Dear Mr. Dark::::

I don't know how long this following Web Page will be available (since it's dated for today, January 8th, 2003)....but take a look at it....

When one is confronted with Jesus Christ, there is no... "uh, ah, or hmm" ..about it.

click on, or insert into finder:
http://www.jesusjournal.com/articles/publish/article_42.html

[This message has been edited by Nard Kordell (edited 01-08-2003).]

The title of the selection at the site was " David Berkowitz Was 'Son of Sam'". Is that the correct one? I've read it and thought it was interesting.

It's about David Berkowitz's conversion to Christianity while serving a 365 year sentence for murdering people at the behest of a 2000 year old spirit named Sam who spoke to him through dogs. There were a lot of references to his dabbling in the occult, reading the Satanic Bible, psychological struggles, etc.

The question of how real his conversion is, is not mine to judge. It is between him and God. It may be real, but it may be just clinging in desperation to anything that will make him stop feeling guilty for the heinous crimes he committed and the lives he impacted -- lives that were forever changed when he decided he had the right to murder. He now claims he serves God, he previously claimed he was under Satanic control. For me, the quesiton is, when is he going to be in control of his own life and be responsible for his own actions? Nevertheless, I don't deny that God can forgive whom He will forgive. I don't deny that I look to God for mercy and love, also. But I also look to Him to actually help me live a Christian life -- based on the principles and guidelines His Son laid out and is recorded in the New Testament. For me, religion is not just about escaping sin and Hell. It is about living fully, in God, now.

As Thoreau lay on his bed, one of his aunts asked him if he had made his peace with God. He said something to the effect that, "I don't know that we ever quarreled." When asked if he was ready to meet God, his reply was, "One life at a time."

The question I was looking at in my last entry was, What does Bradbury get out of religion? What does Bradbury think religion is about? Given Bradbury's strong religious sensibilities in the broad scope of his writing; what, exactly, does he see as the purpose of religion?

I think, at some level, he equates creativity with religion; but I can't speak for him. Any ideas on that?

My previous comment on the Lewis and Tolkien friendship is reflected in this passage and adds another side to this discussion:

C.S. Lewis was born in Belfast in 1898. He enlisted in the army in 1917, saw front-line combat and was wounded at Arras. He returned to his studies after the war, graduated in 1922 and became a fellow of Magdalen college in 1925. An atheist in his boyhood, Lewis converted to Christianity in 1931 and became famous as a result of his wartime religious talks on the BBC, and his children's books.

Lewis was part of the Oxford literary circle known as the Inklings, whose members also included J.R.R. Tolkien and Charles Williams. In 1957 he married Joy Davidman Gresham, an American with whom he had corresponded for a number of years. Joy had been a 'Jewish atheist' and a communist; she converted to Christianity partly as a result of reading Lewis's books.

Perhaps no informal association of writers has had the impact on the world that the Inklings have. This collection of gifted men met weekly between 1930 and 1949 in Lewis' rooms in Magdalen College at Oxford. During their celebrated gatherings, they would talk, share a beverage, and read aloud their latest projects. Discussion and constructive criticism of the work would follow. Lewis' Screwtape Letters and Tolkien's Lord of the Rings were only two of the lasting literary works which bore the scrutiny of scholarly and friendly critique in this setting.

Yes, Powerful writers, but a more powerful awareness! (Interestingly, it seems Tolkien was a major influence in Lewis' conversion!)
RE: http://www.scriptorum.org/l/inklings01.html

[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 01-08-2003).]

Mr. Dark ::::

I took an extreme case, of Son of Sam, to illustrate a point.

Berkowitz is one of the 'more' famous stories of conversion in contemporary Christianity. (There are others, like Charles Colson, of Watergate fame, James Irwin, who drove the Rover on the moon, Terry Bradshaw, pro football player, and others)....

But that's not the point.

The point is the amazing grace of God towards the most "helpless" sinner.

Please note that word in italics.

The key word...

"Helpless!!!"

If I put a Million Dollars into your bank account, Mr. Dark...and didn't tell you about it... you tell me what use would that be to you.

You didn't work for it...but you have it... but you don't have it... because you don't know you have it.

Christ already did something on your behalf that only He could do, long before you were even born. In First chapter of Ephesians, it says God already decided before the foundation of the world, that He would love you. Nothing existed yet... the world, dinosaurs, sky, water, or You!!! But if you don't believe, what good is it?

You are helpless to do anything about your condition, let's say, in relation to the bank account...that is unless I..."I"...do something... A sinner is helpless until God does something.... And He already has...

Yet the desire to understand that ...is begun with God. (It's all there in Scripture).

The desire to pray to understand scripture...is begun with God.

Yet I struggle to pray, I struggle to know, I struggle with my time, myself, my thoughts, my desires....but after the struggle, and I look back, I see God starting the work, continuing the work, and finishing the work.

So you tell me, who is really in charge....?

Your talking about freedom kinda irks me...because our freedom and God's sovereign will, doesn't exactly go hand in hand, but they are sure on the same street.

I didn't really intend these postings to be a preaching forum. My intention is to discuss what I understand is the dogma of Ray Bradbury as far as I have come to understand it...and continue to figure it out. But your statements seem to have made a widening of the discussion possible....

Well, the last thing I want to do is irk you. We may (may?) have some different understanding of what's involved in the question of salvation, but please believe me when I say that I honor your sincerity, your passion, your commitment to God and your commitment to scripture. I am not being patronizing, your passion and zeal are obvious and admirable. I also don't feel an obligation to convince you that my interpretation is right. It may very well be that your interpretation of scripture, salvation and grace has brought you more happiness and peace than mine has to me. I don't know you well enough to make that judgement, but I certainly entertain it as a very real possibility. I am also willing to accept the possibility that I am or may be wrong on some or many things. I am old enough that I have looked back on my life and seen things I would do differently given the chance. I have reached a stage where I make very few absolutist claims. I have been proven wrong too many times for that.

But I feel a passion for God and scripture, also.

For example, when you say it irks you when I talk about freedom, I don't understand why that should irk you. If I am free, it is because God has made me free. For the life of me, if my freedom comes from God, how does it adversely effect the sovereignty of God? He gave it to me! It was His to give. he chose to give it. When I exercise it, I am only using a gift he has given me. This is no threat to His sovereignty, believe me. But why give that freedom to me if I am not free to use it in a way that has impact on my life? I believe the creation is an act of love. I believe Christ's sacrifice is an act of love. I believe our freedom is gift of love.

"For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." (Galations 5:13-14)

As I have gotten older and seen people die, and seen people impact the lives of others, and seen people fester in misery, I have begun to see more and more the reality of Christ's declaration that the paramount issue in life is love. Love for God and love for our neighbor.

This passage has ever-increasing meaning for me as I go though more of my life:

"But why dost thou judge thy brother? or why dost thou set at nought they brother? for we shall all stand before the judgement seat of Christ. For it is written, As I live, saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God. So then everyone of us shall give account of himself to God. Let us not therefore judge one another any more: but judge this rather, that no man put a stumblingblock or an occasion to fall in his brother's way." (Romans 14:10-13)

1) Who gave us the right to judge each other? I don't see the mandate.

2) The ACTUAL judgement will be very real and we will give "account of ourselves to God". This means something to me. I'm not sure what it means, exactly, but part of what it means to me is that God cares about what I do with my life. He cares about my ethics toward my fellow man. These are not trivial matters to God. He has spent a very significant portion of His revelation telling us how He wants us to live.

3) The centrality of the law of love is that if we see someone "out of the way" we don't judge and exclude them, we don't patronize them. We love them and lift them in a non-judgemental way.

This chapter also talks about the question of judging each others' faith and religious walk. We are to seek out the truth and walk in accord with our own conscience -- not someone else's:

"Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth. And he that doubteth is damned if he eat, because he eateth not of faith; for whatsoever is not of faith is sin." (Romans 14:22,23)

"I know and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean." (Romans 14:14)

". . . why is my liberty judged of another man's conscience?" (I Corinthians 10:29)

Another little worm drops from the can as it occurs to me...no one has yet brought up in this discussion...the dreaded "h-word"...HUMANISM! At the time of my interview with Bradbury, my roommates were a couple of real raving fundamentalists who were sure "Secular Humanism" was an actual, established religion bent on destroying Christianity. I asked Ray his definition of "humanism" and about all he said was, "It's a convenient label."

Mr. Dark. ""Irked""...probably bad choice of words. Otherwise, I said everything I wanted to say on this particular topic heading....

Dandelion: Nope! Never mentioned "humanism" to Ray. I agree with 95% + of what you wrote. Thanks!

fjpalumbo: Thanks for the rundown on C.S. Lewis, etc. Six or 7 years ago, was at Wheaton College Library, Chicago suburb, and there, smack dab in a rather small room with a large inventory of C.S. Lewis letters and manuscripts, was a smallish table. Sat down at the table and read the inscription: The Table JRR Tolkien wrote the Lord of the Rings. Wow! I suspect the table has now been moved to safer quarters...

The issues discussed within this post are stimulating and provocative. But in choosing your thoughtful words posted within, substitution of the word "Spiritual" in place of "Religious" brings greater understanding to our individual relationships with "God".
The God of Religion is not the God of Spirituality. That is a basic difference that separates free thinkers like Ray Bradbury from Religious clones that proclaim the same old tired validations of yesterday's world.
Today's evolving world is on the cusp of spiritual attainments. It is what we all seek: Some more aggressively than others. Others may not find it for centuries to come due to lack of zest for life. Some poor souls only discover it in the final seconds of life.

A closing note: The earthworm is an ancient ancestor of the earth and man could learn much by studying the remarkable soilder who has no eyes, no ears and no arms, but who has tirelessly cultivated the fertile layer of soil that sustains our vegitation and ultimate survival. Never underestimate the underdog. He could bite when you're not paying attention.

Thanks for this forum.

Because one adheres to the teachings of a set of beliefs founded in the most recognize major religions does not mean they lack in "spiritually" inspired views or a lifestyle guided by God's graces.

Your comment, "Religious clones that proclaim the same old tired validations of yesterday's world," seems quite elitist in allowing only those who see things their own way (religiously or spiritually speaking)as having a clue to what God is all about.

Possibly I am misinterpreting your intent, but I never thought I'd be considered a "clone" because of my traditional approach, beliefs, and trust in what is most important to my spiritual well-being.

Forgive my exuberance which is hard to conceal. I do value aspects of established Christianity that stem from the past. Receiving the body and blood of Christ is a profound privledge. My contention lies with established Religion which as a whole places Christianity in a trick bag along with socialism, materialism, egotism and greed. There are always exceptions, and my post is certainly not aimed at those holy souls.

However, your body is your church and Jesus is your Minister. It has nothing to do with Sunday School or Potluck Dinners. Being raised a strict Catholic and witnessing global religious extremism pulsating to a boiling point causes me to grab on tight to my spirituality and openess to accept God into my daily life-not just on Sunday when surrounded by my good neighbors who go to church for social gratification in their new clothes and fancy automobiles.

My relationship with God is quite private and unique unto me alone.

Sorry if this became a raint.

C: Our backgrounds seem not to differ in theological upbringings. I guess the word choice hit a nerve in view of allowing too much credence to the "what feels good today for me" sects opting (yes) for materialism, ego-centricity, and bizarre mysticism of the
new-millenium - ie, Rael, Hale-Bopp, and all the rest.

This posted topic has raised hackles, eyebrows, and some interesting conversation. Simply because it has significant personal meaning to all who have responded. Ironically, the post by Dandelion started out with, "What would Jesus have driven?". This a.m. on NPR I heard that exact quote used!!

This came in conclusion to the descriptions of several amazing vehicles being put out by Detriot this spring. It culminated with details of the all new, 32-valve, 16-cylinder, 1000 hp Cadillac "Something-or-Other!" I can hardly imagine it and at a cost of over 1/4 of a million dollars. Where would I get in line to order?

A far cry from a pair of sandals and a humble ride on a donkey. Don't you think!?

[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 01-10-2003).]

No matter how technologically advanced we become, religion remains a fundamental part of our makeup. That's part of what I find so fascinating. It is one of the things that makes Bradbury so powerful a writer. His sensibility to the religious sentiment in man shows up repeatedly throughout his works.

There is a whole breadth of religious beliefs -- some very conservative, some quite abstract and poorly-defined. I find persons who impress me as being "spiritual" in all categories. Religious liberals accuse religious conservatives of being overly dogmatic and legalistic; religious conservatives accuse religious liberals of having no core beliefs.

I think sometimes the terms religious and spirituality are used inter-changeably, which sometimes causes confusion. I know I use them inter-changeably sometimes.

Each of us -- whether conservative, liberal, or fundamentalist -- needs a spiritual encounter with God that is real and personal.

The core message of Christianity is to love God and love your fellowman above all else. This core aspect of New Testament Christianity, as I get more years under my belt, is what ties me to this tradition. God acts in love. We are to manifest that love to others.

We don't really need to sit in judgement on each other and make degrading comments about each other's beliefs. Religion is a combination of the objective (the absolute reality of God) and the subjective (our personal encounter with Him).

That's my preaching for the day.

Okay, guys...back to my original query. In the story this was hypothetical, not an actual occurrence. It went something like, "The Son of God would be wearing a certain brand of jeans and wristwatch and make carefully-chosen, subtle allusions to product names in His speech." Has anyone here read "A Canticle for Leibowitz," by Walter M. Miller, Jr.? I received a suggestion it might be that.

I guess my take on the whole thing is would the Savior have a need to drive? To really communicate all he would need is a satellite broadcast that could be universally translated, and freely accessed.
The other thing is we/He all kind of cocoon now days so I figure if you had a stable system why travel too far anyway. Shopping is all convienient, we could walk. I mean its pretty simplistic I think about the Pure urbania of Rays youth with his descriptions of GreenTown, and the People of that time in his life. It seems only obvious to me that to Ray as a boy each day then, and now is a new adventure to step out of his door, and explore a new idea. Mr Bradbury is known to have said that he wakes with voices in his head from his dreams "muses" and must hurry in the morning to his typewriter to put them to rest. I just feel he has pursued the ability to capture his joys, fears, and furies in such wonderful words that he will live forever in print. The one thing that I thought was interesting for the longest time was that Mr Bradbury to my knowledge had witnessed an accident which inspired the story the Crowd, and does not drive himself.
Or had flown for quite a while. We could feasably be homebodies now while only frequenting a library or logging onto the net. Well either way we still have internal combustion how else am I going to get my books back to the Library on a rainy night in January.

Thanks for the clarification everyone. Please Pardon this forum newbee and otherwise frustrated writer of visionary fiction (Bradbury wanna-be, if truth be told).

Has anyone noticed that cars now have souls? Jaguar, Cadillac and I believe even Mitsubishi now drive you with a soul for no extra charge.

Although I must admit, James Garner's voice over prose for a highly-aired auto commercial is tastefully done-however, it escapes me which company he did it for. Guess I'm not their target audience.