HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:21:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      "Homophobic"

From: 78witherspoo@EDU.CUA
>
>In article <CHRISTIA%92082606164834@ASUACAD.BITNET>,         Bernice Tennant
><U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET> writes:
>> I could sin
>> and use my bible as a reason for it but that would not excuse my sin.>
>
>--> Correct, but what about the christian boy who committed his gay-bashing
>	and not only felt comfortable about what he did, but that his pastor
>	_commended_ him??  Nice christian role model, I suppose if he prays
>	enough he'll go to heaven-- while the homosexual who was unjustly
>	beaten is going to hell.
>
>	I guess I am the lone voice crying in the wilderness on this one, but I
>	feel a little uneasy.

>--> No one is asking you to do that.  What I would like to see happen (and the
>	author of the piece would agree with me) is that the Bible cease to
>	function as a political weapon.

>--> Christians need to do more than just pray.  Christians need to call for a
>	"cease-fire" of sorts on this issue.  Let God do the judging, that is
>	His job, there are other concerns on Earth that we could devote our
>	energy towards.

Tom,

You are not the only one.  I would question the pastor's reaction.
"Gay-bashing" is clearly as wrong as any other prejudiced motivated
attack.  Even as christians we still have a lot to learn about caring
and giving others space to be.

Yes, God is the judge. We onm the other hand are called to unconditional
love.  If we stop fighting amongst each other (I include all human beings)
we'll have more time to concentrate on this, on God and on fighting satan.


=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Carol A Long,  					DISCLAIMER - unless otherwise
IT Service,					stated this message contains
Southampton Institute of Higher Education	my opinion...probably only mine
East Park Terrace,
Southampton	SO9 4WW,   England		RELEASE - Repost at will, with
						acknowlegements to author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z_STAFF_CL@UK.AC.SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE
===============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 22:36:10 EDT
From:         MKLINE%VDH.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject:      Re: GOP Convention: The Setting
X-To:         christia%asuacad.BITNET@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU

Subject: Re: GOP Convention: The Setting

Previously ---------------------------------------------------------->
Marty,
I am sorry but this does not hold water, George Bush is intelligent
enough to know that he was going to have to raise taxes, he just lied
to get elected, just like he is doing now. George knew it, and all those
high priced speech writers knew it. They also knew that was what the
American people wanted to hear. I didn't believe him then and I don't
believe him now. 'Changed his mind, which is okay', yeah right..

MAKS> Just picking this one as others have said the same thing. I don't
      know that anyone is saying this, but the other choice is:

      "I'm going with Clinton because Bush says he wouldn't raise taxes,
      and said the Democrats tricked him into a $100Bil tax, but at
      least with Clinton, he wants $400bil and I KNOW he'll stop there."

      Yea, right. Bush said no taxes, and had to give $100 bil. Clinton
      starts with $400 bil. Bush says no more. Say they both get caught
      in another $100 bil. Now this "lie" will cost us $100 bil with
      Bush and $500 bil with Clinton. No, I don't think so.

      I don't remember what program it was, Focus on the Family, or
      Right to Life. They were talking about George Bush and his
      sincerity in the Right to Life movement. They said years of
      watching him have convinced them that his position is genuine
      and he is concerned with the unborn, family values, etc.

Maks
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 09:23:53 EDT
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      revival

We've (most of us?) have been praying for revival.  I heard
an interesting presentation of what revival really means.  And
do we really want revival.

Revival should start with ourselves.  What would we have to give
up if we really want revival?  What would God ask of us personally?
Are we really willing to give God first priority?  Or do we think
revival starts with someone else?  If we really want revival, we
need to change ourselves first.  And we need to be prepared for
God to make drastic changes in us.

I'm a very selfish person.  I need attention, I want for myself,
I don't give too much.  Please, Lord, help me to be more giving,
help me to put others first, to put others needs and interests
above mine.  Dear Lord, start a revival in my life and use me to
start a revial where you would have me to do your work.  Help me
to always put You first and to call on You before  attempting
anything on my own.  Thank you Jesus.

What am I asking here?  This is scary.  But all things are
possible with Christ!

Just some of my thoughts.

God bless...

Carol Nemec
YA67@FERRIS
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 1 Sep 1992 16:42:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Bible translations (was on Homosexuality)

In a message of Tue, 1 Sep 1992 13:45:21 GMT, received on Tue,  1 Sep 92 16:16 N
john russell <jrussell@UNLINFO.UNL.EDU> wrote:

>My point was not that THE Bible was incorrect but that there are MANY
>Bibles. Just look in any large bookstore -- the Bible is available in
>many different versions. And where did these versions originate? Is
>the King James version accurate? Gutenberg's? Do we have to go back to
>Latin sources? Greek? Hebrew? How many times has the Bible been
>translated and changed by men (and maybe a few women) along the way?
[...]
>Your responses are encouraged. What are _you_ reading?

I'm reading NASB, Luther, Elberfelder, Greek and some others every now
and then. But my view on homosexuality is not based on one single
translation. I mean no Bible I've ever seen differed from any others in
such a way that it would be possible for me to say that God accepts
homosexual actions. The Bible has been translated a lot many times.
Sometimes the translations were inspired by certain theological views.
But most of them are not differing in major issues. As to 'changing' the
Bible. It has not been changed - at least not the way you seem to
indicate. There is no doubt among scholars that the texts we now have in
the original languages are essentially identical with the originals that
the authors wrote.

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 09:43:10 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      prolife alert: new poll figures

Hi all:

This may be mostly politics, but it bears on the abortion discussion,
the culture war, and the question of whether things are better or worse
than they used to be.

Since 1973, the population has generally supported abortion only
in certain circumstances (mostly the "big 3"), rejecting it for
such things as economics and sex selection.  The 1972-1982
GSS data show the following:

Abortion should be legal under:

any circumstances                         22%
certain circumstances                     68%
no circumstances                           9%

This is only to be expected, since both any and no circumstances
are *extremist* positions.

However, the recent Time/CNN poll gives the following figures:

A woman should be able to get an abortion
no matter what the reason                              49%

Abortion should be legal only in
certain circumstances                                   38%

Abortion should be illegal in all circumstances         10%


Meaning what?  Meaning, if we take the recent numbers as valid,
that there has been a massive shift into an extremist camp,
and it's not the right-to-lifers.

Political extremism in any form is a dangerous sign.  It is the
direction that leads a people into fascism and communism in their
purest forms.

If these numbers are accurate, we are in for a *real* culture war.
We can expect the street activity to increase, and (my personal
observation from studying the activists in one camp) to become more
violent.

It's getting dark out there.  Be prepared.

"Beloved, do not think it strange concerning the fiery trial which is
to try you, as though some strange thing has happened to you;
  but rejoice to the extent that you partake of Christ's sufferings,
that when His glory is revealed, you may also be glad with exceeding
joy.
  If you are reproached for the name of Christ, blessed are you,
for the Spirit of glory and of God rests upon you.  On their part
He is blasphemed, but on your part He is glorified."(1 Peter 4:12-14).

  "I charge you therefore before God and the Lord Jesus Christ, who will
judge the living and the dead at His appearing and His kingdom:
  Preach the word!  Be ready in season and out of season.  Convince,
rebuke, exhort, with all longsuffering and teaching.
  For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but
according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they
will heap up for themselves teachers;
  and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned
aside to fables.
   But you be watchful in all things, endure afflictions, do the work
of an evangelist, fulfill your ministry." (2 Timothy 4:1-5).

Hang on.  It could be a rough ride to the end of the century.

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 21:37:04 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Genesis 19 in the light of Luke 10

Excuse me, but:

I cannot see how the sin of Sodom can be inhospitality.

What happens in Sodom?  The angels arrive. (19:1)  Lot invites them
to stay (Lot, it seems, lives there) (19:2).  The angels demur,
but are persuaded to accept Lot's *hospitality* (19:3).  While they
are in the house, and before they have retired, the men of Sodom
(*all* of them, it says) arrive at Lot's house and demand that Lot
send his visitors out to them, "so that we may know them carnally."
(19:5).  Lot goes outside and tries to get the men to go away; he
promises them his two virgin daughters (19:7-8) (Well, okay, that
seems pretty rotten of Lot, but it doesn't say anything about the
sin of *Lot*; we're discussing the sin of *Sodom*.)
  Lot says to the Sodomites "do nothing to these men, since
this is the reason they have come under the shadow of my roof"
(19:8) (I'm not quite sure what he means by this, but one might
interpret "this...reason" to be the very behavior the Sodomites
want to engage in.  Does Lot know who they are at this point and
why they have been sent?  This is puzzling.)
   Anyway.  The Sodomites are apparently uninterested in Lot's
daughters, so they "pressed hard against the man Lot, and
came near to break down the door." (19:9).  So the angels
pull Lot inside, strike the Sodomites blind so that they give up
and go away, and tell Lot to take his people and get hence.  Fast.
(rough translation, 19:10-14).

  Okay.  Now tell me again how the sin of Sodom is inhospitality.
It is not "inhospitable" to go to somebody's house and demand that
the guest within be sent out to be sexually assaulted.  It is
brutal, reprehensible, and insane.  It is perverse, ungodly, and
indefensible.  It is sick.

   The sin of Sodom was for the men of Sodom to declare themselves
so far beyond God that they could violate His commands.  The specific
behavior of sodomy was not the *root* sin for which Sodom was destroyed;
that was rebellion.  But the *sign* of that rebellion was, in fact,
sodomy.  Sodomy is a *form* of rebellion against God's express wishes
for man.  It is a *symptom* of being in sin.  There is far more wrong
with the sexual sins than merely the acts themselves.  But elevating
those sins to the level of acceptability and refusing to acknowledge
that they *are* sins is the clearest sin of all, because it is the
idolatry of sin itself.

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 27 Aug 1992 09:51:57 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Update

I want to thank everyone who prayed for my family.  I just brought mom home
last night.  I am still a little worried about what is wrong with her but
I have some good news that I would like to share.  There is no evidence of
Cancer.  All the cancer tests came back ok.  They feel that her biggest
problem was her potassium level became too low and as a result her heart
medication was toxic.      I am a little worried that she is not on any  heart
medication as of yet but she is continually checking her pulse.  If it gets to
100 or more she will call someone.  They have found some irregularity with her
blood but that could be normal for her.  I would appreciate any prayer for her
in this matter.  I know that God wishes desires our prayers and wants us to
pray for each other.  I can't tell you how much I appreciate them for mom.  I
have seen God answer your prayers and mine many times.  Even when I can't
possibly see the answer and how it could work out, I have seen God move.  It is
such a wonderful thing.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 10:51:59 CDT
Comments:     In-Reply-To: note of Wed,
              26 Aug 1992 10:13:28 EST from Kerry Stephenson
From:         Stuart <K119TO@TAMVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      prayer suggestion

From:   Stuart T Oliver
Kerry,
Your pro-life prayer suggestion sounds great, I really like the idea of making
such a broad idea specific by praying for those 28,000+ babies who will be
killed next week.  Along the same lines, I really appreciate your spirit you
display in your postings, -a genuine love for the people you address, while at
the same standing firm in your convictions and faith.
Have an awesome day!

                          Stuart Oliver,
                          Texas A&M University





Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 26 Aug 1992 15:21:00 EST
From:         WKJ <JAMES@XAVIER.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Mary's other children.

Mary apparently made up her own mind about where she went and with whom.
She may have chosen to be near Jesus for 999 different valid reasons, not
the least of which is the fact that Jesus is fun to be around.

WKJ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:43:13 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Christian Youth

Yvette:

What about concerts?  Are there any amateur Christian bands in your
community?  Are there any kids in your class who would like the
opportunity to display their talents?  You could have a small
admission fee and sell food or whatever at the concert.

And kids just *love* concerts.  (You might even be able to get the
local "evil media" to cover it! :-) ).

Love INC,
         ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 29 Aug 1992 20:19:28 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Radical feminism, the ERA and Pat Robertson

Renee,

You ask, How will the ERA lead women to become radical feminists?"
It wouldn't.  Most women have too much sense to be radical feminists.
However, the ERA would be a "blank check" for activist judges to
impose the radical feminist agenda upon society.  That is why so many
women opposed the ratification of the Federal ERA when it was before
the states several years ago.  By the grace of God they were success-
ful.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 28 Aug 1992 16:18:00 EST
From:         WKJ <JAMES@XAVIER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: somalia

Amen!

Dear Gracious Heavenly Father,

        We thank you now for the food and aid that these your people are
about to receive. We pray that all obstacles and obstructions from whatever
source be overruled and removed, we pray that needs be met in thy grace and
power, we pray for the helpers as angels of thy great mercy, and for the sponsor
s sponsors, ambassadors of thy Kingdom of love.

Bless all of the efforts to reach out and aid the people of Somalia. You have
commanded us in Your Word to feed the hungry, clothe the unclothed, and visit
the incarcerated. You have declared the decree that You have come to open the
prisonhouses and set the captives free. O gracious and compassionate Father,
we trust only in Your bounty and supply, and without you we have no Hope.

Thank you our Great God, Creator of the Ends of the Earth, Father of Spirits,
Master of the Day of Judgement...empowering, anointing and commissioning us
to continue to Great Works of Your Son, Jesus Christ, unto His Glory!

It is in His Excellent Name ( at which every knee must bow and tongue confess
that He is Lord to Thy Glory ), the Perfect, Precious, and Most Powerful Name
of the Holy One of Israel, JESUS, that we trust and pray....


AMEN
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: timk@world.std.com (Tim King)
Subject: Re: JESUS IS ABOUT TO COME BACK
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 05:00:48 GMT

Jesse, explain yourself, give references, and a well-researched argument.
I'm interested in what you have to say if you can show me it's of any value.

-TimK

P.S.  Be sure to accurately present the other side if possible and give clear
reasons why you have discounted his arguments.

-- 
Tim King                  |  Some of us favor logic in making decisions.
24 Myrtle Street          |  Some, emotions.  I, personally, get very    |\
Dedham, MA 02026          |  emotional about faulty logic! :-)           | >
timk@world.std.com        |                                             <>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 31 Aug 1992 11:53:33 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: brethren
X-To:         Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU>
              30 Aug 1992 21:01:11 -0700 from <seh@NEUTRON.PHYSICS.ARIZONA.EDU>

On Sun, 30 Aug 1992 21:01:11 -0700 Steven E. Hoell said:
<stuff deleted>
>In Jewish practice, once a woman had a child by a man she was not
>to have marital relations with anyone else, period. If she became
>widowed, she didn't remarry and had to rely on the community for
>support. Hence the New Testament emphasis on the welfare of widows
>and orphans.

Huh?  Nowhere in Jewish law (in either the Pentateuch or Talmud) is
this specified.  References, please.

>Ezekiel 44:1-3 is a  Scriptural basis for the ever-virginity of Mary.

Only if you view Mary as the sanctuary of the Lord.  Such a view is not
put forth in the NT.  Was this view held by any of the early church
fathers?  References, please.

I have nothing against the teaching of the perpetual virginity of Mary,
although I do not hold to it myself.  However, don't bring in Jewish
law or custom to back up this view, especially since they would tend
to tear down this view.  The use of the Ezekiel passage in support of
Mary's perpetual virginity is also extremely weak exegesis, when taken
in its context, which is a general prophetic discussion of the new
temple of the Lord.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re:      Anti-Catholicism: "Saul, Saul, why ..."
Date: 24 Aug 92 02:41:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BtGJx3.4Ay@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes...

[...]

> 
>   I tell you one thing, to think that you are able to properly
>interpret the entire Bible on your own, without need of the
>authorities Christ Himself set up, reeks of Pride.  The proof that it
>just doesn't work that way is evident from the multitude of differing
>interpretations coming from those of you who think that way.  Or I
>suppose, "_They_ don't have the Holy Spirit to guide them, but _I_
>do!"  Strange, that's what _They_ tell me too.

	Steve,

		The Holy Spirit is our guide. We are not perfect 
followers of Him, but He is our perfect guide.

	Christ did not set up the authorities of the RCC. The 
authorities of the RCC are prone to error (e.g.: Callistus, Liberius, 
Honorius). The Holy Spirit is not.



 en agape,
 Bob 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 3 Sep 1992 22:38:33 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Pledging allegiance
              3 Sep 1992 19:48:45 EDT from <KEL111@PSUVM.PSU.EDU>

Dan & Kurt (and others):

"Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD,
   And the people whom He has chosen as His own inheritance."
                                         --Psalm 33:12

So, do we want to be blessed, or not?

It's up to us to decide.

Love INC,
           --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 08:36:41 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: 2 Peter 3
              3 Sep 1992 18:38:00 CDT from <BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU>

Brian ;

Some other fellow gave a short list of cataclismic verse citations from the
O.T. and they were
Is 13
Is 34
Ez 32


If these are not sufficient to show Apocalyptic language usage, then I will
research this weekend and send you a reply onTuesday ... for I plan to take
3 hours of annual leave to attend to these and other Christia chores on
Tuesday.



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: B882SA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 25 Aug 1992 16:56:00 CDT
From:         Sieg A U R I C H <B882SA@UTARLG.UTA.EDU>
Subject:      Re: the DPT shot
X-To:         CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.BITNET@ricevm1.rice.edu

Kerry,
	Our son had the DPT booster at 1 and a half and a week later started to
seizure.  There is no history of seizures in our family.  As we did our
own research on it we found that the Pertussin (the Pin DPT) that is used
in this country (USA) is a 'dirty virus'.  That is, it introduces strains
of a virus into the brain that is not always fightable.  20/20 did an
excellent program on the over 20,000 children in this country that have
had adverse affects of the shot, yet are required, or so it seems, to
take it prior to admission to school.  The 20,000 children in the records
that they had were either seizuring; in comas or have died.  It is much
more serious then the AMA would ever admit.  Part of the problem is that
the drug lobbiests and the AMA lobbiests have always supported each other.
When 20/20 interviewed the president of the AMA, he denied any knowledge
of any complications with the drug.  It is also interesting that our gov.,
while not stopping the production of the drug, has set aside millions of
tax dollars to pay for suits re: damage done by the drug!

	I wa curious if anyone else has any similar experiences or has
any knowledge of resourses available to help children with the after-
efect.  It has now been 10 years since he has had to live with constant
seizure activity.  The only remedy the med. profession has to offer is
to cut it out or to medicate it. Neither which deals with the cause, which
we feel is still this virus continuing to damage his brain.

			Thanks,
			Sieg  :{>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia