HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 15:46:29 EDT
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Multiple personalities

Urban Research Institute
Phone: 502-588-6626

I wrote a terrible sentence (but it isn't the first time :-)!  I said:
"That is not to say that I do not believe demon possession does not exist,
only that we should not necessarily blame every ailment we do not understand
on demon possession."  I count at least five "not"s in that sentence!  Ugh.
What I meant to say (more clearly), was that while I do believe that demon
possession exists, we are often too quick to blame what we do not understand
on demon possession, especially when it comes to mental illness.  I don't
think it's justified to do that.

Yvette later asks the difference between demon possession and multiple
personalities.  The description of multiple personalities offered by Dan
Holzman is one that I have often heard and read about (although I am no
psychologist).  Demon possession is when demons actively take over the
actions of another person.  In the case of multiple personalities, there
would be no demons present, and although multiple personalities would
exist, each with different abilities and knowledge, they are uniquely the
individual's own personalities.  In demon possession, the individual ceases
to be in control because outside forces have taken over.  At least that is
my understanding - never having known or witnessed either.  I'm open to
correction.

Brenda Curry-White
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Spiritual leadership in the home
From: comjohn@ccu1.aukuni.ac.nz (Mr. John T Jensen)
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:57:28 GMT
Organization: University of Auckland, New Zealand.

I wonder if something isn't missing in this discussion.  The question being
asked somehow seems to presuppose that we will know 'spiritual leadership'
when we experience it, and that if we don't think we are experiencing it,
then we don't have to do 'it.'  As I read the Scriptures it appears to me
that God has made human society so that the man IS the head of the woman.
Not that he should be, might be, could be, just IS.  It doesn't seem to me
any more avoidable than that He has made women to have babies.  The only
question is how this headship will be exercised, well or ill, according to
the Scriptures or not.  I think there are indications in the Scriptures as
to how this is to be exercised --- neither 'hierarchically,' as some have
said, nor in 'open marriage' format, but in an organic federalism.  A family
is small enough to be able to organise itself in a number of ways.  None of
them can make the man other than head, however.  I think some marriages have
forgotten this to their own misery.

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
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:37:08 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Divorce and Remarriage

Jeff,  So far as I know there are three basic positions held by
Christians about divorce and remarriage.

One holds that a valid Christian marriage can be dissolved only by
death.  Civil divorce is a legal fiction, and someone who remarries
after divorce is committing bigamy.  (Someone who holds a different
view who remarries may not be _ guilty _ of the sin of bigamy, but
is, objectively speaking, in a bigamous relationship.)  This is the
teaching of the Catholic Church, and perhaps of some other groups.
I, as a Catholic, accept it.

Note the word "valid" in the previous paragraph.  It is possible for
people to go through a marriage ceremony and live together as man and
wife but, because of some condition existing at the time of the
ceremony, not be validly married.  If the existence of this condition
can be proven, the couple can be given an annulment.  Civil law
provides for annulments or divorces.  The difference between them is
that a divorce is an action while an annulment is a statement.  A
divorce decree dissolves (or claims to dissolve) an existing mar-
riage.  An annulment just says that investigation has shown that a
putative marriage was not a true marriage.  Since the parties were
never married they are free to marry other people.  I said "marry"
not "remarry" because they were never married.

Another position holds that divorce and remarriage are generally
wrong, but that they can be permitted in certain cases such as adul-
tery.

A third position accepts divorce and remarriage for almost any reason
at all.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Temple University/SCT Computer Services
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 23 Jul 1992 11:58:25 EDT
From:         "Roger A. Phyall" <ROGER@TEMPLEVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual leadership in the home
              22 Jul 1992 19:57:28 GMT from <comjohn@CCU1.AUKUNI.AC.NZ>

On Wed, 22 Jul 1992 19:57:28 GMT Mr. John T Jensen said:
>I wonder if something isn't missing in this discussion.  The question being
>asked somehow seems to presuppose that we will know 'spiritual leadership'
>when we experience it, and that if we don't think we are experiencing it,
>then we don't have to do 'it.'  As I read the Scriptures it appears to me
>that God has made human society so that the man IS the head of the woman.
>Not that he should be, might be, could be, just IS.  It doesn't seem to me
>any more avoidable than that He has made women to have babies.

AAAHHHMMMEEENNN, AMEN, Brother!!  And in this same passage of Scripture giving
procreation to the woman is stated that the man shall have dominion over her.
It's right there, yaw'll, plain as day to be seen.

Brother Jensen continues to examine how 'headship' is to be implemented.  I, on
the other hand, will ask the question:  Are we becoming very short-sighted on
the abortion issue/crisis for not seeking the spritual *thought* method for use
in guidiance on this subject?  What's that, you may ask?  Answer:  With God's
leading study the Word for example and/or principle.  Now are they there??

|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~|
|                            |    Cordially & Sincerely yours,  |
| Temple University (038-15) |                                  |
| Computer/Math Bldg. Rm 851 |         Roger A. Phyall          |
| Broad St. & Montgomery Av. |       VM System Programmer       |
| Philadelphia,PA 19122-2585 |          (215) 787-1292          |
|                            |                                  |
|        Internet:           |              Bitnet:             |
|   ROGER@VM.TEMPLE.EDU      |           ROGER@TEMPLEVM         |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:24:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Kerry's dead.
X-To:         christia <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

Kerry, you have discovered a truth that few Christians ever get a real
handle on.  The only thing I would take any exception to is your statement
that Jesus died with the saved and unsaved.  The saved, surely.  The
unsaved died when Adam sinned.  They are born dead, as we are, too.  Even
though our life is Hid with Christ, we don't know about it until we are
born again.  The unsaved are dead from birth, and stay that way on through
eternal hell.

In Romans 6, Paul makes the logical connection between death and rebirth.
He says that, if we were crucified with Christ, then we will be raised with
Him, too.  If the unsaved were crucified with Him, they couldn't be raised
with Him, for that would be giving eternal life to the unsaved, or sving
them when there was no plan to do so from God's eternal vantage point.

By the way, you will remain dead.  You cannot give life, only God can do
that.  You cannot enliven your old self that is now dead.  You may consort
with it for awhile, but it is still dead, for your salvation is secure,
regardless of your actions.  You'll stay dead, praise god.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:31:06 EDT
From:         Julie Nott <STR008@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: THE ROMANCE THING

Julia:

I was just browsing over some old posts that I had saved for future responses
and happened to stumble on your "THE ROMANCE THING".  I was just wondering
how your situation with Chad was going.  I may be able to offer some advice
or encouragement via either private e-mail or on the list.  I had a similar
situation in my past.

Here is an inspiring "GUIDANCE" verse:

   And I will bring the blind by a way that they knew not; I will lead them
in paths that they have not known:  I will make darkness light before them,
and crooked things straight.  These things will I do unto them, and not
forsake them. Isaiah 42:16

Thank you Lord that we have guidance other than that of the world.

Jules
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 00:16:01 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      US Politicians Twisting Scripture

I did not watch the Democratic Party convention.  I do not plan to
watch the Republican Party convention either, although I plan to vote
Republican in November.  Recently several people who did watch parts
of the convention posted comments about Bill Clinton twisting scrip-
ture.  No one on the list has mentioned the way the Rev. Jesse Jack-
son twisted the Bible.  According to columns and letters to the
editors of various papers Jesse Jackson said, "Jesus was born to a
homeless couple."  This is false.  They had a home in Nazareth.  He
said, "Jesus was the child of a single mother."  This is false.  Mary
and Joseph were married according to Jewish law.  According to custom
they had not yet started to live together when Mary miraculously
conceived Jesus, but they were married.  He said Mary was "abused and
questioned" when she said Joseph was not the father.  There is no
basis for claiming that she told anyone at the time that St. Joseph
was not the father.

Jackson also compared Vice President Quayle to King Herod.  That is
truly bizarre.  King Herod ordered the slaughter of all boys in
Bethlehem younger than two.  Dan Quayle is pro-life.  He opposes the
slaughter of innocent babies.  Rev. Jackson, who used to be pro-life,
flipfloped and is now pro-abortion.  He supports the slaughter of
innocent unborn babies.

Columnist Ray Kerrison quotes Roy Innis, the head of the Council
of Racial Equality, a black activist who does not follow the civil
rights establishment line, as saying, "Vice President Quayle gave a
long and thoughtful speech about the family, but the media picked out
one sentence on Murphy Brown and blew it into a national storm.
Jesse Jackson issues a terrible blasphemy and not a word from anyone.
It's almost as if Murphy Brown has more rank than the Virgin Mary."

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:47:01 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Wichita question

Hi Sheep:

Could someone please email me the name of the woman who was acquitted
in Wichita using the necessity defense?  I believe the judge's name
was Clark, but I seem to have missed the name of the defendant.

Thanks,
       Love INC,
                ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 24 Jul 1992 15:12:05 EDT
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual leadership in the home

I agree with Brenda.  I could never 'trick' my husband into
counseling.  Most of those type of decisions we've been able
to make...we usually agree.  My husband's main problem is
his wanting to please everyone.  And he does it at his expense.
I'm an only child...a spoiled brat...and I can easily take
advantage of him.  But he also trusts me, that I'm not gonna
pull one over on him or lead him off somewhere I know he
wouldn't go.

When I have an opinion, I let him know.  If I don't, I let him
know.  In the second case, I would like him to do what he thinks
appropriate, not just what he thinks will please me.  In the
first case, I would like us to discuss it, but if we come to
a stand-off, I would rather he decide (he has had my input) and
I would go along with his decision.  This is where my concern comes
in.  He is afraid to make the decision, either because he thinks I
will be upset he didn't go my way or that his decision will end up
being wrong.  I don't believe in wrong decisions, but I have yet
to convince him of that.  I believe God will use any decision
to work for good if we have included Him in the process, and even
when we have not if we acknowledge we need HIm.

The more I think about this, the more I can see my husband being
like Jesus.  There are many things he stands firm on, and on most
of those we agree, and in other things, he puts his love for me
and our children ahead of himself.

Maybe that is spiritual leadership after all.

Carol
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:36:02 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: marriage (mine)

Carol,

I thank God that he has given you a Christian husband.   I would love that
my husband would accept Crist and be saved from hell.   All else is trivial.
I have prayed for it and am hopeful that something I have no evidence of will
happen someday. With God all things are possible.  No prayer is too small and
no problem is too big.  Your concerns are his concerns and if you have a
problem communicating with your husband, pray about it.  God loves you and will
hear your prayer and it will be answered.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"christia@asuacad"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 07:48:35 -0500
From:         MARCI HENDRIX <HENDRIX@RHODES.BITNET>
Subject:      christia romance

David and Vicki:  Best wishes to the both of you and a heartfelt, WOW!
People hear about pen-pal romances but now we have our own example of
e-mail romance in the making.  So tell us more, are you officially
engaged (I assumed so ....) do you plan a long engagement?  What cities
are you in and who will move to where.  Scoop, scoop, and more scoops.
Since this is a community romance you gotta keep us posted on the details.
Again, congratulations and best wishes.  Marci Hendrix
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:45:36 EDT
From:         Julie Nott <STR008@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Prayer request - G.D. Dodson
              30 Jul 1992 08:34:56 -0700 from <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>

Drake:

I will pray for your grandfather & grandmother!

I work at the Univ of KY Med Ctr (Far from being a Dr).  According to the
Churchill's Medical Dictionary --

stenosis -- a narrowing of an orifice (which in turn means -- any opening to
or from an organ, cavity, tube, or structure, including any foramen, meatus,
 or ostium) or the lumen of a canal or tubular organ.

Not a diagnosis, by any means, but maybe that will help ... I'll ask some
of the real Dr's around here and see what I can come up with...

In Christ,
Jules
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: timk@world.std.com (Tim King)
Subject: Scriptural Authority
Organization: The World Public Access UNIX, Brookline, MA
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:03:30 GMT

Renee Autry <SRAUTRY@SAMFORD.BITNET> writes:

>The problem seems to be that a number of men have difficulty
>distinguishing between "authoritative" and "authoritarian."

Well put!  I've noticed that many people I've known, myself included,
seem to have (at times?  in the past?) a strong desire to control others.
We sometimes feel like we have to make the other guy see it our way,
and this just isn't so.  The other guy has to lead his own life, and if
he chooses to follow my sayings, good for him!  If he chooses not to...
well...  :-)

"Well," you say, "in a relationship such as a marriage, this shouldn't
apply as stated."  In a perfect world, the leader gives full freedom
to the lead, and the lead decides to follow.  This is essentially the
position God has taken with His church.  This is a situation that
allows very deep relationships to form in which trust abound.

Unfortunately, this isn't a perfect world.  So what do we do?  I guess
just do it the best we can with His help.

-Tim
-- 
Tim King                  |-_      |
Dedham, MA                |  -|    |    Make mine music!
timk@world.std.com       <>   |   <>
(617) 890-2929 x137          <>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 12:58:13 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject:      At last

Hi Saints,

At last I am getting some mail from christia. Did I missed something
important ? Clue me in !

Shalom,
Memo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Samford University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 10:39:49 CDT
From:         Renee Autry <SRAUTRY@SAMFORD.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: You have to preach in church to be a REAL reverend

On Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:10:00 EST WKJ said:
>Greetings to all,
>
>        Grace and Peace. I meant no harm at all by mentioning that reverend is
>not a noun. I apologize to anyone who may have been offended. God bless you.
>
>WKJ

James,
      Actually I need to be apologizing.  Darren brought it to my attention
that I did not read very carefully.  I thought the question was "where do
Southern Baptists get this designation " and not "this word is not a noun"
I was not offended, just offering some useless Southern Baptist trivia - I
am sorry that I did not read your post very carefully :-)


                                                     Peace,
                                                           Renee
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"Christia@asuacad"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 26 Jul 1992 21:42:00 CST
From:         JULIA 204 <JRS1488@TAMVENUS.BITNET>
Subject:      poem

                BROKEN DREAMS

As children bring their broken toys
With tears for us to mend,
I brought my broken dreams to God,
Because He was my friend.

But then instead of leaving Him
In peace to work alone,
I hung around and tried to help
With ways that were my own.

At last I snatched them back and cried
"How can you be so slow?"
"My child," He said,
"What could I do
You never let go."
From: spk@uk.ac.aber (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Oaths and the Bible
Date: 27 Jul 92 08:57:05 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth.

James Kiefer wrote:
> 
> (A US witness is permitted to "affirm" instead of swearing, and to
> omit the last four words...)

The United Kingdom also allows a witness to "affirm" instead of 
swearing.

Other then that, thanks for yet another excellent article.

>  James Kiefer

Stephen.

-- 
Gweleis i rac neb nym gweles pop annwyl. ef diwyl yneges. Gweleis i pasc.
(I saw the one above all men,  he saw me;  he, the beloved of his people,
who fulfills his mission. I saw Easter.) "Yspeil Taliesin" ---Taliesin---
spk@uk.ac.aber --- spk%uk.ac.aber@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk --- Stephen Kingston
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 31 Jul 1992 07:49:16 CDT
From:         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Master "Bait" or Mass Debate?

Dear All on Christia ;

I hope I was clear on my last post on this subject.
All I wanted to say is this:

1) The Word does not condemn it catogorically

2) However, we must keep a clear conscience on grey issues.

3) We must use WISDOM by addressing (not undressing!) EXPEDIENCY.

4) We must AVOID lust and other senualities which are catogorically
condemned by the Scriptures.


The real issue here is the same as Television, wine drinking, movies, etc.
We must be honest with ourselves and with the Lord.

Lastly, we must have self-control over our thoughts and bodies.
If we let anything else take control, we commit IDOLATRY.
Let's be mature sons and not CHILDREN about such things, as Dan Graham has
cogently stated.

Really, this issue is only a case study for the General Question, "What is
allowable and what is NOT allowable under Scriptural mandate?"

Everyone, I suggest Romans 14 as a grass roots basis for grey area attitudes
and I suggest further reading for specifics on specific issues, if
catagorically stated or subsumed by explicit catagories.





                             Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM>
From: scsd1055@altair.selu.edu
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Cease fire!!!
Date: 29 Jul 92 19:03:28 -0600
Organization: Southeastern Louisiana University

Ian writes->

>Why pretty things up with shades of grey arguments that don't exist or are
>not valid???

	My shades of grey argument was meant to emphasize the importance
of listers making a conscientous effort to see an issue from anothers
point of view.  Maybe I should have said something  like "walk a mile in my 
shoes."  But, I think I did say something to that effect and you obviously 
ignored the gist of my message, and I don't expect those that are so cemented
and cast in their ways to understand such a message.
	If I wanted to "pretty things up" on the issue at hand I would have 
been far pressed to find the words or phrases to do it.  My first posting 
was admittedly (and I have said this before), a bit crude, and rude.  But
I will stand by my message.  Further posting were an attempt to wholeheartedly
smother the flamage created by that posting (my way of apologizing).
	And what are you arguing about?  The validity of my opinions?  The 
"don't exist or are not valid" end to your message tells me that you are 
opposed to my opinions.  Those opinions are mine, and not yours, so do not 
try to trivialize my views by making cute remarks....


Have a good one down under,
Bill Plunkett
SCSD1055@ALTAIR.SELU.EDU
Sticks and stones....
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Receipt: y
X-Return-Receipt-To: ct@dde.dk
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL5]
X-Charset: ASCII
X-Char-Esc: 29
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 06:38:43 DNT
From:         Claus Tondering <ct@DDE.DK>
Subject:      Footprints

I once read a very short story that went something along these
lines (quoted from a very imperfect memory):

	Once I dreamed that I saw a beach, and the beach was
	my life, and there were footprints in the sand where
	I had walked. In most places there were two sets of
	footprints, because Jesus had been walking beside me.
	But in some places there were only one set of footprints,
	and when I looked closer, I realized that those were
	the hardest times of my life. Why, Jesus, did you leave
	me in those times when I needed you most? "My child,"
	answered Jesus, "you see only one set of footprints,
	because that was when I carried you."

Question: Does anyone know the exact text for this beautiful little
story? And do you know its origin?

Yours in Christ,
Claus Tondering
Dansk Data Elektronik A/S, Herlev, Denmark
E-mail: ct@dde.dk