Conference yukon::christian

    Enjoyed it, Tony.  It looks like Madalyn Murray O'Hair has embezzled
    millions from the Atheists organizations as well.

    Excellent, Tony!
    
    Thanks for sharing the product of your meditation and prayer.
    
    And for your response to God's grace with courage and commitment.
    
    /Wayne

	Thanks, Mike.

        What is interesting is that Mr. Atheist never did respond to me.  I
        had included my phone number, USP mail address, and my home ISP
        address, hoping he would want to talk.  He has not written any
        other letters to the editors since, either.  I am praying for him.

        Madalyn Murray O'Hair and the ACLU were able to twist the first
        amendment to say the opposite of what it says about religion.  We
	are guaranteed the free *EXERCISE* of religion.  Exercise is what
	you DO, not what you THINK.  What Christians DO includes prayer.

        It is amazing how the ACLU and others have been able to defend
        all sorts of public displays of blasphemy, profanity, pornography
        and lewd, lascivious behavior as "protected speech" while public
        prayer is attacked as a First Amendment violation.

	Incredible.  Such perverted logic defies description.

	Peace,
		Tony

    
    Hi Tony,
    
    I would like to caution you against creating a false idea that
    Christianity is not a religion for it is most certainly a religion.  It
    is the only true religion and is defined by God. Central to the
    Christian religion is Christ's atonement for the sins of his people and
    the new life, via the Holy Spirit, given to those who believe,
    acquitting believing sinners of their guilt.
    
    I appreciate the subtle idea included in the statement that
    Christianity is not a religion but I believe it only serves to confuse,
    rather than convict, the unbeliever.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    On what do you base your statement that Christianity is the only true
    religion?  

    
    Hi Nancy,
    
    Do you have to ask? ;)
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Yes, I did have to ask.  Do you also understand how saying that
    Christianity is the only TRUE religion to someone who doesn't hold the
    Bible at this standard holds no truth? 
    
    I don't think that when you make an absolute statement such as the
    above  [which I do agree with], it must be qualified.  
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy
    

>    Jeff,
    
>    Yes, I did have to ask.  Do you also understand how saying that
>    Christianity is the only TRUE religion to someone who doesn't hold the
>    Bible at this standard holds no truth? 
    
>    I don't think that when you make an absolute statement such as the
>    above  [which I do agree with], it must be qualified.
    
    The point I am trying to make is that God testifies to himself in both
    the OT and NT, teaching truth about Himself, one of which is that all
    other religions are false.  But Christianity is a religion (however, 
    unlike all other religions in that they are false and it is true).
    
    As an aside the truth claims presented in the Christian religion may be 
    compared to other truth claims in other religions and in non-religions
    such as atheism.  It is confusing to tell a probably somewhat well-read
    person, such as a comitted atheist, that Christianity is not
    objectively true or testable but primarily subjectively true through a
    relationship.  Relationship sounds so much, to me, like the jargon of
    the therapeutic lingo of today's American society.  Certainly we have a
    relationship to Christ but Christ is more    important  than our
    personal relationship.
    
    The assertion that Christianity is not a religion but a relationship is
    wrong.  Christianity is a religion with Christ's atonement at its
    center.  Our relationship to God in Christ is as one dependent, a child
    to a Father.  Our relationship to Christ is as a brother but He is our
    brother,     God, not our earthly brother.
    
    jeff
    

	Seems to me yet even more value judgements are taking place in here.
New week, new value judgements to make. Simply amazing.

    .8
    
    A first for a long time, I can't argue with you. :-)

>    The point I am trying to make is that God testifies to himself in both
>    the OT and NT, teaching truth about Himself, one of which is that all
>    other religions are false.  But Christianity is a religion (however, 
>    unlike all other religions in that they are false and it is true).

Which of the following statements is true or false and why:

	1. The religion practiced by the Old Testament Prophets
	   was false.

	2. The religion practiced by the Old Testament Prophets
	   was Christianity.

	3. The religion practiced by the Old Testament Prophets
	   was incomplete.

	4. The religion practiced by Jews today is false.

	5. The religion practiced by Jews today is incomplete.

/john

>    The point I am trying to make is that God testifies to himself in both
>    the OT and NT, teaching truth about Himself, one of which is that all
>    other religions are false.  But Christianity is a religion (however, 
>    unlike all other religions in that they are false and it is true).

>>Which of the following statements is true or false and why:

>>	1. The religion practiced by the Old Testament Prophets
>>	   was false.
    
    False.

>>	2. The religion practiced by the Old Testament Prophets
    >>	   was Christianity.
    
    False.  However, believers at that time were justified by their faith
    in the promise of Christ and were/are thus members of the church
    invisible.

>>	3. The religion practiced by the Old Testament Prophets
>>	   was incomplete.
    
    False.  The system was "closed", the rules defined, the covenant real.

    
>>	4. The religion practiced by Jews today is false.
    
    Yes, in every way from an absolutist perspective.  Is there a shadow or
    leftover capital, if you will, which is a reflection of biblical
    Judaism?  Yes.  Is their system effective unto salvation? No. Do I
    include Christian Jews who still practice some for of OT ritual?  No. 

>>	5. The religion practiced by Jews today is incomplete.
    
    The rituals of Judaism today are not the biblical rituals of Judaism
    and are thus incomplete.  Can today's Jewish religion hope to be
    completed somehow in the future?  Only when Christ take his place as
    King and Redeemer for all Jews.

    
    jeff

RE: relationship vs. religion

        Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the
        kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is
        in heaven.
        Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied
        in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name
        done many wonderful works?
        And then will I profess unto them, I never *KNEW* you: depart from
        me, ye that work iniquity.
	-- Matthew 7:21-23

	Is it the will of the Father that we prophesy in His name, in His
	name cast out devils, and in His name do many wonderful works?  I
	would venture, "Yes."  But what's missing?  

        Which ritual or ceremony did the thief on the cross next to Jesus
        perform in order to be saved?  What was his religion?

        Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils
        also believe, and tremble. But wilt thou know, O vain man, that
        faith without works is dead?
	-- James 2:19-20

        What "works" is James talking about?  What works did the thief on
        the cross next to Jesus perform in order to be saved? 

	Is helping the poor and destitute religion?  Does that make
	atheists who contribute to relief efforts religious?

        Having been an atheist myself for many years, I can attest that
        atheists look upon ritual and ceremony connected with belief in
        anything supernatural as religion.  They are as scornful of the New
        Age as they are of Christians.

	God's peace,
		TonyC
	

	I know a pastor who defines the difference between Christianity and
	"religion" as follows.

	Religion is man reaching up to God.
	Christ is God reaching down to man.

	God's peace,
		TonyC
		

	Tony, I would take that one step further. I think a lot of Christianity
also falls under man preaching to God. I'm sure you will agree that we all do
it from time to time. 

	But definitely, Christ is God reaching down to man. We just gotta take
it!

    Re: .14
    
    I've heard that before, Tony, and I agree with it.  Religion is works. 
    Christianity isn't.  Religion is having the head knowledge, but not the
    heart.  For example, the church at Sardis was rebuked because they
    professed Christ but didn't possess Him.  Christianity is where the
    head knowledge bears fruit within the heart, and hopefully, the new
    heart of flesh motivates the hands to action in doing the Lord's work.
    
    Mike

>	I know a pastor who defines the difference between Christianity and
>	"religion" as follows.

>	Religion is man reaching up to God.
>	Christ is God reaching down to man.

>	God's peace,
>		TonyC
    
    Your pastor is equivocating and that is what causes confusion,
    certainly among unbelievers.  
    
    Religion is defined in my Websters as:
    1) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and
    worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. b) expression
    of such a belief in conduct and ritual.  2) any specific system of
    belief, worship, conduct, etc. often involving a code of ethics and a
    philosophy [the Christian *religion*, the Buddhist *religion*, etc.].
    b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling,
    suggestive of, or likened to such a system.
		
    Christianity is a religion in every way according to the common
    definition.
    
    I suspect that folks who like to say Christianity is not a religion are
    mostly ignorant on the very subject they are asserting is true. What
    folks are trying to say, I think, and what they are saying very badly
    when saying Christianity is not a religion, is that man cannot, through
    his own attempts (which may include systematic rituals or behaviors,
    etc.), have a peaceful relationship to God in Christ, that is, be in a 
    state of salvation from sin.  This is much clearer to the unbeliever,
    especially a studied unbeliever such as are many committed atheists,
    than saying Christianity is not a religion.
    
    jeff

    
>    I've heard that before, Tony, and I agree with it.  Religion is works. 
>    Christianity isn't.  Religion is having the head knowledge, but not the
>    heart.  For example, the church at Sardis was rebuked because they
>    professed Christ but didn't possess Him.  Christianity is where the
>    head knowledge bears fruit within the heart, and hopefully, the new
>    heart of flesh motivates the hands to action in doing the Lord's work.
    
>    Mike
    
    You are confusing religion with human attempts to gain God's favor
    by merit.  Some religions are merit-based, of course.  Christianity is
    a religion but it is not merit-based.
    
    And you are flatly contradicting orthodox Christian understanding of
    biblical works.  Christianity works, without a doubt, without fail.  To
    say religion is works and Christianity isn't, though I think I know
    what you mean but it is not properly stated,  is to contradict God's
    Word.
    
    The whole Christianity is not religion language is wrong and ill-fated. 
    It only isolates, it does not enlight or foster discussion, in my
    opinion, certainly not with a learned man.
    
    jeff

RE: <<< Note 30.17 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>    I suspect that folks who like to say Christianity is not a religion are
>    mostly ignorant on the very subject they are asserting is true. 

	Then color me ignorant. :-)

        Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise
        in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
        For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
        written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
        And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are
        vain.
	-- 1st Corinthians 3:18-20
	

RE: <<< Note 30.18 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>
    
>    The whole Christianity is not religion language is wrong and ill-fated. 
>    It only isolates, it does not enlight or foster discussion, in my
>    opinion, certainly not with a learned man.

	I think I know what you're trying to say Jeff, but it's sounding
	like, unless we agree to the same semantics as you, we are fools
	bringing reproach upon God and denying the truth of the Gospel.

	As for "learned" men ...

        "For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
        bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.

        "Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of
        this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?

        "For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not
        God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them
        that believe.

        "For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

        "But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and
        unto the Greeks foolishness;

        "But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
        power of God, and the wisdom of God.

        "Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness
        of God is stronger than men.

        "For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after
        the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:

        "But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the
        wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound
        the things which are mighty;

        "And base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath
        God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought
        things that are:

	"That no flesh should glory in his presence.

        "But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us
        wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption:

        "That, according as it is written, He that glorieth, let him glory
        in the Lord."

	-- 1st Corinthians 1:19-31

>    I suspect that folks who like to say Christianity is not a religion are
>    mostly ignorant on the very subject they are asserting is true. 

>>	Then color me ignorant. :-)

>>        Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise
>>        in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise.
>>        For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is
>>        written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness.
>>        And again, The Lord knoweth the thoughts of the wise, that they are
>>        vain.
>>	-- 1st Corinthians 3:18-20
    
    Just what do you think this scripture means, Tony?  What is its
    context?  And how does this apply to the context of this topic?
    If you think that ignorance equals "becoming a fool", I think you ought
    to reconsider.  If you think clarity of thought and speech when
    engaging the world is a bad thing, I think you ought to reconsider.  If
    you think considering the context of your audience, the person you are
    engaging, is a bad thing then you can forget any significant success in
    winning others, especially committed atheists, to Christ.
    
    My pastor recently spoke on how inappropriate so much of our language
    is today when speaking of the Lord to others, especially unbelievers. 
    Something which struck me particularly is how we use the term "born
    again".  Jesus was speaking to Nicodemus, a Pharisee, a leader, a man
    of breeding when he used that term.  The whole context was the implied
    acceptability of Nicodemus (in Nicodemus's mind) due to his background 
    and the family into which he was born and the depth to which he had
    "mastered" the written law.  Jesus's use of the term "born again" is in
    this context.  Outside of that context, it loses its appeal and 
    application.  It certainly doesn't go over well in our democratic,
    somewhat egalitarian culture.
    
    Language is important.  Christ crucified must be the core of our
    gospel, not the disparagement of or inappropriate use of such a term as
    religion, for example.  And ignorance is not a virtue either.
    
    jeff
	

>    The whole Christianity is not religion language is wrong and ill-fated. 
>    It only isolates, it does not enlight or foster discussion, in my
>    opinion, certainly not with a learned man.

>>	I think I know what you're trying to say Jeff, but it's sounding
>>	like, unless we agree to the same semantics as you, we are fools
>>	bringing reproach upon God and denying the truth of the Gospel.


    It is not an issue of semantics.  Anyone who says Christianity is not
    a religion is wrong, plain and simple.  And the use of such wrong
    language makes it very difficult to communicate, plain and simple.  And
    placing religion versus relationship is esoteric and misleading. 
    Relationships (the type implied in the phrase we're discussing) are
    subjective.  The unbeliever, especially one who appeals to facts about
    the world as support for their unbelief, needs a more objective basis
    for discussion than a relationship.  God's Word is the objective basis
    for dicussing God's claims and existence and our relationship to him. 
    But without qualification (and it is so commonly used by Christians)
    the religion is bad, relationship is good argument is non-sense, in my
    opinion.
    
    jeff

RE: <<< Note 30.22 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>>    Anyone who says Christianity is not
>>    a religion is wrong, plain and simple.
>>	:
>>	:
>>    But without qualification (and it is so commonly used by Christians)
>>    the religion is bad, relationship is good argument is non-sense
>>    in my opinion.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
        Thank you, Jeff, for the qualifier.  Perhaps you should read again
        the letter I wrote to the atheist.  This fellow had written many
        letters presenting historical facts demonstrating that religion is
        a destructive, anti-intellectual force.  On this point, I mostly
        agree with him.  Consider, for example, the "Christian" religion
        practised in the Middle Ages.  Even after the "Reformation", the
        different sects continued to disparage, persecute and murder
        eachother, with the possible exception of the Anabaptists. I just
        wanted to point out to him that religious zeal for secular
        ideologies is just as bad and has wrought much more havoc.

        In the original, un-edited letter to the local newspaper, I
        included the following verse.

        "Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To
        visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep
        himself unspotted from the world."
	-- James 1:27

	God's peace to you,
		Tony

|    But without qualification (and it is so commonly used by Christians)
|    the religion is bad, relationship is good argument is non-sense, in my
|    opinion.
    
    Jeff, thanks for stating your opinion.  Tony and I will go on to keep
    our opinion.
    
    |1) belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed and
    |worshiped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe. b) expression
    |of such a belief in conduct and ritual.  2) any specific system of
    |belief, worship, conduct, etc. often involving a code of ethics and a
    |philosophy [the Christian *religion*, the Buddhist *religion*, etc.].
    |b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling,
    |suggestive of, or likened to such a system.
    
    This definition is a difficult fit for Christianity.  We worship *THE*
    Divine Creator.  There are no alternatives.  We do not have *ANY*
    system of beliefs.  Christianity worships an exclusive God with an
    exclusive message and an exclusive plan.  This is no multiple choice
    essay.
    
    Mike

Hi, Jeff.

|   I suspect that folks who like to say Christianity is not a religion are
|   mostly ignorant on the very subject they are asserting is true. What
|   folks are trying to say, I think, and what they are saying very badly
|   when saying Christianity is not a religion, is that man cannot, through
|   his own attempts (which may include systematic rituals or behaviors,
|   etc.), have a peaceful relationship to God in Christ, that is, be in a 
|   state of salvation from sin.  This is much clearer to the unbeliever,
|   especially a studied unbeliever such as are many committed atheists,
|   than saying Christianity is not a religion.

** And would you not also suspect that folks who say Christianity is just
   another religion are mostly ignorant on the very subject they are asserting
   is true?

   To examine Christianity as another religion is to risk not seeing the key
   distinctives:

    1) That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
    
    2) That He was buried, and was raised again the third day according to
       the scriptures;

    3) That He was seen by eyewitnesses; and

    4) That He ascended into heaven, and now lives as the only mediator
       between God and man to make intercession for us until all things are
       subdued unto Him.

Christianity is neither a relationship nor a religion, per se, but rather is
Jesus Christ who claimed, and was/is shown, to be God, whom to know is eternal
life.  The mystery of godliness, we in Christ and He is us, the hope of glory.

"I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son
of God, who loved me, and gave Himself for me. I do not frustrate the grace of
God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain."
(Ga.2:20&21)

That said, relationship speaks more to me of living (present tense) than the
conduct and ritual of religion based on things past (dead and gone).  The Author
and Finisher of our faith is alive!

I appreciate your point, and I would encourage you to appreciate TonyC's heart
in pointing out Christianity's uniqueness.

/Wayne

P.S.  I would find helpful seeing how you would have worded the letter that
TonyC was moved to write.

But what of 1 Timothy 3:16?

Great indeed, we confess, is the mystery of our religion: He was manifested
in the flesh, vindicated in the Spirit, seen by angels, preached among the
nations, believed on in the world, taken up in glory.

Then there is that letter of James -- the one that some people don't really
want to have in their bibles:

James 1:27:  Religion that is pure and undefiled before God and the Father
is this: to visit orphans and widows in their affliction, and to keep
oneself unstained from the world.

/john

    To whom is your question addressed, John?

To those who seem to call "religion" a negative word.

/john

    Ah, to those that would say the life of Christ is not manifest in our
    flesh.
    
    Thanks for the clarification.
    
    /Wayne

RE <<< Note 30.26 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

>>Then there is that letter of James -- the one that some people don't really
>>want to have in their bibles:

	I included this verse in my reply in .23  I love having it in my
	Bible, and I shared it in my original letter to the editors.

>>But what of 1 Timothy 3:16?

	In the AV, this verse says nothing about "religion".  It says,

        "And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was
        manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels,
        preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up
        into glory."
	-- 1st Timothy 3:16

        Furthermore, notice that the verse says "God was manifest in the
        flesh," not some nebulous "He".  This verse is speaking about the
        great mystery of the nature of God, not the definition of a
        religion.

	God's peace to you,
		TonyC

>>Hi, Jeff.

|   I suspect that folks who like to say Christianity is not a religion are
|   mostly ignorant on the very subject they are asserting is true. What
|   folks are trying to say, I think, and what they are saying very badly
|   when saying Christianity is not a religion, is that man cannot, through
|   his own attempts (which may include systematic rituals or behaviors,
|   etc.), have a peaceful relationship to God in Christ, that is, be in a 
|   state of salvation from sin.  This is much clearer to the unbeliever,
|   especially a studied unbeliever such as are many committed atheists,
|   than saying Christianity is not a religion.

>>** And would you not also suspect that folks who say Christianity is just
>>   another religion are mostly ignorant on the very subject they are asserting
>>   is true?
    
    Hi Wayne.  Absolutely. Unbelievers, naturally, will not understand the 
    distinctions, the unique claims of the Christian religion.  

   >>To examine Christianity as another religion is to risk not seeing the key
   >>distinctives:

    >>1) That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
    
   >> 2) That He was buried, and was raised again the third day according to
       the scriptures;

    >>3) That He was seen by eyewitnesses; and

    >>4) That He ascended into heaven, and now lives as the only mediator
    >>   between God and man to make intercession for us until all things are
    >>   subdued unto Him.
    
    This reduction or summary of key points is part of most all religions.
    
>That said, relationship speaks more to me of living (present tense) than the
>conduct and ritual of religion based on things past (dead and gone).  The Author
>and Finisher of our faith is alive!
    
    I understand the language but the summing up in the two phrases he
    heard a pastor speak is not self-explantory and is confusing and
    inappropriate, in my opinion.  I think another problem I personally
    have with it and similar phrases (aside from them being inaccurate) is
    the anti-intellectualism and extreme subjectivism (relativism actually)
    which is underlying. 

>I appreciate your point, and I would encourage you to appreciate TonyC's heart
>in pointing out Christianity's uniqueness.

    Listen folks, I know I'm a controversial figure here, entering
    controversial words at times, and always rather directly but try to see
    (again) that this is an impersonal discussion of a concept, not a
    condemnation of anyone's views or tacts.  The real meat for my entry
    was the "religion versus relationship" ditty, which might have been
    used by any number of people here.
    
    jeff

	Hi, Jeff.

	Would you address the questions I asked in .13?

	Thanks and regards,
		Tony
		

|  >>To examine Christianity as another religion is to risk not seeing the key
|  >>distinctives:

|   >>1) That Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
    
|  >> 2) That He was buried, and was raised again the third day according to
       the scriptures;

|   >>3) That He was seen by eyewitnesses; and

|   >>4) That He ascended into heaven, and now lives as the only mediator
|   >>   between God and man to make intercession for us until all things are
|   >>   subdued unto Him.
    
|   This reduction or summary of key points is part of most all religions.

** Really?  Color me ignorant along with TonyC!

   For my enlightenment, would you cite an example of a religion, other
   than Christianity, about whose object of faith all four of these claims
   are made?  In particular, what other men claimed to be God and were
   physically raised from the dead to be seen by eyewitnesses?

/Wayne

    
    Sorry Wayne, I did not mean that the content was the same.  I meant
    that the reduction of a system to key points is a feature of religions,
    indicating the systematic nature of religion and your example
    indicating how Christianity is also a religion.  Of course
    Christianity's claims are unique in every way, not just in the ways you
    cited.  All other religions, except biblical Judaism, are really
    fantastic.
    
    jeff

    And my point was that in examining Christianity as just a religion, the
    distinctives might be lost.  Because the distinctive is alive!
    
    Again, I appreciate your point.
    
    And your rewording the letter that TonyC was moved to write would help
    me, at least, understand how the gospel could be related more
    effectively to an atheist.
    
    Thanks.
    
    /Wayne

>	Hi, Jeff.

>	Would you address the questions I asked in .13?

>	Thanks and regards,
>		Tony
    
    They don't seem to be actual questions but rhetorical.  The thief is a
    poor illustration, in my opinion, and he has been abused throughout the
    ages to support all kinds of ideas.  There was one repentant thief who was
    crucified in history with Jesus on the cross.  Don't extrapolate
    inappropriately from a completely unique event in the history of
    creation to the context of most other folks lives.
    
    It is not appropriate to position the thief as representative of 
    Christian life on earth.  He died and did not participate at all in the 
    further development of God's work, through the Holy Spirit, during the 
    unfolding of the Apostolic revelation.  In the Apostolic revelation the
    mysteries of the OT were explained significantly as well as the
    doctrines of the new covenant church.  These doctrines shape our
    beliefs, behaviors, everything.  We are orderly (most of us) and God
    has given us a codified accounting in the Bible.  We are a part of a
    religion, plain and simple.  I really can't believe this is at all
    debatable.  
	
    jeff	

        "But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and
        strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain."
	-- Titus 3:9

	Brothers and Sisters;

        There are many differences in the understanding each of us has with
        respect to the Bible and passages therein.  We know that God is not
        the author of confusion (1st Corinthians 14:33).  James 3:16 says,
	"For where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil
	work."  Consider the bloodbaths that took place because of
	disagreements over the minutiae of doctrine.  Who, then is the
	author of this confusion?

	If we could just live the two Great Commandments, particularly
	showing love one to another, we would have much less of this
	confusion, and only Christians in various stages of devlopment,
	some developing as hands, others as ears, others as feet, others as
	eyes.

	God's peace,
		Tony

>    And my point was that in examining Christianity as just a religion, the
>    distinctives might be lost.  Because the distinctive is alive!
    
    The central claim of the Christian religion is its living Savior and
    Lord of the universe.
    
>    And your rewording the letter that TonyC was moved to write would help
>    me, at least, understand how the gospel could be related more
>    effectively to an atheist.
    
    Oh, no, I couldn't.  It is fine.  I'm not interested in dissecting
    Tony's response at all.  The religion vs relationship thing caught my
    attention and I thought we could discuss it.  It is a common conception
    after all among evangelicals.
    
    jeff
    
   

    Amen, TonyC!
    
    Again, I commend your courage and commitment in speaking as you were
    moved by the Holy Spirit.  I was encouraged by your example of faith
    and conduct.
    
    Thank you.
    
    /Wayne

    You're copping out, Tony.  But it's not a crime.  It is however too
    typical here.  And while I expect it to be different here, it isn't.
    
    Peace to Y'all,
    jeff

RE: <<< Note 30.36 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

        Jeff, I wrote that letter because I was moved to do so.  I do
        believe that it was exactly what that particular atheist needed to
        see at that particular time.  
	
	Shalom,
		TonyC
		

RE: <<< Note 30.40 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

>>    You're copping out, Tony.  But it's not a crime.  It is however too
>>    typical here.  And while I expect it to be different here, it isn't.
    
	What would you have me do?  Argue with you ad nauseaum?  

	"Christianity is not a religion."
	"Yes it is!"
	"No it ain't!"
	"'Tis!"
	"'Tain't either!"
	"You're wrong!"
	"I am not!"
	"Yes you are!"
	:
	:

        You get the picture.  If backing away from a rathole is copping
        out, well, amen.

	Peace,
		Tony

    And Amen.  And is this maturity that we like to see in this file. 
    Thanks Tony for being an example to follow.
    
    Nancy

    I think it all has to do with how you define religion. If you go by
    the dictionary definition, Christianity is a religion. But if by 
    religion you mean a set of rites, rules, "pomp and circumstance" by
    which you seek to make a deity, and therefore the world, conform to 
    your desires then its correct to say Christianity is not a religion. 

    I think that a number of years ago, the word religion, and especially 
    to say someone was religious carried the connotation that they 
    followed a strict set of religious rites and practices of whatever
    faith (denomination) they were associated with, without having an actual 
    love of God, without experiencing joy in the Lord, and without knowing
    God. It was this that the phrase "Christianity is relationship, not a
    religion" was coined to combat.

    I would like to go back to the dictionary definition of religion so 
    that I can have a useful term to use. The difference between Christianity
    and other religions is in who is worshipped, and that God chose to 
    reveal Himself to us through words, and through a person, Jesus.

    I do think that Christianity can and does include things that we do,
    and this is fine as long as the things do not replace our love of God. 
    I also think that in some cases, people can do the same thing with 
    doctrine - they can focus so much on doctrine that they loose sight
    of the relationship they should have with God, and how that relationship
    is to affect our relationships with other people. This is at the heart
    of why Jesus said the two greatest commandments were to love the Lord
    with all your heart and strength, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
    As long as these are the top priorities, the rest are fine too, and fall
    into their proper perspective. Without these though, the rest become 
    dry dust.

    Leslie

      Hi,
    
        I've read as far as .17 and really didn't need to read that
        far to make the following point.
    
        Sometimes people attribute different meanings to words.  And
        even if Webster defines a word one way, our culture may define
        it another.  The word "gay" comes to mind.  (I think our culture
        saw the meaning of the word differently before a dictionary 
        responded to this shift in culture.)
    
        Why get hung up on the particular word being used?  Why don't 
        we just take in the MEANING THAT IS INTENDED and dialogue on
        that basis?  Isn't meaning the big thing?
    
        Sure, we want to make sure we use words correctly.  But, that is
        highly secondary to MEANING.
    
        And again...Webster may define a word a certain way, but cultures
        often view a word different than Webster's and people perceive
        more often on the basis of cultural understanding rather than
        Webster's understanding.   Many people don't link 'religion' to
        being able to accomadate the idea of "a personal relationship
        with Jesus Christ."  Religion is often culturally perceived as
        "dry ritual."
    
        I just hope meaning is given a higher priority than word usage
        and that cultural perception is given some sway as well.
    
    						Tony

    
    
>        Why get hung up on the particular word being used?  Why don't 
>        we just take in the MEANING THAT IS INTENDED and dialogue on
>        that basis?  Isn't meaning the big thing?
    
    You cannot separate meaning and language.  Language is the means for
    expressing meaning.  Your proposition leads to confusion and what must
    occur anyway in a serious discussion which is a clarification of terms.
    In written discussion, such as here and letters to the editor, for
    example, a common understanding of the "meaning" of something simply
    does not come easily since replies are generally brief and the context
    is difficult to maintain.  If folks started all of their discussion
    with definition of terms here discussions would be more profitable, I
    think.   
    
        >Sure, we want to make sure we use words correctly.  But, that is
        >highly secondary to MEANING.
    
    This is a contradiction.  You can't separate meaning and using a word
    correctly for they are the same thing.  It is a word's meaning which
    determines its correct usage.
    
        >And again...Webster may define a word a certain way, but cultures
        >often view a word different than Webster's and people perceive
        >more often on the basis of cultural understanding rather than
        >Webster's understanding.   
    
    I disagree.  If the standard definition of a word was not commonly
    understood universally, communication would be very difficult. You
    couldn't understand what I'm saying here if my words could be
    interpreted significantly differently than their standard definition.
    
    >Many people don't link 'religion' to
    >being able to accomadate the idea of "a personal relationship
    >with Jesus Christ."  Religion is often culturally perceived as
    >"dry ritual."
    
    Religion as "dry ritual" is largely the perspective of evangelical
    Protestants who think "anything-goes ritual" or
    "independently-developed ritual" is better. Unbelievers include the 
    rituals as a part of a religion not suggesting that they are the 
    religion.  Religion to unbelievers is a belief in a personal god 
    along with the rituals, doctrines, morals, etc. which religious 
    people employ in service to their god.
    
        >I just hope meaning is given a higher priority than word usage
        >and that cultural perception is given some sway as well.
    
    It is an invalid form of argumentation, debate, discussion, etc. to
    equivocate.
    
    	jeff

    Tony, Christians, Mormons, and Jehovah's Witnesses all have different
    meanings for the same words.  What do you do then?  You have to have
    definition.

      This honestly is not important enough to me.  I did not intend
      the latitude I think you two (Jeff and Mike) are referring to.
    
      I knew what Tony C meant when he said Christianity is not a
      religion just as I immedtiately knew what Jeff meant when he
      said Christianity is a religion.
    
      I had a sense of *meaning* albeit the terms were used in
      different ways.
    
      That has to mean something!  (The fact that I knew what they
      meant.)
    
    						Tony

    Yes Tony it does. [grins grins]  You can comprehend what others write,
    while I am still very challenged in understanding your writings!
    
    Hugs,
    Nancy

      Oh boy Nance...I'm just gonna keep on tryin'!
    
    				Hugs Back To Ya,
    
    				Tony