Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site qantel.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxj!ihnp4!zehntel!dual!qantel!ken
From: ken@qantel.UUCP (Ken Nichols@ex6193)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: More replies to Ken (and general comments)
Message-ID: <264@qantel.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 26-Oct-84 13:06:56 EST
Article-I.D.: qantel.264
Posted: Fri Oct 26 13:06:56 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 28-Oct-84 05:40:53 EST
References: <488@pucc-k>
Organization: MDS Qantel, Hayward, CA
Lines: 83

Laurie writes,

> Ken writes....
> 
>>>Did Mohammed rise from the dead?  No, I don't think so. Jesus
>>>Christ did.
> 
> 
> Well, Ken, if you look hard enough, there are plenty of tales in
> which the gods and goddesses of the prominent religion of that
> region/time managed to pull that off. Should we all be worshipping
> Osiris?  Then I suppose you could say that *all those people* saw
> that Jesus rose from the dead.	Fine.  We also have a *lot* of
> people who said they saw Anne Boleyn have sex with her brother, and
> of course, we have all seen Uri Geller bend those spoons, Doug
> Henning make that elephant disappear....

But does your scepticism change the fact of Christ's resurection.  NO!
Just because you refuse to believe it doesn't change it's signifigance
at all.

>>>Their responses did not make any sense to you, but they might have
>>>if you had been shown by the Holy Spirit what they meant. The 
>>>things of the Bible are spiritually appraised.
> 
> 
> Oh, goodie, we're back to rationalisation.  The 'oh, you would A if
> only you did B' is one of the classic defences used by those who
> have no other way of convincing the other person that they are
> right.	By the implication of fault in the other person, they can
> find a way to believe their own views more fully.

I did not say 'if only you did B'.  You can't do anything to make yourself
understand the plan of salvation.  I said, 'if you had been shown by the Holy
Spirit'.  The Spirit is the one doing all the action.  You can't help yourself.
That is one of the major points of Christianity.  There is nothing that a man
can do to save himself.

> General comment time 
> 
> Apparently, there appear to be three different modes to the
> conversion/argument styles used by those who try to convert others
> or those who try to argue their persuasion in religious matters.
> 
> 
>      1.) The 'if you did A you would be B' arguement, as delineated
> 	 above

I discused this above.

>      2.) The 'oh, you poor thing, you don't believe in X, how could
> 	 know the rapture and truth involved'.  This is used when #1
> 	 fails.  It's a lot easier to say that the person couldn't
> 	 possibly understand what was going on, rather than trying
> 	 to come up with a more convincing arguement.

Could you please explain this argument more.  Maybe it's my fault, but I can't
follow it.

>      3.) The Rev. Johnson "you're going to burn in that nasty
> 	 place as defined by the tenets of my religion'. Obviously,
> 	 the person involved is such a heathen/infidel, that they
> 	 are soooooooo far from grace, that they possibly couldn't
> 	 understand what was going on.	This is different from #2,
> 	 as the person in question is being blamed by soemthing they
> 	 have done, rather than something they haven't done.

> Laurie Sefton
> {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,seismo}pur-ee!pucc-k!afo

No one is soooooo far from grace that they can't be reached.  The only time the
above response would be appropriate is if the non-christian in question has
blasphemed God or religious things.  It should be a short rebuke, and no malice
should be associated with it.  God still loves the vilest sinner, just not his
sin.

I'll be waiting to hear from you again.
-- 


"...holding forth the                              Ken Nichols
 word of life..." Phil. 2:16                       ...!ucbvax!dual!qantel!ken
------------