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 --------