lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) (05/28/91)
hudson@athena.cs.uga.edu (Paul Hudson Jr) writes: >You said that cults were in the world but not of it. Isn't that the >way Paul instructed the church to be? No, I said "neither in the world nor of it." You completely miss my point and distort what I actually said. >Not every religious organization needs to be so involved in politics. >Other functions need to be met. If Campus Crusade is a cult is the >BSU? Here at Georgia most Crusaders or Baptists. Of course other functions need to be met; but any religion not involoved in politics is not involved with polis (people) and thereby risks the status of cults and other superstitions. Re-read the story of the Final Judgment. Don't just take my word for it. Re-read the prophets. >Is it the churches job to end homophobia? No. St. John disagrees with you: "Perfect love casts out ALL phobia" >It is the churches job >to teach people not to commit sexual immorality. Indeed. This includes teaching people not requiring all persons to conform to hetero idolotry. Of course lesgay persons, like any one else, risk sexual immorality, not because of the plumbing of the persons whom we love, but because we often do not love the other as much as they love ourselves. Homophobes are in no position at all to discern these issues for lesgay persons, because all phobia is by definition irrational. Homophobes cannot understand the difference between a loving, caring, faithful, long-term committed lesgay relationship and a fling. >Politicws was not the main concern of the early church (they did, >however feed the hungry, and I agree that the church should do this >today.) Spiritual matters are more important. I doubt quite seriously that the political authorities Jewish and Roman would have bothered with this "King of the Jews" had they not perceived Jesus and his followers as a serious political threat. Nor would we have ever heard about the "Holy Roman Empire" or the "one holy catholic and apostolic church" if the church dealt only with "spiritual matters." "Spiritual matters" are spooky indeed if they divorce you from having to care for your neighbors' material well-being as carefully as you care for your own. Louie Louie Crew . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu Associate Professor . . . . . . . . . . . . . .lcrew@draco.rutgers.edu Academic Foundations Department . . . . . . . CompuServe No. 73517,147 Rutgers: The State University of New Jersey. . . . . . 201-485-4503 h P. O. Box 30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201-648-5434 o Newark, NJ 07101 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201-648-5700 FAX Only a dead fish floats with the current.
tp0x+@cs.cmu.edu (Thomas Price) (06/02/91)
In article <May.27.18.19.13.1991.9964@athos.rutgers.edu> lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes: > >Homophobes are in no position at all to discern these issues for lesgay >persons, because all phobia is by definition irrational. Homophobes cannot This is an unfortunate instance of being trapped by one's own terminology. I do not wish to comment on the larger issue but simply to note that Louie's reasoning is seriously flawed. All phobia is indeed by definition irrational, but not all opposition to homosexuality is properly termed 'homophobia.' The term 'homophobia' is one I strongly dislike, because it implies that all opposition to homosexuality is and can be based on irrational fear. This implication cannot be demonstrated. It is, in fact, only a convenient prejudice. Any discussion suffers if it must be carried on using terms which are skewed towards the values of one side or another. May I suggest the term 'anti-homosexuality' for general use. Homophobia is a good description of most opposition to homosexuality -- usually by people afraid of all sorts of things having to do with their own bodies, 'tis true -- but it is only useful as a descriptive term. Its use in abstract policy arguments is, for the reasons mentioned above, misleading. Tom Price tp0x@cs.cmu.edu Disclaimer: We are trapped by our notion of what is right. [Perhaps you should use different terms depending upon what you're talking about. I agree with you that you shouldn't use homophobia in policy discussions where you're referring to the view that homosexual activity is a sin. However I think it's useful when talking about hysterical reactions to homosexuals, including violence and other forms of personal attack directed at them. There are of course those treat all opposition to homosexual activity as hysterical, and thus apply the term homophobia to it all. But if you let extremist rhetoric control your language, you're going to be in big trouble. --clh]
math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) (06/02/91)
In article <May.27.18.19.13.1991.9964@athos.rutgers.edu>, lcrew@andromeda.rutgers.edu (Louie Crew) writes: > >I doubt quite seriously that the political authorities Jewish and Roman >would have bothered with this "King of the Jews" had they not perceived >Jesus and his followers as a serious political threat. Nor would we >have ever heard about the "Holy Roman Empire" or the "one holy catholic >and apostolic church" if the church dealt only with "spiritual matters." >"Spiritual matters" are spooky indeed if they divorce you from having to care >for your neighbors' material well-being as carefully as you care for your own. But if the Catholic church had kept its nose out of politics, if it had not tried to use politic power to spread the gospel, it it had not then seen political power as something desireable for the church, it *might* have avoided the moral and doctrinal corruption that lead to the Reformation! You can't convince me, BTW, that the Romans perceived Jesus as a political threat. The Sanhedrin wanted his head because they thought Jesus would lead people astray (i.e., a religious threat) and that, incidentally, would decrease their political power. Pilate crucified Jesus because he was afraid of the Jewish leadership, not because he was afraid of a 'king' whose 'kindom is not of this world'. I agree that we have to be concerned about things like hunger, housing, etc. But our first priority has to be the preaching of the gospel--the gospel of forgiveness and eternal life. What good does it do if I feed someone, yet they suffer eternal punishment? David H. Wagner a confessional Lutheran My opinions and beliefs on this matter are disclaimed by The University of Houston.
tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Tom Blake) (06/04/91)
In article <Jun.2.02.14.26.1991.16773@athos.rutgers.edu>, math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: |>You can't convince me, BTW, that the Romans perceived Jesus as a political |>threat. The Sanhedrin wanted his head because they thought Jesus would |>lead people astray (i.e., a religious threat) and that, incidentally, |>would decrease their political power. Pilate crucified Jesus because he |>was afraid of the Jewish leadership, not because he was afraid of a 'king' |>whose 'kindom is not of this world'. Indeed, the Jews were mounting a resistance effort, and this Jesus person was teaching things like... "If a man asks you to go with him one mile, go with him two. If someone strikes you on your right cheek, turn and offer him your left. Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you." Personally, if I were in Pilate's shoes, I'd be rooting for Jesus. If Pilate could lend power to Jesus, and take power from the council, I suspect he'd do it. (Assuming he thought he could get away with it.) Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
credmond@watmath.waterloo.edu (Chris Redmond) (06/06/91)
In article <Jun.2.02.14.26.1991.16773@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >I agree that we have to be concerned about things like hunger, housing, etc. >But our first priority has to be the preaching of the gospel--the gospel of >forgiveness and eternal life. What good does it do if I feed someone, yet >they suffer eternal punishment? I see myself moving further to the left (right? north?) as I consider my reaction to comments like this one. It seems to me that whether someone is fed and housed, or not, depends on me and people like me. Whether someone enjoys eternal life, eternal punishment, or any other condition throughout eternity, however, depends on Almighty God, who is wiser, more powerful, and more merciful than I am. So I think I should put most of my attention onto things that I can actually help with.
harling@pictel.uucp (Dan Harling) (06/07/91)
In article <Jun.2.02.14.26.1991.16773@athos.rutgers.edu> math1h3@JANE.UH.EDU (David H. Wagner) writes: >I agree that we have to be concerned about things like hunger, housing, etc. >But our first priority has to be the preaching of the gospel--the gospel of >forgiveness and eternal life. What good does it do if I feed someone, yet >they suffer eternal punishment? The greatest commandments, according to Jesus, are to love the Lord your God, and to love your neighbor. We feed and clothe people because we love them. We talk to people about God and Jesus because we love them. You have the capacity to clothe and feed someone. You do not have the capacity to save them. All you can do is love; that is your job. If someone suffers eternal punishment, that is not your fault. Spreading the Gospel should be a by-product of our daily lives, but not the entire purpose. We set a bad example if we preach a Gospel of Love, yet not demonstrate our Love in other areas. Our message is much more credible if we express our love by other means as well. If we feel compelled to spread the Gospel merely because "Jesus told us to," we are missing the point. I love God, and if I spend any time around other people, His name will inevitably be brought up, because He is so very important to me. One's salvation indeed has far more profound an effect on an individual than these more "temporal" comforts, but we are not the ones who give him salvation; that is God's exclusive right. If we minister to others in Love, we are doing our job. That includes clothing the naked and feeding the hungry, just as much as "witnessing." Witnessing is an important part of our general ministry, but it is not the sole purpose! >David H. Wagner ______________________________________________________________________ Daniel A. Harling PictureTel, Inc. Rockport, MA Peabody, MA Opinions expressed herein are not necessarily those of PictureTel, Inc.; they are MINE, ALL MINE! (So there.) ---- === ====
ferwerda@clt.enet.dec.com (Paul Ferwerda) (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.6.23.13.54.1991.8548@athos.rutgers.edu>, harling@pictel.uucp (Dan Harling) writes: [...] |> Spreading the Gospel should be a by-product of our daily lives, but not |> the entire purpose. We set a bad example if we preach a Gospel of |> Love, yet not demonstrate our Love in other areas. Our message is much |> more credible if we express our love by other means as well. |> |> If we feel compelled to spread the Gospel merely because "Jesus told us |> to," we are missing the point. I love God, and if I spend any time |> around other people, His name will inevitably be brought up, because He |> is so very important to me. |> |> One's salvation indeed has far more profound an effect on an individual |> than these more "temporal" comforts, but we are not the ones who give |> him salvation; that is God's exclusive right. If we minister to others |> in Love, we are doing our job. That includes clothing the naked and |> feeding the hungry, just as much as "witnessing." Witnessing is an |> important part of our general ministry, but it is not the sole |> purpose! |> |> >David H. Wagner As with a lot of things I think the key is balance. I also think that the Holy Spirit is going to have some folks lean more one way than another. On the other hand, we do have Matthew 28:19,20 which some people see as applying to more than just the 12 disciples. For myself, I think that being sensitive to the Holy Spirit's prompting and being ready, willing, and eager to "witness" is a must no matter what I'm doing. I do need to be addressing people's physical needs but I need to 1) be doing it out of love, and 2) keep in front of me that the what they need above all else is Christ. It is too easy to focus on 2 without caring about 1 or focus on 1 while 2 slides to a lesser priority. The longer I'm a Christian the more I realize that so much of it is a tough balancing act, which requires me to depend on the Holy Spirit more than I'd like. 8-) It is so easy to get pulled to one side or another of the issues. --- Paul EASYNET=> loptsn::ferwerda Gordon UUCP=> decwrl!ferwerda@clt.enet.dec.com Loptson DARPA Internet=> ferwerda%clt.enet.dec.com Ferwerda Tel (603) 881 2221
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (06/15/91)
> > [...] > |> Spreading the Gospel should be a by-product of our daily lives, but not > |> the entire purpose. We set a bad example if we preach a Gospel of > |> Love, yet not demonstrate our Love in other areas. Our message is much > |> more credible if we express our love by other means as well. Quite true. I get very aggrivated when I see people with a holier-than-thou attitude who talk about spreading the Gospel, but only care to spread it to white American citizens. > |> If we feel compelled to spread the Gospel merely because "Jesus told us > |> to," we are missing the point. I love God, and if I spend any time > |> around other people, His name will inevitably be brought up, because He > |> is so very important to me. Yes, that would be like going through life without speaking of your spouse or children. > |> One's salvation indeed has far more profound an effect on an individual > |> than these more "temporal" comforts, but we are not the ones who give > |> him salvation; that is God's exclusive right. If we minister to others > |> in Love, we are doing our job. That includes clothing the naked and > |> feeding the hungry, just as much as "witnessing." Witnessing is an > |> important part of our general ministry, but it is not the sole > |> purpose! > |> > |> >David H. Wagner Thank you David! I am unyhappy with the opinions I hear voicing support for "spreading the Gospel" which are devoid of other ministry. It makes me think of the situation is Lebanon, where many men (and a few women) joined any militia that would have them becuase it was the only way they could find to feed their families. Minimum wage was around $40 U.S. per month, IF they were lucky enough to find jobs. So, rather than starve, they fought, killed, and got killed. Irregardless of Christian, Moslem, or atheist, wouldn't it have been much better if we had given them food and other necessities instead of putting the money into a building fund? Do you think that by ignoring their needs, and thereby contradicting God's teachings, that we caused those people to sin? Surely, some generosity on our part could have stopped much human suffering. I've mentioned this before, only to get the same old cold-hearted answer, "The Bible says that those people have been fighting for thousands of years and that they are going to keep on fighting." And, with such unloving inconsideration, I suppose that they may be right. Elizabeth