Anyone want to comment on this (found in someone’s sig)…:

Religion is for people who are afraid of going to Hell;

Spirituality is for people who have been there and don’t want to go

back!

Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:

On Wed, 21 Jan 1998 03:53:07 GMT, (Graeme) wrote:

Graeme, I was trying with a friend of mine to guess your background

the other day. I have no other information to go on but your posts,

and I do not recall seeing any autobiographical information on the

newsgroup. My guess is that you are a retired minister of a

conservative evangelical church, with perhaps a Calvinist or

conservative Lutheran influence. Please let me know how close I am to

the mark.

Let me guess: not Lutheran or any other mainline Protestant group. And

not a retired minister (just about all the clergy I meet – even

Fundamentalist clergy – would disagree with Graeme’s views on

love/justice, particularly if they’ve had a lifetime of

pastoral/counselling ministry). Brethren or ‘Independent Baptist’ (the

dispensationalist flavour of Graeme’s posts would suggest those two

groups).

Graeme wrote:

My personal details are revealed when and to whom I choose. Only

snoopy people do not respect the privacy of others. I do not mind

people asking but if I choose for some reason to keep details about

myself to myself that is strictly my business. All I will say here is

that giving information about myself would have the possibility add

more argument and controversy for people who can’t or won’t stick to

the point.

Yes, Graeme, you have a right to relate to us in terms of ideas rather

than who-you-are-as-a-person.

You’ll have to understand, however, that most of us on this ng believe

that relating as _persons_ as well as ideas is more Christian

Michael Smith wrote:

Graeme wrote:

(Nigel B. Mitchell) wrote:

I could actually send a whole

list of clergy and “mainline” Christian Protestants who would agree

with the views I have expressed.

I am confident that you cannot and will not do so.

Now why am I not surprised that you would say something like that?

Well, Graeme, you have made a claim that you can do something. You can

easily demonstrate the truth of that claim by producing the list.

Following a dozen or more trips to NZ seminaring 20 or more pastors’

conferences and seminaries, let me make this observation for Graeme to

challenge:

***** ‘None – or hardly any – clergyperson in a mainline NZ

denomination, who was trained in a non-dispensationalist theological

seminary is a dispensationalist.’

Now Graeme, produce your list and refute that

Graeme wrote:

Michael Smith < wrote:

Actually, nobody on the internet is completely anonymous.

I’ve just dug up an address, phone number and even a picture which I

think refers to you. (Although it could be the other person with the

same name as you – my sources reveal 2 Graeme Hunts in NZ).

Firstly, if you have a picture I can assure you it is not of me.

Secondly, you only found two Graeme Hunts! There are considerably more

than that in NZ.

Something to add to your (plural – silly language, English!) store of

worthless information: the only other ‘Rowland Croucher’ I’ve ever come

across lives in NZ.

Subject: Re: Religion and Spirituality

Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 12:42:19 -1000

From: “Rowland C. Croucher” <

Organization: John Mark Ministries

Newsgroups: aus.religion.christian,alt.christnet.theology

Excuse me for interrupting another absorbing discussion with a small

observation:

The word ‘religion’ is generally a pejorative term for all

conservative/fundamentalist Christians. They would contrast ‘religion’

(the Pentecostals and a few others like the term ‘religiosity’) with

(their understanding of) ‘truth’.

Mainline churches use the word ‘religion’ as the New Testament does – as

a generic term, usually without pejorative connotations.

Nigel B. Mitchell wrote:

In <, (Graeme) wrote:

It is a

nonsense to say “Christianity is not a religion, it is a

relationship”. All you are trying to do is redefine the English word

“religion”, and there is no scriptural or logical reason for doing so.

It is also obvious that it is a waste of time discussing anything with

you. Your sole interest is in trying to discredit any information put

in front of you. I am fast losing interest in dealing with such

dishonesty. You seem to be a faker Nigel.

I have an active ministry in a large city Church amongst people who do

not think I am a “faker”.

Do you have any authority other than your own opinion…?

Does anyone else recognise your ministry of the truth of your

teaching?

Religion is man’s futile attempt to gain God’s approval by human

works, either for salvation or for spirituality. I wonder of you see

the difference. You have obviously had a religious background so you

may find this difficult to follow.

If you would read a little of James, and perhaps Romans, in the New

Testament, you will see that Christians already enjoy God’s approval.

We have no need to seek it, but we do have a need to ensure that our

manner of life reflects our faith to the world (see also Matthew 25).

That is a typical example of both your deceit and your disinterest in

my argument. That entire paragraph you have just written is something

I have not argument with, in fact I agree with it. You either cannot

see what I am saying and have said very clearly or you are

deliberately being difficult.

If we agree that the Christian Religion is the way Christian people

put their faith into action, then we have nothing to argue about. It

was your attempt to redefine the word “religion” to somehow exclude

Christianity that I rejected.

Christianity is God doing something for man through His grace, and God

getting the glory — both at salvation and in spirituality.

I entirely agree.

Christian “religion” is the response of women and men who have

experienced what you describe above.

Gordon Coleman wrote:

> Let me stress, I don’t want to take sides here. I find Nigel’s

> comments pretty interesting, because they present an approach to

> Scripture that is quite different to my own, and challenges me to

> rethink the conclusions I draw – even though I reject his stance on the

> fallibility of Scripture.

To which I responded:

Let me enter this from left- (right-? field. Thesis: a

fundamentalist is psychologically unable to take a stance like yours,

Gordon (or, for that matter, like those worthy Bereans in Acts). They

are unteachable – particularly when/after they reach mid-life (and

sometimes, sadly, before). I can’t recall a fundamentalist on this or

any other ng (and I’m on to them – the newsgroups that is – a couple of

hours a day) ever writing: ‘hey, that’s a new idea. I’m going away to

rethink a few important things…’ Test this by asking any such person:

when did you last embrace a new idea/concept on any important

doctrine?

They are most wrong who think only they are most right (or, in the

famous proud mother’s statement at the military’s passing-out parade:

‘Only my son’s in step!

BTW, fundamentalists/inerrantists who accuse liberals of being

‘rationalistic’ are pots calling the kettle black. A dogma of inerrancy

can only be arrived at rationalistically, ‘cos the Bible doesn’t posit

such a doctrine about itself…

Related Articles:

• Copyright vs free information-sharing (a new religion)
• COMPUTER PASSWORDS
• STARTING A NEW FACEBOOK PAGE/GROUP 15/09/2011
• Science of the social network (Facebook et. al)
• Darling, it’s over: Has technology made it impossible to have an affair?

This work, unless otherwise expressly stated, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.5 Australia License.