Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    The greatest gift that a parent can give a child is the knowledge that
    they are loved by God.

    We don't explain things to a child the same way we do to an adult.
    But there are somethings too important to wait until a child is an
    adult to teach them. Religion is one of those things.
    
    		Alfred

    I think having a religious upbringing was valuable for me.  I say this
    even though I don't agree with everything that the religion of my
    childhood taught.
    
    -- Mike

	FYI.

	Timothy, is an example who, was taught the Scriptures from an early
	age. 2 Timothy 3:15 NWT reads "And that from infancy you have known
	the holy writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation
	through the faith in connection with Christ Jesus."


	Phil. 

Knowledge and faith in God is the greated gift any child
can be given.

As I Cor 13 points out, when we are children, we understand
as a child.  I would suggest that even as adults, our
understand as adults is quite murky (also I Cor 13) and
we will wonder in eternity whether or not God's teaching
was wasted on us as adults!

Collis

    I'm not saying that the morality lessons are lost on children; I think
    those transcend religion anyway.  The concepts of eternal life, eternal
    death, the Trinity, grace, the dual nature of Christ, the holy
    spirit... these are some of the theological concepts that were wasted on
    me as a child.  I just couldn't comprehend these things until I was
    much, much older.  (Maybe this is more a comment of me as a child!)

    Here's a prayer that kept me awake at night:

    		Glory be to the Father,
    		the Son, and
    		the Holy spirit;
    		As it was in the beginning,
    		is now,
    		and will be forever,
    		world with out end.
    			Amen.

    "...world with out end"! I wrestled for nights trying to come to grips
    with this concept.  Maybe I was just a weird kid, but I was genuinely
    troubled by the concept of eternity and the world never ending.

    Do you get into the fact that Lot had intercourse with his daughter, 
    that God killed men women and children in the great flood, the gory
    details of crucifixion... There is a lot of racy stuff in the Bible.

    What do you leave out, if anything, when you are teaching elementary
    school aged children?   Do you tell them that God will condemn them to
    burn in hell if they don't do x, y, and z?  How would you package
    religion for children and how is it different than the adult package,
    if at all?

We're condemned to hell for refusing to believe and accept,
not for doing x, y and z.  I would NEVER tell my child (who
accepted Jesus last July as her personal savior) that she
will be condemned to hell for *anything* that she does.  It
is indeed a shame that our culture has so distorted the
Christian faith that it is a faith of works and not grace.

We read from the Bible most every night.  How do you explain
the rape camps in Bosnia/Serbia where women are routinely
raped 2 to 3 times a day?  How do you explain the starvation
in Somalia because warlords steal the food to sell?  How do
you explain the holocaust during WWII where 6 million Jews
were executed for who they are?

As you can see, the issues are not specific to the Bible.  They
are specific to us being a fallen people.  I expect that if you
can answer the questions about the current events, then you'll
also be able to answer the questions about long ago historical
events.  

Collis

    re .5
    
    > Knowledge and faith in God is the greated gift any child
    > can be given.
    
    Yes, but my suggestion is that "knowledge" of God is too complex for
    youngsters to comprehend.  If we knead it to the point where it is
    paletable to children, are we really giving them the "Word of God"? 
    The *Golden Book fo Bible Stories* is a far cry from the contents of
    Genesis... or is that good enough for children?
    
    Eric

    re .7
    
    > We're condemned to hell for refusing to believe and accept,
    > not for doing x, y and z.
    
    I wasn't trying to be cute with words.  To me the believing and
    accepting are both acts of doing something.  I know now that you don't
    consider accepting Jesus as an action,  but for the record I do.
    
    > I would NEVER tell my child (who accepted Jesus last July as her
    > personal savior) that she will be condemned to hell for *anything* that
    > she does.
    
    Wich leaves me with the question: if she said "Dad, I just don't see
    thing your way.  Jesus was just a prophet", would you then tell her
    that she was condemned to Hell?  I don't want to put words in you
    mouth, so straighten me out if I'm off base.
    
> As you can see, the issues are not specific to the Bible.  They
> are specific to us being a fallen people.  
    
    I agree, but since this is CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE and not SOAPBOX, I was
    focusing on the Biblical issues.
    
   > I expect that if you can answer the questions about the current
   > events, then you'll also be able to answer the questions about long
   > ago historical  events.
    
    My question is how do you present adult Biblical issues to children. 
    It is not "how do you explain why these things happen?".  I can't
    answer either question.
    
      
    	Eric

>    Wich leaves me with the question: if she said "Dad, I just don't see
>    thing your way.  Jesus was just a prophet", would you then tell her
>    that she was condemned to Hell?  I don't want to put words in you
>    mouth, so straighten me out if I'm off base.

    An identical question: if she said "Dad, I just don't see things your
    way. The law is just a guideline I don't have to obey it." would you 
    then tell her that she will be arrested if caught breaking the law?
    I suspect so because telling her "that's ok, I respect your belief and
    you are as correct as I" would be less the fair or truthful.

    I will not lie to my child. If they say they reject Jesus as God, not
    telling them that the cost of that rejection is Hell is the same as
    lying. What other choice do I have but to say so?

    		Alfred

    There were two things I hated about going to church when I was a kid. 
    The church service was boring, and I had to wear a suit.  I hated
    wearing a suit, I still hate wearing a suit, and I will hate wearing a
    suit with my last dying breath.  As for the boring part, the minister
    droned on in his sermons, and the organ music didn't do anything for me
    (what can I say, I was a seven-year-old Beatles fan in 1967.)  It
    wasn't really fun for me to go to church, although I got into it much
    more when I was a teenager and became much more religious.

    Vacation Bible School was a lot of fun, though.  We did a lot of
    crafts.  I actually have several memories form VBS; I remember that the
    adult Sunday School teacher led the kinds through a question-and-answer
    session in which she prompted us and we answered in unison; we
    described finer points of theology and recited the names of the books
    of the Bible according to the various categories.  She practiced with
    us throughout the period, and then we did it for the parents at the end
    of the period.

    -- Mike

    re .10

    I guess I really shouldn't have pursued that question in this note.  If
    a person is old enough to make an informed decision to accept Jesus or
    not then they are not what I would consider a child, for the purposes
    of this discussion.  I'm not dodging your reply.  I just want to focus
    on children below the age of, say, 13.  (Now Collis will chime in and
    tell us that his daughter is four, and I'll just give up :^) ).

    re .11

    Mike, I think you make my point.  At least with regard to the Sunday
    service, or Mass, in my case.  There is virtually nothing for a child
    to look forward to in going to church.  [At least I had the "Folk Mass"
    to look forward to in 1967.  They played groovy tunes. :^) ].   I'll
    bet the message of the sermon, more times than not, was over your head. 
    It was only when the message and environment was focused at the child's
    level of understanding (at VBS) that you had a positive response.


    Most everyone has said that religion is good for children.  I think
    that only a couple of respondents have suggested that the lessons given
    to children should be different than those given to adults.  Another
    note (662 ?) seems to indicate that children are not always capable of
    understanding some of the more dire teachings of judgment, for example,
    and in fact adversely affects the child.

    Are there any guidelines on teaching children that won't scare or
    confuse them?  HOW do you teach children?

Hey, my daughter was 4!

    Eric, my own view is that there is a difference between "religion" and
    "church".  I didn't look forward to going to church, but I still had
    the underpinnings of religious belief.  I would hope that a child's
    religious upbringing isn't restricted to just taking the child to
    church.

    Once, when I was maybe seven or so, there was a neighbor girl who I
    used to play with who convinced me to steel some toys from another
    neighbor's yard.  I knew it was wrong, but I have a lifelong history
    of being unable to say no to women, so in this case I finally went
    along.  When my parents found out about it, they yelled at me very
    loudly, and it was not a pleasant experience.  But you know what? 
    While they were yelling at me, I went into the living room and pulled a
    Bible off the shelf and started reading the ten commandments.  I knew
    exactly where to turn in Exodus to find them.  I don't know why, but I
    just felt that I needed to read that passage.

    That same neighbor used to "go corning" during Halloween.  I never did
    that with her, because it was some kind of vandalism (I couldn't
    exactly tell you what it is, to be quite honest).  Her moral upbringing
    wasn't the greatest, I guess.  As you point out, moral upbringing isn't
    necessarily the same as religious upbringing, and I would agree with
    that.  But religion to me is more than just morality; it is a sense of
    an underlying purpose and commitment to something greater that lies
    beyond myself.

    When I was maybe ten years old, I was baptized in my church.  It was
    something that you did when you got to a certain age.  I had to go to
    classes first, and then during church service I, along with others in
    the same classes, publicly stated that I accepted Jesus as my savior. 
    I was shaking so visibly that a friend sitting a few rows back
    teased me about it later.  It was important to me. 

    -- Mike

Hi Eric,

I think we can agree that their are subjects that are very
hard to explain to children.  There are also subjects that
are very hard to explain to adults.  My brother-in-law was
part of a group of 9 that received a super-conductivity patent
and when I asked exactly what was patented, he couldn't explain
it to me in a way that I could understand.  I'm just not at
the point (and I expect now of us here are) where we could
understand.  In many ways, children are not at that point
either for concepts that we, as adults, can handle.

The point I'm making is that the question is more of a child
development/child teaching question than it is a Bible question.
The simple answer is to teach your children the simple things
and postpone the difficult things.  Also, explain difficult
things simply knowing full well that the explanation you give
is not fully correct.  Thirdly, emphasize the positive.  Using
these simply principles, I haven't encountered any real problems
with my daughter - although your children may be different.

Re:  condemning to hell

I don't necessarily believe that a blunt response "then you're
condemned to hell" is what is called for.  Sure, it's true.  But
we are to present truth in a *loving* way (Gal 6).  Truth is not
an excuse for unloving behavior.

Re:  believing an action

I can work with that.  Since the Bible indicates that we are not
saved by works, but rather  totally by what God has done for
us, then I wouldn't want to claim that belief is a "work".  It
is the acceptance of a gift (we accept the gift be choosing to
put our trust in the gift and in the giver).

Collis

Indeed, traditional church services don't meet many needs
of small children.  I think they meet a lot of needs of us
bigger children.

Collis

    >The point I'm making is that the question is more of a child
    >development/child teaching question than it is a Bible question. The
    >simple answer is to teach your children the simple things and postpone
    >the difficult things.  Also, explain difficult things simply knowing
    >full well that the explanation you give is not fully correct.  Thirdly,
    >emphasize the positive.  

    That's not unlike how, I often hear, parents are supposed to teach
    their children about sex.  I'm not being flip with that analogy--isn't
    this what the "experts" say how sex should be taught to children--teach
    as much as they are ready to learn at that age, and don't confuse them
    with too much detail or more than they are ready for?  As one who is
    not a parent, but who learned about sex from schoolmates right about
    when puberty was hitting, I'd say that the gradual approach is probably
    better.

    -- Mike

    re .14

    > my own view is that there is a difference between "religion" and
    > "church".  I didn't look forward to going to church, but I still had
    > the underpinnings of religious belief.  I would hope that a child's
    > religious upbringing isn't restricted to just taking the child to
    > church.

    Good point.  My religious upbringing, in a theological sense, was
    pretty much restricted to attending Mass.  We had catacism classes, but
    I'll be darned if I can recall any of the lessons.  As Roman Catholics
    there wasn't a big emphasis on Bible reading.  That's not a slam,
    that's just the way it was.

    I think Mom did a good job in giving her kids a solid understanding of
    morality, responsibility, and respect... even if the Bible wasn't used
    as the focal point.  'Course I'm biased; I kind of like Mom :^)

    	Eric

    re .15

    >>The simple answer is to teach your children the simple things
    >>and postpone the difficult things.  Also, explain difficult
    >>things simply knowing full well that the explanation you give
    >>is not fully correct.  Thirdly, emphasize the positive. 


    Collis,

    These are good ideas.  It sounds like you are a loving father.

    Might this be the way our Loving Father has been teaching us?  Perhaps
    you might just *consider* the possibility that Christianity is an
    evolving religion...that Our Father postponed some of the more
    difficult ideas until we could better understand them...perhaps
    providing us with explanations that were not fully correct because we
    as people were not yet ready to comprehend.

    After all, God is a better Father than any human.  

    Ruth
    

    Religion for children should be a source of joy and a point of
    continuity between them and their parents, grand-parents, etc.
    
    The joy of religion is that we've not been abandoned by God and there
    is a God is heaven who loves is.
    
    I've met parents who regret their apathy to introduce religion to their
    children.  Other children ask my children "Who is God?"

Re:  667.19

  >It sounds like you are a loving father.

Thank you.

  >Perhaps you might just *consider* the possibility that Christianity is an
  >evolving religion...that Our Father postponed some of the more
  >difficult ideas until we could better understand them...perhaps
  >providing us with explanations that were not fully correct because we
  >as people were not yet ready to comprehend.

I agree wholeheartedly with you that the revelation that God has provided
us has increased over time.  It is important to note, however, that
God does not contradict Himself.  God doesn't change (the same yesterday,
today and forever) but our understanding of God over the centuries has
certainly increased, primarily by the special revelation He gave us
through his prophets.  

In terms of anything God saying being less than accurate because of our
understanding, there is certainly some logic behind this, but it is totally
unsupported by what God Himself has revealed.  The prophets of God (whom
God has spoken through) consistently, time after time, without exception
tell us (when addressing the issue) that *everything* God says is true,
accurate, worthy of trust, etc.  Where does this leave open the possibility
that something that God says is wrong or inaccurate?  It simply doesn't.
Therefore, I reject the hypothesis based on the direct evidence that
denies it is true.

Collis

    Collis,

    I agree with you that God is changeless.  That is one the reasons that
    I do not believe in the literal Biblical God.  That God is subject to
    the emotions of humans (Wrath, Jealously, Anger, Need for Praise).  

    The God of Christ is completely changeless.  He lives in continual,
    unchanging peace.  Nothing ever disturbs His peace.  How could anything
    even presume to disturb the peace of an all-powerful, all-knowing God?

    Could it be that instead of thinking about this in terms of God
    contradicting himself, that we might just consider the possibility that
    the vessels were too weak and undeveloped to correctly record the divine
    revelation?

    Let God be true and *all men* liars (including the men who wrote the
    Bible).

    Peace in Christ,

    Ruth

  >Could it be that instead of thinking about this in terms of God
  >contradicting himself, that we might just consider the possibility that
  >the vessels were too weak and undeveloped to correctly record the divine
  >revelation.

This, too, is contradicted by everything that is recorded on this
matter.  Therefore, I reject this possibility as well.

Collis

Re:  .22

I find it very interesting that you equate the changelessness
of God (which the Bible applies to His qualities such as Loving
toward use, Hateful toward sin, Just, All-Powerful) to a lack of 
emotions (no wrath or jealously or anger or presumably hate).
This is indeed a very different God (with little correlation to
the God of the Bible) than I am used to.

I personally see no reason why God should not have emotions
(particularly if we are created in His image) and am interested
in knowing why you believe that God is indeed this way.  Do you
believe that emotions are wrong or that some emotions are evil?

Collis

    >Let God be true and *all men* liars (including the men who wrote the
    >Bible).


    	Ruth,
    
    	     you know what your problem is ?.  
    
    	     You just have too much common sense.!!   ;-}	
	
    	     I knew that your common sense would fall on deaf ears
    	     as it was proven by Collis previous note. 
    		
			Juan

re Note 667.22 by WELLER::FANNIN:

>     Let God be true and *all men* liars (including the men who wrote the
>     Bible).
  
        But does this include men who were acting in the roles of
        pen-holders?

        Bob

re Note 667.23 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >Could it be that instead of thinking about this in terms of God
>   >contradicting himself, that we might just consider the possibility that
>   >the vessels were too weak and undeveloped to correctly record the divine
>   >revelation.
> 
> This, too, is contradicted by everything that is recorded on this
> matter.  Therefore, I reject this possibility as well.
  
        Collis,

        Look at what you just wrote!  You seem to be saying that the
        record cannot be imperfect because the record says it isn't!

        Collis, you cannot base your faith on such thinking!  You
        have to base your faith upon a relationship to the living
        God!  (Now I have no doubt that you do have a faith
        relationship to the living God -- but I shudder to think of
        those who depend upon such logic rather than such faith.)

        Bob

I knew the Word of God would fall on some rocky
ground as well.  However, perhaps a seed found some
soil among the rocks.  Then again, perhaps my
understanding of what the Word of God reveals is
off in this area.

Collis

Bob,

Again, the claim for truth within the record is *extremely
important*.  I certainly agree with you that in and of
itself that it is not sufficient to believe that it is
true.  However, when external evidence (such as fulfilled
prophecies) point out the accuracy and the claims for truth
are intertwined throughout almost all of the 40 books (in
one way or another), I think it is total foolishness to
attempt to claim that parts are true and parts are false.
It is illogical.  It makes some sense to reject that God
wrote the entire Bible.  It makes very little sense to claim
that God wrote part of the Bible and not other parts (since
the parts that God wrote *claim* the other parts are true
and written by God).

Collis

>It makes very little sense to claim
>that God wrote part of the Bible and not other parts (since
>the parts that God wrote *claim* the other parts are true
>and written by God).
    
    You left out another option, which is that God wrote *no* part of the
    Bible, but rather humans wrote all of it, expressing their
    understanding of God to the best of their ability.
    
    -- Mike
    Bob, you have pointed out what I have noticed for some time.  Of
    course, since the veracity of what is recorded on this and other
    matters is precisely what is being called in question, using what is
    recorded to refute a statement about what is recorded is just a tad
    tautological.
    
    

    -- Mike

    > Look at what you just wrote!  You seem to be saying that the
    > record cannot be imperfect because the record says it isn't!


    And we want children to understand this sort of recursive, mobius-twist
    reasoning?  I guess kids don't need to understand all this stuff, as
    has been pointed out.  But as they get older and find that this
    "because I said so" reasoning is the foundation of all they've been
    taught, it could cause some credibility problems.  On the other hand,
    children do find comfort in absolutes and having other people make
    decisions for them.

    	Eric

    I believe that the Bible is true but not necessarily
    factual.

    It is a manual for bringing people closer to God, complete
    with examples and parables.

    "Take not what the doc writer writes as reality.  For the 
     straight poop go to the engineer"  :-)

    Your milage may vary.

    Tom

re Note 667.32 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     I believe that the Bible is true but not necessarily
>     factual.
  
        Perhaps likewise, I have great reverence for the Bible;  I
        personally consider it the best of all single religious
        writings (although I must admit, I've sampled VERY few!).

        I do consider it a guide to living worthy of respect,
        consideration, and adherence.

        I read it to my children.

        I consider its greatest value to be its pointing to the
        living God who loves and saves.  In God I have found that
        Truth that human words could never express; in God I find
        that security that others seem to find in doctrine and/or
        "God-authored words."

        To me, claiming for the Bible that which it doesn't claim for
        itself, or applying tautological reasoning to prove Biblical
        inerrancy (or Papal infallibility, I must add), only debases
        it (and Church institutions) in the eyes of many who
        otherwise would be attracted to it.

        Bob

    Collis,

    Re:  .24

    >>I personally see no reason why God should not have emotions
    >>(particularly if we are created in His image) and am interested in
    >>knowing why you believe that God is indeed this way.  Do you believe
    >>that emotions are wrong or that some emotions are evil?

    From Your Note 662.61   

    >>I don't deal with emotions very well; I am usually on a logic basis. 
    >>That is why I appear (and sometimes am) insensitive to others - I'm
    >>responding in a logical way to questions and comments that have a lot
    >>of emotional overtones.             

    Since you believe you are created in God's image and that God has
    emotions, then why do you deny your emotional self its full expression?

    The question you asked about emotions is one that I was going to ask
    *you.*

    My answer to your question is this:  Emotions are human territory,
    there is no need to assign rightness or wrongness to emotions.  God
    cannot be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow if he is also
    _moody_.  

    Peace,

    Ruth

    Eric,

    >And we want children to understand this sort of recursive, mobius-twist
    >reasoning?  

    I would prefer if *adults* didn't understand this sort of recursive,
    mobius-twist reasoning.  :-)

    >On the other hand, children do find comfort in absolutes and having
    >other people make decisions for them.

    Unfortunately, so do many adults.  :-(

    You do raise an interesting point, though.  Do we encourage children to
    start using their critical thinking faculties at an early age?  Or is
    it more appropriate to defer that for later?  And if you do the latter,
    does it cause problems when the message changes gears like that in
    mid-stream?

    Or does all of this relate to the idea of stages of spiritual
    development?  If the more authoritarian conception of religion
    represents a more child-like phase of intellectual development, then is
    it just a matter of passing through various phases?  The only problem
    is, of course, that some people seem stuck in the earlier phases and
    never manage to get out.  :-)

    -- Mike

re Note 667.35 by DEMING::VALENZA:

>     The only problem
>     is, of course, that some people seem stuck in the earlier phases and
>     never manage to get out.  :-)
  
        But that might be OK -- for them.

    I agree, Bob.  It can be a problem when they want to force their
    perspective on others, but otherwise I agree that it very well can be
    OK for them.
    
    -- Mike

Re: 667.30

  >You left out another option, which is that God wrote *no* part of the
  >Bible, but rather humans wrote all of it, expressing their
  >understanding of God to the best of their ability.
   
I'm sorry, of course this is an option.  And, if this is indeed the
truth, then we have to wrestle with the credibility of those who
consistently claim to have revelation from God that did not
exist.  That is, the persistent claim throughout much of the
various prophets writings in the Old Testament, for example,
is that what is written is the WORD OF THE LORD.  

Personally, I would choose not to believe those who claim to
speak for God and are lying.  I do not rely on them for my
direction in life nor do I recommend them to others.  If this is
indeed the truth about these "prophets" in the Bible, then they
are much worse then Koresh since they have indeed deceived so many
more.

Collis 

Re:  .31

Heck, even adults can't seem to follow the logic which says
that if A claims that B is true and B claims that C is true
and if A is true then C is true (which is a symbolic
logic reasoning of what I said).

I'm sorry I wrote it poorly enough to confuse the issue.

I have usually found, however, that the issue has *nothing*
to do with the logic, but *everything* to do with the premises
and the conclusion.

Collis

Re:  .34

  >Since you believe you are created in God's image and that God has
  >emotions, then why do you deny your emotional self its full expression?

Upbringing.

My individuality (formed at conception :-) ).

  >God cannot be the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow if he is also
  >_moody

Again, this quote is referring to his *attributes*, not a lack of
emotion.  The Bible shows God's emotions from beginning to end.  Again,
why do you deny them?  Where do you get your impression of God?  If
you accept Jesus as God, what is it that insists that the emotions He
felt when on earth were not God's emotions as well?  He was both
fully human and fully God - not a Mr. Spock.  Again, where do you get
your image of a God without emotions?

Collis

Re:  .35

Since millions of people *do* understand the reasoning I
present (and it is by no means new with me) and have
accepted this reasoning over the centuries, I expect that
the problem is not with the logic (no matter how poorly
I may have explained it in the replies I've made today).

Collis

    Collis .41,
    
    	If numbers and duration were all that significant, we'd
    all be Buddhists!
    
    :-)
    Richard
    

>I'm sorry, of course this is an option.  And, if this is indeed the
>truth, then we have to wrestle with the credibility of those who
>consistently claim to have revelation from God that did not
>exist.  

    Well, they also in all likelihood also *had* revelation from God.  You
    are correct that we have to "wrestle" with this.  It is so much easier
    when our theology is handed to us on a platter--then we don't have to
    think, we don't have to wrestle with these issue.  Mindless religion is
    certainly easier than a religion of thinking people, but that doesn't
    necessarily make it better.

>Personally, I would choose not to believe those who claim to
>speak for God and are lying.  

    I wouldn't either.  But then, I haven't accused any of those who call
    the "prophets of God" of lying.  They were sincere in their beliefs,
    and they offered important insights, and contributed to the ongoing
    process of understanding God that continues today.  It is not a 
    "deception" to mindlessly follow verbatim what those who preceded us
    have written.  Physicists don't consider Newton a liar simply because
    his understanding was superseded by Einstein's.  The only deception
    here is self-deception--the self-deception of mindlessly accepting
    everything that others have written without exercising one's critical
    faculties, reason, conscience, ability to participate in ongoing
    dialogue with the rest of the faith community.

    -- Mike

Re:  .43

I would choose not to believe the deluded either.

They are liars - or lunatics - or He is LORD.

(Where have we heard that before.  :-) )

Collis

    Collis, I found that it helped for me to have studied philosophers like
    Plato when I was in college.  It helps one gain a healthy respect for
    how one can gain value and insight from philosophies that one
    nevertheless disagrees with.

    Given the analogy I made with physics, I take it you would consider
    Newton to have been "deluded".  I think that adjective would be highly
    inappropriate, and I suspect that modern physicists would also.

    -- Mike

I studied Plato in high school.  :-)

Re:  .45

Newton didn't claim that an infallible God revealed infallible
truth to him.

I'm amazed that you don't see that distinction yourself and save
me the trouble of pointing it out to you (again).

Collis

    That's because the distinction is irrelevant.  Newton *did* believe
    that what he offered us was the truth.  In many respects, it was. 
    If someone thinks they are right, but are actuallly mistaken, are they
    "deluded"?  I would say no.
    
    -- Mike

re: Note 667.39 by Collis "Roll away with a half sashay" 

>Re:  .31
>
>Heck, even adults can't seem to follow the logic which says
>that if A claims that B is true and B claims that C is true
>and if A is true then C is true (which is a symbolic
>logic reasoning of what I said).

Actually, what I hear you saying is that if A claims that A is true, then A is 
true.  ("The Bible claims that the Bible is true.")  That is a self-
referencing statement and can be proven logically to be both true and false. 
Kurt G�del's Incompleteness Theorem comes in to play here.

Peace,

Jim

Re:  .49

When pressed, I admitted to external evidence.

This has already been hashed and rehashed many times in
this conference.  It would be better to continue this
discussion in the appropriate topic.

Collis

I would say that those who claim God revealed something to
them when God did in fact not reveal anything is certainly
deluded about that event.

Newton is an *entirely* different issue.  He was not
claiming divine voices for his conclusion (to my knowledge),
but rather presented something based on fact, reason,
knowledge and assumptions.

It's not clear to me why this distinction is not obvious.
Perhaps you'll enlighten me.

Collis

Re: .51 Collis

>I would say that those who claim God revealed something to
>them when God did in fact not reveal anything is certainly
>deluded about that event.

Let's say that someone really did receive a revelation from God.  How
would they receive it?  Not face to face, because according to the Bible Moses
was the only person who talked to God face to face.  In a dream, then,
or maybe they just felt that they were inspired by God when they wrote
something.

So the prophet has a dream that he believes is from God, writes the dream
down and it becomes scripture.  What if it turns out that the dream wsn't
really from God?  Does it mean that the prophet was a liar, or was crazy?
Does it mean that the prophesy has no value?

Not necessarily.  Maybe the dream came from the prophet's subconscious
rather than from God, but it could still be a valuable insight.  If God
exists, maybe the prophesy did reveal some glimpse into the nature of God,
filtered through the prophet's own understanding, culture, biases etc.

				-- Bob

    It is true that science is not the same as theology, and to that extent
    Newton's ideas are not exactly the same as the ideas of ancient
    prophets.  Certainly this is clear.  On the other hand, they do share a
    similarity in that both people represent expressions of insight about
    their respective fields of interest, fields which express continuing
    processes of growth and understanding.  Newton was not the only example
    I cited; I also suggested an analogy with philosophers such as Plato. 
    This is another example where the dogmatic approach is rejected by
    philosophers.  Philosophers may study Plato and appreciate his insights
    even when they believe him to be wrong about many important things.

    Whether or not Newton claimed "divine voices" for his conclusion is not
    the point; he was offering his understanding of the truth, and it is
    the truth that we are all seeking.  His understanding was not
    completely correct, but his insights were important and an important
    stepping stone towards still greater understanding.  And Newton, I
    might add, was not just a physicist, but a metaphysician who drew
    inferences about the nature of God from his scientific theories. 
    Science are theology are not as separate as one might think.  Whether
    we are talking of truths about God, or truths about the physical
    operations of the universe, we are still talking about truths in any
    case.  I don't agree with Newton's metaphysics, but I appreciate and
    respect where he was coming from.  I don't consider him deluded.

    As a matter of personal theology (not so personal, actually--much of
    this is my understanding of Quakerism), I'll make a few additional
    comments.  Since I believe that the divine voice speaks to all of us,
    you and me included, those prophets were no more "deluded" than you or
    I are. All of us have a stake in the formulation of religious
    understanding.  It is a mutual and a continuing process, and it is one
    that *all* of us contribute to.  Prophets are no more or less "deluded"
    than any of us are; they merely seek to express what they understand,
    just as we do.  And by listening and considering what everyone else has
    to offer, we can grow and learn from others just as we contribute to
    what others have to offer.  The value of the truly great prophets is
    that they may have special insights, they may express them in a
    particularly poignant way, or they may capture a part of a significant
    part of this process in a way that is especially valuable.  But in
    principle the prophets are no different from the rest of us.

    -- Mike

Re:  .52

What I see is a massive downplay of what the facts are.

We're not just talking about a dream that someone had and
was willing to share.

We're talking about a person who is *committed* to God, has
based his life on believing in God and then, without doubt,
makes pronouncements (that are often backed up with a willingness
to *die* for the truth of those pronouncements) that God
has said such and such.

Now, looking at it this way (we're dealing with a true
*radical* here), perhaps you're more willing to view the
options as originally expressed - liar, lunatic or LORD.

If we were talking instead about some person with a dream
who wrote done a vision he had, then I think you'd have a
case.  But that's not the half of it.

Collis

Re:  .53

The point is exactly this:

  - Newton offered *his* understanding of truth - and freely
    admitted that it was *his* understanding

  - Biblical writers offer an understanding of truth that they
    readily admit is NOT theirs, but is God's.  In fact, it is
    not unusual for a prophet to *disagree* with what they claim
    God said or told them to do.  Either God said something - or
    they're living in a fantasy world (or, of course, lying).

That, in a nutshell, is the difference that makes the
difference.


  >But in principle the prophets are no different from the rest of us.

Amen.  The difference is not in the prophets, particularly.  The
difference is whom *God* chose to use.

Why do we try so hard to avoid calling people a liar?  

Q:  Did God say this to you?

A:  Yup, He sure did.

Q:  How many times has God spoken to you specifically like this?

A:  Exactly 5 and this is exactly what He said.

Fact:  God never said a thing.

He lied or he's deluded.   No. No. NO! is what I hear.  He's simply
sharing his perspective about God.  A perspective that is not based
on interaction with God (since it never happened) but one that is
based instead on his own (deluded) thinking.  Remarkable insights, 
right?

Personally, when God speaks to me in a muddled voice, I say "God
spoke to me in a muddled voice and I'm not sure what He said."  But
you want to raise high those people whom you *know* (whether you are 
right or wrong) God did not speak clearly to?  (You know this because
God could not be like that, according to you.)  This is foolishness.
Yes, I know, in my opinion.  But this reasoning was foolishness the first 
time I considered it (as a non-believer child) and it is still foolishness 
when I consider it now (as an adult Christian).

I expect we're not going to reach agreement on this issue.  :-)

Collis

Re: .54 Collis

>Now, looking at it this way (we're dealing with a true
>*radical* here), perhaps you're more willing to view the
>options as originally expressed - liar, lunatic or LORD.

No, I'm not.  Many people think that they've been inspired by God, or have
"talked to God".  I don't think these people are crazy, but I don't think
they've been inspired by God or talked to God either.

Weren't you the one who made the point earlier that the ancients were less
precise than we are today about quoting their sources, e.g. they might
paraphrase a speech but present it as if it were an exact quotation.
Maybe the same kind of thing happened with the prophets: an idea popped
into the prophet's head so he wrote it down in the form a speech given by
God, as a kind of paraphrase of what he felt that God was telling him.

Re: .55 Collis

>  - Biblical writers offer an understanding of truth that they
>    readily admit is NOT theirs, but is God's.  In fact, it is
>    not unusual for a prophet to *disagree* with what they claim
>    God said or told them to do.  Either God said something - or
>    they're living in a fantasy world (or, of course, lying).

Or their subconsious was telling them something which their conscious mind
disagreed with.

>Q:  How many times has God spoken to you specifically like this?
>
>A:  Exactly 5 and this is exactly what He said.
>
>Fact:  God never said a thing.
>
>He lied or he's deluded.

How did God speak to the prophet?  Was it in a dream, was it in a vision,
or was it face to face?

> A perspective that is not based
>on interaction with God (since it never happened) but one that is
>based instead on his own (deluded) thinking.  Remarkable insights, 
>right?

Collis, sometimes people in this conference disagree with the way the Bible
depicts God, and you ask them how they know what God is like.  The answer
is generally something to the effect that they felt their soul touched by
God, or they felt inspired by the Holy Spirit.  These people feel that
they've interacted with God.  Now I personally doubt that they've actually
interacted with God (because I doubt that *anyone* has interacted with
God), but I'm not going to call them deluded liars.  They've simply shared
their perspectives, perspectives that may have value whether or not God
exists.

>Personally, when God speaks to me in a muddled voice, I say "God
>spoke to me in a muddled voice and I'm not sure what He said."  But
>you want to raise high those people whom you *know* (whether you are 
>right or wrong) God did not speak clearly to?

Well, I wouldn't raise these people on high, and in fact I often disagree
with them.  I think they believed that they were speaking on God's behalf
but were actually speaking from their own hearts, and that's the basis on
which I evaluate what they've said.

By the way, has God spoken to you in a muddled voice?  Has God ever spoken
to you in a clear voice?

>I expect we're not going to reach agreement on this issue.  :-)

You got that part right!

				-- Bob

    >A perspective that is not based on interaction with God (since it never
    >happened) but one that is based instead on his own (deluded) thinking.  

    You still don't get it.  I believe that the prophets *did* interact
    with God, just as you and I do.  I don't know why I have to reiterate
    this over and over again.  It isn't that difficult to understand.  We
    had this discussion some time ago, and it was like pulling teeth trying
    to get you to understand the most fundamental points I had been making. 
    At one point I thought I had *finally* made progress; I see I am mistaken.

    The basic problem has to do with how one views the prophets.  You have
    a certain approach to understanding their insights, which is based
    looking for infallible pronouncements (which, I might add, save you the
    trouble of doing any theological thinking for yourself).  This is
    different from my understanding of how to approach the prophets.  You
    then ask, how can you continue to understand the prophets in the same way
    that you have been if your premises about them shift to those which
    underlie the way that *I* do?  Well, duh.  You really *can't* continue
    to view them in the same way, now can you?  That is precisely the
    point.

    >But you want to raise high those people whom you *know* (whether you
    >are  right or wrong) God did not speak clearly to?  

    Geez, this really is like pulling teeth.  Why do I have to repeat
    myself to you so often?  Try stepping outside of your own dogma for a
    change and see if you can understand what others believe and what they
    are saying.  You just *don't* *get* *it*.  I am not "raising the
    prophets high".  How many times do I have to say this?  I BELIEVE THAT
    GOD SPOKE TO THE PROPHETS JUST AS GOD SPEAKS TO US TODAY.  NO
    DIFFERENTLY FROM THE WAY GOD SPEAKS TO US TODAY.  NOT ONE IOTA
    DIFFERENTLY.  If you would try to understand my position from that
    premise, instead of constantly equivocating back to your own premises
    as soon as you try to analyze my own, you would go a lot farther
    towards understanding.  Collis, you have a special genius for
    equivocating, and this is why dialogue with you is so difficult.

    How can I be any clearer on my position?  If God spoke to the prophets,
    and also to speaks to us, then the responsibility for responding to
    what the prophets had to say is no different than the responsibility
    to respond to what the people in this notes file have to say.  We are
    all struggling to understand what God is saying to us.  We have to
    discern the value of the prophets just as we have to discern the value
    of each others' comments.  It is not easy.  It is hard work, it is an
    ongoing process, and it will continue long after we are dead.  Disagree
    with this premise if you like.  I am sure that it presents an approach
    that is uncomfortable for you, because it doesn't offer any easy
    answers on a platter.  Fine.  That is your right.  At least try, for
    once, to get it straight what others are saying to you that they
    believe.

    The value that I place on the prophets is not that they necessarily had
    more insight from God than many people who live today; in some cases
    they did have a lot of insight, but mostly it is that their words
    provide an important historical record of those processes of the
    human-divine dialogue that happened to have occurred in the Middle East
    during a particular period of time.  This process was important in
    formulating the cultural and theological lens that can't help but shape
    the way we happen to view God.  There are other lenses that came from
    other cultures; Hindus, for example have their own lens.  But being a
    product of a Christian upbringing and a culture that was shaped by the
    Jewish and Christian traditions, I can't help but be most interested in
    this lens rather than the Hindu one.  The Hebrew prophets are useful,
    they are instructive, in that light, no more and no less.  God spoke to
    them, and God speaks to us; just as the prophets got it wrong
    sometimes, even if they didn't think that they did, so do you and I get
    it wrong sometimes, even if we don't think we are wrong.

    -- Mike

    RE: .57

>    I believe that the prophets *did* interact
>    with God, just as you and I do.  

    If God is infinite and everywhere, how can you avoid 
    interacting with Her?

    I think it's just perception/awareness on our part.

    Tom

    Back to the basenote.....
    
    One of the reasons that I changed to the Congregational faith,
    was to present a better image of God to my children. 
    When I was growing up (still am), I found that the image
    of God, and my faith, was based on a series of rules and regulations.
    Being an engineer by nature....such rules and regs appealed to me
    at first. After awhile, though, it became clear to me that God
    was more than rules and regulations (by the way, I still remember
    most of them).
    
    In my mid teens, I started to ride a bicycle a lot...as such, I would
    often just go to the church , while on a trip, and sit or kneel and
    "talk to God". Seemed to work! Still feel that I can hear him talking
    back at times. Later on, in my late teens and through my 20's,
    my focus changed from God, and to worldly troubles/cares/etc.
    I'm still working now to get back....but...I digress.
    
    My children seem to be doing better...but...I see my son, who is
    16, not really too interested in Church/Religion/God. I'm starting
    to think now that the parents role and the churches is to offer
    atmosphere that reflects a presence of God and offers a good set
    of basic imformation (Bible study, etc). A family life based on
    Christian principals is also very important. However, at this point,
    the individual has to find his/her relationship with God. For
    most, it occurs later in life.
    
    Just in a rambling mood...
    
    Marc H.

Re: .59

>    In my mid teens, I started to ride a bicycle a lot...as such, I would
>    often just go to the church , while on a trip, and sit or kneel and
>    "talk to God". Seemed to work! Still feel that I can hear him talking
>    back at times.

Are you sure you weren't deluded, Marc? :-)

				-- Bob

    RE: .60
    
    Nope.
    
    Marc H.

    
    	Marc,
    
    		how did you know it was God was talking to you ?.
    
    	There are advanced individuals who can comunicate telepathically
    	with other individuals, but they are not God.  I'm not saying
    	that such is the case with you, but the possibility is there.
    
    	In ancient times, if a spacecraft came down from the skies
    	spewing fire and making a big noise and a peasant on those times
    	saw it, he would probably think it was God because that peasant
    	knew nothing about spacecrafts like we do today.
    
    	Just something to think about.
    
    			Juan
                          

>    	There are advanced individuals who can comunicate telepathically
>    	with other individuals, but they are not God.  I'm not saying
    
    You state this a a fact. Do you know any of these individuals? Can
    you provide documentation on them?
    
    			Alfred

    
    	There are many individuals all over this planet who have 
    	developed mental powers to the point where they can communicate
    	telepathically with other individuals.  I can't give you any
    	specific names or places because I don't have them, but I have
    	read many such accounts in scientific journals and managzines
    	where experiments were conducted to validate such abilities.
    
	That is not such an unusual happening, it is a psychic ability
    	which many people possess in various degrees like clairvoyancy.
    	Surely, you must have heard of such things.  Haven't you ?.
    
    			Juan

    RE: .62
    
    I've though about the other idea's you have stated in the past.
    
    I'm convinced that at the time, it was God. Still works at times
    now a days....
    
    Marc H.

Re:  667.57

  >We had this discussion some time ago, and it was like pulling teeth trying
  >to get you to understand the most fundamental points I had been making. 
  >At one point I thought I had *finally* made progress; I see I am mistaken.

I'm sorry.  We did indeed spend some time on this and I am indeed at fault
for not recognizing this before I wrote what I wrote.

    The basic problem has to do with how one views the prophets.  

  >You have a certain approach to understanding their insights, which is based
  >looking for infallible pronouncements...

I just evaluate what they say.  They claim infallible pronouncements.  You choose
to not believe them, I choose to believe them.  It has nothing to do with what I'm
looking for; it has everything to do with evaluating their actual claims.

  >(which, I might add, save you the trouble of doing any theological thinking 
  >for yourself)

Now you tell me.  And to think, I've wasted so much of my life doing all this
theological thinking - and plan on continuing to waste more of my life doing
this.  I guess it hasn't saved me any trouble at all.

  >If you would try to understand my position from that premise...

Mike, actually I *do* get it.  I have reiterated the fallacy of this position
time after time and will state it once again in this note.  It has nothing to
do with my dogma but rather just will actually *listening* to what the prophets
actually *wrote*.  In Jeremiah 1:2, for example, it says "the word of the
LORD came to him [Jeremiah] in the thirteenth year of the reign of Josaiah
son of Amon king of Judah.  Well, did it?  Is it true?  Your wish to claim
that this is "partially true" just doesn't wash.  The evidence is overwhelming
from all the prophets that God does NOT tell a prophet something that is
partially true or tell a prophet something that the prophet can't pass
on.  This has been discussed many times before.  Everywhere according to every
prophet (who addresses the issue), everything a prophet says is stated, restated, 
assumed, used, believed, etc. to be *fully true*.  Historical evidence shows us that 
the prophecies uttered by these prophets are *fully true*.  Other prophets (including 
Jesus) quote the prophets as *fully true*.  God's Word which is equated with the
writings of these prophets is said to be *fully true*, will last *forever*.
The Biblical criteria for a prophet is that what he says came from God is
*fully true*.

Sure, you can claim that these prophets interacted with God and didn't know
quite what He was saying and just put down their best thoughts.  I understand
why this claims appeals to you (and to many others).  The problem with the
claim is that there is *absolutely no support* for this belief from Scripture
and, in fact, there are a tremendous number of claims (and actual evidence)
that this belief is wrong.

But, of course, I've stated this before and you disagree.  I think we do
understand each other.  I will continue to believe the prophets and you will
continue to believe part of what the prophets say and not believe other parts
of what the prophets say - unless the grace of God intervenes.

Collis

    >I just evaluate what they say.  They claim infallible pronouncements. 
    >You choose to not believe them, I choose to believe them.  It has
    >nothing to do with what I'm looking for; it has everything to do with
    >evaluating their actual claims.

    Yes, evaluating what the prophets say is *exactly* what this is all
    about, isn't it?  Do we choose to evaluate everything that they say, or
    do we choose to relinquish that responsibility and simply mindlessly
    accept everything that they say?

    The real issue here is that there are statements, and there are
    statements *about* statements.  Statements *about* statements are of a
    different order than mere statements.  If I make a statement *about*
    the truth of all my other statements, how does that affect how one
    should evaluate truth of my other statements?  If I claim that all my
    statements are all true, and they are not all true, then the falsehood
    of that statement *about* other statements is completely consistent
    with the fact that not all my statements are true.  Does it mean that
    my other statements are therefore worthless and contain no truth?  Of
    course not!  Yet that is the curious argument that you seem to be
    using--that the truth of a meta-pronouncement of infallibility somehow
    determines the truth of the pronouncements themselves.  This is
    nonsense.  You say that if a meta-pronouncement of infallibility is
    false, then we cannot trust those pronouncements themselves to be true. 
    Well, double duh.  Here we have an example of that equivocation that I
    was talking about.  Yes, we can't implicitly trust what they say to be
    automatically true--that is precisely the point,  You criticize the
    view that the prophets are not infallible on the curious grounds that
    this implies that they now can't be trusted as infallible.  Well,
    that's nice, although tautological.  Criticizing an alternative
    approach because its conclusions are inconsistent with the conclusions
    derived from your own premises is to switch gears in midflight.  My
    WHOLE POINT is that they can't be trusted implicitly, that they ought
    to be evaluated, and that the fact that they ought to be evaluated is
    *consistent* with the wrongness of any alleged assertion of their own
    infallibility.

>Now you tell me.  And to think, I've wasted so much of my life doing all this
>theological thinking - and plan on continuing to waste more of my life doing
>this.  I guess it hasn't saved me any trouble at all.

    You'll have to explain how simply echoing what you hear, without using
    your intellectual and moral faculties to evaluate them, with the
    freedom to offer criticism or alternative points of view, constitutes
    "thinking".
    
    -- Mike

 Speaking of religionn and children, I've been praying and wrestling for some
 time about getting my kids back into a relationship with God.  A few nights
 ago I felt the answer come from God.."wait..and I will provide the opportunity"
 Tomorrow night my church softball team has its first game (against the other 
 team in the church) and the leader of the teenage class as well as the former
 teenage class teacher and youth minister (not to mention the pastor) will be 
 playing.  Last night when talking to my 16 year old son I mentioned the game
 and he asked if he could come watch.  An excellent opportunity, I believe.





 Jim

    RE: .67
    
    I don't know Mike....maybe its been a long day or something, but, it
    seems that you and Collis just don't agree. Why not leave it at that?
    
    Marc H.