Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

 Re.0

  Richard:

            I am glad you referred to perfection as a concept and
 not a reality. By the way it is a concept that I am not sure I
 grasp either in the Christian or general sense. 
            A perfect human being, aside from the point that this
 seems to be an oxymoron it is also kind of frightening. Can you
 imagine meeting such a person. How could you understand or relate
 to them. Can you imagine being perfect ? The prospect is just as 
 frightening as meeting someone perfect. How could you function
 amongst or relate to "ordinary" people ?
           There is a Japanese word, "Wabai", I believe it is that 
 is used to describe a flaw in something that makes it more beautiful.
 In English we might say something has character or is unique, but this
 does not quite capture the meaning. 
            Would a perfect human have character or would they be kind
 of bland and lacking in personality ? This may be simply a case of my
 own perceptions and prejudices, but I tend hold "perfection" in rather
 low regard. I tend to associate it with a sort of featurelessness that
 is mind numbing. 
             Perhaps one of the Christians here could help explain
 the idea of perfection so I can get a better idea of just what is
 meant or is it one of those things that is considered to be beyond
 human understanding ?


                                                          Mike
 

re.1

	Mike,

	There is an only was One truly Perfect human being. That is Jesus
Christ. So perfection to the christian is that they would express The Lord's
humanity by living out His Life through their human life. This perfection is a
reality only in this way. 

Regards,

ace

    Re.2
     
     Ace:
          I am afraid I don't quite grasp the meaning of your reply.
     Could you translate it out of Christian-speak or perhaps expand
     on it a bit ?  

                                                              Mike

    "Perfect and Complete, As Always."
    
    The masculine striving for perfection must be balanced with the
    feminine essence of completion.  
    
    DR

    I have the feeling that perfection, like spirituality, is a process
    rather than a goal.  It is something to work on, work at, work with,
    work through.  It is an effort, rather than a place to stop and rest on
    your laurels.  It's the trip, rather than the destination.
    
    -Jody
    

re.3

	Mike,

	Okay, I'll try.

	Only God is perfect. Angels, humans, and creation are imperfect.In other
words, everything other than God is imperfect.

	Since God is perfect, the only way for humans to be perfect is to live
out God's divine life. I say "live out". To live out God's divine life, is to
have God living in you, and expressing Himself through your human life. 

	This is different from emulating God's life. To emulate God's life is 
impossible. If you dress up a chimpanzee in human clothes and teach it to ride
a tricycle, you have taught the monkey to emulate a human being in riding a 
trike, but the monkey is still a monkey. Why? Because the monkey has the monkey life, not the human
life. It is the same with us. A human has the human life. God has the divine
life. The only way to become perfect is to receive and live out the divine
life.

	Not only that, but God also came to earth in the form of a human, the
man we know as Christ Jesus. As a result of His becoming a man, there was for
the first time in human history, a Perfect Man. Jesus was a perfect man, 
because as the Perfect God, He lived out His divine life through his
incarnated human life. Result: a perfect man. 

	Now according to 1 Cor 15:45, Jesus Christ became a life-giving 
Spirit. This means that all that He is as God and all His experiences as a 
human were brought into the Godhead through His death, resurrection,
ascension, and enthronement, and now in the form of the Life-giving Spirit,
He is available to whosoever would call upon His name, believing and receiving
Him into thier heart. It is a this point, that God begins the perfection
process in the beleiver. That is, He begins to make His home in our hearts and
changing us into His likeness until eventually we are so permeated and saturated
with His life that we express Him only. We decrease to ourselves, He increases 
within us and thereby perfection is achieved. 

	This is only way that Matthew 5:48 could ever be fulfilled...

	"You, therefore, shall be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect".

In summary: God is Perfect. He became a man and lived a perfect human life. He
then became a Life-giving Spirit and now dispenses Himself into His believers to
transform them. Thus through a process of exchanging lives (human for divine), 
they become perfected.

I'll be glad to clarify further.

Regards,
Ace

	

In Matthew, Jesus says, "Be perfect as your Father in heaven is perfect."
The corresponding verse in Luke says, "Be merciful as your Father in
heaven is merciful."

As Christians, I believe we should strive for perfection, that is, if
perfection represents a degree of mercy, kindness, and limitless love.

Peace,
Richard

    We have perfection in at lest three ways.
    
    1.  Vicarious perfection = we are made perfect in Him.
    
    2.  Practical perfection = we do good works in this world.
    
    3.  Final perfection = we will be perfected (completely) in heaven.
    
    
                             Marshall

 Re.6

 Ace:
      
      Thanks, your explanation has provided me a much better idea
   of what you meant.
       You say that God became human, but a perfect human. Now we seem
   to agree on the idea that of our humanity apparently excludes the
   possibility of perfection. Could a "perfect" human really be human ?
   When someone says God became a perfect man I have a good bit of
   doubt about that. I believe that if this man was perfect than he
   missed out of the experience of humanity that you say was combined
   into the godhead. A "perfect" human has not experienced humanity
   so the experience combined into the godhead was woefully 
   inadequate.
      This also brings up another point raised earlier in this topic.
   Could a being that has only experienced humanity as a male be a 
   perfect human ? Just as I think that the experience being human would
   require that you experience it warts and all i.e. imperfections included.
   then any claim of perfect humanity would of necessity require first
   hand knowledge of being both male and female.
        I have heard quite a few theological discussions about Christ's
   complete perfection and complete humanity. Are these somehow required
   for the validity of the Christian doctrine of salvation ?

                                                    
                                                              
                                                            Mike
     
      

    In the book "Alcoholics Anonymous", in the chapter How It Works, the 12
    steps are discussed.  These 12 steps are a path to spiritual recovery.
    But after them is the line "We are not perfect.  We claim spiritual
    progress rather than spiritual perfection."  
    
    I think for me this sums it up.  I am not God (any more ;*)    ), and I
    will not reach perfection until about 5 minutes after I die.  Maybe.
    But I try to progress along spiritual lines.  I make mistakes.  I try
    to make amends for those mistakes.
    
    However, I don't think perfection was ever asked of us.  *I* (me, my
    opinion only, etc.) think that all that has ever been asked of us is to
    do the best we can.  If God wanted a bunch of little Gods running
    around, I think It would have made a bunch of little Gods.  Not a bunch
    of imperfect humans.
    
    E Grace

re.9

	Mike,

	Further clarification of the humanity of Jesus.

	In order to understand "humanity", we must travel back in time to
examine the case of Adam. When Adam was created, his humanity was "neutral". 
And we can see from the account in Genesis 1, 2, and 3 that God never intended 
for Adam to remain neutral. God's intention was that Adam accept God into 
himself as life. We can think of Adam as a vessel, designed by God to contain
something. The something that Adam was to contain was God Himself, signified
by the tree of life in Garden of Eden. So in Genesis we see a picture of a man
and a tree of life, and man instructed to eat the tree of life. Now as relates
to perfection, Adam was to begin the process of perfection by eating the tree of
life. Since only God is perfect, there was no other way for Adam to become 
perfect. But Adam blew it... before he could begin that process something 
devastating occurred. He ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, which 
was strictly forbidden to eat. Now the neutral vessel became damaged and was
rendered useless to God's purpose, therefore the vessel was cut off from God's
life signified by the tree of life. The neutral vessel became injected with the
life of God's enemy Satan, signified by the serpent in the Garden and the
tree of knowledge of good and evil. 

	From this we can see that humanity was originally neutral, with God's
intention that it become saturated with His life, but instead became fallen
and injected with the poison of God's enemy Satan. The vessel had become
sinful and therefore unfit and unworthy to contain God. 

	Now how does this tie to the Lord's humanity? The Bible recognizes
Jesus Christ as the "Last Adam" (I Cor 15:45). He was like Adam, but different.
The first Adam became a fallen human. The last Adam (Christ), lived out His
entire life fully dependent upon God's life as His own life. In fact, God's
life was His life because He was God. But He was also a man. The term "last 
Adam" also is very meaningful as it signifies that God did not refurbish the 
first Adam and his race, but instead brought about a new race, in a new 
creation, Jesus being the Head of God's new creation. So when you say "Could a 
"perfect" human really be human?", the answer then is yes and no. No, because
our fallen humanity is damaged and useless. Yes, because the humanity the Lord
has and now lives out of us is an uplifted one.

	The Lord experienced human living on this earth. He was tempted in every
was as we are, yet He overcame this temptation by His reliance upon the divine
life lived out through His humanity. He did not need to experience the fallen
humanity to have lived a perfect human life. Perfection does not include the
experience of sin. However, we should observe, that *because* He was sinless,
He became qualified to become sin on our behalf. If He were not spotless in
every way, He could not have been our substitute on the cross. Through His
death, resurrection, ascension, enthronement, and dispensing of Himself He
able to multiply Himself in other humans, that is the believer in Him. The
beleiver then is being perfected as He lives His life (divine and human 
attributes included) in and through us.


1 Peter 5:10

	" But the God of all grace, who called you into His eternal glory in
Christ, after you have suffered a little while, will Himself perfect, establish,
strengthen, and ground you".



Regards,
Ace

    Does Christ's command to be perfect mean to be sinless?
    Or to be fully the person I am?

    I don't think Christ demanded sinlessness of his followers
    as much as he demanded that they demonstrate extraordinary love.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

as your heavenly Father is perfect.  Matthew 5:48

Since the analogy is to the heavenly Father and since this verse is in
response to the shortcomings of people under the law, I have always
interpreted this verse to mean that we are to be without sin.

Collis

    
                                PERFECTION
    
    It is my belief, and understanding of scripture:
    
    1)	Everything God created is already perfectly made.  No other life
    form veers from its natural state of perfection except man, due to his
    imagination and free will.
    
    2)	The Garden of Eden was perfect and so was man, in the beginning. 
    However, though the Garden was perfect, not everything in it making up
    its perfection was good for Man, thus God instructed man not to eat
    from the tree that was not good for him.  Then Satan beguiled the
    woman, through the use of speech that caused Eve to imagine a vain
    and untrue idea, she veered from her nature and led the man Adam along
    with her...such is life.
    
    3)	Man is perfect, but now in a "fallen state", cannot comprehend the
    nature of his perfection.  What is perfection?  Does it mean something
    that never breaks or acquires flaws?  Or, can perfection be in
    something that is able to regenerate itself?  For instance, if
    something is damaged but can regenerate the damaged part such that it
    returns to its original state is it a perfect thing?  I say it is
    perfect.
    
    4)	Whenever one thinks of "perfect" most often we think of "absolute"
    perfection, something that never breaks or flaws.  We think that if it
    can be damaged it is not perfect...but this is not true.  When Satan
    rebelled in heaven he broke/flawed the harmony, love and peace that
    prevailed in heaven.  Satan was cast out, thus heaven was able to
    regenerate its original state.  Would you say that heaven is imperfect
    because it could be damaged/flawed?  
    
    5)	In regards to Christian perfection, again, a qualification of
    perfection is necessary.  We must not think "absolute" perfection, but
    we must keep in the domain of the discussion of Christianity, and think
    "perfected in the love of God".  This is what Paul is referring to when
    he states, "No height, depth....can separate me from my love of God." 
    This is what John is speaking of when he says "God is Love" and those
    who receive and believe God "cannot sin"...FAITH is the key to
    perfection.
    
    6)	Also, the bible says something about "he who can control his tongue
    and not offend in word, the same is perfect."  For the MOUTH separates
    us from life/God/love...it also keeps us perfect and whole!
    
    7)	Furthermore, YOU MUST BE PERFECTED IN THIS LIFE OR YOU WILL NEVER
    SEE HEAVEN.  You can't name one person in the bible who made it to
    heaven without first being perfected in this life.  And what is the
    boon of our perfection?  To accept Jesus Christ as the head of our
    lives, to be baptisted with the Holy Spirit, and allow the fullness of
    the Word of God to dwell richly in us...be atoned with God, not turning
    to the left nor right (veering from our nature) with vain thoughts.  I
    think Collossians 1:26 says "We must be presented perfect at the altar
    of God".
    
    Praise the Lord.
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe,
    
    > 1) Everything God created is already perfectly made.  No other 
      life form veers from its natural state of perfection except man, 
      due to his imagination and free will. <
    
    If it were not for imagination and free will then we would be no
    different than the common earthworm: eating, excreting, and... 
    making baby earthworms.  
    
    Perhaps God gave imagination and free will to human beings in order 
    to create a life form capable of being aware of God.  What human beings
    need to learn is the appropriate expression of these two gifts from
    God. 
    
    > 2) The Garden of Eden was perfect and so was man, in the beginning. 
    However, though the Garden was perfect, not everything in it making up
    its perfection was good for Man... <
    
    That's illogical, imo.
    
    > ...Then Satan beguiled the woman, through the use of speech that
    caused Eve to imagine a vain and untrue idea, she veered from her
    nature and led the man Adam along with her... < 
    
    Perhaps Satan has gotten a bad rap... perhaps God employed a "force" 
    to awaken imagination and free will in humankind.  You see, I don't
    necessarily believe that there has been a perfected place (Garden) 
    where human beings were created and automatically had a perfected,
    full awareness of God upon their creation.
    
    Generally speaking, I think Adam was probably a nice man, but basically 
    stupid, and needed to have his eyes opened to his truer nature and
    awareness of God... hence Eve was sent to open God's gift of imagination 
    and free will and share it with an ignorant, and perhaps even lazy, Adam.
    
    ...such is life. ;-)
    
    Karen

    re: 16
    
>    > 1) Everything God created is already perfectly made.  No other 
>      life form veers from its natural state of perfection except man, 
>      due to his imagination and free will. <
    
>    If it were not for imagination and free will then we would be no
>    different than the common earthworm: eating, excreting, and... 
>    making baby earthworms.  
    
>    Perhaps God gave imagination and free will to human beings in order 
>    to create a life form capable of being aware of God.  What human beings
>    need to learn is the appropriate expression of these two gifts from
>    God. 
    
    I haven't yet come to the issue of why God gave man free will and
    imagination, that I'll probably never understand.  However, inspite of
    that the fact remains that Man, gifted with free will and imagination
    uses it oftentimes improperly (your misappropriation of the gift) and
    thereby veers from his true nature...imagining himself to be all sorts
    of things, even God himself!  I agree that Man must learn to express
    himself properly according to the will of God.  Romans 1:25 (around
    this verse) speaks of the "vain imagination...foolish heart was
    darkened" of men who do not acknowledge the truth within themselves.
    
>    > 2) The Garden of Eden was perfect and so was man, in the beginning. 
>    However, though the Garden was perfect, not everything in it making up
>    its perfection was good for Man... <
    
>    That's illogical, imo.
 
    Why?  All I'm saying here is that The Garden of Eden, or the Land in
    which man was first created, was a perfect garden in and of itself. 
    Then came Man into the Garden, Man was also a perfect being.  The
    perfection of the Garden and the perfection of Man are two different
    types of perfection (i.e. one is a garden, the other is a man).  "Every
    thing is unique and unfolding to be a perfection of its own kind", is a
    statement referring to the individual uniqueness and perfection of
    every living thing.  
    
    Furthermore, you could say you are imperfect, but to whom or what do
    you compare yourself with?  Indeed to determine that something is
    imperfect it must be contrasted with that which IS perfect.  Since
    there is only ONE you, there is no other to compare you to...so if you
    believe you are imperfect, it is merely imagination.  You ARE perfect,
    and this you can "take to the bank", because you are unique and there
    is no other who can be a more perfect you than you!  Isn't that logical
    and true?
       
>    > ...Then Satan beguiled the woman, through the use of speech that
>    caused Eve to imagine a vain and untrue idea, she veered from her
>    nature and led the man Adam along with her... < 
    
>    Perhaps Satan has gotten a bad rap... perhaps God employed a "force" 
>    to awaken imagination and free will in humankind.  You see, I don't
>    necessarily believe that there has been a perfected place (Garden) 
>    where human beings were created and automatically had a perfected,
>    full awareness of God upon their creation.
    
    Perhaps, perhaps...but that's not how the story goes.  Satan didn't get
    a bad rap, he WAS a bad "rap" (rap=talk) for Eve.  We could go into the
    esoterics of Genesis creation and the "Fall of Man", but this is not the 
    note for it.  The Earth is a "perfect garden", in it grows every thing
    that is necessary for the survival and continuance of every life in it. 
    I am reminded of the saying, "One man's piece of cake, is another man's
    poison."  Also, the statement, "Live and Let Live", comes to mind. 
    Just because certain food isn't good for man to eat doesn't mean the
    other forms of life could as well do without it...cows eat grass and
    produce milk, man doesn't eat grass but the cows milk is indispensible
    in the life of growing children, and the beef is a must for a hungry
    man...all because the cow eats plenty of good grass.
    
    To be "fully aware" and "in full understanding and knowledge" is two
    different states of being.  Adam was "fully aware" of God, but he was
    not "in full understanding and knowledge" of God.  Adam wasn't so
    stupid though, he did name all the animals...he just didn't know the
    rules and guidelines according to God's will, and that is what caused
    the Fall.
    
>    Generally speaking, I think Adam was probably a nice man, but basically 
>    stupid, and needed to have his eyes opened to his truer nature and
>    awareness of God... hence Eve was sent to open God's gift of imagination 
>    and free will and share it with an ignorant, and perhaps even lazy, Adam.
 
    I don't think the story implies that Eve opened Adam's eyes to his
    truer nature and awareness of God, though as a result of Eve's act this
    did/has occurred (man has been on his knees praying ever since).  I
    don't think free will and imagination were ever absent of man, else how
    could Eve or Adam have been mislead by Satan?  Both, Adam and Eve,
    exhibited these attributes prior to the Fall.
    
    It's no good being vengeful against God because you're having a problem
    dealing with "Fallen" men on earth...God told you about that anyway. 
    We must come to know our true nature, and that means "women"
    too...God's Word is righteous and perfect, and if we all believed and
    obeyed we would have heaven in our midst right now.
    
    Playtoe   
>    ...such is life. ;-)
    

    Playtoe, 
    
    -< I'll try to help you understand... >-
    
    Thank you, I will return the favor.
    
    >> Perhaps Satan has gotten a bad rap... <<
    
    > Perhaps, perhaps...but that's not how the story goes. <
    
    Your words seem to indicate the possibility that the interpretation 
    I offered has potential validity.  I'm pleasantly surprised at your
    openess here!  As you may know however, I don't confine my understanding 
    to the literal interpretation of "the story", nor the Bible, so this 
    will automatically be the source of differing opinions between us, 
    which I believe helps to acknowledge, but not belabor.
    
    > To be "fully aware" and "in full understanding and knowledge" is two
    different states of being.  Adam was "fully aware" of God, but he was
    not "in full understanding and knowledge" of God.  Adam wasn't so 
    stupid though, he did name all the animals...he just didn't know the
    rules and guidelines according to God's will, and that is what caused
    the Fall. <
    
    I appreciate the distinction you make between being "fully aware" and
    "in full understanding and knowledge".  I used the term fully aware in
    .16 to mean in full understanding and knowledge.  So if Adam, as you say,
    "just didn't know the rules and guildelines according to God's will,"
    was that an imperfection?  And whose fault was that?  Adam's?  God's?  
    
    (Also naming animals is no great indicator of intelligence, imo.)
    
    > Both, Adam and Eve, exhibited these attributes [imagination and free
    will prior to the Fall. <
     
    Can you provide an example?
    
    > It's no good being vengeful against God because you're having a
    problem dealing with "Fallen" men on earth... <
    
    I encourage you to re-consider your interpretation, and contemplate 
    the possibility that you have incomplete information and your own 
    biases which formed the basis of your conclusion, my friend.       
                                                                  
    Karen

    There's a new interpretation of Eve utilizing both biblical references
    and the gnostic gospels to show that she WAS a source of enlightenment
    rather than an evil-espousing, self-serving tool of destruction.  It's
    called "Reinventing Eve" and I believe it's by Kim Chernin....
    
    -Jody
    

    Thanks *very* much for the pointer Jody.  Part of .16 was intended 
    as a rebuttal to the general theme of the Garden story where the 
    depiction of Eve has been extremely subversive, imo, which I believe 
    is also a gross distortion of the truth. 
    
    I have added _Reinventing Eve_ to the top 3 books of my required 
    reading list.
    
    Karen

    re: 18
    
    Karen,
    
>    Your words seem to indicate the possibility that the interpretation 
>    I offered has potential validity.
    
    Well, it is controversial whether to blame Satan, or God (for allowing
    Satan to beguile Eve), or Adam and Eve for being beguiled.  Your
    interpretation, when viewed from a certain perspective is valid, but
    that perspective is not the one best able to bring you to the knowledge
    of God.  You see, IMO, I don't think it's good for us to sympathize
    with Satan, or with our enemy.  Satan has determined to win us over to
    his way of thinking, and when you say he's received a bad rap it seems
    to imply you're on his side...
    
    I do not confine my study to the Bible, but have studying many
    doctrines and faiths.  However, I try not to mix them up.  When we
    speak of Satan we speak from the Bible.  When we speak of Adam and Eve
    we speak from the Bible.  Personally, I don't have a problem with you
    using resources from whatever source you choose.  I try to transpose
    and whatever necessary to extract the content and the context is
    secondary.
    
    I said earlier, that Satan did not receive a bad rap, but that he WAS a
    bad rap for Eve.  That was Satan's forte', lying and deceit, so that he
    did so with Adam and Eve is not surprising.  As Christians, however, we
    don't accuse anyone to God, not even Satan.  So I don't say he got a
    bad rap or that he should be vindicated in any regard, he did what he
    does best and according to God's will...so be it.  Our objective is to
    return to God and our proper nature, we don't have time to worry about
    the trial details in store for Satan.
    
>	So if Adam, as you say,
>    "just didn't know the rules and guildelines according to God's will,"
>    was that an imperfection?  And whose fault was that?  Adam's?  God's?  
 
    By no means is that an imperfection.  Is a baby an imperfect being?  At
    what point of growth and learning do we transform from imperfection to
    perfection?  This question is not real, because knowledge is once
    removed from the nature of perfection.  Being perfect and having the
    knowledge of that perfection is two different things.  One may be
    perfect, but not having the knowledge of what perfection is or how to
    maintain it without making blunders will bring about a "Fallen" state. 
    The "Fallen" state implies the potential of getting up again, he fell
    but was not destroyed, "Truth crushed to the ground shall rise again!"
    
>    (Also naming animals is no great indicator of intelligence, imo.)
    
    Why it sure is!  Couldn't NO other creation do it but Man, firstly. 
    Secondly, can you name all the animals without using the same name
    twice?  It is a sure sign of intelligence.  Can you name all the people
    who work in your facility?  Would you consider one who can intelligent?   
    
>    > Both, Adam and Eve, exhibited these attributes [imagination and free
>    will prior to the Fall. <
     
>    Can you provide an example?
    
    Well, they ate from the tree that was forbidden.  The actual eating
    came after the decision to eat, therefore prior to having eaten Satan
    beguiled Eve (her imagination at work), and Eve did eat (her free
    will).
    
>    > It's no good being vengeful against God because you're having a
>    problem dealing with "Fallen" men on earth... <
    
>    I encourage you to re-consider your interpretation, and contemplate 
>    the possibility that you have incomplete information and your own 
>    biases which formed the basis of your conclusion, my friend.       
 
    I don't quite catch what you mean.  Where do you feel my information is
    incomplete, and what do perceive as my "biases"?
    
    This is exciting discussion, thank you.
    
    Playtoe
    

    re: 19
    
>    rather than an evil-espousing, self-serving tool of destruction. 
    
    I don't feel that Eve was all this.  The bible said she was beguiled,
    tricked into eating the forbidden thing.  Adam ate too, it doesn't say
    whether she handed it too him and he wasn't aware of it being the
    forbidden thing or that he knew but ate anyway to join Eve in her new
    condition.  If the latter, then Adam too would be evil-espousing and
    self-serving tool of destruction of humanity.  If the former, he was as
    ignorant as Karen says.  It doesn't matter, not even to God apparently,
    what was the problem at the eating of the forbidden thing.  God
    immediately begins to focus on the resurrection/regeneration of Adam
    and Eve.  God's punishments even reflect His desire and will for them
    to continue living.  
    
    The "Fall of Man" is allegorically the same as "birth from the womb". 
    Adam and Eve's expulsion from the Garden is the same as a baby's
    expulsion from the womb.  The Bible then moves progressively through
    graduated states of human consciousness.  We see first the clan headed
    by the elder/father, then we see the introduction of Judges over the
    people, then Kings, then the Prophets (guiding Kings and people), then
    comes Christ.  Christ's ministry begins at his age of 28, which is the
    same age at which Man reaches his full maturity physically.  
    
    So, we can belabor Satan, Eve, Adam's mind in the beginning, but that
    is like discussing the baby's mind state...it is useful but a small
    part of the whole idea of human development.
    
    All this animosity against God, trying to "reinvent Eve" is the product
    of earthly, "Fallen State" problems in society...
    
    Playtoe
    

re: .21
>    with Satan, or with our enemy.  Satan has determined to win us over to
Z    his way of thinking, and when you say he's received a bad rap it seems
Z    to imply you're on his side...
 
    Ooooh, that's a nassssty inssssinuation.
     
    >When we speak of Adam and Eve
    >we speak from the Bible.
    
    Adam and Eve are mentioned other places also, the gnostic gospels to
    name one.  YOU may speak solely from the bible when you speak of Adam
    and Eve, but please don't speak for all of us.
    
>   One may be
>    perfect, but not having the knowledge of what perfection is or how to
>    maintain it without making blunders will bring about a "Fallen" state. 
>    The "Fallen" state implies the potential of getting up again, he fell
>    but was not destroyed, "Truth crushed to the ground shall rise again!"
 
    I try to look at religion as a more uplifting experience, rather than a
    constant attempt at recovering from a fallen or sinful or lesser place. 
       
>    Secondly, can you name all the animals without using the same name
>    twice?  It is a sure sign of intelligence. 
    
    This reminds me of Mark Twain's chronicles of Adam and Eve....and this
    is said gently and with humor, not to prod or offend.
    
    -Jody
    
    

re: .22
    
>    All this animosity against God, trying to "reinvent Eve" is the product
>    of earthly, "Fallen State" problems in society...
    
    I have no animosity against God, and "Reinventing Eve" is a book about
    reinterpreting her role in the biblical tale.  If by trying to take a
    new look at a classic interpretation I am exhibiting symptoms of
    "earthly, fallen-state problems" then I think that's a sort of negative
    label to be giving people who think that way (myself included).  I am
    striving to think for myself, as Eve perhaps was striving to think for
    herself.
    
    How does this tie in with perfection?  For many millenia, women have
    been blamed for being sinful, tools of the devil, seducers, who bear
    the physical pain of childbirth as some sort of lovely stigmata to pay
    for her sins (or something).  Women are "unclean" in many societies. 
    
    If women start at such a disadvantage, how can we EVER be close to
    perfection?  My need to work towards spirituality includes seeking new
    interpretations of women as they appear in the scriptures, the bible,
    any religious reference I can find.  I need to see my gender as worthy
    of spirituality, worthy of raising up, able to reach the pinnacle of
    spirituality and do God's works and be a GOOD person.  I NEED this
    reinterpretation in order to effectively attain goodness without the
    scathing opinion of women that some biblical interpretations would
    brand me with.  I am not looking for a convenient solution, nor will I
    force the words to make them mean what I'd like them to mean.  But in
    pursuing my spirituality and growing and perfecting myself, I need some
    fresh air, some new ideas, I need to question and learn for myself.
    
    -Jody
    
    
    -Jody
    
    

    Playtoe .21,
    
    I'm enjoying the discussion as well.  At the end of .21 you asked 
    where did I feel your information was incomplete and what I 
    perceived as your biases in your statement: 
    
    >> It's no good being vengeful against God because you're having a 
    problem dealing with "Fallen" men on earth... <<
    
    One, you are concluding that I am being vengeful and being vengeful
    against God.  This is not true.  You follow by attributing your 
    conclusion to another assumption that I'm "having a problem dealing 
    with "fallen" men on earth."  Again, this assumption could not be
    further from the truth.  
    
    As I stated in .20, sections of my previous note are directed 
    as a rebuttal to the general theme of the Garden story - not to 
    God and/or to fallen men on earth, as you assumed.  
   
    You have also made a similar assumption in your last note that is 
    along the same line.  My response as you will see is similar to Jody's:
    
    > All this animosity against God, trying to "reinvent Eve" is the 
    product of earthly, "fallen state" problems in society... <
    
    My views which seem to parallel the "reinventing of Eve" carry 
    not a shred of animosity against God.  Quite the contrary.  
    Although I can emphasize and re-emphasize this, I cannot "prove" 
    it to you or anyone else.  I suspect most rebuttals or other 
    interpretationns I have of biblical stories other than those 
    sanctioned by traditional Christianity and your own beliefs would 
    likewise be assumed they resulted from animosity and vengeful 
    feelings toward God.  Biases spring from beliefs.  
    
    Ultimately you will either have to accept what I say about myself 
    on faith and trust, or not accept it and continue drawing your 
    alternative conclusions.  It's okay with me either way.  It's all 
    part of the learning and relating process for both of us.  
    
    There is also another comment/assumption you made that I disagree 
    with and exemplifies the bias I am referring to:
    
    > Your interpretation, when viewed from a certain perspective is 
    valid, but that perspective is not the one best able to bring you 
    to the knowledge of God. <
    
    I do not accept that you, or anyone else save God, have either the 
    authority or wisdom to make such a statement for me and assert it as 
    being true.  Who died and made you God? (said with tongue in 
    cheek.)  Oh, and knowledge of God does not interest me as does 
    experience of and with God.  Talk to me about that and you will 
    have a captive audience - guaranteed. :-)
    
    One other key difference:
    
    > You see, IMO, I don't think it's good for us to sympathize with 
    Satan, or with our enemy.  Satan has determined to win us over to 
    his way of thinking, and when you say he's received a bad rap it 
    seems to imply you're on his side... <
    
    One, I do not believe in Satan, so I am not taking his/her/its side.  
    To clarify, although I believe in what is usually called "evil", I 
    do *not* believe that evil emanates from a being called Satan, or 
    that an evil being called Satan is trying to win us over.  It is 
    our own internal demons that we confront and struggle with day in 
    and day out.  
    
    And I *do* think it's good for us to EMpathize with our enemy.  You 
    can fight and do battle with your enemies all you want, I support 
    you Playtoe;  at the same time I do not worry for you.  For I feel 
    the greatest enemy that may ever loom before you will never realize 
    the ultimate victory of your worst fears.  I feel that for myself
    and every other person as well. 
    
    > knowledge is once removed from the nature of perfection.
    
    Yes it is.  Thanks for articulating this.
    
    > ...can you name all the animals without using the same name 
    twice? <
    
    Absolutely.  Bring them by and I'll show you.
    
    > Can you name all the people who work in your facility?
    
    Yes, and in yours too.  Just give me a clean slate like Adam had. 
    
    > One may be perfect, but not having the knowledge of what 
    perfection is or how to maintain it without making blunders will 
    bring about a "Fallen" state.  The "Fallen" state implies the 
    potential of getting up again...<
    
    I understand and basically share your interpretation here.  I also 
    agree with the allegoric connection you have made between the 
    "fall of man" and "birth from the womb."  Many development theorists
    as you probably know, compare life in the womb to life depicted in 
    the Garden before Eve met the serpent - they refer to it as "pre-personal 
    perfection" or "neonate awareness."
    
    In fact it is in this area where we really begin to share more common 
    ground.  I feel the source of our divergence rests in the view I hold 
    that the Garden story is totally metaphorical, relating to the early 
    stages of human consciousness development, (i.e., our communication 
    link with God and the earliest stages of understanding perfection) 
    whereas you do not.
    
    Peace dude, ;-) 
    Karen 

    	There is something to offend just about everyone in the Bible, or
    in some people's understanding of it. Collis and I had a discussion a
    while back about the use of the term "sinner" and the acceptability of
    applying it - or allowing it to apply - to others. The result was that
    I accepted that he didn't MEAN to offend me and he accepted that I was,
    none-the-less, offended. There are attitudes toward women which seem to
    be fostered by Biblical comments and which are derogatory and insulting
    to women. Those who hold these attitudes may not intend to offend
    women, but they can be quite successful at it. A little sensitivity
    towards the feelings of others can go a long way towards helping them
    love you as Christ intended.

    162.26 was in reference to Jody Bobbitt's note (.24?)

    re: 23
    
    Jody,
    
>    Adam and Eve are mentioned other places also, the gnostic gospels to
>    name one.  YOU may speak solely from the bible when you speak of Adam
<    and Eve, but please don't speak for all of us.
    
    Excuse me...I'm sorry.  You are correct in saying that Adam and Eve is
    a story that was being told long before, as well as by others than, the
    Bible.  This is true, however, of the whole book, the Bible...if you
    want to get technical.  For the most part, few people know of Adam and
    Eve outside of the Bible, in America anyway, so I didn't want to get 
    into that.  
    
    Jody, if "we" doesn't include you, why would you presume it was
    refering to you?  "We" could mean a group other than you, yet constitutes
    an amount sufficient that I can say "we".  Please deal with the subject
    and less with my context, unless you can be nice...otherwise it 
    could result in the kind of noting the moderators don't like to see.
    
>    I try to look at religion as a more uplifting experience, rather than a
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    constant attempt at recovering from a fallen or sinful or lesser place. 
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    What could be a more "uplifting experience" than "recovering from a
    fallen or sinful or lesser place?"  Nevermind, I don't want to know!
    
    Who is Mark Twain?  ....just kidding.
    
    

    RE: 24
    
    You make my point quite clearly.  Again, I ask you, Why the animosity
    against God, expressed by trying to reinterpret the "righteous" Word of
    God?  You are barking up the wrong tree.  It is "Fallen State" people
    and societies that mistreat women like you mention.  The Bible doesn't
    teach the mistreatment of women.  
    
    I don't want to discuss this subject, at least not in this context. 
    You seem to a little sensitive to women's issues.  The Bible deals with
    the whole of mankind, men, women and children.  Men and children have
    also fallen under God's wrath and discipline.  If you won't heed his
    disciplinary advice, you will not change the conditions it seeks to
    address, things will only get worse...first because you didn't heed
    God's Word, secondly because you've gone further and "leaned unto thine
    own understanding" moving "headfirst backwards" away from God...
    
    I hate discussing what those that reject God's Word do...I hate
    discussing what Satan does to people.  I love helping people find the
    answers to their problems and getting a better understanding of God's
    Word.  
    
    I don't know who taught you about God's Word, such that you feel that
    it belittles women.  I don't quite understand what you are saying.  I
    know of societies that belittle women (Western nations are some).  I
    also know of how societies mix Pagan beliefs with Christian beliefs. 
    It is important to know what is Pagan and what is Christian.
    
     

    Re: Jody and Karen
    
    If you think that missing with the Bible is not messing with God
    Himself, then I would ask you to consider "In the beginning was the
    Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God."  Also, that the
    scriptures are given by inspiration from God to men, so that the Bible
    constitutes God, as it is Word.  Now, you might not see it like this,
    but in order to insure that you always give the Bible its proper
    respect it is a good idea to think of it that way.
    
    

    Re: Karen
    
>    I do not accept that you, or anyone else save God, have either the 
>    authority or wisdom to make such a statement for me and assert it as 
>    being true. 
    
    This is a copout.  How do believe what you yourself conclude, since you
    also are not God HIMSELF?  You're in a terrible boat, I think.  
    
>    One, I do not believe in Satan, so I am not taking his/her/its side.  
    
    You DON'T believe in Satan...Hmmmm that's interesting.  
    
>	It is 
>    our own internal demons that we confront and struggle with day in 
>    and day out.  
    
    Why is it possible for men to believe that there is "internal demons"
    confronting us inside, and so hard to believe that God and Angels of
    God are also doing the same.  "If I do good I do good, if I do evil,
    THE DEVIL MADE ME DO IT"...crazy man, crazy.
    
>    And I *do* think it's good for us to EMpathize with our enemy.  You 
    
    Somehow I knew that.  "No man can take fire in his bosom and not get
    burned"...that's all I've got to say.
    
>    In fact it is in this area where we really begin to share more common 
>    ground.  I feel the source of our divergence rests in the view I hold 
>    that the Garden story is totally metaphorical, relating to the early 
>    stages of human consciousness development, (i.e., our communication 
>    link with God and the earliest stages of understanding perfection) 
>    whereas you do not.
    
    I just gave you a metaphorical/allegorical interpretation of the Garden
    story, how can you say "whereas you do not."  Or, are you trying to
    wear my shoes...you got my pants, now you want my wingtips....NO, I
    WANT MY SHOES!  Give me credit for what I do...it's something when
    someone in empathy seeks to "put themselves in the others shoes" and
    then walks off with them!
    
    Karen, that's cold-blooded...
    
    Playtoe

    For those of us who don't necessarily perceive the Bible as God's
    Word, or who don't take the Adam and Eve story literally, there can be
    value in "reinventing" the biblical myths.  That isn't to say that
    these myths don't have their own value, qua myths, but when dealing
    with problematic passages (concerning such issues as sexism), which
    might serve as a hindrance to one's spiritual development, then I
    believe that alternative approaches can be perfectly valid for many
    individuals.

    -- Mike

    Re: 33
    
    Mike, that's mighty nice, but as a Christian we must consult the
    "Jealous One", who would have us leave all other gods alone.
    
    The point is this.  The goal and objective of the Bible is to bring the
    disciple "closer to God", and to reinterpret the scriptures towards any
    other purpose is 'out of line', regardless of that purpose.
    
    The myths, as you call them, may have some worldly/earthly value,
    that's by necessity, "as it is above, so it is below."  When we,
    however, endeavor to interpret scripture in this perspective it still
    should reflect the objective of "getting closer to God".  If one does
    not perceive the Bible as God's Word, then they should put the book
    down, as opposed to trying to reinterpret it for other purposes...such
    acts usually produce problems, as it is written "thou doth greatly
    err."
    
    Also, I'm reminded of the scripture regarding the theft who tried to
    sneak into heaven another way...there's only one way in, please use the
    front door.
    
    You know, until religion came to man "spiritual development" was
    unheard of.  There is only one kind of spiritual development, and that
    is oriented in the Creator of Spirits, any other spirit is
    vain...unless the Lord build the house, he who buildeth buildeth in
    vain.  So all those "alternative approaches", if not God approved, are
    nothing of value....there is a way that seemeth right to a man, but the
    end thereof is death....lean not unto thine own understanding, but unto
    the understanding of God...PRAISE THE LORD!
    
    PLAYTOE

>    It is important to know what is Pagan and what is Christian.

Methinks thou dost not possess a keen knowledge of what Pagans believe.    
':-\

Richard

    Re:33 and prior...
    
    Hi all:
    
    I am curious to know what these Biblical myths' are and just how one 
    knows they are, in fact, mythical and thus untrue???  My question has 
    nothing to do with values, just facts.  
    
    I question too whether myths from any source can have much value.  A myth 
    is not an illustration which can, indeed, be of value in teaching a
    concept.  The Bible is filled with illustrations, most of which come
    from Jesus.  He never used myths.  If a person doesn't take the story
    of Adam and Eve literally, does this same person take the story of
    Jesus literally??  How about the Hannibal crossing the Alps?  There is
    a greater basis for accepting some of these so-called Bible myths than
    there is for accepting the fact that Hannibal crossed the Alps, an
    event generally considered one of the greatest troop movements in history. 
    Only there isn't much history to support it, so I'm told.  But no one
    questions that incident or calls it a myth.  Why???   
    
    Larry
    

>    I hate discussing what those that reject God's Word do...

	The implication here seems to be that those who do not buy
your particular packaging of the Bible somehow reject the Bible outright.
Nothing could be further from the truth.

Richard

Re: .36  Larry

>    Only there isn't much history to support it, so I'm told.  But no one
>    questions that incident or calls it a myth.  Why???   
    
Because it's a plausible story.  The Adam and Eve story is not plausible.

				-- Bob
    

    Playtoe .32,
    
    > Karen, that's cold-blooded...
    
    Hold on there honey.  Slow down a moment.  Relax.  I'm not trying to
    walk off with your wingtips or your pants or any other piece of your
    clothing.  Let's take another look at what I said that seemed to have
    gotten you so upset:
    
    >> I feel the source of our divergence rests in the view I hold that
    the Garden story is totally metaphorical...whereas you do not. <<
    
    And your response:
    
    > I just ggave you a metaphorical/allegorical interpretation of the
    Garden story, how can you say "whereas you do not."  Or, are you trying
    to ear my shoes....  Give me credit for what I do...it's something when
    someone in empathy seeks to "put themselves in the others shoes" and
    then walks off with them!"
    
    Perhaps if I extend my last sentence it may help you understand what I
    meant:  "whereas you do not _hold the same view I do_."  In that 
    particular paragraph I was simply meaning to clarify two things:
    
    	1)  That I view the Garden story *totally* metaphorically and
        2)  That while offering a metaphorical interpretation, you have
    	    clearly stated you view the Garden story more literally.
    
    I *very* much appreciated you offering your metaphorical interpretation.
    
    peace,
    Karen
    

re Note 162.33 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     For those of us who don't necessarily perceive the Bible as God's
>     Word, or who don't take the Adam and Eve story literally, 

        I know that Mike didn't intend to equate "don't perceive the
        Bible as God's Word" with "don't take the Adam and Eve story
        literally".

        However, I'm afraid that some people lump the two together,
        whereas there is no necessary equivalence in definition or
        logic.

        Human writers are capable of using myth to convey
        information, and so certainly God is perfectly capable of
        using myth to convey information as well.  It is simply a
        writer's device, and for those who perceive the Bible as
        God's Word, God is the writer.  One presumes that God is at
        least as capable a writer as the best earthly writer.


        Another unwarranted equation some make is that a "myth" is
        something that is "untrue".  Once again, neither definition
        nor logic supports such a conclusion.

        A myth is simply a story intended to convey a message,
        usually about life, but not intended to convey history.  A
        story that the author intended to be history, but described
        an event that did not take place, would indeed be untrue.  A
        story that is a myth, however, is not untrue simply because
        the events described did not take place.  (A myth could be
        untrue, however, if the message it did convey, e.g., about
        morality, was untrue.)

        (Obviously, a lot of judgment on the part of the reader is
        required, since most mythical stories are not labeled as
        such, and in fact most histories do not explicitly claim
        that "this is history and not myth".  I suspect that the
        ancients were much more interested in stories that explained
        life than stories which conveyed literal history, and thus
        did not take pains to distinguish the two.)

        Bob

re: .28
    
>    Jody, if "we" doesn't include you, why would you presume it was
>    refering to you?  "We" could mean a group other than you, yet constitutes
>    an amount sufficient that I can say "we".  Please deal with the subject
>    and less with my context, unless you can be nice...otherwise it 
>    could result in the kind of noting the moderators don't like to see.
 
    You seemed to have been speaking in the royal "we", which often helps
    one pad one's position, makes one seem to be speaking for many, rather
    than speaking from one's own experience and feelings (which in truth is
    what we all do in notesfiles).  I am speaking from my own experience to
    all of you, sharing myself with you.  What could be nicer than that?
    
    >If you think that missing with the Bible is not messing with God
    >Himself, then I would ask you to consider "In the beginning was the
    >Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God."  Also, that the
    >scriptures are given by inspiration from God to men, so that the Bible
    >constitutes God, as it is Word.  Now, you might not see it like this,
    >but in order to insure that you always give the Bible its proper
    >respect it is a good idea to think of it that way.
    
    I am not messing with the Bible.  I'm reading it.  I'm also reading
    other things.  I thought this was the notesfile with some leeway for
    belief.....
    
    The scriptures are given by inspiration from God to men, but so are the
    gnostic gospels, and so was the Talmud, and so is my poetry.  I give
    the Bible a good deal of respect, and I feel it's a good idea for me to
    believe what I believe and not tell other people what to believe or how
    to believe.
    
    -Jody
   

    Thank you, Jody.  
    
    E Grace

    Playtoe,
    
    I remember reading notes from you (I think it may have been the UFO
    notesfile or perhaps DEJAVU) concerning RAMTHA.  I was wondering how
    RAMTHA fits in for you with your literal interpretation of the bible.
    
    Please don't think I'm trying to put you on the spot here, I find it
    helpful for myself in gaining understanding through others.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Ro
    

    RE: 35
    
    Richard, you are correct and I really don't care to delve into what
    they believe to any great extent, it's a waste of time.  What I do
    instead, is get into as deeply as I can what is the essence of God's
    Word, and by that am able to distinguish anything that is not of that
    domain.  Hopefully, you can also see that I'm "killing two birds with
    one stone".  I mean, I don't need to know all that's outside of God's
    Will, because when I learn what IS God's Will, all outside is clearly
    distinguished.
    
    To spend time learning about Pagan beliefs, is the same as spending
    time learning Satan's belief...the result could be that I'm won over
    through mere association and knowledge of other beliefs...
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 37
    
    Richard, I don't know who you're trying to make me out to be, but I'm
    not that kind of guy!  Why would you presume that MY PARTICULAR
    understanding is tantamont to those who believe in God's Word?  I said
    that I hate discussing what those that reject God's Word do, if you
    believe, therefore, we can discuss that...but if you don't believe in
    God's Word, I HATE discussing God's Word for whatever other purpose one
    may have for discussing it...you know Satan worshippers also use the
    Bible.  It is my objective to stay far from untowards doctrine. 
    However, I do at least review ALL things for myself and make the
    distinction myself, according to what God has given me and by the
    guiding of His Holy Spirit IN me...so I do alright in that regard.
    
    These one-liners are indeed as your profile states "Surgical Strikes"
    but what I see is that you're taking pot shoots at the wrong
    person...I'm not your enemy, we are not at war...at least nobody has
    informed me of that!  Are you at war with me...it's ok if you are, I'm
    fit for spiritual warfare...a captain in God's army!

    Playtoe .32,
    
    >> I do not accept that you, or anyone else save God, have either the
    authority or wisdom to make such a statement for me and assert it as
    being true. <<
    
    > This is a copout.  How do believe what you yourself conclude, since
    you also are not God HIMSELF?  You're in a terrible boat, I think. <
    
    No, it's not a copout.  God and I have a very close, intimate relation-
    ship and it's firmly grounded in faith and trust.  Through this 
    relationship God communicates *very* clearly to me the ways in which 
    I can come to experience and grow in Her/Him more deeply.  It is this 
    relationship which has been my salvation.  I regret you cannot begin 
    to see it as such.
    
    >> And I *do* think it's good for us to EMpathize with our enemy. <<
    
    > Somehow I knew that.  "No man can take fire in his bosom and not get
    burned"...that's all I've got to say. <
    
    I seem to recall Jesus placing a great deal of emphasis on the teaching
    to love your enemies.  What do you suppose he meant by this?  I say
    yes, you can get burned, but also I say trust in God and emphathize
    anyway as best you can and any wound caused, your faith and God will
    heal.  And I've been burnt before... and healed through this very faith
    I speak about.
    
    Put your faith on the line someday and try it Playtoe -- love an enemy,
    and witness the miracles God can work when we lend a loving, yet
    vulnerable heart to Her/His service.
    
    peace,
    Karen                      

    RE: 39
    
    Karen, when I said that the Fall of Man and expulsion from the garden
    is like the birth of a baby into the world, isn't this acknowledging
    the metaphoric nature of the Adam and Eve story?  I mean you said you
    agreed with my analogy, so you know that I did say that, yet you come
    back immediately afterwards and tell me I take the Adam and Eve story
    ONLY literally.  You said you felt that EMpathizing with the enemy is
    good, and empathizing means (functionally) "putting yourself in the
    others' shoes"...so you did that and identified with my equation and
    see what I meant by the analogy, but then you carry on as if I never
    said it, and then talk to me as if you were in my shoes and I had
    vacated them...but you TOOK my shoes, the idea of my analogy for your
    own...I want my shoes back Karen, and I'll be upset as long as I'm
    barefoot and naked...GIVE ME MY SHOES...;-)
    
    You have to admit that you MUST know the literal story in order to make
    proper analogies/metaphors/parables/etc of the story.  So I first quote
    the story literally as it is written in the Bible and then proceed to
    make my a/m/p/etc...just because I tell you the literal story first
    don't think that I TAKE it literally...does this make sense, can I have
    my shoes now?
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 43
    
    I see Karen has convinced you, or you have also concluded on your own,
    that I take the Bible ONLY literally.  I would first have you know that
    I am black and of Africanic ascent, which is to say "symbolism" is in
    my blood and spirit...I have never read a book and taken it ONLY
    literally, every book and all knowledge is capable of being transposed
    into other situations, that's fundamental to the African way of 
    thought.
    
    Now, about Ramtha, which was in the UFO file.  If you have read Ramtha,
    and not taken his words literally or isolated his words unto himself,
    and you also view the Bible in a metaphorical/allegorical way, you will
    see the correlation between Ramtha's words and God's Word in the Bible. 
    As I said I read all things for it's "symbolic" message.  I can enter
    some specific examples, but this is not the note for that.
    
    Playtoe

    (re: 47) Okay how about this Playtoe?
    
    Do you view the Garden of Eden story *totally* metaphorically as I do?  
    Please note that the key word is "totally."  If not, then my conclusions 
    about our divergent views are correct.  But unfortunately my hope for
    doing so to add clarity to our present discussion and increase under- 
    standing for future discussions is apparently unacceptable to you
    for whatever reason.  So be it my friend.  I won't conjecture
    publically.
    
    As for the problem with your shoes, I must say that it appears we 
    have here an interesting twist to the old parable of the "Emperor's 
    New Clothes."  He thought he wore beautiful clothes but he was naked.  
    And here you are fully clothed and somehow think you are not... 
    
    Life is grand and intriguing isn't it? 
    
    peace,
    Karen  

    Playtoe, re .44
    	1984 is over, gone. Ignorance may still be bliss but it is NOT to
    be confused with knowledge or wisdom. You can know nothing about modern
    paganism, particularly any relationship it may or may not have with
    Satan, simply by knowing the word of God. You are perfectly welcomed to
    maintain your ignorance of any theological information not contained in
    the Bible, but please don't insult us by claiming derivative knowledge.
    If you wish to remain ignorant in that area, please remember from
    whence you speak. 

    Thanks for clarifying Playtoe, I understand now.  I guess I did assume
    that you read the Bible only literally and so was confused.
    
    Ro
    

    Re: .38
    
    Bob:
    
    Why is the account of Adam and Eve not plausible?
    
        The Apostle Paul took it literally in 1 Cor. 15:45.
        Luke, likewise, included Adam as a real human in Luke 3:38.
        Most of all, Jesus, son of God, found the account quite plausible
        as recorded in Matt 19:4-6.
    
    And in all the work of excavation of all the anthropologists that ever
    lived, there has never been found a creature that was, in any sense, a
    link to some ancestral creature.  The earlier the find, the more
    perfect the human specimen, long lived and pure human.  So why is the
    creation of a human couple not plausible???   Given the facts, simple
    reason would seem to indicate that the alternative was implausible.
    
    After all, crossing the Alps with elephants doesn't sound as plausible
    as you seem to imply (especially on those narrow mountain passes.)  :-)
    
    Larry
    

  Re.52


    Larry:
            Your knowledge of anthropology seems to be in need
           of updating. If you are interested I'll recommend   
           a few books for you to read on the subject. 
             I am afraid the statement you made regarding what
           anthropologists have found is far from correct.

                               
                                                     Mike
            
            

    Re: 50
    
    Nice try, Dave.  I see I've completely lost you.
    
    

    Playtoe,
    	there may be some disagreement over who is "lost". Apparently the
    content of .50 was lost on you, though. What was it that you didn't
    understand ?
    
    	Dave

    RE: 55
    
    Dave, I'm gonna say you're wrong because if you think about it you're
    trying to tell me you know more about how I think, what I know, what I
    don't know, what I ought to learn, what I mean by what I said, than I
    know myself, and frankly Dave I just don't think you do.  When I
    explain myself, my ideas, my statements, all you can do is take my word
    for it...if it goes to court (I mean by that "the bottom line is") it'd
    be my word against yours and you'd loose.
    
    RE: Perfection
    
    Anyway, back to the subject.
    
    How do you Dave, and others of course feel about this statement.
    
    I am perfect, and everything I say and do is a perfect expression of
    me.  Due to the experience and knowledge that I have at this (or any
    given moment) I express that which I know and believe to be true, right
    and good, in my opinion.  My opinion is the sum conclusion of my total
    experience and knowledge at any given time.  Thus, each express that I
    make is a perfect reflection of me, and I am perfectly expressing that
    which is me according to the greatest possible extent (thus perfectly)
    that I can.  
    
    To quality this a little.  Some may say that we don't always do what we
    know to be true, right and good.  Some may say that we don't always
    give our all.  But I say, if at any moment you are expressing what may
    be considered a lesser potential than you know you have, I'll bet there
    is some extenuating/mitigating circumstances for it.  For instance, if
    I didn't get my proper rest last night, and have to run a race today,
    that I may run slower than my potential is due to the fact that I
    didn't get my rest.  The speed at which I do run, however, is a perfect
    expression of me, based upon my condition and circumstances at the
    time.
    
    The point is also, that we often consider ourselves imperfect by
    comparison.  We compare ourselves to others who perhaps have greater
    experience, knowledge or natural ability (muscle mass, coordination,
    etc) than us, and consider that ourselves is imperfect because we can't
    me another's standards...this is not proof of imperfection, but merely
    proof that "you can't always live up to others standards" which we
    already know...I AM PERFECT...CAN EVERYBODY SAY THAT.
    
    Your comments please...
    

    RE: 50
    
    Dave, if you have some information on Pagan beliefs and ritual,
    relevent to the conversation please enter it.  
    
    There are two types of "ignorance", one can lead to bliss, the other
    can lead to [the opposite of bliss?]
    
    1)	Ignorance (that leads to the opposite of bliss)
    
    The first type of "ignorance" is the type where one does not know
    and/or lacks of the experience of a specific thing, as a result 
    "ignors" or is "ignorant" of a thing.  
    
    This type of "ignorance" is deadly, because one does not know what's
    going on and could easily and unexpected find themselves in trouble.
    
    2)	Ignorance (that leads to Bliss)
    
    The second type of "ignorance" is the type where one has known or
    experienced a thing, but purposely decides to ignor the thing, for
    whatever "reason".  This type of "ignorance" can lead to bliss.
    
    This is the type of "ignorance" that I express for the knowledge and
    experience of things that don't correlate with God's Word and Will. 
    
    Comments please...

    re.56
    	Sounds to me like you are either ignoring a few possible
    imperfections or have a major problem with an overblown ego. But you
    set the terms in your question. Neither may in fact be true.
    
    re.57
    	It matters not at all how much information *I* have about pagans,
    though I admit to some. What matters is that you claim to know
    something about them with the Bible as your only resource and that you
    feel that this lack of knowledge is somehow admirable and fully
    qualifies you to pass judgement and make authoritative statements. I
    believe that attempting to understand a modern situation based on no
    more evidence than a seemingly comparable situation in the Bible, and
    insisting that you are right and fully informed, goes beyond mere
    foolishness and stupidity. This seems to be what you are attempting and
    it would suggest that you also believe what you wrote in .56 !

      If I may interject here.  To begin with there is no new thing under
    the sun concerning religion.  I have studied, and am still studing, 
    the New Age Movement.  I have found that it is not "New".  It is the
    old hinduism mixed with materalism.  
    
    Next, if you are a Christian, and one that believes the Bible is the
    full and complete revealation from God on all matters  pertaining to
    religion, then you will naturally believe what it has to say today.
    
    Now, if a person that calls him/herself a Pagan tells me that many
    Pagans hold to witch craft and I check my Bible I will find the 
    concept that I hold as a Bible believing Christian.  That belief
    will then be a Christian Perspective.  That then settles it for
    me.  But to call someone a fool for holding to the Bible is to show
    me that maybe you hold some hate toward Bible believing Christians.
    
    
    Dave, if you are not a Bible believing Christian, why do you hate those
    that do have a foundation for the way they lead their life?  My next 
    question is if we let you have a base for your beliefs without
    attacking you personally why do you seem to have to attack others?
    I hope you can answer these questions without calling me names or
    trying to point to ego problems that you, who does not know me, may
    claim I have.
    
    
                                 In Christ Jesus according to the word,
    
                                                Marshall
    
     

    re: ignorance
    
    There may be one, or two, or more types of ignorance.  But who is one
    person to judge which type another's ignorance is any more than they
    can positively declare what another person is thinking/feeling/and-or
    should believe?
    
    It's all highly subjective....
    
    -Jody

    re .59
    
    Marshall,
    	your note contains several misunderstandings. You have claimed that
    I hate Bible-believing Christians. Do you hate everyone you disagree
    with ?  Not I. You have also made some inferences regarding Pagans that
    are not correct, nor do they pertain to what I was saying. 
    	Some Pagans are Wiccan - the term "witch" has been applied - but
    this is a minority. Actually, there are several flavors of Pagans, none
    of which can boast majority status. However, these witches do not have
    a lot in common with those in Christ's time - except the name and a
    certain core of concepts. Same with the Druids. Same with ... None that
    I have known have any belief that they are dealing with any devil or
    demon, unless you would call "the Earth" one of those names. Nor are
    any of those of my acquaintance notably evil or vile - the opposite is
    my impression.
    	My point is not that these people should be thought of as "good
    Christians", that would offend them. They are less offended by the
    accusation that they are devil worshipers - they find such ignorant
    attacks humorous (for a while). They are PAGANS. They do not fit into
    your tight little Christian mind-set. Not all those who do not worship
    your God worship your Devil. To hold such an ignorant fallacy would be
    the same as saying that you worship the Midgard Serpent, since you do
    not worship any of the GOOD Norse Gods. Or, do you ?

    RE: 58
    
    Dave, Dave, enough of your psychoanalytic missfiring...
    
    

    re:.62
    
    	Psychoanalytic missfiring ?  Playtoe, whatever are you mumbling
    about ?  You asked a question and I answered. You dodged an issue and I
    returned to it. The "flash point" refered to is the point where I have
    to take my comments off-line or have them set hidden. The "picture"
    that I would then show you would not be pretty, but you would simply
    continue to deny that you had a problem - and you'd be safe. >:^(

    RE: 63
    
    Dave, I think you really have a high esteem for me and you really want
    to ask me some questions and engage me in discussions that you are
    currently having some problems with.  If so, I'll not dodge, as you
    say.  I'm here now and will be here as long as I can to discuss
    whatever you or anybody else wants.  But after I'm gone and you haven't
    presented your issues and feel that you missed an opportunity to find
    some answers don't blame me.
    
    You seem to be stuck on me dodging the "pagan" issue, which I'm not.  I
    asked you to present a discussion...to this point you haven't really
    raised any issues, except the one regarding me personally.  If you
    wanna discuss something let's do it.  If you wanna discuss my mind and
    attitude, let ME tell you about it.  
    
>	 The "picture"
>    that I would then show you would not be pretty, but you would simply
>    continue to deny that you had a problem - and you'd be safe. >:^(
    
    I'm not that kind of guy...I don't seek "safety" from the problems and
    fears in my life through avoidance, but through confrontation and
    exposure to the light of truth.  If you think I have a problem, please
    state the problem.  So far you're not into me well enough to identify
    any of my problems...so I have to conclude you are projecting, as in
    "he who judgeth doeth the same".
    
    Hey, let's talk about perfection...
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe,
    
    I agree with the thoughts you expressed about perfection in 
    .56.  I believe all people are perfect and the purpose for our 
    existence is basically just a matter of us all becoming fully 
    aware and understanding fully the perfection of Creation.
    
    The word "perfection", like the word love, tends to carry a 
    strong emotional charge to it.  They are probably the 
    two most maligned words in modern society. :-)  
    
    When I reflect upon what I've been taught about "perfection", it 
    brings up this notion of ascension to a place or state of 
    being and when you reach it - that's it.  There's no where 
    else to go and nothing more to accomplish.  It's been 
    inferred through a variety of societal sources that perfection 
    is the be all and end all; the pot at the end of the rainbow,
    (err, not the herbal kind).
    
    As I've had discussions and shared my thoughts about 
    perfection the objection I most often hear is that people
    tend to feel that for one to believe he or she is perfect 
    implies that they no longer have aspirations or anything to 
    learn; that they have no further growth or healing to do.  
    Which is not what perfection is about.  Perfection is an 
    ever unfolding process.  It is not the bullseye of holy 
    attainment.
    
    I hold the idea of perfection the same way as I do faith - 
    that contrary to what Webster's may say, to me they are both 
    verbs rather than nouns.  The deeper meaning, ime, (in my 
    experience) is that they are more about process than content.  
    
    Poetically, it is the canvas upon which we paint the awesome 
    journey of our lives.
    
    Karen

    re: 65
    
    I believe you've stated a very important point, about how many people
    consider perfection as the "be all-end all" of attainment.  I was
    inferring this when I mentioned how some tend to think "Absolute"
    Perfection.  When I mentioned how perfection could be something that
    can regenerate itself, (i.e. comparable to the "resurrection of life"),
    this also tends to show the process or ongoingness of perfection, as a
    verb, but also as a noun...it's interesting how some things are both a
    verb and a noun.  The inclusion of "ideas" as nouns made this possible
    in the English language, an improvement that allows us to better
    understand spiritual things.
    
>    When I reflect upon what I've been taught about "perfection", it 
>    brings up this notion of ascension to a place or state of 
>    being and when you reach it - that's it.  
    
    This is true except the last part "and when you reach it - that's it."
    From what I understand is that we move graduatedly through planes of
    consciousness (a consciousness that includes a reality of beingness, as
    Paul spoke of a man he knew that had made it to the third heaven). 
    Ascension is a real option, more than a notion.
    
    >There's no where 
>    else to go and nothing more to accomplish.  It's been 
>    inferred through a variety of societal sources that perfection 
>    is the be all and end all; the pot at the end of the rainbow,
>    (err, not the herbal kind).
    
    Actually I consider gaining the knowledge of our perfection, because
    again we are already perfect, is the beginning of being all.  As it is
    written "seek ye first the kingdom of God and all things shall be added
    unto you".  Which I understand to mean, come to the knowledge of your
    perfection, the knowledge that God is within you (who is the essential
    basis of perfection) and you've overcome the world and physical
    reality.  
    
    I'd say that "Perfection is the be all - end all of Salvation".  Which
    is to say, that once you get saved, your next objective is perfection
    (or the acknowledgement of it, in a conscious way) and once perfected
    you are in the realm of immortality/eternity...so there's no end to all
    you can be, in time.  As a far away thought, consider "we are heirs of
    God", does this mean that we may some day have the opportunity to sit
    on the throne if God should ever vacate it?  I answer this "NO",
    because God is immortal and eternal, that we are forever heirs!  What
    do you think about that? 

    
    I've said this before and I'll say it again.  Hope none will take
    offense, but instead give heed.
    
    I believe that one of the reasons Europeans falter in religious
    understanding, and history clearly reveals their faltering with the
    doctrine of the Bible, of Christ, is that they do not have the original
    concepts from which those in the bible come.  If you'll note:
    
    1)	The Bible is Hebrew writings, which they did not conceive, but were
    given by the Egyptians as they came out of bondage.  Moses, for all
    practical purposes was an Egyptian, though his geneology was Hebrew. 
    He is said to have been "learned in all the wisdom of the Egyptians",
    thus it stands to reason that he would teach that wisdom to the
    Israelites.  Furthermore, we see the staff (Caducis? or something)
    which is an Egyptian thing.  We also see that his concepts differ only
    in there specificity to the needs of the Israelites, yet are
    undergirded by concepts of the Egyptians.  
    
    2)	According to the Greek Philosophers, NONE, were ever taught the
    mysteries of God.  They learned geometry, music, rhetoric, astronomy,
    and other things, but the priests of Egypt intentionally withheld the
    knowledge of the mysteries of God...I have referrences if you'd like.
    
    3)	The Roman Catholic Church is greatly responsible for the
    evangelations of Europeans.  The Roman Catholic Church, however,
    deviated from the original teachings of the early Christians, making
    the faith a more political doctrine of the state.  
    
    4)	The "origin" of the Christ doctrine, of which Jesus is just one
    Christ (according to the early teachings and the original teachings) is
    in Africa.  Therefore, unless Europeans begin to learn the original
    meanings from Africans (like the Dogon, or the Egyptians) they will,
    nor can any other people, learn the true essence of God's Word.
    
    Now, you may wonder why or how I know this.  It is because I have
    personally experienced the growth in the knowledge of God resulting
    from studying Africanic religious concepts and cosmology.  
    
    You don't have to react to this, because I don't intend to argue with
    you about it.  You'd spend your time much better testing my suggestion,
    than by attacking me for saying this...I tell you this because I feel
    people need to know this, not just whites but all Christians, and those
    who want to know God better.
    
    Say, Praise the Lord!
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe,
    	you might want to quote your sources regarding the Greeks and God.
    Then explain Zeus, Hercules, Neptune and a bunch of others that
    apparently didn't exist in the minds of the Greeks. Ah, you mean God as
    in the Judeo-Christian concept. Wouldn't it be sensible to wait until
    the post-Classical period, until after Christ was born, to critique
    them on their study of a minor regional cult essentially limited to a
    small area several hundreds of miles distant ?  Then you might try
    explaining away the Greek Orthodox Church with your sources.
    	Maybe you would also try to support how Moses derived a
    monotheistic religion from a polytheistic source (Egypt) ?  Set, Thoth,
    Ra, Anubis, do you know of these ?  And what was studied in Alexandria,
    before the Library was destroyed by Christians ?  Why, SCIENCE !  Not
    religion or philosophy, but the stars, the plants, numerical
    relationships (Pi =/= 3) and other such blasphemy. 
    	If Africa understands so much, why are there so many moslems there
    and so few christians ?  Why can so many of those who are today
    christians able to trace their conversion to Europe ?
    	I'm not offended by your statement, Playtoe. I would have to take
    it seriously to be offended by it, and I can't.

    	By the way, .68 was not intended to belittle Africa. Alexandria was
    a center of learning at a time when Europe was essentially a few
    sybaritic cities surrounded by bunches of mud huts. There were trade
    centers there as well, and sailors who may have seen the Americas
    before any European - and left it whole.

    Re: .67
    
    The Coptic church is alive in Africa.  Africa was a haven for
    Gnostic Christians, I seem to recall.  Some scholars speculate
    that the Gospel of John was written from Alexandria.
    
    I realize, Playtoe, that you are not seeking my agreement nor
    disagreement.  I try to honor a broad spectrum of belief.  And,
    you are certainly entitled to yours.  At the same time, I would
    ask that you carefully watch the accusations you make against
    religious bodies; such as the Jews, such as the Roman Catholic
    Church.
    
    I am asking for your kindness in Christ.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re: 68
    
    Your note, Dave, only proves my point about the inability of one to
    understand the meaning and nature of God's Word without a study of
    Africanity.  Let me just give you a few insights on things past:
    

>    	you might want to quote your sources regarding the Greeks and God.
    
    The book Priests of Ancient Egypt, by Serge Sauneron.  Furthermore, my
    point is clearly seen in the absence of this knowledge by ANY Greek. 
    Tell me which Greek philosopher talk of the doctrine of the Pyramid, or
    of the Osiris-Isis cosmology?  Which Greek discusses the "Vital Life
    Force" with confidence and not speculation?  Which Greek was ever
    called  "Priest"?  If you know of none, then that in itself is
    evidence.  But, again, in the aforementioned book, the author produces
    writings of the Greeks and Egyptians to this effect.
    
>    Then explain Zeus, Hercules, Neptune and a bunch of others that
    apparently didn't exist in the minds of the Greeks. 
    
    I told you I'm not into Pagan beliefs.  I can refer you to Joseph
    Campbell, he seems to have all that covered.  However, I would mention
    that Zeus, Hercules and Neptune and a host of others are really African
    originally. 
    
    >Ah, you mean God as in the Judeo-Christian concept. Wouldn't it be 
    sensible to wait until the post-Classical period, until after Christ was 
    born, to critique them on their study of a minor regional cult 
    essentially limited to a small area several hundreds of miles distant?
    
    What you call "Classical period" is only so to Europeans.  I don't mean
    God in the Judeo-Christian concept, does God only exist in the doctrine
    of Judea?  Was God non-existant prior to the Hebrews?  Christ IS a
    title like "president", a "Christ" has been sent to every people on
    earth, according to scripture, and Jesus wasn't that one Christ sent to
    them all.  The doctrine of "resurrection", "salvation", and everything
    else Jesus taught was being taught thousands of years before the
    Europeans and Hebrews saw this light.
    
    >  Then you might try
    >explaining away the Greek Orthodox Church with your sources.
   
    You explain it, that's your heritage!  But let me explain MINE!
    
    > 	Maybe you would also try to support how Moses derived a
    >monotheistic religion from a polytheistic source (Egypt) ?  Set, Thoth,
    >Ra, Anubis, do you know of these ?  
    
    That's one of the misconceptions about Moses and a "polytheistic"
    Egypt.  You don't understand.  You don't understand how God has divided
    HIMSELF into many different forms, that ultimately there is just one
    God, and the Egyptians knew that.  Moses "derived" one God, because the
    knowledge of the divisions of God was too complex for baby Christians. 
    Moses gave up "MILK", and not "STRONG MEAT".  The One Supreme Creator
    God of Egypt is called PTAH, and from him came all the other Gods.  It
    was said of Ptah, that "Ptah is in the hearts and on the tongues of
    every god and man, and everything that has a heart and tongue."  You
    can read "The Intellectual Adventures of Ancient Man", by Frankfort, or
    your can read "Sacred Science" by De Lubicz, or you can read the METU
    NETER, by RA UN NEFER AMEN, for an understanding of the MONOPHYSITE
    conception of Egyptian Cosmology.  
    
    >And what was studied in Alexandria, before the Library was destroyed by 
    >Christians ? 
    
    You aren't going back far enough for me.  Alexandria was originally a
    Greek outpost, started by Alexander the Greek, as a hoarding station
    for his pillaging and spoils, as he ransacked Egypt.  Elephantine, was
    the area before this.  What was studied there is the same that was
    studied all over Egypt, the Osiris (Ausar) and Isis (Auset) cosmology.
    
    
    Why, SCIENCE !  Not religion or philosophy, but the stars, the plants, 
    numerical relationships (Pi =/= 3) and other such blasphemy. 
  
    That is something I wonder about myself.  I guess they were hanging on
    to the proverbial "ACE IN THE HOLE".  However, I believe it had
    something to do with the Greeks immaturity of spirit, as this is
    mentioned several times by various Egyptians.  It seems that before you
    are initiated into the deeper knowledge you first have to be taught to
    read, write, add and subtract, make circles and squares and triangles,
    and have a basic moral regard for religious ideas and conduct.  Few
    Greeks ever managed to come to the stage which could afford them the
    intiation into Egyptian mysteries.  The greatest philosopher ever to
    study in Egypt was Pythagorus, do you know his story about his sojourn
    in Egypt?
    
    >  	If Africa understands so much, why are there so many moslems there
    >and so few christians ?  
    
    There are more "African Traditionals" than either Christian or Moslem. 
    That is only a since 600 A.D. that Islam spread at all.  Don't get hung
    up on names however.  We say "Christian" or "Moslem" which tends to
    isolate those groups unto themselves, and we tend to overlook the fact
    that they are all teaching the same fundamentals!
    
    >Why can so many of those who are today christians able to trace their 
    conversion to Europe ?
    
    Because the term "Christian" comes from Europe.  Every Christian can
    trace their conversion to Europe.  But is Christianity the only name
    that teaches the concepts that it does?  NO.  I find a much more
    comprehensive doctrine in Egypt and now recently the Dogons...read "the
    pale fox", by M. Griuale and M. Dieterlen.  I mean when you read what
    the Dogon are saying, you aren't just talking about some wives tales
    about the first man and women, or some imaginative renditions of
    nonreal events.  These people are describing the nature of the
    universe, their cosmology enjoins stellar events with human events. 
    Stellar events that modern science hadn't, but do now since the Dogon,
    have come to investigate.  The ultimate question is "HOW did they come
    to know this?" and that is another story!
    
    >	I'm not offended by your statement, Playtoe. I would have to take
    >it seriously to be offended by it, and I can't.
    
    It's not a matter of being offended, it's a matter of knowing the
    truth.  Are you saying that if truth doesn't correspond with what the
    Europeans have advanced that it is not truth?  If so...no problem, you
    can bother what you don't understand and know about!  Things will
    continue to change, and modern science will continue to run after it
    trying to explain it...whereas those who know the truth saw it coming
    and understood it long before it happened...WHAT A DREAM!
    
    PLAYTOE, IN THE SPIRIT OF TRUTH

    Playtoe (.71),
    
    From studying sources vastly different from those you mention, my
    conclusions and beliefs are very similar to those you've expressed in
    note .71.  Truth is truth, I guess...
    
    Ro
    

    RE:69
    
    Richard, I appreciate your concern.  I have experienced enough of the
    negative feedback to know how to present my ideas a little better. 
    However, as I was saying to those in Blacknotes.  It is not me as much
    as it is the information that seems unkind or accusing.  I personally
    seek the improvement of life, and not to offend or mislead.  
    
    Regarding the Roman Catholic Church Elaine Pagels, Gnostic Gospels,
    clearly presents the role of Roman Catholicism in shaping the way we
    understand the bible.  So, it's nothing new that I say.  However, that
    Africanity is the root to which we must seek to unravel the mystery of
    God's Word is controversial only in America and Europe...and
    Westernized nations.  
    
    Regarding Jews, well, their sensitivity seems to preclude any
    discussion on their involvement in history.  Which I have come to
    realize really doesn't matter much anyway...they've played their part
    and that's water under the bridge, they were a "middle man",
    insignificant to the scheme of things, any nation could have been
    chosen, theoritcally speaking, yet what they did was important.  I can
    discuss what they did without mentioning them as having done that.  I
    believe they would prefer it that way.  So I've pretty much removed the
    term Jew from my comments.
    
    Thanks anyway...
    
    Playtoe 

    re: 72
    
    Ro, thanks for your acknowledgement.  I too first discerned this in
    many other writings.  However, only recently has there been information
    that deals with this in a more confident light. 
    

    No, Playtoe, I must disagree.  It is *not* the information that is
    offensive or accusing.  It is the way it is written.  I have tried to
    stay out of this, but I simply can not any longer.  My beliefs and your
    beliefs do not correspond in the slightest.  Your Truth and my Truth do
    not correspond in the slightest.  You may be right and I may be wrong,
    or we may both be wrong.  I try to keep an open mind and soul.  Please
    do me the courtesy of either doing the same or couching your words as
    "I believe" or "I feel", rather than "*this* is the only Truth."
    
    Thank you,
    
    E Grace

    Re: 75
    
    That's ok, that you don't agree that it's the info and not the way the
    info is stated.  Yet, I know that there are some things, no matter how
    they are said, a person just will not receive.  And in a society like
    ours, where certain info is considered the "vogue", disagreeing with
    it, in and of itself, constitutes pompousity.
    
    When you went to school and your teacher talked as if it were the only
    truth, would you ask that the teacher couch their words?  Or, do you
    just automatically take the teachers words in the perspective that they
    are merely want is currently known and/or taught as the only truth?  I
    don't mind the reactions by those who feel I'm speaking as if I speak
    the only truth...I know better than that myself.  Also, however, it is
    important sometimes for me to say what I say as if it were the only
    truth, because of personal reasons.  Do me the courtesy of interpreting
    what I say as you feel it should be stated, considering you don't
    believe it, and try to overlook my context.  
    
    I can't guarantee that I'll always "couch" my words for the benefit of
    those who do not believe in the slightest what I'm saying.  Actually,
    I'm really not even talking to such people.  I'm talking to those who
    do believe or may benefit from my words.  I'm expressing my beliefs in
    a confident and sure and authoritative way...which is a scientific
    approach to learning for me.  Because when I speak authoritatively the
    feedback comes back more relevent.  If I speak "I Feel" then others may
    not feel compelled to respond, which does me no good if I'm in error.
    
    Please bear with me in this...
    
    Playtoe

>    Note 162.67 says:
>    The Roman Catholic Church, however,
>    deviated from the original teachings of the early Christians, making
>    the faith a more political doctrine of the state.  

Playtoe,

	The accusation above is a slur.  You have so far failed to back up
your assertion with any kind of evidence or explanation of what you mean in
saying this.

	Roman Catholics and other religious collectivities have been slammed
around enough.  (And, I don't just mean verbally.  My spouse was beaten up
when she was in grammar school by group of girls simply because she was
Catholic.)

	Do not fuel the fires!  That's all I'm asking.  And, I'm trying
to do it without wearing my moderator's hat.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 162.77 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> >    Note 162.67 says:
> >    The Roman Catholic Church, however,
> >    deviated from the original teachings of the early Christians, making
> >    the faith a more political doctrine of the state.  
> 
> Playtoe,
> 
> 	The accusation above is a slur.  You have so far failed to back up
> your assertion with any kind of evidence or explanation of what you mean in
> saying this.
  
        Richard,

        I'm a Catholic (although admittedly a non-traditional one),
        and I didn't find the above offensive, even though I disagree
        with it.

        Playtoe is clearly speaking from a non-Catholic perspective,
        and if there is anything that recent world events should have
        taught us, it is that we must be able to view events from
        others' perspectives as well as our own.

        (In fact, one of the main points of labeling this conference
        "Christian-Perspective" is that there isn't just one
        "Christian-Perspective," but many.  Another objective is to
        allow Christians' understanding of their own perspectives to
        be expanded and illuminated by comparing and contrasting with
        other religious and moral perspectives.)

        If I were to engage Playtoe in a debate on the above point
        (which I don't seek to do), I would counter that the RC
        Church "developed" the understanding of the "original
        teachings of the early Christians,"  just as surely as the
        teachings recorded in the New Testament are a development of
        the teachings of Jesus, and that such development is an
        appropriate thing.

        (I would also admit, which the RC Church is often reluctant
        to admit, that sometimes such development makes mistakes that
        ought to be corrected in further development.  One of the
        main ways we notice these developments is to validate them
        against the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles.  The
        guidance of the Holy Spirit is another check.  I do believe
        that human reason and experience inspired by the Holy Spirit
        is a third.)

        Do we have to take offense when somebody sincerely makes an
        observation from a different perspective?

        Bob

    RE: 77
    
    Richard, you are trying to take the copout that Jews take.  Since
    you've been persecuted so much already, the issues are too sensitive to
    discuss.
    
    I don't know about your wife's childhood beating.  I'm dealing with the
    history of Catholicism.  History *clearly* states the nature of the
    debates of the Council of Nicea with early/gnostic christians.  It
    *clearly* reveals the role of the Roman government in squashing the
    early Christian movement.  That they altered the meaning is also made
    clear.  What has happened to Catholics since then, is no worse than
    what's happened to Blacks or Jews or any others.  If you can't discuss
    the subject because of sensitivities like yours, you OUGHT to resign
    the moderator post, because it is unfair and inhibiting to have you
    limiting valid discussion because of your personal feelings.
    
    I talk about slavery and racism and oppression, and blacks still suffer
    from it today.  And though people say many things that insult and hurt
    my feelings (unawares to them) about my and my people's past, I would
    never ask that they stop, but I seek to correct their understanding
    with more information.  
    
    The history of Catholicism is available, and I'm sure you know of
    the things I'm referring to.  If you have other information that
    refutes that information, please offer it...but I don't think an
    emotional response of denial will ever refute it.
    
    You can become offended about what I said concerning resigning, but
    that too changes nothing but your emotional state.  I have my right to
    believe, and you too...TOLERANCE, more so INNER STRENGTH is required
    here.
    
    Playtoe

    re 78
    
    Bob, I'm truly moved by your words.  I hope you continue to offer info
    and participate in any discussion I may be in.  Your insights are
    noteworthy.  I don't condemn RC's, my second wife was RC, and went to
    K-12 in RC schools.  She speaks of a time when she was coming back from
    recess and was supposed to line up but was thirsty and went to the
    fountain for a drink of water, the teacher hit her on her head as she
    was drinking and chipped her front teeth.  Though this is surely reason
    enough for me to be somewhat against Catholicism, I still read their
    literature and attend their churches from time to time.  I think their
    perspective is very enlightening.  However, now that I've learned about
    the Egyptians' cosmology and most recently the Dogon, I have begun to
    see the differences instituted by RC's and others in their
    interpretation of the Bible doctrine.  God bless the Catholic Church
    and all Catholics, and Jews and people in general.  
    
    I would also inform you that in studying Africanity all this
    denominational stuff is not involved.  It teaches a universal, one
    people, one God, one Spirit, type of message.   I don't separate me
    from you from others from blacks from whites from reds or whatever,
    when we're talking about the Spirit of God and Truth.  I see us all as
    one.  If I do seem to acknowledge such things know that it is a
    reflection of the current way we all have been taught to think...
    
    Love is UNITY and ONENESS, the power that makes many things ONE.  And
    that's the love I'm striving for...elliminate the divisions between us
    by exposing them and dealing with them in whatever way necessary to
    make unity and peace happen...that's my objective. 
    
    

A commonly seen bumper sticker says:

	"Christians aren't perfect - just forgiven"

What do you make of this?

Peace,
Richard

>	"Christians aren't perfect - just forgiven"
>
>What do you make of this?

I really mean no offense to anyone by this; it is just my opinion.  To 
me this statement represents arrogance, self-centredness, and blindness, 
and is juxtaposed to the life of Christ.

Jeff

The following are excerpts from an article by Walter Wink, who teaches at
Auburn Theological Seminary in New York.  The article appeared in
_The Witness_, April 1993 issue, The Episcopal Church Publishing Company.

Against Perfectionism
=====================

	.....It may come as an immediate relief to learn that *Jesus could
not have said, "Be perfect."*  There was no such word, or even concept, in
Aramaic or Hebrew.  And for good reason.  The Second Commandment had
forbidden the making of graven images (Exod 20.4).  Israel consequently
never developed the visual arts.  The word used by Matthew, teleios, was
however a Greek aesthetic term.  It described the perfect geometric form,
or the perfect sculpture.  It was seldom used in ethical discourse, since
moral perfection is not within the grasp of human beings, and would have
been regarded, in Greek piety, as a form of hybris.

	Matthew appears to have taken teleios over from the Greek translation
of Deut. 18.13, where the term was used to render "tamim" ("whole, complete,
finished, entire, to have integrity").....

	Placed in its context within the rest of the paragraph, Jesus'
saying about behaving like God becomes abundantly clear.  We are not to
be perfect, but, like God, all-emcompassing, loving even those who have
least claim or right to our love.  Even towards enemies we are to be
indiscriminate, all-inclusive, forgiving, understanding.  We are to regard
the enemy as beloved of God every bit as much as we.  We are to be
compassionate, as God is compassionate.

	.....Jesus does not call for "wholeness," though that would have been
a better translation than "perfect."  For "wholeness" places all the focus on
us, and Jesus points *away* from ourselves to love our *enemies.*  All-
inclusive love is his goal, even if broken, contaminated by our own unredeemed
shadow, intermittent.  The gesture: embracing *everyone*.  To do so is not
to be perfect.  It is, according to Jesus, an entirely possible human act,
because with the command God supplies the power to do it.  He is not urging
us to a perfection of being-in-ourselves, but to abandon all dreams of
perfection and embrace those we feel are least perfect, least deserving,
and most threatening to our lives.  "You therefore must be all-inclusive,
as your heavenly Abba is all-inclusive."

	The perfectionist misreading of Jesus' text about loving enemies
leads to a crowning irony: the attempt to will to love enemies in order to
become perfect makes the love of enemies a psychological impossibility.
If we have to become perfect in order to earn God's grudging love, then
what do we do with those aspects of ourselves which are not perfect and which
we know we never be?  What do we do with our tempers, our lust, our
cowardice, our greed, our indifference to the suffering of others?  If we
wish to continue the game of perfectionism at all (and it is a game, played
on us to our detriment by the Great Deluder), we must repress all that evil.
Out of sight, out of mind - but not out of the psyche!  Then, when we
encounter people who remind us of the we hate about ourselves and have
repressed, we will involuntarily project onto them what has been evoked in
our own unconscious.

	Perfectionism has a secret and unacknowledged *need* for enemies.
Perfectionists are perfect only by comparison.  They must have someone to
look down on.....

	This is true on an international scale as well.  Nothing threatens
order so much as peace.  Peace, as William Graham Sumner once remarked,
is the problem that war is required to solve.

Re:  162.83

  >.....It may come as an immediate relief to learn that *Jesus could
  >not have said, "Be perfect."*  There was no such word, or even concept, in
  >Aramaic or Hebrew.  

No conception of perfection in Aramaic or Hebrew.  Hmmm.  This
indeed is cause for concern.  Somehow, this seems unlikely to me -
particularly in light of his Greek scholarship (see below).  However,
perhaps this is indeed the case - although it seems incredible that
such a simple idea as perfection is unexpressible in these languages.

Fortunately, the Holy Spirit had Greek available when He wrote Matthew
which does have such a concept.

  >The word used by Matthew, teleios, was however a Greek aesthetic term.  

It has meanings dependent on context (things, persons).

from Bauer:

teleios:  having attained the end or purpose, complete, perfect

 2.  of persons

   d:  perfect, fully developed in a moral sense

   e:  God is termed teleios Mt 5:48b

  >Placed in its context within the rest of the paragraph, Jesus'
  >saying about behaving like God becomes abundantly clear.  

Indeed, the understanding of this text has been abundantly clear
for centuries.  :-)

  >We are not to be perfect...

I can loan him my copy of Bauer...

  >...but, like God, all-emcompassing, loving even those who have
  >least claim or right to our love.  

I agree that we should do this.  His word study on "teleios" appears
to be deficient.  He does not address the other places in literature
where teleios means exactly what he says it does *not* mean here.
To base an entire doctrine on a deficient word study seems to me to
be asking for (doctrinal) problems.

In my opinion, this is simply poor scholarship.

Collis

    .86 What are the chances that Bauer is skewed by pre-existing
    notions and that Wink offers fresh insight?
    
    Richard
    

    Using only common sense and nothing else, one can continue to believe
    that the Greek NT continues to reflect the teaching of Jesus because it
    is incredible that Aramaic or Hebrew doesn't contain words to express
    the concepts of best, complete, and without error.

    .88
    
    Well, perhaps.  But I think if "perfect" was so dead on, Luke would
    have used an identical or, at least, analogous term when he was
    recording his gospel.
    
    To ignor the variation would hardly be sensible, common or otherwise.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 162.88 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

        Agreed.

        Just because a language might not have a single word to
        express a concept it does not follow that the concept is
        inexpressible in that language or that context might not be
        able to give another word that connotation.

        Bob

    The point of Matthew 5:48 is quite different than Luke 6:36 ("be
    merciful (or compassionate)")

    Matthew makes the comparison of the pagans with the followers of
    Christ, so it is to be more than merciful or compassionate, but to do
    so perfectly (ie good, better, best).  Luke omits the comparison.

    .91 I would concede that Matthew and Luke were written with whole
    different sets of readers in mind.  Different agendas, too.
    
    Are not sermons tailored to the anticipated audience?
    
    Richard
    

  >What are the chances that Bauer is skewed by pre-existing
  >notions and that Wink offers fresh insight?
   

Given the Bauer is a scholarly work with all references
cited for what it is claimed (and it is actually called
"A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and other
Early Christian Literature" by Walter Bauer  Second Edition
Revised and Augmented by F. W. Gingrich and Frederick
Danker) and is a standard reference manual, I would weigh
the odds (given no outside information) in the range of
95% - 5% (which I think is generous).

Given the claim that Jesus could not have expressed the
thought of perfection in Aramaic/Hebrew which is intertwined
in this discussion, I move the odds to 99.99 /.01.

Your odds may vary.  :-)

Collis 

    It is my observation that it is likely that you've chosen to grant
    credence to your scholarly authorities for the same reason I choose
    to grant credence to my scholarly authorities; that being, they most
    closely match what we believe to be right and true.

    Richard

    I don't think so.                    

    Walter Wink makes the assertion:

    "that It may come as an immediate relief to learn that *Jesus could not
    have said, 'Be perfect.'*  There was no such word, or even concept, in
    Aramaic or Hebrew."

    I believe this is provable or not without taking a leap of faith in
    either Scholar Bauer or Scholar Wink:

    Who has access to a Hebrew or Aramaic dictionary?

    What does "immediate relief" mean anyway?  It Wink asserting in
    contradiction to Jesus that we can be as imperfect as the pagans are
    imperfect?  Is this what you believe to be "right and true", Richard?

Re:  162.94

  >It is my observation that it is likely that you've chosen to grant
  >credence to your scholarly authorities for the same reason I choose
  >to grant credence to my scholarly authorities; that being, they most
  >closely match what we believe to be right and true.
   
I certainly think that there is some truth in this.   However, it
does not address the facts of the issue which should bring us some
light despite our prejudices.

There is one standard reference work which is Bauer (which, of course,
was not written by one person as it is a very comprehensive work, but
has had a lot of work put in it by multiple people).  The reason there
is one principle reference (and only one) is because

  - it's a *lot* of work
  - it's relatively easy to reach agreement on what words mean in
    various contexts (which is not to say that it is easy to reach
    an agreement on what a word means in a particular context, since
    there are some difficult cases)  However, by and large, word
    meanings are relatively easy to deduce.

Now it appears that you are claiming this man is a "scholarly authority"
without, as far as I can tell, any evidence for the claim (other
than the obvious fact that he delves into areas and makes assertions
about them that are best left for scholarly authorities :-) ).

I would say that any scholarly authority that was truly *scholarly*
would deal with the *one standard reference work* which *disputes*
his claim - not because of any self-interest in the reference work
(which is used freely by people of all theological persuasions), but
simply because the word does have the meaning that he claims it does
not have.

If you still think his assertions and methodologies are reasonable and
scholarly after considering this, than I will most humbly disagree with
you and refer you to your claim above.

Collis

> Wink is currently
> professor of Biblical Interpretation at Auburn Theological Seminary.

I cannot cite every source Wink incorporates when he writes or teaches,
but somehow I find it difficult to believe he's simply some self-serving
prevaricator.  He's either honest or deluded.  But this can be said
of almost any authority.

Moreover, I try to examine the credentials written by God on the human heart
(as Paul alludes to), rather than the credentials provided by institutions or
persons.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .97

It appears your belief in the authority of this spokesperson
supercedes any evidence that I can provide to the contrary.

There are books being published every day that contain all kinds
of theories and beliefs written by those who are immersed in
theology.  I hardly accept these as "scholarly" simply because 
they are written by someone well-informed of many theological
ideas.

There is a process that needs to be respected in order for a
work to be "scholarly".  Careful research, specific refutation
of alternate beliefs, etc.  This is particularly the case when
a claim is made that a common interpretation/translation of a
word is "obviously wrong".

Now, if he had gone to the sources and done a word study on the
Greek word (which, given the information in Bauer which cites
the sources for its interpretation is relatively easy) and
presented this information in a footnote (if not in the main
text) or referenced other works that took this approach and
reached these same conclusions, I may disagree with his result,
but I would not say that his work was not scholarly.

There is no reason to believe that any of this was done.  Perhaps
you just haven't included the information that he does present.
But it appears that he simply reaches a conclusion which not only
defies the common interpretation but he also makes claims which
appear to be absurd on the face (can't express the concept of
"perfect" in Hebrew or Aramaic).

Whether his view is right or wrong, I think it is an error for
someone to believe that his work is scholarly based on what has
been presented here.

As regards to his integrity, I have no problem believing that he
is a relatively honest person (as most of us are).  Which, as I
see it, has no bearing on the two main issues being addressed:

 - was he scholarly in his work
 - is he correct in his assertions

Collis

    .98
    
    It also appears you've dismissed of the authority of this teacher
    based on my inability to supply the credentials that you might or
    might not honor.
    
    Richard
    

    terribly flippant, I know..but I couldn't resist! 8-)

re Note 162.97 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> He's either honest or deluded.  But this can be said
> of almost any authority.
  
        Or perhaps honest AND deluded, in some mixture.

Re:  .98  

 >It also appears you've dismissed of the authority of this teacher
 >based on my inability to supply the credentials that you might or
 >might not honor.

I don't understand, Richard.  I clearly laid out the two points that
I thought were relevant:

 - was he scholarly in his work
 - is he correct in his assertions

Yet you claim I am attacking his authority because of his
credentials?  Your logic here escapes me.

BTW, if I were to pass in a paper as a student in seminary that made
the claims that he made and that had the evidence (or lack thereof)
that he has presented (given that we have indeed seen an adequate
presentation of his views and work on this issue which is still in
some doubt), I don't expect I'd get a passing grade.  I expect
no less (and actually much more) from one who is a teacher.

Your opinion of his scholarship based on the facts would be most 
appreciated.

Collis

    .102  All I'm saying is that if you so choose to rebuff Wink
    because he fails to measure up to the criteria you require, so
    be it.
    
    Richard
    

Re:  .103

Well, that's not what you actually did say but I accept
that this is what you say now.

You have kept quite silent on the criteria I outlined.  I'd
hate to be presumptious that this means that you may actually
agree with me that this is good criteria (since you usually
do object to things I write that you disagree with, this
presumption actually has some merit).  Perhaps you'd like
to explicitly agree with this criteria?

By the way, I think this criteria is useful regardless of
one's theology - and regardless of whether the issue has
anything to do with theology.

If we can agree on the criteria, we may actually finding
ourselves agreeing on our opinion of the scholarship of
this emminent teacher.

Collis

Richard,

It sounds like you agree with his ideas, at least as
food for thought.  I can appreciate that - it's good
to be provoked into seriously considering what you
believe and why.

The problem with his assertions is the lack of foundation
for his questioning.  He is *claiming* a foundation exists
and, in fact, is obvious.  No *proof* for such a foundation
has been presented.  And your replies addressed to me have

  1)  suggested Bauer is prejudiced

      - Bauer was written by many authors
      - Bauer is a reference work and draws conclusions
        only as is needed as part of its focus (what does
        this word mean in this context?)
      - Bauer is used by liberal and conservative
        theologians alike

  2)  suggested that my opinion is based more on my prejudices
      than the facts

      - I clearly outlined my criteria of scholarship
      - I freely submit it to you or to anyone else to
        comment on its deficiencies
      - I apply this criteria to both liberals and
        conservatives; to both theological and non-theo-
        logical matters

  3)  suggested that it's foolish to think the Wink would
      deliberately mislead us, the implication being that
      what he preaches is true

      - I suggest we examine not Wink, but rather his
        scholarship and base our opinions on the facts
        thus brought to light

  4)  suggested that I've dismissed Wink's authority because
      he does not have the proper credentials

      - you are sorely mistaken.  I never discussed his
        credentials nor are they particularly relevant to the
        credence of his claim if the facts are available for
        us to all see and the argument is rather simple.
        Many facts are available and the argument is very
        simple.

  5)  finally, suggested that the problem is my criteria
      ("rebuff Wink because he fails to measure up to the
      criteria you require")

      - YES, this is it.  He fails to measure up to the criteria
        that I've laid out.  Criteria that you have never once
        commented upon as lacking in any way.  Criteria that
        is not original with me, but is standard type of stuff
        in academic environments.  

Why do you keep implying the problem is with me instead of
being willing to look at the facts and the criteria together???

Since you are doing this more and more often, I thought it
was worthy of a note specifically addressing it.

Collis

Note 162.104

>Well, that's not what you actually did say but I accept
>that this is what you say now.

Forgive my failure to articulate clearly.  When I spoke of credentials,
I was not speaking of formal documents, but of supporting materials which
might lend credence to a particular thesis.  However, it's been my
experience that such criteria usually fails to convince anyone of
anything.

>If we can agree on the criteria, we may actually finding
>ourselves agreeing on our opinion of the scholarship of
>this eminent teacher.

This is not a seminary.  And I suspect setting up criteria which would
be perfectly acceptable within the confines of a theological institution
would be inhibiting to a free exchange of thoughts and ideas, as is
permitted here.

Richard

Re:  .106

Richard,

Either you care about the scholarship (research, whatever)
put into this work or you don't.

If you don't care about it, then stop trying to discredit
me when I question it (based on the facts!).

If you do care about it, then address the issue of his
scholarship (which you have up to now refused to do).

That's all there is to it.  Stop making excuses about this
not being a seminary and no one being convinced because
of the facts (although it appears you're doing your best
to become an example of this).

In mild frustration,

Collis

Note 162.105

>It sounds like you agree with his ideas, at least as
>food for thought.

Yes, it makes more sense to me than any conventional understanding of
perfection.

>The problem with his assertions is the lack of foundation
>for his questioning.

You have insisted on me substantiating the information I've provided
in both this string and in others.  The excerpts I provided from Wink
are from a periodical with a spiritual focus, but not a scholarly
work.  I'm not going to write Wink and ask him to supply his "proofs,"
as you call them.  You may, of course.  But I doubt that you will.

>  1)  suggested Bauer is prejudiced

I still suggest the possibility that Bauer may be based on prevailing
notions.

>  2)  suggested that my opinion is based more on my prejudices
>      than the facts

My apologies.

>  3)  suggested that it's foolish to think the Wink would
>      deliberately mislead us, the implication being that
>      what he preaches is true

Not foolish.  Wink and I are possibly both deluded.

>  4)  suggested that I've dismissed Wink's authority because
>      he does not have the proper credentials

Mea culpa.  My unfortunate and improper use of the term "credentials."

>  5)  finally, suggested that the problem is my criteria
>      ("rebuff Wink because he fails to measure up to the
>      criteria you require")

>Why do you keep implying the problem is with me instead of
>being willing to look at the facts and the criteria together???

I seriously doubt that we could ever agree on the criteria.  And
even if we could, we would simply find other ways to discredit the
other's arguments.

Richard

    .107
    
    I can tell you're miffed.
    
    Richard
    

Hi Richard,

It appears your goal is to share your ideas and
experiences.  I think that this is a worthy goal.

Personally, however, I find this to be only the first
step on the path.  Ideas are notorious for not only being
freeing, but binding as well.  Some are true and some are
false.  Following the false ones can lead us into problems
such as is happening in Waco, Texas or, in the case
of following false "truths" over time, can lead to social
problems such as the breakdown of the family, the increase
in violence, the acceptance and even promotion of sin in
a number of areas, etc.  In addition, I think we have a
duty to the Word of God to interpret it as correctly as
possible.

None of which is to say that the meaning of the word
perfect in this example is going to necessarily lead to
these things.  But I do think that we each have an obliga-
tion to the truth.

I can understand that you may not want to debate the ideas
here.  If that is your intention, however, I think that it
is fairer to simply refuse to discuss the problems than to
simply attempt to discredit (without facts!!!!) the problems
that I find.

Perhaps I shall learn someday that this kind of honest,
even-handed and fair discussion is often not possible with
you.  But I usually (not always) attempt it anyway.

Collis

    .110
    
    Collis,
    
    Let us pursue this further in 626.
    
    Richard