Conference yukon::christian_v7

 Ah, the wonders of Hollywood..

"To be absent from the body is to be pressent with the Lord."

Hollywood does a great job of being those "dark shadowy creatures" that take
the public away from the truth.

As I understand it, time is only revelent where we are. In eternity, time is not 
a thing that is tracked.

Dave

    To expand a bit on Dave's quote ("To be absent from the body is to be
    present with the Lord"), it is my understanding that at death (or
    Rapture :-), the believer is instantly in heaven, and the unbeliever is
    instantly in hell. The body, of course, decomposes - we'll get new ones
    at the resurrection.
    
    There is a theological debate re whether a person comprises 3 parts
    (body, soul, spirit) - termed tripartite, or whether a person comprises
    2 parts (where soul+spirit are either combined to be one entity or
    merely are two different terms for the same entity) - termed bipartite.
    Regardless of which camp you are in, though, I know of no serious Bible
    student who accepts a "limbo" state for any part, whether the part is
    soul, spirit, or soul+spirit.
    
    At the resurrection, the believers get their soul+spirit (or soul
    and spirit) combined with their new body, which lives forever. The
    unbelievers their soul+spirit (or soul and spirit) combined with their
    new body, which "dies" forever.
    
    I believe someone posted some nice write-ups on after-death issues and
    the bi/tripartite stuff in a previous version of this conference.
    
    	BD�

                                                                      
    From some of my friends who have experienced things beyond this current 
    view of reality (near-death experiences, etc.), yes, they say that you can 
    safely assume that if you believe you are going to Christian heaven, then 
    indeed that is what will happen to you, unless something really out-of-
    the-ordinary happens.  From those same friends, I also have heard that 
    the movie "Ghost" is fairly accurate for that particular situation.
    
    For others who are interested in exploring other ways of thought, there
    is a book I can highly recommend called "The Tibetan Book Of Living and
    Dying", by Ven. Sogyal Rinpoche.  He is a Tibetan Buddhist, and this is
    a fairly recent publication.
    
    Yes, I realize this is the Christian conference, however my view is
    that it's always good to know other ways as well.  At least then if you
    choose to criticize it, you'll do so from a position of knowledge. (;^)
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Hi Mark!  (;^)  Just in for a quick read today.

    
    There's also an interesting account of death from a yogic perspective
    in "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by Yogananda.
    
    Cindy

    Hi Cindy,
    
    You're right this is a Christian Conference and while I'm a proponent
    of learning about other religions, I'm very careful to state that
    there aren't *alternative* religions that will take you to heaven.
    
    

    No religion will get you to heaven. 

    Jesus is the ONLY way.


    Jim

    Good one Jim!

    Hello all!!
    
                  I have just finished a book called " Embraced by the
    Light" by Betty J. Eadie, Gold Leaf Press ISBN 1-882723-00-7.  It's #3 
    on The New York Times Bestseller List.  
         This is a personal, and called the most detailed near death
    experience ever recorded.   I cried through most all of its 147 pages.
    It only takes a couple of hours to read, and I would recommend it to
    anyone, of any religion.
         Betty supposedly hemoraged after an operation (and died before her
    appointed time) for an undetermined amount of time.  She recorded her 
    experiences that she was able to retain.  
         
         It has helped me, and I'm sure it will help many more people as it
    goes out into the world.
    
                                  In His Love,
    
                                            Gil
    
    
    

>    Cindy
>    
>    PS. Hi Mark!  (;^)  Just in for a quick read today.

How honored we are, too, Cindy.  I'm back from vacation, behind 322 notes,
scan the topics listing, open it up and lo and behold: TNPUBS::PAINTER is
staring me in the face!  I thought this was particularly interesting:

>    yes, they [some of your friends] say that you can 
>    safely assume that if you believe you are going to Christian heaven, then 
>    indeed that is what will happen to you, unless something really out-of-
>    the-ordinary happens.

Do you believe everything about anyone's supposed experience that is related 
to you?  Would you like to expand Descarte's "I think, therefore I am" to
"I believe, therefore it will be?"

Also, I wonder what "something really out-of-the-ordinary" means?
In what context?

More questions than answers...

Mark

My mother-in-law had a "near-death" experience.  

As the story goes, she was in a dentist's chair and the aenesthesia
did her in.  I think (I'll have to ask) that she was in beautiful
surroundings and consciously said she'd like to stay but that
someone she took to be Jesus told her that her family needed 
her.  Her heart was stopped for about 10 minutes.

My wife told me this story, so you're getting is third hand.
I should check it out with my mother-in-law.

    Re.10-.11
    
    Mark,
    
    Hello!  Getting to be almost chocolate-chip cookie weather.  Heard from
    Irena?  I haven't been following the conference - lack of time.  The
    Washington, D.C. event to commemmorate Swami Vivekananda's presentation
    at the Parliament of World Religions in 1893 went very well.  Lot of work
    though.  
    
    >Do you believe everything about anyone's supposed experience that is
    >related to you?  
    
    ? Can you elaborate on this?  I missed the point.
    
    
    >Would you like to expand Descarte's "I think, therefore 
    >I am" to "I believe, therefore it will be?"

    Well.....there's actually a lot of truth in that statement: "Believe  
    and therefore it will be" when it comes to the inner human experience
    and the interpretation of what is happening.  (See example below.)
    
    
    >Also, I wonder what "something really out-of-the-ordinary" means?
    >In what context?
    
    Like the situation that happened in Ghost, for example.  It was not a
    relatively smooth transition, but a very abrupt and violent one.
    
    Regarding your mother-in-law's experience, I've heard that from others 
    I've known who have undergone such an experience as well.  To look at
    her story - she 'took the person to be Jesus', because her frame of
    reference and her belief system is Christian (yes?).  So it is really
    her interpretation based on her beliefs, and so that's what she
    experienced (only in her case with some room left in her statement that 
    it could have been someone else.)  It probably would be interesting to
    find out more about it from her directly.  
    
    A Hindu might have experienced the same person as Krishna, Ram, or 
    another avatar, for example.  Or a Buddhist, Buddha, because that's
    their belief system.  
    
    When a Unitarian Universalist (me) dies, we come to a crossroad with
    one sign pointing to "Heaven" to the left, and the other sign pointing
    to "Discussion About Heaven" to the right.  Immediately we go toward the 
    right because we would never dream of missing a good discussion!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    -1
    
    :-)  True to form and wit! :-)
    
    Nancy
    
    P.S.
    
    Irena's son has cancer and has been experiencing chemo as well as a
    surgery.  He is recuperating and I understand they believe to have
    gotten all the cancer cells.  Maybe Mark has more information.
    
    

    
    Thanks for letting me know about Irena and her son, Nancy.  I'll keep 
    them in my prayers.
    
    Cindy

>    >Do you believe everything about anyone's supposed experience that is
>    >related to you?
>
>    ? Can you elaborate on this?  I missed the point.

You stated a belief supported by reports from another person.  That's okay.
I believe what my wife tells me happened between "Hurricanes" Andrew and
Emily, so I'm not discounting all reports.  However, the reports of 
assurances that "if you believe you are going to Christian heaven,
then indeed that is what will happen to you," are accepted beliefs 
that won't be proven (or satisfactorily evidenced) to all until such
time comes for each of us.  To put it in the personal, "I am not persuaded
[by the testimony of your friends on this matter] that one's belief
alters reality (whatever reality happens to be).

Yes, I know that individuals can shape certain things by their frame of mind,
but I do not translate this into changing reality.  I do translate this into
cause and effect, that if I have a focus on accomplishing a task, it is 
much more likely to be accomplished than if I had no focus.  This is part
of the natural person, designed by the Creator.

We disagree a little on what it means to have GOd "within" us because of
our perceptions of Who God is.  It becomes more polarized as we begin to 
follow the logic of "Believe and therefore it will be" where by our god within
we become confused as to who is creating Whom.

>    A Hindu might have experienced the same person as Krishna, Ram, or
>    another avatar, for example.  Or a Buddhist, Buddha, because that's
>    their belief system.

Perhaps.  Perhaps not.  The jury is out for me.  My mother-in-law's experience
is interesting - and unconfirmable - only corrobarable by others' similar
experiences.  "Coming back from [near] death" deals in a realm that most
cannot experience before their time.  That it gives you support for your
beliefs is no more convincing to me that Elvis sightings give hope to 
his fans.  But rest assured that it also doesn't *answer* the question 
for me to dismiss such experiences.  I've become content with knowing that
all the answers do not have to be answered, as long as some foundational
answers (or Answers) have been confirmes.  (P.S. I did not see "Ghost"
to comment on the movie.)

Mark
----------------------------------
News on Irena:

Irena and I have chatted from time to time.  She's encouraged me to get
published.  I laughed it off, but she's persistent (as many know; in her
gentle way).  So I promised her if she got me some addresses, I would write
some letters and see what comes of it.  I have it on my list, so I will
get to it eventually but I'm not sure when.  Nancy filled you in on the
personal occupations of Irena (with her son Erik) - it's been a busy 
summer for her.  Sometimes you can be thankful someone is "gone" from
company (early retirement) so that they can attend to important business.
I'm glad I'm a friend of hers.

    
Mark,

>You stated a belief supported by reports from another person.  That's okay.

That's true.


>However, the reports of assurances that "if you believe you are going to 
>Christian heaven, then indeed that is what will happen to you," are accepted 
>beliefs that won't be proven (or satisfactorily evidenced) to all until such
>time comes for each of us.  

Yes, I agree with that.  My point was that there may be something in-between,
or other than, the either/or choice of Heaven/Hell that was mentioned earlier.


>To put it in the personal, "I am not persuaded
>[by the testimony of your friends on this matter] that one's belief
>alters reality (whatever reality happens to be).

That's the catch.  What *is* reality in this situation?  Is there a common
reality, or is our perception really what reality is at any given point.
I would say it is the latter.  Therefore, my point is that whatever happens
after death, if a Christian truly believes in a certain portrayal of Christian
Heaven, then that is what the person is probably going to experience.  

However, what I'm understanding from your entries specifically is that you may
not believe in the either/or situation that was entered in this string earlier
- that it's either Heaven or Hell, and nothing in-between.  If so, then I don't
think we have a basis for discussion, since this is what I was challenging
anyway. 


>Yes, I know that individuals can shape certain things by their frame of mind,

Not only shape, but interpret as well.


>but I do not translate this into changing reality.  I do translate this into
>cause and effect, that if I have a focus on accomplishing a task, it is 
>much more likely to be accomplished than if I had no focus.  This is part
>of the natural person, designed by the Creator.

Depends upon what 'reality' really is.  If you are color-blind, for example,
then your view of 'reality' is different from mine, is different from a bee
who sees flower colors in an altogether different way, is different from...
So even in this case then, what is Reality?

Your body appears to be solid enough.  And yet the majority of you, from a
physicist's perspective, is really empty space.  What is Reality in this case?


>We disagree a little on what it means to have GOd "within" us because of
>our perceptions of Who God is.  It becomes more polarized as we begin to 
>follow the logic of "Believe and therefore it will be" where by our god within
>we become confused as to who is creating Whom.

If one believes that God is creating, then God is indeed doing the creating.  
(;^)  No confusion on that one.

I personally believe, though, that I create my circumstances.  Some of them 
are conscious, and others unconscious.  And yet I always leave it up to God 
(the Highest Consciousness) to override any of my requests for the greater 
good of all.  It's not really any different than 'intent' - say that I 
'intend' to go to work, and I go about accomplishing that goal.  Yet at any 
time, God can intervene and change things.  I can also do the same.


>But rest assured that it also doesn't *answer* the question 
>for me to dismiss such experiences.  I've become content with knowing that
>all the answers do not have to be answered, as long as some foundational
>answers (or Answers) have been confirmes.  (P.S. I did not see "Ghost"
>to comment on the movie.)

Ah...then I think we may be having a totally baseless discussion.  (;^)

Thanks for the word on Irena, much appreciated.

Cindy

.17 Cindy Painter

>Yes, I agree with that.  My point was that there may be something in-between,
>or other than, the either/or choice of Heaven/Hell that was mentioned earlier.

Worthy of examining the ramifications, no doubt.  For starters, the
ramifications of "somthing in-between or other than" means that parts
or all of the Bible would be invalidated, wouldn't it?  

And what can we do when faced with two opposing viewpoints?  We appeal
to authority.  The authority of the testimonies of trustworthy friends
and perhaps even family.  And the authority of time-tested tradition.
And the authority of the time-tested Word.

>>To put it in the personal, "I am not persuaded
>>[by the testimony of your friends on this matter] that one's belief
>>alters reality (whatever reality happens to be).
>
>That's the catch.  What *is* reality in this situation?  Is there a common
>reality, or is our perception really what reality is at any given point.
>I would say it is the latter.  Therefore, my point is that whatever happens
>after death, if a Christian truly believes in a certain portrayal of Christian
>Heaven, then that is what the person is probably going to experience.  

Indeed.  What is reality?  Is there an absolute reality or is all reality
relative.  And this is where we diverge in the catch, because I have chosen 
to believe that there are absolutes, even if my relative reality has obscured
what the actual absolute is.  And so I contend that the actual absolute will
be known at some point (presumably at Judgment Day); and you contend (I think)
that only relative personal reality is the absolute.
-----
I tend to lean towards believing either/or (Heaven of Hell) but have not 
confirmed this belief, personally (arguments notwithstanding).  Regardless
of *possibilities*, I have confirmed a belief in ultimate destiny, and that
it is an absolute.  Persons not in alignment with the One Holy God will be
put out of His presence, and the absence from the Source of all that is good
will be torment.  Persons in alignment will exist in His presence forever.
------

>Your body appears to be solid enough.  And yet the majority of you, from a
>physicist's perspective, is really empty space.  What is Reality in this case?

Relative vs. Absolute.  There is a distinction, just as there are relative 
truths (which is reality, really) and absolute Truths.  We can often become
confused as to which is which.  Which truth is a relative truth and why is
it relative as opposed to absolute?

The relative truth of the solid body depends on context.  Absolutes do not
depend on contexts and are independent truths.

>Ah...then I think we may be having a totally baseless discussion.  (;^)

Depends on the context you choose, I suppose.  ;-)

Question:  Do you think there are any absolutes? What do you think some of
them are?

Mark

    Re.18                                             
    
    Mark,
    
    We are not so far apart in our beliefs.  Though from your 
    point of view, you may see it differently.  (;^)
    
    To answer your last question...
    
    For me, there is only one absolute - one unifying force that 
    underlies the existence of the cosmos - and that is Love.
    Everything else, as far as I can discern, is relative.
    
    At the conference, there was a fellow from a Sufi order who
    gave a talk on "Love - The Path of Unity".  (Sufism is to Islam
    like Yoga is to Hinduism, to give a comparison.)  I'll post his
    abstract in the next note.  It was a beautiful presentation.
    
    Cindy

    
    The following abstract is about the talk to be presented at the 
    conference by Dr. Alireza Nurbakhsh, the representative and son 
    of the current master of the Nimatullahi Order of Sufis, Dr. Javad 
    Nurbakhsh.
    
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Abstract

    Title:   Love: The Path of Unity
    Author:  Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh
    Date:    June, 1993
    
    Two questions are addressed in this paper:  First, what is unity from
    the Sufi point of view?  Second, how can one achieve such unity?

    Sufism is based on Islam and has often been characterized as the school
    of Unity of Being.  There is only one Being and whatever exists is a
    manifestation of that Being.  For the Sufis the discovery or 
    understanding of the Unity of Being is not an intellectual matter, 
    rather it is a matter of direct experience.

    The Spiritual world is different from the intellectual world in both its 
    goal and method.  The goal of the spiritual world is to discover the 
    ultimate Truth or the Unity of Being within oneself.  And the method of 
    spirituality is none other than love.  It is only through love that 
    spirituality can direct humankind towards unity.
    
    Cultural and religious unity in an everyday exoteric form, even if 
    desirable, cannot be achieved in our current multi-cultural, 
    multi-racial and multi-religious societies.  What brings unity and 
    harmony amongst very diverse religious and spiritual schools is the true 
    realization that what they are after, the ultimate Truth, is one and the 
    same thing for everyone.  To miss this point is to create disunity and 
    disharmony.

    It is only through love that man can truly see that all acts of worship 
    when performed out of sincerity of the heart, lead to one and the same 
    thing.  And it is only through God's remembrance that man can hope to be 
    able to learn how to love.

    .17
    
    Cindy,
    
    The one thing that jumps out at me is your definition of truth via the
    reality of an individual.  I have to ask you, if one thinks with all
    their might that they are a car, will they become a car?  
    
    You see the fault in this thinking is that there is no absolute, and it
    makes afterlife a chance.  I don't believe in a God of chance, to me
    that would ba most cruel god.
    
    My reality has little to do with eternity, it has much to do with *my*
    eternity.  If my reality is not in alignment with God's, who you have
    rightfully touched on the fact that He is Love, then *my* eternity has
    consequences of damnation/Hell, which I have chosen through rejection 
    of God's Truth as revealed in His word.
    
    

    .20
    
    This belief which you call Sufis, is not an uncommon belief.  I've
    heard it many times, mostly through the "New Age Order of Antichrist"
    [my term], especially here in California.
    
    Cindy, I can understand why one would be enticed by this way of
    thinking, especially those of us who are logical by nature [I'm one of
    those].  The catch is that faith defies logic.  And without faith one
    has nothing but their reality to hold onto.  And I believe that reality
    as I stated in my previous message is ambiguous and unsubstantiated
    unless there is an absolute by which to align that reality.
    
    Nancy

I'm breaking a record, two replies in one day...first off, though, HI! Cindy,
how are you?  Long time no see :-)

Interesting how a topic about a movie on ghosts has moved on to a discussion
of the one underlying truth to all of religion, etc....

Cindy, 

Where you and I would most likely disagree is, that I believe the Bible to
be God's revelation of Himself to mankind.  Since God says that He *is* love,
I need His Word in order to know what true love is.  I need to see how He 
has acted throughout all of history, and in particular how He revealed Himself
in Jesus Christ, in order to be able to grasp what love really is.

In other words, love isn't god, God is love.  The way to understand love, and
to "reach" or attain true spirituality (love) is to strive to know God through
the person of Jesus Christ, the revelation of the Holy Spirit and the Truth of
God's Word, the Bible.  I have to reject other so-called "paths" because Jesus
claimed to be *the* truth, *the* way and *the* life.  He said that apart from
Him, there is *no* life, ie no love (I'm making a quantum leap, but I think
that you would agree with the statement that a life without love is nothing 
but "death warmed over" :-).

It's not a matter of "frame of reference" or cultural influence.  Certainly
those things effect whether, or not, I have heard Christ's claims.  But, once
I have heard them, I must decide.  Do I accept His claims to being the only
way, or do I reject them?  If I reject them I have to bear the consequences,
just the same as I have to bear the consequences if I accept them.  If God
has defined the consequences of rejecting Christ's claims to be death (eternal
seperation from God regardless of how you understand "seperation"), then I
have to understand that the consequences of rejecting Christ are that that
person will never experience true love.  

If you reject Jesus Christ, then you can spend the rest of your life seeking
love, and you'll never find it.  Some people will only realize when it's too
late, that they have wasted their lives pursuing something that they could
have had simply for the asking.  Millions cry out for love, but then reject
the God who is love.  They are the ones about whom the Bible says they are
forever seeking to be wise, but have become fools.

Rob (who still remembers with an aching heart the love that he felt God wanted
to show you during our lunch date several years ago)

>    We are not so far apart in our beliefs.  Though from your 
>    point of view, you may see it differently.  (;^)
 
Yes, I know.  But there is an old saying that the most dangerous lie is
the one closest to the truth.

>    For me, there is only one absolute - one unifying force that 
>    underlies the existence of the cosmos - and that is Love.
>    Everything else, as far as I can discern, is relative.

Thanks for your answer.  It is the absolutes that ultimately differentiate
people.  While I might say God is absolute, and you counter that God is
Love and Love is God, I would be left wondering if our definitions really
coincided.

I believe that God is a distinct Person, separate from the cosmos, defining
other absolutes.  We similarly believe that God supports all that is and
will be.  I believe that God is an intelligent, sensient being and not
simply a force or aum (did I get that right) that permeates all things.

Mark

.22 Nancy

>The catch is that faith defies logic.

I wouldn't say this.  I believe faith does not defy logic at all.
I believe faith is ultimately logical.  It is just there there comes
a point where logic runs out, like coming to the end of a pier.
All logic has led in the right direction and you know it, but 
there comes a point where you cannot see beyond.  Logic is not
defied at this point, for logic concluded that you would reach this 
point.  Logic is merely at the point where the "leap" comes to faith.

Mark

    -1
    huh? :-) :-)
    
    I somehow got caught up in the labyrinth of words there. :-)
    
    Help me understand better, please.
    
    Nancy

No labyrinth at all.

Logic follows a reproducable process.  If-then-else contructs.

If I use blue paint on my garage
then my garage will be painted blue
else [I do not use blue paint, or do not paint, etc] 
     my garage will not be painted blue.

You said, faith defies logic, which I took to mean that faith is illogical.
I disagree because I think faith is very logical.

All the evidences point to the fact that when tomorrow comes (the new today,
that is), our earth will rotate so the sun shines (weather permitting),
we have light, just as we have for the past thoughsands of years.
Here is it logical to believe that tomorrow will arrive because it
has arrived ever since we were born.  ***But because we cannot prove that
tomorrow will come, we have faith that it will.***  So faith continues
where logic leaves off.

Archie Bunker said that faith was believing in something no one in 
their right minds would believe anyway.  Bunker Theology is for humor
only.  :-)  I'm sure he was speaking of miracles (and I still get a chuckle
out of whoever said they believed in the small miracles but couldn't
believe in the bib miracles).  But even miracles are logically traced
back to a logical base (an omnipotent God) and only look illogical from
our incomplete frames of reference.

Faith continues where logic can no longer follow, but logic has not contradicted
in any way that which is taken on faith!

Mark

    Re.23
    
    Rob,
    
    Hello!  Yes, it has been quite a while.  Glad to see you are still here! 
    
    You write:  "There is no love apart from Christ"
    
    Yes, I can go along with that. [That reply ought to confound some folks
    here...maybe even yourself.]  (;^)
    
    Cindy
    
    PS. Don't fret - you did a fine job reflecting Christ's love 
        during our lunch.  (;^)  I only hope that I did the same.

    Re.22                                                             
    
    Nancy,
    
    I have an absolute to align my reality.  It is Love, as I stated in my
    reply to Mark.
    
    Therefore, my faith does not defy my logic.  They are both in sync. as
    they resolve at the absolute level of Love.  All else is relative.
    
    Cindy

                                                                           
    Re.24
    
    Mark,
    
    I believe, actually, that God is *both* (referencing your last paragraph
    of .24)  Some believe in the force only, and you believe in the
    separate person only.  
    
    I see God as being All - ultimately there is nothing separate from God.
    
    Cindy

.30 Cindy

>    I see God as being All - ultimately there is nothing separate from God.

This distinction becomes wider as we see in the Bible that there will be
some who depart from God, being separated forever.   This is why, while
we possess similarities in our beliefs, there are distinct and important
differences in how we percieve the Absolute.  The two Absolutes cannot
co-exist.  One cannot be separate from God and be not separate from God;
they contradict.  Which Absolute is correct matters to one's destiny.

Mark

    Re.31
    
    Mark,
    
    >One cannot be....separate and not separate...at the same time
    (paraphrased)
    
    Yes they can, and for me they are.  But not in your frame of 
    reference, so for you, they cannot be.  Therefore, what you 
    state is Absolutely true.  For you.  (;^) 
    
    Cindy

Sounds like a song...

Anything you can say, I can say better.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can.
No, you can't.
Yes, I can.
No, you can't.  Yes, I can!
No, you can't!   Yes, I can!!
No, you can't!!!  Yes, I can!!!

>    >One cannot be....separate and not separate...at the same time
>
>    Yes they can, and for me they are.  But not in your frame of 
>    reference,

Please explain your frame of reference, which I believe to be nothing
more than relative truths, obscured by such language as:

>Therefore, what you state is Absolutely true.  For you.  (;^) 
    
This is actually saying that we both have Absolute truths relative
to our frame of reference.  But this suggests that there is no
REAL ABSOLUTE, just frame of reference absolutes.  I balk at this
idea and claim that regardless of either of our frames of reference,
there is an Absolute Truth that is reality, beyond our frames of reference
and perceptions of truth that may validate or invalidate the "absolutes" 
of our frame of reference.

And no personal Absolutes will make a hill of beans when reality, apart from
the frame of reference and perception, is made known to all.

MM

    
    Mark,
    
    How about this explanation then...
    
    We live on Earth.  One can say that the Earth is flat.  Standing on
    Earth, just take a look around and that is apparent to anyone.
    
    From some distance in space, one can say the Earth is round.  And 
    that, too, is true.
    
    Some exacting scientific-type will come along and say that the Earth,
    based on detailed calculations, will say that the Earth is not round at
    all - that it is oval, sort of flat around the poles.  And that, too, 
    is true.
    
    *All* of these statements are true at the very same time.  It just 
    depends upon the frame of reference that one is viewing the Earth from.
    
    The problem I see with Absolute Truths, using this particular scenario, 
    is that once-upon-a-time the Church deemed it an Absolute Truth that 
    the Earth was flat, regardless of the frame of reference, and lots of 
    people were killed because they dared think otherwise.   
    
    More to follow.
    
    Cindy

    
    So, in the end...
    
    The only Absolute Truth that I know of is Love.  There may be yet
    another Absolute Truth beyond this, and that's fine, however this
    what I have experienced.  
    
    Everything else to me, then, is relative.  
    
    Cindy

                                   
    .21    
    
    Nancy,
    
    >The one thing that jumps out at me is your definition of truth via the
    >reality of an individual.  I have to ask you, if one thinks with all
    >their might that they are a car, will they become a car?  
    
    It doesn't work like that.
    
    >You see the fault in this thinking is that there is no absolute, and it
    >makes afterlife a chance.  I don't believe in a God of chance, to me
    >that would ba most cruel god.
    
    I don't believe that either (that God is a God of chance).  I just don't 
    believe the definitions of 'afterlife' that have appeared in this 
    conference.  
    
    >consequences of damnation/Hell
    
    And to me, a God that banish persons to such an afterlife is a most cruel
    god indeed.  Therefore, I can't accept this damnation/Hell stuff at all
    as being anywhere close to the Absolute Truth.
    
    Cindy 

Hi Cindy,

Long time ....

�    And to me, a God that banish persons to such an afterlife is a most cruel
�    god indeed.  Therefore, I can't accept this damnation/Hell stuff at all
�    as being anywhere close to the Absolute Truth.

Would you include *everything* in heaven, or is there, say, any evil that 
you would exclude ... ?

							Andrew

    Cindy, 
    
       Your comment about God banishing those that reject Him is so old. 
    Tell me, if your boyfriend or husband absolutely hated you, would you
    FORCE him to stay with you?! No, in your love and compassion, would
    you not let them go?! So too it is with God. Those that reject Him, do
    so because sin has caused them to hate God. Therefore, God, out of
    pure love and compassion, allow them the freedom to leave,...and die.
    
    God is a just and right God. Since He created all things, it is by His
    position that he can rightly destroy what he will. This does not mean
    it will please Him though. God would prefer to lose none, but man is
    determined to rebuke Him.
    
    
    
    -PDM

Hi PDM 	.... 	same destination, different route ;-)		&rew

Note 249.34 TNPUBS::PAINTER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    The problem I see with Absolute Truths, using this particular scenario,
>    is that once-upon-a-time the Church deemed it an Absolute Truth that
>    the Earth was flat, regardless of the frame of reference, and lots of
>    people were killed because they dared think otherwise.

  This is a tired argument, Cindy.

  What you have said is based soley in your personal perspective.  For one
  who I thought sees beyond herself, I am a little surprized that you would
  be so internalized on this discussion.

  You see, regardless of what anyone says is the absolute truth (including
  myself), I am talking about an Absolute Truth that is independent of our
  perceptions.  We can argue that we may never know more of the Absolute
  Truth than our perceptions will grant, but it doesn't change an Absolute.
  Am I being more clear?

  Therefore, even if I am dead wrong to believe that Christianity is the
  Absolute Truth, if there is an [alternate and true] *Absolute* Truth other
  than Christianity, then when what I believe is revealed to the Absolute,
  I will be shown to be wrong.  And depending on what the Absolute Truth
  ACTUALLY is (and not frame of reference (or relative) truth), I may be in
  for some dire consequences.

Note 249.35 TNPUBS::PAINTER

>    The only Absolute Truth that I know of is Love.  There may be yet
>    another Absolute Truth beyond this, and that's fine, however this
>    what I have experienced.
>
>    Everything else to me, then, is relative.

  Your statements are incongruous.  An "absolute truth that you know" is NOT
  ABSOLUTE is it?  Especially if there is "yet another absolute truth beyond
  this."  Do you know what the word "absolute means?  I think you do but you
  have become confused into thinking there are several [possibly
  contradicting] absolutes.  To think so destroys the meaning of the word.
  Absolute does NOT equate to relative.  You may as well say, "everything to
  me is relative" and leave out the "else" because we are not communicating
  with the same definitions for the words we're using!  No wonder you see
  similarities in our beliefs, if we use the same words but mean different
  things by them!

  Please rethink what the word Absolute means, then meditate on your
  arguments.  I hope you'll be able to understand what I've been saying.

Mark
                                         

>           <<< Note 249.36 by TNPUBS::PAINTER "remembering Amber" >>>

>    And to me, a God that banish persons to such an afterlife is a most cruel
>    god indeed.  Therefore, I can't accept this damnation/Hell stuff at all
>    as being anywhere close to the Absolute Truth.
    
    Cindy,

    God, in the beginning, set up His Truth.  For _everyone_ there is a
    choice to be made in this life.  You can accept God's Truth here on
    this earth, and spend eternity with Him; or you can reject His Truth,
    and suffer eternal separation from God.

    This (God's Truth) is no different than our earthly laws (although of
    vastly greater consequences).  Government has mandated that certain
    actions are acceptable and certain actions are not.  _YOU_ have the
    choice of abiding by those laws or not.  No one forces you to go one
    way or the other.  If you chose to ignore those laws, you will face the
    consequences of violation of those laws.  Assuming you break a law, and
    you are standing before the judge, are you going to tell him that your
    perception of the law supersedes his duty to sentence you???  The law,
    and its sentence must be upheld regardless of your perception.  Is the
    judge cruel for sentencing you for violation of the laws?  No!  You are
    the one who _chose_ to violate the law.  So therefore, the sentence you
    receive is brought on by none other than yourself.

    And so it is the same with God's Truth.  _YOU_ are the one who chooses
    to ignore His Truth.  Therefore, _YOU_ are bringing the damnation upon
    yourself for ignoring the Truth.  _DON'T_ blame God of being a cruel
    God because of _your_ choices.  That is a cop-out.

    Your example of peoples perception of the earth being flat as being
    truth (to them) does not cut it.  Regardless of their perception, the
    absolute truth of it is that the earth is indeed round.  People years
    ago used to believe that the sun revolved about the earth.  Their
    perception of the truth caused them to believe that.  However, the
    absolute truth disproves their perceived truth.  As another example,
    pilots, when flying in the clouds or fog (and probably under other
    conditions) can get totally disoriented such that they can be flying
    upside down and _perceive_ that they are flying right side up.  Their
    truth, as they perceive it, is contrary to the absolute truth.  It
    doesn't matter how they are perceiving the truth.  If they are close
    enough to the ground, and they pull back on the stick, thinking they
    are going to gain altitude, they will come to a very quick realization
    of the _absolute_ truth.

    And so, when people die, they (like the disoriented pilot) are going to
    come to a _very quick_ realization of God's Absolute Truth!

    By the way, in my example of the disoriented pilot it should be pointed
    out that the pilot's plane has instruments that are indicating to him
    that his perceived truth is contrary to the absolute truth.  We in this
    conference, as fellow Christians, are sort of like the pilot's
    instruments.  Indicating to the world that their perception of the
    truth is contrary to God's Absolute Truth.

    God bless.

    Ron

Note 249.36 TNPUBS::PAINTER
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    And to me, a God that banish persons to such an afterlife is a most cruel
>    god indeed.  Therefore, I can't accept this damnation/Hell stuff at all
>    as being anywhere close to the Absolute Truth.

  I have heard this argument ad nauseum, too.

  What is interesting about all that you and I have discussed about love and
  hatred, good and evil, Cindy, is that I have felt that you have either
  denied or subliminated the "dark" side.  Oh, we've talked about what is
  "sin" before and I asked you if the God you describe as being in all
  things was also in the evil that was done.  You never gave me a
  satisfactory answer (none that I can remember, so please referesh me on
  your position, if you would).

  Whether or not you can accept something won't change the "absolute,"
  whatever it is.  If your correct in your belief system, and I reject your
  belief system, it won't change the fact that your belief system is
  correct.  That's the nature of absolute, whether we accept it or not.

  First, the Christian view of a Holy God (and the more we discuss this the
  greater the disparity between our views begins to show), nothing that is
  not [made] holy can abide in His presence.  Persons are given the
  opportunity to be made holy and abide in His presence.  Some people reject
  that. Who banishes whom?

  Second, the Christian view places God as sovereign.  You view either has
  not or has skirted the issue by becoming part of god itself.  Consider the
  person who says, "So what if I sinned [by whatever definition you care to
  use]. I still want to live in heaven and a loving God wouldn't throw me
  out." This is a SELF-centered statement; one that places self as
  sovereign. "I choose to live in heaven because I deserve it, or I don't
  deserve  something bad happening to me."  or "I'll tell you what is the
  proper punishment for my sins."  How presumptious this is!

  I hope you will consider whether there is possibly an absolute (and I'm
  not asking you to define what that absolute is!) beyond our "frame of
  reference absolutes."  If you determine that it is possible, then we
  can proceed.  If you determine that it is impossible (and there is no
  possibility of an absolute beyond our perspectives), then we can also
  proceed. Certainly, the determination you make will decide where we go
  with this.
                                          
  Mark

Well said, Ron (.41).  Mind if I use your disoriented pilot analogy?
Add one to my data bank!

MM

    I remember the "disoriented pilot" analogy being used *very*
    effectively in one of the old Moody Science films.  They gave several
    real life examples of how pilots trusted their instincts over their
    instruments, much to their dismay.  In another example, they
    blindfolded an expert trampoline jumper (used to doing flips, etc.) and
    put him in a chair on a turntable and asked him to describe what he
    felt.  They gave the turntable a shove, and he said "I'm turning to the
    right."  As he continued to turn at the same speed, he said "I'm
    slowing down...slowing down...I've stopped turning" (he was still
    turning at the same speed).  Then, they stopped the turntable, and he
    blurts out "TURNING TO THE LEFT...TURNING TO THE LEFT" (though he was
    standing still).  They then removed the blindfold while in a close-up
    of his face -- as soon as they did, his eyes did a wierd wobble,
    because what he was seeing was in such opposition to what he was
    feeling.  It was amazing.  They closed the movie with the message that
    God has given us the true "instrument" to be trusted, His holy book. 
    If we trust our feelings, we will be decieved.  If we trust God's Word,
    we will can be kept from deception.
    
    Mark L.

    
    Re.40
    
    Mark (and others),
    
    >meditate on your arguments...
    
    I'm not here to argue.  At all.  In fact, I've been trying my best to
    remain out of such things, so my replies have been very brief. Long ago
    I realized that it is much more inefficient to seek God through arguing
    than to seek God through trying to find the commonality in all the
    various points of view.  I seemed to have touched a nerve in many
    people here - including yourself - so for that I apologize.
    
    Something happened to me a few years ago.  I had an experience of what
    I can best describe as Divine omnipresence.  A Love so intense that
    whatever negativity (sin, misdeeds, cruelty) exists in ones perception
    is just blasted out of existence at that moment.  It's not destroyed,
    but rather such intense Light was shed on it for me, that the higher 
    reasons why it is permitted to exist were revealed in that moment. 
    
    Out of that experience, I experienced that all is God, and that there
    isn't anything apart from God.  Here on the earthly plane though, I
    experience God as being separate most of the time too, though. That's
    why I can see both as being true. 
    
    The difficulty is that this experience is very hard to put into words.  
    And even more difficult to explain in 'logical, arguable' terms...much 
    less ones that are Biblically acceptable to those here (since I'm not 
    a Biblical scholar.)  I did try, but it apparently only made things
    worse.
    
    Shall I remain silent here then?  I could do that.  Perhaps I should do 
    that, since it seems to be producing hard feelings and negativity.  I'll 
    leave that decision to you, because I'm happy to do that if you would 
    prefer.  It doesn't matter to me.
    
    Cindy  
                     

>    to seek God through trying to find the commonality in all the
>    various points of view.  I seemed to have touched a nerve in many
>    people here - including yourself - so for that I apologize.

Touched a nerve?  Not the way I understand the phrase.  But you have
not found commonality in our points of view, and I am trying to point
this out to you!  You may have used similar language, but the more you 
speak about it, the less common it becomes, yet you would claim that we
are the ones who do not see the truth of it - as you see it being common.

>    Shall I remain silent here then?  I could do that.  Perhaps I should do 
>    that, since it seems to be producing hard feelings and negativity.  I'll 
>    leave that decision to you, because I'm happy to do that if you would 
>    prefer.  It doesn't matter to me.

No hard feelings on my part!  Nor negativity, unless you define negativity 
as disagreeing with your viewpoint.  Do you consider this negativity?  I
have a lot to learn about the "discussions" the UUs have, then.

It seems to me, though, Cindy, that while we've used words we understand,
we have understood them differently, like absolute, argument, negativity,
and "touched a nerve."

When you say, "frame of reference," isn't it possible that our frames
of reference don't have all that much in common after all?

Mark

P.S.  I was interested in your comment about "negativity...[being] just blasted
out of existence" [by an intense Love].  Then you said, "it was not destroyed."
Forgive me, but I do not understand how something cannot exist anymore and
not be destroyed.  Was it brought back?  Please clarify.

You might see this as nit picking.  I don't.  I'm trying to communicate
in words we'll both understand.  Not communicating won't do that, but
clarification might.  To me, what you have conveyed is an unclear 
picture, described by you as "very hard to put into words. And even more 
difficult to explain in 'logical, arguable' terms..."  But let us try, okay?

    Re.46
    
    Mark,
    
    OK.
    
    A little later though.  Although I do not believe that Time exists 
    in the Absolute, there are still these deadlines that keep coming
    up in my current surrounding reality.  (;^)
    
    
    Cindy

>    Although I do not believe that Time exists 
>    in the Absolute, there are still these deadlines that keep coming
>    up in my current surrounding reality.  (;^)


Now that is funny!  :-)

(FWIW, I don't think time is an absolute either.)
    

    
    Re.48
    
    On Time not being Absolute...
    
    There...we do agree on something.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

Make that two, Cindy:  We both agree my chocolate chip cookies are sensational!

>      <<< Note 249.43 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

>Well said, Ron (.41).  Mind if I use your disoriented pilot analogy?
>Add one to my data bank!

    Please feel free.  As I was writing my reply that one popped into my
    head.

    As you are aware, I don't usually write much in here beyond the
    chit-chat topic.  After reading Cindy's reply, I felt like I needed to
    reply to it.  Don't know if it was the prompting of the Holy Spirit or
    what.

    Ron

The following note entry was "lost" due to a difficulty with a conference
maintenance procedure.  It has been reposted to avoid loss of entries.

Mark Lovik -- co-mod


================================================================================
Note 249.52                     The Movie Ghosts                        52 of 52
DREUL1::rob "depending on His love"                  75 lines   6-SEP-1993 05:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                         -< just thinking out loud... >-

Hi all,

The "problem" with God *banishing* people to Hell can't reasonably be compared
to "not forcing" someone that hates you to live with you.  God isn't telling
the sinner that he will have to just live somewhere else for eternity, He is
actually punishing the sinner forever (let's not argue about how long "forever"
is, OK?).

It is difficult for man to accept that the second death (however you care to
interpret it) is "just".  Man (generic) wrestles with the idea because "he"
refuses to accept that his lack of faith in God, his not putting his trust 
fully in Christ's propitiatory death, deserves eternal damnation.  He insists 
that, if he was good, he deserves a reward, ie eternal bliss.  Or he refuses to
accept the idea that he will have to give account for his life at all, and holds
to the belief that "when you're dead, you're dead."  He either attempts to push
all acknowledgement of God from his mind, or he deceives himself into believing
that he is "good enough" for heaven.

The problem for us, as christians, is not trying to point out man's wrong con-
cepts.  We need to work in accord with the Holy Spirit such that the person
with whom we are speaking is convicted, not just accused!  Many of us spend a
lot of time trying to convince the person to whom we are "witnessing" that he
stands accused before God, that he doesn't understand the truth, and that he
is laboring under a wrong concept.

Jesus said that the Holy Spirit has come to convict the world of sin, because
"they" do not believe in Him.  In other words, someone won't go to Hell simply
because they don't believe in Hell, ie God does not judge them for their doc-
trine.  Our "goal" (which is only attainable with the Holy Spirit's help) is
that the person be convicted (not only accused, but convinced in his own heart
and mind that he is guilty) of the sin of not fully trusting in Christ.  A
person has to see that he is guilty of having trusted in himself rather than
Christ.  For them to know what the punishment is, when they are not convinced
of their guilt, may be academically interesting, but it won't change the course
of their life.

I'm not trying to say that this discussion is not good.  Afteral, it's this
discussion that is encouraging me to reevaluate my approach to preaching the
Gospel.  I'm just asking myself why *I* seem to fail so often?  What's wrong
with my "preaching", and why don't I see more "results"?  I have spent many 
hours arguing doctrine with people, trying to get the "unbelieving" to under-
stand that they're "doctrinally" wrong, and must understand things properly if
they are to get to heaven.  Now I'm seeing that I've been wrong.  There is a 
yearning in my heart to see the Holy Spirit work more through my life to convict
people of their need for Christ.  I don't want to fight to correct their wrong
concepts, I want to see the Holy Spirit pierce their hearts.  That the Holy 
Spirit would convict them 'til their hearts break, and they turn to God with
a broken and contrite heart, and seek His love and forgiveness for all eternity.

Certainly the next question is a practicle one, ie how does one do that?  What
can *I* do so that the Holy Spirit will be able to do His work (convicting the
world of sin) better through my life?  But, I doubt that I have any better an-
swer to that question, other than to allow Him to put that yearning in my heart.
That God would fill my heart with compassion, and empty me of my pride.  The
pride that continually insists on having the best arguments, the most logical
conclusions, but which is devoid of the life giving Spirit that the world needs.

Speaking for myself, I'd have to say that, at this point, I'm probably more in-
terested in doing my duty.  ie having witnessed to a lost soul, but not really
accomplishing much.  It's like it says in Proverbs 14:4 Where no oxen are,
the crib is clean; but much increase is by the strength of the ox (KJV).  Too
many times I think about the messy crib and decide I can do without the strength
of the ox.  In other words, I decide that a bunch of baby christians running 
around with "dirty diapers" is too much work, and I like have my peace and quiet
too much.  So, part of my problem is my own selfishness.  It's not that I can't
be effective for Christ, it's that I don't want to be.  It's easier for me to
argue sound doctrine, than it is to reach out to the lost and get my hands 
dirty.  God forgive me!

Anyway, I'm thankful for this topic, because it got me thinking.  Now I just 
need to get praying, and God will change my heart.  Afteral, it's better to 
win souls than arguments.

Rob

                                  
    Back when time permits.  (;^)
    
    Of course, Mark, of course.  How forgetful of me!
    
    Cindy

Notes 249.54 - 249.57 have been moved to the topic 270, discussing absolute 
and relative entities.

							Andrew
							co-mod