Conference yukon::christian_v7

>    3.  What would you like to see in CHRISTIAN?
>
>More input from me and others who struggle to find time.  Less dependance
>on Mark and a few others to "carry our banner".

Thanks, Lew.  this is a big reason I stepped out of moderating. I don't mind
carrying the banner, but more of you (general) should  be out there in here to
speak the Truth of the Bible.
--------------
>�    3.  This conference has been accused of being "narrow", "confronta-
>�        tational" and "uncaring" in intonation.  Do you agree, and if so,
>�        how can we change that?
>
>I would not be  concerned that we are accused of being narrow.  In fact, I'd be
>concerned if we  WEREN'T perceived as narrow.

Correct, Paul.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------->    1.  What do you see as positive attributes of this conference?
>
>    2.  What do you see as negative attributes of this conference?
>
>    3.  What would you like to see in CHRISTIAN?
>        This conference has been accused of being "narrow", "confronta-
>       tational" and "uncaring" in intonation.  Do you agree, and if so,
>       how can we change that?

Christian is a place like any other employee interest conference.  As such, it
can and should define the parameters for its existence.  To challenge that
these premises are too narrow and that we should let the world in to express it
views is an opinion that is free to start another employee interest conference
with that definition.  Instead, deragtory insunuation, such as being
"cult-like" does little to produce productive change or objective assessment.

To say that other views are not tolerated is a difference in defining what
tolerance is and should be.  Everything, with the exception of homosexuality,
can and is discussed in this conference.  BUT, everything that comes to the
table is measured against a stated standard for truth.  That is, what does the
Bible say about such things?

Tolerating other standards for truth is not meeting the definition of this
employee interest conference.  Again, if you want to define it differently, start
another conference.  In fact, I believe this is how Christian-Perspective got
started.  So why the big push, as Paul Weiss described his early participation,
for an agenda to bring some light to these close-minded fanatics (not his
words; my paraphrase)?

Argumentative, confrontational, and harsh words are necessary at times. Some
issues do crop up, over and over and over.  When they come from new people, it
is perfectly okay to go over the same material for new learning. However, when
the same people bring up the same things over and over, one begins to wonder
whether that agenda that Paul Weiss spoke of about his early days is hammering
again against the defintion that this narrow group of people have defined for
fellowship and learning.  Especially when the same someone asks the same
questions, the benefit of the doubt that questions are asked in sincerity
becomes harder to give to that person.

Not long ago, some Christians has an argument over Rock music.  I believe that
half or more of the offense one takes is perceived improperly and very
subjectively.  A casual observer piped in to say that they didn't see the
offense that one took over my words.  And my words that expressed that it
wasn't intended as an offense, although it was a vigorous defense of  my views,
was not believed.  So who is at fault?  What words should I have used to
"get my point across"?  Some people feel intimidated by some of my uses of
language, but you will have a difficult time finding things that are really
offensive, whereas you will find many places where you thought I was being a
tad too harsh.  ("Well, I wouldn't have chosen those words.")

As a result of this I started a note on dealing with conflict.  It didn't play
well because few people, those who participate in conflict often, didn't show
up to discuss it.

This conference must be uncompromizing on its premise.  It must not compromise
on the Standard by which all concepts are measured, and as such call sin sin
where the Bible says it is sin, and heresy heresy where the Bible says it is
heresy.  People outside of this can define whatever truths they like, but don't
even begin to think about foisting that truth as one of the many possibilities
in here.  In here, there are Absolutes.  You don't agree with it, you have the
free will to take your defined truths and set up a place for it.

>    4.  Do you see Jesus in here?

I see Jesus in some of the people in here.  I see some people who need Jesus. I
see some people who want Jesus but are unwilling to submit to His Lordship. And
then I see some wolves who are [un]wittingly trying to destroy the authority of
God by attacking the authority of God's word.  These minions are seeking to
destroy your faith in the name of replacing it with a "better", "morte
tolerant" "Christian" view.

Mark Metcalfe

In response to Glen, but also in general,

About valuing differences, this conferenceis not unlike the smoking policy
debate.  Smokers want the right to smoke when and where they choose.  For
the most part, non-smokers don't want to restrict the smoker's right to 
smoke.  However, the non-smoker wants to have the right to be free from 
second-hand smoke.  They didn't choose to smoke and yet they're being subject
to second hand smoke from a smoker.

We have a difference that is irreconcilable.

So, Digital adopted a policy of segregation to value the differences of 
smokers and non-smokers.  It was a compromise, because it doesn't force
non-smokers to accept second-hand smoke, nor does it force smokers to 
give up smoking.  The compromise was to desginate areas in which the
choice to smoke was permissible.

Some smokers still complain that their difference is not being valued by
being prohibited from smoking in certain areas.  The "door is closed" because
their difference (smoking) doesn't match that of the non-smoker.  Can smokers
and non-smokers get along in this bubble of segregation that is designed 
to allow each to retain their choices of definition (smoke vs. smoke-free air)?

No, a narrow definition does not prohibit the valuing of differences because
there are places where alternate defintions can be expressed, just as there
are places inside and outside the building to smoke.

Further, talking to the masses occurs on many levels.  Be careful that you
understand, and believe the Bible, before you invoke it.  i can say much about
this, but I'll stop here.

Mark 

re:closemindedness and 'valuing differences' by excluding differences.

Pick any other notesfile, about any subject.  The people who gather there have
something in common, and want to discuss that thing they have in common.  What
would happen in ANY file if someone were to come in and belittle or challenge
that common ground in EVERY topic?

I assume there's a gay notesfile.  Suppose someone were to come into the file,
and in every topic, wherever there was the slightest opening, proclaim that the
Bible condemns homosexual practice as a sin and in fact proscibes the death
penalty for it?  If every note, where gay folk were simply trying to share what 
they had in common, degenerated into a rathole about Biblical views of sin?  How
long do you suppose that 'difference' would be 'valued?'  Alpha cycle times are 
too long to measure how long it would be valued.  My guess is that the very 
first note would be hidden and sent off to personnel.

Suppose some man were to go into WOMANNOTES and say in every topic (NOT my view
:-) "What are you women talking about this for - it should be none of your
concern.  Women should stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen."  ***POW***

Suppose someone were to go into a file as simple as MODEL_RAILROADING and
constantly harp on "What are you foolish adults doing playing with kids toys"?

What happens here is NO DIFFERENT than what would happen anywhere else, except
that challenging of the common ground hardly ever happens anywhere else.  It is 
not our desire to enforce adherence to the Bible.  It is a response to years of
this, in every note on every subject:

A: What should I do about situation x?

B: The Bible says you should do y.

A: Why should I believe what the Bible says?

B: Because it's God's Word.

A: Why should I believe it is God's Word?

(10-100 reply rathole on authority of the Bible)

This policy is simply a response to a constant challenging of the common ground
which draws the people here together, out of pure fatigue with wrestling with 
this same question over and over and over when we were trying to discuss 
something else altogether.  We'd like to rest from justifying our existence and 
get on with learning from each other.

I'm sure you would find similar policies in other notesfiles if they were
hammered upon the way that this file is.

Paul

RE: .20


	Mark, you surprised me. If living in a bubble is what you wish to do,
then please feel free to do it. Myself, bubbles seem to stump growth. 


RE: .21


| I assume there's a gay notesfile.  

	Yes there is. Several.

| Suppose someone were to come into the file,
| and in every topic, wherever there was the slightest opening, proclaim that the
| Bible condemns homosexual practice as a sin and in fact proscibes the death
| penalty for it?  

	Then you would have quite the discussion on your hands, wouldn't you.
The difference is rules wouldn't be made up to prevent the talking from
happening as in this file, and, in this file one wants to learn about God
exclusively, which can't be done fully if the only thing you have is a group of
people who can only talk about X, but anything else is a no no. The stuff
people think, fell, whatever exists. To shield oneself from it takes you out
from the entire picture. This is why I mentioned that it is almost cultlike in
here as you seem to be trying to protect yourself from the world instead of
reaching, growing, learning and teaching (from and)everyone. 

| If every note, where gay folk were simply trying to share what
| they had in common, degenerated into a rathole about Biblical views of sin?  

	Hmmm...... considering most of the notes in here with any substance
ends up in 2 people arguing, what does that tell you? Believe it or not, many
people in many files disagree with each other. It's a fact of life. It's how a
debate goes on. BUT, when one tries to shield themselves into a bubble....

| How
| long do you suppose that 'difference' would be 'valued?'  Alpha cycle times are
| too long to measure how long it would be valued.  My guess is that the very
| first note would be hidden and sent off to personnel.

	Guess again. 

| Suppose some man were to go into WOMANNOTES and say in every topic (NOT my view
| :-) "What are you women talking about this for - it should be none of your
| concern.  Women should stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen."  ***POW***

	Actually, I know of someone that comes pretty close to this
description. He notes in there a lot. Funny though.... he has never been sent
to personell for anything.

| This policy is simply a response to a constant challenging of the common ground
| which draws the people here together, out of pure fatigue with wrestling with
| this same question over and over and over when we were trying to discuss
| something else altogether.  We'd like to rest from justifying our existence and
| get on with learning from each other.

	Learning from within with no outside influences is the same philosophy
David Koesh used. 

| I'm sure you would find similar policies in other notesfiles if they were
| hammered upon the way that this file is.

	Ever read soapbox? There's MAJOR hammering going on in there. 



Glen

>	Mark, you surprised me. If living in a bubble is what you wish to do,
>then please feel free to do it. Myself, bubbles seem to stump growth. 

I do not wish to be contaminated by carcinogens, but would rather offer the
cure to those outside the bubble to be free of their death-producing sin.
You say these things with as much credence as the Tobacco industry in the 70s
saying that cigarettes did not produce cancer; that those who thought they
did lived in a bubble of unreality.  Talk about being deragatory.

>This is why I mentioned that it is almost cultlike in
>here as you seem to be trying to protect yourself from the world instead of
>reaching, growing, learning and teaching (from and)everyone. 

Reaching?  growing?  learning?  teaching?  What a laugh!  
I've seen your lessons.  They do reach but teach no growth; only 
atrophe and disease.  And "cultlike" isn't deragatory?


>	Learning from within with no outside influences is the same philosophy
>David Koresh used. 

So who is being deragatory? 

And there are plenty of outside influences that strengthen the conviction that
holding to Truth as defined by the Absolute Authority is the only way to avoid
the poison of the world.

Mark

re:.22

> The difference is rules wouldn't be made up to prevent the talking from
> happening as in this file,

Read my response again.  This wasn't the way it started.  Go back to 
CHRISTIAN_V1 and look at the guidelines - they are not nearly so stringent.  The
guidelines are a result of YEARS of constant challenge.  If many different 
people were to do the same for years in the gay files, can you still say "rules
wouldn't be made?"  I don't think you can.

>	Ever read soapbox? There's MAJOR hammering going on in there. 

Hammering goes on, but no hammering of commonly accepted ground, because the 
only common ground there is the desire for no common ground.

Glen, you keep talking about "bubble" and "isolation."  That's not the case here
at all.  What is happening is that people in this file get tired of 
re-justifying a belief they have previously rationally validated and accepted 
when what they are seeking to do is build upon that belief.

All knowledge works this way.  You learn something, you check it out, you accept
it as true, and then you build on it from there.  It is helpful occasionally to
go back and recheck those premises, but it is *not* helpful to have them
challenged constantly.  It is not as if people are sheilding themselves from
other ideas (though I agree that some people do sometimes, and sometimes in this
file), they are simply tiring of defending the same ideas, ideas which they 
believe for very good reasons even if you may not agree with those reasons.

Suppose you were teaching a class on algebra, and people kept coming into the
class and challenging basic math: "Hey, who says 12+3 is 15?"  "Why can't I 
divide by 0?"  "What commutative law?  3+8 is different from 8+3" And on and on.
Every time someone stops in and asks these questions, you all have to stop 
learning algebra for a moment to answer the questions about things you have
already learned and accepted as truth.  As Mark noted, when someone new comes in
and is really seeking to learn algebra, you don't mind much stopping to bring
them up to speed.  But when someone comes in and sits down and keeps asking the
same basic math questions over and over becuase they don't accept your 
reasoning, eventually you would get tired of answering and reanswering their
questions.  You might even post a list at the door of the classroom saying:
"These are the basic math rules that we have already learned.  It is not
acceptable to interrupt class time to challenge these basic math rules."  Would
you be "closed-minded" to eventually, after constant challenge and waste of
energy, refuse to listen to those challenges any more?  That is precisely what
has happened in this file.

The world is filled with seekers, but there's this curious attitude that many
people have that there are no real answers, that we should be perpetual seekers.
We SHOULD be perpetual seekers, but in the sense of finding out more, of
building on the things that we have already learned.  To be "open minded" today
seems to mean that one must always remain "open" to the challenge of the most
elementary truth.  If a seeker actually **finds** an answer, and starts to hold
to that answer and continue to seek to build upon that answer, suddenly they
are "closed-minded," "living in a bubble" and "isolationist, like David Koresh."

I for one would like to get on to some higher math.  We are all called to be
teachers to one extent or another, to teach those who come to us as much math
as we know.  But the ***FIRST*** thing that many seekers in this world need to
learn is this: that which they seek **can be found**.  Until we come to the 
place where we believe an answer exists, we'll never find one.

Paul

    Notes 149.19-149.25 have been placed in this topic.
    
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

>people think, fell, whatever exists. To shield oneself from it takes you out
>from the entire picture. This is why I mentioned that it is almost cultlike in
>here as you seem to be trying to protect yourself from the world instead of
>reaching, growing, learning and teaching (from and)everyone. 

We're not talking about real life here, Glen.  This is an employee 
interest notesfile, no more, no less.  It's not mandatory to reach, grow 
learn or teach anyone.  I, like most others in the GOLF::CHRISTIAN, have 
a life outside this conference and don't participate here to necessarily 
reach, grow, learn or teach.  Sometimes it's nice to be somewhere where 
you can just have fun.


>debate goes on. BUT, when one tries to shield themselves into a bubble....

Who's trying to shield themselves into a bubble?  I'm confused.



	>Actually, I know of someone that comes pretty close to this
>description. He notes in there a lot. Funny though.... he has never been sent
>to personell for anything.

Others have, Glen, for less provocation.


	>Learning from within with no outside influences is the same philosophy
>David Koesh used. 

Get a grip, man.  It's a notes conference, not art imitating life as you 
would have it.

| I'm sure you would find similar policies in other notesfiles if they were
| hammered upon the way that this file is.

	Ever read soapbox? There's MAJOR hammering going on in there. 



Glen

    From what I've read in this conference, the people here have led
    extremely varied and full lives. The experiences touched upon have
    included physical and emotional abuse by others, substance abuse,
    broken relationships, exploration of a variety of schools of thought,
    etc. In the end, they have been convicted by the Holy Spirit that
    Christianity is The Way. And this conference was formed to give them a
    forum in which to share their walks, their questions, their thoughts,
    prayers and praises.
    
    To the noters: it is important that where we perceive error, we speak
    up. But it is not up to us to convict another of sin or error - that's
    the work of the Holy Spirit. And where notes become "a vain
    exchange...leading nowhere", (see note 100.9) I can't help but wonder
    if the time and energy would be better spent sticking to the question
    at hand - often a question asked out of honest need and questioning.
    The sidetrack away from the question - and the need - seems more like
    the working of "the unholy spirit." And that's something we can and
    must guard against. Don't walk into the trap - and if you find yourself
    pulled in, walk back out. Also, consider that sometimes the very 
    arguments we hope will help someone, only serve to bind them more 
    tightly where they are.
    
    Also, we must offer Him praise in all things. That includes all who
    note here. "Where two or more are gathered..." - God is present
    here and at work - let's be sure we don't get in His way. :-)
    
    Rebecca
    

| <<< Note 152.6 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| I do not wish to be contaminated by carcinogens, but would rather offer the
| cure to those outside the bubble to be free of their death-producing sin.

	Mark, did Jesus stay in a bubble? Did He get contaminated by
carcinogens? I think we both know the answer to that is no. Reason being?
Faith. 

	But while faith saved Him from being contaminated, why did He go out in
the real world? His love for us maybe? He went out to help save others. Maybe
if you would explain how you plan on helping those who need it if you won't go
out into the world like Jesus did because you don't wish to be contaminated. 

| You say these things with as much credence as the Tobacco industry in the 70s
| saying that cigarettes did not produce cancer; that those who thought they
| did lived in a bubble of unreality.  Talk about being deragatory.

	No derogatory intentions Mark. The analogy you have given doesn't
really hold water, does it? The tabacco industry's claims were based on words
by humans. With humans you have flaws. With dealing with the real world you
have faith. Faith in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be exact. Faith that
WILL guide you through thick and thin IF you let it. There is NO room for
contamination when dealing with God. To remove yourself from the real world
because you don't want to be contaminated makes me wonder just how strong your
faith really is.

| Reaching?  growing?  learning?  teaching?  What a laugh!
| I've seen your lessons.  They do reach but teach no growth; 

	Perfect example Mark. If you remember my note I said to take me out of
these examples. To just think of others. In your note you haven't done that.
There are more than just me who want to talk about things in this file that may
feel like they can't. By your note you have clearly shown that this isn't
happening. 

	Now, about my lessons. Sorry, I can't agree with your analogy. Again,
you seem to be very focused on one small part, but not the whole picture. Even
if my or anyone elses analogies are wrong by the standard of this Conference,
by the exchange that would take place, by the reactions of others, wouldn't it
by your standards build up the faith in your belief, the belief of many who
participate in this conference? To let others know of what to watch out for as
it does not match the belief held by many in this conference? Is that not
teaching in itself? Or, is it believed that by the types of responses received
by the Christians will show something else?

| And "cultlike" isn't deragatory?

	Mark, I gave you my view of how this conference seems to work to me.
Just like you did when you used the words atrophe and disease. 

| >	Learning from within with no outside influences is the same philosophy
| >David Koresh used.

| So who is being deragatory?

	Mark, it is an opinion. I did not say it was a message from God. That
is how I see this conference going. There was no derogatory intentions, just a
statement of my views, just as you have done in your reply.




Glen

RE:               <<< Note 152.11 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>	But while faith saved Him from being contaminated, why did He go out in
>the real world? His love for us maybe? He went out to help save others. Maybe
>if you would explain how you plan on helping those who need it if you won't go
>out into the world like Jesus did because you don't wish to be contaminated. 


 To seek and save the lost. One must realize, however, as I'm sure Jesus did,
 there are those who are not convinced they are lost and who will go to all
 lengths, to their peril, to deny the truth.  One reaches a point, where one
 has to move on to those who's hearts are open to the truth.




 Jim

| <<< Note 152.7 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>




| Read my response again.  This wasn't the way it started.  Go back to
| CHRISTIAN_V1 and look at the guidelines - they are not nearly so stringent.  The
| guidelines are a result of YEARS of constant challenge.  

	Hmmm..... so, you make it easier on yourselves by stopping the
challanges? Did Jesus ever do that? For people who say they want to be 
more like Jesus you SEEM sometimes to not be trying that hard. If Jesus used
guidelines to prevent challenges, then maybe you would have something. 
But what you seem to have now is humans, not God, wanting to set up barriers.

| If many different people were to do the same for years in the gay files, 
| can you still say "rules wouldn't be made?"  I don't think you can.

	The rules, as they are, are simple. No outing, no harrassing of any
individual. The latter is the same in every conference. People have gone in
many times as the conference has been around for a long time.

| Glen, you keep talking about "bubble" and "isolation."  That's not the case here
| at all.  What is happening is that people in this file get tired of
| re-justifying a belief they have previously rationally validated and accepted
| when what they are seeking to do is build upon that belief.

	And of the read-onlies who just come in looking for information? What
happens to them? They see that Jesus never walked away, closed things out as He
was able to explain, defraud any point that was made because of His faith in
the Father. Yet, the message that seems to be getting out is one of closed
mindedness, not wanting to justify anything. In other words, to just be able to
take it easy. Did Jesus ever walk away from words He believed to not be truth?
No. But your reasoning seems to say that's what you should do because of the 
restrictions you have placed in for the reason that you are tired. Is this 
trying to be like Jesus, or is it more in line with being just a human being?

| All knowledge works this way.  You learn something, you check it out, you accept
| it as true, and then you build on it from there.  It is helpful occasionally to
| go back and recheck those premises, but it is *not* helpful to have them
| challenged constantly.  

	Why is that? Won't God give you the proof you need to show that these
things are correct? I truly believe that He can and does all the time. It may
not happen instantly, the way we want it to, but it does always happen.

| As Mark noted, when someone new comes in and is really seeking to learn 
| algebra, you don't mind much stopping to bring them up to speed.  But when 
| someone comes in and sits down and keeps asking the same basic math questions 
| over and over becuase they don't accept your reasoning, eventually you would 
| get tired of answering and reanswering their questions.  

	Then you shouldn't be teaching. Until someone fully understands what is
going on, the teaching should continue. There may be other ways that are needed
to enhance the teaching, but the end result is that until the pupil has
learned, the teaching should continue. Like with religion, teaching shouldn't
be a pick and choose thing.

| You might even post a list at the door of the classroom saying:
| "These are the basic math rules that we have already learned.  It is not
| acceptable to interrupt class time to challenge these basic math rules." 

	Then you should not be teaching. You won't really know by your methods
whether one is a slow learner, has some sort of problem keeping them from
"geting it" because you are setting up rules on how someone should be taught,
as if everyone is basically the same. One thing to remember is that not
everyone is. If you want just the simple jobs in life, that's your choice. It
is my belief that following Jesus is anything but easy. You have many
challanges day after day, year after year. If you tire and put up rules to make
things easier for you then you aren't helping Him at all.

| To be "open minded" today
| seems to mean that one must always remain "open" to the challenge of the most
| elementary truth.  

	Elementry to YOU maybe. But to someone else, maybe not. Is this so hard
to understand?

| If a seeker actually **finds** an answer, and starts to hold
| to that answer and continue to seek to build upon that answer, suddenly they
| are "closed-minded," "living in a bubble" and "isolationist, like David Koresh."

	ONLY if they shut others out. To have no outside influences around. In
these things one could get the idea that this is cult like.



Glen

| <<< Note 152.9 by RIPPLE::BRUSO_SA "Horn players have more brass" >>>


| We're not talking about real life here, Glen.  

	That is very apparent.

| This is an employee interest notesfile, no more, no less.  

	Hmmm.... you don't view it as a teaching tool of God?

| >Learning from within with no outside influences is the same philosophy
| >David Koesh used.

| Get a grip, man.  It's a notes conference, not art imitating life as you
| would have it.

	Now I'm confused. Please explain.




Glen

    Glen,
    
    I'm going to be as blunt, but as loving as I possibly can be in this
    note.  Several things come to mind as I read your insistence on
    changing this conference to suit your mind set.
    
    1.  People who come in here with open hearts searching for *K*nowledge,
        manifest themselves in that spirit.
    
    To number one, I say no question is unwelcome or considered
    antagonistic.
    
    2.  People who come in here with an agenda against the premise
        of this conference.
    
    To number two, I say you don't have to participate in here. Your agenda
    is better taken to a conference that will consume it.  As your view is
    antagonistic and unwelcome.
    
    
    Glen which category do you fall in?

| <<< Note 152.12 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| To seek and save the lost. One must realize, however, as I'm sure Jesus did,
| there are those who are not convinced they are lost and who will go to all
| lengths, to their peril, to deny the truth.  One reaches a point, where one
| has to move on to those who's hearts are open to the truth.


	Individuals, right? But in this conference, hasn't that decision
already been made on anyone who may not understand as you do, believe as you 
do? Hasn't the conference just shut ALL of them out? I will venture to say 
(though your mileage may vary) that most of these people that have been shut out
because of the rules the conference you have never heard a word out of, and 
the ones of the future you will again hear no words. Imagine, these people 
have been shut out due to the fact that rules have been inacted to prevent them 
from speaking. Is this how Jesus works?

	Seeing we aren't Jesus, we can't really SEE what is in people's hearts. 
Can we afford to shut them out instantly without ever hearing them? Would this 
be what Jesus wants?



Glen

>| I do not wish to be contaminated by carcinogens, but would rather offer the
>| cure to those outside the bubble to be free of their death-producing sin.
>
>	Mark, did Jesus stay in a bubble? Did He get contaminated by
>carcinogens? I think we both know the answer to that is no. Reason being?
>Faith. 

Wrong again, Glen.  What's your definition of bubble?  Jesus was not "tolerant"
of heresy.  If you mean by bubble, no compromize on Truth, then Jesus had
the most impenetrable bubble.

>	But while faith saved Him from being contaminated, why did He go out in
>the real world? His love for us maybe? He went out to help save others. Maybe
>if you would explain how you plan on helping those who need it if you won't go
>out into the world like Jesus did because you don't wish to be contaminated. 

We're not talking about evangelizing, are we Glen?  You're talking about
accepting all views, not preaching the Truth.  Is it so difficult to see
the difference between being in the world rather than of it?

As for going out in to the world, what does that have to do with 
THIS conference?  It is like asking why you aren't eating your meals 
at the fitness center.  There is a purpose and place for everything.
Surely you even see that while evangelism can come through this medium
this conference does not a evangelistic purpose.  This conference does
not GO OUT.  It is static and PEOPLE COME IN.  Keep the world contaminants
OUT and be pure and protected when you go out into the contaminated world.

>There is NO room for contamination when dealing with God.

...provided that one knows Who God is.

>To remove yourself from the real world
>because you don't want to be contaminated makes me wonder just how strong your
>faith really is.

Frankly, Glen this is just plain ridiculous because NO ONE has separated
themselves from the "real world", even if you "really" think so.  
What is Truth, Glen?  What is Real, Glen?  What is the reality of
the world, Glen?  When you begin to answer these questions, you and
the rest of will see even more clearly how ridiculous your statement is.

>| Reaching?  growing?  learning?  teaching?  What a laugh!
>| I've seen your lessons.  They do reach but teach no growth; 
>
>	Perfect example Mark. If you remember my note I said to take me out of
>these examples. To just think of others. In your note you haven't done that.
>There are more than just me who want to talk about things in this file that may
>feel like they can't. By your note you have clearly shown that this isn't
>happening. 

I haven't?  As I recall, I had seevral notes, one of which addressed your
specific issues, and most were general in nature.  So check it again before
you make your assertion.

.1  General application
.2  "In response to Glen, but also in general,"
       ...speaking in general to your POINTS, taking you out of it.
.4  "Mark, you surprised me. If living in a bubble is what you wish to do,
     then please feel free to do it. Myself, bubbles seem to stump growth."

       So who made this personal, Glen?  Hmmm?  Want to tell me why it isn't
     happening, again, Glen?

>	Now, about my lessons. Sorry, I can't agree with your analogy. Again,
>you seem to be very focused on one small part, but not the whole picture. 

Wrong again.  If you think I'm only thinking of the homosexuality topic,
you're wrong, though this is "one small part" nevertheless.  And FWIW, we
agree less and less these days, don't we?

>Even
>if my or anyone elses analogies are wrong by the standard of this Conference,
>by the exchange that would take place, by the reactions of others, wouldn't it
>by your standards build up the faith in your belief, the belief of many who
>participate in this conference? To let others know of what to watch out for as
>it does not match the belief held by many in this conference? Is that not
>teaching in itself? 

As Paul Weiss put it:

.7------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen, you keep talking about "bubble" and "isolation."  That's not the case here
at all.  What is happening is that people in this file get tired of 
re-justifying a belief they have previously rationally validated and accepted 
when what they are seeking to do is build upon that belief.
.7-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
.3-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This policy is simply a response to a constant challenging of the common ground
which draws the people here together, out of pure fatigue with wrestling with 
this same question over and over and over when we were trying to discuss 
something else altogether.  We'd like to rest from justifying our existence and 
get on with learning from each other.
.3-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To be sure, everytime you (specifically) "give the balanced view," out will 
come the Truth of Scripture, and contrast the false message of the world,
but know that you are causing much of the wheel-spinning (wasted energy on 
"remedial math"; re-read .7) in this conference.  And if it is my words that
mean nothing, notice that I have taken exerpts from Paul Weiss's replies,
and I could from others as well.  It's not just me.

>Or, is it believed that by the types of responses received
>by the Christians will show something else?

.7----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hammering goes on, but no hammering of commonly accepted ground, because the 
only common ground there is the desire for no common ground.
.7----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Have you not noticed that certain people get certain responses because of
their TRACK RECORD?  Are you asking forgiveness?  Are you looking to repent?
Will you accept the Bible as God's unadulterated Truth?  If so, I'm sure
you'd get a different reception.  But there comes a time when everything
has been exhausted and as many have said before me, be careful that you 
have not exhausted the promptings of the Holy Spirit, because if He no
longer gives you a reception then you are more pitiful than anyone realizes.

To be sure, I know people who have listened to your arguments, coming
in as you've run your course with another person.  These people think 
to themselves, "Glen is a individual who has questions and so there is hope."
And to a person, each have realized that "Glen is less a person with questions
than he is a questioning person without desire for knowledge of God, but
instead the desire to justify himself and his view of God."  There are lots
of places where this can be validated, Glen, but not a place where the 
premise is an inerrant Bible (and I'm not talking about "one small part").

You need to make a decision to agree to at least discuss things from the
perspective of an inerrant Bible, or leave those in this conference the
freedom to do so without harrassment (which your position provides). 
Up to now, you've chosen option (c) to continue with your antagonism
to bring in a perspective from the world and a clipped-up, edited Bible,
(and your references aren't even accurate most of the time, and I don't
mean chapter and verse).

Mark

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| And "cultlike" isn't deragatory?
>
>	Mark, I gave you my view of how this conference seems to work to me.
>Just like you did when you used the words atrophe and disease. 

Then there are no deragatory responses or everyone's opinion on deragatory
responses are subjective, no?

| <<< Note 152.15 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




	I had origionally answered (in .18) number 1 to your note Nancy. But
then I reread it and something struck me so I deleted it. I'm not sure this
will make it back to .18, but anyway, here is what I saw.

	One seemed to fit perfectly. When I reread your note I saw that 2 was
about coming in with an agenda to challenge the premis of this file. That I
don't have. But whether what I'm about to say is true or not this is what I
thought it said. If you believe in the charter 100% you are fine, but if you
don't then you have an agenda. Is this what you meant Nancy? If not, could you
please explain it to me?

Thanks...


Glen

================================================================================
Note 152.13  JURAN::SILVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| As Mark noted, when someone new comes in and is really seeking to learn
>| algebra, you don't mind much stopping to bring them up to speed.  But when
>| someone comes in and sits down and keeps asking the same basic math question
>| over and over becuase they don't accept your reasoning, eventually you would
>| get tired of answering and reanswering their questions.
>
>       Then you shouldn't be teaching. Until someone fully understands what is
>going on, the teaching should continue. There may be other ways that are needed
>to enhance the teaching, but the end result is that until the pupil has
>learned, the teaching should continue. Like with religion, teaching shouldn't
>be a pick and choose thing.

How many times will you refuse to believe that 2+2=4?  It's not a question of
not understanding the premise, with you, Glen.  It is a question of NOT
ACCEPTING the premise.  And as for PICK AND CHOOSE, YOU are the one guilty
of that, and not the members of this conference.

>| You might even post a list at the door of the classroom saying:
>| "These are the basic math rules that we have already learned.  It is not
>| acceptable to interrupt class time to challenge these basic math rules."
>
>       Then you should not be teaching. You won't really know by your methods
>whether one is a slow learner, has some sort of problem keeping them from
>"getting it" because you are setting up rules on how someone should be taught,
>as if everyone is basically the same.

Slow learners are different that people who WON'T BE TAUGHT.  You're not slow,
Glen, however tempted I am by my tongue.

>If you tire and put up rules to make things easier for you then you aren't
>helping Him at all.

What kind of claptrap is this?  You have antagonized this conference for
YEARS, disrupting the "class" with constant "Two plus two does not equal four,
it equals six."

>| If a seeker actually **finds** an answer, and starts to hold
>| to that answer and continue to seek to build upon that answer, suddenly they
>| are "closed-minded," "living in a bubble" and "isolationist, like David Kore
>
>       ONLY if they shut others out. To have no outside influences around. In
>these things one could get the idea that this is cult like.

There it is with the cult like attack/opinion.  You have never noticed how
people have brought in philsophies that were answered in ways that are not as
you would have the reader believe?  Or have you?  Would you rather the reader
think that all philosohpies are shut out of this conference!

For the BILLIONTH TIME:  ALL CONCEPTS ARE DISCUSSED HERE.  THE MEASUREMENT
FOR THEIR VALIDITY IS GOD'S WORD: THE BIBLE.

================================================================================
Note 152.16  JURAN::SILVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Imagine, these people  have been shut out due to the fact that rules have been
>inacted to prevent them  from speaking. Is this how Jesus works?

No they haven't.  The rules ONLY DEFINE the METER for validating anything
spoken/written/proposed/considered.
                                   
JESUS IS THE DEFINITION and HE DEFINES.  Who Jesus is can be found in
an inerrant Bible.  We don't define Jesus; God defines himself through His Word.

| <<< Note 152.17 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| Wrong again, Glen.  What's your definition of bubble?  

	Hmmm..... don't you think the question should have been asked before
saying I'm wrong? Just a thought.....

| Jesus was not "tolerant" of heresy.  

	Agreed. But He never set up rules to keep these people from speaking to
Him. He just delt with what they were saying. Can you see the difference
between Jesus and this conference? 

| We're not talking about evangelizing, are we Glen?  You're talking about
| accepting all views, not preaching the Truth.  Is it so difficult to see
| the difference between being in the world rather than of it?

	Mark, I think I can safely say that I have NEVER said YOU or anyone
else HAD to accept my or anyone elses views. I do state what I believe to be
truth, but never do I say that you have to accept them. 

| As for going out in to the world, what does that have to do with
| THIS conference?  
| Surely you even see that while evangelism can come through this medium
| this conference does not a evangelistic purpose.  This conference does
| not GO OUT.  It is static and PEOPLE COME IN.  Keep the world contaminants
| OUT and be pure and protected when you go out into the contaminated world.

	And when you keep the contaminants out, you keep dealing with the real
world out. Mark, MANY people come into this conference to learn. If teaching is
to be done correctly, wouldn't it make more sense to do it the way Jesus does?

| >To remove yourself from the real world
| >because you don't want to be contaminated makes me wonder just how strong your
| >faith really is.

| Frankly, Glen this is just plain ridiculous because NO ONE has separated
| themselves from the "real world", even if you "really" think so.

	By teaching with no outside influences? Hmmmmm..... me thinks not.

| I haven't?  As I recall, I had seevral notes, one of which addressed your
| specific issues, and most were general in nature.  So check it again before
| you make your assertion.

| .4  "Mark, you surprised me. If living in a bubble is what you wish to do,
| then please feel free to do it. Myself, bubbles seem to stump growth."

| So who made this personal, Glen?  Hmmm?  Want to tell me why it isn't
| happening, again, Glen?

	You've lost me on this one Mark. Please, if you would, explain this to
me? 

| >	Now, about my lessons. Sorry, I can't agree with your analogy. Again,
| >you seem to be very focused on one small part, but not the whole picture.

| Wrong again.  If you think I'm only thinking of the homosexuality topic,
| you're wrong, 

	Mark, you seem to like the word wrong. Let me try to explain what I was
talking about. I wasn't talking about any given topic when I was mentioning
being focused on one small part. What I was actually talking about was how you
seem to view the notes that go against the premise as just that, going against.
While this fact is true, and as I said in one of my notes, by answering the
notes you should be strengthening your faith along with everyone who reads the
reply, right? Mainly because people in real life deal with things like this.
Things aren't easy. So what better way to learn and grow? But of course this
isn't seen because you are focused on one small part. BTW, as an aside, I truly
believe in what I say. I don't come in here for any kind of game. But maybe
part of the reasoning for the rules is you don't want others who come into this
file to learn of other ways/beliefs? Just a thought.....

| As Paul Weiss put it:

	And as I said to Paul, is taking the easy way out the way Jesus would
have done it? Does taking the easy way out make it so people will not learn?

| Have you not noticed that certain people get certain responses because of
| their TRACK RECORD?  Are you asking forgiveness?  Are you looking to repent?

	Nice touch Mark. Again, you are focusing in on one small part when I am
specifically opening it up to include everyone. Have you started to notice that
yet? It's not a me thing, it's a conference as a whole thing.

| Will you accept the Bible as God's unadulterated Truth?  If so, I'm sure
| you'd get a different reception.  

	I'm not worried so much about my reception. Just the reception of those
who may want to say something, to learn in here but are afraid to do so.

| And to a person, each have realized that "Glen is less a person with questions
| than he is a questioning person without desire for knowledge of God, but
| instead the desire to justify himself and his view of God."  

	Mark, will you please look at this from a conference wide thing and not
a Glen thing? I have a feeling if you would open your eyes a bit you can do
this. Now, once you have done this, go back and reread my notes.



Glen

    Glen,
       Peace be with you.
    
       If you are interested in learning more about what makes a person
       who believes in the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit so adamit
       about their confession, I encourage you to read the book of Acts
       in the Holy Bible. Though this may appear to be a sales pitch, I
       assure you it is not. It is not my care that you read it or not,
       but it will provide you insight and thought with regard to the
       feelings and trueths you have been witnessing herein.
    
       If you believe that these persons which you confront are "blind and
       closed minded", then I truely encourage you to read about the
       actions and life of Saul, who later took the name Paul.
    
       To get a feel for the fire you are playing with, I invite you to
       start your reading of Acts with chapter 5. In particular, read Acts
       5:17-5:39, pay real close attention to verses 34-39. 
    
       Glen, it is truely my desire to see you at peace. If you do not find
       solace here, then seek it elsewhere. Know also that you can come
       back here anytime you wish to get a perspective on things unlike you
       ever imagined. Further, it is fair to ask, "Where did you learn
       that?", and, "How possibly could that be, when it is so contrary to
       what I see in the world?"  These are legitamate questions which must
       be answered. But to continue questioning the source once identified
       serves no purpose. Either accept it or do not accept it, but do not
       try to MAKE "it" conform to your thinking. That too serves no
       purpose. For their wisdom is not your wisdom, and, your wisdom is not
       their wisdom. - Would you be so dogged discussing philosophy with
       Budda? Or the number of other religions in this world?
    
       Glen, I ask you, what does it gain you to argue with people that
       clearly do not believe the way you do? There has to be gain Glen.
       If you can not state your gain, then I would suggest that you seek
       out those that are like minded, as these people here have saught
       each other out.
    
       Finally, if you are seeking the one true "trueth", I pray that you
       find "it" before it is too late, if that indeed is applicable to
       your current understanding of life. Glen, you have stated that you
       believe in a god. That sounds like a good starting point. Seek your
       god out and "walk" with your god. Be prepared however to hear things
       and to come to understandings which are alien to your current
       understandings and beliefs. If you are interested in learning more
       about the God this conference pontificates, then by all means ask
       questions. Those here would be pleased to share with you that which
       they currently understand. We use as a measuring line the Holy
       Scripture called the Word. It is not to be questioned as to its
       authenticity, for that would be hypocracy to us.
    
       Go in peace,
    	   PDM        

 Re .16


 I encourage anyone who has a question about the Bible, the person of Jesus
 Christ or their own eternal destiny to post those questions here, or send mail
 to a moderator.

 There is a conference, as you know, that does not hold the standard that this
 one does where "anything goes" and the truth of the Bible can be attacked til 
 the attackers are blue in the face, and where there is no concept of sin.  I
 would encourage you to continue your participation there.  FYI, I have discon-
 tinued mine.

 If indeed, you are truely searching for the truth, as I pray you are, then 
 please continue here.  But, as many have said, please remember the yardstick
 by which all entries are measured.



 In His Love


 Jim

================================================================================
Note 152.21   JURAN::SILVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>	Mark, I think I can safely say that I have NEVER said YOU or anyone
>else HAD to accept my or anyone elses views. I do state what I believe to be
>truth, but never do I say that you have to accept them. 

You have said that we SHOULD tolerate other views.  No one's forcing you to
accept the Bible as inerrant, but we are saying that in this conference, it is
the meter for truth.

>	And when you keep the contaminants out, you keep dealing with the real
>world out. Mark, MANY people come into this conference to learn. 

Really?  I have found the opposite to be true, Glen.  People have come in
from the contaminated world to be cleansed of their disease; some to spread 
it, no doubt, but many to be healed by the Truth.

>If teaching is to be done correctly, wouldn't it make more sense to do 
>it the way Jesus does?

You demonstrate two ignorances here: (1) what teaching is, and (2) the way
Jesus taught.

>   You've lost me on this one Mark. Please, if you would, explain this to
>me? 

You accused me of making this personal.  I showed the sequence of events to 
show the accusation was unfounded; you made it personal first.

>While this fact is true, and as I said in one of my notes, by answering the
>notes you should be strengthening your faith along with everyone who reads the
>reply, right? 

It doesn't strengthen my concept of math to answer 2+2=4 to a full class that
is dealing with 4�*(6/.234).  

**As for "everyone" else: do you picture yourself as the person who is asking
**these questions for the benefit of another or for yourself?  If the former,
**then why not let them ask or say you're asking for someone, then stay out of
**the answers if you want a Biblical reply.  if the latter, what purpose do you
**have for asking the same questions?

>I don't come in here for any kind of game. But maybe part of the reasoning for
>the rules is you don't want others who come into this file to learn of other
>ways/beliefs? Just a thought....

Just another thought:  THIS FILE IS FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEARNING [*THE WAY*]
THE WAYS AND BELIEFS OF THE [INERRANT] BIBLICAL PERSPECTIVE.  It mystifies me
why you cannot seem to get through your brain!

Other ways and beliefs are welcome to MEASURE themselves against the premise
for Truth.  OTHER WAYS/BELIEFS DO NOT GET THE VALIDATION OF TRUTH.

Is this clear enough for you?


>| Have you not noticed that certain people get certain responses because of
>| their TRACK RECORD?  Are you asking forgiveness?  Are you looking to repent?
>
>	Nice touch Mark. Again, you are focusing in on one small part when I am
>specifically opening it up to include everyone. Have you started to notice that
>yet? It's not a me thing, it's a conference as a whole thing.

It is a you thing, Glen.  See my words:  It talks of people in the conference,
and it talks about you.  A conference thing/an individual thing.

>	I'm not worried so much about my reception. Just the reception of those
>who may want to say something, to learn in here but are afraid to do so.

TO LEARN WHAT, Glen?  To learn what?  What the BIBLE HAS TO SAY?
That's the premise.  

Mark

| <<< Note 152.19 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| How many times will you refuse to believe that 2+2=4?  It's not a question of
| not understanding the premise, with you, Glen.  It is a question of NOT
| ACCEPTING the premise.  

	Mark, again, you are not listening. This isn't about ME! Take me out of
the equation and include EVERYONE else who may have questions. Now, reread what 
I wrote (I included it right below this).

********************************************************************************

       Then you shouldn't be teaching. Until someone fully understands what is
going on, the teaching should continue. There may be other ways that are needed
to enhance the teaching, but the end result is that until the pupil has
learned, the teaching should continue. Like with religion, teaching shouldn't
be a pick and choose thing.

********************************************************************************

	Now, does it sound any different? One thing that has occured to me by
your words is kind of scary. Please, correct me if I am wrong. But it almost
seems (because you keep mentioning me) like the mods have enacted the rules to 
for me. Again, please correct me if I am wrong. 

| And as for PICK AND CHOOSE, YOU are the one guilty of that, and not the 
| members of this conference.

	In what way?

| Slow learners are different that people who WON'T BE TAUGHT.  You're not slow,
| Glen, however tempted I am by my tongue.

	Again Mark, it seems like the rules are revolving around me and not
everyone of this conference. Take me out of the equation and reread what I
wrote (which again I included the text)

********************************************************************************

       Then you should not be teaching. You won't really know by your methods
whether one is a slow learner, has some sort of problem keeping them from
"getting it" because you are setting up rules on how someone should be taught,
as if everyone is basically the same.

********************************************************************************

| >If you tire and put up rules to make things easier for you then you aren't
| >helping Him at all.

| What kind of claptrap is this?  You have antagonized this conference for
| YEARS, disrupting the "class" with constant "Two plus two does not equal four,
| it equals six."

	Again, the conference does not revolve around JUST me, but around all
of the people who serve God. Is this so hard to see? It is NO claptrap me boy. 

| There it is with the cult like attack/opinion.  You have never noticed how
| people have brought in philsophies that were answered in ways that are not as
| you would have the reader believe?  Or have you?  Would you rather the reader
| think that all philosohpies are shut out of this conference!

	I have seen others talk in here. And I have seen them scorned out of
the file too. Discussion is one thing, what happens in here sometimes is
another.



Glen

>| This is an employee interest notesfile, no more, no less.  

	>Hmmm.... you don't view it as a teaching tool of God?

No I don't, Glen, not exclusively.  People who come get what they need 
from this file.  I, for one, have learned much in the short time I've 
been here.  Others prefer the fellowship of other Christians without 
engaging in semantic banter.  Nothing wrong with that.

>| >Learning from within with no outside influences is the same philosophy
>| >David Koesh used.

>| Get a grip, man.  It's a notes conference, not art imitating life as you
>| would have it.

	>Now I'm confused. Please explain.

We all come from different walks of life and backgrounds.  I daresay 
that no two people here even go to the same church.  We have ex-atheists 
(who me?) and life-long Christians and everyone else in between.  Many 
of us are involved with Bible studies, Sunday school, music 
ministries, etc., outside of this conference and share those varied 
experiences with others here.  In addition, there are a number of 
individuals who disagree with the guidelines of this conference, 
yourself included, who bring their own perspective to what goes on here. 
 What I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of "outside influences" 
in this conference and your continual reference to it being "cultlike" 
is offensive to me.

In addition, why is the inclusion of varied beliefs necessarily better?
There are numerous other conferences that allow anything and everything 
for those who choose to note there.  I have two daughters whom I'm 
trying to raise with "traditional Christian values".  Am I being 
cultlike and isolationist because I don't allow them to watch violent 
movies, read inappropriate materials or use profanity?  Shall I rent R 
rated movies and let them swear to their hearts' content in the interest 
of diversity seeking knowledge.  I think not.



Sandy

| <<< Note 152.22 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>




| But to continue questioning the source once identified
| serves no purpose. Either accept it or do not accept it, but do not
| try to MAKE "it" conform to your thinking. 

	I don't, actually. There have been many in here that say I do this, but
I assure you I don't make it conform to my way of thinking.

| Glen, I ask you, what does it gain you to argue with people that
| clearly do not believe the way you do? 

	It's important to me to see why <insert any name> believes as they do.
Many people have said things that I have not agreed with. I then ask for their
reasoning. I may or may not accept it, but I in no way think they are pulling
my leg, but that they believe this to be the truth as they see it. 

| There has to be gain Glen.

	Understanding of what is being said would have to be the gain in this
case. Remember, understanding what one means or is saying does not = acceptance
of <insert idea>.




Glen

    
    
    Once again Glen, you seem to be painting with a wide brush....
    
    I see statememts like...
    
    "Many people..."
    
    "Afraid...."
    
    "scorned..."
    
    Who are yuo talking about Glen? I realize you've made the statements
    before about receiving mail from all these people....
    
     Like Jim Henderson said awhile back.... 
    
    Have them talk to a moderator. It's kept in the strictest of
    confidentiality. No one except one of us will ever know if any one of
    these individuals wants to ask. If they're afraid of entering the
    conference... for whatever reason, then we'll be glad to post
    questions, queries, statements etc.....
    
      You talk about "scorn"... Do these people leave here because of a
    scornful attitude on our part, or because their view or ideas or
    whatever are not accepted ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORD???
    
     They leave... we don't push them out... God's Word does that very
    nicely by itself, thank you very much....
    
     Do you realize that Jesus the Rabbi (which means 'teacher' btw)
    "scorned" people?? How about thosefine upstanding hypocrites who
    brought Him the woman to be stoned? Jesus scorned them with one simple
    statement...
    
      Back in .21, you stated Jesus never taught with a yardstick.... 
    
    Wrongo!!!!!  What do you think the common denominator was in all His
    teachings???
    
     I'll give you a hint... He came to fulfill the "law"!!!!!!!!!!!
    The way He had written it!!!
    
      Yes, Jesus went to the publicans and the wretched poor, and the
    sinners.... Why????????????  Was it to fellowship with them???? Was it
    to kick back... relax... knock back a few brews in idle banter and
    watch the Yankees on the tube???
    
      He came to teach them about 2+2=4!!!!!!!!
    
    
      Glen, I have a suggestion for you.... (and all those who are afraid
    of this conference)
    
     Go back through the entries.... See how first time visitors are
    treated here.... See how many are scorned.... 
    
     See who leaves and stays.... see you complains.... and why....
    
      
    
    Andy
     

    
    Glen
    
     I think what is trying to be said here is that if you were to take a
    college course on Fluid Dynamics the instructor would hand you a text
    book to learn from. So it is in here, the text book is the inerrant
    Bible.  You cant bring your own text to Fluid Dynamics class, so you
    cant bring your own "book" in here.
    
    Dan

    > It's important to me to see why <insert any name> believes as they do.
    >Many people have said things that I have not agreed with. I then ask
    >for their reasoning. 
    
    Dearest Glen, people have been baited and hooked by your consistent
    circular questioning and answered your questions, perhaps not to your
    satisfactory, but nonetheless answered.
    
    >I may or may not accept it, but I in no way think 
    >they are pulling my leg, but that they believe this to be the truth 
    >as they see it.
    
    Aha, my statement above is true, you recognize you've been answered.
    
    | There has to be gain Glen.
    
    >Understanding of what is being said would have to be the gain
    >in this
    >case. Remember, understanding what one means or is saying does not =
    >acceptance of <insert idea>.
    
    Aha!  Then I'd say you've been answered a trillion times.  Further
    dialogue with you no longer is under the auspice of understanding but
    of bartering folks how don't think like you.
    
    Take it elsewhere Glen, we've answered you enough.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    in this
    case. Remember, understanding what one means or is saying does not =
    acceptance
    of <insert idea>.
    

| <<< Note 152.24 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| You have said that we SHOULD tolerate other views.  

	Mark, not tolerate, but tolerate listening to other's views. There is a
MAJOR difference between the 2. 

| Really?  I have found the opposite to be true, Glen.  People have come in
| from the contaminated world to be cleansed of their disease; some to spread
| it, no doubt, but many to be healed by the Truth.

	Really? Hmmm...... how does one get cleansed when they have to deal
with the arguing that sometimes goes on in here?

| >If teaching is to be done correctly, wouldn't it make more sense to do
| >it the way Jesus does?

| You demonstrate two ignorances here: (1) what teaching is, and (2) the way
| Jesus taught.

	Please explain.

| You accused me of making this personal.  I showed the sequence of events to
| show the accusation was unfounded; you made it personal first.

	Ahhh..... now I understand. Mark, by me asking people to take me out of
the equation was only meant to keep it generalized as I didn't want a topic
about me and my views, but a topic about this conference and it's guidelines.

| **As for "everyone" else: do you picture yourself as the person who is asking
| **these questions for the benefit of another or for yourself?  If the former,
| **then why not let them ask or say you're asking for someone, then stay out of
| **the answers if you want a Biblical reply.  

	Sigh......

| Other ways and beliefs are welcome to MEASURE themselves against the premise
| for Truth.  OTHER WAYS/BELIEFS DO NOT GET THE VALIDATION OF TRUTH.
| Is this clear enough for you?

	Plenty clear. But your rules disregard it. Why would anyone want to ask
questions about what they believe to be the truth when you have already stated
that if one does they will be labeled an antagonist? Kind of contradictory
don't ya think?

| It is a you thing, Glen.  See my words:  It talks of people in the conference,
| and it talks about you.  A conference thing/an individual thing.

	Mark, it really seems to be just a me thang (with you anyway)



Glen

 ENOUGH ALREADY!








 Jim

| <<< Note 152.26 by RIPPLE::BRUSO_SA "Horn players have more brass" >>>



| >| This is an employee interest notesfile, no more, no less.

| >Hmmm.... you don't view it as a teaching tool of God?

| No I don't, Glen, not exclusively.  

	If you think it at all then it doesn't fall under the no more no less
catagory, does it? I agree that the sole purpose isn't teaching. If it were
then things like chit chat wouldn't exist. But if you view it from another
angle you would see that so much of this file is teaching. You can learn from
almost (if not every) topic in some way or another. In the prayer request topic
one is learning how the conference as a whole are pulling together calling
Jesus to help with any given problem. In the praise topic people see how people
praise Jesus for what He has done for them, shown to them, regardless of how
large or small the thing was. Then there are those topics that come right out 
and teach specifically. So regardless of whether you view this as a teaching
conference, it is. Maybe not in the sense of a teacher saying this, that, but
by the actions of this conference, whether good or bad, teaches people every
single day. Can you see this?

| We all come from different walks of life and backgrounds.  I daresay
| that no two people here even go to the same church.  We have ex-atheists
| (who me?) and life-long Christians and everyone else in between.  Many
| of us are involved with Bible studies, Sunday school, music
| ministries, etc., outside of this conference and share those varied
| experiences with others here.  In addition, there are a number of
| individuals who disagree with the guidelines of this conference,
| yourself included, who bring their own perspective to what goes on here.
| What I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of "outside influences"
| in this conference and your continual reference to it being "cultlike"
| is offensive to me.

	I think I understand what you are saying. I was basing my insinuation
on the rules of this conference. 



Glen

| <<< Note 152.28 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Swear: Make your ignorance audible" >>>



	Hi Andy!

| Once again Glen, you seem to be painting with a wide brush....

| I see statememts like... "Many people..." "Afraid...." "scorned..."

	Andy, by stating many people it does not include the conference as a
whole. Would you agree that these things have happened in the past? 

| Who are yuo talking about Glen? I realize you've made the statements
| before about receiving mail from all these people....

	Go back and reread all the former incarnations of this conference Andy.
I don't have the time to do that.

| You talk about "scorn"... Do these people leave here because of a
| scornful attitude on our part, or because their view or ideas or
| whatever are not accepted ACCORDING TO GOD'S WORD???

	Based more on how they are treated in this file. Andy, are you not
willing to admit that there have been many a time when people have been
sarcastic or sharp with their tongue towards others?

| They leave... we don't push them out... God's Word does that very
| nicely by itself, thank you very much....

	Actually, it's the human words that seem to do that.

| Back in .21, you stated Jesus never taught with a yardstick....

| Wrongo!!!!!  What do you think the common denominator was in all His
| teachings???

	Now you lost me on this one Andy. When did I ever mention a yardstick?

| Yes, Jesus went to the publicans and the wretched poor, and the
| sinners.... Why????????????  Was it to fellowship with them???? Was it
| to kick back... relax... knock back a few brews in idle banter and
| watch the Yankees on the tube???

	The Yankees were around way back then!!!??? 

| Go back through the entries.... See how first time visitors are
| treated here.... See how many are scorned....

	No one in this conference gets scorned..... until they say one thing
that another person doesn't agree with. BUT, it is the same with most
conferences, so on a human view you're in line. On a Jesus view, I'm not so
sure.....



Glen

| <<< Note 152.30 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| Dearest Glen, people have been baited and hooked by your consistent
| circular questioning and answered your questions, perhaps not to your
| satisfactory, but nonetheless answered.

	Nancy, again, it's the old leper in the head thing. I don't bait and
hook. Plain and simple. Please remember that.

| Aha, my statement above is true, you recognize you've been answered.

	If there is a response then I have been answered. But agreeing with an
answer is another thing.

| Aha!  Then I'd say you've been answered a trillion times.  Further
| dialogue with you no longer is under the auspice of understanding but
| of bartering folks how don't think like you.

	You're not making any sense here Nancy.




Glen

================================================================================
Note 152.25    JURAN::SILVA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>Mark, again, you are not listening. 

I got about a hundred (exaggeration) witnesses to the contrary, Glen.

>Please, correct me if I am wrong. But it almost seems (because you keep
>mentioning me) like the mods have enacted the rules to  for me. Again, please
>correct me if I am wrong. 

You are WRONG.  Don't be so vain as to think they were drafted just for you.
However, you certainly FIT, don't you?  Let's take you out of it and look at
the rules.  Then, we can put you back in and see where it applies.  Now, we've
learned the idea of principle and specific application. You are an instance
that fits the principles of opposing the premise.  Any questions?

>| And as for PICK AND CHOOSE, YOU are the one guilty of that, and not the 
>| members of this conference.
>
>	In what way?

By picking and choosing "whatever works for you" and not what God says through 
the Bible.  No person is the meter, not you not me.  Didn't I write that
already today?  God DEFINES.  

Again, here comes the principle/instance thing.  If any INSTANCE of what I say
FITS with what GOD SAYS, then I am aligned with God on that Truth.  It doesn't
make it MY truth.  I have only accepted GOD's TRUTH.  

What is God's Truth?  How can we know?  In this conference: THE BIBLE.
Is this so difficult to understand, Glen?

>	Again, the conference does not revolve around JUST me, but around all
>of the people who serve God. Is this so hard to see? It is NO claptrap me boy. 

Then stop being so SELF-FOCUSED.  I am speaking directly to YOU, Glen
but in no way is that meant to convey that rules, etc. are defined and designed
with YOU as its intended target!  How pompous!   But, if the shoe fits
(meaning that if you fall in the antagonism defintion, you are a specific
instance of the definition.
================================================================================
Note 152.31  JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| You have said that we SHOULD tolerate other views.  
>
>	Mark, not tolerate, but tolerate listening to other's views. There is a
>MAJOR difference between the 2. 

You cannot MAKE a person "tolerate" other views.  One can only preach it. You
admit to preaching it, contrary to the premise of this conference. To be clear
to the reader, by other views, this means views contrary to an inerrant Bible.

>| Really?  I have found the opposite to be true, Glen.  People have come in
>| from the contaminated world to be cleansed of their disease; some to spread
>| it, no doubt, but many to be healed by the Truth.
>
>	Really? Hmmm...... how does one get cleansed when they have to deal
>with the arguing that sometimes goes on in here?

Are YOU looking to be cleansed?  Or are you looking to spread disease?
If the latter, then as a health care worker in this hospital, I would ask you
to leave.  If the former, then you need to submit to the Great Physician.


>| >If teaching is to be done correctly, wouldn't it make more sense to do
>| >it the way Jesus does?
>
>| You demonstrate two ignorances here: (1) what teaching is, and (2) the way
>| Jesus taught.
>
>	Please explain.

You do not demonstrate a knowledge of teaching.  You do not demonstrate a
knowledge of Jesus or how or what he really taught.  To go beyond these
explanations without a foundational agreement on the basis (God's Word)
is an exercise in futility and would make this already longer than need be.

>| **As for "everyone" else: do you picture yourself as the person who is asking
>| **these questions for the benefit of another or for yourself?  If the former,
>| **then why not let them ask or say you're asking for someone, then stay out of
>| **the answers if you want a Biblical reply.  
>
>	Sigh......

Why wouldn't you answer these questions, Glen?

>| Other ways and beliefs are welcome to MEASURE themselves against the premise
>| for Truth.  OTHER WAYS/BELIEFS DO NOT GET THE VALIDATION OF TRUTH.
>| Is this clear enough for you?
>
>	Plenty clear. But your rules disregard it. Why would anyone want to ask
>questions about what they believe to be the truth when you have already stated
>that if one does they will be labeled an antagonist? Kind of contradictory
>don't ya think?

Asking questions and preaching heresy is a "MAJOR difference between the 2."
Not contradictory at all.  It seems that you are the only one, besides those
who "send you mail" who find this difficult to understand.

>| It is a you thing, Glen.  See my words:  It talks of people in the conference,
>| and it talks about you.  A conference thing/an individual thing.
>
>	Mark, it really seems to be just a me thang (with you anyway)

It would, because we're addressing each other, aren't we?  Sheeesh.

Mark

===============================================================================
Note 152.34     JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>| They leave... we don't push them out... God's Word does that very
>| nicely by itself, thank you very much....
>
>       Actually, it's the human words that seem to do that.

Coming from a person who believe the Bible to be human words, I
see no difference in your statements.

>| Yes, Jesus went to the publicans and the wretched poor, and the
>| sinners.... Why????????????  Was it to fellowship with them???? Was it
>| to kick back... relax... knock back a few brews in idle banter and
>| watch the Yankees on the tube???
>
>       The Yankees were around way back then!!!???

Avoidance of the facts by use of [attempted] humor.  Characteristic defelction
technique.

>| Go back through the entries.... See how first time visitors are
>| treated here.... See how many are scorned....
>
>       No one in this conference gets scorned..... until they say one thing
>that another person doesn't agree with. BUT, it is the same with most
>conferences, so on a human view you're in line. On a Jesus view, I'm not so
>sure.....

God's Word is not to be compromized - even if and when it offends someone.
Jesus knew all about BEING AN OFFENSE to people.  You really ought to get to
know Him before making statements about Him.

================================================================================
Note 152.35  JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Dearest Glen, people have been baited and hooked by your consistent
>| circular questioning and answered your questions, perhaps not to your
>| satisfactory, but nonetheless answered.
>
>       Nancy, again, it's the old leper in the head thing. I don't bait and
>hook. Plain and simple. Please remember that.

What is plain and simple is that YOU SAY you don't.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now, please.  You must have missed this question.  You said that people want to
come in here to learn.


      L e a r n    w h a t ,   G l e n ???

    [deep sigh] Glen,
    
    Let me make it clear for you.
    
    No matter what question you ask in here, to gain 
    
    a. understanding of the answer
    b. understanding of the point of view of the answer
    
    it will be continually addressed by the inerrant word of God which you
    consistently state is in err.  CIRCLES CIRCLES CIRCLES
    
    Then you ask *why* do you believe that way, and we state, "Because
    God's word says so." 
    
    And then you say, but, but, but God's word isn't inerrant.
    
    CIRCLE CIRCLE CIRCLE
    
    You know my son is very inquisitive and there came a time when after
    about the zillionth question, when he'd ask me, "Why [insert whatever]" 
    I'd state, "Because the sky is blue." :-)
    
    Glen, "Because the sky is blue." :-) :-)
    
    With love and no animosity,
    but tired of the circles,
    Nancy

    
    Glen,
    
      Yes, you're absolutely correct. There was a time (way back even
    before _V1) that I came into the notes file with a chip on my shoulder
    and very very confrontational. That was the "human" side of ME...
    
      It didn't change God's Word one bit, nor how I SHOULD have
    approached it and the members of this conference. Red Herrings do not
    change the Word of God.
    
      Could you answer something for me Glen???/
    
    
      Those "people" you keep speaking about.... What do they come into the
    conference to learn... or try to learn...????
    
    
    
     Andy
    

    Glen,
    
      Peace be with you.
    
      Glen, when I feel insulted or convicted, I usually try my best to
      prove the other person malicious or wrong. Seldom will I take what
      is said, and allow it to pass leaving me totally unaffected. However,
      my God saw fit to provide me with a wonderful woman that has taught
      me that I do not need to take a difference of opinion as a personal
      attack. In fact, she has been trying to teach me that the motivation
      of a statement is usually more important than what is said. In here,
      the motivation is the sharing of the Word of God. Pure and simple.
    
    
      Glen, misunderstandings come when a listener lacks the premise of a
      statement or conclusion. The premise is that which a person has in
      their mind as the motive and direction of their statements. If we
      could each lay on a table our motives and goals, then many
      misunderstandings could be avoided.  Perhaps Glen, the motive or
      goal of your statements are not clear. I think the motive and goal
      the "others" repsonding is clear, - theirs is the belief in God the
      Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit and the inerrancy of
      the Word. Would you care to share your motives Glen?
    
    
      Glen, you do not have to defend your beliefs to anyone, they are
      yours.  So likewise, when someone states something you disagree with,
      they need not defend themself. IF, they see fit to share their belief
      then it is best to recognize that and not attack it. To attack it
      is to attack the person, and I am certain, from what you have been
      saying about yourself,that that is not your intent. Take what is
      given and you decide what to do with it. But keep that to yourself.
      Or, share how it makes you "feel."
    
      All too often "we" (me too) try to talk to others with logic and
      truth. Now I am not saying that this is entirely bad, but it must
      also be balanced. We must also talk to others about our feelings.
      Our Lord told a Sarmaritan women at a well that God must be
      worshipped in SPIRIT and in TRUETH. The spirit is feeling and the
      trueth is the Word. Anything else would be too much of one and
      not enough of the other. This ties in closely with what the book
      of James is taking about "faith and works". These are thoughts from
      our Bible Glen. We believe them to be trustworthy and true. We base
      our very soul on it. I for one would be pleased to share this to any
      that will hear. - But it is not my place to ram it down anyones
      throat. If someone rejects what I say,... (because of God and my wife
      who He sent me),.. I now know it is ok if they reject me, because in
      fact they are not really rejecting me, but the one who taught me, and
      not really the one who taught me, but the ONE who sent Him to teach
      me. So infact, I am not being insulted but God is, and I know He can
      deal with it better than I.
    
    
      In Christ,
        PDM 
                                                         

To Glen or anyone else who questions the content of this conference:

As has been pointed out, this is an employee's interest note file.  The
interest here is in communicating with others who have realized the
fact that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.  We have this premise
in the same way that other conferences have theirs.  The History 
conference is predicated on a division of history by date, and if you
put in a question or comment based on an earlier date, the only reply
will be to refer you to the Antiquities conference.  If you ask about
the server portion of PATHWORKS in the version 5 conference, you will
only be sent to another conference.  Other examples are many.

We have good reason for wanting a conference of just this type.  If
you come here to learn, you are silly to expect to be taught anything
other than the inerrancy of the Bible.  We do not try to accomplish
everything here; there are many other avenues for other things we wish
to accomplish.

To question the premise or direction of the conference is to question
the right of the group to have such a conference.  There are clearly
a number of us who wish a conference with just this premise.  We have
to defend ourselves and want to teach others in any number of other
forums.  We also wish this place where we can meet within ourselves.
This does not mean that outsiders cannot learn here.  The ways for
others to learn here are obvious to us, and do not warrent further
discussion.  There are also times in which we do not intend that
outsiders could have the right experience to learn from a specific
discussion (Mark's discussion of sanctification was meaningful to me
since I am on the other side, but is without context in the absence
of our premise).  We make no apologies for this; this conference is,
by definition, our place to have those discussions.

I do not believe anything else needs to be said on this topic.

Lew

    My thoughts on this matter.
    
    I am mainly a read only noter.  I enjoy reading this conference because
    it allows me to learn from  people who have read much more about
    scriptures than myself.  I have asked a couple of specific questions,
    and found the responses excellant, especially when specific scripture
    is quoted.  My problem in the past has been I listen to much to peoples
    opinions and didn't go back to the absolute benchmark of truth:  The
    BIBLE.  This conference has been established with this premise in mind.
    
    Glen, I mean no disrespect here but your notes do not accept this basic
    premise.  I personnally find your imput derails the discussion on
    most occasions, and that detracts from the conference.  I wish you
    would stop this.
    
    Doug

First things first.  Glen, you keep trying to portray that Jesus would never
offend people as some people have taken offense at this file.  You usually 
phrase this in terms of a question, like "Would Jesus do this?"

Are you really asking, Glen?  If so, there's an answer, and it's an answer that
you don't have to believe that the Bible is innerrant to accept:  Yes, Jesus
most certainly would offend people by speaking the truth.  ****He offended them 
so much that they beat him, stripped him, spat on him, crushed thorns into his 
head, and then nailed him to a tree and left him there to die!!!****  

Let us not forget that the author and founder of our faith was SUPREMELY 
offensive to those who loved darkness rather than light, to the point that he
was killed because people just could not stand the offense any longer.  Your 
continued subtle pressure to imply that Jesus would never cause offense is just 
flat-out wrong, Glen, from any perspective.

The truth is offensive to many people.  It always has been, and it always will
be.  I've agreed before that in this file we sometimes add our own offense to
that of the truth, and I'd like to see that lessen, but the fact remains that if
we are truly seeking to follow Jesus, we should not be afraid of causing offense
by holding to the truth.  He certainly did not.  In fact we should expect that
the truth will cause offense among those who do not wish to hear it.  I took
offense at this file for years.  Was the file offensive, or did I wish to take
offense?

On to other points:

You seem to have completely missed my point in the class example.  The example
was merely intended to show that *all* knowledge and *all* learning beyond the
most simple concepts learned as an infant, is based on prior accepted knowledge.
Nearly all college courses beyond the first year have prerequisites: a knowledge
base that is assumed for participation in the class.  You can't go into a 
college course on calculus and accuse them of being "closed-minded" and 
"isolationist", as you are doing here, because they don't want to spend class 
time explaining basic algebra.  You would never think to use their reluctance to
teach algebra in their calculus class as a basis to claim "They shouldn't be 
teaching," as you repeatedly did here.

Now you do raise a valid point: what is the premise of this conference?  Is it
to teach whatever beginners to the faith come along, or is it for fellowship
among those who already adhere to the faith, or some of both?  I believe it's
both, and I think you do to.  But we differ in how those two different charters
are to be combined.

Continuing the classroom analogy, it seems that you take it to be one big
classroom, where all concepts are discussed together.  The problem with that is
that the class has great difficulty proceeding with a discussion on calculus,
because people keep interrupting to ask algebra questions.  And not just to ask
questions about algebra, but to try to present an entirely different concept of
math.

I view the conference as more of a campus, with different classes on different
subjects.  If you ask a question on algebra in the calculus class, you are
referred to the algebra class.  In that class, you can raise whatever questions
about algebra you want, including whether the concept of algebra is faulty.  
This conference has the "innerrancy of the Bible" topic, which is the equivalent
of the algebra class.  If you want to ask questions about why the Bible is 
believed, that's the place for it.  But in the other topics, acceptance of 
Scripture is assumed.  What is so bad about this?

We're not trying to "walk away from [challenges to scripture] because we are 
tired."  I don't believe that anyone here has said you can't continue to 
question the innerrancy of the Bible.  At least I wouldn't say that.  But you 
*are* being asked to not raise that question in every topic.  We are trying to 
*contain* it to one place, so that other discussions can continue unmolested,
based on that basic common premise.

.11>| To be "open minded" today
.11>| seems to mean that one must always remain "open" to the challenge of the 
.11>| most elementary truth.  
.11>
.11>	Elementry to YOU maybe. But to someone else, maybe not. Is this so hard
.11> to understand?

No, it's not hard to understand at all.  I certainly recognize that not all
truths are known by all people.  But what is happening here is this:  I learn 
something.  I encounter a fact, and I test it to see if it is true.  I examine
many challenges to that fact.  After examining the challenges, I determine that
to the best of my ability to know it, the fact is true, so I continue to use
that fact and to base further learning upon it.  As I learn more things, the
truth of that fact is confirmed and reconfirmed.  If I learn something new that
seems to contradict that fact, I may go back and reexamine my evaluation, but in
the meantime I accept it as true.

Now suppose someone comes along and raises a "challenge" to that fact, but it is
one of the challenges that I have already fully examined and determined is not
a valid disproof.  But just to be sure, I reopen my evaluation and check it
again.  My original determination holds.  Someone else comes along, and raises
the same challenge again.  I check it over again, nothing has changed.  This
happens over and over and over.  Eventually, I say "I'm not reexamining that
right now.  I've heard this challenge, and found it to have no weight.  Until I
hear some *new* evidence, I'm not going to reopen this question in response to
this challenge any more."  Is this being closed-minded?  Does being open-minded 
mean that we are to be at the mercy of anyone who comes along with the same 
challenge again and again, forever doomed to open and reopen and reopen the same
questions over and over and over again, never going anywhere because there is
always another person to raise the same questions again, and we are never left
alone to build upon that which we have learned?

Actually, I think that's a pretty good definition of the actual result of the
type of open-mindedness that is advocated by many people in our culture today, 
and I want no part of it.  If that's what open-minded means, then I'll gladly 
accept the label closed-minded.  But I disagree fundamentally with that basic
definition of open and closed mindedness.  It would be closed-minded to refuse
to consider *new* evidence.  It is not closed-minded to refuse to consider for
the 21st time the same evidence that you have examined and rejected 20 times
before.  Yet you seem to equate *any* refusal to consider a viewpoint as closed-
minded, regardless of how many times it has been considered before.

Also, aren't you being closed-minded in your refusal to consider the possibility
that the Bible is perfect?  Isn't it because you've heard the arguments before,
and have decided that they don't make sense?  Do you really, honestly, re-open
the question in your mind of the Bible's perfection whenever you enter one of
the debates on that subject?  Or are you in the discussion trying to show why
what you believe is the truth? 

.21>But maybe
.21>part of the reasoning for the rules is you don't want others who come into 
.21>this file to learn of other ways/beliefs? Just a thought.....

This has already been addressed, but I need to address it too.  No, this file is
not here to learn of other ways/beliefs.  There are plenty of places to do that.
This file is here to learn about one particular way/belief.  You can come here
and learn about it if you wish.  Why is this bad?  I wouldn't go to the FLYING
notesfile to learn about fish.  The assertion I made before, that CHRISTIAN is
pretty much unique in the amount of harrassment it receives over its basic
premise, still holds.

You keep saying that the adherence to one view is not like Jesus.  But I thought
of another thing that makes this conference significantly different than Jesus
teaching a group of people.  If Jesus went somewhere, there was no confusion
as to who was Jesus and who was someone else.  If Jesus and another person were
in disagreement, everyone knew which of the two was Jesus, and which viewpoint
was Jesus' viewpoint.  There was no ambiguity as to where Jesus stood.

In a notesfile, it is different.  Notes are notes, they all come from people.
I haven't seen a note here from HEAVEN::J_CHRIST here yet :-)  If there is no
standard to measure the notes against, then this file would just degenerate into
a slightly religious equivalent of SOAPBOX.  Any and all views would be
equivalent.  That's not what the people who note here want.  I really don't
understand, Glen, what is so horrible about a group of people who believe the
Bible is perfect wanting to talk about that, and inviting other people to join
in the discussion if they wish.  Even when I was one of the people who took 
offense at this file, I recognized that it was fine for people to gather in this
way.

Lastly.

Have you ever felt, Glen, that people here don't really listen to what you say,
but just see your name at the top of the note and poise themselves to disprove
whatever you've said, never even considering that there might be any truth in 
it?  Because honestly, Glen, that is how most of your notes seem from this side.
If your first reaction is "That's not true about me at all," then can you accept
that it's not true about us either?

Paul

 

            re: <<< Note 152.25 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

     Glen,

     This may well be the last opportunity I have to communicate iwth with
     you for a long time, perhaps for eternity. I would beg you to hear me
     out and not dismiss what I have to say out of hand before you read it.

     Over the course of the past two months, events in my life which I can
     not and will not discuss with you have enabled me to truly empathise
     with your emotional and spiritual condition more than anyone else (to
     my knowledge) who is currently or has ever participated in this
     conference. Even if you were to someday discover that you were HIV+, I
     could still make this statement in absolute honesty and candor.
     Unfortunately, I can not prove or validate this for you. Nevertheless,
     there are a few others here who could testify to the absolute truth of
     what I say.

     Glen, I love you and hurt with you so much, but I realize that you can
     not really appreciate that fact just now. Even so, please accept the
     statement at face value, and please weigh it as heavily as you can as
     you read what follows. 

     > Again, the conference does not revolve around JUST me,... 

     This is really true, Glen. In fact, it does not revolve around YOU (or
     me, for that matter) *AT ALL*. It revolves around Messiah Yeshua and
     His revealed Word, the 66 Books of the Bible. Fact. Plain and Simple. 

     > ...but around all of the people who serve God. 

     This is in accurate, Glen, but I truly believe that you see it that
     way. As such, you are seeking G_d on that basis. You will never find
     Him that way - you're simply searching in the wrong place.

     You should also not that one who serves G_d can only be one who is
     totally submitted to His revealed will. One can not *possibly* serve
     someone (or Someone) against whom one stands in rebellious unbelief. 

     > Is this so hard to see? 

     Yes it is, because you're looking in all the wrong places. You will
     never find security (unconditional love, permanent acceptance) in
     people, even Christians, no matter *how* spiritual the are. Because we
     are still fallible humans, even if indwelt by G_d's Holy Sprit, we will
     fail your need for unconditional acceptance. Frankly, it is unfair to
     expect that we should be otherwise - you are just as fallible as we
     are. Your unmet but real need for acceptance can *only* be filled by
     the agap� love of Father G_d being realized in your life.

     The Father heart of G_d reaches out to you, *yearning* for you to
     receive the unconditional love being offered. This love can only be
     appropriated through the recognition of the substitutionary, propitiary
     and sufficient sacrifice of Messiah Yeshua on the cross as applying to
     yourself. Upon that appropriation, the act of faith required is simply
     to turn around from your striving to become acceptable to Father G_d
     (and hence to the others around you), and lean back in His loving arms,
     trusting completely and solely on His provisions for your life. 

     Glen, as I'm sure that you've previously conjectured (if not concluded)
     with this acceptability comes accountability. 

     Accountability without acceptability produces a striving to behave
     properly in order that you might somehow be accepted by the Father
     (and, by extension, His servants), yielding frustration and insecurity.
     I believe firmly that this is how you perceive your interaction with
     the members of this conference. 

     Conversely, acceptability without accountability produces a hardening
     of the heart toward the leading of the Holy Spirit and His Word,
     yielding a casual attitude toward sin and conscience. This, I believe,
     is how the members of this conference perceive you. 

     However, acceptability followed by accountability produces a peaceful
     and agap� loving heart, yielding a strong desire to so the revealed
     will of the Father, lest you grieve the One who died for you, because
     you love Him.

     Glen, I pray most sincerely that you allow the Holy Spirt minister the
     truth of these words to your heart, for they are very life to you. They
     are an expression, inasmuch as I am able to facilitate it, of the agap�
     love of the Father to you. Whether you can accept them as such or not,
     they are the prophetic word of the Holy Spirit to you, and you own
     them. Even if I have the opportunity to log in again, I will not
     dispute these words with you, and I also beg my brethren to not do so.

     With all the agap� in my heart,

     Brian

| <<< Note 152.45 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>

| You usually phrase this in terms of a question, like "Would Jesus do this?"
| Yes, Jesus most certainly would offend people by speaking the truth.  

	What you have talked about above has nothing to do with what I am
talking about. I am talking of many things. One is some of the comments that do
go on in here (in a lot of topics), the boundries that get put up to make
things easier, things like that. Nothing about what you call the truth of the
Bible. Just comparing human nature to God's nature. Would He put up barriers,
things like that. Can you see where I am coming from?

| Your continued subtle pressure to imply that Jesus would never cause offense 
| is just flat-out wrong, Glen, from any perspective.

	That is not what I am implying. 

| I've agreed before that in this file we sometimes add our own offense to
| that of the truth, 

	This is one aspect I am talking about.

| but the fact remains that if we are truly seeking to follow Jesus, we should 
| not be afraid of causing offense by holding to the truth.  

	I agree wholeheartedly. But why the barriers then?

| Now you do raise a valid point: what is the premise of this conference?  Is it
| to teach whatever beginners to the faith come along, or is it for fellowship
| among those who already adhere to the faith, or some of both?  I believe it's
| both, and I think you do to.  

	Actually, I seriously don't know. With the bantering that goes on in
many topics what is actually being taught?

| This conference has the "innerrancy of the Bible" topic, which is the equivalent
| of the algebra class.  If you want to ask questions about why the Bible is
| believed, that's the place for it.  But in the other topics, acceptance of
| Scripture is assumed.  What is so bad about this?

	When asking questions in that topic people are also reminded about the
premise. So you can't ask algebra questions in that topic unless algebra is
believed to be algebra. So I guess that kind of blows your theory.

| I don't believe that anyone here has said you can't continue to 
| question the innerrancy of the Bible.  

	Guess again.....

| Does being open-minded mean that we are to be at the mercy of anyone who comes
| along with the same challenge again and again, forever doomed to open and 
| reopen and reopen the same questions over and over and over again, never going
| anywhere because there is always another person to raise the same questions 
| again, and we are never left alone to build upon that which we have learned?

	Do what Mark does. Use specific pointers. This way if the answer isn't
given to the question from the past, then it can be answered in the present.
Make sense? BTW, would Jesus ever NOT answer the question no matter how many
times it was asked?

| Yet you seem to equate *any* refusal to consider a viewpoint as closed-
| minded, regardless of how many times it has been considered before.

	Please show me where I have done this please.

| Also, aren't you being closed-minded in your refusal to consider the possibility
| that the Bible is perfect?  

	The proof that has been given me to show the Bible is inerrant is based
on 0 fact. Things like, "Well even if the events were written to happen 2
different ways it does not mean the Bible is flawed", or "Even if Paul used his
own opinion, it is in line with Scripture and it doesn't disprove any other
part of the Bible" just don't show me any real proof that it is perfect. Show
me real honest to goodness proof and you have something.

| Have you ever felt, Glen, that people here don't really listen to what you say,
| but just see your name at the top of the note and poise themselves to disprove
| whatever you've said, never even considering that there might be any truth in
| it?  

	I can see that by their replies. If that's what they wish to do, then
that's their business. I can't control what they do, how they react. It does
show they may not be really reading the note or reading the note with some sort
of agenda thing behind it. Funny, I've heard that one before somewhere....




Glen

| <<< Note 152.46 by GUCCI::BPHANEUF "On your knees! Fight like a man!" >>>


| Yes it is, because you're looking in all the wrong places. You will
| never find security (unconditional love, permanent acceptance) in
| people, even Christians, no matter *how* spiritual the are. 

	Agreed Brian. I don't look for PEOPLE, regardless of who they are for
unconditional love or permanant acceptance. ONLY God can give me that. He has
and will continue to do so for eternity.

| Because we are still fallible humans, even if indwelt by G_d's Holy Sprit, 
| we will fail your need for unconditional acceptance. 

	I couldn't agree with you more Brian.

| Frankly, it is unfair to expect that we should be otherwise - you are just 
| as fallible as we are. 

	Brian, if you are thinking I am looking for unconditional love and
acceptance from the people of this file, you're wrong. As long as I continue to
be accepted by God (which I can't see that ever changing :-) then that's all I
need.

| Your unmet but real need for acceptance can *only* be filled by
| the agap� love of Father G_d being realized in your life.

	That was done in 1983 Brian. 10 years ago this past March.

| Accountability without acceptability produces a striving to behave
| properly in order that you might somehow be accepted by the Father
| (and, by extension, His servants), yielding frustration and insecurity.

	Brian, I understand what you are writing here, really.

| I believe firmly that this is how you perceive your interaction with
| the members of this conference.

	I don't agree with what you wrote here though. I don't know if you're
still with DEC, but if you are understand something. Acceptance from the people
of this conference is not something I am after. It is not something that is
needed. Acceptance from God is all I need. Seeing I have that my life is full
of joy and happiness. It's when yurning (sp?) for human things, that's when one
can feel unhappy. 

| Conversely, acceptability without accountability produces a hardening
| of the heart toward the leading of the Holy Spirit and His Word,
| yielding a casual attitude toward sin and conscience. This, I believe,
| is how the members of this conference perceive you.

	Then they are wrong. They can perceive all they want, but if this is
what they believe then they are not correct. If they don't want to believe this,
then that is their problem. I know God does and that is all that really
matters.



Glen

>part of the Bible" just don't show me any real proof that it is perfect. Show
>me real honest to goodness proof and you have something.

 What kind of proof would you like, Glen?  How about the millions of transformed
 lives over the last 2000 years?  How about the transformed lives of people 
 right here in this conference, this writer included?  Everyone of us living in
 darkness, each of us convinced that we weren't sinners..society told us 
 we were OK and no way would God not allow us into heaven.  Until the Word of
 God, JUST AS IT PROMISED, convicted us of our sin.  And just as the word of
 God PROMISED, our lives were transformed.  And I could, as could every Bible
 believing Christian in this conference and known universe relate to you one
 by one how God's promises as related in the Bible have come to fruition in
 our lives.


 Proof?  I believe, sir, that the burden of proof is on you.



 Jim

>unconditional love or permanant acceptance. ONLY God can give me that. He has
>and will continue to do so for eternity.


 Prove it.




>be accepted by God (which I can't see that ever changing :-) then that's all I
>need.

 Prove it.




>then that is their problem. I know God does and that is all that really
>matters.




 Prove it.




Jim

| <<< Note 152.49 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| What kind of proof would you like, Glen?  How about the millions of transformed
| lives over the last 2000 years?  How about the transformed lives of people
| right here in this conference, this writer included?  

	What you have shown is that the Bible has been used to transform/save
people. This I already know and accept. God can and does use any means He can
to try and save everyone. What you have not done is prove the Bible to be
perfect.

| Proof?  I believe, sir, that the burden of proof is on you.

	Not really......



Glen

| <<< Note 152.50 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| >unconditional love or permanant acceptance. ONLY God can give me that. He has
| >and will continue to do so for eternity.

| Prove it.


	Because of what He has done for me just by letting me enter into His
life.


| >be accepted by God (which I can't see that ever changing :-) then that's all I
| >need.

| Prove it.



	By the help I have received, the way He has used me to help others
shows me that. 




| >then that is their problem. I know God does and that is all that really
| >matters.


| Prove it.


	Can you include more text on this one? I'm not sure what you are
refering to.



Glen

Glen .47
>BTW, would Jesus ever NOT answer the question no matter how many
>times it was asked?

I wish I more time to `answer' more stuff but I will take the time 
to tell you the answer to this:

Matthew 26
 59  Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false
witness against Jesus, to put him to death;
 60  But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they
none. At the last came two false witnesses,
 61  And said, This fellow said, I am able to destroy the temple of God, and
to build it in three days.
 62  And the high priest arose, and said unto him, Answerest thou nothing?
what is it which these witness against thee?
 63  But Jesus held his peace,

Had you remembered your Bible stories, you might have remembered that Jesus
didn't answer the false witnesses against him all the time.  You spout off
a lot about what Jesus would and would not do, but demonstrate a significant
lack of knowledge of Jesus, Himself.

It would do you good to get to know Who Jesus is, before telling people
what He is like.

Mark

| >unconditional love or permanant acceptance. ONLY God can give me that. He has
| >and will continue to do so for eternity.

| Prove it.


    >	Because of what He has done for me just by letting me enter into
    >   His life.

    
    Glen this statement is backwards.  By letting Jesus into our lives
    is how we know him.  Tell me is that what you meant?  

Re: 152.52, Glenn


| >unconditional love or permanant acceptance. ONLY God can give me that. He has
| >and will continue to do so for eternity.

| Prove it.


>>	Because of what He has done for me just by letting me enter into His
>>life.

         No Proof !
    
    
| >be accepted by God (which I can't see that ever changing :-) then that's all I
| >need.

| Prove it.


>>	By the help I have received, the way He has used me to help others
>>    shows me that. 

          No Proof !


| >then that is their problem. I know God does and that is all that really
| >matters.


| Prove it.


>>	Can you include more text on this one? I'm not sure what you are
>> refering to.

    What more text do you need here ? He asked you to prove your
    statement that you know G_d does.        
    
                                          -Jim-
    

               <<< Note 152.47 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
    
    
!	The proof that has been given me to show the Bible is inerrant is based
!on 0 fact. Things like, "Well even if the events were written to happen 2
!different ways it does not mean the Bible is flawed", or "Even if Paul used his
!own opinion, it is in line with Scripture and it doesn't disprove any other
!part of the Bible" just don't show me any real proof that it is perfect. Show
!me real honest to goodness proof and you have something.
    	Glen, for me coming to God was a logical descision too. I
    questioned everything. then one day, I read something in the gospel
    of John. Please allow me to share this with you:
    
    	John 20:22:29  Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the twelve, was
    not with the disciples when Jesus came. 25: So the other disciples told
    him, "We have seen the Lord!"
    	But he said to them, "Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and
    put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I
    will not believe it."
    	26: A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas
    was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood
    amoung them and said, "Peace be with you!" 27:Then he said to Thomas,
    "Put your finger here;see my hands. reach out your hand and put it into
    my side. Stop doubting and believe."
    	28: Thomas said to him, "My Lord and my God!"         <---------
    	29: Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have
    believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."
    
    	You see Glen, understanding for me is not based on logic or rational
    thinking, but on pure faith. Glen, no one is telling you that you must
    believe in God and do what he says, but if you say you do believe in
    God, you will WANT to do what he says. God tells me His Word is
    inerrant, furthermore, he proivdes me guidelines in which to run my
    life. Because I believe, (my Lord and God), I willfully follow His
    decrees, - For His way is the easier way.
    
    Glen, you see, for me it is a matter of choice. I believe God as He
    reveals himself to me through His Word, therefore, I believe what He
    says entirely. My choice is now no longer a ponderous decision, but a
    burden removed.
    
    Glen, believe what you want. Do not believe what you do not. The same
    is true for others though, allow THEM to believe what they want.
    Personally Glen, I would prefer that you believe in the one TRUE GOD,
    and then we could talk more about how our relationship with the one
    true God grows, changes, and matures.
    
    PDM
    

RE: .53



| You spout off a lot about what Jesus would and would not do, but demonstrate 
| a significant lack of knowledge of Jesus, Himself.

	Two things Mark. One I asked a question, not a statement and two, the
source you are using is what you believe the truth to be.

| It would do you good to get to know Who Jesus is, before telling people
| what He is like.

	It would also do good if I had said what you are insinuating.


Glen

| <<< Note 152.54 by SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage - (insert day)" >>>



| You have yet to prove anything.  You have shown the known trouble passages w/in
| the Bible, but have not shown any evidence that they are, in fact, an error.

	Contradiction does not = error?

| You have said that you have seen God work in your life to do some marvelous
| things.  Do you have so little faith that you cannot believe that He could use
| His servants to write down His laws and preserve them perfectly for 4000 years?

	Men have free will. Even today, because of that free will the most
Christ like person can and does make mistakes. 

| I have a few questions in closing - where did you get your idea of who the Lord
| Jesus Christ is?  

	I've answered this many a time, but to save you the trouble of looking
it up in the old versions, here it is.

	The Bible.

| If you got if from the Bible, how can you be sure that what
| you believe is accurate?  

	I can't. I view the Bible to be like a history book. It could be right.
But then again.....

| If you got it from others, how can you believe mere humans?

	I wouldn't be able to.


Glen

| <<< Note 152.55 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| >	Because of what He has done for me just by letting me enter into
| >   His life.


| Glen this statement is backwards.  By letting Jesus into our lives
| is how we know him.  Tell me is that what you meant?

	Nancy, I guess you could view it that way, but I view it that He let me
enter into His life. He showed me the way. Through Him eternity will happen.
But your way works too. :-) I think it's the same results, but looked at from
different angles.


Glen

| <<< Note 152.57 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>





| You see Glen, understanding for me is not based on logic or rational
| thinking, but on pure faith. Glen, no one is telling you that you must
| believe in God and do what he says, but if you say you do believe in
| God, you will WANT to do what he says. 

	Which I do.

| God tells me His Word is inerrant, 

	I know you believe this to be true, but you know my position on this.

| Personally Glen, I would prefer that you believe in the one TRUE GOD,

	I do now Phil. My God (not god) is = to your God (not god).



Glen

>	Contradiction does not = error?


        Gee, we haven't heard this one for at least a week.  Refer to 
        previous discussions for answer.







>	I can't. I view the Bible to be like a history book. It could be right.
>But then again.....

  And you wish to gamble where you will spend eternity on such a statement,
  against the Word of God that has stood for thousands of years, that has 
  withstood trial after trial after trial vs your philosophy that has NO basis
  whatsoever.

  How sad, but you can't claim that no one ever told you.





Jim

               <<< Note 152.61 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
~| You see Glen, understanding for me is not based on logic or rational
~| thinking, but on pure faith. Glen, no one is telling you that you must
~| believe in God and do what he says, but if you say you do believe in
~| God, you will WANT to do what he says. 

~	Which I do.
    Glen, how do you know? From where does your plumb line come?
    
~| Personally Glen, I would prefer that you believe in the one TRUE GOD,

~	I do now Phil. My God (not god) is = to your God (not god).
    Glen, I disagree. My God is the God that has revealed himself in the
    Word along with all that He has specified as being Holy (apart).
    Where do you get your metrics for this statement? Since my God is the
    God that has revealed himself as Holy in the Word, and you do not believe
    in the Word, how is it that you can make this claim?
    
    PDM

    
    

Sigh.  I'll stay in the circle for a bit longer.

>|Have you ever felt, Glen, that people here don't really listen to what you say,
>|but just see your name at the top of the note and poise themselves to disprove
>|whatever you've said, never even considering that there might be any truth in
>|it?  
>
>	I can see that by their replies. If that's what they wish to do, then
>that's their business. I can't control what they do, how they react. It does
>show they may not be really reading the note or reading the note with some sort
>of agenda thing behind it. Funny, I've heard that one before somewhere....

You completely missed my point.  I asked you that question *assuming* that you
would feel that way.  Then I pointed out that to those on the other side of this
discussion, you seem to be operating in precisely the same way that you are 
pointing out is bad.  And from that, I asked if it just might occur to you to
believe that we are not the closed-minded reactionary types that you seem to
think we are, but are people who are operating in exactly the same way you are.

You then confirmed that you did feel that way, but instead of acknowledging any
commonality in the way you are responding with the way other people are 
responding, you simply persisted in your belief that no one is listening to you,
and that you "can see that by their replies," and it "shows they may not be
really reading the note or reading the note with some sort of agenda."  Glen,
people can see precisely the same thing in your replies.  If it doesn't exist
in you, yet people seem to see it, can you not accept that it doesn't exist in
others, even though you seem to see it?


I do remember now that you were asked not to question the innerrancy of the 
Bible in the "innerancy of the Bible" topic.  I agree that you should not be
prevented from questioning it there.  That should the be algebra class.

>| Yet you seem to equate *any* refusal to consider a viewpoint as closed-
>| minded, regardless of how many times it has been considered before.
>
>	Please show me where I have done this please.

Shall I re-post some of your replies to this topic?  You blanketly condemn this
conference as "isolationist," and "cultlike," which as perjorative terms leave 
"closed-minded" in the dust.  You base this condemnation on the desire of the 
people who started this conference to hold discussions based on a truth which 
they have examined, reexamined, and reexamined many a time, and which holds true
for them.  The reasons which they put forth to believe that truth may not make 
any sense to you, but neither do your reasons to *NOT* believe that truth make 
any sense to them.  The issue has been discussed many, many times, and neither 
side has any new evidence to offer.  It is simply a difference of opinion as to 
how the evidence balances.  You have failed to convince them, and they wish to 
continue to hold discussions on the basis of the truth as they see it.  It is 
not as if they have not listened to your arguments, any more than you have not 
listened to theirs.

You ask me to point out where you are condemning people as closed-minded for
refusing to debate again and again about the innerrancy of the Bible?  
Everywhere, Glen.  Every time you bring it up.  Every time you call people 
"isolationist" or "cultlike."  Because the point you want people to keep 
discussing everywhere is a point which has been answered - to their satisfaction
if not to yours - over and over again.  An accusation of closed-mindedness 
against the readers of this file is not one whit more defendable than an 
accusation of closed-mindedness against you.  You haven't been convinced by 
their arguments either.  Does not being convinced equal closed-minded?

I'm not terribly open-minded on the question of whether torture is really a good
thing.  I've examined that issue pretty well, and come to the conclusion that
torture is bad.  If someone were to try to convince me that torture was really
a good thing, in that it was an effective means of obtaining confessions, I
wouldn't really even be much interested in listening to him.  But suppose I 
can't convince him, and he keeps asking.  Would I be being bad and "closed-
minded" and "isolationist" and "cultlike" to say "I'm not listening to your
twisted reasoning any more?"

>Just comparing human nature to God's nature. Would He put up barriers,
>things like that. 

Even if you  only believe that the Bible is a historical account, then it's
clear that yes, God puts up barriers around His people constantly.  When He 
brought His people into the promised land, He had them utterly destroy the 
people that were already there, so that they would not corrupt His people.  The 
Levitical law, when it proscribes death or banishment, repeatedly gives as a 
reason: "Thus shall you purge the evil from among you."  That exact phrase is 
used by Paul to describe how the the Body of Christ should cut off someone who 
persists in sin.  The Risen Christ that appeared to John had quite a bit to say-
none of it good - about His people 'tolerating' evil among them.

So the answer to your question is yes, God would put up barriers around His
people all the time.

Lastly, Glen, you don't have to make the innerrancy of the Bible such a chip on
your shoulder that you thrust in people's face every time they use the Bible as
a justification for their belief.  As I've intimated, I don't believe that the
Bible is innerrant either.  Yet I have not the slightest need to proclaim that
or to make an issue out of it.  In fact, when I accidentally started to get
pulled into a discussion on that side of the issue, I immediately backed off,
partly because I was being misunderstood but partly out of respect for the
standard of this conference.  Why is this so difficult for you to do, Glen?

Paul

================================================================================
Note 152.58 JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>| You spout off a lot about what Jesus would and would not do, but demonstrate
>| a significant lack of knowledge of Jesus, Himself. 
>
>	Two things Mark. One I asked a question, not a statement and two, the 
>source you are using is what you believe the truth to be.

Would you like proof from this notes string to show how foolish your statement
is?  Say the word.  It's all too easy.

    Mark
    
(But congratulations on turning this discussion again on whether the
Bible is inerrant.)  Folks, remember that the discussion is about the
premise of this conference - why we come here.  It's okay to answer
some questions for light, as I have done to one of Glen's
misperceptions about Jesus, but puleease, not the "it's inerrant"
"its not inerrant" stupidity all over again.

    To all that have responded to this note topic [well actually to Glen],
    
    Geez, I wuz gonna write somethin', then as I started to type, I didn't
    know how to say what I was feeling about this particular note.
    
    I think it is accurate to say that everyone who has responded to Glen
    has responded from a place of spiritual concern.
    
    Perhaps, I shouldn't say this, but since I've already started, here
    goes.  The quality and quantity of the heart expressed concern for
    Glen's *K*nowledge has been overwhelming.
    
    I'm wondering if Glen isn't feeling overwhelmed. [Perhaps not because
    he's getting attention]  I mean afterall this whole topic is a
    conversation with Glen.  And I do not mean that as a negative. 
    However, for me, I will not be writing further in here.
    
    Glen, you answered my question and based on your answer, it is apparent
    to me that your concept of God isn't the same as mine.
    
    God Bless,
    Nancy
    

    I forgot.  
    
    Geln you never answered some key defining questions.  You said people
    want to come in here and learn.
    
         T o   L e a r n   W h a t ,   G l e n ?

    Also, you allude to "barriers" being put up in this conference.
    
         B a r r i e r s   t o   w h a t ,  G l e n ?
    
    Got some answers?

In general my feelings are as stated by Nancy in -.1.  However,
this series did explain the situation to me as never before.

Glenn, my experience is that we cannot do what you would seek
from us, and this has naturally led to frustration on both
sides.  There is nothing anyone could have pointed out to me
to "prove the Bible" before I was ready.  There is the outside
chance that God would use one of us as an instrument when the
time came, but it seems quite remote.  I do not think he will
use me, since I tend to be too proud of myself.

If it is to happen, chances are you will be alone when you
fully realize, "My God, this is actually ALL true!"  You seem
to be like me in that this now involves a lot of baggage to
overcome (Imagine, you will at that time have to come to grips
with the further realization that Jerry Falwell, et. al. have
been right about a lot of things!)  This can be achieved by 
God, but not by us until He and you are ready.

Therefore, while I hope to participate more, I hope you will
understand if I pay no attention to your ramblings which I am
all too familiar with from my former life.  I do want to know
when you also change, and I know that it will happen.

Lew

| <<< Note 152.62 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| >	I can't. I view the Bible to be like a history book. It could be right.
| >But then again.....

| And you wish to gamble where you will spend eternity on such a statement,

	It's not a gamble.....

| against the Word of God that has stood for thousands of years, that has
| withstood trial after trial after trial vs your philosophy that has NO basis
| whatsoever.

	Actually, it really hasn't withstood trial after trial. Answers of, "It
hasn't been revealed to us yet" hardly offer ANY proof to refute claims that
people have against it.

| How sad, but you can't claim that no one ever told you.

	How sad, that real answers never come.



Glen

| <<< Note 152.63 by SLBLUZ::DABLER "America Held Hostage - (insert day)" >>>



| No.  For starters, you have not proven that the APPARENT contradictions hold any
| water.  

	What is so hard about the birds and the animals were created first,
then 2 days later man was, but later on (Genisis) man was created first, then
the birds and the animals to keep him company? Two VERY different versions of
what happened. In no way can these two totally different versions be brought
into meaning the same thing. BOTH versions can not be right, so one has to be
wrong. In other words, one contradicts the other. The words speak for
themselves.

| So, what you are saying is that man's free will can thwart the will of the
| Almighty God?  

	Nope. What I am saying is God gave us the free will and we use it.


Glen

| <<< Note 152.64 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



| -< By what reasoning is your god my God? >-

	Maybe my God isn't your god. I seriously doubt it, but believe what you
will.

| Glen, how do you know? From where does your plumb line come?

	From God Himself.



Glen

| <<< Note 152.65 by EVMS::PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for security-lose both" >>>





| Glen, people can see precisely the same thing in your replies.  

	That's just it Paul. They think they can see this. That is precisly why
I wrote it. It's the only way I could spell it out that people would
understand. Do I think they have agenda's? No. I think I can safely say that
before that note I wrote I have never said a word about anyone having an
agenda. It's because they really don't. They believe what they do. Plain and
simple. Yet if I believe as I do then I have an agenda. Can you see why I wrote
what I did? You spelled it out in your note, and what's sad is that it is a
wrong assumtion to have anyone make.

| I do remember now that you were asked not to question the innerrancy of the
| Bible in the "innerancy of the Bible" topic.  I agree that you should not be
| prevented from questioning it there.  That should the be algebra class.

	I always like math..... :-)

| >| Yet you seem to equate *any* refusal to consider a viewpoint as closed-
| >| minded, regardless of how many times it has been considered before.
| >
| >	Please show me where I have done this please.

| Shall I re-post some of your replies to this topic?  You blanketly condemn this
| conference as "isolationist," and "cultlike," 

	Not based on others viewpoints Paul. Based on the rules of the
conference. Isolationist and cultlike are not the words I would ever use to
describe anyone's viewpoints in here.

| You ask me to point out where you are condemning people as closed-minded for
| refusing to debate again and again about the innerrancy of the Bible?
| Everywhere, Glen.  Every time you bring it up.  
                                ^^^

	Again, it has reverted back to me. I'm talking about something
conference wide, something anyone may want to talk about. But, as usual,
it seems to revert back to me. Why?

| Even if you  only believe that the Bible is a historical account, then it's
| clear that yes, God puts up barriers around His people constantly.  When He
| brought His people into the promised land, He had them utterly destroy the
| people that were already there, so that they would not corrupt His people.  

	According to the Bible. Look at the reasons history books give for
events happening only to find out later on down the line that it was actually
another reason that caused such and such to happen. The Veitnam POW's is a good
example of that.

| Lastly, Glen, you don't have to make the innerrancy of the Bible such a chip on
| your shoulder that you thrust in people's face every time they use the Bible as
| a justification for their belief.  

	Actually Paul, I hadn't realized I was doing that. I'll have to be more
careful when I note. 




Glen

| <<< Note 152.66 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| Would you like proof from this notes string to show how foolish your statement
| is?  Say the word.  It's all too easy.

	Go for it Mark. Let's see what you can twist. But please do me a favor.
Please list the note you got it from so I can see the entire text of what was
said. Thanks in advance....



Glen

| <<< Note 152.68 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| T o   L e a r n   W h a t ,   G l e n ?

	It could be anything Mark. Any questions about Jesus, God, Holy Spirit,
questions about different religions, different Bibles, the accuracy of the
Bible, different passages in the Bible, anything. The list is endless. 

	Now, do I think that everyone who comes into this file wants to learn
something everytime they come in? Nope. Does learning happen everytime someone
comes in? Nope. Does learning take place even when someone comes in to just
hang out? I would say yeah, a lot of times it happens. Again, the learning may
come from the praise topic, even from chit chat. It could come from anywhere. 






| B a r r i e r s   t o   w h a t ,  G l e n ?


	B A R R I E R S   t h a t   p r e v e n t   p e o p l e   f r o m

	a s k i n g   q u e s t i o n s   b e c a u s e   t h e y   a r e
	
	a f r a i d   o f   t h e   r e s p o n s e   t h e y   w i l l 

	r e c e i v e   s u c h   a s   t h e i r   i d e a s   b e i n g

	s q e l c h e d ,   d e l e t e d   o r   s e t   h i d d e n .


	I mean, in note 159 (STNG) didn't that person give many of the same
reasons I have given fo his leaving this conference? 




Glen

| <<< Note 152.69 by MIMS::GULICK_L "When the impossible is eliminated..." >>>




| I do not think he will use me, since I tend to be too proud of myself.

	Lew, you're too proud of yourself? Hmmmm......

| Therefore, while I hope to participate more, I hope you will
| understand if I pay no attention to your ramblings which I am
| all too familiar with from my former life.  I do want to know
| when you also change, and I know that it will happen.

	I'm glad you're so sure Lew. 



Glen

>	It could be anything Mark. Any questions about Jesus, God, Holy Spirit,
>questions about different religions, different Bibles, the accuracy of the
>Bible, different passages in the Bible, anything. The list is endless. 


 I'm not Mark, but as I have pointed out previously there is a conference that
 was set up specifically for the purposes you have outlined. And, as has been
 pointed out numerous times, questions here are welcome, but the Bible, the
 inerrant Word of God is the basis for all answers.

 In the other conference you are free to discuss whatever you like as there is
 no standard against which one's beliefs are measured.  



And on that note, I will withdraw from participation in this discussion.  It is
my sincere prayer, Glen, that you will drop the walls that are preventing you
from hearing the truth.





In His love



Jim

>	Actually, it really hasn't withstood trial after trial. Answers of, "It
>hasn't been revealed to us yet" hardly offer ANY proof to refute claims that
>people have against it.


 Well, setting aside the fact that you refuse to accept explanations that have
 been given you, how about all of the various political systems that have attemp
 ted to destroy the Bible and what it stands for?  And, yet it still manages to
 survive.  How about all those people who have risked, indeed lost their lives
 delivering Bibles to those countries?  How about all of those people who have
 risked, indeed lost their lives for even having a Bible in their POSSESSION?
 Do you suppose those people were putting themselves in danger for a lie?  Do
 you suppose it was just accident that Bibles managed to appear in those 
 countries?  do you suppose that its an accident that the governments of many 
 of those countries have been toppled?



>	How sad, that real answers never come.

   How wonderful, glorious, marvelous they do come to those who will listen.





Jim



 

================================================================================
Note 152.75 JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

| <<< Note 152.68 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



>| T o   L e a r n   W h a t ,   G l e n ?
>
>       It could be anything Mark. Any questions about Jesus, God, Holy Spirit,
>questions about different religions, different Bibles, the accuracy of the
>Bible, different passages in the Bible, anything. The list is endless.

You can learn about God in the Hindu, Religion, C-P, New Age conferences.
You can learn about all these things elsewhere.

Why would they come in here to learn?

The ONLY reason a person would want to learn about Jesus, God, Holy Spirit,
etc. in THIS CONFERENCE is to find out WAHT AN INERRANT BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT
IT.  You want the other points of view about God, go to the other conferences.
How has this EXTREMELY SIMPLE CONCEPT escaped you???????

>| B a r r i e r s   t o   w h a t ,  G l e n ?
>
>
>       B A R R I E R S   t h a t   p r e v e n t   p e o p l e   f r o m
>
>       a s k i n g   q u e s t i o n s   b e c a u s e   t h e y   a r e
>
>       a f r a i d   o f   t h e   r e s p o n s e   t h e y   w i l l
>
>       r e c e i v e   s u c h   a s   t h e i r   i d e a s   b e i n g
>
>       s q e l c h e d ,   d e l e t e d   o r   s e t   h i d d e n .


This is rubbish.  The person said he left because of the bickering he saw. Tom
Peacock predates my membership in this conference.  Any bickering that went on
then might actually have been Y O U anyway!

As for being AFRAID, we have ground rules for discussion, but not for questions.
Of course, the mere phrasing of a question is not sufficient as has been 
described by Paul Weiss.  There is a difference between someone asking for the
Biblical perspective to learn what the Bible has to say, and asking a question
to antagonize a conference over and over, since its the same person (YOU)
asking the same questions, for the same reasons (whatever you choose the 
believe they are).

In case you missed it the first time:

The ONLY reason a person would want to learn about Jesus, God, Holy Spirit,
etc. in THIS CONFERENCE is to find out WAHT AN INERRANT BIBLE HAS TO SAY ABOUT
IT.  You want the other points of view about God, go to the other conferences.
How has this EXTREMELY SIMPLE CONCEPT escaped you???????

================================================================================
Note 152.71  JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>| No.  For starters, you have not proven that the APPARENT contradictions hold
>| water.
>
>       What is so hard about the birds and the animals were created first,
>then 2 days later man was, but later on (Genisis) man was created first, then
>the birds and the animals to keep him company?

Been answered (to your dissatisfaction).  Not the note for this discussion.
Nice try though.  Not!

================================================================================
Note 152.73  JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>They believe what they do. Plain and simple.  Yet if I believe as I do then I
>have an agenda.

If you come into a conference that states as its premise that the Bible is
inerrant and proceed to chip at that premise by the reasons you believe as you
do, can't you see that this makes you an antagonist?

And W H Y do you offer your beliefs in juxtaposition to the conference premise?

>| Shall I re-post some of your replies to this topic?  You blanketly condemn t
>| conference as "isolationist," and "cultlike,"
>
>       Not based on others viewpoints Paul. Based on the rules of the
>conference. Isolationist and cultlike are not the words I would ever use to
>describe anyone's viewpoints in here.

Perhaps you'd like to define for us what is "Cultlike"?
Is there a charismatic leader?  (Oh, you said rules)
Is there a false doctrine? (oh, you believe our doctrine is false)
Enlighten us, Glen! (<-- Sarcasm intended)


>| You ask me to point out where you are condemning people as closed-minded for
>| refusing to debate again and again about the innerrancy of the Bible?
>| Everywhere, Glen.  Every time you bring it up.
>                                ^^^
>       Again, it has reverted back to me. I'm talking about something
>conference wide, something anyone may want to talk about. But, as usual,
>it seems to revert back to me. Why?

Take a look around, Glen.  Y O U are the one who wants to change the conference
premise.  You've been the primary opponent of valuing the difference we choose
for this conference.

>       According to the Bible. Look at the reasons history books give for
>events happening only to find out later on down the line that it was actually
>another reason that caused such and such to happen. The Veitnam POW's is a good
>example of that.

  What!?

>       Actually Paul, I hadn't realized I was doing that. I'll have to be more
>careful when I note.

Instead, accept the invitation to take your opinions elsewhere.  Please.

Glen, (.74)

I have accepted your challenge but stopped after .13 because there is already
conclusive proof that (1) you spout off a lot about what Jesus would and would
not do, and (2) demonstrate a significant lack of knowledge of Jesus.

If you would like me to continue to prove your that your statements are
foolish, then it will depend on how I feel about going through the other 70
replies after lunch.

Mark


================================================================================
Note 152.74 JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>>| You spout off a lot about what Jesus would and would not do, but demonstrate
>>| a significant lack of knowledge of Jesus, Himself.
>>
>>      Two things Mark. One I asked a question, not a statement and two, the
>>source you are using is what you believe the truth to be.
>
>|Would you like proof from this notes string to show how foolish your statement
>|is?  Say the word.  It's all too easy.
>
>       Go for it Mark. Let's see what you can twist. But please do me a favor.
>Please list the note you got it from so I can see the entire text of what was
>said. Thanks in advance....

.11> written by Glen Silva

        Mark, did Jesus stay in a bubble? Did He get contaminated by
carcinogens? I think we both know the answer to that is no. Reason being?
Faith.

        But while faith saved Him from being contaminated, why did He go out in
the real world? His love for us maybe? He went out to help save others.

 With dealing with the real world you
have faith. Faith in God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit to be exact. Faith that
WILL guide you through thick and thin IF you let it. There is NO room for
contamination when dealing with God. To remove yourself from the real world
because you don't want to be contaminated makes me wonder just how strong your
faith really is.


.13>  written by Glen Silva
        Hmmm..... so, you make it easier on yourselves by stopping the
challanges? Did Jesus ever do that? For people who say they want to be
more like Jesus you SEEM sometimes to not be trying that hard. If Jesus used
guidelines to prevent challenges, then maybe you would have something.
But what you seem to have now is humans, not God, wanting to set up barriers.


        And of the read-onlies who just come in looking for information? What
happens to them? They see that Jesus never walked away, closed things out as He
was able to explain, defraud any point that was made because of His faith in
the Father. Yet, the message that seems to be getting out is one of closed
mindedness, not wanting to justify anything. In other words, to just be able to
take it easy. Did Jesus ever walk away from words He believed to not be truth?
No.

    
!               <<< Note 152.72 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

!| <<< Note 152.64 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>



!| -< By what reasoning is your god my God? >-

!	Maybe my God isn't your god. I seriously doubt it, but believe what you
!will.
    	Ah, excuse me, my G_d is with a capital 'G' and yours is with the
    	small 'g'. You see, you are the visiting team, not I. The G_d
    	that is discussed here is the One who is spoken of and revealed
    	through the Word. Since, you know who my G_d is and I do not know
    	who or from where your god comes, I would appreciate it if the G_d
    	in this conference were given top billing.
    	

!| Glen, how do you know? From where does your plumb line come?

!	From God Himself.
    
    Oh. Ok, well, God has revealed the Word of TRUETH differently to me.
    My understanding of God is that He is the omnipotent One. The ONLY God.
    The same yesterday, today and tommorrow. How do I know this? He has
    revealed Himself through His inerrant Word, which is found in a book
    that I refer to as the Bible. This book was written my men chosen by
    God, to write what He in his omnipotence had revealed for them to
    write. He allowed each to use their own experiences and style to convey
    His Word so that all may be provided the ability to understand His
    revelation and salvation for all men.
    
    Oh BTW, I have saught out those that believe as I do. Indeed, they have
    saught me out. When we talk, we are able to relate and carry long
    discussions, because we believe in the same One. We now this, because
    we both hold to the belief that "our" God has told us that He preserved
    His Word in a book known to each of us as the Bible - Wow, the same
    text - imagine that!
    
    
    Because of my sinfulness and my unbelief and misunderstanding and
    indeed lack of ability to fully grasp the omnipotence of God, I
    sometimes read things that I completely do not understand and in fact,
    find confusing. But my faith in the fact that God is perfect and
    omnipotent reassures me that it is I that am in error and not God. For
    God told me, thru His Word, (not the black and white text necessarily
    sometimes He uses my study partner(s), to reveal His Word), that He
    would preserve His Word, His message of salvation. More over, he
    provided me guidlines and metrics to measure Him against. These metrics
    are also found in His Word. I sometimes do not wish to concur with them
    or understand why they are there, but because my God has told me to
    observe these metrics, I do. Or more appropriately, I try. God is a God
    of Grace, Mercy and Peace. This means, Grace - He has a plan that will
    free me from the sin I have fallen into.  Mercy - His plan (Love) for
    me is so strong that He will sacrifice Himself FOR me. Peace, He was
    victorious in concuring my sinfulness, and I can reside with Him
    forever, eternally loved.
    
    Glen, this is my understanding of God which I offer to you for
    understanding. The end. Please do to feel obligated to accept my
    God, but also, please do not insult me, (in actuality my God), by
    telling me that my God is your god. I do not know of your god. Has
    your god provided you something that he has preserved through the ages?
    (So sinful man can not corrupt it into something common and of no use.)
    -To the end that you can come to a fuller understanding of him (your
    god)? So that you can use it as a tool of admonishment, encouragement
    and enlightenment?
                           
    PDM



Glen
    

| <<< Note 152.78 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| how about all of the various political systems that have attempted to destroy 
| the Bible and what it stands for?  And, yet it still manages to survive.  

	One, by saying things like it hasn't been revealed yet can make it very
easy to believe it has survived. But I ask, which version has survived? I don't
think too many people will agree with any one version (as has been proven in
this file before) is the correct one.

| How about all those people who have risked, indeed lost their lives
| delivering Bibles to those countries?  

	What does that have to do with proving the Bible is inerrant? What it
says is these people took a BIG risk for something they believe(d) in.

| How about all of those people who have
| risked, indeed lost their lives for even having a Bible in their POSSESSION?

	Same as above.

| Do you suppose those people were putting themselves in danger for a lie? 

	Actually, I don't think they thought they were putting themselves in
danger for a lie. They believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of God. 

| Do you suppose it was just accident that Bibles managed to appear in those
| countries?  

	Well, it certainly wasn't magic! People who believe in <insert
anything> can make the same claim you have just made. The, "Who would 
have thought" or "Who would have imagined" scenerio. People's beliefs
in all of the cases got X to Y. 

| Do you suppose that its an accident that the governments of many
| of those countries have been toppled?

	Toppled by what we humans think is a better country, right?




Glen

| <<< Note 152.79 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| Why would they come in here to learn?

	I often wonder that myself. ;-) But seriously, the name of the
conference is CHRISTIAN. The name itself would tend to make one think it's
about all facets. Hmmm.... maybe a name change to GOLF::INERRANT_BIBLE might be
in order to clear things up? (btw, a name change is a serious suggestion)

| This is rubbish.  The person said he left because of the bickering he saw. Tom
| Peacock predates my membership in this conference.  Any bickering that went on
| then might actually have been Y O U anyway!

	I don't remember him. Besides, he mentioned things like ego's I think. 




Glen

| <<< Note 152.80 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| >       What is so hard about the birds and the animals were created first,
| >then 2 days later man was, but later on (Genisis) man was created first, then
| >the birds and the animals to keep him company?

| Been answered (to your dissatisfaction).  Not the note for this discussion.

	Mark, it has never been answered. Words like, "I'll look it up to see 
the real meaning" and then never a response again from that person, "it doesn't 
mean that Scripture is wrong it is just a different way of looking at the way
creation began," "the order of how the world was created isn't that important"
and my personal favorite, "the answer hasn't been revealed to us yet" don't 
seem to really answer the question, but brush it aside.

| If you come into a conference that states as its premise that the Bible is
| inerrant and proceed to chip at that premise by the reasons you believe as you
| do, can't you see that this makes you an antagonist?

	Please Mark. When I origionally came into this file it was because I
wanted to talk about God and homosexuality. People gave me verses to read and I
did. From reading those verses I saw 2 things. One was that we saw different
meanings for certain verses, and two, by reading I started to resee the flaws I
had noticed earlier in my life. These were on things that had NOTHING to do
with homosexuality. So I didn't come in origionally to do ANYTHING but discuss.
Plain and simple.

| Perhaps you'd like to define for us what is "Cultlike"?

	By the rules of the conference it seems like the writers of said rules
are creating an atmosphere where growth only from within can occur, the outside
world can only talk IF the rules that humans set up are followed, which is
something you might see in a cult. (now I feel like I'm on the $25,000 pyramid)

| Is there a charismatic leader?  (Oh, you said rules)

	Nope, not in this file.

| Is there a false doctrine? (oh, you believe our doctrine is false)

	Mark, it's based on the rules, plain and simple.

| Take a look around, Glen.  Y O U are the one who wants to change the conference
| premise.  You've been the primary opponent of valuing the difference we choose
| for this conference.

	I've been the one that has spoke up, yes. I know many people who would
like to see change in here. Some at the level I have talked about, some want to
see more of a change and some would like to see change, but just not at the
level I have been talking about.

	Nancy's idea to ask about this file is a good one. The thought behind
it was great and I know who she would say she got the idea from. But from some
of the people I have talked to, they seem afraid to write what they have to say
out of fear of retaliation. To those people (and everyone else) I would ask to
please answer the survey. Your voice is important and needs to be heard.




Glen

| <<< Note 152.82 by MKOTS3::MORANO "Skydivers make good impressions" >>>




| Ah, excuse me, my G_d is with a capital 'G' and yours is with the
| small 'g'. 

	Sorry, I actually see them BOTH with a G and neither with a g. But if
you plan on calling my God with a g, yours will be known as the same.

| You see, you are the visiting team, not I. 

	Has nothing to do with it.

| The G_d
| that is discussed here is the One who is spoken of and revealed
| through the Word. Since, you know who my G_d is and I do not know
| who or from where your god comes, I would appreciate it if the G_d
| in this conference were given top billing.

	He is. But regardless of whether you believe my God deserves a G is up
to you. It will determine what your God gets for a letter. You can believe as
you wish, but to say my God has a g is attacking my belief as a Christian. In
the outside world it might hold water, but at DEC it doesn't. nuff said....

| My understanding of God is that He is the omnipotent One. The ONLY God.
| The same yesterday, today and tommorrow. 

	I couldn't agree with you more Phil.

| How do I know this? He has
| revealed Himself through His inerrant Word, which is found in a book
| that I refer to as the Bible. 

	I understand your belief and I too agree that this is what the Bible
says.

| This book was written my men chosen by
| God, to write what He in his omnipotence had revealed for them to
| write. He allowed each to use their own experiences and style to convey
| His Word so that all may be provided the ability to understand His
| revelation and salvation for all men.

	Like I said, I do understand your beliefs. I am happy that you would
share them. 

| Because of my sinfulness and my unbelief and misunderstanding and
| indeed lack of ability to fully grasp the omnipotence of God, I
| sometimes read things that I completely do not understand and in fact,
| find confusing. 

	Do you find the order of which things were created (2 versions) to be
an understanding?

| But my faith in the fact that God is perfect and
| omnipotent reassures me that it is I that am in error and not God. 

	I agree with this Phil. God is NEVER the one in error, but we humans
are.

| For
| God told me, thru His Word, (not the black and white text necessarily
| sometimes He uses my study partner(s), to reveal His Word), that He
| would preserve His Word, His message of salvation. More over, he
| provided me guidlines and metrics to measure Him against. These metrics
| are also found in His Word. I sometimes do not wish to concur with them
| or understand why they are there, but because my God has told me to
| observe these metrics, I do. Or more appropriately, I try. God is a God
| of Grace, Mercy and Peace. This means, Grace - He has a plan that will
| free me from the sin I have fallen into.  Mercy - His plan (Love) for
| me is so strong that He will sacrifice Himself FOR me. Peace, He was
| victorious in concuring my sinfulness, and I can reside with Him
| forever, eternally loved.

	Phil, I'm glad that you're sharing that with us. This is YOUR belief.
Our's differ, but we both have beliefs. 

| Glen, this is my understanding of God which I offer to you for
| understanding. The end. Please do to feel obligated to accept my
| God, but also, please do not insult me, (in actuality my God), by
| telling me that my God is your god. 

	Ahhhh..... that's God. Plain and simple.



Glen

================================================================================
Note 152.84    JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Why would they come in here to learn?
>
>       I often wonder that myself. ;-) But seriously, the name of the
>conference is CHRISTIAN. The name itself would tend to make one think it's
>about all facets. Hmmm.... maybe a name change to GOLF::INERRANT_BIBLE might be
>in order to clear things up? (btw, a name change is a serious suggestion)

Conference guidelines make this quite clear and we choose to define Christian
as those who adhere to the God of the Bible.  It is of no consequence
whatsoever, how *YOU* choose to define Christian.  Don't ask the SPELUNKING
conference to rename themselves to XXXXX::CAVE_EXPLORERS.

I could suggest lots of names for other conferences that don't hold the values
that they supposedly purport.

So you haven't answered my question, really.  You diverted.
You imply that all facets of Christianity are not represented here.
You again bring an ALTERNATE defintion that is contrary to the premise.
*YOU* (and people like you) want to redefine the premise.

The fact is: people will come in here to learn WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY
ABOUT A SUBJECT.  If they find they don't like the premise for discussion,
they'll soon find that out and leave.  But it doesn't mean we should change
the definition for Christian, just because it doesn't include some who *SAY*
they are Christian.

Mark

    Excuse me, but it seems a reminder is in order. This note is not about
    whether or not the Bible is inerrant. This note is not about whether or
    not Glen's beliefs are wrong or right. This note says "By What
    Premise..." - do we have the right to have a notesfile with a set of
    guidelines based on our belief in an inerrant Bible? Yes, we do.
    Whether you want to call it an exercise of free will, or point out our
    constitutional right to free speech - the right is valid. Do we have
    the right to call it "Christian"? Yes, we do. Although today there are
    many versions of Christianity, Christianity actually originated with 
    Christ and was handed down to us through the Bible, so yes, we do 
    indeed have the right to call it "Christian."
    
    Please stick to the topic.
    
    Rebecca  

 This topic is once again open for discussion.



 I would remind folks who have not responded to the sensing note (148) to 
do so, and again encourage those read only folks (and anyone who wishes to
remain anonymous) to send mail to the mods with their comments.




Jim

================================================================================
Note 152.85    JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| >       What is so hard about the birds and the animals were created first,
>| >then 2 days later man was, but later on (Genisis) man was created first, then
>| >the birds and the animals to keep him company?
>
>| Been answered (to your dissatisfaction).  Not the note for this discussion.
>
>	Mark, it has never been answered. 

This is a lie.

>| If you come into a conference that states as its premise that the Bible is
>| inerrant and proceed to chip at that premise by the reasons you believe as you
>| do, can't you see that this makes you an antagonist?
>
>	Please Mark. When I origionally came into this file it was because I
>wanted to talk about God and homosexuality. People gave me verses to read and I
>did. From reading those verses I saw 2 things. One was that we saw different
>meanings for certain verses, and two, by reading I started to resee the flaws I
>had noticed earlier in my life. These were on things that had NOTHING to do
>with homosexuality. So I didn't come in origionally to do ANYTHING but discuss.
>Plain and simple.

Plain and simple.  THERE CAN BE NO DISCUSSION WITHOUT AN AGREEMENT ON THE BASIS
FOR DISCUSSION.  How difficult is this for you to understand?  Obviously,
because you keep bringing it up, it must be very difficult for you.  You
constantly want to bring a different definition of the basis for discussion.
NO GO, GLEN.  We're here to talk about Biblical responses to issues.  Period.
We DO NOT WANT UNBIBLICAL responses, which you (or those like you) give MOST of
the time!

>| Perhaps you'd like to define for us what is "Cultlike"?
>
>	By the rules of the conference it seems like the writers of said rules
>are creating an atmosphere where growth only from within can occur, the outside
>world can only talk IF the rules that humans set up are followed, which is
>something you might see in a cult. (now I feel like I'm on the $25,000 pyramid)

You have a poor definition of what a cult is.  Why am I not surprised?

>| Take a look around, Glen.  Y O U are the one who wants to change the conference
>| premise.  You've been the primary opponent of valuing the difference we choose
>| for this conference.
>
>	I've been the one that has spoke up, yes. I know many people who would
>like to see change in here. Some at the level I have talked about, some want to
>see more of a change and some would like to see change, but just not at the
>level I have been talking about.

I know many people who would NOT like to see change here, except to see those
people who want to redefine Christianity to BUTT OUT and INSTITUTE THAT CHANGE
WHERE THEY CAN EXPRESS IT!  In fact, there's a conference that did just that!

Get it through your head.  HERE is not where one should express teachings that
not in line with the Bible.  Go define your own conference.  But that's not
good enough for you and the many people you know, is it.  You're not content
with knowing there is a place called Christian-Perspective where the views of
Christianity as you define the spectrum can be fully expressed.  You must force
open the close-minded fundamentalists, mustn't you?  

Tell me,  W H Y ?

Mark

    
    I think that MM has made several excellent points in his last reply
    concerning the stance of this conference and the other opportunities
    that other conferences can offer.  We choose to retain an inerrant
    Scriptural stance and this is the basis of all our discussions. If you
    dont like it, rest assured that you won't change it, so my suggestion
    would be to got to one of the many other conferences that take create
    their own "bible" and "god" by their definitions.

    
    >Nancy's idea to ask about this file is a good one. The thought behind
    >it was great and I know who she would say she got the idea from. But
    >from some of the people I have talked to, they seem afraid to write 
    >what they have to say out of fear of retaliation. To those people 
    >(and everyone else) I would ask to please answer the survey. Your 
    >voice is important and needs to be heard.
    
    Glen the reason I asked the Sensing questions was not to redefine
    Christian the conference or the term.  It was to get an idea of how we,
    the moderators, can better serve our participants and readers.
    
    I am speaking for the other moderators at this point, without having
    consulted them, and I'm sure if what state here is not accurate, it
    will be made known.
    
    1.  We, the moderators are not willing to change any of the tenets 
        of this conference.
    
    2.  We, the moderators are willing to moderate heated discussions
        better.
    
    3.  We, the moderators would like to represent our Savior better
        in this conference.
    
    I'm sure I could have come up with a few more.  But, nonetheless, the
    reason behind the Sensing survey was to help the moderators better
    stand for the premise of the conference, not change it.
    
    I'd like to see as I believe almost every answer to the survey echoed
    [save one], more testimonies, sharing of God's love, and discussions
    not be turned into bashing contests.  
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    
    

    Keeping with the premise of this conference:
     1 Tim 1:19 "... Some have rejected these and so have shipwrecked their
                 faith. 20 Among them are Hymenaeus and Alexander, whom I
                 have handed over to Satan to be taught not to blaspheme."
                 ~~~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~~ ~~ ~~~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ ~~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~
    PDM
     

    Glen, you have been participating in C-P for quite a while.  For the
    most part, you are warmly received there.  People 'value' your
    'difference' there.  You are accepted as a 'christian' there.
    Let me ask you a question.  Why isn't that enough for you?  You can
    discuss any aspect of christianity there without getting the hassle
    that you do here.  Why would you come here and get beat on when you can
    go there and get hugged?
    
    I'll take a stab at answering that for you.  For some reason, it is
    important for you to gain acceptance here.  I believe it is because you
    see Truth here and you want this conference (really, Truth, God) to accept 
    you, to validate you.  Validation in C-P is not enough, nor are any of the 
    other conferences.   Of course, you cannot say that yourself.  Not yet.
    I understand.  It is a very hard thing to do.
    
    You have said that you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
    If you really have, you must know that you will be seeking this
    validation until you submit your life[style] to His Truth.  Not as
    you define truth, but as He does.  I have every confidence that if you
    really have a saving faith in Him, you will find that validation some
    day.  
    
    If I am wrong, if you are not here to be validated by Truth, then there
    really is only one other possibility.  You are here to antagonize.
    Having met you, I choose to believe the former, and pray for God to
    move quickly and mercifully in you.  
    
    Sue

| <<< Note 152.87 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>




| Conference guidelines make this quite clear and we choose to define Christian
| as those who adhere to the God of the Bible.  

	There are very few changes from conference to conference and almost
everyone I know don't ever read the conference guidelines. 

	I'm not saying to change the name, it was just a suggestion. When a lot
of people hear the word Christian, they may think a lot of things. But to use
that word and think it describes what this conference is about, well, I'm not
so sure that you have something there.

| You imply that all facets of Christianity are not represented here.

	Yes.

| You again bring an ALTERNATE defintion that is contrary to the premise.

	Please explain.

| *YOU* (and people like you) want to redefine the premise.

	Wouldn't that bring the first one (from above) in line? Or is that 
something that is being avoided?

| But it doesn't mean we should change the definition for Christian, just 
| because it doesn't include some who *SAY* they are Christian.

	Mark, I would no more expect you to change your view of Christian as I
know I won't be. I do agree that there are many in this file who SAY they are
Christians..... but their actions seem to make that statement hard to swallow.



Glen

| <<< Note 152.90 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>



| >	Mark, it has never been answered.

| This is a lie.

	Mark! You know, sometimes you really (I'll put it nicely) upset me. Who
do you think you are? It is NOT a LIE! I would think about who you decide to
call or insinuate to be a liar. 

	Now, it would seem like you choose text from lines like you do your
passages from the Bible. Just small parts of it, to make what you want to say
seem right. Below this I'll include the rest of what I wrote that you
CONVEINIENTLY cut off.

	Mark, it has never been answered. Words like, "I'll look it up to see 
the real meaning" and then never a response again from that person, "it doesn't 
mean that Scripture is wrong it is just a different way of looking at the way
creation began," "the order of how the world was created isn't that important"
and my personal favorite, "the answer hasn't been revealed to us yet" don't 
seem to really answer the question, but brush it aside.

	Now, I will reitterate, it has NOT been answered. People have RESPONDED
to the message, but it has NEVER been answered, just brushed aside.

| I know many people who would NOT like to see change here, except to see those
| people who want to redefine Christianity to BUTT OUT and INSTITUTE THAT CHANGE
| WHERE THEY CAN EXPRESS IT!  

	Like I said before Mark, you're closing yourself in which no growth can
occur.

| Get it through your head.  HERE is not where one should express teachings that
| not in line with the Bible.  

	I have never figured out why so many people have said this, yet have an
inerrancy of the Bible topic.....

| You must force open the close-minded fundamentalists, mustn't you?

	I'm only trying to help.....




Glen

 You know, this is really starting to bug me..its was eating at me all night.
 I logged into another conference yesterday and see a brother from here getting 
 blasted right and left because of his stand as a Bible believing Christian.
 I log into other conferences where people can talk about worshipping rocks,
 dogs, you name it, but mention you're a Christian or the Bible and bingo 
 they come out of the woodwork and proceed to tear you to pieces.  I don't care
 what conference it is, one mention of the Bible, God (the God of the Bible that
 is) Christianity, faith, Jesus..and you are dead meat.

 It is VERY clear what the purpose of this conference is and what purpose it
 serves.  If you can't agree with that premise, then as has been said before,
 leave.  I, as another noter said earlier, happen to like having one place where
 I can go, share my faith, rejoice with brothers and sisters, mourn with my
 brothers and sisters AND TALK ABOUT MY LOVE FOR THE INERRANT Word of God that
 has transformed my life, PRAISE GOD, without having to put up with the baloney
 that takes place in other conferences that do not have that premise, and love
 just ripping Bible believing Christians to pieces (which by the way also points
 to the accuracy of the Bible as Isaiah prophesied this very sort of thing).

 
 I don't understand, Glen, why you come in here and challenge the premise of 
 this conference when it its quite clear when you log in here what it is.  Go
 into the New Hampshire conference and talk about Massachussetts and see what
 happens, and then try to argue with them over the premise of *that* conference
 and see what happens.  Then, go into a Dunkin' donuts and argue with them
 over why you can't get a Big Mac there when its very clear what the premise
 there is.


 You keep saying there are those out there who need to speak up about it.  What
 is there to speak up about?  Readers have been asked to submit there comments
 and I have not seen *1* that demands that the premise of this conference be
 changed, not 1, except perhaps from yourself.

 The Christian-perspective conference welcomes the discussions you seem to 
 enjoy having and you will find very little challenge there, in fact you will
 probably be welcomed as a hero, politically correct and all that, or go into
 the Womannotes conference where all you have to do is mention the words Bible,
 Christian, Jesus and you'll find all sorts of people to have fun with.


 
 
 Jim



   




 

| <<< Note 152.95 by POWDML::MCCONNELL "Cows...So cute, and tasty, too!" >>>




| Let me ask you a question.  Why isn't that enough for you?  

	Sue, as I have said many a time, acceptance is NOT the issue.

| You can discuss any aspect of christianity there without getting the hassle
| that you do here.  Why would you come here and get beat on when you can
| go there and get hugged?

	Sue, acceptance is NOT the issue. I like BOTH files for what they
have to offer. I guess people could ask the same question of why would I want
to write in SOAPBOX about anything gay when I could write in the gay notesfile
where it would be more widely accepted? 

| I'll take a stab at answering that for you.  For some reason, it is
| important for you to gain acceptance here.  

	That is not the reason. Here it is in a nutshell. I think I have stated
this before, but will do so again for your bennefit. 

	I truly believe in my beliefs about God and the Bible. This is
something a lot of people really have a hard time with in here. I don't 
need to come into this file to play around with all of you, as if that
were my intention I could easily have a fun time. But to me that's just
stupid. If I write something, it's because I believe in it. Now with that
aside, in this file I have learned a lot. Really. Both good and bad, both
about myself and others, about love and hate, along with many other things.
You will notice that I don't write in EVERY topic. Some because there isn't
a need, others because I would like to see where they are going. The end result
is regardless of how I am viewed in this file doesn't matter, but if I disagree
with something I will speak up. If I have questions about something, I will
speak up. Is that so hard to see?

| I believe it is because you see Truth here and you want this conference 
| (really, Truth, God) to accept you, to validate you.  

	Validation has nothing to do with it Sue. How can I say I believe
such and such a belief is held true to me if I need humans to validate it for
me? That just doesn't make sense.

| Validation in C-P is not enough, nor are any of the other conferences.   

	I don't need validation.

| Of course, you cannot say that yourself.  

	Because like acceptance, it just isn't needed from this file.

| Not yet.

	Not ever. I don't come in here for accptance or validation. 

| I understand.  It is a very hard thing to do.

	I think it may be harder for people to believe that these things are
not what I seek from this conference. But, in the end it only matters to One.

| You have said that you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
| If you really have, you must know that you will be seeking this
| validation until you submit your life[style] to His Truth.  

	Truth as defined by the Bible? Doesn't exist for me. God lets me know
each and every day, in some little way what's going on and what He wants to see
me do or where He wants me to be. As far as the style part goes, you don't fix
something that ain't broke.

| Not as you define truth, but as He does.  I have every confidence that if you
| really have a saving faith in Him, you will find that validation some
| day.

	With Him Sue, not with this file. BTW, see above for the validation
with Him.

| If I am wrong, if you are not here to be validated by Truth, then there
| really is only one other possibility.  You are here to antagonize.

	No antagonization on my part is ever intended. Please understand that.



Glen

 Snarf  

    Jim H.
    
    Thanks for writing your note.  I concur.
    
    Nancy

    Re: Note 152.99 by JURAN::SILVA
    
>	I truly believe in my beliefs about God and the Bible....
    [...]
>	Truth as defined by the Bible? Doesn't exist for me. God lets me know
>each and every day, in some little way what's going on and what He wants to see
>me do or where He wants me to be.
    
    Glen,
    
    As I'm sure you are well aware, there is controversy in this conference
    concerning whether you are a true Christian or not.  You claim to have
    had an encounter with Jesus Christ and a trust in Him for your
    salvation.  I, personally, am willing to give you the benefit of the
    doubt, and accept that you are sincere in this -- God knows your heart. 
    However, the above two statements make one thing VERY clear to me:  if
    you are a Christian, you are walking in darkness and deception, because
    you are not walking in the provision that God has provided for His own. 
    That provision is His Word.  For a Christian to turn from the Word of
    God and proclaim that "God is leading me" is an oxymoron.  You truly
    believe in your beliefs, but you are truly decieved.
    
    Mark L.

    Heavenly Father,
    
    We praise you for your many blessings. And we praise you now for the
    presence of all who note here and for what is happening here. You are
    in all things. You promise us that "all things work together for good 
    to those who love the Lord." Open our hearts and eyes that we might 
    see what you would have us learn and what your will is in this.  Keep
    before us the knowledge that this file belongs to you and help us to
    seek you first, always.
    
    In Jesus' Name,
    
    Fran and Rebecca
    
    "Be anxious for nothing, but in everything by prayer and supplication,
    with thanksgiving, let your requests be made known to God;
    
    and the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard
    your hearts and minds through Christ Jesus."
    
                                    Philippians 4:6-7 
    

    
     I would suggest to all who have been kind enough to note here and in
    other notes to take stock of the scene.
    
     I have extracted many, if not all of Glen Silva's replies and
    responses to him. They are a matter of public record. 
    
     Many different individuals have given Glen sound advice and comment,
    and it seems to be pretty much on the same line.... Why? Because God's
    Word is never changing and the sound versions will back that up.
    
      He has been given answers, to his dissatisfaction. He creates turmoil
    and ill will. I myself have an uneasy feeling when reading his replies
    and/or ansering him. It may be personal, but it most likely is the Holy
    Spirit prompting me.
    
      I would advise that we all pray much for Glen.... stop taking the
    bait he offers with his words... and allow God to work in his heart as
    The Lord did in all of us who needed to be shown the light.
    
      A conspiracy of silence and prayer is the only recourse left to us.
    
     If you wish to communicate with Glen, the best way to sdo so would be
    in private mail... to show him that we are all praying for him.
    
    Regards,
    
    Andy
    

>Like I said before Mark, you're closing yourself in which no growth can occur.

As has been explained, answered, addressed, and talked to death (as my son would
say): seven million billion googol (he ALWAYS includes googol) times, it is not
closed-minded to refuse to re-address that which has already been addressed
multiple times.  Nor is it "excluding growth" to shun wrong.  

Going to extremes for a moment, I would certainly hope you would not sit and
listen politely and say "well, that's an interesting viewpoint" as Hitler
propounded why the Jews should be exterminated.  Why should we not allow that
viewpoint to be expressed?  Are we putting ourselves in a situation where "no
growth can occur" by shutting out that view?  If you believe we are, then we
have even less basis for a conversation than I thought.  But if you believe that
it would be right to shut out that viewpoint and not grant it a hearing, you are
just in disagreement with *what* is being shut out, not *whether* anything 
should be shut out.

I would guess you feel this way too, but it's almost as if you think we are
deaf.  Your viewpoint seems so clear to you that you cannot imagine that people
really do understand what you are saying, but completely disagree with you.  So
you keep saying the same things over and over and over, because surely it's not
possible that we see what you see and reject it, and perhaps *this* time when
you say it someone will finally understand.  The only problem is that people
really *do* understand what you are saying (I better than most, since I used to
think the same way), and they really *do* reject it.  Saying the same words over
and over is like yelling louder to an Italian waiter who does not understand 
english - it is not going to do anything except antagonize people.  It has been
explained to you probably hundreds of times why it is not being closed-minded,
isolationist, cultlike, and closing off growth to set a basis for discussion.
That doesn't make sense to you, but it's time to say "Oh well," Glen, and move
on.  We've tried the best we can to make it make sense to you, just as you've 
tried the best you can to make us see that it *is* being closed-minded, but
neither of us is having any success, because we just think differently.  Can't
you just accept that and let this issue rest?

I first became aware of this difference in human viewpoints in political 
discussions, not religious discussions.  I couldn't imagine that people really 
saw the evidence and believed the crazy political ideas they said they did.  But
after many fruitless discussions, I found that it's true - two different people 
can see exactly the same evidence and come to completely opposite conclusions, 
and in many cases no amount of logical persuasion can do a thing to change 
either one of them.  I've just had to accept that people are different.

For a while, I took that acceptance of difference exactly where you're taking
it: truth was relative, to be viewed and judged by each individual person, and
no person's truth was any better than anyone else's.  A recognition of my own
human fallibility demanded that I not make the claim that my own truth was the
only truth.  But I've seen that there comes a time when it becomes necessary
for growth - there's that word again - to take a stand on the truth that you've
found, and hold to it.  As you accuse the closed-mindedness of this file as
excluding growth by shutting out some ideas, I believe that an open-mindedness
that refuses to recognize any permanent truth excludes growth, by building a
foundation for knowledge on shifting sand.  If the foundation moves every day,
you spend all of your time rebuilding the pieces that are already in place, and
you are never able to really move forward.

Yes, Glen, there have been plenty of people in history who have been totally
sure of something, and have been wrong about what they were 'sure' of.  And I
acknowledge on an intellectual level that we could possibly be among them.  But
there comes a time when we must say "This is the truth, as well as I can see it.
Whether it is ultimately right or ultimately wrong, it is clear that here I must
take my stand."  That is what has been done in this file.  Yup, Glen, this life
might end and we might find that we were mistaken.  But in the meantime, this is
where we take our stand.  We can do nothing less.

Imagine for a moment, Glen, that you believed that the Bible was perfect, and
what's more was uniquely perfect.  I'm still with you on that one, of having to 
imagine it, though perhaps not for long. :-)  Forget for a moment all the 
reasons that you are not convinced and just picture where you would be if you 
did believe that.  Wouldn't it then make sense to use that as your Central
standard of how you lived your life?  Can you see how it wouldn't seem closed-
minded to exclude viewpoints which were in direct contradiction to that 
standard?  Can you see how all the rest of the things that you don't like here,
(well, most of them anyway :-) flow naturally and correctly from that one thing 
you disagree with?  Can you then perhaps see how it's not so bad to ask you to
not challenge that basic premise and all of its correlaries in every topic, but
limit that to one place?  And if you still can't see it, can you just accept it
and please stop?

If you want to learn about the way that stand unfolds, this is the file for it.
If you want to question why that stand has been taken there is (or should be, in
the one innerrancy topic) a place to do that.  But please stop constantly
haranging the people of this file for the stand they have taken by raising the
same questions in every topic, questions which they have answered to their
satisfaction but not yours whenever you've brought them up.

Paul

    Glen,

    Please get your Bible and read 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.  Then, read
    notes 30.11-12 in this conference.  Repeat until the Holy Spirit
    opens your eyes to the Truth therein.  Know that I am as eager as
    anyone alive to see you come to know Jesus as your Lord and Savior,
    but for now you are known by your fruit, and I for one grow tired of
    repeated demonstrations of your willful ignorance.  Please, give us a
    break.

    In Christ,

				*** Daryl ***

================================================================================
Note 152.96     JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>| Conference guidelines make this quite clear and we choose to define Christian
>| as those who adhere to the God of the Bible.
>
>       There are very few changes from conference to conference and almost
>everyone I know don't ever read the conference guidelines.

Not a reason to change the premise.

>But to use that word and think it describes what this conference is about,
>well, I'm not so sure that you have something there.

You know our premise.  You don't like our definition, fine.  Butt out.

>| You again bring an ALTERNATE defintion that is contrary to the premise.
>
>       Please explain.

See your comments 9 lines above this one.

>| *YOU* (and people like you) want to redefine the premise.
>
>       Wouldn't that bring the first one (from above) in line? Or is that
>something that is being avoided?

So you are admitting to wanting to redefine what this conference defines as
Christianity.  Face facts, Glen.  We won't, now, never, ever.  We won't because
we CAN'T.  To do so would be to deny God and His Word.

>| But it doesn't mean we should change the definition for Christian, just
>| because it doesn't include some who *SAY* they are Christian.
>
>       Mark, I would no more expect you to change your view of Christian as I
>know I won't be. I do agree that there are many in this file who SAY they are
>Christians..... but their actions seem to make that statement hard to swallow.

Another groundless accusation that you are rife with making.  But then again,
we ARE talking about two definitions of what it means to be Christ-like.

Again, learn about who Jesus is before telling people what Christians are like
or are not like.

You've been invited to leave or accept the premise as a basis for discussion.
Why do you persist in antagonizing the participants of this conference?

MM

================================================================================
Note 152.97  JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

>| >    Mark, it has never been answered.
>
>| This is a lie.
>
>       Mark! You know, sometimes you really (I'll put it nicely) upset me. Who
>do you think you are? It is NOT a LIE! I would think about who you decide to
>call or insinuate to be a liar.
>
>       Now, I will reitterate, it has NOT been answered. People have RESPONDED
>to the message, but it has NEVER been answered, just brushed aside.

**It is a lie.**  You cannot redefine your way out of it.  Your rejection of
the answer does not mean the question went unanswered.


>| I know many people who would NOT like to see change here, except to see those
>| people who want to redefine Christianity to BUTT OUT and INSTITUTE THAT CHAN
>| WHERE THEY CAN EXPRESS IT!
>
>       Like I said before Mark, you're closing yourself in which no growth can
>occur.

That's my prerogative.  Why do you want to take away my prerogative?  And the
prerogatives of those who share my sentiments?  Why, Glen?

>| You must force open the close-minded fundamentalists, mustn't you?
>
>       I'm only trying to help.....

You are an antagonist, plain and simple.  Your "help" is foolishness and
unwanted.  Please take your "help" elsewhere.  It is untrustworthy and 
more often rubbish here.

MM

================================================================================
Note 152.99    JURAN::SILVA "Memories....."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Let me ask you a question.  Why isn't that enough for you?
>
>       Sue, as I have said many a time, acceptance is NOT the issue.

Antagonism is the issue.  Glen is trying to "help" us poor closed-minded,
fundamentalist lunatics by his enlightening words of [non-]wisdom.  Glen is
trying to feed us the "proper" definition of what it means to be a Christian.

>| You have said that you have accepted Jesus as your Lord and Savior.
>| If you really have, you must know that you will be seeking this
>| validation until you submit your life[style] to His Truth.
>
>       Truth as defined by the Bible? Doesn't exist for me.

You have no basis for fellowship in this conference.  One does not have to
believe in the Bible to be in this conference, but one cannot preach an
alternate (contra-)biblical stance without being an antagonist.

>| If I am wrong, if you are not here to be validated by Truth, then there
>| really is only one other possibility.  You are here to antagonize.
>
>       No antagonization on my part is ever intended. Please understand that.

Intended or not, that's what you do.  If you don't intend it, then leave.

MM

    This note puts me in a predicament.  As a moderator, I feel compelled
    to write-lock it.  Enough is enough.
    
    However, if I write-lock it then I and the conference will be viewed as
    close-minded.
    
    But most folks I talk to or from the responses in the Sensing Note says
    that almost all feel as I do about these kinds of discussions.
    
    My suggestions as a moderator are:
    
    1.  I'm write-locking this topic, and don't believe it will
        be re-opened.
    
    2.  Pray for Glen personally.  If you've not made Glen a matter
        of prayer and have written in here, then check the heart
        on this matter.
    
    3.  Pray for the conference that it will continue to flourish
        in the nurture and admonition of our Lord as His Word
        dictates.
    
    4.  Don't question the action of this moderator.  Trust that she
        hasn't done this without sufficient prompting from the
        Holy Spirit.
    
    Love to all of you who have given of yourself in this note.  I've seen
    some great self-sacrificing moments occur in here.
    
    And Glen, the Love of Christ to you.
    
    Nancy
    co-mod CHRISTIAN

I have just caught up (it's been busy).

Andy has good advice, though the E-Mail route will consume as much or 
more of your time than notes.

Daryl has especially keen advice to look into note 30.11 and 30.12.
See if you see some familiar arguments from a writer who lived in the
1600s.

Whether sarcastic or not, Glen admits to attempting to "help" enlighten
those of us who do not perceive Christianity as he does.  It is a goal.

The agenda here is about defining Christianity.

The agenda is not merely his own acceptance by the Christian community
but acceptance of a new definition of Christianity: the "tolerant" Christians.

Glen has labelled "intolerant" Christianity as bigoted, closed-minded, cultlike,
etc.  This is part of the plan (not Glen's; for he is only an [un]witting
minion).  The foe leads with goodness (always leads with goodness), such as
"would Jesus turn people away?" and such stuff.  Be careful of the subtle
sidetracks, designed to take your attention away from the point: redefinition
of terms.

"They" don't necessarily want to be included in the intolerant Christianity - 
they want it wiped out.  And the best way to acheive this while duping many is 
to simply redefine who is a Christian and who is not.  Certainly, 
"fundamentalist, closed-minded, intolerant bigots" (labels often used) are 
not Christ-like and therefore not Christian.

Christianity is in danger of losing its identity and its God in Jesus because
we're about to allow society to redfine us out of it.  Isaiah 5:20 says
woe to those who call darkness light and light darkness.  This is what you
see in this debate.  Two people calling different things by the same name.
It's like looking at two people who say, "Shoot him, I'm the real Maxwell
Smart."  "Don't listen to him.  I'm the real Maxwell Smart.  Shoot him!"

This is done on purpose by the Imposter to fool the onlooker.  In the movies,
you hold the gun to both of them, sit down and wait for some defining item
to show you who the real Maxwell Smart is.  (Sorry to use such a silly
example to express a very real crisis.)

And the questions keep coming back: how will you know who the real Christian
is?  How will you know who the real Christ is?  How do you know you serve
the "One True God?"  

You've seen here in some way again two sides saying that "this is the way"
and they point in opposite directions while claiming the way of the One
True God.  In fact, one even says that both ways end up in the same place!

Galatians 6:7  Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man
soweth, that shall he also reap.

Be sure of your seed, folks.  Be sure of your Witness.  Be sure of Your God.

Isaiah 5:20  Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put
darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and
sweet for bitter!

When you see two people calling opposite things by the same name, watch
out, because someone will come to woe for it.

MM

Didn't do the command correctly.

    Thanks Mark, should be write-locked tight now.
    
    Nancy

This note is now open for discussion.  
    
Our goal in this conference is to seek to proclaim the truth as revealed
through the Bible, and to enjoy fellowship and interchange with one another as
brothers and sisters in Christ.  We recognize that there are differences among
Christians and participators in this conference as to certain matters, and
discussion among us can help us in a number of ways:
 1) We can gain understanding as to the basis of one another's beliefs
 2) We can examine our own beliefs and their Scriptural basis
 3) We can come to a better understanding of the Word of God.

At times, there may be some who disagree and/or refuse to accept the foundation
of this conference: that the Bible is the inspired revelation of God to man.
Certainly we are not in opposition to an honest inquiry as to what the Bible
teaches; in fact, we welcome such.  However, there are other times when a
repetitive "inquiry" can "devolve" into an outright argument.  We, the
moderators of this conference, ask that our brothers and sisters in Christ
prayerfully consider whether the purpose of this conference and our witness
to Christ will be best furthered by continuing to answer or "oppose" in these
cases, or by stating our unwillingness to argue and allowing God to work
through our prayers.

Moderators CHRISTIAN Notes conference
    

    
    
    >At times, there may be some who disagree and/or refuse to accept the
    foundation of this conference: that the Bible is the inspired revelation
    of God to man. Certainly we are not in opposition to an honest inquiry 
    as to what the Bible teaches; in fact, we welcome such. 
    
     Why do we welcome such an inquiry, when in fact it is the premise of
    the conference? I have to disagree with this statement.  We should not
    have to defend the premise of this conference, it serves as the basis
    of our conversation.
    
      Dan
    
     

    Dan,
    
    The purpose of that statement is to make it clear that we are not
    "closing the door" on anyone who seeks to come with an honest,
    inquiring mind.  We want them to feel "comfortable" in asking an honest
    question here, even if they are not in full agreement with the premises
    of the conference.  We are not inviting antagonism, but neither do we
    want to cut ourselves off from the opportunity to reach out to those
    who might "reach in" to the conference.
    
    Mark L. co-mod

    
    
     I dont believe that we should be defending the premise of this
    conference on any level.  This conference should serve as a haven in
    which the members can come and discuss issues and concerns with those
    of like mind.  By standing fast in our beliefs with regard to the
    guidelines, we will be effectively "reaching out" by rightly dividing
    the Word.
    
    Dan

I think that the Biblical premise of this conference should have one central
place where it can be discussed why that premise is held.  This accomplishes
both purposes:  If someone comes with questions about why we hold that premise,
they can ask them and be answered.  Yet all other discussions can unfold 
undisturbed by questions about the premise, and anyone who does not want to
get involved in defending the premise of the conference doesn't have to - they
can just NEXT UNSEEN past the discussion.

I would like to see one topic - and only one topic - where no question and no
perspective *ON THE BIBLE* would be prohibited.  

Paul

Hi Paul re .120:

The mods have had a quick check between us on this, and we do not feel that 
this would be a useful things to do.

Honest questions about the Biblical premise can be addressed already, 
raised as legitimate topics.

Questioning this premise in a note on another topic is identified as a
rathole.  If the questioner feels this is hedgeing the issue (as is
inevitable), that's not going to be overcome by directing to another note
'for that purpose', and focus on the said note is likely to geenerate more
heat than light.

� I would like to see one topic - and only one topic - where no question 
� and no perspective *ON THE BIBLE* would be prohibited.  

No-one is currently prohibitted from participating.  All that the
conference guidelines do is to ensure that the stance of the conference
participants is respected - above all, that we wish this to be a place
where God is honoured. 

By 'no perspective ... prohibited', I read you to include total disbelief
in the Bible - eg its representation as fiction.  This is unprofitable in
principle, and is why we have the guidelines in the first place.  To some
degree, application of the guidelines is a respect to the participants
here.  This is a place to have fellowship, as well as a place to discuss
the faith.  Any reason for entry shouldn't expect to pick up an approach
which is so offensive as to be outside the guidelines. 

[ You think that a conference to support the Bulls should have a note about 
  how some other team is better really ? ;-]

I hope this doesn't just sound like a closed mind.  I'm trying to express
something like the difference between discussing swearing, and using
swearing. 


								Andrew