HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 15 Oct 1992 22:37:38 CDT
Comments:     In-Reply-To: note of Thu,
              15 Oct 1992 14:41:11 PDT from Mike Morris
From:         Stuart <K119TO@TAMVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re>Why Did Jesus Die?

From:   Stuart T Oliver
Regarding Mike Morris' comment about the volume of postings on CHristia...
Hey brother, the volume over the last couple of days is fairly average...
Just don't forget to go nomail if you take a week off!  8-)
From: YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET (Yvette Traylor)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Ways to evangelize
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:44:47 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

> You Americans are funny folks. But a word for Yvette: if this is the
> * only *  reason you won't witness on the street, you better get
> yourself going. The "fearful" will not enter the kingdom...
Wolfgang,
It was just a slang. And I am still growing. Don't shut the gates on me
yet. For I know that "God has not given us the spirt of fear; but of
power, and love, and of a sound mind." 2Tim1:7

   Yvette Traylor     "We are His people and the sheep of his pasture."
   Dallas County Community College District             Psalm 100:3
   Computer Programmer/Analyst from Dallas - Texas
"I know worse things about myself that you will ever say about me." Anon
From: GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL (DRCV06::GRAHAM)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Christ's teachings, which version?
Date: 16 Oct 92 16:33:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

Michael,

You failed to answer my saliant question:  How do you know that the book
of celestial writings  is any more accurate than the Bible?  What makes one
version of Jesus' teachings better than another?

In your posts, you have, basically, spoken against every Christian
doctrine.  If these doctrines are incorrect, we must be presented with a
source that is ineffable, a source that is better than the Bible.  How
could we prove such a source?

I think you need to be far more specific about your denunciation of the
Christion religion and its doctrines.  Will you quote from your book and
tell why those quotes are to be believed?

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 03:23:47 EDT
Reply-To:     M.A.Fraser@durham.ac.uk
Comments:     Resent-From: Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Comments:     Originally-From: M.A.Fraser@durham.ac.uk
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was
              NEW-LIST%NDSUVM1.bitnet@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      NEW LIST: LITURGY

FYI.
-- Lon Mendelsohn
----------------------------Original message----------------------------
LITURGY on MAILBASE@MAILBASE.AC.UK

   LITURGY provides an academic forum for discussion of all aspects of
   Christian liturgy.  The list does not confine itself to any one
   historical period, geographical area or Christian tradition.
   Therefore contributions are welcome from all historical and
   theological fields.  We also welcome discussion from those involved
   in other disciplines such as literary analysis, comparative religions
   and sociology of religion.

   The list is unmoderated with all messages to the list being archived
   and can be retrieved by sending the following command to
   MAILBASE@MAILBASE.AC.UK

                         INDEX LITURGY

   To subscribe to LITURGY send the following command via e-mail to
   MAILBASE@MAILBASE.AC.UK

                SUBSCRIBE LITURGY your_full_name

   For example:

                SUBSCRIBE LITURGY Joan Smith

   Owner: Michael Fraser <m.a.fraser@durham.ac.uk>
From: A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Another baby
Date: 13 Oct 92 16:56:15 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Congratulations Wolfgang !

Shalom,
Memo.
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Security of Salvation?
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:19:08 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              16 Oct 1992 17:02:08 GMT from <gjm11@CUS.CAM.AC.UK>

Dear Gareth ;

Please define the following term :  "FACT"


Jesse
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: That P' word again
Date: 14 Oct 92 13:15:38 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              13 Oct 1992 20:15:06 GMT from <billc@HOUSING.MSSTATE.EDU>

Dear Bill Chapman ;

Could you give me a quotation of 2 Peter's prolegominon?
I would just like a verbatum account ... ok?


Jesse
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU ((MARK DRAKE))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: RE: CRJ
Date: 14 Oct 92 23:44:36 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"

> A Catholic apologetics magazine had an article about an anti-Catholic,
> anti-Marian article they < CRJ > featured in that magazine that was inaccurate
> and misrepresented the facts.

> That's the bad reference I remembered to CRJ.

> Eric

	Let's see, in fromt of me are three issues of the Christian Research
Journal that might contain the article in question:

Fall 90 - "From Lowly Handmaid to Queen of Heavan:  The Mary of Roman
	Catholicism "
Spring 91 - "Apparitions of the Virgin Mary:  A Protestant Look at a Catholic
	Phenomenom"
Winter 91 - "Apparitions of the Virgin Mary:  A Protestant Look at a Catholic
	Phenomenom ( Part 2 )"

The first article is about the development of Marianology.  It also presents
the reasons protestants by and large disagree with most ( but not all )
Marionology.

The second and third articles look at Apparitions, spring 91 dealing with
Madjugore.

Even if you disagree with their conclusions, I think that they are
informative on the more thoughtful protestant perspectives on these
issues.  Definitely a more balanced approach than what is sometimes
seen here.  :-)

I would suggest reading some issues before making a judgment on the
Journal. ( I'm not saying that you allready have made a judgement! ) Of
course there are going to be articles that you disagree with.  I
disagree with some of their articles too, and I am much closer to
their evangelical leanings.  I must say, though, that disagreeing
with only 3 articles in two years ( = 8 issues ) is a pretty good
record for a Journal like this.  I don't think many of the news
magazines would do that well.  :-)

Mark
From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
Subject: Cell Group Churches -- strategy vs. purpose
Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 16:34:50 GMT

Since the time of my first posts, I have learned a *lot* more about the
cell group church idea.  The strategy of the cell group structure is easy
to grasp, and so that's why I focused on it.  But lately, my heart has been
burning with a new passion as I have started to understand not just the
_how_ of cell group churches, but the _why_.

Strategies are not an end in themselves -- they are formed to fulfill a
purpose.  The purpose behind the cell group church strategy is nothing less
than the unchangeable purpose of God: for his Son, Jesus Christ, to be
preeminent in everything, and to have a vast family from all the peoples of
the earth who will share his life, nurture, spirit, vision, purpose, and
dedication, living in intimacy with him.

Of the churches that hold this as their purpose, most are sadly
ineffective.  Even "growing" churches are growing by migration and not
conversion.  My church is sick and tired of being a "good church" that
grows just by attracting Christians from other fellowships.  The harvest
*is* plentiful, and the church just seems to be waiting for the lost to
show up on Sunday mornings... and it isn't happening, because the
unchurched consider the church to be irrelevant -- and they're right.  The
workers are waiting in the barn for the harvest to walk in, when we're
supposed to be _out there_ gathering, involved in the lives of these
people, loving them with the love of Jesus, serving them with the servant
heart of Jesus, and ministering the power of the kingdom of God into their
lives.

The cell group church strategy has been demonstrated to be effective in
transmitting not mere information, but life-changing values.  I know that
my own life has been changed forever in the last three months as the values
of God have been impressed on my life through the training I have received
as a small group leader.  The small group leaders are now being
commissioned to "pass it on" to the newly forming small groups.  But even
if this whole thing flops, I know that I will never be the same, and I am
determined to expend the rest of my life pursuing the passion of Jesus.

Some questions for people to ponder:

  - Does your church hold this purpose?

  - Is it *the* purpose of your church, or just one of several "good"
    things?

  - Does your church have a strategy to meet this purpose?

  - How effective is your strategy?

  - Can this purpose be observed in the lives of your church's members by
    seeing how they spend their time, energy, and money throughout the
    week?

-- 
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."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 9 Oct 1992 14:28:40 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      evolution

*** Resending note of 10/09/92 14:19


Today I made my first reply to genuine list topics in nearly three months and
I've already gone and got myself in trouble!  I guess things are back to
normal (smile).  Since I messed up on the list, here's my apology to Marci on
the list:

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I hate e-mail!!!  Sometimes because we can't see each other face
to face or hear how words are spoken the wrong meaning comes across.  Please
forgive me if it sounded like I was "dogging" you for asking a question or
if I thought your question sounded dumb.  That was not my intention at all!!!
I am so sorry, and I am very red-faced to think that I was so unclear.  It
is NEVER my intention to belittle anyone for asking an honest question.  I
honestly believe that the only stupid question is the one that's never asked.
I have to believe that, otherwise I'd have to admit that I've asked a lot of
stupid questions (smile).

You are also right to say that it is okay for subjects to be repeated on the
list, turnover being what it is.  If you were to begin a discussion on the
topic of evolution or creationism by asking more honest questions or by
expressing your own point of view, I have no doubt that there would be no
lack of replies.  By mentioning the logs I meant to suggest that there are
several arguments for and against evolution that have been made in the past.
It may save time in any future discussions to review them.  It also helps
to review any rebuttals that may have been made to a certain point of view
in the past before making it again.  This furthers the discussion rather
than merely repeating it.

It is a rather emotional topic, and I only meant to point out that it has
become quite heated in the past.  I say this not to discourage future
discussion on the topic, but to remind us of our past mistakes so that we
don't repeat them (and I include myself, here (smile) ).  I have my own
opinions regarding evolution, and they get rather strong at times.  I did
not mean to suggest that such opinions should not be discussed or that the
topic is totally unimportant to me because it is important.

Again, please accept my sincerest apologies, and don't leave the list!!

Brenda
From: HENZLEEF@SNYBUFVA.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Romania/Moldova trip
Date: 13 Oct 92 14:47:27 GMT
Organization: from SUNY College at Buffalo, NY 14222
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

God bless you Tom.  Elaine
From: DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU ((MARK DRAKE))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: RE: Two natures vs. one new nature.
Date: 13 Oct 92 19:52:33 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"

From:	SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU" 13-OCT-1992 09:46:47.17
To:	Multiple recipients of list CHRISTIA <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
CC:
Subj:	Two natures vs. one new nature.

Date:         Tue, 13 Oct 1992 12:37:00 EST
Reply-To:     Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Two natures vs. one new nature.
X-To:         christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>
To:           Multiple recipients of list CHRISTIA <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>

Jesse, Hey guy, didn't mean to confuse you.  I spend part of my long
weekend thinking on this topic of how Christians can sin and whether they
have two or one nature.

Ezekiel 36 clearly tells of the new heart that is given to the Christian
under the New Covenant.  As you observed, Romans 6 shows that we are no
longer in bondage to sin, and chapter 8 shows tha t we are free of
condenmation in Christ.  I believe that chapter seven shows we are of a
dual nature in the sense that there are two different sets of drives.  We
are one nature in absolute terms, crucified with Christ as Paul says in Gal
2:20.  John says in 1 john 3 6-9 that the nam of God cannot sin, so I take
it that the Christian, the part of me that is a Christian, my heartt,
cannot sin.  The old body, though, still sins.  We are in the unenviable
position of having a new heart in an old body and will be so until the
parousia when we get the immortal bodies that Paul speaks of in 1 Cor 15.



Thanks Dan (Graham) for your post:

> So, No, I don't think we really have two natures, but we most certainly do
> have two sets of drives, one from God and one from Adam's sin.  We still
> must contend with the old drives, but are not held responsible for what
> those drives do, responsible in terms of salvation, not necessairly in
>terms of physical results here on earth.

> There, is that more confusing than ever?  I hope not, but you never know...

> Dan Graham

Here's the semantic thing I mentioned earlier (though I can't remember if
it was this topic or not).

To me, saying that we have two sets of drives is saying that we have
two natures.  Obviously you don't see it that way.  It seems that we believe
essentially the same thing, but use different words to explain it.


Mark
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:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 18:04:16 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: WOW! ??
              Oct 7, 92 1:43 pm

>
>I must have missed something...I've received two WOWs and I
>don't know what JoEllen and Memo are WOWing about.  I'm
>getting the impression someone (Ian?) is expecting a child.
>
>Please fill me in...and thanks!
>
>Carol Nemec
>ya67@ferris
>
Actually I am not expecting a child, my wife is!!!! (its a little hard
if you know what I mean for ME to be expecting one)..

You must have missed a message somewhere along the line Carol!



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
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:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 09:01:30 EST
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      Hate mail?

I do not feel hate from the postings of Christia.  There are
times whem members have become defensive on controversial
issues and times members have disagreed.  There have been
times when I've said things that maybe should have been
left unsaid.

This has to be satan working on us, and we need to pray
about the situation.  Christ is love, and they'll know we
are Christians by our love.  This does not mean we cannot
disagree, but we should abstain from personnal attacks and
insults.  Often when we say something, we do not mean to
attack or show hate, but our words are interpreted differently.
Especially over the airwaves.

I will pray that our love through Christ will shine through
our words.  Bless you, Madge and Steve, for your efforts.
My prayers are with you!

Carol Nemec
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 08:45:49 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject: Re: WOW! ??

Well, Yes Ian, Your wife is the one who is pregnat, but aren't you counting
down the days ?!

And you're right, you live on the south hemisphere. I just missed that, this
wonderful machine tricks me sometimes and I so close to all of you...Thank
God for Electronics (wher they're used nice like here) and most because
we are close, as one body actually, in His Son.

Shalom,
Memo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 14 Oct 1992 08:17:17 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Hate mail?

Center for Urban and Economic Research
Phone: 502-588-6626

It comes as no surprise to me that someone could scan the logs of Christia
and pull out the few posts that tackle the controversial subjects and label
them hate mail while somehow missing all of the posts that express praise to
our Lord and support of prayer requests which must be labeled "love mail".
I guess those posts don't count to someone who is looking to find something
to complain about before they even start their search.

There are subjects about which many Christians have unpopular opinions.
However, because Christians disapprove of a certain activity or lifestyle
because of their religious beliefs does not make them guilty of "hate mail".
I don't think there is a single one of us on the list who could say we
hate a person because of what they do.

Hate mail usually has a key characteristic that is absent in posts to
Christia.  Hate mail is sent maliciously in order to intimidate or
frighten its victim.  And hate mail may often be a precursor of real
violence.  No one on Christian (to my knowledge) has malicious intent or
any plans to burn any houses or attempt any violence against anyone because
of what they believe or how they behave.  In this forum we merely express
opinions.  These opinions may be unpopular, but we do have every right to
them, as surely as the one who is accusing us of hate mail has the right
to express such an opinion.

It should speak to us as Christians, though, that what we say can often be
taken out of context or misrepresented.  That doesn't mean we should keep
controversial opinions to ourselves, only that we should be careful in our
wording so that we don't cause some unbeliever to refuse to hear Christ's
message.  We can express unpopular opinions in love and civility (and for
the most part we try to).  We can reject an action without rejecting those
who practice it.

As for political correctness, if this is some new ideal of behavior and
attitudes, I'll set my standards on something else.  Political correctness
is little more than repression of individuality and identity in favor of
conformity to popular (and faddish) values.

Madge and Steven, keep us posted on this situation.  You have my support.

Brenda
From: kkarge@SILVER.SDSMT.EDU ((Karolyn S. Karge))
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: If you don't like it,
              call it sin (Was Randall Terry's brochure)
Date: 16 Oct 92 18:51:37 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.

I'm glad somebody else is undecided, upon who to vote for in the
presidental election this year.  Brenda, I like your choice.

>  Perhaps I'll write in Mickey Mouse."  At least he has a good television
>  appearance,

I wonder what would really happen if everybody did that, and "Mickey Mouse"
did win the presidential race?  Maybe it would become a law that everybody
would have to start wearing mickey mouse ear hats!! :)  :)   :)   :)   :)

In His Love,
Karolyn

This is loaded with sarcasem!!  You should be smiling.  :)
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Yee`shi_Qarnz)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: That P' word again
Date: 14 Oct 92 17:39:48 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              14 Oct 1992 14:55:32 GMT from <billc@HOUSING.MSSTATE.EDU>

Dear Bill ;

OK, VERY funny ... hardy, har, har!  :-)


St. Jesse of Keesler
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: iain@ee.ryerson.ca (Iain Campbell)
Subject: Re:      statute law as moral standard
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 15:35:23 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92100816540309@ASUACAD.BITNET> JEK@NIHCU.BITNET writes:
>A listmember asked Angela Zimmerman:
>
> > If you don't follow the Bible [on ethics], just what do you
>follow?
>
>Angela anwers:
>
> > If you want my code on how to live, my rules,
> > all you have to do is look at the law books.
>
>Does this mean, Angela, that you would never consider that a
>particular law was unjust, and that it was your duty to break it? Do
>you hold that there is no moral standard higher than the law of the
>land, and that therefore if the laws forbid some action (say
>abortion, or picketing abortion clinics, or holding slaves, or
>assisting slaves to escape), the mere fact of that the law says so
>makes it right? Or do you perhaps think that there is a standard of
>justice other than the law-books, but that the laws of this land do
>a pretty good job of conforming to that standard? Are all nations so
>blessed, or just some, and if so, which ones? Are there any
>governments (Hitler's or Stalin's) which it would be a duty to
>resist?
>
> Yours,
> James Kiefer

I went through a careful consideration of this issue a while back when
I was encouraged to be involved in a local OR (Operation Rescue).  
After prayer and counsel, my decision was that in general, the Christian
should obey the civil law, but that there were EXCEPTIONAL cases in
which it may be necessary to exercise civil disobedience. The key is
that the Christian had better be pretty darn sure that they arwe 
being called of God to disobey, because otherwise He may not protect
you from any consequences.

If you are interested, (and patient) I can send you a longer, more
detailed scriptural analysis of the question.

Iain

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 8 Oct 1992 14:12:44 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Absolute Certainty about Authority
              8 Oct 1992 16:58:30 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Darren:

Maybe I misunderstood your response to Jesse, but are you saying that we
must be able to exhaustively comprehend and understand absolute truth in
order for absolute truth or authority to exist?

My own starting point is that the Bible is the Word of God. From the Bible
I learn of God as He revealed Himself in His Word. I do not have to know
God exhaustively to know God. Truth is eternal, whether I know Truth or not.
My knowledge or lack of knowledge of Truth doesn't change the Truth.

Tom Brewer