HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 10:56:00 EDT
From:         Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Correctness and Truth

Marty,

> I think that scriptural passages such as 1 Cor 13:11-12 and Isaiah
> 55:9 mean that we cannot understand everything about God, not that we
> cannot understand anything about God.

I agree with you completely!  And don't forget Deut. 29:29, which I think
says basically the same thing.

You're right about the logic.  The compliment (logical negation) of
"everything" is _not_ "nothing", but simply, "_not_ everything".

In Christ,
.------------------------v----------------------------------------------------.
| Jeff Shirton           | "Now it is God that has...given us the Spirit as a |
| shirton@McMaster.CA    |  deposit, guaranteeing what is to come."  2Cor.5:5 |
`------------------------^----------------------------------------------------'
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 09:41:10 EST
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      Good Friday

Oh, by the way, does anyone know how "Good Friday" got its
name?  I have heard, but I don't remember too well anymore :).
Thanks...Carol
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  JNET%"christia@asuacad"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 14:32:00 EDT
From:         TURNER@HARTFORD.BITNET
Subject:      Prayer Request: Darlene

Darlene Ciciotte, 48, a long-time friend and music minister at our church,
went back to God last night after a year-long battle with intestinal cancer.
Despite her chemo and other exhausting treatments, Darlene stayed active
until Leap Day, when it was discovered that the cancer had invaded her liver.

Darlene grew up a "card-carrying Congregationalist" in Maine, but converted
to Catholicism when she met and married her husband Joe.  They have two
boys, Steven, a freshman in college, and David, a junior in high school.

Darlene has galvanized the music effort at Corpus Christi Church in Wethersfield
CT since 1985, instituting the cantor program and helping CCC to finally become
a singing parish.  She also taught in the parish school, and the children have
turned out some wonderful liturgies under her baton.

Darlene also wrote many songs, most after she was diagnosed last year, which
we as a choir will sing at her homegoing on Tuesday.  I know we'll be able to
do it with God's help.

Please pray for Darlene, her family, and all of us who will always love and
miss her physical presence.  She was a beautiful and unique gift from God,
and we are the richer for having had her among us.

Love,

Ned Turner
University of Hartford
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 12:36:31 EDT
From:         "Joseph P. Riolo" <riolo@COR4.PICA.ARMY.MIL>
Subject: Re: Origin (Re: Christian rock)
X-To:         Practical Christian Life <CHRISTIA@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>
X-cc:         riolo@PICA.ARMY.MIL

Lonnie,

       I am not sure how to answer my own question.  I have to think
about it more.

       There is another example that I could think of.  It is the word
'echo'.  According to my dictionary, it is a name for a nymph in Greek
legend.

       I had a small discussion with my friends about the meaning
of 'pure language' somewhere in one of the prophets in the Old
Testament.  One of the possible interpretations is that a pure
language is the Hebrew language.  Other possible interpretation is
that a pure language is a language that is not invented yet but will
be given by our Father during the next world/age.  That led to
some discussion about English language and I learned how some of
our common words came from names for some of idols.  Etymology
is one of my favorite subjects.

       Meanwhile, shalom...

                                        Joseph P. Riolo
                                        <riolo@pica.army.mil>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 02:20:32 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Changing a Church
              15 Apr 1992 03:04:59 GMT from <kilroy@GBORO.GLASSBORO.EDU>

Darren:
I hesitate to point this out, at the risk of beginning another round of
round of misunderstandings, but what we have here, clearly, is a failure
to communicate.  [BTW, please do not refer to me as "Ms."  That is a
title I proudly wore for quite some time, for all the wrong reasons,
and have since rejected.  My name will do just fine.]
"Radical change", by definition, is change that cuts to the root of the
thing.  To change something either "radically" or "fundamentally" is to
make it into something so significantly different from what it once was
that previous understandings no longer apply.  Thus, while it would be
theoretically possible for the Catholic church to make all the changes we
have discussed and still call itself "the Catholic church", it would
be, at best, confusing, and at worst, ridiculous, to do so.  Hope that
clears things up.
                 Love INC,
                           ---Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 14:10:32 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Safe Sex #2

Darryl:
By ignoring the main point of my posting and focusing only on the ending
analogy, you have inadvertently weakened your own argument.  Do not assume
things about the behavior of others.  I do not drive a car.

However, the analogy will work _only_ when we add the additional information
that _if_ you get into a car (have sex) _and_ you wear a seat belt
(wear a condom) _and_ you drive the car at 100 miles per hour (have sex with
a person of unknown infection status) _and_ you hit a brick wall (you get
AIDS), _then_ you die, whether or not you were wearing the seat belt anyway.
You are advocating that we all get in the car and drive toward the wall
at 100 miles per hour or that, if we don't, we should at least keep our
mouths shut when other people want to.

On this issue, as with abortion, you appear to view the lives of others
with a casualness I cannot understand.  If a person wishes to engage in
risky behavior that can lead to his or her death, there is nothing (at least
in cases like this) that can be done to stop them.  For that person to
encourage others into engaging in the same behavior without telling them
what the risks are is a sin.  It is a lie.  The death a person with AIDS
dies is _not_ worth the risk.  Anyone who needs to have sex that badly,
who is so driven to obtain sexual gratification that he or she would
not only violate the commandments of the God that loved them enough to
die for them, but would risk contracting a fatal disease and then
unknowingly causing the deaths of others by spreading that fatal disease--
anyone so trapped in the bondage of sin and death needs our prayers and
the salvation of the Lord we know.  It is far more loving to introduce
a person in such bondage to the Lord of liberation than to simply hand
them a condom and say "be safe."
                                       Love INC,
                                                ---Kerry
From: CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: whos doing what
Date: 10 Apr 92 20:04:32 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.

Stephen--

  I didnt mean to stereotype pro-lifers; Its just that the
impression I get for the most part is judgemental, hostile,
and very very angry.  I understand why, but young women in
a crisis like unwed pregnancy arent likely to gravitate
toward that.(My parents were so unyeilding about it that my
sister who was raped wouldnt consider telling them, even
though it wasnt her fault. Im going to try very hard to give
my children the message that God gives us-- nothing you do is
so bad you cant tell me about it and expect forgiveness and
help.) My point was that the emphasis seems to be in the
'what you shouldnt do' area instead of the other.  The message
is "dont make a mistake." So abortion becomes a way to do away
with the mistake. We should be saying, "dont do x, but if you
do, we'll help you. we know none of us are perfect."
Perhaps this is your message, but this is not the message I
get ffrom the movement as a whole. And I think it is vital to
ending abortion.


 Kim
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:         Sat, 11 Apr 1992 09:53:24 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Should women cover their heads?
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
              Stephenson" at Apr 10, 92 12:03 pm

>There is no degradation in this; it is a symbolic demonstration of
>obedience to the husband as the head of the family as Christ is the
>head of the church.  I know of no Mennonite (Amish, Hutterite, other
>Anabaptist) in such a community that feels it to be in any way a
>restriction of their "rights" as human beings.  It all has to do with
>submission, which most modern men and women could stand to learn a good
>deal more about, IMHO.   Personally, I do not practice "covering" because
>of the congregation I am in, but I would not object to doing so in a congre-
>gation where that was the tradition.
>                                       Love INC,
>                                                ---Kerry
>

Kerry,
The bible does not teach cowering obedience, but submission..
Obedience does NOT bring submission.. My wife can obey my decisions, but
whilst she does not _submit_ or come along side with my decisions then there
is NO unity in the house...
The same submission that my wife should show to me , is the same that we
should show to Christ. Not brow beaten down trodden opression, but wilfull,
glad and happy submitting ones authority to someone that the Lord has given
authority over..

Head covering is a very very poor symbol of submission in my opinion, and
is much more a symbol of opression.

In my opinion the womens rights movement has got it all wrong.. They have
fought against opression, which is something I applaud them for, but they
have forgotten completely about submission..


*****************************************************************************
Ian Williams          			Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems         			Phone   : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"christia@asuacad"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 01:42:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Abortion & Don't

From: Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Okay, let me try to clarify, again.  Two scenarios:

A)  He was on the pier, with the tentative plan of getting into the boat.
    He took one step into the boat, and got doubts.
           Therefore, "When in doubt, _don't_ (get into the boat)"
    The correct course of action is to step back onto the pier.

B)  He was in the boat, with the tentative plan of getting onto the pier.
    He took one step onto the pier, and got doubts.
           Therefore, "When in doubt, _don't_ (get onto the pier)"
    The correct course of action is to step back into the boat.

The moral is, when someone has a tentative plan of action, and then has
doubts about completing it, then they should _abort_ that plan, just to
be safe.  When in doubt, _don't_.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I understand now.  Let's relate this back to abortion.

Abortion is now legal.  Americans are discussing whether we should
make it illegal, but we are unsure (have doubts).
Therefore, it MUST remain legal.

You're right.  "When in doubt, don't" is an emminently sensible
aphorism after all!

/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
>   Darryl K. Johnson      (  "Good breeding consists in  <
>   Texas Christian         )  concealing how much we     <
>   University             (   think of ourselves, and    <
>   Fort Worth, Texas       )  how little we think of     <
>                          (   other persons." -- Twain   <
\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
/ DJOHNSON@tcucvms.bitnet      DJOHNSON@gamma.is.tcu.edu  \
\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 1992 05:19:18 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Parental rights

Liz,

The Catholic organization that is specifically concerned with using
canon law to defend the rights of Catholics when Church bureaucrats
violate or try to usurp them is the St. Joseph Foundation, 4211 Gar-
dendale, Suite A-100, San Antonio, Texas 78229.  Phone: 512 614-3673.
(It is affiliated with the Saint Joseph Canonical Foundation of
Canada, P.O. Box 9274, Ottawa, Ontario K1G 3T9, Canada. Phone: 613
737-3709)

The organization concerned with defending parental rights in educa-
tion, mostly in public schools, but not entirely so, is the Eagle
Forum Education and Legal Defense Fund, Box 618, Alton, IL 62002
Phone: 618 462-5415.  Its newspaper, Education Reporter, was the
source of the item about PUMSY that I posted a while ago.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.AFRC.JII; 10 APR 92 13:23:28 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 13:23:00 GMT
From:         HANNANT@JII.AFRC.AC.UK
Subject:      Election

Stephen,
        Living in England/UK etc, and only being 21 I have never known
anything that a Conservative goverment.  I agree with you a hung parliament
would have been better than a majority.  Why can't they let someone else
have a go ;) !  Oh well guess we shall just have to wait another 4 years
and see what happens.  Wouldn't it be great to see a Christian Party ?  Do you
think they would do well ?
        Nigel. ( South Norfolk )
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 13:20:59 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re-pro-choice
              8 Apr 1992 11:31:15 CST from
              <CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>

Kim:

I understand your thinking regarding men's right to an opinion on abortion,
but I don't agree.  We need to remember that, no matter who is actually
carrying a child, the father, assuming that he is aware of the situation,
has the right to have an opinion on whether or not his child should die.
In my opinion, he should also have the right to provide the necessary
means to allow the child to be born.  As the law stands, only the woman
has the right to save the life of her unborn child.  I believe this to
be a violation of the Biblical injunction to "stand in the gap" for others
and to resuce those who are being persecuted and killed.  A child does
not "belong" to the woman who bears it; it "belongs" to God.  It seems to
me that part of the problem I have with prochoice thinking (thinking that
used to be my own, by the way) is that it treats both the child and the
woman as the property of the woman.  I, on the other hand, believe both
to be the property of God alone.  It is when we presume to act as God
in our lives, whether in large things or small, that we screw things up
the worst.
          Love INC,
                   ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 00:42:31 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      motives for executing Jesus

Andrew Brennan <BRENNAAA@DUVM.BITNET> writes:

 > What was the real reason that the Pharisees had Jesus killed?

According to John 11:45-53, the Pharisees and the chief priests were
afraid that Jesus would be hailed by the people as a military
deliverer, and that the result would be an uprising, which the
Romans would crush, with great bloodshed, and the stamping out of
the last remnants of Jewish independence.  Please note, by the way,
that it was the Sadducees, rather than the Pharisees, who controlled
the Temple. The high priestly family (Annas, Caiaphas, etc.) were
Sadducees.  See my paper CHOOSING BARABBAS in the Library for a
longer answer.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 7 Apr 1992 09:28:12 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Abortion & Don't

Darryl:
"When in doubt, don't" does not apply in the case of public policy.  It is
an advisable course for the individual, but when we are considering whether
or not to end a policy that harms a segment of society, the best policy
response is to over-act, in favor of protecting (rather than leaving that
segment of society to the natural ravages of the social world.)  Thus,
when we recognize the wrong done by the legal practice of slavery, we
pressure the government to act to protect those harmed by it (who are
powerless to act for themselves).  When we recognize the wrong done by
the legal practice of child labor, we pressure the government to enact pro-
tective policies that prohibit that conduct.  The proper and moral end of
government is to enable individuals to enjoy and use their lives and pro-
perty unmolested and, where necessary, to protect the weak against the
strong to enable that to happen.  Thus, recognizing the proper claim of
the unborn to reach birth without being subjected to uncontrollable threats
from hostile agents (whether we apply that terminology to the mother, the
doctor, or the state), we pressure the government to act to protect those
harmed by the unfetterred availability of abortion on demand through the 9th
month of pregnancy.
  By the way, since this discussion is still public (despite my best efforts
to move it), I would be very interested in hearing from anyone who has any
knowledge of economics on this issue:  what is the logical economic impact
of exterminating four thousand potential future taxpayers and laborers every
day for nineteen years?  (Please do not give me the "these unwanted children
would have ended up on welfare, a drain on our economy" argument, because the
demographics on aborting women do not support that conclusion.)
                                               Love INC,
                                                        ---Kerry
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 12:59:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re-pro-choice

From: Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Another thing.  I know this is picky, but what makes you think that the
receiver of the gifts of the 12 days of Christmas did not appreciate
them?  I think you are too influenced by modern interpretations of this
Victorian classic.
     Perhaps you misunderstood.  I was referring to the LETTERS
     from the gifts' recipient to the gifts' sender.  These are
     a set of letters that begin by thanking the sender for the
     wonderful partridge, then the turtledoves, and as the
     number of livestock increases, the letters become more and
     more frantic, insulting, and finally conclude with a letter
     from the recipient's lawyer, and then a letter from the
     mental asylum where she was admitted.

     These letters are HUMOROUS, and I imagine many people have
     seen them in one form or another, but the point was this:
     turtledoves, partridges, geese a'laying etc. SOUND like
     a blessing, but they quickly turned the recipient's
     apartment into a zoo, ruined it, got her evicted, etc.
     Just because SOME people like something, and feel it is
     a blessing, does NOT mean that everyone will like it, and
     therefore a blessing that one has no choice in recieving
     is not a blessing, it is a forced acceptance of a gift.
     If one child is a blessing, then surely 50 children are
     even MORE blessing, so if 50 friends of mine decide to
     give their children to you to raise, you won't mind?
     In fact, since they are apparently a blessing no matter
     what, and I don't NEED your permission, expect them to
     show up this weekend!  :-)

     Darryl at TCU
     P.S. 25 of the children are ill and vomiting, 5 of them
     are hyperactive, and the rest aren't toilet trained.  But
     as they are all blessings, don't worry about it.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 09:43:02 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Dominoes
              14 Apr 1992 08:20:43 CST from
              <CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>

Kim,

I don't remember hearing Carter's views on contraception discussed
during the 1976 campaign.  That aside, contraception and abortion are
fundamentally different.   As Planned Parenthood said in 1963, "An
abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun.  It is danger-
ous to your life and health.  It may make you sterile so that when
you want a child you cannot have it.  Birth control merely postpones
the beginning of life."  I believe contraception and abortion are
both wrong, but they are different kinds of sin.  Contraception is a
misuse of God's gift of sex.  Abortion is the killing of an innocent
human being.  Contraception need not be illegal because it has no
innocent victims.  Abortion has a victim: the child who is killed.

There is a possible connection between contraception and abortion,
but not one that would affect the law.  Many people practice contra-
ception because they think they have a right to unlimited sexual
gratification without the inconvenience of children.  People with
that kind of attitude who become pregnant due to contraceptive fail-
ure are likely to think of abortion as a backup means of birth con-
trol, another way of avoiding the inconvenience of children.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 21:42:08 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: whos doing what
              10 Apr 1992 14:04:32 CST from
              <CXKJP%UTXDP.bitnet@UTXVM.CC.UTEXAS.EDU>

Kim:

Please do not take this wrong, but if your sister was raped it was
_not_ her fault.  If it was her fault, she was not raped.  People who
are raped did not, in any sense, "deserve" it, no matter what the
circumstances may have been.  If she were the aggressor, then she
was not raped; perhaps the man was.  I do not mean this to be accu-
satory.  I was raped, by someone I trusted, in a situation I probably
shouldn't have been in.  But I know that no one "deserves" to experience
what I did, and no one "asks" to be raped.  Please do not give her
the impression that you think it was her fault; that will only hurt her more.
I think all of us that have been raped need to recognize that Jesus has
forgiven the assailant for the act and us for the hatred we felt for them.
In Him, we are free to forgive and move on.
                                           Love INC,
                                                    ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU