Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: krueger@writeon.physics.arizona.edu (Theodore Krueger) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: 1st amendment (was: religious courses in a se Message-ID: Date: 24 May 91 04:24:10 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: University of Arizona, Telecommunications, Tucson AZ Lines: 66 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu In article jclark@sdcc6.ucsd.edu (John Clark) writes: >And why not. The 'just' war seems to have been an invention of >Augustine to allow the 'state' to become compatible with >Christianity. I disagree. If Judaism has a historical influence on Christianity (and I think that it does, since our God is the same guy as theirs) God (in the OT) has decreed many wars. I think that that would make them 'just'. It seems obvious to me that our disagreement is simply that we have different requirements for what would constitute a 'just' war. >As for the argument that 'silence == approval' or 'silence != >approval' that happens every where. I find it 'humorous' that so >many Christians lead off an attack against some other Christians by >the catchy label of 'liberal'. One would have to label the early >Christian martyrs as 'liberals' since they refused to maintain the >'status quo' or 'conserve' pagan values. Pardon me. I use the term 'liberal church' to include mostly churches who do not believe that the Bible is inherently correct (by correct I mean that any seeming inconsistencies come from our lack of understanding) and that also do not believe that it is necessary to be born again to get to heaven (my evidence -- "You must be born again." -- Jesus). I often get myself into trouble because I use labels instead of making long qualifying statements at the beginning of each new discussion. I do not mean to 'attack' the liberal church. I simply do not believe that most members of those will be in heaven because they are not taught (in many cases - I know that there are exceptions) the things necessary for salvation. I have a good friend (a professor of physics) who is a very conscientious man and wishes only kindness and peace to all creatures, who is a member of that liberal church (the one with the "It's a sin to pay for nuclear weapons" sign) and I think that it is a shame if his church is spending so much time talking about social issues that it neglects to teach its members about the essentials of salvation. Ted -- Be Excellent To Each Other [Since you don't say what church it is I can't comment on the particular church you have in mind. But I can say that I've had extended experience with two churches generally considered "liberal" (Presbyterian Church (USA) and United Methodist), and in both the essentials of salvation are taught, in a form I believe you would recognize. Whether everyone learns is a separate issue. As a teacher myself (in both church and university) I have to say that there are plenty of things that are taught clearly but not learned... It is perfectly possible to reject inerrancy, and still preach the Gospel. Many -- indeed I suspect most -- Christians who reject inerrancy do not believe that there are significant errors in the Bible, recognize themselves as sinners, and put their trust in Christ. There are certainly a few hysterical political activists in these churches, but I suspect there are extremists of one sort or another in most churches. (Personally, I find the anti-abortion activists very unattractive representatives of Christianity. But I do not take this as evidence that they are not saved.) It is not clear to me that saying "it is a sin to pay for nuclear weapons" is incompatible with a clear grasp of the Gospel. While I am not myself a pacifist, I think it would be pretty bizarre to regard support of nuclear arms as essential to salvation. --clh]