[soc.religion.christian] A Scary thought, but I bet I get flamed anyway...!

agt@sun.com (Alan Troup) (07/06/89)

If at first you think that this belongs on talk.abortion, read on...

So, I just heard about the Webster decision.  I was pretty surprised, but
I guess I shouldn't have been.  I, like the news commentator on TV,
attributed religious intervention as one of the main reasons for the
decision.  Certainly, religious groups are gaining more and more power
these days...

But that's not the scary thought I was referring to in the subject.

It's so tough to call oneself a "Christian" these days.  So many 
religous groups and "religious" people do so many stupid things.  (Oral 
Roberts, Jim Bakkar, Jimmy Swaggart, etc..)  And now (cough) "pro-lifers".

Religion plays such an important part in our lives, no matter what
religion we are (or even if we're atheists).  I think that the Bible is
too important to be used as a tool so that certain people (or groups of
people) can get what they want.  Which is what is happening,

which leads us to the scary thought.

With all this nonsense going on in the name of "Christianity", pretty
soon the flow of the tide will reverse, and "anti-Christianity" will
be the theme of the Age.  I don't look forward to living in those times.

But if you think about it, it's already starting.

davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) (07/08/89)

In article <Jul.6.02.20.34.1989.7498@geneva.rutgers.edu> agt@sun.com (Alan Troup) writes:
>It's so tough to call oneself a "Christian" these days.  So many 
>religous groups and "religious" people do so many stupid things.
What you observe is exactly what God has predicted and told us via the
Scriptures. Matthew 24:24 tells us "For there shall arise false
Christs, and false prophets, and shall show great signs and wonders;
insomuch that, if {it were} possible, they shall deceive the very
elect.". 2 Corinthians 11:14-15 tells us "And no marvel; for Satan
himself is transformed into an angel of light. Therefore {it is} no
great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of
righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.". 2
Thessalonians 2:3-4 tells us "Let no man deceive you by any means: for
{that day shall not come}, except there come a falling away first, and
that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; Who opposeth and
exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped;
so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that
he is God.". What all these things boil down to is that, as the end
approaches, more and more things will be done both for and by Satan in
the name of God. The Scriptures teach that essentially all the
corporate church congregations will eventually become apostate. Even
though we are commanded to belong to a congregation (Hebrews 10:25
tells us "Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the
manner of some {is}; but exhorting {one another}: and so much the
more, as ye see the day approaching."), we are also commanded to leave
as soon as that congregation has ceased following the true Gospel
(Matthew 24:15-16 tells us "When ye therefore shall see the
abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in
the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:) Then let them
which be in Judaea flee into the mountains:"). Many people like to
look at things like the new age movement and declare that it is the
fulfillment of these types of prophecies. While it may be part of it,
God is telling us something much more serious; Christianity itself
will become the main forum for Satan's final attack.
 
God knows that our times are very, very tough. Philippians 1:29 tells
us "For unto you it is given in the behalf of Christ, not only to
believe on him, but also to suffer for his sake;". Matthew 10:22 tells
us "And ye shall be hated of all {men} for my name's sake: but he that
endureth to the end shall be saved.". We would do well to stand firm
in our belief and agree with King David in Psalm 16:8 where he says "I
have set the LORD always before me: because {he is} at my right hand,
I shall not be moved.". Colossians 3:1-3 admonishes us "If ye then be
risen with Christ, seek those things which are above, where Christ
sitteth on the right hand of God. Set your affection on things above,
not on things on the earth. For ye are dead, and your life is hid with
Christ in God.". God promises us in Deuteronomy 31:6 "Be strong and of
a good courage, fear not, nor be afraid of them: for the LORD thy God,
he {it is} that doth go with thee; he will not fail thee, nor forsake
thee.".
 
Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014
856 Grenon Avenue
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K2B 6G3

lab@uunet.uu.net (Lance Beckner) (07/15/89)

[This one is getting sort of marginal.  I really don't intend to
allow a discussion about the merits of abortion.  --clh]

In article <Jul.6.02.20.34.1989.7498@geneva.rutgers.edu>, agt@sun.com (Alan 
Troup) writes:

> But that's not the scary thought I was referring to in the subject.
> 
> It's so tough to call oneself a "Christian" these days.  So many 
> religous groups and "religious" people do so many stupid things.  (Oral 
> Roberts, Jim Bakkar, Jimmy Swaggart, etc..)  And now (cough) "pro-lifers".

You say that these pro-lifers are doing "stupid things".  I assume that you
are referring to their attempts to make abortion illegal.  You may be 
surprised to find out that I partially agree with you.  I think that 
abortions should be illegal.  But we also need to look at the consequences
of such a law.  The Missouri laws (upheld by the Supreme Court), prevent
any hospital or doctor that receives public funds from performing an abortion
unless the life of the mother is at stake.  Women who can afford to go to
a private doctor/hospital/clinic can still receive an abortion.  

This law will initially affect those on low incomes.  The end result of 
this will probably be an increase in the number of live births by low 
income, possibly very young, women.  This will result in an increase of 
individuals and families requiring state and federal aid.  These people 
will probably be living in "bad" parts of town where drugs, crime and 
violence are a way of life.  This is not a pretty picture.  The child that 
we spared from the horror of abortion grows up as an unwanted child.  He 
probably is being raised only by his mother, and will likely end up as a 
member of a gang.  I realize that I am being really negative here.  Not all
cases will be this bad, but some will be worse.  I don't think anyone would
disagree that there will be a substantial increase in the population of
welfare recipients.

What should a Christian "pro-lifer" do?

1)  We need to see the problem.

We need to realize that abortion is not THE problem.  Many Christians think
that abortion is THE problem today.  In fact, I think that the problem is
the same today as it always has been.  People need the Lord.  I realize 
that not everyone who hears the Gospel will respond to it.  But how many
of the Christians who stand all day on the front steps of the Supreme Court
would be willing to go door to door throughout Washington D.C. and share
Christ with complete strangers?  We stand out in public and scream about
the judgement of God and the wrath of God coming on this nation for its 
deeds.  But how often do we sit down and quietly tell someone about the 
love of God?

Someone who has come to Christ should want to live for Him.  This should
mean abstaining from a promiscuous lifestyle.  This would result in fewer
unwanted pregnancies.  God would also give them the strength they need in
dealing with a crisis pregnancy if one did occur.

2)  We need to *BE* the solution.

Scenario:  We make abortion illegal.  A young teenage girl (17 or 18 years)
gets pregnant.  Her parents throw her out of the house.  

What do we tell her?  "You made your bed, now lie in it?",  "You reap 
what you sow?"    

What about the baby?  Is he condemned to a life of poverty and resentment
because his mother made mistake?  

We Christians that are so "concerned" about the well being of the unborn 
baby, need to also be concerned once the baby is born.  We have excellent 
opportunities to put our faith to work and show God's love through our 
actions.  If we care so much about these poor babies, then we need be 
willing to do whatever it takes to help the babies (and their mothers) 
when in these crisis situations.  How can we be content knowing that 
we "saved" a baby's life, only to sentence him to a life of misery and
despair?  

How many people that are willing to be arrested as they lie limply in 
front of abortion clinics would also be willing to adopt a minority child 
and raise him/her as their own?  How many would be willing to take pregnant 
teenager into their home, skip summer vacation and use the money on pre-natal 
care instead?  How about free child care for babies whose mothers are trying
to complete their education so they can better provide for their baby?  

I am not implying that those who protest would not be willing to sacrifice
in these ways.  In fact, I don't personally know any of the people involved
in these protests.  But for every protestor, there are hundreds, maybe
even thousands, of Christians supporting their efforts.  All Christians
should be willing to do something to help.

So I don't think trying to illegalize abortion is "stupid".  However, I do
think it is stupid to assume that it will solve more problems than it 
creates.

So where can I go to volunteer my services?

Most cities have a "Crisis Pregnancy Center"  or similar organization that 
offers women help, support, medical care, etc.  Call the one nearest you
and get involved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
> Religion plays such an important part in our lives, no matter what
> religion we are (or even if we're atheists).  I think that the Bible is
> too important to be used as a tool so that certain people (or groups of
> people) can get what they want.  Which is what is happening,

All too often, Christians start following the "Christian agenda" rather
than following Christ.  Needless to say this is a mistake.

 
> which leads us to the scary thought.
> 
> With all this nonsense going on in the name of "Christianity", pretty
> soon the flow of the tide will reverse, and "anti-Christianity" will
> be the theme of the Age.  I don't look forward to living in those times.
> 
> But if you think about it, it's already starting.

Yes, it has already started.  And some of it is justified.  Jesus didn't 
tell us to go and tell all the nations how to live their lives.  He told
us to proclaim the Gospel to all the nations.  God does tell us (Christians)
how to live our lives.  But this comes AFTER knowing God.  You really can't
expect someone to live a Christian life without Christ.

Some people take the Bible and (their view of) politics, pour them into a 
pot, and stir up the "concoction".  What comes out is, in my opinion, a 
little hard to swallow.  It is my opinion, for example that the guilt or 
innocence of Oliver North has nothing to do with the Good News of God's 
saving grace.

Maybe we need to take another look at "Biblical" Christianity and stop 
trying to mold ourselves into our "cultural" Christianity.

In Christian friendship,
Lance
-- 
Lance A. Beckner                   INTERNET: lab@fibercom.com
FiberCom, Inc.                     UUCP: ...!uunet!fibercom!lab
P.O. Box 11966                     FAX: (703) 342-5961
Roanoke, VA  24022-1966            PHONE:  (703) 342-6700

cab@cbnews.att.com (Clarissa A. Rapp) (07/19/89)

In article <Jul.8.00.55.43.1989.2115@athos.rutgers.edu>, bnr-fos!bnr-public!davem@watmath.waterloo.edu (Dave Mielke) writes:
> Many people like to
> look at things like the new age movement and declare that it is the
> fulfillment of these types of prophecies. While it may be part of it,
> God is telling us something much more serious; Christianity itself
> will become the main forum for Satan's final attack.
>  
> Dave Mielke, 613-726-0014
> 856 Grenon Avenue
> Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
> K2B 6G3


I think you can safely argue the New Age IS an all out attack, although
it hasn't gathered much steam yet. The end goal of the New Age movement
is to do away with all believers of monotheistic religions. It is
thought that those of us that have these beliefs will "slow up" the
"evolutionary leap to higher consciousness" that New Agers think man
can achieve through his own power.

In some ways Christianity is already under attack. I see many instances
in which Christian beliefs are publicly ridiculed while beliefs of other
major faiths are not.

For more information on New Age, there are some excellent books out there.
One is "Understanding the New Age," another "Confronting the New Age"
both by Douglas Groothius. Also, pay attention to books and articles
that talk about a guy named "Lord Matrieya" who many believe is the
second coming of Christ, first coming of Christ to Jews, next Moslem
prophet, and next enlightened Buddha.

It says clearly in Revelation that when Christ does return, it will
be as Christ alone, and no doubt about it, not some Heinz 57 savior.
I would beware of claims this guy is the real thing!

Of course, as the original poster mentioned, publicly professing yourself
to be a Christian these days automatically puts you in bad company
in other people's minds.

Someone asked if being a "fundie" meant you go along with the
political conservative movement. 

A thousand times NO!!!!!!!!!

My fellowship is very fundamentalist and I consider myself one too.
But I disagree with MOST of what the "religious right" is trying to
accomplish. It bothers me that I am automatically put into that camp
by others who know little about what being a fundamentalist really means,
versus what is has been depicted to mean in simplistic terms.

C. Brower
AT&T - Columbus

perryc@forceps.sun.com (Perry Cross) (07/21/89)

	I'm not sure what "New Agers" advocate, but the idea that we
	must throw off the yoke of Christianity has its merits.  Much
	good has been accomplished by the use of the bible to guide
	one's life.  Christ was a good man, and I would hazard a guess
	that most of his followers were good.  But many of the basic tenets
	are rather cynical.

	Original sin is a destructive concept.  We are born with a clean
	slate, and its up to us to keep it clean.  That the bible teaches
	us different is an indication that its authors may have had
	ulterior motives.  Further, at some point man has to come to
	grips with live on this planet.  Dreaming of a wonderful life
	after death detracts from the issues that face us today.

	Another problem is the apparent binary nature of the creed.  The
	doctrine would be better served if belief in God were optional.
	After all, there may be other explanations for man's existence
	and people shouldn't be excluded on this point.

	It might be a good think piece to try and come up with ways
	that the bible is anti-human and find alternatives.  The bible
	would probably better serve man if it were a living document.
	Of course some may think I'm suggesting change for its own
	sake; that I'm bored with the same old scripture.  That would
	be missing the point.

	A more up-to-date version of creation, less reliance on the rath	
	of God, miracles, etc. might bring more people into re-evaluating
	and hopefully improving their secular existence.  Also, a
	socratic approach might be more helpful in internalizing the
	basic concepts.  Too much of the bible is anecdotal. 

	Society is becoming more sophisticated, and hence are religion
	needs to keep pace.  Fundementalists are an example of those
	who place too much emphasis on the book, its facts, and historical
	context, and often fail to grasp the message.  Taking the bible
	verbatim is a disservice to Christ's efforts.  It was a good
	starting point, but it may be running out of steam.

	I know these ideas may be a bit radical, and I'm by no means
	a theologian, but it would be nice if there was a more modern,
	cohesive document that incorporated an eclectic philosophy in
	a more challenging format.


	Perry

ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com (robert.switzer) (07/31/89)

From article <Jul.21.04.01.02.1989.2149@athos.rutgers.edu>, by perryc@forceps.sun.com (Perry Cross):
Status: RO

>...stuff deleted
> 
> 	Original sin is a destructive concept.  We are born with a clean
> 	slate, and its up to us to keep it clean.  That the bible teaches
> 	us different is an indication that its authors may have had
> 	ulterior motives.
The unsupported assertion that original sin is a destructive concept
reveals the potential ulterior motives of those who reject it.

>...stuff deleted
> 	I know these ideas may be a bit radical, and I'm by no means
> 	a theologian, but it would be nice if there was a more modern,
> 	cohesive document that incorporated an eclectic philosophy in
> 	a more challenging format.
It seems, based on your posting, that the bible provides enough of a challenge.
Although I'm sure there are counter examples, everyone I've talked to who
complain about biblical principles, do so because it conflicts with their
personal lifestyle.

It may be, for example, that our theological description of what
characterizes original sin is faulty.  The bible doesn't define the
technical term "original sin" the way we do.  (and no, I haven't
followed the discussion regarding this topic in this group...apologies
to all) I do, however, see the principle of (my concept of) original
sin operating in the lives of my children and the children of those
around me.

Shalom,
Robert Switzer

[As far as I know, the Bible doesn't use the term "original sin" at
all.  However it says various things that are summarized under that
doctrine. --clh]

zach@drutx.att.com (Zach Lewis) (07/31/89)

In article <Jul.21.04.01.02.1989.2149@athos.rutgers.edu>, perryc@forceps.sun.com (Perry Cross) writes:
> 
> 	I'm not sure what "New Agers" advocate, but the idea that we
> 	must throw off the yoke of Christianity has its merits.  Much
> 	good has been accomplished by the use of the bible to guide
> 	one's life.  Christ was a good man, and I would hazard a guess
> 	that most of his followers were good.  But many of the basic tenets
> 	are rather cynical.

The Bible does not call Jesus just a good man trying to show us how to live
but God trying to show us what He is really like and what He would
do if we would let Him.  The question that comes to my mind is if
God created me what does that mean when it comes to the way I should
Live ?  Does God know what will make me Happy and Healthy?  Can I
choose to not follow God's way and still be happy and healthy ?

When Ford built a car did he know what would keep it running at it's
best ?  How does that relate to God ?

> 
> 	Original sin is a destructive concept.  We are born with a clean
> 	slate, and its up to us to keep it clean.  That the bible teaches
> 	us different is an indication that its authors may have had
> 	ulterior motives.  Further, at some point man has to come to
> 	grips with live on this planet.  Dreaming of a wonderful life
> 	after death detracts from the issues that face us today.
> 

Sin is always misunderstood because the focus is almost always on what
someone did rather than a relationship.  When I use the word sin I
use it in it's original context of seperation from face to face
communion with God.  When a person is seperated from God he does bad things
that is plain an simple for me.  Adam and Eve in the garden chose to 
seperate from God and to do something that God had said would have
bad consequences.  Adam and Eve chose to say that God didn't know what he 
was talking about. They did it their way and we follow in their
footsteps doing it ourway.  

If I put water in the gas tank of my car will it run ?  Why ?
Did Ford design my car to run on water ?

Now if God is creator Does he know what is best for me ?

I say yes but the question of Original Sin is that at birth I didn't
know God and I had to learn to trust Him and put my faith in Him .
I was not born with a total trust in God.  That is Original Sin .
You see Adam and Eve broke that trust and since then we have had to
learn to trust God and to choose to trust him at all times.
at it's.

> 	Another problem is the apparent binary nature of the creed.  The
> 	doctrine would be better served if belief in God were optional.
> 	After all, there may be other explanations for man's existence
> 	and people shouldn't be excluded on this point.
> 

I am confused here because you can choose to not believe in God.
Belief in God does require a choice.  What are you trying to say ?
Are there not many people who have don't believe in God ?
Please explain this on further.

> 	It might be a good think piece to try and come up with ways
> 	that the bible is anti-human and find alternatives.  The bible
> 	would probably better serve man if it were a living document.
> 	Of course some may think I'm suggesting change for its own
> 	sake; that I'm bored with the same old scripture.  That would
> 	be missing the point.
> 

There is an living Bible and that is JESUS.  I would suggest that you
study the life of Christ in the Bible and  I would say read the book
of John because John was trying to show the world what God is like.
John pick out seven miracles that show what God is trust worthy.
John uses seven I AM statements to say specific things about God.
You are right when say that people lift up the Bible but leave out
the human.  God addressed this problem as JESUS.  Jesus didn't go
around with the so-called Bible scholars of his day he went to the
people meeting their needs both spiritual and physical.  God message
is a complete message of love that meets all our needs but we must
trust Him and not some man.

Study the life of Jesus in the book of John with the idea of learning
how God treated people, what God did for the people, How God treated those
who claimed to know him but didn't.

> 	A more up-to-date version of creation, less reliance on the rath	
> 	of God, miracles, etc. might bring more people into re-evaluating
> 	and hopefully improving their secular existence.  Also, a
> 	socratic approach might be more helpful in internalizing the
> 	basic concepts.  Too much of the bible is anecdotal. 
> 

Changing the Gospel will not make man better, Know God and trusting Him
will.  Sounds simple but I go back to the car story the only way I
can make sure my car runs well is to follow the instructions of
the builder of that car.

> 	Society is becoming more sophisticated, and hence are religion
> 	needs to keep pace.  Fundementalists are an example of those
> 	who place too much emphasis on the book, its facts, and historical
> 	context, and often fail to grasp the message.  Taking the bible
> 	verbatim is a disservice to Christ's efforts.  It was a good
> 	starting point, but it may be running out of steam.
> 

You are right that some time the forest is missed for all the trees but that
is not the Bible fault but the people who claimed to understand the Bible.
Remember in Jesus day many people claim to know the Bible but that didn't
know the author of the Bible when they saw Him.

> 	I know these ideas may be a bit radical, and I'm by no means
> 	a theologian, but it would be nice if there was a more modern,
> 	cohesive document that incorporated an eclectic philosophy in
> 	a more challenging format.
> 
> 
> 	Perry

The Bible is not a book to build a utopian society on earth but a book to
allow people to know God and his will for them which will make the
world a better place.  The Bible is not for me to beat you over the head
but for me to clean myself up an there by change the world by my living
what I know is right through faith in God.

Zac

hwt@watmath.waterloo.edu (Henry Troup) (07/31/89)

In article <Jul.21.04.01.02.1989.2149@athos.rutgers.edu> perryc@forceps.sun.com (Perry Cross) writes:
>
>	...Further, at some point man has to come to
>	grips with live on this planet.  Dreaming of a wonderful life
>	after death detracts from the issues that face us today.
>
Exactly.  Much of the practice of Christianity, whether it be scripturally
prescribed or not, is that of a mystery religion.  
 
I find it hard to reconcile those aspects of Christian religion with my
personal beliefs.  Much wrong has been done in this world by sincere
Christians, such as the Inquisition, and its successors, right up to 
today.  Medieval inquisitors killed freely, believing that if they saved
souls, nothing else mattered.
 
I cannot accept that as a position.  If I am my brother's keeper, I must
treat him with respect and kindness, even if I disagree with him. Similarly,
the guardianship of the Earth given to us in Genesis is not license to
exploit ruthlessly.
 
Essentially, I hold that the proper eercise of Christian life is to follow
God's will on earth, and not to be overly concerned with the next life.  I
think the parable of the talents could be cited to defend that point of view.
We are not commanded by Christ (nor even by Paul) to cloister ourselves,
preserving our souls by isolation but to go forth and work in the world.

This means that 'liberation theology' is right; the duty of Christians is
to right social wrongs, not to go to church on Sunday and take communion.

utgpu!bnr-vpa!bnr-fos!hwt%bnr-public | BNR is not 	| All that evil requires
hwt@bnr (BITNET/NETNORTH) 	     | responsible for 	| is that good men do
(613) 765-2337 (Voice)		     | my opinions	| nothing.

conan@jif.berkeley.edu (08/02/89)

In article <Jul.30.21.36.17.1989.854@geneva.rutgers.edu> ka2czu@cbnewsh.att.com (robert.switzer) writes:
>
>[As far as I know, the Bible doesn't use the term "original sin" at
>all.  However it says various things that are summarized under that
>doctrine. --clh]

The doctrine of original sin is (to the best of my knowledge) neither biblical
nor even apostolic in origin.  It was first formulated by Augustine as a 
philosophical "category" to describe the ongoing effects of the Fall.

[That depends upon what you mean by original sin.  Augustine certainly
did some philosophical work on the doctrine, and it would be going too
far to say that the Bible teaches exactly what Augustine does.
However take a look at I Cor 15:20 ff and Romans 5:12ff.  Paul clearly
had the idea that Adam's sin involved the rest of us in sin.  Rom 5:18
seems to say that Adam's guilt actually applies to us.  I think this
is close enough to Augustine's idea to be termed "original sin".
--clh]