arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) (01/15/91)
In article <Jan.9.03.44.52.1991.3043@athos.rutgers.edu> bwood@su1b.uucp (Barbara Wood) writes: >Those of us still here have the responsibility to not only worship God >but also to be a SOUL WINNER! The first time that I heard the phrase "soul winner" (not too long ago) there was something that immediately disturbed me about the phrase. I couldn't quite put my finger on what was disagreeable, but now that I see it here I think that I am able to discern it more clearly. What bothers me is the implication that we have the ability (and here Barbara claims we have the responsibility) to "win souls" and turn them back to God. I have enough problems with my own salvation without having to worry about saving others. I don't mean that to sound selfish. I try to be as loving to others as I can, and I try to bring the gospel to others by living it in my life. But ultimately the decision to turn back to God rests with each individual. I guess I like better the image of the disciples being called to be fishers of men. Here, the "fish" must make the first nibble to be saved. Alex Macalalad
billy@tcom.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) (01/21/91)
The phrase 'Soul winners' is perhaps not to be taken quite so literally. It is ultimately the person who decides whether they turn to christ or not. Its our job to give them the opportunity and tell them about it. Don't get hassled too much about having problems with your own faith! Thats all part of being a christian! Its not being selfish! After all..the first commandment is, 'Love the lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind', getting your relationship with him should be of paramount importance in your life! Love him with what you think, with what you say and with what you do! D.
tdaniels@athena.mit.edu (Troy E Daniels) (01/21/91)
[Some discussion was started by Barbara Wood's use of the term "soul winner". One comment (from Alex Macalalad I think, though it's sometimes hard to be sure) was that responsibility for decisions lie with the person involved, not us. |> I guess I like better the image of the disciples being called to be fishers |> of men. Here, the "fish" must make the first nibble to be saved. --clh] It's true that we ourselves can't "win souls." However, to continue your image, we do need to at least put our line in the water. If our fishing rod is in the trunk of our car, we won't catch any fish, no matter how much or how little the fish are eating. |> Alex Macalalad Troy Daniels tdaniels@athena.mit.edu
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (01/21/91)
[This is another comment on the "soul winners" phrase,and
Alexander Macalalad's preference for the image of fishers, where the
fish must take the first bite. --clh]
Not quite right... at the time the term "fishers of men" was coined,
fishing with hooks was unheard of. The prefered mode was by net (as
described in the Bible) and by spear.
As an agnostic I must agree with your assesment of the situation.
Turning people around you to see as you do is a real burden (and in
some cases, a complete waste of time). For instance, if I were to
come to you and tell you that your soul would endure eternal torment
if you didn't turn to Allah right now you would, in turn, try to tell
me that Jesus is the Way, the Truth, the Life. I honestly don't
believe that a significant number of people truely believing in a
particular religion can be converted to another.
Hence, according to Christian doctrin, a large percentage of
humanity will be spending eternity in hell... eternal punishment for
the sins commited within a single life time.
Put me down as uninpressed...
>Alex Macalalad
Jeff Lindborg
"Agnostic with an attitude."bwoodman@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Robert H Woodman) (01/21/91)
[Another comment on soul winning and fishing. I hope these things
come in order. My summaries are getting briefer... --clh]
Alex,
I believe that you miss the point of "soul winning" on several counts.
First, we are clearly commanded (at the end of Matthew, Mark, and Luke, and at
the beginning of Acts) to be witnesses to all the world about Jesus Christ. The
clear implication in each case involved not just "living it [the gospel] in my
life" but to *teach* others about Jesus and the good news of salvation. We *do*
have the ability and the power through the Holy Spirit to "win souls" to Jesus
Christ. When the Holy Spirit came down upon the believers as recorded in Acts
chapter 2, Peter's sermon made it clear that both the gift of the Holy Spirit
and the message of salvation were open-ended. That is, the sharing of the
good news through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit had no end until Jesus
Christ returned to the earth for his church. Second, your fishing imagery
misses the context in which Jesus spoke it. Peter, Andrew, James, and John
were commercial fisherman. They did not *recreationally* fish with hook and
line, the way that you imagine. They fished with nets. The fish didn't have
to make a nibble. They had only to be present when the net went by to become
part of the day's catch. When Jesus said to them "Follow me, and I will make
you fishers of men," he obviously had net fishing in mind (the gospels record
that work on the nets was being done at the time the statement was made).
Thus, by Jesus' own analogy, we are to grab whoever is in the vicinity at the
time and share Jesus Christ with that person. Now, clearly, that sounds a bit
zealous. But you need not be the kind of person who always grabs the first
person walking by and starts preaching the gospel to the hapless victim. A
bit of spiritual discernment about the kind of approach to take is needed. The
idea of living your life as a witness does work, and it is a method I use. Yet
there comes a time when "living your life" must give way to "sharing your Jesus"
with those in front of whom you live your life. At that point, you start
talking about the gospel. Even more effectively, you share what Jesus has done
for you in your life.
This sounds like the beginnings of an interesting discussion thread. Any
one want to make follow ons?
Bob Woodman
--
*********************************************************************
*Bob Woodman * "A job not worth doing well is not *
*INTERNET: woodman.1@osu.edu * worth doing."--Salvador Luria *
*********************************************************************
[The more common objection to "soul winner" is that it suggests
that the responsibility for someone being converted is ours
rather than God's. It could imply taking credit for something
that ultimately isn't our doing. --clh]ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (01/22/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.44.23.1991.12778@athos.rutgers.edu>, arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: > In article <Jan.9.03.44.52.1991.3043@athos.rutgers.edu> bwood@su1b.uucp (Barbara Wood) writes: > >Those of us still here have the responsibility to not only worship God > >but also to be a SOUL WINNER! > > > What bothers me is the implication that we have the ability (and here Barbara > claims we have the responsibility) to "win souls" and turn them back to God. WE cannot win souls by ourselves, yet God has specifically instructed us to "...preach the Gospel to all nations..." , etc. We cannot win souls of our own accord, but we must let God use us to help win people to Him. > I have enough problems with my own salvation without having to worry about > saving others. Salvation is permanent. As far as you spritual condition, it will be much better when one attempts to do as God has intructed. > > Alex Macalalad Elizabeth
chappell@mira (Glenn Chappell) (01/22/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.44.23.1991.12778@athos.rutgers.edu> arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: >In article <Jan.9.03.44.52.1991.3043@athos.rutgers.edu> bwood@su1b.uucp (Barbara Wood) writes: >>Those of us still here have the responsibility to not only worship God >>but also to be a SOUL WINNER! > >The first time that I heard the phrase "soul winner" (not too long ago) there >was something that immediately disturbed me about the phrase. > >What bothers me is the implication that we have the ability (and here Barbara >claims we have the responsibility) to "win souls" and turn them back to God. >...I try to bring the gospel to others by living it in >my life. But ultimately the decision to turn back to God rests with each >individual. ...a nice thought...and certainly God's people should live their life by God's commands and principles, but "...how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them?" (Romans 10:14 NIV) Unfortunately, if you or I live even the most righteous, moral, Godly life, this does not let people know that they've done wrong, but God loves them anyway. Nor does it tell them that God came to earth in the form of Jesus Christ to die for them. Nor does it tell them about the good news that they can be reconciled to God if they put their faith in Christ. Glenn Chappell <>< (<-- I like it....)
marlatt@spot.Colorado.EDU (MARLATT STUART WARREN) (01/23/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.44.23.1991.12778@athos.rutgers.edu> arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) writes: [deleted text...] > >I guess I like better the image of the disciples being called to be fishers >of men. Here, the "fish" must make the first nibble to be saved. The image is very appealing - but, consider what we know of the form of fishing the disciples were doing: commercial fishing, out of boats, with nets. I don't know how far the analogy should be taken, but I have come to think that most of Jesus' phrases were chosen with some care. So, lets look at this one: 1. Commercial fishing. This is no recreational walk in a stream, flicking a fly about on your day off. This is full-time, hard work. When you aren't actually out on the water, you are probably mending nets, cleaning fish, etc. 2. Out of boats. The fishermen went out onto the water, got wet, etc. As compared to staying safe on the shore and attempting to lure the fish to themselves. Probably they spent considerable time learning the ways of the sea and knowing where the fish would be when. 3. With nets. Again, the implication here is that they are not luring the fish in, but actively catching them (against their will!). Obviously: (with reference to 'soul-winning') 1. This is not a recreational activity, rather it is to be a lifestyle. Off-hours should be used in preparation (study, prayer). Note also that fishing in that day was necessarily a group activity: team work is required (as least accountability to a body). 2. You can't stay safe and clean and expect to get close to those in need of salvation. The sea is the domain of the fishes - and of storms - but the fish don't get lured up onto shore. I am reminded of a saying: a ship is safe in a harbor, but that is not what ships are made for. 3. Nets? The obvious implication would be that salvation would come upon the unsaved unbidden, that they would be bought in against their will. I don't know how far to take this, but I know many people, myself included, who felt God's hand save them though they kicked and struggled against it. (Perhaps that is the key: we, as people, don't forcibly 'catch' those needing salvation, but God does.) Like I said, I don't know how far we can take this analogy, only that such things generally are more instructive that they often appear on the surface... -- s.w. marlatt <>< and *(:-)
bwoodman@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (Robert H Woodman) (01/24/91)
I want to respond to the comment our moderator made at the end of my post. In article <Jan.20.14.52.27.1991.15374@athos.rutgers.edu> bwoodman@magnus.ircc.ohio-state.edu (That's me!) writes: <my stuff deleted; you can read it if you want it> <and then our moderator says at the end> >[The more common objection to "soul winner" is that it suggests >that the responsibility for someone being converted is ours >rather than God's. It could imply taking credit for something >that ultimately isn't our doing. --clh] I suppose it could. After all, Paul had to deal with this in the Corin- thian church. Some people were claiming that they belonged to Peter (Cephas), others to Apollos, others to Paul, and others to Jesus. They were identifying their membership with those who had *won* them to the Lord Jesus Christ. However, notice, please, what Paul wrote about this situation: "For when one says, 'I am of Paul,' and another, 'I am of Apollos,' are you not mere men? What then is Apollos? And what is Paul? Servants through whom you believed, even as the Lord gave opportunity to each one. I planted, Apollos watered, but God was causing the growth. So then neither the one who plants nor the one who waters is anything, but God who causes the growth. Now he who plants and he who waters are one; but each will receive his own reward according to his own labor. For we are God's fellow-workers; you are God's field, God's building." 1 Corinthians 3:4-9 (NASV) Paul and Apollos were clearly "Soul Winners." They also had a clear sense of their own insignificance in the process. We could approach the argument in one of two ways -- (1) that the term "Soul Winners" is flawed and should be done away with; or (2) that the term "Soul Winners" is accurate and useful, as long as the proper perspective of humility is kept. Personally, I *like* the term "Soul Winner," and I regard the above-cited objection to it as being "semantical smoke" when the proper Scriptural perspective is kept about the use of the term. Of course, in light of the scripture I used above, I guess I'd be just as happy being called a "Soul Farmer" or a "Soul Fisherman." :-) Robert H. Woodman -- ********************************************************************* *Bob Woodman * "A job not worth doing well is not * *INTERNET: woodman.1@osu.edu * worth doing."--Salvador Luria * *********************************************************************
mcguire@cs.tamu.edu (Tim McGuire) (01/24/91)
In all this discussion about "soul winners," no one seems to have made
the point that the term is indeed Biblical -- Proverbs 11:30 is the
reference that immediately comes to mind ("He that winneth souls is wise")
with other relevant verses being Daniel 12:3, I Cor. 9:19, and James 5:19-20.
Tim McGuire
mcguire@cs.tamu.eduarm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) (01/24/91)
In article <Jan.22.01.58.28.1991.29370@athos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >WE cannot win souls by ourselves, yet God has specifically instructed us >to "...preach the Gospel to all nations..." , etc. We cannot win souls of >our own accord, but we must let God use us to help win people to Him. In my mind, there is a big difference between preaching the Gospel and winning souls. For those who are into scriptural literalism, I sure would like to see some references. My guess is that we have fundamentally different conceptions of what salvation is and how it is received. On a different thread, it is VERY interesting how many people made a distinction between living the Gospel and preaching it. I never made the distinction, and I implicitly assumed that the latter was part of the former. I always thought that it was important to live all of the Gospel, and not just the parts which ask people to preach it to others. Earlier, I made the following comment: >> I have enough problems with my own salvation without having to worry about >> saving others. > >Salvation is permanent. As far as you spritual condition, it will be much >better when one attempts to do as God has intructed. I hear an unnecessary insult in your reply. How dare you make judgments on my spirituality without knowing anything about me and my own relationship with God. I guess I should not be surprised, given the responsiblity you feel you have over others' souls, including my own. If your aim was to win my soul, you're doing a bad job. I'm so angry right now, I'm going to stop before I say something that is really going to get me in trouble. What set me off was not so much the criticism, which is generic enough that I can't really argue, but the implicit self-righteousness in the criticism. Also, you're idea and my idea of what God has instructed is probably very different. All right, so I didn't stop. This brings up a whole lot of questions and frustrations that I have. I know that many of these issues have been brought up before, and my intention here is not so much to open up new threads as to give an idea of the fundamental differences that make communication especially difficult. First of all, you imply that God instructs us all to preach the Gospel and win souls for God. I accept that we should allow God to use us as his instruments, but I do not accept that we should all be the same kind of instrument (e.g. preaching the Gospel) but rather different instruments playing different notes and contributing to one glorious symphony. There is the notion of a calling, and I believe that different people are called to do different things. I have already commented on my reservations about winning souls. Second, the concept that salvation is eternal (with which I agree), and the implication that we know when we are saved, through being born again or whatever (with which I do not agree) is problematic. For me, the moment I will know whether I am saved will be on judgment day. This is the spirit in which I made my earlier comment. It makes little sense for me to talk about winning souls when the results won't come in until judgment day. It bothers me when people seek to know whether they are saved while they are still living on this earth, and it angers me when people claim superior knowledge, status, assurance, whatever, on the basis that they are "saved." Note that I am saying nothing about when God saves, but only when we know whether we are saved. Also note that I am not denying that we can experience God working in our lives. I can help someone experience God, but I do not flatter myself in saying even that I helped to save that someone. As I said before, salvation is ultimately something between God and the individual. Third, the concept of being able to gain control over someone else's soul, even with God's help, not only seems impossible, but also seems rather sinister. (E.g. "The devil has taken her soul...." or "She has been possessed by evil spirits...") In fact, for me one vision of hell is to lose control of my soul. Doesn't sin chain your soul and rob your freedom? Salvation should be freeing, not coercive. Don't ask me to win someone over to God. Ask me to bring God into his life. Ask me to help free him from the chains of sin. Ask me to love him as myself. I think that I'll stop there. (The suggestion, with only a hint of seriousness, that soul winners are doing the work of the devil, will probably get me into lots of trouble. I should have quit while I was ahead. I hope that it is taken in the spirit with which it was intended: as a challenge to "soul winners" to look more closely at what they are doing, and what God wants them to do. Hopefully, this disagreement is merely one of semantics.) >Elizabeth Alex Macalalad
psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) (01/25/91)
In article <Jan.15.04.44.23.1991.12778@athos.rutgers.edu>, arm@Neon.Stanford.EDU (Alexander d Macalalad) writes... >In article <Jan.9.03.44.52.1991.3043@athos.rutgers.edu> bwood@su1b.uucp (Barbara Wood) writes: >>Those of us still here have the responsibility to not only worship God >>but also to be a SOUL WINNER! > >The first time that I heard the phrase "soul winner" (not too long ago) there >was something that immediately disturbed me about the phrase. I couldn't quite >put my finger on what was disagreeable, but now that I see it here I think that >I am able to discern it more clearly. > >What bothers me is the implication that we have the ability (and here Barbara >claims we have the responsibility) to "win souls" and turn them back to God. >I have enough problems with my own salvation without having to worry about >saving others. I don't mean that to sound selfish. I try to be as loving >to others as I can, and I try to bring the gospel to others by living it in >my life. But ultimately the decision to turn back to God rests with each >individual. > >I guess I like better the image of the disciples being called to be fishers >of men. Here, the "fish" must make the first nibble to be saved. > >Alex Macalalad To struggle with the idea of being a "soul winner" does not indicate that you are necessarily selfish. The phrase "win souls" is scriptural, and is found in Proverbs: "He who wins souls is wise" (Forgive me, I can't recall the chapter and verse of that one.) Whether you call it winning souls, being fishers of men, spreading the Good News, proclaiming the Gospel, preaching to the uttermost parts of the world, the message is clear We have the responsibility to tell others of Jesus Christ and the hope for eternal life through his death on the cross. Of course, we simply cannot do all of this on our own power. We can only do it through the empowerment of the Holy Spirit, who equips us with "everything we need for doing his will, his good, pleasing and perfect will (Hebrews 12:?? I think) ( I'm not very good with remembering the addresses of Scripture.) You mentioned that you struggle with your own salvation. Again, I would not say that indicates a selfish condition, but rather a limited knowledge of the Bible which I believe with all my heart clearly give complete assurance of salvation. Salvation is not based on emotions, or brownie points, but it is an issue of the mind and will. It is an conscious intellectual decision. The emotional part of it comes and goes, as it does in any relationship. Consider this analogy: You are born into a family. By definition, defacto , you have a relationship with the members of that family. The degree of intimacy with the members and the head of the family is merely your personal choice. You can chose to sever the ties to the family, but even in doing that, the fact remains that you are a member of that family. You simply cannot change that fact, no matter what your behavior is. However, the emotional involvement of that relationship is pretty much in your hands It's the same with our salvation. When we accept Jesus as savior, we become a member of his family, a part of the Body of Christ. We define a relationship with Him. That fact will never be changed. However, we can choose to nurture the intimacy of that relationship with him and the rest of the Body through prayer, Bible studying, worship, fellowship, and evangelization. A long response to a short note, huh. I really am as talkative as my response suggests. Ask my friends. Am I making my points clear? I know Satan can do a real job of clouding up some real critical issues in Scripture. Don't let him do it!! Maureen Burns
psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) (01/27/91)
In article <Jan.20.14.42.59.1991.14938@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes... > > As an agnostic > Hence, according to Christian doctrin, a large percentage of >humanity will be spending eternity in hell... eternal punishment for >the sins commited within a single life time. > Put me down as uninpressed... > >Jeff Lindborg >"Agnostic with an attitude." I am curious. If you are a professed agnostic, why are scanning the postings under the Christian heading? I suspect that there is a true interest in what we have to say. But, if you are a true agnostic, do you find your blood boiling at what we say? BTW, according to Christian doctrine, it is true that a large percentage of humanity will spend eternity in hell, not because of the sins committed within a single lifetime, but because of a refusal to accept the sin payment of Christ's death on the cross as a total and complete satisfaction for God's perfect justice. Sin is not just doing something wrong, or not doing something right. Sin is an "inherited" condition which each and every one of us are born with. It is the natural tendancy to do things our own way, arrogantly refusing to acknowlege a holy and omnipotent God, the God of creation. It is the tendancy to turn away from a loving God who is so in love with his creation, man, and intensely desires a deep and intimate and rewarding relationship with us. Our sin nature prevents us from having such a relationsheip with God. So he had to come up with a way to defeat sin. He sent Jesus to pay the price of sin, the only perfect sacrifice to satisfy a perfect God. When we accept that sacrifice, and accept Jesus into our hearts, we are forgiven completely of all or our sin. We are made pure in the eyes of God, worthy of establishing that relationship with him. Of course, that doesn't mean that sin nature is gone. Christians still sin and disappoint God and each other. But the forgiveness is always there. Why take a chance on your eternity? Why not be sure of eternity with a loving, holy and perfect God who desires your presence in heaven with him? He's speaking to your heart right now. Get right with the Lord. I hope to meet you in heaven... Maureen Burns
dave@cs.utah.edu (Dave Holcomb) (01/29/91)
With all this discussion of why "soul winner" is a good phrase or is not
a good phrase, have we all forgotten what Solomon says in Proverbs
11:30?
The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life, and he who wins souls is
wise. (NIV).
Dave Holcomb, Mentor Graphics, Silicon Design Division (formerly SCS/CAECO)
5295 South 300 West Suite 300
Murray, UT 84107-4763 USA
(801)265-8007
caeco!dave@cs.utah.edulindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (01/29/91)
In article <Jan.27.02.53.01.1991.18875@athos.rutgers.edu> psburns@lims02.lerc.nasa.gov (MAUREEN BURNS) writes: >In article <Jan.20.14.42.59.1991.14938@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes... >> >> As an agnostic >> Hence, according to Christian doctrin, a large percentage of >>humanity will be spending eternity in hell... eternal punishment for >>the sins commited within a single life time. >> Put me down as uninpressed... >> >>Jeff Lindborg >>"Agnostic with an attitude." > > I am curious. If you are a professed agnostic, why are scanning the >postings under the Christian heading? Mostly for my own entertainment. >I suspect that there is a true >interest in what we have to say. Of course there is or I wouldn't be reading it. Your implication that I find any of it based on truth is way off the mark however. >But, if you are a true agnostic, do you >find your blood boiling at what we say? Don't flatter yourself. My blood doesn't boil at what you say. If you really want to make me mad, get into power politics and the religious right (they tick me off). If anyone is interested try reading "God's Bullies"... an excellent look into just how much power the religious right is capable of weilding (and using in questionable ways). > BTW, according to Christian doctrine, it is true that a large percentage >of humanity will spend eternity in hell, not because of the sins committed >within a single lifetime, but because of a refusal to accept the sin >payment of Christ's death on the cross as a total and complete satisfaction >for God's perfect justice. I realize that. I also realize the notion of being 'born into sin' hence removing any possibility of avoiding hell ("NO man comes unto the father BUT BY ME.") on your own. You have, of course, completely avoided my comment. I don't care HOW the people end up in hell, just that they do. My contention was the God's motivation for creating humanity for His own entertainment is quite questionable. Why does He feel the need to punish those who cannot/will not believe/whorship Him when he supposedely gave us 'free will'. Since MOST of us (according to you) will spend eternity in maximum agony I must question the "kindness, and compassion" of you God. Is He indeed worthy of worship or is He a spiteful and sadistic? You make the call. >Of course, that doesn't mean that sin nature is gone. Christians still sin >and disappoint God and each other. But the forgiveness is always there. >Why take a chance on your eternity? Why not be sure of eternity with a >loving, holy and perfect God who desires your presence in heaven with him? >He's speaking to your heart right now. Get right with the Lord. Since I spent over 22 years as a Christian I recognize THIS attitude quite well. "It may all be a load of crap but why not play it safe?" This SHOULD be quite offensive to any real Christians on the net. Typical scare tactics nonsense. I believe that there is no life after death (just like the Jews did up until around 250 BCE, read your Old Testament CAREFULLY) just as firmly as you believe there is. I may be wrong but I REFUSE to force myself to believe in something that I find moraly corrupt and intellectualy offensive. Dogma is always bad, no matter what form it comes in. There may indeed be a god, but if it is the god you describe I doubt very much that he is either perfect or loving. >I hope to meet you in heaven... Appreciate the sentiment, although I can't return it. The idea of living FOREVER in any state is my definition of a hell... >Maureen Burns Jeff Lindborg "Wont Heave get boring after a while..." -Binky -Life In Hell
oopdavid@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (David J. Rodman) (02/03/91)
In article <Jan.29.03.24.30.1991.23507@athos.rutgers.edu>, linborg@cs.wash ington.edu (Jeff Linborg) writes... >I believe there is no life after death (just like the Jews did up until around 250 BC...) just as firmly as you believe there is. >There may indeed be a god, but if it is the god you describe I doubt very much that he is either perfect of loving. Well you sure said a mouth full. Let me expound on your certainties and bring up a few variables into your equation of our God and life after death. By the way, I am certainly not a highly religious person by education. I received an Episcopal confirmation, attended a Catholic college and went on to medical school. I have devoted my life to science and medicine. I have had very skeptical views in my life from time to time on life and religion like you apparently do. This is in response to my intellectual and vocational training and family upbringing. Now for my stories. Listen and read. My wife was a young 34 years old when she went to the hospital for a test to evaluate her high blood pressure. We had planned a pregnancy and her physician felt a kidney problem was present. We were greatly surprised when the test showed no kidney abnormality and a vascular lesion called an aneurysm off her aorta (the main blood vessel in her abdominal area). My searching of the literature led me to find only 70 to 80 cases of a similar aneurysm in this century. She had such a rare condition, surgeons in our city were split on a decision to operate. More X rays were obtained and we received a 4th opinion from a surgeon in Houston Texas, where the majority of these difficult operations are performed at this time. He reviewed the case, looked at the X rays, examined my wife and said surgery was required to prevent rupture during a pregnancy. Another X ray study was scheduled the day before the operation and we went home to return in 8 weeks for the operation. My wife is a person of great faith. She prayed continually a prayer of healing, others said masses for her and prayers were offered to Saint Jude and Saint Anthony. We entered the hospital planning on a difficult surgery and a two week stay. I went with her to the last test, the repeat angiogram. I was summoned to the reading room by the radiologist and was shocked by what I saw. The aneurysm was nothing more than a faint haze on the screen. New blood vessels were seen carrying blood to the organs in her abdominal area that had not appeared previously on any of her X rays. Her doctor, one of the most experienced surgeons in the country and in the world, said as he discharged my wife: " I have heard reports of this type of thing once before and never actually seen it. Go home and live your life. You do not need the surgery." I am a physician, I will never forget the tears of joy I shed at that time, for it clearly demonstrated to me the presence of a miracle. I know of no reason for this lesion to disappear at the 11th hour. The surgeon could not explain it either, we were told "I've heard of miracles before, but I have never seen one." I have thanked God daily for this grace since, and I will continue to do so, for the prayers we asked for, a speedy recovery of a dangerous operation, were answered a hundred fold and more. Secondly, to respond to your ideas of the lack of life after death, there are numerous accounts of near death experiences, when people recount similar circmstances of warm lights, glows, people, angels etc. I never held these things too highly, as they generally appear in the National Enquirer or similar scandal sheets. A patient of mine, relayed this experience: Many years ago, when she was a young woman, she was dying of a complication of a pregnancy. Actually, she was bleeding to death. Taken to a hospital, there was an attempt to recuscitate her. After a period of failure to keep her alive, the curtains were drawn, a grim physician came to her husband and pronounced her death. Approximately 20 minutes later, without any further life saving mechanisms she came back to life. Her experience is as follows: when she died, she felt a great relief, leaving her body below. There was an experience of a great expance with light (white) later and she saw great white horses, in gilded bridles. There was a reluctance to return to her body, but it nonetheless happened. These stories are to be shared by all. I hope they make the agnostics skeptics and the skeptics believers. I will not give up my faith nor will I refuse to believe in life after death ever again.
billy@tcom.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) (02/03/91)
Fine. It might sound as if God is spiteful etc. in leaving people t go to hell because they won't accept him. However I tend to think of Hell as a place simply devoid of the presence of God. A place where there is no love, friendship, compassion, mercy, kindness or anything normal assiociated with being 'nice' (Not a good word i know, but English is sort of a second language to me!) I tell you one thing for free. If there was no love, friendship, compassion, mercy and kindness around me at all I would go crazy pretty quick. Emotional deprivation aint something thats nice to experience I shouldn't think. If Hell is a place mere devoid of Gods presence, thats fair enough. Non-christians turned their backs on God when he offered them salvation, so I think he's entitled (after trying just about everthing to turn them to him) to turn away from them and leave them with out his presence, IE in hell. Turning to the subject of religious wars, i'd like to ask a question. Jesus mentioned turning the other cheek and the commandments tell us not to murder. Is there then any precident for having a war in the 'prince of peace''s name? I think not. Christianity has been given a bad reputation by people using it as a banner. You won't find me fighting anything but ignorance and misunderstanding. Drew. [There have certainly been wars in his name. Whether the use of that name was "authorized" is another question. Jesus also cleaned the moneychangers from the temple, using force -- although there's no reason to think there were any casualties. Many interpreters draw a distinction between using force in personal disagreements and acting in an official capacity to defend others, singly or in the form of nation or church. --clh]
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (02/08/91)
In article <Feb.2.22.20.52.1991.26839@athos.rutgers.edu> oopdavid@ubvmsa.cc.buffalo.edu (David J. Rodman) writes: >In article <Jan.29.03.24.30.1991.23507@athos.rutgers.edu>, linborg@cs.wash >ington.edu (Jeff Linborg) writes... > >>I believe there is no life after death (just like the Jews did up until >around 250 BC...) just as firmly as you believe there is. > >>There may indeed be a god, but if it is the god you describe I doubt >very much that he is either perfect of loving. > >Well you sure said a mouth full. Let me expound on your certainties and >bring up a few variables into your equation of our God and life after death. [Wonderful story deleted for brevity.] First of all, let me say how happy I am for you and your wife! It think its wonderful that she beat the odds and confused the 'experts'. I, in fact, have a similar story. My aunt was diagnosed with cancer some years ago. She went through painful chemotherapy for some time. However, her diagnosis deteriorated and she was given less than a year to live. Some months later, the cancer was completely gone. None at all! Of course the doctors were at a loss as to explain this "remission". That was over 6 years ago and it hasn't come back to date. The difference between your story and mine? My aunt is an athiest and still is. She choose to see it as a medical anomily and not an act of a god. I believe that there is MUCH the medical sciences do not know yet and, hence, there is much they can't explain (yet). When someone dies for some unknown reason we don't assume it is the act of a god... rather it is an unexplained tradgedy. Conversly I believe when something wonderful happens to someone it is an unexplained happening... not an act of a god. >Secondly, to respond to your ideas of the lack of life after death, there [an out of body experience account deleted...] Very interesting indeed! I have read much on this subject myuself. I find the subject enormously interesting to say the least. One thing I notice, however, is that the VAST majority of near death experiences are *possitive* regardless of the persons religious or nonreligious beliefs. I am an agnostic... I believe there *may* be a god (although I'm skeptical), and there is almost certainly a dimension of existence that we as humans cannot percieve readily. However, I reject the Christian god (and by association the gods of Islam and Judaism) as well as the gods of Hinduism and Zoroanstrianism and Greek gods etc... because I believe them to be creations of men to serve human purposes (ie abating a fear of death by stating that you can obtain 'personal imortality' through this religion...) and I find fundamental flaws in their descriptions of their gods. >These stories are to be shared by all. I hope they make the agnostics >skeptics and the skeptics believers. I will not give up my faith nor will >I refuse to believe in life after death ever again. Nor will I. Although I readily admit I may be wrong... we'll all find out soon enough! Jeff Lindborg
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (02/08/91)
In article <Feb.2.22.30.07.1991.26888@athos.rutgers.edu> billy@tcom.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) writes: > > Fine. It might sound as if God is spiteful etc. in leaving people >t go to hell because they won't accept him. However I tend to think of >Hell as a place simply devoid of the presence of God. A place where there >is no love, friendship, compassion, mercy, kindness or anything normal >assiociated with being 'nice' (Not a good word i know, but English is sort >of a second language to me!) But Christ seems to indicate that hell is a place of punishment, not just mere separation from the perfection of God. The place is described a number of times throughout the New Testament as being somewhat more horific than that... > I tell you one thing for free. If there was no love, friendship, >compassion, mercy and kindness around me at all I would go crazy pretty >quick. Emotional deprivation aint something thats nice to experience >I shouldn't think. Nor would I! Which is why I prefer to believe that we cease to exist when we die... No senses, no sensory deprivation. > If Hell is a place mere devoid of Gods presence, thats fair enough. >Non-christians turned their backs on God when he offered them salvation, so >I think he's entitled (after trying just about everthing to turn them to >him) to turn away from them and leave them with out his presence, IE in >hell. I must, of course, take exception to your perception that God "did just about everything" to turn men to Him. I see no evidence of even the existence of God (or any god) today or throughout objective recorded history. If God were truely interested in saving as many humans from hell (of course he has the power to 'save' them all since he created hell in the first place) he would *at least* offer compelling evidence of his existence (he gave some of us very skeptical minds...). From there we could make a decision to 'accept' or 'reject' Him. I choose to 'reject' him because I beleive He is a fabrication of men. > Turning to the subject of religious wars, i'd like to ask a >question. Jesus mentioned turning the other cheek and the commandments >tell us not to murder. Is there then any precident for having a war >in the 'prince of peace''s name? I think not. Christianity has been >given a bad reputation by people using it as a banner. People like the Church itelf? Further, I'd have to ask where it says in the Bible that its ok to repress people for not being Christian. We see a lot of that throughout history and even today (up until the late 1950s, teachers of religions other than Christianity were not allowed to immigrate to the United States) Again, you could agrue that these people are not "true" Christians and are just "using" the name. But at some point it becomes so prevelant that one must ask if there is a basic flaw in the Christian "ethic" that allows these kinds of activities to be readily rationalized... > You won't find me fighting anything but ignorance and misunderstanding. Me too! > Drew. Jeff Lindborg He that is slow to believe anything and everything is of great understanding, for belief in one false principle is the beginning of all unwisdom. Infernal Diatribe II:7 (Satanic Bible)