[soc.religion.christian] Christians abetting Satan?

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     /
/ / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / /