[net.religion] Coexistence

mat (03/25/83)

Tim Marony's comments have irked me to reply ... although I will
try not to flaAMEEE.

Tim says:

	I don't happen to believe the Christian viewpoint -- in fact,
	I think it's pretty silly -- but I do recognize that from a
	Christian's viewpoint, the only consistent course of action is
	an attempt to convert everyone, ...

Well, almost. We are told to go out and preach the good news (Gospel) to
everyone.  That may or may not be called converting, depending on whether
you are looking to make it read as a ``snarl'' or as a ``purr'' (ie, positive
or negative connotatons.

	... so that they won't go to Hell.

I don't believe that ANY of the older (mature?) Christian denominations
(eg Roman C., Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) today claims that it it the ONLY
road to salvation.  After all, Jesus is recorded as sayng ``I have other
sheep that are not of this fold''. No, I don't have a bible in my desk in
whch to find the exact reference, although I rather suspect that is is in
Matthew somewhere.

	A Christian who doesn't preach is showing insensitivity.

No, based on the attitude that Tim presents above, a Crhistian who didn't
preach would be guilty of negligently sending folks to eternal damnation.

	Do you expect a forum on religion in which no one tries to convince
	anyone else of anything?

Not really, but I do hope that we can allow each other to express our
views and to share them with others without excessive abuse.  There ARE
things which can be discussed; perhaps what I would like to see is a
net.scripture_scholars, along, perhaps, with an occasional humorous
article about the latest mail--order ministry tax dodge.  In this context,
there is nothing wrong with trying to convince anyone.  On most newsgroups,
we do that without persecution (except, perhaps, net.politics).  Why the
MzGfMbLe not here?

	The TV ministries are excellent examples of this; Jim Bakker
	and Jerry Falwell make it clear that the modern Christian's
	idea of persecution is being forced to peacefully coexist with
	people who believe differently from them. I can just imagine
	the early Christians hearing about a multi- million dollar
	TV ministry with gold-plated plumbing in the dressing rooms
	being "persecuted".

A point very well made, but perhaps directed a bit too broadly.  I consider
myself a modern Christian, if not a very good one, and I don't go knocking
on doors, or taking out ads in The Readers Digest (Specfic references to
the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons), although others may certainly do
so if they please.  Others may not feel that I am, but that isn't the point
here.  St. Paul (I think) instructs us that our most powerful tool to convinc
others of the value of of our beliefs is our actions -- the quote is something
like ``and they will say `See how these Christians love one another' ''.
I think that Messrs. Falwell and Baker, et. al. should be viewed in this light.
If their values, after you have examined them, are not worthy, then avoid them.
On the other hand, if you don't believe in the premiss of a discussion perhaps
you shouldn't try to disrupt it (Ignition accomplished).  Why should an athiest
try to inflict anti--thiestic views on folks who want to discuss the meaning of
a scripture passage.  I am not pointing fingers at anyone here Tim, so please
don't take the comment wrongly.  I just don't want to see this group taken over
in a ``rabbit<BANG>bimmler'' type raid.  (Disable burners).

To be more positive, what follows is the sort of thing that I for one
would like to see on this group.

The Catholic Gospel reading last Sunday was the well known story of the
woman caught in adultery.  For the uninitiated, here is a summary:

	The Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman cought in the act of adultery.
	They ask Him what should be done.  Judaic law required that the
	criminal so caught be executed by stoning.  Jesus bends down
	and begins to write on the ground witih His finger.  After a
	little while, they pose the question again, and then a third
	time.  Jesus replies ``Let the one among you that is without sin
	cast the first stone''.  One by one the crowd disperses, starting
	with the elders.
The celebrant at the Mass that I attended made some interesting points.
Starting with the obvious:

	1)	Jesus was being placed in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-
		you-don't situation.  I believe that the chess players
		call this zugzwang.  If He said ``Go ahaed'',  not only
		would he have thrown away his reputation as a merciful
		God/hero/prophet/whatevere, but he would have been setting
		himself up for a fall under Roman law, which did not
		allow a person to take anothers life without the proper
		legal (Roman) authority.

	2)	Where was the man with whom the woman was caught?

	3)	Why did the elders leave first?

	4)	What was Jesus writing?

Item two can be dismissed as a classic double standard -- and should
probably be taken up elsewhere.

Items three and four lead to an interesting piece of speculation:
Could Jesus have been writing names, places, incidents, etc., which would
have been embarrassing to individuals.  Presumably the elders wouold have
the most to lose. And Jesus might have put their failings at the top of
the list so that the most effective troublemakers would be the first to
leave.

Another point of interest -- this event was ommitted from copies of the
Gospel written in Greek.  This may have been to avoid de-emphasisng the
significance of sexual morality to the Greeks, whose sexual mores were
not especially close to the Judeo--Chritian ideal.

						Mark Terribile
						hou5e!mat
						Duke of DeNet

ddb@mrvax.DEC (DAVID DYER-BENNET MRO1-2/L14 DTN 231-4076) (10/18/84)

For  the  last  several  weeks,  I  have  been reading David Brunson in this
newsgroup. Today I ran into Ken Nichols. These, and to a lesser extent other
people  over  the past year or so, are having a really dramatic effect on my
feelings about Christianity.

I  am  finally  seeing  Christianity  as I have always imagined, based on my
understanding  of  what it teaches, that it would be: completely intolerant.
Irrational.  Completely  uncaring  about people on earth (it's the "immortal
soul" that really matters). Highly political. Judgemental. Incompatible with
even  the faintest vestiges of a civilized existence. 

Historically  it's been that, of course (whenever it's had polotical power),
but it hadn't seemed so bad recently.

I  had  thought  that  my  analyses  must  be faulty, or my understanding of
Christian teachings incorrect. This newsgroup, which I have been involved in
for  something  less  (I  think)  than  a year, has been my first long-term,
intense,  exposure  to  the  modern  class  of  Christian.  It's been a real
eye-opener.  I  used to think some sort of "detente" or peaceful coexistence
was  possible  --  in  fact  I  didn't  realize  that we were irreconcilable
enemies. It's good to know who your enemies are.

			-- David Dyer-Bennet
			-- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb

ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193) (10/18/84)

(+-+-+-+-+)

David writes,

> For  the  last  several  weeks,  I  have  been reading David Brunson in this
> newsgroup. Today I ran into Ken Nichols. These, and to a lesser extent other
> people  over  the past year or so, are having a really dramatic effect on my
> feelings about Christianity.

This made me think that this would be a favorable reply.  Oh well.
  
> I  am  finally  seeing  Christianity  as I have always imagined, based on my
> understanding  of  what it teaches, that it would be: completely intolerant.

What is this 'it'.  Christianity is not what I consider a good thing to judge.
The system of Christianity in history (ie. Catholic Church) has tainted the
way christians and God should be viewed.

God is completely intolerant to sin.  That is the only intolerance that I
profess.
 
> Irrational. 

In man's eyes perhaps.  It is perfect in God's eyes.

> Completely  uncaring  about people on earth (it's the "immortal
> soul" that really matters). 

Untrue!  God cares about us here on the earth.  He sent His only son to
die for us in order to give us the chance to live eternally with Him forever
AND to commune with Him on this earth now.  Sounds like He cares a lot to me.

> Highly political. 

Man has made christianity a highly political thing.  God wants it to be a
highly personal thing.

> Judgemental. 

God judges man justly for his rebelion against his maker.

> Incompatible with
> even  the faintest vestiges of a civilized existence. 

I don't quite understand this.  However, since the world throughout history
has been in the domain of Satan, he has used men to create what man may call
civilization.  What it is is a system that purposefully draws man away from
God, and if he does find God, ridicules him, calling him a wimp. 

So in this way, civilization is not compatible with God's system.  God calls
man to come out of this system while still living in it (very hard to 
explain).  Man is born at war with God, but Christ was sent as a peace
offering to satisfy God's just anger.  We must accept the offering that
Christ gave to obtain peace with God.  This acceptance usually results in
the man becoming at war (allegoricaly) with other men, sorry to say.

> Historically  it's been that, of course (whenever it's had polotical power),
> but it hadn't seemed so bad recently.

When the Catholic church used their religion as a government, it was wrong.
I do not beleive the Catholic church teaches the right doctrine that will
lead a man to heaven, but I won't get in to that.  Therefore, the Catholic
church is not tainting my religion at all.
  
> I  had  thought  that  my  analyses  must  be faulty, or my understanding of
> Christian teachings incorrect. This newsgroup, which I have been involved in
> for  something  less  (I  think)  than  a year, has been my first long-term,
> intense,  exposure  to  the  modern  class  of  Christian.  It's been a real
> eye-opener.  I  used to think some sort of "detente" or peaceful coexistence
> was  possible  --  in  fact  I  didn't  realize  that we were irreconcilable
> enemies. It's good to know who your enemies are.
> 
> 			-- David Dyer-Bennet
> 			-- ...decwrl!dec-rhea!dec-mrvax!ddb

It is true that God is considered the enemy by most men.  I, however, am not
your enemy.  I desire that all should come to know the truth about God that
I have received and beleive.  I will not hate you for not beleiving in my
God, but I will not be pleased if you speak unjustly of Him.  That is why
I had to respond to Tim's article as harshly as I did.  Not because I hate
Tim or anyone else, but because of what he unjustly said about God.

"...holding forth the                         Ken Nichols
 word of life" Phil. 2:16                     ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken
--------