Conference back40::soapbox

    From 64.549:
    
    > There are two geneologies regarding Jesus in the Bible.  The One in
    > Matthew 1 is the line from Abraham to David, then Solomon to Joseph.
    > Joseph was the oldest son of ...
    
    > Marys line in Luke 3 start from the opposite end (Jesus) and going all
    > the way back to Adam...

    The literal truth is that the genealogy (not geneOlogy) in Luke is not
    that of Mary but rather that of Joseph.  The emphasis in the following
    quotation is mine, but the words are from the NIV:

        Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his
        ministry.  HE WAS THE SON, SO IT WAS THOUGHT, OF JOSEPH, THE SON OF
        HELI...

    Now then.  Here, laid out side by side, are the genealogies from
    Matthew and Luke.  I've noted a couple of interesting items.

    Matthew		Luke
    -------		----
    			GOD
    			Adam
    			Seth
    			Enos
    			Cainan
    			Mahalaleel
    			Jared
    			Enoch
    			Methuselah
    			Lamech
    			Noah
    			Shem
    			Arphaxad
    			Cainan
    			Shelah
    			Eber
    			Peleg
    			Reu
    			Serug
    			Nahor
    			Terah
    Abraham		Abraham
    Isaac		Isaac
    Jacob		Jacob
    Judah		Judah
    Perez		Perez
    Hezron		Hezron
    Ram			Ram
    Amminadab		Amminadab
    Nahshon		Nahshon
    Salmon		Salmon
    Boaz		Boaz
    Obed		Obed
    Jesse		Jesse
    David the king	David the king
    Solomon		Nathan
    Rehoboam		Mattatha
    Abijah		Menna
    Asa			Melea
    Jehoshaphat		Eliakim
    Joram		Jonam		Joram == Jonam (nun for resh) ?
    Uzziah		Joseph
    Jotham		Judah
    Ahaz		Simeon
    Hezekiah		Levi
    Manasseh		Matthat
    Amos		Jorim
    Josiah		Eliezer
    Jechoniah		Joshua
    			Er
    			Elmadam
    			Cosam
    			Addi
    			Melki
    			Neri
    Shealtiel		Shealtiel	A two-generation matchup - are we
    Zerubbabel		Zerubbabel	back in synch?
    Abiud		Rhesa
    Eliakim		Joanan
    Azor		Joda
    Zadok		Josech
    Achim		Semein
    Eliud		Mattathias
    Eleazar		Maath
    Matthan		Naggai
    Jacob		Esli
    			Nahum
    			Amos
    			Mattathias
    			Joseph
    			Jannai
    			Melki
    			Levi
    			Matthat
    			Heli
    Joseph Mary's husb.	Joseph Mary's husb.
    
    These two lists, each proclaiming itself the lineage of Joseph, are not
    the same.  Interestingly enough, Matthew specifies the number of
    generations from Abraham to David, from David to the Babylonian exile,
    and from the exile to Jesus.  Whence, do you suppose, came the extra 15
    generations, roughly 300 years worth, that Luke lists in that space? 
    One of the two genealogies is clearly wrong.

    
    Bender,
    
    Pray tell me how it is you believe that a meaningful discussion will
    ensue on "the truth of the Bible" in a conference where most primary
    contributors have repeatedly demonstrated here a belief that truth
    is what you make it or what they agree with, or are disinterested in
    truth, or haven't a clue in the role of logic in determining truth?
    
    Even the tone and stance of your base and subsequent note demonstrates
    that the subject is not, "the truth of the Bible", but "the truth of
    Bender's view of the Bible".
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 319.2 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Pray tell me how it is you believe that a meaningful discussion will ensue on 
| "the truth of the Bible" in a conference 

	That's easy Jeff. He asked questions, gave several different ways to go
with it. He did not take one view, and say this is the way it is. My impression
of his basenote was that he wants to see discussion, not dictation.

| where most primary contributors have repeatedly demonstrated here a belief 
| that truth is what you make it or what they agree with, 

	I myself have not seen this Jeff. Do you know of anyone particular who
fits this mold you made?

| or are disinterested in truth, or haven't a clue in the role of logic in 
| determining truth?

	This to me seems that you are defining what is truth. While yes, you do
have your beliefs, they do not equate to knowing that others are disinterested
in truth, or aren't logical enough to determine the truth. Your beliefs are far
different than mine Jeff. But I truly believe that you feel your beliefs are
"the" way to go. I wish you would allow others the same. You don't have to
agree with them, just realize that others have different beliefs.

| Even the tone and stance of your base and subsequent note demonstrates
| that the subject is not, "the truth of the Bible", but "the truth of
| Bender's view of the Bible".

	Reread what you wrote (I'll include it below) and explain just what you
meant by it:


	or are disinterested in truth, or haven't a clue in the role of 
	logic in determining truth?



Glen

    .2
    
    > Pray tell me how it is you believe that a meaningful discussion will
    > ensue...
    
    i'm sorry if the fact that meaningful discussion can occur where people
    have differing opinions is too difficult for you to handle.
    
    > Even the tone and stance of your base and subsequent note...
    
    the base note sets up a framework for discussion in any of several
    subtopics.  it indicates no leaning toward or away from the validity of
    any position expressed on any of those subtopics.
    
    the subsequent note explores one possible type of discussion, making
    use of an APPARENTLY irrefutable fact of errancy to question the
    verbatim literalness of one specific element of the bible's contents. 
    there are 64 books (in the cut-down protestant version) left untouched
    by that note, and virtually all of the two books mentioned is also left
    untouched.  if this isn't enough room for you to explore a little about
    the bible, then you are in sore case indeed.

    re: .0
    
    You left out prophetic truths, Binder.  A good pointer to the author's
    identity, especially when prophesies come from different time frames
    and different authors, yet still support each other (and come
    true...though many are yet unfulfilled with regards to the end of the
    age).
    
    If it is the word of God, then it must be true...God defines truth.
    The question is whether He has allowed mankind to taint His word...and
    I'm not talking about problems in translation, I'm talking about
    twisting His word into a lie.   Since this is His guide to mankind, I
    have to believe that He has made sure that the truth is intact.
    
    Now, on with the discussion of these truths...
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 319.5 by CSOA1::LEECH "hi" >>>

| The question is whether He has allowed mankind to taint His word...and I'm not
| talking about problems in translation, I'm talking about twisting His word 
| into a lie.   

	Steve, a couple of quick questions on this. When you were talking about
translation above, were you talking about translating it from the origional
text to what we have today, or are you talking about how people translate it
from the many books we have now? When you talk about twisting His Word into a
lie, you are just talking about those who are deliberately doing this, and not
those who have a different translation of <insert passage> that they believe is
true, right? 

	You see, what you wrote above could be taken many ways. If by
translating the Bible one ends up with a different belief than yourself, one or
both of you could be wrong with the translation. Only God Himself can really
know what the correct meaning is of the words written. We as humans, can really
only speculate, and then form our beliefs. Also, only God Himself can truly know
if the Bible is indeed the inerrant Word of God that has never had any problems 
with translations. We as humans can't know for sure if our beliefs are or aren't
patially or totally correct/wrong. 



Glen

    Dick:
    
    In all fairness, you have brought up a very interesting point here
    regarding the geneology issue.  Who was Josephs father...Heli or Jacob?  
    
    I am going to check out some commentaries tonight to find the answer. 
    The Bible tells us to test the spirits so if the answer is there, I
    plan to find it.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    Glen's point is well taken.  It is a fact of translation that no two
    human languages can be mapped perfectly onto each other.  The natural
    consequence of this fact is that there has never been, and never will
    be, a perfectly faithful translation of the Bible out of the original
    languages into any other language.  Complicating this problem further
    is the fact that words in any particular language do not necessarily
    mean today what they meant 2000 years ago - or even 400 years ago, for
    that matter.  One classic example is the word "charity."  Today, to the
    average 'murican, that word means almsgiving, whether it be to a street
    beggar or to an organized charitable institution.  But in the time when
    the King James Version was translated, "charity" meant Christian love;
    the word came from the Latin CARITAS through Old French as charit� and
    into English as charity.  In the original Greek of, for example, !
    Corinthians, the word used is agape, which meant brotherly love and
    benevolence.
    
    Because of this language difficulty, it is for all practical purposes
    simply impossible to assert without allowing for error that a given
    translatied excerpt is absolutely faithful to its original meaning and
    intent.  In some cases, the assertion approaches validity.  In others,
    it doesn't.  And, like it or not, the linguistic problem bears on what
    we today perceive as the truth - in each of its possible senses - of
    the Bible.

    
      "I swear the testimony I am about to give is the truth, the whole
     truth, and nothing but the truth."
    
      If our judicial system were run by software weenies, all witnesses
     would be perjured.
    
      In what sense are David's songs, the parables, the proverbs and
     psalms "true" ?
    
      For a thousand years plus, the Christian priesthood forbade lay
     interpretation of the Bible.  Reading this rathole almost convinces
     me they were right !
    
      bb

    Apparently, the Romans had no record of the great census that got Mary
    to the stable with farm animals and shepherds.  Its not suprising that
    Herod has no "Dear Diary, killed babies today,"  but you would have
    thought that after going to all the trouble of assembling these people
    across the empire somebody would have bothered to write some of it
    down.
    
    (Source John Romer, "Testament" C4 books.)
    
    R. Michael.
    

From the standpoint of a documentary historian the New Testament has vastly
superior evidence to that of any other book from the ancient world.  The
matrix below reveals the superior number, dating, and degree of accuracy
of the New Testament over other books.

                           COMPARISON OF ANCIENT TEXTS

AUTHOR	DATE WRITTEN	EARLIEST COPY	NO. OF COPIES	ACCURACY OF COPY

Ceasar	   1st Cent. B.C    900 A.D.	    10		_____________

Livy	   1st Cent. B.C      -----	    20		_____________

Tacitus	     c.100 A.D.	     1100 A.D.	    20		_____________

Thucydides  5th Cent. B.C.   900 A.D.	    8		-------------

Herodotus   5th Cent. B.C.   900 A.D.	    8		-------------

Demosthenes 4th Cent. B.C.   1100 A.D.      200		-------------

Mahabharata     ------       ------        ----              90%

Homer	    9th Cent. B.C.   ------	    643		     95%

New Testament 1st Cent. A.D. 2nd Cent. A.D.   5000           99+%
	      (50-100 A.D.)  (c. 130 A.D. f.)


Observations:

1. No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the *number*
or early dating of the copies.  The average secular work from antiquity
survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

2. The average *gap* between the original composition and the earliest copy
is over 1000 years for other books.  The New Testament, however, has a fragment
within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about
100 years from the time of the autograph, most of the New Testament in less than
200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years form the date of its
completion.

3. The degree of *accuracy* of the copies is greater for the New Testament than
for other books that can be compared.  Most books do not survive with enough
manuscripts that make comparison possible.  A handful of copies that are 1000
years after the fact do not provide enough links in the missing chain nor
enough variant readings in the manuscript to enable textual scholars to 
reconstruct the original.

The textual scholar, Bruce Metzger, provides an interesting comparison of the
New Testament with the Indian Mahabharata and Homer's Illiad.  The New
Testament has about 20,000 lines.  Of these only 40 are in doubt (i.e. about
400 words).  The Illiad possesses about 15,600 lines with 764 of them in
question.  This would mean that Homer's text is only 95 percent pure or
accurate compared to over 99.5 percent accuracy for the New Testament
manuscript copies.  The national epic of India has suffered even more
textual corruption than the Illiad.  The Mahabharata is some eight times the
size of the Illiad, of which some 26,000 lines are in doubt.  This would be
roughly 10 percent textual corruption or a 90 percent accuracy copy of the
original. 

From this documentary standpoint the New Testament writings are superior to
comparable ancient writings.  The records for the New Testament are vastly
more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their
text.

jeff (with help from Bruce Metzger, F.W. Hall, and Norman Geisler)

	Jeff, if Homoer isn't that far behind, maybe people should look to the
Simpsons.....:-)

	But seriously, 99+% does not equal inerrant Word of God, does it?
Thanks for helping prove this.

    If someone is going to write something proving the accuracy of the
    Bible, does it come as any surprise that that person achieves his goal?
    
    I have read too many Christian books that are written this way.

    
> If someone is going to write something proving the accuracy of the
>    Bible, does it come as any surprise that that person achieves his goal?
    
>    I have read too many Christian books that are written this way.
    
    
    If someone is going to write something proving the inaccuracy of the
    Bible, does it come as any surprise that that person achieves his goal? 
    I have read too many non-Christian books that are written this way.
    
    Let's get past this, can we? 
    
    Textual criticism is the scientific investigation of literary documents
    to discover their origin, history, or original form.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 319.14 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>



| Let's get past this, can we?

	Jeff, as long as you state the Bible is the only way, no. 


Glen

    Glen:
    
    The.05 percent that isn't accurate is of course...you guessed it, the
    parts about gay rights!!  That's why it isn't 100% accurate!!
    
    -Jack

	Jack, all I can say to that is.... <grin>

    That's what it was meant to do!! :-)

    Lets get back to it...
    
    An honest questions here.
    
    1. When/how do you know when to interpret the bible as figerative and when
       as literal ?
    2. Genisis ... are the days talked about then the same as days now ?
    3. If numbers are given in the bible can those numbers be taken
       as real/actual numbers ?
    4. Does the new testament superceed the old testament ?
    
    

    Dick:
    
    I did some checking on the geneology issue and this is what I found
    out.
    
    From the passage in Luke Chapter 3., in the original greek, the word
    "son" does not appear and there is no definite article before Joseph.
    Luke was writing to the Roman gentile mind and in this culture, women
    were not listed in geneologies.  If you go to your King James or
    perhaps any other version, you will notice "the son" is in italics
    meaning it was not in the original manuscripts. 
    
    In the greek language of that time, the definite article, "the" was
    always put before somebodies name...as in The Jesus, The John.  I know
    it doesn't make sense in the English language to do this but the
    purpose of the definite article was to connote an object.  Lack of
    definite article was there to connote quality.  
    
    Therefore, what may have happened here was that Josephs name was placed 
    in lieu of Marys name for the purposes stated above.  One may choose to
    believe this or reject it.  I find it plausible because of the very
    fact that Jeconiah, a distant grandparent of Joseph, was given a curse
    that none of his descendents would prosper on the throne.  Jeconiah is
    mentioned in the lineage in Matthew chapter 1.  This would be Josephs
    lineage.  Luke three would be Mary's lineage.
    
    As far as the time discrepencies, this is certainly true.  It is also
    important to know that lineages aren't always complete...this why "the
    son" again is not in the original manuscripts.
    
    -Jack
    

    .19
    
    1. When/how do you know when to interpret the bible as figerative and when
       as literal ?
    
    It takes a great deal of research and study to know with anything
    approximating certainty.  For example, it's generally conceded by all
    except Madalyn Murray O'Hair's atheistic followers that Jesus was a
    historical person.  So that is one thing that can be accepted
    literally.  But whether the miracle of the loaves and fishes was a
    literal miracle in the sense that he "magically" caused more to appear
    than he started out with, that's questionable.  Many scholars lean
    toward an explanation that, in the deepest sense, is a far greater
    miracle, i.e., that his example led a characteristically selfish group
    of people, who customarily secreted food about their persons when they
    went from one place to another. to share what they had with those who
    had none.  On the surface, either way is a miracle.  Which is the
    literal explanation?  Nobody - I repeat NOBODY - really knows.  So we
    are often left to judge the meaning for ourselves.
    
    On the other hand, when Jesus said, "I am the bread of life," there is
    no doubt whatever that he was speaking figuratively; he wasn't a loaf
    of bread.  The life of which he spoke wasn't physical existence, it was
    spiritual well-being, which requires nourishment of a nonphysical kind
    that he is uniquely able to give.
    
    2. Genisis ... are the days talked about then the same as days now ?
    
    (Genesis)  Probably not.  The biggest disagreement is of course over
    the six days of creation, which can and probably should be mapped onto
    roughly six phases of lengths varying from several hundred million
    years (the first day) to perhaps three or four million years (the sixth
    day).
    
    But there are cases where we can be more definite.  For example, the
    forty days and nights of the Noachian deluge, and the forty years of
    the Exodus wandering, these are figurative representations based on
    idiom.  The ancient Hebrews used "forty" to represent a large,
    nonspecific number; so what they meant with "forty days and forth
    nights" was "a really LONG rainstorm."
    
    3. If numbers are given in the bible can those numbers be taken
       as real/actual numbers ?
    
    See 2. above.
    
    4. Does the new testament superceed the old testament ?
    
    (Supersede)  No.  It amplifies it and explains it.  Jesus said
    specifically that he didn't come to replace the old law but rather to
    complete it.  Christians are not bound by all the rigorous laws upon
    laws of the Old Testament, as Peter found out in a vision, but the Old
    Testament is still an essential part of the revelation that we have.

    please explain your answer to 4
    it seems to conlict with itself
    
    are the laws of the old testament to be followed to the letter or are
    they just a guideline ? The old testament said that if any where broken
    that you were doomed.
    
    According to the new testament all those laws can be broken and yet if
    you believe in Christ and ask forgiveness you will go to Heaven.
    
    
    
    Please interpret Revelations for me
    
    A) are there a fixed number of people going to heaven
    B) are the tribes of David mentioned figurative or literal.
       ex) if you can not trace your lineage to David you can not qualify
           for heaven.
    
    C) do A and B conflict with the statement that all that is nessessary
       to go to heaven is a belief in Christ 
    
    
    Brian V
    

    .20
    
    No, Jack, I don't buy it.
    
    Take a VERY careful look at the set of names in Matthew, and then line
    that up with the documented history.  Matthew explicitly states that
    there are 14 generations from David to the exile.  This is apparently
    some sort of numerological or mnemonic device.  But in order to make it
    come out to 14 he has to leave out a few.  For instance, he says (1:8)
    that Joram (actually Jehoram son of Jehoshaphat and a king of Judah -
    see 2 Kings 8) was the father of Uzziah (a later king of Judah - see 2
    kings 15).  Unfortunately, J(eh)oram, whose son was named Azahiah and
    who reigned after his death, died more than half a century before
    Uzziah's birth.  Uzziah's father is not identified but could not have
    been J(eh)oram.  There were MORE THAN 14 generations, Jack, but Matthew
    says there were exactly 14.  Oopsie.
    
    I wish to point out that insofar as it impinges on my faith in Jesus,
    this information has ZERO meaning.  It is rather an interesting
    academic exercise.
    
    -dick

    .22
    
    The laws of the Old Testament bind Orthodox Jews.  They do not
    literally bind Christians, and other Jewish sects do not adhere to all
    of them, kosher being the first example that comes to mind.  Gerald
    Sacks could give you more information on the Jewish specifics than I
    can.
    
    But saying that the last jot and tittle of the law does not bind
    Christians, and leaving it at that, can - as you indicate - be
    confusing.  Thhink about the Ten Commandments.  Are we bound not to
    murder, or not to commit adultery?  We are, but we are not bound
    because of the explicit wording; we are bound because we are bound to
    obey Jesus' interpretation of the Commandments, i.e., to love the Lord
    our God wiht all our heart and mind and soul and strength, and to love
    our neighbor as we love ourselves.  You would not do yourself the hurt
    of murdering yourself, so you should not do your neighbor that hurt. 
    And Jesus lays out who our neighbor is.
    
    The point of Jesus' fulfillment of the Law is that God *is* a forgiving
    God.  It's not possible to live one's whole life without EVER breaking
    any of the myriad laws - but if the "lawbreaker" is sorry and intends
    to rectify the behavior so as to repair the hurt done to God, then yes,
    God forgives, just as a mother or father forgives the child who broke
    the precious vase out of spite but afterward is sorry.
    
    I'm sorry, really I am, but I do not feel qualified to interpret
    Revelation for you.

    please explain more about the spirit of the law....
    
    slavery is ok as long as you treat your slaves well and release them
    every 7 years
    
    you should live apart form and not socialize with people of other
    religions
    
    you should avoid women on there period
    
    people with open wounds should live outside of the community
    
    you should not eat anything with a cloven hoof
    
    
    
    
    Many of these make sense only in the context of the times and the
    limited understanding of the people, but definitely make no sense
    today. If the word of god can change so much from the old testament to
    the new testament then surely we should have recieved an update in the
    last 1500 years.
    
    
    Just a thought 
    
                  Brian V
    

Note 319.22  KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB  
    
>    Please interpret Revelations for me
 
    Take this for what it's worth.  I am not qualified to interpret
    Revelation (no 's' 8^) ), but I have made a study of it over the last
    couple of years.  There are some (many?) who disagree with part of this
    view, and I'm not going to claim to be 100% correct.
       
>    A) are there a fixed number of people going to heaven
    
    Depends on how you look at it.  God knows exactly how many will accept
    Him...that is a fixed number in a way.  However, God does not want any
    to reject Him and has open arms for anyone who will accept His free
    gift.  There is no "cut-off".  I'll go over a few things in Revelation
    that might give the idea of a limit...
    
    In Revelation, when the 5th seal (or is it the 6th...drat! where's my
    Bible!!) is opened, those under the throne of God ask when their blood
    will be avenged...God says not until their number is complete.  Seems
    like this is a limit of sorts, looking at it from our perspective. 
    God, however, looks at things differently.  'Completion' of the number
    can be after time finally runs out, or when there is no one left with
    an open heart for the gospel.  God knows the hearts of all, and will
    know when there is no hope of convicting (outside of usurping their
    free will- which He will not do) another person to accept His
    forgiveness.  I'm not saying this is what the passage means, just a
    possibility from another perspective.
    
    In addition, this speaks of the tribulation saints who have died during 
    the Great Tribultion at the end of this age, martyrs for Jesus.  This has 
    nothing to do with the Church as we know it today, which will be taken up 
    to be with Jesus before the tribulation mentioned in Revelation (IMO). 
    Therefore, even if it was a limit or set number as we look at it, it
    has nothing to do with how many can be saved before the tribulation
    times (I do not think it intends to promote the view of a "limited"
    salvation for only a specific number of people...this would go against
    the whole of the NT text).
    
    
>    B) are the tribes of David mentioned figurative or literal.
>       ex) if you can not trace your lineage to David you can not qualify
>           for heaven.
 
    I think literal.
    
    This has nothing to do with *who* or how many *can* be saved.  It has
    to do with a prophetic event in the future, after God raptures the
    Church (all believers).
    
    The NIV says 12,000 from the 12 tribes of Isreal will be sealed
    (protected) by God to witness to the earth in the tribulation
    days.  Why the need for this, and why tribes from Israel?  Because,
    IMO, the church will not be here to witness to the inhabitants of the
    earth.  God will not leave those left without opportunity to save
    themselves from the second death.  And according to Revelation, there
    will be a great multitude of people who accept Christ in the last days
    (the tribulation saints).  What we have is a prophetic focus switch
    from the Church (now gone by this chapter of Revelation) back to Isreal
    and Daniel's 70th week (Daniel's 70 weeks deals specifically with
    Israel, not the Church...the 70th week is the 7 years mentioned in
    Revelation).
    
    So, I guess the answer you are left with is...no, there aren't any
    pre-set limits, and no, you don't have to be from the 12 tribes of
    Israel to be saved. 
    
    Of course, since the early Church was comprised of both Jew and
    Gentile, mentioned over and over in the New Testament, my
    interpretation of Revelation is irrelevent to the point of who can be
    saved.  I wanted to show that even taken alone, Revelation does not
    show any limits to salvation with regards to numbers or lineage.
    
>    C) do A and B conflict with the statement that all that is nessessary
>       to go to heaven is a belief in Christ 
 
    No.                                                             
    
    
    -steve

    <---  So, Jeff Benson, is this the TRUTH?

    
      Just to pick a passage at random :
    
    Proverbs 10-9 : "He that walketh uprightly walketh surely; but he
                     that perverteth his ways shall be known."
    
      Well, I see this as "true", but I don't know what "absolutely true"
     adds.  As to "literally true", I think wrong adverb.  "True in
     spirit," is closer to the mark.
    
      It just isn't a beancounter's or pedant's book.
    
      bb   

    The Proverbs are often quoted as promises, which they're not. They
    contain wisdom.

    Just another wrench thrown in for discussion.  How do Christian's
    reconcile conflicting Laws, stories etc.  Which one is the correct
    line.  Judaic thought on this problem is very simple; the earlier
    reference always has precedance over a later reference.  This appears
    not to be the case in Christian thought since the latest writings and
    prophets are given more importance than the "5 Books".

>           Judaic thought on this problem is very simple; the earlier
>    reference always has precedance over a later reference.

That's a vast oversimplification.

    
     
    > That's a vast oversimplification.
    
    True, but I did want to know if there is an answer to my questions.
    

    RE: .11 Census, Is this bit one of the four hundred words?  Were
    talking about the roman empire here.  A military dictatorship renouned
    for recording everything.  A whole record of the whole empire and none
    of it remains? - Unlikely.
    
    In doubt by who?  Would a line like, "And Jesus wept." count.  did the
    author see him cry?
    
    I have heard many translation queries that I am sure goes over the 400
    mark.  Apparently most of the oldest complete books were recorded in.
    "Bastardized greek."
    
    R. Michael. 

    .33
    
    > the roman empire here.  A military dictatorship...
    
    i suggest you need a course in roman history.  the roman empire did not
    become a military dictatorship until some time after the birth of jesus
    in -6.  the emperor at the time of jesus' birth was augustus, who took
    the position after the civil wars that followed the assassination of
    julius caesar.  augustus' accession was political, not imposed by the
    military - the military didn't really get into the act until the year
    of the four emperors more than half a century after augustus died.
    
    > A whole record of the whole empire and none
    > of it remains? - Unlikely.
    
    not at all unlikely.  records were consolidated into the capitol at
    rome, and the whole city of rome, capitol included, took a pretty
    severe beating at the hands of the goths and vandals.  millions of
    books and other records were destroyed.  were this not the case, we'd
    probably have copies of the complete works of tacitus and aristotle and
    many other greek and roman writers.

      Hi,
    
        Just my 2 cents on how it is I believe the Bible is inspired
        (at least the main reason).
    
        Isaiah 28 says that the way to study the Bible is to do a line
        upon line precept upon precept, here a little there a little
        study.  In fact, it says that without such a study, the word
        will sound if from stammering lips and a foreign tongue.
    
        I have been enjoying studying the scriptures this way.  Doing
        things like looking up the word "fire" everywhere it exists and
        reading all scriptures with that word.  Or comparing scriptures
        that have thematic parallels, similar words, imagery, etc.
    
        I can't fully explain it, but I have been convicted of certain
        beliefs that I don't know if I've ever really seen discussed
        before.  Its like its DEEPER.  Its there, but its veiled under-
        neath the myriad of codes.
    
        I was sitting with a friend who I have studied and talked a lot 
        with and I basically told him, "Man, when you really begin to
        compare scripture with scripture and look a little deeper at the
        word, and the puzzle starts seeming to come together and you
        SEE THINGS you never saw before, and light bulbs go off and you
        go WOW!  It just slams down this conviction that the word is..."
    
        And my friend cut in and said, "Divine."
    
        I could share image parallels and the like.  The Bible is so 
        incredibly divine.  The same word that spoke stars into existence
        is the same word that spoke through holy men of old.
    
        And the more one DIGS through it as for silver and CRIES OUT to 
        know wisdom, that person is going to see coded imagery just jump
        out at you and the rate with which it will do so will increase,
        and it just makes it so incredibly plain that the word is so
        obviously divine.
    
                                                        Tony

    so for all of you that believe that the bible is the word of god
    
    simple straightforward questions 
    
    1. should people with birth defects be cared for
    2. Would you like a nice rare juicy steak
    3. Do you socialize with non believers
    4. how do you refer to you male parental unit
    
    
    
    Brian V
    

RE:                   <<< Note 319.36 by KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB >>>

   > so for all of you that believe that the bible is the word of god
    
   > simple straightforward questions 
    
 >   1. should people with birth defects be cared for
  
        yes

 > 2. Would you like a nice rare juicy steak
  
      Yes, please.  Though I'm trying to cut down on red meat, I'd like
      a steak, thank you.

 > 3. Do you socialize with non believers
  
      occasionally..



>  4. how do you refer to you male parental unit
    
    
      My late father



 Jim   
     

>    so for all of you that believe that the bible is the word of god
    
>    simple straightforward questions 
 
    I doubt this altogether.
    
       
>    1. should people with birth defects be cared for
    
    	Of course! 
    
>    2. Would you like a nice rare juicy steak
    
    	No. I just ate thank you.
    
>    3. Do you socialize with non believers
 
    	Yes, I participate here.
    
    > 4. how do you refer to you male parental unit
    
    	Daddy, of course (I'm from the southern U.S.)
    
    
    jeff

    .36
    
    > 1. should people with birth defects be cared for
    
    absolutely, without question.  second great commandment.
    
    > 2. Would you like a nice rare juicy steak
    
    why, yes, that's a good idea.  which is probably why there's one
    sitting in my reactor at home thawing for dinner.  nothing in the bible
    prohibits killing per se.
    
    > 3. Do you socialize with non believers
    
    yes.  jesus' admonition to his followers before his ascension.  see the
    end of the gospel according to matthew.
    
    4. how do you refer to you male parental unit
    
    dad, or at least that's how i addressed him until he died 16 years ago.

    What Dick said!

       
>    1. should people with birth defects be cared for
    
    	They should try again.
    
>    2. Would you like a nice rare juicy steak
    
    	(In Robert Mitchum's voice) : It's what's for dinner.
    
>    3. Do you socialize with non believers
 
    	Socialism has gone out of fashion.
    
>    4. how do you refer to you male parental unit
    
    	Me dear depahted pop.
    
    bb

    ok the point of these question...all old testament stuff
    
    Birth defects are an abomination to god and a child born with them
    were suppose to be allowed to die and not fed
    
    Blood is for god only and man is not suppose to eat meat unless it has
    been well bled, and should not eat meat that has had blood added to it.
    EXample OXO,gravey,blood sausage
    
    thou shalt call no man on earth father, you have but one father and he
    is in heaven.
    
    
    
    Brian V
    
    Ps do you eat pork. If so where in the new testament does it say that
    it is permitted. If you think that its ok because now we know about
    bacteria and know how to cook our meat well to avoid it then what about
    all the other things we now know that make the bible passages obsolete.
    

>    ok the point of these question...all old testament stuff
    
>    Birth defects are an abomination to god and a child born with them
>    were suppose to be allowed to die and not fed
 
    Passage please?
       
>    Blood is for god only and man is not suppose to eat meat unless it has
>    been well bled, and should not eat meat that has had blood added to it.
>    EXample OXO,gravey,blood sausage
 
    I'd say all my meat is well bled, if you know what I mean.
       
>    thou shalt call no man on earth father, you have but one father and he
>    is in heaven.
    
    Looks like we all passed this test.   
    
>    Ps do you eat pork. If so where in the new testament does it say that
>    it is permitted. If you think that its ok because now we know about
>    bacteria and know how to cook our meat well to avoid it then what about
>    all the other things we now know that make the bible passages obsolete.
    
    Acts 11:2-10
    
    "And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took
    issue with him, saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with
    them."  But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in
    orderly sequence, saying,  "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in
    a trance I saw a vision, a certain object coming down like a great
    sheet lowered by four corners from the sky; and it came right down to
    me, and when I had fixed my gaze upon it and was observing it I saw the
    four-footed animals fo the earth adn the wild beasts and the crawling
    creatures and the birds of the air.  And I also heard a voice saying to
    me, "Arise, Peter; kill and eat".  But I said, "By no means, Lord, for
    nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth."  But a voice from
    heaven answered a second time, What God has cleansed, no longer
    consider unholy."  And this happened three times, and everything was
    drawn back up into the sky.  And behold, at that moment three men
    appeared before the house in which we were staying, having been sent to
    me from Caesarea..."

 .42


 Read the New Testament and report back to us.





 Jim

    Not familiar with the birth defect thing.
    
    It says in leviticus that you shall not drink blood.  Drinking blood
    was instituted in different forms of Baal worship.
    
    Re: Father....In the Jewish culture, the Jews were in the practice of
    calling the Rabbi Father.  In the Hebrew, the word Father signified the 
    person addressed as the progenitor, or the source of truth.  Jesus in
    Matthew 2:9 was telling them not to do this, the God was the true
    source of truth.
    
    -Jack

>    Re: Father....In the Jewish culture, the Jews were in the practice of
>    calling the Rabbi Father.  In the Hebrew, the word Father signified the 
>    person addressed as the progenitor, or the source of truth.

News to me.  Citations please.  And don't Catholics call priests "Father?"

So, this David - was he a ball player, er what?

<----  I'm going to miss that!	{sniff}

    Sorry, it is a part of Jewish history.  I'd have to reference an OT
    encyclopedia.  
    
    Yes, Priests are called Father.  Personally, I question this.
    
    -Jack

    re: .30
    
    Yes, the New Testament, or "New Covenant," supercedes the writings of
    the Old Testament for Christians in some sense because a higher level of
    thinking was introduced. But,  Jesus came "not to destroy the law,
    but to fulfill the law."
    
    The Old Testament leads one to believe that by following the law, one can
    be "saved." The New Testament says that the reason the law was written
    was not to save us but to show us that we cannot abide by the law in order
    to be saved because we have a "sinful nature."  Thus, Jesus came
    with a new law written on the heart rather than on paper so that we
    might be saved.

    A drag if you were born BC.

    
    Don't you think they got grandfathered?

    One thing's fersure...
    
    If they DIDN'T get grandfathered, they got Rogered.
    

    It says in the NT that Abraham was justified by faith and it was
    accredited to him as righteousness.  Abraham was an OT figure.  
    
    Paul wrote this to point out that nobody was justified by the works of
    the law, for where there was law, sin was revealed.  
    
    -Jack

  Hi, 
    
    �so for all of you that believe that the bible is the word of god
    
    �simple straightforward questions 
    
    �1. should people with birth defects be cared for
    
        Yes.
    
    �2. Would you like a nice rare juicy steak
    
        No.  I'm vegetarian and I believe this is God's will for me.
    
    3. Do you socialize with non believers
    
        Yes.
    
    4. how do you refer to you male parental unit
    
        Dad.
    
                                                   Tony
    
    
    Brian V
    

    re: .42
    
      Hi Brian,
    
        Just want to elaborate on your "father" statement.
    
        I think the Bible conveys the idea that it is not the
        'phonics' we use that is important, but the meaning 
        behind the term.
    
        A good example is when God told Moses He would make His
        NAME pass before him.  He did not proceed to say, "JEHOVAH."
        What He did do is describe His character.
    
        Its ok to call your earthly dad "Father", it is not ok to
        attribute to that term, when applying it to your dad, "one
        who is a spiritual head" for we all lack righteousness 100%
        and we all equally and fully require the righteousness of
        Christ 100%.
    
                                                      Tony

      re: .50
    
        I disagree with your interpretation.  For example, "Abraham
        believed God and it was accounted to him for righteousness."
    
        The old and new testament both speak of the same God and of 
        the same gospel.  God always saved people the same way.  He
        had a sacrificial system as a big giant schoolmaster to prepare
        them to be able to see/discern the True Sacrifice.
    
        Personally, I also happen to believe He had His sacrificial 
        system so as to have a historical transition of covenant.  This
        then would serve as an endtime example "for all these things 
        happened as examples and were given to us and for our admonition
        unto whom the ends of the ages are come."  1 Corin 10:11
    
        That is...there is an endtime transition of covenant that the
        31 AD serves as a type (or example) of.  The book of Hebrews 
        speaks of a covenant yet future.
    
                                                      Tony

    I'll try to find the reference to deformities.
    
    In the vision descibed was this refering to all animals???
    Does this mean that you are to have your food blessed before you eat or
    that god has blessed all animals forever ?
    
    The father thing was done to make a point. I wasn't really intersted in
    you parental unit nameing, more in interpretation by a few catholics.
    
    I have read the new testament...it seemed to conflict with the old...
    this is what led to my questions.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    The spirit of an eye for an eye and a soul for a soul is not turn the
    other cheeck (?)
    
    

    
>    In the vision descibed was this refering to all animals???

     It could be all animals but it certainly was those animals that Jews
     had been prohibited from eating under the Law as evidenced by Peter's
     response when God told him to kill and eat.  Peter said in effect,
     what, me?!!  I've never tasted pork in my life and I'm not about to begin
     now!!

>    Does this mean that you are to have your food blessed before you eat or
>    that god has blessed all animals forever ?
    
     Peter was praying, not apparently about to eat.  And God said what
     I have cleansed (past tense) no longer (never in the future) consider
     unholy.  I'd say that God has blessed all animals forever.  There are
     many other passages affirming this either directly or by implication.

    Acts 11:2-10
    
    "And when Peter came up to Jerusalem, those who were circumcised took
    issue with him, saying, "You went to uncircumcised men and ate with
    them."  But Peter began speaking and proceeded to explain to them in
    orderly sequence, saying,  "I was in the city of Joppa praying; and in
    a trance I saw a vision, a certain object coming down like a great
    sheet lowered by four corners from the sky; and it came right down to
    me, and when I had fixed my gaze upon it and was observing it I saw the
    four-footed animals of the earth and the wild beasts and the crawling
    creatures and the birds of the air.  And I also heard a voice saying to
    me, "Arise, Peter; kill and eat".  But I said, "By no means, Lord, for
    nothing unholy or unclean has ever entered my mouth."  But a voice from
    heaven answered a second time, "What God has cleansed, no longer
    consider unholy."  And this happened three times, and everything was
    drawn back up into the sky.  And behold, at that moment three men
    appeared before the house in which we were staying, having been sent to
    me from Caesarea..."
    
>    I have read the new testament...it seemed to conflict with the old...
>    this is what led to my questions.
 
    There is no doubt that the life of Jesus Christ might seem to contradict
    with the Jewish Law.  But Jesus made it clear that He in fact was the one
    who practiced the Law correctly, not the Sadducees and Pharisees and
    scribes.  Furthermore, He is God so He ought to know.
    
>    The spirit of an eye for an eye and a soul for a soul is not turn the
>    other cheeck (?)
 
     No, that would be eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth (which is in the
     context of civil law, I believe), not personal response to a wrong.

     jeff   
    

      I don't want to rathole this point about food, but the scriptural
      record does not indicate that Peter EVER followed up on his vision
      by eating pork or other foods considered unclean in the OT.
    
      However, the scriptural record does contains PETER'S interpretation
      of what the vision meant.
    
      Acts 10:28
      Then he said to them, "You know how unlawful it is for a Jewish man
      to keep company with or go to one of another nation.  But God has
      shown me that I should not call any man common or unclean."
    
      Acts 10:34
      Then Peter opened his mouth and said: "In truth I perceive that God
      shows no partiality."
    
      All of ch. 11 again elaborates on the vision and Peter's interpreta-
      tion of it.  
    
      Acts 11:17-18
      "If therefore God gave them the same gift as he gave us when we
      believed on the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could withstand
      God?"
      When they heard these things they became silent; and they glorified
      God saying, "Then God has also granted to the Gentiles repentence to
      life."
    
      THREE times the Bible explicitly renders the meaning of Peter's 
      vision to refer to God also being the redemmer of the Gentiles.  
      Not once does it explicitly render the meaning to pertain to physical
      food.  Not once do we see an example of Peter eating unclean foods.
    
      Visions are spiritual and oftentimes the items in vision have
      symbolic meanings; in this case the unclean foods symbolized the
      Gentiles.
    
      This should come as no surprise.  When God said, "Beware the leaven
      of the Pharisees" He never meant it to refer to some toxic kind of
      yeast they (might have) used in their breadmaking.
    
                                                       Tony
    
    

      obfuscate: to darken, confuse.
    
      I had to look that up!
    
      For those that do not know, SDA means Seventh Day Adventist
      which I am though some of my beliefs are not SDA.
    
      I would just like to say that I tried to be as true to the
      word as I could.
    
      So if I am confused, God help me.
                                                          
      Regarding diet, I believe there are other passages that are
      difficult and that may at least seem to defend Jeff's position.
      But, Peter's vision does not.  As I said, Peter himself relates
      3 times the meaning of the vision and he also relates it in an
      indirect way; by his example (save for at Antioch/see Galatians
      2:11-21).
    
                                                      Tony
    
                                                Tony

So yet again we have a conflict of interpretation. 
    And we dont know if this singular missinterpretation is enough to 
    doom thousands or perhaps millions of people to eternal nothingness
    
    
    and so it goes
    
    
Actualy the eye for and eye quote is
Exodus 21:22 
If men who are fighting hit a pregnant women and she gives birth prematurely
but there is no serious injury the offender must be fined what ever the womans
husband demands and the court allows. But if there is serious injury you are 
to take soul for soul eye for eye tooth for tooth hand for hand foot for foot
burn for burn wound for wound bruise for bruise.


   Re birth defects

	Couldn't find the reference that I was looking for but there are all 
kinds of references that show how much god hated any deviation from perfection
in the gene pool.

Leviticus 21:16-23
No man who has a defect may come near, no man who is blind or lame, disfigured
or deformed, no man with a crippled foot or hand or who is hunchbacked or 
dwarfed or who has an eye defect or .....must not come near to offer the food 
of his God.....and so desecrate my sanctuary.

Leviticus 19:19
Do not mate different kinds of animals
Do not plant your fields with 2 kinds of seed
Do not wear clothing woven of 2 kinds of material

True there are several passages about being kind to the blind but they are
greatly out numbered by those limiting their access to god.



The old testament treats women as second class citizens with rights only 
slightly better than slaves. Raping a virgin was ok as long as she wasn't
promised to be married, then all you had to do was pay a fine to her father
and wed her (not a big deal when you could have multiple wives). 
Women taken in battle were given a month to mourn their families
and then the captores could test drive them and if unsatisfied release them.
Divorse was quite acceptable as long as the woman was not married because of 
rape.
Women on their period were to be avoided like the plague. They were not allowed 
to cook they were to live appart and if someone had sexual relation with one 
then both parties were cut off from their people (excommunicated)


Beating of slaves and slavery itself are considered ok though.
Exodus 21:20
If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a 
direct result he must be punished. But he is not to be punished if the slave 
gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.


I know I keep harping on the old testament but how can you say that the
intent of the old testament laws are being followed by what is said in the
new testament.

If you beleive that the new testament makes the old testament obsolete then
how do you rationalize this phycotic god



Brian V

    .63
    
    the old testament addressed a situation that WAS, not a situation that
    SHOULD BE.  it went far to mitigate the rampant injustice of the times
    in which it was written.  and it provides the basis by which all of us
    are shown to be not without fault.
    
    as for leviticus 21 and defects, perhaps you should read the WHOLE
    passage.  it is dealing specifically with the priesthood.  see lev 21:1
    and 21:21, where the priesthood is mentioned explicitly.
    
    it's easy to pick a passage here and there, and use that to charge
    "psychotic god."  give me to pick and choose among all the verses of
    the bible, and i will endeavor to prove anything you desire.  which is
    why the words are far less important to me than the message.

	Dick, you mean that the passage is about priests, and who they should
not bring in, or that they are the types of priests that should not be, or
something different. I don't have a Bible here, so I can't read the passage.


Glen

Kohanim (generally translated as priests) who had certain deformities were
prohibited from performing the Temple service.

    so what is the difference. God did not want people with defects close
    to him/his alter/his sanctuary. Wether it is the preisthood or the
    general public makes liitle difference.
    
    If god was just setting down rules for dealing with currently accepted
    practices then he must have agreed with the practices or at least the
    practices didn't offend him, otherwise he would have told them not to
    have slaves or not to beat their slaves. Are these then just whatever
    rules were conveinient at the time...I dont think so look to some of
    the other laws that specifically make life difficult for his followers.
    
    
    Every thing in the bible is context and interpretation. Look at the
    issue around unclean food ... it is not spelled out and there is no
    example given and yet this single issue could condem millions.
 
    
    
    
    Brian V
    

| <<< Note 319.66 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Kohanim (generally translated as priests) who had certain deformities were
| prohibited from performing the Temple service.

	Thanks Gerald. Wow.... really paints a different picture of God. If
this passage were true, would that mean that God was wrong or He changed His
mind?


Glen

    
    
    
    .11 We are still argueing what happened at the Kennedy
    assasination a mere thirty years ago with living witnesses and
    television records. But a document written 3 hundred years after 
    an event is 99.something% accurate?
    
    
    

      re: .67
    
      Hi Brian,
    
        I'm not really sure how you construe what the Bible calls
        condemnation.  The belief I have seen (in the Bible) is that
        sin condemns and the work of redemption is a work of rooting
        out sin.  And when one first comes to faith, God accounts that
        person perfectly righteous (sinless) for a reason I won't
        bother to elaborate on here.
    
        All God requires is a heart-appreciation of His loving character
        and even creation is sufficient revelation of that character.
    
        I'll be the first to admit the Bible is a heavily veiled/coded
        book, but I don't think the fact of this is real pertinent to
        what constitutes salvation.
    
        Salvation (righteousness) is by faith which works by God's love.
    
                                                   Tony
                                                            

The Christian point of view is that the Kohanim pre-figure the priesthood of
Christ.  Christ is actually the only high priest in the Christian religion;
all other priests merely represent him.

As both high priest and sacrifice, Christ needed to be perfect in every
respect, to offer the sacrifice of himself which was sufficient for the
sins of the whole world.

Thus the Jewish Kohanim, who prefigure Christ, also needed to be as perfect
as is humanly possible.

/john

	John, is that a standard that is held today? Yes or no?

	If yes, then it will remain consistant, but make no sense. 

	If no, then it would seem someone changed their mind, or made a mistake

>	John, is that a standard that is held today? Yes or no?

Read my note again, Glen.  The answer is there.   Christ is the only priest.

/john

    Once you have accepted Christ, he will agrue on your behalf with his
    father...but even the there are several thing that can never be
    forgiven. Blasphemy is one.
    
    If you are a truely religious person you would want to please god and
    Christ in every way...Yes ??
    
    
    If this is true then you should look to the old testament for it is in
    that collection of works where god more clearly states his likes and
    dislikes. You should therefore follow all mosaic laws unless those
    specific laws were recanted in the new testament.
    
    If you know what is expected of you but choose not to do it because
    Christ will intervein on your behalf, then what kind of person are you.
    
    
    
    Brian V
    
    

>    Once you have accepted Christ, he will agrue on your behalf with his
>    father...but even the there are several thing that can never be
>    forgiven. Blasphemy is one.
 
    There is only one reference to unforgivable sin and that is blaphemy of
    the Holy Spirit.  It's meaning is obscure, is only mentioned once in
    the NT.  In any case, other types of blasphemy (toward the Father or Jesus
    Christ) are forgivable and are stated as such by Jesus in the same
    passage that the "unforgivable sin" is mentioned.  It's not
    unreasonable to suggest that since it is the Holy Spirit who convicts
    a person of their sin, the reality of Jesus Christ's sacrifice and the
    ability to repent and believe, that one commits the unforgivable sin by
    rejecting God's provision for sin.  I know of no other "unforgivable
    sin(s)" mentioned in the Bible. 
      
>    If you are a truely religious person you would want to please god and
>    Christ in every way...Yes ??
    
    
 >   If this is true then you should look to the old testament for it is in
 >   that collection of works where god more clearly states his likes and
 >   dislikes. You should therefore follow all mosaic laws unless those
 >   specific laws were recanted in the new testament.
  
    You are correct.
      
 >   If you know what is expected of you but choose not to do it because
 >   Christ will intervein on your behalf, then what kind of person are you.
    
    Stupid?    
    
   jeff
    
    

>You should therefore follow all mosaic laws unless those specific laws
>were recanted in the new testament.

Yes.  See Acts Chapter 15 and the entire book of Hebrews.

/john

      Hi Brian,
    
        Given your attraction to the OT, have you ever given Hosea
        a good read?
    
        An excellent, wonderful book!!
    
                                                 Tony

    Re .74
    
    > You should therefore follow all mosaic laws unless those
    > specific laws were recanted in the new testament.
    
    no.  there are hundreds of individual mosaic laws that have never been
    explicitly vitiated in the new testament.  their obsoletion for xians
    is implicit in the new covenant, not explicit in the words of the
    written new testament.
    
    > If you know what is expected of you but choose not to do it because
    > Christ will intervein on your behalf, then what kind of person are you.
    
    jesus won't intervene for you if you deliberately flout the agreement
    you made with him, under which he is your lord (read master, teacher,
    guide, brother...) and savior.  so if you deliberately do otherwise
    than is asked (not expected) of you in the light of christian service,
    you are a fool.

    Never heard of it Tony.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    
    .74  mighty big assumption on your part dont you think.
    
    A does not like B
    C works for A
    C says dont worry about what A says I'll interceed
    
    Who are you going to listen to
    
    

>    Never heard of it Tony.

Never heard of Hosea?

/john

>    There is only one reference to unforgivable sin and that is blaphemy of
>    the Holy Spirit.  It's meaning is obscure, is only mentioned once in
>    the NT.

This must have been the model chosen by DIGITAL Worldwide Personnel after
which to pattern the stipulations regarding solicitation using electronic
resources . . . .

    Oh please tell me where it says that Christ is god.
    
    The holy trinity stuff is very much in dispute.
    
    Christ is the son of god
    
    or Christ was the Archangel Micheal
    
    but Christ was not god.
    
    Unless you mean that we are all god insomuch as that we are all created
    by him and a part of him.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    
    

>    Oh please tell me where it says that Christ is god.
 

     hmmm...so what did Thomas mean when he saw the holes in Jesus' hands
     and said "My Lord and My God"?
     
     what did Paul mean in Colossians when he spoke of Jesus "by whom all
     things are made"?

     Why did the Jews get so upset with Jesus when He said "Before Abraham
     was I am"?  Or when he said "I and the Father are one"?
   
        
    >Unless you mean that we are all god insomuch as that we are all created
    >by him and a part of him.
    
     No, we are not all god.

    
    Jim    
    
    

>                         -< wrong answer ...try again >-

Wrong answer?  You asked a question, you got answers, fairly consistent at that.

>    Oh please tell me where it says that Christ is god.
 
    The most forthright claims of Christ to be God are revealed in his
    identification with the Jehovah of the Old Testament. "Jehovah" is the
    spelling given to the tetragrammatton or designation for God (i.e. JHWH, or
    YHWH) in the Old Testament.  This word is always referring to deity.

    Perhaps the strongest and most direct claim of Jesus to be Jehovah occurs 
    in John 8:58 where he said to the Jews, "Truly, truly, I say to you, before
    Abraham was, I am."  The Jews' reaction left no doubt as to how they 
    understood this claim.  The Jews knew Jesus had claimed not only 
    preexistence before Abraham but also equality with God.  They promptly 
    picked up stones to stone him (ref. John 8:58 and 10:31-33)  Jesus had 
    clearly claimed to be the "I AM" of Exodus 3:14 that refers to Jehovah 
    alone.  The claim was either blasphemy or else an indication of deity.  
    Jesus left no doubt as to which interpretation he wished them to take.  
    This claim to be "I AM" is repeated in Mark 14:62 and in John 18:5,6.  
    In the latter case the effect on those around Christ was 
    dramatic: "they drew back and fell to the ground." 

    Aside from assuming the title of deity, Jesus said to the scribes, "That 
    you may know that the son of man has authority on earth to forgive sins...
    I say to you [the paralytic], rise, take up your pallet and go home" 
    (Mark 2:10,11) Jesus had just said to the paralytic, "My son, your sins 
    are forgiven" (v. 5) to which the outraged scribes retorted, "Why does 
    this man speak thus?  It is blasphemy!  Who can forgive sins but God alone?

    There are many more direct and indirect claims by Jesus to be God.
   
>    The holy trinity stuff is very much in dispute.
 
     Orthodox Christianity is consistently in agreement on the
     fact of the Trinity.
   
>    Christ is the son of god
 
    This is orthodox.
   
>    or Christ was the Archangel Micheal
    
    This is the Jehovah's Witnesses' stance (and ancient gnostics) but this
    is error, not orthodox Christianity.
 
>   but Christ was not god.
 
    This is held by any number of heretics.  Christianity has no basis to claim
    authority, salvation, or anything else special if Christ is not God. 
    And those claiming that Christ was not God have no claim to the term
    Christian.
   
>    Unless you mean that we are all god insomuch as that we are all created
>    by him and a part of him.
 
     God exists outside of His creation.  None of us are God.  God is none of
     us.     
    
    jeff
    

    Also, when Jesus said, arise and walk, your sins are forgiven, the
    pharisees grumbled and threatened to stone Him.  In the Hebrew, Jesus
    didn't act as a mediator but spoke as one with authority to forgive
    sins.  Only God can forgive sin so Jesus is either God or a blasphemer.
    
    More to come!
    
    -Jack

    Is Brian V a JW?

    .82
    
    > Oh please tell me where it says that Christ is god.
    
    How's this?  The emphases are mine.
    
        Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no
        one comes to the Father, but by me. IF YOU HAD KNOWN ME, YOU WOULD
        HAVE KNOWN MY FATHER ALSO; HENCEFORTH YOU KNOW HIM AND HAVE SEEN
        HIM." Philip said to him, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall
        be satisfied." Jesus said to him, "Have I been with you so long,
        and yet you do not know me, Philip? HE WHO HAS SEEN ME HAS SEEN THE
        FATHER; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'? Do you not believe
        that I am in the Father and the Father in me? The words that I say
        to you I do not speak on my own authority; but the Father who
        dwells in me does his works. (John 14:6-10, RSV).
    
    Jesus was saying, about as plainly as he could say it, that he and God
    the Father are identical.

    Re .83:
    
    > hmmm...so what did Thomas mean when he saw the holes in Jesus' hands
    > and said "My Lord and My God"?
    
    Seeing a guy with holes in his hands would make even some atheists say
    "Ohmigod!".
     
    > what did Paul mean in Colossians when he spoke of Jesus "by whom all
    > things are made"?

    Carpentry, obviously.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

      By gum, that were the funniest EDPism I ever did see.  Bravo Sir!!
    

Ho ho!

    .88
    
    :-) :-)  
    
    Did you know there are cars mentioned in the Bible?
    
    
    And God said let us all be in one Accord.
    

    Guess the translator musta liked clown-acts, huh... :-)
    

    "For behold, the man has become as one of us...knowing good and evil"
    
    "Let us make man in our image after our likeness."
    
    

    I hope this doesn't cause offense, but "Let us make man in our image
    after our likeness." sounds to me like so much self-congratulation on
    the part of Homo Sapiens.  Or self-gratification, _a fortiori_.
    

    "God made Man in His own image, and Man, being a gentleman, returned
    the compliment."
    
    					- Mark Twain

    Aah, two such redoubtable individuals, Twain & Binder.  Men for all
    seasons...  Tnx
    

| <<< Note 319.73 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| >	John, is that a standard that is held today? Yes or no?

| Read my note again, Glen.  The answer is there.   Christ is the only priest.

	John, you said be as perfect as humanly possible. Is that perfect
physically or in the ways of no sin? 


Glen

It doesn't matter, Glen.  It's a prefigurement of Christ.

It's over.  Done and gone.  The imperfect priesthood of the Kohanim
has been replaced by Christ's perfect offering.

/john

    I truthfully like Snarfing.

    Were I a religious Jew, I daresay I'd be pissed at .99, wouldn't I?
    
    Fortunately, I find this an academic point at best... :-)
    

      Leave it to Dr Dan to bring order to the Truth of the Bible topic. :-)

    
    
    thump, and contra-thump.

	The Contra's are thumpers???

    Well ContraDANCERs sure are...
    

    Nope, if anything I'd have to say that I'm a hedonist
    
    Been trying to follow up on the trinity thing ...going kind of slow
    sofar I've been through 4 books of the new testament looking for how
    Jesus refers to himself.
    
    So far there are 50+ references to "Son of Man"
    		     30+ references to "Son of God"
    		     5 references to being part of god/coming from god/in
    god.etc...
    
    of these last 5 references most are in response to hostile attacks by
    the Jews, it almost seems like he is throwing it in their face to
    antagonize them. The only time that it is mentioned in a friendly
    situation he goes on to expand this to his diciples as well. This gives
    a pretty good indication that what he is really talking about is being
    of the same mind or spirit not the same entity or part of the same
    soul. (as in lets talk with one tongue...does not mean that you of one
    tongue to share among several people)
    
    
    
    In a rush
    
    Later
    
    Brian V
    
    
    

    .106
    
    see .86.  the words there are explicit and unambiguous in which jesus
    says he is god and that he and the father are one and the same.  the
    references to the holy spirit as part of the trinity are not as clear,
    but they are fairly suggestive.  see john 14:16ff and 15:26ff.

 Acts 5:3-5 also identifies the Holy Spirit as being God.





Jim

    right you are, jim.

    re .86
    
    Read further along in that same verse Jesus goes on to ask god to make
    Christ's disciples become one as well. He is definitely talking
    figuratively....
    
    Boy and you guys talk about other people reading the
    bible out of context by reading too short a passage.
    
    I guess that's only the case when the words in it are used against your
    cause.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    Ps what does it matter what I am.....
    

    care to point out what you're saying?  i can't seem to find it in my
    bible.
    
    it matters what you are, in one respect, because certain sects use a
    bible that is translated such that it renders radically different
    meanings to some portions.  if you are arguing from such a book, it
    would help us to know that.

    I'll bet it's a NWT.

    international
    
    
    Brian V
    

    .113
    
    "international" what?  New International Version?

| <<< Note 319.112 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "can we have your liver then?" >>>

| I'll bet it's a NWT.


	The NEWT Bible Glenn?

    John :19 "Before long the world will not see me anymore, but you will
    see me.  Because I live you also will live.  On that day you will
    realize that I am in my Father and you are in me, and I am in you."
    
    John 17:20 "My prayer is not for them alone.  I pray also for those who
    believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one,
    Father, just as you are in me and I am in you.  May they also be in us
    so that the world may that you have sent me.  I have given them the
    glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one: I in them
    and you in me.  May they be brought to complete unity to let the world
    know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."
    
    
    
    Your court
    
    Brian V	

    at that point, yup, it's a spiritual oneness that he's talking about. 
    
    but it is not at all certain to me that the same can be said for the
    remarks about having seen jesus == having seen the father, any more
    than that genesis 2:24 (quoted by jesus in matthew 19:5-6 and mark 10:8
    ang by paul in ephesians 5:31) refers to physically growing together
    into a single being.
    
    jesus was a master of symbolism, and he used it when it suited his
    purpose, but to assume that everything he said was symbolism is naive
    at best and disingenuous at worst.

    It is just this type of discrepancy in interpretation that causes many 
    of the splits within the church.
    
    There is a fairly large difference between Jesus being son of god and
    Jesus being god. 
    
    If he is talking figuratively in one passage could he not be talking
    figuratively in another. The same idea/concept is being discussed and
    many of the same phrases are used.
    
    What makes you think that your (someone elses) interpretation is
    correct ?
    
    
    
    Obviously the bible can not be taken strictly on faith because so much
    of what is said needs to be analyzed and interpreted. For this reason
    alone it is a very poor text book to base how you live your life.
    
    Surely a god would want to make his instruction clear so that his
    followers/worshippers could make thier decisions fully aware of their
    choices and the consequences (?).
    
    
    Brian V
    
    
    
    

    Excellent book by CS Lewis I belive...
    
    "Jesus Christ...Lord, Liar, or Lunatic"

    What's the premise of that book?

How to feed the multitudes with a loaf, three fishes, and a deck of cards?

    Wow...well, I'd be interested to see how he was able to put a Roman
    coin in the mouth of a fish, throw it back in the lake...and then tell
    Peter to go fishing and when you catch a fish, you will pull a coin out
    of its mouth to pay the tax.  That would be great.
    
    I guess Jesus really had to pray he caught the right fish eh??!
    
    -Jack

    <--- Coin tricks are easy.
    
    Raising Lazarus from the dead after 4 days? I don't think even David
    Copperfield could do that one.

| <<< Note 319.127 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| Changing water into wine was anothe popular magic trick.

	Reunite does this all the time. Old hat....

| So too was returning from the dead.

	I guess this proves Harry Hudini was not Jesus....

	But without demons, we never would have had the Exorcist!!!

    With the apostles of course.

	I'll just be standing over here, to the side, so as
	not to get injured when the lightning strikes.

    Or the 16 ton weight drops.

    Majicians tried to imitate the apostles in the book of acts and learned
    a very hard lesson!!
    
    -Jack

    Magician

    Um, er, sorry.

| <<< Note 319.134 by SUBPAC::JJENSEN "No! No! I am not the brain specialist!" >>>

| I'll just be standing over here, to the side, so as not to get injured when 
| the lightning strikes.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


	Aerosmith is in the building!!!?????  Cool..... I'll be right up!

| <<< Note 319.136 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Majicians tried to imitate the apostles in the book of acts and learned
| a very hard lesson!!

	Yeah, that their job name was maGicians.....

    ZZZZZZZ    Um, er, sorry.
    
    COPYRIGHT INFRINGMENT!  
    
    
    Ummmmmm....errrrrr....sorry
    
    
    NO PERIOD AT THE END!!!
    
    TYVM

    Then there was no infringement.

    Um, er, sorry. (tm)

>>    Then there was no infringement.

	ah, but he didn't claim there was an infringement.
	he claimed there was an infringment.  big difference.
	huge.

You know, Mr. Silva, it kinda scares me that
you picked up on the Aerosmithiness of my reply,
a'cuz that song was in my head as I typed.....  ;^)

    
    
    See!  Another asset!  You're telekynetic(sp??)
    
    
    
    :*)
    Terrie
    

| <<< Note 319.145 by SUBPAC::JJENSEN "No! No! I am not the brain specialist!" >>>

| You know, Mr. Silva, it kinda scares me that you picked up on the 
| Aerosmithiness of my reply, a'cuz that song was in my head as I typed....  ;^)

	I know, I put that song in your head Joanne. :-)

    Damn...I can't do anything correct!!!! 
    
    

| <<< Note 319.148 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Damn...I can't do anything correct!!!!


	Jack, ever think of changing your name to Charlie Brown?

    	re .133
    
    	Well if current-day magicians are part of the same 'set' that
    	includes Jesus and the others who could raise the dead and
    	control demons, why can't our magicians do what 'the set' used
    	to do 2000 years ago?

    
    Especially raising the dead what been stinking for a few days or
    more...

    And now for something completely different.

    My Cousin X lives in Washington DC and is some sort of spook/defense
    analyst.  A few years ago he "went bad" in my eyes by turning from a
    sensible religious liberal product of a Conservative-Jewish upbringing
    (like mine) into some sort of imho weird sect of ultra-Orthodox Jew. 
    Now he lives with his orthodox wife (who by custom SHAVES HER HEAD and
    wears a WIG, on the theory that (I kid you not, this is how it was
    explained to me) this makes her less desirable to other men and less
    likely to run off with 'em.).  Since his conversion, he has regarded
    me, apparently, as Someone Who Needs Convincing.

    So, all unbidden, what should arrive in my SNAIL-mailbox yestiddy but
    an envelope addressed to moi, with the subscript

[RELIGIOUS SKEPTIC] 

    Aside from the usual yearly family-letter drivel (highlights:  the
    antics of his cute family, plus an actual APOLOGY for the lack of an
    Internet address), there was a reprint from the scholarly journal
    _Statistical Sciences,_ 1994, Volume 9, Number 3, 429-438.  The authors
    are Doron Witzum, Eliyahu Rips, and Yoav Rosenberg.  The title is
    "Equidistant Letter Sequences in the Book of Genesis."

_Abstract._

    It has been noted that when the Book of Genesis is written as
    two-dimensional arrays, equidistant letter sequences spelling words
    with related meanings often appear in close proximity.  Quantitative
    tools for measuring this phenomenon are developed.  Randomization
    analysis shows that the effect is significant at the level of 0.00002.

_Key words and phrases._

    Genesis, equidistant letter sequences, cylindrical representations,
    statistical analysis.

Some comments from the Journal Editor were appended:

    The authors searched the Book of Genesis looking for pairs of words
    spelled by picking out every Dth letter, where D is some integer.  The
    pairs of words were names of personalities and dates of their birth or
    death taken from the ENCYCLOPEDIA OF GREAT MEN IN ISRAEL.  When the
    authors used a randomization test to see how rarely the patterns they
    found might arise by chance alone they obtained a highly signficant
    result, with P=0.000016.  OUR REFEREES WERE BAFFLED:  THEIR PRIOR
    BELIEFS MADE THEM THINK THE BOOK OF GENESIS COULD NOT POSSIBLY CONTAIN
    MEANINGFUL REFERENCES TO MODERN-DAY INDIVIDUALS, YET WHEN THE AUTHORS
    CARRIED OUT ADDITIONAL ANALYSES AND CHECKS THE EFFECT PERSISTED.  THE
    PAPER IS THUS OFFERED TO _STATISTICAL SCIENCE_ READERS AS A CHALLENGING
    PUZZLE.

======

    If any of the 'BoxReadership wants a copy of this piece of dreck, I
    would be happy to send one along.

    What frosts me is when folks try to prove faith thru science, or
    justify science by faith.  Can't be done, and it inevitably cheapens
    the one as it goes slumming trying to do what it can't to the other.

    This Cousin X dork was fascinated when I published some work about the
    Mandelbrot Set about 10 years ago...  (See "The Turbulent Mirror" by an
    author I can't remember -- it was one of those pop-science books about
    Chaos Theory, circa 1989). Cousin X's personal view of the Mandelbrot
    Set, formed after  looking at the maximally-magnified stuff (As I
    recall I had shown him pix of parts of the Set that were some
    quintillions of times smaller than the whole, at the limits of the quad
    precision of our computers, and still obviously self-similar to the
    parent set) was:  "It's clear to me that if you could ONLY go deep
    enough, you'd see the Hebrew letters for Jehovah."

Spare me and get outta my face -- Cousin X, you are a hopeless nut.

    I've seen straw grasping before, but that one really wins the prize.

    re .152
    
    Which language was the Book of Genesis written out in two-dimensional
    arrays in ?
    
    Dave

	Dr Dan, your Cousin X is married to Sinead O'Conner?

    So it's GOT to be valid eh??
    
    :-)
    

    Now THAT would be sumpin.  I happen to think that SHE's a looker...
    
    But no, Cuzzin X hasn't the style.
    
    

| <<< Note 319.158 by LJSRV2::KALIKOW "TechnoCatalyst" >>>


| Now THAT would be sumpin.  I happen to think that SHE's a looker...

	Well.... Sinead doesn't like the pope and all......

| But no, Cuzzin X hasn't the style.

	How about the Grace? :-)

    How do we know the original Hebrew's the original ?
    
    Somehow I find myself less than convinced...
    
    Ho ho, I keyed in "lass" on the previous line - now THERE'S a Freudian
    slip !!
    
    Dave_is_it_the_weekend_yet
    

Article: 1787
Newsgroups: rec.humor.funny
From: [email protected] (Dale R. Worley)
Subject: Are you prepared?
Keywords: smirk, signs, true
Approved: [email protected]
Path: jac.zko.dec.com!crl.dec.com!crl.dec.com!caen!hookup!noc.tor.hookup.net!metrics.com!news.maplesoft.on.ca!dogmead!looking!funny-request
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
Date: Wed, 15 Mar 95 19:30:11 EST
Lines: 22
 
This one is *real*:
 
The back of a highway sign in downtown Boston is graced by two bumper
stickers.  One says (sorry, I can't reproduce the lurid typography):
 
	Jesus is coming SOON!
	Are you prepared?
 
To the left of that one is another, which says:
 
	Get the original MACE
	1-800-GET-MACE
	... Just in case
 
Dale
 
Dale Worley		Dept. of Math., MIT		[email protected]
--
Selected by Maddi Hausmann Sojourner with Brad Templeton.  MAIL your joke
(jokes ONLY) to [email protected].  If you see a problem with an RHF posting,
reply to the poster please, not to us.  Ask the poster to forward comments
back to us if this is necessary.

<------ HAAAHAAAAHAAAA!!!!!!

Following is an article from the December issue of "Christianity Today".  It is
titled "Cosmology's Holy Grail", by Dr. Hugh Ross, an astronomer.  Dr. Ross
describes the set of breakthrough discoveries in the past two years which
has stirred waves of exuberance from the scientific community.

"Carlos Frenk, of Britain's Durham University, exclaimed to reporters, "[It's]
the most exciting thing that's happened in my life as a cosmologist." 
Cambridge University's Lucasian Professor of Mathematics, Stephen Hawking, a
master of theoretical physics and of understatement, described just one of the
several breakthroughs as "the discovery of the century, if not of all time."
Michael Turner, University of Chicago and Fermilab astophysicist said
researchers have found "the Holy Grail of cosmology."

What is this "holy grail" to which Turner refers?  The answer is perhaps best
stated by George Smoot, University of California at Berkely astronomer and
leader of one of the breakthrough projects: "What we have found is evidence
of the birth of the universe...It's like looking at God."  According to science
historian Frederic B. Burnham, many scientists have suddenly come to consider
God's creation of the universe "a more respectable hyposthesis today than in
any time in the last 100 years."

Until April 1992, astronomers knew only of ordinary matter, the stuff that we
and these pages are made of - protons, neutrons, electrons, and a small host
of other fundamental particles that strongly interact with radiation. The stuff
that researchers have just found evidence for is different.  It is called
"exotic" matter, for it does not strongly interact with radiation.

The reason this discovery generated so much excitement among astrophysicists is
that it constitutes a significant piece of the nearly completed puzzle of how
the universe came to be.  Perhaps another reason is that exotic matter actually
makes up a sizable proportion (no less than 60 percent and maybe as much as
90 percent) of the matter in the universe.

Since 1990, astronomers had been certain that the universe must have erupted
from some kind of extremely hot, extremely compact creation event.  Evidence
for this scenario came from measurements of the entropy of the universe.  What
is the connection between entropy and this cosmic big bang?

Entropy describes how efficiently a system radiates energy and how inefficiently
it performs work.  A burning candle illustrates a highly entropic system.  The
candle is effective in radiating heat and light but relatively ineffective in
propelling an engine or performing any other type of work.  Physicists designate
the entropy of a system by a number that indicates the amount of energy
degradation per proton.  A burning candle has a specific entropy measure of
about two, and that is considered high.

Compare that number with what astronomers have discovered about the universe.
It has a specific entropy measure of one billion.  Let the impact of that
number sink in. Only an explosion can generate an entropy measure significantly
higher than that of a candle.  But none of the explosions produced by humans
comes anywhere close to one billion.  Only an explosion from an *incomparably*
hot, *incomparably* compact source could generate such an enormous specific
entropy.

But a troubling hitch remained in the big-bang creation models.  The radiation
left over from the creation event, radiation that permeates the cosmos, appears
smoothly distributed throughout the cosmos.  this smooth distrsibution would
lead us to expect that matter, too, would be smoothly distributed.  But as we
see even with our naked eyes, it is not.  some radiation ripples have been found,
but they are much too tiny to account for the clumpiness of matter.  Matter is
very clumpy.  It is densely clumped in galaxies and galaxy clusters.  If the
radiation is so smoothly dispersed, why isn't the matter also smoothly
distributed?

the discovery of evidence for the reality of exotic matter solved the problem.
Since exotic matter only weakly interacts with radiation, it is free to clump
under the influence of gravity, regardless of the distribution of the 
radiation.  ONce the xotic matter has clumped, it will gravitationally attract
ordinary matter to it.  thus, the radiation from the creation event can be 
smoothly distributed while the galaxies and galaxy clusters are clumped -
providing that the universe contains about three to ten times as much exotic
matter as ordinary matter.

This ratio is exactly what researchers have found, and not just from one study,
but from many.  Several probes with the Hubble Space Telescope, two with the
400-inch Keck telescope, four with other ground-based telescopes, one with the
Roentgen Satellite, and one with the Cosmic Background Explorer satellite all
have measured evidence fro exotic matter since April 1992.  And the measurements
all corroborate each other.  this fitting together of various pieces of 
research, both theoretical and observational, is what thrilled the scientists.
It is the kind of thing scientists dream of.

Solid evidence for the big-bang creation event has been available for some time,
but because of their typical caution, most scientists have been reluctant to
make public pronouncements.  this narrowing in on a specific subset of big-bang
models made possible by the solution to this matter mystery has finally pushed
them to acknowledge the big bang with more certainty.  (Recently, many
newspapers and newsmagazines have carried stories on how one group of scientists
while measuring the expansion of the universe, has demonstrated that the oldest
stars are about twice as old as the cosmos...)

But what does the big bang say about the existence of God - more specifically,
the God of the Bible?  Many Christians have been taught that the big bang
contradicts their faith in the Creator.  Such teaching must be based on a
misunderstanding of the event and what it implies.  Here is what a noted
scientist, Geoffrey Burbidge, has to say on the subject.  A few days after
the initial detection of exotic matter, the University of California at San
Diego astronomer loudly complained in a radio interview and to newspaper
reporters that his colleagues were rushing off to join "the First Church of
Christ of the Big Bang."

The scientific underpinnings for correlating the big bang with Jesus Christ lies
in a set of mathematical equations, the equations of general relativity.  Albert
Einstein, the developer of these equations, worked out some of the solutions
to them between 1917 and 1930.  To the surprise (and dismay) of many scientists,
his solutions showed that the universe is expanding.  It is expanding, and at 
the same time, its expansion is slowing down - losing steam, so to speak.  What
physical phenomenon is described by simultaneous expansion and deceleration?
An explosion.

And if the universe is "exploding" there must have been a start and Starter to
that explosion.  As Genesis reveals, the universe had a beginning - hence, an
Initiator, one who existed before and outside the universe, as the Bible
uniquely declares.

These results sent the scientific community, even Einstein, scrambling for
loopholes.  Many imaginative origins models were proposed and some ancient ones
dredged up, but all fell apart as observational data accumulated.  The only set
of models that withstood the test of time and observations was the big bang set,
based on general relativity.

In 1970, three British astrophysicists, George Ellis, Stephen Hawking, and
Roger Penrose, took the solution of Einstein's equations a step further.  These
three developed the space-time theorems of general relativity.  Their work
showed that if general relativity truly describes the physical dynamics of the
universe, not only did matter and energy have a finite beginning, but so did
space (the dimensions of length, width, and height) and time have a beginning.
Such a finding carried profound ramifications not only for cosmology, but also
for theology.

The *if* attached to general relativity took on enormous importance.  How firmly
could general relativity be trusted? The confirming evidence was not quite
strong enough in 1970 for astronomers to rest their weight confidently upon it
and replace the *if* with *since*.  By then, astonomers had determined the
accuracy of general relativity only to the second place fo the decimal (that is,
1 percent precision).  The skeptics wanted a stronger limb to hold them, and
they did not have to wait long.  Thanks to the efforts of the NASA space
program, confirmation to five places of the decimal (to 0.007 percent precision)
was achieved in 1980.  In 1993, Russell Hulse and Joseph Taylor received the
Nobel Prize for Physics for their study confirming general relativity to one
part in a hundred trillion.

Thus, with considerable confidence, astronomers now affirm to the theologians
and anyone else interested that the cause of the universe resides beyond (thus,
independent of) matter, energy, space, and time.  How does this fact help us in
identifying the Cause?

Of all the holy books of the world's religions, only the Bible unambiguously
states that time is finite, that God created time, that God is capable of 
cause-and-effect operations apart from the universe's time dimension, and that
God did cause many effects before the time component of our universe came to be.

Some holy books other than the Bible allude to extra-dimensional or trans-
dimensional phenomena and to transcendent reality, but these allusions are vague
and inconsistent - inconsistent with each other and with the facts of nature.

Only the God of the Bible is revealed as a personal Creator who can act
independently of the cosmos and its space-time dimensions.  The god of the
Bible is netiher subject to nor contained within the limits of our space and
time.  He is the one who brought these features of the cosmos into existence.

And no other God besides the god of the Christian Bible claims attributes that
defy explanation in the context of four dimensions.  For example, only the
biblical God is simulataneously singular and plural (a tri-unity) and simul-
taneously accommodates both humanity's freedom of choice and God's sovereign
choice (that is, predetermination).

We can speak confidently of God's operating in dimensions beyond those we
experience.  Both Scripture and general relativity place the cause of the
universe outside the time dimension of the universe.  This placement tells us
something about the Creator's relationship to time - and to us.  Since time is
that dimension in which cause-and-effect phenomena take place (according to
the physicists' definition), and since the universe was caused from outside
its own time dimension, the Creator must operate within at least two dimenisons
of time, or the equivalents thereof.  Passages such as John 1:3 ("Through
Him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made"),
John 17:24 ("You loved me before the creation of the world"), Ephesians 1:4,
Timothy 1:9, Titus 1:2, and Hebrews 11:3, among others, describe God's cause-
and-effect activities before the beginning of time in our universe.

From particle physicists we learn that the events within the first split second
of the universe's existence (literally within the first 10~-10 [ten to the
negative ten power - JB] second) require the existence of at least nine (and
perhaps many more) dimensions of space.  Powerful particle accelerators like the
one at Fermi Natl Accelerator Lab. in Batavia, Illinois, enable scientists to
re-create the extrememly high temperatures that existed in the first split-
second after the universe was created.  Particle physicists can thereby
observe how the four fundamental forces of physics emerged from three.  they
can get a glimpse of how the three emerged from two and a hint at how the two
emerged from one.  They have discovered many of the fundamental particles and
building blocks of such particles that the emerging of forces, namely, unified
field theory, predicts.  the discovery of the top quark (the last of the six
building blocks of fundamental particles to be found), announced in April 1994,
is a case in point.  The only reasonable explanation for these observations and
discoveries is that the universe experienced a collapse of dimensionality some
time previous to the 10~-34 second.  Initially, the universe was composed of
nine or more dimensions of space.  But sometime between the moment of creation
and the 10~-34 second, six or more of these dimensions collapsed into 
infinitely small circles, leaving us with the fundamental forces of physics,
fundamental particles, and the three dimensions of space we experience today.
Since God controls the beginning, he controls all these dimensions, and his
reality encompasses them all.

Now, we cannot say that God is limited by any dimensions since he is the Creator
of these dimensions, but we can speculate how God might work through multi-
dimensions when he interacts with his creation.  Perhaps the Bible illustrates
God's operation in extra dimensions of space when Jesus seemingly passes
through the walls of the upper room after his bodily resurrection (Luke 24; John
20).  We can understand this by speculating that Jesus' physical, post-
resurrection body had access to at least a fourth, fifth, and sixth spatial
dimension (dimensions we cannot possibly visualize, though they are undoubtedly
real).  It may be that he transferred his physical body into those dimensions,
passed through the wall, then re-entered dimensions, one, two, and three
wherein the disciples could see, hear, and touch him.  He assured them they
were not seeing a ghost.

Many difficult biblical doctrines over which we struggle now, truths we can only
fully comprehend in that day when we "know as we are known", can be better
understood, integrated, and embraced in light of this extradimensional reality.
Our four-dimensional attempts to resolve them have led to needless strife and
even bloodshed despite God's explicit statement that is ways are above our ways
and his thoughts above our thoughts.  Such mysteries as salvation, the Trinity,
and atonement clearly require dimensions of space and time beyond our own, or
perhaps super dimensions that encompass space and time capacities.

How awesome to consider that God caused the big bang and all its components,
including exotic matter and over 10 billion trillion stars, for the sake of
knowing and being known by us in an eternal love relationship.  The thought
both reduces me to a speck of dust and lifts me up to the heavens.

Re: -.1

I'm glad that these scientific discoveries have helped you with your faith.

-- Jim

    Hawking latter recanted most of his ideas about time.
    
    He got pretty weird there for awhile ..Hawking thought that if time
    had a beginning at the big bang and that time was tied to the expansion 
    of the universe then when/if the universe started to contract that time
    would run backwards.
    
    
    So this big discovery....this exotic matter...how was it "seen" with
    the hubble ? 
    What are it's properties ? 
    Does it have mass or is it just a collection of gravity (spin 1.5 ?)
    particles ?
    If it has mass then ...adding 40 % more mass to the known universe will 
    definitely cause the universe to contract. This will mean an end to the 
    universe...does this contradict the bible ?
    
    Cosmologists use a lot of imaginary ideas in an attempt to solve
    mathematical equations. These are just tools and do not have any place
    in reality. For example Hawkins talks about imaginary time to
    illistrate the range of possible futures for a mass that enters a black
    hole.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    
    

>I'm glad that these scientific discoveries have helped you with your faith.

>-- Jim
    
    Hi Jim,
    
    My faith is not based upon science but on Jesus Christ's death on the
    cross for my sins.  It's much more likely to "help" the skeptic, I
    would think.
    
    jeff

>    This will mean an end to the universe...does this contradict the Bible?
    
    No.  Read Revelation, particularly the events after the Millenium.

    re: Hawking... (rathole alert...)
    
    If time ran backwards when the universe was contracting, wouldn't it
    seem (to someone on the inside) to be expanding?
    
    [this hurts my head]

    Excellent point. 
    
    I say: yes.
    

    re last couple..to use Hawkings example.
    
    Broken plates would gather themselves up off the floor and leap back
    on to the table. People would die grow young and then be born.
    
    Total BS idea...I mean really. Does time move bacwards when a YO-YO
    winds back up. (and dont say it does for the YO-YO)
    
    
    Brian V
    

    I dunno.  Does time move backwards for a yo-yo when it winds back up?
    
    Or was that a rhetorical question?
    
    If so, why?
    
    If not, who cares?
    
    

    I take it you don't like my note style (or lack of)
    
    Brian V
    

	Sure.... why not???

    The Bible's historical accounts are true.  Prophecies are all true but
    sometimes symbolism is used to make a point.
    
    Hosea the prophet was told to marry a harlot because God wanted to show
    the nation of Israel that they have lost their first love and have gone
    to worship other gods.  This would be a symbolic act or an allegorical 
    picture of what God wanted to show them.
    
    -Jack

	The Bible is written by men, therefor it is not inerrant as some have
claimed. If you can't use something other than the thing in question as your
proof, then you can not prove the thing in question to be true/false.


Glen

re: .175 (Jack)

>    The Bible's historical accounts are true.  Prophecies are all true but
>    sometimes symbolism is used to make a point.
So "creation" took six realtime days?  
    
I do wish you'd start with "I believe the Bible's historical..."

\john

    "All Scripture is GOD BREATHED, and is profitable for instruction,
    reproof, correction, and training in righteousness."  Paul who was
    considered a prophet wrote these words.  A prophet is not a prophet
    unless 100% accurate.
    
    Theo Pneutos...God Breathed.  The verse is referring to the product,
    not the people here.  If you breathe on a window, you produced a fog.
    The fog in this case would be the scripture.  
    
    The scripture is the result of Gods work.  Men wrote scripture under
    the inspiration of God...BUT IT IS GOD BREATHED.
    
    Paul established himself as an apostle and a prophet.  Gods Word is
    the Bible, it is Theos Pneutos!!
    
    -Jack

    Thanks John.  I was actually thinking of the historical accounts of the
    Kings of Israel when I wrote what I did...i.e. Solomon was Davids son,
    etc.
    
    -Jack

>							Paul who was
>    considered a prophet wrote these words.  A prophet is not a prophet
>    unless 100% accurate.

So, who says Paul was right?

 ZZ       The children of this world take wives and husbands, but those who
 ZZ       are judged worthy of a place in the other world and in the
 ZZ       resurrection from the dead do not marry...
 ZZ       - Luke 20:34-35
    
    If my memory serves me correctly, Jesus was asked the following
    question...
    
    "There was a woman who had a husband who died.  She remarried and
    consequently her second husband died.  A third husband died even still
    and the question is, when this woman reaches the kingdom of God, who
    will be her husband?"
    
    I think Jesus was pointing out that there are no marriages in heaven.
    
    -Jack

Bet she couldn't find a fourth guy to marry her, either.

    Most likely right!!!!

re: .180 (Jack)

>    Thanks John.  I was actually thinking of the historical accounts of the
>    Kings of Israel when I wrote what I did...i.e. Solomon was Davids son,

.175>  The Bible's historical accounts are true.  Prophecies are all true but
.175>  sometimes symbolism is used to make a point.

Then a) work on the sweeping statements, and b) fix the mistake.  Are all
the Bible's historical accounts true or not?  Was creation 6 days or not?

\john

RE: 319.175 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

> The Bible's historical accounts are true.  

The Universe is much older than ~6000 years.

There was no world-wide flood ~5000 years ago.

Or are these "symbolism" rather than "historical accounts"?


Phil

    
    The world wide flood is support by other reports as well.
    
    OK, it was not exactly 'world-wide', but it was also reported
    in thje Gilgamesh epos, for example.
    
    Heiko

    Yes...I expected Phil to show up quite soon!
    
    As far as the creation issue, I do believe Adam existed since Adam is
    in the family lineage in the gospel of Luke.  I believe as Paul
    indicates in his epistles that sin came into the world through Adam
    and passed on to all humankind.
    
    As far as the six days, I must honestly say I'm not sure.  I'm more
    inclined to say the days are not literal.  It's one of those few issues
    where we won't fully know until we get there.  I just don't know...but
    I do believe in the accounts that happened in the garden!   Jesus
    affirmed the words of Moses to be true and there's no reason I should
    disbelieve it!
    
    -Jack

    Please...
    
    book B syas that book A is accurate 
    therefore book A is accurate
    
    
    Brian V
    

| <<< Note 319.179 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| "All Scripture is GOD BREATHED, and is profitable for instruction, reproof, 
| correction, and training in righteousness."  Paul who was considered a 
| prophet wrote these words.  

	Oh, the same Paul who once said, "What I am about to say is not from
God, but my own opinion". Jack, how can something he claims to be God Breathed
if he comes right out and says something isn't from God? And don't hand me
this, "it doesn't go against Scripture so it's ok" or "he's a prophet and
righteous, so he can speak this way" crapola. If it is God Breathed, then it
can ONLY be about God's Word(s), not a human opinion, AND DEFINITELY not have
the very guy who says, "ALL Scripture is God Breathed" to turn around and say
something is not from God in the very book he's saying everything is from Him.

| The scripture is the result of Gods work.  Men wrote scripture under the 
| inspiration of God...

	I think the authors were inspired by Him.

| Paul established himself as an apostle and a prophet.  

	Don't you think Jesus or God should have done that? (sorry, I couldn't
resist)  :-)


Glen

| <<< Note 319.191 by KAOFS::B_VANVALKENB >>>


| book B syas that book A is accurate therefore book A is accurate

	Brian, it has a better chance of being right than book A saying book A
is accurate, therefore book A is accurate. :-)  Place the word Bible in place
of book A, and you can see it all pretty clearly...

    Deutoronomy says something about a woman costing 50 shekels which is
    about $30 at the current gold-US$ rate
    
    now this is *objectively* wrong cos they cost *a great deal more* in my
    limited experience!
    
    ric
    8^)

	Jack, could you answer a couple of questions for me? Which of the
following is true, and which is false?


A. The city of Jericho was felled by an earthquake

B. The city of Jericho was felled by the sound of Joshua's trumpeters' horns.  

C. The sun did stop over the battle of the valley of Ajelon, in which Joshua's 
   army defeated the Amorites.

D. The sun did NOT stop over the battle of the valley of Ajelon, in which 
   Joshua's army defeated the Amorites.




Glen

    A. The city of Jericho was felled by an earthquake
    
    From what I vaguely remember, the trumpets blew  but it was the shout
    of the Hebrews which preceded the destruction of the walls of Jericho.
    A is false.
    
    B. The city of Jericho was felled by the sound of Joshua's trumpeters'
    horns.  
    
    See above.
    
    C. The sun did stop over the battle of the valley of Ajelon, in which
    Joshua's army defeated the Amorites.
    
    If this is the account I'm thinking of, true.
    
    D. The sun did NOT stop over the battle of the valley of Ajelon, in
    which Joshua's army defeated the Amorites.
    
    False...if I remember the account correctly.
    
    Now you answer a few...
    
    A. Did Elijah request of God a famine to come for a period of three
    years, or was the famine a coincidence?
    
    B. Did a donkey actually speak to Ballam?
    
    C. Did Samson actually kill 6000 men with the jawbone of an ass?
    
    Point being here that God is capable of doing anything...even as you
    have stated in the past.  Why couldn't he cause daylight to continue
    and have the walls of Jericho tumble supernaturally?
    
    -Jack

    Snarf!!

    The bible is a collection of books ...not one book in itself.
    
    Slavery and poor treatment of women are approved of in the bible.
    
    You cannot create something that is not a part of you.
    If god created man then All the good in the world came from god
    If god created man then All the evil in the world came from god
    
    
    Brian V
    

| <<< Note 319.199 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| A. The city of Jericho was felled by an earthquake

| From what I vaguely remember, the trumpets blew  but it was the shout
| of the Hebrews which preceded the destruction of the walls of Jericho.
| A is false.

| B. The city of Jericho was felled by the sound of Joshua's trumpeters'
| horns.

| See above.

| C. The sun did stop over the battle of the valley of Ajelon, in which
| Joshua's army defeated the Amorites.

| If this is the account I'm thinking of, true.

| D. The sun did NOT stop over the battle of the valley of Ajelon, in
| which Joshua's army defeated the Amorites.

| False...if I remember the account correctly.

	Jack, if you would, please prove what you just stated.

| Point being here that God is capable of doing anything...even as you have 
| stated in the past. Why couldn't he cause daylight to continue and have the 
| walls of Jericho tumble supernaturally?

	Cuz the only proof of any of it is in the book written by men. It could
be true, it could be false. Having humans write anything does not give it the
stamp of accuracy.

	Now please address the issue of Paul.



Glen

re: .190 (Jack)

>    As far as the six days, I must honestly say I'm not sure.  I'm more
>    inclined to say the days are not literal.  It's one of those few issues
>    where we won't fully know until we get there.  I just don't know...but
>    I do believe in the accounts that happened in the garden!   Jesus
>    affirmed the words of Moses to be true and there's no reason I should
>    disbelieve it!
Don't go getting wishy-washy on me.  This is the cornerstone of your
argument; that you KNOW what is symbolism, and what is literal.  Certainly
something so central to the very origins of the church isn't up for
interpretation!

And what of the people who say the six ARE literal?  They say you are
WRONG, Jack.  That you're not being faithful to the Word that's clearly
in the Bible.

Ready to revisit the "Bible's historical accounts are true" bit yet?
\john

    I don't think the bible "approves of" slavery or poor treatment
    of women, it "reports it" and comments on it as part of its
    social/historical context.

    For example, by Biblical accounts, it would seem God hardly
    approved of Egypt enslaving the Israelites.

    -b

    Slavery was a simple fact of life in Biblical times. The moral
    implications of slavery we not evaluated.

    Selling Joseph into slavery saved the Hebrews who were eventually
    enslaved.

    Alot of issues here.  John, I think you're confusing wishy washy with
    honesty.  The six days of creation being literal are not...I repeat,
    are not germane to the issue of sin.  Therefore, I find the topic as
    one of interest but not on the front burner of my personal faith.  I
    believe God is very capable of creating the world in six days, and I
    believe science is secondary and submissive to God.  The bible also
    says that a thousand years to man is as one day to the Lord.  I simply
    so not know if the six days are literal or not...I'm inclined to
    believe they are not but I could be wrong.  If somebody tells me I'm
    not following the word of God, or I lack faith, then I will simply ask
    them to pray that God will reveal truth to me...and that we'll find out
    when we get to Heaven.  I'm sure as heck not going to get all mad and
    huffy over it.  That is absolutely counterproductive and juvenile.
    
    -Jack

    Glen:
    
    I can't prove it...anymore than you can't prove the pilgrims landed on
    Plymouth Rock.  We can only go by historical counts.  As you have said
    in the past, it is faith that builds our belief system...belief in the
    historical accounts of the old testament.  I can share what I believe
    and you can share what you believe.   My source of belief is what is
    written in the Bible, but the Bible is a tool that takes a lifetime to 
    know intimately.  I am not there yet.  Your source of belief seems to
    be your intellect, your reason, and your will to accept what fits in
    your faith system and what does not.  
    
    -Jack

  ZZ      You cannot create something that is not a part of you.
  ZZ      If god created man then All the good in the world came from god
  ZZ      If god created man then All the evil in the world came from god
    
    One of the epistles states that all things were created by Him and in
    Him all things consist.  This kind of ties in with Mr. Topaz' question
    about Gods plan for humankind.
    
    I believe God created man to have fellowship with Him.  He didn't
    create us like robots but gave us free volition and the free will to do
    right or wrong.  God did not create evil but God did create the
    possible circumstances to choose.  
    
    I believe God has a perfect will and that we are moving ahead according
    to his plan.  God also has a permissive will that allows us to choose
    right or wrong.  
    
    -Jack

Correct, Jack.

If God had created Man unable to do wrong, unable to do anything but love God,
then that love would be worthless.

God wanted to create Man as a free being, able to give a real love that is
freely chosen.

/john

Yes, and he lets us choose anyway.

/john

    Well, I'm not trying to ignore the question, just trying to focus on
    perfect will and permissive will.  
    
    Yes, I believe God knew in advance that Adam would fall and I believe
    God immediately told Adam what the consequences of his sin would
    be...hence we have the condition we are in today.  At the same time,
    God also told Adam that he would put enmity between the seed of man and
    the serpeant...meaning that a messiah would come to reconcile man with
    God.  It seems God had architected everything beforehand.  Why he did
    this...I have absolutely no idea why God dangled a carrot before
    Adam...except that God wanted to show mankind that with free will comes
    responsibility.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 319.207 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I can't prove it...

	Well, if it really happened, you would think one could. 

| We can only go by historical counts.  

	Which may or may not be fact.

| As you have said in the past, it is faith that builds our belief system...

	Which may or may not be fact.

| belief in the historical accounts of the old testament.  

	I never added this disclaimer. :-)

| My source of belief is what is written in the Bible, but the Bible is a tool 
| that takes a lifetime to know intimately.  

	As long as in the future you do not use the Bible to make something a
fact, but just a part of your belief system, then we will be cool on this one.
Otherwise, you will have some who might actually think you're being
hypocritical or something.

| Your source of belief seems to be your intellect, 

	God.

| your reason, 

	God's

| and your will to accept what fits in your faith system and what does not.

	God does that.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    We are unfortunately at conflict then because by the guidelines of what
    I believe, I believe the Bible to be God breathed so unfortunately your
    belief that you are following Gods reason is at conflict with my
    perception of truth.  Sorry but my being synsytyve simply will not
    brush away that fact.
    
    -Jack

| A. The city of Jericho was felled by an earthquake

| From what I vaguely remember, the trumpets blew  but it was the shout
| of the Hebrews which preceded the destruction of the walls of Jericho.
| A is false.

	Jack, doesn't archaeological evidence indicate that the whole town got
blasted by an earthquake? That there is no indication at all that the walls 
collapsed while the city itself remained standing, which is what Joshua 6 says?
The town was not burned by the act of men, which is also said in Joshua 6.

| C. The sun did stop over the battle of the valley of Ajelon, in which
| Joshua's army defeated the Amorites.

| If this is the account I'm thinking of, true.

    	Jackie boy.... what about a small little thing they call inertia? If the
sun stopped, don't we really only have two possibilities??? One, the sun began 
to revolve around the earth at a rate of one revolution per 24 hours, in which 
case its velocity changed suddenly enough to release energy sufficient to blow 
it up (BANG!!!!) or the earth began rotating at a rate of once per 365 days 
instead of once per 24 hours, (which wouldn't do the plantlife any good) in 
which case everything loose on the surface would have continued to go as it had 
been, but at about 1000 miles per hour!!!! At that point, wouldn't everything
have been cooked to cinders as it flew along? Are you sure about your beliefs 
to be able to explain this Jack?





Glen

 ZZ      Now Jacob fled to the land of Syria, and Abraham served for a
 ZZ       wife, and for a wife kept he sheep.
 ZZ       - Hosea 12:12
        
 ZZ       what does this mean exactly? How is it literally true?
    
    Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you.  The actual passage says that Jacob
    fled to the land of Syria, and ISRAEL served for a wife, and for a wife
    he kept sheep.
    
    Israel was actually the renaming of Jacob...not Abraham.  So the verse
    is only speaking of Jacob here...not Abraham.  What version did you
    read that from.  There could be an error in the translation.
    
    Jacob deceived Esau and fled to his uncles in Syria.  While there he
    met a beautiful woman named Rachael.  He asked Rachaels father for her
    hand.  The answer was that Jacob could have her for a wife if Jacob
    (Israel) worked for Rachaels dad 7 years.  He tended sheep 7 years for
    a wife...Rachael.  He ended up getting Leah, Rachaels older sister,
    then demanded Rachael and eventually got her.
    
    This is to my mind historically true.  And Rachaels offspring was 2
    sons...Joseph and Benjamin I believe.  They are two of the twelve sons
    who began the 12 tribes of Israel.  The twelve tribes are a historical
    fact and the beginnings were a result of Rachael and the marriage of
    Rachael and Jacob.
    
    -Jack

    you had me worried with that 'kept a sheep for a wife' bit there.
    
    DougO

>                       He ended up getting Leah, Rachaels older sister,
>    then demanded Rachael and eventually got her.

He married Rachel a week after he married Leah, but he had to work an
additional seven years.        

    Glen:
    
    I don't have an answer for you here.  Scientifically, you are correct.
    
    I happen to believe God can create miracles and did so on these two
    occasions.  It is shear faith my friend...faith in things that
    scientifically make little or no sense...and things that prolly make me
    look like a fool!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 319.215 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| We are unfortunately at conflict then because by the guidelines of what I 
| believe, I believe the Bible to be God breathed so unfortunately your belief 
| that you are following Gods reason is at conflict with my perception of truth.
| Sorry but my being synsytyve simply will not brush away that fact.

	You belief, my belief, could be a fact. Could being the key word. Now
explain the whole Paul thing Jack.


Glen

Speaking of Haag, I wonder if he frequents alt.sex.sheep.baaa.baaa.baaa.moo.

| <<< Note 319.220 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| I don't have an answer for you here.  Scientifically, you are correct.

	How can both answers be correct Jack? 

| I happen to believe God can create miracles and did so on these two occasions.
| It is shear faith my friend...

	Then please don't state it as fact in the future. Thank you.

| scientifically make little or no sense...and things that prolly make me
| look like a fool!

	Jack, do you really need the help??? heh heh.....

   .220

	This seems to always be the ultimate problem with discussing the
	"truth" of the Bible - there's always the Miracle card to play
	when something seems inexplicable.  Or if that doesn't work, the
	Mystery card.

    Right...the whole thing is exactly like that.  And I've stated since my
    first time in here that I don't hold the corner on God's nature.
    
    ZZ        How can both answers be correct Jack? 
    
    That's just it.  I don't believe both answers are right.  What I do
    claim however is that since we aren't burnt to a crisp and since the
    vegetation did in fact stay in tact, I will default to the miracle
    belief.  I believe the account that God can do anything...just as you
    have claimed you believe Glen.  I am simply stepping out on a limb here
    and not trying to justify anything extraordinary in order to explain it
    away.  
    
    Oh, and one thing...if a person has faith enough to believe something,
    there is no reason why the same person cannot speak toward it as fact. 
    I don't see you giving the evolutionists a hard time and I expect the
    same courtesy of me.
    
    The Paul thing....please refresh my memory.  If you are referring to
    the part where Paul gives opinion...all I can tell you is that John the
    Baptist was the greatest prophet of all time...according to Jesus...yet
    John the Baptist was thrown in jail for telling Herod it was not lawful
    for him to sleep with his brothers wife.  Prophets can give opinions
    too.  
    
    Please cite the passage so we can determine what exactly Paul gave his
    opinion on.  By the way, Paul was commissioned as a prophet and an
    apostle on the Road to Damascus by Jesus Christ.
    
    -Jack

    That is known as the "but God" clause.

| <<< Note 319.225 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Oh, and one thing...if a person has faith enough to believe something, there 
| is no reason why the same person cannot speak toward it as fact.

	Jack, as long as you state it as you believing it to be a fact, yes.
Not if you just state that it is a fact like everyone else is wrong.

| I don't see you giving the evolutionists a hard time and I expect the same 
| courtesy of me.

	It might be because for the most part, I next unseen those notes....

| The Paul thing....please refresh my memory. If you are referring to the part 
| where Paul gives opinion...all I can tell you is that John the Baptist was the
| greatest prophet of all time...according to Jesus...yet John the Baptist was 
| thrown in jail for telling Herod it was not lawful for him to sleep with his 
| brothers wife. 

	What does that have to do with Paul giving his own opinion in a book
that is supposed to be God Breathed?

| Prophets can give opinions too.

	But NOT in a book they claim is God Breathed. How can anyone say on one
hand that something is God Breathed, but later on say that what they are about
to say is not from God???? Jack, if anyone tried something like that with you
they would be called a hypocrite. 

| Please cite the passage so we can determine what exactly Paul gave his opinion
| on.  

	It had to do with his speech on marriage. The exact passage I do not
know. It was in one of his letters to ......

| By the way, Paul was commissioned as a prophet and an apostle on the Road to 
| Damascus by Jesus Christ.

	Jack.... I thought you would have known I was kidding about that....


Glen

| <<< Note 319.227 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

| re .217

| Thank you! I'm relieved.

	Oh look Jack, you made the man pee.... how nice...

Z    Jack, as long as you state it as you believing it to be a fact,
Z    yes.  Not if you just state that it is a fact like everyone else is wrong.
    
    Since we all know religion is strictly a faith based practice,
    everybody assumes their version is correct...otherwise they wouldn't
    follow it.  Even applies to evolutionists.  
    
    For example, Phil Hays strikes me as a devout evolutionist.  Common
    sense tells me that he can sweet talk me and be as PC as he
    wants...however, he thinks he's right and I'm wrong...and I accept
    that.  Makes no difference Glen...makes absolutely no difference.
    
    -Jack
    

      The six day creation account was not arbitrary.  For reasons
      I will not get to here, God MUST perfect a last generation
      and yet the perfection of that last generation is something
      who's timing is not completely in God's hands.
    
      I could furnish more proof to defend my belief that the timing
      of this needed event is not set by God, but the following must
      suffice for brevity sake...
    
      Scripture states that the harvest takes place _after_ the grain
      is ripe.  Isaiah 5 is an object lesson of the vineyard and it
      states that God did everything He could do to produce good ripe
      grapes...but wild grapes resulted.  Somehow, His work can be
      suppressed by the unbelief of His faithful.  (Not really a contra-
      diction, i.e. "Lord I believe, help Thou mine unbelief.")
    
      BTW, in Isaiah 5, God states that He did EVERYTHING He could to
      produce good grapes.
    
      The reason God created in 6 days is because He knew by foreknowledge
      that the time of the end would be ~6000 years after which follows
      a Sabbath (seventh) millenium.  A generation will enter His rest 
      at the close of the 6th millenium.
    
      So the 6 day creation week is a schoolmaster telling us things 
      about the plan of redemption.
    
      In creation...
    
      God did the working.
      It was accomplished by His word.
      After six days, the work is _very_ good (perfect).
    
      In recreation (of the hearts of His faithful)
    
      It is God's work and not ours.
      It is accomplished by His word.
      After six thousand years, His work will be _very_ good (perfect).
    
      Hebrews 4:4,5 states that God spoke of the seventh day in a certain
      way when He said, "They shall not enter My rest."
    
      This statement is quoted from Psalm 95:11 which (seemingly) speaks
      nothing of the seventh day.  It is all about Israel not entering
      into Canaan because of their rebelliousness.
    
      The only way this could possibly fit in the way that Hebrews 4 says
      it must fit is if God was being prophetic (via foreknowledge) with
      the 7 day week.
    
      In other words, as He knew no group would enter His rest until the
      close of 6000 years, he could honestly refer to the 7th day in this
      way, "They shall not enter My rest" for it was no where near 6000
      years yet.
    
      He was simply echoing the prophetic application of the 7 day creation
      week and thus validating that it has prophetic application to
      redemption.
    
      So, yes, God created in 6 days and 6 was no arbitrary number.
    
      He is telling us something about the endtimes and the awesome 
      occurance of a people that fully (as in perfectly) rests in Christ
      and thus allows Him to perfectly manifest His word through them.
    
    						    God Bless,
    
    						    Tony

    Thanks for the 1st Corinthians verse.  Okay...so Paul identified it as
    opinion...so what?  He spoke about other issues quite dogmatically.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 319.230 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Z    Jack, as long as you state it as you believing it to be a fact,
| Z    yes.  Not if you just state that it is a fact like everyone else is wrong.

| Since we all know religion is strictly a faith based practice, everybody 
| assumes their version is correct...

	Assumes being the key word. Stating something that you believe to be
true is fine. Stating something you believe to be true as fact is not.



Glen

| <<< Note 319.233 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Thanks for the 1st Corinthians verse.  Okay...so Paul identified it as
| opinion...so what?  

	Jack, is his opinion, which he said was not from God to begin with, God
Breathed? If so, how? 

| He spoke about other issues quite dogmatically.

	We aren't discussing other issue RIGHT NOW. Let's deal with this one
issue first.


Glen

    	It would seem to me that if Paul clearly identified one statement
    	as being his opinion, and did not identify ANY other parts of his
    	writings as being opinion, then we could be safe is saying that
    	all the rest of it is not simply his opinion.
    
    	Are we supposed to ignore all the rest because he identified one
    	statement as being opinion?  Isn't that a forest-for-the-trees
    	approach?  I'd think that by him labeling that one statement
    	as opinion, we as Christian should be all the more willing to 
    	cling to all the other words in Paul's writing!  I don't see a
    	reason to have our faith rattled because of the man's honesty.
    
    	And then to address that one statement, do you think he had a bad
    	opinion?

I raised a question earlier but I don't think I got a proper
answer, so I'll chance asking it again.

A claim was made that the writings of Paul, as he was a true
prophet, must have been 100% accurate. I asked by whose
authority it was given that Paul was correct. The only
response I think I saw relative to this was that Christ
himself had proclaimed Paul to be a true prophet. While
I'm not sure that this answered my question, it would minimally
then lead me to ask, by whose written record do we have evidence
that Christ so declared this?

 I don't believe Paul can be considered a prophet, but he was an Apostle, one
 who was sent out by Jesus Christ.  He wrote under the inspiration of the Holy
 Spirit and his writings were recongnized as Scripture (Peter in one of his
 epistles referred to Paul's writings as such).



 Jim (who now bows out of the discussion)

    .208
    
    this reads very Taoist - are you a closet Taoist?
    
    .232
    
    i've read this several times and i'm afraid i don't get it - what are
    you saying? what are all these things you won't go into?
    
    ric

>    	Either you believe it, or you don't.  Why belabor the point?

I belabor it only because it was very specifically stated as irrefutable
fact rather than as a matter of belief, Joe. I was seeking clarification
as to exactly what was meant by the noter who made the statement.
Claiming that one's writings are 100% accurate based on, perhaps, only the
evidence which might be put forth by that author, appears to be somewhat
shortsighted and not even a matter of faith. That was why I was curious
if someone other than Paul could substantiate the accuracy of his own
writings.

>    Therefore Michal, the daughter of Saul, had no child unto the day
>    of her death.
>    - II Samuel 6:23
>    
>    The five sons of Michal, the daughter of Saul.
>    - II Samuel 21:8
>    
>    Was it 5 or zero? If II Samuel 6:23 is correct then Michal must have
>    been resurrected?

I looked this up.  Rashi, considered the greatest Biblical commentator,
says that the first verse means that she had no more children from that
day on.

 Paul did not write the Book of Acts.






 

    
    Paul wrote the Book Of Facts?
    

    It was I who brought up the whole Paul/prophet thing.
    
    Much of the outlay of the end times prophecy is recorded by Johns book
    of Revelation.  The apostle Paul was a church planter and corresponded
    with these churches.  One of the churches was in Thessolonica.
    
    Paul wrote two letters to this church.  The first one reveals a
    prophecy regarding the end times...
    
    "For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them which
    also sleep in Jesus will God bring with Him.  For this we say unto you
    by the Word of the Lord that we which are alive and remain unto the
    coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.  For the
    Lord Himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of
    an archangel, and with the trump of God.  And the dead in Christ shall
    rise first: then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up
    together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so
    shall we ever be with the Lord.  Wherefore comfort one another with
    these words."  1st Thessolonians 4:15-18.
    
    Disclaimer: I write this without gloating...I was asked.
    
    There are two very important points to be made here.  If you notice on
    the second and third line, Paul is AFFIRMING that what he writes here
    is The WORD of the LORD...it is not his opinion.  This makes him a
    prophet.  What confirms this is that unlike his other epistles, he is
    not repeating here what is written in the Old Testament.  This is New
    Testament Revelation.  "The Rapture", as the church calls it, is based
    on the very passage above.  Jeremiah the Prophet refers to it as the
    Blessed Hope.
    
    Secondly, the Church at large recognizes the rapture as a foretold
    event.  Since the rapture is based on Pauls prophecy to Thessolonica,
    he IS a prophet.  And, as Mr. Rosch shared, Paul was sent by Jesus to
    proclaim Jesus' name throughout the world.  
    
    Pauls preaching turned the world upside down, as the religious leaders
    stated in Acts...Paul was consequently beheaded.  
    
    -Jack

    Ray:
    
    Let me ask you something.  If you were given a telescope to see what
    your house would look like tomorrow...and upon looking in the
    telescope, you see a charred ruin, would you be thankful to have had
    use of the telescope?  Now you and the family can get out of the house
    that night and avoid destruction.
    
    The Book of Revelation is a telescope in to the destiny of humanity. 
    It offers us the opportunity to repent and turn back to God. 
    Revelation is very interesting if you can follow it.  There is a book
    called, "There's a New World Coming" by Hal Lindsay.  Revelation can be
    and has been interpreted differently, but whether or not you agree with
    Lindsay, he explains Revelation very well.  
    
    -Jack

But Lindsay's a crackpot.

>    Paul wrote the Book Of Facts?

It certainly wasn't written by Jack Martin.

    .250
    
    *chuckle*
    
    ric

    Now what was that for?  

    .253
    
    the juxtaposition of .249 and .250 made me chuckle
    
    call me warped if you will ...
    
    ric

 ZZ   But Lindsay's a crackpot.
    
    Wesley was considered a crackpot...as was Billy Sunday and DL Moody.
    
    When writing a commentary on Revelation, one opens themselves to these
    labels...and he may very well be.  However, he makes claims and backs
    them up with reason.  
    
    -Jack

    He's making the tail wag the dog by helping to get the Temple in
    Jerusalem rebuilt.

    Sure, to make speculation on when exactly the end times will happen is 
    risky at best.  This is why Jesus commanded his followers not to know
    the exact time.  He merely told us to watch for the signs of the times.
    
    -jack

        <<< Note 319.241 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

>>    	Either you believe it, or you don't.  Why belabor the point?
>
>I belabor it only because it was very specifically stated as irrefutable
>fact rather than as a matter of belief, Joe. 
    
    	For some, faith is fact.  In many things regarding my religion,
    	I hold faith to be fact -- for me.
    
>Claiming that one's writings are 100% accurate based on, perhaps, only the
>evidence which might be put forth by that author, appears to be somewhat
>shortsighted and not even a matter of faith. That was why I was curious
>if someone other than Paul could substantiate the accuracy of his own
>writings.

	There were many many writings that were touted as "gospel" in
    	the early Christian history.  Gnostic gospels, Thomas' gospel
    	of Christ's childhood, teachngs, letters, etc.  Many were 
    	conflicting.  Some were heretical.  Some were theologically
    	inaccurate.  A Church council convened to determine what was
    	to be kept and what was to be discarded.  Voila -- the (New
    	Testament of the) Bible was born.  
    
    	Who says that that council was right?  Faith.  The council was
    	convened with faith that the Holy Spirit would guide them to
    	the writings that were truly God-inspired and would guide them
    	to discard those writings that were not.  They convened under
    	faith, and we accept their decision with faith.  (That they
    	included Paul's writings which also expressed his opinion tells
    	me that even Paul's opinion in that matter was God-breathed.)
    
    	Faith.  And again we've come full circle.  Hopefully you can
    	now filter into non-fact (for you) what I (and many others like
    	me) might likewise filter into fact.  That would hold not 
    	just for Biblical issues, but extends even to things like the
    	existence of God.  God exists for me.  It's a fact for me.
    	Based on what?  Faith.  Debating faith merely belabors a point
    	that is impossible to comprehend outside of faith.  It does
    	not conform to logic or reason, so I (nor anyone else) can 
    	never fully answer your questions.  �a va?

| <<< Note 319.236 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| It would seem to me that if Paul clearly identified one statement as being his
| opinion, and did not identify ANY other parts of his writings as being opinion
| then we could be safe is saying that all the rest of it is not simply his 
| opinion.

	Joe, you go from something being God Breathed to something having a
human's opinion. You go from something that is supposed to be inerrant to
something influenced by human opinion, which then adds error as humans are not
perfect. I mean, you even say, We could safely say", not without a doubt you
can't.

| Are we supposed to ignore all the rest because he identified one statement as 
| being opinion?  

	Let's see, he also said the whole Bible is God Breathed, and then turns
around and says something isn't from Him. Doesn't sound to me like it's
something inerrant. I mean, is the entire thing God Breathed? IMHO, no. Not
with someone claiming that what they are about to say is not from God, but
their own opinion. Paul contradicts himself, which shows error in the Bible. If
it isn't inerrant, can it be as it claims? IMHO, no.

| I'd think that by him labeling that one statement as opinion, we as Christian 
| should be all the more willing to cling to all the other words in Paul's 
| writing! I don't see a reason to have our faith rattled because of the man's 
| honesty.

	Joe, doesn't his statement of the entire thing being God Breathed and
then him listing his own opinion kind of kill the honesty approach? If the book
is inerrant, you can't have, "well, this is ok, that is ok, etc". Either it is,
or it isn't. Your honesty scenerio doesn't hold water because his opinion
disgarded the entire book being God Breathed claim.

| And then to address that one statement, do you think he had a bad opinion?

	Joe, nice diversion. When you're losing, change the subject. Stick with
what is being talked about. His opinion, regardless of how much sense it could
or could not make to the reader, kills off the claim of the book being God
Breathed, and kills off the claim of inerrancy.



Glen

| <<< Note 319.238 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>




| He wrote under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit 

	I agree with this. I also agree that because of this he could state his
own opinion. But because he and the others were only inspired, the book can not
be God Breathed. (imho)


Glen

                  <<< Note 319.259 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>I mean, you even say, We could safely say", not without a doubt you
>can't.
    
    	No, Glen, without a doubt *I* can.
    
    	I explained it all in .258.
    
    	End of discussion.

| <<< Note 319.246 by TROOA::COLLINS "From Sheilus to the Reefs of Kizmar" >>>


| Paul wrote the Book Of Facts?

	That's too funny Joan!!!!!

| <<< Note 319.247 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Pauls preaching turned the world upside down, as the religious leaders
| stated in Acts...Paul was consequently beheaded.

	Did he say, "Let them eat cake!"?

    re: .260
    
    You tear apart your own logic.
    
    If it was indeed "God breathed", then God had Paul write whatever He
    wished to have written down.  If it is not "God breathed", it is not
    inspired by God, and is Paul's opinion.
    
    "God breathed" and "inspired" (by the Holy Spirit) are one and the same.
    
    Either what Paul wrote was his opinion only, or it was what the God
    wanted him to write (God certianly knew that these writings were to be
    used by the next generations of believers).  It is either inspired by
    God or the opinion of man.  There is no middle ground.
    
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 319.265 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

| re: .260

| You tear apart your own logic. If it was indeed "God breathed", then God had 
| Paul write whatever He wished to have written down. If it is not "God 
| breathed", it is not inspired by God, and is Paul's opinion.

	Steve, say you built this real great boat and you inspired me to do the
same. Does it mean it will come out correctly? No. Inspired does not mean
perfect. Logic is not torn apart.

| "God breathed" and "inspired" (by the Holy Spirit) are one and the same.

	Then maybe, according to the definitions you gave, the book is neither.
Cuz it couldn't have been God Breathed if Paul says something is from God, and
he then goes on to give his human opinion. 

| Either what Paul wrote was his opinion only, or it was what the God wanted him
| to write (God certianly knew that these writings were to be used by the next 
| generations of believers).  

	Surely if the Holy Spirit was guiding Him as you say, He never would 
have let Paul say something isn't from God if it was really from Him.
Especially in a book where the guy just claimed was God Breathed.


Glen

    Excuse me while I go talk to the wall for a while...

    
    <-------
    
    You're bound to get better results Steve...
    
    :)
    

    8^)

    								----->

| <<< Note 319.267 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>


| Excuse me while I go talk to the wall for a while...

	Nice diversion.... either you can answer, or you can't. My "guess" is
you can't. 

ZZ    Then maybe, according to the definitions you gave, the book is neither.
ZZ    Cuz it couldn't have been God Breathed if Paul says something is from
ZZ    God, and he then goes on to give his human opinion. 
    
    I disagree with this....no offense.  You don't believe that a pastor
    who counsels a married couple and gives advice is speaking under the
    authority of God?  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 319.272 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I disagree with this....no offense.  You don't believe that a pastor who 
| counsels a married couple and gives advice is speaking under the authority 
| of God?

	Jack, can a pastor give the wrong advice? 

    Certainly can....but Paul is a true prophet!
    
    -Jack

    	Far too many pastors/ministers/rabbis/clerics/etc., are giving
    	bad coulsel -- particularly in the marriage/divorce arena.

| <<< Note 319.274 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Certainly can....but Paul is a true prophet!

	Then how can you use a pastor as an example to prove your point????

    Because Jesus commissioned us as a church to go and make disciples of
    all nations.  Since Paul is a confirmed prophet, his revelations came
    from God...be it opinion or whatever.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 319.277 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Because Jesus commissioned us as a church to go and make disciples of
| all nations.  Since Paul is a confirmed prophet, his revelations came
| from God...be it opinion or whatever.

	Oh please jack. You can't have someone saying it came from god, and
then say it didn't come from god. it isn't a pick and choose thing. 

    >Because Jesus commissioned us as a church to go and make disciples of
    >all nations.
    
    The basis of Thumperism!?
    
    ...Tom

    -1
    
    Yes.... you mean you didn't know this before?  Perhaps this is the very
    thing that makes it a catch 22 for Christians, we're damned if we do
    and damned if we don't.

    <------
    
    Sounds like a typical hoax, to me!
    
    ...Tom 

    Tom,
    
    The truth is that we are commanded by God to evangelize and spread the
    gospel to all the world.  At the same time, God also gave every human
    being the ability to CHOOSE.  I've said this before, but I believe that
    in the zeal and concern of most Christians, we forget about this choice
    thing and impose our beliefs on others versus allowing the person to
    reject as part of their right to choose.
    
    I think I just broke the world's record for the longest sentence in
    soapbox, that is if it constructs a sentence.. :-)
    
    Nancy
    

<----Nancy, yes, you broke the record, but with all you said in that, it's was
     worth it! 

    >The truth is that we are commanded by God to evangelize and spread the
    >gospel to all the world.  
    
    This is not truth at all, it is conjecture. Spreading an unprovable,
    notion to the world is the worst sort of scam, especially because of
    the methods used.
    
    >At the same time, God also gave every human being the ability to CHOOSE.
    
    I choose to be left alone. It is too bad that my choice and the choice
    of billions of others are not considered before thumpers attempt to
    force their beliefs upon us.
    
    ...Tom

ZZ    This is not truth at all, it is conjecture. Spreading an unprovable,
ZZ    notion to the world is the worst sort of scam, especially because of
    
    No, the tenents of the Christian faith is the Great Commission.  This
    is the basis on which the local church is established.  The second
    sentence is your humble opinion of course.
    
    -Jack

> The second sentence is your humble opinion of course.

So, the notion is _NOT_ unproveable, then?

Please produce the proof.

Or is the equating of the notion to a scam the issue?

 ZZZ   Please produce the proof.
    
    Jack, it is possible that Jesus did in fact start the greatest hoax in
    the history of the world.  If that be the case, then I am a sucker who
    fell for it and am needlessly spreading "misery" to society by crossing
    the line of humanism and relativism.  
    
    I choose to stick with the story.  As Nancy said, it is a catch 22
    as one of the primary goals of the Great Commission is to make
    disciples of all nations.  This would mean speaking boldly about ones
    faith.  I believe the gospel of Christ is something I shouldn't be
    ashamed of!
    
    -Jack

	Jack, what you are saying then is you can not produce the proof you
once alluded to, correct?


Glen

    .277
    
    > Jesus commissioned us as a church to go and make disciples of
    > all nations.
    
    Yes, he did.  But not the way you seem to be interpreting the mandate.
    Jesus commissioned his church as follows:
    
        Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
        the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,
        teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I
        am with you always, to the close of the age." (Matthew 28:19-20,
        RSV).
    
    Note, please, that the phrasing "make disciples of all nations" does
    not mean "make all nations into disciples."  It means "make disciples
    FROM all nations," which is a different thing entirely.
     
    Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say "go and cram your beliefs down
    others' throats."  Nowhere does he say "tell others repeatedly and
    rudely that if they don't think the way you do, they're damned."  What
    he did say, whether you like it or not, was this:
    
        And he said to him, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your
        heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the
        great and first commandment. And a second is like it, You shall
        love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:37-39, RSV).
    
    Look very carefully at the SECOND of these.  How would you like it if
    others repeatedly and caustically upbraided you for the obvious total
    boneheadedness of your beliefs and, while they were at it, insisted
    that because you're such a fool you are going to spend the rest of
    eternity standing on your head in a pile of horse chite?  You wouldn't
    like it much, would you?  You wouldn't want them to treat you that way,
    would you?  So what say you try to treat them the with the kindness and
    courtesy you want for yourself?
    
    Identify your faith-based beliefs as beliefs, don't state them as
    facts.  And don't ridicule others whose beliefs differ.  If you want to
    discuss others' beliefs, ask questions; don't make bald statements that
    are both incredibly rude and easily disproven and then follow them up
    with a plaintive "I was jsut looking for information."  It won't wash,
    Jack, it just won't wash.

I'm not suggesting that you should be ashamed of it, Jack. You mentioned
that Tom's statement about an unprovable notion being a scam was a matter
of opinion. I was unclear as to which part of the statement you took issue
with - the unprovability of the notion (in which case I assume you can refute
the opinion by proving it) or the relation of that to a scam.

It's a simple question. Which is it?

    Sorry I wasn't clear.  I agree that it is unprovable since religion is
    always based on faith.  The part of it being a scam however is
    opinion...because it is unprovable one way or the other!  That's why I
    was saying I might very well be following as hoax.  My faith and
    convictions tell me that the resurrection of Jesus Christ is not a
    hoax.  Whether I am right or wrong remains to be seen.
    
    -Jack

ZZ        > Jesus commissioned us as a church to go and make disciples of
ZZ        > all nations.
    
ZZ    Yes, he did.  But not the way you seem to be interpreting the mandate.
ZZ    Jesus commissioned his church as follows:
    
ZZ    Note, please, that the phrasing "make disciples of all nations" does
ZZ    not mean "make all nations into disciples."  It means "make disciples
ZZ    FROM all nations," which is a different thing entirely.
  
Is it safe to say then that there are going to be a great number of people who
reject the gospel?  Jesus also said the harvest is plentiful but the laborers
are few.  Remembering that Peter the chicken was filled with the Holy Spirit 
and in one speech in Acts 2 converted over 3000 individuals.  Peter was
consequently jailed for this.  I expect there to a be a degree of rejection and
anamosity toward the gospel.
   
ZZ    Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say "go and cram your beliefs down
ZZ    others' throats."  

Agreed...where did I do this?

ZZ    Nowhere does he say "tell others repeatedly and
ZZ    rudely that if they don't think the way you do, they're damned." 

Couldn't agree more...where did I do this?
 
ZZ      What he did say, whether you like it or not, was this:
    
I asked the above questions because of your implication here...that I enjoy 
cramming my beliefs down others throats.

ZZ    Look very carefully at the SECOND of these.  How would you like it if
ZZ    others repeatedly and caustically upbraided you for the obvious total
ZZ    boneheadedness of your beliefs and, while they were at it, insisted
ZZ    that because you're such a fool you are going to spend the rest of
ZZ    eternity standing on your head in a pile of horse chite?  You wouldn't
ZZ    like it much, would you?  

Dick, the only thing that saddens me isn't sticks and stones; but the act of 
injustice, false accusations, etc.  FWIW I've been told by the best that I was
on my way to perdition...and they even used the Bible to try and convince me 
of this.  It all comes down to conviction Dick...conviction in believing what
your faith tells you to believe.  If everybody had this, then none of this
would really matter.  I'm confident in my beliefs therefore anybody doing
    this is all hot air to me.

ZZ    caustically upbraided you for the obvious total
ZZ    boneheadedness of your beliefs 

I am going to do a crosspost here for your benefit of how this whole thing 
began.  The first is from Mr. Topaz and my reply a few later...

From 382.22 - Soapbox

ZZ       The point, Andy, is that whether it's your [erstwhile] support for
ZZ       an obvious anti-Catholic, or Brother Benson and his ugly
ZZ       statements about people whose faith doesn't match his�, high-falutin'
ZZ       words from people who foster bigotry just don't mean very much.

From 382.24 - Soapbox

ZZ    Mr. Topaz:
    
ZZ    The core foundation of Judaism is the sacrifice...abundantly clear
ZZ    throughout the Mosaic law.  The Jews of today simply do not partake of
ZZ    the burnt offerings required for the atonement of sin.
    
ZZ    Mohammed was an opportunist just as many spiritual leaders of this
ZZ    world are and have been.  Are you familiar with Islam?

Now I ask my fellow readers and I expect objectivity here.  Does my inquiry
above imply that modern Judaism is boneheaded?  Is my statement poppycock and
unsubstantiated?  Did I even say that Jewish people were condemned...or Dick, 
did you just emotionally draw a conclusion?  

ZZ    You wouldn't want them to treat you that way,
ZZ    would you?  So what say you try to treat them the with the kindness and
ZZ    courtesy you want for yourself?
  
Dick, I'm treated somewhat chitty regarding this right here in the box...but
I refrain from sobbing and bitching about it.  And by the way, I openly
offered to apologize to anybody I've offended...and have heard nada.  
  
ZZ    Identify your faith-based beliefs as beliefs, don't state them as
ZZ    facts.  

Dick we're talking religion here.  Beliefs mann...that's what its all about.
If ones belief isn't a fact to them...then is it true faith?  

ZZ    And don't ridicule others whose beliefs differ.  If you want to
ZZ    discuss others' beliefs, ask questions; don't make bald statements that
ZZ    are both incredibly rude and easily disproven and then follow them up
ZZ    with a plaintive "I was jsut looking for information."  It won't wash,
ZZ    Jack, it just won't wash.

Rude????  You actually thought my statement above was rude???  Stop being a
wuss over this Dick!  I could easily go into the evolution topic and pick out a 
myriad of rude responses from you...however, I happen to admire your conviction
on the issue and look highly on somebody whose faith is based on an informed
foundation.  Besides, I now know your noting style.  

I have no interest in knocking anybody down.  I believe Soapbox is a place to
challenge ones beliefs...on anything.  I find your response above very PC 
indeed!

-Jack
                              

    Tom,
    
    To complain about it here where you have control over what you read and
    not read is absolutely nothing but horse manure.
    
    I hit next unseen on many a topic in here that I don't wish to read and
    you know I'm not angry cause I have to hit next unseen and most of the
    noters in here LIKE going on and and on and on in circles regarding
    abortion and guns... I just don't read it.
    
    Quit crying like a baby and use your next unseen like a woman! :-)
    
    Nancy

    when you look at the great religious texts in Mankind's culture, they
    share a few, just a few, core themes such as "judge not lest you be
    judged", "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", "do not
    kill". 
    
    seems to me these are the closest things Mankind has found to
    "universal truths" in it's years of seeking . if you view these texts
    as textbooks to living, then a distillation of the common themes would
    be a powerful guide indeed.
    
    the rest is crap.
    
    ric

    Ric:
    
    If you believe the Golden Rule is the way to eternal life, then yes,
    the rest is crap.  
    
    If that were the case however, Jesus' death would be meaningless.
    
    -Jack

    >If you believe the Golden Rule is the way to eternal life, then yes,
    			^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    i don't understand this reference
    
    ric

    Nancy:
    
    >I hit next unseen on many a topic in here that I don't wish to read
    >and you know I'm not angry cause I have to hit next unseen and most of
    >the noters in here LIKE going on and and on and on in circles regarding
    >abortion and guns... I just don't read it.
    
    Excuuuuuuuuuse me but, when did I ever say that I didn't want to read
    it???? I enjoy reading these topics and participate in them. I voice my
    opinion and will argue my side. If you don't like it you can take your own
    advice.
    
    >Quit crying like a baby and use your next unseen like a woman! :-)
    
    No tears here, emotions often get in the way of reality.
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 319.289 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>


	Dick, real nice note. I especially liked this part:


	Identify your faith-based beliefs as beliefs, don't state them as facts.
And don't ridicule others whose beliefs differ. If you want to discuss others' 
beliefs, ask questions; don't make bald statements that are both incredibly rude
and easily disproven and then follow them up with a plaintive "I was just 
looking for information."  It won't wash, Jack, it just won't wash.


	Funny, I've heard similar things stated to him on occasions.....


Glen

| <<< Note 319.291 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| The part of it being a scam however is opinion...because it is unprovable one 
| way or the other!  

	Jack, wouldn't that mean your own opinion is a scam too? I mean, if one
is, and you believe nothing is provable, then doesn't that make your own
opinion a scam? It doesn't mean you don't believe your opinion, but to be put
in the same light as the other opinion, it too has to be a scam. OR, maybe the
other opinion is not a scam and just one person's belief?


Glen

the truth of the snarf!!!

    Yes Glen...I mentioned that a few replies ago that Christianity has the
    possibility of being a hoax.  I never denied this.
    
    As far as your adoration of Dicks reply, I have still yet to be asked
    for a personal apology by anybody whose toes I stepped on.  If you are
    implying I have a habit of doing this Glen, that's perfectly okay with
    me.  At least I have the balls to speak my convictions.
    
    -Jack

    Tom,
    
    Oh.. mea culpa!  I don't have time to keep everybody straight who's
    arguing.  I thought you were in the camp of "get out of soapbox!"
    
    :-)
    
    No tears in my eyes, either. :-) :-)

    Uhhh....sorry

| <<< Note 319.301 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Yes Glen...I mentioned that a few replies ago that Christianity has the
| possibility of being a hoax.  I never denied this.

	Jack, in the notes you write you IMPLY the other is a scam, and yours
is fine and dandy. You may actually believe differently, but the way you put it
out for us to see comes off differently.

| As far as your adoration of Dicks reply, I have still yet to be asked for a 
| personal apology by anybody whose toes I stepped on.  

	That was explained before by some of those people Jack. It wasn't worth
their time.

| If you are implying I have a habit of doing this Glen, 

	I and others have stated this a lot Jack. So not implying, this time
you can use the word stating.

| At least I have the balls to speak my convictions.

	And that's supposed to mean.....


Glen

| <<< Note 319.303 by CAPNET::ROSCH >>>

| >As far as your adoration of Dicks...
| an apostrophe makes all the difference
| As far as your adoration of Dick's...

	HaaaHaaaHaaa!!!!! That one went right by me!!!! :-)


Glen

    .292
    
    > Is it safe to say then that there are going to be a great number of
    > people who reject the gospel? ... I expect there to a be a degree of
    > rejection and anamosity toward the gospel.
    
    Yes, you're right.  But blind statements like your remark about Temple
    chickens are not exactly conducive to friendly, or even reasoned,
    response.  Why add to the hostility by your manner?
    
    > Agreed...where did I [cram my beliefs down others' throats]?
    
    Jack, I'm not ging to cite specific notes for you, but a quick leaf
    through 382 shows a confrontational attitude that doesn't exactly
    endear you to people who might genuinely be searching for information.
    Your calling me a wuss and a philistine, for example...
    
    >> The core foundation of Judaism is the sacrifice...abundantly clear
    >> throughout the Mosaic law.  The Jews of today simply do not partake of
    >> the burnt offerings required for the atonement of sin.
    >
    > Now I ask my fellow readers and I expect objectivity here.  Does my
    > inquiry above imply that modern Judaism is boneheaded?
    
    Inquiry?  What inquiry?  You pontificated a flat statement whose import
    is that burnt offerings are required for atonement (poppycock) and that
    modern Jews do not partake of those necessary burnt offerings.  These
    two statements taken together are a vicious slap in the face of every
    practicing Jew.  When called on it by an educated Orthodox Jew, you
    backpedaled and stepped on your own Temple chicken.
    
    > Did I even say that Jewish people were condemned...
    
    Yes, you did, by saying that they do not do what is required to atone
    for their sin.  Unexpiated sin is death, as you well know.
    
    > Dick, I'm treated somewhat chitty regarding this right here in the box
    
    That could be a result of the way in which you approach the discussion.
    
    > I openly
    > offered to apologize to anybody I've offended...and have heard nada.
    
    Nada, except from Gerald Sacks, who said that he did not consider your
    apology worth the pixels required to display it.  That's a pretty
    telling condemnation of your credibility, Jack.
    
    > Dick we're talking religion here.  Beliefs mann...that's what its all
    > about. If ones belief isn't a fact to them...then is it true faith?
    
    Jack, it doesn't matter if you are willing to die because of your
    belief in the truth of a statement.  What matters, when you're talking
    about that statement to others who don't believe it, is that you
    identify it as a belief to avoid being labeled as a liar or a fool:
     
    "The world was created in six days, beginning at 9:15 in the morning of
    Sunday, October 23, 4004 BC."
    
    "Oh yeah?  9:15 in which time zone?  Or was the world flat back then?"
    
    > You actually thought my statement above was rude???
    
    Your insistence that chickens were used in burnt offerings, in more
    than one note and after being told by a practicing Jew that you were
    wrong, was rude because it was, again, a slap in the face to that Jew;
    OBVIOUSLY he can't be as well informed about Judaism as Jack Martin. 
    Even if that's not what you meant, and I'm pretty sure it's not, that
    is what you said.
    
    > Besides, I now know your noting style.
    
    Only in that you've had it directed at you a number of times.  You can
    no more emulate my style than you can fly to the moon tomorrow, so
    don't try; you'll only end up looking like the Emperor.  Keep to your
    own style - but moderate that style with a little generosity toward the
    opinions and sensitivities of others.
    
    Challenging beliefs is one thing.  Stating your unprovable beliefs as
    if they were well documented fact, and then refusing to accept
    correction, is not the way to challenge anything except other people. 
    Ad hominem attack is often the way of the world, especially in SOAPBOX,
    but I tend to dislike it as a way to get at the meat of a discussion.
    When I begin to use it, the target should reflect on the possibility
    that I've concluded he or she is hopeless.  And you, Jack, after
    calling me PC, might pause to remember that I've directed ad hominem
    attack at the ultimate exponent of PC, one Mr. George Maiewski.  So
    far, all I've aimed at you is a few shots across the bow.  :-)

ZZ    Yes, you're right.  But blind statements like your remark about Temple
ZZ    chickens are not exactly conducive to friendly, or even reasoned,
ZZ    response.  Why add to the hostility by your manner?
  
Dick, that is lame.  The sacrificing of chickens was something I corrected
immediately when I realized the error of it.  The sacrificing of chickens
was permitted under the Council of Jania after the destruction of the 
Temple.  Small mistake and not worthy of the pixels you used.
   
    > Agreed...where did I [cram my beliefs down others' throats]?
    
ZZ    Jack, I'm not ging to cite specific notes for you, but a quick leaf
ZZ    through 382 shows a confrontational attitude that doesn't exactly
ZZ    endear you to people who might genuinely be searching for information.
ZZ    Your calling me a wuss and a philistine, for example...
  
Dick, I called you those names because of your condescending tone toward me.
It may not justify it but as you said offline, you can't hear somebodys tone
over the network.  I didn't think it would really bother you and I apologized
twice for that.
  
    >> The core foundation of Judaism is the sacrifice...abundantly clear
    >> throughout the Mosaic law.  The Jews of today simply do not partake of
    >> the burnt offerings required for the atonement of sin.
    >
    > Now I ask my fellow readers and I expect objectivity here.  Does my
    > inquiry above imply that modern Judaism is boneheaded?
    
ZZ    Inquiry?  What inquiry?  You pontificated a flat statement whose import
ZZ    is that burnt offerings are required for atonement (poppycock) and that
ZZ    modern Jews do not partake of those necessary burnt offerings.  These
ZZ    two statements taken together are a vicious slap in the face of every
ZZ    practicing Jew.  When called on it by an educated Orthodox Jew, you
ZZ    backpedaled and stepped on your own Temple chicken.
  
Bullcrap Dick.  Your statement above once again forces the sensitivity issue
and gives it priority over learning.  I find this kind of thinking loathesome
because it promotes complacency.  And if somebody is too wrapped up in their
feelings, it might be best for them to hit next unseen.
  
Incidently, I never did get an answer from Gerald on this.  Apparently he isn't
as hotheaded over this exchange so why should you be?
    
    > I openly
    > offered to apologize to anybody I've offended...and have heard nada.
    
ZZ    Nada, except from Gerald Sacks, who said that he did not consider your
ZZ    apology worth the pixels required to display it.  That's a pretty
ZZ    telling condemnation of your credibility, Jack.
  
That's because of two reasons.

 - Gerald doesn't give a crap (so why should you).  It apparently isn't that 
important to him Dick and this is why I say you're making a mountain out of a
molehill.
  
 - If Gerald insisted on an apology, he would have to make a good case for it.
   I don't think he would considering the forum we are in and the practices 
   go on in here (of which you are a big participant in).

    > Dick we're talking religion here.  Beliefs mann...that's what its all
    > about. If ones belief isn't a fact to them...then is it true faith?
    
    > You actually thought my statement above was rude???
    
ZZ    Your insistence that chickens were used in burnt offerings, in more
ZZ    than one note and after being told by a practicing Jew that you were
ZZ    wrong, was rude because it was, again, a slap in the face to that Jew;
ZZ    OBVIOUSLY he can't be as well informed about Judaism as Jack Martin. 
ZZ    Even if that's not what you meant, and I'm pretty sure it's not, that
ZZ    is what you said.
  --------------------------
    FROM 28.316
    Mr. Topaz:
    
    Ahhhh yes....symbolism without substance.  Thank you for that.
    
    Now let me ask you the question again.  Do the Jews of today
    participate in the sacrifice of the temple for the atonement of sin? 
    This is a rhetorical question that cannot be denied and to sit there
    and call me mean spirited and bigoted for challenging a belief is
    foolhearty at best.  I do it with Christians and there's no reason why
    I cannot expand my knowledge by asking others why they don't practice
    the tenets of their faith.
  --------------------------
FROM 382.34

ZZ        Gerald:
    
ZZ    I appreciate your response and don't take it lightly.  I also hold no
ZZ    claim on being a pinnacle of knowledge but I would like to attempt to
ZZ    disprove what you stated above.
-----------------------------
FROM 382.34

ZZ      Lack of Understanding...once again,  I do hold to the fact that God
ZZ    established the Abrahamic Covenant (God called a people), the Mosaic
ZZ    Covenant (God Called a nation), and the Davidic Covenant (God called an
ZZ    eternal kingdom).  The Mosaic covenant was very clear on the
ZZ    requirements for atonement.  The requirements called for the blood
ZZ    sacrifice of rams, bulls,goats, and lambs.  Turtledoves and chickens
ZZ    for those in poverty.  The sacrifices included a burnt offering, a sin
ZZ    offering, a drink offering, a wave offering...amongst others for
ZZ    different reasons.  These offerings are required for atonement of the
ZZ    people and a nation.  It was practiced by the Kings and although God
ZZ    desired mercy and not sacrifice,"..Without the shedding of blood there
ZZ    is NO remission of sin", and this is from the Old Testament.  
--------------------------------------------

Dick, you really think those replies are combative?  I think you're being 
unnecessarily oversensitive about the whole thing.  Dick, please...let the
students at UCLA, Harvard, Brandeis, and the other non conservative mush
minded think tanks adhere to the PC think.  Please keep it out of the Box.
  
ZZ    Challenging beliefs is one thing.  Stating your unprovable beliefs as
ZZ    if they were well documented fact, and then refusing to accept
ZZ    correction, is not the way to challenge anything except other people. 

Correction?  Where did anybody correct me?  Ya see, this is what pisses me off 
sometimes.  I IMMEDIATELY accepted correction on the chicken issue.  What you
are asking me to do here is to go with the majority...that there are simply 
some things we don't discuss.  I reject this notion because it stifles 
learning and promotes uninformed complacency.  

I did not insult Gerald...Gerald is a thick skinned individual..Gerald thinks
the whole thing is nonsense...Gerald may think I'm an idiot...it doesn't
matter.  I brought up the issue of Burnt offerings required for atonement in 
the Old Testament times.  I still believe the sin of Israel needed to be 
covered via a Burnt offering and sin offering.  This was the way the 
sacrificial system was set up.  I believe that Jesus Christ established the 
covenant of grace by dying on the cross for the sin of the whole world.  There
is NOTHING wrong with professing this belief and challenging the covenant 
issue with Jewish individuals...there isn't!!! 

ZZ    Ad hominem attack is often the way of the world, especially in SOAPBOX,
ZZ    but I tend to dislike it as a way to get at the meat of a discussion.
ZZ    When I begin to use it, the target should reflect on the possibility
ZZ    that I've concluded he or she is hopeless.  And you, Jack, after
ZZ    calling me PC, might pause to remember that I've directed ad hominem
ZZ    attack at the ultimate exponent of PC, one Mr. George Maiewski.  So
ZZ    far, all I've aimed at you is a few shots across the bow.  :-)

I called you PC only because you are offended for Gerald and Gerald doesn't
give two poops!  As far as George...it is obvious that George is bent on 
having Bill Clinton with his mega bumb kissers holding hands singing Dyan
Warwicks "What the World Needs Now"...and he'll brush communist Utopia to do
it!!!!!  George defends ridiculous things because George strives for centralist
control.  At least I inquire!

-Jack

| <<< Note 319.310 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


	Jack, I read your reply, and this one thing really stuck out:


| At least I inquire!


	Jack, as many have said, you state, you don't inquire. I really think
it might be easier for you to inquire, as you would cause far less flack, and
sprout far more conversation. But that's just my opinion.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    Reread the cross postings I put in the last note.  My notes were not
    uncongenial, and I DID ASK!  I am not going to sit here and be falsely 
    accused!
    
    -Jack

	Your last note does not = all the notes you usually post where you
state. Jack, others have talked to you about this as well. In your LAST posting
the, "at least I inquire" can only be true for the most part of that note. Not
of the past.


Glen

    >Uhhh....sorry
    
    See Jack, I don't care what people say about you. You are alright in my
    book! 
    
    ...Tom

> Incidently, I never did get an answer from Gerald on this.  Apparently he isn't
> as hotheaded over this exchange so why should you be?

You asked for a scriptural source for the idea that atonement can be obtained
without Temple offerings.  I said I would look it up.  I haven't had time to
look it up.  No, I'm not the hot-headed type, but I did find your statements
openly hostile to Jewish theology.  They weren't questions, they were
accusations.

> - Gerald doesn't give a crap (so why should you).  It apparently isn't that 
>important to him Dick and this is why I say you're making a mountain out of a
>molehill.
>  
> - If Gerald insisted on an apology, he would have to make a good case for it.
>   I don't think he would considering the forum we are in and the practices 
>   go on in here (of which you are a big participant in).

An apology is worthwhile only if it is heartfelt.  If someone says they're
sorry and then goes on to do the same thing again, the apology is worthless.
That's why I didn't ask for an apology.

>    Now let me ask you the question again.  Do the Jews of today
>    participate in the sacrifice of the temple for the atonement of sin? 

I answered the question.  You chose to reject my answer.

> I IMMEDIATELY accepted correction on the chicken issue.

You claimed that chickens were used as offerings in 382.34 on April 11 at 16:47.
I pointed out your error (and answered your "question" about how atonement is
attained without offerings) four minutes later in .36.  You insisted that
chickens were used in .40.  You began hedging in .96, more than 22 hours after
I pointed out your error.  You didn't admit that you were in error until .112
at 11:36 on April 13, almost 43 hours after I corrected you.

> I did not insult Gerald...Gerald is a thick skinned individual..Gerald thinks
> the whole thing is nonsense...Gerald may think I'm an idiot...it doesn't
> matter.

Thank you for telling me what I think.

ZZ    You asked for a scriptural source for the idea that atonement can be
ZZ    obtained
ZZ    without Temple offerings.  I said I would look it up.  I haven't had
ZZ    time to
ZZ    look it up.  No, I'm not the hot-headed type, but I did find your
ZZ    statements
ZZ    openly hostile to Jewish theology.  They weren't questions, they were
ZZ    accusations.
    
    No...they were challenges to your belief system which I believe is
    appropriate for this forum...and you are welcome to answer them or
    ignore them.  Gerald...I'm sorry you took it the way you did...no 
    attack of any kind was intended.
    
    I'm sorry people but I have little tolerance for adult whining and
    tantrums...like the one Topaz just did.  Topaz, you just brought back
    visions of my third grade teacher.  She was a wonderful 90 year old
    and really added scope to my intellectual stimuli!!!  Mr. Topaz, 
    you're a victim...and if you keep acting like a victim, that's all people 
    will see of you throughout life.  Everything is racist and bigoted if
    it poses a challenge to your comfort zone.  This kind of thinking has 
    seeped into the mind of society as of late...it is annoying at best.
    
    Glen, you're a victim too but I'm used to it!
    
    -Jack   

    
    
    Ahhh.... a breath of stale air....
    

    Topaz:
    
    As I read your earlier reply, I imagined a grown man flailing his arms
    in the air and shouting from the rooftops...and all because I provided
    the incorrect pointer.  I find this the tactic of an individual who has
    to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find something amiss in the life
    of another individual.  I am a moron because I provided you the wrong
    pointer.  This is yet another example that you wish not to have a
    coherent discussion on the matter but would rather inject your erratic
    responses for those who seemingly are victims in society.
    
    I must repeat this again.  Your whining of racism and bigotry is what 
    propogated this whole matter.  People are sick of it Mr. Topaz.  If one
    doesn't like challenge, then I would suggest a nice Ivy league think
    tank where you are assured of the sensitivity you so badly need.  But
    keep it away from me!
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
    You have to remember something....
    
    You're only a "moron" if you enter something someone else thinks is
    stupid...
    
    
      and not quick enough to delete it before someone creates a paper
    trail for you....
    
    
      Hope this helps...
    

  ZZ      Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
  ZZ      Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
  ZZ      God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
    
    Actually, Abraham didn't even question it...he went along with it to
    the very end.  Abraham was promised that Isaac would have descendents
    and therefore was not afraid to be obedient to God.  He knew it was a
    test.
    
    -Jack

>    Actually, Abraham didn't even question it.

According to Jewish tradition, he _did_ question it.  That's why God had to
be so explicit, saying "Please take your son, your only one, whom you love,
Isaac..."  After all, Abraham had another son, Ishmael.

If he knew it was just a test, it wouldn't have been much of a test.

    Had I been in Abrahams position, I would most likely question it also. 
    
    However, consider the following.  When they got to the base of the
    mountain, Abraham said to those accompanying him, "Remain here so that
    Isaac and I may go to the top of the mountain to pray...Then WE WILL
    return to you."  It would seem Abraham was quite confident of Isaacs
    return with him.  
    
    -Jack

He didn't want to let on to his servants that he was going to sacrifice Isaac.

    .295
    
    well, i'm still waiting to hear what you mean by "Golden Rule"
    
    however, while i wait, no, Jesus' death (if indeed he did die - see
    382.313) was not meaningless cos Christianity arose from it. and
    Christianity shares a few of those basic core ideas. not sure about a
    lot of the rest of it, however, imho.
    
    ric

    The Golden Rule is "Do unto others as ye would have them do unto you."
    

I thot it wuz "he who has the gold rules."

    But the end result was that it was in fact a test.  And Isaac asked the
    appropriate question..."Father where are we going to get the
    sacrifice?"  His reply was that God would provide the sacrifice for
    them....and he did.
    
    It would seem though that Abraham and Isaac had a different
    relationship from that point on.  
    
    -Jack

      <<< Note 319.289 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>

>    Nowhere in the gospels does Jesus say "go and cram your beliefs down
>    others' throats."  Nowhere does he say "tell others repeatedly and
>    rudely that if they don't think the way you do, they're damned."  What
>    he did say, whether you like it or not, was this:
    
    	Well, I guess it is clear that the above is your belief (as is,
    	apparently, that some here are cramming beliefs down others'
    	throats.)
    
    	I'll thank you in advance not to cram that belief down my throat!
    
    	:^)

    .332
    
    Sorry, Joe, there is a not at all subtle difference between reporting
    what Jesus said, as explicitly recorded in the gospels, and relating
    what I believe that to have meant.
    
    After quoting the gospel verbatim, I asked Jack how he'd like it if
    others treated him rudely, and I then offered advice on how he might
    write in a way to elicit more favorable response.  No cramming of my
    interpretation of the gospel was involved.

    Neener neener.

    RE:  <<< Note 319.335 by SMURF::BINDER "Father, Son, and Holy Spigot" >>>
    
    Apropos of nothing except Mr. Binder's p-name, Rowen Atkinson
    is cool.

    Somebody call an ambulance?

| <<< Note 319.317 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Glen, you're a victim too but I'm used to it!

	Ahhhh a victim according to Jack. Ok... I'll bite... just how am I a
victim?


Glen

| <<< Note 319.321 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I must repeat this again.  Your whining of racism and bigotry is what
| propogated this whole matter.  People are sick of it Mr. Topaz. 

	Jack, like I have stated many a time, I do not believe you to be a
racist or bigot. But I do see you coming off sounding like one though. To put
it bluntly, your delivery reminds me of a hurricane.


Glen

	Depends on how hard it's blowing

    Glen:
    
    Mr. Topaz' inference was that I was a bigot, to which I countered how
    ridiculous it was.  Incirdently, I find the response an insult to those
    in the world who are genuinely the victims of racism and bigotry.
    
    -Jack

	And Jack, I was explaining to you that you do sometimes come off
SOUNDING like a bigot and racist. So for Mr. Topaz to say what he did is
understandable. It isn't accurate, but it is very understandable.


Glen

    Well thanks...you corroberated my claim that Mr. Topaz emotionally
    responded to my statements.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 319.344 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Well thanks...you corroberated my claim that Mr. Topaz emotionally
| responded to my statements.

	Jack, in .342 you used the word inference. Since when does that mean
emotionally? If you can produce a note of yours that states he did this
emotionally, that might help your claim. Otherwise, you answer above shows that
you're not following things closely and that I did not corroberate your
non-existant claim.


Glen

    Note 382.25                    JESUS' CRUCIFIXION                     
    25 of 316
    CALLME::MR_TOPAZ                                     13 lines 
    11-APR-1995 16:08
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
           
           re .24 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:
           
           > The Jews of today simply do not partake of the burnt offerings
           > required for the atonement of sin.
           
           > Mohammed was an opportunist...
           
           It is the essence of bigotry to trash the beliefs and faith of
           others.  It's just plain ugly, Jack, and you cover yourself in
           no       glory when you do it.  
           
           --Mr Topaz
    
             

    .346
    
    Topaz was right, inferring nothing.  Your note came right out and
    trashed modern Jewish practices, saying that they do not include the
    use of something that you wrongly posited as required for atonement by
    Jewish belief.
    
    No matter how long you go on howling about it, Jack, the simple fact is
    that in this case, at least, you were both wrong and insulting, and are
    steadfastly refusing to admit either mistake.
    
    And you wonder why people get pissed off at you - which isn't the
    dynamic at all.  In fact, I'd say that we've shown exemplary patience
    and forbearance in pointing out your gaffes so many times and in so
    many different words, all in the hope that you might understand that
    the problem is in your style and might take steps to correct it.

re .348:

Must be an error in your Bible.  Gatam is mentioned in v. 16.

    
    Weren't Zepho, Gatam and Kenaz Marx brothers? :-) :-)
    

    .351
    
    You really ought to read for comprehension:
    
    These are the names of Esau's sons: Eliphaz the son of Adah the wife of
    Esau, Reuel the son of Basemath the wife of Esau. The sons of Eliphaz
    were Teman, Omar, Zepho, Gatam, and Kenaz. (TIMNA was a concubine of
    Eliphaz, Esau's son; she bore AMALEK to Eliphaz.) These are the sons of
    Adah, Esau's wife. (Genesis 36:10-12, RSV).
    
    They're all there.  Of course, Timna seems to have undergone a sex
    change operation between Genesis and 1 Chronicles, but hey, cope with
    it, okay?  :-)

Timna and Amalek are mentioned in Gen 36:12.  Timna was Amalek's mother.

    Did Basemath beget Newmath?  

    Taking a quick look, verse 15 says that these were the Dukes of the
    sons of Eliphaz.  Apparently Gatam wasn't a Duke.
    
    
    Smurf::Binder
    
  ZZ    Topaz was right, inferring nothing.  Your note came right out and
  ZZ    trashed modern Jewish practices, saying that they do not include
  ZZ    the
  ZZ    use of something that you wrongly posited as required for atonement
  ZZ    by Jewish belief.
    
    No, he implied nothing but he did infer something.  Implication is
    heresay, inference is testimony based on some sort of evidence.
    Says you... I did not "trash" modern Jewish practices.  This is a clear
    generalization.  I respect the practices put forth in modern Judaism..
    the celebration of the Holidays, the ceremonies of spiritual
    accountability, and yes, the traditions of the different forms of
    Judaism...which to my knowledge is Othodox, Conservative, and Reformed.
    
    I think it should be pointed out here that these three flavors of
    Judaism do not agree on everything...in fact, they disagree vehemently
    on many things.  Using an accusation of "trashing" is misdirected..and
    what's more, I have every right as an individual to disagree with any
    Judaism I choose, just as the Jewish sects have every right to disagree
    with one another...just as Judaism has every right to disagree with me.
    
    Now as to the sacrifice, which is something worthy of discussion until
    all this sensitive nonsense infiltrated the conversation...I agree with
    you on the subject of the sacrifice...always have but didn't get a
    chance to address the issue because I've been too busy defending my
    position on the crap in here.  Jesus Christ abolished the sacrificial
    system when he died on the cross.  The shroud that separated the people
    from the Holy of Holies was torn from top to bottom; signifying that
    access to God was now available not through the Levitical priesthood,
    but now through the Holy Spirit which dwells in us upon believing. 
    
    You are right Dick, the sacrificial system is abolished and would be
    useless to try to use again...you are right.  Now to the question I
    posed earlier before the nonsense...If the Jewish people do not accept
    Jesus as Messiah, then based on the passage from the Hebrew scriptures, 
    Leviticus 17:11, how does an individual make atonement for their souls
    without the sacrifice?  Gerald said it was done through penitence,
    prayers, and charity.  I asked, "Says who?" and then the roof caved in.
    
    From what I understand, The Council of Jania proclaimed this as
    suitable for atonement after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D. 
    Fine...but what about the blood sacrifice?  Please answer Dick, I am
    just curious....Thank you!
    
    -Jack

>                           based on the passage from the Hebrew scriptures, 
>    Leviticus 17:11, how does an individual make atonement for their souls
>    without the sacrifice?

But Leviticus 17:11 doesn't say that atonement can _only_ be done by blood.
But I said that before, and you ignored it before.         

    
    Mirriam Webster Dictionary: Weal: well-being, prosperity.
    

Ray, if you can't handle 16th (17th?) century English, get yourself a modern
translation.

	Jack, I'm sure you have never heard what I am about to say before...






                          you just don't get it....

    > Mirriam Webster Dictionary: Weal: well-being, prosperity.
    
    P.S. The dictionary also gives a second meaning: welt.
    
    Whether the Lord is responsible for giving you plenty of meaning 1
    or meaning 2 is none of my business...
    
    -b

    No, I didn't respond to it and yet I didn't ignore it.
    
    I haven't had a chance to respond to it.  What I was going to ask days
    ago is could you please provide any kind of scriptural evidence to show
    the sacrificial system was only an option for atonement?  I ask this
    because it is my belief the role of the Levitical Priesthood was of the
    utmost importance.  The Temple and all that was in it was considered
    holy and sacred...and the offering of these unblemished animals seemed
    to be held in the highest of honor.  To atone for ones soul through
    charity seems to show human intervention...Intervention from a sinful
    person.
    
    -Jack

    ZZZ                       you just don't get it....
    
    Glen, no need for this...we're starting dialog here and you're starting
    up with the nonsense again. 
    
    -Jack

	Can I use it when the dialog reverts back to this?

>                                              What I was going to ask days
>    ago is could you please provide any kind of scriptural evidence to show
>    the sacrificial system was only an option for atonement?

Leviticus 26:40-46.

    .357
    
    Jack, you'd do better if you knew what the words you use meant.
    
    > Implication is heresay [sic]...
    
    According to the American Heritage Dictionary, to imply something is to
    convey an idea by indirect, subtle means.  There's nothing about
    hearsay in this - an implication is a suggestion.
    
    > inference is testimony based on some sort of evidence.
    
    To infer something is to draw a conclusion from evidence or premises. 
    This is where you get into the possibility of hearsay; you can draw an
    inference from hearing things that aren't true.
    
    > I did not "trash" modern Jewish practices.  This is a clear
    > generalization.  I respect the practices put forth in modern Judaism..
    
    Several people ahve told you several times that what you SAY isn't
    necessarily what you THINK.  When you, as a nonJew, make remarks about
    how modern Jews do not partake of burnt offerings, adding that burnt
    offerings are the only way for a Jew to atone for sin, you are trashing
    Jewish practices - no matter how much you may respect them.  It's your
    WORDS, Jack, not your THOUGHTS.
    
    > Jesus Christ abolished the sacrificial
    > system when he died on the cross.
    
    Ask Gerald Sacks if he believes that statement.  Then, if he should
    astonish everyone here by saying yes, you might be able to say that
    Jesus abolished the sacrificial system and have it stick.  But since
    Gerald isn't going to surprise us in that way, you'd be far better off
    by saying that "I believe that Jesus Christ abolished the sacrificial
    system when he died on the cross."  Why, Jack, is it so hard for you to
    type the words "I believe" or to phrase your questions in the
    interrogative instead of the declarative?
    
    > From what I understand, The Council of Jania proclaimed this as
    > suitable for atonement after the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.
    
    Gerald said he'd never heard of the Council of Jania.  As of yet you've
    provided no further information about it.
    
    > Fine...but what about the blood sacrifice?  Please answer Dick, I am
    > just curious....Thank you!
    
    I have never believed in blood sacrifice.  And I feel confident in
    saying that Gerald Sacks never has believed in it, either.  But I don't
    have the background in Judaism to make bald statements about what
    serves in its stead.  If indeed anything is required to serve in place
    of blood.  There are several passages in the Old Testament that mention
    other forms of sacrifice that are acceptable.  Try these references:
    
    Genesis 35:14
    Exodus 29:40
    Leviticus 23:13
    Numbers 15:3-5, 28:7, 29:39
    Deuteronomy 12:6, 16:10, 23:23
    2 Kings 16:13
    2 Chronicles 31:14
    Ezra 1:4, 3:5, 7:16-17, 8:28
    Psalm 119:108
    
    That ought to keep you going for a while.

    .371
    
    > it's a "Doth thou..." kinda day.
    
    You wanna be archaic, at least get it right, huh?  :-)
    
    I do		We do
    Thou dost		You do
    He/she doth		They do

    Doth this.

>                                               And I feel confident in
>    saying that Gerald Sacks never has believed in it, either.

Jews pray for the Messiah to arrive, for the Temple to be rebuilt and for
offerings to resume.  There's some debate as to whether the offerings will
be in their original form.

>               There are several passages in the Old Testament that mention
>    other forms of sacrifice that are acceptable.

Those offerings can't be brought today either.  But offerings aren't necessary,
as my cite from Leviticus proves.

    Right you are, Gerald.  Your Leviticus citation is clear; no physical
    sacrifice is necessary, from what I can see there.

    Dick:
    
    I was speaking to you directly on the issue of Jesus Christ.  It would
    make sense that Gerald doesn't believe Jesus to be the messiah...I
    understand that.
    
    I will look up those references, thanks for posting them.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    .382
    
    Really, Jack, given that I have said more than once that I'm a born-
    again Christian, I should think you would have no need to ask me my
    position on the sacrifice of Jesus.
    
    Anagram THAT, Mr_Topaz!  :-)

    I knew you believed in Jesus.  I thought I had given you the impression
    that I still believe the sacrifice in the OT is still valid if
    practiced.  I don't believe this is the case although I respect others 
    belief that it may be.  I wanted it understood by you that I was trying
    to understand how Gerald reconciles the need for the sacrifice with
    todays system of penitence, prayer, and charity.
    
    -Jack

    Not to start this again but...
    
    I reject the notion that a member can disagree vehemently with a member
    of a different sect under the same umbrella but outsiders can't.  It is
    not right...it stifles communication and valuing differences continues
    to erode.
    
    I took Valuing Diversity at Digital in Littleton.  A similar argument
    was made involving race and I openly rejected it!  First of all, nobody
    has the right to refer to a member of their own race in a derogatory
    way...but likewise, if I challenge somebody of another creed in their
    faith, THIS IS NOT WRONG!  And another thing, religion is a faith based 
    practice.  It is understood that what may come across as fact IS
    opinion, since there is no physical evidence to prove true faith.  One
    can only default to the documents of their faith or the object of their
    faith...or just make it up.  Therefore, if somebody expresses something
    as fact, it defaults to opinion anyway!
    
    -Jack

    IN MY OPINION...Jesus' mission was the redemption of mankind...to which
    Satan is not a part.  Secondly, Stan from a biblical standpoint has not
    in any way indicated he wants to be saved.
    
    -Jack

  .387  but what about Ollie?

    Uhhh....Sorry

    
    	Now don't go and confuse the guy, Diane.  8^)
    

    What about Kukla?!? And Fran?!?!  What about them?!?!?

    Ah..a.ahhh....I'm not supposed to judge remember?
    
    If I answer your question Glen will accuse me of thinking I'm all
    knowing...and we cain't have that now can we!!?

    As long as "Stan cain't", I'll go along with it! :)
    
    ...Tom

 ZZZ      Is there any mention of Satan after Christ's resurrection?
    
    As far as Satans activities...yes.  The Book of Revelation is a
    prophetic document that describes the actions of Satan during what is
    known as the seven year tribulation.  The Old Testament refers to it as
    Jacobs trouble.  
    
    -Jack

From _The Burbs_:

"Satan is your buddy, Satan is your pal"

TTom

    Home free from.....?

    The analogy is this:
    
    Got headache		Got sin
    Aspirin can take it away	Jesus can take it away
    Must take aspirin		Must receive Jesus
    
    Just believing the aspiring will fix your headache, won't make your
    headache any better, you have to ingest it.
    
    Just believing that Jesus died for our sins, won't make you holy before
    God, you must receive Jesus as your Savior.  
    
    How do you receive Jesus as your Savior, Confess with your mouth,
    believe in your heart that Jesus was raised from the dead and you will
    be saved.
    
    Nancy

    Cross the plate to score???
    
    Crossing the plate to score is simple.  Believe, Confess, Receive...
    you just got a homerun.

    Satan did not do this.. if he had Revelations would have never been
    written.
    
    

    .393 et seq.
    
    Satan is mentioned by name in the New Testament in all four gospels,
    and in Acts, Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians, 1 & 2 Thessalonians, 1 Timothy,
    and Revelation.

    Doing the best you can to get to heaven I equate...IMO...to using a
    bandaid to cure a cold.
    
    Good works and being redeemed from sin are mutually exclusive.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 319.392 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| If I answer your question Glen will accuse me of thinking I'm all
| knowing...and we cain't have that now can we!!?


	But Jack, even if I accuse you of it, we all know you're not. :-)

    Who wants to be in heaven with a bunch of dead people??
    
    ...Tom

    particularly with people who don't "boff?"
    
    bleah!

    .408
    
    What do you mean by boff?
    
    

    .408
    
    Who said people in heaven don't boff?  Heaven is described generally as
    a place where everyone is perennially, unreservedly, blissfully happy. 
    If boffing is what makes you happiest, then maybe...

    
    	A "boff" describes the 15 seconds worth of activity leading up
    	to "the big O".
    
    	Well, for most people.
    

    hey!
    
    UI thought 8 seconds was a great ride!
    
    ;-)
    
    thanks I will take my sweaty pagan afterlife.
    
    meg

    .414
    
    Classroom scene, Religious Morals 101.
    
    Professor has just expatiated on the value of premarital abstinence,
    and finishes up with a sweaty, handwaving, "And in light of the
    abjurations against fornication that appear in cultures everywhere, you
    would do well to consider whether an hour of pleasure is worth the
    eternal torment to be suffered in the afterlife - whatever afterlife
    your belief system proposes."  He reaches for a handkerchief, wipes his
    brow, and says, "Now then.  Any questions?"
    
    Hand goes up in the back of the room.  "Yes?" says the professor.
    
    A girl stands up.  "Please, Professor, how do you make it last an
    hour?"

    .415
    
    :-) :-) :-)
    
    Actually the most boffing crowd around are Christians. :-)  It has been
    reported the Christian couples boff more often than non-Christian. 
    
    Actually I think all that abstinence leads up to GREAT strength of
    passion when its finally a holy act. :-)
    
    BTW, isn't boffing a term also used for boxing?

    
    where were Stan and Ollie mentioned in the bible?

    :-) uhm, me don't think so.

You'll need to check with Our Jack Martin for Stan, RAH.
Where ever Stan is found, can Ollie be far behind?

	Nancy, where did you hear that Christians boff more often? 

	Hey, is it because they have been letting things build up by waiting
until they get married????? :-)

  ZZZ    where were Stan and Ollie mentioned in the bible?
    
      Oh fa cryin out loud....we've been through this already!!!!!  

RE: 319.400 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

> The analogy is this:
>    Got headache              
>    Aspirin can take it away  
>    Must take aspirin         
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I find that a nap works better.


Phil

    .422
    
    The sad part is that what most people do.  Instead of dealing with the
    problem head-on, they avoid it by closing their eyes.

RE: 319.423 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

To keep my sanity,  I close my eyes at least once a day.  It's called
sleep.  Unlike the dogmatically blinded,  I also open them at least once a
day.


Phil

    .424
    
    well bow-wow! :-)

	Nancy, boffing helps clear the mind too!

    .426
    
    That's really stretching the anagrams, there Zap Mort.

>	Nancy, boffing helps clear the mind too!

oo-bloody-er missus!

Chris.

    .430
    
    One would have to wonder how a loving parent could discipline their
    child, knowing the suffering that discipline would bring.
    
    

I should know this.  My Father and Brother are ministers! 

However, based on the premise that the Bible is the literal word of God, how
does one account for the differing number of generations in Matthew and Luke? 
Also why are some of the generations different?

I have asked this on occassion, only to be given non answer answers about how I
must have faith in God that they are both correct.  I'm sorry, but I can buy
that about as often as I do the thought that the books of Isaih are written
entirely by one author, or that all humankind descended from one couple.  

I'll think of more but I will wait for some thoughtful answers now.

Mikey

>    <<< Note 319.431 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
>    One would have to wonder how a loving parent could discipline their
>    child, knowing the suffering that discipline would bring.
    
The purpose of discipline is to modify behavior for the child's own good
and not to inflict suffering for suffering's sake. The purpose of putting
someone's immortal soul in hell for all eternity, if such actually were
to happen, appears on the surface to exhibit a tad less reason.
    

re: my last

(I'm sure that there are well reasoned answers to the conflict
 posed by .430. It's just that .431 wasn't one of them.)

    .431
    
    Hey whaddya expect on the fly?  I don't have time to get into deep
    theological, exegesis of the Bible.  I'm a smart, intelligent, witty
    *young* woman, but for today at least, I'm frivolous!

	Nancy, it was May Day yesterday, so it was ok to be that way! :-)

    hee hee hee

That was yesterday - You're not allowed to be young today!

    nancy,
    
    I can't believe you could be serious with what you wrote about
    discipline, unkless you are beating your children into submission,
    rather than helping them learn to deal with life on their own.  Loving
    discipline helps a child learn to control his or herself, rather than
    constantly looking for control from another, or worse inflicting
    control on others.  
    
    I prefer to think of "the rod" as that which is used by shepards to
    guide sheep, rather than the "rule of thumb" switch to be applied to a
    child's backside.  Gentle direction works far better with children to
    teach them their own limits than creating pain and suffereing.  Of
    course, maybe that is why my child at 8, knew that a balanced diet
    required protiens, carbohydreates, fruits and vegetable, with small
    amounts  of sweets and fats thrown in.  
    
    meg

    .432
    
    The only answers you'll get from the literalist crowd are a bunch of
    handwavings like this:
    
    o   The genealogy in Matthew is Joseph's, which it says it is (Matthew
        1:16) and the one in Luke is Mary's, which it is clearly not (Luke
        3:23 - it's Joseph's).
    
    o   Jacob (Joseph's father in Matthew) died, and Heli (Joseph's father
        in Luke) took Joseph's mother to bed to give the dead Jacob, who
        must have been his brother, a legal son.  Matthew was writing for
        Jews and would give the legal "father" while Luke, who was writing
        for Gentiles, would give the biological father.
    
    The first possibility here is clearly bunk.  The second, given that
    Matthat (Jacob's father) and Matthan (Heli's father) are similar names,
    is remotely possible until you see that Matthan's father was Eleazar
    while Matthat's was Levi.  From there on back the whole thing falls
    apart like the house of cards that it is.
    
    Truth be told, there is no explanation except the obvious one, i.e.,
    that one or the other genealogy is simply wrong.  But the literalist
    crowd cannot tolerate that possibility, so they keep on scrabbling for
    a better set of smoke and mirrors.
    
    However, I wish to make note that it simply doesn't matter.  Joseph
    wasn't Jesus' father anyway, and who Jesus was is who he was - not
    whose purported son he was.

    RE: .430
    
    That is a good question.  It was a question that bothered me for a long
    time, but God has brought me into a personal understanding of the flaw
    in the logic used against mainstream Christian teachings. 
    Unfortunately, I may not be able to pass this understanding very well
    in this forum, so bear with me.
    
    First and foremost, it is important to understand that God does not
    send anyone to hell.  Our own willful actions send us there.  A perfect
    God must judge perfectly by His law, and not ONE of us comes close to
    measuring up to this law.
    
    Some would say that the law is unfair, especially when Jesus explained
    that the law doesn't only apply to outward acts, but to your thought
    life as well.  But how else should a perfect God judge?  Should He
    lower His standards?  Should he apply feel-good, wishy-washy morality
    to His law simply because mankind cannot possibly measure up to His
    standards?  No.  To do so would be to compromise who He is, which is
    something He cannot do by His very nature. 
    
    So, since everyone on earth stands condemned before His law and
    standards, how can anyone stand before Him?  This is a key question and
    is the beginning of understanding of His love for us all.
    
    Before Adam first brought sin into the world, God had a plan to redeem
    him and all who came after him, because He does not want ONE person to
    perish, but for all to choose life.  However, God will not force us to
    choose life, as He gave us free will and will not choose to strip that
    free will from any of us.  What God *did* do, however, was try to make
    that choice as easy as possible for us to make (what we'd call a
    "no-brainer").  After all, not everyone is a scholar of the scriptures,
    right?  Even the poor, the uneducated, the "unwashed masses" can make
    an educated choice with but a little teaching. 
    
    We all know what the choice is.  Some refuse to make the choice, as
    they look at God from a humanistic viewpoint (something that I was
    quite guilty of not too long ago,  making God into my image of what I
    thought or wanted God to be- which is idolotry).  God would NEVER send
    anyone to an eternity in hell.  True.  However, God will let you choose
    your eternal destination, as He will not usurp your free will.  He will
    tug at you all the while, trying to get you to make the choice for
    life, but the final decision is yours.  You can choose to have your
    sins forgiven by accepting Christ into your life, bridgeing the gap
    that no good works could ever bridge between imperfection and
    perfection granted to you through Christ's sacrifice (please note that
    this does not mean you become perfect in yourself- none of us will be
    perfected until we are taken to be with God- only that Christ's
    perfection and righteousness will be credited to your account, simply
    because you believe in Him and accept His sacrifice for your sins).
    
    He wanted so much for everyone to choose life, that He sent His only
    Son to die and suffer for our iniquities.  And Christ loved us all so
    much that He willingly submitted Himself to torture (some of which we
    may never understand) and God's wrath to pay the debt the law demands
    for all who will believe in Him.  This is a powerful, sacrificial love. 
    
    The choice is indeed between permanent separation from God and becoming
    a child of God.  Satan works hard to confuse this simple choice for
    everyone.  Making the right choice does not make you a wonderful
    person, but if you are sincere and seek God, you will grow spiritually-
    sometimes quickly, sometimes agonizingly slow.  This also depends on
    you, and how you align yourself with God (remaining in sinful
    lifestyles or behaviors will certianly slow any spiritual growth).
    
    So, cutting through all the world's view of God and how we would like
    God to be according to our fallible wisdom, the simple answer is that
    each of us is responsible for our eternal destination.  We choose, and
    God will not force us to choose Him.  I think the worst aspect of
    "hell" will be the fact that you will have come to full knowledge of
    how you ended up there, and that you have no one to blame but yourself.
    This makes me look at the phrase "gnashing of teeth" in a whole new
    light, especially when you realize that the key word is "eternal".  God
    created the spirit in His image, which makes it eternal. 
    
    This is not a subject that I like to get into very often, as I find it
    very depressing.  However, you did ask, and I tried to elaborate on the
    answer as best I could.
    
    
    -steve                

    
    .441:
    
    I saw that, Dick: "possivility"     ;^)
    

    Could it be that Bible truth is an oxi-moron!?
    
    ...Tom

    
    .444:
    
    HERETIC!!
    
    
    We have found a heretic...may we burn him?   
    
    ;^)
    

    We have to dress him up first. A bit. A bit. A nose.... and a hat.

Gnosticism has appeared in many forms.  Some versions claimed that
there is no need to keep any moral laws; other versions were strict
to the point of disallowing any pleasure at all.

/john

    .439
    
    The rod is used for guidance and oftimes that guidance is applied with
    smack on the rump of the sheep.  At what times do you use the rod in
    that fashion?  When the sheep are in danger.  The same goes for our
    children; when our children are in danger of losing their souls.
    
    How can one lose their souls.. through rebellious disobedience.  This
    is when applying rod in a more forceful fashion is applicable.
    
    Nancy

Re: .450 
      
>    I'm afraid, though, that some of the language of your response confuses me.
>    You say that because God has given us free will, He will not force any of
>    us to "choose life". Yet you then go on to say, that we choose "the
>    destination". That is the crux of the matter, at least in terms of my
>    comment on free will. Have we actually been given the choice of life and
>    death, or are we condemned to eternal life, with only the choice of where
>    to endure it? I have trouble perceiving the latter as an example of the
>    exercise of free will. 

    Free will is to act as we please- whether that be in line with God's
    commandments or whether we go our own way, rejecting Him.
    
    Free will is the choice to chose life or death (spiritual), by
    accepting or rejecting God's free pardon from our sin that He provided
    via His Son's sacrifice.
    
    Free will does not mean we can change the spiritual nature of our
    existence, nor change the nature of our spirit from eternal to
    temporal.  From my perspective, I would not even consider this choice
    if it were offered, as the idea of being with God is more than a bit
    exciting.  To choose death would be to choose to deny God what belongs
    to Him, and therefore, IMO, would be equal to rejecting God (thus we
    are back to the life and death choice in my scenario).  
    
    This is a bit outside my realm of knowledge, so the above is just my
    opinion on your question.
    
>    The other part of the question is still, basically, how could a loving God
>    even create a destination in which his creations might suffer eternally? 
    
    The Bible states that Hell was not created for mankind, but for
    Satan and the angels that followed him in their rebellion against God. 
    It also suggests that there are differing levels of punishments in Hell 
    (Satan would get the worst place). 
    
    I don't claim to have a handle on understanding God's justice, as I am
    neither holy nor perfect in myself.  I imagine that one day we all will
    not only understand, but agree with His judgement (Revelation certainly
    suggests this).
    
>    As for the matter of God judging us according to His law, first of all,
>    the idea of God as perfect judge and perfect loving father are, IMO,
>    ideas which contradict one another and make God appear to be a split
>    personality. At least, I find them particularly difficult to reconcile.
>    It's beyond my experience of human life. However, assuming that He is
>    by His nature, a perfect judge, I see nothing to detract from this role
>    if, when he judges that I have broken His law, He condemns me to death
>    for it, rather than to life imprisonment. There is a difference between
>    the judgment and the penalty. In other words, there is no basic
>    conflict (in my mind) between the idea of hell-less creation and the
>    idea of the perfect judgment of God. However, I do see a conflict
>    between the idea of eternal hell and the idea of the perfect love of
>    God. 
 
    I can understand your questions.  Maybe at one point the "second death"
    becomes just that, death.  This would be an eternal punishment, as
    well.  Perhaps the level of punishment is in the time frame of how long
    you suffer in hell for your sins, before vanishing forever (which gives
    me shivers just thinking about it).  One thing is for sure, Satan never
    escapes it- other than this, the rest is pure speculation that may not
    be based too soundly in the Bible.
    
>    I'm not sure what you mean by this. It sounds like you're saying that God
>    has a standard and that no human being can live up to it. Therefore, He
>    demonstrates His love, by letting us enjoy His company even though we don't
>    meet His standards? Or He somehow, brings us up to His standards? If this
>    is what you mean, the obvious question to me is: why did He create humans
>    incapable of meeting His standards in the first place?
 
    Adam lived up to it before he disobeyed God.  This rebellion is at the
    heart of why we can't live up to His standards.  He DID create humans
    that could live up to His standards, they chose not to.
    
    To make up for OUR transgressions against Him, God sent His Son to die
    on the cross and suffer His holy wrath in our stead, so that we could
    choose life even though we are still in sin.  
    
    It was the free will that was the downfall of God's creation, just as
    Satan's free will (and those of the angels who rebelled with him)
    allowed him to rebell. 
        
>    Arguably, this demonstrated that Christ loved us. I hesitate to say what it
>    demonstrates to me about God, but love is not the word that leaps to mind.
 
    It was God's plan for OUR salvation.  Why do you view this as less that
    love for us, if this is what you are saying?  

>    I sincerely appreciate your effort. I hope you won't regard this note
>    as anything but a respectful continuation of the dialogue. Thanks
>    again.

    
    No need to worry, I take your note in the spirit it is given-
    continuation of dialogue.  I hope that my own words are taken in the
    same light.
    
    
    -steve

                  <<< Note 319.420 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
>
>	Nancy, where did you hear that Christians boff more often? 
>
>	Hey, is it because they have been letting things build up by waiting
> until they get married????? :-)
    
    	All kidding aside, there may be something to your suggestion.
    	Waiting for marriage means that it's not "old-hat" already by
    	the time you get there.  
    
    	And isn't it better that couples boff more AFTER they are 
    	married -- when they will be a bit more mature and responsible
    	and better able to raise babies and all?

    Joe,
    
    since when did a marriage license and some mumbling from a patriarch,
    guarantee maturity, and responsibility?  couldn't prove it by my
    experiences. 
    
    nancy,  
    
    many people find it completely unecessary to ever clobber a child, and
    raise children who are loving, respectful, and even spiritual.  I find
    any references to a god who needs to smack his "children" around to be
    ungodlikke and more along the lines of people abuse.  My opinions of
    people who claim to speak for gods, but use those claims to attempt to
    beat people into spiritual submission can not be written inside any
    digital notesfile.  
    
    meg 

    .456
    
    Meg,
    
    It just shows your lack of understanding Biblical discipline, for it is
    not abuse and oftimes saves the lives of the sheeps who tend to go near
    the edge of the cliff just a tad too much.
    
    

    nancy,
    
    Beating children is not instilling discipline, it is forcing them into
    submission until they can get out from under your authority or can find
    someone smaller and weaker to force their "discipline" on.  It is not 
    loving discipline IMO.  
    
    If this is the picture you have of your diety, than I am sorry.  I
    prefer the story of the good shepard who got up and went out to find
    the lost sheep, rather than leaving it out of the fold.  What I hear
    from far too many people who proclaim the cristian faith is the direct
    opposite of this story.
    
    meg

    
    thats why most children of liberals are perfect little horrors
    with arrogant attitudes and smart mouths.
    
    

re spanking:

Take it to 290, please.

	Gerald can't be a liberal if he wants to be spanked when he is bad....
or could he be???? :-)

    <<< Note 319.456 by CSC32::M_EVANS "proud counter-culture McGovernik" >>>

>    since when did a marriage license and some mumbling from a patriarch,
>    guarantee maturity, and responsibility?  couldn't prove it by my
>    experiences. 
    
    	If that's all you've gotten out of my entries these past few
    	days, you haven't been paying attention.
    
    	So tell me.  If they aren't mature enough after they are married,
    	how can they be mature enough before then?

    Meg,
    
    You keep using the word "beating", therefore, I stand by what I said,
    it is apparent you lack understanding in Biblical discipline.
    
    Nancy

    .458
    
    P.S.
    
    When the Good Shephard goes to get the lost sheep, he will prod or
    guide them back to the fold.  This prodding oftimes is chastisement,
    for whom the Lord loveth he chastizes.
    
    Nancy

    
    Do all these sheep and wolves punch the clock like in that
    Warner Bros cartoon?
    

    don't forget the important role of sheep dogs too.

    
    
    ... you know... all this sheep talk got me thinking about that
    segment in Woody Allen's "Everything You Wanted To Know About
    Sex..."; the one where he has the sheep dressed up in fishnet
    hose with garters... Thanks a lot. Thanks a whole lot. That's
    JUST the image I wanted to have lodged in my cranium for the
    rest of the evening... :-) :-)
    
    -b

    >As an aside, I thought it was rather prevalent in Christian thought to
    >suppose that Christ's death had paid in full for all sin. No doubt I
    >misunderstood the concept, but it occurs to me suddenly to ask, what is
    >this additional payment that some souls must make?
    
    Reading soapbox...
    

    .469
    
    has been answered.
    
    There is no additional payment that some souls must make.  
    
    If you go up to McDonalds and order a cup of coffee and offer them your
    bag of marbles as payment, I doubt you'll get yer coffee, well maybe on
    your lap!
    
    

    
    Ain't no one getting my bag 'o marbles... let alone for a
    cup of bad coffee! :-)
    
    (Perhaps you were addressing .468? :-)
    
    -b

    perhaps... :-)

    
    I'm a little concerned that Nancy is flirting with Brian right 
    in front of Tom.

    Premarital counseling is in order I think.

Is the Deacon in?

    No but the beacon's on!
    
    Flirting?  Moia?  doubtful!!! :-)

    Not Moia, Nancy, you!

    You developing multiple personalities too?!?

    > No but the beacon's on!
    
    Naughty, naughty Zoot!
    
    (and I don't _dare_ repeat the part about what comes after the
     spanking!)
    
    -b

| <<< Note 319.470 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| If you go up to McDonalds and order a cup of coffee and offer them your
| bag of marbles as payment, I doubt you'll get yer coffee, well maybe on
| your lap!

	If McDonalds take your marbles, what will you have left? About 2 mil...

    
    See, I'm not afraid 8^).

   Re: .468       

>    I don't quite see why
>    you express it as denying God "what belongs to Him". Doesn't having free
>    will imply that you belong to yourself and you only belong to God if you
>    choose to?
 
    God is the author of all life.  Whether we like it or not, we belong to
    Him (as does everything else He has created).  Free will gives us the
    choice to follow His commandments or to go our own way.  If we were not
    allowed this choice, we would be nothing more than automatons, which is
    not what God wants.  God wants us to choose Him and to love Him by
    CHOICE.
    
>    Does that mean that God doesn't love Satan? Did He once and stopped?
    
    Satan was once the mightiest and most beautiful angel.  God certainly
    loved him.  Did he stop loving him?  I doubt it.  However, God is also
    the perfect judge, the fairest judge, and He calls for an accounting of
    those who rebel against Him.  He is a God of order and a God of
    perfect justice, not letting emotion guide His judgements as do humans.
    
    I think that this is one concept that is hard to get across, and I'm
    not sure that I am doing a very good job of it currently.  
    
    There are too many things about the spiritual realm that are not
    understood.  Perhaps due to his nature, Satan is unable to repent from
    his current path, thus God has no choice but to put him somewhere where
    he can cause no further harm or stir up rebellion.  At the same time,
    as a fair judge, God must punish Satan fairly for his actions.
    
>    Otherwise, it just pushes the philosophical problem off on another "child"
>    whom God supposedly loves. I also don't see how it is any more loving to
>    put human beings in hell for eternity because the torture was really
>    designed for someone else, then it would be, had He designed the torture
>    specifically for us. 

    As with Satan's hardened spirit, man too can reach a point where he
    will never submit to God.  God respects our free will enough to let this
    happen (not that He doesn't try to point us in the right direction
    before this point is reached).  Should God allow those who adamantly 
    refuse His authority to enter His kingdom?  
     
>    It's the idea that God can claim to love them
>    and simultaneously tolerate their eternal pain that remains problematic to
>    me.

    What kind of love would it be if God forced us to love and obey Him? 
    It wouldn't be love at all, but a created response.  This is not what
    God wants, thus our free will to accept or reject Him.
    
    I'm positive that even the eternal suffering of Satan saddens God, as
    Satan was once a trusted and cherished leader in heaven.  Fact is,
    Satan made his choice, and God will not force him to change his mind. 
    Same with man.  We are responsible for our own choices- including
    rejecting the authority of God.  Why should this conscious choice be
    treated any differently than Satan's choice?  Of course, Satan is
    responsible for all the souls who end up rejecting God, so his
    punishment will be worse that all others, but the basic choice of
    eternal destination is the same, nontheless.  How can a perfectly fair
    judge make exceptions for some and not others?
    
>    Possibly, if we insist that God requires some kind of payment. This still
>    strikes me as unloving. Certainly it only prolongs the agony of His
>    creations and the amount of time He has to watch them suffer. That wouldn't
>    seem to serve the purposes of love. Does it really serve the purposes of
>    justice? 
    
    Yes, it does.  Justice is done in that those who refuse His authority
    are separated from God, just as they chose to be.  The punishment is
    for the sinful acts they have committed under God's law- which means
    that some will be much worse off than others. 
    
>    If there is still some hope for reconciliation, perhaps, but God
>    apparently gives up hope at the point of our physical deaths, so why
>    bother? 
    
    Since God knows the heart of each of us, if He gives up, it means that
    there truly is no hope of reconcilliation.  I have to trust His 
    judgement in this and not try to second guess Him.  I do know that God
    is perfectly fair, so I think that everyone gets all the chances they
    need to be reconciled.
    
>    Perhaps God's judgment is so perfect, that it lacks all drama by
>    human standards. It could be quick, final and utterly painless, couldn't
>    it? 
    
    Perhaps, but scriptures support the "hell" concept.  Whether it is
    allegory or not, is open to interpretation.  In any event, being
    separated from God is the most terrible thing there could be, if you
    take the Bible's warnings with even a speck of seriousness.  
    
>    Otherwise, we're left with a God who has some internal need to watch
>    people suffer for rejecting Him. Not a corrective application of suffering,
>    just suffering. I can't help it: it sounds sadistic.

    I don't think you are being fair to God on this one.  If it is indeed
    our own choices that bring about our destination, then God is obligated
    to send us away from Him, though it saddens Him to do so.  He is
    actually respecting our own choices to be away from Him. 
    
    It's kind've like a man in a house that is burning down.  You yell at
    him from outside to get out of there quick.  He says no, there's no
    fire.  You tell him that the fire will burn him up, he says there is
    not fire.  You argue and argue until finally the fire overtakes him and
    burns him up.  He chose not to believe that the fire is real, through
    whatever logic or rationale that fit what he wanted to believe, and 
    due to his unbelief he was burned to a crisp.
    
    God, too says we are all without excuse, we have all seen God in the
    things He has created.  Many choose not to see Him.  He keep tugging
    and yelling at us that He is real and He does love us and that He wants
    us to be with Him.  He keeps working events and our consciences to
    convict us that we need Him and we should seek Him.  It is up to US to
    respond, though.  God will not pull us out of the burning house against
    our will.  If we are determined to burn in that house, He will respect
    our choice.
    
>    As an aside, I thought it was rather prevalent in Christian thought to
>    suppose that Christ's death had paid in full for all sin. No doubt I
>    misunderstood the concept, but it occurs to me suddenly to ask, what is
>    this additional payment that some souls must make?

    If you have not accepted the sacrifice of Jesus as a covering for your
    sins, then the price goes unpaid.  Universal salvation is not a
    Biblical concept.  I don't have a Bible with me today, so I can't quote
    anything to help you our here, but Christ dies for all those who will
    come to know Him (as well as those who looked forward to His coming and
    died  before Christ walked the earth).  You must actively believe in
    Him and accept what is offered to you.  You must admit that you are a
    sinner and are in need of Christ to intercede on your behalf before
    God.
    
>>    One thing is for sure, Satan never escapes it

>    Is there a simple statement in the Bible that makes that clear? (If it
>    involves a complex exegesis, then I would probably have difficulty
>    understanding it.)

    As I mentioned above, I don't have a Bible with me today, so I can't
    quote verbatim, but I can point you in the right direction.  See
    Revelation, specifically chapter 24 (I think, I may be off here) where
    it speaks of the end of the millenium, when Satan is loosed to create
    rebellion for a short time.  I mentions that God will cast Satan once
    and for all into the firey lake where he will stay forever.
    
>    Does it seem loving to punish all for the disobedience of one?
 
    Adam brought the curse into the world, which is death and disorder and
    decay.  Adam is symbolic of the human race, and our bent towards
    disobedience.  He had a closer walk with God than anyone, but yet still
    rebelled.  
    
    We would do no better, I imagine.  God'd judgements are just, though we
    may not understand them.  How could we?  His ways are not our ways, and
    His plans are intricate beyond what we could absorb or understand.
           
>    I'm saying that if God required a human sacrifice to mollify Him and Christ
>    volunteered, I can see that as a demonstration of Christ's love for His
>    fellow humans. That God required a human sacrifice in order to be
>    mollified, is not recognizable to me as an act of love. Is it to you? Is
>    that what you suppose is all God wanted in this situation, a ritualistic
>    act of atonement involving torture and death? 
    
    Sin brings about death (see Adam and the curse, above).  God first
    incorporated animal sacrifice to point out that the sin of the people
    do have consequences.  It isn't about mollifying God, it is about
    accountability, fairness, and order.  God is the perfect judge, and
    therefore will pass perfect judgement perfectly (something we in our
    human wisdom find hard to comprehend, as emotion tuggs us in different
    directions).  
    
    God gave us a way out.  He did for us something we could never do
    ourselves.
    
    Well, I'd like to go on, but I need to take care of a few things here
    at work.  8^)  I also have a brain cramp.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    Nancy's too old to flirt.

    .485
    
    Mike is not a gentleman!!!

    
>>    Mike is not a gentleman!!!

	you noticed that too.

    Isn't Nancy the one who used to do the .58 snarfs 'cause that
    was the year of her birth? That puts her somewhere around
    36/37, which is most definitely not too old to flirt. In
    fact, I don't think one is ever too old to flirt... as long
    as they don't mind occasionally grossing out the flirtee... :-)

    -b

    >Free will is to act as we please- whether that be in line with God's
    >commandments or whether we go our own way, rejecting Him.
    
    >Free will is the choice to chose life or death (spiritual), by
    >accepting or rejecting God's free pardon from our sin that He
    >provided via His Son's sacrifice.
    
    This is the illogical crap that we have to listen too and that those who
    accept it live under. You have a choice, however the 4 billion beings
    on this planet who don't choose to live the christian dogma will
    eventually die some spiritual death. Then we are expected to believe
    that one criminal, in the Roman/Jewish society of 2000 years ago, is 
    submitted to the capital punishment of the time and every terrible thing 
    that we naturally do in our lives are forgiven if we worship him. The
    destruction of logic and rational thought is the result. There is no
    difference between this and one who worships the sun. This is only one
    step down from human sacrifice as proclaimers of this nonsense
    sacrifice their own mind and and the minds of those who they convince
    to be "born" again.
    
    IMHO of course :)
    ...Tom
    

    	Pretty tough to swallow, huh Tom?
    
    	That's OK.  It just leaves more for the rest of us.

    >It just leaves more for the rest of us.
    
    Yea, bait..
    
    ...Tom

    it's all relative anyway.  I'm Nancy's adopted spoiled-brat son. 
    Anyone that marries her gets to deal with me too ;-)

    .490, are you saying "Fine! Don't go to heaven! There'll be more jewels
    to go around and I'll have a bigger mansion." ?

    Isn't the love of Jesus something wonderful....

    8-\

         <<< Note 319.493 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Grim Falcon The Elf" >>>

>    .490, are you saying "Fine! Don't go to heaven! There'll be more jewels
>    to go around and I'll have a bigger mansion." ?
    
    	In a sense, yes.  But I'm not telling Tom not to go to heaven.
    	He is telling us that he doesn't want to go.  To him there are
    	no jewels or mansions, just lumps of dung and booby-trap pits.

>    Isn't the love of Jesus something wonderful....
    
    	What was that saying about shaking the dust from one's sandals...

    Ha!

    How can one weep for lost souls, and then essentially say "To hell with
    you!" if they don't repent.

    The model just doesn't hold up to any close scrutiny. I love you with
    the love of Jesus, and well, if you don't want to go to heaven, can I
    have your stuff?

    What about forgiving 70 X 7? Surely that's worth more than just one
    sandal dusting?

>    What about forgiving 70 X 7? Surely that's worth more than just one
>    sandal dusting?
    
    it refers to the several 490-year periods in Israel's national history.

    nonsense.

    nunsense.

    incense

	and peppermints 

    -1 peppermints

    notes collision!

| <<< Note 319.490 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| Pretty tough to swallow, huh Tom?
| That's OK.  It just leaves more for the rest of us.


	One should NEVER swallow!

         <<< Note 319.495 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Grim Falcon The Elf" >>>
    
>    How can one weep for lost souls, and then essentially say "To hell with
>    you!" if they don't repent.
    
    	First, I didn't say that.
    
    	Second, this is soapbox.  Had I tried to "convert" Tom (something
    	he has clearly and repeatedly made known he wants no part of) I
    	would be facing thumper complaints instead of yours.
    
    	Third, this is soapbox.  You seriously missed the sarcasm in the
    	original note with which you take issue.  Given Tom's entries
    	(and my entries) in the past, and given our past interaction,
    	I'm surprised at your reaction to my entry.  I doubt that Tom
    	would mis-interpret it as you did, and considering that it was
    	addressed to him and not to you, I'm not too concerned about
    	your reaction.

>    What about forgiving 70 X 7? Surely that's worth more than just one
>    sandal dusting?

    	What is to forgive?  How has Tom hurt me in any way?

| <<< Note 319.506 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Oh, goody.  More bathroom humor.


	It could be bedroom humor, livingroom humor, kitchen humor, outside
humor, chandelier humor, rope humor, and many many others! If you keep it just
in the bathroom, it must get pretty boring after a while being cramped in there
and all.


Glen

    Joe, you say your note contains sarcasm, fine, I can understand that.
    But, when you put it in the context of heaven/hell/eternity how can
    you inject sarcasm when the consequences are so grave? soapbox or no
    soapbox, what is the message you are sending? You're shaking the dust
    off your sandals.

    Seeing that this _is_ soapbox, your note did strike me as rather
    callous for a Christian.

>         <<< Note 319.497 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Grim Falcon The Elf" >>>
>
>    nonsense.
    
The phrase "70 x 7" is more of a literal statement than a figurative one.
The key is to subtract the numbers of years of disfellowship with God from each
period of Israel's national history.

Periods of Israel's history
---------------------------
From Abraham to the Exodus, (starting with the promise in Genesis 12:4) there
is a period of 505 years.  The Law was given 430 years after Genesis 12:4
(Galatians 3:17).  If you subtract the period of disfellowship with
God (15 years with Ishmael in Genesis 16:16, 21:5), you get 490 years.

From Exodus to the completion of the first Temple, (begun I Kings 6-8) there's a
period of 601 years (ended I Kings 6:38).  Except when you study the book of
Judges carefully, there are 6 servitudes of the judges, totaling 111 years.

Mesopotamia             Judges 3:8               8 years
Moabites                  "    3:12-14          18   "
Canaanites                "    4:2-3            20   "
Midianites                "    6:1               7   "
Ammonites                 "   10:7-8            18   "
Philistines               "   13:1              40   "

When you subtract 601 - 111 you get 490 years again.

The next period goes from the Temple (I Kings 8:1-66 ~1005 BC) to the edict of
Artaxerxes in Nehemiah 2:1 (~445 BC) which totals 560 years.  This period
includes the 70 years of Babylonian captivity.  560 minus 70 = 490 years
(there's that number again!).

The 4th and final period of Israel's history is from Daniel under Artaxerxes
to the second advent of Christ.  This is all found in Daniel 9:24-27 which
describes the great 70 Weeks prophecy.  From Daniel to the first advent of
Christ is 483 years (69 x 7).  Between the 69th and 70th week, there is a gap
while God deals with the Church and Gentile nations.  The Final 70th week has
been set aside for Israel which gives you the 4th 490-year period in Israel's
history.  See also Isaiah 39:5-7, Jeremiah 25:8-12; 27:6-8; 29:10.

What's significant about the four 490-year periods?  4 � 490 = 1960 years.
Wouldn't it be like God to give the church any less?  Isn't it interesting that
the church was born on Pentecost?  (49 days after the Feast of First Fruits in
the year 32 AD).  If you add the 1960 years to the threshold of 32 AD, it
would imply that the rapture could happen any time after 1992.  Interesting
speculation that's supports Scripture since there are no prophecies left to be
fulfilled prior to the rapture of the church.

Just to add to that, the above shows that God has at least forgiven Israel 4
times 70 � 7.  When Jesus Christ was asked how much should we forgive our
brother, most of us thought the 70 � 7 was just a figure of speech.  What he's
really saying is that's how many times God has forgiven you (Israel).
    
    If you want to see how these numbers apply to prophecy, let me know.
    
    Mike

    .510  
    
    That's my boy!:-)  [sickening isn't it?]
    
    

| <<< Note 319.508 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Grim Falcon The Elf" >>>


| Seeing that this _is_ soapbox, your note did strike me as rather
| callous for a Christian.


	Christians get calluses?????


	Did you know that a callus is a localized thickening and enlargement of
the horny layer of skin? I wake up with a callus quite a few mornings I do!


Glen

    >What was that saying about shaking the dust from one's sandals...
    
    Isn't this pretty serious stuff in the christian world, Joe. Doesn't this
    equate to damnation??
    
    ...Tom

    you have to balance the view - God isn't a God of extremes.  God loves us 
    all enough to come down and die for us, but it doesn't change the reason 
    why He had to die for us.  By not accepting that reason and His
    sacrifice, you are rejecting Him.
    
    Mike

       <<< Note 319.514 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

>    >What was that saying about shaking the dust from one's sandals...
>    
>    Isn't this pretty serious stuff in the christian world, Joe. Doesn't this
>    equate to damnation??
    
	I am in no more of a position to damn you than you are to damn
    	me.  We can only accept/reject God's gifts, and merit/suffer
    	the consequences accordingly.  Understand too that rejection of
    	God's gifts does not have to be permanent.  You are always
    	welcome to change your mind!  (Same for accepting them.)
    

    re: .517, Joe
    
    Doesn't the Bible say something like, shake the dust from your feet and
    it will be better for the people of sodom then for that person? I know
    there is something about it, even though I haven't stated it correctly.
    
    Sounds pretty serious to me.
    
    ...Tom

    	Maybe it is, but considering the faith you place in the source
    	why sould you care?

    RE: .519
    
    >Maybe it is, but considering the faith you place in the source
    >why sould you care?
    
    Joe, you gave up too easy, come on I expect more from you!
    
    I think that you are admitting that you are saying that I am damned.
    Whether I have faith in the source or not seems of little consequence
    when compared to making this judgement.
    
    ...Tom

    	I already told you that I don't consider myself in any position
    	or authority to make the judgement you want to believe I am
    	making.
    
    	Still, even if I WERE making such a judgement, why would you
    	care?  In fact, even if I were in a position (according to
    	my beliefs) to make that judgement upon you, why would you
    	care?  
    
    	Given your stated position on this subject matter, why do you 
    	care about this topic at all?

RE:                    <<< Note 319.515 by ONOFRE::SKELLY_JO >>>

    > "Wouldn't it be nice," I think, "if there were
    >a God, who was paying attention to me, and better yet, actually loved me?"
    
       There is, He is, and He does.  Humanity has an illness.  God exists
       in an environment that is pure and cannot tolerate the illness.  He
       came and lived on this earth and gave his blood as a transfusion to
       provide the vaccine for the illness.  Some choose to accept it, some
       reject it.  One's rejection of the vaccine doesn't change His love
       for them.  He simply cannot tolerate the illness in His presence.
       
  
  
    Jim     



    

    Re: Mike

    You have great faith in calendars my friend. I hope the answers you've
    found hold true for you. I was just like you once.

    Glenn

    Joe, so because you figure we shouldn't care or have no right to care,
    you can simply show sarcasm when you should be showing the love of
    Christ? You're on the hook for everything you do and say Joe and you're
    going to have to give account for it. So you tell me, do you really
    care? I don't think you do because if you did, it would show. 

    Glenn

>    One thing I wonder about is the acceptence of decimal-based numbers in
>    the OT and NT.  Wasn't our present system - so-called Arabic, base 10 -
>    more recent.

You're confusing base with notation.  The Greeks, Romans and Jews all used
base 10.  The novelty of the Arabic system is the use of 0 as a notational
device.

| <<< Note 319.521 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Still, even if I WERE making such a judgement, why would you care? 

	Joe, you just don't get it. If someone holds you to the standards you
talk about, they are just showing how hypocritical they think you can be. You 
quote the Bible for this and that, but to many, you don't live by that standard 
towards others all the time. This isn't the first time that you've been 
confronted about being unChristian, and I'm sure it won't be the last. (and
before you go ballistic, the above can be what many people think about you, but
itn reality terms, it MAY not be true)

	Just remember one thing, God Himself knows what is really going on. So 
you can beat around the bush all ya want, and be as vaigue as you want, but God 
knows exactly what you were doing. If you were really not doing what many people
have accused you of, ya got nothing to worry about. But if you weren't, you'll 
be answering to Him, not us. Have a nice day!




Glen

    >Still, even if I WERE making such a judgement, why would you
    > care?  In fact, even if I were in a position (according to
    > my beliefs) to make that judgement upon you, why would you care?
    
    Joe, by using the Dusty sandal analogy you were making that judgment. I
    think our conversation has shown that. Personally I don't care if you
    think that I am damned or not. I am showing a falacy in the Christian
    faith, a faith that teaches you not to judge. However Christians
    constantly judge others as damned or one day to be "spiritually dead"
    based on a dogma that is not believed or followed by about 80 some
    percent of the world population. Not only is it total presumption to
    assume that these 80% are wrong and the 20% correct, but it is also
    very unchristian.
    
    ...Tom 

    re: .515
    
    Hi John,
    
    Sorry I couldn't be of more help in explaining my perspective.  There
    are some things that in our own human logic seem to be contradictory,
    but that's only because we see things in a very limited way- we don't
    have the whole picture.  God does.
    
    God does love us all, though, unconditionally.  He loves us no matter
    what we do, always hoping (and tugging at our conscience) that we will
    see His light and seek His face.  He wants no one to be separated from
    Him for eternity.  
    
    I trust in this unconditional love.  I trust in God first, knowing that
    eventually I will come to understand that which seems contradictory or
    "unfair" within my own faulty logic and reasoning.
    
    The basic truth of the matter is that you have nothing of consequence to 
    lose by trusting in God and His Son's sacrifice, but you have everything 
    to gain- more than any of us could ever imagine.
    
    I appreciate the dialogue, it's been enjoyable.
    
    -steve

         <<< Note 319.524 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Grim Falcon The Elf" >>>

>    Joe, so because you figure we shouldn't care or have no right to care,
>    you can simply show sarcasm when you should be showing the love of
>    Christ? You're on the hook for everything you do and say Joe and you're
>    going to have to give account for it. So you tell me, do you really
>    care? I don't think you do because if you did, it would show. 

    	re .524 and others
    
    	I don't figure you shouldn't care (or even more extreme, have
    	no RIGHT to care!)  You have demonstrated that you don't care.  
    	Some of you have stated it outright.  Once you've done that, I 
    	now question why you bother with questioning me about those
    	very same issues.  What is the purpose?  Do you want to convince
    	me that I shouldn't care either?  Do you want me to convince you
    	that you should?
    
    	So you don't care about Christianity, or Jesus Christ, yet you
    	try to tell us about what the love of Christ should be?  (And
    	then you all attempt to paint ME as hypocritical!)
    
    	You ask me if I really care, Glenn.  Care about what?  
    
    	You want me to me meek and accepting and simply absorb your
    	rejections time after time without response?  Sorry.  Christians
    	aren't perfect.  I'm not the model Christian.  This is a forum
    	that is apt to bring out the worst in some people, and I am
    	one that is so affected.  Learn to live with it.  You'll
    	probably see it again too.  That doesn't mean that Christianity
    	is bad, or that my understanding of it is flawed.  It just
    	means that my practice of it is.  It's part of being human.

| <<< Note 319.530 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| I don't figure you shouldn't care (or even more extreme, have no RIGHT to 
| care!)  You have demonstrated that you don't care. Some of you have stated it 
| outright.  Once you've done that, I now question why you bother with 
| questioning me about those very same issues.  What is the purpose?  

	Read .527 again Joe. It might give you a clue.

| So you don't care about Christianity, or Jesus Christ, yet you try to tell us 
| about what the love of Christ should be?  (And then you all attempt to paint 
| ME as hypocritical!)

	Joe, I think your version of Christianity does not equal many other
people's versions. They state that. What you wrote above though, may apply to
some, but does it apply to anyone in here? If so, who?

| This is a forum that is apt to bring out the worst in some people, and I am
| one that is so affected. Learn to live with it.  

	Joe, if you know the problem, why should he or anyone else live with
it? Why don't you change what you already admitted to is the problem? Surely
God would help you if you would ask. Maybe you have already asked, I don't
know. But to say live with it is like saying we should have lived with Bakker
and co. 

| That doesn't mean that Christianity is bad, or that my understanding of it is 
| flawed. It just means that my practice of it is.  It's part of being human.

	You could put a little effort into it and not say live with it. How
unremorseful you can be about your known faults sometimes....



Glen

                  <<< Note 319.527 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, you just don't get it. If someone holds you to the standards you
>talk about, they are just showing how hypocritical they think you can be.
    
    	No, Glen, I do get it.  I understand that I am held to a double
    	standard -- by you in particular.  You can pretend to talk about
    	"belief in Him" and "living as He calls us" yet can spit on His
    	Word and stalk your victim-du-jour (whether it be either Andy,
    	or Jack, Or me, or whomever) with the sole intention of tearing 
    	him down, or making him look foolish, or getting others angry
    	at him.  You flaunt a lifestyle that you know is anathema to many
    	others.  You enter replies that you know are crude and offensive
    	in spite of having been told so.  Yes, Glen, you are the model 
    	Christian and are in the perfect position to lecture me about
    	being hypocritical!
    
>You 
>quote the Bible for this and that, but to many, you don't live by that standard 
>towards others all the time. 
    
    	The key phrase is "all the time".  Nobody -- absolutely nobody --
    	lives the standards all the time.  It is unfair for you to expect
    	it, and especially here where the atmosphere bathes us in combat
    	and tends to draw us away from Christian behavior.  It is unfair
    	for you to expect it from me when dealing with you in particular
    	considering your own behavior towards me.
    
    	So tell me, how often do *I* quote scripture?  Are you painting
    	me with a brush you should reserve for someone else.  I don't
    	even have a Bible here to quote from.  Sometimes I paraphrase (as
    	I intend to do in my nest reply to Tom R.) but even that is kept
    	to a minimum.
    
>This isn't the first time that you've been 
>confronted about being unChristian, and I'm sure it won't be the last.
    
    	So what else is new?
    
>you can beat around the bush all ya want, and be as vaigue as you want, 
    
    	Vague.
    
>knows exactly what you were doing. If you were really not doing what many people
>have accused you of, ya got nothing to worry about. But if you weren't, you'll 
>be answering to Him, not us. 
    
    	So then why do you try to make me answer to you?
    
    	I guess from now on I can just ignore you, huh?

       <<< Note 319.528 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

>    Personally I don't care if you think that I am damned or not. 
    
    	Well, then I'm glad we've finally worked that out!
    
>    I am showing a falacy in the Christian
>    faith, a faith that teaches you not to judge. However Christians
>    constantly judge others ...
    
    	You see it as judging others.  I see it as judging the behavior.
    
    	And where do you get the idea that Christian faith teaches
    	not to judge?  From Matthew 7:1 -- "Judge not lest ye be judged"?
    	Yours is a fine analysis of that if you insist on looking at
    	those few words in isolation.  But you fail to realize that
    	the quote goes on to say that you will be judged in return in
    	the same measure.  It also goes on to say that once you remove
    	the beam from your own eye, you will be able to see to help
    	your brother.  We are also told in other places that we are to
    	rebuke our brother, and how are we to do that without judgement?
    
    	It might seem easy to grab a biblical sound bite and use it as 
    	a stick to beat up a believer, but it's difficult to to it if
    	you don't know much about the particular sound bite.
    
>    Not only is it total presumption to
>    assume that these 80% are wrong and the 20% correct, but it is also
>    very unchristian.
    
    	Is it really unChristian?  I don't think so.  What you are 
    	asking me to do is to doubt my faith.  *THAT* would be unChristian.

>    You have great faith in calendars my friend. I hope the answers you've
>    found hold true for you. I was just like you once.
    
    No my faith is in God.  The rest is just documented history that you
    can learn in ancient history class.  It's no secret many of these
    classes also use the Bible as a reference.
    
    You haven't even asked for the best part of all this yet. ;-)  
    
    Mike

    >You see it as judging others.  I see it as judging the behavior.
    
    This a total copout. My behavior is me. As we discovered you judged my
    behavior as damnable by using the dusty sandal analogy. I guess you
    think that your behavior is somebody elses and that it shouldn't
    be judged, since it isn't you. I know that you don't really believe
    this. You and I both know that judging a behavior is judging the person
    with the behavior.
    
       >And where do you get the idea that Christian faith teaches
       > not to judge?  From Matthew 7:1 -- "Judge not lest ye be
       >judged"?
       >Yours is a fine analysis of that if you insist on looking at
       > those few words in isolation.
    
    No Joe, I admit that I was baiting you. I just wanted to get you to be
    truthful about judging others. People judge people. Christians judge
    people/other christians and others all of the time. Judgements of
    others are essential to our survival. Those who leave these judgements
    to a god forfeit the power they have to live their own lives. If
    someone tells me I shouldn't judge, I assume that they are concerned
    that I will see the evil that they are doing. Church leaders have been
    good at this. They tell us to have faith and not judge. This way they
    can continue to usurp power, authority and their very existence from
    those who follow them.
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 319.532 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| No, Glen, I do get it. I understand that I am held to a double standard by you
| in particular.  

	Joe, if you are calling your own belief a standard double, then you 
would be correct above. If you believe A, B, & C are God's standards, and you 
hold people to those standards, yet they call you when you don't hold yourself 
to the very standards you say are true, then they are just showing what they see
as you being hypocritical. No one has to believe as you do to show you this. All
that needs to be done is point out to you everytime you do something against the
standards you believe in. This works for anything, not just religion.

| You can pretend to talk about "belief in Him" and "living as He calls us" yet 
| can spit on His Word 

	Ahhh... now do you see what you're doing? You're taking your belief,
and applying it to me. It doesn't work that way Joe. I am not spitting on His
Word, as I do not believe it is His. You can claim it all you like, but the 
reality of the situation is that how can I be doing that if I don't believe it 
to be true to begin with? The answer is I can't. Intent Joe, that's where it all
begins. There can be no intent on doing what you said because I do not have the
same belief as you do. If I did, you'd be right. 

| and stalk your victim-du-jour (whether it be either Andy, or Jack, Or me, or 
| whomever) with the sole intention of tearing him down, or making him look 
| foolish, or getting others angry at him.  

	Uhhhh.... Joe, I have to admit this sounds pretty bad about me.... but
only when you take it out of context like you did. The people you have talked 
about have different views than I. Does it make sense that seeing we tend to 
note in the same topics, that I would respond when I disagree with them? 
Stalking them? Nah. If you wrote in the gun, oj, bombing, etc topics, I would 
hardly ever respond to anything you or the others write. I don't read those 
topics all that often. 

	And as for your claim of my sole intention, I write what I believe. My
views differ than yours, and I point out what I believe to be the flaw in the
stuff presented. I don't need to do what you say above, all that needs to be 
done is ask you questions, and you take care of that for me. It's called 
evasiveness, playing "the game", etc.

| You flaunt a lifestyle that you know is anathema to many others.  

	Funny, I've heard people say this about some versions of Chritianity
that are talked about in here, but it does not stop you from flaunting it.
Hmmmm..... btw, just how do I flaunt it?

| You enter replies that you know are crude and offensive in spite of having 
| been told so.  

	Hit next unseen. I guess if they went against Digital policies, they
would have been deleted by the mods.

| Yes, Glen, you are the model Christian and are in the perfect position to 
| lecture me about being hypocritical!

	This is too funny Joe. I'm not the one who is holding people to a
standard and isn't following it knowingly, like you have said you do. But
again, nice diversion. You are being held to the standard by which you hold
others to, and when that is done, you fail. In turn, you appear hypocritcal.

| The key phrase is "all the time".  

	Joe, lets cut to the chase. Do you ever write something that you know
up front is not a Christian thing to do? If you say no, can I post a whole
bunch of mail messages I have gotten from you? Doing something unintentional is
not the same as knowing what you are doing. No one can fault you for not
realizing something, but they can if you know up front, and do it anyway.

| and especially here where the atmosphere bathes us in combat and tends to 
| draw us away from Christian behavior.  

	If you know this going into it, then you have one of two options to
follow. One is to ask God to prevent you from writing in anger, which I guess a
subset would be to proof read your notes before you enter them to make sure
this does not happen, and two, just don't note if a topic is gonna make you do
something un-Christian. Let's see, to get drunk is wrong according to the
Bible. If you know this up front, and you know that walking into a bar you will
drink till you get drunk, do you go to the bar? 

| It is unfair for you to expect it from me when dealing with you in particular
| considering your own behavior towards me.

	Joe, it is not unfair for me to expect that you hold yourself to the
same standards you hold me, and others to. 

| >knows exactly what you were doing. If you were really not doing what many people
| >have accused you of, ya got nothing to worry about. But if you weren't, you'll
| >be answering to Him, not us.

| So then why do you try to make me answer to you?

	Wow... I saw it coming, but didn't think you would go that route.
Answering to Him is far different than answering questions. My, how you 
are good with taking things out of context. 



Glen

       <<< Note 319.536 by DASHER::RALSTON "Anagram: Lost hat on Mars" >>>

That Tom, he's a lucky guy! And Nancy's a lucky gal! 

...I think...I don't know, though...

...Sometimes I get the impression that Tom isn't real. Like 
those automated systems some soliciters and bill collectors use. Nice 
friendly voice comes at you, but when you try to politely interrupt to say 
that you're in the middle of eating your dinner, so would you please drop 
dead, you realize that it's a preprogrammed message and it doesn't "hear" a 
thing you've said. 

:')

| <<< Note 319.538 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| What a waste.  And a snarfable 100 lines of work at that.
| Too bad I'm not going to read it.


	Of course not, you'd have to face reality then.

    well, actually, i don't feel joe holds anyone to a standard he himself
    does not follow.  i think he does follow his standards, but at least he
    admits he, being human, is incapable of following them to perfection. 
    how this is hypocritical is beyond me, regardless of how my beliefs
    differ from his.

    I don't think anyone expects anyone to follow anything to perfection. I
    was simply shocked at the glib and sarcastic comments referring to
    damnation and was given the explanation "why do you care?", "this is
    soapbox" etc. The reason it struck a nerve with me, is that when it's
    convenient, the fruits of the spirit are thrown on the compost pile.

    Glenn

    RE: Note 319.539 SHRCTR::DAVIS
    
    I'm real, I hear, I listen, I'm just one of those extremists that need
    to be controlled. :-)
    
    Actually, as I think that Joe already knows, I just like a lively
    discussion and often express my views just to cause a ruckus. 
    
    ...Tom

    well, glenn, i missed the comments to which you were referring, i
    was just noting glen's opinion that joe holds others to a different
    standard of behavior than himself.  i don't believe he does that.  i
    think he wishes we all held the same beliefs, i think he believes
    those that oppose his beliefs will face dire consequences, but i think
    he also realizes that try as he may, he doesn't always manage to follow
    his beliefs as well as he'd like, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite
    for having them.  i think his frustration is aimed at those who want to
    claim anyone using the label of "Christian" MUST behave better than
    other human beings.

    This is a valid point.

And, you're lucky to recognize that!

| <<< Note 319.541 by POWDML::CKELLY "Cute Li'l Rascal" >>>

| how this is hypocritical is beyond me, regardless of how my beliefs differ 
| from his.

	'tine, it might have to do with he knows he does this, and continues.
Maybe it's a sickness....

    glen, for someone who always say joe just doesn't get it,  i think in
    this case you may be the one who doesn't get it.

	How so?

| <<< Note 319.549 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| And yet the stalker wants me to be civil to him...

	just be how you want other to be to you. pretty simple

.550 was for tine

    ok joe.  i can respect that.
    
    glen-maybe not so with joe specifically, but i don't necessarily
    think it is wrong for you to point out when someone who proudly
    uses the label "Christian" strays, but I do think it is wrong for
    you to call them a hypocrite for straying.  I think most "christians"
    recognize that they sin at times, but have faith in their beliefs
    and strive for improvement.  It still doesn't make their behavour
    perfect, and they recognize this and try to do better.  Just because
    the trying to do better doesn't always have the desired result does
    not make the person a hypocrite.  Does this help?
    

    Joe and I are diametrically opposed when it comes to bible truth and
    religion in general. But, if Joe is anything, he is NOT a hipocrite.
    
    ...Tom

Hypocrite.  NNTTM.

    sorry :-9
    
    ...Tom

| <<< Note 319.554 by POWDML::CKELLY "Cute Li'l Rascal" >>>



| but I do think it is wrong for you to call them a hypocrite for straying.  

	'tine, a few notes back I mentioned that people can not know they are
straying, and that was something that one could not call them a hypocrite on.
But if someone knowingly (based on the individual's belief) does something 
wrong, and still does it, can't they be seen as hypocritical when they hold
others accountable for doing the same such things? One person in here has 
admitted to knowingly do stuff wrong, but does it anyway. I have noticed that
he then blames those he did this to for causing him to do the crime. And please
remember in my notes I had said people can see him as hypocritical. I also said
in one note that while he can be seen in this light, it does not mean it will
equal the reality of the situation. 

	Please also remember in one of my previous notes I also mentioned that 
this doesn't apply JUST to religion. 

| I think most "christians" recognize that they sin at times, but have faith in 
| their beliefs and strive for improvement.  

	'tine, does it make sense that if someone knows that a certain topic
will make him write stuff that is wrong, that they write the stuff anyway? How
is that improving ones self?

| Just because the trying to do better doesn't always have the desired result 
| does not make the person a hypocrite.  Does this help?

	Please read the above again. 



Glen

PS	Glad you're back!

    glenn,  i really don't want to get into back and forth, back and
    forth here, nor do i really have the time.  i just disagree with
    you on this matter.  one more personal comment on joe however, i
    would say that by his refusing to continue to converse with you
    on this matter, he IS correcting this great flaw of his by not being
    drawn in, yet when he does this, you keep asking him to come back
    for more.  i don't think it is any big secret that you and he will
    not see eye to eye on this matter, ever, nor do i think either of you
    are really interested in doing so (ie; you don't want to be converted
    to joe's beliefs, he doesn't want to be converted to yours), so why
    not just let bygones be bygones?  let someone else carry the torch 
    when questions/disagreement with ideologies arises?  and that goes for both
    of you.  
    
    now then, thanks for the welcome back :-)

    yes?
    
    Glenn

| <<< Note 319.559 by POWDML::CKELLY "Cute Li'l Rascal" >>>

| glenn, i really don't want to get into back and forth, back and forth here, 
| nor do i really have the time.  

	Why are you talkin to the richardson dude? :-)

| now then, thanks for the welcome back :-)

	sniff.... I wuz the one who welcomed you back... not that richardson
dudes.....

    >why not just let bygones be bygones? 
    
    Because it's SOAPBOX and it's FUN.
    
    ...Tom

    
    oops, too early in the morning and i confused my glenn with my glen :-)

	Hey Glenn, we belong to 'tine! Ain't life grand!!! :-)

    stop to'tine your horn!
    
    ;-)

    but isn't that rue'tine? 

    Here's a prophetic extension of the "70 x 7" quote.
    
Interesting background on Ezekiel 4
-----------------------------------
In Ezekiel 4:1-8 there is a strange prophecy which deals with the 430 years of
judgment on Israel.  Of those, 70 we can account for due to the Babylonian
captivity.  Subtracting that, you get 360 years unaccounted for.  The problem
with this, and is typical of prophecy, is that it doesn't fit anything.
However, in Leviticus 26:18,21,24,28, there is a Hebrew phrase that implies
that God will multiply punishment by 7 for every time you disobey.

Some scholars have pointed out that if you multiply 360 years by 7 you get 2520
years.  It should be noted that Biblical/Prophetic years are based on the lunar
calendar (30-day months, 360-day years).  2520 years is approximately the time
from the Babylonian captivity (5th century BC) to the current day where Israel
is back in their land.  But it's sloppy because of the overage.  However, let's
apply the insights of Sir Robert Anderson to this idea.  He's the one
who figured out Daniel's 70-week prophecy and the arrival of the Messiah in
Jerusalem down to the day using the 360-day prophetic years (which is the
Biblical standard).  

Assuming the 2520 years are 360-day years, that turns out to be 907,200 days.
Not too terribly exciting, until you put it together, but it can be somewhat
complicated.  The Julian year is 11 minutes 10.46 seconds longer than the mean
solar year.  Therefore the Julian calendar contains 3 leap years too many every
4 centuries.  An error of 11 days occured as of 1752 AD and was corrected by the
Gregorian reform (Pope Gregory) which declared September 3 to be September 14,
1752, and reckoning century-mark years (i.e., 1800, 1900) as common years.  

If you take 2,483 years times 365-days, you get 906,295.  You have to then
consider leap years and the mistakes in the Julian calendar.  Dividing 2483 by
4 = 621, with 18 too many (3 excess every 4 centuries) leap years, 11 have been
corrected by the Gregorian reform: 621 - (18-11) = 614.  When you add the 614
days to the 906,295 days, you yield 906,909 days.  Now to get the 907,200 days
(360-day years) you have to add 9 months and 21 days.  To make a long story
short, the interesting conjecture around the period of time implied by Ezekiel
4 is 2,483 years, 9 months, and 21 days.  So what you ask?

The next problem is when do we start counting this.  The Babylonian captivity
is spoken of being 70 years, but to be consistent, you have to treat those as
360-day years also.  This would amount to 25,200 days.  Using a 365-day year
(taking leap years into account), you would get 69 years and is only 2 days
short of the 25,200 days (70 years with 360-day years).  Another problem that
is a little bit more complicated: when did captivity actually start?  If you
do your homework carefully, you will find out there are two different types
talked about in the Old Testament.  One is called the 'Servitude of the Nation'
of Israel.  The first siege of Nebuchadnezzar on Israel in Daniel 2 starts the
captivity and it lasts 70 years to the day.  The first siege started the
Servitude of the Nation.

Another period of time talked about is the 'Desolation of Jerusalem.'  Don't
confuse the two periods.  The Desolation of Jerusalem was punishment for not
yielding to the 'Servitude of the Nation' (Jeremiah 27:6,8,11; 38:17-21 as
compared to Jeremiah 29:10, Daniel 9:2).  In Jeremiah you read about the
second siege.  Jeremiah was placed into prison as a traitor for saying not to
rebel against Nebuchadnezzar.  The prophets kept saying not to rebel against
Nebuchadnezzar because he was the judgment from the hand of God.  There is
also the 3rd siege on Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar where he finally had a belly
full and completely destroyed Jerusalem and carried King Zedekiah off to
Babylon (as prophesied).  The point is the desolation of Jerusalem also
occured for 70 years and many think they are the same period, but they're not.
The desolation started with the 3rd siege, but the 2 70-year periods are not
co-terminus.

Time Calculations to the founding of the nation of Israel
---------------------------------------------------------
Back to our time problem:  what to do with the 2,483 years, 9 months and 21
days?  Let's try adding it to the Servitude of the Nation.  It's well
documented that the captivity following the first siege was over in July 23,
537 BC (started in 606 BC).  Now keep in mind that you have to throw a year in
there because there's no year 0.  Now add 2,483 years, 9 months and 21 days to
July 23, 537 BC and you get May 14, 1948 when David Ben Gurion, using Ezekiel
as his authority, announces on international radio the re-establishment and
name of the new Jewish homeland: Israel!  As the Rabbis say, "Coincidence is
not a kosher word!"

Time Calculations to the reclaiming of Jerusalem
------------------------------------------------
What happens when you apply the 2,483 years, 9 months and 21 days to the end of
the 3rd siege or the Desolation of Jerusalem?  This happened in August 16,
518 BC.  Following the same rules as above (add 1 for no year 0), you arrive
at June 7, 1967 when the city of Jerusalem was under the Star of David for the
first time since the time of Christ as a result of the 6-Day War.  What a
coincidence! ;-)

The 69-70 Week Gap
------------------
Nebuchadnezzar began the period known as the "Times of the Gentiles" (Luke
21:24, Jeremiah 25:9, Daniel 2:21).  No king from the line of David has ruled
over Israel since the Babylonian captivity.  The 70th week will began when the
"Fullness of the Gentiles" has come in (Romans 11:25).

Inspiring!
----------
The most important discovery of my life was the insight that the Bible is a
highly *integrated message system.*  We possess 66 books, penned by 40 authors
over thousands of years, yet the more we investigate, the more we discover
that they are a unified whole.  Every word, every detail, every number, every
place and name, every subtlety of the text: the elemental structures within
the text itself, even the implied punctuation are clearly the result of
intricate and skillful supernatural 'engineering.'  The more we look, the more
we realize that there is still much more hidden and thus reserved for the
diligent inquirer.  *ALL* Scripture is given by inspiration and is profitable
for doctrine, for reproof, and correction.  We haven't begun to discover the
detail, the power, and the majesty of God's handiwork.  Would you expect
anything less in the Word of God Himself?

The lunar year is 354 days.

    That's the synodic year.  The sidereal year is even less.  They roughly
    followed the synodic year, but some civilizations would add a day every
    other month to "keep up."

    .567
    
    Isn't it simply amazing how by playing around with enough numbers in a
    sufficiently arcane way you can prove whatever you set out to prove?
    
    In other words...
    
          ####   #  ###########            ##        ###########       
      ####    ####    ####     ###         ###         ####     ###    
     ###        ##    ####      ###       #####        ####      ###   
    ####         #    ####      ###       # ###        ####      ###   
    ####              ####     ###       #   ###       ####     ###    
    ####              #########          #   ###       #########       
    ####              ####   ###        #########      ####            
    ####              ####    ###       #    ####      ####            
     ###        ##    ####    ####     #      ####     ####            
      ###     ##      ####    ####     #      ####     ####            
         #####      ########   ##### #####   ####### ########          

    This file is FREEWARE.  Use and distribute it far and wide.  Design
    Copyright (c) 1993 by Northern Spy Software.
    

    <--- That is exactly how I feel about it. They find a conclusion first
    and then find some sort of way through numerology to prove that it's
    true. Have you heard the one about the 66 books of the Bible? It's a
    real treat.

 ZZZ    They find a conclusion first
    
    Deirdra:
    
    Who is "they"?

    Love the articulate rebuttals.

    Someone goes to the trouble of posting a fairly detailed
    explanation of prophetic timing, and the rebuttled are "you can use
    numbers to prove anything" (basically).  How about posting some facts
    that refute his assertion, rather than blindly dismissing something
    because you don't believe it.
    
    Maybe you CAN prove anything from numerology, if you start with a
    date and work your way back.  Maybe Mike is wrong.  But at least show
    where you feel the logic or facts are off.
    
    
    
    -steve

    btw - I believe there may be a typo on the year of the Gregorian
    Reform.

I didn't read the whole thing, but if the calculations are based on a 360
day lunar year, I've already rebutted it.

    .574
    
    You want a rebuttal?  How about a dictionary definition:
        
        numeralogy  n.  The arcane practice by which an adept practitioner
        can, by discovering the appropriate collusion of digits, prove
        whatever is desired.  In other words, hokum.
    
            The sum of the numerical positions of the letters in "Hitler"
            is 72, or 8x8+8 (a square and a remainder).  Hitler died in
            his 57th year, 57 being 7x7+8 (also a square, with the same
            remainder).  By forming these digits into numbers and adding
            them (888+778), and then subtracting the failed 1,000-year
            Reich, we arrive at 666, the Number of the Beast.  Hence,
            Hitler is conclusively proven to have been the Devil.
    
    					- computation by the author
    
    From the Curmudgeon's Dictionary, Revised Edition, page 33.

Numeralogy is
                        1     000        000           %
                       11    0   0      0   0    %    %
                        1   0     0    0     0  % %  %
                        1   0     0    0     0   %  %
                        1   0     0    0     0     %  %
                        1   0     0    0     0    %  % %
                        1    0   0      0   0    %    %
                      11111   000        000    %

                       U     U    SSS    DDDD       A   
                       U     U   S   S   D   D     A A  
                       U     U   S   S   D    D   A   A 
                       U     U    S      D    D   AAAAA 
                       U     U      S    D    D   A   A 
                       U     U   S   S   D    D   A   A 
                        U   U    S   S   D   D    A   A 
                         UUU      SSS    DDDD     A   A 
Garbage.

    On the other hand, how about a real rebuttal.  Conversion from the
    Julian to the Gregorian Calendar was done in most of Europe on October
    4/15, 1582, not September 3/14, 1752.  Only a small minority of
    European countries delayed until 1752, Great Britain being one of them.
    This being recorded fact, it is only a matter of snake-oil calendrical
    convenience that the 1752 date happens to make the numbers work out. 
    The computation is so much hogwash.
    
    And of course, Gerald's rebuttal is more significant.

    Dick, you're welcome for me pointing that typo out to you.
    
    Gerald, the prophetic books make it clear that a 360-day year was used in
    ancient civilizations.  Even the festival of Rosh Chodesh (The New
    Moon) was based on the lunar calendar as they knew it.
    
    Mike

But if every month is 30 days, the New Moon isn't.

    Exactly why they had to add a day every other month.  In Rosh Chodesh,
    the "new moon" is not a moon at all.  For 2 days, the night sky is
    black and moonless; usually on the 3rd night the moon appears at dusk as 
    a dark disc in the western sky.  It has just the slightest haze around it.  
    This is when it begins to reflect the light of the sun.

So how do you end up with 360 day years?

Up until 1923, the Julian calendar was still in use in some countries.

The Gregorian calendar was first adopted by Spain and her colonies (including
Florida) the day following Oct 4th, 1582, which was reckoned as Oct 15th.
Gradually, other nations adopted the Gregorian calendar: the Catholic German
states in 1583; the Protestant German states in 1699; England and her colonies
in September 1752; Sweden in 1753; Alaska upon purchase in 1867; Japan in 1873;
China in 1912; the Soviet Union in 1918; and Greece in 1923.  In Switzerland,
both calendars were in use from 1583 until the country was fully converted
in 1812.

/john

    Okay Dick, that's better.  I just hate to see "is not" kind of rebuttles. 
    8^)
    
    
    -steve 

    .582
    
    > Dick, you're welcome for me pointing that typo out to you.
    
    A 170-year typo also involving a different month and day of the month? 
    Hardly a typo, Mike.  It's weaselage, and you ought to be willing to
    admit it.

    Dick, in addition to what John just entered about the reform, you're
    missing the obvious.  The date of the Gregorian Reform isn't really 
    important in this issue.  The accountability of the extra 11 days is
    what's important.
    
    Re: origin of 360-day years
    
    Daniel, who lived in Babylon - the science hotbed of the era, often
    referred to years as a "time."  The original Hebrew denotes a "time" as
    a year.  The following verse describes 3.5 years.
    
Daniel 7:25
And he shall speak great words against the most High, and shall wear out the
saints of the most High, and think to change times and laws: and they shall be
given into his hand until a time and times and the dividing of time.
    
    In parallel prophetic passages, the same timeframe is described as
    1,260 days.  Simple math tells you that prophetic years are 360-day
    years.

Revelation 12:6
And the woman fled into the wilderness, where she hath a place prepared of God,
that they should feed her there a thousand two hundred and threescore days.

    Finally, if you refer to Genesis 7-8 you'll see that the flood lasted 5
    months or 150 days.
    
    Mike

    .589
    
    Mike, what you are missing is that the date of the calendar reform is
    CRITICAL because the number of leap years is wrong if you use the wrong
    reform date.
    
    The Gregorian calendar declares that 1700 was not a leap year while the
    Julian calendar declares that it was.  This discrepancy means that
    there could be one fewer leap year to be accounted for, and thus
    Ben-Gurion's speech may have been deliverd a day late.   The simple
    fact that there exists such an ambiguity renders the entire calculation
    null and void for prophetic purposes because this kind of prophecy
    relies on absolute provable accuracy.  It's like a house of cards. 
    Pull out one piece and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

    All this leaping gave me visions of Tiny Tim tiptoing through the
    tulips!

    A hoax is a hoax regardless of the calculations.
    
    ...Tom

    you summmed that up well, tom

    According to what John entered in .586, the majority of the known world
    didn't ratify the reform until 1752.  Which is more important, a lone
    country's initial adoption of the proposal, or a final majority
    ratification?
    
    btw - if you want to be extremely technical, the Jews had a luni-solar
    calendar based on the Babylonian model, intercalating a second Adar
    (their last month) and eventually standardizing 7 intercalations in 19
    years, though the Mishnaic rules leave the final decision in the hands
    of the Sanhedrin.  According to the tractate "Rosh hashshanah," great
    attention was paid to the observation of the new moon; but it was laid
    down that there could not be more than 7 or fewer than 5, 30-day months
    in a year.
    
    Mike

Dick,

When the calendar was changed doesn't matter.  Those countries which
changed earlier removed less days than those countries which changed
later.  The total number of days removed remains the same, all at once
or at the change and then at the years which were not leap years; if
this were not the case England and Spain would _still_ be on different
calendars.

There may be other problems with this calculation, but Old-Style vs.
New-Style isn't one of them.

/john

    
    re: .592
    
    A hoax is hoax... of course of course... and no one can talk to a hoax
    of course, that is of course, unless that hoax is the famous Mr. Tom!!

    Thanks for the clarification, John.

	Andy, that was pretty funny! :-)

    I can't resist....

    Bible SNARF!

    >unless that hoax is the famous Mr. Tom!
    
    And I'm a hoax because of?
    
    
    fraud
    deceit
    deception
    falsification
    fabrication
    pranks
    lies
    cruel jokes
    ruse
    
    Oh sorry, I seem to be describing Christianity.
    
    ...Tom

    <--- You and Nancy have some major hurdles to overcome.

    So, who is egging on who?

    
    RE: .601
    
    I suggest a crash course in who Mr. Foghorn Leghorn is....
    

    No, I think it would properly sung to the tune of the theme for Mr. Ed.  

    Can anybody tell me why the Bible wasn't laid out chronologically?  
    
    We for example is the book of Esther placed before Amos or Hosea?  The
    time difference is a good 85 years right??
    
    -Jack

The general layout is "The Law", "The Writings", and "The Prophets".

/john

But God didn't decide on the order of the books of the Bible.

> The general layout is "The Law", "The Writings", and "The Prophets".

Not in the Jewish Bible.  Prophets before Writings.

    Tom - I find your note rather insulting...but then again that was your
    intent wasn't it?  
    
    Do you get some jollies out of writing that stuff... is it like the
    guy who says GD for the first time and feels almighty themselves when 
    they realize that they didn't get zapped by lightening from God?
    
    Christianity is none of the adjectives you have listed... not one. 
    Though there are people who have used Christ for such behavior.
    
    I am reminded that McVeigh used gasoline and manure to make his bomb. 
    Does that mean we should stop all cars and kill all cows/horses as a
    result?
    
    Your intelligence lacks intuition.
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

| <<< Note 319.614 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| Do you get some jollies out of writing that stuff... is it like the
| guy who says GD for the first time and feels almighty themselves when
| they realize that they didn't get zapped by lightening from God?

	Gee, Haag said that over and over and over and over.... :-)  That man
was never struck by lightning! 


Glen

    
    >I am reminded that McVeigh used gasoline and manure to make his bomb. 
    >Does that mean we should stop all cars and kill all cows/horses as a
    >result?
    
    
    	If it saves just one life ...
    

    >    Can anybody tell me why the Bible wasn't laid out chronologically?  
    
    I wish I knew.  I think I'd prefer it, except I'd still want Genesis
    first and not Job.
    
    Mike

RE: Note 319.614
    
    >Tom - I find your note rather insulting...but then again that was your
    >intent wasn't it?
    
    Nancy dear, never would I knowingly insult you. My apologies :(  
    
    >Do you get some jollies out of writing that stuff
    
    Jollies? No, I just state what I think. What I think is that religion
    is a deception.
    
    >Christianity is none of the adjectives you have listed... 
    
    I disagree and apply these adjectives to all religion.
    
    >I am reminded that McVeigh used gasoline and manure to make his bomb. 
    >Does that mean we should stop all cars and kill all cows/horses as a
    >result?
    
    My point isn't to stop anything. My point is to state my opinion in
    SOAPBOX.
    
    >Your intelligence lacks intuition.
    
    How so??
    
    
    ...Tom

    .619
    
    Well, if you apply these terms to Christianity, then you are applying
    them to me personally.
    
    deep sigh 

    >Well, if you apply these terms to Christianity, then you are applying
    >them to me personally.
    
    I disagree. You can take them personally if you wish. But, I do not
    present them this way. Many well meaning, good, honest people are taken
    in by scam artists every day. That doesn't say anything bad about
    them, only about the scam itself. My personal belief is that religion is 
    the result of a swindle, made up by men to usurp power, authority and
    economic gain. They use good buzz words in order to pull in as many
    people as possible, good people whom they can deceive with these good
    sounding words and phrases. The destructive effects of religion and god
    concept hoaxes can be vanquished through rational thinking.
    
    ...Tom

    Amazing.

    thank you :)
    
    ...Tom

    Funny, but I resent being called gullible...
    
    I wonder why?

| <<< Note 319.620 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Well, if you apply these terms to Christianity, then you are applying
| them to me personally.

	Nancy, you apply things to those who you perceive aren't Christians,
but I see no sigh's from you.

    low and behold.  glen has a point here.
    
    how is tom's description of his views on religion any different
    than that of some christians pointing out the sinful behaviour
    of others not being personal, but just?  i don't see the difference
      ne 

(What an excellent point for me to pick this string up again on Monday!)
(Thanks, 'tine!)

    you're welcome jack!  i would wish you a safe trip, but jack, you are
    such a lucky guy that it is a forgone conclusion :-)))))))  But
    aren't you glad Nancy and Tom have made up?  It wouldn't do to be
    worried about that during your vacation, no, it wouldn't do at all!

    >aren't you glad Nancy and Tom have made up
    
    Actually, I think that Nancy is still mad at me. :(
    
    ...Tom

    flowers, dahling, works for me everytime :-)))))

    Oh dear, Christine, how many times _did_ you send flowers to Nancy?
    
    This troubles me.

    
    Nancy, if you go with Purina, gullibility is presumed...  bb
    

	bb... too funny!

    The difference is quite plain...
    
    1.  The definitions used to describe sin is from God's word, the
    speaker didn't make them up.
    
    2.  The adjectives from Tom are his "judgements" against Christianity. 
    
    He could say I don't agree with Christianity I feel it is a fable or
    wotnot, but his terminology is strong and bitter.
    
    
    

    Nancy-
    
    I think you missed my point.  Yes, Tom used strong language to 
    describe Christianity.  You indicated you took it personally.
    He then further explained his own beliefs/views on religion
    and indicated that it is the 'organization' of such that he
    finds to be x,y,z, but concedes that there are probably many
    good-hearted people who do follow such beliefs.
    
    I see what you and others consider God's word used to 'enlighten'
    sinners.  I've seen the 'sinners' protest and the reply from
    some Christians to the effect of, "it isn't personal, it is the
    behaviour we are judging/commenting upon".
    
    Both situations have caused people to feel personally insulted.
    Both situations weren't aimed at the person, but driven by the
    owner of the comments beliefs about either religion or sin.
    
    I'm not trying to be nasty, but maybe you now know how some of those
    who feel you (generic) have insulted them personally and not their
    beliefs or behaviour have been feeling.
    
    Oh, and I still don't see the difference, except for one of
    perspective.  

    Now now, Nancy, let's not take things personally.  Tom has his view,
    and from a limited perspective, he has certain valid points.  The
    problem is, he goes too far in his conclusions.
    
    MANY men (and women, don't want to seem sexist  8^) ) have used
    Christianity and other religions for personal gain.  They will be held
    accountable by God, of course (as will those who blindly follow
    unBiblical teachings, to a lesser extent), but that does little to
    solve the problem in the here and now.  Since such things are done in
    the name of religion (Christianity being abused the worst, IMO, thus
    this response is slanted towards Christianity more than other religions), 
    those who do not understand what true Christianity is about will inevitably
    get a very bad impression of our faith, seeing only the perversions
    that hide under the guise of Christiandom.
    
    The problem with Tom's broad brush of religion, is that it fails to see
    the true intent behind them- to commune with God.  Though this may seem
    like foolishness to one who chooses not to believe in the Almighty, it
    is, in fact, a necessity for an orderly society.  The belief in the
    accountability to God was chief amoung our FF, deemed necessary by many
    for curbing our natural desires.  Some states thought that such a 
    prerequisite for holding office was in the best interest of the people.
    
    The very chaos that perpetuates bloated government and rampid social
    decline are a direct result of turning away from the morality that is
    common amoung most mainstream religions.  True, you do not have to be
    religious to act morally, but without a higher power that defines
    morality, there is no behavior, that over time, cannot be rationalized
    as normal and lawful.  Without a guide, we are stuck with human
    morality, which is influenced too much by our sin nature to be of much
    use.
    
    A belief in a being greater than ourselves is a nearly universal theme
    amoung all peoples of the earth.  Though the doctrines may vary, all
    societies have such beliefs. [for what it's worth, the Bible mentions
    that God placed within each of us this triat, so that we would seek
    him; it also states that He is revealed to *every* person, and that His
    existence is made obvious by His designs- though some refuse this
    reality]
    
    To ignore this universal truth, is to ignore a part of our nature that
    science and human logic can never explain- our spiritual nature.  To
    ignore our spiritual nature is a very damaging thing in more ways than
    any of us could hope to list- the most obvious being spiritual death
    (according to the Bible).  
    
    I find that it is no coincidence that every society has
    some form of worship to a higher being.  To ignore this, rationalizing
    away as a fear of death. or whatever psychobabble that is currently en
    vogue, conflicts with reality.
    
    Obviously, not all my comments above are aimed at Nancy.  I felt 
    compelled to ellucidate a bit on my comments, for our mixed Soapbox
    audience.  8^)
    
    
    -steve    

                      <<< Note 319.637 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>

Somebody pinch me! I must be dreaming. 'Cause I like most everything Steve 
said. :')

    Me too. However, I will also say that I completely disagree
    with Steve on the question as to why most people seek religion,
    namely, to commune with God.

    I think:

    1. They were sufficiently brainwashed as children.

    2. They need to explain the unexplainable.

    3. They need to believe they have a purpose, other than to
       "just be".

    I think wanting to commune with God is probably far down,
    if not downright off, most people's list.

    -b

>                      <<< Note 319.637 by CSOA1::LEECH >>>
    
>>    I find that it is no coincidence that every society has
>>    some form of worship to a higher being.

	Since man is cognizant of his own mortality, irrespective of
	the society he happens to be a member of, there's no need to
	speak of "coincidence".

>>    To ignore this, rationalizing
>>    away as a fear of death. or whatever psychobabble that is currently en
>>    vogue, conflicts with reality.

	What "reality" is that, and how does holding to a theory that
	man has a great deal of trouble coping with the idea of mortality
	and hence manufactures things such as an afterlife, reincarnation,
	etc. conflict with it?

| <<< Note 319.635 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| The difference is quite plain...

	Not really.

| 1.  The definitions used to describe sin is from God's word, the
| speaker didn't make them up.

	According to your belief Nancy.

| 2.  The adjectives from Tom are his "judgements" against Christianity.

	According to his belief Nancy.


	They are the same, and BOTH can be strong and bitter.

    Nice job, Steve!
    
    Brian, the billions of believers in God in Christianity, Judaism,
    Islam, and Catholicism prove that a majority does believe in God.
    
    Mike

    >but without a higher power that defines morality, there is no behavior, 
    >that over time, cannot be rationalized as normal and lawful.
    
    I'll have to take exception to this one. The concept that there is a 
    need for a higher power to define morality is subjective and
    irrational. Doing this subjugates the human mind to emotional fantasy.
    Universal morals are objective. They are not based on the opinions of 
    anyone. Universal morals are not created or determined by anyone. No
    one can deem what is moral and what is not. The same moral standards
    exist for each and every human being throughout all locations, cultures
    and ages. The standards are independent of anyone's opinions or
    proclamations. Only two black-and-white, objective moral standards
    exist. They are:
    
    1.	Any chosen action that purposely benefits the human organism or
    	society is morally good and right.
    
    2.	Any chosen action that purposely harms the human organism or
        society is morally bad and wrong.
    
    Objective morals are based on reality, reason, and logic. Subjective
    morals, such as those created by religious beliefs and their need for a
    higher authority, are based on unreal, unprovable, arbitrary feelings
    or wishes.
    
    IMHO of course
    
    ...Tom

>    Brian, the billions of believers in God in Christianity, Judaism,
>    Islam, and Catholicism prove that a majority does believe in God.

Does this strike anybody else as odd?

RE: 319.644 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085"

> Brian, the billions of believers in God in Christianity, Judaism,
> Islam, and Catholicism prove that a majority does believe in God.

Sounds like a claim that Catholics are not Christians.


Phil

    
    	Or maybe that "God" should be change to "a god"?