Newsgroups: alt.pagan,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: The meaning of "pagan"
From: drake+@cs.cmu.edu (Drake)
Date: Mon, 4 Jan 1993 10:24:20 GMT
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon

amanda@intercon.com (Amanda Walker) writes:

>> It appears to be a phrase that requires little interpretation.
>
>Oh, come now.  "I am the way, the truth, and the life?"  You can't do 
>anything *but* interpret it symbolically.  It has no concrete denotational 
>meaning whatsoever.

I was referring more to the second part: NO MAN cometh to the Father BUT
BY ME.  Jesus refers to himself as the way; the way to what?  The way to
the Father.

>> >Take even Roman Catholicism, arguably the most exclusionary 
>> >of Christian sects. 
>> 
>> Aguable?  Yes.  Successfully arguable?  Not in your wildest dreams.
>
>Heh.  Roman canon law seems to disagree with you.

Lemme see if I understand your point here...you say that Roman Catholicism
is exclusionary, then quote Augustine to show how it isn't really that
bad; I suggest that it isn't all that exclusionary, and you insist that
it really is?  Jeez, come on!

>> Unless, of course, you want to play with semantics and define Christian 
>> however it suits you.
>
>I don't understand this statement, unless you are claiming that Catholics are 
>not Christian.  I've heard this position from evangelicals, though I strongly 
>disagree...  What exactly do you mean?

I am suggesting quite the opposite; unless you want to claim that the
Christians at, say, Liberty University, or Bob Jones University, are not
"really" Christian, and that the Catholics (and related) are the only
ones who can claim this title, then you're going to be hard-pressed to
support your claim that the Catholics are the "most exclusionary."

>> Yes...however, neither you nor he will find justification with the 
>> pages of Holy Writ to support your contention.
>
>The writings of St. Paul?  The Gospel of John?  Do these count?  How about 
>Philippians 4:8 or John 14:1-6? 

The latter include the verse we have been debating; the former appears, in
context, to refer to Christian things.  Cf 1 Cor 8:5-6, Col 1:20-22, or
more appropriately, 1 Tim 4:1-2.

>It sounds like you've been indoctrinated with the Protestant fallacy of "sola 
>scriptura"--the thought that scripture is the sole and complete embodiment of 
>Divine revelation, and that its meaning is simple and readily apparent.  This 
>view is not held by the majority of Christians (Catholic, Orthodox, and 
>Anglican), and not even scripture itself supports this view.  See for example 
>Matthew 13:10-11; Mark 4:10-11,33-34;  Luke 8:10; John 16:12; 1 Corinthians 
>2:4-10; 2 Thessalonians 2:15; 2 Peter 3:16; and so on.  Don't confuse 
>whatever brainwashing you may have received with the fullness of two millenia 
>of Christian faith.

Context again!  Read the verses following John 16:12 to understand.  I do
believe that the unregenerate mind cannot understand spiritual things; but
when it is blessed by the Holy Spirit, it can.

-- 
Love and Laughter,             | NOTE: Private mail must go explicitly
Xeper and Remanifest,          | to drake@seismo.soar.cs.cmu.edu
                       DRAKE   | or it'll bounce back to you...