Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Patricia,
    
    			This is one of my "hot buttons".  Because of my
    perception of Christ and his love for me I would rather see people
    "loved into heaven than scared out of hell".   Fire and brimstone
    preaching leaves me rather cold because my experience with Christ has
    been one of intense love and caring.  
    
    
    Dave

    Dear Patricia:
    
    "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise as some count slackness,
     but His longsuffering to usward not willing that ANY should perish but
     that all should come to repentence" 2nd Peter 3:9.
    
    I would say that verse alone pretty much gives Gods perspective on our
    eternal life.  I too am annoyed by individuals when they proclaim a
    teaching or doctrine to be absolute without the ability to back up
    scripturally or a total misunderstanding of the same.  Would you agree
    on the importance that God has set up a standard of getting saved or
    not getting saved in the New Testament?  If there was no Hell, Jesus
    would not have had to save us from anything, correct?  He would in my
    mind have been a lunatic to endure what he did on the cross had there
    not been a hell to save us from, right?!  
    
    Take Care,
    
    Jack
    

    
>    I translate the message as "Anyone who does not believe what I believe is
>    going to Hell"  "You don't believe what I believe therefore you are going to
>    Hell"
>    
>    Fortunately my Faith in a God of Love is growing and I am tremendously
>    offended by the arrogance of this message.

	Are you also offended by the arrogance of someone who says "if you
	put your hand in the fire it will burn?" If not why not? Perhaps because
	you believe it to be true and that it is said with good intention?

	I can of course say "believe in something other then Jesus and you can
	still go to heaven." However I could not live with myself if I did.
	Any more then I could live with telling a child to stick his hand in 
	the fire and it will not get burned.

			Alfred

    Patricia, I agree with you completely.  I think, in response to your
    earlier question about the essence of Christianity, many Christians do
    have a goal-oriented approach to their faith.  The purpose of their
    faith is to avoid hell when they die.  I once had proselytizers at my
    door in Colorado Springs ask me if I knew where I was going when I
    died.  That was basically their selling point--the religion was not its
    own reward, but a means toward a longer term reward.  (I didn't bother
    to tell them that I didn't believe in hell and considered the existence
    of heaven irrelevant to me.)

    I also agree with you that the assertion that anyone with the "wrong"
    beliefs will go to hell is theologically offensive and inconsistent
    with my view of God.  I guess as a scare tactic for proselytizing it is
    consistent with the goal-oriented basis for their own faith, so that
    would explain where they are coming from.

    -- Mike

    Mike:
    
    Then was Jesus a lunatic for dying on the cross?
    
    Merry Christmas,
    
    Jack

	Wow, this reminds me of a good friend of mine. It was a Monday morning
at a company I used to work at. He had just come back from one of those
Fireside Retreats where they really pump you up. Well, he came in and started
telling everyone about how unless they repent and turn their lives over to God,
they would burn in hell! His boss came over to me and asked me to go talk to
him as if he didn't stop bothering people like this he was going to take him
into his office and scream. I went over to him and told him he had to cool it.
He wanted no part of it. I then asked him just what it was he was saying. It
was the usual scare tactics stuff that you hear from so many people. We talked
about it for a while and then I asked him couldn't he say the same thing, but
in a manner that wasn't so confrontational? Like what was suggested in the base
note. I truly believe that people will get more out of religion these days if
it isn't crammed down their throats with things like scare tactics. Because
then it's hard to have a conversation where questions get asked. You usually
end up with more of a who can shout the loudest OR the person's a kook deal.
Not too many people like one sided conversations. Without questions, no answers
will ever be found.



Glen

    This is true Glen and when I run into a situation like this, I gently
    remind the perpetrator that Jesus didn't start his ministry until he
    was 30 and it only lasted three years!  I'm sure he had the best
    reasons for doing it this way!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    
    If hell is a reality (which it is) the reason for which one escapes it
    - out of fear of it or out of love for God - are both valid.  
    
    Clearly there are people who dislike this part of the Christian message
    but Jesus uses it repeatedly as well as the disciples - that is, that
    hell is so terrible that we should all be saved from it.  
    
    Different people respond differently to the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Do
    not let your self be king of what is right or wrong.  The Word of God
    should be king and we should be subject to the Word.  Do not wish that
    Christians would not share the threat of hell as motivation for turning
    to God.  Would you rather they went to hell?  Is your feeling on this
    subject applicable to everyone else?  
    
    jeff

I John 4:18  There is no �fear� in �love;� but perfect �love� casteth out
�fear:� because fear hath torment. He that feareth is not made
perfect in love.

II Timothy 1:7  For God hath not given us the spirit of �fear;� but of
power, and of �love,� and of a sound mind.

Peace [and love],
Richard

	Jeff, you can convey the same message without the scare tactics. Using
scare tactics people are very unlikely to ask questions. Talking to them calmly
and conveying the same message will get more people to ask questions. 



Glen

    >Then was Jesus a lunatic for dying on the cross?
    
    I don't think so.
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .9

Good verses, Richard.  I'm not sure how fully they apply to
this, but they are well worth considering.

Collis

    
    Glen,
    
    I think the message of hell and nonbelievers eventual landing there
    is the definition of the "scare tactic".  
    
    Whether one says it calmly or emphatically is irrelevant to the topic.
    
    Jesus and the Apostles are very direct in the Bible and use different
    tactics with different people.  I suggest we follow their model above all.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    I don't believe Jesus ever used those scare tactics either.  I believe
    that Paul and the Writers of the four Gospels used them as part of
    there scare tactics.  I believe there is a significant difference.
    
    
    
    Patricia

    RE: .8 Jeff,
    
    			I worship God out of love and *NOT* fear of hell.
    
    
    Dave

    It's funny, because fear of hell is so often used as the selling point
    for Christianity by many proselytizers.  For them, that *is* the reason
    for being a Christian--avoiding hell.  Salvation from hell is the
    be-all and end-all of their theology.
    
    If that is how they define their own theology, it is probably not
    surprising that this is how they present their faith to others.
    
    -- Mike

    Pat,
    
    Well, do you want me to educate you or do you want to educate yourself? 
    Read the Gospels.  Oh wait.  I just saw your reply again.  You believe
    that Paul and the Writers of the four Gospels used them as scare
    tactics (quoting) but not Jesus.  How do you know what Jesus said about
    anything if not from the Writings of the Gospels?
    
    Your position is so illogical that we cannot have a discussion.
    
    jeff

    .15
    
    Did I say I was taking a survey?  Well, you're on the record Dave.
    
    jeff

Re:  .14

Patricia,

I see no evidence for your beliefs and the evidence we do have 
directly contradicts your beliefs.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    You are right.  We have real significant difference in how we view the
    bible and therefore how we view what we have for evidence.  I do
    respect the consistency in your thought and how you approach the
    issues.  We will never agree unless a real transformation occurs in one
    of our systems of belief.
    
    Jeff,
    
    It is unfair for you to say I am illogical because I do not reach the
    same conclusions that you do.  
    
    Historically there is very little we know about Jesus.  We have  5
    books and a dozen or so letters all written from memory years after
    Jesus' death and all contradicting each other.  These do not meet my
    test of evidence.  For me a big piece of contradictory evidence is the
    literature and tradition of the other great world religions.  Bhudhism,
    Hinduism, Taosm, Confuscious, American Indian, Pre-Hebrew Religions and
    even Islam to name just a few.  
    
    
    Patricia

    
    Pat,
    
    I understand where you're coming from now.  I only ask that you not
    make statements of conviction concerning Biblical figures since you do
    not believe it to be a reliable source.  It *is* illogical to suggest
    that you know the mind of Jesus, for example, when you reject the
    reliability of the only significant source of His life and times.
    
    jeff

Note 571.21
    
>    I only ask that you not
>    make statements of conviction concerning Biblical figures since you do
>    not believe it to be a reliable source.  It *is* illogical to suggest
>    that you know the mind of Jesus, for example, when you reject the
>    reliability of the only significant source of His life and times.
    
jeff,

	Your request seems to be based on binary thinking about the Bible.
Though Pat might not embrace the accounts of the Bible 100%, it doesn't
necessarily follow that she embraces the Bible 0%.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    Pat made a very specific statement which carte blanche discredited the
    writers of the Gospels and the Epistles.  How does it
    make sense to say this then to say with conviction that Jesus would do
    this or that?  It is illogical since the Bible is the only significant
    source of Jesus's life.  
    
    I understand what is happening here; what a person desires to believe
    determines what Scripture are true or reliable. It is a
    common occurence in this conference and in the world.  But it is not
    intellectually honest and prevents meaningful discussion.
    
    jeff
    
    

Note 571.23
    
>    Pat made a very specific statement which carte blanche discredited the
>    writers of the Gospels and the Epistles.

Not entirely.  Her statement may challenge, but it doesn't discredit.

>    I understand what is happening here; what a person desires to believe
>    determines what Scripture are true or reliable. It is a
>    common occurence in this conference and in the world.  But it is not
>    intellectually honest and prevents meaningful discussion.

I, too, understand what's happening here.  You are free to call them as you
see them, but bear in mind that you, too, are being held prisoner by your
own biases.

Peace,
Richard

    Right Richard.  There are no absolutes.  Everything is relative. 
    Objective truth cannot be known (not by Bible-believing Christians
    anyway).  
    
    jeff
    
    

    .25  I hear your disdain.
    
    Speaking of fear and scare tactics, one of my greatest fears is that
    someday I'll be stuck in Heaven with no one around but Absolutists.
    
    %*)
    
    Richard

    
    Hi Patricia,
    
    I guess since I'm the offending party, I should respond.  I'm sorry
    you are offended.  But I would rather have you be offended and one
    day have the knowledge that could save you, then to have you be
    "safe in your understanding" and not know the Way.  I would take all 
    the abuse you would throw at me to get the word out that Jesus Christ
    saves.  Is that arrogance?  No.  When I was 8yrs old, a gift was 
    shared with me.  A gift that was not free of responsibility.  That 
    responsibility was to share it with others.  While notes is not a 
    perfect medium for that, it is one way I can let others worldwide 
    know of that message.  I have no control over whether they accept 
    that message, only the Holy Spirit and individuals do.
    
    In 568.18 you asked how Christianity was different than all the rest.
    The essence of Christianity is that it saves.  I can't avoid that.
    It's the message!!  You asked a question, I simply answered as honestly
    as I know how.  I wasn't trying to scare you.  All I'm doing is letting
    you know you're empowered to make a choice with your life, that choice
    is to believe or not believe that Jesus Christ died for you and was
    resurrected so that the Holy Spirit could dwell in you and be a comfort
    and guide to you while you walk this earth.  For every choice there
    is a consequence.  This choice is no different, just more crucial.
    
    God loves you as much as He love me.  He went to hell and back for us.
    It's a gift that ALL can choose to receive, so there's no exclusivity.
    Those who choose not to receive it, won't.  That's not arrogance. 
    Those who don't choose it will remain separated from God.  That's 
    not a scare tactic.  That's the truth.
    
    Jill

    Jill,
    
    That's your truth but it is not my truth.  The arrogance of a Dogmatic
    Christianity angers me.  I seek Goddess/God not as he revealed himself
    to someone else and as that someone else described that revelation in
    any book or sermon but as Goddess/God reveals herself to me.
    
    I don't need to memorize a bunch of creeds to find salvation.  I don't
    even need to define salvation the way you do.
    
    I find Goddess/God not in the Bible but  in quiet moments of meditation and
    prayer, in the natural beauty all around me, in the incarnation of the
    divine in people around me as manifested by their love and goodness, in
    a mother nursing her baby at church service on Christmas Eve.
    
    I find Goddess/God in a Pagan Yule circle, in a Chanaukah celebration,
    in a Christmas Eve service.  This season of darkness and the return of
    the light is a wonderful time to celebrate the hopes and joys that all
    humankind share in common.  
    
    I am a Unitarian Universalist.  I am allowed and encouraged to
    interpreted that anyway I want.  I interpret the Unitarian to mean that
    I believe that there is one Goddess/God who is available to everyone
     in this world and any others that may be discovered.  The
    Universalist means that we are all connected, thread by thread with one
    another.
    
    love and peace
    
    Patricia

Patricia,

That's the truth presented in the Bible as well as Jill's
truth.  Please don't artificially limit it to Jill.  One
would think that you're trying to take away any credence
for this truth by doing that.  :-)

Collis

Patricia,

	How is your telling me I'm wrong less arrogant than me telling you
	that you are wrong? Serious question. You are, after all, telling me
	that there is more than one way to God and that I am wrong to say
	otherwise.

		Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    The difference is that I am telling you about how I worship and relate
    to Goddess/God and how I feel about people preaching at me and telling me
    how I am going to hell if I don't worship the Divine the way they do. 
    That is what is arrogant and offensive.  The message is just as
    arrogant and offensive whether the delivery is fire and brimstone or
    gentle.
    
    I am not telling you that you are wrong in the way you worship God. 
    You are telling me that I am wrong in the way I do.  That is a big
    difference.
    
    

>    I am not telling you that you are wrong in the way you worship God. 

	Yes you are. If I do not tell people that they need Jesus I am
	not properly worshiping God. You are telling me I am wrong to tell
	people that they can't get to God except through Jesus. So you *are*
	saying that I am wrong in the way I worship God.

			Alfred

    Pat:
    
    Your Truth...My Truth???!!!   "Jesus said I am the way, the TRUTH, and
    the life..."
    
    It sounds to me like you are a victim of ecumenicalism!!
    
    Peace,
    
    Jack

>    It sounds to me like you are a victim of ecumenicalism!!

Ecumenism is a movement that has arisen in the Church which seeks the union
of all Christian Churches.

Syncretism is the tendancy to deny the uniqueness of Christianity and to
accept other religions.

/john

    It is possible to accept validity in other religions without denying
    the uniqueness of each religious perspective.  Tolerance does not
    necessarily imply syncretism.
    
    -- Mike

Note 571.33

Jack,
    
>    Your Truth...My Truth???!!!   "Jesus said I am the way, the TRUTH, and
>    the life..."

It's curious that this statement attributed to Jesus was thought so important
by 3 out of 4 gospel writers that they omitted it entirely.

It sounds to me like you're the victim of exclusionary dogmatism.

Peace,
Richard

No, he is a follower of the Christian Perspective.

    Richard:
    
    Would you be willing to agree that there is one truth and if so, what
    is it?
    
    Peace to you also,
    
    Jack

    Jack,
    
    I know it was a question for Richard but I try my answer.
    
    *What it the one truth?
    
    
    The one truth is that the Divine loves each of us and if we persevere 
    the Divine will show each of us the way.
    
    
    Patricia

Yes, the Divine has showed us the way.  But will we follow?

    Hi Pat:
    
    The Divine is also a God of Holiness.  He has set himself apart from
    sin.  Since the Divine has repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly told us
    that we are sinners and the wages of sin is spiritual death and hell,
    then the Divine's Love for us must be exceedingly great as the Divine
    has told us the way and provided the way through a horrible death on
    the cross.  
    
    Its not a matter of my truth being better than your truth or any such
    thing.  God has redeemed us with a heavy price and it is up to us to
    accept it or reject it!  For me to reject his death as payment for my
    sin would not be a reciprocal act of love, but rather contempt and
    hate.  Do you agree or disagree?
    
    Godspeed,
    
    Jack

    Jack,
    
    I disagree!
    
    
    Patricia

    
    
    
     What annoys me more than a person who thinks they know the truth is
    someone that cannot accept that possibility that something is wrong.
    Two definitions of God that show themselves as opposite with regards
    to Gods character, cannot both be right.... Now John Covert may be a
    pain in the butt when it comes allowin for different interps of the
    bible, but I do not imagine he is to far off when he decries the
    hypocrisy of calling this the Christian perspectiv and embracing
    the concept of God as a woman, especially since Patricia admits that
    this was some sort of a test/proof of the bibles historical
    mistreatment of women....
    
    David

    Re: .42
    
    Pat:
    
    Thats fine.  I accept your disagreement and still like you just the
    same.  Not my place to try to convince you of anything, only to be
    ready to give an answer for the hope that is within me!
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    Re: .43 By David
    
    Dave,
    
    Could you be a little more specific?  Are you referring to love and
    holiness as two definitions of Gods character that cannot co-exist?
    
    The scriptures are drenched with accounts showing both sides of Gods
    character, that being love (agape) and Holiness (Judgement).  In fact,
    if you read Revelation alone, you will get a sobering account of Gods
    justice and character!
    
    Warmest Rgds.,
    
    Jack
    

I don't think John is wrong.  I don't think Patricia is wrong, either.  I
certainly think both are worthy of consideration.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    We agree that any concept has an origin, correct?  If that is the case,
    then spiritual concepts either originate from God or from human beings
    (our intellect). I asked Pat in another string if she believed the
    Bible to be the Word of God?  If it is in fact the Word of God then it
    must be perfect in knowledge and in truth, otherwise, it is a forgery
    and erroneous (In which case we are all in Big Trouble).  
    
    Pats logic brings me to the conclusion that she believes the Bible not
    to be the Word of God based on her feedback in this string.  Now I
    don't want to draw a false conclusion and if I am wrong, please correct
    me.  I am teachable.  However, also keep in mind that the Christian
    Perspective is the Bible to be without error.
    
    "All Scripture is inspired and is profitable for Teaching, Reproof,
    Correction, and Training in Righteousness" 2nd Timothy 3:16.
    
    Christian Perspective is the Word's Perspective, not mine!
      
    If Gods Holiness is not an issue in the eternal perspective, then
    somebody will need to funish proof since the Bible is loaded to the
    hilt with evidence to the contrary!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

Jack,

Your observations are correct.  Not only does Pat not believe
the Bible to be the Word of God (along with most other
participants in this notes conference), Pat adamantly rejects
the chauvinistic, war-mongering, hate-spewing attitudes of the
authors of this work.  Unlike me who finds life and worth in
every jot and tittle.

Collis

    David,
    
    RE 571.43
    
    My question about God as a woman is not a trick question even though it
    does relate to my understanding of the bible and may ultimately relate
    to how I define myself in terms of Christianity.  The major question I
    am asking is what is the Essence of Christianity.  A variation is, is it
    possible to be a Feminist and a Christian.  Many feminist theologians do
    say no.  If Christianity cannot embrace the Female mythology as Well as
    the Male mythology, than those theologians are probably correct.  A
    person who holds the opinion that the bible is the word of God, clearly
    is impacted by the old testament imperative to wipe out the Canaanite
    religions.  A more liberal analysis of the bible asks why the old
    testament defined God the way it defined God and why was it so brutal to the
    existing religious structures.  Was the issue religion or was it
    politics.  Fortunately, I see the world moving to a more and more
    egalitarian society.  The degree to which Christianity remains relevent
    is dependent upon the degree to which it can present an equalitarian
    theology.  A theology based only on the old and new testament cannot be
    egalitarian.  Can Christianity accomodate itself to the renewal in
    interest in Goddess mythology?  I don't know.  Can Christianity discuss
    the issue?  I certainly hope so.
    
    My search is first of all for truth and only secondly for which
    theological structure that truth falls within.  I do not reject the
    bible.  I reject the bible as the innerant word of God. I reject the
    bible as the only source of inspiration.
    
    As I understand it there is a conference for bible believing
    Christians.  Believe me, I have no desire to venture into that
    conference. I am not trying to convert anyone.  
    
    I am looking to understand how accomodating Christianity can be to
    those issues that our critical to my life today. How I relate as a
    woman to the world around me and to the Divine is a critical issue.
    I am certainly not going to follow Paul's advice and shut up and
    ask my husband.
    
    Patricia

    *Your observations are correct.  Not only does Pat not believe
    *the Bible to be the Word of God (along with most other
    *participants in this notes conference), Pat adamantly rejects
    *the chauvinistic, war-mongering, hate-spewing attitudes of the
    *authors of this work.  Unlike me who finds life and worth in
    *every jot and tittle.
    
    Collis,
    
    I appreciate your ability to listen well.  I would only add that
    although I do adamantly reject the chauvinistic, war-mongering, hate-spewing
    attitudes potrayed in the bible, I also accept the loving, universal,
    caring aspects that are also found in the same works.
    
    Patricia

Indeed you do.  I should have pointed that out as well.

Collis

Note 571.32

>    I am not telling you that you are wrong in the way you worship God. 

>>	Yes you are.

Actually, the way I hear her, Patricia has said what she believes without
insisting that everybody must believe what she believes in order to be right.

I think Patricia expects, perhaps foolishly, the same courtesy and respect,
the same latitude for exploration as she extends to others.

On the other hand, many Christians, especially of the conservative variety,
feel duty-bound to impose upon others what they've been taught as absolute,
changeless, and exempt from unconventional insight -- all for the recipients
own good, of course.

Shalom,
Richard

Richard appears to have correctly interpreted what Pat is saying.

Pat has not said that Alfred is wrong, just that, to her, Alfred's
obedience to The Great Commission is arrogant and offensive.

Well, Jesus certainly appeared arrogant and offensive to those
who would not accept his message.  But he was not wrong.

/john

    
    
    
    Patricia 571.49
    
    
      I do not believe the bible is from cover to cover the innerant word
    of God. I do believe it is representative of the only true God. I
    respect your concerns regarding women..
    
    David

    RE: .43  David,
    
    
    			You pose an interesting question that leads to even
    more questions.  What if God is both male and female?  What if God is
    neither?  Is God "big" enough to encompass both?  
    
    			Personally I think we are getting too involved with
    the sex organs of God.  I see no problem with God being both or
    neither.  God made us in God's own image...does that mean physical as
    well as mental?  I doubt that.
    
    
    Dave

    I appreciate this string of replies.
    
    Richard,
    
    Thank you.  You do a nice job of recaping what I am trying to express.
    
    John,
    
    The way I hear you recite back what I am trying to say sounds like it
    misses the point.  I will not say whether Alfred or anyone else is
    right or wrong.  What I am saying is that I have felt hurt and then
    angry when Jill, or Alfred, or others say or imply that I am evil, that
    I am going to hell, or that I will suffer internal damnation because I
    seek my own truth in religious matters.  I believe that if I seek God
    honestly and sincerely that God herself will lead me to truth.  I
    believe that if I worship God in a way that is displeasing to God, then
    God herself will let me know that too.
    
    David,
    
    I appreciate your comments.  I too believe that there is only one true
    God.  I am intrigued by the idea that the time span covered by the
    bible until today is about 3500 years.  Humankind has been on earth for
    about 30,000 years.  If it can be shown that God was worshipped as the
    great mother for 20,000 can it not be assumed that humankind was still
    worshipping the same God.  Is it not also logical that understanding as
    much as possible about that Goddess religion could inform our further
    understanding about the nature of God.
    
    Dave,
    
    I appreciate your voice of reason.  It is making me rethink my
    stereotype about Baptists.
    
    All,
    
    I appreciate and have benefitted from the dialogue.  Thanks
    
    
    
    Patricia

    
    
    571.45(Martin)
    
    > Could you be a little more specific
    
     Yes, yes I can :-) 
    
    > Are you referring to love and holiness
    
     Not specifically(sp) no. But since you brought it up let me draw an
    example...
    
      Lets say the bible says " And the lord thy God commands his servants
     to not have sex before marriage."
     
    ..and someone elses God says, " If it feels good baby do it, just be
    responsible."
    
      You have two incompatible religions here... One is right and one is
    wrong, unless of course you are into situational ethics..
    
    
    David

    
    Richard,
    
    
    > they are both worthy of consideration
    
      Yes of course Richard. I hope I did not suggest to anyone that they
    were not worthy of consideration..
    
    my apologies,
    David
     

    
    
    Patricia,
    
    > is it possible to be a feminist and a christian
    
     I suspect it would be almost intolerable for the feminist, but Christ
    is willing to take all kinds of sinners :-)
    
    peace,
    David

    
    
    
    > understand as much as possible about the Goddess
    
      Show me reason to believe in the Goddess. Show me something that
    proves the Goddess is nothing more than a figment of the feminist
    ego's and imagination. I support some of the feminist movement,but the
    way you all feel about having to have your own female God, well, it
    strikes me as petty..
    
    David              p.s. I do not think you are petty .. Read the above
                             note with a smile, it's how I meant it...
     

re Note 571.60 by COMET::DYBEN:

>     
>       Show me reason to believe in the Goddess. Show me something that
>     proves the Goddess is nothing more than a figment of the feminist
>     ego's and imagination. 

        [Why should she want to prove that? Read carefully!]

        I think that one of the points for raising the archaeological
        evidence for early goddess religions is to show that a female
        image of God was not the product of "feminist ego's and
        imagination."

        And, of course, many women today turn the question around:
        "Show me something that proves the [Father] God is more than
        a figment of male egos and imagination."

        Bob

Re:  .61

  >And, of course, many women today turn the question around:
  >"Show me something that proves the [Father] God is more than
  >a figment of male egos and imagination."

Happily, we have been shown.  Blessed are those who have not
seen Him and still believe.  Some don't accept the evidence as
authoritative (just as few accept the evidence of those who
presumably worshipped a female god as authoritative).  However,
the reliability of God's prophets convinces me just as it
has convinced Christians down through the centuries.

Collis

    
    
    Bob,
    
     My God is sex neutral but does have a masculine persona and exists
    in my heart. I see God as existing beyond the mundane and trivial
    politically correct garbage that exists on both sides of the aisle.
    I cannot prove God to you nor can archeologists prove through writings
    or temples that  the Goddess was for real. 
    
    David

    David,
    
    *My God is sex neutral but does have a  masculine 
    *persona and exists in my heart. 
    
    My God is sex neutral but can  have either a feminine or a  masculine 
    persona and exists in my heart. 
    
    Why are you so negative about the possibility a feminine persona for God.
    
    
    Patricia
    
    

    Patricia,

    I think one of the implications of trying to understand an infinite
    God with our finite imaginations is that we use various metaphors that
    approach certain aspects of God.  One theologian (whose name I forget,
    but he is the author of a book "God the Problem") talks about the
    Available God--God that we conceptualize as best we can.  Because no
    complete conceptualization is possible, we approach God through various
    metaphors that come to terms with certain aspects of God's nature.

    That is why I agree with your comment:

    	>My God is sex neutral but can  have either a feminine or a  masculine 
	>persona and exists in my heart. 
    
    I also think, by the way, that religious pluralism comes from an
    understanding that various religions also represent different
    approaches towards the Ultimate, because the various religions
    represent various ways of approaching some aspect of the Ultimate.  For
    example, the Ultimate can be said to have both personal and
    non-personal aspects.  Eastern religions tend to focus on the
    non-personal, and Western religions tend to focus on the personal.

    -- Mike

    
    
    
    Patricia,
    
     It's a false God that I am negative about.. Did your Female Goddess
    die for our sins? Did she admit that she was Jesus?  what are her
    commandments? Please do not confuse my skepticism for negativism..
    
    David

    
    
    Mike,
    
      True about the eastern religions, but, there may be differences that
    cannot be reconciled at  the altar of VODP( Value others different
    perspectives.) By the way what sepereates eastern and western religion?
    
    David

    David, actually I agree that the differences cannot be reconciled. 
    That is why I don't believe in syncretism--I don't think you can merge
    the different religions into a single one.  I think the impossibility
    of completely combining the various approaches to understanding into a
    single one results in the existence of different religions.
    
    -- Mike

    
    
    Mike,
    
    Oh, so what are we arguing about then :-)
    
    David

    You got me.  Were we arguing?  :-)

    Vatican II says the following:

        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.

    Although that passage does mention a judgment day (which Moslems also
    believe in), what also characterizes the passage is an *absence* of
    fear and scare tactics being directed at Moslems, "who acknowledge the
    Creator".  It is, at least to a certain extent, respectful and tolerant
    of people of another faith, and does not hang the fear of hell over
    their heads simply because they don't subscribe to Christian (or
    Catholic) dogmas about Jesus.  This represents a positive and valuable
    step in the direction of greater religious tolerance.  This illustrates
    how it is possible to carry out the Great Commission, to believe that
    one's own faith expresses the truth better than other faiths do,
    without attacking other faiths or issuing the threat of hell against
    them.

    -- Mike

Your quote is from the sixteenth chapter of the Vatican II document Lumen
Gentium, which does state that God's saving _will_ includes the Moslems, and
indeed, all of humanity -- after all, "God so loved the world that he gave
his only begotten Son..."

Lumen Gentium also clearly states that there is no salvation for those who
refuse to enter the Church once it has been made known to them that it was
founded by Jesus Christ.

/john

    RE:  .72  Mr. Covert,
    
    		
    				Are you saying that Church membership is
    required for salvation?
    
    Dave

Membership in the Church, which is the Body of Christ, is required for
salvation.

However, there are many ways to be a member of the Body of Christ.

/john

    Re: .72

    It may very well say that. That would be consistent with another
    passage from Vatican II:

        "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".

    The implication is presumably that once they learn the Gospel they have
    to accept it or be damned.   I am hardly suggesting that the Catholic
    Church is a bastion of tolerance.  However, in certain regards it has
    made some legitimate moves towards interfaith dialogue, and the passage
    I posted here, and earlier which is respectful of Islam, is one example
    of this. It *is* interesting that they accept that those who don't know
    the gospel are not automatically damned.  Many do not believe this.

    -- Mike

    RE: .75 Mr. Covert,
    
    			Just to make sure I understand your point
    correctly...How do you join this Church?  Is it a profession of faith
    or is there something else you need to do above and beyond Romans
    10:9-12?
    
    
    Dave

The requested passage, which I'll let you translate:

Appuy� sur la Sainte Ecriture et sur la Tradition, le Concile enseigne que
cette Eglise en marche sur la terre est n�cessair au salut.  Seul, en effet,
le Christ est m�diateur et voie de salut: or, Il nous devient pr�sent en son
Corps qui est l'Eglise; et en nous enseignant express�ment la n�cessit� de
la foi et du Bapt�me, c'est la n�cessit� de l'Eglise elle-m�me, dans laquelle
les hommes entrent par la port du Bapt�me, qu'Il nous a confirm�e en m�me
temps.  C'est pourquoi ceux que refuseraient soit d'entrer dans l'Eglise
catholique, soit d'y pers�v�rer, alors qu'ils la sauraient fond�e de Dieu
par J�sus-Christ comme n�cessaire, ceux-l� ne pourraient �tre sauv�s. (1)

This affirmation does not include those who, without fault of their own,
ignore Christ and his Church:

En effet, ceux que, sans faute de leur part, ignorent l'Evangile du Christ
et son Eglise, mais cherchent pourtant Dieu d'un c�ur sinc�re et s'efforcent,
sous l'influence de sa gr�ce, d'agir de fan � accomplir sa volont� telle que
leur conscience la leur r�v�le et la leur dicte, ceux-l� peuvent arriver au
salut �ternel. (2)

(1) Lumen Gentium 14
(2) Lumen Gentium 16

    Dave, 

    At one time, apparently the Catholic Church did believe that
    non-Catholics were doomed to hell.  This was expressed in the phrase,
    "Extra Ecclesium nulla salus"--there is no salvation outside the
    church.  This was declared 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".

    Note that no exceptions were made there, and "schismatics" were
    specifically identified.  I can imagine that, back during the
    reformation, Guardians of Christian Dogma would have condemned
    Protestantism because of the fact that "Traditional Christianity"
    believed in apostolic succession, and since many Protestant sects
    rejected this dogma, they therefore could not be Christian.  Of course,
    the Catholic Church rejects that view now.  Hans K�ng cited an
    interesting case of this; back in 1952, a Catholic chaplain at Harvard
    (Father Leonard Feeney) was excommunicated for asserting that everyone
    outside the visible Catholic Church was damned.  This was, of course,
    exactly what that council of Florence taught.  But times have changed,
    and the definition of what constitutes a Christian has also changed.

    -- Mike

re .77  Romans 10:9-12 seems sufficient to me, certainly for a deathbed
conversion!  True faith in Jesus Christ will probably lead most people to
formal membership in a church.  C.S. Lewis, at the first moment of his
conversion, believed that he didn't need to join any institutionalized
church to be part of the Church.  Then he realized that receiving the
Holy Communion, which is a communal act, was important, and was only
available to members of an organized body of believers.

/john

	John, are you saying that one must join the Catholic church or will any
church that believes and follows Christ's teachings do?



Glen

What do you think it says, Glen?

/john

	Well, my belief is the latter of the 2. Mainly because one does not
have to join a church to know, love and follow Christ. I had thought you meant
the same thing when you mentioned the Church, which I took as meaning the
Church of Christ (not the church of [insert favorite religion]). But when you
mentioned communion in a later note it made me wonder just what you meant. So,
please clarify that for me?



Glen

I'm not sure what is unclear about .80.

/john

    RE: .84
    
    		Oh great...lets now avoid sticky questions.
    
    
    Dave

Re:  571.71

  >This represents a positive and valuable step in the direction of greater 
  >religious tolerance.

Now if God could only be so tolerant...

Tolerance seems to have 2 relevant definitions:

  1)  The capacity for or practice of recognizing and respecting
      the opinions, practices, or behavior of others

  2)  Leeway from a standard

I suspect you are using both of these meanings from what you say.

There is *no* tolerance in God for sin.  Likewise, there is no
tolerance (leeway from the standard) in the Bible for those who
reject what God offers.  I have no desire to depart from the
standard given to me - a standard which is confirmed time and
time again to be correct.  It is with sadness of heart that I see
the Roman Catholic Church departing from this Biblical standard.

  >This illustrates how it is possible to carry out the Great Commission, 
  >to believe that one's own faith expresses the truth better than other 
  >faiths do, without attacking other faiths or issuing the threat of 
  >hell against them.

To be tolerant evidently means to deny what the Scripture teaches
as truth, to reach a "lowest common denominator".  Is it not possible
to be tolerant while holding to the full truth of Scripture?  Not that
one truth is "better" than another, but that one is truth and the other
is not (as Scripture reveals)?

Collis

| <<< Note 571.80 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>




| True faith in Jesus Christ will probably lead most people to
| formal membership in a church.  

	This is part of it that had me thinking what you said earlier (Church
of Christ) contradicting what you said now. True, you didn't say all, just
most, but it was the "TRUE FAITH" part that through me off. I mean, how would
you distinguish someone with "true faith" and someone without?

| C.S. Lewis, at the first moment of his
| conversion, believed that he didn't need to join any institutionalized
| church to be part of the Church.  Then he realized that receiving the
| Holy Communion, which is a communal act, was important, and was only
| available to members of an organized body of believers.

	This is the part that led me to believe that one has to be Catholic to
be a Christian. I don't recall the Bible ever mentioning this, but I'm sure you
read it more often than I do.



Glen

>I don't recall the Bible ever mentioning this...

This is what Jesus taught in the synagogue at Capernaeum:

	"Very truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh of the
	 Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you.
	 Those who eat my flesh and drink my blood have eternal
	 life, and I will raise them up on the last day; for my
	 flesh is true food and my blood is true drink.  Those
	 who eat my flesh and drink my blood abide in me, and I
	 in them.  Just as the living Father sent me, and I live
	 because of the Father, so whoever eats me will live because
	 of me.  This is the bread that came down from heaven, not
	 like that which your ancestors ate, and they died.  But
	 the one who eats this bread will live forever."  (John 6:53-58)

These are strong words, and many of Jesus' disciples left him when he
taught this.  Standing in the ruins of that synagogue and reading this
passage of Scripture is quite an intense experience.

/john

.88> ... unless you eat the flesh ... drink his blood ... eat my
.88> flesh and drink my blood ... my flesh is true food ... my blood
.88> is true drink ... eat my flesh and drink my blood ...  whoever
.88> eats me ..

.88> These are strong words....

You got that right!  Sure fits the subject topic of this note!


Bubba

    So is this part of the essence of Christianity?    Ugh?

This is part of the essence of Christianity.  Praise God!

Important is nearly an understatement.

Holy Communion is, for most Christians, the normal service of worship.

Anglicans, Greek Orthodox, and Roman Catholics are expected to attend
the Holy Sacrifice of the Eucharist every Sunday and Holy Day, and to
receive Christ's Body and Blood, which was shed for us, a minimum of
three times a year, and preferably every week, possibly once a day.  An
examination of conscience, and confession if necessary, is a prerequisite
for receiving the Sacrament.

Saint Thomas Aquinas recommends the following prayer prior to communion:

Almighty, everlasting God, lo, I draw nigh to the Sacrament of thine
only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ.  I draw nigh as one sick, to the
Physician of life; unclean, to the Fountain of mercy; blind, to the light
of eternal brightness; poor and needy, to the Lord of heaven and earth.

I implore, therefore, the abundance of thine exceeding bounty, that thou
wouldest vouchsafe to heal my sickness, to wash my defilements, to enlighten
my blindness, to enrich my poverty, and to clothe my nakedness; and that I
may receive the Bread of Angels, the King of kings, and Lord of lords, with
such reverence and humility, such contrition and devotion, such purity and
faith, and with such purpose and intention, as shall be expedient for the
health of my soul.

Grant me, I beseech thee, that I may receive not only the Sacrament of the
Body and Blood of the Lord, but also the substance and virtue of the
Sacrament.  O most merciful God, grant me so to receive the body of thine
only-begotten Son our Lord Jesus Christ, which he took of the Virgin Mary,
that I may be worthy to be incorporated into his mystical Body and
accounted among his members.

O most loving Father, grant me, that thy beloved Son, whom I now purpose to
receive veiled from sight, I may at length behold for ever face to face. 
Who liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, ever,
one God, world without end.

Amen.

    Some points regarding the Catholic belief that in the Roman Catholic
    Church is found the means to salvation through Jesus Christ:

    The formula, by the way, is "Extra Ecclesia Nullus Salus" (Ecclesia is
    feminine) and was first articulated by Origen in Homilia in Jesu Nave
    in the 3rd century AD, and formally by the Church in the Fourth Lateran
    Council in 1215 and again by Pope Boniface in 1302 in Unam Sanctam
    which predate the Council of Florence in 1442.

    However as early as the time of Acts 10, describing Cornelius as one who
    feared God, the idea that one seeks salvation in ignorance of the
    Church was established.  In theology, this was developed by Saints
    Ambrose, Augustine, and Thomas Aquinas.

    Communion is not usually practiced in the UU church however I know from
    my childhood days that there is major difference in interpretation of
    communion.  From my childhood church which was a Congregational Church
    newly joined at that time to the UCC communion was a symbol of our
    relationship to Christ and not the drinking of the blood or the eating
    of the flesh.  
    
    I do see communion as a powerful ritual and the Body of Christ as a
    group of people united to bring about salvation in this world as a powerful
    symbol.  The sharing together of the communional meal is a powerful act
    of equality and friendship and intent.  It is a ritual that I miss.
    

>It is a ritual that I miss.

And well you should, for even in the Christian Churches which do not hold the
Catholic view of the nature of the sacrament, the recalling of Our Lord's
Passion by obedience to his command to "Do this in remembrance of me" is
powerful food for our souls.

/john

    Patricia, I understand your attraction to communion as a ritual of
    sharing and equality.  I once attended a UU service in which we
    practiced a one-time "communion" which involved the partaking of apple
    juice.  I liked the idea of the apple juice because while it was just
    different enough from the traditional drink of wine or grape juice to
    offer a novel and creative approach to an experience that itself was
    unusually traditional for a UU service.  

    In the Protestant church that I was brought up in, communion was
    practiced every week, but it was not considered a sacrament in the
    sense that Catholics construe it.  It was more of a commemoration. I
    don't think the church restricted who could or could not participate in
    communion, but I could be wrong.  Actually, when I was a kid I somehow
    got the idea that there was something sinful about missing out on
    church and thus missing communion.  I figured I was missing out on my
    communion quota, and I was apparently worried about my salvation as a
    result;  I sometimes drank grape juice and ate bread just so I could
    catch up on all the bread and grape juice I was missing at church.  I
    don't think I quite grasped the idea that the communal sharing was an
    important part of the experience--I guess I thought that the food and
    drink alone were enough.  :-)

    Quakers do not practice outward sacraments like baptism, and thus also
    don't practice the formal ritual of communion.  Quakers sometimes
    describe their silent worship as a communion experience in and of
    itself, and it is approached with a solemnity of purpose and a
    philosophy of sharing and equality.

    One interesting practice that some Christian denominations practice--I
    think they are generally found in the Anabaptist tradition--is that of
    foot washing.  I have never participated in this myself, and I admit
    that it doesn't hold a lot of appeal to me, but members of that
    denomination make the interesting point that foot washing was commanded
    by Jesus to his disciples.

        "You call me Teacher and Lord--and you are right, for that is what
        I am.  So if I, your Lord and Teacher, have washed your feet, you
        also ought to wash one another's feet.  For I have set you an
        example, that you also should do as I have done to you.  Very
        truly, I tell you, servants are not greater than their master, nor
        are messengers greater than the one who sent them.  If you know
        these things, you are blessed if you do them."  (John 13:13-17)

    Although my own faith does not practices those kinds of formal rituals,
    I think that actions like that can be valuable expressions of religious
    experience.

    -- Mike

>    One interesting practice that some Christian denominations practice--I
>    think they are generally found in the Anabaptist tradition--is that of
>    foot washing.  I have never participated in this myself, and I admit
>    that it doesn't hold a lot of appeal to me, but members of that
>    denomination make the interesting point that foot washing was commanded
>    by Jesus to his disciples.

	Mennenites practice this. The Pope of the Roman Catholic church also
	washes feet on Maunday(sp) Thursday. 

			Alfred

re Maundy Thursday

The word "Maundy" in English specifically refers to the washing of feet;
it is derived from "The New Commandment" -- "I give you a new commandment:
Love one another as I have loved you" which the Lord spoke after washing
his disciples' feet.

It is commonly practiced in Churches which follow a liturgical calendar on
the annual observance of Maundy Thursday, the day before Good Friday.

The liturgy of the washing of feet appears in the Episcopal Church's Book of
Common Prayer on pages 274-275, and on pages 319-321 of the Roman Catholic
St. Joseph's Sunday Missal.

/john

    Yes, I had in mind the Mennonites.  I am thinking that the Brethren
    also do it, but I might be mistaken.
    
    -- Mike

In my study of Polarity Therapy, we use foot Reflexology as part of 
the session.  This involves massage/accupressure of the person's feet. 
Whenever I use this treatment on my friends and loved ones, I focus on
Jesus's washing of the disciples feet and keep an intent of Love and
devotion as this represents a sacred act to me. 

Ro

    I too find communion an important part of our service. We have
    communion once a month, and as a deacon, I help in the distribution
    to the congregation of what we call...the elements;i.e. bread and
    wine(juice really) transformed to body and blood.
    
    Marc H.

    
    Patricia,
    
    I sense alot of hostility.  Of course, I have a knack for stating the
    obvious.  ;^)  I am truly sorry that you feel hurt and angry with me. I
    did not set out to offend you, but to answer your questions about
    Christianity as presented in the Bible, which I believe is truth
    because it is God's Word.  Because of things you've said I've implied
    and what not, I'm about to write in an extremely blunt format so that
    you don't have to read into it and catch implications.  Please be
    sensitive to the fact that this will make what I have to say seem like
    I'm maybe upset, I'm not.  I'm just stating facts.
    
    You act as if I said you're evil and I'm not.  That's not what I said.
    I have repeatedly stated (perhaps ad nauseam) that we're all sinners.
    Go ahead and exhaust yourself trying to find where I've stated
    otherwise. But so that you won't have to, I'm going to state this
    plainly.
    
            Patricia, you are evil.  Patricia, so am I.
            This is because of our sin nature.
            We can only be saved by the grace of God.
    
    Stating that there is a hell is a fact.  If you believe there's a
    hell, I'm assuming that you don't want to go there.  The Bible shows
    there is only one way not to end up there.  It's very specific and
    is not based on what I, Jill Kinsella, believe.  To think that would
    be the ultimate arrogance.  That God somehow revolves around me.
    What a bunch of bunk.  Don't attribute this plan to me.  I didn't
    design it.  I just follow it.  If you don't believe there is a hell,
    this couldn't possibly be a "scare tactic."  It would just be
    babbling.
    
    I must tell you I've really struggled with alot of things you and
    others have stated in this topic.  I don't try to impose my beliefs. I
    share what the Bible's message is.  Now your beliefs are more "whatever
    works for everybody" and mine is that there is a definite plan for
    everyone that is laid out in the Bible and it helps people discern
    whether their feelings and the spirit guiding them are of God. 
    Feelings can be extremely misleading.  I certainly wouldn't want to
    stake MY LIFE on MY FEELINGS... what a roller coaster ride!  It's
    extremely easy for you not to offend the majority as you believe that
    everything goes.  I do not have that luxury from following the Word of
    God...there are some absolutes in life.
    
    The symbolism of John 6:53-58 is a remembrance that Jesus' body was
    broken and His blood was spilled for us.  Jesus Himself commanded His
    followers to do this so that we wouldn't forget the price He paid.  How
    sad that we're so weak that we need a reminder to remember where our
    salvation comes from.  Only followers of Christ can partake in
    communion and they must be "right" with God having confessed all their
    sins and come into repentance (agreement) with God.  Anyone who drinks
    the cup or eats the bread in an unworthy manner, drinks and eats
    damnation upon him/herself.
    
    > I don't need to memorize a bunch of creeds for my salvation either.
    Neither do I Patricia and if you believe that's what Christian Dogma
    is, you've missed the whole point.  So I'll revisit once again, because
    I'd hate being misunderstood.
    
    Patricia, do you believe that the One and only God (and for your
    benefit
    /Goddess) sent His(/Her) Son, Jesus Christ to die on the cross for your
    sins so that you would have eternal life with God?
    
    How's that for an attempt at interfaith dialogue?   :^)
    
    Jill
    
    SIDENOTE:
    
    Be aware that I took offense to the premise stated in your basenote.
    If you don't want to hear the answer, please don't ask the question.
    Don't tell me you really want to know where Christianity stands on
    something and then when I answer you tell me I'm ramming my beliefs
    down your throat.  It's hypocritical, not to mention rude and annoying.
    Know that I don't insist that you believe what I believe in order to
    be right.  I have absolutely, positively no (none,zippo,zilch)
    authority in that, but know that God does.  That's critical!

    Jill,
    
    I deliberately and intentionally choose not to respond to your note. 
    There is absolutely no basis for dialogue.
    
    Patricia
    
    
    	

    
    RE: .104
    
    >  I deliberately and intentionally choose not to respond to your note.
    >  There is absolutely no basis for dialogue.
    
    Why?
    
    Patricia, this is my observation from dealing with you.  You can accept
    it or not, but at least think about it.  Anytime you're asked to deal
    with the cross, you get offended and then end the dialogue.  What is
    the problem with the message of the cross for you?  
    
    Whatever it is, I pray that you can resolve it.  I doubt that you 
    believe it, but you are a permanent fixture in my prayer book.   
    I don't want any bad feelings between us.   Maybe if we both bathe
    this in prayer, we can resolve this tension.
    
    Jill
    
    Jill

    RE: REPLY 88 - JOHN COVERT
    
    JOHN:
    
    YOU QUOTED A PASSAGE FROM JOHN CHAPTER 6 REGARDING THE EATING OF HIS
    FLESH AND DRINKING OF HIS BLOOD.  HOWEVER, YOU LEFT OUT A FEW VERSES IN
    THE PASSAGE WHICH STATE:
    
    "WHAT AND IF YE SHALL SEE THE SON OF MAN ASCEND UP WHERE HE WAS BEFORE?
    IT IS THE SPIRIT THAT QUICKENETH; THE FLESH PROFITS NOTHING; THE WORDS
    THAT I SPEAK TO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT AND THEY ARE LIFE.  BUT THERE ARE
    SOME OF YOU THAT BELIEVETH NOT." JOHN 6: 62-64
    
    IF YOU TAKE THIS IN CONTEXT WITH ROMANS 10:9 AS WELL AS EPHESIANS 1:13
    WHICH STATES, "IN WHOM YE ALSO TRUSTED AFTER THAT YE HEARD THE WORD OF
    TRUTH, THE GOSPEL OF YOUR SALVATION, IN WHOM ALSO AFTER THAT YE
    BELIEVED, YOU WERE SEALED WITH THE HOLY SPIRIT OF PROMISE.", THEN
    TRANSUBSTANTIATION (spelling?) WITHIN THE COMMUNION CEREMONY IS A NON
    ISSUE.
    
    RESPECTFULLY,
    
    JACK

    It's clear that verses 62-64 are an affirmation of the earlier
    discourse, not Jesus contradicting himself, or Jesus saying that what
    he just said earlier was a mere metaphor.
    
    Beliefs regarding the real presence of Jesus in the Holy Eucharist are
    an "issue" and have been so for nearly 20 centuries.

    
    
            RE:  Patricia's silence
    
            I feel I must add that I am deeply saddened by this
            development.  I will continue to pray for you, for
            me, and for this conference.  May God move in our
            hearts.
    
    	    Jill

    Jill,
    
    I am not refusing to dialogue because of anger or hurt.
    
    I am refusing to dialogue because your calling me evil is abusive and I
    refuse to be a part of abusive behavoir.  
    
    Calling yourself evil is self abuse and I am saddened by it.  Jill, you
    too are in my thoughts and prayers.
    
    love and peace
    
    Patricia

Patricia,

Can you tell us why your rejection of Christianity is a higher moral
ground than our proclamation of it?

/john

    John,
    
    I don't reject Christianity or say it is bad.  I do say that a
    distorted version of Christianity that is abusive is bad.  This topic
    fear and scare tactics is about abuse.  Fortunately there are a whole
    lot of people in this file who define a version of Christianity that is
    inspirational and admirable.
    
    Patricia

    Also see Note 493 "When Christianity is confrontational"
    
    Richard
    

>    I don't reject Christianity or say it is bad.  I do say that a
>    distorted version of Christianity that is abusive is bad.  This topic
>    fear and scare tactics is about abuse.

What you call abuse we call truth.

You seem to think that the teachings of the Catechism (either Roman Catholic
or Episcopal) are abusive.

Therefore you seem to be saying that the Episcopal Church and Roman Catholic
Churches are bad.

The Episcopal Catechism teaches the essence of Christianity, and is very clear:

  God gave us freedom, but we do not use our freedom as we should -- we rebel
  against God, and we put ourselves in the place of God.  Rebelling against
  God is sin.

  However, our help for this condition is in God, who helped us by revealing
  himself and his will, through nature and history, through many seers and
  saints, and especially through the prophets of Israel, and through Jesus,
  the only Son of God, who shows us that God's nature is love.

  The Messiah, or Christ, Jesus of Nazareth, the only Son of God, was sent by
  God to free us from the power of sin, so that with the help of God we may
  live in harmony with god, within ourselves, with our neighbors, and with
  all creation.  By his obedience, even to suffering and death, Jesus made
  the offering which we could not make; in him we are freed from the power of
  sin and reconciled to God.

  We share in Jesus' victory when we are baptized into the New Covenant and
  become living members of Christ.

The above description of the essence of Christianity, though stated in the
Episcopal Book of Common Prayer, is not specific to John Covert, is not
specific to the Episcopal Church, is not specific to Catholicism, but is
the basic teaching of every mainline Christian Church.

Although variations exist in how one practices the essence stated above,
noone can deny anything in the indented text above and claim to be teaching
Christianity.  If anyone tells you that something different is Christianity,
they are lying.  If anyone tells you that you can practice Christianity but
ignore the Cross of Christ, they are lying.

Christ calls you to take up your cross and follow him.  That is the Christian
Perspective.  Anyone who tells you it isn't is lying.

God is infinitely merciful, and might save people through methods not known
to us.  This is not license to ignore the call to follow Christ.

/john

    .113  I see nothing there which endorses fear and scare tactics.
    But then, I'm not a very bright person and I'm not loaded with
    with an arsenal of reference materials.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Patricia,
    
    I thank you much for keeping me in your prayers.  Patricia, please know
    that I do not understand why you believe I was being abusive. I don't
    feel I am abusive to myself or that I was to you.  I do things wrong. 
    There's a reason for that.  Please share with me what reason you think
    that is.   Please don't shut down.  Help me to understand why you felt
    abused.  The fact that I do wrong things is not a fact I use to beat up
    on myself, but I use it as a measure of my growth with Christ.  I'm
    always going to do wrong, but when I submit to the will of God which
    never contradicts His Word, I sin less.  I desire to be in God's will
    because He dwells in me and I want that relationship to flourish.
    
    I didn't say you were angry or hurt.  I asked why the message of the
    cross is a problem for you?   I'd still would like to know.  I'd still
    would like to know if you personally have accepted the message of the
    cross.  Why is it offensive to you?  Maybe it's because Jesus took on
    an unimaginable amount of abuse, but remember He did it so that we
    could have His power over sin.  I really don't know what you're issue
    is.   Please tell me.  I will listen and I'll try to be sensitive, but
    I also need to be true to the Word of God.
    
    Actually, let me give an example of how God dealt with the issue of sin
    in my life this week which will maybe give you a better insight into
    what I mean by evil nature.  My boyfriend, Kevin, and I were invited
    over to my brother's house for a game night with several of their
    friends.   One of his friends is obsessed with status and everytime
    we've met she obsesses about what a great life I have; a great job with
    big $s, a house, nice vacations, etc...   I've tried  to explain in the
    past that none of this brings happiness, in fact, I have a great deal
    of dissatisfaction with my job.  Her behavior drives me crazy. She's a
    single mom and obsesses that having a high paying job and a husband in
    order to be happy.  I started to get an attitude about seeing her and
    that I could really make her jealous because my new boyfriend was
    coming and I was going to wear a dazzling bracelet that he gave me 
    for Christmas that would just send her spinning.  But God convicted of
    my attitude.  I reasoned with Him that her feelings were her problem,
    and He clearly told me that He was concerned with my feelings.  I was
    wrong.  My heart was changed and I took the bracelet off. David, my
    brother, had invited Kevin so there was nothing I could do about him. 
    I felt so much better about the evening then I would her had I flaunted
    the bracelet.  Why did I want to boast?  Why did I want to get revenge
    on her for her annoying behavior?  I believe it's because mankind's
    basic nature is evil.   But because of my submittance to God, I was
    able to stop myself from dwelling in it.
    
    Jill
    
    

>    .113  I see nothing there which endorses fear and scare tactics.

The so-called "fear and scare tactics" that Patricia rejects are there:

	Man is sinful by nature.

	Our help is in God, who gave us his only-begotten Son.

	We obtain that help through membership in the Body of Christ.

To those who follow Christ, this is not "fear and scare tactics", it is
a message of infinite love.

/john

    re .116
    
    Not to speak out of turn, but I think what Patricia was objecting to
    were those folks who say something to the effect:
    
    "You must follow the Word of God to be saved, and oh by the way, I have
    get to decide what God's will is and I say you're wrong, and you're
    going to be damned to Hell unless you follow Jesus as I tell you to."
    
    This is usually followed by:
    
    "Of course I'm not perfect and were all human and I'm sinful too, but
    I'm right about the basic biblical truths."
    
    The implication being that although they don't know EVERYTHING that God
    wants, but what they do know is infallible since their "knowledge" came
    from the bible.  Patricia, I believe, doesn't have a problem with
    someone saying that salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus, but
    rather with people salvation is achieved by following *their* belief in
    what constitutes faith in Jesus.
    
    Eric
    
    P.S. Forgive my typing.  I'm typing from my home in the boondocks
     via a modem connection  and I think the squirrels are chewing on the
    line.

re Note 571.113 by COVERT::COVERT:

> You seem to think that the teachings of the Catechism (either Roman Catholic
> or Episcopal) are abusive.
> 
> Therefore you seem to be saying that the Episcopal Church and Roman Catholic
> Churches are bad.
  
        As Jesus said in Mark 10:18 "[there is] none good but one,
        [that is], God."

        So one must conclude that, yes, the Episcopal Church and
        Roman Catholic Churches are bad.

        However, this is very different from saying that they are
        worthless.

        Bob

>Patricia, I believe, doesn't have a problem with someone saying that
>salvation is achieved through faith in Jesus

	Patricia, is salvation achieved through faith in Jesus?
	-------------------------------------------------------

The Christian Perspective is a resounding "YES, Amen!"

A dangerous feminist perspective (Rosemary Reuther, for example) is that we
are in the "post-Christian era", where Jesus is only "a symbol (whom some may
wish to retain)".

I do not believe that it is "fear and scare" to warn people that the
adoption of this "post-Christian" religion is a potential threat to
their salvation procured by Jesus.  A free gift: the only price is faith.

/john

    RE: .117
    
    Thats the way I see it too Eric. 
    Another one from the sidelines.
    
    Marc H.

    
    What about the history of Christianity - did fear and scare tactics
    figure in that at all?
    
    Dorian

>    What about the history of Christianity - did fear and scare tactics
>    figure in that at all?

	About the only way this could be made to be broader is to replace
	the word Christian with the word "world". :-) What exactly are you
	getting at?

			Alfred

    >.113  I see nothing there which endorses fear and scare tactics.
    
    It's funny, Richard, but there is nothing in that statement from the
    Episcopal Book of Common Prayer that I particularly have a problem with
    either.  Perhaps the fear and scare tactics are found somewhere else in
    the Book of Common Prayer and only implied if you take the posted
    passage in the context of more offensive passages, but the passage in
    and of itself is, to me anyway, pretty innocuous.
    
    -- Mike

Jill,


<<    the bracelet.  Why did I want to boast?  Why did I want to get revenge
<<    on her for her annoying behavior?  I believe it's because mankind's
<<    basic nature is evil.   But because of my submittance to God, I was
<<    able to stop myself from dwelling in it.
    
Here's where you and I would disagree, Jill.  I don't think you wanted 
to boast or get revenge because you (or humankind) is/are basically evil.  
I believe that we act out of love or fear (which is a cry for love).      
By calling on the Holy Spirit you were able to act in a loving manner 
rather than out of your fear.  Thus the Holy Spirit allows us to see 
the love in ourselves as well as in others which is who we are.  Just a 
matter of changing one's perception.  To me, this is what Jesus' life 
demonstrated: God is Love; and I and the Father are One.

I don't expect you to agree with me, but I wanted to show that there 
is another valid Christian perspective for many of us who have a 
relationship with Jesus.

Ro

Christianity, as embodied in the Catechism, does the following, which
Patricia calls "fear and scare tactics:
    
>    I am refusing to dialogue because your calling me evil is abusive and I
>    refuse to be a part of abusive behavoir.  
>    
>    Calling yourself evil is self abuse and I am saddened by it.  Jill, you
>    too are in my thoughts and prayers.

The Catechism says "We rebel against God, and we put ourselves in the place
of God".  This is what we mean when we say "evil".  The Catechism says "Our
help is in God" and "We share in Jesus' victory over sin, suffering and death
when we are baptized into the New Covenant and become living members in Christ".

The message of Christianity, that rejection of God means eternal death (hell),
but that the Christian assurance is that nothing, not even death, shall separate
us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, is a message of love, and is
not abuse, but a call to all to embrace the Christian faith.

/john

    re .126

    > The message of Christianity, that rejection of God means eternal
    > death (hell)...

    This is one way of saying it, but in the black and white world of
    Christian Fundamentalism this is often twisted to be: "The rejection of
    my message of God means eternal death".  In this case the "for us or
    agin' us" mentality is used where the messenger claims superior
    understanding of the will of God.

    What is the default salvation state of a person?  Are we saved unless
    we reject God [love message], or are we damned unless we accept God
    (rules to be determined by various church dogma... fear message)?  If
    we each can have a personal relationship with God (this is not a
    universal CP, but a common one none the less), does God have different
    personal expectations of us? [I'm thinking of the prodigal son parable]

    Eric

re: Note 571.126 by John R. Covert (and the other notes about our evil nature)
(I'm not trying to single you out, /john, but you brought up a couple of 
points I feel a call to address.)

>The Catechism says "We rebel against God, and we put ourselves in the place
>of God".  This is what we mean when we say "evil".  The Catechism says "Our
>help is in God" and "We share in Jesus' victory over sin, suffering and death
>when we are baptized into the New Covenant and become living members in Christ"

Yes, we certainly *DO* evil things, but that is far different from saying we 
ourselves are intrinsically evil.  Though we have fallen, we are made in the 
image of God.  We have value to God, as Mike has pointed out, and because of 
that value, God has sacrificed himself, in the person of Jesus, to save us 
all.  What value does evil have to God?

>The message of Christianity, that rejection of God means eternal death (hell),
>but that the Christian assurance is that nothing, not even death, shall 
>separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus, is a message of 
>love, and is not abuse, but a call to all to embrace the Christian faith.

Part of that depends on the means by which the message is conveyed.  Even the
most loving message can be phrased in an abusive manner.  Consider the woman 
at the well...Jesus could have told her that she was evil, and try to scare 
her into never sinning again, or he could have told her that she was evil and 
deserved to be stoned, and let the crowd have at her, but he didn't.  He 
challenged the crowd to see who was worthy of judging her, and then quietly 
and lovingly bid her to sin no more.  Did she sin again?  Probably.  What 
might have been Jesus' response to that?  To instill in her fear, or more
love? 

In this I also see an example we might do well to follow.  Instead of pointing 
out that so and so is evil, or a sinner or whatever, and then cover our tracks 
by admitting later (after the hurt has been caused) that "oh yes, I am evil, 
or a sinner, or whatever too..." perhaps we should first think upon our 
worthiness to pass judgement, as Jesus had the crowd do, and only after that
speak our message.  My guess is that we would most likely find ourselves all
in the same boat, and our message would be presented in quite a different 
manner.

Peace,

Jim

>Consider the woman at the well...

Ummm... don't you have the woman at the well confused with the woman
the Pharisees brought to Jesus?  (A nit...)

The message of Christianity is that mankind is fallen, and has been
since the rebellion of Adam and Eve in the Garden.  We must cast aside
the works of darkness, our inherent, selfish (evil), nature, and put on
Christ's armor of light.

Otherwise, your message is correct, but I still don't see Patricia
accepting it.

/john

.123 -

I wasn't getting at anything other than what I asked. Presumably, before 
the advent of Christianity - e.g., in Europe and the Americas - people had
other religions, from which they eventually converted. I'm just wondering
to what extent 'fear and scare tactics' may have been involved in such
conversions. 

Perhaps this is another topic.

Dorian

    My own view is that religions in general have value insofar as they
    offer a means for healing broken relationships with God (or whatever
    name they give to the Ultimate), with other humans, and with the world. 
    Christianity is one such religion that offers a means of healing those
    relationships, specifically through its own unique myths on sin and
    redemption.

    By the way, it might be interesting to ask ourselves which of the
    following, if any, constitutes the only legitimate expression of
    Buddhism, and which followers, if any, are liars when they claim that
    they are Buddhists:  Theravada, Mahayana, or Zen.  (It is interesting
    that, as I recall, the names Theravada and Mahayana mean something
    along the lines of "lesser path" and "greater path"; obviously, the
    followers of the "lesser" path would not have assigned that name to
    themselves, but in fact would have had it assigned to them by the
    followers of the "greater" path--thus demonstrating that Christianity
    is not alone having its intolerant guardians who claim the right to
    disparage alternative approaches to their faith.)

    -- Mike

    John,
    
    Your right, I don't accept YOUR message of Christianity which I think
    is twisted and abusive.  I accept the message of Christianity outlined
    by Bishop John Spong and the message of Christianity proposed by Father
    Leo Booth.  Both Episcopalians.  I accept much a the message of Matthew
    Fox.  A catholic theologian.  Rosemary Ruether is also one of my
    favorite Feminist Theologians.  Harvey Cox, a Baptist is another
    outstanding theologian whose message I accept.  Paul Tillich has
    written extensively and is the theologian I would study if I get as far
    as a systemic theology course.  James Luther Adams is a Unitarian
    Universalist Christian who I admire.  I admire the rich diversity of
    theology represented in my selective sample.
    
    The most important message I get from Christianity as I stated before is
    the message of love.  For God so loved the world God took on human form
    and taught us how to love.  God continually takes on human form and
    teaches us how to love.  Salvation for me has nothing to do with an
    afterlife but with how we live here on earth.  If we follow this
    message of love, justice, and peace we will free ourselves from
    loneliness and isolation and participate in a community of loving
    relationships.  Where we find Love in our human relationships we
    experience the Incarnate God among us, The Christ in all of us.
    
    The Christ I encounter on the Cross is not the Divine Christ but the
    Human Christ.  The Christ that can cry out My God, My God, why have you
    foresaken me.  The Christ I also encounter in Martin Luther King and
    Mahatma Ghandi and Mother Theresa.  Humans that are willing to give
    their lifes for an Ultimate Concern of compassion, equality, and
    justice. 
    
    This is not Fundamental Christianity but it is Christianity.  It is a
    Christianity that can be found in all of the organized Christian
    Churches.  In my opinion it, and other varieties of inclusive
    Christianity is the salvation of Christianity itself.
    
    Patricia

>    Your right, I don't accept YOUR message of Christianity which I think
>    is twisted and abusive.  I accept the message of Christianity outlined
>    by Bishop John Spong and the message of Christianity proposed by Father
>    Leo Booth.  Both Episcopalians.

1. Spong has not been very faithful to the vows of his ordination; the books
he has written deny the truth in the Bible.  While I was in Jerusalem, I spent
some time talking to the Bishop who is seated to the left of Bishop Spong in
the House of Bishops, who certainly doesn't consider Bishop Spong to be doing
a very good job of teaching the Christian faith.

2. Please tell me exactly what in MY message of Christianity is twisted and
abusive.  My message is that which the Episcopal Church and the Catholic
Church teach, which is proclaimed at every Mass.

Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners.

/john

/john,

<<2. Please tell me exactly what in MY message of Christianity is twisted and
<<abusive.  My message is that which the Episcopal Church and the Catholic
<<Church teach, which is proclaimed at every Mass.

Over and over again Patricia and others have patiently answered this 
question for you.  You may not accept their answer, but they certainly 
have explained the abusiveness of it.  Perhaps you are locked into a 
set where you can't understand their perspective and why it is valid.
I think it was Scott Peck who described this phenomenom in his book 
The Road Less Travelled where he talked about the stages of spiritual 
beliefs.  Been a long time since I read it, but I think this stage 
theory is applicable here and could explain why this miscommunication 
continues to happen.

Ro

    .133  We already knew you don't agree with Bishop Spong, /john.
    We also know that there are plenty of people, Episcopalian and
    others, who would agree with you.
    
    So, does that make Spong any less a Christian?
    
    I think not.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>    So, does that make Spong any less a Christian?

That isn't the question.  The question is whether what he teaches is
the Christian faith.

/john

><<2. Please tell me exactly what in MY message of Christianity is twisted and
><<abusive.  My message is that which the Episcopal Church and the Catholic
><<Church teach, which is proclaimed at every Mass.
>
>Over and over again Patricia and others have patiently answered this 
>question for you.  You may not accept their answer, but they certainly 
>have explained the abusiveness of it.

It is no more abusive to state the Truth:  That mankind has a sinful nature
which we can heal through faith in Jesus Christ

than it is abusive to tell a child:  If you fail to learn arithmetic you
must repeat the lesson.

You only think these things are abusive because you have succumbed to the
pop psychology that puts "me" first and refuses to admit that there is such
a thing as a mistake or even a need to improve oneself.

/john

Wow /john, I'm glad it is God reading my heart and not you:

<<You only think these things are abusive because you have succumbed to the
<<pop psychology that puts "me" first and refuses to admit that there is such
<<a thing as a mistake or even a need to improve oneself.

What a presumptuous thing to say to someone you don't even know.  I 
never said people don't make mistakes or need self improvement.  In 
fact, I've said repeatedly that I try to turn to the Holy Spirit in 
each decision I make.  Since you have decided to *judge* me in your 
last paragraph, I'm including the following text, from A Course in Miracles,
which explains how to let the Holy Spirit work through one and a method I
try to apply in my life daily: 


Rules for Decision

Decisions are continuous.  You do not always know when you are 
making them.  But with a little practice with the ones your recognize, 
a set begins to form which sees you through the rest.  It is not wise 
to let yourself become preoccupied with every step you take.  The 
proper set, adopted consciously each time you wake, will put you well 
ahead.  And if you find resistance strong and dedication weak, you are 
not ready.  DO NOT FIGHT YOURSELF.  But think about the kind of day you 
want, and tell yourself there is a way in which this very day can 
happen just like that.  Then try again to have the day you want.


1.  The outlooks starts with this:

	"Today I will make no decisions by myself."

This means that you are choosing not to be judge of what to do.  But 
it must also mean you will not judge the situations where you will be 
called upon to make response.  For if you judge them, you have set 
the rules for how you should react to them.  And then another answer 
cannot but produce confusion and uncertainty and fear.

This is your major problem now.  You still make up your mind and 
*then* decide to ask what you should do.  And what you hear may not 
resolve the problem as you saw it first.  This leads to fear, because 
it contradicts what you perceive and so you feel attacked.  And 
therefore angry.  There are rules by which this will not happen.  But 
it does occur at first, while you are learning how to hear.


2.  Throughout the day, at any time you think of it and have a quiet 
moment for reflection, tell yourself again the kind of day you want; 
the feelings you would have, the things you want to happen to you, and 
the things you would experience, and say,

	"If I make no decisions by myself,
	This is the day that will be given me."

These two procedures practiced well, will serve to let you be 
directed without fear, for opposition will not first arise and then 
become a problem in itself.

But there will still be times when you have judged already.  Now the 
answer will provoke attack, unless you quickly straighten out your 
mind to want an answer that will work.  Be certain this has happened 
if you feel yourself unwilling to sit by and ask to have the answer 
given to you.  This means you have decided by yourself, and can not 
see the question.  Now you need a quick restorative before you ask again.



3.  Remember once again the day you want, and recognize that something 
has occurred that is not part of it.  Then realize that you have asked 
a question by yourself, and must have set an answer in your terms.  
Then say,

	"I have no question.  I forgot what to decide."

This cancels out the terms that you have set, and lets the answer show 
you what the question must have really been.

Try to observe this rule without delay, despite your opposition.  For 
you have already gotten angry.  And your fear of being answered in a 
different way from what your version of the question asks will gain 
momentum, until you believe the day you want is one in which you get 
*your* answer to *your* question.  And you will not get it, for it would 
destroy the day by robbing you of what you really want.  This can be 
very hard to realize, when once you have decided by yourself the rules 
that promise you a happy day.  Yet this decision still can be undone, 
by simple methods that you can accept.


4.  If you are so unwilling to receive you cannot even let your 
questions go, you can begin to change your mind with this:

	'At least I can decide I do not like what I feel now."

This much is obvious, and paves the way for the next easy step.


5.  Having decided that you do not like the way you feel, what could 
be easier than to continue with,

	"And so I hope I have been wrong."

This works against the sense of opposition, and reminds you that help 
is not being thrust upon you but is something that you want and that 
you need, because you do not like the way you feel.  This tiny opening 
will be enough to let you go ahead with just a few more steps you need 
to let yourself be helped.

Now you have reached the turning point, because it has occurred to you 
that you will gain if what you have decided is not so.  Until this 
point is reached, you will believe your happiness depends on being 
right.  But this much reason have you now attained; you would be 
better off if you were wrong.


6.  This tiny grain of wisdom will suffice to take you further.  You 
are not coerced, but merely hope to get a thing you want.  And you 
can say in perfect honesty,

	"I want another way to look at this."

Now you have changed your mind about the day, and have remembered what 
you really want.  Its purpose has no longer been obscured by the 
insane belief you want it for the goal of being right when you are 
wrong.  Thus is the readiness for asking brought to your awareness, 
for you cannot be in conflict when you ask for what you want, and see 
that it is this for which you ask.







7.  This final step is but acknowledgment of lack of opposition to be 
helped.  It is a statement of an open mind, not certain yet, but 
willing to be shown:

	"Perhaps there is another way to look at this.
	What can I lose by asking?"

Thus you now can ask a question that makes sense, and so the answer 
will make sense as well.  Nor will you fight against it, for you see 
that it is you who will be helped by it.

It must be clear that it is easier to have a happy day if you prevent 
unhappiness from entering at all.  But this take practice in the rules 
that will protect you from the ravages of fear.  When this has been 
achieved, the sorry dream of judgment has forever been undone.  But 
meanwhile, you have need for practicing the rules for its undoing.  
Let us, then, consider once again the very first of the decisions which 
are offered here.

We said you can begin a happy day with the determination not to make 
decisions by yourself.  This seems to be a real decision in itself.  
And yet, you *cannot* make decisions by yourself.  The only question 
really is with what you choose to make them.  That is really all.  The 
first rule, then is not coercion, but a simple statement of a simple 
fact.  You will not make decisions by yourself whatever you decide.  
For they are made with idols or with God.  And you ask help of 
anti_Christ or Christ, and which you choose will join with you and 
tell you what to do.

Your day is not at random.  It is set by what you choose to live it 
with, and how the friend whose counsel you have sought perceives your 
happiness.  You always ask advice before you can decide on anything.   
Let this be understood, and you can see there cannot be coercion here, 
nor grounds for opposition that you may be free.  There is not freedom 
from what must occur.  And if you think there is, you must be wrong.

The second rule as well is but a fact.  For you and your adviser must 
agree on what you want before it can occur.  It is but this agreement 
that permits all things to happen.  Nothing can be caused without some 
form of union, be it a dream of judgment or the Voice for God.  
Decision cause results *because* they are not made in isolation.  They 
are made by you and your adviser, for yourself and for the world as 
well.  The day you want you offer to the world, for it will be what 
you have asked for, and will reinforce the rule of your adviser in the 
world.  Whose kingdom is the world for you today?  What kind of day 
will you decide to have?

It needs but two who would have happiness this day to promise it to 
all the world.  It needs but two to understand that they cannot 
decide alone, to guarantee the joy they asked for will be wholly 
shared.  For they have understood the basic law that makes decision 
powerful, and gives it all effects that it will ever have.  It needs 
but two.  These two are joined before there can be a decision.  Let 
this be the one reminder that you keep in mind, and you will have the 
day you want, and give it to the world by having it yourself.  Your 
judgment has been lifted from the world by your decision for a happy 
day.  And as you have received, so must you give.

Note 571.136
>         -< Does following Spong rather than Christ doom the unwary? >-

Well, I don't follow Spong.  I don't think Patricia does either.  I have
read Spong and agree with much (not all) he says.  That hardly makes me
his disciple.

>>    So, does that make Spong any less a Christian?

>That isn't the question.

Ah, perhaps not for you.

>  The question is whether what he teaches is
>  the Christian faith.

I would say that what Spong teaches is the Christian faith, even though
it is dissimilar to your paradigm of what that is, and even though it is
dissimilar in some respects to my own paradigm of what that is.

Peace,
Richard

    >than it is abusive to tell a child:  If you fail to learn arithmetic you
    >must repeat the lesson.

    Notice how he compares himself and the rest of us to an adult
    correcting children.  Kind of says it all, I'd say.  I guess it isn't a
    case of being pompous and condescending when one *really* is smarter
    than everybody else.

>You only think these things are abusive because you have succumbed to the
>pop psychology that puts "me" first and refuses to admit that there is such
>a thing as a mistake or even a need to improve oneself.

    I definitely find that statement interesting considering that it comes
    from someone who has set himself up as being in the role of correcting
    and improving others.  This is particularly interesting in like of Ro's
    comments about Peck, who I have never read, but I think that there is
    no question that immature communication styles do hamper bona fide
    communication.  When the desire is not to share, listen, and understand
    but to lecture from a position of superior knowledge, communication
    becomes impossible.

    A pattern of communication characteristics can indicate an overall
    style that is pompous, condescending, and illustrative of an
    unwillingness to participate in a mutual process of communication. 
    Examples include:

        * Never, under any circumstances, posing questions that seek
        information, but on the other hand frequently volunteering answers
        to questions that others pose, and frequently offering corrections
        (whether valid or not) to what others say.  While there is
        certainly nothing wrong with sharing one's knowledge, when it
        becomes a consistent pattern of never asking others for information
        but often offering information, this suggests that to pose questions
        would be to admit that there is some area of knowledge that the
        person currently lacks, and that would detract from the overall
        impression of one with superior knowledge.

    	* Never qualifying any statement with "I think" or "I'm not sure". 
        Such doubts might give the impression that the speaker has the
        potential of being wrong about something.  This, too, would detract
        from the image that one wants to project.

    I think Patricia was on the right track when she recently stated to
    another person that she would simply not waste her time trying to
    engage another person in a discussion here.  I think it would serve all
    of us well if we did that with John Covert.  Let him have his say, let
    him lecture us--we can simply ignore him and go about the business of
    having sincere sharing and discussion among ourselves.  

    -- Mike

    re.136
    
    >>    So, does that make Spong any less a Christian?
    
    > That isn't the question.  
    
    
    Well, yes it is the question... didn't you see the question mark? :^)
    
    Or are you say that not teaching the Christian faith doesn't make one
    less a Christian?  Or are you saying that the two are mutually
    exclusive rather than inclusive?  Or are you saying you don't want to
    answer the question because it disturbs the argument you're trying to
    make? 
    
    > The question is whether what he teaches is
    > the Christian faith.
    
    And you agree with the Bishop that says Spong isn't teaching the
    Chrisian faith, so the question was asked "does this make him less a
    Christian.  Rather than answer the new question you restate the
    question you already answered for us regarding whether Spong is
    teaching the Christian faith (as dictated by the Big 3: RC,
    Anglo/Episc, Orthodox)...  (remember the "who's on first" skit...)
    
    Once again I find myself mumbling to myself trying to make heads or
    tails out of a reply.  The recurring theme I see is that you believe
    that *your* Christian faith is THE Christian faith.  If someone
    challenges your truth system then it's not a Christian perspective.
    
    So /john.  The question is: is John Spong any less a question for
    espousing his views in his books?
    
    Shalom,
    Eric
    
      

    RE: .141
    
    Mike, I hope that it doesn't come to fact...i.e. ignoring him.
    I have had to do that twice in here, myself, and would not want to add
    /john to it. 
    
    Marc H.

    Its funny Mike how your exclusionary statement toward John is the same
    attitude that purported you to leave the "Christian" notefile and aid
    in starting "Christian Perspective".
    
    Patricia, if you would like further expert evidence on the person of
    Jesus Christ, I would recommend a text called "Evidence That Demands a
    Verdict" by Josh McDowell.  You can find it at any Christian Bookstore.
    It gives much needed insight for all of us on Christ, His role and
    purpose, and most importantly, His significance in your eternal
    destination as well as my own.
    
    I think we all know what Jesus meant when he said, "You say I come to
    bring peace.  I am not come to bring peace but a sword..."
    
    Jack

    .144  The sword, had you finished the phrase, would indicate that it 
    was a sword that divides, rather than impales.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    re .144

    > I think we all know what Jesus meant when he said, "You say I come to
    > bring peace.  I am not come to bring peace but a sword..."

    He meant that we should kill people, or just violently force people to
    conform?  Or, taken literally, does he mean that every follower gets a
    free sword?

    I, being among the great unwashed, honestly don't know how to interpret
    this passage.  But it does say that the Christ will wield the sword and
    not his disciples.  Sort of like the "revenge is God's" kind of thing,
    but we should turn the other cheek.

    So what is the officially sanctioned biblical truth here?... 
    anyone?... /john?... 

    Eric
    (I'm sorry, I'm in a sarcastic Mike Smith kind of mood today)

    I took "Sword" to mean just that.
    
    I will divide the wheat from the chaff
    
    I will separate the goats from the lambs
    
    Jack

    Jack, there is no analogy.  First of all, let me state that I never
    really actually 'left' GOLF::CHRISTIAN, since I rarely wrote anything
    there in the first place, had little interest in participating in the
    discussions there, did not consider myself a part of that community,
    and mostly avoided it.  What I disagreed with about GOLF was its
    authoritarian moderation policies, which prevented certain opinions
    from being expressed in the first place.  I am not calling for anything
    like that here--on the contrary, I stated precisely the opposite, in
    that I fully supported the right of Covert or anyone else to write what
    he or she wants.

    I am endorsing something else altogether--not censorship, but ignoring
    certain non-productive notes that are posted here.  Recognizing the
    right of others to write doesn't mean that I have to respond to it.  I
    have never stated that I had any problem whatsoever with individuals
    choosing not to respond to what others write--in fact, I believe that
    people have every right to do so, and in this case I would consider it
    a good idea if they did.  My goal is to see more sharing and and bona
    fide discussions here, which is difficult if people allow discussions
    to be derailed by devoting all our energies towards responding to
    condescending lectures from those who neither respect us nor this notes
    file, but who in fact treat us as children.  I am thus suggesting a
    method of voluntary effort on people's parts to steer the discussions
    in a more positive light.  I have honored the feelings of those who
    take comfort in GOLF::CHRISTIAN by not participating there.  I never
    sought to destroy GOLF, but to see the creation of a new conference
    that was free of the moderation policies imposed there.

    
    Getting your reading glasses out...this is a bit lengthy but I had
    to work on it in between calls...although I'm sure it's not 100
    lines!  ;^)
    
    We all seem to agree that Christianity is a message of love.  That's
    good.  The unfortunate part is that from there we go off in directions
    that don't ever seem to meet.  That's sad because God's Word is very
    clear.  I will wholeheartedly agree with Eric that Bible believing
    Christians do come across as having a superior attitude because they
    say there is only One Way. However, I would add, as the Bible believing
    Christian that I am, that if you're premise is offbase, you're
    conclusions are going to be offbase. Yes, I agree with the Bible's
    claim that it is the indisputable Word of God. To start from any other
    premise is going warp your view of truth.  Not that the truth changes,
    just that you don't see it.  I'm not being arrogant, exclusive, or
    abusive, just plain about the truth set forth in God's Word.
    Jesus is a gift freely given to all.  God has stretched His loving arms
    out and is holding a gift.  We can accept the gift (eternal salvation),
    but it's still wrapped.  You don't just go around carrying a wrapped
    gift saying "Look what I have."   So the gift is actually two-fold. 
    You must unwrap the gift to experience the joy of growing in God's
    grace. This is the full message of love.  It's true God so loved the
    world that He gave His Only Begotten Son, that whosoever believes in
    Him shall not perish but have eternal life.   This is the message of
    love for all love who will accept it.  This verse also inversely
    implies that those who don't believe will perish.   It's tell you that
    you have a choice. Can having a choice be scary?  Yeah, it can, but so
    can not having one. You have your whole life to make this choice, but
    as the Bible points out, we don't know when this life shall pass, so we
    need to make sure we make a choice.   To not choose, is a choice not to
    believe. There must be some moment in time where you chose of your own
    volition to believe the message of the cross.
    
    God is who He says He is, not who anyone else says He is.  Isn't it
    ultimate arrogance to say that "I" decide who I want God to be. People
    get angry if they think you are telling them who they should be, we've
    seen that here.  Don't you think that God would get angry too if we
    think we can tell Him who to be?  It is necessary that Jesus be man to
    represent man at the cross, and He had to be God for His death to have
    infinite value.  That remains a mystery but a blessed truth necessary
    for our redemption.  Jesus is both natures, divine and human, in one
    person.  Christ cried out "My God, My God, why have you foresaken Me"
    because He was covered in our sin, the sin of all peoples throughout
    the course of time.  God the Father can't abide with sin.  Therefore
    for the first time (and last) the Son was separated from the Father.
    That was painful for them, He expressed His pain, He went through His
    pain for us.
    
    Who's message is it?  It's God's message therefore the only authority
    that counts is God's authority.  There are alot of writers and pastors
    I respect, but they can get off track if they don't start with
    the Word.   Who are you choosing to listen to?   And where did they
    get their premise from?  You need to be careful who you're listening
    to.  If their premises or conclusions are not in agreement with the
    Word of God, they are in error and put you in jeopardy of being
    led astray.
    
    To answer the other question posed:  Does that make Spong any less a
    Christian?
    
    I guess it depends.  I'm not familiar with Spong at all, so I'm
    speaking hypothetically.  I Tim 4:1 starts to talk about those who will
    abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by
    demons. It goes on to say that they are liars.  So I assume from this
    verse that if they are following someone other than Christ, they are
    not saved.  Also, it mentions that it is good to point these things out
    to the brothers. But it's not good to base an opinion on just one
    scripture, so... II Peter 3:14-18 talks of this too.  It gives us a
    warning "be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the
    error of lawless men and fall from your secure position."   I think the
    Bible clearly teaches that if you follow false teachers, not only are
    they doomed, but you risk your own life as well.
    
    Jill
    

    Okay Mike, I hear ya.  Now answer this for me.  What has been so
    non-productive about Johns entries?
    
    Jack

Note 571.137

>You only think these things are abusive because you have succumbed to the
>pop psychology that puts "me" first and refuses to admit that there is such
>a thing as a mistake or even a need to improve oneself.

Hmmmm.  Methinks thou knowest Ro not, /john.  Ro (another Episcopalian, by the
way) is hardly a "me first" kind of person.

Doesn't Paul say that love doesn't insist on having its own way?

Peace,
Richard

    I don't know if I would describe his entries pers se as non-productive.
    I would say that I feel that the body of discussions with him here are
    often non-productive, since he apparently works from the presumption
    that we are children to be talked down to, and I personally don't tend
    to find discussions of that nature to be very beneficiary.  Perhaps
    others do, though.  I can see where such discussions may help many to
    clarify where they stand and perhaps they feel that the discussions
    thus have value for them.
    
    I don't know, what it boils down to is that I guess I find these
    eternal arguments draining.  But perhaps others feel that it is not a
    good idea.  What my suggestion really expressed was frustration more
    than anything else.  Marc has expressed disagreement with my
    suggestion, which I respect.  I don't know what the solution is.
    
    -- Mike

    Paul was inferring Love in the context of works, I.E. If we give all
    our money to feed the poor, yet have not Love, we are nothing.
    
    Gods Love is tempered with Pure Holiness and separation from sin.  His
    love expands infinitely; however, His holiness is such that He cannot
    allow sin before Him.  That is what we need to admit (confess)!
    
    Jack

    Mike:
    
    For the most part, you strike me as a man of intellect and have
    certainly shown me that you are a man of convictions.  I take a strong
    interest in the eternal question as this is the main issue, namely,
    where are we going to spend eternity.  
    
    If the Word was in the beginning and the Word became flesh and if the
    Word was God, then this reveals to me the central object of my faith,
    namely, Jesus Christ.  Therefore, I personally have to base my beliefs
    and convictions on that foundation, not the doctrines of man/women.
    If individuals such as Patricia (whose opinions I respect), make
    entries into the Christian Perspective notes, I take her entries
    seriously and yet also require some sort of scriptural or biblical
    evidence to support her arguments.  This way I can change my mind if I
    need to.  I have still yet to see it and believe me, I'm not trying to
    speak down to anybody, I'm not the smartest person in the world, then
    again neither were the apostles.
    
    I personally have learned much from the dialogue here.  I feel
    everybody's input is important.  Bottom line, Don't take the tones of
    people seriously, simply agree to disagree.  After all, what can you
    expect from non facial communication?
    
    Best Rgds.,

Note 571.153

>    Paul was inferring Love in the context of works,...

Why, of course.  I meant it in no other context.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    The reason I put that in about Love and Works was to contrast Patricia
    ignoring the Holiness part of the message.  At least this is the
    impression she has left me with.
    
    Peace Back,
    
    Jack

re: Note 571.129 by /john

Thanks for the nit, John, you are correct.   The passage is in Luke 7:36-50 
and in John 8:1-11.  (Luke has the story at a meal in a Pharisees' home, John 
has it in the Temple.)  The woman at the well is another story entirely, 
pardon my fading memory.

And I'm glad you agree my message.  If you do not see Patricia accepting it, 
perhaps we should ask her.  Patricia,  do you feel that the means of conveying 
the information has a bearing on it being perceived as a scare tactic?

Peace,

Jim

    The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge.

    Re: .154
    
    Jack, I appreciate and respect that honest expression of your faith. 
    
    >I personally have learned much from the dialogue here.  I feel
    >everybody's input is important.  Bottom line, Don't take the tones of
    >people seriously, simply agree to disagree.  After all, what can you
    >expect from non facial communication?
    
    Those are wise words.  I think I could do a better job of living by
    them.
    
    -- Mike

    Jim,
    
    I agree.  Both the presentation and the interpretation of any incident
    or story impacts the listener.
    
    Patricia

re Note 571.146 by HURON::MYERS:

>     > I think we all know what Jesus meant when he said, "You say I come to
>     > bring peace.  I am not come to bring peace but a sword..."
> 
>     He meant that we should kill people, or just violently force people to
>     conform?  Or, taken literally, does he mean that every follower gets a
>     free sword?
> 
>     I, being among the great unwashed, honestly don't know how to interpret
>     this passage.  But it does say that the Christ will wield the sword and
>     not his disciples.  Sort of like the "revenge is God's" kind of thing,
>     but we should turn the other cheek.
  
        Precisely!  In fact, earlier in Matthew, Jesus recommends the
        role of peacemaker to his followers 5:9:  "Blessed [are] the
        peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

        Bob

    I think the passage was making the inference that the Church will be
    persecuted for its faith!
    
    Jack

    I thought of this passage a little while ago that I feel will describe
    what Jesus was speaking of regarding the sword.
    
    "So when they had dined, Jesus said to Peter, Simon, son of Jonas, do
    you love (agape) me?  Peter said unto Him, thou knowest that I love
    (Phileos) me.  Jesus said, feed my lambs.
    He said unto him the second time, Simon, Son of Jonas, do you love me?
    He said unto him, yes Lord, you know I love thee.  Jesus said unto him, 
    feed me sheep.
    He saith unto him a third time, Simon, son of Jonas, do you love me?  
    Peter was grieved because He said unto him a third time, Do you love
    me.  And he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest
    that I love thee.  Jesus said unto him, Feed my sheep.
    Verily Verily I say unto thee, when you were young you girded yourself
    and walked where you wanted; but when thou shalt be old, thou shalt
    stretch forth thy hands, and another shall gird thee, and carry thee 
    where you do not want to go. 
    And speaking He signified by what manner of death he should glorify
    God"  John 21: 15-19
    
    Paul himself stated that the gospel would be a stumbling block and a
    rock of offense to the world.  If you read both the old testament as
    well as the new, you will find that many were martyred for the cause of
    Christ or God the Father.  Peter in this case died in the same manner
    that Jesus did.  
    
    If you look at it in this context, Jesus is the Prince of Peace;
    however, the cause of the gospel can have horrible consequences for
    those willing to be persecuted for it.  This is what I took the meaning
    of sword to be when Jesus spoke of it.
    
    In Christ,
    
    Jack

    .163
    
    Jack,  I agree with you to a degree about Jesus' use of the word sword.
    But I also believe what Jesus taught has even broader implications.
    
    Would you acknowledge that some believers are also persecutors?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

>    Would you acknowledge that some believers are also persecutors?

Would you acknowledge that constant, resolute calling people to obey
the difficult teachings of the Gospel is not persecution or abuse, but
love?

/john

    .165
    
    Labelling a gentle seeker as evil, reviling them and resorting to using
    fear and scare tactics is not a loving thing to do.
    
    You doubtlessly believe that you are one who exemplifies that constant,
    resolute calling of people to obediance to the difficult teachings of
    the Gospel, right?
    
    Tell me, have your tough love tactics met with much success?  How about
    outside the notes environment?
    
    Richard
    

Richard, it's certainly a much greater evil to deny Christianity's absolute
truth than it is to honestly search for God in the wrong places.

Patricia, if she honestly continues her search for the truth, will, like
the wise men from the East, reach it -- and that truth is none other than
Jesus Christ, the source of all truth.

Along the way, she will hopefully not be delayed too long by people who
have given into the temptation to equivocate Christianity with other
systems, all of which fall short of the truth.

And I also hope she won't be delayed by my imperfect explanations of God's
infinite love.  But I can't lie -- there is only one way, truth, and life.

/john

    RE: .166   (Sorry, I'm long winded once again!  I always get this
    way when I need to explain how I'm feeling, rather than just what
    I'm thinking.)
    
    Richard, I hope you don't mind me jumping in her because I feel you are
    talking about me.   >>Labelling a gentle seeker as evil
    
    If you'll note from my initial note that sparks this string (568.47), I
    did not call Patricia evil.  I said that because of original sin we are
    separated God and the only way back to Him was through the sacrifice of
    Jesus.  Also, that is our responsibility to accept that.  If we don't,
    there are consequences which Satan would be more than happy to have you
    go through.
    
    Again, in 571.27 not only do I not say that Patricia was evil, I didn't
    talk about sin.  I think the tone of my note was very low key and not
    accusatory.  Please read it again as objectively by itself to see if
    you agree.  I realize that sometimes I have trouble dropping my biases,
    but I hope that would not be a problem for you.
    
    I'm struggling here because we were asked a question about Christianity
    and I reply and I'm castrated.  (forgive this analogy, but it's close
    to my feelings)   I'm called arrogant and offensive in (.28, .31) for
    the message which I find in the Bible irregardless of how it's
    delivered (fire and brimstone or gently).
    
    Now...where did the word evil come into play?  It's in Patricia's reply
    (.56) when she says:
    
    > I have felt hurt and then angry when Jill, or Alfred, or others say
    or imply that I am evil, that I am going to hell, or that I will suffer
    eternal damnation because I seek my own truth in religious matters.
    
    Now Richard I hope we can agree that Notes is an imperfect medium. 
    That without the inflection of the voice, you really have very little
    clue whether there is sincerity, hostility, or a serious tone about a
    reply.  Therefore all of us tend to maybe read into things based on our
    preconceived perceptions of the author.  Now if you'll notice in .103 I
    felt a great deal of hostility in Patricia's notes.  I try to state
    that I'm not angry so she does not have to guess or read into my
    message.  I explain that she seems to imply that I say "you're evil and
    I'm not".  That is clearly not what I said.  I repeat the biblical
    truth that all are sinners as the Bible says.  I emphasize this with
    going back to the word she used "evil."  I said we are both evil AND
    that we we can be saved by God's grace.  Now I did not know this was 
    going to send Patricia through the ceiling.   Perhaps an act of 
    insensitivity on my part, but it was an honest mistake in judgment. 
    Someone in here stated that the conservative element sounds accusatory 
    because we never start anything with "if" or "I believe".   Now 
    nowhere do I ever say Patricia is not a Christian because quite frankly 
    I just haven't figured out exactly what she believes.  In 568 and 571 
    a couple of times in each of my 6 notes and I use "I" a whole bunch 
    because of talking about how Christianity has affected my life.  When 
    I use "you" it's to provoke thought about if Christianity fits in 
    with other people's lives.
    
    I've stated repeatedly that my views are based on the Bible being God's
    only, complete reference to who He is and how we get back to Him.  This
    is my belief.  I contrasted our belief styles.  And I state a concern
    that feelings can be misleading.  But I also state that both styles
    use them, but that we need to use caution.  But because I seem to
    offend Patricia with everything I write, I resorted to begging for her
    to help me understand.  In the end I can't pull all the different
    theologies that it seems to me that she believes in intoo one concise 
    belief, so it hard to understand when I'm going to "step on her toes" 
    and when I'm not.   When I ask very direct questions, I don't feel 
    I get a direct answer.  I feel I get alot of tap dancing around the 
    question I asked.  Now if she has a problem with the way my question 
    is stated, I'd like to know that in her reply rather than her simply 
    not answering my initial question.  It's confusing and if I keep 
    coming back to something that all of you feel I should know from 
    the time (around 3 months) that I've been here, trust me...I don't 
    understand.  I'm sorry if it's frustrating.  Conservative elements have 
    been accused for just pushing an agenda and of course if you call 
    sharing our beliefs an agenda, I guess we do have one.  But if I keep 
    asking questions, it's because I'm trying to understand where someone 
    is coming from.  The conservative elements are accused of not trying 
    to understand, but I honesty don't believe that to be true.  Along my 
    journey to discover what others believe if I hear something that is 
    contrary to what I believe the Bible says, I feel I have to state 
    that belief.  Just as if you hear something you don't agree with you
    state your beliefs.
    
    Patricia has repeatedly said she's on a journey of faith.  She asked
    questions about Christianity and then got mad when the more
    conservative elements gave her the traditional Biblical reply.  Perhaps
    if she didn't want our replies she should have specified SRO.
    
    Lastly, here's something I heard on the radio today.  I think it's
    a true statement.  I don't think all controversy is bad.
    
    Controversy for the sake of controversy is a sin. 
    Controversy for the sake of the truth is a divine command.
    
    Jill

    re .165

    > Would you acknowledge that constant, resolute calling people to obey
    > the difficult teachings of the Gospel is not persecution or abuse, but
    > love?

    Generally speaking I would call this harassment.  One cannot verbally
    or psychologically "beat" the Gospel of love into a person...

    re .167

    >...it's certainly a much greater evil to deny Christianity's absolute
    > truth than it is to honestly search for God in the wrong places.

    A couple of sincere questions:

      1) Does God attribute varying degrees of evil to different human 
         beliefs and actions?

      2) Is it "evil" to *honestly* search for God in the wrong places?
         (honestly being the operative word.)

    re .165
    
    /john.....its a fine line between harassement and what you are calling
    "tough love". The type of "tough love" that you are using here,
    although I believe motivated for good intentions, doesn't work.
    
    Marc H.

>      1) Does God attribute varying degrees of evil to different human 
>         beliefs and actions?

	I suspect that the word "evil" may in some ways be a stumbling block
	here but I'll try and work around that. I believe that God does attribute
	varying degrees of evil to things He does not like. However, the least
	of these things makes one imperfect and unable to enter heaven without
	some external, to themselves, help.

>      2) Is it "evil" to *honestly* search for God in the wrong places?
>         (honestly being the operative word.)

	Evil in the sense that it is unhelpful? Yes. Evil in that God forbids
	it? Probably not. But it doesn't win you any points. :-) And it is not
	"a step towards God."

			Alfred

    re .171 Alfred,

    Now THAT was a constructive reply... You've helped me to take a step
    forward in trying to understand the nature and God, without making me
    raise a shield of defensiveness and rejection.

    Thanks,
    Eric

    Re:.164 - Richard
    
    >>Would you acknowledge that some believers are also persecutors?
    
    I think it is safe to make that conclusion.  I also feel this is why
    Paul set guidelines for the role of elders in the church.  One of the 
    mandates was that an elder not be a novice, lest being lifted up with
    pride, he fall into the condemnation of the devil.  1st Tim. 3:6.  If
    this mandate is for elders, how much more do I as a church lay person
    need to be able to bridle my tongue?!
    
    It also states in James let not all of us be teachers lest we incur
    stricter judgement.  These two verses indicate the fallability of
    humankind, yes even regenerate ones.
    
    As far as incidences such as the inquisition, my personal opinion is
    that those people were self serving lost people who used Christianity
    strictly as a label thereby giving Christ a bad wrap as well as the
    Church.  This is why I feel our testimony is so important.  We may be
    the only exposure of Christ somebody will get!
    
    In Christ,
    
    Jack

    It contributes to evil (ie separation from God) to discourage people
    from the fulfillment of Christ's commission to us to make disciples and
    baptize them and teach them.

    Christians have the truth in their possession and like Peter we are not
    worthy but nevertheless honored and humbled to proclaim the gospel that
    Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

Note 571.174

>    It contributes to evil (ie separation from God) to discourage people
>    from the fulfillment of Christ's commission to us to make disciples and
>    baptize them and teach them.

Does it contribute to evil to drive people away from God with fear and
scare tactics, by souring them against anything associated with your faith
by the way in which you choose to fulfill your commission?

And again I ask, what's your track record in making disciples and baptizing
them and teaching them by utilitizing the tactics you've chosen?  One?  Two?
A dozen?  Countless hundreds?

Richard
    

re: Note 571.168 by Jill "it's just a wheen o' blethers" 

Jill, in your note 571.103 you explicitely did call Patricia evil.
Yes, you said you yourself were evil, too, but as I have replied in here, I 
see the damage as having already been done, to couch ones words after the fact 
is not what I'd call good evangelism, but scare tactics.

Until that later acknowledgement of one's own evil, there is a period where 
it can be construed that the message is indeed "you're evil and I'm not" or 
"you haven't found God but I have".  Even though *you* may have an a priori 
acceptance of yourself as evil or a sinner, another person may not be aware of
that.  It may be only an instant, but in that instant we can blind someone
with a splinter in their eye while trying to remove it if we do not see
clearly.  Do you see?  I agree completely that we are fallen, that we all fall
short of the glory of God, and that we are called to share the Gospel with the
world.  As Bubba might say, that is our strategy, but the tactics we employ
may actually hinder the strategy. 

Peace,

Jim

    
.173

>    As far as incidences such as the inquisition, my personal opinion is
>    that those people were self serving lost people who used Christianity
>    strictly as a label thereby giving Christ a bad wrap as well as the
>    Church.  

Does that include the two Dominican Fathers who wrote the Malleus 
Maleficarum?

Dorian
    

    Dorian:
    
    I'm not familiar with that, could you explain it to me?
    
    Thanks,
    
    Jack

    
    
>    It contributes to evil (ie separation from God) to discourage people
>    from the fulfillment of Christ's commission to us to make disciples and
>    baptize them and teach them.



Patrick,

		How do we know if we are doing the "fulfillment of Christ's
commission" in a manner that drives away rather than makes "disciples" of 
them?  And what do we do then?  To me, if I am unsucessful with a certain 
group of people, I take a good long look at myself and my relationship with
God before I blame all of them.  Maybe I am doing something wrong.


Dave

	I do realize that for most people who do use scare tactics, shouting,
whatever, that their intentions are to get people to the Lord to be saved.
Their intentions are brought on by the love God has for us and their love for
others. They don't want to see one soul go unsaved. The intentions part is
really fine. It's the scare tactics part that seems to have problems. In which
thype of conversation would someone be more apt to listen to and possibly ask
questions:


	1) A conversation filled with fear and possible shouting.

	2) A conversation with words in a normal voice decimal level.


	I myself would vote for #2. I know if I am having a conversation with
anyone on any given subject I prefer 2 as well. Especially when that
conversation is with my boss. :-) 

	I do have a question (it may have been asked already). For those who
think that the scare tactics work to get the message out to people, was this
done to you to bring you to God? Just curious.....




Glen

    I believe that scare tactics are only used by those who are witnessing
    in the flesh and not in the Spirit.  In other words, if somebody feels
    the need to shout and abrupt, then they must feel they are actually
    doing the converting and not God himself.
    
    Remember, we can plant and water, but God causes the growth.
    
    The sincere milk of the word is just that, witnessing in love (Agape)
    and in the Spirit, not of myself!
    
    Gods Best,
    
    Jack

    RE: .176
    
    Thanks Jim for discussing this with me.  Good question "Where is the
    focus?" Well originally it was on the essence of Christianity. 
    Patricia wanted to know the answer.  I gave her the traditional
    biblical interpretation. I would imagine since she had recently read
    the article by Pastor Leo Booth saying that that he disagrees with the
    concept of "original sin" and since I used that in my opening line
    (568.47) that immediately set her on the defensive.  Then the focus in
    571 changed to "Fear and Scare Tactics" quoting lines directly from
    Booth's article in this basenote which is actually where the
    implication of evil first came up in that Patricia considers the
    doctrine "some Christians" teach as odious (read evil) because they are
    exclusive and use scare tactics.  In .27 I explained that there's
    nothing exclusive about Christianity, Christ came for all people.  We
    are all saved by grace.  We all have a choice.  God loves us, but we
    need to choose to be with Him.  Please read it.  Tell me what you
    think.
    
    If you read my .168 I explained that I only used the word "evil" in
    .103 after Patricia herself used it in .56 in addition to the odious
    comment in the basenote.  Having used it twice herself I had no idea
    that it would cause such a stir.  Now saying that we're all evil is no
    different to me than saying we're all sinners.  It's the same thing.
    Now, you can say it anyway you want.  That we've fallen.   That we've
    done things wrong.  That we make mistakes.  Now some sound nicer I
    admit. Evil sounding the harshest our of all of these.  But again I was
    responding to her using the word.  I don't believe I've ever used it
    before here, not in relation to anyone.  I was simply responding with
    her words. Something most writers do here and nearly everywhere else in
    correspondence. It's what we're trained to do in school.  And despite
    the fact that I feel unjustly accused, I have apologized profusely and
    sincererly in every note since.
    
    Finally, I want to know since I've yet to get an answer, what is so
    scary about what I said.  If one doesn't believe in the Bible and I'm
    giving them a Biblical stance, they would consider it to be nonsense,
    so what is so scary?  What is striking fear into the hearts of the
    readers of my notes?   Please tell me.  I believe this term "fear and
    scare tactics" really just means I'm "angry and don't agree with what
    you said and I don't want to hear it ever again." Does the concept of
    hell scare people?  Patricia said in .132 that she doesn't even
    consider an afterlife.  So tell me what's scary?  What's the fear
    about?  I honesty don't understand.
    
    Jill
    
    

    RE: .182
    
    It's not fear. Rather, its the "talking down" and "know it all...it's
    my way and thats it".  Others call it "tough love"...I don't.
    
    Marc H.

    Marc:
    
    In all frankness, what did you expect?  If Ms. Kinsella gives a
    biblical Christian perspective, I think she has readily admitted she is
    in the same boat as you and I and everybody else as far as her sinful
    condition.  Help me to understand where one is talking down to the
    other when we are all in the same boat.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack
    
    P.S. If she appears to have a "know it all" attitude, then it is your
    job as a mature adult to prove her wrong.  In fact, that is what our
    democracy is supposed to be built upon.  So far her exegesis has been
    stated and back up scripturally.

re Note 571.174 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Christians have the truth in their possession and like Peter we are not
>     worthy but nevertheless honored and humbled to proclaim the gospel that
>     Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.

        As you say, Jesus is the truth.

        Yet you say "Christians have the truth in their possession".

        We possess Jesus?  Or is it that Jesus possesses us?

        I believe that Christians are, or should be, ministers to the
        truth, Jesus.  We are not administers of some thing called
        the "the truth" in our "possession."

        Bob

    Good Point Bob.  John 10, Jesus says "My sheep know my voice..."
    
    I agree, Jesus posesses us and bought us with a heavy price!
    
    Jack

    Just what is being discussed and what is being denied here?
    
       (1) Jesus is the way, the truth, and the life.  He died for our
       sins. That we will be judged by God for the conduct of our life.
       etc.
    
       (2) Certain "tactics" employed by Pat Robertson, Bishop Spong,
       Mother Theresa of Calcutta, Matthew Fox, etc. are "evil",
       "unsuccessful", etc.
    
    If you don't accept (1), then why bother to discuss (2)?  If one
    believes that man _does_ live by bread alone, what motivates an
    interest in the tactics of someone saying that man does not live by
    bread but by every word that comes from the mouth of God?
    
    Who are these people and what tactics are being objected to?  I, too,
    stipulate that shouting is inappropriate.

    RE: .184
    
    Sorry Jack, its not "my job" to go and debate...bible quote to bible
    quote. I'm just telling folks how this discussion is being received
    by me.....information to be either used or not.
    
    One of the advantages to notes is that many...many type of people
    can read these entries. I'm giving feedback.
    
    Marc H.

    .188
    
    And I, for one, appreciate it, Marc!  Jack's feedback, too!
    
    Pax,
    Richard

    No Prob Marc.  Alls I'm saying is that there is evidence that demands a
    verdict and Ms. Kinsella has given her evidence.  As stated in previous
    entries, information or ideas must have a source.  In this case, our
    source either comes from man or from God.  We can't say that this part
    of the Bible I agree with therefore it is from God and this part is
    scary or terrorist in nature, therefore it comes from man.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    
    RE: .183 & .184
    
    Marc, I don't hold myself as more important than anyone else.  We
    are all saved by the grace of God.  Actually for being saved at
    a the tender age of 8, I really feel I should be further in my
    walk, but I took a slight detour using my own directions during
    my twenties.  I'll try to be more careful in future entries to
    try to not come across as such.  I'm not sure how yet.  But I'll
    try.  BTW...it's not my way...it's God's way that counts.  Can
    you show me where I've said otherwise?
    
    Thanks Jack.  I thought I was going crazy.  Me and my exegesis thank
    you...now that I know what an exegesis is.  :-)
    
    Jill

    Dear Jill:
    
    I'm glad I helped you with the word exegesis.  Actually, I'm just a
    parrot with that word.  Never heard of it until I got into the
    notesfile
    
    See ya Jill...  Jack

re Note 571.190 by CSTEAM::MARTIN:

>     We can't say that this part
>     of the Bible I agree with therefore it is from God and this part is
>     scary or terrorist in nature, therefore it comes from man.
  

        That's totally absurd.  OF COURSE one can.

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    Again, the prime example that comes through this string time and time
    again is the individuals notion of truth that God is tolerant when it 
    comes to sin.  He is not, its just that Christs death has been the
    buffer for my sin nature since the day I was saved.
    
    It is not absurd in the least.  If we use our wisdom to discern what is
    right and what is not God inspired truth, what hope is there that the
    whole word of God is just a big lie?!  If we don't take the Bible at
    full face value, then Christianity is a big hoax and or potentially is,
    and Christ is either a liar or a lunatic because he certainly believed
    in it.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

    Jack is going over old ground.  Like so many other notes, this one is
    transformed into a "hate the sin/love the sinner" worldview v. "love
    the sin (or denial of the reality of sin)/love the sinner" worldview.
    
    Here's an example of a fear tactic: "...the moment you eat from it you
    are surely doomed to die."
    
    Here's an example of a messenger who doesn't use fear to make his
    point: "You certainly will not die.  No, God knows well that the moment
    you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who
    know what is good and what is bad."

Which messenger do the various readers of this conference propose to follow?

  /John

   Speaking entirely and exclusively for myself...

    
<    Here's an example of a fear tactic: "...the moment you eat from it you
<    are surely doomed to die."

   Anyone who approaches me in that way will certainly get the same
   response I reserve for those who pester me while running to catch
   a flight at say BWI or Kennedy airport.  The essense of that would
   be in the form of "Kindly do not disturb me any further!".
    
<    Here's an example of a messenger who doesn't use fear to make his
<    point: "You certainly will not die.  No, God knows well that the moment
<    you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods who
<    know what is good and what is bad."

   When approached in this form I am inclined to listen, maybe even
   sit the person down and ask more thought provoking questions.  It 
   has little to do with my agreement with scripture or beliefs as the
   person [Patrick in this case] has engaged a thought provoking
   conversation without being provocative.  Lord knows Patrick and
   I may not agree on much but the later form is certainly a point
   where we have basis for opening my heart to an enriching message
   rather than hardening my ears to the din.

   It takes little to make the Bible a book of dead peoples quotes.
   I have heard people make the Bible a living story of hope.  Since
   my belief is when there is life hope for a better future exists.


   Allison

The second messenger certainly is beguiling, as he leads people away from
the One who spoke first.

His beguiling message has tempted people throughout the ages, beginning with
the two who listened to him instead of to the Truth.

/john

    It is interesting to note which of the two messengers in the Genesis
    Eden myth (which of course did not describe an actual, historical
    event, since humans were not suddenly created in a garden but in fact
    evolved over thousands of years) had the more effective selling
    technique.   The fear and scare tactics didn't work too well in that
    myth, did they?

    -- Mike

    RE: .199 Pick one Mike. Either it was an actual event or the tactic
    described didn't happen.
    
    And no the fear and scare tactic didn't work too well. So are you
    saying that we should use satan for our role model rather than God?
    
    		Alfred

    Alfred, I think I already stated that the incident didn't really happen
    as a historical event.  I was commenting on what happened in the myth.
    
    And no, I am not suggesting that we use Satan as a role model, but then
    I don't conflate the serpent in that myth with Satan (who I don't
    believe exists anyway.)
    
    -- Mike

>    And no, I am not suggesting that we use Satan as a role model, but then
    
    Sure fooled me. What then are you suggesting?
    
    		Alfred

Yes, Mike, we know which messenger they listened to and still listen to today.

Human nature is basically weak, and the lie, the offer from the Deceiver to
have what you want -- and to have it now -- even when it will separate you
from God, is so often more attractive.

The message of Christianity is, "Not my will but thine be done, O Father."
To deny selfish desires.  To say "No" to the beguiling serpent.

Today, being the commemoration of the Baptism of Jesus Christ in the Jordan,
our parish reaffirmed baptismal vows in the form used by all present whenever
an actual baptism occurs.

BCP p. 302:

Question: Do you renounce Satan and all the spiritual forces of wickedness
	  that rebel against God?
Answer:	  I renounce them.

Question: Do you renounce the evil powers of this world which corrupt and
	  destroy the creatures of God?
Answer:	  I renounce them.

Question: Do you renounce all sinful desires that draw you from the love of
	  God?
Answer:	  I renounce them.

Question: Do you turn to Jesus Christ and accept him as your Saviour?
Answer:	  I do.

Question: Do you put your whole trust in his grace and love?
Answer:	  I do.

Question: Do you promise to follow and obey him as your Lord?
Answer:	  I do.

Followed by a responsive recitation of the Apostle's Creed and a few more
promises, such as obedience to the Great Commission and continued repentance
when needed in the future.

Which messenger beguiles us into not keeping these promises?

Which messenger loves us even if we fail, as long as we try, repent, and try?

???

<             <<< Note 571.198 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
<      -< Both of those messengers are still very much alive and at work >-
<
<The second messenger certainly is beguiling, as he leads people away from
<the One who spoke first.
<
<His beguiling message has tempted people throughout the ages, beginning with
<the two who listened to him instead of to the Truth.

   /john,

   As the story goes, I may listen.  I didn't say the beguiling messenger
   would not be dismissed.  We are all tempted with great frequency but,
   temptation is not commission.  Listening is not believeing or
   accepting.  Your warning is worth listening to.

   Allison

    Alfred, as I mentioned already, I don't identify the Serpent in that
    myth with the person of Satan who appears in only a few places by name
    in the Old Testament.  (I also stated that I don't believe that Satan
    exists in actuality, but that's another story).  If I don't identify
    the Serpent as Satan, then Satan doesn't even even into the picture,
    from my perspective on the Eden story.  I do think that the Serpent
    makes for an interesting character in that myth; whether what resulted
    from what he did was necessarily all for the bad is a fascinating
    question.

    I am also pointing out that it is interesting that the Eden myth is
    brought up in the context of a discussion of fear and scare tactics
    when the use of those very tactics in that myth were clearly
    counterproductive, in contrast with the success of a message that
    lacked such tactics.  One can draw from a great story like this one
    some interesting morals, including the notion that a message offered in
    a positive manner can be more appealing than one offered negatively,
    thus illustrating precisely the point that many have been making in
    this topic--that irrespective of the truth of a message, the manner in
    which a message is presented can make a difference.  
    
    -- Mike

    
    I'd say the Eden story worked very well indeed...it's succeeded in making
    women responsible for sin and death, ever since!
    
    Dorian

    RE: .206
    
    Huh???? Care to elaborate?
    
    Marc H.

    It's the radical feminist interpretation the story of the Fall was not
    the Original Sin of disobedience to God, but the Originial
    Discrimination of imputing inferiority to women.

re: Note 571.196 by John R. Covert

>Which messenger do the various readers of this conference propose to follow?

I propose to follow the one who told us to love others as we have been loved.

Peace,

Jim

    .196,
    
    I'm with Jim Kirk on that question.
    
    Richard
    

He is the right one to follow.

And he is, of course, the one who said "for in the day that you eat of it,
you shall die."

And even though we continue to fail to live up to his calling, he still calls
us back to repentence and to try again another day.

/john

    
.207

It's my understanding that the Eden story has done much to shape our
culture's attitudes toward women. 

Starting with the line from Genesis, "The woman...she gave me of the tree,
and I did eat..." The story makes the woman responsible for the fall. 

Women have had their supposedly Eve-like natures drummed into them for
centuries by church authorities. Two examples: 

"The judgment of God upon your sex endures even today; ... You are the 
gateway of the Devil."

	-- Tertullian, Woman's Dress, c. 220

"Eve exceeded all women in sorrow and misery. Never came into the world a 
more miserable woman; she saw that for her sake we were all to die."

	-- Martin Luther, Table-Talk, 1569

Many books discuss this. A good one is Eve: The History of an Idea, by John
Phillips (1984). Among other things, one learns that the story takes
elements from religions of other cultures of the times and completely
twists their significance. Eve for example is the Great Goddess, and the
serpent is Her sacred symbol, life renewing itself. 

Dorian                                                   

    
.178
    
>    I'm not familiar with that, could you explain it to me?
    
The Malleus Maleficarum (Hammer Against Witches) was one of the first books 
published, in 1486. Written by two Inquisitors, Dominican Fathers Heinrich
Kramer and James Sprenger, under a Bull of Pope Innocent VIII, the book was
distributed widely into the most remote areas of Europe and served for
hundreds of years as a handbook for the identification, interrogation,
torture, and execution of millions of people as witches, approximately 85%
of them women. 

The book is available in translation as a 1971 Dover reprint paperback
(including a translation of the Papal Bull). Secondary sources that discuss
this book and its influence include Woman, Church and State, by Matilda
Joslyn Gage (1893); Riding the Nightmare, by Selma Williams (1978); Drawing
Down the Moon, by Margot Adler (1979); and the Canadian film The Burning
Times, directed by Donna Read (1990), in which both Matthew Fox and 
historian Irving Smith stress the widespread influence of the Malleus. 

Dorian

>Starting with the line from Genesis, "The woman...she gave me of the tree,
>and I did eat..." The story makes the woman responsible for the fall. 

	Adam blaimed Eve. That doesn't mean she was responsible. The story
	doesn't make woman responsible for the fall. Adam screwed up and just
	because Eve was involved doesn't make him blaimless. We would not 
	accept such of claim from a child and I know of no reason to believe
	God accepted it from Adam.

			Alfred

	Alfred, I had thought that the pain women go through each month was
brought on by Eve's disobedience? If that is true (and I'm going by my memory
so who knows ;-) then isn't that putting the burden of the punishment onto
women where men really got off scott free? 




Glen

It's not the monthly pain, it's the pain of childbirth.

Males certainly didn't get off free -- we all got thrown out of the Garden
of Eden.

	And to the man he said,
	"Because you have listened to the voice of your wife,
	 and have eaten of the tree about which I commanded you
	 `You shall not eat of it,'
	 cursed is the ground because of you;
	 in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life;
	 thorns and thistles it shall bring forth for you;
	 and you shall eat the plants of the field.
	 By the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
	 until you return to the ground,
	 for out of it you were taken;
	 you are dust, and to dust you shall return."

    Yahweh punished all three parties in the incident--the Man, the Woman,
    and the Serpent--as well as all men, women, and serpents who followed.

    As punishment for the temptation, serpents were now cursed and were
    forced to slither on their bellies (and "eat dust" for their entire
    lives).  One presumes that Yahweh had originally given serpents legs,
    and as punishment he now took them away.  Women were now forced to
    suffer pain during childbirth and be ruled by their husbands (male
    domination is thus a punishment for Eve's sin).  Men now were forced to
    toil and sweat for food.

    -- Mike

| <<< Note 571.216 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>



| It's not the monthly pain, it's the pain of childbirth.

	Thanks for clearing that up John! 

| Males certainly didn't get off free -- we all got thrown out of the Garden
| of Eden.

	A MUCH lesser price than what women had to pay. They got thrown out
too, remember?

	Mike & John, thanks for the info.



Glen

    
    Yes it was the pain of childbirth. That's one reason why midwives, who 
    knew how to alleviate the pain of childbirth by administering herbs to
    women, were persecuted as witches.
    
    Dorian

    
    RE: the Malleus Maleficarum
    
    The following question may be too graphic for some....please take
    note....
    
    
    Dorian, someone once told me that some volumes of this work were
    actually bound with human skin.  Have you ever heard this?
    
    Carole

re: Note 571.211 by John R. Covert

>      -< Thou art the same Lord, whose property is always to have mercy >-
>
>He is the right one to follow.
>
>And he is, of course, the one who said "for in the day that you eat of it,
>you shall die."
>
>And even though we continue to fail to live up to his calling, he still calls
>us back to repentence and to try again another day.

Indeed, but notice how even God seems to have changed tactics!  Without 
opening the question of whether the Old and New testament celebrate the same
God; over all the Gospels seems to find a "kinder, gentler" God than that of
the Old Testament.  The direction has not changed, justice is still there, but
instead of saying "do this, don't do that" God says "follow me".  Far
different tactics! 

Peace,

Jim

(& thanks Richard!)

re .221

He says a lot more than "follow me."

He says a lot of tough love.

/john

The Bible holds Adam responsible for the sin, although
Eve was the first deceived.  I will try to find the
appropriate references (Eve deceived is 1 Tim 2:14 or 15).

re: Note 571.222 by John R. Covert

Yes, Jesus does say a lot.  I've never denied that.
We're discussing the means by which one gets the message across however.  

Perhaps you missed my point?  Perhaps I missed yours.

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .222
    
    Never liked the term "tough love".....can you define it another way?
    
    Marc H.

    I believe the reference is in Corinthians somewhere.  The two that come
    to mind:
    
    "For in Adam all die, so in Christ all shall be made alive!"
    
    "For as in one man sin entered into the world and death came from sin,
    then death has passed upon all men for all have sinned."
    
     Jim, I hear what your saying.  I take it to mean that in the O.T., God
    gave the law through Moses.  In the N.T. Christ fulfilled the law
    through his death and resurrection.  The free gift for all to take.
      
                     To Mike V.
    
    Incidentally, Mike, Jesus said in a condemning way to the pharisees
    that they believed not the words that Moses spoke.  Since Moses wrote
    the Pentateuch (sp), including the Genesis account, do you think if
    Jesus were alive he would speak to you in the same manner as the
    pharisees, or do you think he would agree with you that the Genesis
    account was a myth?
    
    In Christ,
    
    Jack

>can you define it another way?

Jesus requires uncompromising obedience to the will of God.

He requires death to self.

He gives this freely (love) to those who accept (tough).

/john

    It seems god is a very child like god - he punishes every man, woman
    and serpent for the actions of the three. Seems like a lot of innocents
    were made to suffer!

    RE: .227
    
    Still don't like the phrase "tough love", and the way you have used it.
    I really don't believe that you or I or most people here disagree with
    what you are saying.....but...I suggest that a quick sound bite like
    "tough love" is the wrong way to get the message across.
    
    "Tough Love" has been mainly used in parenting circles as a way to
    win back children that use drugs; with an emphasis on a staunch
    , overbearing parent figure. Not my idea of Christ!
    
    Marc H.

    
    .220
    
    No, I never heard that about the Malleus - do you recall who was
    supposed to have been responsible for doing it?
    
    Dorian

    James Dobson has written many solid books on children and parenting,
    dealing particularly at the young age (1-3 yrs.)  One of the books is titled,
    "Love Must be Tough".  It is an amphiboly in that if you read the
    title, it has two meanings.  That might be one of the ways the term,
    "Tough Love" came into play!
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    Jack

I Tim 12b-14 NJB

"A woman ought to be quiet, because Adam was formed first and Eve afterwards,
and it was not Adam who was led astray but the woman who was led astray and
fell into sin."

Dorian's point is well taken (.212).

Richard

As Jack pointed out, Paul wrote:

[Rom 5:12] Just as sin came into the world through one man ...
[Rom 5:14] ... the transgression of Adam ...

Thus blame is placed on both Eve and Adam.

/john

    Yeah, but the Timothy quote remains a suppressive one, though one
    might suggest other verses "neutralize" it.
    
    Richard
    

    
Whatever the strict theological view, the fact is that Eve has come down to
us in the popular mind (which is what counts, when you're talking social
attitudes and their influence on people) as (first point) the real
transgressor, and (second point) as subordinate to Adam, the man. 

Examples of the first point, woman as Eve -- weak-willed temptress,
deserving of punishment -- are legion, in art as well as literature. Many
are included in John Phillips's book Eve: The History of an Idea. Here are
a few: 
 

From Paul's letter to Timothy:

"Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the 
transgression."


From the Malleus Maleficarum:

"For though the devil tempted Eve to sin, yet Eve seduced Adam. And as the 
sin of Eve would not have brought death to our soul and body unless the sin 
had afterwards passed on to Adam, to which he was tempted by Eve, not yet 
by the devil, therefore she is more bitter than death."


From the writings of the 16th-century bishop Jean Oliver:

"Eve in Scripture opened the forbidden fruit by her bite, by which death 
invaded the world. So did Pandora open the box in defiance of a divine 
injunction, whereby all the evils and infinite calamities broke loose and 
overwhelmed the hapless mortals with countless infirmities."


From an article called "Why We Burn," in "The Humanist," Nov. 1983:

"'To the woman he said, I will greatly multiply your pain in childbearing; 
in pain will you bring forth children, yet your desire shall be for your 
husband, and he shall rule over you.' (Genesis 3:16)

"In 1847, a scandal resulted when British obstetrician Dr. Simpson used 
chloroform as an anesthetic in delivering a baby. The holy men of the 
Church of England prohibited the use of an anesthetic in childbirth, citing 
this quote."


As for the second point -- the Eden story used to underscore Eve's (woman's) 
subordinate status relative to Adam's (man's) -- one need look no further 
than John Milton's Paradise Lost:

"For contemplation he and valor form'd,
For softness she and sweet attractive grace;
He for God only, she for God in him."  (iv)


Finally, the following quote is from the book The Creation of Patriarchy,
by Gerda Lerner (1986): (Lerner is professor history/distinguished
researcher at U. of Wisconsin, and a past president of the Organization of
American Historians.) 

"The most powerful metaphors of gender in the Bible have been those of 
Woman, created of Man's rib, and of Eve, the temptress, causing humankind's 
fall from grace. These have, for ever two millennia, been cited as proof of 
divine sanction for the subordination of women. As such, they have had a 
powerful impact on defining values and practices in regard to gender 
relations...The creation of woman from Adam's rib has been interpreted in 
the most literal sense for thousands of years to denote the God-given 
inferiority of woman." (pp. 182 - 183)
 
Dorian

I find it interesting that I always think of the fall
in terms of Adam, not Eve - and that this is due to
what I have heard from others (as well as the Bible).

I guess I'm just part of a culture that has missed out
on the glorious possibility of blaming the woman for
our own problems.  :-)

Collis

Re .236

	Collis,
	
	Yes, the Bible does show that sin entered the world through one
	man and not through one woman (Romans 5:12).

	A simliarity between then and now is that Adam blamed God just as
	many blame God for the problems that man faces today such as war
	and famine. For Adam said to God "The woman whom you gave me to be
	with me, she gave me [fruit] from the tree so I ate." Genesis 3:12 NWT,
	he blamed God because God had given him the woman instead of excepting 
	the fault as his own, in other words he was saying if you had not
	of given me the gift of the woman then I would not have sinned.
	But as Deuteronomy 32:5 NWT reads "They have acted ruinously on
	their own part; ...... the defect is their own." and not Jehovah's, 
	compare verse 4.

	Phil.
 

Re:  .237

But isn't it incredibly sexist to blame Adam for
the original sin when it was clearly Eve who bit into
the fruit and then gave some to Adam?

Incredible.

I'm finally beginning to understand why Christianity is
such a sexist religion.

:-) :-)

Collis

Collis,

	I don't think Adam is any less to blame.  But you see, Eve is
still largely perceived as the instigator, the source of Adam's seduction,
the channel of evil.

	Interestingly, to this day female children are more likely to
get into trouble for what they do, while male children are more often
the subject of parental discipline for what they don't do.

Peace,
Richard

    RE:  Last Couple
    
    Interesting stuff. I just don't have a good, firm view of where men
    and women fit in with the Bible. The passages from Paul have been
    talked about in here before...so I will not go into it again.
    
    Marc H.

    
    
    
     Well if it really did occur the way the bible said it did, and God
    really said that women should be subordinate to men,and have increased
    pain etc etc... Then is the feminist movement an abomination? Are we 
    better off today than before the feminist movement??
    
    
    David