Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbsck!cbscc!swc From: swc@cbscc.UUCP (Scott W. Collins) Newsgroups: net.religion.christian Subject: Re: Some Personal thoughts on coming to know God Message-ID: <5877@cbscc.UUCP> Date: Wed, 11-Sep-85 09:33:49 EDT Article-I.D.: cbscc.5877 Posted: Wed Sep 11 09:33:49 1985 Date-Received: Thu, 12-Sep-85 09:57:10 EDT Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus Lines: 142 ~ > From: on@hpda.UUCP (Owen Rowley) > Subject: Re: Some Personal thoughts on coming to know God > >Owen Rowley, replying to Peter Homeier< > First of all, you are dividing people up into two categories here, the > "christians" (it really sounds like you mean the "born again varietyof these) > and the "non-christians" (here it sounds like your saying if your not a > born-again then your not a christian). This last statement is true. No individual is truly a Christian unless they see that their current self is very defective insofar as it is (at least) clouded with doubt about life's truths and the purpose of life in general. This uncertainty leads to an inconsistent and even destructive life-style. An individual can then become anew (born-again, as you say) with a new life-center (John 3:7). People can be brought up in a Christian home, but will never automatically be a Christian; they must come to this point above. Therefore, all (biblical) Believers are "born-again". The kinds I think you mostly see are the newly-saved, adult variety (like me) who think they have something so new and neat that EVERYONE wants to hear about it. A weak comparison is a new that you have just obtained. Of course everyone wants to hear about it and how it works and how it makes you feel. But get a new perspective on life, and forget it, eh? > You equate the evangelistic model > with loving and every one else with not caring, I find it hard to take that > it could be as simple as this. what you refer to as inept attempts at "loving" > people I see as patronising and meddlesome behavior that infringes on my right > to think for myself . All Believers see the incredible truth and consistency in biblical love (see 1 Corinthians 13, I think you will like it), but few ever wholly implement it in their lives (including me). It is a tough thing to be very patient and sacrificial - many Christians want their prayers to happen overnight sometimes, or at all, for that matter. > I have had it up to my crown chakra with smug xtians > who insist that if I don't live up to the code of their holy book then I will > be held accountable by their God. It is admirable to believe deeply in the > religious system of your choice , it is the height of ignorance to demand that > everyone else believe as you do. I see the christian experience as a gigantic > energy rip-off, guilt is heaped on the unsupecting believer by declaring > that certain actions are sins (you don't need to make a sin out of things that > people don't want to do) reinforcing a belief that human nature is inherently > evil, and then provide an exit from the inevitable punishment that is threatened > by letting you purchase your way out with your devotion or your cash or both. If this is the view that was presented to you, then, although it has some underlying truths, it was not witnessed to you very well. The main thrust of the Bible is that NONE of us can live up to the "code" of God (law), but can only attempt to. The only way to appropriate salvation is through His grace. This is clearly the intention of both the Old and New Testaments. The above kind of evangelism you mention is quite ineffective much less unbiblical. You can see this kind of tactic used in many areas. I can have a product that makes head hair grow like a hamster's (call it 'Gerbal-Life'), but if I brow-beat bald men into buying the stuff, it won't sell ("buy it or go around looking like a cue ball for the rest of your shiny life..."). Consider, at best we have a bunch of 'fanatics' that have truly found something totally worthwhile or that they are living a (possibly good-intentioned) lie. In either case, imperfect beings will express what they've found rather inefficiently: tainted with emotion, imperfect expression, etc. Please try to look at the message and not the messenger. If you agree that the first sentence is likely, then you owe it to yourself to at least look into the doctrine, if for no reason except to disprove us. Then you will either be pleasantly surprised (and miffed at us for misrepresenting the way-it-otta-be) or you will be gratified to be prepared for others down the road who will start "waving bibles" at you. > Now thats how I feel about it but I don't expect anybody else to accept my > words as anything other than my opinion. Ideally, neither should I. I would hope that others will seriously CONSIDER my opinion in case it bears truth. It is just THAT: my opinion, whether it is based upon universally correct thinking or not. I will fail to intrigue most of the time if I claim the market on truth (only Christ could claim this ...er, in my opinion). Instead, I should exhibit exemplary behavior and try to pique your curiosity so that you will investigate the stuff on your own accord, so that you may make your own, unforced decision one way or t'other. (I wish car salesmen would try this...) I doubt that you can claim that you've done this (and have given it justice) as you seem to think that you would be expected to live up to the "code". > > Please be aware that the experience you describe is not unique , its not even > unique to christianity. In fact any accomplished Magician or Hypnotist can > take you through the same set of experiences under a multitude of guises. > Many religious movements (often branded as cults) use the same methods > to gather converts and the de-programming process that is required to break > the conditioning that results has been a subject of controversy too lengthy > to go into now (though I would love to start a discussion of it at another time) Ah, but how many of these things bear the lasting 'fruit' that the Holy Spirit has for many lives (present and past)? Feelings and emotions are stimulated by a variety of sources and hence can be very similar and fleeting. Therefore, as the Bible warns, beware of false doctrines and wolves that come in sheep's clothing. A Christian's love and faith are proven by the fruit, the outward consistency, that reflects the claims of his/her beliefs. > I understand that what you really want is to get out the "Good Word" > to the heathen and thereby save them from damnation. The problem with this > is that your logic in doing so is a closed loop with no place for points > of view that are outside of your own trip. Your story was certainly well > told and the elements of spiritual discovery orchestrated by a veritable > symphony of testament designed to be inspiring to those who ardently seek > solace from doubt and the purgatory of disbelief. However you left no room > for the seekers who find their truth on the bank of a different river. You seem to feel that Christianity is a refuge for refugees, a crutch for the lame who cannot stand on their own. Although it CAN be obtained by the weak as well as the strong, it is not an opiate of the populace. A lot of Christians feel that the Good News is the Penicillin for a bunch of infected people (who don't know/admit that they are infected), rather than simply Novacaine for the pained. Note that the Penicillin can remedy the pain, too. But more importantly, it is a cure for the disease (or a way to live with it and not by it) as opposed to a numbing agent for the symptoms. I have internalized the 'cure' as I, too, was infected. I am rid of the doom of the infection, although I still have the thorn in my side. I will be rid of the thorn at the appointed time... Please also realize that although Peter would like for non-Christians to read his account and be piqued with interest, his main thrust was to do what he likes to do: glorify God by sharing his day of salvation with the Christian readers on the net (who sound very glad to change the tone of the news group much less revel in said accounts). > I hope this response is recieved as a positive statemnt rather than just > *flame* because I want to be clear that every one is entitled to their > opinion . That is the way I read it, Owen. I certainly appreciate your kinds of remarks over the variety of sarcastic and stubborn replies of other netters. May your mind and heart be challenged by God's word. Scott W. Collins