Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Amem
    
    
    Marc H.

It is not love to deny the cross.

    You mean someone can't love others if they don't have the same theology
    as you do?  What an interesting concept of love.
    
    -- Mike

    
    Mike,
    
    I believe what John is saying is that the gospel is that there is only
    one way to eternal life and that's through the cross that Jesus made
    the ultimate sacrifice on.  There is no other way to become a
    Christian.  However, the rest of the New Testament goes on to define
    how a Christian is to live.  If you reject what it means to be a
    Christian, don't call yourself one.  That is not to say that a
    non-Christian can't show love.  But we are not saved by the emotion
    of "love", but by God who loved us.   Christianity and love are
    not exclusive, nor are they equal.
    
    Jill

    Jill, I can accept that Christianity and love are not exactly the same
    thing.  However, he appeared to be saying that one is not loving if
    they "deny the cross", and that therefore one cannot love if one is not
    a Christian.
    
    It is one thing to say that a belief is not Christian; it is another
    thing altogether to proclaim that not to have that belief is unloving.
    
    -- Mike

    
    Mike, that's not what John said.  Here's what John said:
    
    It's not a popular idea, but it is the heart of the Faith.
    It is not love to deny the cross.
    ----------
    
    I concur.  If you deny the cross, you do not love God.  That doesn't
    mean that non-Christians can't show love.  You're reading into it.
    The cross is at the heart of our faith.  Just because there is One
    God, it doesn't mean everyone worships him as Patricia stated.
    
    Jill
    
    

    

Patricia, I think you've missed it.  I claim no authority of my own.  
I give all authority gladly to God, but that doesn't mean I can't repeat 
what He has already stated.  I also believe that what John did was put 
the Scripture you pointed to back into the context in which it was written.

God did give us reason to discern truth.  God's Word is truth.  All of it.
Not just the opinions of men.  Their thoughts were Spirit-inspired.  God
allowed what was put in His Word to be there, and He disallowed others.
My God has that kind of control!

You are right that there is One God, but that does not mean that all of
us worship Him.  Worship is defined as love and allegiance.  An adherence
out of respect for who God is and the principles He's put forward.  Not
ones we have defined.  God is the eternal, He has always been and will
always be.  His truth is eternal.   Each of us participate here for
different reasons.  I don't participate here because I am serious about
my faith journey as there is so much false doctrine in here it could cause
me to stumble if I believed it.  I deleted this notesfile at least 4 times,
but felt God called me back to stand up for His Word.  To present with 
other Christians a solid front on what the Word of God boldly reveals,
not some hidden revelation.

All religions are not equal.  Peace will not come without the Prince of
Peace.  All the peoples you listed (Christians, Moslems, Jews, Hindus, 
Budhists, Neo Pagans, American Indians, and all the other great religious 
peoples of the world) have been told about the true God.  Peace comes from
accepting Him, not going on with your own beliefs, but adhering to His.
This world will end violently.  It's proclaimed in God's Word.  The new
life that Christians have in Christ after this world will be one of peace.  
As long as there are those who say Christ is God and those who say He isn't,
there will be no peace.  There will come a day when every knee shall bow
and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.  There will be
no defiance then.

I hope someday you realize Patricia that Christians are called 
into battle.  We are to put on the full armor of God; the belt of 
truth, the breastplate of righteousness, "feet ready" armed with Scripture,
the shield of faith, the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit.
We are in a spiritual battle of good vs. evil.  We are to stand firm.
Read Ephesians 6.  Christians are not whimps who never get into conflicts.
Did Jesus tell religious people they were wrong?  You bet He did.  He 
even told Paul, and Paul repented, and left his ways to follow Christ's
way.   We are to be bold and strong for the Lord our God is with us!  
When the apostles failed to go to the whole world with the Gospel of
Christ, Jesus intervened and Paul trimphiantly took forward the message.
All we must do is accept and live by it.  To die to self means taking God's 
truth, not one I make up.  If you've read the Bible, you know the truth...
if you choose to deny it...you don't love God.  God says "If you love me, 
you will keep my commandments."  We're not just all "in" because God
is love.  There is a line that you consciously have to choose to cross!

Jill
    

    Jill, the question is not what makes one a Christian or not, but rather
    what makes one loving or not.  You conceded on the one hand that
    non-Christians can be loving, and yet you then say that non-Christians
    can't love God because they deny what you consider to be the heart of
    the faith.  Whether or not it is the heart of the faith has to do with
    who is or isn't a Christian, and that is a separate issue from who is
    or isn't loving.  You seem to agree with this point, but then say just
    the opposite, that "denying the cross" (which is putting it rather
    provincially) is unloving.  Why is it unloving?  Because it is denying
    the heart of the faith, you say.  So denying a Christian tenet,
    according to this view, is unloving.  Either one can't be unloving and
    still be a non-Christian, or one can.  I say that one can.
    
    Jill, by telling me that I don't love God, you insult me, and I have
    every right to be offended.
    
    -- Mike

	They way I see what John says, is that for a Christian to deny
	the cross as the one true way to heaven is unloving. Of course
	I would not call someone who believed there are other ways to
	heaven a Christian so if you have some other definition this
	would appear not to work the same in your world view.

			Alfred

My statements do not conflict.  If you accept the gospel's message and
willing choose to live by God's commands, you love God.  If you don't,
you don't love God.  That does not mean you do not love someone else.

Then does God have the right to be offended that you don't love Him 
since you don't keep His commandments?

To call the cross provincial is denying that Christ die for the sins
of the world and that He rose again.   If you don't believe that, you're 
not a Christian and you do not love God.  Take offense if you like, but 
the road is narrow.  I find it offensive that just anybody thinks they
can be called a Christian.  To follow Christ is to obey Him and to obey
Him is to love Him.

Jill
    

    Well, being a Great Evil and all, I obviously *can't* love God, now can
    I?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    Sure you can, anyone can, but it's a choice.  You don't love God
    simply because the ability to love is within you.  You must accept
    that:
    
    - you are a sinner and the penalty for sin is eternal damnation
    - that Jesus was God and also man and lived the perfect life that
      we are not capable of living and then die on the cross to forgive 
      you of all the sins you have or will commit in your life
    - that by His blood you are cleansed and spared eternal damnation
    - that you grow with Him by dying to your old selfish desires 
      and becoming a new creation through living by His commandments
      set forth in Scripture and pointed out to us by the Holy Spirit
    - and that at the day of judgement when God looks at our life, 
      Jesus will stand in for us and we will be judged by the perfect
      life He lead and we will spend eternity with God.
    
    That's the cost of Christianity.  It's nothing compared to the
    cost that God paid to redeem us.
    
    Jill
    
    Jill

    Well, that's *one* opinion on what's required to love God.
    
    Not one that I agree with, but it is definitely an opinion..  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    
    It's the only one that matters because it God's.  It's the message
    of the Bible.  It is the Gospel, the good news for all to hear
    and to choose to follow.  There's still time to change your mind Mike. 
    
    Jill

    Jill, your overt attempt at proselytizing me is duely noted, and given
    all the consideration it deserves (none at all.)  Sorry to disappoint
    you, but I was brought up in a conservative Christian home, I accepted
    Jesus Christ as my Lord and Savior at one point, and believed for a
    time everything you now believe.  I could recite your own theology back
    to you backwards and forwards.  What you are telling me as "God's
    message" is nothing new to me, because I already know it.  I just
    happen to believe that it *isn't* God's message at all.  And it just so
    happens that I therefore don't agree with it.  I realize that this may
    seem difficult to grasp--that I can understand your theology and yet
    not be just so overwhelmingly overcome by its message as to want to get
    on my knees and shout "Ah'm Say-uhved, Puh-rayze the Low-ud".
    
    So spare me your prayers, toots.
    
    -- Mike

    
 
    Don't worry about me.  I don't take it personally.  God gave us all a
    choice to make.  I can only tell you the truth.  I can't make you 
    accept it.  But I do and "I am saved!  Praise the Lord!!!"

    But out of curiosity, what do you believe God's message is?

    And thanks anyway, but I'll keep praying just the same.
    
    Jill
    

    Mike,
    
    With all due respect to you as the feminist man I know you to be...
    and the awareness of how presumptions about your faith raise your
    dander....I must say something about this use of the name "toots."  
    
    It may be permissable in a society where women are relegated to 
    submissive roles to men, but in C-P that is not the structure of this 
    "society."  Now, maybe Jill doesn't mind it, so I'll defer to her 
    judgement.  But I have to say the use of such names in this conference 
    is dancing on thin "noting etiquette" ice.   
    
    Karen

Mike,

You should be forced to watch "Tootsie" starring Dustin Hoffman ten times
in a row!  Fifty lashes with a wet noodle.

				-- Bob

    
    Thanks Karen.  I don't particularly care for the term "toots," but
    I don't think I was supposed to.  
    
    Jill

   Observation:

   The note is let's practice universal love.  If I were to read the text 
   without the headers it seems to be more about preaching at one another
   and not one hoot about love, save maybe for God.  I sincerely believe
   God has not called us to treat each other poorly in in Gods name.  We
   make war in Gods name, but for one second think of the times you've 
   actually welcomed someone or given them your hand... In Gods name.

   Give it a break.  I left organized and dogmatatized Christianity
   because of this kind of stuff.  It serves to drive me away from the
   orthodoxy.  The further I get from the noise and the din the better
   I hear the spirit of the words.  If your getting breastplates and
   Bibles for battle leave me out, I will triage the wounded.  I'll
   not fight that dirty war.

   God forgive my to short patience,
   Allison

    

Allison, if you had a vaccine for a dying person yet some people said you
were being cruel and unloving because you were going to inject pain, 
what would you do?  I would hope that you would choose to save the
dying person, rather than listening to those who said that the cure was
going to cause pain in the present time.

I know you don't see where I'm coming from.  I hear what you all say;
Patricia, Mike, you...and I see a dying person.  I believe that this 
life is extremely temporary, like a blink of eye, compared to all of
eternity.  I don't want any of you to miss out on the life that lays
ahead.  My battle isn't against people Allison.  It's against the forces
of evil who have planted false messages to confuse people and to 
distort the Word of God.  I am reaching out with the good news that
Christ came that you might have life, and have it more abundantly.

Yes, we should love everyone, but we should not agree with every doctrine
especially if it's going to condemn someone.  The meanest, most unloving
thing I could do as a Christian is to say "You're right Allison.  We
should just allow everyone to be whatever they want without telling them
that there is a cost.  Let's just have love and peace and forget that we 
don't agree about who God is, how we're saved because after all the 
Bible is just another book with some valid truths and a lot of other 
opinions."  I can't do that Allison.  Not to you, not to anyone.

Jill
    

    In one's zeal to save others, one must avoid malpractice.  It is
    possible to poison a patient, even when administering the right
    medicine.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

 Jill,

   Don't ever give up what you believe.  I do see where your comming from
   and it's rather poor of you to tell me I don't.  What you see is
   by making a choice to accept God im my own way rather than yours as 
   evil.  I am not however as you would describe a dieing person.  In
   all my years I have only just discovered life.  To find that life
   I first had to remove much disease.

   Yes there is pain in life, I know well what that means.  I understand
   deep pain to the soul that will not go away in a moment.  I however
   will not sell my beliefs short.  I will amputate the sickend limb to 
   save the body and cannot tell anyone that won't hurt deeply.  I have
   learned to save the good tissue to build upon as that is the foundation. 
   Above all do no harm beyond necessity and then sparingly.

   It is not of war, I leave war as part of necessity for it always causes
   great destruction.  It is of healing medicine, mending souls and the
   lives attached.  A scalple can mend a heart, a spear will rip it apart.

   Peace,
   Allison

    

   Where do we learn how to love?

   From families: the love of a mother and a father for their children, and
   children for their parents
    the love of brothers and sisters for each other

   In maturity: the love one has for a spouse and later for ones own
   children.
    the love that one has for friends, community, and country.
   
   Through the grace of Jesus Christ: love of God with our whole body and
   soul. love of our neighbor as ourselves.

   Where there isn't strong families there isn't strong love.

   That is pure love.  There is hate and there is corrupted love.

   We see love where God does not, out of our impurity.

   Love of what is unimportant: sexual pleasure, experience, and
   materialism (you might recall these as lust, gluttony, and greed)

   Love of nothing: complacency (you might recall this as sloth)

   Love of what is wrong: personal ambition, envy of the more successful,
   the more beautiful, etc., indifference to the feelings of others (you
   might recall these as pride, envy, and anger)

   The sin we recognize is hate.  The sin we struggle to see in ourselves
   is when love is corrupted.

    RE: .24  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    				I agree.
    
    
    DaveZ

    Jill, while I realize that you may feel that the term I used was
    offensive, I am sure that you will understand that if you had a vaccine
    for a dying person yet some people said you were being cruel and
    unloving because you were going to inject pain, what would you do?  I
    would hope that you would choose to save the dying person, rather than
    listening to those who said that the cure was going to cause pain in
    the present time.
    
    So the offense that you might have taken from the term was meant only
    for your own good, because strong language is necessary to wean you
    from your immature and morally bankrupt theology.  I only addressed you
    that way because it was for your own good.  I know that you agree that
    it is sometimes necessary for people to do things that are hurtful or
    offensive to others simply because one is looking out for their best
    interests.  Call it "triage the wounded."
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .26  Mike,
    
    			Please refrain from the use of terms like that
    which was used in your previous note.  When a term like that is used
    and known to the author to be offensive, then the moderatorship of this
    file will have no other choice but to delete that note and ask the
    author to rewrite.  
    
    Dave

    Dave, I understand and appreciate where you are coming from as a
    moderator.
    
    However, it is also true that I have at one point been branded in this
    notes file as a "great evil", and my views have in this topic been
    characterized as coming from the evil side of a great spiritual war. 
    Such characterizations are deeply offensive to me.  Certain Christians,
    who know full well that their attacks on the views, motives, and
    sincerity of religious liberalism are offensive and insulting, continue
    to perpetuate their attacks against us because they think they are
    doing us a favor.  Jill's response to the offense I have taken was to
    say "Take offense if you like."
    
    Respect and tolerance for other viewpoints has to be mutual.  Jill has
    already stated that there is no room for respect and tolerance of other
    viewpoints in her theological scheme.  Those who bandy about their
    intolerance as a virtue do not care if what they do causes offense to
    be taken.  We are even told that it is our fault, and we are committing
    the sin of pride if we dare to take offense at their insults, their
    attacks, and their intolerance.  And frankly I've had it up to here.
    
    If it is wrong for me to deliberately cause offense, then it is wrong
    for Jill to deliberately cause offense.  If I am wrong to turn her own
    justification for offensive behavior back on her, then it is only
    because her original justification for causing offense was also wrong. 
    She claimed that if I took offense, that's too bad because she was only
    doing it for my own good.
    
    -- Mike

Jesus Christ, Love Incarnate, as revealed in the Gospels, does not have much
tolerance for other viewpoints.

 "If any man would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross
 and follow me.  For whoever would save his life will lose it, and whoever
 loses his life for my sake and the gospel's will save it.  For what does it
 profit a man, to gain the whole world and forfeit his life?  For what can a
 man give in return for his life?  For whoever is ashamed of me and of my
 words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of
 man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the
 holy angels."  (Mark 8:34-38)

If this conference is to present a Christian Perspective, are the Gospels
not to have any meaning?  Do notes which call traditional Christianity
"immature and morally bankrupt" represent a Christian Perspective?

/john

re Note 546.29 by COVERT::COVERT:

>  For whoever is ashamed of me and of my
>  words in this adulterous and sinful generation, of him will the Son of
>  man also be ashamed, when he comes in the glory of his Father with the
>  holy angels."  (Mark 8:34-38)
> 
> If this conference is to present a Christian Perspective, are the Gospels
> not to have any meaning?  Do notes which call traditional Christianity
> "immature and morally bankrupt" represent a Christian Perspective?
  
        I must observe that "traditional Christianity" has presented
        as doctrine far more than just the literal words and actions
        of Jesus.

        That alone would be the basis for fundamental, unresolvable,
        but honest differences among Christians.

        Bob

    What is "immature and morally bankrupt" is the unwillingness to respect
    other points of view other than one's own, the insistence of
    characterizing other sincerely held viewpoints as coming from the evil
    side of a great spiritual war, or that such views merely represent
    serving one's self rather than God, or that people holding such views
    do not love God.
    
    -- Mike

I respect points of view other than the Christian Perspective.

What I don't respect are points of view manifestly contrary to the written
Gospels when those points of view claim to be a Christian Perspective.

/john

    RE: .28 Mike,
    
    			Know that I really hate taking this stand but I
    know it to be the correct one.  I reread .10 and also your .11.  The
    only one calling *you* a "great evil" is you.  Thoughts and ideas will
    by their very nature, clash sometimes...thats life.  Deliberate
    use of offensive terms is easily controled by the writer.   These
    personalized use of terms to offend only, cannot be allowed.  I think
    I understand your point, however ideas need to be refuted with ideas
    and not brought to the level of name calling.
    
    Dave

    /john .32,
    
    I can't agree with you.
    
    If there were only one Christian Perspective, there would exist only 
    one Christian religion with *NO* denominations.  Would there not?
    As it is there are, what, over 200 Christian denominations today?  
    Each holding their own Christian Perspective.  
    
    Karen

    Dave, it was Pat Sweeney who called me a "great evil" in another
    context.
    
    -- Mike

    

I'm amazed at how much conflict preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ
can cause.  You can never have too much truth.  People don't
die from an overdose of truth.  They die from refusing it.  The Bible
outlines the only way to God, there is no other way.

Mike, I'm sorry but there is a difference between someone taking offense
to what you say and someone intentionally trying to offend you.  This
"Great Evil" title you bring up was the first time I've heard of it.  
I who never call anyone that.  Remember, I have not been in here for 
years, just a couple of months.  If I was giving you a pure opinion of 
my own and it offended you, I would apologize.  But for you to be offended 
by a biblical truth, it's not my place to say I'm sorry.  You say that 
everyone must respect and tolerate other viewpoints, yet you came into this 
note with both barrels open.  Now I did say I was in a spiritual battle 
and listed the armor of God, but if you'll notice it's all defensive with 
the one exception of the sword which can also be used as in offense rather
than defense.  Also the armor only covers the front because Christians
aren't meant to retreat.  Also, other Christians will cover your back.
You all believe in such critical thinking and want to pick the Word of 
God apart and yet you want me to stand here and take it and respect your 
views that conflict with it;  this evolving Word of God that you seem to 
believe in.  If you present a view in opposition to the Bible, I will 
defend the Bible.  I don't view telling someone the truth as hurtful or 
offensive, so I would disagree that I think it's necessary to do those things.

To have critical thinking don't you need both points of view or is it
that you don't really want critical thinking, but just acceptance of
your views.  This is probably a good place to comment on something I've 
never seen before this notesfile.  SRO - Supportive replies only.  For 
people who value critical thinking and valuing all opinions, you sure 
censor alot of opinions.

I'll grant you there are some differences among Christian denominations,
but we all agree on the message of the cross.  Things like whether someone
is a A-millenialist or post-millenialist will not keep you out of heaven
if you believe in the same cross.  As a side, alot of people call themselves
Christians who don't believe in the cross, I wish they would find another
name for themselves.

Amen John.
Amen Patrick.  

Jill
    

    
    Wait a minute Mike.  Patrick wasn't even involved in this note when
    you brought up the "Great Evil" stuff.  I could understand (not agree
    with) if you were "throwing an insult back in someone's face."  But he 
    wasn't even involved at that point.  I don't know exactly why Patrick 
    might have called you that or how long ago this may have occurred, but 
    there comes a time when you shake the chip off your shoulder and move on.
    Just because you called me Toots doesn't mean I'm going to be bringing
    up everytime someone disputes something I say.
    
    Jill

    Jill, asserting that I do not love God is not just a statement of your
    own views; it is a characterization of me, and my faith, in a way that
    puts me down.  It is one thing to share your views; it is another to
    characterize the faith or sincerity of others.  Between telling me that
    I don't love God, and Mr. Covert's comment that people with different
    views than his are simply following selfish motives rather than
    following God, I had reached the boiling point.  I was tired of having
    my own sincerity and faith attacked.  I apologize for the term that I
    used; however, I feel just as strongly as ever about proselytizing and
    attacking other people's faith because you think it is for their own
    good.
    
    -- Mike

    Jill, my reference to the "Great Evil" came up because you were saying
    that the discussion of theology expressed a battle between good and
    evil, and it was clear that you felt that my own theological views came
    from the side of evil.
    
    -- Mike

    
    Oh Michael, please calm yourself.  You lost it because you were out
    of control, not because of anything I and John did.  John didn't 
    say anything about selfish desires, his only comment was "It is not
    love to deny the cross."  Then you came in and started being
    antagonistic right from the start.  I did not state that your
    theology is from the "side of evil".  Everything I said had IF in 
    front of it.  I left it up to you to judge your own beliefs in 
    accordance with biblical truth.  I didn't make any judgement on your 
    theology, I still can't get you to tell me what you think God's message 
    is.  You were the one who told me that I did not have God's message 
    and now I learn that I have an "immature & morally bankrupt theology."  
    I do believe it is you who has done everything you have accused me of.  
    
    Jill
    

    RE: .40  Jill,
    
    
    			What you seem to be unable to understand is, other
    people may have a different view on what is "Biblical truth".  I have
    read all your notes in this string and each and every one of the come
    from a place of how *YOU* understand the Bible.  Given the many, many 
    different denominations, the idea of a lack of consenses on what is
    Biblical and what is not is really up to the individual to read and
    decide for themselves.  
    
    			Just a nit....the "Immature & Morally bankrupt
    theology" quote really came from the title of Mr. Covert's reply just
    befor Mike's.
    
    
    Dave

>    Just a nit....the "Immature & Morally bankrupt
>    theology" quote really came from the title of Mr. Covert's reply just
>    befor Mike's.

No it didn't.  See Mike's reply .26.

/john

    Covert's comment about selfish desires was entered in a different
    topic, either yesterday or over the weekend, and it was a direct attack
    on the motivations of people with a different theology than his own.
    
    -- Mike

    
    		Sorry Jill....ignore my "nit". :-)
    
    
    Dave

    Jill .45,
    
    Your scriptural test/question would be more appropriately entered in 
    topic 23, "Biblical Scriptures Discussion."  I'm re-locating it there.    
    
    Thanks,
    
    Karen
    Co-Moderator,
    Christian-Perspective 

    
    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 revelation discussion?  
    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
    

    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.

    
    
    AMEN!  Thanks for ministering to me Patrick.  I needed that!
    
    Jill

    Re: Jill

    Just another voter punching my card for the Jesus/Jill ticket!  Jill,
    you have my support.  Never compromise the Gospel of Christ.  Always
    administer with love, but never back-down for the sake of preserving
    someone's warm-fuzzies that are based on falsehoods (Note for non-Jills:
    I've heard all the "narrow-minded" arguments before, no need to repeat).

    Just another one-sided, labeled-"intolerant" Bible-thumper,

    8)
    
    John 

    I'm a read-often, write-rarely noter in this conference, but
    this really struck me:
    
    > 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 want to make sure I understand...  Are you saying that if a person
    reads the Bible, understands what it says but doesn't believe - and
    is therefore "indifferent" to the message - that such a person is evil, 
    or represents evil, or is guided by evil.......or what?
    
    /Greg
    

    Greg, good luck to you in trying to get an answer to that question.  :-)
    
    -- Mike (the Great Evil)

    

Greg,

Here's what I believe Patrick's message says:

There is a battle between God and Satan for the souls of all people.
Originally all people were on God's side.  The Bible says we were
created by God and for Him.   But because of our sin we were separated 
from Him.  Therefore to not choose is to stay separated from Him, a 
choice in and of itself.   God has given all people the right to choose 
sides.  The Bible tells how you choose sides.  The gospel's message which 
I outlined in note 546.12 is the only way to choose to be on God's side
according to the Bible which is the inspired Word of God.  I would
encourage you to read the New Testament for yourself if you haven't
already.

Does that answer your question?  Can I answer anything else for you?

Jill

P.S.  Thanks John for the encouragement to stand firm.
    

    Jill,

    Thank you for your answer.  It doesn't really answer my
    question, though.

    I've never felt that the stories written down in the Bible were 
    anything other than interesting history.  Should I *pretend* that 
    I believe they are the inspired word of a God I'm not even sure
    exists and follow the "rules" anyway?  And if I did, wouldn't 
    that be hypocritical?  And doesn't God hate hypocrisy?

    And what if I were raised in a different religious tradition
    and just happened across the Bible while in college.  If I
    read it and find it a fascinating cultural artifact, but no
    more, am I damned?

    Does not believing make me evil?

    /Greg

>    And what if I were raised in a different religious tradition
>    and just happened across the Bible while in college.  If I
>    read it and find it a fascinating cultural artifact, but no
>    more, am I damned?

	The short answer is, probably. God makes the final choice and
	if could be that you believe in Jesus without believing the Bible
	is no more than a cultural artifact.

>    Does not believing make me evil?

	Good question. My answer is, probably not. However it is a very
	sad thing. It is a great evil that keeps you from believing.

			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    If 1/3 of the people on Earth identify themselves as Christian, and 1/3
    identify themselves as Moslem and the Balance are divided among a lot
    of other religions.
    
    Do you believe that God is Omnipotent?  
    
    Do you believe that God loves us unconditionally?  
    
    If God were Omnipotent and God loves us unconditionally, and to not accept
    Christianity is Evil, then why doesn't God give that Gift of faith to
    the 2/3 of the world that seeks God in a different way?
    
    If God is Omnipotent and God loves each of us Unconditionally and 2/3
    of the religious people of the world find God in a religion other than
    Christianity, it is clear to me that God allows and encourages multiple
    paths to Salvation.
    
    love and peace
    
    
    Patricia

>    Do you believe that God is Omnipotent?  

	Yes.
    
>    Do you believe that God loves us unconditionally?  
 
	Yes, but unconditional love does not imply acceptance of everything
	a person does. 

>   If God were Omnipotent and God loves us unconditionally, and to not accept
>    Christianity is Evil, then why doesn't God give that Gift of faith to
>    the 2/3 of the world that seeks God in a different way?
 
	I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking why God doesn't
	"make" everyone accept Christianity? Or why He doesn't accept other
	beliefs? Either way I think the answer is that God believes in free
	will and put together a path, Christianity, that He wants people to
	accept of their own free will.

>    If God is Omnipotent and God loves each of us Unconditionally and 2/3
>    of the religious people of the world find God in a religion other than
>    Christianity, it is clear to me that God allows and encourages multiple
>    paths to Salvation.
 
	You make an assumption that others find God in other ways. That is
	not an assumption I can accept. It is clearly contrary to the teaching
	of Jesus. In fact to accept that assumption is to insist that 
	Christianity is not one of the paths God encourages.

			Alfred

re Note 546.54 by CRONIC::SCHULER:

>     Does not believing make me evil?
  
        Remember that the "initial condition" of ALL is that of being
        "in sin."

        You don't become evil by not believing, rather you fail to
        avail yourself of God's saving graces by not believing.

        The fundamental question of belief is this:  do you believe
        that God is your one and only salvation and do you choose to
        call upon God for this salvation?

        Bob

    Alfred,
    
    Then is Christian faith a gift or an act of one's free will?
    
    
    Who is the God that Jews, and Hindu's, and Moslems, and UU's "think"
    they are worshipping?  Is this God different than your God?
    
    Patricia

>    Then is Christian faith a gift or an act of one's free will?

	Both. It is a gift that one can either accept or reject. It is
	not forced on one against their will.

>    Who is the God that Jews, and Hindu's, and Moslems, and UU's "think"
>    they are worshipping?  Is this God different than your God?

	There is but one God so I assume they are worshipping Him. However
	that is not the same thing as what they are doing being acceptable
	or "reaching" to God. For example, I can stand in my back yard and
	yell in the general direction of Little Rock while you send Clinton
	a letter. Which of us is he more likely to hear? You. Does that mean
	I'm not talking to him? No. Intent is not enough though.

			Alfred

    

    I don't agree that they are worshipping the same God.  In the old
    testament God talks extensively about not having other gods before Him. 
    The people had gotten sucked into the worshipping of idols and what
    they called gods because of other cultures.  The Bible names other gods
    like Beelzebub. I am reminded of when Elijah challenged the followers
    of Baal to call up their god to burn up the sacrifice of a bull. Baal
    had 450 prophets, God had one.  They did and nothing happens.  Elijah
    called upon God and we're talking about one crispy critter.  As a
    matter of fact God burned not only the bull, but the wood, the stones,
    and the soil and licked up the water in the trenches.  Then Elijah
    predicts rain and King Ahab says the skies are clear, then Elijah
    prays, and God bring a heavy rain.  This story is recorded in I Kings
    18. 

    The Israelites were warned repeatedly not to get caught up in idol
    worship and the worship of other gods because the Lord our God is a
    jealous God. They weren't to eat their sacrifices or intermarry with
    the daughters of those who had other gods because they had prostituted
    themselves to their gods.  Gideon actually destroyed the altars of
    other gods and replaced  them with an altar to God.  This is recorded
    in Judges.  

    In the New Testament, God says He wants to expand his message to all
    the Gentile world.  If someone has never heard of God, the one of the
    Bible specifically, he will be judge by the light that he has.  God has
    instilled in his creation a knowledge that there is a Creator.  If they
    worship the Creator, they are okay.  If they worship His creation, they
    are not.   Worshipping a tree is not the same as thanking the Creator
    for making it.

    Not all people who worship a god believe that god is their creator. If
    a person who believes there is a Creator and then hears about the  God
    of the Bible, the Creator of all men, he must believe or he will be
    held accountable for not believing.  For instance an American Indian of
    old probably believed in a Creator and regardless what they called him
    if He lived His life for that Creator, he will be saved.  However, the
    modern American Indian now knows through the Bible who the Creator is, 
    and if he doesn't accept Him, he will not be saved.  

    Also some gods that are worshipped in the world have attributes
    different from God and therefore are not the same god.

    Jill
    

Before we go any further, I should point out that it is the Christian
Perspective that the Jews worship the same God, but have unfortunately
not accepted the good news brought to us by Christ Jesus Our Lord.

/john

    
    Amen John.  Jews and Moslems do worship the God of Abraham, our
    Creator.  It's sad to be that close, yet so completely lost.  
    
    Jill

    I hold another Christian perspective on this, but unfortunately it'll
    have to wait for another time for me to elaborate.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: last few
    
    	From a couple of my professors (one a history professor, another
    a rather religious Literature professor), I have learned the Jehovah
    started out as a rather non-descript household or tribal god that had
    no preeminence over the other gods of the tribe/household(early Hebrew
    history).  He did not come to the fore until the Covenant and Abraham
    and company started promoting Him.  If you can take a non-literalist
    view of the Bible, the bit about no other gods before Him may have been
    put in by someone who was just trying to promote his version of God.
    	
    George

    ...Or in the case of George Arnett's professor promoting his own
    version of atheism and denial.
    
    I suppose he also had an explanation for the deliverance of the Hebrew
    slaves from bondage in Egypt...

    George, thanks for pointing that out.  I am inclined to agree.
    
    -- Mike

    re: .66
    
    	The information about Jehovah's beginning comes from Hebrew
    sources.  Your argument that the history professor is "promoting his
    own version of atheism and denial" is based on an assumption of his
    beliefs that neither you nor I know.  For all we know he may be a
    seminary student going for the priesthood.  So your judgement of him is
    out of place.
    	Also, the history professor's information is backed up by the
    Literature professor's own research.  The lit prof is a devout believer
    and has specialized in Biblical study.  The guy is 60+ years old,
    actually was a seminary student, has written beaucoup papers and has 
    travelled in the Holy Land and surrounding areas more extensively than I 
    believed possible for someone working on a professor's salary.  If this
    fellow tells me that Jehoveh was initially worshipped as a household or
    tribal god, I'm very inclined to believe him.
    
    George Arnett-Hutto 

    re: .66
    
    	Also, we never discussed the deliverance from Egypt, but I have
    seen a few good possibilities regarding the "miracles".  I do have a
    question:even if scientific research and/or reasoning can give a good
    explanation of miracles, does that make their occurrence at a
    particular time and place any less miraculous or effective?
    
    George
    

re: Note 546.63 by Jill "it's just a wheen o' blethers" 

>    Amen John.  Jews and Moslems do worship the God of Abraham, our
>    Creator.  It's sad to be that close, yet so completely lost.  
    
Jill, 

Are you saying that Jews are completely lost to God?  
Does that mean that God's Chosen People as a whole 
have doomed themselves to Hell?

Peace,

Jim

p.s.  and just what IS a "wheen o' blethers"?  .-)

    re: .67
    	
    	Thanks.  I'm inclined to think that way because I don't believe the
    Bible in inerrant.  I mean, God was working with imperfect men to get
    the books of the Bible written (they were inspired or just felt a need
    to enforce their views on someone else or whatever).  I do believe they
    were inspired, but they were written through the filter of that
    person's perceptions.  If God did not allow them to write the books
    their own way, then the people had no free will.  I do not think God
    removed the gift He gave us.
    
    George
    

    Yes, that is also how I view the Bible.  But then, I also believe that
    divine revelation is a continuing and ongoing experience, not limited
    to the words written in those books millenia ago; and as our experience
    continues, our understanding can grow and develop.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .70

    Hi Jim,

    If I remember, I believe that God's promises to Abraham was what He
    would  do for them on this earth.  He chose them as the race the
    Messiah for all people would come from.  The New Covenant was for all. 
    Jesus said, NO MAN  comes to the Father except through me.  So while
    God will continue to watch  over Israel through the end times, each
    man, even an Israeli, will be asked  "Who did you say My Son was? and
    will be judged accordingly.   So as a whole  are they doomed?  No. 
    It's a choice each man (& women) has to make.

    Jill

    p.s.  It's a Scottish phrase that basically means "it's just a lot of 
    nonsense."   ;^)
    

Thanks, Jill, for your explanation.  I agree, we will all be asked and are 
responsible for our answers.  But my guess is that it ain't gonna be a 
true-false or multiple choice question.  

Who exactly IS Jesus?  What do we mean by that?  Jesus the Christ tells us
that we fed him when he was hungry, clothed him when he was naked, and
comforted him when he was in prison.  "When did we do this?" we ask.  As we 
have done it for the least person, we have done it for Him.

I remember a story about a monastery that was falling on hard times; the 
brothers were constantly bickering with each other, complaining that no one 
else did their fair share, fighting and arguing constantly.  A stranger came 
to them and told them that Jesus Himself was a member of the monastery, but 
wouldn't reveal which monk it was.

After the stranger left, each monk started treating all the others as if each 
one were Jesus, because how did he know someone wasn't?  The monastery
thrived. 

Peace,

Jim

And thanks for translating your personal name.  .-)

    A *very* poignant note and story, Jim.  
    
    Thank you,
    
    Karen

    re: .74
    
    The story is from M. Scott Peck's "The Different Drum" and is called
    "The Rabbi's Gift".  Isn't it great that a Rabbi gave this special
    gift, a story, which helped make the Monastery flourish once more?
    
    	Ron
    

Jim,

Our music minister at church was excited to start a study on the names of
Jesus.  As he went through the new testament, he began to weep.  He
was expecting to see things like Son of God and Savior, but he didn't 
expect to see things like prince of demons, a glutton, and a drunkard 
which is what the Pharisees claimed He was.  Jesus says in Matthew not all 
who cry out to me Lord, Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only 
he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven.  

I love that story.  Definitely something to work for.
                               
You're very welcome.  :^)-|--<

Jill
    

    "There are but two congregations in this town.  They assemble every
    Sunday in meeting houses, as simple as the dwelling of the people; and
    there is but one priest on the whole island.  What would a good
    Portuguese observe?--But one single priest to instruct a whole island,
    and to direct their consciences!  It is even so; each individual knows
    how to guide his own, and is content to do it, as well as he can. This
    lonely clergyman is a Presbyterian minister, who has a very large and
    respectable congregation; the other is composed of Quakers, who you know
    admit of no particular person, who in consequence of being ordained
    becomes exclusively entitled to preach, to catechize, and to receive
    certain salaries for his trouble.  Among them, every one may expound the
    Scriptures, who thinks he is called so to do; beside, as they admit of
    neither sacrament, baptism, nor any other outward forms whatever, such a
    man would be useless.  Most of these people are continually at sea, and
    have often the most urgent reasons to worship the Parent of Nature in the
    midst of the storms which they encounter.  These two sects live in
    perfect peace and harmony with each other; those ancient times of
    religious discords are now gone (I hope never to return) when each
    thought it meritorious, not only to damn the other, which would have
    been nothing, but to persecute and murther one another, for the glory of
    that Being, who requires no more of us, than that we should love one
    another and live!  Every one goes to that place of worship which he
    likes best, and thinks not that his neighbor does wrong by not following
    him; each busily employed in their temporal affairs, is less vehement
    about spiritual ones, and fortunately you will find at Nantucket neither
    idle drones, voluptuous devotees, ranting enthusiasts, nor sour
    demagogues.  I wish I had it in my power to send the most persecuting
    bigot I could find in ________ to the whale fisheries; in less than three
    or four years you would find him a much more tractable man, and
    therefore a better Christian...."
    
             Eighteenth century write Hector St. John De Cr�vec�r
                  from "Letters from an American Farmer"