Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site qubix.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!wivax!decvax!decwrl!qubix!lab From: lab@qubix.UUCP Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: General replies Message-ID: <331@qubix.UUCP> Date: Mon, 20-Jun-83 21:57:06 EDT Article-I.D.: qubix.331 Posted: Mon Jun 20 21:57:06 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 21-Jun-83 17:07:11 EDT Organization: Qubix Graphic Systems, Saratoga, CA Lines: 111 This is mainly a lot of general replies. In a separate article I have written what God has done over the last week or so (quite a bit). First, my thanks for a lot of open and honest questions that have been posted that should stir up discussion and not argument. Second, a notice that (from what has reached qubix, anyway) all of the published attempts to explain away the Resurrection have been take care of - by others. I'm glad some people are doing homework on this. I know of at least one who has done some work but has not finished (and thus published) it yet. Various quotations of the last few days: Tim Maroney has asked questions on "exclusive salvation," i.e., only members of group X go to heaven, and judgment upon the rest. I find such a doctrine in the New Testament, supported by: I Timothy 2:5 "...ONE mediator..." John 14:6 "THE...THE...THE... NO man...BUT by ME" Acts 4:12 "Neither...in any other...NO other name..." Acts 17:31 "...THAT man whom He hath ordained..." Hebrews 2:3 "How shall we escape...?" (No answer given) I didn't make the rules. If there was any other way to heaven, I'd preach it. The way of the Cross is humbling - but there's no other way. The message is constant "repentance toward God and faith in Jesus Christ" (Acts 20:21). Byron notes "Their [teachings of Jesus] validity and importance stand apart from their roots." Some small problems: the Nazarene claimed he would rise from the dead. He forgave sins against God. He accepted worship. For the price He asks His followers to pay, if He isn't correct in such activities as these, I'd look elsewhere. Rainbows - fun topic. Genesis 2:5,6 state "the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth ... But there went up a mist from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground." Raises the question "Did rainbows exist before the Flood?" It doesn't seem likely that the conditions for a rainbow existed; thus the rainbow was a new thing, and could well be used as a sign of the covenant. Laura Creighton asked "how to reform it [Roman Catholicism] or any Church?" To this, and the general tone of her articles, I would ask "Why?" To paraphrase, she said that the hard-liners are "why the Roman Catholic Church is not an attractive proposition to outsiders." I find just the opposite it mankind - people respect and appreciate a firm stand, rather than one who wavers. Such wavering is what has caused a lot of people to leave a lot of churches. Man's quest seems to be for certainty - answers - and when someone like Jim Jones comes along with "answers," they follow him. I have yet to meet a person (even net skeptics) who could answer within himself the question "Why? I'm born; I live; I die - why? WHY? What purpose does this whole rat race serve - especially since the rats always win?" Either they condition themselves into ignoring it, or delude themselves into believing they are themselves the answer. If the latter is the case, forget the rest of man - eat, drink, and be merry! Joe P.: "I too doubt that God would consign anybody to an eternal weinie (sic) roast." Mark 9:43-48, Matt 25:31-46, and Revelation 20 speak of an oversized wienie roast. Jonathan Edwards "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" is perhaps the classic sermon on this. This leads into the continuing question of whether an all-merciful God could consign someoen to Hell. The concise statement of God's glory in Exodus 34:6,7 indicate He is both Justice and Mercy. Neither exists at the expense of the other. His Justice demands payment for man's sin. His Mercy provided the payment for those who would humble themselves and accept it. "Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation (= satisfaction) for our sins" (I John 4:10) The question is asked "If God is so loving, why doesn't He do something?" "He did - Jesus Christ." Darrell Plank notes "If there is a God who wants us to be saved then there shouldn't be all the contradictions in my way to confuse me." The hypothesis is indeed taught in more than one place in the New Testament; the answer to the conclusion is found in Romans 1:18-32 and I Corinthians 1:18-31. It isn't nice, but, like I said before, I didn't write it. Tim made a bold statement "I don't think that the historical veracity of a set of scriptures is nearly as important as their content." Let me get this straight: You ask me not to worry about what is subject to proof, then ask me to believe what is not subject to proof? Unh-unh - not me! A couple of good topics for discussion have been raised: Should I educate my children in my religion? The kids are learning from a lot of sources - TV & radio, magazines & paper, records & tapes, friends & THEIR friends - so where are they going to get your view unless you provide it. Consider a responsibility of parenting. Further, it provides the child a sense of love and security, that you CARE enough about him to teach him. It's good for the health of the whole person. Three for the price of one! Samuya asked "What is evil?" What is "good"? What are "right" and "wrong"? This is not redundant. "Good" and "right" can be defined by different standards. I think before we can define the terms, we should define the standards we would use to define the terms. (Do I smell an analogy to Zeno's paradox?) Somewhere we will need axioms. And when we get the axioms, the line between where we will be and where we define "religion" may well disappear. altos86!root said "Religion, by my definition is a practice. It is a form. It is a predefined way of doing or not doing something." I'm not sure what that all meant, but I think the earlier comments indicate disagreement. But maybe we can find a home in net.religion for "What is (a) religion?" Sorry this is so long - you all did a lot in a week and a half. My thanks to those who kept it from being longer. Larry Bickford, {decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!qubix