Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Collis,
    
    		I believe that when you *INSIST* that you and only you have
    the "right" answer, I see that as being narrow minded.  If you notice I
    couch my answers with "I believe this..." or "in my opinion..." rather
    than saying "this is *the* answer...".  Though I read the Bible and
    believe its contents I have a hard time with "nailing" someone with
    what I consider is the truth.  When God told me to seek...I took that
    literally and continued to seek more and more truth.  Many times I find
    truth in "odd" places...like someones elses opinion.
    
    
    
    Dave

Note 639.0       
TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON 

>Any insights on this are appreciated.  I'm more than willing to
>change from "narrow-minded" to "broad-minded" if I find this to
>be something other than an attempt to get me to deny the authority
>of Jesus and His Word.

Collis,

I wouldn't ask you to change you perspective.  That would be presumptuous
beyond belief -- you have every right to determine what you believe to
be truth and every right to say what you believe to be true.

But maybe I can explain my unease a little better here.  It does have to
do with proclamations of knowing the "One, True Faith..."

I can't count the number of times that sincere, well-meaning Christians
have cornered me, talked to me or otherwise taken up my time trying to
convince me why I should "save my soul" and "find Jesus."  These encounters
have occured no matter how many times I have politely said "no thank you,"
requested that they stop, or otherwise asserted that I was quite happy with
my faith as it was.

We were pretty certain that Campus Crusade for Christ managed to get a hold
of Dartmouth Hillel's mailing list.  And every now and again, someone from
Crusade would show up at Shabbat activities to discuss the gospels.

The thing is that they were always sincerely concerned about saving other
people's souls although they seemed especially concerned about Jews on
campus.  This wasn't spiteful or mean-spirited: it was their sincere
attempt to spread the "Good News" 

They also couldn't take "no, and please leave me alone" for an answer. 
They were so certain of "Truth" that they felt obliged to continue despite
the wishes of those they were trying to save.

The above is annoying, but what frightens me in my heart is the little, little
step it is from *that* to what other sincere Christians have done over the 
centuries.  Most people today are appalled by the Inquistion.  But I doubt
that all of the Inquisitors were motivated by hate or by twisting scripture:
they honestly and sincerely believed what they did was for the good of the
people they tortured/executed/exiled.

I don't believe that anyone here would advocate that, but for many
non-Christians, especially Jews, I think the memories and lessons of
that history make us wary of the "well-intentioned" who are convinced
they know the "truth."

regards,

Daniel

    It seems like I have just found out I am one of the narrow-minded. 
    Actually, I figured I was given that label but now I know for sure.
    
    Speaking for myself, I have always said in my replies things like...
    
    Because it says A, I believe B; or, You believe A, I believe B.  Show
    me why you believe A using concrete historical or biblical evidence and
    I may convert and believe A.  I have also stated in many many cases
    that I do not have all the answers and that I could be wrong.  It has
    been other participants that have accused me of saying, 'black is black 
    and I'm right so there!!!"  
    
    I'm not narrow minded but I am stubborn as hell!  I am suspicious of 
    doctrines contrary to God's grace and holiness but I am always open
    to weighing the evidence
    
    -Jack

Re:  .1

So if I'm inoffensive, that I'm no longer narrow-minded?

Collis

    Collis is correct.  In discussion here are elsewhere the notion that
    there is truth that is true without reference to personal experience
    and reason is considered to be inherently "narrow-minded" and quite
    simply beyond discussion itself.
    
    Christianity has always taught that truth is inherent in God who exists
    without dependence upon personal experience and reason.  Once that is
    conceded, it's inevitable that one will be called intolerant.  This
    labeling can be seen all the way back in the Acts of the Apostles.
    
    As I've mentioned before, the error of the Inquisition was its failure
    to distinguish between the sin and the sinner.
                                                                      

Re:  .2

I can appreciate (to some extent) some of your experiences.
I'm probably not aggressive enough in person.  We need to
rely more on God's direct leading than simply the fact
the we do indeed have the truth.  Maturity oftens (but not
always) takes care of many of the problems.

I do disagree strongly with something you said near the end:

  >The above is annoying, but what frightens me in my heart is the little, little
  >step it is from *that* to what other sincere Christians have done over the 
  >centuries.  Most people today are appalled by the Inquistion.  But I doubt
  >that all of the Inquisitors were motivated by hate or by twisting scripture:
  >they honestly and sincerely believed what they did was for the good of the
  >people they tortured/executed/exiled.

Personally, I see this as a huge step, not a little step.  It is
contradictory to both Jesus' example and the Word - which means
that it is no small matter to go from one to the other.

Collis

re Note 639.5 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Christianity has always taught that truth is inherent in God who exists
>     without dependence upon personal experience and reason.  Once that is
>     conceded, it's inevitable that one will be called intolerant.  This
>     labeling can be seen all the way back in the Acts of the Apostles.
  
        The problem of intolerance comes, not from a belief in a God
        who is inherently true, but from a belief that some human
        beings have an understanding of God that is inherently (and
        absolutely) true.

        In the words Collis just used in the previous note, this is a
        "huge step" for any human to take, but it is a step that many
        humans have taken over the millennia.

        Bob

    Collis,

    >>Any insights on this are appreciated.  I'm more than willing to
    >>change from "narrow-minded" to "broad-minded" if I find this to

    Many years ago I asked God to open up my mind to His wisdom and truth. 
    I was living with a belief system that was based on the inerrancy of
    the Bible and at that time could not even imagine that one day I would
    no longer believe in it.

    But, I was extremely depressed, so much that I did not want to live. 
    And my set of beliefs were falling apart at the foundational level.

    I remember thinking about Luke 11:9-12, the passage that deals with
    asking and receiving.  I took heart from that passage, knowing that if
    I ask God-my-beloved-father, for bread He would not give me a stone.  I
    sat one summer evening and said to God:  "I don't know anything about
    anything, except I know you love me.  Please show me the way home."

    And my life took quite a turn after that.  During the following years
    I let go of the belief that the Bible is infallible, and my whole life
    opened up in a wonderful way.  The fruit of the Spirit (love, joy,
    peace, etc) appeared in my heart and my depression ended.

    And I came to the conclusion that what I had done by believing that the
    Bible is infallible was to create a new Law.  Jesus taught that the
    Kingdom of Heaven is within.  He said he would send a Comforter (not a
    Law-book).  But, people want absolutes and rules, -- we do not trust
    the law of God that is written on our hearts. 

    Jesus said to pray in this manner "Give us this day our daily bread."
    He used bread to describe our spiritual food (as in "man does not live
    by bread alone, but by every Word that proceeds from the mouth of
    God").  When I tried to use the Bible as a law/rule book, I was trying
    to live on very old bread.

    If you truly want to open your mind, then my suggestion is to ask God
    to help you with this.  

    "Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free."

    Ruth

    RE:.4 Collis,
    
    >So if I'm inoffensive, that I'm no longer narrow-minded?
    
    Collis,
    
    		Why does God's word need you to be offensive?  Can it not
    stand on its own?  Can't God's word be given in such a manner that one
    might want to be like you rather than disturbed at the attitude its
    given in?  The Bible says to seek truth but when that was said the
    Bible had not been compiled yet.  Where were these people to see truth?
    I believe it was on their knees asking God to reveal his truth.  Is
    that any different today?  Our (Christians) natural assumption is that
    all people find their guide to the truth in todays Bible.  While that
    is good and honorable it does not eliminate the need for thoughtfull 
    prayer to a living God.  The Holy Spirit convicts unto salvation, not 
    well meaning Christians or words in a book.  
    
    
    Dave 

Hi Ruth (.8),

Welcome, welcome, welcome...so glad to see you here!!

Ro

    Dave:
    
    I agree with you that God reveals Himself in so many ways other than
    the written word; there is no question about it!
    If all the prophets of God as well as the apostles died martyrs death
    to bring the Word to future generations, wouldn't it only make sense
    that it isn't the messenger that is offensive, but rather the message
    itself?
    
    -Jack

Thank you, all, for your replies.

What I heard from Dave is that if you speak as if you
know the truth, then you are narrow-minded.  (Whether
you actually know the truth appears to be irrelevant.)

What I heard from Bob is that it is narrow-minded to
believe that one can actually know the truth and present
it as such.

Both of these touch of the subject, but don't answer them
directly.  No one has given a yes or no answer (perhaps 
because such an answer does not exist).

Can you accept an authority (God, in this case, as revealed
by His prophets in Scripture) and not be narrow-minded?

From what Dave says, it seems that this is possible if one
is willing to not proclaim what you have accepted is true
(or not assert the truth beyond your own belief).

From what Bob says, it is inherently narrow-minded to believe
that you can actually know the truth.  Exactly what truth
it may be possible to know is not yet defined (but I expect
that there is some truth that may be known according to Bob,
but perhaps not).

Collis

Hi Ruth,

It sounds to me like you are equating in your mind two
very different things:

 - the inerrancy of Scripture
 - using the Scripture as a lawbook

I don't believe that one necessarily has to have anything
to do with the other.

The first is simply accepting Scripture at its word.

The second attempts to determine exactly how Scripture (inerrant
or not) should be used.

  >Jesus taught that the Kingdom of Heaven is within.

or "among" us, i.e. that He was the Kingdom of Heaven.
Either translation from the Greek is a possibility.  I
wouldn't want to put too much emphasis on a particular
intepretation/translation without other supporting verses.

  >as in "man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word
  > that proceeds from the mouth of God

Indeed, we are to live from the words that proceed from the mouth
of God.  The words that are "God-breathed".  It seems ironic to
me that you quoted this verse and then wish me to believe that
these words that I'm supposed to live by are not true.

  >If you truly want to open your mind, then my suggestion is to ask God
  >to help you with this.  

I wish to believe the truth.  I am quite comfortable with my current
beliefs about the inerrancy of Scripture.  Over and over again, every
week of my life, I see evidence confirming the truth of this Scriptural
claim.  I have no desire at this point of my life in attempting to
refute this claim - although I will do that (unwillingly) if it is
indeed not true.  Fortunately, it is clear that it is true.  :-)

It has been my experience and the experience of many that I know that
as they grow into a deeper relationship with God, they put more and
more trust in His Word.  This has nothing to do with being legalistic
(getting back to what I heard you equating this to earlier.)  Neither
does it have anything to do with "liberty".

Collis

re Note 639.12 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> What I heard from Bob is that it is narrow-minded to
> believe that one can actually know the truth and present
> it as such.

        Perhaps I used too few words to say it, but I did use the
        qualifiers "inherent (and absolute)".

> From what Bob says, it is inherently narrow-minded to believe
> that you can actually know the truth.  Exactly what truth
> it may be possible to know is not yet defined (but I expect
> that there is some truth that may be known according to Bob,
> but perhaps not).

        I only know as through a glass, darkly, Collis.  It isn't
        absolute truth in any sense.

        Who can take I Corinthians 13:12 to heart:  "For now we see
        through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in
        part; but then shall I know even as also I am known" and
        believe that they can speak with the absolute, complete,
        inherent authority of God?

        Bob

    Strict, narrow, and exclusive interpretation of Scripture is, to my way
    of thinking, not very different from the posture of the Pharisees
    in Jesus' time with regards to piety and the Law.
    
    Even today, "the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth life."
    
    Richard
    

    But Richard, wasn't the pharisees crime to add in man made doctrine
    to God's Word?  Exclusive interpretation is always open to challenge.
    It must be if we are to come to truth.  The problem is that in this
    forum, exclusive intepretation is rarely challenged at all, it is
    replaced with hurt feelings and people being offended.  Wouldn't it
    be more profitable if more of us could at least defend our position
    based on some sort of standard?  
    
    
    -Jack

    I don't agree, Jack.  You alluded to part of the problem, but not the
    whole, imo.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

re Note 639.16 by MSBCS::JMARTIN:

>     Wouldn't it
>     be more profitable if more of us could at least defend our position
>     based on some sort of standard?  
  
        Jack,

        Those who wish to defend their position based upon some sort
        of standard are free to do so.  In this conference we don't
        dictate what that standard must be, but we don't in any way
        disparage references to standards.

        (However, you obviously aren't guaranteed agreement just
        because you referenced a standard of your choosing.)

        Were you looking for some assurance that people would agree
        with you?

        Bob

  >Who can take I Corinthians 13:12 to heart:  "For now we see
  >through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in
  >part; but then shall I know even as also I am known" and
  >believe that they can speak with the absolute, complete,
  >inherent authority of God?

Perhaps someone who believes John when he writes, "I write
this things to you who believe in the name of the Son of God
so that you may *know* that you have eternal life." [emphasis
mine]

Do we know everything?  We all agree here that we don't.

Do we KNOW something?  I accept the Bible's [i.e. God's] claim
that in fact we *can* know something.  In fact, God breathed
His Words through prophets for the express purpose of teaching
us something - something that was true.

It appears, Bob, that you wish to claim that we cannot KNOW
anything - perhaps because we look through a mirror darkly.
If indeed this is your position, then I disagree with you and
I submit the Bible disagrees with you.

Collis

RE: .12 Collis,


>What I heard from Dave is that if you speak as if you
>know the truth, then you are narrow-minded.  (Whether
>you actually know the truth appears to be irrelevant.)

	Aw come on Collis!  Thats not what I said and you know it.
Its the *ATTITUDE* one has when its given.  When I know a truth, I
sure don't need to be supercilious about it.  I've seen many, in here
included, who take a very obnoxious attitude toward *ANY* questions
of authenticity of the Bible.

>Both of these touch of the subject, but don't answer them
>directly.  No one has given a yes or no answer (perhaps 
>because such an answer does not exist).

	How can a yes or no answer be given when its the attitude of
the giver thats objectionable sometimes.

>Can you accept an authority (God, in this case, as revealed
>by His prophets in Scripture) and not be narrow-minded?

	Yes.

>From what Dave says, it seems that this is possible if one
>is willing to not proclaim what you have accepted is true
>(or not assert the truth beyond your own belief).

	Again...What you believe is true might not be someones 
elses perception or belief.  When you try to convince someone 
that your right, a negative attitude toward the other normally
results with conversations being closed down. 


Dave

re Note 639.16 - Bob

>>        Were you looking for some assurance that people would agree
>>        with you?

  Bob, one can only hope.

If our society lived under three different constitutions, do you think there 
would be harmony in the way government percieves what liberty and freedom 
would be?  This is an example.   

It seems to me that the problems percieved are not on narrow mindedness, but 
rather on what seems that one persons trash is another persons treasure.  If
individuals could come to a consensus (not compromise) of what source is truth
(not my truth or your truth), but truth in its essence, then perspectives and
ideas can change.  In fact Bob, you were the one that gave me new perspective
on the reciting of the pledge in schools.  Your source (historical evidence)
helped me to reflect on my views and thus realize that it isn't a big deal!
See what I'm getting at?  If historical evidence proves that B is incompatible
with A, then the followers of B need to reflect on their way of thinking.
It is when the followers of B don't set standards to discern truth that brings
narrow mindedness. 

One might say, "It is easy not to follow B because I don't have to deal with 
my sin nature."  B is convenient and less convicting, but is it truth?!
Is it narrow minded to ignore this truth or to expose it?

-Jack

re Note 639.19 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> It appears, Bob, that you wish to claim that we cannot KNOW
> anything - perhaps because we look through a mirror darkly.
> If indeed this is your position, then I disagree with you and
> I submit the Bible disagrees with you.
  
        I was only claiming what Paul was claiming -- we don't see
        everything, and in particular we don't see anything with full
        clarity.  Additionally, we don't know what there is that we
        don't know.

        I do not claim "that we cannot KNOW anything" -- I claim that
        we cannot know anything well enough to claim absolute
        authority for our knowledge -- there may always be something
        about what we claim that we don't know in full correctness
        and completeness.

        If the Bible disagrees with me, then this is an example of
        the Bible disagreeing with itself.  Or perhaps I do not
        understand this well.  But it is just as likely that you
        don't understand this well.  Or both of us.

        Bob

Re:  .20

Thank you, Dave.  I think you've made yourself clear.

One is narrow-minded if one has an attitude that is
inappropriate.

Collis

    I've yet to see it benefit anyone, or anyone convinced or converted,
    by hearing someone says, "I have the right answers and you don't.
    What you have is merely pleasant and convenient."
    
    I assure you, my friends, what I believe is far from convenient or
    pleasant.  Look down your nose at me all you want, but I know the
    road I've chosen is the one less travelled.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .11 Jack,
    
    			Sorry I haven't answered you before now but its
    been one of "those" months.  :-}
    
    			I thought as you did until I read "Fox's book of
    Martyrs".  Many Christians were killed *JUST* because they existed and
    were percieved as threats to the conventional religious norm of the
    time.  Without any doubt I have listened to people witness who were
    down right offensive.  My personal belief is that most people want what
    I have (Jesus and assurance) but do not respond to our current "norm"
    around witnessing.  Too many times I have heard the words "No! Your
    wrong!".  Right there you have lost 99% of people who might listen if
    you say someting like "But I have found a better way and I'd like to
    share it with you."  Now it becomes a shared discovery.  Basic human
    nature.
    
    
    Dave

    Many Christians were killed *JUST* because they existed and were
    perceived as threats to the conventional non-religious norm of the time
    or for simply living their lives in accord with the teachings of
    Christ.

    The great commission to all Christians is to go, baptize, and teach.

    Dave, would you have Christians stay at home until they have their
    strategy and tactics perfect?  Or do you want Christians to have
    endless internal disputes until there's a resolution of the one best
    way to "go, baptize, and teach" is?

    RE: .26
    
    		No, I wouldn't have them stay home and I think your taking
    my statement to a point beyond which it was intended.  What I *DO* want
    and as I read the scriptures, I believe it is Biblical, is to show love
    in a kind and gental way as Christ did.  Why is there such a great need
    to "prove your right and their wrong"?  That does nothing but polorize
    people even before you get started.  If people refuse to listen to you
    because of your attitude, who's fault is it?  Your's or Scriptues?  
    
    
    Dave

    Love in a kind and gentle way doesn't mean that we must deny that
    temptation and sin exists.  It's hard to get people to see the need to
    convert their lives and take up the cross.

    If the two positions that we are polarizing around is whether or not
    there will be a rapture as described in 1 Th 4:13-17 in a physical
    sense, then I'd say we're quibbling.  I believe we can have a diversity
    of beliefs around the details of the second coming of Jesus, as long as
    we agree that he will come again.

    If the two positions that we are polarizing around is whether sin
    exists and whether there is a judgment for sin, then we'll have to
    continue to be polarized.

    My "attitude" shouldn't be a cause of concern.  The audience of CP, I
    assume, has an equal interest in the definition and defense of twenty
    centuries of Christian tradition reflected in the Roman Catholic Church
    as it has in attacking it.

    >My "attitude" shouldn't be a cause of concern.  

    In other words, if your "attitude" antagonizes people and turns them
    away from the faith that you are so interested in promoting to them,
    then that's no concern of yours.  It makes me wonder what is the point
    of "going, baptizing, and teaching" if there is no goal that these
    actions are directed toward, or if it is irrelevant when the most
    obvious goal--that others will be converted to the faith--is
    contravened by the very methods that you use in the pursuit of that
    goal.

    -- Mike

    My "attitude" (still) shouldn't be a cause of concern.

    If you hold the opinion that my attitude turns people away from faith
    in Jesus Christ, then that opinion is of little concern to me.  Why
    should it be?  Do we share the same faith in Jesus Christ substanially?

    If I need advice, then I am able to obtain it from others who believe
    what my church believes and teach what my church teaches.

    I wasn't offering any advice, although your closed mind provides an
    interesting contrast with, for example, the views of John Woolman, who
    was always open to learning from others, even those of different
    faiths.  It is also interesting that he also recognized the importance
    of the attitude that he carried when dealing with others.

    In any case, I was posing a question.  I am still wondering about the
    answer to it, which I will repeat here, as follows:

    >It makes me wonder what is the point of "going, baptizing, and
    >teaching" if there is no goal that these actions are directed toward,
    >or if it is irrelevant when the most obvious goal--that others will be
    >converted to the faith--is contravened by the very methods that you use
    >in the pursuit of that goal.

    So what *is* the point of "going, baptizing, and teaching", given that
    it is irrelevant to you if your methods of doing so contravene the
    apparent goal of that effort?  Or is working at cross purposes with
    your and God's goals what your religion is all about?

    -- Mike

Note 639.30

>    My "attitude" (still) shouldn't be a cause of concern.

Perhaps it shouldn't, but it does.

Perhaps some have no problem accepting a message from a cold, cranky, and
detached messenger, but I think it frankly spoils the message.

Richard

    I might add that it seems to me that if there is *anyone* whose
    perspective you might be interested in, on the effectiveness of your
    proselytizing methods, it would be the unconverted.  They are the ones
    to whom you are supposedly directing the activities of the Great
    Commission.  Not being interested in how they react to what your
    methods is a lot like a vendor being uninterested in the opinions of
    their potential customers.  If a vendor takes the arrogant attitude
    that the reactions of their potential customers is irrelevant to them,
    they should hardly be surprised if they get no business.

    -- Mike

    Must be pick on Pat day. Again.

    I think there is a problem in this topic the use of the word
    "attitude." Is the belief that Jesus is the only way to heaven
    considered an "attitude?" I get the feeling it is. If so there is
    nothing I can do about my "attitude." I mean how can I convince others
    of there only being one way to heaven if I deny that that is a fact?

    			Alfred

    RE: .28
    
    		Your right...it doesn't mean that we have to compromise our
    own beliefs.  But I think its also important that non-believers are
    going to have questions and concerns.  How we handle those questions
    becomes very important.  Too many people get offended when
    non-christians don't react in the way they believe they should.  So the
    attitude is important.  Believe what you want but if its success that
    you want then a "Christ-like" attitude is necessary.
    
    
    Dave

    Alfred,
    
    	I would wager (if I was a wagering man) that Dave Dawson
    shares the belief that Jesus is the only way to heaven, and on
    a certain level, so do I.
    
    	Dave, however, is not so inclined to speak his message with
    "here it is - take it or leave it - I really don't care either
    way" overtones.
    
    Richard
    

    This whole discussion seems to center around what the goal of
    prosteletizing is.  Is the goal to communicate, implying giving and
    receiving?  Or is the goal for the believer to proclaim his/her beliefs
    regardless of whether anyone's listening?    
    
    It seems to me that the latter is something like the old tree falling in 
    the forest conundrum.  If no one's there to hear, does it make a noise?
    
    The former requires a receiver which implies that person being
    receptive.  I've yet to meet anyone who is receptive to a message
    delivered with a baseball bat.  As in gardening, I believe that,
    before the seeds can be planted, the soil must be prepared in order for
    any yield to be possible.                       
    
    Nanci

Re: Richard

>>    	Dave, however, is not so inclined to speak his message with
>>    "here it is - take it or leave it - I really don't care either
>>    way" overtones.

      Richard:

      Would you say there are participants in this conference who DO say,
      "here it is - take it or leave it!"?  
	
	 			or
      Is it more like:

	"Here it is, the reason I believe this is so.  If I am wrong, please
	show me where, otherwise, I stand firm in my belief!"

	The latter seems to be more prevalent!

	-Jack

    .38
    
    Jack,
    
    	I hear very few people here or elsewhere saying, "If I'm wrong,
    please show me where..."
    
    Richard
    

    I deny the characterization that I have a "closed mind".
    
    I deny the characterization that I am a "closed, cranky, detached
    messenger".
    
    I deny that the charactacterization that I carry a "baseball bat".
    
    Such characterizations reveal to readers more about the authors than
    they do about the target.

    Richard:
    
    I guess it's a matter of looking at the glass as half empty or half
    full.  Unlike yourself, I have seen it quite a bit and, I personally
    have mentioned over and over again that I am in this conference to
    learn why people believe the way they do.  
    
    If I or anybody refuses to accept a teaching based on how they FEEL,
    then there is a problem.  However, if anybody refuses to accept a
    teaching based on it's incompatibility with scripture or history, then
    that person's discernment (or narrow mindedness as some would call it),
    is to me a prudent choice.  It would be up to the person teaching to
    prove his/her hypothesis.  If said person cannot in any way back there
    claims yet insists on that teaching as truth, then that person is
    practicing the height of narrow mindedness and is doing more of a
    disservice to him/herself rather than the other participants.
    
    I think we need to keep in mind that this forum, as interesting as it
    is, is informal and offers limited communication abilities.  I think
    you may find most people are amiable regardless of what is read between
    the lines.
    
    -Jack

>    	Dave, however, is not so inclined to speak his message with
>    "here it is - take it or leave it - I really don't care either
>    way" overtones.
    
    Nether is Pat. Several other people in this topic (who I often
    disagree with) do appear to be so inclined. You never seem to speak
    out against them however. That is of course your right.
    
    			Alfred

    Well, I guess it's a matter of perspective.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .42  Alfred,
    
    			In my case, Alfred, your right!  I do take the
    attitude that Christians should know better.  After all they are the
    ones who profess a relationship with Jesus.  As a Christian, I do hold
    other Christians to a stricter set of behavioral rules.  Right or
    wrong, I do.  In my case I have personally experienced Christ's love 
    and I believe it should be shared with the same attitude in which it
    was given to me by Christ himself.
    
    
    Dave

    Good point Dave.  So, in general, how can we share this agape love with
    others, not compromise our beliefs, and not be narrowminded all at
    once?
    
    -Jack

-Jack (.45),

<<  So, in general, how can we share this agape love with
<<  others, not compromise our beliefs, and not be narrowminded all at
<<  once?
    
I entered some food for thought on this in topic 644 Mandorla, if 
you're truly interested in a Christian methodology for reconciliation.
I haven't entered any replies in your topic 641 on Astrology and 
Christianity because I just don't have the time or energy to invest in 
supplying you information, only to have you retort with 'not Bible 
supported'.  I feel if you really want to learn more about the subject, 
you can easily locate resources at your nearest Barnes & Noble or 
public library.

Ro

    Collis,

    Re .13
	>  - the inerrancy of Scripture
 	>  - using the Scripture as a lawbook

                   Belief in the first leads to the second.  I am saying
                   that using the Bible as a lawbook put modern Christians
                   in the same category as those "foolish Galatians" who
                   were trying to make early Christians practice Jewish
                   laws.

  >"man does not live by bread alone, but by every Word
  >that proceeds from the mouth of God

>>Indeed, we are to live from the words that proceed from the mouth
>>of God.  The words that are "God-breathed".  It seems ironic to
>>me that you quoted this verse and then wish me to believe that
>>these words that I'm supposed to live by are not true.

                   Collis, these words are first recorded in the Bible in
                   the Book of Deuteronomy, before the vast majority of the
                   Bible was even written.

                   What is the Word of God?  From your replies, I get a
                   sense that you believe the Word of God is a symbol that
                   corresponds with human speech, something written on a
                   page.  I do not think the Word of God can be limited by
                   the sounds that humans make.  "Every Word that proceeds
                   from the mouth of God" has a much larger meaning than
                   the words recorded in the Bible.  

                   Think about the new testament "In the beginning was the
                   Word..." in the book of John.  Look up the Greek for
                   this and you will find the word Logos.  Logos does not
                   mean a book, or collection of writings.  It is much more
                   powerful than this.  


>>I wish to believe the truth.  I am quite comfortable with my current
>>beliefs 

                   Perhaps.  But, this is how I started my own change, with
                   a willingness to discuss it with others.  :^)



>>It has been my experience and the experience of many that I know that
>>as they grow into a deeper relationship with God, they put more and
>>more trust in His Word.  

                   Yes.  But we differ on what his "Word" actually is.  To
                   me (and many others) the Word of God is much more
                   personal than a book.

    Peace,

    Ruth

Note 639.48
>	            Think about the new testament "In the beginning was the
>                   Word..." in the book of John.  Look up the Greek for
>                   this and you will find the word Logos.  Logos does not
>                   mean a book, or collection of writings.  It is much more
>                   powerful than this.  

Also see topic 168, "Logos: the Word"

Richard

    RE: .45  Jack,
    
    			Boy....I just knew someone was going to ask me how
    to do that. What *I* do is relate it back to the very best Christmas 
    present I ever got and what was my attitude then.  Well as I remember,
    I wanted to share my joy with every one in sight.  I can't help but
    think, that attitude should be ours.  Thats just my idea.
    
    
    Dave

    
    RE. Patrick
    
    Patrick - 
    
    I apologize if you took my note personally.  My comments were not
    directed at you.  They were merely my observations of what methods I
    have seen to be ineffective or effective.  They were intended as
    generalizations.
    
    Nanci

Before I started this string, I did not associate
narrow-mindedness with an improper attitude.  I
associated it with someone whose mind was made
up before having honestly weighed the evidence.

It's good to continue learning.

Collis

    Also see topic 576, "The Responsibility of the Messenger"
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    I think it is also an example of not just a narrow mind, but a closed
    one, when you tell another person that you will reject out of hand what
    he or she has to say, not based on the content of what they say, but
    simply because they are not a member of your church.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike:
    
    To me, being saved is the bottom line!  Most of the topics in this
    conference are merely interest points used to build my faith.  This can
    be based on agreement or disagreement of a particular subject.  
    
    I think in the light of eternity, trivial matters, i.e. when should
    water baptism take place, was Mary a virgin thoughout her whole life, etc.,
    these types of things are important matters in the sense of understanding 
    how God brought us to the point we are at today and how God has revealed
    his sovereignty through His Word.  They don't really carry weight in
    the bottom line though, i.e. where will you spend eternity.  Heck there
    are issues my own church believes in that I don't necessarily agree
    with.  You not being a member of my church or I not being a member of
    your church is insignificant.  If church membership is the most
    important thing to a christian, then said person needs to get their
    priorities straight.  They are not being the light of the world or the
    salt of the earth if their pushing their local assembly over the bottom
    line!
    
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    -Jack  

This is an area where we might conclude that we have differing perspectives,
or at least differing emphases.
While your bottom line is eternity, my bottom line is the present - right now.

I believe that if we consistently walk in Christ in the present, eternity
will take care of itself.

Peace,
Richard

Re: .56  Rich:

>>This is an area where we might conclude that we have differing perspectives,
>>or at least differing emphases.
>>While your bottom line is eternity, my bottom line is the present - right now.

Actually, I agree Rich.  I believe, as you do, that the present is of the
utmost importance.  The real question is, are we walking with Christ to be a
good citizen or to feel good about our godly accomplishments, or are we walking 
with Christ to be His witnesses?  What is the ultimate motivator!?  There is
actually no right or wrong answer but which one carries the most weight?

-Jack


                                                              

Hi Jack,

In your note .57 to answer your question of the ultimate motivator . . .
Do I walk with Christ to be a good citizen?  No.  To feel good about my godly 
accomplishments?  No.  Though you didn't ask I would also answer "No" to the
surety of eternal life (though I have the hope of heaven) or for the fear of
eternal hellfire.  The closest of your list, to be Christ's witness, I would
agree with.  Yet even more, I'd say simply to Love as I have been Loved,
Christ's new commandment for us.  (Which said commandment Jesus demonstrated
by washing the feet of his disciples.) 

Peace,

Jim

    .58
    
    Thee has spoken my mind, friend.
    
    Richard
    

    Re: 58, 59
    
    Good Input!!!  So eternity does play a major role in the way we live?
    Why would we want to be His witnesses if eternity with Christ didn't
    really motivate us?!!
    
    -Jack
    

    Maybe being a witness for Christ is, for many believers, its own reward? 
    
    -- Mike

    .61
    
    Thee has spoken my mind, also! :-)
    
    Richard
    

re: Note 639.60 

Hi Jack,

Perhaps you got the wrong impression from what I wrote.  While I have the hope 
of Heaven, eternal life is not such a major role for me as you might think.

As Mike said, witnessing is its own reward.  Though I see through a glass 
darkly, what love I have already glimpsed in my life is motive enough.

Peace,

Jim

    Hmmm....
    
    I've been thinking about this since Sunday's sermon and it seems to fit
    in here.
    
    In .51 Nanci talked about here observations of what method she saw as
    ineffective or effective.  Might our view and God's view differ here?
    One of the very views of witnessing which many here see as ineffective
    is what is labelled "hell, fire, and brimstone."  Let's take the
    example of Jeremiah.  Jeremiah, a prophet of God, spoke the message of
    death and destruction so much, that that became his nickname. In the
    first 20 years of his ministry that we've study so far, Jeremiah had no
    converts.  I'm not sure if he ever had any.  I doubt that anyone here
    would see that as effective.  Is it possible that God sees 
    effectiveness in a different light than we do?  Maybe He values our 
    obedience to His Word higher than the number of souls that choose 
    to follow it.
    
    Jill

    Koresh demanded such blind obedience as well, it seems.  Koresh
    claimed to be a prophet, if not more than a prophet.
    
    Koresh apparently upheld the absolute authority of Scripture, which some
    call God's Word.
    
    Our view and Koresh's view would most assuredly differ.  And I
    thank God for that.
    
    Richard

>    Koresh apparently upheld the absolute authority of Scripture, which some
>    call God's Word.

    Seems contradictory to what I've heard.

    		Alfred

    
    Richard, was that in response to my note?  I'd rather not rathole this
    note with Koresh and BD stuff.  Why don't we leave that to note 615?
    
    

    Jill,

    The clique here goes further than to deny that there will a judgment
    and accounting for the way we choose to conduct our lives, they
    insist that this Christian perspective is narrow-minded.

    Wrong again, Patrick.
    
    Richard
    

    I understand your theory here, Jill.  I disagree, primarily because I
    come from a different perspective about what our value to God is.  You
    see, I believe that God created us in order to express God more fully. 
    Based on that premise, then God wants each of us to come home
    spiritually.  If this is true, then the only place God can meet us to
    show us the way is where each of us are individually.  
    
    This is why I think God seeks out each of us where we are.  To me,
    trying to reach someone in another way would be like trying to give 
    directions over the phone to someone who doesn't speak your language.  
    Talking louder doesn't help.  Hand gestures and pointing don't help
    because the person can't see you.  the only thing that's going to help
    is to meet the other person on common ground, so to speak, by finding a
    common language in which to communicate the directions.
    
    Nanci
    

    
    Nanci, I would agree God deals with each of us individually.  However, 
    if God specifically told Jeremiah to speak this message was Jeremiah 
    wrong in doing so.  I mean it won no souls, not one.  So does that 
    make Jeremiah of less value to God?  Or is He valued because he 
    obeyed God?  Is he valued at all?
    
    Jill

    Good ol' Jeremiah, the weeping prophet.
    
    I don't believe Jeremiah was wrong just because he was not terribly
    successful, at least, not visibly successful.  Then again, at the
    time of Jeremiah, Jesus hadn't yet issued the "great commission."
    
    Richard

    Ah...so you can be successful in God's eyes without being visibly
    successful in people's eyes.  Yet most people here would disagree
    with the message of Jeremiah.  True?
    
    Jill

    Jill - 
    
    Jeremiah and what the Bible says about him bears little relevance to
    me.  As you know, I'm not a Biblical inerrantist.  I don't believe in
    the "winning" or "losing" of souls.  Since I believe we are all created 
    from God and carry a part of God in us, I believe that no soul is ever 
    "lost" as we can never "lose" the piece of God within us.  Sure, we can
    ignore it or deny it for a time but, eventually, we will come face to
    face with what we are at the deepest level of our souls, an expression
    of God.
    
    Because of our differing premises I feel like we're speaking different
    languages, Jill.  But I'm enjoying the exchange of ideas.  :-)
    
    Nanci
    

    >   Yet most people here would disagree
    >   with the message of Jeremiah.  True?
    
    Not necessarily.  Was Jeremiah's message that the Bible was the
    inerrant Word of God?
    
    Richard
    

    
    RE:  Last few replies
    
    Nanci I'd say you are in the company of a great many people who don't
    believe in the Bible being inerrant.  However, it's interesting that
    most here anyway still value Jesus's teachings and to me it's even
    more interesting that Jesus quoted Jeremiah more than any other
    prophet.
    
    As for your belief of God being in all of us.  I believe you will 
    eventually come face to face with more than just an expression of 
    God.  But that's my belief.  I'm still enjoying the exchange of 
    ideas too.
    
    As for Mike...I would agree in a sense.   I don't think everyone is
    called to bring a message like Jeremiah did.  Jeremiah had a specific
    call with exact instructions on what to say.
    
    Richard, Jeremiah's message was that of pending death and destruction.
    Are you saying you wouldn't necessarily disagree with him?  I've been
    in this conference long enough to doubt that.  I don't believe the
    Bible existed in Jeremiah's time so that couldn't have been his
    message.
    
    Jill

Note 639.78

>    Richard, Jeremiah's message was that of pending death and destruction.
>    Are you saying you wouldn't necessarily disagree with him?  I've been
>    in this conference long enough to doubt that.  I don't believe the
>    Bible existed in Jeremiah's time so that couldn't have been his
>    message.

If that is Jeremiah's message, then what makes you say:

    >   Yet most people here would disagree
    >   with the message of Jeremiah.  True?
    
Richard
    

  >Was Jeremiah's message that the Bible was the inerrant 
  >Word of God?

Jeremiah constantly implied that everything God told Him was
true, accurate and worthy of obedience.  Jeremiah constantly
quotes God.  Perhaps if you put this information together along
with other inferences from Jeremiah, you'll reach a helpful
answer to your question...  (I know I have.)

Collis
    

    But, Collis, I believe that everything God tells me is true,
    accurate, and worthy of obedience.
    
    Richard
    

So it's just a matter of finding out what God says then.
Well, what does Jeremiah have to say about what God says?

Collis

    RE: .79
    
    >If that is Jeremiah's message, then what makes you say:
    
        >   Yet most people here would disagree
        >   with the message of Jeremiah.  True?
    
    Perhaps because of the attitudes I've been confronted with here
    about consequences being too harsh and only speaking a message of
    love and acceptance.
    
    Jill

    .82 Drat!  I took my office copy of the Bible home and left it there.
    
    Jeremiah says God said that there would come a time when the message of
    God will be written not on tangible materials, but on the human heart.
    
    (I'm paraphrasing here.  It's about chapter 30 or 31, as I recall.)
    
    Richard

Jeremiah 31:33  But this [shall be] the covenant that I will make with
	the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will
	put my law in their inward parts, and �write� it in their �hearts;�
	and will be their God, and they shall be my people. (KJV)

	"How can you say, 'We are wise,
	   and the law of the LORD is with us'?
	 But behold, the false pen of the scribes
	   has made it into a lie."
					Jeremiah 8:8 (RSV)

    
    Care to put that in context Bob?
    
    Jill

	"At that time, says the LORD, the bones of the kings of Judah, the
	bones of its princes, the bones of the priests, the bones of the
	prophets, and the bones of the inhabitants of Jerusalem shall be
	brought out of their tombs; and they shall be spread before the
	sun and the moon and all the host of heaven, which they have loved
	and served, which they have gone after, and which they have sought
	and worshiped; and they shall not be gathered or buried; they
	shall be as dung on the surface of the ground.  Death shall be
	preferred to life by all the remnant that remains of this evil
	family in all the places where I have driven them, says the LORD
	of hosts.

	  "You shall say to them, Thus says the LORD:
	  When men fall, do they not rise again?
	    If one turns away, does he not return?
	  Why then has this people turned away
	    in perpetual backsliding?
	  They hold fast to deceit,
	    they refuse to return.
	  I have given heed and listened,
	    but they have not spoken aright;
	  no man repents of his wickedness,
	    saying 'What have I done?'
	  Every one turns to his own course,
	    like a horse plunging headlong into battle.
	  Even the stork in the heavens
	    knows her times;
	  and the turtledove, swallow and crane
	    keep the time of their coming;
	  but my people know not
	    the ordinance of the LORD.

	  "How can you say, 'We are wise,
	    and the law of the LORD is with us'?
	  But, behold, the false pen of the scribes
	    has made it into a lie.
	  The wise men shall be put to shame,
	    they shall be dismayed and taken;
	  lo, they have rejected the word of the LORD,
	    and what wisdom is in them?
	  Therefore I will give their wives to others
	    and their fields to conquerors,
	  because from the least to the greatest
	    every one is greedy for unjust gain;
	  from prophet to priest
	    every one deals falsely.
	  They have healed the wound of my people lightly,
	    saying, 'Peace, peace,'
	    when there is no peace.
	  Were they ashamed when they committed abomination?
	    No, they were not at all ashamed;
	    they did not know how to blush.
	  Therefore they shall fall among the fallen;
	    when I punish them, they shall be overthrown,
                              says the LORD.
	  When I would gather them, says the LORD,
	    there are no grapes on the vine,
	    nor figs on the fig tree;
	  even the leaves are withered,
	    and what I gave them has passed away from them."
					Jeremiah 8:1-13 (RSV)