HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:24:22 EDT
From:         dave talaga x2752 <talaga@E5SB.OSDHW.SYR.GE.COM>
Subject:      Re: "You'd Understand If You Weren't Such An Idiot!"

>
> I for one am getting a bit irritated by the constant stream of posts that all
> say "My beliefs are obviously correct and if you disagree with me it is
> because you are either ignorant or unthinking."  Jesse Carnes has sent in
> several this week that say "Well, the way to read these verses in explained in
> <name-of-book>, go read that and you'll understand why I am right."  Uh-huh.
>
> Not to be outdone, Tom Brewer writes: (DT: Tom Brewer quote concerning John 6
 deleted)
>
> This passage seems to hinge on a definition of `clearly' with which I am not
> familiar.  In common use, the word `clear' means that most people who read
> something agree about what it means.  Since there is a lot of disagreement
> about whether Predestination can be properly derived from the Bible, the
> passages in question DO NOT fit the standard definition of `clear'.
>
> If Mr Brewer would like to explain what he means by `clearly', or reword his
> sentence so that (given common use) it accurately reflects the reality of
> Christian experience, that might make this discussion somewhat more pleasant.
>
Darren,

This may come as a surprise to you, but some of us share Tom Brewer's sentiment
 on the clarity of John 6 (and Romans 8 and 9 for that matter), and, also, don't
 think that Jesse Carnes is playing a game of one-upmanship.  In fact, surprise
 surprise, some of us actually enjoy reading the exchanges between the
 aformentioned and other net member's posts--food for thought you know.  I'm not
 saying the rhetorical jabs and feints are necessary but I think it adds some
 personality to the argument.  Hmmm... Where would you be without such
 techniques?

>
> The continued blather to the effect that "what I believe is obviously correct
> and if you disagree you must provide a 5000-word essay approved by two Nobel
> Prizewinners to prove that I am wrong" does little besides make the people who
> post it look like nitwits.  (I shall refrain from sharing my suspicions about
> whether these people actually ARE nitwits.)
>
> Such posts do not promote goodwill, do not give reasons to believe the writer,
> and do not bring glory to God.  Those posts have no benefit, unless one enjoys
> reading exercises in snide one-upmanship.
>
The incongruity of the last two paragraphs is appalling.  "Nitwits?"  "Glory to
 God?"  From you?  This may come as even further surprise (even shock), but I
 doubt if you'd win many votes as "Christian Good Will Ambassador."

Dave Talaga

"People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones." -- Mom
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:30:55 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: OK, YOU GUYS ASKED FOR THIS....

TBlackwell,

           Maybe this is good.  Think about it.  How will we become one in
Christ?  We will I know.  But, how will we?


                               Your friend in Christ, Bernice
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 12:53:33 CDT
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      YO, KEN..

 That's all you can really do in that situation!!!
 Keep leaning on HIS arms of strength and mercy, he'll see you
 through this!!! He's seen me through the past six months, and
 all *I* did was agree to a break-up with my boyfriend!!!
 (Ask Carol... she'll tellya I was NOT a happy camper...)
 :)
 (HUG)
 Maybe that hug will help you some, too... I know it's just a
 'outer hug', but the meaning's what I'm gettin' at.
 God Bless, and You're in my prayers
 "G" (Theresa)

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: How to FTP On-Line Bible
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:47:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <1992Sep4.165205.19525@icf.hrb.com>, j1w@icf.hrb.com (Doug ('Oscar') Works) writes...

[...]

> 
>P.P.S.  Version 6.0 (?) is coming out next week.  Don't know current version.

	The current version is 5.00, although the install version is 
5.00.17. Version 6.0 has finished Beta testing and will be shipping 
soon. It will be available in the /doc/bible directory at WU in about 
2 weeks. (wu is 128.252.135.4 on the ftp dial)

	The Thompson Chain Reference module should be available in 
October. And the Topics module is due to be upgraded too. It should be 
more point and shoot then the cumbersome way that it is now.

	The other modules should be able to be used seamlessly with 
vers 6. For instance, if you have the Greek module for v5, it will be 
useable with v6.

	Also, the MacIntosh version is being released about the same 
time. It should be on the archive at WU soon after the DOS version.



 en agape,
 Bob
From: KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET (Kerry Stephenson)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Re:a.graphe & b.I Corinthians 1,10-13
Date: 15 Sep 92 03:50:39 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
              14 Sep 1992 11:25:51 -0500 from <bthurman@UNCAVX.UNCA.EDU>

Um:

I think Paul makes his meaning clear in the verse (1 Cor. 12-13).
He says, "Is Christ divided?" (The obvious answer here is "no.")
"Was Paul crucified for you?" (Obvious answer, "No, Christ was.")
"Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (Again, obvious answer,
"No, in the name of Christ.")

I do not think he means to say that following Christ or not-Christ
is comparable to the error of following Paul or Appollos or Cephas
instead of Christ.

Help me out, here.  Am I missing something?

Love INC,
         --Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Traditional Scriptures, or Scriptural traditions, or vice versa.
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:53:38 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92090907312068@ASUACAD.BITNET> "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL> writes:
>Several authors have suggested that the early Catholic and / or Orthodox
>church chose the Bible according to "Holy tradition."  It seems to me that
>this is the ultimate in circular reasoning.
>
>1.  The church defines what is scripture.
>2.  The defined scripture gives the church its authority.
>3.  Goto 1.

   Incorrect.  The Church's Sacred Tradition is that teaching which
has been passed down by God through His Apostles and their successors.
Sacred Scripture is a subset of Sacred Tradition.  If the Bible did
not exist, we would still have all its knowledge in Sacred Tradition.
The actual sequence of what you tried to show as Catholic belief is
this:

A) God has defined what is Tradition/Scripture.
B) God gave His Church, through the Apostles and their successors, the
   authority to canonize and interpret Scripture.

therefore,

C) What is part of Sacred Scripture, when interpreted by those with
   the authority given by God, is infallible.

   For Dan and others, who do not accept B) above, the authority to
determine what is Scripture does not seem to come through any visible
source.  So they implicitly/unknowingly accept as the authority for
what is Scripture either Luther or the Catholic/Orthodox Church.

[ Father Mark: does the Orthodox Church have a canon of Scripture
  different from that of the Catholic Church? ]

   Dan's point "2." above is absolutely false.  We do not use
Scripture to determine the authority of the Church.  The Church is our
final visible authority.  Scripture only repeats what is already
accepted by us.

   That we Catholics use Scripture to prove the truth of Sacred
Tradition is not circular reasoning.  This argument would not be
acceptable to us, since for us the authority of Scripture rests on the
authority of the Church.  However, we _can_ use it to demonstrate
Sacred Tradition to you, because you _do_ claim to accept Scripture as
the final authority on such things.

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 8 Sep 1992 11:31:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Bishop Jenkins Quote ....

From:     Robert Weiss <psyrobtw@EDU.BUFFALO.CC.UBVMSB>
Subject:  Jenkins quote...

>	The information that I had came from a trustworthy
>evangelical monthly. I have no reason to doubt them.

I suspect that your monthly may have trustingly quoted an article printed
over here.  I would perhaps mark that one down to experience for them.
As I said it was silly season here.  Some of are national press are not as
reliable as they might be.

>... She [Z_STAFF_CL] states that Jenkins was quoted
>out of context; that would be twice in fact, once for the denial of
>the Virgin birth, and once for referring to the resurrection as a
>"conjuring trick with bones."

There was a period when anything this man said that could be mis-quoted or
miss understood when taken out of context was reported.  From what I remember,
the addresses in question were long, academic "on the one hand... on the other
hand.."

>	If my source is wrong, I wish to know that.

As I said, they may have taken it in good faith, many papers did.

>Is there any way that I could obtain both of Jenkins addresses?

Off the top of my head, I can't think of a source.  I do know however that
the Bishop's Office at Church House in Durham did at one time send out copies
of surmons.  You may try to get hold of their address through one of the
Anglican clergy directories.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
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
	UK Fax No : (0703) 222259		acknowlegements to author.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Z_STAFF_CL@UK.AC.SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE
===============================================================================
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 6 Sep 1992 21:41:19 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Bishop Spong

An additional wrinkle to throw into this discussion.

Although I am not an Anglican/Episcopalian, I happen to have a copy of
the Book of Common Prayer.  One of the services described therein is the
Form of Ordaining or Consecrating a Bishop.  In this service, the candidate
is called upon to "promise conformity and obedience to the Doctrine,
Discipline, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church."  I would assume
that this means (among other things) conformity to the Articles of Religion,
also listed in the Book of Common Prayer.  Assuming that Bishop Spong's
views on scripture and other fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith
have been accurately represented, I cannot see how he could be seen to be
teaching in faithfulness to the promises that the Prayer Book says he made
at his consecration.  Perhaps some of the Anglicans/Episcopalians (James?
Nancy? Lora Harris? Lauren? Madge?) could clarify this issue for a poor,
confused, Messianic Jewish non-denominational type such as myself.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: The unelectable elect.
Date: 13 Sep 92 01:00:36 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <CHRISTIA%92091107470453@ASUACAD.BITNET>, NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET (Tom Brewer) writes:

> Bro Mark:
> 
> If you understood and believed my "view" as you call it, you would know
> I don't have to try to "prove" it. That it is taught by our Lord is good
> enough for me. The burden of "proof" is on those who say that Jesus did
> not teach the doctrines recorded in John 6.

No, the burden of proof is on all who give an interpretation of Jesus's words,
including you as well as everyone else. You say that the Father drawing a man
to Christ constitutes "forcing" his conversion; Mark says it doesn't. The issue
is one of interpretation, and neither of you should consider it closed without
establishing exactly what Jesus did mean by "drawing".

-- 
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
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 16:44:03 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: Homosexuality (again)
              14 Sep 1992 17:33:00 GMT from
              <Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK>

Carol:

"Love and let live....judge not..." a summary of Christianity?

How about "You shall love the LORD your God with all your heart, with all
your soul, and with all your mind."  This is the FIRST and GREATEST
commandment.  The second is "you shall love your neighbor as yourself."

Let me put it this way:  I KNOW that if I fail to make Jesus the LORD
of my entire life, if I continue in unrepentant sin, I will not attain
the Kingdom of heaven.  As I love myself, I respond to the Spirit's
communion with my spirit in bringing me to repentence, and I turn from
my sin (many many times, if necessary.)  I do not continue to deny that
it *is* sin.  If we truly love sinners, we are concerned more with their
eternal destiny than with their earthly inconvenience.  We do sinners
no favor by smugly letting them go to Hell and breathing a sigh of
relief once they are there.  Sharing the gospel with sinners and
calling sinners to repentence is dangerous for us, because it means
we might have to share eternity with people we would prefer to hate.
Loving the sinner means helping him to come out of sin, to accept
Christ, so that he might enter the Kingdom--even if it means we have
to share the marriage supper with him.

Sure, we could ignore it.  That would certainly be more comfortable in
this world.  But then unrepentant sinners would go to Hell--and standing
by while another walks straight into the black hole of Hell, without
raising a voice of warning, is not love.  It is self-righteousness.

Love INC,
         --Kerry
From: rpgrant@vax.path.ox.ac.uk
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Favorite Scripture
Date: 11 Sep 92 07:53:17 GMT
Reply-To: rpgrant@vax.path.ox.ac.uk
Distribution: bit.listserv.christia
Organization: Oxford University Molecular Biology Data Centre
Nntp-Posting-User: rpgrant

In article <1992Sep10.122348.2505@u.washington.edu>, laperla@byron.u.washington.edu (Juan Perla) writes:
> anyone?
> 

	"I will take away your heart of stone, and give you a heart of flesh"

Ezekiel 33:3

/sig
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.SOLENT; 14 SEP 92 11:06:43 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:32:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      RE: Absolution, Tradition, and Christianity

Tim,
Thanks for you Sunday afternoon summary.
It appeals to my Anglican "both/and" churchmanship but more to the point
I think that  it sums up the thread that Christians should tollerate each
others' insight and experiences of God - it is like we are all working on
the same jigsaw but looking at it from different points around the dinning
table !
Carol L
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 12 Sep 1992 18:24:28 EDT
From:         Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: The elect
              12 Sep 1992 17:09:00 CDT from <BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU>

Brian,

What you are talking about is the doctrine, held by some, of double
predestination.  This doctrine was specifically repudiated by the
early church, which at the same time supported the doctrine of
election as outlined.  Again (I seem to be recommending this a lot
lately), read the Canons of the Council of Orange, available from
the CHRISTIA library.  Send the message GET COUNCIL ORANGE to
LISTSERV@ASUACAD.  Personally, I do not hold to the doctrine of
double predestination.

One can, however, make a good case for it from the passage in
Romans 9:19ff.

Shalom,

Lon Mendelsohn
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: jrussell@unlinfo.unl.edu (john russell)
Subject: Re: Gays want to be left alone???
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:37:57 GMT

lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes:

>I've been teaching since 1958, and I seriously doubt that any student, strait
>or gay, has looked to me as a model for their sexuality.
[...]
>    Dear Louie Crew,

>    As one who has taught for the past eighteen years, I am aware just
>    how indirect an idea we have of what we accomplish there.  Any my
>    memory of the first day in your freshman English Comp class is one I
>    do not expect you to have.  What was for you merely an introduction to
>    the course and the establishing of authority was for me something
>    unforgettable.  You picked up one of the oversized ceiling lamps that
>    had been left on the desk and calmly recited Wordsworth's THE WORLD
>    IS TOO MUCH WITH US into it.  From that very moment of hearing the 
>    spoken music, poetry has lived within me.  That night I read aloud
>    poems for the first time.  I learned to read.  Writing poems soon 
>    began defining my life.  This book that I send to you with gratitude
>    took most of the last 15 years.  I hope it offers you some pleasure.
[...]
>The Sower
>Louie/Quean Lutibelle

Thank you for sharing your letter. It is gratifying to know that there
are still people out there who make students aware of the joy of 
learning and of the beauty that exists out there. I hope that I am
able to teach my children (when I have them :-) what you have taught 
this person. (Oh no! That makes you...gasp...a role model!)

jr

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 16:19:16 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: ????? on the Second Coming
              at Sep 9, 92 5:59 am

>
>Dear Ian ;
>
>Paul has already stated that the Gospel had been preached in the whole
>world in His day.
>
>
>Jesse Carnes
>
excuse me????? huh??? references please...




---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: mueller@owlnet.rice.edu (Ernest Conrad Mueller)
Subject: Re: Bishop Spong
Organization: Rice University
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 1992 04:44:22 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92090618584704@ASUACAD.BITNET> Lon Mendelsohn <LMENDELS@CMS.CC.WAYNE.EDU> writes:
>An additional wrinkle to throw into this discussion.
>
>Although I am not an Anglican/Episcopalian, I happen to have a copy of
>the Book of Common Prayer.  One of the services described therein is the
>Form of Ordaining or Consecrating a Bishop.  In this service, the candidate
>is called upon to "promise conformity and obedience to the Doctrine,
>Discipline, and Worship of the Protestant Episcopal Church."  I would assume
>that this means (among other things) conformity to the Articles of Religion,
>also listed in the Book of Common Prayer.  Assuming that Bishop Spong's
>views on scripture and other fundamental doctrines of the Christian faith
>have been accurately represented, I cannot see how he could be seen to be
>teaching in faithfulness to the promises that the Prayer Book says he made
>at his consecration.  Perhaps some of the Anglicans/Episcopalians (James?
>Nancy? Lora Harris? Lauren? Madge?) could clarify this issue for a poor,
>confused, Messianic Jewish non-denominational type such as myself.

As a sometimes Episcopalian, I have often wondered why Spong has not gotten
the boot.  In fact, I just today asked some other Episcopalians why he
was still around.  The reason is pretty simple.
No one has the authority to get rid of him.  The Archbishop of Canterbury
is only a figurehead (like the King & Queen of England.)  Once he got
ordained and became a bishop, there is really very little way to get rid
of him.  Excommunication does not happen in the Episcopal church because 
there is no one with the authority to do so.  I suppose that if lots of other 
bishops decided to somehow get rid of him it might be possible, but most
Episcopal bishops are pretty liberal and would not do it.



-- 
--------------\  /^--^\  /--------------  *     Ernest Conrad Mueller IV
   ------------\| 0  0 |/------------     *     mueller@owlnet.rice.edu
      ----------\_ <> _/----------        *     Rice U., Home of Owlnet
                /V\--/V\                  *     "Give a hoot - Don't compute!"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 9 Sep 1992 09:43:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      The unelectable elect.

Stephen,

You are a rascal.  Good play on my words.  Of course, I think that the
Elect are not to be candidates for election, in the human sense.  Funny how
God's election contains only one vote, His.  If God votes for you, nobody
can vote against you.  Even you can't vote against you, isn't that neat?

I can well remember a Sunday School teacher once saying that that divine
election had three votes, God voted aye, Satan voted nay, and we each held
the deciding vote.  What drivel!  That reduces God to a bystander instead
of a sovereign who chooses His will with no recourse to others.

Some will disagree with my sediments here, [sic] No problem.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 14:38:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Umlaut (was: Re: Math and `absolute' answers)

In a message of Wed, 9 Sep 1992 14:35:17 GMT
Received on Thu, 10 Sep 92 09:40 N
Stephen Kingston <spk@UK.AC.ABER> wrote:

>Thinking back to my High School German classes, I believe normal practice
>in such cases as this is to write the vowel followed by an 'e', thus 'Goedel'
>would be the correct spelling.
>
>I'm sure Wolfgang will reply if I am incorrect.

He does even though you're right! ;-D

In fact if I recall it correctly the character written in early times
was an 'o' with a small 'e' on top (dito for a and u). Then as people got
more lazy they just wrote two dots. Similar things hold for French or
other European languages (how about Danish, Klaus?) that attach the 'e'
on the right hand side of the character (without a space in between)
like in 'soeur' - sister. Another short form in French is the 'accent
circonflex' that signifies an 's' that was dropped (like in fene^tre -
window- which comes from a Latin root that has the 's' (fenestra?).

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU