Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    One does not have to look very far to find examples of dysfunctional
    evangelism.  
    
    Has anyone figured out a truly effective way of dealing with that
    nuisance?

 What in the wide wide world of sports is "dysfunctional evangelism"?




 Jim

    
    What a title!  What a concept!  Pardon me while I pee in my pants in
    uncontrolled laughter!
    
    jeff

    Well, while you're getting wet people are being lead away
    from God, scared away from God and turned off to the whole
    idea that God is worth looking for.

    It is practiced by people who love the sound of their own
    voices use powerful words like "God's Word", "abomination",
    "my way is the only way" and "Sin".

    Gentle, simple love and sanity are lost on such egos and the
    beauty of Christianity is given a bad name.  People are driven
    away in droves.
    
    I guess it's up to the real Christians to quietly pick up the
    peices and live the truth instead of shouting about something
    they're still unsure about.

    Tom

    So you know what Patricia is talking about, Tom?
    
    jeff

    Oh Boy, I can see this is going to be a good one.
    
    Dysfunctional Evangalism?  My interpretation is in line with Tom's,
    namely, evangelism that turns people away from God.  
    
    How do you deal with it?  How would/did Jesus deal with it?  
    
    Lemme see... "Remove the beam from your own eye..."???
    
    -dave
    
    

Re  .4

    Christianity is given a bad name when Christ and his accomplished work on
    the cross is not put at the center of the message.

>   I guess it's up to the real Christians to quietly pick up the
>   peices and live the truth instead of shouting about something
>   they're still unsure about.

    *REAL* Christians lovingly tell about the good news of salvation through
    Christ, the ONLY path that GOD SAYS leads to Him.  If this is true it
    would be unloving to say otherwise.  And there is NO uncertainy aboutit.

    Michael

    Patricia,
    
    For the most part I try to ignore the dysfunctional.  Whatever happened
    to them before they got Christ/Mohammed/Buddha/Hecate/krishna.......
    still apparently flavors the way they try to present their message, and
    causes them to try to beat it into other people the way they were
    apparently beaten before.  A prime example was the megaphone lumberman,
    who showed up at every public gathering that wasn't "christian" to tell
    others the error of their ways and how a vengeful, wrathful god was
    going to pick them up and cast them into lava when he rteturned. 
    
    I imagine that because this is the only way they related to a parent,
    they found the only way to relate to god and the way they felt god
    would relate to others was through fear and intimidation.  I used to
    have the patience to explain that they need a course in love before
    trying to show it to others, but I feel that she will show them in her
    own way, and I will have to hope they don't succeed in driving others
    away from spirituality.  
    
    meg

    We're all dysfunctional to a degree.  The important thing is being born
    again and becoming a new creation in Christ.

    
    Patricia, you gonna define what you mean?  
    
    I know you admire Richard's style, but you'd do better to be yourself.
    
    jeff

Jeff,
    
    I guess I am asking for advice on effective Christian personal
    responses to notes  that attempt to belittle me and other
    noters in the process of misplaced evangelism.  
    
    Alternatives.
    
    -Ignore the notes
    -Answer sincerely
    -Answer sarcastically
    -Support the person being belittled while ignoring the original note.
    -Feel my own feelings.
    -Discuss how the notes makes me feel.
    
    goals.
    
    -maintain a spiritually supportative environment in here
    -Support others in their individual spiritual journeys
    -Clarify for myself what Christianity means for me.
    -Identify for myself and others alternatives to a heavy handed
    Christianity.
    -Practice loving others as myself.
    -Practice loving and speaking up for myself.
    -Create a file where real communication can occur.
    -Model healthy ways of communicating/relating/conflict resolution.

	Michael, you DO realize that what you said does take the Bible out of
play at times, right? And that other venues that have nothing to do with the
Bible will bring people to God. 

    I think that there's a certain expectation of tolerance when it comes
    to respecting different views on what salvation is and how to attain
    it.  This expectation is often unmet when addressed by some who firmly
    believe that their view is the single true and only correct way of
    regarding the matter.  A person is accepted on all other bases... race,
    ethnicity, gender, etc... but may be rejected on the basis of his/her
    views on religion.  There seems to be no room for several different
    approaches to religion from the perspective of some.  And this form
    of... dare I say... bigotry is what some find irritating.
    
    -dave
    

>Jeff,
    
    >I guess I am asking for advice on effective Christian personal
    >responses to notes  that attempt to belittle me and other
    >noters in the process of misplaced evangelism.  

    Thanks for the clarification, Patricia.  First off, biblical evangelism
    is never "misplaced."  The Lord Jesus described and commanded it of his
    disciples.  It certainly isn't misplaced when shared with those who are
    ignorant and/or unbelieving.

    I think it is unreasonable for you to conclude that discussion of and
    disection of your propositions and beliefs as stated here equals
    belittling.  But! I realize that since your beliefs are purely subjective
    that it is hard to separate you from your beliefs in your own mind.  I
    don't have that problem where you are concerned in that I am strictly
    measuring your beliefs and propositions against biblical Christianity.
    
   > Alternatives.
    
   > -Ignore the notes
   > -Answer sincerely
   > -Answer sarcastically
   > -Support the person being belittled while ignoring the original note.
   > -Feel my own feelings.
   > -Discuss how the notes makes me feel.
    
   I think you should add one more and that is attempt to be more objective
   about your beliefs so that you do not take scrutinazation of them 
   personally.  This will require you to understand and accept that 
   Christianity is very specific in many areas and makes completely
   exclusive claims concerning truth. 

   Choosing from your own list, I tell you that from a Christian ethic
   you must "answer sincerely" those questions put to you.

   jeff  
   
   

>   personally.  This will require you to understand and accept that 
>   Christianity is very specific in many areas and makes completely
>   exclusive claims concerning truth. 

    Well, maybe your brand of Christianity, but not mine.

    I don't believe that Christians have exclusive access to
    the truth.

    Isn't simple access to the truth enough?  Why do you think
    is *has* to be exclusive?

    Tom

The truth is not exclusive; it has been delivered to the whole world.

And it's quite simple:

	There is no salvation except through Jesus Christ.

This is a universal truth worthy of all to believe, which excludes no one.

/john

    John,
    
    First of all one does not have to believe that "There is no salvation
    except through Jesus Christ"  is a universal
    truth.   Most people do not believe that is a universal Truth.  I.E.
    All Non Christians do not believe that and many Christians do not
    believe it.
    
    Second, even if as Unitarian Universalist with Christian leanings, I
     accepted that statement I can  provide a number of possible meanings
    for the statement.  No one meaning of that statement can be proven or
    disproven by the Bible.  Exactly what that statement means is vague. 
    One of the main themes in the book of Mark for instance, is Jesus
    asking "And who do people say I am".  Part of the mystery of the book
    of Mark is that that statement is never fully answered.  It is answered
    in part.  Jesus is the Messiah who will die on the Cross.  But the
    answer itself is a mystery.  Messiah's are suppose to win military
    victories, not die on the Cross.  What is the meaning of a Messiah who
    dies on the Cross.  And the book of Mark is only one book, with one set
    of questions, and one approach into the mystery of Jesus Christ.
    
    "Who is Jesus", and "how is salvation  obtained thru Jesus" are open
    question.
    
    One interpretation that adds insight is  the following.
    
    1.  Christ is the incarnation of God in humanity.
    2.  Christ took on human flesh and lived as a fully human personality.
    3.  Christ lived in this world in full connection and relationship with
    other humans.  Christ practiced love and living in connection with God
    the parent as a primary way of living.
    
    For me "There is no salvation except through Jesus Christ", means that
    we as humans must follow Jesus' example and live spiritual lives
    centered on love and earthly relationships to find salvation. 
    Salvation does not come by living solitary lifes, abstaining from human
    relationships and ignoring the problems of other humans.
    
    Salvation through Jesus Christ does not have to mean any particular
    belief about who Jesus is, how he saves, how he related to God or all
    those other theological positions with all there difficulty and
    ambiguity.
    
    Salvation thru Christ could be a simple as living a spiritual life,
    fully, in connection with other people.  People who are "in Christ" are
    people who have turned their lives over to their God and seek to live
    in tune with this inner guidance system available because God is in
    each of us.  It is because I am a radical monotheist, that I believe
    that there is just one God and that God can and will inspire every
    single man, woman, and child who seeks that God, regardless of what
    name we use to call upon her/him.
    
    I believe that God meets each one of us exactly where we are and is
    available to lead us to where we need to be.  EAch one of us is in a
    different place.  Each one of us has a different temperment and a
    different tolerance/intolerance for precision or ambiguity.  Each one
    of us has been associated with different people and different religious
    traditions.  That each of us here has found Christianity by different
    directions and that each of us is inspired differently by Christianity
    is miraculous.
    
    John, it is dysfunctional that members of Yukon are pounding you
    because they believe that Catholics are wrong to pray to dead saints. 
    THey are pounding on a set of practices that they do not understand and
    undermining sincere, spiritual people who are doing their best to live
    their faith.
    
    It is dysfunctional when members here pound on Meg for loving and
    honoring the Goddess and doing her best to live her faith.
    
    It is dysfunctional when members pound on me for loving and honoring a
    Univeral God of Love.
    
    I fully believe in a powerful, loving God.  That God is going to move
    each one of us into a deeper, sincere belief.  That God will start from
    where each one of us is and move us as God wants to move us.
    
    It is human arrogants, human lack of faith, and human ignorance that
    assumes that a human can know exactly where God wants to move people
    and assume that by their beating people over the head, that they can do
    a better job of moving people in the right direction than God can.
    
                                     Patricia
                          
                            

| <<< Note 1252.16 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| There is no salvation except through Jesus Christ.

	Then put your Bible down as a requirement, or tell others to put them
down if it is not a requirement. Otherwise it is:

       There is no salvation except through Jesus Christ and the Bible

>    in part.  Jesus is the Messiah who will die on the Cross.  But the
>    answer itself is a mystery.  Messiah's are suppose to win military
>    victories, not die on the Cross.  What is the meaning of a Messiah who
>    dies on the Cross.  And the book of Mark is only one book, with one set
    
    This is a common misconception that modern rabbis try to propagate. 
    The fact is that the Targum, Mishnah, Midrash, Talmud, and 
    Dead Sea Scrolls all taught of a Messiah who would personally atone for
    the sins of His people through death first, then return later as the
    mighty warrior.  The teachings of ancient rabbis agree more with
    Christianity than they do with modern rabbis.  If you want more
    evidence and pointers to sources, let me know.
    
    Mike

    .6
    
    Any form of evangelism can turn folks away from God - even the best
    evangelist of our day turns people away from God.  This is part of the
    process of free will.  Folks have the choice to choose God or deny His
    authority.  Some people - regardless of how lovingly and spiritually
    powerfully the Gospel is shared with them - will simply choose their
    own path.
    
    I do not agree with this definition you give.  Even "hellfire and
    brimstone" evangelists have a place in God's plan of spreading the
    Gospel.  Jesus himself spoke of such things in detail.  Not
    all of us come to know the Savior in the same manner.
    
    Rather than labelling the forms of evangelism we do not like as 
    "dysfunctional evangelism", we should be more concerned with false
    witnesses - who tear down the Gospel by denying the most basic
    foundation of salvation.
    
    
    -steve

>    Rather than labelling the forms of evangelism we do not like as 
>    "dysfunctional evangelism", we should be more concerned with false
>    witnesses - who tear down the Gospel by denying the most basic
>    foundation of salvation.
    
 
    Steve,
    
    What I truly fear are dysfunctional individuals, motivated by a false
    certainty that only they know the basic foundation of salvation.  
    
    Self Righteous zeolot are capable of irreprable harm. 

    re:  .17  (Patricia)
    
>    First of all one does not have to believe that "There is no salvation
>    except through Jesus Christ"  is a universal
>    truth.   
    
    No, you do not have to believe this... you have the free will to
    accept or reject this basis for Christianity.
    
>    Most people do not believe that is a universal Truth.  
    
    I agree.  What "most people believe" is irrelevant, however.
    
>    I.E.
>    All Non Christians do not believe that and many Christians do not
>    believe it.
 
    Obviously, non-Christians do not believe this, if they did 
    they would be Christians.  I dare say that your reference to
    Christians who do not believe "Christ is THE way" is somewhat an
    oxymoron.
      
>    Second, even if as Unitarian Universalist with Christian leanings, I
>     accepted that statement I can  provide a number of possible meanings
>    for the statement.  
    
    They would be meanings of your own creation, though.  Jesus said in no
    uncertain terms that "none come to the Father but through me".  This
    is the most basic and prevalent theme throughout the NT.
    
>    "Who is Jesus", and "how is salvation  obtained thru Jesus" are open
>    question.
 
    Not at all.  Any brief perusal through the NT will show that these
    questions are not only answered in detail, but lead the reader to only
    one possible conclusion about salvation.
        
>    For me "There is no salvation except through Jesus Christ", means that
>    we as humans must follow Jesus' example and live spiritual lives
>    centered on love and earthly relationships to find salvation.
    
    The Bible says that you need to have the Holy Spirit to be free of the
    bondage of sin.  Only Jesus can baptize you with the Holy Spirit -
    which He does when you come to accept Him as Lord and Savior. 
    Only believers have the Spirit within them as a guide (this does not
    mean that non-believers are not not moved by the Holy Spirit, but they
    do no have the HS living within them).  Thus, in order to live a spiritual 
    life for God, you must have Jesus as your Lord and Savior.  
    
    It also states that our salvation is centered not on earthly relations 
    (though these are certainly important), but on our relationship as sons
    and daughters of God - a form of relation that is only obtained through 
    Christ Jesus.
     
>    Salvation thru Christ could be a simple as living a spiritual life,
>    fully, in connection with other people.  
    
    That's not what the Bible says.  Other relationships - outside of our
    relationship to the Father, through His Son - has nothing to do with our
    salvation. 
        
>    John, it is dysfunctional that members of Yukon are pounding you
>    because they believe that Catholics are wrong to pray to dead saints.
    
    No, it is not.  It is concern over believing in what they consider
    false doctrine.  Unfortunately, some, in their zeal to do what they
    believe is good, come across badly.
    
    John seems to be holding his own quite well, though.  8^)
       
>    It is dysfunctional when members here pound on Meg for loving and
>    honoring the Goddess and doing her best to live her faith.
 
    No, it is not.  It is *concern*.  This is what you (and probably Meg,
    as well) don't seem to understand.  I like Meg, even though we disagree
    on many fronts.  I like discussing (even arguing) things with her.  I
    would also like to meet her in heaven when all is said and done.  I'm
    sure I'm not alone, here.
    
    Don't confuse the arguments - even though they get involved and harried
    at times - with dysfuction or belittling.  It is a reaction based on good 
    intentions and concern for her spiritual/eternal well being.  Same goes 
    for all others I note with who reject Christ as "the only way" to the 
    Father.  There is no malice nor dysfuntion is wanting to enjoy the 
    presense of a fellow noter in the realm of the Father.
    
    I do hope that folks realize this motivation, and aren't too harsh in
    their opinion of me and fellow well-meaning Christians.  We have good
    intentions, but like all faulty humans, we tend to get carried away at
    times.  There are many notes I'd like to take back - not because I was
    wrong, but because of my tone (which was wrong).  
       
>    It is dysfunctional when members pound on me for loving and honoring a
>    Univeral God of Love.
 
    The concern is with your belief structure, not your wanting to honor
    God, which I, personally, feel is very sincere.  False doctrine only 
    leads away from God, and it is this perception (that you follow a
    doctrine that is spiritually unhealthy) that triggers reactions from me 
    and others.  It isn't to belittle you, but to try and draw you closer to 
    God, as He reveals Himself in His Word.
    
    As I said previously, we need work on our techniques.  8^)  We need to
    be careful that we give our arguments in a respectful, loving manner
    (something I'm still working on, personally).
    
    You also need to separate yourself from your doctrine.  We are not
    "pounding" you personally, we are "pounding" what we see as
    unscriptural beliefs. 
    
>    It is human arrogants, human lack of faith, and human ignorance that
>    assumes that a human can know exactly where God wants to move people
>    and assume that by their beating people over the head, that they can do
>    a better job of moving people in the right direction than God can.
 
    Those of us who believe in the God of the Bible know the basics of
    faith and salvation because God has revealed them to us in His Word.
    When Christians begin believing that which goes against these basics
    (and I'm not talking minor doctrine quibbling, either), some of us get
    concerned and react out of that concern.
    
    It troubles me that you only see the negative in all this: "human
    arrogance", "human lack of faith", "human ignorance", any apply it to
    fellow noters who really care about you.  I wish you would understand 
    the motivation - which is well-intentioned.  
    
    You do make a point worth considering in the above paragraph, however.  
    I think the key phrase may be "lack of trust", however, and not
    arrogance, faithlessness or ignorance.  Perhaps we need to trust God 
    a bit more to move Christians, who we feel are heading down the wrong path,
    into understanding that leads down the right path.
    
    One thing to consider, however, is that just *maybe*, God is using
    the faulty words of us Biblically-based Christians to do some of the
    "moving".  I'm not saying this is what's happening, but it is a
    possibility worth consideration.  
    
    
    -steve                        

    re: .21 (Patricia)
    
    
>    What I truly fear are dysfunctional individuals, motivated by a false
>    certainty that only they know the basic foundation of salvation.  
 
    Then by your definition, all Bible-believing Christians are
    dysfunctional - quite a wide brush you are using.  We know the way to 
    salvation, as the Bible is very clear on this subject.  This is not false 
    certainty, but "being certain in our faith" (which is an admonishment 
    from Paul, if I remember correctly).   
       
>    Self Righteous zeolot are capable of irreprable harm.
    
    If your labelling is correct, then I agree.  If you are talking about
    those of us who are certain of our faith, knowing that Jesus is the
    *only* way, then I fail to see how you rationalize such labelling. 
    This is not being self-rightous at all, it is merely believing that
    God's Word is trustworthy.
    
    
    -steve                      

    STeve,
    
    I want to let you know that I think your note .22 is one of the best
    notes I have seen you write.   You made many points in there in which I
    don't think our thinking is so different.  There are also some points
    that I do not agree with.   I will respond in detail when I have a bit
    more time.  I do appreciate the sensitivity that comes through in that
    note.
    
                                Patricia

    Great note (.22) Steve.  Patricia, in the spirit of that note, I would like
    to apologize if my tone has been too harsh or phrasing poor in some of my
    past (and undoubtedly future) replies to you.

    Michael

    Re: .22
    
    Steve, that was a superb entry!

    Witnessing is one thing.  Unsolicited "In your face" preaching
    is another.

    The "Witnesses" come by my house occasionally.  Many people put
    them down, but I have a lot of respect for someone with so much
    faith that they'll expose themselves to knocking on doors to 
    talk to people one by one.  They are polite and repectful.  
    On a social level, that takes a lot of guts.

    They *DON'T* stand in my yard and yell at me how I'm going
    to burn in hell if I don't do exactly what they say.

    I think it's the difference between "I" messages and "you"
    messages.

    Dysfunctional evangelicals hide behind their rhetoric. 
    Witnesses share what they have found.

    Tom

    re: .24-.26
    
    Thanks.  

    Evangelism practiced for the well being of others is, I think, a
    commendable thing. I hope that covers the majority of the cases.
    
    Maybe some evangelize because it said to in the Bible and they're
    responding to the command, despite the fact that they really don't care
    about the audience at all.
    
    It seems that some preach as a means to martyr themselves.  One example
    that comes to mind is the street corner evangelist who is probably
    doing his cause harm while delighting in the ridicule he receives. 
    (Blessed is he who is ridiculed for my sake...)
    
    Perhaps others evangelize as a means to justify their own beliefs or
    test their own faith.  I witnessed a heated argument in Harvard Sq
    between a street corner evangelist and a passer-by.  The passer-by was
    irritating the evangelist on points of logic and the evangelist was
    argrily shouting the bible while breaking at times to pray aloud for
    help from God.  It was quite a scene.  The cops eventually had to break
    it up.
    
    -dave

 Z    Dysfunctional Evangalism?  My interpretation is in line with Tom's,
 Z       namely, evangelism that turns people away from God.
    
    Patricia, I found your .21 the most revealing of all in your intent. 
    It was suspected and is now clear that you believe people who believe
    the gate that leads to eternal life as narrow to be dysfunctional.  As
    a woman with intellect, I have no problem with your desire to
    communicate this...I just find it interesting that you who speak of
    equality, compassion and the like seem to have the gumption to begin a
    discussion on such an exclusive and hated filled premise.  
    
    I posted your remark above to make a simple point.  While it is true
    that many were healed and converted, Jesus wept over the city of
    Jerusalem for their disbelief and kept himself from performing miracles
    in whole regions because of their lack of faith.  Jesus message, his
    own words turned most off and eventually lead Jesus to a position where
    a mob called for his death.
    
    In short, your premise is founded upon faulty presuppositions.
    
    -Jack
    

    Hello, Jack,

    You write some of the most amazing notes.

    How do you get "b" from "a"?

a:
> Z    Dysfunctional Evangalism?  My interpretation is in line with Tom's,
> Z       namely, evangelism that turns people away from God.
b:
>
>    the gate that leads to eternal life as narrow to be dysfunctional.  As

    The gate may indeed be narrow.  Simply believing that does not make one
    a "dyfunctional evangelist."  The reasons for believing it, the mental
    state of those believing it and how they act determine the dyfunctionality.

    BTW: I do believe the gate is narrow.  It's just that my gate is
    not where you think you're going to find yours.  It's not that far
    away, though.

>    in whole regions because of their lack of faith.  Jesus message, his
>    own words turned most off and eventually lead Jesus to a position where
>    a mob called for his death.

    Jesus did *not* turn people away from God.  They were already turned 
    away.  Jesus used love and compassion to bring people towards God.  He
    also used a few warnings.

    From a dysfuntional evangelist, the exclusive use of warnings comes
    across as threats.  Now, would you want to go to church with such
    a person?

    Once again, the Jehovah's Witnesses stand in stark contrast to this.

    Tom

re .31

;    From a dysfuntional evangelist, the exclusive use of warnings comes
;    across as threats.  Now, would you want to go to church with such
;    a person?

;    Once again, the Jehovah's Witnesses stand in stark contrast to this.

     Tom,

     Thanks for your kind words and observation, I never know if notes 
     strings such as this one are generally aimed at all groups who 
     are well known for their evanglising work.

     Though the Bible carries judgment messages and we do direct peoples
     attention to these. We do so by trying to show empathy, attempting to 
     reason and help them see why God is bringing these things about. We 
     let the Bible passage speak for itself, and ask them questions on it 
     so that they can reason for themselves what is being said. This way it's
     not our personal opinion and therefore less confrontational. Further,
     they're not being told but are learning for themselves. No one likes
     being told what they must do, the key to evanglising is to reach
     peoples hearts of which Jesus was the perfect example.


      Phil.

    Re .30 (Jack)
    
    Ummmmm... I belive the lines you copied from .6 were mine, not
    Patricia's.  The idea is simply that "non-functioning" evalgelism is
    evangelism that's failing to convert people.  
    
    -dave

    Z    From a dysfuntional evangelist, the exclusive use of warnings comes
    Z    across as threats.  Now, would you want to go to church with such
    Z    a person?
    
    Understand that notes is NOT an evangelism tool.  It is here to
    exchange beliefs and information.  
    
    As to your question above, I would certainly not want to attend such a
    church...since the church is made up of believers, no such threats
    would be expedient.  I don't see exclusive warnings in this forum used
    as threats.  I see entries such as Jeffs and others used to offset
    Paganism, idol worship, and false doctrine.
    
    -Jack

>    Understand that notes is NOT an evangelism tool.  It is here to
>    exchange beliefs and information.  

    Yes, but not all tools are used exclusively for what they
    were intended.
    
    IOW:  It *is*  used that way, even if it "shouldn't" be.

    Just my observation - probably influenced by the devil :-)

    Tom

    RE .32
    
    Phil,
    
    I never said nor do I believe that all evengelism is dysfunctional.
    
    Dysfunctional behavoir is behavior that is controlling, looks toward
    the negative in others rather than dealing with oneself, Uses
    emotionally, physically, or spiritually abusive techniques on others in
    the attempt to control others.  Dysfunctional evengalism can be
    particularly devasting because it is aimed at the very core of human
    existence, i.e. the human spirit or human soul.
    

re .22 (Leech)   more  dialogue as promised.
        
P>    Most people do not believe that is a universal Truth.  
    

s>>    I agree.  What "most people believe" is irrelevant, however.
  
Actually all beliefs are very relevent.  If you really thought what people 
believed was irrelevant, you would not be trying to change beliefs. 

S>>   I dare say that your reference to Christians who do not believe "Christ is
S>>   THE way" is somewhat an oxymoron.

Christians are by self definition people who follow Christ.  Christ is the way 
for them.   I know many Christians, including quite a few in here who do not 
believe that Christ is the ONLY way.



      
P>    Second, even if as Unitarian Universalist with Christian leanings, I
P>     accepted that statement I can  provide a number of possible meanings
P>    for the statement.  
    
S>>    They would be meanings of your own creation, though.  Jesus said in no
S>>    uncertain terms that "none come to the Father but through me".  This
S>>    is the most basic and prevalent theme throughout the NT.
  
	Again steve, how you interpret that statement is different than how I 
interpret it.  Everyone of us interprets that slightly differently.  Your 
interpretation is just as much your own creation as my interpretation is my
own creation.
  
P>    "Who is Jesus", and "how is salvation  obtained thru Jesus" are open
P>    question.
 
S>>    Not at all.  Any brief perusal through the NT will show that these
S>>    questions are not only answered in detail, but lead the reader to only
S>>    one possible conclusion about salvation.

Three alternative answers to how is salvation obtained.  All with Biblical
    support.  In my opinion the first has more biblical support than the
    second and the second more than the third.  

1.  The first and most important commandment is to love God with all one's 
heart soul and mind, and to love one's neighbor as themselves.

2.  Give up all you have and follow me.

3.  Attoning Sacrifice/Baptism arguments.


    
 S   >The Bible says that you need to have the Holy Spirit to be free of the
 S   >bondage of sin.  Only Jesus can baptize you with the Holy Spirit -
 S   >which He does when you come to accept Him as Lord and Savior. 
 S   >Only believers have the Spirit within them as a guide (this does not
 S   >mean that non-believers are not not moved by the Holy Spirit, but they
 S   >do no have the HS living within them).  Thus, in order to live a spiritual 
 S   >life for God, you must have Jesus as your Lord and Savior.  
    

When Jesus in the Gospel describes the Holy Spirit, he foretells of his 
upcoming death, and states that the Holy Spirit will be available to his 
follwers after his death.    Thus it is God, the Holy Spirit and not Jesus 
Christ who will be available to believers after Jesus' Crucifixion.  Now I 
agree with you that it does take an active decision on the part of the 
spiritual person, to live a spirit filled life.  The Spirit is available to 
everyone, but some are keenly aware of that spirit and make a conscious 
decision to turn their lives over to God as they understand God.  When this 
decision is made, there is a reawakening.  A new consciousness.  A new birth 
in Christ to use Christian Lingo.



  S>>  It also states that our salvation is centered not on earthly relations 
  S>>  (though these are certainly important), but on our relationship as sons
  S>>  and daughters of God - a form of relation that is only obtained through 
  S>>  Christ Jesus.

It is our human relationships as sons and daughters of God, that makes human 
relationships sacred.  "May the Christ in me, meet the Christ in you".
     
P>    Salvation thru Christ could be a simple as living a spiritual life,
P>    fully, in connection with other people.  
    
S>>    That's not what the Bible says.  Other relationships - outside of our
S>>    relationship to the Father, through His Son - has nothing to do with our
S>>    salvation. 

On the contrary, it is what the Bible says.  i.e.

"I was hungry and you did not feed me, I was naked, and you did not clothe me,
I was in prison and you did not visit me."

.....
  
"Whatever, you did to the least of mine, you did to me"  "Whatever you did not 
do for the least of mine, you did not do for me".   etc.
  
This is what the Bible says.  Our relationship with other people is equal in 
this sense to our relationship with other human beings.

      
P>    John, it is dysfunctional that members of Yukon are pounding you
P>    because they believe that Catholics are wrong to pray to dead saints.
    
S>>    No, it is not.  It is concern over believing in what they consider
S>>    false doctrine.  Unfortunately, some, in their zeal to do what they
S>>    believe is good, come across badly.
    
S>>    John seems to be holding his own quite well, though.  8^)
  
Overzelousness is disfunctional.

Many of us learn early to "hold our own".  That does not make the abuse any 
less abusive.


  
  
 S >>  Don't confuse the arguments - even though they get involved and harried
 S >>  at times - with dysfuction or belittling.  It is a reaction based on good 
 S >>  intentions and concern for her spiritual/eternal well being.  Same goes 
 S >>  for all others I note with who reject Christ as "the only way" to the 
 S >>  Father.  There is no malice nor dysfuntion is wanting to enjoy the 
 S >>  presense of a fellow noter in the realm of the Father.
    
 S >>  I do hope that folks realize this motivation, and aren't too harsh in
 S >>  their opinion of me and fellow well-meaning Christians.  We have good
 S >>  intentions, but like all faulty humans, we tend to get carried away at
 S >>  times.  There are many notes I'd like to take back - not because I was
 S >>  wrong, but because of my tone (which was wrong).  
    
No one intends to practice dysfunctional behavoir.  It is not a question of 
intent or malice.  It is the behavoir itself and the results of the behavoir 
that determine whether it is dysfunctional or not.


    
  S >> You also need to separate yourself from your doctrine.  We are not
  S >> "pounding" you personally, we are "pounding" what we see as
  S >>  unscriptural beliefs. 
    
	My faith makes up the core of who I am.  You cannot pound on my Faith 
	without pounding on the whole of me.

    
S>>    It troubles me that you only see the negative in all this: "human
S>>    arrogance", "human lack of faith", "human ignorance", any apply it to
S>>    fellow noters who really care about you.  I wish you would understand 
S>>    the motivation - which is well-intentioned.  
  

	A parent can beat a child with the good intention to make the child a 
more disciplined child.  The good intention does not make the behavoir less 
abusive.   I do see more than the negative.  I have chosen in here to stand up 
and be as loud and clear and confident about what I consider to be correct 
belief as those who condemn my belief structure.

	It is the liberal dilemma.  I have an profound beleif in the necessity 
for each and every person to define for themself what it means to live a 
spiritual life and then to commit to living that life.  To some Christians, 
living a spiritual life means interfering with the right of others to define 
their own spiritual existence.  The two sets of beliefs are contradictory and 
I cannot champion religious freedom without taking a stand against those 
religous principles that would limit the religious freedom of others.  
Likewise I cannot champion the right of every person to be who they are, 
without challenging religious based ethics that try to pursade people that 
they cannot be who they are.

    
S>>    One thing to consider, however, is that just *maybe*, God is using
S>>    the faulty words of us Biblically-based Christians to do some of the
S>>    "moving".  I'm not saying this is what's happening, but it is a
S>.    possibility worth consideration.  
    
    
   Steve, that's possible.  This file has certainly moved me in the definition
and ennunciation of my own Faith.  It has certainly moved me in my call to
Ministry.  My ministry (ordained or not) will be that of an 
Evangelical Unitarian Universalist Christian/Pagan/Other.                        

This file has also helped me to understand, that I will always be criticized
by some for what I believe.  It is necessary for me to remind myself 
everytime that someone tells me or implies to me that I am going to hell 
because I don't believe what they believe, that these statements are coming 
from rigid, controlling dysfunctional behavoir and not from malice.

It helps me to love the person even as I am critical of the behavoir.!