Chuck Colson RIP

Chuck Colson, known both for his involvement in the Watergate scandal and later, for his prison ministries, died April 21st. He was 80 years old.

His story is worth checking out: how a power-hungry political schemer winds up in jail, but after his born again conversion to Christianity, goes on to write several books about his new faith in Christ, and founds a prison ministry.

Whether or not you liked the guy, he definitely had an impact on prison ministries.

I would recommend reading Born Again as a starting point.

Thank you Fuzzi. I will check it out.

I am curious. Other than founding a Christian ministry and writing several books about his new faith, what, exactly, did he do to compensate those he injured for the injuries he did?

#3 Seven months in prison and $5000 fine. His crime was obstruction of justice, not murder or robbery.

And the thing that is wonderful about God, is that if you come to him SINCERELY, and ask forgiveness, He will give it to you, no matter what you have done.

The only sin He does not forgive is rejecting His offer of salvation through His Son, Jesus Christ.

Brother Colson was a sinner, just like everyone else. He apparently came to his senses, asked the Lord to forgive and save him, and God did so.

And then Chuck Colson spent the rest of his life creating and running a ministry for prisoners.

Colson spent the rest of his life doing prison ministry, and advocating for prisoners. He advocated for rights to vote, and against the death penalty. He also made conditions for prisoners much better, especially in foreign countries, where the conditions are on the other side of brutal.

~4

I didn't ask what his punishment had been. I asked what he had done to compensate those he had injured.

Presumably you understand the difference?

~5

"Brother Colson was a sinner, just like everyone else. He apparently came to his senses, asked the Lord to forgive and save him, and God did so."

Once again, fuzzi tells us what G-d did.

But as we've discussed before, fuzzi, your G-d and my G-d have different standards. Your G-d forgives, apparently any sin if you just mummer the name of Jesus - particularly if you do so loudly and publically . My G-d requires that you first make real tangible amends to those harmed by your sin, then ask G-d's forgiveness, then show that you are worthy of such forgiveness.

~6

"Colson spent the rest of his life doing prison ministry, and advocating for prisoners. He advocated for rights to vote, and against the death penalty. He also made conditions for prisoners much better, especially in foreign countries, where the conditions are on the other side of brutal."

Very admirable. And what does that have to do with his particular sins for which he was seeking forgiveness?

As an example: Al Capone was apparently a very generous guy, a very charitable guy. He gave considerable sums to the poor and to charities. He probably even went to confession.

So?

7# What great injury did he do? He broke the law and did his time. For his crimes against 'society' he more than made up for it. The break-in at the Watergate hotel was really only a minor event. It was the cover-up that got the conspirators in real trouble.

Lawecon, please spell out the exact damages Colson did and then we can discuss if he made sufficient payment.

~10

Now wait a minute. First Colson is characterized as only a bit less than Satan incarnate, a evil man who was saved by the grace of Jesus. Now he really didn't harm anyone in particular? So why did he need forgiveness and saving? Maybe he "lusted in his heart?" Was that it?

Could you guys get your stories straight before formulating another morality play on the theme of the wonders of believing in Jesus?

11# No one said anything about Satan. He was a an operative who did bad things. He also had a change of heart and paid back society.

His crimes only merited seven months and $5000 in punishment. You are the one who is saying that he had not done enough. I just want you to support your argument.

One thing you gotta admire about Chuck Colson, he didn't let going to prison stop him from making a buck. That botched political hustle was just a practice session for the big hustle -- major media Christianity. Right now on his web site, there's a special offer on his Doing the Right Thing Premium Family/Individual Kit -- 6 Individual DVDs packaged in an amaray set case and 1 Participants' Guide for only $81, down from $89.99 retail price. OR you can get the Doing the Right Thing Premium Group Study Kit for only $144 (regular retail $159.99) -- 6 Individual DVDs packaged in an amaray set case and 8 Participants' Guide.

In case you're doing the math, the Group Study Kit is the same as the Premium Family/Individual Kit, except that you get 7 additional Participants' Guides for only $54 extra. That's less than 8 bucks per participants' guide (which only cost 35 cents to produce).

