HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Watching How We Think (was Politics)
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 17:08:59 GMT


In a previous article, Michael Kline passed along some arguments he had heard
from other sources and asked for comments.  My response included this text:

> I'm a little bored with politics, but since I read Christia partly to refute
> examples of lousy thinking, and since bad arguments appear in politics as
> much  as anywhere else, I figured I may as well go ahead.

In reply, Tom Brewer wrote:

> Wow! Do I feel much better knowing someone's out there watching how I think.
> I'll be sure to stay in line. George Orwell would love this list too.

I realise that Mr Brewer is merely sniping, and not actually making any kind
of argument.  However, I think this is worth talking about.

In particular, I think Christians should be aware that we are ALWAYS being
watched, in everything we do, all the time.  We are watched by those who want
to see what we are about, and if we blow it (which we do often) we push them
away from Christ; enough little pushes and they won't come back for another
look.  We are also watched by those who don't like us, and who are actively
searching for evidence that Christians are mindless religious people who
believe without thinking.

Mr Brewer, you have nothing to worry about from me watching the arguments that
go by.  What you -- and I -- should be worried about is the non-Christians who
look to us as representatives of Our Lord.

In Usenet's talk.religion.misc, some threads begin "Christians are all nitwit
believers, I just heard ( Jerry Falwell | Pat Robertson | Rush Limbaugh |
John Ankerberg ) say the following on radio/TV." or "Look at this article that
just got posted over in talk.origins/talk.abortion!  See how stupid Christians
are!  That religion is nothing but mind control of the gullible!"

I would dearly love to tell you that most of these are unfair, or that the
non-Christian has misunderstood what the other person said, or that what is
quoted makes sense but it's badly stated.  But I can't.  Almost every time
this happens, it's because the Christian has made an argument so incredibly
ridiculous that the non-Christian just HAD to share it.  Try as I might, I can
think of nothing to do when these posts go by.  I can't defend the arguments,
and while I can say "One man does not justify a pattern", there are lots more
than ONE man.


Mr Brewer, you are right that there are people out there watching how you
think -- they are watching how all Christians think.  But I don't think you
should "feel much better" about it.  It frankly bothers me that some of the
public idiocy we get from celebrities is from public Christians.  It worries
me to know that people are watching (or listening to) those public Christians
carefully, and taking them as representative of Christians in general.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Don't worry that they never listen to you; worry that they are always
 watching you." -- Robert Fulghum on raising children
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 10:03:00 EST
From:         "DRCV06::GRAHAM" <GRAHAM%DRCV06.decnet@DRCVAX.AF.MIL>
Subject:      Right standing.

I guess my answer will be a bit of an essay, too.  I cannot abide multiple
choice questions.

Paul makes it very clear in Galatians 3 and 4 that our standing with God
comes through faith, or belief.  (They are the same word, and are
interchangable in every, read each and every, occasion in the New
Testamant.)

He also makes it clear in many places that that fith, or belief, is a gift
of God, not something we develop.  James, when he says that belief is not
enough, speaks error.

God made Abraham a promise, Abraham said, "Okay, I believe you."  That's
all it took.  Because he believed, he acted certain ways, but the acts and
the belief were connect only in him, in God's eyes, that belief, generated
by God in the first place, was all that was needed for right standing with
Him.

Our right standing with God is first and always because of the death of
Jesus in our behalf.  He did for the elect by name, and the elect, by name,
have right standing before God because of that death and what it does in
the life of the believer.  What does it to?  It produces faith, or belief.
Belief is a gift, Phil 1:29.  Our works may be burnt up, we may even die
for not understanding the body of Christ, (1 Cor 11), but our standing with
God, our adoption as sons and daughters, cannot be altered once
established.  We may enter heaven weeping bitter tears for our acts here,
but those will be wiped away.  I repeat, our correct standing with God
rests on the atoning sacrifice of His Son, period.

As far as God is concerned, we have always stoor rightly before Him since
the saved were elected before the fuondations of the world.  Within the
scope of time, however, there is a point when God comes to each of His
elect and enables them to choose Him.  He grants to them salvation, and
they respond with that new, fleshy heart that cannot sin, (1 John 3:6-9).

(That passage, queried about in previous posts, refers to the new heart,
which cannot sin, just as the old man cannot do righteousness, see Romans
7.)

You could live a sinless life from now until your death or the parousia,
and you would not fit yourself for heaven, nor gain right standing with
God.  All our righteousness is like stinking rags, (Isaiah's language is
far more illustrative).  Praise God for the righteousness of His Son, in
whom we have perfect standing before the throne, now and forever.

Like I said, I don't like those multiple choce questions, I'll take an
essay one every time.

Dan Graham
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 08:21:31 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: REFRESH

Doug:
>    All predestination aside for the moment, what can I say to him?
>
>    Your speedy replies and prayers would be appreciated.  A friend and I are
> meeting with him soon, hopefully this Wednesday (9/30).  Thank you.

Don't be so quick to push the "P" word aside. But for a "speedy" reply, I
suggest you review with your friend, Romans 5:8-10. It's quick, short and has
a balance between both God's love (5:8) and God's wrath (5:9). The key point
for your discussion is that Paul says Christ has reconciled former sinners.
Christ has not reconciled anyone who was never a sinner; hence, your friend
was born a sinner just like the rest of us and is in need of reconciliation
by Christ. No one is born (INCLUDING MARY) in a reconciled, sinless state.
No one is born a Christian.

Tom Brewer
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps)
Subject: Re:      Re: Job Opening
Organization: Indiana University
Date: Fri, 2 Oct 1992 21:23:40 GMT

In article <9210020625.AA09562@a-hp.au.oracle.com> Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM> writes:
>Sigh, my heart grieves when I see a job advert stating that someone
>has to teach CATHOLICISM.. What ever happened to teaching CHRISTIANITY???

   There are lots of groups out there teaching untruth who call
themselves Christian.  What happened to the word "Christianity" was
that so many of these groups sprung up, all teaching different things,
but all calling themselves "Christian," that the word ceased to mean
the true Faith.  Sort of like the way the name Xerox has taken on the
meaning of _any_ brand of copying machine, whether or not it was made
by the Xerox company.

   The word "Catholicism" then takes on the meaning not only
"Christianity," but "Christianity that is free from error."

-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-	-
Steve Creps, Indiana University
creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 12:04:16 EDT
From:         TQX@CORNELLC.BITNET
Subject:      Nomail

   I also must set Christia to nomail for a few days. I'll be attending
a conference at Newport, RI, hosted by Brown U. I have to give a short
presentation and need to be working on it. The conference is at the
Marriott and goes by the name CAUCUS. I don't know what it stands for
as an acronym, but I think it's something like Consortium of ADABAS
Users in College and University Sytems. Sounds riveting. :-).
                                           In Christ,
                                           Claude Garner
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 10:17:02 EDT
From:         TQX@CORNELLC.BITNET
Subject:      AIDS Research

Gareth,
   I don't think anyone in their right mind would object to money being
spent on AIDS Research. However, most people realize that there is only
a finite amount of money that can be spent on any kind of medical
research. To listen to the gay rights activists, one would think that
we are doing nothing about AIDS even though we are channeling billions
into AIDS research. There are other health issues just as compelling
such as cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, multiple sclerosis, cancer,
etc. Because they don't have an activist group championing their cause,
we hear little about them and no one gets on the president for "not
doing enough" even though the survival rate for some of them is not
appreciably higher than for AIDS, e.g. cystic fibrosis.
                                                 In Christ,
                                                 Claude Garner
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:17:48 -0500
From:         HEROLD@BUTLERU.BITNET
Subject:      Signoff christia

Please discontinue me from your list
From: JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: use of proof-texts
Date: 28 Sep 92 06:21:22 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Steve Creps writes (Fri 18 Sep 1992):

 > The existence of Purgatory can be [inferred] from many passages
 > in the New Testament.

Eric Ewanco  writes (Tue 22 Sep 1992) concerning the
deutero-canonical books (i.e. books such as Tobit, Judith,
Maccabees, Wisdom, found in the LXX or Greek collection of Jewish
sacred writings, but not in the MT or Hebrew collection):

 > There are references in the New Testament to them (I found some
 > last night), even by Jesus. There are prophecies in them
 > referring to Jesus.

It would advance the discussion if listmembers, instead of saying,
"I have found a text which supports my position," would say
something like, "I believe that Second Hezekiah, chapter 14, verses
8 and 9, supports my position, and here's why."

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 13:58:16 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      test

test
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 07:35:04 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Why did Christ die?

remember- (I am so far behind, maybe someone else has brought this up) God's
power  protected the body of Christ when the crowds shouted to kill him?  Jesus
walked away and nobody touched him.  I believe that Jesus's flesh could have
been killed if it had not been the vessel for God's Son.  How can we kill God?
Jesus's body was created in heaven, but it was a flesh body and these verses
that I spoke of (but can't produce{sorry} at this time) suggest that his
fleshly body could have been killed but God the son was protected till he could
lay down his life.  I believe his body was killable when he allowed it.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 15:44:51 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Confused Catholicism

Wolfgang,

The Lord is our Shepherd, we shall not want...
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.SOLENT; 30 SEP 92 16:13:19 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 16:14:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject: Re: Satan Who is this guy ?

I think I'd say C - spiritual,personal and diverse from human nature.
I am really not sure about this one, though.  This is one of those things
where my brain says one thing, my heart tells me another and my experience
is something else.
The more I learn the less I know.
That being the case why profer an answer of C ?  Because of the many aspects
I have seen, that I would interpret as being of the devil.

I am aware that is not the sort of language I'd normally use but having
seen (and been a part of) the church's ministry in that situation, I have
to find a way of communicating this.  The only language I have is 'jargon'

The diversity of the ground on which this ministry happens gets you to think
that first it is A then B then A then C so I just have to go for option C
which encompasses it all.

Sorry if this isn't terribly coherent - I am upto my earholes in work but
felt this was too important to leave.  I look forward to other peoples comments.
Carol L
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 1 Oct 1992 16:05:48 PDT
From:         ng910@TWINS.PNL.GOV
Subject:      Re: Scriptures versus Rome

Hello to all on the Net!

	As a former Catholic now turned Orthedox Christian, I feel in
a way compelled to stand quiet on this discussion, but I can't so here
it goes.

	Eric, you are basing your challenge on the assertion that the
largest percentage of Catholic teachings are not in contradiction to the
scriptures.  And on that point you are correct, but then the Jehovia's
Witnesses, Mormons, and Christian Scientists can say the same thing.

	There are several fundemental differences between the Catholic
doctrine and the historical and scriptural evidence as to what Christianity
is "suppossed" to be.  The largest of these is the fact that the
Catholic Church holds that it is the only "official" interpretator of
scripture.  This one act flies in the face of the facts that Jesus taught
to the common man, the Gospel's were written in the common tongue, (not
just Greek and Hebrew, but the 'street dialect' of those languages) and
God ment for us to read and interpret these things in our own way.  How
many times does scripture say "*YOU* have been given these signs so that
*YOU* may...." God is talking to use directly not through a Church
intemediary.

	Additionally, the Papacy makes claims to be infailable, under
certain conditions.  This again simply stands against the Biblical
teachings "There is no one who is rightous, not even one".

	I do believe that the Catholic Church has many fundemental
error's in the way that it interprets scripture, and in the way that
it governs its assembly; however, I also recognize that *EVERY* religion
has its own problems with this same issue.

	JESUS CHRIST IS NOT RELIGION!!!!!!!

	If people know God personally, and read and interpret the Bible
in Spiritual prayer, if Jesus is your personal Lord and Saviour, then
the title you label yourself with is irrelevant!! People, we are at
war with Satan and you want to stand and argue about whether the Marines
or the Army is better equiped to fight him!!  This is absolute foolishness.
God is our Lord, Christ is our Saviour, the Spirit is our Strength, lets
not waste this on each other when their is an Army marching against us.

	We should not be worried about the Catholics, or the Baptists, or
the Methodists -- we MUST be worried about the Agnostics, the Athiests, the
Unitarians, the multitude of lost lonely souls who need to see the light and
love of God.  We can never show them that if we spend our time argueing
about who is better equiped to do that.

	We must learn that every organized church is the work of Man, not
God.  God gaves us Jesus, not Catholisism, not Protestantism, but the
Son of God.  Let's love him, and each other who believe in him, and go
out and do "good works in his name" and ignore the names we give to the
buildings we meet in.
\
Your Brother in Christ,

Dave Wagle
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:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 15:53:46 CST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject: Re: Satan Who is this guy ?
              "A16905@ITESO.BITNET" at Sep 29, 92 11:28 am

>
>Three posible answers:
>
>A) A spiritual being that tries to drive me out of the Way, the Truth and
>   the Life.
>
>B) Same as A) but this being is 'personal'.
>
>C) Same as B) but this personal being is also totaly diverse fron human
>   nature, this is, it is not a component of our own human nature.
>
>What is your answer ?  How strong is it (Certianly, Probable, Mostly sure,
>etc) ?
>
>Thanks for any answers.
>
>Shalom,
>Memo.
>
If I understand your options, I take B.
The limited amount we know about satan (after all, the bible is about God,
not the Devil) seems to indicate that satan was a fallen Angel. An Angel
seems to be a personal spiritual being, so I take B..



---------------------+-------------+-----------------------------------------
Ian Williams         |    _--_|\   |      Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems       |   /      \  |	  Phone	  : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia  |   \_.--*_/  |
                     |         v   |
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: males vs females and God
From: jeremy@cs.aukuni.ac.nz (Jeremy Gibbons)
Date: Sun, 4 Oct 1992 23:47:02 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept. University of Auckland

In <9210020640.AA09738@a-hp.au.oracle.com> Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM> writes:

>Do any of you out there think or wonder if being a male or female can affect
>your relationship with the Male Jesus, and the male way that we tend to
>see the Father (although he is without sex).
>
>I was thinking on the way home if being a female would alter my interpretation
>of the 'love of Jesus' and make it any easier to accept the idea of having
>what is in effect a love affair with a man! Jesus is our saviour, our
>brother, our Lord, but also our HUSBAND! he is our lover..

I guess it's no more difficult for me to accept Jesus as my "lover" as is
it for a woman to feel comfortable being God's son and heir.

Jeremy

---
Jeremy Gibbons <jeremy@cs.aukuni.ac.nz>         tel: +64 9 373 7599
   Department of Computer Science,              fax: +64 9 373 7453
   University of Auckland, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand.
From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Peter Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Heaven,
Date: 2 Oct 92 08:53:25 GMT
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University of Wales at Aberystwyth

Eric replied to my latest post in this thread (his reply dated 30 Sep 92 20:40:45 GMT).

However, the thread has now moved away from the book of James, which was what 
I was anxious to defend. Consequently I shall be continuing the discussion by email.

I'll send copies to anyone who is interested, or thinks I'm dodging important points.

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, 2 Oct 1992 10:07:05 EST
From:         carol nemec <YA67@FERRIS.BITNET>
Subject:      Image of Jesus in Louisiana

Dear All on the net ;

Now we have our own "image" of 'jesus' in South Louisiana.
I just heard it on the local Baton Rouge news.
It was seen at an apartment complex.  However, it found to be
caused by a street lamp and immediately vanished when the "Louisiana
Power and Light Co." turned off the light.
I guess one could use a "Utilitytarian" argument for such things.

:-)     :-)     :-)
Jesse Carnes
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Thanks, Jesse!  Glad to see you're back with us...hope the
stitches are mending.

I thought of an analogy on your story.  When we turn off the light
there is darkness.  Jesus cannot dwell in the darkness of our sin.
He is the light.  Will the image return when the light is again
turned on?  We should keep the light of our Lord in our lives,
keep the Light always lit so that we stay away from the darkness
of sin.

God bless,
Carol Nemec
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via: uk.ac.southampton-institute; Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:36:37 +0100
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 5 Oct 1992 12:37:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      RE: males versus females and God

Zane,
Please explain, who or what is Sue Kay ?

Did I miss something ?

Agreed, it all the roles we play we should do them as if the others we
relate to were Christ.

Carol L
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:         Wed, 30 Sep 1992 17:20:48 -0400
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: Confused Catholicism

Excerpts from christia: 30-Sep-92 Re: Confused Catholicism Jesse
Carnes@LSUVM.BITNE (302)

> Sorry ol' bean, but the book of Hebrews says that ONLY through the
> shedding of BLOOD can sins be FORGIVEN.

> Any human action is ineffectual toward sins' forgiveness.
> If it were effectual, then WHY did Christ come to earth ... to be a mere
> good example for all of us??

Jesse,

Christ's sacrifice alone effected forgiveness.  We cannot "earn"
forgiveness, for only the sacrifice of Christ earned forgiveness.  But
that is not to say that human action is not required to receive
forgiveness.  Repentance is the first action man must take in order to
receive forgiveness.  Scripture also mentions confession (James 5:16).
Scripture also says that we must be baptized to receive our initial
forgiveness of sins (Acts 22:16, Acts 2:38, Rom 6:3).  Finally, it says
that the Apostles -- and implicitly the successors they appoint -- have
the ability to administer forgiveness of sins, and hold them unforgiven
(John 20:23).

There is a difference between saying that we can do something to remit
sin, and saying that we must do something in order to receive Christ's
gift of forgiveness.

Tim spoke of conditions for receiving forgiveness of sins -- that is,
repentance, confession, and the ministry of the church.

Eric
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 29 Sep 1992 12:40:27 CDT
From:         Jesse Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Why Did Jesus Die?
              29 Sep 1992 07:31:43 -0700 from <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>

Dear Mark ;

I am a bit flexible on this, but as I see it for now, the reason Christians
die at all is because Jesus died.
We have union with Him spiritually, so we are identified with His life, death,
and resurrection.
If He died -- then we die.  If He was raised to newness of life -- we will be
raised (and in fact are already so, spiritually speaking) having new glorious
bodies.
If He is the Heir then, as Paul states, we are co-heirs.

But even more is seen NOW in our lifestyles as Christians.
If He was tempted, so shall we be.  If He was harrassed and hated by
both spiritual and temporal forces, so shall we be.
If He lived a life of discipline and faithfulness, so shall we.



Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU