Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Dave,
    
    I concur.  To me, true Eros is an expression of Agape.  
    When it is not, it is not eros.  If we believe the human
    body is not a temple in which God dwells, it stands to reason
    that eros will be considered nothing more than a sin. 
    
    How do we know Jesus did not experienced/expressed eros?
    I think one of the reasons _Last Temptation_ was intriguing
    was that it presented that idea for consideration.
    
    Karen 

re Note 21.1 by CARTUN::BERGGREN:

>     How do we know Jesus did not experienced/expressed eros?

        Would this conflict with an androgynous view of Christ?

        Bob

    Hi Bob -1,
    
    My perception of the androgynous view of Christ is that it
    is metaphorical.  I believe it describes more of Jesus' 
    *spiritual essence* than his physical gender.  
    
    I personally believe Jesus was incarnated as a male, but 
    had a *perfect* balance of his masculine and feminine aspects, 
    his yin/yang, or his anima/animus, depending on whatever 
    names you want to call it.
    
    So no, I don't think that if Jesus expressed eros that it would
    conflict in any way with an androgynous view of Christ, because
    one is physically-oriented, while the other spiritually-oriented.
    
    Karen

Well,
	for someone who wasn't planning on entering into many discussions here,
I certainly know how to put my foot in it ! :) :)

	Yes, I will concede the point that eros can be an expression of agap�,
and in that context it is good.  In fact, the correct context for it (eros)
*must* be within the confines of marriage.  Remember, I am from a typically
Conservative Judeo-Christian background, so maybe this is colouring my thinking.
However, I do not read *any-where* in the New Testament that Jesus was married.
Therefore, for Him to partake in eros relationships with *any* of His followers
would be sin.  Yes, I *know* that there are some who suggest that the wedding
feast in Cana (His first miracle - Water to Wine) was His own wedding, but there
is no proof of this.  It is mere speculation.  And not very fruitful speculation
at that.
	Why would His partaking of eros with His followers be sin ?  Well, He
Himself stated "Any man looking at a woman with lust in his heart, has already
committed adultery with her" (memory version) - this is sexual sin.  It is a 
misuse of eros.  It is outside the confines of the God Blessed marriage setting.
How can Someone who had this sort of (eros) relationship (i.e. sin) *ever* hope
to Die the Meaningful Sacrificial Death, so that *all* Mankind has the 
opportunity to be saved from Eternal Death ?  He would be flat out dying for
himself !!  Let alone the rest of us !
	As for the "intermediate language" - eh ?  To me this appears to be a
non sequiter.  It does, however, provide us with some interesting handles for 
the different types of love available.  It is a convenient short hand to be 
able to write "eros" when I mean  "sexually based love", and "agap�" when I am
referring to "God's Love, His essence", "philios" for "Brotherly love", and
"storg�" for "love of objects"  (CS Lewis - the Four Loves).  there are most
likely others, and these all help us differentiate conveniently between what we
know experientially about the different forms that what we call "love" can take.
	I'm not too sure if where I ended was where I wanted to go, but I'll 
leave it there for the moment.
	In short, I don't believe that Jesus was married (onus of proof is on
*you*); as a result, any sexual relations with his followers would have been
=outside= the confines of the marriage bed, and thus *sin*.  If Jesus sinned, 
then His Death on the Cross means nothing, because He wasn't "Without Spot or
Blemish" (as required for the Sacrifice of Atonement), and so we (Christians) 
are all deluded fools.  How come someone didn't notice this in the last (nearly)
2 millenia ?
	May Jesus reveal Himself to you all,
					     hazza :*]

    	Dare I ask what you put your foot in ?? ;')
    
    	Let's try giving the guy the benefit of the doubt. We seem to have
    decided that "eros" is acceptable - or perhaps even desireable - within
    the married state. We also have no sure evidence that either Christ or
    M. was married at the time of his death. We know that Christ was
    something of a traditionalist in many ways, that he subjected himself
    to the rule of law and "the state". It is unreasonable to expect that
    such a person, a person who is not known to have a powerful sexual
    drive, to go flout secular and religious law as well as his own
    teaching and the "agape" he obviously felt for M., would even
    contemplate a roll in the hay with anyone other than his wife. Is it a
    sin to contemplate marrital bliss ?
    	My comment about an intermediate language is hardly a non-sequiter.
    I do not speak either Aramaic or Greek. Christ was not fluent in Greek
    and English did not exist at the time. It is not appropriate to quote
    Christ in either language and make grandios claims for your accuracy,
    you are only quoting a translator. Worse, many of the available
    translations of Christ's words are from some language other than
    Aramaic - his language. Even worse, none of his words were written in
    his hand but are what a court of law would label as "hearsay", hearsay
    not set to paper for many decades. This does not invalidate the
    teachings, not for me. Just remember that if M. asked Christ if he
    "agaped" her or if he "erosed" her he would have not idea what she was
    babbling about.

Re:  .5

Dave,

For your information and understanding,

Those who hold to the Scripture as God-breathed and Jesus as God accept
all of the Scripture as written by God (i.e. Jesus) and therefore accept
the words in them as *fully* acceptable and, in fact, the best possible
for the discussion at hand.

Others, starting at a different point (such as yourself, evidently), do
not.

At any rate, that is why the Greek words immediately came into this
discussion because 1) English does not have the appropriate words and
2) The Bible (Greek New Testament) uses the different words for love 
extensively.

Collis

re Note 21.6 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Those who hold to the Scripture as God-breathed and Jesus as God accept
> all of the Scripture as written by God (i.e. Jesus) and therefore accept
> the words in them as *fully* acceptable and, in fact, the best possible
> for the discussion at hand.

        Collis,

        This is not universally true!

        I hold Scripture as God-breathed, and I hold Jesus as God. 
        Nevertheless, I hold that Scripture is written by human
        beings under the influence, but not under the dictation, of
        God (Jesus).  I feel that it is erroneous doctrine to say that
        "Scripture is written by God".

        Bob

    re:  .5 note about what language Jesus understood etc.
    
    I'm partial to the tradition (not documented in scripture) that Jesus
    travelled widely before his ministry.  For example, there's a strong
    tradition that Joseph of Aramithea (can't remember the transliteration)
    and Jesus visited the Druids at what is now Glastonbury. 
    
    This isn't an article of my faith, but it fits with a reluctance I have
    about making broad statements as to what Jesus could not �have known. 
    I'd be more inclined to think that Jesus's relative understanding of
    "LOVE" vs ours (or the Greeks) could be better compared with our
    understanding of winter precipitation, versus that of the Inuit, who
    are said to have dozens of words for what we call "SNOW".  
    
    �DR

re: a couple back,
	as was covered in "the other conference" in it's previous version (V4),
in fact I think it was a note that Karen B. started with a transliteration/
translation of The Lord's Prayer in Aramaic.  Anyway, somewhere along that 
particular chain, several of "us" discussed the languages floating around the
Palistinian area during the first century CE.  Now, there didn't appear to be
a lot of presented eveidence/discussion against the following, being...

	During this time, many people (including Jesus and his disciples) were
most likely tri-lingual.  The three languages being: the country's local 
tongue (in this case Aramaic or some similar Semitic language); the language
of the Roman conquerer's, Latin (why should *they* learn the language of the 
peoples they subjugated ?); and Greek.  Greek, because the "world wide" empire
before the Roman one was the Hellenistic (Greek) Empire, established by
Alexander the Great.  Now, sure, that empire crumbled within a few generations 
of his death, but it *did* provide a common language throughout the region for
commercial exchange.

	So, if Mary of Magdala said to Jesus that she "eros"ed Him, I would be
confident that He *would* know what she meant.

	Yes, I know we've been over this before.  But we (westerners `we') tend
to assume that the way *we* do things is the only way to do it (rat-hole alert)
and the people of the United States of America are often the *most* guilty of
this (end rat-hole alert).  If you haven't experienced other cultures, then
don't be too precipitious in jumping up and down about that last statement.

	Just because *we* (westerners) aren't (normally) multi-lingual, what 
makes us think that it is/has/will always (be/en) so ?  In fact, much of Japan
and Europe is at least bi-lingual.  Their `local' language, and the "commercial"
language of English - how often have you giggled at a poorly translated 
SE Asian instruction manual for a radio or tv ?

	So, back to 1st century CE Palistine.  Aramaic to speak at home and in 
the synogogue, Greek to speak in the (larger) market places, and Latin to know
how high to jump when one of the opressors shouted "jump !".  So, why not a 
mixture of Greek Latin and Aramaic during Jesus' discourses ?  And why *not*
Greek as a convenient =original= language for the setting down of `hard-copy'
of Jesus' sayings and actions ?

	As for "hearsay" evidence.  Again, we are bringing in western cultural
ideas of what is permissable (as legal evidence) into a predominantly (middle)
Eastern situation.  For example, Luke, the Physician, and companion of Paul. He
also wrote the Gospel bearing his name, and its' sequel Acts  (yes, they were
into sequels even back then :).  Luke was a Greek, and as such would not have
been one of the disciples of Christ during His Ministry on the earth, and yet 
he undertakes to "carefully" investigate "everything from the beginning", and 
it seemed like a good idea for him "to write an orderly account" (Lk 1:3 - NIV).
He used "eyewitnesses, and servants of the word" (Lk 1:2 - NIV) in his task to
"draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us" (Lk 1:1 - 
NIV).  He investigated.  He talked to people.  He researched.  And then he took
all this `hearsay' evidence, and wrote the gospel.  Probably in Greek.  In 
fact, it's almost certainly in Greek.  He was a bit of a show-off.  He shows
quite a large vocabulary, which makes Luke and Acts probably the 2 hardest
books to study in the Greek, *because* of all the new words being introduced
all the time !

	So, love in Greek ? Yes, I'm sure that Jesus understood the language.
And so did his followers.  BTW, the Greek they spoke was not a real lot like the
Classical Greek of Plato and Homer, and such.  It probably bore as much 
resembelance to that as Chaucer's English does to modern day English.  The same
language, but a lot of the meanings had changed.  For that matter, not too many
modern Greeks can read a Koine Greek New Testament, as there is nearly 2000 
years change in the language.

	Love ya's,
		  hazza :*]

Re:  .7

Yes, that is confusing.

My reasoning goes like this.  Perhaps you'd like to comment on where it
is flawed (in your opinion)?

Scripture is God-breathed, i.e. God breathed the Scripture. (II Tim 3:16)
God only tells truth, never lies (Numbers 23:19)
So, when the Scripture was written (assume for the sake of discussion
  that this means the 66 books of the Bible), what was written was
  breathed out by God through man and is true.  (II Tim 3:16 is sometimes
  poorly translated as "inspired by God" instead of "God-breathed"  These
  are actually opposite meanings.  I means that it comes out of (God-breathed),
  the other means that something external comes in (inspired by God).


A second thought, Bob.  How do you handle those Scriptures which were written
by men and then later attributed to God?  What about those Scriptures that
are quotes from God and then are attributed to the writer?  There are
numerous quotes in the Bible that *assume* the "writer" was God.  Quotes
provided upon request (i.e. will take some research).

Collis

Re:  .9  languages

The non-Hebrew Old Testament commonly used was the Septuagint (written in
Greek).  This is one of the reasons that the New Testament often quotes
the Septuagint directly, even when the orignal translation may not have
been the best (sometimes the authors did change the translation, but often
they did not).

Collis

re Note 21.10 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> My reasoning goes like this.  Perhaps you'd like to comment on where it
> is flawed (in your opinion)?
> 
> Scripture is God-breathed, i.e. God breathed the Scripture. (II Tim 3:16)
> God only tells truth, never lies (Numbers 23:19)
> So, when the Scripture was written (assume for the sake of discussion
>   that this means the 66 books of the Bible), what was written was
>   breathed out by God through man and is true.  (II Tim 3:16 is sometimes
>   poorly translated as "inspired by God" instead of "God-breathed"  These
>   are actually opposite meanings.  I means that it comes out of (God-breathed),
>   the other means that something external comes in (inspired by God).

        The flaw is "what was written was breathed out by God through
        man and is true."  What does it mean to be "God-breathed?" 
        Do you know of any other example in the Bible of God
        breathing into something?  The example that comes immediately
        to mind is Adam, in Genesis.  "God breathing" gives life, but
        it does not (unfortunately for Adam) ensure the infallibility
        or inerrancy of that into which "God-breathed".

        Does this mean that "God breathing" is meaningless?  Of
        course not;  Adam after the "God breathing" was quite
        different from Adam before!  Inerrancy wasn't part of the
        package, however.


> A second thought, Bob.  How do you handle those Scriptures which were written
> by men and then later attributed to God?  What about those Scriptures that
> are quotes from God and then are attributed to the writer?  There are
> numerous quotes in the Bible that *assume* the "writer" was God.  Quotes
> provided upon request (i.e. will take some research).

        I take them as God's word, but I wouldn't make any important
        decision that depended entirely upon textual accuracy of a
        single passage.  (For one thing, I don't read any of the
        original languages, so every reading I make is guided by a
        human intermediary to some degree.)

        Bob

    Regarding the Bible as "God-breathed" and also inerrant:
    
    I believe the Bible is God-breathed.  
    
    However, when you consider the process by which it was written, 
    you realize it is (to use a contemporary term), a "channeled" work.
    
    And as today, as throughout all time, "channelers" are always subject 
    to some degree of error. 
    
    Thanks Bob for .12.  Good thoughts,
    
    Karen

    Pet peave time...
    
    Sorry, Karen, but the Bible is not "a `channeled' work". To compare it
    to the philosophical ear-tickling dribble offered in magazines like
    "spirit speaks" is doing the Word of God a great dis-service.
    
      Some major differences between scripture and "channeled" works
    
    * Unlike the person who channels some "spirit", "body-less entity",
      "energy-form", "extra-terrestrial", "extra-demensional being" or
      whatever euphamism is used, the people God used to record His words
      never "stepped out of the picture", allowing whatever "entity" to
      take over their bodies/minds whatever. They were fully aware of what
      was transpiring and, indeed, interacted with God on many occasions. 
    
    * All of scripture is in agreement with all of the rest of scripture.
      Channels and their "entities" are often in direct disagreement with
      each other. 
    
    * Scripture is cut and dry about things (sin is treated as sin, man
      needs to be redeemed, Jesus died to redeem man). Channeled messages
      are purposely full of ambiguous terms, leaving an *incredible* amount of 
      room for interpretation, molded to suit *any* individual's path
      (wherever it may lead them).
    
    * Scripture remains consistent throughout pointing to the only way to
      God, Jesus. Channeled mesaages lead one to believe that there are an
      infinite number of paths to God, ALL of them good paths.
    
    There's more but you get the hint. Please realize that any reference to
    "Scripture" above refers solely to the Bible. It's the only Scripture I
    recognize.
    
    Gil

    Gil,
    
    Pretty harsh words.  Also very broadbased to lump all material into
    one category 'dribble'.  I believe, because God is a living God that
    there is God-breathed literature available today, A Course in Miracles
    comes to mind.
    
    Peace,
    
    Ro
    

    I understand your pet peeve Gil, and actually agree with the context
    of parts of it!  You are misunderstanding what I said however.
    
    I was not refering to anything but the *process of communication*, 
    not the content, nor the result, nor leveling a judgement about
    God's choice of who is or is not to "channel" Her work.
    
    Sorry Gil, I am steadfast on this, or is the word "unflinching"?.  
    Like it or not, if you believe, as you claim, that the Bible is 
    indeed God-breathed, channelling is the process by which God 
    accomplished its writing.
    
    Karen

The words to the prayer of St. Francis come to mind:
(Interesting use of the term "channel", eh?)

  Make me a channel of your peace.
  Where there is hatred, let me bring your love
  Where there is injury, your pardon, Lord
  Where there is doubt, true faith in you.

  Make me a channel of your peace.
  Where there is despair in life, let me bring hope
  Where there is darkness, only light
  Where there is sadness, joy.

  O Master, grant that I may never seek
  So much to be consoled as to console
  To be understood as to understand
  to be loved as to love, with all my soul.

  Make me a channel of your peace.
  It is in pardoning that we are pardoned
  In giving that we receive
  In dying that we become truly alive. Amen

I think the word that Gil would use is "revelation" rather than
"channeling".  God revealed His truth to the Biblical authors and
the Holy Spirit kept them truthful in their writing (reference in John 15
and 16, I believe).

Collis

    Karen,
    
      If it pleases you when corresponding with me please refer to God as
    "He". I find that this is something over which I could easily stumble.
    
    Thanks for your consideration.
    
    Gil
    

    Gil,
    
    If referring to God as He when we talk helps you 
    not to stumble, yes, I am very happy to do this and 
    will honor your request my friend.  
    
    Karen

    Hi Collis .18,
    
    > I think the word that Gil would use is "revelation" rather than
    > "channeling".
    
    Yes, "revelation" is another word for the communication process, 
    one that I like as well.  
    
    Thanks,
    
    Karen

Re: .91  Gil

>      If it pleases you when corresponding with me please refer to God as
>    "He". I find that this is something over which I could easily stumble.
    
Do you really expect other people to use words of your chosing?  Each person
should use the pronoun that they are most comfortable with.

				-- Bob
    

    DR: you mentioned the possibility that Jesus travelled widely and may
    have known some of many languages.
    hazza: (not capped?) you mentioned that it is reasonable to assume that
    Christ, as a businessman and as a citizen of an occupied country should
    be assumed to know both Greek and Latin. And that Luke wrote in Greek.
    
    	There are many rumors that Christ traveled widely, mostly widely
    discounted as ridiculous by anyone with the information available to
    most liberal arts majors. Only the gullible and the truely educated
    believe such a thing could be possible - most liberal arts majors
    simply do not have enough information available to them. More on this
    later.
    	The assumption that Christ could speak some Greek and some Latin is
    acceptable to me. I am certain that he knew as much of each (barring
    special events) as I once did of Japanese. I was able to buy food in
    the markets, ask and understand directions, order in a restaurant and
    generally stumble along. I was not fluent or literate and only barely
    numerate. I was never tempted to discuss philosophy in Japanese. Yes, I
    knew that one of the gospels was originaly in period Greek - as were
    several of the smaller works - but could not recall which. I wrote that
    note with that understanding in mind and thanks for identifying the
    author.
    	While I was in Japan I came across a town which was the center of a
    curious legend. It was believed that Christ came to the area twice;
    once in his late twenties and again in his mid thirties. The second
    visit was supposedly after his half-brother sacrificed himself for
    Jesus (all Jews look alike to a Roman) and he settled down with a woman
    and stayed until he died - of natural causes. He was not alone on his
    second visit. There is solid evidence that at least half a dozen
    Semitic males did indeed settle in that area and sire children by
    Japanese women. One or more of them was a carpenter. Another worked in
    stone. The evidence that one of them was Christ is a little shakey, I
    think, but it exists. I report it here mainly in response to DR's
    comment on the Glastonbury Druids. It was unusual for anyone in
    Christ's time to travel further from their birthplace than they could
    walk in a day. Unusual, but hardly unknown. Those that did travel
    tended to do so in a big way and make many stops along the route. None
    of this "If This Is Tuesday, This Must Be Belgium"(staring Suzzanne
    Pleshette) stuff. Travel to the British Isles was not unknown, the
    Romans went there often and Celts from there had been mercenaries for
    the Greeks centuries earlier. If he did travel that far then he would
    certainly have spoken Latin most of the way.

    Wrt:  �Jesus's fluency in various languages ...
    
    �Many of us believe in the personal availability of the "gift of
    tongues" �and the "interpretation of tongues", 'though I've experienced
    neither in this life.  yet. Who of us believing Christians would doubt
    that Jesus had available to Him all of the Gifts of the Spirit?  This
    belief would not require a well-travelled person boning up on the
    languages of the earth.  While I'm on the subject of travel, moreover,
    who's to say Jesus wasn't capable (if He desired) of world travel in an
    instant?  Is that so much beyond other things like walking on water?
    
    DR
    
    DR
    
    
    
    

    Bob .22,
    
    Although you directed the following to Gil I would also like to 
    offer a "for what its worth" as it concerns me and it is something
    I thought of including in my original response to Gil:
    
    >> If it pleases you when corresponding with me please refer to God
    >> as "He".  I find that this is something over which I could easily
    >> stumble.
    
    > Do you really expect other people to use words of your chosing?  Each
    > person should use the pronoun that they are most comfortable with.
    
    Let's get personal for a moment. :-)
    
    Most who are acquainted with me personally or through notes, 
    know me to refer to God as He or She or He/She, which I will continue
    to do. 
    
    Above all else in _this_ notesfile _I_ am interesting in 
    _communicating_.  In this process I will agree to 
    adjust my terms if I feel it will assist in communication,
    as I do in this instance.  
    
    I believe Gil is well aware that I know God to be both She/He and 
    Mother/Father.  This awareness will be there no matter what term I now
    use in the discussions we have together - so I have no problem using
    a term he prefers to make our future communications more successful.
    A similar choice may be a problem for others however, and therefore 
    the decision to honor Gil's request will have to be an individual
    choice.  
    
    Thank you for bringing this up Bob.  I feel it is important.  My 
    decision, especially since I am also acting in the role of co-moderator 
    in this conference, could be implied as a move to set a precedent on 
    such issues.  It was NOT intended in this way nor should it be viewed
    as such.  Each must decide on their own and through _all_ decisions,
    may we all continue to learn and grow together, in God's presence.
    
    peace & blessings,
    
    Karen

re Note 21.20 by CARTUN::BERGGREN:

>     If referring to God as He when we talk helps you 
>     not to stumble, yes, I am very happy to do this and 
>     will honor your request my friend.  
  
        I struggle mightily when I write to avoid the use of the
        masculine and feminine personal pronouns to refer to God or
        people in general.  Sometimes, you can just repeat the word
        "God" (or "Christ") -- that might be a little more stilted,
        but not too bad.

        Since the Trinitarians among us think of God as composed of
        three "persons", why not use "they", "them", and "their"?

        Bob

    I just got the new issue of Creation magazine in the mail yesterday,
    and it contained an interesting poem that used the pronouns "She" and
    "Her" repeatedly when referring to Christ.  The poem, I presume, was
    referring to the "Cosmic Christ" and not the historical Jesus. 
    Nevertheless, I found it quite interesting and enjoyable to read that. 

    -- Mike

    
    
    Gil, I found your request interesting.  Karen, I accept where you
    are coming from in your response to Gil's request.
    
    I am curious though.  Gil, would you honor someone else's request
    of you to refer to God as "Her" when conversing with them?
    
    Carole

Trinitarians also believe in one God, which is why God as referred to in
the singular almost all of the time.

Collis

re Note 21.29 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Trinitarians also believe in one God, which is why God as referred to in
> the singular almost all of the time.

        Yes, but in everyday English, the plurality necessary for a
        plural pronoun is a plurality of persons, not a plurality of
        divinity.

        Bob

    re:  .29 -- "plurality of divinity"
    
    Or in mathematical terms, twice or thrice infinity is still infinity.
    
    DR

    *Is A ManY Spleeeeendorrrred Thinnnng!*

    re:  .32 
    
    I hear music.
    
    DR

        The public broadcasting series on the US Civil War read an
        especially moving letter from a husband in the army to his
        wife at home.  It said so much about love -- of many kinds.

        When I get a chance, I will try to write it down.

        Bob

            <<< MOMCAT::PIGGY:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V3.NOTE;3 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 398.11                       the civil war                         11 of 29
SMURF::BINDER "Recherche du Sox perdu"               47 lines  25-SEP-1990 23:30
                         -< Sullivan Ballou's letter >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Here's the text of Sullivan Ballou's letter that was read at the end of
    the first evening's episode.  The graphical style is the best guess my
    familiarity with 19th-century writing style can make.
    
    -d
    
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    					July the 14th, 1861
    					Washington, D. C.
    
    Dear Sarah,
    
    	The indications are very strong that we shall move in a few days,
    perhaps tomorrow, and lest I should not be able to write you again, I
    feel impelled to write a few lines that may fall under your eye when I
    am no more.
    	I have no misgivings about, or lack of confidence in the cause in
    which I am engaged, and my courage does not halt or falter.  I know how
    American civilization now leans on the triumph of the Government, and
    how great a debt we owe to those who went before us through the blood
    and suffering of the Revolution, and I am willing, perfectly willing,
    to lay down all my joys in this life to help maintain this Government,
    and to pay that debt.
    	Sarah, my love for you is deathless.  It seems to bind me with
    mighty cables that nothing but omnipotence can break; and yet my love
    of Country comes over me like a strong wind, and bears me irresistibly,
    with all those chains, to the battlefield.
    	The memory of all the blissful moments I have enjoyed with you come
    crowding over me, and I feel most deeply grateful to God, and you, that
    I have enjoyed them for so long; and how hard it is for me to give them
    up, and burn to ashes in hopes of future years, when, God willing, we
    might still have lived and loved together, and see our boys grown up to
    honorable manhood around us.
    	If I do not return, my dear Sarah, never forget how much I loved
    you, nor, that when my last breath escapes me on the battlefield, it
    will whisper your name.  Forgive my many faults, and the many pains I
    have caused you, and how thoughtless, how foolish, I have sometimes
    been.  But, O Sarah, if the dead can come back to this Earth, and flit
    unseen around those they love, I shall always be with you, in brightest
    day, and the darkest night, always, always.  And when the soft breez
    fans your cheek, it shall be my breath, or the cool air your throbbing
    temple, it shall be my spirit passing by.
    	Sarah, do not mourn me dead.  Think I am gone, and wait for me, for
    we shall meet again.
    
    					(s)

    
    
    Thanks Bob and THOMPSON (don't have your first name, sorry) for
    mentioning and entering this letter.  I believe Sullivan Ballou
    died very soon after writing it, didn't he?  I've tried to catch
    as much of this series as possible - it has been so very powerful
    and enlightening.  I knew that war was bad, but I wasn't aware
    of just how awful and devastating it actually was.
    
    Carole

    Re: Sullivan Ballou's letter (.35)
    
    this just moved me to tears.
    
    thank you for entering.
    
    Karen

re Note 21.36 by WILLEE::FRETTS:

>     I believe Sullivan Ballou
>     died very soon after writing it, didn't he?  

        Yes.  After the reading of the letter, the narrator goes on
        to say that Sullivan Ballou died a week later, at the first
        battle of Bull Run.

        Bob

    Crole,
    
      Sorry to be late in replying but I was not in yesterday.
    
      I asked Karen to honor a change in pronoun since it is an area where
    I stumble easily. I have a great deal of trouble accepting the notion
    of a mixed gender or female God since it seems to me that Scripture
    portrays God as being male. Such references to God in the feminine
    person smack to me of worship of a different god, and perhaps in some
    cases a rejection of the Scriptural eveidence of a masculine Diety. 
    
      To put it simply this is a "hot button" with me. And as I have
    promised to try to behave I would like to avoid getting "hot". Hence,
    the appeal to Karen was voiced. Thank you, Karen, for showing love and
    tolerance to me in this matter. Your sensitivity says a lot about you.
    
      As to your question, the answer is a not-surprising "no". Insofar as
    I am able to do so without falling into sin, I will try to honor the
    requests of others here and do my best to not be the cause of anyone's
    stumbling. But in this particular instance I feel that it would be
    Hypocritical of me to refer to God in a way that I do not condone. To
    do so would be , for me, tantamount to idolatry.
    
    I hope you ca understand this, Carole.
    
    Gil

    
    
    OK, thanks for the reply Gil.  I can understand how you feel about
    this.  For most of my life, I have referred to God as He.  In recent
    years, however, I've gone through a lot of changes and references
    to God as He have hurt and angered me.  I began to refer to God
    as He/She, Him/Her at different times, as it felt more balanced
    to me.  This has eased up tremendously and I'm so glad.  There's
    not as much emotional charge around the pronoun, if you know what
    I mean.
    
    Carole

    Parish is listed as a noun in my dictionary, from the Greek for
    'neighbor'. 
    	I am easily bored by "discussions" that consist of sequences of
    supportive quotes with little or no interpretive text.  If someone has
    nothing to say about something beyond pointing out a quote that most of
    us are familiar with, are they adding anything to the discussion or
    just taking up space.  The latter, IMO.  That spelling error WAS cute,
    though.  The other spelling error is one anyone could make.
    	An aside: if you believe in Christ you are guaranteed everlasting
    life, right?  But if you don't then you are guaranteed an eternity in
    Hell, right?  Now, if you are in Hell but not alive then where's the
    punishment, and if you ARE alive ... ?  };)>

    Jane,
    	I am aware of what the quoted passage means. The meaning is
    obvious. I pointed out that spelling error not because my spelling or
    typing is any better than yours, but because of the word you transposed
    it into. It was an amusing slip of the fingers.
    	I am not trying to get you - or anyone - to stop quoting your
    favorite bromides. My request was that you accompany your quote with a
    little illuminating personal comment expounding on the theme. You
    managed to supply a dozen or so lines of elementary exposition after I
    pointed out the lack, my opinion is that some of that - the part that
    best defined the point you most intended to make - should have been
    included in the entry with the quote. Otherwise, how are we to know
    what YOU meant by entering that quote where you did. This, of course,
    does not apply to the "Inspirational Quotes" string (just the opposite
    there).

    Jane,
    	I, too, am a terrible typist and poor speller. I had to go back to
    my entry to check on "discussted". I didn't remember using "disgusted"
    and I didn't think I could have been THAT far off the mark. Memory
    served me correctly, for once, and I couldn't find your source in my
    remark. Was this revenge by reciprocal cuteness ?  OK, they say that
    imitation is a form of flattery, so "thank you".

    Thelma,
    	it seems to me like you missed my point in it's entirety. I agree
    with you that having love in your heart is ever so much more important
    that a proud education. That is no excuse for ignorance or for shutting
    down your brain and going on auto-pilot. Any parrot can quote the
    Bible, but a parrot need not have the slightest inkling of the meaning
    of the quote. How are we to tell the parrots from those with something
    to say unless something in excess of the bald quote is entered? I at NO
    point attacked the quote itself, my point was that it was standing out
    there naked and alone.
    	I am going to assume that your comment "You have no insight about
    LOVE from GOD." was NOT intended as a personal attack, rather that you
    somehow had some generic "you" in mind. You don't know me nor I you.

        
    
     Given that I might well qualify as the generic "you" in the
    bit about insight on love from God, would anyone care to
    elaborate on this concept for me ?
     
    
                                                      Mike
     

    My friend your topic was "what is love". I thought you showed a 
small displeasure in someone's remark. I certainly didn't miss your point. 
You are right about your brain it does sometimes go into auto-pilot but
you see, life has many turns sometimes it slides there as a safety zone.
To slow you down, to fuel your body. At times life's lessons are hard to
learn for.
    Each one of us is a unique soul with different circumstances, physical
stamina and abilities. Misunderstanding with others and being overly
concerned, having their approval also contributes to having a lack of self
worth. What is wonderful is the belief that having a caring heart will 
bring us to see the beauty around us. "That is LOVE".
    We all miss the mark and can learn to inquire a good heart condition
toward each other. Stop - see - feel - love. I give you a small portion
of my knowledge to see my heart for the pleasure of this talk. Love comes in
many ways to us showing us pure love. There is a love for us.

P.S. " We became like those who were dreaming. As that time our mouth came
to be filled with laughter and our tongue with a joyful cry."
Psalms 126:1,2

Blessings-

Thelma

    Thelma,
    	I think you have provided an understanding of what love means to
    you. It's a feeling that I have been familiar with and have felt
    pleasure in but one which I would have called "joy". And there must be
    joy in love, too, so perhaps you only showed the outline of the whole
    of your understanding.
    	You were right, also, that I had shown a "small displeasure", but
    at the style rather than the remark. You included a quote in your note
    and it served to further illustrate your comments (or your comments
    served to illustrate IT) and the two parts of your note worked together
    to form a cohesive, mutually supportive whole. I wanted MORE from Jane,
    not less. And I wanted that more to be from JANE. That desire seemed to
    get lost in the side issue of mis-spellings and such, an unworthy side
    issue if taken to heart.

I've always liked Erich Fromm's concept of the characteristics of love.
Fromm said there were 4 qualities or ingredients of love, any kind of love;
erotic love, philathropic love, love of God, parental love, agape love.  It
doesn't matter what kind of love you're talking about, unless all 4 are
present, it isn't love.

Briefly defined here, according to Fromm the 4 are:

1. CARE:  The opposite of love is not hate; for hate still requires caring.
Indifference is the opposite of love.

2. RESPECT:  The realization that another is equal to you, though the other
may be not the same as you.

3. RESPONSIBILITY:  The will to respond, preferably voluntarily imposed;
a covenant, a commitment.

4. KNOWLEDGE:  The more you know about someone the more you will like or
dislike that person.

For more detail, pick up a copy of the classic, "The Art of Loving."

Peace,
Richard

Does love ever destroy?

What about hate?  What is it's relationship with love?

The Bible portrays an absolutely loving God who *hates* sin - and
because He hates sins, he rejects those who ultimately choose sin
over righteousness and destroys them.  Does this make God unloving?

According to some (such as Mike), it does - therefore we can not
trust what the Bible says about God.

According to others (such as myself), it does not - it cannot!  God
Himself defines what love is and if this definition includes the
possibility of destruction for those who reject God, it is right
a priori.  It is also God's consistent revelation (certainly NOT
confined to older sections of the Old Testament) that those who
reject God will ultimately be destroyed. 

How many Biblical references will convince those who do not believe 
the Bible teaches this?  10? 20?  50?  100?  I'd be happy to supply 10 
each from the Old and New Testament if that's what it takes.  How about 
references from Jesus (who we generally agree is a good standard, in this 
conference?  Would 5 references from Jesus about the coming destruction of 
the wicked suffice?  Something like, "Depart from me, you who are cursed,
into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matt 25:41)

Anxiously waiting to hear,

Collis

Re:  31.343

  >But I don't favor doing so by a method so heinous that any person with a 
  >modicum of conscience would find utterly repulsive.  More importantly, 
  >it is heinous from a Christian perspective, which tells us that we are 
  >to love our enemies, and which also tells us that this morality comes 
  >from God, who is Love.

I understand that you are claiming that your conscience (or perhaps
collective consciences which agree with your conscience) is the
ultimate determinant of what is right and wrong (at least in terms of
love).  Although conscience is a useful tool, it is far from
infallible (as, for example, God is).

Do people have a worth apart from the worth given to them by God,
Mike?  In my strong belief, the answer is NO.  You apparently are
claiming that they do have such a worth apart from God.  Perhaps
you'd like to explain why this is?

  >I also stand by my vigorous opposition to the sort of Jim Jones morality 
  >that you are promoting here.

I take offense at the comparison of God destroying unrepentant sinners
with a deranged man destroying all.  The two are worlds apart.  Now
you make think and feel that God has no more right to do something
than anybody else, but you won't find any support for the argument
from me or from the Bible (see end of Job).

  >I've said it before, and I'll say it again.  If being a Christian means
  >throwing out my conscience, then I would rather be an atheist.

No, it doesn't at all mean throwing out your conscience.  However, it
does mean having your corrupted conscience molded to accept what
it true.  (Don't take offense at my calling your conscience correupted -
all of our consciences are corrupted.)

But, then again, you are right.  It does mean acknowleding God *before*
your conscience, your feelings, your whatever.  If you are indeed
determined to believe what you think is right regardless of the
clear revelation of God to you, then the Bible indicates that God
will reject you as you have rejected Him.  The choice is yours - and
there's still time to change your mind and will.

Collis

    Yes, Collis, you are right--I don't believe in a God who is unloving,
    cruel, and vindictive, as you do.  I believe in a God who loves *all*
    human beings, even those "unrepentent sinners" who you talk about.  I
    hate sin too, but I love those who sin, as I believe that God does; and
    I do not wish for anyone, even those who sin, to be destroyed. And I
    certainly don't worship a God who tells people to commit atrocities in
    the name of "love".  For it isn't God who was magically terminating
    lives at Ai and Jericho--it was people who were doing the nasty deeds
    of slaughtering men, women, and children there.  You also correct that
    the Bible, unfortunately, often portrays God in this way--that is
    precisely the point that was raised in an earlier topic, and that is
    why I do not accept the Bible as being literally true.

    Apparently you believe that killing a person is an expression of love
    for them.  You would kill someone and still claim to love them, I
    suppose.  Either that or the proclamation of love for enemies is
    nothing more than a platitude for you.  What a curious (and barbaric)
    conception of love.  What a curious "god" who tells people to commit
    atrocities.

    -- Mike

    Collis, there really is no difference between Jericho and Jonestown. It
    wasn't God who magically struck down the citizens of Ai and Jericho--it
    was human beings who did the dirty deeds, just as it was humans at
    Jonestown who carried out the killings.

    As for having a corrupted conscience--I would say that it is the
    murderous amorality that is corrupted, Collis.  For I do acknowledge
    God all.  My God is one of love.  And your insinuation that I have
    rejected God is utterly false.  I have stated several times here that I
    believe in God.  I have not rejected God, but rather an amoral
    *conception* of God that makes the deity out to be a barbarian.

    The good news is that a loving God, who is not a barbarian, will even
    forgive you, Collis, for insulting Her to the degree that you have, by
    making Her out to be such a barbarian.

    -- Mike

Re: .53 Collis

>I understand that you are claiming that your conscience (or perhaps
>collective consciences which agree with your conscience) is the
>ultimate determinant of what is right and wrong (at least in terms of
>love).  Although conscience is a useful tool, it is far from
>infallible (as, for example, God is).

Would you say that your perception of God is also fallible, Collis?

				-- Bob

    Bob, I don't know how Collis would answer your question, but I think
    that it does raise an important point.  I certainly don't believe that
    conscience is infallible.  I do think that the quest for infallible
    answers is itself a flawed endeavor.  What we can do is work together,
    as human beings, and try to understand God and right and wrong the best
    that we can.  Some things can deeply offend our sense of morality (like
    Nazism, the Jim Jones massacres, or the biblical depictions of genocide
    at Ai and Jericho, to cite just a few examples), but ultimately I
    believe that our lives are *not* characterized by the sort of final
    certainty that biblical inerrancy tries to offer.  Life does have a lot
    of ambiguities.  I think that many (perhaps most) of us would like to
    achieve that kind of certainty, however.  Perhaps this is a classic
    example of what Camus referred to as Absurdity.  The fact that biblical
    inerrancy offers something, even if intellectually and morally
    inadequate, that many people crave, certainly explains its appeal.

    -- Mike

re Note 21.52 by OVER::JACKSON:

> The Bible portrays an absolutely loving God who *hates* sin - and
> because He hates sins, he rejects those who ultimately choose sin
> over righteousness and destroys them.  Does this make God unloving?

        The problem with the destruction of whole cities because of
        sin is that it is incredible to assert that every last
        inhabitant, including children born and unborn, have
        "ultimately" chosen sin over righteousness.


> According to some (such as Mike), it does - therefore we can not
> trust what the Bible says about God.

        I can't speak for Mike, but for me the conclusion isn't "we
        can not trust what the Bible says about God" but that "we
        cannot trust what we conclude from the Bible about God."

        I think this conclusion is entirely defensible -- to trust
        what WE conclude from the Bible about God is to trust our own
        understanding, our own powers of intellect.

        It is clear that the Bible calls us to "trust God".  That is
        what I have done.


> Something like, "Depart from me, you who are cursed,
> into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels." (Matt 25:41)
  
        Can you offer a scriptural reference that Jesus meant to
        apply this, for example, to young children?

        Bob

re Note 21.57 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     I do think that the quest for infallible
>     answers is itself a flawed endeavor.  

RE:  .56

Certainly, Bob, our perceptions of God are flawed.  I'm surprised Mike
didn't know my answer to this as the answer is very obvious.

Re:  Mike

Yes, Mike, you repeat the same refrain time after time after time.
I don't believe God is like xxx so anything that says that God is
like xxx (or anyone who believes God is like xxx) is wrong, regardless
of their credibility otherwise.  I don't believe this because it
doesn't make sense to me and it doesn't match what my conscience
tells me.

At this point, there's really not much need to repeat it again.  Your
position is clear.

And it is quite true that I believe that if you do not believe in the
God that has revealed Himself through Jesus and the apostles, that you
do not believe in the true God.

Collis

Re:  <<< Note 21.60 by OVER::JACKSON "Collis Jackson ZKO2-3L06" >>>

Collis,

> Certainly, Bob, our perceptions of God are flawed.  I'm surprised Mike
> didn't know my answer to this as the answer is very obvious.

If your perceptions of God are based literally on the Bible, and the 
Bible is inerrant, then how are your perceptions flawed?

Jeff

    Collis, you have also repeated your own refrain time after time, as you
    are well aware; you have reiterated many times that God has "clearly
    revealed himself" in the scriptures to have attribute xxx.  It would
    seem that both of us have made our points.

    Thank you for sharing with me your view that I don't worship the one
    true God.  I will give that all the consideration it deserves.

    -- Mike

Re:  21.61

Hi, Jeff.  

  >If your perceptions of God are based literally on the Bible, and the 
  >Bible is inerrant, then how are your perceptions flawed?

I look at that word "literally" with suspicion.  I'm not and never
have been a "literalist", just to make that clear.

In addition, my perceptions of God are based on reason, His Spirit,
experience and on Scripture (as well as the general revelation which
includes the world around us, for example).

Finally, even though God breathed His inerrant Word through prophets,
this does not mean that we have today *exactly* what was written (there
are errors in the Bible which is not to say the Bible is not inerrant)
and it certainly does not mean that I (or anyone) can infallibly
understood all that God has written.

But some things are so clear a child can understand them.  I'm a
sinner.  I need to turn to God (i.e. repent) and trust in Him for
forgiveness and eternal life, and God will fill me with His Spirit,
lead me during this lifetime and grant me eternal life.

Collis

Collis,

> I look at that word "literally" with suspicion.  I'm not and never
> have been a "literalist", just to make that clear.

My apologies.  I had the impression that you were a literalist.  How 
then do you distinguish what you should take as literal versus symbolic?
Fwiw, my only motive here is one of interest.

> In addition, my perceptions of God are based on reason, His Spirit,
> experience and on Scripture (as well as the general revelation which
> includes the world around us, for example).

Thanks for the clarification.

> this does not mean that we have today *exactly* what was written (there
> are errors in the Bible which is not to say the Bible is not inerrant)
> and it certainly does not mean that I (or anyone) can infallibly
> understood all that God has written.

Hmmm... I don't have a dictionary available, but I thought that inerrant 
meant "without error."  So I read your statement as, "there are errors 
in the Bible which is not to say that the Bible is not without error."  
See my confusion?  It sounds like your saying that the Bible has errors, 
but that doesn't mean it isn't perfect.

> But some things are so clear a child can understand them.  

Such is the understanding of many people in various walks of life and
with various creeds and philosophies; and thus the value in valuing 
differences.

Jeff

    My contribution on "What is Love".
    
    Love assumes several forms: paternal, materal, fraternal, filial,
    romantic, etc. based on the relationship we have with whom we love.
    
    The expression of love between a man and a woman begins at a distance
    and ends in intimacy.  Attraction or infatuation is the first step,
    people seek the beauty, intelligence, and other positive attributes.
    
    Then ones knows the person better and  experiences are shared, and from
    that proceeds friendship.  From that proceeds sexual intimacy. In my
    morality, sexuality should be exclusive to one person and part of union
    of two lives.

Re:  21.64

  >My apologies.  I had the impression that you were a literalist.  How 
  >then do you distinguish what you should take as literal versus symbolic?
  >Fwiw, my only motive here is one of interest.

In short, you have to look at context, the "normal" meaning of
the word, how the Bible itself inteprets the text or similar
texts, the mode of writing (i.e. historical narrative, poetic,
proverb, etc.) and some other significant factors.  There is a
more extended discussion of this in a topic that is probably
titled something like "how to intepret the Bible" .

  >Hmmm... I don't have a dictionary available, but I thought that inerrant 
  >meant "without error."  So I read your statement as, "there are errors 
  >in the Bible which is not to say that the Bible is not without error."  

Yes, that's exactly what I said!  There are no errors in the original
text breathed by God; there are (usually very minor) errors in the
copy of that text that we have today.

Collis

    
    Collis,
    
    Have you seen/read the original text that was "God-breathed"?
    
    Carole

Re:  31.353

  >That's interesting, Collis, that you should define God that way.  The
  >first epistle of John doesn't say that "love is one characteristic of
  >God"; it says that God *is* love.  In any case, in my view, creative
  >and responsive love precisely define God's nature.

I would agree that God is love.  But that doesn't mean that there is
not more to God (i.e. God can be love and other things as well).  I
think you err in excluing these other aspects of God which are quite
important.

  >Let me first point out that I don't claim to follow Jesus.

Thank you for clarifying that.  Actually, I was not aware that
you do not claim to follow Jesus.  In future discussions, I will
put you (in my mind) in the same category as the "other" Mike :-)
and consider that your perspective is not a "Christian" perspective,
but rather a non-Christian perspective.

  >...I find it interesting that you are so taken with checking the 
  >Christian credentials of other people...

Actually, I'm not.  It appears that just by raising the subject, I've
said enough to be considered a fanatic on it...

  >Loving one's enemies seems to be interpreted in some wildly different (and
  >sometimes, in my view, bizarre) ways.

I think our "loving one's enemies" is interpreted the same way for
both you and me.  The issue you are raising is God "loving" His enemies
and still destroying them.  But this has to do (on my part) with
a simple understanding of Scripture which most (probably including
you) people would agree on what it says.

  >Regarding Jesus advocating destruction, I don't know what specific
  >passage you are referring to.  Let me point out that I am interested in
  >the ethics Jesus is said to have taught during his life, not what he
  >allegedly said after the resurrection (for one thing, I don't believe
  >in the resurrection).

Apparently you think the meaning of this passage is clear.  It was
actually said by Jesus *before* his resurrection *during* his life
and is in Matthew 24 (the reference was listed, perhaps you missed
it), not Revelation.

  >Second, scholars don't fully agree on what parts of the New Testament 
  >are authentic and what are not, so the authenticity of anything 
  >attributed to Jesus is up for grabs, as far as I am concerned.

Your sources of what Jesus said are better?  If not, your attempts to
discredit the source that we both use don't carry much weight. It would
surprise me to learn that you have *any* (authoritative) source of what
Jesus said outside of the Bible.  It your motive for this questioning
the discernment of truth - or the building of walls to defend your
position?

  >However, let's assume for the sake of argument that Jesus did advocate
  >the destruction of people.  What could that mean?  It would be
  >unfortunate indeed if he were to contradict his most fundamental
  >ethical teachings by expressions of hate and desire for people to
  >suffer and die; but perhaps this is an illustration of his very human
  >qualities.  Contradicting his fundamental ethical teachings does not
  >invalidate them in any way.

Many have come to recognize how the two beliefs are not 
self-contradictory - even Jesus recognizes it (since it is not in
his nature to be self-contradictory!)  Perhaps someday you will 
too. :-)

  >However, that is not my interpretation of what Jesus taught during
  >his life.  

Yes, you've made it clear that you are unfamiliar with some of what
Jesus taught during his life and that if it (apparently) contradicts
what you believe, you will "interpret" it differently (i.e. deny
it).

Collis

Re: .66 (Collis)

>In short, you have to look at context, the "normal" meaning of
>the word, how the Bible itself inteprets the text or similar
>texts, the mode of writing (i.e. historical narrative, poetic,
>proverb, etc.) and some other significant factors.  

Would you mind demonstrating this with an example?  Would you offer an 
interpretation of "the Kingdom of God/Heaven is within?"  I'm just 
interested in how this interpretation process works.  There have been 
some other replies in that topic, but I thought I would ask you since 
you seem clear on how you derive meaning from the Bible.

> Yes, that's exactly what I said!  There are no errors in the original
> text breathed by God; there are (usually very minor) errors in the
> copy of that text that we have today.

I guess my confusion arose due to the fact that you used the word 
"Bible" in both parts of your sentence, rather than "the original text 
breathed by God."

Jeff

    
    "Love is extending oneself for one's own, or another's spiritual
    growth."
                                 - Scott Peck, "The Road Less Traveled"

    Well, I can see Love is many things to many people, including
    arguing  :-)

    Nancy, in the "Agenda" note sees Love as "giving".  I see Love
    as a state of being.  Others see love as "emotionally enhanced
    sex" and "agape" as being the only "true" Love and everything
    inbetween.  I appears that Love covers a lot of ground.

    From this I get the idea that Love encompasses all of these 
    things and, just as we each experience only a small part of God,
    so it is with Love.

    Nancy (I guess) finds Love in giving.  I find Love in that quiet
    space inside.  Others find Love in the arms of another human
    being, be it as a parent with a child, a child with a parent or
    lover with a lover.  And, apparently, some when preaching fire
    and brimstone.

    I know I'm not alone when I say I miss having Love when I don't
    feel it but find so many other things to do than cultivate it
    when it is with me.

    Could turning our back on Love be the real sin?  Could cultivating
    our Love with friends, our church, our community, our God, be more
    important than... than... than....?  Well, you name it.

    I think it is.

    Because, What is Love?

    Tom

    The Holy Spirit is the spirit of God's love that surrounds each of us
    and unites us into one humankind.  The feeling, the being, the giving,
    the receiving, the hugging, the nuturing, the joy of sex, the joy of 
    intimacy are all part of that Holy Spirit.
    
    love
    
    Patricia

    Tom,
    
    I agree with you to a ... a... point, and then we shift directions. 
    You are still talking about love from the emotional point of view, how
    it makes you *feel*.  Feelings of love are warm, wonderful and
    fulfilling, but only to a certain point and then it loses its lustre.
    
    True love that lasts and becomes bond so deep within that nothing can
    break it, is the kind of love that God demonstrated when He *gave* His
    Son to die on calvary for mankind.
    
    If we could learn the lesson, that just because the *feelings* of love
    can come and go with the storms of a relationship, but that true love
    remains constant and giving inspite of those storms, then we have truly
    experienced love in its purest form.
    
    Marriages desolve because love is transient, it rides the waves on a
    surfboard of unsteadiness.  Yes, love has a feeling... but when the
    feeling's gone, are you?
    
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
>    You are still talking about love from the emotional point of view, how
>    it makes you *feel*.  

    I'm not sure about that.  I do believe, however, that if you don't
    feel it it isn't there.  (I could be wrong)

>    Feelings of love are warm, wonderful and
>    fulfilling, but only to a certain point and then it loses its lustre.

    I disagree.  Nothing has ripped me apart as much as Love.  
    
>    True love that lasts and becomes bond so deep within that nothing can
>    break it, is the kind of love that God demonstrated when He *gave* His
>    Son to die on calvary for mankind.

    True.  And this is the Love to which I aspire.  I don't deserve
    it but it is my birthright and my duty.  Without humility I am
    lost. (I keep having to relearn this "humility" business :*)
    
>    If we could learn the lesson, that just because the *feelings* of love
>    can come and go with the storms of a relationship, but that true love
>    remains constant and giving inspite of those storms, then we have truly
>    experienced love in its purest form.

    It is through being in Love that we can see these storms as simple
    ripples.  Love endures.... but 'cha gotta work at it...  everyday.
    
>    Marriages desolve because love is transient, it rides the waves on a
>    surfboard of unsteadiness.  Yes, love has a feeling... but when the
>    feeling's gone, are you?

    Yes.  I am lost without it.  Unless I'm working from a position of
    being in Love my motives are always suspect.  If I'm not aware of
    the Love, I'm not open to it.  I have turned my back on God.

    I believe that as a subject of God it is my duty to Love at all
    times, to ceaselessly have my heart open to the world.  (Just don't
    ask me if I measure up :*)  Very simple, but not easy.

    The transient world tends to close the heart.  Until it is permanently
    open I must continually push.  Attending a good church helps me a
    great deal in this, especially if it's a Christian chruch that preaches
    Love.  As I leave my heart is opened and I'm ready to do some *real*
    work.   :-)

    Tom

    Tom, Nancy,
    
    	I tend to agree with both of you.  Ultimately though, I believe
    love is a decision.  Love is the decision to give, to do the most
    loving thing, even when you might not feel very loving at the time.
    
    	It's been my experience that one sometimes doesn't feel love
    until one does something loving.  In other words, except for the
    decision, love doesn't always start from the inside the way we'd
    like to think it does.
    
    	You know, it's a funny thing.  But even in places where marriages
    were arranged by the parents, love frequently emerged.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    I'm sorry Richard, but I disagree.

    If we're not feeling love then it is "under a bushel".  We're not living
    up to our potential.  This Love is the Grace of God, our connection
    to Her that is always with us and closer to us than our breath.  
    Simply open, and it is there.  (Once again, it's simple but not easy)

    I believe the Aztecs knew about this but followed it literally and
    actually opened someone's heart.  So much for interpretation :-(

    It's a tough row to hoe and I frequently (chronically?) fall short
    but since you've given me the opportunity to talk about it the 
    connection has become stronger.  This is the value of community,
    to provide opportunity after opportunity to strengthen our resolve
    to open ourselves to God's Love, and the space in which to do it.

    Tom

    .76
    
    BTW, God is HE not SHE and the scripture "under a Bushel"  was talking 
    about the light of the Gospel.
    
    Tom, whilst your theology may not be one of harm per se, it does
    espouse contra-Biblical ideas about love.  
    
    Feelings are transient, do you agree?
    
    Nancy
    
    
    

    We're actually in more agreement than you might think, Tom.
    
    I'm not saying love never comes from within.  I'm not saying
    that the feeling of love is a sham.  Opening one's heart when
    feeling of love is not present is also a conscious decision.
    
    It would be nice if we could always experience the euphoric feelings
    which frequently accompany a love relationship.  But we're called to
    love even against the inclinations of our own feelings.  Jesus calls
    us to love our enemies, for example, when we might feel like bashing
    their babies against a rock.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    .77  Silly pronouns.  Their are other strings on that particular topic.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    RE: Patricia's .72
    
    Amen! I would only add the joy of solitude.
    
    
    Eileen
    

    I've been doing the 'flu thing these past couple of days :-(

    Yes, feelings are transient.  That's why it's so hard to Love
    God and Love my neighbor with all my heart all the time.  I
    must constantly keep at it or I sink back down into my pettiness
    again and again.  I can't just "Get it right once and be done
    with it."

    It's a continual renewal, a constant re-affirmation.  Every day
    the Love and it's expression is different.  It's alive.

    I see nothing "contra-Biblical" about that.

    Tom

    Hope you're feeling better now, Tom!
    
    Richard

Note 21.81 Tom,

Though you don't use the words, you seem to affirm that love is a decision,
a decision to love.

>    I must constantly keep at it or I sink back down into my pettiness
>    again and again.  I can't just "Get it right once and be done
>    with it."

>    It's a continual renewal, a constant re-affirmation.

Peace,
Richard

    Actually Tom, 
    
    I believe that we do agree as Richard has written.  I'm not saying the
    love doesn't have emotion, it does... truly... but the emotion will
    last longer with commitment [decision] behind it.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    Richard, in .78 you said:

>    Opening one's heart when
>    feeling of love is not present is also a conscious decision.

    But the Love *is* always there.  You just have to open your
    heart.  If God is everywhere and God is Love where is there
    not Love?

    Yes, one must make a conscious decision to Love.  It doesn't
    just happen by itself and last forever.  But I believe that
    what happens inside someone is more important than the works
    that person does.  "But have not Love..." I believe was Paul's
    most inspired work.

>    love doesn't have emotion, it does... truly... but the emotion will
>    last longer with commitment [decision] behind it.

    My point, exactly.  Thank you, Nancy.  Now all I have to do is
    live up to it :*)

    Tom

    Please forgive me for entering this reply since the last reply was 4+
    months ago, but I just had to after seeing 85 replies about Love and no
    one entered the 13 verses of I Corinthians 13.  My wife and I asked our
    pastor to quote this during our marriage seremony:
    
    Old King James:
    
    1 Though I speak with the tongues of men and angels, and have not
    charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal.
    
    2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries,
    and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove
    mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing.
    
    3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give
    my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
    
    4 Charity suffereth long, and is kind; charity envieth not; charity
    vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up.
    
    5 Doth not behave itself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily
    provoked, thinketh no evil;
    
    6 Rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth;
    
    7 Beareth all things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth
    all things.
    
    8 Charity never faileth: but whether there be prophecies, they shall
    fail; whether there be tongues, they shall cease; whether there be
    knowledge, it shall vanish away.
    
    9 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
    
    10 But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part
    shall be done away.
    
    11 When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I
    thought as a child; but when I became a man, I put away childish
    things.
    
    12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face; now I
    know in part; but then shall I know even as I am known.
    
    13 And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest
    of these is charity.
    
    This pastor had a sermon a few months before about "Love."  Utilizing 
    I Cor 13, he explained the following (in my paraphrase):
    
        Charity is love.  The Old King James mentions charity, but agape love
        is the original Greek.  After reading the 13 verses, he then asked
        us to substitute "Jesus" for "charity".  Please re-read the above
        by doing the same substitution.  For me, it was like a light being
        turned on in my head, since at that time I was a young Christian.  
        I also find the same to be true in other translations, whether it
        is the NKJ, the Good News, etc.
    
    Hopefully this may clear up a few misconceptions about love.