Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    RE: .0 
    
    
    		Perfect sense...but then again I am a Baptist.  FWIW,
    Baptists do not stem from the Protestant movement.
    
    
    Dave

    Marc,
    
    I am a practicing catholic.   I do not take the pope/bishops meaning
    about the bible.   I look it up and study it myself.   I have
    being doing this for years.   In fact, it was a priest who came
    into my school years ago, who told us to look up the bible and
    check it out for ourselves.   I know this maybe an unusual practice
    for most catholics.   I do not find anything wrong with it.
    
    
    Bernie
    

    RE: .2
    
    Bernie,
     That's the way that I would do it too.....but...what would happen
    if *YOUR* meaning was different than the pope's or say the local
    bishop's?
    
    I.E. Birth Control
    
    Marc H.

    Marc,
    
    Some of my meanings do disagree with the pope/bishops.   I go along
    with my own meaning.   If it is wrong, well that will be between 
    me and God.
    
    Regarding birth control, yes I agree with it.   I do not believe God
    wants children to suffer, where they might have been born to homes
    that could not afford them/did not want any more, etc.   I do not
    believe in abortion.
    
    
    Bernie

    RE: .4
    
    Thanks for the reply Bernie. 
    
    Marc H.

Marc,

I know what you're saying but I don't think it's limited to the Catholic
Church.  Take heart Bernie!   I too had a discussion this weekend, but
it was with my sister-in-law.  We were talking about narrow-mindedness
and how it's a tag often relegated to conservative Christians.  She
talked about narrow-mindedness is also a trait of liberal Christians.  
Anyone can sit in a church or any kind of meeting and blindly accept what 
you are told as truth.  I firmly believe that it is my job to submit to the
Holy Spirit and it is His job to interpret the Scripture for me.  Also
remember that God gave us His Word to test for truth.  We must remember 
that leaders of the church are people too.  They are under attack by Satan 
more than any other Christian because revival starts with the leadership.  
Individuals in a congregation must come under God's authority to discern 
whether the preaching is in accordance with His meaning.  I have been in a
church where the pastor and deacons were lead astray by Satan and it was a 
very destructive force splitting our church.  He was finally asked to 
resign because of questions of heresy.  It's what caused me to stop going 
to church for a total of 6 years.  Our church had gotten too focused on
people, and people will always let you down.  God doesn't.

I don't necessarily buy into premise that because one person sits in 
church and accepts things as truth and another seeks to find the meaning 
for themselves that therein lies the conflict.  I believe most conflict
is born out of people not submitting to the Holy Spirit to interpret the 
Scripture, but using their own interpretation and thus creating disagreement 
on the meaning of Scripture.

Jill
    

    I see a world being torn apart by people trying to force there brand
    of authoritarianism on each other.
    
    God gave us all reason to let us discern the truth.
    
    It is idolatry  to think the truth for all women and men can be
    contained in any one book:  The Bible, the Koran, or the Constitution
    of the United States.
    
                          Patricia

.0

Your question is one I've posed myself, internally and externally.

I think some of the conflict arises out of fear and insecurity, some of
the conflict is rooted in a sense of fidelity to a worldview or faith
structure, and some of the conflict arises out of unrestrained missionary
zeal.  I believe for many, particularly in this conference, conflict is
about the struggle for power, though the ones involved in conflict may
not be consciously aware of it.  This is by no means meant to be a
comprehensive answer.

Also, I want to be quick to add, I don't see every conflict as something
negative.  I would go so far as to say that without conflict there is no
growth.

Richard

.0

Also, I've observed there is variance among Christians as to Who or what
possesses the highest possible authority (admittedly over-simplified):

Collectivity					Primary Authority
============					=================

Most Protestants, Fundamentalists		The Holy Bible

Traditional Roman Catholics			The Holy Roman Catholic Church

Christian mystics				The Holy Spirit

At the same time, all the above recognize God as Supreme Authority.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  548.7
    
  >It is idolatry  to think the truth for all women and men can be
  >contained in any one book:  

Is it idolatry to believe that God through the Holy Spirit and
humans wrote the Bible?

Collis

    
    
    
    
    Collis,
    
    God inspires all great works of art and of Wisdom.  Human beings decide
    which of those works will become scripture and which will not.
    
    Freezing scripture at a historic period biases truth and meaning.
    
    There are many things in the Bible that are immoral and unworthy of being
    declared divinely written.  It is idolatry to declare these to be the
    word and demand of Goddess/God.  Genocide, Homophobia, Discrimination based
    of Sex, or Race, Slavery are all immoral.  To use the bible to declare
    these evils good and divinely ordained is idolatry or perhaps even
    worse.  To declare the bible to be the eternal unalterable word of
    Goddess/God is idolatry.  To use the bible as a weapon of hatred is Sinful.
    
                                  Patricia

>To declare the bible to be the eternal unalterable word of
>Goddess/God is idolatry.

To refer to "Goddess/God" is disobedience to the First Commandment.
It is _certainly_ not a Christian Perspective.

>To use the bible as a weapon of hatred is Sinful.

Correct; all hatred is sinful.  Correcting those in error is not hatred,
but the love to which Christ calls us.

/john

    Patricia,
    
    I agree with your comments.
    
    I am reminded of Tillich's writings on the subject of idolatry, which
    he related to his concept of the  Ultimate Concern.  I am admittedly
    not an expert in Tillich, but I do believe that what he described in
    this way applies here.  As I understand his point, when God/Goddess is
    not our Ultimate Concern, their our concern becomes idolatrous instead.
    
    Of course, I believe that God/Goddess even forgives the idolatrous
    among us for their sin.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,
    
    Good point. Idolatry is an "Ultimate Concern" to prove the authority of
    a bible rather than a dedication to a Universal Goddess/God available to
    all humankind.
    
    Paul Tillich did write some good stuff.  
    
    He did consider himself Christian didn't he.
    
    
                           Patricia
    
    

    
    
    
    Richard, God is my highest authority.  I believe He left me His Word as 
    a guide, but I do not worship the Bible, but God.  I believe most, if
    not all Protestants and Fundamentalists would agree.  I can't believe
    you made  those stereotypes.  I pray to God and ask for intervention of
    the Holy  Spirit much more than I read the Bible.  I think that's the
    balance needed.   I use the Bible as a guide and rely on the Holy
    Spirit to make it's truths  come to fruition in my life.  
    
    I pray on a daily basis for God to forgive my anger at people for the
    things they say about God and His truths.  It's something I have to
    constantly ask for victory over.  I don't pray to my Bible.  I pray
    to God and ask that the Holy Spirit changes my attitudes.

    Jill
    

    Jill,
    
    Then we have much more in common than you think. 
    
    I too use the bible and other scriptures as my guide and then rely on
    the Holy Spirit to discern the truths from the texts.
    
    Patricia

    I would ditto .16.  And I *did* admit upfront what I was saying was an
    over-simplification.  To list all the possible nuances would certainly
    exceed our 100 line conference guideline.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    RE: .16 & .17
    
    Good.  I pray for both of you that God does reveal His truth to you,
    as I also pray for myself.
    
    As for an over-simplification, I disagree.  I think it was simply
    an incorrect observation.  There are many people in all religions
    who rely too much on what they read or are told...including mystic
    Christians.  And there are plenty of Protestants, Fundamentalist
    Christians, and Catholics who rely on the Holy Spirit and not so
    totally on the Bible and Church as you stated.
    
    Jill

    Re: .18
    
    I concede the possibility, but we're really too close to agreement to
    quibble about it any further or in greater detail.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Hi Jill,
    
    How do you or would you handle a situation where you are guided by
    the Holy Spirit, but the guidance is not in agreement with scripture?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

    
    Hi Carole,
    
    Not a problem.  I don't believe God, and therefore the Holy Spirit,
    contradicts Himself.  Since I believe the Bible is God-breathed,
    I don't believe the Holy Spirit would ever ask me to do something
    that contradicts Scripture.  I have never had that experience.  
    When I have something in my life that contradicts with the Bible,
    it's of my own self-desire, not of the Spirit.  I repent of it
    and ask for God to open my eyes to other traps and to give me 
    the grace to make the right choice the next time.  It's a learning
    process.  I haven't yet obtained the perfection God promises us
    when we get to heaven, but I'm working on being less imperfect
    by submitting to His will.
    
    Jill

Re:  548.11
    
  >There are many things in the Bible that are immoral and unworthy of being
  >declared divinely written.  It is idolatry to declare these to be the
  >word and demand of Goddess/God.

Then, indeed, many of the 40 human authors of the Bible practiced 
idolatry for this is exactly what they did.  It wouldn't surprise
me at all to find that almost all of these 40 authors practiced this
idolatry by your definition (if we include implication as well as
explicit acceptance).

  >To declare the bible to be the eternal unalterable word of
  >Goddess/God is idolatry.  
    
Thank you for clarifying what you believe.  

Collis

To answer the base note,

One obvious reason why there is conflict is because we disagree
on the foundation.  I accept the cornerstone to be Jesus
Christ.  I accept His revelation which, along with us, will
last forever.  Others reject (much of) His revelation.  Some reject
certain aspects of Jesus Himself.  I personally find Jesus
to be wholly consistent with His revelation.  Others believe
there is inconsistency there and therefore feel compelled
to reject one or the other (or both).

Those who start with a different basis are going to reach
different conclusions.  The result is conflict.

Collis

    RE: .23
    
    Hummmmmm......I don't think that the conflict I'm talking about
    is along the lines of disagreement on the foundation. I think that
    the disagreement is along the lines of just "who" interprits the
    Bible.....an individual with the supporting structure of the church/
    minister/fellow christains/holy spirit or just the church( bishops
    /popes/priests).
    
    I feel that both sides except Jesus.
    
    Marc H.

    My opinion:  I don't think Richard's characterization in .9 is
    stereotypical at all.  It edifies the basic dilema and observations
    Marc has made in .0, and reiterated in his last note.  
    
    There is no doubt each group is seeking and worshipping God, they
    just take different routes to do so.  The "conflict" arises when people 
    choose to make an issue out of this difference in approach, insisting
    theirs is the absolutely correct one.  
    
    Karen                                                                

    RE: .25
    
    Correcto Mondo....
    
    Marc H.

    My own thoughts on this Marc... 
    
    Conflict, like most things is paradoxical.  One inherent aspect is that
    of it is divisive.  On a personal level, when conflict arises it
    inherently serves to cleave one away (at least momentarily) from 
    one's own beliefs, behavior and faith - conflict urges one to re-examine 
    and reflect upon these things which have become so dear to the heart
    and mind.  
    
    This divisive aspect of conflict is very healthy.  By initially serving
    to faciliate this periodic self-examination, it has the potential to 
    further one's learning and deepen one's faith; it also has the ability 
    to point out areas where perhaps our beliefs need to grow and change.
    
    It is this very real potential for change inherent in conflict that,
    imo, is the most threatening for people to deal with, for change is not
    easy, especially a change in one's beliefs.  If one is sincere
    and an "honest seeker" of truth, then conflict requires a *great* 
    deal of courage and understanding to engage in it.  Courage to be
    willing to question one's own beliefs and behavior and understanding
    that fears automatically come up in oneself and others engaging in 
    conflict.
    
    What's very difficult is that this divisive quality of conflict can
    drive wedges into friendships and family relations, those whom we love
    and care about and whom we want to support.  And I sense in your
    basenote, Marc, that this is what you're feeling and struggling with.  
    All I can say is I truly empathize with you.  
    
    But conflict has a unitive aspect too.  And that is, that greater
    learning and wisdom and faith is not possible without the reflection and
    self-examination that conflict compels us to do.  This unitive aspect
    of conflict is much more subtle.  It exists in the quiet shadows and
    hidden pools of conflict, away from the fireworks and flashy displays 
    of emotionalism that tend to command our attention.   But if we can 
    enter into conflict with a courage and willingness to look at ourselves 
    honestly, it has the capacity to reveal rich insights into ourselves, 
    others and life in general.  And through these insights, we can come 
    to experience a greater unity, with ourselves, others, and ultimately 
    -- with God.  
    
    In addition, Grace would be impossible, and unnecessary, without the
    experience of conflict. 
    
    Karen

    
    RE: .21
    
    Thanks for your reply Jill.  I wonder, though, based on what you have
    shared in .21, how you can say that you follow the Holy Spirit rather
    than the Bible if everything has to fit what the Bible says.  Doesn't
    that lock the Holy Spirit into a certain timeframe and culture?  I'm
    really trying to understand this, as it is something I find quite
    confusing.
    
    Thanks again,
    
    Carole
    

    Your welcome Collis.  
    
    My faith demands that I be clear, particularly with myself.
    
    Karen's comments are very perceptive to this point.
    
    My conclusion have grown out of the conflict within this file and my
    internalization of that conflict and finding meaning within that
    conflict.
    
    There are many things in the bible that are truly inspirational but
    there are also many things that are not holy.  They are stories and they
    had meaning to the people who wrote them and to their worldview. 
    It has been inferred or outright stated that I am a heretic, a
    hedonist, and a great evil for using my intellect to discern what I
    know from the bible and from my relationship with Goddess/God.
    
    I am too sensitive not to be hurt by those inference but ultimately it
    required a profound examination of my own faith.  Goddess/God for me is
    perfect goodness.  My human capacity to define goodness is limited but
    qualities such as violence, jeolousy, anger that leads to destruction
    and the like are not goodness and are not worthy to be attributed to
    Goddess/God.  A belief in the God breathed or inerrant quality of the
    bible forces one to accept these negative qualities as Godlike and then
    forces all kinds of mental gymnastics to prove that what is bad is
    really good because the bible attributes them to the divine.
    
    My criticism is not a criticism of Goddess/God, nor is it really a
    criticism of the bible, but it is a criticism of freezing the bible in
    a point of time and not recognizing the human and historical elements
    that created it.  
    
    I am clear that it is idolatry to attribute to Goddess/God those elements
    that are not Godlike, just because they are defined as characteristics of
    God in the Bible. To do so requires us to worship a God as defined by a
    book and not the transcending mystery of the divine that we can only
    experience dimly, but then perhaps face to face.
    
    
    love and peace
    
    Patricia
    
    
    

Re:  548.25
    
  >There is no doubt each group is seeking and worshipping God, they
  >just take different routes to do so.  The "conflict" arises when people 
  >choose to make an issue out of this difference in approach, insisting
  >theirs is the absolutely correct one.  
    
It is indeed true that their are people in each group who seek and
worship God.  It is not so clear that each group as a whole
does this (since most groups tend to include many more inactive
members than active members).

Their certainly can be (and often is) a different emphasis on a
wide range of issues including the primary authority.  However,
their are indeed defining differences between those who worship
God as He has revealed Himself and those who claim to worship God
without knowing Him.  Of course, as an Evangelical, I accept the
authority of the Bible in defining these differences.

It continues to perplex me why people accept the authority and
revelation of the Bible on some subjects while denying its authority
on its own correctness.  The logic of this escapes me.

Collis

Note 548.28
    
>    Thanks for your reply Jill.  I wonder, though, based on what you have
>    shared in .21, how you can say that you follow the Holy Spirit rather
>    than the Bible if everything has to fit what the Bible says.

Carole,

	I do not care to argue the rightness or wrongness of what I'm
about to share.  I merely wish to present it, and do so without being obliged
to defend it.

	The Christian mystic does not forsake the Bible.  At the same time,
if one believes one is being led by the Holy Spirit and the leading is either
unsupported by or at variance with traditional understandings of the Bible,
then the mystic must decide whether to act on that leading or not.  Sometimes
the mystic will fail.  Sometimes the leadings are ingenuine, as has been
suggested.  And sometimes failure, that is, what we tend to identify as
failure, utterly defies rationalization.  The Christian mystic chooses the
most hazardous and least trodden path; the road less traveled.

Peace,
Richard

*.  However their are indeed defining differences between those who worship
*God as He has revealed Himself and those who claim to worship God
*without knowing Him. .

    THat statement defines why there is conflict.  It can be easily read "I
    worship God as he has revealed himself in the bible.  Those who don't agree
    with me only claim to worship God.  That statement has to cause
    conflict.
    
*It continues to perplex me why people accept the authority and
*revelation of the Bible on some subjects while denying its authority
*on its own correctness.  The logic of this escapes me.

    On all subjects I accept the authority and revelation of the Bible when
    it is consistent with experience, reason, and tradition.  My experience
    of Goddess/God and Reason are the primary sources of authority to me.
    Reason include a critical analysis of the thoughts and opinions of
    others as expressed in Historical and other analytical works.
    
    Collis, you may not agree with the logic but it should not excape you. 
    I accept that there is much great wisdom in the Bible. That does not
    mean I accept the bible as ultimately authoritative.
    
    Now what does Evangelical mean anyways?
    
    
    love and peace
    
    Patricia

    RE: 28
    
    Thanks for another great question, Carole.  Think of this for a minute 
    in human terms...kind of like a parable.   Say you have a leader that
    you  want to follow.   You believe everything that he tells you is
    true.  But  there comes a time when he has to take a trip and you're
    going to be  separated for some time.  You worry about how to follow
    him when he's  not right there.  So to help you he writes down his
    beliefs so that you  don't forget them and then he leaves you with a
    special counselor that is in complete agreement with him and acts
    accordingly.  They counselor has a special connection to the leader
    even after he's gone.  Say, private fax machine #s or something. ;^) 
    So, time goes by and you kind of start  forgetting stuff because you're
    leader isn't there, so you consult his  writings so that you can
    remember.  Then there are times when it's been so  long seen you've had
    a situation arise and there has been so much other  input from those
    around you that when you read his writings, you don't  really remember
    exactly what he intended, so you go and ask the counselor  and he helps
    you remember.  The writings he left enable you to follow him.   They
    don't limit him because he wrote them.  He's always been and always 
    will be and his truth cut across timeframes and cultures.  They are
    basic  truth that defy time and the peoples of them.  Some things that
    the leader  wrote down were exact and others were principles to help in
    how you should  want to act when a situation arises that he didn't
    specifically record.   Sometimes you goof up because you've forgotten
    what the leader said and  the counselor remembers you and you try to
    remember that lesson for the  next time the situation arises.

    Is this a little clearer?

    Jill
    

Re:  548.32

     >>However their are indeed defining differences between those who worship
     >>God as He has revealed Himself and those who claim to worship God
     >>without knowing Him. .

  >THat statement defines why there is conflict.  It can be easily read "I
  >worship God as he has revealed himself in the bible.  Those who don't agree
  >with me only claim to worship God.  That statement has to cause conflict.

If you wish to interpret the statement this way, then indeed there
will be conflict.  :-)

Perhaps the issue is the two assumptions:

  1)  God has revealed Himself
  2)  There are those who claim to worship God who do not know Him

However, I expect that practically everyone in this conference agrees
with these assumptions (and, as for myself, these are clearly revealed
as truth by prophets of God), so this is probably not the issue.
    
     >>It continues to perplex me why people accept the authority and
     >>revelation of the Bible on some subjects while denying its authority
     >>on its own correctness.  The logic of this escapes me.

  >Collis, you may not agree with the logic but it should not escape you.

What escapes me is not the truth that people accept from the Bible what
they believe is consistent with their experience, reason and tradition.
This makes perfect sense.  People believe what they want to believe.

What escapes me is the *logic* in this.  I find it (like Mr. Spock :-) )
illogical to believe that which is consistent with experience, reason
and tradition using as a source for that belief the Bible while
equally authoritative information given by the Bible is denied - because
it is inconsistent with experience, reason and tradition.  In other
words, using the Bible as authoritative in some areas while denying
its authority in other areas as illogical - especially in light of
the consistent claims of the Bible of authority and inerrancy.

Is it that people do not accept the authority of the Bible at all?
Some would say this - and then quote the Bible to back up their
position.  Is it authoritative or isn't it?  This is illogical as
I understand it.  I wrestled with this conflict and decided, on the
preponderance of the evidence, that the Bible was authoritative.
Others don't seem to even understand this issue much less struggle
with it.

  >Now what does Evangelical mean anyways?

This gets back into Church History.  I've entered long explanation of
this several times.  Put simply, Evangelicals accept the Bible as
authoritative (typically accept it as inerrant) but often do not have
the personal restrictions that Fundamentalist churches do (such as
no smoking, no dancing, no drinking, etc).  This explanation leaves
a lot to be desired, so do put too much weight in it (although it
is accurate as a generalization).  Billy Graham was a major force
in starting the Evangelical movement being involved in starting
publications such as Christianity Today as well as the merger of two
seminaries into the one I attended, Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary.

Collis

re Note 548.34 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   1)  God has revealed Himself
>   2)  There are those who claim to worship God who do not know Him
> 
> However, I expect that practically everyone in this conference agrees
> with these assumptions (and, as for myself, these are clearly revealed
> as truth by prophets of God), so this is probably not the issue.
  
        I would agree with the above statements as far as they go,
        but my agreement depends upon the following reservation:

        3) God is far beyond complete human comprehension or
        knowledge, thus God's revelation is limited by human
        limitations and no human knows God very well in absolute
        terms (although some humans may have a level of understanding
        God that is very close to human capacity).


> In other
> words, using the Bible as authoritative in some areas while denying
> its authority in other areas as illogical - especially in light of
> the consistent claims of the Bible of authority and inerrancy.

        Even though you offer the above as highly illogical, I find
        it highly logical -- name one other source of information in
        this world recognized as authoritative -- much less inerrant
        -- in all it says.  Your claim is literally incredible.

        Bob

    My own view is very similar to Bob's.  I would add, from my own
    perspective, that I personally don't view knowing God to be a binary
    condition; I think that each of us "knows" God in *some* sense, because
    I believe there is that of God in everyone, and because  God is
    omnipresent and influences all of us by His/Her presence; but none of
    us, as finite beings, can fully "know" or comprehend God in His/Her
    infinity, as Bob pointed out.
    
    -- Mike

"Anyone who is so "progressive" that he does not remain rooted in the teaching
of Christ does not possess God, while anyone who remains rooted in the
teaching possesses both the Father and the Son." --II John 9

    Many Christians, even priests, are not orthodox.  They believe and teach
things not in accord with the teachings of the Church.  Many don't even care
whether their teachings are orthodox.

    This attack against orthodox teaching has been going on for centuries.
Paul commanded Timothy to "stay on in Ephesus in order to warn certain people
there against teaching false doctrines" (I Tim 1:3).  We are to "guard the
rich deposit of faith with the help of the Holy Spirit Who dwells within
us" (II Tim 1:14).  A Christian leader "must hold fast to the authentic
message, so that he will be able both to encourage men to follow sound
doctrine and to refute those who contradict it" (Ti 1:8).  "People will not
tolerate sound doctrine, but, following their own desires, will surround
themselves with teachers who tickle their ears.  They will stop listening
to the truth and will wander off to fables" (II Tim 4:3-4).

    Therefore, "pray for us that the word of the Lord may make progress and
be hailed by many others, even as it has been by you.  Pray that we may be
delivered from confused and evil men.  For not every man has faith, but the
Lord keeps faith; He it is Who will strengthen you and guard you against
the evil one"  (II Thes 3:1-3).

Father, purify Your Church.  May we repent of holding and teaching
unorthodox beliefs.

"Whoever tries to preserve his life will lose it; whoever loses it
          will keep it."  Lk 17:33

From "One Bread, One Body"

    I'd rather hold fast to a Church that holds fast to what it believes to
    be eternal truth that to a Chruch that is running to be point of
    exhaustion to catch up with its members believe to the trend of the
    moment.

    
    RE: .31 Richard
    
    No problem with me Richard.  Thanks for your thoughts.  Did you think 
    I was going to argue your rightness or wrongness?  
    
    RE: .33 Jill
    
    Thanks for the clarification.  I understand how you work with this now.
    
    
    Carole

    RE: .38/37
    
    Could you folks comment with regards to the base note?
    
    Marc  H.

    The affirmation read at my church Sunday inspired me to remember how
    enriching this covenant is to me.  There is conflict here because we
    are all different and each of us finds inspiration from different
    sources.  in note 548.38  Patrick states his preference for a church
    that holds fast to its understanding of eternal truth.  My preference
    is for a church that embraces the greatest diversity in the expression
    of eternal truths.  What Patrick finds essential for a church I would
    find stiffling.  What I find inspirational, Patrick would find
    heretical.  This covenant for me embodies essential eternal truths.
    
    
    
    
    Covenant of the traditions that inspire UU churches as enacted by the UUA
    General Assembly in 1986.  
    
      These are:

        o Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder,	
        affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of spirit and
        an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;

        o Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to
        confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion,
        and the transforming power of love;

        o Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our
        ethical and spiritual life;

        o Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's
        love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

        o Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of
        reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries
        of the mind and spirit.

    Grateful for the religious pluralism which enriches and ennobles
    our faith, we are inspired to deepen our understanding and expand our
    vision.  As free congregations we enter into this covenant, promising
    to one another our mutual trust and support.
    
    
         Patricia
    
    
         Mike 
    
         Thank you for saving me from the typing. I checked
    first to see if they were in the UU notes file and there they were.

    Patricia, I think you have hit the nail on the head.  I suspect that as
    long as people have such fundamentally different ideas about how truth
    is understood, and how that understanding evolves or doesn't evolve,
    there will be conflict. 
    
    -- Mike

Note 548.39

>    No problem with me Richard.  Thanks for your thoughts.  Did you think 
>    I was going to argue your rightness or wrongness?  

It's rarely you who does that, Carole.  I just didn't want to get 'embroiled'
in an exchange as I have in the past.

Peace,
Richard