HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 15:49:02 MST
From:         Usenet/Netnews Moderator <FOCMCB@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Info Request: Correspondence Course of Biblical Greek

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
>From: mchung@ee.tamu.edu (Maranatha Chung)
>Subject: Info Request: Correspondence Course of Biblical Greek
>Organization: Texas A&M University
>Date: 22 Jan 1993 04:48:40 GMT

Dear Friends,

I want to study Greek on my own. Does anyone have any info as to where
I can find a good correspondence course of biblical greek?
Private email will be welcome at mchung@ee.tamu.edu.

Thank you very much.

Maranatha Chung
Texas A&M University
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:51:00 CST
Reply-To:     Forum for Physics Teachers <PHYS-L@UWF.BITNET>
Comments:     Warning -- original Sender: tag was PHYS-L@UWF
From:         Roger Key <RKEY@KSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      re: potential energy experiment

I have recently seen an experiment with a sonic ranging device used to
track a ball rolling in a tube (such as the tubes new air tracks come in)
in which the tube is almost horizontal, but inclined so that the far end,
the end away from the detector, is higher than the detector end.  Then, the
ball is rolled "uphill" and the ranger tracks the ball up the incline, at
the "turnaround" point, and back down.  Maybe the cart could be made to travel
in a "tunnel" like this while the external magnet is fastened to the outside
of the tube......   I might try that here ....  if I do, I will report
the results here......

Roger Key  rkey@ksuvm.bitnet
Kansas State University
Lecture demonstrations and labs
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:53:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Tithes and Giving

In a message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 10:17:19 EST
Received on Wed, 20 Jan 1993 16:17 N
dave talaga x2752 <talaga@E5SB.OSDHW.SYR.GE.COM> wrote:

> The priesthood is over.  It was completed with Christ.  There is no
> longer a need to support priets, there is no longer a theocracy.

Whereas you are right in respect to theocracy, I disagree with you as
for the priests - at least in part. We don't have priests in our church.
(The RCC has them). But we have full-time ministers. They should be paid
for by the believers as is made clear in many passages in the NT. So the
tithe is still needed. However, I agree with you that it is not to be
thus-far-and-no-more, but as I mentioned earlier: it is a good point to
start with. In all freedom!

> In my own life I have seen the tithe used to perpetuate false
> ministries.  I have seen churches where tithing was mandatory, and
> members had there power shut off to meet this requirment.  I have
> witnessed parades of people espousing the blessings of the tithe while
> their families fell apart.  Where giant ministries were built on the
> illusion of the tithe only to have the church leaders step down in
> disgrace, or the church become strapped with incredible debt.

All these examples don't touch the tithe, but the faults in other areas.
If the tithe is used to support false ministries, there's nothing wrong
with giving the tithe, but with the ministry receiving it.


In a message of Wed, 20 Jan 1993 14:56:28 -0500
Received on Wed, 20 Jan 1993 23:23 N
jones, mark <JMJONES@UGA.BITNET> wrote:

> I would challenge you to show where there is in the Word a condemnation
> under the law for those who do not tithe. The tithe has *never* been a
> part of the Mosaic law.

Simply wrong! It is a part of the Mosaic law (Lev.27:30-34;
Num.18:24-28; Deu.12:6.11.17; 14:22-28; 26:12-13) and Scripture plainly
tells us that

DEU 27:26  Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this
 law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen.

Wolfgang <><

P.S.: BTW hast anyone read my long post on tithing? No comments?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Openmail-Hops: 1
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:02:00 +0000
From:         ga921008@MCIS.MESSIAH.EDU
Subject:      Re: Three Short Notes

About the Sabbath:

Whether or not we should abstain from work on Sat./Sun., I am glad
that certain people do not: doctors, nurses, the armed forces, road crews
(important in the frozen North where I grew up), and especially the clergy!

--Greg Aist
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 22:45:26 -0600
From:         Tom Shelton <tjshel@MAPLE.MONSANTO.COM>
Subject:      Re: Praying in tongues (was Re: centering prayer...)

It is my understanding that there are two types of tongues.  One given by the
Holy Spirit for a person to speak various kinds of [unknown] tongues (1 Cor 10).
This, along with the interpretation is for edification (and sometimes
correction).  The other type is the baptism of the Holy Spirit (as evidenced by
speaking in tongues).  This is usually considered a persons prayer language.  It
is used to pray God's perfect will.  We provide the sound and the Holy Spirit
provides the message (a spirit to Spirit communication if you will).  During
praise and worship (usually worship) at our church the congregation will
sometimes break into singing in tongues.  This is considered a personal worship
unto the King, but it is audible for all to hear.  A tongue to be interpreted
will usually stand out from the crowd.

There is really much more to this, unfortunatly I am currently under a deadline
and don't have a whole lot of time right now.  If you would like some more
information on this, drop me an e-mail and I will respond when I can.

Tom Shelton

tjshel@maple.monsanto.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:24:52 EST
From:         "PHILLIP A. HALIBURTON" <C$I@FCCJ.BITNET>
Subject:      SPEAKING OF BAPTIST

DEAR MEMBERS OF THIS LIST,

                           THE OTHER DAY I SAW A NOTE ON THE LIST ABOUT BAPTIST
I THINK.  I HAVE A LITTLE STORY TO TELL YOU ALL.  A COUPLE OF WEEKS BACK OUR
LOCAL CHRISTIAN RADIO STATION WAS HAVING THEIR ANNUAL RADIOTHON.  WELL ANYWAY
ONE DAY I WAS LISTENING AND DECIDED TO PLEDGE $10 OVER THE AMOUNT THAT I PLEDGE
D THE YEAR BEFORE.  AND WHILE I WAS STILL ON THE PHONE THEY ASK ME IF I WANTED
TO CHANLLENGE ANYBODY.  SO I CHALLENGE ALL THE BAPTIST IN TOWN TO PULL THROUGH
FOR THEM AGAIN LIKE THEY DID THE YEAR BEFORE.  AFTER THAT A FIRST TIME PLEDGIE
CALL IN AND GAVE A ONE TIME DONATION OF $517 WHICH WAS HOW FAR THEY WERE FROM
THEIR GOAL OF $10,000.  I WAS SO HAPPY THAT SOMEONE TOOK MY CHALLENGE.

                                             YOUR BROTHER IN CHRIST,

                                                PHILLIP A. HALIBURTON
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 18:03:41 MST
From:         jww@EVOLVING.COM
Subject:      Re: Mormon/LDS
              93 12:21 am

Gareth McCaughan writes:
> Greg Aist writes:
> > Here is a short rundown of the more serious heresies of LDS:
> > -They believe that Christ is the brother of satan
>
> Are you quite sure about this? Brother in what sense, anyway?
> I don't have any "inside information", but I'd have thought that
> if the Mormons were really suggesting much similarity between
> Christ and Satan the fact would be better known...

Mormons hold that Christ and Satan are literally, physically, brothers --
not similar, but siblings -- both the sons (in a carnal sense) of "The
Father" and his wife-goddess.  (Or one of his wife-goddesses -- they're
kind of vague about these female deities.)

They also teach, by the way, that Jesus was married to Mary Magdalene
and maybe some other women.

> > -they think we will become gods after our death
>
> It does depend on what they mean by "gods", of course; but it's absolutely
> sound theology that we can expect to be considerably glorified in the Kingdom,
> and that we shall (among other things) judge the angels. I wouldn't generally
> use the word "gods" for this sort of thing, but if someone else does it need
> not be blasphemous.

Agreed -- but that's not what Mormons mean.  They say "What God is now,
Man will become.  What Man is now, God once was."  (But over vast
periods of time he grew and advanced, and became the sort of god he is
now.)  They teach that married Mormons (and only the married -- but
I've heard rumours of a change to this doctrine?) will become gods,
create worlds, populate them with their spirit children (by which they
mean physically begotten children), be worshipped just as we (now)
worship God, and so on.

They believe that God the Father has a physical body -- else how, they
ask, could he have begotten a son?


Compared to these things, polygamy, false Scriptures, and magic
underwear strike me as fairly trivial.

-- Fr. John Woolley
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: InterCon Dispatcher/SMTP for QuickMail
X-Priority: 4
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 08:35:10 +0000
From:         Leo W <Leo_W@QM.CIRCA.UFL.EDU>
Subject:      Scripturette 1/25

God:

"God does not see the same way people see.  People look at the outside of a
person, but the Lord looks at the heart" (1 Samuel 16:7).

"The Lord knows what is in every person's mind.  He understands everything you
think" (1 Chronicles 28:9).

"Lord ... Only you know what people are really thinking" (1 Kings 8:39).

Lord Jesus Christ:

"Lord, you know everything" (John 21:17).

"He did not need anyone to tell him about people.  Jesus knew what was in a
person's mind" (John 2:25).

"Jesus knew what they were thinking" (Luke 9:47).

"The Son of God is saying ... I am the One who knows what people feel and
think" (Revelation 2:18,23).

"ALL MEN SHOULD HONOR THE SON EVEN AS THEY HONOR THE FATHER" (John 5:23; KJV).


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:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 08:41:25 MST
From:         Usenet/Netnews Moderator <FOCMCB@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Principles of Interpretations?

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
>From: John R Laplante <jlaplant@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>
>Subject: Re: Principles of Interpretation?
>Organization: The Ohio State University
>Date: 23 Jan 1993 09:11:42 -0500

Oh boy. there are whole college classes in this.
A few things I've found helpful:

1. The MOST important thing is to observe. Before you ask "what doe
   it mean," ask "what does it SAY."

   Read it. Read it again. Read it again. And again. Look at
   what is the subject. the verb. the adjectives. Who appears to
   be talking. Who appears to be the recipient.

   Separate out dependent and independent clauses. This is important
   in Pauline epistles, which pile words upon words upon words.
   Sometimes I find it helpful to, in a way, diagram the passage.

     e.g.   The adjective of the noun does to the verb and
          another adjuective  of a noun  of a verb, and
                  noun and
                  noun and

                   adverbial phrase and
                   adverbial phrase.

2. Think progressively. That is, the bible wasn't delivered all at once.
   People writing the later parts of it knew what the people who wrote
   earlier parts of it had written, but not vice-versa.

3. Do some background reading on the history, geography, politiccs,
   the economy, etc. of the biblical book in question.

4. "What does it say in the greek/hebrew" is a question that is sometimes
    asked. While it is sometimes helpful, no major doctrine (IMO) turns
    (or should turn) on the meaning of the original language -- if the
    concept is so obscure that it requires specizl knowledge, I'm
    immediately suspect.

I know this is a lame response, but I've got lots to do, and can't
 pull out my big thick folder on this, which I've used for a while.

hope you get some helpful responses.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------
john r la plante                             Department of Political Science
jrl+@osu.edu               THE Ohio State University (is there another one?)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Via:         UK.AC.CAM.PPSW; 26 JAN 93  0:21:12 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 00:21:38 +0000
From:         "G.J. McCaughan" <gjm11@CUS.CAM.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Mormon/LDS
              <01GTXJJPQ8TU99DJVG@asu.edu>

Greg Aist writes:

> Here is a short rundown of the more serious heresies of LDS:
>
> -They believe that Christ is the brother of satan

Are you quite sure about this? Brother in what sense, anyway?
I don't have any "inside information", but I'd have thought that
if the Mormons were really suggesting much similarity between
Christ and Satan the fact would be better known...

> -they think we will become gods after our death

John 10:34-36a: "Jesus answered them, 'Is it not written in your Law,
'I have said you are gods'?' If he called them 'gods', to whom the
word of God came -- and the Scripture cannot be broken -- what about
the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the
world?"

It does depend on what they mean by "gods", of course; but it's absolutely
sound theology that we can expect to be considerably glorified in the Kingdom,
and that we shall (among other things) judge the angels. I wouldn't generally
use the word "gods" for this sort of thing, but if someone else does it need
not be blasphemous.

> -until recently, they taught that black people were inherently evil

Interesting. Didn't know about that.

> -and of course, they accept a 19th century forgery, the Book of Mormon,
>  as Scripture.

This is, to my mind, far the worst of their heresies (and presumably the
source of many of the others). I think (but can't remember any details)
that there is quite a bit of evidence of corruption among the founders of
the Church of the LDS...

You might also have mentioned that until moderately recently the Mormons
practiced polygamy. How serious this is is debatable, but it's certainly
one of the more striking departures from normal Christianity.


--
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 26 Jan 1993 01:23:00 GMT
From:         "G.J. McCaughan" <gjm11@CUS.CAM.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Mormon/LDS

... Ugggh.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@asuvm.inre.asu.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: DSROBERTS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:07:58 -0800
Reply-To:     don@biivax.dp.BECKMAN.COM
From:         Don Roberts <DSROBERTS@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM>
Subject:      Re: Countries Turning to God

>Just a quick note:  We live in a country where all it takes is 51% of
>the voters being liberal OR uninformed OR misinformed. Consider, for example,
>that Bill Clinton was elected because the economy was *so bad* . i
>(Remember: "It's the economy, stupid!") Voters flocked to the polls voting
>for a *change* because of the *sick* economy. However, the day after the
>election, guess what? The economy isn't so bad after all. In fact, the
>recession has been officially over for 18 months PRIOR to the election.
>If 51% of the voters believed this misinformation (nice term), then 51%
>of the voters rule.

Of course, in Clinton's case, this was only 43%, not 51%, so apparently we
don't even need a majority :-(

   Don Roberts                   Internet:  dsroberts@beckman.com
   Beckman Instruments, Inc.     Phone:     714/961-3029
   2500 Harbor Bl. Mailstop X-12 FAX:       714/961-3351
   Fullerton, CA  92634          Disclaimer:  Blame me, not Beckman.
   "Abortion isn't a 'choice', it's the slaughter of the innocent"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 09:47:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments.

I think it should be pointed out that it does not make any difference
whether the Ten Commandments are commands or suggestions, they are not
applicable to the New Covenant Christian.  In 2 Cor. 3, Paul calls them a
"ministry of death."  Now, why on earth would you want to keep a ministry
of death?  Am I saying that we are free to do as we please?  No, because
Paul makes it clear that we are Christ's, and that we should walk as the
elect.  The ten commandments are not our guide, Paul is.  I think it would
be good for us to remember that the OT law is a dead issue, not meaningful
to us except as it shows us we are dead in our sins.  It has no power to
save, nor to keep saved, nor to prepare us for heaven, nor for anything at
all except as I just noted.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Via: uk.ac.dundee.mcs; Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:14:50 +0000
Via: aqua.mcs.dund.ac.uk (aqua-gw); Mon, 25 Jan 93 15:15:37 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 15:15:37 GMT
From:         "Ian (Travolta) Wylie C2/Q2" <iwylie@MCS.DUNDEE.AC.UK>
Subject:      Re: Revival Centers International (was: Cell Churches - Help)

 Hi Wolfgang and all,

Wolfgang wrote:-
>
> > In Australia there is a cell-group church called "Revival Centres
> > International"
> > which is quite scriptural.
>
> They work in Germany as well, but what I heard about them is not that
> positive. Do you have some more information? - Or anyone else?


First of all they are not only in Germany but nearly all of Europe now.

I don't know who mentioned to you any negative points.  But from my own
experience, I know them to be totally based on Scripture for all doctrine.

But the church is relatively young, 12yrs, and some of the deacons
are still relatively speaking babes in Christ.

That said, there are many faces that I had gotten to love over the years.......

Any more questions about them them email me personally about it.



________________________________________________________________

"To live is to change. To be perfect is to have changed often."
                               -John Henry Newman

Name: Ian R. Wylie                 Email:  iwylie@uk.ac.dund.mcs
The University of Dundee
Great Britain
________________________________________________________________
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 13:08:45 -0600
From:         Tim Rolfe <rolfe@DSUVAX.DSU.EDU>
Subject:      CHRISTIA charter <was Re: Just what do we want?>

In <suppressed> someone <suppressed> writes:

>I noticed something interesting in this morning's newspaper. There were TWO
>prominent news articles featured.

>    1. One dealt with the recommendation of the new Treasury Secretary
>       Lloyd Bentsen to *raise* taxes on energy consumptions in this
>       country. (Everyone knows (?) that we need to raise taxes in order
>       to counter the deficit.)

>    2. The second article dealt with how Congress plans to spend the *extra*
>       money they will have when they cut back the Pentegon budget.

>This makes no sense to me. Can *anyone* explain it?

Is the charter of this listserver shifting from practical Christian living
over to Clinton-administration-bashing?  I will grant that the American
politics and abortion is fair game here, but American fiscal policy?
--
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Computer Science Department, Rowan College of New Jersey
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 15:47:37 -0500
From:         "N. L. Tinkham" <nlt@GBORO.ROWAN.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh

[ My apologies for continuing a discussion that is more about politics
  than religion.  If it's any consolation, at least the replacement
  conservative I'm suggesting is a devout Christian. ]

Mike Benson writes, regarding Rush Limbaugh:

> I have not found another who can refute
> liberalism as clearly.  If some of you anti-Rush people can point me to
> another clear conservative spokesperson I would be grateful.

I find William F. Buckley to be not only a clear conservative spokesperson,
but one of the clearest thinkers I have ever heard.  His weekly program
"Firing Line" is like an aerobics workout for the mind.  His style is both
courteous and sharp -- that is, always respecting the person with whom he
is arguing, and always striving to understand the point the other person
intends to make, while at the same time not allowing any error to slip by.

I disagree with many of Mr. Buckley's political beliefs -- we have probably
never voted for the same presidential candidate in an election.  I also
disagree with some of his theological beliefs -- while we are both Christians,
we stand on opposite sides of some of the classic Catholic/Protestant
disputes.  But he is an excellent spokesperson for his position.  I wish
the political liberals had as good a spokesperson; I don't think we do.

It is because I have seen political conservatism presented well that it
troubles me to see Mr. Limbaugh's popularity.  At a very pragmatic level,
I benefit when the most well-known conservatives are ones who are loud
and rude; it makes my candidates more likely to get elected.  But I feel
a bit guilty seeing elections won in that way.  And in the long run, I
benefit more from the articulate conservative intellectuals who challenge
my views with compelling arguments and who remind me not to accept something
merely because it is labelled "liberal".
_____________________________________________________________________________

                                              Nancy Tinkham
                                              nlt@gboro.rowan.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU