Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Also see Topic 107, "Meditations"
    
    Richard

    .0, Thanks for sharing that, Patricia.
    
    I know that your journey here with us in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE has
    been fraught with anxieties and irritations.  However, I would affirm
    that being a part of C-P has also helped you to grow spiritually
    and to grow stronger in your faith.  It is something I have noticed
    over time.
    
    Peace and grace,
    Richard

re Note 734.0 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     I mean like right in the middle of
>     the Bible, in Galations he writes that those who unfaith you should
>     castrate themselves.  

        "Unfaith"?

Re: Note 734.0                          
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                     

>>    Lately I have been defining myself as a Christian Unitarian Universalist
>>    which I see as being sublty different than an Unitarian Universalist
>>    Christian.  What this means to me is that my Unitarian Universalists
>>    principles and purposes is a standard to which I hold myself. 
>>    It is the rational standard by which I choose to live.  The Christian
>>    part is a complete recognition that rationalality is not enough.  If I
>>    live by my intellect alone I am living as a fraction of a person. 

>>   My physical being, my emotional being, my sexuality, and most important my
>>   spirituality along with my rational being make me whole-One person
>>   created in the image of the Divine who I call Goddess/God.

Interesting.  So to help me better understand, is the Christian part of your
being an identification with The Eternal God, or are you identifying with 
Jesus the Son of God and the finished work of the cross.  If you choose the
first answer, how do you differentiate yourself as a Christian from a Buddist
for example?

>>    I am in my third semester at Andover Newton, taking one course a
>>    semester so I am in my third course.  It is truly amazing that I am
>>    taking a course on Paul's letters to the Corinthians and truly loving
>>    it.  I feel a deep affinity to Paul. To me Paul is a very real person. 
>>    Bright, articulate, spiritual, passionate, sexist, neurotic,
>>   homophobic, and arrogant as hell.

>>   And he had an experience on the road to Damascus that changed his life.  
>>    He had an experience of
>>    the risen Christ.  I cannot comprehend Paul's experience but I can
>>    comprehend the impact on him that it made.  
>>    I believe it is
>>    valuable to us because it is an exquisitely writtten document detailing
>>    what that experience is and means to him.  

   I am not saying this to be picky or anything but I find it interesting for
somebody to experience what Paul did and wrote exquisitely to reveal God's
nature and character, would insert sexist, neurotic, homophobic editorial 
comments in God's word.  I mean if they were so inaccurate, why would God 
allow Paul to misrepresent God's nature?

>>  What I know now compells me to want to know more.  

    Excellent!!  Press on toward the goal!!

>>    If there truly is one God and that one God is a
>>    Universal God,  Is not that one God the essential truth of all faith
>>    experiences no matter how interpreted by the individual.

   The issue of eternal life is not a belief in God.  If you read the book of
James, you will see some place where it says, "You believe in God, you do well.
The demons believe in God and shudder."  The belief in an eternal supreme being
is quite common throughout the world, from wealthy countries to the most
primative.  The key to eternal life is realizing our condition, realizing God's 
character and nature, then discovering how we will be redeemed from our
condition to be compatible with his condition.  Atonement, Redemption, 
Sanctification are the three most important elements we must focus on!

>>  Can we not find
>>  beauty and truth in reading it and understanding Paul by it, without
>>  feeling it is Thee Word on God, Faith, Christ, or Religion.  
  
There is a paperback I believe you would enjoy reading.  It is called Foxes
Book of Martyrs.  So many of the saints in the last 2000 years died 
anguishing horrible deaths in order to bring the message of the gospel to us
today.  Paul himself was beheaded in Jerusalem for preaching the cross.  
Even if the Bible didn't exist, that testimony alone tells me that we must
come to God on God's terms, not our own.
  
>>    What is there in Paul that is Universal Truth and what is there that is
>>    particular to one man having a specific experience on the Road to
>>   Damascus?

Excellent point.  Paul was a pharisee of Pharisees, knew the OT inside out, 
and after his conversion, realized that Christ fulfilled all the prophecies 
of the OT., something no mere human could have done.  

Best Rgds.,

-Jack
  

>   I mean if they were so inaccurate, why would God 
>   allow Paul to misrepresent God's nature?

    Misrepresent God?  Never happened before or since :*)

>   Paul himself was beheaded in Jerusalem for preaching the cross.  

    That doesn't make him right.  David Koresh died for his beliefs.
    That doesn't make him right, either.

    Tom

Re: Note 734.5                        
THOLIN::TBAKER "DOS with Honor!"                     11 lines   4-OCT-1993 12:59
    
Tom:                

>   I mean if they were so inaccurate, why would God 
>   allow Paul to misrepresent God's nature?

##    Misrepresent God?  Never happened before or since :*)

True.  I was challenging Patricia on the standpoint of whether Paul's opinions
of specific social issues of today were inspired by God or was Paul just a 
religious bigot!!

>   Paul himself was beheaded in Jerusalem for preaching the cross.  

**    That doesn't make him right.  David Koresh died for his beliefs.
**    That doesn't make him right, either.

True, I was using Paul as an example because Patricia expressed an admiration
for him.  All 12 apostles with the exception of John also died painful and 
horrible deaths.  Christ warned them that they would be persecuted for 
their beliefs and so they were.  They believed that the message of the cross 
was worth dying for.   Unlike David Koresh, Paul never claimed to be God him-
self, the messiah.  This is what makes Pauls account admirable and Koresh's
a sad tragedy!!

-Jack
                                    

    I read Patricia to say that Paul was worthy of both our admiration
    and our criticism.  I agree with that assessment.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Richard:
    
    If you were an administrative secretary and your boss requested you
    write a memo, then you chose not to write it because you were afraid it
    would hurt the recipients feelings, should you be admired or
    criticized?
    
    Best Rgds.

    .8 Jack,
    
    If I were an administrative sercretary and my boss requested me to
    write a memo, I suspect that memo wouldn't have entirely the same
    relevance to readers nearly 2,000 years from now living in a very
    different culture.  I have little doubt that Paul's perspective
    would be a similar one.
    
    I am a child of the Most Holy God.  Certainly, not everything I've
    ever done is worthy is admiration.  Neither am I in short supply of
    criticism directed towards me.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    In the case of Paul, it would have the same relevance as Paul deeply
    offended readers during the days of Rome as he is offending the readers
    of today.  I submit to you that if I read Romans chapter 1, vs. 21-30
    at a gay pride rally, I would be jeered at and quite possibly assaulted
    for my closeminded faith.  If Paul went into downtown Corinth and spoke
    in this manner during his day, I imagine he wouldn't have been met with
    high favorability.  
    
    I concede that Paul is looked upon as an arrogant sexist homophobe. 
    But is he necessarily incorrect in speaking his convictions and is he
    concisely representing God's character?
    
    -Jack
    

    .10
    
    You and I share a different view of Paul and Paul's world.
    
    Believe me, there's no shortage of jeering of me for proclaiming
    the things I believe.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Also see Topic 544, "Paul"
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Important:
    
    Richard, whose doing the jeering?
    
    -Jack

    .13 -Jack,
    
    No one I have any desire to become more like.  No one in whom I
    see a genuine Christ-likeness.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    There were divisions in the church of Corinth and Paul fought
    passionately to assert his point.  This makes Corinthians a wonderful
    letter to read.  Not as the innerrant word of God, but as the word of a
    person who passionately felt he had first hand revelation of the word
    of God.
    
    There are divisions within this notes file.  I think my way of
    interpreting scriptures is as right and inspired as Jack's, or Collis,
    or Richard's or anyone else's.  I am inspired by Paul's comments though
    that everything we do should be for building up.  It is the standard
    that I try to use in my own noting.
    
    I do choose to both admire what is best in Paul and criticize what is
    least.  I think that is all part of God's Wisdom.  There is divine
    truth in each of us.  We all have to sort out the wheat from the chaff.
    
    Oh my gosh,  these biblical metaphors are getting scary.
    
    
    Patricia
    
                                         Patricia

>    There is divine truth in each of us.

This is a flavor of Satan's original lie to Eve in the garden of Eden.
"You too can be like God".  Please do not be taken by it.  This leads to
essentially saying that you have wisdom to judge whether Scripture is
correct or not.

"The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God.  For who
among men knows the thoughts of a man except the man's spirit within
him?  In the same way noone knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit
of God."  1 Corinthians 2:10-11

From past notes, Patricia, I can see how you are very honest in searching
for truth - the real stuff.  I hope you do not get taken in by the basic
lie.

God bless,

-Steve

re Note 734.16 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> >    There is divine truth in each of us.
> 
> This is a flavor of Satan's original lie to Eve in the garden of Eden.
> "You too can be like God".  Please do not be taken by it.  This leads to
> essentially saying that you have wisdom to judge whether Scripture is
> correct or not.

        Was the serpent's lie "You too can be like God" or, rather,
        was the lie to believe that disobeying God by eating the
        fruit was necessary to "be like God"?

        Since it would seem that Adam and Eve had far more of the
        divine in them before they ate the fruit than after, the big
        lie appears to be the claim that God was withholding it from
        them, and that therefore they should disobey God to take what
        they didn't realize they already had.

        Patricia is NOT saying "disobey God and you will have divine
        truth in you", rather she is saying that one need not disobey
        God for one already has it.

        Another way of saying "there is divine truth in each of us"
        is to say that each is made in the image of God.  Now you may
        believe that this image has been tarnished by the fall, but
        are you claiming its total absence?


        By the way, if Patricia does not have the wisdom to judge
        (for herself) whether Scripture is correct or not, who does? 
        Her pastor?  You?  Collis?  The Pope?

        Or does she flip a coin?  Or wait and see if she has a warm
        fuzzy feeling or a "burning" after reading Scripture?

        A human being who has knowledge of Scripture cannot escape
        judging whether Scripture is correct or not.

        Bob

    And if the spirit searches all things even the deep things of God, the
    spirit also searches the account written by Paul and his student as
    recorded in the bible.  The Spirit of God lives within each of us. 
    Revelation is a gift not limited to Paul.  Paul is one man who lived at
    a particular time, of a particular social class, citizenship, and
    education.  Who he is, where he lived, and how he was educated all
    impacted his writings just as it does every philosopher or theologian. 
    His sexism, his homophobia, his upper middle class ethic, are all
    conditioned by his own experience.  Those all color his theology. 
    There is still great stuff in his theology in spite of its limits.  I
    am capable of knowing what is great stuff and what represents his
    limitation.
    
    I am quite confident that it was not divine revelation that suggested
    that his opponents castrate themselves. re Galations(5 I think)
    
    
    I  use my rationale mind in conjunction with the  the work of scholars and
    historians to help me interpret the Bible.
    
    Patricia

    re: .4
    
    I believe in the one Eternal God.  I believe that there are many
    revelation of that one God.  Jesus, Budha, Sister Theresa,Mahatma
    Ghandi, are all major characters who changed the world because of their
    experiences of the Eternal God.
    
    I choose Christianity as my window into Divine Truth.  I believe that
    Christianity is one way and not the only way.  For me the Christian
    Myths, symbols, theology, scriptures have all been socialized into me
    from my childhood.  They are part of me.  I find  beauty, and truth, and
    Goodness in many parts of Christianity.  I am aghast at beliefs that
    accept some of the ugliest scriptures and mythology as equally
    compelling to the Beautiful.  I am aghast at beliefs that claim that
    the Eternal God will condemn75-99% or more of humankind because of
    dogmatic reasons.  I am a religious liberal.  I am a liberal Christian
    Unitarian Universalist.
    
    I belief in the incarnation of the Divine in humankind.  I do have
    difficulty understanding the differences between the risen Christ, the
    Holy Spirit, Sophia, Divine Wisdom, and the Word become Flesh.  Are
    they all the same?
    
    Patricia

 I've scanned Galations a couple of times, and perhaps I've missed it,
 but where is Paul advocating folks castrating themselves?




 Jim

    It is precisely by obeying God that we realize the
    divine within.  Once again, His top priority is 
    "Love God, Love thy neighbor".

    When you experience this you realize that divinity
    permeates your soul and everything there is.  Not
    one part more (or less) than another.

    Tom

Re: Note 734.18                         
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"               

Hi Patricia:
    
   >> The Spirit of God lives within each of us. 
   
    Patricia, I don't know if Paul, a well known authority on Old Testament
    theology would agree with this.  There is an individuality of the Holy
    Spirit and the spirit of humans.  In the OT, The Holy Spirit would come
    upon individuals, and yes, even leave them.  I give you King Saul as an
    example of this as well as Sampson.  Remember King David in Psalm 51,
    that great repentance Psalm after David commited murder and adultery, he 
    said, "Create a clean heart in me Oh God and renew a right spirit within
    me.  Cast me not away from my presence and take not thy Holy Spirit from
    me."  Brings tears to my eyes when I read this, especially when I think 
    of my own shortcomings.  
    The great news of the New Testament is the Holy Spirit becomes a 
    permanent resident within the individual.  Paul himself stated in 
    Ephesians 1:13, "In whom you also trusted, after hearing the word of
    truth, the gospel of your salvation, in whom also after that you believed,
    you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise."  The gift of the HS
    requires hearing, trust, and believeing.  Without the Holy Spirit, we 
    stand eternally separated from God.  Another gem is John 1:12 stating,
    "For as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the 
    children of God."  

>>    His sexism, his homophobia, his upper middle class ethic, are all
>>    conditioned by his own experience.  Those all color his theology. 
>>    There is still great stuff in his theology in spite of its limits.  I
>>    am capable of knowing what is great stuff and what represents his
>>    limitation.
    
    How do you determine what is limitation as opposed to what is simply 
    medicine we don't wish to face.  Are you basing his limitations on what  
    is societally acceptable today?

>>    I am quite confident that it was not divine revelation that suggested
>>    that his opponents castrate themselves. re Galations(5 I think)
    
   The word castrate in that context, was used figuratively to mean they were
   to cast off the sin that entangled their lives.  Similar to, "If thy eye
   offend thee, pluck it out."
  
Best Rgds.,

-Jack
                     

Re: Note 734.19                        
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                    
   
        
>>    I choose Christianity as my window into Divine Truth.  I believe that
>>    Christianity is one way and not the only way.  

      I don't mean to be snide, honest, but don't these two sentences 
      contradict?
    
>>    I find  beauty, and truth, and Goodness in many parts of Christianity.  

      Yes, as do many of us!!

>>    I am aghast at beliefs that accept some of the ugliest scriptures and 
>>    mythology as equally compelling to the Beautiful.  I am aghast at beliefs 
>>    that claim that the Eternal God will condemn 75-99% or more of humankind 
>>    because of dogmatic reasons.  

    I don't think many people accept God's judgements as a beautiful thing.
    What I accept as an unfortunate fact, however, is that any, and I mean 
    any and every negative attribute of the whole thing is propogated by our
    rebellion, not by any desire God has to pronounce sentence.  The gospels
    affirm Jesus words that we and only we have full decisionmaking power in
    where we spend eternity.  The gospels lay out the plan and Paul teaches
    this through the churches he set up throughout Asia and Europe.  
    Patricia, we must meet God on His terms, not ours! 
    
>>    I do have difficulty understanding the differences between the risen 
>>    Christ, the Holy Spirit, Sophia, Divine Wisdom, and the Word become Flesh. 
>>    Are they all the same?
  
    The risen Christ, Divine Wisdom, and the Holy Spirit I believe are all 
    equal parts of the Godhead.  John 1:1 states the Word is God, therefore,
    Divine Wisdom is of God.  Sophia..I'd be interested in knowing who she is.
    If you were to ask me to speculate, is she a goddess within the Corinthian
    culture?

    -Jack
  

Re: Note 734.21                         

>>    It is precisely by obeying God that we realize the
>>    divine within.  Once again, His top priority is 
>>    "Love God, Love thy neighbor".

    Excellent point Tom.  This brings to mind an important question.  Is 
   rejecting the work of Christ on the cross an act of hating God?

-Jack

    RE: .24 Jack

>   Is rejecting the work of Christ on the cross an act of hating God?

    I'm not sure what this has to do with our discussion.  Could you
    please elaborate?
 
    Oh...  Are you saying that by rejecting some of what Paul wrote
    that it is in essence rejecting Christ?

    If that is what you're saying then I disagree.  When I reject what
    Paul wrote as applicable to me, I am rejecting what Paul wrote.  
    This is not rejecting Christ or His work.

    Some people see the words of Paul as the words of God.  I see them
    as the words of Paul.  Inspired?  Yes.  Can I learn something from
    them?  Yes.  Is he going to direct the way I live my life?  No.  I
    try to leave that to God (with widely varying degrees of success.)

    Tom

Note 734.22

>   >> The Spirit of God lives within each of us. 
   
>    Patricia, I don't know if Paul, a well known authority on Old Testament
>    theology would agree with this.

Didn't know that Paul was a renowned authority on Old Testament theology.
Do know that Paul was supposedly responsible for Colossians 1.26-27.  Of
course, you could argue that 'Christ in you' is not the same as the
'Spirit of God lives within each of us.'  Or you could argue that that
wasn't what Paul meant.

Peace,
Richard

    Yes, Paul was from the Tribe of Benjamin and was considered a Pharisee
    of all Pharisees.  Aside from their hypocrisy, the Pharisees were a
    sect of Israel that were extremely well versed in the Mosaic law. 
    Their downfall was that they used their knowledge to exploit the
    people.  They did this by twisting verses around.  This supports my
    statement that Paul was well grounded in Old Testament theology.
    
    If you read in Revelation 3:20 I believe, Jesus example of how he
    stands at the door of your life and knocks.  In order for Christ to
    dwell in us, we must open the door and invite Him in.  So in essence,
    Christ will not barge into your life and the Holy Spirit cannot dwell
    within you unless Christ is in your life.
    
    Tom- Let me ask you this, and this is strictly a "what if" question.
    If you had to accept ALL if Paul's writings as God breathed and truly
    representative of God's divine nature and being; or you had to reject
    ALL of his writings as not God breathed (I'm talking the perceived
    sexism, the homophobia (nonsense), everything), just out of curiosity,
    which way would you tend to lean?  I still stand on the premise that we
    cannot pick and choose what best fits into the mold of our life!
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    .27
    
    Yes, Paul was a Pharisee.  Your statement in .22 didn't say that Paul
    was well-grounded in Old Testament theology.  You said Paul was a
    well-known authority on Old Testament theology.  The twain may have
    some commonalty, but they're not the same.
    
    And yes, Christ stands at the door and knocks.  The will of God
    remains a matter of choice and decision, even to those who've
    accepted Christ.  It's never completely automatic.
    
    However, these things are not contradictory to the Spirit of God
    indwelling, even before a realization of same, which is the secret
    of which Paul spoke.  This is not to say that all are in union with
    Christ.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    OK, then let me try it from this angle :-)  In Pauls epistles,
    particularly Romans, he shows his deep knowledge of the Old Testament. 
    You will find he quoted the OT from many different Psalms, Historical
    books and the like.  I would say he was an authority on the OT.  
    I can't remember the number of OT quotes but it is very high.
    
    On the indwelling issue, I believe based on the scriptures that the
    Holy Spirit has limited Himself to those who choose to be redeemed and
    sanctified as pointed out by the Ephesians 1:13 scripture a few replies
    back.  A seal in the days of Rome was a mark of ownership and the Jews
    knew this term very well.  Pauls usage of the word seal identifies the
    ownership of the believer to God.  Problem is, He cannot own us unto we
    are willing to give our life to Him.  
    
    -Jack
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    Another thought.  It may be an issue of terminology; however, I believe
    once we ask Christ into our lives, we are in union with him forever.
    Like a husband wife relationship, they are supposed to be in union
    forever.  However, we do not always abide with Christ, just as we do
    not always abide with our spouses.  The couch is a lousy place to
    sleep!! :-(
    
    -Jack

    It ain't worth it to me to try to change your paradigm, Jack.
    I'm happy you're happy with the way you see it.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Actually, I wasn't trying to change paradigms, yours or mine.  Just
    figured that if I presented my thoughts on the issue with some form of
    reason, it might make people go Hmmmmmmm.  

    Oh, okay.  Thanks.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    RE: .27 Jack

>    Tom- Let me ask you this, and this is strictly a "what if" question.
>    If you had to accept ALL if Paul's writings as God breathed and truly
>    representative of God's divine nature and being; or you had to reject
>    ALL of his writings as not God breathed (I'm talking the perceived
>    sexism, the homophobia (nonsense), everything), just out of curiosity,
>    which way would you tend to lean?  I still stand on the premise that we
>    cannot pick and choose what best fits into the mold of our life!

    It's not an all or nothing thing.  I see Paul's writings as
    the inspired, impassioned song of a deeply devoted man.  He
    was not the first nor is he the last man to be so inspired.
    His song is his worship.  I believe it made him feel closer
    to God.  I hope it did.  But I see it as an example, not as
    God-breathed law.  It is God-breathed devotion and worship.
    The worship is divine.  The words taken out of that context
    are just words.  This is the worth of Paul: inspired worship.

    Until we can take our own love for God, make it ours and have
    it be an expression of OURSELVES it is just words and music.
    Until then it's putting words between us and the almighty.
    It's a little phoney.  It is the joyful celebration that you
    and God are together in the Universe that really matters.
    Everything else is just "stuff".  Yes, be grateful to Christ
    for showing you the way.  And be grateful to Paul for showing
    you another expression of worship.  It is an example, not
    an edict.

    It is an expresson of yourself, of your whole self.  You get
    out of it what you put into it.  If it isn't completely of 
    you and all of you, then you're missing out on the experience 
    of eternity.

    Good morning :-)

    Tom

    One thing that is clear from reading 1st Corinthians is that there
    always was division within the Christian Church.  Paul's attempt to
    resolve those difference mainly by asserting the authority of his own
    vision is the major purpose of the letter.  Paul's letter talks with or
    alludes to four strands of Christianity(some scholars say three). 
    Paul's message, Peters Message, Appollo's message i.e. Hellenistic
    Christianity and perhaps the Gnostic Message.  For a while Western 
    Christianity became very authoritian and Hierarchical and enforced an
    their breed or "orthodoxy".  Ultimately the reformation revolutionized
    Christianity.  THe Scism ultimately lead to the spirit of freedom and
    group interpretation.  The spirit sure did blow where it would. Today
    there is no consensus regarding what Christianity means.  Some think
    this to be negative.  I think it is positive.  This allows God to talk
    with each of us as s/he will.  Paul had an impossible task convincing
    the Corinthians that his vision of the risen Christ was the only vision
    possible.  2000 years most Christians understand that there are
    multiple images of Jesus/Christ potrayed in the Christian scriptures
    and Paul's is only one.  Paul's vision is however the vision that we
    can know the most about because we have his own words and letters from
    a multiple year time span.  Of course we have changes in his own
    thinking also reflected in those letters.  The study of Paul certainly
    is fascininating.
    
    By the way  The Famous Galation quote is Gal 5:12.  
    
    Patricia
    

    Yes, the study of the epistles is very intriguing.  Especially when the 
    writing came from a man who once persecuted the church, then suddenly
    found he was the random element in building churches throughout Asia
    Minor and Europe.
    
    As somebody who has chosen Christianity as your window to the divine, I
    would very much be interested in your interpretation of John 14:6.  I
    realize we each have our own foundations if you will.  We don't always
    see eye to eye on the authority of the Bible.  Just interested in how
    somebody with your philosophy on the ways to eternal life would react
    to such a claim.  I would perceive you would think Jesus to be quite
    arrogant in making such a claim.  Any thoughts on this?
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    I will read it over the weekend and let you know.
    
    I will give you my reaction based on the potrayal of jesus in that 
    Passage.  For you the Potrayal of Jesus and the real Jesus are
    equivalent.  For me Jesus is Potrayed differently in each location and
    I make my assumptions about the Real Jesus based on an evaluation of
    all the different images potrayed.  My initial impressons on the Book
    of John have not been real impressive.  John does not attempt to potray
    the Historic Jesus.  It will be interesting study John after studying
    Paul.  I think there are a lot of similarities.
    
    Patricia

    My journey continues.
    
    To squeeze in an extra credit I signed up for and attended a one credit
    weekend course at Emanuel tittled "Images of God." It was wonderful.
    
    I knew almost nothing about the course or the school.  Just that as of last
    week 7 women were signed up.  I like small intimate women's groups so I
    figured it would be a great experience.  I picture it somewhat akin to
    my women's spirituality group that evolved out of my "Cakes for the
    Queen of Heaven Course at church".
    
    It was similiar. Except most of the participants were nuns.  This was
    my first real experience of what Catholicism is all about and I was
    amazed.  These women and One man were asking the same questions I am. 
    The instructor was terrific.  I freely asked every theological question
    I could and she and my classmates had wonderful answers.  The instructor
    had a terrific approach to the Bible.  Describing the Bible as the word of
    God does not mean that the Bible was breathed by God but that each time we
    read the Bible the Bible becomes the Word of God for us.  Of course we read
    the Bible through our own thoughts and questions.  But how else would
    we get answers to our thoughts and questions.
    
    The course was on Images of God and we were encouraged to image all
    kinds of images of God.  Mother, Father, Light, Womb, Eagle, Wisdom,
    Word, Bride, Companion, Shepherd, Savoir, Friend.  It was a pastoral
    counseling course and a lot of attention was toward healing
    dysfunctional images of God.  I left learning a whole lot and committed
    to learning a whole lot more about Catholicism particularly of the
    liberal variety. This course seems like another life altering event for
    me.  Or at least an attitude altering event.
    
    Patricia

Patricia and I have (I think) agreed to disagree.  But, there may be some
read-only folks who may get some use from this...

>    Describing the Bible as the word of
>    God does not mean that the Bible was breathed by God

I wonder how this teacher would "interpret" the verse: "All scripture is
God-breathed..."

>    Of course we read
>    the Bible through our own thoughts and questions.  But how else would
>    we get answers to our thoughts and questions.

The way I read this, one is filtering what the Bible says through some
preconceived notions of how things really are.  This is to elevate one's
ideas above what God says about them.  This is a major problem in learning
to know God and what He requires.

>    The course was on Images of God and we were encouraged to image all
>    kinds of images of God.

The Bible already gives very specific and, I would say, intended, images of
God - his attributes as given by his various names, and specific things
like "Father".  By encouraging all kinds of images, one is again getting
dangerously close to having one's mind define God; again, putting God in
a human-defined role/image/model.


-Steve

    re .39
    
    "All scripture is God-breathed" sounds to me like what Patricia stated;
    namely that we read, God then breathes; scripture comes alive.
    
    It's just amazing HOW each of us interprets the "correct" meaning of
    scripture; so, thanks for supporting Patricia's recollection
    
    	:-)
    

    Unfortunately, it is not the same thing.  The impression I get from
    Patricia's writing is that although scripture is divinely inspired, we
    can interpret it to fit our own image of God.  Did I hit it fairly
    close Patricia?
    
    -Jack

    .41  You do whether do it consciously or not.  Everybody reads the
    Bible through filters.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Fair enough, but I will say that I have changed my mind on issues when
    they were taught to me.  I guess the fairest way to phrase it is that
    mixing biblical doctrine with baal worship and secular humanism can be
    a dangerous thing.  The term Queen of Heaven for example, originates
    from Baal worship and was a component in the idol worship of the wiped
    out countries surrounding Israel.  Also in Corinth during the days of
    Paul and the days of the Babylonian exile.  At least those who follow 
    this should check for themselves.  It is historical and can probably be 
    found in and Biblical Encyclopedia or commentary.  Can't hurt to at
    least check it out!
    
    -Jack 

    Interestingly the "Queen of Heaven" phrase is used both in Jerimiah
    referring to Baal worship and I believe in the new Testament referring
    to Mary's "ascension"?.  Coming from the Protestant tradition, I do not
    know much about Mary but the comparison is interesting.
    
    If I become a UU minister I will be a minister to secular humanist,
    agnostics, Neo-Pagan, Christians, Jews, etc, etc.  We have a different
    challenge with divisions within the church than Paul did in
    Corinthians.
    
    I'm writing a paper on Corinthian 10 where Paul answers, Can Christian's
    eat meat sacrificed to idols.  The answer is yes because Paul's Christian's
    know that there is but one God. 
    
    Reflecting on that passage clarifies my feelings about participating in
    Neo-pagan ritual.  Since there is but one Divine, then the Divine I
    encounter in Neo-Pagan ceremonies is the same Divine I encounter in
    Christian ceremonies.  King of Heaven, Queen of Heaven, God, Lord,
    Goddess, Rock, Light, Wisdom, Sophia, Gertrude...They are all human
    images of the Mystery some call God.
    
    Patricia

    re: 39
    
    I like it.  God-Breathed- over and over and over again-.  Everytime we
    read it.  God speaking directly to us through the scripture.
    
    Patricia

    There seems to be a play of words going on here and I just
    want to be sure I have it right.

    "Inspire" can mean either "breathe" or "direct or get excited".
    Am I hearing that "God-breathed" could actually mean "God-inspired".
    The two terms can take on vastly different "weight".
    
    Tom

    Tom .46,
    
    The Greek word for "inspired" in the text under discussion can also
    be translated "God-breathed."
    
    I'll bet you can now guess who prefers which translation, can't you?? ;-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re .44

>    Interestingly the "Queen of Heaven" phrase is used both in Jerimiah
>    referring to Baal worship and I believe in the new Testament referring
>    to Mary's "ascension"?.
Mary did not ascend (as in Jesus' ascension), and as far as I know the
term is not used.  But this is tangential...

>    I'm writing a paper on Corinthian 10 where Paul answers, Can Christian's
>    eat meat sacrificed to idols.  The answer is yes because Paul's Christian's
>    know that there is but one God. 
>   
>    Reflecting on that passage clarifies my feelings about participating in
>    Neo-pagan ritual.  Since there is but one Divine, then the Divine I
>    encounter in Neo-Pagan ceremonies is the same Divine I encounter in
>    Christian ceremonies.

I assume you're working thru v23-33 here?  Please back up a bit (to v14-22)
for a closer analogy to a Christian's participation in Neo-pagan (or other
non-Christian) ritual.

Yes, eating the meat (from the market - not during a ritual) is ok.  It
comes from God and we can be thankful for that.  However, Paul says, if
someone eating with you mentions that it's been sacrificed, then don't.
There is no blanketing ok for being involved in pagan idol worship.

-Steve

re: Note 734.48 by Steve Huston

>Mary did not ascend (as in Jesus' ascension), and as far as I know the
>term is not used.  But this is tangential...

Perhaps the intended term is Assumption?  "The bodily taking up of the Virgin 
Mary into heaven after her death", celebrated by feast on August 15.

That's all I know about it, I think this is out of Roman Catholic theology, 
perhaps one of our Catholic siblings can expand on this.  (oh, no bashing is 
intended by this.)

Peace,

Jim

    Did you miss the point in Paul?  When he says if someone mentions the
    meat is sacrificed to idols, then you don't because of the other's
    conscience, not your own.  
    
    Paul's letter is culturally conditioned particularly with regard to
    Paganism.  Paganism is the predominant culture and Christianity is the
    minority culture.  Neither modern Christianity nor Modern Paganism is
    the same as 50 CE Paganism and Christianity.   I don't believe that
    there are real Persons  like Gods and Goddesses anymore than I
    believe that there is a real person like Christ standing or sitting in
    some Astral Heaven screening all God's messages.  I believe there is
    one God and One Holy Spirit which is the Spirit of Love, and that we
    are all capable of participating in the "Body of Christ" or
    "Interdependent Web of Existence"  when we accept that Holy Spirit/Spirit
     of Love into our hearts and let all of our actions emanate from our 
    encounter with that Divine Spirit.  That is the essential message of
    Paul.  Persons of Faith are not underlaw because all their actions
    emanate from the Holy Spirit within.  Paul Abhorred religion based on
    compliance to law and not Faith in a Living Spirit.  That is what Paul
    was so angry about in Gal 5:12.  People did not understand that they
    did not need to be circumsized because physical circumcism was
    adherence to the law rather than to Faith.
    
    Paul today would abhor fundementalism.  In fact in was Judaic
    fundamentalism which so angered him.  Written Laws cannot survive into
    perpetualility.  1 Cor 8-10 and Romans 14-15 both state that is the
    "weak" who crave  narrow, obsessive laws as a sign of Faith.  In
    Christ, Paul's Christians did not need any laws.  The only criteria was
    that they act out of faith for the benefit of their brothers and
    sisters and the Glory of God.
    
    Paul is a wonderful Theologian, once we let go of the culturally
    conditioned stereotypes.
    
    Patricia 

    Thanks Jim. 
    
    Assumption is the term I was looking for.
    
    So does Mary's bodily assumption make her a Goddess?  How is this in
    reality different than Jesus' ascension.  Or is the difference just a
    matter of Male and Female?
    

    
.    So does Mary's bodily assumption make her a Goddess?  How is this in
 

     I'm not sure where Mary's assumption is discussed in the Bible, but
 I do know that Mary was a human, and God cautions us against worshipping
 the created over the creator.  She is not a "Goddess".


 .  reality different than Jesus' ascension.  Or is the difference just a
 .   matter of Male and Female?
    


   Jesus, while on earth was human *and* God.  His ascension is considerably
 different.  Its the difference between Creator (God/Jesus) and creature.
 


 Jim

    Roman Catholics do not regard Mary as a goddess.
    
    Pax,
    Richard

    But Roman Catholics and other Trinitarian Christians do regard Jesus as a
    "God"?
    
    Why the difference?
    
    Patricia

    re: .50
    
    By Golly, I think you've got it!
    
    	:-)
    

>    But Roman Catholics and other Trinitarian Christians do regard Jesus as a
>    "God"?
>    
>    Why the difference?

'Cause Jesus was a boy and Mary was a girl...

:*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) 
:*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) :*) 

    RE: .47 Richard,

>    The Greek word for "inspired" in the text under discussion can also
>    be translated "God-breathed."
>    
>    I'll bet you can now guess who prefers which translation, can't you?? ;-)

    Of course the Bible is God-inspired!  I've been God-inspired at
    times as well.  That didn't make be unerrable, even then.

    To be God-inspired or filled with the Holy Spirit goes beyond what
    is true.  That state of grace is what the Bible is all about.  It's
    worth is not so much in the "rules" is "lays down" but rather the
    inspiration it gives you to bounce you out of this mundane existance
    and into God's Love.  They are words to push you, not to get stuck on.
    
    Tom

>    But Roman Catholics and other Trinitarian Christians do regard Jesus as a
>    "God"?

Unless he is God (GOD, the one and only God, not "a" "God"), he was a very
very bad man.  (as C.S. Lewis argues.)  He did and said things that were
perfectly blasphemous for anyone but God to do and say.  He forgave sins.
He said that he was one with the Father.  He said that noone comes to the
Father but by him.
    
>    Why the difference?

Because Jesus is the Incarnate God, fully God and fully Human.  Mary is
the human instrument of his birth, and the source of his humanity.

Her Assumption into heaven is no different than our own eventual resurrection.
She, who asked for nothing, has been given much.

/john

This is to all of the folks who would care to answer.  I specifically want
to hear from the set of more active participants here.


Who do you say Jesus is?


Plain, simple, to the point please.
I will wait for a while, then reply with why I ask this.

-Steve

re .59

>who do you say Jesus is?

The only-begotten Son of God.  Begotten of the Father before all Worlds.

God of God.  Light of Light.  Very God of Very God.

Begotten, not made.  Being of one substance with the Father.

By whom all things were made.

Re:  .57

I tried to find the note in this notes conference where I discussed
the Greek word pneumatos which is usually (poorly) translated
"inspired" (primarily for historical reasons).  Inspiration is
the opposite of God-breathed.  In one, a revelation comes to a
person but what he/she senses/feels.  In the other, God Himself
reveals something to someone.  I can be "inspired" by a sunset,
but a sunset never revealed anything to me.

Scripture was God-breathed, not [simply] inspired according to
II Timothy 3:16.  Now defining what "Scripture" means is a whole
'nother [string of] note[s] (which is also around here :-) ).

Collis

    RE: .59 I think John summed it up pretty will in .60. Jesus is God.
    The same God we refer to as the Father and the Holy Spirit.
    
    		Alfred

    .59  Also see topic 308 "The Christ."
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>    .59  Also see topic 308 "The Christ."

That's a discussion.  I'm looking for plain, simple statements.   Thanks.

-Steve

    Seems to me that "breathin'" takes two strokes: one out and one in. 
    So, when God's breathin' maybe God is inhaling the stuff of us - and
    perhaps sometimes God gets good sensing inhales and sometimes
    otherwise.
    
    	?
    

re Note 734.61 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Scripture was God-breathed, not [simply] inspired according to
> II Timothy 3:16.  Now defining what "Scripture" means is a whole
> 'nother [string of] note[s] (which is also around here :-) ).
  
        Whoa!  What is the meaning of "God-breathed"?  Since it is a
        phrase, one can't find it in a dictionary.  We may have to
        look elsewhere, for example in the Bible, to see what that
        figure of speech might mean.

        In Genesis 2:7 "And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of
        the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
        life; and man became a living soul."

        In Job 4:9 "By the blast of God they perish, and by the
        breath of his nostrils are they consumed."

        Job 33:4 "The spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of
        the Almighty hath given me life."

        Job 37:10 "By the breath of God frost is given ..."

        Isaiah 42:5 "Thus saith God the LORD, he that created the
        heavens, and stretched them out; he that spread forth the
        earth, and that which cometh out of it; he that giveth breath
        unto the people upon it, and spirit to them that walk
        therein:"

        So what do you say "God-breathed" means?

        Bob

Re: .59 Steve

>Who do you say Jesus is?

I don't think I know enough about Jesus to be able to answer this with any
confidence.  If I had to guess, I'd say that Jesus was a religious teacher
with many insights that are still relevant today.  His message was
misunderstood by his followers, who provided the only written record of
Jesus's words.  Thus, the record we have in the gospels is, IMO, most
likely distorted.

				-- Bob

re: Note 734.61 by Colls "DCU fees?  NO!!!" 

> I can be "inspired" by a sunset, but a sunset never revealed anything to me.

Gee, that's too bad.  I've had several significant revelations from God 
speaking through Creation.

Peace,

Jim

Re:  .68

Let me explain more clearly.  The sunset itself
did not speak to you - it has no voice, no mind, no thoughts, no
way to communicate.  Either your brain found something
"inspirational" in the sunset and processed it or God Himself
revealed something to you.  You are right that the sunset may have 
been a median (just as words are a median), but the revelation was 
(ultimately) from God, not the sunset.  As a median, however, I
think sunsets are wide open to interpretation and thus a poor
way to *know* God.  Words are difficult enough even when they
are clear.

Collis

Seek and ye shall find.

Peace,

Jim

    I wish to reinforce my remark in .53.
    Roman Catholics do not regard Mary as a goddess.
    
    Indeed, Mary is deeply revered, but she is never worshiped.
    
    Her child Jesus, over whom she had no small influence, is regarded
    by Trinitarians as the Incarnation; the Word (Logos) made flesh (even
    more literally, made meat); ineffably God in inextricably human form.
    
    I believe that in Greek mythology Hera, the wife of Zeus, was known
    as the queen of the gods and may have also been called queen of heaven.
    Her Roman counterpart was Juno.  Juno was the wife of Jupiter, the king
    of the gods.
    
    Dona Nobis Pacem,
    Richard

    To Answer, Who is the Christ?
    
    Jesus was the ultimate and ONLY sacrifice before God to pay for the sin
    of the world.  His credibility is proven by His ascension and his
    fulfillment of the OT prophecies.  
    
    -Jack

Re: Note 734.50                       

Patricia:
    
>>    That is the essential message of
>>    Paul.  Persons of Faith are not underlaw because all their actions
>>    emanate from the Holy Spirit within.  Paul Abhorred religion based on
>>    compliance to law and not Faith in a Living Spirit.  

      Patricia, you don't know how refreshing it is to here this!!  To hear
     you state that good works come from God and not from our good is indeed
     insightful and from God!!

>>    That is what Paul was so angry about in Gal 5:12.  People did not 
>>   understand that they did not need to be circumsized because physical 
>>   circumcism was adherence to the law rather than to Faith.
  
    Yes, the Judaizers of that day told them they must go back to Judaism in
    order to then be saved.  Even Peter, one of Jesus' closest apostles
    believed this until Paul set him straight.
  
>>    Paul today would abhor fundementalism.  In fact in was Judaic
>>    fundamentalism which so angered him.  Written Laws cannot survive into
>>    perpetualility.  1 Cor 8-10 and Romans 14-15 both state that is the
>>    "weak" who crave  narrow, obsessive laws as a sign of Faith.  In
>>    Christ, Paul's Christians did not need any laws.  The only criteria was
>>    that they act out of faith for the benefit of their brothers and
>>    sisters and the Glory of God.
  
Keep in mind that Pauls anger was at the church slipping back into just-
ification by the Mosaic law.  His anger was at the false teachers and his
exhortation to the flock was well needed.  You use the word fundementalism
with a broad brush.  If you say that Paul would abhor Christian fundamentalism,
I would be interested in a few examples of the narrow laws you refer to.  Also,
if I heard you correctly above, I beg to differ in one aspect.  Paul's 
Christians certainly do not need laws to justify themselves before God.  That
is what the cross is for.  Paul did however set up laws and guidelines for the
establishment of the local church and guidelines for walking in the Spirit.
As Paul stated, All things are lawful but not all things are expedient. 
  
-Jack    
         

    Jack,
    
    A person under faith today does not need Paul's laws, or the Church's
    laws any more than Paul needed Moses Laws.  A person under Faith is
    driven by God to right actions.  Of course compliance with Biblical
    laws, Church Laws, Civic Laws may make sense out of convenience in some
    circumstances.  It takes too much effort to meditate on every action. 
    Sometimes it is easier to follow the path others have followed.  On
    difficult, important decisions though it is absolutely essential to act
    according to conscience and not to law.  There are many examples today
    of evils that are committed out an attempt at absolute compliance with
    Biblical Laws many of them cited, correctly or incorrectly from Paul.
    My theology is a liberation theology.  Scriptures are used or have been
    used throughout history to oppress Blacks, Women,
    Gay/Lesbian/Bisexuals,Poor People,Pagans, Jews, and probably many
    others.  Oppression is evil and using scriptures in defense of
    oppression is even more evil.
    
    Patricia
    Radical Feminist
    Amateur Liberation Theologian
    And Proud of it.

    Patricia,
    
    I wish (for you) that you were taking courses when Orlando Costas was
    still living.  You undoubtably would learn a lot on Liberation Tgy from
    him.  He was one fine Dean!
    
    Read his "...Outside the Gates" or Guttierez if you're interested.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    
    ps: or take Systematics with Sam Solivan or you want a LT perspective
        on Systematics.
    

    Well Patricia:
    
    If you read Pauls letter to the Romans, you will find in Ch. 7 and 8
    that while we are free from the law of Moses and now under the law of 
    grace, there is still the sin issue we have to deal with.  In 7, Paul
    says that there is a constant battle between the flesh and the Spirit.
    Both are at emnity with each other and waging war constantly.  We
    cannot ignore this attribute of Gods holiness and our attribute of
    unholiness.  The two must have some way of co-existence.  This is where
    the cross comes into play.  I also submit to you that there is a
    distinction between behavior and condition.  Being Jewish or Black for
    example, is what one is.  Sexual orientation is quite another matter. 
    
    Re: Radical Feminism - With all due respect, I have not seen much good
    come from this movement.  How has the feminist movement changed the
    role of women in our society over the last 15 years?  Just curious. 
    Maybe I can learn something here!!
    
    -Jack

    "sexual orientation" may ALSO be what one IS.  Do you think
    gays/lesbians all wish to be gays/lesbians?  (I don't).
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    Jack,
    
    50% of new Doctors, lawyers, Accountants, Business persons are now
    women.  Men as well as women are going into Teaching, Nursing, Human
    Services professions.  50% of the students in Andover Newton Theology
    School are women.  Men are having more opportunities to care for and
    share in the nuturing of children then they ever have before.  Men and
    Women today although a long way from an end to sexist stereotypes have
    a lot more choices than ever before.  Women are learning to be more
    assertive.  Men are learning to be more relational.  All people are
    being encouraged to get in touch with all there emotions.  At times I
    still feel oppressed as a women but there is no other time in History
    when I would preferred to have lived.  Women are making there own
    choices about how the bodies are used and by whom.
    
    Do any of these freedoms make you uncomfortable?  why?
    
    Patricia

    Ron,
    
    Thanks for the advice.  At one course a semester there are a whole lot
    more interesting courses than I can take.  Sometimes it is the course
    that is offered at night time that dictates my choice.  
    
                                    Patricia

    yup, Patricia!  I've been EXACTLY in the same spot.  For four of my
    seminary years were spent living in Manchester, NH., working fulltime
    generally as an independent s/w consultant, going to ANTS (minimum)
    fulltime so that I qualified for scholastic financial aid (around 50%). 
    So, I too needed to take as many courses as possible on one trip to
    ANTS.  I often took two evening courses, stayed the night at ANTS and
    took a morning course the next morning.  Then the trip was made back
    to NH for a long day/night at work.  Fun, huh?
    
    Ah, the good ol' days when you even brought your texts to the bathroom,
    when you picked them up at a red light ...
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    
    ps: you REALLY are invited to our ordination if you can make it!
    

    Actually Patricia, I see all the list you gave as positive attributes
    in our society.  Please understand, I am a firm believer in achievement
    of both sexes and, hey, if my wife makes more money than me, more power
    to her!  If I lose a job to a woman because she was more qualified, I
    wish her the best.  I admit openly that things have obviously changed
    for the better in the last 20 years or so.
    
    There is nothing wrong with taking pride in ones gender.  There is
    nothing wrong with striving forward for the betterment of equal rights.
    Having said that, I believe the radical feminist movement is a sect of
    the cause that a high majority of women would prefer to disassociate
    with.  Women such as Bella Absook and Gloria Steinham do not stand for
    womens rights, they stand for liberal feminist rights.  (Ask Kay Bailey
    Hutchinson, she'll confirm this).  I see the radical feminist movement
    as a waning splinter of the womens movement, pushing for legislation
    against the family and with an ultimate goal of changing the roles of
    men and women.  As you may or may not know, the National Organization
    for Women is made up heavily of lesbian/bisexual women.  NOW has an
    agenda to assert their own programs through congress, the public school
    system, etc.  Maybe this is part of the reason the Public Schools are
    failing.  These are programs that I as a parent choose not to avail
    myself of, yet I as a taxpayer am called insensitive for bringing forth
    my opinion.  Kind of a ..You have to pay but you have no say...issue.
    To recap, the radical feminist movement is NOT for womens rights, they
    are for liberal women with an ideological agenda.  The Texas Senate
    Race very openly confirms this.  
    
    In closing, I would also like to point out that I was openly
    discriminated against due east of Littleton, Mass.  Seems a document
    with a job description went out and was drenched with, "white males
    need not apply".  Regardless of the big boy network (and I agree it is
    a big problem), government sponsored discrimination programs are not
    the way to go.  They only widen the gap between race and gender.  I
    only say this to let you know that oppression is no stranger to me
    either even though I probably don't experience it as much.
    
    Best,
    
    -Jack
    
    

        Yes, reverse discrimination is wrong.

    Patrick Henry of "Give me liberty or give me death" fame responded when
    asked about the Constitution "I smell a rat."  The radicals can push
    issues but the issues usually settle down where they need to, as in a
    compromise.  The same goes for the radical feminists.  They get us to
    think and often the right choice comes of it and usually that choice
    falls far short of what the radicals want.

    I disagree with the radical feminist agenda.  It would relegate me to a
    status below that of women 30 years ago.  But they have some good
    points.

    As for the schools, I think radical feminism is the least of their
    problems.  Parental attitudes have much more to do with how well a
    child learns than anything else.

    Tom

    Jack, Jim,
    
    I am not going to debate your notions of what radical feminism is.  I
    wish you would both do some self exploration regarding what this really
    means to you.  I do think men have as much to gain as women but white
    men have to learn and accept that there are many, many doors that are
    automatically opened to them just because they are white men.  The laws
    that try to promote equal access whether they are the right approach or
    not do not even come close to balancing the power structure that
    exists.  Being a radical Feminist to me means that I believe that every
    man, woman, and child should have the opportunity to be the best that
    they can be in whatever they choose.  That every man, woman, and child
    should be encouraged to be themselves, to follow their passions and
    desires and not have doors closed to them because of sex, color, race,
    religioun, personality type, social status, income, or sexual
    orientation.
    
    The association of radical feminist with Lesbianism is a common scare
    tactic.  Yes, radical feminism does affirm every women's right to be
    who they are and who they want to be.  Radical Feminism recognizes all
    women as sisters including heterosexual women, Lesbians, and Bisexual Women.
    Radical Feminism requires each one of us, heterosexual or homosexual to
    explore our own homophobia and confront our own fear of how it feels to
    be labeled "Lesbian" for our beliefs.
    
    Radical Feminism supports Men's liberation as well as Women's
    liberation.  Men too can be radical feminists. Radical Feminism for me
    means understanding my own anger at the oppression I have felt as a
    women and to make sure that it does not get misdirected at individual
    men.
    
    Patricia 
    

    Based on what you said then, I take it you are against affirmative
    action since AA does not support equal rights regardless of race,
    color, or creed.  Yes, there is certainly a good ole boy network in
    corporate America.  Government intervented programs are a form of
    facism that do not address the heart issue and, again, I submit that
    they are a deterrent in race and gender relations.
    
    Your statement of how all women are sisters is incorrect.  I know many
    many women who feel that radical feminism is a blotch on the name of
    womanhood.  My standing is irrelevant, I am just stating a fact.
    
    I also get a real kick out of this "homophobia" title that is used so
    matter of factly.  My roommate in college told me last year (12 years
    later) that he is gay and knew about this since he was a young boy.  It
    was good he told me this as it gave me the opportunity to see how I
    would respond.  Wasn't afraid...didn't write him off.  I just asked him
    if he was happy.  He stated he wasn't.  I told him I would pray that
    God would lift this bondage from him.  End of episode.
    
    Patricia, the radical feminist movement has to realize they can't hide
    behind name calling and finger pointing such as homophobe.  To disagree
    with ones ideology is not a form of phobia, it is strictly a difference
    of opinion.  Homophobia is simply a poor chosen political correctness
    term.  
    
    Best Regards,
    
    -Jack

    Perhaps my concept of what a radical feminist is is outdated.

    I went to hear Robin Morgan speak some 20 years ago (!)
    She advocated making the Catholic Church a target because
    they oppress women.

    She also disallowed men to even ask questions after the talk
    because (paraphrased) "men tend to ask dumb questions".

    Perhaps she did it for shock effect, but this has defined
    what I see as radical feminism.

    Has radical feminism mellowed in the past 20 years?
    Is/was Robin Morgan on the fringe?
    Is radical feminism a sufficiently broad term so it
    emcompasses a (very) wide spectrum of feminist thought?
    Can I call myself a radical feminist simply because I
    believe that women deserve equil pay for equil work?

    I'm not trying to be antagonistic here.  I hope I  don't
    come across that way.

    Thank you for whatever input.

    Tom

    Tom,
    
    Perhaps radical is a bad choice of words.   
    
    I would like to see every women I know involved in a womens group and
    every man I know involved in a men's group.  A serious introspective
    kind of group.  Then I would like to see serious discussions between
    the men's groups and the women's group.  I have done this once on a
    retreat.  All the women went off in did sisterhood stuff.  All the men
    went off in did brotherhood stuff.  Then the men told the women what it
    was like to be men and the women told the men what it was like to be
    women.  It was powerful.  It was the first time that I truly understood
    that sensitive  men are just as oppressed by systemic sexism as
    women are.
    
    I do believe that sexism in all its forms is evil.  The "Old boys
    network" running the Catholic church promotes outright sexism.  I would
    like to see this changed.  I recognized last week at my class in
    Emanuel that the Catholic church is not the same thing as the Catholic
    Hierarchy of the church.  The Catholic church is the community of
    people who define themselves as participating in the church.  Feminist
    women in the Catholic community have two choices.  Stay within the
    church and fight oppression from within or get out of the church and
    either ignore the oppression or fight it from without.  I don't know
    whether that makes me a radical feminist.  I have never been a Catholic
    so I have never had to make that choice.
    
    I do not approve of male bashing in any of its forms.  There are too
    many caring, men out there to blame them for all the evils of sexism. 
    I do though expect caring sensitive men to be committed to equality.
    
    Patricia

    


.    I would like to see every women I know involved in a womens group and
.    every man I know involved in a men's group.  A serious introspective
.    kind of group.  Then I would like to see serious discussions between
 

 
       We did this Saturday at my church.  We had a men's prayer 
       breakfast (which included our male children) We had a big
       breakfast and fellowship time, followed by a brief message 
       from our associate pastor dealing with our roles in our families
       and then broke up into small prayer groups.  It was uplifting
       and powerful.  

       I wasn't present at the women's gathering but I understand it 
       was equally uplifting and both seems to have united us all in
       our desire to serve God and our community.       




    Jim
       

    Jim,
    
    Sounds great to me.
    
    
    Patricia

    RE: .86  Pat
    
    Thanks for the clarification.
    
    I remember Robin Morgan actually advocating the bombing of
    Catholic churches.  Personally, I can't see you, or many other
    women, doing this.  Protesting?  Picketing?  Yes.  But bombing?
    No.  Apparently, *Radical* feminism is quite rare, as defined
    by Ms Morgan.  "Regular" Feminism seems to be alive and well.

    But she *DID* get me to think.  I remember that night and
    what she said even after 20 years!  (Spring 1973)  I even
    remember her name and I tend to be lousy with names.  That's
    quite an impression!

    Tom

re Note 734.89 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     Protesting?  Picketing?  Yes.  But bombing?
>     No.  Apparently, *Radical* feminism is quite rare, as defined
>     by Ms Morgan.  "Regular" Feminism seems to be alive and well.

        You seem to be interpreting the word "radical" to mean
        militant and/or violent.  It can mean something much more
        benign, i.e., fundamental.

        (Yes, fundamentalism may lead some to destroy individuals and
        institutions, but such a response to fundamentalism isn't
        inherent in the term.)

        Bob

    Hmmmm... Looks like this could get into a "terminology" thing
    similar to the difference between "fundamental" vs "evangelical"
    discussion we had.

    I interpret "radical" to mean "drastic".  Frequently, this
    can mean violent.  (We could get into surgical terms but
    I'm afraid I'd forget what conference I was in and start
    flaming :*)

    Am I right?  I dunno.  Until someone corrects me (and that's
    *not* a challange) I'm gonna think I'm right.

    Words.

    Tom

    I would describe myself as radical in many respects.  Radical
    means "rooted" or centered.  It comes from the same word as
    radius and radish.
    
    I believe Jesus called us to radical living; extreme, non-traditional
    *and* rooted.
    
    I personally never use the terms radical and the religious right
    together.  To me, they create a non-sequitur.
    
    Richard

    
>Radical means "rooted" or centered.  

    In what dictionary did you find this definition? Mine lists
    "Fundamental; basic" as the first definition. This sounds very much
    like the religious right to me. The second definition listed is 
    "carried to the farthest limit; extreme." This could also easily be
    applied to the religious right. Third listed is "Advocating extreme or
    revolutionary changes." Now *that* sounds more like you. :-)

    			Alfred

re: Note 734.93 by Alfred "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" 
    
>    In what dictionary did you find this definition? 

Alfred, it sounds like you have the same dictionary as me (American Heritage)

The etymology of the word is from the Late Latin radicalis, meaning "having 
roots" , according to the same dictionary.

Some of the various definitions reminded me of some of the participants here, 
as well.  .-)

Peace,

Jim

>The etymology of the word is from the Late Latin radicalis, meaning "having 
>roots" , according to the same dictionary.

    Etymology is interesting stuff but knowing where a word is derived from
    doesn't always tell one what it means today. For example, awful used
    to be a very positive word meaning "full of awe." It was used
    sarcastically enough to reverse the meaning in modern usage.

    			Alfred

I'll skip over the radical feminism part of the discussion and comment
on the "Liberation Theology" that was also part of Patricia's description
of herself.

Liberation Theology, at its root, demands justice and equity for
all people here on earth based on what Jesus has done for us.
It has the goals of raising all people up so that all have
equal opportunity, power, wealth, etc. so that there are no
more oppressed people.

I agree that we should fight oppression.  Sometimes there is
disagreement about just what oppression is, but in general I
think I would be in agreement with most of what people think.
The problem with Liberation Theology is that the focus of the
gospel is totally changed from an individual life-saving
message as one establishes a parent-child relationship with
God to a social gospel where the enemy is institutions and
attitudes and where "getting right with God" is closely
aligned to "improving your lot in life" (for those who are
poor/mistreated/disadvantaged).

This focus is particularly repugnant to me when I consider
the amount of time that Jesus spent proclaiming the need for
individual conversion vs. the amount of time Jesus spent battling
the social structures of society (can you even think of any?)
Social justice is important and should not be ignored - that's
one of the reasons I am active in a ministry that reaches out
and helps those in desparate need of Jesus' love and guidance.
However, social justice to be effective (in a Christian sense)
must stem from the cornerstone of individual conversion and
submission to God.  This is what is lacking in the liberation
theology movement.  This is why this movement, in my opinion, does
more harm than good because it perverts the primary message God
has for us by relegating it to second, third or last place.
Social justice?  YES!!  Emphasis on equal rights, opportunities
and material wealth instead of individual conversion?  NO!!  In
fact, once individuals are converted, there needs to be a
balance between submission and fighting for equality which
liberation theology totally lacks.

Collis

Hi Alfred,

I agree with you, word meanings do change, some words have a plethora of 
different meanings, and not everyone gets the same meaning form a word as 
everybody else.  Fear is another example, as in "fear of the Lord".

I just wanted to point out that radical does have something to do with roots.
Perhaps Richard is showing his age by using the Latin meaning?  .-)

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .86 Pat

>    I would like to see every women I know involved in a womens group and
>    every man I know involved in a men's group.  A serious introspective
>    kind of group.  Then I would like to see serious discussions between
>    the men's groups and the women's group.  I have done this once on a
>    retreat.  All the women went off in did sisterhood stuff.  All the men
>    went off in did brotherhood stuff.  Then the men told the women what it
>    was like to be men and the women told the men what it was like to be
>    women.  It was powerful.  It was the first time that I truly understood
>    that sensitive  men are just as oppressed by systemic sexism as
>    women are.

    My goodness!  Do you mean getting together with one's COMMUNity 
    with whom one shares COMMUNion and actually COMMUNicating?!?!

    What would Jesus say?  But men with men?  I dunno.... ;^)

>    I do not approve of male bashing in any of its forms.  There are too
>    many caring, men out there to blame them for all the evils of sexism. 
>    I do though expect caring sensitive men to be committed to equality.

    Thank you for the validation.  I'm glad you don't see all of the
    "other gender" in black and white terms.  This is always a hot
    button for me, as though because I'm white and male the world's
    ills are all my fault.

    Tom

Note 734.84

>    Based on what you said then, I take it you are against affirmative
>    action since AA does not support equal rights regardless of race,
>    color, or creed.

I've been meaning to get back to this statement.  It seems there are
quite a few people -- mostly white males, but not exclusively -- who share
the perception that greater, more genuine equality would exist if there
were no Affirmative Action.

I take exception to this.  It was without programs such as Affirmative
Action that blatent discrimination thrived.  Unfortunately, even with AA,
discrimination still thrives.  It is now simply a more covert variety of
discrimination.

AA was a noble attempt to level the playing field.  And nobody yet has come up
with a better solution.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .99
    
    We are all entitled to our opinions. 
    
    I'm against affirmative action, for the same reason as I am against
    discrimination.
    
    Marc H.

    
    >I'm against affirmative action, for the same reason as I am against
    >discrimination.

    I'm against discrimination. As I don't see any difference between
    hiring someone because of their color and hiring someone because of
    the their color I also oppose affirmative action.

    		Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    What is the Affirmative action that you oppose?
    
    Is it affirmative action you oppose or particular laws that support
    affirmative action or the notion that there should be any laws that
    support affirmative action.
    
    For me affirmative action runs the gammit from intentionally teaching
    children about the equality of all people, from intentionally being
    anti rascist, anti sexist, anti homophobic, anti bigot, to specific
    laws guarantee all people access to jobs, housing, restarants,
    transportation, schools, social facilities etc.
    
    Patricia 

    Affirmative Action are laws and policies that say a company has to
    make special efforts to hire people of color and/or women. Also that
    they have to give preference to those people, sometimes to the extent
    of hiring them even if there are more capable candidates who are white
    males. I see this as no different from a company making special efforts
    to hire white males even though there are more qualified "other"
    candidates.

    >For me affirmative action runs the gammit from intentionally teaching
    >children about the equality of all people, from intentionally being
    >anti rascist, anti sexist, anti homophobic, anti bigot, to specific
    >laws guarantee all people access to jobs, housing, restarants,
    >transportation, schools, social facilities etc.

    If this is what the law meant by affirmative action I'd have no trouble
    with it. But it's not. Although it does sometimes mean that people have
    to be given access to jobs etc even if they are not the best qualified
    but have the right skin color. Do you support using color or gender as
    a hiring criteria or barrier? My impression is that Richard does.

    		Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    I do not know what the right answer is but I do feel that without
    affirmative action, most of if not all the top positions would go to white
    men.  Therefore white men make the decisions about who is qualified for
    a position. 
    
    I believe that diversity is valuable in all situations.  Can we get to
    a diverse workforce without specific affirmative action programs?  can
    we get to get to a diverse management of a diverse workforce without
    specific affirmative action programs?  I don't know whether we can. 
    I would prefer that all people were treated fairly without needing laws
    to mandate that all people have equal access.  Unfortunately I believe
    that rascism, sexism, and other ism are so systemic in our society that
    access still needs to be legislated.
    
    
    Patricia

    Affirmative Action is an insult to women and minorities.  It mandates
    that they need special government mandated legislation to put them in 
    positions they may well be entitled to on their own merits.  It assumes
    that the person of color would not have had the chance to get that job,
    attend that school, whatever the case may be.  
    
    Case in point, there is a city in California where tests are given to
    become a member of the fire department.  White male scores a 90%. 
    Black male scores a 78%.  Black male gets the job because government
    assumes through statistical analysis that Black males 78% carries more
    weight than White males 90%.  That is one of the most overt forms of
    racism I have ever seen in my life, and what a complete insult to the
    minority in this case.  Just another well intentioned yet hypocritical
    move on the part of the government, implementing a form of facism and
    sticking its nose where it doesn't belong.  By the way, this was a
    bipartisan blunder during the Nixon Administration.
    
    Sorry I sound heartless.  It's just that I abhor racism!!!
    
    -Jack

    RE: .104 So your answer to my question in .103 is yes?
    
    >I do not know what the right answer is but I do feel that without
    >affirmative action, most of if not all the top positions would go to white
    >men.  Therefore white men make the decisions about who is qualified for
    >a position. 
    
    For a time perhaps, the decision makers will continue to be white men.
    That is a function of who is there now. I do not, however, believe that
    white men are incapable of promoting those who are not white males. Nor
    do I believe that most white males promote only from their own ranks.
    While that was once true times have changed. I find the attitude that
    white men need to be coersed to hire or promote others to bare a very
    very close resemblance to racism.
    
    >I believe that diversity is valuable in all situations.  Can we get to
    >a diverse workforce without specific affirmative action programs?  can
    >we get to get to a diverse management of a diverse workforce without
    >specific affirmative action programs?  I don't know whether we can. 
    
    I agree with your first sentance. I answer both questions with a strong
    yes. Of course that's based on my limited experiance being a white
    male. :-)
    
    >I would prefer that all people were treated fairly without needing laws
    >to mandate that all people have equal access.  Unfortunately I believe
    
    Start with yourself then. Don't treat people differently based on race
    and don't ask others to.
    
    >that rascism, sexism, and other ism are so systemic in our society that
    >access still needs to be legislated.
    
    I believe with all my heart that this legislated access contributes to
    the systemic racism in our society. 
    
    				Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    >    I believe with all my heart that this legislated access contributes
    >to the systemic racism in our society.
    
    I hear your message and in a sense I do agree.  Legislated access
    creates anger and hostility.  It contributes to systemic rascism. 
    Legistlated access probably hurts those persons who would have found
    there way into the workplace or neighborhood without the legislation. 
    The unfortunate part though is that we would not have the progress we
    currently have without the legislated access.  Many qualified women and
    men are denied access and have been denied access and will continue to
    be denied access.
    
    I also believe that the issue is as much one of class status as it is
    of sex and race.  Persons of all races and sexes growing up in poverty
    have a different set of challenges than persons growing up in middle
    class homes.  Children of poverty have very little access to the good
    things in life.  I see a real need for legislation to assure that all
    children get access to education, health care, and nutritional services
    that will allow them access into the mainstream of life.
    
    
    
    Patricia
    
                             

Jesus tells a parable about an employer who hires a bunch of people to
work and pays the ones who've worked only a little while the same amount
as the ones who've labored the whole time.  Doesn't seem fair, does it?
It takes non-discrimination to it's most obtuse conclusion, doesn't it?

Of course, someone might say there's no comparison since the parable makes
it clear that it was the employer's choice and not some regulation imposed
from the outside.  Some might say this is taken out of context, since this
parable explains how God does things, not the way humans do things.  And then,
they might pray for the Realm, "...on earth as it is in heaven."

Peace,
Richard

    It was fair because it was a capitalistic practice.  The workers had
    every right to refuse to be under his employment.  They chose to agree
    to the terms of the employee. 
    
    Under socialism, there would be inequity, thus making it unfair.
    
    What is troubling about AA is that government is two faced and racist
    and pro AA people seem to want to justify this because, "it's for the
    good of the people."  
    AA brings about divisiveness!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    .109  I'm not so sure.  I don't see any evidence that God prefers
    one economic system over another; capitalism over socialism.  And
    I've yet to hear a superior alternative to Affirmative Action.
    Rather than continuing to rag on existing conditions, why don't you
    come up with some improvement?
    
    Richard

    RE: .110 Well, we could try treating people like people regardless of
    race, religion or color. Why do you object to that? We could focus
    on common ground rather than focus on differences.

    The idea is to avoid keeping the pendulum from swinging from one
    extreme to an other. At this point we have a society that, at least
    overtly, supports the idea of equality. Affirmative Action says that
    racial differences are important and that hiring/firing/etc decisions
    are validly made using such information. Dropping that says that we
    are going to value everyone for themselves.

    My solution would be for people to lead my example rather than by
    coercion and force. Education should teach the brotherhood of man at
    an early age. This is of course very very hard to do in government run
    schools but they should try. Hopefully, if the laws are changed, away
    for AA, to a racial blind policy we will not be sending the mixed
    message anymore.

    			Alfred
    

>    RE: .110 Well, we could try treating people like people regardless of
>    race, religion or color. Why do you object to that?

Re: .111 I don't object.  It's just that it didn't happen before AA.

>    We could focus
>    on common ground rather than focus on differences.

I think there's room enough to focus on both.

>    My solution would be for people to lead my example rather than by
>    coercion and force.

I would prefer to see this happen myself.  Digital, for example, consistently
exceeds governmental requirements in the area of Affirmative Action.  Too
bad not every corporation is of this mindset.

Of course, there are exemptions from AA, too.  Private enterprise which
holds no governmental contracts need not abide by AA.  Too bad that
government contracts are so lucrative.

Peace,
Richard    

re Note 734.111 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     Affirmative Action says that
>     racial differences are important and that hiring/firing/etc decisions
>     are validly made using such information. 

        No, that's not what Affirmative Action is intended to say at
        all.  Rather, it says that, absent the ability to read
        people's minds and hearts, the only possible indicator we
        have of covert, or even unconscious, bias in selection is
        statistical deviation from demographic norms.  

>     My solution would be for people to lead my example rather than by
>     coercion and force. Education should teach the brotherhood of man at
>     an early age. This is of course very very hard to do in government run
>     schools but they should try. 

        Of course, Alfred, we should be doing these things as well!

>     Hopefully, if the laws are changed, away
>     for AA, to a racial blind policy we will not be sending the mixed
>     message anymore.

        The problem is that your suggested "racial blind policy" is
        also blind to racism.

        Bob

    I still don't see AA advocates here responding to the fact that AA is a
    complete insult to minorities. 
    
    Richard, I agree that the changing of the mind and heart is the only
    other option for America to bring equality in the work place, and I
    agree it has not been easy over the last 30 years.  I will say however
    that Martin Luther King was on track, then the government came in and
    muddied up the waters.  Now we have been stagnant over the last 20
    years in the area of racial harmony.  I believe AA has been a
    significant contributor to this.
    
    Also, to address your statement on government ideology.  I agree with
    you that God is not partial to the form of government, i.e.
    socialism/capitalism.  I was just remarking that your example of the
    workers didn't tie in well with the subject of quotas, and that the
    practice of the hiring person in Matthew was capitalistic and fair. 
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

re Note 734.114 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I still don't see AA advocates here responding to the fact that AA is a
>     complete insult to minorities. 
  
        I haven't heard "the minorities" complain about AA (although
        I can believe that there are some individuals who feel that
        way, and I have no doubt that there are individual cases in
        which AA is poorly or wrongly applied resulting in insult).

        On the other hand, members of the traditional "majorities"
        and groups typically associated with maintaining the status
        quo complain loud and often about this supposed "insult to
        minorities."

        It doesn't have the ring of truth.

        When the claims of widespread insult become credible, then I
        will listen and respond.

        (Perhaps I cannot respond on behalf of the "AA advocates",
        since I do not agree with all aspects of how AA has been
        implemented.  However, I do believe that comparison of
        performance against demographic norms is a legitimate tool in
        discovering bias, and I do not automatically reject remedial
        programs based upon demographic standards.  Compared to some,
        that probably brands me as one of the "AA advocates".)

        Bob

    Something I heard on a talk radio show.
    
    Caller - All's I know is had it not been for Affirmative Action, I
    never would have gotten into MIT.
    
    If this isn't a molding of the way people think, then I don't know what
    is.  First off, the caller made a faulty assumption, namely, that he
    could not have gotten into MIT on his own and needed government
    intervention.  Government taking credit for what the individual may
    already have had in him in the first place.  If this isn't an insult,
    then I don't know what is.
    
    AA takes away the power of the individual and puts the onus on the
    shoulders of government.  Moreover, when said individual fails, it
    hurts his self esteem even more.  It is a travesty to the human spirit.
    My complaint has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that I'm a
    white male (or in others view, a white conservative republican sexist
    homophobes view :-) ), as I stated earlier, I am as much an opponent to
    racism as you are.  That's why I'm speaking up while others are trying
    to justify it!
    
    -Jack

    
    >        I haven't heard "the minorities" complain about AA (although
    
    I have. Though just my brother in law. He's black and prefers his
    home in the Bahamas because there is less emphasis on race there.
    
    		Alfred

I still don't hear a superior solution to Affirmative Action.  All I'm
hearing from AA's critics is, "Let's get rid of it," which tacitly says to me,
"Let's go back to the way it used to be."

Richard

    Has anyone mentioned that affirmative action may not just be
    for individuals?  I believe the purpose is to help improve
    WHITE people.  Up until AA many white people had never worked
    with anyone other than white people.

    Affirmative action gives white people the opportunity to grow 
    out of their prejudice.  To find out that minorities aren't
    inherently dirty or rapists.  This has freed white people at
    least as much as black people.

    Yes, AA helped some black people get ahead.  But what it's done
    for white people is far more profound.

    Tom

    RE: .118 The "cure" (AA) is worse than the sickness. In fact it makes
    the situation worse. It *is* racism pure and simple. That you defend
    it really really amazes me.
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .120  Alfred.  

    I disagree.

    Looking at the country the law makers saw that there was racism
    and that the only way to reduce racial tension was to mix every-
    body up.  Otherwise the racial tension would continue to grow
    and we could have the opportunity for another civil/racial war.

    Affirmative action isn't perfect.  The alternative was, and 
    still is, not acceptable.

    Tom

    Tom,
    
    I agree with you too.  Albert, if you have other suggestions to the
    problem  I would like to understand what they are.
    
    I was taught at a seminar at my Churches General Assembly that Rascism
    also includes the notion of power.  Rascism is the exclusion of one
    group of people based on a power structure that automatically gives
    position and power to the majority group.  To give preference to a
    person because that person represents a group that has been
    significantly underrepresented is not rascism.  I also agree with Tom,
    that the problem of the "isms" is everybodies problem.
    
    Patricia

    
>    Looking at the country the law makers saw that there was racism
>    and that the only way to reduce racial tension was to mix every-
>    body up.  Otherwise the racial tension would continue to grow
>    and we could have the opportunity for another civil/racial war.

    I agree. This is why I oppose Affirmative Action. It says explicitly
    that race is a valid criteria to base hiring decisions on. That's
    racism. It prevents mixing everyone up because it requires strict
    accounting by race.

>    Affirmative action isn't perfect.  The alternative was, and 
>    still is, not acceptable.

    Perhaps AA, like unions, had its place and time. The time has passed
    and now AA supports racism rather than combats it. It breeds an 
    atmosphere of hate and distrust. It denies us the opportunity to grow
    into a color blind society. "The alternative?" You say that as if
    there was only one. AA was a crutch. Once a broken leg heals you
    remove the cast and throw away the crutch. The leg doesn't have to
    heal completely for this to happen. In fact keeping the cast and
    crutch too long will prevent the leg from ever healing. This is the
    point I believe we are reaching in the US.

    			Alfred

    
> Rascism is the exclusion of one
>    group of people based on a power structure that automatically gives
>    position and power to the majority group.  To give preference to a
>    person because that person represents a group that has been
>    significantly underrepresented is not rascism.  

    Frankly this is newspeak. Words and meanings twisted to prevent
    understanding and agreement. There is no way I can see this as a valid
    or honest position. Oh, I believe you believe it. But I believe that
    this idea has evolved as a subtle means to justify racism and
    discrimination. I see no difference between it and someone else saying
    that they hire white people not out of racism but because whites work
    better with whites and blacks with blacks.

    			Alfred

RE: .123 Alfred

>    It prevents mixing everyone up because it requires strict
>    accounting by race.

    But it *has* mixed the races.  In your theory it doesn't work.
    But in reality it has.

>    Perhaps AA, like unions, had its place and time. The time has passed
>    and now AA supports racism rather than combats it. It breeds an 
>    atmosphere of hate and distrust. It denies us the opportunity to grow
>    into a color blind society. "The alternative?" You say that as if
>    there was only one. AA was a crutch. Once a broken leg heals you
>    remove the cast and throw away the crutch. The leg doesn't have to
>    heal completely for this to happen. In fact keeping the cast and
>    crutch too long will prevent the leg from ever healing. This is the
>    point I believe we are reaching in the US.

    This is confusing.  You say it was bad and didn't work.  Then you
    said it worked and now it's time to stop.

>    It breeds an atmosphere of hate and distrust. 

    This has not been my experience.  Just the opposite.

    Tom

    Patricia:
    
    An upper manager from your very building sent out a memo in regards to
    some openings.  The message was so overt you could touch the words.
    "White Males Need Not Apply"
    
    Bottom line - Bad for them, bad for the company, inequitable.  Do you
    think that company loyalty is going to last when stunts like these are
    pulled?  I think not!!  
    
    -Jack

    Well, this may not be well appreciated but I'll give you my feelings
    about this that I've had for years.  Until women, blacks, people other
    than white males get equal positions with equal pay, then my STRONG
    belief is that us white males need to be treated in ways LESS than we
    should be when we're rated as per our skills, ambition, worth.
    
    In other words, WE need to take a back seat (or, in some cases,
    standing room ONLY.  Is this unfair to us gifted and hard-working white
    males?  My contention is that until there exists equuilibrium in the
    whole world, we need to give up and take LESS than what we "deserve".
    
    Yes, this means being passed oveer; it means not getting the job for
    which we are SO very qualified to get.  More important to me is the
    Christian call to love each other as we love ourselves - and this means
    getting some equity into those who otherwise would continue to be
    mistreated.
    
    Just my (STRONG) opinions; your mileage may vary.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	RR
    

    Projections I've heard indicate that we White males are well on our
    way towards actually becoming a minority.  In time, we might even be
    grateful for Affirmative Action.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
>>    It prevents mixing everyone up because it requires strict
>>    accounting by race.
>
>    But it *has* mixed the races.  In your theory it doesn't work.
>    But in reality it has.

    In part I agree with you. It has meant more minorities in some work
    places. Unless you believe that no company keeps statistics by race
    you'll have to agree that it requires strict accounting by race. I
    would like to see a society where such score keeping is not needed
    or even allowed.

>    This is confusing.  You say it was bad and didn't work.  Then you
>    said it worked and now it's time to stop.

    No. I admit the possibility that it opened some doors. However, even in
    those cases I believe it has outlived its usefulness. There is a saying
    in the sales game "when you've got the sale, stop selling." The point
    is simple. Techniques that are useful initially can become counter
    productive if continued passed the point of usefulness.

>>    It breeds an atmosphere of hate and distrust. 
>
>    This has not been my experience.  Just the opposite.

    It has been my experience and those of many I know.

    			Alfred

    RE: .129

>    I would like to see a society where such score keeping is not needed
>    or even allowed.

    So would I.  But for now I see Affirmative Action as a necessary
    evil.  I look at it as a medicine.  Taking medicine when not sick
    it bad for the patient.  I think the patient is still sick enough
    to need the medicine.  I believe this is where we disagree.

    Tom

re Note 734.129 by CVG::THOMPSON:

        > I would like to see a society where such score keeping is not
        > needed or even allowed.

        Alfred,

        I'd like to see a society where the bank trusts my checkbook
        balancing -- but I don't expect it in THIS world!

        Bob

    RE: .127
    
    I'm really surprised ay your belief that out and out discrimination
    is O.K.
    
    Marc H.

    IMHO there is only soi much pie to go around.  The people that have
    been getting the pieces in the past need and who have access to the pie
    need to give up some of it for the benefit of those less fortunate,
    those not in the "right" place at the right time.
    
    It sure is comfortable when you're in a good spot to worry about being
    in a better one.  It's less comfortable when you're not in any kind of
    decent spot; when your parent (not parents) cannot get equal pay for
    equal work, cannot get into a growth position because of already
    established discriminations that are hundreds of years old.
    
    As I mentioned in .127, my opinion of this hasn't been a popular one
    (that is, the giving up of your "rights" to somebody without those
    rights, experience levels, etc.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    .132 Marc,
    
    I think what Ron is saying is that he's willing to suffer a little,
    to put himself at a disadvantage a little, in order to compensate
    for all the injustices brought about by White male privilege in the
    past.  I think Ron is willing to accept some sacrifices for the sake
    of those who've never known privilege.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    RE: .134 Are you and Ron willing to assume that just because someone
    is black that they have never known privilege? I know non white people
    who have had more money and privilege for generations than my family
    has. 
    
    		Alfred

    What type of "non white" person are you referring to?  Many
    non white people are excluded from AA.  People from India,
    China, Japan, SouthEast Asia "don't count".

    Affluent or not, I believe it is healthier to work in a 
    multi-racial/ethnic environment.

    Tom

    re: .135
    
    Alfred,
    
    Yup; we sure do cry when a "few" blacks seem to benefit from such such
    added benefits when they are already doing better than we are.  Do we
    also cry about the white males (seem to be just a few more of them,
    eh?) who get the same preferential treatment? 
    
    Let's see; when was the last time you can recall complaining about the
    white male getting some outrageous and unfair additonal bennies?
    
    How many times would you guess that a white male was stopped by the
    police in the USA for running along a sidewalk?  I'm looking for a
    guess on the absolute number of times this has happened since the
    colonial states were discovered.
    
    Now, how many times do you think black males have been stopped by the
    police within the same scenerio?
    
    Agreed, that this is a little off the mark for our discussion, but it
    does present a metaphor of the conditions which speak to the reality of
    the long-standing and unfair discrimination that exists within the
    "free' states.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    RE: .134
    
    Richard,
     That's O.K. if it is just limited to Ron. My problem is when its the 
    law of the land, as it really is.
     I've had direct experience with unqualified minorities being hired
    into a group....and then just sitting back and reaping the benifts
    (i.e. minimum output while I worked hard).
    That direct experience taught me what it was like to be discriminated
    against........
    
    Marc H.

    Ron, if you feel you must pay for things you've done wrong that's fine.
    Go ahead. But don't punish innocent people. Two wrongs don't make a 
    right.

>    also cry about the white males (seem to be just a few more of them,
>    eh?) who get the same preferential treatment? 

    Of course we do. I do. I'm sure you do. I know the government does.

>    How many times would you guess that a white male was stopped by the
>    police in the USA for running along a sidewalk?  I'm looking for a
>    guess on the absolute number of times this has happened since the
>    colonial states were discovered.

    Well I've been stopped. Several times when I was a kid. So what? As for
    the number of times it has happened in the US since the colonies? So
    what? I wasn't here and neither was my family. In fact as far as I
    know the only slaves my ancestors had where either blond Swedes or
    British people taken in raids. I'm no more willing to give them special
    treatment than I am anyone else. In fact it would be morally wrong to
    use past injustices by strangers to blacks to justify "making it up"
    to them unless I also made things up to those of British descent.

    			Alfred

    Ron:
    
    It probably wouldn't bother me as much, even though it still annoys me
    to no end, if you would be up front and admit to all the readers here
    that AA is government sponsored discrimination.  Regardless of motive,
    the past, or what have you, this goes against everything that Martin
    Luther King stood for.
    
    You are trying to justify this based on past history.  Ron, it is
    inequitable.  
    
    -Jack

    ok; ok!
    
    Here's a litle more on what I believe (which you might take to be a
    little more pallettable (sic) ).
    
    I don't think the system will EVER work if it has to be legislated (in
    other words, I'm not FOR AA by the gorernment!).  I think and firmly
    believe than "evil" (commonly called Satan) is CREATED by us, by
    society and is nurtured by us.  Evil needs to be eradicated.
    
    When WE can finally turn back TO God, rather than maintain the turn
    AWAY from God (that is, we currently are concerned for ourselves and
    NOT neighbor) in which is our current common position, then we will
    have become on track to eliminate evil in this world.
    
    It is the people who "have" that need to give up their position of
    being first for this and first for that and so on.  That means, to me,
    that we need to take a position "lower" than those people around us who
    have been discriminated against for so long a time.  
    
    We simply cannot continue to claim our own rights if we wish to work
    toward Shalom and toward peace and justice for all.
    
    So, in summary, I'm NOT for AA as the vehicle; I'm for each
    more-well-to-do-than-others taking responsibility for the world's
    injust situation and that means to me giving to others that which we
    commonly believe is our own "right" to possess.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    Ron,
    
    Well put.
    
    It is a little maddening to see people with good jobs, suburban homes,
    plenty of food, cars, and spending money complaining about government
    programs that our geared toward making more equal that leave a
    large segment of the United States population and an even larger
    segment of the world's population, homeless, jobless, hungry, and
    hopeless.
    
    Morality cannot be legislated but laws can be moral.
    
    Patricia

    I would add that it's also true that Christian characteristics such
    as compassion, love, and mercy cannot be legislated.  Just because
    Ron exhibits these qualities doesn't mean everyone should be forced
    to do likewise.
    
    Ideally, we would all come to repentance (re-thinking) and turn away
    from where we've sinned (missed the mark).  God calls us to make amends
    for wrongdoing and then give an extra 20% over that, if memory concerning
    the Torah serves me.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Patricia:
    
    You will find that justice, vision, hard work, and fairness are equal
    attributes.  You are assuming these so called suburbanites are the bad,
    unfair element that took opportunities away for other sectors of
    society.  
    
    Speaking for myself, I payed my way through college, worked 80 hours a
    week in the HLO facility plugging parts. (This was from 4:00 P.M. -
    6:00 A.M. ) I now work in Merrimack and have three other jobs.  I'm
    also a full time husband and full time father of two to three children.
    I'm sure there are many of all races and creeds in the same boat as
    myself.  
    
    It is equally maddening when individuals make assumptions that people
    with good jobs (hahaha), cars, and the like are the evil, pro business
    good ole boy network.   
    
    -Jack

Note 734.144

It's a good thing this is the "ramblings" topic, 'cause here comes another
departure:
  
>    Speaking for myself, I payed my way through college, worked 80 hours a
>    week in the HLO facility plugging parts. (This was from 4:00 P.M. -
>    6:00 A.M. ) I now work in Merrimack and have three other jobs.

Commendable.  Am I to understand you hold 3 jobs in addition to your R40
job, Jack?

>    I'm
>    also a full time husband and full time father of two to three children.
>    I'm sure there are many of all races and creeds in the same boat as
>    myself.

It's amazing you can be a full-time anything after all the time consumed
by employment.  If I'm not prying, what do you mean by "two to three children"?
Shared custody arrangement of some sort?

Peace,
Richard

    No, actually, my wife is due with third in March!  I was typing fast
    without fully thinking it through.
    
    The only point I'm making to Patricia is that I, like everybody with a
    strong work ethic, went through or is going through the school of hard
    knocks.  Most of these great benies of being a suburbanite is sweat
    equity.  The homes have mortgages, the cars have payments due and what
    not!  It is bad and arrogant for government to take the responsibility
    of spreading misery evenly.  It stifles hard work, entrepreneurship,
    and creativity while promoting stagnation, dependence, and malcontents.
    
    Juggling the jobs is manageable but difficult.  I never gripe because I
    know it has to get done and I have the vision necessary to succeed. 
    There were many during the depression with vision who eventually did
    succeed and government had little or nothing to do with it.  It's
    called persevering and ferreting out the opportunities.  
    
    If my company discriminates based on AA and it continues to affect my
    success, then I will leave and go someplace where there is vision!!
    Opportunities have to be sought after and conquered.  
    
    -Jack

    re .144
    
    Try looking at the suburbanite job from another perspective as follows. 
    How does one GET there?  Oh, I see.  YOU have a car.  
    
    When the RT128 beltline was put in to circumvent the city - AND by
    doing so also circumvented less affluent city-folk, job possibilities
    were DENIED to those less fortunate than us white affluent (ok;
    mid-affluent or just-a-bit-affluent) types.
    
    Its simnilar to the government's giving aid to the less fortunate - as
    long as they live in places WE would NEVER live!  So, we keep the
    poorer people corral'd into ghetto-like environments - for their GOOD!  
    
    Wonderful; how we help others out of their distressing situations.
    
    And we have the Jefferson mentality that FREES slaves; frees them
    without any notion of planning or helping them plan how to cope with
    this new-found freedom.
    
    So you worked yourself thru college!  Great!  At least YOU had an
    opportunity to get there.  Did you also have to quit school to support
    your mother who was left behind by your father?
    
    There are so many cases where the people who are better off are
    oblivious to those without possibilities for freely chosen "good" ways
    to live and to support a family.
    
    Thanks be to those in our midst who have been graced by God to have
    compassion on others and who put that compassion in deeds well done.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    Ron:
    
    That is all well and good.  Every point you made is legitamate.  Groups
    within our society have been stifled, monetarily set back due to the
    very circumstances you mentioned.  All's I'm saying is any program is
    going to have a level of abuse.  I have seen more abuse than I can
    handle with AA.  People put in positions where they are set up to fail.
    Being given a false sense of security and ultimately facing rejection
    and frustration amongst their peers and subordinates.  It happens and
    frequently I might add.
    
    It is very unfair for you to attempt to lay a guilt trip on anybody
    because they may have had opportunities that others haven't.  You may
    not have meant too but it could be implied.  I am a firm believer in
    "Give me a fish I eat for a day; teach me to fish and I eat for a
    lifetime."  I see alot of abuse in this government mandate.  Companies
    fear government reprisals or hire minorities/women strictly because the
    government subsidizes the pay.  Very insulting and disingenuous, and
    potentially damaging for the job base in America.
    
    The parity is there folks.  Enough is enough!
    
    -Jack
    
    

    Perhaps Affirmative Action should be revisited to determine whether
    or not it has outlived its purpose.  Perhaps Affirmative Action could
    be adjusted to make it more relevant to current conditions in the US.
    
    Perhaps I'll write my Congressional reps.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Is there a connection with this discussion and its intersection with
    the story of the bread and the fish?  People were amazed or so I seem
    to recall.  How about you?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    
>    When the RT128 beltline was put in to circumvent the city - AND by
>    doing so also circumvented less affluent city-folk, job possibilities
>    were DENIED to those less fortunate than us white affluent (ok;
>    mid-affluent or just-a-bit-affluent) types.

    Wow! Jobs were only denied to poor black people. Poor white people were
    not denied. Pretty impressive stuff. You know that most poor people in
    the US are white, right?

    BTW, my father was born and raised in a ghetto. In fact he didn't learn
    English until he started grade school. He only got to go to college
    because of the GI Bill. Oh, right I forgot, he still had an unfair 
    advantage because his father never left his mother. Where does this 
    notion that black men leaving their wives is white peoples "fault" come 
    from?

    BTW, my mother in law was separated from her husband when my wife was
    2. She worked as a building superintendent before getting a better job
    in a bank. She still managed, without AA, to get a good job, raise her
    daughter and put her through school. 

    No one keeps poor people in ghettos in the US against their will. The
    middle ages are over. In general, people create their own ghettos.
    These ghettos have the characteristics that the people who live their
    want them to have. I know of neighborhoods in NYC that were high class
    neighborhoods in my dad's youth. Later they became ghetto-like
    environments. Later still the brownstones became the in thing and the
    neighborhoods became fashionable and are now high class neighborhoods
    again. It's not the area or the buildings that make a ghetto. It's the
    people who live there and their mind set. 

>    And we have the Jefferson mentality that FREES slaves; frees them
>    without any notion of planning or helping them plan how to cope with
>    this new-found freedom.

    Who is this "we" you speak of? You? For at least the last 100 years or
    so a free public education has been available to everyone. While it's
    true that for many of those years the schools available to blacks where
    not up to snuff that is not the case today. Separate but equal was
    ruled out when I was very very young. And I accept no blame for the high
    rates of minority drop outs. I am unaware of white students being a
    disruptive factor in all or mostly black schools. Who is causing
    problems there anyway? 

    BTW, there I am aware of no difference in the public education of blacks 
    and whites in New Hampshire. The same education opportunities are 
    available to blacks that are available to whites. Differences are based 
    on income to be sure. Liberal white people keep preventing voucher 
    systems that might help that situation. And that's a shame.

    What I'd like to see is people taking responsibility for their own
    actions and futures. If you had an unfair advantage and feel that you
    should give something back that's fine and great. But to assume that
    just because someone is white they had an unfair advantage is wrong.
    I don't feel I had an unfair advantage. I know, because I was told,
    that there was at least one job that I was turned down for because I
    had the wrong skin color. I know that Digital managers figuring TFSO
    packages were told to keep racial balance in mind. So there is no way 
    you will ever convince me that my skin color is an automatic advantage 
    in this world.
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .142
    I don't have a good job, or a fine suburban home, plenty of food,cars,
    and spending money. Who are you talking about? It sure isn't me.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .147
    
    Re 128 beltway.....
    
    Sorry, but you are wrong. The 128 beltway was originally called the
    "road to nowhere". Buisness came to the beltway after it was in place.
    Also, the main industry was and is the "evil defense industry".
    In turn, the road help create the booming metro area. 
    
    Its not correct to say that the beltway was put in to keep the jobs out
    of the city...how could you possibly think that?
    
    Marc H.

    Do I feel tenseness here?
    
    One thing we CAN do is to become more AWARE of choices we make, laws
    for which we vote, things we do that just might affect others (who
    generally may not be "visible" to our conscious selves).  We we live
    our lives as responsible and caring people we may opt to make some
    slightly different choices than if we are living lives away from those
    less fortunate than ourselves.
    
    For example, many of the churches which I attend often don't have
    blacks anywhere even close to the church, nevermind attending the
    church.  So how are we to be able to witness for those who are not in
    our midst?  Many of us are churched from theological perspectives
    developed in Europe (Germany is prime as is England) and we read of the
    Niebuhrs and Tillichs and Augustine and Aquinas.  But people who are
    the disadvantaged are operating often in church from a praxis of
    Liberation Theology.  They DEMAND justice and work often from grass
    roots and home churches.  Their theology is different than that which
    I'm accustomed to experience.
    
    So I ask that we become (for those of us who are not) more conscious of
    our lifestyles, our choices, that we became more INTENTIONAL about how
    we live and relate to others around us and others not around us.  This
    raised intentionality is a way to make a difference and is one that can
    be made by your CHOICE rather than one (which IMHO most often does not
    work) that is legislated on top of you.
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

    Funny how we humans practically never identify ourselves with the
    well-off and advantaged.  They're always somebody else.  We say that
    when Jesus told the rich young man to sell all he had, give the money
    to the poor and then to come and follow Jesus, he was *not* speaking
    to us.  We spiritualize the story, thus making it so that we need not
    make such severe sacrifices.
    
    Give us salvation, Lord Jesus.  But please, Lord, don't ask much of us.
    
    Richard

RE:                     <<< Note 734.154 by DLO15::FRANCEY >>>
                -< on becoming more "intentional" and "aware" >-

       
   . For example, many of the churches which I attend often don't have
   . blacks anywhere even close to the church, nevermind attending the
   . church.  So how are we to be able to witness for those who are not in
   . our midst?  Many of us are churched from theological perspectives
    


     My church is located in a rather nice part of New Hampshire, in an area
     that might be considered "affluent".  We operate vans (soon to be vans and
     a bus) that go into areas of Nashua and Manchester and pick up kids and
     bring them to church.  These are kids who live in areas that aren't so 
     affluent.  We also visit their parent(s) and invite them to church and
     provide transportation if required.  We've provided clothes, food and 
     in some cases shelter.  In fact an elderly woman in our church has 
     bequeathed several apartment buildings she owns to be used to provide
     low cost housing for the not so well off.

     Our church is very missionary minded, as we support 31 missionaries around
     the world (out of funds donated specifically for that purpose)  We also
     support outreaches to our local communities.

    
     We don't have a lot of black families/people in our church though there 
     are several black kids who attend the school that we have.
   



Jim

    Jim,
    
    I think that's GREAT!!!  I wish more churches would be so inclined as 
    your church obviously is.  What is your church?
    
    	Shalom,
    
    	Ron
    

 We are an Independant Baptist Church.





 Jim

    Ron:
    
    Very good point.  As I stated earlier, these issues have to come from
    the heart and not legislation.  It may take longer but the long term
    affects will last I believe.
    
    I have often wondered why churches are so segregated.  I am learning at
    least in the Northeast that the separating of the races from worship is
    a mutual feeling of both sides.  As sorry as it sounds, whites tend to
    feel more comfortable with whites and the same with blacks.  
    
    Not a correct philosophy, but nevertheless it exists.
    
    -Jack

        The church my father pastored the longest gradually changed
    composition over the 20 some odd years he was there. From all most
    all white it became almost all black. When the bishop asked him to
    transfer the congregation wasn't too happy. They were even more upset
    to learn that his replacement was to be a black man. Well, actually,
    the white members didn't seem to care one way or an other. It was
    the black members who'd grown up in the West Indies. It seems there
    a white pastor usually means an import from England. This conveys
    some status to the church. Imports being perceived as "better" than
    home grown talent. An interesting turn of events I always thought.

    			Alfred

    I'm kind of pleased with the "blend" where I'm presently a member.
    There are Blacks, Asian-Americans, interracial marriages, persons
    with physically handicapping conditions, persons with mentally
    handicapping conditions, people who are gay, elderly people, young
    people -- oh yeah, and people who are White and straight.
    
    Some here may not know that, along with my family, I moved my membership
    to a nearby United Methodist church in September.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re .59: "Who do you say Jesus is?"

Sorry it took so long to get back to this.  Trying to get a product out
the door and all...  Plus I had to wait for the affirmative action
war to die down ;-)

I was truly disappointed with the lack of response, but not wholly
surprised.  I called it a watershed question, because one's answer to this
question molds the rest of one's view of the world.  And with so many
different views, there needs to be some way to see which are correct and
which aren't.

The following is a set of statements of who Jesus is from the Bible.  To
keep it relatively short, I confined my list to the book of John.  I also
had to shorten that list due to my available time to type them in.  All
references are from the New International Version.

1:1-4 - In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the
Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.
   Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that
has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of men.

1:14 - The Word became flesh and lived for a while among us.  We have seen
his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full
of grace and truth.

1:18 - No one has ever seen God, but God the only Son, who is at the Father's
side, has made him known.

1:29 - The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the
Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!"

1:34 - I have seen and I testify that this is the Son of God.

1:41 - The first thing Andrew did was to find his brother Simon and tell
him, "We have found the Messiah" (that is, the Christ).

1:45 - Philip found Nathanael and told him, "We have found the one Moses
wrote about in the Law, and about whom the prophets also wrote - Jesus of
Nazareth, the son of Joseph."

1:49 - Then Nathanael declared, "Rabbi, you are the Son of God; you are the
king of Israel."

4:25-26 - The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming.
When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
   Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he."

5:17-18 - Jesus said to them, "My Father is always at his work to this very
day, and I, too, am working."  For this reason the Jews tried all the harder
to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling
God is own Father, making himself equal with God.

5:22-24 - Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment
to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father.  He who
does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him.
  "I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent
me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from
death to life."

5:39 - You diligently study the Scriptures because you think that by them
you possess eternal life.  These are the Scriptures that testify about me

6:59 - We believe and know that you are the Holy One of God.

9:35-37 - Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, and when he found him,
he said, "Do you believe in the Son of Man?"
   "Who is he, sir?" the man asked.  "Tell me, so that I may believe in him."
   Jesus said, "You have now seen him; in fact, he is the one speaking
with you."

14:6 - Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one
comes to the Father except through me."



Why did I pick this question to sort out viewpoints?  Because the Bible also
uses this question to sort out true and false:

1 John 4:1-3 - Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the
spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have
gone out into the world.  This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God:
Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh
is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from
God.  This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming
and even now is already in the world.


Grace and peace to those with ears to hear,

-Steve

Note 734.162

>I was truly disappointed with the lack of response, but not wholly
>surprised.

Disappointed in the quantity of responses or the quality of responses?

Thank you for your judgment, but you may be judging wrongly.  As in
ordinary discussion, if someone has already stated what a contributor
might say, it often goes unrepeated.  Although it occasionally happens,
this conference isn't as likely as some of our sister conferences to
have a bunch of "Yeah! Me, too!" type entries.

We also have been known to have a few agnostics, seekers, non-Christians,
and non-Trinitarians participating here.  Would you expect every one of
them to have responded to your litmus test?

You rejected my pointer to the topic in which I stated my own answer to
your question on the grounds that it became a discussion.

There is a conference, you know, where you can find the homogeneity you
seem to require.

Richard

    RE 734.162
    
    > To keep it short you are confining your response to John?
    
    I read a wonderful theology book titled From Jesus to Christ which
    talked about the evolution and difference in the four Gospels and Paul
    of the image of Jesus/Christ.
    
    Your selecting John is not to keep it short.  Your selecting John in
    fact confirms your own assumptions about Jesus Christ as they are
    mirrored in what John writes.
    
    Who do they say I am is actually a wonderful question.  Each of the
    Gospels and Paul give a different answer.  Each of us in her will give
    a different answers.  Some of us will acknowledge our answer is
    different than other answers and some of us will jump through hoops
    trying to prove there is a consistency in answers.
    
    For instance, one aspect of that question is "When does the Bible say
    that Jesus became divine?  Preexistent Word is John's answers, Baptism
    is another answer, conception by the holy spirit at the time of the
    emaculate conception is another answer.  At the time of Ressurrection
    is yet another.
    
    Who do I say Jesus is?  Fully human.  Inspired by God.  A wonderful
    example to follow.  A legend whose historic existence we really know
    very little about?  Who do I say Christ is?  The essence of God that is
    available to humankind.  Reflected in the story of Jesus, but also
    available to each of us, and reflected in human relationships with
    persons who let that essence of God work through them.
    
    I guess I can even call myself a Ttrinitarian.  I believe in one
    Goddess/God.  An essence of God called Christ reflected in human
    relationships, and the holy spirit of Goddess/God's love that surrounds
    all of humanity.

re Note 734.164 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

> ... conception by the holy spirit at the time of the
>     emaculate conception is another answer.  

        This is a nit, but it regards a frequent misconception
        (sorry!):

        The "immaculate conception" of Catholic theology refers to
        Mary's conception, not to the conception of Jesus (which
        might be referred to as a virginal conception).  (Or are
        people subconsciously equating "virgin" with "immaculate"?)

        Bob

    Bob.
    
    thanks for the correction.
    
    If I am going to think of myself as an emerging Theologian, I must work
    on getting more definitions a bit more precise.
    
    The question remains the same though.  When did jesus become divine? 
    When did the incarnation of God occur?  When did the inbreaking occur?
    
    Patricia

    
.    The question remains the same though.  When did jesus become divine? 
 
     Well, off the top of my head, one could read Luke 1:23 "..and they
     shall call His name Emmanuel, which being interpreted means 'God with
     us'?" Or, one could read John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word and 
     the Word was with God and the Word ws God" and see that He was God from
     the beginning.


    

 Jim    
    

Jesus is divine because He is God.  Since He has always
been God, He has always been divine.

.163>>I was truly disappointed with the lack of response, but not wholly
.163>>surprised.
.163>
.163>Disappointed in the quantity of responses or the quality of responses?

Quantity.  And your note in 308 was between about 3 people, one of whom
(Pat Sweeney) I have not seen any notes from.

.163>Thank you for your judgment, but you may be judging wrongly.

I quoted a bunch of Scripture.  Nobody refuted them.  What was I (not
scripture references) judging?

.163>We also have been known to have a few agnostics, seekers, non-Christians,
.163>and non-Trinitarians participating here.  Would you expect every one of
.163>them to have responded to your litmus test?

Yes, I would.  There is quite a lot of rambling going on in here.  Many
different, and wildly different, views.  How do readers (including the
[assumedly] numerous read-only ones, sort all this out?  At some point it
needs to get clear which are right, and which are wrong.  The Bible indicates
that an answer to who Jesus is is the indicator of where those views come
from.  Especially on the range of statements made (with rather an air of
authority) about who God is and how he works.  I believe it is a waste of
time for alot of discussion to go on, and at the end everyone says "Ok,
everyone is right" and drop it.

>There is a conference, you know, where you can find the homogeneity you
>seem to require.

I do not require absolute homogeneity to remain engaged in a discussion.
However, it is necessary at some point to inject objective truth, no?


.164>    Your selecting John is not to keep it short.  Your selecting John in
.164>    fact confirms your own assumptions about Jesus Christ as they are
.164>    mirrored in what John writes.

There is an ocean of difference between:

- Making an assumption of who Jesus is, and then looking for supportive
  evidence.

		and

- Learning who Jesus is from the Bible.

I have been led through the latter one.  I can pick another book from the Bible
that speaks of Jesus and quote similar things to those from John.

.164>  Who do I say Jesus is?  Fully human.  Inspired by God.  A wonderful
.164>  example to follow.  A legend whose historic existence we really know
.164>  very little about?  Who do I say Christ is?  The essence of God that is
.164>  available to humankind.

Jesus was much more insistant on his identity than this.  He said he is
God.  Not like God, or an example of God, or an essence of God.  God.
Either he is, or he is an outrageous liar and, therefore, a bad example.
Neither case matches your view of Jesus.

-Steve

re Note 734.169 by CFSCTC::HUSTON:

> There is quite a lot of rambling going on in here.  Many
> different, and wildly different, views.  How do readers (including the
> [assumedly] numerous read-only ones, sort all this out?  

        This "rambling" IS the process of sorting it all out.  It is
        a microcosm of the ramblings of multiple millennia of human
        history trying to sort it out.

> At some point it
> needs to get clear which are right, and which are wrong.  

        What is "it" and why is this "its" need?  (I agree that we
        are all seeking to gain a clearer understanding of right and
        wrong.  Note that the serpent's temptation of Eve was a
        promise that she would know "good and evil."  You and Eve are
        seeking the same thing, but be careful!)

> The Bible indicates
> that an answer to who Jesus is is the indicator of where those views come
> from.  

        Reference, please?

> I do not require absolute homogeneity to remain engaged in a discussion.
> However, it is necessary at some point to inject objective truth, no?

        I believe that almost to a person each participant in these
        discussions offers what they believe to be objective truth
        (within their ability to understand and write it).

> Either he is, or he is an outrageous liar and, therefore, a bad example.

        Note that, in day to day human experience, a person who tells
        one outrageous lie can still be a good example in other
        areas, and even be an authority in those areas.  I do not
        believe this applies to Jesus, but neither does this argument
        prove anything.

        Bob

Note 734.169

>Quantity.  And your note in 308 was between about 3 people, one of whom
>(Pat Sweeney) I have not seen any notes from.

Pat Sweeney is no longer with Digital, I'm sorry to say.  I can just about
guarantee you, however, his response would be congruent with the orthodox
teachings of the Holy Roman Catholic Church, and would probably echo John
Covert.

>I quoted a bunch of Scripture.  Nobody refuted them.  What was I (not
>scripture references) judging?

I wasn't referring to the Scripture quotes.  Your disappointment was
judgmental, I felt.  That feeling was confirmed by your remarks in .169:

>Yes, I would.  There is quite a lot of rambling going on in here.  Many
>different, and wildly different, views.  How do readers (including the
>[assumedly] numerous read-only ones, sort all this out?

Well, we *could* assume that they're intelligent adults, that they could
read the Bible and other materials themselves, that they could ask clergy
or respected Christian friends, or that they could even write a contributor
off-line, if they had a problem with sorting it out.

>At some point it
>needs to get clear which are right, and which are wrong.  The Bible indicates
>that an answer to who Jesus is is the indicator of where those views come
>from.  Especially on the range of statements made (with rather an air of
>authority) about who God is and how he works.  I believe it is a waste of
>time for alot of discussion to go on, and at the end everyone says "Ok,
>everyone is right" and drop it.

You will find that some here will fit your paradigm of what qualifies as
the "genuine article."  Others won't.  It might be helpful to remember
though, that the ancient Jews had an orthodox paradigm about the awaited
Messiah, too.

>I do not require absolute homogeneity to remain engaged in a discussion.
>However, it is necessary at some point to inject objective truth, no?

Objective truth is highly overrated, imo, and is subject to revision just
as much as any other kind of truth.

Peace,
Richard

497.200  I've got to admit, these guys have got the bucks and they are slick.
They know what grabs people, what stirs people's insecurities.  And they
know how to milk it.

It's further evidence to me the buck is still king.  If you can raise enough
money and you can rile enough people, you can do practically anything.

I used to think the light of truth was enough.  I used to think people
would choose what was right once the light of truth was made known to
them.  I no longer possess such confidence in the power of truth.

God have mercy on us all.

>I used to think the light of truth was enough.  I used to think people
>would choose what was right once the light of truth was made known to
>them.  I no longer possess such confidence in the power of truth.

Now there's a battle-scarred man ;-)  Maybe I'm naive - I still think
people will see the truth - maybe not til it's too late...  but I think
this money thing will die out with the money, real soon now.

>God have mercy on us all.

Amen.

    To launch a nationwide campaign requires money... money itself is not
    evil... the love of money is evil... can you show me where you define
    love in the fact that they are raising funds for doing God's work
    [albeit perhaps not all agrees on what is God's work]? 

RE:          <<< Note 734.172 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>

>497.200  I've got to admit, these guys have got the bucks and they are slick.
>They know what grabs people, what stirs people's insecurities.  And they
>know how to milk it.


  Kinda like the ACLU, eh?




>I used to think the light of truth was enough.  I used to think people
>would choose what was right once the light of truth was made known to
>them.  I no longer possess such confidence in the power of truth.


  Problem is we have plenty of groups that have attemped (and darned near
  succeeded) in getting that light of truth removed from our society thanks
  to the ACLU, et al...the organization you identified (as well as others)
  are merely trying to get the scales balanced, it seems to me.

  I suspect we may have a different interpretation on what that "light of
  truth" is.


  Jim

Note 734.175

>  Kinda like the ACLU, eh?

Can you explain how the ACLU milked money from people's fears when they've
defended the constitutional rights of even Nazis?

>  I suspect we may have a different interpretation on what that "light of
>  truth" is.

There's no doubt in my mind about that, Jim

Richard

re: Note 734.174 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    To launch a nationwide campaign requires money... money itself is not
>    evil... the love of money is evil... 

I agree.  I've seen too many televangelists who seem far too fond of, if not
money, then the accoutrements money can buy. 

>    can you show me where you define
>    love in the fact that they are raising funds for doing God's work

I do not define as loving the targetting of a group of people for the purpose 
of denying them specific rights that they and others have.

>    [albeit perhaps not all agrees on what is God's work]? 

True.

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 734.175 by Jim "just a closer walk with thee" 

>  Kinda like the ACLU, eh?

Interesting approach, defend one group by attacking another.

Peace,

Jim

RE:          <<< Note 734.176 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>


>>  Kinda like the ACLU, eh?

>Can you explain how the ACLU milked money from people's fears when they've
>defended the constitutional rights of even Nazis?



 Can you explain how the organization you described intends to "milk money
 from people's fears"?





Jim

re: Note 734.179 by Jim "just a closer walk with thee" 

> Can you explain how the organization you described intends to "milk money
> from people's fears"?

Wasn't it Oral Roberts who told his followers that God would take him away if 
they didn't pledge some number of millions of dollars?  That sounds like 
"milking money from people's fears" to me.  Their fear of losing their leader.
I don't know if that's the particular organization you were refering to (as I 
don't know which note you were replying to.)

Peace,

Jim

    .180
    
    So you've already decided before the organization gets started that
    it's a mirror image of Oral Roberts????
    
    

re: Note 734.181 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    So you've already decided before the organization gets started that
>    it's a mirror image of Oral Roberts????
    
HUH???  I was merely supplying an organization that I believe fit the 
parameters Jim H. had raised.  I said in that note that I did not know to 
which organization he was refering.  (Since he did not refer to a specific 
reply.)  Please read my reply again.

Peace,

Jim

    >   -< what are your words doing in my mouth? >-
    
    spittttoooey, blpftftftftftfftffffffffttttt~~~~!!!!!
    
    I knew something was wrong! 
    
    :-) :-), Sorry, I misunderstood your note, I thought it was in
    comparison to... not potential hazard of...

re: Note 734.183 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    spittttoooey, blpftftftftftfftffffffffttttt~~~~!!!!!

.-0  .-)
    
I'm glad we cleared that up, thanks.

Peace,

Jim

    .179  Yup.
    
    Richard
    

RE:                <<< Note 734.180 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
                            -< here's one, I think >-

>re: Note 734.179 by Jim "just a closer walk with thee" 

>> Can you explain how the organization you described intends to "milk money
>> from people's fears"?

>Wasn't it Oral Roberts who told his followers that God would take him away if 
>they didn't pledge some number of millions of dollars?  That sounds like 
>"milking money from people's fears" to me.  Their fear of losing their leader.
>I don't know if that's the particular organization you were refering to (as I 
>don't know which note you were replying to.)




 I was reffering to 497.200 by Richard.  The organization defined in that note
 cannot be equated to Oral Robert's (whom I do not support, btw).  The 
 The organization defined in that note is primarily there to ensure taht while
 organizations are fighting to remove God from our society, there is an organi-
 zation providing a balance.


 Jim

re: Note 734.186 by Jim "just a closer walk with thee" 

> Can you explain how the organization you described intends to "milk money
> from people's fears"?

> I was reffering to 497.200 by Richard.  The organization defined in that note
> cannot be equated to Oral Robert's (whom I do not support, btw).  The 
> The organization defined in that note is primarily there to ensure taht while
> organizations are fighting to remove God from our society, there is an organi-
> zation providing a balance.

Thanks for clearing that up, Jim.

I guess we'll have to wait and see what the fruits of their labor yields.
I'm sure there are several different expectations.

BTW, I bet the ACLU does NOT have a charter stating that their purpose is to 
remove God from our society, though I think a lot of people see their work 
differently.  (some how the words "hidden agenda" come to mind.  .-)

Peace,

Jim

    .187  The ACLU's charter has something to do with the constitutional
    rights of Americans, and has represented even right-wing evangelists
    when their rights were being impinged upon.
    
    Richard
    

Time Magazine, October 31, 1994

E S S A Y

Barbara Ehrenreich

Remember the Sermon on the Mount?

AS IT APPROACHES THE ESTIMABLE AGE OF 2000, THE A Judeo-Christian ethic seems
to be going all soft and senile. A noisily Christian portion of the Virginia
electorate is prepared to send a former felon to the Senate on the grounds that
he never cheated on his wife. In Haiti, born-again ex-President Jimmy Carter
invited torture master Raoul Cedras to teach Sunday school, apparently because
his wife is slender and his shirts are well pressed. Everywhere, private virtue
the successful simulation of it to count more than public morality, and material
wealth more than anything else. In the new, mellowed-out version of the old-time
ethic, you can lie, steal and trample on the poor-so long as you keep those
zippers zipped.

True enough, the Bible has a great deal to say on the subject of zippers or
their A.D. 1 equivalent. Thou shalt not lust after your neighbor's wife or
livestock. Thou shalt not spill the seed that was intended for your brother's
widow. Thou shalt not divorce and, better yet, not even marry in the first place
but wander around single and celibate, spreading the word.

That is stern stuff, and an abiding challenge to the wayward flesh. But it's the
easy part. The hard part is the social side of the Judeo-Christian ethic,
meaning not how you treat the spouse and kids but how you conduct yourself in
the world beyond the bedroom and the den. We don't hear about it so much since
the word Christian began its oxymoronic hooks, and your posterity with
fish-hooks" (4:1-2) (which puts even "necklacing" in a new perspective).

So, to echo some of our self-righteously Christian spokesmen, how far we have
strayed from the narrow path prescribed by the prophets! A sizable portion of
the electorate, probably no less Judeo-Christian than anyone else, stands ready
to let the richer candidate buy its votes, on the theory that the rich cannot be
bought themselves. In the case of Michael Huffington in California or Ross Perot
in '92, piles of earthly treasure are proffered, with a straight face, as proof
of one's ability to lead. But who can fault our lucre-crazed political culture
when even the televangelists promise financial well-being, i.e., "prosperous
ease," as the reward for supposedly Christian virtue? The poor themselves, in a
stunning inversion of Scripture, have taken the place of the demons partnership
with the smug word right, but Scripture demands unstinting charity, if not all
out dedication to the poor.

Recall Jesus' encounter with the wealthy young fellow who claimed exemplary zeal
in the zipper department. He had followed the Ten Commandments to the letter, so
was he entitled to eternal life? No, was the unambiguous answer; the next step
was to "go and sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" Jesus then offered his
famous observation on camels and needles and how futile it is for rich folks to
try to wriggle their way into heaven.

All right, maybe camels were smaller then and needles a lot more wide eyed. But
the message is reiterated in passage after passage, and not only in the
politically suspect New Testament, where socialists have always found solace.
Ezekiel explains that the Sodomites' sin was that they had "pride, fullness of
bread and abundance of idleness" but did not "strengthen the hand of the poor
and needy" quite apart from any "abomination" (16: 49-50). Amos addresses the
rich people of Bashan, who "oppress the poor, which crush the needy," thundering
that "the days shall come upon you, that he will take you away with and
Pharisees. Well-fed intellectuals trip over one another in their eagerness to
castigate the down-and-out as muggers, sluts, and even the case of Richard
Herrnstein and Charles Murray in their new book, The Bell Curve-retards. No
political candidate dare step up to a lectern without promising to execute,
imprison and snatch alms from the hands of the "underclass."

In the midst of this profound moral confusion, the Haiti crisis came like a test
from on high. Here were good and evil laid out in black and white, or rather,
black and creamy mulatto: the pastel luxury of Petionville vs. the dark
bottomless misery of the shantytowns. And in Jean-Bertrand Aristide, here was as
Christ-like a figure as ever headed a state: devout, dedicated to the poor, and
celibate on top of all that. Yet from Clinton's flip-flops to Carter's
flirtation with Cedras, we dithered shamefully. Even after the troops had
arrived, it was unclear at times whether they were there to protect the rich and
their "attaches" from the poor, or the poor from their well-heeled tormentors.

Now, of course, Scripture is open to interpretation; ethics do change with the
times. Most Judeo-Christians don't prohibit shellfish anymore or appease the
deity with slaughtered rams. But there's something suspect about a brand of
JudeoChristianity that can get all heat up about the spilling of seed while
gliding right past the Sermon on the Mount. We seem to have chosen the easy
path, the one that comforts the already comfortable and harangues the already
hard pressed. We're the post-Judeo-Christian generation, and the Christian Right
is turning out to be nothing more than Christian Lite.

    I actually think Barbara isn't that far off.  The Church is as much to
    blame as anyone for the state of affairs (pun intended figuratively and
    literally) in the world today.  It's time we get back to the Word of
    God and rekindle our first love.
    
    Mike

    Mike:
    
    Keep in mind there is a cost to that.  Those in churchianity circles
    are going to use the terminology "holier than thou" alot more...and you
    won't get much support!
    
    -Jack