Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    What is your understanding of:
    
    	"The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."
    
    I understand this to be a cautioning *against* strict literal
    interpretation of scripture.
    
    Thoughts?
    
    Karen

  "The letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life."

I understand this meaning that the law justifies no one - it only
condemns, but the Spirit (i.e. the Holy Spirit) gives life to all
who will receive the gift.

No one is justified by the law.  The best they can hope for is to avoid
condemnation.  In fact, the purpose of the law is for people to recognize
that they fall short and must rely on God to be justified.

Collis

    (continuation Re 6.8 and 6.10)
    
Jesus is saying this:

o  The Kingdom of God (Kingdom of Heaven) is both in the present and
   in the future.

o  The Kingdom of God (Kingdom of Heaven) is both immanent and transcendent.

o  The Kingdom of God (Kingdom of Heaven) is so obvious and pervasive
   that one might easily miss it.

>                          -< God is separate from us >-

This is an illusion which I refuse to perpetuate.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    	I lost the thread, were you following 23.2 or transfering a
    discussion or was your reply intended for somewhere else and get dumped
    here ?  Given some of the quirky dates problems I've seen here I can
    well believe the latter. 
    
    Karen,
    	while I see some validity in 6.2, I tend to agree more with you.
    Given that the LETTER of the law is possibly garbled we must rely on
    what we know of the intent of the law, both in the specific and the
    whole. Where the letter of the law would lead us to an act of hate then
    we must study that law until we find a loving application. 
    	An example can be found in any crowd of Right-to-Lifers picketing a
    Planned Parenthood center. Look at the faces. Some are worried or sad,
    some glow with righteousness, some are surely smug and many are angry.
    I would say that those with angry faces and those with smug faces most
    certainly do not understand the law and are acting out of hate, not
    love. Those who are worried or sad might indeed be acting out of love,
    certainly not hate. Who can tell about the others? It is the same law,
    yet for some it is killing, for others it is enlightening - and we
    haven't even discussed the people they are confronting. Not here, at
    least.

    Re: Note 23.3 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
    
�>                          -< God is separate from us >-
�
�This is an illusion which I refuse to perpetuate.

    I wouldn't want you to perpetuate what you think is an illusion, but
    could you at least tell me why you think it's an illusion? Thanks.
    
    	BD�

    Re: Note 23.4 by DELNI::MEYER
    
�    Given that the LETTER of the law is possibly garbled we must rely on
�    what we know of the intent of the law, both in the specific and the
�    whole. Where the letter of the law would lead us to an act of hate then
�    we must study that law until we find a loving application. 
    
    Many folks think that because the Bible is old or has a "religious
    orientation" that it must be garbled. I realize that you, Dave, only
    used the word "possibly", but I feel compelled to relate what I've
    learned about its transmission.
    
    For several decades textual critics have been painstakingly studying
    the extant manuscripts (mss) that continue to be discovered in various
    parts of the Middle East. I have only been studying textual criticism
    for a couple of years, but I've scratched the surface enough to be
    quite confident in the fact that some of our English translations today
    are extrememly accurate renditions of the original text.
    
    The Old Testament in particular differs so little from the oldest mss
    that it's a testimony to the great care the ancient scribes took when
    copying the Holy Scriptures. They did their copying in forums known as
    scriptoria and used meticulous "CRC" checks as they went. They would
    count each word on each scroll. They knew the middle word of each one.
    Some even took to counting letters. These folks really took seriously
    the "not one jot or tittle" admonition, and it shows in the excellence
    of our modern-day copies.
    
    The New Testament has posed more of a problem. The early church, for
    many reasons that have been theorized, was not so meticulous in copying
    the writings of the apostolic age. From reading early church history I
    realize that the early fathers regarded these writings as God-breathed,
    but when copies were made they didn't go through the elaborate checks.
    (For one thing they weren't professional, trained scribes as were the
    OT folks.)
    
    Nevertheless, even with the relatively poor transmission (and please
    realize that when I say "relatively poor" I'm just comparing the NT
    with the OT - even the present NT is far better attested to than any
    other ancient documents) of the NT it still does not contain even one
    questionable passage relative to a basic tenet of faith.
    
    We can with certainty trust that our present Bibles, with very minor
    questions among some variant readings, accurately reflect the text that
    was originally written. The only real question is whether or not we
    believe that text or perhaps how we interpret what it says.
    
    	BD�

    Well, I can't speak for J_Christie, but the idea of God being "Wholly
    Other" is for me unscriptural and certainly an illusion.  As Paul says
    in Colossians, Christ is In You, the hope of glory to come.
    
    DR

    re .7
    
    Thanks, DR.
    
    There's actually much more.  An entire book was devoted to this
    concept by Alan Watts: "The Book (On the Taboo Against Knowing
    Who You Are)."
    
    Also consider the name "Emmanuel" (which means: God with us).
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re .7 & .8 (DR and Richard)
    
    I'm not so interested in what Watts has to say, but I'd like to hear
    how you think it's unscriptural. What do you do with the apparently-
    disctinct God described in the OT? If you subscribe to the notion that
    God is (in?) everyone, then what do you do with the verses that tell
    about how folks that don't accept Christ(/God) are doomed to hell? How
    about when Jesus taught His diciples to pray - it's "Our Father, who is
    in heaven". Jesus was *sent* *from* the Father. NT prophecy talks about
    seeing God as distinct (see esp. Revelation chapters 1 and 4-5). That
    God is distinct from His creation is so obvious (to me) from *all* of
    Scripture that I'd really like to know how someone could come to the
    exact opposite conclusion.
    
    As for the Luke passage, I already covered that ("in your midst"). BTW,
    if you don't care to discuss this, at least just acknowledge my
    question and I'll drop it (that would be preferable to ignoring me).
    Thanks.
    
    	BD�

    
    Is it impossible for God to have both a personal *and* impersonal
    aspect?  
    
    I think it's quite possible.
    
    guy

    Hi Guy,
    
    > Is it impossible for God to have both a personal *and* impersonal
    > aspect?
    
    > I think it's quite possible.
    
    In my experience it's true.  God is both.  
    
    Kb

    
    Karen,
    
    Makes sense to me - He/She IS supposed to be rather expansive last
    I heard....:-)
    
    guy

    The idea of God having both a personal and an impersonal nature reminds
    me a lot of Charles Hartshorne's interesting contention that God has both
    an abstract and a concrete nature.
    
    -- Mike

    
    re: .13 (Mike Valenza)
    
    Jung's idea was that the image of God consisted of "pairs of
    opposites".  God Himself could be unified, but his *image*, as
    expressed here in this reality as we know it, is of pairs of opposites....
    
    guy                                         

    Makes sense to me too, Guy.  There has to be that impersonal aspect of
    God in order for the universe to continue to exist and yet there also
    has to be a personal aspect in order to give us something to strive for
    personally (a reason for us to exist).  It all has to continue to grow 
    and evolve endlessly, doesn't it?
    
    Nanci

    RE:  .9 BARRY
    
    I guess folks in subsequent notes have already addressed my basic
    belief.  I guess I believe that God is both WHOLLY OTHER and WHOLLY
    WITHIN.  What I meant by being non-scriptural was that there are parts
    of the Bible to which one can point (such as Luke and Collossians) that
    speak of a God within -- Jesus said at one point, "I am in the Father
    and the Father in me," and at another, "I am in you."  Wholly Other? --
    just as there are parts of the Bible that point to a God that is wholly
    other. What's not scriptural, to my mind, is to cling to one to the
    exclusion of the other.
    
    With respect to the passages on people who don't accept Christ(/God)
    being doomed, there is another opposite reflected in scripture, wherein
    it states that it is not the Father's will that any be lost.  Again,
    the note of opposites is struck.  
    
    One way of resolving these conflicts is to view every-day life as
    "actuality" and the at-one-ment of God as "reality".  The first may be
    considered a shadow of the second, one in which we see largely what we
    wish to see, whereas in "reality" God sees, God IS, and we see, we ARE
    in our Highest reality Light and Dark, Otherness and Immanence, Good
    and Evil, Male and Female as one.  
    
    One other thing comes to mind, with respect to good and evil, another
    pair of opposites.  The tree in the garden, you will remember, was not
    the tree of good and evil, but rather the tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good
    and Evil.  In the terms I'm speaking here, I'd be tempted to substitute
    the tree of the MINDSET of good and evil, or maybe the mindset of
    opposites -- "East is east.  West is west, and never the twain shall
    meet."  Whoever said that didn't know the world was round.
    
    DR

    Re .16 (DR)

    Thanks for the elaboration. I'm sure you realize there are other ways
    one can interpret the verses you quoted, but I don't see any need to
    discuss them here. I appreciate your taking the time to explain your
    position more fully.

	BD�

    
    	The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life.
    
    
    You can know the letter without knowing the Spirit.  It is the spirit
    that gives life and meaning to the letter.  If you are strictly
    legalistic then you will quench the spirit and the intent of the
    letter.  However if you allow the spirit to interpret it the 'letter'
    will bring life.
    

    Re.: .15  et all
    
    	I don't see where you get that there has to be an impersonal aspect
    to God.   The way I see it are the ones that believe that God is 
    impersonnal don't 'know' God.  Gods' talking, the problem is most
    people aren't listening.

    Ed - 
    
    The "impersonal" aspect I'm referring to is that which is the life
    spark.  For instance, are the Broncos going to win the football game
    just because their fans had a more personal relationship with God and
    prayed harder than the other team's fans?  No.  Will life continue to
    evolve by means of what the football game triggers in individuals? 
    Yes.  So, to me there God is made up of both aspects.  I have a
    personal relationship to the aspect of God that swells in my heart but
    I also acknowledge the impersonal aspect that continues to breathe life
    into the Universe.
    
    Nanci

    John Hick, the Christian theologian who has devoted a lot of his
    writings in recent years to the issue of religious pluralism, also sees
    The Ultimate as having both a personal and an impersonal aspect.  He
    suggests that the Western religions tend to focus on the personal
    aspect to the exclusion of the impersonal; and that Eastern religions
    tend to do the reverse.

    As I mentioned elsewhere in this conference, I am intrigued by the
    notion that God is both personal and impersonal, abstract and concrete,
    male and female, etc.

    -- Mike

    Nanci .20,
    
    Nicely said.  I agree.
    
    Karen

    
    Thanks, Nanci - couldn't have done it better....
    
    guy

    
    	re.20
    
    	The problem comes when we confuse the 'life spark' with God.
    
    	In the beginning God created... (the heavens and the earth)
    		He did not create God.  
    
    	God started out with nothing and created everything.  God is
    not that which he created, God is God.

    Ed - 
    
    I'm not confusing the life spark with God, to me the life spark is an
    aspect of God, the tool of creation.
    
    Nanci

	Well, I've begun my journey through the bible.  I'm on Chapter 3
	of Genesis and already have a list of questions and observations 8^)!
	Anyone who has anything to share about this please do.

	Genesis 1: 

	    I thought that it was interesting that darkness existed first - and
	    then light was added.  Once they were brought together they were
	    separated into night and day.  This fits how I feel it works -
	    first space or a container must be made and then light fills it.
	    Creation cannot be without both.

	Gen 1:9  God saw how good it was.
	Gen 1:12 God saw how good it was.
	Gen 1:17 God saw how good it was.
        Gen 1:21 God saw how good it was.
        Gen 1:22 ..and God blessed them.
        Gen 1:24 God saw how good it was.

            God's creation must be pretty good then! ;^)

	Gen 1:26  Let us make man in our image, after our likeness.

            Who is *us* and *our*?

        Gen 1:27  God created man in his image; in the divine
	          image he created them, male and female he 
                  created them.

	    This version of Genesis has male and female created
            together.

	Gen 1:28  God blessed them saying "Be fertile and multiply....

	    God blessed all living creatures including man and woman
	    and blessed them to multiply and be fertile.  Almost the
	    same statement for man as for the animals.  So, sexuality
    	    must be pretty good too ;^)!  Did Adam and Eve have children 
    	    in the Garden?

	Gen 1:31  God looked at everything he had made and found it 
	          very good.

	    Again, God really likes creation! ;^)

	
	Genesis 2, 3.

	In the second version, God creates Adam first, then the Garden
	(in Mesopotamia), then Eve.  Adam *worked* in the Garden.

	Why would God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil
	in the Garden if Adam was not to touch it?  If the Garden
	was actually a physical place in Mesopotamia, there were
	certainly any number of places it could have been put!
	So obviously this is a metaphor for something else.  Was
	Adam never to think about who he was, where he was or why
	he was?  Was he supposed to just stay in the Garden and
	work?  Was he never to leave and investigate the rest of the
	area?  After all, this version talks of a physical place.
	The NAB says it was Mesopotamia.  Was he never supposed to 
	grow and exercise his free will - the most profound of God's 
	gifts?

	Why is the knowledge of good and evil something Adam could
	die from?

	Gen 2:18-20

	    God first tried animals as Adam's partner?

	Gen 2:25  The man and his wife (interesting term for this
	          period of creation - cf) were both naked, yet they
	          felt no shame.

	    To me, this says they were not self-aware.  They had no
	    consciousness of self.

	Gen 3:7  Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they
	         realized that they were naked;

	    They became self-aware - conscious of a self.

	Back somewhere in another note, someone replied to Mikie
	regarding his belief that merging back with God was a loss
	of individuality and consciousness.  I think it was either
	Collis or Jamey that replied that this was not how 
	Christians view the return to God; that individuality and
	consciousness stay intact.  If self-awareness and conscious-
	ness was so bad for Adam and Eve (they would die if they
	acquired this) and it was the reason for the fall and
	original sin, why is it alright after we die and dwell
	with God?  Why don't we go back to that unaware state?
	Why doesn't God require it then?

	Why is the knowledge of good and evil (self-awareness,
	consciousness) something only God should have?  Aren't
	we supposed to be images and mirrors of God?

	Gen 3:8

 	    God was moving about in the Garden?  I also find it
	    curious the way communication happens here.  It is
	    almost as if God is physically there, walking and
	    talking with Adam and Eve.

	Why is God so unforgiving of this one and only slip up?
	If man was made in God's divine image, why was knowledge
	and wisdom not allowed also?

	It almost sounds like this was a threat to God's position
	somehow.

	Why would God create a species that evolves and grows in
	consciousness and wisdom, and then when it happens, flip
	out in this way?

	If God knows all things, God must have known what kind of
	being man was and is.  It is not like mankind created
	itself to be the way it is.  Who is responsible for what?

	Just who *is* this God that the second Genesis talks about?



	Carole

Re:  23.26

  >God's creation must be pretty good then! ;^)

It sure was!  To some extent, it still is.

  >Gen 1:26  "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

  >Who is *us* and *our*?

Two explanations.  

  1)  I may have this messed up somewhat.  In Hebrew, it is not uncommon
      to use the plural in certain instances.  This is one of those
      instances possibly because Deity is involved.

  2)  God consists of more than 1 person.

I believe the first explanation is a more likely explanation of why
this was used.  However, I also believe the second explanation is true.

  >This version of Genesis has male and female created together.

No, it simply states that he created them both male and female.  No
timeframe is given.

  >So, sexuality must be pretty good too ;^)!  

YES!!!

  >Did Adam and Eve have children in the Garden?

No, kids came later.

  >Why would God place the tree of knowledge of good and evil in the 
  >Garden if Adam was not to touch it?  

To give Adam a choice.  Adam had free will and this was a test for
Adam.  Would Adam believe God and obey?  Or would Adam deny what God
said and disobey?

  >Was Adam never to think about who he was, where he was or why
  >he was?  

I believe that Adam could think about who he was and why he was regardless
of where he was.  He could also think about where he was from within
the garden.  

  >Was he supposed to just stay in the Garden and work?  

I think initially, anyway, he was to stay in the Garden.  Remember, it
was in the garden that the presence (and glory) of God resided.

  >Was he never supposed to grow and exercise his free will - the most 
  >profound of God's gifts?

Not only did God desire Adam to exercise his free will, he intentionally
created a situation (the tree of knowledge) where an exercise of free
will was required.

  >Why is the knowledge of good and evil something Adam could die from?

I don't think that is what the Bible says.  The Bible says that God
told them not to eat from the tree of knowledge (of good and evil) or
that they would surely die.  What they would die from is the free will
choice to disobey God (i.e. sin), not simply from the knowledge of good
and evil.  I believe that this understanding is consistent with what
it says in Genesis 3 (I just read it twice).

  >God first tried animals as Adam's partner?

God first tried to meet Adam's needs through himself and through animals.

  >"...were both naked, yet they felt no shame."

  >To me, this says they were not self-aware.  They had no consciousness of 
  >self.

Why is it necessary to feel shame if you are aware of yourself?  When
there is nothing to feel ashamed about?

  >"Then the eyes of both of them were opened, and they realized that they 
  >were naked;"

  >They became self-aware - conscious of a self.

What the Bible says had changed was a knowledge of good and evil as
well as their choice to disobey God.  I think that these are the factors
that caused this realization.

I agree with you partly.  I think they were conscious of self before,
but I think that now they were overly concerned with self.

  >If self-awareness and consciousness was so bad for Adam and Eve (they 
  >would die if they acquired this) and it was the reason for the fall and
  >original sin, why is it alright after we die and dwell with God?  

Self-awareness and consciousness of self are not inherently bad.  I
don't think you can be addressed as a person if you are not aware that
you exist as a person.  And yet I think that both Adam and Eve were
addressed as individuals by God and each other.

The issue, instead, is the unhealthy (sinful) focus on self, not
simply awareness of self.

  >God was moving about in the Garden?  I also find it curious the way 
  >communication happens here.  It 

This morning I heard John MacArthur postulate that God revealed Himself
as a beacon of light in the garden.  He believes this because God is
Spirit (John 4:24, I think he referenced) and because this is how God
revealed Himself to Moses.

  >Why is God so unforgiving of this one and only slip up?

God is not unforgiving.  God will forgive any who ask.  (To forgive
does NOT mean that there is not a consequence for the actions.)  I think 
the question you really mean to ask is, "Why is there such a severe
penalty for this one slip-up?"

For this, you need to understand the nature of God.  You (I think) asked 
earlier about God's holiness.  I've been thinking about this (although
not researching it) and Isaiah 6 really describes it *so* well.

The seraphs are calling to one another,

  "Holy, holy, holy is the LORD Almighty; the whole earth is full of
   his glory"

Isaiah's response to being in God's presence is,

  "Woe to me!  I am ruined!  For I am a man of unclean lips and I live
   among a people of unclean lips, and my eays have seen the King, the
   LORD Almighty."

In Hebrew, emphasis is accomplished by repeating a word.  God is HOLY.
All holiness possible resides in God.  (Remember, these seraphs do this
day and night, night and day.)  God is completely pure and any impurity
in His presence must be destroyed, by its very nature.  Isaiah immediately
recognizes this and says so.

This one slip-up (i.e. sin) violates God's holiness and therefore DEMANDS
that Adam and Eve be cast from God's presense (which was within the
confines of the garden of Edon.  Does this help?

  >If man was made in God's divine image, why was knowledge and wisdom 
  >not allowed also?

Man is not another God.  There are some things that are "imaged" in man
that are in God, there are other things which may not be "imaged" in man
that are in God.

It is not necessarily clear to me that there is something inherent in
knowledge or wisdom which caused it to be denied man.  Many do believe
this and argue for it.  In my mind, it could be simply that God was
creating a situation which caused Adam and Eve to use their free will
and this situation could have been just as easily been created using
something else.

  >Why would God create a species that evolves and grows in consciousness 
  >and wisdom, and then when it happens, flip out in this way?

It's not, in my opinion, that people grew in consciousness and wisdom.
It is that people chose to not believe God and disobey Him.

  >If God knows all things, God must have known what kind of being man was 
  >and is.  It is not like mankind created itself to be the way it is.  
  >Who is responsible for what?

To know that something will happen does not mean that you are responsible
for it happening.  For example, I *KNOW* that Jesus Christ will come back
to earth.  And yet, I have no (direct) responsibility for this.  It is
God's responsibility that this happens.

God did know how he created man.  He created man with a sinless nature
which could choose sin.  This does NOT mean that God is responsible for
man's choice.  He is not responsible when I choose to sin or when you
choose to sin.  He is only responsible when He chooses to sin (which He
has *never* chosen to do).

  >Just who *is* this God that the second Genesis talks about?

The Savior and Redeemer of the world.  God is love.  God is compassionate.
God is holy.  God will live in you and me if we commit ourselves to Him
and ask Him to renew our lives.

Collis

    Gee, Carole, it's a good thing you're not very inquisitive. ;^)
    
    I've speculated about the plural reference to God, and wondered whether
    it might fit with a subsequent allusion to the "sons of the gods lying
    with the daughters of men".   It's not at odds with the concept of a
    race of super-beings who cooked up us humans.  (Not that I believe in
    that, but reading these ancient texts does get the mind to wandering!)
    
    As Jung points out in Answer to Job, God didn't consult His omniscience
    when He created humankind, or He wouldn't have been surprised when the
    children in the garden ate the apple.
    
    DR
    
    

    
    
    Thanks for the replies Collis and Dr!  As you might have guessed,
    now I have even more questions and responses!  I could probably 
    spend the next year just reading the bible and coming up with 
    questions, and that's if I don't work full time ;^).  So, I won't 
    be able to keep a really running dialogue going here, but hope to 
    at least put something in here everyday.
    
    Bye for now,
    Carole
    
    

    Carole, I think it is interesting to compare the two creation myths in
    Genesis.  The Priestly creation myth in Genesis 1 states that

	God created humankind in his image,
	in the image of God he created them;
	male and female he created them.

    I love that passage, because it expresses several important points.
    First, it says that we are images of God.  That means that we share in
    God's creativity; Matthew Fox uses the term Dabhar to describe God's
    creative energy.  As images of God, we are also entrusted with the power
    of cosmogenesis.  Second, that passage says that the divine image is
    found within both men *and* women, an important message that suggests
    that Dabhar expresses itself in both male and female energies.

    The second, Yahwist creation myth tells the story of Adam and Eve.
    Unfortunately, that story has served as the basis for much sexist
    exegesis, as well as the Augustinian doctrine of original sin.  However,
    the Jewish writer Arthur Plaskow, in his book _Godwrestling_, suggests
    an alternate interpretation in which "adam" was an originally
    androgynous being, both male and female in one person--split into two
    beings by God.  This interesting interpretation was offered by some
    rabbis, such as Jeremiah Ben Eleazar and Samuel ben Nachman:

	And to my own eyes this is the only way the text makes sense:  God
	in one moment "Our," in the next "His"; Adam in one moment "them",
	in the next "him."  To me this sounds like an effort to express
	"two-in-one"; to say with all the clumsiness of human language that
	which humans had no word for; to describe what they could only
	envision because there was no place to see it: a non-dualistic
	duality, a unity of opposites, androgyny....

	So the original Adam, the androgynous Adam, is divided.  So that
	each human might have a counterpart, the two sides of Adam, male and
	female, are separated.  Not a rib but a side (they are the same word
	in Hebrew, as Samuel ben Nachman pointed out) is taken to make the
	woman; the other side becomes the man.

    I don't know if that interpretation is credible or not, but it is
    interesting to ponder.  Just as androgyny embodies the dialectic of
    sexual opposites, Martin Buber argues in his book "Good and Evil" that
    the incident of the tree of good and evil is really about humanity
    coming to understand opposites.  "God knows the opposites of being,
    which stem from His own act of creation; He encompasses them, untouched
    ;by them; He is as absolutely familiar with them as he is absolutely
    superior to them; He has direct intercourse with them...and this in
    their function as the opposite poles of the world's being."

    Buber contrasts this knowledge (arguing that the Hebrew verb 'know'
    originally meant to be in direct contact with) with the 'knowledge'
    acquired by humanity through the eating of the fruit:

        He [humanity] knows oppositeness only by his situation within it;
        and that means de facto (since the yes can present itself to the
        experience and perception of man in the no-position, but not the no
        in the yes-position):  he knows it directly from within that 'evil'
        at times when he happens to be situated there; more exactly: he knows
	it when he recognises a condition in which he finds himself whenever
	he has transgressed the command of God, as the 'evil' and the one he
	has thereby lost and which, for the time being, is inaccessible to
	him, as the good.  But at this point, the process in the human should
	becomes a process in the world:  through the recognition of
	oppositeness, the opposites which are always latently present in
	creation break out into actual reality, they become existent.

    To Fox, this act of not reconciling opposites is a sin.  Says Fox, "the
    basic dynamic of the creation-centered spiritual tradition is
    dialectical, as distinct from dualistic."  Thus I think it might be
    interesting to view the Adam and Eve myths as metaphors for the human
    need to develop a dialectical approach to spirituality, with the
    dualistic spirituality representing a broken, or "fallen" perspective.

    Buber says that humanity is "capable only of begetting and giving birth,
    not of creating."  Creation spirituality would disagree with this.  As
    the Priestly creation myth points out, God saw the creation as good; and
    Creation spirituality views humanity as co-creators with God, entrusted
    as images of God with the ability to create.  Unfortunately, with our
    knowledge of good and evil, our creativity is not always for the good.
    Fox argues that evil is not simply a "privation of good"; rather, Fox
    argues that evil is "*the misuse of good*, the misuse of the greatest
    good of the universe, which is that image of God in humanity, our
    imaginations."
    
    Given this capability of evil, Buber suggests that the expulsion from
    Eden was actually an act of divine compassion:

	Because man is now numbered amongst those who know good and evil,
	God wishes to prevent him from also eating of the tree of life and
	'living by aeons'.  The narrator may have taken the motif from the
	ancient myth of envy and vengeance of gods:  if so, it acquired
	through him a meaning fundamentally different from its original one.
	Here there can no longer be any expression of fear that man might
	now become a match for the celestial beings:  we have just seen how
	earthly is the nature of man's knowledge of 'good and evil'.  The
	'like one of us' can be uttered here only in the ironic dialectic.
	But now it is the irony of a 'divine compassion'.  God, who breathed
	his breath into the construction of dust, placed him in the garden of
	the four rivers and gave him a helpmate, wanted him to accept his
	continued guidance; he wanted to protect him from the opposites
	latent in existence.  But man--caught up in demonry, which the
	narrator symbolizes for us with his web of play and dream--withdrew
	at once from both the will of God and from his protection and,
	though without properly understanding what he was doing,
	nevertheless with this deed, unrealised by his understanding, caused
	the latent opposites to break out at the most dangerous point, that
	of the world's closest proximity to God....Lest the thoughtless
	creature, again without knowing what he is doing, should long for the
	fruit of the other tree and eat himself into aeons of suffering, God
	prevents his return to the garden from which he expelled him in
	punishment.  For man, as a 'living soul' known death is the
	threatening boundary; for him as the being driven round amidst
	opposites it may become a haven, the knowledge of which brings
	comfort. 

    I think that both of the creation myths in Genesis can serve as
    interesting sources of imaginative exegesis about the nature of human
    existence.
    
    -- Mike

    re:  Two Creation Myths 
    
    Mike, neat stuff.  Would like to ponder it further.  
    
    I have fun, sometimes, thinking of the two creation myths like a
    computer system that crashed and then was warm-started from a backup
    "tape" made somewhere down the road.  
    
    Another metaphor has it like a serial on TV done by a different author
    for each edition -- the author of the second session gets to summarize
    the first one in a way more to his/her liking.  One wonders what kind
    of press humankind will get in the next session.  After all, on a
    time-scale, we're the last couple of minutes in the first day of the
    life of Mother Earth.
    
    I read somewhere that the Maya mythology also tells two creation myths.  
    
    DR

    Mike .30,
    
    Thanks for a great synthesis of information and your thoughts on the
    Genesis story.  You pulled a few things together for me that I
    have been mulling over, particularly the notion that the genesis
    story is intended as a metaphor to express the need for a _dialectical_
    understanding of our spirituality, as opposed to the dualistic
    interpretation that was expressed so vehemently by Augustine.
    
    Karen                               

    
    
    Well, in ref. to .29, I haven't been able to reply to this note
    everyday as I had hoped.  Life is just so busy lately! ;-).  I
    will be back with further questions and ideas, as there is this
    little nagging *feeling* I have that keeps me wanting to know
    and ask more.....and to just *think* about all of this stuff.
    I will warn you though, that I just don't feel I can accept the
    standard biblical definitions for what I'm reading.  But I'm
    open to everyone's opinions and ideas! ;-)  That's the best way
    to sort out what God is really saying to *me*!
    
    Carole

	A continuation of Genesis, etc....

	RE: .27 Collis

	First, thanks for your reply and your encouragement in this 
	endeavor.

	Regarding the tree of knowledge, free will etc.  I guess I have
	a different understanding of what free will is, and will 
	elaborate on that in the "Free Will" note.

	In short, free will is just that.  Freedom to exercise it.  If
	God does not want that to happen, or if a right choice is already
	pre-determined, than will is not free.  If the scenario is the
	way you interpret it, than it seems to me a test of a newly 
	created being, and a particularly cruel one in light of the
	punishment bestowed.

	This just isn't God to me.  

	What I am getting from what I have read is that it was the
	*knowledge* that eating or touching of the tree gave that concerned
	"God".  And something had to be done quickly to prevent Adam and
	Eve from eating or touching the Tree of Life because *IMHO* this
	would have given them the knowledge and understanding that they
	were spiritual immortal beings.  They would have understood more
	deeply what their essence was - that their spirits were immortal.
	God in Genesis 2 is very concerned about them having that knowledge.

	So, they were sentenced to a life of pain and struggle...one in
	which they would be so busy trying to survive that they wouldn't
	think of pursuing this understanding.

	So Eden was a physical place in Mesapotamia.  And Adam and Eve
	were banned from ever entering there again.  Guards (Cherubim)
	were stationed there with "fiery revolving swords" to keep them
	out.  Just who were the Cherubim and what were those swords?


	Carole

    
    
    There is no other note that I could find where this would be more
    appropriate, so I'll enter it here.
    
    As I mentioned in my introductor note, I've been undergoing some
    shatterings in my belief structure.  Basically, all of my preconceived
    ideas about God were blown away and I was left in a very lonely,
    empty place.  But, I welcomed this process because I knew the decks
    were being cleared for *something* important.  Right about this
    time, I picked up a book called "Meditations with Meister Eckhart"
    and one of the quotes spoke to me about my own process.  It said
    "I pray God to rid me of God".  This is what was happening to me.
    Every image of God was annihilated.
    
    So, you are probably wondering "what does this have to do with the
    bible?"  Well, for a very long time I have had an aversion to the
    bible.  Wouldn't pick one up to read for anything.  But I've come
    to realize that I had a tremendous amount of emotional charge 
    attached to the bible.  It was no different than someone who has
    an emotional investment in it and lives their life by it.  It was
    the same amount of energy.  What has happened in this "cleaning
    the decks" process is that the emotional charge around this book
    has disappeared.  Which has given me the freedom to pick it up and
    read it, ask questions and make observations, and I'm enjoying it!
    I have let something go which has given me freedom.
    
    Carole

    Hurrah for you Carole!!
    
    I know this last year has been an extemely difficult and 
    uncomfortable time for you, as your beliefs were totally
    stripped away, one by one.
    
    I celebrate your new freedom and inspiration with you!
    
    Let's drum and sing it and dance it -- tonite!
    
    Yahoo!
    
    Er, I mean, God's blessing upon you...!  Yahoo!
    
    Karen.:-)

Re:  23.34

Carole,

  >In short, free will is just that.  Freedom to exercise it.  If God does 
  >not want that to happen, or if a right choice is already pre-determined, 
  >than will is not free.  

It seems to me that you're confusing free will with right and wrong.
As I interpret the last half of the last sentence, you are saying that
if a particular choice is "right" and another choice is "wrong", then
someone does not have free will.

This doesn't make sense to me.  Free will is the ability to make
a choice.  It does *not* guarantee that all choices will be correct
or that there will not be any consequence for choosing poorly.  It
simply says that a choice may be made.

  >If the scenario is the way you interpret it, than it seems to me a test 
  >of a newly created being, and a particularly cruel one in light of the
  >punishment bestowed.

Yes, God does test us.  Why is it cruel?  God wanted to walk closely with
Adam and Eve all their days.  But, he wanted to know if Adam and Eve
chose Him over the other options.  They could choose to love and serve
the God that was perfect, all-loving and their creator.  Or they could
choose to believe that God lied (which was against His nature) and that
God was not acting in their best interest.  They freely chose the
latter.  Does this make God somehow responsible for their choice?  Is
it unfair to test someone?  (Tell that to my teacher tomorrow night. :-) )

Collis

Note 151.125

>How you can continue to make this claim without being able to
>clearly refute the very contradictory roles in *many*
>areas that have been defined in both the Old and the New
>Testament is beyond me.  If you would like, I will enter 4 or
>5 areas where the individual is given one directive and a group
>(either government, family or church) is given a very different
>directive and you can explain to me how God is *not* differentiating
>between the two with different expectations.

When Jesus spoke what has become known as the Sermon on the Mount and
the Sermon of the Plain, he was addressing anyone who would listen.
Weird concept, I know.

According to what you are saying though, Jesus expected no body or grouping
of people to embrace these now familiar teachings, only individuals.  I say
that is wrong, and worse, it is shortsighted.

Your delineations falsely assume that governments are non-peopled entities
which are somehow exempt from the moral responsibilities of individuals.

Are there unique and separate ethical standards for government officials?
I know Nixon thought so.  Perhaps you do, too.  To me, it is reprehensible
tommyrot!  (Excuse my vulgarity)

Supplying biblical passages that would tend to support your postulations
won't buy it with me.  I could do the same thing and doubtlessly it wouldn't
buy it with you, either.  You would point out where I was in error and then
I would point out where you were in error, and on and on.

I am truly sorry.  I have no appetite for that kind of exchange at the moment.

I realize you may possess a more systematic theology than I.  That possibly
bothers you.  It doesn't bother me.

>This has been (and continues to be) an understanding of the
>Bible from the time it was written.  This understanding (which
>is simply an acceptance of the clear meaning of the text) transcends
>church differences and is so widely accepted, it is not an issue
>(except in here, I guess).  All Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox
>denominations that I am aware of (as well as many cults) accept
>that God has different roles (and rules) for different groups -
>and particularly for individuals as opposed to institutions.

It's really nice that a lot of people and institutions agree with you
and have agreed with you for such a long time, Collis.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  23.38

  >When Jesus spoke what has become known as the Sermon on the Mount and
  >the Sermon of the Plain, he was addressing anyone who would listen.

Thank you.  AnyONE.  :-)

  >According to what you are saying though, Jesus expected no body or 
  >grouping of people to embrace these now familiar teachings, only 
  >individuals.  I say that is wrong, and worse, it is shortsighted.

Perhaps you do not understand what I am saying.  Perhaps you do understand 
and choose to pervert what I'm saying in order to ridicule it.  No
matter.

I have not talked about Jesus' expectations of how some might interpret
his teachings.  Obviously, you have interpreted his teachings a particular
way which is different than the vast majority and (IMO) contradictory
to much other Biblical teaching.

What I *am* saying is that Jesus was addressing the subject of
individual responsibility when he was talking to the crowds of people.
There is no context in the Gospels that I am aware of where he dealt with 
the subject of government responsibility, for example.  (Well, perhaps
paying to Caesar what is Caesar touches on the government's rights
to collect taxes.)  Now you can (and are) claiming that since
individuals make up a government, that Jesus *did* address these
issues (or similar ones).  I hear the claim, Richard.  Restating it
and attempting to ridicule what I have said do nothing to bolster the
claim.  Discussing the other Scriptures which relate to the claim and
showing how they are consistent with it is what bolsters the claim
from a Biblical point of view. 

  >Your delineations falsely assume that governments are non-peopled 
  >entities which are somehow exempt from the moral responsibilities 
  >of individuals.

No they do not.  Governments have a duty to be moral, just like
individuals have a duty to be moral.  Does this clear that problem
up for you?

I guess it didn't.  :-)  Let me explain further.  A government has
a different God-given role than an individual.  Just like a husband
has a different role than a wife, a slave has a different role than
a master and a child has a different role than a parent.  Does this
clear the problem up for you?  I hope so.  Note that in all cases,
all parties have a God-given duty to be moral whether as an individual
or as a parent or as a government or as a church or as a....

  >Supplying biblical passages that would tend to support your postulations
  >won't buy it with me.  I could do the same thing and doubtlessly it 
  >wouldn't buy it with you, either.  You would point out where I was 
  >in error and then I would point out where you were in error, and on and 
  >on.

Of course.  We can never really get anywhere by discussing what the Bible
says, so let's just forget it.  Who needs it anyway.  We'll just let
each other go happily on each claiming that they have "Scriptural support"
for their totally opposite beliefs and each living contentedly in their
little worlds.

I hear you, Richard.  You are welcome to not discuss the issue from
a Biblical perspective.  Perhaps the issue is that you don't wish to
discuss the issue with me.  That, too, is fine.  My issue is that
I don't like to see Scripture claimed as support when that support
is not there.

  >It's really nice that a lot of people and institutions agree with you
  >and have agreed with you for such a long time, Collis.

Yes it is.

Collis

   While I remain awed by people who claim to know the path & their
   version of the Bible or Commentary thereon is the only 'true'
   map. Unfortunately too many people have been injured by such
   discussions. Pig-headedness does not seem to have generational
   distinctions. 

   The basic solution remains begging. If you feel the Bible
   has sufficient within it to guarantee your salvation, then
   use it. If you have doubts, then study other works that will
   help guarantee your salvation. 

   Little else matters spiritually.

   Best wishes,
   Rollyn

    Are any of you familiar with the writings of James Luther Adams.  He is
    a major proponent of the Social Gospel and has a comprehensive theory
    of voluntary associations and their role in creating a more just
    society.  His contention is that institutions as well as individuals
    are capable of good or evil and that the redeeming, transforming,
    judging, creative Power works upon institutions as well as individuals.
    I have read his book  "The Examined Faith" which is a collection of his
    writings and have found many of the writings inspirational.
    
                                Pat

Note 151.123 (Jackson responding to Jones-Christie)

>Jesus did not address this teaching to governments, but to
>individuals.  Or perhaps you believe differently?

Note 23.38 (Jones-Christie)

>Your delineations falsely assume that governments are non-peopled entities
>which are somehow exempt from the moral responsibilities of individuals.

Note 23.39 (Jackson)

>No they do not.  Governments have a duty to be moral, just like
>individuals have a duty to be moral.  Does this clear that problem
>up for you?

However, you still maintain that since Jesus did not directly address the
government, there are no authentic implications for governments in Jesus'
teachings from the Sermon on the Mount ("Turn the other cheek").

That may not be what you intended in 151.123, but that *is* what you implied.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  23.42

  >However, you still maintain that since Jesus did not directly address the
  >government, there are no authentic implications for governments in Jesus'
  >teachings from the Sermon on the Mount ("Turn the other cheek").

In a word, yes.  In a sentence, there are certainly some things that Jesus
said in his various teachings including the Sermon on the Mount which
are applicable to government, however it can not be derived from Jesus'
teachings to individuals (alone) what they are.

If you look at Jesus' teachings when He was on the earth in isolation
to all the other teachings that God has given us, you will have
unbalanced teaching - not because anything Jesus said was wrong, but
simply because Jesus came for a specific purpose and his teachings
addressed a subset of situations/circumstances/peoples/groups
that are addressed more completely throughout all of Scripture.
(At least, what we have recorded addresses a subset.)  That is the
reason that "Turn the other cheek" (addressed to individuals) is
difficult (some would say impossible) to reconcile with the stoning
to death of those caught in adultery.  It is interesting that even
in these examples, which I picked from my mind at random, Jesus had
occasion to deal with this.  Jesus recognized the importance that rulers 
should have mercy and grace when he told the accusers, "He who is without
sin cast the first stone."  Note that Jesus did NOT say that stoning
was immoral or a wrong punishment.  He did, however, address the
issue of their hearts which were set on testing Jesus, not adminstering
justice in the land.  (It is another question altogether whether or not
this particular group of people had the right to be making the judgment
of the woman.)

  >That may not be what you intended in 151.123, but that *is* what you 
  >implied.

That is most definately what I intended to say.

Collis

Re: 23.43

Collis,

And so, it remains MHO that your understanding of Scripture is in error.

Just because Jesus did not address a government body specifically in the
Sermon on the Mount (for example) doesn't mean that there simply aren't
any implications in the Sermon on the Mount teachings for governments.

While I do not embrace your understanding of Scripture, I am willing to
respect your understanding of Scripture.  I shall not try to thrust my
understanding of Scripture as a flawless end product upon you and I shall
expect the same courtesy from you.

Peace,
Richard

Note 23.41

>    Are any of you familiar with the writings of James Luther Adams.  He is
>    a major proponent of the Social Gospel and has a comprehensive theory
>    of voluntary associations and their role in creating a more just
>    society.

To answer your question, Pat, no, I'm not familiar with Adams.  However,
I am drawn to that which is called the Social Gospel, as are many Christians.

I propose that a new topic be created on this vital aspect of Christian faith
and practice.  Would you like to initiate it, Pat?

Peace,
Richard

Re:  23.44

  >Just because Jesus did not address a government body specifically in the
  >Sermon on the Mount (for example) doesn't mean that there simply aren't
  >any implications in the Sermon on the Mount teachings for governments.

Agreed, as I said earlier.

  "For he [government] is God's servant to do you good.  But if you
  do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.
  He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the
  wrongdoer.  Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities,
  not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

  This is why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants,
  who give their full time to governing."  Romans 13:4-7

So, the Bible indicates that government, as God's servent, is "an agent
of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer".  This means:

  1)  government has been ordained by God (not only shown here in this
      verse, but in many other verses)
  2)  government is not only equipped to use violence, but should
      use violence to maintain order
  3)  government has a responsibility to God to do good

As you have quite properly pointed out, there are Scriptures that
teach us to respond non-violently.  The ball's in your park, Richard.
How do you reconcile the Scriptures that teach non-violence and the
Scriptures that teach violence? 

Collis

Re:  23.46

>  >Just because Jesus did not address a government body specifically in the
>  >Sermon on the Mount (for example) doesn't mean that there simply aren't
>  >any implications in the Sermon on the Mount teachings for governments.

>Agreed, as I said earlier.

Collis,

You agree, but only to the extent to which you don't disagree (Your 23.43).
Agreed? 8-}

I'm going to need to break my responses up a little, but I will be responding,
God willing.

Peace,
Richard

Note 23.46

>  "For he [government] is God's servant to do you good.  But if you
>  do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing.
>  He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the
>  wrongdoer.  Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities,
>  not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience.

>  This is why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God's servants,
>  who give their full time to governing."  Romans 13:4-7

I always thought it rather ironic that Paul so eloquently justified his own
execution!

Let me say at this point, I am not an anarchist.  I'm not anti-government.
And, generally speaking, I'm not against paying taxes.  At the same time,
if God so tenders my conscience, I am not beyond refusing to comply with
the government and governmental authorities.  Old and New Testament support
this, as I'm fairly certain you already know.

Further, I find it more than a little troublesome that Paul evidently believes
that *all* governments are God's servants (or God ordained), including
tyrannical and fascist governments.  It means that God ordained the reigns of
Hitler, Musselini, Caligula, Nero, Ivan the Terrible, Lennin, Stalin, Amin,
Marcos, Pinoche, and a host of others.  I believe God *allowed* these regimes
to exist.  At the same time, I am doubtful that God *ordained* these regimes,
certainly not in the same sense that we usually think of ordination.

My next reply will probably go into Topic 18.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 23.48 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Further, I find it more than a little troublesome that Paul evidently believes
> that *all* governments are God's servants (or God ordained), including
> tyrannical and fascist governments.  It means that God ordained the reigns of
> Hitler, Musselini, Caligula, Nero, Ivan the Terrible, Lennin, Stalin, Amin,
> Marcos, Pinoche, and a host of others.  I believe God *allowed* these regimes
> to exist.  At the same time, I am doubtful that God *ordained* these regimes,
> certainly not in the same sense that we usually think of ordination.

        This is one of the primary scriptural supports for my belief
        that the traditional conservative understanding of the nature
        of Scripture is dreadfully wrong to the point where it may
        be leading to the destruction (spiritual and physical) of
        many.

        If we are to go by his name, we must turn first and give
        priority to the words of Christ.  If we cannot reconcile his
        words with those of other parts of Scripture, then the other
        parts of Scripture (or, our understanding of them) MUST give
        way, rather than be swept aside by elaborate
        rationalizations.

        Bob

Re:  23.48

  >Further, I find it more than a little troublesome that Paul evidently 
  >believes that *all* governments are God's servants (or God ordained), 
  >including tyrannical and fascist governments.

I'd like to use this statement to discuss your "consistent with
Scripture" claim.  Perhaps you will understand, after I do this,
why I believe your views are not consistent with Scripture - or
perhaps I'll understand why your views are consistent with Scripture.

What does it mean to be "consistent with Scripture"?  Can we claim
that something is consistent with Scripture if it contradicts it at
some point?  If we claim, for example, to be consistent with the rules
of a game and break one out of a hundred rules, are we consistent
because we followed 99 rules?  Or are we inconsistent with the rules
because we broke one?

Clearly, from this example, I think something needs to be entirely
consistent (or at least not obviously inconsistent with some part!)
in order to claim that it is consistent.

What then, is Scripture?  Well, if you accept that it is God-breathed
(II Tim 3:16) and written by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1), then it is
God's inerrant message to His people.  If you do not accept this,
then it is some level of communication of one person (the author)
with some mix of God in there to others.  Either way, we need to
determine what the meaning of the writing is, i.e. what the original
author intended.

No matter who the author is, to claim to be "consistent with Scripture"
claims that we are consistent with the message the author was trying
to convey.  In other words, if Paul wrote Romans by himself (without
God's help) and Paul claims that all governments are ordained by
God (whether are not they are tyrannical or fascist), then in order
to be "consistent with Scripture", your views must be consistent with
what Paul was trying to convey (i.e. what was in Paul's mind when
he wrote Romans).

Note that the question of interpretation has already been handled.
We're dealing with the author's meaning, not the words in the text.

Does this make sense, Richard?  I hear your claim that your view on
this issue is "consistent with Scripture", and you as much admit that
your view is inconsistent with Paul's view (as *you* interpret what
Paul's view is).  If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that
you are claiming consistency with views that you admit you reject.  
To claim consistency with Scripture is to claim consistency 
with the expressed views of the author, is it not?  If it doesn't
mean that, what does it mean?

If you wish to claim consistency with God, that is another matter
entirely.

Collis

re Note 23.50 by 62465::JACKSON:

> What does it mean to be "consistent with Scripture"?  Can we claim
> that something is consistent with Scripture if it contradicts it at
> some point?  If we claim, for example, to be consistent with the rules
> of a game and break one out of a hundred rules, are we consistent
> because we followed 99 rules?  

        Well, Scripture isn't a set of rules, and it is clear (to me)
        from Jesus' teaching that Scripture isn't supposed to be
        applied as a bunch of rules (at least not the way any
        conventional, secular set of rules are applied).  So this
        comparison to a set of game rules is misleading -- perhaps
        dangerously so.

        (On the other hand, I suspect that this is an analogy that
        the Pharisees might be inclined to agree with.)


> What then, is Scripture?  Well, if you accept that it is God-breathed
> (II Tim 3:16) and written by the Holy Spirit (2 Peter 1), then it is
> God's inerrant message to His people.  

        Whoa!  Nowhere in 2 Peter 1 is it stated that all of
        Scripture is "written by the Holy Spirit".  And even if it
        were, and even if it were "God's inerrant message to His
        people," that would in no way establish that Scripture is to
        applied like a single set of consistent rules.

        For example, "God's inerrant message to His people" could
        simply mean that this is an inerrant record, which God would
        wish us to have, of what one of his earliest teachers had to
        say on the subject.  In such a case, that teacher's words
        should NOT be elevated to inerrancy, even though the record
        might be inerrant.

        Scripture does not give us enough explicit information to
        decide this, but Scripture in many places does come in the
        form of "teacher's words", rather than purported "God's
        words", and this is highly suggestive of how we should take
        them ourselves.


> Does this make sense, Richard?  I hear your claim that your view on
> this issue is "consistent with Scripture", and you as much admit that
> your view is inconsistent with Paul's view (as *you* interpret what
> Paul's view is).  If this is indeed the case, it seems to me that
> you are claiming consistency with views that you admit you reject.  
> To claim consistency with Scripture is to claim consistency 
> with the expressed views of the author, is it not?  If it doesn't
> mean that, what does it mean?

        No! No! No!  If the words of Jesus are recorded in Scripture,
        and if according to Scripture Jesus is God, and the words of
        a human teacher are recorded in Scripture, and according to
        Scripture human teachers are not inerrant, then there is no
        inconsistency with Scripture for Richard or anyone else to
        claim that the words from the Lord's mouth, wherever they
        appear to be inconsistent with the recording of a human
        teacher in Scripture, take precedence.  

        It may indeed be consistent with Scripture to claim that a
        certain teaching recorded in Scripture is inconsistent with
        a certain other teaching recorded in Scripture.  It all
        depends upon the context and who is doing the teaching.

        Bob

Re:  23.51

  >So this comparison to a set of game rules is misleading -- perhaps
  >dangerously so.

The principle is not particular to game rules, but is applicable
to claiming consistency with anything.

  >Whoa!  Nowhere in 2 Peter 1 is it stated that all of
  >Scripture is "written by the Holy Spirit".  

"All all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came
about by the prophet's own interpretation.  For prophecy never
had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they
were carried along by the Holy Spirit."

The definitions of prophecy in the American Heritage Dictionary are:

  1.  A prediction

  2.  The inspired utterance of a prophet.

Perhaps you are limiting this verse to the first definition.  I
understand it as meaning the second (which includes the first).

  >then there is no inconsistency with Scripture for Richard or anyone 
  >else to claim that the words from the Lord's mouth, wherever they
  >appear to be inconsistent with the recording of a human
  >teacher in Scripture, take precedence.

No! No! No!  :-)

You can certainly claim to be consistent with Jesus' teachings, if
this is the case.  You can NOT claim to be consistent with "Scripture"
since Scripture includes material which is clearly INconsistent with
your claim.

Or you can claim that there is *no* position consistent with (all of)
Scripture since Scripture contradicts itself.  But to claim consistency
with (all of) Scripture knowing full well that (parts of) Scripture
contradict your claim is, at best, misleading and inaccurate.  This
is what I object to in this claim.

Collis

Re:  23.52

  >I believe my faith is consistent with the Spirit, if not the
  >absolute letter, of Scripture.

I understand that you believe that.  It is NOT the absolute letter of
Scripture that I have been discussing, it is the author's thought that
he was attempting to get across. It is your claim of being consistent
with Scripture while knowingly being inconsistent with what some
authors of Scripture have written that I have objected to.  Anyway,
the point has now been made and it is (I hope) clear to you why I
think your claim is errorneous and misleading. 

Collis

re Note 23.53 by 62465::JACKSON:

> You can certainly claim to be consistent with Jesus' teachings, if
> this is the case.  You can NOT claim to be consistent with "Scripture"
> since Scripture includes material which is clearly INconsistent with
> your claim.
> 
> Or you can claim that there is *no* position consistent with (all of)
> Scripture since Scripture contradicts itself.  But to claim consistency
> with (all of) Scripture knowing full well that (parts of) Scripture
> contradict your claim is, at best, misleading and inaccurate.  This
> is what I object to in this claim.

        Collis,

        People say, all the time, statements such as "that's
        consistent with his philosophy" or "that's consistent with
        American history."   When people use an expression such as
        that, they don't mean to imply that the hypothetical person's
        philosophy is item for item entirely consistent or that all
        of American history is consistent.

        (For one thing, consistency isn't all that well-defined:  if
        something is done one way in one context, and another way in
        another, is that inconsistent?  Remember, the context of time
        is ALWAYS different -- many other incidentals may differ as
        well.)

        You seem to want to use words, or at least some words, in an
        especially precise way when dealing with Scripture.  You are
        welcome to do so, but I observe that Scripture does not
        include a dictionary or glossary, and God very well could
        have supplied one if God's intention was the kind of
        precise, legalistic reading you seem to favor.

        Bob

Collis,

	I believe my faith is consistent with the Spirit, if not the
absolute letter, of Scripture.

	As Paul confided in his letter to the Corinthian church (I Cor. 13),
it's like we're all peering into a mirror that's insufficiently lit.  I truly
appreciate Paul's honesty in this statement.  It says you can even be the
Apostle Paul and still not have all the answers.

Peace,
Richard

PS I appreciate and echo the entries of Bob Fleischer in .49 & .51.

Re:  23.55

Hi, Bob,

  >People say, all the time, statements such as "that's
  >consistent with his philosophy" or "that's consistent with
  >American history."   When people use an expression such as
  >that, they don't mean to imply that the hypothetical person's
  >philosophy is item for item entirely consistent or that all
  >of American history is consistent.

So what is it you believe "consistent" should mean?  Should it
really mean "agreement or compatability among things or parts"?
Or should it mean "some agreement somewhere with what I'm attempting
to say"?

  >You seem to want to use words, or at least some words, in an
  >especially precise way when dealing with Scripture.

All I'm doing is attempting to communicate a different point of
view.  As has been said many times, unless we agree on the meanings
of the words, communication is lacking.  I'm often willing to go the
extra step to actually discover whether we have agreement or disagreement
on the meanings of words.  I do not see this is a fault, but rather
as a virtue.  Perhaps you would prefer that we simply agree to disagree
and never discover what we're really disagreeing about.  Again, it's
not a matter of being so precise, it *is* a matter of expecting the
word to be used according to its normal usage.

Yes, people are loose with the words they used.  When challenged about
loose usage, most people are willing to be more precise about what
it is they really meant.  In this case, I view consistency with the
Bible as an *extremely* important issue.  Richard continued to claim
consistency even after I pointed out what I believe are several 
inconsistencies.  Is it really unreasonable for me to pursue this?  
From what you are saying, it appears that I can do no right in your 
eyes.  Is this really the case?

Collis

    Re: the prophecy in Isaiah (519.25):
     
    Behold, the day of the LORD comes,
    	cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,
    to make the earth a desolation
    	and to destroy its sinners from it.
    ...
    Whoever is found will be thrust through
    	and whoever is caught will fall by the sword
    Their infants will be dashed in pieces
    	before their eyes
    their houses will be plundered
    	and their wives ravished. (Isaiah 13:9, 15-16 RSV)
    
    Is this prophesy to be taken literally meaning that *Jesus* is going 
    to return to kill men and infants, plunder homes, and ravish (rape?) 
    wives??
    
    Robin, in 519.28 you replied to Bob that since he did not accept this 
    prophesy that:
    
    > You can't see the forest for the trees as it were, possibly because 
    > your looking at these few verses, not the reason it's going to 
    > happen, what it allows afterwards etc.
    
    My other question is, (for anyone) what is this prophesy going to 
    "allow afterwards"?
    
    Thanks, 
    
    Karen

The oracles against foreign nations in Isaiah 13:1-23:18 are prophesies of
what will happen to nations that oppress the People of God.

The Christian Perspective on God, "God is Love" as revealed in his Son,
is somewhat different than what the ancient Hebrews believed.

In the Christian Perspective, those that refuse to turn to God, those who
oppress God's people, still die, but it is a different kind of death.  It's
an expulsion from the sight of the faithful and from the presence of God.

/john

Karen,

Here is the complete text of chapter 13, to give additional context.

[1]	The oracle concerning Babylon which Isaiah son of Amoz saw.
[2]	On a bare hill raise a signal,
	  cry aloud to them;
	wave the hand for them to enter
	  the gates of the nobles.
[3]	I myself have commanded my consecrated ones,
	  have summoned my mighty men to execute my anger,
	  my proudly exulting ones.

[4]	Hark, a tumult on the mountains
	  as of a great multitude!
	Hark, an uproar of kingdoms,
	  of nations gathering together!
	The LORD of hosts is mustering
	  a host for battle.
[5]	They come from a distant land,
	  from the end of the heavens,
	the LORD and the weapons of his indignation,
	  to destroy the whole earth.

[6]	Wail, for the day of the LORD is near;
	  as destruction from the Almighty it will come!
[7]	Therefore all hands will be feeble,
	  and every man's heart will melt,
[8]	  and they will be dismayed.
	Pangs and agony will seize them;
	  they will be in anguish like a woman in travail.
	They will look aghast at one another;
	  their faces will be aflame.

[9]	Behold, the day of the LORD comes,
	  cruel, with wrath and fierce anger,
	to make the earth a desolation
	  and to destroy its sinners from it.
[10]	For the stars of the heavens and their constellations
	  will not give their light;
	the sun will be dark at its rising
	  and the moon will not shed its light.
[11]	I will punish the world for its evil,
	  and the wicked for their iniquity;
	I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant,
	  and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless.
[12]	I will make men more rare than fine gold,
	  and mankind than the gold of Ophir.
[13]	Therefore I will make the heavens tremble,
	  and the earth will be shaken out of its place,
	at the wrath of the LORD of hosts
	  in the day of his fierce anger.
[14]	And like a hunted gazelle,
	  or like sheep with none to gather them,
	every man will turn to his own people,
	  and every man will flee to his own land.
[15]	Whoever is found will be thrust through,
	  and whoever is caught will fall by the sword.
[16]	Their infants will be dashed in pieces
	  before their eyes;
	their houses will be plundered
	  and their wives ravished.

[17]	Behold, I am stirring up the Medes against them,
	  who have no regard for silver
	  and do not delight in gold.
[18]	Their bows will slaughter the young men;
	  they will have no mercy on the fruit of the womb;
	  their eyes will not pity children.
[19]	And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,
	  the splendor and pride of the Chaldeans,
	will be like Sodom and Gomorrah
	  when God overthrew them.
[20]	It will never be inhabited
	  or dwelt in for all generations;
	no Arab will pitch his tent there,
	  no shepherds will make their flocks lie down there.
[21]	But wild beasts will lie down there,
	  and its houses will be full of howling creatures;
	there ostriches will dwell,
	  and there satyrs will dance.
[22]	Hyenas will cry in its towers,
	  and jackals in the pleasant palaces;
	its time is close at hand
	  and its days will not be prolonged. (Isaish 13, RSV)

What's confusing about this chapter is that it talks about the destruction
of the whole world and the destruction of Babylon as if they were the same
thing.  Did the author mean that God would destroy the entire world because
Babylon was so evil, or (as Christians probably believe) was the reference
to Babylon allegorical?

Anyway, it's not clear to me whether the raping and pillaging in verse 16
will be carried out by the host (of men? of angels?) that God will muster
for battle, or by other men fleeing from the wrath of God, or by the Medes
in verse 17 that God will stir up against the Babylonians.

				-- Bob

    Thanks Bob, for entering the entire text.  I share similar confusions.
    Again, the question is, are we to read this prophesy literally that 
    Jesus is going to be come back to pillage, plunder and rape...?  
    
    If so, it's also confusing in that traditional Christian precepts 
    instruct people to emulate Christ's behavior, and to be perfect, as 
    our Lord God in Heaven is perfect.  Are we supposed to emulate such 
    behavior?
    
    Also, the passage says:
    
    	I will punish the world for its evil,
    		and the wicked for their iniquity;
    	I will put an end to the pride of the arrogant,
    		and lay low the haughtiness of the ruthless.
    
    Who is going to be punished?  Who is going to be destroyed?
    For the above describes the behavior of some Christians who
    profess Jesus as Lord and Savior, as well as some non-Christians.
    Who will be "spared?"  
    
    And again I still wonder, what will the fulfillment of this prophesy 
    allow for afterwards...?
    
    Karen                  

Isaiah 13: Aweful or awful, that is the question.

				-- Bob

    I vote for awful myself.  But then, that's probably why I always liked
    Second Isaiah better than the first one.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    I was looking for inspiration in the old Testament.  After reading
    Genesis, Exodus, Joshua,  Judges, and Kings and Ruth  I decided I
    couldn't take anymore slaughter and would jump ahead to Issiah for
    prophetic inspiration.  I gave up the old Testament after getting to 
    about Issiah 20.  
    
    I received an electronic flash of inspiration that perhaps I should go
    back and read Song of Solomon.
    
    
    Good to see you active in here again.
    
    
    Patricia
    Patricia

    Hi Patricia,
    
    I share your feelings.  I found a lot of the mentality in those
    sections of the Bible that you cited to be truly offensive.  You might
    want to try reading Isaiah starting around chapter 40 or so.  This part
    of Isaiah was written by a different author at a different time, and is
    generally a more pleasant prophetic vision than the first part.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .58
    
>> "In the Christian Perspective, ..."
    
    
    We can rejoice in the knowledge that the accurate interpretation of
    this phrase is:  
    
    "In the Christian Perspective held by John Covert, ..."

It is increasing clear to me that you, Patrick and /john, believe that anyone
who doesn't fit your confining parameters is not a genuine Christian and
should not be considered a genuine Christian.  You equate your stringent
requirements to the narrow gate (or narrow door) that Jesus spoke about.
But I'd like you to consider that there's another reason why some may not
make it through that narrow gate.  And that is because they are too puffed up,
too prideful, too unyielding, too laden with "stuff" they aren't willing to
set aside.

But Jesus, too, was criticized not for his narrowness, but rather for his
radical inclusivity.  And for this I am criticized as well.

I shall continue to take my lead from Jesus through the Holy Spirit and from
no other.

Lead me, Sovereign Jesus,
Richard

    The "radical inclusivity" of Jesus did not include the unrepentant.

    My "confining parameters" are based on the statements of Jesus himself
    in the Bible.  I'm not the judge, God is the judge.

    Where people are "prideful", it is because they have not placed
    themselves at the will and mercy of God.

    And where they are "unyielding" to the gospel messages and rather yield
    to sin.

    Humanity's problem isn't sinners, because through the sacrificial death
    and glorious resurrection of Jesus Christ, we are all saved.  The
    problem is temptation.  Our Christian faith as it has been taught for
    the last 20 centuries is the guide to resist sin, accept Our Lord, and
    give glory to him.

    I hold fast to my faith.  I hope for God's mercy.  I love God above
    all, and I love my neighbor as I love myself.

The Bible says the earth is flat and has a solid dome above it that is to
keep back the chaotic waters above that dome. (Genesis 1:6-7)

The Bible says that women who wear men's clothing are an abomination to God -
that God hates it, abhors it.  (Deuteronomy 22:5)

The Bible says it is good to take revenge by taking our enemie's babies and
smashing them against a rock.  (Psalm 137)

The Bible says that if a man has sexual relations with another man that they
should both be killed.  (Leviticus 20)

The Bible says that if a man commits adultery with someone else's wife that
both of them should be killed. (Leviticus 20:10)

The Bible says that women are never to wear gold or pearls. (I Timothy 2:9)

The Bible says that women are never to have authority over men and are to be
submissive and silent.  (I Timothy 2:11-12)

I say that none of these things which can be found in the Bible are a part
of what I believe.  And I submit that these are not what most biblical
literalists would support.

Luther said that the Bible is the cradle in which Christ may be found, but
that we should not confuse the cradle with Christ.

Peace,
Richard

>The Bible says the earth is flat and has a solid dome above it that is to
>keep back the chaotic waters above that dome. (Genesis 1:6-7)
    
    	Not in my old KJV. What translation are you using?
    
    			Alfred

Note 23.67

>    The "radical inclusivity" of Jesus did not include the unrepentant.

Again, Patrick, not wholly true.  Jesus didn't require everyone to change
before he would include them.  Consider Zacchaeus.  Jesus didn't require
Zacchaeus to change.  Yet Jesus said he would join Zacchaeus for dinner.
Zacchaeus would be given the high and holy honor of hosting and communing
with Christ without pre-requisites.

Zacchaeus did change.  But not because he was required to change.  Not
because he was told to "sin no more."

Peace,
Richard

Note 23.69

>The Bible says the earth is flat and has a solid dome above it that is to
>keep back the chaotic waters above that dome. (Genesis 1:6-7)
    
>    	Not in my old KJV. What translation are you using?
    
Alfred,

	You would single out this one, wouldn't you? ;-)  Well, I've got the
TEV on me.  And I'll share with you what the TEV says, but the KJV says the
same thing.  Just in different words.  I think the KJV uses the word
"firmament," but I'm not positive about that.

	Then God commanded, "Let there be a dome to divide the water and
to keep it in two separate places"- and it was done.  So God made a dome,
and it separated the water under it from the water above it.  He named the
dome "Sky."....

Peace,
Richard

So where's the "flat" and where's the "chaotic"?

    /john,
    
    	I'm not going to hold everybody's hand here.  If you cannot find it,
    so be it.  We'll just say it's not there, okay??  You doubt nearly
    everything I have to say anyway.  Ask somebody you respect.  Ask your
    priest.  Ask your bishop.  Ask anyone but me.
    
    	This is getting into nit-picking, and further and further away from
    the message of .68.
    
    Hope of peace,
    Richard

    Richard,
    
    I thought you were attempting to ridicule the truth of the Bible and
    not holding anyone's hand.  What is your message?

    Richard,
    
    In Luke 19, Zacchaeus sought the Lord.  It is a story of conversion
    from sin to salvation.
    
    While Jesus is not on the street today, his Church is on the street
    today for anyone who seeks the Lord.
    
    Patrick 

Luke 19:

Jesus entered Jericho and was passing through it.  A man was there named
Zacchaeus; he was a chief tax collector and was rich.  He was trying to
see who Jesus was, but on account of the crowd he could not, because he
was short in stature.  So he ran ahead and climbed a sycamore tree to see
him, because he was going to pass that way.

When Jesus came to the place, he looked up and said to him, "Zacchaeus,
hurry and come down; for I must stay at your house today."  So he hurried
down and was happy to welcome him.  All who saw it began to grumble and
said, "He has gone to be the guest of one who is a sinner."  Zacchaeus
stood there and said to the Lord, "Look, half of my possesions, Lord, I
will give to the poor; and if I have defrauded anyone of anything, I will
pay back four times as much."

Then Jesus said to him, "Today salvation has come to this house, because
he, too, is a son of Abraham.  For the Son of Man came to seek out and
save the lost."

The message of .68 (as I understand it :-) ) is
that the Bible is so obviously and hopelessly wrong
that it should not be taken seriously in matters of
factual truth (or, apparently, most other forms of
truth either).

For those of you foolish enough to contest this,
it's not worthwhile going into details and/or discussions.
Can't you see?!  Are you so blind?!

The message of the Bible itself is a little bit different.
But hey, who are you going to believe?  This is, after
all, the Christian-Perspective conference where individual
truth reigns supreme.  :-)

Collis_who_thought_he'd_share_his_relevant_experience_
  in_this_conference_to_interpret_what_is_being_said

First of all, thank you all for sharing your interpretations of what went on
between Jesus and Zacchaeus.

23.68 does point out some items in the Bible which are not a part of my
beliefs.  Does that mean that I think the whole Bible should be tossed out?
Most assuredly not.  Does it mean that I think anyone who takes the Bible
seriously is foolish?  Absolutely not.  Does it mean that I believe the
Bible to be other than inspired?  Not at all.

At the same time, I do not approach the Bible with a binary mindset; that
the Bible is either 0 or 1; that it's either entirely perfect or none of
it is reliable.

Now, it's okay with me if you support the items listed in .68 as just as
valid, as important, and as relevant as anything else in the Bible, including
the teachings of Jesus Christ.  I do not.

That's my point.

And Collis, though you will deny it vehemently, yours is ultimately an
individual interpretation as well.

Peace,
Richard

    Can someone tell me what Luke 14:28 says?
    
    Thank you,
    
    mary

    "For which of you, intending to build a tower, does not first sit down
    and estimate the cost, to see whether he has enough to complete it?"
    
    	Luke:14:28

    I hope this isn't headed in the same direction as that for which Reagan
    was chastised.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Thank you.