HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:03:00 EST
From:         WKJ <JAMES@XAVIER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "Homophobic?" for Bernice

Mr. Tom Witherspoon,

I have communicated with a certain syndicated columnist and television news
commentator on the issue that you raise here.

I would be interested if you could elaborate a little in terms of precisely
what you saw that upset you in this regard.

Thank you,

WKJ

Username: Sudden destruction shall come upon them
Password: When they shall begin to say Peace and Safety
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 12:43:55 CDT
From:         Elizabeth Stevens <CCCAMPER@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      all of the above

Hi,
I don't mean to frustrate anyone, but it isn't my place to argue.
I'm very sorry for everyone on the list that you have had to tolerate
such a hostile barrage.

It seems worthy of note that the *point* of all this seems to have
been completely ignored. Such is nature of confusion.

This is something from Dr. Rudolf Graber, Bishop of Regensburg, during
his address to the Fatima Congress at Freiburg, Germany, 9/23/73.

"Once again we affirm that revelation proper ended with Christ and
His Apostles. But does that mean that God has to remain silent, that
He can no longer speak to His elect? Does it mean, as some believers
think, that He should remain apart and leave the world abandoned
to itself? Would not this be a very strange kind of God indeed!
Did He not expressly say through His prophet that he would 'pour
forth His Spirit on all flesh, that sons and daughters would prophesy,
that old men would dream dreams. Even upon servants and handmaids, He
would pour forth His Spirit'. (Acts 2:17, John 3:15) Is such a
prophecy to be limited only to the first Pentecost? Certainly not.
Wherefore hear the word of the Prophet Amos:'The trumpet sounds in
the street, men do well to be afraid: if peril is afoot in the city,
doubt not it is of the Lord's sending. Never does He act, but His
servants, the prophets, are in the secret'.(Amos 3:6) Should we not
thank God with our whole heart, Who even today speaks to us, especially
when danger is approaching?"

Jesus warned of the anti-christ. He warned the anti-christ would get
people to follow him by false signs and wonders. How very different
this is, a man in human form deceiving many and leading them away
from God.....as opposed to God working through His prophets to send
us encouragement to remain in Him. To live in and through His Word.
To love one another. To pray for others that they might also come
to know Him. To fast.

And to Bernice, no, Fransisco did not do penance to get people out
of hell. It was because he had seen the horror of hell and even as
a small child his soul was mature enough to make sacrifices to
help *save* others from going there.

In His Love,
Elizabeth

"I, then, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to live in a manner worthy
of the call you have received, with all humility and gentleness, with
patience, bearing with one another through love, striving to preserve
the unity of the spirit through the bond of peace: one body and one
Spirit, as you were also called to the one hope of your call; one
Lord, one faith, one baptism; one God and Father of all, who is
over all and through all and in all."   Ephesians 4: 1-6
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: prayer topic
Date: 27 Aug 92 07:34:37 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

We should also pray for the ones doing the abortions.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 19:36:17 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: 2 Peter 3
X-To:         Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>

Jesse,

I most certainly agree with you that eschatology, while important, is a
secondary aspect of the gospel of grace.  My main concern in these dis-
cussions is that (in my view) you seem to be using a hermenuetic which
has some problems.  Consistent use of a problematic approach to under-
standing the Bible can, IMO, lead to problems in other areas.

I want you to understand that I have no problem with the amillennial
eschatology as Ihave read about it in the past, even though I personally
happen to have a pre-mil view.  It's just that I've never heard of the
particular version of amillennialism which you seem to be setting forth.
Granted, I have no great interest in eschatology other than an earnest
hope for the soon consummation of the Kingdom of God, i.e., what you
call the final or last return of the Lord.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:21:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Forgiveness of Sins, by Priests?

In a message of Tue, 25 Aug 1992 07:57:22 EDT
Received on Tue, 25 Aug 92 14:00 N
Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET> wrote:

>I want to consider a hypothetical question.  Suppose the governing
>body of some Protestant denomination, whatever its name might be,
>decided to make a change.  Suppose it said that from then on all
>Methodists, or Southern Baptists, or Presbyterians, or whatever their
>denomination was, could no longer just confess their sins to Christ
>in private prayer.  They now had to confess their sins to their
>minister.  And ministers had to confess their sins to other minis-
>ters.  What do you think the reaction of the members of that denomi-
>nation would be?
>
>I think that to say there would be a vocal, even violent outcry would
>be an understatement.  Is there anyone reading this who disagrees?

Maybe I would. But before I want to express my disagreement, let me say
that I think that most protestant churches can learn a lot from the RC's
practice on confessing sins.

Now to my disagreement: I think that if the elders (or whatever the
governing body would be called) explained the reasons for their decision
to the church (I hope that they would have biblical ones) at least the
spiritual part of the congregation should be expected to consent.

I'd just like to remember us of two passages of Scripture that show that
(maybe even public) confession of sins was indeed practiced:

MAR 1:4  John did baptize in the wilderness, and preach the baptism
 of repentance for the remission of sins.
MAR 1:5  And there went out unto him all the land of Judaea, and
 they of Jerusalem, and were all baptized of him in the river of
 Jordan, confessing their sins.

JAM 5:16  Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for
 another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a
 righteous man availeth much.

The only point that I might really disagree with the RCC (I'm not quite
sure about the official position) is that I think that confession is not
* required *, but advised and that confession does not necissarily
require an ordained member of some church (otherwise James should have
said: 'Confess your faults to one of your elders/bishops/overseers'),
but that we can confess to every believer.

Btw: it seems to me that concerning confession/penance the forgiveness
does not rest in the absolving act, but in the confessing one (cp. 1John
1:9). Does anyone disagree?

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:07:43 CDT
From:         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Has Jesus Returned???

Dear All ;

This is a further installment of my study on Matt 25.
Now, Jesus speaks to the disciples in such a fashion that the events He is
describing were to take place within the lifetimes of the Disciples (v. 6 ;
v. 9 ; v. 15 ; v. 20 ; v. 25 ; v. 33, etc.)
Jesus tells THEM to pray that their flight from danger would not take place
on a Sabbath.  Now, a Sabbath HAD special problems for traveling back in
THAT day, but not in contemporary Israel.
The Shabbat of today is from late FFriday through late Saturday in Israel.
Some things are indeed halted, but otherwise, travel is relatively permittable
by today's standards.

A problem for the pre-milleniallists at v. 25 is to explain how this verse has
FUTURE meaning when Jesus was warning THEM in that day to be careful.
Did Jesus know what He was talking about???Does the grammatical context permit
us to think in future terms when the warning was to THEM within their
lifetimes?

Also, another polemic in context which I believe upholds a Preterist view of
Matt 24 is when Jesus tells them that THEY would SEE all of those events, as
found in v. 33.
Verse 34 futhercompounds the issue when Christ says that the THEN present
(Genea) generation would not completely pass away until ALL of those events
had occurred.

In short, I see the Second Parousia as completed in A.D. 70 with the end of
Judaism as a viable faith, and the establishment of the New Israel, which is
comprised of believing Gentiles and Hebrews.
I would like to say that this view of the Second Advent has no adverse
affects on TRUE Christian faith, for whether it has occurred or not, we
must continue to look to Christ.
Assuredly, there will be a final Parousia, and it will occur when the last
of the predestined of God's elect are saved.

This was a terribly short exposition on the Preterist view of exchatology.
IT holds that the destruction of the Temple, the Second Parousia of Christ, and
the end of the Age of Judaism were a done deal in A.D. 70.
We are now in the Church Age, with Judaism viewed no more viable before God
than an empty cult who means well, but ...

If there anymore questions, I can deal with them as we go along.
I will polemically deal with any objections also as we go along if there is
any level of response.



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: CORJB
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 20:16:23 -0500
From:         Jason Briggs Cormier <CORJB@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      One little comment and question

Having read the postings on homosexuality and having
contributed at least twice, I want to ask one final
question that reiterates a point which was already
made on the list.

Why is it that homosexuality is treated as a bigger sin
than lying or pride?

Here is my point conservative Christians have no problem
harping on homosexuality, but leave other sins alone.

If homosexuality is a sin, isn't that something that the
Spirit should handle with the individual, just between the
two of them?

I don't feel capable of speaking for God on this issue, and
rarely for any other issue either.  I'd like to point out that
the scripture says that one shouldn't judge unless he is willing
to be judged by the same standard.  The only standard I want
is mercy and forgiveness and understanding.  If God deals with
me on an issue, that is His perogative and it is up to me to
take it from there.

Who am I then to presume to understand what God wants for another
individual?

What I am saying in a nutshell, is that I really can't find a time
when I believe I have an overriding interest in another person's
life that I should start condemning him/her for her actions, especially
when there are things that I still haven't gotten straight.

A scripture I haven't heard in a long while is from the book of James,
I believe, which says something about each individual working out his
own salvation with God.  The way I'd always heard this interpreted
is that what is sin for one person may not be such for another--also
like the eating of meat dispute.

I say all of this, because it seems that when an issue like homosexuality
comes up, people often condemn and destroy with their words; rather
than helping, they hurt and only promote division.

I hope I was clear.  I am a little tired right now, but felt that
I had to say this.

Jason
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 12:08:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: FYI: homophobic

>From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC%BITNET.CUNYVM@EDU.VT.CC.VTVM2>
>
>        Steven,
>
>        Yes, the proper definition of "homophobia" is "irrational fear of
>        homosexuality or homosexuals".  However, any expression of disap-
>        proval of homosexual intercourse or of disagreement with the
>        political agenda of the homosexual activist movement is called
>        "homophobia".  It is a propaganda term used to smear and discred-
>        it opponents of homosexual conduct and the homosexual movement.
>        If this opposition is a "phobia", an "irrational fear" there is
>        no need to take it seriously.  There is no need to listen to the
>        people who express the opposition or listen to our arguments and
>        evidence.

Marty,

When I see some of the extemes some of the opposition of homosexuals go to
I can only describe them as irrational.

I am not talking of the disagreement with the way homosexuals lead their
lives but the sort of opposition that tries to dictate how someone who is
quietly and in good conscience 'gay' must be when what is being dictataed
is (to them) utterly against what God created them.

'Gay-bashing' seems to be the classic symptom of irrational fear, but it
is not just happening in the physical form.  'Gay' people are discrimiated
against and emotionally, socially and spiritually abused by many.  Is it
any wonder that a group of people subjected to this sort of treatment start
to feel that opposition as a whole is likely to show a similar hostile
ways of disagreement that to them are utterly irrational and so get labeled
"phobic".

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Carol A Long,  					DISCLAIMER - unless otherwise
IT Service,					stated this message contains
Southampton Institute of Higher Education	my opinion...probably only mine
East Park Terrace,
Southampton	SO9 4WW,   England		RELEASE - Repost at will, with
						acknowlegements to author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z_STAFF_CL@UK.AC.SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE
===============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 11:30:42 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Radical feminism, the ERA and Pat Robertson

Renee:

Pat Robertson is talking about radical feminists.  The connection to the
ERA stems from interpretations the Court gave (when asked) during the
national debate on the issue, which Phyllis Schlafly chose to look at
and publicize and pro-ERA groups chose to ignore.  For example:  the
Court indicated that ERA *might* require the drafting of women
when the nation moved toward conscription.  Schlafly said "the ERA
will send your daughters into combat."  (or words to that effect).
Those on the other side said, "Don't be ridiculous; the amendment is
simple enough.  All you have to do is read it to see that it doesn't
say that."  Yet the fact remains that the Supreme Court strongly suggested
that it might be inclined to interpret the Amendment in that fashion.
The fact is that adding an amendment to the Costitution is a very
dangerous thing to do, since it has the capacity to change huge
chunks of the law (witness the 14th Amendment's incorporation of the
states into the Federal constitution--the language isn't in the
amendment, but the Court interpreted to do that anyway.)

When Robertson speaks of "feminists," he means radical feminists.  The
same way when you ask members of the public about feminism, they say
something to the effect of "I believe in equal pay for equal work,
equality, and fairness.  But I'm not a feminist."  (This drives liberal
feminists screaming up the wall.  It also gives conservatives the chance
to say, "us, too."

Hope that helps.

Love INC,
         ---Kerry
PS:  Renee, I'll get to your personal questions over the weekend.  Thanks
     for your patience.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 2 Sep 1992 12:19:06 CDT
From:         Yvette Traylor <YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET>
Subject:      To Lie or Not to Lie???

I find what has been happening to me lately facinating and kind of funny
so I am going to share it and hope it doesn't bore any of you too much
....
Lately if I start to even contemplate bending(lying) the truth, a bump
immediately swells up in my mouth. We grew up with the saying "That is
a lie bump in your mouth so you must have told a lie." The bump in my
mouth stays  under my tongue for about 2 minutes,(while I further
contemplate on 'Why is this bump in my mouth, I have not done anything
yet.' Anyway, the last time this happened was yesterday, I was going
to fill in a missing shot on my daughters shot record so she could
start school today, after I felt the bump I told my self that it was
not really lying because she really did have the shot, I just lost the
record. Well, I never got around to adding that shot to the record and
I enrolled her in school this morning and there was no problem.
God is so good, it just amazes me how crazy I am sometimes, but he loves
me anyway. I learn a little more each day how to lean and trust on him.
My motto: 'If you always tell the truth, you'll never be trapped my a
lie.' Is truer today than it was yesterday to me. God Bless...

   Yvette Traylor     "We are His people and the sheep of his pasture."
   Dallas County Community College District             Psalm 100:3
   Computer Programmer/Analyst  in  Dallas - Texas
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 11:12:00 CST
From:         "dr. Daniel Edward Taylor" <AUTENRKL@SLUVCA.SLU.EDU>
Subject:      Mike Warnke -- update
X-To:         CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@WUVMD.Wustl.Edu

    Just got my copy of CCM.

    Senior Editor Thom Granger has somemore info on the current
    Mike Warnke scandal.

    The following is from CCM sept 1992, page4:

    ==============================================================

    ...
    The reports concerning Mike Warnke are most disturbing, not
    only because they allege that Warnke was also guilty of behavior
    which is despicable for a spiritual overseer (I Tim 3:2-7) during
    and after those '86 scandals [Bakker, Swaggart], but more so
    because, as of our press time, Warnke had not offered any
    conclusive evidence to clear his name, nor repentence to the body
    of Christ for any of his sins.  Also confusing was his record
    company's inital decision to put its own credibility on the line
    with Warnke, though at press time the company had changed its
    position; issuing a new statement supporting and acknowledging
    "the Gospel truths communicated on Warnke's recordings," but
    suspending the sale of Warnke's products, "pending the resolution
    of questions surrounding this matter."

    ... We ask CCM readers [and you -ka] to pray for Mike Warnke, his
    record company, and all those involved in Christian music and
    ministry now and in the coming months, that they would "have a
    good testimony among those who are outside, lest [they] fall into
    reproach and the snare of the devil." (I Tim 3:7)
    -Thom Granger

    ==============================================================

dr. Daniel Edward Taylor
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
kevin autenrieth            U N D E R   T H E   G A Z E   O F   G O D
autenrkl@sluvca.slu.edu
-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-=*=-
 At the foot of the Cross -- Clouds, rain, fire -- on glassHouse records
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 09:58:07 CDT
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      ans to Kerry's post...

 The thing J.W's have against the Pledge, is that the believe that
 if you say the pledge to the flag, you're worshipping IT... NOT
 GOD...
 .... Geez... isn't God what America was founded on anyway?
 And, I'm sure that when Betsy Ross stitched those Stars and
 Stripes, she more than likely said a small prayer of
 "help me get this done before Pres. Washington needs it!"
 ... Geez, I mean, Ms. Ross had quite a sewin' job there!
      Anyway....
      I can't see why the J.W's can't stand to swear allegiance
 to the country in which they live...
      Puzzles me BIGTIME!
      OH WELL... MUST GO...
 God bless you, Kerry!
 "G"/ Theresa

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 21:26:01 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      A reminder to vote

I saw the following public service advertisement in our local Jewish
newspaper, and thought that you folks might appreciate it:

                           ONE MILLION JEWS
                        AREN'T REGISTERED TO VOTE

          (WHERE'S THAT FAMOUS JEWISH GUILT WHEN WE NEED IT?)

        Not calling your mother is one thing.  Not voting for pre-
        sident is quite another.  Especially in view of the rising
        tide of anti-Semitism (both at home and abroad) and the
        uncertain future of Israel.  Beginning to feel guilty?  Good.
        Now get out and register.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.bitnet
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Nupop-Charset: English
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 16:40:24 -0600
From:         Vernon Galloway <gallowav@CC.GETTYSBURG.EDU>
Subject:      A question about sites of visions

I am prompted to ask this question after reading the many posts about Mary,
visions and the places these visions take place.  Let me say first that as a
non-catholic I don't hold to the same beliefs as my Catholic brothers, but I
accept their positions as important to their faith.  In particular I accept
their view of the importance of such places as the Grotto of Lourdes (sp?).

There is in Emmitsburg, Maryland on the campus of  Mount St. Mary's College,
I think, a replica of Lourdes.  I believe it is considered to have some
religious significance and that visits to this place impart some blessing
akin to visiting the real Lourdes.  Can any of the Catholic listmembers
explain this?

Vernon


Vernon Galloway
Gettysburg College
MicroComputer Technician
gallowav@gettysburg.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU