Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Richard,

    Perhaps God needs to start giving out a sales commission for the Great
    Commission.  There could be extra perks in heaven in correlation with
    the number of souls you save.  Save ten souls and you get a Porsche in
    the afterlife; save twenty and you actually get to drive it; save
    thirty and you get valet parking at the Divine Mansion.  Then again,
    would perks like that only make some proselytizers even pushier and
    *more* annoying?

    -- Mike

    Actually, the whole question of proselytizer responsibility is rather
    interesting.

    The justification being used here is that proselytizers are called to
    spread the good news because other people's eternal souls may depend on
    it.  In other words, the theory is that there exist people who are
    unsaved, but who *might* choose to accept Jesus as their savior once
    they heard the gospel.  This means that, for want of a proselytizer
    spreading the message, someone who might otherwise have been saved will
    now spend eternity in hell.

    Think about that.  Obviously, not everyone who listens to the gospel
    will choose to accept Jesus, but some do.  God, in his infinite wisdom,
    knows that Joe Blow *would* have accepted Jesus before he died, had he
    only heard the gospel.  He would have loved to have saved Joe Blow, but
    unfortunately, the Christian down the street, John Doe, didn't make it
    over to Joe Blow's house before Joe Blow died in a car accident.  So
    Joe Blow must now be consigned to hell because of a lapse in
    proselytizing zeal on John Doe's part.  Who says God isn't fair and
    just?  :-)

    If, on the other hand, God granted a dispensation to Joe Blow because
    he *would* have accepted Jesus if he had only been granted the
    opportunity, then the whole theory of justifying proselytizing in
    order to save souls collapses.  There would be no reason to proselytize
    in order to save souls if people who aren't proselytized get saved
    anyway because of what they *would* have done *had* they been
    proselytized.  

    Of course, there might be other reasons for spreading the good news
    besides a wish to save souls; you may believe that your theology is a
    good one, valuable to people in their lives to know about, and so
    forth.  But the logic of saving souls per se as a justification for
    proselytizing would make no sense in the event that God grants such
    dispensations as outlined above.

    But, getting back to the original conception of salvation, if you then
    believe that accidents of circumstance can determine who gets saved and
    who doesn't, then the burden of proselytizing must be heavy indeed. 
    For want of a nail, a soul goes to hell.  What that says about your
    conception of God is another story, but that would be quite a heavy
    responsibility indeed.  Not only do people's salvation depend on what
    they do--it depends on what you do as well!  Quite an onus of
    responsibility, I'd say.

    -- Mike

    
    		I believe strongly in the "Great Commission" , however I do
    wonder why some Christians leave the love Christ showed them at home
    when they try to witness.  After all, the *ONLY* difference between me
    and an "unsaved" person is Christ.....I'm still a sinner....only saved
    by grace.   
    
    		I believe that Dr. Kennedy in his book Evangilism Explosion
    approached this problem best and even the Southern Baptist method (Cat)
    was patterned after it.  It talks about the defensive natur of an
    unsaved person and describes the best approach....without a great deal
    of exact quotes of the Bible as well as a well thought out personal
    testimony.
    
    
    Dave

	You know Mike, I really LOVE reading your notes. They always say so
much. 




Glen

    Why thank you.  I truly appreciate that.
    
    -- Mike

Well, I thought Bubba would jump right in here, since this note had to do with
sales and all.

My concern is that self-styled servants of the Lord -- especially the ones who
employ "fear and scare tactics," especially the ones who invariably dwell on
negatives (Hell, damnation, Satan, etc.), especially the unyielding hardliners
-- are souring people, perhaps permanently, against Christianity.

My concern is with the irretrievable losses such behaviors incur.

Peace,
Richard

.6> Well, I thought Bubba would jump right in here, since this note had
.6> to do with sales and all.

Well .. you thought correctly.  It's just a matter of priorities at the
moment but you may rest assured that you will be treated to a Sales
Executive's perspective on this .. 

Bubba

    
    
            Well, I can't help but think I sparked yet another controversy
            here.  Although it's an old one, just revisited.  I'm sorry
            this conference isn't as open as you all seem to think it is.
            I'm sorry but I don't believe it's possible to be politically
            correct and be a Christian as well.  I'm thankful that Jesus
            can relate to those feelings.  That's what so wonderful
            about a personal relationship with God through Jesus Christ,
            that He can relate to our feelings.
    
            I've been accused of preaching hell, fire, and brimstone
            instead of the love of Jesus Christ.  Although, I've found
            that even a passing mention of hell provokes outrage.  I
            challenge you to look at all of my notes in this conference
            and see that I don't dwell on negatives.  Nor have I left
            them out completely as some of you have encouraged me to do.
            I have reviewed many of the strings I've been involved in
            and find this not to be true (31,91,521,522,527,535,537,
            544,545,546,548,547.  Not to say there were wasn't some
            conflicts, but I don't believe from reviewing these that
            I dwell on negatives.
    
            My responsibility as a messenger is to be in the Word and
            in prayer.  My responsibility as a messenger is to live my
            life in accordance with the will of God as presented in
            His Word and by His Spirit in prayer.  And finally my
            responsibility as a messenger is to share the message.
            Not because as Mike suggestions in 576.2 that other people's
            eternal souls may depend on it, but because they do.
    
            Yesterday, my soul was grieved by the response to my writing
            about basic biblical truths.  I prayed about it with my
            study group and in my quiet time.  In my quiet time, I'm
            reading through the Bible in One Year format and there
            was a couple of points that encouraged me.  They remind me
            that I am not self-styled as Richard suggests.
    
            First, Jesus left Nazareth and went to Capernaum where
            he cried out, "Repent, the kingdom of heaven is at hand."
            This is how He started His ministry.  No doubt Jesus would
            have met with some conflict had some of the CPers been there
            that day, but He had the people of His time to deal with
            and no doubt they were just as challenging.
    
    
            Second, In the 4th Chapter of Psalm it addresses those
            who speak out against the message of God.  I don't have
            it with me today, but it's readily available to all
            who have a Bible.
    
            While I was hurting over being ridiculed for "costing sales"
            for writing basic Biblical truths, I reviewed all the
            replies in 571 and found again that the real issue:
    
            571.13 quote:  The message is just as arrogant and offensive
            whether the delivery is fire and brimstone or gentle.
    
            You see it's not the delivery, it's the message that's
            bothersome.  I can't change the message nor will I
            compromise it to the point of being unrecognizable for
            the sake of being politically correct.  I have to be true
            to only One, and One alone.  I would rather please Him,
            and displease you, then displease Him to please you.
            Messengers for Christ have to count the cost of our task.
            It sets you in conflict with the world.  I accept that.
            Not that it doesn't hurt, but I can live with it.
    
            Jill

Note 576.8

> I have to be true
> to only One, and One alone.  I would rather please Him,
> and displease you, then displease Him to please you.

Me, too.  Sorry if it offends the more conservative element.

In Christ,
Richard

    
            RE: 576.9
    
            Many people wonder how Christians can stand in total
            opposition to each other and both please God.  I
            wonder about it too sometimes.  We must test our
            views by the Word of God to discern whether we are
            really pleasing God and not just following our
            own agenda.  This takes constant testing for each
            of us.  All of us aren't always right and all of
            us aren't always wrong.
    
            Jill

<            Many people wonder how Christians can stand in total
<            opposition to each other and both please God.  I
<            wonder about it too sometimes.  We must test our
    
   Jill,

   Seems that is the human condition, we argue how many angels can dance
   on the head of a pin while forgetting the house is on fire.  

   I still prefer persistance and example to shining a light that should
   refresh and is instead held so as to be harsh and blinding.  Remember
   that metaphor when a police officer step up to your car at night and
   put that bright flashlight in your face as an aid to himself.  That
   same light would have been welcome not long ago in that dark street.
   The displeasure a brigh lamp can bring is relieved by only a matter 
   of patience to adjust it as an aid.

   If you wish to be heard, speak in a voice that wishes to be heard.

   Peace and prayers to you,
   Allison

    Sometimes the issue isn't angels dancing on the head of a pin or
    whether the house is on fire.  The issue is in making the distinction
    between the two and deciding what truly is trivial and what is truth.
    
    In fact, there's less "opposition" here and more demeaning the
    significance of beliefs that have been held by Christians for
    centuries.

    
    Hello Allison,
    
    Haven't heard from you for a while, did you have a nice holiday?
    
    Light...an excellent choice for a metaphor.  Oh how light changes the
    darkness!  It shoots into crevices we don't want anyone to know about.
    It illuminates and shows true form.  When we're hiding in darkness,
    we hate the light.  For we cannot love both.  I remember when I was
    a child how I would be afraid at night because it looked as if someone
    was standing in the closet.  But the light of day would prove that they
    were just a suit.
    
    Let's try another one...there is this security guard who is responsible
    for guarding the Owners most treasured possessions, but there are a
    thief who desire to steal these treasures and use them for their own
    selfish desires.   The security guard goes on his appointed rounds and
    shines light on the treasure to make sure it's safe.  Upon flashing the
    light on some more of the treasure, the guard finds the thief with the
    treasures in hand trying to claim them for himself.  Perhaps a shout
    from the guard would be enough or maybe the guard will have to be in
    hot pursuit weeding out the thief or maybe the thief will escape with
    some of the treasure.
    
    So it is with us.  We are God's treasure.  He made us for Himself.  The
    thief is Satan.  He works his way to the treasure when defenses are
    low and sometimes even hides as treasure so that he won't be found.
    Maybe even placing some of the treasure with conterfeits.  The treasure
    can't discern the thief, only the guard can.  The treasure is totally
    reliant on the guard for it's salvation from the thief.
    
    Jill

    re .13
    
    To further obfuscate any meaning, let me continue the metafore...
    
    The messenger must be sure that they are shinning light and not
    casting a shadow...
    
    Eric

    RE: .12
    
>    In fact, there's less "opposition" here and more demeaning the
>    significance of beliefs that have been held by Christians for
>    centuries.



		The issue is not the "demeaning" of Christianity but of the 
disbelief in some Christians that others could read the same passages in the
Bible and arrive at a different conclusion about God.  Also I see opposition
against Christs teachings as a reaction against Christians who seem to want
people to listen to their truth without the willingness to listen to their's.


		I know in my own life, I tend to "tune out" those who have an 
agenda but won't even listen to me....this reaction is normal with us humans
and yet many Christians will not consider this when it comes to religion.  I
feel that Christianity can and does stand on its own and will overshadow any
other belief, so even though I listen and consider, I *KNOW* that Christs truth
will *ALWAYS* win out.


Dave

    Dave, that's entirely too abstract.
    
    It's one person saying that Christ said "man does not live but bread
    alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God".
    
    And another person, either 
      doubting that Christ existed,
      or that he existed and didn't reveal to us truth about faith and morals,
      or that he did but we can't rely upon any written or oral testimony 
       as to what he taught, but...
    nevertheless offering a "Christian Perspective" that flatly contradicts
    what the first person said.  It is more than "opposition", it is demeaning.

    RE: .16   Patrick,
    
    			I do understand what your saying but I cannot help
    going back to the time when I was not a Christian and how the people in
    my life witnessed to me.  Those who tried to give me absolutes about
    the Bible, I turned off and even reacted strongly against them however 
    I could, even if it included statements that weren't true.  I was
    reacting to the attitude of the messanger and not the message.  Then a
    very loving Christian shared with me what Christ had done in their
    lives and that made all the difference in the world.  It was a personal
    statement by him and not some "book knowledge", "Bible thumpin"
    preacher trying to convert without the sincerity that I required for 
    belief.  Obviously I had a very strong mistrust of people who couldn't
    relate Christianity to their own lives.  I had the feeling that
    Christianity was nothing more than a "club" that many belonged to
    without really believing in what they were talking about.  It was, what
    I called a "comfort zone" for people that couldn't or wouldn't believe.
    
    
    		I believe that many here react in much the same way as I
    did before I accepted Christ into my life.  With that expierence, I
    always try to share what Christ has done in *MY* life rather than try
    to convince by Bible knowledge even though that knowledge is vital for
    Christians.
    
    
    Dave

Note 576.16

>    It's one person saying that Christ said "man does not live but bread
>    alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of God".

I've heard no denial of this.  I think everyone here recognizes the need
and benefit of spiritual nourishment in their lives.  Otherwise they wouldn't
have even opened this entry (C-P) in their notebook.

Yes, there is plurality, which to our finite way of thinking might be
perceived as simply a jumble of contradictions.

I regret you apparently find the absence of homogeneity demeaning.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    You miss the point, the denial doesn't take the form of
    
    (a) Jesus existed and
    (b) Jesus revealed himself to us and
    (c) Jesus said that "man _does_ live by bread alone"
    
    No one affirms a truth which is in "opposition" or contradiction to
    what I affirm. It's a coincidence that this one truth is one that most
    CP participants are comfortable with.
    
    It's demeaning to say that Jesus' teachings when they are "comfortable"
    represent "spiritual nourishment" but when accepted in fullness
    represent an "absence of homogenity".  This is equivalent to saying one
    is righteous in striving to keep at least 6 out of the 10 commandments.
    
    A "jumble" was God's punishment to the people who build the Tower of
    Babel after all.
                        

re: Note 576.19 by "Patrick Sweeney in New York" 

>    A "jumble" was God's punishment to the people who build the Tower of
>    Babel after all.

But look at what trouble that homogenity was getting humankind into....
                        
Peace,

Jim

Note 576.19

>    You miss the point,

Oh, I don't think so.  Yours is a criticism of this conference.  It is an
on-going criticism.

It's about what you do and don't believe to be right and true.  I think perhaps
you take this conference too seriously.  I think perhaps this conference
causes you discomfort.

>    It's demeaning to say that Jesus' teachings when they are "comfortable"
>    represent "spiritual nourishment" but when accepted in fullness
>    represent an "absence of homogenity".  This is equivalent to saying one
>    is righteous in striving to keep at least 6 out of the 10 commandments.
    
There are a lot of folks here (and in the church, and in the world) who grant
the Bible various degrees of authority, authenticity, and accuracy.

Believe me, I truly appreciate the more traditional participants here - not
for the purpose of proselytizing them, nor to convince them that what they
believe is in error, but to hear and to learn more about the traditional
perspective.

As you should know by now, a good portion of the participants here will not
conform to the a traditional perspective.  And unlike the GOLF::CHRISTIAN
notesfile, participants are not required to conform to a traditional
(absolutist, biblical inerrancy, dogmatically correct) perspective.
Participants are free to question and challenge these things.

The alternative, as I see it, is to prohibit such a forum as this, to censor
non-conformance and dissent.

Richard                        

Dave .17,

	Why do you think some people fail to understand?  Why is it
that so many believe that all they're called to do is to rattle off
a few Bible verses and that should be enough?  I can't speak for
everybody else, but such an approach leaves me cold.

	Perhaps it's a little like the lesson of Acts 19.13-16.  I
thinks yours is a more powerful witness.  It comes across as genuine
and definitely more appealing.

Peace,
Richard

    
    Pardon me Richard, but I don't think that having discussions about the
    essence of Christianity and certain Jews trying to invoke the name
    of Jesus to exorcist demons are of the same genre at all.   Not even
    a little bit.
    
    Richard, do you think that's all I do...rattle of Bible verses?
    
    Jill

    .23  Jill,
    
    	You give yourself too much credit if you think I was asking
    Dave (to whom my note was addressed) specifically about you.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Richard,
    
    		Its a *LOT* easier to "rattle" off verses from the Bible
    than to share your "life" with someone.  Take this conference for
    example.  Without any doubt in my mind, I believe that God called
    Christians to witness by sharing what Christ has done for them.  Look
    back and see if you can find many testimony's from many of the loudest
    critics of this conference....   You know....the bible says that even
    satan "knows about" Christ...and trembles.  I am a sceptic of someone
    until I hear a conversion story.  FWIW...Jill shared her's with me off
    line so I have come to accept her point of view, though I might not
    agree with her, I have no doubt she's a Christian.  
    
    
    Dave

    It's not easy to "rattle" off verses from the Bible.

    First of all, one must read the Bible in order to "rattle" off.
    Secondly, it's a demeaning way to characterize the manner in which some
    of the participants profess their faith in Jesus Christ.  The criticism
    of those quoting non-Christian and anti-Christian sources have been
    condemned for far less.

    Perhaps it would make you comfortable to see CP become a "Bible-free"
    conference and celebrate ignorance of it.

    I am a Christian and I have no reason to doubt that my family's
    ancestors were not converted from paganism to Christianity by my
    sainted namesake sixteen centuries ago.  I am insulted by your
    skepticism because I have not related a "conversion story" here.

    Suffering doesn't define Christianity.  Faith in and love of Jesus
    does.

    RE: .26  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    				You state what you believe and I'll state
    what I believe.  If your insulted by my statements, then I guess you'll
    just have to go on being insulted.  
    
    
    Dave

    
    		I might also add that knowledge does *NOT* make a Christian 
    in my opinion.  I do not worship the book but what the book talks
    about.  Sharing the "good news" means sharing what God has done for
    you.  I wonder....how did Christians witness befor the Bible was
    compiled?  How did Paul witness?  
    
    
    Dave

   Patrick,

   A couple of things.

   If someone were to try and make C-P a Bible free conference I truly
   believe it would be met with resistance by the majority if not every
   one.  Myself, the Bible is important and to repeat myself If I could
   take only three books the Bible would be the most important.

   RE: reguritating scripture.  I have known people that do exactly that
   but they haven't made Christ part of their life.  I have seen little
   children rewarded for memorizing lines.  There are people like myself
   who have the God given talent of near photograpic memory.  No, for some
   the scripture are a play written in a foreign language that they can
   repeat but cannot impart it's significance to others.

   Allison

> If your insulted by my statements, then I guess you'll
>    just have to go on being insulted.  
    
    What in interesting thing to say in *this* topic. Can I then assume 
    you approve of people saying want they will, how they will?
    
    		Alfred

    RE: .30  Alfred,
    
    			Maybe its monday morning but I am confused by your
    last sentence.  "How they will" what? :-)   
    
    			As I think on this, I wonder if its a religious
    culture thing that has me confused here.  I cannot imagine not sharing
    a witness with a non-believer but maybe thats not the case with all
    Christian organizations.  To tell you the truth, I was astounded that
    someone would take offense by me asking for a testimony.  In my church
    its considered an honor. 
    
    
    Dave   

    Dave has highlighted an important point--the idea of emphasizing faith
    as *experienced*.  Many of the discussions in this notes file have
    related to the question of adhering to this or that theological
    doctrine, rather than on the transformational character of one's faith
    experience. 
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .31
    
    Part of it is a culture thing Dave. Part of it is a lack of face to
    face meeting....and part of it is a lack of trying to understand what
    the other person is *really* saying. I know, I've been there.
    
    Marc H.

>    			Maybe its monday morning but I am confused by your
>    last sentence.  "How they will" what? :-)   
 
RE: .31 RE: my .30
	I wrote that in a hurry. During the middle of it I got a call asking
	me to pick up my son from school because he's sick. What I was getting
	at is that many in this topic have said that one is responsible for
	how there message is taken. And that it is the speakers responsibility
	not to offend. In the note you wrote you seemed to indicate that you
	didn't care if what you said or how you said it offended someone.

>    			As I think on this, I wonder if its a religious
>    culture thing that has me confused here.  I cannot imagine not sharing
>    a witness with a non-believer but maybe thats not the case with all
>    Christian organizations.  To tell you the truth, I was astounded that
>    someone would take offense by me asking for a testimony.  In my church
>    its considered an honor. 
 
	Yes it is a culture thing. I too was raised in an enviornment where
	being asked to give ones testimony was an honor. However, that is 
	not universially true. There are many churches where it is expected 
	that one raised in the faith does not have a conversion experiance.
	That they are raised from the earliest age with a knowledge of and
	a belief in God. For many there is no remembering of a time when Jesus
	was not a part of their life and belief system. In come cases to ask
	about a conversion experiance is to suggest that ones parents and/or
	church were derilect in their duty to train a child in the Faith. Many
	Catholics I've known over the years would be offended to be asked about
	a "conversion."

			Alfred 

    RE: Alfred,
    
    			Yes, I agree that most of the time, each person
    needs to take responsibility for what they say.  However, when the
    situation becomes *SO* diverse so to promote disunity by each and every
    thought, all I can do is throw up my hands and let someone be offended.
    For myself, I try not to take each and every thought as a personal
    affront.  When someone does that, I cannot be responsible...its their
    problem and they can work it out with God.  As I have matured in the
    Lord, I have found that I cannot change everyone's mind..so I "let"
    God.
    
    
    Dave

    RE: .34
    
    Correct on the Catholic's versus conversion. That subject was not
    even *discussed* for the 40+ years I attended RC Churches. My early
    impressions was that conversions was a "Baptist" thing.
    
    By the way....I have changed my understandings.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: Alfred,
    
    			Maybe "conversion" is the wrong word.  I do believe
    that one *MUST* have a spiritual experience with God for salvation. 
    Whatever road they choose or have chosen (with regard to Church's) is
    fine but not to want to share those "good news" experiences with others
    as a form of witness is *VERY* alien to my religious beliefs.  I could
    even be "insulted" by someone professing belief and not wanting to
    share what Christ has done for them....but I choose not to.
    
    
    Dave

re: Note 571.196 by John R. Covert

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

Now if you had phrased the question thus:

Which messenger, of those who claim to be Christ's followers here, do the
various readers of this conference find the most convincing, credible,
and compelling?

I would say my top 10 would be (in no particular order):
	Bob Fleischer
	Alfred Thompson
	Karen Berggren (alumnus)
	Jim Kirk
	Dave Dawson
	Nancy Smith (alumnus)
	Nanci Van Fleet
	Marc Hildebrant
	Ro Reinke
	Ron Francey

I didn't include Mike Valenza and several others whose contributions I do
appreciate because they either make no claim to follow Christ or they
presently claim to be seekers.

Peace,
Richard

    A great deal can be learned from entries like .29 and .32.
    
    Pax,
    Richard

    We're not called to be "convincing, credible, and compelling"  We're
    called to be faithful to God.

    Evil itself can be "convincing, credible, and compelling", and faith
    and obedience to God can inspire fear and skepticism.

    In Proverbs one reads that the "Fear of the Lord is the beginning of
    knowledge."

    In John one reads that the apostles said "This sort of talk is hard to
    take" after Jesus spoke of the Bread of Life.
    
    The path to God is narrow.  If you're seeking the path that has the
    most convincing, the most credible, and the most compelling messengers
    you may not find the path to God.
                                     

    Actually, I think that the message often conveyed here is much easier
    to take than (for example) what I believe, because it offers a neat,
    tidy package, where all the answers are clear cut and all dogma is to
    be accepted unquestioningly and without thinking.  The comfort that
    such a theology offers can be quite appealing and convincing to many
    people.

    Be that as it may, it it interesting how the issue raised by topic
    brings about such incomprehension.  Conveying a message that may
    benefit another person, if they believe it, is in a certain sense to
    accept some responsibility for the fate of others.  After all, you are
    bringing a message that you believe could decide their very fate, and
    it is a message to them that they might otherwise not have heard. You
    might literally be saving a soul by bringing that message.  Certainly,
    there would be no point in telling a message to others unless it has
    has the possibility of making a difference.  And yet, we are also told
    that the deliverer of the message can wash their hands of any
    responsibility for how the manner of presenting the message may affect
    the outcome of acceptance or rejection of the message.  So, in the same
    breath, we hear that Christians both have a responsibility for
    assisting others in finding salvation, and that they have no
    responsibility for assisting others in finding salvation.

    I have suggested before that one of the effects of religious
    convincement is the transformational character of the faith upon one's
    life.  Since, we are told, delivering this message is part and parcel
    of the Christian faith, the presentation of the message is in a sense
    actually part of the message itself.  And when the mode of presentation
    is itself a put off, then the message itself is "This is not a very
    attractive religion--look at the kind of person it turns you into."

    It truly amazes me that the method of presenting a faith to others is
    so irrelevant to many people.  But maybe the real purpose of spreading
    the Good News isn't to help others find salvation at all, but simply to
    make one feel like a good doobie for having carried out their orders. 
    Perhaps the letter of the great commission is perhaps more important
    than the spirit.

    -- Mike

Re:  576.41

  >Actually, I think that the message often conveyed here is much easier
  >to take than (for example) what I believe, because it offers a neat,
  >tidy package, where all the answers are clear cut and all dogma is to
  >be accepted unquestioningly and without thinking.  The comfort that
  >such a theology offers can be quite appealing and convincing to many
  >people.

Yay!  We've indeed achieved the unity that Jesus s desperately prayed
for in John 17.

As is apparent, this is far from the case.  If you accept what Jesus and
the prophets say (not some of it, but all of it), you do indeed have a
clear guide as to what consitutes salvation, what God is like, etc.  The
fact that there does not explain or clearly define 1,000 other things does
not detract from what it *does* explain.  You're black and white summary
of those who disagree with you does more to confuse the issue than to
clear it up.  Unfortunately, this is typical.

The fact that most reject the message is to be expected - it is indeed
prophesied.

It is indeed of some comfort to know the truth.  Of course there are
so many other truths that we don't know that it doesn't get too
comfortable...

  >And yet, we are also told that the deliverer of the message can wash their hands of 
  >any responsibility for how the manner of presenting the message may affect
  >the outcome of acceptance or rejection of the message.

I do not believe the Bible says this.  I would disagree with those who claim
that the Bible says this.  We are responsible before God to do the best job
we can do.

  >It truly amazes me that the method of presenting a faith to others is
  >so irrelevant to many people.  

It seems to me that you are ignoring the condemnation that Jesus gives to those
who know the message and reject it.  There is certainly an aspect of this that
goes on in this conference.

Collis

    RE: .40  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    				Well, you can think what you want but if
    your going to follow Paul's example, you'll need a lot more than just
    "book knowledge".  Personally, if the only Gospel you have to preach is
    what is written then its a gospel I don't want or need.  Salvation does
    not come from a book but from the heart of God given as a gift for
    those willing to accept the Son.  
    
    
    Dave

>I do not believe the Bible says this.  I would disagree with those who claim
>that the Bible says this.  We are responsible before God to do the best job
>we can do.
    
    Okay, then you seem to agree with at least part of the premise of this
    topic.  The discussion here is over whether or not the method of
    presentation makes any difference, or should matter at all to the
    presenter of the faith.
    
  >>It truly amazes me that the method of presenting a faith to others is
  >>so irrelevant to many people.  

>It seems to me that you are ignoring the condemnation that Jesus gives to those
>who know the message and reject it.  There is certainly an aspect of this that
>goes on in this conference.
    
    The suggestion here is that some may be more inclined to accept the
    message rather than reject it if the message is offered with better
    methods of presentation.  It isn't clear as to the point of trying to
    do the best you can to present a message--which you agreed that one
    should do--if it makes no difference whether you do a good job at it or
    not.
    
    -- Mike

    Dave,

    What motivates you to write what you wrote in .-1?  Do you sincerely
    believe that I am incapable of following the example of Paul, or
    unwilling, or simply too stupid?

    Don't be quick to judge me, it's quite presumptuous of you to assume I
    lack something you believe I require for my salvation.  I have not
    denied what you profess one needs in order to be saved.

    .45,
    
    I suspect Dave means nothing like you suppose.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Patrick,
    
    		My real motivation is for those that relate *ONLY* what the
    Bible says and forget or refuse to relate the human-God relationship.
    When Jesus taught, he related the scriptures as well as making them
    personal.  So when we do not share how Christ is revelant in our own
    lives, I can see why others might not be too impressed.  
    
    		No, Patrick, I do not think you are incapable of following
    Pauls example but I think you have elected not to, in this file.  Most
    of what I read from you is scripture or a defense of  percieved
    insults toward your Church.  I have seen little or no testimony about
    how Christ effects your life.  I have yet to see *ANYONE* come to a
    saving knowledge of Christ without the personal application.  
    
    
    		How in the world can you interpret what I said as doubting
    your salvation?  Your witness, in this file, I might question as you
    have mine but not your salvation.  All I said was that I was/am a
    skeptic of people who will not relate their personal testimony.  Think
    about it, Patrick, wouldn't you if someone talked constantly about
    Christ but you saw nothing in their life to back it up?  
    
    
    Dave

    I deny that I have questioned you or judged you.

    I also believe that you are inconsistent in applying this "burden of
    proof" through personal testimony to me and not to others.  This is
    merely evading a discussion of the opinions held by people in this
    topic and advancing a personal insult of me.

    So, I decline to appease your curiosity and your demands.  It is your
    own prejudice.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians, "Take me as your pattern, just as I take Christ
for mine." (I Cor 11.1 NJB)

Paul was personally and intimately involved with the people he was writing.
He made himself vulnerable to them.  He appealed to their good sense and
called upon them to use their own judgment.

Paul was a successful messenger in his time.

Peace,
Richard

Note 576.48

>   advancing a personal insult of me.

You bruise easily, Patrick.  Imagine if someone had suggested that you were
evil or that you were an evil-doer, or perhaps used fear and scare tactics to
convince you of the error of your ways.

Richard

    Paul also wrote "if I must boast, I will boast of these things that
    show my weakness."

    We don't come to faith by an appeal to good sense, we come to it by the
    grace of God.  Look for your appeal from Paul to "good sense".

    "For the grace of God that brings salvation has appeared to all men. 
    It teaches us to say 'No' to ungodliness and worldly passions, and live
    self-controlled, upright, and godly lives in this present age, while we
    wait for the blessed hope -- the glorious appearing of our great God
    and Savior, Jesus Christ, who gave himself for us to redeem us from all
    wickedness and to purify for himself, a people that are his very own,
    eager to do what is good." Paul to Titus 2.11

    RE:.48 Patrick,
    
    
>    I deny that I have questioned you or judged you.

	Now, thats not true.  Any time I have even asked a question about
the Catholic Church you have taken offense and questioned my motives.

>    I also believe that you are inconsistent in applying this "burden of
>    proof" through personal testimony to me and not to others.  This is
>    merely evading a discussion of the opinions held by people in this
>    topic and advancing a personal insult of me.

	Please read .25 again.  I said "many", however you chose to answer
and take offense so it really is your problem.  Is it truly "evading" to 
ask for some response of a personal nature from the "messanger"....you? 
As I said before...if you feel insulted then fine.  I know my motives and
they are pure and without any intent to insult.  Seems to me that you are 
the one evading and I am sure its apparrent to most who are reading this 
discourse.

>    So, I decline to appease your curiosity and your demands.  It is your
>    own prejudice.

	I wonder....Is it "prejudice" to ask someone to apply what they are
saying and preaching to themselves?  Is it too much to ask that there be some
form of personal testimony?  Apparently it is because all we get here is 
"read the book".  I say again...if thats the only gospel you preach then I
find it wanting.  


Dave

    .51
    
    Don't worry.
    
    I won't suggest that you to try to appeal to people's good sense
    ever again, Patrick.
    
    Richard
    

    It seems to me that what Dave is saying is that any message carries
    little weight unless the messenger demonstrates his/her willingness to
    "walk the talk" in his/her own life.  Since this is such a limited
    media, unless someone tells me about the effect that Christianity has
    had in his/her personal life, I don't have any knowledge of their
    actual experience of Christianity (or whatever it is their beliefs
    are).
    
    Nanci

    .54 Nanci,
    
    To reinforce what you're saying, and as I've said before:  People don't
    care how much you know until they know how much you care.
    
    Richard
    

I Cor 10.15 NJB

Paul says, "I am talking to you as sensible people; weight up for yourselves
what I have to say."

Richard

    
    To all:
    
    I thought about this issue all weekend.  I prayed and read scripture.
    God lead me to II Timothy.   The ministry that a Christian is called
    to is covered in Paul's writing to Timothy in II Tim 2:7 - 4:5.  Paul
    writes some very sound advise that I will try to follow more closely
    so as not to cause unnecessary disputes.  I learned much and plan to
    learn much more from this passage.  I would ask others to meditate on
    it and learn from this passage of Scripture.
    
    Humbly, Jill
    

Re:  .54

I strongly agree, Nancy, that walking the talk is essential.

I am very aware that those who impressed me the most were
those who were committed to God in their personal lives.
It was impossible for this to be hidden in their witness -
it affected every aspect of them.  I am well aware of how
far I fall short in this area.

Collis

Note 586.11

>    For what it's worth, the high handed
>    way that some people reply to ill worded, or even ignorant, questions
>    does nothing but turn me off to the notion of a traditional Christian
>    Perspective.

Eric,

	We've been trying to caution people that this was the case.

Peace,
Richard

    One person's caution is another person's intimidation.

    The comparison of a semi-conductor text to the Bible was sophist in my
    opinion because it contained the implicit and degrading denial of
    divine authorship of the Bible.

    As a subsequent reply made clear, this was not the author's intent.

    I thought this exchange of views could pass without a critique by
    Richard, but he's tenacious about offering his caution.

Tenacity is one of my finer qualities.

;-)

Pace E Bono
Richard

    With all the discussions lately around who pities whom for their ill
    founded beliefs, I reminded of the experience my friend had with a self
    professed "born-again fundamentalist" Christian. Apparently, this
    fellow exuded such an air of self righteousness and infallibility of
    knowing the "truth" in his attempt to share the "gift of Jesus" with
    others that he actually turned more people sour to Christianity. My
    friend finally said to him, "Look, if were were the last person on
    Earth, you'd alienate yourself."

    This poor fellow was immune -- or blind -- to the consequences of his
    grating interpersonal skills because after all, he said, "I'm only
    speaking the Truth of Christ." 
    
    	Eric

  >...because after all, he said, "I'm only speaking the Truth of 
  >Christ."

Sounds like he needs a lesson in speaking the truth in love.

    .63  Who doesn't?
    
    Richard