HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
X-VMS-To: IN%"christia@asuacad.bitnet"
X-VMS-Cc: JADETW01
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 15:55:00 EST
From:         JADETW01@ULKYVX.BITNET
Subject:      Remarriage after Divorce?

I have been a member of this list now for several months.  I've been
encouraged often by the posts but until now I've never had enough
courage to actually post something!  Well, here goes:

I have a question that I'm almost afraid to ask.  I was divorced 3
years ago for a cause other than infidelity on either of our parts.  At
the time I really wasn't listening to anything God had to say to me.  I
was living in sin.  During the next 2 years my x-wife and I tried
several times to reconcile.  These attempts failed largely because I
was still not listening to God.  Finally she met another man, had
sexual relations with him, and decided that she didn't want to try any
longer,  That really shook me up and I turned to God in desperation.
I've since been living for Him as best I could while my x-wife
continues with this other man.

Recently the hurt has somewhat subsided and I've begun considering
my future.  Things like  educational, and career plans as well as the
issue of remarriage have been in my prayers for guidance.  I've read
Matthew 5:31- 32 and I Cor 7:10 - ff..  I have some serious
questions about whether remarriage would be biblical.

I praise God that He has brought me to the point of even being able to
ask this question since I know I must obey Him whatever His answer is,
trusting that He will provide the ability to live in any situation to
which He has called me.  In searching for that answer I read the
scripture, pray, listen to the Spirit's leading, and seek the advise of
Godly counselors.  I consider many of the members on this list rich in
Godly wisdom hence my question to you:  Is it biblical for someone in
my position to remarry?

Please feel free to answer either privately or by post and I'm grateful
to you all for the encouragement I've gotten since I've been on this
list.

Jeff Detwiler           JADETW01@ULKYVX.BITNET
                        JADETW01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU
University of Louisville
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 09:24:18 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Repentence
              27 Jul 1992 10:15:01 -0700 from <jstahley@QUALCOMM.COM>

You say, "I feel that I am not deserving of god's love because of
what I had done."  You are correct.  None of are.  He loves us any-
way.

If you meant that you feel you are not deserving of God's love be-
cause your sins are worse than other people's you are mistaken.  Sin
is by definition a violation of God's will, a defiance of God.  Only
God can judge the extent to which an individual is turning away from
Him in committing a sin, but in human terms you sins seem rather
commonplace.  This is not to say that they were not sins, or that
they were not serious, but only that you are not uniquely sinful.
Those feelings could well be a temptation from Satan, trying to get
you to despair.  Despair is a far more serious sin than what you did.
I am not talking about feelings of despair or discouragement.  They
are only temptations.  I am talking about actually giving up, decid-
ing that you have no hope of salvation, that it's too difficult for
you, that God's grace is not sufficient to save you.  That is a very
dangerous sin because, unlike most other sins, it keeps you from
asking God for His forgiveness.

You don't mention whether you are attending a church.  If you are
not, you should be.  Attending church regularly does not keep one
from sinning, as all active Christians can attest, but it helps.
When you attend church regularly you give God more opportunity to
work in your life.  Also, I suggest talking to your pastor.  He can
provide spiritual help and guidance, and, if appropriate, referral to
treatment or counseling programs that can help you.

As I am sure you know by now, a lot of people on Christia are praying
for you.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 12:27:13 EDT
From:         dave talaga x2752 <talaga@E5SB.OSDHW.SYR.GE.COM>
X-To:         CHRISTIA@asuvm.inre.asu.edu

TELL LISTSERV AT ASUACAD SET CHRISTIA REPRO
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"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:39:00 EDT
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.0-22, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         LIZ MOREAU <EMOREAU@UMASSD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Family Values and Arbitration

Darren:

I agree with alot of what you are saying on this issue.  But I would
feel alot more comfortable if non-Christians had this option and
Christians had the option of (in extreme cases only) of going before a
board of respected Christian leaders.  The problem is that our values
are not the same as the values in the world today.

The world will not be judged on the world's standards, but on God's
standards.  How then can we agree to a system that would help our
children make crucial decisions based on the world's standards.

                                        Liz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 10:08:00 EDT
From:         Richard.Campbell@MVS.UDEL.EDU
Subject:      Re: Healing
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

  I think you're referring to the book "Healing" by Francis MacNutt.
Actually, I just received the newsletter from their ministry, Christian
Healing Ministries (CHM), yesterday in the mail.  I attended a conference at
which the MacNutts (Francis and his wife Judith, who is active with Christian
therapists) were the main speakers... and at which I received a powerful touch
of the Holy Spirit.I believe Francis was a Catholic priest who left the
priesthood to marry Judith-I don't know the exact chronology or details of the
story.   Judith wrote a book called "How to Pray for Your Unborn Child" which
I've heard good things about as well.   If anyone's interested, I can post
their mailing address.
                                     Rich C.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:54:15 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject: Re: Small group for Bible Study

Kerry,

Hi !  I'd love to get on the Bible Study Group, can I ?

Thanks a Lot !

Shalom,
Memo.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re: Divorce and Remarriage
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 18:16:37 GMT

In article <9207301227.AA12254@host0.COLBY.EDU> tjbenner@COLBY.EDU (Toni J. Benner) writes:
>Steve, thanks for your explanation. It does make things more clear. I would
>be interested  to know  some of the  reasons why the decree is granted.
>This girl had a child, so they had had marital relations. I remembered
>after I posted that the reason they were asked to pay at the remarriage
>was because her husband was divorced. They refused to pay, but she  is
>still attending church. It does help to understand one  anothers'
>church. I thought after I posted that  I shouldn't have  said anything,
>but I'm glad I got  an explanation.

   Oh, not at all.  I'm glad you brought it up, because it is a fairly
common misconception.  If I didn't know better, it would probably sound
like simony to me too.

   I'm not sure about the above situation, but if they refused to pay, that
would imply to me that they also refused to obtain a decree of nullity.  If
someone can't afford to pay, that's a different matter, and the Church can
usually eat the cost.  Was the wedding in a Catholic Church?  Someone who
marries outside the Church in such a situation is still allowed in church,
but not admitted to receive Communion.

   There are many types of evidence for finding a marriage invalid, but it
really varies from case to case.  It usually comes down to determining the
spouses' intentions at the time of marriage.  In Catholic theology, it is
the couple, not the priest, who perform the ceremony.  The priest is a
witness to the marriage.  This is different than at least the Orthodox,
who believe the sacrament of matrimony is performed instead by the priest.

   Anyway, since the couple performs the marriage, then it must be determined
as to whether it was done with the proper intent, etc.  I can't remember all
of them, but there are some things mentioned in canon law that render a
marriage invalid.  One is failure to consummate the marriage.  Another is
the use of deception on the part of a spouse, used to bring about the
marriage.

   Another criterion can be a lack of maturity/understanding on the part
of a spouse as to what matrimony (which would indicate that the marriage,
which is performed by the couple, wasn't validly performed).  I know this
can be vague, and also can be a source of abuse, but the only motivation
I know of for this type of abuse it to try to take people's pastoral needs
into consideration.  I can't condemn anyone for this.  The pope, however,
has recently said that American bishops often make it too easy to obtain a
decree of nullity.  

   Jesus rescinded what Moses allowed, saying that no one can divorce and
remarry.  We believe He did, however, leave the Apostles and their successors
the authority to bind and loose, which gives them the authority to determine
whether or not a valid marriage exists.  I'll leave it to the judgment of the
bishops and pope, whose authority I believe comes from God.

--Steve

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Practical witchcraft?  (Partly about US politics)
Date: 24 Jul 92 02:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Jul23.210818.27490@gboro.glassboro.edu>, nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham) writes...

[...]

>And it doesn't bother me:
>Dan has the right to pass on his religion to others, and it sounds like
>he is very careful to ensure that new members of his coven know what they're
>getting into before they join.


	Actually, this wasn't presented from Dan.

	He `made sure that Ascha had her head screwed on straight.'
	We will have to trust our token witch's appraisal.
	And he had Ascha's parents' permission.
	
	This is quite different from informing new members of his 	
	coven on what they are in for.


 en agape,
 Bob
From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Peretti's Stuff
Date: 28 Jul 1992 21:54:59 GMT
Organization: Rice University

>I thoroughly enjoyed all three Peretti's books you mentioned.  I
>think you get too deep in the analysis of style to enjoy the books.
>Please don't take this as a flame, but just an opinion.  Too me it's
>like going to a movie just to watch for bloopers and never even
>realizing what the movie was about.

I just wanted to respond to this post and all the others saying or hinting 
that I am a grinch for not liking all three of Peretti's books.  I do
not read a book and dissect its style while I go.  Instead, after reading
a while, I start to think either "Hey, this is good," "Boy, this stinks,"
or "Hmm.  This is so-so."  Then, after the fact, I say to myself, "So
why was it good/bad/indifferent?"  I happen to have some knowledge about 
literature and literary criticisms which enable me to evaluate my feelings
about the book in coherent sentences.  When someone wants to know how
the book was, I can then tell them in as precise a fashion as possible.

OK, the guy who wrote the above post can stop reading now.  The rest of you 
may continue (well, so can he, but the rest is not directed at him).

I have recieved several responses indicating that I am an elitist jerk for
mentioning that I read a lot, including literature.  I felt this
was needed for my review to be given any meaning.  It is OK if you
don't care about a writer's style, or can't identify irony, or can't
spell characterization.  But don't begrudge those of us who can.  It helps
you know what to think about my review.  If you know you do not have 
"discriminating" reading tastes, then you know you can take my review with
a grain of salt.  If you do, however, and do not like to read works below
a certain writing caliber, then my reviews are helpful, hopefully.

It is no shame to like to read a certain kind of writing.  I will not say
anything about someone who only reads Harlequin romance novel quality
books.  But if someone reviews a book, I want to know that about them.  I
will then know how much my taste is likely to agree with theirs.  So
please quit all the inferiority complexes.

I have recieved some letters agreeing with my review.  Why have you all
not seen them?  Because they did not post them for the entire world to see.
If only those who disagreed with me had the same common courtesy to 
flame me via email rather than telling me I'm a doof from the computer
rooftops, as it were, I would not have to post this reply.

I am sorry if any of you take offense, but I felt I was being unfairly accused.


Ernest Mueller
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 12:51:05 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Systematic Theology ... Carnes

Dear Zane, et al. ;

I agree with my collegue, Thomas Brewer that without objective criteria
with which to tie experience, experience is necessarily UNDEFINABLE.

ALL Truth is propositional ... NOT experiential/experimental by nature.
Experience itself is no definition, due to its SUBJECTIVE nature.
Our living experiences need objective truths to which they can be tied,
else our experiences are unclear as to meaning.
Without propositional truth, the experience of rape is no less definable
morally than kissing one's child goodnight.  Without objective truth, the
two experiences lose their mutually exclusiveness, as far as right and
wrong are concerned.

Call "experience" CONTENT for a moment.  Also, call "truth" FORM for a moment.
Both are needed.
However, content without form is a ghost, and form without content is a corpse.
Our experiences are ghostlike when they have no objective criterion by which
to define them.

All morality is based upon objective propositional truth.  Without these
propositions (the Word of God, i.e.) there are no ABSOLUTE morales, just
transitory morays which could change as easily as Weimar to Nazi Germany
morales, where the Jew suddenly became an untermensch.






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:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 08:27:00 EDT
From:         Richard.Campbell@MVS.UDEL.EDU
Subject:      Re: Thanks God, I'm alive!
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

   Chris,  Thanks for the inspiring story.  By the way, was anyone on the
phone?  Just wondering if the person had an unusual nudge to call you, or if
perhaps the phone "just rang."      Rich
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 12:11:00 CDT
From:         "Love does not subtract, it multiplies." <HOLZMAN@FNAL.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: You have to preach in church to be a REAL reverend

<Just for clarification - Reverand is a term employed by Southern Baptists to
<mean someone who has been "ordained."  Prior to this term, the designation
<"elder" was used of ministers. The transition to "reverand" is very
<slow and almost unnoticable (there are some articles in the ALABAMA BAPTIST
<from the 19th c., {mostly portions of editorials} dealing with this).  I
<would have to say in all honesty that the term is traditional, rather than
<scriptural,but that it is recognized as a legitimate designation in the
<Southern Baptist tradition.

The term is also a legal designation, something like "Doctor" in recognition of
religious ordination regardless of religion.  (Yes, folks, my legal
recognition as clergy entitles me to the title Reverend, though I generally
don't use it.)

