Message-ID: <Pine.SUN.3.94.961231193159.22462A-100000@acy1.digex.net> Date: Tue, 31 Dec 1996 20:46:24 -0500 From: Tu and Bob Myers <mailto:tuandbob@ACY.DIGEX.NET> Subject: Re: Yet, Still puzzled To: Multiple recipients of list DEVEL-L <mailto:DEVEL-L@AMERICAN.EDU>
On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, JC WANDEMBERG wrote:> On Tue, 31 Dec 1996, Tu and Bob Myers wrote:
> > 1. Because they have the right to interpret information their way.
>
> Sure, everyone has that right, but it still remains "ironic", to put it
> someway, that a great number of peoples all over the world believe in
> this jew called Jesus but NOT the jews?
"Ironic" to you, perhaps, but maybe based on an incorrect or incomplete premis.
As I understand it, the Jews (deserving of upper case as much as "Christians") acknowledged Jesus as a teacher/prophet, but not as the Messiah/a part of God.
> > 3. There are more than one monotheistic religions, each with a prophet or
> > teacher, etc. Only Christianity declares that "their" teacher is a part
> > of the supreme being.
>
> Why do you suppose that's so?
That's what they were taught to believe. It's faith, not fact. That's what religion is. >
> > If that is true, why are the other monotheistic religions still alive and
> > well, and serving the populace that each of the religions respective
> > teachers was provided for?
>
> That was not my point, obviously I failed to make myself clear. What I
> meant to make clear was that the way Jesus envisioned "development" was
> certainly the most sustainable interpretation of development anybody can
> have. Naturally, this may sound like blasphemy to most economists.
Implicit in "development" is survival. Survival is peaceful cooperation, which is getting along with each other in any particular group of peoples environment.
That's what each of the teachers taught, for their respective peoples and environment.
> By the way I was born and raised as Catholic but my religion is my
> personal relationship with my Heavenly Father.
1. Your religion was not mentioned in, and had nothing to do with, my post. I consider that statment a distracting tactic, at best.
2. Please make that "Roman Catholic" (RC).
3. When I referred to the multitude of Christian religion churches/sects, I was, clearly I believe, pointing out that it was the people who interpreted the religions tenets, and not the tenets themselves, that cause the "problems".
4. As a non RC, I'm bemused that I'm allowed by the RC church to attend RC services in an RC church, but, as a member of the RC church, you're not allowed to worship the same God in my non RC Christian church. Not a very catholic (as an adjective), or "universal" attitude!
5. As an observer in general, it's very strange that one sect (RC church) of a religion (Christianity) that has "Thou Shalt Not Kill" as one of it's basic tenets, murdered so many people in order to save them, first torturing them into "converting to Christianity" before murdering them for having been heretics, as did the Spanish and French RC churches. I grant that the "Puritans" in Salem tried to follow the example, but didn't have the quantity that comes from "mass" production. They just didn't have the "captive" audience, nor the monetary and personnel resources either.
OK, OK! The "mass" production and "captive" audience shots were a little cold, I must confess!
Bob