Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Re.839.83 
    
    >>Mary is an aspect and an incarnation of the Goddess.

    >That is insulting.  To call a pious Jewish woman an incarnation of
    >a pagan goddess is about as gross an insult as possible.

    I find things that you write on occasion also to be insulting.  But in
    the interest of an open forum, I tolerate them anyway.
    
    Getting back to the comment, I did NOT write 'pagan' goddess.  I wrote
    'Goddess'.  You modified my original writing.
    
    
    >>It is also possible that the name may indeed have been the same 
    >>or similar.  I do not know.

    >It is not possible for it to have been the same.\
    
    It could have been similar though.  A copy of a legitimate pagan 
    celebration that already existed, modified to suit the Christian model.
    
    'Christmas' (note the similarity of the word in relation to Candlemas')
    falls conveniently around the winter solstice, for example, even though 
    Christ was probably born in the spring.
    
    Cindy

    Is this like Holloween II ??? :-)

    .2  I think you mean Halloween.
                         ^^^^^^^^^
    That which is hallowed is not always hollow.
    
    Richard
    

    -1
    
    Yes. :-)  eets my pronunziashun

    .4  Oh-tay, 'panky (As Buckwheat used to say).
    

Someone once said something like, "Whoever is not against us is for us."
Who was that?




Luke 9:50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that
is not against us is for us.

re .1 

Of course the word "Christmas" and the word "Candlemas" are similar!

This is further proof that the word "Candlemas" is of Christian origin.

Christmas = Mass of Christ.
Candlemas = Mass of Candles.
Michaelmas = Mass of St. Michael.

I'm not arguing about dates of pagan vs. Christian celebrations, or even
disputing that Christmas and Candlemas, which would have to be forty days
apart because of a law which existed a thousand years before Christianity
arose, were not carefully placed so that not one but two pagan festivals
would be supplanted by them.  More evidence of the Holy Spirit at work
within the Church!

I do not care one whit about a pagan celebration of light around or on
February 2nd.  I object only to it attempting to use the name Candlemas
when it does not relate to a ministration of the sacrament of the Lord's
Supper in a Christian community using the proper readings for the Feast
of the Presentation.

I propose for your consideration calling your pagan celebration by the
name Lupercalia.  Or is there a more appropriate name you can think of?

re "pagan goddess"

I use the word pagan as an adjective describing any religion completely
outside the Abrahamic ecumene.  When a more specific word is available and
clearly applicable, such as "Hindu", I tend to use the most specific word.
It is a Christian Perspective that the goddess is pagan.  Do you have a
more specific word that I might consider using?

/john

    Re: .7
    
    I suggest a call to WBZ T.V., channel 4 in Boston. Ask for the
    weatherman.....Bruce S. He linked the two celebrations together, also.
    
    Who knows? Maybe you could have a shot at a editorial on TV.
    
    Marc H.

re .-1 and 839.12

I saw no evidence that Bruce was doing what I object to.

I didn't see Bruce celebrating a pagan festival and calling it Candlemas.

If you have a tape of his comments I might decide that something needs
to be done.

I'm still mulling over whether to write to David Brudnoy who was musing,
just a few days ago, about where they were going to seat the representative
from "The Commonwealth of Independent States" in the United Nations.  If
he is "the best informed talk-show host" someone needs to inform him that
there is no C.I.S. representative to the United Nations.

/john

re: Note 856.9 by /john 

>I'm still mulling over whether to write to David Brudnoy who was musing,
>just a few days ago, about where they were going to seat the representative
>from "The Commonwealth of Independent States" in the United Nations.  If
>he is "the best informed talk-show host" someone needs to inform him that
>there is no C.I.S. representative to the United Nations.

Maybe he was speaking as a prophet?

.-)

Jim

    Re: .9
    
    Bruce used the phase Candlemas and groundhog together as one
    celebration, i.e. linking the early history of Candlemas.
    No comment on Christ at all.
    
    No, I don't tape the weather as a normal occurance.
    
    No, I'm not that upset, either.
    
    Marc H.

    
    Re.7
    
    While the definition of 'goddess is pagan' may be *A* Christian 
    Perspective (yours, for example), this is the Christian Perspectives 
    (note the plural) conference, and therefore *all* perspectives are 
    welcome to be presented and discussed.  
    
    Although I have stated that I'm not Christian (inasmuch as I am not 
    Hindu either), I also view my beliefs in the light that I am a
    Christian, a Hindu, a Buddhist, and a member of all religions.  I just
    don't belong to one exclusively, and believe the others are false, so
    in this light, I do not consider myself a Christian *only*.  However, 
    if you want to get technical about it, I was baptised and confirmed a
    Methodist (long ago.)
    
    Your definition of 'paganism', to me, is incorrect, if you equate
    Hinduism (Buddhism, etc.) with it.  It is a totally separate spiritual 
    group altogether.  While the American Heritage Dictonary may agree with
    your definition, I know that practicing Pagans, Hindus, and others,
    would not.  So, we should probably come to some common ground on these
    definitions before continuing.
    
    Cindy 

When I was growing up I lived across the street from a Jewish family.

This family celebrated Christmas, at least they referred to it as Christmas.
The breadwinner of the family owned a small independant toy store for many
years.  I'm certain they were grateful that Christmas traditions - Santa
Claus, reindeer and presents - were well established in our American society.

I know their celebration was not the Mass for Christ.  It was not a
celebration of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth.

Yet, we never called these good neighbors to task for their insulting
bastardization of our Christian holy day.  I guess we were remiss.

They did invite me to their son's Bar Mitzvah.  And I went.

Shalom,
Richard

If someone wants to celebrate the Presentation of Our Lord in the Temple
with or without a mass, I have no serious objection to calling the
celebration Candlemas.

I do have an objection to celebrating some event not related to Our Lord
and calling it Candlemas.

/john

re: .6
    
>               -< There's always someone who wants to deny you >-
    
> Someone once said something like, "Whoever is not against us is for us."
> Who was that?

> Luke 9:50  And Jesus said unto him, Forbid [him] not: for he that
> is not against us is for us.


    Please place the scripture in its full context:
    
    The person refered to in this passage was casting out demons *** in the 
    Name of Jesus. ***
    
    Therefore, the person was recognizing the power and authority
    of Jesus. In this sense the person was 'for Jesus' although not one
    of his close disciples. He was acting on faith in Jesus and therefore
    he was not 'against Jesus'.
    
    Elsewhere in scripture, Jesus says that whoever denies Jesus before
    other men, Jesus in turn will deny before the Father saying, "I never
    knew you."
    
    To find God in trees, seasons, and 'goddesses' but fail to see or
    accept the Revelation that Jesus is God is to deny the True God.
    It is idolatry. Likewise, to make no distinction between God and what
    God has created, considering both God, is to fail to recognize
    God or to deny His Lordship. A tree cannot be Lord nor can a a
    'goddess concept' or season.
    
    Mary

    
    Re.14
    
    Objection recognized and acknowledged.
    
    Cindy

    .15   In the strictest sense you are right, Mary.  In a broader
    sense, I think it - the statement about those who are not against
    us are for us - is applicable.
    
    Are we assuming that all non-Christians are anti-Jesus?  Hindus
    are not.  I doubt if all pagan (or Neo-pagans) consider themselves
    adversaries of Jesus Christ, either.
    
    Not everyone who is not my friend is my enemy.
    
    As I said earlier, my Jewish neighbors did not acknowledge Christ,
    but celebrated what they called Christmas nonetheless.  Do you
    think I would have won their respect if I criticized their celebration?
    Do you think I would have been invited to their son's Bar Mitzvah had
    I told them I was insulted by use of the term "Christmas"?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: .17
    
    The strictest sense of the scripture is critical in importance,
    Richard. Jesus corrected his disciples because Jesus understood
    that the man was acting out of faith in Jesus and Jesus Name.
    
    Besides the other scripture mentioned in .15, there is also 
    1 John, I beleive, which states in no uncertain terms that the
    spirit that denies that Jesus Christ came in the flesh and is
    the Son of God is the spirit of antichrist. The spirit of
    antichrist is indeed against-Christ because it is the spirit
    that denies Him and says that Jesus is not the Christ and, by
    implication, that He is not Lord.
    
    Now, when we get into what has been said about who Jesus is,
    then certainly there are many of all variations on the above being
    stated in this conference and in the world today.
    
    Those who do not see that Jesus is the Christ will, when the time
    is right, accept as Lord the Antichrist. Scripture says that the
    Jewish people will accept the Antichrist as the Messiah in the End
    Times. Also, the Antichrist will turn others who do not accept
    Jesus as the Christ against Christians. This is a reality and, frankly,
    the signs are on the horizon.
    
    There are many approaches that are appropriate when untruth is
    offered as truth and a Christian response will vary from witnessing
    with the way we live as Christians, an evangelical witness, pointed
    correction to those who propagate untruth which could decieve
    others, and the witness of martyrdom.
    
    When people, whether they themselves call themselves by the name
    Christian or not, speak what amounts to be either a teaching or a
    witness to who Jesus is, and it does not proclaim Jesus is Lord,
    then its the time for those who have this witness should speak up.
    
    The Christian is to be vigorous in declaring the truth even in the
    face of persecution. 
    
    Your Jewish neighbors, I'm sure, entered into the secular side of
    'celebrating Christmas' and I'm sure you understood that right away.
    It might have been a time to have a little evangelization or witness
    as to the religious meaning of Christmas for you. Perhaps you could
    have mentioned that a whole gospel of the bible relates how Jesus
    fulfilled the Messianic prophecies given through the centuries by
    the Jewish prophets. Perhaps they'd like to read it during this 
    season and see what they think!
    
    Non-Christians who seem to find God in all kinds of places other than
    in Jesus Christ should be called to question this in themselves. It
    is not enough to witness to others that Jesus Christ was a 'good man'
    or that he was a great role model. Those who witness in such a way
    are not accepting Jesus as Lord or his Authority over them; this
    places man in rebellion against God although it certainly is perhaps
    not overt. EVERY knee will bend and EVERY voice proclaim, JESUS IS LORD! 
    
    Your interpretation of the scripture from Luke was not as Jesus 
    applied it; YOU widened it, not Jesus. 
    
    The response to all error is to state the truth and Jesus expects
    this. This is all; I only hope that these things will be considered
    by readers. 
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    

    .18
    
    Was humankind made for the Gospel or was the Gospel made for
    humankind??
    
    We can lose the spirit of Jesus' teachings with narrow, legalistic
    interpretations.  If you choose to do that, it's okay with me.  But
    that is where our discussion will end.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .18  Something I'm not clear on about what you've said, Mary:
    
    Are you saying that you, too, are insulted by non-Christians using
    terms like Christmas and Candlemas for their celebrations?
    
    Or are you saying it was okay for my Jewish neighbors to identify
    their secular Christmas celebration as Christmas, and that it would
    be inappropriate to express insult at the Christian holiday being
    coopted by them?
    
    Richard
    

Richard, this topic is about Candlemas, not Christmas.

Unfortunately, Christmas has become a cultural celebration, observed
in many non-religious ways.  Yet the fact that it celebrates the birth
of Christ is not lost, even on your Jewish friends.

The objection I have stated is to using the name Candlemas for a
celebration that has no relationship whatsoever to Our Lord.

/john

    Re.21
    
    "to Our Lord"
    
    Care to comment in 858?
    
    Marc H.

    re: .19
    
    Men and women were made for God; God gave us Jesus Christ, the
    Gospel, and the Church so we could know God, serve Him, and be
    united with Him for all eternity.
    
    God does have the Authority to make the way narrow, an so He has,
    for the road of salvation IS narrow and the road to perdition is
    wide. 
    
    You widened a scripture beyond its context and I pointed out other
    scripture which demonstrates that there is a choice to be made and
    what we profess or do not profess about Jesus is of critical 
    importance. Would you like to cite or paraphrase some scripture which
    would support your wide interpretation?
    
    What is the 'spirit' of Jesus' teachings in the passages I cited? The
    ones about denying Christ before men and the 1 John passage about
    the spirit of the antichrist?  Jesus gave both in love because he
    knows that to be deceived will lead to eternal perdition. We should
    accept the 'narrow way' because it is the way of love. It only
    appears legalistic to those who do not understand this. 
    
    These, and other passages are in the Gospel and both new and old
    testament scripture and I do not see where you address them at all
    through your wide interpretations. I really would be interested in
    your response on them.
    
    Peace,
    Mary

    RE: .18
    
    "Jesus as Lord"....care to reply to 858?
    
    Marc H.

    re: .20
    
    The discussion surrounding Candlemas seems to be a different nature
    than what came up about Christmas.
    
    It seems to me that those celebrating a pagan day and calling it
    Candlemas were practicing a pagan rite but usurping a Christian
    identifier; it either has its own pre-existing name which should
    be used, or it should be given one.
    
    I have read of feminist wiccan strategy to introduce pagan elements
    into Christian holy days and even the Mass. This is a classic
    example and from a description of the UU celebration one can see
    that it has made inroads there.
    
    When the Communists gained power in Russia, their first campaigns were
    to corrupt the meaning of words and they targeted those values,
    beliefs, practices that they most wanted to secularize or change into
    meanings in line with their beliefs.
    
    The Jewish family who 'celebrates' Christmas is not doing this; they
    are just celebrating the general sense of the day. They are not
    demanding of Christians that we change our celebration or accept
    other elements into it.
    
    The feminist pagan campaign is a whole different matter. It seeks
    to introduce clearly pagan practices which are condemned in scripture
    as idolotry into Christian worship and to turn that worship from
    Jesus Christ and the Holy Trinity to what they term 'more acceptable
    forms of god'. 
    
    I object, just as John does, to this effort. I have no problem with
    these feminist pagans creating their own Church with their own
    gods and goddesses, but they should not use Christian identifiers.
    It is a deceptive practice which is encouraged so as to gain an
    acceptace within Christianity and to muddy the waters of what should
    and should not be accepted.
    
    I know the reality of this campaign, Richard, in a way that you cannot
    understand.
    
    Mary

    .23  Who asked, "Was man made for the Sabbath or was the Sabbath
    made for man?"
    
    I'm sorry you apparently cannot comprehend the parallel.
    
    Thank you for your thoughts, anyway, Mary.
    
    Richard
    

.21

>Richard, this topic is about Candlemas, not Christmas.

Yeah, I knew that, but I thought a connection or a parallel had been
established.

>Unfortunately, Christmas has become a cultural celebration, observed
>in many non-religious ways.

I've spoken of this phenomenon myself, especially about the commercialization
of Christmas.

>Yet the fact that it celebrates the birth
>of Christ is not lost, even on your Jewish friends.

How so?

>The objection I have stated is to using the name Candlemas for a
>celebration that has no relationship whatsoever to Our Lord.

I'm sympathetic, but I don't understand how come Christmas is not lost on my
Jewish (and therefore non-Christian) friends, but Candlemas would be.

Richard

    re: .23
    
    I saw the parallel, Richard, but I don't think it applies.
    
    In the Sabbath text, Jesus is countering what was burdensome laws
    that were man's laws, not God's.
    
    The things I was writing about were not about laws, but by what
    testimony of faith was being expressed.
    
    I don't think either of us want to persue this further at this
    time.
    
    Mary
    

>I'm sympathetic, but I don't understand how come Christmas is not lost on my
>Jewish (and therefore non-Christian) friends, but Candlemas would be.

I'm sorry you apparently can't understand the difference between God-loving
Jews celebrating some of the holiday trappings of Christmas (which everyone
knows celebrates the birth of Christ) and pagans calling a celebration of
the seasons "Candlemas" and arguing that it has nothing to do with Christ.

/john

    
    Re.29
    
    What pagans are arguing that Candlemas has nothing to do with Christ?
    
    Here is the UU writing.                   
    
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Note 839.70 (AKOCOA::FLANAGAN)   -< Candlemas >-
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We celebrated Candlemas at the UU church.  Here is the description.
    
    
    >"This is the celbration of Candlemas, the feast of returning light and
    >the festival of purification.  
    
    Purification.
    
    >We nuture the flames born at the winter
    >solstice as the days turn upward in spring.  Winter and death shall be
    >swept away and banished, until the Wheel turns once again to their
    >time of rest and rebose.  
    
    A poetic way of indicating that Spring is on the way.
    
    >Now is the quickening of the year and new
    >life stirs in the womb of the Great Mother.  
    
    One interpretation - Christ stirring in Mary.  
    
    >This is the feast of poets,
    >and is sacred to the Goddess in her triple aspect."
    
    Or God...in His triple aspect...same thing.
    
    I do not see a conflict here.
    
    Cindy

    This is the covenent of the  Unitarian Universalist Associaiton.  This
    covenant deeply inspires me. The covenant defines the five sources of
    our Faith as agreed at the General Assembly in 1986.  
    
    It is in affirmation of this covenant that UU's celebrate Candlemas,
    umbolog, and groundhog day, New Years Day, Rosh Hashanah, and the Chinese 
    New Year.  Easter, Oester celebration, and Passover.  The five sources
    of our Faith are:

        o Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder,	
        affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of spirit and
        an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;

        o Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us to
        confront powers and structures of evil with justice, compassion,
        and the transforming power of love;

        o Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our
        ethical and spiritual life;

        o Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to God's
        love by loving our neighbors as ourselves;

        o Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of
        reason and the results of science, and warn us against idolatries
        of the mind and spirit.
    
    My church has no secret agenda in celebrating Candlemas.  We celebrate
    it for the ritual that it is.  We celebrate it for the ritual described
    by the name itself.  It is the celebration of the hope for light during
    the darkest season of the year.  That hope can be symbolized by light,
    by candles, or by a baby in a manger.  We celebrate as part of a deep
    universal quest for goodness and light and love in times of cold and
    bleakness and darkness.
    
    Patricia

    re: .31 & .32
    
    What place does Jesus Christ have in the UU religion?
    
    If his place is not above all others and if salvation is not through
    him and redemption through his sacrificial death on the cross then
    I do not see even the smallest glimmer of the Christian confession
    in your religion. It in no way correlates with the fullness of the
    scriptural message.
    
    Ways of 'uniting' spiritualities which relegate Jesus Christ to
    a position equal to others or, in the case of all that I can see from
    the UU postings, into oblivion or into a metaphor is not Christian.
    
    Seeing Jesus and Mary in an ode to spring and new life is not a
    Christian proclaimation. It is a random association that a person
    might or might not make in their minds. 
    
    Maiden-Matron-Crone may be an assembly of three concepts so in that
    case, because there are three, and because they have been 'assigned'
    some sort of role as a diety does not make the concept or 'doctrine'
    of Maiden-Matron-Crone the same as the Holy Trinity of Father-Son-
    Holy Ghost. Such associations are of the most superficial kinds
    and do not bring clarity to the important questions of all religions:
    
    Who is God? Who is man? What is our relationship [if any]. To try to
    stir all spirituality into one stew will never work. Neither God
    nor man nor our relationship is reducable to the lowest common 
    denominator without first subtracting that which is most essential.
    Therefore, in all these stews, Jesus Christ is the first and foremost
    necessary exclusion followed by most holy writings [particularly the
    Bible or at least whole sections] and also any authority of the
    church. 
    
    The purpose of the pagan Candlemas is not to worship and praise or
    even acknowledge Jesus Christ and therefore it is unChristian no matter
    how many externals are similar.
    
    Mary

    What place does Jesus Christ have in the UU religion?
    
    
    Unitarian Universalists tend to think that the most important thing
    about Jesus was not how he was conceived or what happened to him after
    he died but what he taught and how he lived his life.
    
    Patricia

        Let's build a great cathedral
        For England's rising youth,
        A free and easy temple
        Of undogmatic truth.
        An ark on troubled waters,
        Bearing a motley crew,
        And all denominations
        May walk in two by two.

        All Protestants should welcome
        Our comprehensive plan;
        And those who love to follow
        The merry pipes of Pan.
        No popish ceremonial
        Shall mar its happy birth;
        A rite shall be invented
        Like nothing else on earth.

        There's room for brave agnostic
        For Hindu or Parsee,
        Or devotee of Islam
        (So very C. of E.!),
        And if uniting parties
        At Bishops take offense
        We'll consecrate the ladies
        And take our orders thence!

                        circa 1930

From "The Church in Reconstruction" by S.J. Forrest

    Mary,
    
    I read some great questions in your note.
    
       What is the fullness of the scriptural message?
    
       What are the important questions of all religions?
    
       What is Christian?  What is unChristian?  What is nonChristian?
    
    My answers to those questions may not be the same as yours but I do
    appreciate and will ponder the questions.
    
    Patricia

    >    Unitarian Universalists tend to think that the most important thing
    >    about Jesus was not how he was conceived or what happened to him
    >    after he died but what he taught and how he lived his life.
    
    I would think this would be the position of the Unitarian Church for
    any person considered a leader in spiritual things.  As my
    understanding of the church goes, it is to bring about a "unity" of all
    faiths so that they are no longer in competition with one another but
    in harmony.  Is this true?

    Topic 473 is chock full of helpful information about Unitarian
    Universalism.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    John,
    
    Good poem.  Thanks for entering it.  There are a few objectional parts
    though. The term "ladies"  is not politically correct, it is demeaning to
    Catholicism, and liberal religion is not an easy faith. 
    If those lines could be changed I believe the poem would  accurately
    affirm Unitarian Universalism?
    
    Patricia

    One of the principles of Unitarian Universalism is to affirm the
    interdependent web of existence to which we are all a part.
    
    This is not quite the same as "to bring about a unity of all faiths".
    
    UU's do affirm all faith positions.  There is no attempt to harmonize
    them.  I believe diverse views can be held as divergent opinions.
    
    Patricia

>    UU's do affirm all faith positions.  There is no attempt to harmonize
>    them.  I believe diverse views can be held as divergent opinions.

My view is that there is one Faith, one Church, one Lord.

I'm happy to hear that you see no need for me to harmonize that view with
your diverse view and allow me to hold it as a divergent opinion.

I think it's more than just an opinion, but I'm glad to know that you won't
object.

/john

    .29  Yeah, you seem to be saying that Jewish non-Christians should
    be more entitled to the use of Christian terms in their celebrations
    than pagans.
    
    Richard
    

    John,
    
    I have no objection to any Faith position that you hold.
    
    Likewise, John, I would hope that you have no objections to my Faith
    position.
    
    It is a characteristic of human nature that each of us thinks our own
    position is the correct one.
    
    Patricia

                                                      
    Nancy,
    
    A few weeks ago, we had a meeting of the congregation in the lower part
    of the church after coffee hour.  We all sat in a circle.  Some people
    came later.  Instead of excluding them (because they came late, in this
    instance), we stopped and made the circle bigger to include them.
    
    In general, that's how I picture UUism to be.  I like it because I can
    share with the entire congregation that I do yoga (for example), and
    the response has been, "How fascinating!  Can you tell me more about
    it?", or, "That's wonderful!  Would you consider leading some sessions
    here at church?"  Or someone who is gay could share it with others, and
    responses would be, "Can you tell me what it's like to be gay?  What do
    you have to cope with?"  And so on.  
    
    You have only to look in this and the other notes conferences to read
    what responses could be in other places of worship.......
    
    Cindy

    Re: .42
    
    I can understand your approach. Indeed, I too had the same attitude
    for many, many, years.
    
    Lately, though, I don't agree with the old, I'm right and you are wrong
    simplistic approach. 
    
    While I do hold to the core beliefs in Jesus as a savior and one God,
    I find that once I start to think for myself and really get into what 
    does this passage in the bible mean....many questions come to my mind.
    
    What this really boils down to , is the classic Catholic verses
    Protestant conflict.
    
    Marc H.

>    What this really boils down to , is the classic Catholic verses
>    Protestant conflict.

Yes, indeed.

The idea that we can ignore the teaching of the historic Church and each
determine for ourselves what bits of scripture to accept and what to reject
is (in the words of an Episcopal priest I know) `the Protestant heresy
carried to its ultimate and final conclusion.'

/john

    Indeed,
    
    And the belief that we can freeze the Living Word of God into a human
    reference is "the Fundamentalist Heresy" carried to the extreme, 

        (Is it my turn?)

        And the belief that the essence of faith in God is 100% True
        Knowledge is the Gnostic heresy -- however it has been the
        dominant Christian position since the first century.

        Bob

        P.S. As Pat Sweeney wrote way back in Note 22.163 in 1992:

        "Gnosticism has been with us throughout history in many
        forms.  The appeal that knowledge and/or redemption is
        limited to a relative handful of people is a strong allure."

    RE: .49
    
    Good point Bob! Yes indeed, although Pat S. and I disagreed at times, 
    his comment was accurate. 
    
    Marc H.

>    
>    Paul has sometimes been unfairly considered a gnostic.
>    

Considering Paul a gnostic is as unfair as applying the gnostic label to
those who adhere to and proclaim traditional Christian doctrine.

/john