HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 16:17:32 MST
From:         Usenet/Netnews Moderator <FOCMCB@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: A poll on praying

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Date: 21 January 1993 16:54:24 CST
>From: U56149@UICVM.BITNET
>Subject: Re: A poll on praying.
>In-reply-to: Thu, 21 Jan 1993 09:14:15 MST
>To: Usenet/Netnews Moderator <FOCMCB@ASUACAD.BITNET>
>Message-id: <01GTSBCT3P6A99DJSS@asu.edu>

>>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
>>From: riipinen@dxcern.cern.ch (Petri Juhani Riipinen)
>>Subject: A poll on praying.
>>Organization: CERN European Laboratory for Particle Physics
>>Date: Wed, 20 Jan 1993 10:49:34 GMT
>
> Shalom!
>
> I have a (christian?) friend, who thinks, that it is enough, if we only pray
> once about something and then forget it. He says, that God knows our needs
> and will respond accordingly. On the other hand, I feel that we should really
> be patient and pray day after day something. I don't think that God wants it
> so, that we send a wish to Him and then forget it.
>
> But anyway, how do you feel about this? I wish to do a little poll. So,
> please
> answer me via email, and I will do a summary, if there are enough answers.
>
> Fill in:
>
>    ( ) I pray God only once for something and trust that He knows my needs
>        best.
>
>    (X) I pray God often for the same thing and believe, that He expects me
>        to pray for the things, although He knows what I need.
>

I believe that prayer does influence God's actions in the world (eg.,
Abraham's prayers about Sodom).  The parable in the NT about the
importunate friend supports the validity of repeated prayers.  However,
I believe that the most important reason for praying repeatedly is that
prayer changes us more than it changes God.

Jerry Bartlett
Peoria, IL, USA
u56149@uicvm.cc.uic.edu

>    ( ) None of the above. What: ___________________________________________
>
>
>    On what bible reference do you base this believe?
>
>
>
> Thank you,
>           - Petri J. Riipinen -
> --
> Petri~J.~Riipinen~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~(riipinen@dxcern.cern.ch)~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Les~terrases~de~Thoiry~n.15~~~~~~Renginpolku~1~~~~~~~~~~~~~~at~13.2.02~~~~~~~
> 01710~Thoiry,~~France~~~~~~~~~~~~28450 Vanha-Ulvila,~Finland~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> +3350208289~~~~~~until~10.2.92~~~"Opinions expressed are my own etc..."~~~~~~
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 28 Jan 1993 13:19:22 -0600
From:         jim coen <coen@ACC.WUACC.EDU>
Subject: Re: Jesse on tongues vs. canon

>Dear all ;
>
>Due to the fact that when tongues were interpreted, they became tantamount
>to direct Divine revelation, and  because the canon of the Scriptures is a
>closed and done deal, I therefore assertthat tongues WERE a valid gift, as
>well as prophecy.
>
>When we bring in 2 Timothy 3:16-17 into the picture, what we see is that the
>Word of God alone is SUFFICIENT for all of our spiritual needs.
>If tongues and prophecy were still validly operating today, the Sufficiency
>of the Word would be in question.  So is there a NEED for more direct Divine
>revelation in light of 2 Tim. 3:16-17?  If there is not, the issue of tongues
>becomes rather academic, and if so, then the varacity of 2 Timothy 3 is
>equally academic.
>
>
>Jesse Carnes
>

Here is something to think about. If tongues, prophesy, etc., etc.  were
ONLY for those who did not have the canon of the Bible, why did the Holy
Spirit inspire the writers of the (yet to come) Bible to give instructions
for the use of this (nonexistent) gift? Why would the Holy Spirit inspire the
writers to warn that we should be on guard against false prophets (if, in
fact, there were NO prophets)?

If the Holy Spirit inspired the writing of these words we hold so dear, and
if He was an Overseer of the canonizing of the Scripture, then why do we
doubt what it says?

Just wondering.

Jim Coen
coen@acc.wuacc.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@asuvm.inre.asu.edu"
X-VMS-Cc: DSROBERTS
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:57:33 -0800
Reply-To:     don@biivax.dp.BECKMAN.COM
From:         Don Roberts <DSROBERTS@BIIVAX.DP.BECKMAN.COM>
Subject: Re: Ten Commandments.

> But we know we cannot keep the law and by the grace of God through the
>shedding of Christ blood, we are forgiven.  The law shows us what is necessary
>to be righteous in God's eyes.  Christ came and was baptised to fulfill all
>righteousness.

John, I had, up to this point, thought you were defending keeping the law.
However this statement I've quoted says the opposite, the Christ fulfilled all
righteousness, so the law is meaningless to the believer in Christ.

But then you say:

>If we are to follow Christ example, and Christ followed the
> law,then we too are to follow the law.

What does it mean to follow the law?  Did the apostles gather on the sabbath?
Were they following the law?  Did Jesus defend or rebuke them?

Legalism is ignoring the whole teaching of Jesus, the better way.

   Don Roberts                   Internet:  dsroberts@beckman.com
   Beckman Instruments, Inc.     Phone:     714/961-3029
   2500 Harbor Bl. Mailstop X-12 FAX:       714/961-3351
   Fullerton, CA  92634          Disclaimer:  Blame me, not Beckman.
   "Abortion isn't a 'choice', it's the slaughter of the innocent"
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 11:15:58 -0500
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@ULKYVM.LOUISVILLE.EDU>
Subject:      About the Mormon discussion

I just thought I'd offer a word to the wise before the topic carries us down
that long, ugly road that we've seen too often with controversial topics.  The
same subject came up about a year ago.  At that time, there was a Mormon
member on the list who tried to remain very civil in the face of a lot of
criticism.  Doug Gould, are you still out there?  There are other members of
this list who are Mormon, but who seem much more hesitant to jump in on such
a conversation.  Doug began by reacting to listmember's questions about
Mormonism, and trying to describe his own beliefs.  But there was only one
of him, and there were a lot of other Christia members who wanted answers
to their questions.  As the topic progressed, many Christia members kept
asking the * same * questions, forcing Doug to make the * same * answers
until it degenerated into a free-for-all.  One non-Mormon member of the
list tried to step in to help handle all the requests for answers that Doug
was getting, but the topic became so heated that this particular Christia
member unsubscribed due to what he considered a lack of tact and charity
on the part of the listmembers.

So before we start the "Mormonism is a cult," and "Mormon's aren't Christians"
statements again, I suggest we keep in mind that this topic has turned people
off before.  Doug made several good replies to these kinds of comments.  I
don't necessarily agree with him, and I think he's wrong on many points.  But
if you are interested in a Mormon perspective to some of the statements that
have already been made, try searching the archives for "Gould" since Jan 1,
1992.

Brenda

"You can't antagonize and influence at the same time." - Somebody said it,
                                                         but I don't know who.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 10:34:22 CST
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      Objective reporting

Ok, guys...(Mark, Michele...) Let me "address" this from a
"RTF" minor's prospective, and as someone who also has a minor
in "PR"...Also-I wanna do this in a way that Christians would
consider "kosher".
----------
One of the things I've been told 1000 times over in my classes
here, is that as a reporter, you HAVE TO REMAIN OBJECTIVE.
If Rush, or Pat DOESN'T do this, then someone should call 'em on
it no matter WHO they are, or what they stand for.
My Radio Production instructo, Tim, told us - regarding interviews/
news reporting for radio- that  "It's a good idea when you walk into
the studio, to check your opinions/biases at the door when you
come into work each morning...and pick 'em up on your way back out."
Advice for ANYONE who even remotely thinks of going into mass media.
Case in point:
I've heard some statements in my "RTF" classes which were made by
a certain Howard Stern.  I was appalled that the FCC would allow
such vulgarity to be publically heard over the air.  Being a Christian,
it offended me greatly to hear such trash.
I've heard other things that I can deal with-like some stuff said by
Paul Harvey/Rush Limbaugh that was in good taste.
--------------
You can be the most CREDIBLE person in the mass media business, and
your "bias" -if unchecked- can get you booted out of the business just
as quickly as you got your foot in the door.
Maybe some "journalists/reporters/talk-show hosts" need to go back to
school?????
Just a thought.  OH, and to be brutally honest, and just plain BLUNT,
I'd appreciate it to no end if you guys would CHILL with the arguments/
defensive positions on this issue.
You guys are my buddies.  I hate it when two of my pals tie up.
:)
In Christ,
"the G..."

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 27 Jan 1993 16:06:50 -0500
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Rush Limbaugh
              27 Jan 1993 15:47:37 -0500 from <nlt@GBORO.ROWAN.EDU>

Nancy:

I agree with you.  Buckley is one of the keenest conservative minds
this nation has ever seen.  And Rush would agree as well.

Unfortunately, it is his intellectual style (rather Dick Cavett-ish
in the highbrow name-dropping department) that alienates him
from the vast majority of Americans, liberal and conservative alike.

Rush says what Buckley says, but in a different way.  The only
issue I know for a fact they disagree on is the legalization
of drugs (Buckley's for, Rush is against.)

Love INC,

--Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Mts: smtp
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:29:16 -0500
From:         Nocens <kilroy@GBORO.ROWAN.EDU>
Subject:      Pots & Kettles
              <01GTXQ0XW0DU96W0H6@asu.edu>

Prefatory notes:

 1) I have noticed that Scott Weberg's posts do not appear on my machine;
    the listowners trying to figure out what happens to Mr Klepzig's posts
    may find it useful to search for similarities in both Mr Weberg's and
    Mr Klepzig's contributions.

 2) Yes, this is more than one post per day.  But the multiple copies of the
    Rush Limbaugh post were a mistake, and this post apologises for comments
    in the previous one.

 *

In a post I got from the listserver, Scott Weberg writes of my satire:

> In my opinion, this was a SCATHING MOCKERY of those of us who feel that
> Bill Clinton was not the best moral choice for this country.

You might be right.  Note that it was not entirely mockery: Randall Terry,
leader of Operation Rescue, went on record before the election as saying that
it was "a sin against God" to vote for Mr Clinton.

In any case, the satire was pretty brutal and I apologise if I offended
anyone.


Mr Weberg goes on to write:

> Therefore I completely REJECT and DENOUNCE Mr. Provine's post about
> Rush Limbaugh being mean and un-Christian; it was nothing more than
> hypocritical noise!

This does not follow, as has been observed.


>  Mr. Provine has absolutely NO RIGHT to speak against Mr. Limbaugh; he
> should keep silent!  For he uses the same tactics on a Christian list to
> speak sarcasticly against those he disagrees with.

With, perhaps, two exceptions:

 a) Such tactics are not the point of my posts; they do (sadly) crop up in
    posts wherein I am trying to make a point, but none of my posts has
    "ridicule others" as its sole purpose.  I plead guilty to an acerbic
    wit, but I am innocent of exercising it daily.

 b) While my rhetoric was, as you noted, pointedly critical, there was no
    name-calling.

 *

Mind you, this might make a very good example.  While I am certain that there
are those who feel the anti-Clinton rhetoric is getting extreme, are there any
who will endorse or repeat the unkind satire I used in my previous post?

Taking the other tack: are there any people who support Rush Limbaugh who have
any complaint about the nasty way I portrayed the anti-Clinton group?  If so,
what is that complaint?  What properties of my comments (besides that you may
disagree with them) make them improper when Mr Limbaugh's programs are both
accepted and endorsed?


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.rowan.edu
From: FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane of dhahran)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: german lang.
Date: 25 Jan 93 11:49:37 GMT
Organization: King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, S.A.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Acknowledge-To: <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET>

Wie gehts Wolfgang!?

How do you say >Jesus Christ is Lord< in German Wolfgang?

Peace, zane.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:30:49 -0500
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Rush

Yo, Rush-Busters:

That was nice talk coming from a supposedly college-educated computer-
literate individual.  (You eat with that mouth?  You kiss your mother
with that mouth?  Yeesh!)

The green-eyed monster is uglier than Hillary's hat these days.

When you sit on top the NYT Best Seller list for 17 straight weeks and
have an audience of over ten million people, call me.  We'll talk.

Until then, leave a message with my girl.  And don't forget to pick up
the dry cleaning.  And, oh yes.  I almost forgot.  Clean the cage.  Your
mother's coming over.

--NINAR Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 11:45:57 MST
From:         Usenet/Netnews Moderator <FOCMCB@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Praying in tongues (was Re: centering prayer...)

----------------------------Original message----------------------------
>Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
>From: jmrg9881@uxa.cso.uiuc.edu (Jon Reid)
>Subject: Re: Praying in tongues (was Re: centering prayer...)
>Organization: University of Illinois at Urbana
>Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:26:54 GMT

Russ Neumeier <russn@SSEC.WISC.EDU> writes:

>There have been a couple of posts on the thread of 'centering prayer' in
>which people have mentioned praying in tongues.  I'm not at all familiar
>with this, but am very curious to learn more about it.  If this topic is
>not appropriate for this list please e-mail me.

Russ, get out a concordance and look up "tongues".
--
Jon Reid    j-reid@uiuc.edu    GEnie: THE.REIDS
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain what he cannot lose."
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 13:30:15 -0500
From:         John Violette <violette@APXTG03.APEX.DG.COM>
Subject: Re: Ten commandments.

Dan, are you ok?  you lost me on your last one...
John ,.,
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL11]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 10:01:43 MST
From:         jww@EVOLVING.COM
Subject:      Re: Countries Turning to God
              93 9:09 am

Two factual corrections to things that have been stated and restated in
this thread:

1.  Rush Limbaugh is indeed the number 3 late night show, but is way
ahead of Arsenio Hall.  The top two shows are Nightline and Tonight.

2.  It takes a lot more than 51% of the public to effect a constitutional
amendment -- it takes 2/3 of each house of Congress, and then 3/4 of
the State governments.  So even if we assume that every elected official
votes the way the majority of his constituents want him to (a rash
assumption!), an amendment can be blocked by a bare majority in any 13
states.  This can be *a whole lot less* than 51%.  (The smallest 13
states together have just over 4% of the population; i.e. 2.1% of the
voters, distributed just right, could block an amendment.)

Now, I don't think it's a bad thing that it is so hard to amend the
Constitution -- the ERA, for instance, was stopped by only about 15
states, and I'm glad it was.  But to imply, as Darren (I think) did,
that the current state of the Constitution reflects the current will
of a majority of the people is simply absurd.  Sometimes it does;
sometimes it doesn't; and there's no reason it necessarily should.
----
Fr. John Woolley       The World was made to be inhabited by Beasts, but
jww@evolving.com       studied and contemplated by Man; 'tis the Debt of
                       our Reason we owe unto GOD, and the homage we pay
                       for not being Beasts.        -- Sir Thomas Browne
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 19:19:53 -0600
From:         Tom Shelton <tjshel@MAPLE.MONSANTO.COM>
Subject:      RE: A poll on praying.

   (X) I pray God only once for something and trust that He knows my needs
       best.

   (X) I pray God often for the same thing and believe, that He expects me
       to pray for the things, although He knows what I need.

   ( ) None of the above. What: ___________________________________________


   On what bible reference do you base this believe?


The scripture I use to base this belief is Matthew 7:7-8.  The Amplified Bible
says: 7 Keep on asking and it will be given you; keep on seeking and you will
find; keep on knocking [reverently] and the door will be opened to you.  8 For
every one who keeps on asking receives, and he who keeps on seeking finds, and
to him who keeps on knocking it will be opened.

There is also Daniel chapter 10 where Daniel set his heart and mind & to humble
himself before God for twenty-one days.  The angel was sent the first day but
the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood him until Michael came to his aid.

Sometimes I feel the Spirit of the lord directing me to pray for something or
someone, and sometimes I only pray for what I am directed one time.  Some of the
things happening in my life I only pray for once.  Other things, like my wife
and family, I pray for every day, and sometimes more that once a day.  I feel we
should all pray as God and His holy Spirit direct.

Tom Shelton

tjshel@maple.monsanto.com
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 16:35:37 MST
From:         Madge McBurney <ISPMOM@ASUACAD.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: New List

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 17:24:28 -0400 Heather Morrison said:
>Hi all!!
>        This is my first posting.  I just noticed a mail about archives.
>Can someone please tell me how to access archives for Christia and find
>out what is available??

Hi Heather,  I'll be answering your request soon.  My schedule is kinda
busy right now so it might take a couple days, but I will be writing.

Christia co-owner   Bitnet:   ispmom@asuacad
Madge McBurney      Internet: ispmom@asuvm.inre.asu.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 22 Jan 1993 14:42:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Role of the Law.

We often make assumptions that are not really warrented.  The law is not
something to shoot for, it is not God's expression of morality and it was
not something to set Israel apart.  It was to serve as an example and to
show us we are dead, it is not to be held up to us and our children as an
example to attain.

Remember again, the law, as usually used in the NT, means the entire Torah,
all 613 laws, not ten.  If you want to keep the law, you had better keep
all of them, every one, and do it perfectly, which, of course, you cannot
do.  Jesus does not keep the law for us, he died for us and that's
sufficient for salvation.

Do not compare yourselves to the law, do not compare yourselves to Jesus,
do not compare yourselves, period.  Just look to Jesus and realize He alone
is both author and finisher of your faith, and whatever good works you will
ever do.  Don't pause to take your spiritual temperature, just keep your
eyes on Him.

I know someone will bring up the passage where Paul says to examine
ourselves.  This is correct, he is talking of doctrine, not morality.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:47:58 PST
From:         "LCDR Andrew W. Melton, USN" <6243P@NAVPGS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Nuts and Bolts...

Therresa, I've been reading your posts for a while and really appreciate your l
oving spirit. Undoubtly, you will recieve a lot of flack for your position on d
efending yourself. Just know there are those of us who support your position.


                                         Andy
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Virginia Department of Health
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 25 Jan 1993 20:50:14 -0500
From:         "Michael A. Kline" <MKLINE@VDH.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Agreeing against Rush L.
              25 Jan 1993 14:16:00 EST from <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>

On Mon, 25 Jan 1993 14:16:00 EST DRCV06::GRAHAM said:
>Calling the Pharisees a brood of vipers was sarcastic of Jesus, but it was
>neither cruel nor ridicule nor vituperation, it was an analogy to point out
>the truth.  Rush L. does not care about truth, or he would have some on his
>show.  The fact that he has so many followers is a sad commentary indeed on
>the ability of the American public to discern truth from fantasy.

Maks> Boy, I'll say. I can't understand how people can follow Clinton like
      this. Hollywood holding him up, saying they are free for the first
      time in 12 years. (pardon...) 80% of the people thinking he can put
      out a national health plan, well actually Hilory. (excuse me...)
      What? (He was talking about Rush.) Oh....... Never mind...... :-)

>
>Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 21 Jan 1993 08:43:51 -0600
From:         jim coen <coen@ACC.WUACC.EDU>
Subject:      Re: tithes/first fruits

Carol Nemec,

Yes!

Jesus promised that if we "seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness,
ALL of these things will be added to us." I am convinced that those who give
God of their "firstfruits", He will be faithful to provide what we need
"according to His riches in glory by Christ Jesus".

By the way, God doesn't NEED your money! He can create a universe with a
spoken word. He can feed thousands from a young lad's sack lunch. He can
find money to pay taxes in the mouth of a fish! We give, not because God
needs the money but because WE need to learn to give. The Bible says it so
eloquently, "for where your treasure is, there will your heart be also."

God Bless!

Jim Coen
coen@acc.wuacc.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU