Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!stanford.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: janet@cs.arizona.edu (Janet Kerr) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Standing back to observe Message-ID: Date: 17 Jun 91 00:31:45 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Lines: 40 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu I have been a "born-again" Christain for 10 years, I have a BA in Biblical Studies from an AG Bible College, I have served in the Church in various capacities. For 10 years I sincerely believed in all the appropriate doctrine to match the above. I say all this only for background information to whoever may be interested. Now, for some reason, I seem to be sort of "standing back and observing it all"...and wondering. I wonder who has a corner on the "truth" and how can they be so sure, except by their own understanding. I read the articles in this and the other "religious" groups and am puzzled by some of the entries....so seem so blastphemous, others so sincere, but all (that I have read) so sure of themselves. I feel a genuine need to sit back awhile, get away from it all (zealous well-meaning Christians) and try to get things in perspective. I don't want to argue with anyone issuing volumes of Biblical quotes, I've heard most of it. I just wonder if, on a human level, flesh and bone, if there are other sincere Christians who experience the same thing, who just want to do what is right but are weary of theological haggling. Janet [Yes. Including the moderator. I really wonder at times whether this group is a good thing. There seems to be no way for Christians of different perspectives to use the same forum without having doctrinal disagreements dominate. Personally I would prefer that when someone makes a non-doctrinal posting, doctrinal responses should not be allowed. While I have serious problems with the visions at Medjugorge, I would prefer to allow people to talk about them without having every posting result in a debate over Mariology. However in general our readers have not supported a rule of this type. It may be that soc.religion.christian.XXX, as in the proposal for soc.religion.christian.catholic, is the only solution (though having a Catholic group defined as including Episcopaleans may result in as many problems as it solves). There are some mailing lists that are more controlled, including at least a general Christian one, and lists for both Seventh-Day Adventists and Catholics (using the broad definition that includes Episcopaleans). Certainly I've come to know a lot more about other Christian traditions through participating in this group, and I'm glad for that. --clh]