Conference yukon::christian_v7

    
    
    
    
    Paul did not worry about being politically Correct. We have his own
    words to show that.
    
    
    Gal 5:12  NRSV
    
  I wish those
who unsettle you would castrate themselves.

    
    
    
    Gal 5:12 NKJV
    
I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut
themselves off.



Gal 5:12(niv)

AS for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and
emasculate themselves!

    Gal 5:12(nsrv)


 I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves.
    
    
    

Patricia,

Your note has triggered a question for me.  I have been reading some Jewish 
writings recently, and one book about the mikveh (immersion or baptismo 
in Greek, transliterated baptism in English) speaks about the use of
the phrase "to be cut off" in the Tanakh (Old Testament).  I wish I had
the book with me so I could look it up exactly, but my recollection is that 
it looke at the phrase as meaing being cut off from the source of one's 
spiritual strength and sustenance.  I wonder if Paul's use of that phrase in 
the Galations passage you've supplied is at all similar in intent?  Anyhow,
I think I'll look that up tonight in my interlinear Bibles, dictionary, &
lexicon and see if I perceive any real connection.

Leslie 

    I really like Paul too!.
    
    Gal 5:12 shows me that he was human and capable of getting quite angry. 
    I suspect that this verse is one in which modern translators needs to take
    into account the satire.  He is in fact speaking of those who are
    insisting on Circumcism.  Perhaps again he is involved in some all or
    nothing speaking.

    re .59
    
    Andrew,
    
    Why do you suppose a quotation such as Galatians 5:12 is in the Bible?
    
    What does it tell us?
    
    What value does it have?
    
    I have been pondering that question for a while.  It is there for a
    purpose.  What do you suppose that purpose is?
    
    
                                        Patricia

    I actually found time to do some research while at home last night &
    this morning before work!  Could we get all these notes that deal with 
    Paul's statement in Galations 5:12 moved to their own topic, called 
    "Compare/Contrast Circumcision w/ Cut Off" or something like that? (I'm
    aware my title choice is a bit long - I like to be specific :-})  I'll
    be referencing passages from Exodus, Leviticus, and Philipians as well
    so I didn't want to see it titled "Galations 5:12".

    Leslie

KJV



Galatians 5:12  I would they were even cut off which trouble you. 

Hello Patricia,

714.63 � Why do you suppose a quotation such as Galatians 5:12 is in the Bible?
    
714.63 � What does it tell us?
    
714.63 � What value does it have?
    
714.63 � I have been pondering that question for a while.  It is there for a
714.63 � purpose.  What do you suppose that purpose is?

Galatians 5:12 is in the context of refuting the early teaching that for anyone 
to become a Christian, they must first assume responsibility for the whole 
of the Mosaic law, including circumcision, as given to Abraham.  The verse 
reads :

KJV� I would they were even cut off which trouble you.
NKJV� I could wish that those who trouble you would even cut themselves off.
Young's Lit.� O that even they would cut themselves off who are unsettling you.
NASB� Would that those who are troubling you would even mutilate themselves.
NIV� As for those agitators, I wish they would go the whole way and emasculate
themselves

I found Leslie's suggestion that possibly it referred to excommucation
rather than to emasculation an interesting one, and as I'm working from
home today, I've been able to look it up in Vines.  It seems that the word
used, 'apokopto', generally refers to the physical act, but 
when using the middle voice, as here, excommunication is implied.

I'm not a Greek scholar, but that's what my reference book indicates.

With this background, it seems that the NIV and the NASB are hardly 
justified in restricting the interpretation to a physical sense.

Now, I can imagine Paul wishing for someone's excommucation even less than 
I can imagine his wishing for their emasculation.  Given the grounds of the
argument, that 'reliance on obeying the law' is contrary to 'salvation by
grace' (eg in 5:2 - "If you let yourselves be circumcised, Christ will be
of no value to you at all"), I would think that possibly Paul's words here
may have been intended to convey a desire that those who were not
Christians, but were calling themselves such, and trying to impose their
legalism on the gentile converts should cease to pretend that they were 
Christians, so that in the clarity of the separation, they would be open 
to true conversion.

A significant force of the verse in most translations (ie other than the
NIV and the NASB) is the desire that these men would stop being a trouble
to true Christians.  Now emasculation wouldn't change their legalistic 
attitude or pressure, but a recognition of their separation from the body
of Christ would.  This would support my interpretation above, in making 
more sense of the total balance and meaning of the verse, as well as in its 
context, and in character with Paul's general attitude towards unsaved Jews 
(ardently and urgently desiring their salvation, as in Romans 9:1-5, etc).

As I've said - I'm no Greek scholar.  However, that's the fruit of my 
gleanings from those who are.  Prayerfully, of course!  I hope it's of 
some help/interest!

Ah!  Having gone through the verse, I still haven't addressed your basic 
points :

714.63 � Why do you suppose a quotation such as Galatians 5:12 is in the Bible?
714.63 � What does it tell us?
714.63 � What value does it have?
714.63 � It is there for a purpose.  What do you suppose that purpose is?

If my understanding of the verse is correct, its purpose would be to show
the desirability of a clear distinction between Christian and non-Christian, 
and that an unclear distinction leads to a blurring and misunderstanding of
doctrine and principles (in this case, circumcision and the law, vs the
operation of grace).  This verse in particular shows that it is better for 
people who are not saved by grace to recognise that they are not Christians,
than to merely act the part, and cloud the pure teaching.

I think that covers the q's...  


							Andrew 

It's sarcasm.

"If they are so keen on circumcision, then let them not only circumcise
themselves but also castrate themselves." (St. Thomas, Commentary on
Galatians)

Paul is being extremely sarcastic, saying that those who preach circumcision
should go all the way and castrate themselves, as fanatical worshippers of
Cybele did.  This practice was well-known to the Galatians.

With the new Covenant, circumcision was to pass away, and no longer has any
religious meaning; it is simply cutting.

/john

    For the most part, I think Andrew mentioned quite a few things that
    I was going to, but in slightly different way, so I'll go ahead with
    have.

    First of all, it was the phrase "cut off" in some of the translations
    that Patricia posted which had attracted my attention because of something
    I'd just read a couple of days ago in a book by Aryeh Kaplan called 
    "Waters of Eden: The Mystery of the Mikvah".  Mikvah actually means 
    immersion in Hebrew, in Greek the word is baptismo from which we get 
    baptism.  I'm not going to go into the topic of mikvah/immersion/baptism
    very much because its not my focus in this discussion, but do want to
    give just a little background.  

    Immersion has been part of Judaism for ages and ages, long before the 
    John the baptizer (Yochanon the immerser) at the time of Yeshua.  It's 
    basically used for a change in status such as conversion to Judaism, and 
    for ritual purification which includes purification for temple worship 
    and also for marital intimacy.  Marital intimacy was not permitted from 
    the beginning of the wife's menstrual flow through a count of seven 
    [clean?] days, and was then only resumed after the wife underwent the 
    mikvah.  It was in the context of this discussion the phrase cut off was 
    addressed because it appears in Leviticus 20:18:"...both of them shall be
    cut off from among their people."
    
    I wish I could quote from the book, but because of copyright laws, I will
    try to put what Aryeh Kaplan says into my own words instead.  The 
    expression cut off refers to the penalty known as korais.  It is also 
    the penalty in the following: Leviticus 20:17 - incest between a brother &
    sister, Exodus 12:15,19 - eating leavened bread during Passover, and 
    Leviticus 23:29,31 - violating Yom Kippur.  The author says this does not 
    refer to either mutilation or official excommunication, but rather is a 
    spiritual condition.  The person is cut off or separated from the source 
    of their spirituality - that which enables them to feel and appreciate the
    spiritual and the Godly.  Without this, they do not have the most important 
    aspect of their life as a Jew and so they are separated from their people 
    as well.  The only way for them to regain this critical aspect of their 
    being & life (the source of their spirituality) is for them to sincerely 
    repent before God.  The author has several footnotes referencing Talmudic 
    and other Jewish writings.

    I looked up all the Biblical references mentioned, and found that they 
    all did use the same expression - korat in Hebrew, its # 3772 in Strong's.
    The lexicon in our NAS Bible says that it means to cut, cut off, cut off
    part of the body as in maiming or castration, to root out, to eliminate,
    and to kill or destroy.  Then it makes this note: "...also metaphorical
    meanings of elimination or removal.  It is difficult to determine whether
    "cut off" means to be killed or only to be excommunicated."  Brown-Driver-
    Briggs lexicon lists many uses of korat in the Tanakh (O.T.) including
    Proverbs 23:18 - hopes cut off.

    What Aryeh Kaplan said, made sense to me, both in context of the 
    O.T. uses, and in some ways even more so for the Galatians passage.  I'll 
    move on to that in the next note.

    Leslie

    I forgot to mention one other thing which I meant to in the previous
    note.  Korat, to cut, is also used in terms of making a covenant.
    When God established His covenant with Abraham in Genesis 15:18, the
    word is korat - He cut His covenant with Abraham.  This can be seen
    quite literally because the covenant was ratified with the sacrifice
    of an animal (start reading around Genesis 15:10).

    Leslie

    Unlike my observations on Corinthians, I think that one of the main 
    thrusts of Paul's entire letter to the Galatians was to refute Judaizing 
    and perhaps other forms of legalism as well.  By Judaizing I mean the 
    idea that freedom from sin and death is obtained through one's own merit 
    by observing the law and converting to Judaism, rather than being obtained
    as a gift of grace by God through the sacrifice of Yeshua.

    Therefore, there is some appropriateness in looking Paul's statement as
    refering to perhaps castration in an ironic twist to the idea of 
    circumcision.  In fact, he does almost this pretty obviously in Philipians
    3 - especially look at verses 2 & 3 where he says:

    "Beware of the dogs, beware of the evil workers, beware of the 
    false circumcision; for we are the true circumcision who worship in 
    the Spirit of God and glory in Messiah Yeshua and put no confidence in
    the flesh." NAS

    The two words rendered above as false circumcision and true circumcision
    sound very similar to each other in the Greek, they have the same number 
    of syllables and they rhyme, katatome and peritome.  True circumcision or
    peritome, is actual circumcision - both physical (foreskin), and spiritual
    - as in circumcise your hearts (Romans 2:29, reference Deuteronomy 10:16).
    Katatome means cutting down, butchering up, or mutilation.

    However, in the Galations passage, I do see a connection to the Leviticus
    & Exodus passages cited earlier, and also to the ideas Aryeh Kaplan 
    expressed about the phrase "cut off" in those passages.

