Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian From: howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com (Howard Steel) Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian Subject: Re: Communion and Religiosity (was Re: Communion without alcohol? Message-ID: Date: 4 Mar 90 02:10:08 GMT Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu Organization: NCR Canada Ltd, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Lines: 99 Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu [Howard initially complained about using terms based on warfare to spreading a message of Love. He believes we should see ourselves as emmissaries of love, not warriors. Gene Gross responded: >Howard, I understand how you feel about this, but reading through the >Bible, both OT and NT, I find that we are in a fight, a war of major >universe-shattering proportions. Paul says we are fighting. And in a >number of other verses we can see this same thing. --clh] It should be remembered that this was written for a time and people who were in the throws of slave-revolts; great battles were being fought to free the jew from the oppression that they had been subjected to for centuries. It is quite understandable that they would describe their spreading of the Gospel as a war, a conflict, a means to bring them out of the slavery they had endured, it was something they had grown to know well. The message however was Love, not conflict. >Granted we are supposed to be ambassadors for Christ, but that doesn't >take away from the fact that we are in a war. If you want to call your personal journey a war, or a struggle, or a conflict of your physical desires versus your spiritual needs, I see no problem with this; it is a struggle, but as you well state... >The call to Love one >another is clear as a bell, and I agree that we should more often >demonstrate this Love than we do. And I can agree that we should >demonstrate this Love toward others who are not Christians. But at some >point we need to draw a line and say that we will not tolerate crossing >of that line. I think we might want to discuss what that line is, but I >have to agree in part with Ken that tolerance is not always the goal--at >least not of beliefs that are clearly anti-Christian. Anti-Christian is one thing, contrary to Christian beliefs is quite another. I do not support or tolerate anti-Christian attacks (there, now I in to your battle :-)), but I understand that many people and groups have and hold dear, beliefs which are contrary to Christian beliefs. These contrary beliefs do not undermine the basic tenet of love, but rather voice the same message in different ways. >Just so you kinda know where I'm coming from. I spent two years in >combat. I know and value peace, now--thanks to Jesus Christ. I >personally prefer a more peaceful life, but I am not willing to >compromise my Faith just preserve peace. But inasmuch as is possible, I >will live at peace with all around me. I spent 10 years in the Air-force and am well aquainted with the message of conflict, and I find it most often is protected by lies. I feel that conflict mentality has an ability to corrupt. One small lie for the sake of the greater good, becomes a plethora of large lies for the sake of the cause. >I discuss my Faith with people of different religions and those without >a religious point of view (a.k.a., atheists). So far I've not seen any >need to smack them up aside the head with my Bible. I understand how >their belief systems were formed. In that understanding, I gain a >measure of tolerance and patience. Do you not also see or feel the basic truth on which the other viewpoint was founded, and its inseparable affinity to the truths of the Chrisitian religion, (atheistic views excluded for the sake of this argument)? >And who knows whether or not this >patience, tolerance, and perseverance on my part will pay off!? I'll >leave it in the hands of Him who did the impossible with me. Good point, and my view as well. Patience, tolerance, love...far better means to understanding than the alternatives. >Again, I would remind you that we are in a war. But that doesn't mean >that we must act like the world in the conduct of this war. As I said earlier, my war is personal, and although it may be similar to yours, it is not yours. It is my war with myself for growth. The contrary beliefs (not anti) of other groups are not the enemy, in fact they may be our best friends; a different perspective sometimes allows deeper understanding of your own beliefs. -- / / / / / / / / / / :-(I Think, Therefore I Am, I Think :-) / / / / / / / / / / / Howard.Steel@Waterloo.NCR.COM NCR CANADA LTD. - 580 Weber St. N / / (519)884-1710 Ext 570 Waterloo, Ont., N2J 4G5 / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / / [Christians have used the symbolism of spiritual warfare for a number of purposes. If you look at human history, it is easy to see it as a war between the forces of God and forces of oppression. It's a serious conflict, with real casualties. This doesn't mean that we have to be storm-troopers, nor does it mean that we all have the same view of the nature of the forces of oppression (i.e. the extent to which they are supernatural forces personified, vs. simply the results of human sin). The Salvation Army typifies for me the benefits of this approach: a group of highly dedicated people getting out in the trenches and working with people who most of the church has given up on. For a musical expression of the spirit involved, see Charles Ives' wonderful piece "General William Booth Enters Into Heaven". I think we also need peaceful images. Depending upon the times and the individual's need, different images may need to be emphasized. But I'd hate to see us lose an appreciation for the imagery based on warfare. --clh]