[Mb-civic] ... Ian

Wed Nov 17 09:26:29 PST 2004

Al Baraka:

Thank you for your understanding and reasoned comments.

You ask: "How do you massively propagate the 'word' without any organization?"  Two brief comments.

First, Paul and the apostles and disciples apparently had no problem doing so: among them, they propagated the "word" to almost everyone within a thousand miles (or more) in every direction, including, ultimately, the entire Roman Empire - all without phones, faxes, the Internet or even rapid transportation.

Second, your question brings up a widely believed fallacy of Christianity: the entire concept of "organization."  There is nothing in the New Testament - in Jesus' words or actions, or in those of Paul or the apostles or disciples - to suggest that Christianity was ever supposed to be "organized" at all (in the sense that we think of "organized religion").

The "church" was a body of people, not a building or organization.  For example, when Paul wrote to the "church" at Corinth (or Ephesus, etc.), he was writing to a group of people who met in what we would now call a "home church"; i.e, meetings were held in the homes of church "leaders" (those who had been taught by Paul et al), and Paul's letters and epistles were sent directly to them, to be read to the group.

In this regard, it is clear from Scripture that propagation of the "word" was always supposed to be done interpersonally or in small groups.  Indeed, in sending off the apostles and disciples to "preach the Gospel," Jesus tells them, in essence, to go "door to door."  He further tells them that if a person or household is not interested in hearing the "word," they should "shake the dust from their feet" and move on to the next house: i.e., there is to be no attempt to "force" it or "over-persuade."

You - and Lyle, Cheeseburger, and others - cannot possibly know or understand the depth of my sadness (and that of others who share my understanding - and there are many) at what has become of "Christianity," which, at its core, is a beautiful, loving, even "logical" and "common sense" way of living, and interacting with others.  However, all we can do is what the Scripture suggests - to live our lives in according to the ten precepts of Jesus' ministry (love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service, truth), and share our understanding of Christianity on an interpersonal, one-to-one basis with others (including, especially, "misguided" Christians) to try to get them to see the essence of what it is, and the depth of fallacy and corruption that have become part and parcel of it.

Peace.
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alexander Harper 
  To: mb-civic at islandlists.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2004 4:34 PM
  Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] ... Ian

  Good on you, Ian. I do not see how there can be any rebuttal to any of that, well, at least it is pretty close to how I would wish to interpret and carry through the teachings of Christ, if I could. Of course I understand the beef that Lyle and Cheesebuger (no pun intended) and others have with organised religion because daily we suffer watching it 'taken by knaves to make a trap for fools' (pace Rudyard K.) and then find ourselves on the receiving end of the actions of mean-spirited hypocrites, bigots, fanatics and cheats purporting to act in the name of God, Allah, Jahwe, Krishna etc. It is obviously hard to prevent organised religion being hijacked by the 'wrong sort of people' for the wrong ends, which is why , ever since any of the great world religions came into being, every generation has produced a saint, ascetic or (literally) protestant urging people to establish their own dialogue/communion with God because of the corruption/inefficiency/irrelevance of the official, organised religion of the time. On the other hand how do you massively propagate the 'word' without any organisation? I guess you just do your best, accepting that in any human organisation there will always be elements antithetical to the raison d'être of that organisation and just to try that much harder every time you come across a rotten apple. There is nothing like evil for bringng out the best in (some) people. I have started to ramble; I don't know how I ended up here and now I have no time to explain myself further. Bugger.

  Al Baraka

  Lyle:

  Blessings and Peace.  Because it is so basically...fundamental both to whom I am and to what I believe to be a critical element in any continuing discourse on both the immediate subject (faith and religion) and the subject of this group (effecting change by bringing as many people "into the fold" of people-based socio-politics), let me see if I can put this in a way that will not leave room for misinterpretation.

  I believe strongly in the "dogma" and "doctrine" of the Judeo-Christian construct as I believe (from both my own readings and those of others) it was meant to be; i.e., not what it became, but as Jesus lived, spoke and preached it.  Two of my four mentoring ministers refer to this as "primitive Christianity."  It has also been called "true Christianity" (a loaded phrase if ever there was one) and "essential Christianity."  And I believe in that "dogma" and "doctrine" not only because I believe it to be an excellent basis for living and interacting with others (again, when practiced "correctly"), but because it has worked for me: I have seen and felt the benefits, gifts, etc. that living that "dogma" and "doctrine" - that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Joseph - have bestowed on me.  In other words, I do not believe in or live that "dogma" and "doctrine" in a "blind" manner.

  For whatever reasons, you do not believe in the "reality" of that "dogma" and "doctrine" and its application to every day life.  You have called it "tired," "trite" and other dismissive terms.

  However, simply because (i) you have personal issues with that "dogma" and "doctrine," (ii) it is admittedly exceptionally difficult to actually live that "dogma" and "doctrine" on a day to day, much less moment to moment, basis, and (iii) that "dogma" and "doctrine" have become associated with historical atrocities; the corruption of mainstream, heirarchical, "organized" religion; and a dangerously narrow, conservative "religious" (and political)mindset, this does not mean that the underlying principles of that "dogma" and "doctrine" are not "sound," and maybe even "correct" (another dangerously loaded term).

  In this regard, I was not being "defensive."  I only responded at all because your insinuation (that my beliefs somehow make me a closet racist) was particularly heinous.

  Nor am I "angry," since it is simply not in my nature to be so.  Rather, I am saddened that you feel the need to denigrate my beliefs in order to support your own.  Calling my beliefs "trite" and "tired" is, as Andrew Carnegie might say, not the way to make friends and influence people.  You will note that, although I may disagree with your beliefs, I have never denigrated them, much less used pejorative terms to describe them.

  Consider the following hypothetical situation.  A person -specifically, a "spiritual seeker" - who does not know either of us happens upon Civic and monitors it for a few days.  They read our respective posts.  They "watch" our language, approach and attitude.  Based on this, whose "faith" do you think they will find more attractive?  One that includes insults, invective, denigration and dismissiveness?  Or one that includes courtesy, calm and reasoned discourse?

  Note that I am not suggesting that I am "better" than you.  Or even that my "beliefs" are "better" than yours.  But the single most important way that others may be "drawn" to our beliefs is by example - by how we live them: in our daily lives, in our deeds and, yes, in our words.

  In this regard, it is disingenuous, if not a bit hypocritical, to talk to me about "love" when you are suggesting that I am a racist.  It is disingenuous to talk to me about "acceptance" when you are calling my beliefs "trite" and "tired."  And, with specific regard to Civic and its "mission," it is particularly disingenuous, if not self-deluding, to believe that you are contributing positively to that mission when you continue to take a position that alienates so many potential allies as a result of an almost complete dismissal of their beliefs.

  If your offer of love is genuine, I accept it.  And, indeed, return it.  However, I would be very careful not to bandy that word about too off-handedly.  After all, anyone can talk about love.  But real love reflects other important virtues - some of which seem absent in your attitude and approach.

  Forgive me, but I cannot resist:

  "Love suffers long and is kind; love does not envy; love does not parade itself, is not puffed up; does not behave rudely, does not seek its own, is not provoked, thinks no evil; does not rejoice in iniquity, but rejoices in the truth; bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.  Love never fails."  [1 Cor 13:4-8]

  Peace.

  >
  > 
  > _______________________________________________
  > Mb-civic mailing list
  > Mb-civic at islandlists.com
  > http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
  > 

  -- 
  ___________________________________________________________
  Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
  http://www.mail.com/?sr=signup

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  _______________________________________________
  Mb-civic mailing list
  Mb-civic at islandlists.com
  http://www.islandlists.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/mb-civic
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.islandlists.com/pipermail/mb-civic/attachments/20041117/59984f3e/attachment.html