HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 13:06:04 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: rally and various

Urban Research Institute
Phone: 502-588-6626

>I will clarify (at least my) terminology:

Thankyou for the definitions.  However, I fear you missed my point.
The point is that it's not respectful to refer to me and others like
me by your labels, even if you have defined your labels if I find those
labels (due to their popular usage) offensive.  It is respectful to
use the label I have chosen for myself, particularly when I am willing
to do the same for you.  This is because even when you have defined
your terms, they imply judgement of others.  I am not trying to flame,
but here are some examples of what I mean:

  "These people find it possible to justify (on a guilt/innocence or
   necessity basis) war, capital punishment, and other acts that others
   find unacceptable."--implies mildly negative sentiment toward others
   who do not go "all the way" with their beliefs.

   "Opposed to abortion as one part
   a comprehensive acceptance of the gospel of peace as a theology."
   --implies that all other views do not accept a gospel of peace.

   "Opposed to abortion for a possible variety of reasons,
   necessarily having anything to do with morality."
   --I doubt that people in this category would agree with you--
     their morality might just be *different* than yours.

   "extremist form of
   radical feminism that posits pregnancy as a form of bondage which must be
   escaped."--words like "extremist" and "radical" are highly judgemental.
   You did not use such words to describe "completely prolife", which
   seems to be the same thing only in the opposite extreme.

Kerry, I respect your opinion.  You have stated that you feel very
strongly about the subject and I respect that too.  What I am trying to
say is that in the interest of peace on a list already overburdened
with mail volume and one whose interest is Christian in nature, we
should be very careful in the words we use.  I wish we could avoid
labels entirely, but as long as we have to use these human brains of
ours that tend to view the word categorically, we'll never get away
from them.  It will further discussion and prohibit antagonism if
we use terms that we find mutually agreeable.  After all, the term
is not the point.

Brenda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.AFRC.JII; 10 APR 92 21:11:31 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:11:00 GMT
From:         HANNANT@JII.AFRC.AC.UK
Subject:      To Proud

All,
    I am feeling so down and it is all my fault.  I am just to proud.
I don't want to be like this I want to be more humble but I just can't
seem to get 'started'.
    My job involves serving everyone else and not myself and at times the
resentment I feel is so strong I think I will burst.  I try not to let
it show but it is hard to hide.  I wind myself up so tight feeling like
this, I know I shouldn't and that makes it worse.  Why can't I just accept
this is my job.  I am paid to serve others and not myself so why can't I
accept that without the bitterness.  Bitterness can so easily poisen ones
life and today it has really got a grip.  I know I should serve others
and not resent, Jesus washed his disciples feet, why can't I be
more like this.  I get so angry with myself for feeling this way.  I have
no respect for the people I 'work' for and that doesn't help.  The
colleague I do respect I do things for without resentment so why can't I
do that for the others !!!  I am so angry at myself !  I call myself a
Christian but I harldy seem to act or feel like one !!!
    Lord break this bondage that gives me so much anguish.  I don't want
to feel the way I do but in my own strength I can't break it, I need your
help Father.  Tears of sorrow and pain.  I am to proud Father, teach me
to serve others better and more than anything else teach me to serve you
better.  Forgive me.  I am an ulgy sinner in your sight, forgive me.  I am
to proud Father, until I stop fighting you cannot help me.  Until I admit
what I am you will not help me.  Break me Father, mould me Father and fill
me with your spirit afresh, I need your love, without it I am nothing.
    Tears.
This maybe doesn't belong on the list but it has only been in the love
of this family that I could openly admit to my sin so I shall send it
anyway.
    Nigel.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:33:52 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Feminist theology/little god movement

Liz!!!!!!!

If your church is practicing guided imagery and visualization, GET OUT
OF IT!   Those things are demonic and dangerous.  I don't want to appear
hysterical, but the practices you mention are occultic tools that I
once used to draw Christians away from their own faith.

Also, when I was on the worship committee in my congregation, we got
into a tremendous fight when we were planning a series on the trinity.
Some people wanted to present it as "Parent, Child, and Spirit of God,"
rather than "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit."  The traditionalists prevailed,
and we got an excellent sermon on why females are indluded in the Biblical
meaning of "sonship".

Another interesting thing I came across in the feminist theology literature
is that Rosemary Reuther believes that nothing in Scripture should be taken
as authoritative for women unless it "validates women's experience."  Thus,
she advocates throwing most of Paul and large portions of Matthew, and Luke,
and almost all of the Old Testament out of the canon and bringing in pieces
of the Gnostic gospels and the apocrypha and other contemporary forms of
wisdom literature.  I'd be willing to bet that Lillith will show up someplace.
Personally, I'd like to know who died and made Rosemary Reuther queen of
women's experience.  What makes her the expert on every woman's reading of the
Bible?  Academia can be a pretty strange place.
                                               Love INC,
                                                        ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 09:57:58 CST
From:         CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject: RE: MATT parable
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.

Andrew:

   Maybe this is really off, but I was influenced by C.S. Lewis'
version of the crucifixion in the Chronicles of Narnia series.
According to this story, Satan wanted to kill jesus, and
didnt know that he was playing into God's hands. Lewis talks
of a "deeper magic" that the witch (Satan) did not know of.
So perhaps the Pharisees did not have an exact reason but were
pawns in Satan's plan.

Kim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:52:29 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jungian psychology
              16 Apr 1992 16:20:50 -0600 from <DRAKE@ASUCP2.LA.ASU.EDU>

Mark:
I am not joking.  Why do you think it disturbs me?
                                                  Love INC,
                                                           ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 16:43:18 EST
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      Baby Names Revisited

Yes, that's right, we still haven't decided on names for our soon coming baby
(just over 4 weeks left - aauuuggggghhhhh - we're not ready yet!)

We don't know the sex of our child yet (and don't want to know beforehand, so
there  :-).

Any additional help with names is appreciated.

Here's the criteria we've come up with:

Short and/or difficult to abrieviate or nick name
Not named after anyone in our immediate families
Has to not conflict in a major way with KLEPZIG

Current names in use in our family:
Steven Richard
Pauline Marie
Erin Lea

Thanks for the help...
Steven

This was under discussion when I first joined the list and I thought
it had died out so I didn't respond.  But, I'd jump at the chance to
suggest names...I'm ready to be a grandmother!!

Girls:  Carol ;)  Sarah, Rachel, Elizabeth, Ruth, Mary, Anna
Boys:   Michael, Aaron, Peter, Timothy, Andrew, David, Kyle

Just a few of my favorites...nothing exciting, I'm simple and
I like Biblical names....how did Carol get in there??  All my
kids are in there, too, and my husband! oh, except for Steve, but
you have one of those :)

God bless,
Carol
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 13:35:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion & Don't

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
for the unborn, and are only concerned with some OTHER
age group.  If the welfare of the elderly is so important,
maybe we should kill of a few of those "taxpaying youth"
to use their brains in Alzheimer's research.

This, before anyone accuse me of inconsistency, is NOT
an prolife or prochoice message.  It is simply a statment
of distaste for the idea that we need children after birth
as "wage slaves" to keep the old geezers alive, or as
"cannon fodder" to keep the old geezers secure from enemies.
While many argue when we become "human", few would say it is
at retirement age, and our purpose in life, pre-65, is NOT
to simply pour our sweat into a medical system where currently
85-95% of the money goes to the oldest 1% of our population.
When our society can no longer afford to "keep" as many old
people, there is another solution besides making more cogs
to work the wheels of industry to support them: cut down
on the number of old people.  When wolves eat all the rabbits,
the wolves die off until the rabbit population returns.  Importing
more rabbits won't help, because MORE wolves will be born, requiring
even MORE rabbits to be imported.  When you consider the pyramid
structure of age, and how MANY young people are supporting each
elderly person NOW, how many more do we need?  Will each elderly
person have his or her own army of 10,000 youngsters to do their
work for them and to fight their wars for them?

Of all the reasons to make abortion illegal, I strongly feel this
is the poorest of them.

Darryl at TCU
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:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 14:52:00 EDT
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.3-1, PMDF V3.2-19,
              JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         LIZ MOREAU <EMOREAU@UMASSD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: have they found the ark??

>A book has been released in Adelaide detailing an account of an
>archeologist who believes he has found the location of the Ark of the
>Covennant.. (No, I am NOT talking about Indianna Jones!)
>Has any one looked into the findings of this guy, or researched whether or
>not it is likely that he HAS found the Ark?
>(If he has, it is for purely historical purposes only, because God does not
> live in dwellings made by man any more. He lives in US!!)

Ian:

I've read different articles over the past couple of years that say
the Jews are putting together items used in worship in the Temple,
such as musical instruments, clothing that was required to wear before
entering the Temple, and different things like this.  There is a sect
that is getting ready to rebuild the Temple and I'm sure they also
have been looking for the Ark.

Anyway it is interesting, but we both know it won't be found until the
Lord wants it to be found.

If anyone does read this book, how about a summary to the list.

Thanks.

                                        Liz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 11:58:47 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual and physical death
              10 Apr 1992 07:44:00 EST from <BSC92SPA18@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>

Jeff:
Are you aware that the contention that all things are part of God is a
linchpin of the New Age philosophy and is in violation of the Biblical
separation of the children of God from the children of wrath?  God created
all things, but all things do _not_ share in the divine nature.  That is
because the Fall caused mankind to die spiritually, and the only way to
be saved from that death, to be resurrected, is to be reborn through the
acceptance of the atoning blood of Christ.  If all things are imbued with
the nature of God, and all men are really perfect, then Christ did not have
to die, and God the Father is guilty of the most heinous act of child abuse in
history.
        Love INC,
                 ---Kerry
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:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:19:33 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: on being filled with the spirit
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
              at Apr 6, 92 11:43 am

>
>Greetings!
>
>For the past couple of weeks my pastor has been teaching about being
>filled with the spirit, as distinct from initially _receiving_ the
>spirit.
>
Ie, the Baptism of the Spirit right??


>Although I tend to believe that one is not automatically _filled_ with
>the spirit when it is received, and that God can continue to fill us,
>the Biblical support that was given was unconvincing.
>
It is my opinion that we receive the Spirit at the time of salvation..

We are 'filled' with the Spirit at the time of the Baptism in the Spirit,
and also we can be 'refilled' as the Spirit moves on us again!

I believe the scriptural evidence for being 'refilled' is pretty strong,
and your pastors argument was pretty well on the ball..

>
>Apparently, my Pastor interprets these successive passages as implying
>a repeated action of filling on the believer, while I tend to interpret
>them as a repeated description of the same state of the believer,
>especially since the passages seem so close together chronologically, and
>there's no indication of the believer not being filled inbetween the
>references.
>
>Two questions:
>
>1)  In your opinion, which is the more accurate interpretation?
>
In my opinion, refilling ..


>2)  Are there other (and/or better) passages that you know of which
>    indicate a believer being "filled" subsequent to initially receiving
>    the Holy Spirit?
>
Don't know at the moment, I am at work!


>Thanks in advance for any and all responses!
>
>God bless,
>.-------------------------. .--------v---------------------------------------.
>| Jeff Shirton            | | Job    | "Cast all your anxiety on Him because |
>| Shirton@McMaster.Bitnet | |   1:21 |  He cares for you." -- 1 Peter 5:7    |
>`-------------------------' `--------^---------------------------------------'
>



*****************************************************************************
Ian Williams          			Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems         			Phone   : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: Steve Creps <creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu>
Subject: Re: Changing A Church
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 1992 19:39:04 -0500

In article <1992Apr13.192652.11448@gboro.glassboro.edu> kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>[ NB: while the RCC does not allow priests to marry, it has always allowed
>  married priests.  For example, a married Anglican priest who converted and
>  remained a priest in the RCC would stay married, because the Vatican does
>  not allow the dissolution of marriage except by death.  A female Anglican
>  priest would not be allowed to remain a priest in the RCC after converting,
>  though; the rules on gender being more specific. ]

   Good point.  The reason for this has to do with the difference between
the terms "valid" and "licit," which is analogous to the difference between
"can" and "may."  In the case of the priesthood, "valid" means that one is
truly a priest.  "Licit" means that one was legally ordained a priest, whose
valid orders were obtained licitly.  Now for the case of a married Anglican
priest who comes into communion with the Catholic Church.  If in fact his
priestly orders were valid, then his marriage would have been illicit in the
Catholic Church, because it is not permitted (illicit) for a Catholic priest
to marry.  However, his marriage is valid, and his Holy Orders are valid as
well.  Note that an Anglican priest's orders are not automatically considered
valid by the Catholic Church.  He must have been ordained by a priest with
valid orders, who in turn must have fulfilled the same requirements.  This
"lineage" should go back to the Apostles; hence we have Apostolic Succession.

   Now to the case of women Anglican priests.  The Catholic Church says that
women CANNOT, not MAY NOT, have valid Holy Orders.  It's not a question of
allowing them to be priests; it's rather that women are unable to be priests,
as also men are unable to be mothers.  Much of this has to do with Catholic
theology, which considers Christ to be the Bridegroom, and His Church to be
the Bride.  Therefore, a priest (whose priesthood and authority, by the way,
are really Christ's; the priest "stands in" for Christ, who is not visibly
present) must be a man, because a woman cannot represent the Groom.

   Anyway, what this all means is that when a woman who was an Anglican
priest comes into communion with the Catholic Church, she is considered
not to have had valid orders in the first place.  This in no way is meant
to imply an inferiority of women; it's just that there are different roles,
as is stated in the Bible.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
creps@iubacs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 19:32:19 MST
From:         Becky Harris <ISPBJH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: The Prodigal Son (by Rachel Harris)

As I posted on Friday, my 4 kids have each written a 2 page essay on the
topic of the Prodigal Son.  This was the subject of a sermon two weeks ago
in which all of my children seemed to be boared to tears.  The second one
I'd like to share with you is from my daughter, Rachel Harris--(15 yrs).
I have retained the original spelling, punctuation, and sentance structure.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

During the sermon today I was too bored to pay attention to what was being
said.  I also missed a chance to grasp an important lesson being presented.
So I will go back and learn on my own what had been taught.

(Luke 5:11-32)

This is a parable story of a man who had two sons.  One of the sons, the
youngest, asked his father for his part of the estate, and swindles it.
He is ashamed to return to his father.  He gets a job feeding swine.
As days went by, and he was not getting a lot of food, he asked himself,
"Why am I here?  My father's servants get fed more than me".  He realized
his foolish mistake and began his journey home.  He had reached his home.
In the distance his father could see him, and ran toward him, and hugged
him in compassion for him.  He says, "My son was dead, and now he lives ..."

This parable teaches us that no matter what kind of trouble we are in, or
no matter how serious a crime is, If we are willing to put aside our pride,
and want to be forgiven, God loves us so much, that it is done before we
are sorry.  Even if we aren't sorry, and will not put away our pride, he
will still forgive us.  God will ALWAYS forgive.

This is something that has been brought to my attention, but I did not
care enough to really fit it into my life, and how it related to me.  Now
I realize, that I can just put aside my personal pride and beliefs, I can
always be forgiven by god, and he will make things smoother in some way.
Not only will God forgive me, my mother will also.  Just as the father in
the story, she will realize that I have admitted being wrong, and will have
compassion, just as the father in the parable.

I need to read the bible more often and learn of Gods many blessing so that
I can be thankful for living and breathing, let alone clothes, etc...  The
Bible can be explained as God's revelation to man..in that it tells us how
we got to the place that we are now, and where the future will lead us.

I have not read the bible in the past because of the size of the book, and
I have always thought of it as being boring.  When I think about it though,
the bible explains why we breath and explains all occurences in life...How
can that be boring?

We are all just like the young son.  We can all be forgiven just as the son.
We are all sinners and we can all be forgiven by God in church.

Rachel

Becky Harris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:21:25 EST
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>

Hi, All-
  Some people believe both in God in Darwen's revolution.  Their belief
are based on that God might not create things like we generally thought
but HE may made them out of revolution, as there seems to be no
chronically conflict. A day in the bible may refer to thousands years in
His mind.  Do you think their viewpoint are correct?

Allen
*************

Hi Allen...nice to have your input.

I believe God creates and he can choose to create any way he
wants.  It is obvious, to me, that some things have evolved
with time, but I am not descended from any type of monkey, or
whatever came before that.  God created, and it was good.

Maybe what has evolved has evolved because of what man has
done with what God has given him??  Some of it is good and
some of it is not so good.
God bless,
Carol
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:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:47:58 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual and physical death
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
              Apr 11, 92 1:02 am

>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.
>
>Allen Chen
>

Allen,

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?


*****************************************************************************
Ian Williams          			Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems         			Phone   : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU