Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site u1100s.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!spuxll!abnjh!u1100a!u1100s!sjs From: sjs@u1100s.UUCP (Stan J. Switzer) Newsgroups: net.religion,net.motss Subject: David Brunson, come on down Message-ID: <177@u1100s.UUCP> Date: Tue, 30-Oct-84 16:53:14 EST Article-I.D.: u1100s.177 Posted: Tue Oct 30 16:53:14 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 2-Nov-84 06:26:31 EST Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway, NJ Lines: 100 < Have you accepted the BUG as your personal savior? > /* * I have set this article aside a while to make sure I will not regret * having posted it. I may still regret it. However, it may not be as * relevant now as it would have been earlier. */ Over the past several months I have noticed two interesting discussions in net.religion and net.motss. In particular, I refer to the "church discipline" and the "morality of homosexuality" discussions. First, let me say that I believe that one belongs to a church because one is aligned with the beliefs of the church. If you do not believe as the church prescribes, go shopping. There are many churches and one might just fit your needs (or, perhaps better, you can do your own thinking). Let's assume that a church is very strongly opposed to drinking, and yet a member is a drunkard. It is the church's responsibility to attempt to help this man. If all efforts fail, then it is in the best interests of both parties to "exclude him from fellowship." Even if the man only occasionally drinks, but does so in a way that reduces the church's credibility (such as, oh no, drinking in public!), he should be rebuked, and if he does not repent, the church should kick him out. But for many Christians, there is a larger meaning to "church": the whole family of believers. When one member of this family tries to represent the whole family and presents a warped picture, it is the responsibility of the "church" to reprimand this person. In certain instances, which I will detail below, the failure of Christians to speak up against (or privately to the person first) such an offender gives him implicit approval. At the risk of drawing unintended flames, I will give an example. Hitler claimed to represent Christians. Had more people challenged his claim, tragedy might have been averted. This is just one of many such chapters in the history of Christianity. The incident reflects poorly on the "church" as a whole. Now. On to the next problem: Christianity and Morality. As I understand it, the Christian line goes as follows - We are all sinners, and therefore damned. - Christ died for those sins. (sacrificial lamb, etc.) - To be saved, you "accept Christ" (whatever that means -- the Holy Spirit has something to do with this.) - Otherwise, one is contemptable in God's eyes. IN PARTICULAR, A HOMOSEXUAL WHO IS NOT SAVED IS NO MORE CONTEMPTABLE THAN AN ATHEIST (or a Mormon, or a Jew, or any of a large number of beliefs which do not buy this particular line on salvation.) A person's morality does not make any difference until AFTER she is saved. David Brunson, come on down. You are the next contestant on "The Religion is Right." As a Christian, you should try to bring sinners to salvation. You should not persecute them. In your religion, a person's situation is BINARY: [Saved/NotSaved]. It does not further your cause to harass people because they sin. How can you "bear witness" to a person you do not even treat as human (or employ, etc.). Where does Brunson get off? God judges, and his judgment is binary. Who is Brunson that his discrimination (old, and perhaps newer meaning) is better than God's? I take it as a very bad sign that no Christians have fulfilled their RESPONSIBILITY to call Brunson to task. When Brunson speaks, he claims to be representing the Christian viewpoint. If YOU do not rebuke him, then I, and the rest of the free-thinking net will have to assume that you approve of Brunson, and that he does, in fact, speak for you. Now, if David wants to represent his point of view without dragging in the whole of Christendom, that is his option. But then he can move from net.religion(.christian) into net.flame where he belongs. Take THIS as a challenge: Speak up if you are a Christian and you do not want me to assume that David Brunson speaks for you. Or, if you DO agree with Brunson, go burn in net.flame. Thank you. P.S.: I accept your right to consider homosexuality, cohabitation, drinking, watching TV, dancing, etc. immoral. I do not accept that you have any right to legislate these beliefs or to discriminate based on them. I also do not accept that Christianity has anything to say about the morality of non-believers. Furthermore, it does not seem impossible to me that a homosexual might just be a Christian too (however, masochism IS a perversion). P.P.S: Don't get me wrong, some of my best friends are Christians. I'm just never seen with them. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Stan Switzer Now write 1000 times "I will not flame!" ihnp4!u1100s!sjs in vi: "oI will not flameyy999p"