[B5JMS] To JMS

[b5jms at cs.columbia.edu]

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: connolse at bc.edu
Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:40:07 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 40

    [ The following text is in the "iso-8859-1" character set. ]

    [ Your display is set for the "US-ASCII" character set.  ]

    [ Some characters may be displayed incorrectly. ]

--quote--
As a person whose ancestors were forcibly expelled from Spain in 1492
by the Church for the crime of being Jewish, I take odds with any
claim that the Church has historically had respect for those with
different opinons.
The Church's tolerance for other religions is a pretty recent
phenomenon, that didn't really start until the middle of the 20th
century.
--end quote--

I'm genuinely sorry for you family on this.  But when you say 'the
Church' did this to you, I belive you're mistaken.  The excesses of the
Crusades, the Inquisition etc. etc. are NOT things based on true Church
teaching.

Look only to the Gospels themselves as a guide.  The Church's
'tolerance' for other religions is right there in black and white.
Look only to the Acts of the Apostles, the doctrines of the Seven
Ecumenical Councils, even the the Council of Trent (the seemigly most
'intolerant' Council, being, as it was, a response to Protestantism).
Those points of love, charity and respect as the basis pf Christian
life are all there.

As I've said before, many abuse the teachings of the Church, just as
many abuse and exploit the letter of _any_ law.  That doesn't make it
right, and that doesn't negate the authority of the teachings.

They are as they are, and have been so for quite some time, regardless
of circumstance or history.

--connolse at bc.edu




=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
From: jmsatb5 at aol.com (Jms at B5)
Date: Tue, 28 Dec 2004 02:11:03 +0000 (UTC)
Lines: 79

>I belive you're mistaken.  The excesses of the
>Crusades, the Inquisition etc. etc. are NOT things based on true Church
>teaching.
>
>Look only to the Gospels themselves as a guide.  The Church's
>'tolerance' for other religions is right there in black and white.

So in other words, as long as it's written down in a book you don't actually
have to do what it says.  All you have to do is read about it or know it's
there.

I refer you to James 2:14-26.

"What does it profit, my brethren, if someone says he has faith but does not
have works? Can faith save him? If a brother or sister is naked and destitute
of daily food, and one of you says to them, "Depart in peace, be warmed and
filled," but you do not give them the things which are needed for the body,
what does it profit? Thus also faith by itself, if it does not have works, is
dead. But someone will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your
faith without your works, and I will show you my faith by my works. You believe
that there is one God. You do well. Even the demons believe; and tremble! But
do you want to know, O foolish man, that faith without works is dead? Was not
Abraham our father justified by works when he offered Isaac his son on the
altar? Do you see that faith was working together with his works, and by works
faith was made perfect? And the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham
believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness." And he was called
the friend of God. You see then that a man is justified by works, and not by
faith only. Likewise, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she
received the messengers and sent them out another way? For as the body without
the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also."


>As I've said before, many abuse the teachings of the Church, just as
>many abuse and exploit the letter of _any_ law.  That doesn't make it
>right, and that doesn't negate the authority of the teachings.
>

Then how about this, from the book of Matthew. chapter 7:

   17Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree
bringeth forth evil fruit.
   18A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree
bring forth good fruit.
   19Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into
the fire.    
   20Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Your point seems to be that the acts of the church, or its representatives, is
irrelevant to the teachings.  But the teachings you cite say otherwise.  

If anything, it makes the offense worse.  If you break the speed limit once,
and get a ticket, without knowing the limit, that's one thing.  But if you
*know* the law, and go out of your way to break it, then that's even worse.

>They are as they are, and have been so for quite some time, regardless
>of circumstance or history.

So you're therefore in favor of not suffering a witch to live?  Of the
standards set for selling ones daughter into slavery?  How about the one that
says women should not speak in church?  Or the stipulations that if a man grows
his hair long, or disagrees with his father, that he should be put to death?  

Because either you follow your thesis and say that these are still correct,
which is a bit scary and tells us quite a bit...or you admit that times have
changed, and times changing affect how one follows scripture, in which case you
reject your thesis.


 jms

(jmsatb5 at aol.com)
(all message content (c) 2004 by synthetic worlds, ltd., 
permission to reprint specifically denied to SFX Magazine 
and don't send me story ideas)