear Jesse;

> 2 Peter begins with a salutation to the effect that his letter is to
> CHRISTIANS.

> Your answer is not an answer.  You have to contextually PROVE that my
> eschatology is colouring my exegesis.
> In logic, if YOU make the assertion ... then YOU have the burden of
> proof.

> By the way, your diplomacy is remniscent of the fine subtlety of Le
> "Poland-China."

Have I missed something?
I don't know what the fact that the letter was addressed to christians
has to do with it. Why do you think that makes a difference?  Also,
for the third time let me say I don't particularly care about
defending this particular passage of scripture.  There are others that
we can discuss.

As for proving anything ... read the passage.  You wanted to discuss
hermaneutical philosophies.  I say the ALL in the verse is to be taken
literally, as I believe the natural meaning of lanugage -- biblical or
otherwise-- is the literal meaning.  Do you believe that the natural
meaning of words is non-literal?

Regarding my diplomacy: I've merely let some of the smart-aleck posts
I've seen on this list be my guide.


Brian
From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Limited Atonement 1
Date: 14 Oct 92 11:25:07 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

Why should the Christian care if Christ's atoneing work was
limited to the elect or sufficient for all? Why should this be a
topic of debate within the Christian church when there are so
many more important issues to which we could apply ourselves? Are
we guilty of splitting theological hairs?

It seems to me that it comes down to a question of assurance.
Calvin's succesors held to a doctrine of limited atonement and an
increasingly voluntaristic conception of faith that was not
characteristic of Calvin himself. Paul Helm, a five-point
Calvinist would say that Calvin's great passage on faith found
in Institutes 3:2:7 is merely a recommendation of what faith
should be.

Let us look at just a single sentance of that great passage:

"It would be presumptuous to believe that God was well-disposed
towards us, if we did not have this assurance and clear
invitation. Christ is the only pledge of love, for without him,
everything speaks of hatred and anger."

There can be no doubt that a steady, jubilant, assurance of
salvation is the indispensible condition of true faith in
Calvin's thinking. For Calvin "faith consists in certainty and
clear understanding. Wherever, therefore, knowledge of this kind
is waiting, faith is unquestionably wanting." (Commentary on the
Prophecy of Isaiah, Calvin)

Calvin rejects decisively the doctrine that Christians are in a
state of uncertainty about their final perseverence. They have
"constant and unhesitant persuasion for the future". (Commentary
on Romans - Calvin).

Again, Calvin says "Let us therefore understand that the only
true faith is that which allows us to rest in God's grace, not
with a dubious opinion but with firm and steadfast assurance."
(Commentary on 2 Corinthians - Calvin).

The basis of assurance for Calvin is the universal atonement of
Christ. Knowing that Christ died for the human race is itself a
pledge of God's love. The death of Christ for the human race is
inherantly assuring. Calvin's whole position is incompatible with
a limited atonement.

In another post I wish to look at some scriptural passages used 
both for and against the limited atonement.

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