HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 16 Nov 1992 11:02:24 CST
From:         A16905@ITESO.BITNET
Subject:      Re: The Gospel

Excuse me Eric, but I disagree.

Not all Jesuites are Marxists or revolutionary. All are cerianly heterodox,
but the order itself is not corrupted. My university (ITESO) is guided by
Jesuites and I have seen all, from a contemplative, kind and simple priest
called Luis Sanchez, to a young, strong, active, passiones one called
Jose Luis (alias "El bigos").

Some Jesuites, specially in Central America are in the war. But you probably
would, also. I am not saying it is OK, but the situation is terrible, every
time someone fights for peace and justice. The USA says 'Comunism' and sends
an entire army of terrorists murders to -terminate- that stuff. Thats the
New World Order in accion in Central America, obvciosly the Church is opposed
to that, and some priests, confused, seeing the people suffering get the
rifles and become as wrong as the ones they try to fight, but they are not
even mayority, just a few.

Shalom,
Memo.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 09:34:25 CST
Comments:     Converted from PROFS to RFC822 format by PUMP V2.2X
From:         JLong <JLONG@UA1VM.BITNET>
Subject:      Being gay is offensive?

There was Christians before there were Gays, Atheist, and ungodly people.
Trying to justify something that is wrong in the eye sight of God is ungodly.
Christianity has been around for so long and the word was here before we were
we can either accept or reject it.   Being gay is offensive and will be until
God removes all of us.  The reason for all those things you mentioned are going
on is because the devil has those people's mind.  They just need to repent.

God said only a few will make it in to heaven and to my knowledge God can't
lie.   I just pray for all and go on.  I can only say what God has already
told us in his word.  We as Christian do not have time to support people in
their wrong doings.   Being gay is wrong.  I can tell them what is right and
go on.  I have done my part.
Janie
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: CHRISTIA
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 11:15:00 EST
From:         "Lauren H. Arango" <LHARANGO@OWUCOMCN.BITNET>
Subject:      quoting from the Koran

Fayaz Qureshi <fqureshi@VTSSI.VT.EDU> writes,

>                     A L - Q U R A N : Translation
> [...]
>
>O ye who believe! Take not the Jews and the Christians for your friends and
>protectors; They are but friends and protectors to each other.

I wouldn't mind quotes from the Koran which glorify God and which are
consistent with Christianity, but I question whether a statement such as
the one above belongs on a Christian list.

I would not post Bible quotes which could be construed as anti-Islam to
an Islam list.  I'd appreciate it if Mr./Ms. Qureshi would show us the
same courtesy.

I believe we went through all this about three years ago (remember, Madge
and Steven?), and the final consensus was that the Koran didn't belong
on CHRISTIA if it was going to be used to put down the Bible and Christianity.

                                                God's peace,
                                                Lauren
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.SOLENT; 23 NOV 92 16:36:57 GMT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 23 Nov 1992 16:37:00 GMT
From:         CAROL L <Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK>
Subject:      gay discussion

From:     Brenda Curry-White <BSCURR01@EDU.LOUISVILLE.ULKYVM>
(as a prayer request update)

> ... discuss
> such vital issues as whether homosexuals should be allowed to kill people
> beside the rest of us,


Did Benda really mean that this is what is being discussed ?
I must have missed something.

Carol A Long,  Southampton Institute of Higher Education, England
        email     :  Z_STAFF_CL@UK.AC.SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE
DISCLAIMER - merely musings unless otherwise stated.
From: NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET (Jesse Carnes)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Now ... Just what ARE Polemics?
Date: 18 Nov 92 21:29:42 GMT
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU

Dear All on Christia ;

I have received various and sundry definitions of "polemics" from almost
every conceivable dictionary.

However, when you deal with "JARGON" it can be a horse of a different colour.
Polemics can be a subset of Systematic Theology.
Greg Bahnsen and Gordon H. Clark are two examples of great Systematic
Theological polemicists of the 20th centurry.  The former lives in California
and the latter is now deceased.  They both speak and write in a "polemical"
style, where they organize their points in such as manner as to render
a varient viewpoint as UNTENABLE.
Their goal is to present Truth.  Once Truth is presented, then APPLICATION is
easier to ascertain.  Without Truth first being presented clearly, application
becomes a mere speculation at best.

When we deal with varying views, especially where error is rife, sometimes we
have to "Deconstruct" a person's theological Infra-Structure before adding a
new "super-structure."  This is why Paul wanted to preach in what we call
"virgin" territory -- where the people knew NOTHING of Jesus at all.  It is
much simpler to preach where there is no false Infra-Structure to first
deconstruct.

Polemics serve to use the Scriptures as an Authoritative weapon against
false philosophies, vain notions, wrong presuppositions.
Sometimes we implement polemics to tear down the false infra-structures, then
we are able to deal with TRUTH.
This is especially true when you have a person who denies the Authority of
Scripture altogether.  This happened recently to me on this "net" involving
a person who disagreed rather markedly.

Polemically, we implement "Argument ad Absurdum" to show the vanity of
someone's position in that we show them the ultimate conclusion that their
ideas lead them to eventually.  This is the harder road of Polemics.
The goal is the person's conversion to Christ, for all true Christians desire
this from as many as possible.


Just a few thoughts on "Polemics."


Jesse Carnes
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.bitnet
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"christia%asuacad.bitnet@vaxf.colorado.edu"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 18 Nov 1992 00:21:08 -0700
From:         "Glenn Radinsky S05152@doc.flc.colorado.edu"
              <S05152@DOC.FLC.COLORADO.EDU>
Subject:      Response to Shelby

Dear Shelby:

     Thanks for the message.  Because of the fact that the
Lord and I have a strong relationship, I seemed to have
almost completely recovered.  The studies are kinda
demanding at the moment, but I am going to keep my eyes and
ears open, and I think that if I listen and encourage and
pray that I am going to eventually meet someone...

     BTW, those boilers that I mentioned happen to be made
by Yahweh (sp?) & Co., so they can take anything satan
throws at them.

                         God Bless,



                            Glenn
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 19 Nov 1992 02:24:25 EST
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject:      Elizabeth of Hungary (19 Nov)

     ELIZABETH OF HUNGARY (19 NOV 1231)

The numerous "St. Elizabeth's Hospitals" throughout the world are
for the most part named, not for the Biblical Elizabeth, the mother
of John the Baptist, but for this princess of Hungary.  She was
concerned for the relief of the poor and the sick, and with her
husband's consent she used her dowry money for their relief.  During
a famine and epidemic in 1226, while her husband was away in Italy,
she sold her jewels and established a hospital where she nursed the
sick, and opened the royal granaries to feed the hungry.  After her
husband's death in 1227, her inlaws, who opposed her
"extravagances," expelled her from Wartburg. Finally an arrangement
was negotiated with them that gave her a stipend. She became a
Franciscan tertiary (lay associate) and devoted the remainder of her
life to nursing and charity. She sewed garments to clothe the poor,
and went fishing to feed them.

   Almighty God, by whose grace thy servant Elizabeth of Hungary
   recognized and honored Jesus in the poor of this world: Grant
   that we, following her example, may with love and gladness
   serve those in any need or trouble, in the name and for the
   sake of Jesus Christ; who liveth and reigneth with thee and the
   Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Book Recommendation
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 1992 17:35:19 GMT


Last July, I wrote:

> For spiritual problems, of course, logical arguments are only a bit better
> than useless. [...]
>
> Being able to say wise-sounding things when people have spiritual crises
> would be nice; wisdom is worth lots more than logic.  But I'm not wise, and
> I don't think I'll ever be wise.

That hasn't really changed; I still think that logic can be a useful tool,
that wisdom is better than logic, and that I'm not very wise.

However, I've just completed a book that has some wisdom in it.  I don't think
there's any serious attempt at rigorous logical arguments, but that's okay.
They aren't needed.  This book, unlike all those others that I've plugged, is
not about logic or arguments.  It's about people.

The book contains modern-day parables, telling fictional stories about things
people do and how those things work out.  I don't much like reviews of
fiction, because they usually give away plot developments, but I will say that
the stories seem very real to me; the writer has done a lot of work to make
sure that the dialogue sounds real, that the descriptions and narration make
sense, and that the characters act & react like real people.

Here's the particulars:

	The Gospel Blimp
	(and other Modern Parables)
	by Joseph Bayly
	LifeJourney Books
	ISBN 0-7814-0935-7
	$5.99 (trade paperback)

The title story is about a group of people who purchase a blimp and send it up
with banners behind it that have Scripture passages on them.  We follow them
along in their adventures, until finally we hear from somebody who heard the
Gospel and converted, and who tells what part the blimp played in his
conversion.

I think this book would make a good addition to any church library, as it was
a fun read with some real points.  Some of the parables might not make sense
to all readers, especially younger ones, but that's okay.  I suspect they'll
make sense to everyone eventually.  I disagree with some of the points made
in some of the stories, but that's okay too.  The complaints are minor and
are not worth listing individually (but I felt I should put in a disclaimer).


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"I don't bite, you know.  Unless it's called for." -- Audrey Hepburn, Charade
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 20 Nov 1992 08:22:04 CST
From:         Jesse Irwin Carnes <NOTJIC@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Now ... Just what ARE Polemics?
              19 Nov 1992 21:48:56 GMT from <billc@HOUSING.MSSTATE.EDU>

Dear Bill Chapman ;

All I can say to you is that I am extremely SAD at the state of affairs on
the net ... as a whole.  I am quite amazed that you, as a Calvinist, are
taking a fairly relaxed position about all of this.  Lives are at stake ...
souls are at stake.  I really astonished.

Tom Brewer feels the same way as I do and there are others ... but I shall
not mention them without permission.  I am really perplexed.


:-(

Jesse Irwin Carnes
From: crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu (Lauren L. Crawford)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Being gay is offensive?
Date: 20 Nov 92 17:23:21 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania

Someone just said that once she had told someone what was
right, she had done her part and would move on.  That's such a small part
of what we Christians are actually called to do.  Jesus said that the
greatest commandments, the ones that encompass all others, are to love God
with all our hearts and to love others as ourselves.  

Telling someone that they're engaged in sin may indeed be a loving thing
to do sometimes, but it's such a small part of all that we're commanded to
do for people!  Love encompasses many, many things.  Frankly, if you were
involved in sin, would you find it loving if a perfect stranger told you
to just cut it out and then moved on?  When Jesus talked with the woman at
the well (an example someone else used in this thread), he spent _time_
with her.  He asked her questions, and he listened to her.  He didn't just
throw scripture at her and leave!  What do you think would've happened if
he had?  Would she have changed her lifestyle?  Would she have recognized
him as Christ?  

I recently worked for a year and a half with a ministry that reaches out
to people dealing with homosexuality.  Our philosophy was not to advertise
extensively, and definitely not to go out and drag people in with threats
of hell.  That year and a half changed my life.  I realized that
homosexual sin was _not_ morally worse than my own sin.  I also
realized that it was a whole lot more painful and problematic an issue
than I'd ever realized, and that its roots in each individual were similar
to the roots of compulsive sin of _all_ kinds.  In other words, my
struggles with overeating and fantasizing weren't a whole heck of a lot
different than Linda's struggles with wanting sexual intimacy with women
after ten years of sexual abuse in the hands of her father.

When Jesus came, he spent time with socially ostracized sinners, like
sexual sinners and other "lowest of the low."  And he was roundly condemned
by the Pharisees for doing so.  If he came back today, I believe he would
do the same thing -- he doesn't change.  And the Pharisees of today's
Christian churches would still condemn him.

They'll know we are Christians by our _love._

  


-- 
The trick of reason is to get the imagination to seize the actual world --
if only from time to time.     -- Annie Dillard, "An American Childhood"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lauren Crawford  //  crawford@ben.dev.upenn.edu
From: jlaplant@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (John R Laplante)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: New book recommendation (philosophy )
Date: 18 Nov 92 22:41:04 GMT
Organization: The Ohio State University

whoever started this discussion with a book review (which, sadly,
has degenerated into accusations) -- thanks. well, actuallym , it
wasn't a review, i don't believe, just a plug. one thing that would
be nice to see here, actually, would be book reviews. but who
has time to do that?

anyway, I'd like to recommend a book for anyone looking into
apologetics/philosophy of science/epistemology. It's called
"Christianity and the nature of science," or something like that.
the author is J.P. Moreland. I'm taking a philosophy course this
quarter, and have found it very useful. 

A couple distinctives about the book (which may excite some, and turn
others off). There is a chapter on scientific creationism (not really
an interest of mine that's terribly important, but still interesting) -
and he 1) holds to biblical innerancy 2) believes in special
creation rather than theistic evolution 3) favors (but is not dogmatic 
about) 24 hour days in Genesis 1 and 2. ANd yet he is not a
'raving nonsensical fundamentalist.' He appears to be well versed
with the literature and careful to not overstate his arguments.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
john r la plante                    graduate student, Ohio State University
jrl+@osu.edu                        political analysis done while you wait
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Book Recommendation
Organization: Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Mon, 16 Nov 1992 16:07:04 GMT


Christia is often full of philosophical arguments about various religious
topics.  (I hesitate to describe them as `logical' arguments, since few have
anything to do with logic.)

I suspect that many people haven't been exposed to such arguments before
seeing them here.  Some people say things which suggest that they've read the
argument but don't understand it, and conclude that the discussion is `too
smart' for them.  Rarely is this the case -- few of the arguments on Christia
make any sense at all.  If you don't follow some bit of reasoning, chances are
that the problem lies with the author, not with you.


I've been tempted in the past to post short summaries of the traditional
religious arguments, but that would be a full-time job.  Posting references to
them would not be a lot better, I think, because it expands into a long list
of books.

However, last month we went to Wheaton College in Illinois for Nancy's college
reunion, and wandered around in the bookstore.  We bumped into one of Nancy's
former professors, and he pointed us to a book used in one of the Philosophy
of Religion classes at Wheaton (it is an Evangelical Christian school).

So far as I recall, Christia has never had a discussion of Christian
philosophy on a topic which is not covered in this book.  And the quality of
discussion in the textbook is much better.  You will learn more from the
articles in this book than you could ever hope to reading Christia, in part
because the book can devote more space to an issue, in part because there is
much less repetition, and in part because so much Christia traffic is logical
garbage.


The book includes these sections:

	Traditional Arguments for the Existence of God
	The Argument from Religious Experience
	The Problem of Evil
	The Attributes of God
	Miracles and Revelation
	Death and Immortality
	Faith and Reason
	Religion and Ethics

Each section is a collection of arguments on both sides of the issue.  For
example, the first section has theists making arguments for the existence of
God and atheists criticising those arguments.  This is not an interpretation,
but a collection: we do not read someone's restatement of Bertrand Russell's
position, but the actual text of a debate between Mr Russell and a man named
Fr Copleston.

So far as I have looked at it, it is a well-balanced presentation; the editor
gives both sides equal space to state their cases.  There are extensive
bibliographies for those who want to read further.

People who find philosophical issues about religion interesting, or who want
to read the traditional arguments that are mentioned on the net, or who just
want to brush up on the Teleological Argument or Theodicy, may find this book
worth reading.  Here are the details:

	_Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology_
	Louis P Pojman
	Wadsworth Publishing Company
	ISBN 0-534-06672-0


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Money is far more persuasive than logical arguments." -- Euripides
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu (N. L. Tinkham)
Subject: "The Word became flesh" (Re: The Trinity)
Organization: Computer Science Department, Rowan College of New Jersey
Date: Sat, 21 Nov 1992 20:17:43 GMT

> My translation of the current Swedish Bible suggests to
> me that the Word becoming flesh is an utterance of the
> Father calling into existance a person who did not exist
> before.  The footnote says as you state, but I find it
> interesting the way it is translated the Word is an it,
> not a person.  

I cannot comment on this Swedish translation, of course, but the overall
sense of the passage (John 1:1-18) is that the Word has existed "from the
beginning" (v.1), at the very least from the time of creation, since all
things were made through the Word (v.3,10).  Given the verses that lead up
to v. 14, it doesn't make sense for the author to be saying that the Word
was created in approximately A.D. 1; rather, the assertion is that the Word,
who had been in existence "from the beginning", now "became flesh" and lived
a human life.

Using the pronoun "it" instead of "he" to refer to the Word may be
reasonable in this passage.  Still, the author seems to have something
stronger in mind than a mere momentary utterance when he refers to "the
Word".  One possibility is that the author is recalling the Logos as
described in Greek (esp. Stoic) philosophy -- here, Logos means something
like the rational, systematic orderliness underlying the universe.  Based
on other passages, I think the author of John sees the Logos as more
personal than the Stoics do, but I think he's taking their concept as a
starting-point.

_____________________________________________________________________________

                                              Nancy Tinkham
                                              nlt@gboro.glassboro.edu
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:         Tue, 17 Nov 1992 12:53:41 -0500
From:         Eric James Ewanco <ewanco@MLO.DEC.COM>
Subject:      Re: The Gospel

Excerpts from christia: 17-Nov-92 Re: The Gospel A16905@ITESO.BITNET (568)

> Peter H. Kolvenbach (I don't know if it is spelled that way) is the
> present Father General and He was here at ITESO a couple of years ago
> and he said nothing about Marxism or disobeying the Pope, on the
> contrary, he spoke about the job of the Jesuites in education acording
> to the social doctrine of the Church. Very good speach, indeed.

Which social doctrine: the one about using violent revolution to free
the underprivileged from the corrupt capitalist government, in order to
establish a utopia here on earth, or the social doctrine of feeding the
hungry, visiting the sick, clothing the naked, shining the light of
Christ, bringing peace to the world, and sharing the Gospel with all
people?

Check very carefully that they speak not only of worldly things, but of
spiritual things, of faith in Christ and hope in the resurrection, in
patient endurance of suffering and trials until His glorious Second
Coming.  If they speak only of establishing an earthly kingdom free from
oppression, of securing only political freedom and going to war for the
poor, then you should recall the words of Scripture, that our battle is
not against flesh and blood, and remember that Christ calls us to trust
in Him, and in His second coming, and not in our own power. Yes, we are
to minister to the poor in material ways, but we also are to minister in
spiritual ways -- spreading the Gospel and bringing people to faith.
The liberation theologians don't talk much about believe in God and the
sufficiency we have in Christ.  They want to establish an earthly
kingdom.  But Jesus Christ says that his kingdom is not earthly, and
cannot be established by power and might, but rather He Himself
establishes it, and we must trust in him and fight not human beings, but
the spiritual powers of darkness  that war against the Gospel.

When Jesus said to free the captives, he meant to free people from sin
and spiritual death by bringing them to faith in God.  He did not mean
take Uzis into prisons and demand the release of the inmates.  The kind
of peace we are to establish is not political peace, for Christ himself
said, "I come not to bring peace, but sword."  Rather, the peace we
establish is the peace of knowing Christ Jesus and the power of His
Resurrection, the peace that comes through faith in Christ and trusting
in Him.  This is the peace that passes all understanding.

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