HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET (Love does not subtract, it multiplies.)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Date: 18 Nov 92 20:01:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"

<If any of you have heard others tell of the drill sergeant's introductory
<speech. "I'm your DI, xxxxxx. From now on, I am everything to you. I'm
<your mother, I'm your father, I'm your best friend and I'm your worst
<enemy. I'm even your girlfriend, but don't try to @@@@ with me. I'll tell
<you when to get up, when to lie down, when to stand, when to sit...." I
<can already see some tough DI having a problem telling a bunch of gays
<that he was their girlfriend. They would probably all get a grin on their
<face...

Drill Sergeants have been handling people who smile at inappropriate times for
many years.  I doubt that they'll be perturbed.

Funny how Drill Sergeant Miriam Ben-Shalom never had any such problems.

<So, given this type of environment, the general said that after hours,
<sooner or later they are going to be "off duty" and in some of these towns
<you mentioned holding hands, men kissing men, perhaps going into the same
<places you were talking about. They are going to get called all sorts of
<names and a fight will ensue. The commanders, instead of working on what
<they should be working on will be working on keeping the troops in line.

Soldiers in foreign areas are famous for getting into fights because people are
calling them names.  This will be nothing new for the armed forces, either.

<I guess we'll all find out as time goes on. It might be if they try it
<they will assign a military base to them and keep them separate from the
<rest, but what will be the spread of disease, the moral implications of
<these nice people having a day off and going downtown to the local area
<where you might have every other couple of the same sex, holding hands
<and perhaps kissing, etc. Will any town be willing to host such a
<"project" or experiment. Is the military the proper place to do
<something like this? Do we then "force" the town to accept this behavior
<as well?

Sounds a whole lot like how we let Blacks into the military.  Then again, that
is hardly surprising, the same arguments were used to keep Blacks out,
including arguments about morality.

<How long until the "married" ones can have their "spouse" on barracks?

Can Heterosexual soldiers have their spouses in the barracks?  Hold the
Lesbians and Gays to the same standard that the Heterosexuals are held to.

<And, if HIV is grounds for dismissal, how long will they last?

Not all Gays are HIV positive, and virtually no Lesbians are.  Can we lose the
stereotypes now?

Dan
From: A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: The Gospel
Date: 18 Nov 92 18:54:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Dear List,

If I said that in the Vatican II were made changes of Doctrine of the RCC,
I was absolutely wrong, that's for sure. Catholic doctrines can't
change.

Shalom,
Memo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.SOLENT; 23 NOV 92 16:40:09 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:41:00 GMT
From:         CAROL L <Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK>
Subject:      Thanksgivings

I thank God for this group, that when I find the anger generated by
some of the things I see this world do to people gets too much, I
can open up and say what is in my heart.  In doing so I am a little
refreshed and better able to work and I find my words recieved in
prayer - which is always a help.

Thank you all.

Carol A Long,  Southampton Institute of Higher Education, England
        email     :  Z_STAFF_CL@UK.AC.SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE
DISCLAIMER - merely musings unless otherwise stated.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 22 Nov 1992 17:47:04 EST
From:         Daniel Brabander <ST403077@BROWNVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Gays in the military

I would like to thank Bruce for his carefully thought out response to this
issue.  I agree that much bandwith can be taken up dealing with complicated
issues such as sexuality. It is obvious that it illicites very emotional
responses.  I think Bruce and a few others are able to discuss rather than
rely on gut emotional and often hurtful first thoughts.  In response to Paul's
passages in Romans we have discussed them at length this summer in a group
at the church I attend.  It is clear to many new testment scholars that
what Paul is referring to is the then tragdically common abuse of young
male students by their teachers in the Greek society.  Other passages  relate
to situations (i.e. wild parties) in which in drunken states heterosexauls
would indulge in "kinky" sex with the same sex.  Like I mentioned previuosly
I can not see a loving god offended by monogous life partner samesex relation-
ships.  Where as promiscous hetrosexaulity is clealy inappropriate, this group
of people (certainly much larger in number then gays) is not under attack from
conservative Xain groups (maybe because it is too close to home and can not
be treated as OTHER people.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 07:22:09 EST
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ozzy Osbourne

On 11/16/92 at 12:35:52 Danny W. McCampbell said:

>The Bible tells us to judge someone by the fruit that they bare.
>Is Ozzy bearing good fruit?

Our local paper reported that at a concert in Pa. recently he gave the
bird to the audience.  I don't consider that good fruit.

>Danny

Bernice
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re:      I, Jesse made an error on Christia
Date: 17 Nov 92 01:49:15 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <CHRISTIA%92111607112189@ASUACAD.BITNET>,         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:

>           There is a large movement in the United States of "NO Doctrine ...
> JUST Jesus."  I have hopes that this false emphasis is on the wane.  We nee
> NEVER to throw out Doctrinal issues for the sake of UNITY,  for we have NO
> Unity, apart from a Doctrine called the Gospel and that is what Jesus did
> in His Life, Death, and Resurrection, fulfilling the requirements required
> by God of all men, but fulfilled only by Christ as pertains to Rightesousness
> and Justice.

I am in complete agreement with you as to the importance of right doctrine,
and the danger of throwing away vital beliefs if this is forgotten.

But I'm not convinced by your claim that we have no unity apart from that
given us by our doctrine; when Jesus prays that his followers might be one
as he and his Father are one, and when Paul writes that "as many of you as
have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ ... for ye all are one
in Christ Jesus" [sorry about KJV], I don't think they are just saying that
all of us have the same doctrine: there's more to it than that. 

Can you justify your statement that we have "no unity apart from ... the
gospel"? I certainly don't recall seeing anything to that effect in the
Bible, and I think there are passages that pretty much contradict it
outright. I'm puzzled...

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: One sin versus another.
Date: 20 Nov 92 22:10:36 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

In article <CHRISTIA%92112011320618@ASUACAD.BITNET> GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL (DRCV06::GRAHAM) writes:

>I suggest that, regarding homosexuals, no more stones be cast, except by
>members who have stopped sinning completely.

Thanks, Dan, for a great post and a good reminder.  



-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 15:52:28 MST
From:         Madge McBurney <ISPMOM@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Thanksgiving--an idea
              20 Nov 1992 17:44:36 -0500 from <MG_BROWN@UNHH.UNH.EDU>

Melanie,

I think that's a great idea.  We should resolve to do it!

Madge McBurney
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:35:44 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: God's word as truth
              20 Nov 1992 11:53:43 EST from <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>

Dear All on Christia ;

For a clear idea of how God feels towards anyone being "gay", they might
consider reading Romans 1:18 to the end of the chapter.
It's a bit Scary, to say the least.

Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 10:14:54 EST
From:         dave talaga x2752 <talaga@E5SB.OSDHW.SYR.GE.COM>
Subject:      The bashing of a Saint.

Well now, I see that Jesse bashing has reached a new height of Christian grace
 and aplomb.  Everybody fairly well convinced that they have one Jesse Carnes
 pegged?  Now I wonder, how did you go about laying the groundwork that led to
 your, mmmmm, conclusion?  And of course you're convinced your right.  Right?

This list is truly amazing.  We claim to be "Christian," yet, the only thing we
 can agree on is Jesse Carnes is a raving polemicist who's hurting the cause of
 Christ.  Huh?   What about the New-Agers, Moslems, homosexuals, witches,
 atheists?  What about the outright personal attacks on an individual's
 character?  Besides Jesse, we can't get a consensus on what constitutes a sin,
 let alone what it means to be a "Christian."

It is quite clear that some of you are in a self-congratulatory mode on this
 whole issue; and I wonder why?  Is it because you are in the majority?  What
 makes you think your allies are any better than your target?  But of course,
 you all are doing it in love.

Get a grip folks.  Even if Jesse is wrong, there is no reason to treat him as
 such in public (Matt 18:15-20).

I might add, that Eric Ewanco and Brad Kaiser, two people that have really
 locked horns with Jesse Carnes, have refrained from the bashings.  That says
 something about them -- to bad they're not Protestants :>).

Regards,

Dave Talaga
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: rerickso@cwis.unomaha.edu (Ronald D. Erickson)
Subject: Re: The Trinity
Organization: University of Nebraska at Omaha
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 16:27:40 GMT


My translation of the current Swedish Bible suggests to
me that the Word becoming flesh is an utterance of the
Father calling into existance a person who did not exist
before.  The footnote says as you state, but I find it
interesting the way it is translated the Word is an it,
not a person.  German and Scandinavian Holy Writ is much
more precise in translation than English.  It would not 
surprise me English preachers have colored
some scripture because they do not know the original 
languages well enough to know the difference.  Someone
has said, "translators are traitors."

What is the Zoe kind of life supposed to mean?  I hear
it said by some, but do not understand if it is eternal
life or what?  I would think if we had eternal life in
the full sense of the word, we would be like the Lord
Jesus was when he had been translated and resurrected from the
dead.

Ron

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:14:13 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jesse a bit miffed 'bout his treatment by some!
              18 Nov 1992 19:23:20 -0700 from <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>

Dear Mark ;

Since you assert that I belittle, at least allegedly, could you offer some
objective evidence to that effect?
In the field of logic, the burden of proof is always opon the person who makes
the assertion.


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:40:21 CST
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      Trinity (Ron...)

Whew....oooooohhhhhh boy... :(
Ron. Uh, could you please find scripture references for
what you posted?  (Not being a pain, I just don't have
my Bible with me right now, and I just woke up around an
hour ago...soooooo...)
It's very possible you're right.  Maybe you wanna go to
one of the more, uh... 'well-versed' people on the list
to find out?  I'm not sure about the languages either!
Constantine??? I'm pretty sure there were lots of new
Christians who died Martyrs.

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: Christia@asuacad
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 18:45:51 CST
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      Setting NOMAIL...

I hate it, but it's gotta be done, or my account disk-space wll
(that's "will") get "exceeded", and then I will lose most of my
mail.  Everyone have a safe, happy and Blessed Thanksgiving
Holiday.  I'm going home to spend time with family, and get some
SERIOUS practicing done.
Anyone gonna watch the "Macy's Thanksgiving Day Parade"?????
I MARCHED that thing back in 1990!  It was ...um, unusual to
be in uniform at 2 *A.M.*...
God Bless you all!

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
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:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 12:55:48 -0600
From:         Noe Torres | ECISD <noe@TENET.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Being gay is offensive?

Concerning the following post by Carol L.:
>
> I think the hinge factor is that we all have different ways of seeing what
> the Bible means and what may seem as a direct statement to you may not be
> read like that by someone else.

I agree that there are many varying interpretations of Bible passages,
some stranger than others.  But, I do not believe that anyone's
interpretation is just as good as anyone else's.  I believe God holds us
to certain truths.  I think the only way to get a clear picture of
Biblical truth is to let the Bible interpret itself -- by
comparing similar scriptures and following related themes throughout
the Bible.  Obviously, some who feel condemned by certain Biblical truths
may try to rationalize them away -- a common approach being to attack the
credibility or interpretability of certain passages or of the Bible as a
whole.  This I do not agree with.

>
> There was not convincing arguement that being gay was intrinsically sinful.

Being gay is NOT intrinsically sinful, any more than being pre-disposed to
a hurtful addiction of some kind would be.  What is very clearly sinful
according to the Bible is the indulgence in homosexual sex.

>
> Homosexuallity is not an added extra to gay
> people, it is a very basic part of their makeup/personality/being, whatever
> you call it.  Much the same way as being male/female, left/right handed, tall
> or short.
>
If you mean that there seems to be a genetic component to homosexuality,
this is likely -- just as there seem to be genetic predispositions toward
other kinds of behavior.  Some studies have suggested links between
genetics and addictive or criminal behavior pattern.  I do not believe
that a genetic predisposition can be used as an excuse to disregard
Biblical truth.


> I was brought up in a family where some older members had the superstition
> that a left-handed person was evil.  Simple country clap trap it may have
> been but I know the damage that was done because of a strong conviction for
> the "right."   Telling someone that being what they know themselves to be
> is "sinful" can produce a lot of nasty side affects pychologically. How much
> damage can we do ?

Christians believe that there is healing and peace for those who accept
Jesus and allow Him to change their lives and to lead them to Christian
victory over whatever behavior is hurting them.  This is the essence of
the Gospel, and Christians, rather than condemning, should be part of the
healing.

>
DISCLAIMER: I just take God at His Word...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 11:14:05 CST
From:         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "Doctrine of Total Depravity" : Carnes' list
              19 Nov 1992 17:05:08 GMT from <billc@HOUSING.MSSTATE.EDU>

Dear Bill Chapman ;

Sometimes I put my own material into quotes, but that is just a habit.
The actual source quotations are the little sections, like "A", "B", "C"
and so forth.
The one source I used was from the work, "The Five Points of Calvinism" by
David Steele and Curtis Thomas (Presbyterian & Reformed : c1963, 1984 print.).


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 13:06:47 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject: Re: The Gospel

Tigerman,

As I said, this post didn't mean that the doctrines of the RCC have changed.
The doctrines of the RCC can't change (Because there is a doctrine that
says that all doctrines must be true).

