[Mb-civic] To Al Baraka

Tue Jan 4 19:36:03 PST 2005

Al Baraka:

Blessings and Peace.  First, thank you for your measured and peaceful response.  A minor quibble.  You make the assumption that I cherry-picked.  However, that is not the case, since I subscribe to the cite you offered initially as much as I subscribe to the one I offered in response.  Thus, no cherry-picking, which assumes the support of only one or the other; i.e., not giving "both sides" of a picture.  In this regard, I consider all "cherries" equally "tasty."

Ultimately, with regard to what I assume was your basic point - keeping one's faith "private" - I agree vis-a-vis the expression of one's faith per se.  However, I agree equally with the concept (not only Christian) of sharing one's faith with others, especially in the "ministry" sense of evangelizing - which, as I have stated ad nauseam, is to be done in a humble, patient, loving manner, and not in a badgering, ram-it-down-one's-throat fashion.  Indeed, Scripture clearly tells us (i.e., ministers, evangelists, etc.) that if we offer the Gospel to someone and they do not want to hear it, we are to "shake the dust from our feet" and move on - and not engage in "forcing" it, or stand in judgment or condemnation.

Shalom.

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Alexander Harper 
  To: mb-civic at islandlists.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, January 04, 2005 3:11 PM
  Subject: Re: [Mb-civic] To Al Baraka

  Buendía, Ian,

  Well of course I cherry picked a convenient bit of the gospels to support my thesis just as you then also cherry picked some in riposte to it. Cherry picking is not the most intellectually rigorous way of supporting an argument but it sure as hell saves time and energy and actually has been the bedrock of religious, political, philosphical end legal (precedent based) discussion/dialectic since time immemorial. Normally one can get away with it. Touché. I have to say that in this particular argument I still think that my cherries are better than yours but I promise not to sling any more at you unless the temptation is overwhelming.

  AlBaraka

  ******

  Lyle, Salaam Aleikum,

  I read your contributions with great interest and appreciated in another season your support over the use of word 'Hubris'. Much of what you say is certainly too elevated for me, with my poor, plodding, linear thought processes fully to comprehend, wrack my brain though I will. Reading you holographically, that is to say looking at the whole of what you have to say as if it were an image, rather than focusing on any particular passage, might, I feel, bring  me to the beginnings of a glimmer of comprehension, which would be truly wonderful. I fully expect at some point to experience a sudden, dazzling moment of enlightenment, for which I thank you in advance, very much.

  Pluralist blessings upon you,

  AlBaraka

  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Ian 
  To: Civic 
  Subject: [Mb-civic] To Al Baraka
  Date: Mon, 3 Jan 2005 21:05:32 -0500

  Al Baraka:

  Blessings and Peace.

  If you are going to quote the Scripture, please don't cherry-pick.  That is what the so-called "Christian Right" does, and is what many Christians (and non-Christians) dislike about them (among other things).

  Consider:

  "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit.  Teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you..."  Matthew 28:19-20

  "Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature.  He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned."  Mark 16:15-16

  Both of these are Jesus' words.

  Now, I accept that a prayer at a football game is not the same as preaching the gospel.  However, Christian prayers at football games etc. are not wrong per se.  What is wrong (if one must find something wrong with it) is that it is only Christian prayers that are being offered.  If, for example, every game were to start with a Jewish prayer, a Christian prayer and an Islamic prayer (since both team members and audience members are likely to include all three), that would probably cover 75%-80% of the audience.  True, there might be a few Buddhists, a few Hindus, and a Zoroastrian or two, as well as a few atheists (and, no, I am not being flip here).  However, at least it would be much "fairer" (spiritually) to do it that way.

  Of course, this would be silly, I suppose.  In that regard, I would agree that any prayer is "wrong" at a public event unless all (or at least those representing the majority - Jews, Christians, Muslims) are considered.

  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/20050104/036ded1b/attachment.htm