Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 exptools 1/6/84; site ihuxe.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!ihuxe!rainbow
From: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.singles
Subject: RE:Christians and Saints
Message-ID: <819@ihuxe.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 29-Aug-84 14:40:20 EDT
Article-I.D.: ihuxe.819
Posted: Wed Aug 29 14:40:20 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 30-Aug-84 02:04:06 EDT
Sender: rainbow@ihuxe.UUCP
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 119


> How did this get into net.singles?  

Well, there were a few articles in net.singles saying christians are saints.
Something to do with them being boring. Then there were a few counters. But no
one addressed the issue I found ridiculous. I did not know who to quote first.
And since people have been quick to anger in the past when I take something
out of context(even though it's okay for them to do so), I chose not to quote
anyone.

> I can't agree with this; many (by no means all, but quite a few) 
> non-Christians of
> my acquaintance like to do things which are self-destructive (e.g. getting
> thoroughly drunk or listening to the horribly peaceless, jarring "music" now
> audible on the top 40 stations), and they still (implicitly) defend them as
> good.  This is but one example which renders the "better class" judgment
> questionable.

I agree "better class" is subjective. The point is I do not hold vices such
as drinking or listening to loud music against anyone. Why should these have
any effect on my judgment of individuals? The important consideration for me
is how they treat others. This determines what class of people they belong in.

>Mind you, I sometimes do self-destructive things too, but I try not to
>pretend that what I'm doing is good.

I do not recall ever being told that I should participate in the above 
activities because they are good. They are done because they are fun and 
enjoyable for those involved. 

>I'd be curious to know what sort of church you went to.  Note my emphasis of
>the fact that it was the (nominal?) Christians *you were associated with* who
>misused their freedom; not all of us do that, at least not by conscious
>intention.  A great percentage of the Christians I know take Christ and His
>words seriously and try to follow Him; a number of them succeed rather well
>and are thus very beautiful people.

I think its best I not divulge the denomination of the church. It would be 
unfair to the vast number of other people with the same faith. Let it suffice
to say it was one of the most common.

I happen to have a theory about my observations. The teenagers I was 
associated with in my church were there not by choice. All had parents
who were highly visible members. I think the parents did something wrong
by forcing these kids to grow up in the way they saw proper. It turned them
into little devils. Too many restrictions or rules results in alienation
and a search for freedom. They turn out exactly opposite to what the parents
wished in their quest to become independent individuals. All they ever heard 
was you can't do this or that and must do these things. I could clearly see
that this was wrong. I was brought up differently. My parents were not church
goers. But they had the foresight to introduce me to the church environment.
They wanted to make sure I was exposed to all aspects of life. The decision
was always mine though. I went to church on my own accord for most of my
life. No pressure either way. I grew up with no restrictions and no rules 
with regard to anything. I thank my parents endlessly for this gift.
I no longer am a church goer. I chose that I no longer wanted to associate
with those people. I feel I can be a good if not better Christian without
a need to rely on a church. Even though the members claim to be Christians,
in my way of thinking they are not.

>There's a mixed bag on this net; some of the non-Christians certainly fit
>your description, but I wouldn't say the whole group does.  And I have 
>numerous Christian friends who are most understanding and considerate 
>(I admit that I have been variable in my postings to this group and in 
>"real life", sometimes very nice, other times a real S.O.B.).  
>Perhaps you were among "churchians" rather than Christians.

The underlining criteria of all this is everyone searches out for friends
of their choosing wherever they might be found. If not found one place, then
try another. I am in no way trying to stereotype groups here. I know there are
many counterexamples either way. I was just trying to dispel the myth that
being "Christian" implies being a "saint".

Your distinction between "churchians" and "Christians" is a good one. I like
it and agree. However just try telling them that(those that I was associated 
with). However it is a common belief that church goers implies being 
Christian(and I'm not talking about the multitudes of other religions).
That public view will be hard to change, so I didn't distinguish. I felt
all churchgoers were being grouped together as Christians.

I do not hold your or anyones "variable postings" against them. I even 
overlook SOB's when they have proper cause. I am not a believer in turning
the other cheek. When I am upset or disapprove of something, people will
know. I will not keep quiet and say I don't mind. I will voice my displeasure,
and usually not very pleasantly if I deem the situation appropriate. Otherwise
one is not taken seriously.

>> The christians acted so aloof that they thought they could do anything
>> because of course they would be forgiven. Like they had a free pass to 
>> do evil. It made me sick with disgust.

>It sickens me too.  I have a vague memory of someone saying that the Greek
>of one verse in Romans runs something like, "Shall we sin, that grace may
>abound?  HELL NO!"  Obviously the people you knew were ignoring this verse.
>The true meaning of Christian forgiveness is twofold:  one, that you try to
>do the best you can to follow Christ, but if you slip and fall, you are still
>accepted by God; two, that God will "remove your transgressions from you"
>(Psalm 103:12) literally -- i.e. He will change you into one less likely to
>slip.

Yes, what should be and what is reality are two different things. 
If I don't like something, I will just change my environment appropriately 
by removing the bad from it and replacing it with the good. I control my
own happiness and will not be dependent on anything else. I will not quietly
ignore things that irk me and fume inside. That is bad.

>> If these people are saints, well, I want nothing to do with them.

>I'm not sure I would either, other than to, as gently and lovingly as
>possible, point out that they're missing out on so much life and growth
>that they could have if they truly allowed Christ to work in them.

I cannot agree that those not associated with Christ are missing out on 
life and growth. Each must choose their own path. There is no right and wrong
way. However I do have the choice of who I take as friends. And I have the 
option to decide if I approve of the way they lead their life. However I
do not have the power to tell them they are wrong and should do it another way

Robert