Conference yukon::christian_v7

    This looks like a good topic for this question.  8^)
    
    In Revelation (forget the verse), it mentions that many will be killed
    by sword, pestilence, something else and DEATH.  
    
    What does this mean?  Killing by death?  I've passed over this passage
    many times without really thinking about it, but heard on a Christian
    radio program that it may have special meaning.  Unfortunately, they
    cut off at that point.
    
    Anyone got a clue they would like to share with me?
    
    -steve 

    .1
    
    My first reaction gives thought to the "Passover".

Rev. 6:8:

	And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him
	was Death, and Hell [Hades] followed with him.  And power was given
	unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and
	with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.

	That's a good translation from the Greek text, but I haven't a clue
about any deeper hidden meaning, other than literally what it says.

re .2 - The angel of death was what struck me too, Nancy.  
			[ Not that it was a personal blow, you understand! ;-]

It's in contrast to Apollyon / Abaddon, in Revelation 9:11, whose army 
brings suffering which longs for a death it cannot receive (:5-6), but like 
the angelic/demonic army of 9:15...

Re the verses from 2 Timothy which were also quoted in .0,
Verse 12 can do with some clarification :

� If we deny him, he also will deny us;

A superficial reading sounds as though this implies loss of salvation, 
which doesn't sit easily with the next couplet :

� If we are faithless, He remains faithful; for He cannot deny Himself.

The 'Himself' He cannot deny is his promise, and the Holy Spirit, Who is 
the deposit within us.

The 'denial' of the forst clause is a denial of rights and privileges.  
ie, if we deny His authority over a part of our lives, we cannot receive
His privileges in that area - because we have not allowed Him in there to
impart them, and also are not yet to be trusted in that area. 

							Andrew

re .1

You remembered "pestilence" though the KJV has sword/hunger/death/beasts.

It is likely that you remembered it that way because many translations
use "pestilence" instead of "death."  And maybe that is what is meant.
Or maybe it means "sin".

/john

                        Some thoughts-in-progress about

                             DIALOGUE versus DEBATE

               DIALOGUE                                DEBATE

The goal of dialogue is increased       The goal of debate is the successful
understanding of myself and others.     argument of my position over that of my
                                        opponent.

I listen with a view toward             I listen with a view toward countering
understanding.                          what I hear.

I listen for strengths so as to         I listen for weaknesses so as to 
affirm and learn.                       discount and devalue.

I speak for myself from my own          I speak based on assumptions made about
understanding and experience.           others' positions and motivations.

I ask questions to increase             I ask questions to trip up or confuse.
understanding.

I allow others to complete their        I interrupt or change the subject.
communications.

I concentrate on others' words and      I focus on my own next point.
feelings.

I accept others' experiences as real    I critique others' experiences as
and valid for them.                     distorted or invalid.

I allow the expression of real          I express my feelings to manipulate
feelings (in myself and others) for     others; I deny their feelings as 
understanding and catharsis.            legitimate.

I honor silence.                        I use silence to gain advantage.


SOME QUESTIONS TO ASK MYSELF IF I AM HAVING TROUBLE STAYING WITH DIALOGUE:

Am I honoring my own experience         or am I feeling defensive about it?
as valid...

Can I trust others to respect our       or do I suspect others are trying to
differences...                          force me to change?

Can I trust myself to be permeable      or do I fear that really hearing a
and still maintain integrity...         different perspective will weaken my
                                        position?

Am I willing to open myself to the      or am I resisting pain that I really 
pain of others (and myself)...          have the strength to face?

Am I open to seeing Goodness in         or am I viewing others as "the enemy?"
others...
    
    

    re .6
    
    I like it!
    
    Bing

	Re: .6

	Yes, very thought-provoking.  I do tend to be read-only unless
I really disagree with something I read in here.  IMHO, some *ideas*
really *deserve* to get thoroughly shredded as often as possible, but
*people* themselves shouldn't get shredded in the process.  Maybe I haven't
found the proper balance here?

    To believe that some ideas need to be thoroughly shredded as often as
    possible implies a real fear of those ideas?
    
    Is the real fear that those ideas may in fact win converts because they
    are true?
    
                                        Patricia
    
                                        Who feels every single good idea
                                        deserves merit. 

	No, that wasn't *my* idea, that apparently was *your* idea.
I meant that some ideas are so untrue and ludicrous, that they are
actually contemptible, and should be revealed as such at every good
opportunity.  You may imply or believe what you wish, but your
*interpretation* of my intent was not my *actual* intent.

    I was thinking about the idea of whether or not all ideas have merit -
    according to Webster's definition of merit, I've come to the conclusion
    they do - merit defined as "a praiseworthy or blameworthy feature,
    action or quality." We spend much of our time evaluating ideas,
    accepting this, rejecting that. If one's child were in attendance at a
    party, for instance, and someone came up with, say, the idea of
    shooting up heroin, one would certainly hope said child would reject
    embracing and acting upon that idea. One might even hope the child would 
    "shred" that idea, being vocal in their rejection and the whys of their 
    rejection in hopes that they might influence others in the group also to 
    see the blameworthy and potentially harmful effects of accepting and 
    following through on that idea. The rejection of an idea does not in and 
    of itself imply fear; it may simply mean that the idea was weighed and 
    found wanting.
    
    Rebecca
    

>    The rejection of an idea does not in and 
>    of itself imply fear; it may simply mean that the idea was weighed and 
>    found wanting.

Further, the attributing of fear as a motivation for any disagreement allows
you to discount that disagreement as invalid.  You can pity the poor people
who are motivated by fear, and you don't have to listen to them.

Paul