Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 80.0 by JOKUR::CIOTO:

>     Is the Bible a constitution for Christians?
  
        This is an interesting question.

        I offer the observation that a "yes" answer would seem to
        imply legalism, or at least a legalistic approach to the use
        of the Bible.

        Bob

    
    The Bible is a gift from God that documents for all what he has done in
    the past and what he will do in the future. The Bible is an expression
    of God for the purpose of revealing himself to us and for us to know
    him.
    
    The bible is not a constitution in that it is not merely a set of rules
    for governing his people. It is documented quite frequently how his
    people will act, however. We can therefore know by the fruits of our
    lives and the fruits in others lives of their relationship to God.
    
    Jamey

    And does the Bible embody the way to salvation as well as the way to
    the Holy Spirit?  If so, or if not, why/how.  Compare and contrast,
    brother James.  8)
    
    Paul
    

    re: ANOTHER QUESTION
    
    Paul, DO you ever run out of questions  ;)
    
    Besides, you're the writer, I'm just a hack....
    
    The Bible does not embody the way to salvation, only Jesus Christ
    embodies salvation. The Bible is the testimony to Jesus Christ, a
    document that starts with creation and ends with Christ. It is
    no mistake that both John and Genesis start with 'In the beginning'.
    The Bible is the God-ordained expression of who Jesus Christ is, why he
    came, and what that means.
    
    The Holy Spirit, the spirit of God, is the means by which one is born
    again out of the old self and into the new. This is done by the
    indwelling of said Spirit within the believer of Christ. So Jesus is
    the way both to salvation and to the Holy Spirit. Believing (and all
    that entails) in Jesus for salvation brings the Spirit into one's life.
    
    
    
    Jamey

Dear St. James,

    Paul, DO you ever run out of questions  ;)
    
Never.

    Besides, you're the writer, I'm just a hack....
    
In the words of Bette Davis, "You shouldn't underestimate
yourself [Jamey] -- you always do."  ;)

    The Bible does not embody the way to salvation, only Jesus Christ
    embodies salvation. ... The Bible is the God-ordained
    expression of who Jesus Christ is, why he came, and what that means.
    So Jesus is the way both to salvation and to the Holy Spirit.
    Believing (and all that entails) in Jesus for salvation
    brings the Spirit into one's life.

OK, let me get this straight.  In order to bring the Holy Spirit
-- the Spirit of God -- indwelling into one's being and into
one's life, one must have salvation in Jesus Christ.  And in
order for one to be saved in Christ, one must consult a document
called the Bible to find out how -- to find out who Christ is,
why he came, and what that means.

In other words, the sequence goes like this:

           BIBLE -----------> CHRIST -----------> HOLY SPIRIT

In other words, the Bible is the starting point; it shows you the
way to Christ, to salvation, and to the Holy Spirit, in that order.  
It is essentially a vital instruction manual for people who want to
know God.

Without the Bible, then, one cannot possibly know God, right?

You don't think I am baiting you now, Jamey, do you?  ;)

St. Paul  0:^) 

re Note 80.5 by JOKUR::CIOTO:

> In other words, the sequence goes like this:
> 
>            BIBLE -----------> CHRIST -----------> HOLY SPIRIT

        Isn't the objective to come to the FATHER:

             PERSON ----------> CHRIST -----------> FATHER

        and then the Father and/or the Son send the HOLY SPIRIT to
        the believer?

        Bob

    
    
    The scenario is more like this:
    
    Father draws people to the Son through his Holy Spirit because he loves
    them.
    
    Person responds with belief ==> Holy spirit indwells
    
    Holy spirit continues to work through the believer to bring ever
    increasing unison with the Father as was taught by Jesus.
    
    The bible documents this and is one way that the Holy Spirit teaches
    the ways of the Father and Son, by drawing one to the writings of God
    and applying the Spirit to the words. Jesus reference the scriptures
    dozens of times in extablishing his authority and for teaching. The
    Spiritual interpretation of the scriptures is still the foundation for
    teaching the believer in lifestyle as well as about Jesus.
    
    Your comment about consulting a document was a huge leap from what I
    have said or am saying. Is that your Catholic childhood speaking again
    }8^)  ?
    
    Jamey
    
    
    

re .7
    
Jamey,

How about answering my question:  Without the Bible, can one
know God?
    
   Father draws people to the Son through his Holy Spirit because he
   loves them.

Oh?  The Father communicates directly with his children, without
go-betweens and certain milestones that have to met along the
way?  Glory hallelujah!  I never thought I would ever hear you
say this, brother Jamey!  ;)

But... but... I'm almost afraid to ask you this next question.
How does the Father reach out to people?  Can this happen without
the Bible?
    
    Holy spirit continues to work through the believer to bring ever
    increasing unison with the Father as was taught by Jesus.

But the Holy Spirit can't do a thing unless the person is saved
in Jesus, as taught in the Bible?  Is that right?  And the Father
can't bring the Holy Spirit to someone who hasn't been born
again in Jesus; and the means and process by which this is done are
found in Bible.  Is that right?
    
    The bible documents this and is one way that the Holy Spirit teaches
    the ways of the Father and Son, by drawing one to the writings of God
    and applying the Spirit to the words.

If this is "one way," then are there other ways?  If so, what are they?

    The Spiritual interpretation of the scriptures is still the
    foundation for teaching the believer in lifestyle as well as
    about Jesus.

Lifestyle?  Looks like I'm not the only one who has a "Catholic"
background full of DOs and DONTs.

    Is that your Catholic childhood speaking again  }8^)  ?
    
Dear Jamey ... playing psychologist again?  ;)  It's too bad you
don't know some of the nuns who taught me in Sunday school.  They
think the same way you do.  ]:^)

Paul

Paul,

I'll step in with a quick answer.  Who knows, maybe Jamey and I can agree?  :-)

  >Without the Bible, can one know God?

Yes.

Many who have never had a Bible have accepted Jesus Christ as their Savior.
Just look at all the 1st century Christians!!!  Some who believed even
before a single word of Scripture was written!  Some who couldn't read.
(Just like today.)

I was playing bridge (a game I really enjoy) several years ago and the
topic before the game was the Bible.  (I don't know why, I was talking
with a complete stranger who knew nothing about me.)  Anyway, he stated
that he didn't believe the Bible was inerrant.  Was he still acceptable
to God (i.e. saved?)

I told him that salvation is *not* dependent either on the Bible being
inerrant or on him believing that it was.  It is *also* not dependent
on him owning or reading a Bible.  It is dependent on him repenting of
his sins and by faith asking Jesus Christ to forgive Him and take charge
of his life.

Collis

    
Paul,
    
>How about answering my question:  Without the Bible, can one
>know God?
What Collis said.

>Oh?  The Father communicates directly with his children, without
>go-betweens and certain milestones that have to met along the
>way?  Glory hallelujah!  I never thought I would ever hear you
>say this, brother Jamey!  ;)
    
    Bologna. You've heard it innumerable times. Do I have to dig up the old
    mail to demonstrate???? ;)  Yes the Father communicates directly.
    Through the life of Jesus and the Holy Spirit. And obviously, if any
    new converts are to be had, he communicates directly with those who are
    not yet his children. The fact that God may or may not communicate with
    you is no evidence of eternal life or salvation. That depends upon your
    response.
    
    
>But... but... I'm almost afraid to ask you this next question.
>How does the Father reach out to people?  Can this happen without
>the Bible?
    Oh, how about notes, how about conversations, how about... Nobody is
    asking you to worship the Bible, only the author.
    
    
    >Holy spirit continues to work through the believer to bring ever
    >increasing unison with the Father as was taught by Jesus.
   
    > But the Holy Spirit can't do a thing unless the person is saved
>in Jesus, as taught in the Bible?  Is that right?  And the Father
>can't bring the Holy Spirit to someone who hasn't been born
>again in Jesus; and the means and process by which this is done are
>found in Bible.  Is that right?
    The Holy Spirit works upon who he wishes. It is the Spirit who convicts
    of sin so that people might turn to Jesus. The Spirit only takes up
    permanent residence within one who believes in Jesus. The Bible
    documents this frequently.
    
       
>    The bible documents this and is one way that the Holy Spirit teaches
>    the ways of the Father and Son, by drawing one to the writings of God
>    and applying the Spirit to the words.
>
>If this is "one way," then are there other ways?  If so, what are they?
    By drawing people to others who know Jesus. Personal testimony is the
    most effective sales tool. Why do you think you have been drawn to me?
    ;) ;)
    
    >    The Spiritual interpretation of the scriptures is still the
    >foundation for teaching the believer in lifestyle as well as
    >about Jesus.
>
>Lifestyle?  Looks like I'm not the only one who has a "Catholic"
>background full of DOs and DONTs.
    Yawn. Pull out th earplugs, Paul. One's lifestyle reflects what is in
    ones heart. Imitating lifestyle is as meaninless as idol worship.
     
    >It's too bad you don't know some of the nuns who taught me in Sunday 
    >school. They think the same way you do.  ]:^)

Perhaps I have been mistaken in my preconceptions about Catholic 
    
    
    Jamey
    
    P.S. What does Jesus say about the bible?
    
    John 5:38  You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that
    by them you possess eternal life. These are the Scriptures that testify
    about me, yet you refuse to come to me to have life.
    
    John 7:38 Whoever believes in me, as the Scripture has said, streams of
    living water will flow from within him.
    
    John 10:35 If he called them 'gods', to whom the word of God came - and
    the Scripture cannot be broken- what about the one whom the Father set
    apart as his very own and sent into the world?
    
    And dozens of others. Jesus referred to the Old Testament dozens and
    dozens of times in establishing himself and showing how they are always
    true and fulfilled, in him. Paul (not you, buckwheat) also quotes and 
    refers to these same scriptures hundreds of times. 
    
    If Jesus is any kind of teacher at all and has anything to say at all,
    then his position on the Scriptures must have some merit. The bible
    does not contain eternal life or salvation, but it testifies to it and
    describes the lives of those who have been saved.
    
    Jamey
         

re  .10  Jamey,

      >How about answering my question:  Without the Bible, can one
      >know God?

   What Collis said.

What Collis said was that one can come to know God, without even
picking up a Bible, as long as one essentially knows about and
accepts/believes in the person Jesus.  How does one come to know
about Jesus unless the people who witnessed his life/teachings --
the ones who wrote the Bible -- or others who read and adhere
to the Bible tell us about Jesus?

Another question:  Can one know God without knowing/being told
about Jesus?

   Bologna. You've heard it innumerable times. Do I have to dig up
   the old mail to demonstrate???? ;)

Yes!  Start digging!  ;)   My ears don't hear anyway, you know
that, don't you Jamey?   ;)

   Yes the Father communicates directly.

Agreed.

   Through the life of Jesus and the Holy Spirit.

This contradicts your previous sentence.  In order for one to
know and be one with the Father, one must be rerouted through the
person of Jesus.  How does one find out about the life of Jesus?
And what if one doesn't?  Is God helpless in bringing his
children into His kingdom?

   The fact that God may or may not communicate with you is no
   evidence of eternal life or salvation. That depends upon your
   response.
    
Precisely my point.  You seem to be saying that God Himself is
incapable of directly bringing his children to know God and to
have Spirit indwelling in one's being, one's life.  I disagree. 
FWIW, God communicates with me, but nowhere and at no time during
prayer/meditation have I been told that I must develop a personal
relationship with the person Jesus, be born again in the person
Jesus, in order to realize eternal life salvation/oneness with
the Father.  The fact that His communications with me are
different from His communications with you, IMHO, is no big deal. 
Why must God develop a relationship with me that is identical to
His relationship with you?  Why must God communicate with me in
the precise manner in which he communicates with you?  Why must
God lead me down a path that is identical to yours?  Why must God
guide me and direct me in the ways in which He guides and directs
you?  You have asked rhetorically several times why God is
leading me down such a different path than yours.  Why fry your
brains trying to figure out something that is so benign.  I am
not saying that the teachings of Jesus are incompatible with the
ways in which I have come to know the Spirit of God.  They *are*
compatible.  

    Oh, how about notes, how about conversations, how about... Nobody is
    asking you to worship the Bible, only the author.
    
You mean you want me to worship Matthew and Luke and Mark and
John and so on and so on.   God did not write the Bible.  Men
wrote the Bible.  Or was the Bible channeled?   8^O !  ;)
    
   The Spirit only takes up permanent residence within one who
   believes in Jesus. The Bible documents this frequently.

I rest my case. 
        
        >If this is "one way," then are there other ways?  If so, what
         are they?

    By drawing people to others who know Jesus. Personal testimony is
    the most effective sales tool. Why do you think you have been
    drawn to me? ;) ;)

Barf.  My question still stands:  Are there any other ways?  Those
BA Christians toward whom I am drawn -- actually I'm being drawn
more toward non-Christians than Christians these days -- merely
point to the Bible and quote scripture nonstop, which is essentially 
the "one way" you originally spoke of.  Who/what have *you* been
drawn to, Jamey?

      >Lifestyle?  Looks like I'm not the only one who has a "Catholic"
      >background full of DOs and DONTs.

   Yawn. Pull out th earplugs, Paul. One's lifestyle reflects what is in
   ones heart. Imitating lifestyle is as meaninless as idol worship.

Right.  And after all your speeches about moral accountability,
moral responsibility, what is morally "right" and "wrong" with
the way one lives out his/her life on earth -- it's all "in there," in
the Bible -- what is in one's heart doesn't hold much meaning, does
it?  I still maintain that bornagain Christianity, to a large
extent is more "Catholic" in terms of DOs and DON'Ts, than the
Catholics ever were.  BTW, why are you so down on Catholics?
  
    The bible does not contain eternal life or salvation, but it
    testifies to it ...

Wake up and smell the coffee. 8) There are so many other things out
there, besides the Bible, that offer testimony to eternal life
and salvation than the Bible.  The Bible is merely one cog in a
very, very big wheel. 

Paul

    FWIW, Quakers believe that there is "that of God" in *everyone*, not
    just Christians.
    
    -- Mike

Paul,

"If you have seen me, you have seen the Father".

Jesus says that this IS direct.

Collis

    .13  Collis,
    
    If you are saying that Jesus Christ embodies the Spirit of God and is
    one with God in every sense, I would agree with you.  However, that's 
    not what you and Jamey said.  You said that the Father communicates with 
    people and points toward the direction of the person Jesus.  Now, 
    "salvation in Christ," as far as I can tell, means something different 
    to me than it does to you and Jamey.  There are many ways to the Spirit
    of Christ and Oneness with God, other than bumping into someone who 
    happens to have read the Bible. 
                             
    Paul
    

Paul,

The message we share is the message we understand Jesus to have preached.

There is salvation in no other name (person) than Jesus Christ.  Do you
think that this is what the Bible says?

Collis

    .15  Collis,
    
          "The message we share is the message we understand Jesus to have
           preached."
    
    The message that you and Jamey understand Jesus to have preached is not 
    exactly the message I understand Jesus to have preached.  So we begin from
    different understandings.     
    
           "There is salvation in no other name (person) than Jesus Christ.
            Do you think that this is what the bible says?"
    
    Yes.  However, as I have pointed out, your interpretation of "salvation
    in Christ" and my interpretation in "salvation in Christ" differ. 
    Besides ... I do not look at the Bible as going hand-in-hand with
    "salvation in Christ."  Salvation in Christ, realizing the Holy Spirit
    indwelling, need not be Bible-based, IMHO.   The essence of the Spirit
    of Jesus Christ need not carry the name "Jesus Christ" or any other
    term that is used in the Bible -- or any other term that is used
    anywhere, for that mattter.  What's in a name?  This is something 
    universal, leaping beyond the boundaries of Bible-based Christianity.  
    Therefore, IMHO, one need not even have to HEAR of the Bible or its 
    contents, including the name "Jesus" in order to come to know and 
    experience eternal Oneness with God.  The way to God is revealed in 
    other (non-Biblical) ways as well.
    
    Paul

    Paul,
    
>What Collis said was that one can come to know God, without even
>picking up a Bible, as long as one essentially knows about and
>accepts/believes in the person Jesus.  How does one come to know
>about Jesus unless the people who witnessed his life/teachings --
>the ones who wrote the Bible -- or others who read and adhere
>to the Bible tell us about Jesus?

    Good point. How indeed? Since none of the first-hand personal witnesses
    are here today, we must either learn from those who somehow know Jesus
    today and/or the accounts written about him. Sounds to me like the
    Bible is a good place to start. Why such an aversion to the Bible,
    anyway? God sure made it easy, didn't he?
    
>Another question:  Can one know God without knowing/being told
>about Jesus?

    
    
>   Bologna. You've heard it innumerable times. Do I have to dig up
>   the old mail to demonstrate???? ;)
	
    I won't dig up all of them but:  from an August 14 mail message:
    
    Salvation does not depend upon where you attend services. Nor is it a 
    recitation of the right words, the right ritual. It is simply knowing 
    Jesus, the person, who he is and what he has done.
    
    I might add ' and respond accordingly'
    
    
>This contradicts your previous sentence.  In order for one to
>know and be one with the Father, one must be rerouted through the
>person of Jesus.  How does one find out about the life of Jesus?
>And what if one doesn't?  Is God helpless in bringing his
>children into His kingdom?
    Jesus was the human expression of God. You cannot communicate with one
    and not the other. The cannot deny one without denying the other (See
    John again). It is not God who is helpless. It is us. And we are too
    blind and stubborn to even ask for help. We can'te even see it when it
    is printed in black and white.
    
    
>Precisely my point.  You seem to be saying that God Himself is
>incapable of directly bringing his children to know God and to
>have Spirit indwelling in one's being, one's life.  I disagree. 
Jesus seems to disagree with you. See above.
    
>FWIW, God communicates with me, but nowhere and at no time during
>prayer/meditation have I been told that I must develop a personal
>relationship with the person Jesus, be born again in the person
>Jesus, in order to realize eternal life salvation/oneness with
>the Father.  
    The you are not speaking to the Father, because this directly opposes
    what Jesus teaches IMHO.
    
>Why must God develop a relationship with me that is identical to
>His relationship with you?  Why must God communicate with me in
>the precise manner in which he communicates with you?  Why must
>God lead me down a path that is identical to yours?  Why must God
>guide me and direct me in the ways in which He guides and directs
>you?  
    This is not what I am saying. (And you know it FWIW). He communicates
    and leads each differently. But each to Jesus.
    
>  I am not saying that the teachings of Jesus are incompatible with the
> ways in which I have come to know the Spirit of God.  They *are*
>compatible.  
    One of Jesus' primary messages is that the ways that we make for
    ourselves are *not* compatible with his. That is why being born again
    is a necessity.

>You mean you want me to worship Matthew and Luke and Mark and
>John and so on and so on.   God did not write the Bible.  Men
>wrote the Bible.  Or was the Bible channeled?   8^O !  ;)
    It is amazing what can happen when God is at the wheel. The words of
    the Scripture are Spirit-breathed. Jesus treated them that way.
    
   >The Spirit only takes up permanent residence within one who
   >believes in Jesus. The Bible documents this frequently.

>I rest my case. 
    The jury finds you guilty  ;) ;). What's the problem? So, the bible
    documents what Jesus taught and entire old testament to testify that
    Jesus was coming and who he would be. The fact that something is found
    in the bible does not make it wrong, as you seem to continually imply.
    
    There is no other way to eternal life than to know the one true God ,
    and Jesus Christ whom he sent.
    
    
>Right.  And after all your speeches about moral accountability,
>moral responsibility, what is morally "right" and "wrong" with
>the way one lives out his/her life on earth -- it's all "in there," in
>the Bible -- what is in one's heart doesn't hold much meaning, does
>it?  
    Not unless it is born again and repented of following its own desires.
    
    >BTW, why are you so down on Catholics?
    You are asleep aren't you?
    
>Wake up and smell the coffee. 8) There are so many other things out
>there, besides the Bible, that offer testimony to eternal life
>and salvation than the Bible.  The Bible is merely one cog in a
>very, very big wheel. 
    But if you can't even get it when it's written down, how will you
    perceive the rest of the testimony?
    
    From the reply to Collis:   (Collis, if you continue to get tangled up
    with me, you will find yourself in bad company ;)
    
    >The message that you and Jamey understand Jesus to have preached is not 
    >exactly the message I understand Jesus to have preached.  So we begin from
    >different understandings.     
    You pick and choose from Jesus' teachings to fit your model, not his.
    
    >What's in a name?
    What did Jesus say?
    
    >Therefore, IMHO, one need not even have to HEAR of the Bible or its 
    >contents, including the name "Jesus" in order to come to know and 
    >experience eternal Oneness with God.
    But *you* have heard, what is your response?
    
    Jamey
    

 .17  Jamey, Jamey, Jamey,

    Good point. How indeed? Since none of the first-hand personal witnesses
    are here today, we must either learn from those who somehow know Jesus
    today and/or the accounts written about him. Sounds to me like the
    Bible is a good place to start. Why such an aversion to the Bible,
    anyway? God sure made it easy, didn't he?
    
I don't have an aversion to the Bible.  The Bible is a useful
tool in understanding the nature of God.  But my original
question was:  Can one come to know God *without* the Bible? 
First you and Collis say yes; now you seem to be saying no, via
this reply.  Which is it?

     >Another question:  Can one know God without knowing/being told
     >about Jesus?

You didn't want to answer this one?
    
    Salvation does not depend upon where you attend services. Nor is it a 
    recitation of the right words, the right ritual. It is simply knowing 
    Jesus, the person, who he is and what he has done.

OK, but without a Bible or exposure to someone who has read the
Bible, one cannot know Jesus, the person, who he is and what he
has done, is that right?  And therefore one cannot realize
salvation, right?

    Jesus was the human expression of God. You cannot communicate with one
    and not the other.

In a very general way, I agree.  So if the Father and the Son are
one being, why does the Father have to point people in the
direction of Jesus (another) in this initial communication, as
you have suggested?  It seems it is *you* who is implying that
Jesus and the Father are not One, not the same entity.

    It is not God who is helpless.

Then you agree with me?

    We can'te even see it when it is printed in black and white.
    
Arrrrggh.  We?  You seem to be doing a pretty good job of doting
on the printed word.  Perhaps this is where we differ.  You place
an enormous amount of credibility in words "printed in black and
white" and I do not.  I get very cautious when someone hands me a
printed page, written and published by men, and says, "Here --
this is what God is all about."   A printed page may have been
inspired by God -- channeled? -- but what is "printed in black
and white" does not embody the Spirit of God, the way the
American constitution embodies our human rights.

   Then you are not speaking to the Father, because this directly
   opposes what Jesus teaches IMHO.

Then who could I be speaking with?  Could it be .... let me see ...
could it be ....  }:)  I think it would be a mistake to assume
that just because my communications with the Divine are not like
yours, I am "not speaking with the Father."  You are
pre-judging what God wants to say to me and/or should say
to me.  
 
     >Why must God develop a relationship with me that is identical to
     >His relationship with you?  Why must God communicate with me in
     >the precise manner in which he communicates with you?  Why must
     >God lead me down a path that is identical to yours?  Why must God
     >guide me and direct me in the ways in which He guides and directs
     >you?  

   This is not what I am saying. (And you know it FWIW). He communicates
   and leads each differently. But each to Jesus.

You just said it in the previous sentence!  "Then you are not
speaking to the Father..."  And you say it again and again and
again below.  (See below.)

     >  I am not saying that the teachings of Jesus are incompatible with the
     > ways in which I have come to know the Spirit of God.  They *are*
     >compatible.
  
   One of Jesus' primary messages is that the ways that we make for
   ourselves are *not* compatible with his. That is why being born again
   is a necessity.

The "ways that we make for ourselves"???  I knew this was coming.
What you really mean to say is that my understanding of the teachings
of Jesus is not compatible with yours (Jamey's).  When you
presume to speak for Jesus, my ears don't hear you.  And the beat
goes on.

     >You mean you want me to worship Matthew and Luke and Mark and
     >John and so on and so on.   God did not write the Bible.  Men
     >wrote the Bible.  Or was the Bible channeled?   8^O !  ;)

   It is amazing what can happen when God is at the wheel. The words of
   the Scripture are Spirit-breathed. Jesus treated them that way.

Then you don't believe channeling is necessarily the work of evil
demons after all.  How nice!    ]:^(
 
    The jury finds you guilty  ;) ;). What's the problem? So, the bible
    documents what Jesus taught and entire old testament to testify that
    Jesus was coming and who he would be. The fact that something is found
    in the bible does not make it wrong, as you seem to continually imply.

Oh please.  I am not saying "the fact that something is found in
the Bible makes it wrong."  I am simply saying that the way to
Oneness with the Father, to knowing God, to the Holy Spirit, to
the Spirit of Christ, and to salvation NEED NOT be via the Bible
route.  Did you understand what I meant when I said the Spirit of
Christ and inherent salvation is universal?  In other words, the
Bible-based path is not the only path to God, IMHO.  It is one
path, but not the only path.  One can be "born again" in the
Spirit of Christ *without* the Bible, without ever hearing about
the Bible.  Like I mentioned previously, God is not helpless. The
Father, IMHO, reaches out to humanity in many ways, today and
throughout history, in our culture, and in many other cultures. 
The gift of the Bible was one way.  The teachings/life of Jesus
were another way.  The teachings of other ascended masters were
still other ways.  The gift of A Course In Miracles was another
way.  American Indian mysticism is another way.  My friendships
with you and Karen Berggren -- and not necessarily in that order
;) -- are other ways.  I have allowed myself to see the beauty in
the common threads and similarities that run through so many of
the ways God reaches out to humanity.  These similarities are
networked together in beautiful patchwork.  And there *are* many
similarities, many pearls of divine wisdom. I refuse to fry my
brains by dwelling on only the differences.  Why should we be so
quick to block out any manifestation of God-breathed expression,
just because it doesn't fit in nicely and neatly with our
prejudiced, flawed, and limited ways of understanding the world
around us?  And I would ask you, Jamey:  Why does it seem that
you so casually write off so many non-Biblical expressions of and
paths to God?
        
    But if you can't even get it when it's written down, how will you
    perceive the rest of the testimony?

    You pick and choose from Jesus' teachings to fit your model, not his.

Yawn.  And again and again and again you say it.  This is a
classic.  When all else fails -- when brother Paul doesn't agree
with the born-again Christian's view of God -- tell brother Paul
that he's redefining the word of God to suit his own personal
model, to satisfy Self and not God.  Sigh.  This is *precisely*
why I created topic 36.  Go look it up.  I don't "get it" the way
you "get it."  And you don't know what His model is any more or
less than I do.  That's all!  To tell me that I should "get it"
the way you "get it" because the way you "get it" is the way
Jesus "meant it" is real big of you, pal.   This sort of thing
will only put me to sleep.  <Yawn>  If you continue to share your
(Jamey's) viewpoints, I will stay awake.  Otherwise, I do not
hear you when you get into one of these I-speak-for-God snits.
And the beat goes on.

    >Therefore, IMHO, one need not even have to HEAR of the Bible or its 
    >contents, including the name "Jesus" in order to come to know and 
    >experience eternal Oneness with God.

  But *you* have heard, what is your response?

See above.  BTW, is this a question from you or God?
    
Paul
        

re Note 80.18 by JOKUR::CIOTO:

> But my original
> question was:  Can one come to know God *without* the Bible? 

        This would seem to be wandering far from the original topic
        (although, I must admit, I do wonder where the original topic
        was expected to go).

        Bob

re Note 80.18 by JOKUR::CIOTO:

        NOT writing as a moderator now:

> I am simply saying that the way to
> Oneness with the Father, to knowing God, to the Holy Spirit, to
> the Spirit of Christ, and to salvation NEED NOT be via the Bible
> route.  Did you understand what I meant when I said the Spirit of
> Christ and inherent salvation is universal?  In other words, the
> Bible-based path is not the only path to God, IMHO.  

        Paul,

        I believe that the Christian Bible does admit of the
        possibility of coming to the Father, and hence salvation,
        without a "Bible knowledge" of Jesus.

        But I don't see the Christian religion (as founded on Jesus'
        teachings) advocating a route that is ignorant of Jesus -- in
        fact, it says very little about routes which lack "Bible
        knowledge" of Jesus, other than to imply that if they exist,
        they are actually but unknowingly routes through the person
        and work of Jesus.

        Thus, while I cannot condemn a person who does not know the
        Biblical Jesus (I cannot say "they are going to hell"), I
        also cannot say, of any other system of knowledge, that it is
        a reliable route to the Father.  Within the Christian
        framework there just isn't another reliable set of teachings.

        Bob

    
    
    Hmmmm....this is an interesting discussion.  Are you saying (Bob
    and Jamey) that Christ and/or God cannot be working within the
    hearts of people without their conscious knowledge?  I would think
    that God/Christ can do *anything*!  And certainly there are people
    in the world who *follow* Christ in the way they live their lives
    much more closely than some who consciously follow Christ.  I guess
    I just don't believe this can be all that cut and dry.  The universe
    God created is much to magical for that!
    
    Carole

    .21   Thank you Carole.  This is the type of thing I am talking about.
    
    Bob, my original question was, "Is the Bible a constitution for
    Christians?"  In order to answer that question, I thought it was 
    also necessary to ask early on, "Can one come to know God without the
    Bible?"  The two questions are very related to my original intent for
    this topic, I think.  But the answers seem fuzzy, and Jamey's replies,
    at least, seem somewhat ambiguous.  Or am I reading ambiguity into his
    crystal-clear answers?  ;)
    
    Paul

Paul,
                    -< By you *do* say it over and over again.... >-
    And eventually you will hear it, I suppose...
    
    
>I don't have an aversion to the Bible.
    But you try to discount its validity and Truth at every turn.
    
    >The Bible is a useful tool in understanding the nature of God.  
    How did you come to this conclusion?
    
    >But my original question was:  Can one come to know God *without* the 
    >Bible? 
    Whether a physical Bible is involved in one's salvation or not has no
    bearing upon the Truth therein. I have answered this question a few
    back.
    
>First you and Collis say yes; now you seem to be saying no, via
>this reply.  Which is it?
    Quit trying to play like *we* are the semantic contortionists.
    
     >Another question:  Can one know God without knowing/being told
     >about Jesus?

>You didn't want to answer this one?
    
    What did Jesus teach about this:
    
    "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a
    long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can yousay,
    'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father and
    that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own.
    Rather it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."
    John 14:8-10
    
    "If I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how
    then will you belive if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever
    gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man."
    John 3: 12-13
    
    If you know God, you know Jesus, and vice verse. Jesus was instructed
    by the Father before coming to earth and the Father lived in him while
    he was here. The two are inseparable. To claim to know God and not
    believe everything that Jesus teaches is ridiculous. It is not a
    concept.
    
>OK, but without a Bible or exposure to someone who has read the
>Bible, one cannot know Jesus, the person, who he is and what he
>has done, is that right?  And therefore one cannot realize
>salvation, right?
	It is certainly possible, but not likely. Somewhere in the chain
    between the 12 apostles and today, there probably aren't very many
    links that have not read the bible. Instead of trying to prove that one
    cannot be saved without a bible, why not be a little more grateful that
    God decided to leave a written record of Jesus (and *his*) teachings.
    You cannot know salvation without believing in Jesus (according to
    Jesus) and the method Jesus chose to use was word of mouth, throught
    his followers. Some of these followers were inspired to write some of
    it down so that their testimony could be passed on. Salvation does not
    depend upon the writings, but certainly testifies to salvation and
    Jesus, the author. The fact that I have read the bible and also share
    what I have learned about Jesus in no way dilutes what the Bible has to
    say (assuming I do not dilute it). The Spirit of God is alive,
    regardless of whtehre one has read the Bible or not. But to say you
    know God and don't *need* Jesus is opposite of what Jesus taught. If
    Jesus is who he says he is, then you do not know God without him (and
    you have been told about him).
    

>In a very general way, I agree.  So if the Father and the Son are
>one being, why does the Father have to point people in the
>direction of Jesus (another) in this initial communication, as
>you have suggested?  It seems it is *you* who is implying that
>Jesus and the Father are not One, not the same entity.
    The Father doesn't have to do anything. This is the way that he chose,
    trinitarian rathole aside. The people who claimed to know God in Jesus
    time (and ours) have no clue. In fact they were so far off that they
    did not recognize Jesus when he came, the Son of the one they claimed
    to worship, who contained the very essence of God.
    
>Then you agree with me?
Probably not ;)
    
>Arrrrggh.  We?  You seem to be doing a pretty good job of doting
>on the printed word.  Perhaps this is where we differ.  You place
>an enormous amount of credibility in words "printed in black and
>white" and I do not.
    Then you do not give credibility to Jesus, who constantly referred to
    the printed word. This is often how he taught. 
    
    >  I get very cautious when someone hands me a
>printed page, written and published by men, and says, "Here --
>this is what God is all about."
    Thank goodness he chose to capture his teachings, prophesies, etc. in a
    medium we can understand. We couldn't accept His son, perhaps we can
    read....
    
    >   A printed page may have been
>inspired by God -- channeled? -- but what is "printed in black
>and white" does not embody the Spirit of God, the way the
>American constitution embodies our human rights.
    Nobody has ever said that the words on a page embody the Spirit of God.
    This does not in any way negate the truth of the Scriptures, again as
    Jesus continually taught.
    
    
>Then who could I be speaking with?  Could it be .... let me see ...
>could it be ....  }:)  I think it would be a mistake to assume
>that just because my communications with the Divine are not like
>yours, I am "not speaking with the Father."  You are
>pre-judging what God wants to say to me and/or should say
>to me.  
	Yes, Paul, it probably is. Someday when you need exorcism, I will
    be gald to oblige. I think it would be a bigger mistake to think that
    you have discovered your own private little short cut past Jesus. It
    has nothing to do with being anything similar to me. 
    
 
>    You just said it in the previous sentence!  "Then you are not
>speaking to the Father..."
    ARE YOU DEAF?????? It has nothing to do with me and my
    preconceptions... take 79


>The "ways that we make for ourselves"???  I knew this was coming.
Guilty conscience? ;)
    
>What you really mean to say is that my understanding of the teachings
>of Jesus is not compatible with yours (Jamey's).  When you
>presume to speak for Jesus, my ears don't hear you.  And the beat
>goes on.
    True. I have and continue to express my understanding of what Jesus
    taught. I know you think this is a *really* big deal "YOUR WORD, NOT
    GOD'S. Yes, it is up to you to discern if what I am saying is true or
    not, I must do the same for you. As for your hearing, that is obvious.
    
    
>Then you don't believe channeling is necessarily the work of evil
>demons after all.  How nice!    ]:^(
    I have mentioned before that channeling (vague as the term seems to be)
    is not a problem. The problem is that the Holy Spirit is the only one
    worth channeling (and yes there are many others).
 
    
>I am simply saying that the way to
>Oneness with the Father, to knowing God, to the Holy Spirit, to
>the Spirit of Christ, and to salvation NEED NOT be via the Bible
>route.  
    Then we agree. Unfortunately we seem to disagree on the Jesus route.
    
> I refuse to fry my brains by dwelling on only the differences.  
    Youseem to be spending quite a bit of time ont them, nonetheless.
    
    >Why should we be so quick to block out any manifestation of God-breathed 
    >expression, just because it doesn't fit in nicely and neatly with our
>prejudiced, flawed, and limited ways of understanding the world
>around us?  And I would ask you, Jamey:  Why does it seem that
>you so casually write off so many non-Biblical expressions of and
>paths to God?
    Why should we so casually accept so many things as God-breathed, just
    because the *do* fit in nicely and neatly with our ...
    
    I don't write off any expressions of God that I know of.
    
        
    
>Yawn.  And again and again and again you say it.  This is a
>classic.  When all else fails -- when brother Paul doesn't agree
>with the born-again Christian's view of God -- tell brother Paul
>that he's redefining the word of God to suit his own personal
>model, to satisfy Self and not God.  
    And he does, over and over and over .....
    
    >Sigh.  This is *precisely* why I created topic 36.  Go look it up. 
    I did. Nothing new.
    
>  That's all!  To tell me that I should "get it"
>the way you "get it" because the way you "get it" is the way
>Jesus "meant it" is real big of you, pal.
    Grab lapels, shake vigorously.
    
    
> Otherwise, I do not
>hear you when you get into one of these I-speak-for-God snits.
>And the beat goes on.
    You are already asleep, reading in your preconceived anti-Christianity
    bias into everything I write, ole buddy.
    
    
>See above.  BTW, is this a question from you or God?
You be the judge of that.    
    
    
Jamey        

    
    
    I'm back ;-).......
    
    I was just sitting here trying to *feel* this whole thing, and
    was thinking about the concept/process of being born-again.
    It would seem to me that if a person lives their life in a
    Christ-like way without the conscious knowledge of Christ,
    that within them Christ could come alive and they could be
    born-again.  *And never consciously call it that or know
    what it was*.  I think that Christ can work this way.
    
    Carole

    
    
    re .24
    
    Funny, I don't recall Jesus ever teaching this. I think he would have.
    Matthew 19:16 and following comes to mind.
    
    Jamey

    
    
    Carol, .21
    
    God canand does work on people without their conscious knowledge. Thank
    goodness. The fact that God may be working on somebody does not
    constitute salvation. 
    
    Also, the way one lives one's life is not what salvation is all about
    (thousands of years of moral imitations aside), it is who one believes
    in. The problem with eternally open mindedness is that it rejects the
    possibility that there might just be one single simple answer.
    
    Jamey

    Carole, what you have stated is my understanding of the Quaker view of
    "that of God in everyone" (sometimes referred to as the Inner Light, or
    the Christ within).

    -- Mike

re Note 80.22 by JOKUR::CIOTO:

>     Bob, my original question was, "Is the Bible a constitution for
>     Christians?"  In order to answer that question, I thought it was 
>     also necessary to ask early on, "Can one come to know God without the
>     Bible?"  The two questions are very related to my original intent for
>     this topic, I think.  

        Ah -- I don't see any close relationship between the two
        questions at all!

        I interpreted "Is the Bible a constitution for Christians?"
        to ask whether the Bible is a plan for conducting life, i.e.,
        the fundamental "law".  (As some fundamentalists would put
        it, "the Bible has the answer to every question of life.")  

        "Salvation," especially for those who strictly adhere to the
        faith alone interpretation, is almost an orthogonal issue to
        the question of "how should we then live?"

        Bob

    .28
    
    The constitution of the United States is the *ultimate* standard and
    authority in our culture.  In our spiritual lives, we often try to extend
    authority to a document in the same way authority has been given to the
    U.S. constitution.  IMHO, it can't be done.  Some people look at the
    Bible as the ultimate authority on 
    
    1.  How to live their lives.
    
    2.  How to know and become one with God -- salvation.
    
    So, when I ask "Can one come to know God without the Bible" -- and it
    appears that Jamey and Collis are answering 'yes' -- then I think it is
    related to the "constitutional" thing.  You know, is the Bible the
    ultimate authority on how one can be saved in Christ.  That is, as
    Carole asks, can Christ/God work with us without us ever having been
    exposed to the Bible and its contents?   Lifestyle is just part of it.
    
    Anyway, that's essentially how I think the two questions are related.
    
    Regards,
    Paul                                                           

    Re.26
    
      Jamey:
             The problem with a "single and simple answer" is that
          it just might be incorrect. Being open minded can help prevent
          attachment to an idea that may completely wrong. 
    
          
                                                       Mike

    Carole and Mike - back a few...
    
    This is also the understanding that I have of the nature of God and
    Science of Mind just happens to agree with me!  (Isn't that
    convenient?)  ;-)  The spirit of God, the God-essence dwells within
    each of us.  As long as we open our hearts to that connection with
    All-That-Is then there is no need for an intermediary, such as a man
    named Jesus.  This is not to say that the man named Jesus was
    insignificant in any way.  He was a master at living and embodying the
    Christ-conciousness within.  I happen to believe that he lived to show
    some of us, by example, how to live in that Christ-conciousness.  In
    this sense He truly was the Son of God, but we are also, all of us,
    Sons and Daughters of God.
    
    Nanci

    
    re .30
    
    Mike,
    
    Or perhaps miss the one idea that is completely right.
    
    Jamey

    
    Re.32
        
          How could being open minded allow you to miss the
        one idea that is completely right or am I missing 
        your point altogether ?
    
                                                      Mike

Re:  missing the right idea by being open-minded

  If the right idea (i.e. TRUTH) is not accepted as TRUTH but, instead
  considered "one possible truth" and other ideas which are NON-TRUTH
  are also considered "one possible truth", then the TRUTH has been
  missed.

Collis

    But if you decide that one idea is TRUTH and dismiss all others
    as NON-TRUTH, then TRUTH can also be missed.
    
    Bonnie

.23  Jamey,

       >I don't have an aversion to the Bible.

    But you try to discount its validity and Truth at every turn.

FWIW, I think there is much truth in the Bible.  You seem
frustrated that I do not see the same "truth" as you see. 
 
      >The Bible is a useful tool in understanding the nature of God.  

    How did you come to this conclusion?

By reading the gospels.
  
     >But my original question was:  Can one come to know God *without* the 
     >Bible? 

   Whether a physical Bible is involved in one's salvation or not has no
   bearing upon the Truth therein. I have answered this question
   a few back.

But a non-physical Bible has bearing?  As in exposure to someone
who tells about the contents of the Bible?  To me they are the
same thing.
 
     >First you and Collis say yes; now you seem to be saying no, via
     >this reply.  Which is it?

   Quit trying to play like *we* are the semantic contortionists.

I will continue to call it as I see it, just as you do.  
 
      >Another question:  Can one know God without knowing/being told
      >about Jesus?

     >You didn't want to answer this one?
    
    What did Jesus teach about this:
    
    "Don't you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a
    long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can yousay,
    'Show us the Father'? Don't you believe that I am in the Father and
    that the Father is in me? The words I say to you are not just my own.
    Rather it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work."
    John 14:8-10
    
    "If I have spoken to you of earthly things and you do not believe; how
    then will you belive if I speak of heavenly things? No one has ever
    gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven - the Son of Man."
    John 3: 12-13
    
    If you know God, you know Jesus, and vice verse.

Right!  My point precisely!

      >OK, but without a Bible or exposure to someone who has read the
      >Bible, one cannot know Jesus, the person, who he is and what he
      >has done, is that right?  And therefore one cannot realize
      >salvation, right?

	It is certainly possible, but not likely. Somewhere in the chain
    between the 12 apostles and today, there probably aren't very many
    links that have not read the bible. Instead of trying to prove that one
    cannot be saved without a bible, why not be a little more grateful that
    God decided to leave a written record of Jesus (and *his*) teachings.

I am grateful for this God-breathed record as well as the
multitude of other God-breathed ways in which God has reached out
to and communicated with humanity.  On the other hand, I think it
is important to point out that those humans who do not subscribe
to Bible-based Christianity -- the majority of the human race -- 
can be emersed in the Holy Spirit just well as those whose
spiritual lives are based on the contents of the Bible.  As
Carole suggested, I believe Christ/God works -- and successfully
-- with people directly, often in ways in which there are no
written words, or references to written words, involved.

    You cannot know salvation without believing in Jesus

I believe in Jesus Christ.  Now tell me I don't, Jamey.  I dare you.

And while you're telling me that, I dare you do knock this
battery off my shoulder too. ;)

    The Spirit of God is alive,
    regardless of whethhre one has read the Bible or not.

Amen.

    But to say you know God and don't *need* Jesus is opposite of
    what Jesus taught.

Did I say that?  Who said that?  Opening ones heart to the Holy
Spirit, to God, is precisely what Jesus taught.  It's not a
question of stating whether or not one needs Jesus.   Knowing
God, letting God in, means letting Christ in.  Wouldn't you say
so?

    If Jesus is who he says he is, then you do not know God
    without him ...
    
If Jesus is who he says he is, then perhaps it is unwise for you
to go around telling others, "You do not know God"

    The people who claimed to know God in Jesus
    time (and ours) have no clue. In fact they were so far off that they
    did not recognize Jesus when he came, the Son of the one they claimed
    to worship, who contained the very essence of God.
    
Which is why I entered a topic entitled:  What if Jesus returned
today?  Since you know Jesus so well, Jamey, and since you will
immediately recognize him when he returns, maybe you should let
the rest of us know when that event happens.  Tell us who is and who
isn't the antichrist too.

    >  I get very cautious when someone hands me a
    >printed page, written and published by men, and says, "Here --
    >this is what God is all about."

    Thank goodness he chose to capture his teachings, prophesies, etc. in a
    medium we can understand. We couldn't accept His son, perhaps we can
    read....

Right, and God has given us a spectacular multi-media show.  It
makes no sense to concentrate on only one medium.  Not only are there
God-inspired messages in the printed word, but things that can be
understood through the other senses, sound, smell, touch,
thought, and feeling -- in black and white, in color, and in
multiple dimensions and panoramas.  Why look at one piece of
black and white medium and say, "Ah!  The big picture!"
    
     >Then who could I be speaking with?  Could it be .... let me see ...
     >could it be ....  }:)  I think it would be a mistake to assume
     >that just because my communications with the Divine are not like
     >yours, I am "not speaking with the Father."  You are
     >pre-judging what God wants to say to me and/or should say
     >to me.

   Yes, Paul, it probably is. Someday when you need exorcism, I will
   be gald to oblige.

You *are* Catholic!  Seriously, who is possessing me?  Satan or
just some other run-of-the-mill demon?  Please specify.

   I think it would be a bigger mistake to think that
   you have discovered your own private little short cut past
   Jesus.

Christ/God works in ways for which you don't give him credit.  And
not doing so is an even bigger mistake.

   It has nothing to do with being anything similar to me.

It has *everything* to do with being similar to yours.  Go
re-read your previous long reply to me.  When I tell you that my
interactions with God are not like yours, you waste no time in
telling me, coming to a conclusion that I am cultivating a
relationship with demons -- offering me an exorcism -- and 
accusing me of trying to take "short cuts" (whatever that means)
to God and of redefining the "word of God" to suit my personal whims.
I really hope you're right, Jamey.  Because if you are not, you 
may have to reap the consequences of taking so much power into your 
own hands, the consequences of sowing your little seeds of sweeping 
judgements against your brothers/sisters.  How's that for fire 
and brimstone?
 
    ARE YOU DEAF?????? It has nothing to do with me and my
    preconceptions... take 79

No, you are blind.  You don't know the magnitude of some of the
things you are saying.

    >The "ways that we make for ourselves"???  I knew this was coming.

   Guilty conscience? ;)

You really have got to meet those nuns.
 
    >What you really mean to say is that my understanding of the teachings
    >of Jesus is not compatible with yours (Jamey's).  When you
    >presume to speak for Jesus, my ears don't hear you.  And the beat
    >goes on.

    True. I have and continue to express my understanding of what Jesus
    taught.

I wish you really would.  

        >Then you don't believe channeling is necessarily the work of evil
        >demons after all.  How nice!    ]:^(

    I have mentioned before that channeling (vague as the term seems to be)
    is not a problem. The problem is that the Holy Spirit is the only one
    worth channeling (and yes there are many others).
 
I agree.  Tell me about how you channel the Holy Spirit.

      >I am simply saying that the way to
      >Oneness with the Father, to knowing God, to the Holy Spirit, to
      >the Spirit of Christ, and to salvation NEED NOT be via the Bible
      >route.  

    Then we agree. Unfortunately we seem to disagree on the Jesus route.

See, you don't seem to think they are one in the same route.
Other routes to Oneness with the Father (non-Biblical routes) 
do involve Oneness with the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

     >Why should we be so quick to block out any manifestation of God-breathed 
     >expression, just because it doesn't fit in nicely and neatly with our
     >prejudiced, flawed, and limited ways of understanding the world
     >around us?  And I would ask you, Jamey:  Why does it seem that
     >you so casually write off so many non-Biblical expressions of and
     >paths to God?

    Why should we so casually accept so many things as God-breathed, just
    because the *do* fit in nicely and neatly with our ...

I admit that my understanding of the world around me is
prejudiced, flawed, and limited.  Do you?  While I do not
automatically or casually accept everything that comes down the
pike as God-breathed, neither do I stop at one God-breathed
expression, in the form of a book, and say, "I've got it all
right here.  Everything else is not of/from God."

    I don't write off any expressions of God that I know of.
    
You write off the ways in which God chooses to express Himself to
me and to others.  You write off the vast majority of the
expressions of God articulated in the spiritual lives of the vast
majority of people living on earth.
    
     >Yawn.  And again and again and again you say it.  This is a
     >classic.  When all else fails -- when brother Paul doesn't agree
     >with the born-again Christian's view of God -- tell brother Paul
     >that he's redefining the word of God to suit his own personal
     >model, to satisfy Self and not God.  

   And he does, over and over and over .....

Thank you, Jesus.
  
      >  That's all!  To tell me that I should "get it"   
      >the way you "get it" because the way you "get it" is the way
      >Jesus "meant it" is real big of you, pal.

    Grab lapels, shake vigorously.
    
You want me to take you for another boat ride?   The water
temperature in Winnipesaukee right now would suit your
fire-and-brimstone carcass just perfectly.  ;)
   
       > Otherwise, I do not
       >hear you when you get into one of these I-speak-for-God snits. 
       >And the beat goes on.

    You are already asleep, reading in your preconceived anti-Christianity
    bias into everything I write, ole buddy.
    
Well, as Jerry and Jimmy and Jesse and Jamey, and all the other
J's, who think they are Jesus, would say:  I hate the sin but love
the sinner.
    
       >BTW, is this a question from you or God?

    You be the judge of that.    

OK, I shall.  It's from you.

Paul   

    
     Re.34
    
     Collis: 
    
    
         I ain't usually much of a Scripture quoter, but in this
    case what I would say was better put by the Buddha.( We Buddhists
    have Scripture too, ya know.)
    
     "A man has a faith. If says, "This is my faith.", so far he maintains
    the truth. But by that he cannot proceed to the absolute conclusion:
    "This alone is the truth." In other words a man may believe what
    he likes and he may say, "I believe this.". So far he respects the
    truth. But because of his belief or faith. he should not say that
    what he believes is alone the truth, and everything else is false.
    To be attached to one thing and to look down upon other things as
    inferior - this is called a fetter."
    
    And from the the Buddhist Emperor Asoka: (Not Scripture, but also
    well said.)
    
     "One should not only honor ones's own religion and condemn the the 
    religion of others, but one should honor others religions. So doing one
    helps one's own religion to grow and renders service to the religions
    of others too.  In acting otherwise one digs the grave of one's
    own religion and also does harm to other religions. Whosoever honors
    his own religion thinking, "I will glorify my own religion." But
    on the contrary he injures his own religion more gravely.
      So, concord is good: Let all listen, and be willing to listen
    to the doctrines professed by others."
    
    
    
    
                                                       Mike
    

Re  .35

When I capitalized "truth", I meant that it was absolute TRUTH, not a
perception of truth.  You are using it differently.  (Just thought I
should point that out.)

But that aside, I agree with what you say (assuming that TRUTH is not
absolute truth but just an incorrect perception of absolute truth).

Collis

Re:  .37

There certainly is some wisdom in what you quote.

However, what did Jesus think of the religions of others?  (This seems
to be a general consensus for this conference.)

His *harshest* words were for the religions of others.  For those
pharisees who worshipped not God, but themselves and their positions.

Of course, Jesus knew the TRUTH.  I am not Him and do not have his
abilities to know right and wrong.  But I can, I believe, understand
what He was saying.  If we cannot understand what God has revealed
to us, then we are much to be pitied - for we are all lost.

Colliis

    But Collis,
    
    the pharsees were Jews just as Jesus was.
    
    On the other hand he befriended, and revealed his divinity to,
    a Samaritan woman, who he would have condsidered not Jewish.
    
    Bonnie

    re .36
    
    Paul
    
    Truce?   We don't seem to be getting anywhere.
    
    Jamey

    Re:  .39  Collis,
    
    Didn't Jesus attack the Pharisees attitude/behavior, especially their
    hypocrisy and arrogance, rather than the established religious dogma
    itself, and rather than the faith of the common Jewish persons, of 
    the day?
    
    .41  Jamey,
    
    OK, truce.  FWIW:  In the entire time you and I have known each other,
    did we *ever* get anywhere?
    
    Paul
    

Re:  .40

  If you serve a different God, then it is a different religion no matter
what you call it.

Re:  42

  You are quite right in that Jesus attacked those who, professing to
be wise, were leading the people down the road of destruction.  Jesus
did not attack in the least any of the commands of God, rather he
supported them fully and, in fact, elaborated on them.

  God Himself, in the Old Testament, makes it *quite* clear what He
thinks of the worship of other gods.  Have you not read?  Have you
not heard?  If I were to quote the Old Testament verses dealing with
the following of other gods and how God views that, would I not quote
about 1/4 of the Old Testament?

  Who to worship is a central theme of God and, therefore, of the Bible.

(I refer to worshipping other gods, because this is what "the religions
of others" is.  Choosing another god over God.)

Collis

    re .42
    
    Get anywhere? I think we 'got' to be friends. You are still my friend?
    ;) it is just that our beliefs appear to have very little commond
    ground. Though there does seem to be some spiritual common ground
    somewhere, maybe we should take a look again some other time.
    ...
    
    And if you would just admit that you are *wrong*...  ;) ;) ;)
    
    Jamey
    

                         
.43  collis,
    
   God Himself, in the Old Testament, makes it *quite* clear what He
   thinks of the worship of other gods.  Have you not read?  Have
   you not heard?  If I were to quote the Old Testament verses
   dealing with the following of other gods and how God views that,
   would I not quote about 1/4 of the Old Testament?

"God Himself"?  Hmmmmm.  I try to avoid the old testament wherever
possible.  Not because I'm conVENiently picking and choosing, but
because I sincerely think the "God breathed" quality in it is pretty
weak.  You may talk about Jesus referring back to what "God
Himself" says in the OT, however I find the gist of Jesus's
teachings in the NT to be more loving/enlightening .... they don't
appear to square with the vindictiveness of "God Himself," as
portrayed in the OT.

   (I refer to worshipping other gods, because this is what "the
   religions of others" is.  Choosing another god over God.)

No, not necessarily.  I disagree.  And this is quite a sweeping
assumption you're making -- that other, non-BA christian
religions, are automatically "choosing another god over God." 
The practices of those in other religions can and do involve the
Creator of all things.

Paul

Re:  80.45
    
     >>God Himself, in the Old Testament, makes it *quite* clear what He
     >>thinks of the worship of other gods.  

  >"God Himself"?  Hmmmmm.  

Are you so "liberated" that you think God has anything less than a
NON-ACCEPTABLE attitude to the worship of other gods?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

Where do we draw the line in understanding (read "interpreting") what
God is saying?  Saying that worshipping other gods is acceptable is
certainly a perspective, but I can't imagine anyone claiming that it
is a Christian perspective.  (Maybe you're about to stretch the limits
of my imagination?)

  >Not because I'm conVENiently picking and choosing, but because I 
  >sincerely think the "God breathed" quality in it is pretty weak.  

This is exactly what "conveniently picking and choosing" is.  You decide
what God has said based on what you believe, rather than based on what
God has said (all Scripture is God-breathed...).  How many times do
books start by saying, "The word of the LORD came to me..."?  How many
times does the Old Testament claim to contain the word of God?  (If you
say, "over 3500", you're right.)

  >...that other, non-BA christian religions, are automatically "choosing 
  >another god over God." 

You are quite right in acknowledging that I say this.  However, you are
not right in saying that it is a sweeping assumption.  It is no assumption,
I assure you.  The things that I have learned from God and His Word
indicate plainly that it is His Will that you and I know His Son and
accept the sacrifice that Jesus made for us with his death.  I know you
disagree, but that does not change the message that I proclaim or the
message which the Bible proclaims (which, in this instance, are clearly
the same).

But it is sweeping.

Collis

    For some examples of Christian theologies of religious pluralism, I
    strongly recommend the books of Christian theologian John Hick.  His
    books "God Has Many Names" and "Problems of Religious Pluralism" are
    two in particular that I would recommend.

    Another example of religious tolerance, this time from the perspective
    of Roman Catholicism (which, since Vatican II, no longer believes that
    believers in non-Christian faiths, such as Islam, are necessarily
    condemned by God), is Hans Kung's book "Christianity and the World
    Religions".

    -- Mike

.46  Collis,

   Are you so "liberated" that you think God has anything less than
   a NON-ACCEPTABLE attitude to the worship of other gods? 
   Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.

What do you mean by "liberated"?  From whom or what?  Your view
of the Old Testament?  This is the only thing that matters in
discussions between you and me: The way you view Divinity vs. the
way I view Divinity.  Divine Truth will all come out in the wash,
regardless.   It seems to me those situations/things that lead
people away from the Reality of and Oneness with God just *are*. 
Actually in a sense they aren't at all. The Truth/Reality of the Father
prevails, in perfect peace/confidence, no matter how much mud we
choose to fling at our own souls.  For God to consciously lend
credibility to this mud (things that are not of/from the Truth
and Reality of the Spirit of God) by deeming something
non-acceptable only lends dignity to and honors something that
has no dignity and no honor and no credibility.  Because it
doesn't matter.  IMHO, God is not capable of dealing with
something untrue/unreal as if it were True/Real, the way you and
I are capable of it.  IMHO, God doesn't have to make decisions like
that!  But getting back to your original intent about worshipping
gods other than God, all I said was the practices of other
religious systems need not mean the worship of other gods.   You
appear frustrated that I am not accepting your premise as Truth.

   Where do we draw the line in understanding (read "interpreting")
   what God is saying?

Everything in this world that my six senses collect, especially
religious doctrine found in a book, is subject to my processing
it, interpreting it, and understanding it.  And you do the same
thing, though you seem to have a strong urge to disown some of
your own personal information-processing machinery -- the
personal programs that your brain executes as well as the
personal output that your mouth spits out, which of course is
based on the programming code in which you have personally
chosen your programs to be written.

   Saying that worshipping other gods is acceptable is certainly a
   perspective, but I can't imagine anyone claiming that it is a
   Christian perspective.

Read my lips.  I *never* said that, although if a group of people
who follow Jesus decides that worshipping "other gods" --
whatever that really means -- is acceptable, then it doesn't make
much difference whether or not you (Collis) personally accept it. 

How do you define "other god" anyway -- a concept of God that
other Christian organizations might hold near and dear?  You know
as well as I do that entire Christian denominations --
international denominations -- were founded on a concept of God,
and on interpretations of the teachings of Jesus, that are
roughly compatible with mine and with Karen's and with Carole's
and with Cindy's and with millions of others.  Millions of people
claim that these are Christian perspectives.  And you're making
these types of Christian perspectives out to be exotic, when they
really are not.  And even if they were exotic by anyone's
standards, spirituality is not, in my eyes, the biproduct of
majority-rule.  Just because the majority of Christians say this
or that -- the majority of Christians have been wrong throughout
history, you know! -- does not necessarily make it True.   Your
persistence in trying to pin down what constitutes "true"
Christianity as well as a "true" Christian strikes me as
disheartening.

   (Maybe you're about to stretch the limits of my imagination?)

You mean I haven't already?  Sigh.  Too bad.  I thought I had
already achieved this!  ;)

   This is exactly what "conveniently picking and choosing" is.  You
   decide what God has said based on what you believe, rather than
   based on what God has said (all Scripture is God-breathed...). 

Get off this dead horse, please.  I do not decide anything about the
nature of God, based on my what my personal whims are, and
neither do you.   You and I both make judgment calls on
EVERYTHING we come across in life, on what God and the Truth are
all about, and we employ our interpretative powers in
understanding books, experiences, sights, sounds, feelings, and
so forth.  Please start to personally own up to some of the
decisions you have made regarding your spiritual life.  You left
A Course In Miracles, and gravitated toward the Bible, based on
your own personal understanding of what God is and what He wants.

   How many times do books start by saying, "The word of the LORD
   came to me..."?  How many times does the Old Testament claim to
   contain the word of God?  (If you say, "over 3500", you're
   right.)

How many other non-biblical writings and other God-breathed
revelations have you poo-pooed as missing the mark?   If you can
do it, I can do it.  I am not writing off the OT; I feel it has
been contaminated by cultures, customs, prejudices, translations,
transscriptions, deletions, and all the other man-made toxins
that naturally stain all expressions of God.  You believe it is a
near-perfect collection of expressions of God.  That's your
choice.  We all process what we are exposed to throughout life,
Collis.   Why do you seemingly place yourself above this sort of
thing?

  >...that other, non-BA christian religions, are automatically "choosing 
  >another god over God." 

  You are quite right in acknowledging that I say this.  However,  
  you are not right in saying that it is a sweeping assumption.  It
  is no assumption, I assure you.

Well, that says something about what you think about the dignity of
the spiritual lives of other Christian perspectives and other
religions all over the earth.   For someone who admits that one
need not know about the contents of the Bible to know and become
One with Christ/God, you definitely *are* making a sweeping
assumption, IMHO.

Paul

Re:  80.48

  >But getting back to your original intent about worshipping gods other 
  >than God, all I said was the practices of other religious systems need 
  >not mean the worship of other gods.   

I'm not sure where in this string you said that, but what started this
line (as best I can tell) is my response in .43:

     >>If you serve a different God, then it is a different religion
     >>no matter what you call it.

It sounds to me from the statement above that you agree with this.
(It would have helped if you had agreed with this statement up
front.  Unless you disagree with it.)

  >And you do the same thing, though you seem to have a strong urge to 
  >disown some of your own personal information-processing machinery 

You misunderstand me.  Not only do I not disown this, I have proclaimed
it very loudly very often.  Where we disagree is not that an interpretation
process goes on, it is whether or not some statements are so clear that
even numerous different people with numerous different interpretation
processes can come to the same conclusion about what the statements
mean.  I am convinced that they can.  It sounds to me like you believe
that they can not (to the extent that they can *know* what was meant).

  >Read my lips.  I *never* said that [worshipping other gods is acceptable].

I apologize.  I understand what you're saying now.  The problem is 
primarily that our frameworks are totally different, so I didn't 
understand what you were saying.  Sorry to have accused you falsely.  

  >How do you define "other god" anyway -- a concept of God that
  >other Christian organizations might hold near and dear?  

How does the Bible define it?  (Knowing that the Bible defines it
so well, I'll leave it at that.  :-) )

  >You know as well as I do that entire Christian denominations --
  >international denominations -- were founded on a concept of God,...

I know of no Christian denomination that was founded on a concept of
anything.  They are founded on the true, living God.  (I just had to
say this.  God made me do it.  :-) )

  >And you're making these types of Christian perspectives out to be exotic, 
  >when they really are not.  

Thank you for clearing this up for me.  And I just thought I was
interpreting Scripture.

  >the majority of Christians have been wrong throughout history, you know! 

I'm in the minority.  :-)

  >Your persistence in trying to pin down what constitutes "true" Christianity 
  >as well as a "true" Christian strikes me as disheartening.

"True" Christianity is already well-defined (by the Bible, of course).  
I just regurgitate it like Pavlov's dog at the appropriate stimuli.  :-)

     >This is exactly what "conveniently picking and choosing" is.  

  >Get off this dead horse, please.  

Yes, sir.  Off the dead horse and onto the Living Word (i.e. Jesus).

  >How many other non-biblical writings and other God-breathed
  >revelations have you poo-pooed as missing the mark?   If you can
  >do it, I can do it.  

I do nothing on my own authority.  (At least, I desire not to.  I know
I don't always succeed.)  It you wish to do something on your own 
authority, I will respond to it appropriately.

  >Well, that says something about what you think about the dignity of
  >the spiritual lives of other Christian perspectives and other
  >religions all over the earth.   

Jesus is no respector of spiritual lives which deny Him.  Neither am I.

Collis