HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 08:59:12 CST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         JLong <JLONG@UA1VM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Gays in the military

I agree that a sin is a sin.  God hates sin.   But he loves people.  He
wants them to live for him.  God does not want men and women to be lovers
of their ownselves.   Jesus said that we are to love everyone but not the
sin.  So that is not discriminating.  Gays know that being gay offends people
and what does the bible say about offending your brother.  I will provide the
scripture later if you want.  But it says in short that if your right arm
offends the left are then remove it or cut it off.  So if the gay people
insist on being gay I think that they should doit  privately.  Not force
themselves in society.  Making it acceptable behavior because it is not.
God made male first then female as a companion.   I don't think gays can
actually handle the military with all those guys.   Other countries probably
think this country is a big joke because of gays and Clinton supporting it.
My opinion is that God does not like it and niether do I.  It is just wrong

Janie
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Subject: Re: Gays in the military
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:19:17 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92112008035068@ASUACAD.BITNET> JLong <JLONG@UA1VM.BITNET> writes:
>Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:02:59 CST
>From:         JLong <JLONG@UA1VM.BITNET>
>Subject:      Re: Gays in the military
>Bill,
>How can you say that it is natural for gays to be gay?   You are right about
>one thing and that is When God speaks about a matter it is no longer a neutral
>subject.  God speaks against it in the bible.  He word is true and it stand
>when we are no longer.   We can either accept the word of God or we can try
>to justify our wrong doings and that is simply rejecting God.  In God's word
>there is no statement that says it is a natural feeling for a gay person to be
>gay.
>
>Janie

--
Bill Chapman, Box 1262, Mississippi State, MS  39762
<BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>           (601) 325-2042
From: JMJONES@UGA.BITNET (jones, mark)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: commentary
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:42:13 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <JMJONES@UGA>

I would like to speak briefly to Julie's earlier commentary regarding
gays in the military...

Althought it is a popular belief that "sin is sin" and that "white lies"
are the same as homosexuality to God, this position is unscriptural. The
scriptures bear out, in their full context and counsel, that all sin is not
equal. Consider the various offerings designed to atone for various sins in
the Levitical law (eg. guilt offerings, sin offerings, et. al.) and contrast
with the (much) harsher penalties of death for pre-meditated and calculated
evil. In the New Testament we find that the sin of blasphemy against the Holy
Spirit will not be forgiven in this life or the one to come (Mark 3:19).
The Pauline Epistles repeatedly refer to sins "unto death" among which are
perversion, witchcraft, rebellion et.al. It it true that God hates all sin,
and cannot abide with it. But different types of sin affect us-our body, soul
and spirit in different ways. Sexual sin (hetero or other) is a sin against
one's own body and carries its own unique set of consequences. If heterosexual
sin were compared to driving a car at 100 m.p.h. on the expressway, then
homosexual sin could be likened to driving north in the southbound lane. It
represents a rebellion against God's very order. Its consequences are
commensurate with its gravity.
Certainly God loves the homosexual, and we as Christians must remember to
act in love, separating the sin from the sinner; hating the former while
loving the latter.
I am very concerned about Clinton lifting the ban on homosexuality by
executive order. I am not very concerned about the lockerroom or shower
situation. I do care about the moral fiber of this nation and the decay
of our spiritual values which are being filtered down and watered by the
spirit of the age. I tremble in fear when I consider the consequences for
my nation and my homeland. History has proven that any nation which endorses
homosexuality loses the capacity to govern itself. I am that we are "not
not of this world".

In Christ, Mark
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 10:01:32 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject: Re: I, Jesse made an error on Christia

Dear Memo ;

If you wish to make comments similar to what you just posted Memo, please
write to me privately, OK?

It is not the better part of valour to openly suggest blatant calumny of others
by you, regarding me.
In the words of Arnold Schwartzenegger, "get a grip."

Jesse
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 10:44:33 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Trinity...

Thanks,

Steve, I appreciated you note. I acept that my English is not very good, but
as I said before, I tried to comunicate an idea, not to win the Nobel in
literature with that post. And this guy (I can't recall the name) is not
a christian, so it is easy to understand that he didn't know what I was
talking about.

And yes, I am Mexican.

Shalom,
Memo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <S096556@UMRVMA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 16:48:03 CST
From:         Lonnie Schubert <S096556@UMRVMA.BITNET>
Subject:      Tom's "question reply"

A few days ago I sent a question to Tom via e-mail.  He responded
by saying he would get to it soon and mentioned "publicly".
Well, I sent back a response asking him not to respond publicly
since I was not wanting to discuss it on the list.
Personally, I do not think the discussions about predestination/
free-will have acomplished any good on the list (and I was quite
a major contributer some months back when Jess and Tom first joined
the list).

I cannot object to Tom's response, since it made no mention of me
nor allusion to me.  Still, I object because he offered only his
view.  Since I am unwilling to comment, that is all you will get.
I do not think it was appropriate to respond publicly to my
private message.  (Again, not because of "net-rules", only common
courtesy.)

I felt disheartened, primarily because my wishes were ignored, but also
because, dispite my determined effort to state my question clearly
and specifically, it has not been addressed.  (This is another example
of the "two parallel lines" phenomenon so prominant in the discussions
on this topic.)

Isaiah 53:6 (NIV) WE ALL, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has
                  turned to his own way; and the Lord has laid on him
                  the iniquity of US ALL.  (emphasis added)

Lonnie Schubert
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Organization: Virginia Department of Health
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:52:08 EST
From:         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET>
Subject:      700 Club Special

Today 700 club is showing a special Gospel Music Celebration. It features
a TON of the "oldies" singing many of the hold hymns. It's just a gathering
and the sound quality is as good as they can do in a large church with
cameras and mics in a large room, but what SINGING. Following are just
some scattered notes on the special as they were appearing. The singing
was mixed with old pictures of them as Young-ins. So neat!

The Gaithers and many of the others are all in a reunion singing things
like "Sheltered in the Arms of God". The bass is BASS. There are about
30-40 of them all just sort of singing their favorites.

George Varney was one of the names mentioned, Doug Oldham is there. Many
I've seen years ago. "Oh yes, oh yes, I'm a child of the King. His royal
blood flows in my veins..... Praise God, Praise God, I'm a child of the
King..." "I've got that Old Time Religion in my heart, way down inside."
Hovie Lister-1954-"When He calls, I will fly away..." Dotty Rambo - "He
Looked Beyond My Faults And Saw My Needs..." & "He Touched Me...and Oh
the joy that floods my soul..."

Bill and Gloria Gaither-"Jesus, Jesus, Jesus....There's just something
about that name.." "The blood that gives me strength from day to day
it will never lose it's power..." Michael English... Joy Garner...
(many of these I don't know...)  Glenn Allred... Henry Slaughter-1959.
(They have this on tape, 1-800-289-1777. Don't know how much, but you
can really feel the Spirit of the Lord move in their singing.) George
Young. Earl and Lily Weatherford  "If you have to cross chilly Jordon.."
Weatherford Quartet-1959.

"Hold to His Hand, to God's unchanging hand.... Build your hopes on things
eternal, Hold to God's unchanging hand..." Powerful... "Jesus, oh Jesus,
Do you know Him today? Did you turn Him away? Jesus, oh Jesus, without
Him, how lost I would stay..."

Speer Family-1965 "Long years ago... I prayed to Jesus and He set me free."
Harold Lane. "oh sinner come, to Jesus now... Just trust to Him your every
sin, He'll cleanse you, give you peace with in...." Ann Downing. "I never
(Sue Dodge(1970)) shall forget the say... I'm going to shout it for He's
everything to me."

I may call for the tape. I have NEVER been so blessed just listening to
people sing. Yea, I know they'll probably get some money if I do, but
what a blessing. It's on the FAM Channel at 10:00PM and 2:00AM if you
get a chance to see it. Worth your time, I'm sure.

Fully blessed,
Maks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"christia%asuacad.bitnet@vaxf.colorado.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 21 Nov 1992 00:37:37 -0700
From:         "Glenn Radinsky S05152@doc.flc.colorado.edu"
              <S05152@DOC.FLC.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      We are sinners too...

Dear all:

     Recently we have been receiving posts stating that
homosexuality is a sin before God and that we should not be
trying to justify this conduct because of this.

     My thoughts are that we have all done wrong in the eyes
of God, and together we have (or had, as the case may be :-)
become worthless in the sight of the Lord.  That is why
Christ had to come and die for us.

     I think it is safe to say that any sin is wrong in the
sight of the Lord, and that if this is the case this
doctrine can be carried over to any sin we commit.  Another
point to be made is that there have been some studies that
site some pretty sound evidence that at least some
homosexuals are not homosexual because they choose to be
that way, but do not have levels of certain hormones that
most people have.  I would be very hesitant to dismiss these
rumors our of hand before learning more about them.

     Another point to be made is this: Most people would
probably think it perfectly normal if I had lustful thoughts
as far as women were concerned.  A sin indeed, but one that
is normal and understandable.  But I think that both sins
are equally detestable and reprehensible in the eyes of the
Lord, who demands perfect righteousness from the lot of us.
Another thing to consider along these lines is how we feel
about lust.  If I knew that a man was lusting after me, I
would have a major attack of the queazies if nothing else.
But if I knew that a woman was attracted to me and lusted
after me, I think I would be flattered, even though both are
sinful and undefendable actions in the eyes of the Lord.
That is just my own sinful nature.

     I think it is safe to say that most of us here are just
as sinful as the homosexuals we condemn.  I am usually one
of the first to pick up a rock to hurl at other people
(party animals and earthen spirituality worshippers are my
two favorite targets), but then the Lord reminds me that I
am a sinner too and I had better drop that rock and be
content with praying for that person.

                         God Bless,



                            Glenn
From: bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM (Brad Kaiser)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: The Gospel
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:07:51 GMT
Reply-To: bradk@isdgsm.rtsg.mot.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL8]

Jesse writes:

> Not only do Catholic doctrines not change, they cannot change, due to the
> "infallibility" clause.

Not precisely true; your terminology is incorrect.  All teachings
(Catholic or otherwise) are "doctrines", but not all Catholic
doctrines are infallibly proclaimed.  Those that are so proclaimed (ex
cathedra Papal statements, and most decrees of Ecumenical Councils)
are said to be "dogma", or "dogmatically revealed" or "de fide"
(Latin, "of the faith").

The term "irreformable dogma" is sometimes seen, to emphasize that
dogma cannot change; the term, however, is tautological -- all dogma
is irreformable.  Doctrines that are not dogma, however, are not
infallible, and can change.

In the Peace of Christ,

Brad Kaiser
(bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com)

          Those who trust in Him shall understand truth,
          and the faithful shall abide with Him in love;
          Because grace and mercy are with His holy ones,
          and His care is with His elect.
                    -- Wis 3:9 [NAB]
Organization: City University of New York/ University Computer Center
Date: Tuesday, 17 Nov 1992 05:09:25 EST
From: Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: The Gospel

In article <9211161633.AA09893@itesocci.gdl.iteso.mx>, A16905@ITESO.BITNET says:
>
>Jesse,
>
>You said it ! those works WERE official. Read Post-Vatican II Stuff, please.
>
>Shalom,
>Memo.
Memo,
I do not understand.  Vatican II was a pastoral council and did not define
any doctrines.  Also, once a doctrine has been defined by one council it
can never be changed by another council.

Vatican II did change various policies, and did accept various theological
opinions but did not define any doctrines.  Jesse's claim was incorrect,
but not for the reason you suggest.


-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm   Internet: mnhcc@cunyvm.cuny.edu

"Just say know to Gnosticism"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: S096216@UMRVMA.umr.edu
Subject: Re: Celebrating Our Baptisms (Are Christians still Sinners)
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1992 15:08:06 GMT
Organization: Univ of MO - Rolla

In response to "Celebrating Our Baptisms" - Many of my friends actually
count the day of their accepting Christ as Lord and being baptized as
their "second" birthday.  This day is remembered and often gifts are
given by close family members on this day.  Some of my friends are *8 or
9 years old* but can drive a car, pay taxes and have a family.

Just a thought IMHO
Walter Stephens
S096216@UMRVMA.umr.edu
From: tthorpe@qualcom.qualcomm.com (Tom Thorpe)
Subject: Re: The Trinity
Organization: Qualcomm, Inc., San Diego, CA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 00:40:59 GMT

	Well, That was a well thought out essay. I do have some questions thou.
Without going to far along Here are the questions.
	1. How many Spirits are there? GOD the Father is a Spirit, (Jn.4:24)
The LORD JESUS is a spirit, (2Cor.3:17) The Holy Spirit is Spirit is Spirit by definition. Yet there is one spirit. (1Cor. 12:13, Eph. 4:4)

	2. If Father and Son are co-equal persons, Why did JESUS pray to the
Father? (Mat. 11:25) Can GOD pray to GOD?

	3. Similarly, How can the son not know as much as the father?
	(Matt. 24:36, Mk. 13:32)

	4. Similarly, How can the son not have any Power except what the father gives him? (Jn.5:19,30, 6:38)

	5. 5. What about other verses of scripture indicating the inequality
of the son and the Father? Jn. 8:42, 14:28, 1Cor.11:3

	6. Did "God the son" die? The bible says the son died, Rom. 5:10, 
If so can God die? can Part of God die?

	7. If the son is eternal and existed at creation, who was his
mother at that time? We know the son was made of woman. Gal,4:4

	I have a few other questions like this. I would like to see some answersto these first. Scriptural answers only. I would like to see the reference.
	I am not saying that I do not believe in the Trinity, Just that
These are a few questions that leave it a little room for falacy, just my 
opinion.
		Thanks,            Tom Thorpe




Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 09:21:03 CST
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Book Recommendation
              17 Nov 1992 15:16:05 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Yo Darren (Kansas) Provine:

Relax. I know you never said anything like you are the only one using
correct logic. I was just jesting about how it reads when you comment on
the subject. No arumentum ad hominem intended :-)

Go ahead and get Clark's book along with his RELIGION, REASON AND REVELATION
(Gordon Haddon Clark).

Tom
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"christia%asuacad.bitnet@vaxf.colorado.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 15:11:38 -0700
From:         "Glenn Radinsky S05152@doc.flc.colorado.edu"
              <S05152@DOC.FLC.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Pat Logar

Hi everyone.

     A few weeks ago, we heard about Pat Logar suffering a
heart attack that has made her comatose.  I have kept Pat in
my prayers and was wondering if there is any change in her
condition.

                         God Bless,



                       Glenn Radinsky
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: The True Word of Allah
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 19:44:32 GMT

In <CHRISTIA%92112007173488@ASUACAD.BITNET> Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:

>              ___   | |       |  ___   | |  /|  |  | |              |
>             |  |  _| |         |  |  _| | /_|  |  | |    |  |  |   |
>      o_|__|____| |   | | o |_o____| |   |   |__|__| |  o_|__|__|___|
>  ___/   oo    ___|     |___|     ___|              ___/          o
>
>  In   the   name  of   ALLAH,   the    Beneficent,   the    Merciful
>______________________________________________________________________
>You too can have over $2,000,000! The Salmon Rushdie Lotto.

Cheap shot.   I suspect the bulk of Muslims enjoy being tarred with the
same brush as the Iranians as Tom would enjoy being lumped together with
supporters of the Spanish Inquisition.
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: aldavi01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu (Arlie Davis)
Subject: Re: Trinity...
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 00:06:46 GMT
Reply-To: Arlie Davis <aldavi01@starbase.spd.louisville.edu>
Organization: University of Louisville

creps@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (Stephen A. Creps) writes:

>    Oops, this sounds like I am agreeing that there is something wrong
> with Memo's English grammar.  Your grammar is just fine, Memo.  Much
> better than many native speakers I see on the net.

Memo may be grammatically correct, but his semantic content is still under
scrutiny.

What does the post _mean_?  Please understand: I am not a Christian, and I
don't understand Christians.  I'm asking you, collectively, to explain what
this one tiny post means.

-- 
lrwx------   1 aldavi01 emacsstu       9 Jun  6 12:43 .signature -> /dev/null
Organization: Queen's University at Kingston
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 18:03:48 EST
From: andy <2893684@QUCDN.QueensU.CA>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Gays in the military

In article <CHRISTIA%92111109531997@ASUACAD.BITNET>,
AMZIMM01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU (Angela Zimmerman) says:
>
>Item Retrieval Assistant, DADS
>Phone: 588-6757
>
>
>>Back on the gay military question, I have to ask - Are gays really that
>>anxious to put themselves in an environment where they will be ridiculed,
>>beaten, destroyed, shunned, cursed, and maybe even killed?  The prime rule

Most gays, like most people probably don't want to be in the military. The
question is is it right to bar them. Moreover is it proper to bar them because
of the prejudices of others. Your precise argument could have been used to
argue against integrating Blacks and Whites in the military because of White
racism or against allowing Jews in the military because of anti-Semitism
>
>Are you saying that it's ok for the military to ridicule, beat, destroy,
>shun, curse and maybe kill homosexuals?  It sounds like you're trying to
>say that someone who's homosexual *deserves* to have all those things done
>to him because he's gay, if he gets in the military.  The whole point of
>gay men and women wanting to get into the military is to try to get rid of
>this sort of prejudice.
>
>
>>their life, if they can't, the entire mission WILL collapse.  Frankly, gays
>>will NOT work in the military because they would undermine the entire system,

Tell this to Alexander the Great or Lawrence of Arabia, two prominent
and successful military figures

>>provide too many complications, and besides - the military can now SELECT who
>>goes in and not merely accept who comes in, so WHY would they even consider
>>a gay over a straight man/woman?  MCS-IC

Why do you assume that gays and lesbians would do worse on objective testing
than non-gays?  Certainly there are SOME gays or lesbians who are qualified
to serve, perhaps even more qualified than hetrosexuals?
--andy
>
>How would being homosexual and in the military undermine the entire system?
>
>Finally, Why would they consider a gay over a straight man/woman?  Perhaps the
>person who is homosexual is more *qualified*.  After all, one's sexual
>orientation has nothing to do with a person's ability to perform a duty.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 07:56:38 CST
From:         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      I, Jesse made an error on Christia

Dear All on Christia ;

I want to correct an error that I made recently.
I posted an "all call" item on the net to the effect that I was concerned that
"Truth not be buried."  What I should have said is this :  "I think that it is
dangerous to bury DOCTRINAL ISSUES, for Truth will LIKELY be buried in the
process.  There is a large movement in the United States of "NO Doctrine ...
JUST Jesus."  I have hopes that this false emphasis is on the wane.  We nee
NEVER to throw out Doctrinal issues for the sake of UNITY,  for we have NO
Unity, apart from a Doctrine called the Gospel and that is what Jesus did
in His Life, Death, and Resurrection, fulfilling the requirements required
by God of all men, but fulfilled only by Christ as pertains to Rightesousness
and Justice.

So, I want to dismiss any scentilla of "Authoritarianism" that could be seen
by some as coming from my direction.  One person on the net, even called me
"Pope Jesse" ... tragic indeed.  These things we DO want to avoid ... but NOT
at the expense of throwing out the proverbial infant witth the bath water.
Truth must be Sought for by ALL true Christians, and I still encourage open
but, PATIENT discussion by all concerned.



Heartily in Christ 's Sovereign Grace ;

Jesse Irwin Carnes