Also, for a limited time only, we can each become charter members of the Chuck Colson Center -- which has been in existence since 1991. In other words, they've been hawking charter memberships for the last 21 years. As Chuck says: "The Spirit is ready to deploy a wide range of gifts and abilities within you, to enable you to serve others in ways you’ve never done before." (bold emphases Chuck's)

"Your assistance of Breakpoint is crucial. The daily reach of Chuck Colson's commentaries through radio, web site and email transcripts numbers in the hundreds of thousands of people. YOU can be a vital part!Please give some thought to making an investment in this crucial ministry today."

~12

Now try to focus.

The original claim in this thread was that Colson was a really bad guy who found Jesus and reformed. Really bad guys, at least in this society, aren't generally really bad because they blaspheme or because they insult the leader or because they are obese or because they do other things that other people may not like, but which are otherwise harmless to other people. They are really bad because they hurt other people, either directly or through harming their property.

Harming other people or their property have been sins since at least the time of Moses. "Society" may, of course, punish one for such sins, but punishment has nothing to do with repentance and reformation. It is simply something that someone else does to you. (Again, you don't seem to be getting the distinction between discipline and repentance - a really strange blindness for a purported religious person.)

When you are repentant and want to reform the first thing you do is make amends to those who you have harmed. THEN you make amends to G-d. THEN you reform your future behavior. If you haven't harmed anyone, then there is no sin to make amends for. While your religion may recognize sins purely against ones self and against G-d, those sorts of sins are not generally what is referred to in this society as being a really bad person.

So if your point is that Colson wasn't a really bad person to start with (which seems to be your point), then the follow up in this thread, that he needed repentance and redemption and indeed repented and was redeemed, is inappropriate and inaccurate. If he was a really bad person, then he hurt other people, and my question was "what did he do to make amends."

Got it this time?

~13

Now now. We have been assured that Colson found Jesus, that G-d forgave him, and that he became a different person. I am sure that fuzzi also knows that he received none of the loot from the sale of those items. Or from any of these items http://www.librarything.com/author/colsoncharlesw

Surely it all went back into the Great Work? Perhaps the Holy Spirit will guide us on this question?

14# So, what you are saying is that you have no real idea what this guy did. The courts determined that his crimes were relativly minor, hence the light sentence.

16 -- You might as well try to persuade a stone.

Colson did a deal. He could have been tried for conspiracy. The intent of this conspiracy was at least in part to harm the reputation of Daniel Ellsberg. Tell me that's not a sin, by anyone's light.

Colson broke the law. He went to jail. In jail, he had a transforming experience, and dedicated his life to bettering the conditions of other prisoners.

It's not rocket science, unless you are really trying to be dense.

>19 Arctic-Stranger:

As far as I can tell, it's less a matter of being dense than of trying to procure a level of friction that facilitates a sought-after gratification.

I think I understand it, but this is where my puritan background kicks in and I would prefer that this activity were engaged in privately, not publicly.

But that's just me. Carry on, folks...

20# What is wrong with doing a good thing and getting credit for it? I have no problem in a win-win arrangement.

Colson improves the lives of inmates and makes a profit. Everybody wins exept the haters.

> 21. What is wrong with doing a good thing and getting credit for it?

“Beware of practicing your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in heaven. Thus, when you give to the needy, sound no trumpet before you, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may be praised by others. Truly, I say to you, they have received their reward. But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret. And your Father who sees in secret will reward you." Matthew 6:1-4 ESV

This isn't to take one bit of credit from Chuck Colson, who was a huckster, world-class. Let's just not get it confused with righteousness.

22# So does that mean people who volunteer to Habitat for Humanity need to wear ski masks when they build houses for the poor? Or do rock stars have their faces blurred out when they sing for African relief efforts? Perhaps Obama when he signs landmark legislation should just take it inside and send the press home?

> 23. Ask Jesus -- he said it.

You might want to check out the second incarnation of the "Reading the Bible Through in One Year" thread, where you'll get an earful of how pointless "good works" are. Well, pointless from the spiritual point of view, at least. From the monetary point of view, "there's gold in them thar shills."

24# I'm agnostic. I just don't act like an ass about it.

~18

Now perhaps Occam will tell us what Colson did to make amends for what he did to Ellsberg - who I met several years after the Pentagon Papers persecution and who was still psychologically devastated at that time.

Being a good forgiven Christian I am sure that Colson must have pubically apologized to Ellsberg, he must have paid for his psychologist's bills, he must have befriended him and have done his best to cheer him up. He did, didn't he?

> 25. I'm not agnostic. Does that mean I do act like an ass?

~19

Excuse me, Arctic, but it appears that you and Occam are the ones who are "being dense" - perhaps deliberately so.

A "transforming experience" is usually manifest in something more than just engaging in a crusade for Belief In Jesus. It most basically has to do with making amends to those you have harmed before your "transforming experience."

All I am asking is for some evidence that this is what Colson did. Now stop being dense and answer the question.

26> Cry me a river about Ellsberg. If I remember correctly, he did illegally reveal government documents.

27# To act or not act like an ass is entirely up to you.

> 26. He did, didn't he?

If he didn't, it would be one of the few instances when he passed up a chance to make a little extra. "How To Repent -- and Really Mean It! Or, Daniel Ellsberg needs to Learn a Thing or Two About the Virtue of Forgiveness."

Cry me a river about Ellsberg. If I remember correctly, he did illegally reveal government documents.


And yet, the judge didn't seem to think it worth pursuing the charges for some reason.

Something about gross government misconduct and illegal wiretapping, if I recall correctly.

31# Because Colson was guilty of 'obstruction of justice' by trying to make Ellsberg look even worse. Ellsburg should have been grateful to Colson.

That's a rather interesting perspective on the happenings. Somewhat twisted, but interesting nonetheless.

34# That's politics for you.

~35

Or a desperate attempt to save a ridiculous perspective.

Hmmmm. I am really not sure what you are trying to get at.

Unless you feel that he owes more than what the legal system required of him.

Will you make amends to all the people who have been the brunt of your rudeness and obtuseness?

36> Desperate? Not really. Ellsberg did betray the trust given him and was properly charged with theft and conspiracy. Did Ellsberg have good reason to do what he did? Well that's debatable. Fact is he was saved because of misconduct by the government. He was never 'proven' innocent. Ellsberg deserved a fair trial and should have faced the possibility of jail based on the facts. Colsen deserved to go to prison for what he did. And so did Ellsberg.

The difference is that Colson went to jail.

~38

The difference is also that Ellsberg was "charged" with criminal offenses but was never convicted. Colson was convicted, and rightly so. Presumably you know the difference between accusation and truth?

But I remain concerned by the apparent inability of certain posters to this thread to be able to distinguish between punishment of one who violates man's law and repentance by one who violates G-d's law. This is particularly peculiar in a Christianity forum, where, presumably, what is done to "a sinner" by the state should be recognized as of little relationship to the state of the sinner's soul. Or perhaps Jesus "got what he deserved" for being a disrupter of Second Temple society? He was, after all, punished by the state. That should be the end of it, right?

Now if you want to maintain that Colson really was redeemed by his subsequent acts, that is fine. But my repeated question has been "what acts?" All I've heard so far is that he started an organization to encourage ministry in prisons and apparently wrote over a hundred books on his righteousness. O.K., fine. If you want to consider that as "good works" I understand (whether or not I agree). But what did that have to do with redemption for his particular sins?

Colson did a crime, pleaded guilty and paid the consequences for his actions.

However, some appear to think that his crime should never be considered 'paid for' despite his jail time, his fines and his community service.

God's a lot more forgiving than most people.

~41

It is amazing that you are making these statements, fuzzi. If anyone should know, you should know that "crimes" are violations of the criminal laws of men. They have no necessary relationship to sins.

And once again, you should be ashamed of yourself speaking for G-d. You have no idea whether G-d forgave Colson or not, and apparently no idea what Colson did that would merit such forgiveness. It certainly wasn't that he was involuntarily put in jail by other men. It says no where in the New Testament or the Old Testament that being incarcerated is repentance for one's sins.

I prefer to focus on another aspect of what he did. He started an organization that reached out to countless hopeless souls in prison; an organization that started angle tree that reached out to countless children of prisoners; an organization that has countless stories of redeemed lives from their work, an organization that intellectually defended the faith. I am honered to have read his books, listened to his Breakpoint commentaries, and to have supported his ministry. A life well lived - a treasured gift from God to western civilization.

40> Ellsberg was not convicted because the prosecution's case had become tainted. Not because he was found 'not quilty'. Ellsberg simply got away with his criminal acts. What is so hard for you to understand that point? To my knowlege Ellsberg never tried to make up for his crimes, he simply became a self indulgent martyr to the anti-war movement.

Colson was made aware of the plight of prison inmates and became a positive force in how they were treated. The fact that he made a good living doing this is nothing to be ashamed of.

I'll let Arctic and Fuzzi debate the religious aspect of Colson's work.

>42 lawecon: "You have no idea whether G-d forgave Colson or not, and apparently no idea what Colson did that would merit such forgiveness."

of course we do not know the mind of God. But we know that God promises forgiveness to those who genuinely repent and trust Christ for their salvation, and Colson appears to have done this (unless he is lying and living a very convincing lie). Salvation is by faith, Colson did nothing to "merit such forgiveness", that is the point of a gift freely given.

A) I would bet that you have not read one of Colson's books.

B) I would bet that you know absolutely nothing about Prison Fellowship.

C) I would bet that you are taking one person's comments, probably out of context, and using that just to poke people.

D) I would bet you have no idea how silly you sound.

>46 Arctic-Stranger:

I think it's a matter of a spare time activity. Instructional video here.

Silly he sounds?

He's not the one praising Chuck Colson.

48# At least Colson did something positive with his life after Watergate. I know the haters can't accept it but that is their problem.

Lawecon and I most likely agree on one thing - we both hate it when he is wrong.

~45

"But we know that God promises forgiveness to those who genuinely repent and trust Christ for their salvation, and Colson appears to have done this (unless he is lying and living a very convincing lie). Salvation is by faith, Colson did nothing to "merit such forgiveness", that is the point of a gift freely given."

Thank you for so well stating the difference between my G-d and your G-d. Your G-d forgives because one has "faith" in the divine nature of an itinerate Jewish rabbi of 2,000 years ago. My G-d forgives because one makes amends and demonstrates by his other subsequent ACTS that he is truly repentant and has reformed. I couldn't have put it better.

~46

I would bet that I could eventually get you to give a straight answer to a simple and straightforward question in a deposition. But obviously not in this context.

So bob and weave along. I would bet that you have no idea how transparent you sound.

51# Pot, meet Kettle. You have a lot in common. :)

I take that as being from one who knows from extensive personal experience.

53# You are right. I've met a lot of pots and kettles on this site. Glad to meet you as well!

Why bother with this site when you have a mirror?

I use my mirror to shave and to comb my hair. Are you saying that you use yours differently?

That video sums up an entire corpus of posts!

~56

Some of us see objects of grooming. Some of us see ourselves.

58# Some of us see objects of grooming. Some of us see ourselves.

Sounds a little narcissistic to me. Also a bit fortune cookie-ish.

LOLOL! @krolik

"I told you once..."

(44) "I'll let Arctic and Fuzzi debate the religious aspect of Colson's work."

I have no interest in debating with Arctic. I believe we agree on the really important stuff. :)

~61

Arctic's rating just fell another notch.

>62 lawecon:

I've never seen a laweconometer. How does it work? Is it operated with a crank?

62 -- What in the world is the matter with you?

If you're so smart, can you explain why so many people on this site have asked you this question?

I feel better already.

~64

"What in the world is the matter with you?

If you're so smart, can you explain why so many people on this site have asked you this question?"

Yes, I can. But you won't like the answer.

Many people "on this site" are self-proclaimed experts on this topic or that topic, when in fact all they've done is read a couple of elementary books.

You, for instance, are an expert on conservatism. You got that way by reading a dozen or so books by those who proclaimed themselves to be true conservatives, principally Russell Kirk and his "traditionalist" hanger-ons.

Now of course most of Kirk's contemporaries, who had been described as conservatives long before anyone heard of Kirk or National Review, thought he and his circle were cranks. They were, in fact, cranks, who had no credentials in their area of purported expertise. But you don't know that because you never read anything other than their rantings.

fuzzi is an expert on Christianity, and, of course, Judaism and the "Old Testament." You can tell that because she and the other fundamentalist Christians that dominate the Christianity Forum are members of the Berean Fellowship, which apparently despises modern scholarship concerning Christianity because the Holy Spirit speaks to each of them daily about THE TRUTH.

I may not be an accredited expert in all of these various fields, but I have enough background to know when someone is faking it.

I have, for instance, been associated with a range of conservative groups since 1964 and have met and had discussions with conservative intellectuals who you don't even know exist, because of your limited knowledge of that area.

When I converted to Judaism I was required to study for two years prior to the rituals and the principal pledge that was extracted from me by my Beit Din was that I would not necessarily become progressively observant, but that I would keep learning. That was about ten years ago. Best pledge I ever made.

I have a Ph.D. in Economics and taught in various subfields for a decade.

I have a J.D. in Law and have practiced in a variety of civil litigation and creditors' rights fields since 1986.

That gives me some background in the various topics in which I participate. Enough to spot the intellectual fakes. People don't like being called on their established prejudices. They particularly don't like it when you point out in detail that what they have are prejudices, not knowledge, not evidence, not a basic grasp of the topic they are addressing, not even well formed arguments.

Hence, the venom.

(65) @Arctic-Stranger, do you feel better because I believe we agree on important stuff, or because lawecon's rating of you fell another notch? ;)

Both.

Btw, Lawcon I have a masters in theology from Duke university and I did doctoral work in Bonn, Germany. So if that counts for anything I believe you have little idea what you are talking about when you get into Christian theology.

Of course you have an evasive answer for that, I am sure.

>66 lawecon:
Hence, the venom.

Ambiguous antecedent. Yours, or theirs?

68

"Of course you have an evasive answer for that, I am sure."

No, not at all. I am, however, amazed. I am not amazed that you and fuzzi agree. I am amazed that you did the work to have obtained some credentials from a first rate institution like Duke. What, exactly, was your course of study that would lead you to agree with fuzzi ? Or did the agreement come first?

Not only did I gain the credentials, I earned a merit scholarship two years running.

It's not that I agree with fuzzi on everything. It is that you are mostly wrong.

~71

Well, I'm always willing to be corrected. The only correction you have given recently, however, is that Western Christianity is largely a product of Eastern Christianity. Given the context, that didn't make a whole lot of sense.

Any other correction, or do you just mostly agree with fuzzi and mostly disagree with me ?

While we're at it, here are a few propositions that fuzzi has advocated:

She doesn't have to worry about early texts or original languages of a text since G-d has promised that she will know the True Meaning of a text if she just prays for guidance to the Holy Spirit.

Similarly, the "plain meaning" of a text is, you will excuse the expression, gospel, since, as already noted, what is plain to her is given directly from G-d. Put different, the "plain meaning" of the text is inerrant.

Since her reading of The Text is the following, all of these are unquestionably true (it isn't her fault, that is what G-d has stated in His Word):

(a) Unless you believe on the Saving Grace of Jesus you will burn eternally in Hell Fire.

(b) Jesus' birth arose from the Holy Spirit "coming upon" Mary, and was thus a virgin birth.

(c) The dead arose from their graves and walked among the living when Jesus died on the Cross.

(d) Jesus was just kidding when he said he was coming right back, because for G-d a day is a thousand years. However, he certainly won't take anything like a G-d-week to come back.

So, which of those did they teach you at Duke? Would you please give me the scholarly citations that they relied upon?

Once you've answered this question without evasion, if you'd like me to give a summary of the positions I've advocated, we can also do it that way. Then you can tell me which of those positions you disagree with and the basis of your disagreement.

I would like some specificity here, since you and one other certain poster seem to be good at grandiose generalizations with no specifics - other than the other guy never knows what he is talking about.

(72) 'a', 'b' and 'c' you have correct.

'd' is not correct.

:)

Lawecon claims to be an expert. Other people don't. They are innocently giving their opinions, not pretending to set down law in stone. Even an "expert" can be wrong—and be motivated by, and demonstrate, something other than reason in his posts. Lawecon's posts reveal the desire to be king of the hill. Psychologists call it dominance, commonly observed in primates.

He believes his experience with Judaism qualifies him to enter a group called Christianity and persuade Christians how to read the Bible. He believes a Ph.D. equates with infallibility or at least superior wisdom. That is merely "pulling rank." I would argue that there is more to wisdom than having some letters after one's name.

He has mischaracterized and underestimated my knowledge of conservatism. By the way, how can he know who I…haven't…heard of? I have no problem if he has a different opinion. It is THE WAY those opinions are expressed that infuriate people on this site. The opinions are expressed with arrogance, condescension, and insult; with sarcasm, snide remarks, and creative ways of abuse that do not violate the TOS.

The posts' venom is on his end nearly all the time. The venom is initiated by him, not the other posters. It is his opinion, not a fact, that he is "exposing fakes" and that this is why people get angry with him. My opinion is that he is simply giving his opinion in a bullying way, and that is why people get angry with him.

Why the daily, daylong compulsion to debate? To prop up one's fragile ego by trying to "win" at an internet forum? Impenetrable narcissism?

I bet there's not a person on this site who can stand his posts. And the truly bizarre thing is…he takes that as a compliment. Sick, evil, or stupid.

I am also left wondering why, if I am such a fake, he has added me to his "interesting libraries."

I would like some specificity here, since you and one other certain {unspecified} poster...

That's just hilarious.

~73

Please correct me then. "It is not correct" isn't very informative.

>1 fuzzi: fuzzi Thank you for suggesting Chuck Colson book, Born Again. I just found while cleaning out my Kindle a book I downloaded for free. The Good Life: Seeking purpose, meaning, and truth in your life by Chuck Colsonand Harold Fickett. I will start there, seeing I know a little about his life. I must admit that I never read him, thinking he was to Roman Catholic for me.

~74

Hi, Deniro. You are going on ignore. Maybe someone will tell me when you learn how to read and to think. Until then, I have lost interest.

79 -- I'm glad. You lost the privilege of talking to me a long time ago. Am I still on your interesting libraries list?

I have no idea who Chuck Coulson is. From what I have read above, I would suggest a few points.

God's forgiveness is a free gift. God forgives. Some Christians think you have to recognise/accept it explicitly in some way, others think it's just there whether you recognise it or not, but either way it doesn't have to be earned.

Christians do indeed recommend repentance. But nowhere is it laid down exactly what one has to do to demonstrate repentance. Going and making amends to the people you harmed may or may not be possible, appropriate or necessary. Devoting the rest of one's life to helping prisoners might well be seen as a good demonstration of repentance. Repentance is often linked to conversion, not in the sense of becoming a Christian, but rather of metanoia, change of life. Again, devoting one's life to helping prisoners might well be seen as a sign of a changed life.

"Paying one's debt to society" by serving the prison term meted out by the court can be seen as part of the repentance process, especially when it apparently leads to rehabilitation.

Whether this is a genuine prison ministry, or a money-making scam, or some combination of both, I have no idea. Most of what I read suggests he really is doing prison ministry (something which I have done myself so I have a soft spot for it). If he's getting rich doing so it might not be my cup of tea, but it's not a crime.

(81) john, from what I have read, Brother Colson donated prize money (a million dollars) to the ministry. I believe it is a real ministry, not a flim flam by some huckster.

God will judge him and others for their deeds, not for salvation but for rewards. For many of us, we do 'good deeds' to please God, and hope someday to hear "Well done" from our Lord, but His praise is not my motivation for doing 'good'.

He knows my heart, and everyone's.

The con artists will have to meet Him as well, someday, with their wrong acts and deeds on their account.

(78) You are welcome, baron770. I've not read that book by Colson, but I'm sure it's good.

People may disagree with some of the things that Brother Colson believed, but his testimony of a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ puts him firmly in the 'brethren' category as far as I am concerned.

To his own master, he stands or falls, just like all of us:

"Who art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand." Romans 14:4

(a) Unless you believe on the Saving Grace of Jesus you will burn eternally in Hell Fire.

I would rephrase it, or I should say, a couple of thousand years of Christian Tradition would put that notion in many different ways.

I prefer Karl Barth's formulation; in the incarnation, God has given a final "Yes!" to humanity. Despite all our waywardness, which entail worshiping false gods, and doing harm to our fellow humans, God has not given up on humanity, and still desires that in some way we enjoy an eternal relationship with the self-relating Trinity. The only thing that can trump God's final "Yes" is our refusal to to accept it.

(b) Jesus' birth arose from the Holy Spirit "coming upon" Mary, and was thus a virgin birth.

The incarnation is God coming to humanity in human form. God, who is present in all nature, brought about the birth of Jesus, the Son, through the Spirit, using the means of woman. Again, about 2000 years of Christian Tradition holds to this.

(c) The dead arose from their graves and walked among the living when Jesus died on the Cross.

No. Not sure where you got that one. And not sure why this is important.

(d) Jesus was just kidding when he said he was coming right back, because for G-d a day is a thousand years. However, he certainly won't take anything like a G-d-week to come back.

Ah, the Second Coming again of Jesus. There is Schweitzer, who said that Jesus was pretty sure, but that early church community realized after a while they needed to make long term plans. There are the folks who specialized in Apocalyptic literature, who foresaw a major battle between Good and Evil, played out on earth, (although in an analogical, not literal way.)

The idea of a final judgment is also a strong part of Christian (and early Jewish) tradition, although as NT Wright points out, the whole notion of End Times, was more a matter of reversal of political roles (kind of like The End of the World As We Know It, and not The End of the World.)

Your reading of Christian theology shows absolutely no complexity of understanding. You take a few points, from a few people, and generalize from that to ridiculous proposition. But then, the only lawyer who got it was Calvin.

~84

"Your reading of Christian theology shows absolutely no complexity of understanding. You take a few points, from a few people, and generalize from that to ridiculous proposition. But then, the only lawyer who got it was Calvin."

Again, Arctic, you are apparently having trouble reading. I suggest you go back and reread.

At first, I was attempting to explain to fuzzi the difference between her view of "salvation" and the Jewish view. She didn't get it. Apparently you don't either. Curious that someone with an M.A. in theology from a distinguished institution would have trouble with that distinction.

In the process of my exchange with fuzzi you intruded and fuzzi then started saying that you and she agreed on the "important points." You didn't dispute that claim, so having had extensive experience with what fuzzi believes, I was attempting to find out what you believe. What you quote is my summary of some of the principal points in what fuzzi believes. She agreed, except for one point that she has failed to clarify.

You, however, are now taking my summary of fuzzi beliefs and claiming that it is my presentation of Christianity. In fact, you aren't even close - although from what you say above it may be a fair characterization of your view of Christianity, with the addition of some nicer phrases that obscure clear meanings.

For instance, it is apparent that you believe the key exclusivist doctrine of fundamentalist Christianity - that everyone who isn't a "believing Christian is "going to burn eternally in hell fire." You can pretty that up as much as you want, but it still comes out the same way - as theological bigotry.

Similarly, although I was informed by Priests of two Orders at the Catholic College I taught at that "none of us really believe in this virgin birth doctrine any more" SOME 30 YEARS AGO, it is apparent that you still believe.

As for the dead arising from their graves and walking among the living, I would think that someone who had a Masters in Christian theology would know his New Testament well enough to recognize the reference:

"27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

27:51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

27:52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

27:53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many."

This is one of the critical tests of a belief in "scriptural inerrancy". Either this actually happened, but Matthew is our only historical witness to this dramatic occurrence, or the New Testament is mistaken on this point. Curious that you aren't familiar with such a key example.

But, Arctic, you still haven't told me what scholarly references you were taught in your studies that your professors contended supported these various views. Waiting. (And I suspect I'll be waiting for a long long time before you give me a straight answer to that or any other question.)

~81

I think that this is a rather good presentation of an overview of Christian views on forgiveness and repentance. It is, of course, not a Jewish view. This is one thing that separates Judaism and Christianity. Jews understand by "sin" an offense against G-d's Law. Like most acts against most law there is a price for violation. Like some violations of law, the price may be paid and that is the end of it. Like other violations of law, the price is your life and that is the end of it.

The violation of G-d's Law may or may not involve a direct offense against G-d. Being disrespectful to one's parents or stealing from one neighbors are principally offenses against one's parents or one's neighbor. And in the Jewish view forgiveness, which is but the first step in repentance, must therefore be first sought from one's parents or neighbor. The Torah tells Jews what to do to obtain such forgiveness, and your parents or your neighbor are required to forgive if you do those things and otherwise show yourself to be repentant.

It is sometimes said that the "ten commandments" is divided with half being offenses against G-d and half being offenses against other human persons. And you are, of course, correct that some of those offenses are so extreme that they cannot be forgiven but only punished (e.g., murder). I believe that is what you Catholics once called "cardinal sins."

So, as you can see, for Jews, forgiveness is not a "free gift." It is an earned consequence of repentant acts required of a sinner. The only thing that is free is that G-d will forgive if you perform those acts. He is not the perpetually alienated and angry G-d of Christianity requiring a sacrifice of a man/god to reconcile Him to a sinner.

> 84 (c) The dead arose from their graves and walked among the living when Jesus died on the Cross.

No. Not sure where you got that one. And not sure why this is important.
-------

It's in the bible. But you are right, It is not important, because it is in the bible. LOL.

BTW, are you really a preacher? Seems to me a preacher would know stuff like this.