Dan
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 03:14:40 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Politics/USA

Chris,

I don't think the presidential race is just on the issue of abortion,
important as that is.  There are a number of other moral issues where
the Republican position is closer to my views than in the Democratic
position.  And even when I don't like the Republican position it is
less extremist than the Democratic position.  As for the economy,
which seems to be the most important issue for many people, it is my
opinion that Republican policies will benefit the economy more than
Democratic Party policies would.  I do not plan to discuss this point
in detail, especially since it is outside the scope of this list, but
it is my opinion.

Marty Helgesen
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: fusco@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (Andrew Fusco)
Subject: Re: Changing Opinions (Edify)
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 1992 16:44:13 GMT

>Neither party would allow one of their own to argue for the side of the
>abortion issue not outlined in the party platform.  The Democrats did a
>very good job of expressing unity in the party platform.  Governor Casey
>of Pennsylvania wanted to give a pro-life plea at the convention but was
>opposed by Ron Brown.  The pro-choice Republicans will meet the same
>fate this August at the Republican convention.

That simply is not true. I've heard that the Republicans are going to 
have a civil debate over this platform issue, and have scheduled at least
one pro-choice Republican, Lynn Martin (who's in the Cabinet) to speak.
This doesn't mean the party will reverse itself - it simply realizes,
unlike the Democratic party, that it is unhealthy to stifle dissent. The
opposition to the pro-life plank will have their say, and will be heard,
and maybe they'll vote on it again - but the pro-life side will win. 
Maybe Governor Casey will be able to make his case to the Democrats there.

-ACF

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:31:49 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      DARE we KISS the ENEMY??

To all on Christia ;

I stand with my brother in Christ, Tom Brewer.
Wicca is nothing to blithely tolerate ... it is the most dangerous game
and comes from the enemy DIRECTLY.

I repudiate any tolerance to such things in Jesus Christ 's name.
We must not be violent nor cruel to practitioners of such things, but, we must
never equivocate as to our view of the vileness of its evil.
Wicca and the like is nothing short of the "Mask of the Great Deceiver"!




                                 Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:26:29 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: "Superstitious behavior"

James Keifer:

I'm just curious.  What are (is?) "widdershins"?

                                         Love INC,
                                                  --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 08:28:00 EDT
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <graham%drcv06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Systematic Theology = Dynamic Theology.
X-To:         christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

Tom Brewer's thoughts in defense of systematic theology are very good.  I
have some additional thoughts.

In our independent church, we ran squarely into this issue when we
attempted to set out a credal statement.  It seemed that nearly every week,
we learned something new that caused the statement to be modified in some
way.  If we made it so general that it needed no modification, it sounded
weak and meaningless.  If we got specific, practically writing out own
systematic theology, it needed altering every other week.  What to do?

It is rather obvious that, on this earth, there won't be an end to learning
more truth from the Bible and ilumination of the Spirit, so a percise
statement of beliefs is impossible.  We decided to make a statement of
beliefs and just accept that it would need ammending every so often.  That
is not to say that we will believe that Jesus is God one week and created
another, not at all, but there are many doctrines which are not so
clearcut, and we are learning new doctrine all the time.  The Bible is like
an onion, layer on layer.  Anyone who isn't learning from the Scripture
either isn't reading it, or is spiritually dead.  We read it, and (I'd like
to think) are spiritually alive.

So, we are left with a systematic theology that is dynamic.  We aren't
writing books about it because they can't change after the writing.  The
Bible is unique in that it changes with a person's level of understanding.
The Bible I read five years ago isn't the same as the one I read today.
Sure, the ink and paper are the same, but nothing else is.  Sounds
mystical?  It is!

A systematic theology is of the greatest value, a systematic theology that
is dynamic is of even greater value.

Dan graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 13:43:56 CDT
From:         Yvette Traylor <YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: US Politicians Twisting Scripture

Dan, Where did you get that infomation from? I know of quite a few
Blacks(who were called Negros) back then, that went to school, back
then, and are teachers, doctors, dentist, lawyers, etc,,, Yvette

************************************************************************
*  Yvette Traylor     "We are His people and the sheep of his pasture."*
*  Dallas, Texas                                        Psalm 100:3    *
*  Computer Programmer/Analyst                                         *
************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU