🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 21:36:09 +0000, Bill Caunt
<bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> I heard, on a Catholic short wave broadcast from the USA, a
> broadcaster advise a listener concerning her brother who had become
> protestant and had married. She was advised to remind her now
> protestant brother and sister-in-law to consider purgatory!

Rubbish.

> Quoting 1 Corinthians 3 v 15, 'If it is burned up, he will suffer
> loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the
> flames.' as the proof of the existence of purgatory.

Rubbish.

Never, ever take the slightest notice of anything said on a USA
religious broadcast -- irrespective of the denomination.
--
Mitch

Bill Caunt wrote:

> Quoting 1 Corinthians 3 v 15, 'If it is burned up, he will suffer
> loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the
> flames.' as the proof of the existence of purgatory.
>
> I have been trying to make sense of this passage 1 Corinthians 3 v 10
> to 15 for some time. Well, OK, I admit it, for years! But I am now
> even more confused.
>
> I know there are a lot of experienced and brainy folk on this net,
> can anyone explain just what Paul is saying in this passage!

I don't think it's hard to understand; only to believe :-).

The context here is that of whether one's work -- meaning
specifically one's work *for God*, and even more specifically
that of building the church[1] -- endures or not. If you build
well (meaning, I suppose, preaching and teaching and training
and so on truthfully and sensitively and in line with what
God has in mind) then your work will survive. If you build
shoddily then it will not stand the test of time: your
converts will fall away, your congregations will wither,
and so on. And you yourself will be rewarded according to
your work. If your work is really bad and it doesn't survive,
then that won't disqualify *you* from salvation -- but
you won't do as well as you would have if you'd built
better.

    [1] Meaning the people, not the buildings.

I suspect that Paul has in mind here the idea of "treasure
in heaven", and is reckoning that when you work to build up
the church you are also amassing treasure in heaven, which
corresponds to -- or even *is* -- the church you're building
up. So if that doesn't last then you lose the aforementioned
treasure, like someone whose house has burned down.

Paul is famously unenthusiastic about *salvation* by works,
but he doesn't seem to have any problem with *reward* by
works. :-)

I don't think the process Paul describes is meant to apply
to every Christian -- as if the only thing we're here for
is to make other Christians and nourish their faith. But
those who are called by God to do that work had better do it
as well as they know how.

                            *

I know that this passage is sometimes quoted in support of
a doctrine of purgatory, but I really don't understand why.
I mean, yes, it talks about being "saved, but only as through
fire", but that's not much of an argument, is it?

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

In message <pches0t24tj1d21cfmmmr5dsnudo7folbo@4ax.com>
          Bill Caunt <bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

> Quoting 1 Corinthians 3 v 15, 'If it is burned up, he will suffer
> loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the
> flames.' as the proof of the existence of purgatory.

If anything, the passage is referring to the Last Judgement and not to
purgatory. It appears to me to be based on such passages as Malachi 3 which
speak of the refiner's fire and St Paul is pointing out that, like gold at
the refiner's, what we do in our lives will be assayed by God at the end of
time. Some people may be saved, but their accomplishments in this life will
prove to have been futile; others, however, will have built profitably on
Christ.

As examples I would quote Tyndale, whose English translation of the Bible
had a tremendous influence for good in religious and English history; on the
other side we might put Mrs Bloggs who faithfully attended and supported her
local church and drove everyone else mad (as well as driving others away by
her insistence on having 'her' seat and using the original Prayer Book). She
may well be saved, but her life work - preserving the Prayer Book - may not
have been a worthy task.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In message <41ca627f.1604667@mid.ydns.org>, Mitch B
<mitch_niet@mid.ydns.org> writes
>Rubbish.
>Rubbish.
>
>Never, ever take the slightest notice of anything said on a USA
>religious broadcast -- irrespective of the denomination.

Pah! Racial prejudice! ;-)

I agree *only* when they give an address for donations.

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

"Bill Caunt" <bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pches0t24tj1d21cfmmmr5dsnudo7folbo@4ax.com...
>I heard, on a Catholic short wave broadcast from the USA, a
> broadcaster advise a listener concerning her brother who had become
> protestant and had married. She was advised to remind her now
> protestant brother and sister-in-law to consider purgatory!
>

Except that this context was removed in Vatican II.

David

In message <41c8c9b2$1$3777$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, David Lane
<asfo22NOSPAMTAVERYMUCH@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>"Bill Caunt" <bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pches0t24tj1d21cfmmmr5dsnudo7folbo@4ax.com...
>>I heard, on a Catholic short wave broadcast from the USA, a
>> broadcaster advise a listener concerning her brother who had become
>> protestant and had married. She was advised to remind her now
>> protestant brother and sister-in-law to consider purgatory!
>
>Except that this context was removed in Vatican II.

David, I haven't commented on this yet, but could you explain, please?

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:FgK8VjIwIVyBFw8D@trustsof.demon.co...
> In message <41c8c9b2$1$3777$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, David Lane
> <asfo22NOSPAMTAVERYMUCH@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>"Bill Caunt" <bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:pches0t24tj1d21cfmmmr5dsnudo7folbo@4ax.com...
>>>I heard, on a Catholic short wave broadcast from the USA, a
>>> broadcaster advise a listener concerning her brother who had become
>>> protestant and had married. She was advised to remind her now
>>> protestant brother and sister-in-law to consider purgatory!
>>
>>Except that this context was removed in Vatican II.
>
> David, I haven't commented on this yet, but could you explain, please?
>

Within Vatican II (which I read some years ago and still have a copy) the
context of purgatory being a mid-stage between this life and the next where
we atone for our sins was removed.

-=-

David

In message <41c99ca0$0$21755$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, David Lane
<asfo22NOSPAMTAVERYMUCH@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>"Michael J Davis" <?.?@trustsof.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:FgK8VjIwIVyBFw8D@trustsof.demon.co...
>> In message <41c8c9b2$1$3777$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.com>, David Lane
>> <asfo22NOSPAMTAVERYMUCH@dsl.pipex.com> writes
>>>"Bill Caunt" <bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>>>news:pches0t24tj1d21cfmmmr5dsnudo7folbo@4ax.com...
>>>>I heard, on a Catholic short wave broadcast from the USA, a
>>>> broadcaster advise a listener concerning her brother who had become
>>>> protestant and had married. She was advised to remind her now
>>>> protestant brother and sister-in-law to consider purgatory!
>>>
>>>Except that this context was removed in Vatican II.
>>
>> David, I haven't commented on this yet, but could you explain, please?
>
>Within Vatican II (which I read some years ago and still have a copy) the
>context of purgatory being a mid-stage between this life and the next where
>we atone for our sins was removed.

As Vatican II was a Council, which over nearly three years produced
dozens of Documents, it doesn't help saying 'within Vat II'. My own copy
of the documents with an inadequate index, certainly doesn't have an
entry for purgatory.

But never mind, the reason I queried this (and think you are wrong) was
that the idea of purgatory being a place of atonement has never been
official teaching of the Church, and therefore I was wondering what the
reference was.

I have looked in the Catechism with only three short sections on
purgatory, and would expect it to x-reference the Vat II documents had
such a change occurred.

To go back to the original comment, I have to confess that I find the
comment bizarre! If the suggestion was that they had somehow sinned,
then purgatory has never been a place of punishment, but of purification
for the saved. I suppose warning them of hell would be too pointed! ;-(

Thanks for your comment,

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

In message <pches0t24tj1d21cfmmmr5dsnudo7folbo@4ax.com>, Bill Caunt
<bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>I heard, on a Catholic short wave broadcast from the USA, a
>broadcaster advise a listener concerning her brother who had become
>protestant and had married. She was advised to remind her now
>protestant brother and sister-in-law to consider purgatory!
>
>Quoting 1 Corinthians 3 v 15, 'If it is burned up, he will suffer
>loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the
>flames.' as the proof of the existence of purgatory.

In the CCC (Catholic Catechism) this passage is only used to refer to
final judgement, and thus, to be judged righteous is to 'escape the
fires of hell'. I haven't seen it as being used in reference to
purgatory.

>I have been trying to make sense of this passage 1 Corinthians 3 v 10
>to 15 for some time. Well, OK, I admit it, for years! But I am now
>even more confused.

I should ignore that comment, it seems ill-judged, if not plain wrong.
>
>I know there are a lot of experienced and brainy folk on this net,
>can anyone explain just what Paul is saying in this passage!

In this chapter he has been talking about people following different
leaders teachings, and comparing them. His point is that he is only
bring people to Jesus Christ - the one foundation that he has helped to
lay.

If someone tries to suggest that there is a different foundation for the
Church, be careful, because other foundations will not redeem and (AIUI)
the teachers will be endangered for not leading people to Christ and be
subject to the fires of hell.


10      By the grace God has given me, I laid a foundation as an expert
builder, and someone else is building on it. But each one should be
careful how he builds.
11      For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already
laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12      If any man builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly
stones, wood, hay or straw,
13      his work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will
bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test
the quality of each man's work.
14      If what he has built survives, he will receive his reward.
15      If it is burned up, he will suffer loss; he himself will be
saved, but only as one escaping through the flames.
(NIV)

I think there is more to it than just that, but its a start. ;-)

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

Bill Caunt <bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:pches0t24tj1d21cfmmmr5dsnudo7folbo@4ax.com...
> I heard, on a Catholic short wave broadcast from the USA, a
> broadcaster advise a listener concerning her brother who had become
> protestant and had married. She was advised to remind her now
> protestant brother and sister-in-law to consider purgatory!
>
> Quoting 1 Corinthians 3 v 15, 'If it is burned up, he will suffer
> loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the
> flames.' as the proof of the existence of purgatory.
>
> I have been trying to make sense of this passage 1 Corinthians 3 v 10
> to 15 for some time. Well, OK, I admit it, for years! But I am now
> even more confused.
>
> I know there are a lot of experienced and brainy folk on this net,
> can anyone explain just what Paul is saying in this passage!
>
> Best regards
>
> Bill

Bill,

The context of 1 Co chapter 3 does not lead to the conclusion of a
Purgatorial existence. Paul likens the Christian minister to a builder. (vs
10,11)  What kind of building work is Paul talking about? Well, note the
context: "You people are . . . God's building." "You people are God's
temple." (vs 9, 16) So it is a figurative building work, one involving
"people." That is to say, the Christian minister 'builds people' in the
sense that he endeavors to build up in interested persons a Christian
personality, making disciples out of them. So evidently Paul is contrasting
two types of buildings. On the one hand there is, as it were, a beautiful
palace adorned with gold, silver and precious gems. In contrast there is a
thatch-roofed hut made with wooden boards or posts supporting walls of dried
grass mixed with mud.


So applying Paul's illustration, then, the question is: In teaching others,
are you building "palaces" or "huts"? Are you building them up with fire
resistant materials, or flammable materials?
And,  what does the "fire" starting in verse 13 here represent?
Violent physical persecution?

Evidently not. For notice that "each one's work" will be subjected to the
"fire." Not all Christians receive violent persecution. So the "fire"
represents any of the pressures or temptations that could destroy one's
spirituality.

Thus based on the context, as you can see, Paul is not implying any kind of
existence in a "Purgatory".


(the above was taken from the 8/1, 1984 Watchtower magazine)

Sincerely,  James


***********************************
Want a FREE home Bible study?
Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?
Go to the authorized source:
http://www.watchtower.org
***********************************

In message <cqverv$fgg$1@news.chatlink.com>
          "James" <arox@surfbest.net> wrote:

> (the above was taken from the 8/1, 1984 Watchtower magazine)

Once, out of curiosity, I attended a JW service. I didn't know any of the
hymns and the order of service was a trifle unusual from my point of view,
but those are minor matters. At one point in the service the leader
announced that we were going to do a Bible study, whereupon everyone
obediently reached for their Watchtower magazines. Those of you who have
encountered these publications will be aware that in some of the articles
there are questions at the bottom of each column: the "Bible study"
consisted of the leader reading out these questions one by one and then
waiting for people to wave their hands, whereupon he would select one person
to give the answer.

Right in front of me was a young girl - 12 or 13, I would have said - who
indulged in a good deal of whispered consultation with her mother, preparing
an answer. When the leader came to the question she had prepared, she waved
her hand vigorously and was chosen. She read out a sentence or two from the
magazine and was congratulated heartily on the correctness of her answer. On
the other hand, a chap over to my right attempted to give an answer in his
own words and was instantly rebuked by the leader and urged to conform to
the words of the magazine - presumably they were the inspired ones!

Independent thought is not encouraged among JWs.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:08:50 -0800, "James" <arox@surfbest.net> wrote:

>Thus based on the context, as you can see, Paul is not implying any kind of
>existence in a "Purgatory".
>
>
>(the above was taken from the 8/1, 1984 Watchtower magazine)
>
>Sincerely,  James
>
>
>***********************************
>Want a FREE home Bible study?
>Have Jehovah's Witnesses questions?

JW's are not in the mainstream of christian belief so you might not
want to place too much reliance on their views.

Richard Emblem

"God loves you and there's not a thing you can do to change that."
(Rev Tom Van Culin, Honolulu)

Kendall K. Down offered:

> Once, out of curiosity, I attended a JW service.
> [...]
> Independent thought is not encouraged among JWs.

I am surprised you needed to go to a service to discover that.

--
For emails, put "Jet" in the subject line. Hotmail filters out and
deletes other messages.

In message <cqverv$fgg$1@news.chatlink.com>, James <arox@surfbest.net>
writes
>Bill Caunt <bill@angelos2.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:pches0t24tj1d21cfmmmr5dsnudo7folbo@4ax.com...
>> I heard, on a Catholic short wave broadcast from the USA, a
>> broadcaster advise a listener concerning her brother who had become
>> protestant and had married. She was advised to remind her now
>> protestant brother and sister-in-law to consider purgatory!
>>
>> Quoting 1 Corinthians 3 v 15, 'If it is burned up, he will suffer
>> loss; he himself will be saved, but only as one escaping through the
>> flames.' as the proof of the existence of purgatory.
>>
>> I have been trying to make sense of this passage 1 Corinthians 3 v 10
>> to 15 for some time. Well, OK, I admit it, for years! But I am now
>> even more confused.
>>
>> I know there are a lot of experienced and brainy folk on this net,
>> can anyone explain just what Paul is saying in this passage!
>>
>> Best regards
>>
>> Bill
>
>Bill,
>
>The context of 1 Co chapter 3 does not lead to the conclusion of a
>Purgatorial existence. Paul likens the Christian minister to a builder. (vs
>10,11)  What kind of building work is Paul talking about? Well, note the
>context: "You people are . . . God's building." "You people are God's
>temple." (vs 9, 16) So it is a figurative building work, one involving
>"people." That is to say, the Christian minister 'builds people' in the
>sense that he endeavors to build up in interested persons a Christian
>personality, making disciples out of them. So evidently Paul is contrasting
>two types of buildings. On the one hand there is, as it were, a beautiful
>palace adorned with gold, silver and precious gems. In contrast there is a
>thatch-roofed hut made with wooden boards or posts supporting walls of dried
>grass mixed with mud.
>
>
>So applying Paul's illustration, then, the question is: In teaching others,
>are you building "palaces" or "huts"? Are you building them up with fire
>resistant materials, or flammable materials?
>And,  what does the "fire" starting in verse 13 here represent?
>Violent physical persecution?
>
>Evidently not. For notice that "each one's work" will be subjected to the
>"fire." Not all Christians receive violent persecution. So the "fire"
>represents any of the pressures or temptations that could destroy one's
>spirituality.
>
>Thus based on the context, as you can see, Paul is not implying any kind of
>existence in a "Purgatory".
>
>(the above was taken from the 8/1, 1984 Watchtower magazine)

James, since I was told by the last JW to call on me, that we could not
pray together since I believed in a different God from JWs, I cannot see
why you are answering questions addressed to Christians.

Or can you convince me that your brother had it wrong and you *do*
believe in the same God that I do?

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

Richard Emblem wrote:

> On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 18:08:50 -0800, "James" <arox@surfbest.net> wrote:
>
>> Thus based on the context, as you can see, Paul is not implying any kind of
>> existence in a "Purgatory".
>>
>> (the above was taken from the 8/1, 1984 Watchtower magazine)
...
> JW's are not in the mainstream of christian belief so you might not
> want to place too much reliance on their views.

In fairness, the extract James posted in the grandparent of this
article isn't particularly outlandish.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

In message <ka5syyo3n6tj$.10928c3u29ztf$.dlg@40tude.net>
          Jet Wood <cwyfan@hotmail.com> wrote:

> I am surprised you needed to go to a service to discover that.

Very true, but the service underlined the fact.

Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its own
confines is very definitely not of God.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down 

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

"Kendall K. Down" <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in message
news:7a2889254d.diggings@diggingsonline.com...

> Independent thought is not encouraged among JWs.

AFAIR from my JW friends, they actually classify "independent thinking" as a
sin.

--
Peter Davey
(I thought I was wrong once,
but I was mistaken.)

"Kendall K. Down" <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in message
news:47940a264d.diggings@diggingsonline.com...
> In message <ka5syyo3n6tj$.10928c3u29ztf$.dlg@40tude.net>
>          Jet Wood <cwyfan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I am surprised you needed to go to a service to discover that.
>
> Very true, but the service underlined the fact.
>
> Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its
> own
> confines is very definitely not of God.

OTOH  I can imagine circumstances where any responsible pastor might advise
his congregation to avoid certain books.

--
Peter Davey
(I thought I was wrong once,
but I was mistaken.)

Peter Davey wrote:

[Ken Down:]
>> Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its
>> own confines is very definitely not of God.
>
> OTOH  I can imagine circumstances where any responsible pastor might advise
> his congregation to avoid certain books.

Indeed so, but there is a big difference between advising
and forbidding. And a big difference between saying "don't
read this" (with either meaning) on rare occasions regarding
a few particularly dangerous books, and saying it about
everything not published by, say, the Watchtower Bible and
Tract Society.

Incidentally, given a congregation as varied as (say) the
readership of uk.r.c or the entire membership of the JWs,
I'm finding it hard to envisage a plausible situation in
which "don't read this" would be a good thing to say to
everyone in it.

--
Gareth McCaughan
.sig under construc

In message <qixBd.89$6W3.61@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>, Peter Davey
<psvdavey.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> writes
>"Kendall K. Down" <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote in message
>news:47940a264d.diggings@diggingsonline.com...
>> In message <ka5syyo3n6tj$.10928c3u29ztf$.dlg@40tude.net>
>>          Jet Wood <cwyfan@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> I am surprised you needed to go to a service to discover that.
>>
>> Very true, but the service underlined the fact.
>>
>> Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its
>> own
>> confines is very definitely not of God.
>
>OTOH  I can imagine circumstances where any responsible pastor might advise
>his congregation to avoid certain books.

"Ouija Boards for Dummies"

"How to practice safe incest"

"Seventeen proofs that the Bible is nonsense"

"Pilgrims Progress"

Are all possibilities. Guess which of the above was on the Index (of
proscribed books) of the RCC when it had such a thing!

Mike
[The reply-to address is valid for 30 days from this posting]
--
Michael J Davis
http://www.trustsof.demon.co.uk
<><
For this is what the Lord has said to me,
"Go and post a Watchman and let
him report what he sees." Isa 21:6
<><

In message <qixBd.89$6W3.61@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
          "Peter Davey" <psvdavey.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> OTOH  I can imagine circumstances where any responsible pastor might advise 
> his congregation to avoid certain books.

Yes, and I hope he would give good and cogent reasons for doing so - but it
is still a far cry from a blanket ban on reading anything not published by
your own organisation. 

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In message <%gxBd.85$6W3.7@newsfe3-win.ntli.net>
          "Peter Davey" <psvdavey.nospam@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:

> AFAIR from my JW friends, they actually classify "independent thinking" as a 
> sin.

That certainly fits in with my experience of them.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down 

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

On 01 Jan 2005 14:31:00 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
<gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:

>I'm finding it hard to envisage a plausible situation in
>which "don't read this" would be a good thing to say to
>everyone in it.

Don't read this!
--
Alec Brady

In article <47940a264d.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> writes
>
>Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its
>own confines is very definitely not of God.

Um. Not a bad description of the Christian Union I was part of at
University. I was told to stay away from C S Lewis as he was unsound,
and rely on books from the Intervarsity Fellowship. (IVF).


--
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland

In article <ba5gt0t3sv1p3b9e0fnhpgsjlckb4sgr9s@4ax.com>, Alec Brady
<alec.brady@virgin.net> writes
>On 01 Jan 2005 14:31:00 +0000, Gareth McCaughan
><gareth.mccaughan@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>I'm finding it hard to envisage a plausible situation in
>>which "don't read this" would be a good thing to say to
>>everyone in it.
>
>Don't read this!

LOL!
--
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland

In message <e$VfSEFgGD2BFAO$@braeburn.demon.co.uk>
          Bernard Hill <Bernard@braeburn.co.uk> wrote:

> >Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its 
> >own confines is very definitely not of God.
 
> Um. Not a bad description of the Christian Union I was part of at 
> University. I was told to stay away from C S Lewis as he was unsound, 
> and rely on books from the Intervarsity Fellowship. (IVF).

Stupid. Fortunately CU is not a denomination and its excesses can be put
down to the folly of youth. As several here will testify, they have outgrown
such attitudes.

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

Wasn't it Bernard Hill who wrote:
>In article <47940a264d.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, Kendall K. Down
><webmaster@diggingsonline.com> writes
>>
>>Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its
>>own confines is very definitely not of God.
>
>Um. Not a bad description of the Christian Union I was part of at
>University. I was told to stay away from C S Lewis as he was unsound,
>and rely on books from the Intervarsity Fellowship. (IVF).

I would have suggested that you therefore rely on the IVF book "A Guide
To Christian Reading" which recommends "Problem of Pain", "Miracles: A
Preliminary Study", "The Screwtape Letters" and "Surprised By Joy".

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Mike Williams wrote:

> Wasn't it Bernard Hill who wrote:
>>In article <47940a264d.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, Kendall K. Down
>><webmaster@diggingsonline.com> writes
>>>
>>>Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside
>>>its own confines is very definitely not of God.
>>
>>Um. Not a bad description of the Christian Union I was part of at
>>University. I was told to stay away from C S Lewis as he was
>>unsound, and rely on books from the Intervarsity Fellowship. (IVF).
>
> I would have suggested that you therefore rely on the IVF book "A
> Guide To Christian Reading" which recommends "Problem of Pain",
> "Miracles: A Preliminary Study", "The Screwtape Letters" and
> "Surprised By Joy".
>

I was going to say that it must be recent - but I see it was published
in 1952 but I suspect in order to include the above CS Lewis books it
must have been updated

But the CU I belonged to in the 1970's had no problem with CS Lewis

Robert
--
He is our homeliest home and endless dwelling - Julian of Norwich

Wasn't it Robert Marshall who wrote:
>On Mon, 3 Jan 2005, Mike Williams wrote:
>
>> Wasn't it Bernard Hill who wrote:
>>>In article <47940a264d.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, Kendall K. Down
>>><webmaster@diggingsonline.com> writes
>>>>
>>>>Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside
>>>>its own confines is very definitely not of God.
>>>
>>>Um. Not a bad description of the Christian Union I was part of at
>>>University. I was told to stay away from C S Lewis as he was
>>>unsound, and rely on books from the Intervarsity Fellowship. (IVF).
>>
>> I would have suggested that you therefore rely on the IVF book "A
>> Guide To Christian Reading" which recommends "Problem of Pain",
>> "Miracles: A Preliminary Study", "The Screwtape Letters" and
>> "Surprised By Joy".
>>
>
>I was going to say that it must be recent - but I see it was published
>in 1952 but I suspect in order to include the above CS Lewis books it
>must have been updated

My copy is the third edition (1962) but that was only a minor change
from the second edition (1961) which was almost a complete rewrite. I
presume the 1970 edition (USA) wasn't published in the UK at the time I
bought it, which couldn't have been before 1972.

--
Mike Williams
Gentleman of Leisure

In message <9b5c16274d.diggings@diggingsonline.com>
          "Kendall K. Down" <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:

> In message <e$VfSEFgGD2BFAO$@braeburn.demon.co.uk>
>           Bernard Hill <Bernard@braeburn.co.uk> wrote:
> 
> > >Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its 
> > >own confines is very definitely not of God.
>  
> > Um. Not a bad description of the Christian Union I was part of at 
> > University. I was told to stay away from C S Lewis as he was unsound, 
> > and rely on books from the Intervarsity Fellowship. (IVF).
> 
> Stupid. Fortunately CU is not a denomination and its excesses can be put
> down to the folly of youth. As several here will testify, they have outgrown
> such attitudes.
 
> God bless,
> Kendall K. Down

Hmmmm. The brevity may lead to misunderstanding.

Stupid: the attitude you describe is stupid or CU is stupid for having it.

they have outgrown: the people who will testify. CU may still have that
attitude. 

God bless,
Kendall K. Down

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================

In article <c29a98274d.diggings@diggingsonline.com>, Kendall K. Down
<webmaster@diggingsonline.com> writes
>In message <9b5c16274d.diggings@diggingsonline.com>
>          "Kendall K. Down" <webmaster@diggingsonline.com> wrote:
>
>> In message <e$VfSEFgGD2BFAO$@braeburn.demon.co.uk>
>>           Bernard Hill <Bernard@braeburn.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > >Any group which forbids its members to read books published outside its
>> > >own confines is very definitely not of God.
>>
>> > Um. Not a bad description of the Christian Union I was part of at
>> > University. I was told to stay away from C S Lewis as he was unsound,
>> > and rely on books from the Intervarsity Fellowship. (IVF).
>>
>> Stupid. Fortunately CU is not a denomination and its excesses can be put
>> down to the folly of youth. As several here will testify, they have outgrown
>> such attitudes.
>
>> God bless,
>> Kendall K. Down
>
>Hmmmm. The brevity may lead to misunderstanding.
>
>Stupid: the attitude you describe is stupid or CU is stupid for having it.
>
>they have outgrown: the people who will testify. CU may still have that
>attitude.

's OK. I took it as you meant it.

--
Bernard Hill
Selkirk, Scotland

In message <f$FfSYAjQy2BFAeB@braeburn.demon.co.uk>
          Bernard Hill <Bernard@braeburn.co.uk> wrote:

> 's OK. I took it as you meant it.

Whew!

God bless,
Kendall K. Down 

-- 
================ ARCHAEOLOGICAL DIGGINGS ===============
|    Australia's premiere archaeological magazine      |
|             http://www.diggingsonline.com            |
========================================================