ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/01/84)
Rob writes, > The following are some thoughts about Ken Nichols' > response to an article by Laurie Sefton. > Remarks prefaced by '>' belong to Mr. Nichols. > ------------ > >> ... Why should you get to make the standards that you >> live by. The Bible says, "There is a way that seemeth right to a man, and >> the end thereof is death." Your 'good' deeds are nothing but dirty rags in >> the sight of a holy God. Nothing you do is going to make you deserving of >> anything from God but death and punishment in hell forever and ever. > > Why should we get to make the standards by which we live? > Because we live in a democracy. See the Constitution and the Bill of > Rights for further references. > ``America - love it or leave it!'' - this sentiment is like > that of ``Christ - accept him or burn!''. > Would you resent this type of exhortation? Did God invent our democracy? No. Then it's just as sinfull as everything else on this Satanicaly run earth. I'm not saying I'm against democracy, but God's standards are just a wee bit higher than those of the constitution if I'm not mistaken. >> ... , in order to become justified in God's sight, we must first >> accept the gift that God gave in the form of Jesus. Doing this involves: >> 1. Admiting you are a sinner by birth and by choice, and that you can nothing >> to get rid of your sin. Then you repent (turn from) that sin and ask >> God to forgive that attitude of rebellion against God that you were born >> with. > > American law presumes innocence until guilt is proven, not the contrary. > Perhaps Chilean `law' is a superior system? God doesn't work under the Constitution. He is a higher authority. An authority which can sentence you to Hell *unless* you turn to Him in humility and accept the gift He has given in the form of Jesus Christ's sacrifice on the cross. >> 2. You must beleive that Jesus Christ was who He said He was, God's son. He >> was 100% man and 100% God (not logical, but true). This means beleiving >> that Jesus Christ is deity. > > Shall we believe everyone who claims ultimate authority? > Obedience and blind faith on the part of > the masses have have allowed men like Hitler and Khomeini to > reshape the world. But they were men, not God! > Surely some leaders reshape the world for great good rather than great evil, > but how many victims must die needlessly until people adopt a more > skeptical attitude before igniting a jihad? > Skepticism is a good thing, not a bad thing, and it is up to you to > exercise the skill to convince others of a valid point of view. It's not up to me. It's up to the Holy Spirit. I'm just supposed to lay out the truth, he does the rest. > Rarely is this done by repeating tautologies, and the people who are > so easily swayed are seldom worth anything to the cause. > Doesn't the Bible have something to say about this? It does say that one should "count the cost" before comming to Christ. But everyone is worth something to God. And what is this cause you refer to? >> 3. Accept the fact that Jesus Christ came and died because of YOUR sin. His >> death satisfied the debt that you owed to God because of your rebellion >> against Him. Recongnize that there is absolutely no other means to reach >> God or to be saved. > > MY sin? You cannot have it both ways - if I am guilty a priori of my > predecessors' transgressions, then you are of yours - > you are culpable for the atrocities perpetrated by all the past > members of Christianity, including those of the Catholic Church, no matter > how vociferously you may deny any association with them. We are guilty from birth with the original sin of Adam, not from any other people in history. I do not have to give account for the sins of the Catholic church, and you do not have to give account for any sins your past generations may have committed. We have to account for our own sin, *and* for the rebellion against God that was passed on to us from Adam. > There is absolutely no other means to reach `God' or be saved? > Then a large percentage of mankind will end in hell with > no idea of why they are there. Though this is not God's wish, it may be true. **EXCEPT** that all men will know why they are there. All men are provided with enough evidence about God to start them off on a search for Him. > If you are treating your subject seriously, you will realize that that > is an awful punishment for mere ignorance. Look to Romans for an answer to man's supposed ignorance. > Not only that, but imagine the consternation of the various church > missionaries when they, too, arrive in hell, consigned there because > they didn't reach all the heathens in time! This is not the case!!! If the missionaries had there own destinies taken care of by accepting Christ's sacrifice on the cross for the forgivness of sins, then they will not suffer for not being able to reach all the souls around them. Each man is accountable to God for his own sin, not another's. >> 4. Receive Christ into your life. This means that because you beleive 3 above >> you want Christ to become a real part of your life. You thank Him >> because of the price He paid for your sin, and you want Him to control your >> life in return. This is the difference between Christianity and other >> religions. We are given the opportunity to have a relationship with the >> God of the universe in the person of Jesus Christ. A friendship, if you >> will, with the Saviour of the world. > > I want someone to control my life so much, that to me it is a profound > disappointment that 1984 has not turned out to be like what Orwell > prophesied. God's control of a man is much, much different than man's control over a man. > What