dave@utcsrgv.UUCP (Dave Sherman) (10/29/84)
~| Reference: <>, <331@klipper.UUCP> ~| ~| P.S.: Let's build net.religion.christian[.only], ~| to build a place for christians. Why does only ".jewish" ~| exist? Since I was the moving force behind net.religion.jewish, I'll reply to this one. When we proposed the group, the clear understanding was that, should there be demand, other subgroups should be created. The purpose and content of net.religion.jewish are noticeably different from those of net.religion. If Christians or others feel they would like to discuss their faith in a somewhat less heated environment than net.religion, they should do so. However, if the content of net.religion.christian would be such that most postings would be double-posted to net.religion, then there's no need for the group. Dave Sherman Toronto -- { allegra cornell decvax ihnp4 linus utzoo }!utcsrgv!dave
lisa@phs.UUCP (Jeff Gillette) (10/30/84)
<> It seems that some of the recent discussions on net.religion are getting a bit frustrating. By now, I think I must have a better list of people destined for the fire than St. Peter himself. BUT, before we cast off those stubborn evangelists into the outer darkness of net.religion.christian, perhaps a word in their defense is in order. I like to think that I have a modicum of concern for my fellow human beings. If one of my friends had too much to drink at a party, I like to think I would try to talk him/her out of driving home, and would help make other arrangements. If I saw a building on fire and thought I could help someone out, I like to think I would do what I could. In the creeds of the Presbyterian Church (of which I am a member), there is a doctrine called "election" - God knows who is going to "make it" and who isn't. Thus I can feel free to discuss religion on many different levels without trying to "convert" everyone to Presbyterianism. Many of my more conservative "brethren" (and sistern) see things a lot differently. They see a literal lake of burning sulfur, and people suspended over it by thin threads. They see the Bible (interpreted their way, of course :-)) as the final word on all of life, and (what is most frustrating) they feel that they are on a "mission from God" to convert everyone to their brand of Christianity. I don't want to caricature these beliefs. The point I want to make is that several people on this net *really believe* this way. If some of us are more "intelligent", more "tolerant", more "enlightened", more "critical", let's also be more "secure" personally. If we can't compro- mise our personal integrity to accept "the Bible said it - that settles it," what right do we have to insist everyone else compromise *their* personal integrity or get off net.religion? Yirmiyahu BenDavid is absolutely right. If people want to discuss their own religious ideas without fear of disagreement (ie if they want to hide their heads in the sand), let them go to a subgroup reserved for this purpose. If the majority of us on the net are insecure enough that we can't expose ourselves to these "fundamentalists" without feeling personally hurt, if we can't give better answers to their arguments, and if we haven't learned to use the 'n' key to skip discussions that have become futile, then let us force the evangelists into their own net.ghetto. Jeff Gillette ...!duke!phs!lisa The Divinity School Duke University
ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (11/01/84)
Jeff writes, > In the creeds of the Presbyterian Church (of which I am a member), there > is a doctrine called "election" - God knows who is going to "make it" and > who isn't. Thus I can feel free to discuss religion on many different > levels without trying to "convert" everyone to Presbyterianism. I too believe in the doctrine of election. However, who is going to tell the people who are 'elected' about Christ? God is not going to come down and whisper in their ears. Just because you believe in election doesn't mean you can ignore the "great commission". Christians still have an obligation to tell their fellow man about the plan of salvation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Some other comments: On the net, I am beginning to be referred to as one of those "hell-fire-and- brimestone.-Go-to-hell,-sinner-evangelists". I believe in the love of Christ as much as the next Christian. But I also believe in God's wrath. Coming to Chirst has two sides to it. Salvation from hell and the power of sin is one aspect (John 5:24). And the abundant-overflowing-with-love-life is another. Tolerance can be taken to an extreme. Jesus said that belief in Him could tear families apart. And Paul said the the gospel will offend. I have been accused of loving the idea of sinners being destined for Hell. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The idea sickens me. This is the reason why I am so forcefull in my articles. I don't want to see any perish, but all to come to repentence. I believe that all men can have their eyes opened to the Scriptures (within the process of divine election), even men such as Tim Marrony or Rich Rosen. If I didn't believe this, I would not bother replying at all. When I reply, I pray that the Holy Spirit will use my words as a means of opening someone up to the gospel. I believe that although men deserve hell for their sin, they can choose life in Jesus Christ. If God was as hatefull or immoral as some men have said in their articles, He would just send us to hell right now. Why would He give His only son to give us a chance to enter into fellowship with Him, for now and eternity? Because of His fantastic love. Love beyond what any human can ever know. In fact, His love is the standard for all other loves. My only desire is that all men come to know their God before it's too late. -- "...holding forth the Ken Nichols word of life..." Phil. 2:16 ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken -----------------
yiri@ucf-cs.UUCP (Yirmiyahu BenDavid) (11/04/84)
There is nothing 'saving' in believing in a counterfeit. Neither you nor any of the others has shown any kind of logical basis to dispute these things which I have rather clearly and forcefully shown on the net over the past few weeks. You just continue to spout the same unfounded drivel giving the same anti-historical reasons.