savage@ssc-vax.UUCP (Lowell Savage) (06/28/85)
*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MICRO, PLEASE *** Some time ago (I don't always have time to do this sort of thing), I posted an article responding to "AP bias..." (I don't recall the exact title) where someone was complaining that the press was biased against Christians and why not, since a poll showed that 75% of the members of the press were non-christian. I responded by rhetorically wondering if perhaps this article, or the facts it pointed to, were related to an attitude among christians that they shouldn't (morally) "dirty" them- selves in "certain" occupations (including the press). I then proceeded to state my reasoning for Christians to get involved in those which basically boiled down to 1) improving the state of the occupations, and 2) converting members of those occupations to christianity. Now the guts of this article. I got a couple of polite, but firmly worded letters about what I can only trace to one sentence in my res- ponse. The sentence was "At the very least, perhaps a Christian will displace a non-christian and prevent the evil that that non- christian might otherwise have caused." The mail asked me to clarify my position since I seemed to take the position that all christians are "good" and all non-christians are "evil". This is two lines in an article of 33 lines which if read in full, I believe has a different thrust. Also, I assumed (there's that nasty word again), that given the title of the newsgroup, most, if not all articles would be addressed to a christian audience. By that assumption, I do not mean that non- christians wouldn't read the articles, but that if they did, they would understand that the intended reader would be christian. Then, I will note that I did not say ALL non-christians are evil nor that ALL christians are good. Finally, I did make the proviso that the christian that decided to go into one of "those" occupations should still hold his/her moral standards above those around her/him. In other words, I remained consistent with my belief that christians are merely evil people who are different from the rest of society because their evil has been forgiven and they have some help in doing the good that they should do and refraining from the evil that they should not do. But in spite of all that, I have to admit, upon rereading the article, I seem to have a slight tendency toward stereotype which needed correction. I apoligize to those who were offended (whether it bothered them enough to mail to me or not) and hereby state that my arguments in that article should be slightly changed so that the group I denoted as "christians" would be "people that are attempting to do what is morally just", and "non-christians" would be everyone else. (Yes, even those who are not actively attempting to do evil will be in the "non-christian" group; as much evil is ALLOWED as is CAUSED.) But I think that a large majority of the first group will be Christian and a large majority of the second will be non-christian simply because, of the people that I know, the generous, loving, friendly, helping people tend to be Christian, while those who are more self-centered, mean, unfriendly tend to be non-christian. I know some non-christians that are more loving, generous... than most christians I know, and Christians that are so concerned with how good they are that they forget that they are only good because Christ forgave them and they become insufferably snobbish. But there are general tendencies that I percieve as quite pronounced. This might be a clarification of my original article, Christians who are capable in certain occupations that have a great deal of affect on my life (particularly those who are afraid that the dealings that are common in that occupation are immoral or unjust) are just the people that are most likely to be trust-worthy in those occupations. Thus, they are just the people that I want to have working in those occupations. Now, if a non-christian is going to do as morally good and just a job as a Christian, then I guess that my original posting (and this one) is directed to him/her. There's more than one way to be savage Lowell Savage
eklhad@ihnet.UUCP (K. A. Dahlke) (07/05/85)
<> > Lowell Savage > Some time ago (I don't always have time to do this sort of thing), I > posted an article responding to "AP bias..." (I don't recall the title). > someone was complaining that the press was biased against > Christians and why not, since a poll showed that 75% of the members of > the press were non-christian. I responded by rhetorically wondering if > perhaps this article, or the facts it pointed to, were related to an > attitude among christians that they shouldn't (morally) "dirty" them- > selves in "certain" occupations (including the press). I then proceeded > to state my reasoning for Christians to get involved in those which > basically boiled down to 1) improving the state of the occupations, > and 2) converting members of those occupations to christianity. You don't really believe Christians would make better reporters, do you? And as for converting; haven't you learned any tolerance at all??? I am not trying to convert you to atheism, so please stop trying to convert others to Christianity. If it has any validity at all, it will never lack followers. > Christians deciding to go into one of "those" occupations should still hold > his/her moral standards above those around her/him. In other words, I > remained consistent with my belief that christians are merely evil people > who are different from the rest of society because their evil has been > forgiven and they have some help in doing the good that they should do > and refraining from the evil that they should not do. I think I am going to throw up. > I seem to have a slight tendency toward stereotype which needed correction. SLIGHT??? Talk about an understatement! > of the people that I know, the > generous, loving, friendly, helping people tend to be Christian, while > those who are more self-centered, mean, unfriendly tend to be non-christian. Talk about self-centered! > there are general tendencies > that I percieve as quite pronounced. > Thus, Christians are just the people that I want to have > working in those occupations. Now, if a non-christian is going to do > as morally good and just a job as a Christian, then I guess that my > original posting (and this one) is directed to him/her. How generous :-). Well this is truly disgusting and insulting. I usually refrain from posting to this news group, but I just cannot control myself. What possible objective evidence do you have for implying that Christians are statistically more moral than non-Christians; and please don't spread any more BS about forgiveness or the Holy spirit helping you along. After all, the Christians had their crusades, just like everyone else. Or is that part of history omitted from your classes (along with evolution)? But let me give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you have compiled a scientific study that shows a statistical difference between Christians and non-Christians. This assumption is temporary, and I expect this study to be published soon, including the criteria for measuring morality. Now we come to the issue of prejudice, a dangerous and ubiquitous attitude. There are certainly studies proving that blacks commit more crime (per capita). Shall I conclude from this, that I don't want a black person moving into my town? Such reasoning would be absurd!!!! Even if Christians were more "moral" than others (highly questionable), can't you judge a journalist by the quality of his/her work, without worrying about religious beliefs??? You *CANNOT* assume that a Christian will make a better journalist!!! This reminds me of an earlier article in this news group, where someone was elated because he sold his house to a Christian, and bought another house from a Christian. Oh thank Gawd he didn't have to sell to a "non-Christian" (sigh of relief). At the risk of sounding prejudice myself, I perceive Christians to be backwards in many ways, especially their extreme prejudices and intolerance. Please don't make any more statements about statistically significant differences in morality, until you have some supporting evidence. Should the difference exist, please don't assume that this difference (statistical, by its very nature, as you freely admit) validates your prejudices. -- Is it time to go home yet? Karl Dahlke ihnp4!ihnet!eklhad
jeand@ihlpg.UUCP (AMBAR) (07/05/85)
> You don't really believe Christians would make better reporters, do you? > And as for converting; haven't you learned any tolerance at all??? > I am not trying to convert you to atheism, so please stop trying to convert > others to Christianity. If it has any validity at all, > it will never lack followers. Putting the question of validity aside for the moment, recognize that Christianity does claim to be the only way. If I am a Christian and I accept this, it would be highly immoral (again by the Christian system) NOT to try to convert people. You may wish that we would go away and leave you alone, but it ain't gonna happen. > Even if Christians were more "moral" than others (highly questionable), > can't you judge a journalist by the quality of his/her work, > without worrying about religious beliefs??? > You *CANNOT* assume that a Christian will make a better journalist!!! I think the point of the earlier postings was that everyone has biases (result of being human). And in a society where 85% of the population believes in a God (figures remembered, hopefully accurately, from one of those earlier posts; I make no claim for their veracity) and would would presumably be biased FOR religion/religious activity, the press (which have an ENORMOUS impact in today's society) are generally biased (I believe that 75% was the figure) AGAINST such activity. And I can understand wanting the guys in power to be the ones you agree with..... -- AMBAR {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand "You shouldn't let people drive you crazy when you know it's within walking distance."
adb1@mtuxo.UUCP (a.benson) (07/06/85)
REFERENCES: <20@ssc-vax.UUCP> What about 1 John 3:10 "Dear childeren, do not let anyone lead you astray. He who does what is right is righteous, jsut as hust as he is righteous. He who does whati is sinful is of the devil, becasuuse the devil has been sinngininning from the beginning. The reason the Son of God appeared was oto destorroy the devils';s work. No one who is born of God will ocontineue to sin, ceabecause God's seed remains in hinm; he cannot go on sinning. \\, because he has been born of God. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devliol are: Anonyone who does what is s not do what is right is not a child of God; neither is nayone anyone who does not love his brother.
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/12/85)
> [K A Dahlke] > Well this is truly disgusting and insulting. > I usually refrain from posting to this news group, > but I just cannot control myself. > What possible objective evidence do you have for implying > that Christians are statistically more moral than non-Christians; > and please don't spread any more BS about forgiveness or > the Holy spirit helping you along. Hm! Show that X occurs, but you're not allowed to use the cause of X as a reason for the occurrence of X. Ahem. If Christians *are* more moral than non-Christians, it is *exactly* because of the power of the Holy Spirit. If Christians are *not* more moral than non-Christians, it is *exactly* because they are grieving the Holy Spirit by resisting Him. -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/12/85)
> > > [K A Dahlke] > > Well this is truly disgusting and insulting. > > I usually refrain from posting to this news group, > > but I just cannot control myself. > > What possible objective evidence do you have for implying > > that Christians are statistically more moral than non-Christians; > > and please don't spread any more BS about forgiveness or > > the Holy spirit helping you along. > > Hm! Show that X occurs, but you're not allowed to use the cause of X > as a reason for the occurrence of X. This is garbage. Demonstrating that X occurs does not require explaining why it occurs. Padraig Houlahan
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (07/15/85)
In article <1275@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >If Christians *are* more moral than non-Christians, it is *exactly* >because of the power of the Holy Spirit. >If Christians are *not* more moral than non-Christians, it is >*exactly* because they are grieving the Holy Spirit by resisting Him. ...and suppose, as I suspect, you folks ain't any better or worse than the rest of us? What then? -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/17/85)
> > > > > [K A Dahlke] > > > Well this is truly disgusting and insulting. > > > I usually refrain from posting to this news group, > > > but I just cannot control myself. > > > What possible objective evidence do you have for implying > > > that Christians are statistically more moral than non-Christians; > > > and please don't spread any more BS about forgiveness or > > > the Holy spirit helping you along. > > > > Hm! Show that X occurs, but you're not allowed to use the cause of X > > as a reason for the occurrence of X. > > [Padraig Houlahan] > This is garbage. Demonstrating that X occurs does not require > explaining why it occurs. Not quite. Karl says, prove Christians are more moral, but don't talk about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit *is* the reason. If you are disallowed from referring to Him, there's nothing to say. *** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE *** -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
padraig@utastro.UUCP (Padraig Houlahan) (07/18/85)
> > > > > > > [K A Dahlke] > > > > Well this is truly disgusting and insulting. > > > > I usually refrain from posting to this news group, > > > > but I just cannot control myself. > > > > What possible objective evidence do you have for implying > > > > that Christians are statistically more moral than non-Christians; > > > > and please don't spread any more BS about forgiveness or > > > > the Holy spirit helping you along. > > > > > > Hm! Show that X occurs, but you're not allowed to use the cause of X > > > as a reason for the occurrence of X. > > > > [Padraig Houlahan] > > This is garbage. Demonstrating that X occurs does not require > > explaining why it occurs. > > Not quite. Karl says, prove Christians are more moral, but don't talk > about the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit *is* the reason. If you are > disallowed from referring to Him, there's nothing to say. > > Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- You are still incorrect. Showing that something occurs is not the same as explaining why it occurs. It is similar to proving that there is coffee on the table; it does not matter how it got there etc. Padraig Houlahan.
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (07/20/85)
In article <1275@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: >If Christians *are* more moral than non-Christians, it is *exactly* >because of the power of the Holy Spirit. >If Christians are *not* more moral than non-Christians, it is >*exactly* because they are grieving the Holy Spirit by resisting Him. I haven't posted to this newsgroup for quite a while but a recent experience prompted me to say something about this topic. I've recently become acquainted with several professional musicians. None of them are Christians as far as I know (in other words - I know some of them fairly well and know that they aren't Christians, others I don't know as well and as far as I know they aren't Christians.) Yet I can honestly say that I've never had a group of Christians treat me more warmly or be more accepting of me than this group. And I've been in contact with several Christian groups. These people have given me tickets to concerts, taken me out with them after concerts, given me hugs and kisses, talked with me about my life/opinions/problems and about theirs and given me advice. Now as far as moral goes - I haven't been following this subject very much, so I guess I don't really know what you mean by morals. Is their treatment of me "moral" or just "nice". If it's nice and has nothing to do with moral, then what exactly is moral. And do Christians only need to be "moral" and not necessarily "nice"? Or perhaps a better question is are Christians more moral than non-Christians but not necessarily nicer? Frankly - you couldn't get a nicer group than this one, although I'm sure that there are more "moral" groups if you mean moral in the sense of sex, drinking, etc. I guess the questions that I have are, what is meant here by morality, (forgive me if that has already come up in this discussion), what's the difference between morality and the way these people have treated me (if there is any), which is more important, morality or accepting people openly (or is it the same thing), and does being more moral make you a better person? On a slightly different topic, these same musicians are, for a large part, very unhappy. They're doing what they want to do and they are making a fair amount of money in the process, yet many of them are not very happy people. This was kind of surprising since a fairly common statement nowadays is "Having a job that makes you happy is what really counts." Yet, although these people are very happy with their jobs, a lot of them don't seem to be happy people. I've been thinking about this lately and haven't gotten my thoughts about it quite enough together yet to write them down, but I was wondering if anyone out there had any thoughts about it. cheers - elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)
dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) (07/22/85)
> On a slightly different topic, these same musicians are, for a > large part, very unhappy. They're doing what they want to do and they > are making a fair amount of money in the process, yet many of them are > not very happy people. This was kind of surprising since a fairly common > statement nowadays is "Having a job that makes you happy is what really > counts." Yet, although these people are very happy with their jobs, a > lot of them don't seem to be happy people. I've been thinking about this > lately and haven't gotten my thoughts about it quite enough together yet > to write them down, but I was wondering if anyone out there had any > thoughts about it. I doubt if a job can make you happy for long, in a deeply satisfying way. But if you're happy, the job itself will probably seem more pleasant than it would otherwise. I'd hate to pin my hopes for happiness on a job. At least, I guess so... I must confess that happiness is not one of my goals. Or contentedness, or peace of mind, or "postive self-image", etc... -- | Paul DuBois {allegra,ihnp4,seismo}!uwvax!uwmacc!dubois --+-- | "More agonizing, less organizing." |
ajmiller@ihu1m.UUCP (a. miller) (07/24/85)
> > You don't really believe Christians would make better reporters, do you? > > And as for converting; haven't you learned any tolerance at all??? > > I am not trying to convert you to atheism, so please stop trying to convert > > others to Christianity. If it has any validity at all, > > it will never lack followers. > > Putting the question of validity aside for the moment, recognize that > Christianity does claim to be the only way. If I am a Christian and > I accept this, it would be highly immoral (again by the Christian > system) NOT to try to convert people. You may wish that we would > go away and leave you alone, but it ain't gonna happen. > > > Even if Christians were more "moral" than others (highly questionable), > > can't you judge a journalist by the quality of his/her work, > > without worrying about religious beliefs??? > > You *CANNOT* assume that a Christian will make a better journalist!!! > > I think the point of the earlier postings was that everyone has biases > (result of being human). And in a society where 85% of the population > believes in a God (figures remembered, hopefully accurately, from one > of those earlier posts; I make no claim for their veracity) and would > would presumably be biased FOR religion/religious activity, the press > (which have an ENORMOUS impact in today's society) are generally biased > (I believe that 75% was the figure) AGAINST such activity. And I can > understand wanting the guys in power to be the ones you agree with..... > > > -- > > AMBAR > {the known universe}!ihnp4!ihlpg!jeand > "You shouldn't let people drive you crazy when you know it's within > walking distance." A Christian has faults as well as non-believers. The difference is what is believed. I as a Christian believe that all men have fallen short from the glory of God because of our sins. Jesus came to this world so that man could be saved from their sin and ultimately Hell. Jesus said that he is the only way into heaven. He who beleives this will be saved from hell and enter heaven with the father. So evangelizing is to let the world know that Jesus Christ can save all who believes in him. As for journalism I think that when all the facts and truths are preseted, not the persons bias, can one be a good journalist. -- Andy Miller ix 0805 1G465
homeier@aero.ARPA (Peter Homeier ) (07/25/85)
In article <1707@reed.UUCP> purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) writes: >In article <1275@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > >>If Christians *are* more moral than non-Christians, it is *exactly* >>because of the power of the Holy Spirit. >>If Christians are *not* more moral than non-Christians, it is >>*exactly* because they are grieving the Holy Spirit by resisting Him. > > I haven't posted to this newsgroup for quite a while but a recent >experience prompted me to say something about this topic. > I've recently become acquainted with several professional musicians. >None of them are Christians as far as I know (in other words - I know >some of them fairly well and know that they aren't Christians, others I >don't know as well and as far as I know they aren't Christians.) Yet I >can honestly say that I've never had a group of Christians treat me more >warmly or be more accepting of me than this group. And I've been in >contact with several Christian groups. These people have given me >tickets to concerts, taken me out with them after concerts, given me >hugs and kisses, talked with me about my life/opinions/problems and >about theirs and given me advice. > Now as far as moral goes - I haven't been following this subject >very much, so I guess I don't really know what you mean by morals. Is >their treatment of me "moral" or just "nice". If it's nice and has >nothing to do with moral, then what exactly is moral. And do Christians >only need to be "moral" and not necessarily "nice"? Or perhaps a better >question is are Christians more moral than non-Christians but not >necessarily nicer? Frankly - you couldn't get a nicer group than this >one, although I'm sure that there are more "moral" groups if you mean >moral in the sense of sex, drinking, etc. > I guess the questions that I have are, what is meant here by >morality, (forgive me if that has already come up in this discussion), >what's the difference between morality and the way these people have >treated me (if there is any), which is more important, morality or >accepting people openly (or is it the same thing), and does being more >moral make you a better person? > On a slightly different topic, these same musicians are, for a >large part, very unhappy. They're doing what they want to do and they >are making a fair amount of money in the process, yet many of them are >not very happy people. This was kind of surprising since a fairly common >statement nowadays is "Having a job that makes you happy is what really >counts." Yet, although these people are very happy with their jobs, a >lot of them don't seem to be happy people. I've been thinking about this >lately and haven't gotten my thoughts about it quite enough together yet >to write them down, but I was wondering if anyone out there had any >thoughts about it. > > cheers - > > elizabeth g. purtell > > (Lady Godiva) Elizabeth, I feel that this is something that you are really struggling with, and finding hard to reconcile. It sounds that you believe and expect that Christians will be more kind and accepting, more nice, than non-Christians, but your recent experiences with your musician friends has seemed to contradict this by demonstrating just as much love as you were shown by your Christian friends. I'd like to contribute some thoughts that may help to resolve this dilemma. First, there is no reason that a non-Christian cannot act with generosity, with compassion, give warm acceptance, hug and kiss kindly, and share intimately with their friends. All of these things are good things to do, and are done by some kindly non-Christians as well as by obedient Christians. I suspect that these musicians have grown deeply in sensitivity and in their emotional natures due to the work that they do in music, and that has given them this remarkable kindness that you have experienced. The big problem with their acts is that they are only good works. Very good works, it is true, but only things done by their own power and virtue. The Bible says that none of our good works are sufficient to approach God's holiness: "Therefore by the deeds of the law no flesh will be justified in His sight, for by the law is the knowledge of sin. But now the righteousness of God apart from the law is revealed, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God which is through faith in Jesus Christ to all and on all who believe. ... "Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith apart from the deeds of the law." -- Romans 3:20-22,28 NKJV So Christians stand not on their own righteousness, although they do live as loving a life as they can, but on the righteousness of Christ and on the free salvation purchased at Calvary. For no matter how beautiful our works may look on the outside, God sees the heart, the hidden motives, the secret desires and intentions, and they are crooked. "The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked; Who can know it? "I, the Lord, search the heart, I test the mind, Even to give every man according to his ways, And according to the fruit of his doings." -- Jeremiah 17:9-10 NKJV In addition, Christians are called to a higher walk of love than even what you have received from your musician friends. For they expressed love to you who loved them also; but could they love those who hated them? "But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. "And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. "And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back. "But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Highest. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil. Therefore be merciful, just as your Father is merciful." -- Luke 6:32-36 NKJV Finally, I would like to gently suggest that your friends may be so uniformly empty and unhappy simply because they do not have the Lord of Life living in their hearts. It is His love that satisfies, not material possessions or even artistic achievement. But each of us has a special God-shaped hole in our heart, that only His dear love can fill. Until we come to God through Christ, that emptiness remains. But that was because He formed us to have relationship with Him. He designed us to know Himself as our friend, protector, and lover. It is in that deep, intimate, personal relationship with the living Lord that our deepest longings for acceptance and love are finally realized. I hope that you will daily discover more of His love flowing into your heart, through trusting in His wonderful Son, Jesus. In Christ's name, Peter Homeier ARPA: homeier@aerospace
jah@philabs.UUCP (Julie Harazduk) (07/25/85)
> In article <1275@uwmacc.UUCP> dubois@uwmacc.UUCP (Paul DuBois) writes: > > > >If Christians *are* more moral than non-Christians, it is *exactly* > >because of the power of the Holy Spirit. > >If Christians are *not* more moral than non-Christians, it is > >*exactly* because they are grieving the Holy Spirit by resisting Him. > > ...and suppose, as I suspect, you folks ain't any better or worse than > the rest of us? What then? > > -- > > Byron C. Howes > ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch I'd have to say you were right! Having the Holy Spirit does not make us better or worse than anybody at all, it's just the potential power and the use of this power makes life more bearable. We're reconciled to God because we believe that Christ's death reconciles us, as the Bible says. The price has been paid for all the times we messed up and made the wrong choice. We should live by Christ's example, but if we could actually do it, there would be no need for Christ's death and resurrection. None of us has arrived. We're just reaching, "pressing on" as Apostle Paul would say. The strange fact is that God's ways go contrary to what we would believe. We must get weak to get strong, we must die to are old nature to truly live, we must let go to gain, we must give to receive... the more we lean on God the more we can stand in life's hardest moments. That doesn't make us better in any way except maybe a little humbler, a little more willing to conceed to people's frailties, faults...., and a little more uncomprimising when it comes to God's truth. At least, that's the way it should be. Julie Harazduk ...!{decvax|inhp4}!philabs!jah ....Christ in us, the Hope of Glory.....
aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) (07/27/85)
Somewhat wandering response to purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva): > I've recently become acquainted with several professional musicians. > None of them are Christians as far as I know.... Yet I can honestly say > that I've never had a group of Christians treat me more warmly or be more > accepting of me than this group.... Is their treatment of me "moral" or > just "nice". If it's nice and has nothing to do with moral, then what exactly > is moral. And do Christians only need to be "moral" and not necessarily > "nice"? Or perhaps a better question is are Christians more moral than > non-Christians but not necessarily nicer? Frankly - you couldn't get a nicer > group than this one, although I'm sure that there are more "moral" groups if > you mean moral in the sense of sex, drinking, etc. > I guess the questions that I have are, what is meant here by > morality [in a quote from Paul DuBois which I did not include] ..., > what's the difference between morality and the way these people have > treated me (if there is any), which is more important, morality or > accepting people openly (or is it the same thing), and does being more > moral make you a better person? I think the last paragraph is pretty clearly answered by the example of Jesus's life; He seemed "immoral" to the "moral" people of His day, because he accepted tax collectors, prostitutes, and other outcasts, not to mention some rude and crude fishermen. Of course, He did more than just accept them; He believed in them. He said to these ordinary people, "You are the light of the world, the salt of the earth." He lovingly accepted one man even after that man, though Jesus's close friend, had denied three times that he knew Him at all -- and that man (of whom Jesus had long before said, "Upon this rock I will build my church") was soon transformed from a rough, impulsive hick fisherman to a powerful leader. But if we talk of Christian morality, when asked what the greatest commandment in the Law was, "Jesus replied: 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind [and with all your strength, as the Mark version puts it]'. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments." (Matthew 22:37-40) This was not intended to be restrictive: Paul (whom many condemn as a moralist) talks much about freedom, e.g. Romans 6:6, "We know that our old self was crucified with Him so that the body of sin might be rendered powerless, that we should no longer be slaves to sin"; Galatians 5:1, "It is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm, then, and do not let yourselves be burdened again by a yoke of slavery"; and in this same chapter (Galatians 5:13,14) he goes on, combining the idea of freedom with an echo of Jesus's words, "You, my brothers, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the sinful nature; rather, serve one another in love. The entire Law is summed up in a single command: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" [In passing it might be mentioned that the next verse, Galatians 5:15, applies to some of the other discussions going on in this and other newsgroups: "If you keep on biting and devouring each other, watch out or you will be destroyed by each other."] But I am beginning to learn not to look at the command to love as a command, but rather as something in my own best interest -- noting that love is (very rough definition) an attitude which expresses itself in doing things which benefit the persons loved, because one desires to benefit those persons and not because it is "moral" or "right" -- or even commanded -- to do it. Paul himself realized this when he wrote, "If I give all I possess to the poor and surrender my body to the flames, but have not love, *I* *gain* *nothing*" [my emphasis] (I Corinthians 13:3). I'm not sure what to think of those who are loving and accepting people more or less by nature, i.e. without any explicit relationship to Christ, such as your musician friends, other than to say that loving and accepting can be a good deal of work, so if they do not have a reliable source of love and acceptance to refuel them, they may have a difficult time continuing in their ability to love and accept. But on the other hand, "Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God" [I John 4:7b]. Could it be that these musicians are indeed touched by the love of God without naming it? As Frederick Buechner points out, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, and no one comes to the Father but through Him -- not through believing a certain flavor of doctrines, nor through doing a bunch of good deeds, but through Christ -- and a Christian is just someone who has a dim, half-baked idea of whom to thank. [Approximate quote from a book called (are you ready for this?) "Wishful Thinking" -- written by a Christian! I'll have to read the whole thing someday soon.] But perhaps the fact that these musicians don't know the source of their loving is the reason that: > On a slightly different topic,... although these people are very happy > with their jobs, a lot of them don't seem to be happy people. > elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva) Hmmm.... Since you have stated in net.singles that you are an "aggressive" woman (in the sense of taking initiatives, e.g. with men), I wonder if you might actually have lived up to your nickname at some time! :-) -- -- Jeff Sargent {decvax|harpo|ihnp4|inuxc|ucbvax}!pur-ee!pucc-h!aeq The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much. (James 5:16) The prayer of a not-so-righteous man availeth sometimes.... (Rich McDaniel)
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (07/28/85)
In article <303@aero.ARPA> homeier@aero.UUCP (Peter Homeier (MISD)) writes: > >Elizabeth, I feel that this is something that you are really struggling with, >and finding hard to reconcile. It sounds that you believe and expect that >Christians will be more kind and accepting, more nice, than non-Christians, >but your recent experiences with your musician friends has seemed to >contradict this by demonstrating just as much love as you were shown by >your Christian friends. I'd like to contribute some thoughts that may >help to resolve this dilemma. Well, actually, it's not something that I'm really strugling with, just something that I was thinking about and thought would make for good discussion here. I do not necessarily expect Christians to be more kind and accepting, etc. of me than non-Christians, although I do expect that in general (isn't loving other people what it's all about?) and I often don't find it to be the case. I know too many Christians who are prejudiced, resentful, and revengeful. >For no matter how beautiful our works >may look on the outside, God sees the heart, the hidden motives, the secret >desires and intentions, and they are crooked. That's true - but it also says that you can tell a someone by the fruits of their labor. If you have evil hidden motives then I think that eventually they will show themselves. And obviously not everyone who does good things has hidden motives. >In addition, Christians are called to a higher walk of love than even what >you have received from your musician friends. For they expressed love to you >who loved them also; but could they love those who hated them? Actually some of them were pretty forgiving and tolerant to a couple of people who really gave them a hard time. I will give you that point though - one thing that Christians at least should have that non-believers don't is the ability from God to love those who don't love you. >Finally, I would like to gently suggest that your friends may be so uniformly >empty and unhappy simply because they do not have the Lord of Life living in >their hearts. It is His love that satisfies, not material possessions or >even artistic achievement. But each of us has a special God-shaped hole in >our heart, that only His dear love can fill. Until we come to God through >Christ, that emptiness remains. But that was because He formed us to have >relationship with Him. He designed us to know Himself as our friend, >protector, and lover. It is in that deep, intimate, personal relationship >with the living Lord that our deepest longings for acceptance and love are >finally realized. I hope that you will daily discover more of His love >flowing into your heart, through trusting in His wonderful Son, Jesus. I've heard this before. And I agree with it. In fact, that was what was in my mind when I posted this article, but when you meet other non-believers who are complaining about their jobs, financial problems, etc. it's easy to excuse their unhappiness with these explanations. When you get so close to people who obviously don't have these problems you realise just how important it is to know God, even if you never have to ask him for anything material, just to be happy. If it isn't obviously by my last posting, and my posting in net.singles, I care very deeply for these people. They are in my prayers and in my mind often. I would appreciate it if anyone on the net would occasionally think of them in prayer as well. cheers - elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)
purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva) (07/29/85)
In article <2153@pucc-h> aeq@pucc-h (Jeff Sargent) writes: >Somewhat wandering response to purtell@reed.UUCP (Lady Godiva): > >I'm not sure what to think of those who are loving and accepting people more >or less by nature, i.e. without any explicit relationship to Christ, such >as your musician friends, other than to say that loving and accepting can be >a good deal of work, so if they do not have a reliable source of love and >acceptance to refuel them, they may have a difficult time continuing in their >ability to love and accept. But on the other hand, "Everyone who loves has >been born of God and knows God" [I John 4:7b]. Could it be that these >musicians are indeed touched by the love of God without naming it? As >Frederick Buechner points out, Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life, >and no one comes to the Father but through Him -- not through believing a >certain flavor of doctrines, nor through doing a bunch of good deeds, but >through Christ -- and a Christian is just someone who has a dim, half-baked >idea of whom to thank. [Approximate quote from a book called (are you ready >for this?) "Wishful Thinking" -- written by a Christian! I'll have to read >the whole thing someday soon.] I cannot really comment on whether or not they all have a "reliable source of love". Two whom I got very close to though seem to be very different in this respect. One is very happily married and his wife is a wonderful woman. Probably a good reliable source of love. The other never has been married, and we talked about how unhappy he is and how mixed-up he feels, yet they were equally warm and accepting of me. Could it be that they are touched by the love of God without naming it? I certainly think that God also uses people who aren't necessarily believers. On the other hand, I've never heard that definition of Christian that you give above. I'm not sure what I think of it. >> On a slightly different topic,... although these people are very happy >> with their jobs, a lot of them don't seem to be happy people. > >> elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva) > >Hmmm.... Since you have stated in net.singles that you are an "aggressive" >woman (in the sense of taking initiatives, e.g. with men), I wonder if you >might actually have lived up to your nickname at some time! :-) Uh, I'm not quite certain how to take this Jeff. (Yes - I did notice the ":-)") I mean, what does it have to do with the quote from me that you preceded it with? I didn't have to take initiatives with these people for the most part (although there was one exception, and I was very glad that I did take the initiative) since they were all pretty friendly on their own. cheers - elizabeth g. purtell (Lady Godiva)
bch@mcnc.UUCP (Byron Howes) (08/01/85)
In article <394@philabs.UUCP> jah@philabs (Julie Harazduk) writes: > > >That doesn't make us better in any way except maybe a little humbler, a >little more willing to conceed to people's frailties, faults... > Boy! With some exceptions you could have fooled me! It's been a while since I've seen a humble anybody in this newsgroup, much less a humble christian... -- Byron C. Howes ...!{decvax,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!bch
homeier@aero.ARPA (Peter Homeier ) (08/01/85)
Julie, I compliment you on a wonderful explanation of our reconciliation to
God. This is a beautiful description of how we are forgiven our sins, not
that we have completely escaped sinning now. I'd like to add another
perspective to complement this, and discuss the view of Christians from the
heavenly side.
When a man is born again, he is immediately changed in the inward man. His
spirit is transformed, and he is completely justified before God, forgiven
for all his sins, and cleansed from their stain. So great and surpassing
is the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross that the righteousness of Christ
is imputed to the new believer, and the Bible then refers to him as a
"saint". This is not some exclusive title reserved for a few exceptional
Christians thoughout history, but the perfect description of our standing
before God. He actually sees us as perfect saints.
"... that you may know what is the hope of His calling, what are the
riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is
the exceeding greatness of His power towards us who believe,
according to the working of His mighty power which He worked in Christ
when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand
in the heavenly places ..." -- Ephesians 1:18-20 NKJV
But this is not just a positional grace in which we stand, but an active
participation by God in all of the parts of our lives. When we receive the
Holy Spirit into our hearts, we receive POWER to live the Christian life,
to believe what God has promised in His word, to pray for and receive
blessing, and to persevere under persecution to the amazement of our
tormentors. Additionally, all these things, which are parts of the nature
of Christ, are continually being birthed in us though our continuing to
abide in Him and walk with Jesus.
"But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the
glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image
from glory to glory, just as by the Spirit of the Lord."
-- 2 Corinthians 3:18 NKJV
But this transformation is limited by how much we allow God to work in us:
therefore we must be zealous and commit ourselves totally to His grace.
So we as Christians are truly perfect and saintly in God's eyes, and we are
progressively being transformed under Jesus's loving care into His own
wonderful likeness. However, God does not see the rest of the world with
such grace, but rather with anger.
"This I say therefore, and testify in the Lord, that you should no
longer walk as rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their
mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from
the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because
of the hardening of their heart; who being past feeling have given
themselves over to licentiousness, to work all uncleaness with
greediness." -- Ephesians 4:17-19 NKJV
And the evidence not only of the Word but also of our own senses is that
this present world is not becoming better, but in fact is growing more
corrupt at an ever-increasing pace.
Praise be to Christ Jesus, who sets us free from this world of death, and
raises us up alive with Him to be His servants and ambassadors back to
this world.
Peter Homeier
ARPANET: homeier@aerospace