HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: iain@ee.ryerson.ca (Iain Campbell)
Subject: Re: Academic Freedom for Christian Faculty
Organization: Ryerson Polytechnical Institute, Toronto
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1992 14:17:26 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92092406144579@ASUACAD.BITNET> JORDAN@LATECH.BITNET (William Jordan) writes:
>There has been some discussion recently about what sort of things a
>professor can say in class.  There have been statements pro and con

..stuff deleted

>My point is that my Christian faith helps me decide what sort of projects I
>am willing to work on, and what sort of projects I am not willing to work on.
>I think a few statements of why I would make these sorts of decisions is a
>relevant issue in an engineering classroom.

Absolutely.  It is a fallacy to argue that technical pursuits can be 
somehow divorced from moral/ethical/religious issues.  Any action
has a motivation and consequences which must be examined.  

.. more stuff deleted

>a professor's world view tremendously affects his choices as to what is
>legitimate biological research.  I see nothing wrong with a professor telling
>his class why he thinks some type of research is ethical and other types are
>not ethical.

Preach it !!!

>I am not saying a professor has the right to just talk about God when his
>class is supposed to be about another subject.  My point is that there are
>many issues in the sciences and in engineering where a professor's Christian
>faith (or any other faith) is a relevant issue for the class.  I do not talk
>much about God in my classes.  For example, there is no uniquely Christian
>perspective concerning fracture mechanics.  However, there may be one or
>two times in a quarter, when a Christian perspective on the issue being
>discussed is relevant.  When this happens, a Christian professor has an
>intellectual obligation (and a right) to discuss it.

He has an intellectual as well as a spiritual obligation, but the way 
things are going, I don't know how much longer he (she, if you see my
point) will retain a right to discuss it.

Iain (also an engineer, BTW)

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 08:44:10 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: CHOOSING Christ as dead men

On Thu, 1 Oct 1992 07:41:53 EDT Bernice Tennant said:

>Jesse,
>
>God judges us by our hearts.

"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked:
 who can know it?" (Jer 17:9)

Before the spiritually dead physically living sinner can have a heart
toward God, God must change that heart of stone.

Tom Brewer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 09:38:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      The Jerusalem conference.

Tim K., Sorry, but what you say about the council at Jerusalem in Acts 15
doesn't wash.  James says that he wants not to burden the gentile
believers, then proceeds to do just that with silly Jewish regulations
about blood and strangled animals and meat offered to idols.   He further
compounds the problem by claiming that the Holy Spirit agreed with this,
which is impossible.

Sure, the Jerusalem church went along with it, they were under James'
thumb, and the best evidence shows that James was the head of a faction in
the early church  that was very nationalistic in a Jewish sense and was
very much opposed to Paul's work.

Paul went along with the letter to the Antioch church, I don't really know
why, but I think it was an attempt to keep peace within the developing
factionalism.  As I said, which yo glossed over, Paul later disclaimed all
of the aspects of the letter save for the injunction regarding sexual
purity.

Notice in Galatians where Paul recalls admonishing Peter when he separated
himself from the gentile believers after some came from James to Antioch.
This surely indicates that the Jerusalem church contained people who
thought themselves better because of their Jewish heritage.  Paul, in
Romans, makes it crystal clear that there is no difference between Jew and
gentile.  For people to come from James who obviously hold that there is a
difference says volumes about James.

Three of the four things which James admonished the Antioch church to do
have nothing whatever to do with the gospel.  They were a barely veiled
attempt to impose Jewish law on the gentiles.  If there is another
explanation, I really would like to hear it, I can't see any.

Dan Graham
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: timk@world.std.com (Tim King)
Subject: Re: Satan...Who is this guy ? My answer
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Sat, 3 Oct 1992 00:11:05 GMT

Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM> writes:

> Satan as a fallen Angel is hinted at several times in canon scripture,
> Isaiah fifty something,

Isaiah 14:12 and following.  Here, God is comparing the king of Babylon to
Lucifer.


> Ezekiel something or other,

Ezekiel 28:12ff:  Here, the king of Tyrus.  Note that the description does
not match an earthly king.  It is certainly a metaphor.


See also 2 Peter 2:3; Rev 12:7ff.

-TimK
-- 
Tim King              <>  |  After we have eliminated all other answers,
24 Myrtle Street       |  |  the one that remains, however improbable it
Dedham, MA 02026     < |  |  may be, must be correct.
timk@world.std.com    \|  |                    -Leonard Nimoy as Mr. Spock
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Subject: Re: Right Standing with God?
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:51:40 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92093005161657@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:
>Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:03:03 CDT
>From:         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
>Subject:      Right Standing with God?
>Dear All on the "Net" ;
>
>I have a question for you guys :
>
>"What puts you in right standing with God ... OR WHAT does God demand of
>us so that we are not under Divine condemnation?
>
>You have F O U R choices :
>
>A) Perfect obedience to God's moral commands/precepts.
>
>B) Faith in Christ alone.
>
>C) The indwelling of the Holy Spirit
>
>D) Both Answers B and C.
>
>
>So which is it folks??
>We shall hear from you guys today and then I want to address the
>question myself.
>Believe it or not this is a SERIOUS query ... no humourous blurb.
>
>
>
>In Christ Jesus ;
>
>Jesse Irwin Carnes

--
Bill Chapman <BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>   (601) 325-2042
Computing Consultant <wcc1@Msstate.bitnet> P.O. Box 1262
Dept. of Housing & Residence Life          Mississippi State, MS  39762
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham)
Subject: Re: males vs females and God
Organization: Computer Science Department, Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Mon, 5 Oct 1992 14:01:23 GMT

Noel Estabrook writes:

> First of all, God can not be without sex.  Jesus called Him Father,
> (literally Abba, or "daddy"  He is not sexless)

Do you believe that God has a body?  (Obviously a body was involved in
the Incarnation, but do you believe that God the Father, apart from the
Incarnation, has a body?)

You are implying that God is male; but if God does not have a body, what
does it mean for God to be male?

I would not, for instance, say that God has brown hair, because having hair
requires having a body.  Similarly, having gender seems to require having a
body.  Can you explain what you mean by "sex" when speaking of God, given
that God does not have a Y chromosome, male organs, a beard, and so on?



                                              Nancy Tinkham
                                              nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:41:33 CDT
From:         TOM BREWER <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Confused Catholicism
              30 Sep 1992 16:44:43 GMT from <rolfe@DSUVAX.DSU.EDU>

On Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:44:43 GMT Tim Rolfe said:

>In <CHRISTIA%92093007233689@ASUACAD.BITNET> Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
>writes:
>
>>                 And what about the Pope, bishops and priests who alone can
>>forgive sins?
>
>Ehhh?  Please don't caricature Catholicism!  God forgives sin.  Period.

EHHH? Please don't confuse me anymore. You say this is straight out of the
Baltimore Catechism. Jesse tried to use that weeks ago and we were told it's
not that authoritative. Now you use it. Last week I cited the Catechism by
Saint John Nuemann and was told to basically grow up and use something for
adults. When I use something for adults, like Dr. Ott's book, I get referred
to more modern books to be used instead. When I use the more modern book like
Christ Among Us, I'm told I have a Protestant interpretation of the book. If
I refer back to Dr. Ott's book, I can be told it is pre Vatican II. So then I
can try and use Hardin's book, which is post Vatican II and agrees with Dr.
Ott's book, and I'm told a priest must interpret it or teach it.

Give me a break!   CARICATURE OF CATHOLICISM!?!?!?!!?

Saint John Nuemann's catechism is the one that says specifically that only
the Pope et. al. can forgive sins. I'm not making this up. Nuemann is making
it up.

>If the penitent has "perfect contrition" the sins are forgiven, even though
>the penitent is obligated to include them the next time the penitent
>receives the sacrament of Penance.  If the penitent has "imperfect
>contrition" the sins are forgiven by God through the instrumentality of
>God's ordained minister in the sacrament of Penance.

Please define "perfect contrition." You have obviously added your human works
to aid the work of Christ in the forgiveness of sins. This is pure heresy.

>
>This is stuff straight out of the old Baltimore Catechism.
>

Like I said, pure heresy.

>(Terminology note --- confession == Penance == Reconciliation)
>--
>                                              --- Tim Rolfe
>                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
>                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET

See Romans 5:8-10 to get your terminology straight on what is reconciliation.
Jesus Christ is our reconciliation, not confession or "penance"!

Tom Brewer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:03:03 CDT
From:         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Right Standing with God?

Dear All on the "Net" ;

I have a question for you guys :

"What puts you in right standing with God ... OR WHAT does God demand of
us so that we are not under Divine condemnation?

You have F O U R choices :

A) Perfect obedience to God's moral commands/precepts.

B) Faith in Christ alone.

C) The indwelling of the Holy Spirit

D) Both Answers B and C.


So which is it folks??
We shall hear from you guys today and then I want to address the
question myself.
Believe it or not this is a SERIOUS query ... no humourous blurb.



In Christ Jesus ;

Jesse Irwin Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 07:52:05 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: That P' word, again

Dear Stephen Kingston et al ;

On this "P" word thing :  Despite that some allege that Romans 9 speaks of
Nations rather than people, I believe exegetically what begins to appear from
the overall polemic by Paul is that Salvation is by freely given and undeserved
kindness of God ... and sometimes carries an alias known as Grace.
It appeared as if an entire Nation (Israel)was NOT going to make it -- with
God, that is -- and Paul anticipated the objection that some might harbour
that "... mayby God's Word had FAILED to achieve its ends."
But, Paul, anticipating all of this, points out that Salvation is NOT by
Ethnic/Religious lineage, but by a PROMISE according to ALL who are sons
of Abraham by way of FAITH in God's Word.

Now, Paul is speaking to Jews and Gentiles alike, as his audience is mixed
in Rome.  Paul shows that God hardens whom He wills to and He has Grace on
whom He desires to.
Paul further pushes the argument by indicating that Salvation is not
contingent upon a person putting forth sheer will power or physical
exertion, but ONLY upon the Lord who has grace upon whom He wills to.

Now, the other side of this is found elsewhere.  Jesus states that He will
not cast out anyone who will come to Him with a broken and contrite heart.
Such a person is never cast out, but received.

Nevertheless, the real idea of Romans 9 is that we can do NOTHING to GET
God to save us ... it is by sheer Grace.  However, as I said above, God
is gracious to all who are ENABLED to come to Him by the Father.

Does any person need to be saved from the power of sin??  Go to God and
ask for Sovereign mercy from Him who is NEVER OBLIGATED to save, but is
gracious to all who come to Him honestly seeking Jesus Christ as their
sin substitute and propitiation and righteousness.




Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 09:33:53 CDT
Comments:     Resent-From: JRALLS@TRINITY
Comments:     Originally-From: JRALLS@TRINITY
From:         JRALLS@TRINITY.BITNET
Subject:      I'm back

I didn't think I was gone that long, but I forgot where to send the
mail--oops.

JoEllen Ralls                       Jralls@trinity (Bitnet)
Elizabeth Coates Maddux Library     Jralls@trinity.edu (Internet)
Trinity University                  so many books,
San Antonio, Texas                          so little time...

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
Dear listfolk,

I'm really happy to be able to get mail from Christia again.
While off the net I received a promotion within my department
so I am learning many new things but I have more time to be on the
terminal and have a different supervisor who doesn't have a
problem with email like my previous one.

You who have been praying for Robin, your prayers are so appreciated.
Robin is in a rehabilitation center here in San Antonio and has friends
here, plus she has been able to spend weekends with her grandmother.
She has been discouraged at times, especially since so many young
people where she now lives are in wheelchairs, while she gets around
well. She sees every day what she could become if she has another
stroke. Now I pray for God to keep her strong and hopeful, and to
bring her His peace, that she may trust her future to Him.

I've missed you all--I look forward to having alot of mail to read
again.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: Confused Catholicism
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:44:43 GMT

In <CHRISTIA%92093007233689@ASUACAD.BITNET> Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:

>                 And what about the Pope, bishops and priests who alone can
>forgive sins?

Ehhh?  Please don't caricature Catholicism!  God forgives sin.  Period.

If the penitent has "perfect contrition" the sins are forgiven, even though
the penitent is obligated to include them the next time the penitent
receives the sacrament of Penance.  If the penitent has "imperfect
contrition" the sins are forgiven by God through the instrumentality of
God's ordained minister in the sacrament of Penance.

This is stuff straight out of the old Baltimore Catechism.

(Terminology note --- confession == Penance == Reconciliation)
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
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, 1 Oct 1992 16:18:59 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Your Place in Heaven
              Lahetta" at Sep 30, 92 4:23 pm

>
>   Jesus mentioned that he goes and prepares a place for us in Heaven.
>What do you think your place would be like?
>
>Carl----+
>
It probably involves a great deal of carpentry!! :-)



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
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:         Mon, 28 Sep 1992 14:04:15 MDT
From:         Pavel Vachek <TKPV@CSEARN.BITNET>
Subject:      Two-tiered CHRISTIA

I vote for James Kiefer's "Option 4".
Many thanks to him for this idea, and to Madge and Steven
who may have to spend more of their time with CHRISTIA if
Option 4 is accepted.
All the best to all of you,
   Pavel Vachek, Prague, Czechoslovakia
      (back at work again...)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:12:18 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Lordship Salvation
              1 Oct 1992 15:40:06 -0400 from <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>

On Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:40:06 -0400 Eric James Ewanco said:

>Let's see if I can start perhaps a more positive conversation.
>
>I am interested in hearing details about the "Lordship Salvation"
>movement.  I've heard bit and pieces of it, and it seems plain what it
>means from the title, but I suspect that, as often happens, there is
>more to it than meets the eye.  Apparently in some circles, it is
>controversial.  Naturally such an idea is abhorrent to diehard sola fide
>proponents and predestinationists, but I'd like to find out exactly what
>the controversy is about, and I'm curious to know more about it.  Can
>anyone give any details?
>
>Eric

Can there be any other kind of salvation than Lordship salvation?

I'm sure more details will follow, but for quick starters, get a copy of
John MacArthur's "The Gospel According to Jesus" and you will get a pretty
good idea of what it's about.

Super simple version/understanding = 2 camps
     Camp 1 says only need Jesus as Saviour, not Lord
     Camp 2 says need Jesus as Lord and Saviour--no separation
     Camp 1 says Lordship means works
     Camp 2 says Jesus is Lord of all His people

Like I said, this is quick, and I'm sure more qualified details will follow
soon.

But, Jesus is Lord, and there is no such thing as salvation where there is
no Lordship of Jesus Christ.

Tom Brewer
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 19:47:54 EDT
From: Kurt Ludwick <KEL111@psuvm.psu.edu>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Rush, a Christian?
 <1a7d4oINN7p4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>

In article <1a7d4oINN7p4@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu>, bw462@cleveland.Freenet.Edu
(Bucky Whaley) says:

>Oh.  Thanks for the clue.  I didn't realize the stream of abuse, venom,
>and general mean-mindedness RL directs at everyone who isn't Just Like
>Him (TM) was all in fun.

Could you give an example?

------------
Kurt Ludwick
------------
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: jfb@draco.macsch.com (John Baskette)
Subject: Re: Lost tribes of Israel
Organization: MacNeal-Schwendler Corp.
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 92 01:14:15 GMT


I am interested in this subject also and would appreciate any references.
I do not believe these ideas.  

There is a book "Missing Links Discovered in Assyrian Tablets" by
E. Raymond Capt that gives an overview of British-Israelism from the
perspective of a true believer.  He has written other books about
Glastonbury, Stonehenge, the lost chapter of Acts, and the Great
Pyramid.  All these subjects are intertwined.  Your best bet in finding
these books locally is (surprisingly) to check out new-age or occult
bookstores.  Capt is very good at blending good information with 
Anglo-Israelite ideas.

The publisher is Artisan Sales, P.O. Box 1497, Thousand Oaks, Ca. 91360.

Many areas of the country can listen to Gene Scott on satellite TV or on
certain cable networks.  He is an unorthodox cigar-smoking television 
preacher whose main preoccupation seems to be to intimidate his 
followers to send him as much money as possible.  He promotes 
British-Israelism.

There is a church, "Revival Centers International" that believes 
in British-Israelism.

You also might want to check out what Mormons believe in this regard.

There is a recent Christian novel whose title I think is  "Glastonbury,
the Novel of Christian England".  I do not have the book, but when
browsing through it I noticed that it seemed to have a pretty good 
bibliography.

A lot of the books that I see referenced in Capt are dated having
been written in the 20's, 30's and 40's.

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 15:42:28 PDT
From:         ng910@TWINS.PNL.GOV
Subject:      Re: Lordship Salvation

Tom and Eric,

	I am new both to this list and to Christianity, so maybe I have
misunderstood either scripture or the discussion so far, but let me
just make a few points.

	1) the fact that there are "camps" of christians is against the
	   will of the Lord -- it is very clear that we are to be *one*
	   body for Christ.  In several places within the Gospel and
	   the Paul's letters we are commanded to be *united*.

	2) Christ is refered to as "Lord of All", "Lord and Saviour",
	   etc., so many times I really don't have time to count them,
	   but look in any concordance and you get the idea.  In the
   	   time that these things were said and written, "Lord" had
	   a specific and understood meaning - your "Lord" owned you
	   quite literally.  Service to a "Lord" was not being nice to
	   a person of high stature, but commanded service which you
	   had no choice but to follow.  It is not possible to serve
	   two masters is probably the best example of how Jesus ment
	   for us to understand this.  Christ cannot be first in your
	   life if he is not your Lord - Either service to him is
	   an all consumming passion (salvation) or it is not - there
	   is no such thing as Christianity by convenience.  What I
	   mean by this is that you can not claim faith and then live
	   of the world complying to God only when it suits you.

	3) Look to Jesus's word's - he claimed to be a King (Lord) as
	   well as the "Truth, Light, and Way". His name and Title
	   "Jesus the Christ" literally means Redeeming Savior Priest
	   King!!  Trying to change that interpretation to suit their
	   own thoughts is hardly Christ-Like.  He can not be only
	   part of that, ie. Redeeming Saviour Priest - and ignore
	   the King part.

	Personally, I do not understand why the "discussion" started
in the first place (not on the net, but in the theist's camps). It
seems that if we go back to the Bible and examine what Christ taught
in entirety (as oppossed to selecting only the verses that we like)
it is clear exactly how he wanted us to behave.

	Now for a question - who are some of you folk's favorite Christian
rock groups and singers?  I have found a few that I like (Rez, Steve Taylor,
Petra, DC Talk) but I am interested in hearing others.  We do not have a
contemporary Christian station here, and most of the other Christians I
have met are not really very musically driven.  I really want to get away
from listening to secular music for awhile, untill I am a little more
grounded in my faith.

Thanks

David Wagle
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 2 Oct 1992 08:34:59 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Image of Jesus in Louisiana

Dear All on the net ;

Now we have our own "image" of 'jesus' in South Louisiana.
I just heard it on the local Baton Rouge news.
It was seen at an apartment complex.  However, it found to be
caused by a street lamp and immediately vanished when the "Louisiana
Power and Light Co." turned off the light.
I guess one could use a "Utilitytarian" argument for such things.

:-)     :-)     :-)
Jesse Carnes
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia