Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: hobrien@pluton.matrox.com (Hugh O'Brien) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Non practicing RC with a few words to say. Message-ID: Date: 30 Jun 91 19:04:12 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: Matrox Ltd. Lines: 110 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu sc1u+@andrew.cmu.edu (Stephen Chan) writes: > Well, I'm a recently converted Roman Catholic. And I have an >opposing position to present. >hobrien@pluton.matrox.com (Hugh O'Brien) writes: >> I will stop here for now. However, I do have a few last words. >> The bible is just one of many books in the world, don't let it rule >> your life. Ultimately, "religion" is you, yourself. When you die, >> and if there is a judgement, then it will be based on who you are, >> and who you know yourself to be. > When you're a Christian, you essentially surrender >control of your life to God. You do not live for yourself, you live >for God, on borrowed time. God rules your life, not yourself. > In the words of Dietrich Bonheoffer (a Lutheran pastor) > "When Christ calls a man, he bids him come and die." "Surrendering control of your life to God" is a meaningless cop-out. It is just a code-word that says "Behave and think like we want you to behave and think like.". Sorry, not for me. > Christian religion (at least the variety which I practice) is >not concerned with "me", but with God. As I live, and when I die, I >will be judged by how closely my actions followed the will of God, not >on how my actions followed my own particular inclinations. How do you define the "will of God"? That expression means absolutely nothing to me. I will wager a guess that, like a broken record, you will refer back to God to define the "will of God". > In general, when people talk about good and evil, good is that >which fits within a visible, known framework of acceptable behavior. >Evil is that which does not. > So, even by conventional standards, you're essentially >promoting "evil" as being "good". Then you imply that conventional standards are "evil". Who says? Who are you or your "God" or your bible or your priest, to think that you can tell me that I am promoting "evil" when I am simply stating the obvious; be a good person and don't hurt others. You should be ashamed of yourself for saying this load of absolute crap. > In a Christian sense, when you, on your own personal >authority, declare that "so and so is good", you are trying to usurp >God's role as the sole foundation of good & evil value judgements. No I am not. I am saying that I believe myself to have enough common sense to differentiate between right and wrong. And, I have taken a leap of FAITH, that you are incapable of doing, that states "God, if it exists, is going to be a reasonable person and will properly treat the people of this earth who couldn't care less about all the organized religion 'song and dance' routines that some people seem to think must be done in order to make it into the afterlife." Also, I only claim to be able to judge my own actions, and not those of others. It you, however, that seem to be prepared to judge others, albeit under the guise of "God". > Under either definition, your argument pretty much on the evil side >of the line. Bullshit. > Given that possibility, are you willing to *literally* BET >YOUR LIFE on a set of principles uttered by a man who was crucified as >a criminal 2000 years ago? Are you telling me that if I don't take that chance, I may loose, and go to hell? In my opinion, the chance that I am taking, that God COULDN'T CARE LESS wether you are a Roman Catholic, Jew, Protestant, Moonie, Atheist, or Agnostic, or Buddist, or Hindu, or Muslem. That's my bet, and I feel it is a MUCH BETTER bet than yours. I will NEVER tell you not to practice your faith. But, I have a right to tell you what I think of your faith, especially the parts that I believe are HARMFUL to man. However, I resent you telling me that I am "misguided" and "evil". That's a load of rubbish, in my opinion. >> If this >> is true, then you must posess the moral strength to continue being >> a good, decent human being. > Most people just "go with the flow" of the society, and manage >to be considered good, decent human beings. > "Moral Strength" is only exhibitted by opposition to the >prevailing morality. Moral "strength" is NOT exhibitted by following >popular morality. > Today, pre-marital sex is very common. > Independence is the prevalent theme nowadays. > Traditional religion seems have picked up a stigma these days. > But folks who subscribe to popular morality are still >considered "good decent human beings". > Is this moral "strength"? Your use of quotations here is a pathetic joke. Yes, this IS moral strength. The moral strength to realize that pre-marital sex between two consenting people is their buisness ONLY, not your's, not the churchs'. Sometimes this will later cause problems for these people, and other times it will NOT. In fact, this beautiful act is a GOOD thing most of the time. It is a fundamental stepping stone towards proper emotional development. -- ............................................................................. Hugh O'Brien USENET:hobrien@matrox.com //// Pat Paulsen for president in '92. \\\\ .............................................................................