Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Hi Richard,

Interesting.  The church I worship at, Trinity Church has as an emblem a 
little triangle thingie with some Latin on it that, through some tricks of 
graphical design can be read several ways:

The Father is God			God is the Father
The Son is God				God is the Son
The Holy Spirit is God			God is the Holy Spirit

The Father is not the Son		The Son is not the Father
The Son is not the Holy Spirit		The Holy Spirit is not the Son
The Holy Spirit is not the Father	The Father is not the Holy Spirit

This seemingly contradictory set of statements says a lot, I think, about the 
mystery of the Godhead.

I think many concepts of God (as Father) can be quite intimidating and 
distancing.  I hear Jesus in those words you quote, invite us to a personal,
familial relationship with God, as sibling, and through adoption as children
of God. 

Kind of like you're at a party, and there's someone there whom you're 
absolutely in awe of.  And someone lowly and common says, "come on over, I'll 
introduce you!  That's my dad."

Pondering...

Jim

If one uses the premise that Jesus is God then one could say that when 
Jesus said 

	"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No one comes to the Father,
	but through Me."

That he was implying

;wasn't he really saying, "I am at one with God.  No one comes to God,
;except by God.  To come to God is to come to Me.  To come to Me is to
;come to God"?

This seems fine until you start to try and understand the role Jesus plays
as mediator between man and God. How can one of the two grieving parties
mediate?. This Triune God then starts to become a mystery.

But if one uses the premise that Jesus is God's Son, the firstborn of God's
creation (Col 1:15) and not Son the God, one then does not have a mystery.
There is only one mediator who can reconcile the two parties, mankind and God. 

I know alot of you won't agree but this is another perspective.

Phil.

    
    I wrote and entered this before I found the new topic.
    
    Bonnie
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 292.35               The Kingdom of God is within                  35 of 35
WMOIS::REINKE_B "bread and roses"                    13 lines  30-AUG-1991 12:10
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jim, Cindy,
    
    The phrase "I am the way,....no one cometh unto the Father except
    by me", has been used by a lot of Christians to mean that unless
    you are a Christian you will never come to God.
    
    It can also be interpreted to mean, (more correctly to my mind)
    that if you come to God you've come by means of Jesus, no matter
    what the path appeared to be. i.e. if you are a Bhuddist, or
    a Goddess worshiper, or what ever, and you come to God then
    Jesus was the intermediary.
    
    Bonnie

    RE:3
    Bonnie,
    	   I agree, that's what I have come to believe myself !
    However, there is  danger  when someone is using spirits other than
    Jesus,  of being deceived by lying spirits. I also believe in demons 
    and demonic possession which can lead us away from God. 

    When reading some of the books on channeling, such as Emmanual, I've
    come to see how easy it is for people to be drawn into something that
    is against God.

    Any spirit that says that you are a god, or you are your own christ, is 
    a lying Spirit no matter what emphasis it puts on love.

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim,

    I agree that there are deceitful spirits. There is no question in
    my mind of that.

    What I object to is the wholesale condemnation by many Christians
    of all who have not been baptized and become members of the 
    church to absence from God.

    I think God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit are far from limited by our
    poor human powers to preach the good news, and are able to reach
    out to the hearts and minds of men and women in a variety of
    fashions.

    There are also examples of people who where ordained ministers
    and members of churches who are deceivers and lead people away
    from God. This is not unique to those who chose different paths.

    Bonnie

re Note 300.4 by PCCAD1::RICHARDJ:

>     However, there is  danger  when someone is using spirits other than
>     Jesus,  of being deceived by lying spirits. I also believe in demons 
>     and demonic possession which can lead us away from God. 
  
        I agree, too.

        Yet I think that the essence of Christianity is possession --
        being possessed by Christ, by the one true God.

        Thus I agree with those who say that "head knowledge," such
        as that provided in Scripture, can be very useful, perhaps
        even essential, in discriminating the bad from "the real
        thing."

        Unfortunately, I think that "head knowledge" has come to be
        more important than being "possessed by God" in the latter
        half of this millennium.

        One result of this is the emphasis on inerrant doctrine.  In
        Catholic circles this is supported by claims that the Church
        must be inerrant, "otherwise we wouldn't have any truth." 
        In Protestant circles (and shared by Catholics as well), this
        is supported by claims that Scripture must be inerrant,
        "otherwise we wouldn't have any truth."

        To my way of thinking, both of these approaches substitute
        primacy of "head knowledge" over "relationship knowledge"
        (the "relationship" being with Christ).  It is understandable
        that this would happen, since the former is much more
        concrete and tangible to the human mind than the latter.  But
        is it right?  Is it, perhaps, not only wrong but harmful?

        Jesus clearly says that He is the way, the truth, and the
        life.  Yet many Christians act as if the words of Scripture
        (or the doctrines of the Church) are "the way, the truth, and
        the life."  Can they both be?

        And, obviously, which interpretation and primacy you give, to
        "head knowledge" vs. "relationship knowledge," will determine
        your approach and attitude towards people whose doctrines are
        not the same as yours.

        Bob

    I share your feelings Bonnie and Bob.
    
    Kb

    Matt 7:13, 14 (NWT)
    
    "Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road
    leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through
    it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into
    life, and few are the ones finding it."
    
    It doesn't sound as though Jesus thought there were many different ways
    to gain everlasting life.  Don't you think he really taught that there
    is only one way?  
    
    
    Steve
    

re Note 300.8 by COMET::HAYESJ:

>     "Go in through the narrow gate; because broad and spacious is the road
>     leading off into destruction, and many are the ones going in through
>     it; whereas narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading off into
>     life, and few are the ones finding it."
>     
>     It doesn't sound as though Jesus thought there were many different ways
>     to gain everlasting life.  Don't you think he really taught that there
>     is only one way?  
  
        Steve,

        There are at least two different "ways" being discussed here
        -- the way to eternal life, and the way to Jesus (the one
        true God).

        I don't see ANY disagreement in the above notes to the
        position that the only way to eternal life is via the one
        true God (objectors, please feel free to correct me!).
        As a consequence, any attempt to eternal life that does not
        go through the one true God is bound to fail.  This is in
        accord with traditional understandings of the quote from
        Jesus, above.

        There would appear to be more disagreement over "the way to
        Jesus."  Traditional Christian understanding is that the only
        way to Jesus is to accept either the claims of His Church or
        the traditional teaching from the Christian Scripture about
        Jesus.  (Amazingly, even within the Christian tradition, we
        already have TWO ways, obviously with a lot of similarity!)

        But if Jesus is the one true God (or one personal
        manifestation of the one true God), then even the Hebrew
        Scriptures give ample evidence of people "finding Jesus"
        without knowing his name or his cross.  So there we have a
        THIRD (perhaps many more than that) way to Jesus!

        So the question then becomes, "Are there any more ways to
        Jesus that are not even part of the Judeo-Christian
        tradition?"  I am certain that not ALL ways lead to Jesus --
        I think it would be an awful long stretch to claim that
        Satanism leads to Jesus, for example.  The problem, of
        course, is that as we wander farther from a scripture we
        accept we have a harder time in making the call.  But the
        important thing is God's call.

        Bob

    re:  .9  Bob
    
    Matt 7:21-23 (NWT)
    
    "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom
    of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the
    heavens will.  Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not
    prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many
    powerful works in your name?'  And yet then I will confess to them:  I
    never knew you!  Get away from me you workers of lawlessness."
    
    
    This clearly shows that not even all who call Jesus their Lord will be
    acceptable to him.  Why not?  Because even though they profess to be
    Jesus' followers, they really aren't, as they don't do the will of his
    Father.  If you read on in Matt 7:24-27, you'll see that only by being
    obedient to Jesus, and building your foundation on him (the rock-mass),
    will you be following the will of his Father, who is Jehovah, the only
    true God (see John 17:3).  So, obviously, if you want to have the hope
    of everlasting life, you have to be a true follower of Christ Jesus. 
    That narrows it down to only one way, doesn't it?  Now you can see why
    Jesus said, "....few are the ones finding it."
    
    
    Steve

    It seems evident that unless one reads something into the text being
    discussed, that the obvious meaning is that Christ is clearly asserting
    his exclusivity. To deny his exclusive claims really requires one of
    several things. A. That he didn't say what he meant or meant what he
    said, or B., That his death was needless since he isn't required to access
    God, but is merely one of numerous methods., or C. That he was either
    deluded or lying. Any of the above would make any discussion of Jesus
    as a Saviour, prophet, moral teacher or anything else respectable
    ludicrous. 
    
    I'm afraid his exclusive claims must be tken at face value, or he must
    be utterly rejected.
    
    Just my thoughts, y'all are welcome to yours too.
    
    Lisa.
    

Re: .10 (Steve)

>    Matt 7:21-23 (NWT)
>    "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom
>    of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the
>    heavens will.  

This tells me that belief and worship are not sufficient in and of 
themselves, but that action according to "the will of my Father" is 
necessary.  The Will of God, to me, is represented by the *principles* I 
mentioned in some other notes; the principles which Christ embodied and 
exemplified.  No knowledge of Jesus is necessary to live the same 
principles He espoused, nor is any particular religion necessary for 
this.  Jesus himself seemed to confirm this with the following quote you 
entered:

>    Many will say to me in that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not
>    prophesy in your name, and expel demons in your name, and perform many
>    powerful works in your name?'  And yet then I will confess to them:  I
>    never knew you!  Get away from me you workers of lawlessness."

And what does "lawlessness" mean?  I doubt very seriously that he was 
refering to societal laws of the day.  If he was refering to laws of 
God, then what are these laws if not divine principles upon which our 
lives should be based?
    
>    This clearly shows that not even all who call Jesus their Lord will be
>    acceptable to him.  Why not?  Because even though they profess to be
>    Jesus' followers, they really aren't, as they don't do the will of his
>    Father.  

This seems to agree with what I stated above.

>    If you read on in Matt 7:24-27, you'll see that only by being
>    obedient to Jesus, and building your foundation on him (the rock-mass),
>    will you be following the will of his Father, who is Jehovah, the only
>    true God (see John 17:3).  

If you forget what Jesus said and pay attention to what he did, was he 
not living the will of God?  I think when Jesus said that calling his 
name was not enough, he was saying that salvation through him meant 
living the will of God, or living by those divine principles, just as he 
exemplified.  If this is so, then going "through Jesus" would mean 
following his example; following his footsteps, and building our 
foundation upon his example.

>    So, obviously, if you want to have the hope
>    of everlasting life, you have to be a true follower of Christ Jesus. 

Yes, a follower of his example, following his footsteps as he lived the 
will of God.  If we lived as he lived, are we not following him?

>    That narrows it down to only one way, doesn't it?  Now you can see why
>    Jesus said, "....few are the ones finding it."
    
Yes, and that one way is through God's laws or principles.  Broad are 
the paths which ignore these principles.  Living these principles is the 
straight and narrow path.

Jesus was not devoted to himself, but to God.  I would rather follow his 
example and devote myself to the same thing to which he was devoted: the
will of God.  

Jeff

    I think there are different approaches towards religious pluralism.
    One approach, which (if I am not mistaken) is taken by the Roman
    Catholic Church, is that many people of other faiths are, in effect,
    "anonymous Christians".  From that point of view, Jesus's exclusiveness
    is not being called into question.  This view clearly acknowledges
    Jesus's role in the divinity and accepts the primacy of Jesus; but,
    unlike the intolerance of some interpretations,  it simply recognizes
    that all spiritual paths that lead to God necessarily go through Jesus. 
    
    To be quite honest, since I don't define my faith in terms of
    traditional (and Trinitarian) Christianity, this is not an approach
    that I would take.  But assuming that we accept the primacy of Jesus, I
    still believe that this is certainly consistent with what Jesus
    allegedly said about his exclusive role, taken at face value.  It
    really boils down to how we interpret Jesus's exclusive role.  Was
    Jesus, in that passage, proclaiming his role as the mediator between
    humans and the Father, or was he merely defining a constraint that
    controls how this mediation occurs?  I would argue that, at face value,
    the former makes more sense.

    In "Christianity and the World Religions", Hans Kung traces the
    development of what I would consider a more preferable (that is, less
    intolerant) approach to other faiths within the Catholic Church.  He
    brings this matter up in his discussion of Islam, which is the first of
    the world religions that he considers in that book.  He points out
    that, at one time, the church took the position "Extra Ecclesium nulla
    salus"--there is no salvation outside the church.  This was expressed
    at the Ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442:

        The holy Roman Church...firmly believes, confesses, and proclaims
        that outside the Catholic Church no one, neither heathen nor Jew
        nor unbeliever nor schismatic, will have a share in eternal life,
        but will, rather, be subject to the everlasting fire which has been
        prepared for the Devil and his angels, unless he attaches himself
        to her (the Catholic Church) before his death".

    This posture has clearly changed in recent years.  Describing this view
    as the "traditional" Catholic position, Kung now points out that this
    is no longer the official position.  He cites one example where, in
    1952, a Catholic chaplain at Harvard (Father Leonard Feeney) was
    excommunicated for asserting that everyone outside the visible Catholic
    Church was damned.  But the coup de grace was the Second Vatican
    Council, which declared in 1965 that "Men and women who through no
    fault of their own do not know the Gospel of Christ and of his Church,
    but who sincerely search for God and who strive to do his will, as
    revealed by the dictates of conscience, in deeds performed under the
    influence on his grace, can win eternal salvation".

    That speaks for those individuals who haven't heard of the Gospel, but
    what about other religious paths in general?  Kung, again referring
    specifically to Moslems, cites another article from Vatican II:

        God's saving will also embraces those who acknowledge the Creator,
        and among them especially the Muslims, who profess the faith of
        Abraham and together with us adore the one God, the Merciful One,
        who will judge men on the Last Day.

    I don't think that Jesus's exclusiveness is being called to question
    here, at least as far as Christians are concerned.  I think most
    Trinitarian Christians, since they believe that Jesus is divine, would
    believe that any path to God necessarily involves Jesus.  The point, as
    I see it, is in how we might want to interpret this.  One approach,
    which makes much more sense to me, affirms that those who come to God
    do so through Jesus, but does not assert anything about this or that
    spiritual path.

    This is also consistent with the Quaker point of view, by the way,
    which has usually been respectful of other spiritual paths.  I have
    often cited John Woolman, who went to the Indians not only to teach,
    but to learn, as a prime example of this.  D. Elton Trueblood, one of
    the most prolific Christian and Quaker writers of the twentieth
    century,  writes of this in his book "The People Called Quakers". 
    Trueblood, I might add, is a devout Christian who comes from a Quaker
    tradition that is more conservative than my own.  He writes:

        Did not Jesus Himself say, "No one comes to the Father, but by me"
        (John 14:6)?  If Christ is the *only* Way, and if most men have not
        had the opportunity to know that Way, we seem to be involved in a
        damaging dilemma.  Either we have to say that most men are
        condemned without a chance, or we must conclude that Christ was
        wrong when He asserted that His way was the only way.

        The Quaker faith is best understood as an attempted solution of
        this dilemma.  The central answer is that Christ is, indeed, the
        only Way, but that, as divine Logos, He has revealed Himself to
        millions who have never had an opportunity to know Him or even know
        *of* Him, in the flesh....

        The emphasis, not merely on the historical Jesus, but also upon the
        Universal Saving Light of Christ, is the most nearly original
        Quaker contribution to religious thought.  If there is any other
        solution to the cruel dilemma, we do not know what it is.

    He is focusing here on those who lived before Christ, or who have never
    heard of Christ, but he then applies this principle to other faiths as
    well:

        The idea of Christ as reaching out, as does Light, to all men, is
        particularly relevant today when we are highly conscious of the
        coexistence of many world religions.  We are forced to re-examine
        the relationship of Christianity to Buddhism, to Hinduism, to
        Islam, etc.  Such a re-examination makes us reconsider the whole
        reason for missionary activity.  To claim that all non-Christian
        religions are intrinsically evil is to deny the obvious truth, for
        each of the major religions contains elements of undoubted
        spiritual strength.  One cannot observe the discipline of a
        Buddhist monastery without recognizing this.  But does such a
        recognition undermine missions?  Not if the Quaker conception of
        the Eternal Light is taken seriously.  This means that the Eternal
        Christ has already been reaching into Buddhist hearts, and would do
        so without any help from us.  Nevertheless we can help one another. 
        The flame is there, but it can be made brighter by human
        instrumentality.

    In other words, Trueblood believes that the knowledge of the Way is not
    dependent on knowledge of the *historical* Christ, but merely on the
    illumination of the Light Within.

    I think it is a shame that Christianity has historically been so
    intolerant of other faiths.  One of the real tragedies of the 500 year
    anniversary of Columbus's invasion of America is the way in which the
    European Christians crushed the "heathen" spirituality of Native
    Americans.  An article in the current issue of _Creation_Spiritualy_,
    points out that Christianity appeared to the Indians "as the religion
    of the enemy which has subjugated and killed them."  One Mayan text
    read "The introduction of Christianity was the beginning of our
    suffering.  They, the intruders, taught us fear and caused our flowers
    to wilt so that only their flower lived, injuring and devouring our
    flower".  Leonardo Boff writes in the same article, "God did not arrive
    here with the missionaries.  His/her Spirit weaved a complex dialogue
    with men and women, with the tribes and people of this continent,
    bringing them the grace of salvation."  I think Boff is correct.

    -- Mike

re:  .12  Jeff


>              No knowledge of Jesus is necessary to live the same 
>principles He espoused, nor is any particular religion necessary for 
>this.  

Jesus was a perfect man, and the very reflection of his Father, Almighty God
himself.  How could we, as imperfect humans, come to know his principles by
figuring them out for ourselves?  

Jer 10:23 (NWT)  "I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does
                  not belong.  It does not belong to man who is walking even
                  to direct his step."

Also consider the kind of influence that surrounds us.  1 Jo 5:19 tells us 
that "the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one."   2 Cor 4:4
calls Satan "the god of this system of things."  Jesus said the following in
prayer to his Father:

John 17:3 (NWT)  "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of
                  you, the only true God, and the one whom you sent forth,
                  Jesus Christ."

Where are you going to go to to take in this knowledge?  Obviously, you need
to study God's Word, the Bible, in association with the Christian congregation.
Read the account of the Ethiopian eunuch at Acts 8:26-35.  You'll see that
all the elements were there for the eunuch to descern the Truth.  First, the
Ethiopian had the real desire to learn.  Second, he had the Scriptures.  Third,
he had the help of a true follower of Christ.  Last, and certainly not least,
there was the presence of Jehovah's holy spirit.


>And what does "lawlessness" mean?  I doubt very seriously that he was 
>refering to societal laws of the day.
    
2 Thess 2:3 (NWT)  "Let no one seduce you in any manner, because it will not
                    come unless the apostasy comes first and the man of law-
                    lessness gets revealed, the son of destruction." ("it"
                    being the day of Jehovah mentioned in verse 2)

You can see that lawlessness has to do with apostasy, or an abandonment of the
Truth.  Heb 6:4-6 gives insight into how apostasy is viewed, and examples of
the "man of lawlessness" are given at Matt 7:15, 13:41, 24:24, Acts 20:29, and
2 John 7.  The "man of lawlessness" is not an individual, but a composite term
used to describe apostates.  2 Thess 2:6, 7 shows that the apostasy had already
started in the first century, and that the apostles and true desciples of Jesus
acted as a restraint.  They, too, warned about it.  See 1 Tim 4:1; Jude 8, 11;
Acts 20:30; 2 Pet 2:1-3; 2 Tim 2:16-18; 2 John 9, 10; Rom 16:17, 18; 2 Tim 4:3,
4.  What do you think happened to the united Christian congregations after the
last apostle, John, died?  


>If you forget what Jesus said and pay attention to what he did, was he 
>not living the will of God?

Jesus said at Matt 7:24 to hear and do.  If you forget what he said, how can
you act in accordance with his instructions?
 

>                             I think when Jesus said that calling his 
>name was not enough, he was saying that salvation through him meant 
>living the will of God, or living by those divine principles, just as he 
>exemplified.  If this is so, then going "through Jesus" would mean 
>following his example; following his footsteps, and building our 
>foundation upon his example.

>Yes, a follower of his example, following his footsteps as he lived the 
>will of God.  If we lived as he lived, are we not following him?
    
>Yes, and that one way is through God's laws or principles.  Broad are 
>the paths which ignore these principles.  Living these principles is the 
>straight and narrow path.

>Jesus was not devoted to himself, but to God.  I would rather follow his 
>example and devote myself to the same thing to which he was devoted: the
>will of God.  

To know how to follow Jesus' example, live by God's laws, and know God's will,
you must "take in knowledge" like John 17:3 says.


Steve

RE.13

Hi Mike,

I would like to comment on the following by D. Elton Trueblood.

;    This is also consistent with the Quaker point of view, by the way,
;    which has usually been respectful of other spiritual paths.  I have
;    often cited John Woolman, who went to the Indians not only to teach,
;    but to learn, as a prime example of this.  D. Elton Trueblood, one of
;    the most prolific Christian and Quaker writers of the twentieth
;    century,  writes of this in his book "The People Called Quakers". 
;    Trueblood, I might add, is a devout Christian who comes from a Quaker
;    tradition that is more conservative than my own.  He writes:

;        Did not Jesus Himself say, "No one comes to the Father, but by me"
;        (John 14:6)?  If Christ is the *only* Way, and if most men have not
;        had the opportunity to know that Way, we seem to be involved in a
;        damaging dilemma.  Either we have to say that most men are
;        condemned without a chance, or we must conclude that Christ was
;        wrong when He asserted that His way was the only way.

;        The Quaker faith is best understood as an attempted solution of
;        this dilemma.  The central answer is that Christ is, indeed, the
;        only Way, but that, as divine Logos, He has revealed Himself to
;        millions who have never had an opportunity to know Him or even know
;        *of* Him, in the flesh....

;        The emphasis, not merely on the historical Jesus, but also upon the
;        Universal Saving Light of Christ, is the most nearly original
;        Quaker contribution to religious thought.  If there is any other
;        solution to the cruel dilemma, we do not know what it is.

Perhaps there is no dilemma, please let me explain.....

Because Jehovah God is a God of Wisdom and Justice (Romans 11:33) it would 
seem likely that he would set up a way for those who have been ignorant of him 
and His son to come to an accurrate knowledge of them. Jesus said just before
he died ,John 17:3 RSV, "And this is eternal life, that they know thee the
only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent." To enable this Jesus
foretold of a great preaching work that would take place throughout the 
inhabited earth during the Lord's day but before the "conclusion of the system 
of things", Matthew 24:3,14 NWT. People of all nationalities would be given this 
opportunity to come to know Jehovah God and the one whom He sent Jesus Christ, 
just as the Jewish nation and the surrounding Gentiles nations did in the 
first century. 

But what of those who have died and not heard this good news message? Will
Jehovah God abandon them?. This seems unlikely seeing that he is impartial
to all men (Acts 10:34,35), being a God of Justice he would set up a way
for such ignorant ones to get onto the "narrow path" as it were that leads
to life. One thing that is overlooked by Christendom is who benefits from
Jesus being the "Resurrection and the life", they just look to the promise
to those who have come to know Jesus and are faithful to him, John 11:25,26.
What they miss out on is that Jesus excerises this authority over death to
resurrect those who have not had the chance to know him or his Father Jehovah
God. This will be done during the thousand year day of judgment, having been
resurrected they will be given a chance to get onto that "narrow path" that
leads to life under the right conditions (Satan having been abyssed Rev 20:1,2),
compare Acts 24:15 and Revelation 20:12-14. They would not be judged on their 
previous deeds for they would have already paid the price of sin, which is 
death (compare Romans 6:23).

The resurrection will be extended to all those in God's memory (John 5:28,29),
those righteous/unrighteous who have and have not been able to excercise faith 
in Jesus' ransom sacrifice, the only sacrifice that can redeem imperfect 
mankind. One person that springs to my mind is that of Abel (Genesis 4:10).

Phil.

re Note 300.11 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

>     I'm afraid his exclusive claims must be tken at face value, or he must
>     be utterly rejected.
  
        Yes, but that begs the issue:  "what IS their face value?"
        I'm afraid that a lot of tradition has grown up about the
        "face value" of various scriptural passages which just isn't
        supportable by those passages or Scripture in general.

        We both agree that an exclusive claim is being made, yet I
        believe we are quite far apart in our interpretation of what
        that claim is.

        Bob

    
     Phil
    	   
    Re .16	Who will be responsible for teaching all the resurrected
            people during the 1000 yrs ? 
    
    
    
    marty
    

re .17

	Hi Marty

	;Who will be responsible for teaching all the resurrected
        ;people during the 1000 yrs ? 

	Good question because it would seem that there are teachers as brought 
	out by Isaiah 11:9 NWT "They will not do any harm or cause any ruin
	in all my holy mountain; because the earth will be certainly be filled
	with the knowledge of Jehovah as the waters are covering the very sea."

	Before explaining who will do the teaching I need to just cover were
	Jesus' followers will be at the beginning of God's day of judgement.

	One would expect this teaching to come from Jesus' disciples, compare
	Matthew 28:19-20. Some of these disciples will be ruling in heaven
	with Christ over the earth during the thousand years, compare Revelation
	5:9,10. So these ones with Jesus would govern the teaching program. But 
	Jesus talks of "other sheep, which are not of this fold;" in John 10:16 
	NWT and goes on to say "those also I must bring". From Jesus' words it 
	seems that there are atleast two folds of sheep. One being the "little 
	flock" (Luke 12:32) those anointed as kings and priests to rule with
	Christ Jesus in heaven and the "great multitude"  that "come out of the
	great tribulation;" having "washed their robes and made them white in
	the blood of the Lamb." (Revelation 7:9,14 RSV).This "great multitude"
	are concealed during Jehovah's day of anger (Compare Zephaniah 2:3) 
	having put faith in Jesus' ransom sacrifice (washed their robes in
	the blood of the Lamb), which draws a parallel to the time of the
	flood and faithful Noah. 

	It would seem, initally, that Jehovah would use this "great multitude" 
	that have come out of the tribulation on the earth to teach these 
	resurrected ones through the guidance of the heavenly government headed
	by Jesus Christ. At this time "scrolls", or "books" as the RSV puts it,
	will be opened (Revelation 20:12,13). These books will contain 
	instructions on how these resurrected ones can qualify for eternal life,
 	the RSV reads "And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the
 	throne, and books were opened. Also another book was opened, which is 
	the book of life. And the dead were judged by what was written in the 
	books, by what they had done." 


	Phil.

    
     Phil
    	  Thanks for taking the time to answer my question in detail. So,
     those doing the instruction with the aid of the new scolls will be
     ones having survived the tribulation. This leads me to a long standing
     question/concern I have. If I am living at the onset of the great
     tribulation and unfornatunately have belonged to a 'group/church' that
     did not quite have it all right scripturally and died,then it would
     be unfortunate for myself and my family members that we did not die
     previous to the onset. If we did,then we,along with the greatest
     sinners of all time would have a second chance,in fact a full 1000 yrs
     to be convinced that we were part of the wrong 'flock' and change. 
     
    
     Marty
    

re .19

	Marty,

	You are welcome, I do enjoy discussing God's kingdom.
	
 	;This leads me to a long standing
     	;question/concern I have. If I am living at the onset of the great
     	;tribulation and unfornatunately have belonged to a 'group/church' that
     	;did not quite have it all right scripturally and died,then it would
     	;be unfortunate for myself and my family members that we did not die
     	;previous to the onset.

	Your concern is quite valid as brought out by Jesus' words in 
	Matthew 11:23,24. These unresponsive ones in Capernaum saw firsthand
	Jesus' powerful works and yet did not repent (verse 20). And as you
	can see a contrast is made with that of Sodom. Yet, being Jewish they
	may have presumed that they still had God's backing.

	It is good to see that you feel you have a responsiblity to your
	family members. But to answer your question briefly, I would have
	to say that one would need to identify the "little flock" as well
	as identifying the "great multitude". One would also need to identify
	those who are like the ones that were in Capernaum. The ones that 
	were unresponsive to the powerful works and the good news message
	that Jesus preached. These goatlike ones would do no good to Jesus'
	"little flock", and Jesus feels very delicate about his brothers
	as brought out by Matthew 25:31-46. Yet these goatlike ones would 
	still feel that they have God's backing. Once the three groups are 
	identified one would then have to follow the "Lamb" or sheperd where 
	ever he goes, Revelation 7:17 and John 10:27, in other words join 
	those he is guiding and would need to help through loving kindness 
	the "little flock" of Jesus' brothers.

	Though there is the "little flock" and the "great multitude" Jesus
	shows in John 10:16 that "they will become one flock, one sheperd." 
	So both would be following Jesus' commands such as Matthew 28:19,20 
	and they would be identified by the love amongst them, John 13:34,35. 
	As we can see in Matthew 24:14 these brothers will be found in all 
	the inhabitied earth, because of the love that have amongst themselves
	they will not allow warring squabbles amongst nations to pit them
	against their own brothers in the battle lines. One could also ask,
	but would the goatlike ones who do not exhibit principaled love for 
	their brother do the same?. These are powerful works that someone 
	could bring peoples from all nations together united in the bond of
	love without racism amongst them.

	So if anyone finds a group that are preaching the "good news" as well
	as exhibiting love amongst themselves , then I would suggest that one
	investigates to see if they are following the Lamb for the outward
	sign would suggest so. According to Jesus' words of what it would be 
	like in the last days just before the end, Matthew 24:14, it would
	seem that this group would be evident for all throughout the earth to 
	see but many will not respond as was the case in Capernaum, also 
	compare 1 Corinth 4:9 as regards the "little flock". 

	I am not sure if I have answered your question as you might expect.
	But I have a Watchtower article available on disk that discusses
	"Who Really Have the Heavenly Calling". The article uses Scripture
	to show how one can identify wether one is one of the "little flock".
	I would be quite happy to forward it onto you. Many want to go heaven 
	because of malcontent of this world, but what they fail to realise is
	that they cannot choose for themselves, only those chosen by God will
	have the privilege, Romans 9:16.


	Phil. 

    
    
    
    
 Re. 300.11
    
    
     Lisa:

         I have heard this all or nothing argument before and consider
    it to be a fallacious one. There is even a whole topic devoted to
    it, #97 - Lord, Liar or lunatic, that you might like to look 
    through.
         Basically, what you are saying is, "Heads I win, tales you
    lose". Geeze, don't insult my intelligence, OK ? I have said this
    before in another reply, but once again, this is not a binary
    universe. There are myriad possibilities other that totally 
    accepting or rejecting what Christ is alleged to have claimed.
         To tell you the truth this all or nothing demand seems to
    be a not too thinly veiled attempt to intimidate, bully I guess
    you could say, another person. To me it speaks volumes about the
    sincerity and intellectual honesty of someone who uses this 
    technique. Sorry if this is a bit harsh, but perhaps you should
    understand how this approach can come across to another person.


                                                         Mike

    re: .16 - Fleischer
    
    
    Hi Bob,
    
    Good to chat again.
    
    Your point is well taken. All too often I've found myself falling back
    on a religious tradition instead of doing the research myself to see if
    that tradition is Biblically justifiable. But in this case I believe it
    is. I think it is clear from a number of passages, that the prevailing
    apostolic opinion as recorded would corroborate my original assertion.
    
    I'll cite only two quickly.
    1 - Acts 4:12 where in Peter's Day of Pentecost address he affirms:
    "Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name
    under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved."
    2 - Ephesians 2, where Paul is contrasting the state of the saved and
    the unsaved, and says that those who are still by nature "the children
    of wrath" are denominated as "having no hope, and without God in the
    world".
    
    Better yet, the original verse under discussion really interprets
    itself. "I am the way, the truth, and the life:" is the assertion,
    (please note that the definite articles are present in the original
    reading - THE way, THE truth, and THE life), and the balance of the
    statement is his own explaination of it, that it means that no one can
    come to the Father apart from his personal agency.
    
    till later,
    Lisa
    
    

re Note 300.22 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

>     (please note that the definite articles are present in the original
>     reading - THE way, THE truth, and THE life), and the balance of the
>     statement is his own explaination of it, that it means that no one can
>     come to the Father apart from his personal agency.
  
        But you see, Lisa, I agree with you on that!

        Where I disagree is whether knowledge of any particular
        biblical facts about Jesus is necessary in order to benefit
        from his personal agency.

        Bob

    re:300.23
    
    Bob,
    
    Excellent question. I'll have to ponder a bit before I render my usual
    babble.
    
    lisa

    
    re:300.21
    
    Mike,
    
         I am truly sorry if my argument troubles you so, my intent was not
    to disturb anyone but to offer my personal opinion concerning the topic
    under discussion.
         I did take your cue and went back through much of the material in
    #97, and found that Collis Jackson seemed to defend it rather well. As
    such I'll not attempt to defend it further here, other than to say that
    the argument shouldn't be rejected as simplistic because it is simple.
         Since you took the oportunity to imply that my argument was "a not
    too thinly veiled attempt to intimidate", and that it "spoke volumes
    about the sincerity and intellectual honesty of someone who uses this
    technique", (here, obviously meaning me), let me drive more to what I
    believe was at the heart of your response.
         Your heated emotion aside, I don't think your problem is with me
    or my argument, but rather with what it would mean to you if the argument
    were convincing - namely, that you would no longer have an excuse to
    reject the claim of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over you.
         If you want to discuss topics candidly and in depth, lets be about
    it. But if you want to delve into personalities, motives and the like,
    be prepared to be confronted on the same level. Your problem as stated
    before is not with me, but I don't think this notes conference is the
    place to handle that beyond the mutual exchange of ideas, opinions,
    insights and convictions.
    
    I wish you well, 
    Lisa
    
                                                            
    
    
    
    
    

Re: .25 Lisa

>>         To tell you the truth this all or nothing demand seems to
>>    be a not too thinly veiled attempt to intimidate, bully I guess
>>    you could say, another person.
>
>         Your heated emotion aside, I don't think your problem is with me
>    or my argument, but rather with what it would mean to you if the argument
>    were convincing - namely, that you would no longer have an excuse to
>    reject the claim of the Lordship of Jesus Christ over you.

Sorry, Lisa, but I think you've proved Mike's point for him.

				-- Bob

  Lisa:
         Actually I was thinking of a long string of people who have
        used the same argument on me and not you specifically. 
         I will maintain that it is intellectually dishonest to 
        present a simplistic non-choice, such as this one, and insist
        that one, well... ignore reality. This argument is part and 
        parcel of what I sometimes think of as the "gun to the head"
        school of Christianity. A "gun" is held to a person's head
        and they are asked if they see the truth of the gun holders
        point of view. 
         You have said that I reject your argument because do not
        wish to deal with rejecting Christ's claims. This is not necessarily
        true. Let us suppose your argument is valid. I would still not 
        accept Christianity. There are quite a few reasons and if you really
        want me to I lay them out for you. 
          I do not reject your argument because it is simple, but because
        my life's experience has shown me that the are indeed other
        possibilities. What am I supposed to think when someone tells me
        that something is not an option when I have seen many examples
        of this option being exercised ? 
          You seem to have taken objection to my having rejected your
        argument in a personal manner. It has been my experience that this
        argument and its ramifications are invariably delivered so as
        to be be taken personally. Yet when one takes objection to this
        spiritual coercion the bearer of the message declines to take
        responsibility for what they have done by hiding behind Scripture.
          My refutation was not heated and emotional but deliberate, pointed
        and personal. Trust me, you've yet to see heated and emotional
        reply from me.  
          I am quite willing to discuss your point of view. However, how
        do we go about this if you maintain that there can in essence be
        no real discussion other than total acceptance or complete rejection.
          This is a problem that I consistently run into with quite a few
        Christians. I am reluctant to enter into a dialogue when one of the
        ground rules is that the other person has a monopoly on truth. This
        rather limits the possibility of any real communication taking place.
          So, how do we establish communication as equals ?

                                                             
                                                               Mike
            

    re: .26
    
    Bob,
    
    My comments were designed neither to bully or intimidate, but to
    communicate what I believe to be clear objective truth. If I truly
    believe that submission to the Lordship of Jesus Christ is necessary
    for one to be in right relationship with God, and that the alternative
    to this is eternal damnation, I would be displaying the height of
    hatred for mankind to forgo warning someone when given such an open
    opportunity. I would no more neglect that than I would yelling "WATCH
    OUT" to someone I saw ready to stumble off a precipice. Offending the
    sensibilities of the one about to fall is of little consequence to me
    if disaster can be averted. 
    
    It make no difference if I'm thought ill of in this context, but I
    become culpable if I remain silent.
    
    My best,
    Lisa
    

    re:.27
    
    Mike,
    
    Thanks for the reply. I did jot a quick note to Bob Messenger, and I'll
    write a fuller reply to you as soon as I get a chance.
    
    Wish you well,
    Lisa
    
    

Re: .28 Lisa

Are you saying that intimidation is okay if it's necessary to save someone's
soul?

				-- Bob

re Note 300.28 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

>     I would no more neglect that than I would yelling "WATCH
>     OUT" to someone I saw ready to stumble off a precipice. Offending the
>     sensibilities of the one about to fall is of little consequence to me
>     if disaster can be averted. 
  
        There would seem to be a difference in apparent urgency in
        these cases.  Suppose you saw a person headed down a road
        which led to a precipice in, say, 100 miles? Would equally
        rude and radical measures be necessary to warn them in that
        case?  After all, they may have knowledge of the danger and
        intention to avoid it already.  Or they may simply not be
        going to do what you think they will do.

        Bob

    re: .30 Bob
    
    Not at all. What I am saying is that sometimes the truth is
    intimidating period. A person seeking to use the truth in order to
    intimidate is as abhorrent as one who neglects it to another's demise.
    
    
    Lisa

    re: .31
    
    Bob,
    
    Good food for thought.
    
    1-No one has any guaranty that the precipice is 1 or 100 miles ahead,
    time in this life can end at any given moment.
    
    2-I can't imagine someone aware of and prepared for the impending
    danger being annoyed at someone else reiterating the warning. Does the
    repitition of warning signs on the road disturb those who travel the
    road daily? How much more when the danger is of eternal consequence,
    and its arrival so seldom without warning itself.
    
    3-Would that all who had made adequate preparation cared enough for
    those behind to share their insight.
    
    Lisa

    Lisa,
    
    What if your warning is couched in such a fashion that people will
    not listen to you and continue to the precipice?
    
    Bonnie

    Accepting the Lordship has more to do with following his principles
    than lip service...
    Jesus himself said that people would say in the judgment didn't we cast
    out devils and do many wonderful works in you name? He says to them,
    Depart from me you workers of iniquity. Others say, when did we feed,
    clothe or visit you? A man like Mahatma Gandhi, who made the sermon on
    the mount central to his religious beliefs, yet couldn't make personal
    sense out of most of the bible, will go into the Kingdom of Heaven
    before most "christians"
    
    john

    re: note 300.23
    
    Bob,
    
    Sorry I've been a while, business has been pressing.
    
    Back to your comment as to whether knowledge of any particular Biblical
    facts about Jesus are necessary to benefit from his personal agency.
    
    If by "benefit from his personal agency", you mean salvation, I would
    have to refer to John 16:8-11. Here Jesus was outlining the primary
    work the Holy Spirit would be occupied with after being sent as the
    result of Jesus' resurrection. Three things stand out.
    1- He will convince the world of sin (because they don't believe in
    him.)
    2- He will convince the world that Jesus is the righteous one because
    he went to the Father.
    3- He will convince the world of judgement because the Adversary has
    been judged.
    
    Granting that the Holy Spirit is capable of revealing to men their
    sinful estate, that God has provided a substitutionary sacrifice to
    deal with that sin, and that apart from submitting to that sacrifice,
    judgement is impending - does that have to include direct knowledge of
    the person of Jesus Christ in order to be applied. I'll have to render
    an unequivocal - I'm not sure. Let me elaborate.
    In Old Testament times, the "believing Jew" was one that partook of
    the ceremonial law with an understanding that the symbols used in the
    worship were pointing ahead to the promised coming Redeemer/Messiah.
    As such, the O.T. believer had no personal facts about Christ on which
    to hang their hat, and yet they were accepted by God as looking forward
    to the promise as we are looking back to its fulfilment. These are the
    ones to whom Jesus revealed himself when scripture says he preached to
    the souls that were in prison - during the three days he was in the
    grave. Given the work of the Holy Spirit today operating in the same
    manner - accomplishing the same threefold work, though the individual
    is not exposed to the person of Christ himself - fully knowing his lost
    condition, believing that God will provide the necessary sacrifice, and
    knowing that lack of submission to God in these matters will leave one
    open to judgement, I would have to say yes, that person upon hearing who
    the redeemer is would immediately cling to Him. And based on the
    scriptural evidence (the Ethiopian eunuch, the Cornelius incident, and
    Paul's experience with the men at Ephesus that had known only John's
    Baptism), I would have to add that where the Holy Spirit has performed
    his work, he provides a messenger to bring it to completion.
    
    Just my thoughts,
    Lisa

    re: note 300.27
    
    Mike:
    
    >I do not reject your argument because it is simple, but because my
    >life's experience has shown me that there are indeed other
    >possibilities.
    
    I find this a most amazing statement, I would like to know how one
    arrives at such a place. In essence you've reduced the whole of the
    understanding of divine matters to your own subjective experience as an
    empiricist. From the Christian point of view, we believe God is
    capable of communicating objective truth for himself, that as 
    God he has a right to do so, and that he has done so in the Bible.
    As such, we believe all mankind has a responsibility to obey God as he
    has defined. 
    But from your statements, it seems that truth is only to be truth as you
    have perceived it from your own experiences. This is a far narrower
    view than the Christian's, since the Christian does not purport to
    define spiritual truth as the result of his own subjective experience,
    but must allow the Scriptures to define his experiences.
    This also leaves me with a rather practical query. How in fact do you
    arrive at an understanding of eternal matters empirically, when
    eternity is not what you've experienced? In other words - how can
    your knowledge of the afterlife and other such related topics be
    trusted, when you have no objective experience of those things?
    Or do you?
    Continuing on this line, is only your experience good for defining
    these matters or is everyone's? If everyone's subjective experience is
    sufficient to define truth, then what happens when my subjective
    experience contradicts yours? Does your or my subjective experience in
    fact then define reality? And if it does, whose reality is the "real"
    one? 
    Lastly, how does everyone defining their own reality differ from living
    in an assylum? That is the perfect society of subjective realities.
    No my friend, it makes more sense to believe that God exists, can and
    does communicate with man, makes himself understood, and defines one
    objective reality for all, then to believe that your experience is
    sufficient to define truth.
    You mentioned that you are reluctant to enter into a dialogue when one
    of the ground rules is that the other person has a monopoly on truth. I
    for one, most certainly do not have a monopoly on the truth, only God
    does, and I must appeal to him for it. You on the other hand appear to
    be able to access all truth through your own experience. Who has the
    monopoly here? There's no need to hide behind any scripture, but all
    the reason in the world to stand on it. It remains objective when I am
    not.
    
    Till later,
    Lisa
                     

re Note 300.36 by USRCV1::FERGUSONL:

        Lisa,

        Thanks.  I'm in general agreement with what you wrote about
        what can be inferred from the Old Testament believer.

        Bob

    
    
Re.37
    
 Lisa:
    
       The reason that I can make such a statement is that there are
     Christian beliefs that I apply to my life that have enriched
     my spiritual life and there are Christian beliefs that I have found
     to be personally detrimental. If you are intent on forcing me to choose
     all or nothing then I must choose nothing as all would be an
     act of self destruction.
       I do not believe that truth is only what I have perceived from my
     experiences. I have never made such a statement, nor have I claimed
     that your beliefs are false. You and other Christians, on the other
     hand insist that your beliefs are the only acceptable ones and we must
     accept them in their entirety or God as you define him by your 
     interpretation of the Bible or God will punish us for all eternity.
       I have made no claim of understanding eternal matters or the afterlife.
     Never having died I am unqualified to address such matters. You are 
     right that I have never experienced such things and I would point out,
     neither have you. You only have your subjective interpretation of
     of the Bible and from this you claim objective eternal truth and 
     demand that I accept it in it's entirety. So, how can your knowledge
     of eternal matters or a possible afterlife be trusted ?
       You ask how everyone defining their own reality differ from living
     in an asylum. I assume you mean insane asylum as an asylum can also refer
     to a place of shelter. We do live in an asylum. A knowledge of history
     and current events causes me to believe that we live in a world that
     is close to being totally bonkers. Your mileage on this matter may 
     differ from mine. If your experience differs from mine then I guess we
     agree to disagree. My experience insufficient to define truth for myself,
     let alone all of humanity. I am not in the business of defining reality.
     I am still working on experiencing it. Even if I could define reality
     and understand objective truth I have very serious doubts about being
     able to communicate it to another being. If required to do this I am
     sure there are better ways to accomplish this then by threats.
        Christianity is something that I am making an attempt to better
     understand. I try to cultivate a dialogue with Christians. I read 
     the Bible and books by Christian authors of who represent a wide range
     of views. I've attended Church and prayed with Christian friends.
     Ya know, I think am being pretty open minded all things considered.
        How many books about Zen Buddhism have you read ? How many of
     the Buddhist Scriptures are you familiar with or any other religions
     for that matter ? 
        One final item, you wrote that Scripture remains objective even
     when you do not. How then can you trust your own interpretation if
     by your own admission you are not objective ? 
        We have made a fair start on trying to understand each other. 
     I would ask that you refrain from making pronouncements about my beliefs
     until you take the time to find out what they are first. You jumped
     to quite a few conclusions in your reply to me. This has been a 
     persistent problem I've had with many Christians. They are dead certain
     my beliefs are wrong before they even know what I believe. Do you think
     we could try to avoid this problem ?


                                                                Mike
     

    RE: Basenote and comments of Jesus' "exclusivity" as Savior
    
    I'm a Christian, I follow the example of Jesus Christ, more properly
    "The Christ".  "Christ" is a title, not his name.
    
    I don't have the scriptures handy, but I've read several scriptures
    that elude to the fact that there are other flocks, to whom other
    "Christs" have been sent.  God has "sent one to every nation and
    people".  
    
    I have concluded, though it's more than an opinion, because I'm merely
    trying to understand the "how's and why's" of it, that God has sent to
    each people a Christ to fulfill the needs of a given people in a
    certain locality...Jesus was sent to "Judea", being rejected there he
    was transfered to the Isles of the Greeks, a "gentile" people. 
    
    I was reading in Hebrews (I believe, and I'll have to post it), but it
    clearly stated that there are a people of God who are not descended
    from Abraham on this earth...which would also mean that this wasn't
    talking about the Islamic people, or Ishmaelites, if you will.
    
    It's not fundamental to one's Christianity that we should consider
    Jesus as *THE* "One and Only", but only as "MY/OUR (as Christians) One
    and Only savior.  I don't care how or who saved you, but if God loves
    you I do too!  I shall not judge another man's servent, I shall not
    judge the creation and Children of God.
    
    There are people on earth who "never crucified a savior"...nations to
    whom a "Christ" could go who wouldn't reject and kill him.  There are
    people on earth who never required a Christ, but were turned to God by
    the words of the prophets.  
    
    When we examine the doctrine of Christ, it is clear that it merely
    takes one from ignorance of to a knowingness of God...which again some
    people don't need that message, as they've always believed in God.
    
    Jesus as a "mediator", not all people need one.  Enoch didn't, Elijah,
    didn't, and of course, Melchezedec was greater than anything that ever
    came out of Judea, from Abraham (of course Abraham didn't come out of
    Judea).  Jesus, was not of the Levitical priesthood, of Moses and
    Aaron, but he was "after the order of Melchezedec."
    
    Hebrews 6: 1-3 clearly indicates the fundamental nature of Jesus'
    Doctrine, it says, "Now LEAVING the principles of the Doctrine of
    Christ let us go one unto perfection.  Not laying again the foundation
    of repentence from dead works (all things are done for the good of
    those who love God), or of baptisms (repent and stay with God), or of
    the laying on of hands (physician heal thyself).  There are people who
    do this and are not of Jesus' flock, but are Sons of God.  
    
    

    re:note 300.39
    
    Mike,
    
    I enjoyed your response, and will make a few comments on some specific
    statements but I wanted to address your question regarding my reading
    on Zen Buddhism and other belief systems first. I think you may have
    conjectured that I am a neophyte in these areas and I just wanted to
    assure you that I am not. It is doubtful that you were looking for a
    bibliography but one can be supplied if you want. Suffice it to say
    that I've researched not only Buddhism, but Hinduism, Judaism,
    Zoroastrianism, Mormonism, a wide number of the emerging cults and some
    of the more obscure, such as Swedenborgianism. Its a bit of an
    avocation of mine.
    
    I've read  the Buddah as Siddhartha Guatama chose to pursue the life
    from the Mahavatsu text of the Mahasanghika school,(english translation
    of course). I am familiar with the Mahayana or Expansive way, the
    Hinayana or exclusive way, etc., and the Theravada, Sarvastivada,
    Vatsiputriya Schools as well as others. I've read the four basic
    principles, looked at the Middle Way, The Threefold Training, The
    Principles of Progress toward Enlightenment and so forth. In addition,
    I've also pursued reading specifically into Nichiren Shoshu Buddhism.
    So, I've not ignored the Buddhist point of view, however I don't
    hesitate to add that I've wholly rejected it as nearly the ultimate in
    egotism. I find the bottomline of its inherent pantheisim to be both
    contrary to reason, sense and Scripture. 
    
    >and there are Christian beliefs that I have found to be personally
     detrimental.
    
    For the life of me I can't think of what one of those might be, I would
    be most interested in your elaborating on one or more of these.
    
    >You and other Christians...insist that your beliefs are the only
     acceptable ones
    
    Not exactly. We believe that God has coherently written what is
    acceptable to Himself, and that that record is contained in the Bible.
    Our beliefs would never be correct BECAUSE we believed them. If we
    believe what God has said, THAT and that alone makes any belief
    correct.
    
    >we must accept them in their entirety of God as you define him by your
     interpretation of the Bible or God will punish us for all eternity.
    1 - The entire science of Hermeneutics is devoted to preventing men
    from interpreting the Bible subjectively, but allowing it to be its own
    best commentary - so that it cannot teach only the pet beliefs of some
    self-interested sect. The uniform rules of interpretation seek to
    enable us to be exposed to the uniform thinking of God and as far as
    possible, without the color of man's subjective view. When this is
    violated, (sadly often - even by professed and sincere Christians), the
    aberrant by-products must be rejected.
    
    2 - God will punish no one for all eternity because they disagreed with
    my or anyone else's subjective interpretation of the Bible. Men will be
    punished for all eternity who reject the Lordship of Jesus the Christ.
    
    >My experience is insufficient to define truth for myself.
    
    And yet in 300.27 you said, "I do not reject your argument because it
    is simple, but because my life's experience has shown me that there are
    indeed other possibilities."
    
    1- Well, is your experience sufficient or not?
    2- "Other possibilities" implies a knowledge that the end of
    alternative paths is legitimate - and this you claimed to know by your
    life's experiences.
    3- If you in fact cannot define the truth, how can you argue against my
    assertions?
    
    >You jumped to quite a few conclusions in your reply to me
    
     I tried to reply in like kind. Your original reply to me questioned my
    intellectual honesty, my sincerity and accused me of trying to
    intimidate and bully. 
    
    Who jumped to conclusions ??? You asked that I not make "pronouncements
    about [your] beliefs until [I] take the time to find out what they are
    first".  I agree - will you offer me the same courtesy?
    
    Question: Doesn't your entire approach to challenging my position
    violate the spirit of Buddhist tolerance? To quote from the Upala-sutta
    of the Pali Majjhima-Nikaya, "One should not honor only one's own
    religion and condemn the religions of others, but one should honor
    others' religions for this or that reason. So doing, helps one's own
    religion to grow and renders service to the religions of others too. In
    acting otherwise one digs the grave of one's own religion and also does
    harm to other religions. Whosoever honors his own religion and condemns
    other religions, does so indeed through devotion to his own religion,
    thinking "I will glorify my own religion". But on the contrary, in so
    doing he injures his own religion more gravely. So concord is good: Let
    all listen, and be willing to listen to the doctrines professed by
    others"
    
    According to this, you should even encourage me to pursue my beliefs,
    not dismiss them as too narrow or exclusive. (By the way, I find this
    to be truly intellectually dishonest - for it denies one truth for all
    and fosters non-commitment to anything)
    
    till later,
    Lisa 
    
    
    �

    I am not an expert on Buddhism.  I do think that it is not everyone's
    cup of tea (but then I believe that the same can be said of
    Christianity).  One observation I would make is that Quakers and
    Buddhists, despite their different roots and theologies, appear to me
    to share at least some things in common, such as an interest in silent
    contemplation, and an emphasis on the religious life as its own reward. 
    Such comparisons can be taken too far, but they do point the way to
    better understanding.  I think that a mutually respectful dialogue
    between Christians and Buddhists cannot help but benefit people of both
    faiths.
    
    I would like to make the observation that  I don't agree that Buddhism
    is the ultimate in egoism.  While it might be possible to make that
    claim against Theravada Buddhism, that is certainly not an accurate
    description of Mahayana Buddhism, with its Bodhisattva ideal of
    universal compassion.
    
    -- Mike

Re.41
    
    
  Lisa:

       Pantheism ? Well now there is a interesting charge. I think
     if you asked most practitioners of Zen about God you would 
     get a shrug of the shoulders and a quizzical look. In Zen, God
     is generally considered irrelevant. Pantheism is hardly likely
     to develop from such a point of view. Just between you and
     me I don't really believe in the existence of this God entity
     that people keep talking about. This is an even less likely 
     breeding ground for pantheism. It was good to hear that 
     you have read some Buddhist scripture and not found much
     worthwhile. This shows you are making pretty good progress
     in your understanding of Zen ;-)
        You have asked what Christian beliefs I have found to be 
     personally detrimental. Fair enough, although I must stress 
     that these apply to me personally. You might not find them detrimental
     at all. 
        First there is the dependence on God for direction and purpose
     in life. Now maybe I was on the wrong wavelenght or something, but
     I never seemed get any feedback from this God entity. If God has a
     plan for me she is keeping it under pretty tight wraps. The more
     I depended on God, the more empty, lost and despairing I became.
     I found no spiritual direction or meaning in Christianity. I sought
     and found nothing. I knocked and nobody answered the door. 
        Christianity seems to be a guilt centered religion. Inherent in its
     doctrines are a loathing of ourselves and the world we live in. Now I
     was pretty good at this aspect of Christianity, too good. 
        Also I have considerable problems reconciling the contradictory nature
     of God as portrayed in Scripture. Now either the Bible is inaccurate,
     which opens a huge can of worms as to what one should believe or it is
     correct and God is not a very nice person. Trying to force myself to 
     to believe in and worship a being who ethics I found questionable lead
     me to conclude that I was living a lie.
        You claim that God has coherently written what is acceptable. I have
     not found that to be the case. I have found that one must make a huge
     effort to form a coherent set of beliefs from the Bible which requires
     a considerable amount of very subjective interpretation. In my own case
     it was necessary to engage in wholesale self-deception to accomplish
     this.
        It seems that our different experience with Christianity is at
     the crux of our exchange. Correct me if I am wrong, but I understand
     your position to be that Christian beliefs are or at least should be
     universally applicable and beneficial and must be accepted or rejected
     in their entirety. In short, there are no alternatives or should
     I say acceptable alternatives.  
        I think that your claim of coherence is something that we need to 
     explore. For something to be coherent, to be understandable we need
     to come up with criteria of what constitutes coherence.
        It has been my experience that most Christians say that the essence
     of the Christian experience is a personal relationship with Christ as
     their savior. Not ever having been able to make any sense out of
     the idea of the Trinity I generally think of God and Christ as being
     the same (Hmm...maybe I understand it after all)
        Do you think it is possible for you and I (and anyone else who 
     is interested ) in coming up with some criteria for a personal 
     relationship with God ? I am quite serious about this. I think the
     reason you and I do not seem to be making any progress in our 
     exchange is we don't seem to have any common frame of reference.
     We just do not seem to be speaking the same language. My cut at it 
     then is maybe we need to back up a step or two so that we do not end
     up beating our heads against a wall.
        So...whadda ya think ?



                                                               Mike
   
         
 
 

                       Retreat with Thich Nhat Hanh
                             by Penny Jackim
                   [from Friends Journal, October 1991]

    The profound depth of Eastern spirituality is needed and accessible to
    Westerners at this time.  Thich Nhat Hanh is of particular interest. 
    As a young monk in Vietnam during the Vietnam War, he and his friends
    came out of the monasteries to help people in need on both sides of
    that conflict.  This was a dangerous action, and Thich Nhat Hanh became
    known as an important nonviolent leader.  He helped develop "engaged
    Buddhism," an activist mode of Buddhism, which can be integrated into
    everyday life.  He is a dear and wise and great teacher, a scholar who
    is known for his many books on Buddhist topics.

    I am a Quaker.  In seeking out Buddhism and Thich Nhat Hanh, I hope to
    deepen my experience of meditation and mindfulness and better
    understand my own experience of empowerment.  That is why I attended a
    three-week retreat given by Thich Nhat Hanh in June 1990 at his
    community, Plum Village, in southern France.  My fellow retreatants
    came from Denmark, Switzerland, Spain, the Netherlands, France,
    Germany, England, Canada, India, and the United States.  Our experience
    was enriched by participation of a number of Vietnamese people, most of
    whom were forced to leave their homeland and who have since settled in
    other counties.  English was the language spoken at the retreat.

    Plum Village is not far from Bordeaux and is surrounded by rolling
    hills and vineyards.  Ancient farm buildings were renovated to make
    this retreat center, which was a sparse, Vietnamese style.  Plum trees
    planted seven years ago will eventually provide a cash crop.  Plum
    Village is like a piece of Vietnam in the French countryside.

    Our daily schedule at the retreat was filled with a variety of
    activities.  Wake-up bell was at 6 a.m., just as the sun was rising. 
    This gave us a little time to wash and dress before the 6:30 a.m. bell
    announced morning meditation in the meditation hall.  This hour
    consisted of 20 minutes of sitting meditation, alternating with 10
    minutes of slow, meditative walking.  Sometimes chanting and reading
    from sacred texts was included.

    At 8 a.m., the breakfast bell rang.  Meals were eaten in silence.  From
    9:30 to 11:30 we listened to the dharma talk, usually given by Thich
    Nhat Hanh.  Afterward, he led us in a 45-minute walk outdoors, in which
    we walked very slowly in silence.  At some point in the walk, Thay, as
    he is affectionately called, would sit down, and we would sit around
    him in a circle.  There we sang a few songs and frequently did
    breathing exercises.

    After the walk, we ate lunch.  We were treated to delicious Vietnamese
    cuisine, prepared in the primitive kitchen facilities.  We often ate
    outdoors, perched on stones near a grove of palm trees.  After lunch,
    we had free time until 4 p.m., when a variety of afternoon activities
    were scheduled.

    Twice weekly, we had tea ceremonies.  Common in counties of the Orient,
    tea is served in a ritualistic way in silence as a form of meditation. 
    After everyone had tea, we were invited to share a story or a song.

    On other days we had small group discussions.  Afternoon activities
    were followed by relaxation exercises and then by dinner.  Evenings
    were often filled with talks given by retreatants, presenting materials
    from their areas of expertise.  Two unusual writing workshops were
    presented by author Natalie Goldberg.  Evening activities were followed
    by an hour of meditation in the meditation hall.  Then to bed at 10
    p.m., just as the sun was setting behind the plum trees.

    I was led to Thich Nhat Hanh because I wished to deepen my experience
    and understanding of meditation.  Eighteen years earlier, at a time of
    personal crisis, I spent a semester at Pendle Hill, becoming more
    grounded in my Christian roots and listening to my inner voice so that
    I could be in touch with my thoughts and feelings.  This experience of
    meditation led to an unusual sense of empowerment and enabled me to
    make major changes in my life at that time.

    Thich Nhat Hanh describes such an awareness: "The mind is like a
    stream.  You can follow the stream like a spotlight follows th dancer. 
    You are th dancer.  You are also the spotlight.  We need to greet our
    feelings, even the difficult ones, for they are part of us.  When we
    recognize them, we can tame them."

    Nhat Hanh instructs us to look deeply into the nature of things: "This
    is, because that is."  My husband acts in a destructive way because of
    formative influences in his life.  As I cultivate this awareness, my
    anger at him can turn to compassion.

    As I look deeply into the nature of th tomato on my plate, I can see th
    sunshine, fertile soil, water, and the attention of th farmer--all
    factors in producing this tomato.  All these elements enter my body and
    become part of me as I eat the tomato.  All parts of me are also parts
    of everything else.  Thich Nhat Hanh defines "interbeing" as a way of
    understanding that all things are interrelated.  People interested in
    these ideas may join the Society of Interbeing which he created.

    A social consciousness and sense of responsibility are also products of
    this way of thinking.  Mindfulness can be integrated into our daily
    lives.  This is something I am still struggling to learn, as I try to
    modify the hectic pace of my life.

    I feel that I have much to learn from this marvelous teacher.  These few
    short paragraphs cannot present the full scope of his teaching.  Books
    by Thich Nhat Hanh include "The Miracle of Mindfulness", "Being Peace",
    and "The Sun My Heart".  They are a good place to start if you wish to
    learn more.

    
    I cannot recommend Thich Nhat Hanh's books highly enough.  They are
    superb beyond words.
    
    Cindy

    Coincidentally, I just recently bought a new book of his, "Peace
    is Every Step", and I am finding it to be a wonderful book.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    I'll stick with the pantheism concept for Buddhism as defined in
    Webster's New World College Edition Dictionary, "the doctrine or belief
    that God is not a personality, but that all laws, forces,
    manifestations, etc. of the self-existing universe are God". Do you
    find this inaccurate when viewed in light of the five Skandhas? Had
    I called you polytheistic I could understand your reservations,
    but pantheism really does seem to fit. Though I certainly invite your
    reasons for objecting to it.
    
    >the dependence on God for direction and purpose in life, etc.
    
    Again, your sole resoning here seems to be based upon your personal
    experience, or more correctly your lack of it in regards to having
    personal contact with Him. I don't want to relegate personal experience
    to the realm of the unimportant, surely it is not. If in fact God does
    exist as a personal entity, and if as Christians believe, He has
    communicated clearly to mankind through creation, incarnation and His
    written word, all of the above should fall into the realm of the
    experiential. But one's lack of a given experience of or with another
    being is never the determining factor as to the reality of that other
    being.  My lack of personal experience with the greater number of the
    members of the human race cannot, must not negate the reality of their
    existance. I would argue that it is just so with God.
    
    >Christianity seems to be a guilt centered religion.
    Here, I cannot concur at all. Christianity isn't guilt centered, it is
    Christ centered. Having established in it's earliest chapters that
    mankind through disobedience alienated itself from the Living God, the
    Bible then displays in an incredible fashion, the plan of that same
    offended God to reconcile the lost race to himself. This definitely
    deals with guilt - as man being in it up to his neck, and how God has
    provided to rid man of it in the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ.
    But this is by no means its center.
    
    >Also I have considerable problems reconciling the contradictory nature
    >of God as portrayed in scripture.
    
    Would you be kind enough to cite some of these "contradictions" so that
    we might examine them?
    
    >I have found that one must make a huge effort to form a coherent set
    >of beliefs from the Bible... 
    
    I on the other hand have not found that to be the case, but have found
    a wonderfully easy and consistant system within its pages. Difficulties
    at times no doubt. But the seeming contradictions invariably prove to
    be flaws in my conceptions, not in what is written.
    
    You are quite right in your understanding that a personal relationship
    with Christ is at the center of our inability to come to a
    reconciliation of our views. Scripture itself contends that those
    outside of that relationship to Christ cannot understand the scriptures
    or the the truth and God they reveal. As such, it is always futile for
    Christians to try to persuade others to become Christians. If a mental
    assent to truth as a result of debate is all that comes about, then a
    convert to philosophical Christianity is the product, not an individual
    transformed by the Living God. That is why we dialogue, not to convince
    you, but to expose you to the truth, and then to pray that God in his
    sovereign graces produces in you that transformation. That is why we
    will never really have the common frame of reference you refer to.
    
    This again is why my original comments back at the beginning of this
    topic were never intended to bully or intimidate, only to confront. I
    can only give the truth as I know it. It must be God who quickens the
    heart and mind of the hearers to make it of any real consequence.
    
    Till later,
    Lisa

 
  Re.300.47


    Lisa:

         Yes, Lisa I do find your interpretation of pantheism
    as a Buddhist concept, particularly as related to Zen, to
    be inaccurate. I also fail to make any connection between 
    pantheism and the five Skandhas which merely try to define
    those conditions common to all of us that make us human. 
    As I understand them they have nothing all to do with 
    any concept of God, either personal or pantheistic.
         Zen neither affirms or denies. This is a blanket statement
   about the Zen approach to everything. Both affirmation and denial
   are manifestations of dualistic thought and in a sense are traps.
         As for my empiricist approach to things, well...Zen deals
   in direct experience. Your comments about lack of a given experience
   not be reason for denial for the existence of something just do seem
   to apply. The idea of other humans in other places falls well within
   the realm of experience and what I can reasonably conclude to be
   possible. The concept of God on the other hand is not credible to
   me either from experience or what I can reasonably conclude to be
   possible. If you are telling me you have a device that can turn
   cinder blocks into gold ingots then I think it is up to you to
   provide some credible evidence to that effect and not tell me
   that my lack of knowledge of such a device is not grounds for
   doubting the existence of such a thing. When people make fantastic
   claims I tend to doubt them. 
         This also relates to those contradictions you asked me to
   elaborate on. God as portrayed in Scripture is both a vengeance
   hungry mass murderer and a being of infinite love. This has been
   examined at length in several places in this conference. This is
   in part why I cannot find any coherent message in the Bible. As 
   arrogant as this may sound God lacks moral consistency and credibility
   in my eyes.
          The last couple of paragraphs in your reply are just chock full
   of Christian-speak and this is where I have really have trouble 
   understanding what you are thing to say. 
           I will ask you again if you could try to give some criteria
   to define this personal relationship with Christ that you feel is the
   reason we are not able to communicate effectively. In short how do 
   you know that you have such a relationship and that it is not just
   so much wishful thinking on your part ? 
           Also I must ask you if you, "expose people to the truth" ,
   as you put it and then prey for God to transform them, how on earth
   can claim to not be trying to convert people ? Good grief, you have 
   just detailed how you are diligently trying to bring about their 
   conversion. 
            Finally, how is it that Christians continually inform me
   that unless I embrace their beliefs that my soul will be the main
   course at some eternal barbecue and then say they are not trying
   to intimidate me ? 
   
  
          
                                                               Mike    

re Note 300.48 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>             Finally, how is it that Christians continually inform me
>    that unless I embrace their beliefs that my soul will be the main
>    course at some eternal barbecue and then say they are not trying
>    to intimidate me ? 
  
        You should see how we get when we're being mean!  :-}

        Bob

The quote for which this note is entitled is found no other place in the
Bible but in the gospel of John.

This bothers me a bit.  It bothers me that neither Mark nor Luke nor Matthew
saw fit to include Jesus' statement about being the way, truth, and life in
their gospels, which, according to most authorities, were written long before
John's gospel.  It bothers me that so much emphasis is placed on this one
statement today in an effort to demonstrate a particular notion of exclusivity
of God through Christ.

What if John's gospel has not made it to canonization?  It nearly didn't,
you know.  It was suspected of being of Gnostic origin and its authorship by
a genuine Apostle was called into question.

Peace,
Richard

Richard,

Jesus' claims to being God and the only way of God are entwined throughout
the Bible.  For those who need to hear the explicit statement (and then
desire to reject even those), I expect that they would continually have 
some of the concerns that have been raised.  Personally, I believe that
a heart submissive to the Word (and Will) of God will hear this message
throughout the entire New Testament (and parts of the Old as well).

Re: 300.51

Ah, but is God exclusive or inclusive?  Will any know God's love, grace,
and salvation beyond that which is endorsed by conservative Christian circles?
Many are emphatic about the exclusive nature of God; almost as if they had
God in their pocket.  I'm not so certain.

I suspect the ones who want to read of God's exclusivity throughout the
Bible will find it, and the ones who want to read of God's inclusivity
throughout the Bible will also find it.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 300.52 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> I suspect the ones who want to read of God's exclusivity throughout the
> Bible will find it, and the ones who want to read of God's inclusivity
> throughout the Bible will also find it.
  
        'Twas ever so, and ever so shall be.

        Bob

Since God is both exclusive and inclusive, it could not be
otherwise, Richard.

    I'm not sure how I avoided this when it first started but I'm here now.

>wasn't he really saying, "I am at one with God.  No one comes to God,
>except by God.  To come to God is to come to Me.  To come to Me is to
>come to God"?

    	Perhaps. Though it would not be reasonable to assume from this 
    that there are more than one way to God. This seems to be a less 
    clear way to say that there is only one path to God. Any interpretation
    that indicated that other religions, than Christianity, lead to God
    would clearly not be intellectually honest.
    
    That is not to say that other religions are bad, just that they are
    insuficiant. Sort of like coming close. In many things, coming close 
    is good enough. For determining where one spends eternity close doesn't
    quite cut it for me. Likewise I would be a hateful person if I didn't
    at least attempt to bring others to Christ. And I believe that if there
    were other ways Jesus would have been far less emthatic about us going 
    out to preach the Gospel. Mark 16:15 for example. "And he said unto
    them, 'Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every
    creature.'" He didn't say "to everyone without religion" or "everyone
    who is an atheist". He said to "every creature." Why would He say that
    if there were other paths to Him and/or to God? Vanity? Hardly likely.
    
    As for the fact that the quote from .0 appears only in one place, let
    us not forget that that is not the only place Jesus asserts that there
    is only one way to God. In Mark 16:16, talking about the Gospel, Jesus
    says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
    believeth not shall be damned." 
    
    		Alfred

    There are a lot of different ways of interpreting that passage.  If you
    believe in the primacy of Christianity, but also respect other
    religions, one way of looking at it is to simply consider a
    relationship with Christ possible without being depending on
    theological outlook with respect to the historical Jesus.  In other
    words, this view would hold that people of other faiths are in essence
    "anonymous Christians".  It would not then be a question of someone's
    salvation being at stake merely because they happened to hold what one
    considers the "wrong" theological beliefs.

    This view of other religions is basically what the Roman Catholic
    Church holds now (I quoted a passage from Vatican II in reply 13 to
    this topic, which respected the faith of Moslems and their relationship
    to God.)  It doesn't view all theologies as being equal, but it does
    respect the relationship to God of other faiths, while also considering
    those other faiths mistaken on matters of theology.

    John Hick, a theologian who has devoted a lot of work in the last 20
    years or so to theological pluralism, has taken this view one step
    further.  He would argue that all the major religions are essentially
    different approaches to God with equal value, and that therefore it is
    wrong to describe non-Christians as anonymous Christians, any more that
    it would be appropriate to describe Christians as anonymous Moslems.

    That is admittedly a rather radical view that probably most Christians
    would not agree with.  While I am mostly in agreement with Hick, I
    think it is worth noting that the "anonymous Christian" concept, which
    the Catholic Church takes, is certainly consistent with the view that
    no one comes to God except through Christ, since it argues that
    ultimately everyone who comes to God, through whatever means, really
    comes to Christ.  Thus it is certainly possible to be a Christian and
    still respect and be tolerant of other faiths. 

    Ultimately, as one who rejects categorically the idea that having the
    "wrong" religion will result in not having "salvation", I find either
    of those more tolerant perspectives to be infinitely preferable to the
    intolerant alternative.

    -- Mike

>    Ultimately, as one who rejects categorically the idea that having the
>    "wrong" religion will result in not having "salvation", I find either
>    of those more tolerant perspectives to be infinitely preferable to the
>    intolerant alternative.

	I would like to believe that having the "wrong" religion doesn't
	mean that one misses out on salvation. I would also like to believe
	that there is no crime or poverty in the world. Convince me of the
	latter and I'll revist the former. 

	I respect other religions. I see much good in them. However, believing
	that they are good and that they are sufficiant are two different things
	and I'd have to through out far to much of the Bible to make that jump.

			Alfred 

    Allow me to point out that I am generally inclined not to believe in an
    afterlife, so the question of "salvation" (in the sense of eternal
    life) doesn't really enter into the equation for me.  What does matter
    to me is the existence of a relationship with God in *this* life.  If
    you want to insist that people of other faiths cannot exist in a
    relationship with God, because they couldn't possibly do so in your
    theological scheme, you are welcome to do so.

    If I firmly believed in life after death, I might also point out that
    crime and poverty are the unfortunate consequences of imperfect humans
    living in an imperfect world.  A perfect and loving God, on the other
    hand, is not subject to such human flaws.

    -- Mike

	If I did not believe in an afterlife I would likely agree that all
	religions are equal (or most were). But I do believe in an afterlife,
	so it becomes importent to me that people have a relationship with
	God that extends beyond this life.

	Likewise if I believe that this world is imperfect and that God is
	perfect I feel I must also believe in a perfect place as an afterlife.
	Otherwise I must believe either that this is as good as it gets. 

			Alfred

    If there is an afterlife (and I consider that a possibility), then I
    will face that reality when it happens; I am not going to worry about
    it now.  I somehow suspect that those who have a positive relationship
    with God in this life, which I believe includes people of many faiths,
    will have no problem continuing their relationship after they die.

    -- Mike

The quote for which this string is entitled, which seems to imply exclusivity,
does not appear in any of the synoptic gospels, which indicates to me that the
authors of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) either never heard
the quote or didn't consider it important enough to include.

Something which I have come to believe is that if Jesus was and is truly
God, then *of course* no one comes to God but by Jesus.  But, is that
necessarily a conscious determination?  I doubt it.

The rewards of a possible afterlife serve as no enticement for me, as
Jesus spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven in terms of both the future and the
present.

Peace,
Richard

    Hmmm.  I just entered something in 469.25 that is very much related
    to this topic.
    
    Paul
    

    Are you implying that the Gospel according to John is not part of the
    revealed word of God on this basis?
    
    If you are not making this implication, what's the point of mentioning
    it?

    re  .63  Patrick,
    
    To whom are your questions directed?   Personally, I do believe that
    the gospel according to John is a God-inspired work and a source of
    Divine truth.  I also think that you and I have differing
    interpretations of some of the things written in the gospels, in
    terms of how we perceive the true meanings behind the words, the
    intent of the words, and some of the teachings of Jesus. 
    
    Paul
     

Note 300.63

>    Are you implying that the Gospel according to John is not part of the
>    revealed word of God on this basis?

>    If you are not making this implication, what's the point of mentioning
>    it?

I take it your questions are directed at me (300.61):

"The quote for which this string is entitled, which seems to imply exclusivity,
 does not appear in any of the synoptic gospels, which indicates to me that the
 authors of the synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark and Luke) either never heard
 the quote or didn't consider it important enough to include."

I will answer in the clearest terms I know how.  It is my belief that the
revealed Word of God is Christ Jesus, not a book nor any other inanimate
object.  Is this to say that the Book has no value or is not inspired by
the Author of Life?  Certainly not!

The point of my mentioning the contrast between Gospel accounts is mere
observation, and speculation on my part.

Pax vobiscum,
Richard

re Note 300.55 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     In Mark 16:16, talking about the Gospel, Jesus
>     says "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that 
>     believeth not shall be damned." 
  
        Actually, this quote from Mark is much harder to square with
        the "anonymous christian" teaching than the quote from John
        which entitles this topic.

        Can one believe "anonymously"?

        (Being baptized "anonymously" is an even bigger problem,
        although many Christian denominations interpret this in such
        a way that literal water baptism isn't an absolute
        requirement.)

        Bob

    For what it's worth, that passage from Mark comes from the disputed
    "long" ending of that book.  Some manuscripts ended the Gospel at verse
    16:8 or otherwise provided a "short" ending.  It is thus possible (and
    some might say likely) that this passage is not authentic.

    -- Mike

	What about Matthew 11:27 before I type it in?

			Alfred

    I resent the suggestion that my comment was a "stock answer".
    
    -- Mike

	And I resent the suggestion that part of Mark is not authentic.

			Alfred

    This is the passage from Matthew 11:27:

        All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one
        knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except
        the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.

    That strikes me as pretty similar in intent to the passage in John, and
    if so the interpretation would be similar.  The passage is a statement
    about Christ's role and relationship to God.  All who know God also
    know Christ, according to that passage.  This is consistent with the
    "anonymous Christian" position.  Those who know God necessarily also
    know Christ; and vice versa.  To say that know God and to know Christ
    are, in this view, essentially the same thing, is not to state the
    specific criteria for determining what constitutes knowing God/knowing
    Christ.  If you believe, as I do, that there is that of God in
    everyone, then in effect everyone "knows" Christ in some sense,
    although the measure of that knowledge may be small.

    -- Mike

    Why do you resent that suggestion, Alfred?  Did you write the Gospel of
    Mark yourself?  I was not commenting on you personally when I pointed
    out the fact that the "long" ending to the Gospel is in dispute.
    
    -- Mike

    Just so Alfred knows that I am not making this up (I'd hate to make his
    secret blacklist of insincere people, after all), here is the footnote
    from my copy of the NRSV Bible:

        Some of the most ancient authorities bring the book to a close at
        the end of verse 8.  One authority concludes the book with the
        shorter ending; others include the shorter ending then continue
        with verses 9-20.  In most authorities verses 9-20 follow
        immediately after verse 8, though in some of these authorities the
        passage is marked as being doubtful.

    -- Mike

    RE: .73 I took your comment personally. As an attack on my sincerity.
    I do, BTW, believe you are sincere in your desire to convert me from
    Christianity. And I didn't doubt your claim that some scholars doubt
    that Mark should all be there. I do however believe your bringing it
    up was a deliberate attempt to discredit a verse you could not fit into
    your picture of things rather than an attempt to provide useful
    dialogue. Perhaps I'm wrong and if so I'm sorry.

    		Alfred

    Alfred, first of all, I honestly have no desire to convert you from
    Christianity.  Yes, I have different opinions than you do on the
    specifics of theology, but as long as I participate here then those
    differences are going to come up in various notes conversations.  That
    *doesn't* mean that I want you to jettison your faith.  While I may have
    strong differences with *certain* variants of the faith, the faith as a
    whole commands my respect and most of my religious interest.  I
    certainly respect the depth and strength of your own faith, even if I
    don't agree with your theological perspective.

    My comment was certainly not an attack on your sincerity; it wasn't
    even directed at you!  It was primarily a response to Bob; it came
    right after his note, which was written some time after yours.  I
    thought it might be of interest to pass along a tidbit about the
    passage in question; I often find discussions on scholarship, such as
    on the disputed passage in Mark, to be interesting.  I'm sorry if my
    comment didn't sit well with your theology, but I can't help but say
    things that don't sit well with your theology if I am to be honest at
    all--the fact is that we don't agree on very many things.  It wasn't
    intended to be a personal attack against you in any sense.

    Having said that, I appreciate your offer of an apology if you were
    mistaken in understanding my purpose, and I in turn apologize if I came
    across as personally attacking your sincerity.

    Allow me to make one more comment. One of the reasons I resigned as
    moderator of this notes file (actually, the main reason) was that I was
    not comfortable having such active role and strong presence here as a
    non-Christian, and also being a moderator.  I was concerned that this
    would turn some Christians off from participating here.  I still have
    some nagging doubts that perhaps my presence here is too forceful and
    strong, as a non-Christian, and perhaps this is a turn off for more
    conservative Christians.  Then again, I think that maybe my ego is a
    little too inflated on that score, since I am only one noter (albeit
    one of the most vocal ones here.)  Believe it or not, I *would* like
    for this notes file to be truly ecumenical, in which Christians of all
    striptes could participate.  This may be hard for you to realize, but
    it is true.  Unfortunately, religion, particularly Christianity, is of
    a great deal of interest to me, and it is hard for me to keep my mouth
    shut in this notes file for more than a few days.  :-)  If my active
    and forceful participation here is making some Christians uncomfortable
    here, then I can certainly bow out.

    -- Mike

re Note 300.74 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     I do however believe your bringing it
>     up was a deliberate attempt to discredit a verse you could not fit into
>     your picture of things rather than an attempt to provide useful
>     dialogue. Perhaps I'm wrong and if so I'm sorry.
  
        Alfred,

        I'm genuinely puzzled by your reaction to this.  Of course it
        was a deliberate attempt to discredit this particular verse
        -- there was nothing hidden about this.  As to whether it is
        an "attempt to provide useful dialogue" -- all I can observe
        is that discrediting an authority that supports an opposing
        view is a standard technique in dialogue.  One might question
        whether, in this particular case given the particular
        participants, there is any real chance of successful dialogue
        on this point under any circumstances.   I certainly don't
        think that Mike bears the major blame for such a breakdown in
        dialogue -- it's probably a blame in which we all have some
        share.

        Bob

	RE: .75 If everyone here was a Christian and no one made me 
	uncomfortable it is UNlikely I would be here.

			Alfred

    I would like to point out, at the ��risk of embarassing Mike, that
    had he not been a driving force in the beginning, there would not
    be a c-p file. I'm very greatful to him for the work he did and
    for his contribution��s, and would not like to see him leave this
    file... he makes me think!
    
    Bonnie

    RE: the last 4 or 5...
    
    		I really do like these kinds of conversations.  It gives me
    perspective on what non-christians are thinking.  As for Mike.....You
    are one of the few non-christians that do not "parrot" what others say
    is wrong with the Bible.  For that reason I listen and try to give
    thoughtful answers.  Nothing is more irritating than to come across a
    person who wants to discuss the Bible and they know nothing of it first
    hand.  The search for truth is both personal and vital and those who
    allow someone else to do it for them IMHO is asking for *LOTS* of
    trouble.  So discuss away Mike and be sure that I will listen to you. 
    As for your ideas on Mark....I'll have to research that.
    
    
    D�

    The problem is that for every statement that can be made regarding
    Christianity in the Bible, there's a footnote to a verse, the status of
    a book not being "synoptic", then for the entire Bible there are
    several manuscripts and translations.  It never ends, does it?

    For every statement, there's a objection in your hip pocket.  If the
    Bible doesn't represent "common ground" to authentic dialog about
    Christianity then what does? 

    The agenda I observe by these objections is to show that dialog really
    isn't possible, since every statement has numerous superficial
    challenges so that substantive views can't be discussed.

    The commission of Jesus to the apostles and to all believers is to go
    and teach and make disciples throughout the world and Baptize then.

    We're not going to sit at home, lead quiet lives of good example, sit
    on our hands and wonder if there are "anonymous Christians" out there,
    we're going to share the good news that Christ has died and Christ has
    risen.

    The great evil is not in the people of the world ignorant of the gospel
    message, but the people who are aware of the gospel message and are
    indifferent or hostile to it.

    I am curious if, since I am aware of the gospel but indifferent to it,
    that make me a great evil.  

    I introduced my comment on the authenticity of Mark 16:9-16 with the
    words "for what it's worth".  I find it interesting that I placed a lot
    less importance on the issue of that passage's legitimacy than everyone
    else seems to.  Some people seem to misinterpret my comments as
    serving as some sort of argument against a theological point, when in
    fact it was nothing of the kind; I was merely suggesting that it was
    not the ideal passage to choose as a starting point for discussion of
    this question.  There are better ones to use--ones that were at least
    much more likely to have been originally part of the work it is taken
    from--and in fact at least two others *have* been used in this
    discussion--one from Matthew, and another from John.  This approach is
    no different than trying to make sure we use authentic passages from
    Josephus when discussing what was known about early Christianity.

    The question of the role of the Bible as the common ground for
    Christianity can be a source for a lot of disagreement.  Catholicism
    often differs from some strains of Protestantism on this score.  Many
    Protestants believe that the Bible only is the source of doctrine;
    Catholicism, on the other hand, views the Bible as the product of the
    Church, and thus argues that it can only be interpreted in the light of
    the Church that produced it and its teachings.  I think that Catholics
    make an interesting point here; in the Catholic magazine New Oxford
    Review, one writer pointed out (and I don't know that this was original
    with him or her, but it is a good point in any case) that every
    Biblical passage is subject to interpretation, and the Protestant way
    of looking at the Bible results in everyone, in effect, becoming their
    own Pope.  My response to this is yes, but what's wrong with that?  But
    then I am not a Protestant; to the Protestant who seeks doctrinal
    certainty in the Bible, I think the Catholic question is a good one.

    I actually don't share the "anonymous Christian" viewpoint myself,
    since it holds Christianity to be superior to other religions, and I am
    not a Christian.  Is it possible for one who seriously and honestly
    believes that Jesus is their savior to also believe that other
    religions have validity and value?  Certainly.  I think this is
    possible even if you believe that your own faith has the greatest
    measure of truth in matters of doctrine.  In any case, even if I don't
    agree with the "anonymous Christian" perspective, this view of
    tolerance and respect for other religions, which is held by the Roman
    Catholic Church and some (non-fundamentalist) Protestant denominations,
    does represent an improvement, in my view, over the idea that
    non-Christians are doomed to hell.  It is one area where I find myself
    closer to the Catholic view than that taken by many variants of
    Protestantism.

    -- Mike

re Note 300.80 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     The problem is that for every statement that can be made regarding
>     Christianity in the Bible, there's a footnote to a verse, the status of
>     a book not being "synoptic", then for the entire Bible there are
>     several manuscripts and translations.  It never ends, does it?

        I agree that the objections never end.  That's what life is
        like, isn't it?  Is the correct alternative to say that no
        objections are allowed?

        Is this perhaps a problem some people have because their
        faith is as much in doctrinal statements as in a living God? 
        Doctrinal statements can always be debated and objected to,
        but the living God just IS.

        I believe this is why some of us find our comfort in living in
        the divine love, since we find that the "comfort" of doctrine
        is so fragile (unless one rather rigidly takes positions that
        simply preclude objection a priori -- some of us are just
        constitutionally unable do that).

>     For every statement, there's a objection in your hip pocket.  If the
>     Bible doesn't represent "common ground" to authentic dialog about
>     Christianity then what does? 

        I don't think that "common ground" implies that we agree to
        the meaning and significance of every last word and sentence. 
        If it did, it would be extremely hard to find even two people
        who shared "common ground" on a text as large and complex as
        the Bible.

        Thus, I think it hardly destroys our "common ground" if
        somebody points out that some of the oldest manuscripts of
        the Bible omit a certain passage relevant to a topic we are
        discussing.  The very fact that we discuss this shows just
        what a "common ground" the Bible truly is.

>     The agenda I observe by these objections is to show that dialog really
>     isn't possible, since every statement has numerous superficial
>     challenges so that substantive views can't be discussed.

        I guess I just don't see that agenda at all -- I see quite
        the contrary.

>     We're not going to sit at home, lead quiet lives of good example, sit
>     on our hands and wonder if there are "anonymous Christians" out there,
>     we're going to share the good news that Christ has died and Christ has
>     risen.
  
        But this is relevant to sharing the good news!  Do we simply
        tell people we meet, before we know anything about them other
        than that they are not Christian, that they are surely
        condemned in their current state?  Or do we share Christ as
        good news for all, regardless of their current relationship
        with God?

        I believe that a deeper knowledge of Christ and his teachings
        is good for anyone, whether they currently are a Christian,
        currently have no faith in God, or currently have a
        non-Christian relationship with God.

        Those who currently have a relationship with the living God
        will almost surely be put off by a statement that they are
        condemned in their current state -- they may know very well
        that this is not true, and therefore will discount the
        veracity of everything we say.

        Thus knowing that there are "anonymous Christians" who would
        benefit from hearing the Gospel but who are not currently
        "going to hell" is VERY important to spreading the good news.

        Bob

    

Thanks again John.

Hi Dave,

I'm not unable to understand that others have different views of Biblical
truth, I'm unwilling to accept what is clearly contradictory to the Bible
as "Biblical Truth."  A Christian-Perspective is impossible without the
Bible, without the Gospel of Christ, and without the cross.  

Let's try this, the Bible says...
 
 <talking to the disciples>

 Jesus answered "I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  No one comes to 
 the Father except through Me.  If you really knew me, you would know
 my Father as well.  From now on, you do know him and have seen him."  

 John 14:6,7 NIV

What does this mean?  It means there is one way to God and that 
through accepting Jesus as God.  Anybody disagree?  Is it only "MY"
interpretation.  What does this verse say to you?

Jill
    

    
    		Ok Jill, this is a good exercise.  Let me fully explain my
    point before we enter into these discussions because I feel that they
    are pertinant.  I like the word "love".  In the Greek there are 9
    different words that we translate into "love".  In the sanscrit, which
    the Dead-Sea scrolls were written in, there are prox 150 words that we
    translate into the word "love".  I hope that its now apparent that the
    English language is not a very good one to translate into.  When we
    delve into scripture, a part of that study must, IMHO, include word
    studies to derive the exact meaning.  But even that is not enough.  We
    must also go to the history books and try to discern the enviornment
    in which this statement was made.  Not the one you stated but any of
    them.  So you see that any exercise like this is going to involve a
    *LOT* of time and effort.  Are you "game". :-)
    
    
    Dave

    
    I'll guess I'll add my note here too!
    

    Ah!!!  My note got TFSO'd!  ;^)  Is this an out of sight, out of mind
    kind of thing???  I'm not sure I like the idea that Biblical discussion 
    can only occur in one note in a conference called
    Christian-Perspective.   Makes ya wonder!!!  Where's the note for
    cosmic revelations?  And a  question for the moderators, is there even
    one of you that believe the  Bible is the inerrant Word of God and that
    God's truth is constantly  evolving and changing?  Just curious.  If
    moving notes is at your discretion, I would like to know if you have
    bias that might not play a role in that.  This sure seems like a
    convenient way to  kill a discussion.

    Hmmm....than Dave, by your own admission with the fact that there are
    hundreds of definitions of the word love...one definition may well mean 
    being willing to tell someone you care about the truth knowing that it 
    may hurt them initially but in the long run, they need to know it.   A
    true friend tells you that you have spinach in your teeth and doesn't 
    let you walk around with it.   So you see, my "preaching" can be viewed 
    as love, can't it?

    However, I do not agree that it is necessary for us to have volumes of
    supportive books to necessarily understand the Scripture.  I think that
    an argument based on unbelief.  The Bible is not just for scholars, it 
    was for the common man.  I'm sure even the common man of those days 
    didn't know all 150+ translations of the word love.  I know adults who 
    have comprehension disorders who use a children's Bible in the Living 
    or New Century version so that they can understand the Scriptures.  I 
    think that people have problems accepting truth, not understanding it.

    Jill
    

    Jill, Jill, Jill, Jill, aren't you are being just a tad paranoid?  The
    moderators moved the note because they try in general to keep
    discussions in this notes file organized by topic, not because they are
    trying to shut the discussion down.
    
    -- Mike

   Jill,

   AHD

   Censor 1. A person authorized to examine printed or other materials
   and remove or suppress what he considers objectionable.

   Censure 1. an expression of blame or disapproval.  2. an official
   rebuke.

   Moving you note to the correct topic is neither.  It does however make
   it easier to find in the future (DIR/TITLE=) and the topic did already
   exist.

   Allison 

           

Thank guys for the explanation and the definitions.  I stand corrected.  
You're so right.  I was just being paranoid.  It's neither censoring or 
censuring, it's just putting things in the right order so that their 
easier to find!

I believe I've heard the same line from the Apartheid <spelling?>.  
Let's see what is the appropriate label for that?  We'll just call it bias.

AHD

bias 2a.  A preference or inclination, esp. one that inhibits impartial
          judgement; prejudice.

Regardless of your notes, being that the moderators are basically Super 
Mario noters, they do have biases that may inhibit being impartial.  I
just want to know who I'm dealing with so I have an idea of where there
biases are so that I can no when my next note could get relocated.

Jill


    

    RE: .85  Jill,
    
    
    			Ok, Jill.  Explain why there are *SO* many
    denominations with slightly different beliefs about salvation.  If you
    will take the time, look into it.  Its kinda shocking what people
    believe.  Some think thats there is an age of accountability others do
    not.  Some believe that just being born into the Church grants you
    salvation, others believe that you can lose your salvation others not.
    So whats the answer?  The only one *I* came up with is to study the
    Bible in-depth to understand its true meaning...don't you agree?
    
    
    Dave

Note 689.41

>    Jesus said he was the way, the truth, and the life.

This was such an important statement it was *only* included in the gospel
of John, the least ancient of the gospels and the only gospel challenged
as potentially heretical.

According to the gospel of John, Jesus also said you must be born again.

>  Jesus taught that
>  all reached the Father through him. 

According to the gospel of John, Jesus also said he and God are one.  If this
is so, then, of course, those who would approach God would necessarily
encounter Jesus.

>  Other religions contain truth to
>  the extent they are antecedent to, imitative of or derivative from
>  Christianity.

This remark is unworthy of response.

Richard

    In history has there ever been a group of people who profess to follow
    the teachings of Jesus, accepting what Matthew, Mark, and Luke wrote,
    while rejecting what John wrote as what Jesus taught?
    
    I won't respond to your comment that my comment on Christianity is
    unworthy of a response by you.  I affirm it.

    I think that I've lost the tread of the comment that my coment that...
    
    What is the point?
    
    Marc H.

    .91  What difference would make if there was or wasn't?  If there was,
    it could be argued that it wasn't sufficient.  If there wasn't, that
    alone wouldn't make it true and right.
    
    Richard
    

    I think He was saying that He was a pattern... a model (if you will) 
    of the correct way of living and being that leads one to the heavenly 
    Father.

    Not "a model" but "the model".

    Well... "the" model if you want to go to the Father.  Depends on where
    you're going, I guess.

RE:                      <<< Note 300.94 by VERGA::STANLEY >>>

   . I think He was saying that He was a pattern... a model (if you will) 
   . of the correct way of living and being that leads one to the heavenly 
   . Father.


    I *know* He was saying that it is through Him (a mediator if you will)
    that we reach the Father.  It is supported throughout the New Testament
    1John 2:1 ..He is an "advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the Righteous,
    and He himself is the propitiation for our sins; and not for ours only
    but also for those of the whole world", for example.  It is there 
    throughout the Bible that He is THE model (as Patrick said) and that 
    it is through Him, through His death for our sin and our acceptance of
    Him that we can reach the Father

    What does propitiation mean?  I've already packed up my dictionary and
    brought it home.
    
    I do know this though... we don't send ambassadors to foreign countries
    as human sacrifices.
    
    It's His life we're supposed to focus on... not His death.  His life
    was the message, His death was an act of mankind.
    
    Why does Christianity focus on His death as if that's what was
    important?  

RE:                      <<< Note 300.98 by VERGA::STANLEY >>>

   . What does propitiation mean?  I've already packed up my dictionary and
   . brought it home.
    
     Well, I don't have mine with me either, but you could use "payment" or
     "substitute" in its place.



   . I do know this though... we don't send ambassadors to foreign countries
   . as human sacrifices.
    
     I have yet to see an ambassador that is sinless, as was Jesus, not that
     the analogy fits.



   . It's His life we're supposed to focus on... not His death.  His life
   . was the message, His death was an act of mankind.
    
     Its His life, death and ressurection.  His life which was sinless, His
     suffering and death which paid the price for our sin and reconciled us
     to the Father and His ressurection which sealed the promise that we too
     will have eternal life.


   . Why does Christianity focus on His death as if that's what was
   . important?  

     While His death is certainly significant in terms of payment for our
     sin, His resurrection is the key to Christianity for me.  Without it
     He was just another man, and all of the teachings and promises of the
     Bible go out the window and we are without hope.
    
     He's not dead, He is very much alive.

    "Because He lives, I can face tomorrow
     because He lives, all fear is gone
     because I know He holds the future
     and life is worth the living just because He lives".




 Jim
     

CSLALL::HENDERSON
    
     >Its His life, death and ressurection.  His life which was sinless, His
     >suffering and death which paid the price for our sin and reconciled us
     >to the Father and His ressurection which sealed the promise that we too
     >will have eternal life.

     Jim... paid the price to who?  Who put that price on our sin?  Why
     would His own Father want to see Him suffer and die?  
     None of that makes sense to me. 

>     While His death is certainly significant in terms of payment for our
>     sin, 
     
      Who required Him to die in "payment" for our sins?  Who set that
      price?  Where is that written, huh?  Where did that concept come 
      from? 
    
     >His resurrection is the key to Christianity for me.  Without it
     >He was just another man, and all of the teachings and promises of the
     >Bible go out the window and we are without hope.
    
     Well... it happened... whether it was supposed to happen or not
     doesn't matter, I guess... as long as you're happy.. what difference
     does it make anyway.
    
                                                 

RE:                     <<< Note 300.100 by VERGA::STANLEY >>>


.     Jim... paid the price to who?  Who put that price on our sin?  Why
.     would His own Father want to see Him suffer and die?  
.     None of that makes sense to me. 

      To God, the Father.  He put the price on sin. Romans 6:23 says "
      for the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal
      life through Jesus Christ".

      You have to understand that God *hates* and cannot tolerate sin,
      and then you have to understand that we are sinners "For all have 
      sinned and fallen short of the glory of God" (Romans 3:23)
      So, if we all have sinned, and the price for our sin is death, we
      are all doomed for none of us are worthy "There is none righteous
      not even one" (Romans 3:10)

      Why would He want His own son to suffer and die to pay for us?  Good
      question as most of us continue on with our life as if it never 
      happened.  But He love us *so much* that He was willing to pay the
      price so that we may be free of sin "For God so loved the world that
      He gave His only begotten son that whosoever believes in Him should 
      not perish but have everlasting life" (John 3:16)

      Here is an analogy that I read recently (which I am told is a true
      story)

      A man worked as the tender on a railroad bridge and his job was to
      raise and lower the bridge as ships passed underneath or trains crossed
      the canal.  One day he brought his son to work with him and they were
      enjoying the day together when the son's ball went down the hill and
      got caught up in the machinery for the bridge.  The man then heard a 
      train approaching and realized the bridge was in the up position and
      went charging up to lower it when he realized his son was stuck in
      the machinery.  His choice was to rescue his son and send the 300+
      people on the train to their destruction or sacrifice his son to
      save the 300+ people.  In the split second that he had, he chose to
      sacrifice his son..while the screams of his son echoed in his ears
      the bridge lowered and the train crossed safely..and while listening
      to his son dying he saw people on the train, unaware of the price 
      his son had paid, while they rode in comfort and went on with their
      lives.

     
      



     
.      Who required Him to die in "payment" for our sins?  Who set that
.      price?  Where is that written, huh?  Where did that concept come 
.      from? 
 

       One would have to do some reading in the Old Testament to gain an
       understanding of atonement, and God's hatred of sin..but its all 
       in the Bible.



   
        
    . Well... it happened... whether it was supposed to happen or not
    . doesn't matter, I guess... as long as you're happy.. what difference
    . does it make anyway.
    


      Yes, it happened, and it was part of the Plan, and yes, I am happier
      than I have ever been in my life, thank you.

      The difference is I am no longer a slave to sin, sin no longer lives
      in me, I am free.




 Jim
                                                 

    Well you make God sound like a lunatic to me.  God isn't like that at
    all.

 I've enjoyed talking with you Mary..





 Jim

    I've enjoyed talking to you too, Jim...

    
    Hi Mary,  I can't pretend to know your heart because only God
    knows it.  But your comment "Well you make God sound like a lunatic to
    me.  God isn't like that at all." just reminded me of the following
    passage.  You may or may not find it appropriate.  But because of
    this passage, statements like yours don't really surprise me. 
    BTW...since you believe God is not like this...what do you think
    He's like?
    
    Thanks, Jill
    
    I Cor 1:18-25
    
    "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
    perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    For it is written:
    
    	"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence
         of the intelligent I will frustrate."
    
    Where is the wise man?  Where is the scholar?  Where is the philosopher
    of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For
    since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know 
    him, God was please through the foolishness of what was preached to
    save those who believe.  Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look
    for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jew
    and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both
    Jews and Greek, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For
    the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness
    of God is stronger than man's strength."

CSC32::KINSELLA 
    
    Hi,  
    
    >I can't pretend to know your heart because only God
    >knows it.  But your comment "Well you make God sound like a lunatic to
    >me.  God isn't like that at all." just reminded me of the following
    >passage.  You may or may not find it appropriate.  But because of
    >this passage, statements like yours don't really surprise me. 
    >BTW...since you believe God is not like this...what do you think
    >He's like?
    
    I don't think He would deliberately insist that His only son be
    tortured and killed.  I don't think that most human fathers would
    do something like that ... and God must be better than humans (since
    He made humans), therefore I think that is beneath Him.
    
    Actually Jill  ...if you heard that a father somewhere insisted that
    his only son be tortured and killed, wouldn't you think He was a
    lunatic?  Don't you think God is more sane, stable and loving than
    most humans?  
    
    
    >"For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are
    >perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
    >For it is written:
    >
    >	"I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, the intelligence
    >     of the intelligent I will frustrate."
    
    Actually... I don't see how it relates at all.  
    
    >Where is the wise man?  Where is the scholar?  Where is the philosopher
    >of this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For
    >since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know 
    >him, God was please through the foolishness of what was preached to
    >save those who believe.  
    
    You know what?  No offense whatsoever intended... but I have no idea
    what you just said... God was please through the foolishness of what
    was preached to save those who believe... what does that mean, Jill?
    What are you talking about?
    
    >Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look
    >for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jew
    >and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both
    >Jews and Greek, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For
    >the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness
    >of God is stronger than man's strength."
    
    Well... that's all very well and good... but God wouldn't insist that
    His son be tortured and murdered.  I have no idea why you think He 
    would.