timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) (09/18/90)
In article <Sep.13.03.02.17.1990.24463@athos.rutgers.edu> daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: >In article <Sep.9.01.42.44.1990.9931@athos.rutgers.edu> timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: > >>>This brings up an interesting question. *Should* Christians join this >>>sort of activity? >> >>prayer, yes. in conjunction with those who ultimately are enemies of >>Christ's Church? emphatically not! > > These folks whom you call an enemy of "Christ's Church" does not > necessarly equate that a person is an "Enemy of Christ". Being > an "Enemy of Christ" and an enemy of "Christ's Church" are two > different things. If you're talking about some sort of earthly institution, I don't disagree. However, Christ *did* set up a church on earth ("The gates of Hell will not prevail against it"), and those who are the enemies of the Body of Christ are indeed enemies of Christ, in God's eyes. > But if you really get down to the grit of all of > this, those whom are being judged to be enemies of Christ's Church > are more than likely just ordinary people who do not believe in the > same outer beliefs as Christians do. So they really are not enemies > of Christ's Chruch at all. They just follow different outer belief > systems. I noted in another post that by Christ's yardstick, this is a moot point. Christ claimed Uniqueness: "*I* am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO ONE comes to the Father, but by Me." Basically, it doesn't matter what your "intentions" are, if you don't get it right. The path to the Kingdom of God is very very narrow. It's as narrow as the Cross on which Christ was crucified. > I have ran into very few people who really consider themselves > as an enemy of the Christian Church or that the Christian Church > is their enemy. And I have never, ever ran into a person who considered > Christ their enemy. I regret having come across as having a sort of "concrete pillbox" sort of mentality, since I don't hate people who do not believe what I believe. But Christ's claim to Uniqueness demands that a person investigate Him, and then decide either for or against Him. Christ's claim does not leave room for "gray areas." Those not for Him, are considered against Him. > What others do see is the sort of thought pattern > as exemplified by this series of articles as a very good example of what > they do not want to become. The energy that I see focused is full > of judgement as to what is in the hearts of others. To me it is very > sad because it is not the sort of attitude taught by Jesus Christ. You're right that Christ wanted to bring everyone to Him. But by claiming Uniqueness, Christ demands that we come to Him on *His* terms, not ours. If we are *for* Christ, we have abandoned all hope that anything but Christ *alone* can save us and bring us into the Kingdom of Heaven. > So, the thread of these postings I feel is a great demonstration of what > I find turns me (and others) away from Christianity the most. I don't > understanding why anyone would want to be apart of so much hate, fear and > judgement. To these eyes, it is just another wonderful demonstration of > the source of bigotry that is fed in the name of religion. Judgmental attitudes which have not basis in Scripture turn me off as well. I don't hate non-Christians, but by the same token, you must realize that my convictions won't allow me to say that "Well, it's ok, God will take you in even if you don't do what He wants." By the yardstick of Christianity, if I say this, I lie and am culpable for your blood at Judgement Day, by having misrepresented Christ, and His Uniqueness. > These kinds of > of thoughts give birth to movements like the KKK, neo-Nazis, the Inquisition > and so on. It's the very thought pattern that Jesus Christ DID NOT teach > in his ministry here on earth. Yet it is being hailed here as one that > every Christian should have. No. You associate faulty earthly institutions with Christ, which is not correct. No, Jesus did not teach those things, and it is very lamentable that Christians have failed in presenting Christ, rather than themselves. > The article by Tim Hoogasian talks as if the Christian should be at > war with all that is not Christian. He has placed the awareness as > though it is a war that Christians must fight with a "them against us" > attitude. It's not a "them against us" point, at least in terms of Christians out to destroy non-Christians. However, you must realize that to the Christian, Satan *DOES* wish to destroy the Body of Christ. You are thinking in terms of modern day Western "tolerance" ideas, which were hardly evident in the early days of Christianity, when someone calling himself a Christian literally put his life on the line by boldly saying that. Have you forgotten that the Romans put Christians into their Colesium (sp?) to be seen eaten by lions for the crowds entertainment? While I trust that that practice does not continue to this day, Satan still works to destroy the Body of Christ, or at least neutralize it. You have taken my reminder to Christians that there must be a demarcating line, and that the idea of "tolerance" of multiple religions is does not equal Christianity, and turned it into an accusation that I "hate" you. You must realize that while I don't hate you or some particular religion, I must be consistent with Christ's claim to Uniqueness. Man wants to believe there is a wide path to God's Eternal Kingdom, and that He'll be "tolerant" of their "mistakes", but this is clearly not Scriptural teaching. That is in fact the Original Lie that Satan used to play on Adam and Eve's desire to be wise, knowing Good from Evil. Satan told them that they would not die by defying God's command, but He lied and they chose to believe Satan, and rebelled. God's punishment was their cost. The path to the Kingdom of Heaven is *very* narrow. Many who call themselves "Christians" will *not* enter in. The label isn't what gets you in; yet we are Justified by God's Grace, not works. > But the Divine is at work with in all of us. We are ALL > children of God. You're taking a Biblical concept far out of context, which is something Satan is expert at - no, I'm not equating you with Satan. While what you say is true in itself, that's like saying a Ford Pinto and a BMW are both motorcars. The Pinto is obviously not the same as the BMW, however! Please don't misinterpret that. I'm not saying here that Christians are "better" than non-Christians. That's not true at all! I'm very much a sinner (sigh), unfortunately! But there is still very much a difference. I have been saved by the Grace of God, symbolized in Jesus Christ's blood. > But if all what is focused upon is a "them against us" > attitude, I see no room where one can see God at work with in others? Look at it from the other end of the yardstick. If it's "ok" for people to refuse Jesus, then for what purpose did He die on the Cross? If there are multiple paths to the Kingdom of Heaven, then God surely must be cruel and perverse for allowing Jesus to be slain for no purpose! > The only result I can see is hurt and destruction because of the > division that results with a judgemental attitude. You're missing the point! I'm not "judging" you as unfit for the Kingdom of God - only God has that authority. All I've done is to make very clear the point that unless you are *for* Christ, at the Day of Judgement you will be counted as *against* Him, and suffer the eternal consequences of that. Christians who waffle on drawing the line will also be held ac- countable by God for having blurred the line, and who can stand against God's Judgement? Personally, *I* don't want to have God asking me those sorts of questions. I already have enough I'll have to answer for. > I know first hand > of that hurt and distruction caused by the type of division that is > being touted here in the name of the Jesus Christ. And I have heard > many stories of hurt and destruction from others whom have also > ran across the division that is being exemplifed here. And I'll bet > many of you have also. Are you excluding me? I've run into that as well, by others who call themselves Christians. But you are missing the point, again. Unfortun- ately, it's all too easy for Christians to get in the way of Christ, and hence turn away non-Christians. If I've managed to do that, then I will have to answer to God for my poor presentation, and have no excuse. > Now, where is there room for loving your neighbor when instead division > and separation is being created with your neighbor because of this > judgemental attitude? How can the full force of the Beatitude's live > with in a heart that is filled full with judgement? Think of this example: if you had a child who was abusing some substance, would you say, "That's ok, it's his life"? Or would you want to get through to him and let him know where he was wrong? Is this being "judgemental"? > How can a person who > has chosen a spiritual path that is other than Christian be shown the > message of love that is the very essence of the teaching of Christ when > there is such a strong underlining tone of a judgemental attitude with > in those whom are claiming to carry the torch of Christ? I'm not "judging" you. But it *is* my job as a Christian to be aware of Satan's subtle attacks on Christianity and expose them for what they are. > I truly believe that any spiritual war that is to be fought is God's > war. When man gets involved with spiritual war, only bad can > come of it. That is why I feel that Christ came to bring love to > our hearts in the first place. We teach best by a direct demonstration > of love and understanding that originates from an open heart that is > filled with love. That is when the light of God shines forth from our > souls the most. Love for my fellow man is not exemplified by a "tolerant" attitude that denies that Christ is the *only* way into the Kingdom of Heaven. That attitude is ultimately cruel, because it says "Well, he's wrong, but he wants to go to Hell, and it's none of my business if he does or doesn't." > Look to your visions of Mother Teresa of Calcutta > for one practical working example of what I am trying to point to > as far as one manifesting that non-judgemental attitude in doing > God's work to bring us all together in Love and understanding, regardless > of the spiritual path of others. Do you think that Mother Teresa does not attempt to bring them to Christ, or that to her all "religions" are somehow equivalent? > It appears to me that if Satan IS at work here, it is in the division > that is being created between His children because of the sort of focus > that centers on and around the outer beliefs of others. To a degree, I'll go along with you. But on the other hand, let us just suppose for a moment that what Christ says about being the ONLY way is the literal truth. What position does that then place the Christian in when he comes in contact with those who suggest that it is NOT the truth? > If in nothing > else the one place where we can come together in agreement is in our getting > down on our knee's and actually pray together. (sigh) You've completely missed the point of what I was saying originally. I was not saying that coming together is not right. I *was* saying that an attitude of "it's all relative anyway" is patently false, and that Christians must resist the subtle siren call of that lie. Certainly Christ wants Christians to be the "salt of the earth", and draw others to him in love. But again, if I do not uphold my convictions, then what good are they? If "everything is relative", then why should anyone be interested in Christianity over anything else? > And from what I have been reading here, Christians can't even lower > their judgemental attitudes long enough even to that. Inevitably (unfortunately) Christians will offend some people. The Holy Spirit is grieved when this happens. But what you're asking Christians to do is to deny the Divinity and Uniqueness of Jesus Christ. You're at base asking us to lie about our convictions, in the name of "tolerance." I'm sorry, but I won't do that. Who is the truer friend - the one who tells the painful truth, or the one who covers up the truth in order to not "rock the boat"? > Now with that > in my sight, why on earth should I ever want to become a Christian? If it's all *relative*, why on earth should you ever want to become a Christian? If there is no uniqueness in Christianity, then why would anyone ever want any part of it? There are *many* religions that don't have such a narrow path to follow - if everything's relative, then *I* am the fool for not living it up and partaking of everything life offers! > Especially when I know and live with in the experience of God's > presence and grace with out the poison of a judgemental attitude that > is being fostered here. Christians have no authority to "judge" anyone - only God does. However, it is another thing ENTIRELY to not stand up for our beliefs. That way lies the sin of being ashamed of our Christianity, so that we will not stand up to defend it. That is hypocrisy, which deserves *everyone's* contempt. > I love God more than anything, and I see > my Beloved manifested everywhere. It causes me great pain to see > people whom claim to know God and His Love be the source of hurt > and destruction with their fellow human beings because of their clinging > to judgemental attitudes. > David Hatcher > > In fact one of the great challenges confronting modern > Christians is that of experiencing Christ in a non-Christian > culture. Precisely because Christianity claims to be a > universal religion we cannot shirk this challenge. > William Johnston > _The Inner Eye Of Love_ > > Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"
daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) (09/23/90)
Everything boils down to the following quotes. So to keep this posting short and the subject focused I am passing over all of the other stuff that Tim wrote. In article <Sep.18.04.51.03.1990.9369@athos.rutgers.edu> timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: >I noted in another post that by Christ's yardstick, this is a moot point. >Christ claimed Uniqueness: "*I* am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO >ONE comes to the Father, but by Me." And.... > But on the other hand, let us just >suppose for a moment that what Christ says about being the ONLY way is >the literal truth. What position does that then place the Christian in >when he comes in contact with those who suggest that it is NOT the truth? I've been wondering the same thing, especially when there are so many from other spiritual traditions who also know and live with in the Grace and Glory of God just as much an *any* Christian does. How could this be possible when the popular "literal interpretation" says otherwise? Think perhaps that there is a *spiritual* interpretation here that can not be seen because of a blindness caused by a focus on only the literal interpretation? I do. And rather the Christian likes it or not, people all over the world who are not Christian are ALSO very much aware of the presence of God, AND living with in His Grace and Glory. So, yes, I agree with you in that many Christians may be put into a position where they have to rethink what they believe is and what is not truth. The jest of all of this is that God works in many wonderious ways. And some of those ways in which God works just may not be with in the bounds that most (not all) Christians are familiar with. The Glories and Grace of God are boundless. Boundless has no bounds. And neither does God. I point to the saints and ordinary people of religions other than Christianity whom ALSO know God as proof of that point. David Hatcher In fact one of the great challenges confronting modern Christians is that of experiencing Christ in a non-Christian culture. Precisely because Christianity claims to be a universal religion we cannot shirk this challenge. William Johnston _The Inner Eye Of Love_
mike@maths.tcd.ie (Mike Rogers) (09/26/90)
In article <Sep.18.04.51.03.1990.9369@athos.rutgers.edu>, timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) wrote: >put his life on the line by boldly saying that. Have you forgotten that the >Romans put Christians into their Colesium (sp?) to be seen eaten by lions >for the crowds entertainment? Those bloody Romans! I had them figured as agents of Baalzebub the moment they set foot in Gaul. And how dare they set up an ordered society that vastly promoted the spread of Christianity, setting it apart from the other similiar Middle Eastern salvation cults that abounded at that time (Mithraism, Zoroastrianism, Gnosticism, etc). It's thanks to the Holy Roman Empire that Christianity survived at all. The Persians just weren't that tolerent. -- Mike Rogers, 6.3.3 TCD, D2, Eire. | Gardens of slime, rivers of muck, mike@hamilton.maths.tcd.ie (UNIX=>AOK)| Cast iron condoms, a telephone fu*k mike@tcdmath.uucp (UUCP=>oldie/goodie)| No private transport, no animals too, msrogers@vax1.tcd.ie(VMS => blergh) | the 21st century means melanomas for you
timv@cadfx.ccad.uiowa.edu (Timothy VanFosson) (09/26/90)
[This continues an exchange between David Hatcher and Tim Hoogasian on the subject of Christ as the only way. The problem is > there are so many > from other spiritual traditions who also know and live with in > the Grace and Glory of God just as much an *any* Christian does. Both Tim and David seem to believe that there is some need for rethinking what it means to say that Christ is the only way. --clh] No matter how much we might like to think that there are other ways to God than through accepting Jesus' death on the cross as payment for our sins, God has not left that option available. I accept Jesus' statement that He *alone* is the way, the truth, and the life at face value. Why? because there is no other "way" to God that pays the death penalty we have incurred because of our sin (...the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus... and ...all have sinned and fallen short of the glory... -Romans 6:23,3:23). No matter how "good", or "noble", or "well-intentioned" others may be, only Christians, definitially, have accepted Christ's sacrifice as payment for their sin, and thus have their death penalty paid for them. Conversely, anyone who accepts Jesus Christ as their savior and Lord, is a Christian, no matter what their background. So then, if you mean by "living with in His Grace and Glory" that they have accepted Christ, then we have no disagreement. But if you mean that they are nice, "religous" people who believe in God, but don't acknowledge Christ, then you are in conflict with the Bible. For even Satan believes that there is one God (I am not saying that others are Satanic, but rather that belief in one God does not constitute the qualification for communion with Him), and only those spirits which acknowledge Christ in the flesh are from God (1 John 4:1-3). > > The jest of all of this is that God works in many wonderious ways. > And some of those ways in which God works just may not be with in > the bounds that most (not all) Christians are familiar with. > > The Glories and Grace of God are boundless. Boundless has no bounds. > And neither does God. I point to the saints and ordinary people of > religions other than Christianity whom ALSO know God as proof of > that point. > I agree with you that God does work in many ways that are both wonderous and incomprehensible, even to Christians. But as far as boundless, God is, in fact, limited by His character. For instance, it is impossible for God to sin. By the same token, it is impossible for God to indicate that only through His Son can we be saved, and then allow other methods to suffice. God would be lying, and thus sinning. This depends, of course, on taking Jesus' words literally. I do so because of the reasons I outlined above, but also because the context of the verse does not lend itself to other interpretations. It is a direct answer to a direct question from one of His disciples. It is clear that Jesus meant that only through what was happening to Him could people be saved. Paul allows no other gospel (Galatians 1:6-9). John allows no other gospel (1 John 4). Peter allows no other gospel (1 Peter 2:1-8, all of 2 Peter). It is the *central* theme of Christianity, and the "capstone" against which we either stumble or which becomes precious to us, that Jesus, and Jesus alone, can rescue us from our sins. > > David Hatcher > > In fact one of the great challenges confronting modern > Christians is that of experiencing Christ in a non-Christian > culture. Precisely because Christianity claims to be a > universal religion we cannot shirk this challenge. > William Johnston > _The Inner Eye Of Love_ Yes, we must be able to pare our "beliefs" down to that which is truly Christian (the "fundamentals", if you will ;-) ), and not let our cultural baggage impede us in bringing Christ to those who do not know Him. But just as Paul did, we must preach Christ crucified as the cornerstone of salvation, and not as one of many alternatives. -- Timothy VanFosson E-mail : timv@ccad.uiowa.edu Senior Systems Analyst US Mail : CAD-Research University of Iowa 228 ERF Phone : (319) 335-5728 Iowa City, Iowa 52242
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (09/26/90)
In article <Sep.23.02.47.45.1990.4971@athos.rutgers.edu> daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: > > Everything boils down to the following quotes. So to keep this posting > short and the subject focused I am passing over all of the other stuff > that Tim wrote. > >In article <Sep.18.04.51.03.1990.9369@athos.rutgers.edu> timh@linus.uucp (Tim Hoogasian) writes: >>I noted in another post that by Christ's yardstick, this is a moot point. >>Christ claimed Uniqueness: "*I* am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. NO >>ONE comes to the Father, but by Me." > > And.... >> But on the other hand, let us just >>suppose for a moment that what Christ says about being the ONLY way is >>the literal truth. What position does that then place the Christian in >>when he comes in contact with those who suggest that it is NOT the truth? I don't believe it would place the Christian in any different position other than possibly not being able to respond convincingly. The Christian is still saved by the grace of God through the blood atonement of Jesus Christ. By denying that He is the only way..., you must also deny the aspect of Savior and Lord. > I've been wondering the same thing, especially when there are so many > from other spiritual traditions who also know and live with in > the Grace and Glory of God just as much an *any* Christian does. Who do you know (or should I say what recognizable groups) that live within the the Grace and Glory of God apart from being a Christian? The Bible recognizes what is known as common grace, "...for He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous."-Matt.5:45. This is distinct from saving grace and living within the glory of God which comes only through believing in Christ. > How could this be possible when the popular "literal interpretation" > says otherwise? Think perhaps that there is a *spiritual* > interpretation here that can not be seen because of a blindness > caused by a focus on only the literal interpretation? I do. Couldn't it be popular because it's true? The blindness not to believe was in every Christian before he saw that the literal interpretation was true. "And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God."--IICor.4:3,4. > And rather the Christian likes it or not, people all over the world > who are not Christian are ALSO very much aware of the presence of God, > AND living with in His Grace and Glory. So, yes, I agree with you in > that many Christians may be put into a position where they have to > rethink what they believe is and what is not truth. Any Christian will agree to everyone's awareness of God. "For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who supress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for god made it evident to them.--Rom.1:18,19. Now, I must ask, how are these non-Christians living within His grace and glory? By what standard of measure? By what authority do you derive this assumption? I ask this to find out the alternative of literal Biblical belief which is superior and worthy of rethinking what I (we) believe. Is the question now, what is truth? > The jest of all of this is that God works in many wonderious ways. > And some of those ways in which God works just may not be with in > the bounds that most (not all) Christians are familiar with. > The Glories and Grace of God are boundless. Boundless has no bounds. > And neither does God. I point to the saints and ordinary people of > religions other than Christianity whom ALSO know God as proof of > that point. > > David Hatcher > The glories and grace of God are boundless through Jesus Christ. Also boundless is God's judgement and wrath. I am relatively new to the net, so I don't know you very well yet, but am willing to dialog with you. I have one further question. Since God is holy, what provision for sin does a non Christian have? Gary Hipp
timv@cadfx.ccad.uiowa.edu (Timothy VanFosson) (09/27/90)
In an article I posted you added this comment: > [This continues an exchange between David Hatcher and Tim Hoogasian > on the subject of Christ as the only way. The problem is >> there are so many >> from other spiritual traditions who also know and live with in >> the Grace and Glory of God just as much an *any* Christian does. > Both Tim and David seem to believe that there is some need for > rethinking what it means to say that Christ is the only way. --clh] > I don't believe that we need to rethink whether or not Christ is the only way (in the sense that there may be other ways - which is what I believe David to be saying.). It may be a minor thing, but I don't want to be put in the position where others, from merely a cursory glance at my posting and your comment, are lead to believe that I am invalidating the gospel. My point, and I thought I made it clear :-), was that the only consistent biblical interpretation is that, in fact, He is the only way. I do believe, however, and this I think is different from what David is saying, that we need to be free of our culturally imposed "truths", e.g., to be a Christian you must only sing hymns, or ...you cannot dance. As Paul puts it, we must become all things to all men in the hope that in that way we might save some, i.e., to put our societal, cultural, and individual "bents" aside, never forgetting Christ curcified for our sin, so that we present the gospel in its purest and most acceptable (to the hearer) form. In other words, to present our message in such a way that Christ, and not *our* habits or background, becomes the issue on which people either stand or fall. That Christ is the only way is one of the biblical truths that must comprise that message. If you feel so inclined, could you post a note (perhaps, this one :-) to clarify my position.
timh@sun.com (10/01/90)
obviously, the original rhetorical question i asked about what position the Christian was in, when confronted by someone claiming that what Jesus said was not the literal truth, was extraordinarily misinterpreted! all i was saying was this: the Christian believes Jesus Christ is the Only Son of God, the Messiah, and that what He has said is Truth. when a Christian comes in contact with someone who denies this, the Christian's response must be dictated by his faith - *in other words*, the honest Christian must oppose (in a manner suitable to the particular situation) the statement(s) of those who deny the Divinity of Christ. Christians are called to not just be meek and mild sheep, we are called to be bold defenders of the faith! the Apostle Paul is a prime example: he had both a soft, caring heart for the Gentiles, and also was a bril- liant thinker and debater, who boldly took on those who propounded legalism, and other perversions of the Gospel. (the formal term is called "Apologetics".) in a more modern vein, C.S. Lewis was a great apologist for the Christian faith, outstandingly presented in his works (just to name a few) "Mere Christianity", and "The Case for Christianity". Josh McDowell is also another fantastic contemporary apologist for the faith, having written "Evidence that demands a Verdict", as well as his small paperback "More than a Carpenter". with the likes of these bold, brilliant men propounding the faith, who can say with conviction that Christians who make no compromise with the world are intellectual fools? --- -- Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!" ===============================================================================
dhosek@frigga.claremont.edu (Hosek, Donald A.) (10/03/90)
In article <Sep.30.20.32.17.1990.16142@athos.rutgers.edu>, ide!timh@sun.com writes... >the honest Christian must oppose (in a manner suitable to the particular >situation) the statement(s) of those who deny the Divinity of Christ. >Christians are called to not just be meek and mild sheep, we are called >to be bold defenders of the faith! the Apostle Paul is a prime example: >he had both a soft, caring heart for the Gentiles, and also was a bril- >liant thinker and debater, who boldly took on those who propounded >legalism, and other perversions of the Gospel. (the formal term is >called "Apologetics".) Actually, I suggest you read 2 Corinthians closely. Paul is concerned with people who call themselves Christians and do not live their lives as such. As for those who were not Christians, he said [rough paraphrase] that he would leave the judgement of them up to God (an interesting point to bring up to those who dispute the Catholic doctrine of "baptism of desire"). -dh --- Don Hosek TeX, LaTeX, and Metafont support, consulting dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu installation and production work. dhosek@ymir.bitnet Free Estimates. uunet!jarthur!ymir Phone: 714-625-0147 finger dhosek@ymir.claremont.edu for more info
kamphau@oktext.sbc.com (Mark Kamphaus) (10/03/90)
I find this entire thread very clearly explained in Romans beginning about 2:10. The Jews had the Law. Even though the gentiles did not there action revels that there is Law written in their hearts. By these laws they will be judged. Romans 3:20 says that the purpose of the Law is to show sin and none are made right by it. It removes all excuses and brings all under the judgement of God. Man's getting put right with God has nothing to do with the law (3:22) but salvation comes from faith in Christ. So yes, there are many "systems" that try to bring man into congruence with "his" law but none of them bring man to righteousness with God.
davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) (10/18/90)
In article <Sep.26.04.25.54.1990.2475@athos.rutgers.edu> garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) writes: > I have one further question. Since >God is holy, what provision for sin does a non Christian have? By the saving grace of a Holy God which is known and experienced with in and through all of that Holy God's Creation! That very same Creation is the ONLY Holy Scripture directly written by the hand of God. Personally, I can find no way in which the Glories found with in Christ can be separated from the glories found with in life itself. Even the saving Grace that Christians fine in Christ can be found and experienced with in and behind the emotions that drive and maintain life. All of life is saved. And we are apart of life. David Hatcher
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/19/90)
In article <Sep.23.02.47.45.1990.4971@athos.rutgers.edu> daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: > > And rather the Christian likes it or not, people all over the world > who are not Christian are ALSO very much aware of the presence of God, > AND living with in His Grace and Glory. So, yes, I agree with you in > that many Christians may be put into a position where they have to > rethink what they believe is and what is not truth. > > The Glories and Grace of God are boundless. Boundless has no bounds. > And neither does God. I point to the saints and ordinary people of > religions other than Christianity whom ALSO know God as proof of > that point. Okay, David, lets take a look at some of these other religions. I'll start with one that is rather large and influential within the Eastern traditions. From it have come a number of other religions. This religion is Hinduism. Some of the religions that have come from Hinduism are Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism. A precise definition of Hinduism is not easy because it has absorbed innumerable customs and concepts and has branched off into many other religions, some radically differnet from their source. There are so many schools of Hindu thought today that almost anything said about this vast religion must be qualified. Their major sacred texts are: the Vedas, Brahmans, Aranyakas, Upanishads, and Bhagavad-gita; the Rig Veda is probably the most important (it contains 1028 hymns to the gods). Today, there are a number of groups worldwide who are attempting to carry one or another of the Hindu sects to non-Hindus. Some of these groups are Transcendental Meditation, ISKCON, Divine Light Mission, to name only three. Generally, Hindus accept the following key concepts: 1. Three ways of salvation: knowledge, works, and devotion. 2. Doctrine of transmigration of the soul (reincarnation). Most Hindus consider that they have many incarnations ahead of them before they can find final slavation, although some sects believe that a gracious divinity will carry them along the way more quickly. 3. Karma (essentially, you get what your actions deserve; it is karma that keeps people chained to the wheel of (re)birth, life, death.) 4. Brahma(n) (impersonal cosmic power) 5. Atman (reality in individual forms) 6. Maya (the material world is not real) 7. Advaita (all things are part of Brahman) 8. Dharma (moral and religious duty) 9. Samsara (life is bondage under karma) While Brahma seems to be the main god, there are several others. In some cases, these other gods have far greater importance. They are: 1. Vishnu (the preserver) 2. Shiva (the destroyer) 3. Shakti (the great mother goddess) Now with this bevy of gods, which one is the God that you talk of, David? Personally, I do not recognize any of these gods. What I see here is a polytheistic and idolatrous religion based upon works. Out of the concept of karma came a view that permitted the formation of castes, which still is in effect today. There is no recognition of sin and moral guilt. Sin is an illusion. In fact, one guru, whose name escapes me right now, said that it was a sin to say that there are sinners. Well, what about Buddhism? Buddhism arose out of the atheistic strands of Hinduism current in India in the 6th century BC. Gautama, called "the Buddha" (Enlightened One), is said to have doiscovered that both the life of luxury and the life of extreme asceticism were of no use in gaining spiritual freedom; thus, he propounded the "Middle Way." His teaching, however, underwent many transformations. Again, there are many schools within Buddhism. The three major ones are: 1. Therevada: more austere of the schools. 2. Mahayana: developed a grandiose cosmology and a pantheon of semi-deities. 3. Zen: technically a Mahayana sect but has closer affinities with Therevada. I won't go into the Three Jewels of Buddhism to save space. The concepts that are key to Buddhism are: 1. Karma 2. Nirvana (the goal of human existence) 3. Dhukkha (suffering) 4. Anicca (impermanence) 5. Anatta (not-self [no permanent unchanged ego]) These come together in the Four Noble Truths: 1. Life is full of pain and suffering. 2. Suffering is caused by tanha (the desire or thirst for pleasure, existence, and property) 3. Suffering can be overcome by eliminating these cravings. 4. This is done by following the Eight-fold path. I won't list the Eight-fold path, again to save to space. There is no absolute God in Buddhism, although many have interpreted Buddhism as a search for God. The Buddha did not deny the existence of God outright, but said that the question of His existence "tends not to edification." That is, those seeking enlightenment need to concentrate on their own spiritual paths themselves rather then relying on an outside support. Many Buddhists believe the existence of suffering and evil in the world is evidence against belief in God. Although belief in an ultimate God is opposed by nearly all Buddhists, the Mahayana school developed notions of the Buddha as still existing for the sake of men and propounded the existence of many semi-divine beings, who came to be represented in art and have been revered in ways very similar to worship of Hindu gods. So where in Buddhism is the Grace and Glory of God? I don't see it. Again, I see a religion of works. But hear what God says through the Bible: "All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD [YHVH] hath laid on him [Jesus] the iniquity of us all." (Isaiah 53:6 KJV) "For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: not of works, lest any man should boast." (Ephesians 2:8, 9 KJV) "Then said they unto him, What shall we do, that we might work the works of God? Jesus answered and said unto them, This is the work of God, that ye believe on him whom he hath sent." (John 6:28-29 KJV) "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12 KJV) "Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6 KJV) "There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:1 KJV) Apart from Lord Jesus Christ, David, there is no salvation. Without Him there can be no way to God. And there is only one, true, and living God, for YHVH says that there are none other than Him, nor has He created any. And apart from YHVH there is no grace or glory. So again, I must ask, which other religion offers to mankind salvation and truth? What God is this that others know? Certainly the gods of the Hindus cannot qualify for they are many and YHVH knows them not. Further, YHVH says that He has not created any; He is the only one. But the way of salvation is clear: believe on Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior and repent. He then indwells you and cleanses you from all sin. There are no works involved in salvation. The works come afterward when you are empowered by the Holy Spirit. And those works will be of God for the Spirit indwells us both to will and to do the will and works of God. Because He lives, Gene Gross
davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) (10/28/90)
In article <Oct.19.04.20.21.1990.12780@paul.rutgers.edu> gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) writes: >In article <Sep.23.02.47.45.1990.4971@athos.rutgers.edu> daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: >> And rather the Christian likes it or not, people all over the world >> who are not Christian are ALSO very much aware of the presence of God, >> AND living with in His Grace and Glory. So, yes, I agree with you in >> that many Christians may be put into a position where they have to >> rethink what they believe is and what is not truth. >> >> The Glories and Grace of God are boundless. Boundless has no bounds. >> And neither does God. I point to the saints and ordinary people of >> religions other than Christianity whom ALSO know God as proof of >> that point. >Okay, David, lets take a look at some of these other religions. Your listings of the various aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism are not from where I'd compare religions. I feel a more correct place to look is with in and into the actual awakening of the heart that the adherents of those spiritual paths experience. The experience of God living with in ones soul reaches way beyond any defination as defined by man. Which is what you gave. I'm much more interested in the religious experience of God as God Himself is manifested with in the soul of man as the place to examine and compare religious truths. It's looking at God in people from the exact opposite pole from which you presented in your text. To look at the outer definitions is not looking at God as God is known and experienced from the soul opened to God. Nor is it looking at the place where God becomes alive for a person, again, that being with in in his soul. So looking into the souls of the Hindu and Buddhist, what is their hearts experiencing as they open their souls to the Divine? Tell me about the love they know and experience. Or how about the compassion and humbleness they grow to know and manifest. How do these things become alive with in them as they deal with social interactions of the poor and suffering? What are their fruits? Tell me about their prayer, and what they are knowing and experiencing as they raise above their mental concepts, while in deep prayer, and join with God as God is to Himself. Tell me of the Glory that they know? Or of the Love. Or of the changes they go through because of what they have touched. Or even "what" they have touched in their prayers. Tell me about religion as experienced in God, not religion as defined by man. I present this question as asked by Thomas Merton in _Zen and the Birds of Appetite_. If a Christian mystic has an experience which can be phenomenologically compared with a Zen experience, does it matter that the Christian in fact believes he is personally united with God and the Zen-man interprets his experience as Sunyata or the Void being aware of itself? David Hatcher
JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) (10/29/90)
In article <Oct.28.03.32.37.1990.25104@athos.rutgers.edu>, davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) says: > The experience of God living with in ones soul reaches way beyond >any defination as defined by man. Which is what you gave. I'm much >more interested in the religious experience of God as God Himself >is manifested with in the soul of man as the place to examine and >compare religious truths. So you're looking for a subjective answer to your question. How does religious feeling vary from Christianity to other religions? Well, I think you'll find that it is similar in most religions (allowing for some variation from the orgiastic to the philosophical). C.S. Lewis writes that the fullest religions have parts both "thick"-- orgiastic/emotional/mystical and "thin"--philosophical/rational. As most religions do have both (although there are exceptions, I'm sure), you are going to have to deal with both of them as you compare religions. > To look at the outer definitions is not looking at God as God is known >and experienced from the soul opened to God. Nor is it looking at the >place where God becomes alive for a person, again, that being with in >in his soul. Well, whatever the person believes in as a god will be experienced in the soul in a religious way. Whether it presents itself as a feeling of deep devotion or a passionate love of the divine, those feelings will occur in what I will call the "religious" center of the brain (for lack of a better term). So they will have some similarity. But what they believe to be the nature of their god will have a different effect on their actions and what attributes they assign to him. > Tell me about religion as experienced in God, not religion as >defined by man. Subjective = defined by man. I obviously cannot express what a Hindu or Buddhist or a Moslem experiences as God, as I don't have their unique experience. Neither can I give the experience of another Christian. I can only give my own experience of one night gazing at the stars, and being assured of the presence of a caring Creator. There are other experiences, but that one was a feeling of the presence of God. I'm inclined to be skeptical about it; I'd far rather use logical means of building my faith because logic seems more reliable than emotions. Faith is really the assumptions you make to build your logic on, and what is faith based on? Emotions? Guidance from God? I truly do not know, but I believe it is (in the case of Christianity) guided by God. I thus believe that while other religions may partially touch God, they are also being deceived by Satan who can manufacture religious emotions in people. > I present this question as asked by Thomas Merton in _Zen and the >Birds of Appetite_. > If a Christian mystic has an experience which can be > phenomenologically compared with a Zen experience, > does it matter that the Christian in fact believes > he is personally united with God and the Zen-man > interprets his experience as Sunyata or the Void > being aware of itself? Perhaps that could be because mystic feelings are mystic feelings, and therefore similar to each other rather than the religions having unity. > David Hatcher Joy Haftel "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh JKH107@PSUVM in the morning." --Psalms
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (11/02/90)
In article <Oct.29.02.28.17.1990.15400@athos.rutgers.edu>, JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes: > In article <Oct.28.03.32.37.1990.25104@athos.rutgers.edu>, > davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) says: > > > The experience of God living with in ones soul reaches way beyond > >any defination as defined by man. Which is what you gave. I'm much > >more interested in the religious experience of God as God Himself > >is manifested with in the soul of man as the place to examine and > >compare religious truths. > I believe that here, you are speaking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. While the Holy Spirit reaches everyone in some way or another, only those who have salvation are permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit. THus, those who subscribe to Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, etc. and therby do not have salvation do not have the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Thus, since there is no permanent manifestation of the Holy Spirit in people who have rejected salvation, there can be no comparison. Many people who were followers of Islam, Judiasm, etc. said that they performed their religion simply as a function of their lifestyle. It was expected that they perform mechanical acts such as facing in a certain direction while praying, etc. They say that they felt practically no connection to God, that is, until they became Christians and were indwelled by the Spirit. > that one was a feeling of the presence of God. I'm inclined to be > skeptical about it; I'd far rather use logical means of building my > faith because logic seems more reliable than emotions. WHile emotions cannot govern in developing faith, you have to be careful about using logic as a basis for faith. After all, by definition, faith in God defies the logic of man. The Bible says that the wisdom of God is foolishness to man. For example, Jesus said, (in John (?)) "If you have the faith of a mustard seed, you can say to that tree, 'get up, and run into the sea,' and the tree will uproot itself and run into the sea." Now, by human standards, it is not logical to believe that a tree will uproot itself and run into the sea just because you believe that God will grant such a request. Further, many religions, and Islam in particular, use logic as a means of explaining their faith and drawing others to their religion. I've lived with Islamic people for nearly five years (and of them has become a Christian, praise God!) and over and over again, I have heard things like "Islam explained medical facts that no one knew during the time of the Koran. So, isn't it logical to follow a religion that knew things like this?" To which I reply, "you can have 10 PHD's and still not make it to Heaven." "The devil has an amazing amount of knowledge, but he's not going to make it Heaven." >Faith is really > the assumptions you make to build your logic on, and what is faith based on? > Emotions? Guidance from God? I truly do not know, but I believe it is > (in the case of Christianity) guided by God. I certainly agree that faith is not based on emotions, but is instead based on guidance from God. Yet, faith is not assumption. If you only assume that your faith in God will prove you with whatever you request, then you need to do an inventory of your faith. Faith is not just assuming or not just believing, but instead faith is KNOWING. Yet, it is important that we have faith in God, not faith in faith. > I thus believe that > while other religions may partially touch God, they are also being deceived > by Satan who can manufacture religious emotions in people. > Exactly. As I mentioned above, people who have converted from other religions did not have a true relationship to God, yet they did have "religious" emotions which often convinced them that they could not leave their old religion. As one man told me "I felt something pulling at me from inside. Something was missing inside of me and I just couldn't find it. Yet, I went so long without Jesus because my mind just wouldn't let go of me." > > > > David Hatcher > > Joy Haftel "Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh > JKH107@PSUVM in the morning." --Psalms Elizabeth Tallant
timh@ide.com (Tim Hoogasian) (11/02/90)
In article <Oct.28.03.32.37.1990.25104@athos.rutgers.edu> davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) writes: > Your listings of the various aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism are >not from where I'd compare religions. well, given that Christianity is not a "religion", but a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, then Christianity cannot be "compared" as a "religion", by your terms. > The experience of God living with in ones soul reaches way beyond >any defination as defined by man. true enough. >Which is what you gave. says who? you? are you God, that you have *decreed* that the Bible is NOT the Word of God, and hence everything else is also "valid"? sounds like you've already decided in your own mind that everything is relative. which, according to Scripture, is false. it's like this, David. if i tell you that carrots are the only way to get nutrition, then you (i'm sure) can prove that's false. however, in the question of the Bible being the Word of God, there's no such question. it's either "true" or "false". if it's true, then there's no room for any other "path" to God. all religions can't be "true." they're mutually exclusive - Christianity certainly is exclusive of worldly "religions." (tell me, if *men* authored the Bible, then why should it be so exclusive of everything else? that's hardly characteristic of worldly religions...) > It's looking at God in people from the exact opposite pole from which >you presented in your text. you're making it again out to be all relative. so, you feel that all religions are equally valid, right? well, what's the relevence, then, of your original question? why should it matter what anyone's particular "experience" with God is? > To look at the outer definitions is not looking at God as God is known >and experienced from the soul opened to God. whose "outer" definitions, dave? again, your bias against the possibility that the Bible was authored by God, is showing flagrantly. how do you "know" the things you say are "true", if it's all relative anyway? that's not internally consistent - it doesn't wash. >What are their [non-Christians'] fruits? this has little to no bearing on the issue, david. there are many atheists who are "moral" people. do they also "know God", by their fruits, and will they, who have boldly denied His very existence, also be brought into Heaven? > Tell me about religion as experienced in God, not religion as >defined by man. (chuckle) "religion" IS defined by mankind, david. religion is man's attempt to find God, on man's terms, not God's. > If a Christian mystic has an experience which can be > phenomenologically compared with a Zen experience, > does it matter that the Christian in fact believes > he is personally united with God and the Zen-man > interprets his experience as Sunyata or the Void > being aware of itself? If Christianity's tenet is true, that Christ *alone* saves, exclusive of ANY other "path to God", then it matters *vitally*, david. if you work from the beginning assumption that there are no absolutes (which is a ridiculous thing to say, since that statement itself is absolutist!) then the Zen question is valid. However, if you believe there *are* absolutes set down by God, which Christianity maintains, then the Zen question is rubbish. By Christianity's very nature, it cannot be "reconciled" with any worldly religion. It is *exclusive* of all others. you're wasting your time, david, trying to mix water and oil. they just won't mix. they can't. -- Tim | ARPA: timh@ide.com Hoogasian | UUCP: sun!ide!timh (415) 543-0900 =============================================================================== #define DISCLAIMER "Are you nuts? I don't represent anyone, let alone myself!"
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (11/05/90)
David Hatcher replies to my posting: # Your listings of the various aspects of Hinduism and Buddhism are # not from where I'd compare religions. I feel a more correct place to # look is within and into the actual awakening of the heart that the # adherents of those spiritual paths experience. Out of the abundance of the heart one speaks, as it is written. And further, faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of God. What is written and taught is important, David. Apart from this, we have no idea who it is we are worshipping. Someone's idea of God might be a river, or a tree, or some other such nonsense. And the only way to know is to examine what they say and what they've written. Trying to get beyond this at this point creates a serious problem for me. I cannot speak for other Christians on this matter. The fact of the matter, David, is that these other religions do not worship the same God that I do. I do not find Jehovah God named among the many gods of Hinduism. Some Hindus proclaim one of their gods over another. This being the case, who then is God? The central teaching of the Buddha did not include any teaching of God, as I noted in what I posted earlier. From all the I have observed (and I spent time chanting with Buddhist in my days before Christ--over two years as a matter of fact), the Buddhist is not concerned with God in the same sense that Christians are. Let me quote the chant that is often heard: "To the Buddha for refuge I go; to the Dharma for refuge I go; to the Sanga for refuge I go." Not one of these is God. The Buddha is a man. The Dharma is his doctrine. The Sanga is the order of monks. For the Christian, God is our refuge, our real help in time of trouble. For us, God is personal and approachable, and He has made Himself knowable to us through Jesus Christ, His Only Begotten Son. God is external and the Creator of all that is, ever has been, and ever shall be. Even our meditation is upon Him and not ourselves. We are to meditate upon Him and His law (His Word) day and night. Through Jesus Christ I have access to the God and can delight in Him, and He in me. Now that I'm a Christian, the Spirit of this Living God indwells me. But before this there was nothing divine within me. And that the divine is within me is not of my own doing or merit--it is solely the work of a loving and merciful God. However, to be absolutely sure that I'm understood, this divine within me does not now, nor will it ever, make me a god for alone there is Jehovah God. There are no other gods or lords. The divine is in me so that I might have power to overcome sin and evil, but no that I might ascend to the throne of the Almighty, which sin felled Lucifer. My salvation is not of my own doing. It is the work of God unto His glory and honor. The only righteousness that I have is in the Lord Jesus Christ. My own righteousness is as filthy rags in the sight of our holy God. And though I have come to Jesus Christ, I am still a sinner for I must wage war with the flesh daily. For this reason, it is said that Christians are only sinners saved by grace. These other religions do not provide any means of dealing with sin. Some deny that sin exists. Others try to make sin to be a means of spiritual growth. The Bible says that sin separates us from the love of God that is in Jesus Christ. Sin destroyed our original relationship with God. Only the sacrifice of Jesus Christ, our propitiation for sin, is able to provide us with a means of restoring that relationship through grace and faith. It is not something that we can reach out for under our own works and grasp. Our works will never avail much without first the saving grace and faith that comes from God. If I were to teach anything other than this, I would be teaching another Gospel. But the facts are plain. For by grace are we saved, through faith; and that not of ourselves, it is a gift of God; not of works lest any person should boast. Thus, through salvation, we come into a right relationship with Jehovah God. And through the power of the indwelling Spirit, we have power to overcome the world and our flesh. Further, it must be noted that we are the children of God and brothers and sisters to the Son of God with whom we are also joint heirs. The Lord Jesus Christ is our God and Savior, our Friend and Brother. He indwells us through the Spirit. In this we have communion with the living God. You constantly ask how this is experienced within Christians. Let me say that for me, I experience God awake and asleep. When I lay down to sleep, His law is in my mind and in my heart. And when I awake in the morning, His law is in my mind and in my heart. When I work, my mind and heart are stayed upon Him who loved me so and gave Himself for me. When trouble threatens, I no longer fear for the God of my salvation is with me. When I pray, I know that He hears me and we commune together. His presence is ever abiding with me through each day and night. When I consider all that I have, I'm humbled before this great and living God that He even allows me to live one moment longer for I'm a sinner. It is only His grace that saves me. And this fills me with a love for my great Savior God that puts each day, each moment of the day, each trial and tribulation, in the proper perspective. I know that in Him I'm more that a conqueror, I have power to overcome this body of death and sin. And within Him, I have authority as a believer to do the things that Jesus did, and yes, even greater things, so it is written. And when I finally lay down to leave this world, I know that in the next moment I will behold the face of the one who is my Beloved. I will see Him in His glory, the glory He had from the Beginning. And I will rest safe and secure in His arms, for eternity. There is no karmic wheel for the Christian. I need not fear what for others is unknown for it is not unknown to a Christian. To be absent from the body is to be present with the Lord Jesus Christ. This is not an idle boast, it is truth that we can rely upon. There no other gods or lords that can do this for their followers. Where is the Buddha today? Where are the many gurus and swamis of Hinduism? Are they not all dead!? Yet, there stands Jesus Christ, alive and seated on the right hand of the Father. He is not dead. He arose in fulfillment of His promises. He is the firstborn of the resurrected. And we who are in Him are joint heirs with Him in glory or all that He inherits. In this world, there is much that frightens and confounds. But the Christian can be sure of this singular fact--God is upon His throne and in control. History will run the course that God has set before time for this world. And when the conclusion comes, all eyes will behold the true King and Lord of all. And at that time, all knees will bow and all tongues confess that Jesus is indeed Lord of lords, King of kings, and our great Savior God. Because He lives, Gene Gross
mib@geech.ai.mit.edu (Michael I. Bushnell) (11/06/90)
In article <Nov.2.04.04.01.1990.4511@porthos.rutgers.edu> timh@ide.com (Tim Hoogasian) writes:
it's like this, David. if i tell you that carrots are the only way to
get nutrition, then you (i'm sure) can prove that's false. however, in
the question of the Bible being the Word of God, there's no such question.
it's either "true" or "false". if it's true, then there's no room for
any other "path" to God. all religions can't be "true." they're mutually
exclusive - Christianity certainly is exclusive of worldly "religions."
(tell me, if *men* authored the Bible, then why should it be so exclusive
of everything else? that's hardly characteristic of worldly religions...)
I have a real problem with this phrase "worldly religions". Islam is
easily as exclusive as Christianity. Methinks Tim has never read the
Qu'ran. Read Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Ezra, and Nehemiah if you want a
picture of how exclusive Judaism is. Men *did* write the Bible.
Sorry.
--
Michael I. Bushnell \ This above all; to thine own self be true
LIBERTE, EGALITE, FRATERNITE \ And it must follow, as the night the day,
mike@unmvax.cs.unm.edu /\ Thou canst not be false to any man.
CARPE DIEM / \ Farewell: my blessing season this in thee!JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (11/06/90)
In article <Nov.2.04.04.01.1990.4511@porthos.rutgers.edu>, timh@ide.com (Tim Hoogasian) says: > >>What are their [non-Christians'] fruits? > >this has little to no bearing on the issue, david. there are many atheists >who are "moral" people. do they also "know God", by their fruits, and will >they, who have boldly denied His very existence, also be brought into Heaven? For an interesting (concurring) opinion on the matter, people might want to see "Nice Men versus New Men" (I think that's it) in C.S. Lewis' _Mere_ _Christianity_. On a related note, Does anyone know about any other Christian novelists/ Christian writers rather in the vein of C.S. Lewis? I'd like to have *someone* else to cite! (I realize that Lewis was remarkable, but there must be *someone*!) /-------------------------------------\ --Jenni |JMS111@PSUVM.psu.edu BITNET/Internet \--------------------------------\ |These opinions are not the property or responsibility of Penn State. | \-----------------------------------------------------------------------/
davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) (11/06/90)
In article <Nov.2.03.05.10.1990.3959@porthos.rutgers.edu> ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) writes: >In article <Oct.29.02.28.17.1990.15400@athos.rutgers.edu>, JKH107@psuvm.psu.edu (Joy Haftel) writes: >> In article <Oct.28.03.32.37.1990.25104@athos.rutgers.edu>, >> davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) says: >> >> > The experience of God living with in ones soul reaches way beyond >> >any defination as defined by man. Which is what you gave. I'm much >> >more interested in the religious experience of God as God Himself >> >is manifested with in the soul of man as the place to examine and >> >compare religious truths. >> >I believe that here, you are speaking of the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. >While the Holy Spirit reaches everyone in some way or another, only those >who have salvation are permanently indwelled by the Holy Spirit. > >THus, those who subscribe to Islam, Judiasm, Hinduism, etc. and therby do not >have salvation do not have the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Thus, >since there is no permanent manifestation of the Holy Spirit in people who >have rejected salvation, there can be no comparison. How do you tell if a person has the permanent indwelling of the Holy Spirit? Just because a person says that Jesus Christ is Lord does not mean that they are indwelled with the Holy Spirit? And I have come across a lot of Christians whom I did not feel much, if any, of Gods spirit manifesting from their being. Is every Christian indwelling with the Holy Spirit? I think not. How can you tell? And how can you tell that infact "you" are indwelled with the Holy Spirit? In asking others, all I have heard is that "you can tell". Well in reading about the saints, sages and mystics of the various religions, they talk about an inner experience of the indwelling of the Spirit of God. They say that they can tell also. And their poetry, the spiritual depths of their writings, their wisdom, and even their fruit point towards their knowing something of what they are talking about. Now other than empty claims of "it just can not be", I'd like to see someone here look into the heart of the lovers of God in other religions and share what they see. This is a spiritual inquiry of others of other paths that I point towards. It's spiritually looking AT what others are seeing, and seeing it how they see it. If no one is willing to do so, how can they honestly make claims that there is no permanent manifestation of the Holy Spirit in people who find God in spiritual paths that are not Christian? >Many people who were followers of Islam, Judiasm, etc. said that >they performed their religion simply as a function of their lifestyle. It >was expected that they perform mechanical acts such as facing in a certain >direction while praying, etc. They say that they felt practically no connection to God, >that is, until they became Christians and were indwelled by the Spirit. Not being a Christian, I come across folks who have left Christianity and come around looking for something more satisfying, spiritually speeking. To a lot of them, they felt that they were empty because they were expected to perform mechanical acts also. But Christianity IS NOT about mechanical acts. And neither are other religions when a person is truly searching for God! >Yet, it is important that we have faith >in God, not faith in faith. Amen!! >> I thus believe that >> while other religions may partially touch God, they are also being deceived >> by Satan who can manufacture religious emotions in people. Again I ask, other than claims, and in looking not at "religious emotions" but at the inner "experience" (not emotions, and not feelings either) of God, what are others of other paths knowing and experiencing. The following story is by the Sufi poet and saint Jelaluddin Rumi. This story may be technically wrong in the names he uses for the leaders of the Christian Church, but he does point towards an awareness of the Holy Spirit, along with an awareness of where many Christians direct their own thoughts. _The Jewish King, his Vazir, and the Christians_ A certain Jewish king use to persecute the Chistians, desiring to exterminate their faith. His Vazir persuaded him to try a stratagem, namely, to mutilate the Vizir himself, and expel him from his court, with the intent that he might take refuge with the Christians, and stir up mutual dissensions amungst them. The Vazir's suggestion was adopted. He fled to the Christians, and found no difficulty in persuading them that he had been treated in that barbarous way on account of his attachment to the Christian faith. He soon gained complete influence over them, and was accepted as a saintly martyr and divine teacher. Only a few discerning men divined his treachery; the majority were all deluded by him. The Christians were divided into twelve legions, and at the head of each was a captain. To each of these captains the Vazir gave secretly a volume of religious directions, taking care to make the direction in each volume different from and contradictory to those in the others. One volume injoined fasting, another charity, another faith, another works, and so on. Afterwares the Vizir withdrew into a cave, and refused to come out to instruct his disciples, in spite of all their intreaties. Calling the captains to him, he gave secret instruction to each to set himself up as his successor, and to be guided by the instruction in the volume secretly confided to him, and to slay all other claimants of the apostolic office. Having given these direction, he slew himself. In the event, each captain set himself up as the Vazirs successor, and the Christians were split up into many sects at enmity with one anther, even as the Vazir had intended. But the malicious scheme did not altogether succeed, as one faithful band cleaved the the name of "Ahmad"(see John 14:26) mentioned in the Gospel, and were thus saved from sharing the ruin of the rest. ------ Thank you, David Hatcher
ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) (11/08/90)
In article <Nov.5.22.13.28.1990.21350@athos.rutgers.edu>, davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) writes: > Having given these direction, he slew himself. In the event, each > captain set himself up as the Vazirs successor, and the Christians were > split up into many sects at enmity with one anther, even as the Vazir > had intended. But the malicious scheme did not altogether succeed, as > one faithful band cleaved the the name of "Ahmad"(see John 14:26) > mentioned in the Gospel, and were thus saved from sharing the ruin > of the rest. Ok, I saw John 14:26. It says But the "paraclete" (the Holy Spirit who the Father will send in my [Jesu's] name) will teach you all things and will bring to your remembrance everything I said to you. I can't find anything in this (or the Greek) that looks or sounds like "Ahmad". The reference seems to be the key point of the argument that the story exhibits some idea of the Holy Spirit. I imagine that quite a few people will be every bit as clueless here as I am; how is "Ahmad" related to that verse? -- The problem about real life is that moving one's knight to QB3 may always be replied to with a lob across the net. --Alasdair Macintyre.
davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) (11/09/90)
In article <Nov.7.22.20.21.1990.16723@athos.rutgers.edu> ok@goanna.cs.rmit.oz.au (Richard A. O'Keefe) writes: >In article <Nov.5.22.13.28.1990.21350@athos.rutgers.edu>, davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) writes: >> Having given these direction, he slew himself. In the event, each >> captain set himself up as the Vazirs successor, and the Christians were >> split up into many sects at enmity with one anther, even as the Vazir >> had intended. But the malicious scheme did not altogether succeed, as >> one faithful band cleaved the the name of "Ahmad"(see John 14:26) >> mentioned in the Gospel, and were thus saved from sharing the ruin >> of the rest. > >Ok, I saw John 14:26. It says > But the "paraclete" (the Holy Spirit who the Father will send > in my [Jesu's] name) will teach you all things and will bring > to your remembrance everything I said to you. >I can't find anything in this (or the Greek) that looks or sounds like >"Ahmad". The reference seems to be the key point of the argument that >the story exhibits some idea of the Holy Spirit. I imagine that quite >a few people will be every bit as clueless here as I am; how is "Ahmad" >related to that verse? There are a several levels of awareness here. One is at the level of being aware of the Holy Spirit itself. Another is more directed towards the fine tuned heart that is able to discern the lessons that the Holy Spirit teaches. That aspect of knowing and being aware of the Holy Spirit awakens the soul to Divine wisdom. Being directed directly by God and His spirit seems to bring forth an awareness of God in all aspects of one's life that makes it very easy to discern those who know God and those who do not. In following a teacher, minister or prophet, that is very important. David Hatcher And therefor lift up thy live to the cloud. Or rather let God draw thy love up to that cloud; and strive thou through the help of his grace to forget all other things. St. John of the Cross _The cloud of Unknowing_