[~ot] why is programming so fun?

[John Reimer]

Hello BCS,

> Reply to Me,
> 
>> BCS wrote:
>> 
>>> as a Christian, I am supposed to show the world my faith.
>>> 
>> That is the crux of my personal objection to organised religion.
>> 
>> The need, desire or worse, imperative, to announce or demonstrate
>> ones "faith" to the wider world. It leads to the need to condemn
>> those who announce or demonstrate a different faith, or even minor
>> variations of the same faith. And that leads to wars, and extremism.
>> 
> I am supposed to show it to you. After that you can take it or leave
> it. It is NOT my place to force it on you, and I won't. I have gone to
> some effort to avoid going beyond explaining my belief and correcting
> errors in what people think I belive. (OK I've debated logical
> consequences of a few things but I /tried/ to stick with just logic
> there and not faith)
> 
> One way to look at my view is this: I, as a Christian, belive that not
> being a Christian will send you to hell (to be blunt). If someone ends
> up there because I didn't tell them about what Christianity is, then
> it is on my head. If they end up there because I told them and they
> reject it, then it is on their's.
> 
>> The problems arise when they seek to constrain the lives and deeds of
>> others in the light of their understanding.
>> 
> *I* can not and *must* not constrain /your/ life. That is your job.
> 


Our styles may differ, but I just want to point out that none of my posts 
intended to constrain anybody or to force my worldview on them (some have 
a accused me of such because the content was taken as a bitter pill, but 
this in no way forces anyone to do anything; striking at the foundations 
of any ideology is inevitably going to annoy people).  After arguing the 
point for awhile, it becomes evident that these points are not welcome... 
in which case there is nothing more to be said.  The difficulty is knowing 
when to stop, and at what point imposing is really imposing while making 
arguments on behalf of a worldview.  I believe sharing faith is intrinsically 
connected with discussing ones worldview, or arguing it, because doing so 
explains how it operates. 

With the Christian, sharing a worldview is usually done with the realization 
that he isn't the one that's able to convince or convict.  That is God's 
work, and we know in ourselves that we are only free from guilt because of 
God's love and mercy; we have no strength and no perfection in and of ourselves. 
 We know what we once were and could continue to be without subjection to 
God. We care for the individual by expressing these views.  If it is rejected, 
we indeed have nothing further to say because biblical mandate was never 
to force beliefs on anybody, although we most certainly are to share it. 
 But this does not mean we don't state inconsistancies of other worldviews 
or even state consequences.  But that is not "force".  Imposition, on the 
other hand, can happen at any point with any person.  The mere mention of 
"sin" or "bible" might be an imposition to someone in this public group.

Imposing is ill-defined here because each of us are offering different views 
in a newsgroup that is public, where, as it has been stated by some before 
in other topics, one has a right to read or not-read posts.  Though that 
argument has generally surprised me here as incomplete, I have accepted it 
as the way the newsgroup operates and assumed it is no imposition to discuss 
ones worldview frankly (as have others).

On the other hand, the Christian worldview is not a worldview that people 
typically like to hear because it talks about a persons guilt and need for 
reconciliation with his/her Creator: this makes it difficult to express without 
offending an individual because few like being told that they are guilty 
or a sinner (it invariably insults ones pride). Naturally, most people are 
going to dislike being told such things; most other worldviews or religions 
are admittedly different in this regard in that they tend to emphasize a 
person's meaning in self alone, in which the purpose is to remove intrinsic 
feelings of guilt by justifying these feelings to themselves. 

Further, the /consequences/ stated in the Christian worldview invariablely 
rankle many people.  The problem today is that many Christians believe they 
are obligated to "sweeten" up their message in order to convince, whether 
that means removing "hell" from the picture or emphasizing the "loving" aspect 
of God in absense of his "just" and "holy" aspects.  This creates a complete 
change in the message and removes all consistancies maintained in the Bible. 
 Eventually we have a message that most here would find much more palatable 
and self-suited, but completely unhelpful.  Convincing people of something 
by mutating the message so that it is palatable is plain wrong.  I'm not 
going to express a different Gospel in order to win as many converts as possible. 
 I'm here to state the case and let people decide for themselves: liking 
or disliking a message never disproved it's truth.  Many here voice strongly 
their dislike for the Christian worldview as presented, but that does not 
prove it untrue.  I am most certainly not here on a convert crusade.  I derive 
no personal enjoyment out of making people uncomfortable or annoying them, 
in fact my nature is to avoid that religiously ;).  But I do believe in saying 
things that must be said.

If I pursue in arguing a point, it's to try to remove some rather flippant 
accusations or assumptions made about Christianity.  I am not offended, railing, 
or angry with anyone here and most certainly the implication of hatred, if 
anyone actually new me, is far far from reality.

BCS, thank you for stating your own point of view honestly.  This post wasn't 
necessarily all to you personally, just some thoughts/considerations I had 
overall.

All the best.

-JJR