Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Mark,
    
    I can only tell you that as I read these near 1900 lines I was
    incomplete agreement with *every* word!!!
    
    Sad but true, every last word of what you have written.  My Pastor has
    been preaching this very message over the last few years.  The one
    question that he has asked is, "How is your faith?  Will it stand the
    persecution of fundamental Christianity?"
    
    I've been in a study in the book of ACTS... up to Chapter 11 now and
    honestly, as I read what the apostles went through and their *attitude*
    of counting it a *joy* to suffer as it only dimmed lightly what Christ
    did for us.. Remember they *saw* it... sigh  
    
    Unlike Peter, I can't say that I *know* I won't deny Christ if it was
    jail or renounce... but I do know I pray God's growth in my life as
    each day passes.
    
    Thanks *so* much for that gem of truth, Mark!!!
    
    In Him,
    Nancy

    .0 is so very true.  I don't know if this really relates to this note,
    but I've had it on my mind.  There is a Methodist preacher in Dallas
    who is very funny and very popular.  What my once backslide mother told
    me about his preaching is that "the bible isn't absolutly correct, that
    it was written by man" etc etc.  I just couldn't believe some of the
    things she told me.  Its like "its ok to read as a guide to living, but
    don't take it literally." 
    
    And I used to listen to this guy!
    
    
    later,
    
    Donna

    .0 : a good writing.  Worth reading again.  Thanks.

 "They will put you out of the synagogue; in fact, a time is coming when 
  anyone who kills you will think he is offering a service to God."

							John 16:2

	 - as you said, Mark, both sides take it for themselves...

								Andrew

I watched some TV last night.  8^0

PBS did a show on D.W. Griffith, "The Father of Film" who is acclaimed to
have perfected many of the best qualities of the silent film.  A secondary
message to this biography was the times in which this man lived.  In fact,
D.W. Griffith is said to have not been able to keep up with the changing
times as the 20s came roaring in.

I came away with several observations.  D.W. Griffith directed "Birth of a
Nation" (which I did not know glorified the Klan as heros, which I believe 
the documentary was saying it did).  This movie sparked protests and 
demonstrations and even riots in the streets.  One commentator said, 
whatever you feel about this picture, it was great because it had so 
much influence, and indeed the show talked about using film as propoganda
and not just mere entertainment.

So I started to once again think about the influence of the media, in all
of its various forms.  Before radio, the movies, and Television, the power
moguls were still the press, shaping public opinion.  But there seemed to
be an acceleration of this major influencing tool in the 20s.

The commentator said that the movie industry took off in the 20s and
"the middle class was won over."  He used that phrase a couple of times,
meaning that middle class America started to regularly attend the movies.
As to why D.W. Griffith was not keeping up with the times, he kept making
epics while the young people of that day were lining up for movies that
provides risque (burlesque?) entertainment.  The President (Grover Cleaveland,
or the guy before him, I can't remember which) put out a call to return
to old fashion morals, but "the middle class was won over."

The media, and today I mean predominantly television for it feeds a huge
portion of the minds of America today, is dominated by the antichrist
(and I don't mean The Antichrist), I mean antichristian.  There are a few
Christians in the media, attempting to peddle influence with the rest of
them, but largely some of them have made abominable messes of it and only
caused further ridicule to Christianity.

More to come (I have to run out at the moment.)

Mark

 Last night when I got home from church, while having a bite to eat, turned
on the tube.  There was brief coverage of a meeting or convention of broadcast
executives.  A panel discussion was taking place with the leadership of the 4
networks.  I didn't catch what all had to say, but one in particular, the 
chairwoman of Fox TV said (and I paraphrase).."We need to loosen up the restric-
tions on television and allow more explicit sex scenes. Sex never killed anyone"





Jim

You've seen news articles citing the amount of violence on TV and in the
movies.  You have also seen the statistics that show that the biggest box
office nettings come from family movies, and adventures.  And by contrast
the R rated movies don't garner nearly as much as, say, a Spielberg movie.
Yet the movie industry makes far more R movies than G or PG movies.

Some say art reflects life, and others say life reflects art.  Some say
that they are both reflecting each other like the chicken and the egg,
not knowing for sure which one comes first.  (Creationists know which
came first. ;-) )  Still others dispute whether it is art or life, adding
to the cacophony of opinions so that the din drowns out sensible discussion
about the issue.

In some ways, the church has failed to be what it should have been and
the enemy has seized the oppotunity to take up the slack by doing what 
is right, thereby winning many over.  Let's take "All in the Family"
for one example.  It ridiculed bigotry and dealt with some other social
issues that the church should have already addressed but didn't.  The
care of the planet is a Christian responsibility, but it has become the 
territory of the secular humanist.  The church should have addressed the
sex and drug problems, but instead the goverment is taking this role,
advising people to "just say 'no'" and wear a condom [while you have
sex with anything under the sun].

I sometimes wonder which came first: the chicken church, or the egg which
hatched the desensitizing of church.  In either event, the church has
failed to win the battle for influence on society because it was never 
prepared for battle.  The Scopes Monkey trial (Darwinism) is generally
thought to have been a failure of Christianity to have a prepared and
informed, knowledgable response, and the result has been yet another
major turn in the decline of morals. Why morals?  Because it chipped 
away at the foundation of Scripture, and the antichristians won big on 
that battle.

Back to TV and movies.  A recent newsletter cited that almost every
depiction of a Christian, leaders especially (priests/preachers) in
the media has been sinister (some skeleton like infidelity, embezzelment,
etc.).  And the opposite held to be true:  Almosty every depiction of
a non-Christian religious person showed them as protagonists, heroes,
wise, and righteous.  A thinking person can say that for every bad
cop shown on the nightly news, there are thousands who are very good
police men and women; that for every Jim Bakker, there are thousands
of dedicated and righteous, and faithful minister of the gospel.  But
the image against cops, preachers, and Christians in general is continually
and consistently reinforced by the media.

It is this reinforcement, sometimes subtle, sometimes blatant, that shows
how well Herr Goebbels understood the power of propoganda: "tell a lie
often enough and loud enough and it begins to have the ring of truth to
it."  And indeed it becomes the conscious "truth" to a huge majority of
media sponges; but let me not discount that intellectuals have also
been conditioned by the constant regurgitation and reverberation of the
theme.  If someone accepts a counterfeit bill as legal tender, then 
persception is all that matters, especially if the people you deal with
no longer recognize the real thing.

More later...

      Hi Mark,
    
        Yeah, really good stuff!
    
        This reminds me of Elijah on Mount Carmel.  He has the two
        gospels side by side and he asks the congregation to "choose
        this day..."
    
        "And they answered him not a word!"
    
        Actually, the 'currency' of the false gospel was as plain as
        day to Elijah.  He could discern the false from the true instantly.
        
        I think the world is headed for a Mount Carmel-like experience.
        An Elijah message will come and it will perform its work.  Those
        that receive will see and those that receive not will see not.
        Those that receive not wouldn't know the true gospel if it hit
        them right square on their nose!
    
                                                       Tony

When I was growing up, I watched a lot of TV - hours per day.  Part of
me is a product of the media.  I know the theme song to many TV shows, 
can recite many scripts of shows and cartoons and commercials.

I have a friend who has poo-pooed the media's role in the last election.
I stated a belief that the media played a dominant role in that election.
He thought I was crazy and that while it may influence the lesser thinking
beings who vote on name recongnition or colors on the campaign posters, 
(people who are apathetic about the system and so don't bother to become
informed but wouldn't dream of not voting), certainly the media did not
sway the vote of a thinking man or woman.  I countered that even if this
were so, that the thinking person can see through propaganda, that by and
large, the masses are the cattle of society who are told what to think,
whether subtly or overtly.

Soap operas have been blasted in this forum before, as well as from the 
pulpit, and yet there are many who calim either to be free of its infleunce
or addicted but fairly certain it hasn't corrupted their foundational
values.  I watched Luke and Laura many years ago.  Some of you will 
know what I mean when I say those two names. I laughed at people who
watched soap operas until it was presented to me for a few days against
my will (I was home and my wife was involved).  I because interested in
the various story lines, which are alternated to keep the interest going.
Luke wanted Laura who was married to Scotty, remember?  She rejected his
advances, but he persisted.  In the end, they got involved in an affair,
and after all things were going sour between Laura and Scotty and Luke
really loved Laura, and subtly we all began to root for the "ones who
truly loved each other" instead of against the usurper.  To wean ourselves,
we decided to stop watching once one story line was played out, and 
did not permit ourselves to become involved with the other two story 
lines that go on in the hour-long daily show.  It wasn't easy.  How many 
people speak of these soap opera characters as if they were neighbors and
friends?  

Star Trek (either version) is another example of influence.  The show is
excellent in delivery and is a premier entertainer.  It science fantasizes
about the future of mankind, who has resolved all disputes among our race
and we have become one world, with no needs or lack.  Utopia.  And we
go out into space to spread the good news of utopia to all the worlds
who are technologically advanced (some of the time) yet lack in the
enlightenment of living at peace with all things.  Whenever the Star
Ship Enterprise defies the Prime Directive not to interfere with another
civilization, they are portrayed as liberating a society from a
backwards religious myth, not-so-thinly disguised as Christianity as
the world has come to know it and ridicule it.  And the society is better
off that the myth has been dispelled and enlightenment now liberates
and rules the society.  Once again, we have no means of distinguishing 
between those who practice a backwards religious myth and those who 
may have a forward religious relationship; all exclusionary religions
are "intolerant, unelightened, and narrow-minded" yokels.  The poison
of Star Trek is that it *is* so well done, and I enjoy its fantasy, and
special effects, as well.  But like the soap opera, we find that we are
steered to root for "enlightenment" and against "religious bigotry"
no less than the people of Germany were steered to look on the Jew as
a money-loving, seditious parasite to society, or the Klan held up as 
heroes in "Birth of a Nation."  And many of us do not even realize that
we've purchased the message of the Utopian (New Age) Trekkian view, 
until we've begun to repeat the axioms, feel good about degrading dirty 
rotten unenlightened groups ("people who deserve to be degraded anyway"), 
and begin to wonder whether we've held "Victorian" and prudish viewpoints
to the detriment of ourselves and others.

The antichrist rejoices at this self-doubt for it shows "an open mind
and possibility for enlightenment."  It castigates those who know the
Truth as "closed-minded intolerant hate-mongers."  An conviction held
does not a closed mind make, yet the antichrist would have you think so.
The irony of the "open mind" of the antichrist is that you must believe 
anything except "close minded" beliefs.

It has been said that you are what you eat, because the stuff you stuff
into yourself is broken down and used to keep the body going.  It is 
just as true that you are what you feed your mind.  There is merit to 
finding out how the enemy is deploying its forces against you, but one
must be careful not to yield to the Siren's song (speaking of mythology)
because as sweet as it sounds, it leads to the rocks of destruction.

Mark

	Mark, you watch too much tv! :-) 



Glen

>	Mark, you watch too much tv! :-) 

I used to, and that's one of my points.  Too much TV will corrupt
your mind as much as too much alcohol will kill brain cells, or too
many drugs will affect your system.  (Perhaps, you simply find my musings
humorous; perhaps fanatical or alarmist?)

Caffeine withdrawl is the worst that I've had to deal with, and I know
other people's addictions afford worse occurences.  But I know firsthand
that those of us who drink caffeinated beverages (coffee, tea, soda) that
we need to continue to consume it just so that we don't suffer withdrawl.
Sure, we like it.  We love our coffee, and our coke, and our Star Trek
and our soap operas.  

And so we're met with "how much is too much?"  TV isn't all bad,
but I am of the opinion that TV is mostly bad these days. (That's
somewhere between 51% and 99%.)

I have been criticized (perhaps justfiably) about my eating habits.
No green vegetables, high fats, sugars, carbohydrates, and Coke as
a primary liquid.  I won't say that I'm in shape, but I am living
and indeed I enjoy life.  But I've been told that its not the
proper diet.

Let's look at the spiritual body.  What foods are we feeding it, if at all?
Are our spirits dead, emaciated, bloated, or fit?  If you feed your mind
a constant diet of soap operas, Star Trek, Carl Sagan, and Joseph Campbell,
your spirit will be what it is fed: doctrine opposed to the morals of the
God of the Bible, the Absolute Authority to define the Absolute Morality.

The dichotmy between Christ and antichrist is going to get worse and not
better.  And each side will not understand the other.

I read somewhere in my past about Kolberg, a big man in the psychology field, 
who has written about 6 stages of motivation in people. Others have also 
written similar papers.  I don't remember all the stages but the thought of 
it is this:

  o In the early years people are motivated by the fear of punishment.  You
    spank a child when he or she has done something wrong.

  o Later in life, we become motivated by the prospect of reward.  "If
    you clean your room then I will give you an allowance."  I believe 
    the next two stages deal with what I will gain or lose but they are 
    closely related to the first ones.

  o Still later in life, we may become motivated by the law.  We do things, 
    or do not do things because the law stipulates that we do or do not.

  o Finally, some people can be motivated by principles.  I do not
    throw my gum wrapper on the sidewalk because if everyone did that 
    then the sidewalk would be filled with litter.

It is said that a person who is more than one stage separated from another
person cannot really understand the motivations of the other person.  ("I
cannot understand why you do what you do.")

The anitchrist is firmly rooted to the world, and Christ is firmly in the
realm of the spirit (God is Spirit).  The world's wisdom is inane babbling
to the spirit of God, and the wisdom of the Spirit is unintelligible to
the world.  It makes no sense.

And only the Holy Spirit cuts through the static and interprets the voice
of the Spirit, convicting men of sin (those who have not seered their
consciences), and revealing the Truth through the Word.

Mark

It continually baffles me that people - including and especially those *IN* the
media - can maintain that the media has no influence on how people think.  This
is the same media whose sole income - whose very survival - depends on the 
proven fact that exposure to 30 seconds of someone singing about Coke will alter
people's buying habits and make more people buy Coke.  How is it that people can
imagine that while 30 seconds of silly programming can affect people, a full
hour of a (semi)interesting storyline will have absolutely no effect?

"Having ears, they cannot hear; having eyes, they cannot see."  The desire *NOT
TO UNDERSTAND* is very strong among a large segment of the populace.

Paul

    re: .12
    
    Paul - *EXCELLENT* observation.  Hadn't thought of it in those
    	terms, but they clearly demonstrate your point.  Hope you
    	don't mind if I quote you.....
    
    Otto

    re: .12
    
    It's especially sobering when you realize that these people who claim
    that TV has no real influence are willing to spend upwards of $100,000
    per prime time minute to *not* influence you.
    
    Dave

| <<< Note 73.11 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| Too much TV will corrupt
| your mind as much as too much alcohol will kill brain cells, or too
| many drugs will affect your system.  (Perhaps, you simply find my musings
| humorous; perhaps fanatical or alarmist?)

	I know, those religious shows do have that effect on people, don't
they? ;-) But seriously, I think it depends on what you watch and how stable
your mind is. TV will/does have an influence on people, but as far as what kind
of effect it has depends on how stable one is. If you see a crime on tv and go
out and do the same thing, I don't think you're too stable. 

| And so we're met with "how much is too much?"  TV isn't all bad,
| but I am of the opinion that TV is mostly bad these days. (That's
| somewhere between 51% and 99%.)

	Watching wrestling again Mark? ;-) 

| Let's look at the spiritual body.  What foods are we feeding it, if at all?
| Are our spirits dead, emaciated, bloated, or fit?  If you feed your mind
| a constant diet of soap operas, Star Trek, Carl Sagan, and Joseph Campbell,
| your spirit will be what it is fed: doctrine opposed to the morals of the
| God of the Bible, the Absolute Authority to define the Absolute Morality.

	I guess it depends on how stable one is. I don't ever recall watching
Carl Sagan (but have heard his name before) and never heard of Joseph Campbell,
so I can't comment on those shows, but Star Trek is opposed to the morals of
the God of the Bible? I saw your example earlier and thought you were
stretching things a bit. 



Glen

    
    Similarly, if you fill your mind with God's Word and meditate on His
    Word it will affect your system with the most beautiful and wondrous
    results.  Joy, faith, security, assurance, fruit, peace, intimacy with
    God.  Oh how marvelous!  Honestly, if you are not pleased with your
    relationship with the Lord and feel you know more about Him than know
    Him, immerse yourself for hours a day in His Word.  
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 73.16 by USAT05::BENSON "God's Love's Still Changing Hearts" >>>



| Similarly, if you fill your mind with God's Word and meditate on His
| Word it will affect your system with the most beautiful and wondrous
| results.  

	Jeff, if it works for you to read the Bible, if you feel you are a
better person for it, then by all means read it. But one thing to keep in mind
is not to come down on someone who doesn't read it. I'm not saying you do this,
but I'm also not saying you don't.

| Joy, faith, security, assurance, fruit, peace, intimacy with
| God.  Oh how marvelous!  

	I know some that see just what you're talking about in the Bible, and
some of these people also see other things that aren't so nice.

| Honestly, if you are not pleased with your relationship with the Lord 

	I'm not sure if you are addressing this to me or to anyone, but for me
I AM pleased with my relationship with the Lord. I know many in here have
expressed their concerns that my relationship isn't correct, but then I guess
that would bring us back to your statement Jeff. Is it really up to the
individual to know when her/his relationship with God is not pleasing or is it
up to those who perceive themselves to be Christians?




Glen

Glen,
  Thank you for illustrating my points well.

  Many think that they are stable and that the influence of TV is filtered
through "stable" intellegent people.  Oh, sure, most of the populace doesn't 
go out committing violence and the ones that do are unstable.  But we've
been talking about the subtlties of The Message.

>but Star Trek is opposed to the morals of
>the God of the Bible? I saw your example earlier and thought you were
>stretching things a bit. 

Think so?  Ever see the episode on Landrew?  Gene Roddenberry (know that name)
made it a point to insult God in his scripts.  Now, these were *his* words
in one of his final interviews in a secular humanist magazine.  But maybe
I'm reading too much into his words, and stretching the message I've seen
coming through Star Trek (either version).

Your ridicule also shows how much you don't see in what you choose to watch.
Perhaps you're more stable than the average person.  Who knows.

Joseph "follow your bliss" Campbell was an extremely interesting and
talented philosopher who explored many of the world's religions and
came tothe conclusion that everyone served the same God, or the Cosmos
(I can't recall), which brings be also to Carl Sagan, who was more Star
Trekkian almost than Roddenberry.  If you would read Joseph Campbell,
I think you would easily adopt his message, Glen.

The world will find so much of the Christian point of view to be 
figuratively unintelligible.

1 John 4:5-6 NASB
  They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and 
the world listens to them.
  We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from
God does not listen to us.  By this we know the spirit of truth and the 
spirit of error.

The Amplified Bible adds the parenthetical remark to "the world" 
[its whole economy morally considered].

The spirit of error rests on the instability of finitude and humanity.
The spirit of truth rests in the stability of the Absolute Authority.

Hi Glen,

| Similarly, if you fill your mind with God's Word and meditate on His
| Word it will affect your system with the most beautiful and wondrous
| results.  

>	Jeff, if it works for you to read the Bible, if you feel you are a
>better person for it, then by all means read it. But one thing to keep in mind
>is not to come down on someone who doesn't read it. I'm not saying you do this,
>but I'm also not saying you don't.

Glen, God promises that His Word will make me a better person and anyone else
who reads it, meditates upon it and acts on it.  My note is an exhortation
directed at all, whoever has ears to hear.

| Joy, faith, security, assurance, fruit, peace, intimacy with
| God.  Oh how marvelous!  

>	I know some that see just what you're talking about in the Bible, and
>some of these people also see other things that aren't so nice.

One can certainly "see" theses things in the Bible text.  My note is a 
statement attesting to the *results* of a believer immersing themselves 
in the Bible.  Again, encouragement for the believer!  Clearly the Bible is
either an encouragement or a judgement depending upon the reader's position
before God.  

| Honestly, if you are not pleased with your relationship with the Lord 

>	I'm not sure if you are addressing this to me or to anyone, but for me
>I AM pleased with my relationship with the Lord. I know many in here have
>expressed their concerns that my relationship isn't correct, but then I guess
>that would bring us back to your statement Jeff. Is it really up to the
>individual to know when her/his relationship with God is not pleasing or is it
>up to those who perceive themselves to be Christians?

I'm glad you are pleased with your relationship Glen, but is God pleased?  And
is an individual's comfort level with God an indicator of his position before
God?  Anyway, this statement too is an exhortation to those that are not
pleased with their relationship or who want a deeper relationship with God.
Whoever has ears to hear.

jeff

      Hi,
    
        Mark, it seems like the Spirit is convicting you big-time these
        days.  Amen, brother!
    
        I'd like to say something about motivation.  A friend of mine told
        me a story.  Supposing after you died and were ressurected, Peter
        was at the gate of heaven and he said, "Here it is!  Mansions! 
        Your loved ones! No more death!  Everything you could hope for!  
        Come right in!
    
        Oh, there's just one thing...
    
        Jesus is still down there hanging on the cross.
    
        Where would you go?  To be with Jesus or enter heaven?
    
        That greatest motivation springs from seeing God hung for you
        and it is so constraining that if appreciated for what it is, you
        would be willing to forego your eternal salvation if it would 
        honor and glorify Christ (Exodus 32:32, Romans 9:3).
    
    Hi Glen,
    
        About the Word.  Well, excuse me for remaining true to the tenets
        of this Conference, but "faith cometh by hearing and hearing by
        the Word of God."  And righteoussness comes by "faith which worketh
        by love."  Gal 5:6.
    
        Everything God is willing to give is resisted by unbelief and faith
        comes by seeing Christ more and more and more and more clearly - 
        that's the empowering, motivating force.  Seeing Christ hung for
        you.  And you and me and everyone else here are very blind to
        'seeing' the ache in the heart of God when he hung for us and His
        ache right now.  And the Word says FAITH comes by hearing and
        hearing BY THE WORD.
    
        My 'take' on this is that anyone's level of satisfaction in terms
        of their relationship with Christ is inversely proportional to how
        close they actually are with Him.  Never will we have such a sense
        of 'heart-poverty' than when (if) Christ is allowed to perfectly
        cleanse our hearts and we see Christ hung for us as never before.
        That is Zech 12:10 which leads to Zech 13:1.  The temptation from
        our flesh of alienation will be intense, but we will be so close to
        Christ only we won't _feel_ it.  Its the time of Jacob's Trouble.
    
        Its the honeymoon between Christ and His bride.
    
                                                        Tony

| <<< Note 73.18 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| Think so?  Ever see the episode on Landrew?  Gene Roddenberry (know that name)
| made it a point to insult God in his scripts.  

	I'll have to listen for it. I know I have never heard anything like
this, and usually notice when things are pro/con with religion, but maybe I
missed it.

| Your ridicule also shows how much you don't see in what you choose to watch.
| Perhaps you're more stable than the average person.  Who knows.

	I think the latter Mark! :-)

| If you would read Joseph Campbell, I think you would easily adopt his 
| message, Glen.

	Gee, this from someone who has never met me, never heard my voice.
Pretty good Mark!

| The world will find so much of the Christian point of view to be
| figuratively unintelligible.

	I would never say that Mark! :-)



Glen

There was an episode from Next Generation that I liked except for one blatant 
anti-God portion.  The Federation had set up a holographic blind to watch a more
primitive civilization.  Something went wrong with the blind and the people saw
them.  One of the people was hurt, and was brought to the Enterprise, healed of 
some wounds, and returned.  They hoped he didn't remember anything.  Now this 
culture had "progressed beyond" the idea of supreme beings, but this man came 
back, remembered what had happened, and they started to think that maybe there 
WERE supreme beings.

Someone on the Enterprise suggested that Picard go down and give them some
benevolent suggestions so they wouldn't imagine that the gods they thought were
there were angry gods.  Picard's response was something to the effect of "After
they've come so far, to send them back into howling barbarism!  No, I will not
do it."  I specifically remember the words "howling barbarism."  That is the
future's view of God, according to Star Trek.

There are several other episodes that have similar digs, but that is one of the
most blatant.

Paul

| <<< Note 73.24 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>



| Someone on the Enterprise suggested that Picard go down and give them some
| benevolent suggestions so they wouldn't imagine that the gods they thought were
| there were angry gods.  Picard's response was something to the effect of "After
| they've come so far, to send them back into howling barbarism!  No, I will not
| do it."  I specifically remember the words "howling barbarism."  That is the
| future's view of God, according to Star Trek.

	If you remember they were talking about many gods in that episode. How
does many gods = our God?




Glen

>	If you remember they were talking about many gods in that episode. How
> does many gods = our God?

The issue was not at all "One God" vs. "Many Gods."  The issue was very clearly
"Any supreme being or beings" vs. "An enlightened recognition that there are no
supreme beings."  Though the people in the episode were talking about many gods,
the "myth" that was debunked was the belief that there is anything beyond the
natural world that we can see and feel.

Paul

Well spoken, Paul.

Satan does not usually come before us with a sign that says, "I'm here
to make you believe a lie."  but that's just what he intends to accomplish
and accomplishes with many who have accepted his currency.

Mark

In Him was life, and the life was the light of men.
And the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it.

He was in the world, and the world was made through him, and the world did
not know Him.  He came to his own, and those who were his own did not
receive Him.  But as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to 
become children of God, even to those who believe in His name...
      John 1:4-5, 10-12  NASB

Understanding.  Comprehending.  He who has ears, let him hear.
The world did not know Jesus; they cannot comprehend him.  Why must
we believe in a God who condecends to earth to be killed?  What is
the meaning of this?

Antichrist has deceived many, pointing at these questions as if they
had merit.  Trouble is, they *do* have merit in the realm of this
temporal world.  BUT!  God, who is infinite and supernatural invaded
this finite and natural world and overcame it.  Those who cannot see
it are left to wonder at the lunacy of Christianity.

The lunacy of Christianity lifts up the weak and calls it strength.
It is an opiate of the masses who may never aspire to anything unless
they have hope of an afterlife; certainly this life is dung and the
only way to control the masses is to promise them an afterlife reward.
Religion in general performs this role.  It is designed by the powerful
few to keep people in line.  The Pharoah's understood this and they 
themselves were gods.  And so, only stupid people believe in these
myths because man is god in himself, and sometimes collectively.
Some would attempt to straddle the fence, attempting to bring disparate
concepts together, such as Jesus being an Alien come down in a UFO
to reconcile the Christian religion to a belief in extraterrestrial
life.  Worse, the attempt to amalgomate disparate religions, saying
we all serve the same God.


2 John 1:7 (KJV)

For many decievers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus 
Christ is come in the flesh,  This is a deciver and an antichrist.

	Why ws .27 set hidden? When I origionaly read it I saw nothing
offensive in it. Hmmmm....




Glen

�               <<< Note 73.28 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

�	Why ws .27 set hidden? When I origionaly read it I saw nothing
�	offensive in it. Hmmmm....

Discernment, Glen, that's what it takes ;-)

							&rew

When notes are set hidden, you may contact the note author if you are curious.
It does no one any benefit to ask here .

MM 
CCM

    And if you don't know who the note author was?
    
    Richard

Sorry, DECwindows notes still shows the author, even when a note is set hidden.
I don't intend to share that information, but cannot prevent it from being
accessed by DECwindows notes users.

However, for the incurably curious, the author may be unhiding his note in 
the near future.

Mark

  Exodus 32:1  And when the people saw that Moses delayed to come
  down out of the mount, the people gathered themselves together
  unto Aaron, and said unto him, up, make us Gods, which shall go
  before us; for as for this Moses, the man that brought us up out
  of the land of Egypt, we wot not what is become of him.

  Exodus 32:21  And Moses said unto Aaron, what did this people unto
  thee, that thou hast brought so great a sin upon them? 22  And
  Aaron said, let not the anger of my Lord wax hot: thou knowest the
  people, that they are set on mischief. 23  For they said unto me,
  make us Gods, which shall go before us: for as for this Moses, the
  man that brought us up out of the land of Egypt, we wot not what
  is become of him. 24  And I said unto them, whosoever hath any
  gold, let them break it off. So they gave it me: then I cast it
  into the fire, and there came out this calf.

In a sermon (2/24/93) I heard a message that I want to share with
you.  I'll be paraphrasing what the minister said.

For a long time, I thought that the golden calf was merely an idol,
but then I thought that many of the idols in the Old Testament had
names such as Baal, Chemosh, Asteroth, and Molech.  Those idols were
associated with other gods; not YHWH, the One and Only True God.

But then it struck me like a ton of bricks as to what this golden
calf was:  Aaron made the golden calf in verse 4.  Now look what it
says in verse 5:

  Exodus 32:5  And when Aaron saw it, he built an altar before it;
  and Aaron made proclamation, and said, to morrow is a feast to the
  Lord.

In verse 10, God is ready to wipe them all out and start over.  Why?
Throughout the Israelite history of turning to idolatry of the false
gods, Israel runs through a series of captivity and troubles, and
prosperity when they turn back to God.

In verse 5, Aaron declares a feast to the LORD.  YHWH.  In other
words, they were saying that the calf, a god of their own making,
was the One true God, YHWH.  It would be like me making a golden
calf and telling everyone that this inanimate object was *you*. The
other gods were bad enough to follow but *no one confused them with
YHWH*.  Here, they profaned the name of YHWH by making a god of
their own and calling it God.

It brought home the point about how we must be extremely careful who
it is we say is God.  The God of the Bible does not like us to
worship idols, such as money, power, lusts; but if these verses are
any indicator, the God of the Bible likes it even less when we
create a god different than the God of the Bible and call it the
same God.

You see, some of us are not foolish enough to worship a statue,
but some of us are foolish enough to worship what is represented by
the "graven image" (money, for example).

The Antichrist will come as the counterfeit of Christ.  He will come
as God, yet he will be a god that is Not God, though he will be
called by the same name.  The festival declared by Aaron for the
golden calf was for the LORD (YHWH), and God's anger was waxing hot.

It is extremely important for God to define Himself, and reveal
Himself to us through His Word.  When we discount the Word of God,
we are fashioning a god of our own making, and calling "it" God only
makes things a whole lot worse.

Mark

re.33 (Mark)

	Exactly.

	Most of you know how I feel about certain "christian practices".

	Worship of idols, graven images, pictures, pursuing apparitions, 
and general weird stuff in pagan cultures is to be expected and does not
create too much of a stir in me. They are called by what they really are.
However, I do get provoked in my spirit when these same rituals and practices
are applied to my living Lord. This is equivalent to making a golden calf
and calling it YHWH. It is called by what it is really not. Many dear brothers
and sisters are caught unawares by this subtle tactic of the evil one.

	
ace

I have heard (sorry - reference not available), that the Egyptian 'gods'
were depicted as riding upon bulls or calves, so that when Aaron made the
golden calf, he was making some concession to YHWH not being portrayed, and
that the calf was supposedly the beast bearing the Unseen.  I do not even
recall whether there was any Biblical textual support of this.  However,
while this *may* have been some sop for the first generation (who,
meanwhile, were considerably rebellious throughout the desert, especially
considering the deliverance they had experienced), it said nothing for
those who were to follow. 

However, 'golden calves' continued to be a snare throughout the time of the
divided kingdom.  Solomon led the downfall, with his multiplicity of altars
to pagan gods (1 Kings 11:5-8), and Jeroboam started the apostacy of the
northern kingdom with calf idols (1 Kings 12:28).  Neither of these were
eradicated until the very last days of Judah (with Israel already in
exile), under Josiah, in 2 Kings 23:13-15. 


.33 � but some of us are foolish enough to worship what is represented by
.33 � the "graven image" (money, for example) ..... When we discount the Word 
.33 � of God, we are fashioning a god of our own making, and calling "it" God 
.33 � only makes things a whole lot worse.

I believe that the ultimate apostacy in this area is already growing among
us today.  It is worship of self.  Setting 'self' up as a god, leading to 
the setting up of AntiChrist as God....

 "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness 
  and wickedness of men who suppress the truth ... although they knew God, 
  they neither glorified Him as God, nor gave thanks for Him, but their 
  thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.  Although 
  they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the 
  immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals 
  and reptiles..."
					Romans 1:18 ... 23


								Andrew

    Notes .36 and .37 have been set hidden for further consideration from
    the moderators.
    
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

Galatians 5:25-26  "If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.
    Let us not be desirous of vain glory, provoking one another, envying one
     another.
    
    Proverbs says:
    
    10:12  Hatred stirreth up strifes: but love covereth all sins.
                                                                             
    15:18  A wrathful man stirreth up strife: but he that is slow to anger
     appeaseth strife.
    
    16:28  A froward man soweth strife: and a whisperer separateth chief
    friends.
    
    20:3  It is an honour for a man to cease from strife: but every fool
    will be meddling.
    
    22:10  Cast out the scorner, and contention shall go out; yea, strife
    and reproach shall cease.
    
    29:22  An angry man stirreth up strife, and a furious man aboundeth in
     transgression.

  re .44



  I find if I have nothing but negativity to add to a conference, deleting
  that conference is frequently helpful.




  Jim

    .47  Go right ahead.
    
    
    
    
    ;-}
    

>	Regarding Wesley's notion of mental assent, that is not com-
>		pletely scriptural or accurate....  The reason... 
>		
>		Jesus said: "Out of the abundance of a man's heart,
>	the mouth speaketh".   Therefore, where do words come from?
>	They come from the heart.  The tongue then, is merely the
>	release valve for expressing what is in the heart.  

So far, nothing you have said has contradicted what I have said, though you
have laboriously tried to prove it "wrong."  (You words.)  Even here, the
tongue is what FOLLOWS the heart (attitude; belief; faith).  Even here,
the tongue is a "valve for expressing"; a tool, not the cause, as you 
go on to say:

>	So... what prompts the tongue to speak?  The heart.  


>		The notion of mental assent is not altogether scriptural:
>	And, in fact, it is an invention of man rather than of God.

What you have done is determine that this is not altogether scriptural
because it hasn't fit into what you believe to be the proper scriptural
position.  However, when you go on to make a defense, you say nothing to
prove that this is an incongruent position with your own.

What I think is being invented here is a reason to squabble.  What do you
think?

Mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps are you confusing "heart" and "mental assent" as being different?

Does one believe with the heart or the head?  When we say "with the heart"
we mean more than "mental assent" (so does Wesley, BTW; did you think Wesley 
was saying that only mental assent was necessary?).  And what we mean by more
than mental assent is a belief that causes change; change to action.
If I believe the chair will hold me, I act upon that belief and sit.

Now, the "heart" does nothing but pump blood.  One can see how "the heart"
is used for expressions of passion nowadays as the "bowels" were used
long ago.  "I love you with all my bowels."  It seems strange to hear this
but way back when, the bowels were thought to be the seat of emotion.
(In fact, the bowels are affected dramatically by emotion and can "blush"
which other organs cannot do.  So these guy's weren't far wrong.  I guess
when they discovered what bowels did, they changed it to heart.:-))

Anyway, perhaps you've confused these things.  I did ask you once what
your definition of the verb "to believe" was.  I'd like to hear it; it
may clear up the confusion you have over this [non]issue.

Mark

	Wow, so many notes set hidden, so many topics write-locked. 

    	re .48
    
    	I did that very thing with Christian-Perspective.  You might
    	consider returning the favor.

>	Wow, so many notes set hidden, so many topics write-locked. 

Glen, kind of makes you feel left out, eh?  (For once a really light-hearted
comment considering the stuff of recent stuff.)

>Don't expect me to explain it to you, Mark.

I never expected anything of the sort, Greg, and was really surprized 
that you even tried!  But I am comforted in the knowledge that much 
of what you attempted to explain leaves most people with the same 
reaction:  "Huh?"

MM

>that you even tried!  But I am comforted in the knowledge that much 
>of what you attempted to explain leaves most people with the same 
>reaction:  "Huh?"
    
    
    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!  Too funny...