Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Re:  6.129
    
  >A student asked the monk Joshu, "You are such a saintly person,
  >where do you think you will go when you die ?"
  >Joshu replied, "I shall be the first to go straight to hell."
  >"How can this be ?" Responded the student, clearly shaken
  >by the old monks response.

  >"If I do not get there first then there will be no one waiting
  >to help save other people when they arrive.", Joshu replied.  
    
This quote assumes exactly what Christianity is *not*, i.e. that we
can save ourselves.

	For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver,
        the Lord is our king;  *He* will save us.  Isaiah 33:22

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

Collis

    
    Collis:
    
            It seems to me that you have totally missed the lesson
      Joshu intended to teach.
            The moral of the story is that our compassion for other
      beings should be so strong as to make us willing to go to hell
      itself if need be to comfort and aid others. 
            One could very well claim that Joshu is pointing out that
      a person should endeavor to be Christ-like and be willing to suffer
      horribly in order to help others.
             In this mondo there is nothing at all about saving one's
     self, but rather total denial of self serving goals such as
     enlightenment or salvation.  
            
                                                       Mike
      

    .1    
            "This quote assumes exactly what Christianity is *not*,
             i.e., that we can save ourselves."
    
    Perhaps you are drawing lines too arbitrarily between "Self" and "God." 
    Some of these issues cannot be so simply addressed with the Self-vs-God
    scenario.  It isn't an either-or proposition, I don't think.  The line 
    between Self and God is more fudged-over than we realize, IMHO.
    
    Christianity, I think, *does* actively involve Self in many ways 
    that are not readily acknowledged.  Ways that involve active 
    testimony from one human being toward another.  In other words,
    Christians actively attempt to "save" others.  Christians also
    actively attempt to serve as "ambassadors" for God/Jesus.  Christians 
    also try to "rub off" on and set examples for others by showing others 
    how "Christlike" they are.  All this is not necessarily bad. 
    
    But you might argue that the Spirit of Christ, not Self, is actively at 
    work here.  That Christians themselves do not possess the power save 
    others, but rather the Holy Spirit working within possesses that power.  
    I would agree with this line of reasoning -- that in general the Spirit 
    has power and that Self does not -- if you were to acknowledge that the 
    Spirit is readily accessible to everyone, exclude none, and that the 
    Spirit can work through everyone, exclude none.  And, in my eyes, that's 
    the bottom line of what you seem to be saying Collis -- a subtle double
    standard.  When BA Christians actively attempt to "save" others,
    Christians would say the Holy Spirit, not Self is involved.  But when 
    non-BA Christians actively attempt to "save" others, of course,
    Christians would say that Self, devoid of said Spirit, is at work.
    
    I would agree that the Spirit of Christ is the only thing that can
    "save" anyone in terms of bringing a soul at Oneness with God. 
    And I would agree that salvation/oneness depends on the extent to which 
    the Spirit of Christ flows through each of us in varying degrees --
    salvation for ourselves and salvation for others who might be exposed to 
    the Spirit within us.  (BTW, I would say this monk did indeed have ample
    Spirit working within!)  If we do not "go with the flow" and allow it in,
    then you are correct:  We can do nothing via our own power.  However,
    if we do go with the flow and allow it in, our Selves transformed can.
    So in that sense, it is not a question of "Is it Self or God?"  You
    cannot simply separate Self from the Spirit of God -- cannot erect a
    wall between Self and God -- when one opens his/her heart to Spirit, 
    when one allows Spirit to flow freely through his/her soul.  And in
    that sense, there *is* a fusion of Self and Spirit, IMHO.
    
    Given all that, I think your strong proclivity for setting up two camps
    at odds with each other -- Self and God -- indicates two things:
    
    1.  That you do not acknowledge that Self and Spirit can fuse as One, in 
        a manner that I just suggested.
    
    2.  That you do not believe this fusion can happen with, that the Spirit 
        of Christ can and does work through, all people directly and often 
        successfully.  ALL people. Including those of cultures/religious 
        orientations different than your own. 
    
    Paul   

Re:  .2

  >...totally missed the lesson...

Yes, you're partially right.  I was blinded by the obvious (claim of
"saving others") to the also obvious (need to love and serve others).

Collis

Re:  .3

Hi, Paul,

I am very sensitive, I think, to claims that people can do what the
Bible says God alone can do.  The most important of these claims is
salvation.  Only God can save.  How people are saved (i.e. put right
with God) is such an important issue that it rightly is a dividing line
between Christians and non-Christians.

Collis

    
    Collis:
    
            Perhaps the confusion was because in many old Buddhist 
         writings "save" is synonymous with "easing suffering".
         Come to think of it that would true of Christianity
         too, wouldn't it ?
            "Salvation" in the Christian sense, however, has no
         counterpart that I am aware of in Zen teachings.
    
                                                       Mike

Re:  .6

Mike,

Now I'm confused.  It talks about "hell" (and therefore probably presumes
a heaven since almost all who believe in hell believe in heaven) and also
talks about "help[ing] save other people when they arrive".  Save them
from what?  From being in hell?  That is exactly the point that I
find objectionable.  Certainly, it is the most obvious inference to
a Christian.

Is there a better interpretation of what this person is going to "save"
others from?

Collis

    .5   Collis,
    
             "How people are saved (i.e., put right with God) is such an
              important issue thatit rightly is a dividing line between
              Christians and non-Christians."
    
    How so?  Can you elaborate?
    
    Paul
    

Re:  100.8

Paul,

    >>"How people are saved (i.e., put right with God) is such an
    >>important issue that it rightly is a dividing line between
    >>Christians and non-Christians."
    
  >How so?  Can you elaborate?

Sure.  I Corinthians 15:1-2,3

  "Now, brothers, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you,
  which you received and on which you have taken your stand.  By this
  gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you.
  Otherwise you have believed in vain."

Paul tells them that what they received (i.e. believed) is the difference
between them being saved or being doomed.

  "For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that
  Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was
  buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures"

The gospel message.  Chirst died for our sins.  This was predicted in the
Old Testament, revealed again before his death by Jesus and then proclaimed
after his death by his followers.  By accepting Christ's atoning death
for our sins, we are put right with God.

If you do not hold firmly to this word, you have believed in vain.

Collis

    Collis,
    	so those were PAUL's words. Not Christ's. Not from previous
    scripture. That was PAUL setting the standards. Or did I misunderstand
    what you said in .9 ?
    
    	Dave

Re.  .10

Dave,

Please don't tell me that you don't accept Paul's writings as God
breathed Scripture.  Oh, you don't.

Yes, Paul was the human author of I Corinthians.  No, Paul was not defining
a new standard.  Yes, Paul was restating an existing standard.

Would you like to hear what Peter says about it?  Or John?  Or the author
of Hebrews?  Or Isaiah?  :-)  :-)

Oh.  You'd like to hear what Jesus says.  Well, I'll get back to you on
that.  Perhaps you can find it for yourself (and save me a little time -
this noting business really eats into my day. :-) )

Collis

    Collis,
    	I do believe you are coming to understand me. Of COURSE I'd like to
    hear Christ's words in support of the sermon Paul preached and then
    stated was the foundation of salvation. Well, it sounded to ME like he
    was saying that you have to believe 'what I just told you' in order to
    get to heaven. (comment in ' ' is NOT a direct "quote") It does seem
    that Paul was suggesting that salvation lay in belief in *Paul's* words
    rather than in some other, lesser, standard. Like belief in Christ's
    words. But I'm sure that the sermon in question contained only Christ's
    words and explainitory comments, so they *should* be the same thing.

Re:  100.12

  >It does seem that Paul was suggesting that salvation lay in belief in 
  >*Paul's* words rather than in some other, lesser, standard. Like belief 
  >in Christ's words. 

Is Christ divided?  Was Paul crucified for you?  Were you baptized into
the name of Paul?

For Christ did not send Paul to baptize, but to preach the gospel - not
with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its
power.

Interesting, David, that you would hypothesize the very thing that
Paul explicitly refudiates earlier in I Corinthians.  No, Paul says that
Christ himself commissioned him to preach the gospel.  This message is
consistent with all the other gospel messages that Bible contains.

Collis

    Collis,
    	I certainly was not suggesting that WE should take Paul for
    something more than any other man. I was suggesting that Paul's words
    could seem to be interpreted as suggesting that it was HIS words, even
    if they were his words about Christ, that were the road to salvation.
    Read his words again, see if my interpretation COULD NOT be validly
    applied to that text. Don't slip it neatly into what you think it was
    intended to mean, what it has to mean to be contextually valid to your
    beliefs, but as if you heard an unfamiliar evangelist utter that text,
    someone who might not be a christian. Or am I asking too much of you to
    test your faith so ?

    Re.7
    
        Collis:
    
           Let me see if I can de-confuse you. As I pointed out 
         "save" as used in most Buddhist writings means to give
         comfort and aid to other beings. So, Joshu was talking
         about easing their pain and suffering. You may question
         if this is possible, but as Buddhist I will tell you that
         it doesn't matter because his intention do so is every bit
         as important as being able to it.
            You are incorrect in presuming that there is a corresponding
         heaven to go with the hell in the story. In Zen there is no
         belief in the "soul" as understood Christians. We do not believe
         in an immortal personal identity. 
             Because of this heaven and hell are not believed to be
         real places. The terms are used in an allegorical sense in 
         Zen stories. Zen Buddhists think that no one knows what happens
         when we die, but that we will all get to find out.
              The story is about what is called the "Boddisatva Ideal".
         A Boddisatva is some who is committed to the service of others.
         They want to "save" (Buddhist usage) all sentient creatures
         and help them realize enlightenment without any concern for
         their own comfort or enlightenment. A Boddisatva puts the needs
         of all beings before their own. 
               If there is a hell, a Boddisatva would say,"Send me there,
         that's where I am needed." The story is illustrative of the
         spirit of concern and compassion for other living things
         that one should aim for in Zen.
               I thought that it would be of interest to Christians
         because I thought this ideal is not all that incompatible
         message of love for others that is in the Gospels.
               I am sorry if you are offended. I was trying to 
         show that there might be some common messages to what seem to
         be two religions as far apart as any two you could find.
    
    
     
                                                       
                                                       Mike
      
    

    
     Re.7
           Collis:
    
                An afterthought, I sort of thought of the Joshu
        story as the Zen equivalent of the parable of the sheep
        and the goats in Matthew. 
    
                                                       Mike

    Mike S.,

    It was my understanding that the Buddha was an agnostic on the question
    of the afterlife, because dogmas about issues like that were considered
    irrelevant when what really mattered was the question of enlightenment. 
    There is a Buddhist scripture on this issue, that is one of my favorite
    passages from any religious tradition.  In the scripture, Malunkyaputta
    complains to the Buddha that he has left unexplained all the important
    questions about metaphysical matters:

        "Reverend Sir, it happened to me, as I was just now in seclusion,
        and plunged in meditation, that a consideration presented itself to
        my mind, as follows: 'These theories which the Blessed One has left
        unexplained, has set aside and rejected--that the world is
        external, that the world is not external, that the world is finite,
        that the world is infinite, that the soul and the body are
        identical, that the soul is one thing and the body another, that
        the saint exists after death, that the saint does not exist after
        death, that the saint both exists and does not exist after death,
        that the saint neither exists nor does not exist after death--these
        the Blessed One does not explain to me.  And the fact that the
        Blessed One does not explain them to me does not please me nor suit
        me.....If the Blessed One will not explain to me [the entire list
        of possibilities mentioned above] ..., in that case I will abandon
        religious training and return to the lower life of a layman."

    The Buddha replies with a set of rhetorical questions, pointing out that
    he did not ask Malunkyaputta to lead the religious life in order to
    answer those questions.  He then provides this analogy:

        "It is as if, Malunkyaputta, a man had been wounded by an arrow
        thickly smeared with poison, and his friends and companions, his
        relatives and kinsfolk, were to procure for him a physician or
        surgeon; and the sick man were to say, 'I will not have this arrow
        taken out until I have learnt whether the man who wounded me
        belonged to the warrior caste, or to the Brahmin caste, or to the
        agricultural caste, or to the menial caste.'

        "Or again he were to say, 'I will not have this arrow taken out
        until I have learnt the name of the man who wounded me, and to what
        clan he belongs.'"

    The Buddha sites many other such possibilities.  He then explains,

        "The religious life, Malunkyaputta, does not depend on the dogma
        that the world is eternal; nor does the religious life,
        Malunkyaputta, depend on the dogma that the world is not eternal. 
        Whether the dogma obtain, Malunkyaputta, that the world is eternal,
        or that the world is not eternal, there still remain birth, old
        age, sorrow, lamentation, misery, grief, and despair, for the
        extinction of the present life I am prescribing...."

    -- Mike

Re:  100.14

  >I was suggesting that Paul's words could seem to be interpreted as 
  >suggesting that it was HIS words, even if they were his words about 
  >Christ, that were the road to salvation.

I'm sorry.  I didn't understand that this was what you were saying.

  >Read his words again, see if my interpretation COULD NOT be validly
  >applied to that text. 

Yes it can.

  >Don't slip it neatly into what you think it was intended to mean, what 
  >it has to mean to be contextually valid to your beliefs, but as if you 
  >heard an unfamiliar evangelist utter that text, someone who might not 
  >be a christian. Or am I asking too much of you to test your faith so ?

If you can ask this question of me (am I asking too much...), then you
really have *no* conception of how I interpret.  Let me share with you.

When interpreting, I think in terms first of possibilities, then in
probabilities.  I start with a small section of text, and then refine it
according to larger segments of text.  This seems to me as the best way
to interpret.  (Unfortunately, in my opinion, this does not seem to be
a very popular way of interpreting.)

So, for the verse in question, looking at the little text there (and
nothing else), what you suggest is a possible interpretation.  When the
larger context (of, for example, the letter) is considered, the probability
of this being the meaning falls to almost zero.  The reason is that
Paul explicitly says (as I quoted in my previous reply) that what he is
teaching is exactly what he received.  Therefore, Paul is simply a
messenger (or a vehicle for the message) and it is not the words of
Paul himself that are necessary for salvation, but the message itself.

By the way, the reason I didn't understand what you were asking is that
this point of view is certainly foreign to my thought and is not a usual
point of view even amongst non-Christians (that I'm aware of).  When a 
more (to my mind) natural meaning of your words presented itself, I didn't 
look beyond that.

Collis

Re:  .15, .16

Thanks, Mike, for explaining that.

Collis

    Collis,
    	I got a little short, sorry. You looked at it and saw the off-the-
    wall possibility that I'd noticed. I don't think it was said with that
    meaning - at least I HOPE not - but it does present a curious
    possibility. 
    	You and I seem to have pigeon-holed each other in some tight
    quarters and maybe we are reading too much of that "framework" into
    each others words. Shall we try to be a little more open to each other
    or are we going to let our basic disagreements over some matters affect
    all our dialogues ?  Since I'm probably more guilty (guilty more
    often?) it makes sense that I should make the greater effort.

Thanks, Dave.  I'm willing to work towards fruitful discussion of the
issues in a spirit of love.  (I do need to keep working on that "spirit
of love" part.  :-) )

Collis

Re:  6.175              Inspirational Quotes and Messages             175 of 176

  >"No interfaith conversation is genuinely ecumenical unless
  >the quality of mutual sharing and receptivity is such that each party 
  >makes him- or herself vulnerable to conversion to the other's truth."

Does this mean only the truth contained in the other's positions or
does it include the falsehoods as well?

Collis

    Collis,
    
    re: being open to the conversion to both truth and/or falsehoods in
    another's position?
    
    Being receptive to another person at the level of genuine ecumenism
    as I understand this quote, Collis, would make your question irrelevant, 
    imho.  
    
    Karen
                                                            

Re:  .23

  >...would make your question irrelevant

Perhaps to you, but not to myself as a seeker of truth.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    The quote from Standahl was taken from Robert Fowler's _Stages of 
    Faith_.  Fowler places genuine ecumenism in Stage 5.  Perhaps the 
    following which preceded Standahl's quote will be helpful to you in 
    answering your question: 
    
    "Stage 5 accepts as axiomatic that truth is more multidimensional and 
    organically interdependent than most "theories" or "accounts" of 
    truth can grasp.  Religiously, it knows that the symbols, stories, 
    dooctrines and liturgies offered by its own or other traditions are 
    inevitably partial, limited to a particular people's experience of 
    God and incomplete."
    
    The reason I said your question was irrelevant is because at the 
    _level_ of genuine ecumenism there is no such thing as a falsehood.  
    For every "falsehood" is actually based upon truth.  Furthermore,
    falsehoods can only be named as such by an outside observer who is 
    unable to understand the truth they are based upon.  
    
    What I am saying here is that every thought, every action, every 
    belief is based on an experience an individual has.  Is there any 
    such thing as a false experience?  No.  There may be what another 
    would say is a "false conclusion" (falsehood?) drawn from an 
    experience.  But to the person drawing the conclusion, of course it 
    is not false -- it is true and precisely consistent with his or her 
    experience!  
    
    Genuine ecumenism is not concerned with this cleavage of truth and 
    falsehood because it realizes that every belief, every conclusion,
    every action expresses the fullest capacity of truth that the individual 
    is able to comprehend and utilize * at the time *.  And genuine
    ecumenism understands that the process of life continually offers each
    individual an opportunity to discover "fuller truths."  
    
    With all that said, if you'd like a good example of genuine ecumenism,
    (i.e., making oneself vulnerable to the conversion of another's truth) 
    please refer to 14.51. 
    
    Hope this is helpful,
    
    Karen 

    	Perhaps this will help. I know many truths, or perhaps truths of
    many things. These truths do not conflict but they are not all truths.
    It is possible that some of what I believe to be truth is only a
    misunderstanding or a partial truth. In these things I should be ready
    to accept correction or expansion. This latter is perhaps the most
    relevent to this discussion. Since nobody knows every truth then we
    should all be prepared to expand upon our understanding. While this
    SOUNDS like I'm talking about the hard sciences, it pertains as well to
    philosophy and theology. How can any one person understand all of
    Christ's lessons in one short lifetime ?  You may be certain that you
    do, but that is more likely a sign that you do not.

    re .26: 
    line 2 should read "These truths do not conflict but they are all
    truths."  My fingers do betray me.

Thanks, Karen, for that explanation.  It was very well put.

I understand what is said.  However, I do not agree that this is a correct
frame of understanding.  Whether you or I can correctly discern it, there
are some things (beliefs, statements, etc) which are true because they
are correct and there are some things which are false because they are
incorrect.  Discerning what is true and what is false is *extremely*
important according to Scripture.  We are to *avoid* being deceived (by
what is not true) and avoid deceiving others.  Likewise, we are to seek
the truth and the truth will set us free (something that non-truth will
not do).

I agree with you experiences are not "false", per se.  However, experiences
result in people believing (or not believing) various things and those
beliefs are often (I won't say always although I can't off the top of
my head think of an exception) a mixture of truth and non-truth (somewhere
between 0 and 100% of either/both).  It is therefore the acceptance of
beliefs which are not true that we are to avoid.

I support some of the goals of ecumenism.  It promotes loving everybody
and accepting everybody, both of which are very worthy goals.  However,
it also promotes accepting *false* beliefs as a part of accepting other
people.  This is Biblically wrong, as I understand it.  We are to accept
and love others, but *hold fast* to the truth which has been given to us
by God.

Hope this helps you to understand where I'm coming from.

Collis

    I appreciate your thoughts Collis and would like to respond further.
    
    > I understand what is said.  However, I do not agree that this is a 
    correct frame of understanding.  Whether you or I can correctly 
    discern it, there are some things (beliefs, statements, etc) which 
    are true because they are correct and there are some things which are 
    false because they are incorrect. <
    
    Basically I agree with you here Collis.  To illustrate the subtle 
    difference I was focusing on in .25, I would like to risk puting you 
    on the spot and use you as an example, if I may:  (If I may not, I 
    apologize now :-))  At the level of understanding you have (on 
    whatever subject you want to choose), are you aware of any false 
    beliefs or falsehoods you have?
    
    Applying that same question to myself, I know (on one level) I 
    currently carry false beliefs about some things, but I don't think I 
    could tell you what they are, because I'm not aware of them myself.  I
    would never knowingly ascribe to false beliefs, would you?  Would
    anyone?   
    
    I myself can only discover them when my perspective is "somehow" 
    enlarged enough for a deeper truth to emerge, enabling me to clearly 
    see the incompleteness or inaccuracy of those beliefs.  Do you see 
    what I mean?  Inherently, I truly believe we are creatures of truth - 
    with constant attraction to and allured by Truth, although many times
    this is difficult to see, even impossible sometimes.  But the
    limitation to "see" this is ours.
    
    The value of *any belief* we hold Collis, as I see and have 
    experienced it, is that it has the potential to lead us to deeper and 
    deeper truths.  Every false belief contains the seeds of truth.  Every
    false belief, as Dave implicated, is an incomplete truth.  I agree. 
    And not only does every belief have the potential to lead us to deeper 
    truths, this potential is continually utilized to do just that.  (I 
    oftentimes call this process Grace, as in Amazing Grace - "I once was 
    blind, but now I see.")
    
    Sometimes I feel that if we can share and connect with each other at 
    the level of genuine ecumenism, it has the potential to illuminate 
    "incomplete" truths, for each person involved.  Isn't that how Jesus 
    was oftentimes "with" a person - at this level of genuine ecumenism?  
    Being with another person at this level can enable us to understand 
    the truth of another, yet to answer another concern of yours, it does 
    not necessarily mean we accept and act upon their truths as our own.
    
    On another level, I have had the experience of opening myself up to 
    conversion to religious views similar to yours and asking God to come 
    into my life and lead the way.  S/He has shown that conversion is not 
    necessary, for lack of a better word.  (I wrote about this experience 
    in the last version of GOLF::CHRISTIAN in note 833 as you may 
    recall.)  Now I know you believe that there is no need for conversion
    to other beliefs is a "false belief" I hold, but what can I say...? :-) 
    Although I was not converted, the experience I had of making myself 
    vulnerable to conversion, I feel, enlarged my perspective such that 
    I can listen and dialogue with you on deeper levels than before.  
    
    To respond to another concern you mention about ecumenism regarding 
    it promoting the acceptance of "*false* beliefs as a part of 
    accepting other people" -- this I feel is a "false" understanding of 
    ecumenism on your part. ;-)  I feel ecumenism is about loving people 
    and accepting people and the truth about who and what they are, as 
    you mention at the end of your last note.  But as I said before, it 
    does _not_ require accepting their beliefs or the practices of their 
    beliefs.
    
    Thanks very much for your thoughts, I do better understand where you're
    coming from.  Hope you feel the same. 
    
    Karen
    

Thanks, Karen, that does help.

The original quote says "that each party makes him- or herself vulnerable
to conversion to the other's truth".  I take that as meaning some of the
basics of the other's truth.  For example, whether or not Jesus is God is
a basic issue.  The meaning of Jesus' death on a cross is a basic issue.

When I read your reply, it sounded like truth is elusive.  You are quite
right when you say that there are falsehoods that each of us believe and
we don't know that they are false (we believe them to be truth).  But I
also think that there are truths that we can believe that we can *know*
are truth.  And when these truths are claimed by others to be falsehoods...

This is the area where ecumenism falls short.  There is not enough
distinction, in my opinion, between the acceptance of others
and the rejection of false beliefs.

Collis

    Yes, E :-)
    
    You know, I thought of you (and another ">" conserving friend of 
    ours ;-)) immediately after >'ing that quote!
    
    :-)

    Collis .30,
    
    I see what you mean re: "that each party makes him- or herself
    vulnerable to conversion to the other's truth."
    
    > I take that as meaning some of the basics of the other's truth.
    
    I think it does mean what you're reading, and it goes further than
    that.  Ultimately, to me, it means meeting another person in
    trust, receptivity, and acceptance for that person without any 
    expectation or concern one way, or the other, about being "converted."  
    To be willing to make yourself vulnerable to conversion to another's
    truth is probably one of the most faith-full acts a person can
    do.  It is probably one of the most, if not *the* most, empathatic 
    act a person can do.
    
    I'm reminded of the response DR offered in 6.176 regarding the
    missionary efforts of Dr. Frank Laubach with the Mindanao people in
    the Phillipines.  He was unsuccesful until he asked the local people
    to teach him the Koran.  I don't know, but I'm assuming he didn't 
    convert his beliefs as a result, but it sure sounds like he was willing
    to make himself vulnerable to their beliefs.  
    
    As a result, it helped him to connect and build a more intimate 
    relationship with the Mindanaos.  Perhaps his willingness to be 
    vulnerable to their truths prompted the same in the Mindanaos and some 
    of them did "convert".  (I would assume so, since his work is reported 
    to have become more "successful")  
    
    > ...I also think that there are truths that we can believe that we can
    *know* are truth.  And when these truths are claimed by others to be
    falsehoods... <
    
    Yes, I've also had the same experience, many times, Collis... To the
    one who is beholding a truth, the truth of that truth seems so obvious.  
    Why doesn't/can't the rest of the world see it too?  But now we're 
    getting into the intricate, complex, wonderous, frustrating process of 
    how meaning and value is created in the mind of a person, which is based 
    upon their responses to the multitude of life experiences she or he will
    most likely have. 
    
    We live in a truly awesome universe.
    
    Karen

    Remember, Karen and E, the ecological fate of the universe depends
    on the conservation of ">" characters.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    	Aww, c'mon guys. A ">" is just a "<" that thinks it's somehow
    superior, greater than, the rest. Disgusting how some characters put on
    airs.

     I thought the rule was, "In a closed system the number of ">"
    characters tends to reach a state of equilibrium." Were my
    professors wrong about this ?

                                                             Mike

re Note 6.182 by George Orwell from "1984":

        I am amazed at how willingly we destroy so much of our own
        wealth (and lives, should it come to that) out of a haste
        borne from a simplistic  reading of the lessons of Vietnam
        (hold nothing back, take no pause, etc.).

        We and our allies will eventually lose far more wealth than
        Iraq, even if the war continues to go "well".  That's wealth
        that could have gone for education or health care (although,
        realistically, one would have to recognize that the present
        administration would never agree to spend such outrageous
        sums on schools, housing, and medical care for people whom
        they view as poor because of laziness).

        Of course, they are expending such outrageous sums each hour
        to serve justice to one madman while ignoring justice for our
        own people.

        Now, who's the madman?  (Ooooh, I can't believe I wrote
        that!)

        Bob

    6.202:
    
    Perennial wisdom.  As poignant and beautiful now
    as it was then. 
    
    Thanks for entering Mike.

    Re: 6.208
    
    	One of my favorite quotes from a military man.
    
    	Thanks, Ro.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

        I think that Note 91.259 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE, "A letter in
        support of the Biblical stance," quoted from Sister Polly
        Esther, really belongs in the "Inspirational Quotes" topic. 
        It truly is inspired (I believe by God) and exposes a lot of
        hypocrisy!

        Bob

    Re: 6.227
    
    I could never even *read* what I wrote under those circumstances!
    ;-}
    
    Richard

Some interesting (maybe) history regarding the Whitehead quote entered by Mike 
Valenza in note 6.232...

When I got up to this line:

	"Except perhaps for the simpler notions of arithmetic, 
	 even our more familiar ideas, seemingly obvious, 
	 are infected with this incurable vagueness." 

I was reminded of the work of Bertrand Russell and Alfred North Whitehead who 
were prime movers in the mathematical field on number theory.  (I didn't even 
know it was a Whitehead quote!)  An earlier explorer of the field, who's name
escapes me, had been corresponding with Russell concerning a paradox Russell
had brought up (concerning catalogs of library books that had (or hadn't) been
catalogued.  Should the catalog of catalogs be catalogued?...).  The other 
mathemetician saw his entire life's work crumble by this problem.  It quite 
literally broke the man's mind.  So Russell set out, with Whitehead, to solve
the dilemma. 

They set out on a quest to completely define Number Theory (things you can do 
with positive integers; one, two, three, and so on... .-).  They came up with 
a collection of volumes called _Principia Mathematica_.  Very detailed.  They 
couldn't even prove 1+1=2 until several hundred pages of equations and proofs,
but finally it was complete. 

Then a marvelous idea hit them.  What if, by using only the theorems layed
down in their book, they rigorously PROVED that their work was complete, i.e. 
every possible true statement could be proven true via what they had written,
and every possible false statement could be proven false.  What a concept! 

Alas, it was not to be.  Kurt G�del, another mathemetician, was not only able 
to prove that their work was insufficient to be complete, ANY POSSIBLE 
additions or revisions were doomed to fall short as well.  G�del's famous 
Incompleteness Theorem, basically states, in mathematical terms, "this 
statement cannot be proven true".  Prove it, and a false statement has been 
proven true, that's no good.  Be unable to prove it, and it is obvious that 
it's true, so you've missed one, that's no good either.

So the joke was on Russell and Whitehead.  (I wonder at what point in his 
career he made the statement in 6.232?)  Even the "simpler notions of
arithemetic" such as addition and multiplication of whole numbers, seemingly
obvious, is infected with an incurable vagueness!  The internal consistency of
arithemetic has its limits. 

There are statements that are true that cannot be proven true, there are 
statements that are false that cannot be proven false, there are statements 
that can be proven to be true AND false, and there are statements that cannot 
be proven true OR false, and one can PROVE that they are unprovable.

The ONLY way to arrive at a place where there is no paradox is to simplify to 
the point of triviality.  If you can't express G�del's theorem, you don't have
any paradox, but then, you wouldn't have much of ANYthing!  Even addition,
subtraction, multiplication, and division (a simple 4-function calculator)
would be verboten in such a world. 

There is a wonderful, and quite readable book by Douglas Hoffsteader entitled 
_G�del, Escher, Bach:  an Eternal Golden Braid_ that explores this subject, 
and many related to in in several fields of interest, quite well (though by
necessity, it is incomplete! .-) 

What does this little foray into arithemetic mean to me?  For a start,
whenever I hear pleas of sola scriptura, letting scripture interpret itself, I
am reminded of _Principia_.  You may try to prove everything from such basic
premises, but there will STILL be paradoxes, statements that can be
successfully argued to two or more interpretations.  And I think that it
marvelous!  The complexities of God are not encompassable! 

Of course there ARE points of theology that are a solid as 1+1=2, but even as
arithmetic has it's fuzzy edges, a richer, more complex, and more personal
field such as theology by necessity has more widespread fuzzy areas, and what
may be clear as an azure summer sky to one, may be blinding fog to another. 

Ambiguity and multiple meanings are part and parcel of a rich, complex work.
That is provable mathematically.  A Bible that held no wonderous confusion 
would also hold no compassion, it would not invite faith, it would not draw 
people together to discuss and share their viewpoints, values, and lives.

Have a Good Friday, and a Joyous Easter!

Peace,

Jim

    Re: 6.234  Yes, yes, yes!

    Re: 6.235
    
    When I was teaching a fourth grade Sunday school class I once
    remarked, "Happiness is not having what you want.  It's wanting
    what you have."
    
    One of the kids affirmed that statement by saying, "Hey!  You ought
    to put that on a bumper sticker!" :-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 6.275 by LEDS::LOPEZ:

> 	And in the midst of the lampstands One like the Son of Man, clothed 
> with a garment reaching to the feet, and girded about at the breasts with a 
> golden girdle; And His head and hair were white as white wool, as snow; and 
> His eyes as a flame of fire; And His feet were like shining brass, as having 
> been fired in a furnace; and His voice as the sound of many waters; And He had
> in His right hand seven stars; and out of His mouth proceeded a sharp two-edged
> sword; and His face was as the sun shines in its power.
> 
> 
> 		John seeing the resurrected, ascended, and enthroned Christ
> 		as He cares for the churches

        How utterly different from the Christ of the gospels!

        (Who, by the way, said that "he that hath seen me hath seen
        the Father.")

        Bob

Hmmm, Bob,

Notice that it says "...One like the Son of Man..."
                            ^^^^
From the passage quoted, it's not clear exactly who is being described...

Jim, not entirely sure of the context of this passage, off the top of my head..

RE.46

Bob,

	"Wow" says it for me too! 

ace

re -1

I knew there was a reason I liked that guy!  :-)

Nanci

    Thank you Mike and Charles for 6.281.

        The quote in Note 6.281, from Charles Darwin, reminds me of
        what a giant he was.

        The imprint of the word of God is all around us -- in every
        created thing.  Darwin looked into the word of God and saw
        more clearly than any before him how magnificently awesome
        God's order of creation is.  I suspect that it was a very
        special gift of inspiration that aided him.

        Bob

    Compassion (good heart, affection) is the dominant mode of human beings.
    
    Dalai Lama
    
    I found this fascinating. I never heard it said anywhere before.

	RE: .52 I've heard it before but never by one, like the Dalai Lama,
	who should know better.

			Alfred

    
    Alfred,
    
    I am curious....why do you say it is wishful thinking?
    
    Carole

	Carole,

	It's wishful thinking because it would be nice if:

 Compassion (good heart, affection) [were] the dominant mode of human beings.

	But I don't believe it's true. I believe that compassion must be
	taught and that people are not that way by nature. I believe that
	the appearence of compassion is often a front. Belief in compassion
	being the dominant mode of human beings totally disregards the state
	of the world.

			Alfred

  

     
       Alfred:

               Ahhh... But the Dalai Lama does know better that is why
          he believes as he does. :-)  Perhaps it would be better expressed
          by saying that compassion and good heart are the natural state
          of human beings. The Dalai Lama's English often leaves something
          to be desired.
               It is true that compassion and good heart are not
          the dominate condition in the world. This is because we have
          been taught to be stupid, greedy and ego driven beings who are
          no longer in touch with our original nature.
               This is of course at odds with one of the basic precepts
          of Christian belief. I do not think this means that the Christian
          view is right and the Buddhist one is wrong or vice versa. It is
          simply a case of two groups of people holding to different 
          belief systems.
                I once saw an interview with the Dalai Lama where he was
          asked to sum up his philosophy of life and he replied, " If you
          can't help a being, try not to hurt it too" 
                We must be careful about self-fulfilling prophecies.
          If we go into the world looking for trouble and ready to
          do battle that is just what might happen. If we go into the 
          world to comfort and help other beings and try to bring peace
          and understanding there is a good chance that this is what will
          happen.
                 I have very high expectations of my fellow beings and 
          although I am sometimes disappointed, far more often I find 
          that my expectations are exceeded. 
                                                      
                                                               Mike   
                                           

	RE: .55 Alfred

	From my perspective, based on my belief about who we really are,
	I think at the source of each of us is this compassion/good heart.
	I believe that our essence is part of God and therefore is Love.
	This aspect of human beings is, what I believe, the Dalai Lama
	was recognizing and naming.

	Carole

    Compassion and good-heart  would be the condition of humans if it
    weren't for sin. The effects of sin, (original sin in my definition)
    keep us from being in the natural state God intended, when he made the 
    first humans beings. 


    Peace
    Jim

re: Note 100.56 by Mike "Zen: It's Not What You Think" 

>               It is true that compassion and good heart are not
>          the dominate condition in the world. This is because we have
>          been taught to be stupid, greedy and ego driven beings who are
>          no longer in touch with our original nature.

Gee, that's not at all at odds with one of my basic precepts of Christian 
belief, that is, we are created in God's image (compassion and good heart) but 
have fallen (been taught to be stupid, greedy, and ego driven and no longer in 
touch with our original (God-imaged) nature).

I recall having had this same discussion once before, (was it with you,
Alfred?), and I think the conclusion was that some people refer to the fallen
nature as the "natural state".  Not a phrasing I quite agree with, but given
that understanding, it turned out that we were in "violent agreement". 

Peace,

Jim

Note 6.294
    
>    "[Christ is coming] in the hungry man, in the lonely man, in the
>    homeless child, and seeking for shelter."
    
>                                                 Mother Theresa

I agree 100%.  I would add the person with AIDS, anyone who is suffering,
anyone who is stigmatized, and anyone who will not yield to the status quo
for its own sake.

Peace,
Richard

    Very nice quote from Mario, Mike V. I once heard an interview
    with him on the radio, and the reporter asked him why he
    believed in things he couldn't see. Mario replied "Do you
    believe in electricity?"
    
    Eileen

    
    RE: 6.319
    
    Thanks for sharing that message from Sam Keen, Kb.  Owning our
    participation (even if unconscious) in all we see around us is of
    crucial importance at this time in human history (imho).
    
    Carole

In article <6.354-911211-075444@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (Zen: It's Not What You Think) writes:
|>Newsgroups: dec.notes.valuing_diffs.christian-perspective
|>From: [email protected] (Zen: It's Not What You Think)
|>Subject: Re: Inspirational Quotes and Messages
|>
|>Title: Inspirational Quotes and Messages
|>Reply Title: (none)
|>
|>
|>     "I have brought myself to the point where can sleep naked on the
|>      earth and eat grass. And may God grant everyone a a life like
|>      that. I need nothing and I fear no one, and I understand myself
|>      so well that no man is richer and freer that I."
|>
|>               
|>                                                 -Semyon Tolkovy
|>

Didn't Nebuchednezzar (sp?) spend some time being naked and eating grass? 8-)

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



			

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    In the late 50's there was an English woman who was walking across the
    USA trying to set a record. She was averaging over a 100 miles a day
    until she quit with feet problems. She was living on a diet of grass.
    She ran it through a juicer, though.
    
    Thee used to be a woman in Boston who advocated wheat grass juice as a
    healing substance. She claimed to have cured herself of some incurable
    condition by eating grass. She discovered this accidentally when her
    uncle refused to feed her anymore. She was too sick to move so she lay
    in the back yard and ate what she could reach. Oh yes, her name is  Ann
    Wigmore. The institute she started, called The Hippocrates Health
    Institute,  may still be in Boston.
    
    johN 

      Re. Last Couple

               The quote is from a character in a play by Chekov as
      used by a Zek to describe to Solzhenitsyn the spiritual change
      he experienced as a result of 25 years spent in the Gulag.
                I found it interesting that he found total freedom
      by being deprived of all freedom. By having everything taken
      from him he found the things he thought mattered in his life
      really didn't.

                                                               Mike  

                                                               Mike

    6.368,
    
    Thanks for posting that quote from Meister Eckart, Dave.  
    That is one of my all time *favorite* quotes! 
    
    Karen

    
    Richard,
    
    I loved the quote about St. Francis and the Almond Tree!!!
    
    Thank you!
    
    Cindy

6.369 & 6.372

Thanks, Mike, for entering those quotes. 6.369 is a long-time favorite of
mine.

	John Wesley is one of the most quotable Christians of the last
200 years.  You know, his brother, Charles, and his father, Samuel, are
responsible for some our best-loved hymns and carols.

Peace,
Richard

     6.378

            Thanks for entering that. Perhaps it might help some people
           understand one of the more difficult concepts of Zen and that
           is that we Zen Buddhists have no attachment to Zen Buddhism
           It is just an abstract concept and as such is useless.
     
            Many of the strange and paradoxical Zen sayings and stories
           are intended to illustrate the absurdity of language and
           conceptual thought. 

            I sometimes think that the Christian attachment to words,
          concepts and Scripture is one of the biggest stumbling blocks
          I encounter in trying to reach some kind of peaceful coexistence
          with them. I also fear that attachment to fixed words and ideas
          by some Christians are undermining what I think Christianity
          has to offer the world. Odd as it may sound if Christianity 
          becomes irrelevant in the world it will be the work of those
          who cling to it most tenaciously.


                                                               Mike 

              

re Note 100.69 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>             I sometimes think that the Christian attachment to words,
>           concepts and Scripture is one of the biggest stumbling blocks

        I'm agreed with you on this one.  The words, concepts and
        Scripture are all there to lead the Christian to an
        attachment to the living Spirit that created and sustains us
        all and joins us to every other being.  Yet, for so many,
        words fail to do this and instead become the object of
        attachment themselves.

        Bob

    Mike -
    
    As I was reading this I became convinced that it was an excerpt from
    Henry David Thoreau.  It sounds so much like some of the things he
    wrote.
    
    Nanci

    Hi Nanci.  It does, doesn't it?  As soon as I read that passage this
    morning, I felt I had to post it.
    
    -- Mike

    Karen, thanks for posting that quote from William Irwin Thompson. 
    
    -- Mike

    re: 6.410
    
    Oh how clever, let's demote "faith" to "explanation" and then let's
    promote an adjective "total" to "totalitarian" and leave 'em guessing
    what's the noun.
    
    "Power" it seems, can be handled by the secular humanists with "total"
    confidence, but not by anyone else.
    
    Christ called all to love each other, not seek power.

    I've never heard of William Irwin Thompson before, so I don't know if
    he is a secular humanist or not; but since I agree with his views, and
    I am not a secular humanist, I don't think that his comments are
    particularly tied to secular humanism.  The target of his comments were
    not only certain people of faith, but also certain people of various
    secular belief systems (he cited Marxism specifically).  On the other
    hand, some humanists and some people of faith can just as easily agree
    with what he said.

    As a person of faith myself, I did not see that he was demoting "faith"
    to "explanation".  

    -- Mike

    This is my parse through that pretentious fog:        
    
    I "fear" people with faith/"explanation".  They crave power.
    
    I don't fear people without faith/"explanation" becuase either they
    don't crave power, or they do crave power yet I don't fear them (the
    reason for that is left as an exercise to the reader).
    
    The rhetoric of "power" in the United States is the possession of the
    elites and elite wanna-bees with the greatest hostility to faith.

    I disagree.  He wasn't attacking faith or people with faith; he was
    attacking certain absolutist belief systems, which might be religious
    *or* secular.  There was no hostility to faith per se implied, but
    rather only certain manifestations of faith.

    -- Mike

    Patrick,
    
    Regarding your comments about hostility toward faith and people with
    faith:   FWIW, I didn't detect any attack/hosility toward same in
    that quote; in fact, as a person of deep faith in God myself, I pretty
    much agreed with the content of that quote.   I also don't believe
    the world is neatly divided between those who have faith and those
    who you call 'humanists.' 
    
    Faith is a wonderful wonderful thing, yet it turns sour when some
    people of faith expect other people, who have equally deep faith, to 
    come around to their way of thinking, adopting their perspective on
    divine truth and emulating their personal relationship with God.
    The net result is an attempt to persuade certain humans to put their
    faith/trust in certain *other humans*, instead of God, based on the false
    premise that these certain other humans -- or ANY other human -- corners 
    the market on the thought processes and interpretations of, and 
    experiences with, divine revelations that feed into a human perception of 
    Truth and God that is absolutist and flawless and above all others.
    This leads to the dangerous belief that 'My notion of Truth is not only 
    good for me, but is good for you too."   
    
    IMO, deep faith in God involves trusting God/Christ enough to work 
    with individuals, directly.  
    
    Paul
    

  Re.76
  
    
     Pat:
     
        Actually I think the problem lies with those who have very
   little faith. So little that they hold some words on a piece of
   paper in higher esteem than they hold God. They reduce the idea
   of divine a presence and action in the world to a set of rules.

        I think literalists of any religion have very little faith.
   They have abandoned faith and replaced it with elaborate constructions
   that create the illusion of certainty. They regard anyone who does not
   choose to participate in their illusions as the enemy. Their faith is
   so fragile that the existence of another point of view brings out the
   anger and hate that are symptomatic of their fear and lack of faith.

        A person of true faith has room for doubt and self examination.
   They question themselves and even laugh at themselves. The literalist
   has no place for such things....because they are so lacking in faith
   that they hide from themselves. Because they have no room for doubt
   they have no room for growth.

        I do not think the author of the quote fears those who have
   faith, but like myself, fears those who have little faith. 


                                                          
                                                               Mike

                                                           
  

    re  .79
    
    Whoa!   Now run and duck!  ;)  ;)
    
    In general, it is not my place to say/assume that fundamentalists
    and literalists have less faith than I or others.   That's between
    them and God.   However, when said fundamentalists/literalists do
    openly engage in emphasizing what they perceive as inadequacies in the
    spiritual lives of others, emphasizing the darkness/evil upon the face, 
    in the eye, of a brother/sister, rather than the light/goodness, then.... 
    well.... I admit I do take notice and wonder about their own secureness
    and confidence in their own faith and relationship with God, as well as 
    their degree of their inner peace.
    
    I adore people who come to know God in other ways, through different
    religious experiences, different than my own.   However, I will never
    be able to understand how anyone could point a finger at another
    brother/sister, child of God, and say, 'You don't know God.'  
    This is something that always has been, and probably always
    will be unfathomable for me.
    
    Paul
       
                          

    Deep faith in God leads to obedience to His Word.  Christ told us to go
    out into the world and to teach and baptize, not to "trust God/Christ
    enough to work with individals, directly".
    
    As for that "dangerous belief", John 4.46 quoted in 6.411 introduces
    the readers of this CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE conference to the words of
    Christ on the subject.

    re: .79
    
    When I meet a "literalist" by your definition, I'll ask him about your
    opinion of him or her.  I don't believe that I've ever encountered one.

    St. Paul told us to act to save the souls of others in 1 Cor 9:27 and
    St. Peter tells us in 1 Pe 5:6 to be humble in doing so.  That takes
    case of the pointing finger.

    Re.82
    
          You are lucky if you've never run across one. I already
         know what their opinion of me is. Several of them have let
         me know in no uncertain terms.
    
                                                              Mike

    re  .83  Patrick,
    
             "St. Paul told us to act to save the souls of others...
              St. Peter tells us to be humble in doing so..."
    
    Patrick, if this is what you feel you are commanded to do, tell me 
    specifically, in your own words, how you will act to save my soul 
    and, specifically, how will you do it in a humble way?
    
    Thanks
    Paul
    

    In particular, since it is not necessary to be a Christian to have
    one's soul saved (according to Roman Catholic teaching, anyway),
    wishing to save souls cannot in and of itself be a justification for
    wanting to proselytize non-Christians.  While there may be other
    justifications for proselytizing, soul-saving per se would would not be
    one of them (at least not necessarily), since devout Moslems, Jews, and
    devout people of other faiths are in fact not condemned to damnation
    merely because of having the "wrong" faith.

    -- Mike

	If it is not required to be a Christian to be saved you are correct.
	However not all Christians believe that to be true. It is not safe
	to assume that all Christians, or even all Catholics, agree that there
	are other ways to heaven.

			Alfred

    True, but the person who made the comment was a Catholic, and those
    Catholics who accept unquestioningly what their church teaches would
    accept that non-Christians can be saved.
    
    -- Mike

    Some people can find their way on the New York City subway system
    without a map.

    Some people can find their way with a map or with help they seek from
    others.

    Some people have committed the map to memory and actively want to share
    that knowledge with others so that they do not get lost.

    re: 6.414

    As a former prostitute, Billie Holiday, would be welcome here, and in
    Heaven if she repented.  She died of heroin addiction and devoted her
    life to jazz.

    -1
    
    Yes, bless her sweet soul.
    
    Karen

    6.414
    
    Thanks Billie Holiday for continuing to make millions of people happy
    via your music -- a gift from and expression of God, a window through
    which the Light of God shines on Earth.
    
    Rest in heaven amid the Kingdom of God,
    Paul
    

re Note 100.89 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Some people have committed the map to memory and actively want to share
>     that knowledge with others so that they do not get lost.

        And I am grateful to people like that, Pat!

        (Although, with society the way it is today, I'd bet that a
        lot of people who were approached by a stranger actively
        seeking to share their knowledge of the subway system would
        run away in fright!  :-{ )

        Bob

    God bless the child whose got her own.
    
    Richard

    re: 6.417,
    
    Thanks Mike, that's one of my favorite quotes.  It rings especially
    true for me.
    
    Karen

Re: .429

The man isn't right about everything...

				-- Bob

    .431
    
    Thank you, Bubba.  That poem and the sentiments behind it truly touched
    me.
    
    Richard

    Glad you liked it Richard ... you know ... for the likes of me, I just
    can't understand why good people die.  This "God" that you all speak of
    so freely ... well .. I just don't understand ... just don't
    understand.  What the Hell am I doing here?  I guess that perhaps there
    is some sort of "master plan" that I'm just too ignorant to understand.
    Why is it that so many good people have gone and I'm still here?  If there
    is some "plan" for me, I sure with *He* would clue me in.  Other than
    that, I don't know that I've got one heck of a lot of "faith" in this
    supreme being that allows people like me to hang on and he lets others
    go.

    Oh well.  Someday?  Maybe?

    Bubba

    .98, Bubba,
    
    	I hear your pain and I understand your bewilderment.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Bubba, perhaps you are here to bless us with your humor.  That's
    certainly a gift from God and one that benefits the humanity that
    touches your life.
    
    I'm sure you have many other talents, too!  ;')
    
    Ro
    

    RE: .433
    
    Sounds about right to me!
    
    Marc H.

re Note 6.436 by CARTUN::BERGGREN:

>     	"I want to remind you since I've become Governor, the Russian
>     	 empire has fallen.  The Berlin wall has come down.  

        I wish I had easy access to it, but I remember that there was
        a "religion in the news" item in this or another conference
        in which Pope John Paul congratulated the Polish people for
        winning their freedom, the German people for bringing down
        the Berlin Wall, and the Russian people for bringing about
        the end of the Soviet Union.

        Bob

    Governor Richards assertion that the last several Republican
    administrations are not at all responsible for the changes in the world 
    are stupid, in my opinion.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 100.103 by FATBOY::BENSON "CLEAN THE HOUSE!" >>>

| Governor Richards assertion that the last several Republican
| administrations are not at all responsible for the changes in the world
| are stupid, in my opinion.

	Jeff, you won't believe this, but I agree with you 100% on this. Nixon
helped a lot with getting our relations with China going, Reagan did a lot in
getting our foot in the door with the Soviet Union and then helped end years of
Communism. I don't think Reagan or Bush had anything to do with the Berlin Wall
though. Bush showed Saddam and anyone else in the Middle East (and in Russia)
that if we really want to, we can stop anyone from destroying innocent people,
taking over countries, things like that. I don't think Ford really did
anything, but then he really didn't have a lot of time to do anything. So the
Republicans did do a lot to change the world. 

	Carter in my opinion was a great diplomatic leader. Economically he
wasn't all that good, but with how he handled the Egypt and Israel talks and
signings, bringing the 2 together was a master piece if you ask me (ok, so no
one asked :-) I think he cared more about the lives of the hostages than most
other Presidents would. If he hadn't, he would have gone in and searched
everywhere until they were found. If he had done that, Ted Kopple wouldn't be
so well known as he is now. :-)

	Now, as far as Reagan/Bush arranging plans with Iran to release the
hostages AFTER Carter left office, well, it has been speculated for years that
this happened, but we may never really know. This is one of those wait forever
to see the JFK assassination reports things. It will never happen in my lifetime



Glen

    It's part of the political agenda of the Democrats to assign all blame
    for anything "wrong" in the world to the United States and Republicans,
    and to deny credit for anything "right" in the world to the United States
    or the leadership of the President of the United States.
    
    It's vapid political sloganeering.  Anne Richards can sneer with the
    best of them. 

    It's part of the political agenda of the Republicans to assign all blame
    for anything "wrong" in the world to the U.S. Congress and Democrats,
    and to deny credit for anything "right" in the world to the Congress
    or the leadership of the Democrats.

	Is that where this scales thing comes in? ;-)



Glen

    Re: .106
    
    You beat me to it! Both sides in this election have their good and
    bad members.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 6.441 by CARTUN::BERGGREN:

>          But the line dividing good and evil
>     	 cuts through the heart of every human being.  And who is
>     	 willing to destroy a piece of his (sic) own heart."
  
        That has always been my understanding of Jesus' teaching on
        the wheat and the tares (Matthew 13:24-30).

        Bob

re: 6.450
     
        "Self-hatred is the basis for hating others or the world at 
        large.  For self-hatred, being really unbearable, is easily 
        justified by making others and the world bad so they can 
        become the object of hatred instead of one's own self.  
        Thus, pessimism may be called the philosophy of hatred, or, 
        as Nietzsche termed it more subtly, of 'ressentiment.'  Being 
        loved by God, manifesting itself as love for God, can only be 
        experienced on the basis of self-acceptance."
        
    		--  Otto Rank 
    
    An interesting thought, in light of the uneasiness that many Christian    
    Churches have with the concept of self-esteem, and a desire that church
    members should pronounce themselve's as worthless in the face of Jesus
    Christ.                           
    
    Mike

    6.464
    
    Yes, a Soldier's Prayer -- as I recall, it was a Confederate soldier
    who wrote it.  While not directly pertinent, I think this knowledge adds
    a dimension that might otherwise be overlooked.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE: 100.111

    I'm doing a piece of cross-stitch with this text ... the pattern says
    "Dedicated to the loving memory of Joseph B. Foy" ...

    If anyone has a clue as to the author ... let me know (It may have
    been done by a Yankee soldier - in which case I would have to stop
    work).

    :-)
    Bubba

��    re: 6.461

    I've always wanted to own an Aramaic New Testament.  Does Douglas-Klotz
    indicate his source text?

    Darn, Patrick.  I lent my copy out.  I wish I could tell you.  I
    believe his source text is the Peshitta.  If I can find out more, 
    I'll let you know.  
    
    Karen
    
    p.s.  I had the good fortune to attend a workshop facilitated by 
    Douglas-Klotz a few years ago and there learned the ancient dance 
    (still done today) while devotionally singing the Lord's Prayer.  
    It was a very powerful experience that still lingers with me.

    The Peshitta is also a translation and dates from the 4th century
    in Old Syriac.

    Most likely it is a work derived from the Greek New Testament which
    forms the basis for all the translations that I'm aware of.

    Patrick,
    
    I vaguely recall hearing something about a scholarly debate that 
    suggested some of the Greek texts were derived from Aramaic texts, and
    the other side of it disagreed saying "no, the Greek texts were first,
    though they did document in the Greek language what Jesus spoke and 
    taught primarily in the Aramaic."   
    
    Karen

    My own belief, and I also note that scholars disagree on this, is that
    the oral tradition in Aramaic was recorded in writing in Greekk.
    
    Perhaps one day there will be conclusive evidence that some existing
    text, Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek, etc. was the first.

Hi Karen,

I really like that translation of the Lord's prayer.  As you know, my 
father-in-law is transitioning the editorial duties of the New Open 
Word newsletter to me over the coming year.  Would it be ok for me to 
use this translation in an upcoming edition?  I was thinking it might 
be an good piece on which to build the theme of an issue around. 

Thanks,

Ro

I'm concerned about the impression this so-called "translation of the Aramaic
Lord's Prayer" attempts to create.

After all, the Aramaic was produced as a translation from Syriac which was
produced as a translation from Greek.  It is in no way "original Aramaic".

To imply that the English result is "The Lord's Prayer", is somewhat
inappropriate, imho.

To imply that Jesus used a term that did not clearly mean "Father"
when he taught the disciples how to pray ignores his constant references
to God as the Father.

/john

    /john,
    
    Jesus' native language was Aramaic.  It is believed the majority of his
    teachings were given in this language. Greek texts translated the oral
    traditions into their own language.  It has already been stated and can
    be verified that in the Greek language there are no corresponding words
    that are gender inclusive.  
    
    The Syriac-Aramaic peoples today will tell you that the Aramaic Lord's 
    prayer, as written in 6."whatever" has not changed since it was taught 
    to them by Jesus himself.  You can argue your opinion with them.
    
    As far as your disagreement with the English translation, I'd recommend
    studying the Aramaic language yourself sometime and coming up with your
    own translation then.  I believe there are texts available.  That's the 
    only way you'll be satisfied, I think.
    
    Karen           

Re:  6.475

  >"Again and again men have tried to tell us various things about God;
  >how he is and what he is and how he created the world and how Jesus
  >became his revelation.  Men have put together their accounts out of the
  >Bible or out of their heads, and again and again we have to recognise
  >that God is too great a mystery for us to comprehend.

Author's assumption:  It is men who have told us about God, not God Himself.

Biblical fact:  It is God who has told us (and continues to tell us)
  about God, not man.

Author's Conclusion:  God can not be comprehended.

Biblical fact:  God has revealed much which can be easily understood -
  but very difficult to accept.

  >God put in the midst of history a simple man

Author's interpretation:  Jesus is a simple man.

Biblical fact:  Jesus was not a simple man, He was God Incarnate.

  >So we read the Bible, not to construct doctrines about God or laws
  >about society, but to experience with men and women before us the way
  >God spoke to them.

Author's understanding:  Those who read the Bible from an innerancy
  position do so to construct doctrines and laws.

My understanding:  Those who read the Bible from an innerancy position
  do so to understand God - and in so doing are able to construct
  doctrines and laws.

Collis

    I don't think that Emil Fuchs, who was a German Quaker, was necessarily
    saying that some people read the Bible *in order* to construct
    doctrines and laws.  I think he was merely pointing out that many
    people do attempt to construct doctines and laws from the Bible, and he
    was pointing out why he disagrees with that approach.  I obviously
    agreed with Fuchs's views, and considered what he wrote to be beautifully
    expressed--which was why I posted it.
    
    -- Mike

re: Note 100.121 by Collis "Pro-Jesus" 

>  >God put in the midst of history a simple man
>
>Author's interpretation:  Jesus is a simple man.
>
>Biblical fact:  Jesus was not a simple man, He was God Incarnate.

If Jesus was not a simple man, but God Incarnate, I'd have a very difficult 
time relating to him.

Jesus was both a simple man AND God incarnate.  It is a mystery, and it is 
fine to me to focus on one or the other at times, but I try never to forget 
the human/divine duality of Christ's nature.

Peace,

Jim

    Hi Jim,
    
    I believe the point is that saying Jesus is a simple man is denying
    that he is God Incarnate.  This is what is happening in the
    Episcopalian church, for example.  The press portray the divisions in
    the Episcopalian church as relating to women in the ministry, for
    example.  In reality one group in the church is celebrating Jesus's
    humanity (and denying His divinity) and the other is celebrating
    Jesus's divinity and humanity.  The group focusing on His humanity are
    destroying His authority in how the church is to be run.  
    
    jeff

    To my knowledge Jesus never instructed his followers how to organize a
    church or religion.  He instructed his followers to spread the good
    news that is all.  In fact, when two of his male disciples approached 
    him and requested positions of power and leadership over others, Jesus
    clearly rebuked them.  (Don't have the verse handy, but I'll be glad to
    provide it later.)  The authority of the church has been instituted by
    people, primarily men and their interpretations of scripture, not by 
    Jesus or his direction.
    
    Karen 

Jim,

Indeed, a agree with you that Jesus is a man.  I disagree
with the adjective "simple" primarily because it tends to
deny Jesus' divinity but also because I think that this
is a poor adjective to sum up Jesus' life (which is how I 
saw this being used).  (Despite this, I'll grant you that
Jesus was simple in some ways.)

Collis

re: Note 100.124 by jeff

Hi Jeff,

I disagree.  To say that Jesus was a simple man is not to deny his divinity.
To say that Jesus is a simple man and not God Incarnate is to deny that 
divinity.

Collis said "Biblical fact:  Jesus was not a simple man, He was God 
Incarnate."

Had he said that Jesus was God Incarnate, I would have agreed, but the 
statement directly denied half of Jesus' nature.

Is the denial of Christ's divine nature happening in the Episcopal church?  
Not in the parish and diocese I'm familiar with.

I can celebrate one aspect of Jesus nature without necessarily denying others.

Jesus IS a simple person.  Jesus IS God incarnate.  They aren't mutually 
exclusive.  It's one o' them mystery thangs.  .-)

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 100.126 by Collis "Pro-Jesus" 

Hi Collis.

I'm glad we are in theological, if not in semantic agreement.  .-)

I see your point that simple might be a poor choice of adjective.

My primary meaning of the word simple is apparently a shade different from 
yours.  Thanks for clarifying what you meant.

The way of Christ is *simple*, but it's not *easy*.
 
Peace,

Jim

    
    Karen,
    
    Actually, I agree that Jesus didn't tell them how to organize a church
    or a religion.  But I believe that were taught by His example about
    ministering to each others needs.  Secondly, the Spirit did not come
    upon them until they were of one accord.  They had to pretty much be
    together for this to happen.  Then I'm sure the Spirit guided the rest. 
    I would consider this the early church...an organized church each
    assigned a task by the Spirit.  So while Jesus didn't give direct
    instructions, the Spirit did and being that they are both God...it's
    the same thing.

    Jill

re: Note 6.479   Inspirational Quotes and Messages - comments: Note 100   
by "Patrick Sweeney in New York"

>    ...
>
>    "And you," he said to them, "who do you say that I am?"
>
>    "You are the Messiah," Simon Peter answered, "the Son of the
>    Living God!"
>
>    ...
>
>    Then he strictly ordered his disciples not to tell anyone he was the
>    Messiah.
>
>    Mt 16:13-20 NAB

It would seem that this Strict Order by the Son of the Living God was 
disobeyed! else we'd not read of it.  .-)  Fortunately (for me anyway) the 
order was not carried out.

By the way, several times in the Gospels Jesus says or does something and then 
tells people not to mention it.  A priest told me that Jesus did that because 
it was a sure way to get the Word spread, based on human nature...

Peace,

Jim

    Jill .129,
    
    Not only did Jesus not tell the disciples how to organize a church,
    he apparently was his disciples "exercising authority" over others.  
    
    "Mark (10:42-44) relates that when James and John came to him [Jesus]
    privately to ask for special positions in his administration, he spoke
    out sharply against their ambition:
    
    	You know that those who are supposed to rule over the Gentiles 
    	lord it over them, and their great men exercise authority over them.  
    	But it shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great among
    	^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    	you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must
    	be slave of all (Pagels, 1979, p.7)."
    
    And yet, most churches have organized themselves in hierarchal fashion 
    with layers of authority assumed by bishops, priests, ministers, 
    deacons, etc.?  
    
    I agree that Jesus attempted to teach his disciples how to minister to
    each other through his example, but I don't feel mainline Christianity
    has adhered to it as stringently as they think.  
    
    Let's face it, the church, like any organization has its share of 
    "ambitious" people, as well as those sincerely answering God's call to
    honestly and lovingly serve the people, as Jesus taught.  But I do
    believe that the church's hierarchal structure also helps to foster and
    promulgate the kind of ambition Jesus was so against.
    
    Also, if you're saying the Spirit came upon and inspired these men to 
    organize a church with the various levels of authority we have
    inherited today, that seems contradict Jesus' wishes and instructions 
    as seen in Mark 10.  I would think that had he wanted Christianity to 
    go forth in this way, He would have spent a great deal of time confering 
    authority and instructing his disciples in this regard while he was 
    living, don't you think?  Instead, he did the opposite.  He rebuked
    James and John for their religious ambitions.
    
    Karen

Karen,

In order to reach the conclusion you are reaching, you have
to throw out Scriptures written by Paul in several places
where he explicitly mentions deacons and elders and qualifications
for such offices.  There are perfectly acceptable ways of
reconciling this with Jesus' commands.

Remember, it was God Himself who setup the Levitical priesthood
used by the Jews.  It is reasonable to believe that a similar
structure would continue by those who worship God.  We see
that this is indeed the case.

The problem is not that there are people in positions of
authority (as God has instituted authority positions which
is clear even in the gospel of Matthew chapter 18), but
rather that people use these positions to exalt themselves
and lord it over others rather than to serve as Jesus did.

Yes, sin in our lives will continue to cause problems.  But
this is not a legitimate reason to do away with the God-given
structure of authority within groups of believers.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Interesting, but I have a question:  the Jewish priesthood whch you
    mention was very tied to the existence of a land and place of worship. 
    Yahweh was considered to reside in part in the Temple Holy of Holies,
    and the priesthood was linked from the beginning, in Scripture and in
    history, to the Ark.
    
    But when the Temple was destroyed for the first time, the religion
    b=started to shift and become more book oriented.  This was reinforced
    even more when the Second Temple was destroyed.  Without the land and
    Temple, there was no role for the traditional priesthood.  As a book
    based religion, the most important person in the religious community
    became the rabbi:  the teacher.
    
    Christianity seems to be very strongly book based as well.  It
    certainly isn't land-based like ancient Israelite religion, and the
    Scripture is cited as God's authority....I guess my question is: why is
    there a need for a priesthood specifically?  If the Word is written
    down and available in that manner, what is the function of a priesthood
    in that context?
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    Re: .131
    
    Good points Karen. I agree. As a matter of fact, this passage was one
    of the reasons that I left the RC church and moved to a Congregational
    type of church. I like a local church with an absolute minimum of
    control from a central point( mankind...not spiritual).
    
    Marc H.

    Read the entire passage of Mark 10:35 to 10:45

    (1) It's clear that this is Jesus' counsel against ambition.

    (2) It is also a warning that persecution and death for the profession
    of faith in Jesus is in the future for all believers.  To James and
    John it is an indication that they don't "get it" yet, namely that as
    Jesus relates in verses 32-34, He will be mocked and spit at, then
    scourged and killed.

    (3) It is also instruction that the ministry to which Jesus will
    entrust to them will not be like that of a king but more like that of a
    servant.  Jesus will later wash their feet as a sign of his own
    humility.

    As for your comment that "[Jesus] would have spent a great deal of time
    conferring  authority and instructing his disciples in this regard while
    he was living, don't you think?"  This is just an incredible comment. 
    The Gospels record over a hundred instructions that Jesus gave the
    Apostles for ministry.  He spent a "great deal of time" on it.

    Roman Catholics believe their Church to be "Mother and Teacher" and the
    its bishops to be the successors of the eleven selected by Jesus to be
    his teachers and are guided by the Holy Spirit in the same way as those
    in the upper room in Acts 2.

    Pride is a human flaw like lust, but God has entrusted the Church to
    flawed creatures.  By the grace of God, we strive to be like Jesus.
             

Re:  100.133

  >Interesting, but I have a question:  the Jewish priesthood whch you
  >mention was very tied to the existence of a land and place of worship. 
  >Yahweh was considered to reside in part in the Temple Holy of Holies,
  >and the priesthood was linked from the beginning, in Scripture and in
  >history, to the Ark.

I think you make a good point.  Without some time spent in the
Pentateuch, I couldn't tell you what responsibilities the Levites may
still have which they can actually perform.  However, I think my
original point is still valid that God ordained a religous authority
structure in both the Old and New Testaments according to the Bible.
In addition, both Bible teaching and experience show that people need
leaders to work most effectively.  We are indeed sheep lost without a
shepherd.  Ideally, we should follow God exclusively. Practically, we
need human leaders as well. 

God attempted to lead his people during the period of the judges only
using leaders to deal with crisis situations.  The (sinful) response
of the people? "We want a king!"  This was not sinful in that they
wanted a human leader (in my understanding), but rather that they were
rejecting God.  Indeed, the spiritual leadership responsibilities had
already been ordained by God when He setup the priesthood immediately
after the exodus. 

What group of people do you know that meets without a leader?  From a
practical point of view, leaders are there to insure accountability
from people, to have a vision and plan for what is to happen, to
delegate (or find volunteers), etc.  It is unwieldy and rather
ineffective to accomplish goals without leaders. Yes, it can be done. 
No, it is not done as well as it could be done.  Look around and
you'll see that 99% of all organizations have leaders and leadership. 
And I'll bet that those that actively resist formal leaders and
leadership still have leaders - they just view themselves differently
and do not want the formal responsibilities. 

All people will sin and this includes leaders.  The Bible takes note
of that by saying that we should not aspire to be leaders as there
will be greater judgment put on leaders (another indication that
having leaders is the expectation).  Our response should not be to
discard leaders and authority structures because of this, but rather
to repent to God and work within the structure we have.

Despite all I've said, I believe *structure* to be of secondary
importance.  There are a lot of different structures that could be
used and I believe that God doesn't particularly care which one we
choose as long as we are seekers after Him (which is why structure 
is not clearly defined in the New Testament - whereas individual 
qualifications are!) 

Collis

>I think you make a good point.  Without some time spent in the
>Pentateuch, I couldn't tell you what responsibilities the Levites may
>still have which they can actually perform.

It's my understanding that unless the temple is rebuilt (which would
cause WW III because it would mean the destruction of an extremely
important Moslem holy place deliberately constructed on that spot)
that they can not exercise any of their responsibilities.

BTW, there are certain extremist evangelical Christian groups who
encourage the return of Jews to Israel and hope for the rebuilding
of the temple, because they believe this will bring about the second
coming of Christ.

It is interesting to read the Jerusalem Post, which sharply criticizes
the major Christian Churches in the Holy Land (Roman Catholic, Anglican,
and Greek Orthodox) for their position on Palestinian rights (most of
their members, are, after all, Arabs) but heaps praise upon these
Zionist Christians who are fervently attempting to bring as many
Jews as possible to Israel, and to convert them from Judaism to
Christianity (which is against Israeli law).

/john

    I suppose it depends on what you mean by a "leader", but unprogrammed
    Quakers don't really have leaders in the sense that other denominations
    do, and no formal hierarchical structure.  Our business meetings are
    moderated by a clerk, but the clerk's job is not one of authority or
    domination in any sense, but of gathering the sense of the full
    congregation during the decision making process of business meetings. 
    The clerk does never makes unilateral decisions for the meeting, but
    rather records what the meeting as a whole has come up with.  

    It is true that de facto "leaders" exist within the meeting, as they do
    within any democratic or non-hierarchical organization, in the sense
    that those with particular skills or calling may contribute more ideas
    or efforts toward the life of the meeting.  But this is de facto and
    not formal, and everyone has the potential of contributing according to
    their own skills and calling.

    This lack of formal distinctions in roles within the meeting is an
    expression of the fact that Quakerism makes no distinction between the
    priesthood and the laity.  The philosophy is not so much one of
    eliminating the priesthood as extending the priesthood to all.  This
    viewpoint also relates to the to the Quaker belief that the Spirit does
    not restrict its guidance to a small, elite group of people, but in
    fact continues to speak to all of us today.  This is, in fact, at the
    core of Quakerism; it was expressed by George Fox as a revelation that
    "There is one, even Christ Jesus, who can speak to thy condition."  

    -- Mike

    I think this whole issue of "religious authority" is a most interesting
    and central one to Christianity.  From what I've seen it's one of those
    basic articles of faith that tend to dileniate one Christian denomination 
    from another.  I believe the Reformation was a result of this foundational 
    question of religious authority.  
    
    From biblical scriptures can we really say there was just one 
    "authoritative structure", if you will, which Jesus endorsed?  
    If so, what it is?  If so, is everything else heretical?
    
    Karen

    Karen,

    If for a moment you could use words that are found in the Bible rather
    than words that come from anti-Christian critiques, you might phrase
    your questions in a way that the Bible could answer them directly:

    Jesus founded a Church.  The leaders of that Church were the Apostles,
    and the leader of the Apostles was Peter.  The role of the Apostles was
    and is to baptize and teach.

    Roman Catholics, believers in the largest religious denomination in
    world, believe that the Roman Catholic Church is the Church which Jesus
    founded, and that its bishops are successors of the Apostles.

    "Heresy", a favorite word for straw person construction here in CP
    applies only to the professed, baptized who deny a article of their
    faith.

    Karen, your comment on how authority differentiates denominations makes
    a good point.  I believe that the differences between many mainline
    Protestant denominations, for example, have more to do with
    denominational government than where they fit on the
    liberal-conservative theological spectrum; the memberships in these
    denominations tend to span across a mutually overlapping theological
    spectrum anyway.

    It is hardly surprising that the followers of this new religion about
    Jesus established hierarchical structures within the faith community
    that they were forging.  Authoritarianism was the prevailing cultural
    paradigm of their time; their model for how a people is governed was
    the Roman Empire, hardly a democratic government; modern democracy as
    we know it was a long way off.  It probably just would not have occurred
    to them to do it any other way.

    Of course, not only is top-down arrangement useful in establishing
    control over the kind of thinking allowed of the membership, but it
    also helps to perpetuate doctrinal control;  this is because those in
    power are able to choose their own successors, making sure that only
    those who toe the proper line get appointed.  Thus the enforcement of
    dogma against "heresy" is promoted.  Of course, this is not always as
    easy as it seems, and sometimes reformer leaders do emerge out of these
    self-perpetuating hierarchies.  Perhaps it helps when there are strong
    pressures from reform, such as the economic pressures that led
    Gorbachev to institute Perestroika.

    -- Mike

    RE:.140
    
    And your point is???
    
    Marc H.
    
    

    Another point that occurs to me is that it might be interesting to
    consider the evolution of the early Christian church government along
    the lines of what the sociologist Max Weber viewed as the normal
    process of organizational evolution.  He analyzed the ways that social
    groups evolved from charismatic to bureaucratic modes of organization. 
    Unlike in our everyday speech, Weber meant nothing pejorative about
    the word "bureaucratic"; he simply used that to describe a mode of
    organization defined by rules and procedures for everyday operation, as
    opposed to the "charismatic" rule of individual fiat.  This kind of
    evolution can take place in private organizations as well as
    governments.

    Of course, the original charismatic leader in Christianity was Jesus;
    but there were clearly some important charismatic figures in the early
    church after his death (such as Paul, for example).

    Is there anyone more familiar with Weber than I am who might be able to
    offer more insight on this?

    -- Mike

    Patrick,
    
    I can always tell when my comments or questions cut too close to the
    quick for you. :-)  Please realize that there is a difference between
    Christian critique and anti-Christian critique.  My words are
    sourced from the former.     
    
    Btw, (this is a bit of a gray area for me): by whose authority was Peter 
    appointed leader of the Apostles and just how did it happen?
    
    Karen 

    Mike .143,
    
    I don't know much about Weber, but another extremely interesting 
    "evolution" is Stephen Larsen's thesis in _The shaman's doorway_ 
    on the dynamics of how people or groups shape information gained from
    an individual's revelatory experience into doctrinal guidelines and then 
    how those doctrines can become frozen into dogmatic regimes.  It's a 
    natural course of events, for profane human nature anyway.
    
    Karen

>    Btw, (this is a bit of a gray area for me): by whose authority was Peter 
>    appointed leader of the Apostles and just how did it happen?

    I believe the authority was Jesus. Traditionally based on the incident
    where Jesus named him.

    		Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    My understanding at this time is that it focused around the 
    Resurrection, but there are different versions of this event 
    and Christ's appearance, thus the "gray area" around Peter's
    appointment for me.  Where in the Bible did Jesus name Peter 
    as the leader of the Apostles?
    
    Thanks,
    Karen

    re: .141

    God could have allowed the good news of salvation to spread through
    the world without the leadership of human beings, but He did not.

    He chose to reveal Himself after the Ascension of Jesus a Church
    formed by people, sinners who are saved.

    re: .142

    Point?  Well, I'm grateful to not have one of your replies treat what I
    write here as the object of laughter.  The point is that I am presenting
    my Christian perspective.

    re: .143

    The totality of the Christian Church is a human institution waiting in
    joyful hope of the return of Jesus and inspired by the Holy Spirit.
    To some extent, organizational analysis is going to apply to the
    largest denominations.

    re: .144

    One of the most direct conferrals of authority of Jesus on upon the
    Apostles and upon Peter as their leader after Jesus is quoted in 6.479

    re: 145

    Terms like doctrine and dogma used in the context are heavy with an
    agenda of denying the teaching authority of the Church.  It nothing
    more than the beliefs shared by communities of Christians.  Are you
    arguing that definition of a belief itself is evil?  Jesus himself
    defined our faith.

    RE: .148
    
    Laughter???
    
    What gives you that idea?
    
    Marc H.

re.482

No slam on Cecil, but I would say that we need to get caught up in compassion 
about getting caught up into God.

Ace

    RE: .150  Ace,
    
    			Point is...how do we demonstrate "getting caught up
    in God"?  I believe exactly as Richard quoted Cecil....compassion
    toward all.
    
    
    Dave

re.151  Dave,

	There is only one way to get caught up into God, and that is through
the mingled spirit (the human spirit mingled with the divine Spirit). This
mingling can only occur by receiving the Lord Jesus as the life-giving Spirit
into our spirit which results in regeneration. A regenerated believer can
approach the throne of grace in spirit and know God's heart. Then God's
authentic compassion automatically flows through him and to the objects of
God's compassion.
	
	There is a human compassion that is a counterfeit of God's compassion.

Only in Christ is found the reality of all divine attributes. He is the sum all
all spiritual things. The real compassion, that is, God's compassion, is found 
only in Him.

Ace

    RE: .152  Ace,
    
    			Are you saying that God only shows compassion to
    believers?   I also think that with real "mingling" with God that an
    outward manifestation is a part of that.
    
    
    Dave

re.153 Dave,

> Are you saying that God only shows compassion to believers?

	Oh heavens no! Otherwise who could ever become a believer?

	Only God has real compassion. Unless it is God's compassion flowing
through you to the object of His compassion, then it is not real compassion.
Even unbelievers have compassion, but it is not God's compassion. It is a
human compassion. The casual observer may not detect the difference between the
the two compassions. This is because man is made in God's image and after His
likeness and it's hard to detect the difference between things like compassion
and other virtues. But I know the difference. One compassion has God as 
its content, the other doesn't. Only the compassion that comes from God is 
eternal, therefore the only one that counts.

	Once a person receives God Himself into them as the Spirit in their
spirit, then they are able to discern the difference. As a christian, I 
could give a cup of water to a thirsty person with my human compassion or
allow God to give the same cup of water with His compassion. One is eternal
in value, the other is temporal in value. One is according to God's flow, the 
other is according to my natural disposition.

Ace
	

    God's compassion is infinite, while our compassion is finite and
    limited.  Quantitatively and temporally, then, God surpasses our own
    compassion.  But qualitatively, I believe, compassion is compassion. 
    We are compassionate to the extent that we express God's compassion;
    when we do not express God's compassion, we are not compassionate.  I
    believe that God is the ultimate standard of what constitutes
    compassion.
    
    It is a matter of faith for me that, to the extent that we express our
    compassion for others, we also express our love for God, who shares in
    the experience of compassion with us.  Our compassion is then, by that
    definition, also God's compassion.
    
    -- Mike

    Perhaps our compassion is God's compassion.  God doesn't take credit
    for everything God does, especially when God works through
    unbelievers.
    
    Compassion is sort of like ice cream.  Even when it's not the greatest,
    there's no such thing as a bad flavor.
    
    ;-)
    
    Richard

    Hmmm, the food analogy I would used would have been pizza, not ice cream. 
    :-)
    
    -- Mike

	The biblical revelation is that there are two sources in the universe.

	The tree of Life (representing God's Life) and the tree of knowledge of
good and evil (representing Satan's poisonous life). (Gen 2, 3)

	There are two men in the universe: 1) Adam and 2) the last Adam (Christ)
	(1 Cor 15:45, Romans)

	The end result is that there are two destinies: 
	1) The New Jerusalem in the new heaven and new earth.
	2) Hell, the universal trashcan.

	Your destiny depends on your source and which man you are a part of.
	

	Adam (in which we were all born into) has their source in the tree of
knowledge of *good* and *evil*. Good things like compassion exist in this
corporate man. Adam is useless to God since the fall. Many godless men have
compassion, but nevertheless their source is the tree of knowledge of good and
evil, not God. They have compassion because God created them in the image and
likeness of Himself. In this way it is okay to say that all compassion is a 
reflection of God. But the source of this compassion is different since the
fall. This is like extending them a handshake with just your glove and no hand
in the glove. Your glove looks like a hand, has 5 digits, right shape, but it's
missing the real content.

	In Christ is where "the hand" is found. He is the tree of life. 
All christians were transferred into Him when they believed. All the fulness of
the Godhead dwells in Him (Col). Therefore, when we allow His compassion to flow
through us we are extending not only the glove (us) but the hand (Christ-God) in
the glove. Hence, what the recipients of our compassion recieve is the very
God Himself in reality, not just a resemblance of compassion.

Whether you agree with me or not, have I made the teaching clear?

Regards,
Ace

Ace,

	Oh, I think I understand what you're saying.  In a sermon a few weeks
ago, my pastor used many of the same images you've used.

	It's just that I see so little compassion in the ones who are supposed
to be most filled (or rightly filled) with compassion.

Peace,
Richard

    
    And how do you measure God's compassion Richard?  Compassionate acts
    are hardly documented in newspapers, notesconferences, on T.V. or
    posted on billboards.  Of course, compassion must be defined for us to
    have such a conversation.  I feel certain that there will be a
    significant disagreement in this conference over the definitions of
    compassion.  And thus I shut up.
    
    jeff

    .160  Even in your cynicism, you've inspired a new topic, jeff!
    
    Richard

    6.493 Who are you quoting, Paul?  C.S. Lewis?
    
    Richard
    

re Note 6.499 (quoting Thomas Merton):

>     A man of sincerity is less interested in defending the
>     truth than in stating it clearly, for he thinks that if the truth is
>     clearly seen, it can very well take care of itself."
  
        So true!

        We often project the image of the angry defender of the truth
        upon God when, in great contrast to human behavior, God has
        shown great forbearance.

        Bob

    RE: 6.500 That's one of the saddest songs I hear on the radio.
    "no heaven", everyone living for today. Sounds like no one having
    any reason to live at all. No religion but people living in peace? I 
    can't imagine that. It seems totally contradictory. The whole song
    yells "no freedom", "no choice", "no hope."

    			Alfred

Re: .164 Alfred

>    RE: 6.500 That's one of the saddest songs I hear on the radio.

Well admittedly it sounds like a plea for godless Communism.  I think
Lennon's primary purpose in writing the song was to encourage people to
live together in peace.  Most people would agree that this is a worthy
goal, but wouldn't go along with Lennon's proposals for achieving that
goal.  Personally I draw the line at imagining no possessions.

>    "no heaven", everyone living for today. Sounds like no one having
>    any reason to live at all.

I don't agree.  The point is that we should try to create a heaven here on
earth.  Life itself should be a wonderful experience.  Sadly, for many
people it is not.

> No religion but people living in peace? I 
>    can't imagine that. It seems totally contradictory.

Maybe if the inhabitants of Ireland and Bosnia had no religion they would
be more likely to live in peace.  Lennon's point was that religions and
national borders divide people.  He wanted to see a universal brotherhood
of man (sisterhood of woman, siblinghood of person).

> The whole song
>    yells "no freedom", "no choice", "no hope."

The song says that people have the freedom to choose peace, and if enough
people do this there is hope for the future.

				-- Bob

re .164
Alfred,

>    RE: 6.500 That's one of the saddest songs I hear on the radio.

I agree, but it's only sad because it hasn't been realized.

>    "no heaven", everyone living for today. Sounds like no one having
>    any reason to live at all.

As was stated in an earlier post, it could mean trying to create heaven on earth.
I don't believe in heaven, but I am far happier than most folks I know that do.
Living is reason enough to be living, is your life so unhappy that you need 
incentive after death to keep on?

> No religion but people living in peace? I 
> can't imagine that. It seems totally contradictory.

I concur with Bob in his note. If you look at the places in the world where 
true misery lives, there are several root causes. Famine, racism, political
brutality are some. But in many cases the root cause is religion. Bosnia, 
Ireland, the middle east, and would you want to live in that bastion of 
religious fanatacism, Iran?

>The whole song
>yells "no freedom", "no choice", "no hope."

It's kind of funny. When I listen to Christian music I feel sad also. Most of
the songs seem to say you are not responsible, give up responsibility, give it
to God. It seems to be a very passive way to live.

Steve

P.S. I'm not sure about the possesion part either. Do I at least get to keep
a floppy disk to store my programs on? :^)

Note 100.164
    
>   RE: 6.500 That's one of the saddest songs I hear on the radio.

My eyes fill up almost every time I hear it; this and the "I have a dream"
speech delivered by Martin Luther King, Jr..

The world may never stop trying to kill its dreamers and its visionaries.
    
It brings to mind the story of Joseph in Genesis: "What will become of the
dream when the dreamer is dead?"

>    "no heaven", everyone living for today. Sounds like no one having
>    any reason to live at all.

Actually, though rarely acknowledged, Jesus advocated living for today.
Jesus advocated relinquishing, or at least sharing, all our material
possessions, too.

>    No religion but people living in peace? I 
>    can't imagine that. It seems totally contradictory. The whole song
>    yells "no freedom", "no choice", "no hope."

I believe the purpose of religion, organized religion, is to make itself
obsolete.

Richard

    6.605 Also see topic 300 "The Way, the Truth and the Life"
    
    Richard

    Re: 6.505

    Thanks for posting that James Naylor quote, Richard.

    -- Mike

    re 6.505

    I always wondered if all those wonderful "last word" quotes were
    *really* last words.  I mean, I have to think about clever stuff to
    say, and then edit it and mull over it.  Do you think they prepare
    their last words in advance and then recite them whenever they feel
    like they are just on the verge of dying?

    And who writes them down?  Do these people hire stenographers to lurk
    around their deathbeds?  Keep tape recorders running?

    How does this work?

    Ruth

 I've always wanted to hear the first words "on the other side" of those who 
 left us their last words on earth.







 Jim

    I've wondered how mythologized or embellished upon Nayler's last
    words were myself.  My guess is that they're not exact, but very
    close.
    
    Richard
    

    Coincidentally, the Naylor quote was recently posted on the Quaker
    internet mailing list, and in response to it someone today offered the
    following comment:
    
    "I can only hope that when my dying day arrives, I will have as much
    wind in my lungs."

    -- Mike

    RE: 6.509 This week I turned 40. I mentioned to a friend of mine that
    I thought I hadn't done much yet and that for a long time that bothered
    me. I then realized that not too many I knew had actually done much 
    either. This friend send me a birthday card with the Emerson quote on
    it. It made me feel better still because now I'm not rationalizing that
    "others don't do better" to feeling a bit of a success on my own.

    		Alfred

re: Note 100.174 by Alfred "Radical Centralist" 

You remind me of Tom Leher's (sp?) quote, 

"When Mozart was my age, he had been dead for 4 years."

But seriously, know that you have made the world a better place to be, at 
least in my eyes, in this conference and elsewhere.

Peace, and happy birthday.

Jim, who has slightly over a year to worry about turning 40. .-)

    Alfred,
    
    I liked you quote from Emerson too.  Success truly is making the world
    a wee bit better than we find it.  I turned 40 a year ago and truly
    believe that life begins at 40.  Happy Birthday
    
    Patricia

    Thanks, Alfred.  I needed that quote.  I think I'll use it as an
    insert in our worship service on Sept 12th.  Maybe we'll put it on the 
    back cover.
    
    Peace to you!
    
    	Ron
    

    RE: 6.511 and 6.512

    Thanks, Richard.  That's the best thing I've heard in here
    for quite a while.  It even makes sense!

    Tom

    6.514 thru .517
    
    Speaking of C.S. Lewis, I sure miss Patrick.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

In article <100.179-931013-185747@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, [email protected] (Pacifist Hellcat) writes:
|>Title: Comments on inspirational quotes
|>Reply Title: (none)
|>
|>    6.514 thru .517
|>    
|>    Speaking of C.S. Lewis, I sure miss Patrick.
|>    
|>    Shalom,
|>    Richard
|>

I was thinking that he would have jumped right into the "Queen of Heaven"
discussion. I kept waiting for him to respond and then realized that he
isn't with us anymore.


-- 
---
Paul		[email protected]
Gordon		[email protected]
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re: Note 6.518 by Richard "Pacifist Hellcat" 

>                 -< From a play, the title of which eludes me >-

The Search for Intellegent Life in the Universe.

By Jane Wagner and Lily Tomlin, if memory serves me correctly.

It's full of wonderful observations on society.

Peace,

Jim

    .519 Thanks, Jim.
    
    Richard

re: Note 6.526   Inspirational Quotes and Messages 

Aww, Richard, I already entered that long ago!!!!
Just re-arrange the note digits to 6.265 and there it is.

Well, it IS a good quote and might bear repeating.

Peace,

Jim

    .183  Right you are, Jim.  Forgive the unintended duplication.
    
    The very same quote currently appears on a mural painted on a
    building on private property facing a fairly busy intersection
    in Colorado Springs (Fillmore and Templeton Gap).  The mural is
    regularly repainted with a new thought-provoking quotation.  It's
    considered a colorful local eccentricity.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re: Note 100.184 by Richard "Pacifist Hellcat" 

I like the idea of that mural, neat!

Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, PA has a fence where various groups 
can announce events by painting messages on it at night (and staying up all 
night to make sure that their message doesn't get painted over later in the 
night.)  Most of the messages have to do with parties on various Friday or 
Saturday nights.  The accumulated coating of paint is about 4 inches thick.

Peace,

Jim

 I remember that mural at Fillmore and Templeton Gap from the years
 I lived in the Springs..







Jim

    6.528  That speaks highly of the ancient Chinese cultures which
    prospered in peace for hundreds and hundreds of years at a time.
    
    I recall that the combined reign of David and Solomon totaled in
    the neighborhood of 70 years.
    
    Richard
    

re 6.532

Dr. MLK is, as usual, right on.

The Church is not a social club that can change its rules for 20th century
people who won't sacrifice themselves for God.

/john

    And God doesn't ask for sacrifice for just God.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    I thought there was a note where you can comment on inspirational
    quotes, but I guess there isn't, so I'll comment here.
    
    Note 6.528 by CSC32::KINSELLA, Solzhenitzen's quotation, really sounds 
    to me to be perfectly applicable to what is happening in the U.S. right 
    now. We certainly have the most perfect form of government, but right how 
    we seem to be headed straight down the tubes.
    
    Eileen
    

    RE: 6.544 Friends of mine had that saying hanging in their kitchen
    back in the 70's.
    
    			Alfred

    6.544
    
    I heard that same concept expressed a number of years ago.  I
    heartily agree and affirm the same about mothers loving the
    childrens' father.
    
    Children don't mind being loved *after* the spouse.
    
    Richard
    

    Re: 6.588
    
    I find Clinton to be the worst polarizing President since Nixon.
    
    Marc H.

    In the case of Clinton, I don't sense a deliberateness like I did
    with Nixon-Agnew.
    
    Former member, effete corps of impudent snobs,
    Richard
    

    Re: .195
    
    You and I are in total agreement with Nixon. My take on Clinton is that
    he is even worse....doesn't realize the divisions he is causing, and
    he has *no* foreign policy....very dangerous.
    
    Marc H.

    6.564
    
    A favorite of mine.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    This isn't a comment on any particular quote - it's more of a general 
    request to the whole CP file.
    
    There are times when people quote Bible passages by giving the book,
    chapter and verse.  (Ex:  Isaiah 30:18)  Now I don't happen to have the
    Bible memorized and (I know, shame on me, but...) I don't always have
    one nearby.  So, I would find it useful if people could include the
    verse quoted, or a paraphrase of the verse, something to give a bit
    more context.

    Thanks
    +++
    Debby

    ps:  Just to follow my own request:

    	The Lord longs to be gracious to you; he rises to show you
    compassion.  For the Lord is a God of justice.  Blessed are all who
    wait for him.              Isaiah 30:18

re 6.571

Lest we forget: Abortion is "legal".

/john

    	re 6.572
    
    	So do you think he's right?  Or did you post that because it is
    	so far off the mark theologically...

    
    I guess Al wasn't as smart as was first thought.

I wonder why that quote would be considered "inspirational" in a
conference for discussing Christian Perspectives.

/john

by the sound of it, there is only ONE christian perspective!


couldn't resist, sorry!

andreas.

re Note 100.202 by COVERT::COVERT:

> I wonder why that quote would be considered "inspirational" in a
> conference for discussing Christian Perspectives.
  
        I often find inspiration in things with which I don't agree. 
        At a minimum they cause me to think about the subject, and
        *that* can lead to inspiration.

        Bob

re .203

;by the sound of it, there is only ONE christian perspective!

Andreas,

I understand that you were not being serious, but the above
can't be correct because all humans are unique and we all have
our own perspectives. That is, how we view and experience 
things. The question is, does one follow the teachings of
Jesus so as to experience or have a Christian perspective?.

For example, take the parable of the good Samaritan, one can
only have a Christian perspective if one follows the example
of the good Samaritan in showing love of neighbour. Or do
people view "Christian perspective" differently?.

Phil.

 

    Phil,
    
    A Christian Perspective sounds so simple.  Just follow the example of
    the good samaritan.  Just follows Jesus' instruction that the greatest
    commandment of all is to love God and to love neighbor.
    
    That is exactly what a Christian Perspective is.  Unfortunately, it
    seems the the most outspoken Christians loose sight of that simplicity
    and add a whole lot of other requirements that cannot be agreed to by
    many.
    
    I maintain that the first paragraph is a true Christian Perspective and
    anything added to that is false.  Unfortunately, some define
    Christianity so narrowly and then try to force everyone else to defend
    a simple Christianity.
    
                                  Patricia

.205> The question is, does one follow the teachings of Jesus so as to 
.205> experience or have a Christian perspective?.

is that a trick question, phil? ;-)

theologically speaking, the samaritan can't have possibly have been christian, 
he knew nothing of the teachings of jesus! 

on the other hand, if 'christian' is a synonym for 'loving' then the samaritan 
was most certainly christian; culturally speaking.

personally, i think this world could do with a lot more christians and
samaritans! :-)


andreas.

.203> by the sound of it, there is only ONE christian perspective!

    	I don't argue that there can be many Christian perspectives.
    	But scoffing at the idea of life after death would not be among
    	those many Christian perspectives.

    Scoffing at physical life after death could indeed be a Christian
    Perspective.  Paul says the Physical Body is transformed into a
    Spiritual Body.  It is markedly different as a wheat seed is different
    than the wheat stalk.  What does it mean that the physical body is
    destroyed and the spiritual body survives.  Does the brain survive? 
    Are we incorporated into the Godhead with no individual existance? 
    does the spiritual body think, feel, laugh, cry, and love?
    
    Jesus scoffs the sadducces for their question about the ressurection? 
    There is no marriage in heaven.  The question of who is the husband of
    the wife has no meaning.  Does that logic also apply to other
    relationships as well?  What would life after death be like if we did
    not have relationships with others?
    
    What is the nature of this life after death?

>    Scoffing at physical life after death could indeed be a Christian
>    Perspective.  
    
    	This is the first time so far that "physical" life after death
    	has been mentioned.
    
    	You are arguing the wrong point.

.208>	But scoffing at the idea of life after death would not be among those 
.208>	many Christian perspectives.

speaking for myself, and i was raised a christian, i ended up concluding
that the idea of life-after-death just doesn't make sense (and neither does
that god with all the human frailties).
i find my life more valuable and meaningful if i have only one. 
this doesn't stop me from taking the message, "love your neighbour as you
love yourself" as a leading motto for my mortal existance - i happen to
believe, that living by this motto leads to a richer and longer life! :-)

does this make me a christian? i don't really know. i think culturally,
i am a christian, but, i won't get upset if i'm told that i'm not!


andreas.

    In that case, Spiritual life after death may be no more than living in
    the hearts of those who love us, or living in the DNA of our
    progeny, or living in the collective results of our actions.
    
    The point is that the foundemental point of Christianity is not what we
    believe about God, About Christ, about life after death or about the
    Bible.
    
    The fundemental point about Jesus' message is how we receive the Grace
    that is from God, and how living with that Grace changes our lifes
    influencing us to love all our neighbors as ourselves.
    
    Patricia

the interesting bit (to me) about the einstein quote is that here we have a 
major proponent of the current reigning 'religion' speaking. well in a sense,
for many, the religious faith is today replaced with materialism and a faith 
in science...

interesting, because, whichever way you look at it (either from the perspective 
of the old monotheistic religion or from the new materialistic science faith) 
neither can provide proof beyond doubt about phenomenon beyond our reach; like 
life after death or god.


andreas.

    	I disagree.  Your sentence about the "fundamental point of
    	Christianity" is way off base.  You have thrown out all the
    	fundamentals of Christianity in that one statement!  Without
    	those you have no Christianity at all!

    	Your last statement is a nice philosophy, (though I don't see
    	how one can talk about Jesus' message, or grace from God when
    	he has thrown out belief in God or Christ in the previous
    	sentence) but that philosophy in the absence of Christian
    	fundamentals becomes a mere generic philosophy.  I'm not
    	saying that there is anything wrong with it as it stands.  I'm
    	just questioning if that's supposed to be representative of the 
    	prevailing message from this conference.

.213 DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"

>>for many, the religious faith is today replaced with materialism and a faith 
>>in science...

Faith is belief without proof. That is not what most people that rely on science
have...

>>of the old monotheistic religion or from the new materialistic science faith) 
>>neither can provide proof beyond doubt about phenomenon beyond our reach; like 
>>life after death or god.

But there are fewer and fewer 'phenomenons beyond our reach' as time goes on.

Steve

.215> Faith is belief without proof. That is not what most people that rely 
.215> on science have...

the analogy has weaker points than this one! :-)

in my experience, when discussing christianity, the them:us line is not 
between christians-non christians, but rather between those who leave room 
for doubt and those who do not allow doubt.


andreas.

The resurrection of the dead and life everlasting in heaven with God
is a specific promise of Christianity.

Jesus himself said that he would raise us on the last day.

The denial of this promise of Christ is a denial of Christianity.

/john

Note 100.200

>    	re 6.572
    
>    	So do you think he's right?

I don't know.  I don't think belief in an afterlife is a absolute requirement
for being Christian.

>       Or did you post that because it is
>    	so far off the mark theologically...

I posted it because I thought it might "inspire" an exchange of points
of view.

Einstein, of course, was Jewish.  But then, so was Jesus.  I don't think
Einstein was approaching the question as a Jew, however.  I hear there does
exist some notion of an afterlife in Judaism.  I think Einstein was simply
speaking his mind.

Shalom,
Richard

    
     >I think Einstein was simply speaking his mind.
    
    
    	The inherent problem is one can only speak from ones own experience
    or lack therof, invalidating any notion of a superior intellect but
    rather a keen indication of one suffering from egotistical arrogance.
    

.219 TRLIAN::POLAND

    	The inherent problem is one can only speak from ones own experience
    or lack therof, invalidating any notion of a superior intellect but
    rather a keen indication of one suffering from egotistical arrogance.

Then when someone states unequivocably (as happens all the time in this
conference) that there *IS* an afterlife, isn't this every bit as egotistical
and arrogant?

I think it would be difficult to deny Einstien's genius, but when even a genius
speaks on things out of there realm I agree that it should hold no more impact
than that of anyone else.    

Steve

.220> I think it would be difficult to deny Einstien's genius, but when even 
.220> a genius speaks on things out of there realm I agree that it should hold 
.220> no more impactthan that of anyone else.    

presumably you are saying that noone amongst us living mortals can speak any
more authoritatively than any one else on the subject of afterlife, right? 

i would agree with you on that. and as i read the discussion so far on the
einstein quote, i gather one does not have to be an atheist to be in agreement
with the above.


re .219 (POLAND)

in the quote (6.572), einstein merely rejects the notion of a god "who is
but a reflection of human frailty". 

btw, there is no denial or affirmation of intelligence superior to human
intelligence in the quote. i concur with you, that affirming or denying
a superior intelligence could indeed be arrogant.


andreas.

    >Then when someone states unequivocably (as happens all the time in this
    >conference) that there *IS* an afterlife, isn't this every bit as
    >egotistical
    >and arrogant?
    
    
    	Any one that speaks from a position that is not experiential
    revelatory knowledge is subjecting themself to ridicule based solely on
    their lack of experience.  Second hand knowledge is of little use when
    it regards those things that are of a spiritual or supernatural nature.
    
    	I have found that it is an exercise of wisdom to speak only what
    one knows and has experienced and of that very little.

re Note 100.220 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF:

> I think it would be difficult to deny Einstien's genius, but when even a genius
> speaks on things out of there realm I agree that it should hold no more impact
> than that of anyone else.    
  
        I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.  Either Einstein
        is a great teacher, or a lunatic, or liar.  C. S. Lewis
        proved it. :-}

        Bob

    I agree that noone is any more authoritative than anyone else to speak
    of the after life.  About it, all of us are equally ignorant!
    
    
                                     Patricia

RE:        <<< Note 100.224 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

   > I agree that noone is any more authoritative than anyone else to speak
   > of the after life.  About it, all of us are equally ignorant!
    
    

 Though we do have the words of the Lord Jesus Christ which to many of
 us are quite authoritative.



Jim

    Jim,
    
    If it gives you comfort to believe you have the authoritative word!
    
    
                                     So be it!

     I agree that noone is any more authoritative than anyone else to speak
        of the after life.  About it, all of us are equally ignorant!
    
    Patricia,
    
    	Not all are equally ignorant of the after life as you propose.  
    
    	Some have been given the knowledge and the experience.  Some have
    indeed seen what is beyond this realm.  Beyond seeing there is a state
    of being in which one continues to see and experience that which lies
    outside this plane of existence.
    
    	

    
Note repair......
    
    
    >in the quote (6.572), einstein merely rejects the notion of a god "who
    >is but a reflection of human frailty".
    
      All that Einstien projected forth from this statement comes from a
      position of lack.  It is merely a base human response to justify ones
        lack of information and experience for the purpose of gaining an
        egocentrical verification of ones own superior relation to the
        physical plane.
    
    	It offered nothing more than another clamouring voice in the midsts
    of a multitude seeking self assurance and emotional self
    protection from ones own lack.
    
    	It is foolish to speak of something when one has no basis of fact
    and merely promulgates unsubstantiated fantasy.
    
    
    >btw, there is no denial or affirmation of intelligence superior to
    >human
    >intelligence in the quote. i concur with you, that affirming or denying
    >a superior intelligence could indeed be arrogant.
    
    
    	The superior intelligence of which I spoke pertained to Einstien
    himself.
    
    	True genius is subtle to the point of silence.
    
    

re -.(serveral) by POLAND


	your words are wise and beautiful !


	i would like to see your reply to 1023.13


troubled,
andreas.

.229> All that Einstien projected forth from this statement comes from a
.229> position of lack.  

not wishing to offend, but, as regards just what experiences einstein
(or any one else for that matter) had, you, nor any one, is in a position
to make assumptions!


andreas.

    >not wishing to offend, but, as regards just what experiences einstein
    >(or any one else for that matter) had, you, nor any one, is in a
    >position
    >to make assumptions!
    
        First may I say I do not propose to say what experiences Einstein
    had in his lifetime.  But I am able to glean from this one quote the
    myriad of experiences he could not have experienced in order to make
    this statement.  I would be well able to understand if this quote was
    made as a child or a young man, but if made later then no excuse
    remains and the images of lack certainly speak far louder than the
    words so recorded.
    
    	Einstein suffered from a common ailment, he was human.  Therefore
    he was well able to disregard the need for complete understanding to
    nuture the symptoms of concrete belief patterns.  This alone speaks of
    lack.  To be unwise as to reveal ones own frailities is sad, to not be
    aware one is doing so is sadder still.
    
    	There is far to much information given that any assumption needs to
    be made regarding Einstein.  The understanding of what true
    communication is however, is a prerequisite to seeing not what is the
    image but rather what is the substance.
      
  
    

Note 100.232

>    	Einstein suffered from a common ailment, he was human.

Yeah, I'm familiar with that particular malady.

Incidentally, I also want to extend a welcome to C-P to you, sir.  And I
encourage you, as I do all new participants, to share a little about
yourself in topic 3.

Shalom,
Richard

    re: .228
    
    I'm from Ohio on that one.
    
                                    Patricia

        Patircia,

    I think you mean you're from Missouri... the "Show-me" state.
    Ohio is the Buckeye state, and I just can't figure out how "buckeye"
    fits into your reference to .228 :^)

    Eric

    
    Patricia,
    
    If your implication is toward a "show-me" reference I must respond that
    it is not possible to incorporate you into my realm of experience,
    knowledge or existence at this present time.  In any attempt to
    communicate those experiences will only result in confusion on your
    part seeing you will have no frame of reference from which to
    correlate the information into recognizable associations.
    
    True communication is done between kindred souls.  True Communication
    connects hearts as well as minds and can bring a unity of spirits.
    
    

    I'm still from "Missouri"  (forgive a little bit of dyslexia at times)
    
    There are many things I intuitively know to be true.  One of them is
    that what happens to us after we die is unknowable.  Perhaps my
    intuition is wrong.
    
    Then there is that whole realm of ESP which I perceive as an
    interesting phenomena but am not quite sure what to believe about its
    truth claims.
    
    So, how do I respond to what sounds like the gnostic assertion that those
    who are children of the light are knowledgeable about a hidden domain,
    unknowable to me, a mere mortal.  And that these children of light,
    intuitively know and communicate to each other?
    
    I guess I am a sceptic.  I am convinced that I know what Goddess/God
    wants me to know and that is enough for me.
    
    I can assess other person's Faith claims only by the fruits that the
    person bears.  Since I don't know anything about you, I just hear your
    faith claim regarding this hidden knowledge as an interesting assertion.
    
    
                                
    
    ho are
    

    
    
> -< Do you believe in ESP? >-
 
    	ESP has nothing to do with what I am speaking about.
    
    >   I can assess other person's Faith claims only by the fruits that the
    >person bears.  Since I don't know anything about you, I just hear your
    >faith claim regarding this hidden knowledge as an interesting assertion.
    
    
    	You yourself have testified openly that what I have written is
    likened to the parables that Jesus would speak and yet you say you
    don't know anything about me.  If you knew where the parable came from
    you would know me as well.  You may know it for it is too simple to be
    hidden, it is readily available and not so mysterious as many make it
    out to be.
    
    All that you wrote in your last note shows where you are at in your
    journey.  The mechanics will not reveal the quality of the function,
    the simplicity of the stature.  To struggle is to succumb to the
    results of the struggle and not to find the release that one would
    desire.
    
    >I guess I am a sceptic.
    
    	I have offered you nothing to be sceptical about.  Unless you have
    attempted to analyze my words according to your understanding.  If you
    wish to be sceptical first completely grasp the source of my
    communication. 
    
                                
    
    ho are
    

goodness! what is ESP and who is "ho are"???

.238, a tad hostile now? 

guess you come from where they have no doubt.


andreas.

extra sensoral perception?

    I remain from Missouri!
    
    Exactly what are you claiming about your Words?
    
    
                                         Patricia

.221 DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"

>>presumably you are saying that noone amongst us living mortals can speak any
>>more authoritatively than any one else on the subject of afterlife, right? 

Correct.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.223 LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish
 Title:  I've seen this elsewhere

        I'm sorry, but you can't have it both ways.  Either Einstein
        is a great teacher, or a lunatic, or liar.  C. S. Lewis
        proved it. :-}

But I *want* it both ways! :^)
BTW, C.S. Lewis was a lunatic and a liar! :^)

Steve

    
    >goodness! what is ESP and who is "ho are"???
    
    
    	"ho are"  was in Patricia's note that was carried into mine
    	and not removed before submittance.
    
    >.238, a tad hostile now?
    
    	This is an incorrect assesment of my words and the attitude of
    my spirit when I entered my note .238.  This statment is only
    instrumental in closing further communications and is not condusive for
    the continuance of further impartation.
    
    >guess you come from where they have no doubt.
    
    	Although presented in a sarcastic tone this may be very close to
    the truth as you understand it.  

re 6.574

>	Taking in alot of Bible knowledge
>	may give oneself a big head, 
>	but by sounding it down into ones 
>	heart one may gain a big heart.


in a similar vein phil, i often think that the truth is found
either by meditation or by seeking out the rough edges of life.
and discovering the truth makes for a big heart.



andreas.	

    Best way to do that is privatize the public school system.
    
    -Jack

    Bear in mind, Jack, there's a difference between violent opposition and
    vehement opposition.  ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Yes...this is true!!
    
    Thanks very much for the two magazines by the way...I got the second
    one yesterday.  I particularly liked the "Reverend Jack Martin"...yes I
    got a kick out of that!!! :-)
    
    -Jack 

    .248
    
    You are welcome, m' friend.
    
    Grace and peace,
    Richard
    

    Regarding...

================================================================================
Note 6.580   Inspirational Quotes and Messages - comments: Note 100   580 of 580
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                      12 lines   9-MAY-1995 12:13
             -< The Real Presence is believed by Faith and Reason >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yes, John Donne was an English poet and priest.

He also wrote the following:

	He was the Word that spake it,
	He took the bread and brake it,
	And what that Word did make it,
	I do believe and take it.

So be sure you understand what John Donne meant by Reason.

/john

    =====================

    Well, I thought I knew what he meant by "reason," but I'd appreciate
    it if you'd spell out what you think I should understand. I thought
    he meant "reason" in a similar way that Rene Descartes used it:
    man's ability to understand, assimilate, what he experiences and
    observes. 
    
    Faith in God, but reason to choose with which group to associate.
    Faith in the Word of God, yet reason to discern literal from poetic.
    Faith in the Will of God, and reason to avoid superstition.
    
   	 Eric
    

.250 APACHE::MYERS

    Faith in God, but reason to choose with which group to associate.
    Faith in the Word of God, yet reason to discern literal from poetic.
    Faith in the Will of God, and reason to avoid superstition.
 
How can you justify faith in God, and reason for all else? This also implies
that you have not chosen God through reason.

Steve

Re: .6.584

>    And she pushed them off.
>    
>    	  And then, they began to fly.
    
Or, "And then, they fell to the ground and were killed."

				-- Bob

    re .252
    
    But then it wouldn't be an inspirational quote... :^)

    	re .-1
    
    	That depends if you are a Jack Handy fan or not!  :^)

    Ahh... "Deep Thoughts!"

>"You have an obligation to refuse to obey any law you believe
>to be unjust."
>
>					-- Henry David Thoreau

Thoreau is, of course, repeating the words of St. Augustine of Hippo
with the addition of "you believe".  Dr. Martin Luther King was more
true to the position of Augustine when he used this phrase in his
Letter from Birmingham Jail.

The difference may or may not be significant.

/john

6.606

>    "Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," they
>    claim a right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically
>    enumerated and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will 
>    be for the general welfare."  
    
Good old Thomas Jefferson -- Unitarian, editor of the Bible bearing his name,
and an anti-federalist, as I recall.

Richard