HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU ((MARK DRAKE))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Whose will is dominant?
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:50:36 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"

> Suppose he had the kind of unfettered free will that Eric
> has been describing,

Remember, Eric believes what the Council of Orange teaches, and it does not
teach an "unfettered" free will.

> their free choices would be in bondage
> to their fallen natures.  Free, indeed, but not in the sense Adam was free.

> Maybe Eric is describing Adam's free will, and Jesse that of Adam's
> offspring.

I'm not sure Jesse would say Adam had free will.  If we do not, and will not
even in heaven, it doesn't make sense to me to say Adam did.  (ie, we will
be "perfect" in heaven, complete in every way, exactly as God wants us to be.
When God created Adam, wasn't he all of these things? )

Mark
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 10:35:58 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Angela Zimmerman <AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Blood of Christ

Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
Phone: 588-6757

Jesse, yes please write more, even if in email.  I don't understand why
*blood* of all things, and of one man in particular at that, is the
only thing that can "cover" sins.  It seems like people want a scapegoat
so they don't have to take responsibility for their own sins.

On second thought, do answer privately, as well as anyone else who thinks
they can explain this so that it doesn't sound like cold-blooded murder
commited by people who don't want to take responsibility for their
sins.  I vaguely remember a conversation about this in the recent past
on the list and I don't want to revive it since I'm sure many are tired of
it.  Thanks.
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:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 17:10:03 CDT
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Jealous God
              Zimmerman" at Nov 9, 92 12:49 am

>
>Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
>Phone: 588-6757
>
>I've seen some postings on here referring to a jealous God when talking
>about the Christian god.  Could someone please provide me with some
>scripture backing that up?  Please send it privately, since I'm sure
>most people here know about it already.  Thanks!
>

Angela, I think you will find the first of the ten commandments refers
to God as being a jealous God..

He is jealous in that he will accept worship of nothing other than himself,
which is fair enough I guess considering he created us for that express
purpose. EVERYTHING ELSE WE DO IN OUR LIVES IS REALLY LESS THAN IMPORTANT
compared with the task of worshipping him.



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 16:06:15 EST
From:         LPEN000 <LPEN@NLU.BITNET>
Subject:      DELETE MY NAME

TELL LISTSERVE@ ASUACAD SIGNOFF CHRISTIA
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 09:18:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New World Order?

In a message of Mon, 9 Nov 1992 13:54:57 CST
Received on Mon,  9 Nov 92 20:56 N
Yvette Traylor <YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET> wrote:

> Does anyone out there know what the 'New World Order' stands for or what
> it is all about?

It has been pointed out that Mr. Bush used this term, but he didn't
invent it. You also find it on every $1 bill. If I remember it correctly
it is written under the pyramid in Latin: "Novo Ordo Saeculorum".

There are people that say that this goes back to some secret circle
called the "Illuminati" who try to gain control over this world under
cover. But all this stuff is highly speculative and I don't pay too much
attention.

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re:      Clinton's Plans, Already
Date: 9 Nov 92 02:52:46 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <CHRISTIA%92110718264130@ASUACAD.BITNET>,         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET> writes:

>     Clinton reportedly will get rid of the so called "gag rule" that
> restricts anyone but doctors at federally subsidized clinics from
> counselling women about abortion.

This will, for instance, allow pro-life workers to offer counselling to
women who are considering abortions. Or is this allowed already? What
constitutes "counselling" anyway?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 11:37:27 CST
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      Praise God for Leo!

Dear Jesus:
I sit here when I should be singing with Joy.  My throat hurts,
and I don't think I could sing to full capacity.  Maybe next week.
What I really am happy about is the post Leo sent concerning some
of the "clothing" you wore while here on earth.
Dear Lord, please bless Leo because of his postings ... The ICB is
a blessing.
Thank you for Christian friends on this list whose faces I have not
seen, but will one day see in Glory.  I ask that you guide the lives
of each of my "Christia" buddies.  The Prayer Warriors, the ones who
KNOW the book, and those who just sit back and decipher all the stuff
before it goes out.... everyone.
You are worthy of "the HIGHEST Praise"
I Love you, Lord,
(Me..."G")

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: OT vs. NT (was Re: Jealous God)
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 1992 17:30:54 GMT


   Allow me to correct a couple of fallacies here, from two different
people:

In article <92314.1338112893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> 2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:
>In article <CHRISTIA%92110906310655@ASUACAD.BITNET>, Angela Zimmerman
><AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU> says:
>>God created people just for the purpose of worshiping him?  Doesn't that
>>sound like God is an egomaniac?  (sorry, but it had to be said).
>>Plus, if people are here only for the purpose of worshiping God, why
>>do people have jobs, families...basically, why do people have *lives*?

   I don't think I would say that's the only reason God created us,
but let me address this anyway.  I wouldn't call God an egomaniac,
although what is proper for God might be called "egomania" if men were
to act that way.  After all, He didn't have to create us at all, nor
are His ways our ways.  Actually, God's own name as told to Moses is
Yahweh, meaning I AM (Exodus). More literally, I think it's WHO AM, as
it comes from "I am who am." The Vulgate has this "ego sum qui sum,"
and "qui sum" for what is often translated I AM, although "qui"
actually means "who."  The point of the language lesson is that the
ego in egomaniac is the same as the ego in God's name for Himself.

   As far as your question, "Why do people have lives?" it is
important to remember that we should worship God not only in our
formal worship, but in every aspect of our lives.  This includes even
in our jobs (i.e. the way we perform our jobs, and our attitudes), and
especially in our families, which are a ministry in themselves.

>Apparently there is some difference between God in the Old Testament and
>God in the New Testament. Perhaps someone out there could explain why that is?

  God is the same always, whether He is the God we read about in the
Old Testament, or in the New.  Our understanding of God, however, is
not perfect, and so the more we know about Him, this understanding can
change.  In the Old Testament we had only the prophets for our
revelation of what God is.  However, in the New Testament, we have
Jesus Christ, the fullest Revelation of God we have had, God Himself.
Therefore it's understandable that our understanding would change
somewhat with the NT.

   This is not to say that God is _not_, in fact, a God of wrath, as
some people like to notice about God in the Old Testament.  Jesus
revealed God as perhaps more tender than we understood from the OT,
but Jesus Himself still reaffirms this older understanding, e.g.
"There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth..."

   We cannot throw away the OT, but it must be understood in light of
the NT.  And our understanding of the NT must conversely be taken in
light of the OT.  The two are inseparable.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: pmoloney@maths.tcd.ie (Paul Moloney)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Rush: get a life
Date: 8 Nov 92 19:49:36 GMT
Organization: Somewhere in the Twentieth Century

2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA (andy) writes:

>  The Rush Limbaugh show has recently been made available in this market. It
>just proves the old theory that no matter how hard they try, conservatives
>can't be funny (at least not on purpose)

Oh, I don't know. I'm a closet liberal-socialist who occasionally pretends 
to be a fascist-libertarian (think about it) to irritate my girlfriend 
and my SU friends, but I love P.J. O'Rourke's stuff. 

I don't agree with most of what he says, but occasionally he will say something
that makes me think again. And he is consistently hilarious, both in print
and in the flesh.

You're right about Limbaugh though. There was a snippet of his show shown over
here during the US elections. In a three minute segment he managed to be smug, 
patronising, completely in love with himself, and, worst of all, totally
unfunny. I was starting to itch by the end of the clip. 

P.
-- 
moorcockheathersiainbankshamandcornpizzapjorourkebluesbrothersspikeleepratchett
clive  P a u l   M o l o n e y    "I'm pretty witty and you're itty bitty    pe
james  Trinity College, Dublin     And isn't it a pity the city can't see?   vr
brownbladerunnerorsonscottcardprincewatchmenkatebushbatmanthekillingjoketolkien
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 10:57:37 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Trinity...

Jesus needed to receive the HS at His baptism because He was a man, He needed
to be sent by God the Father to preach the Good News. Jesus as God need not
that of course.

Shalom,
Memo.
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:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 08:47:17 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD?

Excerpts from christia: 10-Nov-92 Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD? Jesse
Carnes@LSUVM.BITNE (840)

> OK Eric ;

> We shall do zit agin like zie 4th grade class and RE PEAT it justa once uh
> more.

> Seriously Eric ... if you say that the will of man is merely weakened by
the Fall, how do you reconcile that with Paul's words :

> "Their minds are DARKENED"

> "No ONE SEEKS after God.

> "AS for you, you were Spiritually DEAD in your sins and traspasses."

> "The mind of sinful man is ENMITY with God."

> "The mind of sinful man does not submit to the law of God, indeed it CANNOT."


> Now, Eric do these Words sound like FREEDOM or LIMITATION due to a
> corpse like condition commonly known as   D E A T H  ?

> Further, when Jesus says that "No one CAN COME to me, unless my Father
> has ENABLED him"  how is the will of man ACTIVELY ABLE to come to Christ
> just by willing to do so, APART from the Regenerating Work of the Spirit
> of God?

But you believe that we still lack free will even AFTER we are
regenerated.  You are telling me that because the unregenerate man is
"dead" God controls his life like a puppet.  Ignoring for now that Paul
was speaking of spiritual death, since you are arguing that the the
"dead" man has no free will, it seems you also argue that once
regenerated, a man _does_ have free will (otherwise being "dead" has
nothing to do with freewill), yet this contradicts Calvinism, which says
that God preordains everything, for the regenerate and the unregenerate
alike.

As I have mentioned time and time again, I agree that no one can come to
God on his own.  I never said that people can seek after God in their
natural state.  The question is, must a man be reborn/regenerated before
he can believe?

WHY IS THE GRACE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT INSUFFICIENT TO ENABLE A MAN TO TURN
TO GOD?

I think your comparison to a corpse is fallacious because we're talking
about spiritual death, that is, lack of eternal life.  Being spiritually
dead means nothing more than not having salvation, not having the Holy
Spirit dwell in you.  I see no reason to link spiritual death with total
lack of free will.

> Now, Eric do these Words sound like FREEDOM or LIMITATION due to a
> corpse like condition commonly known as   D E A T H  ?

Paul is talking about the natural man without the grace of God.  Paul
never says that we must be regenerated in order to believe.  He simply
says that in our natural, unaided state, we are enemies with God and
cannot turn towards him.

You are telling me that the Holy Spirit cannot enable a man to turn
towards God without regenerating him.  (or, maybe you're telling me that
man can never turn to God, ever, no matter what?  In which case I would
point out that Paul is referring only to the man without the grace of
God?)

Eric
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Subject: Re: WHAT WE OFFER GOD?
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 14:03:38 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92111207163312@ASUACAD.BITNET> NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes) writes:

>I have studied Roman Catholicism, supposed evangelicalism, neo-Orthodoxy,
>Eastern mysticism, relativism, and of course Calvinism.

For one who claims to have studied Catholicism you seem to have some very
strange ideas about what it teaches. Given your misunderstanding earlier
of the meaning of "Nihil Obstat" I'm a little curious as to how much this
study has taught you. (If that was Tom rather than you, I apologise, but
I'm fairly sure it was you.)

>I assure you, Rome is diametrically opposed to the "five-point" Calvinist,
>in fact as I told one person on the net, there was a Catholic "big gun" who
>said to the effect  "We have hopes of converting all people to the Catholic
>Church, all except CALVINIST."

Who? When? To whom?

>Further, I have studied "Under-the-Counter" ('Hard Ball') Catholic doctrinal
>materials, published by the Jesuits.

Under-the-counter? You mean Rome has a load of secret doctrines? Which
they believe to be true but keep from the bulk of Catholics? I've never
been a great fan of conspiracy theories myself.

Where did you get this stuff anyway? Unless it was from practicing Roman
Catholics, rather than, say, your local anti-Catholic organisation, you
should be very very careful indeed. Ever hear of the "Protocols of the
Elders of Zion"?

>Guaranteed mee mahn, Rome is as opposite to the "Doctrines of Grace" of
>Calvinists as Madonna is to the pure wind-driven snow.  Hah, Hah, hah, hah ...
>What a "funny" ... and serendipidous to boot!:-)

I'm sorry to be sharp with you like this, but the things you are saying
are well nigh inexcusable, especially given the readership of this list,
and I think it's time you stopped using the method of Proof By Assertion.

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:23:15 CST
From:         JRALLS@TRINITY.EDU
Subject:      Re: comment on military

On Tue, 10 Nov 1992 11:18:25 EST carol nemec said:
>Our son has been in the Navy almost 2 years now.  We went to
>his boot camp graduation.  Interesting fact...most of the men
>in boot camp attended church.  I don't remember if they had
>the choice or not.  I can't argue with the navy making it
>acceptable, but many of them had probably never be in church
>before boot camp.  I wonder how many continue to attend after.
>The navy obviously valued some religious experience, I wonder
>why?  Seems somewhat hypocritcal or something.
>
>Just a comment from my observations.
>
>Carol Nemec

Carol, just a comment from my observations--when I was in Air Force
basic training almost all of us went to chapel on Sun, because it was
practically the only place you were allowed to go, and it was a chance
to get away from the strict routine. Nobody asked you questions or
hassled you there, you didn't have to salute anyone, and it was the
closest thing to being a civilian again. One of my fellow recruits
was Jewish, and the Jewish folks were allowed to take a bus into
San Antonio to the Jewish Community Center or one of the synagogues
I forget which, and have a meal and social time. I am not Jewish but
a couple times I went along with her, to get a good meal and get off
base, not for religious reasons at all. Sure, there are people in the
military who are sincerely religious but I'm sure that the percentage
who attend church is alot higher during basic training.
As I said, just my observations...

JoEllen Ralls                       Jralls@trinity (Bitnet)
Elizabeth Coates Maddux Library     Jralls@trinity.edu (Internet)
Trinity University                  so many books,
San Antonio, Texas                          so little time...
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Re: Jesus as a role model.
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Mon, 9 Nov 1992 18:56:17 GMT

"DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL> writes:

>Ian, (I think it was Ian), could you provide scriptures that indicate that
>Jesus was / is a role model for us?  I have heard this all my life, and
>have problems with it, I'd like to see it in the Word.

I'm not Ian, but I'll take a crack at an answer off the top of my head (my
Bible's at home).

How about: "As the Father sent me, so I am sending you."
Or: "Heal the sick, raise the dead, cast out demons, preach the gospel,"
    (which happened to be prominent parts of Jesus' ministry).
-- 
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Point to Eric.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:21:36 GMT

Jesse and Tom,

>Well, if God is not in control ... WHO or WHAT IS????
>
>Think about it for a moment, Eric.

   A better question is "Is God able to be in control without
micro-managing everyone's lives?"

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 10 Nov 1992 14:01:22 EST
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      Leo, Bishop (10 Nov)

LEO THE GREAT, BISHOP OF ROME (10 NOV 461)

Leo I (440-461) and Gregory I (590-604) are the only two bishops of
Rome commonly called "the Great." Leo, at a time when the capital of
the Empire had been moved to Constantinople, and the government even
in Italy no longer had its headquarters at Rome, was the most
important official in the city. To him fell such prosaic tasks as
supervising the distribution of grain imports and reorganizing the
municipal fire department. When Attila and the Huns invaded Italy in
452, he negotiated their withdrawal, and when Gaiseric (or Genseric)
the Vandal captured Rome three years later, it was Leo who prevented
the total destruction of the city.  It is perhaps not surprising
that the theory of papal supremacy gained much ground in his day.

In his day there were disgreements about the correct way to state
the truth that Jesus Christ is both God and man. In 449 Leo wrote a
letter (known as the Tome of Leo) to Bishop Flavian of
Constantinople, in which he affirmed that Christ has two Natures in
one Person. The letter was read in 451 by the Council of Chalcedon
(the fourth Ecumenical Council), and judged by them to be sound
doctrine. It contributed much to the creedal statements of that
council.

Leo's influence on church government will naturally get mixed
reviews. But for his defense of the belief that God was in Christ,
reconciling the world unto himself, all Christians may thank God.

PRAYER
   O Lord our God, grant that thy Church, following the teaching
   of thy servant Leo of Rome, may hold fast the great mystery of
   our redemption, and adore the one Christ, true God and true
   Man, neither divided from our human nature nor separate from
   thy divine Being; through the same thy son Jesus Christ our
   Lord, who liveth and reigneth with thee and the Holy Spirit,
   one God, now and for ever.
From: STR008@UKCC.UKY.EDU (Julie Nott)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: KJV Bible on a server to download
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:15:49 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

HI everyone -- I've been off of this list for a while but hope to
join back in on some of the discussions soon.

My question is -  Is there a server that I can ftp or telnet to
so that I can download the KJV Bible.  I've seen this through
gopher, but I'm not sure of how to download through gopher, only
through ftp or telnet.

Any help would be appreciated!

Julie M. Nott
Univ of KY
<str008@ukcc.uky.edu>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: QuickMail/SMTP interface.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:16:35 EDT
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Scripturette 11/6

Feels like some cool weather.  Time to think about clothing...

"The Lord has covered me with clothes of salvation.  He has covered me with a
coat of goodness" (Isaiah 61:10).

"So during the meal Jesus stood up and took off his outer clothing.  Taking a
towel, he wrapped it around his waist.  Then he poured water into a bowl and
began to wash the followers' feet.  He dried them with the towel that was
wrapped around him" (John 13:4,5).

"Jesus came out, wearing the crown of thorns and the purple robe" (John 19:5).

"Christ himself was like God in everything.  He was equal with God.  But he did
not think that being equal with God was something to be held on to.  He gave up
his place with God and made himself nothing.  He was born to be a man and
became like a servant.  And when he was living as a man, he humbled himself and
was fully obedient to God.  He obeyed even when that caused his death -- death
on a cross.  So God raised Christ to the highest place.  God made the name of
Christ greater than every other name.  God wants every knee to bow to Jesus --
everyone in heaven, on earth, and under the earth.  Everyone will say, "Jesus
Christ is Lord" and bring glory to God the Father" (Philippians 2:6-11).

Yours in Christ Jesus,
Leo

Scriptures quoted from the International Children's Bible (ICB), New Century
Version, copyright 1986, 1988 by Word Publishing, Dallas, Texas 75039.  Used by
permission.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU