Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Jim,
    
    Obviously you don't know God the way I do or you wouldn't have started
    such a ridiculous topic.
    
    Ruth
    
    <har, har, har>

    Very important subject, as it is the cause of many, many problems in
    the world.
    
    
    Marc H.

	I agree Marc...


Glen

	re Problems in the world.

	Just an in opinion, but it would be logical that those who *really*
	do have God's backing would be the ones offering solutions rather 
	than being the ones that actually cause problems in this world.


	Phil.

    Problem with that Phil is ones solutions could be for ill gotten gain. 
    Remember Judas and the expensive perfume?!!
    
    -Jack

781.38
    
>    Richard,
    
>    Your notes grieve me so deeply... I can't even tell what you believe. 
>    Do you believe in the saving blood of Jesus Christ?  Do you believe in
>    the Trinity?  What is your stance?

Look, all you and other critics are doing is judging me by how well the
details of our doctrines match.  What a pitiful thing for a such life-giving
faith to be all about!

*If* you had looked around, you would have found that I'm a trinitarian.
But instead you (and others) keep demanding that I "show my credentials."
I say that a faith based on credentials is bogus, and not worthy of
the name Christian.  Spare me your grief.  It is ill-placed.
    
>    The name Christian doesn't apply to this conference based on what I've
>    read...

Like it or not, beyond your ability to comprehend it or not, this conference
is just as Christian as any other conference.  I'm frankly fed up with
fundamentalist notion that one can't be Christian and not believe what
the fundamentalists believe.  Like it or not, you've got no corner on
God.

>    To say that it is "in Jesus' face" to believe He'd sit idly by
>    as the beginning of the end, or so-called signs of the times appear
>    before us, is blasphemy.

You've royally screwed up what I said.  You've said I said things I didn't.
This is not the first time you've done this.  It's beginning to seem quite
chronic to me.

Jesus is Lord,
Richard

>Look, all you and other critics are doing is judging me by how well the
>details of our doctrines match.  What a pitiful thing for a such life-giving
>faith to be all about!

    That's a fine dump on me for all you and other critics. :-)  It seems
    that the word *judge* gets thrown around quite a bit when we want to
    make someone look *unChristian*.  Quite frankly, God calls us to judge
    many things in the Bible via the Bible, it is a Chrisitan thing to do. 
    What God tells us not to do is judge unjustly and to be sure that the
    same standard by which we judge will be used against ourselves.  There
    is a warning to heed.  BTW, God does not give us His position of
    judging one's heart or forgiving one's sins.  That is His sole role as
    Creator of the Universe.
    
>*If* you had looked around, you would have found that I'm a trinitarian.
>But instead you (and others) keep demanding that I "show my credentials."
>I say that a faith based on credentials is bogus, and not worthy of
>the name Christian.  Spare me your grief.  It is ill-placed.
    
    "Credentials?"  That is your interpretation of one asking what you
    believe?  Isn't that what this conference is about [actually all
    conferences], one putting what they believe in or about a given
    subject?  Sorry if you are offended for what I consider a natural
    question in a Notes Conference.
    
>Like it or not, beyond your ability to comprehend it or not, this conference
>is just as Christian as any other conference.  I'm frankly fed up with
    
    That's why I asked what your definition of Christian was.  I don't see
    it.  I see this as a Philosphy 101 discussion.  The book of Acts is the
    first place we see the term Christian and it applied to those who
    received Christ as Savior and were Baptized into His church.   And
    while you may be shaking your fist and saying, *THAT* is *exactly* what
    this is all about.  The problem comes when you then purport there are
    other roads to salvation. This is conflicting to Christ's teaching.
    
    
>fundamentalist notion that one can't be Christian and not believe what
>the fundamentalists believe.  Like it or not, you've got no corner on
>God.
    
    Richard, I do not know all there is to know about God.  From what I
    read in the Bible, I'm a mediocre Christian, struggling to do right,
    but truly putting my heart into it.  However, I do believe that without
    the Bible, the corner on God doesn't exist at all.
    

>You've royally screwed up what I said.  You've said I said things I didn't.
>This is not the first time you've done this.  It's beginning to seem quite
>chronic to me.
    
    Chronic or not if I don't understand what you are writing, then
    obviously you have the choice to set me straight or to insult my
    intelligence or character for not understanding you.
    
    That is *your* call.
    
    Nancy
    
    

    Richard:
    
    This isn't a witch hunt.  I truly honestly am still trying to
    understand where you come from on certain issues, that's all.  This has
    nothing to do with credentials, it has to do with likemindedness.
    I ask you simple questions and you purposely avoid answering them.
    
    -Jack

Well, it may not be a witch hunt.  But this much I've observed as of late.

I've been pitied and grieved over.  I've "astounded" others.  I've seen
repeated accusations of "Christian, in name only."  I've heard allegations
of bending and twisting God and the Bible to fit human desires.  I've been
advised that since some don't hold "traditional" (meaning fundamentalist)
views on the Bible, in all likelihood they're also not living "Christian
lifestyles."

I'm offered repetitive doses of this garbage, the portions of which have been
much larger in recent weeks.  And when I push the plate away from me, thoroughly
disgusted by the very stench of it, I'm percieved as being offended without
basis.

I thank God there are Christians in my life who do affirm me, who don't
percieve me as woefully errant and misled, and to whom I don't constantly
have to prove myself.

God bless you.  I know you *think* you're doing what's right.  Doubtlessly,
so did the Christians in the era of the Inquisitions.

Richard

 Gee, didn't take long for the Inquisitions to come up in this topic, eh?



 How about witch hunts?

    .10  For witch hunt references, see .8 & .9
    
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    Someone once asked me if my faith was strong enough to face challange. 
    Would I be able to withstand the criticisms, the doubts and sometimes
    the ridicule for what I believe.
    
    I went straight back to 2Timothy 3
    
    16  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for
    doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
    ^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    You also stated that you are glad that you have a group of Christians
    who affirm you... while I believe that affirmation is important to the
    vitality of one's soul, I'd much rather be affirmed in God's word, then
    by fallible men and women.
    
    BTW, God's words also states in Proverbs 27:6  Faithful are the wounds 
    of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
    
    Anyone can be a fairweather friend.  But true friends care enough to
    invoke challange for the wellbeing of one's eternal soul.  
    
    Reproof albeit wearisome at times, is pivotal in this life and grounds
    one in to the Solid Rock of faith when meted by the Word of God.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    .12  That's nice, Nancy.  Thank you for sharing.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

re Note 795.12 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     You also stated that you are glad that you have a group of Christians
>     who affirm you... while I believe that affirmation is important to the
>     vitality of one's soul, I'd much rather be affirmed in God's word, then
>     by fallible men and women.
  
        I can't answer for Richard on this, but I can offer you my
        perspective.  If I went to the Bible alone for affirmation, I
        would be affirmed by myself, as the reader.  It is HIGHLY
        likely that I would be reading what I wanted to see.  I would
        be affirmed by ONE fallible (in my case) man.

        Sometimes this may be the best that one can do.

        Involving a few more fallible men and women, if one can, is a
        good idea in general.

        Bob

    .14  Good point, Bob, and the very reason I usually shy away from
    translations (and paraphrases) of the Bible done by an individual,
    rather than a team or committee.
    
    Everybody tends to see what they're looking for.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .14
    
    That is a good point, that is why I choose carefully my counselors as is
    also represented in the Word of God,
    
    Proverbs 1:5  A wise man will hear, and will increase learning; and a
    man of understanding shall attain unto wise counsels:
    
    Proverbs 11:14  Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the
    multitude of counsellors there is safety.
    
    We are to choose our counselors wisely... again just as you stated
    reading the Word of God can be biased, also can your choice of
    counselors.
    
    Choose counselors that are spiritual, wise and faithful with their
    wounds [unafraid to challange you].
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    annent to .16
    
    We know that wisdom is something that is desirable in a counselor and
    I've often mused at this verse pondering its depths.
    
    Proverbs 11:30  The fruit of the righteous is a tree of life; and he
    that winneth souls is wise.
    
    I believe in choosing counselors for my life, this is a prerequisite
    which is why my Pastor is one of my counselors.
    
    Nancy

    Richard:
    
    Let me state it this way then since I think I am being misperceived.
    
    I am very interested in what you have to share.  I seek your viewpoints
    and perspectives.  I am a fundamentalist, perhaps you are not.  This is 
    fine.  I believe dialog even amonst those who disagree on various
    points is healthy.  It challenges the way we think and perceive the
    issues.  I have no less respect for you than I do for anybody else.  
    
    I perceive that there are times when I grate on your nerves.  Maybe it
    is a perceived tone, maybe we it just comes from our different
    outlooks.  Don't tske it this way.  I openly admit to you and everybody
    else, that if Jesus is preparing mansions in heaven, you may get a
    mansion and I may get a shack.  My motive is to help build the body,
    not knock it down.  As a brother in Christ, I would expect challenges
    from you as well.  Remember that Paul and Peter also had differences on
    a few occasions, it happens, but it spurs spiritual growth.  If I am
    all wet then darn it show me I'm all wet and hold me accountable.  I 
    will appreciate you for it!!  As somebody who is mature in the faith, I
    expect you and others here to press on toward the goal for the prize,
    just as Paul said to the Church at Philippi!!
    
    God Speed,
    
    -Jack

    
>I'm frankly fed up with
>fundamentalist notion that one can't be Christian and not believe what
>the fundamentalists believe.  Like it or not, you've got no corner on
>God.

    I can understand that. I've been on the receiving end of it myself over
    the years. But at least I can find some common ground with
    fundamentalists. There are some areas that Christians, I believe, have
    to agree on. Rejecting the notion that Jesus is God and that He is
    required for salvation and yet claiming to be a Christian is as 
    inconsistent as claiming to be a NARL (National Abortion Rights League)
    member and demanding that abortion be illegal. We are not talking about
    a minor difference but a complete rejection of a defining principle.

    			Alfred

.5

	Jack,


	I mean't in the regard of being ambassadors and not their own
	solutions to problems, as Jeremiah 10:23 NWT reads "I well
	know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong.
	It does not belong to man who is walking to direct his step."
	Mankind's solutions won't resolve the problems we all face,
	they need guidance.

	Jesus, showed the answer to mankind's problems. It is something
	he told his disciples to pray for, that is God's kingdom. This
	would be the solution to mankind's ill's as it would bring about
	God's will here on earth, Matthew 6:10. In fact just shortly 
	after being baptised "Jesus commenced preaching and saying 
	'Repent, YOU people, for the kingdom of the heavens has drawn
	near.'" Matthew 4:17 NWT. In verse 23 of Mattew 4, it reads
	"Then he went around throughout the whole of Galilee teaching
	in their synagogues and preaching the good news of the kingdom
	and curing every sort of disease and every sort of infirmity
	among the people." He taught and preached that the kingdom
	was the solution, also he gave a foregleam of the things he
	would do in kingdom power in curing people of their ailments,
	at that time. This gives one sound hope of the blessings
	that will radiate from this kingdom once it has been firmly
	established, compare Daniel 2:44.

	Jesus' ambassadors would not promote their own or other man
	made solutions to the problems we face. No, they would point
	to the God's kingdom as the solution, with Jesus as the 
	Anointed One who will have the "princely rule upon his 
	shoulder." bringing about peaceful conditions as the "Prince of
	Peace" Isaiah 9:6,7. Any other solution promoted by man would 
	be a poor immitation of God's kingdom, infact it would be in
	direct opposition to it.

	Phil.

re .19

	Alfred,

	Who would you accept to define these principles? 

	Phil.

    RE: Somewhere around .12, .13, .14 or wherever

    Topic: Other Christians affirming one's Christianity.

    This is one's community.  These are those with whom one takes
    communion.  I got the feeling that Jesus thought this was 
    kinda important.

    Yes, one's friends are fallible, but that's part of the plan.
    It forces us to go beyond loving perfect behaviors/beliefs
    to Loving each other.  And through the lens of others we
    can see, and so Love, God.  As we learn to Love our neighbors
    unconditionally so we can Love God in the same way.

    When you Love God unconditionally *NOTHING* can harm you. Not
    "bad guys", not Satan, not even being nailed to a tree!

    Tom

    
    >                   -< Who defines the principles involved? >-
    
    I would say that one has to look at the common principles found in
    the Bible. Especially the Gospels and the book of Acts. The things
    Jesus said about who He was for example.
    
    			Alfred

	Alfred,

	That's good, Jesus was very clear about his teachings for his disciples
	to follow. He even says how all persons would recognise his followers,
	such as John 13:34,35. Seeing that he taught the important things
	that his disciples should learn, it seems strange that he never stated
	to them that he was God. And yet others say one can only be Christian
	if one accepts Jesus as Almighty God.

	If this is a clear teaching in the Bible then one would expect a 
	statement from Jesus to that affect. Otherwise one would have to 
	concur that this is a man-made teaching or interpretation. For
	example, he taught that he was the Messiah to the Samaritan woman
	(John 4:25,26), it would seem reasonable that if he was Almighty God
	that he would make himself known as such. But instead we read in
	John 17:6,26 that he makes his Father known as Almighty God before 
	men and not himself.

	I hope my reply does not offend you. I know you have strong feelings
	and faith in Jesus. Many make statements about who is and is not
	Christian, but notice that 1 John 2:17  mentions that those doing
	the will of God are the ones acceptable to him. As individuals this
	is the prime importance coming to understand and doing God's will, 
	and not the labels that people apply to others.

	Phil. 

re Note 795.24 by RDGENG::YERKESS:

>                      -< Jesus was clear in his teachings >-
  
        "Clear" is one of those wonderful words, like "plain" and
        "objective", that would appear to be a very strong way of
        settling an argument but which, in practice, turns out to
        involve a lot of subjectivity whose application is often
        unclear.

        Bob

RE:    <<< Note 795.24 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
                     -< Jesus was clear in his teachings >-


.	that his disciples should learn, it seems strange that he never stated
.	to them that he was God. And yet others say one can only be Christian
.	if one accepts Jesus as Almighty God.

        It was clearly evident to His enemies and followers that he was
        saying that He was God.




   Jim

    Man, John 10:30 has me really confused. :-) :-)
    
    
    John 8:18  I am one that bear witness of myself, and the Father that
    sent me beareth witness of me.
    
    John 10:30  I and my Father are one.

    Nancy:
    
    Just to point out, the verse, "...I and my Father are one", is in the
    neuter, indicating that they are one in purpose.  I hear you big time
    on the other verses.  Also, to confirm what Mr. Henderson stated, in
    Mark there was a situation where Jesus said, "Arise, your sins are
    forgiven."  The original text has the words Ani hu, indicating that
    Jesus forgave sin not as a priest would attempt to, but actually as One
    who had total authority to forgive sin.  You may recall the pharisees
    picked up stones to stone him.  Charge: Not for doing a miracle, but
    for blasphemy, claiming to be God.  Don't have a Bible handy but will
    be glad to look it up!
    
    Phil, there are many many texts in the OT and NT placing Jesus as the
    supreme creator!!
    
    -Jack

 John 20:28 "and Thomas answered and said to Him 'My Lord and my God"

	Nancy,

	Could it be that this oneness is like a husband and wife relationship.
	For they are spoken of as one by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6.

	Especially, if we look at Jesus' prayer for his followers to have
	the same oneness in John 17:20-22. 

	The oneness or union is in the respect of purpose and thought, 
	compare 1 Corithians 1:10.

	Phil.

    
    Try John 1:1,  the Word = Jesus Christ

Okay, Jack (.18).  I appreciate what you've said.  In fact, I'm downright
humbled by your flattery.  And I'm feeling kind of guilty for coming
on like Rambo.  Forgive me my sin of misunderstanding your motivation,
if that's what I've done.

As an act of good faith, I'll share my thoughts about Joshua.

Joshua, though he shared a Hebrew name in common with Jesus (Jesus is
Aramaic for the Hebrew name Joshua), had one distinct disadvantage
over me (and you for that matter).  Joshua never heard the teachings
of Jesus, never had Jesus' example to follow, never had the benefit of
a Christian community under a new covenant and with a new commandment,
to love one another as Christ loves.

Yes, I believe in Yahweh of Joshua.  At the same time, I also believe
that the Bible provides us with something of a chronology of discovery
and an expanding understanding of the true nature of God.  I believe
Jesus to be the greatest expression of the true nature of God in human
form thus far.  I believe the declaration in the first epistle of John
that God is love to be the supreme and most radically profound revelation
of Godself thus far.

I try to avoid making a judgment of Joshua and his understanding of God.
Had I been in his place, I may very well have done what Joshua did.

Peace,
Richard

    >	Could it be that this oneness is like a husband and wife relationship.
    >	For they are spoken of as one by Jesus in Matthew 19:4-6.
    
    Jesus often likens his relationships to marriage.  It is the love
    that binds which transcends human explanation.

    >	Especially, if we look at Jesus' prayer for his followers to have
    >	the same oneness in John 17:20-22. 

    The same is here... the oneness here demonstrates the above if you read
    further in the text to verse 26, it explains it very clearly that it is
    love that Jesus was talking about.
    
    >	The oneness or union is in the respect of purpose and thought, 
    >	compare 1 Corithians 1:10.

    This is another aspect of oneness.  Hey did you know we think
    alike?  We hear it all the time at work, at home, with our mothers and
    with our fathers.
    
    What Paul was referring to in the church of Corinth was to put their
    focus on Jesus Christ.  Prior to these verses it was clear that the
    church was in a turmoil over who had lead them to Christ, saying they
    were of Apollos or of Paul.  Paul wanted their to be unity in thought
    and in purpose and to not have the church divided into sects.
    
    Corinthians 1:12  Now this I say, that every one of you saith, I am of
    Paul; and I of Apollos; and I of Cephas; and I of Christ.
    
    13  Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized
    in the name of Paul?
    
    
    Nancy

    Richard:
    
    I too am sorry for any miscommunication to you.  The times of Joshua no
    doubt are very hard to relate to in our culture.  I thank God that for
    the time, I am in a somewhat seemingly more sane society, somewhat!!!
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

    Re .28 JMARTIN
    
    > Phil: There are many texts in the OT and NT placing Jesus as the
    > supreme Creator.
    
    I would agree that there are many texts in the OT which *many* choose
    to interpret in this fashion.  I imagine that, if it were so clear
    cut as you imply, there would be no Jews today: they would long ago
    converted to Christianity.
    
    There are a few texts in the NT which require a "smaller leap of faith"
    (some would call it "stretch of the imagination") in order to see Jesus
    as the supreme Creator.  Interestingly, I beleive there to be more
    direct statements in the pseudopygraphica (sp?) than in the canon and
    I have often wondered why these books were left out/removed.
    
    The fact is that far more contemporaries of Jesus - and of Paul - did
    not convert to Christianity than did.  Both groups had their reasons,
    no doubt.  I suspect that the non-convertees based their reasoning on
    the lack of evidence to be gleaned from their scriptures and/or their
    legends.  There is strong evidence that most of the early Christians
    came from the Gentile and/or Pagan camp.  Have you ever wondered what
    their early scriptures predicted/claimed in relation to Jesus?
    
    Greeings, Derek.

	Apart from Nancy's reply in .27 no one as has posted a statement
	that Jesus made. Jesus never made a clear statement "I am Almighty
	God", and as such this teaching does not come from him. John 10:30 
	refers to being one in purpose, Jesus said "I cannot do a single 
	thing of my own iniative; just as I hear, I judge; and judgement 
	that I render is righteous, because I seek, not my own will, but 
	the will of my him that sent me." John 5:30 NWT. Jesus' purpose 
	was to do the will of his Father who sent him, separate (not his 
	iniative) but one in purpose.

	My intention was not to debate scriptures that may imply that Jesus
	is God, but to point out that the labels that people apply to people
	are not the important factor. Many who are called Christian will be
	shunned by Jesus and yet these ones are sincere in their faith, compare
	Matthew 7:21-23. This Scripture shows that it is those who are doing
	the will of Jesus' Father who will receive approval. This means not 
	learning man's definition of what a Christian is, but coming to a 
	knowledge of what's God's will is for mankind based on Jesus' teaching 
	as found in the Bible. So what did Jesus teach? that's the question
	an individual needs to ask oneself.

	Phil.

    Hello Derek, Phil:
    
    There are numerous texts in the New Testament that DO NOT stretch the
    imagination at all.  Colossians 1 speaks of his preeminence. 
    Philippians 2 refers to Him as Lord (capital L), John 1 I'm sure you
    are familiar with, Isaiah 9 calls him Everlasting Father and Mighty
    God, Genesis 2 says "let US make man in OUR image", Hebrews 1 is
    smeered with scripture referring to the prophets pronouncing Christ as
    God, Revelation 1 and 21 says he is the Alpha and Omega, Revelation 19
    calls Him the Word of God and the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, he
    never denounced worship of himself, had authority to forgive sin...
    
    Want more?
    
    I would recommend the book, Evidence that Demands a Verdict, by Josh
    McDowell.  It is an excellent study in the area of apologetics, I think
    this is an area all serious bible scholars should be interested in.
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    Basically, the last few reflect the unitarian verses trinitarian
    points of view on the nature of Jesus.
    
    Both sides, I believe, present very provocative evidence.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Note 795.19

>>I'm frankly fed up with
>>fundamentalist notion that one can't be Christian and not believe what
>>the fundamentalists believe.  Like it or not, you've got no corner on
>>God.

>    I can understand that. I've been on the receiving end of it myself over
>    the years.

Alfred,

To the extent of which I have contributed to the suggestion that my theology
is absolutely right and yours is absolutely wrong, I apologize.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .39 I was referring to fundamentalists suggesting that I wasn't
    a Christian because I didn't agree with everything they believed.
    Had nothing to do with you.

    			Alfred

    .40  Ahh, a relief to hear.  Thanks, Alfred.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

RE:    <<< Note 795.36 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
                           -< What did Jesus teach? >-



>	Apart from Nancy's reply in .27 no one as has posted a statement
>	that Jesus made. Jesus never made a clear statement "I am Almighty
>	God", and as such this teaching does not come from him. John 10:30 


        Please explain John 8:58 "Jesus said unto them, Verily, Verily I
        say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am"



	>	as found in the Bible. So what did Jesus teach? that's the question
	>an individual needs to ask oneself.

	It is evident from John 8:59 that the Jews knew that Jesus was claiming
        to be God.


       Jim

    Jim .42,
    
    	Yes, it was a stunning remark and probably met with gasps at
    the time.  Non-trinitarians will likely indicate that Jesus affirmed
    a link or bond between himself and God, and most assurdedly that he
    was the Messiah.
    
    	You have no argument with me because I am a trinitarian.  At the
    same time, I can see what the unitarians are saying.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Paul told the Galatians...

    Stand fast in the liberty wherewith Christ has made us free and be 
    not entangled again in the yoke of bondage.  For brethren, you have
    been called unto liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the
    flesh, but by love, serve one another.

    For the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
    gentleness, goodness, meekness, temperance, faith -- Against such there
    is no law.


    Jesus told us...

    You will know them by the fruit they bear.



    Peter had a vision on the rooftop... (Acts 10)

    God lowered a bunch of animals down in a sheet-like container and told
    Peter to kill and eat them.  Peter said that he couldn't because some
    of the animals were not acceptable within Judaic law (unclean).  God
    told Peter that if He said that it was clean, then Peter should really
    take it seriously and consider it clean.  

    God's Grace is sufficient.  The Law is fulfilled.

    The age of Law is over.  This is the age of Grace.  I believe that when
    we make a bunch of fixed, rigid rules about us and God, we are
    reverting to Law.  We are not "standing fast in the liberty of Christ." 

    We do this because we do not trust that God can really communicate His
    Will to our own hearts.  

    I believe that *anything* we put before our connection to God, our
    Light and Source, is a form of idolatry.  Jesus is recorded as saying
    that He was sending us a Comforter, not another Law.  He is the
    fulfillment of the Law.  We need no new Law. 

    We beg for Saul instead of waiting on the Lord for David, Ishmael
    instead of Isaac.

    To me, this includes legalistic faith in a written book.  The Good Book
    is a great source of guidelines and pointers, but it does not replace
    The Living Word.  

    I believe that *anyone* who truly wants the Will of God, and goes
    quietly, meekly, to that still space within will find the Presence of
    Christ.  Jesus did not lie.  If we ask, seek, and knock He will answer us
    and the answer will be perfect and filled with Light and Love.  He did
    not leave his disciples instructions on how to use concordances and
    chain-references.

    It does not matter what great doctrines we understand or invent.  We
    are nothing without Love.  

    If you want to know if someone is a Christian, behold their branches
    for fruit.  If you see the peaches of love, the apples of sweetness,
    the plums of forgiveness, the grapes of faith, and the oranges of
    peace, then you are looking at a Christian...even if they don't call it
    that.

    Ruth

    Ruth,
    
    Do you believe then that everyone is going to heaven? 
    
    Nancy

	Ruth,

	Must say I enjoyed your reply, and agree it is by their fruit you
	will know them. Christians will produce good fruit and ungodly ones
	rotten fruitage (Galations 5:19-21).

	But I disagree with "We need no new Law.", Hewbrews 12:24 indicates
	that Jesus is mediator of a new covenant.

	Also note the fruitage of love. There are I think 4 Greek words that
	are translated as the English word love. One being Agape, which is
	love based on principles. These principles would be based on God's
	law as found in the Bible. Take for example Jesus' parable of the
	Good Samaritan, the Samaritan was applying the principle from the 
	commandment to love ones neightbour. 

	Those wanting to please Jehovah God would learn God's commands as
	found in the Bible, through study one can come understand the 
	principles involved. By pondering over these things, and taking it
	into the ones  heart one can make application in everyday living. 
	Ofcourse, love is a fruitage of God's spirit, so one must pray to 
	God for his holy spirit to help in this regard. Hence we read in 
	1 John 5:3 RSV "For this is the love of God, that we keep his 
	commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome."

	So those displaying the fruitage of love, which especially includes
	love of God, would want to apply Bible principles in their lives.
	By doing so, all persons will recognise them as Jesus' disciples
	for example Jesus gave the following commandment to his disciples
	"A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another; even as 
	I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all men
	will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one
	another." 

	Phil.

    Nancy,

    I believe that no one can screw up forever.  I believe that the Life of
    Christ, the Still Small Voice of the Holy Spirit is within every one of
    us and gently, gently, beckons...whispers to our heart's
    ears...constantly reminding us to choose Love, constantly reminding us
    that we can never be separated from the Love of God.

    If we create hells for ourselves, then God allows us to wander around
    in them, until the our pain reminds us to listen.

    Heaven is not a place to be found, but a state of awareness.  Our
    Master said this when He explained that the Kingdom of Heaven is
    within.

    The Love of God is too great for the illusion of separation to prevail.

    Ruth

    Ruth,
    
    I agree with that.
    
    Patricia

    .47
    
    What a full and rich theology, Ruth!  You've kept this side of you
    concealed from us much too long!
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    re .46

    Phil,

    Yes, I understand what you are saying...There was a very long time in
    my life when I modeled all of my morality, thoughts, and ideals on The
    Bible.

    But, the fruit of the Spirit evaded me.  I was looking at the frame and
    not seeing the picture.  I was torn between my heart and my mind.  My
    heart said one thing and The Law Book said another.  I became
    depressed, suicidal, heartbroken...I had devotedly given all of my love
    to an image of God that was unworthy of it.

    I felt like a battered wife.

    I remember reaching a lowest point of despair and telling God that I
    had no idea of who He was, but that I sincerely wanted what was right. 
    And I let it go.  All of it.  Church, Bible, Christian friends, calling
    myself a Christian--everything.

    And naked, before God, before my family, I lived for several years.

    Apparently, God had my address in His daytimer, because He kept nudging
    me here, gently pushing me there, like the wind in my hair ever so
    subtle.  And without the competing noise of the church, and all of its
    traditions, I began to hear the tiny voice.

    And I found the small Christ child lying in safe manger within the
    quiet of my heart.  I picked Him up and held Him gently in my arms,
    and His innocent gaze healed me.

    It is with this gaze that I wish to look upon the world.  It is this
    realization that I can look upon the Christ child within each person
    and see innocence.  

    To me, this is the message of the New Covenant.  Let us untie the knots
    of guilt that hold us in bondage.  Let us look upon the world and offer
    it gentle forgiveness, as Christ has given us.

    The Bible is good, but the Law of God that is written in my heart, the
    part that is living and connected to the Holy Spirit is better.

    Ruth

    Ruth,
    
    That is beautiful.
    
    Patricia

    
    Awoman to that!
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    Forget the religious component, you are simply butchering the English
    language.  Surely you were joking around, no?!
    
    AWoman...huh?!
    
    -Jack

>    I believe that no one can screw up forever.  I believe that the Life of
>    Christ, the Still Small Voice of the Holy Spirit is within every one of
>    us and gently, gently, beckons...whispers to our heart's
>    ears...constantly reminding us to choose Love, constantly reminding us
>    that we can never be separated from the Love of God.

Ruth, based on your writing above, it would appear that your knowledge 
of God doesn't come from the Bible.  From where does it come?

>    If we create hells for ourselves, then God allows us to wander around
>    in them, until the our pain reminds us to listen.

How is that?  Do you believe that Hell or Heaven is a state of mind?

>    Heaven is not a place to be found, but a state of awareness.  Our
>    Master said this when He explained that the Kingdom of Heaven is
>    within.

Who is the Master?

>   The Love of God is too great for the illusion of separation to prevail.

What exactly is the illusion you are speaking of?  Is this life we now 
live an illusion?

    

Note 795.54

>Who is the Master?

Ruth is clearly referencing Jesus.  Luke 17.20-21.

Peace,
Richard

    .50  'Ever thought about becoming a preacher, Ruth?  'Ever thought
    about becoming a minister of Word, Order and Sacrament?
    
    You've got a gift, kid!  You really do.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .42

	Jim,

	I have only time for a quick reply, some Bible translators render
	this verse differently. Rather than saying that Jesus used the
	title "I AM" (Exodus 3:14) some render this as "I have been".

	The context shows what should be the correct understanding. The
	Jews wanted to kill Jesus for saying that he had seen Abraham, 
	in verse 57 RSV they say "You are not yet fifty years old, and have 
	you seen Abraham?". Rather than lie about his age he tells the truth,
	that is he existed before Abraham. 

	Phil.
	

RE:    <<< Note 795.57 by RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile" >>>
                         -< He existed before Abraham >-



>	I have only time for a quick reply, some Bible translators render
>	this verse differently. Rather than saying that Jesus used the
>	title "I AM" (Exodus 3:14) some render this as "I have been".


        "some" translators are being inconsistant then.  The 2 greek
        words translated "I AM" appear at least 15 times in the gospels
        (two times in John 8) and in each case, except for John 8:58, 
        they are translated (even by the "some" translators to which you
        refer) as "I am".   No where else in the gospels or elsewhere are
        they translated "I have been".  How would you explain this
        inconsistancy?
        


>	The context shows what should be the correct understanding. The
>	Jews wanted to kill Jesus for saying that he had seen Abraham, 
>	in verse 57 RSV they say "You are not yet fifty years old, and have 
>	you seen Abraham?". Rather than lie about his age he tells the truth,
>	that is he existed before Abraham. 


        I strongly disagree.  The context of chapter 8 has absolutely nothing
        to do with the age of Jesus, but who He is.	



        Jim

    re .58 (CSLALL::HENDERSON)/Jim
    
>>	I have only time for a quick reply, some Bible translators render
>>	this verse differently. Rather than saying that Jesus used the
>>	title "I AM" (Exodus 3:14) some render this as "I have been".
>
>        "some" translators are being inconsistant then.  The 2 greek
>        words translated "I AM" appear at least 15 times in the gospels
>        (two times in John 8) and in each case, except for John 8:58, 
>        they are translated (even by the "some" translators to which you
>        refer) as "I am".   No where else in the gospels or elsewhere are
>        they translated "I have been".  How would you explain this
>        inconsistancy?
    
    	"Consistency" (i.e., one way only) is not the sole key to valid
    translation.  It so happens that rendering Greek present tense verbs
    into English with a sense of past tense happens more often that you'd
    think; it's just that the vast majority of these instances do not
    involve verses that are as controversial.
    
    	A few years ago I did some research into this (because of John
    8:58) which I've posted before (in one or two previous versions of
    CHRISTIAN).  Although I don't want to turn this topic into a trinity
    debate, I'm reposting it to answer your question on how this
    "inconsistency" can be explained.  [As you'll see, it's NOT really an
    inconsistency, but rather, it's an accepted practice, though perhaps
    one not so well known.]
    
    								-mark.

    	The following is from a NWT appendix, explaining the grammatical
    justification for rendering John 8:58 as:
    
              before Abraham came into existence, I have 
              been [Gr., _prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi_].

         "The action expressed in Joh 8:58 started "before Abraham came
         into existence" and is still in progress.  In such situation
         _eimi_, which is the first-person singular present indicative,
         is properly translated by the perfect indicative.  Examples
         of the same syntax are found in Lu 2:48; 13:7; 15:29; Jo 5:6;
         14:8; 15:27; Ac 15:21; 2Co 12:19; 1Jo 3:8. 

         "Concerning this construction, _A Grammar of the Idiom of the
         New Testament_, by G. B. Winer, seventh edition, Andover,
         1897, p. 267, says: "Sometimes the Present includes also a
         past tense (Mdv. 108), viz. when the verb expresses a state
         which commenced at an earlier period but still continues, --
         a state in its duration; as, Jno xv. 27 [_ap arkhes met emou
         este_], viii. 58 [_prin Abraam genesthai ego eimi_]." 

         "Likewise, _A Grammar of New Testament Greek_, by J. H.
         Moulton, Vol. III, by Nigel Turner, Edinburgh, 1963, p. 62,
         says: "The Present which indicates the continuance of an
         action during the past and up to the moment of speaking is
         virtually the same as Perfective, the only difference being
         that the action is conceived as still in progress ... It is
         frequent in the N[ew] T[estament]: Lu 2:48  13:7  ... 15:29
         ... Jn 5:6  8:58 ...""
         
         =====================[ end of quote ]======================
         
    	Basically, both Winer and Turner conclude that in certain
    instances, John 8:58 included, Greek verbs in the present tense include
    a sense of past tense, such as when the action begins in the past and
    remains in progress up to and including the present.  Note, though,
    that neither authority stated that this was meant to apply to EVERY
    instance of verbs in the present tense.
    
    	Below is the complete quote (given partially in the appendix,
    above) of Turner's comments on the interpretation of the grammar
    in these instances.  [Sorry for the repeat, but I included for the
    sake of completeness]:
    
         The Present which indicates the continuance of an action
         during the past and up to the moment of speaking is virtually
         the same as Perfective, the only difference being that the
         action is conceived as still in progress.  It is frequent in
         the NT: Lk 2:48 13:7 (_idou tria ete aph ou erkhetai_) 15:29
         (_tosauta ete douleuo soi_, and I still do), Jn 5:6 8:58
         (_eimi_) 14:9 (_meth umon eimi_) 15:27 (_este_), Ac 15:21
         (_gar ek veneon apkhaion kata polin tous keryssontas auton
         ekhe_, and still has) 26:31 (_prassei_, his manner of life
         still continues), 2 Co 12:19, 2 Ti 3:15 (_oidas_), 2 Pt 3:4,
         1Jn 2:9 3:8. 
    
    	I did my best to investigate (and confirm) all the verses cited by 
    the above sources [which proved to be as tedious as it reads].  The
    next reply is the outcome of that investigation.
    
    [continued in next reply]

    Dear God, this must be really important.  Arguing one's theology
    must be like protecting the foundation upon which one has built one's
    house.
    
    Richard
    

    
    	In examining the instances cited by the authorities in the previous
    reply, I used the following reference works (abbrvs. in "[]"s) to help
    me identify (and confirm) the tense of the verbs, as well as to
    identify any interesting aspects to the translation of the verbs:
    
    	* _The NASB Interlinear Greek-English New Testament_ 
    	  by Alfred Marshall (Zondervan, 1984) [Marshall]
    
    	* _The Kingdom Interlinear Translation ofthe Greek Scriptures_
    	  (Watchtower Bible & Tract Society, 1985) [KI]
    
    	*  _A Parsing Guide to the Greek New Testament_ 
    	   by Nathan E. Han (Herald Press, 1971), [PG]
    
    	* _An Analysis of the Greek New Testament_ Vols. I and II, 
    	  by Max Zerwick and Mary Grosvenor (Biblical Institute
    	  Press, Italy, 1974) [AGNT]
    
    Given below are the verbs in Greek, the word-for-word (interlinear)
    English, the English used in full, idiomatic, English prose, the verb
    tense from the PG, and analytic commentary (when given or relevant)
    from the AGNT.  [Note that "(none)" means that an entry in the
    designated source was not given for the verse.]  For the English
    translation, I tried to find a major version that rendered the verb in
    a past sense. 
    
    Verse:   		Luke 2:48
    Verb:		zetoumen
    Tense (PG):		1st pers/plur/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	are seeking (Marshall)
    English:		have been seeking (NASB)
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)
        
    Verse:   		Luke 13:7
    Verb:		erkhomai
    Tense (PG):		(none)
    Interlinear:	I come (Marshall)
    English:		I have come (NASB)
    Analysis (AGNT):	"English demands perf. _for 3 years I have
    			been coming_" (AGNT)
    
    Verse:   		Luke 15:29
    Verb:		douliuo
    Tense (PG):		1st pers/sing/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	I serve (Marshall)
    English:		I have been serving (NASB)
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)
    
    Verse:   		John 5:6
    Verb:		ekhei
    Tense (PG):		3rd pers/sing/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	he has (Marshall)
    English:		he had (NASB)
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)	
    
    Verse:   		John 14:9
    Verb:		eimi
    Tense (PG):		(none)
    Interlinear:	I am (Marshall)
    English:		Have I been (NASB), I have been (NIV)
    Analysis (AGNT):	"Eng. idiom calls for _I have been_"
    
    Verse:   		Ac 15:21
    Verb:		ekhei
    Tense (PG):		3rd pers/sing/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	has (Marshall)
    English:		he is having (KI), has been (NIV)
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)
    
    Verse:   		Ac 26:31
    Verb:		prassei
    Tense (PG):		3rd pers/sing/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	does (Marshall)
    English:		is ... doing (NASB) [This man is not doing anything...]
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)                                         
    			[My comment: used in the sense of "has done nothing"]
    
    Verse:   		2Co 12:19
    Verb:		dokeite
    Tense (PG):		2nd pers/plur/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	ye think (Marshall)
    English:		You have been thinking (NASB)
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)
    
    Verse:   		2Co 12:19
    Verb:		laloumen
    Tense (PG):		1st pers/plur/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	we speak (Marshall)
    English:		we have been speaking (NASB)
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)	

    Verse:   		2Ti 3:15
    Verb:		oidas
    Tense (PG):		2nd pers/sing/perf/act/ind
    Interlinear:	thou knowest (Marshall)
    English:		you have known (NASB)
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)	
    
    Verse:   		2Pet 3:4
    Verb:		diamenei
    Tense (PG):		3rd pers/sing/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	remains (Marshall), is remaining through (KI)
    English:		have continued (RSV)
    Analysis (AGNT):	(none)	
    
    Verse:   		1 John 3:8
    Verb:		hamartenei
    Tense (PG):		3 pers/sing/pres/act/ind
    Interlinear:	sins (Marshall), is sinning (KI)
    English:		has sinned (NASB), has been sinning (NIV)
    Analysis (AGNT):	"Eng. idiom demands transln. _he has been
    			sinning (i.e. a sinner) from the start_."
    
    	For the most part, the trend of the major translations that
    I checked favored the use of the English perfect indicative (past)
    tense when translating the verbs in the above verses which are,
    in Greek, in the present indicative tense.  This has been done to
    properly render the sense of the phrase (as a whole) and to fit
    the demands of English idiom.
    
    	As a side point, I thought the treatment of the verb _eimi_ in John 
    14:9 to be of special interest.  Although it's in the same Greek tense
    as the verb in John 8:58, it is rendered in English in the perfect 
    indicative ("I have been"), rather than the present ("I am"), and is
    even flagged in the AGNT as requiring this translation to satisfy
    English idiom.
    
    	Though not mentioned already, _eimi_ at Lu 19:22 is also translated
    in the past tense by some translators.  ["Thou knewest that I *was*
    an austere man..." KJV (also Goodspeed, RSV, JB, NAB).]
    
        Despite a few gaps in my sources, as well as gaps in my knowledge, 
    I think the preceding information is sufficient to demonstrate that 
    the rendering of present indicative Greek verbs into English using the 
    perfect indicative tense is an accepted form of translation when the 
    context calls (or allows) for it.
    
    	Therefore, in harmony with the practice and view of other recognized 
    Greek language authorities, the NWT renders _ego eimi_ as "I have
    been" to fit the sense of the passage using idiomatic English; Jesus
    simply asserted that he existed before Abraham was born.  Jesus
    was not revealing his pre-human identity with a personal name [in a
    word play on "I am"].
    
    -mark.

.    Dear God, this must be really important.  Arguing one's theology
.    must be like protecting the foundation upon which one has built one's
.    house.
    
 

     Kinda...I like to think of the souls hanging in the balance and their
     eternal destiny.  And I believe that one's doctrine, based on how
     one (or a group) intereprets scripture is highly significant when 
     considering one's eternal destination, particulary when considering
     the person of Jesus Christ.




   Jim    

    
    Re.53
    
    Jack,
    
    Well...not really.  After a while it gets tiring to constantly read
    about 'men' this and 'men' that.  So, when the opportunity arises,
    I challenge and modify to make a point.
    
    I know it would be difficult to have the situation reversed, but if
    you can, try imagining growing up in a society where all pronouns
    and references began with 'woman' instead of 'man'.  Having 'Womankind'
    referring to you, a man, because it's 'tradition' and 'the way it's
    always been'.
    
    Cindy

    Cindy:
    
    I writing this and trying not to laugh at the same time.  Not at you but 
    kind of chuckling because this is a misunderstanding of the English
    language.  Try to follow this in a logical sequence.  I think I can
    explain this accurately but if not, somebody feel free to correct me.
    
    Fireman, Mailman, Watchman, Selectman...the list goes on and on.
    the end of each of these words "man" comes from the German derivative,
    "mon".  This word is translated to include all persons and gender does
    not have anything to do with it, nothing at all.  Therefore, to
    practice what you are doing, with all due respect, is no less than
    bastardizing the english language.  Worse off, it is being done for
    politically correct purposes which even makes it more abhorrant because
    it is allowing a lie to occur in order to make a group of the populace
    fell warm and fuzzy about themselves.  Third and finally, the word AMEN
    is purely coincidental and is a Hebrew word for the expression, "Let it
    be this way", or "Let it be done".  Has nothing to do with the male
    gender.
    
    -Jack

re Note 795.65 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I writing this and trying not to laugh at the same time.  Not at you but 
>     kind of chuckling because this is a misunderstanding of the English
>     language.  Try to follow this in a logical sequence.  I think I can
>     explain this accurately but if not, somebody feel free to correct me.
>     
>     Fireman, Mailman, Watchman, Selectman...the list goes on and on.
>     the end of each of these words "man" comes from the German derivative,
>     "mon".  This word is translated to include all persons and gender does
>     not have anything to do with it, nothing at all.  

        I don't think this is a laughing matter.

        I'm sure that as a woman grows up she hears the traditional
        use of the word and root "man" starting at a far earlier age,
        and far more often, than she hears the etymology of the word
        "man" (if she ever does).

        While the etymology may be useful for those who wish to
        explain away any effect this may have on women, I suspect it
        always comes to the individual far too late to remedy any
        deep-seated effects.

        So what was your point?

        Bob

    .65
    
    Cindy's use of the word is a playful jab at language, sort of like
    calling a hurricane with a male name a "himmicane." ;-}  I've used
    the term "Awomen" within this file myself.
    
    Fireman is now firefighter.  Mailman is now postal carrier.  Policeman
    is now police officer.  These are more accurate reflections of reality.
    
    However, I doubt that we'll ever really fully adopt such usage as "the
    Portugese Person-o'-War!" 8-}
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

	Oh Richard..... you didn't......

	Jack, while your command of the english language is good, you still
need to know where the words came from, MAN. But nice try though. I think
Richard said it right when he talked of the postal worker, etc. 


Glen

    Man o'live...
    
    It's never bothered me... not EVER... I don't get it we find the
    silliest things to become enraged over.
    
    I'd rather save my energy for worthy cause.
    
    Nancy

    Point is this plain and simple.  Cindy is bastardizing the english
    language, regardless of her motives, it is wrong to do this.  It is 
    equivalent to reteaching American history in order to make other sects
    of the population feel no remorse or feel good about themselves. 
    Wrong..Wrong..Wrong!!!
    
    Your Pal,
    
    -Jack

    Puns are the bastardization of the English language, too.  Yet
    some say the pun is the highest form of humor because it pokes
    fun of language rather than persons.
    
    Puns were used quite a bit in the OT.  Guess that was the sin of
    bastardizing the Hebrew language.
    
    Peas...er, peace,
    Richard
    

Richard,

  You trivialize the meaning of the death of Christ on a
cross by accusing those of us who accept the meaning that
the *prophets of God* give to it as simply pushing our
dogma.

  In reality, historical events reported without interpretation
are meaningless.  The interpretation of any event is what gives
it meaning.  By accepting an event as historical and giving
it an entirely different meaning than what it has, you do
a much graver injustice than by simply denying the event
even existed.

  Many (including you) refuse to believe that what Jesus was
doing during the death on the cross was paying for the sins
of the world - past, present and future.  It is this understanding
of the event that makes it so meaningful - and so wonderful.
Lots of men died (including some "good" men) died on lots of
crosses back then.  Fox's book of Martyrs details lots of
people who gave their lives in a courageous way similar to
Jesus Christ.

  Christianity was, is and will be built on the work of Jesus
Christ that was consumated at the cross.  It is for this work
that He came.  For those who insist on creating their own
interpretation of this event, I can only pray (and I sincerely
do pray) that God will open your eyes and minds to what He has 
clearly put in front of you.  This "doctrine" is critically
important because this "doctrine" (i.e. understanding of what
Christ has accomplished) allows you and me free access to the
throne room of God when we claim the gift offered.

Collis

    Richard:
    
    There is peace in this, I do use the terms chairperson and other terms
    out of courtesy for others feelings because it isn't really that
    important to me.  Cindys use of the word, AWoman, however was certainly
    pushing the envelope.  Not only because of how silly it sounded, but
    also because Amen has nothing to do with the german derivative, mon. 
    Amen is a Hebrew word and Cindy showed me a blatent form of PC.  I
    couldn't stop laughing at that one!!!
    
    -Jack

                                  
    Re.70, etc.
    
    Jack,
    
    >bastardizing the (note the capital 'E' here) English language...
    
    Oh dear...is that a sin too?
    
    Shall I correct and grade your notes?  I am a technical 
    writer by profession.   Your note .70 alone is chocked 
    full of grammatical errors and incorrect usages, not to 
    mention capitalization errors.
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.73
    
    That's 'Cindy's' with an apostrophe, Jack.
    
    Cindy

    .72  Maybe your right, Collis.  Maybe I've got it all wrong.
    
    All I know is that I would rather be in the company of people
    who *act* like Christians than in the company of people who *call*
    themselves Christian based on the orthodoxy of their beliefs.
    
    If the wrongness of my faith causes me to lose out on salvation
    or excluded from "life everlasting," then so be it.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

 How does one "act like a Christian"?





Jim

    Some additional details about where Amen really comes from.
    
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    From: "Autobiography Of A Yogi", by Yogananda, p.277

    "These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the 
    beginning of the creation of God." - Revelation 3:14   

    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God and the 
    Word was God. ...All things were made by him [the Word or Aum]; and 
    without him was not any thing made that was made." - John I:1-3

    Aum of the Vedas became the sacred word Hum of the Tibetans, 
    Amin of the Muslims, and Amen of the Egyptians, Greeks, Romans,
    Jews, and Christians.  Its meaning in Hebrew is sure, faithful.

    and....

    From: "The Hero With A Thousand Faces", by Joseph Campbell, p.267

    "The cosmogonic cycle pulses forth into manifestation and back 
    into nonmanifestation amidst a silence of the unknown.  The
    Hindus represent this mystery in the holy syllable AUM.  Here
    the sound A represents waking consciousness, U dream consciousness,
    M deep sleep.  The silence surrounding the syllable is the unknown:
    it is called simply "The Fourth." [Mandukya Upanishad, 8-12]  The
    syllable itself is God as creator-preserver-destroyer, but the 
    silence of God is eternal, absolutely uninvolved in all the
    openings-and-closings of the round.

      "It is unseen, unrelated, inconceivable,
         uninferable, unimaginable, indescribable.
       It is the essense of the one self-cognition
         common to all states of consciousness.
       All phenomena cease in it.
         It is peace, it is bliss, it is nonduality.

                       [Mandukya Upanishad, 7]

      

>>    Point is this plain and simple.  Cindy is bastardizing the english
>>    language, regardless of her motives, it is wrong to do this.  It is 
>>    equivalent to reteaching American history in order to make other sects
>>    of the population feel no remorse or feel good about themselves. 
>>    Wrong..Wrong..Wrong!!!
    
>>    Your Pal,
    
>>    -Jack

Cindy, you make a point here;, however, you should also realize I don't have an
agenda.  I hope this clears things.  Thanks for the second chance.

      The point is clear to me.  Cindy has chosen to change the rules of the
      English language for purposes of political correctness.  Regardless of
      her motives, this is an inappropriate practice.  I equate this 
      to providing an inaccurate account of American history 
      to ease the conscience of society or help us feel good inside.
      This is incorrect behavior and must end if we are to keep truth in 
      balance.

    Arrgh!  Jack!  You missed the mark about Cindy.  Her portrait cannot
    be painted with such broad strokes.
    
    Richard
    

    Huh?!

    
    Oh no, Richard.  Let him be.  He obviously doth knoweth everything.
    
    Perhaps we *should* go back to speaking and writing Shakespearian 
    English.  The true unbastardized version.
    
    Cindy

    Jack,
    
    And women have been putting up with a bastardized version of history
    forever.  That is why we are recreating "Herstory".
    
    
                                       Patricia

    Okay Cindy, you sound bitter here.  Let's deal with this.  I never
    claimed to know everything.  You just threw the first spear in this
    one.  Okay, one more time.  Truth and fact are two different things.
    Truth is Subjective, fact is objective.  You decide to change the rules 
    of the English language because you are bothered by the derivative, man
    or mon.  I am telling you the harsh fact that because it sounds like
    the male gender, the word mon denotes persons or people.  Sorry it
    doesn't sound like woman or person.  I'm sorry you fell repressed by
    all this.  
    
    Please don't try to change the Enlish language because of political
    expediency, it is a distortion.
    
    -Jack

    Patricia:
    
    Yes.  Similar to Affirmative Retribution programs or "Get even with em
    isms", males of he 20th century beware...your forefathers were sexist
    egotistical bigots and shame on us.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    -Jack

	jack, why did you reply to your own note? I think we got it the first
time.... :-)


Glen

    Glen:
    
    If your referring to my note to Cindy, I retyped the paragragh so as
    not to bastardize the English language.  My poor grammer is due to fast
    typing unlike political correctness.
    
    And now back to our regularly scheduled program!
    
    

	Jack, I'm talking about .80   You even responded to it..... :-)


Glen

    
    
    Jack,
    
    > Similiar to Affirmateive Retribution
    
    
    ..Smoke them if you got them, right on Jack !!!!!!!
    
    
    David

         
    Jack,
    
    As I said to David the other day...
    
       You are so wrong.
    
    Anyway, let me try to understand this...since you're a man and 
    a true believer, champion defender of the Enlish language (typo 
    deliberate...hey, at least you the capital letter right this
    time) and all, that I should obey your decision and not be PCizing 
    the language, right?  Is that how it works?
    
    But bad grammar and spelling errors that I point out must be 
    overlooked because you're a man and a sloppy typist, right?
    
    Just trying to figure this all out.  I'm not used to this paradigm.
    
    Cindy

    
    
    > Jack, I'm talking about
    
    
     Glen quit being a pain.
    
    David

    
    
    Cindy,
    
    
    > As I said to David the other day 
    
    > You are so wrong
    
     Hey I thought we were gonna stop the knife tossing??
    
    David

    
    David,
    
    *You* (and Jack) are reading so many emotions into what I'm typing,
    believing them, and basing your replies on them, that about all I can 
    do at this point is keep telling you that you are wrong.  Your view of
    me is completely wrong.  That's why I was encouraged when you actually
    asked the question to begin to right the wrong.
    
    Truth is truth, is it not?  You are (both) wrong, as Richard J-C has 
    also tried to tell you.  He knows me well.  You do not.
    
    So, [take your own projected emotions out here] - stated plain and
    simple - you are both wrong.  That's as straightforward as I can get.
    Unless you can suggest a better way of phrasing it.
    
    Cindy

    You messages are so ugly aren't they?  I was always taught that
    communication conducive to resolve requires the lack of the YOU
    word........ hmmmmmm :-)
    
    Now if good commuication isn't desirable then Youse yourself to death.
    :-) :-)
    
    David... are you good at this as well?
    
    

    .96
    
    >You are (both) wrong,
    

    It's the truth.  They're both wrong.  And it wasn't Cindy who initiated
    the "you" fingerpointing, in case it wasn't obvious.
    
    Richard
    

    
    It's the harsh truth (Jack's words).  They are (wrong).
    
    Cindy

    Yowweeee......I don't know about you, but I'm sure confused as to who
    is who!
    
    Marc H.

    Re: .100
    
    Amen!
    
    :-}
    

    
    
    Hi, I'm David :-)
    
    
    David

    :-)
    
    Dear Richard,
    
    I merely pointed out the communication and its consequences... hey
    lookit, there are 4 fingers pointing right back at me.
    
    Nancy

    OK, let's clear the air here.  First of all Cindy, what am I wrong
    about, the PC stuff, the Affirmative Action stuff, the doctrine stuff,
    the grammer stuff?  I AM NOT EMOTIONAL!!!!!!!!!!  No seriously Cindy,
    I really am not emotional over this.  Smooch...OK we've made up!  Now,
    just remember, man does not imply gender.  The derivative man infers
    personhood.  This is fact, not truth.  Truth is subjective to one's
    whims or emotions of the day.  The truth you perceive is that I am
    emotional over this.  I am not emotional over the error of bastardizing
    the English language but I do get annoyed when it is done for the wrong
    reasons, namely, to make you feel accepted.  It makes about as much
    sense as myself insisting on being a member of NOW to feel accepted. 
    It just doesn't work.  AWoman not only sounds silly (my subjective
    truth), it is a bastardization of the Hebrew language (objective fact).
    
    Now as far as my grammer, this is a strawman (yes, strawman) argument
    if ever I heard one.  It is a bastardization of the language, I agree. 
    My errors, however, come from lack of development or laziness. 
    Examples such as AWoman come from an agenda, good or bad, it is still
    a conscious agenda similar to the teaching of false history.  
    
    Having said this.....Why can't we be friends...Why can't we be
    friends...Why can't we be friends...Why can't we be friends...Sometimes
    I don't...speak...right...but now I know just what I'm talkin about....
    Why can't we..be friends...........................Cerca 1977.
    
    -Jack

    
    Re.85
    
    Jack,
    
    I don't recall throwing a spear.  I don't even own one.  (Oh, that's
    not a literal statement...(;^)...sorry, I took you [no, I mean 'thee']
    literally for a moment there.)
    
    I don't think I've decided to change any language rules.  Writers have 
    made billions (of whatever currency you choose) doing exactly what I
    have done - playing with words, modifying the language, and (gasp!)
    having a bit of fun.  (;^)  Like Richard Leaderer (author of "Get Thee
    To A Punnery!"), for example.  It's called literary liberty.  But to 
    someone who is rule-bound and needs clearcut guidelines, I guess it can 
    be a bit troubling to the psyche.  
    
    However, I don't plan on refraining anytime soon, so those of you who 
    object will just have to get used to it.  Otherwise I'll grade your notes 
    and point out all your errors, since, as a writer, I could probably make 
    as much of a case out of being offended by your entries containing bad
    grammar, incorrect usages, and spelling errors, as you seem to be by my 
    not following the rules that you have deemed to be important.
    
    So....do I hear an Awoman?  (;^)  
    
    Yo, mon!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Re.104
    
    Jack,
    
    >The truth you perceive is that I am emotional over this. 
    
    Wrong again!!!!  [I'm beginning to love this, actually.]
      
    Gee...I just love being told what I'm perceiving.  (;^)
    
    Nancy...note the use of the 'you' word by Jack here.
    
    Cindy

    .105
    
    :-) :-) :-) 
    
    I get it... all this time I wondered what Awoman meant.  I thought
    Asexual... but not Amen! :-)
    
    I'm rolling over here. :-)
    
    

    
    Re.107
    
    AND SHE ***GETS*** IT!!!!!!!
    
    YES!!!!!
    
    Cindy

    .108
    
    Well someone turned the fan on over my head. :-) :-) :-)
    
    Awoman... I'm sorry, I sorta like it! ;-) :-)
    
    I can hear it now in the pulpit..
    
    Sermon Simulation...good ol' Baptist Church kind
    
    "The Bible says in Romans 3:23, For all have sinned and come short of
    the glory of God.  And we all know who God was talking about, eh?"
    
    "Awoman!"
    
    hee hee hee
    
    Nancy

    
    Didya like the way I worked 'mon' in at the bottom of .105?
    
    Cindy

    .110
    
    Ya, I did! Sorry I just can't seem to get ahold of myself... I think
    I'm gonna use this in one of my Sunday School lessons! :-) :-)
    
    Interspersing of course Awoman and Amen at the appropriate moments!
    
    

         
    You realize though, Nancy, you too are guilty of bastardizing the
    Hebrew language.
    
    A sin punishable by....well...make up something appropriate.
    
    Cindy

    
    How about this for a punishment?  
    
    Reading all the manpages in OSF/1.
    
    Cindy

    .112
    
    Guilty as charged, but my Savior, Jesus is my hero, he stepped in took
    the punishment.  Man, it's wonderful to be loved. :-) :-)
    
    Nancy
    Bastard child of the King

    .113
    
    What is OSF/1???? :-) :-) :-)

    
    OSF/1 is an operating system...like VMS, DOS, ULTRIX, UNIX, or 
    RSX-11M, for example.
    
    On VMS, there is HELP text.  On OSF/1, there are MANpages.  I believe
    the original meaning is MANUAL pages (as in, from the manual.) 
    
    However, in the case of 'manpage', having been a witness to many a
    manpage, I would hesitate renaming to womanpage in any case.  (;^) 
                                      
    Cindy

re: manpage

but to read it it first must be loaded into system memory, thus it might be 
more a case of RAMpage, no?  Especially the way this string has been going 
lately.

By the way Jack, it's grammAr, not grammEr.  I noticed you were quite 
consistent with this spelling, so I thought I'd point this out as a friend.

Peace,

Jim

    AAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH....I CAN"T STAAANNDD IT
    ANYMORE!!!!!!!  WHERE IS DECSPELL WHEN YOU NEED IT!!
    :-) :-)
    
    By the way Nancy, I believe this is a simple explanation and somewhat
    accurate.  OSF is an acronym for the Open Software Foundation.  This
    is a consortium of companies, (Digital Included), that have taken the
    best pieces of their UNIX flavors and have put them together to make
    an industry standard flavor of UNIX.  This is
    what we know as OSF1.  I understand IBM is threatening to bow out of
    it.
    
    Bye!
    
    -Jack
    

Re:  .77
   
    >All I know is that I would rather be in the company of people
    >who *act* like Christians than in the company of people who *call*
    >themselves Christian based on the orthodoxy of their beliefs.
    
Why are you changing the subject, Richard?  The issue is not
who you want to be around, but rather whether or not those who
believe the Bible's claim that salvation is by faith in the
atoning death of Jesus Christ are simply "pushing doctrine"
when they bring this issue up in the discussion of what is
important in being a Christian.

Your comments indicate that believers in the Bible who refer
to this are simply doctrine pushers and therefore command
little respect from you (for their actions).

I, on the other hand, believe that accepting the doctrine is
true is a critical step toward accepting Jesus Christ as your
Lord and Savior for the remission of sins.  Therefore, the
issue is not simply doctrine.

I perceive your comment above as an unwillingness to acknowledge
the critical connection between doctrine and belief that the
Bible presents.  I see it as a desire to spread your accusations
while refusing to either defend them or retract them when
challenged.

I see this happening often, but was particularly irked in this
instance about your shoot and run tactics on a foundational
doctrine of Christianity and, thus, took the time to point out
what I think about this tactic.

Collis

    .119  Thank you for pointing out that blind spot in me, Collis.
    It is helpful for me to know these things, to see myself through
    the eyes of another, especially through the eyes of one with whom
    I've experienced some degree of dissonance.
    
    My original statement was probably driven too much by emotion.  I
    wasn't at all thorough, neither did I provide reinforcing examples
    or other supportive information.  I did not present my allegation
    in any kind of thought-provoking way.
    
    I am honored that you chose to take the time to call me on it.
    Without a doubt, you wouldn't have bothered to confront other noters
    who might occasionally "shoot from the hip," so to speak.  To me
    it means you hold out some hope for me, and that, I think, is a
    good thing! :-)
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

I appreciate your reply.

It does, however, still evade the issue that you raised.  
But, I expect you know that already.

Collis

re .50

;    The Bible is good, but the Law of God that is written in my heart, the
;    part that is living and connected to the Holy Spirit is better.

	Ruth,

	If you don't mind I would like to offer a different perspective
	on the heart. The heart often spoken of in the Bible is figurative,
	not the living organ, but symbolises a person's concern or affections
	and is spoken of as the seat of motivation. The inclination of the
	heart can be both good and bad, for this reason the Psalmist said
	"Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts!
	And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way
	everlasting!." Psalm 139:23-24 RSV. David recognised that unlike
	men, God can see into a persons figurative heart. God can see
	what really is the motivation behind a person (compare 1 Chronicles 
	28:9). David knowing his imperfect state requested that Jehovah
	God would give him a pure heart one that would be pleasing both 
	to David and His Creator.


	"The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately corrupt;
	who can understand it?" so reads Jeremiah 17:9 RSV. Ones figurative
	can be very deceiving, one might feel that one is doing good
	and yet in reality one is being deceived. For this reason it
	is important to safeguard ones own heart, as Proverbs 4:23 NWT
	reads "More than all else that is to be guarded, safeguard your
	heart, for out of it are the sources of life." But how does one
	safeguard their figurative heart?

	Medidate on God's Word, Psalm 19:4 RSV reads "Let the words of 
	my mouth and the meditation of my heart be acceptable in they
	sight, O LORD, my rock and my Redeemer." and Psalm 119:11 RSV
	"I have laid up thy word in my heart, that I might not sin
	against thee. Blessed be thou, O LORD; teach me they statues!".
	To do this one would have to learn through God's word what is
	pleasing to him and apply it so as to take down into ones heart.
	It would be presumptious to assume what is pleasing to God, as
	Proverbs 3:3,5 RSV reads "Let no loyality and faithfulness
	forsake you; bind them about your neck, write them on the tablet 
	of your heart," "Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do
	not rely on your own insight.". It is my understanding that the
	Jews took this Scripture in a literal sense, but it was mean't
	to be understood figuratively in that one should look to God's
	Word to get insight and not rely on their own understanding. 
	One might have doubts about what is contained in the Bible, this 
	seems prevalent in this conference, one is not to rely on ones 
	own understanding but in all their ways acknowledge him "and he 
	will make straight your paths." (verse 6).

	Proverbs 23:12 NWT "Do bring your heart to discipline and your ear
	to the sayings of knowledge." So disciplining ones heart is 
	required which will result in the fruit of self-control (Galations
	5:22).

	Pay attention to the inclination of the heart, Jesus told his
	disciples "Pay attention to yourselves that your hearts never
	become weighed down with over-eating and heavy drinking and
	anxieties of life." Fine counsel especially at this time of 
	the year.

	Seeing that it is important to have a good heart and to avoid
	a bad one. It would help to see what the Bible gives as evidence
	of the condition of the heart.

	Evidence of a bad heart:

	- "the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out
	   of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks." Luke 6:45b RSV

	- "A worthless person, a wicked man goes about with crooked speech,"
	  "with perverted heart devices evil, continually sowing discord."
	  Proverbs 6:12&14 RSV.

	Evidence of a good heart:

	- "The wise heart will heed commandments," Proverbs 10:8a RSV

	- "The heart of the righteous one meditates so as to answer."
                                                   Proverbs 15:28 NWT

	- "Oh, How I love your law! It is my meditation all the day."
	  "Through they precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate
	   every false way." Psalm 119:97&104 RSV

	- "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks. The
	   good man out of his good treasure brings forth good."
						Matthew 12:34,35 RSV


	Whatever one does they must safeguard their heart, as Phillipians
	4:8 RSV reads "Finally, brethern, whatever is true, whatever is 
	honourable, whatever is just, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
	whatever is gracious, if there is any ecellence, if there is 
	anything of praise, think about these things."

	Phil.

	BTW I used the book "Make sure of all things" to help find the
	Scriptures quoted above.
 
	 

 	re my last reply

	It discusses taking in knowledge of the Bible. I have heard
	it said that those who take in alot of knowledge have
	big heads. But those who take alot of Bible knowledge down
	into their hearts, have big hearts.

	Phil.

         
    Phil,
    
    Do you have the verse reference handy for what Jesus said about eating
    and drinking?  That's a good one.
    
    Path of the Heart - you'd make a wonderful Sufi.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

re .124


	Cindy,

	Whoops I ommited the reference there, it is Luke 21:34 NWT. I didn't
	use the RSV because I was unsure about the word "dissipation". But
	both translations convey the same meaning.

	Not sure what a Sufi is :-), I'll have to look it up.

	Must go it's time to go home here in the UK.

	Phil.

    Psalms 119:11  
    
    Thy word have I hid in mine heart, that I might not sin against thee.
    

    My Bible is out in the van and I can't get to it, but a section of
    Mark, chapter 7, comes to mind, which essentially says 'it's not
    what goes into a person, but what comes from within a person (from the
    heart - a metaphor), that causes him or her to be "unclean".'
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Note 795.121

>It does, however, still evade the issue that you raised.  
>But, I expect you know that already.

Collis,

	Yes, I know.  And I somehow instinctively knew you'd bring that
to my attention.

	I've determined that I'm still too emotionally enmeshed with the
issue to be able to address it clear-headedly at this time.  It has a *lot*
to do with my dealing with the message which is the title of this string.

Peace on earth,
Richard

    
    Re.125
    
    Thanks for the verse, Phil.
    
    Sufism is to Islam, like Yoga is to Hinduism.  It's the mystical branch
    of Islam.  They stress the heart over the head, in spiritual matters.
    
    Cindy

    My goodness, what a bunch of replies since I was last here...

    To those of you who posted responses/questions to my statement of
    personal belief, please feel free to call me at (719) 528-8424 
    (home/evenings) if you want to discuss it.  

    I have no need to defend, nor convince anyone of the truth of my
    beliefs.  If you are curious, and want to talk, please call me. 
    Really.  Typing is laborious and we have the technology for voice
    communications.  

    If you can use any of my words to help you on your journey, then I have
    given a gift and it has been received.  

    If not, they are merely words, sounds produced in an atmosphere by
    human vocal chords, symbols of something that is, and always will be,
    beyond words.

    I heard an ad on the radio Christmas Eve that had the words "Christmas
    is for giving."

    I was delighted because I had heard "Christmas is forgiving."

    I love you all.

    Ruth