HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Should women cover their heads?
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 22:14:21 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET> writes:

>Andrew writes, concerning 1 Cor. 11:2-16:

>> It seems to me that the major issue is whether this teaching is
>> relevant to today's Christians. It is my belief that it is. You
>> see, although it might be argued that Paul is teaching that given
>> the culture of the time, the head should be covered, it should
>> be observed that he appeals to such things as 'because of the
>> angels'. That still stands today, I suggest.

>I believe that the major issue is whether or not the passage is literal,
>and if it is symbolic, what is it symbolic of?

>I tend to believe that a literally head covering isn't necessary, but Paul's
>message still remains important.

I think you MAY be right that it isn't necessary.  However, I'm not so
comfortable with the implied opposition between symbolic and literal.  This
almost feels as if, if something is symbolic, then we needn't pay attention
to the literal thing that symbolises something.  Marriage symbolises
Christ's relation to the church, yet I am inclined to think we should get
married 'literally.'  The elements of the Lord's supper symbolise a
spiritual communion with Christ.  Yet I would not go so far as to say that
therefore we need not eat any literal bread nor drink any literal wine.

hmm..

jj

John Thayer Jensen                      64 9 373 7599 ext. 7543
Commerce Computer Services              64 9 373 7437 (FAX)
Auckland University                     jt.jensen@aukuni.ac.nz
Private Bag 92019
AUCKLAND
New Zealand
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: danny@utkux1.utk.edu (Danny McCampbell)
Subject: Re: Televangelists
Organization: University of Tennessee
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:52:46 GMT

In article <ECA60985204060DD@SMITH>,         The List Minor <VCHAI@SMITH.BITNET> writes:
> 
> Allen writes:
> >  When preacing to my nonChristian friends, I always have to face the
> >question about the famous ministsers Baker and Swager.  Some of them
> >did watch their program on TV and was finally very surprised at the
> >things they do.  Some of them then conclude that preaching is only a
> >cheating.  Can anyone help me to answer these questions?
> 
>   I don't think it's for us to judge whether these people have
>   actually received a *calling* from God or not.  It's possible
>   that they actually did, but was too tempted to sin (in various
>   ways); or they had actually set out to deceive people.  But
>   whatever it is, God, I'm sure, was still able to work through
>   it.
> 
>   Answer:  Humans are fallible, and Christians are no exceptions.
> 
I agree with Vicky, that it is not for us to judge these evangelists.
The Bible says that we are not to touch God's annointed.  I personally
believe that many of these men were once annointed by God and did
win a lot of souls to Christ but they fell into sin just like we do 
a lot of times.  The problem was that they were well known and that 
not only caused a lot of strife in the churches but turned a lot
of unbelievers further from the truth!  I personally believe that God
exposed the sin in the Church, because in these last days God is
going to have a victorious Church!  God knows what He is doing.

God bless you.

Danny McCampbell
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University at Buffalo
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
X-VMS-Cc: V063KC44
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 22:25:00 EST
From:         The Nuzz <V063KC44@UBVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Hierarchy in the Apostolic Church

Marty Helgesen wrote to Ian that...

[... ...]

mh>     I could produce lots of other quotations from the Fathers stat-
mh> ing the same idea of Christ's Church.  You, no doubt, will object
mh> that their writings are not part of the Bible.  That is true, despite
mh> those early Christians who thought that St. Clement of Rome's Letter
mh> to the Corinthians was part of the Bible.  However, while they are
mh> not scripture they do show how the first Christians understood
mh> Christ's Church.  As with other Catholic doctrines, to reject them is
mh> to adopt a position similar to the Mormon idea of the Great Apostacy.

        Similar in what way?

        To reject a teaching when it deviates from Scripture does not
mean that the teacher is in complete apostacy! To assert that the
fathers and doctors of the early church taught some items that were at
odds with what the Bible teaches is not the same as saying they were
in error on everything!

        Even the RCC admits that there was time of false teachings in
the RCC. Rome teaches that there were anti-popes and canonized saints
that never existed. The point here is even Rome admits that she has
been in error without stating that this is necessarily complete apostacy.

        For someone to hold that there have been times when the
fathers and doctors of the church have been in error does not demand
that this is equivalent to complete apostacy.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 13:10:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re-pro-choice

From: Lonnie Schubert <S096556@UMRVMA.BITNET>
Children are a blessing of the Lord.  No exceptions.
    Lonnie Schubert
-------------------------------------------------------

Hmmmm.
No IMO or IMHO here.
No Biblical evidence.
No scientific evidence.
No logical evidence.

As it has been repeated, and it isn't marked as an opinion,
it would SEEM to be a genuine dogmatic egotistical statement!

A rare animal indeed, and one rarely seen on a list where such
care is taken to differentiate between opinion and fact.
One of for the record books.

+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
I   Darryl K. Johnson      >  "It is better to have a     I
I   Texas Christian        <   permanent income than to   I
I   University             >   be fascinating."           I
I   Fort Worth, Texas      <    -- Oscar Wilde            I
\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
/ DJOHNSON@tcucvms.bitnet      DJOHNSON@gamma.is.tcu.edu  \
+-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-+
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 6 Apr 1992 05:26:54 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: JW Translation
              5 Apr 1992 22:03:48 EDT from <MKLINE%VDH.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU>

Y'all:

The Jehovah's Witnesses are a cult, sure enough.  They have a different
Bible, an unstable eschatology, and a history of falsely predicting the
end of the world.  But check your constitutional history, folks; we
owe them a ton for pursuing the cases that bought us the limited religious
freedoms we have today.  Without them, we would still be considered
legally creatures of the state first and God's kingdom second.
                                         Love INC,
                                                  ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 10:06:54 CST
From:         CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Subject:      RE:abortion
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.

Allen--

   I agree with you that poverty of the spirit is worse than
merely being poor. Sometimes I would meet other poor people
and think how happy they seemed. I hated being poor because
my parents told us (the children) that it was our fault.  it
always seemed that if we had money we would be happy but I
can see that no matter what, my parents would have broken
our spirits. They just didnt want us.  I grew up knowing this
and as a result I have tremendous trouble believing that God
really loves me. but thanks be to God He has shown me that he
is the perfect parent and I dont have to worry about it anymore.

Kim
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:40:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Safe Sex #2

From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
  Besides, what does that have to do with the fact that increasing the availa-
bility of condoms has not been demonstrated to effectively reduce the spread
of the AIDS virus?  Or that engaging in promiscuous sexual behavior is a
     A "fact" without a reference is called an opinion.  I can't
     complain TOO much: I do it too.  But please provide a reference
     for this "fact".  NOT a secondary reference "Josh McDowell
     said.....".  That makes it still opinion.  The study that
     "demonstrated" this result.  Thanks!

this discussion has implicitly assumed that the only damage done by this
unbiblical behavior is physical.  The fact is that sex with a person to whom
     I make no claims for the effectiveness of condoms in preventing
     nonphysical damage.  I mean, they ARE only latex!
     However, as we are discussing condoms, and NOT the issue of
     premarital or extramarital sex, THAT is why we have been
     only discussing physical damage.

     Darryl at TCU
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 01:29:04 -0800
From:         dr798302 <whchen@CS.NTHU.EDU.TW>
Subject:      re: Question of the day.
X-To:         CHRISTIA%ASUACAD.bitnet@TWNMOE10.EDU.TW

Saudra wrote:
  'According to Jewish folklore, there was a woman who proceeded Eve in the
garden. According to tradition,  she was named Lilith and wanted to have
control, and was thus destroyed.'

  I am a bit puzzling at this.  Would it mean that there are some verses lost
in the history between chapter 1 and 2?

Allen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Organization: University of Massachusetts Dartmouth, North Dartmouth, MA, USA
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Importance: SEMASSU.EDU was changed to UMASSD.EDU on Aug 10, 1991
Priority: SEMASSU.BITNET was changed to UMASSD.BITNET on Oct 10, 1991
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 13:06:00 EDT
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.4-2, PMDF V3.2-19,
              JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         LIZ MOREAU <EMOREAU@UMASSD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Feminist theology/little god movement

>God bless you for standing up for Him in the face of such demonic forces
>as you describe.  If you missed my posting on this (I can't remember whether
>it was part of personal mail or list mail), you should read "Catholics and
>the New Age," by Mitch Pacwa, which is about the influences of the New Age
>movement in the church and discusses yoga, enneagrams, visualization, and
>other such problems.  BTW, the author is still a practicing Catholic, so
>don't worry about it being some kind of Catholic-bashing Protestant conversion
>book.

I did see you mention this book and plan to pick it up when I can.  I
was glad to see this because I was looking for a book written by a
Catholic that I could read and pass on to the CCD Director.  It had to
be Catholic because they wouldn't pay attention to anyone else such as
Joanna Michelson.

I'm not sure they would listen to this either, but I have to keep
trying.  Like I told them, you are free to make decision for yourself
and your life.  That is your perogative, but when you are making that
choice for your congregation who follow blindly behind you, shame on
you!

                                        God Bless,

                                                Liz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 03:34:17 -0800
From:         dr798302 <whchen@CS.NTHU.EDU.TW>

Hi,
  When preacing to my nonChristian friends, I always have to face the
question about the famous ministsers Baker and Swager.  Some of them
did watch their program on TV and was finally very surprised at the
things they do.  Some of them then conclude that preaching is only a
cheating.  Can anyone help me to answer these questions?

Allen W. Chen
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:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 10:12:17 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: your mail
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
              at Apr 16, 92 8:59 am

Steven,

I do not think say for example if a Christian converted to Islam, or
Hindu or Bhudda or what ever that it would be backsliding..
Backsliding is when we turn away from our daily witness and go back to
living as members of THIS world, and not of the kingdom.. (Sunday Christians
for example)..
This is the whole crux
To put ones faith for salvation in ANY other thing other than Jesus Christ
constitutes a deliberate and exact rebutal of Christs Sacrifice..
Hebrews tells us that it is possible to fall away, and that those who do
have a pretty good chance of not ever making it back... I also agree that
this constitutes the unforgivable sin.. To Deny the Holy Spirit inside of
onesself (oops that came out a bit new agey, but you know that I mean)...
I keep on harping back to 2 Tim 2:1-14..
If we have no faith then Christ is faithfull for us.
If we deny Christ, then Christ denies us..

Thanks for an intersting discussion...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 23:55:04 EDT
From:         MKLINE%VDH.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject:      Disable Call Waiting

Subject: Disable Call Waiting



cs> If you can't do that, does your phone company have a symbol-number-number
cs> code to turn off call waiting on an individual call basis?

        Call waiting can be disabled for the period of a single call
by using the modem string atdt*70,###-#### :enter:. If you have pulse
dialing try using 1170 instead of the *70.

MAKS> You may have to call your phone company and make sure their
      network supports this. Mine didn't for a while but it does now.
      It does help. With a teen ager, I get blown off constantly if
      I forget. :-)

Maks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:49:59 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Contraception/abortion

Jeff,

You are correct that the Catholic Church teaches that all means of
artificial birth control, that is actions that interfere with the
sexual act to prevent conception, are sinful.  Natural family plan-
ning does not interfere with the sexual act and  therefore is not
intrinsically sinful.  It can be morally legitimate for couples to
use it.  However, I don't agree that distinguishing between contra-
ception and abortion is a non-issue.  It is true that they are both
sins and that the important thing is to love God and avoid sin, but,
on the other hand, taxonomy is a part of all sciences, including
theology.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 11:37:00 EDT
From:         The List Minor <VCHAI@SMITH.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Poverty

 Jeff writes:
>Did God create poverty?  Is it God that made suffering? Would God, who is Love,
>create this human experience named poverty?

   Jeff, just because most of us believe that poverty is a real, tangible
   thing does not mean that we also believe that God *created* it.  Yes,
   God created all that was made, but things such as death, sickness, and
   poverty are the (direct and indirect) results of man's sin.  Just as a
   rainbow is the result of light being refracted and reflected in drops of
   water in the air (God did not put the rainbow there per se), so is
   poverty the result of sin.

>  Are you blaming God for all of the suffering in the world?

   No!  Of course not!

>       "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up," stated
>Jesus.  He let his enemies destroy his body, in order to prove the falsity of
>mortality.

   No, to demonstrate His victory over sin.

>.. He demonstrated that death is not legitimate, that it is indeed the
>"last enemy."

   The "last enemy," not the "last illusory enemy."

>  If death is real, is Truth,

   Death being real has nothing to do with it being Truth.

>... then Jesus could have never overcome it,

   Why not??

> but if it is only belief, then this belief was demonstrated to be untrue
>when Jesus body was risen from the dead.

   According to CS, if death is not legitimate, you saying that Jesus'
   body was risen from the dead is a contradiction of terms, you _have_
   to describe it in another way.

Also...
>He stared death in the face, and then destroyed it--

   Another contradiction in terms.  How can He destroy death?  You mean,
   He destroyed the illusion of death don't you?

   Also, can I say that since you understand that mortality is also
   an illusion,
   1) Will you now be immortal?  How can you die if death is but an
      illusion to you?
   2) What makes immortality real?  You can't define and accept the
      idea of immortality without acknowledging the "realness" of
      mortality.


   Waiting to hear from you,
    Vicky
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 20:45:53 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Contraception == abortion? (was Re: re:pro-choice)

Darryl:
If you would swear allegience to another God, you would go to Hell.  It is
that simple.  I would certainly _die_ rather than torture another to swear
allegience to my God, but I would _never_ deny the Lord that bought me out
of bondage.  For if I deny Him before men, then will He be forced to deny
me before the Father.
  Killing people will not convert them, it will only make them dead and send
them to Hell.  God did not charge us with doing that when He issued the
great commission.  He told us to baptize every tongue, tribe, people, and
nation in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit (not to
dredge up _that_ argument again!).
  Adhering to an absolute standard is not hatred; allowing others to stray
from that standard and risk damnation is cruel.  We cannot compromise absolute
ideals, even in the face of our own death.  The Lord is God, the Bible is
Truth, and, if necessary, we must die in the defense of those absolutes.
If I know you are eating poison, and I do not attempt to stop you, I am
guilty of your potential death.  Knowing that the unsaved will be forever
separated from God if their condition does not change, how can I _not_
tell them?  How can I _not_ oppose any transgression of the absolute laws
of God, no matter who does them?
                                  Love INC,
                                           ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 9 Apr 1992 15:14:18 MST
From:         Becky Harris <ISPBJH@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Becky and Mormonism

On Thu, 9 Apr 1992 12:20:42 PDT Doug Gould said:

>The phrase "professors were all corrupt" I take to mean those who
>preached or taught the creeds God objected to, not everything about
>every person who found himself or herself an innocent member of those
>other denominations.

This is a very nice way to put this Doug, but what about me...I'm
teaching my children these so called *abominations* (Christianity).
I'm not an innocent member of one of those _other_ denominations,
but someone who was taught never to have anything to do with them.
Where does that leave me?

Becky Harris
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:03:00 EDT
From:         "Carl A. Lahetta" <U952020@RUTADMIN.BITNET>
Subject:      help

set christia nomail
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 14:43:00 MDT
From:         ERNESTOM@EPCC.BITNET
Subject:      Re: Should women cover their heads?

Types of the Veil in the Old Testament.....


        It is important to notice that in the Old testament the veil
was considered important and indespensable in the furnishing of the
tabernacle, a veil would separate the Holy place from the most Holy,
it was in he most Holy where God would manifest Himself to the High
Priest and it was to be separated with a vei.   Exodus 26:31-34.

        The Ark of the testimony was to be covered with a covering
before God would speak unto them.  Exodus 25:17-22.

        Why a covering must be worn by women in worship.......

One of the first things  Paul estalishes as he begins to teach,
concerning the necessity of a woman wearing a covering upon her
head in her worship to God is HEADSHIP then implies SUBJECTION.
        Why is man considered the Head of the woman?  Carefully
read Genesis chapters 3:14-19 & 1 Tomothy 2:12-14.
(1)God (2)Christ (3)man, (4)woman.

        1 Cor 11: 1-16

v-4 "Every man praying or prophesying, having his head covered
     DISHONOURETH HIS HEAD." Who is the head of man? v-3 Christ.
     He then, dishonoureth Christ when he prays with a cap, a
     hat or any type of covering.

v-5 "But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head
     uncovered DISHONOURETH HER HEAD for that is even all one
     as if she were shaven." Who is the head of the woman?
     v-3 man, she the dishonoureth man, when she prays uncovered


As to why a woman should cover her head in prayer or when
prophesying:

                1) TO HONOR MAN (her head).
                2) SHE IS THE GLORY OF THE MAN.
                3) BECAUSE OF THE ANGELS

PEACE,,
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU