From: utzoo!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!ariel!hou5f!hou5b!hou5c!hou5e!mat Newsgroups: net.religion Title: Coexistence Article-I.D.: hou5e.307 Posted: Fri Mar 25 13:01:51 1983 Received: Sat Mar 26 11:06:08 1983 References: unc.4823 Tim Marony's comments have irked me to reply ... although I will try not to flaAMEEE. Tim says: I don't happen to believe the Christian viewpoint -- in fact, I think it's pretty silly -- but I do recognize that from a Christian's viewpoint, the only consistent course of action is an attempt to convert everyone, ... Well, almost. We are told to go out and preach the good news (Gospel) to everyone. That may or may not be called converting, depending on whether you are looking to make it read as a ``snarl'' or as a ``purr'' (ie, positive or negative connotatons. ... so that they won't go to Hell. I don't believe that ANY of the older (mature?) Christian denominations (eg Roman C., Lutheran, Anglican, etc.) today claims that it it the ONLY road to salvation. After all, Jesus is recorded as sayng ``I have other sheep that are not of this fold''. No, I don't have a bible in my desk in whch to find the exact reference, although I rather suspect that is is in Matthew somewhere. A Christian who doesn't preach is showing insensitivity. No, based on the attitude that Tim presents above, a Crhistian who didn't preach would be guilty of negligently sending folks to eternal damnation. Do you expect a forum on religion in which no one tries to convince anyone else of anything? Not really, but I do hope that we can allow each other to express our views and to share them with others without excessive abuse. There ARE things which can be discussed; perhaps what I would like to see is a net.scripture_scholars, along, perhaps, with an occasional humorous article about the latest mail--order ministry tax dodge. In this context, there is nothing wrong with trying to convince anyone. On most newsgroups, we do that without persecution (except, perhaps, net.politics). Why the MzGfMbLe not here? The TV ministries are excellent examples of this; Jim Bakker and Jerry Falwell make it clear that the modern Christian's idea of persecution is being forced to peacefully coexist with people who believe differently from them. I can just imagine the early Christians hearing about a multi- million dollar TV ministry with gold-plated plumbing in the dressing rooms being "persecuted". A point very well made, but perhaps directed a bit too broadly. I consider myself a modern Christian, if not a very good one, and I don't go knocking on doors, or taking out ads in The Readers Digest (Specfic references to the Jehovah's Witnesses and the Mormons), although others may certainly do so if they please. Others may not feel that I am, but that isn't the point here. St. Paul (I think) instructs us that our most powerful tool to convinc others of the value of of our beliefs is our actions -- the quote is something like ``and they will say `See how these Christians love one another' ''. I think that Messrs. Falwell and Baker, et. al. should be viewed in this light. If their values, after you have examined them, are not worthy, then avoid them. On the other hand, if you don't believe in the premiss of a discussion perhaps you shouldn't try to disrupt it (Ignition accomplished). Why should an athiest try to inflict anti--thiestic views on folks who want to discuss the meaning of a scripture passage. I am not pointing fingers at anyone here Tim, so please don't take the comment wrongly. I just don't want to see this group taken over in a ``rabbitbimmler'' type raid. (Disable burners). To be more positive, what follows is the sort of thing that I for one would like to see on this group. The Catholic Gospel reading last Sunday was the well known story of the woman caught in adultery. For the uninitiated, here is a summary: The Pharisees bring to Jesus a woman cought in the act of adultery. They ask Him what should be done. Judaic law required that the criminal so caught be executed by stoning. Jesus bends down and begins to write on the ground witih His finger. After a little while, they pose the question again, and then a third time. Jesus replies ``Let the one among you that is without sin cast the first stone''. One by one the crowd disperses, starting with the elders. The celebrant at the Mass that I attended made some interesting points. Starting with the obvious: 1) Jesus was being placed in a damned-if-you-do, damned-if- you-don't situation. I believe that the chess players call this zugzwang. If He said ``Go ahaed'', not only would he have thrown away his reputation as a merciful God/hero/prophet/whatevere, but he would have been setting himself up for a fall under Roman law, which did not allow a person to take anothers life without the proper legal (Roman) authority. 2) Where was the man with whom the woman was caught? 3) Why did the elders leave first? 4) What was Jesus writing? Item two can be dismissed as a classic double standard -- and should probably be taken up elsewhere. Items three and four lead to an interesting piece of speculation: Could Jesus have been writing names, places, incidents, etc., which would have been embarrassing to individuals. Presumably the elders wouold have the most to lose. And Jesus might have put their failings at the top of the list so that the most effective troublemakers would be the first to leave. Another point of interest -- this event was ommitted from copies of the Gospel written in Greek. This may have been to avoid de-emphasisng the significance of sexual morality to the Greeks, whose sexual mores were not especially close to the Judeo--Chritian ideal. Mark Terribile hou5e!mat Duke of DeNet