Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I guess if you agreed with it, the word would be "insight".

Is the Gospel propaganda?  A lie?

    If we live our lives based on our spiritual convictions and politics
    are an integral part of our society then I can't see how we can really
    keep politics totally separate from our spiritual experience.  On the
    other hand, because part of the basis of our nation's foundation is
    that of religious freedom that creates a very grey line between
    religion and politics.  
    
    As the Bard said "'Tis a consummation devoutly to be wished."
    
    Nanci   

    All propaganda is not a lie.
    
    Any sermon which does not challenge the status quo exonerates the
    status quo, and is therefore political.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .-1
    Simply absurd Richard!
    
    To everything there is a season.
    
    jeff

    Would you care to elaborate, jeff?
    
    Richard
    

    No Richard I wouldn't.  As I have said before the idea of a social
    gospel (which I believe you claim) is manmade, not of God.  The Gospel
    of Jesus Christ is about sin, death, redemption and love.  Justice for
    the poor, while admirable and important, is not the Gospel nor will
    adhering to its dogma save anyone from the flames of everlasting hell.
    Souls are important - eternally so.  Poverty is a temporary condition.
    And Marxism is antithetical to Christianity.
    
    jeff (I guess I did elaborate a little)
    
    

    I dare say, your reply was a political statement.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    I would say that both of you have made political statements.
    
    
    A similar discusion occured when the US Roman Catholic bishops issued
    their comdenation of capitalism a couple of years ago.
    Politics seems to get into religion a lot.
    
    Marc H.

Note 533.9

>    I would say that both of you have made political statements.

     Agreed.  I freely admit it.    

     There's more to the Gospel than salvation.

Peace,
Richard

    re: .9

    It is a distortion of the position of the Roman Catholic bishops of the
    United States to suggest they condemned capitalism.
    
    What is your source for this belief?

re Note 533.7 by FATBOY::BENSON:

>     Justice for
>     the poor, while admirable and important, is not the Gospel nor will

              Luke 4:18  The Spirit of the Lord [is] upon me, because
              he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor;
              he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach
              deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to
              the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised,

        Bob

    Re: .11
    
    Source? Newspaper about two years ago. Also, St Mary's in North Grafton
    where I was a member. I can not quote you chapter and verse, but
    it was a national news story. I can remeber Rush L. talking about
    it also.
    
    The way I remeber it, the US RC Bishops have a yearly conference
    where they often issue policy papers. One year, the paper talked
    about the expanded role of woman.....lots of things. A couple
    of years ago, the bishops made it a point that basicly that capitalism
    is the source of much misery and suffering in the US. They wanted
    a much more expanded role in by the government (socialism) as a 
    solution to the evils in the US. I got very upset with the whole
    thing.....because the line that I was getting was that it was more
    than just *their* opinion, rather it was based on the fact that the
    bishops knew what was best for you, and you should do as they say.
    
    The Catholic Free Press also carried the story. I honestly don't
    remember the exact year...but...the story is true.
    
    By the way, you and I share a common ground with Rush L.....I'm
    surprised you didn't remember the story.
    
    Marc H.

    I recall the incident, as well.  If memeory serves, it happened in
    1989 or 1990.
    
    Mike

    
    Hi Bob,
    
    Does that passage state that the "poor" or justice for the poor is the
    Gospel itself?  No.  It shows that Jesus was to preach the Gospel to
    the poor as well as the rich.
    
    jeff

    RE: .14
    
    I think your right Mike......two years ago should have been more like 8
    or 10.
    So...whats the second thing to go??? 
    :)
    :)
    
    Marc H.

    Matthew 25 says that how people treat the poor and downtrodden will be
    God's criterion for separating the sheep from the goats on judgment
    day.

    "When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him,
    then he will sit on the throne of his glory.  All the nations will be
    gathered before him, and he will separate people one from another as a
    shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and he will put the sheep
    at his right hand and the goats at the left.  Then the king will say to
    those at his right hand, 'Come, you that are blessed by my Father,
    inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world;
    for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me
    something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked
    and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in
    prison and you visited me.'  Then the righteous will answer him, 'Lord,
    when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and
    gave you something to drink?  And when was it that we saw you a
    stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing?  And when
    was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?'  And the
    king will answer them, 'Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of
    the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.' 
    Then he will say to those at his left hand, 'You that are accursed,
    depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his
    angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you
    gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me,
    naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and prison and you did not
    visit me.'  Then they also will answer, 'Lord, when was it that we saw
    you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and
    did not take care of you?'  Then he will answer them, 'Truly, I tell
    you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did
    not do it to me.'  And these will go away into eternal punishment, but
    the righteous into eternal life."

    "Justice is a constitutive element of the Gospel."
    
    	-- Synod of Rome, 1971 (Fox, 1983, p. 293)
    
    
    Christian faith and witness can only come to full fruition by 
    embracing and practicing the "social" aspect of the Gospel:
    
    	What does the Lord require of you but to do justice and to love 
    	kindness and to walk humbly with your God? -- Mic. 6
    
    	Is not this the sort of fast that pleases me?
    	 - it is the Lord Yahweh who speaks -
    	to break unjust fetters
    	and undo the thongs of the yoke,
    
    	to let the oppressed go free,
    	and break every yoke,
    	to share your bread with the hungry,
    	and shelter the homeless poor... Isa. 58
    
    	But a Samaritan on the road was moved with compassion when he say 
    	this victim.  He went up to him, bandaged his wounds, pouring oil 
    	and wine on them.  Then he lifted him up to his own donkey, 
    	carried him to the inn and looked after him....Go and do the same 
    	yourself. -- Luke 10
    
    And especially Matt. 25, as quoted by Mike in .17 - one of *the* most
    profound passages in the entire Bible, imo.
    
    Karen

re Note 533.15 by FATBOY::BENSON:

>     Does that passage state that the "poor" or justice for the poor is the
>     Gospel itself?  No.  It shows that Jesus was to preach the Gospel to
>     the poor as well as the rich.
  
        Actually, what follows IS the gospel (i.e., the "good news")
        proclaimed to the poor:

              "... he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to
              preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of
              sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are
              bruised,..."

        Bob

>    The word "politics" is derived from the word "poly", meaning
>    "many", and the word "ticks", meaning "blood sucking parasites".

Richard

    Imo, Jesus Christ, amongst other things, is the Great Reconciler.  
    His mission: to establish God's kingdom, "heaven," on earth.  This 
    endeavor of Christ's, in all reality, represents the heart and soul 
    of the social Gospel.
    
    For God's kingdom to be established on earth, two things need to 
    occur:  overall, there must be a place, a bridge where heaven and 
    earth, (the sacred and the profane) can meet, mingle together, and be 
    reconciled.  This needs to happen on an individual level as well as 
    on a collective level.  From "a" Christian perspective, this place is 
    established in the individual upon acceptance of Christ into one's 
    life, (which begets salvation on a privatized level).
    
    On a collective level, religion is, in it's purest intention, 
    designed to be that "place" where reconciliation endeavors to take 
    place between spirituality (the sacred) and politics (the profane).  
    
    As such, religion encourages the sharing of one's privatized 
    reconciliation process, the "good news" of one's salvation, into the 
    social, more collective sphere of human affairs.  At its best, 
    religion helps one realize her/his connection with God and Creation 
    more deeply, and inspires the doing of "good works" with and for 
    others, as Christians are called to do.  And how else but through 
    our good works can we carry on Christ's endeavor to establish God's 
    kingdom on earth?  
    
    Like Michael Harner, I feel religion is the dynamic nexus of 
    spirituality and politics.  How we are ultimately "ordered," on a 
    sacred, spiritual level, and how we perceive and understand that 
    ordering, is inherently reflected in our concepts and expressions of 
    politics -- how we believe the affairs of the profane world need to 
    be ordered.  
    
    Bottom-line:  it is a futile effort to attempt to separate politics 
    from the pulpit.  It just ain't gonna happen.  As Mahatma Gandhi once 
    said, "Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not 
    know what religion means."  The best thing we can do is acknowledge 
    that reality, then work within it to recognize and understand the 
    sacred as deeply as possible, (the essence of which is reflected 
    throughout all the major religions) and pray for wisdom and guidance 
    in our governing and law-making activities.
    
    Karen

re Note 41.218 by clarinews -- "Abortion foe: voting for Clinton a sin":

> 	``While Clinton has a deceptive veneer of Christianity, he has
> twisted and perverted scripture, he has mocked biblical morality and
> shamelessly embraced wickedness,'' Terry said in a letter to clergy
> around the country. ``To vote for Clinton is a sin against God.''
  
        Quite honestly, for the past 12 years I have felt precisely
        this way about Ronald Reagan and George Bush, in particular
        they have "a deceptive veneer of Christianity" and "mocked
        biblical morality".

        What I find more disturbing about the news report quoting
        Randal Terry is the implication that only a few political
        issues have a moral dimension.  I strongly disagree with
        this, I believe that almost all of the issues have a moral
        dimension.

        In particular, I believe that the economy has many moral
        dimensions, some of them quite fundamental.

        If people cannot find gainful employment that is sufficient
        to care for them and their families, that is a moral issue.

        If people lose health care because they are unemployed, or
        because a new employer does not provide it, or because they
        have aids, that is a moral issue.

        If government recognizes the contribution to the economy of
        only the wealthiest among us, but not the contribution of the
        true fundamental economic unit, the worker, that is a moral
        issue.

        If government takes our tax money and returns a public
        education that leaves people unable to find or keep jobs,
        that is a moral issue.

        If government kills, either through capital punishment or
        warfare, those are moral issues.

        The composition of the Supreme Court, and the likelihood that
        the rights of the minorities among us will be protected by
        that court, is a moral issue.

        My conscience dictates it would be "sinful" for me to vote
        for George Bush.  Does that mean I believe that every
        position of Clinton is morally correct.  No -- of course not! 
        For example, I do not believe that capital punishment is
        supportable as morally, biblically correct except in a few
        extreme circumstances.  I do not believe that second or third
        trimester abortions should be unregulated.

        But personally I believe that the preponderance of moral
        issues, as I know them in my conscience, fall on the side of
        Clinton.

        Bob

        Yesterday, President Bush renewed his charge against Clinton
        that Clinton "waffled" on the issues by stating "you cannot
        be all things to all people."

        The apostle Paul, in I Corinthians 9:22, wrote:  "... I am
        made all things to all [men], that I might by all means save
        some."

        I wonder how many of the president's conservative Christian
        supporters noticed that one?  or care?

        Bob

    
    I don't think Paul's statement relates to Bush's statement at all. 
    Clinton will "save" no one.  
    
    jeff

re Note 533.25 by FATBOY::BENSON:

>     I don't think Paul's statement relates to Bush's statement at all. 
>     Clinton will "save" no one.  
  
        Well, I don't think Bush's statements relate to Clinton at
        all, either. :-}

        However, Bush's statement implied that to be "all things to
        all people" is an absurdity.  To a bible-believing Christian,
        that can't be true (except in the sense that the wisdom of
        God appears as foolishness to people, perhaps).

        Bob

    
    
    Bob Fleischer,
    
     
       Cute! Not applicable, but cute!
    
    
    David

I now know and still don't care.