HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM (Eric James Ewanco)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Whose will is dominant?
Date: 12 Nov 92 15:28:03 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII

What do you make of this, Jesse:

Deuteronomy 30:15-20a:
	"See, I set before you today life and prosperity, death and
destruction.  For I command you today to love the LORD your god, to walk
in his ways, and to keep his commands, decrees and laws; then you will
live and increase, and the LORD your God will bless you in the land you
are entering to possess.
	"But if your heart turns away and you are not obedient, and if you are
drawn away to bow down to other gods and worship them, I declare to you
this day that you will certainly be destroyed.  You will not live lon in
the land you are crossing the Jordan to enter and possess.
	"This day I call hevaen and earth as witnessess against you that I have
set before you life and death, blessings and curses.  Now choose life,
so that you and your children may live and that you may love the LORD
your God, listen to his voice, and hold fast to him."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (kilroy w here)
Subject: Defining `Free Will'
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 14:33:38 GMT


Jesse Carnes writes:

> First, you need to stop ... fora moment ... and DEFINE "free will" within
> the scope of the Scriptures.

No, you need to stop using the figures of speech as if they were intended as
literal statements of doctrine.  For example:


> Does it state that man has a "free will"?  Does it define it and say that
> Christians HAVE it as well?

   [ Aside: Does the Bible state that God is a Trinity?  Does it define
     `Trinity' and say that God is one as well? ]

> So, if there is NO definition for "free will" as you say, in the
> Scriptures, then HOW do you know that such a critter exists?


All of what you have written here misses a pretty basic point.  There is no
requirement either that `Free Will' have been created, or that it `exist' in
any concrete sense.  Nobody needs to `have' free will.

You are demanding that your debating opponents defend presuppositions which
are not necessary to their beliefs.  Until you understand what it means that
"one can be able to choose freely without `free will' existing", you are not
qualified to engage the debate.

So far as I can make out, this part of your argument is based on the error of
reifying what seems to me a simple concept.  Perhaps you should take some
philosophy classes at LSU so that you'll have at least some idea what is going
on (at the very least go look up `reifying concepts').  In any case, do
yourself a favor and stop arguing with people who clearly know tons more about
this subject than you do.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Well this morning I ain't fightin', tell her I give up.
 Tell her that she wins if she'll just shut up." -- Bruce Springsteen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 7 Nov 1992 23:07:18 CST
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      no prob...

Will do, Glenn.
I used to Date a senior-systems analyst... He'd
always be working in the lab, and I've seen the
set-up.  Good place for it.
Strategy???? Works like a charm.
He Reigns.
"G"

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 09:26:21 EST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      Re: Christian Attitudes About Cannibalism

Center for Urban and Economic Research
Phone: 502-588-6626

Kevin asks about the Donner party, "Wasn't there a family that refused to
eat the flesh.  I think that they were the only family where all the members
survived."

There were two families where all members survived, and one of those did
survive without resorting to cannibalism.  This was the Reid family.  The
reason that they did not eat human flesh was not that they refused it, but
because they were never forced to it.  The father was banished from the
group because a fight broke out between he and another man.  He ended up
stabbing the man.  This was before the party was stuck in the Sierras.  He
went on ahead of the party, and was able to get through to Sutter's Fort
California on his own.  He managed to organize several rescue parties.  The
first rescue party went ahead of him.  They reached the Donner party, but
did not have enough provisions for the whole group, so they set out for
Sutter's Fort with as many of the survivors as they could take with them.
Among these survivors were Reid's two children (I believe - I can't
remember).  This was before the cannibalism began (the party did have
a few cattle left at the start of the winter).  Reid went with the second
rescue party, and met the first party on their way out of the mountains.
He went on and brought his wife out.  Again the second
rescue party did not bring enough provisions.  I think there were a total
of four rescue parties that attempted to save the Donner party, but the
winter was one of the worst on record.  Using horses and buggies they just
did not have the means to save everyone stuck in the Sierras.  But at
any rate, the Reid family did make it out of the mountains before things
were as bad as they eventually got.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: jeffgus@netcom.com (Jeffrey Gustafson)
Subject: Re: Predestination or Free Will
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 1992 07:00:11 GMT

Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:

>Bernice ;

>One question : "If Jesus died for ALL sins of ALL persons, at least
>theoretically, then how do we deal with the Unpardonable Sin which Jesus
>stated that "...It will not be forgiven in the age nor in the age to come"?

>Was Jesus' blood unable to forgive that one, or were the perpetrators of it
>BEYOND the scope of Jesus' saving work ... bearing in mind that ACTUAL sins
>were Imputed to Christ and He was accordingly punished under the Just Wrath
>of the Father in the place of those whose sins were so imputed?

	It would be illogical for Jesus to die for unbelief.  If Jesus
died for unbelief then no one should go to Hell.  This is where
Limited or particular atonement comes from in Calvinism.  Although His
death could have saved everyone, it was only applied to the
predestined.

---
Jeffrey Gustafson
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 12 Nov 1992 15:20:45 CST
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Defining `Free Will'
              12 Nov 1992 14:33:38 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Darren ;

Sorry ol' bean but you swallowth the proverbial double-humper and straineth
the miniscule insecto!

Pretty good ambush on your part ... but poor polemics ... and unmentionable
Apologetics!


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: creation centered spirituality
Date: 7 Nov 92 13:43:48 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Carol,

    I tried to mail to you privately but it bounced like a golf ball on a
concrete slab.
    I wasn't sure if you were a little worried about me or Meister Eckhart,
but since I am not creative enough to be a good heretic, I figure it must
have been M.E. you were concerned about.
    Meister Eckhart is an interesting read, even though he does seem to get
wild at times.  What good preacher doesn't froth and foam once in a while, and
say things in order to keep you from nodding off.  Remember Meister Eckhart was
preaching to a bunch of nuns that never really got enough sleep (from praying
the hours) so he had to say some wild things to keep those lids from crashing.
    The R.C. hierarchy didn't always like what he said either, but then he
never really felt they understood what he was saying, and his followers like
Johann Tauler tended to agree (that Meister E. was often misunderstood).
    Bear Books, which publishes largely "new age" type books, also publishes
some small pamphlets (I think) that use some of Meister Eckhart's writings
(and other recognized Christian mystics) for stepping stones to meditations.
I think you would be much better off going to the two volumes of Meister
Eckhart's writings in translation.  They provide an excellent overview of
the times in which they were written, and Meister Eckhart himself.
    Now, about creation spirituality.  It was nice to see that brother Steve
provided you with a brief overview of Matthew Fox.  You might want to read
one of his books yourself - they are available from Bear.  I think your
intuition is right about creation spirituality.  There are some valuable
insights it provides (concern for the earth, criticism of vulgar materialism,
an expanded universal view of God's work among the peoples of the world, etc.)
but, I think Matthew's pendelum has swung a bit too far....for my taste and
present level of understanding.  I like a lot of what he has to say, but
other people say similar things in more orthodox ways.
    I would be interested in finding out about other contemporary theologians
who are writing from the creation spirituality perspective.  The only one
I am really familiar with is Brother Fox.  If you can help me out here, TIA.

                      The 144 has become 144,000.  We are in the New Aeon.
                      Personally, I am into "New Creation spirituality."
                                                          4
                                                         444
                                                          4  zane.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 9 Nov 1992 14:56:56 CST
From:         Yvette Traylor <YST1@DCCCDBIT.BITNET>
Subject:      Movie Title

Hello Everybody,
I am searching for the title of a movie, I haven't seen the movie, but I
have heard alot about it and would like to.  At some part in the movie
it has two guys who are riding a motorcycle and they hit a tree and die,
one goes to heaven and the other goes to hell or somthing like this.  I
have heard this movie called two things, 'The Burning Hell' and
'Without Reservations' and so far, I haven't been able to locate it
under either title. If anyone knows the real title of this movie please
let me know asap, thanks a bunch.

   Yvette Traylor     "We are His people and the sheep of his pasture."
   Dallas County Community College District             Psalm 100:3
   Computer Programmer/Analyst from Dallas - Texas
"I know worse things about myself that you will ever say about me." Anon
From: JURASCHEK@GMUVAX.BITNET (David F. Juraschek)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: National TV OFF day
Date: 12 Nov 92 14:32:00 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"christia@asuacad"
Original_cc:  JNET%"bstudy@utarlvm1",JURASCHEK

Morality In Media, Focus on the Family, and a number of other major national
groups have declared tomorrow, November 13 as a day for Christians and
those concerned with the decay of morality and the increase of violence
on TV to leave their TV's off for a full day.

This effort began as a grass roots boycott of local TV stations for this
one day by a concerned mother of 4.  Morality in Media, Focus on the Family
and other groups thought a one day of NO TV was a good idea to send a clear
message to those who control the media that many folks are just plain
tired of all the violence, explicit sex, and low moral standards that are
being presented by many, many programs on TV today.

This is a voluntary action which shouldn't really impose any difficulty on
anyone.  It's a simple, way of telling the Television industry that it's
time for a change.

The obvious question is: "How will they ever know that I've turned my
TV off?"

Some of this may be measurable by cable systems, and those with "black
boxes" attached but what about the rest of us?  The solution for us is
to turn our TV's off, and then write a letter to the networks telling them
that we did so, and why.  How do you find out where to write?  Call
719-531-7733 (Family News in Focus - of Focus on the Family) and they'll
give you the names and addresses you need to write to.

Can it really hurt anyone to give up television for one day (and write a
note) to express their desire for a higher level of morality in TV
programming?  One day?

(I'm not attached to MIM, FOF or any other organization.  I heard about
this grass roots effort on the radio and thought I'd pass it on.)

-Dave
From: rpgrant@vax.path.ox.ac.uk
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Malachi - who is he?
Date: 12 Nov 92 12:06:50 GMT
Organization: Oxford University Molecular Biology Data Centre
Nntp-Posting-User: rpgrant

Gudday all!

"Malachi"  means "My messenger" ......
May it be so.

Richard
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu (Tim Rolfe)
Subject: Re: The Gospel
Organization: Dakota State University
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1992 04:03:12 GMT

In <CHRISTIA%92111211351713@ASUACAD.BITNET> Jesse Carnes
<NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET> writes:

[...]
>Sorry to say that ... actually I am not ... I am just sad that it HAS to be
>this way for ROME.
>Now, I am NOT authoritative ... but the Scriptures in their 66 Canonicals ARE.
>I encourage all professing believers to take up my challenge to READ the Word
>of God in CONTEXT and compare the Gospel of the Scriptures with that of Rome.
>One can only WIN by doing so and BELIEVING the Truth.

Dear me!  We have a problem, though.  Generally accompanying the "sola
scriptura!" battle cry is the companion one of "private interpretation."

What if I read the Scriptures (and I have), and I agree with Rome?
Should your interpretation of the Scriptures take precedence over mine?
-- 
                                              --- Tim Rolfe
                                           rolfe@dsuvax.dsu.edu
                                            ROLFE@SDNET.BITNET
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 20:13:38 EST
From:         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A Vote For Morality
              11 Nov 1992 19:56:31 GMT from <nlt@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

On Wed, 11 Nov 1992 19:56:31 GMT (N. L. Tinkham) said:
>Eh?  Being gay makes one more susceptible to dog parasites?  How?  What kind
>of parasites -- fleas, ticks, worms, that sort of thing?  Do they mean just
>gay men, or lesbians too?  Is it homosexual orientation, or specific sex acts,
>or promiscuity that causes the susceptibility?
>
>I can't imagine what the connection between sex (with humans) and parasites
>would be.
>
It is specifically male to male sex acts. Lesbians are normally healthy as
far as STDS and the like as far as I know.

Sperm in the back end(trying to be a polite as possible) causes the immune
system to kick into overdrive. Lesions WILL occur since that end is not
designed for sex. I don't remember what parasites, but I think it was
worms and something else. What ever it was ONLY because of the decreased
immune system.

Hope that answers your questions. I don't really want to start this thread
again.

Maks.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Emory University - Atlanta, Georgia, USA
X-Acknowledge-To: <LIBSAC@EMUVM1>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 11 Nov 1992 11:30:45 EST
From:         "SHELBY A. CROSS" <LIBSAC@EMUVM1.BITNET>
Subject:      Reply-Prayer Request-C of E Synod

Dear Carol,

Just a note to encourage you that I  will be praying for you and the out-
come of  the Church of  England Synod  regarding the ordination  of women
to be priests. I know in Phil. 4:6 (RSV) "Have no anxiety about anything,
but in everything  by prayer and supplication with  thanksgiving let your
requests be made known to God (7)  And the peace of God, which passes all
understanding,  will keep  your hearts  and your  minds in  Christ Jesus.
Although people  will have their  own views  about this topic;  one thing
I do know when it comes down to  scripture, we have to make sure what God
says about the  situation in His Word.  God should have the  last word on
the situation. I truly  hope that the Lord is in  command of this meeting
and people are lining up with His  Word and also allowing the Holy Spirit
to lead and  guide them into all  truth and knowlege. We  need to rightly
divide  the word  of truth.  The  Lord does  not want  us worrying  about
anything, but  He wants  us to trust  in Him. Prov.  3:5-6 "Trust  in the
Lord with  all thine  heart and  lean not  unto thine  own understanding.
(6) In  all thy  ways  acknowledge Him  and He  shall  direct thy  paths.

Dear Heavenly Father,

We thank  you and praise  You for  your Word and  for the Holy  Spirit to
lead and  guide us into all  truth. We ask  you Father to take  charge of
of this  situation and that  your will; will be  done as the  Synod lines
up  with your  Word. Give  everyone your  love, joy,  and peace  and give
them  your wisdom  and understanding  that  everyone may  dwell in  unity
as  brothers  and sisters  in  the  body of  Christ.  I  would also  hope
Father  that the  Synod will  back  up their  decision with  the Word  so
that people  will not  have to  go away wondering  what happened.  I pray
also Father  that you  give Carol strength  and direction  in ministering
to  others in  the  body of  believers.  Let them  continue  to love  one
another  and  stay  together.  In  Jesus Name  I  pray.  Amen  a5d  Amen.

Carol I  hope by  the time  you read  this everything  will be  well with
you. Remember to put all your confidence  in God, and He will not let you
down.

Your sister in Christ,

Shelby--
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"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 19:58:00 EST
Comments:     A VAX cluster with VMS V5.5, PMDF V4.0-22, JNET V3.5 & UCX V1.3A
From:         Liz Moreau <EMOREAU@UMASSD.BITNET>
Subject: Re: Trinity

>If Jesus did not need the Holy Spirit for his works on Earth then he cannot
>be a role model for us, because WE need the Holy Spirit... All that Jesus
>did on earth, he did as a man, not as God, he set aside his divine-ness for
>his time on earth (with a respite at the mount of transfiguration)..
>
>Jesus is our example of how to lead a perfect life on earth, he showed us
>how to do it, by reliance on the Holy Spirit in all he did..

Ian:

We are basically saying the same thing, but with different wording.
Let me try to be clearer ...

I never said that Jesus did not need the Holy Spirit only that he did
not need the dove coming down on him to receive it as he already had
it!  Even thou he had a human nature for a time on earth, the Holy
Spirit was still part of Him.  The dove descending on him (in answer
to the original question by JHart) was a show for the people and for
John the Baptist.

                                                Liz
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 09:34:59 EST
From:         SSAUDER@WCU.BITNET
Subject:      testing If you do recieve this message, please let me know.

 I just sent a request for people writing for windows applications. It is a
 journal that is just starting. I know this doesn't have much to do with this
 list, but I a new user with sending mail and sent it to the wrong list :<

 Sorry...Sam
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 13 Nov 1992 13:11:09 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Gospel

Excerpts from christia: 13-Nov-92 Re: The Gospel Jesse Carnes@LSUVM.BITNE (776)

> Dear Memo ;

> What you were saying sounds good, ostensibly ... but, it is not the
> OFFICIAL teaching of Rome. The Gospel of the Roman Catholic church is
> one of "Jesus PLUS ... works -- either personal or ecclesiastical sorts."

> Half of my church used to be Catholic, and they can tell you, especially
> the pastor that what Rome OFFICIALLY teaches and what you oft hear in
> your perish church are diferent ... and for GOOD reason.

Ah, the truth comes out.  You get your information from embittered,
virulent anti-Catholic former Catholics who have been duped by
anti-Catholics before them, like Lorraine Boettner, Jack Chick, Tony
Alamo, Jimmy Swaggart, and others.

> Read OFFICIAL publications by the Jesuits, who are the "Praetorian
> Guard" of the Catholic church.  These hard ball publications spell
> things a bit
> differently ... and read "De Fide" by Ott for more OFFICIAL doctrine.

The Jesuits are a corrupt order and have wholly abandoned orthodox
Catholicism.  They are in deep doo-doo with the Vatican and the Pope on
a number of occasions has considered disbanding them.  Read Malachi
Martin's _The Jesuits_.  They have wholly abandoned true Catholic
teaching for New Age and Marxist doctrines, and I would not trust
anything they said in modern times.  They have abandoned their
committment to defending the Pope and have turned to Marxist
revolutionary teachings.

Nevertheless, the Jesuits do _not_ speak officially for the church.

Ludwig Ott's book is not called "De Fide."  It's called "Fundamentals of
Catholic Dogma," and I have read a good portion of it.  If you will
notice, it defends dogmas with Scripture.  "De Fide" refers to those
paragraphs so marked that indicate that the given article is an article
of faith that must be held by all Catholics.  I can understand, if you
have read it, how you might come away with a bad taste in your mouth,
but I have carefully resolved with Scripture all of the objections to
> Catholic teaching that arose in my mind when I first read it.

> Compare also, the Council of Trent's canons with your local perish
> church's normal Sunday homily fare or catachism.

A normal Sunday homily fare unfortunately rarely emphasizes the
doctrines of grace that the Council of Trent does and that the Catholic
Church teaches.  It's sad that most Catholics are taught a much more
negative view of their faith that is true.

Why don't you read Alan Schreck's _A Catholic Catechism_ or _Catholic
and Christian_? Both have imprimaturs and nihil obstats, although
neither are rigorous theological texts.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU