lab@qubix.UUCP (06/21/83)
This is mainly a lot of general replies. In a separate article I have
written what God has done over the last week or so (quite a bit).
First, my thanks for a lot of open and honest questions that have
been posted that should stir up discussion and not argument.
Second, a notice that (from what has reached qubix, anyway) all
of the published attempts to explain away the Resurrection have
been take care of - by others. I'm glad some people are doing
homework on this. I know of at least one who has done some work
but has not finished (and thus published) it yet.
Various quotations of the last few days:
Tim Maroney has asked questions on "exclusive salvation," i.e.,
only members of group X go to heaven, and judgment upon the rest.
I find such a doctrine in the New Testament, supported by:
I Timothy 2:5 "...ONE mediator..."
John 14:6 "THE...THE...THE... NO man...BUT by ME"
Acts 4:12 "Neither...in any other...NO other name..."
Acts 17:31 "...THAT man whom He hath ordained..."
Hebrews 2:3 "How shall we escape...?" (No answer given)
I didn't make the rules. If there was any other way to heaven, I'd
preach it. The way of the Cross is humbling - but there's no other
way. The message is constant "repentance toward God and faith in
Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21).
Byron notes "Their [teachings of Jesus] validity and importance
stand apart from their roots." Some small problems: the Nazarene
claimed he would rise from the dead. He forgave sins against God.
He accepted worship. For the price He asks His followers to pay,
if He isn't correct in such activities as these, I'd look elsewhere.
Rainbows - fun topic. Genesis 2:5,6 state "the LORD God had not
caused it to rain upon the earth ... But there went up a mist from
the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." Raises the
question "Did rainbows exist before the Flood?" It doesn't seem
likely that the conditions for a rainbow existed; thus the rainbow
was a new thing, and could well be used as a sign of the covenant.
Laura Creighton asked "how to reform it [Roman Catholicism] or any
Church?" To this, and the general tone of her articles, I would
ask "Why?" To paraphrase, she said that the hard-liners are "why
the Roman Catholic Church is not an attractive proposition to
outsiders." I find just the opposite it mankind - people respect
and appreciate a firm stand, rather than one who wavers. Such
wavering is what has caused a lot of people to leave a lot of
churches. Man's quest seems to be for certainty - answers - and
when someone like Jim Jones comes along with "answers," they
follow him. I have yet to meet a person (even net skeptics) who
could answer within himself the question "Why? I'm born; I live; I
die - why? WHY? What purpose does this whole rat race serve -
especially since the rats always win?" Either they condition
themselves into ignoring it, or delude themselves into believing
they are themselves the answer. If the latter is the case, forget
the rest of man - eat, drink, and be merry!
Joe P.: "I too doubt that God would consign anybody to an eternal
weinie (sic) roast." Mark 9:43-48, Matt 25:31-46, and Revelation
20 speak of an oversized wienie roast. Jonathan Edwards "Sinners
in the Hands of an Angry God" is perhaps the classic sermon on this.
This leads into the continuing question of whether an all-merciful
God could consign someoen to Hell. The concise statement of God's
glory in Exodus 34:6,7 indicate He is both Justice and Mercy.
Neither exists at the expense of the other. His Justice demands
payment for man's sin. His Mercy provided the payment for those
who would humble themselves and accept it. "Herein is love, not
that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the
propitiation (= satisfaction) for our sins" (I John 4:10) The
question is asked "If God is so loving, why doesn't He do
something?" "He did - Jesus Christ."
Darrell Plank notes "If there is a God who wants us to be saved
then there shouldn't be all the contradictions in my way to
confuse me." The hypothesis is indeed taught in more than one place
in the New Testament; the answer to the conclusion is found in
Romans 1:18-32 and I Corinthians 1:18-31. It isn't nice, but, like
I said before, I didn't write it.
Tim made a bold statement "I don't think that the historical
veracity of a set of scriptures is nearly as important as their
content." Let me get this straight: You ask me not to worry about
what is subject to proof, then ask me to believe what is not
subject to proof? Unh-unh - not me!
A couple of good topics for discussion have been raised:
Should I educate my children in my religion? The kids are learning
from a lot of sources - TV & radio, magazines & paper, records &
tapes, friends & THEIR friends - so where are they going to get
your view unless you provide it. Consider a responsibility of
parenting. Further, it provides the child a sense of love and
security, that you CARE enough about him to teach him. It's good
for the health of the whole person. Three for the price of one!
Samuya asked "What is evil?" What is "good"? What are "right" and
"wrong"? This is not redundant. "Good" and "right" can be defined
by different standards. I think before we can define the terms, we
should define the standards we would use to define the terms. (Do
I smell an analogy to Zeno's paradox?) Somewhere we will need
axioms. And when we get the axioms, the line between where we will
be and where we define "religion" may well disappear. altos86!root
said "Religion, by my definition is a practice. It is a form. It
is a predefined way of doing or not doing something." I'm not sure
what that all meant, but I think the earlier comments indicate
disagreement. But maybe we can find a home in net.religion for
"What is (a) religion?"
Sorry this is so long - you all did a lot in a week and a
half. My thanks to those who kept it from being longer.
Larry Bickford, {decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubixtim@unc.UUCP (06/22/83)
I have decided never again to reply to Larry Bickford. The reason
is that he always ignores the substance of my (and everyone else's)
replies, preferring to pick out a tiny bit here and there. This is
not what is called rational discussion.
Tim Maroneybch@unc.UUCP (06/22/83)
I have to concur with Tim Maroney about Larry Bickford's responses. He may believe that the questions he raised have been dispensed with -- I certainly do not. At one point he challenged anyone to "disprove the resurrection." The challenge, I thought, was taken up (with qualification since it is logically impossible to "disprove" anything) by calling into question the source documents for the resurrection. (While I hate to bring up a question which may be old and tired to some of you, I feel a lack of closure here.) In Larry's latest epistle to the net he seems to feel that the issue has somehow been settled. Lest anyone think it is, let me add more fuel to the argument. Many people seem to believe that the New Testament of the Bible was written down as a coherent set of documents by people apparently directly inspired by God's word. This is not quite the case. The original documents for each of the books are long lost, and what we have to go on is a compendium of various versions and fragments of versions of the New Testament books. These source texts for what we now use as the New Testament are not necessarily verifiable copies. The copyists (1) made a fair number of errors in reproduction and (2) often "adjusted" the text of the works to "correct" discrepancies. Even so, there are still large dissimilarities between various versions of the same text and what is formally accepted now is an historically selected "traditional" version -- compiled from various documents according to the religious beliefs at the time compilation and translation was made. Of the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke,) Mark is clearly the oldest and least embellished. It is considered to be the source document for Matthew, Luke and probably John. Interestingly enough, Mark omits any discussion of the Nativity and the Virgin Birth (why?.) Further, the oldest versions of Mark we know of end where Mary of Magdala leaves the tomb after being told by person or persons unknown that Jesus is not there because he has been raised. It is only in later correlative documents that Jesus himself appears (these also vary in their description of the number of witnesses, the number of people inside the tomb, etc.) Again, why? Note that I am not suggesting any alternate theory or that anyone is lying. I am pointing out that the oldest documents available omit discussion of some of the most doctrinally crucial points of Christianity. It is not unreasonable that later copyists of these versions would add and embellish on the original to fit their own beliefs or to meet some standard of doctrinal purity of the time. What we have been discussing in this group is as much a political document as a reliable record of the events that transpired. It needs to be interpreted as such. Again, I trust that Larry will respond to these points. Byron Howes UNC - Chapel Hill
laura@utcsstat.UUCP (06/26/83)
Actually this is about reforming religion but Larry Bickford and many other people who sent me mail have misunderstood me. I am going to try again. First of all you have to understand something about the Roman Catholic Church. Its been araound a LONG time. Not as long as some other faiths, but as long as Christianity has been around. One of the great claims of the Catholic Church is Apostolic Succession. To simplify it means that Jesus made Peter a priest with the power to create other priests and all our priests are decended from priests that can trace their line back to Jesus. The coferring of the power is done through a huge ritual (the ritual of anointing of a priest) and specificly through the laying of hands upon the new priest. This is very important. Once you make a priest you cannot unmake him. All you can do is determine that if he ever says a mass after he has been "defrocked" unless he has been reconciled with the Church then it is a mortal sin. In the bad old days before Vatican Council 2 Roman Catholics used the argument that Protestantism dirived from Luther or some other leader, didnt ever sway any of the Catholic bishops, and since only bishops can make priests, the Protestants were essentially blashpheming with their unordained ministers. They would all rot in Hell QED. In addition to this you must remember that all through the middle ages every scholar and his dog was examining "religion" and looking for explanations and new ways to understand. The Midievals had to put up with discovering that the world was round, and that the earth was not the centre of the universe, and whether the universe was finite (how many angels can dance on the head of a pin), and the decline of Aristotelian physics. As these Truths became known, the Roman Catholic theology had to change to accomodate them. For the most part they did a good job about scientific things. (anybody who believes in Galileo's imprisonment and torture should read THE SLEEPWALKERS and then all the references that you can get quoted there). What you end up discovering is that Catholicism has a little bit to do with sources (like the Bible) and a whole lot to do with various people's interpretation of the sources, and interpretation of interpretaion of the sources. Perhaps most notable among the people whos ideas moulded Catholicism was Saint Thomas Aquinas, but this one could be hotly debated. The end result was that there have been several councils where there has been a consolidation of "what is now the true dogma of the Church". One of the few things which has survived numerous councils is the idea that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin. The Bible never mentions this. It is a product of the rational which goes --- Jesus was without sin (see the Bible and definition of God). Jesus could not therefore have dwelt within a sinful body (this is a tautology to those who first proposed it) therefore Mary was conceived without sin. This one has the sanction of the Pope. Currently the belief is that the Pope has only made 2 infalible statements (ie guaranteed by God and the Pope's own Holiness as Pope): 1: the Pope can make infallible statements 2: The Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin. If this is beginning to make some sort of sense then you can see why catholic theology can be a lot of fun. On the other hand, there is an awful lot of dogma in the Catholic Church which is based on convenient tautologies and even more on "The Devine Nature of God". The Last Massive housecleaning of the dogma of Catholicism was called Vatican Council 2. After Vatican Council 2 many things changed. masses were now said in the vernacular, not Latin. The Altar Rails, which used to separate the people from the Tabernacle were removed so that people could be seens as coming "closer to God" when they went to Mass, not seen as being locked away from Him. And it became *wrong* to say that allthe Protestants and Jews and other Heathen were going to Hell. Ther was some provision for God in His mercy letting people who lived good lives into heaven and the whole question of Limbo (Limbo -- a place, not Pergatory, Heaven or Hell where non-believers especailly not-baptised non- believers go. it is reputed to be very boring) and whether or not that place existed. A whole lot of Saints went away -- some because they werent very *good* and others because they werent at all (they were merely folk legends about non-existant people). A lot more went down. Everybody realed. this is more than 15 years ago, and everybody is still realing. And right now a lot of Catholics are not following Vatican 2 because they still want to be able to say that the Protestants and Jews and whatnot all go to Hell. You can see why this might be a popular position in Northern Ireland, but I am telling you that it is happinging in Canadian Churches as well. people dont want to change. they also have a way out. Theoretically Catholics profess their Fath with the Apostles or the Niocene Creed. Both of these very old prayers say "i believe in this ..." and once you have said it all and believed in it you have a very basic definition of Catholic Faith. And it doesnt say you have to go to Mass on Sundays or believe that the Jews arent going to Hell. okay, you get the picture? the Top brass in the RC Church say one thing, the middle brass say another, and at the grass roots level an awful lot of people wish that there had never been a Vatican Council 2 so they could go back to doing things 'the old way'. The question was HOW DO YOU CONVINCE THE GRASS ROOTS FOLK THAT HATING PROTESTANTS IS A BAD THING WHEN FOR MANY YEARS IT WAS A GOOD THING? I dont know. You get lost in the beuracracy as you go further up the Catholic Hierarchy. You dont have to petition for new reforms -- the old ones havenet even taken effect yet. Laura Creighton utzoo!utcsstat!laura
mat@hou5e.UUCP (06/28/83)
okay, you get the picture? the Top brass in the RC Church say one thing, the middle brass say another, and at the grass roots level an awful lot of people wish that there had never been a Vatican Council 2 so they could go back to doing things 'the old way'. The question was HOW DO YOU CONVINCE THE GRASS ROOTS FOLK THAT HATING PROTESTANTS IS A BAD THING WHEN FOR MANY YEARS IT WAS A GOOD THING? I dont know. You get lost in the beuracracy as you go further up the Catholic Hierarchy. You dont have to petition for new reforms -- the old ones havenet even taken effect yet. Two things, Laura, from a Catholic. 1) Something a priest said once to a young, definately post-VaticanII audience: ``It has been a relief not having to sneak behind the bushes so the old ladies wouldn't see me when I went over to see Pastor ~~~~~ (the town's Lutheran pastor).'' 2) My personal objections to VII are based in what it didn't do. It really didn't seem to end intolerance. Look at the people who are beng condemned for adhering to the Latin Mass. I disagree with them, but I think that there ought to be room for them in the Church. And the new church architecture requirements! I haven't the time to go into them, but the new Roman C churches are being built like ampitheaters with a variety of rather strict requirements, very few of which seem any more solidly grounded than the old requirements that churches be built to a cruciform plan. Also, congregatons are encouraged to tear down or ``modernize'' their existing churches. My heart breaks at the waste, especially since many older structures couldn't be duplicated at any cost today. This is a plea for tolerance -- of others, and of our yesterdays. There are a few things that one should not be tolerant of, but they are few and VERY far between. Mark Terribile