Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	In my previous note, I remarked that, over the past years, I
	have moved even further away from Christianity than I was before.

	This is essentially true, although I have not, for many years,
	claimed to be a Christian.  However, I have long tried to live by
	what is euphemistically called "Christian Values": loving and
	caring for others; not intentionally hurting another -- neither in
	thought nor deed; practice honesty in work and play; give my employer
	a fair days labour for a fair day's pay; etc.

	This codex was not motivated by the hope of salvation: How could it
	be so?   After all, my search for the meaning of Salvation and
	God, in the hope of coming closer to my wife (selfish?) is still
	ongoing.

	No! I adopted this mode of life because I have become convinced that
	ONLY by loving, caring, tending, respecting (for) others, is there
	any hope of achieving a peaceful, prosperous "here and now".  I have
	seen at first hand what horrors can be wreaked by the opposite; what
	horros humankind is capable (it would be unfair to beasts to call
	humankinds' activities "bestial"); I have killed to survive. Believe
	me, it does not need the promise of salvation in the "there and then"
	to want to avoid these horrors.

	So: Why have I moved further away from those who bear my earthly codex
	writ large on their eternal banners?

	There are several reasons; some internal, others external. Some seem,
	on the surface, to be trivial, others give me cause for deep concern.

	- I have been unable to find a rationale for the Cross. As should be
	  clear from my Milestones in previous note, I cannot reconcile love
	  and slaughter. It is fatuous to tell me to "read the Bible, it is
	  all in there!" I heve received this advice dozen of times and have
	  really tried. I am clearly too stupid; I have not found the answer.

	- I am still in the dark about the nature of "Salvation". What is it?
	  What's in it for me?  What's in it for God (in my case)?

	- Why am I always being told that I am a sinner. I am not! I live my
	  life according to the code I laid out previously and I harbour no
	  intentions of doing anyone, or anything, other than good. If this
	  is Christian sin, my search stops here; I want no part of it. Some
	  have argued that by not accepting the sacrifice of the cross, I am 
	  a sinner. Apart from the obvious circularity of this argument, it
	  seems to me that those who have accepted this sacrifice are those
	  who most loudly proclaim "I am a sinner."

	- I am confused by the apparent need for Christians who, in taking
	  their "great leap of joy", or in accepting the "good news" (Jesus
	  slaughtered by the Romans; all sins taken away), to practice with
	  -- sometimes obvious -- relish self-flagellation.  "We must suffer
	  to be saved," "the way to God is a stony way."

	- I have persistently failed to understand why a Christian needs to
	  believe the unbelievable in order to find salvation.  And in order
	  to "rationalize" these beliefs, need to perform extraordinary feats
	  of contortions on texts which, without this interference, are very
	  clear.  The "virgin" Mary is the most immediate example which
	  springs to mind.
 
	- My most serious, and painful, concern is very much in the "here and
	  now".  Put bluntly: I simply do not believe you any more.

	  With a few exceptions (personal and incidental), at nearly every
	  turn in my search for answers, I have encountered bigotry, hypocarcy
	  and blindness.  To my mind, these attributes are not, and cannot be,
	  Christian-compatible attributes.

	I will go a little deeper in my next note.

	Greetings, Derek.

	I closed the previous note with the comment that I simply do not
	believe (most) Christians any more.

	From the start, I want to make it clear that I see this as *my*
	problem. If, in what follows, I appear to be accusing or judging,
	please remember that I am *actually* talking about my personal
	inability to believe.

	There are some things in life which, through study, observation or
    
	reason -- or any combination of these -- I have come to regard as
	facts. Not necessarily incontestable or eternal facts but, at the
	very least, facts which, for the moment, offer the most complete
	and satisfying explanation for all observations made and all questions
	raised by those observations.

	Examples relevant to us are: Evolution of species and organisms (which
	is NOT to be equated with the origin of life); the ultimate extinction
	of our species (if it is not previously self-inflicted); the ultimate
	demise of the earth (having easily survived the worst that humankind
	can do) by absorption into an exploding sun. Further, I sincerely
	believe that the body of *evidence* (not "proof") is that the Bible was
	written by many hands over a long period of time and that each author,
	editor or whatever, wrote from a personal agenda which may or may not
	have been personal, patriotic or theologcal motives.

	I do not believe that the Hebrew Bible contains a single prophecy which 
	can be mapped down 1:1 to Jesus. There are, however a lot of messianic
	prophecies, many of which could be shoehorned to Jesus.

	I would like to believe in the "big bang" but my understanding is too
	superficial for me to take the leap of faith. In this, I see a parallel
	to my relationship with Christianity. The parallel ends, however, when
	I consider the credentials of the respective proponents.  I have no
	difficulty in accepting the credentials of the scientists. I have great
	difficulties in this respect with many Christians.

	Interestingly, another commonality highlights one of my problems. Both
	scientists and Christians frequently argue about what is right and what 
	is wrong. These arguments often degrade to acrimonius and bigoted mud-
	slinging. The difference is: the scientist are not carrying a banner
	proclaiming "Love thy neighbor".

	Quite apart from the fact that I am unable to grasp why, to be a
	Christian, it is necessary to believe in a virgin birth or a 6000 (or
	10000 or whatever) years young earth or a host of other "mysteries";
	I have enormous difficulty in understanding how *anyone* could believe 
	these things in the light of the body of evidence.
	
	And, to compound my confusion, I hear explanations such as (serioulsy):
	God created the earth complete with scars and wrinkles to make it look
	older than it is.  Further: scientists, with their dating machines can't
	count.

	Quites seriously -- and I appreciate that this could be construed as a
	judgement -- I find it impossible to believe that those who loudly
	proclaim these things do not, inwardy, suffer torments of doubt. In
	this, I see a parallel to Jesus carrying his cross to Calvary. The
	weight of the cross (or: the evidence against these unnatural beliefs)
	must surely evoke doubts: "Father, why hast thou forsaken me?"
    
	I cannot beleive the denials.

	Then there are the lies. Not necessarily deliberate lies as spoken:
	it may well be that the speaker believes them but; from the outside
	looking in, they are manifest.  It becomes tragic when, having had the
	falsehood rebutted, the speaker defends it.  Topically (in Austria)
	is the myth of the unchanging nature of the church (in this case the
	HRC&AC), especially on the role of sex (in marriage) and celibacy.
	Both teachings have changed dramatically over the centuries but these
	changes are systematically denied both institutionally and personally. 

	And the hypocracy.

	At the pinnacle: The Priest who sexually abuses children and preaches
	morals (and, perhaps worse: attack their accusers). And the lack of
	sanctions from the institution.

	But, in various degrees, I have encountered hypocracy at nearly every
	turn in my search. Even, I am sad to say, here in CP.  Preach love;
	practice hate. Preach humility; practice arrogance. Preach tolerance;
	practice bigotry. The discrepancy between the "Christian values", it
	seems to me, is in direct proportion to the size of the  "I am a
	Christian" banner being borne.

	If, as some claim, the Bible holds the eternal, literal and inerrant
	truth then why, in God's name, do they not LOVE each other? Why are, for
	example, a huge slice of the notes entered in CP concerned with attack
	counterattack, refutations, rebuttals, apologies and down-to-earth
	insults?

	If, as some claim, the Bible is the Word of God, why is it a "crime"
	to quote one verse rather than another to support a point ov view
	(this was called "snippet theology" in CP. I have heard worse names)?
	Surely the Word of God is as valid in detail as it is in its entirety?
	Or are there some (I know one outside of CP) who claim to understand
	the full universal nature God and, therefore, can have no tract with
	those "poor souls" who can only grasp him in "spippets"?

	It is blindness at its most acute to fail to see that a large part of
	the practice of Christianity is contrary to the teachings of Jesus.

	Thus, I have moved away from Christianity, because I cannot believe
	(most of) those who proclaim to follow Christ.  There are exceptions
	of course. Some are here in CP and others are nearer home: most
	especially my wife, who genuinely tries to be faithful *and* honest,
	suffering in the process; a Catholic priest friend, who suffers
	because he is disloyal to his Institute, favouring truth over Dogma
	and, interestingly, Rabbi Abram Melik, whose profound knowledge of
	the Hebrew Bible and the works of Paul have opened up ins�ghts which
	give Christianity a rationale which, to me, seems honest and clear.
	(He does not claim to follow Christ, of course).
 
	I will conclude in the next note by quoting two essays both written
	by 14-years olds in our local secondary school. I wonder if you will
	see a glimmer of hope in them?

	Greetings, Derek.	

	I have regular contact with religious teachers from 3 schools close to
	my home.  One of them is a Catholic private school and moderately
	progressive; the others are secondary schools (11-15 years + pre
	student classes).

	From one of the secondary schools, I received 5 interesting essays on
	the subject "The Role of Religion in the Environment". I have contacted
	the authors and received their permission to translate them and post
	them here. I made a nominal contribution to their pocket-monies.
	--------------------------------------------------------------------
	Jason Lorenz: 14, Schoolboy. Boy-scout. Has a 5" Astro-telescope which
	is his pride and joy. Jason has 2 younger sisters. His father is a 
	pianist; Mother is Internal Decor Adviser.  They are well travelled.

	(Note: where Jason used "man", I have translated it to "human" etc.
				   - - - - - - - - -
	One day, nearly 2000 years after the death of his son, Jesus, God was
	musing over his works. He was concerned that his earthly creation had,
	once again backfired. In his infinite wisdom and love, he had created
	humans with free wills. They had, however, once again demonstrated that
	this freedom was too great a challenge. Despite signs, revelations and
	warning after warning, they had consistently chosen a path leading to
	his, God's, enemies. God concluded that it was time for decisive action.

	His first attempt to issue a final warning went badly askew. He appeared
	in burning bush on the outskirts of Los Angeles and, within minutes, was
	surrounded by 2100 fire-fighters from 4 counties all pumping water over 
	him. He made a strategic retreat: another flood was not what not what he
	had in mind this time.

	Finally, he appeared simultaneously and world-wide to persons in high 
	office, clericals of many religions (with some bias towards Christians,
	it must be admitted) and to several hundered environmentalists.  His
	warning was urfgent and unambiguous: if humans do not immediately cease
	to abuse the wonderful gifts he had bestowed upon them, he would make
	an end to it all.

	Reaction was slow in coming. The powerful, some fearing los of power,
	some fearing loss of face (many seeing these as synonymus), kept silent
	about their visions. The clericals, fearing to be seen as "prophets in
	their own land" delivered the news of their visions from the pulpits in
	the form of "On the way here, tonight..." or "I have a friend who..."
	and their words were taken to be just another sermon; to be ignored as
	all his previous sermons.

	Only the environmentalists, familiar with the responses to their own
	dire warnings, were encouraged to speak louder than ever against the
	sins of humankind against nature and, in the long run, aginst itself.
	Unfortunately, any reference to their vision was greeted with scorn.
	"Now they're resorting to magic and hocus-pocus," was thew commonest
	reaction. Thus, for a long time, nothing changed. God's patience wore
	thin.

	Eventually, he reappeared to all of those he had previously visited
	and gave them an ultimatum: "You will hold a congress and decide on
	an effective plan for your salvation. I will be watching closely."

	It took several years to set up but, at last, environmentalists,
	clericals and powerful people from all over the world came together
	and talked, discussed, debated, argued, fought and lobbied. On the
	platform, no one spoke of their vision but, in the bars, after a day of
	heated debate, the truth was passed in whispered tones from one tired
	ear to the next. Instead of firing the congress to seek inspired sol-
	utions, it fell into even greater dischord as rivalry for God's good
	graces usurped the previous half-hearted attempts to seek real
	solutions. The congress closed with no final document, renewed threats
	of mutual trade sanctions, an indefinate postponement of a planned ecu-
	menical congress and renewed plans for investment in nuclear arms
	building. The environmentalists, whose plan was, from the outset,
	closest to the supposed purpose of the congress, went away disappointed
	but more unified than they had been previously. The decided to hold a
	separate congress, free of politicians and clericals and to set up a
	committee to organize it.

	In the Spring of the following year, 4600 of them came together to
	issue and draft a plan of action. On the eve of the conference, God	
	appeared to each of them. "This is your last chance," he said.

	During the congress, many plans were proposed and debated. It was soon
	clear that, to succeed, they had to enlist the support of one or both
	of the other groups which had brought the previous congress to such a
	disastrous end.

	Time was pressing: in the world outside, weapons more powerful than
	ever were being built; world resources were growing shorter, energy
	supplies were becoming more and more reliant on nuclear fission, and the
	world's forests were depleting at an alarming rate. Crime was on the
	increase everywhere.

	Continued in next note.  DRB

	Continued from previous note. 

	The concluding speeches were a tragic reflection of helplessness.
	Nothing could be achieved without the support of the other parties and
	no one could say how that support could be won. The closing ceremony
	began in an atmosphere of deep depression. Suddenly, God appeared to
	the assembled masses. "You have tried more than all others to find a
	solution. For this, I will grant you one wish. I want your reply
	within the hour."

	Chaos broke out [I was amused at the picture, not intended by Jason, of
	God creating chaos. DRB], everyone wanting to be the author of this one
	wish which was to be fulfilled by God. The sands of the hour-glass were
	running low before one theme seemed to materialize out of the mass of
	raised voices. The greatest evil and most immediate enemy to humankind
	was the nuclear threat. For want of anything better, consensus emerged:
	eliminate nuclear energy. When he reappeared and heard the decision of
	the environmentalists, he nodded, "From this moment on, I revoke the
	laws pewrtaining to the decay of radio-active substances. Without this
	law, there can be no nuclear reactions, Are you sure?"  "Yes! Yes!
	Yes!" they cried in unison. And left the conference in a mood of 
	jubilation.

	At first, nothing seemed to happen. Here and there, a nuclear power
	station reported a slight fall in kernel temperature; an American bomb
	in Arkinsas [sic] went "pop" instead of "bang"; sme local  reports of a
	drop in ambient radiation (maybe due to improved car ignition systems)
	trickled in; but nobody was concerned.

	Within a few years, however, the picture began to change dramatically.
	Power stations all over the world were reporting up to 80% loss of
	output. The search for new oil sources was intensified. Spillage of
	oil was no longer seen as an environmental disaster but as an economical
	criome. Coal-fired power stations were renovated and re-opened, new ones
	were built. Winters became steadily longer and glaciers retreated less
	in each successive summer. Two Swiss villages were evacuated and left
	to perish under new ice. The same fate threatened many others.

	Then the earth began to shake. The crust, heated for more than 3
	thousand million years by its own nuclear power-plant, began to cool
	and shrink. Unhtols millions of tons of matter pressed against opposing
	masses and, unable to go forward, pushed upwards. Long before the sun
	had lost one hundredth of a degree of heat, the earth had lost three
	full degrees.

	Vast forests were cut down to provide fuel for powere stations and for
	home fires. Thos forests which survived the axe fell to earthquakes 
	and landslips.

	Oceans swallowed land; at first just a few small islands and coastal
	tracts but soon showing an unquenchable appetite  for higher lands.
	Gigantic waves battered fragile coastal defenses in the oceans'
	inexorable march inland.

	Wars broke out in the fight for space. More people crowding into ever
	less space, with failing harves following failing harves, drove all to
	rise up against their neighbors with a �n intensity never beforen
	in human histiory.

	There could no longer be any doubt.

	God looked upon his work and was pleased.  "And this time, there will
	be no Noah," he said.
	---------------------------------------------------------------------
	Petra Horwarth. 14  Petra is the school's best swimmer and has several
		cups. She "adores" horses and is saving to buy her own. She has
		a slight speech impediment: "But," she says, "the horses don't
		care." 
		Father: Works in Finance Ministry. Mother: Studying Psychology.
		Petra has no brothers or sisters.

	God is full of wisdom and love. The people he created should be, too,
	because he made them in his image.

	But they fell into sin and now they are chopping down the trees and
	killing all the plants and animals. Lexus [the name of the horse Petra
	regulary rides and grooms. DRB] must now graze in a field much further
	away because all the grass in his first field is poisoned by the cars.

	I think God will rescue the world from being destroyed by the humans.
	But I don't think he will rescue the people from killing themselves. He
	is *much* too wise!

	It's a pity, really!
	----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Footnotes: When I showed this essay to a friend, a deeply religious,
	English, teacher, her only comment was: "One should not begin a
	sentence with "but..."."

	Both essays were graded only 3 (satisfactory) because they missed the
	subject (The Role of Religion -- not God -- in the Environment).

	Greetings, Derek.

    Derek:
    
    I thank you for your entries and I believe there are two issues which
    spoke to me the most.
    
    The first would be hypocrisy.  You and I both know that the earth is
    round.  It has been proven scientifically and by trial and error...the
    earth is round and will always be round.  Unless it blows up, nothing
    will change this fact.  
    
    It is presumed by history that Christopher Columbus proved the earth
    was not flat.  No doubt the man was viewed by many as a heretic...just
    as Galileo was viewed as a heretic for stating the earth revolved
    around the sun and not the other way around.  Now consider
    this...Columbus could have been a murderer, a slave trader, a rapist, 
    one of the most shallow of all people.  Nevertheless, the earth is
    still round.  Galileo may have been a whoremonger, a bigot, a wino, a
    child molester....pick any negative attribute...It makes no difference
    at all...the earth STILL revolves around the sun.  Now, consider the
    priest who is a pedophile, the conservative bible believing individual
    with the strong point of view, the liberal theologian who proscribes to
    the social gospel...this in no way changes the nature of God and it
    never will.  Hypocrisy may in fact prevail within the church or within
    society.  However, basing the existence of your mortal soul on the
    actions of other human beings...and judging God's nature by the lack of
    standards the church holds today might be something to
    reconsider...why?  Because at the very end, God's nature is constant
    and never changes.  Just something to consider.
    
    Secondly, you surely must realize that this conference is a forum on
    discussing attributes of Christianity; that is it.  Using C-P as a
    measurement of fellowship would be a fallacy.  The likemindedness is
    minimal, the membership is made pretty much of Mystics, Christians,
    Wiccans, Agnostics...there is no coherent system of beliefs other than
    the fact that we should be decent to one another.  I actually fail to
    see the difference between this conference and the religion
    conference...and I am unable at times to understand the pure motives of
    some of the people here...but I enjoy the dialog that we have and hope
    it will continue.
    
    Derek, I wish you God's best and hope that some day you will have the
    abundant peace that comes from Christ alone.  
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

re Note 1152.5 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Secondly, you surely must realize that this conference is a forum on
>     discussing attributes of Christianity; that is it.  Using C-P as a
>     measurement of fellowship would be a fallacy.  The likemindedness is
>     minimal, the membership is made pretty much of Mystics, Christians,
>     Wiccans, Agnostics...there is no coherent system of beliefs other than
>     the fact that we should be decent to one another.  

        Perhaps Derek was thinking that there was no discernible
        correlation between a participant's particular profession of
        faith and the manner in which they conduct themselves in a
        heated argument.

        Bob

    That may very well be...and it isn't an observation I particularly feel
    comfortable with.  It does nevertheless confirm the frailty of humanity
    in my opinion.
    
    I believe Paul had similar bouts with Peter and Barnabbus on two
    separate occasions.
    
    -Jack

	Bob, you continue to amaze me at how quickly you can cut through the
retoric and get to the point. A gift you should be quite proud of.


Glen

First and foremost, Derek, I thank you for sharing your frank observations
of Christianity with us here in this forum.

It a gift, I believe, to be given the opportunity to see ourselves as others
see us.

I cannot argue a single point with you.  I struggle with the same issues
concerning Christianity.

Shalom,
Richard

re .0 to .4


thank you, derek, for sharing some of the jewels in your luggage.

they provide a little glimpse on what must be a vast collection
of treasures.

you are one rich man.



andreas.

    
    Sounds good to me, Derek.  Thanks for entering all that.  I really
    appreciate what you shared.
    
    Best wishes on the tasks you described that are facing you in
    'retirement' (which, as some of my retired friends have mentioned 
    many times, does not really exist. (;^))
    
    Cindy

    Derek,

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts with us. I'd have to say that for a
    large part I share your sentiments, yet I still cling to the belief in
    God and Jesus.

    I found your definition of "Christian Values" wryly amusing, since what
    you describe is what the Jew's would call a mench. These values seem to
    me to be no more Christian than they are Jewish. :^) Perhaps you'd make
    a good Jew? :^)

    Eric

	First I would like to thank all of you who did not hit the Next
	Unseen key and took the trouble to read these notes. And especial
	thanks to those, on- and off-line, who have sent their good wishes.

	I will allow myself to respond here to some of the comments made.

	Re: .5 Jack.

	I take your point fully, that the nature of God remains unchanged
	despite the attributes of (many of) his devotees. (cf: Columbus and
	spherical earth; Galileo and solarcentric earth, etc). I hope that you
	did not infer from my notes that -- given that I acknowledge a God --
	I would be so presumptious as to attribute to him anything other than
	a divine nature.

	No! My point was that, in my search to find God, I have only a limited
	number of access points. Having chosen to search within the Christian
	world (for reasons of culture and because my wife is Christian), I have
	eliminated many access points up front.  There remains "only" the Bible,
	the institutional churches (which, in Austria, is overwhelmingly the
	HRC&AC) and the body of the church, those who claim to be Christians.
	
	You can believe me -- I think I have demonstrated it in here often
	enough -- that I hold the Bible in high esteem and have studied it as
	well as most. How I interpret what I read is entirely personal and
	very largely governed by reason and personal observation.  The
	institutional church has, to my mind, largely disqualified itself for
	me AS A TEACHER for many reasons, some of which I gave in my notes.

	Thus, I am left with the body of the church, the real-life Christians
	and the only external access point to understanding. I have gone to
	great lengths to establish dialogue with as many as I can. (Hence my
	presence here, for example).

	You will probably have no difficulty in feeling my sorrow in finding
	that even these access points are frequently self-disqualifying. I
	simply do not know where else to go.

	As Bob (in .6) so succinctly remarked: (paraphrase) It just don't
	rhyme. I have met as many "honest" non-Christians as Christians.

	Your reply (to Bob) hits the nail on the head: It does, nevertheless
	confirm the frailty of humanity.
	
	But it leaves me wandering around in the dark. Which was my point.

	Your second point is also well taken. I would like to think that I
	issued an appeal for fellowship (within CP) rather than to use it as
	a yardstick for Christian fellowship. I would certainly prefer not to
	be associated with such presumptiveness.

	RE: .9 Richard.

	> I cannot argue a single point with you.

	Are you trying to give me a guilt-complex: starving my fellows of
	nourishing argument?    :-)

	Re: .10 Andreas.

	> You are one rich man.

	How beautifully concise, Andreas. But, yes! It reflects exactly how
	I feel about my life.

	Trouble is, I can't sepnd it!  :-)  And, I've heard, it is a barrier to
	entering the Kingdom of Heaven!   :-(

	Re: .11 Cindy.

	I. too, have heard that retirement is an illusion.  When I view the
	cartons of stuff I hope to catalog, I can believe it. Thank heavens,
	I do not also have a garden to tend.

	Re: .12 Eric.

	> Perhaps you'd make a good Jew.

	That's what Rabbi Melik keeps telling me. I possess the physical 
	attributes, too; having been circum.. er ..scribed.

	---------------
	A surprise (to me) is that there has been no reaction (on- or off-
	line) to the two essays I entered.

	Greetings, Derek.
                      

    
    > ...I have eliminated many access points up front.  There remains
    > "only" the Bible, the institutional churches (which, in Austria, is
    > overwhelmingly the HRC&AC) and the body of the church, those who claim
    > to be Christians.

    You always have God himself. Through prayer and the Holy Spirit of God
    you have another access point... if you believe in that sort of thing,
    prayer I mean. 

    According to Luke, St. Paul suffered spiritual spontaneous combustion,
    so there's hope for you yet. :^)
    
    	Eric

.13>	A surprise (to me) is that there has been no reaction (on- or off-
.13>	line) to the two essays I entered.


derek, i thought jason's essay would have made a fitting complement to last
weeks title theme of "der spiegel" (the leading german newsweekly).

for us who live in german speaking europe, it should be no surprise that 
god finds a listening ear with the environmentalists. for judging by the 
spiegel report, environmentalism is fast taking on religious dimensions 
in our part of the world and is growing at the rate at which it replaces 
the traditional religions!

the "spiegel" report was quite an eye-opener. i hadn't considered up to 
now that 'lip-service', 'hypocrisy' and 'salvation' could apply to 
environmentalists and the masses of their followers as much as they apply 
to any religious faith.

expect the definitions of "freedom of the individual", "responsibility"
and "sin" to undergo further and wide-reaching change as the earth's natural
resources deplete.

unsettling thoughts for an atheist! particularly for one with a strong
affinity to greenpeace.

though one thing is certain, as always with religion, doom is just around 
the corner!



andreas.

ps. i hope you forgive this devil's advocate note, derek. i can highly 
    recommend the spiegel article (if you can't buy it any longer i can 
    send you a copy).

    Worshipping the created instead of the creator.  Andreas, it is an old
    religion.  Nothing new under the sun!
    
    -Jack

    I see no one worshipping the creation instead of the creator.
    What I see is disdain for those who would care for the creation
    instead of continuing to rape and desecrate it.
    
    Richard
    

I was responding to this line in particular.
    
ZZ    environmentalism is fast taking on religious dimensions 
ZZ    in our part of the world and is growing at the rate at which it
ZZ    replaces the traditional religions!
    
    By our definition of religion, i.e. the worship of a deity, this is
    considered a worshipping of the created.  
    
    You misunderstand my motives.  Stewardship of what God has given us is
    important.  I would however consider the title of the reply, "God is
    Green", to be a reflection of the attitudes of faith and God in the
    world today!
    
    -Jack

    I guess we should be able to see the parallels for what they are.
    
    Richard
    

    Maybe...but as you know things go over my head from time to time!
    
    -Jack

re .16, .17


jack, richard, you are both right and neither reply is particularly
comforting.

;-}


... doom is doom is doom ...



andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    I just rented a home and my responsibility is to maintain it as a
    viable piece of property.  I am a steward of somebody elses property.
    So I don't disagree with Richard regarding the rape of the natural
    world.
    
    I was referring to the worship of the environment as a deity.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, I thought you just sold your home?????

    Oh...yes.  We closed last Friday and are now renting a house in
    Amherst.  A very grueling week to say the least!
    
    -Jack

	Ahhh..... thanks for clearing that up

    Worshipping the created instead of the creator.  Andreas, it is an old
    religion.  Nothing new under the sun!
    
    -Jack

True, it pre-dates the worship of (or creation of, if you prefer) the 
creator in human history.

Steve

                               
    >Worshipping the created instead of the creator.  Andreas, it is an old
    >religion.  Nothing new under the sun!
    
    That isn't true...it just looks that way in the eyes of those who don't
    get it.  This - along with the completely mistaken idea that Hindus and 
    Buddhists worship many gods and goddesses - is about as accurate as saying 
    that a Christian child who kneels beside the bed with hands folded and 
    saying prayers is actually worshipping and paying homage to the bed.
    
    Cindy

>    get it.  This - along with the completely mistaken idea that Hindus and 
>    Buddhists worship many gods and goddesses - is about as accurate as saying 
>    that a Christian child who kneels beside the bed with hands folded and 
>    saying prayers is actually worshipping and paying homage to the bed.
    
    Don't Hindu Temples have many gods on display in them?  I've never seen
    a bed as a symbol in Christian churches (although some could definitely
    draw a correlation to it).
    
    Mike

                                                              
    Re.28
    
    >Don't Hindu Temples have many gods on display in them? 
    
    Yes, they do, however they are viewed as only representations of the One.
    
    There is a Sanskrit saying that goes, "God is One, the saints and sages
    call it by many names".  The 'God beyond all gods and goddesses' is 
    infinite, impersonal, omnicient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, and cannot 
    be fathomed or comprehended by mere humans.  (Note the OM at the beginning 
    of each of these words. (;^))  However, it's very hard to worship a God
    that you cannot perceive, so to bridge the gap, the various aspects of
    God are portrayed by the temple God and Goddess figures that people can
    relate more directly to, until they come to realize in their more
    matured spiritual understandings later in life that God in true reality
    is beyond all human form and description. 
    
    Some of these statues are actual representations of God in various 
    incarnations on Earth, including Sri Krishna, and Sri Ram.  The idea of 
    God incarnations appears in the Christian tradition as Christ, who also
    walked the Earth for a while.  So to have 'icons' such as Christ and
    Mary in churches is no different than the gods and goddesses in the
    temples.  No Hindu would ever worship any of those icons thinking the 
    figure - and the figure alone - is God, and neither would a Christian
    do the same with a statue of Christ or Mary.   In fact, the Hindus that
    I know even celebrate Christmas and fully recognize Christ as an
    incarnation of the Divine.  The only difference is that they don't
    recognize that He is the *only* incarnation of the Divine.
    
    >I've never seen a bed as a symbol in Christian churches (although 
    >some could definitely draw a correlation to it).
    
    Smart guy...(;^P  (;^)  OK then, switch the bed to a cross.
    
    Cindy

>    temples.  No Hindu would ever worship any of those icons thinking the 
>    figure - and the figure alone - is God, and neither would a Christian
>    do the same with a statue of Christ or Mary.   In fact, the Hindus that
>    I know even celebrate Christmas and fully recognize Christ as an
>    incarnation of the Divine.  The only difference is that they don't
>    recognize that He is the *only* incarnation of the Divine.
    
    Do they acknowledge the virgin with child (aka Fatima) as the Moslems
    do?  Islam has an obvious attraction since Fatima was Mohammed's
    daughter.
    
�    >I've never seen a bed as a symbol in Christian churches (although 
�    >some could definitely draw a correlation to it).
�    
�    Smart guy...(;^P  (;^)  OK then, switch the bed to a cross.
    
    Cindy, what I really meant was that some churches are so boring, a bed
    would fit nicely instead of a cross. 
    
    Mike ;-)

                              
    Re.30
    
    Mike,
    
    I'd have to ask my friends what they believe, though given the nature
    of Hinduism (which is similar to Unitarian Universalism in this way),
    you'd get a different response from each person you asked.
    
    Since Islam is kind of a cousin to Christianity, it would be hard to
    compare the two as it really is a different lineage altogether where
    Christians do share the same Biblical God with their Muslim brothers 
    and sisters, whereas Hindus do not.
    
    Regarding virgin births - this is a phenomenon that exists in many
    religious traditions, and I don't believe Hinduism is an exception to
    this (I think perhaps that Sri Krishna was born of a virgin mother as
    well, though would have to doublecheck).  I seem to recall that the 
    Buddha was born of a virgin too.  So that would be 2 of their Divine 
    incarnations out of 10 that have come to earth in this way.  
    
    Remind me to check on this, and I'll get back to you...my information
    is all at home at the moment (fyi, the source for the virgin birth 
    stories is primarily Joseph Campbell's works). 
    
    Cindy

    
    Cute on the bed one.  (;^)

    Re: virgin births
    
    Genesis 3:15 was a major clue of what was to come.  Genesis 10:8
    records one of the first major players in that arena too.
    
    Nimrod's widow, Semiramus was the first and went on to become know in
    many different cultures and countries.
    
    Mother       Son
    ----------------
    Semiramus - Tammuz
    Isis - Horus
    Venus - Cupid
    Ishtar - ?
    Mary - Jesus

    Cindy:
    
    I thought Buddhism was actually an atheistic religion.  Is this true?
    
    -jack

    Jack,
    
    Which flavor of Bhuddhism?
    
    meg

    Thank God for the simplicity of His Gospel!

    Bhuddhism....thank you!  I'll never spell it correctly!
    
    Let's make it easy.  Which sects are atheistic?
    
    -Jack

    Re.a few back
    
    Jack - Meg's right, there are many different 'denominations' of
    Buddhism.  
    
    On the whole, and from your perspective, Buddhism can appear to be 
    atheistic, however in reality it is not.  It would take a while to 
    describe it though, and I can't easily do it from memory...maybe 
    I'll try to look up Thich Nhat Hanh's writing on this as he does a 
    wonderful job putting it into words.
    
    Re.36 - Mike
    
    Yeah, right...and so that simplicity of the Gospel is why there are 
    so many Christian denominations...(;^)
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.33
    
    Yes - thanks for that list of virgin births, Mike.  
    
    Cindy

>    Yeah, right...and so that simplicity of the Gospel is why there are 
>    so many Christian denominations...(;^)
    
    Cindy, we've said something earlier today about educating oneself to
    avoid misconceptions and this applies here as well.  Denominations
    haven't been born out of differences in the Gospel.  They are born out
    of stances on non-critical doctrinal issues.
    
    Mike

    
    I'm not so sure about that, Mike.  However, I'm including all the
    Christian 'sects' into my comment - even the most radical of ones -
    so perhaps our definition of 'denominations' or perhaps even 'doctrine'
    is different.  
    
    I admit to not being well-versed in the history of Christianity from
    this perspective, yet there are some cases that come to mind where
    there are radical departures in how the Gospel is interpreted and put
    into practice in this world.
    
    Cindy

    Protestant denominations are a great example of what I was saying:
    Baptists (all flavors), Methodists, Lutherans, etc.
    
    Mike

    
    So were you, say, including Catholics (and all those various splits) in
    your comment on denominations, or just referring to Protestant ones?
    
    (Hey - if you mix around two letters, you get demon-inations!  Could be
    one of those 666-type things - you just never know...(;^)  Where's Hal
    and Constance when you need 'em?)
    
    Cindy

    I was referring to Protestant ones.  Catholics aren't Protestants
    (remember the Reformation).
    
    Mike

    
    Yes, that was what I was looking for.  Then if you are only comparing
    Protestants with Protestants, and not with others such as Catholics,
    then I will agree that the differences are not so great.
    
    This was the point that wasn't clear earlier.
    
    Cindy