HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Bishop Spong
Date: 15 Sep 92 15:32:21 GMT
Reply-To: <lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

LHARANGO@OWUCOMCN.BITNET (Lauren H. Arango) writes:

>People have asked me why the Episcopal Church doesn't simply un-seat [Spong]..
>and I don't have an answer for that, either.  Church politics, perhaps?
>In the same way that it is difficult or often impossible to get medical
>doctors to step forward and go against one of their own who they know to
>be medically incompetant, it is perhaps difficult or impossible to get
>the powers that be in the church to step forward and make an attempt to
>remove Spong.  (This is purely my own surmising....like I said above, I
>have no answers.)

>Perhaps they feel that there is less adverse publicity in allowing him
>to stay (and suffering occasional embarrassment because of him) than
>stirring up a political hornet's nest by trying to oust him?

>I don't know....I wish someone could give *me* the answer.

>                                        Lauren

Various coalitions of bishops have been threatening to remove Jack Spong for 
years.  Most view the votes to "disassociate" from him as straw votes for 
the bigger judgment of "deposing" him.   The last "disassociation" vote 
won by a very narrow margin, and would not have won had only the North
American bishops voted (sans Latin America).  After that last vote, the House
allowed Jack to speak (you can order a tape of his speech, from the 
Bishop Amand Resource Center, Diocesan House, 24 Rector Street, Newark, 
NJ 07102; I don't know the price, but it would simply cover their cost), and
his speech so moved all present that over a dozen bishops wanted to change 
their votes but rules did not allow them to do so....   

"Disassociation" merely says "his opinions are not ours on x, y, and z; and 
we feel so strongly about this disagreement that we want to call this to the
world's attention."  It does not censure him/her from having such opinions, 
and it certainly does not kick him/her out for having such opinions.

Those who think the House really is against Jack have the obligation to show
how that opposition manifests itself:  he makes his own positions quite clear.
He is not confused.  Are they?  If so, why blame him?

For right now, those votes are not there.  He is in the House.  He is a bishop
in good standing in the Episcopal Church.  It is a church big enough to include
him; and any talk to the contrary violates who we are as a church right now.

Obviously we are also a church big enough to include those who say loudly and
clearly that we should kick him out.  I am not one of those.

Louie/Quean Lutibelle

-- 
  ==========================================================================
  Louie Crew, Assoc. Prof., Academic Foundations Dept., Rutgers U./NWK 07102
  lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu                                   201-485-4503
                    Heteroprivilege is against New Jersey law!
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: jrussell@unlinfo.unl.edu (john russell)
Subject: A view from the other side
Organization: University of Nebraska - Lincoln
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 15:43:58 GMT

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Envelope-to: christia@asuacad.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"christia@asuacad"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:48:00 CDT
From:         BKCOBB@LIFE.UAMS.EDU
Subject:      Matt. 24.

>Genea is translated either race, nation, or generation.
>Greek, like English iscontextual by nature.
>Example, Jesus refers to Herod as a "fox" and the Greek word is FOX.
>The context, however, implies another connotative use of the word.

>Also, Genea is Generation in Matt 24, by the context.
>The whole race was not CORRUPT, nor the RACE.
>But, Jesus had just earlier declared that THAT generation would be imputed
>with ALL of the guilt of the murders of people from Abel to Zechariah.

Jesus said no such thing.  He said that the religious leaders of that day
would be imparted with the guilt.  (The "you" of Matthew 23:35 is the
same "you" that Jesus had been referring to throughout Matt. 23, namely the
teachers of the law and Pharisees).

And what has corruption got to do with it anyway?  Jesus is speaking in
context in Matt. 24:34 about events, not morals.

>Further, Jesus was pointing out that THAT specific living group
>was especially evil. He goes on to tell the disciples that THAT generation
>would live to see thhe Second Parousia.

No, he said the race would not pass away.  I'm not trying to be a smart aleck
here, I just think yours is a highly subjective interpretation that does not
fit in with these events, taken literally.

>Whatever Jesus meant, it was RELAVENT to His HEARERS firstly.
>If it was only a warning of something to occur 20-plus centuries in their
>future, Jesus' words have NO inmpact for THEM and are SUPERFLUOUS.

Who said anything about a 20 century gap?  Jesus immediately followed up
on his exposition in Matt 24 by telling two parables in Matt 25. warning
the disciples to always be vigilant for they were not going to be told the
day or hour he would return.  They were to watch (parable of the virgins),
and work (parable of the talents) as if their master could return at any
time.  They have as much impact for us today as they did the disciples
then, when we believe his return can happen at any time.

Brian
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Delivery-Notice:  SMTP MAIL FROM does not correspond to sender.
X-Vmsmail-To: SMTP%"CHRISTIA@ASUVM.INRE.ASU.EDU"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 10:13:17 -0700
From:         MARK DRAKE <DRAKE@ASUCHM.LA.ASU.EDU>
Subject:      RE: THE REMNANT OF HER SEED...

	I agree that not all those claiming the title of christian are saved
(even so, for purposes of communication I still call them christians).
Something that comes to mind is that the remnant is to be found in with
everyone else.  So I think it is wrong to say that "The <insert favorite
christian sect or denomination> are all going to hell."  There is a remnent in
that organization.  Even the elect can be decieved or led astray.  Or simply
get comfortable.

Mark
drake@asuchm.la.asu.edu
From: psyrobtw@ubvmsb.cc.buffalo.edu (Robert Weiss)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re:      Re: Church and Rome
Date: 11 Sep 92 02:08:00 GMT
Organization: University at Buffalo
News-Software: VAX/VMS VNEWS 1.41

In article <BuCD0u.HvL@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, creps@silver.ucs.indiana.edu (Steve Creps) writes...
> 
>   Bob, you recently used, as a reference against papal primacy, a
>quote from "Eerdman's translation of the Ante-Nicene Fathers."  The
>quote begins thus:
> 
>	"Launoi, the eminent Gallican, found but seventeen of the
>	Fathers and Doctors of the Church (among whom he reckons
>	`Fathers' down to the twelfth century) who understand St.
>	Peter to be `the rock,' and he cites forty of the contrary
>	opinion..."
> 
>   A Gallican heretic is hardly an impartial or unbiased scholar in
>this matter, as the Gallican heresy, a sort of French version of
>Anglicanism, by definition rejected papal primacy (_Gallican_ comes
>from the Latin for _French_).  The Gallicans also allied themselves
>with the Jansenists, whose heresy was similar to Calvinism in the
>belief of the total depravity of man.

	To argue that proposals are bad or assertions false because 
they are proposed or asserted by radicals is to argue fallaciously
and to be guilty of committing an argumentum ad hominem. This kind of 
argument is sometimes called the Genetic Fallacy, because it attacks 
the source or genesis of the opposing position rather than that 
position itself.
	
	The way in which this irrelevant argument may sometimes 
persuade is through the psychological process of transference. Where 
an attitude of disapproval toward a person can be evoked, it may be 
possibly tend to overflow the strictly emotional field and become 
disagreement with what that person says. But this connection is only 
psychological, not logical. Even the most wicked of men may sometimes 
tell the truth or argue correctly.

	In the case of your rebuttal about Launoi, there was no 
addressing the points raised. Instead, Gallicanism was addressed.
This is irrelevant. Gallicanism could be the most wicked club of 
miscreants ever, with Launoi the grand poobah miscreant. But as long 
as he correctly identified 17 of one and 40 of another, the fact of 
his miscreantism is inapplicable to his statistics.



 en agape,
 Bob 
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Thu, 10 Sep 1992 03:17:13 EDT
From:         JEK@NIHCU.BITNET
Subject: Re: Math and 'absolute' answers

Kerry points out that no one approaches mathematicical questions by
supposing that there are no wrong answers, and that whatever anyone
wants to believe is acceptable.

Darren (kilroy, Dr. N's S) points out that, thanks to the
revolutionary work of Goedel (or Go"del -- put the dots (umlaut)
over the vowel and pronounce the name GAYdel, protruding the lips as
if to say GOO on the first syllable), it is now known that some
mathematical statements cannot be proved either true or false,
beginning from a "reasonable" set of assumptions and using standard
methods of logical inference.

Of course, this makes mathematics less tidy than mathematicians had
once hoped. However, it is still true that when it is proved (for
example) that the so-called Continuum Hypothesis is not deducible
from the postulates of ordinary arithmetic, and that neither is its
denial, so that the CH is an undecidable proposition in ordinary
arithmetic, the proof of undecidability is an objective and rigorous
proof, and the result is an established fact, so that some
mathematicians may say, "It is my personal opinion that the CH is
true," and others may say, "It is my personal opinion that the CH is
false," but they are all agreed that no (standard) proof exists
either way, and a mathematician who said, "It is my personal opinion
that one day a proof of the CH will be found," would be assumed by
his colleagues to be considering the possibility of a non-standard
proof (and no one is quite sure what that would look like) or else
to be imperfectly educated in that particular branch of mathematics.
(Oh, yes. The CH is the assertion that there is no cardinal number
that is intermediate in size between the number of rational numbers
and the number of real numbers.)

 Yours,
 James Kiefer
From: gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk (G.J. McCaughan)
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Subject: Re: Tradition (was Re: Second parousia in the past?)
Date: 13 Sep 92 00:56:36 GMT
Organization: U of Cambridge, England

In article <1992Sep11.105946.18524@doug.cae.wisc.edu>, nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub) writes:

> Then you have missed my point! The point is that this verse proves that the
> Scriptures do not contain everything that the Lord said, since none of the
> Gospel authors said this verse. It proves *beyond doubt* that there are
> unrecorded teachings that were passed on (i.e. Tradition). Your conclusions
> are true, but they cannot deny the authenticity of Tradition (unless you can
> prove that this quote is the *only* quote that the four Evangelists missed!
> However this is unlikely ... see John 21:25).

Sure, of course Jesus said things that aren't recorded in the New Testament.
(How much does a typical person say in their lifetime? How many NTs would it
fill?)

What you have *not* proved is that any particular load of stuff claiming to
be "Tradition" is true, or authentic, or whatever word you like to use. Sure,
Jesus said plenty that's not in the Bible. That has no bearing at all on the
validity or otherwise of any claimed saying of Jesus, or of any claimed fact
not in Scripture.

What exactly do you mean by "the authenticity of Tradition", anyway?

-- 
Gareth McCaughan     Dept. of Pure Mathematics & Mathematical Statistics,
gjm11@cus.cam.ac.uk  Cambridge University, England.    [Research student]
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re:      OK, YOU GUYS ASKED FOR THIS....
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 12 Sep 92 19:09:37 CDT

In article <920911.19324048.070703@USM.CP6> THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET> writes:
> Let's get one thing crystal right now.
> I am gettin' annoyed at everyone goin' off on each other
> because we have different DENOMINATIONAL beliefs...
> Let's get back to the CARDINAL DOCTRINES OF THE *CHRISTIAN*
> FAITH:
> 1. JESUS WAS GOD'S SON.
> 2. BORN OF A VIRGIN
> 3. LED A SINLESS LIFE HERE ON EARTH
> 4. DIED TO SAVE ALL MANKIND FROM SIN/DEATH/HELL
> 5. ROSE ON THE THIRD DAY (ACTUALLY SUNDAY NOW...)
> 6. SENT US THE HOLY SPIRIT AS COMFORTOR/COUNCELLOR
> 7. HE'S COMING BACK HERE TO RAPTURE HIS CHURCH AND
>    TAKE US TO HEAVEN WITH HIM... AND THERE WE WILL
>    STAY *FOREVER* ... IF we have a one-on-one with him.
>

I just want to pose a simple question, how did you come to the conclusion
that these are "the CARDINAL DOCTRINES OF THE *CHRISTIAN* FAITH" ? Did
you get 318 Fathers of Church (ooops I forgot that some people do not like
this term!) or 318 knowledgable qualified persons to come to this conclusion.
Please do not re-invent the wheel! The CARDINAL DOCTRINES OF *CHRISTIAN*
FAITH have been laid down centuries ago, by 318 knowledgable persons (who
happen to be Church Fathers by the way!) led by the Holy Spirit in Nicea
and the 150 in Constantinople too, and you can find them in The Creed (I'm
referring to the Nicea-Constantinople Creed). For me this Creed is as 
important as the Bible exactly because both are inspired by the Holy Spirit.

[ The following paragraph is a reply to an earlier post (I guess by Tim or
Dan) but on a related issue ]

I am getting tired of people whose hobby is to criticize and belittle the
role of Church Fathers. For me St. Athansius is as important as St. Paul.
Folks, remember that we could have all ended up being Arian, if it was
not St. Athansius who, led by the zeal of the Holy Spirit, stood up against
the tidal wave of Arianinsm (that is why he is called Contra Mundum when
he was told "Athansius, all the World is against you" and he replied "And
I am against the whole World"!). The minimum tribute to heroes of Church
like Athansius, Cyril, Augustin, Ireneus, Clement, ...  (oh the list is 
endless) is to be grateful for what have they done (rather than ridiculing
them which is very unChristian by teh way!).

Irene pasi,

Nabil

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
X-Orig-To: CHRISTIA@ASUACAD.BITNET
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 4 Sep 1992 21:18:13 CDT
Comments:     Answering received message
From:         THERESA BLACKWELL <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Subject:      Brad!!!

 Hey, dude.... I think you're one bold fella to post such a
 statement... I'm not Catholic... I'm Southern Baptist...
 but, dating a Methodist dude for four months taught me to
 set aside the fact that each person has his own way to
 worship the Lord....
 As long as you have accepted the Lord's finished work on
 Calvary, and have invited him to guide your life for the
 rest of your days here???
 WHAT"S THE BIG DEAL what Denomination you wanna affiliate with?
 I have many CHRISTIAN friends who happen to be Roman Catholic.
 Sure, we fuss about the traditions that the different DENOMINATIONS
 carry on... but there's one thing we agree on...
 THE ONLY WAY TO HEAVEN IS THROUGH JESUS CHRIST ... the only
 begotten Son of God Almighty.
              "God loved the world so much, that he gave
               the only Son he had, so that whoever believes
               in HIS name, shall not die, but will live
               forever"
 NOTE: THIS IS *MY* WAY OF quoting John 3:16...
 The KJV states it this way:
 "For God so loved the world, that WHOSOEVER BELIEVETH IN HIM
  shall not perish, but have EVERLASTING LIFE!"...

------
 NOTE TO THOSE WHO HAVE TRIED TO DOWN BRAD BECAUSE OF
 HIS CATHOLIC FAITH:
 Remember the post I sent around Tuesday of last week???
 Remember what 'MARCIE' said???
 Gang, take that to heart, willya???
 She was RIGHT....
 We need to stop flamin' each other because we chose to
 be Penticostal, Presbyterian, Methodist or Catholic....
 We need to START spreadin' this simple truth:
 GOD LOVES ALL PEOPLE... SAVED AND LOST, AND HE SENT JESUS
 TO CALVARY TO PAY FOR OUR SINS...
 IF WE ACCEPT THIS, AND INVITE CHRIST TO LIVE IN AND THROUGH
 US, then we have a home in Heaven with him one of these days.
 -----
 Give it a rest as far as denominational differences go,
 and let's just get down to the business of winning sould
 (that's SOULS ) .....
 -----
 That's what Jesus put us here to do in the FIRST PLACE!
 NUFF SAID... I QUIT!
 (the "G" is truly bummed from band rehearsal!!!)
 I'll live, though.
 God Bless you all...
 Theresa

 * <TBLACKWL@USMCP6.BITNET>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
From: nabil@cae.wisc.edu (Nabil Ayoub)
Subject: Re: iconographics
Organization: U of Wisconsin-Madison College of Engineering
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:07:42 CDT

In article <920915.093352.SAT.FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET> FACN34B@SAUPM00.BITNET (zane) writes:
>This probably has very little to do with the practical Christian life, but I
>have a question about those paintings.
>
>What is the significance of the two fingers of the right hand raised?  Some-
>times it looks like the "cub-scout" salute, while at other times, the little
>finger is also extended.
>
>If anyone knows, please share with me the significance of these handsigns.
>Also, what are they called within the Christian tradition?  TIA,
>

Hello Zane,

Indeed this is a tradition that has symbolism behind it. If you look carefully
in the icon, you will see the thumb of Jesus ( You only see this sign in 
the icons of Christ) touching the middle segment of the second finger (counting
from the opposite side to the thumb). If you count how many segments are
included you will get 10 (2 from thumb, 6 from the two raised fingers, and
2 from the next one, so this makes it 10). The number 10 is a very special
number. In this case the number 10 refers to the 10th letter in the alpahbet
which is a J, and obviously it is the first letter in the word 'Jesus'. What
is really remarkable, is that the first letter of the word 'Jesus' in most
languages is always the tenth letter of the alphabet of the languague!!! I
can only confirm this for :

English (and most Latin-based European Language)
Arabic
Hebrew (and probably other Semitic languages)
Greek (I think it is 9th not 10th but I'm not sure)

Any other languages ???

While someone may say 'So What?', or 'What differece it makes?', or 'Is it
written in the Scripture ?', 'Is it necessary for Salvation ?', or the same
standard set of questions that Catholics/Orthodox get bombarded with, I
would say it is simply a tangible contemplation for me. I see it as a sign
of how unique and universal is the name of Jesus. For me, it means something
but it might not for other people. No problem! BTW, this might not be the 
only symbolism behind this sign (I think it has a name), and this explanation
is the one I am aware of.

Over the years, people might have taken this sign to be the sign of victory.
So it can also be a reminder that Christ was/is/will be vicortious and with 
His help we will be victorious too.

Irene pasi,

Nabil

Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Original_To:  CHRISTIA
Original_cc:  HUTTER
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 1992 09:01:00 N
From:         Wolfgang Hutter <HUTTER@DULRUU51.BITNET>
Subject:      Preterist view of prophecy

Hi folks!

Yesterday evening in our Bible Study we came across Isaiah 35 and I
found this passage interesting in view of the recent discussion between
Jesse Carnes and some other people on this list (especially Lon).

I'll include only some portions of this passage, but you may find it
worth reading all of it.

ISA 35:1  The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for
 them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose.
ISA 35:2  It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy
 and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the
 excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the
 LORD, and the excellency of our God.
ISA 35:3  Strengthen ye the weak hands, and confirm the feeble
 knees.
ISA 35:4  Say to them that are of a fearful heart, Be strong, fear
 not: behold, your God will come with vengeance, even God with a
 recompence; he will come and save you.

To repeat a question frequently asked by Jesse: "What would the hearers
of this message have thought this would refer to?" - The obvious answer
is: the future kingdom of Messiah! But look at vv. 5-6a:

ISA 35:5  Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears
 of the deaf shall be unstopped.
ISA 35:6  Then shall the lame man leap as an hart, and the tongue
 of the dumb sing:

These verses are cited in the New Testament in Mt.11:5 where Jesus
interprets Himself as being a (partial) fulfillment of this prophecy.

Another OT prophecy of this type is found in Isaiah 61:

ISA 61:1  The Spirit of the Lord GOD is upon me; because the LORD
 hath anointed me to preach good tidings unto the meek; he hath
 sent me to bind up the brokenhearted, to proclaim liberty to the
 captives, and the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
ISA 61:2  To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD, and the day
 of vengeance of our God; to comfort all that mourn;
ISA 61:3  To appoint unto them that mourn in Zion, to give unto
 them beauty for ashes, the oil of joy for mourning, the garment of
 praise for the spirit of heaviness; that they might be called
 trees of righteousness, the planting of the LORD, that he might be
 glorified.
ISA 61:4  And they shall build the old wastes, they shall raise up
 the former desolations, and they shall repair the waste cities,
 the desolations of many generations.

V.4 cleraly shows that this is the restoration of Israel, not the coming
of Jesus. But Jesus claimed to be the fulfillment of this prophecy.

No double fulfillment?

Wolfgang <><
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU
Via:      UK.AC.SOLENT; 14 SEP 92 10:09:06 BST
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.christia
Date:         Mon, 14 Sep 1992 10:09:00 GMT
From:         Z_STAFF_CL@SOUTHAMPTON-INSTITUTE.AC.UK
Subject:      Re: Newsweek: Gays Under Fire

Kerry,

10% of te population is the accepted estimate that has been used as long
as I can remember.
Some of the newer estimates go as high as 20% but I don't know enough about
the sources to accept them.  It may be that the higher estimate is not a
result of a "growing problem" (as I have heard it called on the network
recently) but because more people are not as afraid of the backlash behind
standing up for what they feel.

Carol L
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU