[net.religion] various comments

rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (08/24/83)

Indented paragraphs are original text and therefore so are spelling
errors.

 		In fact Paul is a Greek.  

Sorry, but Paul(Saul) is of Hebrew descent...

		If you take a random group of American Atheists and
		comapre their actions to a random group of American
		Christians I'll bet you see the same amount of crooks
		among the Christians as among the Athiests.  

Now a days many people claim to be Christians but are they really?
Do they practice what they preach? If not then they oughtn't lay
claim to the term "Christian". (myself included)

		Christianity cannot in fact be defined as a very good
		guiding principle since it is in fact subject to so wide
		an interpretation, as seen in the amount of schisms from
		the Orthodox Church (the original Christian Church) to
		Catholicism to Protestantism to Mormonism.  It has
		always in fact relied on the culture surrounding it to
		guide it's views of right and wrong.  Religions in
		general have always been willing to bend their laws to
		that of the government.  Examples are the removal of
		permissable bygamy in the Mormon church so Utah could
		become a state, the dispensations during wartime granted
		by the Jewish and Catholic religions on food i.e. Jewish
		soldiers were allowed to eat pork and Catholic soldiers
		were allowed to eat meat on Fridays.  

I agree that if you look at Christianity on the whole (i.e. Protestants,
Mormanism, Catholicism, etc) it would appear that nobody knows up
from down!!! However from a Biblical standpoint things begin to take
shape. I won't name religions but many rituals/rules practiced in todays
church's simply didn't exist in Jesus' time. Where did they come from?
Why can't church's simply follow the basic's of the New Testament,
rather then add things that never existed in the first place?
I feel much better attending a church that gets its 'rules'
from the Bible rather then from man...
(I can site specifics if you want but I'm sure you understand..)

    		I have always felt that Marxism (as proposed not as
		practiced) parallels Christianity.  The object of
		Marxism being that the individual give of himself, for
		the good of the whole, without thought of compensation
		other than what he needs.  This means that the Computer
		Programmer and the Janitor should be paid the same wage
		for what they do and in fact someone who can't work
		should be paid the same wage as well.  

Here I think your Marxism/Christianity idea stems from Scripture against
laying up treasures here on earth. Also giving all one has to the poor,
etc. The bible teaches that riches lead to problems. The rich
get greedy and want to become richer. Their money becomes their god.
(I notice this in many people that aren't rich!!!!)
I Tim 6:17-19 Warns the rich about leaving God out of their plans...
This is why it is preached against in the Bible. 
My opinion is that as long as we don't loose sight of our maker, don't let
money rule our lives, be generous and compassionate to the less fortunate
you can be rich (monetarily)  and a Christian at the same time...


>> as i recall (having looked them up some years ago (in a KJV bible)), one of
>> the commandments proscribes working on a sunday.  what would the world
>> be like if firemen, pharmacists, meteorologists, doctors, power-, water-,
>> gas- and telephone-workers, lifeguards and newscasters (ie for emergency
>> announcements) did not work on sundays?

The Pharisees asked Jesus: Is it lawful to heal on the Sabbath? so that they
might accuse him. He said to them, "What man of you, if he has one sheep
and it falls into a pit on the sabbath will not lay hold of it and lift
it out? Of how much more value is a man then a sheep? So it is lawful to
do good on the sabbath."
He didn't say its ok to just heal on the sabbath, but "to do good on the
sabbath."

I believe that in certain instances God understands we have to work at
the factory on Sunday. However, if we don't have to but do, He realizes
this also...

		Someone asked about a woman coveting her neighbors
		husband being ok??

Come on now, lets use some common sense here. 

Now I have a question.

Would Jesus turn water into wine (as we know wine today.)????
Think about it first...

			Ray 

			ihnp4!ihuxi!rcj1

laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (08/25/83)

There is a common tactic of saying "well anyone who is doing X, Y, and
Z, all of which we know to be rotten and calls himself a Christian
isn't really a Christian, and shouldn't call himself one". All this
does is define "A Christian" as "someone who doesn't do anything
abominable/sinful" or at best "someone who is TRYING to do nothing
which is abominable/sinful" There is of course, the constraint of
accepting Jesus Christ.

This is not incredibly useful. Most religions claim the same thing
about their followers. You can meet a lot of atheists and agnostics who
are claiming the same thing. (Of course, their constraint my be
accepting the Torah, or rationality, or any number of other gods, and
so on...)

Also, it provides Christians with a mechanism for 'abandoning' their
mistaken bretheren, although it is genrally claimed that the mistaken
ones have 'abandoned' the faith. Is it not now obvious that what
various Christian sects are using to differentiate themselves is their
own INTERPRETATION of what Christianity is all about.

This leads to problems. What do you do when your interpretation of
Christianity differs from your neighbour's? In practice, many people
shuffle from one Christian sect to another, and thus we have Catholics
who become Baptists in hopes of finding a more 'earthy' faith, while
other ex-Baptists are now Catholics due to the more 'intellectual'
attitude of traditional Catholicism towards religious matters.

What if this is not good enough? Suppose you want to keep your brand of
Christianity but sincerely believe that the Church leaders are wrong in
believing X which is a matter of doctrine? You have a real problem,
here.

In general, if you persist in opposing your Church leaders, you will
get yourself excommunicated (or its equivalent). This is nothing more
than an official abandoning with either regret or hatred. Generally,
Church officials are claimed to be 'closer to God' than the other
bretheren (though this is not universal) and thus their interpretation
is deemed to be more correct than that of the excommunicated member.

These days, the Spanish Inquisition, witch burners, and Saint
Stephen<?> (I may have the name wrong, and I cannot look it up here --
at any rate he is the one with the Children's Crusade.) have been
concluded to have had serious errors in their interpretation of
Christianity.  The problem is that IN THEIR TIME, these people had the
official sanction of THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS.The religious leaders thus
have been proven to be fallable (at least by current interpretation of
Christianity).

The people who were tortured and killed as heritics for refusing to
allow their relatives to be burnt as witches without a fight today
would be viewed as martyrs. Intheir day, they were considerd posessed
or damned. Since time makes such a difference in interpretation
it may be a little early to define what 'THE ONE TRUE CHRISTIANITY'
is. For instance, at my mother's church, people on 'pre-marital
courses' who admit that they intend to practice birth control, are
not allowed to marry with this sin unrepented. Clearly, today's
ministers believe that they have 'THE ONE TRUE CHRISTIANITY', but
in 100 years, their interpretaion, too may be considered a grave error.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura

rcj1@ihuxi.UUCP (09/02/83)

Not responsible for spelling between the asterisks(sp?)!!!!!

**********************************************************************
There is a common tactic of saying "well anyone who is doing X, Y, and
Z, all of which we know to be rotten and calls himself a Christian
isn't really a Christian, and shouldn't call himself one". All this
does is define "A Christian" as "someone who doesn't do anything
abominable/sinful" or at best "someone who is TRYING to do nothing
which is abominable/sinful" There is of course, the constraint of
accepting Jesus Christ.
*********************************************************************

Comment: This could partly define a Christian, but in my opinion,
	 more importantly, it's what he does that really defines
	 a Christian. (e.g. the story of the good Samaritan.)

************************************************************************
Also, it provides Christians with a mechanism for 'abandoning' their
mistaken bretheren, although it is genrally claimed that the mistaken
ones have 'abandoned' the faith. Is it not now obvious that what
various Christian sects are using to differentiate themselves is their
own INTERPRETATION of what Christianity is all about.
************************************************************************

Comment: It appears obvious to me that's exactly whats happening. But
	 obviously there is only one true interpretation.
	 (HUH?)

************************************************************************
This leads to problems. What do you do when your interpretation of
Christianity differs from your neighbour's? In practice, many people
shuffle from one Christian sect to another, and thus we have Catholics
who become Baptists in hopes of finding a more 'earthy' faith, while
other ex-Baptists are now Catholics due to the more 'intellectual'
attitude of traditional Catholicism towards religious matters.
***********************************************************************

Comment: It depends on what exactly his interpretation is, or more
	 accurately, what interpretation he was taught, for problems
	 begin when individuals begin to come up with their own
	 interpretations.
	 As for shuffling from one sect to another, people have
	 a tendency to look for appealing religions rather then
	 a religion which teaches the truth.
	 (e.g. someone who likes to booze it up on weekends would
	 not find an anti-alchohol church appealing...)
	 (i know I'm gonna catch it for this but imagine the Catholic
	  church suddenly preaching against alchohol and bingo?)

************************************************************************
What if this is not good enough? Suppose you want to keep your brand of
Christianity but sincerely believe that the Church leaders are wrong in
believing X which is a matter of doctrine? You have a real problem,
here.
************************************************************************

Comment: I myself am going through a problem of this sort, although
	 its not that I believe the church leaders are wrong, but
	 perhaps not 100% correct. This could be a problem of Faith... 

************************************************************************
In general, if you persist in opposing your Church leaders, you will
get yourself excommunicated (or its equivalent). This is nothing more
than an official abandoning with either regret or hatred. Generally,
Church officials are claimed to be 'closer to God' than the other
bretheren (though this is not universal) and thus their interpretation
is deemed to be more correct than that of the excommunicated member.
*************************************************************************

Comment: The church I attend does not have excommunication, or an
	 equivalent. You do not "sign-up" to be a member.
	 The Pastor is kinda his own boss. I don't believe he reports
	 to anybody higher up. His doctrine is strickly KJV.


*************************************************************************
	 Since time makes such a difference in interpretation
it may be a little early to define what 'THE ONE TRUE CHRISTIANITY'
is. For instance, at my mother's church, people on 'pre-marital
courses' who admit that they intend to practice birth control, are
not allowed to marry with this sin unrepented. Clearly, today's
ministers believe that they have 'THE ONE TRUE CHRISTIANITY', but
in 100 years, their interpretaion, too may be considered a grave error.
**************************************************************************

Comment: The thing to remember is in 100 years the Bible will still mean
	 what it did 200 years ago...
	 If an interpretation says birth control is wrong, then in 100
	 years, the same interpretaion should apply...

			Ray
			ihuxi!rcj1
-- 
Ray

aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (11/01/84)

Quick comments on a couple of subjects:

1. Scientism.  It seems that some people view science as a nascent god, or at
   least as approaching omniscience, by claiming that there every phenomenon
   in the universe either can now be, or will eventually be able to be,
   explained *correctly* by science.  Believers in scientism assume the
   impossibility of miracles (an assumption for which there is no evidence
   that I know of).  When a phenomenon occurs which, as reported, can have no
   conceivable explanation according to known science or extrapolations
   therefrom, they either deny that any such incident ever occurred or else
   they devise explanations which differ from the observed, reported
   phenomenon.  Obviously I have the Resurrection in mind.  I think that people
   try to explain away the Resurrection of Christ because they don't *want* to
   believe that any such thing as a miracle-working God more powerful than they
   can exist.  It is, indeed, a matter of pride.  Which leads me to....
2. While it is true that people do, out of pride (which was really the first
   sin of both Satan and the Eve-Adam partnership), rebel against God, I feel
   that Ken Nichols is placing too much emphasis on the sinfulness of man and
   the justice of God, and neglecting the love and compassion.  (I appreciated
   Mark Terribile's article to a similar effect.)  Christ never won disciples
   by going around telling all the rough fishermen, prostitutes, crooked tax
   collectors, etc. what scumbags they all were.  He accepted them and loved
   them, and associated with them, just as they were.  (Had he been an employer
   in the usual sense, I'm sure He would have hired someone who was a
   homosexual at the time of the interview...however, I have read of enough
   homosexuals who were changed into much happier heterosexuals by the power of
   Christ that I believe that close association with Christ would likely cause
   the homosexual to be changed, just as it caused a huge variety of other
   sinners to be changed.)  The only people that Christ actively denounced were
   the religious leaders who were substituting their own tradition for the
   commandments of God, and making a tidy profit to boot -- and thus not only
   failing to enter the Kingdom of God themselves but also interfering with
   those who genuinely wanted to.

   Generally people will not respond positively to someone telling them that
   they're all real losers and deserve hell.  Rather, they respond positively
   when someone meets their needs (or wants).  Let us try to demonstrate God's
   love by conveying it to people where they need it.  Christ, on at least one
   and probably many occasions, asked people, "What do you want me to do for
   you?" -- in other words, He wanted and was ready to meet whatever need the
   person had.  Christians compose the Body of Christ; the Body, as a whole,
   should be ready to meet whatever need it encounters.  None of us can do
   everything, nor is each of us supposed to do everything.  But let us shoot
   for the goal of being like Christ, yet without becoming perfectionistic and
   condemning ourselves (or worse, others) because that goal is not fully
   attained (since it never will be in this life).

There are plenty of things in articles which came in during my vacation that I
would normally respond to, but there are time constraints; so I will just let
them slide, and resume responding in detail to things which arrive in future.

dmcanzi@watdcsu.UUCP (David Canzi) (11/03/84)

Jeff Sargent:
>                    When a phenomenon occurs which, as reported, can have no
>  conceivable explanation according to known science or extrapolations
>  therefrom, they either deny that any such incident ever occurred or else
>  they devise explanations which differ from the observed, reported
>  phenomenon.  Obviously I have the Resurrection in mind.

Is there evidence of Christ's resurrection (or existence, for that matter),
other than the Bible?  The Bible, by itself, is not sufficient evidence.
It is, as far as I can tell from looking at it, only a book.  Without
additional evidence, I have no more reason to believe it than a book of
astrology.

	David Canzi

bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (11/04/84)

In article <pucc-h.1433> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes:
 
>1. Scientism.  It seems that some people view science as a nascent god, or at
>   least as approaching omniscience, by claiming that there every phenomenon
>   in the universe either can now be, or will eventually be able to be,
>   explained *correctly* by science.  Believers in scientism assume the
>   impossibility of miracles (an assumption for which there is no evidence
>   that I know of).  When a phenomenon occurs which, as reported, can have no
>   conceivable explanation according to known science or extrapolations
>   therefrom, they either deny that any such incident ever occurred or else
>   they devise explanations which differ from the observed, reported
>   phenomenon.  Obviously I have the Resurrection in mind.  I think that people
>   try to explain away the Resurrection of Christ because they don't *want* to
>   believe that any such thing as a miracle-working God more powerful than they
>   can exist.

Science and religion have different domains of explanation.  Science confines
itself to that which is (conceptually) observable while religion speaks to
ultimate truths.  The notion that every observable phenomenon is explainable
(I'm not sure what you mean by correctly) scientifically is not an unreason-
able one and is in fact critical to the pursuit of scientific understanding.
If we believe in some set of "unexplainable phenomena" then we have got to
decide where the borders are between that set of phenomena we can explain and
that which we cannot.  

I don't know that those of us who trust scientific explanation believe in the
impossibility of miracles.  That probably depends on how you define a miracle.
What is not possible, scientifically, is the notion of an conceptually obser-
vable event without a conceptually observable process or set of processes
that led to it or allowed it to be. (The obtuse construction of that last
sentence was to avoid the use of the word 'cause' which has implications I
would rather avoid here.)  Simply put, and observed "miracle" will have scien-
tific explanation whether or not an action of the Diety is involved.  It is
within the domain of religion to deal with the relation of Deific actions
to events.

A concrete example:

Recently an important cathedral in England was damaged severely by fire as
the result of being hit by lightning.  This happened shortly after the 
consecration of a Bishop some thought to be heretical.  Science can explain
to a relative certainty the reasons for the cathedral having been hit by
lightning.  This has nothing to do with whether or not there was an active
Deity involved.  The domain of explanation is different.

As to the Ressurection, there are any number of scientific explanations of
how such a thing could happen.  (Maybe that should read naturalistic.)
None of them diminish the enormity of the miracle, if it happened as stated.
The miraculousness of an event is an interpretive attribute, properly decided
within the domain of religious knowledge.

-- 

						Byron C. Howes
				      ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch

mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (11/05/84)

[Jeff Sargent] 
> Scientism.  It seems that some people view science as a nascent god, or at
> least as approaching omniscience, by claiming that there every phenomenon
> in the universe either can now be, or will eventually be able to be,
> explained *correctly* by science.  Believers in scientism assume the
> impossibility of miracles (an assumption for which there is no evidence
> that I know of).  When a phenomenon occurs which, as reported, can have no
> conceivable explanation according to known science or extrapolations
> therefrom, they either deny that any such incident ever occurred or else
> they devise explanations which differ from the observed, reported
> phenomenon.  Obviously I have the Resurrection in mind.  I think that people
> try to explain away the Resurrection of Christ because they don't *want* to
> believe that any such thing as a miracle-working God more powerful than they
> can exist.  It is, indeed, a matter of pride....

Pathetic try, Jeff.  But for the moment, I'll pretend to be a scientismist to
clarify the beliefs.  If I was a religious scientismist, I would believe that
science would provide the best explanations that humans can produce for
phenomina.  However, as an agnostic, I keep my mind open.  At the moment, I
think that's likely because other methodologies have much weaker error
correction strategies.

"When a phenomenon occurs which, as reported..."  In other words, when a
report is made.  Presuming the report is true leads to all sorts of
wonderful idiocy.  Why don't you believe in the reports of all the other
religions?  Do you deny those incidents ever occurred, or do you devise
explanations that differ from the observed, reported phenomena?  What about
the Golden Tablets that Joseph Smith discovered in upstate New York that lead
to the founding of the Mormon church?

In conclusion, science is not based on just any old reports.  Science is
based on reports of reproducible observations and results.  This is not a
matter of pride: science is humble in its acknowledgement that people are
fallible and deceitful. The purpose of the scientific method is to
establish a system that in large part discourages deceit and careless error.
-- 

Mike Huybensz				...mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh