Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    				LOVE
    
    
    Peace,
    Richard

			PURITY

Collis

    
    			*Holy*
    			
    			
    
    			

    Irena,
    
    What do you mean by "holy"?
    
    -- Mike

    The idea of using dualisms to discuss God, which was mentioned
    elsewhere in this conference, is particularly interesting to me.  For
    example, I am intrigued by the idea that God is both impersonal and
    personal, abstract and concrete, immanent and transcendent, male and
    female, creative and responsive.

    -- Mike

    
    
    Mike,
    
    >What do you mean by "holy"?
      
    
    Whatever God means by "holy". I'll never fully grasp it,
    not in *this* lifetime.
    
    :)
    
    Irena
    
    
    

    Unchanging
    
    - I, the Lord, do not change, therefore the sonsof Jacob are not
      destroyed.
    
    - Jesus Christ, the same today, yesterday, and forever
    
    Gil

    That suggests another interesting dualism that Charles Hartshorne
    argues for in his process theology--that God is both changing and
    unchanging.  Process theology argues that God is unchanging in His/Her
    goodness, but changing in that He/She constantly responds to the world
    and is permanently affected and irrevocably by our actions (objective
    immortality).  It is in the changing aspect of God that we can show our
    love for God, because our loving actions toward other creatures in the
    mundane realm permanently enhances the divine life through objective
    immortality.

    -- Mike

        God has many attributes; here are some...
     1Tim 1:11 - The happy God
     John 4:24 - God is a spirit
     John 7:28 - He that sent me is real (said by Jesus about God)
     Isa 44:06 - I am the first and I am the last and besides me there is
                 no God
     Ex   6:03 - As respects my name Jehovah(God has a name not just a title)
     1Jo  4:08 - God is love
     Job 12:13 - With him there are wisdom and mightiness he has counsel and
                 understanding
     Ps  37:28 - a lover of justice
     De  32:04 - perfect in his activity. All his ways are justice. A god
                 of faithfulness. Rightious and upright is he.
     Job 37:23 - Almighty
     Ex  34:06 - merciful and gracious, slow to anger, abundant in loving
                 kindness and truth
     2Co 13:11 - God of love and peace
     Rom  1:20 - Invisible qualities clearly seen; perceived by the things
                 made
    
     That's all for now...
    

    
    re: .8 (Mike V.)
    
    I like that!
    
    guy

    Attributes of God...?
    
    God is mercy full.  God is compassionate.  God is creation, 
    destruction and resurrection.  God is mystery and delight.
    God is not either/or.  God is always both/and, for _everything_ 
    that exists has its being in God.
    
    All these things are attributes of God, and yet, this is only the 
    beginning.  The rational mind is unable to comprehend the fullness 
    of God, so great is God.  There are no words, no images available 
    to express this fullness correctly.
    
    God is at-one-ment.  God is ineffable.  So I'll be quiet about God.
    
    Karen
    

    I found something in the Science of Mind magazine, September issue that
    describes in part the way I see God...
    
    A Quiet Knowing
    
    God's light in me is not
    the blinding glare
    of solar fire -
    the razzle-dazzle of a lightening flash
    to awe, inspire;
    nor flickering torch that's dimmed
    by a strong wind blowing.
    God's light in me is a clam
    and steady glowing.
    
    God-in-me is no dominating force
    that I should fear,
    but all that I could dream or hope of good,
    forever near.
    Communions needs no frame of ritual,
    no fanfare blowing;
    only an open and receptive heart,
    a quiet knowing.
         -R.H. Grenville
    
    
    Nanci
    

    re .11
    
    Karen, what is "at-one-ment"? I have seen it in new age writings before
    but have never had the term explained to me. Please do.
    
    Gil

    Gil - 
    
    I don't think Karen will mind too much if I jump in here.  :-)  
    
    At-one-ment, also known as atonement...  
    
    To me, to truly atone for one's transgressions necessitates being in a
    state of at-one-ment with God.  In other words, to align oneself with
    that which is divine, or God.
    
    Does this help?
    
    Nanci

    But didn't Jesus die to be the atonement for all of our sins? If then
    we still need to make additional atonement for our transgressions for
    what purpose was Jesus sent? And for what reason did He die? 
    
      From my understanding of it, I cannot get right with God by myself but
    Jesus' sacrifice made that possible.
    
    Gil

    Gil - 
    
    I guess my interpretation of why Jesus died and yours are different. 
    My understanding is that he died to show us the way.  That still
    implies effort on my part to understand and correct my actions that
    aren't in alignment with the Truth.  That's where at-one-ment comes in
    for me.  If I'm not at-one with God's Truth then I'm still acting and
    perceiving through my limited view of reality.  Being at-one means
    opening up my life to God's truth.
    
    Nanci

    Hi Gil and Nanci,
    
    The statement of God being at-one-ment means to me that God is at one
    with everything in His creation.  God does not experience seperation
    from anything.  He loves and cherishes everything and every person
    equally.  We don't, however.  And that is the root of all human sin
    imho.  
    
    When I perceive myself as being seperate from God and/or my
    brothers and sisters I can act in such a way that harms or hurts them. 
    If I truly loved myself as God loves me and looked upon my brothers and
    sisters and fellow creatures and only see equality and love, the way
    I believe God does and Jesus taught, then how could I sin or strike 
    out against them?  It would be striking out against myself.
    
    I believe Jesus' main purpose was to teach humanity about God and the
    relationship we share with God and each other in a way that a good deal 
    of humanity was ignorant or unaware of before the birth of Jesus.  I
    believe the old testament readied people for the arrival of Jesus and
    his teachings were the natural next step in coming to know God more
    fully.
    
    Karen

    Another thought struck me in trying to define the attributes of God. 
    How can I, with my limited earth centered mind and ego possibly hope to
    define God which is All That Was, Is and Ever Shall Be?  Isn't God by 
    His/Her very nature undefinable?
    
    Our simple minds just cannot grasp it.  In trying to define God we use
    our own limited human terms thereby limiting the nature of God by our
    definition.  How can one describe Infinity?  

    
    RE: .18 (Nanci)
    
    I think that's where the problem comes in - we *cannot* fully
    comprehend - at least not with what we know as the rational parts
    of our mind.  
    
    That's where I think we must make the decision to "leap beyond logic"
    and accept the mystery with which Christ left us.  That's not to say
    we can't know what the message was - we simply cannot communicate it
    with words.  That's why the image of the crucifixion is so powerful,
    and even sort of "cut and dry" - all the other attempts at moral ab-
    solutes fail....we learn these things best with an example (and then
    experience on our own).
    
    This probably isn't too coherent....
    
    guy

    But Guy - that's exactly my point.  :-)  There is no logical
    definition.  The only way we can really *know* God is through our
    hearts.
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci

    
    Nanci,
    
    I knew you knew what I knew....:-)
    
    Just makin' a point....:-)
    
    guy

    I would like to focus on one attribute of God that is presented through
    the Hebrew and Christian scriptures, and that I consider an important
    part of my own spirituality:  His/Her preferential option for the poor. 
    The Bible is full of passages that express this idea, far too many to
    cite here.  But I would like to quote just a few examples.

        You shall not wrong or oppress a resident alien, for you were
        aliens in the land of Egypt.  You shall not abuse any widow or
        orphan.  If you do abuse them, when they cry out to me, I will
        surely heed their cry.  (Exodus 22:21-23, NRSV)

        If you lend money to my people, to the poor among you, you shall
        not deal with them as a creditor; you shall not exact interest from
        them.  If you take your neighbor's cloak in pawn, you shall restore
        it before the sun goes down; for it may be your neighbor's only
        clothing to use as cover; in what else shall that person sleep? 
        And if your neighbor cries out to me, I will listen, for I am
        compassionate. (Exodus 22:25-27)

        For six years you shall sow your land and gather its yield; but the
        seventh year you shall let it rest and lie fallow, so that the poor
        of your people may eat; and what they leave the wile animals may
        eat.  You shall do the same with your vineyard, and with your olive
        orchard. (Exodus 23:10-11)

        When you reap the harvest of your land, you shall not reap to the
        very edges of you field, or gather the gleanings of your harvest;
        you shall leave them for the poor and for the alien:  I am the LORD
        your God. (Leviticus 23:22)

        Wash yourselves; make yourselves clean;
        remove the evil of your doings from before my eyes;
        cease to do evil, learn to do good;
        seek justice, rescue the oppressed,
        defend the orphan, plead for the widow.  (Isaiah 1:16-17)

        Ah, you who make iniquitous decrees,
        who write oppressive statues,
        to turn aside the needy from justice
        and to rob the poor of my people of their right,
        that widows may be your spoil, and that you make the orphans your
        	prey!
    	What will you do on the day of punishment,
    	in the calamity that will come from far away?  (Isaiah 10:1-3)

        "Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God."
        	(Luke 6:20)

        How does God's love abide in anyone who has the world's goods and
        sees a brother or sister in need and yet refuses help?
        	(I John 3:17)

    -- Mike

    
    I believe that God is the Absolute Truth, which is Infinite Love.
    
    "God is Energy.  Love the highest energy.  The manifestation of love 
    energy is peace, tranquility, contentment, joy, happiness and
    compassion." - this excerpted from "Working Miracles Of Love" by Amrit
    Desai.
    
    This is the same energy that flowed from Christ when the woman in the
    crowd touched His garment.
    
    Cindy

Re:  33.24

  >As in the lines from the other note quoted above, God would certainly
  >appear to have been avoiding the truth and the conclusion I would draw is
  >that God, maybe with good intentions, wanted us to be deceived about the
  >nature of the universe.

I think a better conclusion is that God wanted us to remain ignorant
of this (rather than saying that God wanted to deceive us which implies
something negative).  And God wanted us to remain ignorant of this for
our own good.  (We have no necessary right to "know" anything, therefore
God choosing not to share knowledge with us is not a priori wrong.)

  >Moreover, if one assumes that the serpent was somehow Satan in disguise, 
  >we are confronted with the "father of lies" telling us the truth.
  >Somehow these roles look a little backward, don't you think?

God told the truth.  Satan told truth mixed with lies.  No, the roles
are not backward.

Collis

re Note 33.25 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> (We have no necessary right to "know" anything, therefore
> God choosing not to share knowledge with us is not a priori wrong.)
  
        I cannot argue that we have such a "right", nor can I say
        what the situation was before Christ's coming, but in the
        Gospel of John, Jesus promises:

        "14:26  But the Comforter, [which is] the Holy Ghost, whom
        the Father will send in my name, HE SHALL TEACH YOU ALL
        THINGS, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever
        I have said unto you."

        Bob

re.24

	God's intention was that man would rely upon God's life for his living
and sustenance signified by the tree of life in garden of Eden. God also
forbade man not to eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, signifying
that man was not to rely upon the knowledge of good and evil, right and wrong,
etc.

	We know what happened, and man today makes most of his decisions based
upon what he thinks to be right and wrong, good and bad, etc. Sadly, this is
also the prevailing way among christians today. It is only by God's mercy
that any would be rescued from this back to the tree of life, that is to take
God as our life supply. 

Regards,
ace

    re.27

    Ace:

         Assuming for the moment that this Adam and Eve story really
     happened then the following question seems to follow.
          Why did God put this tree in the garden knowing full well
     that Adam and Eve would eat from it ? God had to know this right ?
     I mean that would be true if God is omniscient.
          If you will forgive the pun, but apparently God set them up
     for a fall. Seems a bit mean spirited doesn't it ?  

                                                               Mike

Mike,

It seems that God has determined that love and obedience out of anything
but a free will is not worth it.  Therefore, God did indeed test (not
tempt) Adam and Eve to see what they would choose.

This does not make God responsible for the decisions of Adam and Eve.
Would you agree?

(That is, if I test you, I am not responsible if you fail the test.  If
you don't agree, I'll go back to some teachers I had in college and
argue it out with them...  :-)  )

Collis

re.27

	Mike,

	God gave man a free will to choose. And corresponding to this, He
provided man with an environment to choose. For what is a free will without
an environment to choose?? 

	We may consider Genesis 2 and 3 as a picture. God created a garden
with two outstanding trees. The tree of life, and tree of knowledge of good
and evil. Then He placed the man whom He had formed from the dust of the earth
into the garden. If you saw an empty apple crate placed in an apple orchard
next to an apple tree what would you infer? You would infer that the apples 
from the apple tree are to be placed into the empty apple crate. As simplistic
as this sounds, this is a key to unlocking the divine truth in Genesis 1-3.
Actually this is a key to unlocking the whole revelation in the Bible. God
made man as a vessel to contain something, and that something is God Himself
signified by the tree of life. He commanded man not to eat of the tree of 
knowledge of good and evil. So now man had a command and the ability to
obey that command. God gave man a free will in order that he would choose God.

	That is an answer to the question from our viewpoint (that is man's).
	
Ace

    
    The problem I have with the 'apple' story (and as I have stated
    before in this file) is two-fold.  First, I do question the process
    of God giving human beings free-will and then testing them to make
    sure they make the right decision.  What kind of free will is that?
    Second, I question the extremeness of the punishment placed upon
    all humanity for this "failing" of the test.
    
    Carole

     
     Re. last couple

         I have to wonder how much free will was involved here.
       Adam and Eve had no knowledge of good and evil when God
       told them not eat from a particular tree. 
         If they did not know good from evil they could not have 
       chosen evil of their free will because they didn't know
       the difference. In fact they had no reason to suspect
       that there was anything wrong in disobeying God.
         They cannot be responsible for failing a test that they
       did not know was a test was, that it was being given and
       and that they had not been prepared for.
          So, they and all their descendants are held accountable
       for the consequences of a decision made total ignorance of
       of the implications of that decision.
          How could God expect them to choose good over evil before
       they had knowledge of either ? When did they get to exercise
       this free will you both mention ? A decision made in total
       ignorance is hardly one made in free will. 


                                                               Mike

                                         

Re:  33.32

  >If they did not know good from evil they could not have chosen evil of 
  >their free will because they didn't know the difference. In fact they 
  >had no reason to suspect that there was anything wrong in disobeying God.

A point well taken, Mike.  I guess what is needed is a little more
information about exactly what this tree of "good and evil" gave
them and exactly what knowledge they had before.

In the absence of this, I'll trust that God is as he claims to be -
a good, loving, holy Father who always does right.  :-)

  >So, they and all their descendants are held accountable
  >for the consequences of a decision made total ignorance of
  >of the implications of that decision.

Is it also unfair that we can be redeemed through the death of Jesus?
(They both use the same principle - one man representing the entire
race.)

  >A decision made in total ignorance is hardly one made in free will. 

Being ignorant of the consequences (as my daughter often is) does not
mean that she has no free will.  Adam and Eve knew what God had told
them.  Their choice was to either trust God or trust the serpent.  They
chose to trust the serpent.

Collis

re Note 33.33 by XLIB::JACKSON:

>   >A decision made in total ignorance is hardly one made in free will. 
> 
> Being ignorant of the consequences (as my daughter often is) does not
> mean that she has no free will.  Adam and Eve knew what God had told
> them.  Their choice was to either trust God or trust the serpent.  They
> chose to trust the serpent.
  
        It amused me (in a wry sort of way) that at the time the Gulf
        War started, President Bush said (more or less literally)
        that "I had no choice".

        Certainly, he wasn't pleading ignorance at that time.  And he
        certainly wasn't pleading a lapse in his capacity for "free
        will."  However, he was pleading the possibility of
        circumstances so compelling, given the nature of the
        decision-maker and the circumstances, that it would be
        unreasonable to expect any other decision to be made.

        Adam and Eve's situation, as depicted in Scripture, seem at
        least as compelling as George Bush's.

        Bob

Bob,

Perhaps you can expound on why Adam and Eve "had no choice"?  It's not
quite as obvious to me as it is to you.

Collis

re.32

	Mike,

	Adam and Eve were not expected to choose between good and evil. Good
and evil are from the same tree. In fact, they were commanded not to eat of 
this tree.

	They were however expected to eat of the tree of life and they
didn't. They knew what they were commanded to do because they had fellowship
with God in the garden concerning these matters.

	Side note: Probably Adam and Eve were of superior intelligence and
physical strength far above anyone we've ever known given the enormity of
their responsibilities in tending the garden, naming the animals, etc. These
two were not bumpkins. 8*)

ace

    Re.33

    Collis:
            You seem to be fond of analogies, so let me try one on you.
          If you left a loaded gun laying around with young children
          about and one of them, having no knowledge of what this thing
          could do, killed themselves could you say that they made a 
          choice to kill themselves of their own free will ? I sure 
          wouldn't as a matter of fact I'd say that you were criminally
          negligent.
             As I see it God left a loaded gun laying around in the
          garden with children about.

                                                               Mike

Re:  .37

It seems like a relatively fair analogy to me.  If you left a loaded gun 
around a responsible adult who had no idea what a gun was (much less a
loaded gun) and told the adult that he may use anything but to be sure
not to touch the gun, would he be responsible for the decision to touch
the gun?

Remember, Mike, the "original sin" was in deciding to disobey God.
The consequence of knowing good and evil is only an effect of sin.

Is God in any way responsible for the adult's decision to touch the gun?

Collis

    I think it could be argued that Adam and Eve - Adam especially -
    had a very close relationship with God.  Doesn't the Bible 
    describe God as talking (literally?) with Adam and Eve
    about what they could and could not do?
    
    In their instance, I don't think they needed faith.  I mean,
    if they were able to talk face to face with God himself.....if
    they *realized* they were the first two people on earth....well,
    need I say more?
    
    In any case, I have to agree with the previous noter about being
    a bit uncomfortable with the whole idea of a good and loving and
    all powerful God creating a race of people with intelligence and
    free will, creating other powerful beings with free will, one of
    whom turned evil and is now allowed to "tempt" the people, and then 
    stepping back and letting the chips fall where they may.  Well, almost
    stepping back.  He does leave elaborate rules and regulations one
    must follow in order to avoid the evil being and get to the afterlife 
    in once piece.
    
    Odd concept to my way of thinking.
    
    /Greg

      Re.38
    
       Collis:

             Without knowledge  of good and evil I am not sure the
          idea of disobedience is a valid concept. 
             I do not believe that a person without knowledge of
         good and evil is a responsible adult. Neither does our
         legal system for that matter. As a matter of fact lack of knowledge
         of good and evil is part of the legal definition of insanity.
             Is is the act of "a loving father" to leave a loaded gun
         around someone who meets the legal definition of insanity ?
              
                                                               Mike
             

Mike,

You are essentially raising the issue of whether or not God is a good
and loving God.  I think the best way to answer this question is to
look at the full revelation of God.  What you are doing is to look at
one little snippet where information is found to be lacking (this
information including the critical information of exactly what Adam
and Eve knew about "trust" and about "obedience" before they had
obtained the knowledge of "good and evil") and assuming (arguing) that
this means that Adam and Eve were not fit to be obedient to God's
revealed will.

You may, if you like, ignore the rest of the revelation of God on this
issue (which includes, but certainly is not limited to, the Bible).  But
I think the point has already been made that, even in this section of
the Bible, there is reasonable doubt that God acted in any way unfairly.
If you wish to condemn God despite this, that is your God-given privilege.

Collis

  Collis:
    
      Re.41

           I think the issue of whether God if good and loving is
        an important one don't you ?  That is if one accepts the 
        anthropomorphic concept of God in the Western tradition.
           As for focusing on one little snippet, I must disagree.
        For these last few replies your are correct, however the
        full revelation you speak of is inconsistent with what you
        claim for it. 
           It is not this one instance, there are stories of God ordered
        genocide in which innocents are slaughtered, there is what God is
        supposed have done to Job which to put it mildly is not very nice.
        God hardens the Pharaoh's heart and then  at one point kills all
        the first born sons even though is God forcing the Pharaoh to act
        as he did. No, Collis, not a single snippet, but a consistent
        pattern of cruelty and brutality repeated over and over again.
            In light of this one has to make some choices; simply choose
        to rationalize the whole thing; accept the whole story warts and 
        all. One could accept God and reject portions of the Bible as 
        inconsistent with the spiritual experiences of their lives. A person
        could be uncertain of the whole thing and be agnostic or be
        conclude this could not be true and become an atheist. Still others
        will simply search out new path, find themselves a new mythology to
        embrace and live.
             A friend of mine, a very observant Jew, is always questioning
        and judging God. He says God expects us to be moral and philosophi-   
        cally rigorous in our approach to God. He claims God does not like 
        intellectual slovenliness. Maybe he is right, maybe God expect some 
        degree of disagreement from people. I don't know.
             When I read the record contained in the Bible there things
        that are quite upsetting. Maybe we are supposed to be upset and
        not accept them as the acts of a loving God. 
             I notice when I really push on some of these issues, you 
        step around them, change the subject. So now I am left with with
        the question, are conservative Christians being morally and 
        philosophically rigorous in their approach to God, should
        they be ?

                                                               Mike
                

Re:  33.42

  >For these last few replies your are correct, however the
  >full revelation you speak of is inconsistent with what you
  >claim for it. 

  >It is not this one instance, there are stories of God ordered
  >genocide in which innocents are slaughtered,

There are no innocent, except Jesus Christ.  At least, this is what
God has revealed in the Bible.

  >there is what God is supposed have done to Job which to put it mildly is 
  >not very nice

You mean what Satan did?  You are quite right - this was not very nice.

  >God hardens the Pharaoh's heart and then  at one point kills all
  >the first born sons even though is God forcing the Pharaoh to act
  >as he did.

I agree (although some do not) that God did indeed harden Pharoah's
heart.  Again, there was no one innocent.

  >No, Collis, not a single snippet, but a consistent pattern of cruelty 
  >and brutality repeated over and over again.

If you insist on judging God by your standards, you can indeed find
him cruel and brutal.  By God's own standards (as revealed in the Bible),
he is neither cruel or brutal but rather loving, long-suffering and
devoted to the welfare of us.

  >When I read the record contained in the Bible there things that are 
  >quite upsetting. Maybe we are supposed to be upset and not accept them 
  >as the acts of a loving God.

Actually, God would prefer that you accept His standards are righteousness
instead of determining your own through your own experiences, feelings,
thoughts, etc.  If you did that, you would not have the problem of
thinking that God acted unrighteously.

  >I notice when I really push on some of these issues, you 
  >step around them, change the subject. So now I am left with with
  >the question, are conservative Christians being morally and 
  >philosophically rigorous in their approach to God, should
  >they be ?

I have answered this question many times in the past, bluntly and fully.
I'm not sure where you think I have stepped around this issue.  It is
clear to me that you totally disagree with the answer I give, but that
does not mean that I did not fully and forthrightly address the issue,
does it?

Collis

    
    A few weeks ago I was lying in bed and asking for assistance with
    my own healing process.  I was doing a bit of a visualization tour
    of my body and then asked for the following....that my mind and my
    heart and my will and my body be healed.
    
    At that moment I remembered that I recently read in a series of books,
    that God is presented as four parts, not three as traditional Christian
    thought holds.  These parts are Spirit (Mind), Heart, Will and Body.
    Then I realized that these translate to the zodiacal signs of the
    Fixed Cross - Spirit/Mind (Aquarius) - Heart (Leo) - Will (Scorpio)
    and Body (Taurus).  And *then* I remembered that these four signs
    are depicted in the Tarot, *and* are referenced in the Bible in a
    couple of places.
    
    I'm not sure what it means, but I'm tucking this one away so it can
    ferment a bit!
    
    I would also like to ask for pointers to the places in the Bible 
    where these four aspects are mentioned.
    
    Thanks,
    Carole
    Carole

    Re: .44
    
    I know what you're talking about, Carole.  Will get back to you on
    this.
    
    A hug x 4,
    Richard

    
    Ok...thanks Richard!
    
    Hugs back to you,
    Carole

    Reference Jung for more information on the quaternity, a symbol for
    completeness.  
    
    More references to the quaternity:
    
    God was not in the (1) earthquake, (2) wind and (3) fire, but in the 
    (4) still, small voice (for Elijah).
    
    The writers of the four gospels are depicted as (I think) eagle, man,
    lion and bull, which I believe are also in part of Ezekiel's vision.
    
    The petitions of the Lord's prayer can be divided into 
    
    	Our Father who art in heaven
    	Hallowed be Thy Name
    	Thy Kingdom Come; Thy Will be done In Earth as it is in heaven
    
    (addressing the Trinity)
    
    	Give us this day our Daily Bread
    	Forgive us our debts as we forgive our debtors
    	Lead us not into temptation
    	Deliver us from evil
    
    (addressing the FOUR aspects of earth-consciousness)
    
    These latter four are aligned with the Greek four elements 
    
    	Earth
    	Fire
    	Water
    	Air
    
    ... respectively, as well as the four lower chakras ...
    
    	Gonads 
    	Adrenals
    	Water (Leydig)
    	Heart (Thymus)
    
    Finally, I believe the four corners of the earth are mentioned in
    Revelation, as well as the new city of Jerusalem, which is square.
    
    Some of the ancients believed that all the numbers were deities.  In
    fact, the Shema (Hear O Israel, the Lord Thy God is ONE) can be
    understood in that light.
    
    DR

    RE: .47 DR
    
    >The writers of the four gospels are depicted as (I think) eagle, man,
    >lion and bull, which I believe are also in part of Ezekiel's vision.
    
    
    Right.  Eagle (Scorpio), Man (Aquarius), Lion (Leo) and Bull (Taurus).
    Still looking forward to finding out the passages in the Bible where
    these are mentioned.
    
    Carole

The four usually are depicted on The World card of almost
every Tarot deck I've ever seen.

FWIW
Nanci

    Carole,
    
    	One of the verses is Ezekiel 1:10.  I seem to recollect these
    are repeated elsewhere.  Still looking.
    
    Richard

    re:  .50
    
    See Revelation 4:7
    
    

    Carole,
    
    Here are the verses that include imagery of the heads of a human, a bull,
    a lion, and an eagle:
    
    Ezekiel 1.10
    Ezekiel 10.14
    Revelation 4.7
    
    You might also check out Daniel 7:1-14.  Three of the four images are
    present.  Only the bovine image is missing.
    
    Quadrilateral hugs,
    Richard
    
    Re: 33.51  Thanks!

    
    Thanks for the pointers everyone!
    
    Hugs to all,
    Carole

    MY OPINION ON GOD AND "WHO" GOD "IS" IS QUITE SIMPLE ACTUALLY, GOD IS
    FOUND IN THE BIBLE. AS THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD AS HE SPEAKS OF 
    HIMSELF. WHAT GREATER REFERENCE (OTHER THAN MUNDANE OPINION) IS THERE
    TO THE TRUTH ABOUT 'WHO IS GOD', ETC., THAN TO GO DIRECTLY TO THE BIBLE
    AND SEE WHAT GOD HIMSELF SAYS ABOUT WHO HE IS. AND HIS PLAN FOR HIS
    CREATION.

    .54
    
    Please don't use all capital letters, it is considered to be
    'shouting' in notes.
    
    Further, I would be really surprised if there is anyone in this
    conferece who was unaware of the Bible and what is says about
    the nature of God.
    
    Please don't presume.
    
    Bonnie

back when i was studying the philosophy of religion, we read
and discussed St. Anselm's proof for God's existence. 

actually the argument is based on what the good saint considers
to be an attribute of God's...existence. briefly the proof goes:

  God is something of which we can conceive nothing greater than.

  Being is greater than not-being.

therefore

  God exists.

...to put it another way,

since non-existence is less perfect than existence, and God is that
which most perfect, God must have the quality of existence if God has
the quality of perfection.



peter

    Then again, there was Immanuel Kant's rebuttal to Anselm's Ontological
    proof, which was that existence is not a predicate.
    
    -- Mike

    so Mike,
    
    are you then maintaining that God does NOT exist? or just that you
    don't agree with the Scholastics?
    
    ....
    
    i should add that i put in St. Anselm's rationale because i find it
    beautiful not because i think it's logically consistent or correct.
    i was very well schooled in all branches of Philosophy including Kant,
    Russell and Wittgenstein.
    
    peter

    No, Peter, I am not saying that that God doesn't exist.  I should point
    out that Kant, as I recall, did believe in God; he just didn't accept
    Anselm's Ontological proof.  Of course, we can all conceive of things
    that don't exist.  The question is whether or not God, conceived to be
    the Ultimate reality, is an exception.  I don't know, some times the
    Ontological argument strikes me as nonsensical, and on other occasions
    I find myself drawn to an a priori concept of God myself.  So call me
    ambivalent.  :-)

    To me, all of the arguments for God's existence are rather interesting,
    although I think that their real value may be as statements of faith
    and understanding of God's attributes, rather than as proofs per se.  I
    kind of like Whitehead's version of the Teleological argument, for
    example, in which God is seen to be a necessary source of novelty and
    creativity in the world.

    -- Mike

    God is an elderly, or at any rate, middle-aged male, a stern fellow,
    patriarchal rather than paternal and a great believer in rules and
    regulations.
    
    He holds men strictly accountable for their actions. He has little
    apparent concern for the material well-being of the disadvantaged.
    
    He is politically connected, socially powerful and holds the mortgage
    on literally everything in the world.  God is difficult, God is
    unsentimental.
    
    It is very hard to get into God's heavenly country club.
    
    -- P.J. O'Rourke

    Re: .60
    
    Not my view of God.....is it yours ?
    
    Marc H.

    If one listened to some people who claim to preach in God's name, one
    could easily come to the same conclusion that P. J. O'Rourke did, as
    reported by Pat in .60.
    
    Mike

    Who are the "some people" that you listen to Mike?  If one is not to
    preach in God's name, then in whose name does one preach?
    
    P.J. O'Rourke is not a theologian but the White House correspondent for
    Rolling Stone magazine.  He is the author of, among other books,
    Holidays in Hell, and Give War a Chance.  You might call him a
    humorist.

    .60
    
    This would be humorous but for the fact that too many people hold that
    to be true  and use that belief to justify their treatment of their
    neighbors.
    
    Ro
    

    re: .63
    
    Certain terminally self-righteous folk I can think of.  No names,
    though, because they're private citizens.
    
    And I do know who Mr. O'Rourke is.  Like any good humorist, he can make
    comments that are at once pithy and funny.  
    
    Mike

    re: 33.64
    
    Who are the "too many people" who believe P.J. O'Rourke's statement to
    be true?

    Mr. Sweeny,
    
    The 'too many people' are any number of people I've seen treat others
    poorly, in the name of God.  If there was no truth to P.J. O'Rourke's
    statement, it wouldn't be satire then would it?  
    
    You are an interesting person, Patrick.  
    
    Ro
    

    What Flaherty said, Pat!  
    
    And yes, I am prejudiced against those who use their sense of
    self-righteous religious beliefs as justification to behave in 
    unkindly ways. 
    
    Mike

    Mike, do mean that you return unkindness with unkindness, and prejudice
    with prejudice?

    Pat, I'm human enough to admit that sometimes I do precisely that.  
    Which is to pay back people in similar coin, as it were.   I would like
    to think that I am big enough to consider the source and let most
    transgressions pass by unnoticed and un-avenged.  At least that is my
    goal.  As an imperfect human I frequently fall short of my goal,
    however.

    Besides, one of the nice things about not being a Christian is I am
    under no obligation to turn the other cheek, or not cast the first
    stone, and all that.  :-)
    
    Mike

In article <33.68-920723-111434@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (So, what does it all mean?) writes:
|>    
|>    And yes, I am prejudiced against those who use their sense of
|>    self-righteous religious beliefs as justification to behave in 
|>    unkindly ways. 
|>    
|>    Mike
|>
--

Mike,
	You unintentionally hit a nerve of mine. 8-)

	I don't want to be treated kindly, I want to be treated in a loving
way.  We treat animals with kindness (when we put them to sleep), we're
supposed to love people.  C.S. Lewis talks about this in The Problem of Pain
and it was a distinction that rang true.

	I'd agree with your statement if you replaced "unkindly" with
"unloving" ways.  One can be loving and unkind at the same time.  My
young kids certainly think I'm unkind when I don't let them gorge themselves
on as much candy as they want.  Love wants what is best for the person.

---
Paul		loptsn::ferwerda
Gordon			or
Loptson		[email protected]        
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    re: .71
    
    Okay, I will accept the substitution of the phrase "unloving ways" for 
    "unkindly".  The point remains the same.
    
    Thank you for your correction.
    
    Mike

    Interesting.  The word "kind" is derived from the same word as "kin"
    and "kindred."  In other words, treating someone kindly is, in theory,
    treating them like "kin."

    Of course, in a society where spousal and child abuse are wide spread
    and rampant, perhaps treating someone not like kin may be blessing.

    Peace,
    Richard

    reply to base note
    
    G_D's essential attribute is existence.
    
    His operative attribute is Power.
    
    When Moshe pleaded for the Children of Israel after the sin of the
    golden calf, G_D replied:
    
    	I will be merciful to those who I show mercy to
    	I will be favorable to those who I show favor to 
    
    G_D's justice is his Power in action. He can do anything He wants to.
    
    G_D's love is conditional, his Power is unconditional.
    
    

>    G_D's love is conditional, his Power is unconditional.

Maybe in Judaism.

In Christianity, God's love is unconditional.

In fact, in Christianity, God's nature is Love.

/john

    John, if God's love is unconditional, why does he damn people to
    everlasting hell-fire if they intentionally miss mass on Sunday?
    
    Mike

Haven't we been through this in this conference yet?

Heaven is the state of perfectly knowing and loving God.

Hell is the state of rejecting and hating God.

You end up where you choose to go.

    I don't know if this has been covered in this conference before, so,
    here goes.
    
    John, when I was a kid, we were informed by members of the clergy,
    nuns, that if one dies with a mortal sin on one's soul, one went
    straight to hell.  Then followed a rather lengthy list of mortal sins
    (which included such misdeeds as missing mass on Sunday, eating meat on
    Friday, as well as the more obvious ones, like stealing and committing
    murder, and so forth), followed immediately by a graphic description of
    what hell was like.  Scared the dickens outta me, let me tell you! 
    Which, I suspect, was the desired effect.  
    
    This is what members of the Catholic Clergy taught, and what was taught
    in the Baltimore Catechism.  When I arrived at the Seminary, I don't
    recall hearing anything substantively different.  Are you saying they
    were wrong, theologically speaking?
    
    Incidentally, you might find that, as simplistic a discussion as this
    might seem on the surface, it goes to the heart of why many people
    really have such a hard time with Catholicism, especially those who
    have fallen away from the faith. 
    
    Mike

    regarding the attributes of God: God's nature is love for us.

    "It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.  I have not
    come to call the righteous, but the sinners." Mk 2:17

    The holy sacrifice of the Mass is the expression of worship in accord
    with the commandment of God to keep the Lord's Day holy in the Roman
    Catholic faith.

    The Christian Church moved the Sabbath from the seventh to the first
    day as memorial of Jesus' resurrection Ac 20:7 (as the day to meet and
    break bread) and 1 Co 16:2 (as the day to give alms), more explicit
    discussion of this was written by St. Justin Martyr in the 2nd century.

    The Roman Catholic Church teaches that Catholics are obligated to
    join in the celebration of Mass on each Sunday.

    Participation in the Mass, reception of the sacraments, and so forth
    are not in their negation sin, but in their affirmation communion with
    the Church of all believers.

    Then willfully missing one's obligation to attend Sunday mass is no
    longer a mortal sin?
    
    Please, I really want to know.
    
    Thank you.
    
    Mike

    RE: .78
    
    Minor point Mike.....eating meat on Friday was/is a venial sin.
    If that helps :) :) :)
    
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 33.77 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| Heaven is the state of perfectly knowing and loving God.

	I agree John. But I think where we may disagree is how that
relationship is formed. There are many who don't think the relationship can
exist with God without thinking the Bible is 100% true, with no errors, etc. 
I believe it isn't the Bible that gives you your relationship with God, but 
your heart.

| Hell is the state of rejecting and hating God.

	Again, I agree.

| You end up where you choose to go.

	This I agree with the most. But there are some who will say that many
don't have a real relationship with God because they don't believe the Bible 
to be 100% true with no flaws, etc. Like I said, I believe it is in your heart 
that the relationship is. A perfect example of this would be if someone who
wasn't saved were about to die and they asked God to forgive their sins and 
take her/him to heaven, God would honor that request if the person's heart 
really had softened. No Bible involved, but the person would still be saved.



Glen

>    Minor point Mike.....eating meat on Friday was/is a venial sin.

In fact, Roman Catholics are becoming more and more like Anglicans.  Eating
meat on Fridays is no longer classified as sinful at all; however, the day is
still to be observed by "special acts of discipline and self-denial" for both
Roman and Anglican Catholics.  The above terminology is that of the Book of
Common Prayer.  Avoiding meat is an easy means of self-denial, possibly too
easy.  Replacing meat with fish is hardly denial these days.  Fish was
permitted because the Greek word for "fish" ("ichthus") is an acronym for
the Greek phrase "Jesus Christ, God's Son, Saviour."

I suspect your nuns were also misinformed about exactly how to classify
failure to observe the Sunday obligation.

Observance of the Catholic Faith should be guided by love, not by legalisms.
Out of this love should grow a natural desire to worship God every Sunday
in his Church.  The actual sin is failure to love the Lord your God with all
your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.  When that love is
strong, the Sunday obligation is not a chore, and attendance at Mass is
something to look forward to -- to possibly do not just on Sundays, but
whenever possible.

/john

    Back in for a bit (mostly at Marc's request to remain at least as a
    read-only).  There are several references in the last few notes to
    Sunday mass.  I have a question that has confused me for years, how
    come Roman Catholics are allowed to attend 'Sunday mass' on Saturday
    evenings at 5?  This is a recent change (early seventies, as I recall).
    
    Was it done just as a matter of convenience so more people would
    attend?  I really don't understand and am sincere in asking.
    
    Ro

    re:.83
    
    Thank you for your response, John.  I don't know if what the Church
    chose to teach its children back in the 50's was theologically correct
    or not.  I do know that Vatican Council recognized that fear was being
    used as a means to teach about the Church, and they further recognized
    that such methods were counter-productive.  The words you are using
    seem to reflect the new methods.  To its credit, the Church saw a
    problem and made positive steps to revise itself in that regard.
    
    thank you, for your patience.
    
    Mike

    Re: .84
    
    I remember that when we (family that I grew up in) could go to church
    on Sat. or Sunday, my father grumbled about it....he thought that 
    the church had adopted the Jewish tradition of worship!
    
    I really don't know the reason behind the change....I know that it
    occured when a lot of stores and people started to work on Sunday.
    
    Marc H.

Re:  33.82

  >There are many who don't think the relationship can with God without 
  >thinking the Bible is 100% true, with no errors, etc. 

Personally, I don't know (for sure) anyone who believes this.  It's
certainly not part of the "salvation doctrine" of any church I've
been involved in or am very familiar with.  Would you care to
provide some references to back up this claim?

Collis

| <<< Note 33.87 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" >>>

| >There are many who don't think the relationship can with God without
| >thinking the Bible is 100% true, with no errors, etc.

| Personally, I don't know (for sure) anyone who believes this.  It's
| certainly not part of the "salvation doctrine" of any church I've
| been involved in or am very familiar with.  Would you care to
| provide some references to back up this claim?

	Collis, it the GOLF:: file they have said this many times. They say the
relationship can't be real because you have nothing of accuracy to compare it
to. In other words it has been said how do you know it was God that helped you
do this or that without checking against the word of the Bible? How can you say
you love God if you don't believe His word? Without love there is no
relationship with God. Things like that.




Glen

    RE: anyone.....:-)
    
    			Does the Catholic Church still advocate praying to
    "Icons"?  And it is my understanding that this word (in the Greek)
    means 'idol'.  
    
    Dave

>Does the Catholic Church still advocate praying to "Icons"?

The Catholic Church has _NEVER_ advocated praying to icons.

    Catholics and the Eastern Orthodox do not worship icons (the word means
    images).  The repetition of this is an example of anti-Catholic and
    anti-Orthodox bigotry.

    Just as others do not worship the Bible, they worship its divine
    author, Catholics and Eastern Orthodox worship Christ.

    Just of others keep the picture of a loved one on a desk as work, that
    person doesn't confuse the picture with the person it represents.

    For some time in the Eastern Roman Empire, the emperors destroyed all
    icons.  The restoration of the icons around 786 AD is celebrated in
    the Eastern Church.

Re:  33.88

       >>There are many who don't think the relationship can with God without
       >>thinking the Bible is 100% true, with no errors, etc.

    >>Personally, I don't know (for sure) anyone who believes this.  

  >Collis, in the GOLF:: file they have said this many times.

Fine.  I'll accept just one person.  Name the person.  Or find the
quote.  Please be specific.  Thank you.

Collis

    
    Yes Glen, please find the quote and I'll be duly impressed.
    
    thanks!
    jeff

| <<< Note 33.93 by FATBOY::BENSON >>>


| Yes Glen, please find the quote and I'll be duly impressed.

	Jeff, I won't cross post anything in here as I would have to have the
authors permission. But, go into GOLF:: and look at 40.266 and 40.294 to name 2
instances. The homosexual topic had many instances in it, but that has been
deleted. Also, if you go into the last version of GOLF:: under the, "Why
Believe the Bible" topic, you will find more instances there. There are many
topics where it has come up in there but these are the pointers that I know of
now, without looking up in GOLF::. I do have work ya know.....



Glen-who-hopes-this-has-helped-you

    I'm not a moderator here, but as a tangent, let me offer the following:
    
    Cross-posting is not prohibited by policy.  Notes in a non-restricted
    VAX Notes Conference can be freely circulated within Digital for any
    purpose.  Seeking the author's permission is an act of courtesy and
    something I do and expect others to do for my own notes.  In any case
    the original header indicating origin and authorship must be left in
    the text.

Re:  33

The question:

  Do you believe that someone can have a relationship with God without 
  thinking that the Bible is 100% true (i.e. no errors)?

The answer:

  Yes.

The responder:

  The author of one of the notes you referenced.  (I expect the
  author of the other note to respond soon with a similar answer;
  I'll let you know when I get a response.)

It appears, Glen, that there has been a disconnect between what
others have said and what you think they have said.  Perhaps you'd
like to reconsider your assertion?

Collis

	You know Collis, I am really not thinking this morning. It took me 4
readings of your note to know just what it was you were talking about. :-)
Anyhow, a simple yes answer to the question doesn't hold a lot of credance.
What kind of relationship does the author think anyone can have with God if the
Bible isn't believed to be 100% true without flaws? 



Glen


PS	Did you even read the notes?

Hi Glen,

Re:  33.97 

  >It took me 4 readings of your note to know just what it was you were 
  >talking about. :-)

Sorry.

  >Anyhow, a simple yes answer to the question doesn't hold a lot of credance.

I thought the question I asked was appropriately detailed and not
weighed down with irrelevancies.  If your problem is with the question,
I'm sorry I didn't come up with a better question.  If your problem
is with the answer, what am I supposed to say?  It answers the
question even if it is not the answer you either expected or hoped
for.

  >What kind of relationship does the author think anyone can have with God if 
  >the Bible isn't believed to be 100% true without flaws? 

No thank you, I'm not interested in going down tangents to define
this and that with you.  We will spend much energy getting nowhere.

I suggest that the simplest course is for you to recognize that communication
did not take place either because you did not hear and understand or because
they did not explain what they meant.  (You can guess which I think
happened. :-) )  Simply accept it as fact that this is not what others
believe (or have said) and then don't make claims that this is what others 
believe and say.  Thank you.

  >PS	Did you even read the notes?

Yes.  Since I certainly didn't read the claim in them that you did,
I decided it was best to go to the authors.

Signing off,

Collis

| <<< Note 33.98 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" >>>


| >It took me 4 readings of your note to know just what it was you were
| >talking about. :-)

| Sorry.

	Oh, not your fault! I was up late last night watching tv. 

| If your problem is with the answer, what am I supposed to say?  It answers the
| question even if it is not the answer you either expected or hoped
| for.

	As far as what I hoped for, I didn't hope for anything. 

| >What kind of relationship does the author think anyone can have with God if
| >the Bible isn't believed to be 100% true without flaws?

| No thank you, I'm not interested in going down tangents to define
| this and that with you.  We will spend much energy getting nowhere.

	But that's where it lies Collis. What kind of relationship. A simple
yes is nothing. It's like taking a baseball player with a .340 average and one
with a .250 average. Just in based on a simple stat of average one would say
the .340 hitter is the better one. But, when determining who is the better
hitter one needs more than just that one aspect. If Mr. .340 has 70 rbi's and
Mr. .250 has 120, I would say that Mr. .250 is the better hitter. It would be
like comparing Wade Boggs (his best year) to Jim Rice (his best year). Rice is
the better hitter, but Boggs would have the higher average. The total answer is
what is needed, not just one facet of it.

| I suggest that the simplest course is for you to recognize that communication
| did not take place either because you did not hear and understand or because
| they did not explain what they meant.  (You can guess which I think
| happened. :-) )  Simply accept it as fact that this is not what others
| believe (or have said) and then don't make claims that this is what others
| believe and say.  Thank you.

	Actually Collis, let's get all the facts. Then we'll see just what is
what.




Glen

    One more fact.
    
    The second response is in.  The answer is that the author believes
    that a person who is in a committed, loving relationship to God
    with the Holy Spirit indwelling will be led by the Spirit to
    accept the spiritual truth of 100% of Scripture.
    
    You can place that response wherever you like it on the spectrum.  :-)
    
    Collis

Hi Collis!



	Here are the words from one of the authors (judging by your responses I
would think it is author 2)


    To answer your question, I should first give you my understanding of
    what it means to have a relationship with God.  As you know, there
    are many levels of relationships, from passing to casual to
    friendship to the level of commitment found in a marriage.  There are
    also different kinds of relationships, that is, a master/slave or
    teacher/pupil relationship tends to be different from a relationship
    among, say, fellow students.  A relationship with God could exist on
    any of those levels, but the one that I have found in Scripture that
    most closely describes what He considers a relationship to be is a
    marriage, with Christ as the husband and us as the bride.  In fact, it
    even goes deeper than that, because while we are one flesh with our
    spouse, those who have received the Holy Spirit are one spirit with
    God; the former is a temporal relationship, and the latter is an
    eternal one.

Collis, can you see a difference in the level of relationships others feel they
can have with God? Where a simple yes doesn't suffice in this instance?

    Having said that, it's my understanding, observation, and conviction,
    that someone who is in a deep, committed, selfless, and sacrificial
    relationship like that with God and who has received the Holy Spirit,
    Who leads us into all Truth, will be led to believe that the Bible is
    in fact 100% true and contains no spiritual errors.  And with that
    comes the willingness to accept that anything we see as contradictions
    or errors are in fact things that we don't fully understand, and that
    in all cases, God is right, according to His Word as expressed in the
    Bible, and we are wrong.

Again, can you see that there is no yes and no answer? It goes much deeper than
that.



Glen

    Jesus taught us to address God as "father".  He taught us to pray to
    Our Father in Heaven.("After this manner therefore pray ye..." Matthew
    6:9)

    Marriage is based on love of equals.  In traditional Christian
    theology, the allegorical bride of Christ is the Church.

    It is the Church that is our mother and teacher.

    We are "slaves" only to the extent that we turn our hearts and minds
    way from God and give them up to desires to be fulfilled on Earth (or
    to Satan who is the personification of that).  Sin is oppression of the
    human spirit and the love of God and surrender to his will is
    liberation.

Re: .100 Collis

>    The second response is in.  The answer is that the author believes
>    that a person who is in a committed, loving relationship to God
>    with the Holy Spirit indwelling will be led by the Spirit to
>    accept the spiritual truth of 100% of Scripture.
>    
>    You can place that response wherever you like it on the spectrum.  :-)
    
It would seem to follow that, according to this author, a person who
doesn't accept the spiritual truth of 100% of Scripture must not be in a
committed, loving relationship to God with the Holy Spirit indwelling.

				-- Bob

| <<< Note 33.100 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" >>>



| You can place that response wherever you like it on the spectrum.  :-)

	Collis, I think most have put it into the spectrum if they read the
authors response that I posted. What spectrum do you place it in now?



Glen

Re:  33.101

Hi Glen,

You cajoled me into one more response.  :-)


  >Collis, can you see a difference in the level of relationships others 
  >feel they can have with God? 

  >Again, can you see that there is no yes and no answer? It goes much 
  >deeper than that.

To use your words, can you see that you should not be making black
and white claims that a lot of Bible-believing Christians believe
that you must accept a 100% inerrant Bible in order to be saved?
It goes much deeper than that.

Collis

| <<< Note 33.105 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "All peoples on earth will be blessed through you" >>>



| To use your words, can you see that you should not be making black
| and white claims that a lot of Bible-believing Christians believe
| that you must accept a 100% inerrant Bible in order to be saved?
| It goes much deeper than that.


	Er Collis, I was basing my reply to what those of GOLF:: wrote. Nothing
else. As far as black and white claims, I merely pointed where one could go to
get the information needed. I even posted an entire message to me describing
what was involved. Not just a small part of it, but the entire thing. Yes, it
is more than a yes/no answer. I also posted it as such....




Glen

    Does God learn?

    This question came to my mind last night.  We were discussing the
    Christmas story and asking what it means for God to be born.  One of my
    thoughts was that it was a means of experiencing what it is to be
    human.  But to experience something is to learn what it's like, so does
    that mean that God can learn?

    
    Yes, I believe so.  I think the whole idea of creation is God's Play
    (or Lila).  In the end, I believe all is Known, yet the process to get
    there is where the learning of the details, along with the greatest
    insights, can take place.
    
    In creating creation, God 'spun off' a part of God's Self, and gave
    some free will (such as us humans) to see what they would do.    
    
    If there's no mirror, it's hard to see your own nature.  But when you
    put up a mirror (or if you have children (;^), you come to see yourself
    reflected in them very quickly, and then one learns more about one's
    self than if if one was simply alone.
    
    And every once in a while, God comes to visit in a human body to check
    up on the progress and to assist in pointing us in the right direction.
                                                                   
    Cindy

    I disagree.  God's Word says He is omnipotent, omnipresent, and
    omniscient.
    
    Mike

    
    And therefore God is all the better student to actually pay attention 
    and learn, rather than falling asleep!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

re .109

	Mike,

	Does this mean that Jesus is not Almighty God?, for  
	Scripture tell us that Jesus "learned obedience from 
	the things he suffered." Hebrews 5:8. Other texts show
	us that Jesus has limited knowledge, take Revelation 1:1
	for example. Could the Architect of the universe have 
	limited knowledge?.

	Phil.

    God's "Word"  (assuming you are refering to the Bible) says that God
    walked through the garden of Eden calling out to Adam and Eve "Where
    are you".  That doesn't sound like an Omniscient, Omnipowerful god 
    represented in that scene.

   Z    God's "Word"  (assuming you are refering to the Bible) says that God
   Z    walked through the garden of Eden calling out to Adam and Eve" Where
   Z    are you".  That doesn't sound like an Omniscient, Omnipowerful god 
   Z    represented in that scene.
    
    Patricia, not only did God know exactly where they were hiding, I
    believe God's admonishing them not to eat of the fruit was not a
    warning but a prophecy.  
    
    "For the day you eat of the fruit of the tree, you shall surely die."
    
    This wasn't a warning.
    
    -Jack

    Interesting concept, God the prophet; God speaking for God; God
    speaking God's word.
    
    Richard
    

    I know...this particular concept of the fruit of the tree incident was
    never brought up to me until a few months ago.  Some believe it was a
    warning while others believe it was a prophecy.  We can ask when we get
    there.
    
    

    "For the day you eat of the fruit of the tree, you shall surely die."
    
    
    Waring or prophesy, it certainly was false!  They both lived a full
    life even after eating of the forbidden fruit.  What happened on the
    day that they ate of the fruit was that they got kicked out of the
    garden!
    
    
    
    What do you think would have happened if they ate of the tree of life
    rather than of the tree of knowledge?
    
                                       Patricia
    
     

  ZZZ      Warning or prophesy, it certainly was false! 
    
    God was speaking of a Spiritual death here.  Also, they eventually did
    die physically.  But fellowship with God ended when they ate of the
    tree.
    
    -Jack

re: .111

    Phil,
    
>	Does this mean that Jesus is not Almighty God?, for  
    
    I think you know the answer to this question.  God's Word supplies
    enough information to figure this out.  The problem occurs when we take
    verses out of context instead of taking the entire Bible into context. 
    You are bound to contradictions when you pick & choose.  When you take
    the entire Bible into context, it not only resolves most
    contradictions, but makes us realize that those that remain are not
    left for us to resolve.  God reveals them to us when appropriate.  We
    should not be building doctrine on complicated or vague passages.
    
>	Scripture tell us that Jesus "learned obedience from 
>	the things he suffered." Hebrews 5:8. Other texts show
    
    What is obedience?  What this passage is saying is that Christ
    experienced obedience by obeying His Word.  He didn't learn anything
    that He didn't already know, but His human side experienced much. 
    I think it might also be in the book of Hebrews that talks about His
    compassion for us after experiencing the trials we go through.
    
    There is a certain quality involved when one has performed an action
    that you know is required - a quality that is lacking when there is
    only a readiness to act.  Innocence differs from virtue.
    
>	us that Jesus has limited knowledge, take Revelation 1:1
>	for example. Could the Architect of the universe have 
>	limited knowledge?
    
    No He couldn't, for Colossians 1:13-20 says the Creator is Jesus
    Christ.  He never displayed limited knowledge to us in His Word.
    In this example and in some examples by Paul, Christ's relationship to
    the Father is being discussed in a historical context and not an
    absolute one.
    
    The content of the book comes from its author, Jesus Christ.  Yet even
    Christ is not the final author but a mediator, for He receives the
    revelation from God the Father.  The Father reveals Himself and His
    will in, and by, His Son.
    
    Mike

>    What do you think would have happened if they ate of the tree of life
>    rather than of the tree of knowledge?
    
    Then God wouldn't have had to come in the flesh to atone for our sins. 
    Read the end of Genesis 3 and you'll see that cherubim had to guard the
    tree of life as they left the garden.  If they ate from that tree in a
    fallen state, we would've been spiritually lost forever with no chance
    for salvation.  God's grace was even evident then at their eviction.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I guess that's one interpretation.

.117

    God was speaking of a Spiritual death here.  Also, they eventually did
    die physically.  But fellowship with God ended when they ate of the
    tree.

Jack, on what do you base this assertion? 

So Adam and Eve are in hell?
--------------------------------
.119
    Then God wouldn't have had to come in the flesh to atone for our sins. 
    Read the end of Genesis 3 and you'll see that cherubim had to guard the
    tree of life as they left the garden.  If they ate from that tree in a
    fallen state, we would've been spiritually lost forever with no chance
    for salvation.  God's grace was even evident then at their eviction.

God's grace? Basically he left a dangerous object (the tree of 
knowledge, or TOK) around where children could find it, and they did 
(children *do* that, it's how they are made). 
He then guarded the other dangerous object (the tree of life, or TOL) as 
they left? Why didn't he put a guard on the TOK in the first place? 

The whole situation is so contrived as to defy logic.

Steve

    The Adam and Eve myth has its parallel in the Gilgamesh myth where the
    human hero goes off in search of immortality.  The human, as did Adam
    and Eve came very close to being able to eat of the plant which would
    have given the human immortality, and narrowly missed the opportunity. 
    In the Gilgamesh Epic, the human given the plant, put it down
    momentarily to wash in a small pool before eating, and had a snake come
    alone and eat up the plant that would have given immortality to the
    human.
    
    Adam and Eve, would have become immortal (according to the myth anyway)
    if they ate of the tree of life.  In a drawn out story also involving a
    snake, Adam and Eve narrowly miss the opportunity to become immortal. 
    God Expells them from the garden and has the cherubin guarding the
    entrance to keep humans from becoming like gods.
    
    It is a myth very similiar to the Sumerian/Babylonian myth.  Knowledge
    and Immortality are the two attributes that gods have and humans don't.
    
    Adam and Eve got half way there with knowledge.  THe potential for
    human immortality is never totally lost though.  Just guarded more
    closely by the God's cheribum.
    
                                 Patricia

re .113

Jack,

Well if this wasn't a warning but prophecy then this
would paint God as being a cruel parent. Why?, well
would you as a loving parent give your children a
wonderful project (Genesis 1:28), knowing full well 
that they were doomed to failure. What loving parent
would do that?, especially seeing failure would mean
the childrens lives. It also mean, that creating Adam
& Eve God set in motion all the terrible things that	
humans suffer today. The scriptures are very clear
that the blame rests with the first human couple and
not God (compare Deuteronomy 32:4,5).

What do you mean by a spiritual death?.

The *command* NOT to eat of the fruit was made to the
living soul Adam himself. It was the person who began
to die as soon as he ate of it's fruit. Jehovah was 
Adam's source of life, when they drew away from that 
source they began to die. Statues are made to be kept, 
therefore it would seem illogical for God to create 
someone knowing full well that they would break his 
commandments (compare 1 John 5:3) It is false reasoning 
that the law is there to be broken.  

Though God has the ability to foresee the future, from
a bibilical perspective he is shown to be selective.
More on this in my next reply to Patricia.

Phil.

re .112

Patricia,


I don't think that one can assume that God didn't know
where Adam & Eve where located by saying "Where are you?".
One has to remember that up to this point Adam had enjoyed
fellowship with God. God acted as Adam's father showing
him around the garden teaching him new things. It must
have been a close father and son relationship with trust
from both parties. My take on what happened here, was this
would have been the first time ever that Adam had hidden 
from his father, and like a loving father God was giving
Adam the opportunity to show himself and own up to what
had happened. Unfortunately, instead of being sorry Adam 
blamed God for his own disobedience, "The woman you gavest 
to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate" 
(Genesis 3:12 RSV) Eve was deceived but Adam willfully 
disobeyed.

With Omniscience from a biblical standpoint, one has to be
aware of 3 factors. 

1) God is shown to have the ability to foresee and foreordain. 

2) Humans are free moral agents.

3) God upholds his standards and has fine quailities such 
   as justice, the superlative one being love.

All 3 factors have to be taken into consideration when looking
at God as an all-knowing God. The Bible shows that he is 
selective in foreseeing things. For example, *all* have the
opportunity to repent, turn around and take the narrow road that
leads to life. He let's persons choose for themselves the road
to take either the broad or narrow road. God could look at
each individual and see how things will turn out but refrains
from doing so, hence there is great rejoicing in the heavens
one sinner repents.

As humans who have been made in God's image we should understand
about being selective. For example, we all have the ability
to read, but because of principle one will refrain from reading
another's personal diary. Unfortunately, man on the main doesn't
use godly qualities when it comes to his knowledge. For too a much
lesser degree man is knowledgeable than God, but what does he do 
with his knowledge?. He produce weapons of mass destruction, while 
these resources and his knoweldge could be better used in helping 
their fellowman many of which die from malnutrition eventhough
the earth produces enough food to feed everyone.

Fortunately, God is also selective when it comes to be all-powerful.
He has used it to create a wonderful planet, the sun emits just
the right amount of power for an abundance of life to exist on
this planet. God loves life, so he therefore tempers being 
all-powerful and all-knowing with his fine qualities such as love.

Phil.

Phil,

This still doesn't hang together very well from a logic standpoint, 
assuming the three attributes ascribed to God. (Omniscient, Omnipotent, 
all-loving). 

My understanding is that you believe that God is omniscient if he desires, 
but never chooses to know the future for any given individual. I can then 
accept the premise of free-will and the choice to sin. What I cannot make 
work in the case of Adam and Eve, however, is God's decision to make the 
sin of Adam and Eve apply to all future generations of humans, forever. 
This visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons is not the act of an 
all-loving omnipotent being. Why doesn't each individual get to stand 
alone, i.e. be judged on their own merits rather than starting out with 
three strikes against? 

On a side note, if Adam and Eve had avoided temptation, but one of their 
progeny (or several generations downstream if you prefer) had not, would 
Adam and Eve be tainted with that sin?

Steve

re .125

Steve,

;This visiting the sins of the fathers upon the sons is not the act of an 
;all-loving omnipotent being. Why doesn't each individual get to stand 
;alone, i.e. be judged on their own merits rather than starting out with 
;three strikes against? 


One has to understand, that it is Adam who brought sin into the world.
Romans 5:12 RSV "Therefore the sin came into the world through
one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men
because all men sinned-". The best way I could explain it, is that
Adam corrupted himself and corruption was then passed on to his
offspring. Rather like a baker's tin that has been dented, prior
to this it would produce a perfect loaf but from now on this tin
will no longer produce one. Adam being corrupted couldn't produce 
offspring that weren't.

Now, with this in the mind, the Psalmist wrote "Not one of them can
by any means redeem even a brother, nor give to God a ransom for him;
(for the redemption price of their soul is so precious that it ceased
to time indefinite) that he should live forever and not see the pit"
Psalms 49:7-9

Now why doesn't an all-loving God forgive everyone's sins?. Well he
also is a God of justice, when he said Adam would die he meant it.
A provision for salvation for his offspring had to be found, and it 
would be God who would provide it. As you probabally know this was 
the Messiah who would redeem mankind, that is Adam's offspring. This 
one would "give his life a ransom for many." Matthew 20:28b RSV In 
otherwords buy back what Adam had thrown away. Through this provision 
of the ransom sacrifice, God shows loves as well as fulfilling his 
own sense of justice. Jesus as the second Adam, proved there was 
nothing wrong in Adam for as a perfect human he kept his integrity 
to God even to death he was without blemish (compare 1 Peter 2:22).
Disobedience was willfull on Adam's, in contrast Jesus chose to
do God's will.

Btw the Bible promises a new heavens and a new earth (2 Peter 3:13),
that is a heavenly government and a new soceity for mankind here
on earth. In these the scriptures says "righteousness is to dwell",
many billions will be resurrected from the dead under Jesus' direction
and will be given another chance under the right conditions (compare
Acts 24:15), ie not into a soceity that is alienated from God. These
ones will be judged on their life during Christ's thousand year reign,
(Revelation 20:11-13) and not that of their previous life course for
they would have already paid the price sins pays that is death (Romans
6:23). So many people will be given a second chance, however it is
up to God whom he chooses to resurrect (thinking of persons such
as Hitler).

;On a side note, if Adam and Eve had avoided temptation, but one of their 
;progeny (or several generations downstream if you prefer) had not, would 
;Adam and Eve be tainted with that sin?

No, they wouldn't have been tainted the effects of sin are
inherited as humans we need to be set free (this is discussed
in another topic). One of the things they may have been able 
to do was perhaps to cover this sin, or through direction from 
God have made a way out for the sinners offspring. Eve was deceived, 
and if Adam had loved God more than his wife, he as family head he 
may been able to cover the sin of his wife. Instead, he sided with 
her and was therefore willfully disobedient to God.

Phil.

	Re: .124 Phil Yerkess

	> Fortunately, God is also selective when it comes to be all-powerful.
	> He has used it to create a wonderful planet, the sun emits just
	> the right amount of power for an abundance of life to exist on
	> this planet. God loves life, so he therefore tempers being 
	> all-powerful and all-knowing with his fine qualities such as love.

	> Phil.

	He also created x-trillion planets which do not receive the right
	amount of energy to sustain an abundance (or any) life from their
	mother suns.

	Can you, or anyone tell me why?
	
	> God loves life...

	But seems to have been extraordinarily cautious in sowing it. If I
	were to do a statistical calculation, I would probably deduce that
	God hated life; hence its sparsity, its brevity, its suffering.

	Greetings, Derek.

re .127

;He also created x-trillion planets which do not receive the right
;amount of energy to sustain an abundance (or any) life from their
;mother suns.

;	Can you, or anyone tell me why?

Steve,

As far as I know, one can only assume that x-trillion planets exist,
seeing that we know x-trillion stars exist. If there are many other
solar systems then perhaps God has a grand purpose in store for them.
Perhaps, they will at sometime hold life.

> God loves life...

;But seems to have been extraordinarily cautious in sowing it. If I
;were to do a statistical calculation, I would probably deduce that
;God hated life; hence its sparsity, its brevity, its suffering.

We live but 70-80 years, so to us it may seem that God is slow. But
if one had everlasting life, then 70-80 years in comparison would be 
just a second. One thing, God could do is do everything for his
creation, but as a loving parent he allows his creation to enjoy
the work of their hands. He doesn't want his creation to be like 
spoilt children, but wants them to enjoy fullfilling lives. Just
think how the first human couple would have felt if they had succeeded
in turning this planet into a paradise by extending the the borders
of the garden of Eden?. A paradise like garden filled with peace
loving people, what a showcase that would be. The message from the 
Bible is that he hasn't allowed the disobedience of the first human 
couple to deter him from his original purpose of having a paradise 
earth (Genesis 1:28,Isaiah 55:11). Adam & Eve's offspring will be 
brought to perfection under Christ's Millenial rule, thus Jesus will 
have brought to nothing Satan's work. Revelation 21:3,4 RSV reads 
"Behold the dwelling of God is with men. He will dwell with them, 
and they shall be his people, and God himself will be with them; 
he will wipe away every tear from their eyes, and death will be no 
more, neither shall there be mourning nor crying nor pain any more, 
for the former things have passed away." 

I would deduce myself that it was *mankind* in general that hated
life. Without doubt it is because of mankinds greed that life
becomes sparse. Not long ago (perhaps just 1-2 centuries ago), the 
plains and oceans were teaming with an abundance and great variety 
of life. Now different life forms become extinct on a daily, for
example in the rain forrests life forms are being killed off before
man has been able to get to know them. Fortunately, God foresaw this
event and prophesied in Revelation 11:18b RSV that heavenly give 
thanks to God "for destroying the destroyers of the earth.". So the 
time that God will intercede in mankinds affairs will be soon, that 
is before man himself actually destroys the earth. What God is 
looking for is those who sigh over the things we see today in this 
system and would like to live in harmony with God's new world or 
new soceity. If he introduced now, how many would be ready for it?.
Especially, those who continue to learn war (compare Isaiah 2:2-4).

Phil.

.126

One has to understand, that it is Adam who brought sin into the world.
Romans 5:12 RSV "Therefore the sin came into the world through
one man and death through sin, and so death spread to all men
because all men sinned-". The best way I could explain it, is that
Adam corrupted himself and corruption was then passed on to his
offspring. Rather like a baker's tin that has been dented, prior
to this it would produce a perfect loaf but from now on this tin
will no longer produce one. Adam being corrupted couldn't produce 
offspring that weren't.

	But this was God's show. The sin only propagates to new generations 
	*if* God wants it too. He could just as easily do it the other way
	but chose not to. Again, this does not seem the act of a loving (or
	even particularly reasonable) God to me.

Now why doesn't an all-loving God forgive everyone's sins?. 

	Wrong question. Again it is why would an all-loving God tar me with
	the brush of someone else? Do I also stand judgement for the sins of
	Hitler? Why is it only Adam?

A provision for salvation for his offspring had to be found, and it 
would be God who would provide it. 

	Why? What is the rationale behind holding everyone guilty for the sin
	of one? Does this truly seem rational to you? Until I can get by this
	the rest of the argument (Jesus' redemption, etc.) is meaningless. 
	BTW, I understand that the Jews do not recognize Jesus' sacrifice, are
	they then not redeemed, or do I have the premise wrong?

Acts 24:15), ie not into a soceity that is alienated from God. These
ones will be judged on their life during Christ's thousand year reign,
(Revelation 20:11-13) and not that of their previous life course for
they would have already paid the price sins pays that is death (Romans
6:23). So many people will be given a second chance, however it is
up to God whom he chooses to resurrect (thinking of persons such
as Hitler).

	I have never seen this promise before, but it at least makes sense in 
	this context. I would obviously need to re-evaluate if I awakened 
	after death into the 1000 year reign, and had actual evidence that I
	could see.

	P.S. .127 was actually written by Derek, not I.

	Steve

    Steve:
    
ZZ    But this was God's show. The sin only propagates to new
ZZ    generations *if* God wants it too. He could just as easily do it the other
ZZ    way but chose not to. Again, this does not seem the act of a loving
ZZ    (or even particularly reasonable) God to me.
    
    Unpopular but important precept.  God is love but love is NOT God.  The
    two are NOT synonomous, never were!  Consider the following:
    
    "The foolish shall not stand in my sight.  I hate all workers of
    iniquity."  Psalm 5:5.
    
    "The Lord Tries the righteous: but the wicked and him that loves
     violence, His soul hates."  Psalm 11:5.
    
    "I have hated the congregation of evildoers; and will not sit with the
     wicked."  Psalm 26:5.
    
    "These six things does the Lord hate; yea seven are an abomination to
     Him.....A false witness that speaketh lies, and HE that soweth discord
     among the bretheren"  Proverbs 6: 16,19.
    
    Steve, do you really want to get into the sincere meat of the Word or
    do you want to have your ears tickled with the gospel of convenience??  
    (No need to answer, just think about it).
     
    God has two attributes to his divine nature, the attribute of Love and
    the attribute of Sovereignty and Holiness.  I liked your analogy of the
    tin, it fits well.  Through Adams sin, we have become corrupt and
    depraved.  This is hard for people to swallow because we as humans have
    this inert need to think of ourselves as good!  On the surface and by
    our standards, we can be good.  By the standards of a Holy God, we are
    depraved.  
    
    God and Love do NOT always go hand in hand.  It would be a mistruth to
    say so...from Satan in my opinion.
    
    -Jack

.130 Jack Martin

    tin, it fits well.  Through Adams sin, we have become corrupt and
    depraved.  This is hard for people to swallow because we as humans have
    this inert need to think of ourselves as good!  On the surface and by

Not claiming that God is all-loving does remove a basic contradiction in 
the normally given characteristics. However, my question still remains. Why 
did God choose to taint all of mankind with the mistake of one?

Steve

    Interesting point and I see what you are saying.  I believe the reason
    God allowed it this way was to illustrate to humankind that only God
    Himself can make one righteous, and that no matter how much we try on
    our own to make it right, we will always transgress against His
    holiness.  We are ALL whitewashed tombs and need the righteousness
    betsowed upon us.
    
    My only answer regarding the "whys" is so that God can be glorified.
    A simple answer to a tough question!
    
    -Jack

re .129

Steve & Derek,

I'm very sorry I got both of you mixed up.

Phil.

re .129

Steve,

;But this was God's show. The sin only propagates to new generations 
;*if* God wants it too. He could just as easily do it the other way
;but chose not to. Again, this does not seem the act of a loving (or
;even particularly reasonable) God to me.

Adam & Eve wanted the show to be their own, they wanted to be God
and say what was right and wrong for themselves. God allowed them to 
withdraw from his family, so that it could be shown what would happen
under such circumstances. He has allowed self rule, and over the years
different types of governments have been used, also there has been
enough time for man to develop his technology to a high degree. Does 
man have the ability to rule himself in such a way that all enjoy peace 
and security?. What does the evidence show?.

Doctors recognise that, what parents do can effect the lives of their
children. For example, they recommend that a pregnant woman does not
smoke.

Also, the choices that our forefathers make do effect our lives
today. At sometime in the past one of my forefather's was a farmer
who decided to move from Germany to the UK. Hence, I have been 
brought up in very a different culture. I could choose to move to 
Germany,but this would take alot of effort on my part to take on 
the German culture and feel part of this soceity. 

For many their religion was chosen by their forefathers.

Adam alienated himself from God's family, deciding to start his own
as it were. In turn, his offspring would be born outside God's family.
To get back they would need to turn around from the direction Adam
had put them in, and turn to God. For this reason Jesus emphasised
the importance of repentance in his preaching. 

It should be noted, that Satan is identified by Jesus as the "ruler 
of this world" (John 14:30). It is his show and that is why we see
his spirit is so prevalent and why peace & security is so difficult for 
man to achieve. In what is often referred to as the Lord's prayer,
Jesus tells his followers to pray for "Thy kingdom come, Thy will be 
done, On earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:10 RVS). Well God's 
will is not the prevalent spirit today, but it will come about when 
God's kingdom begins to rule over the earth bringing and end to the 
wicked (compare Psalms 37:9-11). Then it will be God's show.  

>Now why doesn't an all-loving God forgive everyone's sins?. 

;Wrong question. Again it is why would an all-loving God tar me with
;the brush of someone else? Do I also stand judgement for the sins of
;Hitler? Why is it only Adam?
  
From a biblical standpoint, all the people of the earth are descendants
of Adam and Eve. Hence, the inclination to sin was an inheritance to
all their offspring including Hitler. In a way the capacity to do evil
is in all of us, we need to recognise this and turn around and learn
to do things God's way and not Adam's. Conquer the evil with good if
you like, not allowing the spirit of this world to mould our personality.
By applying faith in Jesus and his ransom sacrifice one can be set free 
from this tar. It was not God who tarred people but Adam. If Adam had
made a different choice, then the inheritance for his children would
have been totally different.

>A provision for salvation for his offspring had to be found, and it 
>would be God who would provide it. 

;Why? What is the rationale behind holding everyone guilty for the sin
;of one? Does this truly seem rational to you? Until I can get by this
;the rest of the argument (Jesus' redemption, etc.) is meaningless. 
;BTW, I understand that the Jews do not recognize Jesus' sacrifice, are
;they then not redeemed, or do I have the premise wrong?

Ok, I'll to make a concise answer. Adam chose to start his *own* family
rejecting God as his authority or family head as it were. He was saying
we don't need God for ourselves or our offspring. Thus he chose for 
his offspring a life *alienated* from God. Being blemished like 
the "dented bakers tin", he passed on sinful inclination to his 
offspring. We cannot ignore the fact that we are born through the
procreation of our parents, from whom we inherit many of our 
characteristics. Part of the redemption is to put right our sinful 
inclination and reconcile righteous mankind to God's family.

God doesn't hold people guilty because of this inherited sin. People
die because they *have* inherited sin (Romans 6:23). Similarily, persons
who have contracted some death dealing virus don't die because God
finds them guilty of perhaps their immoral behaviour in which they
contracted the virus, rather they die because of the effects of that 
virus. If the virus is not eradicted through some sort of medical 
treatment then a patient will die. God's morals are promoted for it
is a safeguard from contracting many sexually transmitted diseases.

>Acts 24:15), ie not into a soceity that is alienated from God. These
>ones will be judged on their life during Christ's thousand year reign,
>(Revelation 20:11-13) and not that of their previous life course for
>they would have already paid the price sins pays that is death (Romans
>6:23). So many people will be given a second chance, however it is
>up to God whom he chooses to resurrect (thinking of persons such
>as Hitler).

;	I have never seen this promise before, but it at least makes sense in 
;	this context. I would obviously need to re-evaluate if I awakened 
;	after death into the 1000 year reign, and had actual evidence that I
;	could see.

I would like to reiterate that those resurrected no longer are bound by
inherited sin for they would have paid it's price. So in reality, God
is not holding them guilty for their sin (thinking of the hellfire
teaching) but actually giving them a second chance by resurrecting
them back to life under the right conditions. The Bible teaches that 
those who have died are conscious of nothing at all (Ecclesiastes 9:5,10). 
Unlike the popular teaching of the immortality of the soul, those who die 
go back to the dust. For those that have died they no longer suffer but 
will awaken as it were from unconscious into God's new system under 
Christ's millenial rule. A thrilling prospect.

BTW Steve, I feel that I should let you know that much of what I'm showing
you would be discounted by many who profess to be Christians, but it's
worth sharing as a different perspective.

Phil.

.132 Jack Martin

    My only answer regarding the "whys" is so that God can be glorified.
    A simple answer to a tough question!

This implies, then, (at least to me) that God set Adam and Eve up as an 
object lesson for eternity. Getting back to an earlier question, are they 
in hell?

Actually, Jack, you've removed many of the contradictions I see in 
Christianity when you pointed out that God is NOT all-loving. (Now there is 
an entire line of questioning for this also, but not for today :^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
.134 Phil Yerkess

Adam & Eve wanted the show to be their own, they wanted to be God
and say what was right and wrong for themselves. God allowed them to 
withdraw from his family, so that it could be shown what would happen
under such circumstances. He has allowed self rule, and over the years

	And that's fine, then punish (and make an example of) Adam and Eve.
	
Does man have the ability to rule himself in such a way that all enjoy 
peace and security?. What does the evidence show?.

	But this same evidence shows that God is also either not capable,
	or not particularly loving.

Also, the choices that our forefathers make do effect our lives
today. At sometime in the past one of my forefather's was a farmer

	Absolutely. The idea of sin being propagated to all of mankind 
	through the mistakes of Adam and Eve, however, is a different 
	proposition entirely, as we are dealing with an omnipotent being,         
        which means all bets are off as he can make the rules however he 
        chooses. The only conclusion I can reach is that God *chose* to 
	start us off as sinners to force us to worship him, which I can't
	see as anything other than the product of an enormous ego. 
        Actually, Phil, your earlier hypothesis that God chooses not to 
	be omnipotent when dealing with people would at least allow a more
	coherent explanation of this episode.

It should be noted, that Satan is identified by Jesus as the "ruler 
of this world" (John 14:30). It is his show and that is why we see
his spirit is so prevalent and why peace & security is so difficult for 
man to achieve. In what is often referred to as the Lord's prayer,

	Why, then, did God place us on a planet that he does not control?
	If this is true, then the Garden of Eden was really not the 
	paradise it was said to be.

done, On earth as it is in heaven." (Matthew 6:10 RVS). Well God's 
will is not the prevalent spirit today, but it will come about when 
God's kingdom begins to rule over the earth bringing and end to the 
wicked (compare Psalms 37:9-11). Then it will be God's show.  

	Why does God choose not to exert his control? What is he trying to
	prove?

from this tar. It was not God who tarred people but Adam. If Adam had
made a different choice, then the inheritance for his children would
have been totally different.

	Out of curiosity, let's say that Adam and Eve resisted temptation,
	but one of their great grandchildren did not. Then would only the
	descendants from that line have original sin, while all others 	
	were pure?

treatment then a patient will die. God's morals are promoted for it
is a safeguard from contracting many sexually transmitted diseases.

	There are many fatal diseases that are not sexually transmitted,
	that smite both the good and the wicked. What do these promote?

go back to the dust. For those that have died they no longer suffer but 
will awaken as it were from unconscious into God's new system under 
Christ's millenial rule. A thrilling prospect.

	I guess I'll wait and re-evaluate then :^)

BTW Steve, I feel that I should let you know that much of what I'm showing
you would be discounted by many who profess to be Christians, but it's
worth sharing as a different perspective.

	That's why I'm here, and I truly do appreciate it!

Steve

re Note 33.130 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Unpopular but important precept.  God is love but love is NOT God.  The
>     two are NOT synonomous, never were!  

        Well, in most logical discourse, to say that "A is B" is to
        say that they are the same thing.  Otherwise you would say
        something like "A is an example of a B" or "A has the
        attributes of a B" or "One of the attributes of A is Bness"
        (in the last case you would use an adjective, not a noun, as
        in "God is loving.")

        Of course, we are dealing with a translation -- what is the
        sense of the original Greek for "God is love" (recognizing,
        of course, that there are several Greek words for love)?

        Bob

    Actually, I had a hard time reconciling this matter to myself.
    
    If God is Love, as it staes in 1st John, then how can God hate?  
    
    I believe in the Context of 1st John, John is writing in the context of 
    Christian fellowship.  Where there is Christian fellowship, there is
    God and God is love, therefore, God's love is evident in fellowship.
    
    Now, if I am conversing with an evolutionist, then God is the creator.
    Now the focus is on yet another attribute of God, love not being
    primary in this context but now the creator.
    
    As strange as it sounds absolute hatred is another attribute of God. 
    This is found in the verses I quoted yesterday from the Psalms and the
    Proverbs.  Therefore, the question, "How can a loving God condemn
    somebody to hell", is a fallacy.
    
    I think one of the biggest mistakes religious people make is to elevate
    Love as the supreme attribute of God.  In the book of Isaiah in Chapter
    6, we read about the Seraphim.  This chapter gives us one of the only
    glimpses of the throne of God in the whole Bible.  These angelic beings
    were created for one purpose and one purpose only...to continually
    proclaim the main attribute of God.  "And one cried unto another and
    said, Holy Holy Holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of
    His glory."  
    
    In light of this, it is our responsibility as humans and as God's
    creation to meet God on His terms, to become Holy as He is Holy, to 
    acquire the redemptive power in order to experience eternal fellowship
    with God.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    You are such a great example of how Christianity can be perverted by
    trying to reconcile non reconcilable contradictions of the Bible.
    
    You willingly wipe out the most important, most redemptive, most
    radical principle of Christianity in order to keep your theology
    consistent.
    
    God is love and love is God.
    God's love is for all creation.
    "We worship God, not because God is all powerful, but because God is
    all loving"  (William. Ellery Channing)

    Patricia:
    
    As usual, your honest feelings cut me to the quick.  Somehow I was
    waiting and expecting a response like this.
    
    ZZ    You willingly wipe out the most important, most redemptive, most
    ZZ    radical principle of Christianity in order to keep your theology
    ZZ    consistent.
    
    Sorry to disappoint you Patricia, but yes, sin is the main focal issue
    we need to deal with in our lives.  Love IS NOT the primary attribute
    of God.  I clearly stated it, gave reasons for it, provided sources for
    it.  You rejected it by stating your theological stance and quoting 
    an author of a book or some such.  
    
    -Jack

    William Ellery Channing is the founder of American Unitarianism.  The
    quote is from his sermon "On Unitarian Christianity" which launched the
    formal separation between Calvanism and Unitarianism in Massachusetts
    and in the United States.
    
    Jack, you are the first person I ever heard quote that God is a God of
    hate as well as a God of Love and that Love is not the central
    principle of Christianity.  I'm flabbergasted.  I am interested in
    knowing how wide spread that tennant of your theology is.
    
                       Patricia

    UU's have tried to reconcile God's Sovereignty by only focusing on His
    love and not His judgment for those who reject Him.  You haven't
    addressed the complete context and this is where UU's fall short.

    Mike

    Patricia:
    
    Galileo brought forth the belief that the earth revolved around the sun
    and not the other way around.  He was pronounced a heretic!
    
ZZ    Jack, you are the first person I ever heard quote that God is a God of
ZZ    hate as well as a God of Love and that Love is not the central
ZZ    principle of Christianity. 
    
    What I was trying to communicate is that God has MANY attributes, hate
    being one of them.  This is clearly a writing of the prophets and of
    Old Testament history.  "Jacob I loved but Esau I hated."  God detested
    the Canaanite people surrounding the nation of Israel.  It is a clear
    teaching that God has enemies.  "Sit at my hand right so that I will
    make thine enemies a footstool for thy feet."  Quoted by Jesus Himself!
    
    What you fail to do Patricia, is understand the validity of one
    scripture over another.  
    
    -Jack

    Mike,
    
    
    Are you agreeing with Jack,  that god is a god of Hate as well as a god of
    love?
    
    I assure you Mike, that I am addressing the complete context of the
    Bible.  I do not fall short because my conclusions are radically
    different than yours and Jack's.
    

>    Are you agreeing with Jack,  that god is a god of Hate as well as a god of
>    love?
    
    Not hate.  He is longsuffering, but has shown righteous wrath on the
    wicked in the past.  He will again soon as record in Revelation.
    
    >I assure you Mike, that I am addressing the complete context of the
>    Bible.  I do not fall short because my conclusions are radically
>    different than yours and Jack's.
    
    you have said before that you reject the book of Revelation, therefore
    your context falls short.
    
    Mike

    Mike:
    
    Pull no punches.  Do you believe, based on the cripture I quoted from
    the Psalms and Proverbs, that hate is one of many attributes of God?
    
    This to me has never been a question, i.e. God hates the sin but loves
    the sinner.  Where I am crossing the line here is my suggestion that
    God can actually hate the sinner also.  Proverbs makes this clear, God
    hates the workers of iniquity.
    
    -Jack

re .142

Jack,

Like Patricia I can't understand why you don't agree 
that God's superlative attribute is  love (John 3:16).
But there again one would have to look at the original
Greek to see what was meant by love (agape). Ofcourse,
as you rightly say God has many attributes which includes
hating what is bad. But only salvation is possible 
because God's predominate attribute is love. Judgment
will take place but first God's allows a way out by
providing a provision for salvation before judgment of
this world takes place. Because of his love he is allowing
persons to separate themselves from this world or system
before he brings an end to it (compare 1 John 2:15-17).

Phil.

    Phil:
    
    Please don't misunderstand.  Love is A primary attribute of God.  It is
    the main attribute which gives a sinful world hope.  Whether it be love
    or Holiness is up for debate.  I conclude that Holiness takes
    prescedent because as I proved with scripture, hate IS in fact another
    attribute.  God can love or hate but God cannot be unholy.
    
    -Jack

    
    Actually, God just *IS*.
    
    Cindy 

    Jack, obviously God hates sin, but I don't think He hates any sinner. 
    He wills that no one perish.
    
    Mike

    Mike:
    
    How does one explain the Esau verse...as well as the verses from Psalms
    and Proverbs?
    
    Let's look up the original Hebrew of those words and see exactly what
    is being said.  I'll check on my end also.
    
    -Jack

    Try this jack.  (Now be open)
    
    Esau means Edon!
    
    The Genesis story from source "J" was written by a scribe in King
    David's court.  A court historian so to speak.
    
    The Israelite were seen to be victorious over Edon because God hated
    Edon and choose the Israeites.  God choose the sons of Israel (Jacob)
    over the sons of Esau.
    
    Now reading the Bible in context helps us to understand the language
    that King David's scribe used to describe Israel's victory.
    
    Trying to take that language as literal truth, sure does lead you to
    some messy theology!
    
                                               Patricia

ZZ    The Israelite were seen to be victorious over Edon because God
ZZ    hated Edon and choose the Israeites.  God choose the sons of Israel
ZZ    (Jacob) over the sons of Esau.
    
    Okay...I'll be open...sure.  Let's ASSUME that your professor is
    correct in stating this.  The fact still remains and you yourself
    proclaimed this in your first sentence.  God HATED Edon; therefore,
    hate is an attribute of God.
    
    By your own words, you indicted your own theology!  I certainly
    understand the point you are making in regards to the two nations,
    Jacob and Edom (?) or Edon.  But I thank you for confirming as I stated
    that Hate is an attribute of God.  You have yet to show otherwise.
    
    Now, regarding the words of King David, THE PROPHET, feel free to
    please expound on those verses if possible.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack, give me the passages again.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

re .147

 Jack,

 I think we have different perspectives on holiness, love and
 hate. Let me explain...

 As I understand holiness, it  is a state or character of being
 holy. Jehovah God as Universal Sovereign defines what it means
 to be holy. That is what is good and what is bad, what is right
 and what is wrong, what is clean and what is unclean. Holiness
 can denote separateness and exclusiveness. God's name is to be
 held as holy by his servants (Matthew 6:9, Psalms 145:21)

 IMO, love and hate are outward expressions of being holy. For 
 example, agape is love based on principle, hence love of 
 neighbour mentioned by Jesus in the good Samaritan parable was 
 agape love. The principle being if you see someone in need then 
 you do all you can to help such a person (whomever they are). 
 God saw mankinds predicament when Adam sinned and therefore took 
 the initiative in sending His Son as a ransom (John 3:16). 

 Because Jehovah is holy his love (agape) comes to the forefront.

 He also wants his intelligent creatures to be holy, imitate him
 in showing love of what is good and hating what is bad. It would
 mean recognising that God defines what is holy and therefore what
 is acceptable worship and morality. Once one comes to know what
 is holy, then one can express love and hate that is in keeping
 with God's holiness. However, others show love based on their
 own morality now they may feel this is right, but in God's eyes
 it would be viewed as unholy. On the otherhand they may hate
 what God views as holy. 

 I feel that the quality of love is the one that most warms people
 to Jehovah and not what he hates. After coming to know Jehovah
 people then begin to also hate what is bad as well as loving
 what is good (compare 1 John 5:3). Jesus also said that it is by 
 the quality of love that people would recognise his disciples 
 (John 13:34,35). With this in mind the Apostle Peter wrote
 "You are 'a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation,
 a people for special possession, that you should declare abroad
 the excellencies' of the one that called you out of darkness 
 into his wonderful light" (1 Peter 2:9 NWT) Love would be a 
 predominate feature of this holy nation, in fact if they didn't
 show love of brother but hate then such ones couldn't be part
 of that holy nation because that would be unholy (compare 
 1 John 4:20-21). For this reason, in other note strings I have
 expressed the importance of not allowing national conflicts
 to come between the love one has for ones spiritual brother,
 for allowing such things to happen would mean the person would 
 become unclean or unholy.

 So yes Jehovah is holy, but in IMO Jehovah expresses his
 holiness through his love and hate helping us to see what
 is holy.

 Phil.


 
	

    Phil:
    
    Thanks for your reply.  Just so we both understand, the belief that
    hate IS in fact an attribute of God has been communicated by you in
    this last note as well as Patricia in the previous note.  So it would
    seem we agree on this point.
    
 ZZ    After coming to know Jehovah
 ZZ    people then begin to also hate what is bad as well as loving
 ZZ    what is good (compare 1 John 5:3).
    
    Phil, you provided a good position on the quality of love and holiness,
    and it appears to me to be a valid one.  I would however, once again,
    address the scripture brought forth in the Psalms and the Proverbs.  
    In these verses, God directs His attribute of hate toward specific
    groups of people or persons.  Based on what you said above, one might
    interpret this to hate whom God hates.  Of course you and I know this
    would be taking on the role of God in judging which we are supposed to
    shun.
    
    -Jack

Mike:
    
    These are taken from .130.
    
    
    
Z        "The foolish shall not stand in my sight.  I hate all workers of
Z        iniquity."  Psalm 5:5.
        
Z        "The Lord Tries the righteous: but the wicked and him that loves
Z         violence, His soul hates."  Psalm 11:5.
        
Z    "I have hated the congregation of evildoers; and will not sit with
Z    the wicked."  Psalm 26:5.
        
Z    "These six things does the Lord hate; yea seven are an abomination
Z    to Him.....A false witness that speaketh lies, and HE that soweth
Z    discord among the bretheren"  Proverbs 6: 16,19.
    
                              

    Jack,
    
    The fact that hate is an attribute of God has not been communicated by
    me!.
    
    Hate is evil!.  The idea of hate being an attribute of God is heresy!
    
    Because I quote the passage in the Bible, where a scribe attributes
    hate to God .  i.e. God hated Esau does not make hate an attribute of
    God.  What that passage does is reveals the nature of the Bible. 
    
    A book by humans, fully subject to human error.  A book by humans,
    justifying what one side of a battle has done and attributing it to the
    will of God.
    
    Please don't filter my answers through your assumption that everything
    in the Bible is true.  I don't believe that and therefore my quoting
    from what is in the Bible does not indicate my belief that it is true.
    
    The Bible does reveal God's nature for those who care to discern God's
    nature from the Bible.  A literal interpretation of every word in the
    Bible is not the way to understand God's revelation to humankind.
    
                                Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    The million dollar question!  Why did you even answer the question
    about Esau if you don't believe it!?
    
    Sheesh!

re .157

Patricia,

Hate is not evil, to make a point "Hate war, love peace".

Phil.

    That's right.  Jesus did not make a whip out of branches in order to
    display love in the temple.  He displayed love for the House of God and
    hate for those who made it a den of robbers.  
    
    Heresy???  Perhaps it is.  But then again, Jesus was the biggest
    heretic of all, right?
    
    -Jack

    The hate of another human being is Evil!

    ZZZ    The hate of another human being is Evil!
    
    Yes, the hate of another human being is evil.  I said that to Phil's
    reply.  It would be a sign of judging another human being.  
    
    "Another" is the key word here.  God is the creator and is not human.
    
    -Jack

re .155

Jack,

It is wrong to judge persons taking God's role, but as 
you say one should shun, avoiding association or fellowship 
with certain groups or individuals.

Even so, God's love comes first in that he helps individuals 
see the need to repent and leave such organisations so as 
to not receive judgment. This is brought out in Jehovah's 
judgment upon Babylon the Great, he admonishes them to get 
out unless they want to share in it's sins and plagues 
(Rev 18:4). So as I think Mike brought out, God is 
long-suffering (love) and even though he hates such 
organisations he allows enough time for persons to come out. 
Additionally, he allows individuals to repent of their sins. 
If hate was the predominate quality then whom could stand?.

Even Nineveh repented which really upset Jonah, whom
wanted to see Jehovah's judgment meted out. 


Phil.

ZZZ    If hate was the predominate quality then whom could stand?.
    
    Absolutely!  Keep in mind I never said hate was even a predominant
    attribute of God.  I said it was simply an attribute that we tend to
    ignore.  What I said was that God's HOLINESS is his main attribute and 
    used the scripture regarding the Seraphim to back this up.  Imagine God
    creating angelic beings whose sole purpose of existence is to proclaim,
    "Holy Holy Holy is the Lord God Almighty!"
    
    -Jack

re .164

Jack,

Thanks, I think I now understand what you are saying.
To be honest with you I'm still not sure that using
the term "attribute" to God's holiness is correct.
God is holy, holiness for him is a state of being 
holy in otherwords his whole character, rather than
a characteristic or attribute. More than likely though
I'm being pedantic or have a wrong understanding of 
the word attribute. And I do believe you did say in
another reply, that God can only be holy.

John used God is love, mainly because through his own
experience with God he saw that this quality of God's
is superlative. Something that he always saw shining 
through the darkness as it were.

Jack, thanks for the discussion.

Phil.

    For a rather extensive and historically accurate understanding of the
    attributes of God over the course of history read
    
    	The History of God
    		by Karen Armstrong
    
    

.160

>    That's right.  Jesus did not make a whip out of branches in order to
>    display love in the temple.  He displayed love for the House of God and
>    hate for those who made it a den of robbers.  

The whip, an embellishment found only in John, was not used against human
beings, not even the fat cats who were gouging the pilgrims.

Richard

>The whip, an embellishment found only in John,
    
    good point Richard,

    Yes, good point but not necessarily germane to the topic.  He
    accomplished his purpose by making a whip and chasing the perpetrators
    of sin out of there, thus showing his hatred for those activities.
    
    Hate does not preclude love and likewise love does not preclude hate!
    
    -Jack

re .135

Steve,

I do intend to answer your reply, but I have been snowed
under with work over the last couple of days. I shall be
out attending a security conference over the next 3 days
so won't be able to get back to you until Monday next week
earliest.

Phil.