Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site utcsstat.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcsrgv!utcsstat!laura
From: laura@utcsstat.UUCP (Laura Creighton)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Various comments
Message-ID: <949@utcsstat.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 25-Aug-83 10:08:59 EDT
Article-I.D.: utcsstat.949
Posted: Thu Aug 25 10:08:59 1983
Date-Received: Fri, 26-Aug-83 08:11:43 EDT
References: <535@ihuxi.UUCP>
Organization: U. of Toronto, Canada
Lines: 62


There is a common tactic of saying "well anyone who is doing X, Y, and
Z, all of which we know to be rotten and calls himself a Christian
isn't really a Christian, and shouldn't call himself one". All this
does is define "A Christian" as "someone who doesn't do anything
abominable/sinful" or at best "someone who is TRYING to do nothing
which is abominable/sinful" There is of course, the constraint of
accepting Jesus Christ.

This is not incredibly useful. Most religions claim the same thing
about their followers. You can meet a lot of atheists and agnostics who
are claiming the same thing. (Of course, their constraint my be
accepting the Torah, or rationality, or any number of other gods, and
so on...)

Also, it provides Christians with a mechanism for 'abandoning' their
mistaken bretheren, although it is genrally claimed that the mistaken
ones have 'abandoned' the faith. Is it not now obvious that what
various Christian sects are using to differentiate themselves is their
own INTERPRETATION of what Christianity is all about.

This leads to problems. What do you do when your interpretation of
Christianity differs from your neighbour's? In practice, many people
shuffle from one Christian sect to another, and thus we have Catholics
who become Baptists in hopes of finding a more 'earthy' faith, while
other ex-Baptists are now Catholics due to the more 'intellectual'
attitude of traditional Catholicism towards religious matters.

What if this is not good enough? Suppose you want to keep your brand of
Christianity but sincerely believe that the Church leaders are wrong in
believing X which is a matter of doctrine? You have a real problem,
here.

In general, if you persist in opposing your Church leaders, you will
get yourself excommunicated (or its equivalent). This is nothing more
than an official abandoning with either regret or hatred. Generally,
Church officials are claimed to be 'closer to God' than the other
bretheren (though this is not universal) and thus their interpretation
is deemed to be more correct than that of the excommunicated member.

These days, the Spanish Inquisition, witch burners, and Saint
Stephen<?> (I may have the name wrong, and I cannot look it up here --
at any rate he is the one with the Children's Crusade.) have been
concluded to have had serious errors in their interpretation of
Christianity.  The problem is that IN THEIR TIME, these people had the
official sanction of THEIR RELIGIOUS LEADERS.The religious leaders thus
have been proven to be fallable (at least by current interpretation of
Christianity).

The people who were tortured and killed as heritics for refusing to
allow their relatives to be burnt as witches without a fight today
would be viewed as martyrs. Intheir day, they were considerd posessed
or damned. Since time makes such a difference in interpretation
it may be a little early to define what 'THE ONE TRUE CHRISTIANITY'
is. For instance, at my mother's church, people on 'pre-marital
courses' who admit that they intend to practice birth control, are
not allowed to marry with this sin unrepented. Clearly, today's
ministers believe that they have 'THE ONE TRUE CHRISTIANITY', but
in 100 years, their interpretaion, too may be considered a grave error.

Laura Creighton
utzoo!utcsstat!laura