Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

The reason is simple:

This is seen as a cultural restriction based on a
global truth.  The global truth is still there, but
how to adhere to this truth is different in different
cultures.

On the other hand, it was not that many years ago (50?)
when this restriction was very broadly applied in a number
of churches.

Naturally, trying to determine when a specific teaching is meant
to be applied only in a specific cultural setting (i.e. what
is the *essence* of the teaching and what is the *form* that
is going to be used to apply the teaching) is difficult.  Which
is why we and many others have these discussions.

  >Nevertherless, I am curious why do many, if not most, biblical literalist-
  >inerrantist assemblies NOT enforce the covering of the female head as they do
  >say the prohibition of a woman teaching a man?
 
Were you really?  Well, I guess you *do* learn a new thing every
day.  :-)

Collis

    So in the same letter to the Corinthian Paul also tells these agitating
    women that they should shut up in church and ask their husbands for
    answers to questions.
    
    Todays innerantists interpret the angry words regarding headcovering as
    a cultural restriction yet interpret the angry words about woman
    talking in church as a global truth.
    
    Thus Women do not have to wear a hat to church because that is a
    cultural thing but women can't preach because that's global.  and guess
    what.  It is the men that decide all this.  Excuse me Phoebe!  What
    would you say about all this. Do you think that there is some picking
    and choosing going on here?
    
    Patricia
    preach.  That is what

    RE: .2
    
    Good note...except the last part. Change "men decide this" to some
    people make this decision.
    
    Marc H.

  >Do you think that there is some picking and choosing going on here?
    
On the part of some, there certainly is.

On my part, I did the best research I could on some of these
passages to try to understand what was a cultural message
and what was not.  My bias was that it was all cultural.
My conclusion was that some of it was not.

I'm sorry my conclusion doesn't match your conclusion.  Obviously
I must be out to destroy women.  :-)

Collis

    Collis,
    
    You still have not told me whether your wife and girl children wear
    hats to church?
    
    Patricia

Note 843.4

>I'm sorry my conclusion doesn't match your conclusion.  Obviously
>I must be out to destroy women.  :-)

Smiley face aside, I don't believe you're out to destroy women.  I don't
see Paul as wanting women destroyed, either.

At the same time, I see Paul as wanting to impose regulations for the sake
of orderliness within the excessively exuberant assembly at Corinth.
Such regulation was perhaps appropriate at the time.  Perhaps not.  I
don't know.  I know that continuation of such regulations is form without
substance and serves to exalt Paul's letter to a level approaching
idolatry.

Shalom,
Richard

    Collis,
    
    So how did you conclude that it was OK for women to not wear hats but
    not OK for women to preach?
    
    Patricia

    
    And what about Jesus pictured with long hair?
    
    Cindy

I never saw him pictured with long and elaborately braided hair, which is
what Paul was talking about.

    this is quite an education on innerancy.

    
    
    -1
    
     So if they don't wear hats is that your out ????
    
    
    David

    .11  Out?  Of What?
    
    If the Bible is completely and changelessly inerrant, how come the
    instructions of Paul are being ignored by people who otherwise
    say that others "pick and choose," but they don't?
    
    Richard
    

    Hmmm... to be honest with you, when I was a little girl I had to wear a
    hat to church, all the women did and the young girls.  I don't know
    when the change happened that women stopped covering there heads, I was
    backslidden for near 8 years and didn't attend church... but its a good
    question and one that I'll need to understand better before I can
    answer Patricia.
    
    If after my study I'm convicted to wear a covering on my head, I'll do
    so, if not, I'll let you know why.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    Cindy:
    
    One of the conditions of a Nazarite vow was that no razor was to go to
    your head.  Among other Nazarites in the Bible are John the Baptist,
    Samson, etc.  I don't know if Jesus was a Nazarite, I don't think he
    was.  But the main point of my entry is even if Jesus had long hair,
    this again is a cultural thing.  You don't see, for example, men
    wearing robes and bare feet in public do you?  If you are implying that 
    Jesus wore long hair to release his feminine side, (notice I said IF),
    then you got a good laugh from me.
    
    Re: The hat issue.  My understanding, and this is open for discussion,
    was that this message was directed toward born again women who were
    once temple prostitutes that had their head shaven.  One of the
    penalties for prostitution of that place and time was that they be put
    to open shame by having their heads shaved.  A covering over the head
    was to cover the shame.   
    
    So Nancy, if you feel convicted to wear a hat in church, make sure you
    pull a Telly Savales first!!! :-)
    
    -Jack

re: Note 843.14 by Jack

>  You don't see, for example, men wearing robes and bare feet in public do 
>  you?  

Well, I have a friend who shuns shoes at every opportunity.  (I've even seen 
him out in the snow with bare feet!)

.-)  .-)  

Jim

    
>  You don't see, for example, men wearing robes and bare feet in public do 
>  you?  
    
    I've seen a number of Brothers (members of a Catholic order) who
    generally wear robes and sandles in public. Still more who wear robes
    regularly but with shoes.
    
    			Alfred

                                 
    Jack,
    
    Your assumption, as usual, is incorrect.  I was implying no such thing.
    
    There was some reference earlier to men having to have short hair (for
    whatever reason) because the Bible stated it, and that was what I was
    replying to.
    
    Re: robes and bare feet in public...well, yes, I have seen some actually.
    Not in small rural towns of New Hampshire as a rule, but I have seen them
    in other places.
     
    Cindy

    The issue is innerancy.  First Corinthian 11 very clearly says that
    women should cover their heads in church.  Paul very clearly gives the
    reason for this as because men are created in the image of God, an a
    man created in the image of God would be dishonoring God by covering
    his head.  A woman is created in the image of man and therefore should
    cover her head (because of the angels?).  In First Corinthians 14, Paul
    also tells this very same group of women who are not covering their
    heads and phophesizing and speaking in tongues in church that women
    should not speak in church.  They should be silient in church.
    
    I do not believe in the innerancy of the bible.  I believe that as a
    women I can speak in church, preach a sermon, teach both boys and girls
    and adult education classes that include both men and women.  I do all
    those things in my church.  I also choose to where what I please and do
    not wear a hat to church.  Corinthians says that I should wear a hat
    and be silient.
    
    As clear as I can tell, both Collis and Nancy who claim to be
    innerantist have decided that it is OK for women to not wear a hat to
    church but it is not OK for a women to preach in church.  I think that
    I have read that they both feel it is OK for a women to teach children,
    both male in female in church.  I don't know what their position is on
    teaching adult men in church.  My point is that Collis and Nancy have
    both taken a very clear message from Paul and decided to follow part of
    the message i.e. women not preaching in church and ignore the other
    part of the message i.e. women teaching in church and women not wearing
    a hat.  Nancy has quite clearly stated that she believes that it is
    wrong for me to preach a sermon in church.  Collis has said he does not
    believe women should preach so I assume that he too believes I should
    not preach a sermon.
    
    Both Collis and Nancy are using the Bible to define, what it is that I
    should do, while each one of them have themselves decided that they did
    not have to follow Paul's message about women teaching and women
    wearing hats.
    
    That is very clearly picking and choosing to me.
    
    Patricia

    .18
    
    Patricia in your attempt to discredit Collis and I, your forgot one
    item that is clearly needed to pick and choose... it's called
    AWARENESS.  Go back and read my note... this topic has brought about an
    AWARENESS on which I need to RECEIVE discernment.  
    
    Patricia, what I am about to say will most likely cause flames from
    every direction of notes participants... but FRANKLY, you're
    INTERPRETATION of scripture holds absolutely no MERIT to me.  You deny
    the Bible's inerrancy, you do not trust CHRIST as SAVIOR due to his
    Deity, and therefore, you do not have the HOLY SPIRIT who gives all
    Truth in knowlege.  
    
    Your discrediting of my spiritual growth is focusing in on what Paul
    said was of no concern to the eternal soul.  This is straining gnats
    while swallowing camels.  Whether I wear a hat or not will not preclude
    my salvation, whether a woman preaches or not will not preclude my
    salvation... these are matters of spiritual growth... I for one, do not
    claim to be fully grown.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

                                      
    Re.19
    
    Nancy,
    
    >Patricia, what I am about to say will most likely cause flames from
    >every direction of notes participants... but FRANKLY, you're
    >INTERPRETATION of scripture holds absolutely no MERIT to me. 
    
    And your interpretation, Nancy, holds absolutely no merit to me either.
    
    
    >you do not have the HOLY SPIRIT who gives all Truth in knowlege.  
    
    Your opinion, of course.
    
    This statement about whether Patricia (or I or anyone else) has the
    Holy Spirit also holds no merit.  
    
    Cindy

    .20
    
    It holds no merit to YOU because you do not believe God's word is
    inerrant and inspired... it hold merit to ME because God's word
    declares that the Holy Spirit is what quickens the soul and indwells
    when a person receives Christ as Savior.
    
    If this is not part of your dossier.. the authority of God's word says
    you DO NOT have the Holy Spirit. 
    
    

    RE: .21 and others....
    
    After much soul searching...I've come to the conclusion that Richard 
    and Cindy and others are correct, in that the Bible has to be read
    and interpreted for *you*. I use prayer and other's to help me,
    but still, the Bible's message can not be taken literally.
    
    The context of the times and the audience have to be a factor regarding
    , for example, Paul's various messages. My wife doesn't wear a hat in
    church, and doesn't need to.
    
    Our last minister was a woman, and she was just as important as the man
    that will be starting in a couple of weeks.
    
    One of the "problems" that interpreting the Bible makes...is the need
    to think.......
    
    Catholic's and Fundamentalists do not need to examine the Bible in
    the same way. For the Catholic's...the pope tells you the correct
    meaning...for the Fundamentalists...the literal word of the Bible
    tells you what to do. The deep thinking and "digging" into the text
    isn't needed. For some, this is fine...and I'm not saying it isn't
    O.K...Nancy or /john. Rather, for me, I have to find my own meaning
    and message.
    
    Marc H.

    Cindy:
    
    I value you as an individual.  I value you as a person.  I respect 
    your 1st ammendment right to speak your mind.  I value our difference
    because it helps me to understand better why you believe the way you
    do.
    
    Now, with this as our foundation, let's talk turkey.  I look at value
    and merit as two different things.  One can respect anothers opinion
    but that opinion has no merit.  Since Nancy and I are in agreement with
    most issues, I must assume that my opinion has no merit either.  OK,
    that's fine and I respect your opinion.
    
    One thing I have learned in this conference is that opinions are for
    the most part biased.  Opinions are formed either by an authoritative
    source, (the bible, Yogananda, etc.), or they are formed by one's 
    perceptions of the world and molded by society.  
    
    I submit to you that when ones opinions are based on feelings as
    opposed to faith, then the premise is built on shakey ground.  Why?
    Because feelings are fluid, not concrete.  They tend to change very
    frequently and cannot be trusted.  
    
    The very core of Christianity is the anticipation of a redeemer, the
    ministry of that redeemer, and the payment the redeemer made for the
    sins of the world.  This is the trunk of the tree.  The fruit of this
    tree is what we produce in our lives.  I think it important to note
    that without the trunk of the tree, there is no fruit from God.  It is 
    a scriptural truth that mankind redeeming itself by works is as a
    filthy garment to God.  
    
    Nancy, correct me if I am wrong here, but what I think Nancy is saying
    is that if a person does not have Christ as a foundation for eternal
    life, then that same person can only trust in themselves.  I for one
    am not powerful enough to save myself.  I am weak, frail, and lost
    within my natural self.   One of the greatest acts of love is to tell
    another individual how they can have eternal life.  
    
    This is what gives Nancy's opinions merit.  It was told to her, it was
    backed up with an authoritative source, and it was accepted.  The
    question to you Cindy is this.  If Nancy's opinion has no merit to you,
    then why do you participate in a Christian Perspective conference?
    You have openly shared your personal feelings about Christianity and I
    can only assume (again), that you are either searching, or you are
    trying to cause devisiveness amongst believers, or your trying to
    convert perople to your plan of eternal life which I still have no idea 
    what it is.
    
    Whats the scoop.  Please share with us how you believe one has eternal
    life.  Thanks.
    
    -Jack

Re:  .10

   >You still have not told me whether your wife and girl children wear
   >hats to church?
    
Rarely.

I wear hats to church a lot.  Warm hats in the winter and baseball
caps in the summer.  :-)

Collis

Re:  .12

    >If the Bible is completely and changelessly inerrant, how come the
    >instructions of Paul are being ignored by people who otherwise
    >say that others "pick and choose," but they don't?
    
How many times do we need to answer the same question?  Seven?
Seventy times seven?

Collis
  

  >That is very clearly picking and choosing to me.
 
Since I have already asserted that I am under authority to
all of Scripture, please share which Scripture I have chosen
to not be under authority to?

Again, the issue is interpretation, not ignoring Scripture
that I disagree with.

The problem is that you are saying Scripture claims something
that I believe it is not claiming.  And then you are claiming
that I am no obeying something that I don't believe is there
in the first place.  This is picking and choosing?!  No.  This
is interpretation.

Collis

    Patricia:
    
    What were your thoughts on my explanation regarding prostitutes wearing
    coverings in Corinth?  You took the class so I was wondering if you
    were taught anything like this.  I seem to have heard that this hat
    wearing thing was only directed to the Corinthian church.  You would
    have heard it more frequently both in the gospels and the other
    epistles had it been that important.
    
    -Jack

Re:  .22

Hi Marc,

I hear where you're coming from and can understand.  I'd
simply remark that Scripture is not simply given for the
individual; it is given for all believers.

There has to be a balance between every individual saying
"this is what Scripture means to me and therefore that is what
I will do" and an authority saying "this is what Scripture
means for everyone period".

It sounds to me like you are leaning very far towards the
former at the expense of the latter.

Collis

    RE: .28
    
    Thanks for the reply Collis....
    
    I too agree that Scripture is given for all, and the messages are
    universal, but, you have yourself invoked the "cultural" aspect at
    times.
    
    Sure isn't easy being a Christian!
    
    Marc H.

 
   >I too agree that Scripture is given for all, and the messages are
   >universal, but, you have yourself invoked the "cultural" aspect at
   >times.
   
Indeed, the Bible does contain many messages intended for a
specific place or time.  These, in fact, far outweight the
recitation of general principles, particularly in the Old
Testament.  Discerning the difference between the two is often
easy and sometimes very difficult.  There are really very few
passages that conservatives have strong disagreements over.
The role of women in the church is one of the few.  Women
covering their heads in worship isn't (for the vast majority
of conservative churches).

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Fine.  But remember you use your criteria to interpret.  I use my
    criteria to interpret.  You and I are doing exactly the same thing. 
    Based on our own reason, our own interpretation, our own prejucices and our
    own sources of revelation we are making decisions for ourselves.  

    Patricia:
    
    What bout the prostitutes?

    What I learned was that historic evidence does not support the stories
    of temple prostitutes in Corinth.  I view your argument which I know
    have been offered by others interested in supporting the status quo as
    a way of descrediting women who have taken leadership roles and
    rebelled against male authority.
    
    Corinthian Feminists are labelled prostitutes.
    
    Modern Feminists are often labelled Lesbians.
    
    I believe the source of the name calling is exactly the same and meant
    to keep women in their place.
    
    Patricia

    Women should be submissive to men that God has placed in authority over
    them... Pastors, Fathers, Husbands.... 
    
    Women should not be submissive to men that God has placed in authority
    over them... Pastors, Fathers, Husbands...., when said authority
    becomes abusive.
    
    Nancy

                                                                         
    Re.21
    
    Nancy,
    
    >It holds no merit to YOU because you do not believe God's word is
    >inerrant and inspired... it hold merit to ME because God's word
    >declares that the Holy Spirit is what quickens the soul...
    
    I was referring to your interpretation of God's word...I disagree
    with some of your interpretations and therefore, to me they (your
    interpretations) have no merit.
    
    I'm glad you find merit in your own interpretations though - truly 
    I am.
    
    However, I disagree with what you said about Patricia not having the
    Holy Spirit, and therefore I find no merit in it.  (Value, whatever.)
    
    Cindy

    Patricia:
    
    If you are correct then, may God be true and may I be the liar.
    I will respectfully ask my wife to wear a covering over her head!!
    
    Thanks for the help.
    
    -Jack

    Cindy:
    
    Why wouldn't there be merit in Nancy's opinion.  Blunt as it may be, 
    there are people who deny the death of Christ as an atonement for their
    sin.  How can one have fellowship with the Holy Spirit when one is
    still unredeemed?
    
    -Jack

    Jack:

>    I value you as an individual.  I value you as a person.  I respect 
>    your 1st ammendment right to speak your mind.  I value our difference
>    because it helps me to understand better why you believe the way you do.

    That's very nice.

    
>    Now, with this as our foundation, let's talk turkey.  

     Will English be OK?


>    I look at value
>    and merit as two different things.  One can respect anothers opinion
>    but that opinion has no merit.  Since Nancy and I are in agreement with
>    most issues, I must assume that my opinion has no merit either.  OK,
>    that's fine and I respect your opinion.

     And you did it again.  Made an assumption, and decided that it was 
     correct, and agreed with it.

     However, as you will see in my reply to Nancy, I think that my reply
     was misunderstood.

     Nancy said she found no merit in Patricia's interpretations.  I stated
     that I found no merit in Nancy's interpretations (to some degree).  If
     you choose to extrapolate that out to your opinions as well, then fine, 
     but I didn't have you or anybody else in mind when I wrote that.


>    One thing I have learned in this conference is that opinions are for
>    the most part biased.  Opinions are formed either by an authoritative
>    source, (the bible, Yogananda, etc.), or they are formed by one's 
>    perceptions of the world and molded by society.  
>    
>    I submit to you that when ones opinions are based on feelings as
>    opposed to faith, then the premise is built on shakey ground.  Why?
>    Because feelings are fluid, not concrete.  They tend to change very
>    frequently and cannot be trusted.  
>   
>    The very core of Christianity is the anticipation of a redeemer, the
>    ministry of that redeemer, and the payment the redeemer made for the
>    sins of the world.  This is the trunk of the tree.  The fruit of this
>    tree is what we produce in our lives.  I think it important to note
>    that without the trunk of the tree, there is no fruit from God.  It is 
>    a scriptural truth that mankind redeeming itself by works is as a
>    filthy garment to God.  

     Nice sermon.  (;^)  If you say so...

    
>    Nancy, correct me if I am wrong here, but what I think Nancy is saying
>    is that if a person does not have Christ as a foundation for eternal
>    life, then that same person can only trust in themselves.  I for one
>    am not powerful enough to save myself.  I am weak, frail, and lost
>    within my natural self.   One of the greatest acts of love is to tell
>    another individual how they can have eternal life.  

     OK....

    
>    This is what gives Nancy's opinions merit.  It was told to her, it was
>    backed up with an authoritative source, and it was accepted.  

    If they have merit to you, then *great*!


>    The question to you Cindy is this.  If Nancy's opinion has no merit to you,
>    then why do you participate in a Christian Perspective conference?

     If Patricia's opinion has no merit to Nancy, then why is Nancy 
     participating in C-P?

     By the way, I don't think you know this, however I was one of the original
     moderators of C-P, and bowed out only due to lack of time.


>    You have openly shared your personal feelings about Christianity 

     I don't recall going into any particular depth, so whatever you know
     is basically superficial (and, given your penchant for assumptions,
     what you believe my feelings are may not even be true.)


>    and I can only assume (again), that you are either searching, 

     I hope I'm always searching to know God ever more deeply.  


>     or you are trying to cause devisiveness amongst believers, 

     And pray tell...what believers am I supposed to be trying to do this to?  


>    or your trying to convert perople to your plan of eternal life which I
>    still have no idea  what it is. 

    Now Jack, how can I possibly be trying to convert you to something that 
    you don't have any idea what it is?

    
>    Whats the scoop.  Please share with us how you believe one has eternal
>    life.  Thanks.

    No, I don't think so.  You might perceive it as a conversion attempt or
    something.

    Cindy

    
    Re.37
    
    Jack:
    
    Why wouldn't there be merit in Patricia's opinion?
    
    Cindy

    .34 The Bible, to my knowledge, doesn't support the second paragraph
    of your statement (which, I might add, I agree with).
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

re Note 843.37 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Why wouldn't there be merit in Nancy's opinion.  Blunt as it may be, 
>     there are people who deny the death of Christ as an atonement for their
>     sin.  How can one have fellowship with the Holy Spirit when one is
>     still unredeemed?
  
        Are we speaking about hypothetical persons here?

        For at least some of the people who "deny the death of Christ
        as an atonement for their sin" this belief is part and parcel
        of their belief that they are not in a state of
        "unredemption" that bars fellowship with the Holy Spirit, or
        they understand redemption differently in a manner that does
        not involve an atoning death on the part of Christ.

        It's a mystery -- but so is redemption via an atoning death.

        Bob

Re:  Note 843.38           
TNPUBS::PAINTER "Planet Crayon"                     111 lines   7-FEB-1994 17:27

    
@@>    Now, with this as our foundation, let's talk turkey.  

>>>     Will English be OK?

No, it must be Turkey!  :-)

@@>    I look at value
@@>    and merit as two different things.  One can respect anothers opinion
@@>    but that opinion has no merit.  Since Nancy and I are in agreement with
@@>    most issues, I must assume that my opinion has no merit either.  OK,
@@>    that's fine and I respect your opinion.

>>     And you did it again.  Made an assumption, and decided that it was 
>>     correct, and agreed with it.

Cindy, I did nothing wrong here.  If Nancy says there is green cheese on Mars
and you laugh at her.  I don't expect you to act any differently if I voice 
the same conclusion.  Also, I never claimed I wasn't one to make assumptions.
I have to since many of the participants here are tight lipped about sharing
their beliefs and values.  It's a big guessing game at times.
   
@@>    The very core of Christianity is the anticipation of a redeemer, the
@@>    ministry of that redeemer, and the payment the redeemer made for the
@@>    sins of the world.  This is the trunk of the tree.  The fruit of this
@@>    tree is what we produce in our lives.  I think it important to note
@@>    that without the trunk of the tree, there is no fruit from God.  It is 
@@>    a scriptural truth that mankind redeeming itself by works is as a
@@>    filthy garment to God.  

>>     Nice sermon.  (;^)  If you say so...

I didn't say it, Isaiah the prophet did.  Incidentally, he was sawn in two 
for this remark among many others.  
        
@@>    This is what gives Nancy's opinions merit.  It was told to her, it was
@@>    backed up with an authoritative source, and it was accepted.  

>>    If they have merit to you, then *great*!

@@>    The question to you Cindy is this.  If Nancy's opinion has no merit to you,
@@>    then why do you participate in a Christian Perspective conference?

>>     If Patricia's opinion has no merit to Nancy, then why is Nancy 
>>     participating in C-P?

Because this is a Christian Perspective conference, not the perspectives of
Secular Humanism.  

@@>    You have openly shared your personal feelings about Christianity 

>>     I don't recall going into any particular depth, so whatever you know
>>     is basically superficial (and, given your penchant for assumptions,
>>     what you believe my feelings are may not even be true.)

This is true.  I only know you shared your belief that Christ died for the sins
of the people during his time only.  That's all I know.  As I stated, it is
hard to get people to share much in CP.  

@@>     or you are trying to cause devisiveness amongst believers, 

>>     And pray tell...what believers am I supposed to be trying to do this to?  

I didn't say you were, I said it was one of three things you might be trying 
to do.

@@>    or your trying to convert perople to your plan of eternal life which I
@@>    still have no idea  what it is. 

>>    Now Jack, how can I possibly be trying to convert you to something that 
>>    you don't have any idea what it is?
                                          What is it?

For one thing, you offered to send Yogananda.  I assume (again) you hold alot
of value to what he was trying to preach.  
    
@@>    Whats the scoop.  Please share with us how you believe one has eternal
@@>    life.  Thanks.

>>    No, I don't think so.  You might perceive it as a conversion attempt or
>>    something.

I would hope so.  If you strongly believe whatever you believe is the door to
eternal life, I would hope you have the love in your heart to share this with
us.  Remember, you are the messenger but God causes the growth.  Even if I
reject it, at least you have fulfilled your responsibility to help lead 
many to the savior as the apostles and martyrs did!

-Jack

P.S. I know, repeating in same paragraph is forbidden.  Typing fast without
edits, sloppy sentence structure....

    Re.42             
    
    Jack,
    
    Btw, the book's in the mail.  My approach is to say that if you read it
    and think it's a bunch of junk, then fine.  At least you will be basing
    your opinion on one of being informed.  Yogananda's view is one way of
    looking at things.  I don't consider it the only way.  In fact, there's
    another book that is quite good, entitled, "Jesus In The Eyes of the 
    Sufis", by Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, that I'd recommend too.
    
    I don't exactly fit the profile of a Secular Humanist, however since
    this is not the CHRISTIAN conference, I believe that all views are
    welcome here.  Even Secular Humanists.
    
    I ask again - what believers were you referring to that I *may* be
    trying to cause division among?   You and somebody else?  The entire
    world body of Christians?  Who?
    
    Eternal life...our paradigms are so different that I'm not sure exactly
    how to present my views and beliefs to you in a way that would make
    sense.  I have no formula to present for eternal life like traditional 
    Christians have - believe this and you're saved and have eternal life - 
    for example.  Probably more importantly, though, is that I do believe 
    that you, coming from your perspective, *are not wrong*, so that's why 
    try to convert you to 'something better' to replace that which you 
    already believe.    
    
    More later.
    
    Cindy

    
    Well Cindy... I participate in CP because I wanted to get to know you
    guys better.
    
    Opinions are interesting and have great merit without the Holy Spirit's
    involvement. Let me make a distinction as to what brought about my note
    to Patrcia.  
    
    I honestly answered her question about hat wearing and noted that it
    was something I needed to study [a workman that needeth not to be
    ashamed] and Patricia began to discredit my Christianity based on this
    subject.  
    
    To net out my feelings about Patricia's opinion, is that I will not
    make a decision based on her opinion but will diligently seek God's will 
    and her note reeked of opinionated authority... that's how I read it..
    As though Patricia's exegesis of the scripture was the *only*
    interpretation of said scripture and anyone not in compliance was a
    hypocrite [pick and choose method]...
    
    I find this attack on character VERY offensive... others may let it
    slide like water off a duck's back... I didn't.
    
    Does this help?
    
    BTW, regardless of this note I still value each of you and your
    *opinion*, but I will choose a *SPIRITUAL* counselor who has the Holy
    Spirit for counsel in my convictions and growth.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    

    Re: .18 Patricia (amongst others)
    
    You're missing an important point.
    
    The Bible contains inconsistencies.
    
    (Some) conservtive Christians maintain that the Bilbe is inerrant.
    
    Therefore: (some) conservative Christians must behave/think incon-
    sistently.  This is called "proving the inerrancy of the Bible".  :-)
    
    If you can't accept this proof, then you're blind.    :-)
    
    Greetings, Derek.

    RE: .30
    
    Agreed...and there in lies the basic advantage and disadvantage we face
    here in this file, and in our own spiritual journey. 
    
    One of the best examples, to me, where the reader has to work at
    understanding the message, are the parables that Christ tells in the 
    Gospels.
    
    Marc H.

Patricia,

I'm surprised you have found that temple prostitution in
Corinth was not common (if I understood what you say
correctly).

I was involved in a Bible study on II Corinthians for a
few months; I have heard numerous preachings on Corinthians
passages and everything I have heard and read agrees on
one thing:  Corinth was one of the most decadent cities of
its time.  What convinced you otherwise?

Collis

Re:  interpretation and conclusions

Certainly people reach their own conclusions.  That's to
be expected.

However, there is a methodology which can be applied which
is very helpful in reaching common conclusions (i.e. a
concensus).  Of course, it requires effort and assumptions
will impact it.

It's called exegesis.  Learn the historical context.
Learn the Biblical context.  Do word studies on the important
words where the meaning may be in doubt.  Cross reference with
other parts of Scripture.  Then read commentaries and other
discussions about the passage.  Finally, come to a conclusion
about what it meant.

THEN, determine what the message is for us today.

Cheers,

Collis

    Re: .49
    
    Makes sense to me......Nancy? /john?
    
    Marc H.

    re :45
    
    Nancy,
    
    I am sorry if you thought my note was attacking your character.  That
    was not my intend.  I pushed very hard on you regarding the hat in
    church not because I question your Christianity but because I question
    one of your basic assumptions about Christianity.  That is that the
    Bible is inerrant.  I truly believe that this belief about the
    innerancy of the Bible has not substantiation and blinds people to
    the extent of their own interpretation.  The point I was making is not
    that you are not a Christian, but that you just like I decide what in
    the bible is important for your salvation and what is not.  You made it
    very clear in your noting that you felt it was wrong for me to be
    preaching a sermon.  You refuse to even acknowledge that I will be
    preaching a sermon.  You were offended by Richard joking with me and
    calling me Rev.  My point about the hat is that in Paul's advice to
    Corinthian women he states both that women should wear hats and that
    women should be silent in church.  You use one of those rules to
    criticize my preaching a sermon but ignore the other that says you
    should wear a hat to church.  I have interpreted that both remarks are
    based on Paul's Male chavanism.  He was angry at the women because they
    were questioning his authority in Corinth.  He basically told them to
    shut up and cover their heads.  Many churches still prohibit either
    overtly like the catholic  church or covertly, women being priests and
    ministers.  These same  churches do not require women to wear hats.
    
    Nancy in another note you quote scripture saying it a women who bears a
    male child is blessed.  I truly believe that you know in your heart
    that a a female child is just a blessed as a male child.  You never
    answered that question.  Why?
    
    I object to the dogma of innerancy not because I believe it is
    mistaken, but more important because I think it is idolotrous and even
    perhaps evil.  Evil in that it has been used to support slavery,
    violence and abuse against women(submit to your husband or father),
    rascism, and homophobia.  Innerancy allows rascists, sexists, and
    homophobics to use the Bible as a divine justification for these evils.
    
    As a spiritual person, I believe myself to be guided by the Holy Spirit
    just as much as you believe yourself to be guided by the Holy Spirit. 
    I believe you are guided by the Holy Spirit which is why a pushed you
    about the hat and about girl babies being as blessed as boy babies.  In
    that one I think that it is clear to anyone guided by the Spirit that
    all babies are equally blessed.  With that it seems to me easy to test
    the assumption of innerancy.  If the Holy Spirit tells us that every
    life is a blessing and all babies are equally blessed, then we can
    check with the Bible to see if that is supported.  The answer is
    unequivocally no.  A woman is Blessed if she has male baby.  The God of
    Israel destroys the Egyptian Sons soley because of their nationality,
    Ismael is condemned because he is born of a slave women even though
    Sarah requessted that Abraham take this slave women to produce his
    offspring.  Lot's children are offered sexually to appease the angry
    crowd and then Lot fathers children by his daughters with the Bible
    blaming it on the daughters who got their father drunk and seduced poor
    lot.  These are things in the Bible that I reject as being not sacred. 
    They are not God's word.  My point is that I evaluate everything I read
    in the Bible to discern what may be the word of God and what is human
    error that has crept in.  This is the only way a Bible flawed with
    human fallibility can be viewed as sacred.  There is amble proof that
    every word of the Bible is not the word of God.  There are amble
    contradictions, there are ample examples of things that are not holy
    being identified as being holy.  
    
    I am rambling Nancy.  I do not question your Christianity.  I do know
    that you are guided by the Holy Spirit.  I know that if you connect
    with that Holy Spirit within you you will know that you do not have to
    wear a hat to church to be a Christian, The you can preach a sermon if
    you choose, and that as a woman you are just a blessed as any man.
    
    Patricia 
    
     

    RE: .51
    
    Excellent discusion.....
    
    Marc H.

    Collis,
    
    Is there any possibility that much of what you read and hear about
    Biblical study has a particular slant to it?
    
    I would suggest the book  THe Corinthian Women Prophets by Antonette
    Ware if you are looking for a excellent woman's analysis of Paul.
    
    My own readings about Paul have ranged from Karl Bart, Rudolph Bultman,
    Victor Furnish, Ray Harrisville, Antonett Ware, and Bishop Spong.  An
    array from the Neo Orthodox, Conservative, and Liberal.

    Collis,
    
    So this methodology called exegisis which can be used to create
    consensus?
    
    What does this common methodology tell you about the authorship of the
    book of Timothy.
    
    Did Paul write it or not?  Every single study I have read states that
    Timothy could not have been written by Paul.
    
    I don't think we can agree on whether Paul wrote the book of Timothy. 
    I think it should be easy to conclude that scholarly exegisis produces
    very different results based on the basic assumptions made by the
    exegete. 

Patricia,

I'm not surprised that Nancy hasn't replied.

You claim she posted a scriptural quote which says that a woman who bears
a male child is blessed.  Your claim is false.

The fact is, SHE POSTED NO SUCH QUOTE.

The fact is, she posted Luke 2:23, which does NOT say that a woman who
bears a male child is blessed.  Luke 2:23 says that a male child who is
the first child born to a woman must be brought to the temple and be
designated as holy to the Lord.  It says this because of the requirement
in the law for the Jews to constantly remember God's deliverance of their
first-born sons in Egypt.

This is fact, Patricia.  Your claim is in your imagination.

/john

    I was referring to note 839.28 and subsequent responses.
    
   > Luke 2:23  (As it is written in the law of the Lord, Every male that
   > openeth the womb shall be called holy to the Lord;)

    Nancy has made it clear that she is processing the matter of
    whether women should cover their heads or not in Christian worship.
    
    Nancy has also made it clear that Nancy does not accept that
    certain persons here are under the guidance of the Holy Spirit.
    
    I see the Holy Spirit active in persons Nancy might not.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

   >Did Paul write it or not?  Every single study I have read states that
   >Timothy could not have been written by Paul.
   
That's certainly interesting.  Such widespread agreement.  Then
again, inerrantists have widespread agreement on this issue as
well.

   >So this methodology called exegisis which can be used to create
   >consensus?
 
To understand the text.

    >I think it should be easy to conclude that scholarly exegisis produces
    >very different results based on the basic assumptions made by the
    >exegete. 

Indeed the results of other exegesis as well as assumptions 
factor into the result.  The issue then becomes the other exegesis or
the assumptions, instead of simply the result.

I find myself very often in agreement with scholars who do this
type of work.  I am much more likely to find myself in disagreement
with those who do not.

Re:  my readings

There is a time for questioning and a time for growing.

I have long gone past the questioning stage on some issues
such as Biblical inerrancy.  I have read some books since
my acceptance of this Biblical doctrine that are not based
on inerrancy and comment on Scripture.  The time was a total
waste.  Why?  Because it starts with a fundamental assumption
that is false - and essentially everything it discusses is
directly impacted by that assumption.

I have found to grow in God's truth, you need to read authors
who accept God's truth and are guided by the Holy Spirit.
How can the non-elect instruct the elect in spiritual matters?
It practice, it just doesn't happen.  So I don't waste my
time doing this (for the purpose of personal growth).

Collis

    RE: Note 843.59 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON

    Collis,

    The irony is I can imagine myself making the same statements, but
    from a reference point of non-inerrancy.

    You, like myself, have come to conclusions with regard to certain
    fundamental givens. From that point we both find growth in reading the
    works of people with whom we agree.

    Eric

>  Why?  Because it starts with a fundamental assumption
>that is false - and essentially everything it discusses is
>directly impacted by that assumption.

    That is exactly my frustration with the innerantists.  They start with
    an assumption that is absolutely flawed and refuse to see beyond the
    assumption.
    
>I have found to grow in God's truth, you need to read authors
>who accept God's truth and are guided by the Holy Spirit.
    
    God's truth and Holy Spirit here are defined according to basic flawed
    assumptions as identified above.  To support this truth as defined by
    the narrow assumptions you must find and read authors who have limited
    there intellectual investigation to the narrow boundaries.
    
>How can the non-elect instruct the elect in spiritual matters?
>It practice, it just doesn't happen.  So I don't waste my
>time doing this (for the purpose of personal growth).

    Predestination is another horrible document attributed to a loving God.

re Note 843.49 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> However, there is a methodology which can be applied which
> is very helpful in reaching common conclusions (i.e. a
> concensus).  Of course, it requires effort and assumptions
> will impact it.
> 
> It's called exegesis.  

        My understanding of the word "exegesis" (backed by my desk
        dictionary) is that it refers to any critical study of a
        scriptural text, and does not imply a particular methodology
        for doing so.

        I would assume that any critical methodology one might apply
        to an ancient text would be "exegesis" when applied to
        Scripture.

        Bob

    Patricia:
    
    You stated that the Holy Spirit works through you.  You have based this
    statement on what would be called a source or an authority.  By what
    authority do you claim there to be a Holy Spirit?  By what source do
    you claim Jesus to have done all the miracles he has done?  By what
    source do you claim that Paul existed?  You are basing your beliefs on
    what may be a very unreliable source.  In essence, you are taking a 
    great gamble because the doctrines you adhere to are from a book that
    is capable of being incorrect, therefore, you are placing your faith on 
    something that cannot be trusted.
    
    -Jack

    .63  That sounds like the old "all or nothing" argument to me, Jack.
    
    Richard
    

Note 271.170

>Do you accept the authority of what is written?  Do you intend
>to understand and apply what it says, not neglecting it?  If
>you can answer yes to both of those questions, then I don't
>believe you are picking and choosing.

Gosh, by your definition, Collis, I guess I've been falsely accused
of "picking and choosing."

But back to Paul's clear instructions for women covering their heads,
how do you justify your allowing the women of your household to neglect
the application of said clear instructions?  By attributing the matter to
the culture of Paul's time, now no longer applicable?  By concluding that
adherence to this particular instruction is simply adherence to form,
rather than substance?

Richard

>    I am sorry if you thought my note was attacking your character.  That
>    was not my intend.  I pushed very hard on you regarding the hat in

Apology accepted.

>    church not because I question your Christianity but because I question
>    one of your basic assumptions about Christianity.  That is that the
>    Bible is inerrant.  I truly believe that this belief about the
>    innerancy of the Bible has not substantiation and blinds people to
>    the extent of their own interpretation.  The point I was making is not

We can agree to disagree about this.  Patricia, I cannot refute the 
evidence in my life of the living Word of God.  It's not magical, it's 
miraculous that a book written by human's, yet inspired by God can today 
in 1994 work such change in people's lives.

>    that you are not a Christian, but that you just like I decide what in
>    the bible is important for your salvation and what is not.  You made it
>    very clear in your noting that you felt it was wrong for me to be
>    preaching a sermon.  You refuse to even acknowledge that I will be
>    preaching a sermon.  You were offended by Richard joking with me and
>    calling me Rev.  My point about the hat is that in Paul's advice to

It is very true that I do not believe that women should preach.  On this 
I have clear direction, conviction and confirmation through the 
authority of scripture and the Holy Spirit.

>    Corinthian women he states both that women should wear hats and that
>    women should be silent in church.  You use one of those rules to
>    criticize my preaching a sermon but ignore the other that says you
>    should wear a hat to church.  I have interpreted that both remarks are

Not intentionally, Patricia.  It wasn't a willful choice.  I also have 
been taught that the distinguishing factor for the church in Corinth was 
due to the abundance of Prostitution.  However, this is one of those 
things that I've been lead on, and not studied for myself.  I can't be 
more honest than that.

>    based on Paul's Male chavanism.  He was angry at the women because they
>    were questioning his authority in Corinth.  He basically told them to
>    shut up and cover their heads.  Many churches still prohibit either
    > overtly like the catholic  church or covertly, women being priests and
>    ministers.  These same  churches do not require women to wear hats.

I don't see where *women* were questioning his authority in the 
Scripture.  I believe that you must have a reason for stating this and 
am most anxiously awaiting the text reference from which you obtained 
this information.
    
>    Nancy in another note you quote scripture saying it a women who bears a
>    male child is blessed.  I truly believe that you know in your heart
>    that a a female child is just a blessed as a male child.  You never
>    answered that question.  Why?

I haven't gone back to find the scripture but I believe it referenced 
the womb of the woman as having been blessed... 
could just be my scramble of brain and word transpositioning.  Ask my 
kids, poor Clayton [my littlest] grew up putting his sink in the bowl. 
:-)  This morning I told him to not fill the water up with sink, cuz he 
wasted water that way! :-) :-)  I'm sorry not trying to tap dance around 
the issue, it may very well be my error in interpretation.
    
>    I object to the dogma of innerancy not because I believe it is
>    mistaken, but more important because I think it is idolotrous and even
>    perhaps evil.  Evil in that it has been used to support slavery,
>    violence and abuse against women(submit to your husband or father),
>    rascism, and homophobia.  Innerancy allows rascists, sexists, and
>    homophobics to use the Bible as a divine justification for these evils.

None of these things are evil if in the proper connotation of life.  I 
am not homphobic, I am against the changing of wrong to right and right 
to ��wrong that is happening today in regards to the family.  
HOMOSEXUALITY is an ABOMINATION, period.  HOWEVER, there are others 
things ABOMINABLE as well.. I try very hard to balance the many.  I 
cannot speak for the Brethren, only for myself.  Racism has NEVER been 
supported by the Bible and those who claim to use the Bible to do such 
are lunatics!  They've perverted God's word into their own Agenda and 
are no better then those who reject the Word of God as inerrant.  I'm 
going to say it again... *Role* definition is IMPERATIVE to the proper 
workings of the home.  Don't you think God knows best what order the 
family should take???  I do!  Think about it, *role* definition at work 
is important, you have a manager, right?  What is WRONG with having the 
Husband be the manager of the home?  There has to be leadership and 
quite frankly I don't think women make as well a leader as men do.  
Let's take a look here, men are to be subservient also.  A man who has 
learned to follow good leadership, will become good leaders.  I love the 
role of womanhood, motherhood and robinhood [:-) thru that in for humor].
    
>    As a spiritual person, I believe myself to be guided by the Holy Spirit
>    just as much as you believe yourself to be guided by the Holy Spirit. 
>    I believe you are guided by the Holy Spirit which is why a pushed you
    
    I'm curious as to what leads you to believe that the Holy Spirit is
    guiding you.  If you care to, can you help me understand this.
    
Continued in next note...

>    Ismael is condemned because he is born of a slave women even though
>    Sarah requessted that Abraham take this slave women to produce his
>    offspring.  Lot's children are offered sexually to appease the angry
>    crowd and then Lot fathers children by his daughters with the Bible
>    blaming it on the daughters who got their father drunk and seduced poor
>    lot.  These are things in the Bible that I reject as being not sacred. 
    
    Should the Bible be full of flowers and sinlessness in order to be
    inerrant to you?  I happen to believe the so called inconsistencies of
    the Bible when measured by your concept of God has a lot of merit... but for
    different reasons.  You are right to believe that God is loving and
    longsuffering.  I have two thoughts running through my mind right now:
    
    1.  Without the unrighteousness in the Bible we could live with
    condemning hearts that lose out on the redemption of God.
    
    I John 3:20  For if our hearts condemn us, God is greater then our
    hearts and knoweth all things.  
    
    The Bible speaks of condemnation many times in the Bible... why? 
    Because God knew that many would become self-condemning and lose out on
    God's Grace.
    
    I John 3:21  Beloved if our hearts condemn us not, then we have
    confidence toward God.
    
    Lot, Abraham and David's example of human failing [sin] and God's
    restoration is more powerful to me then if God had just stated His
    purpose.  By looking at this examples we have encouragement to continue
    in our own failings.
    
    2. Galatians 6:7  Be not deceived God is not mocked, for whatsoever a
    man soweth that shall he also reap.
    
    What goes around comes around.  God demonstrated JUSTICE and
    RIGHTEOUSNESS in these examples, but like Cain many choose to be self
    righteous and becomes gods unto themselves, by placing themselves above
    God and doing what they please versus what he asks of us.  Cain didn't
    want to follow God, he wanted God to follow him.
    
    Because of our freewill,just saying God is omniscient doesn't relieve
    us of our responsibility to obey.  By saying well if God truly knew
    what was going to happen, why didn't he just change it, after all he is
    God.
    
    How many times as a parent have you known that your child was going to
    experience some pain and hardship, and no matter how much you tried to
    *warn* him, he just didn't listen.  God has given us a guide to living,
    in the first days of creation he even *spoke* audibly to many...but
    like children, we just had to experience it before we learned our
    lesson.
    
    God is just, he is loving and just because your point of view doesn't
    match God's [and oftimes mine don't] doesn't make our point of view
    above His... *submission*, nasty word in 1994.  But there is *so* much
    safety in the act... especially when surrendering to our Father in
    Heaven who knows only agape.
    
      
>    They are not God's word.  My point is that I evaluate everything I read
>    in the Bible to discern what may be the word of God and what is human
>    error that has crept in.  This is the only way a Bible flawed with
>    human fallibility can be viewed as sacred.  There is amble proof that
>    every word of the Bible is not the word of God.  There are amble
>   contradictions, there are ample examples of things that are not holy
>    being identified as being holy.  
    
    It's a choice that can be made either intellectually or spiritually. 
    Faith requires no intellect only knowledge, truth and wisdom. 
    Intelligence or reason cannot discern those things which are of God.
    
    It can however be lead spirits not of God.
    
  >    I am rambling Nancy.  I do not question your Christianity.  I do know
>    that you are guided by the Holy Spirit.  I know that if you connect
>    with that Holy Spirit within you you will know that you do not have to
>    wear a hat to church to be a Christian, The you can preach a sermon if
>    you choose, and that as a woman you are just a blessed as any man.
    
    I do not have an identity crisis.:-)  I know Jesus died for me and me
    alone�� [like he did for you], my gender has nothing to do with it. 
    But God has given my gender a role, a role very blessed and very
    rewarding and this country's families have lost its reward.  It breaks
    my heart to see the scores of girls in my Sunday School class that have
    no clue what family, home, or security really means.  May God prepare
    my heart to demonstrate as much of that as I can...  
    
    May God Bless you Patricia, because I believe those that truly seek
    Him, shall surely find Him.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    
     
    
    
    

    Jack,
    
    Exactly.  It is called Faith.  Faith in what is perceived by the
    Holy Spirit but can never be seen or  proved.
    
    When I read the best of Paul, part of which is his description of
    Faith, Spirit versus Law, and the impact of the Spirit, I am inspired
    and feel the truth for me of what he is saying.  I am finding it
    amazing as I develop this passion that I have for studying theology
    that there are words and ideas that I read that I know to be part of my
    truth.  
    
    Belief in the Bible I believe is Paul's equivalent to law as opposed to
    faith in the Spirit.  Faith in the Bible is not Faith in the spirit at all.
    It is a legalistic faith that seeks its own self evident proof.  It is a
    search and struggle for a faith in that which can be read and proved
    and it limits and blinds us from the search for honest faith, and destroys
    the connection with the spirit.  Try rereading 1 Corinthians and 
    substituting Bible for Law.  And just as Paul describes that it is not the
    Law itself that is bad, but the belief that one can be justified by the Law
    so too It is with the Bible.  The Bible is beautiful.  It is a gift from 
    God. But the Bible is not God.  The Bible cannot bring about justification
    and redemption.  Only Faith in that which cannot be seen but only felt
    at the depth of our being is Faith in the Spirit
    
                               Patricia

  >Gosh, by your definition, Collis, I guess I've been falsely accused
  >of "picking and choosing."

By my definition, I expect that there have been times you have
been falsely accused of picking and choosing.  I did not explicitly
(and certainly should have) include in my definition the willingness
to deal with the other material which may contradict the original
understanding/interpretation.  If this is dismissed out of hand
(or without a full hearing) then indeed picking and choosing is going 
on.


  >...how do you justify your allowing the women of your household to 
  >neglect the application of said clear instructions? 

Sure, I'll answer this one more time - but this time with a question.
What makes you think that the instruction for the women of that day
is applicable to the women of today?  We've already talked at some
length that most of the Bible deals will the present circumstance
while some of the Bible contains over-riding actions appropriate
in essentially all circumstances.  Why do you presume one and not
give credence to the other?

Collis

Re:  .62

It is possible that exegesis does not imply any particular
methodology.

I learned a methodology and was given reason to believe that
this methodology was very standard (it certainly appears to
cover all the bases) and I would certainly have been downgraded
in my work had I not follwed all the steps (which steps should
be left out?)

I would suggest that doing less would be "incomplete exegesis".

Collis

>    church not because I question your Christianity but because I question
>    one of your basic assumptions about Christianity.  That is that the
>    Bible is inerrant.  I truly believe that this belief about the
>    innerancy of the Bible has not substantiation and blinds people to
>    the extent of their own interpretation.  The point I was making is not

*We can agree to disagree about this.  Patricia, I cannot refute the 
*evidence in my life of the living Word of God.  It's not magical, it's 
*miraculous that a book written by human's, yet inspired by God can today 
*in 1994 work such change in people's lives.

    I agree.  It is miraculous.  I believe that the Bible provides us with
    what we need.  I however believe that innerancy limits the value of the
    bible and not enhances it.  Every word of the Bible does not need to be
    God Breathed for the Bible to be inspirational.
    
>    that you are not a Christian, but that you just like I decide what in
>    the bible is important for your salvation and what is not.  You made it
>    very clear in your noting that you felt it was wrong for me to be
>    preaching a sermon.  You refuse to even acknowledge that I will be
>    preaching a sermon.  You were offended by Richard joking with me and
>    calling me Rev.  My point about the hat is that in Paul's advice to

*It is very true that I do not believe that women should preach.  On this 
*I have clear direction, conviction and confirmation through the 
*authority of scripture and the Holy Spirit.

    You have the same authority from scripture that a woman should wear a
    hat to church.  I have no problem if you determine your own behavoir
    and actions based on your acceptance of authority.
    
    Please don't imply that I should discern what is  authoritative the same
    as you do.
    
>    Corinthian women he states both that women should wear hats and that
>    women should be silent in church.  You use one of those rules to
>    criticize my preaching a sermon but ignore the other that says you
>    should wear a hat to church.  I have interpreted that both remarks are

*Not intentionally, Patricia.  It wasn't a willful choice.  I also have 
*been taught that the distinguishing factor for the church in Corinth was 
*due to the abundance of Prostitution.  However, this is one of those 
*things that I've been lead on, and not studied for myself.  I can't be 
*more honest than that.
	I accept your honesty here.  To understand the impact of Paganism,
     mystery religions, the beginning of gnosticism are some of the things
    that impact the scene in Corinth.  Islamic women today are asked to
    wear veils in public.  It is considered indecent for women not too. 
>    based on Paul's Male chavanism.  He was angry at the women because they
>    were questioning his authority in Corinth.  He basically told them to
>    shut up and cover their heads.  Many churches still prohibit either
    > overtly like the catholic  church or covertly, women being priests and
>    ministers.  These same  churches do not require women to wear hats.

*I don't see where *women* were questioning his authority in the 
*Scripture.  I believe that you must have a reason for stating this and 
*am most anxiously awaiting the text reference from which you obtained 
*this information.
  
    What is in Paul's letters is one sided.  We can only infer the other
    side from his letter.  To say that Paul's letters ar innerant is in my
    opinion also to say that Paul, a human is infallible.  That he never
    made mistakes, that he did not have any prejudices of his own.  He can
    learn much more about Christianity by accepting Paul as a brilliant,
    committed, dedicated Christian, but also as a fallible human being.  He
    has a background and his opinions are impacted by his backgroun.  Paul
    is an upper class, Hellenistic Jewish Man.  Each of those factors
    impact his theology.  Understanding his theology in light of his
    background helps us to understand what is truly inspirational and what
    is based on his background.  Accepting that Paul's oponents in Corinth
    also had some validity helps our understanding.  If the real issue with
    the women was prostitution, Paul would have said so.  He is very
    direct.  The real issue throughout Corinthians is authority. 
       
>    Nancy in another note you quote scripture saying it a women who bears a
>    male child is blessed.  I truly believe that you know in your heart
>    that a a female child is just a blessed as a male child.  You never
>    answered that question.  Why?

*I haven't gone back to find the scripture but I believe it referenced 
*the womb of the woman as having been blessed... 
*could just be my scramble of brain and word transpositioning.  Ask my 
*kids, poor Clayton [my littlest] grew up putting his sink in the bowl. 
*:-)  This morning I told him to not fill the water up with sink, cuz he 
*wasted water that way! :-) :-)  I'm sorry not trying to tap dance around 
*the issue, it may very well be my error in interpretation.
 
    This is exactly my point.  Do you really need scripture to know by the
    Spirit whether a male child is more blessed than a Female child.  If
    you answer that honestly first and then honestly search scripture for the
    answer, you learning could be great.  Can you be prepared to question
    your assumption about innerancy.  What if that assumption is wrong. 
    Would you have to give up being a Christian?
       
>    I object to the dogma of innerancy not because I believe it is
>    mistaken, but more important because I think it is idolotrous and even
>    perhaps evil.  Evil in that it has been used to support slavery,
>    violence and abuse against women(submit to your husband or father),
>    rascism, and homophobia.  Innerancy allows rascists, sexists, and
>    homophobics to use the Bible as a divine justification for these evils.

*None of these things are evil if in the proper connotation of life.  I 
*am not homphobic, I am against the changing of wrong to right and right 
*to ��wrong that is happening today in regards to the family.  
*HOMOSEXUALITY is an ABOMINATION, period.  HOWEVER, there are others 
*things ABOMINABLE as well.. I try very hard to balance the many.  I 
*cannot speak for the Brethren, only for myself.  Racism has NEVER been 
*supported by the Bible and those who claim to use the Bible to do such 
*are lunatics!  They've perverted God's word into their own Agenda and 
*are no better then those who reject the Word of God as inerrant.  I'm 
*going to say it again... *Role* definition is IMPERATIVE to the proper 
*workings of the home.  Don't you think God knows best what order the 
*family should take???  I do!  Think about it, *role* definition at work 
*is important, you have a manager, right?  What is WRONG with having the 
*Husband be the manager of the home?  There has to be leadership and 
*quite frankly I don't think women make as well a leader as men do.  
*Let's take a look here, men are to be subservient also.  A man who has 
*learned to follow good leadership, will become good leaders.  I love the 
*role of womanhood, motherhood and robinhood [:-) thru that in for humor].
    
    I believe tht what is needed here is not authority structures but Love,
    pure and simple.  Love within the Family, Neighborhood, Churches,
    School etc.  The Bible does have it right.  We must love our neighbors
    as ourself.  All our neighbors.
    
>    As a spiritual person, I believe myself to be guided by the Holy Spirit
>    just as much as you believe yourself to be guided by the Holy Spirit. 
>    I believe you are guided by the Holy Spirit which is why a pushed you
    
 *  I'm curious as to what leads you to believe that the Holy Spirit is
 *   guiding you.  If you care to, can you help me understand this.
  
    I will answer this more fully later.  Basically I make all my important
    decisions based on prayer and meditation.  Since my "Conversion"
    experience I have seen wonderful things happen in my life.  I believe
    in simple miracles and have seen a lot of them.  I find an amazing
    amount of truth in the Bible and agree with most of the passages that
    you quote as inspirational.  The truth of the Bible for me means
    understanding it as the human writings concerning the revelations of
    God.  Humans do not fully understand the revelations.  We only see in
    the mirror dimly.  Humans in ever time and culture will write about the
    revelations as they make sense to them.  It is beautiful and edifying
    to understand this.  That is the beauty of having four versions of the
    Gospel.  We have the ability to understand the four points of view from
    four separate Jesus traditions and to determine what is really real
    from multiple viewpoints.  Innerancy obliterates this advantage and
    beauty.  Innerancy makes the main objective proofing consistency rather
    than discovering truth.  
Continued in next note...

    Collis,
    
    I would not suggest doing less.  I would suggest doing more.  The first
    question that needs to be asked for every passage is "Is it authentic" 
    "Who wrote it"  Only then can you ask what does it mean.
    
    You have limited your understanding by not being allowed to ask "Who
    wrote the passage"  Timothy is a good example.

    Patricia,
    
    I will only respond with this answer, if you knew Him we would be in
    agreement.
    
    Nancy

re: Note 843.73 by Nancy  "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    I will only respond with this answer, if you knew Him we would be in
>    agreement.
    
Should this be in the "I have the Correct Handle on God and You Don't" note?

.-)

Jim

    .74
    
    It could be... if we are talking about being born again... if we are
    talking doctrinal issues, then absolute not, cap'n.
    
    :-)
    Nancy

    Patricia,
    
    		It is very obvious to me that you are truly sincere in
    learning the "truth" about God and life.  I can think of no better
    place to start than the Bible.  Again it is obvious that you are doing
    just that.  My only caution would be to try to read without any
    preconcieved ideas or prejudice.  So often I have found in my life that
    I would think one thing and discover that the real meaning was colored
    by my own issues and agenda's.   To honestly seek God's will I have to
    humble myself and allow God to teach me.  Now if you don't think thats
    hard...... ;-)  During those times I remember the verse "be still and
    know that I am God".  Believe me when I say that it helps. :-)
    
    
    Dave

    re Note 843.76 by 23989::DAWSON 

    > My only caution would be to try to read without any preconcieved ideas
    > or prejudice.

    What makes you think that Patricia reads with preconceived ideas?
    Because her statements don't match your preconceived ideas? 

    If Patricia says that she prays and is guided by the Spirit, who are we
    to say she isn't? Because her views are not the same as ours? People
    have implied that she either has a Bible bashing agenda, or that she is
    led by something other than the Holy Spirit, or that she is lying or
    stupid. Why? Because people who think she is wrong presumptuously
    assume they posses infallible knowledge of Gods wisdom and message.

    Eric

     

    Dave,
    
    It would help if you were more specific.  I also do not think that any
    of us can read anything without preconceived ideas or prejudices, but
    that we do need to examine those ideas and prejudices and confront how
    they impact us.
    
    Patricia

    Eric & Patricia,
    
    			My reply was written in the spirit of help and
    caring.  Isn't it interesting how defensive we can be when we cannot
    hear the inflections and tones of the human voice.  I can assure both
    of you that I have no hidden agenda's here.  How would I know all about
    preconcieved ideas and prejudice?  Because I have both in abundance.
    And yes Patricia your right, we all have them but I don't believe that
    we cannot overcome them by honest prayer and meditation.  So I just
    shared a piece of my life for thought and consideration.  Nothing else
    was on my mind as I shared that reply.  :-)
    
    
    Dave

>    Patricia,
>    
>    I will only respond with this answer, if you knew Him we would be in
>    agreement.
>    
>    Nancy
    
    Nancy,
    
    I replied to your complaint that I was discrediting your faith by
    asking you about wearing a hat to church.  You were offended because I
    suggested that you were picking and choosing within the Bible.
    
    I tried honestly and sincerely to respond to your questions and answer
    you.  I know we have some significant doctrinal disagreements the most
    significant being our interpretations of the Bible.
    
    In my experience I have learned to argue rationally when I am insulted
    and not show my feelings or hurt.  Thus I try hard be rational and not
    emotional in my response.
    
    Your responses to me cut at the Core of my faith.  I am committed to
    knowing what Goddess/God wants from me and living my life in accord
    with that divine spirit regardless of what it is called.  Since I
    believe that Goddess/God could reveal unequivocally what she wanted us
    to believe and he has chosen to leave absolute knowledge a mystery.  I
    accept and affirm that mystery.
    
    We are not in disagreement because you truly know God and I don't.  I
    resent the implication, the words, the arrogance.  You are not the only
    innerant Christian that has stated that derrogatory remark.  Each time
    it is uttered it is equally offensive.  I understand you to be a woman of
    faith and honesty and therefore I choose to address what appears to be 
    inconsistencies in your assumptions.
    
    Patricia

Note 843.69

>Sure, I'll answer this one more time - but this time with a question.
>What makes you think that the instruction for the women of that day
>is applicable to the women of today?

I don't.  But neither do I believe that many other instructions given to
the people of that time which are found in the Bible are applicable to the
people of today.  This has gotten me in a lot of hot water, not with God,
but with biblical inerrantists.

>We've already talked at some
>length that most of the Bible deals will the present circumstance
>while some of the Bible contains over-riding actions appropriate
>in essentially all circumstances.  Why do you presume one and not
>give credence to the other?

Here again, it's the sorting out of which is which that biblical inerrantists
have a habit of labelling "picking and choosing."

Shalom,
Richard

  >You have limited your understanding by not being allowed to ask "Who
  >wrote the passage"  Timothy is a good example.

Yes, I did not point out that particular.  It is a part of the
context of the document (just as the recipient is part of the
context).

In the exegetical courses I took, we always spent time on the
question of authorship.  For example, in the Exegesis of Ephesians
course I took, the words attributing the letter to the apostle
Paul are a later addition to the text (according to the best
manuscript evidence we have today).  After studying the issue
both as an individual and as part of the class, I believe that
Ephesians was written by Paul (evidence for Pauline authorship
is extremely strong by all accounts).

So, the methodology does not differ here.

As someone that had to do a lot of exegesis, I find it hard to
figure out who those who deny God's authorship of the Bible
reconcile the constant implications of this authorship as well
as the truth of Scripture.  

Collis

    
>    I tried honestly and sincerely to respond to your questions and answer
>    you.  I know we have some significant doctrinal disagreements the most
>    significant being our interpretations of the Bible.
    
    As have I.  Patricia, you may very well be offended at my note simply
    stating "If you knew Him, we would be in agreement", perhaps I should
    have wrapped my arms around those words and hugged them before I wrote
    them, because quite honestly that is exactly the manner in which they
    were written... with warmth and love.  I'm sorry that they seemed cold
    and lonely.  
    
    
>    In my experience I have learned to argue rationally when I am insulted
>    and not show my feelings or hurt.  Thus I try hard be rational and not
>    emotional in my response.
    
    That takes a lot of discipline and learned behavior, doesn't it?  My
    hat is off to you [pun intended.. interjected humor :-)] for being able
    to do this... however, I wonder in my heart if there isn't sense of
    protection involved in this rationale behavior.
    
    
>    Your responses to me cut at the Core of my faith.  I am committed to
>    knowing what Goddess/God wants from me and living my life in accord
>    with that divine spirit regardless of what it is called.  Since I
>    believe that Goddess/God could reveal unequivocally what she wanted us
>   to believe and he has chosen to leave absolute knowledge a mystery.  I
>    accept and affirm that mystery.
    
    Patricia, you may very well be offended at my note simply
    stating "If you knew Him, we would be in agreement", perhaps I
    should have wrapped my arms around those words and hugged them before I
    wrote them, because quite honestly that is exactly the manner in which
    they were written... with warmth and love.  I'm sorry that they seemed
    cold and lonely.
    
    There is but one mystery that needs to be embraced... Agape.  Through
    agape wounded hearts are restored, through agape God's Grace becomes
    sufficient, and through agape lives are transformed....
    
    Patricia, in closing, Truth is not relative in the Absolute of
    eternity.  There is a relative truth, but it doesn't apply to
    salvation.  Relative truth in matters of finality leaves one insecure
    and unstable.   
    
    Again, the simple statement that I made wasn't meant to attack but to
    reveal...
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    

    re Note 843.79 by 23989::DAWSON

    Only the first paragraph of my .77 was addressing your note directly.

    The second paragraph was just a general expression of frustration --
    frustration with what I perceive as the "I've got the correct handle
    on God and you don't" type of responses. Often I see responses to
    non-traditional view points coming from folks who have made the
    judgment that they, themselves, possess infallible knowledge of God and
    all things Biblical.

    Although your note wasn't exactly an "I've got the correct handle on
    God and you don't" response, I did find the fragrance somewhat
    reminiscent. The proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. 

    Peace,
    Eric

    PS. In all honesty I was having a *bad* day yesterday.         

    Nancy,
    
    I accept the spirit of your replies as being loving.
    
    I know my learned behavoir of arguing rationally when I am hurt is
    protective behavoir that I too learned very early.
    
    I like other liberals believe that absolute truth is unknowable.  I
    accept God as Mystery.
    
    Just as I accept that I do not have absolute truth, I also accept that
    you do not have absolute truth.  I believe that many of your
    assumptions about the nature of God, the nature of the Bible, the
    nature of salvation are erroneous, just as you believe my assumptions
    are erroneous.  
    
    I believe that there are many more beliefs that you and I share than
    those we do not share.  I truly desire that you will eventually "see
    the light" just as you truly desire that "I see the light". 
    
    I particularly believe that your attitudes about the subordination of
    women are harmful to you as a person.  I would truly like to see you
    transcend those attitudes.  Even if you do accept the authority of the
    Bible, everyone of those proscriptions can be argued as culturally
    based.  Interestingly, there is nothing that I recall in the Gospels
    that does not support the equality of women except that the identified
    disciples are all men. I believe that women too like Mary Magnalene wer
    also disciples but because of the culture of the time they are not
    included in the Gospels as disciples. The biggest support for women is
    that it is the women who stay with Jesus in his hours of despair.  The men
    fall asleep when they are asked to be there for him. They are not able
    to support Jesus emotionally in his time of need. That is their sin.  The
    women are there at the cruxifiction and they are the first that Jesus
    appears to after the ressurection.  Paul is a chavanist but he is not God.
    Paul's ressurection story write himself into the ressurection appearances to
    certify his apostleship but his ressurection story writes the women
    out.  That is cultural.  This does not make Paul a bad person.  It does
    make him a chavanist.
    
    Nancy, this is written with care and love.  I hope you read it that
    way.
    
    Patricia
    

    Eric,
    
    I do appreciate you note of support particularly regarding  my not being
    led by the spirit.  That is an items that has hurt me when it is uttered.
    
    Dave/Eric
    
    I do accept and respect Dave Dawson's comments and do know that he
    implied no insult in his response.  Dave is a conservative Christian whom
    I have the greatest respect for because he listens to and affirms other
    perspectives. Dave, my request for more specific information also was an
    honest repect because I do value your feedback.
    
    I do care about how I note in this file.  I do try to be intentional
    about how I respond particularly when it feels to me like I am under
    attack which I occasional am for being a liberal and a feminist.  The
    wonderful thing about my participation in this file has been that it
    has strengthened and enhanced my own faith to the extent that I am
    usually able to emotionally feel an attack as the problem of the person
    making the attack and not as a reflection of me or my faith position.
    If I am going to consider becoming a minister that is very important to
    me.  It is important to me that I learn to respond with love to
    everyone including those who may think my faith is lacking.  It is
    important that I learn to state what is important to me with dignity
    even when others may not agree.  It is important that I learn to accept
    others positions as long as they are not harmful.  It is important that
    I am comfortable in speaking out against "evils".  I am convinced that
    rascism, sexism, and homophobia are evils.
    
    I have seen rampant sexism and homophobia and to a lesser extent some
    anti-semitism and some anti budhism and anti paganism in this
    conference.  Religious Freedom is an important principle for me. 
    Anything that promotes rascism, sexism, and homophobia, or anything
    that limits a persons right to practice whatever religion they choose
    as long as that religion is not harmful to others is sinful.
    
    I do appreciate all constructive feedback on my noting.  Dave I did
    understand your feedback to be constructive.  I do also appreciate
    support for my own religious freedom which I do get from you Eric, and
    from lot's of other noters.  I do believe that there are times in this
    conference when noters are abused.  It is helpful and necessary when this
    happens that others speak up.  If this truly is a community of faith,
    it is critical.
    
    Thanks for letting me ramble.
    
    Patricia
    

    .84
    
    Eric,
    
    	I can vouch for Dave Dawson.  He's of a benign and reconciling
    spirit.  Deacon Dawson is one of the most non-traditional Christian
    conservatives I've ever known.
    
    	If his note was incendiary, I'm 99.44% sure it was unintentional.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Patricia,
    
    This topic could go on forever with you believe, I believe statements
    and rationalizing the things of God.
    
    Patricia, I think what is happening is the common misperception
    submission...  Authoritarian versus Leadership.
    
    You stated some very wonderful qualities that you are motivated by...
    I'd behoove every Christian male to read those qualities and understand
    succinctly what a good leader must have as attributes.
    
    Patricia is is possible that if you had a husband that carried the 
    qualities that you described, you could submit to him without even 
    realizing the submission...  :-)
    
    BTW, I believe the word authority carries two connotations and the one
    connotation that is most often attached to Christianity is the negative
    one... God has set me free from the bondage of humanism Christianity
    and enlightened me unto Spiritual Christianity which never exercises
    force to bring about submission.
    
    Again, as I stated in my previous note... the rebellion against
    leadership in our lives can be a picture image of our rebellion against
    God... God follow me instead of what Jesus said, "Follow me."
    
    I remember the parable of the rich young ruler who asked Jesus what he
    needed to do to be saved and Jesus' response was to give up all he had
    and follow Him...  The young man went away saddened because he loved
    his riches more then he loved God.
    
    Mark 8:34  And when he had called the people unto him with his
    disciples also, he said unto them, Whosoever will come after me, let him 
    deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me.
    
     35  For whosoever will save his life shall lose it; but whosoever
    shall lose his life for my sake and the gospel's, the same shall save it.
    
     36  For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world,
    and lose his own soul?
    
    May God Bless you Patricia,
    Nancy
    

It is ironic that the submission that is so often fought against
because it is limiting or belittling is exactly the model the
Christ gave for each of us to examplify.

Collis

re Note 843.89 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> It is ironic that the submission that is so often fought against
> because it is limiting or belittling is exactly the model the
> Christ gave for each of us to examplify.
  
        I agree with you on this one, Collis.

        Perhaps it is the emphasis of typical Christian teaching that
        is wrong, implying that women do all the submission or at
        least that men do less of it.

        Bob

    I like that term to...
    
    And Bob I'd agree with you 1000%, unfortunately human nature loves
    power and in the days of old, [just like in today in politics] men
    abused and perverted the purpose of submission to gain *power*.  
    
    It is wrong, it is most definately sin... as Patricia stated for men to
    do this... It is also sin for women to rebel against God's order.  Does
    that mean women should be abused... NO!  Emphatically NO!  If there is
    one woman reading this note and she is in an abusive, oppressed,
    environment... remember God said in Proverbs 21:2-3:
    
      2  Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD
    pondereth the hearts.
     
      3  To do justice and judgment is more acceptable to the LORD than
    sacrifice.
    
    It is better to be alone with God, then joined with abuse.  The
    sacrifice of heart, soul, and mind with a man who is abusive is not
    God's will for any woman.... [and in some cases any man].
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    I'm not debating this anymore.   Any women who chooses to submit to
    men.  That is their choice.  I believe in the relationship between
    sexes as an equal partnership.
    
    Patricia

    .92
    
    Equal partnership is correct ... the first verse says
    
    "Submitting one to another"....  
    
    But just like at work when you have two many chiefs and not enough
    indians its chaos.
    
    Thanks for noting with me Patricia.

    That's funny Patricia, so do I.
    
    We are created equal with different roles.  Interesting story I heard 
    somewhere.  I think it was in notes but am not sure.
    
    It seems there was this woman who was attending Wednesday evening
    prayer meetings at her church.  Her husband was strongly opposed to
    this.  One evening, she attended the meeting and a coffee hour
    afterwards.  When she got home, she found the door locked purposely by
    her husband.  She slept on the front stoop.  The next morning, her
    husband opened the door, his wife greeted him with a smile and started
    making him pancakes, his favorite breakfast.  His first question to her
    after silence of about a half hour was..."Martha, how do I get saved?"
    
    Can we as humans be like Martha?  Did Martha really pay a bad price to
    put such a change in her husbands life?   I feel Martha was treated
    extremely poor, sin on the part of her husband.  Martha was walking
    in the Holy Spirit and loved her husband regardless of his selfishness.
    Her willingness to love him unconditionally was the very testimony he 
    needed to understand how a believer should be the salt of the earth.
    
    As a fallible individual, I love my wife, not as an object, or as
    property, but as a partner.  Without her, I am incomplete.  We both
    recognize our various roles in our relationship and our walk with God.  
    Equal partnership as you put it does not preclude deviation from the 
    biblical roles of a husband and wife.  
    
    I am not required to give my 50% to my wife and hers to me.  I am 
    required to give 100% to her and her to me.  We are equal but giving 
    100% involves fulfilling our perspective roles.  Without it, there is
    no equal partnership.
    
    -Jack

    Submit can also mean to offer, such as in the closing, "Respectfully
    submitted."  I can see (perhaps Patricia, too) how life partners should
    *offer* themselves to each other.
    
    Unfortunately, not many understand submission in this way.
    
    Peace,
    Richard