From: hartigan@ac.dal.ca
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Sean: TESTIMONY CALLOUT!  Happy? (yes!)
Date: 5 Sep 92 00:13:01 -0300
Organization: Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <1992Sep4.201752.26155@en.ecn.purdue.edu>, muehlhau@en.ecn.purdue.edu (John Muehlhausen) writes:
> Sean Hartigan writes:
>>John Muehlhausen writes:
>>> 
>>> First of all, have any non-Christians expressed the assurance I am calling
>>> faith (faith==absolute knowledge of unseen)?  I don't recall any...
>>> 
>>
>>Ask any devout Muslim, Buddhist or Hindu, any devout North American Indian
>>or Jew, or, any New Ager or any Wiccan or animist....
> 
> So now I ask... I am not going to search back through all newsgroups
> everywhere, because the chance of hitting on what I want is not very good.
> Would anyone care to offer a testimony including :

John, this is a darn good idea, IMHO. I'll be interested to see what kind of
responses you get. My guess is that there are not very many non-Christians
on this newgroup, but hey, who knows?

>>Newsflash --- world's fastest growing religion:  ISLAM.
> 
> This does not suprise me -- it has been made very clear that the
> current translations of the Qur'an are scientifically palatable,
> which would account for growth in an increasingly technological
> world community.

Hmmm...you are a pretty slippery fish! When people join your church,
it's because they are having their spiritual needs met. When they
join OTHER churches, it's because they are being sucked in by purely
"intellectual" considerations.

Islam is mainly on the move in NON-technological countries, actually,
in developing countries where most of the population is illiterate. 

>>Newsflash --- a "conversion war" is currently on in Africa between
>>	Christian and Islamic missionaries. Who is winning? Which
>>	faith is answering more people's spiritual needs? ISLAM.
> 
> One cannot measure the meeting of spiritual needs outside of oneself.
> A spike in Islam does not have to be because it is true (there have been
> other such spikes).

I agree with you here. 

> I like Islam.  It is full of human wisdom and good values.  It is missing
> the narrow path back to God, however, which is Jesus Christ.  Because of
> that, though it is much in the eyes of the world, it is nothing in comparison
> to genuine Christianity.

To which a Muslim would say: I like Christianity. Jesus was a good man,
and a great prophet, peace be upon him. In fact, as a prophet he is second
only to Muhammed. Christianity contains many great truths. However, it
misses the narrow path back to god, having been corrupted into
polytheism and deification of Jesus, who was, after all, a man. 

>>John, old, buddy, if statistics are any indication, Christianity is FAR
>>from the "sole provider of assurance of Truth" that you assert that it is.
>>It never cease to amaze how ignorant the average Christian is WRT other
>>religious traditions....
> 
> It never ceases to amaze me how many people who have no concrete views are
> ready to offer that others have them, and for good reason. :-)

I'm not championing Islam, merely pointing out that Islam appears to be
satisfying a lot of people's spiritual hunger.

> You are not
> really in a position to discuss this, as you don't have any concrete views.

Maybe! :)

>>> I don't recall any posts where a non-Christian relates a wholistic assurance
>>> in their belief (i.e. through all aspects of human thought, including reason,
>>> emotion, experience, gut feelings, etc, etc.).  None who are as blatantly
>>> stubborn about their position. :-)  
>>
>>Ha! Ever heard of Islamic Jihad? Ever heard of the Buddhist monks who burn
>>themselves alive for causes they feel are right? If THAT'S not "wholistic
>>assurance" I don't know what is...!
> 
> Speaking of dying for something... "For while we were still helpless, at
> the right time Christ died for the ungodly.  For one will hardly die for a
> righteous man [cause]; though perhaps for the good man [or cause] someone
> would dare even to die. [Sounds like you Buddhist monks...] But God
> demonstrates His own love towards us, in that while we were yet sinners,
> Christ died for us." (Romans 5:6-8)

Jesus KNEW that he was about to be ressurected into eternal glory. 
He KNEW that at the most, he was going to suffer for a few hours and then
rejoin his Father in heaven. Not really that much of a sacrifice, if you
ask me.  I would do the same thing to save even ONE person from 
a terrible fate, if I knew what Jesus supposedly knew. And I'm certainly
no saint. 

> You see that is the key.  I do not deny that Islam has some VERY valid
> points.  Would you sacrifice everything for your worst enemy?  Through
> sin we are enemies of God, but His love is so great that He made the
> ultimate sacrifice to bring us back to Him.

He suffered horribly for a few hours and then went to heaven. That's a bit
of a sacrifice, but nothing all that great. His sacrifice (if he was what
you say he was) was far smaller than that of a Buddhist monk who burns himself
alive not knowing whether or not he will enter another life. 

Why do we fear death? Because we do not know what lies beyond. Jesus knew -
death held no terrors for him. No sacrifice at all, really, IF he was a God.
IF he was only a man, than he was one of the bravest men who ever lived. 
                              
> Without exception Christianity is the only "religion" which recognizes that
> man, of himself, cannot please God or be reunited with Him.  I know you
> know this, but it is still the most amazing fact about Christianity and one
> that makes it truly unique.




> 
> The assurance that the Buddhist monk is missing is the assurance that even if
> he didn't burn himself alive he would still be righteous through God's grace.
> He can't have this assurance because he does not have Christ.  I would say
> that burning yourself alive is certainly a last ditch effort to please God.
> I would call this a strong, but unwarranted conviction (or foolishness...)
> I don't think I would put that in the same category as faith.
> If you asked this individual if they were 100% without a shadow of a doubt
> sure that they would spend eternity in paradise with God he would have
> said "no".

Considering Buddhists don't believe in God, you're probably right about that
last point anyway, even if the other ones are a bit misguided. 
 
>>> They base their beliefs only on reason and intellectual feasability, whereas
>>> the Christian will acknowledge that reason is an issue, but by far not the
>>> sum total of religious experience.  There are some on the other end as well.
>>> 
>>> John M.
>>
>>Jumpin jiminy! Ever heard of the Sufis? Ever heard of Hindu "illumination" or
>>Buddhist "enlightenment?" Ever read or heard ANYTHING about Native American
>>religion?  John, buddy, your posts on this net display a _shocking_ ignorance
>>of history, other religious traditions, and current affairs. I'm not going
>>to give you any advice...but still...it is VERY hard to take you seriously.
>>It's like listening to lectures on calculus from a man who obviously can't
>>even multiply...
> 
> I am not nearly as stupid as you want to think. :-)

No..no..I'm sorry if that's what it sounded like. I don't think you're
stupid at all. Uninformed, but not stupid.
 
>  These things are what I
> meant by "the other end" (ignoring reason).  I should have elaborated.
> Do you only discredit me in front of yourself or do you want everyone to
> think that I have nothing worth listening to?  I would say that Christianity
> is unusually balanced...

John, every sentence you utter on the subject of other religions
screams ignorance. You don't even know enough about this subject to realize
how little you know. This is not an insult - ignorance can be fixed. 
I don't want to discredit you...if anything, I would hope that you 
would become _better_ informed and _more_ credible.

I'm not sure there's much point in you and I arguing any more...you
are so locked into a Fundamentalist mindset that you can not even 
seriously entertain the possibility that you might be wrong - about
anything. I don't think you're stupid. I think you have just decided that
you don't have to think anymore, because you have The Answer. So you
don't bother thinking anymore. When somebody says something challenging
to you - you just repeat that you are certain that you are right. 
Your only purpose here on t.r.m. is to evangelize, am I right? You 
really have no intention at all of re-evaluating what you believe, maybe
learning from one of the 4.99999 billion people who DON'T belong to your
sect.  That's your business, I guess. Not my place to criticize. 
But:
 a) I think Pauline theology is a load of dingo's kidneys, and you don't
even know what I mean when I say that. Not only that, you have no INTEREST
in learning what I mean when I say that. That's fine. No reason why
you should.

b) I think the kind of certainty you claim is delusion. You don't care.
Fine. No reason why you should.

c) There is NO chance of me changing your mind in any way, is there?

So what do you think? Is there any point in us continuing discussion?
I am interested in what YOU think...maybe we can continue along those lines. 
I like to read what you have to say - I find it educational. 
Anyhow -- tell me what you think. Maybe we can drop this thread and pick
up again on other, more specific threads. Well...I'll shut up now and
wait for your response.

Cheers,
Sean Hartigan
hartigan@ac.dal.ca