From: 910773f@axe.acadiau.ca (HEATHER LEE FYFFE)
Subject: Re: is it necessary to hate?
Organization: Acadia University
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 20:20:01 GMT

In article <Dec.16.01.33.15.1992.8415@farside.rutgers.edu> hedrick@farside.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes:
>jwest@wisc (Jeff West) writes:
>
>>: again for our salvation (including yours and mine) -- yet I also do not 
>>: believe that you or any atheist will fry in hell for your atheistic views
>>: or even your non-Christian religious beliefs, if you have any, to receive
>>: the healing power of this salvation.
>>: Gerry Palo (73237.2006@compuserve.com)
>
>>I find the above statement interesting Gerry.  Isn't it a basic tenent of
>>Christianity that the only way to salvation is through Jesus?  (i.e. that
>>to be saved you *must* believe in him)
>>I don't see you saying this and was wondering how you reconcile this
>>difference?
>
>My basic perspective is similar to Gerry's.  You're quite right that
>Christians have been exclusive since as far back in Church history as
>we can see.  So to adopt a position like this requires a certain
>amount of reconstruction.  There's actually some Biblical basis for
>such a reconstruction.  (1) While there's not a lot of evidence, Jesus
>seems to have accepted the Jewish concept of the "righteous Gentile".
>He was willing to deal with a Roman centurion who was in that position
>(Luke 7), as well as a Samaritan (John 4).  In no case did he suggest
>that anyone should convert.  (2) Paul's discussion in Rom 2 is quite
>explicit about saying that people will be judged in accordance with
>how much they know: ("When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature
>what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they
>do not have the law.")  Paul's discussion of judgement is almost
>always talking about standards within the Church.  As he comments in 1
>Cor 5:12 "For what have I to do with judging outsiders?  Is it not
>those inside the church who you are to judge?"  (3) When Paul and
>Jesus talk about judgement, it is always based on actions.  As Jesus
>says, not everyone who says "Lord, Lord" will be saved, but those who
>do God's will.  In Matthew's most explicitly discussion of judgement
>(in Mat 25), not only are some people surprised that they are damned,
>but some are surprised that they are saved -- they didn't know they
>were serving Christ.
>
>Now there are problems with all of these passages: The first 2 sets
>are primarily dealing with the question of whether you need to become
>Jewish, not Christian.  Yet the spirit of Rom 2 seems pretty clearly
>in favor of accepting non-Christians who carry out the spirit of
>Jesus' teachings.  Protestants will argue to their dying breath
>against any hint that salvation might be based on actions rather than
>faith, because of "justification by faith".  As a Protestant, I
>certainly understand why people are afraid of "works righteousness":
>it leads very quickly to legalism, and all kinds of unfortunate
>religious practices.  I would not want to say that God simply totals
>up brownie points.  Yet I think there's room in the teachings of both
>Jesus and Paul for someone who hears the call of God in their heart
>and responds, without being a Christian.
>
Basically, I agree.  My only wonder is how you could hear the call of God in 
your heart and respond and _not_ be a Christian, as the word simply means 
one who believes in the divinity of Christ.



>In my opinion, the problem is not so much with Jesus or Paul, but with
>Christian history.  Christianity turned into a control-oriented
>religion very quickly indeed.  It's only fairly recently that attempts


Hear hear!!  

>are being made to create a Christianity that is not control-oriented.
>These attempts are still regarded by most Christians as perversions of
>Christianity.

Be careful when you say _most_.  Have you ever read the Joshua series by 
Girzone?  The last, The Shephard, is all about a man who becomes a Bishop 
and actually uses his position for the good of the people: he changes 
procedures, he welcomes society's `rejects', and everybody benefits.  Too 
bad it's only fiction.  All of my friends who've read these books agree that 
they are excellent.  
 In general, you'll find that today's young people are the ones trying to 
change the church back to the way it is presented in the Gospels.  It is 
only those so stuck in ritual and tradition and lack of thought who insist 
on sticking to the old ways, as they cannot see how unbiblical they are.
 A non-control-oriented Christianity is not a perversion, it's biblical and 
a commandment.  A Christianity that is loving, caring, and supportive of 
everybody, not just its members.  A Christianity that is friendly, where 
noone needs to feel offended or pressured, but welcomed.  A Christianity 
that, through the love of God, seeks to help and care for people in any way 
it can, whether financially or emotianally or whatever, not just trying to 
convert them.
 What atheists lack, among those who wish to help mankind, is the sense of 
community and support experienced in Christianity.  A religion (or non-
religion) that teaches complete individualism, separatism, and me-ism can 
never have the kind of powerful, loving, selfless bondings of friendships 
which develop in Christianity, powerful friendships which all people need.
The modern pop psychology is all based on do-it-yourself, be your own boss, 
how to get ahead of everyone else.  Chart your own path, make it to the 
top.  Can you imagine what the world would be like if everybody did that?  
Take advantage of them before they take advantage of you.  Complete 
dissappearance of trust, because you know everyone else is out to get ahead 
of you.  No cooperation, no unity, no true friendships.  Everyone just out 
to better themself.  End result?  Need I explain?  Not too pretty, is it.
Unfortunately, that's where we're heading, and none too slowly, either.
  Well, there's my dollar's worth for today.  Thanks for reading me!


Love from 
the Buzzard
Newsgroups: alt.atheism