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