HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 10 Apr 1992 06:22:14 EDT
From:         MKLINE%VDH.bitnet@VTVM2.CC.VT.EDU
Subject:      Re: abortion

Subject: Re: abortion


>Marty & Liz:
>It seems that people who vote against abortion also vote against
>social programs, and educating teenagers about sex. If she is
>uneducated, she will probably have several more children not
>meaning to, and become more and more poor, and probably abusive
>to her children, who, from lack of attention by their parent,
>do poorly in school and grow up with a total lack of respect
>for any authority, and thereby become juvinile delinquints.

MAKS> This was one of the points of the Bill Gothard seminar about the
      family. Here we see a person express an opinion that more and more
      children are nothing but a drag. They make you poor. They'll drive
      you mad. You'll be forced to abuse them.

      PLEASE! Do we have anyone here from a large family? Was "poverty" all
      that bad? Did your parents abuse you? I mean, is abuse really that
      common in LARGE families or does it happen more often in families of
      less than say, 8-15 children.

      When my first wife, Connie, left me, I decided to sell a lot of the
      old furniture in order to make ends meet. A lady came and look at a
      chair with about 7 children. I think I wanted $5 or something. She
      said she'd talk it over with her husband and get back with me. The
      next day, she showed up. She had about 7 kids with her again, what
      else? BUT, they were different kids! I asked, "Do you babysit?" She
      said, "No, they are all mine." I asked how many she had. She had 15
      children, 17 in the family. I think her husband worked at a mill.

      I either gave her the chair, or tried to, I can't remember which, it
      was almost 16 years ago. I'll tell you something about most "poor"
      people. You can trust them. Their word is usually good. My dad is
      self employeed, and the only times he was ever "stiffed" was by a man
      who owned a trucking company, a couple of real good, well to do
      Catholics (no slant, she was a teacher, he had some good paying job,
      and they were both "good people" of the church. do they have
      elders?), anyhow, they got Dad, and another man who owned several
      businesses, in fact, many people joked he owned Franklin (Pa).

      The "poor" would ALWAYS pay, they took pride in paying. "I'm not a
      welfare case." "Better dead than fed." They knew "life". Even the
      ones that weren't Christians treated you with respect. When I was
      younger, I was "one of them". I'm supposed to be affluent now, but
      with home schooling, and 4 children, I don't feel affluent.

      I would imagine that many of our famous people came from large
      families. I'm hoping there are sevaral here and they will tell us
      what it was like.

Maks
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 05:12:47 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Pro-abortion bias in the media

     From July 1 to July 4, 1990 the Los Angeles Times, which is
editorially pro-abortion, published a series of articles on pro-
abortion bias in the media.  The series attracted so much attention
that the Times issued a reprint of the series.   I have a copy.  It
fills almost 27 8 1/2 x 11 pages.  The headline of the first article
is "Abortion Bias Seeps Into News" with the subhead "A comprehensive
Times study finds that the press often favors abortion rights in its
coverage, even though journalists say they make every effort to be
fair."

     It begins, "When reporter Susan Okie wrote on Page 1 of the
Washington Post last year that advances in the treatment of premature
babies could undermine support for the abortion-rights movement, she
quickly heard from someone in the movement.

     "'Her message was clear,' Okie recalled recently.  'I felt they
were ... (saying) "You're hurting the cause" ... that I was ... being
herded back into line.'

     "Okie says she was 'shocked' by the 'disquieting' assumption
implicit in the complaint--that reporters, especially women reporters
are expected to write only stories that support abortion rights."

     Later the article says, "Responsible journalists do try to be
fair, and many charges of bias in abortion coverage are not valid.
But careful examination of stories published and broadcast reveals
scores of examples, large and small, that can only be characterized
as unfair to the opponents of abortion, either in content, tone,
choice of language or prominence of play.

     "--The news media consistently use language and images that
frame the entire abortion debate in terms that implicitly favor
abortion-rights advocates.

     --Abortion-rights advocates are often quoted more frequently and
characterized more favorably than are abortion opponents.

     "--Events and issues favorable to abortion opponents are some-
times ignored or given minimal attention by the media.

     "--Many news organizations have given more prominent play to
stories on rallies and electoral and legislative victories by abor-
tion-rights advocates than to stories on rallies and electoral and
legislative victories by abortion-rights opponents.

     "--Columns of commentary favoring abortion rights outnumber
those opposing abortion by a margin of more than 2 to 1 on the op-ed
pages of most of the nation's major daily newspapers.

     "--Newspapers editorial writers and columnists alike, long
sensitive to violations of First Amendment rights and other civil
liberties in cases involving minority and anti-war protests, have
largely ignored these questions when Operation Rescue and other
abortion opponents have raised them."

     The series goes on to give numerous examples.  The reprint
probably is no longer available, but the Los Angeles Times is avail-
able on microfilm is some libraries around the country is someone
wants to check the details.

Marty Helgesen
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 13:06:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Perfection (was: Re: Planets and matter)

"Perfection does not create imperfection--God, who is perfect,
 cannot create imperfection."

I have heard this many, many times.

However, I have never heard either a logical or a Biblical
reason why it is so.

If, in a explanation, you claim the world that God created is
imperfect, please explain a) why it is imperfect, b) why God
felt it WAS perfect, and c) why, if as a human I can create
something much worse than myself, why God cannot do that.  If
God CANNOT create something imperfect if He wishes, isn't this
something God cannot do, and therefore He is not omnipotent or
all-powerful?  CAN any two objects be perfect?  Wouldn't one
be always BETTER than the other?  If something is perfect, then
it must be perfect in ALL ways.  If God is perfect in all ways,
and the world is perfect in all ways, doesn't God=the world?

As you can see, the simple statement "Perfection cannot create
imprefection" is not so simple.

/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
>   Darryl K. Johnson      (  "Life does not cease to be  <
>   Texas Christian         )  funny when people die any  <
>   University             (   more than it ceases to be  <
>   Fort Worth, Texas       )  serious when people        <
>                          (   laugh." - Bernard Shaw     <
\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
/ DJOHNSON@tcucvms.bitnet      DJOHNSON@gamma.is.tcu.edu  \
\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Subject: (no subject given)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:35:18 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
              9 Apr 1992 03:34:17 -0800 from <whchen@CS.NTHU.EDU.TW>

Allen:

Please tell your non-Christian friends that Christians follow Christ,
not Jim Bakker or Jimmy Swaggart or any other mortal being.  If your
faith is shaken by the realization that ministers sin, then you really
had no faith to begin with.  We have to keep our eyes on Jesus and
remember that those who have great power to do good also have great
power to do harm.  No human being is perfect; only Christ is.
                                            Love INC,
                                                     ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 17 Apr 1992 01:27:06 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      Anaesthetics and Eve

 > There were Christians who were horrified at the use of
 > anesthetics during birth, because the woman HAD to have the
 > baby while suffering painfully.  The Bible said so.

Sources for this statement, please? And please don't quote Andrew
Dickson Whyte (HISTORY OF THE WARFARE OF SCIENCE WITH THEOLOGY IN
CHRISTENDOM) unless you have read the book he quotes as his
authority on this point. I have (there are advantages to living
across the street from the National Library of Medicine), and it
simply does not say what he says it does.

Whyte and those who rely on him make the assertion a little more
specifically, in terms of British Victorian clergymen. I therefore
have a standing offer of $200 for the first person to provide me
with the name of a nineteenth-century British clergyman who publicly
protested the use of anaesthetics in childbirth on the grounds that
pain in childbearing was a part of the sentence pronounced on Eve.
So far, no one has tried to collect.

I do have a file of Physicians and Surgeons who protested the use of
anaesthesia in childbirth (and sometimes in surgery as well),
usually on the grounds that Nature does things for a reason.  Many
of them believed that the pain of surgery sends a message to the
brain, which in turn stimulates the healing process, so that a cut
made under anaesthesia will not heal properly. One physician that I
have found said, in a speech to the Liverpool Medical Society, that
uterine contractions would not occur in an anaesthetized woman, and
added that it has been known as far back as Bible times that
childbirth and pain are inextricably linked.  But that is as close
as I got.

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
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:         Wed, 15 Apr 1992 10:51:00 EDT
From:         Jeff Shirton <SHIRTON@MCMASTER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Contraception/abortion

Marty,

> However, I don't agree that distinguishing between contra-
> ception and abortion is a non-issue.

Well, maybe "non-issue" is too strong, but I still question the significance
or the importance of the distinction, if you know what I mean.

I've noticed in the past that many people like to distinguish between
"fornication" (pre-marital sex) and "adultery" (cheating on your spouse).
I tended to lump both groups together (and still do), and just think of
it as sexual relations between people who are not married to each other.

Yes, semantically, there is a difference.  They technically refer to two
different situations.  But I don't think they are _significantly_ different
in God's eyes.  In fact, the only difference I could see is a possible theory
that I know some people believe, which is the belief that one's first sexual
encounter with an unmarried person "unites" the two people, in effect
"marrying them" in God's eyes, as they "become one flesh".  I'm not stating
that this is my belief, only that some people believe this, and this is the
only _significant_ difference I can see between the two situations.
(Yes, I realize adultery hurts the innocent spouse, but I consider that
another sin (yes, with adultery, you sin _twice_! (shades of George Carlin)))

> It is true that they are both
> sins and that the important thing is to love God and avoid sin, but,
> on the other hand, taxonomy is a part of all sciences, including
> theology.

Yes, I'm not denying that taxonomy exists, but is it important or significant?
Being able to tell the difference between an alligator and a crocodile doesn't
seem to bring me any closer to God, and in general doesn't give me any
practical or useful knowledge.  I'm gonna stay away from both of 'em!  :-)

Abortion and artificial contraception both take a Catholic further away from
God, and so a good Catholic will try to avoid both of them, no matter how
you classify them.  (I specificed Catholic specifically because of the
differing beliefs between Catholics and Protestants concerning contraception.
My example isn't necessarily valid for Protestants).

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:         Mon, 13 Apr 1992 14:34:23 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Prayer Request update

Kerry
Thank you for the report.  I thank God that some progress has been
made.  However, I disagree with one point (unless you have additonal
knowledge of the people involved.  You say the baby is not safe until
she has told her parents and has completely made the decision to let
her baby live.  However, if they try to pressure her into an abortion
there will be renewed danger.  I suggest prayer for her parents that
they will accept the news in the proper spirit and will support the
decision to let the baby be born.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.3 PL0]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 19:02:45 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      to John Ross

ooops!

Dear John!!

It looks as though I have misunderstood your posting on Amazing Grace!!

Please accept my apology.. (now goes to extract foot from mouth)

In Him!

*****************************************************************************
Ian Williams          			Internet: iwilliam@au.oracle.com
Oracle Systems         			Phone   : +61 8 239 3900
Adelaide, Australia
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 17:07:26 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Spiritual and physical death
              11 Apr 1992 23:24:00 EST from <BSC92SPA18@RCNVMS.RCN.MASS.EDU>

Jeff:

You write, "Jesus overcame death; therefore it is not real."  If Jesus
overcame death, it _has_ to be real!  You cannot overcome something if
it does not exist!  Then you write, "If death were real then one could
not overcome death."  That is entirely the point, Jeff.  Death _is_
real, and "one" canNOT overcome it, without accepting the (real) death
of Christ on the cross for _our_ sins.  Only CHRIST overcame death, and
we can only do so through Him.  If death were not real, _anyone_ could
overcome it, and the sacrifice of Christ would be entirely unnecessary,
superfluous, and cruel.
  Later you say "To say that there is such a thing as 'spiritual death'
is to say that a part of God could die.  A part of God _did_ die.  Christ,
God incarnate, died, as a human being dies--completely and in reality.
Yes, He was resurrected, but first, He _died_.  If God as Christ did not
in fact die on the cross, then Christianity is a sham and a farce.  If
He did not "really" die, then he did not fully incarnate as a human being.
Jesus was man and God, very man and very God.  He did not use His power as
God to resist death, but gave Himself up to it for our sakes.  If his death
was not real, then the crucifixion was a parlor trick, and His sacrifice
becomes meaningless.
  To deny the reality of the physical world is to render all death--including
and especially, the death of Christ--meaningless.  Christ died and overcame
sin and death.  But there is no question that He died.
                                                      Love INC,
                                                               ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 12:13:26 EDT
From:         Bernice Tennant <U1A9A@WVNVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Christian rock

Kerry,

Thank you for explaining about the change in the words.  I love "Amazing Grace"
and I wondered what was up.
From: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: JW's Translation
Date: 6 Apr 92 15:24:40 GMT
Reply-To: spk@aber.ac.uk (Stephen Kingston)
Organization: Computer Science Dept., University College of Wales, Aberystwyth.

> From: "Joseph P. Riolo" <riolo@mil.army.pica.cor4>
> 
>       In early Greek manuscripts, all letters are capitals.  THEOS can
> mean "God", "god", or "divine".
> 
Yes, but when used in the predicate nominative it must mean "God".

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:         Thu, 16 Apr 1992 19:21:55 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Jesus Christ Superstar

Carol:
I would have to object in the strongest possible terms to calling (the
foundation of the Christian faith?  the crucifixion?  I'm not sure
what the object here is) a social movement.  If Christ had been the
charismatic (no pun intended) leader of a social movement, his people
would not have abandoned him.  As I recall, there was a pitifully
small crowd at the cross.  Furthermore, it implies that the driving
force behind the events was actually the desire of the poor to change
their lot in life.  However, Jesus did not offer to make them less
materially disadvantaged, only spiritually richer.  If anything,
you might consider the phenomenon that form of mass mobilization known
as a following.  It also requires prior discontent (in traditional
movement literature--resource mobilization assumes that discontent is
always latently present) on the part of the poor to be a necessary and
sufficient cause for God to send His Son to die.  Jesus did not die
for the poor; he died for everybody.  "Everybody" was not discontent
in the social environment into which he came.  Thus, I think the use
of Jesus Christ as an example of social movement is either a poor
understanding of Christianity, a poor understanding of social movements,
or both.  Who's teaching you this stuff, anyway?
                                                Love INC,
                                                         ---Kerry
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:         Sun, 12 Apr 1992 13:55:27 EST
From:         Ian Williams <iwilliam@AU.ORACLE.COM>
Subject:      Re: Water Baptism
X-To:         CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU
              Stephenson" at Apr 11, 92 10:45 am

>
>List Folk:
>
>As I have observed great variation on this issue in studying denominational
>differences in "doctrine," I am somewhat curious about practice.  Therefore,
>I have a question (well, several related questions, actually):
>
>1.  What is your (your church's) belief about how baptism should be performed?
>    (immersion/sprinkling/other--I know there is at least one "other," but I
>    can't recall what it is right now.)
>
Considering that the greek word for Baptism (baptizmo) means to submerse,
I think the answer to that is fairly obvious.. For the record, our church
practices full immersion water baptism..


>2.  What is your (your church's) belief about WHEN baptism is appropriate (at
>    what age or upon what evidence of faith?)
>
Baptism is appropriate when ever the individual first make a confession of
faith in the Lord Jesus.. Note this excludes infact baptism, but does not
excluse a child who is aware of the need for salvation and acts accordingly.

The evidence of faith required is a public confession of ones salvation.



>3.  Does your denomination baptize into the particular church/denomination
>    or into the body of Christ (the first requiring re-baptism upon a change
>    of denominations)?
>
We baptise into the Body of Christ, and do not require that a) believers
are baptised if they dont want to be (thats law and legalism)
b) Believers are baptised if they have been baptised elsewhere

Since denominations are a man made phenonenon, its silly to baptise into
a denomination to the exclusion of the rest of the Body of Christ

>4.  What is the baptismal ceremony like in your denomination/church/tradition/
>    whatever?  (i.e., are special clothes worn, is there a formulaic speech,
>    are guests expected to be present, etc.)
>
We baptise during our Sunday services (when ever someone wants)..
There is no formal clothes, no speach other than to ask the participant to
publically declare their faith in the Lord Jesus.. Guests are as welcome
as guests are always welcome in our church...

5. Can only 'ordained priests baptise'.

There are no such thing as ordained New Testament priests so therefore
anyone who is a believer can baptise another believer


>Thanks for the input.
>
>                           Love INC,
>                                    ---Kerry
>





*****************************************************************************
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.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 8 Apr 1992 14:35:00 CST
From:         "Darryl (The Other Brother) Johnson" <DJOHNSON@TCUCVMS.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: re-pro-choice

From: Lonnie Schubert <S096556@UMRVMA.BITNET>
Children ARE a blessing of the Lord.  No exceptions!
     I can't help, but wonder how much of a "blessing" something
     is if one has no choice about whether to receive it.  For
     those who might say "Yes, but if they didn't want children,
     they shouln't have had sex", I would say "Tell it to Mary".
     The birth of Jesus is a WONDERFUL example.  No matter HOW
     nice a gift might be, no matter HOW wonderful one should
     ALWAYS have the choice of saying "No, I would rather not
     have your gift thanks all the same.  No, really."

     I am reminded of the wonderful series of letters from
     the recipient of the gifts in the "12 days of Christmas"
     TO the sender of the gifts.  As the letters show, too much
     "blessing" can be unpleasant.

     I just can't picture God as someone who goes around looking
     for people having sex, and shooting "pregnancy" arrows into
     them like some reproductive Cupid.  One can mix eggs and
     seed in a test tube in a laboratory, and a pregnancy will
     begin.  Is this a blessing from the Lord to the scientist,
     the test tube, or the owner of the lab?

     Even something as universally well-liked as chocolate isn't
     a blessing to someone with an allergy to it.
/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
>   Darryl K. Johnson      (  "Life does not cease to be  <
>   Texas Christian         )  funny when people die any  <
>   University             (   more than it ceases to be  <
>   Fort Worth, Texas       )  serious when people        <
>                          (   laugh." - Bernard Shaw     <
\-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-/
/ DJOHNSON@tcucvms.bitnet      DJOHNSON@gamma.is.tcu.edu  \
\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/