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