Conference yukon::christian_v7

 I don't have a belief system...I have Jesus Christ.  Somehow reducing Him
 to a "belief system" bugs the dickens out of me.






 Jim

    Jim,
    
    It bugs me too... but nonetheless it is the pc term... how would you
    rephrase it to signify what Christ means to you?
    
    Nancy

    RE:1
    Ditto Jim !
    
    Jim

I'm guilty of using the phrase "belief system" in another conference to 
communicate in terms non-believers would understand.

While it may bug the dickens out of you, it does not violate the idea
that Jesus is Lord, and that every knee shall bow and every tongue will
confess this fact.  In the meantime, communicating the Truth of the gospel
is important to the point of usng non-esoteric terms.

>    It's been stated in another conference that those of us who choose
>    Christ without fully exploring other belief systems, haven't made well
>    informed choices.

Nancy, 
  Let's take mathematics for a moment.

  X + 2 = 5

  How many variables will you need to "explore" to find the answer to 
the variable X?  For children, new to math, they'd start plugging in
numbers.  The first time people approach this equation, it is hit or miss.
We know the answer is 3 because we've been around the block a few times
with this mathematcial equation.  

  Now the person who plugs in 3 the first time doesn't need to check out
the others except to prove by contrast that 3 + 2 = 5.

The next argument you'll get is that belief systems are not as reliable
as mathematics.  But that also depends on the value of X.  If X=6 in
the euqation above, that person's math wouldn't be very reliable, would it?

So, Truth is Truth.

One person asked, what is Truth?  I responded that Truth [whatever it is] 
is immutable.

Christians do not have the whole Truth (because God is infinite, etc).
**But Christians do have The Truth (in Jesus Christ)** and He has promised 
to lead us into all Truth.  Now, how long do you think it will take to learn
and grasp all Truth?  Ever try to take a drink from a fire hose?

How do we know we have the Truth?  Jesus claims it and the evidence (which
is all we have with infinity - never proof) - and the evidence has supported
the claims.  The variable fits the equation.

Mark

    
.    It bugs me too... but nonetheless it is the pc term... how would you
.    rephrase it to signify what Christ means to you?
    
 

     Well, first I determine that I don't need to be pc.  I need to be 
     bc...biblically correct.  I don't think (assuming we are talking about
     that other conference) we need to rephrase it.  Those of us who have
     participated in there (as of now I am a former participant) have done
     a fine job of signifying what Christ means to us.  We don't need to mold
     Him or our relationship to Him to fit what they want to hear.  We know
     Him as "the way and the truth and the life"..they see Him as one of the
     ways (if that) and of questionable truth.  

     They don't see Christianity as a faith in a living God, a living Saviour
     and a living and active Word of God.  They see a "religion" on the same
     plane and a matter of choice as Bhuddism, Hinduism or whatever others
     there are.  We've all done a lot to try to get them to see otherwise, but
     I don't see it getting anywhere at this point.




 Jim

    Well, I'm sure *we* aren't changing any minds with our words, but just
    maybe the Holy Spirit will work with those who have read what we write. 
    I have to have faith that anything we do can be used to help others on
    thier path to truth, though we may never see it personally.  
    
    I know what you mean about the term 'belief system'.  The vary idea
    seems to imply that Jesus is only one 'belief system' and is 
    equal to other 'belief systems'- which I do not agree.  Truth is
    absolute.  It's hard for most people to accept anything that is
    'absolute' these days.  Although I don't like the term, I will probably
    continue to use it in other conferences for certain objective
    arguments.
    
    -steve 

 Yes, I agree that we should trust in the Holy Spirit to do the work...and
 I pray for that practically every day.




 Jim

    If we look at this from a purely human viewpoint (e.g. keeping the
    doctrine of election out of it for now), then I still would ask how one
    defines "well-informed"? Are you well-informed because you researched 2
    "belief systems" before accepting the truth? Or would you not be well-
    informed unless you researched 20? Since there are probably an
    uncountable number of belief systems one could research (or create),
    it's not possible to research them all. Therefore a choice (again
    assuming for argument purposes that you have a choice) will always be
    one made on a partial analysis.
    
    Furthermore, just because you happen to make the correct choice early
    doesn't mean it's not a well-informed choice. For example, let's say
    that you wanted to borrow my car. I give you the keys and tell you to
    get it out of my garage. Since you want to be sure it's my car you're
    borrowing, would you then proceed to try the keys in every other car
    you could find before going to the garage and getting mine? Of course
    not - you were told the truth initially and you would act on it.
    
    In one sense, you may be better informed if you tried all of the other
    cars first, because you'd know by process of elimination that the keys
    indeed are for my car; however, you would still have reached the same
    conclusion if you had simply gone to my garage to begin with.
    Practically speaking, do you really have more information after trying
    a million other cars?
    
    The Lord has revealed His truth to all who know Him. He empowered us to
    act upon it. It would be ludicrous for us to go out and look at all the
    other claims to truth.
    
    	BD�

>    It's been stated in another conference that those of us who choose
>    Christ without fully exploring other belief systems, haven't made well
>    informed choices.

And what do they mean by "fully exploring"?  In more complicated mathematical
problems one does not always have to explore all the factors to show where
one is false.  Comparative religions make an interesting study and the
similarities between them can make for interesting reading.  But
there is a similarity between the number 10 and 100000, or 43556 and 4.3556,
or 1441 and 2442.  But as interesting as the similarities are the 
striking differences that are the key mathematical variables in the equation
to the meaning of life.

Christianity is not afraid to stand up against logic and truth because
there is no contradiction between True Christianity and Truth and Logic.
God defines it in the first place, does He not?  How can there be a 
contradiction if God defines what is Truth and Logic?

I spent a lot of lines of text showing that the greater power defines
and if God exists and He is the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent 
God of the Bible, then He defines.

How one finds out what God is like (the God of the Bible vs some other concept
of God) may involve searching through other belief systems.

And one more thing, what is meant by "exploring"?  It is data gathering,
or is it embracing and "experiencing" them?  I don't need to experience
a car crash to know that it is something I don't think I want to be 
involved in.  Observation is enough to tell me that.

Mark

.5

>     They don't see Christianity as a faith in a living God, a living Saviour
>     and a living and active Word of God.  They see a "religion" on the same
>     plane and a matter of choice as Bhuddism, Hinduism or whatever others
>     there are.  We've all done a lot to try to get them to see otherwise, but
>     I don't see it getting anywhere at this point.

Don't underestimate the power of Truth, whatever package it comes in, Jim.
What you see and what happens can be different by several orders of magnitude.

I have found that the Truth is straight as straight can be, and using the
very same logic and arguments they use (as long as it is true and straight)
shows that Christianity is entirely logical and truthful.

It doesn't matter what you see that they see or don't see.  We are simply to
"Go and teach" and let the Master deal with the results.  The Word, the
Truth, will not return void.

    Stand firm in the truth.  It satisfies, so that I don't have a need to
    look anywhere else.

| <<< Note 233.5 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| Well, first I determine that I don't need to be pc.  I need to be
| bc...biblically correct.  

	Jim, this is fine for you. But remember, in that "other" conference you
have a wider variety of people who assume you are throwing your religion down
their throats. From the things you have told me though, I would have to say
this is not what you do.

| I don't think (assuming we are talking about that other conference) we need 
| to rephrase it. Those of us who have participated in there have done a fine 
| job of signifying what Christ means to us.  

	Jim, maybe this was the problem, but I was left more with Bible
information given than what Christ means to you. Maybe you can clear this up
for me?

| We don't need to mold Him or our relationship to Him to fit what they want 
| to hear.  

	I agree with you on this, because if this were done it wouldn't be what
Christ means to you, but what you think they want to hear. This won't work for
you as it has no meaning.

| They don't see Christianity as a faith in a living God, a living Saviour
| and a living and active Word of God.  

	Here is where I have to question. While I do agree that there are some
who fit this mold you created, my impression was that most believe everything
you stated with one exception. The Bible being the Word of God.

| They see a "religion" on the same plane and a matter of choice as Bhuddism, 
| Hinduism or whatever others there are.  

	I guess if one is choosing a religion, yes. As far as what the religion
is about, no.

| We've all done a lot to try to get them to see otherwise, but I don't see it 
| getting anywhere at this point.

	Different tactics maybe? Why not try and understand what they are
talking about without adding in any comments about what you believe to be true.
This way you will be seen as trying to actually find out what they are thinking
and MAYBE a less argumentive conversation will take place. After they are done
you can give your version. But I know for many they believe people who are
religious won't even take the time to listen to what others have to say.
Whether this is accurate or not is another matter. (which I believe for many it
is not accurate)




Glen

RE:               <<< Note 233.12 by JURAN::SILVA "Memories....." >>>




.| Well, first I determine that I don't need to be pc.  I need to be
.| bc...biblically correct.  

.	Jim, this is fine for you. But remember, in that "other" conference you
.have a wider variety of people who assume you are throwing your religion down
.their throats. From the things you have told me though, I would have to say
.this is not what you do.

 
 No, I don't "throw it down their throats".   It is difficult to get into
 a full fledge sharing of the gospel with someone in an electronic forum.
 




.| I don't think (assuming we are talking about that other conference) we need 
.| to rephrase it. Those of us who have participated in there have done a fine 
.| job of signifying what Christ means to us.  

.	Jim, maybe this was the problem, but I was left more with Bible
.information given than what Christ means to you. Maybe you can clear this up
.for me?


 good point...perhaps there was more discussion on the Bible (since that was
 where the "discussions" seemed to be heading.

 What Christ means to me?  Everything.  Eternal life, forgiveness, hope,
 truth, to start.  Probably not enough disk space to enter everything.



.| We don't need to mold Him or our relationship to Him to fit what they want 
.| to hear.  

.	I agree with you on this, because if this were done it wouldn't be what
.Christ means to you, but what you think they want to hear. This won't work for
.you as it has no meaning.

?


.| They don't see Christianity as a faith in a living God, a living Saviour
.| and a living and active Word of God.  

.	Here is where I have to question. While I do agree that there are some
.who fit this mold you created, my impression was that most believe everything
.you stated with one exception. The Bible being the Word of God.


Why am I not surprised...they all work together, Glen.  Until you see that
you fall into the statement I made above.


.| They see a "religion" on the same plane and a matter of choice as Bhuddism, 
.| Hinduism or whatever others there are.  

.	I guess if one is choosing a religion, yes. As far as what the religion
.is about, no.


?

.| We've all done a lot to try to get them to see otherwise, but I don't see it 
.| getting anywhere at this point.

.	Different tactics maybe? Why not try and understand what they are
.talking about without adding in any comments about what you believe to be true.
.This way you will be seen as trying to actually find out what they are thinking
.and MAYBE a less argumentive conversation will take place. After they are done
.you can give your version. But I know for many they believe people who are
.religious won't even take the time to listen to what others have to say.
.Whether this is accurate or not is another matter. (which I believe for many it
.is not accurate)


 Glen, my truth is the Bible..I know you don't understand that..I sincerely
 hope and pray that one day you will..but I will not argue over the authenticity
 or proof/lack of proof any more.  The proof of the truth of the Bible is in
 my own life and those of countless others throughout history.



 Jim

>Christianity is not afraid to stand up against logic and truth because
>there is no contradiction between True Christianity and Truth and Logic.
>God defines it in the first place, does He not?  How can there be a 
>contradiction if God defines what is Truth and Logic?

	While I can't argue with this statement, it might not be
totally relevant and could be a tad dangerous. Only one person who
ever walked the face of the Earth was completely logical, and
while the rest of us are made in God's image, we all started out
damaged and we aren't anywhere near as smart as He is. Heck, I'm Polish 
(on both sides) and a graduate of the University of Michigan, so I'm 
innately superior to just about everybody here, but even I'll admit 
I'm not completely logical.

 I really feel Christians can fall into an intellectual trap and unknowingly
try to bring God down to the wrong level. We have a loving Daddy who's bigger
than anybody else's daddy. We've been given a precious gift that we 
should simply share with others. Sometimes, when we get into intellectual,
logical arguments, all we end up doing is trying to explain our God
through someone else's God (the fallen human intellect). Others need
to see God in us, and a lot of intellectual baloney could in some instances
do more harm than good. As far as logic is concerned, I believe that every 
Christian reaches a crisis of faith where logic, experience, and every
other trait that makes us human fails him/her and he/she just has to 
believe, even though everything screams NO!. A God understood
solely through the intellect isn't a God at all.
 
	Bob

>ever walked the face of the Earth was completely logical, and
>while the rest of us are made in God's image, we all started out
>damaged and we aren't anywhere near as smart as He is. Heck, 
    
    Curious why do you think we started out damaged?
    
    >I'm Polish(on both sides) and a graduate of the University of Michigan, so I'm 
��>innately superior to just about everybody here, but even I'll admit 
>I'm not completely logical.

    Huh?  :-) :-) :-)  That is the best line I've heard in a long time. 
    "Innately Superior"... hmmm backwards "Superior Innately"... Tell me
    Bob are you innately serious?
    
>I really feel Christians can fall into an intellectual trap and unknowingly
>try to bring God down to the wrong level. We have a loving Daddy who's bigger
>than anybody else's daddy. We've been given a precious gift that we 
>should simply share with others. 
    
    I do agree with you here though.  But it goes beyond just this
    explanation.  As Christians we are motivated to tell others of Christ
    because of the eternal consequences and oftimes our zeal is instrusive
    when someone has said emphatically, "NO!"  Instead of respecting their
    God-given free will to choose, we become nuisances.  While I wouldn't
    advise walking on eggshells around an individual [in other words become
    intimidated or fearful of stating your faith when appropriate], I also
    wouldn't go out of my way to mention it without being asked or as is
    relevant to a discussion.
    
    I'm seeing this in another conference right now.  Discussions come up
    about different topics, and my Christianity has helped mold my view of
    that topic.  However, when I contribute it is oftimes rejected as
    "preaching"... but it's not true, it s my view of *that* topic which
    encompasses my Christianity.... see what I mean?
    
    >Sometimes, when we get into intellectual,
>logical arguments, all we end up doing is trying to explain our God
>through someone else's God (the fallen human intellect). Others need
    
    This is also true... but then again how would you reach an
    intellectual?
    
>to see God in us, and a lot of intellectual baloney could in some instances
>do more harm than good. As far as logic is concerned, I believe that every 
    
    Seeing God in us is very important.  At my job here in Santa Clara.  I
    know that folks see *something* different about me.. and some *blame*
    it on my *religion* and to some degree that is synonymous with God,
    though it isn't in my mind.  But what is most demonstrable of God in my
    life is my behavior or actions towards others... not what I say or
    represent in word.
    
>Christian reaches a crisis of faith where logic, experience, and every
>other trait that makes us human fails him/her and he/she just has to 
>believe, even though everything screams NO!. A God understood
>solely through the intellect isn't a God at all.
 
    Hmmm... I think Markem could address this better.  I'm not an intellect
    I'm a feeler. :-)  So, I'd tend to agree with you.  But one thing I've
    learned is that God reaches all people, he has not requirements for
    giving His love... intellectually speaking that is. :-)
    
    Nancy

>    doctrine of election out of it for now), then I still would ask how one
>    defines "well-informed"? Are you well-informed because you researched 2
>    "belief systems" before accepting the truth? Or would you not be well-
>    informed unless you researched 20? Since there are probably an
>    uncountable number of belief systems one could research (or create),
>    it's not possible to research them all. Therefore a choice (again
>    assuming for argument purposes that you have a choice) will always be
>    one made on a partial analysis.
    
    That's a good point.  However, would you agree that as much as it is
    humanly possible that you should understand world-wide belief systems? 
    I mean prior to my accepting Christ�� as Savior, the only belief system
    that I knew about was Catholicism, which is a branch of Christianity as
    viewed worldwide.  If I had been exposed to Mormonism, Buddhism,
    Muslimism [:-)], etc... I think it may have been more difficult to
    reach me with Christianity... but I dunno.
    
    >The Lord has revealed His truth to all who know Him. He empowered us to
    >act upon it. It would be ludicrous for us to go out and look at all the
    >other claims to truth.
  
    Ludicrous if you were searching for truth.. but would it be ludicrous
    if you were gaining knowledge and information?
    
    Nancy    

>    It's been stated in another conference that those of us who choose
>    Christ without fully exploring other belief systems, haven't made well
>    informed choices.

>And what do they mean by "fully exploring"?  In more complicated mathematical
>problems one does not always have to explore all the factors to show where
>one is false.  Comparative religions make an interesting study and the
>similarities between them can make for interesting reading.  But
>there is a similarity between the number 10 and 100000, or 43556 and 4.3556,
>or 1441 and 2442.  But as interesting as the similarities are the 
>striking differences that are the key mathematical variables in the equation
>to the meaning of life.
    
    One might question would the differences necessarily be bad?  Just
    because someone has blue eyes instead of green... see what I'm asking?
    

>Christianity is not afraid to stand up against logic and truth because
>there is no contradiction between True Christianity and Truth and Logic.
>God defines it in the first place, does He not?  How can there be a 
>contradiction if God defines what is Truth and Logic?

    But this is exactly the position that is challenged.  That Christianity
    has Supremist attitude.   How can we demonstrate Truth, as we *know* it
    and not be viewed as Hitlerish?
    
>I spent a lot of lines of text showing that the greater power defines
>and if God exists and He is the Omnipotent, Omniscient, Omnipresent 
>God of the Bible, then He defines.

    Agreed... good writing too. :-)
    
>How one finds out what God is like (the God of the Bible vs some other concept
>of God) may involve searching through other belief systems.

>And one more thing, what is meant by "exploring"?  It is data gathering,
>or is it embracing and "experiencing" them?  I don't need to experience
>a car crash to know that it is something I don't think I want to be 
>involved in.  Observation is enough to tell me that.

    Experience isn't what I was referring to... :-)  Gathering data.
    
    
    Nancy

.15> Bob

>I believe that every 
>Christian reaches a crisis of faith where logic, experience, and every
>other trait that makes us human fails him/her and he/she just has to 
>believe, even though everything screams NO!. A God understood
>solely through the intellect isn't a God at all.
 
I followed you, Bob, until here.

(a) we must recognize that people have different temperaments; things 
    that drive them differently than ourselves.  So while the intellectual
    discussion about God and religion does not stimulate you, and in 
    some cases, repulses you, there is an audience who needs to see this
    aspect of God (that His is perfectly logical, even if the Whole of
    Him cannot be grasped -- the Bible does not tell us all there is to
    know about God, but the Bible tells us all we need to know about God
    to become reconciled to Him).

(b) Things that scream NO! are not logic.  As the saying goes, "Jesus died
    to take away our sins; not our brains.

    Now, i go with you this far:  Because God is beyond our understanding,
    there *IS* a point at which everyone reaches a crisis of faith.  For
    the intellectual, he is presented with compelling evidence and the choice
    to ignore it or accept it is his.  To others, it is a matter of conviction
    of guilt; and to others a conviction unnamed.

(c) "A God understood solely through the intellect isn't a God at all"

    Quite true and very true.  But a God understood through the intellect
    in addition to "blind faith" is a God we can know on a personal level.
    And Christianity is a relationship; if it is not, it is not Christianity.

    To understand God *soley* through anything, paints an incomplete picture.

(d) My crisis came at age 18.  I grew up in the church.  I was confronted
    in my heart about "No man can serve two masters."  I made an intellectually-
    based choice to follow Christ.  The other aspects were not missing, but
    for my temperament, I understood things from this perspective.  In learning
    about other people's temperaments, I also realize that people will be
    confronted by the Holy Spirit in different ways.

    Example: a football team will change its plans based on who is 
    quarterbacking the other team because they know statistically 
    what the quarterback will do if it is a third and goal situation.
    They change the play to suit the person.  Since we are all unique,
    some of us will respond better to an intellectual understanding;
    and I hope you recognize that it is certainly NOT the sole basis
    for the faith we hold.

Mark

.16 (Nancy)

>    However, when I contribute it is oftimes rejected as
>    "preaching"... but it's not true, it s my view of *that* topic which
>    encompasses my Christianity.... see what I mean?

What people miss, Nancy, is that while you are responding from your
point of reference (Christianity), they are ALSO responding from their
points of reference (whatever that happens to be).  If you are preaching
(and maybe you are, I don't know), then they are ALSO preaching their views.

:-)

>    Hmmm... I think Markem could address this better.  I'm not an intellect
>    I'm a feeler. :-)  So, I'd tend to agree with you.  But one thing I've
>    learned is that God reaches all people, he has not requirements for
>    giving His love... intellectually speaking that is. :-)

Yes, thanks.  And, Bob, Nancy recognizes that she is a feeler, and so she
operates and deals with a different set of people, often, than I would.
It's like the "Biker for Jesus" who came into church some weeks back:
he's got a mission field that differs from mine, your, hers, and others.

Mark

>>Christianity is not afraid to stand up against logic and truth because
>>there is no contradiction between True Christianity and Truth and Logic.
>>God defines it in the first place, does He not?  How can there be a 
>>contradiction if God defines what is Truth and Logic?
>
>    But this is exactly the position that is challenged.  That Christianity
>    has Supremist attitude.   How can we demonstrate Truth, as we *know* it
>    and not be viewed as Hitlerish?

While we can emphatically state that X=3, where X + 2 = 5, we do not have to
be "Hitlerish" in making someone else accept the Truth of it.  What 
becomes totalitarian is when people get into an equally emphatic statement
that X=2.1.  We won't budge from X=3 and will base all of our other math
on that; and they won't budge frm 2.1 and will base all of their other
math on that.

We can say in simplistic math that 2.1 should prove false, but to them,
if 2.2 + 2 always equals 5, they may not see the falseness in it.

Some will never see (and this is as close to predestination as I am 
comfortable with).  Some have been brought up on a different number 
system where the math is all wrong; and some of these will be willing to
go back to the base to determine whether the math is indeed wrong or right.
That is why I say that Christianity is not afraid to do this.  We can go
back and check the rudimentary math anytime and it doesn't change,
so the proof of theorums stands firm upon it.

>    Experience isn't what I was referring to... :-)  Gathering data.

Go ahead and gather data.  How will it turn out?  Well, that all depends
on you.  I know some very intellectual people who have tested the Bible
(sometimes to disprove it) and have come to accept it as true.  I also
have heard of people like Joseph Campbell (now dead and aware of the Truth
of it) who did travel the world and gather data on religion.  And this 
is where Bob is correct - an solely intellectual pursuit will not find God.
Joseph Campbell is notes for "follow your bliss"; to put it into the
vernacular of the layman "whatever works for you."   He espoused the same,
"Let's all be one big happy family since we all worship the same Thing
anyway.  God is a cosmic essence of everything, including Christianity."
Sound pretty eastern?  It should.

Christianity has a few stark fundamentals (there's that word) that set it 
apart from other religions.  And it is because of these striking differences
(regardless of the similarities) that puts us in uncompromising situations.
We won't budge from X=3.  When one gathers all the data, they will have a lot
of data much of the masses will not, but he or she will be faced with the 
same questions: what is the true value of X?

The fallacy of the non-believer is that we can make our choice of any of 
these options.  Yes, we can, but these options are not without resulting
consequences.

Mark

| <<< Note 233.14 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| .	Jim, maybe this was the problem, but I was left more with Bible
| .information given than what Christ means to you. Maybe you can clear this up
| .for me?

| good point...perhaps there was more discussion on the Bible (since that was
| where the "discussions" seemed to be heading. What Christ means to me?  
| Everything.  Eternal life, forgiveness, hope, truth, to start.  Probably not 
| enough disk space to enter everything.

	Gee, that's an understatement! :-) But thanks for sharing what you did.
Just that alone is a big part of it. 

| .	I agree with you on this, because if this were done it wouldn't be what
| .Christ means to you, but what you think they want to hear. This won't work for
| .you as it has no meaning.

| ?

	OK, let me try again. If you mold your version of Christ to meet what
they see Him as, then the meaning to you would be lost. Plus, if you changed it
for each and every person you probably wouldn't know Him anymore. :(  I hope
this makes it clearer.

| .| They don't see Christianity as a faith in a living God, a living Saviour
| .| and a living and active Word of God.

| .	Here is where I have to question. While I do agree that there are some
| .who fit this mold you created, my impression was that most believe everything
| .you stated with one exception. The Bible being the Word of God.


| Why am I not surprised...they all work together, Glen.  

	If you mean as in the same facility or whatever I can't see the point.
When it comes to religion my views may differ from those I work with, like any
subject could. Maybe if you could explain to me what you mean by that statement
it would help me out.

| .| They see a "religion" on the same plane and a matter of choice as Bhuddism,
| .| Hinduism or whatever others there are.

| .	I guess if one is choosing a religion, yes. As far as what the religion
| .is about, no.

| ?

	OK, meaning if you choose a specific religion, it matches with what you
have said. I did get the impression though that a religion, once chosen if far
deeper than just the origional choice. Have I cleared things up?

| .| We've all done a lot to try to get them to see otherwise, but I don't see it
| .| getting anywhere at this point.

| Glen, my truth is the Bible..I know you don't understand that..

	Jim, I DO understand it, but for me it don't work. But in order to
understand what they might be saying you could listen, and then tell them what
you feel the truth is.




Glen

RE:              <<< Note 233.22 by DEMING::SILVA "Memories....." >>>






>| .| They don't see Christianity as a faith in a living God, a living Saviour
>| .| and a living and active Word of God.

>| .	Here is where I have to question. While I do agree that there are some
>| .who fit this mold you created, my impression was that most believe everything
>| .you stated with one exception. The Bible being the Word of God.


>| Why am I not surprised...they all work together, Glen.  

>	If you mean as in the same facility or whatever I can't see the point.
>When it comes to religion my views may differ from those I work with, like any
>subject could. Maybe if you could explain to me what you mean by that statement
>it would help me out.

No, I meant the Bible and God go hand in hand..we know God by the Word of God
"Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God"  



>| .| They see a "religion" on the same plane and a matter of choice as Bhuddism,
>| .| Hinduism or whatever others there are.

>| .	I guess if one is choosing a religion, yes. As far as what the religion
>| .is about, no.

>| ?

>	OK, meaning if you choose a specific religion, it matches with what you
>have said. I did get the impression though that a religion, once chosen if far
>deeper than just the origional choice. Have I cleared things up?



Well, I'm not sure what you mean..I have a problem with "choosing a religion" I
suppose..I didn't go shopping for a religion..I was convicted by the Word of God
through the Holy Spirit that I am a sinner and I am lost without Christ, as is
all of mankind by my understanding of the Bible.  Jesus Christ is not a religion
He is a life..religion to me is a man made mechanical sort of way for man to try
to reach god however the person "chooses" to define their God..Making that 
choice of a religion does not negate what the Bible says is the ultimate 
destination of those who reject Him, however.  You and everybody else is 
free to chooose what to believe..however, "There is a way that seemeth
right to a man, but the end thereof is destruction".  Several tims the
Bible refers to God as the only God, that Jesus is the ONLY way, that salvation
is found in NOone else..pretty convincing words to me.


>| Glen, my truth is the Bible..I know you don't understand that..

>	Jim, I DO understand it, but for me it don't work. But in order to
>understand what they might be saying you could listen, and then tell them what
>you feel the truth is.


It doesn't work for you because you don't want it to.   I and several others
have talked about the truth..for me, I feel it best now to pray.




Jim

One can readily see that a well-informed choice doesn't always mean
that the choice is correct.  That is because some will reject some 
of the information with which they have been informed.

You will see this over and over and over again.

There are some who would reason that because there are so many options,
there are many solutions.  However God is going to work things out, 
"No on comes to the Father, but by Me."  That God will work it out is 
up to Him.  I am responsible for what I know (and what I reject for that 
matter).  In the end, there will be no excuses for anyone.

Mark