Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I would agree with you Bubba. Catholics are, in my opinion, most likely
    the largest group that turns away from the Catholic faith. Some
    leave all faiths, some move to Protestant.
    
    Me? I left the Catholic faith for many years...returned for 15 years,
    and then left for good.
    
    Marc H.

    Bubba,
    
    I think that it is a pretty universal phenomenon that people often move
    away from their churches after their teens.  Some of it is part of the
    feeling of invulnerability of youth.  Part of it is rebellion against
    parental authority.  Part of it is moving away from religions that may
    have been abusive.  Many of my friends who went to Catholic Schools in
    the 50's and 60's found that experience less than satisfactory and they
    left the church.
    
    It is also pretty universal that when these same people begin having
    children, they look for a church 'for the children'.  I think that is
    often also a recognition that they too are missing something in their
    life.  Many single people and pairs without children also start 
    seeking a church in the early thirties.
    
    As adults most of us enjoy the freedom of choosing a church that most
    meets our needs from the security of those churches that offer 'the
    answer' to the excitement of the churches that offer many paths to
    spirituality.  Part of the return is to find the chuch that most meets
    our personality profiles.
    
    The more I learn about world religion,  the more I appreciate that the
    need to feel connected with something greater than ourselves and
    connected to the web of existence to which we are a part  is a
    universal human need.  It may be a human need that we feel less in
    touch with when we are in our late teens and early twenties.
    
    This is just my thoughts on why this occurs.  I am sure others will
    have other thoughts.
    
    Patricia

One may leave a church due to

	o  Death (A biggie!)
	o  A period of rebellion (Generally, but not always, occurs
	   in teen years)
	o  A period of doubt or questioning
	o  A period of apathy (Young marrieds without children)
	o  Dissatisfaction (Disappointment, Disillusionment)
	o  Alienation
	o  A significant negative emotional experience or a series
	   of such experiences
	o  Unmet needs
	o  A clash of personalities
	o  A change of clergy or other leadership (It happens!)
	o  A feeling of being no longer needed
	o  A Calling
 

					Richard

    The doors into the Church are open as well.

    Lent is the season of preparation for those who are to be received into
    the Christian community.

    Pray for them.

Many leave Christian churches because they were not Christians.
This is not necessarily all their own fault - many churches
(and individuals within the church) fail miserably in representing
Christ on earth, in living their lives according to the
Biblical or church teachings and in truly seeking God.  We,
as a body of believers (with unbelievers amongst us) reap what
we sow.

Others, who have accepted God by faith, leave because the church
is not meeting their needs and they are too immature to
recognize and accept their responsibility to meet the needs
of *others* (despite the failures in the church).  Some choose
to live outside of God's Will for a time and thus are at odds
with the church and so that retreat from it.

Most people forget (or ignore the fact) that there is spiritual
warfare going on.  The issue is not simply whether or not one is
attending church.  The issue is, who is the ruler of your life?
As Jesus spoke to the church in Laodicea (Rev 3:15), "I know your
deeds, that you are neither cold nor hot.  I wish you were either
one or the other!"  Most "Christian" churches today are neither 
cold nor hot.  As such, they will be spit out.  Is it any wonder
that people leave a church that doesn't really stand for anything
and which doesn't offer real solutions to real problems?  The church,
as an institution, needs constant revitilization be God's Spirit.
Unless we seek His face and obey His Word, people will continue to
be lukewarm and leaving will be much the same as staying.

Collis

    I agree with Collis and believe even from recent history that
    institutions which started out Godly and fell into lukewarmness
    eventually self destructed.  The pharisees were a prime example of this
    as they were very godly men in the days after the babylonian exile. 
    Later Jesus said of them that they had the appearance of Godliness but
    inside were dead mens bones.
    
    I regretfully feel that our Ivy league schools have also fallen into
    decay and will eventually self destruct as did many of the great
    societies in history.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .4
    
    When I left the Catholic faith, the priest ( great guy!), told me
    that I was always welcome to return.
    
    It was said in a sincere manor, and was received in a sincere manor.
    
    Marc H.

    I've never left a church due to its "lukewarmness," and personally,
    I've not known anyone who has.  This is not to say it doesn't happen.
    It's just that I don't believe it happens as often as some would have us
    believe.
    
    Richard
    

    I heard a story from Chuck Swindoll which may or may not be true. 
    There was a church in the Soviet Union (or some East Block Country).
    During a worship service, two arms soldiers stormed into the church,
    went up front and stated, "All you who worship this Jesus will be shot. 
    You have two minutes to live and anybody who wishes to renounce their
    faith may do so by leaving now!"  During the next two minutes a number
    of individuals got up and left.  With 30 seconds left, the soldier gave
    a final warning.  About a third of the people stayed behind.  Once the
    church was cleared of all those who wished to leave, the soldiers
    immediately put their guns down and said, "Now that you have stood firm
    in your faith, let us all worship now in Spirit and in Truth!"
    
    What a way to rid a church of lukewarmness!  Personally, I wouldn't
    have appreciated the tactic; however, I pray that God gives me a mighty
    strength to persevere and be one who stays behind if my faith ever gets
    put to the test.  I believe this incident actually happened.  I wonder
    how filled some of these cathedrals will be when the great apostacy
    approaches.
    
    -Jack

    Well Bubba for me it was a very hurtful split in the church.
    Satan wormed his way into the leadership and God shut that
    church down for a couple of years.  I had never seen anything 
    like it in my some 25 years of church going.  I wanted to
    leave that pain behind.
    
    But being away caused me great pain too.  As a Christian we are
    made for that fellowship and for serving God.  I found that an
    difficult, actually almost impossible, without being in church.
    
    I'm not sure the percentage of those who come back, but I know that
    in my Singles Group there are at least 10 out of 18 in our core
    group who left and came back.  Many like you said were from Catholic
    backgrounds and left because of what they say was the "do as I say,
    not as I do" attitude and because they hadn't felt the message of
    salvation.
    
    As to why they returned.  God called them back.  That's how it was
    for me.  He shows them what his church is really supposed to be
    like.  
    
    Jill

    re: .6

    Matthew 23 is not a denunciation of "godliness" but of hypocrisy, a
    failure to practice what one preaches.  It is a call to repent, not to
    abandon faith.

    The Pharisees as a group during and after the ministry of Jesus were
    split between acceptance of Jesus as Messiah and rejection of him.  The
    Bible mentions Joseph of Arimathea as being a Pharisee.

    The Pharisees held fast to their faith and are called today the
    Hassidim while many other Jews were lost after the destruction of
    Temple in 70 AD.

Re:  Leaving due to "lukewarmness"

If you drift away from a church, this is exactly what has
happened.  The church is not fulfilling its goal of
both serving you and your needs as well as its goal of
recruiting you to work for God here on earth.

Are you telling me, Richard, that people leave church
(not change churches, but abandon church) because of their
difference in theological viewpoints?  Most likely, you
just didn't view "lukewarmness" this way.  Well, if a
church is on fire, it will be *meeting* needs, it will
be *plugging* people in (so they in term can meet needs),
it will be *worshipping*, it will be *evangelizing*.

Perhaps there are so many lukewarm churches out there that
we've lost sight of what lukewarm really is.  In the U.S.,
it is the rule, not the exception.  And this is a major
reason people leave the church.  It's not following Jesus.

Collis

    .12
    
    What you're describing sounds like a cult to me.
    
    No, I think the main reason people drift away from the church is
    not because it is not fulfilling it's Divine mission, but because
    its mission is somehow not relevant to the people and their lives.
    
    Richard
    

    RE .9
    
    The story in .9 strikes me as a perverse and blasphemous use of a
    church.  That a church should be purged of all those who are week in
    faith must thrill God/Christ to no end :^(
    
    Eric

Re:  .13

  >What you're describing sounds like a cult to me.

You've totally lost me, Richard.  I don't know whether we
truly agree or disagree.  Particularly when you say the
following...

  >No, I think the main reason people drift away from the church is
  >not because it is not fulfilling it's Divine mission, but because
  >its mission is somehow not relevant to the people and their lives.

Which is very similar to what I said.  The church is not
fulfilling its mission.  It is lukewarm.  It has lost its
sense of direction.  It fits into society and the world around
it.  Because of this, it is NOT relevant to people and their
lives.  A church that is fulfilling its mission MUST BE
relevant to people and their lives.  Why?  Because GOD IS
RELEVANT!  There is nothing MORE relevant.  And the church
that recognizes this and makes God relevant in their lives
(i.e. not lukewarm) will also be able to share how God is
relevant in your life and my life.

The similarities between a church that is not lukewarm but
rather relevant both to God and the people in it and around it
to a cult are somewhat beyond me.  Perhaps I have not expressed
myself well.  Perhaps you have a very different perception of what
"lukewarm" means.  Essentially, lukewarm means to me that God's
purposes and Will are not the driving force behind the church.
Because when it is, the church will NOT be lukewarm.  It will be
on fire.  And people may leave, but it won't be because they
drifted away.  It will be because they

  - aren't Christians
  - aren't willing to grow (sin in their own lives more
    important than growing in godliness)
  - implementation is seriously wrong (e.g. sin in leadership
    derails church, too much power gets put into someone's hands
    who can't handle it, organization of the church creates a
    lot of problems, etc.)
  - strong theological differences (rare)

I belong to a church where I have some theological differences.
I believe once saved always saved.  My church teaches you can
lose your salvation.  I believe that women should not be ordained.
My church ordains women.  I believe in predestination as primary.
My church believes in free will as primary.  Does this mean I
shouldn't join the church?  No, not in my opinion.  God has called
us there and we will serve and grow despite our differences.  Our
church is going to make a difference in Nashua and in New England.
Despite the elements of lukewarmness that permeate all churches,
we will struggle to seek and do God's Will.  God has plans for
us.  The only question is whether we are willing to forsake all
for Him.

Collis

.15, Thanks for the clarification, Collis.

I think I understand better where you're coming from.  But I suspect our
premises are too different to agree on this particular topic.  You say
what people need is Jesus - just Jesus and nothing else.  That's fine, as
far as it goes.  But I suspect that heavy doses of Jesus alone are not
nourishment enough for most people.

I must say that I do admire the degree of flexibility you appear to have in
staying with a church you do not feel entirely in sync with.

Peace,
Richard

  >You say what people need is Jesus - just Jesus and nothing else.

I said no such thing and, upon reading my replies to this topic,
can't figure out what I said that would have made you believe
that this is what I was attempting to communicate.

What I said is that when a group of people are truly trying to 
follow Jesus, that group (church in this case) will not be a
lukewarm church.  They will reach out to others.  They will
provide shelter for the homeless, food for the hungry, nourishment
for the soul through the Good News of Jesus Christ's life, death,
resurrection and second coming.

Most people drift away from churches because the church is NOT
solidly following Jesus.  Oh, there may be a few (people really
following the Lord).  And there will be a number of semi-committed 
followers in most churches.  And most members will be happy to be 
watchers and occasional participants.  This is what makes a lukewarm 
church - a church that should be spit out.

Collis

    I've had some time to think about this....
    
    Once again, this me speaking as a Jew, so I really have no idea how
    this experience would play for Christians..compare and contrast?
    
    Anyway,  I eventually stopped going to synagogue for a number of
    reasons.  One of them was personal: there wan't anything that I could
    really say I got from it.  My feelings about spirituality and the
    divine just were not meshing with the images and lessons received in
    synagogue specifically and Jewish theology generally.  Like I said in
    the note Jerry quotes, I always felt closer to the spiritual when I'd
    leave services and go for walks in the woods.
    
    Another reason involved larger, community matters.  One of the major
    messages of Judaism is: Be A Mensch...in other words, a good "doobie." 
    Don't deliberately hurt anyone, take responsibility for it when you do. 
    That's one of the reasons why on Yom Kippur, you can't really say that
    you've atoned for your sins unless you've taken responsibility to make
    amends with others first.  The Jewish community drawn together by
    synagogue is often, I've found, bonded together by this as a
    philosophy, and it is a philosophy that survives even without theology.
    
    The point to me was that I had taken this lesson to heart by the time I
    was in my teens...it certainly had an important place in my family. 
    However, it didn't seem to necessitate continuing the relationship (or
    by that time, lack of relationship) with the congregation.  I guess I
    sort of "graduated" in my own feelings about how to go about being a
    "Mensch" which was what I learned was central to being Jewish.
    
    Daniel

Re: .14 Eric

>>    The story in .9 strikes me as a perverse and blasphemous use of a
>>    church.  That a church should be purged of all those who are week in
>>    faith must thrill God/Christ to no end :^(
    
>>    Eric

Eric:

I think I should have explained the context of the story better.  The place of
this incident was Albania.  As you may know, a few years back Albania was the
only pure communist country in the world.  In other words, death to all who
openly proclaim Christ.

Hidden churches were infiltrated with communist spies.  The two soldiers were
actually Christians who were purging non believers as these people were actually
trying to destroy the church.  That drastic incident was really the only way
to separate the wheat from the chaff!  In that political environment, the church
had absolutely no room for lukewarmness.

Unfortunately, those who were saved but weak in faith got a staunch lesson of 
the cost of following Christ.  Gave them a chance to count the cost!

Rgds.,

Jack

Note 606.12

>Re:  Leaving due to "lukewarmness"

>And this is a major
>reason people leave the church.  It's not following Jesus.

Note 606.15

>A church that is fulfilling its mission MUST BE
>relevant to people and their lives.  Why?  Because GOD IS
>RELEVANT!  There is nothing MORE relevant.

Forgive me for misunderstanding.  It was clues such as stated above that I
got the message that you were saying that all that people need is Jesus.

"Lukewarmness" is one of those things which cannot be measured empirically.
It is certainly something one can cite when one sees a church failing
to keep its members and attenders.  But is lukewarmness *always* the real
cause?  I don't think so.  I do think it does happen though.

Richard

    Another reason people leave a church is because that particular church
    or congregation is not meeting that person's needs.  Our needs change
    as individuals.  Many church's have a particular focus...church
    community, community outreach, individual growth...and when your needs
    are no longer met by that focus then I think it's time to move on to
    another church.  This doesn't necessarily mean leaving the spiritual
    and religious precepts of that belief system behind.  It just means
    that another church community might be able to better meet that
    person's current needs.  I don't think that makes the church wrong or
    the person wrong.  It just means that they are on different paths for
    the moment.
    
    Nanci

The reasons for leaving a church (and lukewarnmess being one of
them) have already been listed.  I don't claim this is a
comprehensive list.  However, I do feel as if you haven't
been listening to what I said since your responses are not
particularly relevant to what I've been saying.

Perhaps it's just poor communication.  I don't know.

Collis

P.S.  Do you believe that a body of believers that is fulfilling God's
mission for them can be irrelevant to those they come in contact
with?  You indicated that this was true before, but perhaps now
that I've explained it more clearly (or you've thought about it
more), you may have differing ideas about it.

Note 606.22

>However, I do feel as if you haven't
>been listening to what I said since your responses are not
>particularly relevant to what I've been saying.

I'll certainly take responsibility for that, Collis.

Allow me to add that I suspect I was permitting some old baggage to interfere
with what I thought I was hearing.

>P.S.  Do you believe that a body of believers that is fulfilling God's
>mission for them can be irrelevant to those they come in contact
>with?  You indicated that this was true before, but perhaps now
>that I've explained it more clearly (or you've thought about it
>more), you may have differing ideas about it.

We are probably more in sync than I first realized.  On some level, I suspect
we're *totally* in agreement.  On another level, where evangelism alone is
considered God's mission, for example, I would still say that fulfilling
God's mission isn't substantial/relevant/whatever enough for some to remain
active in a church.

Richard

    I'm intending to leave "this church' so to speak.  I am looking to note
    differently here.  In retracing my roots back to Christianity and
    finding many things I truly love about the Christian message, I have
    also come to the conclusion that the Christian community as it defines
    itself, does not define me as part of that community.  My two main
    points of interaction with the Christian community has been in this
    notes file and at Andover Newton.  I have come to the conclusion that
    if that community is not flexible enough to include me with my deeply
    held believes within that community, then it is time for me to move on
    and truly accept the Faith Community of which I am a part.
    
    Perhaps it is the baby in the bath water syndrone.  When I left
    Christianity when I was eighteen I did not really know what I was
    leaving and it took me a long time to replace that community with the
    Unitarian Universalist Community.  Perhaps these last four years have
    been a going back and recovering what I need from the community that I
    left. It is not coincidental that I have done this work after doing
    some intense family recovery work of going back to my family of origin
    and healing some old wounds and reconnecting to my family.
    
     In the struggle to define myself as a Christian, or Pagan, or UU
    I have really affirmed that the symbolic universe of Unitarian
    Universalism is my symbolic universe.  The UU principles and purpose
    really is my guide in interpreting scriptures of all kind.  A
    fundemental aspect of my Symbolic universal is my sense of connection
    with every other human, and my belief in supporting the Faith Journeys
    of every other person regardless of what that faith journey is.  A
    statement was made in the womannotes file that really hit me as true
    and that statement coming at the exact right time has pushed me to
    clarity and decision.  The statement was "That one of the fundemental
    tennants of Christianity is its intolerance of other religions."  From
    my experience here and my experience at Andover Newton that statement
    feels true.  Many Christians agree that it is a true statement and
    should be a true statement.  They affirm that there is only one
    Teacher, Messiah, Son of God, and the only way to God is through faith
    in these attributes of Jesus, the Christ.  The minority Christian view
    feels soft and tentative.  Having located myself outside of the
    Christian self definition process, I am withdrawing from that
    discussion.  I will let those within the process define themselves and
    strengthen my affiliation with my own Faith Community in relationship
    with and in positive tension with Christianity.
    
    So my style of noting will change even if I am the only one aware of
    the change.  When I note I will note as an outsider seeking information
    and not as a person trying to find where I fit in the Christian
    Community.
    
    I am hoping this does not come across as negative or angry.  My
    spiritual identification is an important ongoing process for me and
    being clear on my Belief Structure is vital.   I want to thank everyone
    of you for helping me on my journey, for noting with me, arguing with
    me, agreeing with me, responding to me.  It has been worthwhile.
    
    Thanks you all
    
    
    Patricia 

    Patricia
    
    I do not hear anger in that.  I hear commitment to your growing
    relationship with God.  And my faith is strong enough to know that as
    long as you remain open and willing to be guided, you will be led by
    the Divine.
    
    May God bless you as you continue your journey.
    +++
    Debby

    
    Patricia:
    
    Unfortunately, I am one of the perpetrators.  I cross posted this reply
    to Glen Silva in another string.
    
    >> However, what does make a whole lot of difference is the object of the 
>>      Christian faith, that being Jesus Christ.
>> Belief in Jesus, NOT ONLY as a teacher and an example, but also to acknowledge
>> Jesus as Savior and Lord of ones life is what is key to obtaining eternal 
>> life.
    
>>    You cannot get to heaven by preaching, by witnessing, by attending church, 
>>    by reciting prayers, by feeding the poor, by visiting the homeless, by 
>>    comforting the sick.  This is the social gospel, it is indeed honorable 
>>    but as a way of obtaining eternal life, it is a big lie, a cheap 
>>    counterfeit, and an insult to God.
    
    I don't see Christianity as a club, where certain individuals are
    better than others, therefore they belong to the club.  Christianity is
    inclusive of all who thirst for eternal life, but it must be received.
    However, Jesus made it abundantly clear that Christianity is a devisive
    faith.  It is a faith to which many Bible believing Christians have
    suffered and died for, and it will continue to be the same.  Yes, I do
    believe in Satan, and I believe Satan is in the business of destroying
    anything that encompasses God's plan for eternal life.
    
    Like Saul of Tarsus, it is my prayer Patricia, that you find truth and
    not counterfeits in life.  Not strive after things which do not profit
    and develop the willingness to accept all of God's attributes and not
    be exclusionary of any of them.  
    
    In Christ,
    
    -Jack
         

>    clarity and decision.  The statement was "That one of the fundemental
>    tennants of Christianity is its intolerance of other religions."  From
>    my experience here and my experience at Andover Newton that statement
>    feels true.  Many Christians agree that it is a true statement and
>    should be a true statement.  They affirm that there is only one
>    Teacher, Messiah, Son of God, and the only way to God is through faith
>    in these attributes of Jesus, the Christ.  The minority Christian view
    
    I in no way want to debate your decision, Patricia.  That is between
    you and God.  However, I just want to point out the uniqueness of the
    above statement and what we have all experienced.
    
    Jesus Christ is the only religious leader that made the claims He did. 
    In addition, He is the only religious leader to back up those claims by
    doing what He said He would do.  God's Word, the Bible, is the only
    religious book that is prophetic.  In addition, the Bible is the only
    book that does this with 100% accuracy.
    
    Sure Christianity is unique and separate, but with very good reason. 
    There is no other faith figure like Jesus Christ and there is no other
    book like the Bible.  I'd like to leave you with a quote from one of my
    favorite authors, the most eloquent C.S. Lewis:
    
                     I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the
               really foolish thing that people often say about Him:
               'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher,
               but I don't accept His claim to be God.'  That is the
               one thing we must not say.  A man who was merely a man
               and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a
               great moral teacher.  He would either be a lunatic -
               on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg -
               or else he would be the Devil of Hell.  You must make
               your choice.  Either this man was, and is, the Son of
               God: or else a madman or something worse.  You can
               shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill
               Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call
               Him Lord and God.  But let us not come up with any
               patronising nonsense about His being a great human
               teacher.  He has not left that open to us.  He did not
               intend to. 

Note 606.26

>    Unfortunately, I am one of the perpetrators.

Yes, you are.  But as you suggest, you're not alone.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    I have my convictions and I stand by them.  That's life man!
    
    -Jack

    .29
    
    I, too, have convictions.  I, too, stand by them.
    
    Richard
    

    I know you do and I admire your integrity.  I hope you would do the
    same!!

re Note 606.24 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     The minority Christian view
>     feels soft and tentative.  

        Perhaps it does;  perhaps it is.

        Sometimes the truth lies in the soft and tentative;  sometimes
        the voice of God is something other than the hard and
        strident.

        Sometimes the truest humility is when one can say "I don't
        know."  Sometimes the greatest freedom is the ability to say
        "I trust God" and not my understanding.

        It is human nature to want a king in the earthly paradigm,
        and all that implies.  It is human nature to need to be able
        to point to foundational statements.  It is human nature to
        want to possess the truth rather than merely rely on the
        truth.  It is human nature to exclude, to polarize, to
        separate one's "kind" from another.

        But is it God's nature?

        Bob

Patricia,

I understand the decision you have reached, I don't understand why that means
you will not continue to note here. Or am I making an incorrect assumption. 

Steve

	Re: .24 Patricia

	On my first reading, I thought you were intending to leave CP
	and was genuinely disturbed. You are a cornerstone here and,
	without you, the structure would be weakened. I am sure that
	I echo the thoughts of many of this community in this.

	However, my fears were, on closer reading, unfounded and -- if
	I were a Christian -- I would offer up a prayer of thanks.

	On neither reading did I detect anger. But a degree of hurt was
	detectable. I understand your hurt if you really feel that
	your fellow-Christians have made it impossible for you to see
	yoursel as such. I, personally, regard you to be one of the
	most upright and Christian persons that I have had the privilege
	to "meet" for many years.  Your search is genuine (I thought mine
	was, too: but I am constantly in conflict with my own pre-
	conceptions) and your path an honorable one.

	Patricia, it is *not* a fundamental tenet of Christianity to be
	intolerant of other religions. It may well be a fundamentalist's
	tenet, but even there I would recommend caution. It is certainly
	true, however, that even amongst Christians, this attitude is 
	(far too) common. It has nothing to do with a Christianity which
	is based on the teachings of Jesus who "turned the other cheek"
	and "loved his neighbor" and was prepared to "forgive them, for
	they know not what they do". There is no room for intolerance in
	doctrines based on such love.

	There are those who claim that ONLY belief in the "central message
	of the Crucifixion" can lead to salvation/can justify the Christian
	tag/can heal sin. It is their right to believe this, but they do
	not have the right to exclude from salvation/Christianity/redemption
	those who cannot see things this way. Personally, I prefer to call
	myself a non-Christian in order to disassociate myself from those
	who can view the slaughter of an "only-begotten" and "beloved" son
	as the ultimate redeeming act of a loving God. I am not worthy to
	be in their company.
		
	Greetings and in love, Derek.
                                                      

 >>   Personally, I prefer to
 >>   can myself a non-Christian in order to disassociate myself from
 >>   those who can view the slaughter of an "only-begotten" and "beloved"
 >>   son as the ultimate redeeming act of a loving God. I am not worthy
 >>   to be in their company.
    
    Nobody is worthy, that's the beauty of God's grace.
    
    Remember, Christ's death is a historical account, and Jesus died
    willingly.  If Jesus believed in what he was doing for us, who am I to
    question it?
    
    -Jack

RE:  <<< Note 606.34 by VNABRW::BUTTON "Another day older and deeper in debt" >>>


       > Personally, I prefer to call
>	myself a non-Christian in order to disassociate myself from those
>	who can view the slaughter of an "only-begotten" and "beloved" son
>	as the ultimate redeeming act of a loving God. I am not worthy to
>	be in their company.
		
                                                      
  When one views it (as does the Bible) that it was God himself that gave
  Himself up to die this horrible death, one begins to understand the love
  He has for us, and the pain He must feel when His sacrifice is rejected.


 Jim

    Steve, and others,
    
    Thanks for your replies.  My decision is not to stop noting in here but
    to note differently.  To note as a person outside the Faith Community
    called "Christianity"
    
    This does not mean that I don't find inspiration in the Bible, or that
    I stop studying and learning what the Bible has to offer.  This does
    not mean I stop trying to understand who Jesus Christ is and what
    impact (metaphorical, physical, symbolic, whatever) he has for my life.
    
    It means that I recognize that a Faith Community plays an important
    role in my life and that the Community itself as a community has a
    great influence or impact on my life.  To commit myself to a Faith
    community means that I voluntarily accept that influence and impact.
    
    Perhaps this journey has more to do with my affirming myself as a UU
    and affirming my UU faith community.  And within the UU Faith Community
    I have the responsibility and freedom to cherish my Christian past,
    honor my Jewish and Pagan friends, be amazed by the humanist
    contribution to my congregation and to the world.
    
    Emotionally, perhaps it will also allow me to distant myself better
    from those aspects of Christianity that I find hurtful and harmful,
    while embracing only those aspects that are loving.  Thanks again for
    all the feedback and response.
    
    Patricia

Romans 5:8
But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners,
Christ died for us.
Romans 5:9
Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath
through him.
Romans 5:10
For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his
Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.
Romans 5:11
And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom
we have now received the atonement.

    No truer love does a person have than to lay down their life for a
    friend.
    

    Mike:
    
    That was a very good entry.  It really reinforces the idea that if one
    is to identify with a faith, one needs to believe in the object of
    that faith.
    
    -Jack

Patricia,

My decision is not to stop noting in here but to note differently. 

I am very glad to hear this.

And since you are staying, Why are you 'amazed' at the contributions of
humanists? :^)

(I know, this is a cheap shot :^)

Steve

re: .27 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

I was wondering how long it would be until I saw the famous 'Lord, Liar,
Lunatic' argument here...

Steve

 re .41



 Well, which is He?





 Jim

    Jim:
    
    Nobody wants to talk about that.  It is a question that requires some
    sort of conviction and hence is too uncomfortable to answer.
    
    -Jack

>    Nobody wants to talk about that.  It is a question that requires some
>    sort of conviction and hence is too uncomfortable to answer.
    
    People have been faced with this question since Pilate first asked it.
    
Mark 15:12
And Pilate answered and said again unto them, What will ye then that I shall do
unto him whom ye call the King of the Jews?

    Each one of us has to ask ourselves, "What will I do with Jesus?" 
    Rejection or Acceptance?  There is no middle ground.  It's a radical
    decision for a radical person.
    
    Mike

    Also see Topic 97, "Lord, Liar or Lunatic."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Re: .42 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?"

 Well, which is He?

Actually, it's a trick question, similar to the one Mike asks in the next
section. And I see from Richards pointer that it has been discussed. Bob points
out the major problems in the base note (97).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .44 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

    Each one of us has to ask ourselves, "What will I do with Jesus?" 
    Rejection or Acceptance?  There is no middle ground.  It's a radical
    decision for a radical person.

I don't understand your point. (This must be a bad week for me, I seem to be 
missing lots of points). I have neither accepted or rejected Jesus, aka God.
At this point I simply see no evidence to back up your assertions that there is 
a God. 

What do you mean by radical?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve

>I don't understand your point. (This must be a bad week for me, I seem to be 
>missing lots of points). I have neither accepted or rejected Jesus, aka God.
>At this point I simply see no evidence to back up your assertions that there is 
>a God. 
    
    Sorry Steve, I didn't know you were an agnostic.

>What do you mean by radical?
    
    Steve, I meant that what Jesus' taught and claimed were a severe
    departure from what Judaism was used to.  So severe that it still
    affects mankind ~2000 years later.
    
    Mike

re: .47 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

    Sorry Steve, I didn't know you were an agnostic.

Actually, I can never quite decide exactly what I am...

I still don't understand how you meant radical in the quote:

    Each one of us has to ask ourselves, "What will I do with Jesus?" 
    Rejection or Acceptance?  There is no middle ground.  It's a radical
    decision for a radical person.

Steve

     >>   Each one of us has to ask ourselves, "What will I do with Jesus?"
     >>   Rejection or Acceptance?  There is no middle ground.  It's a
     >>   radical decision for a radical person.
    
    I can tell you what it means to me if I may...
    Acceptance of Christ is a radical choice to make because it goes
    against the very grain that the world expects of the average human
    being.   I of course concur on the belief that Jesus is the only way.
    I believe there is alot of persecution in the world to those who share 
    this belief.  Even in this file there are some who at least respect it
    when there are others who don't even value this belief or those who
    hold to it.
    
    Since it says that narrow is the gate that leads to life and few are
    those who find it, it means that few will choose and most will reject.
    
    -Jack
    
    

<<< Note 606.48 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

> I still don't understand how you meant radical in the quote:
  
        I can't answer for Steve, but generally the words "radical"
        and "fundamental" are roughly synonymous.

        (Obviously, by common usage they have acquired connotations
        that seem to be far apart!)

        Bob

re: .49 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

    Acceptance of Christ is a radical choice to make because it goes
    against the very grain that the world expects of the average human
    being.   I of course concur on the belief that Jesus is the only way.
    I believe there is alot of persecution in the world to those who share 
    this belief.  Even in this file there are some who at least respect it
    when there are others who don't even value this belief or those who
    hold to it.

It is funny how perspectives can differ...

I see religious folks as a definite majority, you seem to see them as a
minority. (Although I do see it as a choice against the grain of logic, most
folks seem to have made it anyway). You see a lot of persecution of religious
folks. I don't see much (at least in this country), but I see a lot of
harrasment of non-religious people. 

I haven't seen anyone in this file that (overtly, at least) doesn't respect the
views of believers. Do you feel persecuted in here?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re: .50 LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish

        I can't answer for Steve, but generally the words "radical"
        and "fundamental" are roughly synonymous.

Thanks, using this interpretation it makes a lot more sense to me.

Steve

    On the contrary, I see religious people as the majority by far.  Only
    thing is I don't consider myself religious.
    
    -Jack

re: .52 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

Jack,

You don't see yourself as 'adhering to a belief in and reverence for a
supernatural power recognized as the creator and governer of the universe?'

Steve

  >>  You don't see yourself as 'adhering to a belief in and reverence for a
  >>  supernatural power recognized as the creator and governer of the
  >>  universe?'
    
    Oh, absolutely, I see God as the creator and sovereign power behind all
    that exists.  He is worthy of nothing less than our worship and lives.
    I think the issue here is semantics.  I define a religious person as an
    individual who tries to reach God on his own merits or terms.  I
    believe Christianity encompasses the idea of God reaching down to man
    and that man is incapable of reaching up to God.
    
    -Jack

re Note 606.54 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I define a religious person as an
>     individual who tries to reach God on his own merits or terms.  

        Jack,

        Why do you see the need to redefine "religious"?  As far as I
        know, the definition offered by Steve above is the usual
        meaning of the word, and it would seem to include both
        Christian and non-Christian religion.

        Bob

>     I define a religious person as an
>     individual who tries to reach God on his own merits or terms.  
    
    Conversely, Christianity is God's attempt to reach man on His merit and
    terms.

      >>      Why do you see the need to redefine "religious"?  As far as I
      >>      know, the definition offered by Steve above is the usual
      >>      meaning of the word, and it would seem to include both
      >>      Christian and non-Christian religion.
    
    The American Heritage Dictionary provides four distinct meanings for
    this word.  
    
    Religious - Adhering to or manifesting religion; pious; godly.
    
    Think about it.  In order to come to know Christ personally, one has to
    acknowledge their wretchedness before God.  One has to crucify the old
    flesh and then take upon themselves the righteousness of Christ.  All
    that is required for righteousness is faith, not piety or godliness.  
    
    So, in order to acquire grace, one must NOT be religious, correct?
    
    -Jack

    Who reached out to whom is a rather trendy theology, methinks.
    

    God is no respecter of persons bud!!!

    .59  Big deal.
    

    >>  -< Who said otherwise? >-
    
    As usual Richard, nobody said it because your replies are usually
    communicated badly and are subject ot wide interpretation.

The Penguin Pocket English Dictionary defines religious as:

1) of, or manifesting faithful devotion to an acknowledged
   ultimate reality or deity.
2) of, being, or devoted to the beliefs or observances of
   a religion.
3) scrupuously and conscientiously faithful.

I see nothing wrong in being religious if based on accurate
knowledge and directed to the only true God.

1 Timothy 6:6a RSV reads "There is great gain in godliness with 
contentment," the NWT renders godliness as godly devotion.

Phil.

Note 606.61

>    As usual Richard, nobody said it because your replies are usually
>    communicated badly and are subject ot wide interpretation.

I shant encourage you to attempt to communicate or interpret, then.

Shalom,
Richard

 >>   I see nothing wrong in being religious if based on accurate
 >>   knowledge and directed to the only true God.
    
    Yes, but that is the big IF.  Remember the dialog in Romans 10, "...for
    they have a zeal for God, but it is not based on knowledge."  Paul here
    affirmed their condemnation due to their lack of faith or belief.  But
    most importantly, these people WERE RELIGIOUS.  
    
    -Jack

    >    Who reached out to whom is a rather trendy theology, methinks.
    
    Calvinism vs. Arminianism has been with us for a few hundred years.

re Note 606.57 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     So, in order to acquire grace, one must NOT be religious, correct?
  
        But once one has, one is!

        Bob

         >>>> -< aaaaaaggggggghhhhhh! >-
    
    :-)