HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 09:51:26 CDT
From:         Tom Brewer <NOTTMB@LSUVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Systematic Theology

zane of dhahran <FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET> writes:

>"The Bible speaks to us of the life and work of God, and since "life" is
>greater than its manifestation, it cannot be expressed completely in any
>logical or theological form."
>                               Kokichi Kurosaki

OK, what does Kurosaki mean by "greater than its manifestation" if "it
cannot be expressed completely in any logical or theological form"?
It always amazes me how mystics tell us something cannot be explained and
then they follow that with a 300 page book trying to explain whatever it is
that cannot be explained. And of course logic cannot express it, but they
immediately use logical discourse to show how logic is really not logical.

>"It is not the terms but the substance that matters."

>                               Ruth Burrows

Now there's a profundity. Is that a pun or what: "substance that matters"?
Again, terms don't matter, but use terms anyway to describe the substance,
whatever it is.


>"Our Lord had no design of constructing a system of truth in intellectual
>forms.  The truth of the moment in its relation to Him, THE TRUTH, was what
>He spoke.  He spoke out of a region of realities which He knew could only be
>suggested - not represented - in the forms of intellect and speech."

>                                                 George MacDonald

I guess He had no design in constructing the universe either. It's all just
chance. Far be it from Proverbs to have any system of truth or wisdom.
If the Truth was what He spoke, then it's still truth and not something
"out of a region of realities" (so how many "realities are there?). And how
are they "suggested" without being "represented in the forms of intellect
and speech"? Does this mean we just "feel" Truth?

Unfortunately,  Kurosaki, Burrows and MacDonald are examples of those who
accept the world's definition of spirituality which is a type of psychological
state that is somehow devoid of any intellectual content. It's the ooie-gooie
touchy-feely stuff of being "really spiritual."
The Scriptures seem to teach that God relates to man, beginning with Adam,
through the mind, not through the emotions. If the Word of God is the Truth,
and His Word is the ultimate criterion for judging truthfulness, then doesn't
that imply not only that man can understand, but that he must seek to know
and understand truth? Truth is objective and eternal.

Subjective experience, liver shivers, warm fuzzy feelings and whatever else
the mystics choose to describe are not standards with the ability to judge
the truth of anything.

Tom Brewer
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 11:25:03 -0400
From:         "Toni J. Benner" <tjbenner@COLBY.EDU>
Subject:      Watchman Nee - To Kerry

Kerry, the book I read by Watchman Nee was "Latent power of the soul"
If you are interested in the theme, I will browse through it - I have it
at home - and give you a brief summary. He's deep, but I like that. It
has something to do with man's power given by God at Creation.

Toni
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 22 Jul 1992 02:45:20 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Ecclesiastes

James and others:

Gosh, I always thought that the point of Ecclesiastes was pretty
clear.  In fact, it seems to me that the author almost draws arrows
for us and turns up the volume on the narration real loud so we
get the point:

  Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
  Fear God and keep his commandments, for this is the whole
    duty of man.
  For God will bring every work into judgment,
  Including every secret thing,
  Whether it is good or whether it is evil.  (Ecc. 12:13-14, NKJV)

Well, *I* thought it was clear, anyway.
                                         Love INC,
                                                  --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 19:57:27 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Changing Opinions (Edify)

Marty:

Sorry if my message to Ian was unclear.  I thought his question was about
divorce law, and he seemed to think that "the party in power" (which I
thought he felt was the Republican Party) should be able to do pretty
much anything.  I was trying to clear up that misconception.

Of course, on abortion, you are entirely correct.  The present situation
is a result of judicial activism and legislative and executive inactivism.
Both Reagan and Bush tried handling it (sort of) at the judicial level
(and not just in the Supreme Court), while the Congress is not inclined
to pass the Human Life Amendment (not a majority, anyway.) The FOCA is
still an open question (oops, sorry.  Freedom of Choice Act.)   Hope I
haven't confused things too much.
                                 Love INC,
                                          ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:40:40 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Small group for Bible Study

Hello Everyone:

After carefully considering the responses to my Bible study suggestion,
I have decided to go ahead with the plan.  Those who have already
indicated interest will be receiving private mail, which I will send
today (Saturday 7/25).  If you are interested and have not heard from
me, please mail me privately as soon as possible.  I am setting
an August 1 deadline for final entry into the group.  Thanks,
                                                   Love INC,
                                                       --Kerry
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 1992 03:32:06 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Jesse Jackson's speech

Darren,

You say, in connection with Jesse Jackson's speech, "Some have said
that Mary & Joseph were married; but by whose definition?  In the US
in 1992, if there aren't signatures on a piece of paper, you aren't
married.  Saying that they were `betrothed' or `married by Jewish
law' is meaningless.  In this country, what counts is the signatures
on the form."  I do not understand that at all.  They were married
according to the law and customs of the society in which they lived.
That meant that if they had had sexual intercourse they would not
have been guilty of a sin of fornication.  (An engaged couple in our
society who engage in sexual intercourse are guilty of fornication,
but modern engagement is not the same as betrothal.)  Most Christians
agree that Mary and Joseph did not have intercourse before Jesus was
born.  (We disagree on what happened afterwards, but that is irrele-
vant to this discussion.)  However, an outsider, not knowing that
Mary had conceived by the power of God and assuming she and Joseph
had had sexual relations would not have considered the relations
sinful.  Contrary to custom, yes, but not sinful.  It is not "mean-
ingless" to say they were married under Jewish law because they were
living under Jewish law.

You also say, "The comment about how Mary & Joseph were homeless is
similar.  Consider our rules: they did not have a place of residence
in the town they were in, they did not have accommodations for the
night.  (They also didn't have proper identification, but... 8-)"
If I were to decide to fly to Barcelona tonight, or as soon thereaf-
ter as I could get a flight, I would not have a place of residence
there, nor, probably, could I get accommodations for the night.
Would that mean that I was "homeless"?  Of course not.  That is not
what the word "homeless" means in contemporary America.  I have a
home.  If I stayed in New York I would be staying home.  (What was
the proper identification required in those days, and how do you know
they didn't have it? 8-))

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 12:51:06 EDT
From:         Julie Nott <STR008@UKCC.UKY.EDU>
Subject:      Re: poem

Julia:

I loved the poem that you posted "Broken Dreams".  Are you the author?  If not,
could you post the name of the author?

This poem relates to me right at this particular point in my life, and
ironically, my parents also.  I'm struggling with what to do with my life re:
career, staying home with baby, submitting to husband, etc.

My parents (my father and step-mother plus 3 half-siblings) are looking
for a new place to live and just when it seems as though the Lord is pointing
out the perfect opportunity for them, bang, something happens to close the
window.  They're really caught in a "what-to-do-now?" kind of situation and
I think this poem would really relate to them in their quest for God's will
in their lives.  They are christians and are actively seeking his will, but
sometimes it's hard to just *let go*.

Thanks for such an inspiring poem and keep posting them!!!

Julie Nott
New "Trying-to-get-involved" Subscriber
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: [US politics] Snubbing God
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 04:01:15 GMT


Robert Weiss and I have been discussing this comment by Mario Cuomo:

> "We need a leader who will stop the Republican attempt - through laws and 
>  through the courts - to tell us what God to believe in, and how to apply 
>  that God's judgment to our schoolrooms, our bedrooms and our bodies."

He interprets this as a slam against God, and I see it as a slam against
humans who claim to speak for God.  The judgement that Gov Cuomo does not care
for is of "that God", presumably referring to whichever one the Republicans
want us to believe in.

Mr Weiss replies by asking:

> Are you be presenting that Gov Mario is saying that "that God" of the
> Republicans is a different one than God?

That seemed to be his point, yes.

In general, US politicians push a "civil religion" which I find rather at odds
with Christianity.  In this civil religion, it is acceptable for people to
overthrow their rulers (the Revolutionary War) -- this is not at all what we
read in Romans 13.  The Pledge of Allegiance begins "I pledge allegiance to
the flag..."; sorry, but I will not pledge loyalty to a cloth rectangle, no
matter what geometric patterns it has.  Some people do not find the Pledge
idolatrous, and that's their business -- but I'm not going to say it.

Of late, there has been a controversy about non-sectarian prayer in schools.
I see this as just more of the National US Religion being pushed in opposition
to Christianity.  That is, the government is officially telling us that it is
okay to have a religion which doesn't include a single mention of the Lord, a
single mention of human sinfulness, a single mention of Calvary or the
Resurrection.  They don't say that outright, of course -- they just use
official state-sanctioned functions like graduations to display their Christ-
less religion as completely acceptable.


These examples are, obviously, not limited to any political party.  I assume
that just about everybody will have his own points of disagreement with the
"national religion" which permeates the United States, and with the various
methods different politicians use to promote it.  The Republicans are more
apparent in pushing variants on National Religion, but I suspect that's only
because they have held the White House for 12 years.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"Patriotism, n.  Combustible rubbish ready to the torch of anyone ambitious to
 illuminate his name.
   In Dr Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the last resort
 of the scoundrel.  With all due respect to an enlightened but inferior
 lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first."
                              -- Ambrose Bierce, _The Devil's Dictionary_
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu (Dr Nancy's Sweetie)
Subject: Re: [US politics] Snubbing God
Organization: Glassboro State College
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 1992 18:43:33 GMT


Robert Weiss quotes Mario Cuomo:

> "We need a leader who will stop the Republican attempt - through laws and 
>  through the courts - to tell us what God to believe in, and how to apply 
>  that God's judgment to our schoolrooms, our bedrooms and our bodies."

and says

> Cuomo's speech is an argument for a leader who will not employ a morality
> that is God given. The key item in this argument is that of origin. Cuomo is
> not against a "republican morality" (if there is such a thing), or against
> Bush's morality (again, if there is such a thing), rather he is arguing
> against applying God's standards.

But I am not certain that this is correct.  In particular, Gov Cuomo does not
refer only to "God's judgement", but to "that God's judgement".  `That God'
being whichever one the Republicans want us to believe in.  I consider this an
important difference.  (Personally, I find the `civil religion' of the US to
be some distance from Christ's teachings as revealed in God's Word.)

It's all well and good to talk about applying God's judgement, but unless
there is consensus about what God is like and what his judgements are, any
governmental effort to apply this judgement will require some degree of force
against minority religions.

Personally, I am opposed in principle to the countries where Islam is the rule
of law.  Christians who live in such countries are forced to follow Islamic
principles, even though they do not believe in or accept those principles.
Suppose someone who lived in such a country said "We need a government that
will not tell us which God to believe in, or how to apply that God's rules to
our lives."  Would that constitute a snub of God, or just a snub of the Muslim
rulers?

Gov Cuomo is obviously not in as great a minority as a Christian would be in
Iran.  (Roman Catholics are outnumbered by Protestants in the US, but they are
the single greatest denomination.)  However, he is capable of feeling for the
minority religions here exactly what he feels for the minority religions in
other countries.

I personally strongly support the separation of church & state, and oppose any
effort of religious majorities to take advantage of their greater numbers.  In
the case of Christians in the US, I often think that some believe they were
put here to be served by the non-Christians, instead of being servants.


Darren F Provine / kilroy@gboro.glassboro.edu
"If you have a clear conviction, apply it to yourself in the sight of God."
                                                        -- Romans 14:22 (NEB)
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 11:10:00 EST
From:         WKJ <JAMES@XAVIER.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: You have to preach in church to be a REAL reverend

Greetings to all,

        Grace and Peace. I meant no harm at all by mentioning that reverend is
not a noun. I apologize to anyone who may have been offended. God bless you.

WKJ
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 01:22:29 EDT
From:         Marty Helgesen <MNHCC@CUNYVM.BITNET>
Subject:      How the saints know

Lon,

You ask how the saints in Heaven know when we ask them to pray for
us.  It is not through any power of their own.  As you correctly say,
they are not omnipresence or omniscient.  However, they live in
Christ.  They see God face to face (1 Cor. 13:12).  They have a
created share in God's own divine nature. (2 Peter 1:4)  God, who is
omniscient, knows of our prayers to the saints, and makes these
prayers known to them.  This is part of what is meant by the state-
ment in the Creed that one believes in the Communion of Saints.

Recently there was some discussion on the list of the nature of time.
I was too busy to participate, but now I have to touch on it.  (My
discussion will draw on the discussion of time in F. J. Sheed's
_ Theology and Sanity _.)   Time is the duration of that which
changes; time is the measurement of change in the universe.  We live
in time.  God does not live in time because God does not change.  God
is eternal.  Eternity is not endlessness in time.  It is a constant
now.  The past, the present, and the future, from our point of view,
are all now from God's point of view.  Created spirits can never
become something else, that is, there can be no "substantial" change,
but they can change in what they do and in their relations with
others, which is known as "accidental" change.  This intermittent
change experienced by the angels and the souls in Heaven is not the
constant flowing change of matter that occurs in time, nor is the
changelessness of the eternal God.  Theologians refer to it as
_ aevum _ or _ aeviternity _.  Because the angels and saints are out-
side of time, as it is known in our universe, they have no problems
hearing requests made from all over the world "at the same time".  It
is "at the same time" from our perspective, but not from their's.

Marty Helgesen
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Organization: Samford University
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:37:19 CDT
From:         Renee Autry <SRAUTRY@SAMFORD.BITNET>
Subject:      RE: You have to preach in church to be a REAL reverend

On Thu, 30 Jul 1992 09:46:00 EST WKJ said:
>Greetings to all in the name of the Lord Jesus,
>
>        There is no such thing as a reverend. The word is not even a noun.
>There
>are Apostles, Prophets, Evangelists, Pastors, Teachers, Witnesses, Ministers
>Elders, Bishops, Deacons, Believers, Beloveds, Saints, Children, Brothers and
>Sisters, Mothers...


Just for clarification - Reverand is a term employed by Southern Baptists to
mean someone who has been "ordained."  Prior to this term, the designation
"elder" was used of ministers. The transition to "reverand" is very
slow and almost unnoticable (there are some articles in the ALABAMA BAPTIST
from the 19th c., {mostly portions of editorials} dealing with this).  I
would have to say in all honesty that the term is traditional, rather than
scriptural,but that it is recognized as a legitimate designation in the
Southern Baptist tradition.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  BITNET%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 1992 17:25:00 EST
From:         WKJ <JAMES@XAVIER.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: From the listowners (please read)

Let every soul be subject to the higher powers. WKJ.
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:12:47 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Footprints

Claus:

The origin of the story is detailed in this month's Guidepost.  The text
can be found on hundreds of items in any Christian bookstore, but if
you like, I can bring one home and copy it.

                                          Love INC,
                                                   --Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Envelope-to: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"CHRISTIA@ASUACAD"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 16:42:00 EDT
From:         LEELM@UNCWIL.BITNET
Subject:      Lists

Please remove my name from CHRISTIA.

*******************************************************************************
*   L. Murrie Lee                                                             *
*   Associate Registrar                               LEELM@VXC.UNCWIL.EDU    *
*   University of North Carolina at Wilmington        Phone: 919-395-3126     *
*   601 South College Road                            FAX:   919-395-3038     *
*   Wilmington, North Carolina  28403   U.S.A.                                *
*******************************************************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Tue, 28 Jul 1992 19:12:09 EST
From:         Kerry Stephenson <KSTE@PURCCVM.BITNET>

     Renee:


"Wife abuse doesn't occur in families in which husbands are unsaved or
alcoholics, where mothers work outside the home or couples are only nominally
Christian.

     Um, unless you are missing a "just" between "doesn't" and "occur,"
     I would have to say that this statement is demonstrably false.
     If there is supposed to be a "just" in there, I would have to
     agree.  However, I think we should remember that a Christian
     husband exercising his rightful authority is "authoritative,"
     not "authoritarian."  If there is no qualifier in the actual
     text, I would have to question other conclusions that might be
     found in the book.  I don't mean to flame you, but this
     statement, as is, concerns me, if scholars are in support of
     it.  Would you mind clearing this up?   Thanks.

                                            Love INC,
                                                     ---Kerry
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 27 Jul 1992 10:15:01 -0700
From:         jstahley@QUALCOMM.COM
Subject:      Repentence
X-To:         multiple recipients of list christia
              <christia@asuvm.inre.asu.edu>

I have had a terrible two weeks. First off I am a Recovering alcoholic with
a little over a year of sobriety,but something has happened to me. I did
not go out and use alcohol, I went and used some crack. I also had sex with
person that I am not married to. I feel very ashamed and guilty. I had a
relationship with a christian woman that went sour. I have been punishing
myself for the past three weeks and I surrender to the Lord. I have been a
christian for about 10 months and have not really been a good one at it. I
want to do the right things but sometimes I really don't know what they
are. Where do I start? Also I need some prayers other than my own to get
thru this confusion,hurt and pain. I feel that I am not deserving of god's
love because of what I had done. Could someone out there help me out?



                                JSTAHLEY@ATHENA.QUALCOMM.COM

                                RECEIVING INSPECTION DEPARTMENT
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: billc@housing.msstate.edu (Bill Chapman)
Subject: Re: wearing two hats
Organization: Housing Department, Mississippi State University
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 16:14:03 GMT

In article <CHRISTIA%92072021504170@ASUACAD.BITNET> JEK@NIHCU.BITNET writes:
>Date:         Tue, 21 Jul 1992 00:47:30 EDT
>From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
>Subject:      wearing two hats

>Bill Chapman writes:

> > We have Christians who will put on their scientist hats when they
> > study science, and accept all the claims of evolutionism. Then
> > with no qualms, on Sunday, they put on their Christian hats, and
> > study the claims of a Creator, and fail to see the dichotomy....

>Suppose I give thanks to God for creating me, and also believe that
>my biological life and most of my biological characteristics are
>derived from those of my parents.  Am I guilty of an inconsistency
>here? I think not.

I think you did not read my words carefully.  In particular, you
quoted my word, "evolutionISM," which is a philosophy whose foundation
is that living things are totally a product of chance, and answered
as if I had used "evolution."  Your arguments are therefore in the
category of "Straw Man," i.e., you are not opposing what I said, but
what you said I said.

--
Bill Chapman <BillC@Housing.MSState.edu>   (601) 325-2042
Computing Consultant <wcc1@Msstate.bitnet> P.O. Box 1262
Dept. of Housing & Residence Life          Mississippi State, MS  39762
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU