Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    The only reason I can see for maintaining conformity to any set of
    requirements is to allow humans to judge other humans.
    
    God in Christ sees through the externals and knows who is and who
    is not among God's faithful.  That knowledge seems sufficient.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 22.0 by LABC::WALLIS:

> Re: Note 18.3 by XANADU::FLEISCHER (Bob Fleischer)
> 
> Your reply in 18.3 concering the Quaker religion prompts the question posed in
> the title of this note. To those of you not following that stream, reading that
> note will provide or more clear context. 

        My note 18.3 made no mention of the Quakers -- to which one
        do you refer?

        Bob

re Note 22.0 by LABC::WALLIS:

> If a religion / denomination is so generic that there are no requirements for
> its adherents to be Christians, can it rightly be called a Christian religion?
> Since this is the CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE conference it would seem that this
> would be an important question. 

        I would probably distinguish between a "Christian religion"
        and "Christian".  I really don't care that much about whether
        a particular religion is called "Christian" or not.  I do
        care about whether people are Christians.  "Christian" means
        follower of "Christ" -- do they follow Christ?  Ask them.  If
        their answer seems uncertain, discuss it with them.

        Bob

I do my noting offline (via AVN) and occasionally blow it when replying to
multiple notes simultaneously.

The reference should have been "Re: Note 18.4 by Mike Valenza".


- Sorry for any inconvenience,

- Barry W.

    	Perhaps we first need to know what a "Christian" is. In my intro I
    spelled it "christian" for a good reason: I do not know, or care, if
    Christ was divinely inspired in his teachings. I follow his teachings
    as those of a great teacher and philosopher. I do not say he is this or
    that, or he is not this or that, only that I believe one can be a
    better person for following his teachings. 
    	I am a Unitarian Universalist now. About one UU in 10 claims to be
    a "Christian". My impression is that the vast majority of UUs follow
    closely the teachings of Christ - even those who deny that Christ
    existed (another point I find irrelevant).
    	Is a "Christian" someone who adheres to the teachings you, as an
    avowed "Christian" adhere to ?  Or need someone only believe in the
    divinity and word of Christ to bear that mantle ?  Or must one only
    live by that word ?  Bear in mind that many who have professed to
    believe in the divinity and teachings of Christ have failed miserably
    to live by that word. Who ARE the "Christians" ?

    Re.5
    
         "Who are the Christians ?"
    
        Good question. As a non-Christian this is the rule of
     thumb I tend to go by.
         If someone claims that Jesus Christ is their personal
     savior and that his death paid for their sins I consider
     them a "Christian". 
         Anybody else care to care to broaden or narrow my rule
      of thumb ? Anyone take exception to it ?
    
                                                       Mike

	RE: .6 That's pretty much the definition I use. That Jesus was
	the sacrifice for everyones sins and that through him we are saved
	is the biggest part of being a Christian to me. The rest is
	"extra". At the same time calling oneself a christian without
	acceptence of those items seems inconcievable.

			Alfred

    re .6
    
    Mike,
    
    	Christ is my Savior.  This is not central to my faith.  If
    salvation was not a part of the package, I would still be a Christian.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re: Note 22.5 by DELNI::MEYER "Dave Meyer"                            

>    	Perhaps we first need to know what a "Christian" is. In my intro I
>    spelled it "christian" for a good reason: I do not know, or care, if
>    Christ was divinely inspired in his teachings. I follow his teachings
>    as those of a great teacher and philosopher. I do not say he is this or
>    that, or he is not this or that, only that I believe one can be a
>    better person for following his teachings. 

Do you endeavor to follow all of his teachings or only the ones you choose to
follow? If the latter, on what basis do you make your choice.

>    	I am a Unitarian Universalist now. About one UU in 10 claims to be
>    a "Christian". My impression is that the vast majority of UUs follow
>    closely the teachings of Christ - even those who deny that Christ
>    existed (another point I find irrelevant).

Its hard for me to understand how whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant.
Why? Because some of his teaching is based on who *he* is (e.g., I am the vine,
you are the branches...). It seems to me that if he didn't exist, much of his
teaching loses its meaning.


Note 22.6 by SA1794::SEABURYM (Mike Seaburym)
    
>         If someone claims that Jesus Christ is their personal
>     savior and that his death paid for their sins I consider
>     them a "Christian". 
>         Anybody else care to care to broaden or narrow my rule
>      of thumb ? Anyone take exception to it ?
    
I would agree with your definition as necessary, but, not sufficient.
Additionally, one must live a life which as a course of habit practices
righteousness as defined by Jesus. Even though one may sin, it is not the
normal course of their life. This would answer Dave's statement that "many who
have professed to believe in the divinity and teachings of Christ have failed
miserably to live by that word."

Now, Mike, your definition and Dave's discussion disagree in one point. Your
definition supposes that Jesus existed while Dave believes that point to be
irrelevant. Dave, what do you think?


- Barry W.

�Re: Note 22.5 by DELNI::MEYER "Dave Meyer"                            

�>    	Perhaps we first need to know what a "Christian" is. In my intro I
�>    spelled it "christian" for a good reason: I do not know, or care, if
�>    Christ was divinely inspired in his teachings. I follow his teachings
�>    as those of a great teacher and philosopher. I do not say he is this or
�>    that, or he is not this or that, only that I believe one can be a
�>    better person for following his teachings. 

    Dave, I suspect you've heard the one about how you can't accept Jesus
    as *just* a great teacher/philosopher. Jesus claimed to be God and was
    so bold as to assert that He was *the only* way to God the Father. If
    He were *not* God and if He did *not* hold this unique position, then
    He'd hardly be a great teacher - He'd be a lunatic and/or a liar.

    Yes, Jesus' teachings are great, but they include His teachings
    about Himself. I don't think you can take some and not the other.


�Note 22.6 by SA1794::SEABURYM (Mike Seaburym)
    
�>         If someone claims that Jesus Christ is their personal
�>     savior and that his death paid for their sins I consider
�>     them a "Christian". 
�>         Anybody else care to care to broaden or narrow my rule
�>      of thumb ? Anyone take exception to it ?
    
    I too think that definition is pretty handy (although I might add a few
    more things, like His resurrection). A small detail to point out, of
    course, is that simply claiming something doesn't mean it's true. After
    all, I can claim to be a millionaire - even believe that I am - but if
    I don't have a million bucks I'm not a millionaire. Similarly, one can
    claim to be a Christian; but only they (and God) can know for sure whether
    or not that person is truly trusting Christ for his/her eternal life.

    This is where Barry's comment is fitting:

�Re: Note 22.9 by LABC::WALLIS
�
�I would agree with your definition as necessary, but, not sufficient.
�Additionally, one must live a life which as a course of habit practices
�righteousness as defined by Jesus. Even though one may sin, it is not the
�normal course of their life.

    The (true) Christian will live a lifestyle of righteousness (despite
    the occasional sins). The First epistle of John gives some excellent
    litmus tests so that one can know for sure whether they are saved. One
    of the tests is in fact a holy lifestyle.

    A final point to make, though, is that the Bible also teaches that
    performing good works isn't what saves us. We our saved by accepting
    the free gift of God; the good works *follow* that salvation...

         Eph. 2:8-9 -> "For by grace you have been saved through
         faith, and that not of yourselves; it is the gift of
         God, not of works, lest anyone should boast."

    	BD�

    It seems to me that the original topic posed two different questions: 
    what makes an individual Christian, and what makes a denomination
    Christian?  A denomination may not be explicitly Christian but still
    have Christians among its members; for example, Unitarian Universalism
    is not specifically a Christian denomination, but many individual UUs
    are Christians.  What matters for Unitarian Universalism is its
    commitment to process rather than doctrine.  While this sometimes
    results in some soul searching among UUs who ask each other what it is
    that UUs really believe, its real point is to encourage individual
    freedom of spiritual exploration.  Within that environment, many UUs
    may find a home for their personal spiritual quest within Christianity
    (about 10%).

    I don't know what percentage of Quakers don't consider themselves
    Christians.  The answer to that question tends to depend on which
    denomination within the Quaker faith you turn to; the Evangelical
    Quakers, for example, definitely have a Christian basis to their faith. 
    Unprogrammed Friends may or may not have less of a Christian emphasis,
    depending on the particular meeting.  Although these Friends lack a
    common theological dogma, they do share a common set of Quaker
    traditions, and that is what holds Quakers together.  Those traditions
    include beliefs in peace, equality, and simplicity, which stem from
    their belief in that of God in everyone, as well as the original
    radical Christianity that George Fox expressed.  Beyond that--as to
    whether Jesus was divine, or was resurrected from the dead, etc.--it is
    up to the individual to decide for themselves.  Such theological
    details are in some ways irrelevant to Quakers, who are primarily
    concerned about putting their faith into practice in this world, rather
    than worrying about the next one.

    As Dave pointed out, many who may not believe some doctrine about Jesus
    nevertheless may follow his teachings.  This is true of UUs, and
    certainly of of Quakers, who stress living our lives according to the
    principles espoused by Jesus, particularly in his Sermon on the Mount.

    Some denominations, on the other hand, promote official theological
    doctrines that the individual members are expected to accept.  In the
    case of the Roman Catholic Church, for example, the Magisterium serves
    that role.  The recent disputes within the Southern Baptist church over
    tolerance of different individual beliefs (an issue which may very well
    split the denomination) are another example of this issue.

    -- Mike

Re: Note 22.11 by CSC32::M_VALENZA (Mike Valenza)

>    It seems to me that the original topic posed two different questions: 
>    what makes an individual Christian, and what makes a denomination
>    Christian?  

Actually I only tried to pose the second question. The first one seems to have
come along for the ride ;-).

I agree, there are Christian denominations that contain non-Christians within
their ranks (I John seems to be written pursuant to this). Also, there are
non-Christian religions which have Christians among their ranks. I don't think
we can use say that if a denomination has any non-Christians it is
non-Christian (just as we can't say that a non-Christian religion which has
Christians in it is Christian).

If we pin down the "who is a Christian" question, can we generalize this and
say that if a religion subscribes to this doctrine it is a Christian religion?
If not, we better change the course of this topic to one that will answer the
question.


- Barry W.

    	We have a couple of thorns here, some of which I'd rather, for the
    sake of peace, avoid. Others, for the sake of ignorance, I must avoid.
    	I believe in the teachings attributed to someone who is refered to
    in various liturature as Jesus Christ. I believe that any person who
    acts according to those teachings is a better person for having done so
    and has made the world a better place for others to inhabit by having
    done so. Those who knowingly make the world a worse place for others to
    inhabit are not, regardless of their claims to the contrary,
    christians. Accepting the word of Christ and living by that word is the
    road to salvation. It does not matter to me if Christ actually existed
    or if the whole thing started out as a theology school prank; the body
    of the teachings are there and are truely worthy of acceptance. I can
    "accept" that Christ was "God" without changing my stance because all I
    need do IS accept it, I am not called upon to act on it. I AM called
    upon to Love My Neighbor As Myself and I MUST act upon that.
    	Shall we make things really difficult here ?  Bedrock
    Fundementalist Christians with blood pressure or other stress-related
    problems should now hit <KP,>.
    	What are we being saved from? Hell. For what? Heaven. Where are
    these places? <> In the sky? No. In the bowels of the earth? No. They
    are not physical places therefore they don't physically exist.
    Moreover, we cannot experience them until WE no longer physically
    exist. And the only proof we have that they exist is the word of a
    poorly educated craftsman, a skilled laborer who abandoned his trade to
    sit around and talk philosophy like a dilettante. Things never change,
    even today every plumber is a philosopher and every cabbie has the
    inside scoop on everything. Questionable sources aside, I KNOW there's a
    Hell and I believe there can be a Heaven. You want to see Hell ?  Check
    out the heating grates near Downtown Crossing some early morning in
    November, there are people who know Hell up close and personal. Are you
    a Christian ?  Then SAVE at least one of them. Take one, any one, to a
    warm place and fill that belly with real food. You have just helped two
    people take a step toward Heaven. If you can walk by then you are not a
    Christian, regardless of the hollow words in your mouth. 
    	Ooops, I've been ranting again. Sorry. 
    	Maybe we ought to get back to the main topic - or did Mike V. clear
    that up ?  A Christian Church must exist primarily to teach and help
    people to live by the word of Christ. 

    Dave,
    
    	I echo your prophetic rantings.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE.9
    
           I don't really know if my definition presupposes that
         Christ actually lived. It certainly supposes that there
         are people who believe that he existed and died to atone
         for their sins. It would seem that there is a distinct
         difference between the two.
           The existence of Christ seems to me to be totally irrelevant
         to Christianity in a great many ways, but it is not irrelevant
         to to Christians. This might seem to be contradictory, but
         none the less this seems to be the case from my perspective.
    
                                                       Mike

    
    Mike,
    
         >  The existence of Christ seems to me to be totally irrelevant
         >to Christianity in a great many ways, but it is not irrelevant
         >to to Christians. This might seem to be contradictory, but
         >none the less this seems to be the case from my perspective.
          
    Can you explain, please. Be patient with me...I'm tripping over
    some things here and having a hard time grasping hold of what
    you are presenting.
    
    Barry, the question you pose in the basenote is important. I would
    submit that it is impossible (to my way of thinking) to separate
    Christians from Christianity for without the former, there is
    no Christianity. I do understand the need to focus on 'Christianity'
    as opposed to 'Christian' so as not to get bogged down in the ever
    safe retreat of "Only God knows who is and who isn't".
    
    It sounds to me like many here are trying to redefine Christianity
    according to their own understanding rather than trying to understand
    what it really is.
    
    J. I. Packer, in "I Want to Be a Christian" (companion book to "Knowing
    God"), writes to Christians of all backgrounds and denominations about
    the basics of the faith, exploring the core principles of what makes
    a Christian: the Christian's convictions, communion with God, code
    of godly conduct, and church relationships. These are all explored
    through a look at the Creed, the Lord's prayer, the Ten Commandments,
    and Christian baptism. 
    
    I highly recommend this to all who are truly desirous of knowing
    what Christianity is, rather than defining it for themslves.
    
    It will readily be apparent, then, that a Christianity without Christ
    at the center -- meaning, the atoning death of Jesus Christ and
    his resurrection -- is not Christianity at all for it totally misses 
    the purpose of Christ's coming to earth and God's plan for man.
    
    We cannot talk meaningfully about the "love of God" without 
    understanding the greatest gift of His love.
    
    "For God so loved the world that He gave His only-begotten son
    that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting
    life." - God sent His Son into the world so that He might save the
    lost through him.
    
                                                    John 3:16
    
    btw, Mike, Jesus is a historical fact. There are references to
    him by historians of the day, including Josephus. You would be
    correct to say that Jesus actually lived but that believing
    he died to atone for sins is a matter of faith (though it can
    be clearly seen in prophetic threads that weave through Scripture
    from the very beginning.)
    
    Irena
    

    (I realize the discussion may have already moved past this, but I kept
    getting Exceeded Enqueue Limit everytime I tried entering this
    yesterday.)
    
�Re: Note 22.5 by DELNI::MEYER "Dave Meyer"                            

�>    	Perhaps we first need to know what a "Christian" is. In my intro I
�>    spelled it "christian" for a good reason: I do not know, or care, if
�>    Christ was divinely inspired in his teachings. I follow his teachings
�>    as those of a great teacher and philosopher. I do not say he is this or
�>    that, or he is not this or that, only that I believe one can be a
�>    better person for following his teachings. 

    Dave, I suspect you've heard the one about how you can't accept Jesus
    as *just* a great teacher/philosopher. Jesus claimed to be God and was
    so bold as to assert that He was *the only* way to God the Father. If
    He were *not* God and if He did *not* hold this unique position, then
    He'd hardly be a great teacher - He'd be a lunatic and/or a liar.

    Yes, Jesus' teachings are great, but they include His teachings
    about Himself. I don't think you can take some and not the other.


�Note 22.6 by SA1794::SEABURYM (Mike Seaburym)
    
�>         If someone claims that Jesus Christ is their personal
�>     savior and that his death paid for their sins I consider
�>     them a "Christian". 
�>         Anybody else care to care to broaden or narrow my rule
�>      of thumb ? Anyone take exception to it ?
    
    I too think that definition is pretty handy (although I might add a few
    more things, like His resurrection). A small detail to point out, of
    course, is that simply claiming something doesn't mean it's true. After
    all, I can claim to be a millionaire - even believe that I am - but if
    I don't have a million bucks I'm not a millionaire. Similarly, one can
    claim to be a Christian; but only they (and God) know for sure whether
    or not that person is truly trusting Christ for his/her eternal life.

    This is where Barry's comment is fitting:

�Re: Note 22.9 by LABC::WALLIS
�
�I would agree with your definition as necessary, but, not sufficient.
�Additionally, one must live a life which as a course of habit practices
�righteousness as defined by Jesus. Even though one may sin, it is not the
�normal course of their life.

    The (true) Christian will life a lifestyle of righteousness (despite
    the occasional sins). The First epistle of John gives some excellent
    litmus tests so that one can know for sure whether they are saved. One
    of the tests is in fact a holy lifestyle.

    A final point to make, though, is that the Bible also teaches that
    performing good works isn't what saves us. We our saved through the
    free gift of God; the good works *follow* that salvation.

    Eph. 2:8-9 -> "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and that
    not of yourselves; it is the gift of God, not of works, lest anyone
    should boast."

    	BD�

re Note 22.13 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     I KNOW there's a
>     Hell and I believe there can be a Heaven. You want to see Hell ?  Check
>     out the heating grates near Downtown Crossing some early morning in
>     November, there are people who know Hell up close and personal. Are you
>     a Christian ?  Then SAVE at least one of them. Take one, any one, to a
>     warm place and fill that belly with real food. You have just helped two
>     people take a step toward Heaven. If you can walk by then you are not a
>     Christian, regardless of the hollow words in your mouth. 

        Prophetic words indeed -- and echoes of James 1:27:

        "Pure, unspoilt religion, in the eyes of God our Father is
        this:  coming to the help of orphans and widows when they
        need it, and keeping oneself uncontaminated by the world."

        Certainly, the "religion" that James is referring to must be
        "Christian" -- therefore we have a definition of "Christian
        religion" right out of the Bible.

        Bob

Re: .16 Irena

>    btw, Mike, Jesus is a historical fact. There are references to
>    him by historians of the day, including Josephus.

Josephus was not a "historian of the day": he was born after Jesus died
(assuming that Jesus actually existed).  This means that Josephus could not
personally attest to the fact that Jesus existed, but could only record the
fact that some people of Josephus's time believed that Jesus had existed.

Also, Josephus's references to Jesus were not extensive, and the most direct
references are of doubtful authenticity.

				-- Bob

Re:  .18

Bob, you're right on.  But you're only partially right on, because the
Bible says more about being a Christian (i.e. a follower of Jesus Christ)
than that one sentence from James.  In fact, many more statements are made
about the atoning death of Jesus than the resulting works that proceed from
a life of faith.  Without this part of the definition, the definition is
incomplete.

re Note 22.20 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Re:  .18
> 
> Bob, you're right on.  But you're only partially right on, because the
> Bible says more about being a Christian (i.e. a follower of Jesus Christ)
> than that one sentence from James.  In fact, many more statements are made
> about the atoning death of Jesus than the resulting works that proceed from
> a life of faith.  Without this part of the definition, the definition is
> incomplete.

        Some observations:

        The original question is not "what is a Christian" but rather
        "what is a Christian religion".  As far as I know, this is
        the only passage in Scripture which directly answers the
        question "what is a true religion?"

        Second observation:  James didn't feel the need to qualify or
        cross-reference his definition of "true religion" (even
        though it originally appeared in the form of a rather brief
        letter) -- why do you feel the need to do so?

        (I can just imagine you being in a first-century congregation
        in which James' letter had just been read for the first time,
        and getting up and saying:  "James, you're right on.  But
        you're only partially right on, because the Bible says more
        about being a Christian ....")

        Third:  as soon as you pick a passage here, a passage there,
        and say that only together they constitute some entire truth,
        then you are making a human construct.  It may be useful,
        even valuable;  but the combination is a human work.

        (Is there any truth to what I had heard that Martin Luther
        felt that James was not true Scripture?  It would seem that
        there is a long tradition of responding to James by saying
        "you're right on.  But you're only partially right on.")

        Bob

    
    Bob, oops....that's what happens when one hurriedly edits a 
    paragraph down to a couple of sentences. I had originally
    intended to refer to some 1st & 2nd Century C.E. rabbinical 
    writings as well, but decided to forgo that [for lack of time].
    
    It's sure great that that's all you found in my reply to
    take issue with ... ;)
    
    Irena
    

Re:  .21

Bob (Fleischer)

I guess I just disagree with what you're saying.  I don't believe it
was James (the author's) intention to fully define religion.  I do
believe it was his intention to state that which is important to religion.

The Scriptures were given to us by God so that they could all be used to
answer questions just as these.  Scripture *does* speak to this issue
(directly!), even though the word "religion" may not be used in the discussion.

Re:  how I would act if James spoke to my church

Actually, I'm quite submissive when someone else in authority is speaking.
In this forum, however, I feel free to share my opinion which, I hope,
is based on what the Bible says.  You are free to disagree with me and
hopefully we can both grow as a result of our discussion.

In love,

Collis

    Collis,
    
    I was surprised by your comment:

<<Actually, I'm quite submissive when someone else in authority is speaking.
In this forum, however, I feel free to share my opinion which, I hope,
is based on what the Bible says. >>
    
    I'm not sure I understand.  Could you explain why you would give
    your power away to 'someone else in authority'?   Not trying to hassle
    you, I'm just confused. 
    
    Thanks...
    
    Ro
    

I think the role of a worshipper in Church is to worship and be taught.

I think the role of someone in the audience when someone is teaching is
to be taught.

I think the role of a read/write participant in a notes file is to share
honestly and sincerely what is felt and believed.

Different settings, different roles.

Presumably, a speaker in a church would have been given authority to speak
(teach) explicitly or implicitly by the leadership of the church.  It is not 
my position to question that during the teaching, except in extraordinary
circumstances.  If the teaching time includes a discussion, then raising
questions about what is being taught may be appropriate.  But I think that
God has given authority to the church and to teachers appointed by the
church which I would do well to accept - at least in the short term.
Long term, the way to deal with problems is not during a teaching time,
but rather during a meeting called for that purpose.

Hope this helps.

Collis

    Yes, it does.  Thanks for explaining.
    
    Ro
    

    	A point here, more related to some of the comments than to the
    topic.
    	I become uncomfortable when people start discussing "truths". As in
    "true" religions and "true" Christians. Somehow the image of a deKlerk
    or a Klansman appears speaking of "true" white folks, or a Stalin
    speaking of "true" communists, or a McCarthy speaking of "true"
    Americans, or a Hitler ... but you must see my point. If one is "true"
    then every other must be "false" and then what do we do with the
    errant? Blacklist them so they can't work to support themselves or
    their family? Perhaps a Pogrom would help, or a purge or a little
    campfire with the Heretic toasting tootsies. 
    	Could we find some other way of discussing this, some way that
    hasn't been so badly abused in the past - both near and far? Tx

 Re.

 Irena:
        Contradictions don't bother me too much. This one seems to be 
 a simple one to my mind, but what the heck I am a simple minded person
 any way :-)
        As I see it, Christianity is far and away the creation of Peter,
 Paul, Matthew, Augustine, Jerome and even Aristotle and Plato. The theology,
 dogma, philosophy ect.. of Christianity have little if anything to do
 with the physical reality of the person of Christ. ( Assuming for the
 sake of discussion that he existed.)
        On the other hand the reality of a spiritual relationship with
 Christ is extremely important in lives of many Christians. However,
 this relationship would seem to have little if any connection with that
 which is purported to be Christianity as it is found between the covers
 of books, broadcast or preached from various pulpits and street corners
 or as found in religious practice. To me, it seems extremely unlikely
 Christ would recognize or understand the religion that created in
 his name. 
        Any religion that survives it's originator usually manages to 
 transcend that person. Yet, spiritual attachment that founder often remains
 profoundly important in the life of a believer. 
        There, have I managed to totally confuse you ?


                                                       Mike  

    re: .27
    
    Dave,
    
    Everything has a purpose.  Things can be used for a purpose, or abused
    for a purpose.
    
    I believe you have shown how people have *abused* the purpose of
    defining what "true" Christianity is.
    
    Any thoughts on what the *use* (or purpose) for defining "true"
    Christianity is?
    
    Steve

re Note 22.28 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>         On the other hand the reality of a spiritual relationship with
>  Christ is extremely important in lives of many Christians. However,
>  this relationship would seem to have little if any connection with that
>  which is purported to be Christianity as it is found between the covers
>  of books, broadcast or preached from various pulpits and street corners
>  or as found in religious practice. To me, it seems extremely unlikely
>  Christ would recognize or understand the religion that created in
>  his name. 

        But how do you know that?  How could you and I come to any
        common understanding of this?  At least, in the case of
        "Christianity as it is found between the covers of books" (I
        assume you mean primarily the Bible), we have something
        concrete and extensive to study and discuss.  What do we have
        if we discount the books?

        Bob

    re. 28
    
    Mike,
    
    	You have spoken wisely.  What we have today, for the most part,
    is not the Christian church, but the Pauline church.
    
    	Yet, the Spirit of the Living God still touches us and impells us
    to carry out Divine Will and to live righteously according to the
    measure of Light we have been granted.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    	First, I'd like to apologise to deKlerk for inserting his name when
    I meant to refer to his predecessor (Botha??)
    	Second, I did not state an objection to seeking a definition for
    Christianity, I was stating an uneasiness with the terminology that
    seems to have evolved in the discussion. Discussions of what is "true"
    often seem to degenerate into polarized stances without solutions. If
    you WANT to set up an us-vs-them situation then I'll state up front
    that I'm one of "them" and will fight your bigotry at every turn. If
    you are seeking answers and unity then I will gladly offer my best to
    that cause. Doing one is doing the other.

 Re.30
    
  Bob:

       Excellent question ! Do you know what we have when we
  discard what is found in books ? Reality, the present moment
  in which exists the entire universe. 
       Books, however useful, are the reflection of the moon
  upon the water, not the moon itself. 
        On those occasions when I've sat and discussed the personal
  experience of belief with Christians and not had a steady steam
  of Scriptural quotations hurled at in an attempt to beat me into
  submission I've managed to catch a glimpse or two of a Christian.
        This common basis found in the Bible and other books as you
  call it are a formidable obstacle to any communication because they
  obscure the Christian and replace them with Christianity.
         It is my perception that ultimately, Christian spirituality is
  faith. Faith is not found in a book, it is not given to you, nor
  is it something you posses for yourself. It is a thing unto itself.
  It is perfect all encompassing experience, like jumping into a cold
  lake. (Sorry, it's the best analogy I can muster.)
         There is a Zen story about a monk and his pupil walking along
  when they hear the wind chimes in the temple ringing. The monk asks
  the student, "Which does the ringing, the wind or the chimes ?" and
  the pupil replies. "Neither, the mind rings".
          On those occasions when I have caught a glimpse of a Christian
  rather than Christianity I have seen someone whose mind rings. It is not
  based on the Bible, books or the teachings of any theologian. Perhaps it
  is because Christ is risen in them ? I don't know. Maybe this is really
  the "real" Christian religion ? 
           As I have said, I really do not know. I am here to try to
  understand such things better. Perhaps you can tell me if I am on the
  the right track.


                                                Mike
        
   

re Note 22.33 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>        Excellent question ! Do you know what we have when we
>   discard what is found in books ? Reality, the present moment
>   in which exists the entire universe. 
>        Books, however useful, are the reflection of the moon
>   upon the water, not the moon itself. 
  
        So far, I agree.

>       On those occasions when I've sat and discussed the personal
>   experience of belief with Christians and not had a steady steam
>   of Scriptural quotations hurled at in an attempt to beat me into
>   submission I've managed to catch a glimpse or two of a Christian.

        Here I don't agree.  When you discuss, you use words.  Those
        words have the same potential, and limitations, as any
        written words.  They are just as much a reflection of reality
        -- they aren't the reality itself, either.

>   Perhaps it
>   is because Christ is risen in them ? I don't know. Maybe this is really
>   the "real" Christian religion ? 


        Again, here I do agree with you.  Christ -- the living God --
        is the ultimate reality -- the way, the truth, and the life. 
        The true Christian is one in which God's spirit dwells, not
        the one in whom a particular doctrine sits.

        I personally feel that the Bible is the best "reflection of
        Christ", but it is not Christ.

        Bob

    Mike .33,
    
    You are on the right track.  In fact your insights touch
    upon the essence of Christian mysticism.  I hope to offer
    more on this subject at a later time.
    
    Thanks for your thoughts,
    
    Karen

    .29:
    
�    Any thoughts on what the *use* (or purpose) for defining "true"
�    Christianity is?
    
    I would guess that the use (as distinguished from abuse) would be for
    the purpose of believing rightly, and behaving rightly.  One might
    presume that once one has right belief, acting rightly would follow.
    
    Dick

Re: .33

Perhaps the "mind ringing" to which you refer is what is meant by the phrase
"being filled with the Holy Spirit."  Spouting verses from the Bible doesn't
make you a Christian, but when you are a Christian, the verses should be written
on your heart.  Making declarations in the name of Jesus doesn't make you
Christian, but when you are a Christian, your life should be a declaration of 
the Grace and Love of God which is Jesus Christ.

Wook

    Wook,
    	I can heartily agree with your "Spouting verses from the Bible
    doesn't make you a Christian ..." though I'm not so sure about the
    verses (rather than their meaning, a quibble?) being written on (not
    in?) your heart. But you really nail it down (for me) when you say your
    LIFE should be a declaration of your Christianity. I have known too
    many (ONE could be 'too many') professed Christians who spend their
    free minutes spouting "The Word" yet seldom if ever provide a good
    example for others. They are too busy evangelizing to bother with acts
    of love or charity - they seem obsessed with Christ's admonishion to
    spread the word.
    
    	DaveM

    well I feel I'm a christian, and I believe something similar to what
    Dave does.  I think Christ was no more or less the son of God than any
    of us, but he was a REALLY great person, and if you try your hardest
    and follow the lessons he set out you can also be a really good person
    and go to heaven when you die.
    
    Of course, I have friends who don't think I'm a Christian, because I'm
    not their brand of Christian, and thus feel I will probably burn in hell
    when I die because I have not been properly "saved".  I suppose the
    dichotomy between christian and Christian primarily influences how you
    look at someone *else's* beliefs and worships balanced against your
    own.  
    
    The way I look at it - there are many ways to get to better living
    through Christ - and I'd call all of 'em christian (or Christian,
    whichever)....
    
    -Jody
    

    
    	Jody,
    
    	Just curious; how do your beliefs compare to what Christ meant
    when he said; "I am the Way the truth and the life, no man comes unto
    the father except by me."  and what the Bible says in Ephesians 2: 8-9
    For by grace are ye saved, by faith, and that not of yourselves it is
    a gift of God.  Not of works lest any man/woman should boast.
    
    	Just asking,
    	   _ed-

    How important _is_ the emphasis on salvation, really?  For some,
    I imagine, it is everything.  For others, salvation captures little
    or no interest.  Certainly, there must be varying degrees of emphasis.
    
    What do others think?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Richard,
    	I'm certainly not about to let "salvation" worry me. If it is there
    and if I qualify then I will be quite happy about it all. If it isn't
    there then I don't expect that I will notice. If it is there and I
    don't qualify then I've utterly failed to live up to those principles
    Christ taught and have nobody to blame but myself. I'm not going to
    make anybody's life a hell in the hopes that it will get me to heaven.
    That would seem contraindicated. Though I'm sure Collis thinks I'm
    making an exception for him. ;-) 
    	So, anyone care to speak for salvation-is-all ?

    
    Re.43
    
           Mike:
    
                 Amen !
    
             (Did I really say that ?)
    
                                                       Mike

    Speculating about an afterlife is often fun, but in general I am more
    concerned about what we humans can do to heal the world we live in than
    I am about what happens, if anything, in the world to come.

    I believe that the religious life is its own reward.  I also believe
    that the price we pay for sin, and for separation from God (or the
    Ultimate, or the Divine, or whatever word you choose to use) is a
    broken world.  Healing a broken world, and broken lives, is what (for
    me, anyway), religion is about.  I am not particularly interested in
    what Matthew Fox calls Fall/Redemption theology; nor am I interested in
    doctrines of "salvation", where the word is defined in terms of some
    sort of guaranteed afterlife.

    If, on the other hand, "salvation" means the healing of a broken world,
    and of broken lives, then "salvation" is something that interests me.

    -- Mike

    	Once again, MikeV managed to say it better than I did. But how did
    the Amen get ahead of the reading ?

    That's what happens when you post a note, delete it, and then repost
    it.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

The topic has been on salvation.

However, the topic needs to be on sin.

What Christ offers is a solution to the problem.  But noone here is talking
about the problem!  The problem is sin.  Do we agree that there is a problem
with sin?  (Do we agree that Christ saw a problem with sin?)

Collis

    The thrust of Jesus mission and message was not to dwell on
    sin.  However, sin was certainly a preoccupation of his
    disciples and followers.
    
    This is certainly not to say that Jesus was not concerned
    with sin.
    
    I've alway thought that sin should be spelled sIn; the *I*
    being at the center.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re:  22.48

  >The thrust of Jesus mission and message was not to dwell on sin.  

Jesus had several thrusts.  One of them was definately sin.

Luke 5:32  
  "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

Luke 24:46-47
  He told them, "This is what is written:  The Christ will suffer and
  rise from the dead on the third day, and repentance and forgiveness
  of sins will be preached in his name to all nations, beginning at
  Jerusalem."

If you miss the point that you are a sinner in need of the forgiveness
that Jesus offers, you have missed the gospel message.  It is *not* a
message exclusively about love.  It *is* a message about how love works
so that those seperated from God may be brought back to God.

Collis

Note 22.49

>If you miss the point that you are a sinner in need of the forgiveness
>that Jesus offers, you have missed the gospel message.

To the best of my knowledge and understanding, I have not missed the point.
How about you, Collis?

>It is *not* a message exclusively about love.  It *is* a message about how
>love works so that those seperated from God may be brought back to God.

I believe Jesus' message was a message of conversion to radical love,
healing and reconciliation.  Exclusively, no.  Inclusively, yes. :-)

Peace,
Richard

I went to a Campus Crusade for Christ meeting in my college years.
Everyone I met asked me, "Are you saved?"  Well, I figured I wasn't
spent; therefore, I must be saved.  And so, I answered in the
affirmative.

When I was older I was asked on numerous occassions, "Have you accepted
Jesus Christ as your *personal* Savior?"  (They always emphasized that
word 'personal')  I answered that I not only accepted Christ as my
*personal* Savior, but our *public* and *global* Savior and Supreme
Example.

Am I saved?  Better! I'm invested. ;-)

Peace,
Richard

    "Happy are those who hear the word of God....
    				And follow it with their lives."

    Collis, et al,
    	PLEASE stop refering to me (specificly or as part of an
    all-inclusive indictment) as a sinner. By that description you are
    saying that I am someone who intentionally does things which I know to
    be sinful. This is not the case and I very much resent you saying it.
    If you want to make some insupportable (logicaly) comment about me
    being in a state of sin because of something one or more of my
    ancestors is reputed to have done, then fine. I may not agree with you
    but I won't feel that your comment insults *me*. 
    	Out of a rathole and into the fray. Christ did recognize sin as a
    problem but his direction was not AGAINST sin. The OT is filled with
    prohibitions; don't do this, don't do that. Christ typically did not
    tell us what not to do so much as what we SHOULD do. Yes, he admonished
    us for our weakness, but his was a positive message that started with
    Love Thy Neighbor. Not "do not hate your neighbor", "do love". He did
    say to spread the word of his teachings, but he also said to do many
    things for those less fortunate than yourself. I don't believe that
    punishing sin was first on his list of priorities, I think promoting
    and rewarding of doing good had that honor.

Hi E Grace,

Makes a lot of sense to me!!  Your words and those of Mike V. have inspired me
and I'd very much like to attend a "Friends" service sometime.

Ro

    
    
    
    
Note 22.54                What is a Christian religion                  54 of 55
GWYNED::YUKONSEC "jumping off spot for electricity!" 31 lines  19-NOV-1990 18:04
                -< 'course, none of this may make *any* sense! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hmmmm...according to many definitions here, neither I nor my religion
    is Christian (or christian).  Yet, I *feel* that I am, and so is my
    religion.
    
    I have questions.  I am not always "good" by some people's standards. 
    I sometimes fuss at, and fight with, my Higher Power and my Inner
    Light.  My faith does not coincide with my mother's; then again, her
    faith does not coincide with mine.
    
    Someone at Meeting yesterday, speaking to the concern of another,
    stated that it was important to remember that Jesus loved the Apostles,
    and that, really, they didn't do all that much to deserve it!  They
    were not there for him when he needed them, they disbelieved fairly
    often, etc., yet Jesus still loved them.
    
    In my Friend's Meeting, there are many who do not believe in the
    divinity of Jesus.  Yet they strive to accomplish the tasks they
    understand that Jesus laid out for them.
    
    As do I, more than some, less than many.
    
    Who am I to say that they are not c(C)hristian?  Who am I to say that a
    religion that exhorts its members to "walk cheerfully over the land,
    seeking that of God in *everyone*?"
    
    I believe that I am the best Christian (I give up, all these upper and
    lower case "c"s are confusing me!) that I can be.  Today.  Because I
    try, with honesty, to love others as I would be loved, and to find the
    Inner Light in everyone.
    
    E Grace
    

    RE:  -.1
    
    Ro,
    
    We'll take any warm bod............I mean, you are always welcome at a 
    Friends meeting!  (*8
    
    E Grace

Re:  22.50

    >>If you miss the point that you are a sinner in need of the forgiveness
    >>that Jesus offers, you have missed the gospel message.

  >To the best of my knowledge and understanding, I have not missed the point.
  >How about you, Collis?

No, I have not missed it either.

  >I believe Jesus' message was a message of conversion to radical love,
  >healing and reconciliation.  Exclusively, no.  Inclusively, yes. :-)

I strongly agree.

Collis

Re:  22.53

  >PLEASE stop refering to me (specificly or as part of an
  >all-inclusive indictment) as a sinner. 

Dave, I will not do that.

It is not because I desire to attack you, because I do not.

It is because it is a basic tenet of the Christian faith that everyone
(except Jesus) is a sinner.  This includes you and it includes me.

You are welcome to disagree.  In my view (and in the view of Christians
in general), this puts you far outside of Christianity because without
acknowledging sin and seeking repentence and forgiveness, you are without
Christ.

  >By that description you are saying that I am someone who intentionally 
  >does things which I know to be sinful. This is not the case and I very 
  >much resent you saying it.

:-(  I pray that your heart and eyes will be opened.  

Collis

P.S.  It is Jesus himself who said that he did not come for the healthy,
but for the sick (sinners).  If you are not sick, you have no need of a
Savior (Jesus).

Re:  22.53

  >PLEASE stop refering to me (specificly or as part of an
  >all-inclusive indictment) as a sinner. 

I've been thinking more about this over the weekend.  If you object
to the way that I am saying this (i.e. the method), then perhaps there
is something I can change.  I do not mean to be offensive in the way
I share.  If, instead, you are objecting to the message itself, then
I will not change because the message is the message of the Bible.

Was it the method that you objected to?

Collis

    Collis - 
    
    If Dave will permit me to jump into the fray here, I have noticed that
    when you refer to another noter as a sinner, it's almost always when
    they disagree with you on some level either the interpretation of whatever 
    Biblical passage you have previously quoted or in terms of the
    discussion at hand.  Personally I don't believe in the concept of
    original sin so I tend to discount your references.  However, when you
    "point the finger" in discussions by calling an individual "sinner" or
    whatever it feels to me like a personal attack thinly disguised as
    what you term as "Biblical fact".  This using the Bible as a personal
    shield may seem to you that it serves your purposes of showing us all 
    "the Way" but it seems to me that the result is, more often than not,
    alienation of those you seek to convince (besides being contrary to the
    conference rule of no personal attacks).  
    
    Does this help?
    
    Nanci

    Nanci,
    	thank you. You didn't say it anywhere NEAR how I might have, had I
    not been on vacation, but you did an excellent job.
    
    Collis,
    	I do not say there is no sin. I do not say that I have not sinned.
    However, I do not share your belief in "Original Sin" nor do I screw up
    on a regular basis. When I recognize a failing then I repent it. For
    you to call me a sinner - or anyone, for that matter - is about the
    same as if you called me a drunkard because I have occasionally gotten
    drunk (not recently). I find it insulting, PERSONALLY insulting, and
    would rather that you stopped. Your (not evil) intentions and your
    justifications not withstanding, this is how I feel.
    	I feel that I should add that you are not the only one here who
    uses that term with that meaning and understanding. I'm not even sure
    it was your comment that "broke the camel's back". Nanci wrote a well
    worded and insightful reply which goes well beyond "valueing
    differences", perhaps she had seen this once too often as well.

	RE: .61 Dave it appears that part of the problem is differing
	deffinitions of "sinner". To a lot of people it means anyone who
	has ever sinned. This covers a lot wider group then it appears
	yours does. Until this time I did not know any Christians with
	a narrower definition then mine.

			Alfred

Re:  22.60
    
Nanci,

  >If Dave will permit me to jump into the fray here, I have noticed that
  >when you refer to another noter as a sinner, it's almost always when
  >they disagree with you on some level either the interpretation of whatever 
  >Biblical passage you have previously quoted or in terms of the
  >discussion at hand.  

I am offended by this claim.  No, I'm not asking you to delete it.
Perhaps there is some truth to it.  But it *completely* misses who I
am and what I say.

I know of *no* case where I *ever* referred to someone as a sinner for the
purpose of degrading them.  This is what I hear you saying both in the
above sentence as well as in the note as a whole.

In fact, I try to always include *myself* when discussing sin and
any individual (although I may not always succeed).  Certainly this
type of response makes it obvious that I'm not pointing fingers.

  >Personally I don't believe in the concept of original sin so I tend to 
  >discount your references.  

You don't have to believe in original sin to believe that you, me or
anyone else is a sinner.  You simply need to believe the often repeated 
claim of Scripture that all have sinned.

  >Does this help?

It helps me to understand where you're coming from.  Again, you have
totally misunderstood me and I believe your facts (upon which the
misunderstanding is based) are wrong.

Collis

Re:  22.61

Dave,

  >I do not say there is no sin. I do not say that I have not sinned.

  >For you to call me a sinner - or anyone, for that matter - is about the
  >same as if you called me a drunkard because I have occasionally gotten
  >drunk (not recently). I find it insulting, PERSONALLY insulting, and
  >would rather that you stopped. 

I am not using a definition for "sinner" that I invented.  I am using
the same definition that is used throughout Scripture.

If you want to play word games and redefine sinner so that it means
"someone who has not sinned recently", go ahead.  But that is not the
definition I have used nor intend to use.  I could go into the reasons
why I don't plan on using this definition, but I don't think that you
would really care.  You just don't want the label sinner hung on you and
I, in my desire to be true to the Word of God, refuse to unlabel you.

Collis

In defense of Collis, it is his religious belief that everyone is a sinner.
It's not reasonable to ask him to keep silent about his beliefs.  In my
opinion Collis has not been personally attacking anyone by saying that
they are sinners; rather, he has been stating his beliefs.

I can't find a definition of "sinner" in the American Heritage Dictionary.
We can assume that Collis means "anyone who has ever sinned".  Please do
not take Collis's statements as being attacks based on *your* definitions
of the word; instead, interpret Collis's notes based on *his* definition.

				-- Bob

    Bob -
    
    If we are to have effective communication we must agree on terms.  Dave
    was asking Collis to respect his defenition of the term "sinner". (Which
    also happens to be the same definition that many others understand as
    well.)  
    
    Collis - 
    
    I understand the meaning that you give to the term sinner and I
    understand your frustration at being misunderstood.  At the same time I
    felt that in your response you were discounting the feelings of those
    of us who *feel* offended by your use of the term.  Am I wrong?   What I
    heard you saying is that since your interpretation of the Bible
    agrees with your definition of the term "sinner" then the feelings of
    those of us who don't use that definition are not valid.  Nevertheless, 
    if I don't define "sinner" in the same way I may *feel* judged and 
    devalued when you use that term when referring directly to me.  In order 
    to gain the ear and hearts of one's audience it's helpful if you can speak 
    their language rather than using yours and hoping they won't
    misinterpret your meaning.
    
    Oh - by the way - in saying that I don't believe in the concept of
    Original Sin I left out part of what I was hoping to communicate.  That
    is that I don't believe that we are all sinners.  I do believe that we
    are all on a learning curve and that we do make mistakes.  Hopefully we
    learn from our mistakes because I believe that's what they're there
    for.  :-)  I also understand that you would probably define those mistakes 
    as "sins".  I do value your difference, Collis, and I try to be very 
    concious of that difference when communicating with you.
    
    Affirming the love and light of Christ in this discussion...
    
    Nanci

	Nanci,

	I'm having trouble understanding some of this. What is your definition
	of "sinner"? I assume it something other then "someone who has sinned".

			Alfred

    Alfred-
    
    To me, the term "sinner" is used by those who are passing judgement
    either on something that someone else does or on someone else's
    character.  Personally, I don't use the word except in response to
    someone else's use of it.  It's a concept that I just don't relate to
    at all personally, although I think I understand the meanings that
    other people attribute to the term.  After all, I was raised in a
    traditional Christian church so how could I fail to understand that
    which was preached about so frequently and with such vehemence?!  :-) 
    As an adult, however, I have rejected that particular world-view which
    assumes that birth is an event that causes a separation from that which
    is of God.  My belief system is centered in panentheism which is the
    belief that God is within all things and, at the same time, outside of
    it as well.
    
    Clear as mud, right?  :-)
    
    Nanci

>    To me, the term "sinner" is used by those who are passing judgment
>    either on something that someone else does or on someone else's
>    character.  

    Defining a word by who uses it rather then what it means is a little
    new to me so I guess that's why I had so much trouble. I use the word
    to mean a person who has sinned. Nothing more or less. To me it has
    none of the negative connotation you appear to associate with it. That
    makes it harder to understand someones objection to it. Sort of like
    when I was a kid and an other kid called a third kid an "ice cream
    soda". I had trouble understanding how that was bad. [This is a true
    story BTW.] 

    The concept of a human being NOT being a sinner is one I can't
    relate to very easily. That is part of the mystery of Jesus in that
    he was human but not a sinner. Denying that one is a sinner, to me,
    is equating oneself to being God. An idea I have trouble accepting
    as even remotely "christian."

    			Alfred

Re:  22.66

  >I understand your frustration at being misunderstood.  

In my mind, it goes beyond being misunderstood.  You have said (as I
understand it) that I discuss the person I am talking with as being a 
sinner for the purpose of putting them down because they disagree with me.  
I told you in strong terms that this is *not* the case and that this
claim was offensive.  Do you have any comment?

  >At the same time I felt that in your response you were discounting the 
  >feelings of those of us who *feel* offended by your use of the term.  
  >Am I wrong?   

Partially.  On the one hand, I am not responsible for your feelings.  On
the other hand, it is my responsibility to present (represent) both Scripture
and myself as inoffensively as possible.

I asked if it was the method that I used or the message itself.  Would
it be helpful if instead of using the word "sinner", I simply said,
"people who have disobeyed God and have a tendency to do so in the future"?  
No, I didn't think so.  It is not the word "sinner" that you have problems
with, it is the message that you and I disobey God and will do so again
in the future.

I understand that you neither like that message nor believe it.  The
message itself is offensive to you.  And the Bible teaches it.

  >In order to gain the ear and hearts of one's audience it's helpful if you 
  >can speak their language rather than using yours and hoping they won't
  >misinterpret your meaning.

But you *can* speak the language.  You know exactly what I mean.  It's
hard for anyone in this notesfile to not know what I mean because this
teaching of sinfulness is throughout Christianity, American culture (which
most of us are in) and the Bible.  Now, you can choose to redefine it or
say that the meaning has no relationship to reality (the second apparently
being your choice), but the meaning is clear.  It is exactly because the
meaning is clear that there is offense taken (because some find the message
itself offensive). 

Collis

    Collis,
    	I don't believe Nanci intended to suggest that you used the term in
    an intentional attempt to degrade someone. She saw a pattern, one that
    also caught my eye, and mentioned it. You seldom use that term when you
    are posting a positive message, you often use it when you are posting a
    defensive or argumentative message. You say this is not intentional, I
    accept that. We say you DO do it, and you can check the record if you
    doubt us - a problem with such a prolific author. (prolific must mean
    pro-life, right?)
    	You use the term to refer to everyone, you say everyone is a
    sinner. EVERYONE. The babe who is being born as I type is as much a
    sinner as the Quigly girl who has been brain-dead for over a decade and
    will (did?) die eventually of something without ever another voluntary
    action or thought. Then you want to define a "sinner" as "people who
    have disobeyed God and have a tendency to do so in the future". Well,
    the babe has not done one and the girl cannot do the other, yet they
    are sinners to you. 
    	Have you ever had more to drink than you perhaps should have? Do
    you want me, on that basis, to regularly call you a drunkard ? Have you
    ever, in your entire life, taken something that did not belong to you ?
    May I call you a thief for the rest of your life based upon that ?
    Defaced public property (recall grade school, please) ? Vandal forever.
    Hit someone ?  Bully! And this is only for what you have done, what has
    the babe DONE ? What can the woman DO ?
    	Let's put it this way. We can handle it nicely between us or we can
    fight about it. When I insult people in this file my replies get set
    hidden. Those messages had to be rewritten to exclude the offensive
    references or the rest of the content would be lost. I think that for
    you to continue to apply this term to us, knowing that it offends
    several of us, would be worse than inconsiderate. If everyone is a
    sinner then everyone is also a PERSON and that term should do quite
    well as a replacement. I do not want this problem to interfere with our
    continued dialogues, I value your input too highly.

    Collis - 
    
    I went back to my original note and reread it.  What I said was "I have
    noticed that when you refer to *another noter* as a sinner, it's
    *almost* always when they disagree with you on some level either the
    interpretation of whatever Biblical passage you have previously quoted
    or in terms of the discussion at hand."  Nowhere did I interpret what
    your are motivations for doing so.  Then I followed with how that would
    feel *to me*.  I can't speak for others but obviously there is some
    evidence that referring to other noters in this manner creates a
    similar response in others.  After all, this conversation began between
    you and Dave.  I merely, and perhaps ungracefully, stumbled in.  I
    don't think that you consiously mean to put anyone down.  Regardless of
    your motivations, using this label directed toward another person in a
    discussion is likely to be interpreted as a personal attack.  If this
    is not of concern to you then I guess the rest of us will just have to
    put up with it.  No, you are not responsible for my feelings or those
    of anyone else's.  I take full responsibility for my feelings.  But I
    thought you might find it useful to hear what effect your words have on
    other people.  However, deliberately offending people after they
    have requested that you find another way of communicating your thoughts
    doesn't seem like a very loving, Christian attitude to me.
    
    Collis - you asked whether the message or the method was offensive.  My
    answer would have to be both.  The message is offensive but I can value
    your difference in believing that this is true for you (which is why I
    usually ignore these references).  What I have trouble letting slide is
    when *it seems* that you direct the term directly at another noter as a
    debate technique.  Now maybe none of the rest of us are filling in your
    blanks.  Maybe whenever you say, "you're a sinner" to another noter, 
    what's between the lines is "I'm a sinner too and all of us are
    sinners".  Forgive me if I haven't been able to read between the lines
    of your notes.  It seems to me that it would perhaps foster greater
    understanding between us to leave this particular tactic out of the
    debate altogether.  Collis, American culture does not teach
    sinfullness.  Christianity teaches it.  And Christianity has many
    different forms.  Therefore there are many different interpretations of
    what that term might mean.  The meaning of what it means *to
    you* may be clear to you but it may have a completely different meaning
    to those who are listening to you.  I honestly didn't think you
    understood why it was offensive to others to call them "sinners".  Even 
    now I'm not sure you understand.  Even so, if someone has requested
    that you stop calling them a XXXXX then isn't it common courtesy to do
    so (unless you're trying to deliberatly offend, which I don't think is
    your goal)?
    
    Nanci
    
     

    I am one of those who object to being called a "sinner" in a broadcast
    sense.  I do not (most adamantly) believe in "original sin".  Instead,
    I hold to the Genesis text "God saw everything that he had made, and
    behold it was very good."  That includes each of us as individuals, as
    God has made us and we are, therefor, by definition, good.
    
    So how does one handle the inevitable, human mistakes which we make,
    and are commonly labelled "sin"?  By acknowledging that those *actions*
    (not the individual making them) are sinful.  By recognizing that so
    long as we do not repent of *and forsake* the sinful activities, we are
    "sinners".
    
    Once we forsake and repent of the sinful activity, our experience of
    that sin, and our label as sinner, are gone.  In all likelihood, we
    won't be able to completely abandon sinful behaviors until after death,
    but it doesn't mean that there aren't some among us who manage the
    feat.  
    
    Alison

    I find this discussion of sin and sinners fascinating! Also a bit
    puzzling.  I'm trying to sort this out:
    
    -  Certainly I disagree with Collis about many things he
       believes, yet his definition of sinner is one that I have no trouble
       accepting -- when he defines it as one who has sinned and is likely
       to do so in the future.  (I do not have to believe in "original sin"
       to accept either his definition or his "labeling" of all of us as
       sinners.  My mother used to say that it didn't matter whether she
       believed in original sin because if Adam and Eve hadn't 
       committed original sin, she herself would have!  Since I, and
       many of us, readily see *ourselves* as sinners, the concept of
       "original" sin is a moot point here.)
    
    -  I agree with Bob Messenger's defense of Collis that belief in sin
       and in the sinfulness of people is such an integral part of *much*
       Christian belief, that to expect a noter to eliminate that part of
       his "Christian Perspective" is really asking too much! 
    
    -  One thing that muddies up the discussion is the assumption that
       accepting the label "sinner" means accepting a belief in original
       sin.  Though I assume Collis accepts that belief, I do not -- yet
       I definitely believe that *all have sinned* (oops, I just labeled
       Nanci and Dave -- sorry!)
    
    -  I agree with *some* of the feeling tone of Nanci's comments
       regarding mistakes and learning curve, etc.  In other words, I
       believe that God may be saddened by some of my sins -- just as I am
       saddened if my adult son drinks too much or makes what appears to me to
       be a foolish and dangerous job or financial decision -- and that He
       allows me to learn from the results of my own sins.
    
       But I guess I haven't run into any Christian before who does not call
       himself/herself a sinner (one who has sinned and is at least
       *capable of*, if not inclined toward, sinning in the future).
       
       I respect this new information that Nanci and Dave find it offensive
       to be called sinners or to be lumped together with others under
       that category.
    
    *HOWEVER*, I still haven't figured out how to respect Dave, Nanci,
    and Alison's requests not to be called sinners while maintaining the 
    integrity of beliefs and perspectives that Collis and I (as different
    as we are in *some* of our beliefs) have about human beings and sin!
    
    (BTW, I also think we are off the topic and suggest that we pursue this
    in another string??  Or have we gone as far as we're going with it?)
    
    Nancy

    re: .73
    BTW, Alison, I agree with your note and your definition of sin, too.
    Except that sometimes sin goes deeper that an external action and
    becomes an attitude or characteristic that we take into ourselves
    (pride, for example).  This is different from saying that there is
    an "original sin" of pride (or separation or whatever) that
    contaminates us.
    
    Now how did I end up agreeing with *both* Collis and Allison?
    :-) <Sigh>  
    
    Nancy

    re: use of "sinner" label,
    
    I can empathize with both sides of this debate.  Although I am also not
    one who believes in the doctrine of original sin, I personally do not
    find it offensive to be called a "sinner."  I just kind of shrug to
    myself when I hear it, knowing that that is how I fit into the
    worldview of the person using the term.  
    
    I also occasionally apply labels to people that are considered less 
    than flattering by my brothers and sisters, and when I hear of their 
    discomfort, I try to take their feelings into consideration and adjust 
    my terms if I feel it will help make our communications more successful.
    
    Sometimes people feel I am "selling out" when I do this, or that I am
    wrongly submitting myself to the will of others and not being true to 
    myself and what I believe.  But I must search my heart and do what I
    feel is right and be responsible for the repercussions that result,
    even if it means potential injury to good relationships in the process.
    Sometimes what seems to be a simple issue, can actually be very 
    heart-wrenching for the people involved.  And when you have a strong 
    belief, in this case, a strong religious belief at the core of the
    debate, it is not an easy desicion to make, because you can feel like 
    you're "selling out" to God.
    
    Well, if I'm getting long-winded, I apologize.  Bottom line is that I
    think basically the same idea, in most cases, can be communicated by 
    referring to sinners as "people who have sinned", or something a little 
    less emotionally loaded for some people than the term "sinner."
    
    But I also empathize with anyone having to wrestle with their religious
    beliefs in this way.  Whatever Collis does, I support him, even if I
    may not agree with his decision.  He's a good person and imho, it is 
    obvious he participates here to communicate as honestly and as sincerely 
    as possible with everyone, and be true to his God at the same time.
    Not always an easy task for any of us.
     
    peace & blessings *all*,
    
    Karen   

    Thanks to Nancy, Allison and Karen for your thoughtful replies.  I did
    a lot of thinking about this discussion over the weekend.  
    
    One of the points that Karen brought up was one I had been pondering
    quite a bit.  Collis - I can see how the request not to label people
    "sinner" may seem to you to be acting out of integrity with your belief
    system.  I respect you for your firmly held beliefs and would not be
    willing to be the instrument to put you out of integrity with that.  At
    the same time I could not be in integrity with my beliefs were I to let
    this pass without entering my formal protest.  Well - I've done that. 
    :-)  From here on out I guess it's up to you as to whether you feel you 
    can be true to your beliefs and in integrity with yourself and still honor 
    the request.  I will respect whatever decision you make.
    
    Nanci  

    Please note, I never asked that anyone change their beliefs in this
    matter, only their method of expressing their beliefs. If Collis wishes
    to think of me as a sinner, that is fine by me. Or as a heretic, pagan,
    demon-worshipper, or even (shudder) a Republican. He is perfectly
    welcomed to call HIMSELF a sinner in this public forum.
    	To quote from 1.0
    If you consider a reply to be offensive in any way, please try first to
    resolve the problem by sending mail to the author, if you feel that a
    moderator must intervene, please send mail to a moderator.
    	Perhaps I should have used MAIL rather than including my request as
    part of a reply. I will try this if there is a next time.

    Dave, I think your using this forum to express your feelings was not
    only appropriate but also raised an issue worth discussing.
    
    Nancy

    I can see both sides of this issue.  On the one hand, because of my own
    upbringing in a conservative Protestant church, I perceived the
    theological basis of the label "sinner" as simply an expression of a
    commonly stated Protestant tenet that "all have sinned, and fall short
    of the glory of God" (in the words of the apostle Paul).  I interpreted
    the use of the term in that vein, and I personally wasn't offended by
    it. 

    On the other hand, I can see why some people might object to that
    label.  I am reminded by the advice of psychiatrist David Burns, in
    his book "Feeling Good":

        Labeling yourself is not only self-defeating, it is irrational. 
        Your *self* cannot be equated with any *one* thing you do.  Your
        life is a complex and ever-changing flow of thoughts, emotions, 
        and actions.  To put it another way, you are more like a river than
        a statue.  Stop trying to define yourself with negative
        labels--they are overly simplistic and wrong.  Would you think of
        yourself exclusively as an "eater" just because you eat, or a
        "breather" just because you breathe?  This is nonsense, but such
        nonsense becomes painful when you label yourself out of sense of
        your own inadequacies.

Here are the facts.

I extracted every reply I have ever made to this conference.  I have used
the word "sinner" 24 times.  This breaks down as follows:

 10 - general discussion
  5  - reference just to myself
  3  - reference specifically to Christ (that he was not a sinner)
  2  - quotes from the Bible
  2  - reference to people in general
  1  - reference at same time to myself and another
  1  - reference possibly to people in general or possibly to individual

Comments?

Quotes follow for those who would like to see the context:


Note 15.7                  Christianity in the Movies
  The major problem with The Last Temptation of Christ is that it portrayed
  Christ as a sinner.

Note 22.49                What is a Christian religion
  Luke 5:32  
  "I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance."

  If you miss the point that you are a sinner in need of the forgiveness
  that Jesus offers, you have missed the gospel message.  It is *not* a
  message exclusively about love.  It *is* a message about how love works
  so that those seperated from God may be brought back to God.

Note 22.58                What is a Christian religion

  It is because it is a basic tenet of the Christian faith that everyone
  (except Jesus) is a sinner.  This includes you and it includes me.

  P.S.  It is Jesus himself who said that he did not come for the healthy,
  but for the sick (sinners).  If you are not sick, you have no need of a
  Savior (Jesus).

Note 22.63                What is a Christian religion

  I know of *no* case where I *ever* referred to someone as a sinner for the
  purpose of degrading them.  This is what I hear you saying both in the
  above sentence as well as in the note as a whole.

  You don't have to believe in original sin to believe that you, me or
  anyone else is a sinner.  You simply need to believe the often repeated 
  claim of Scripture that all have sinned.

Note 22.64                What is a Christian religion
                     -< Will not redefine sinner for you >-

  I am not using a definition for "sinner" that I invented.  I am using
  the same definition that is used throughout Scripture.

  If you want to play word games and redefine sinner so that it means
  "someone who has not sinned recently", go ahead.  But that is not the
  definition I have used nor intend to use.  I could go into the reasons
  why I don't plan on using this definition, but I don't think that you
  would really care.  You just don't want the label sinner hung on you and
  I, in my desire to be true to the Word of God, refuse to unlabel you.

Note 22.70                What is a Christian religion

  In my mind, it goes beyond being misunderstood.  You have said (as I
  understand it) that I discuss the person I am talking with as being a 
  sinner for the purpose of putting them down because they disagree with me.  
  I told you in strong terms that this is *not* the case and that this
  claim was offensive.  Do you have any comment?

  I asked if it was the method that I used or the message itself.  Would
  it be helpful if instead of using the word "sinner", I simply said,
  "people who have disobeyed God and have a tendency to do so in the future"?  
  No, I didn't think so.  It is not the word "sinner" that you have problems
  with, it is the message that you and I disobey God and will do so again
  in the future.

Note 35.33                      Situation Ethics

  If my God says, "Enough is enough.  I command you to destroy these
  people", then I would do it.  Because I love my God.  Because He is
  wiser than me.  Because He has proven time and time again that only He is
  perfect, only He is holy, only He is pure.  I, on the other hand, am a
  wretched sinner.

Note 35.38                      Situation Ethics
  Good question.  I was writing on the fly and I'm not sure I would express
  it the same way again.  However, I do think that what I said is
  defensible.  Note that Jesus was not born a sinner and so his "privilege"
  was not "revoked".  In other words, that the privilege can be considered
  tenuous is not God's fault, but ours.  (It is not God's fault that we
  are born sinners.)

Note 35.120                     Situation Ethics
  Sounds like we disagree.  :-)  Not only were they compatible, but Jesus
  Himself will come back and DESTROY more rebellious sinners than the entire
  Old Testament put together.  But for the grace of God, I too would be
  destroyed.

Note 91.18                    Christianity and Gays
  I was born a sinner.  I'm still a sinner.  Guess I haven't changed enough! ;-)

  I was born a sinner.  Does that mean that it is right to sin?  I'm
  serious here.  I was born with a predisposition to disobey God and to
  do what I want.  Does this make it right?

Note 91.75                    Christianity and Gays

  Unless by "evil" you mean "sinners"?  But I am a sinner as well.

Note 100.1              Comments on inspirational quotes

	But God demonstrates his own love toward us in that
	while we were yet sinners, he died for us  Romans 5:8

Re: .81  Collis

I started to do something similar: I did a search of every note in the
conference containing the word "sinner" (until I got bored).  I didn't find
any cases where IMO the word was being used to bash someone else; there were
only a couple of places where the word was directed at a specific person
other than the author of the note.  One example is where you said that Richard
Jones-Christie (I think it was) shouldn't miss the point that he was a sinner.
However, Richard understood what you meant and even agreed with you; I'm
sure he didn't take your note as an attack (other than a disagreement over
a point of theology).

The moderators have been trying to promote an atmosphere in this conference
where there are no personal attacks, but saying that *everyone* has sinned
or that *everyone* is a sinner is not a personal attack, at least as far as
I am concerned.  Stating that a specific person other than yourself is a
sinner *might* be a personal attack, depending on how the note was written.

Of course it's possible (and likely, apparently) that some people will take
offense at notes even where no offense was intended.  I can only hope that
both sides will try to be understanding in such situations: don't give offense
unnecessarily, and don't take offense unnecessarily.

If there is any more discussion about this it would be best to move it to
the Processing Topic.

				-- Bob (co-moderator)

    Collis and Bob,
    	It was not my contention that I felt you had any intention of
    "bashing", my contention was that I felt "bashed". I tried going
    through Collis' list but a glitch bounced my to Bob's note maybe
    half-way through. I saw that the largest number of uses were IN DEFENSE
    of your use of the term and only a few of the uses were, to me,
    objectionable. Yet those few stand out in my memory.
    
    Collis, 
    	I think this has worn itself out, if it hasn't then it should. Can
    we put it to bed and get on with more productive discussions ?

    ZZZZZZZZ....
    
    Nanci

What is it the defines a Christian?

Presumably, one who follows Jesus.  But what does it mean to follow
Jesus?  What did Jesus teach, preach, do?

The best (and only detailed) record we have is what is recorded
in the Bible.  So, that's what we all use (at least as a starting point).

There seem to be many in the world who think of themselves as
Christians (in some sense) because they believe in some of the
basic truths that Jesus Christ espoused.  For example, love one
another.  But these same people also pointedly deny other things
that Jesus Christ taught (unless they wish to question the Bible's
accuracy wherever it differs from what they believe).  Is it then fair 
to say that these people are really followers of Jesus (or more 
explicitly Christians)?

I think that this is a very relevant question (which has been asked
before and deserves to be asked again) in a Christian-Perspective
conference.  The reason is that it is easy to masquerade any belief
as a Christian (i.e. Jesus) belief just be saying it is - regardless
of whether there is evidence that it was Jesus' belief or not.
Obviously, this is counter-productive for all, since it leads us
away (not towards) the truth.

Is it possible for us to agree (in general or on specifics) what 
Jesus taught/believed?  I would hope so and believe so, but perhaps
others think differently.

Another question.  Do some of you believe that we should call people
followers of Jesus who explicitly deny important parts of what Jesus
taught (assuming we can agree that this is indeed the case)?  If so,
why?  If not, why not?

Collis

Re: .85 (Collis)

> But these same people also pointedly deny other things 
> that Jesus Christ taught...

What would be an example of this type of denial?

> ...Is it then fair 
> to say that these people are really followers of Jesus (or more 
> explicitly Christians)?

I would think that only "these people" can make this determination.  
Following a teaching, or even the notion of surrender, doesn't 
necessarily mean giving up free will or ceasing to act in accord with 
one's on sense of reason (which was a part of the framework on which 
you built your perception of God).  And we don't have to necessarily be 
"good" students to consider ourselves students.  After all, the early 
Christian Church with all of its warring and politics never considered 
that it might not be truly Christian.

> I think that this is a very relevant question...

I do, too.

> The reason is that it is easy to masquerade any belief
> as a Christian (i.e. Jesus) belief just be saying it is - regardless
> of whether there is evidence that it was Jesus' belief or not.

Such is the history of Christianity, and probably other religions as 
well.

> Obviously, this is counter-productive for all, since it leads us
> away (not towards) the truth.

Truth can only be recognized through inner revelation.  Have any of us 
revealed the complete truth within ourselves?  Are there any among us 
whose inner revelations have no more room to unfold?  I would say that 
Christianity today, with all its faults (and who is without faults?),
reflects the spirit of Christ far more than it did a few hundred years 
ago.  And though the Church of a few hundred years ago probably wouldn't 
meet your qualifications for "truly following Jesus," somehow it has 
evolved to what it is today.  And somehow it will continue to unfold so 
that a few hundred years from now it will in all likelihood look much 
different still.

> Is it possible for us to agree (in general or on specifics) what 
> Jesus taught/believed?  

I doubt it.

> Another question.  Do some of you believe that we should call people
> followers of Jesus who explicitly deny important parts of what Jesus
> taught (assuming we can agree that this is indeed the case)?  If so,
> why?  If not, why not?

In light of the ideas above, can we place ourselves in a position of 
denying other's efforts, by whatever name they label themselves?  The 
measure to which we accurately follow any teaching must necessarily be 
individually determined.

Fwiw,
Jeff

    Whether Collis or myself thinks anyone here is or isn't a Christian
    is only important to the extent that it offers a common ground for
    discussing Christianity with one of us.

    So anyone can call themselves a Christian, even if they believe that
    the Jesus of the Bible was a false Christ. a false savior, and that the
    Satan of the Bible was the true Christ and savior.  That's extreme but
    such people can call themselves Christians.  There are Christians who
    deny that Jesus is God.  There are Christians who deny that Jesus was a
    prophet, only a philosopher.  Finally there are Christians who deny the
    existence of the historical Jesus, saying the ideas which emerged in
    the  1st C. in his name are worthy ideas.

    As a Roman Catholic, some Christians might argue that I am not a
    Christian.

Re: 22.85

Collis,

> There seem to be many in the world who think of themselves as
> Christians (in some sense) because they believe in some of the
> basic truths that Jesus Christ espoused.  For example, love one
> another.  But these same people also pointedly deny other things
> that Jesus Christ taught (unless they wish to question the Bible's
> accuracy wherever it differs from what they believe).  

I have been following this conference for close to a year now but
I cannot remember many occurrences of people denying Jesus's teachings.
What I see happening here is many who maintain a distinction between the
teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the the gospels, from those
interpretations of his teachings written by his close associates.  The
former are presented as the teachings of a perfected human.  The latter
do not claim *perfect* divine inspiration.  But, isn't this in line with
your own feelings as you stated in note 299.31, when you said:  "I feel
that we should interpret Scripture only as strictly as it was meant."? 

> The reason is that it is easy to masquerade any belief
> as a Christian (i.e. Jesus) belief just be saying it is - regardless
> of whether there is evidence that it was Jesus' belief or not.
> Obviously, this is counter-productive for all, since it leads us
> away (not towards) the truth.

I also have seen this happening.  For example, what evidence can we find 
that Jesus would have used a characteristic that only God is worthy of,
like "inerrancy", to describe an earthly object? 

> Another question.  Do some of you believe that we should call people
> followers of Jesus who explicitly deny important parts of what Jesus
> taught (assuming we can agree that this is indeed the case)?  If so,
> why?  If not, why not?

I have a similar question.  Do some of you believe that we should call
people followers of Jesus who explicitly deny the uniqueness of the
Christ by believing that Peter, and John, and the church, and even Paul
can offer commentary and instruction that is of the same value as his?

> The best (and only detailed) record we have is what is recorded
> in the Bible.  So, that's what we all use (at least as a starting point).

I think that the best (and only detailed) record we have is what is
recorded in God's memory, "upon the skeins of time and space."  Can mere 
wood and ash filled with the words of humans ever hope to compete? 
Maybe someday the true record will be ours to have, if we but follow in
his footsteps. 


With much love,

Joe

Re:  22.86

     >> ...Is it then fair to say that these people are really followers of 
     >>Jesus (or more explicitly Christians)?

  >I would think that only "these people" can make this determination.  

It appears you are advocating that everyone define the meaning of the
word "Christian" for him/herself.  Words which do not have an agreed
upon meaning are, in fact, meaningless.  The different meanings we
assign words is, in fact, a stumbling block in many discussions 
(including in this notes conference).  I disagree that it is a positive
contribution to have a word have many different meanings to different
people and then to have people use that word (and accept the use of
the word) under the guise that communication has taken place.  We
only deceive ourselves and it is our Biblical responsibility to
avoid deception ("Do not be deceived...")

    >>The reason is that it is easy to masquerade any belief
    >> as a Christian (i.e. Jesus) belief just be saying it is - regardless
    >> of whether there is evidence that it was Jesus' belief or not.

  >Such is the history of Christianity, and probably other religions as 
  >well.

The history of Christianity includes those who both refuse to define
what a follower of Christ is and those who attempt to define it.
The Bible says we are to be discerning in this area; therefore I
believe that those who attempt to define it (within limits) follow
a wise course.

  >Truth can only be recognized through inner revelation.  

I totally disagree (and so does the Bible).  The Bible claims to
contain truth.  There are other notes in this conference on "truth";
I believe I discussed much of my views on truth there.  Certainly
truth can be recognized through inner revelation - unfortunately,
falsehood is recognized as truth through inner revelation as well.

    >> Is it possible for us to agree (in general or on specifics) what 
    >> Jesus taught/believed?  

  >I doubt it.

'Tis a shame since Jesus was very clear on many issues that we can
not agree.  I expect the real problem is our individual willingness
to submit to what Jesus actually says.  I certainly struggle with
this at times.

  >In light of the ideas above, can we place ourselves in a position of 
  >denying other's efforts, by whatever name they label themselves?  

  >The measure to which we accurately follow any teaching must necessarily 
  >be individually determined.

Not true.  One of the purposes of the church and of prophets is to correct
those who have erred.  (Matthew 18, for example).  The references to
this are extremely numerous in the New Testament.  It is a fool who
relies primarly on himself for the truth in light of the Biblical
teaching on this issue.

Collis

Re: 22.88

  >I have been following this conference for close to a year now but
  >I cannot remember many occurrences of people denying Jesus's teachings.

Well, the one obvious (to me) example that was one of the reasons I 
started this note is the apparent claim by Mike that he follows Jesus, 
that love is the primary foundation of his theology, that Jesus
teaches this love, that this love never destroys anyone, and that Jesus
clearly says that he is coming back to destroy those who reject him.
I don't believe that this is simply a matter of interpretation since
both Mike's position and Jesus' position are well attested to.

There are many other instances as well, some of which may be better
classified as intepretation differences, some of which should not
be (in my opinion.).

  >What I see happening here is many who maintain a distinction between the
  >teachings of Jesus, as recorded in the the gospels, from those
  >interpretations of his teachings written by his close associates.  

This certainly happens, but this is not what I'm talking about.

> The reason is that it is easy to masquerade any belief
> as a Christian (i.e. Jesus) belief just be saying it is - regardless
> of whether there is evidence that it was Jesus' belief or not.
> Obviously, this is counter-productive for all, since it leads us
> away (not towards) the truth.

  >I also have seen this happening.  For example, what evidence can we find 
  >that Jesus would have used a characteristic that only God is worthy of,
  >like "inerrancy", to describe an earthly object?

What earthly object are you referring to?  The Bible, of course, is
GOD's Word, not humans.  :-)

> Another question.  Do some of you believe that we should call people
> followers of Jesus who explicitly deny important parts of what Jesus
> taught (assuming we can agree that this is indeed the case)?  If so,
> why?  If not, why not?

  >I have a similar question.  Do some of you believe that we should call
  >people followers of Jesus who explicitly deny the uniqueness of the
  >Christ by believing that Peter, and John, and the church, and even Paul
  >can offer commentary and instruction that is of the same value as his?

I'll answer your question even if you don't answer mine.

Are you claiming that Christ's claim of uniqueness was that He had
unique commentary and instruction which can not be repeated, expounded
upon and taught by others?  with equal God-given authority?

That is not what my Bible says Christ's uniqueness was.  No, Christ
is unique in that He was without sin and was God.  The commentary and
instruction that is offered by Peter, John and other prophets is
NOT instruction primarily from those individuals, but rather instruction
from God (All Scripture *is* God-breathed) where the prophet is the
mouthpiece of God.  So, yes, the authority of a prophet of God when
prophesying for God is equal to the authority of God Himself.

> The best (and only detailed) record we have is what is recorded
> in the Bible.  So, that's what we all use (at least as a starting point).

  >I think that the best (and only detailed) record we have is what is
  >recorded in God's memory, "upon the skeins of time and space."

I didn't know we had "what is recorded in God's memory".  Can you point
me to exactly where this is so that I may examine this detailed record?
Can you be more explicit as to how this detailed record is a better
understood record than the Bible?

Collis

    What I find interesting about this effort at checking the credentials
    of Christians is that *everyone* subjects the teachings of Jesus to
    interpretation, even the credentials checkers.  The difference lies in
    *which* of Jesus's teachings happen to be relevant to the person doing
    the judging.  One could point out that the inquisitor is also not
    following certain of Jesus's teachings, and and of course they would
    respond by offering an explanation and an interpretation of why this
    biblical passage doesn't apply in this case.  Which is, of course,
    precisely the point that seems to be lost on the those who appoint
    themselves Guardians of Theological Purity--it really is a matter of
    interpretation, for themselves as well as for those heretics they are
    so busy rooting out.

    This is also a point that many Roman Catholics have raised in their
    critique of Protestantism, and as a defense of their own
    Magisterium--namely, that proponents of Biblical inerrancy are
    nevertheless must propose their own interpretations, that
    interpretation is inevitable, and the result for Protestants is that
    everyone becomes their own Pope.  My own view is that this isn't such a
    bad thing, and that differences in interpretation are even a good
    thing.

    Maybe Christians should not spend so much time worrying about who is a
    Christian.

    -- Mike

    Collis, since you have identified me by name, I would like to comment
    on your assertion that I claim to follow Jesus.  I don't know where you
    got that idea, but it is not true.  As I have stated elsewhere, on many
    occasions, I make no such claim, that I am not a Christian, that I
    agree with Jesus's ethical teachings (and in particular his pacifism)
    because they speak to my condition, not because it was Jesus who taught
    them.

    You are correct that I consider love to be the foundation of my
    theology, although I don't think I ever said that "love never
    destroys".  Destroys what?  People?  Buildings?  Furniture?  The
    question I posed was how killing a person can be an expression of love
    for that person.  Since I stated that I am open to considering certain
    possibilities, such as euthanasia, I clearly did not state that
    "love never destroys".  However, my fundamental question, on how
    killing a person can be an act of love for that person, remains at the
    foundation of my theology.  In most situations, I don't see any
    moral ambiguity in the answer, at least as I define "love", and that is
    why I feel as strongly as I do about the subject.

    If you are interested in setting up an Inquisition on who are the True
    Christians, please leave me out of it, Collis.  I don't even claim to
    be one, so why don't you save your attacks on heresy for the people who
    consider themselves Christians?  I am sure that they can discuss your
    concerns about why they should be considered a Christian; maybe they
    can also discuss with you their concerns about your own brand of
    Christianity as well.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .89 (Collis)

> It appears you are advocating that everyone define the meaning of the
> word "Christian" for him/herself.  

No, I didn't say anything about the meaning of the word "Christian."  
What I said was it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to 
consider themselves Christians.  It is not up to us to make this 
judgement of others.

> Words which do not have an agreed
> upon meaning are, in fact, meaningless.  

So you think the word "Christian" is meaningless; the word "Love" is 
meaningless; the word "God" is meaningless, and any other word for which 
there is no consensus as to definition?

> I disagree that it is a positive
> contribution to have a word have many different meanings to different
> people and then to have people use that word (and accept the use of
> the word) under the guise that communication has taken place.  

Yes, it's dreadfully inconvenient that God created differences rather 
than making everyone the same.  Definitely something for the suggestion 
box.

> I totally disagree (and so does the Bible).  The Bible claims to
> contain truth.  

I didn't say it didn't.  Anything which isn't recognized through inner 
relevation, but is accepted as truth, is only a belief.  Belief isn't 
truth, even if it is true.  If we accept the Bible at face value, then 
we believe it is truth, but we haven't genuinely recognized truth; we've 
only recognized a claim of truth.  If, however, we recognize the 
validity of something within ourselves through personal revelation, then 
we have recognized truth.  It's the difference in knowledge and belief.

     >>> Is it possible for us to agree (in general or on specifics) what 
     >>> Jesus taught/believed?  

         >>I doubt it.

> 'Tis a shame since Jesus was very clear on many issues that we can
> not agree.  

Christians the world over have never been able to do this.  This is why 
"the church" has been so dramatically fragmented over time.  And all of 
the various factions within Christianity each individually think that it 
is "very clear."

  >>The measure to which we accurately follow any teaching must necessarily 
  >>be individually determined.

> Not true.  One of the purposes of the church and of prophets is to correct
> those who have erred.  (Matthew 18, for example).  The references to
> this are extremely numerous in the New Testament.  

I wasn't talking about churches or prophets.  I was talking about 
avoiding judgements from one human being of another.  In other words, it 
is not my place to tell you that you are not really following Christ, 
just as it is not your place to make such a judgement of me.

> It is a fool who
> relies primarly on himself for the truth in light of the Biblical
> teaching on this issue.

Well I have certainly done many a foolish thing over the years, but it 
truly never would have occured to me to label myself (or anyone else for 
that matter) a fool.  No doubt, though, there is some support for it in 
the Bible.  I find your reply very odd.  You entered a note asking that 
people share their views.  I did so.  What was it in my note that 
provoked such a seemingly frustrated and venemous reply?  It seemed to 
focus in on semantics and a few key statements that you didn't like, 
rather than discussing the substance of the note.

Perhaps we should spend less time being concerned with whether or not 
someone else is relying on Christ and more time concerned with whether 
or not Christ can rely on us.

Love to you, Collis.

Jeff

    Collis,
    
    I want to comment on your disagreement with Jeff of his statement  
    "truth can only be recognized through inner revelation" which he noted
    in .86.  I think you supported Jeff's statement totally in 18.254 when
    you replied to Carole:
    
    > I simply believe the many explicit and implicit claims of the Bible
    > itself, because I have found God to be a dependable God and the Bible
              ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    > to be a dependable guide.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    As I perceive this, you are talking about an "inner revelation(s) of 
    truth" here, not that you simply accept(ed) the Bible at face value.
    That's the point! :-)
    
    Just a comment on something else you said in .89:
    
    > ...unfortunately, falsehood is recognized as truth through inner
    > revelation as well.
    
    I agree...sort of. :-)  What is a "falsehood," really???  
    I believe inherently, that every person seeks truth, just as 
    truth seeks every person.  I know I have believed in some things 
    that I came to recognize as what someone might call "falsehoods."  
    I used to think of them that way too.  But upon reflection I realized 
    that every "falsehood" always had a degree of truth in them!  
    Some a greater degree than others.  But they were never absolute
    falsehoods.  
    
    "Partial truths" are what I know them as now, and there is no shame 
    in this.  In reality, I am a person of partial truths.  I comprehend
    truth to the fullest of my capacity for understanding permits -- 
    at that time.  Eventually the chaff separates from the grain, through 
    a necessary collaboration of God's grace and *inner revelation* and 
    these "partial truths" then evolve into greater truths...but which
    are still only partial truths in the grand scheme of things.  Following
    me? :-)  
    
    Our understanding of "truth," imo, is *always* unfolding.  It never ends.  
    Maybe there is an absolute truth.  If there *is* I believe it is God
    him/herself, and that is beyond my total comprehension....so I don't 
    worry a wit about it.  I trust my relationship with God that the truth 
    will continue to unfold in me and through me, as it has all my life.
      
    peace & blessings,
    
    Karen             

Re: 22.90

> What earthly object are you referring to?  The Bible, of course, is
> GOD's Word, not humans.  :-)

Well, I'm glad you put a smiley face there!  


> Can you point
> me to exactly where this is so that I may examine this detailed record?

No, I can't.  So?  Does that make it any less valid?


> Can you be more explicit as to how this detailed record is a better
> understood record than the Bible?

I certainly never said that it is better understood!  


Peace,

Joe

Re:  22.93

  >No, I didn't say anything about the meaning of the word "Christian."  
  >What I said was it is up to the individual to decide whether or not to 
  >consider themselves Christians.  It is not up to us to make this 
  >judgement of others.

I think there is some value in what you suggest; however I also
think that there are clear and present dangers in this as well.  The
church is explicitly commanded to discern the sheep from the
wolves and to guard against those who preach a false gospel.  If
we took your advice at all times and allowed everyone to decide for
themselves if they were a Christian (and, of course, advertise
themselves as such), we do a great disservice to other Christians
and non-Christians alike (as well as the individual him/herself)
by accepting such proclamations (even if by silence) when some
of these are, in fact, false and these "Christians" preach a false
gospel.  This was very evident in the 1st century and Paul dealt
with this issue several times in his letters.  It is still evident
today and we are still to deal with this today.  Do you understand
why I believe this?

  >So you think the word "Christian" is meaningless; the word "Love" is 
  >meaningless; the word "God" is meaningless, and any other word for which 
  >there is no consensus as to definition?

Yes.  Is it not obvious?  Isn't the word lkjalkweue meaningless?
Why?  Because we have no agreed upon definition.  (The fact that it
is unpronoucable as well for English speakers is another problem.  :-) )
But lkjalkweue is a much safer word to use the "Christian" or "Love"
or "God" because we all *know* that it does not have an agreed upon
meaning.  Using words that we are familiar with and thinking that
communication is taking place when, in fact, it is not is much more
dangerous.

     >>I disagree that it is a positive contribution to have a word have 
     >>many different meanings to different people and then to have people 
     >>use that word (and accept the use of the word) under the guise that 
     >>communication has taken place.  

  >Yes, it's dreadfully inconvenient that God created differences rather 
  >than making everyone the same.  Definitely something for the suggestion 
  >box.

I'm sorry you don't think that there is a serious point here.  Particularly
since I (and others) bump into it every week that I note.  The phrase
"inner revelation" comes to mind. 

  >Belief isn't truth, even if it is true.

Belief in and of itself is not truth.  However, the truth exists
regardless of the belief.

  >If we accept the Bible at face value, then we believe it is truth, 
  >but we haven't genuinely recognized truth; we've only recognized a 
  >claim of truth.

I'm not talking about recognizing the Bible's claims of truth here,
I'm talking about recognizing and accepting the truth the Bible
points us to.  So we can recognize both the Bible's claim of truth
as well as the truth that the claim points us too.

  >If, however, we recognize the validity of something within ourselves 
  >through personal revelation, then we have recognized truth.  It's 
  >the difference in knowledge and belief.

You have given no evidence that "inner revelation", whatever that is,
is indeed truth.  Why should you or I believe this - particularly
given the fact that many people's "inner revelations" contradict
one another in such a way that they cannot possibly all be "true".

     >> 'Tis a shame since Jesus was very clear on many issues that we can
     >> not agree.  

  >Christians the world over have never been able to do this.  

You are quite wrong.  Christians the world over *have* done this
already.  Jesus was clear, for example, that He will come back,
that there is one God and that He is the Messiah.  Christians agree
on this.  I could list literally hundreds of issues which "Christians"
agree upon - many of which are essential to the Christian faith.

Now this is not to say that there are not thousands of issues that Christians
do not agree on.  Nor is this necessarily all bad.  Certainly 
disagreement on some issues is extremely counter-productive and
a blight on Christianity; disagreement on other issues is not and
is, in fact, healthy.

  >I wasn't talking about churches or prophets.  I was talking about 
  >avoiding judgements from one human being of another.  In other words, it 
  >is not my place to tell you that you are not really following Christ, 
  >just as it is not your place to make such a judgement of me.

There is certainly much truth in what you say from an individual
perspective.  However, we are also to recognize the role of the
church and prophets to lead us as they themselves are led by God.

     >>It is a fool who relies primarly on himself for the truth in light 
     >>of the Biblical teaching on this issue.

  >Well I have certainly done many a foolish thing over the years, but it 
  >truly never would have occured to me to label myself (or anyone else for 
  >that matter) a fool.

I apologize for appearing harshly critical or "venemous".  That was
not my intention.

I use the word "fool" very carefully and always with a Biblical
perspective in mind.  I am reminded of the Psalm, "The fool says in
his heart that there is no God".

The Bible defines a fool as one who is clearly given the truth and
reasons for abiding by it - and chooses to reject it and go his/her
own way.  My statement was not an attempt to label you or anyone else
here a fool, but rather to point up the very severe consequences
(from a Biblical perspective) of ignoring the truth that has been
given us.  Does this make sense?  Does my saying what I said seem
more reasonable to you now?

  >It seemed to focus in on semantics and a few key statements that 
  >you didn't like, rather than discussing the substance of the note.

I did not mean to miss the substance of the note or to focus on
semantics unnecessarily.  I do think, however, that it's hard to
work at the top level when we don't agree on the foundation.  So
I did focus on what I perceived to be more "foundational" differences.

  >Perhaps we should spend less time being concerned with whether or not 
  >someone else is relying on Christ and more time concerned with whether 
  >or not Christ can rely on us.

Certainly a good point, Jeff.  I agree that our inidividual relationship
with Christ is primary.  However, that does not mean we should neglect
other issues that are also important.

Collis

Re:  22.94
    
  >As I perceive this, you are talking about an "inner revelation(s) of 
  >truth" here, not that you simply accept(ed) the Bible at face value.
  >That's the point! :-)

Perhaps our understandings of what an "inner revelation" is differs
(semantics, again :-) ).  A revelation means that something is
revealed and an inner revelation would mean that it is revealed by
something "inner", I guess.

Now, if you wish to say that following a line of reasoning to arrive
at a truth is an inner revelation (where it is the brain's reasoning
which is "inner"), then I can agree - but I don't really think that
this is what is meant.  (I'm not necessarily talking about spiritual
things here, just a simple truth such as 2 + 2 = 4.)

Actually, I believe that I see truth very differently than Jeff
does.  In my view, truth is a fixture, a constant.  (This is
consinstent with the Biblical view as far as I can tell which is,
in fact, why it is my view. :-) )  Truth is recognized for what it
is many times by many people (2 + 2 = 4).

Falsehood is also recognized as truth by all of us.  This does
not make it true.
    
  >I believe inherently, that every person seeks truth, just as truth 
  >seeks every person.

I believe quite differently.  I believe it is the rare person who is
truly seeking 100% truth.  Most of us seek what we want, not what
is true.  Just like most of us seek pleasure and comfort despite the
fact that it is through trials and tribulations that we are most
likely to grow strong.

I don't view "truth" as something of itself which can "seek".  Truth
exists simply because it is true.  Now perhaps what you're saying
is that God (whatever God is in your view) seeks to reveal truth
to us and I can agree with that.

I claim to be a seeker or truth and yet I am very aware of the
many times I avoid truth because it hurts.  I comfort myself some
in the knowledge that at least I am somewhat aware of how I truly
am and am not fully deceived about what I (truly :-) ) want.

  >But they were never absolute falsehoods.

I think some things are absolutely false - which does not mean that
we can learn truth from them.  On the contrary, those things which
are absolutely false are some of the easiest to learn truth from.

  >"Partial truths" are what I know them as now, and there is no shame 
  >in this.  In reality, I am a person of partial truths.

We all are.  I agree with what you say here.

Collis

Re:  22.95

     >>Can you point me to exactly where this is so that I may examine 
     >>this detailed record?

  >No, I can't.  So?  Does that make it any less valid?

Considerably less.  That which can not be examined and tested is
much less likely to be valid than that which can be and has been
and has proven itself.  The theory (some call it "law") of gravity is 
very well-tested and can be relied on, the theory of black holes
in space is very questionable (even to the extent that it is possible
that such black holes as we know them do not exist).

     >> Can you be more explicit as to how this detailed record is a better
     >> understood record than the Bible?

  >I certainly never said that it is better understood!

I'll agree with that!

Collis

re Note 22.96 by OVER::JACKSON:

> Yes.  Is it not obvious?  Isn't the word lkjalkweue meaningless?
> Why?  Because we have no agreed upon definition.  

        Many of the most useful words in English have many possible
        meanings and even more shades of meaning.  I agree that words
        with NO meaning are indeed useless.

        Ambiguity is one of those things that distinguishes natural
        (human) language from formal languages like mathematics, or
        even, to some extent, legal language.  Those who would wish
        to interpret inspired writings in order to extract legalistic
        principles will indeed be annoyed by any and all ambiguity.

        And, yes, communication takes place all the time between
        humans using ambiguous words.  This is one of the reasons why
        machine processing of natural language is so difficult --
        very often ambiguities can be resolved ONLY through a very
        deep knowledge of context and general knowledge.  It is
        insufficient to simply have a dictionary and a definition, as
        seemingly adequate as such a solution may seem.

        Bob

re Note 22.97 by OVER::JACKSON:

> Actually, I believe that I see truth very differently than Jeff
> does.  In my view, truth is a fixture, a constant.  (This is
> consinstent with the Biblical view as far as I can tell which is,
> in fact, why it is my view. :-) )  Truth is recognized for what it
> is many times by many people (2 + 2 = 4).
  
        Collis,

        I suggest that this may be the nub of the problem:  you have
        a view of "what is truth", and when you come to the Bible,
        you see your view confirmed in what you read.

        May I suggest that others, who come to the Bible with a
        different understanding of "what is truth", might ALSO see
        their view confirmed in the Bible?

        Because one's personal view of truth is so fundamental to all
        their perceptions, it may never be possible for most people
        who come from one view of truth to understand what the other
        sees, and why the other sees it, and how something can be
        true in one perspective and not appear true in another.

        (Look at a building, your home perhaps, first from one side
        and then another.  The truth you see is different.  Does this
        "contradiction" mean one is in error?  Another illustration
        is the story of the elephant and the blind men.  Scripture
        says "For now we see through a glass, darkly;" (I Cor
        13:12).)

        In John 18:38, Pilate said to Jesus  "What is truth?"  In
        John 14:6,  Jesus said "I am ... the truth."  Yes, truth is a
        fixture, but no, truth isn't something as dead as 2 + 2 = 4.

        The Biblical view I see is that we have many inspired (even
        "true") views of "the truth" in the Bible.  Some are
        superficially consistent, and some are not.  But in any
        event, none of them is "the truth", but a view, and hence
        partial, of "the truth."

        Bob

    Bob, I think you are absolutely correct.  Wittgenstein (who was one of
    the most influential philosophers of the twentieth century) analyzed
    this aspect of language in great depth.  While I am most certainly not
    even close to being an expert on Wittgenstein, I think that perhaps his
    concept of the "language game" applies here.  At one point he compared
    the definition of a concept to a rope, with each of its intertwined
    strands representing, but not definitively encompassing, the concept as
    a whole.  Trying to find a common definition for even a word as simple
    as "game" turns out to be enormously difficult.

    -- Mike

    
    
    This makes sense to me too, Bob.
    
    Carole

    Collis .97,
    
    I'll bet if we could look back over human history we'd find that 
    "truth" ranks as the number one issue, by far, that has been pondered 
    upon throughout time! :-)
    
    Your thoughts have stirred a lot in my heart and mind, Collis.  For 
    that I am indeed indebted to you. :-) I hope I may find both the words 
    and the time to express the truth of these stirrings. ;-)
    
    Love,
    Karen
                                                        

    "...the result of this examination [of the definition of the word
    'games'] is: we see a complicated network of similarities overlapping
    and criss-crossing: sometimes overall similarities, sometimes
    similarities of detail.

    "I can think of no better expression to characterize these similarities
    than 'family resemblances'; for the various resemblances between
    members of a family: build, features, colour of eyes, gait,
    temperament, etc. etc. overlap and criss-cross in the same way.--And I
    shall say: 'games' form a family.

    "And for instance the kinds of number form a family in the same way. 
    Why do we call something a 'number'?  Well, perhaps because it has
    a--direct--relationship with several things that have hitherto been
    called number; and this can be said to give it an indirect relationship
    to other things we call the same name.  And we extend our concept of
    number as in spinning a threat we twist fibre on fibre.  And the
    strength of the thread does not reside in the fact that some one fibre
    runs through its whole length, but in the overlapping of many fibres.

    "But if someone wished to say: 'There is something common to all these
    constructions--namely the disjunction of all their common
    properties'--I should reply: Now you are only playing with words.  One
    might as well say: 'Something runs through the whole thread--namely the
    continuous overlapping of those fibres'."

    	Ludwig Wittgenstein, "Philosophical Investigations", sections
    		66-67.

Re:  22.99

  >Those who would wish to interpret inspired writings in order to 
  >extract legalistic principles will indeed be annoyed by any and all 
  >ambiguity.

Those who wish to extract any principles (whether they are legalistic
or not) have to deal with languages ambiguity (whether they are
annoyed about it or not).  This is not simply an issue for the
legalists (i.e. let's not bash the legalists who are not here to
defend themselves).

Collis

Re:  22.100

Bob,

Certainly I agree with much of what you say.  However, it seems to
dilute the belief that there is "truth" which is always true.
Perhaps you didn't mean to dilute this "truth".
  
  >I suggest that this may be the nub of the problem:  you have
  >a view of "what is truth", and when you come to the Bible,
  >you see your view confirmed in what you read.

Usually I do, but certainly not always.

  >May I suggest that others, who come to the Bible with a
  >different understanding of "what is truth", might ALSO see
  >their view confirmed in the Bible?

Which is exactly why we both need to do a more detailed analysis of
what a passage means and why.  There are clear principles to go
through to intepret *any* passage of text (whether Biblical or
something entirely different) which the vast majority of readers
either rarely or never practice.  This along with the prejudice
we all come to Scripture with are the main reasons that there are
so many disagreements about what Scripture says.

Collis

re Note 22.106 by OVER::JACKSON:

>   >May I suggest that others, who come to the Bible with a
>   >different understanding of "what is truth", might ALSO see
>   >their view confirmed in the Bible?
> 
> Which is exactly why we both need to do a more detailed analysis of
> what a passage means and why.  There are clear principles to go
> through to intepret *any* passage of text (whether Biblical or
> something entirely different) which the vast majority of readers
> either rarely or never practice.  This along with the prejudice
> we all come to Scripture with are the main reasons that there are
> so many disagreements about what Scripture says.
  
        In a way, you are agreeing with me;  but then you seem to say
        that even though there are many ways of coming to Scripture
        and interpreting it, only one way (which, I suppose, you
        happen to follow) is the "right" way and all the other ways
        are wrong and lead to false results.

        I thought Jesus was "the way"? :-}

        Bob

Re: 96 (Collis)

> ...we do a great disservice to other Christians
> and non-Christians alike (as well as the individual him/herself)
> by accepting such proclamations...

I'm not talking about accepting anyone's proclamation about anything.  
If John Doe tells us he considers himself a Christian, then we don't 
have to accept that he is a Christian, but we can accept that that is 
his understanding.  We should be able to accept people without having 
to accept their views.  This attitude doesn't value differences, but at 
least it tolerates them.  I don't accept many of your views; but I 
accept _and_respect_ the fact that they are your views, and I accept and 
respect you as a person irrespective of those views.  For this reason, I 
don't try to convince you of any value which may or may not be contained 
in my understanding of things, nor do I seek the "truth" from you.  

> Do you understand why I believe this?

Yes, I think so.  Do you understand the distinction I am making between 
accepting the person and accepting the claim?

>> Yes.  Is it not obvious?  Isn't the word lkjalkweue meaningless?
>> Why?  Because we have no agreed upon definition.  (The fact that it
>> is unpronoucable as well for English speakers is another problem.  :-) )

Since you consider these words meaningless, why then do you worry about 
someone's proclamation that they are a Christian?

> But lkjalkweue is a much safer word to use the "Christian" or "Love"
> or "God" because we all *know* that it does not have an agreed upon
> meaning.  

We *know* that "God," "Christian," and "Love" have no agreed upon 
meaning.

> I'm sorry you don't think that there is a serious point here.  Particularly
> since I (and others) bump into it every week that I note.  The phrase
> "inner revelation" comes to mind. 

I *did* think there was a serious point in your comment.  And my reply 
was likewise serious.

> I'm not talking about recognizing the Bible's claims of truth here,
> I'm talking about recognizing and accepting the truth the Bible
> points us to.  So we can recognize both the Bible's claim of truth
> as well as the truth that the claim points us too.

Absolutely, through inner revelation. :-)

> You have given no evidence that "inner revelation", whatever that is,
> is indeed truth.  

Nor was that my intent.  It's a small nit, but it can be pertinent... I 
didn't say that inner revelation was truth.  I said that we recognize 
truth through inner revelation.  To me their is a difference in the two 
statements.  The application of "inner revelation" in labeling an 
experience is completely subjective.  It is for us to ferret out the 
wheat from the chaff as we discriminitively address our own experience.

> Why should you or I believe this - particularly
> given the fact that many people's "inner revelations" contradict
> one another in such a way that they cannot possibly all be "true".

There is no reason why you should if you see no value in it.  I should 
because it has value for me.  If we focus on the differences, then we 
maintain nothing but separativeness.  If we focus on the similarities, 
then we learn from the differences.

> You are quite wrong.  Christians the world over *have* done this
> already...

Perhaps you shouldn't be so quick to judge, and rather give me the 
benifit of the doubt.  Perhaps what I was intending was not adequately 
expressed in my statement.  I did indeed word it incorrectly.  I should 
not have used the word "never."

> The Bible defines a fool as one who is clearly given the truth and
> reasons for abiding by it - and chooses to reject it and go his/her
> own way.  My statement was not an attempt to label you or anyone else
> here a fool, but rather to point up the very severe consequences
> (from a Biblical perspective) of ignoring the truth that has been
> given us.  

Perhaps that is not what you attempted, but I think you did and do 
consider (based on your statement above) everyone fools who do not 
recognize the same "truth" to which you adhere.  Is this not so?

> Does this make sense?  Does my saying what I said seem
> more reasonable to you now?

Seeing it from your perspective, it does; but I cannot agree with it.

Jeff

Note 473.27

>OK, then the Muslims are Christians, too, since they believe:

>	1. in the miraculous virgin birth of Jesus
>	2. that he was the greatest prophet after Mohammed
>	3. that God miraculously saved him from death on the cross.

Would that it were so simple.  But Muslims believe that Christians are
actually polytheists.  Oh, we may be able to explain the doctrine of the
Trinity to our own satisfaction that we're not polytheistic, but in most
cases we'll not succeed in convincing a Muslim of that.

The flag of Saudi Arabia is emblazoned in Arabic with this creed:

	"There is no God but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet."

Peace,
Richard

re .-1

It seems that it's not just the Muslims who claim that worshipping Jesus
Christ as God is polytheism.

I can think of two specific religions whose members are represented in this
conference that either specifically deny that the Bible says that Jesus is
God (and use a specially crafted translation of the Bible to support their
view) or who don't teach that Jesus is God but also are perfectly happy if
their members believe that he is.

Is the affirmation "Jesus is God" necessary to be called a Christian?

/john

    Did Jesus claim to be God?
    
    Notwithstanding late biblical translations, Jesus in the original texts
    of the Bible claimed to be God.  His apostles did not invent that
    claim.
    
    Indeed, if Jesus were only a prophet, why would the charge of
    blashphemy be raised against him?  It was, of course, his claim to be
    God.
    
    Millions of martyrs died in the belief that Jesus is God.  Millions
    of words have been written to profess that Jesus is God.
    
    If Jesus himself claimed to be God, how can one follow Jesus and believe
    his own claim to be God to be a lie or a product of lunacy?

Re: .111 Patrick Sweeney

>    Indeed, if Jesus were only a prophet, why would the charge of
>    blashphemy be raised against him?  It was, of course, his claim to be
>    God.
    
Or else the people who charged him with blasphemy misunderstood his
message.

				-- Bob

re .110

John,

Please correct me if I'm wrong but the following inuendo is made about
Jehovah's Witnesses?

;I can think of two specific religions whose members are represented in this
;conference that either specifically deny that the Bible says that Jesus is
;God (and use a specially crafted translation of the Bible to support their
;view)

If so, it is false. No were in any Bible that I know of is there a Scripture
that says that Jesus is Almighty God. Jehovah's Witnesses ackowledge that
Jesus is the Son of God and the New World Translation that they commonly use
agrees with this. The NWT translation has only been around since 1951 (or there
abouts) and previous to this date they used other translations such as the
KJV that they believe also confirms that Jesus and Jehovah God are not one
and the same. They are also not restricted to using the NWT, I myself quite
often use the KJV and the RSV.


; Is the affirmation "Jesus is God" necessary to be called a Christian?

        A Christian is a follower of Christ, who follows his teachings
        and commandments closely. Also Jesus is a role model for those that
        wish to be Christian. If Jesus clearly taught that he was indeed
        Almighty God then one would have to agree with the above affirmation.
        But who did the resurrected Jesus teach was his God and our God?
        (John 20:17) was it himself ?.

        Phil

    You make two claims:
    
    Jehovah's Witnesses believe that Jesus is the Son of God, but Jesus
    only had a human nature not a divine one.  OK, that matches my
    understanding of their beliefs.
    
    The second claim is that Jesus did not clearly teach that he is God
    Himself.
                                                                           
    He we disagree. I believe that it is clear that Jesus taught that he is
    God and that as a historicial fact, billions of his followers have held
    fast to his teaching of this.  The scriptural evidence of this abounds:
    
    Jesus is fully God and fully man.

Why stop at John 20:17?

Why not keep reading, to John 20:28-29?

Yes, truly blessed are those who have not seen and yet have come to believe.

/john

    Many of the Christians throughout history who disagreed with the
    trinity have argued that Jesus never claimed to be God, and thus would
    have vigorously objected to the claim that they were denying what Jesus
    said.  One can disagree with that assertion by unitarian Christians,
    but then Christians often disagree with one another over many points of
    doctrine.  Of course, since the overwhelming majority of Christians are
    Trinitarians, perhaps the standard of defining what a Christian is
    becomes one of numbers--if an overwhelming majority of Christians
    believe doctrine X (say, 98%), then not to believe that particular
    doctrine disqualifies one's self from being a Christian.  Perhaps
    someone should contact the Gallup organization right this minute so we
    can straighten out as soon as possible who can be called a Christian. 
    :-)

    The claim is that the definition of Christianity must be narrow because
    any broadening whatsoever can be a nonstop process that makes the
    definition meaningless.  Of course, the converse claim can just as
    easily be made--that once the process of restriction in the definition
    begins, it too can be a nonstop process, to the point where one can say
    that anyone who disagrees with *me* on anything can't be a Christian
    because I sincerely believe that I follow Jesus on every point of
    doctrine.

    Many examples of sincere differences among Christians abound.  Although
    I am not a Christian, most of my fellow Quakers are.  Most people
    consider these Quakers to be Christians.  But Quakers of all stripes,
    even the evangelical ones, don't practice water baptism.  This
    distinguishes them from almost all other Christians.  Should they
    therefore be disqualified from consideration as Christians, because
    they disagree with a practice so fundamental to much of Christianity? 
    So much for Richard Foster, the popular evangelical Quaker author who
    wrote "Celebration of Discipline".  Into the dustbin of would-be
    Christians he goes.  Oh, one protests, but that's the sort of doctrinal
    difference that doesn't really count for purposes of defining who is a
    Christian.  But we have opened up the floodgates, haven't we? 

    Many Christians have sincere disagreements among themselves over what
    Jesus's teachings really meant, or over what various passages in the
    Bible imply for Christians and their doctrines.  But sincerely
    believing that one follows Jesus isn't enough, we are told; we not only
    have to *believe* that we follow Jesus, we have be *correct* about it. 
    But since Christians have so many disagreements over so many questions,
    an additional qualifier is added--one has to be sincere, and one has to
    be correct about the *key* criteria.  Well, which ones are key?  We are
    told that to disagree with anything that Jesus taught is not to follow
    Jesus (e.g., he allegedly claimed to be God, so not to believe  he is
    divine is not to follow Jesus.)  So all of them are key, by that
    standard--not to follow *anything* Jesus taught is to deny him.  But
    what if the person sincerely believes they follow Jesus?  Well, that
    doesn't matter.  And so on--around we go.

    Some Christians could argue that anyone who believes in the death
    penalty is contradicting the ethical teachings of Christ at the Sermon
    on the Mount.  Therefore, anyone who supports the death penalty is
    denying Christ's teachings and cannot be a Christian.  Nonsense, you
    say?  Of course it is--because those who support the death penalty just
    as sincerely believe that they are following Christ as those who oppose
    it.  But of course, once you try to introduce any single teaching of
    Christ as a standard for defining who is and who is not a Christian,
    this is precisely the problem you run into.

    In fact, taking it one step farther, Catholics argue that the Catholic
    Church was the one true church, founded by Jesus; since Protestants
    deny this, they are denying a fundamental element of Jesus's ministry
    and teaching, and are practicing their religion outside the bounds of
    the church Jesus founded, and thus cannot be Christians.  

    It is easy to say that "whoever doesn't accept doctrine X denies Jesus
    or what Jesus taught and cannot be a Christian".  What we are really
    talking about is which differences of doctrine count, and which ones
    don't, but the problems with trying to restrict it in that way are just
    as difficult, if not significantly more so, than the problems with not
    restricting the definition.  It is really interesting how the use of
    the name Christian can be such a hot button for some people.  Such
    concern over a label!  And it isn't even a matter of labeling one's
    self that is the source of the complaints--it is what *other* people
    are being labeled (so much for looking at the log in one's own eye.)
    The problem is that people with ideas one doesn't like are being given
    the same label as one's self, and this is to them unacceptable.

    Perhaps that is the key to this whole discussion.  What appears to be
    going on here is that the definition of who is and isn't a Christian
    really depends on whether they want to be included under the same
    heading with them or not.  If they don't like what the others believe,
    then it offends their sensibilities to be included under the same label
    (in this case, the label "Christian".)  If it *really* annoys you that
    such-and-such is not believed by someone claiming to be a Christian,
    then that doctrine ought to be included among the criteria for
    determining eligibility as a Christian.

    There is currently a discussion in the Philosophy conference about the
    philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein.  I have previously cited Wittgenstein
    in C-P in conjunction with this question of how to define Christianity. 
    Wittgenstein discussed the ways in which certain concepts (he used the
    word "game" as an example) are so difficult to describe with a single
    definition that is both necessary and sufficient to encompass the no
    more and no less than the concept as a whole.  He compared these
    concepts to the intertwined strands of a rope--consist of a set of
    family resemblances that overlap.  A single strand does not make the
    rope, but all of them together.  In response, there have been some
    attempt in the that notes file to come up with a single core definition
    of the word "game", but with *much* difficulty.

    I see Christianity in much the same way as Wittgenstein conceived of
    the word "game".  However, I suspect that these arguments over who is
    and isn't a Christian will continue precisely because of the emotional
    issues involved.  The offense taken at a more inclusive definition of
    Christianity seems to correlate with the degree of tolerance for other
    faiths and belief systems in general.  As a non-Christian Quaker, I
    have no problem with being associated with large numbers of devoutly
    Christian Quakers.  Non-Christian Quakers generally feel as I do.  But
    the converse is not always the case, and the negative reaction to us
    from some of the evangelical Quakers thus forms a stark contrast.

    -- Mike

    It isn't a matter of opinion.  Either Jesus taught that he was God or
    he didn't.  Where's the disconnect in the sequence:
    
    Jesus is a real, historical figure.  (Conceded by even the atheists)
    
    Jesus taught that he himself was God.  (The clear meaning in Scripture
    for this is overwhelming.  Where is the scriptural support of the
    negation of this?) 
    
    The followers of Jesus believe all that Jesus taught.  (by defintion of
    "follow")
    
    The label "Christian" applies to the followers of Jesus. (by usage
    throughout history)
    
    What's the obsession with the word "Christian"?  We're not talking
    about salvation here, but semantics.  The divinity of Jesus is a
    defining doctrine of Christianity.

>    In fact, taking it one step farther, Catholics argue that the Catholic
>    Church was the one true church, founded by Jesus; since Protestants
>    deny this, they are denying a fundamental element of Jesus's ministry
>    and teaching, and are practicing their religion outside the bounds of
>    the church Jesus founded, and thus cannot be Christians.  

This is not true.  From a summary of the teachings of Vatican II:

	19. Ecumenism is a movement that has arisen in the
	Church which seeks the union of all Christian Churches. 
	All those who believe in Christ and are baptized have the
	right to be called Christians and are obliged to fulfill
	Jesus' great wish that all people be united in one flock. 

	20. There are many difficulties in the way of the union
	of all Christians, because there exist different criteria
	for the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the discipline,
	and the orientation of the Church.  But all true Christians
	are somewhat united with Christ in faith and love.  We can
	understand then that outside the Catholic Church are found
	extremely valuable elements, and that even the sacred rites
	of other Churches lead to communion with the Lord.  The
	Spirit of Christ does not refrain from making use of them
	as means of salvation. 

    Mike (.116),
    
    *Thanks* for offering such a lucid explication of such a complex and
    historically emotionally charged issue as who is and who is not a
    Christian.  (I really found the rope analogy very useful -- I think 
    of Christianity as the rope and each denomination a strand.)
    
    Karen

    Yes, either Jesus taught that he was God or he didn't.  Which of those
    is true, as in many other doctrines about Jesus, is a point of
    disagreement.  Christians disagree over many points of doctrine, and
    often disagree over what meant by what was attributed to him in the
    Bible.  Dismissing the issue of his divinity by saying, 'Well, I happen
    to know that Jesus claimed to be divine' misses the point.  Christians
    who differ on all points concerning Christian teaching also can claim
    with just as much sincerity that this is what they believe Jesus
    taught.  But many of those other criteria are not used to distinguish
    Christians from non-Christians.  Therefore the selection of Jesus's
    divinity as a defining criterion is arbitrary, unless the only reason
    for its importance in this case is that the vast majority of Christians
    believe it (in which case we are now using majority belief as a
    criterion.)

    Or perhaps we should simply define a Christian as "anyone who agrees
    with me."

    By the way, John, I know what Catholics believe about non-Catholic
    Christians.  You missed the point I was making.  Catholics believe that
    their church is the one church founded by Jesus, and thus *could*
    argue, if they were strictly applying the argument that a Christian is
    one who believes *everything* that Jesus taught, that Protestants are
    not Christians.  Since they don't accept that argument, they are
    clearly defining Christianity according to a looser criterion than
    that.  

    After all, Catholics believe what they do about their Church because of
    a sincere interpretation of what Jesus is said to have taught. 
    Protestants also sincerely believe something different.  Now one could
    argue, applying the strict argument that to be a Christian one must
    believe *everything* Jesus taught, and that either Jesus founded the
    Catholic Church or Jesus didn't, that therefore non-Catholics cannot be
    Christians--because, according to their interpretation, Jesus clearly
    taught that he was founding a church organization that we know to be
    the Catholic Church.

    But of course the Catholic Church doesn't teach this, and it is
    instructive that they do not.  The narrow and restrictive argument that
    a Christian must believe everything that Jesus taught *really* means
    that a Christian must believe everything that *I* "know" Jesus taught,
    and if anyone has a different view, no matter how sincerely they may
    believe it, they cannot be a Christian.

    -- Mike
    

    You are repeating yourself.
    
    What evidence is there in scripture or otherwise that Jesus denied that
    he was God?  The New Testament is so full of references to the divinity
    of Jesus from Mt 1:23 "God is with us" to Rev 22 "I am the Alpha and
    the Omega" and dozens of others in between.
    
    This isn't a matter of opinion.  It's a matter of historical record and
    one can be an atheist and read for oneself and see that Jesus claimed
    to be the one true God.
    
    The sign above the Cross was "Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews" not
    "Jesus of Nazareth, the unpopular moral and spiritual teacher".

    And you are missing the point.  I suspect you can also claim that it is
    a matter of historical record that Jesus founded the Catholic church. 
    So does that mean that Protestants are not Christians?
    
    -- Mike

    Your suspicions of my beliefs are irrelevant.  That is just an ad
    hominem attack.  Why do you want to change the subject?
    
    Either you respond to what I have written or you don't.

    Excuse me, SDSVAX::SWEENEY, but it is *you* who is changing the subject.
    The discussion at hand is what are the criteria from separating
    Christians from non-Christians.  What is pertinent here is not
    *whether* or *how* you happen to believe a particular doctrine (a topic
    of its own), but *why* you believe that this doctrine, and not
    necessarily other individual points of dispute among Christians, is a
    key criterion for distinguishing Christians from non-Christians.  The
    question that you do not address, and which my question to you was
    addressing, was what are the characteristics of this belief that you
    hold that makes it a criterion, and not other similar beliefs.  Yet you
    seem to want to insist on dragging this meta-discussion down into a
    rathole over the truth or falsehood of a particular doctrine, rather
    than on the implications of how belief or disbelief in this doctrine
    can be used to characterize who is or is not a Christian.

    You keep trying to turn this question by arguing that it is because you
    happen to know that you are correct about this doctrine.  But since all
    Christians believe that they are correct about the doctrines they hold,
    what you haven't explained is why this doctrine is more important as a
    criterion than those others.  So yes, your beliefs are irrelevant, and
    I was not making an ad hominem attack.  Your assumption that I was
    attacking you with my was absurd--I was asking a legitimate question in
    order to redirect this topic back to the discussion at hand.  This
    paranoid assumption that every time a non-Catholic discusses
    Catholicism with you they are attacking you is bizarre, to say the
    least.  Allow me to assure you that not everyone here is incapable of
    discussing a belief system other than their own without automatically
    attacking it.  Respect for and tolerance for other belief systems, as
    odd as it may seem to you, is possible for some people.

    -- Mike

Since a central question of religion is "who or what is God," whether Jesus
Christ is, indeed, as he clearly said, GOD or not is something we should
be able to agree is a "first principal" of being a Christian.

Every good Jew follows many if not all of the moral teachings of Jesus.

Does that make Jews Christians?

Can you pick and choose those things which Jesus said, decide which ones
to believe, and still claim to be a Christian?

/john

    I think Buddhists would disagree with that the central question of
    religion is "who or what is God".  To the Buddha, and to his followers
    since, the question has been irrelevant.
    
    By the way, I believe in the moral teachings of Jesus, but I do not
    consider myself a Christian.
    
    -- Mike

Re: .113 Phil

Do Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christians?

				-- Bob

Re:  22.113

  >No where in any Bible that I know of is there a Scripture that says 
  >that Jesus is Almighty God.

There are approximately 75 references in the New Testament, but of
course you reject those.  Then, there is a clear reference in the
Old Testament, Isaiah 9:6, "For to us a child is born, to us a son
is given, and the government will be on his shoulders.  And he will
be called Wonderful Counselor, Might God, Everlasting Father, Pring
of Peace.  I am equally sure that you will not accept this Scripture.
But there *is* "a Scripture that says that Jesus is Almighty God."

  >A Christian is a follower of Christ, who follows his teachings
  >and commandments closely. 

No, according to the Bible a Christian is an individual who has
repented of his/her sins, accepted the sacrifice of Jesus as payment
for his/her sins and asked Jesus into his/her life as Savior and
Lord.

  >But who did the resurrected Jesus teach was his God and our God?
  >(John 20:17) was it himself ?

It was God the Father.  
Yes, it was also Himself.  
:-)

Collis

Note 22.110

>Is the affirmation "Jesus is God" necessary to be called a Christian?

As I recall, stating "Jesus is Lord (or Sovereign)" was a kind of litmus
test for Paul.  Jesus as Sovereign may or may not connote divinity.  It
is possible to say "Jesus is Sovereign" without saying "Jesus is God."

Peace,
Richard

Re: .127

	Bob, yes they do but don't just take their word for it. Jesus said
	"by their fruits you will recognize those [men]." Matthew 7:20 NWT
	do Jehovah's Witnesses bear fruit befitting of a Christian? In 
	otherwords does their conduct bear witness to this such as showing 
	love amongst themselves (compare John 13:34,35) one example would
	be do they let themselves be pitted against their own brother in 
	times of conflict between nations (compare 1 John 4:20).
	

	Phil.

re .128

	Collis,

  >No where in any Bible that I know of is there a Scripture that says 
  >that Jesus is Almighty God.

;There are approximately 75 references in the New Testament, but of
;course you reject those.

	Please post one here that clearly states that Jesus is Almighty God.
	

	As regards Isaiah 9:6 that Jesus will be called Mighty God, I would
	like to do some research on this and post it here ( I had promised
	someone else that I would do this a long time ago ). But you should
	realise that mighty does not equate to almighty.

  >A Christian is a follower of Christ, who follows his teachings
  >and commandments closely. 

;No, according to the Bible a Christian is an individual who has
;repented of his/her sins, accepted the sacrifice of Jesus as payment
;for his/her sins and asked Jesus into his/her life as Savior and
;Lord.

	In Matthew 28:19,20 NWT Jesus commands his followers to "Go therefore
	and make disciples of people of all the nations, baptizing them in
	the name of the Father and of the Son and of the holy spirit teaching
	them to observe all the things I have commanded YOU. And , look! I am
	with YOU all the days until the conclusion of the system of things."
	Jesus instructed his followers to make disciples and teach them to
	follow his commandments, so in turn they would do the same thing.
	I agree with you that a Christian would have repented of their
	sins so as to turn around from their former course in life. That
	they ask God for forgiveness on the basis of Jesus' ransom sacrifice.
	We certainly differ on asking Jesus into his/her life as Savior and
	Lord. We believe we are to put on a Christlike personality and not 
	that Jesus dwells in us, he dwells in heaven -) (Ephesians 4:22-24).
	There is alot more to being a Christian and ones fruitage will show
	wether one is trully Christian or not. 

	Phil.

Indeed, mighty is a different word than almighty.

Fortunately, God is the same word.  :-)

Collis

re .132

Trouble is that in english the "G" is in uppercase because it is is something 
Jesus will be called. To say he will be called mighty god without the capitals
is not good english (BTW I didn't pass my English exam so could not explain
this without doing some research into grammer). 

Phil.

    Hi Collis (.128),
    
    Coincidentally, I was reading a book (actually two books) over the
    weekend and one referenced that same passage from Isaiah that you have. 
    The book explained the passage to mean that the Wonderful Counselor was
    the Holy Spirit which resides in the heart of each of us.  I think it
    was the book The Concentric Perspective by Eric Butterworth, a Unity
    minister.  The theme of the book is that Truth is within, not
    something to search for but something to awaken to and release.  That
    we are spiritual beings, and life can only flow from within-outward.
    
    Anyhow, it rang true for me.
    
    Ro
    

Re: .130 Phil

Since Jehovah's Witnesses consider themselves to be Christian and do not
believe that Jesus is God, an inclusive definition of Christianity should
not require that Christians believe that Jesus is God.  (There are also
non-inclusive definitions, of course, mostly designed to enforce some kind
of orthodoxy of belief).

				-- Bob

Re .135

Bob,

I could be getting myself into hot water here .

;an inclusive definition of Christianity should not require that Christians 
;believe that Jesus is God.

Jehovah's Witnesses would say that those professing to be Christian would
recognize that Jesus is not God . In fact they would recognize him as he is
shown in the Bible, as the only-begotten Son of God, Jehovah's Anointed One.
Christians would recognize that all authority in heaven and on the earth has 
been *given* to Jesus from Jehovah God (Matthew 28:18), the Scriptures show 
that just as Jesus is the head of the Christian congregation so to is God the 
head of the resurrected Jesus Christ, 1 Corinthians 11:3 NWT reads "I want 
you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn the head of a 
woman is the man; in turn the head of the Christ is God" . Jesus would 
expect his followers to recognize this headship that Jehovah God as over him.

Phil. 

Remember Basil.  Stamp out the Arian heresy.

Re: .136 Phil

>Jehovah's Witnesses would say that those professing to be Christian would
>recognize that Jesus is not God .

That's a non-inclusive definition of Christianity - it's a definition
which may be theologically valid from a Jehovah's Witness point of view,
but it isn't the sort of definition you'd want to use if you were writing
a dictionary, or deciding which subjects should be allowed in the
CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE conference.  An "objective" definition of
Christianity shouldn't depend on the religious beliefs of the speaker.

				-- Bob

>An "objective" definition of Christianity shouldn't depend on the religious
>beliefs of the speaker.

What God the Son teaches his followers to believe defines Christianity.

/john

Bob,

Thanks for taking time to explain things in .138, sometimes I find it
difficult grasp everything that is being written.

In the book "Mankinds search for God" it contains what I believe to be an
"objective" definition of Christianity. On page 235 in the footnote
'"Christianity" refers to the original form of worship and access to
God taught by Jesus Christ.'. Do others agree with this?

Phil.

re .140 Pat

;    In the world outside of Christianity, as the trio of Jackson, Covert,
;    and Sweeney have mentioned, belief that Jesus is God is at the center
;    of Christian belief.  Subtract that and the man who claimed he was God
;    was not and therefore a liar or a lunatic.

	It is more than likely that those "In the world outside of Christianity,"
	would not know what Jesus Christ or his apostles taught having not
	read the Bible accounts for themselves. They would have to take
	Christendom's word for it. But the history of Christendom with
	it's wars, crusades and religious hypocrisy shows that it has not
	adhered to Jesus' teachings. It is therefore fair to ask wether its
	teachings are a true reflection of those of Jesus Christ.

    
;    Another form of denial of this is based on a translation of Scripture,
;    created in the 20th century, which asserts the negation, namely that in
;    this translation of Scripture,  Jesus fully reveals Himself and denies
;    that he is God.  So this is another way to follow Jesus and call
;    oneself Christian.

	May I ask who you are discussing in the above paragraph? 

	Phil. 

Pat sometimes doesn't carefully proofread what he writes before entering it.

It's clear that his first two paragraphs stand in contrast to each other,
the first paragraph beginning:

>    In the context of CP ...

and the second paragraph beginning:

>    In the world outside of Christianity, ...

He clearly means either "In the world outside of CP" which could also
have been written (note comma) "In the world outside, of Christianity".

I wish people (including myself) would be more careful when making an
important point to make sure that it won't be misunderstood and attacked
because of a grammatical or other careless error that appears to change
the meaning.

/john

    It was getting late...
    
    In the context of CP it's becoming a challenge to find an objective
    definition of anything.  Perhaps for first principles we need to argue
    that "things" can be defined without reference to the speaker and work
    our way up from there.
    
    In the world outside of CP, as the trio of Jackson, Covert, and Sweeney
    have mentioned, belief that Jesus is God is at the center of Christian
    belief.  Subtract that and the man who claimed he was God was not and
    therefore a liar or a lunatic.
    
    One form of denial of this is based on the inaccuaracy or irrelvance of
    Scripture.  In negation, Jesus doesn't fully reveal Himself in
    inspired, inerrant Scripture but in direct personal communication,
    where Jesus is free to contradict Scripture.  Jesus can be any
    combination of God, man, woman, and other.  Some people follow Jesus
    this way and call themselves Christians.
    
    Another form of denial of this is based on a translation of Scripture,
    created in the 20th century, which asserts the negation, namely that in
    this translation of Scripture,  Jesus fully reveals Himself and denies
    that he is God.  So this is another way to follow Jesus and call
    oneself Christian.  I believe that the Jehovah's Witnesses give
    scriptural authority to their belief that Jesus denied that he was God.
    
    If the Jehovah's Witnesses do not give scriptural authority to their
    belief that Jesus denied that he was God, then I may have misunderstood
    what they have written in CP, and I do not know what the source of this
    belief is.
                                                                           

    RE: .144  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    			  In a time when even the "Christian" denominations
    seemed to have different definitions of Christianity, it seems to me
    that CP does a very good job of allowing everyone a voice.  In the last
    poll that I read some 76% of the citizens of this country considered
    themselves Christian.  No wonder there are differences of opinions
    about it.  I feel that I can only "discuss" *MY* beliefs and deal with
    the inaccuracy's as they crop up and then only in as loving manner as I
    can as would benifit the cause of Christ.  Arguments, I do not engage
    in as a Christian.
    
    
    Dave

re 22.144

Pat,

In your reply you said

;Another form of denial of this is based on a translation of scripture,
;created in the 20th Century, which asserts the negation, namely that
;in this translation of Scripture, Jesus fully reveals himself and
;that he is God.  So this is another way to follow Jesus and call
;oneself Christian.  I believe that the Jehovah's Witnesses give
;scriptural authority to their belief that Jesus denied that he was God.
    
How did you get that from what Jehovah's Witnesses have written in CP?.
You seem to have read far too much into what has been written by myself
and my friends. Also I am suprised that you are making such a false claim,
especially seeing that Jehovah's Witnesses have been teaching that Jesus
is not Almighty God a long time before the alleged Bible translation was 
first published. 

A question, do you think that using the word "created" would be correct if 
used in context of a Catholic translation of the Holy Scriptures? If not, 
why use it in conjunction with the translation that today is most popular 
Jehovah's Witnesses?. 

Jehovah's Witnesses do give Scriptual authority that Jesus never claimed
to be God, but this is not based on any one translation. Scripture 
shows God as being superior to Jesus and everything Jesus said about
himself indicates this. He did not consider himself equal to God in power,
knowlegde or in age. His speech or conduct, wether in heaven or on earth,
reflect subordination to God. Jesus stated in John 5:19 RSV Catholic edition
"Truly, truly, I say to you, the Son can do nothing of his own accord, but only
what he sees the Father doing, for whatever he does, that the Son does 
likewise" , John 6:38 RSV Catholic edition "For I have come down from heaven,
not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me;" and John 7:16 RSV 
Catholic edition "So Jesus answered them, 'my teaching is not mine but his
who sent me;". As the brochure "Should You Believe in the Trinity?" page 17 
under the subheading "God's Submissive Servant" asks the question "Is not the 
sender superior to the one sent?"

Check out this relationship of Jesus being one sent by God to do God's will,
just as a father sends a submissive son by reading Jesus' illustration of the
vineyard in Luke 20:9-16.

The first century Christians viewed Jesus as a submissive servant of God. They
prayed to God about "thy holy servant Jesus, whom thou didst anoint,...and
signs and wonders are performed through the name of thy holy servant Jesus."
Acts 4:23,27,30 RSV Catholic edition

In Scripture Jesus made the simple to understand statement "The Father is
greater than I." John 14:28 RSV, Catholic edition. Why should anyone not
believe that God is superior to Jesus?, especially when Jesus himself said 
that this was so.

I hope to provide more Scriptual evidence that God is superior to Jesus (as
such show that they are not co-equal) as and when time allows. But the best
place for these replies will be in another note string.

Phil. 

    What specifically is false in the quote from my earlier reply?  And by
    "false", do you mean merely incorrect or intentionally deceptive?
    
    Your reply reasserts what I wrote in the quoted reply:
    
    (1) People have written here denying the Trinity.
    (2) They claim scriptural authority for doing so.
    (3) They claim these beliefs to be "Christian".

re.147

Pat,

;    Your reply reasserts what I wrote in the quoted reply:
    
;    (1) People have written here denying the Trinity.
;    (2) They claim scriptural authority for doing so.
;    (3) They claim these beliefs to be "Christian".

I agree with what you have written above but what I found to be false was
the following statement which is totally misleading. It infers that 
Jehovah's Witnesses beliefs are based on one publication of translation of 
Scripture produced in the 20th Century which they created themselves. 

;Another form of denial of this is based on a translation of scripture,
;created in the 20th Century, which asserts the negation, namely that
;in this translation of Scripture, Jesus fully reveals himself and
;that he is God. So this is another way to follow Jesus and call
;oneself Christian.  I believe that the Jehovah's Witnesses give
;scriptural authority to their belief that Jesus denied that he was God.

Perhaps I have miss understood you but I dont think so. 

Phil.

You cannot deny that the NWT has its own different translations of certain
important verses which, in all other translations, CLEARLY proclaim that
Jesus is God.

For example:  John 1:1 (NRSV)  "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
				was with God, and the Word was God." ...
		   1:14	       "And the Word became flesh and lived among us,
				and we have seen his glory, the glory as of
				a father's only son, full of grace and truth."

The NWT translates this differently in order to bolster its Arian claim.

/john

    The opening chapter of John is one of the most mystical and mysterious
    in the entire canon.  I suspect an unshakeable and universal delineation
    of its meaning cannot be arrived at.  I don't believe it to be statement
    with precision as its purpose.
    
    But then, I could be wrong! 8-}
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    So this is the true doctrine of the denial of truth.
    
    Start with the assumption that langauge is ambiguous and unknowable,
    then Christ becomes unknowable, and then everyone from Saint Peter and
    Paul down to every Christian preacher is only preaching "according to
    their opinion".
    
    Perhaps we need to categorize Christians as Objective Truth Christians
    and Relative Perspective Christians.

re Note 22.151 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Start with the assumption that langauge is ambiguous and unknowable,
>     then Christ becomes unknowable, and then everyone from Saint Peter and
>     Paul down to every Christian preacher is only preaching "according to
>     their opinion".
  
        Well, Pat, there's no doubt that natural language is full of
        ambiguities, and that it is, in general, "unknowable" to a
        listener/reader who doesn't already share some (very hard to
        specify) common set of assumptions.

        The only thing left is to decide our reaction to these facts
        of language:  we can either throw up our hands in despair, or
        we can deny that the facts are true, or we can delight in the
        never-ending exploration, as individuals and collectively, of
        the mind of the speaker/writer.

        Bob

As I recall from my "History of the New Testament" course, which I
took from a secular educational institution, the gospel of John was hotly
debated as to its "canonical correctness," partially due to a possible
understanding of one of the verses you quoted.

According to the class, John 1:1 could be accurately translated as

          "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
	   was with God, and the Word was a god."
	                     ------------------

Naturally, this understanding of the verse smacks of Gnosticism.

Peace,
Richard

re: note 22.152 by Bob "without vision the people perish 

I vote for throwing up our hands in despair...


                                               N O T ! ! !

.-)

Jim

btw, with a little imagination, that phrase can conjure up some pretty 
interesting mental images!

    .152 Bob and .154, Jim,
    
    Personally, I delight in the exploration. :-)
    
    (What a marvelous Creation, God.  Thank you!)
    
    Karen

    Variations in language and interpretation of the Bible is one big
    reason why there isn't only one Christian sect.  
    
    Doesn't make those who are of dogmatic heart very happy, but variations
    in language, culture, and moral values are the way of the world, and
    likely always will be.  Fact is, you can blame it all on God, and it
    says so right in the OT.  The story about the Tower of Babel pretty
    much explains it, I believe.
    
    Mike

>According to the class, John 1:1 could be accurately translated as
>
>          "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word
>	   was with God, and the Word was a god."

Only the Jehovah's Witnesses translate it that way.

No scholar of ancient Greek agrees.

/john

    ...or recognize that there is a difference in *historical* versus
    *confessional* writing in the Bible...  The search for the historical
    Jesus is an ongoing endeavor...

RE .153

Richard,

Please can you tell me, did this course have anything to do with Jehovah's 
Witnesses?. I find it most unlikely but I just want to confirm before fully 
replying to John Covert's reply in .157. 


;	   was with God, and the Word was a god."
	                     ------------------

;Naturally, this understanding of the verse smacks of Gnosticism.


Why do think this? Do you not know that Jesus referred to the judges of Israel 
as being gods, John 10:34 NWT "Jesus answered them: 'Is it not written in your 
Law, "I said: 'you are gods'"'", compare Psalms 82:1,6 . Jesus saw nothing 
wrong in referring to men, who were appointed by Jehovah to judge the 
Israelites, as gods. We know that Jesus was sent by God to do God's will, it
would not seem unproper (that's if Jesus is not God) that he his referred to
as a god. Also compare how God's word refers to the angels in Psalms 8:5.

Some people say that all other gods other than the only true God are false ones.
Now there is only one Almighty God, however Jehovah has appointed ones to act
on his behalf as judges and these through his word the Bible he has referred 
to as gods. Would it not be wrong to view such ones as false gods?.

Phil.
    

    John 11:24 is a defense of Jesus' claim to be Messiah and God to the
    Jews who were preparing to stone him for blasphemy.

    His defense is to quote Ps 82:6 which is quite appropriate since it is
    a judgment against wicked human judges, who, of course, the Jews were
    at this point in the Gospel account.  Jesus concludes  by saying "the
    Father is in me and I in him" which is a clear testimony of his
    divinity.(Jn 11:38)

    The context of Ps 82 is wicked human judges not the Messiah.

    "I said You are gods, all of you sons of the Most High.  Yet like men
    you shall fall and die like any prince. Rise, O God; judge the earth
    for yours are all the nations." Ps 82:6-8 [NAB]

Phil., (.159)

	The course was "History of the New Testament" taken at the University
of Colorado at Colorado Springs.  The instructor was a historian, not a
theologian.  The course was not sponsored or presented by a Christian
affiliation.

Peace,
Richard

Phil., Note 22.159

>;Naturally, this understanding of the verse smacks of Gnosticism.

>Why do think this?

Because it is simply something that at least some Gnostic Christians were known
to believe.  I, personally, never thought the Gnostics were all the threat
that the early church made them out to be.  The Gnostics were kind of like
the New Agers of their day.

Peace,
Richard

    Since the Gnostics believed in "gnosis" (or knowledge) transmitted by
    personal revelation as opposed to the universal revelation Scripture
    and the Church, it's hard to know what they believed.  One would have
    to read the writing of each Gnostic author.

    There were numerous Gnostic sects, some of which considered violence
    towards Christians justifiable; they were a substantial threat.

    Gnosticism has been with us throughout history in many forms.  The
    appeal that knowledge and/or redemption is limited to a relative
    handful of people is a strong allure.
                                        
    Pat Sweeney

re .149

John,

You seem intent on making attacks against Jehovah's Witnesses and you do
this by bearing false witness to them. For example in reply .149 you make
the following statement :

;The NWT translates this differently in order to bolster its Arian claim.

Since when as any Jehovah's Witness or the New Translation Committee 
ever made an Arian claim? What is your source for such a statement?.

It would seem that you and others view  Jehovah's Witnesses as Arians because
they do not believe in the Trinity. But the fact that they are not Trinitarians
does not make them Arians. Arius claimed that God is beyond comprehension even
for the Son. In line with this, historian H.M. Gwatkin states in his book
the Arian Controversy: "The God of Arius is an unknown God, whose being is 
hidden in eternal mystery. No creature can reveal him and he cannot reveal
himself." Now Jehovah's Witnesses do not worship the incomprehensible God
of the Trinitarians nor the unkwown God of Arius. The apostle Paul said 
"But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom all things are," 
1 Corinthians 8:6 KJV Jehovah's Witnesses say the samething.

For more information on how Jehovah's Witnesses view Arianism please see
the Watchtower dated 1st September 1984 pages 25-30.

Phil.

  >I, personally, never thought the Gnostics were all the threat
  >that the early church made them out to be.  The Gnostics were 
  >kind of like the New Agers of their day.

Yes, all they did was preach another gospel.

Of course it's true that the this practice of preaching another
gospel is *soundly* condemned in the Bible.

Collis

The Arian heresy is the denial that Jesus is God.

Jehovah's Witnesses adhere to this denial.

Jehovah's Witnesses consider Arius to have been a forerunner of Charles
Taze Russell, the founder of the Jehovah's Witnesses movement.

The interlinear English adjacent to the Greek in the Kingdom interlinear
edition of the bible shows the translation of John 1:1 as it is accepted
by Christians.  This edition of the bible also includes the NWT translation
and shows clearly how the Jehovah's Witnesses have carefully changed many
scriptural passages to bolster their denial of Christianity's most basic
belief.

Remember Basil.  Stamp out the Arian heresy.  As a Christian, confess that
Jesus Christ is God and Lord.

/john

John,

I shall not bother arguing with you, if you wish to bear false witness about
others then it's on your own conscience. 

Using your line of arguement that "The Arian heresy is the denial that Jesus 
is God.", then everybody apart from Trinitarians are Arians which is totally
untrue. 


Phil.

    Richard and Collis,
    
    Your notes mentioning New Agers.  Is that meant to be a slight against
    people holding so-called 'new age' beliefs?
    
    Ro
    

>I shall not bother arguing with you, if you wish to bear false witness about
>others then it's on your own conscience. 

"In modern times some Unitarians are virtually Arians in that they are
 unwilling either to reduce Christ to a mere human being or to attribute
 to him a divine nature identical with that of the Father.  The Christology
 of Jehovah's Witnesses, also, is a form of Arianism; they regard Arius as
 a forerunner of Charles Taze Russell, the founder of their movement."

Page 510, Volume I, Microp�dia, Encyclop�dia Britannica, 15th Edition.

/john

No, I mean no slight against those holding New Age beliefs.

Yes, I do mean that many New Age beliefs are lies and/or
half-truths which lead to hell, not heaven.  It is clearly
a different gospel than salvation by repentance and submission
to Jesus as Lord and Savior not only of your life, but of
the world as well (as opposed to glorifying "mother earth"
which is worshipping the created rather than the creator).

I agree with some of the goals of the New Age movement.

Almost invariably, I find the methodology for achieving those
goals to be one that denies rather than affirms the Lord
Jesus Christ.

Collis

Note 22.168, Roey,
 
>    Your notes mentioning New Agers.  Is that meant to be a slight against
>    people holding so-called 'new age' beliefs?

Not me!  Conservatives, in my opinion, have a trumped-up adversarial
relationship toward New Agers, much like the early church had towards
the Gnostics.

And like the early church, Conservatives tend to be more concerned with
correct doctrine than with much else.

Peace,
Richard

  >And like the early church, Conseratives tend to be more
  >concerned with correct doctrine than with much else.

Perhaps it's the command to worship God and God alone that
causes this concern.  Personally, this is *exactly* the
problem I have with the New Age Movement which, as a whole,
denies the sovereignty and power of my God and elevates
humans denying the sinfulness and hopelessness that exists
in the human condition (but that is clearly evident all around
us as well as in revealed to us by God through His Word).

It is only when we *repent* and turn back to God (which is
what repent means) that we will be in the Will of God and,
as a by-product, accomplish so much of what the New Age
movement would like to accomplish.

Collis

re .169

John,

Are you baiting me? by laying traps.

You know Christians are not meant to fish that way (not that I am saying
you are fishing but just trying to put my religion down).

I will reply later to the statement in the Encyclop�dia Britannica and show
that it is incorrect.

Phil.

    It strikes me though that Christ was not so concerned about correct
    doctrine as with living a full and authentically righteous life.
    
    One's theology need not be perfect (whatever that means) for Christ
    to lead the way.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>    It strikes me though that Christ was not so concerned about correct
>    doctrine as with living a full and authentically righteous life.
>    
>    One's theology need not be perfect (whatever that means) for Christ
>    to lead the way.

Jesus taught salvation through theology first, and righteousness second:

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul,
and with all thy mind.  This is the first and great commandment.  And the
second is like unto it; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  On these
two commandments hang all the Law and the Prophets.

/john

    But that which you've quoted, Brother John, is not theology, but
    action.  Love requires no depth of theology.  It's not what you
    know so much as what you do.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

How can you obey the first and great commandment if you don't know who God is?

Christ taught us that he was God.

Through Jesus Christ we know God and through his life and death we know the
total self-giving love of God.

Our crucified and risen Lord is the source and foundation of our knowledge
of the living God.

The Incarnation is central to the liturgy and life of the Christian community.

In taking on our flesh, Jesus, the Word of God, remained fully divine while
participating fully in created humanity.  He was born, lived, and died as
one of humanity and through his life, his Resurrection, and his glorious
Ascension manifested his Divinity.

Note 22.177

>How can you obey the first and great commandment if you don't know who God is?

I don't think it would be difficult.  Even a small child is capable of it.

Thanks for the genuinely interesting credo though!

Peace,
Brother Richard

    "more concerned with correct doctrine"
    "theology need not be perfect"
    "Christ not concerned about correct doctrine"
    "Love requires no depth..."

    and finally "an interesting credo"

    Richard, where are we having this dialog?  Why are we having this
    dialong?  In a conference when the content is theology, the
    participants are interested in theology, where if the dialog _wasn't_
    about theology I wouldn't be here.

    Now you are constantly deprecating the discussion of theology. Why
    don't you talk about what you want to talk about instead of making
    these hit and run comments bashing "theological conservatives".
    Every comment you make belittling the study of God will be answered by
    someone committed to learning more about God and his people.

    Of course theology is important in the context of CP, in the larger
    context of my life theology is in perspective, but who's interested in
    hearing about that?

    We must know God in order to love him and serve him.  Some will spend
    their whole lives looking for God, committed Christians have found him
    in the person of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.

    We follow the commandments out of love of God and obedience to Him not
    because they are the right thing to do.  His commission to us was not
    merely to live lives of good example but to make disciples, teach, and
    baptize throughout the world.
                                 
    Pat Sweeney

Patrick,

I don't think it's fair to accuse Richard of hit and run tactics.  He's
written extensively in this conference, contributing to just about every
discussion we've had.  Richard has talked about what he wants to talk about
many times.

Not everyone in CP agrees that theology is important for salvation.  That's
what the conference is about: sharing perspectives.  Your perpective is
obviously different from Richard's.  Richard's brief comments such as "an
interesting credo" can be interpreted as "I disagree with what you say, but
I do value your contributions to this conference."

				-- Bob

.179 Brother Patrick,

	Perhaps I have been a little hard on conservatives.  And perhaps
I should just butt out whenever issues of strict orthodoxy arise.  I'm not
sure.  As a demonstration of good faith, I shall attempt to restrain
myself from responding so quickly to such notes for awhile.

	Ideally, the environment within this notesfile is one in which
multiple perspectives may be expressed.  Ideally, those perspectives are
framed in ownership, as opposed to being simply proclamations of subjective
understandings as universal reality.

	I have been observing with great interest, incidentally, the level of
sensitivity conservatives have demonstrated in dealing with Phil Yerkess, a
Jehovah's Witness.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  22.180

Well said, Bob

Re:  22.181

  >I have been observing with great interest, incidentally, the level of
  >sensitivity conservatives have demonstrated in dealing with Phil Yerkess, 
  >a Jehovah's Witness.

Personally, I prefer that you say "some conservatives".

Collis

    Perhaps this note needs to be called "What is an Arian religion?"
    
    To a Christian aware of the history of heresy, any religion that calls
    Jesus a prophet and teacher, and denies his divinity is Arian.  To a
    Christian, Islam is an Arian religion, even if 99% of the Muslims of
    the world never heard of Arius and his doctrines, it is so.  The origin
    of Christianity itself can be consider a heretical Jewish sect.
    
    Just as many worldviews presented by New Age books are Manichean, even
    it the author never heard of Manes.  You were introduced to Manicheism
    if you saw "Star Wars" where the "dark side of the force" was
    discussed.

    .182
    
    Collis, I'll try to remember to do that in the future. ;-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

	There is one Biblical truth that Jehovah's Witnesses agree with
	as stated by the fourth century dissident theologian Arius that 
	is "The Son is not unbegotten". However, they do not consider
	themselves to be modern day Arians and they make no such claim.

	The New Encyclop�dia Britannica states : "The Christology of Jehovah's 
	Witnesses, also is a form of Arianism." Christology is defined as
	"the Theological intrepretation of the person and work of Christ."
	Jehovah's Witnesses have no faith in theological philosophy, they
	accept with simplicity what the Bible states about God, Christ and
	the holy spirit. So there is no such Christolgy of Jehovah's Witnesses.

	Also the accusation that Jehovah's Witnesses are Arians is incorrect
	in so much as they disagree with many of Arius' views. Here are
	some of the different views between Jehovah's Witnesses and Arius.

	Arius denied that the Son could really know the Father. But the 
	Bible teaches that Son "fully knows" the Father and is "the one
	that has explained him." (Matt 11:27; John 1:14,18)

	Arius claimed that the Word became God's Son "by adoption" because
	of his virtue or moral integrity. The Bible shows that this is not
	so and simply states that the Son was created by Jehovah as his
	"only-begotten son." (John 1:14,3:16; Hewbrews 1:2; Revelations 3:14)

	Part of Arius' teaching was that Christians could hope to become
	equal to Christ. The Bible clearly states that this cannot be 
	for Jehovah gave him "the name that is above every other name."
	(Phillipians 2:9-11)

	Jehovah's Witnesses do not follow the teachings of the theologian
	Arius but the what the Bible says.

	So John please do not make such statements as you did in 22.149,
	Jehovah's Witnesses make no such Arian claim. You are bearing false
	witness by making such statements.

	Phil.

	Reference Watchtower dated 1st September 1984 pages 25-30.

>	So John please do not make such statements as you did in 22.149,
>	Jehovah's Witnesses make no such Arian claim. You are bearing false
>	witness by making such statements.

Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus Christ is truly God.

That is a form of Arianism.

I recommend that everyone read the Encyclop�dia Britannica article on
Jehovah's Witnesses.  Go to your facility library or to your town library
if you don't own your own set.

/john

	John,

	I think your misunderstanding what I am saying. You may have your
	own opinion that Jehovah's Witnesses pratice a form of Arianism.
	However to state that the NWT or Jehovah's witnesses actually 
	makes a claim to be Arian is totally false, the NWT commitee make 
	no such claim. So why do you tell others that they make such a claim? 
	Would that not be misleading?. 

	The statement I am referring to is 

"The NWT translates this differently in order to bolster its Arian claim."

	Phil.

.186  John

> Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus Christ is truly God.

Jehovah (YHWH) is Almighty God.  Jesus is his only begotten son.  That's
what the Bible says.  


> That is a form of Arianism.

No, that's John Covert's personal opinion.  Phil explained the truth of the
matter to you, John, but your own opinion is what you'd rather believe.


> I recommend that everyone read the Encyclop�dia Britannica article on
> Jehovah's Witnesses.  Go to your facility library or to your town library
> if you don't own your own set.

I recommend that everyone who really wants to know the truth about Jehovah's
Witnesses, go to one of Jehovah's Witnesses, not one who is clearly opposed
to Jehovah's Witnesses.  After all, if I wanted to know more about Anglicans
or Catholics, I would probably ask you, John.  I wouldn't ask one who bashes
Anglicans or Catholics, because I wouldn't get an accurate picture of your
beliefs, would I?


Steve            

    Hi Steve,
    
    As someone who has been born and raised as an Episcopalian, I think if
    you went to John Covert, to Bonnie, to Jim Kirk, or to me, you might
    find four different perspectives on the same religion.  Our views might
    be similar, but I doubt we would agree on every point.  Now John might
    say that I'm not a *true* Episcopalian then, but since God is my judge,
    not John, that doesn't bother me.  I suspect that each person's
    relationship with God is as unique as the person themselves.
    
    Ro
    

re Note 22.186 by COVERT::COVERT:

> Jehovah's Witnesses deny that Jesus Christ is truly God.
> 
> That is a form of Arianism.
  
        John,

        I think that Phil has amply demonstrated that the above
        statement is utterly simplistic.

        It is absolutely on a par with those who would claim that
        Christianity is a polytheistic religion simply because it
        claims there are three equally divine persons.  (To
        paraphrase your simple-minded statement:  "this is a form of
        polytheism.")

        Remember the garlic!

        Bob

This topic is "What is a Christian religion."

Christianity claims that Jesus Christ is true God.

A claim that Jesus Christ is not God is an Arian claim.

/john

    > I recommend that everyone read the Encyclopedia Britannica article
    > on Jehovah's Witnesses.
    
    John, thank you, but I'd much rather talk with a Jehovah's Witness.
    
    Phil, I greatly admire the infinite patience you have shown in
    this topic.
    
    And, remember Pasta!
    
    peace,
    Karen          

"Witnesses are insistent that their beliefs are entirely different from those
of the Protestant and Catholic churches, which they refer to as Christendom.
Christendom is viewed as a conspiracy to defraud men and to sell out the
Christian hope in favour of worldly expectations.  Contemporary Witnesses
speak of their message as designed to `shock, rattle, and unfrock Christendom.'
Such denunciations are significant in revealing the deep sense of alienation
from traditional Christianity that Witnesses apparently feel.  The Witnesses
show equal contempt for secular society and lump church and state together
as institutions whose claims to bring peace and prosperity to the earth are
only a delusion."

"The manner in which Witnesses use the Bible was characteristic of many
19th-century Protestant denominations, using the Bible as an armory of
proof texts divorced from an understanding of textual development and the
cultural background of the Hebraic and early Christian periods."

		-- Encyclop�dia Britannica, 15th Edition, Macrop�dia,
		   Volume 10, page 132

>    As someone who has been born and raised as an Episcopalian, I think if
>    you went to John Covert, to Bonnie, to Jim Kirk, or to me, you might
>    find four different perspectives on the same religion.  Our views might
>    be similar, but I doubt we would agree on every point.  Now John might
>    say that I'm not a *true* Episcopalian then, ...

I can't say what you are.

What I can say is that the Catholic Faith as taught by the Episcopal
Church is adequately stated in the creeds and in the Outline of the
Faith in the 1979 Book of Common Prayer.

/john

I think it would be fair to say that some Christians consider the belief
that Jesus was other than God Incarnate a heresy and that other Christians
do not.

My intention is to not "stamp out" or campaign against either one.  "Stamping
out" will not lead to understanding and respect.

I'm sure ol' Basil had the most saintly of motives, but I owe nothing to Basil.
Were Basil noting here - who knows? - he might object to having his name
used as a battlecry.  I know I would!

Peace,
Richard

>Were Basil noting here - who knows? - he might object to having his name
>used as a battlecry.  I know I would!

Neither of us are Cappadocian Fathers, but Basil was.

This conference is called "Christian-Perspective"; this topic is called
"What is a Christian Religion"; the other topic in which Basil's memory
has been invoked is "The Divinity of Jesus -- How important is it."

Basil thought that the Divinity of Jesus was important enough that he was
ready to give his life in defense of it against a heresy which denied this
most basic tenet of Christianity.

I'm sure Basil is honored that we remember him and invoke his name to
banish a heresy -- a heresy to him and to all Catholics and Protestants --
from these two topics.  He would certainly confront the heretical claim
when it appears in these topics in particular even more strongly than I.

/john

    Hmmm.  Perhaps I'm not making myself clear.
    
    Brother John .196, your perspective *is* welcome here.  Were Basil
    around in the flesh and a Digital employee, *his* perspective
    would be welcome here, too!
    
    At the same time, I think it's important to remember that the perspectives
    of Phil, Steve and other JW's are also welcome and worthy of respect.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>    At the same time, I think it's important to remember that the perspectives
>    of Phil, Steve and other JW's are also welcome and worthy of respect.

Can a religion which asks all Christendom to deny that Jesus is God
call itself a Christian religion?

RE .192

	Karen,

	Thank you for your kind words of encouragement, they were well received.

;And, remember Pasta!

	Taglitelle alla carbonara (sp?) pops to mind, scrumptous!


	Phil.

    re: .198
    
    Yes.

    John Covert and myself may be reaching too far in a conference that is
    a broken record on the denial of the existence of objective truth.

    I am presenting more than a personal opinion, more than a belief of
    my "sect" that Christianity is defined by a belief that Jesus made
    the claim that he was the Son of God, and God.  Because we have not
    seen and yet believe, we consider this the foundation of our faith.
    We do not believe Jesus to be a hoaxer or a lunatic for making this
    claim.

    The greatest denial of the divinity of Jesus was a heresy that was
    conducted seventeen centuries ago and successfully opposed by St.
    Basil.

    For more than nineteen centuries the followers of Jesus Christ have
    been defending their faith from those who deny his divinity.

    Any religion which denies the objective truth of this and calls itself
    "Christian" is a religion that needs to be defended from in dialogs
    such as we have in CP, not embraced.

.198
Yes.

Note 22.201

>    Any religion which denies the objective truth of this and calls itself
>    "Christian" is a religion that needs to be defended from in dialogs
>    such as we have in CP, not embraced.

Fine.  If you disagree with a belief, it is perfectly acceptable to say so
and provide a foundation for your disagreement with that belief.  However,
be aware that there is a line that can be crossed.

The topic is "What is a Christian Religion."  But let that title not become a
stumbling block.  A final and conclusive answer is not anticipated.  At least,
I don't anticipate it.

Peace,
Richard

    Further, how can you say these truths are objective when you can't even 
    come close to perceiving their reality, let alone proving them?  
    
    Mike

    re: .198,
    
    Yes.
    
    Karen

re .200, .203, .205  I contend you are wrong.

Are you saying that any religion that claims to be a Christian religion,
regardless of what it teaches about Christ, is a Christian religion?

Let me present to you the following creed.  I ask you if this could be the
creed of a Christian religion, by your definition, if the `church' which
professes this creed claimed to be Christian:

1. I believe and affirm that the Creator created and guides all creatures,
   and that he alone has accomplished, accomplishes, and will accomplish
   all works.

2. I believe and affirm that the Creator is one, with a oneness which is
   absolutely unique, and that he alone was, is, and will be our God.

3. I believe and affirm that the Creator is not a body, that there is
   nothing bodily about him and that none is like him.

4. I believe and affirm that the Creator is the first and will be the last.

5. I believe that the creator alone is worthy of worship and that we should
   not worship anything other than him.

6. I believe and affirm that the words of the prophets are true.

7. I believe and affirm that the prophecy of our teacher the great prophet
   is true and that he is the father of all prophets, both of those who came
   before him and those who followed him.

8. I believe and affirm that the teachings which are in our possession today
   are the same teachings as were handed down to our teacher the great prophet.

9. I believe and affirm that these teachings will not be abrogated, nor shall
   another set of teachings come from God.

10. I believe and affirm that the Creator has knowledge of all the deeds and
    thoughts of men, for scripture says, "He who has formed all their hearts
    also understands their doings."

11. I believe and affirm that the Creator rewards those who obey his
    commandments and punishes those who transgress his prohibitions.

12. I believe that the Creator's anointed one will come.  Even should he
    tarry, I still long for his advent.

13. I believe and affirm that a resurrection of the dead will take place at
    a time which will be well pleasing to the Creator.

Praised be his name and praised be his memory for ever and ever.

    > I contend you are wrong.
    
    Of course you do, but you are incorrect.
    
    > Are you saying that any religion that claims to be a Christian
    religion, regardless of what it teaches about Christ, is a Christian
    religion? <
    
    I'm sure there is a good degree of common ground found between all
    Christian denominations.  Who am to judge which ones are "Christian"
    and which ones are not.  
    
    But I must confess, the question ultimately lacks relevance for me.  
    My relationship with God and Christ is solid.  I've been "assigned" 
    other tasks to devote my energy to, so I leave the bulk of that 
    exercise up to those who find it important.
    
    Karen

>    But I must confess, the question ultimately lacks relevance for me.  

Then why bother to participate in the "What is a Christian Religion?" topic?!

    John,
    
    The real issue is here is whether statements can be made concerning
    religion that are more than mere opinion, but can be objectively true
    based upon the evidence of history.
    
    As applied to what we're talking about here, the evidence of history
    here is that Christians throughout time have considered the divinity of
    Jesus to be confirmed by oral tradition and scripture and to be a
    defining belief for Christians.

        Just for the record, Jehovah's Witnesses do not question Jesus
        Christ's divinity. However, we believe that he was the first
        and only one to be created by Jehovah alone. The rest of creation
        was created by God through Jesus Christ. Thus Jesus and his Father
        share a special relationship unique to the rest of creation. This
        is brought out in the well known verse John 3:16 were Jesus is
        spoken of as being God's "only Son" RSV Catholic edition, "only
        begotten Son" KJV and NWT.

        Other Scriptures that back Jesus as being created and all other
        things being created through him :

        Rev 3:14 RSV Catholic edition ",the beginning of God's creation."
        see also Col 1:15

        John 1:3 RSV Catholic edition "all things were made *through* him,"
        that is Jesus.

re .209

        Pat, 	

	I am quite happy to have a civilised discussion wether or not 
	"Jesus is Almighty God?". But you must realise that Jehovah's
        Witnesses do not call into question Christ's divinity eventhough
        they may have a different interpretation to you. 

	Not accepting Christ's divinity would be calling into question 
	the authority that God has given him (Matt 28:19).

	
        Phil.
                                                             
P.S. I did try to get the title changed in note 496 to something more specific.

>However, we believe that he was the first and only one to be created by
>Jehovah alone.

Yet Christianity has taught for nearly twenty centuries that Jesus is an
uncreated being as respects his divinity.

	"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and
	 the Word was God."

In the beginning.  Not after the beginning.  In the beginning.

Begotten, not made.  One in being with the Father, by whom all things were
made.

	re .211

	John,

;Begotten, not made.  One in being with the Father, by whom all things were
;made.

	Hewbrews 11:17 relates that Abraham offered up Isaac, his 
	only-begotten [son].

	We understand what only-begotten means in this verse, beget means
	to procreate or to produce. Why view the same word in John 3:16
	differently?.

	Phil.

>	We understand what only-begotten means in this verse, beget means
>	to procreate or to produce. Why view the same word in John 3:16
>	differently?.

Because of John 1:1.

Jesus is God.

	
	John,

	Could it be that John 1:1 has been incorrectly rendered in many
	translations, especially in context with John 1:18 were John
	states that at no man as seen God at anytime. John saw Jesus
	did he not? Some translators feel that John was highlighting 
	Jesus' quality rather than stating that he was God in John 1:1.
	BTW, these translators are not Jehovah's Witnesses. An example
	is the interlinear reading of "The Emphatic Diaglott" by 
	Benjamin Wilson dated 1864.

	Perhaps, I should stop there for I am not sure our discussions,
	if they can be called that, are getting anywhere and we don't 
	seem to be able to find any common ground at all.

	Phil.   

re .214

Do you have a copy of the Kingdom interlinear?  Look at the English under
the Greek for John 1:1.

And you mention that John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God."  However,
John 1:18 continues "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's
heart, who has made him known." [NRSV]

/john

re .215 

John,

I found your last reply very interesting and felt compelled to ask, please
could you tell me what version the NRSV is?. If you are correct this is
the first translation that I have heard of that renders this as
"God the only Son".

Looking at the KJV it makes no mention of "God the only Son" just the "only 
begotten Son," and likewise the RSV Catholic edition renders this "the only
Son" both omitting God.

Phil. 

    I also use the NRSV...New Revised Standard Version. The translation
    is a continuation from the RSV..Revised Standard Version. Inside
    the Bible is a long section on its history, but, I don't have the
    time to type it in.....Maybe John C. can enter some info.
    
    I believe that it was published after the NIV ....
    
    I like it, it is somewhat more "conservative " than the NIV, yet
    gender bias has been removed.
    
    Marc H.

Let's try this again.

There must be something which defines Christianity, otherwise, why bother?

There are those for whom the following creed defines their religion.  These
people believe that they must love the Lord God with all their souls, and
with all their hearts and with all their minds.  And they believe that they
must love their neighbors as they love themselves.  But they deny that Jesus
is God and ask mainstream Christianity to do likewise.

Is this an adequate creed for a Christian religion:

1. I believe and affirm that the Creator created and guides all creatures,
   and that he alone has accomplished, accomplishes, and will accomplish
   all works.

2. I believe and affirm that the Creator is one, with a oneness which is
   absolutely unique, and that he alone was, is, and will be our God.

3. I believe and affirm that the Creator is not a body, that there is
   nothing bodily about him and that none is like him.

4. I believe and affirm that the Creator is the first and will be the last.

5. I believe that the creator alone is worthy of worship and that we should
   not worship anything other than him.

6. I believe and affirm that the words of the prophets are true.

7. I believe and affirm that the prophecy of our teacher the great prophet
   is true and that he is the father of all prophets, both of those who came
   before him and those who followed him.

8. I believe and affirm that the teachings which are in our possession today
   are the same teachings as were handed down to our teacher the great prophet.

9. I believe and affirm that these teachings will not be abrogated, nor shall
   another set of teachings come from God.

10. I believe and affirm that the Creator has knowledge of all the deeds and
    thoughts of men, for scripture says, "He who has formed all their hearts
    also understands their doings."

11. I believe and affirm that the Creator rewards those who obey his
    commandments and punishes those who transgress his prohibitions.

12. I believe that the Creator's anointed one will come.  Even should he
    tarry, I still long for his advent.

13. I believe and affirm that a resurrection of the dead will take place at
    a time which will be well pleasing to the Creator.

Praised be his name and praised be his memory for ever and ever.

RE .218

;Let's try this again.

;There must be something which defines Christianity, otherwise, why bother?

John,

A concise definition for "Christianity" should be that it refers to the
original form of worship and access to God taught by Jesus Christ. Do
you or others agree?.

Phil.

    Re: .219
    
    No, I don't agree that is enough. For myself, you would have to add
    that Jesus was the Son of God.
    
    Marc H.

re .220

	Through the fulfillment of prophecies along with the miracles he
	performed one would have to recognise as did the Apostle Peter 
	that Jesus is indeed the Son of God, the Messiah or Anointed one. 
	The one sent by Jehovah God. 

	Phil.

Note 22.218

>There must be something which defines Christianity, otherwise, why bother?

Why bother, indeed, John.

I've found Note 8.7 helpful for our purposes:

>    For the purpose of deciding which notes are suitable for inclusion in
>    this conference, Christianity is defined according to definition 1
>    given in the American Heritage Dictionary.
    
>    	A Christian religion, founded on the teachings of Jesus.
    
>    It is the intention of the moderators to interpret this definition in
>    an inclusive way.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 22.218 by COVERT::COVERT:

> There must be something which defines Christianity, otherwise, why bother?
  
        John,

        I do feel that each individual who professes to be a
        Christian holds to some definition of the term, although that
        definition may be unexpressed.

        For the purposes of this conference, I don't see that the
        conference moderators need to proclaim a tight definition --
        the rather inclusive (i.e., loose) definition offered in 8.7
        would seem to be quite sufficient.

        Bob

    re: .206
    
    >re .200, .203, .205  I contend you are wrong.
>
>Are you saying that any religion that claims to be a Christian religion,
>regardless of what it teaches about Christ, is a Christian religion?
    
    No, that isn't what *I* said.  (I believe my note is .200).  What I
    *said* was that a religion can be Christian without believing that
    Jesus *IS* God.
    
    Since I did not say that the teachings of such a religion are
    *irrelevant* to its claim to be Christian, I found your creed totally
    irrelevant to the original discussion (re: whether Jesus = God). 
    
    ...and the tone of this note somewhat offensive, BTW.
    
    Nancy

>    I found your creed totally irrelevant to the original discussion
>    (re: whether Jesus = God). 

This topic is not the "Is Jesus God?" topic (though we may get to that here).

This topic is the "What is a Christian Religion" topic.

The creed posted here is not my creed.  For this discussion, we can refer
to it as "Creed MM".  I posted it to see where we can draw a line, to see
if this conference even allows a line to be drawn.

It is encouraging that the readership of this conference appears to be
agreeing that Creed MM is not a sufficient creed for a Christian religion.
It is encouraging that the readership is not willing to go that far in
taking Christ out of Christianity.

But how much of what Christ taught is necessary for a religion to claim
to be a Christian religion?  Can those who recite only Creed MM say, "our
moral teachings are the same Judeo-Christian ethic that Jesus taught, so
we do, indeed, base our religion on the teachings of Jesus."

Is there indeed, a more narrow path necessary to define a Christian religion?

>    I found your creed totally irrelevant to the original discussion
>    (re: whether Jesus = God). 

>This topic is not the "Is Jesus God?" topic (though we may get to that here).

>This topic is the "What is a Christian Religion" topic.
    
    
    Sorry, John, but at least 2 of the 3 notes you referred to were
    specifically answering *your* question re: whether a belief contrary
    to your belief that Jesus *is* God could be called Christian.  Hope
    that explains my "mistake."  
    
>It is encouraging that the readership of this conference appears to be
>agreeing that Creed MM is not a sufficient creed for a Christian religion.
>It is encouraging that the readership is not willing to go that far in
>taking Christ out of Christianity.
    
    I'm not sure whether there have been enough comments for you to assume
    that -- I have noticed more people *not* discussing your creed than
    stating either agreement or disagreement.  Nothing in *my* notes should
    be interpreted as either agreement or disagreement with that creed as
    that discussion does not interest me.
    
    I believe in the "divinity" of Jesus, but not the "deity" of Jesus.  I
    think I expressed earlier in this string that -- to me -- this
    distinction is important.
    
    Nancy

>    I believe in the "divinity" of Jesus, but not the "deity" of Jesus.  I
>    think I expressed earlier in this string that -- to me -- this
>    distinction is important.

In English, divinity and deity mean the same thing.  Do you mean that you
believe that he is a divine being distinct in substance from God the Father?

The bible shows the apostles worshipping Jesus and calling him "God" after his
resurrection.

Worship of divine beings other than the one God is polytheism, forbidden by
the first commandment, and was part of the heresy introduced by Arius and
rejected by Christianity, long, long ago.

Christianity proclaims that Jesus is God, not another, different divine being.

John,

In reply .215 you state the following:

;And you mention that John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God."  However,
;John 1:18 continues "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's
;heart, who has made him known." [NRSV]

Now my RSV makes no mention of "It is God the only Son,". John, have you made a
mistake here? . I do not own a NRSV, but I would be more than suprised if it
rendered John 1:18 as you stated in .215.

Phil.

Then be more than surprised, for it does.

John,

Thanks for confirming, I wonder why they rendered John 1:18 with "God the
only Son" when all other versions do not translate it this way.  Also to 
render it as the NRSV does is an oxymoron (sp?)

; And you mention that John 1:18 says "No one has ever seen God."  However,
;John 1:18 continues "It is God the only Son, who is close to the Father's
;heart, who has made him known." [NRSV]

The NRSV version reads, that John says "No one has ever seen God" and then
continues to say "It is God the only Son...who has made him known." is this
not contradictory? John definitely saw Jesus, God's only Son, if he felt that
Jesus was indeed God why would he say that "No one has ever seen God"?.

Phil.
           

>is this not contradictory?

Hardly.  No one has seen God: The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

But we have seen God the Son, and in him we have seen the nature of God,
and we have seen one of the three persons of God.

/john

John,

Please do not be offended if I start this reply with a little bit of
criticism, it is mean't to be constructive.

Could you please address your replies, this is the courteous thing to do
when talking to someone. It also helps people to quickly identify to whom
you are speaking to without having to go back through the notes string.

Now to your reply in .227 :

; In English, divinity and deity mean the same thing. 

 Divinity and deity do have similar meanings, however it is my understanding
 that "the Deity" only refers to the creator or God (perhaps someone can
 correct me if I am wrong about this). 

; Do you mean that you believe that he is a divine being distinct in substance 
; from God the Father?

 Yes, this is correct we see Jesus as being God's Son distinct in person
 and body from God the Father. Jehovah's Witnesses believe that the Bible 
 shows that Jesus was more than the greatest man that ever lived in so mush 
 as he existed in heaven as God's Son prior to coming to earth to do God's 
 will and after being resurrected by God the Father he now resides in heaven 
 and has been exalted to a higher position than previously. We believe that 
 he has now a more glorious body than when he walked the earth. Jesus is 
 portrayed as resembling or being the exact reflection of Jehovah God 
(Hebrews 1:3) and therefore has a divine nature. The angels also have a divine
 nature and are spoken of as being godlike and yet we do not attribute
 that these ones are Almighty God (Psalms 8:5)

;The bible shows the apostles worshipping Jesus and calling him "God" after his
;resurrection.

Please can you post these Scriptures here, this will help me address each 
one individually and will save me having to guess which ones you are thinking
about. 

;Christianity proclaims that Jesus is God, not another, different divine being.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on this. If Christianity proclaimed 
that Jesus is God, one would expect that Jesus taught this proclamation. 
Jesus showed us simply, through prayer, that his Father was the "only true God" 
(John 17:3) also notice in the same portion of Scripture that Jesus Christ 
is identified as being distinct from the "only true God".

Phil.

I'm not willing to repeatedly tear apart every bit of scripture.  The entire
Bible, Old and New Testament, proclaims the One God and the prohibition on
having and worshipping any subsidiary or lesser gods.

The doctrine of the Trinity was proclaimed by the same people who wrote and
gave us the bible, who decided which books were authentic and which were
not.  These are the people who were commissioned by Jesus to declare for then
and for all time what the central truths of Christianity are.  The experience
of the Resurrection radically changed the manifestation of Jesus to the world;
he was no longer, for a little while, lower than the angels, he was now known
to be True God.

When Thomas saw the risen Lord, he fell on his knees, worshipping him and
proclaiming, "My Lord and My God!"  Jesus blessed him and all those who
have been able to believe without seeing.

Jesus's Great Commission is that we baptize the world in the TRIUNE name
of God: The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  Jesus said "the Name",
not "the Names", for these three are one God, one in substance, and three
in person.

I pray that all who wish to call themselves Christian may come to believe
and proclaim this great Truth, this Holy Mystery of Faith.

/john

Re:  22.232

Phil,

  >The angels also have a divine nature...

For this most important of beliefs (which is a foundational difference
between Jehovah's Witnesses and what I would term "Christian" churches),
there must be some Scripture references that indicate this, at least
to Jehovah's Witnesses.  Would you care to share them?

Thanks,

Collis

P.S.  

  >If Christianity proclaimed that Jesus is God, one would expect that Jesus 
  >taught this proclamation.  Jesus showed us simply, through prayer, that 
  >his Father was the "only true God" (John 17:3) also notice in the 
  >same portion of Scripture that Jesus Christ is identified as being 
  >distinct from the "only true God".

Indeed, Christian churches have taught this as truth and continue to
teach it as truth!  (Of course, there's more to the truth than just
these two truths.)

    Quakers have traditionally believed that there is "that of God in
    everyone".  I don't know if that is quite the same as saying that
    everyone has a divine nature or not, but in any case Quakers clearly
    don't believe that everyone is God.  So there is a distinction between
    believe that there is something of God within us, and saying that we
    are God.

    As a general philsophical position, believing that God and the world
    are in one another, but also distinguished from one another, is a way
    of understanding the relationship between God and the world.  This
    understanding of panentheism is distinguished from pantheism, which
    affirms that the world is identical with God.  One implication is that,
    even if we take the theological statements attributed to Jesus the
    gospel of John at face value, the statement that he was in the Father
    and the Father in him does not necessarily imply that Jesus was God.  A
    statement like that would probably be a necessary condition for his
    divinity, but not a sufficient one, since I can make the same statement
    about myself--I also believe that I am in God and God is in me, but I
    don't claim to be God.
    
    And my followers in the Church of Mikianity can quote me on that.  :-)

    -- Mike

    It is not an article of Quaker belief that Jesus is or is not God.
    Likewise, a Quaker organization does not define itself as Christian as
    a consequence of being Quaker.
    
    The interpretation of John 1 referring the Jesus as being "He was
    present to God in the beginning." is a statement of the divinity of
    Jesus, not of anyone else.
    
    Anyone can claim to be God.  That doesn't make the claim true.

    Historically, and until recently, Quakerism was most definitely a
    Christian denomination, and the Evangelical wing of Quakerism remains
    strongly Christian to this day.  But that is irrelevant in any case;
    the point of bringing up this particular Quaker belief is to present an
    example of the fact that a belief that God is within one is not the
    same as equating one's self with God.  That may conceivably be a
    necessary condition of such a belief, but it is certainly not sufficient.

    -- Mike

re: Note 22.236 by "Patrick Sweeney in New York" 

>    Likewise, a Quaker organization does not define itself as Christian as
>    a consequence of being Quaker.

In a similar vein, I would not say that I was a Christian as a consequence of
being an Episcopalian.  I am an Episcopalian as a consequence of being a 
Christian.

Peace,

Jim

    I hope you enjoy these semantic quibbles more than I do.

    Each person who professes to be a Episcopalian, professes by virtue of
    the defined doctrine of the Episcopal Church to be a Christian.

Cheers,

Jim

re .234

	Collis, I would be very much interested in your views about angels
	and their nature.

	So that you know were I am coming from, I quickly browsed through
	Jehovah's Witness literature about angels and found no where, were 
	it specifically states that angels have a "divine nature". However, 
	it does show that the angels are godlike which implies to me that 
	they do have a divine nature.


	  >The angels also have a divine nature...

;For this most important of beliefs (which is a foundational difference
;between Jehovah's Witnesses and what I would term "Christian" churches),
;there must be some Scripture references that indicate this, at least
;to Jehovah's Witnesses.  Would you care to share them?

	Yes, there are Scripture references that I believe show that
	angels have a divine nature.  

	One such Scripture is Psalms 8:5.	

	Psalms 8:5 NWT reads "You also proceeded to make him a little less 
	than god-like ones," The reference footnote shows that the Hebrew
	word that has been rendered "god-like ones" is me-elohim'

	The King James version renders Psalms 8:5 as "For thou hast made him 
	a little lower than the angels,"

	And other versions render this verse

	Psalms 8:5 RSV Catholic edition "Yet thou hast made him little less 
	than God,"

	Psalms 8:5 The Jerusalem Bible "Yet you have made him little less
	than a god,"

	Now the cross reference to this prophecy of Jesus is found in
	Hebrews 2:7 and Paul shows that Psalms 8:5 is prophesing that 
	the Son of God being made a little lower than angels rather 
	than God.

	Also angels have a divine nature in that they have godly qualities. 
	A dictionary definition for divine is

	"Of,from,like, God or a god; devoted to God, sacred, superhumanly
         excellent, gifted , or beautiful"

        Now angels have qualities similar to Jehovah God in so much as they
	reside in heaven, Hebrews 12:22, (apart from fallen angels that have 
	been exiled Revelation 12) and are spirit creatures (Hebrews 1:14 KJV)
 	just as Jehovah is a spirit (John 4:24 KJV).  

	From what I remember "a god" means a powerful or mighty one. The 
	Bible shows that angels are indeed powerful, in fact one angel killed
	185,000 Assyrian men in one night (2 Kings 19:35). One should not 
	forget, that Satan is a fallen angel and one should not over estimate 
	that he is a powerful one. Jehovah God today permits Satan to be "the 
	God of this world" 2 Cor 4:4 KJV, but not for much longer, and all 
	humans need to seek Jehovah so as not to be mislead by this powerful 
	one (2 Cor 3:16). 

	So the Bible does show that the angels have a divine nature, they 
	are spirits and Jehovah is a spirit, they reside in heaven just 
	as Jehovah does and they are powerful ones. Those who have stayed
	loyal over the many years certainly are devoted to God, more so
	than any imperfect human. Psalms 8:5 shows that they are godlike.

	The Bible also calls Satan a "god" and he is a angel eventhough he
	is a wicked one.

	Hope this helps.
	
	Phil.

    Christian theology is simply stated: God alone is divine.  God alone is
    God.

    Angels are created beings with a eternal soul but no body.  Humans are
    created with a mortal body and eternal soul.  It is the eternity of the
    soul that is the participation of angels and humans in the divine
    nature of God.

Re:  22.241

  >Collis, I would be very much interested in your views about angels
  >and their nature.

What I know from Scripture is that angels are created beings (not
begotton, therefore excluding Jesus :-) ) that are underneath God
and higher than man (Psalm 8:5).  There are various levels of
angels and Satan was the prince or ruler of angels.  Many angels
rebelled, others remained loyal to God (the division 1/3, 2/3
is on my mind, but I don't have a Scripture for that.)  Angels
indeed are quite powerful and God frequently uses them to do
His Will.

  >Yes, there are Scripture references that I believe show that
  >angels have a divine nature.  

  >One such Scripture is Psalms 8:5.

As I understand Psalm 8:5, it simply says that human beings are
made lower than angels "me-elohim".  This verse says nothing
about angels and their relationship to God.  Perhaps you are
saying that the word "me-elohim" indicates a necessary relationship
between angels and God?

Indeed, I agree with Hebrews 2:7 as saying that Jesus was made
a little lower than angels - after all He was made a man!  For
those who believe Jesus is an angel, I expect they interpret the
verse the same way since being made a little lower than an angel
when you're an angel is equally absurd unless you do something
like take on the nature of a man.  In either case, it says nothing
that I can see about the relationship of angels to God or Jesus.

Re:  divine

The primary definition in the American Heritage dictionary is "being
or having the nature of a deity"  Nature is defined as "intrinsic
character or essence".   

I'd just like to be clear about exactly what you mean by divine.
Either you making a claim about something or someone being God or
you are not.  If you are not (which apparently you are not), then
you are making a claim about their intrinsic character (as the
definition I gave talks about) or you're making a claim about
attributes that are "godly" attributes (e.g., "she's divine" because
she is so kind).

It is the "intrinsic character" definition that leaves me
bewildered.  What exactly does this mean?  Does it mean that Jesus
had a very good nature just like God - but he was totally distinct
from God?  If so, our new natures as Christians would apparently
also qualify us as "divine".  In other words, it's a matter of
quantity, not quality.  If we have *all* the characteristics of
God, then we are obviously "divine".  Is this what you believe?

Collis

RE .243


	Collis,

	Thanks for being patient, I do not appear to have as much free time
	to note these days.

;Perhaps you are saying that the word "me-elohim" indicates a necessary 
;relationship between angels and God?

Yes, in that the angels are god-like and I will try and expand on this.

;I'd just like to be clear about exactly what you mean by divine.
;Either you making a claim about something or someone being God or
;you are not.

	From a Biblical sense divine means something belonging or pertaining
	to God, heavenly or godlike. With the angels as you say "you're making 
	a claim about attributes that are "godly" attributes", one such
	attribute is that there residence is in heaven (that is not to say
	that they dont come to earth to do tasks that Jehovah has given them
	such as being messengers) another that they are spirits just as
	Jehovah is a spirit. One should also realise that the Bible does
	not show that Jehovah as Omnipresent in that he has a place of
	residence referred to by the Bible as heaven. They are also mighty
	or powerful ones, to us this can seem to be rather like God or a god.

;It is the "intrinsic character" definition that leaves me
;bewildered.  What exactly does this mean?  Does it mean that Jesus
;had a very good nature just like God - but he was totally distinct
;from God?  If so, our new natures as Christians would apparently
;also qualify us as "divine".  In other words, it's a matter of
;quantity, not quality.  If we have *all* the characteristics of
;God, then we are obviously "divine".  Is this what you believe?

	No this not what I believe, some dictionary definitions actually say
	that the clergy are divine but I do not agree with this. Christians
	are told to put on a new personality (Ephesians 4:22-24) and allow
	the fruitage of God's spirit to be reflected in the way they lead
	their lives, but things they won't have in this life is residence
	in heaven or mightiness to the degree of the spirit creatures. A 
	relatively few have been chosen from mankind to be a kingdom of kings 
	and priests (Rev 20:6), the bible shows that those "bought from the 
	earth" number 144,000 (Rev 14:1-4) NWT. These are spoken as being 
	"partakers of the divine nature" 2 Peter 1:4 KJV and when resurrected 
	will have spiritual bodies rather than flesh and blood and will reside 
	in heaven and not here on earth (Compare 1 Cor 15). Persons like myself 
	have a hope of everlasting life here on earth (Matt 5:5) just as Adam 
	had originally, and therefore I do not see myself as having a divine
	nature. 

	I do not see a problem with angels or those of the "first ressurection"
	(Rev 20:6) being divine, if its to the praise and glory of Jehovah God.
 	However one should always realise that though there are many mighty 
	ones there is but one Almighty, that person being Jehovah God.

	Phil.

re JWs and the 144,000 to be admitted to the Kingdom.

This concept is gross.  One thousand times gross.

Re:  22.244

Hi Phil,

I still don't see the distinction.  Hopefully, you can help me with
this.  What exactly is it that allows an angel to be divine and Jesus
to be divine but that does not allow you to be divine?  Again, is it
a quantity distinction or a quality distinction?  Do you need to be
something different than what you are or do you need simply to have
more of some attributes (such as more love or compassion)?

It sounds from your previous reply that you are talking about quality
(that is a basic difference in nature).  If that is so, what is this
difference in nature, how do people obtain this different nature (since
apparently some do) and how is the interpretation of "divine" to mean
"different natures" supported in Scripture?

Thanks,

Collis

           RE: Note 22.245           COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                       4 lines  25-AUG-1992 09:28
         
    |re JWs and the 144,000 to be admitted to the Kingdom.

    |This concept is gross.  One thousand times gross.

    John... such a scripturally based answer.... In note .244 Phil
    referenced Revelation 14:1-4 regarding the 144,000. If you wish
    to comment on his (or anyone else's) understanding of these verses
    then why don't you do so with God's word as a backing? 
    
      robin

.245  John

>           -< And only descendents of the twelve tribes of Israel! >-

These twelve tribes listed in Re 7:5-8 are not the literal tribes of the 
nation of Israel.  Re 5:9, 10 show the 144,000 to be bought from "every tribe
and tongue and people and nation" (also see Ro 9:6).


>re JWs and the 144,000 to be admitted to the Kingdom.

The Kingdom is not just heaven, John.  The Kingdom is a literal government
which rules over the earth (see Da 2:44 and Re 5:10)  Who will they rule?
See Ps 37:29; Matt 5:5.  Are not the subjects of a kingdom considered to be
part of it?  Think of an earthly kingdom, such as Great Britain or Norway.
Do all of the subjects of those kingdoms live in the capitol city?  Do all of
the people in those kingdoms have rulership authority?  As far as the number
chosen to rule with Christ, Re 14:1 confirms the number given in Re 7:5-8
(also see Re 20:6).  Re. 14:4 shows them to be bought from mankind as "first-
fruits."  Are the "firstfruits" of the harvest the whole harvest?  In the
pattern that Jehovah established with the nation of Israel, to whom did the
"firstfruits" of the harvest belong?    


>This concept is gross.  One thousand times gross.
 
Jehovah's original purpose was for the earth to be a paradise filled with 
perfect humans as its caretakers (Ge 1:28).  That will, without fail, be
accomplished (Isa 55:11).  Just because a disobedient angel and two rebellious
humans put it "off course" at the start, doesn't mean that Jehovah can't cor-
rect the situation.  He is correcting it according to His righteous standards,
through this Kingdom arrangement.  He is demonstrating His perfect wisdom,
justice, power, and, most of all, love.  And all you can do is call His ways
gross; one thousand times gross.


Steve

re: Note 22.245 by "John R. Covert" 

>re JWs and the 144,000 to be admitted to the Kingdom.
>
>This concept is gross.  One thousand times gross.

One gross is 12 dozen:  one hundred and forty four.
One thousand times gross would be 144,000.

John, were you simply punning, or were you serious with a dry sense of humor? 
(I didn't see any smily face so I'm not sure.)

I've read a few different translations of the book of Revelation.  
Several of them convert Biblical units to modern English or metric. 
Much of the symbology of the numbers is thus lost.  
(Like the dimensions of the new Jerusalem for example.)

Peace,

Jim

    Define and discuss.

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 22.251               What is a Christian religion                251 of 251
RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"    21 lines  14-DEC-1993 13:13
     -< Original form of worship and access to God taught by Jesus Chris >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .0
	Nancy,

	A quick definition:

	"Christianity" refers to the original form of worship and access
	to God taught by Jesus Christ.

	Many claim to be Christian, but Jesus said "My sheep listen to my
	voice, and I know them, and they follow me." John 10:27 NWT
	Those that follow Jesus, listen and observe Jesus' teaching and
	commandments. This means adjustment rather than relying on ones
	own understanding or feelings on things(compare Proverbs 3:5,6).
	One also needs to see things through Jesus' eyes as it were, which
	means taking in accurate knowledge of Jesus Christ (John 17:3).
	By really knowing Jesus, a person would know how Jesus would feel
	about certain things. An important way to get to know Jesus is 
	studying his life and ministry in the Gospel accounts as found in 
	the Bible.  

	Phil.

    Richard,
    
    What is *your* definition or be reposting this are you saying that this
    is *your* definition?
    
    Also, do you think Christianity, the term has been redefined to fit
    today's diverse culture in the U.S?

    .252
    
    By reposting, I'm saying the topic already existed.  It is one which
    has been hashed and rehashed quite a bit in this conference.  A little
    exploration will verify what I'm saying.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    So has the discussion of changing terms definitions also be discussed
    in this topic?  Sorry, I don't have much time for exploration.

    
    I am Christian, in the only sense he wished anyone to be; sincerely
    attached to his doctrines, in preference to all others; ascribing to
    himself every human excellence; and believing he never claimed any
    other.
    
    				    - Thomas Jefferson
				      Letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush

Yeah, well, he might have been Unitarian, but he was definitely NOT
Universalist.

/john

    1968 is the date of the merger.  Many persons considered Jefferson a
    Unitarian Christian.  

    Does this pastor believe that anyone who knows Christ or wants to
    follow Christ "Is" a Christian?   
    
    I do.
    
    Patricia

Certianly Moslems know Christ, though imperfectly, since they believe
that he was a great teacher and prophet, second only to Mohammed.

Are Moslems Christians?

/john

>             <<< Note 87.116 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

>    Does this pastor believe that anyone who knows Christ or wants to
>    follow Christ "Is" a Christian?   
    
>    I do.
    
 
  Acts 11:26 says that "...the disciples were first called Christians at
  Antioch".  Who were the disciples, of whom were they disciples and how did
  they become disciples?

  Of course we can come up with our own definitions, but the Bible does define
  who were called Christians.


 
  Jim

    .120
    
    Took the words right off my fingers! :-)

You are right, Patricia, that the issue has nothing to do
with her gender.  I did not mean to imply otherwise.  The
issue has to with the Lord's Supper.

The Biblical definition of Christian (as understand by those
who accept inerrancy, at least) is that a Christian is a
person who has consciously repented of his sins and,
trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus on the cross for atonement,
asks Jesus into his life as his personal Savior.  (You'll note
that repentance is a common theme preached by Jesus as well
as his followers.)

To accept anyone who proclaims to "follow" Jesus by whatever
definition *they* would apply abdicates the church's responsibility
in this most important area.  

Collis

re Note 87.122 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> The Biblical definition of Christian (as understand by those
> who accept inerrancy, at least) is that ...

        Collis,

        Both you and note 87.120 by CSLALL::HENDERSON claim a
        Biblical definition of "Christian" but don't offer one (or
        even a citation).

        Bob

I would say that anyone who wants to unite themselves with Christ's
sacrifice on the cross (done sacramentally by receiving communion) is
a Christian.

Such a person would follow Christ's commandment to be baptised (although
baptism by desire is possible under appropriate circumstances) and then
to eat his flesh and drink his blood in the sacrament of the altar.

Someone who does not want to be united with the sacrifice on the cross
should probably not participate in the "making present" of that sacrifice
in Holy Communion.

/john

>        Both you and note 87.120 by CSLALL::HENDERSON claim a
>        Biblical definition of "Christian" but don't offer one (or
>        even a citation).

 

 I suggested reading the book of Acts, at least through chapter 11 verse
 26 where the "disciples were first called Christians".  Then I posed a
 question or 2 that could help with the definition.  I also think Collis 
 posed a definition which pretty much sums up what you'll find in Acts.



 Jim

RE:             <<< Note 87.124 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>


>    Christianity.  Anybody who knows Christ or wishes to follow Christ can
>    consider themselves a Christian.  If a Moslem also considered
>    themselves a Christian, I would invite them to participate in
>    Communion.  I sort of doubt whether any would but that is there choice. 
 

     I want to fly small planes one day..does that make me a pilot?  No, there
     are definite steps I must go through to achieve that title, just as there
     are definite steps one must take to be a Christian..I've either met the
     requirements or I have not.  I'm either a pilot or I am not. 




  >     people.  If I accept Christ as the incarnate spirit of God, then any
  >  religion that believes that God's spirit, God's word is available to
  >  humankind can be considered  Christian.
   
     Read the book of Acts and see who called themselves Christians.


 
    Jim

John 1:12, 13b  Yet to all who received him, to those who believe
  in his name, he gave the right to become children of God...
  born of God

John 3:3  "...I tell you the truth, unless a man is born again,
  he cannot see the kingdom of God."

John 3:5  "...I tell you the truth, unless a man is born of
  water and the Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God."

John 3:16-18  "For God so loved the world that he gave his one
  and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish
  but have eternal life.  For God did not send his Son into the
  world to condemn the world [the world was already condemned.  Ed.]
  but to save the world through him.  Whoever believes in him
  is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned
  already because he has not believed in the name of God's one
  and only Son."

John 3:36  "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but
  whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God's wrath
  remains on him."


John 14:6  "...I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one
  comes to the Father except through me."

John 14:15  "If you live me, you will obey what I command."


John 15:5b-6  "If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear
  much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing.  If anyone does not
  remain in me, he is like a branch that is thrown away and withers..."


John 15:27  "No, the Rather himself loves you because you have
  loved me and have believed that I came from God."

John 17:20b-21  "My prayer is not for them alone.  I pray also
  for those who will 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 my believe that
  you have sent me."

I John 2:1-2  "My dear children, I write this to you so that you
  will not sin.  But if anybody does sin, we have one who speaks to
  the Father in our defense - Jesus Christ, the Righteous One.  He
  is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours, but
  also for the sins of the whole world."

I John 2:9  "Anyone who claims to be in the light but hates his
  brother is still in the darkness."

I John 2:12  "I write to you, dear children, because your sins have
  been forgiven on account of his name."

I John 2:22  "Who is the liar?  It is the man who denies that Jesus
  is the Christ..."

I John 3:5  "But you know that he appeared so that he might take
  away our sins."

I John 3:9-10  "No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because
  God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he
  has been born of God.  This is how we know who the children of God
  are and who the children of the devile are:  Anyone who does not do
  what is right is not a child of God; neither is anyone who does
  not love his brother."

I John 4:10  "This is love:  not that we loved God, but that he loved
  us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins."

I John 4:13  "We know that we live in him and he in us, because he has
  given us of his Spirit."

Romans 8:1-2  Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who
  are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the 
  Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and deaeth.  For
  what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the
  sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of
  sinful man to be a sin offering.  And so he condemned sin in sinful
  man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be
  fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature
  but according to the Spirit."

Romans 8:9-11  "You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature
  but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you.  And if
  anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to
  Christ.  But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin,
  yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.  And if the Spirit
  of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised
  Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies
  through his Spirit who lives in you."

Romans 3:21-26  "But now a righteousness from God, apart from the
  law, has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify.
  This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to
  all who believe.  There is no difference, for all have sinned and
  fall short of the glory of God, and are justified freely by his grace
  through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.  God presented him
  as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood.  He did
  this to demonstrate his justice, because in his forbearance he had
  left sins committed beforehand unpunished - he did it to demonstrate
  his justice at the present time, so as to be just and the one who
  justifies the man who has faith in Jesus.

Romans 3, above, summaries what it means to believe or have faith
in Jesus.  Many of the other verses reflect the indwelling spirit that
accompanies acceptance of Jesus death on the cross for our sins.  There
are literally hundreds more verses that deal with this issue.  When
you add them all up, you get

 - repentance and
 - acceptance of Jesus for payment of sins by faith

= believer = follower = Christian

 - following God in everyday life

is a sign that the person is a Christian (but is not what makes
a person a Christian)

> Romans 3, above, summaries what it means to believe or have faith
> in Jesus.  Many of the other verses reflect the indwelling spirit that
> accompanies acceptance of Jesus death on the cross for our sins.  There
> are literally hundreds more verses that deal with this issue.  When
> you add them all up, you get
> 
>  - repentance and
>  - acceptance of Jesus for payment of sins by faith
> 
> = believer = follower = Christian
> 
>  - following God in everyday life
> 
> is a sign that the person is a Christian (but is not what makes
> a person a Christian)

        Collis,

        NONE of the verses you quote literally use the terms "repent"
        or "accept".

        (This is why so much of conservative theology looks just like
        "doctrine of men" to me -- you insist that people accept your
        distillation, and not just the text you claim to honor.)

        They all imply "follow" just as much.

        Bob

    Collis,
    
    Also none of the Gospel citations reflect the theory of atonement that
    you insist is a necessary prerequisite for Christianity.
    
    the citations from 1 John 2,3,& 4 do and the citations from Romans do.
    
    I maintain that just as you and I have differing definitions of what it
    means to be a Christian, So did Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, etc.
    
    Patricia

Dear friend, do not imitate what is  evil but what is good.
Anyone who does what is good is from God.  Anyone who does 
what is evil has not seen God.

				3 John, verse 11  NIV

Peace,

Jim

I John 4:15  �Whosoever� shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God,
God dwelleth in him, and he in God. (KJV)

John 12:46  I am come a light into the world, that �whosoever�
believeth on me should not abide in darkness. (KJV)

John 3:16  (A favorite of conservatives) For God so loved the world,
that he gave his only begotten Son, that �whosoever� believeth in him
should not perish, but have everlasting life. (KJV)

*I'm* a whosoever, aren't you?

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .270

You have a Bible.  Feel free to enter some of the many verses
that discuss repentance and then we can talk about it.  This
isn't just a proving ground; it's a discussion.  Then again,
it's only a discussion if people want to discuss.

You complained that verses weren't entered.  Now you're complaining
that the verses you wanted to see weren't entered.  We both know
the Bible talks plenty about repentance.  Do you simply want to
complain, or do you want to know what the Bible says?  Do a
little work (or share in the work) and what God says will
become clear.

Collis

  >*I'm* a whosoever, aren't you?

Do you confess Jesus is the Son of God with all the
implicataions that go along with it?

Do you believe in Jesus with all the implications that go
along with it?

Or, do you assume that there are no implications since
they are not explicitly stated?

As any good Bible interpretator will tell you, you need to
see the full meaning of Scripture by taking all of the 
relevant texts.  But I weary of stating the obvious.

Collis

re Note 22.274 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> You complained that verses weren't entered.  

        Yes -- although I complained from the knowledge that the
        verses you implied you could supply (regarding an earlier
        claim of a "definition of Christianity") actually didn't
        exist. :-)

> Now you're complaining
> that the verses you wanted to see weren't entered.  

        Actually, my second complaint was that the verses YOU needed
        to supply to justify what YOU wrote (regarding "repentance
        and acceptance" as the valid test of Christianity) weren't
        entered -- even though you entered plenty of other verses.

> We both know
> the Bible talks plenty about repentance.  Do you simply want to
> complain, or do you want to know what the Bible says?  Do a
> little work (or share in the work) and what God says will
> become clear.
  
        The point of my second complaint is that human beings have
        set up condensations of what they believe Scripture as tests
        of valid Christianity.  You offered "repentance and
        acceptance" as the valid test of what the Bible verses you
        quoted simply called "belief".  "Trinity" is certainly
        another one of these human doctrines.  These human doctrines
        serve to divide followers of Christ one from another -- and
        often much worse.

        In general:  it is interesting that nobody (as far as I
        recall) has mentioned the fact that Christians have
        historically dealt with this lack of a Scriptural definition
        of Christian faith by writing creeds.

        Bob

    .275  Fortunately, my only responsibility is to answer to God and
    not to any person.
    
    I'm sorry, Collis, my relationship with God is not subject to
    scrutinization by you or anyone with whom I care not to voluntarily
    share it.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .277

  >I'm sorry, Collis, my relationship with God is not subject to
  >scrutinization by you or anyone with whom I care not to voluntarily
  >share it.
 
I did not enter my response in an attempt to myself scrutinize
your relationship with God.

I entered it lest anyone make a quick response without being
aware of the implications.  The answer is not at all easy to
see, given the context that was supplied.  That is all.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    	You obviously think I fall short of what you (as you filter the
    Bible) require for one to be called a Christian.  Why don't you just
    come out and say it?
    
    Richard
    

    .278  Ahh, so your questions are rhetorical?  Not intending a personal
    response from me to you?
    
    Funny, it sure sounded like it to me.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .279

  >Ahh, so your questions are rhetorical?

Not at all.  They were intended to make one think about
what was really being said by the passages quoted.

Re:  .278

    >You obviously think I fall short of what you (as you filter the
    >Bible) require for one to be called a Christian.  Why don't you just
    >come out and say it?

You have already proclaimed that you do not accept the death
of Jesus on the cross as payment for your sins.  I don't think
that any conclusion from this is needed by me at this point.  
Do you?

Collis

    .281  Thank you for serving as my judge, Collis.  May your reward for your
    conscientiousness be rich and full.
    
    I don't recall making the statement you've said I said, but what the
    Hell, I might have.  And even if I had, Christ's dying for my sins as
    the delineating factor between Christians and non-Christians is simply
    a fundamentalist notion.
    
    Richard
    

    I too have always had a problem with "Christ dying on the Cross for my
    Sins".
    
    My problem, though, is not in rejecting or excepting the gift of
    Christs dying on the cross.....rather its hard for me to understand why 
    someone (God) would want his son killed to pay for the sins of mankind?
    The sacrifice is to God for God from God?
    
    Marc H.

.281

> >Ahh, so your questions are rhetorical?

>Not at all.  They were intended to make one think about
>what was really being said by the passages quoted.

Verily, rhetorical questions are to make one think.  Perhaps you need a little
word study in this area.

Richard

    
    
    Marc H.
    
    > the sacrifice is to God for God from God?
    
    ..huh?

    RE: .285
    
    Try again.....why would God have his son killed as a sacrifice to God
    for sins against God?
    
    I don't follow the logic. When I asked the Catholic Sisters years ago,
    the answer was...."you'll understand later".
    
    Marc H.

Re:  .284

My dictionary defines rheterical as "concerned primarily
with style or effect".  I am not concerned with style or
effect primarily, but with substance.  

Re:  .282

I have tried hard to avoid being the judge.

You, on the other hand, have tried hard to cast me as the
judge.

May God judge between us.  :-)

  >I don't recall making the statement you've said I said, 

In all your years of noting, you have been quite careful to never
explicitly address this issue (at least as far as I know).  However,
you have implied your position enough times that actually seeing it
stated shouldn't be much of a surprise.

  >...Christ's dying for my sins as the delineating factor between 
  >Christians and non-Christians is simply a fundamentalist notion.

Well, yes, those who believe what the Bible says do indeed see
this doctrine weaved in and out throughout the fabric of the
Scriptures.  In fact, most people who don't believe what the Bible
says see this same thing!

Collis

   >Try again.....why would God have his son killed as a sacrifice to God
   >for sins against God?
    
Because that was the only way that we could be reconciled to a
perfect and just God.  Does that make sense?

Collis
 

        
    There may be another reason for Christ's death that is not often
    mentioned, (if you're not particularly fond of the 'dying for our 
    sins' reason), and it was to show humankind that physical death is 
    not the end.  
    
    Christ dying on the cross, therefore, was the *only* way this could 
    have been demonstrated.  Anything less would not have worked.
    
    Cindy

	This joyful Eastertide,
	Away with sin and sorrow!
	My Love, the Crucified,
	Hath sprung to life this morrow.

   Had Christ that once was slain, ne'er burst his three-day prison,
   Our faith had been in vain; but now is Christ arisen, arisen, arisen, arisen.

	Death's flood hath lost its chill,
	Since Jesus crossed the river:
	Lord of all life, from ill
	My passing life deliver.

   Had Christ that once was slain, ne'er burst his three-day prison,
   Our faith had been in vain; but now is Christ arisen, arisen, arisen, arisen.

	My flesh in hope shall rest,
	And for a season slumber,
	Till trump from east to west
	Shall wake the dead in number.

   Had Christ that once was slain, ne'er burst his three-day prison,
   Our faith had been in vain; but now is Christ arisen, arisen, arisen, arisen.

					-- George R. Woodward

.287

My dictionary defines rhetorical as:

"characterized by the art or science of using words to persuade or influence."

(And some people think dictionaries don't have their limitations!)  I suppose
that "to persuade or influence" could mean something other than "to make one
think," but that is not how I used the term.

Richard

Note 22.287

>I have tried hard to avoid being the judge.

Oh?

>You, on the other hand, have tried hard to cast me as the
>judge.

No effort on my part at all.

>May God judge between us.  :-)

Indeed, may she.

>  >I don't recall making the statement you've said I said, 

>In all your years of noting, you have been quite careful to never
>explicitly address this issue (at least as far as I know).  However,
>you have implied your position enough times that actually seeing it
>stated shouldn't be much of a surprise.

So what?  Maybe I'm still working on it.  Maybe I've come see Christ's death
as something too important to simply accept some sterile doctrine which is
all too frequently given by rote.  Maybe I do embrace it 100%, but have not
articulated it in terms you find acceptable.  Maybe I believe 100%, but don't
believe that it is the delineating factor between Christians and
non-Christians.  Maybe it's something else entirely.

If I am careful, it is for reasons of integrity.  Better that than insincere
proclamations, I'm sure you'd agree.

>  >...Christ's dying for my sins as the delineating factor between 
>  >Christians and non-Christians is simply a fundamentalist notion.

>Well, yes, those who believe what the Bible says do indeed see
>this doctrine weaved in and out throughout the fabric of the
>Scriptures.

You're more inclined to see it if you're looking for it.

>In fact, most people who don't believe what the Bible
>says see this same thing!

They're more inclined to see it if they're looking for it, too.

Richard

    RE: .289
    
    Now that is an interesting idea!
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .288
    
    No....it doesn't make sense to me. Let me try to explain.
    
    As a parent, if I was wronged greatly by someone, I wouldn't want my
    son killed to make up for the wrong committed to me. That's why I could
    never understand the concept of Christ dying "for us".
    
    In the past, when I asked Church people, it was explained as a divine
    mystery, that would be clear when I died......
    
    My problem is not in excepting Christ into my life, or not excepting
    that God loves us...rather I just don't understand why the death of
    God's son should undo something that mankind did.
    
    By the way, other reasons for Christ's death are very powerful. The 
    very fact that he rose from the dead was very very important to the
    establishment of the early church ......also , the fact that he died
    a terrible death for what he believed in surely is powerful.
    
    His death was very important....I just can't understand the atonement
    part.
    
    
    Marc H.

    The life stories of Mahatma Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr  help me
    to understand Christ's death.  And it is powerful to me that both of
    these men, one a Christian Minister and the other a devote Hindu both
    looked to the example of Jesus in the decisions they made.
    
    Both were ministers and political activists as Jesus was.  Both started
    a journey which lead to each of them willingly sacrificing themselves
    for the people they loved.  The Civil Rights movements in both India
    and The United States was bought with a price so to speak.  I can
    except that I personally share responsibility for MLK's death.  I can
    except as we celebrate his birthday that his sacrifice was as much for
    me as for every other American who is inspired and moved by this
    twentieth century Hero.  Because I can comprehend and be inspired by
    these twentieth century sacrifices, I can better relate to the
    Sacrifice that Jesus Christ made.  I can even understand that if MLK
    had not been assasinated and he lived out his life and died of old age,
    his life's work may not have as much impact on us today.  So too with
    Jesus Christ.  God did not require the sacrifice of any of these men. 
    Perhaps each of you and I and are fellow human beings did require these
    sacrifices.  Perhaps it is the way we operate and find meaning in death
    and new life coming from death.
    
    Patricia

    RE: .295
    
    Good food for thought.
    
    Marc H.

    
>And even if I had, Christ's dying for my sins as
>    the delineating factor between Christians and non-Christians is simply
>    a fundamentalist notion.

    Thanks, Richard, I needed a laugh this morning. Of course this struck me
    as somewhat like saying that 5� being the delimiting factor between a
    nickel and a dime is simply an accounting notion.

    			Alfred

    
    Re.295
    
    Ditto what Marc said, Patricia.  Those are very good points.
    
    Cindy

    My understanding of why Jesus had to die for our sins.

    First let me say that I believe that there are things in God's nature
    that are not the same as in our and may not be totally understandable
    by us. For that reason this discussion makes use of some assumptions.
    If you reject any of the assumptions you will probably reject the
    conclusion. That's fine. I accept these assumptions as correct even 
    though I'm not quite sure of why they are correct.

    I believe that God requires that wrong doing be punished. I believe
    that that is part of His very nature. If not then there would not be any 
    hell or other eternal punishment. Secondly I believe that God decided that 
    one creation could take on the punishment on an others behalf. Now to take 
    on the punishment of one part of creation it is first necessary that the 
    "taker on" must not already be subject to the same punishment. This is the 
    requirement that Jesus, our "taker on", be without sin and therefore not 
    subject to the punishment of death. So Jesus came, didn't sin, and died. 
    The purpose of the Resurrection is to show that death has been beaten and 
    that God had the power to do so. I think that was part of the effort to
    help us understand the power of God just as the death was to help us 
    understand the consequence of sin.

    God took on the punishment for us. Punish Himself for our sins? Yes, I 
    think it could be looked that way. 

    But think about it. How often to parents suffer to prevent their
    children from suffering. This even happens when the suffering comes
    about because the child did wrong. Because we as adults are more able
    to take punishment we sometimes take it on, willingly, to protect those
    who are not able to handle the consequences of their own actions.

    		Alfred

    RE: .299
    
    Good idea's too. I'm going to give this subject more meditation.
    Anyone else?
    
    Marc H.

 Over the weekend I read Leviticus chapter 17 (I believe it was) where the
 process of Atonement is addressed.  It describes the process in such a way
 that to me the meaning of the death of Christ was made even more clear to me.
 In the atonement a goat was sacrificed and another goat was used as the 
 bearer of sin and cast into a wilderness where it could never find its way 
 back..the sacrifice (shedding of blood) for sin, the other goat sent to 
 the wilderness signifying God's forgiveness, and forgetting of our sin.



 Jim

Note 22.297

>>And even if I had, Christ's dying for my sins as
>>    the delineating factor between Christians and non-Christians is simply
>>    a fundamentalist notion.

>    Thanks, Richard, I needed a laugh this morning. Of course this struck me
>    as somewhat like saying that 5� being the delimiting factor between a
>    nickel and a dime is simply an accounting notion.

Alfred,

	Ah, well then, you may find this equally as humorous:  Jesus presented
a few delineating factors between "sheep" and "goats" in the 25th Chapter of
Matthew.  In the passage, Jesus doesn't mention his upcoming death for sake
of the reader's sins as one of those delineations.

	In another place, Jesus speaks about who is his brother, sister and
mother.  Once again Jesus omits the factor of having to embrace the doctrine
the he was going to be dying for the sins of the world.

	Funny, isn't it?

Richard

    I concur with what Alfred has written... very good.
    
    To take this thought one step further....
    For me, personally, it means an accountability for who I am, what I do,
    and how I do it.  Being accountable to God, the One who created life
    itself, is a concious decision of my free will.  
    
    Nancy
    

    .299 is indeed thought provoking.  It might be better suited, however,
    to the topic on the meaning of the cross and the resurrection.
    
    Richard
    

    I have no need to go back read more rhetoric on the new usage of the
    term Christian.  I am simply stating what I read in here.
    
    Patricia, I know you have a sincere heart.  But Vibrant and Alive is a
    RISEN SAVIOR, named Jesus Christ whose written Words in the Bible never
    die despite those who reject them.
    
    I have to confess that I do resent the name of CHRISTian being
    redefined and used in a context clearly not representative of a belief
    in Christ.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    Re.31
    
    Nancy,
    
    Many times I, too, have resented the traditional conservative
    (fundamentalist) interpretations of Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam,
    Taoism, and many other religions one would deem 'Eastern'.  So,
    unfortunately, it happens both ways.
    
    Cindy

    Nancy,
    
    in approximately the  year 30, Jesus preached.  He was a jew and was
    offering a radical new approach to Judaism.  Immediately after his
    death, his followers organized a Jewish Christian Church.
    
    20 years later Paul radically altered the meaning of Christianity
    establishing a Gentile Christian Church and merging it with the
    remaining remnants of the Jewish Christian Church.
    
    For the next 300 years or so a whole series of different
    interpretations of Christianity arose.  Politics choose which versions
    became orthodox and we ended up with a Roman Church and an Orthodox
    Church.  Council continue to define Christianity.
    
    In the 16 Century, we had the Protestant Reformation which redefined
    Christianity.  Even within those groups opposed to the way Catholism
    had evolved, there were many groups with divergent opionions on
    Christianity.  So divergent that they burned and drowned each other. 
    We had Lutherans, Calvinist, Baptist, Methodists all springing up and
    battling with each other at that time.
    
    The Protestant Reformation and the religious battles became a major
    incentive for the founding of the United States.  The Calvanist who
    wanted to redefine Christianity and live in a Christian nation migrated
    to the United States.  Our country has been a nation founded in the
    arena of religious pluralism and struggles.  The Quakers, and
    Anabaptist left New England to find religious freedom elsewhere.  The
    Evangelist began the great awakening.  Then the Unitarians for a while
    dominated the New England Churches.  THen the Transcendentalists, and
    the Deist etc etc.
    
    There has never in the History of Christianity been one definition of
    Christianity.  I acknowledge this and accept it.
    
    So I too resent a highly organized fundementalist, conservative,
    evangelical group attempting to destroy the religious freedom and
    pluralism which is an important cornerstone of Democracy.  The name
    Christian and the Holy Bible are too important to all Christians for
    those who support religious freedom to allow one group who feels they
    have the correct handle on truth to misappropriate for themselves.  The
    Bible is Vibrant and Alive.  But only as long as it does not became
    steril and entrapped in literalism.
    
    I do not understand or comprehend why anyone would want to interpret
    the Bible as the literal word of God.  But that is not my issue. 
    "Evangelicals" can interpret the Bible anyway they want.  I do have a
    real problem however when you tell me how I am suppose to interpret the
    Bible, or that I cannot call myself Christian unless I interpret it the
    way you do, or that I cannot use the Bible as Scripture unless I use it
    the way you do.  Liberal Christianity is vibrant and alive and
    meaningful.
    
    Patricia

RE:             <<< Note 22.308 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

       
   > There has never in the History of Christianity been one definition of
   > Christianity.  I acknowledge this and accept it.
    
     The book of Acts seems to provide information disagreeing with this
     statement.  




 JIm

     

   

    The Book of Acts in not widely recognized as an authoritative History
    outside of "evangelical" circles which recognize all scripture as
    authoritative History.  There are difference between Luke and the other
    Gospel writers and Paul's Epistles.
    
    Patricia

    
    Patricia,
    
    > So I resent a highly organized
    
     And I resent individuals who hide behind the disguise of " Since there
    is confusion I can do what I want".
    
    David 

RE:             <<< Note 22.310 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

   > The Book of Acts in not widely recognized as an authoritative History
   > outside of "evangelical" circles which recognize all scripture as
   > authoritative History.  There are difference between Luke and the other
   > Gospel writers and Paul's Epistles.
    
   


 Oh, I see..



 Jim

re Note 22.309 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>    > There has never in the History of Christianity been one definition of
>    > Christianity.  I acknowledge this and accept it.
>     
>      The book of Acts seems to provide information disagreeing with this
>      statement.  
  
        Since Christians went to great lengths to "define" Christian
        belief (doctrine) in a series of creeds, it is clear that to
        them the Book of Acts in no way settled the question and, in
        particular, did not perform the function of a definition.

        (This is not to say that they didn't draw upon Acts, but Acts
        by itself doesn't settle it.)

        Bob

    Well, you can call yourself anything you want, but if you call yourself
    CHRISTian, then you are saying you are a follower, believer in CHRIST.
    
    Lets see if I'm from Florida, born and still living there,  I'm a
    Floridian...but I could decide to say I'm a New Englander.  Would that
    make me a New Englander?  My accent is Florida, my tan is Florida, my
    birthright is in Florida... but I say I'm a New Englander... yeah thats
    the ticket, just cause I say it, that means I'm it.
    
    Sheesh
    Nancy
    

Ah, but then we have to define Christ!






Jim

    RE: .314
    Nancy, your way off base. Take some time , please, to read some of the
    replies people have directed you to.
    
    I admire your faith and the works you do with church, but, your style
    will not work .
    
    Marc H.

re Note 22.314 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     Well, you can call yourself anything you want, but if you call yourself
>     CHRISTian, then you are saying you are a follower, believer in CHRIST.
  
        But this definition, which itself could be disputed, cannot
        be applied without defining "follow" and "belief", and these
        terms in turn have many possible shades of meanings.

        Actually, I have never met a person who claimed to be a
        "Christian" yet claimed not to follow Christ in any way. 
        (If there are any such participants in this conference,
        please speak up!)

        For this conference, of course, the issue isn't whether the
        participant is a follower of Christ but whether the topic
        pertains to Christ in some way.

          
>     birthright is in Florida... but I say I'm a New Englander... yeah thats
>     the ticket, just cause I say it, that means I'm it.
  
        Actually, if you claimed it, I would accept it.  There are
        many "adopted" New Englanders, only some of whom actually
        live in New England!

        Bob

    Marc Hildebrandt,
    
    My style may not work for you, but it certainly works for me. :-) :-) 
    Au Natural is my style.  God gave me one thing for which I praise Him,
    the ability to be completely honest about myself [yes, my weaknesses]
    and still know that I am His child and worthy of His love by virtue of
    his giving it.
    
    I *so* wish you would read my entries more carefully. 
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    RE: .318
    I will continue to read your responses....I truely enjoy them.
    
    By the way, my last name is spelled Hildebrant, not Hildebrandt.
    
    Maybe you need to read *my* replies better!!
    
    Hey....just kidding.
    
    Marc H.

    .319
    
    I dunt unnerstand I ushually spale so whale.
    
    :-)

    
    Nancy,
    
    Ah...your .31 that I replied to (that got moved) is now .306 in this
    string.
    
    The same resentment I have still holds.  I've seen so much incorrect
    information written about 'Eastern religions' and what they supposedly
    believe, that it's really frustrating at times.  Especially the 'idol
    worshippers' and 'multiple gods' claims, which are not true.
    
    Cindy

    .321
    
    Very understandable in my eyes.
    
    Nancy

Re: .318 Nancy

>    Au Natural is my style.

You mean you don't wear any clothes when you write your notes? :-)

				-- Bob

    
    I think she means champagne without added sugar, Bob.  That would be my
    guess.  (;^)                 
    
    Cindy

    .323/.324
    
    Only when I note from home... SHEEEEESH, redfaced
    
    blushing,
    sighing,
    cracking up!
    
    

    Re: last few?
    
    Are we discussing the naked truth here, or the naked Truth?
    
  		;^)
    
    Greetings, Derek.

	Will you allow a sort of "inverse perspective" on the question
	in hand?

	I claim to be a non-Christian which, of necessity, requires some
	sort of a conception of what a Christian is.

	The word Christ is the Grecian form of Messiah. In terms of its
	origins, I cannot see that Jesus fulfilled the Jewish expectaitons
	of the Messiah. However, since I know that many Jews did convert,
	and since I recognize that there is a possibility that I have
	not really understood Jesus' teachings, I keep an open mind on
	the application of the title Christ to Jesus. I do not use it.

	Both Islam and Bahai recognise that Jesus lived and that he died
	on the cross. Why do I not refer to myself as Non-Islamic? Or
	Non-Buddhist, or Non-(add-your-own-flavour). Or agnostic?
	I have spent a great deal of my life looking for a way to God and
	have concluded that, *if* there is a way, then it must be, in
	some way, related to the teachings of Jesus. In the meantime, I
	have learned that his teachings were by no means original and
	that they have been/are subject to a mountain of - sometimes
	contradictory - interpretation. However, I *know* that, at the
	root of all, Jesus taught the basics of what is essential to
	find God.

	This, of course, appears to assume that there is a God. But this
	is, for me, not the case. In my equation, God is a given, not an
	assumption (therefore, I am not an agnostic). I have this in 
	common with all Christians.

	So where is the differential? I believe that a Christian must
	have the following minimum set of beliefs:

	a. That Jesus was - at the very least - a God-sent messenger.
	b. That Jesus' message was intended for all mankind, not only
	   the Jews.
	c. That Jesus, after his death, reappeared - at the very least
	   in Spirit - to guide those who were his followers.
	d. That Jesus, even today, is the most favoured of God's
	   creation.
	e. That the message of Jesus was love, love and more love and
	   nothing less than love.

	(Note that I do not see the crucifixion as an primary requisite:
	it follows, however, that for 'c' to be valid, Jesus had to die).

	I can accept 'a' and 'e' without question. I accept 'b', only if
	the word "intended" is changed to "significant". I can accept that
	'c' is subjectively true in its minimal form. I cannot make up my
	mind on 'd'.
	
	I am still searching. In the meantime, I practice 'e' as well as
	I can.

	Greetings, Derek.

>	Both Islam and Bahai recognise that Jesus lived and that he died
>	on the cross.

Actually, Islam teaches that Jesus (for them the second greatest prophet)
was miraculously born of the Virgin Mary (whom they revere as an example
of Islam, which means submission to God's will), carried out a ministry
of teaching and miracles, and was finally miraculously saved from death
on the cross.

/john

    Derek,
    
    Are you sure your perspective is a Non-Christian perspective?
    
    It sounds pretty Christian to me.
    
    
    Patricia
    who still considers herself a Christian Unitarian Universalist(this
    week)

Note 34.447                     

>    And quite frankly if they deny the deity of Christ they are Unitarians,
>    not CHRISTians and are perverting the term.

I concur with 22.327.  CHRIST means anointed, not deity.

As I have stated before, I am a Trinitarian.  But I can see how one may see
Christ as the Anointed One yet separate from Godship.

Peace in Christ,
Richard

Re:  .327

Note that Islam claims that Jesus did *not* die on the
cross.  Mohammed proclaimed that Jesus did not die on the
cross and so they have been stuck with that belief ever
since.

Islam does admit that he was crucified (which does not
necessarily lead to death).

  >However, I *know* that, at the root of all, Jesus taught the 
  >basics of what is essential to find God.

Indeed he did.

Collis

	Re: .328 John and .331 Collis.

	Of course, you are right. I mentally substituted "died on" and "went
	to" the cross. Sorry for the slip.  It does not change the meaning of
	what I was saying, however. Thanks.

	RE: .639 Patricia. Thanks (I think  :-) ), but, until I meet all the
	criteria, I'l stay ouside and just take look in from time to time.
	
	This way, I remain sinless!   :-)

	Greetings, Derek.
	

	

    Derek,
    
    Good idea.
    
    Just remember though.   You are the only one who has to decide the
    criteria.