21784

神经网络昆斯林的新闻组分类2006

Xref: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu soc.religion.christian:21784
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!magnesium.club.cc.cmu.edu!pitt.edu!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!darwin.sura.net!bogus.sura.net!news-feed-1.peachnet.edu!concert!rutgers!igor.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: [e-mail] (Stuart W. Marlatt)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: SOC.RELIGION.CHRISTIAN
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 23 May 93 08:54:51 GMT
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Lines: 61
Approved: [e-mail]

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (D. Andrew Kille) writes:
>Anni Dozier ([e-mail]) wrote:
>: After reading the posts on this newsgroup for the pasts 4 months, it 
>: has become apparent to me that this group is primarily active with 
>: Liberals, Catholics, New Agers', and Athiests.  Someone might think 
[...etc...]

>Since when did conservative, protestant, old-time religion believers get
>an exclusive francise to christianity?  Christianity is, and always has
>been, a diverse and contentious tradition, and this group reflects that
>diversity.  I, fo one, am not ready to concede to _any_ group- be they
>"liberal" or "conservative", catholic, protestant, or orthodox, charismatic
>or not- the right to claim that they have _the truth_, and everyone else
>is not "christian."

I am becoming increasingly convinced that most of us take Paul's illustration
about one body / many parts far too narrowly. It is easy to say that the one
body represents a particular sect of Christianity (generally our own), and
the parts are clearly the various offices of ministry. There is a place for
that. But having met people who are walking closeely with God in a wide
variety of doctine - Catholic, Protestant, liberal, conservative, Orthodox,
etc. - I am willing to encompass a wide spectrum of views within the
context of the 'body of Christ.' And I am equally sure that one day, after
we shug off this mortal coil, when we no longer see through a glass darkly
but see clearly, face to face, we will all be ashamed at some of the things
we held as truth. We ought all fellowship, worship, and serve where we are
called, and understand that where we are called may not be where everyone
else is called.

One of the fathers of the reformation (help me out - can't recall the name)
put it quite succiently:

	In essentials, unity.
	In nonessentials, liberty.
	In all things, charity.

While I agree with Lewis (Mere Christianity) that calling oneself a Christian
implies some basic, fundamental standards of belief if the word is to mean
anything at all, I think most of us define the bounds of essentials a bit
too broadly, deny the place for liberty in questionable issues near those
bounds, and ignore the requirements of charity all together. 

Me? I attend a Vineyard church, speak in tongues, am effectively an
inerrantist, though I'll grant some inaccuracy in translation, am moderately
pre-mill, and evangelical. But, I'm not ready to damn those who use icons,
say mass in latin, uphold the Virgin Mary (though I really don't believe
that she was sinless), vote on Church membership, or insist on baptism for
salvation. Of course, I think my doctine is pretty close to the truth -
why would I follow it if I believed something else was closer to the truth?
But my understanding of the reality of a walk with Christ is continually
evolving as I spend more and more time walking with Him, studying His word,
and fellowshiping with others in the (often extended) family. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I read, much of the night, and go south in the winter.                    
  --T.S. Eliot, The Waste Land                                            
..............................................................................
s.w. marlatt, <><  &  *(:-)               Prov. 25.2
University of Colorado:                   [e-mail]  492-3939
National Center for Atmospheric Research: [e-mail]  497-1669
------------------------------------------------------------------------------