    The Greek Interlinear we have at home gives the literal translation of 
    Galations 5:12 as "Would that also will cut themselves off those causing
    to doubt you".  An easier English equivelent might be "I would that those 
    who are causing you to doubt would also be cut off."  The Greek word here
    for cut off is apokopto which means to amputate or cut off, or can mean
    to mutilate the private parts.  However, what I found interesting is this
    word is combination of two other Greek words, apo and kopto.  Apo means
    to separate off or away from something that was near, in terms of time, 
    space, or relationship.  Kopto is to lament, mourn, beat one's breast in 
    grief; its the strongest form of outward expression of inner grief as in
    Luke 8:52 - "Now they were all weeping and *lamenting* for her" and 
    Luke 23:27 - the crowd of people following and *mourning* as Yeshua was 
    led to the place of His execution.

    The Galations had originally received the gospel message about Yeshua's
    atonement with enthusiasm and joy.  Now however, their joy and faith in
    Yeshua's gift of salvation were being eroded by the words of Judaizers 
    who had snuck in amongst them and had sown seeds of doubt regarding the
    Galations' salvation from sin and death.  These people were putting the 
    burden of having to merit salvation through works of the law on the 
    Galations.  **In effect, they were separating or cutting off the Galations
    from source of their faith, their joy, and their peace (peace = reconcil-
    iation and closeness to) with God.**  Paul's desire is that these people 
    would also find themselves cut off from the source of their spiritual 
    being (after all, their true source is the same as what they were denying 
    to the Galations - Yeshua's atonement).  I think Paul may have also desired
    the Judaizers to find themselves so alone and cut-off from an appreciation
    of the spiritual, from God, and their fellow Jews that they would mourn and
    lament, and repent and turn back to the truth of the gospel themselves, 
    and of course so that they would stop misleading the Galations as well.

    Leslie

    Leslie,
    
    Even using the research that you have provided, I think it is
    stretching to not recognized that Galatian 5:12 does refer to 
    physical castration.
    
    The Philipian quote is also another good example, where Paul angrily
    calls his opponents "Dogs."
    
    What is preserved for us in Scripture is some angry statements by the
    apostle, when his view was being challenged.
    
    So I ponder, what does this mean, that our holy scripture contains
    these impolite angry words.
    
    The answer, I get is a reminder that 
    
    1.  All people are human and all humans get angry.
    2.  Words spoken in anger are not to be interpreted literally.
    3.  There was serious disagreement about the tenants of Christianity
    from the very beginning.  There are major differences identified in the
    Bible between the Pauline School, the Johanine School, and the
    Jerusalem School, led by the apostle Peter.
    4.  There were serious disagreements among these orthordox branches of
    Christianity.  
    5.  Our scripture is richer because all human angry words were not
    extracted from it.  Our scripture is richer because we can trace three
    diverse branches from the very beginning.
    6.  As Paul points out, God's wisdom is greater than human wisdom.  All
    people are richer for the diversity contained within our Holy
    Scripture.
    
                                    patricia

    Patricia,

    My perception of what you have said is that you find more importance in 
    how Paul expressed himself with a particular phrase rather than on the 
    actual message that he was conveying.  Yes, he was a human being and yes,
    he did use forceful words, but what we ought to be receiving from his
    letter to the Galations is the primacy of Yeshua's atonement for us 
    through his death & resurrection, and the futility of thinking anything 
    else but faith in Yeshua will accord righteousness and reconciliation 
    with God to us.

    Leslie

    
    Re Leslie .13
    
>   >My perception of what you have said is that you find more importance in 
    >how Paul expressed himself with a particular phrase rather than on the 
    >actual message that he was conveying. 
    
    This example shows in a powerful way, that although everything in
    scripture has value, the value of some passages are more self evident
    than the value of other passages.  Every passage in the Bible cannot be
    weighed equally.  part of the particular value of this specific passage
    is to remind us that Paul and all humans are human and are limited in
    their humanity.
    
    > but what we ought to be receiving from his letter to the Galations is
    > the primacy of Yeshua's atonement for us through his death & resurrection
    -Some Christians believe in the primacy of Yeshua's atonement through
    his death and resurrection.
    -I believe in the primacy of Jesus message regarding the incarnation of
    Divine love in humanity.
    -Johanine Christians believe in the primacy of Jesus' unique revelation
    of the way to God.
    
    If 100 Christian's are each asked, what is the essence of Jesus'
    message, 100 Christians will answer differently.  This particular
    passage shows us that that has always been true and different answers
    have always created bitterness and anger.  God in overseeing the
    process in which our scriptures were canonized choose to leave multiple
    strands of Christianity intact within the four Gospels, the Pauline
    letters, and the other letters.  I belief God did this for an important
    reason.
    
    
    > and the futility of thinking anything 
    >else but faith in Yeshua will accord righteousness and reconciliation 
    >with God to us.
    
    I too agree that only through Faith that we are brought into right
    relationship with the Divine.  I recognize that that is a very personal
    process and no one can speak for all of humankind and proclaim exactly
    how that is done.  It is God's own power that works in each of us to
    bring us to that relationship.  Not the power of any particular
    religious group insisting on one way to a relationship with the Source
    of our being.
    
                                             Patricia

  

    Nancy,
    
    We have a picture of Paul, more complete than the picture of any other
    human in the Bible.  We have eight letters universally accepted as
    originals from Paul each written 2000 years ago.
    
    Paul is a wonderfully emotional man.  In his letters we see revealed
    his joy, his sadness, his anger, his problem with his own ego, his
    faith, his love, his committment, his passion, his suffering.  Paul is
    a brilliant theologian.  Paul is a committed Pastor.  Paul is an
    authoritarian human who does not like being questioned.  We must read
    Paul, identifying what is the best of Paul as well as what is the worst
    of Paul.  Both are right there for us to read, reflect, and meditate
    on.
                                  Patricia

 Paul is also writing Scripture, under the influence of the Holy Spirit.





 
Jim

    
    "I wish those who unsettle you would castrate themselves"
    
    Jim,
    
    What does it mean to you  that Paul wrote these words under the
    influence of the Holy Spirit?
    
                                 Patricia

 re .18


 To be honest I don't completely understand that verse, though, like with
 all Scripture, there is a danger in taking it out of context.  I believe
 Leslie's explanation makes a great deal of sense, however.


 Even Peter, who as you have pointed out had disagreements with Paul, recognized
 Paul's writings as Scripture (2 Peter 3:15-16).



 Jim

    Nancy, 
    
    that is your filter, as it is Jim's. as it is Leslie's and most of the
    people in here.
    
    And that filter completely controls how you interpret scripture in
    general and this piece of scripture in general.
    
    There are some embarrassing statement in scripture.  Is it God then who
    says those who unsettle you, should castrate themselves? 
    
    Is it that filter that makes you stretch to interpret castrate as
    meaning something else?
    
    Is this verse the equal to "In Christ, there is no male or female,
    slave or free, Jew or Gentile."
    
    Is this verse the equal to, "The first and greatest commandment is to
    love God with all one's heart, soul, and mind and to love your neighbor
    as yourself".
    
    Help me understand your theory of authority as it relates to some of
    these embarrassing verses?
    
    How come, I have never heard Galatians 5:12 read from the pulpit?
    
                                   Patricia

Patricia, the Bible tells us, and "most of those in here" agree, that the
key to understanding the whole of scripture, is the Holy Spirit.  The Holy
Spirit is the light that illumines scripture, so that we can see it as a
a whole. Without that light, it is like trying to receive and FM radio station
on an AM radio.  It just doesn't work.  






John 16:13  Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you 
into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall 
hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come. 

    It all comes from God, but context should be obvious to you on how to
    take it.  Some scripture is for correction, some for inspiration, some
    for examples on what happens to you when you fall away from Him, some
    prophetic, etc.
    
    This passage is similar to the one in Judges 19 talked about in CP months
    ago.  These passages should be examples as well as warnings to us on
    what happens when we turn our backs on God.
    
    Mike

 2Tim 3:16

 16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for 
doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: 

    I've told you how I find that verse to be inspirational.  I believe
    that the holy spirit guides me  in ny study of scripture.  So let's get
    past that.
    
    Specifically, how do you find that one verse to be inspirational,
    profitable etc.  What inspiration do you get from Paul telling those
    who unsettle the Corinthians to castrate themselves.  If you believe
    those are God's words and not Paul's words, what inspiration to you get
    from God telling those who unsettle the Corinthians to castrate
    themselves?
    
    Does God use human idioms in talking with humankind.

    >    Does God use human idioms in talking with humankind.
    
    there are several of them in the Bible.  Probably too many to list. 
    Also, my experience with Hebrew idioms tells me that Leslie's entry is
    probably closer to the truth than we realize.
    
    Mike

    
    I find nothing untoward or in any way contradictory in Paul's statement
    about what he wishes the Judaizers might do to themselves.
    
    Paul, by way of hyperbole, is making a point very strongly.  The point is
    that what the Judaizers were doing in burdening Christians with Mosaic
    ordinances is reprehensible and at odds with the new covenant.  And the 
    new covenant is superior to the old covenant.  There are many lessons for 
    us today in this as legalists are often popping up and trying to steal 
    Christian liberty.
    
    jeff

    I'm curious...is there a difference between a filter and a belief? 
    
    Webster's describes a filter as "a device for passing waves or
    oscillations of certain frequencies while blocking others." That's the
    closest definition to the way I perceive the term filter is being used
    here.
    
    A belief, on the other hand, is described as "something, as a tenet,
    that is believed: conviction."
    
    The body of Christians who note here would I believe categorize their
    faith, their Christianity as a conviction or a belief, utterly
    foundational to all that they say, think, and do.  The vast majority
    too, I believe, have come at their beliefs through much study, much
    searching, much prayer, some giving their lives to God as children;
    others being drawn to Him as adults. Some have led lives that could be
    seen as very uneventful, while others have lived through enormous
    difficulties and brokenness. They gone through various transitions in
    their growth in their faith, thoughtfully and with hearts for truth, and 
    the place where they've arrived in their growth is neither arbitrary, 
    nor trite. 
    
    A filter seems to me to imply something operating within an individual that
    drives him, even manipulates him, often without his knowledge, to
    respond in specific, prescribed ways.
    
    So, is a belief the same thing as a filter? Is a belief nothing more
    than a chosen filter?
    
    Rebecca
    
    (Just in case it's not clear, I don't think so.)

    Patricia,

    You have been trying to explain our filters, and I do not deny that
    in fact I do have a filter - and as you point out, its the filter 
    that says God is actively involved in His creation and that He has
    given to us a written word to reveal Himself to us, and this was 
    done through the work of the Holy Spirit in the people who wrote
    the books and letters that make up the Scriptures.  You too are looking 
    through a filter that colors the way you read and understand the 
    Scriptures.  So the question becomes which of our filters permits or
    enables a more accurate understanding of the text?  And that's a point
    that would be fruitless to argue  - I don't see us ever meeting on common
    ground on that one.

    Andrew and I have each stated what we see as the significance of that 
    passage.  I think you will have to be willing to accept that we are
    not going to come to agreement with you that this is simply an illus-
    tration of Paul flaring up in impatience and anger because of his human 
    fallibility.  Neither Andrew's answer nor mine is based on an understanding
    that Paul meant for these people to actually physically castrate themselves,
    but rather look at it as being a seperation, either from those identified 
    as the body of believers in Galatia or from that which gives spiritual 
    identity and closeness with God.  We've given our reasons, you disagree,
    how much more can we go through it?
 
    Something I didn't mention before is that children were seen as the 
    continuation of one's name and also as one's strength.  I think Paul's 
    desire was that those who were creating doubts amongst the Galations loose
    their power amongst and influence so that the false ideas they were trying
    to promulgate would not be perpetuated.  Whether cut off, or castration, 
    it is a metaphor to say that they should be loose their power and 
    influence to sow the seeds of doubt in the assurance of salvation through 
    Yeshua.

    One more point, what we have is not a recording of face to face dialogue,
    but this is a written letter from Paul to the Galations.  He had time to 
    think about what he was saying, carefully choose his words to make his 
    point & even edit it if he felt it necessary.  This isn't a record of a 
    heated debate or exchange where one might flare up and say something in 
    the space of a moment.  Furthermore, just after that Paul begins to talk 
    about how we ought to behave towards one another as Christians - out of 
    love, being guided by the Spirit.  What a strange juxtoposition for an 
    outburst of the nature you keep trying to turn the previous statement 
    into!  Paul was a passionate man, zealous for God, but he also had a very
    fine mind and was able to present rational, well-thought out reasoning,
    so I think it off-base to see his statement as something outside the 
    meaning of his entire discourse.
 
    Re your question: does God use human idioms to reveal Himself to humanity?
    God relates to people on a very personal level.  The Bible is full of 
    idioms and metaphors that make a lot more sense if you understand the
    cultural context in which they were written.  This is not to say that
    unless one is a scholar of the culture in which the text was written, 
    one can't understand it all, but rather that we can make some mistakes
    in understanding because of cultural differences.

    Leslie

	Rose-colored glasses cut glare and scattered light, allowing
one to see more clearly.

Re .32
    
    >I'm curious...is there a difference between a filter and a belief? 
    
    
    >A belief, on the other hand, is described as "something, as a tenet,
    >that is believed: conviction."
    
    >The body of Christians who note here would I believe categorize their
    >faith, their Christianity as a conviction or a belief, utterly
    >foundational to all that they say, think, and do.  The vast majority
    >too, I believe, have come at their beliefs through much study, much
    >searching, much prayer, some giving their lives to God as children;
    >others being drawn to Him as adults. Some have led lives that could be
    >seen as very uneventful, while others have lived through enormous
    >difficulties and brokenness. They gone through various transitions in
    >their growth in their faith, thoughtfully and with hearts for truth, and 
    >the place where they've arrived in their growth is neither arbitrary, 
    >nor trite. 
  
    What you describe here is true of all convictions of Faith.  It is as
    true of my belief structure as it is of the believe structures of those
    with whom I debate.
      
    >A filter seems to me to imply something operating within an individual that
    >drives him, even manipulates him, often without his knowledge, to
    >respond in specific, prescribed ways.
    
  >  So, is a belief the same thing as a filter? Is a belief nothing more
  >  than a chosen filter?
    
    A belief is something operating within a person driving them, guiding them
    leading them often without knowledge to respond in specific ways to
    life.    
    
    A filter is something operating within a persons opponent, driving them,
    guiding them, manipulating them often without knowledge to respond in
    specific ways to life.
  
     Persons in this conference operate out of a common belief structure.
    
    I opperate out of my Unitarian/Universalist filters.
    
    
    
                                     Patricia

    re: .35
    
    Patricia,
    
    Wrong. You operate out of your belief system, as do the members of this
    conference. There are conflicts between the beliefs/convictions that
    you hold dear and between the beliefs/convictions that the
    what-do-you-want-call-them...general noting population of the Christian
    notesfile hold dear. I admire you tremendously Patricia, for your
    seeking spirit and the level of your convictions, and I'm fully aware
    that you hold yours as deeply as I and others here do ours. I've benefited 
    from your seeking, because questions you have raised have caused me to 
    search deeper to define my own beliefs, (I probably didn't arrive where
    you might have liked me to arrive :-)) and that's what communication is 
    about to me. It's not my place to judge you or your beliefs and it is not 
    yours to judge mine or other members of this conference. I think the
    reason I feel so offended by this "filter thing" is that I do give you
    respect for your search and where you are, for your intelligence and
    articulateness and the other admirable attributes I've been able to
    sense from you in this limited format. But I don't feel you accord me and 
    others here the same respect. I get the sense you think we're sitting 
    in some dark, dim-witted hole waiting for someone to pull us out. But 
    we're not. We arrived where we are, just as you've arrived where you are,
    intelligently and openly, seeking. I certainly hope we'll ultimately 
    arrive in the same place, but that's not our decision, it's His.
    
    Rebecca  
              

    Rebecca,
    
    Thanks for your note.  I will try to be more conscious of noting with
    individuals and not lumping all opinions together.  I was reacting
    ironically to those who would call what I cherish my filters while
    insisting their own beliefs are the only true and right beliefs.
    
    When I do allow all the voices in here to become one voice, then I do
    loose the rich diversity of beliefs and convictions.
    
    I don't really see too much difference between using the term belief
    structure and fitlers.  We all have filters which help us make sense of
    reality.  I don't see that as a bad thing, it just is.
    
    I'm pushing on this one verse in here because it does seem obvious to
    me that there are different parts of the Bible that are richer than
    other parts.  I agree that we have to understand the Bible as a whole
    to make sense out of it, but that only compounds the diversity in my
    opinion.  I try to make sense of a whole that is comprised of many
    diverse parts.  It seems that noters in here try to create a unity out
    of the many diverse parts.  It is hard to discuss very different
    approach structures without offending or being offended.
    
    I really do respect the depth of backgrounds in here even as I do not
    always agree with the conclusions.
    
                                      Patricia

    I see filters and belief a little differently.  I believe that the
    Bible is God's inerrant Word because it claims that it is ALL the
    inspired Word of God and because of the evidence presented in the
    Word.  I didn't come about this belief to justify my existing beliefs
    before I became a Christian. I didn't come to look at scripture with
    the mindset that how I was living was the standard and that if
    something in scripture didn't line up, than it was incorrect.  In fact it 
    changed most of my existing beliefs, attitudes, and actions (actually
    Christ changed those things, but He reveals Himself through His written
    Word).  As Mark Metcalf used to say a person should allow the Word to
    filter their life, not allow their life to filter the Word.  The bible
    is the standard, not my experience.  If my experience becomes the
    standard, then it is filtering the Word.  
    
    As you said, belief that the bible is the inspired Word of God IS a
    filter, but I filter my experience by the standard - I don't filter the
    standard by my experience.  If when I became a Christian, I came with
    the belief that green people were superior to purple people, I could
    probably pick and choose verses from the bible to support my position. 
    If, however, I allowed God to speak to me through His Word (in its complete 
    context) He would reveal to me, whether that was a right attitude or
    not.  It might take me some time for God to shock my existing belief
    and show me that I needed to allow Him to change that area of my life.
    
    There is a little track distributed by Campus Crusade for Christ,
    called the four spiritual laws.  There is an illustration in the
    booklet about how the Christian life is like a train.  The engine is
    FACT, the next car is FAITH, and the caboose is FEELING.  Feelings and
    experiences are great, as long as there a result of our faith in the
    facts (and God's Word claims to be and IS Truth).  When we base our
    lives on how we feel or solely on our experiences, we are not going to
    have a true picture of the Living God.
    
    Love in Christ,
    
    Bing   

    Bing,
    
    During my childhood, the UCC church was very important to me.  As I
    became I teenager I could no longer believe some of the things the
    church taught me.  I could not believe in Virgin births or the
    Resurrected Christ appearing out of no where and walking through doors.
    
    The result was that I left the church and considered myself an atheist
    until about 8 years ago.  When I first started attending the Unitarian
    Universalist church, I had no clear idea of what spirituality was.  I
    had some vague need for a religious fellowship.  After attending
    sporadically for a few years, my ex husband and I divorced and I found
    the UU church to be a wonderful source of support.  I became the
    chair of the adult educations program and attended a number of
    wonderful sessions.  At the same time I began attending 12 step
    meetings to help me work through issues from my childhood.
    
    At the UU church I met a UU Christian minister, who became my friend
    and spiritual leader.  He was able to bring the message of the Bible to
    me in a way that was new and made sense.  In twelve step terms I
    recognized that my life was unmanageable and made a decision to turn my
    life over to God as I understood God.  From that moment my life
    changed.  I learn to love and be loved.  to trust and to be trusting. 
    I learned that trust in myself and  trust in other people was not very
     different than trust in God.  The more a rely upon my spiritual
    resources the better my life goes.  As my life gets better and better
    and I read the Bible, the profoundness of the Bible gets more and more
    real.
    
    I do not have to believe in the inerrancy of the Bible to be totallly
    enriched by scripture.  In fact, believing in the inerrancy of the
    bible, in my opinion leads to falsehood.  In my opinion, any person who
    truly believes in the holy spirit does not have to have hard in fact
    rules or a hard in fast doctrine of scriptural authority.  Any one who
    lives in Christ and Christ in them knows intuitively what is right and
    what is wrong.  And the more I read the Bible the more it reenforces
    what I believe.  The real profound message I get from reading the Bible
    is not the surface message.  It is a much deeper level of reading.  And
    it is the message that is consistent through all the books of the
    Bible.  
    
    Jack Martin in a note to me once wrote, let's forget for a moment about
    God's love and Mercy and let's reflect on God's judgement.  How can
    anyone put aside even for one moment the message of God's love and
    mercy for us.  The message the each one of us is enough.  Just as we
    are.  The message that God accepts sinner even as they are sinners and
    by that relationship, initiated by God, not by us, our lifes are
    transformed.  We do not find God by accepting authoritatively someone's
    definition of Biblical Authority.  We find God by opening our hearts
    and souls to the free gift of God's love.  And it is then and only then
    that we can make any sense out of scripture, grace, miracles, and the
    wonder and awe of life itselfs.
    
                                          Patricia

>    rules or a hard in fast doctrine of scriptural authority.  Any one who
>    lives in Christ and Christ in them knows intuitively what is right and
>    what is wrong.  And the more I read the Bible the more it reenforces
    
    I have to rely on the foundation of God's Word.  My ways are not as His
    ways and experiences can deceive me.  I believe a standard has to exist
    by which everything is tested so that you know it is really God and not
    some contradictory emotion/force.
    
    Mike
    
Jeremiah 17:9  
    The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked: who can
    know it?
    
Proverbs 14:12  
    There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are
    the ways of death.

Patricia, 

I see from .12 and .14 that you insist on finding human anger expressed in
Galatians 5:12, and in spite of the explanations you have received, you
take an extreme translation in .18 and .22 etc to present an image which is
socially unacceptable today, apparently in order to devalue the inspiration 
of scripture.  You then speak of your interpretation of the passage as 
representing Paul's fallibility, assuming that because you find it rude, it 
cannot have come as God's inspiration.

We have explained that this verse represents a very significant picture 
of how troublemakers should be excluded from the church, and not presume to 
call themselves Christians.  You have not addressed that point at all,
apart from a brief dismissal in .28, where you do not seem to realise that
you find this verse so embarrassing because you have put your own
interpretation - call it filters if you like - on it.  The ambiguity in the
verse is deliberate.  The richest and also the most personally private
aspects of life, have their greatest significance in the fact that they are
pictures of divine or eternal realities.  That is why Hosea is such
powerful book - it uses the example of Hosea's unfaithful wife (to which
human emotion and awareness can easily relate), to bring home a taste of
how terrible is rebellion against God.  Similarly, Galatians 5:12 takes the
local example of the local heathen cult of Cybele worship, whose priests
practised self-castration, to stress the importance of isolating the
apostate from believers, and also the awfulness of that cut-off state -
ie, if you think it terrible to lose your sexuality, consider how much
worse it is to lose your eternal salvation.  Only in this case, it's not
'either/or', it's both or neither! 

.22� How come, I have never heard Galatians 5:12 read from the pulpit?
I presume the churches you attend preach the universalism message you hold 
to, and find an exclusive gospel as embarrassing as emasculation.  The 
churches I have been used to attending are used to addressing the whole 
Word of God, including Galatians 5:12

in .28, you impose your understanding of Galatians 5:12, and ask us to find 
it inspiring through your filter.  That is at least as unreasonable,
apparently, as is us asking you to understand it from our perspective.

Perhaps you haven't realised that understanding this verse can give
considerable relief to Christians, in realising that there is a limit in
how far it is right to tolerate an individual purely because of their claim
to the name of Jesus Christ, without discerning His message through the 
Holy Spirit; that we do not always just give way to evil. 

[ over the weekend I looked up J.B.Philips translation too, which 	]
[ translates Galatians 5:12 as :					]
[ "I wish those who are so eager to cut your bodies would cut 		]
[  themselves off from you altogether."					]
[  - an extreme translation in the other direction, which I do not 	]
[    think is totally justified, except in view of modern ignorance.	]


You have then continued, to attack the inspiration of Scripture, which is
the basis for this conference, by your inference in .22 :

� Is it God then who says those who unsettle you, should castrate themselves? 

This oversteps the mark in its implication.  If you were to ask 'how...',
as you did originally, it would be acceptable.  But ignoring the general
understanding here, you take the approach of the serpent in Eden, by the
implication that this cannot be God's word.  This contravenes the premis of
this conference, and the the basis of discussions here. 

In fact, your attitude in this discussion, and tenacity in promoting a 
verse you perceive as embarrassing speaks distinctly of someone 
following an agenda, rather than of any honest inquiry or discussion.


To say that you cannot accept the explanations given, or that you have to
differ in understanding is acceptable.  Even to say that you are unable to
accept it as inspired scripture is valid, though that removes it from the
terms of mututal reference as a scripture you can refer to in discussion
with us.  However, to deny that this is inspired scripture - particularly
by implication - is not acceptable. 

I hope that is clear.

On the matter of 'filters', similarly, you have overlooked that the
inspiration of scripture is the ground rule for this conference.  If you
feel unable to discuss comfortably from that perspective, this conference
is not the right place for you.  I'm not trying to exclude you, but just to
remind you that when you come in here, you choose to assume that filter, or
at least to acknowledge it as the working principle, out of deference to
those you have chosen to discuss with.  Not just the active participants,
but read onlies, and those whose activity is confined to other topics, who
will step through all entries here too. 

If I can enlarge on why we have this filter a moment; we believe that there 
is an essential reality to be perceived about our existance here, and that 
reality is found in God, our Creator.  Our only general communication 
from Him is the Bible, which necessarily contains more and greater truth
than any individual can claim to.  So we are subject to the total Word of 
God; not it to us, nor Him to us.  He does not obey our definition, but we 
are constantly (and individually) learning to know Him more as we meet Him
through His Word, the Bible.  This is also the witness of our hearts.  This
is why we are very sensitive about treating all of the Bible very
respectfully as God's Word. 

						God bless
								Andrew

.41� In fact, believing in the inerrancy of the bible, in my opinion leads to 
.41� falsehood.  In my opinion, any person who truly believes in the holy 
.41� spirit does not have to have hard in fact rules or a hard in fast 
.41� doctrine of scriptural authority.  Any one who lives in Christ and
.41� Christ in them knows intuitively what is right and what is wrong.  

Giving the individual mind authority which supersedes that of the Bible is
very dangerous.  It takes away all safeguards, and claims that whatever
your mind wants to accept is ok.  It's not a matter of blindly agreeing 
with things that appear, say, to be contradiction; rather a matter of
leaving it until God chooses to reveal a passage to us.  It is *not* wrong
to say we do not yet understand a passage of scripture.  It *is* wrong to
conclude either that God was wrong, or that the passage is uninspired. 

Now the Bible DOES teach us that those who are in Christ have the Holy 
Spirit dwelling in thier hearts, and He will lead them into all truth.  
But - that truth doesn't contradict the existing revelation of truth; the 
Bible.  The Bible is the plumbline that keeps all further growth in the 
right direction - towards God, and not away from Him.  There are many false
gods - demons - who would divert, confuse and enslave us.  That is why the
Bible was given, and the New Testament added to record and reveal the
significance of the day of grace. 

							Andrew 

    Andrew, I'm also a J.B. Philips fan!

As one who usually stands against the views you present, Patricia, I need to
say that I'm delighted for you in how far the Lord has already drawn you to
Him.  I'm delighted for you that you made the horrendously difficult step of
turning your life over to God, and delighted that doing so changed your life.
I'm delighted for you that you've become more loving and trusting as a
result.  And I'm delighted that you're seeking to live in Christ and let
Christ live in you.  And on that basis, I can joyfully accept you as a sister
in Christ.

That doesn't mean that I won't continue to fight against the way I believe
you to be misrepresenting the Lord we both love, it doesn't mean I may not
continue to identify some of your *views* (not you, your views) as "not of
Christ."  For example, I agree with all of what Andrew wrote.  And I don't
believe that "Anyone who lives in Christ and Christ in them knows intuitively
what is right and what is wrong" - Jesus gave many warnings against 'even the
elect' being taken in by deception.

But rather than pick on nits of disagreement (or even pick on big
disagreements), I'd encourage you in simply one thing:  Keep seeking Jesus,
as you already are, but:

    ***Let Jesus be Jesus***  

Let Jesus define Jesus.  Let Him be Himself.  Let what He said define Him. 
Let *ALL* of what He said define Him.  Let Jesus be Jesus.

A book I read this week described how so many today make Jesus into a
spiritual "Mr. Potato Head," a featureless person upon which they put the
features which please them, and then call that result Jesus.  I did that for
many years, because I didn't like the features of the real Jesus.  Just like
you, His exclusivity and judgement were the features I didn't like.  But I've
learned to let Jesus be Jesus, and it's changed my life.  Don't keep making
the same mistake, Patricia, let Jesus be Jesus.  Jesus spoke repeatedly,
pervasively, and with great force and conviction about judgement, and the
fact that not all people would be in heaven with Him.  It's a feature you
don't like, Patricia, but it *IS* a feature of Jesus.  Let Jesus be Jesus,
let His judgement be a part of Him.  Let yourself, your views, your mindset,
your world-view, be molded to Jesus, not the other way around.

Just let Jesus be Jesus, and all will be well.

Your brother in Christ,

Paul

    I've been thinking about Paul, with all the talk of the human side of
    him, ego, anger, authoritarianism, passion, commitment, love. And I find
    I cannot think of Paul without thinking of Saul. Saul, self-righteous,
    full of hatred, ambitious, a zealot devoted to the destruction of the
    Way. A Jew, fanatical about the law. Sitting smugly watching the
    stoning of Stephen. Embarking on his greatest mission of persecution. 
    Then BAM, he's knocked flat. His was not a quiet conversion, a gradual
    change of heart as he was gently led to Jesus. No, he encountered the
    Lord Himself, the one he persecuted, once again clothed in all the 
    glory that was His before the world began. A blinding light, plunging
    Saul into darkness. A darkness of soul as well as physical darkness.
    Seeing, experiencing the darkness that filled him, the hatred; well he 
    knew what he deserved for all he had done, well he knew the condemnation 
    he himself would have brought to bear on such as him.  But God didn't 
    destroy him, as he deserved. He saved him and appointed him His own
    servant, His own child. Entrusted to him, Saul, the message of Jesus
    for the gentiles. For the first time in his life, as the scales fell 
    from his eyes, his soul was illumined by the grace of God. Who better 
    than Paul to understand the wonderful grace of God, His mercy, His love? 
    
    The question arises, did Paul merely transfer the fanaticism and
    conviction of Saul to a new cause?  Was he the same man, simply turned
    in a different direction or was Saul transformed, a new man, the man 
    Paul, servant of God, devoted to his Savior, who truly, not to mention 
    abruptly, saved him from bondage and darkness. I believe he was a
    new man, filled with the Holy Spirit, truly changed. There's the
    obvious symbolic change in name that would seem to support that belief,
    and much more. But I also believe he remained aware of what he was 
    before. And he was strict with himself, and with those around him. No 
    one knew the danger better than he, no one's heart burst with gratitude 
    and humility and wonder at God's grace like his did. It seems quite 
    possible to me that his anger, his perceived rudeness, was very akin to 
    God's own anger - the righteous anger of which Nancy speaks, concerned 
    for the welfare of the people entrusted to his care. Given Paul's 
    background, and the context of his written statement "I wish those who 
    unsettle you would castrate themselves" - cut themselves off - isn't it 
    possible that Paul in his heart was thinking "Lest you become as I once 
    was..."? "NO! You must not become as I once was."
    
    Rebecca
    
       

 Wonderful, Rebecca..




 Jim

amen, Rebecca

    Patricia, Good note .41 Thank you!.
    The more one relies on God for guidence (even to a state that they do
    not react without it) the more they are able to recognise His voice.
    The more in union you become with Him the more confident you become
    that He will not let evil misguide you. The more you committ yourself
    to Him the more trust you develop in the Holy Spirit guiding you in the
    interpretation of the word of God in the situation you then find
    yourself.
    Gentlemen some remarks I have read on this subject do not give me the
    thought that they are inspired by The Master Himself. It may be better
    to pray for guidence before reacting in the future.
    I will not be reading this particular note further. Any reaction to my
    note please foreward to my mail address @WBG 
 
    May God bless all of you and guide your thoughts
    
    Peter 

    FWIW -
    There's a company in Cambridge, MA which generates over 40 acres of
    'skin' from the cells of one circumcision.  This 'skin' is used to
    treat burns and also used in plastic surgery.