Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Hi Richard,
    
    "The Great Portionalizing Myth" is really no myth at all. 
    
    > A lot of folks are accused of 'portionalizing' Scripture or Christs
    > teachings.
      
    Question is, are they falsely accused? For the answer, all you have
    to do is look through the introduction note within this conference,
    and you will see that there are 'a lot of folks' who believe in
    the teachings of Christ, ALONG, with the validity of many different
    spiritualities, such as mother earth, buddha, mohammad, new age
    philosophies, and many of the other of mens teachings. 
    
    Carlos

    Re .1
    
    Admittedly, not all here profess to be Christians.  I, personally,
    don't have a problem with that.
    
    Further, are you saying all Scriptural statements are of equal or of
    same weight?
    
    Richard

    Re .2
    
    The problem is not with those who do not profess to be Christians,
    it is with those who profess to be Christians AND also believe in
    other things. There is a contradiction of beliefs with these people;
    Christ Himself said "Get thee behind me Satan: for it is written,
    Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and Him *only* shalt thou serve."
    (Lk 4:8). 
    
    I'm not sure I understand what your asking about Scripture being
    of equal or same weight. Please clarify.
    
    Carlos

    
    Carlos:
    
            First a little nit. It is, the Buddha. "Buddha" is a title
      not a name and it is Mohammed or Muhammed with a big "M".
      It is a proper noun and gets capitalized.
             I would point out to you that there is a certain amount
      overlap in the beliefs of many religions. There are many things
      in Christianity that I recognize as "truth" even thought I am a
      Buddhist. There are teachings in Buddhism that many Christians
      see as "truth". No one has a monopoly on "truth".
             When I find that I share common belief with a person of
      another faith I for one am quite thrilled. For there is a place
      we can build bridges instead of walls. 
              I see nothing wrong in recognizing and acknowledging that
      which is good, noble and beneficial in the faiths of others.
      In fact I think it would make the world a nicer place for all
      of us.
              Surely you do not mean to imply that a Christian who sees
      and maybe even adopts something admirable from another faith is
      serving Satan, do you ? What about us non-Christians are we doing
      the Devil's bidding too ?
    
    
                                                       Mike
              
             

    Carlos,
    	you, too, believe in other things. You also serve a master (your
    boss) as well as "Him". And, unless you have given all your worldly
    goods to the poor to free yourself to follow Christ, maybe your
    observance of his teachings is somewhat shy of perfect itself. So, if
    you have problems with what some of us do or do not believe, perhaps
    you should be a little softer and less rigid in your comments. Rigid
    things get broken.

      I believe all scripture, ie Old and New Testament, is given by God
    and all scripture has to be taken into account on any precept. 
    However, I also understand that this note, "Christian-Perspective"
    is open to those who do not hold to that same concept.  So I will 
    not spend too much time on that subject here.  
    
    
                                  Marshall

    Yes, there are always more meanings available...
    
    ;)
    
    Jamey
    --------------------------------
    
    
Subj:	revoking a poetic license...  ;-)
Subj:	Re-reading the poem "Trees"   (No wit May kersense!)
Subj:	4 fun
Subj:	Therese 

 
Article 14059 of 14183, Nov  1 18:05.
Subject: MAJOR Digression Re: Texts, Intention, Meaning
From: [email protected] (Barbara Hlavin)
(119 lines) More? [ynq] 
FSC-Control: UFGATE newsin 1.27
From: [email protected] (Barbara Hlavin)
 
 
 
Mike Morris writes:
 
>...a short essay by Guy Davenport in {\it The Geography of The 
>Imagination} suggests that there is more to the Kilmer poem than 
>meets the eye...
 
This reminds me of one of the funniest parodies of I've ever read: 
John Frederick Nims' article "Therese:  The Greatest Lyric Poem of 
Our Literature."  This originally appeared in Studies in Biography, 
Volume 20, 1967.  Someone gave me a copy a few years ago.  Here is 
the introduction and the "reading" of the final verse of "Trees" (I 
have omitted the analysis of the first five verses.)
 
        Genuine revolutions in literary taste and theory occur on an 
average only once ever seven generations: therefore it is a source of 
satisfaction to have myself piloted what may be the most shattering 
reappraisal in our literature.  I am referring to the discovery of 
that core of inner is-ness in the poetry of the long misread, long 
underrated Joe E. Skilmer.  Slighted by serious readers for the 
seeming 
banality of his thought --especially as shown in the poem known as 
"Trees"-- Skilmer was in reality the perpetrator of an existentialist 
hoax. 
 
        For years, many of us had been dissatisfied with the reading 
generally accorded this remarkable poem.  My trouble had been that 
I was putting my own voice into the poem, instead of letting it 
READ ITSELF TO ME.  Do not read poem --this became my principle-- be 
read to by them.  This approach led to a number of discoveries, among 
them my article proving that Hamlet's famous solioquy is not about 
suicide at all, but about his meteorological experiments with a 
number of test tubes, of which the tube lettered "E" seemed the most 
promising if the most vexatious: 
        Tube "E" or not tube "E" -- 
          that is the quest, chum. 
        Weather?  'Tis no blur in the 
          mind...
 
On the basis of this principle, I returned to Skilmer's great love 
poem to Therese Murk of Peoria.  Called simply "Therese," or "T'rese," 
it had too long been thought of as having something to do with 
"trees"!  The misconception arose from Skilmer's supreme irony; he 
had all too successfully "achieved an overlay," as he liked to say 
when speaking of the technique of poetry.  The public had been reading 
the "overlay" instead of what he called the "substruct," and what they 
settled
for was something miserably like this: 
 
        [text of Joyce Kilmer's "Trees" deleted]
 
        ["interpretation" of first five verses deleted]
 
                                6.
Po 'Em's our maid.  'Bye, fools!  Like me, 
Butt only.  Godkin may kertree!
 
Almost from the beginning, it was clear to a happy few that what 
seemed 
"poem" was really "Po' Em," a poor Southern girl named Emma or Emily.  
Her identity long eluded researchers, until Dr. Cecily P. Wunkhead, 
basing her argument largely on blood tests, litmus paper and Old Crow 
1066, proposed that the unknown Em was none other than Emily Dickinson.
To show that Emily is the mouthpiece not only for New England but for 
all America, Skilmer resorts to an amazingly simple device: he gives 
her a SOUTHERN voice.  And why Emily Dickinson?  Because she is the 
American Muse, ever at our side to lend a helping hand.  Po' Em's our
MAID, and with our trust in her we can afford to dismiss the vulgar 
many, as Skilmer does with two burning words, "'Bye fools!"  But 
immediately compassion returns, and he remembers that the ordinary man,
just as he, is only a butt for the slings and arrows of outrageous 
fortune.  This might have set a-moping a less resilient bard, but 
Skilmer recovers, to conclude with a thundering diapason: the 
magnificent "Godkin may kertree!"  Godkin: a little god, that least 
of the divinities in man.  Here Skilmer seizes from its lexical limbo 
the humble prefix KER-, as in KERPLUNK, KERPLOP, KERFLOOIE.  Holding 
the precious KER- in the jeweler's forceps of his wit, Skilmer works 
it into a new thing entirely by fusing it with the unexpected "tree":
to "kertree," to burst into flower, into foliage, nay, into very tree 
itself!  One sees the creativity of the universe, the vital 
breathtaking 
form in a great efflorescence of green. 
 
        It takes a poet of supreme insight to perceive this, a poet 
able 
to wrest language from the dead past and kerplunk it living in the 
midst 
of men.  But explication is no substitute for the poem.  Here, in its 
ur-textual splendor, is what many consider the greatest lyric poem 
of our literature: 
 
_I_ think?  That I shall never, see!
Up, owe 'em love.  Leah's a tree. 
 
A tree -- who's hung?  Greymouth is 
        pressed 
Upon the earth-Swede, Flo Ingbrest. 
 
Upon whose boozin's (no!) HAS lain
Anne D'Intagh Mittley -- lives wi' Thrane. 
 
A tree that LOOKS it! -- Gawd!  Auld, eh? 
And Liffs hurl eavey alms, tout prets. 
 
A tree...that Mayan summer!  'Ware 
Honesta Robbins!  Henna hair! 
 
Po' Em's our maid.  'Bye, fools!  Like me, 
Butt only.  Godkin may kertree! 
 
 
% ====== Internet headers and postmarks (see DECWRL::GATEWAY.DOC) ======
Received: by decpa.pa.dec.com; id AA11809; Mon, 12 Nov 90 09:04:26 -0800
Received: by decwrl.dec.com; id AA28129; Mon, 12 Nov 90 08:44:11 -0800
Received: from xuucp.ch.apollo.hp.com by amway id <AA00759@amway> Mon, 12 Nov 90 10:56:47 EST    
Received: by xuucp.ch.apollo.com id <[email protected]>; Mon, 12 Nov 90 09:12:41 EST
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
Received: by daphne.ch.apollo.hp.com  id AA22024; Mon, 12 Nov 90 10:11:29 EST    
From: [email protected]
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 90 10:06:52 EST 
Subject: Therese
To: curie::evans
In-Reply-To: A message dated Tuesday, October 30, 1990   5:55:41 pm (EST)

    
    	re. 4:
    
    	Monopoly on the truth:  Jesus evidently thought that He had a 
    	monopoly on the truth when he said, "I am the TRUTH, the light and 
    	the way.  No man comes to God except through me".
    
    	As far as christians that embrace other doctrines or 'truths', 
    	Jesus said, "No man can serve two masters, you will either love
        the one and dispise the other."  The bible further says in Exodus"
    	I am the Lord your God, you will have no other Gods before me."
    	Jesus further said that either you are for him (totally) or against
    	him.

    re: .7
    
    Jamey...
    
    Although I recognize this as sarcasm of the best order in terms of your
    reply, I still disagree with your point.  But it was fun to read! 
    Thanks for using such an entertaining (*ahem*) technique to get your
    point across.  
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci

    RE: .7
    
     >suicide at all, but about his meteorological experiments with a 
     >number of test tubes, of which the tube lettered "E" seemed the most 
     >promising if the most vexatious: 
     >   Tube "E" or not tube "E" -- 
     >     that is the quest, chum. 
     >   Weather?  'Tis no blur in the 
     >     mind...
    
    
    
    AAAAAAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
    
    Does this mean I was a test-tube baby?!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    E Grace

    
      Re.8      
    
        Ed:  (Isn't it ?)
    
            Clearly, I disagree with you. The idea that there exists
      only one true faith, to me, smacks a of pride and arrogance that
      I feel have no place in the spiritual life of individuals. 
            We could quote holy books at each other 'till the cows come
      home and prove nothing except that we can quote Scripture. For like
     truth, no faith has a monopoly on sacred writings either.
            The claim, that because I am a not a Christian I am opposed
     to Christianity and God, quite frankly, strikes me as ridiculous.
     I have many friends and relatives who are devout Christians with
     whom I share a bond of great love and respect. We also share common
     beliefs and aspirations even though we do not share a common religious
     faith.  We do not live in a binary universe. It is complex, dynamic
     and wrought with uncounted interconnection and interdependencies,
     many of which we are totally unaware of. I am unwilling to dismiss
     and disparage the spirituality of another being. My path is not
     their path and I will never completely understand it, but I can
     do everything possible to help them and even more important,
     learn from them. 
            Does it make a difference if I help someone because Christ
     commanded it or because the Buddha taught that it is the correct
     action to take? As long as it reduces misery and ignorance in the
     world it is worthwhile.
            The same thing done by two individuals each based on a 
     different teaching cannot be for God in one instance and against
     God in another. To help ones fellow beings cannot be simultaneously
     pleasing and offensive to God unless this God entity is rather
     paradoxical in nature.
             In the end I prefer to respect the faith and practice of
     others and to find common ground to work with them to try and
     make things better for all. History is filled with plenty of horrible
     examples of what happens when we don't. Friends are ever so much
     more desirable than enemies.
    
                                                       Mike

Re:  122.11

  >Does it make a difference if I help someone because Christ
  >commanded it or because the Buddha taught that it is the correct
  >action to take? As long as it reduces misery and ignorance in the
  >world it is worthwhile.

  >The same thing done by two individuals each based on a 
  >different teaching cannot be for God in one instance and against
  >God in another. To help ones fellow beings cannot be simultaneously
  >pleasing and offensive to God unless this God entity is rather
  >paradoxical in nature.

This is indeed where you part company from conservative Christians.
Indeed, the exact same *action* on the part of two individuals can
indeed bring forth two very different responses on the part of God.
"Why?" you ask.  Simply because it is our *motives* which God primarily
judges us on.  If we love Him and desire to serve Him and do the wrong
thing (out of ignorance, for example), that is more pleasing to God than
to do the right thing for any other motive (whether that motive is a
selfish one or not).

Our works are like filthy rags in God's sight.  (Romans 3, I believe.)

It is our hearts and minds devoted to Him that God desires.  Anything else
stinks (to put it graphically).

Collis

Note 122.12

>It is our hearts and minds devoted to Him that God desires.  Anything else
>stinks (to put it graphically).

Collis,

	I agree with your first sentence here.  The second sentence seems to
exclude or ignor the concepts of Amos 5:24, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 58:1-12, and many
of Jesus' teaching about what pleases God and what God requires.

Peace,
Richard

    Collis,
    	are you sure that God is such a two-faced egotist as you state?
    And someone accused ME of daring critical comments !  Tell me, Collis,
    how would you respond to - for example - your boss were he to act in a
    way as you have suggested that God does, if his demands were so petty
    and contradictory ?  I suspect that your boss' boss would solve the
    problem for you by canning the guy, but answer the question anyway.
    
    Yes, I know it was never your intent to portray God in less than a
    glowing manner, but you have indeed claimed qualities for God that
    would be much less than admirable in a fellow human being. We've argued
    about some of these before.

    If the Bible commands me to do something and another religion's holy
    book commands me to do the exact same thing, should I refrain from
    doing that which the Bible commands just because the other religion's
    holy book also commands it?
    
    This is logical????
    
    Nancy

    	Only if you  were doing it because of what the other book said,
    regardless of what you know of what the Bible did or did not say on the
    matter. At least, that seems to be what was proposed.
    	Course, we could get cute here ... suppose a text forbade
    consorting with the devil and someone familiar with that text but not
    the Bible were told that they must NOT do what that text says, then
    they must - until informed otherwise - consort with the devil. It
    follows if you accept the (derogatory, depreciating comment deleted)
    logic someone put forth earlier. I get the impression that you, MikeS
    and I agree that there is some fault with such logic.

    
         
        Ed:  (Isn't it ?)
     		Yes, it is.
    
    
    >        Clearly, I disagree with you. The idea that there exists
    >  only one true faith, to me, smacks a of pride and arrogance that
    >  I feel have no place in the spiritual life of individuals. 
    
    	I'm not really surprised that you disagree with me.  The fact that
    there exists only one true faith is in fact a fact.  Just about every
    body that says they don't believe this really do.  Because what they
    are really saying is that "My faith is true faith" even though their
    faith encompasses more then the one they are trying to disagree with.
    This is really the only difference.  You tell me that what I believe
    could possibly be correct, it is too narrow and full of pride and
    arrogance, when in fact, you don't dismiss my beliefs as untrue but
    rather just too narrow.
    	Jesus did not leave room 'other choices'.  If you choose not to
    believe the Bible and what is recorded as the words of Christ then
    that is your choice.
     
    
    > For like truth, no faith has a monopoly on sacred writings either.
    
    	And I guess that this is where we disagree also.
    	We will all know for sure one day.
     
    
    >       The claim, that because I am a not a Christian I am opposed
    > to Christianity and God, quite frankly, strikes me as ridiculous.
    
     	You'll have to talk to the one who made that claim.
    
    > I have many friends and relatives who are devout Christians with
    > whom I share a bond of great love and respect. We also share common
    > beliefs and aspirations even though we do not share a common religious
    > faith.  We do not live in a binary universe. It is complex, dynamic
    > and wrought with uncounted interconnection and interdependencies,
    > many of which we are totally unaware of. I am unwilling to dismiss
    > and disparage the spirituality of another being. My path is not
    > their path and I will never completely understand it, but I can
    > do everything possible to help them and even more important,
    > learn from them. 
    	
    	Who ever said that being adament in ones belief is equal to
    intolerance of others???  That is something that is too often implied.
    I think people are offended by people that are sure and confident in
    what they believe.  Just because I do not waiver in what I believe does
    not mean that I do not have relationship with those that differ.  It
    also does not make me incapable of accepting others where they are.
    I feel like everybody has a right to believe however and in whatever 
    they choose.  (If you choose to be wrong, that's your business 8-))
     
    >       Does it make a difference if I help someone because Christ
    > commanded it or because the Buddha taught that it is the correct
    > action to take? As long as it reduces misery and ignorance in the
    > world it is worthwhile.
    >        The same thing done by two individuals each based on a 
    > different teaching cannot be for God in one instance and against
    > God in another. To help ones fellow beings cannot be simultaneously
    > pleasing and offensive to God unless this God entity is rather
    > paradoxical in nature.
    
    	As was previously stated in another note,  It's a matter of the
    heart.  And it always comes down to motives.  God is the judge not
    you or I.
     
     >       In the end I prefer to respect the faith and practice of
     >others and to find common ground to work with them to try and
     >make things better for all. 
    
     >	History is filled with plenty of horrible
     >examples of what happens when we don't. Friends are ever so much
     >more desirable than enemies.
    
    	You imply that anyone who is convinced it what they believe is
    guilty of what you stated in this second paragraph.  I'm sure that's
    not what you meant.
    
    	This is already long and if you have endured reading this far
    please endure me for another few lines.  I assert that the ONLY way 
    to please God is by accepting His gift of eternal life that comes
    ONLY through Jesus Christ.  If you do not agree then so be it.  I do
    not plan on attacking you or criticizing you for what you believe.
    That is between you and God.  I also am open to hear whatever you
    may believe.  If you believe in temperance and accepting anyone no
    matter what they believe fine.  But I won't pretend to believe that
    that is acceptable to God.  If God didn't care what we believed or
    what we do then I don't believe He would have ever sent Jesus.
    
    							Ihl,
    							_ed-
                                                       Mike

Re:  122.13

     >>It is our hearts and minds devoted to Him that God desires.  
     >>Anything else stinks (to put it graphically).

  >I agree with your first sentence here.  The second sentence seems to
  >exclude or ignore the concepts of Amos 5:24, Micah 6:8, Isaiah 58:1-12, 
  >and many of Jesus' teaching about what pleases God and what God requires.

Amos 5:21-23
  I hate, I despise your religious feasts; I cannot stand your assemblies.
  Even though you bring me burnt offerings and grain offerings, I will
  not accept them.  Though you bring choice fellowship offerings, I will
  have no regard for them.  Away with the noise of your songs!  I will not
  listen to the music of your harps.

Amos 5:24
  But let justice roll on like a river, righteousness like a never-ending
  stream

Micah 6:6-7
  With what shall I come before the LORD and bow down before the exalted
  God?  Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with calves a year
  old?  Will the LORD be pleased with thousands of rams, with ten
  thousand rivers of oil?  Shall I offer my firstborn for my transgression,
  the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul?

Micah 6:8  
  He has showed you, O man, what is good.  And what does the Lord require
  of you?  To act justly and to love mercy and to walk humbly with your
  God.

selections from Isaiah 58:1-12
  'Why have we fasted,' they say, 'and you have not seen it?  Why have
  we humbled ourselves, and you have not noticed?'  Yet on the day of your
  fasting, you do as you please and exploit all your workers.

  If that what you call a fast, a day acceptable to the LORD?

  Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen:  to loose the chains of
  injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free
  and break every yoke?

Richard, perhaps we simple misunderstand each other.  Or, perhaps we
interpret Scripture differently on this point.

Exodus 20 makes it quite clear that the number one priority of every living
human being is to worship the LORD.  All I am claiming is that without
this worship of the LORD (and doing for His glory), our works are totally
worthless.

I find it quite interesting that the first two selections you chose make
exactly this point in the verses immediately preceeding your citation.
Nothing that the Israelites were doing were acceptable to God because
they were not *truly* worshipping - they were just going through the
motions.  

What I am saying is not that we are not to act justly or be righteous
or to loose the chains of injustice.  Yes, we *are* to do those things.
I agree with these Scriptures.  What I am saying (and what the Bible is
saying in Amos and Micah) is that these works are unacceptable to the
LORD if not accompanied by acknowledging who he is.  A religion of works
where one is glorified by others (and by almost invariably by oneself)
has substituted for the true worship of the true God.

Collis

Re:  122.14

  >are you sure that God is such a two-faced egotist as you state?

I can assure you both that I never stated such a thing and that He is not.

  >...if his demands were so petty and contradictory ?  

God's demands are neither petty nor contradictory.  This is your analysis
of His commands which finds no support from me.  God's commands are
loving, true and right.

  >Yes, I know it was never your intent to portray God in less than a
  >glowing manner,...

I have not.  You have.  Take credit, Dave, for your own words!  :-)

Collis

Re:  122.15

Nancy,

  >If the Bible commands me to do something and another religion's holy
  >book commands me to do the exact same thing, should I refrain from
  >doing that which the Bible commands just because the other religion's
  >holy book also commands it?
    
No.  It amazes me how often I'm not understood in this conference.  I
never said that we should not do what God commands.  We should *always*
do what God commands.  Regardless of what any religion says.

All I said is that our acts (works) are not acceptable to God if not
accompanied with true worship of God.  In other words, it is worship of
God that is the first criteria for acceptability of anything you may
do.  This is well brought out in the Scripture passages in Micah and
Amos.

Hopefully, we understand each other now?

Collis

Collis,

I think your interpretations of Amos and Micah are backwards.  They are not
saying that works are worthless and what is important is true worship.  They
are saying that false worship is worthless and what is important are works
(good deeds) and true worship.

"I desire mercy and not sacrifice."  The verses in Amos and Micah are not
saying "I don't care if you love your neighbor".  They are saying "I don't
care if you follow the outward signs of religion.  What's important is that
you love me and love your neighbor."

Can't you at least give non-Christians credit for following half of this,
i.e. loving their neighbor?

				-- Bob

    re:.21
    
    	Well said, Bob.

    Collis,
    	in 122.12 you say "the exact same *action* on the part of two
    individuals can indeed bring forth two very different responses on the
    part of God. ... Simply because it is our *motives* which God primarily
    judges us on. If we love Him and desire to serve Him and do the wrong
    thing (out of ignorance, for example), that is more pleasing to God
    than to do the right thing for any other motive (whether that motive is
    a selfish one or not)."
    	In a later reply in this string you quoted something from Amos or
    Micah or somewhere about burnt offerings and fasting (my ex-wife used
    to provide me with burnt offerings, whereupon I fasted). The question
    in this passage was not that the burnt offering was not accepted, it
    was that the workers were treated badly.
    	Your comment in .12 seems - to me - to portray God as two-faced and
    egotistical. Those are YOUR words there, not mine. All I can take
    credit for is noticing either that you worded .12 very badly or you see
    God in that light and accept Him as such.
    	Your later quote suggests that you are grasping at straws in
    support of your contentions and not really thinking about the quotes
    you use to support them. We know you can do better, we've seen you.
    Perhaps you merely suffer from an embarrasement of riches ?

Re:  122.21

  >I think your interpretations of Amos and Micah are backwards.  They are not
  >saying that works are worthless and what is important is true worship.  They
  >are saying that false worship is worthless and what is important are works
  >(good deeds) and true worship.

This is a possible interpretation.  I think that it is not the best
interpretation based on other sections of the Bible.  These passages
tie works closely in with true worship which, of course in my undestanding,
is when these works are acceptable.

The principle that I see being taught both in this passage and throughout
Scripture is this:

  Any type of works which is not based on a love for God is worthless.
  Only work which is based on a love for God will be rewarded.

One scripture that I understand as support this is John 6:28-29:

  Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
  Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
  sent."

I understand this Scripture to say that the primary work of the Jewish
leaders (who were the ones asking Jesus) was that they believe in Jesus
Christ.  Any work apart from this belief was not doing "the works that
God requires" because it is not done from faith, but from unbelief.
We are neither acceptable nor saved by unbelief, but only by belief.

There are two questions which seem to be getting confused here.  These
are:

 1) What works are acceptable to God?

 2) What should we do (in terms of works)?

The answer to the two questions is not the same, in my opinion.  Works
are acceptable to God only when done in faith.  However, we should do
"good works" regardless of our faith in God if for no other reason than
God has commanded us to do them.  But doing these works without faith
does not make them acceptable.  Is that clear?

Collis

Re:  122.24

  >Your comment in .12 seems - to me - to portray God as two-faced and
  >egotistical. Those are YOUR words there, not mine. 

The words in .12 are mine.  The words "two-faced" and "egotistical" are
yours.  I'll take responibility for my words; you can do what you want
with yours.  :-)  I have re-read what I wrote and I see nothing which
portrays God as either two-faced or egotistical.  Again I say that God
commands all to do what is right which starts with having faith in God.
If you don't have faith in God (which is the building block), how can
God possibly reward you for doing things which should be a response to
that faith?

  >Your later quote suggests that you are grasping at straws in
  >support of your contentions and not really thinking about the quotes
  >you use to support them. We know you can do better, we've seen you.

Well thank you Dave.  I hope I can be clearer in the future.  I'm
not grasping at straws, rather I'm elucidating a basic Biblical
principle that "everything that does not come from faith is sin"
(Romans 14:23).

Collis

    Collis,
    	in 122.12 you are commending WORSHIP over all else while in 122.24
    you are praising FAITH as the be-all. The two terms need not be related
    and they most certainly are in no way equivalent except perhaps as they
    are valued by a theology - and you have in two places put two values so
    they cannot be equally valued by you.
    	You are right that those two phrases are mine, but they derived
    from analysis of your comment. Your portrayal was not flattering, or
    would not be were it applied to me.
    	Your emphasis on WORSHIP over deeds was such that one could form a
    management strategy from them. Reward well the bungling toady who would
    lick your boots, courting favor, but punish harshly the fruitful
    laborer in your fields who only greets you pleasantly as you pass their
    place of labor. Yeah, FAITH is a much better standard to rally to.

Re:  122.27

Dave,

  >in 122.12 you are commending WORSHIP over all else while in 122.24
  >you are praising FAITH as the be-all.  The two terms need not be related
  >and they most certainly are in no way equivalent except perhaps as they
  >are valued by a theology - and you have in two places put two values so
  >they cannot be equally valued by you.

To tie this up into a neat package, worship is a response to faith.  

  >You are right that those two phrases are mine, but they derived
  >from analysis of your comment. Your portrayal was not flattering, or
  >would not be were it applied to me.

Well, you have different standards than the standards in the Bible.
This leads to a different response.

  >Your emphasis on WORSHIP over deeds was such that one could form a
  >management strategy from them. Reward well the bungling toady who would
  >lick your boots, courting favor, but punish harshly the fruitful
  >laborer in your fields who only greets you pleasantly as you pass their
  >place of labor. Yeah, FAITH is a much better standard to rally to.

Ah, but worship without works does not please God.  In fact, true
worship (like true faith :-) ), has works!  Lots of similarities here.

Collis

Yo, Collis!

>I find it quite interesting that the first two selections you chose make
>exactly this point in the verses immediately preceeding your citation.
>Nothing that the Israelites were doing were acceptable to God because
>they were not *truly* worshipping - they were just going through the
>motions.

I don't see "doing ritual" the same thing as "works".  Perhaps you do.

>What I am saying is not that we are not to act justly or be righteous
>or to loose the chains of injustice.  Yes, we *are* to do those things.

Why should we?  Seems to me like you are saying these things are meaningless
and worthless:  ">>Anything else stinks (to put it graphically)."

>I agree with these Scriptures.  What I am saying (and what the Bible is
>saying in Amos and Micah) is that these works are unacceptable to the
>LORD if not accompanied by acknowledging who he is.

This feels like we have put an unnecessary constraint on God.  I suspect
God approves of good and loving works, acts of justice, and the like when
done without thought of personal reward or gain; regardless if it is done
by a Buddhist, a "New_Ager", an agnostic or a Southern Baptist Christian.

This is the wrong I have observed:  A whole lot of people calling themselves
Christians just (as the song goes) "sittin' round lovin' the Lord," and
thinking that that's all they're really required to do.  I see wealthy
Christians volunteering to serve the line at the soup kitchen, never asking
the question, "Why do we have hungry people to begin with?"  I see them salving
their consciences with, "Well, Jesus said, 'The poor will always be with us,'"
and tacitly saying, "Why try?  It's the will of God."  How twisted.

Richard

    >To help ones fellow beings cannot be simultaneously pleasing and
    >offensive to God unless this God entity is rather paradoxical in
    >nature.
    
    According to Webster's:  paradox, something apparently absurd or
                                      incredible, yet possibly true.
    
    According to God:
    1 Cor 1:18-31
    
              For the preaching of the cross is to them that perish 
    foolishness; but unto us which are saved it is the power of God.
    For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will
    bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent. Where is the
    wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world?
    hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that
    in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased
    God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe. For
    the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom: But we
    preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto
    the Greeks foolishness; But unto them which are called, both Jews
    and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God. Because
    the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God
    is stronger than men. For ye see your calling, brethren, how that
    not many wise men after the flesh, not many noble, are called: But
    God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the
    wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound
    the things which are mighty; And base things of the world, and things
    which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are
    not, to bring to nought things that are: That no flesh should glory
    in his presence. But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is
    made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and
    redemption: That, according as it is written, He that glorieth,
    let him glory in the Lord. 
    
    All that just to explain the paradox of God to you, whew...
    
    Now back to the question at hand, namely: If a person does good
    to another person, regardless of the motivation, is it still good
    in the sight of God?
    
    Suppose I were to help an old woman across the street, or give a
    homeless person money, food, and clothing, because I am interested
    in some sort of self gratification, or gain, or because I want others
    to see me doing good deeds and praise me for it. Then is it still
    righteousness in the sight of God? am I not doing it for selfish
    reasons?  
    So then we see that motivation is important, and the only motivation
    a Christian should have is: 
    1 Cor 10:31   
                 Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye
                 do, * do all to the glory of God. *
    
    So then if a Christian's motivation to do good is because the Buddha
    taught it, then this is not glorifying God, but rather, the Buddha,
    which is idolatry. There is only one God! Who was with God when
    He created the heavens and the earth? or to who has directed the
    spirit of God, or being his counsellor has taught him? who taught
    him in the path of judgement, and taught him knowledge, and showed
    him the way of understanding? To whom then will you liken God? or
    what likeness will you compare him unto? 
    
    the Buddha?????   a cow????  mother earth?????
    
    Have you not known? have you not heard, that the everlasting God, 
    the Lord, the creator of the ends of the earth, fainteth not, neither 
    is weary? there is no searching of his understanding. 
    
    Therefore whatever we do should be done for God's glory, and by
    faith in Christ, because we know that we are saved by faith and
    not by works lest anyone should boast.
    
    Carlos

Re: .25  Collis

>  >I think your interpretations of Amos and Micah are backwards.  They are not
>  >saying that works are worthless and what is important is true worship.  They
>  >are saying that false worship is worthless and what is important are works
>  >(good deeds) and true worship.
>
>This is a possible interpretation.  I think that it is not the best
>interpretation based on other sections of the Bible.

Could you please give us your interpretation, then?  I can't figure out
what you think those passages mean, or why you think that my interpretation
conflicts with other scripture.

The Bible very clearly, in many places, says that we must love and serve
God, and it very clearly, in many places, says that we must love/be merciful
to/treat fairly our neighbor.

>The principle that I see being taught both in this passage and throughout
>Scripture is this:
>
>  Any type of works which is not based on a love for God is worthless.

These passages certainly do *not* say that love of your neighnbor is worthless
unless it is accompanied by a love of God.  What they do say is that outward
forms of worship are worthless unless they are accompanied by justice,
righteousness, mercy, and walking humbly with God.  It seems reasonable to
say that two of these have to do with loving your neighbor and the other
two have to do with loving God.

>  Only work which is based on a love for God will be rewarded.

Well, that's debatable; you may be right that this is what the Bible says, but
I have yet to see a convincing verse that says this.  In particular, the
verses in Amos and Micah do not say this.

>  Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
>  Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
>  sent."

In other verses Jesus gave the commandment to love your neighbor.  If you
believe Jesus you will obey his commandments.  I don't really see a conflict
here.

>Works
>are acceptable to God only when done in faith.  However, we should do
>"good works" regardless of our faith in God if for no other reason than
>God has commanded us to do them.  But doing these works without faith
>does not make them acceptable.  Is that clear?

What's not clear to me is why you are using the word "acceptable".  If a
work in not acceptable then that means, at least to me, that God doesn't
want us to do it.  Where in the Bible does it ever say that God doesn't
want unbelievers to do good works?  If you change "are acceptable" to "will be
rewarded", though, then what you saying makes more sense.

Let's say that, according to the Bible, there are two requirements that must
be fulfilled in order to be rewarded by God: love God and love your
neighbor.  According to this, if you love your neighbor but don't love
God, then you've fulfilled only half the requirements for being rewarded.
That doesn't mean that your works are worthless or unacceptable, just that
they won't be rewarded.

Now looking at this from outside of Christianity, I don't place any value
on loving God, but I do agree with the teaching that we should love our
neighbor.  This means we have found common ground: there are teachings that
we can both agree with.  Shared values can help build a sense of community.
When you say that works without faith are worthless, unacceptable, and
stinking, you are destroying that sense of community.  I think this is
what people have been reacting to.

				-- Bob

re Note 122.31 by DECWIN::MESSENGER:

> >Works
> >are acceptable to God only when done in faith.  However, we should do
> >"good works" regardless of our faith in God if for no other reason than
> >God has commanded us to do them.  But doing these works without faith
> >does not make them acceptable.  Is that clear?
> 
> What's not clear to me is why you are using the word "acceptable".  If a
> work in not acceptable then that means, at least to me, that God doesn't
> want us to do it.  Where in the Bible does it ever say that God doesn't
> want unbelievers to do good works?  If you change "are acceptable" to "will be
> rewarded", though, then what you saying makes more sense.

        The issue, of course, is not whether works are acceptable,
        but ultimately whether the individual is acceptable to God.

        I agree, I do not think it is a fair reading of Scripture to
        conclude that God does not want unbelievers to do good works
        (and therefore, presumably wants them to lead bad lives).

        Scripture is pretty clear that good works alone do not make
        the individual acceptable to God, and Scripture is also
        rather clear that faith alone does not make the individual
        acceptable to God.

        I personally don't care whether my works are "acceptable,"
        but I do care whether they are "good" -- with my
        understanding being that God is the ultimate "good".

        Bob

Re:  122.31

  >Could you please give us your interpretation, then?  

It is quite similar to yours in saying that false worship is worthless.
However, it goes beyond your interpretation in saying that works which
are not done for the glory of God are false worship (of something or
someone else other than God) and therefore are not acceptable to God.

By acceptable to God, I mean that some things we do are just what God
would have us to do and God intends to commend those who believe for
these works at the second judgment (the first judgment is for salvation).

God *does* want everyone to do what is right.  However, if they do what
is right (helping to feed the poor, for example) mixed with what is not
right, i.e. wrong (feeding the poor because of a desire to be publicly
recognized as helping the needy rather than to glorify God), then that
work is not "acceptable" just like the sacrifices that the Israelites
were offering to God in Amos and Micah were not acceptable.  

  >I can't figure out what you think those passages mean, or why you think 
  >that my interpretation conflicts with other scripture.

I believe your interpretation conflicts with the Scripture I quoted
from Romans, for example, that claims everything not from faith is sin
(or, as I understand this verse, contains some sin - not necessarily 100%
sin, but it does contain some sinful aspects which makes it sin).  

  >The Bible very clearly, in many places, says that we must love and serve
  >God, and it very clearly, in many places, says that we must love/be merciful
  >to/treat fairly our neighbor.

I agree completely.

  >These passages certainly do *not* say that love of your neighnbor is 
  >worthless unless it is accompanied by a love of God.  

It is a matter of interpretation whether what God is dealing with is a
principle that concerns merely a form of worship, or whether he is dealing 
with a principle that can be applied to a form of worship and any other
form of works.  Other parts of the Bible indicate that this is a
general principle of God's and that he is not merely concerned with a
form of worship.  Therefore, these verses are illustrative of the
general principle.

The term "worthless" is correct in some sense and incorrect in another
sense.  It is clearly not worthless to do part of what God commands.
However, in terms of acceptability to God, there is no standard short
of perfection and anything which falls short of this standard is as
good as worthless.

     >>Then they asked him, "What must we do to do the works God requires?"
     >>Jesus answered, "The work of God is this: to believe in the one he has
     >>sent."

  >In other verses Jesus gave the commandment to love your neighbor.  If you
  >believe Jesus you will obey his commandments.  I don't really see a conflict
  >here.

There is no conflict here.  The question is, can you do one without the
other and have it be found acceptable to God?  

  >What's not clear to me is why you are using the word "acceptable".  If a
  >work in not acceptable then that means, at least to me, that God doesn't
  >want us to do it.  

Well, this is a terminology problem which I had hoped had been cleared up
by now.  Is it now cleared up (after this message)?

  >Where in the Bible does it ever say that God doesn't want unbelievers to do 
  >good works?  

Again, we agree on this.  Everyone should do "good works" (even when they
are unacceptable to God because of their unbelief).  Better still, they
should go all the way and do the "good works" out of faith.

  >Let's say that, according to the Bible, there are two requirements that must
  >be fulfilled in order to be rewarded by God: love God and love your
  >neighbor.  According to this, if you love your neighbor but don't love
  >God, then you've fulfilled only half the requirements for being rewarded.
  >That doesn't mean that your works are worthless or unacceptable, just that
  >they won't be rewarded.

This is an excellent example to look at, Bob.  I agree with what you say
until the last sentence.  You say that a work which is neither worthless nor
unacceptable will *not* be rewarded.  I say that this is inconsistent
with the character of God.  God will reward everyone for everything that
they deserve a reward for and God will give a reward for every acceptable
work.  Unbelievers, by definition, can not have any acceptable work because
it was not from faith (i.e. accompanied by worship :-) ) and believers
will have some acceptable works (presumably) and many unacceptable works.

  >When you say that works without faith are worthless, unacceptable, and
  >stinking, you are destroying that sense of community.  I think this is
  >what people have been reacting to.

I think you have hit an important point, Bob.  My only response is that
community built not on truth but on deception is not a community that
God will bless or that will lead us closer to God.  If I destroy community
out of ignorance and misguidedness, I ask for God's and your forgiveness
for that is not my intention.  Rather, I desire to build up one another
in truth.  

I do have some confidence of what I'm talking about because this is not
my original idea at all.  Rather it is a principle that I have heard and
read and checked out in the Scriptures frequently and that I see is
represented as true in Scripture in the way that God actually responds.
I'd be interested in knowing if this idea is new to any of you.  It is
certainly not foreign to many conservative Christians who have studied
the Bible.

Collis

Re: .33

Thanks, Collis, at least now I know why I disagree with you!

>It is quite similar to yours in saying that false worship is worthless.
>However, it goes beyond your interpretation in saying that works which
>are not done for the glory of God are false worship (of something or
>someone else other than God) and therefore are not acceptable to God.

In other words, you are generalizing the message of Amos and Micah based
on your understanding of other scriptures.  That's O.K. as long as you don't
try to say that Amos and Micah *support* your point of view.  At best, they
don't contradict it.  It's the "other scriptures" that you have to rely on
for support.

>God *does* want everyone to do what is right.  However, if they do what
>is right (helping to feed the poor, for example) mixed with what is not
>right, i.e. wrong (feeding the poor because of a desire to be publicly
>recognized as helping the needy rather than to glorify God), then that
>work is not "acceptable" just like the sacrifices that the Israelites
>were offering to God in Amos and Micah were not acceptable.  

There's a big difference, though.  If I help the poor for the wrong reasons,
the poor are still helped.  If I sacrifice for the wrong reasons, no one
is helped.

Since you are a Christian, naturally you love the poor.  Won't you rejoice,
therefore, if I as an unbeliever give to the poor?  And if you rejoice,
won't God rejoice even more?

I'm not trying to get into heaven (which I don't think exists).  As I said,
I'm trying to build a community of people of goodwill, who acknowledge their
differences but rejoice in their shared values.

>I believe your interpretation conflicts with the Scripture I quoted
>from Romans, for example, that claims everything not from faith is sin
>(or, as I understand this verse, contains some sin - not necessarily 100%
>sin, but it does contain some sinful aspects which makes it sin).  

O.K., I agree that the passage in Romans supports your point of view.  However,
I think the passage in Romans conflicts with passages in the gospels,
specifically the Sermon on the Mount.

>  >What's not clear to me is why you are using the word "acceptable".  If a
>  >work in not acceptable then that means, at least to me, that God doesn't
>  >want us to do it.  
>
>Well, this is a terminology problem which I had hoped had been cleared up
>by now.  Is it now cleared up (after this message)?

Yes, it's cleared up; I now realize that I completely disagree with you
(see the next paragraph).

>You say that a work which is neither worthless nor
>unacceptable will *not* be rewarded.  I say that this is inconsistent
>with the character of God.  God will reward everyone for everything that
>they deserve a reward for and God will give a reward for every acceptable
>work.  Unbelievers, by definition, can not have any acceptable work because
>it was not from faith (i.e. accompanied by worship :-) ) and believers
>will have some acceptable works (presumably) and many unacceptable works.

This paragraph illustrates what I find most objectionable and just plain
wrong about Christianity, especially conservative Christianity.  If there
is such a thing as absolute good, then I am convinced that good works *are*
good, and the only god that deserves to be called good is a god that loves what
is good.  If, as you say, the Bible says that good works not accompanied by
faith are worthless and unacceptable, then the Bible is wrong!  But this
same Bible says:

	Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
	Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons of God.
					Matthew 5:7,9 (RSV)

Not just the merciful who have faith.  *All* the merciful.  Not just the
peacemakers who have faith.  *All* the peacemakers.

It is this universal message of the Sermon on the Mount that I find absent
in much of the writings of Paul.

				-- Bob

    
    
       Bob, 
    
           I think you are overlooking an important point concerning
    the sermon on the mount. Jesus is speaking to the multitudes-multitudes
    of Jews. Jews who believed in God, had been following Him for
    centuries, these people already had faith!! 
    
                                                             Sandy
    
    
    

re Note 122.35 by ELMAGO::SEARLEY:

>    Jesus is speaking to the multitudes-multitudes
>     of Jews. Jews who believed in God, had been following Him for
>     centuries, these people already had faith!! 
  
        Certainly some of them, but almost as certainly not all of
        them!  Even bill collectors say "please disregard this
        message if you have already paid" -- you mean that Jesus
        forgot to say "please disregard this message if you don't
        have faith"?

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    Much of what you shared in .34, particularly the last few paragraphs, 
    reflects the reason I have not found a home in conservative
    Christianity, or it a home in me.  God has spoken to me differently.  
    
    Karen

I'm glad the distinction has been made clear.  It truly is time to decide
when the issues (and facts) are clear.  As Jesus said, God alone is good.

In terms of the sermon of the mount, I agree with you Bob that an action
can be right and be done by an unbeliever.  Unbelievers should do the
right things (just as believers should).  But I also believe that every
action to be *fully* right needs to be dependent on God and who he is,
because the motive for the action is entwined with the action.  Do you
really believe that God rewards those who merciful if their reason for
being merciful is that they're going to get an extra $1,000 dollars for
their act of mercy?

Collis

Re: .38  Collis

I don't even believe in God, so no, I don't think God will reward people
who give to the poor just because they want the tax write-off.  He also
won't reward Mother Theresa or Albert Schweitzer.

If I did believe in God, though, I think I'd believe in a God who rewarded
people according to the kindness and mercy they showed to their fellow men
and women.  Someone who did the right things for the wrong reasons might be
rewarded less than someone who did the right things for the right reasons,
but neither would they be condemned.  Rather, they would be forgiven.

You may well ask, *why* would I believe in such a God?  Because it felt good?
Unlike my liberal Christian friends, I *do* think that this is a valid
objection, and it's one of the main reasons that I don't believe in God.
I don't believe in God because I see no reason why I should believe in God.

All the same, though, it would be nice if such a God existed.

				-- Bob

re 122.38
> Do you
> really believe that God rewards those who merciful if their reason for
> being merciful is that they're going to get an extra $1,000 dollars for
> their act of mercy?

Collis,

I believe doing the right thing for the wrong reason is probably not
as good as doing the right thing for the right reason, though it's still
not a bad thing.  I suspect most people would support this, Christian or
not.

More Biblically (which we all know you prefer ;-}), I believe 2 things
about rewards:

1. The one to whom much is given, much will be expected. (Luke 12:48b)

2. The sun and the rain fall upon the good and evil alike. (Matthew 5:47b)

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .38 and .39

Thanks for those responses.  They help to futher define the issue.

Let me pushback a little bit more.  What I hear you saying is that
God approves of an individual doing the right thing even if it is done
for the wrong reason.  Well, what about an individual who does the "right
thing" specifically in order to thwart and degrade God.  Does this also
find God's approval?

You see, performing an action is inextricably tied to the person
performing the action.  If God didn't care about motives, why did
he gives us free will?  Why did he not just create a being who would
"do the right thing"?

But God *does* care about our motives.  He does care about our choices
(which are *based* on our motives).  *This* is why he gave us free will - so 
that we could *freely* choose Him and glorify Him and do what is right *for 
Him*.

If someone disagrees with me (and I know you're out there :-) ), perhaps
you can explain to me why free will would be important if motives are
not important.

Collis

    
    
    RE: .41 Collis
    
    As I mentioned in my note in the Free Will topic, I think free will
    is misunderstood.  Many seem to think that free will is the same as
    choice....and I don't think it is.  Motives are different as well.
    
    Motives can be conscious or *unconscious*.  We can do things based
    on conscious wants and desires that harm ourselves and others. 
    We can also do things based on unconscious motives that emerge
    out of desires/needs/wants that we have buried under the surface
    and no longer realize are running the show.
    
    Oh, and what do motives have to do with faith (in your context)?

    IMO, free will is that part of us that gives us information about
    events/people in our experience, i.e. whether this is right for
    us, and *assists* us in the choice process.  This is what God has 
    given to us in this life, and I believe that what is right for me
    may not be right for you and vice versa.
    
    Carole  

    Collis,
    	I do not do "good things" because I expect to be rewarded - either
    here or in a possible hereafter - but because they are the right thing
    to do and because what I do affects how I feel about me. Doing the
    right thing improves my feeling of self-worth and failing to do the
    right thing - or doing the wrong thing - reduces my feeling of self
    worth. Maybe someone will reward me with cash or gratuity for my deeds
    but I do not expect such. Maybe, if there is a heaven and if it is as
    many here believe it to be, I will be rewarded for doing good by going
    to heaven - but I'm not counting on it. Learning tomorrow that God
    really is dead and that heaven has been auctioned off to real estate
    developers will not change how I act in any real way, or my motivations
    for my actions.
    	And if God devalues my actions because they are not done due to my
    fear of him, that is something I will deal with when faced with it.
    Such an attitude on the part of a "just and loving God" can only
    devalue my opinion of that God - and of anyone who thinks that such an
    attitude is either "just" or "loving". The English language has other
    terms for such an attitude, more accurate terms, less complimentary
    terms.

Re:  .43

Dave,

  And without faith, it is impossible to please God, because anyone who
  comes to him must

    1) believe that he exists and
    2) believe that he rewards those who earnesly seek him.

Re:  .42

Yes, Carole, your definition of free will is quite a bit different than
mine.

Collis

    Collis .44,
    
    I know it is listed scripturally somewhere, but if you have the chance,
    could you provide a description of the rewards meted out to those 
    who please God?
    
    Thanks very much,
    
    Karen

    Collis,
    	my faith - or lack thereof - was not the point of .43, my lack of
    expectation of reward. You have pointed out that God does not approve
    of good acts committed with the expectation of reward or of people who
    do good with the expectation of reward in mind. NOW you say that in
    order to please God I must "believe that he rewards ...". May I assume
    that only those who please God will enter the gates of heaven? Thus my
    motivation for doing good should be the expectation of being rewarded
    by access to that marvelous place ?  A reward is a reward, Collis, and
    if you do good with the expectation that by such acts you will enter
    heaven then your very expectation of that reward makes your good act
    unsatisfactory to God, whom you would please. Having no such
    expectation of reward, is not my good act more pleaseing to God than
    your similar act with more questionable motives ?

    Yes, Collis, and if I end up in hell I'll enjoy playing with the
    devil's tail as much as I enjoy twisting your words just to yank your
    chain. Well, maybe not JUST to yank your chain.

Re: 122.47

Dave,

  >my faith - or lack thereof - was not the point of .43, my lack of
  >expectation of reward. 

Yes, I know.  The difference being is that this is exactly the point of
the Bible and therein lies the rub.

  >You have pointed out that God does not approve of good acts committed with 
  >the expectation of reward or of people who do good with the expectation of 
  >reward in mind. 

True, in this sequence of thought the subject of God's rewards of those
who serve Him has been very much a side issue until now.  I shall clarify
where I stand on this issue.  I believe that faith expects God to reward
oneself for faithfulness (which, as I understand it, is what Hebrews 11:6
says).

  >NOW you say that in order to please God I must "believe that he rewards 
  >...".

Actually, that wasn't me but the Bible.  Hebrews 11:6.

  >May I assume that only those who please God will enter the gates of heaven?

I wish you would.

  >Thus my motivation for doing good should be the expectation of being 
  >rewarded by access to that marvelous place ?

Many have problems with this, Dave.  Conservative, liberal, whatever.  But
I do think that this is part of what Scripture teaches.  Oh, you're not
to do good for the *sole* reason of being rewarded by God.  But this is one 
of the legitimate (even required?) expectations of pleasing God.

  >...if you do good with the expectation that by such acts you will enter 
  >heaven...

Entrance to heaven is based on faith, not good works.  Let's not confuse
that issue here.

  >...then your very expectation of that reward makes your good act 
  >unsatisfactory to God, whom you would please.

Not according to me or the Bible.  You may believe this, but not I.
In other words, there are legitimate expectations to be rewarded.  Why
are they legitimate?  Because they are earned?  No.  Because they are
*promised* by God.  And we have a legitimate expectation to believe that
God will fulfill all of his promises, including the promise to "reward"
to those who are faithful to Him.  That is why the expectation of a reward
is not a stumbling block to doing good, but rather a means of expressing
your faith in God.

  >Having no such expectation of reward, is not my good act more pleaseing 
  >to God than your similar act with more questionable motives ?

Well, the answer I would like to give is "No, because it denies what God 
has promised."  Unfortunately, Dave, the answer is, "No, because your
good act is not done from faith" (as you so clearly expressed in .43).

Collis

    Collis .49,
    
    Generally speaking, I have a problem understanding the notion of 
    God's "rewards" I've seen presented here and elsewhere.
    
    >> ...there are legitimate expectations to be rewarded.  Why are 
    they legitimate?  Because they are earned?  No.  Because they are 
    *promised* by God.  And we have a legitimate expectation to 
    believe that God will fulfill all of his promises, including the 
    promise to "reward" to those who are faithful to Him.  That is why 
    the expectation of a reward is not a stumbling block to doing 
    good, but rather a means of expressing your faith in God.<<
    
    How can faith be pure when it intermingles with the "promise" of a 
    reward for it?  It cannot.
    
    How can a person worship *only God* if that same person has the 
    notion in the back of their minds that they will garner rewards 
    for doing so?  S/He cannot.  Imho, their worship and faith is 
    divided between God and the False God of Rewards.  Their worship 
    and faith is invested not only in God but also in the idea of 
    their own advantage for doing so.  That's the nature of reward 
    expectation.  How can it be differently??????
    
    There's no way I can see that these are God's words.  If they are, 
    then to me they are nothing more than a highly questionable and 
    dangerously fallible form of behavior modification.
    
    I have to agree with Dave Meyer that good acts done from faith and 
    having no such expectation of rewards, are more "pleasing" to God 
    than similar acts based upon the notion that one will be rewarded 
    for them.
    
    The best reason for loving God is simply for the sake of loving 
    God.  There is nothing else.
    
    Karen

Re:  122.50

  >How can faith be pure when it intermingles with the "promise" of a 
  >reward for it?  It cannot.

Faith?  What is faith?  Faith in what?  What does "faith" in God mean?
I have said before (and am sure that I will say again) that I think the
best understanding of faith in God is that God has made promises to you
and me and that we believe that God will keep those promises.  Not only
are promises not incompatible with faith, they are *essential* to faith.
It is our *faith* in God's character and his ability to keep His promises
to us that God finds pleasing and acceptable.  Faith in someone who never 
promised you (in any way) something is misplaced faith.

  >How can a person worship *only God* if that same person has the 
  >notion in the back of their minds that they will garner rewards 
  >for doing so?  S/He cannot.  Imho, their worship and faith is 
  >divided between God and the False God of Rewards.  

You want something known as "pure" worship.  Worship without any
selfish motivation at all.  Worship *not* because God will meet your
needs.  Worship *not* because God has promised you salvation.  Worship
*not* because God is loving you.  Worship only because God is true
and right and just - i.e. that God Himself is pure and holy and
honorable.  (By the way, if you truly believe this, I hope you don't
worship God for any of these reasons - because that would be "false"
worship as you understand it.  Thank God for these things, but certainly
don't worship Him for it.)

I would like that too.  Unfortunately, I do not think that this is how
you or I were created and are.

  >There's no way I can see that these are God's words.  

I'm glad the issue has been made clear so that you can choose.  I'm
sorry that this is your choice.

  >If they are, then to me they are nothing more than a highly 
  >questionable and dangerously fallible form of behavior modification.

Wouldn't you rather say that if these were the words of God that you
will make every attempt to adjust your understanding so that it
meshes with God?  Anything else sets yourself up above God, as I
understand it.
    
  >The best reason for loving God is simply for the sake of loving 
  >God.  There is nothing else.

I'm trying to remember the name of a book that I read about 3 years ago
which dealt with this exact issue.  What should our motivation for
loving God be?  Does God desire a love for Himself simply out of
obedience?  Or because it is "right"?  Or does God desire love to be 
something we freely choose of who God is?

These are tough questions.  Now, part of who God is *is* someone who
rewards those who believe in Him.  The author (I will provide a reference
next week when I find the book at home) strongly argues that we should
love God partially because it fulfills the *needs* that God has given
us and that part of these needs is the need for reward (or reinforcement).
In one sense, this could be called a selfish motivation.  In other sense,
this could be simply an acknowledgement of the way the God made us and
the stimulu he wants us to respond to - knowing full well that only God
can truly meet our needs, he creates a need in us that will drive us to
search for Him.

There is much to think about here.  The position I've taken is consistent,
as I understand it, with both reason and Scripture.  (It is also an
issue where there is not a concensus in conservative circles.)

Collis

    Collis,
    	your position may be theologically consistant but it is not
    logically consistant as stated. What I was examining a few back, about
    doing good in the hope of reward, was not specifically my belief so
    much as your logic and where it must undeniably lead.
    And that where it leads is contrary to your theology. Therefore either
    your theology or your logic is flawed. Since you claim inerrancy for
    your theology then you must re-examine your logic in this. I believe
    Karen understood what I was saying as her comments held similar
    concepts expressed differently. You managed to miss or ignore this in
    both of your replies, falling back on your (hopefully) unassailable
    theology.

Re:  122.52

  >your position may be theologically consistant but it is not
  >logically consistant as stated. 

Since I know you take so much pleasure in examing and discussing my
views, I was disappointed that, although you indicate that I was
logically inconsistent, I could not find in your reply what the
inconsistency was.  I am sure that now I have pointed out this slight
omission, you would be happy to rectify it (or, if indeed you did
favor me with this already, you would kindly steer me to the words
that describe this inconsistency). 

  >Since you claim inerrancy for your theology then you must re-examine your 
  >logic in this. 

Perhaps you have gotten confused with my words.  Forgive me.  My theology
is hardly inerrant - in fact you yourself have often times claimed as
much.  It is the Bible which claims inerrancy, not my theology.

  >I believe Karen understood what I was saying as her comments held similar
  >concepts expressed differently. You managed to miss or ignore this in
  >both of your replies, falling back on your (hopefully) unassailable
  >theology.

I believe that I understand what both you and Karen are saying.  (In fact, 
I believe I understand it well enough to disagree with it and provide logic 
and Scripture which disagrees with it.)  Perhaps you could point out that 
which I don't understand?  Thanks much.

Collis

    Collis .51,
    
    Yes, some of these are tough questions.
    
    >> Not only are promises not incompatible with faith, they are 
    *essential* to faith. <<
    
    Perhaps some people _do_ need the promise of rewards as an incentive 
    or a "stimulus" to help them develop and exercise faith, but speaking 
    respectfully for myself, God's promises are not essential. 
    
    >> You want something known as "pure" worship.... I would like that 
    too.  Unfortunately, I do not think that this is how you or I were 
    created and are. <<
    
    There _is_ something known as pure worship -- one way is to use 
    your will to consciously choose to be in the presence of God, and 
    to acknowledge and give thanks for what you feel, and what is made 
    known to you when you do.  Oftentimes for me, I can best describe 
    what I feel as God's magnificience and beauty, and the blessing 
    of all creation.  The reward, if I were to name it that, is simply 
    the **experience** of this experience, Collis.  My faith and 
    subsequent deepening relationship with God has not been incumbent 
    on anything else but this, that God has shown me anyway ;-).  
    
    >> The author...strongly argues that we should love God partially 
    because it fulfills the *needs* that God has given us and that part 
    of these needs is the need for reward (or reinforcement). <<
    
    I believe that at some point in a person's growth and development the 
    "reinforcement" or "reward" *can* expand beyond the idea of reaping
    rewards in heaven akin to gold and silver, a crown, etc. and instead be
    just the experience of God itself.  (This reminds me of the notion of
    living a life of "praying without ceasing.") 
    
    >> In one sense, this could be called a selfish motivation. <<
    
    Yes, I agree.
    
    >> In other sense, this could be simply an acknowledgement of the way 
    that God made us and the stimulu he wants us to respond to - knowing 
    full well that only God can truly meet our needs, he creates a need 
    in us that will drive us to search for Him. <<
    
    I'm in general agreement with your or the author's hypothesis here 
    Collis, about God creating a need in us that drives us to search for 
    Him/Her... it's the stimulus (rewards) God "wants us to respond to" 
    that I seriously quibble with. 
    
    Thanks for your thoughts.  I'd be interested in knowing the title and 
    author of the book you referenced. 
    
    Karen
 

    Collis,
    	OK, you believe in the Bible which is the basis of your theology
    and which you believe to be inerrant.
    	You have quoted the Bible and made statements to the effect that
    God does not approve (is that the term you used) of good deeds done
    with thought of reward in mind.
    	You have quoted the Bible and made statements to the effect that
    God rewards those who do good acts for His sake.
    	The LOGICAL conclusion of this is that God does not accept(or
    whatever) good acts committed with the thought of reward in mind, the
    thought of reward by God included.
    	This does NOT mean that good acts committed out of love of God are
    not accepted, only those with God's reward in mind.
    	I've seperated the various comments that you might deal with each
    most easily. Enjoy.

Re:  122.55

Dave,

Thanks, Dave, for providing this for me.

  >OK, you believe in the Bible which is the basis of your theology
  >and which you believe to be inerrant.

True.

  >You have quoted the Bible and made statements to the effect that
  >God does not approve (is that the term you used) of good deeds done
  >with thought of reward in mind.

Relatively accurate, but not quite.  I would amend this to saying that
the motive behind the deed is what God judges.  Now, a reward motive
could be either an appropriate or inappropriate motive (depending on
whether it is aligned with faith in God and worship of God, as previously
discussed).

  >You have quoted the Bible and made statements to the effect that
  >God rewards those who do good acts for His sake.

Yes.

  >The LOGICAL conclusion of this is that God does not accept(or
  >whatever) good acts committed with the thought of reward in mind, the
  >thought of reward by God included.

Yes, I see the contradiction here.  Which I have clarified above.

  >This does NOT mean that good acts committed out of love of God are
  >not accepted, only those with God's reward in mind.

The motives that the Bible outlines as appropriate include faith, worship
and believing that God will reward those who seek Him.  I believe that
these are all acceptable motives in God's eyes.

Collis

    	Well, Collis, I don't think I'm going to let you get away with
    picking and choosing any more than you would let me in another area.
    Doing something for the sake of a reward is doing something for the
    sake of a reward. If that reward is to spend a night with someone
    else's wife, an extra 5% on your next raise, or the promise of eternity
    in heaven; doing something in expectation of reward lessens the value
    of the act. I do not believe that any act which is not selfless, done
    without thought towards compensation, is truely, wholly, good. You have
    not resolved the "contradiction", you have merely tried to wish it
    away. Faith may motivate good behavior, as can worship, but promise of
    reward only motivates self-serving behavior.

Re:  122.57

Dave,

  >Well, Collis, I don't think I'm going to let you get away with
  >picking and choosing any more than you would let me in another area.

Keeping me on my toes.  :-)

  >...doing something in expectation of reward lessens the value of 
  >the act. 

This is exactly the point we are discussing.  Although it may be obvious
to you that this is always true, this is not obvious to me.  Perhaps you
can provide more reasoning as to why this is always true?

Collis

    Collis,
    	it is my belief that it is ALWAYS true that doing good in
    expectation of reward lessens the value of the act. However, it was YOU
    who first stated that doing good with expectation of reward was not
    acceptable to God. (not a quote, but that's what I think you said) All
    I was saying was that you were right in that, but that you cannot pick
    and choose as to which rewards make which acts acceptable. It is the
    act and the selfless motivation which are "most good". "I do not need
    proof, I have Faith." ;-)
    

    May I interrupt with a quickie question?
    
    Jesus talked about "building up treasure in Heaven".
    If we do good, help the needy, etc. to
    
    1) provide the help they need
    2) to gain reward and treasure in Heaven
    
    does the desire and partial motivation to build up Heavenly reward
    nullify the act and acceptability to God?
    
    wondering,
    ~p.w.
                                        

    I say yes, Collis seems to be saying no. What's YOUR answer ?

I am saying no, but this is not a crucial aspect of theology for me.  (I
say no not because I find it the most natural answer - I don't - but
rather because it seems to have a more scriptural basis as far as I
can tell that a yes answer.)

Collis

I've look at home and have yet been unable to come up with the book that
I mentioned.  I have racked my brain and believe that the author's last
name was Piper (perhaps John was his first name?)  It was first published
in the mid '80s.  I'll keep looking.  We did have a flooded basement
a year ago where I lost some books, so it's possibly it's gone now.

Collis

    Thanks very much for your efforts at locating the name of that book
    Collis.  If it turns up, fine.  If not, perhaps it is not God's
    Will.... :-) 
    
    Kb  

"What minister would quote I Corinthians 6:1-7 to a parishoner involved
in a court proceeding against someone who had injured him?  Or I Timothy
2:9-10 to women wearing gold (such as a wedding ring) to church?

How many Sunday School teachers and missionaries, women preachers and
evangelists would the church lose if it followed I Corinthians 14:34-35?
What would happen to our educational system if the church began a
crusade against women teachers based on I Timothy 2:11-12?  This list
could go on and on, but this will give you an idea of how the church
picks and chooses what it wishes to follow."

Paragraphs from a flyer published by the Metropolitan Community Church
of the Twin Cities.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    I, too, have made a wee little book from the same materials, which I
    call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigm of his doctrines, made
    by cutting the texts out of the book and arranging them on the pages of
    a blank book in a certain order of time or subject.  A more beautiful or
    precious morsel of ethics I have never seen.
    
   				    - Thomas Jefferson
				      Letter to Charles Thomson
    

Note 863.19

>    I have yet to see how a liberal church conforms to the Word of God on
>    various matters, i.e. homosexuality, secular humanism, etc.  I
>    understand the arguments as I have heard them but the only two reasons
>    I've heard for condoning a worldly belief were:
    
>    1. That part of scripture wasn't inspired.
    
>    2. That particular teaching was only appropriate for that time. 
    
>    Reason two I can see from time to time.  Reason 1 can only come from
>    our own human intellect, very shakey at best.
    
>    I believe the local church is becoming more apostate every day.
    
Jack,

	It's obvious to me that nothing I could ever say would ever change
your mind.  However, let me say that I, for one, am not arguing that Scripture
was not inspired.  I have never said that it wasn't.  At the same time, if you
buy in to number 2, you're (by standards set by conservative Christianity)
"picking and choosing" when it comes to number 1.

	So, do you expect women to cover their heads in worship?  Do you
expect women to be silent and to refrain from imparting information to
(teaching) an adult male?  Do you discourage women from wearing gold?
Which biblical instructions do you "pick and choose" by either ignoring or
rationalizing away?

Richard

  >Which biblical instructions do you "pick and choose" by either ignoring or
  >rationalizing away?

What about the third option?  Good exegesis leading to a good understanding
leading to acceptance of all Biblical instructions meant for us today?

Oh, you prefer us to misunderstand a Biblical instruction meant for
a different culture to apply literally today.  Sorry.  :-)

Collis

    Who gets to decide what's good biblical exegesis?  Who gets to decide
    what biblical instructions are good, true, right and applicable for
    today?  Who is to say that a dissenting or contrary exegesis is the
    wrong one?
    
    My guess is that you would quickly come under fire from even conservative
    Christians if you indicated that any part of the Bible was no longer
    entirely pertinent for us today, for any reason.
    
    Richard

    >My guess is that you would quickly come under fire from even conservative
    >Christians if you indicated that any part of the Bible was no longer
    >entirely pertinent for us today, for any reason.
    
Pertinent?  Yes.

An instruction for today?  Not necessarily.  The fact that Elisha
(or was it Elijah) told a woman to collect as many pots as possible
does not mean that I should go out collecting pots.  However, there
is a lesson to be learned - and applied - from this narrative.

Likewise, Paul's commands to the church at Corinth may have been
based on the culture of the time and been the application of another
principle - or they could have been the overriding principle itself.
Do you acknowledge that both of these are communicated in Scripture?
(i.e. applications of a principle as well as the principle itself)

It seems that many wish to (evidently intentionally) claim that
conservatives pick and choose by either not acknowleding that both
principles and applications are included in Scipture and need to
be interpreted or by claiming that there is no reasonable way to
discern one from the other.  You have distinguished yourself by
implying both.  :-)

Re:  Exegesis

I've already given a definition of what exegesis involves.  There
are reasons why the various steps are followed (that are mostly
obvious).  If someone wants to claim that something need not be
done or something else should be done, just let them explain
the reasoning.  I'm easy.

BTW, the principles of exegesis have little to do with conservative
Christianity.  These are the same principles that are followed
by historians studying secular works.  The goal (a very *strong*
goal for those who believe that God Himself has spoken through the
written word) is to arrive at the *real meaning* of the text. 

I know that many like to believe that conservatives simply interpret
the text in a way that conforms to all their pre-conceived notions,
but the only real "pre-conceived notion) which is not really
pre-conceived at all but simply an acceptance of the claims of the
text as well as plenty of substantiating evidence) is that the text
is indeed correct.  Within these confines do conservatives (such as
myself) attempt to understand the Bible.

Collis


 

    I'm not a biblical inerrantist, so I don't have the problem of
    sorting out which cultural biases in the Bible are no longer
    relevant or applicable.
    
    It appears to me that when you "pick and choose" which biblical
    instructions are pertinent for us today, you must be able to
    rationalize away what you dispense with through a formula you
    learned at seminary, which you have deemed as right, reasonable,
    and also incapable of error.
    
    Richard

    >It appears to me that when you "pick and choose" which biblical
    >instructions are pertinent for us today, you must be able to
    >rationalize away what you dispense with through a formula you
    >learned at seminary, which you have deemed as right, reasonable,
    >and also incapable of error.
 
It appears to me that you are full of it.

Collis

Note 122.72

>It appears to me that you are full of it.

Collis,

	If that's the way you feel about it, there's nothing left for me
to do but to praise the living God!

Shalom,
Richard

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 863.101        Tony Campolo - Evangelical Extraordinaire         101 of 103
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "I'm 2 sexy 4 my chair"            15 lines   2-MAR-1994 12:47
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    863.98 (Nancy Morales)  Would that the truth were so simple.
    
    I believe the Bible.  I'm considered a liberal (not a liberalist) by
    most.  Actually, I consider myself way to the left of most liberals.
    
    I'm accused of conforming the Bible to my own agenda by reading it
    selectively (picking and choosing).  I've pointed out that *everyone*
    applies or discards the instructions of the Bible selectively, even
    biblical inerrantists.
    
    Collis, at least, admits it.  He defines it as a third way to the
    all-or-nothing approach to the Bible.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

Richard,

   >I'm accused of conforming the Bible to my own agenda by reading it
   >selectively (picking and choosing).

The difference between your picking and choosing and my
picking and choosing is substantial (at least in my eyes).

You determine what parts of the Bible you will believe
and what parts you won't believe.  The reasons for your choices
often seem (to me) to be arbitrary and what you accept usually
fits in quite will with your own belief system (while what
you reject usually doesn't).

I accept it all as true.  I then do my best to understand
what it means today by understanding what it said originally
and what it meant originally.  Then I try to apply that to
understand what it means today.  If it happens to not apply
the same way to me today as it applied to someone else when
it was originally written, then I am accused of "picking
and choosing".

I agree that it is possible to pick and choose by interpreting
things the way you want to interpret them.  I also agree that
this is not uncommon historically.  However, that does not
mean that *I* (or any person in particular) is picking and
choosing when we do our best to understand what the text
means today.

If someone can share with me a better methodology for understanding
what the text means today (particularly one where you cannot
be accused of "picking and choosing"), then be all means speak
up!!!  If not, it would be appreciated that such accusations
not be thrown my way without good reason behind it.

Collis

    I determine which sections of the Bible are important to me based on
    some very basic assumptions about the nature of Divinity.
    
    You determine that the whole Bible is important to you base on a very
    basic assumption about the nature of the Bible.
    
    You determine that some parts of the Bible are applicable today based
    on assumptions about the nature of truth.  i.e. historic/cultural
    truth.  (You seem to reject literary truth, mythic truth, symbolic
    truth, alegorical truth?)
    
    I determine that some parts of the Bible ae applicable and others are
    not applicable based on my assumptions about Divinity.
    
    My basic assumptions about Divinity are:
    
               God is a God of Love.
               God is Good.
               Human Beings can know what is good and what is evil.
    	       Human Beings can know goodness as it relates to the divine.
               God's love is for all of humanity.
    
    THere may be other assumptions.  My picking and chosing what is
    inspired in the bible is based on these Faith assumptions.  
    
    You seem to state that you pick and choose based on your faith
    assumptions about the Bible and your assumptions about the nature of
    truth.
    
    I pick and choose based on my faith assumptions about the nature of God
    and about the nature of truth.
    
    I believe there is more agreement than disagreement.
    
    Both of us are human and may be fallible in the interpretations we
    make.
    
                         Patricia
    
    

    Collis .75,
    
    	You see your way of picking and choosing substantially different
    than, ie, superior to, my way of picking and choosing.
    
    	You infer a lot of things about the way in which I go about
    understanding the Bible.  Whether you consider my understandings of
    the Bible as arbitrary or not makes no difference to me.  It has
    become abundantly clear that you have very little respect for liberal
    Christians.  And as long as that obstacle remains, you will never
    really hear anything I might have to say anyway.  So we might as well
    continue to note in parallel.
    
    	Let us be judged by our fruit.
    
    Salaam,
    Richard
    

Re:  .75-.77

I do indeed see a vast difference between what I accept
and what either you or Patricia (.76) accept.

I accept something *external* to me.

Patricia accepts something *internal* to her.

She claims that what I am accepting is based on my assumptions
and choices, and in a sense she is right.  But, ultimately,
I *conform* to something *external* in my beliefs, whereas
there is nothing for Patricia to conform to accept her own
changing ideas and ideals.

I see this as *quite* different.  In fact, I don't see how
they could possibly be more dissimilar.  Do you?

From what you have written, I think that your approach is
quite similar to Patricia's.

Collis

    .78
    
    The Bible, as an object, is external to you, Collis.
    
    But once you open it and read it, it becomes internal to you.  It
    is no longer objective.
    
    It's the difference between hardware and software.  The Bible is
    nothing more than software media (the book) until it's loaded (the
    book internalized).
    
    Pax,
    Richard
    
    PS Patricia and I do not see things identically in all areas.  Some
    areas, yes.  Here again, it's a continuum.

    
    
    
    
    Collis,
    
    I believe in 
    
    An external God   Father/Mother God
    
    An internal God   Holy  Spirit of God available to each of us.
    
    The God I meet in relationship with other people.  Son/Daughter God
      (By adoptions we are all sons and daughters of God and co heirs with
       Christ  Christ is in us and we are in Christ).
    
    Other than defining your external God as Father only, where else do you
    disagree with me.
    
    Which of the three do you feel does not have biblical support.
    
    Patricia
    
    

  >It is no longer objective.

Even after I've read the Bible, it is *still* external
to me.  Some of the principles and beliefs are indeed
internal.  

Others can read the same things and, based on what they
read, offer correction, teaching, etc.

What I hear you say is that since eventually I process
what I hear/read/experience/etc., that I use the same
methodology.

I agree with you.  Being a human being, I discern and
learn in the ways human beings learn.

I think the argument itself almost prove how dissimilar
we really are:  you have to point to something that *everyone*
does because they exist as a human being in order to find
the similarity.  If you step one step back at look at a
slightly smaller picture, you immediately see the difference
that I have already pointed out:  external vs. internal.

Again, the question is, how could we possibly be *more*
dissimilar.  If there is no way (and no one has ever suggested
how we could be more dissimilar), then I expect that we
are indeed quite dissimilar.

Collis

   >An external God   Father/Mother God
    
God is Father (which does not mean He does not have Mother
attributes or cannot be considered a mothering figure as
well).

   >An internal God   Holy  Spirit of God available to each of us.

Holy Spirit only indwells Christians (Biblical definition
of Christian)    

   >The God I meet in relationship with other people.  Son/Daughter God
   >(By adoptions we are all sons and daughters of God and co heirs 
   >with Christ  Christ is in us and we are in Christ).

Only Christians are adopted.  That is when adoption takes
place - when someone gives their life to Christ.
    
    >Which of the three do you feel does not have biblical support.

They all have Biblical support; this support is different
than what you are presenting (in the ways I have noted).

Collis

re Note 122.81 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >It is no longer objective.
> 
> Even after I've read the Bible, it is *still* external
> to me.  Some of the principles and beliefs are indeed
> internal.  
  
        You are right, Collis.  There is still the external,
        "objective" representation of marks on paper (or their
        corresponding aural or electronic forms) and an internal (in
        your head) representation.  I would argue strongly with
        Richard if he claimed that only the internal existed.

        On the other hand the internal is what one lives by and what
        one reasons from.  The external really is just "marks on
        paper".  I think that that is what Richard is getting at.

        (I am very uncomfortable using the terms "objective" and
        "subjective".  While they have well-defined meanings, their
        application seems, well, so subjective!  People label things
        they agree with, especially things they want another to agree
        with, as "objective", and things that others say that they
        don't agree with as "subjective".)

        Bob

Note 122.81 PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON

>Even after I've read the Bible, it is *still* external
>to me.  Some of the principles and beliefs are indeed
>internal.

Truly, the *hardware* called the Bible, the bound pages printed with
symbols remains external to you, just as the Bible or any book would be
for anyone who cannot read.

But if you can read, and you do read the Bible, it is taken in, at
least, to some measure.  This is not unlike booting (loading memory)
a system from a disk, though not nearly as clean and simple.

I think the casual reader of this file can see the (forgive me) logic
of this.

Incidentally, it works this way for me, too.

I do notice a pattern, though.  It seems you are looking for differences
and exclusivities while I am looking for similarities and inclusivities.

Shalom,
Richard

Re:  .84

So we all have input through our senses, we filter what
we get and this effects our understanding.  I agree!

You have avoided (despite two direct requests) answering
my question (or even acknowledging it) which looked for
something more dissimilar than what we do.

My standard is external; your standard is internal.

My standard is concrete and unchanging, your standard
is as fluid as you are.

My standard accepts everything in the Bible as truthful
and useful, your standard picks and chooses using an
unknown (or loosely defined) algorithm.

Collis

Note 122.85 PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON

>You have avoided (despite two direct requests) answering
>my question (or even acknowledging it) which looked for
>something more dissimilar than what we do.

The question holds no interest for me.  Nor would any answer prove anything.

>My standard is external;

Only until it is internalized.

>your standard is internal.

Not exclusively.

>My standard is concrete and unchanging, your standard
>is as fluid as you are.

The book is not exactly unchanging, but that issue is not worth pursuing to me.
Your understandings of said external object are fluid, or at least I should
hope so.

>My standard accepts everything in the Bible as truthful
>and useful, your standard picks and chooses using an
>unknown (or loosely defined) algorithm.

You pick and choose, too, Collis.  You've just found a way to justify what
you discard, a way which you've deemed satisfactory, logical and reasonable.
You call it "exegesis."

Richard

  >...Nor would any answer prove anything.

I think the answer would say quite a bit.

Re:  the rest of the note

We've been through this merry-go-round twice before now.

I have freely acknowledged what you keep pushing - that
all people internalize at some point.


  >You pick and choose, too, Collis.  You've just found a way to justify what
  >you discard, a way which you've deemed satisfactory, logical and reasonable.
  >You call it "exegesis."

Picking and choosing implies either a lack of a standard
or a standard the individual chooses himself.

Exegesis is a well-defined methodology that is not based on
a standard but is an attempt to discern truth.

The fact that you equate one with the other reflects more on your
prejudices than it does on reality.

Collis

.87 PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON

>Picking and choosing implies either a lack of a standard
>or a standard the individual chooses himself.

No, it doesn't.  Picking and choosing is picking and choosing, discriminate
or not.  All you're saying is that your picking and choosing is highly
selective, that you've chosen some hurdles over which something has to
trip in order to be discarded.

I know you don't see this, but that reflects more on your prejudices than
it does on reality.

Richard

   >All you're saying is that your picking and choosing is highly
   >selective, that you've chosen some hurdles over which something has to
   >trip in order to be discarded.

That is not all I'm saying.

  >I know you don't see this, but that reflects more on your prejudices than
  >it does on reality.

I know you don't see this, but that reflects...

    (.89 Collis)
    
    Granted, that's not *all* you're saying.  But it is the essence of it.
    
    What seems ironic to me is that you and Nancy Morales appear to have such
    vastly different approaches and yet you two don't butt heads.  It must be
    that as long as your conclusions are fairly similar, it doesn't matter
    much how you arrived at them.
    
    Richard
    

  >Granted, that's not *all* you're saying.  But it is the essence of it.
 
No, it is a completely different paradigm.  It is unfortunate
that this complete different paradigm ends up using the
same human faculties that we all have that makes it so easy
for you to claim that it is really the same thing as what
you are doing.

Collis