HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:36:02 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Do YOU want a trditional family?
              12 Aug 1992 10:13:00 EST from
              <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>

On Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:13:00 EST DRCV06::GRAHAM said:
<Stuff omitted>
>
>If by "traditional" it is meant that a family follow Biblical guidelines,
>then, as I said, that only applies to the born again, and is irrelevant to
>most of society.   In a "traditional" family, the husband works, the wife
>stys at home and is slavishly submissive to the lord of the house.  The
>children are seen and not heard, their fun and or hapiness is secondary to
>the lord's convenience.   At dinner, the family assembles and the lord
>dictates the agenda for the following day.  He dictates what is for dinner,
>and where the family will go on vacation.  In a traditional family, the
>wife will submit to sex whenever the lord wishes, whether she is desirous
>or not.  If she is interested in lovemaking and the lord is tired, she can
>forget her plleasure, for his comes first and always.
>
>You don't think those are the essential items in a traditional family, a
>traditional American family, that is ... don't be silly.  Ask any member of
>one of those traditional families and you'll get your eyes opened if the
>person is being honest.
>
I grew up in a traditional American family, and your description has
nothing to do with what I experienced.  I do not deny that such families
exist, but they are not the norm.  They are, to use the current jargon,
dysfunctional families.

>I am not against families, th ey are great.  Let us not forget, though,
>that if God does not build the house, they labor in vain who build it.
>Forget this family value junk in politics and see to your own family.
>
>Dan Graham

In my observations, a call for family values in politics is not a call
to make all families conform to the traditional pattern but to protect
the traditional family from attacks on it.  Some of the attacks are just
the pressures of society and are not intended as attacks.  Some of the
attacks are intended as attacks.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 21:33:14 CDT
From:         Anthony Glen Jeffries <jeffries@IASTATE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Medjugorje--How is it pronounced?
X-To:         Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@ksuvm.ksu.edu>
              11 Aug 92 12:38:49 -0800. <9208111937.AA10338@po-1.iastate.edu>

Thank you for all of the help with pronouncing Medjugorje.

As I understand it, the last j is sort of pronounced like a y.

Anthony Glen Jeffries
From: scsd1055@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Pedophilia (was Scoutmasters)
Date: 17 Aug 92 22:26:08 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

	This is in reply to the ongoing conversation on a question concerning 
homosexuality (scoutmasters)...which some how drifts towards pedophilia.   I 
haven't been logged on in the past few  days, but I would like to interject
some of my own thoughts ( in media res)  concerning two of the posts and replys 
on the topic.


[...Carl says]
>[...]
>  However, one does not have to be learned to give a good defense of the 
>  Word.  Peter was a fisherman and did a good job.
>[...]

	Peter had a far superior teacher than you or I.  Which means that you 
MAY be wrong....sorry to burst your bubble. :-)



[...jb cormier]>
> I think that maybe some people on this list need to have the
> difference between homosexuality and pedophilia explained.
>
>>[...carl's response]>
>>  This is the tactic Gays are using.  The fact is that there are HOMOSEXUAL
>>  and HETEROSEXUAL pedophiles.  They are not a separate category.  And what
>>  about NAMBLA?  They are Homosexuals that want to do away with age consent
>>  laws so that they can have sex with young boys.  And there are stats that
>>  show most pedophiles are Gay.  I'll be happy to cite the sources tomorrow.


	In the U.S., Mississippi to be exact, men are allowed, with consent, 
to take 14 year old women as brides.  Isn't this legalized pedophilia?  But of
course a 60 year old man whom has just married a 14 year old girl will
disagree!  Gee...how about that!  Hey Carl, it sounds like those nasty old
hetero men are out to get our daughters...legally!  ;-) 
	Also, while you're dredging up those stats please give me the number of
legal marriages, in the U.S., b/w males 18yrs and older, and women 16yrs and
younger.  Jerry Lee Lewis may be able to help you out with the research! 
hehehe  ;-)
                             

Bill Plunkett
SCSD1055@Altair.selu.edu
SE La. Univ.
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: life
Date: 20 Aug 92 12:52:42 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>


     Tolstoy wrote a story one time called "The Devil's Church."  In it
he talks about how even evil people will do good things once in a while.
After just reading a book about the experiences of a brother in the prisons
of Cuba, I am even more amazed at how deep the human soul/spirit is... and
what potential it has for either good or evil.
     I am so glad that Jesus took the time to chase after this sheep.  I
was a mess.  Let's face it - we were all messes in one way or another.
Lord, because of what you have forgiven, may we turn and forgive others.
Keep us from all self-righteousness.  We know that the only righteousness we
have is You.  Live in us.  Live through us...in the not so pretty, not so
religious, not so easy lives you've given us to live.  Teresa said humility is
honosty.  Help us Lord to be totally transparent...and not look to the rags
we wear, but at the splendor of the King.
     Thanks for this gift.  Forgive me for complaining about so many little and
stupid things while others so close are starving to death, and so many others
are suffering the evils of hell because they are the victims of hate.  O Lord
Jesus Christ Son of God, have mercy upon me and have mercy upon us all.
     We love you Lord.  Lord, you blow me away... you melt me and blind me...
Be with those in Somalia, in Ethiopia, in what used to be Yugoslavia... be
Bread for them and Drink...
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: amorgan@Xenon.Stanford.EDU (Crunchy Frog)
Subject: Re: Perfect Numbers (was 888)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Stanford University.
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 1992 19:44:40 GMT

In article <1992Aug19.142047.1@cua.edu> 75furlong@cua.edu writes:
>In article <1992Aug19.173907.11697@gboro.glassboro.edu>, 
>  kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie) writes:
>> 
>> This assertion is incorrect.  The first seven perfect numbers are:
>> 
>>     6    28    496    8128    33550336    8589869056    137438691328
>           ^^
>
>How can this work? The factors of 28 are 2x2x7 (or, if you prefer, 1x2x2x7).
>The product of these numbers is 28, but the sum is either 11 or 12, depending
>whether you count 1 or not. 

Not the prime factors, all the factors.  The factors of 28 are 1, 2, 4, 7,
and 14 (and 28, but you can't count that or else *no* numbers would
be perfect).

>Alison

C Frog
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 02:49:19 -0500
From:         "Michael S. Muegel" <mmuegel@MOT.COM>
Subject:      Non-Delivery Report for <9208202103.AA22885@motgate.mot.com>
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

The Mot.COM major relay, Pobox.Mot.COM, was not able to transfer electronic
mail messages from 3:26 pm to 6:18 pm CDT on Thursday, August 21. An
inspection of the electronic mail system log files shows that a mail
message you sent was not delivered. Your mail message should have been sent
to your local mail manager (ala postmaster) for disposition.

Some important facts on the mail that was undelivered:

   Message-ID:                 <9208202103.AA22885@motgate.mot.com>
   Sender:                     <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
   Recipient:                  <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.mot.com>
   Size:                       1137 bytes
   Date of transfer to Pobox:  Aug 20 16:03:34 CST

This message has been generated automatically. If you need further
clarification feel free to contact me directly.

-Mike

--
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Michael S. Muegel                    | Internet:    mmuegel@mot.com        |
| UNIX Applications Startup Group      | Moto X.400:  QF0001                 |
| Customer Services and Support        | Internal:    IL06/1st               |
| Corporate Information Office         | Voice:       (708) 576-0507         |
| Motorola, Inc.                       | Fax:         (708) 576-3111         |
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
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"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 21 Aug 1992 12:52:47 -0700
From:         MARK DRAKE <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject: Re: This won't win me any friends, but...
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU

Tom, I am a little (well, maybe a lot) frustrated.  I started off saying I
don't support the verneration of Saints.  That should have told you something
about interpreting the rest of the post.

>Is not Mary called, wrongly of course, by the RC a "mediatrix" (sp?)?

Yes, some RCC theologians believe this.  But last I heard, it was not official,
and had RCC opponents as well.  Same with Redemptrix.


>Also, how do you define "mediator"?  The Bible, (you know the Authority)
>says there is only one mediator between God and men. And that one mediator
>ain't Mary.

>What is she mediating? Peace between God and man? No, I don't think so.

>Tom Brewer

	Didn't you read my post?  I said that we are all called to intercede,
but there was only one mediator.  Did I say that that mediator was Mary?
Especially after saying that I don't support the veneration of dead saints
more that live ones, I think it should have been appearent what my leanings are
on this matter.

	Just because I correct some one who is oppposing a particular set of
beliefs DOES NOT MEAN that I hold to those beliefs.  It just means that I have
a concern for truth, the correct portrayal of other's beliefs, and just
plain good arguement.  Jesse's point, identifing intersession with mediation
is just plain WRONG.  It is not biblical, is probably not consistant with his
own beliefs, and just plain does not wash.  It seemed to me to just be a knee-
jerk reaction of opposition.  I do not agree with these beliefs either, but at
least I want to use arguements in support of my position that make consistant
sense.

Mark
drake@asuchm.la.asu.edu


	I get the impression that you thought I was RC.  No.  I'm (to the world)
a conservative christian, who belives that the bible is authorative in belief
and practice, useful for training in righteousnes, correction, etc.  The written
word of God. (As opposed to the WORD of God, Jesus.)  I was raised a Southern
Baptist in Southn California.  Like Darren, I'm pretty gullable, so
I test what I am taught, to see if it is biblical or not.  A number of beliefs
have fallen on the wayside because of this.  I recomnend this to everyone - it
is a good way to grow closer to God, searching for what is true about a
particular subject.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 19 Aug 1992 10:45:35 EDT
From:         "Fritz Block, LCF Summer President" <BD32@LAFAYACS.BITNET>
Subject:      Family values (was Siege Mentality)

> So what you're saying is basically to keep family values, ban everything
> that's even the slightest bit controversial so that we'll all grow up
> to be ignorant, happy people.
>
> That's what I read in that statement.  Please correct me if I'm wrong in
> that interpretation.

You are.  I was merely answering Darren's question about what issues
could be considered under the rubric "family values."  It was a list
to show that some politicians may have more than banning abortion in
mind when they use the term "family values."  If he had not put
"family values" in quotes, my reply would have included my opinions.

But your response has caused me to think about where I stand on those.
First of all, one agreeing that the things I posted are necessary to
preserve family values would obviously not agree with your interpre-
tation.  You took the position to an extreme, and I doubt you believe
that many people want to "ban everything that's even the slightest bit
controversial so we'll all grow up to be ignorant, happy people."
                                         <<<<<<<<

Here's the list I posted:

Vetoing the Freedom of Choice Act, giving parents the right to choose
between available public and private schools (with tax credits for
choosing the latter), banning the distribution of condoms in public
schools, banning the Joe Camel advertising (which appeals to minors),
keeping the authority of parents over their children (except in cases of
abuse), and developing stricter FCC regulations, to name a few.

The last item is the only one that involves banning information, so the
others don't have to do with ignorance.  (Unless you seriously believe
that public schooling is superior to private, Joe Camel ads have
thing useful to say -- or anything to say that couldn't be expressed in
words just as clearly, e.g. "Hey kids, smoking's cool!" -- or one can't
provide sex education without handing out condoms.)  So your interpre-
tation seems to have been made in haste.  Not to rehash any debates, but
I do agree with all of the above, with some caveats.  One, the defini-
tion of "abuse" should be include more than just physical harm.  Two,
by "stricter FCC regulations" I mean simply a return to the kind of
standards in existence before deregulation (and no, I'm not an expert on
the details of those).


*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
* Fritz Block    "Love is not a ballad on the top ten chart            *
* bd32@lafayacs   Love is not a virus from cupid's dart                *
* 215-250-8031    Love is not a promise that you tear apart            *
* Lafayette Col.  Love is a commitment heart to heart" -- Larry Norman *
*++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++*
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: 75furlong@cuavax.dnet.cua.edu
Subject: Homosexuality and the SBC
Organization: The Catholic University of America
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 1992 17:01:15 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92081309084843@ASUACAD.BITNET>,         Renee Autry <SRAUTRY@SAMFORD.BITNET> writes:
> While I would agree that many people that study the Bible come to this
> conclusion, I think it is not necessarily true that "anyone" who studies
> the Bible comes to this conclusion.  I am sure many of you know of the recent
> controversies in the Southern Baptist Convention regarding two churches in
> North Carolina and their stances on homosexuality.  While it is perfectly
> legitimate for you to disagree with their judgements, in all fairness to
> our extended church family, I must say that I am sure that a number of them
> did extensive Biblical study prior to coming to their conclusions.
[...] 
> The opposing faction disagrees with you -
> but they may have read their Bible before coming to do so :-)

Thanks Renee. I'd like to add that some Christian churches have performed
same-sex marriages (the ones I've heard of were Episcopal and, I believe,
Methodist) and a number of early Christian ceremonies were unspecific as to the
gender of the people being joined.

-Alison
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 13:59:00 CDT
From:         Brenda/Bren <BJGAGE@KSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Orthodox

I wanted to keep the recent posting by Mark concerning the Orthodox but
I mistakenly deleted it.  It was about a splinter group formed by Fr.
Herman...if that would give you more information.  Is there any way that
you can send that to me or is there a way I can possibly retrieve that
posting?  I'd appreciate any help you can give me.  Thanks.

                                 Yours in Christ-
                                 Brenda
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 10:57:42 CDT
Reply-To:     bradk%isdgsm@rtsg.mot.com
From:         Brad Kaiser <bradk%isdgsm@RTSG.MOT.COM>
Subject:      Direct Revelation, passe?
X-To:         CHRISTIA%ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU@motgate.mot.com
              20 Aug 1992 10:28:36 EST <9208201531.AA16182@motgate.mot.com>

Kerry writes (to Marty):

>> If you'd like to send this to me private, please do; I don't want to
>> start anything.  I'm just wondering what your personal interpretation
>> of the Medjugorje events is (are?), and, if you know, how the local
>> bishop (I think that's what you said) views them, if he doesn't
>> view them the way the followers do.  Thanks.

Personally, I'd like to discuss this on the list, so everyone can see
the evidence on all sides.

I don't know what's behind the opposition of the local bishop (do you,
Elizabeth?), but we should remember that it's practically a tradition
for the local hierarchy to oppose private revelations.  First of all,
it's their duty to protect the faithful and play devil's advocate, so
in a sense, they are within their rights.  There is also, usually, an
element of jealousy; bishops are only human, after all.

When I say "it's practically a tradition", I'm thinking of Lourdes
(the bishop[s] insisted that St. Bernadette swear to the truth of her
visions on her deathbed), and Guadalupe (the bishop pooh-poohed Juan
Diego's vision, until he brought him the miraculous cloak and the
roses).

I don't know much about Fatima, but I wouldn't be surprised if the
local hierarchy had problems with that, too.

While the Church has not authoritatively blessed Medjugorje yet, she
has studied it for years, and the Magisterium has found no reason to
condemn it.  That, in itself, is worthy of note.  Also, it is
abundantly clear that the Holy Father takes private revelation very
seriously, as witnessed by his love of Fatima and Sr. Faustina's
teachings.

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

  "Hatred destroys.  Only love creates."
            -- St. Maximilian Kolbe, shortly before his arrest and
               martyrdom at the hands of the Nazis.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 20 Aug 1992 06:43:19 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Direct Revelation, passe?

Elizabeth,

You are correct that private revelations do not contain any new
truths.  Public revelation, which ended with the death of St. John,
contains all the truth we must believe.  God will not add to it.  All
we can do is study it and try to understand the implications of it
more fully.  Private revelations are reminders to follow His public
revelation.

Since you are posting some alleged private revelations I want to
remind everyone that no Catholic is ever required to accept the
authenticity of any alleged private revelation.  In some cases the
Church will investigate alleged private revelations.  If there is
nothing in them that contradicts God's public revelation, and if
there is evidence that God is responsible for them, the Church will
approve them, but they remain optional.  (There must be positive
evidence of God's intervention since anyone can urge people to remain
faithful to God's public revelation and urge greater religious devo-
tion.  There is no need for private revelation to do that.)  Approval
means that the alleged revelation may be publicly taught in the
Church, but even with widely accepted and officially approved private
revelations, such as at Lourdes and Fatima, no Catholic is required
to believe that God was responsible for them.  The alleged appari-
tions at Medjugorje have not been approved by the Church.  Technical-
ly the question is still open, but it is important to note that the
local bishop does _ not _ believe that God is sending Our Lady to
Medjugorje.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 12 Aug 1992 10:15:21 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject: Re: My first sermon! Tonight!! ARRGH!

Congratulations Ian,

May the Lord have been with you ! :^)

Shalom,
Memo.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: Questions for educators at home
Organization: Glassboro State College (Educators In Public)
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1992 06:32:45 GMT


Michael Kline writes about teaching his kids:

> [T]hey will get "Creation Science" this year as well. The one book is
> "Creation or Evolution" by Richard B. Bliss.  We also have "Streams of
> Civilization" Part 1 by Mary Stanton and Albert Hyma; Part 2 by Richard V.
> Pierarv and Robert G. Clouse.

> As I said, they will get Creation Science, not evolution.


I have a few questions about this.

As your children grow up, they will likely be expected to have a working
knowledge of evolution, simply as a matter of cultural literacy.  Do you
mean to say that you don't seriously address it at all?

Should they get technical degrees, the kids will probably encounter scientific
data which supports parts of evolutionary theory -- they will almost certainly
run headlong into a vast array of information which points to a very old
earth.  To what degree do you address this kind of information, if at all?
What do you say?

What sort of scientific background do you and your wife have?  One of the
advantages to a large school is that you can arrange specialisation: I took
physics from someone with a Masters, and my chemistry and math professors both
had BS degrees in those specific fields.  Since few couples have degrees in
a lot of different fields, it seems that you might be less able to answer some
questions than would a teacher who specialised in the subject matter.  Does
this come up at all?  (Your kids might not care why glass is amorphous.  8-)
If so, what do you do?

 --

On a non-evolutionary note, I'm also curious about the supply of equipment you
have at hand.  I grew up in a rather wealthy suburb (your tax dollars, spent
by Ronald Reagan on military aircraft, paid for my cable TV  8-), and my high
school had fully-stocked workshops, everything from lathes to sheet metal
benders to a complete electronics lab.  It seems to me that relatively few
parents can arrange all that equipment -- especially if you don't know how to
use it and only one kid is interested.  Do you find that this limits what you
can expose your children to?  Do you worry that they may miss something they
would be good at, simply because they aren't aware it exists?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Dogs are so useful I'm surprised they're not sold in vending machines. ('You
 got any change? I need a dog.')" -- Dave Barry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU