Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Re .0
    
    Tough questions, Dave!

      While I do believe that the homosexual act is forbiden in the Old
    Testament and the New Testament, I do not hold to the idea that
    anything not biblically sanctioned is wrong or even suspect.  Those 
    that hold that view do not hold that the Bible is the only rule of 
    faith and practice.  Paul warned us of men who say that anything not
    biblically sanctioned is wrong and must be forbiden.  According
    to Paul that to make God's commands of non-effect, holding to commandments
    of men rather than to the commands of God is sin.  
    
    It is a form of idoltry to hold to commandments of men as if they are
    commands from God.
    
    
                                 Marshall  

    Marshall,
    	this may be a little off the subject, but weren't you one of the
    ones advocating following where authority leads ?  In the Armies as an
    instrument of God string ?
    	Perhaps you could expand on Paul a little bit ?  Since that might
    be directly relevent ?

    To begain with God has placed Governments in authority to rule over
    earthly things.  Then God, as found in the writings of Paul, expects
    us to obey those governments, and all earthly authority, as long as 
    they do not command against God's law or try to pervert His law.
    
    Then, we also see that Paul, Jesus, John the Baptist all taught that
    to try to add to God's revealed law is not only wrong but it is sin.
    The Pharesees had done just that.  They added their own rules
    concerning things such as sabbath laws, touch not, taste not, and so
    on.  When John the Baptist came preaching they said he was wrong for
    not eating and drinking.  When Jesus came drinking and eating they 
    called Him a drunk and glutton.  
    
    Then later on Paul had to deal with those who said a person must be
    circumsied to be a Christian.  Here again we see the sinful head of
    adding to God's law.  Making laws to add to God's laws restricting
    anything is worshipping at the idol of humanism.  You are assuming
    that God did not know better about right and wrong.   This is, of
    course, in the matter of religious laws.  God gave authority
    to governments over civil matters.  I believe in this note we are
    talking about things of God and not of the government.
    
    
    
                                   Marshall

re Note 169.3 by DELNI::MEYER:

>     	this may be a little off the subject, but weren't you one of the
>     ones advocating following where authority leads ?  In the Armies as an
>     instrument of God string ?

        Dave,

        I see no necessary contradiction in Marshall's "advocating
        following where authority leads" and his position that the
        Bible does not forbid that which is not commanded.

        In fact, the two positions complement each other.  Marshall
        is saying that the freedom of choice on matters not
        explicitly addressed by the Bible does exist, but that it
        belongs to the authorities, and not the individual.

        That is why I wouldn't choose to describe the opposite of the
        strict "oppressed" position as "enlightened".  At first I
        thought "liberal" would be a better choice, but then
        Marshall's position illustrates that a society that sees
        freedom in the Scriptures does not necessarily allow that
        freedom to its members.

        Bob

Re:  169.0

What I said in 91.186 was:

     >>Assuming that what the Bible does not say is wrong should be considered
     >>to be right is an invalid methodology.

I would also say the converse:  Assuming that what the Bible does not say 
is right should be considered to be wrong is an invalid methodology.

Collis

re: .0
>	What is an Enlightened society ?  One facet is that such a society
>    allows anything that it does not explicitly forbid.
>    	What is an Oppressive society ?  One facet is that such a society
>    forbids anything not explicitly allowed.
    
    I think that's pretty spot-on
    
>    	Collis, in 91.186, suggested that Christians would do well to
>    assume that anything not Biblically sanctioned should be suspect and
>    perhaps avoided. I have heard others take a much harder line on this.
    
    I have heard many Christians do this also, and exhort others to do the
    same (in the name of saving their souls, or correcting their mistakes,
    or generally "changing them for their own good").  Unfortunately this
    reminds me a bit of the Crusades, where if you didn't take God as your
    savior they bashed you with a "holy water sprinkler" and surrendered
    your soul to God as you fell.
    
>    	Question: are we Enlightened or Oppressed ?  Why ?  Do these terms
>    really apply to the "Christian Community" and to God ?
    
    There are so many degrees of Christianity and christianity that there
    are groups that are enlightened, and groups that I wouldn't exactly
    call oppressed, but I feel they may be limiting themselves spiritually
    by adhering SOLELY to the bible, and not looking for new impressions or
    thoughts on their spirituality in other places.  This is just my take
    and I'm sure they wouldn't approve at all.
    
    -Jody
    

    re: .5
    
    Bob,
    	you missed the reference, partly my fault. "According to Paul ...
    holding to the commandments of men rather than to the commandments of
    God is a sin." Yet in the "Armies" string Marshall was advocating doing
    what you were told by the lawful authority. The two seem contradictory.
    
    re: .6
    
    Collis,
    	what you said started my train of thought. I apologize if my
    comment seemed to put words in your mouth or to attribute to you
    opinions that you do not hold. That was not my intent and I tried to
    word my comment so as to avoid that interpretation.
    
    	"Enlightened" is one of several possible opposites to "Oppressed",
    and it is a valid one. I did not choose "Liberal" because that was not
    the distinction I wanted to make. Choosing "Liberal" would have then
    suggested "Conservative" as the more natural opposite. I did not wish
    to directly portray "Liberal=Enlightened" and "Conservative=Oppressed".
    I'm not convinced that such need be an accurate analysis.

Re:  .8

Thank you Dave.  I'd appreciate it even at this late date if you'd
edit your first statement so that it will not be further quoted (as
it already has).  It really is quite contradictory to my beliefs.

Collis

    Collis,
    	I will try to find a way to edit my base note.

    
    I think I hear some saying that society cannot be viewed in the
    dichotomic way we view isolated things.  Society is diverse and
    consists of many different elements.
    
    What is necessary is to define "Enlightened Society".  Give an example
    of one, define/describe the characteristics of one, and then we can
    determine if American Society is enlightened.  
    
    According to history, and I believe that beneath this conversation this
    is the reference, Egypt is the only so-called "Enlightened Society" to
    exist....this is historical events, not pre-historical.
    
    The "Enlightened Society" is characterized by "cosmology", one that
    incorporates universal truths in their mundane affairs.  The particular
    type of religion is secondary, to the idea of Universal Truths, as any
    religion may have them within it.  Christianity has these universals,
    but then the question becomes is Christianity or any other body of
    knowledge containing universals being incorporated into American
    Society on a mundane basis.  IMO, the answer is that American is based
    upon Pragmatism, and the "Relativity of Truth" supported by "might
    makes right".
    
    I think American Society aspires to be an "Enlightened Society", but we
    have some stumblingblocks to that objective...I don't have to name any
    do I?
    
    When you study the culture of ancient Egypt, which produced the
    pyramids, and the sciences, and the peculiar conduct of the citizenry. 
    When American Society has a completely synthesized way of life, one
    where religion, state, medicine, science, and other essential elements
    of society blends together in one cosmological understanding, then the
    American Society will be Enlightened.  From thought to practice must be
    one constant stream of reality.  
    
    I'd say we are working at it, but we have a long way to go.  Technology
    has blinded us to the spiritual reality of life.  What is practiced in
    America is often counterproductive to human spirit.  If this were not
    so, we would be a more spiritual people, instead of finding a few who
    are spiritual inspite of social practice.

    Playtoe,
    	I defined the terms in .0 and nothing was said, intentionally,
    about the attributes you have claimed for an Enlightened Society.
    Please go back and read 169.0 again.