From: west@esd.dl.nec.com	 (Mike West)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Explanation of heresies
Date: 7 Apr 92 02:47:38 GMT

djdaneh@pbhyc.pacbell.com (Dan'l DanehyOakes):
> Some of what follows will refer to "Bova's Law."  That's my own name for
> it; someone else may have said it first, but I first ran across it in the
> writings of Ben Bova.
> 
> Bova's Law:  Never attribute to malice what can be adequately explained
> 	     by stupidity or incompetence.

> SAVE THE EARTH
> 2)  "Save" doesn't commonly mean "forever."  The "save the Earth" movement
> is very definitely oriented towards saving the Earth from a clear and
> present _immediate_ peril, or set of perils, rather in the sense of the
> hero of a melodrama who "saves" the heroine from the onrushing train.
> No, she isn't going to live forever; but it's perfectly meaningful to
> say he "saves" her.  That is the immediate sense in which we must "save
> the Earth," or our stewardship is a failure.

To a Christian the word "save" has very specific connotations.  Even
if they are not meant it can still confuse.  It was in this regard
I was concerned about the phrase "save the earth".  It is a bad
choice of words.

> 
> As for "Gaia-worship" -- this is a perfect example of where Bova's Law 
> should be applied.

Sorry for the confusion.  I did not mean to imply that all were
working together for a single goal.  They are all separate.  They
may have similar goals, but they are still not in concert per se.
(I would say that Satan is orchestrating the whole thing, but then,
isn't he always.  :-)

> Does anyone honestly believe that the (rather stupid) "Captain Planet
> and the Planeteers" cartoon is convincing any children to worship Gaia?

At the very least it is teaching children to open themselves up
to completely anti-Christian concepts.  It desensitizes them to Gaia
so that when they meat that name in *any* other context, there will
be no warning.

> To children, Gaia is just another superhero on tv, not much different from
> Superman or Wonder Woman.  Indeed, if I were given to worry about such
> "indoctrinations," modern Wonder Woman comics, which take their Greek 
> mythology very seriously, would worry me far more.

They do.  But that was not germane to the topic.  When a child becomes
use to a certain "Master of the Universe" (for yet another example),
they tend to be suspect of others claiming that title.

> This is putting the cart before the horse.  I've met some of the people 
> who work on (write for) that cartoon, and they're not neopagans; the ones 
> I've met, at least, were atheists and agnostics, with no mystical agenda 
> at all.  Their purpose is precisely what Mike dismissed: to promote 
> environmental awareness in children.  The "Gaia" business, just like 
> the character of Captain Power himself, is _purely_ a gimmick to get the 
> kids' attention.  (And sell lunchboxes.)

And I suppose that Ozzie Ozborne and Alice Cooper do not worship the
devil.  Regarless of what is claimed by either singer, they do promote
the devil and his ways.  Even as a gimick, Gaia is still represented
as the earth incarnate.  The earth is *not* a person.  It does not
feel, it does not have feeling, it does not think.  To represent
otherwise is to fill little heads with confusing and dangerous ideas.

Underdog was still a druggie and Bulwinkle was still a cold warrior.

> Earth day, similarly, is pretty much what it claims.  I've met and spoken
> with the fellow who first proposed the original Earth Day back in the
> '60s, Frank Herbert (author of DUNE and many other science fiction novels).
> He had no neopagan agenda _whatsoever_.
> 
> Granted that a number of neopagans have latched onto Earth Day and made
> it important in their ceremonies.

If ED was set up originally in the 60s, why, pray tell, did not not
gain such immense popularity until *after* the "additional" meanings
had been attached.

> [Christmas and Easter are based on pagan holidays.]
>                  For that matter,
> shall we forbid our kids (or, if you don't have any, would you) to have
> those horrid pagan Christmas trees and Easter baskets?
> 
> Well, maybe Mike does.  I've met people who do.  I respect their faith, but
> think they're wrong.

If it is hiding the importance of the holiday, yes.  The most important
thing about Easter is not the stupid colored eggs, the bunny or even
the time off from school.  It is to remember the sacrifice of Jesus
Christ.  Same for Christmas.  It is a time to worship Jesus and
remember his birth, and if the presents, trees, et al get in the way,
it is time to tone them down or put them away for a while.

Also, the parallel does not work.  Easter was originally a pagan
holiday (to celebrate fetility!), but has been taken over by
Christians.  Earth Day was originally a day to remember to take
care of our planet, but has been taken over by neopagans.  The
real parallel is much more interesting, eh?

> SELF ESTEEM
> 
> But self-esteem is _not_, as Mike suggest, something that comes from
> our being saved by Jesus.  It's a product of what he said at the beginning
> of his remarks on self-esteem:  of being something intrinsically 
> worthwhile, because created by God.  Even _without_ the added value placed 
> upon us by the sacrifice of Christ that would make us worthy of esteem.

Ah, but it is dependant on being saved.  The reason is because it is
*impossible* for us to fulfill the other roles we were created for
until we are saved.

> Is the sin our basic nature, though?  Or is it some addition, some 
> admixture, to that basic nature?

It is our basic nature.  Paul spends the first 4 chapters of Romans
describing our position.  In Chapter 5 he describes us as being "helpless"
and "ungodly" (v6); in v10 he says we were "enemies" with God!  In
Chapter 6 Paul exhorts us to remeber that our "old self" was crucified
and we have been given a "new self".  Before salvation by Christ sin
*is* our nature, but He gives us a new nature.

> SELF LOVE
> 
> Jesus does not say "Love your neighbor as God does," 
> but "Love your neighbor as much as (or at the same time or in the
> same way) you love yourself."  
> 
> Now, Mike claims that this doesn't follow; but he fails to explain 
> that all-important "as yourself."  Jesus -- at least as we know Him 
> through the Gospels -- was not given to tossing in pointless words.  
> If He said "as yourself," we must presume he _meant_ it.
>
> In both cases, but especially the latter (and Mike himself says that 
> the former depends on the latter), the love of the Other _depends_ on 
> the love of the self.

I admitted that.  I also said that was *already* love ourselves.
We do not need to do it anymore than we do.

Also the only time the concept of loving self is mentioned is in
the numerous interations of "love your neighbor as yourself" and
in Ephesians 5:28:
	"So husbands ought to love their own wives as their own bodies.
	He who loves his own wife loves himself;"
and 5:29 addes the kicker,
	"for no one ever hated his own flesh, but nourishes and cherishes
	it, just as Christ also dles the church."

If you put this all together, if you are really desperate to love
yourself, you do so *by loving others* (specifically your wife in
V28).  The initial love of yourself is *assumed*.  It is *already
there*.  That is why it is never commanded.

Loving ourselves is the wrong focus.

Also, one of the descriptions of Godly love in I Cor 13 is "it (love)
does not seek its own", or in other words, love is selfless.  Please
tell me how anyone can selflessly love self?

> SUMMARY
> 
> Properly understood, "saving the Earth," "self-esteem," and "self-love" 
> are not only not contrary to Christianity; they are a good and necessary 
> part of Christian behaviour.

I still believe that, even though containing important truths, all
three are contrary to Christianity as they currently stand.  At the
very least they cause us to misdirect energy and love away from
God.  At the worst they replace Him.

Mike West

[I think this discussion is about at an end.  It's pretty clear
what everybody thinks.  --clh]