But, The doctrines are not the matter, IMHO, it is the wording of the
Pre-Vatican II what our bothers and sisters protestants don't like. I
don't think that any protestant would say that not being kind and helpful
to the people is not necesary to your salvation (see Mt 25), the problem
is that in some documents of the RC there are phrases that can be interpreted
as 'Trough this things you EARN salvation' this is a misundersanding of the
doctrine, because a doctrine can't go against the Gospel and the rest of
the Scripture where, very clearly, says that Salvation is a Gift.

Post-Vatican II documents are much more clear, because they use now-days
language.

Shalom,
Memo.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Effectiveness of Church Teaching (was Gospel)
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1992 16:26:05 GMT


During a discussion which didn't have a point, or at least not an obvious
one, somebody said that Roman Catholics didn't really know what the Vatican
taught.  Then somebody else claimed that this was true of all the other
denominations too.

I'm not so sure.  Depending on how loosely one defines `Christian', there are
some fringe groups that do a pretty good job of making sure that their members
know the Official Doctrines and can repeat the arguments for them.

The Worldwide Church of God, for example, doesn't allow people to services
until they have read some literature and met with the pastor, and they have
a TV show and a monthly magazines which contain some religious-oriented
teachings.  I don't know what the Jehovah's Witnesses do for initiation, but
they publish periodicals and books too, which most everyone reads.

Many `mainstream' groups have things as Confirmation Class, where important
doctrines are discussed, but it seems to be a one-time deal.  I suspect that
continuing studies would work better, if properly organised.

Also, some groups stress commitment to the group, and active involvement.
I think that this significantly reduces the number of people who just "go
through the motions" every week.  Larger groups that are more established,
like most mainstream denominations, don't really put any demands on anyone.
Groups that put heavy demands on people are considered "brainwashing cults".

Our current models are either (a) let the deadwood stay, or (b) cut it off and
throw it out.  I suppose there ought to be some middle ground along which we
could steer, but I've no idea exactly what it would look like, or how it would
work.

Does anyone have ideas on how to help the `deadwood' turn into fruit-bearing
branches?  Or maybe how to keep the branches from drying up in the first
place?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Even from an enemy a man may learn wisdom." -- Aristophanes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 08:13:47 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Polemic?

Dear ALL on Christia ;

Again, after a post by someone on this list, it seems apparent that the idea
of "Polemics" is either a bit uncertain, or equivocated on by some.

Simply put, the idea of discussing something in a polemical style is to give
a logical "point-by-point" format, especially in light of attempting to
indicate error on the part of a person(s)who hold another view.  Now, this
is not NECESSARILY a pugnacious affair, for one can implement a format of
polemics, without resorting to "Argumentum ad Homenim" (arguments against the
individual, themselves) or "argumentum ad Bacculum" (personal attacks where
aggressive language or actual threats are employed).

I know that one of the list owners is concerned, ostensibly, but let's DEFINE
this thing CLEARLY.
God   N E V E R    calls us to UNITY, apart from Truth.  If we ditch Truth,
then we are no better than JW's, Mormons, or Moslems.

As far as Arguments ... NOT Arguing ... are concerned, Apollos of Biblical
fame employed this style of dialogue.  What we want is TRUTH proclaimed and
done so logically and with taste.



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: CHRISTIA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 10:55:00 EST
From:         "Lauren H. Arango" <LHARANGO@OWUCOMCN.BITNET>
Subject:      Keep the prayer requests coming

I just wanted to encourage people to keep posting prayer requests, and to
keep putting "Prayer Request" in the subject line.

I'm frequently quite busy....too busy most of the time to read carefully
each and every message posted to CHRISTIA.  But I always make sure that
when I see a message labeled "Prayer Request", that I read it and I pray.

So although I may be busy (and quiet) lots of the time, please know that
I *am* praying for all of you.  I truly believe that it is of the utmost
importance that we pray for each other.

                                        God's peace,
                                        Lauren
                                        (There's another Lauren on CHRISTIA
                                         now, isn't there?? :) )
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:20:04 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92112008035068@ASUACAD.BITNET> JLong <JLONG@UA1VM.BITNET> writes:
>Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:02:59 CST
>From:         JLong <JLONG@UA1VM.BITNET>
>Subject:      Re: Gays in the military
>Bill,
>How can you say that it is natural for gays to be gay?   

I did not say that.



--
Bill Chapman, Box 1262, Mississippi State, MS  39762
<BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>           (601) 325-2042
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU