HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 16:16:24 EDT
From:         Julie Nott <STR008@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Divorce and remarriage

I may have made my point a little muddy.  I do believe that Christ does
not want us to stay in a marriage that has infidelity in it.  I don't know
the bible *that* well but doesn't it say that infidelity is a valid
reason for a divorce?

I believe that you were definitely right in divorcing your husband, and
no I don't think you need to divorce your spouse now and remarry your
ex...

I'm not sure I know what is right to do in any situation -- I am a
child product of a mother who is in her 5th marriage (I was a product
of the first) and it is not fun.  I'm not at all saying you are doing
your children an injustice by getting a divorce, you did them the best
thing you could have ever done.

I didn't mean to condemn, maybe I misunderstood.  That is probably
the case.

In Christ,
Jules
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 15:55:00 CET
From:         Peter Tuff <TUK@IAEA1.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Spiritual leadership in the home

Brenda said:

> If you have a marriage that works based on placing the woman in a lesser
> position, with the man always having the final word, fine.  But not all
> marriages function that way, nor do I believe they have to.  My husband
> and I have a mutually satisfying, fulfilling and God-centered marriage
> based on mutual respect and equality.  It works.  In fact, it wouldn't work
> any other way.  God brought us together, God keeps us together, and God has
> given us the way of relating to each other that we have found.  It works
> beautifully.
>
> Brenda Curry-White


Brenda:

Why do you say that a woman is in a 'lesser' postion if a man always
send'the last word?'  If you mean that a woman is demeaned when her
man disregards her thoughts, feelings and convictions on a matter -
then I agree with you.

I believe that the Biblical concept of headship is that a husband has
not only the responsibility of making the final decision in cases of
disagreement, but also to weigh carefully and prayerfully his wife's
counsel when making such decisions.  (Men, let's not forget our mandate
to submit ourselves to Christ - easier said than done during those times
when our judgement is called into question... eh?)  I suspect I'm not
the only husband who has 'seen the light' and changed his mind and
decision accordingly.  The woman has the freedom of leaving the
responsibility to her husband, trusting that God will guide and give
correction where/when it's needed.

It's just my two cents and I'm open to correction.

Peter Tuff
IAEA, Vienna
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:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 13:13:56 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Multiple Personalities vs Demon Possession
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
              at Jul 30, 92 2:28 pm

>
>Could someone tell me the difference between Multiple Pesonalities and
>Demon Possession?
>
>************************************************************************
>*  Yvette Traylor     "We are His people and the sheep of his pasture."*
>*  Dallas County Community College District             Psalm 100:3    *
>*  Computer Programmer/Analyst                                         *
>************************************************************************
>

Demon possession is the highest form of demonic influence that can be
asstered on a person..
This is when a demon (a fallen angel, a spirit creature) completely controls
the life of a human, to the absolute subjegation of the persons soul, mind
and body..

This I stress is the extreme case and not all that common..

The word possession is not used in the bible, and one is known to be
demonised... or afflicted by demons..

I can be harrased by demons without being possessed by them, they can accuse
me and bother me, however because the Holy Spirit is living within my Spirit,
a demon cannot completely posses me. A demon cannot abide in the same place
as the Holy Spirit.

Harrasment by demons is an outside influence, ie the picture of a demon
sitting on your shoulder whispering things into your ear (an incorrect but
usefull analogy) compared with the possession when the demon is inside
and controlling you directly..

---

Multiple personalities is a physical disorder of the Human Soul, a God given
relief mechanism which comes into play when the Mind would go insane if not
forced to split..

With Child Abuse, the horrors are so bad that the personality splits in order
to deal with it.. This is all very real and as Dan has said, can be shown
medically.. Again, its a God given defense mechanism against insanity



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Organization: University of Central Queensland
X-Vms-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 15:20:00 +1000
From:         Ken Diefenbach <DIEFENBAK@TOPAZ.UCQ.EDU.AU>
Subject:      Update: Prayer Request (Sort of)
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

Hmm. When your world gets turned upside down (even if only briefly) God has a
way of getting the axis restored. Kyle's speech therapist is just about
tapdancing on the table with his progress today. He tends to react badly to
strict 1-on-1 situations, and so the therapist (oops pathologist) has been
having Kyle and another child do their sessions together, and the results are
extremely encouraging. I should add that the speech pathologist is also a
committed Christian parent....

It's taken a long time so far, and a lot of prayer. God is good. There is still
a long way to go, but I've learned a lot myself. Cynical, arrogant sod that I
used to be. (Slight indulgence in mental horsewhipping).

I've "mellowed" a lot in the way I assess (notice the way I avoided the word
"judge" which is what I definitely used to do) people since Kyle's problems
appeared 18 months ago. I think I've had a lot of rough spots that resisted
all my wife's efforts sandblasted off me by the whole business.

God doesn't allow us to be subjected to things beyond our capacity. Prayer and
encouragement are a great combination to stand against all things that we face.
(Steps off soapbox).

However, please continue to pray for this little guy. As I explained in private
email to MAKS (thanks brother) one of the hardest things has been that he bears
no outward physical sign of his problems.

Regards from a father who is continually grateful to his Father
Ken D.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:49:58 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      "Flesh" in the New Testament

Where most translations read, "The flesh is weak," (Matthew 26:41)
the International Children's Bible (frequently quoted by Leo W) has,
"Your body is weak." I often find the ICB translation refreshing,
but here I wish it were worded otherwise.

A great rival of early Christianity was a movement called
generically Gnosticism, which held that spirit (mind, intellect) is
good and that matter (including the human body) is bad. They
considered sex (even in marriage) to be a bad thing, and taught that
all sins result from the fact that we have bodies.  Christianity has
repudiated Gnosticism, but its ideas tend to creep in when we are
not looking.

As far as I can remember, the Bible never uses the word SOMA
("body") in an unfavorable context. It does frequently so use the
word SARX ("flesh"). Is SARX simply a synonym for SOMA? I think not,
for when St Paul lists the "works of the flesh" he includes envy and
heresy, both of them pretty much sins of the intellect. I take it
that SARX is used in a New Testament context to mean, not our
bodies, but our unconverted nature, human nature (body and mind
alike) since the Fall of Adam and apart from the transforming grace
of the Holy Spirit.  I think it important for translators, and
Christians generally, to keep the distinction in mind.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 08:56:53 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@WAYNEST1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual leadership in the home
              22 Jul 1992 04:54:12 GMT from <nlt@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Nancy,

As the husband in a "heirarchical marriage," I can tell you that my primary
spiritual leadership tends to take the form of making sure that my wife and
children are maintaining and furthering their relationship with God.  In
the case of my wife, I ask her from time to time how her prayer life is
going, how she is experiencing her relationship with God, etc.  If things
are not going well for her, I do what I can to help her out.  Now, I
suppose that such activity doesn't necessarily require that I be the
"leader.'  I find that my leadership in our mariage tends to be on a
much more practical level than anything else.  Basically, the final
decision about what we do as a family is in my hands.  In twelve years
of marriage, we have had maybe two or three occasions where we were
unable to come to an agreement and we did things my way because I was
the husband.  Only one of these things was over a "spiritual" issue,
although in my view of the Christian life, there is really nothing that
is not in some way spiritual, so one could say that they were all
"spiritual" issues.

Hope this helps.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn

BTW, this is not to say that Katie and I have not had some pretty heavy
arguments prior to coming to an agreement, but we have usually managed
to come to some sort of agreement on major decisions, even if we fought
about them along the way.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 21:19:49 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Peretti's Stuff (Prophet Spoiler)
              23 Jul 1992 18:21:59 GMT from <mueller@OWLNET.RICE.EDU>

Ernest:

There is no such Peretti book as "Into the Darkness."  I believe you
are referring to "This Present Darkness," which is the first of the
two.  The two logically follow each other, though you need not read
one to understand the other (except, as I recall, there is a small
moment in Piercing the Darkness that is incomprehensible if you
haven't read the first; but it isn't too important, so it's only
a minor irritation--rather like the way (scuse me here, folks,
my past is showing) Stephen King drops bits of his previous novels
into each of his new ones.  And I can't recall exactly what it was;
I just remember puzzling over it at the time.)

Clearly, we disagree on Prophet.  And I hardly think it is necessary
to insult your readers by implying that you *must* have read more
than they.  Bit presumptious on a list chock-full of librarians and
graduate students, don't you think?
                                   Love INC,
                                            --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:40:00 EDT
From:         CHRIS LEMAY <9011500@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Systematic Theology ... Carnes

O.K.,
        i think i understand your point about experience being subjective,
but subjectivity does not mean unreality.  .....

          Have you read "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" by
Robert Persig?  One of the many points that he makes in this book is that
our Western society has totally dissociated objectivity from subjectivity,
as good followers of the winning faction of Greek philosophers ... (Plato
et. al.).  I think that the end of your message brings this better to
light.  You need both the Objective propositions and the subjective
experiences for either to be valid ... in fact, I would rephrase your
statement:

> Call "experience" CONTENT for a moment.  Also, call "truth" FORM
> for a moment.  Both are needed. However, [...]

as:

Call "Subjective experience" (so as not to exclude the very real fact
of "Objective experience") CONTENT for a moment.  Also call "Objective
Truth" (so as not to exclude the fact that experience can be truth ...)
FORM for a moment.  Both are needed.  However, [...]


        I guess I'm being overly long winded ... my point is simply that
how do either you or I know that the word of God is truth?  In my faith,
I know that the Bible is truth from both subjective and objective experience,
aside from this, I can't really see what standard I can have.  At the
same time, I check out my experience and fill it in with the words of
the Bible.  Sound circular?  No it isn't, it is a dynamic interaction
that leads to an answer (kind of like a mathematical iteration I guess
...)

        How do YOU know that the word of God is truth?

...
....

.....


        I guess that for some people the Word is a very valid starting
point and I very much respect that.  However, other reasons for belief
can be valid too, can't they?



        Anyways,
                  enough said,    &   time to go to bed,


                                God Bless,

                Chris Lemay.


:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 09:58:55 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@WAYNEST1.BITNET>
Subject:      Logic

Several months ago, Darren (Dr. Nancy's Sweetie) recommended a book entitled
_Logic and Contemporary Rhetoric_, by Howard Kahane.  A couple of days ago,
I finally got around to picking up a copy from our library.  I would like
to strongly second Darren's recommendation, as this book will go a long
way toward helping its readers to clarify their thinking.  The book takes
the basics of logic and explains them in terms of our everyday experience,
using examples from politics, advertising, the news media, and other sources.
It is short and very easy and even enjoyable (I plan on taking a copy with
me on my vacation next week) to read.

In the spirit of Kahane's book, I would like to make a comment on the use
of scripure by Clinton (or any other politician).  In our society, it is very
common for people to use scripture quotes intheir conversation.  Often they
are not even aware of the fact that they are quoting scripture.  As an
example, my father (I grew up in a Jewish home, remember) often would
comment on government or organizational incompetence by saying, "the
left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing," which is a quote
(albeit way out of context) from the NT, with which he was not familiar.
I have no problem with such "use" of scripture; all it does is show the
degree to which the Bible has permeated our society.

On the other hand, when someone quotes scripture as an authority, I feel
that it is extremely important that it be quoted in context.  To quote
it out of context, and to add words that markedly change the original
meaning of the passage is to do what movie advertisements do when they
lift a phrase or two from a review that otherwise panned the movie in
an attempt to make the reviewer sound like they liked the movie.  In the
case of Clinton's appeal to scripture to back up a statement saying that
we can accomplish marvelous things if we work together, he is not only
using the scripture verse out of context, he is not only adding words
that change its meaning, but he is making a statement which is opposed to
the broad teaching of the Bible on this subject.  One of the themes
repeated again and again in the Bible is the futility of human effort
apart from God.  That's what Ecclesiastes is all about.  Clinton's
use of scripture in this context is an improper appeal to authority,
and as such is invalid.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 08:01:00 EST
From:         "If I could rewrite the alphabet,
              I would put you and I together." <01CLALLEN@BSUVAX1.BITNET>
Subject:      Farewell

Fellow Christians, it is time to bid a farewell to you all.  I want to thank
you so much for your prayers and concerns.  My mboyfriend and I got back
together, and we are trying very hard to get a job in the same city or at
least fairly close to each other.  I feel very good about this relationship.
We are both in the process of interviewing.  I should be getting an offer
today from Sterling Heights, Michigan.  It was a pleasure to be on this
list.  Thank you all for your encouragement you have given me.  Special
thanks to Kerry and Carol.  Carol, maybe we will be in Big Rapids some time
to meet you *smile*  Kerry, I don't know if I'll make it to Lafayette.

God bless you all and may this group grow in love!

Crista
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 14:47:32 EDT
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      Multiple Personalities

Whether I think it is possible doesn't matter, IMO.  If this
person thinks they have several personalities, and it is a problem
for them, I would help them find a Christian counselor.

Carol
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:58:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Systematic Theology hugs experience.
X-To:         christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

Everybody does systematic theology in one form or another.  You cannot
think without some left brain input, at least a little.  Left brain =
system.  If I were to ask you to tell me what you believe as a Christian
about the things in the Bible, you would systematize the information in one
manner or another in order to get it out of your mouth.

Systematic Theology has gained a bad reputation among many because they
think it sterile and devoid of experience and love.  This is not true.
Sure, there are those like Jesse and me who could debate the most
technical point of theology for hours, but this doesn't invalidate the
system at all.

The danger comes in where we take the system for the truth, it is not the
truth, it is simply a human way to express truth.  Jesus said that He was
the truth, period.  All truth, all experience, all systems, all theology
must center on Jesus, or they are garbage.  The thing about Systematic
Theology is that it is not pure logic at all.  Remember Jesus telling
Nicodemas that he couldn't even perceive the Kingdom of Heaven without
being born again.  You can have neither an experience, or a systematic
theology, without being born again.  If you approach either of them as an
unbeliever, they will make no sense.  The Bible is not logical to the stony
heart.  Human systems of logic, while very valuable, are useless in
validating the Word, or the word.

In 1 Cor 1, Paul condemns both the Jews and the Greeks.  One sought for a
sign, the other for wisdom.  No system can fully explain the truth of the
born again heart.  No experience can be related to others without some kind
of system.  They go hand and hand.

Dan Graham
Dan Graham
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:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:43:33 EDT
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Scripturette 7/30
X-To:         Christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

Our Past Walk:

"Yes, in the past you lived the way the world lives.  You followed the ruler of
the evil powers that are above the earth.  That same spirit is now working in
those who refuse to obey God" (Ephesians 2:2).

"In the Lord's name, I tell you this.  I warn you: Do not continue living like
those who do not believe.  Their thoughts are worth nothing.  They do not
understand.  They know nothing, because they refuse to listen.  So they cannot
have the life that God gives" (Ephesians 4:17,18).

"Many people live like enemies of the cross of Christ.  I have often told you
about them, and it makes me cry to tell you about them now.  The way they live
is leading them to destruction.  Instead of serving God, they do whatever their
bodies want.  They do shameful things, and they are proud of it.  They think
only about earthly things" (Philippians 3:18,19).

"So put all evil things out of your life: sexual sinning, doing evil, letting
evil thoughts control you, wanting things that are evil, and always selfishly
wanting more and more.  This really means living to serve a false god.  These
things make God angry.  In your evil life in the past, you also did these
things" (Colossians 3:5-7).

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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:25:22 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Divorce and Remarriage
              30 Jul 1992 02:35:20 GMT from <creps@SILVER.UCS.INDIANA.EDU>

This discussion on divorce and remarriage reminded me:

Does anyone know if Ted Kennedy got his first marriage annulled or not?
I had heard that he was trying but it didn't look good.  I know he
is now re-married; I'm just wondering how that turned out.

Also, if he married without getting the first marriage annulled, what
is his status in the Catholic church?

I'm not picking at Kennedy; I'm just curious.  Thanks.

                                                      Love INC,
                                                            ---Kerry
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: theology
Date: 22 Jul 92 08:57:22 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

"The danger of systematizing divine facts is that a man can understand
without the help of the Holy Spirit.  It is only the immature Christian
who demands always to have intellectually satisfying conclusions."

                                                 Watchman Nee

"Theology is words about the word about the Word."

                                                 Richard Wurmbrand

"Theology spelled backwards is 'ygoloeht.'"
                                                 Alfred E. Newman
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: johnson@elec.uq.oz.au (Craig Johnson)
Subject: Re: HELP FOR THE NAIVE AND IGNORANT| Steve, Marty and Tim
Organization: Prentice Centre, University of Queensland
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 02:35:27 GMT

To Steve Creps, Marty Helgesen, Tim King:

	Thanks for your replies guys!  I think in my haste in
making the request I've shown my naivity and ignorance even more!

	I use 'nn' to view the newsgroup, and I'm going to look 
at the man entry to find out more.

	Thanks again for the help and the time to give it!

					In Christ,
					Craig Johnson.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU