[net.religion] net.religion.christian?

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.