am I supposed to do with this cursed `free will', anyway? > It seems, run right back to the store and return it! You are correct! God gave us free will so we could have the choice of whether to give it back to Him or not. However, most people want to run their own lives, rather than give everything up to God so that He can make us into the people we were meant to be. >> 5. Make Jesus the Lord of your life. You express the desire for Him to be >> the ruler of your life instead of yourself. This does not come easy. >> You will gradually turn different areas of your life other to the Lord as >> you continue in your Christian walk, but you should start at salvation by >> relinquishing your pride in yourself with the joy of your new relationship >> with God. > > No, relinquishing one's pride does not come easy. > But there seem to be a number of institutions which specialize in > persuading living beings to relinquish their pride. > The practice of breaking horses, and the Marine Corps come to mind. > Sun Myung Moon also seems to have developed a good technique. > Perhaps your religious authorities should look into these approaches. God will not force you to relinquish your pride. That is the difference between Him and the things above. It is a free will choice. However, in the end, God will break down every man's pride, as I've said before. >> Man's morality is worth nothing in the sight of a holy and just God. > > As I understand it, the sin for which mankind was expelled from > paradise is, in general, that of disobeying a direct order from God > and in specific, eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge > between good and evil. The sin which Adam and Eve committed was the sin of pride. They wanted to be like God. The fruit was able to make them wise. > If morality is the ability of man to perceive what is good and > what is evil, then we judge evil in the world, in other people, > and in ourselves, based on this perception. > If our morality is `worth nothing', then we cannot judge evil or > goodness in ourselves, and we have no business atoning for `sins'. Morality in and of itself cannot save you. This is the point I'm trying to get across. Of course morality is good for society, but it won't turn away the wrath of God. > Furthermore, we cannot judge the worth or worthlessness of any > tracts on morality, including but not limited to the Bible. The Bible contains the standards of morality, anything under the guise of morality that disagrees with the Bible is not moral. > Not only that, but again, if you are in any way serious about > your subject, then the horrible punishment of being expelled from > paradise seems in no way commensurate with the crime of disobeying > God to acquire such a `worthless' item. The crime was pride, as I said above. > Do you recommend that parents follow God's example, and turn their > children out of the home should they indulge in an expressly > prohibited snack? No. >> "...holding forth the Ken Nichols >> word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken > > The arguments above proffered for Christianity more resemble > `holding forth the word of death' rather than the word of life, > and do a disservice to many people who believe in a compassionate > Creator. (Not to mention any such Creator!) To many people focus in on the 'goody, goody' side of God. I'm just trying to provide a balance. > None of the churches to which I have belonged espouse the > doctrines of guilt, fear, and threat that Mr. Nichols does. > If I had found him teaching in the same religious school in > which I taught, I would have had him removed from the presence > of young people. If you do not believe in God's judgment of sin, than what did Christ save you from? > It has been my experience that many people who come to accept Christ > have done so because of a profound dissatisfaction with the > course of their lives. Many come from a less-than-ideal home environment > and have been plagued by troubles with drugs and unsavory peer-groups. > There is often an inverse correlation between the `softness' of one's > life and the vigor of a `born-again's' belief. > This is not to imply that religious belief is in every case a panacea > or crutch. > However, it can be an extremely effective medicine. What you have said is true. No doubt about it. But does that mean that you can ignore an entire group of God's attributes? Those of holiness, justice, hatred of sin, etc? > Now, to those who would un-convince believers: > would you deprive them of their medicine? And just what do you expect > their reaction to be? > You cannot hope to convince them of the inefficacy of the medicine, > when they have proof, by virtue of personal and intimate experience, > to the opposite. Is it so surprising that they react in anger > to attempts to snatch the medicine away? Very true. > To those who have found something in which to believe: > Man's intolerance of the ideas of other men is the greatest danger > facing the world. > If we do not acquire the wisdom to live amicably with those of differing > views, we may all end in a real lake of fire - > one like that formed under the epicenter of a high-yield > nuclear airburst. > rob I don't believe that God will allow a nuclear war until after the rapture. But that's just my view, it's not in the Bible. Living amicably is fine, but we still must fulfill the mission that Christ gave us in proclaiming the Gospel to the world. I for one will not disobey Christ for the fear that I might offend someone with the truth about God. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken -------------------
jnelson@trwrba.UUCP (John T. Nelson) (11/07/84)
[Ken Nichols]
Did God invent our democracy? No.
I thought all things good came from God and certainly the good attributes
of our democratic and constiutional system were modeled on the Christian
views of compassion and justice. Looks to me like God had a very distinct
hand in inventing our democracy.
Then it's just as sinfull as everything
else on this Satanicaly run earth.
I thought God was calling the shots... no don't bother answering.
You have a hand-wave for everything.
> Shall we believe everyone who claims ultimate authority?
But they were men, not God!
That's not what THEY claimed. Show us the difference between the men that
authored the Bible and any other man. Where is the conclusive evidence
that will convince us that the Bible IS indeed the word of God. If you
can't produce such evidence then your statement that the Bible is the only
source of the truth is false.
The problem is that you always rely on the Bible as your one source of
authority and it is this very source that we are questioning. And no,
the reason is NOT pride.... it's the need to know the truth.
God's control of a man is much, much different than man's
control over a man.
Oh? I haven't noticed much difference between the tactics of men and the
God that you describe. Blackmail and murder are pretty standard on
this Satanic earth... God's hell is probably worse.
The sin which Adam and Eve committed was the sin of pride.
They wanted to be like God. The fruit was able to make them
wise.
Solomon also desired wisdom and God praised him for his wise choice.
In reward for his wise choice God made him wiser than any man then alive or
that was to come. Seeking wisdom isn't the crime here and neither
was Adam and Eve's sin that of pride. No evidence of "pride" can be
found as I read Genesis.
To many people focus in on the 'goody, goody' side of God. I'm just
trying to provide a balance.
You've provided an imbalance and not a balance. That's why so many people
label you as a fanatical-fire-and-brimstone-on-your-knees-and-kiss-that-bible
sicko. The fact that you focus primarily on the hell-fire aspects of God
shows that you do not have an adequate conception of God or his ways and thus
are not a suitable steward of his word. A Holy (read "whole") God is not as
you portray him.
What you have said is true. No doubt about it. But does that
mean that you can ignore an entire group of God's attributes?
Those of holiness, justice, hatred of sin, etc?
Many of which you continue to ignore including love, compassion and
healing of those unable to heal themselves. As I've said, your
treatment is unbalanced and quite unlike the true and whole nature
of God.
I for one will not disobey Christ for the fear
that I might offend someone with the truth about God.
The question to ask yourself is... is this REALLY the truth of God and
am I (Ken Nichols) a good steward of this word. If not, then don't
feel compelled to use it. Otherwise you will offend both God and man.
- Johnken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/08/84)
John writes, > [Ken Nichols] > Did God invent our democracy? No. > > I thought all things good came from God and certainly the good attributes > of our democratic and constiutional system were modeled on the Christian > views of compassion and justice. Looks to me like God had a very distinct > hand in inventing our democracy. I meant that our democracy was not divinely condoned. The form of government that God seems to practice looks like a Theocracy from what I see in the Old Testament. I will agree that democracy is a fairly good system of government, but it is not God ordained. > Then it's just as sinfull as everything > else on this Satanicaly run earth. > > I thought God was calling the shots... no don't bother answering. > You have a hand-wave for everything. Part of God's plan for the earth is letting Satan have ownership of it for a time. Jesus Christ will come back to earth to reclaim it for Himself after the tribulation. > > Shall we believe everyone who claims ultimate authority? > > But they were men, not God! > > That's not what THEY claimed. Show us the difference between the men that > authored the Bible and any other man. Where is the conclusive evidence > that will convince us that the Bible IS indeed the word of God. If you > can't produce such evidence then your statement that the Bible is the only > source of the truth is false. Because I can't produce any "undeniable" evidence, the Bible is false? No, it just means I can't produce any "undeniable" evidence. A Bible historian could most certainly make a could argument for the veracity of the Bible. I'm not up on that area of Christianity. It does take a certain amount of faith to believe in the Bible. You don't have to believe in the whole Bible to become saved, anyway. > The problem is that you always rely on the Bible as your one source of > authority and it is this very source that we are questioning. And no, > the reason is NOT pride.... it's the need to know the truth. I'm not asking you to believe the Bible. I'm asking you to accept the gift that God gave you in the form of Jesus Christ. Accept the sacrifice of Christ as payment for your sin. > God's control of a man is much, much different than man's > control over a man. > > Oh? I haven't noticed much difference between the tactics of men and the > God that you describe. Blackmail and murder are pretty standard on > this Satanic earth... God's hell is probably worse. I have answered this many times before. Man deserves God's punishment. > The sin which Adam and Eve committed was the sin of pride. > They wanted to be like God. The fruit was able to make them > wise. > > Solomon also desired wisdom and God praised him for his wise choice. > In reward for his wise choice God made him wiser than any man then alive or > that was to come. Seeking wisdom isn't the crime here and neither > was Adam and Eve's sin that of pride. No evidence of "pride" can be > found as I read Genesis. Solomon desired to know God in a deep way, not to be like Him in all His wisdom. He was rewarded because he chose to seek God's council in the matters of His kingship. Adam and Eve desired to be wise as God was wise. "..and seeing that the fruit was able to make one wise, she took and ate...". Satan told her that she would be like God, knowing good and evil. She desired this. This is the same thing that Lucifer desired. He also wished to be like God. The root of both of these acts was pride. > To many people focus in on the 'goody, goody' side of God. I'm just > trying to provide a balance. > > You've provided an imbalance and not a balance. That's why so many people > label you as a fanatical-fire-and-brimstone-on-your-knees-and-kiss-that-bible > sicko. The fact that you focus primarily on the hell-fire aspects of God > shows that you do not have an adequate conception of God or his ways and thus > are not a suitable steward of his word. A Holy (read "whole") God is not as > you portray him. I have begun to post articles with a little mov%?emphasis on God's loving side than I have in the past. I will continue attempting to show a more balanced view of God. What is you definition of the Holiness of God? > What you have said is true. No doubt about it. But does that > mean that you can ignore an entire group of God's attributes? > Those of holiness, justice, hatred of sin, etc? > > Many of which you continue to ignore including love, compassion and > healing of those unable to heal themselves. As I've said, your > treatment is unbalanced and quite unlike the true and whole nature > of God. I have spoken of my belief in these attributes of God in other articles. I will continue to speak of these in future articles. Let us both not ignore any of the attributes of God. > I for one will not disobey Christ for the fear > that I might offend someone with the truth about God. > > The question to ask yourself is... is this REALLY the truth of God and > am I (Ken Nichols) a good steward of this word. If not, then don't > feel compelled to use it. Otherwise you will offend both God and man. > > - John I believe the answer to your question is 'Yes, I do feel that I am portraying the truth of God that is shown in the Bible. And I am growing in my stewardship of the word." -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken --------------------