Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

>    Are you your brother's keeper?

Yes.

>    Who *is* your brother?

All mankind.

/john

    .1
    
    That's alway been my understanding as well, John.
    
    Richard
    

RE: .1

> All mankind.

Does that include women?  Africans?  Native Americans?  Asians? etc.

If we are our brother's keeper, the responsibility of "systemic sin" would
lie, in part anyway, on the shoulders of everyone in a community, country,
whatever.  

-dave

re .3

Yes.

re .4

Yes.

 ZZ   Does that include women?  Africans?  Native Americans?  Asians? etc.
    
    Yes.  
    
    By the way, it's American Indians.  Native Americans is a fallacy
    because a native is one who is born in that country.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1327.6 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

>     By the way, it's American Indians.  

        Well, in the same spirit, they most certainly aren't
        "Indians".

        Bob

    This is true.  Does the name have to do with the fact that the
    American Indian was an immigrant from Asia some 400 years prior to the
    colonies?
    
    -Jack

    Know it has to do with the fact that columbus actually thought he had
    found India or islands near India.  Hence the West Indies also got
    their name.  

    Columbus would be a poor model to hold up as a Christian.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 1327.8 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

>     This is true.  Does the name have to do with the fact that the
>     American Indian was an immigrant from Asia some 400 years prior to the
>     colonies?
  
        Much closer to 40,000 years.

        Bob

>        Much closer to 40,000 years.

Well, taking this subject *way* off course, I believe it's
more like 20,000.  The current estimate for Homo sapians
being around is 40,000 years.

Nonetheless, the "indians" were here way more than 400 years
before Columbus.

Tom

Genesis 4:9  And the LORD said unto Cain, Where [is] Abel thy brother?
And he said, I know not: [Am] I my �brother's� �keeper?�
4:10  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy
brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
(KJV)

|4:10  And he said, What hast thou done? the voice of thy
|brother's blood crieth unto me from the ground.
    
    I bet the ground is doing a lot of sobbing these days.

Creation discussion moved to 253.*

Bob

re .0

	;Who *is* your brother?

	Richard,

	In a physical sense we all originate from the same original parents.
	However, in a spiritual sense we are not all brothers. Jesus brought
	this out in John 8, the Jews said they were offspring of Abraham and
	thus of God. However, Jesus refutes this showing that their actions
	and desires show that their father is not Abraham but in reality
	Satan the Devil "YOU are from YOUR father the Devil, and YOU wish
	to do the desires of YOUR father. That one was a manslayer when he
	began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because the truth is
	not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own
	disposition, because he is a liar and the father of [the lie]." John 8:44 NWT

	In a spiritual sense who would want to be related with someone who shed
	innocent blood? as an extreme example. I have many brothers in other
	lands that would not allow themselves to be pitted against another
	brother at times of war, because of Jesus' command as found in John 13:34.
	But how could I call someone a brother, if they didn't have the same
	views or faith?. Because one doesn't recognise another as a brother doesn't
	mean one shouldn't show love of neighbour.

	Phil.

>	But how could I call someone a brother, if they didn't have the same
>	views or faith?. 

    You say, "Hey, Bro!  What's happenin?"

>	Because one doesn't recognise another as a brother doesn't
>	mean one shouldn't show love of neighbour.

    In other words, they're not quite as good as those who share your
    views?

    Now, I'm no saint when it comes to this love business.  I'm struggling
    like everyone else.  When just learning how to walk it seems to make
    little sense to discuss the finer points of high jumping.  Love is
    hard enough without putting up arbitrary obsticles.

    Tom

    In some cases we are our brothers keeper and in some cases we are not.
    
    -Jack

>    In some cases we are our brothers keeper and in some cases we are not.

Yup.  And from there you can justify darn near anything.

re .17

 	Tom,

;    You say, "Hey, Bro!  What's happenin?"

	I have heard some say, "your'e not my brother!" :-), though
	I have never personally used the term "Hey Bro!".

>	Because one doesn't recognise another as a brother doesn't
>	mean one shouldn't show love of neighbour.

;    In other words, they're not quite as good as those who share your
;    views?

	Not at all, if others have different views I don't feel they are 
	in anyway inferior.  If two persons have totally different faiths, 
	then how can they be related?. The faith we express should be a
	personal choice, by making a personal choice why would one be 
	treating another as inferior?. What's wrong in being honest that
	another is not related in the faith?. I don't expect everyone to
	worship Jehovah God only those that choose to, hence calling another 
	brother who is not related in faith would be dishonest in my opinion.

	Phil.

    I disagree with you but I have a hard time finding fault with
    you :-)
    
    I believe that most faiths are very similar underneath and
    that the differences are just people's perceptions.

    I believe that there is little difference between one's
    "neighbor" and one's brother and little difference between
    one's brother and one's self.

    Tom
    

re .21

	Tom,

	No problem.

;   I believe that most faiths are very similar underneath and
;   that the differences are just people's perceptions.

	I hope you don't take the following the wrong way. There are
	two glasses similarly filled with drinking water, however one 
	realises that a small drop of poison has been dropped into one. 
	From which glass would you drink?. Though religions are very much
	a like, some teachings can be poison in a spiritual sense.

	Phil.

 ZZ   Yup.  And from there you can justify darn near anything.
    
    No Tom, it is actually the inversion of what you are most likely
    thinking.  Being a brothers keeper is more likely to be used to justify
    laziness and slothfulness...as this is the propensity of human nature.
    
    You'll find the answer in 2nd Thessolonians regarding the holiness of
    taking care of yourself and how to regard those who are disorderly.
    
    -Jack

    I think we need to look at our own responsibilities rather
    than what other people are doing.  Christ calls us to a
    higher standard.

    Tom

    RE .21 (Tom)
    
    >I believe that most faiths are very similar underneath and
    >    that the differences are just people's perceptions.
    
    The more and more I read and study on this, the more this becomes
    evident to me. I must say, it feels good, or should I say it feels
    "right" or "true" to find truth and beauty in many different belief
    systems. 
    
    RE .22 (Phil)
    
    I suppose your analogy of the poisoned water could be true.  But
    detecting the poison is the issue, not shunnung the poisoned water.
    If noticing the "fruits" of individual who drink the water is a metric,
    then those who drink from glass "A" who are healthy and show good fruit
    might be seen as drinking from the unpoisoned glass.  Many of those are
    orthodox christians, many are not.  Many who indicate that they drink the
    poisoned water, are sick and show bad fruit, are self proclaimed
    christians, many are not.  IOW, I don't see religion as being a 
    reliable means to determine what glass is poisoned and which is not.
    
    -dave

re .25

;    I suppose your analogy of the poisoned water could be true.  But
;    detecting the poison is the issue, not shunnung the poisoned water.
;    If noticing the "fruits" of individual who drink the water is a metric,
;    then those who drink from glass "A" who are healthy and show good fruit
;    might be seen as drinking from the unpoisoned glass.  Many of those are
;    orthodox christians, many are not.  Many who indicate that they drink the
;    poisoned water, are sick and show bad fruit, are self proclaimed
;    christians, many are not.  IOW, I don't see religion as being a 
;    reliable means to determine what glass is poisoned and which is not.

     Dave,

     Please consider the following, at the turn of the Century the vast majority
     of the populace in what were considered Christian lands were church goers.
     Then came two world wars, especially in the first world war the clergy were
     extensively used in recruiting and war mongering. Many persons saw their 
     prayers for victory over their enemy as hypocritical, for Protestant was
     fighting Protestant and Catholic against Catholic. Because of this hypocrisy
     (compare John 13:34,35 and 1 John 4:20,21), that is persons saw the rotten 
     fruit being displayed and many chose no longer to go to church. What would 
     have been the out come if from the on set the clergy opposed these war mongers 
     rather than embracing their cause?. In my analogy, it's the religion's teachings 
     that make God's commands void that poison the water and people do recognise this.
     Jesus often highlighted the corruptiveness of the Pharisees oral traditions that
     set a side God's commands (compare Mark 7:9-15). Jesus offered the people clear
     water, but it was his exposing of the religious leaders that persons came to
     realise that they had been drinking contaminated water.

     Phil.
     
     

    Re .26 (Phil)
    
    Wel, I was just tapping of of the conversation you were having with
    Tom.
    
    T> I believe that most faiths are very similar underneath and
    T> that the differences are just people's perceptions.
    
    P> I hope you don't take the following the wrong way. There are
    P> two glasses similarly filled with drinking water, however one
    P> realises that a small drop of poison has been dropped into one.
    P> From which glass would you drink?. Though religions are very much
    P> a like, some teachings can be poison in a spiritual sense.
    
    My interpretation was that you were arguing against Tom's belief that
    the essence of the world's great religions is the same.  I saw your
    analogy as claiming that they could all look the same, but the
    non-christian religions are tainted with poison.  Not sure how to
    interpret your last message.  You seem to be putting down the christian
    church, at least the church of the earlier part of this century.
    
    The fruits are the fruits though, aren't they?  I'll bring his name up
    again... Gandhi showed the fruits.  It looks like the water he was
    drinking was not poisoned.
    
    -dave
    

re .27

;    My interpretation was that you were arguing against Tom's belief that
;    the essence of the world's great religions is the same.  I saw your
;    analogy as claiming that they could all look the same, but the
;    non-christian religions are tainted with poison.  Not sure how to
;    interpret your last message. 

	Dave,

	Well I was talking about all religions, but the emphasis was more
	on those that profess to be Christian. They all profess to be
	Christian, so may superficially look alike, but would their fruit 
	show that they are indeed Christians?.
 
;    You seem to be putting down the christian
;    church, at least the church of the earlier part of this century.

	Encouraging Christian brother to kill Christian brother is rotten 
	fruit under any circumstances, no?. Asking God to give divine backing
	to accomplish this makes matters worse. Is it wrong to highlight this?.
    
;    The fruits are the fruits though, aren't they?  I'll bring his name up
;    again... Gandhi showed the fruits.  It looks like the water he was
;    drinking was not poisoned.

	Gandhi also hated professing Christians because he examined that they 
	didn't live by Jesus' teachings. He also commented to the Britsh viceroy 
	of India: "When your country and mine shall get together on the teachings 
	laid down by Christ in the Sermon on the Mount, we shall have solved the 
	problems, not only of our countries but those of the whole world." So yes, 
	you are right, he reckonised the source of uncontaminated water. Whether 
	or not he showed the fruit, ie putting kingdom interests first maybe 
	debatable (compare Matthew 6:33) but he certainly promoted Jesus' teachings.
	 

	Phil.

    >but would their fruit show that they are indeed Christians?

    I would guess not.


    >Encouraging Christian brother to kill Christian brother is rotten
    >        fruit under any circumstances, no?.

    Playing devil's advokate here... might it be necessary to kill a few in
    order to save the lives of a lot more?  The argument might be that,
    unchecked, Hitler's reign would have resulted in the deaths and
    suffering of a lot more.  I think Jesus said something about cutting
    off a hand if it offends.  Extending the analogy...

    But then again, war and men killing each other is not exactly
    unconditionally condemned in the OT now is it?  All one side need do is
    put themselves in the role of the Isrealites and follow a leader who
    claims to be under God's direction in order to go to war with a clear
    conscience.


    >Gandhi also hated professing Christians because...

    Absolutely false!  From everything I've ever read or heard, he hated
    no one.  One of his best friends was a christian missionary (Damm, I
    forgot his name now) who spread the idea of christianity THROUGH HIS
    ACTIONS and not through proselytizing.  He did not hate christians for
    falling short of the mark anymore than he hated his own countrymen
    fighting between each other, divided on religious lines (of all
    things).  What the people do (Christians, Moslems, Hindus... ) has to
    be be distinguished from the core message of their professed religions.
    Gandhi asked that Christians be better Christians, Hindus better
    Hindus, Moslems better Moslems, etc... because they all had the same
    core message, at least in terms of social morality.

    >So you are right, he reckonised the source of uncontaminated water...

    BTW, he also said that the same message of the Sermon on the mount was
    expresssed in Hindu scriptures, but that he cited the seromn on the
    mount when talking to Christians as a matter of relation.  I'll breach
    the topic... might there be clear, untainted water in these Hindu
    scriptures?

    -dave
    

re .29

Dave,

    >Encouraging Christian brother to kill Christian brother is rotten
    >        fruit under any circumstances, no?.

;    Playing devil's advokate here... might it be necessary to kill a few in
;    order to save the lives of a lot more?  The argument might be that,
;    unchecked, Hitler's reign would have resulted in the deaths and
;    suffering of a lot more.  I think Jesus said something about cutting
;    off a hand if it offends.  Extending the analogy...

     I don't think Jesus mean't to cut some one elses hand off, but ones own
     in a figurative sense. Point I'm making is that the clergy on both 
     sides failed to instruct their flock to show brotherly love. If the
     majority of church goers said, "No we won't support your war effort" then 
     would Hitler's reign have resulted in so many deaths?. Some did refuse to
     go to war, and lost their lives for it or spent many years in a concentration
     camp.

;    But then again, war and men killing each other is not exactly
;   unconditionally condemned in the OT now is it?  All one side need do is
;    put themselves in the role of the Isrealites and follow a leader who
;    claims to be under God's direction in order to go to war with a clear
;    conscience.

     Yes, the Israelites were used as God's executional force and they were
     to wipe out all inhabitants. This was righteous judgment from God because 
     of their immoral practices. The Israelites failed in their commission
     and because of this many began to addopt the religious practices of the
     local inhabitants. Hence in Jeremiah 7:30-31 NWT reads "'For the sons   
     of Judah have done what is bad in my eyes,' is the utterance of Jehovah.
     'They have set their disgusting things in the house upon which my name has
     been called, in order to defile it. And they have built the high places
     of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hin'nom, in order to
     burn their sons and daughters in the fire, a thing that I have not
     commanded and that had not come up into my heart.'" By embracing the 
     Phoeneceans (sp?) as their brothers, they ended up practising detestable
     things such as offering up their children in human sacrifice to Molech.
     Such was an extreme case of some one embracing another of a different 
     religion as a brother, invariably it means addopting their practices to
     which are likely to be abhorrent to ones God.
     
     If one follows Jesus' clear teachings, then one would not be lulled as 
     the Germans were with Hitler. No doubt, he and the clergy said that
     God was on their side.

    >Gandhi also hated professing Christians because...

;    Absolutely false!  From everything I've ever read or heard, he hated
;    no one.  One of his best friends was a christian missionary (Damm, I
;    forgot his name now) who spread the idea of christianity THROUGH HIS
;    ACTIONS and not through proselytizing.  He did not hate christians for
;    falling short of the mark anymore than he hated his own countrymen
;    fighting between each other, divided on religious lines (of all
;    things).  What the people do (Christians, Moslems, Hindus... ) has to
;    be be distinguished from the core message of their professed religions.
;    Gandhi asked that Christians be better Christians, Hindus better
;    Hindus, Moslems better Moslems, etc... because they all had the same
;    core message, at least in terms of social morality.

     Sorry, I think I used the wrong words here. However, I know he was purported
     to have said words to the effect of "I hate Christians, but love Christ".
     No doubt it wasn't the persons he hated but the practise of saying one is
     a Christian but at the same time totally ignoring Jesus' teachings.

     I personally don't hate those that went to war, but I hate the practise of
     brother killing brother.

    >So you are right, he reckonised the source of uncontaminated water...

;    BTW, he also said that the same message of the Sermon on the mount was
;    expresssed in Hindu scriptures, but that he cited the seromn on the
;    mount when talking to Christians as a matter of relation.  I'll breach
;    the topic... might there be clear, untainted water in these Hindu
;    scriptures?

    I didn't know this, so thanks for bringing this into the conversation.
    Only by looking at the teachings could one see if they were untainted.
    

    Phil.

    >I don't think Jesus mean't to cut some one elses hand off,...
    
    I don't think so either.  But the idea of this treads upon the note on
    corporate sin.  If all people are responsible for shared, coroprate sin
    (like concentration camps), then is it not the responsibility of the
    healthy members of that body to be rid of the diseased part(s)?
    
    I can't answer the "what if"s of alternate histories.  I've heard some
    condemn the dropping of the fission bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 
    citing al the death and suffering they caused.  Then I've heard others
    estimate how many times more people would have dies in a conventional
    land invasion of Japan.  So, car war save lives?  Can it be good?
    
    With regard to the Isrealites and war, as I'm sure you're aware, I do
    not hold the Bible as being absolute truth.  If I had to guess, the
    Isrealites justified their own maurauding by claiming that it was God's 
    wishes in the ongoing written story of their nation.  I saw and
    continue to see stark contradictions between loving your enemy as
    professed by Jesus and exterminating them as the Isrealites did the
    Caananites.  I do not believe God is that hypocritical.  And this is
    one of the reasons I cannot hold an inerrant position.
    
    > I know he was purport to have said words to the effect of "I hate
    > Christians, but love Christ".
    
    Then he would have contradicted what he had to say about christians on
    hundreds of other occasions.  Gandhi was just an imperfect man and men
    sometimes say things that they didn't really mean.  He may have meant
    to say that he hated what some christians did to Jesus'
    teachings/message or something like that.  You and I both know the
    essence of what the man thought in this regard.
    
    >I didn't know this, so thanks for bringing this into the conversation.
    
    The essence of all the world religions is apparently the same or at
    least very very similar.  The cultural fluff which envelops them can
    differ a lot.  The misguided human abberations and misinterpretations
    of the core values are often used as a means to condemn on or another
    of them.  I can recall in this conference how citing the caste system
    was used to denegrate Hinduism. That was countered with pointing out
    slavery in the christian world, blah... blah... blah... .  All bad
    fruit coming from flawed humans.  Good fruit came from Jesus and others
    who I won't cite in fear of offending.
    
    >Only by looking at the teachings could one see if they were untainted.
    
    This is something Gandhi urged everyone to do, namely, study the
    world's religions.  He said that one can get a better hold of one's own
    religion by studying others.  It's sort of like getting several different
    descriptions of the same thing.  If part of one is difficult to
    understand, maybe a different description might help.
    
    -dave
    
    
    

re .31

	Dave,

	I looked up the exact quote last night, which turned out to be
	"I love Christ, but despise Christians because they do not live
	as Christ lived."

	I found a further quote interesting, "By all means drink deep
	of the fountains that are given to you in the Sermon on the
	Mount....for the teaching of the Sermon was meant for each and
	everyone of us."


;    I can't answer the "what if"s of alternate histories.  I've heard some
;    condemn the dropping of the fission bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 
;    citing al the death and suffering they caused.  Then I've heard others
;    estimate how many times more people would have dies in a conventional
;    land invasion of Japan.  So, car war save lives?  Can it be good?

	Actually, the Bible indicates that there will be a war, that is Armageddon
	that will save lives in that it will bring about peace to the extremity
	of the earth (Psalms 46:9). This is God's war against wicked oppressers
	as he brings an end to their oppression (compare Revelation 16:16, 11:18b,
	19:11-21). To many the death toll will be shocking, but for those that
	are learning the ways of peace and survive by showing that they are on God's
	side they will "find their exquisite delight in the abundance of peace." 
	(Psalms 37:9-11, Isaiah 2:2-4). The oppressor will have been gone forever
	and will no longer will be allowed to take root in human soceity.

	Phil.

    Re .32 (Phil)

    >I looked up the exact quote last night, which turned out to be...

    Yet he knew about historical figures like St. Francis who evidently did
    live like Jesus lived.  He also held in high regard the lives and work
    of many missionaries who lived "in the trenches" with the common folks
    and "sold" Jesus through example.  Many of his closest personal friends
    were christians.  Etc... .  I think what he despised was the
    hypocricy, or, what he perceived as being hypocricy.

    >Armagedon...

    But isn't Armagedon just another hypocricy?  You've got brotherly love,
    forgiveness and turning the other cheek on one hand and externminatins,
    floods and Armagedon on the other.  Does God practce what he preaches?
    Or did man fail to write down the message correctly?  Given those choices, 
    I'll pick the latter.


    -dave

It occurs to me that a brother is someone not of your own choosing --
a brother is more someone you're stuck with by time and circumstance.

A friend is someone you select to call your friend. (John 15:15)

It seems to me that all of humanity is my brother, though not everyone
is my friend.

Richard

	Well put.

    We always say "you can pick your friends, but not your relatives." 
    However, I also have a couple of sisters by choice, so we can all feel
    like we have maybe a shot at a normal "relative" on occaision.  
    
    meg