daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) (09/17/90)
Forgive me and my insistance on keeping this subject going. But this thread has presented me an opportunity to express what I find most distastful with in the general attitude of the Christian tradition. Being apart of such an attitude is one of the prime reasons why I went to a path other than Christianty. I very much feel that this attitude causes hurt and separation between elements of God's own Creation. Our moderator wrote: > While we would like to avoid making >ultimate judgements against these people, when they are teaching what >we believe to be errors, we have a responsibility to make clear our >differences. When non-Christians do this very same thing though, they are called "Enemies of Christ" or that they are underminding Christianity. This thread has been a wonderful example of such tactics. Why create separation in this way? Isn't there a place where Christians can hold to their beliefs and still allow others to hold to theirs. Must the basic Christian posture be based on one of being opposed to that which is not Christian? What is with in the hearts of those whom are not Christian? Does the Christian even allow themselves the place where they can look? I do not bring this up to make points. I respect Charles too much to stoop to such levels. But I do see a very basic judgemental attitude from many Christians towards folks who hold to beliefs that differ. Even between it's own sects there is that basic judgemental attitude. Personally, I am very sad about this because that basic stance causes separation and hurt between elements of God's own Creation. I feel that Christians would be better off in finding ways in which we all could to come together in love. Instead, many seem bent on keeping a "them vs us" attitude which just breeds separation. And separation already is the cause of pain with in all of our souls. Why be the cause of even more? > But >I don't see how you can suggest that I should not oppose beliefs that ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >I believe to be wrong on issues that I belief matter. All I can do is speek for myself at this point. There are many issues that Christian's hold that I do not agree with. But I do not oppose any of those beliefs that Christians hold dear to their hearts. I have found out that when I do, and I used to, that what I was really doing was holding them in judgement of what "I" have perceived what should or should not be. I see no difference between that and in the general attitude that has come to light with in the responses to a call for a united prayer. In the real world where people are interfacing with each other, this has a very dangerious way of really separating people from each other. I've seen it over and over where a Christian sees another person wearing a crystal and in a flash there is that invisible wall thrown up between them, with that snide remark that invariably follows. Where a moment ago there was a chance of a friendship, now there's a wall of judgement and separation. I do not wear a crystal or anything, but I have had Christians tell me flat out that we could never be good friends because I am not Christian. In their hast to judge me, I have even been called a "newager". And I most definitely am NOT a newager. I feel that this basic posture is one that has its roots in what is a judgemental attitude. And my proof is that because of this posture, people are turning against people. And not because anyone actually did anything to the Christian. But in these cases, the Christian caused the separation because of what to me is that basic judgemental attitude that they hold in their hearts. It's the fruit and all of that that I'm look at here. To set up a though pattern of "I oppose", as presented above by Charles, can not help but place with in a person that funny way of not even wanting to look into the hearts of others to really seeing what they are about. To dangerious. One just might find out that God's presence is really very alive there. Personally, I have found that freeing myself from that sort of tension has allowed me to relate to other people much closer to the way I feel that Christ did. I also feel that that sort of freedom is part of what is being taught in the Sermon on the Mount. 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_ [Maybe we mean something different by oppose. I do not suggest that you should be stopped from believing or talking about things contrary to Christinaity. Rather, Christians have a duty to say what they believe, and to answer contrary claims. Part of this duty includes pointing out where things that have been confused with Christianity actually contradict it. This is not in principle different from what you do (including this posting): you argue for your viewpoint. I don't know whether you are an enemy of Christ in your heart. Only God is capable of making that judgement. That you are opposed to some significant Christian teachings however seems simply an observation of fact, which you yourself agree with. --clh]
paulb@midas.wr.tek.com (mst) (09/20/90)
In article <Sep.17.03.50.55.1990.17677@athos.rutgers.edu> daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: >Forgive me and my insistance on keeping this subject going. But this >thread has presented me an opportunity to express what I find most >distastful with in the general attitude of the Christian tradition. >>I don't see how you can suggest that I should not oppose beliefs that >>I believe to be wrong on issues that I belief matter. > > >[Maybe we mean something different by oppose. I do not suggest that >you should be stopped from believing or talking about things contrary >to Christinaity. Rather, Christians have a duty to say what they >believe, and to answer contrary claims. It has been often said that communicating the gospel is most effective within relationships. Let me make a corrolary to that: Disagreement over issues (especially religious) is usually only effective from within relationships/friendships. If I proclaim loudly (or quietly) to <insert your favorite group here>: "You are wrong.. so there! ... I won't pray with you .. you tool of Satan!", the chances of that statement having ANY good result in the hearer's ears is exceedingly slim. If on the other hand, I listen to a friend, explain and explore our differences, and let them know that I take THEM seriously, they may be able to hear what I say and I may be able to clarify my own understandings. (I might even find out that., Gasp!, I am wrong on some thinge :-). To those who started this discussion by calling on Christians to join in prayer for peace: 1. Yes, we differ on what true prayer is, and so probably can't engage in the same exercises, BUT: 2. thank you for challenging us to pray for peace. To those Christians who have so self-righteously used that request as a chance to condemn others, I have only the words of a marine drill seargent to paraphrase the deafening response of the net: I CAN'T HEAR YOU! By the way, as a `disciple` of C.S. Lewis and Francis Schaeffer I'm not exactly wishy-washy on theology.
daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) (09/20/90)
>[Maybe we mean something different by oppose. I do not suggest that >you should be stopped from believing or talking about things contrary >to Christinaity. Rather, Christians have a duty to say what they >believe, and to answer contrary claims. Part of this duty includes >pointing out where things that have been confused with Christianity >actually contradict it. This is not in principle different from what >you do (including this posting): you argue for your viewpoint. I >don't know whether you are an enemy of Christ in your heart. Only God >is capable of making that judgement. That you are opposed to some >significant Christian teachings however seems simply an observation of >fact, which you yourself agree with. --clh] I am not opposed to any of the Christian teachings that bring a person to know and experience, from their soul, the light and glory of God These are teachings were a person is brought to that place were they are in fact turning towards God with their hearts, mind and soul. What I am oppose to are the teachings that seem to cause division because the direction that those teachings take (which do not point towards the soul open to God) and the type of energy behind them (often anything but understanding of others) is the cause of separation between people. I can not see how these teachings actually cause one to turn their soul towards their Beloved. And in the same breath, I do not see how those teachings that do cause division between people fit into the teachings of Christ. And that is what I am opposed to. Even between elements of different sects with in Christianity itself, that very same force that causes division is actively at work. When it divides families, (and it does) it is the cause of distruction of the worst kind. And the Christian family is *very* divided. Why, if this is the body of Christ, is it set upon itself in such a distructive manor. It's as if Christ's own worst enemy is His very own Church! The whole energy of all of this is a distrator in that it turns a persons eyes everywhere except towards God. And I'm very opposed to that because it is in turning towards God that we reach out and become ever more human in our sense of humbleness and understanding that comes from an open heart filled with the love of God. I know for a fact that that attitude of "them vs us" need not be a Christian teaching. I know far to many Christians whom are open to and understanding of religious paths that are not Christian. And that attitude does not in the least take away from their own Christianity. One last thought, many of todays people whom are being labeled as the "Enemy of Christ" are going to other spiritual traditions because they are in need of a much deeper sence of spiriutal union with God than what they feel the Church is able to teach. They see the division that is being created by the teachings of the Church as the very force and energy that prevents one from opening up to that *spiritual* aspect that allows one to turn towards God with all of their hearts, minds and soul. There is a *spiritual* depth and experience of God that they hunger for. The Church does not seem to understand that hunger with the result that it not know how to satisfy those hunger pains. In response, it often sees them now as "Enemies of Christ". It's really all a miss-understanding of whats in their hearts, IMHO. David Hatcher A mystic is not a special kind of human being; rather, every human being is a special kind of mystic. Brother David Steindl-Rast _Gratefulness, the Heart of Prayer_
kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) (09/20/90)
In article <Sep.17.03.50.55.1990.17677@athos.rutgers.edu>, daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: > When non-Christians do this very same thing though, they > are called "Enemies of Christ" or that they are underminding > Christianity. This thread has been a wonderful example of such > tactics. Why create separation in this way? Isn't there a place where > Christians can hold to their beliefs and still allow others to > hold to theirs. You create a false dichotomy here. I do not know of (nor have I ever heard of) any Christian who actually does not ALLOW others to hold their own views (i.e. become a Christian or else). > There are many issues that Christian's hold that I do not agree > with. But I do not oppose any of those beliefs that Christians > hold dear to their hearts. Most Christian's hold dear to their hearts the words of the Bible. In the Bible, Jesus says "No one comes to the Father but by me." So either your statement above (1) indicates you do not oppose Christ's claim to salvation only through him or (2) it is false. If (1) is true, then why this call for ecumenism? (Clearly "salvation is found in no one else" is "separatist" by your definition.) I'm afraid by your statements in this posting, you DO oppose beliefs that Christian's hold dear to the hearts. All of Christ's words, along with the words of the disciples (Read Acts 4:12) are dear to Christian hearts. > Personally, I have found that freeing myself from that sort of > tension has allowed me to relate to other people much closer to > the way I feel that Christ did. I also feel that that sort of freedom > is part of what is being taught in the Sermon on the Mount. Many people with a theology that includes syncretism (all paths lead to God) also enjoy grabbing Jesus along for the ride. What sort of tension do Jesus words (from the Sermon you identify) bring in Matt 7:13-27. Jesus identifies: (1) TWO roads going SEPARATE ways (2) FALSE prophets vs. TRUE prophets (3) Those who do the Will of the Father vs. those who don't (those who will enter the kingdom vs. those who won't) (4) The wise man (who heeds his words) vs. the foolish who don't It is my estimation, according to what Jesus taught on the Sermon on the Mount, that you do not heed his words, for if you did you would be telling the world, at His command that "No one comes to the Father, but by Him". Of course you could teach me that the Christ is just an "office" and there have been many "Christs" etc, but by doing so you have just opposed my beliefs which I hold dear to my heart. This in turn, would bring a "wall" between you and me which you would have built. No matter which way you look at it, Christianity is not ecumenical. Either salvation is only through Jesus the Christ or it is not. Any calls to accept other's belief systems in the name of "harmony" and "peace" is nothing more than a disguised call to reject the words of Jesus Christ. This, only by the grace of God, I can not do. -- Kenneth J. Kutz Internet kutz@andy.bgsu.edu Systems Programmer BITNET KUTZ@ANDY University Computer Services UUCP ...!osu-cis!bgsuvax!kutz Bowling Green State Univ. US Mail 238 Math Science, BG OH 43403
mayne@vsserv.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) (09/23/90)
In article <Sep.17.03.50.55.1990.17677@athos.rutgers.edu> daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: >Forgive me and my insistance on keeping this subject going. But this >thread has presented me an opportunity to express what I find most >distastful with in the general attitude of the Christian tradition. >Being apart of such an attitude is one of the prime reasons why >I went to a path other than Christianty. I very much feel that >this attitude causes hurt and separation between elements of God's own >Creation. I too find this attitude distasteful, though this is not the reason why I am not a Christian. I try to not form opinions on matters of fact on the basis of whether or not I find something pleasant, but whether or not there is any reason to suppose it true. For me Christianity fails not so much on the former as on the latter point. Actually I believe that the attitude of intolerance and exclusivity you decry is not a matter of individuals' bad attitudes, but the logical consequence of traditional Christian belief. If a person believes the obvious meaning of many passages of scripture, all the creeds and official statements of churches up to and in some cases including modern times, the "church fathers", or any of the other traditional sources for Christian belief they have no other alternative but to condemn other religions and corruptions of Christianity. I say that even though you or I might find the "corruptions" like acceptance of much of modern science, respect for other traditions, and so on to be improvements. If someone accepts as true the plain teaching of Christianity that it is the only true religion and anyone deviating from it will suffer eternal punishment, while believers enjoy eternal reward there is just no room for compromise. Under these assumptions no worldly benefit can compare with the benefits of this religion. Hence every possible means should be used to propagate it. Similarly no harm done in this world can compare to the loss of souls. The Inquisition was not an abberation. It made perfect sense. It was only within the past few centuries, with the decline of secular enfluence of traditional Christian values that the idea of freedom of religion has won many followers. So although I abhor the attitudes of the fundamentalists (and intolerant Catholics and others) I give them credit for more intellectual honesty than liberal Christians who water down their religion beyond all recognition yet cling to the name "Christian." Bertrand Russell, describing an attempt to redefine God so as to be acceptable to some modern intellectuals said "People are more unwilling to give up the *word* 'God' than to give up the idea for which the word has hitherto stood." Similarly, most modern, rational, tolerant people who call themselves "Christian" are more unwilling to give up the name than what it has stood for for most of its history. This is a charge that can't so easily be made against bigots of the kind you were responding to. Hence I find myself in the uncomfortable position of appearing to defend what I, like you, find most distasteful. The comments of the moderator which you quoted, and which I leave below, distasteful as they are truely represent the Christian position. Rather than try to redefine it beyond all recognition I reject it outright. >Our moderator wrote: > >> While we would like to avoid making >>ultimate judgements against these people, when they are teaching what >>we believe to be errors, we have a responsibility to make clear our >>differences. Moderator: You might like to avoid making judgements, but your ideology forces you to do so. I will say, however, that most Christians are not as arbitrary and monstrous as they claim to believe their god to be. Postscript: Once when I made this same argument in conversation I was asked to define intellectual honesty, since I value it so much. Here is an attempt: Thinking through the logical consequences of your professed beliefs, and not shrinking from those consequences while still claiming to hold the beliefs. Yes, I find the logical consequences of Christianity both implausible and abhorent. Hence I forthrightly say that I am not a Christian. Bill Mayne Florida State University mayne@nu.cs.fsu.edu
lynn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lynn Klein) (09/26/90)
Sigh. I am so tired of this discussion. And I imagine I'm a part of the silent majority. I think that when my life ends, God is not going to give *one hoot* about what I believed, but will instead ask me, "Did you love? Whom did you love? How did you express it? Did you share the gifts I gave you with the poor? Did you do the works of mercy?" Lynn [In fact I have not been accepting new postings on the original question of whether it is proper to pray with non-Christians. I think we've done all we can with that issue. However this posting raises a somewhat broader issue. Before commenting on what you say, let me clarify what I mean by "belief" and "faith". Generally what the NT considers essential is faith. Belief may be a necessary precondition (or may not -- we can talk about that). But faith is more than just belief. Faith in God includes trust and obedience. At least in the Reformed tradition, faith is seen as essential. Actions take on religious significance when they are done in response to God -- in response to his love for us and in obedience to his call. The same action done in an attempt to build up a righteousness independent of God has a very different signifiance. I'm willing to listen to arguments that non-Christians can be saved, which is what you seem to be saying. But I'm very nervous when I see that argument being made by opposing belief to practice, as you seem to have done. Because of the common confusion of belief with faith, I have the nagging feeling that people who play off belief and action end up thinking that faith is not necessary. I'm willing to listen to arguments that say it is possible for someone to have an "anonymous faith" in God, i.e. even though they haven't heard or don't believe in God, somehow God manages to come to them, and they respond to him without realizing who they are responding to. But I'm worried that what I see in your posting is that it doens't matter whether they are responding to God at all: all that matters is that they do good things. Of course many Christians will go one step farther, and say that anonymous faith is impossible: there is no way to respond to God except through Christ, and there's no way to trust in Christ if you don't believe in him. --clh]
davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) (09/27/90)
In article <Sep.20.04.17.06.1990.19883@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: >In article <Sep.17.03.50.55.1990.17677@athos.rutgers.edu>, daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: > >> When non-Christians do this very same thing though, they >> are called "Enemies of Christ" or that they are underminding >> Christianity. This thread has been a wonderful example of such >> tactics. Why create separation in this way? Isn't there a place where >> Christians can hold to their beliefs and still allow others to >> hold to theirs. > >You create a false dichotomy here. I do not know of (nor have I ever heard >of) any Christian who actually does not ALLOW others to hold their own >views (i.e. become a Christian or else). I don't think I implyed a "or else" with in my posting. If I did, I am sorry. What I am pointing towards is the separation with in and between families and friends that is created because of the "Enemy of Christ" feeling that certain Christians hold towards folks who follow spiritual traditions that are other than Christian. The "or else" at least with in this time frame of history is not being pushed outwardly. It has in the past with death as the payment for the "or else". But what I'm pointing towards now is what happening to the person inwardly when they grasp that inner feeling that everyone *has* to become a Christian. The "or else" that is an aspect of that inner feeling has a way of bubbling up to manifest bigotry and separation. Now I do not feel that Christ likes the type of thinking that has a way of creating separation. I've seen a number of family ties broken up because of this over riding feeling. David Hatcher
johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) (10/01/90)
In article <Sep.23.04.13.29.1990.5899@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@vsserv.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: > >Postscript: Once when I made this same argument in conversation I was >asked to define intellectual honesty, since I value it so much. >Here is an attempt: Thinking through the logical consequences of >your professed beliefs, and not shrinking from those consequences while >still claiming to hold the beliefs. Yes, I find the logical consequences >of Christianity both implausible and abhorent. Hence I forthrightly say >that I am not a Christian. If you really want to be intellectually honest, then you MUST ask yourself, and find out with as much historical certainty as you can, whether Jesus rose from the dead and appeared afterward to his friends or not, since that is what Christianity bases itself upon. If Jesus did rise, then it is quite irrelevant to say that the logical consequences are implausible and abhorrent. You might as well sit on a traintrack and declare that it would be an outrage that the oncoming train should run over you. Don't start with the mistaken notion that miracles, of course, can't happen. It is more intellectually honest to suppose that they might. -John Warren "Into the narrow lanes, I can't stumble or stay put." -Dylan
garyh@crash.cts.com (Gary Hipp) (10/01/90)
[In the context of a discussion about praying with non-Christians, David Hatcher indicated a concern about divisions created by Christianity: > What I am pointing towards is the separation with in and between > families and friends that is created because of the "Enemy of Christ" > feeling that certain Christians hold towards folks who follow > spiritual traditions that are other than Christian.... > Now I do not feel that Christ likes the type of thinking that > has a way of creating separation. I've seen a number of family > ties broken up because of this over riding feeling. --clh] "If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sistes, yes, and even his own life, he cannot by my disciple." -Luke 14:26 The idea behind the verse is not hating one's family members, but the priority Jesus expect in the life of the Christian. Nothing is to be held in higher regard than one's relationship to Him as Lord. Sometimes this creates separation, even among family members, when one follows Christ and another follows self. A house divided against itself will not stand. --Gary Hipp
cms@gatech.edu (10/01/90)
In article <Sep.27.03.23.21.1990.14519@athos.rutgers.edu>, davidh@tektronix.tek.com (David L Hatcher) writes: > In article <Sep.20.04.17.06.1990.19883@athos.rutgers.edu> bgsuvax!kutz@cis.ohio-state.edu (Kenneth J. Kutz) writes: >>In article <Sep.17.03.50.55.1990.17677@athos.rutgers.edu>, daveh@tekcrl.labs.tek.com (David Hatcher) writes: >> > The "or else" at least with in this time frame of history is not > being pushed outwardly. It has in the past with death as the payment > for the "or else". But what I'm pointing towards now is what happening > to the person inwardly when they grasp that inner feeling that everyone > *has* to become a Christian. The "or else" that is an aspect of > that inner feeling has a way of bubbling up to manifest bigotry and > separation. > > Now I do not feel that Christ likes the type of thinking that > has a way of creating separation. I've seen a number of family > ties broken up because of this over riding feeling. Devout Christian feelings can be misused to create an atmosphere of "convert or else." The passage escapes me wherein Paul says those married to pagans should stay married and pray for the conversion of their spouses. At any rate, in Luke 12:51-53, Jesus says: "Do you think that I have come to establish peace on the earth? No, I tell you, but rather division. From now on a household of five will be divided, three against two and two against three; a father will be divided against his son and a son against his father, a mother against her daughter and a daughter against her mother, a mother-in-law against her daughter-in-law and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law." > David Hatcher -- Sincerely, Cindy Smith _///_ // SPAWN OF A JEWISH _///_ // _///_ // <`)= _<< CARPENTER _///_ //<`)= _<< <`)= _<< _///_ // \\\ \\ \\ _\\\_ <`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ <`)= _<< >IXOYE=('> \\\ \\ \\\ \\_///_ // // /// _///_ // _///_ // emory!dragon!cms <`)= _<< _///_ // <`)= _<< <`)= _<< \\\ \\<`)= _<< \\\ \\ \\\ \\ GO AGAINST THE FLOW! \\\ \\ A Real Live Catholic in Georgia
lynn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lynn Klein) (10/01/90)
Regarding my post that, when we die, God won't give one hoot about what we believe, but will instead ask how we practiced the works of mercy, and Charlie's response about the difference between belief and faith, and am I talking about just doing good works... I'm not trying to argue about saving Christians or non-Christians, and I am not talking about being nice at the workplace and giving to the United Fund, and I don't want to delve into a philosophical argument. I've spent years in a graduate theology program exploring these questions -- faith, belief, works, among others -- and the point I see is that we are commanded to *love* one another as God loves us. This means compassion, sharing, and taking sometimes frightening steps into true solidarity with those who suffer. We have much power and *incredible* wealth in the First World, specifically in the United States. We have a responsibility to share the blessings we've received with those who are poor and powerless and have no voice in this society, and empower them live a decent life. Haven't we all been taught that God especially loves the poor, the orphan, the widow? For the past several years I've worked with Central American refugees who have been tortured and had family members killed, simply for want of a decent life. Seeing the suffering of these friends I love has changed my life. The churches in Central America cry out to us for help and solidarity with their struggle. Knowing of the suffering of so many in this world, I have little patience with endless discussions of who to pray with and how to pray, and whether God can create a rock God can't lift. Why don't we talk about the *poor* on this net? Why is it always a personalized Christianity of "being saved," or philosophical discussions that degenerate into boxing the Holy Spirit into a text book? I continue to pray for all of you, and for the kind of world where it is easier to be good. Lynn Klein
sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu (Mark T. Sandrock) (10/03/90)
In article <Sep.30.19.56.17.1990.15737@athos.rutgers.edu> johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: > ... >Don't start with the mistaken notion that miracles, of course, >can't happen. It is more intellectually honest to suppose that >they might. > It all depends upon what one means by the word "miracle". I have experienced (what to me are) miracles in my own life, and I also know that many of the miracles attributed to Jesus did actually take place, although not necessarily all of them. I do believe, however, that *every* happening in Creation must necessarily take place within the framework of the Divine (or Natural) Laws. Jesus, Himself, also said: "I am come to fulfil the law, not to overthrow it." In the case of Lazarus, for example, it so happened that his soul had not yet severed itself from the physical body (the severing of the "silver cord"), and so it was *possible* for Jesus to call the soul back into the physical body. This happening is entirely in accordance with the Natural Laws which came into existence with Creation, and which govern every happening in Creation. If, on the other hand, the soul of Lazarus would have been already severed from the physical body, it would have been *impossible* for anyone, including Jesus Himself, to recall the soul back into the body. This is the Law. If one wants to say that "with God, all things are possible", then the narrow interpretation of this idea can be refuted, for instance, with the old saying: "Is it possible for God to make a stone He cannot lift?" This question is not so trivial as it might sound at first... The real meaning is this: "Can God act arbitrarily, against His Own Will?" The answer, of course, is that a perfect God could not and would not ever act against His Own Will. And since the Natural Laws are nothing other than the expression (or manifestation) of God's Will in Creation, it stands to reason that God could not and would not "violate" His Own Laws! This is why Jesus had to say that He had come to fulfil, not to overthrow the Law. To expect other from God is but a reflection of our own limited viewpoint, and is not (at least in my book) intellectually honest. It is actually based more upon wishful thinking than upon intellectually rigorous consideration of the nature of God and His wonderful Creation. Regards, Mark Sandrock P.S. The source of my knowledge is the work, "In the Light of Truth", the Grail Message, by Abd-ru-shin. And this work, not I, is the sole authority for questions of a spiritual nature. -- BITNET: sandrock@uiucscs Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Internet: sandrock@aries.scs.uiuc.edu Chemical Sciences Computing Services Voice: 217-244-0561 505 S. Mathews Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
gross@dg-rtp.dg.com (Gene Gross) (10/03/90)
In article <Sep.23.04.13.29.1990.5899@athos.rutgers.edu> mayne@vsserv.scri.fsu.edu (William (Bill) Mayne) writes: > >If someone accepts as true the plain teaching of Christianity that it >is the only true religion and anyone deviating from it will suffer >eternal punishment, while believers enjoy eternal reward there is just >no room for compromise. Under these assumptions no worldly benefit can >compare with the benefits of this religion. Hence every possible means >should be used to propagate it. Similarly no harm done in this world >can compare to the loss of souls. The Inquisition was not an abberation. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >It made perfect sense. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Bill: This was a most interesting post. However, I do have one thing that I do not quite know what to do with. I marked in the above paragraph. Frankly, it does not make perfect sense to me. Granted I essentially believe as you state that Jesus Christ is the only source of salvation. But I do not find anywhere that Jesus or the apostles commanded us to force others to believe. Let me quote a passage from Paul's second letter to young Timothy (2 Timothy 2:23-25, NIV): "Don't have anything to do with foolish and stupid arguments, because you know they produce quarrels. And the Lord's servant must not quarrel; instead he must be kind to everyone, able to teach, not resentful. Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth" I don't find some clarion call to go forth and slay the infidel or heretic. For the Christian, there is no holy war against the world. Against powers, principalities and spiritual wickedness in high places yes--but even that is not a war fought with fleshly weapons. So for me, the Inquisition was, and is, an abberation--just as the Crusades were, and are. Slaying those that do not believe does not save them. And the Catholic clergyman who is reported to have said to "Kill them all and let God sort them out." was dead wrong. The dead cannot choose Jesus Christ. And tortured confessions of faith are not confessions of faith at all. Any one convinced against his or her will remains unconvinced still. No, Bill, those were and will always remain abberations and not Christianity. Again, yours was an interesting posting. Thanks. Because He lives, Gene Gross [I'm not one to defend the Inquisition, which I agree was a serious abberation. But I should point out that its intended purpose was not to kill non-believers, or even force conversions, but to prevent heresy and backsliding of converts. It certainly killed people -- which the Church has no right to do (and indeed there was some show of turning people over to the civil authority for this purpose, with a completely hypocritical recommendation that the civil authorities have mercy on them) -- but as far as I know, they didn't just go around looking for all nonbelievers and say "convert or die". Again, the context of "kill them all -- God will know his own" (if it was ever said -- there's reason to think it's legendary) was an area under the control of supposedly dangerous heretics. The point was to prevent corruption of the Church, and it was felt that things had gotten so far out of hand that the only way to reestablish authority in the area was a military campaign. Everyone knows that war kills innocent people. At some point this seems the lesser of evils. There are good reasons to think that there were political and other unworthy motivations involved, and in any case the Church has no business conducting a war to purify its theology. But again, it wasn't quite an attempt to force conversion. --clh]
jrossi@jato.jpl.nasa.gov (Joe "Bart" Rossi) (10/04/90)
In article <Sep.30.19.56.17.1990.15737@athos.rutgers.edu> johnw@sag4.ssl.berkeley.edu (John Warren) writes: > >If you really want to be intellectually honest, then you MUST ask >yourself, and find out with as much historical certainty as you can, >whether Jesus rose from the dead and appeared afterward to his >friends or not, since that is what Christianity bases itself upon. >If Jesus did rise, then it is quite irrelevant to say that the >logical consequences are implausible and abhorrent. You might as >well sit on a traintrack and declare that it would be an outrage >that the oncoming train should run over you. In effect you're saying the Resurrection is a historical fact that can be *proven.* I can't honestly decide for the truth of historocity of the Resurrection intellectually, its only through faith from the heart that I lean towards it. The inconsistencies, and alternate explanations, as well as mankind's imagination, make an intellectual investigation lean against it. I was struck by the power of your metaphor. Upon reflection though it would seem that the argument against would be the abscence of any train. The person doesn't see an oncoming train...in fact the tracks are rusted. But the doomsdayer persists in insisting that there is a train headed right for him. -- "Only Universalists get to go to heaven."
howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) (10/07/90)
In article <Sep.30.21.21.52.1990.16735@athos.rutgers.edu> unisoft!lynn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Lynn Klein) writes: >Why don't we talk about the *poor* on this net? Why is it always >a personalized Christianity of "being saved," or philosophical >discussions that degenerate into boxing the Holy Spirit into a >text book? Because many radical (insert name of religion here) bypass the message of love, spend too much time seeking out evil and worrying about salvation, and too little time giving selflessly to others. It is often the case that people take much of their time judging whether another is worthy of their charity, rather than in need of it. / / / / / / / / / / :-(I Think, Therefore I Am, I Think :-) / / / / / / / / / / / Howard.Steel@Waterloo.NCR.COM NCR CANADA LTD. - 580 Weber St. N / / (519)884-1710 Ext 570 Waterloo, Ont., N2J 4G5 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /