Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

| <<< Note 938.0 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "Resident Alien" >>>




| What would all this imply if we used the Bible as a guide to sexual
| morality for the twentieth century?


	That women are property and incest is ok?


Glen

>> What would all this imply if we used the Bible as a guide to sexual
>> morality for the twentieth century?

>That women are property and incest is ok?

And, if it looks like the wife wasn't going to bear children (preferably
male children), then it's okay to boink the wife's woman servant.

Talk about traditional family values!!

Richard

    > then it's okay to boink the wife's woman servant.
    
    And it is also alright to abandon the woman servant and her
    illegitimate child.  In fact throw them right out of town and drive
    them  across the dessert.
    
    How is that as a standard for the problem of single parent homes and
    illegitimate children?
    

    And in the dessert what happened to this son .... who was cast aside?
    
    Who picked him up and set his feet on solid ground and gave him his own
    land?
    
    How's that for single parent care?

    So fathers should abandon their children because God will take care of
    the children?  Sounds like a great rational for the dilemmas of our
    society!
    
    Patricia

	Nancy, would you abandon your kids? 

    .5 and .6
    
    Excuse me... To intimate that God wants us to abandon children based on
    his care of one who was is ludicrous, it's not even reasonable.
    
    

    Psalms 27:10 has been my life's verse,
    
    "When my father and my mother forsake me, the Lord will take me up."
    
    Does that mean that if a mother and father doesn't forsake their
    children, that God forsakes them?
    
    Of course not... other wise we could throw out John 3:16 too!
    
    When one has been downtroddend, abandoned or abused, they need
    encouragement and love... God's word speaks to those who are in 
    this way, as well those who are not.  
    
    The Bible is a letter of love and encouragement.  If you look at every
    story God makes sure that nothing is white washed.  Abraham couldn't be
    portrayed as anything more then who he was, human, fallible and in need
    of God.
    
    His sin and it is sin that he lied to the King, was not washed over,but
    revealed.  And his sin did have consequences... 
    
    Oftimes in our own lives, things will happen and we blame God for it
    when really we are reaping what we have sown in this life.  It is a
    consequence of our own behavior... but we forget about our behavior
    perhaps because the consequence comes down the road a bit and not right
    away.
    
    God will not be mocked, whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap.
    
    That verse applied to Abraham as well.

    Reasonable?  Who cares about reasonable?  If it's in God's book, that's
    all that matters!!  Amen?  Amen!!
    

    
    Patricia,
    
    God doesn't necessarily have to be speaking in the first person in His
    Word to say something is wrong.  The king said why have you don't this 
    wrong to me.  If the whole Word is God's Word, then God said it was wrong.
    God shows us that even though He considers Abraham a man of faith,
    Abraham wasn't superhuman...he struggled with choices and made bad ones
    just as we all do.  The king offered to right the situation.  Abraham
    agreed. God waited patiently as He does with all of us.  Abraham went
    through the same actions about 3 times and made many more poor choices,
    but he did increase in faith, did he not?  I mean you've got to trust
    God pretty intensely to be within an inch of sacrificing your own son
    just because He said so.  He knew it was God speaking to him and he
    obeyed...no wrestling this time.  Just because God considered Abraham a
    righteous man doesn't mean that he was perfect by any means.  
    
    Jill
    

    .10
    
    Praise God for that too!  That means that folks like me can be
    righteous too through Christ... and everyone else that participates in
    this conference or was born into the world.
    
    Hope for everybody... wow... incredible, AMEN!

	Nancy, the biological parents abandoned. Is this something we should
teach to other parents as God should be able to take care of them....


Glen

    Abraham was willing to sacrifice both his son and his wife.
    
    He was not willing to face the dangers in Egypt himself.
    
    The King of Egypt, not Abraham was called for Abraham lie.  Abraham
    shows no remorse.  Only relief.  Abraham profits in these passages from
    his misdeeds.
    
    Patricia

    The incidents with giving Sarai/Sarah to the kings throughout the
    course  of Abram's/Abraham's journeys showed a lack of trust in God. 
    Abraham forgot He had Almighty God on His side.  Oh that we all had
    instant and perfected faith!  The Old Testament often shows people
    taking things into their own hands and not trusting God to do what He
    said He would do.  Gee, can we really say we never do that?  I
    certainly can't.  I think the fact that God chose to allow Abraham to
    be blessed with wealth during that time was to show Abram that He was
    still there and that He was faithful.  He said He would bless
    Abram/Abraham...never doing anything wrong was not a condition of that
    blessing.  I think that's why the test of his obedience with both of
    his sons was required later...to see if he had indeed learned to trust
    and obey Him.
      
    Remember...it was God who told Abraham not to worry about what plans
    Sarah had for Hagar and Ishmael for it was through Isaac that the
    promise would be received.  Abraham left Hagar and Ishmael in God's
    hands...that's not exactly left for dead out in the wilderness. 
    Abraham obeyed God and He knew that God had promised to bless Ishmael. 
    Again God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac not because He wanted the
    sacrifice or to have him actually do it, but just to see if Abraham was
    willing to obey Him in all things. Abraham obeyed God because He knew
    that the promise was to be fulfilled through Isaac.  This was credited
    to Abraham as righteousness.
    
    Jill
     

    If we believe all of what we read in the Old Testament, we are told
    that certain types of Sexual expressions are an abomination. 
    
    Then in other passages, certain types of sexual expression which ought
    to be considered an abomination are presented as part of the normal
    course of events.
    
    In these passages, Abraham both offers he wife to many different men in
    order to keep himself safe and he rapes a slave women in order to have
    a son whom he later abandons.  
    
    How many of us read through these stories first time through without
    any feeling of abomination at these acts.  
    
    The sexual morality of the Bible represents not the inerrant word of
    God, but cultural biases of a very primitive patriarchal culture.
    
    I don't know how any women could possibly read these passages and
    affirm the Bible as a guide for sexual morality.  Wifes and female
    children are routinely offered for the sexual pleasure of strangers in
    order to keep men safe.
    
    Nowhere is condemnation of this practice shown.
    
    Patricia

    
    RE: .15
    
    Patricia, I think you forget that the Bible is one whole message that
    contains many stories of the lives of people recounted and how God
    revealed Himself to them and why He revealed Himself to them.  Yes, the
    stories include things that we're acceptable to the societies of that
    time period, but God starts to reveal a better way, His Way.  Just
    because God includes the story, it doesn't mean he agrees with the
    behavior.  You have to read and study the whole story to know what He
    thinks.  You can't just take one incident out of the Bible and say this
    is why the Bible isn't inerrant because what it says about sex when
    that is not all it has to say.  God wasn't finished, He was at the
    beginning of His story and you've already reached a conclusion.  That's
    like reading the first 10 pages of a mystery novel and throwing it down
    because you think you know who did it.  The story hasn't even unfolded
    yet.
     
    I don't think the Bible justifies either event, I believe it's just
    recounting events for us as part of the whole story (the entire Bible). 
    I think to call having sex with Hagar rape is a big stretch.   Check 
    out II Samuel 13, I believe this is the most detailed account of a
    rape in the Bible.  God does not condone rape.  Also to be raped, Hagar 
    would have to be unwilling.  It gives no account  of that.  Afterwards, 
    we see Hagar jockeying for position which is what sets Sarah off.  I
    don't believe it's right to take more than one wife (or husband) and
    God has plenty to say about marriage.  Here's only a few verses. 
    Lev 20:10, I Cor 7, Eph 5, I Tim 3, Titus 1:6, Heb 13:4.  Frankly, I 
    don't agree with any of their actions surrounding this event being right 
    with the exception of Abraham obeying God and that's based on some 20 
    years of studying.  I think we can see in God's Word that when God that 
    He was going to do something, it happened despite people's choices, 
    good or bad. He's in control.  No matter how bad all of them screwed 
    up, He was in control.  His Will still prevailed.
     
    How can I as a women read the Bible?  The Bible recounts the total
    depravity of (wo)mankind without God and what we are capable of if left
    to their own devises and then it shows us a better way, the only way
    out of our sin. The only way back to God.  That's how I can read it and
    live my life by it. Through the Holy Spirit it leads me to leave behind
    a life of sin, it lights my path, it reminds me of God's promises, and
    comforts me, it instructs me in the ways of righteousness.  Not because 
    it's just a book, but because it's the Word of God etched on the minds 
    of hundreds of scribes and perserved by God for thousands of years to 
    help me live a life worthy of Him.  My question to you is:  
    
    			How can we not read it?
    
    Jill

    .16
    
    Amen Jill!
    
    Thank you for addressing the delicate issue of Patricia's use of the
    word rape with Hagar.  At this stage in the game, I might not have been
    so delicate.
    
    God Bless,
    Nancy

    Patrica,
    
    Did you read .8?  I will reference it again to you in response to your
    accounting of the story of Abraham.
    
    Also, I'd like to echo Jill's savory advice on using the Bible as a
    whole, not just in part.  
    
    And I'd like to also say that being a Christian woman as per the
    commandements and role as descrived in God's Word, the Bible has given
    me  more joy and inner peace then I ever thought was possible.
    
    A Christian woman is not a mantel piece to be auctioned off when no
    longer desired, a Christian woman when valued by a Christian man is
    more valuable then rubies to her husband.
    
    

	Re. .14 Jill

	> I think that's why the test of his obedience with both of his
	> sons was required later...to see if he had learned to trust
	> and obey Him.

	and

	> Again God told Abraham to sacrifice Isaac not because He wanted
	> the actaul sacrfice or to have him actually do it, but just to
	> see if Abraham was willing to obey Him in all things.

	Amongst others, the story referred to here throw me out of gear
	when I try to reconcile the teachings of Christianity with that
	which one reads in the Bible.

	Why, if God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, etc. is it in
	any way reasonable for Christians to take these stories literally?
	The "test" of faith, under such precepts, would seem to me to be
	nothing more than self-seeking sadism on the part of God.

	The only reasonable explanation that I can see is that the stories
	are myths.

	Re: General.

	BTW: From the Qumran scrolls, there are texts which suggest that
	God did not stay Abraham's hand at the decisive moment. If I
	remember correctly, in our Bibles, Abraham's son makes no further
	appearances. The diversity of versions would seem to confirm that
	the stories are myths.

	This being so, the morality (or immorality) which speaks out of
	so many OT stories, would be more likely to reflect the society
	at the time of authorship rather that an ongoing unfolding
	revelation of God.

	I cannot conceive why beleiving this would in any way detract
	from belief in God or in His ultimate goodness.

	Greetings, Derek.
                                  

>	BTW: From the Qumran scrolls, there are texts which suggest that
>	God did not stay Abraham's hand at the decisive moment.

First I've heard of this.  See below.

>       If I remember correctly, in our Bibles, Abraham's son makes no further
>	appearances. The diversity of versions would seem to confirm that
>	the stories are myths.

You do not remember correctly.  Isaac, the father of Jacob (Israel),  appears
throughout the remainder of Genesis, and is mentioned throughout the Bible.

So much for your diversity of versions.

/john

   Our Heavenly Father meets humankind in time continuum where they are.
   Abraham kept the "law" as he knew it. Somewhere in Genesis there is
   a statement something like the following "he keeps all my commandments,
   statutes and ordinances". I've aways thought that was interesting, since
   he married his sister. Apparently there was a recorded "law" in Abraham's
   day. The Torah was the next lesson from our Father to further heighten
   our view of his righteousness and what He expects from humankind. To be
   sure, he told the Hebrews to slaughter the Amalekites, etc. Its very
   difficult for many literalist to deal with this, nevertheless, its what 
   he wanted at the time. Though He did make room for terms of surrender. As 
   the written word developed the prophets made revelations that God would
   forgive even wilful sin if these individuals would repent (rethink) and
   change their mind in regard to their personal behaviour. Then came Christ
   who brought the final revelation "God is love" and that love is the
   love of a father, our father in heaven. To Our Heavenly Father there is
   no difference, he loves each of us as if there were no other. He took us
   from a very cruel situation in which oppression and dominance were a way
   of life. Abraham was a citizen of these times, he did the best he could.
   To us some of his actions seem worthy of condemnation (and would be for us).

   Then came the New Covenant documents further enlightening us as the value
   of human life.As an aside; Paul needed to say what he did regarding women 
   in the church because of the movement of the Hellenistic mystery cult 
   trying to assimilate the infant church. To Our Heavenly Father there is no 
   male or female, we are all his children.

   Again, In Abraham's day there was no worldwide judicial system, no supreme 
   court  to appeal to.You were raided, raped, looted and enslaved with little 
   or no recourse. If you survived you licked your wounds and started over.
   One (out of a need to survive) had to wield a sword or perish. 
   The times were very cruel and oppressive for everyone. Males had to be
   skilled at butchery and only the agressive and dominant survived. It was
   baggage that came with the survival kit. No we are not perfect today and
   we have a long way to go (and probably wont get there), but comparatively
   speaking we are much better off societally than Abraham.

   Hank D

Let's not whitewash and pussyfoot around what God's book says.  Abraham
was the greatest of the patriarchs and was clearly God's favorite.  There
was no condemnation for boinking Hagar when Abraham's seed found Sarah's
womb as harsh and unproductive as a pile of rocks.

And who insisted on getting rid of Hagar and the kid after finally having
one of her own??  You guessed it!  Sarah (the WOMAN)!  Once again, the man
was simply a foolish and unwitting accomplice who simply wanted to please
the WOMAN, echoing the impossible situation faced by his ancestors Adam
and (the WOMAN) Eve!

'Course, this was all long before the 10 Commandments and the Law and all
that came along, so there weren't a lot of Divine regulations and abominations
to worry about.

Don't know how y'all could have missed this.  I didn't make it up.  It's
all right there in God's book, for God's sake!  Read it for yourself!

I can hardly wait until we get to Lot boinking his daughters and Jacob
and his two wives, who were sisters and his first cousins.  Leviticus came
later, y' know.  It was okay before then.

    re: .3  
    
    Hi,
      
      I've only read as far as .3, but I think more needs to be
      considered.
    
      In Galatians 4, Paul tells us that Sarah and Hagar are symbols
      of reliance on the flesh and reliance on the Spirit.  When
      God told Abraham to cast Hagar out, what He in effect was saying
      was that the flesh profits nothing and the experience of indulging
      the flesh must be completely cast out.  God is trying to get His
      people to rely 0% on self and 100% on Him.
    
      I do believe that God took very good care of Hagar even at the
      time and after her being cast out.  I'm sure He provided for her.
    
      Secondly, God is trying to show us (through Abraham) how deep our
      unbelief is and how seemingly huge is the process to have faith
      perfected.  The errors of Abraham are there for us to realize that
      there is so much unbelief for the Lord to root out.  It really takes
      so much to hand it all over to Gos and believe He can really bring
      us to new life.  How often we try to _do_ through our own means
      (Hagar) rather than through the Spirit (Sarah)!
    
                                                    Tony
      

    Funny which parts of the Bible we choose to spiritualize and which
    parts we do not.
    
    Richard
    

    IT is also funny how in one reading Hagar and Sarah are suppose to be
    real people and in another reading they are suppose to be metaphor.
    
    We do have much to learn by analyzing these stories of Sarah and Hagar.
    One useful exercise would be to reconstruct these stories from the
    women's point of view.  Even better, reconstruct the story from the
    minority women perspective.
    
    How would we retell this story from Hagar's eyes?
    
    My point is not that the Bible is useless, but that it is a human work
    and as such is limited by the human condition.  One of the limits is
    that it is a book by and about men.  The Woman's experience is either
    left out all together or told through men's eyes.
    
    These stories really do tell us much about women and the cultural
    attitude about women.  If we accept the Bible as the thoughts of God
    then we need to conclude that woman as represented in the Bible, as sex
    objects, is the will of God.  If we define our God as the God who loves
    and treats justly all women and me, then we know that these stories do
    not represent the thoughts of God.  They represent cultural history of
    a primitive people seeking to imperfectly describe their relationship
    with God.
    
    I love the Bible for all that it tells me.
    
    
    Patricia
    

re Note 938.20 by VNABRW::BUTTON:

>       BTW: From the Qumran scrolls, there are texts which suggest
>       that God did not stay Abraham's hand at the decisive moment.
>       ... The diversity of versions would seem to confirm that the
>       stories are myths.
> 
> 	This being so, the morality (or immorality) which speaks out of
> 	so many OT stories, would be more likely to reflect the society
> 	at the time of authorship rather that an ongoing unfolding
> 	revelation of God.

        Derek, 

        Why would a myth be any less likely to be "an ongoing
        unfolding revelation of God" than a story of an actual event?

        Remember that in Jesus we have a teacher who seems to prefer
        teaching in stories, many if not most of them non-historical.
        (How many wonder whether a particular parable "really
        happened" -- yes, I know that some do.)

        I would think that especially those who value the literal
        "word of God" as the pre-eminent medium of revelation would
        appreciate myth over event.

        Bob

    RE: .26
    
    Sex objects?!?!?!  This is ludicrous!   How you can read the Bible and
    get that men indulging themselves in the lusts of the flesh at women's
    expense is not only okay, but endorsed by God is beyond me.  It sounds
    to me, and correct me if I'm wrong, that you have already decided that
    the Bible is not God's Word and you're unwilling, because of whatever
    biases you have, to examine with the pure intent of seeing if it is
    God's Word.  Your fascination with studying it seems to be trying to
    damage what it means to others rather than seeking the truth.  I could
    be way offbase, but it just doesn't FEEL like it.  Not when you attack
    the very hearts of our womanhood, not to mention our faith, and say how
    could any woman read these passages and affirm this book as God's Word.
    Implying what exactly?  
      
    You know, I don't know about you, but I'm a story teller at heart.  I
    look at the events of my life and I say that through this event God
    taught me this. My life experiences become a metaphor for
    understanding.  Or I'll read a book and see an event in my life in a
    new light.  Paul was using a story he had heard since childhood as an
    example.  How many times do we give comfort to others and pull some
    event from our own lives, our family and friends' lives to help explain
    what's happening.  When I talk about God as the Great Physician, I tell
    about my nephew Benjamin who all the doctors and their high-powered
    ultra-sounds said would not live or if he did he would be severely
    brain damaged.  He came out of his mother's womb, a beautiful, healthy,
    alert child with nothing wrong.  Today he is a bright, adorable,
    healthy 2 year old.  We were talking about faith and peace in our
    Women's Bible Study last night and I shared about Ben and the peace God
    gave me months before he was born to know that he was okay.  The
    doctors were still all full of doom and gloom, but I already knew he
    was okay.  I went on planning for a little boy to be born when others
    hestitated.  I already had clothes and stuffed animals bought for him. 
    God had promised me in my heart that Ben would be okay just as God had
    promised Abraham in his heart that he had plans to prosper Isaac, not
    to harm him.  I understand Abraham's faith because I've seen God work
    in my life.  I understand how real life experiences become lessons for
    not only me, but for others.  My nephews and nieces I'm sure will
    testify to their friends, kids, and grandkids about how God healed
    Benjamin, we all call him our Miracle Baby.
    
    From Hagar's eyes...yes, poor Hagar.  You assume that her motives were
    pure after all she was the poor slave.  We all know that all poor
    slaves have good hearts and are not at all selfish and greedy.  But
    I'll give you another scenario to think about...I would imagine that
    here she was just a slave and all of a sudden she was her master's
    wife.  She was exuberant!  She and her children would have great wealth
    rather than just serving those who were wealthy.  Soon she started to
    feel like she deserved it all.  But if she should be the one to give
    Abraham children, why keep Sarah around?  She was old and barren.  Why
    should she share the wealth with Sarah?  She started dispising her. 
    Perhaps, she was thinking that if Sarah lost favor in Abraham's eyes
    because she no longer pleased him, she could get her out of the way. 
    Then how much longer would Abraham live?  He too was old.  Soon her son
    would own everything and she would be honored above all.  Basically,
    she could have been very manipulative trying by the pleasures of the
    flesh to make Abraham disown the woman he loved.  She had nothing to
    lose.  She was already a slave.  The only way to go was up.  I'd say
    from the little bit of info we have about Hagar that this is a very
    possible scenario.  
    
    Jill  

    How can anyone read the Old testament, starting with the ten
    commandments and not see that women are treating as sex objects?
    
    Sarah is a sex object,
    Hagar is a sex object
    Lot's daughters are sex objects
    Issaac's wife is a sex object.
    How many more?
    
    Thou shall not covet thy neighbors wife or mule implies women as sex
    objects.
    
    Israel potrayed as a whoring woman in Isaiah is a metaphor that views
    women as sex objects.
    
    
    Hey, I'm only reading the Bible.  During the days of slavery in the
    United States, white men also felt it was OK to use slave women for sex
    and breeding, disowning any interest in the offspring other than as
    property.  Perhaps they received their inspiration from the Abraham
    story.  THe Bible certainly did not make it clear that this was immoral
    behavoir.
    
    Patricia
    objects.

    Jill,
    
    nowhere in .26 do I imply that woman as sex objects is the will of God.  
    One only reaches that conclusion if one accepts that the way women are
    potrayed in the Old Testament is actually the way God intended them to
    be potrayed.
    
    I like you Jill, search the Bible to find Truth.
    
    1.  An objective search of the New Testament proves beyond a shadow of a
    doubt how woman are potrayed.
    
    2.  I intuitively know that this is not how God intended women to be
    treated.
    
    3.  I therefore objectively conclude that the Old Testament does not in
    these many instances reflect the will, thoughts, or words of God.
    
    For me this is conclusive proof that the Bible is not innerrant. 
    
    I do not need the Bible to be innerrant to find value in it. 
    
    I find in the Bible itself, and in the Love message potrayed therein,
    all the resources and inspiration necessary,  to refute those parts
    of the Bible itself that represent decadence.  All these stories that
    represent the usage of women's bodies by men, reflect decadence.  The
    Bible is an amazing book because it includes within itself the means to
    continually reveal Truth and Falsehood to us.
    
    Patricia
    
                                      {

If you have not seen the book "Magic Eyes", go find one and "LOOK" at it.
For those who see, the image is crystal and beautiful.  For those who do not
see, the pieces are all twisted.

Wally

re: Note 938.31 by Wally,

First, welcome Wally.  I hope you find this file to be informative and 
interesting.  Because there are so many diverse faiths represented here, 
you might not find this file as safe and some others, but the participants
really are loving and sincere in their beliefs.

Second, can you say more about this book?   A short summary?

Third, you are invited to introduce yourself in topic 3.

Peace,

Jim

    
    
    > Talk about traditional Christian Values
    
      As opposed to the New Age traditional Values. " Hey like my Daddy is
    dressing like a woman now and you know he tells me that he is actually
    a lesbian woman in a mans body, this kinda bummed my mom out for awhile
    so she started primal scream therapy, and now she is on Donahue cuz she
    actually discovered that all reality is like universal so she is going
    to divorce my dad, or should I say mom, and then my mom is going to
    marry this lady who says she is actually a man" Wow man can yah dig
    it...
    
    rename the conference " Traditional Christian Bashers Perspectiv "
    
    David( who should have stayed retired from this conference)...
    

re: Note 938.33 by David

>                  -< Gay Nuns on Dope Who hate there Mothers >-
    
>who should have stayed retired from this conference)...

Please don't retire!  I found this note hysterical!  Thanks for the laugh.

Peace,

Jim

    Hello David,
    
    	Yeah, I suppose we're pretty scummy here.  And nobody besides
    those poor defenseless fundamentalist Christians receive any
    negativity, right?  That's the way you see it, isn't it?
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    > Yeah, I suppose we're pretty scummy here
    
      I think in lawyer terminology this is a leading question :-)
    
    > those poor defenseless
    
       Who have the courage to stand up and say I believe x, as opposed to
    the new age crowd which say " I believe x,of course sometimes my x aint
    your x so call it y and then when someone comes along and say x is not
    y then you can whip out the holier than thou battle cry " Who am I to
    judge another persons X or Y, let us rise above absolutes and swim in
    the ocean good feelings and ear tickling ambiguity(sp).....
    
    
    David with radar locked on and I got good tone....... 
    
    

>    David with radar locked on and I got good tone....... 
    
Ah, yes.  Jesus a la "Top Gun"?

    
    > Ah, yes. Jesus a la " Top Gun "
    
       Some are Apostles,some teachers, and some are fighters, if yah can't
    stand the heat then get oughta the kitchen.......
    
    
    David

	Re: .20 (mine), & .21 /john

	Friday was clearly a bad day for me. It started with getting an
	expensive dent in my car and ended with me spending the night
	in hopsital (unconnected with car accident).  Between these two
	events, I managed to compose my .20   Please don't ask me what
	planet I was visiting when I wrote that about Isaac: I just do
	no know.

	The stuff about the Qumran scrolls is easier (but also very
	embarassing). About 10 years ago, I read a book *about* the
	scrolls which mentioned this *alternative* legend. On Sunday,
	I dug out the note I made at the time and see that: a) it did
	not say that the story was in the rolls and, b) the source it
	quoted is one which I have since come to view as "pop" theo-
	logy.

	I apologize to my fellow noters for imposing this on you.

	Greetings, Derek.

	Re: .27 Bob

	> Why would a myth be any less likely to be "an ongoing unfolding
	> revelation of God" than a story of an actual event?

	Bob I find this such an interesting question that I have taken it
	to a new topic. It'll be 940 if no one gets there first.

	It is not, however, what I said in .20 although it does reflect
	my opinion.

	In .20 I wrote: "...the morality (or immorality) which speaks out
	of so many OT stories, would be more likely to reflect the society
	at the time of authorship rather than an ongoing unfolding
	revelation of God."  From this it is clear that I referred to a
	set of conditions rather than and actual event.  In fact, [in
	one of my more rational moments on Friday ;-) ] I was careful
	to use an open expression --"at the time of authorship" -- to
	avoid pinning  the remark down to any actual event.

	Your example of Jesus' stories may be answered in 940. Here I will
	only say that Jesus used neither actual events nor myths but
	examples, relevant to the society of the time, such that his
	hearers could "relate" to his teaching.  In a sense, it could be
	argued that he used myth as a tool in unfolding his revelation
	of God.  I would, by and large, agree with this. Howevere, I did
	make specific reference to the Old Testament (OT) and I see no
	contradiction.

	Thanks for a thought-provoking question.

	Greetings, Derek.

      re: .25
    
      Hi Richard,
    
        If your reply was to .24, it might have been more accurate to
        say, "Funny which parts of the Bible _God_ chooses to spiritualize."
        I didn't write Galatians 4.
    
        However, I do believe the entire book has a spiritual application.
        Someone might also complain about the nasty scorpion stings that
        the people in the exodus experienced, however I still believe they
        symbolized sin and the brass serpent on the rod symbolized Christ.
    
                                                   Tony

	Patricia, isn't it ironic that Lot also offered his daughters to the
towns people. But they weren't treated as sex objects? Your points are well
written Patricia. Women were definitely not thought well of back then. 


Glen

      re: -1
    
      Hi Glen and Patricia (mainly for Patricia though),
    
      Kind of ironic isn't it that Lot's daughters treat their
      own father like a sex object?
    
      They get him so drunk that he doesn't even know who he's
      sleeping with and they each sleep with him!  (Talk about
      taking sexual advantage of a man.)
    
      ----------------------------------------------------------
    
      As it was said of Joseph regarding his brothers when in 
      Egypt...he appeared strange and sounded rough unto them.
      And they knew him not.  And then he leaves and WEEPS.
    
      I think in many ways, the word appears strange and sounds
      rough and this causes an ache in God's heart - how rough
      it appears is probably somewhat proportionate to how rough
      our own hearts are.
    
      The deeper we mine the shaft of truth, the more the word
      will explode with a revelation of the lovely character of
      God.  That's what I believe.
    
                                             Tony

re: .32

Jim, thanks for your welcome.  I am not the first time reader of this
conference but not a regular reader either. 

"Magic Eye" is a book that has a collection of pictures. These pictures
actually are 3D but you have to train your eyes in order to be able to
"see" them.  Before you can see them in 3D, these pictures really like
paintings from some impressionists.  The book is quite popular in our
area(Seattle) and can be found in every bookstore.  Actually they have 
"Magic Eye II" and posters as well.   I was trying to draw an analogy that
a "spirtual eye" makes all the difference as for what you can see from the
Bible.

Wally

re:  Note 938.44 by Wally

>"Magic Eye" is a book that has a collection of pictures. ...

Oh, I've seen posters like that.  Alas I am blind in one eye so they don't 
work for me.  .-(

Peace,

Jim

	Tony, what were their reasons for doing this?


Glen

re: .45

Sorry Jim and forgive my being insensitive.  I wish we all have
the right spiritual vision and that has the eternal importance.

Wally

re: Note 938.47 by Wally

No problem.

Jim

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tony,
    
    actually the story of the sex between Lot and his two daughters is the
    typical response expected given the male authorship and the cultural
    attitude about women at the time.  When children are abused, the adult
    abuser often blames the children for seducing him.
    
    Now on two successive nights one of lots daughters got him drunk and
    seduced him.  Would you believe that story today if a man impregnated
    his teenage daughters, (two of them at different times) and then claimed
    they raped him?
    
    could a teenager get you drunk and rape you?  And how old do you think
    Lot's daughters were?  13, 14.  The Bible let's it all hang out with
    just what the culture believed about women.
    
    
    It's not hard to read the real story behind the words.  Lot offered his 
    daughter to strangers to protect Male visitors and afterwards raped and
    impregnated them.
    
    patricia
    

    .49
    
    Why do you insist on putting words into the Bible that do not exist?
    
    What motivates you to do so?  

    "A free and responsible search for Truth"

      Hi Patricia,
    
        If you can interpret that passage to say that, you can
        pretty much interpret anything to say anything.  I can
        understand your basis and as my basis (scripture is infallible)
        differs, many of our differences in understanding result from
        this very wide, very fundamental fork.
    
        I guess I can agree on something.  Males have historically been
        extremely insensitive to women and have taken advantage of them.
        God forgive me for whatever sinfulness is mine in this matter.
        I have no problems with embracing your concern over this violation
        of women.  There is much for God to accomplish in us men and I
        hope we are willing to allow Him to do so and give us a much 
        lovelier perspective (and treatment) of women.
    
        While I can embrace the above with you, I must honestly state that
        I love the Word of God all the while much of it (in its surface
        roughness) is yet a mystery to me.  But, I continue to see more and
        more beauty in the Word.
    
      Hi Glenn,
    
        According to the Bible, it was to perpetuate Lot's line.
    
                                                          Tony

    A free and responsible search for Truth???
    
    A free search I see in your hypothesis... but is it reponsible?  You
    are making assumptions that aren't there?  This is a very blatant
    example of turning Truth into a lie.
    
    You take the Truth of the scripture, add your hypothesis and form
    opinions and set ideals in the minds of others.  And all this based on
    your agenda against supposed male domination in the scriptures...
    
    This truly grieves me.
    
    I could understand if you took the scripture for what it said and
    continued in your view, but to ADD to the story that which is not there
    ..  well, imho there is no basis for further discussion.

    
    Patricia, I have no idea what to say to you except that you need a 
    Savior and your free and responsible search only seems to be taking 
    you further away from Him.  If I use your method of inferring what 
    the "real story is behind your words" you obviously relate to a 
    "Goddess" better because of whatever bad experiences you've had with 
    men.  My guess would be starting with your father.  Now this is all
    speculation based on here and now and your own words.  You're 
    speculating on stories written thousands of years ago by a person
    not even involved.  Yet you seem to have no problem adding your own
    details to fit your version.
    
    I think you need to remember that God created both men and WOMEN in His
    image.  I think you can relate to Him if you choose to stop pinning
    your biases against men onto Him.  I would be interested for you to 
    answer the same questions you ask us specifically:  Why does "Goddess" 
    allow this treatment, as you see it, of women to go on?  I think that's
    a fair question being that you're more than willing to blame my God,
    even though you don't believe in Him, for these evils.  But if your 
    beliefs are accurate, then "Goddess" is responsible, is she not?  
    And if not, why not? 
    
    Jill

| <<< Note 938.53 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| A free search I see in your hypothesis... but is it reponsible?  You
| are making assumptions that aren't there?  This is a very blatant
| example of turning Truth into a lie.

	No Nancy, it is not. This is Patricia's interpretation of the Bible.
You have yours. They are both each other's beliefs. If you don't agree with her
interpretation, fine. But please don't make it out to be a lie. I'm sure you
have been corrected in the past on Scripture, so it would show that you are not
an authority on what is right and what is wrong. 

| You take the Truth of the scripture, add your hypothesis and form
| opinions and set ideals in the minds of others.  

	Nancy, how is that any different than what you do? Oh, I forgot, you're
a true blue Christian. I happen to think Patricia is also.

| And all this based on your agenda against supposed male domination in the 
| scriptures...

	Nancy, when you say things about homosexuals, can I say it is all part
of your agenda against gays? OR, should I just say it is your belief? Patricia
is talking of WHAT SHE BELIEVES TO BE TRUE! Please give her the respect that
you would want for your beliefs. 



Glen

      re: -1
    
      Hi Glen,
    
        I think you're reaching on this one.  If one reads the story
        with Lot and his two daughters (the one where Lot gets drunk,
        etc.), it would seem plain to just about anybody that Patricia's
        'account' of the story is not interpretation, but rather perhaps
        a personal conviction that here is one example where scripture
        is plainly in error.
    
        I really find it hard to believe an interpretation of the Lot
        story can embrace Patricia's account of it.  Unless of course,
        the meaning of the word interpretation is inclusive of sometimes
        believing that that which is being read may be in error.
    
                                                    Tony

    I will answer Tony, Jill, and Nancy in this one answer because each of
    you in your own way offers the same critique to my interpretation of
    the story of Lot and his daughters.  Again I ask the question.  Is it
    plausible that teenage girls can get their father drunk and rape him.
    On at least two different occasions?  And then again unless we truly
    believe that inpregnation occured in both instances on the first
    occasion, how many times did Lot and his daughters make love with each
    other.
    
    My interpretation of this story is based on my interpretation of the
    position of women consistent throughout the book of Genesis and Exodus. 
    Men had total control of woman's bodies in this book.  There are many
    stories.  Sarah, Hagar, Leah, Rachel, the slave women of both Leah and
    Rachel who I unfortunately forget the names of, Lot's wife, Lot's
    Daughter, the grandaughter of Sarah who is raped, Lot's wife, Lot's
    daughters.
    
    The way women are potrayed in Genesis and the way they are treated in
    Genesis has nothing to do with the Divine whether I name him/her 
    Goddess or God.  Studying how women are treated in Genesis is one way
    that I know that the Bible is not the literal innerant word of God
    because I know in my heart that God would not treat woman that way and
    that God does not approve of women being treated that way.
    
    In fact in following the Bible story from the Patriarch's to Jesus, we
    can see in Jesus' treatment of women a revolutionary change.
    
    Last night I was reading Jeremiah and found parts of Jeremiah
    particularly inspiring.  Particularly inspiring is the part where
    Jeremiah states that God will create a new covenant and write his Law
    on the hearts of all women and men.  Then there will not be the need
    for any priests or prophets because what is required for each will be
    written on there hearts.
    
    The Word of God is not the word recorded in the Bible by mortals.  Yes
    there is revelation there but it is revelation mediated by imperfect
    humans and it contains human imperfections.  The true word of God is
    written on the hearts of those who believe.
    
    Amen/Awomen/Blessed Be/So be it.
    
    Patricia 

The main thrust of the entire Lot narrative is that unlike Abraham, Lot
and his family are foolish, grasping, and thus just barely manage to
survive.  And they survive only because of their relationship to Abraham.

However, even after Lot's wife and Lot's daughters' husbands are gone,
there is new life after destruction -- a recurring theme in Genesis.

/john

    Don't forget John, all those instances in Genesis where Abraham too is
    foolish and grasping.  There is not too much difference between
    offering your wife to strangers and offering your daughters to
    strangers.
    
                                   Patricia

re .59

You misrepresent the plain words of scripture when you claim that Abram
offered his wife to strangers.

Abram knew that he needed to remain alive in order to fulfill the promise
made in Gen 12:2-3.  He fears that he will be killed if it is known that
he is the husband of the beautiful Sarai.

He does not offer his wife; she is taken from him.  However, God intervenes
and saves the honor of Sarai by afflicting Pharoah with plagues.

/john

Here's a surprise contribution from a usually-read-only:

It seems to me this whole topic is based on the mistaken assumption that, 
because the Bible *reports* some actions on the part of some of the "good 
guys," it automatically *approves* of that action -- that we can assume this 
approval unless there is clearly stated disapproval.

I do not think that assumption is warranted.

Genesis is a book of origins.  That's its name, that's it opening phrase, 
that's its function.  Only incidentally and secondarily is it a book of law, 
here and there.  Mainly, it is out to describe the origin of the world, 
humanity, society, and (at greatest length) the Hebrew nation.  It seems to me 
that it records divine or human approval or disapproval only when that is 
relevant to the story of origins.

   "If we define our God as the God who loves and treats justly all women and 
    me, then we know that these stories do not represent the thoughts of God."

On my conception of Genesis, you are right, if you mean "opinions" or 
"judgements" of God when you refer to His "thoughts."  But, as I said, it does 
not seem to me that Genesis is claiming to report opinions or judgements, 
except incidentally.

By the way, as a point of clarification, most of the sexual shenanigans
discussed in this topic have little or nothing to do with sexual pleasure, for 
men or women.  They have to do with dynastic manoeuvering.

The matriarchs are at least as busy at this as the patriarchs.  It is Sarah
who gave her maid Hagar to Abraham, to get thereby a foster-child for herself,
and she who later demands that Hagar and Ishmael be driven out, when their
existence conflicts with her own dynastic chances now that she has Isaac (Gen
21:9). Leah hires Jacob's stud services from her sister Rebecca with some
mandrake roots (Gen 30: 14-18).  Lots daughters couple with their father in 
order to get sons of his line (Gen 19:32).

True, it is all quite unenlightened and sexist.  From both male and female 
sides of the game, the goal is to produce sons.  Daughters are useful only for 
making marriage alliances with other houses.  (Of course, the sons are useful 
only for begetting grandsons.)  The bloodline, not the individual, is the 
center of attention.  It is simply the usual approach to family planning 
throughout Eurasia until about 300 years ago, or less.

It doesn't seem to me that we are told much about what God thinks of it all.
Probably He disapproved.  Perhaps He complained to Abraham and it was not 
recorded.  Perhaps He didn't even bother, knowing the time was not ripe.  (How
much use would it be for God to try to excite our concern for the social
issues of the 58th century?) 

And all of this is told with great brevity.  New developments are introduced 
without preamble.  Plots that clearly took months or years to run their course 
are described in paragraphs, with only occasional memorable moments flashing 
out of the condensed narrative.  Divine judgements are few and far between.

The whole book is simply too condensed to safely extract much morality or 
theology from it.  That isn't its central function.
    
In short, I second much of what Jill Kinsella has said.

Earl Wajenberg                                         

    No John it is you who are misinterpreting scripture.  Sarai is not
    taken from him.  Before he enters the city on several occasion he tells
    Sarai to tell everyone that she is his Sister and not his wife.
    
    Women had two major roles in Ancient Society.  1. to bear sons.  2. to
    be used for family aliances.  Abraham pretends to be  traveling with his
    sister and offers his sister to the King in exchange for political
    saftey, favor and material goods.  Yes the story does indicate that God
    does intervene.  The distressing thing about the story is that there is
    no indication that Abraham has done anything wrong.  That is because
    his conduct, using his wife as property is generally accepted in that
    society.  No where in the story does it say that the beautiful Sarai
    was taken from Abraham.  It does say that Abraham feared she would be
    taken.  
    
    Now do you not think that an omnipotent God could have found some other
    way of protecting Abraham and Sarah?  Why did the storytellers choose
    this version in their oral history?
    
    Patricia
    

    The was taken is also used to explain Abraham taking her into Egypt. 
    She was given before she was taken into the Pharoah's house.
    
    The story did chastise the Pharaoh for not being a mind reader and
    knowing that Abraham and sarah were lieing.  The story does nsot
    chastice Abraham.
    
    Patricia

>    She was given before she was taken into the Pharaoh's house.
                                                     ^^
In your mind.

/john    

>    No John it is you who are misinterpreting scripture.  Sarai is not
>    taken from him.  Before he enters the city on several occasion he tells
>    Sarai to tell everyone that she is his Sister and not his wife.

"When the officials of Pharaoh saw her, they praised her to Pharaoh.  And
 the woman _was_taken_ into Pharaoh's house."
	   ^^^^^^^^^^^

>    Now do you not think that an omnipotent God could have found some other
>    way of protecting Abraham and Sarah?  

"But the Lord afflicted Pharaoh and his house with a plague because of Sarai,
 Abram's wife.  ...  Now then, here is your wife, take her, and be gone."

BTW, if you want to invent that she was offered, why can I not invent that
Abram said that she was his sister, engaged to be married to someone back
home, but that Pharaoh took her anyway.

    Well, Did Abraham not in fact accept gifts for giving his sister to the
    Pharoah's?  did he accept them?
    
    
    
                                      Patricia

Do we know that Sarai was actually involved in sex with Pharaoh?  We know
he took her to be his wife, but there were plagues, and he gave her back.

In the case of Abimelech taking Sarah, God explicitly prevents him from
touching her.

/john

    .61
    
    You wrote exactly what was on my heart!  Amen!  
    
    .61 is well worth the reading.

      re: .61
    
      I'll second that Nance.
    
      Earl, that was excellent reading!  Thanks!
    
                                                Tony

    Patricia,
    
    The only thing you said that I can agree with is that God doesn't treat
    women unfairly nor does he condone it.  Beyond that I'm just astounded.
    Do you not see that blaming absolutely ever evil that ever was and is
    on men is bigotry?  I'm sorry but every woman is not a victim and every
    man is not the perpetrator of all evil.  I can't see how you can
    approach life, let alone the Bible, with any honesty with this kind of
    hatred in your heart.  How do you view your attitude towards men? 
    Maybe I'm just not understanding where you are coming from.
    
    Jill
    

    Jill,
    
    I am astonished by your analysis of my motives.  Where do you think
    that I am blaming every evil that every was on men.  
    
    Most liberal men will concur that the Bible is patriarchal and male
    dominated.  That does not mean that I think men are evil.  The society I
    seek is one in which men and women cooperate equally with each other.
    
    The abuse of women and the abuse of children is a tremendous problem in
    our society.  There are men who do abuse women and children.  I can see
    where justification can be found for this outrageous behavoir in the
    Bible.  The stories of the Patriarch's are full of the abuse of woman
    and children.  Some women also abuse children and sometimes there
    partners.
    
    I guess one of my main points is that the Bible cannot be used as the
    basis for our sexual morality.  As I have stated elsewhere, there are
    eight references to same sex relationships in the Bible and these
    references are erroneously used by conservative Christians to condemn
    homosexuality.  1/8 of those references in the Lot story which is
    properstous.  Another is in Leviticuss and I have not had the stomach
    to read Leviticuss yet.  My purpose in this note is to remind people
    reading this file of exactly what the Bible does have to say about
    sexual morality.  My purpose is to show how the Bible is culturally
    conditioned.  My purpose is to show the indirect nature of the
    revelation contained in the Bible.  How you can say I have hate in my
    heart for men because of the way I read Genesis is beyond me.
    
    Patricia

    Jill,
    
    Perhaps you think that because I am proud to be a feminist that I hate
    men?  All my male friends are also Feminists.  Do you believe the
    stereotype that all feminists hate men?
    
    Patricia

| <<< Note 938.56 by STRATA::BARBIERI >>>



| I really find it hard to believe an interpretation of the Lot
| story can embrace Patricia's account of it.  Unless of course,
| the meaning of the word interpretation is inclusive of sometimes
| believing that that which is being read may be in error.

	Well, I haven't read any of the responses after this, so I'm not sure
what she has said. BUT, I do agree that one's interpretation of the Bible can
be flawed. Spanish Inquisitions come to mind. I'm not saying Patricia is right
or wrong, as I have yet to read her reply. But if she is saying what I thought,
I stand by what she has stated.




Glen

RE: <<< Note 938.74 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

� BUT, I do agree that one's interpretation of the Bible can
� be flawed. Spanish Inquisitions come to mind. 

Glen,

You have used the Inquisition as an example of incorrect interpretation of the 
Bible.  What do you have that supports the notion that the Inquisition was ever
based on Scripture?

Jim()

re:  Note 938.75 by Jim() "Is it 1996 yet?" >

>You have used the Inquisition as an example of incorrect interpretation of the 
>Bible.  What do you have that supports the notion that the Inquisition was ever
>based on Scripture?

From Webster's Third New International Dictionary

Inquisition:  definition 3: a Roman Catholic ecclesiastical tribunal 
especially of medieval times and the early modern period having as its primary 
objective the discovery, punishment and prevention of heresy; specifically: an 
ecclesiastical tribunal set up in Spain under state control in 1478-80 with 
the objective of proceeding against lapsed converts from Judaism, crypto-Jews, 
and other apostates that was marked by the extreme severity of its proceeding.

Remember, back then, there was little thought of the seperation between church 
and state.

Hope that helps.

Peace,

Jim

re : <<< Note 938.76 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
�                        -< it's a sad part of history >-

Jim,

I know what the Inquisition did and a lot of what it was about.  What I was 
asking was what evidence Glen had to back up his claim that the Inquisition came
about by interpretation of Scripture and not some ill conceived idea of the 
Emperor of the Holy Roman Empire?

Simply saying it was carried out by the Church is not saying enough.  During the
time of the SI, the monarchs of the time controlled a lot of what happened in 
the Church - such as who would get the choicest sees, who would wield the power,
even to the point of applying enough pressure to get their man installed as
pope.  The rulers of Spain had much more to do with the Spanish Inquisition than
did the Roman Catholic Church.

Jim()

re: Note 938.77 by Jim() "Is it 1996 yet?" 

> The rulers of Spain had much more to do with the Spanish Inquisition than
> did the Roman Catholic Church.

Unless you can show that the Roman Catholic Church had *no* role in the 
Inquisition, I think Glen's statement stands.

I believe the leader, Torquemada was a cardinal (maybe a bishop, I forget).
He was a leader in the Church.  What he did, how he twisted scripture was 
wrong, wrong, wrong, but through him, the Church was involved.  It might not 
have been sanctioned by the Pope, but the Church was involved.

Peace,

Jim

    During that period of History, leading up through the Protestant Reformation
    both the church and the state felt responsible for establishing
    Christian States.  During that time Heresy or failure to comply with
    church or Biblical teachings was a capital offense. Many clerics were
    burned or drowned during that period as well for Heresy under the
    premise of burning the body to save the soul.
    
    Patricia

    >the book is to brief to extract much theology, morality from it<
    
    Earl,
    
    Good and thought provoking entry.  some of it I agree with.  Some I
    disagree with.
    
    Much theology has been extracted from the book of Genesis throughout
    Christian History.  Paul uses the Adam and Eve story and the Abraham
    story extensively.  Abraham is a central figure throughout the OT based
    on Genesis.  Genesis is a beginning book.
    
    Does it make a difference regarding sexual morality what the purpose of
    sex is.  You are right that the dynastic consideration not the nature
    of sex is the major consideration.  If the OT tells us about the
    morality of dynastic succession and not sexual pleasure then how do we
    then use these stories to determine twentieth century questions of
    sexual morality?
    
    Patricia

	Thanks Jim. Gee, take a day off and all sorts of questions fly around!


Glen

RE : <<< Note 938.78 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
                      -< in for a penny, in for a pound >-

�I believe the leader, Torquemada was a cardinal (maybe a bishop, I forget).
�He was a leader in the Church.  What he did, how he twisted scripture was 
�wrong, wrong, wrong, but through him, the Church was involved.  It might not 
�have been sanctioned by the Pope, but the Church was involved.

Jim, 

Oh, I 'm not trying to exhonerate the RCC from any wrong-doing.  What I am say-
ing is that I am not convinced that the inception of the Inquisition was the
doing of the RCC.  I agree with Patricia that the Church and State were attemp-
ting to establish Catholic (I believe she said Christian) regions.  But, during
the time of the Inquisition, the RCC was an instrument of the State, not totally
a separate entity.  What the emperor wanted, he ordered the Church to carry out.

The Inquisition was aimed at anybody not practicing Catholicism, whether they 
were Moors, Jews, or Protestants.  But, the original idea for the Inquisition 
came from the monarch, Charles I (or V, I can't remember at this moment).   He 
wanted to rid Spain of the Muslim and Jewish influence by either forcing conver-
sion or killing them.  The same for Protestants.  He feared their influence in
attracting people away from Catholicism.

I do agree that the Church was responsible for their part in it.  I just don't 
agree that the Church was the originator of the Spanish Inquisition.

Jim()

re:  Note 938.82 by Jim() "Is it 1996 yet?" 

>Oh, I 'm not trying to exhonerate the RCC from any wrong-doing.  What I am say-
>ing is that I am not convinced that the inception of the Inquisition was the
>doing of the RCC.  

But you do agree that the Church had an active part in it.  Thus Glen's 
refering to it as an example of scripture twisting is valid.

>I do agree that the Church was responsible for their part in it.

We agree, and that was part of Glen's point.

>I just don't agree that the Church was the originator of the Spanish 
>Inquisition.

That was not Glen's point.

Peace,

Jim

RE : <<< Note 938.83 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
�                       -< sequiturs and non sequitursy >-

Jim,

|>I just don't agree that the Church was the originator of the Spanish 
|>Inquisition.

|That was not Glen's point.

I thought that was Glen's point - that the Church twisted and maimed the Scrip-
tures in order to justify creating the Inquisition.  If that was not the case, 
then I apoligize for making that assumption.  I will agree that the twisting and
maiming happened to "justify" their actions as right and proper, but not for the
creation of the SI.

Again, if I made too big of a leap, I am sorry.  It was not my intention to cast
aspersions on Glen's statement - I simply wanted to know what his backing for 
his statement was.  

Jim()

re: Note 938.84 by Jim()  "Is it 1996 yet?" 

>I thought that was Glen's point - that the Church twisted and maimed the Scrip-
>tures in order to justify creating the Inquisition.  

If you change "creating" to "participating" I think you'll be closet to the 
mark.  It doesn't matter so much who started it, rather who chose to join the 
game.

(Do I have that right, Glen?)

Peace,

Jim

The Inquisition that almost everyone thinks of was the Spanish Inquisition,
originally organized not by the Holy Roman Emperor of the German Nation (who
was Maximilian I of Austria at the time) but by the kings of Spain.

It was running quite well when Charles I became king of Spain in 1516 and
then became Emperor Charles V of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation
in 1520.

He brought the Spanish Inquisition into the Low Countries after defeating
the League of Cognac, which the Pope had formed to try to stop him and
the Inquisition.  He was able to imprison the Pope and export the Spanish
Inquisition and its practices not only throughout most of Europe, but into
the Spanish New World colonies.

/john

re : <<< Note 938.85 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
�                      -< I think we're pretty close now >-

|>I thought that was Glen's point - that the Church twisted and maimed the Scrip-
|>tures in order to justify creating the Inquisition.  

|If you change "creating" to "participating" I think you'll be closet to the 
|mark.  It doesn't matter so much who started it, rather who chose to join the 
|game.

Jim,

That's partly my point...  I don't think they "chose" to join but were ordered
into it.  It is my understanding that the state wielded an enormous amount of 
power and had *much* influence with the Church.  A lot of the men in the Church
were not very strong and were "persuaded" by the State to "join".

But, we may be haggling over semantics.  If Glen did not mean to imply that the
Church started the Inquisitions, then I am arguing from an incorrect assumption.

Jim()

	Jim D., the Church had a choice as to either participate or not. They
chose TO participate. They could have used Scripture to show that the King was
wrong. They did not. At least not right away. Scripture was twisted, yet for
quite some time nothing was done by it. They seemed, anyway, to be more worried
about man's power and wrath instead of God's. Remember, when they carried out
the orders they did not say, "Well everyone, Scripture doesn't really say this,
we're just following the Kings orders", instead they repeated the twisted form
of Scripture.

	Jim K., thanks for clearing things up for me.



Glen

Re .80:

   "Does it make a difference regarding sexual morality what the purpose of
    sex is."

Yes.  In the case of sex-for-dynasty-games versus sex-for-pleasure, it may 
seldom make a difference between innocent sex and sinful sex, but it changes 
the motives concerned -- thus changing *which* sins are liable to be committed 
-- and which parties have what opportunites and motives for a given sin.

Thus sex-for-pleasure, when sinful, usually results in the sins of fornication 
and adultery.  Sex-for-dynastic-games, when sinful, more typically would 
involve callousness or hatred or envy.  In any case, the one involves sex as 
an end, the other, sex as a means to an end (progeny).  That typically makes a 
big difference.

   "If the OT tells us about the morality of dynastic succession and not 
    sexual pleasure then how do we then use these stories to determine 
    twentieth century questions of sexual morality?"

We don't.  Or, rather, I say we shouldn't.  I don't think the Old Testament is
giving moral guidance more than incidentally in these stories. It is simply
recounting events, for the most part.  That was the main point of my note .61:
"The whole book is simply too condensed to safely extract much morality or 
theology from it.  That isn't its central function."

That is, I don't think Genesis is advocating the behavior that, say, Abraham, 
Sarah, and Hagar practiced toward one another.  Mostly, it is simply reporting
that behavior, to explain how some things got to be the way they are "today"
(c 1200 BC).  Therefore, to use those reports as a guide to behavior or as 
grounds for condemning the book itself are both unjustified.

Earl Wajenberg

    
    RE: .72 &.73
    
    All - no, but Patricia I do think that many feminist hate most men and
    there is statement after statement they (groups like NOW) make that 
    would support that premise.  It's bigotry, plain and simple.  If you 
    want to make this world a more peaceful place, why don't all of you 
    stop pointing the finger at men and make peace in your own lives with 
    whatever wrongs have been done to you.  Feminists seem to live their 
    lives by the philosophy "Step on them before they step on you."  That's 
    very unhealthy, not to mention paranoid.  
    
    I do need to thank you though.  You reminded me of how blessed I am to 
    have my father.  I told him so again yesterday. Thanks for making me 
    appreciate him even more.  I thought my Father's Day card was so fitting:
    
       "It's hard to describe how much it means having a father like you.
       The joy that comes from being loved, the confidence that comes from
       being believed in, the sense of security that comes from knowing
       there's always someone to depend on.  It hard to describe how much
       you mean because you mean so much."
    
    My father is my example of what a godly man is.  He's far from perfect,
    but my Heavenly Father more than makes up for that.  
    
    You know...I can't believe it...it just dawned on me why we're having
    trouble in here. You started this note on the basis that Abraham and
    Sarah was a story about the Bible's (although not God's) teaching on
    Sexual Morality. Your premise is totally hosed!   Everything I know
    about sexual morality stems from God through His Word and I have never
    felt oppressed.  I did a search last night and this morning of my Bible
    for every use of the term female, girl, maiden, wife, wives, woman,
    women and found no commandments from God about treating women badly. 
    It's amazing that all your examples had to do with stories and cultural
    practices, not of God's commands.  However, you leave out women like
    Deborah, Naomi, Ruth, Hannah, Esther, Mary, the old widow with the
    coins, Mary & Martha, Mary Magdalene, Pilate's wife, Dorcas, Lydia,
    Priscilla, Phoebe, Lois & Eunice, not to mention others. You fail to
    mention that a woman was last at the cross, first at the sepulcher, and
    first to whom the Lord appeared to after His resurrection. You failed
    to mention how Proverbs talks about an excellent wife and that he who
    finds a wife finds a good thing.  The book of Ruth talks about Ruth
    being a woman of excellence.  Jesus isn't the first in the Bible to
    esteem women, He just took it to a higher level as He did with
    everything.  You failed to mention that in Galatians it says in Christ
    there is no male or female. That everyone has access to salvation. 
    It's not limited to males or only through males as with many of the
    other religions.  In countries from which most of liberal theology
    comes, based on or twisted by eastern religions, women face
    unimaginable oppression.  The women I've seen in my life that are
    revered the most are Christian woman whose husbands are godly men who
    obey the teachings of the Bible.  These are not oppressed women. And
    that Song of Solomon didn't come up is pretty funny - God created
    sexuality; it's a beautiful thing within His framework.  No, the image
    of women in the Bible is the highest standard because it is God's
    standard and nothing anyone else can come up with even comes close to
    it.  Not that many haven't tried to warp it's message.  God esteems
    women because we are his creation.  Feminists try to esteem women
    (those who have the same goals as them) at the expense of trashing men
    (that's non-feminist men of course.)  No thanks. I'd rather live by
    God's law and have both men and women esteemed.  It is because of God's
    Word that I hold your life as well as the others in this file with high
    esteem or I wouldn't even be in here, it's your beliefs I reject. 
    However, I do respect your God-given right to believe whatever you want
    and to deal with the consequences of those choices.  
    
    While we do usually study the Bible in smaller segments rather than a
    whole, we can't study it in a vacuum ignoring that it's part of the
    whole.  
    
    Jill
         
     

    
    
    
    
     Lord how pathetic you liberals are. Its like this { hey like who are
    you to judge me cuz like you guys did this therefore I am
    akay with my lifestyle..... nausea
    
    
    David with radar still locked and I've got great tone dude.........

    Jill,
    
    I believe that you are taking a lot of what I write out of context and
    filtering what I am saying through your own biases and assumptions. 
    There are many images of women in the bible.  Some positive, some
    negative.  I have mentioned in her some of the positive examples that
    you site as my not considering.  You have a negative stereotype of what
    it means to be a feminist and you are relating to my statements through
    that negative stereotype.
    
    I view the Bible as a work by hundreds of different human authors all
    relating their faith experience.  I have learned a lot in this
    discussion of Sarah and Abraham.  I have a lot more questions than when
    I began the discussion which is one of my criteria for a good
    discussion.  I do not hate any Man, feminist or non feminist.  I do not
    hate any woman.  I try to live my life by what I believe is central to
    Religious Faith, to love God/Goddess with all one's heart, soul, and
    mind and to love one's neighbor as themselves.
    
    You make a lot of sweeping generalities about my thoughts and premises
    which I don't think it fair for you to be making.  That is not the
    level that I can or want to discuss these issues on.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    >Lord, how pathetic you liberals are.  .....nausea.
    
    David,
    
    I am going to continue to ignore your comments as they add absolutely
    nothing other than your anger to the conversation. 
    
     
    
    Patricia

       
    >I believe that you are taking a lot of what I write out of context
    >and filtering what I am saying through your own biases and assumptions. 
    
    Cat calling the kettle black ????
    

    RE: .92
    
    Patricia,
    
    My biggest concern is with your conclusion.  People rarely reach the
    right conclusion when starting from the wrong premise.  I understand
    that right now you don't believe that the Bible is the inerrant Word of
    God and perhaps you never will.  However, if it were, you would have to
    look at the entire thing to know what it truly says about any one
    topic.  I'm trying to caution you from taking too microscopic a view of
    the Bible without considering it's macroscopic message.  A great deal
    of misinterpretation takes place that way.  Patricia, I do admire that
    your working on studying the Bible and I can respect you're right to
    not recognize it's authorship as I have. But if your truly willing to
    take the challenge to see whether it is inerrant, then you need to try
    to table your own assumptions about separate books by individuals which
    just happen to be nicely bound together and study it fully.  I know
    that salvation doesn't always happen as soon as someone hers the
    gospel, it a process and you have treated your faith journey as such. 
    I need to remind myself of that more often.  I'm sorry if at times I
    seem impatient.  It's like when you've read a mystery and a friend is
    too but they are not done and you're dying to talk about the ending. 
    They only want to talk about where they are up to in the book and
    sometimes it's frustrating to wait when you know the ending.
    
    My statements on feminists do not apply to all feminists.  I personally
    find your statements and those of the NOW organization about men to be 
    extremely negative to the point of bigotry.  I know plenty of other
    feminists who are not that extreme.  I pointed this out to raise your 
    awareness and for you to keep a closer watch on what you say about men.
    
    The only other thing I'll add on this is that you asked us ( in .0)
    what implications the Bible would have as a guide to sexual morality
    but specifically because of this passage.  You started this with a
    sweeping question about the entire Bible based on only a very narrow
    passage. You might want to be more careful in the future.  Maybe this
    should have been 2 subjects.  The first having to do with this specific
    story and why God allowed things to happen that would seem to be
    inconsistent with His will.  The second having to do with can the Bible
    be a revelant guide for sexual morality in the 1990s?  Since we've
    already discussed the first I will let you decide if you wish to
    redirect in any way or start a different topic and discuss the second.
    
    Peace, Jill

re: Note 938.95 by Jill "Why be politically correct when you can be right?" 

> I personally find your statements ... about men to be extremely negative to 
> the point of bigotry.  

Interestingly enough, as a man, I don't find Patricia's statements to be so
negative.  Go figure.

I am not so familiar with the statements from NOW, so I can't comment on them.

Peace,

Jim

    
    Well, Jim...as I mentioned I didn't say that I felt that Patricia's
    comments were aimed at all men...so perhaps you're not within the 
    target range.  Perhaps your views lean enough in the same direction
    as her's, so maybe that's why.  Also, just like we find in the topic 
    on religious harrassment, these things can be somewhat subjective.  
    Just because I say it doesn't make it true, but I'm not the only one 
    that has felt this way which is why I mentioned it.  Patricia can 
    analyze what's she doing and judge for herself whether she needs to 
    or chooses to modify her behavior.  
    
    I'm not saying this is the worse case of bigotry that I've ever seen
    or even close.  But do we have to wait until things get so ugly
    that we can't stand it before someone stands up and says "Hey, this 
    isn't appropriate!"  From time to time, we've all gotten little 
    reminders in here about our behaviors and we choose to do with them
    what we want.  Some change, others don't, and still others leave
    or go into read only for a while.  I try to monitor my own behavior
    too.  Sometimes I do a good job, sometimes I don't.  I've listened
    to critics, sometimes I took heed, other times I dismissed it, and I 
    try to change those things that I should.  I'm not perfect...far, far
    from it, but that doesn't excuse me from pointing out other 
    inappropriate behavior.  We all have a responsibility to keep this
    file a nicer place for all of the participants here.  Unfortunately,
    we can't always see what our behavior is doing to someone else...
    that's especially true with notes since we don't see the reaction 
    when we say something.
    
    Jill

re Note 938.95 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     However, if it were, you would have to
>     look at the entire thing to know what it truly says about any one
>     topic.  I'm trying to caution you from taking too microscopic a view of
>     the Bible without considering it's macroscopic message.  

        The Bible is obviously the work of many human writers.  Any
        honest study of the Bible *must* start with its surface
        features, of which multiple authorship is one.  If one can go
        from that starting point to a conclusion that there is really
        one divine author behind it all, only then should that one
        treat it as a single work.

        Thus I hardly consider Patricia's approach to be "too
        microscopic", since I consider it the only reasonable
        *starting* point.  Patricia doesn't see a plausible
        "macroscopic message" -- she isn't ignoring it.  Apparently
        you do see a "macroscopic message".


>     But if your truly willing to
>     take the challenge to see whether it is inerrant, then you need to try
>     to table your own assumptions about separate books by individuals which
>     just happen to be nicely bound together and study it fully.  

        It's not an assumption that there are multiple writers.  It
        is a fact.

        The nature of God's inspiration, or "breathing", is a subject
        of much disagreement.  It is not at all obvious that it
        negates the character of individual authorship, including
        individual points of view, individual limitations, and
        individual fallibilities.

        If anyone is making a big assumption that forces certain
        conclusions and forecloses others, it is you, Jill, much more
        so than Patricia.

        Bob

    Jill,
    
    I appreciate your note even though I do not agree with much of it.
    
    I am progressing through the Bible to look at it as a whole.  To
    understand how it is linked together.  I also would like to have time
    to study more of other religions of the same period to also understand
    the influences back and forth.
    
    Paul's letters are the first part of the Bible that I made a extensive
    study of.  Based on two semesters of studying Paul, I came to the
    conclusion that there are both consistencey and inconsistencies within
    Paul's letters.  Like you and I and everyone else, he can argue two
    sides of an argument and depending on the circumstance does.  As a
    Unitarian Universalist, there were two questions I had in my mind
    throughout my study of Paul.
    
    1.  Are Christ and God equal in Paul's theology.
    2.  Is Salvation universal or limited.
    
    There are passages in Paul that allow either interpretation.  That are
    passages in Paul that can "prove" either point of view.  I wrote a
    paper on Romans 5:18-23(  it might be 16-21).  I used that passage to
    prove that God and Christ are not one and that salvation is universal. 
    I noted other passages within Paul that suggest the opposite.
    
    Now you are absolutely right, that depending on one's assumptions about
    the authorship of the book one comes to different conclusions.  My
    reading even just of the book of Romans convinces me that the
    authorship is human and Paul, being fallable is not always thoroughly
    consistent.  If there are differences in one author, then the
    differences between authors is even greater.
    
    I entered a note earlier asking whether the whole Bible has equally
    authorative or some areas are more authoratative than others.  My
    answer is that some are more authoratative than others.  A common
    Christian response, with many Christians believing that the Gospels are
    the most authoratative.
    
    I am attempting to understand the Bible as a whole.  Last night I
    finished reading Jeremiah and Hosea.  I don't know what to think of
    Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Hosea.  I know that many people including Martin
    Luther King found the prophets very inspiring but I have difficulty 
    understanding what is inspiring in those books.  I will continue to
    wrestle.  I don't have a faith need though to find inspiration in any
    of the books.  If it is inspiring, its inspiring, if not then its not.
    
    Jill, I believe that my assumptions about the Bible are based on a
    critical analysis of the Bible.  I believe that your assumptions about
    the Bible are based on Faith.  If one has a Faith need to find the
    Bible to be the innerant word of God then it is impossible to do a
    critical analysis on that assumption.  Unitarian Universalism affirms
    the need for a critical search for truth that honors human reason and
    refused to accept anything contrary to human reason.  That is also a
    faith statement.  That human reason is valuable.
    
    Patricia

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jill,
    
    Regarding your statements that my theology is negative about men.  I
    do not understand why you feel that way.  It would be much more helpful
    to me if you could give me specific examples where you see negativity
    and bigotry.  
    
    Otherwise I don't know how to process your comments which seem to me to
    be totally contrary to who I am and what I am up to.
    
    I do believe that the Bible as a whole is dominated by a male
    conception of reality.  I would prefer not that the Bible be dominated
    by a Female conception of reality, but that it was balanced.  
    
    My point regarding Genesis is that women are treated as property in the
    book of Genesis.   Do you consider that statement to be anti-male and
    Bigoted?
    
    In reading the Prophets, God is potrayed as an authoritarian Man and
    Israel is potrayed as a "whoring bride".  Do you consider questioning
    that metaphor to be anti-male bigotry?
    
    If you can help me to understand why you come to the conclusions you do
    about my writing, it would be most helpful.
    
    Thanks
    
    Patricia

| <<< Note 938.97 by CSC32::KINSELLA "Why be politically correct when you can be right?" >>>



| Patricia can analyze what's she doing and judge for herself whether she needs 
| to or chooses to modify her behavior.

	Jill, you mentioned bigotry with her comments, but you say it is up to
her to judge herself. Haven't you already done that for her?

| I'm not saying this is the worse case of bigotry that I've ever seen or even 
| close.  But do we have to wait until things get so ugly that we can't stand 
| it before someone stands up and says "Hey, this isn't appropriate!"  

	This kind of reminds me of some Christians crying when they have been
wrongly accused of being homophobic. I think in this case Patricia has been
wrongly accused of bigotry. 



Glen

| However, if it were, you would have to look at the entire thing to know what 
| it truly says about any one topic. I'm trying to caution you from taking too 
| microscopic a view of the Bible without considering it's macroscopic message. 

	Jill, I almost forgot this one. If the Bible is inerrant, then there
will be no way what so ever of proving it wrong. Regardless of how microscopic
one gets, if the claim is true, it will turn up still inerrant. I do believe to
fully understand a story in the Bible one must read the whole story itself and
not take one little line, but that is a context issue, and not an inerrant one.




Glen

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I just want to share one morsel of a 'spiritual' interpretation
        that I believe is strongly exemplary of the kind of interpretation
        God is seeking to get us to see and whose contrast is exemplary
        of the kind of interpretation God never intended for us to see.
    
        You mentioned Israel being represented as a whoring woman and
        God as the authoritative male.  Now one might look at this and
        conclude: the main thing to be gotten here is that a historical
        culture is being shared that is really pathetic toward men and
        women by picturing men as domineering and women as mere property,
        etc.
    
        Another way to look at it is that God is utilizing the cultural
        reality of the time to take advantage of a _spiritual truth_ He
        is trying to reveal to us.  In this case that God is love and His
        love is so awesome that no matter how much we turn our back on Him
        (represented by adultery/going to other men) He continually is
        hunting us down with overtures of love always persistently trying
        to draw us to Him.
    
        One person can see the culture that is depicted.  Another can see
        an amazing picture of the character of love that is symbolized by
        some of the cultural reality of the time of the written record.
    
        When one looks to the scripture as a whole, one also sees that this
        'authoritative man' (God) condescends lower than any man or woman
        has condescended and that this condescension is the throne of God
        for it was His glory and honor that He tasted death for every man
        (Heb 2).
    
        Looking further, we should see that the most intimate union between
        man and wife is referred to as KNOWING and God utilizes this union
        as symbolic of the union He wishes to have between Himself and the
        'bride' (His church).  He surely then looks forward to a union that
        is most precious and isn't it something that God decided to use the
        union between man and woman as its symbol.
    
        Finally, in Revelation and other places, we can see a woman that
        shines like the sun.  Finally, she represents one who finally grows
        unto the measure of the fulness of the stature of Christ (Eph 3).
        God uses 'woman' to also symbolize the church perfected.  A
        beautiful description of a last day group that has even the faith
        OF Jesus and keeps the commandments of God.
    
        My main point being this...
    
        I don't think it was ever God's intent to get wrapped up in the
        nasty cultural reality of much of the time of the writing of the
        sacred scriptures.
    
        Far better to get wrapped up in the spiritual themes that God
        sometimes used examples of that cultural reality as symbols thus
        teaching us gems of the plan of redemption.
    
        There is a preponderance here.  Yours seems to weigh heavily on the
        side of discussing the 'in many ways awful' cultural reality of the
        times.
    
        I think a far more spiritual perspective would be to have a prepon-
        derance that weighs far more heavily on the spiritual themes that
        are represented and on what they mean and on what they imply.
    
        One are the things of the flesh.  The other are the things of the
        spirit.
    
                                                        Tony
                              

    The point though is that by using that metaphor, some may imply that
    the proper way to treat a "disobedient wife" is to follow God's example
    as identified in the OT and punish her by beating, raping, killing her
    children until she finally submits too and is obedient to the Husband's
    will.
    
    The point is that by taking a book that is culturally conditioned and
    uses human examples selected by humans, divine authority may be given
    to acts that are immoral.  
    
    The feminist question is what is the impact of the metaphor chosen as
    it applies to 20th century reality.
    
    Patricia
    

    RE: 98
    
    Well actually Bob I would disagree with you.  No surprise there, huh?
    Patricia stated that this passage proved to her that the Bible was not
    the inerrant work of God, but the errant work of men.  Now if you're
    premise is to see if it is the inerrant work of God, it helps to table
    your skepticm (not forget it, but curb it) and analyze it as if it were
    one whole book.  If that's indeed your purpose.  Now I concede that I 
    may have misread Patricia's intent and her purpose might have been to 
    prove multiple authors.  However, I still don't see how you can do that
    without disproving divine authorship which means studying the work as a
    whole. To not do that is to just say, "I refuse to look at the
    evidence.  I put on blinders and I will only look at what I want."
    
    It's true that God did use individuals as tools and they did write in
    their own styles.  I'm fully aware that you and others don't accept
    divine inspiration.  I believed it many years ago by faith and that
    faith has not been swayed by the many who told me "That's nuts" because
    the more I have read it, the more I understand it's message.  The more
    I've applied it to my life, the better my life has become.  The more I
    searched to dispute the nay sayers, the more convinced I have become of
    it's Author. Not just because I can see it in print, but because I've
    gotten to know Him.  I've been in this file for some 2 years and I have
    constantly had my faith and what by faith I believe is the Word of God
    challenged.  I have had to study your claims of inconsistencies and
    everything else you've claimed.  I have endure testing my beliefs based
    on your claims.  It is too bad that you can't see your way to truly
    look at the evidence based on my claims.  What are you afraid of
    finding?  If you find what you all believe, you've lost nothing.  But
    if you find what only God can show you, you've gain true life.  It's a
    no lose proposition and you still won't take it.  You have to ask
    yourself why!
    
    "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we 
    do not see.  (HEB 11:1)  Yep! That's assuming all right!  Guilty 
    as charged and thankful for it!
    
    Jill

    Patricia,
    
    I know you probably won't believe this, but I do admire your journey.
    Many people won't even try.  They just believe everything that others
    say or they believe that if they've read it one time and didn't buy it,
    that's enough..   It is true that I have accepted God's Word by faith
    as I already told Bob, but it is also true that I've studied and have
    looked for answer to inconsistencies.  Sometimes weeks went by and I
    wouldn't have an answer, but I knew it would come.  My faith has
    increased through this file because of the challenge to it in here and
    I'm thankful for that. I believe people need to be able to defend their
    faith and should search for the answers when they don't know
    themselves.  
    
    Critical study is needed, but at some point faith is required.  The
    journey is different for all of us.  Mine started with faith and I've
    added studying. Yours has begun with studying and God willing it will
    end in faith.  You act as if faith is a hindrance to studying, I
    disagree.  For me faith adds perserverance to the search.  I think
    without it that you are more likely to draw a conclusion you're
    comfortable with after studying portions of Scripture.
         
    I might be going out on a limb here (but that's normal for me), but
    perhaps sometime in the quietness of your home you might pray a prayer
    (hear me out on this) to my God, and not your Goddess.  It might go
    something like this "God, I don't even know if you really exist or that
    this book called the Bible is really your Word, but I do want to know
    for sure.  So I ask you that if you are there, reveal yourself to me. 
    Send people, books, and whatever else you think would help me on my
    search."  I believe that this prayer sincerely prayed from your heart
    and an honest search of the evidence will be fruitful in your life. 
    And if you don't find anything it cost you nothing but 30 seconds since
    you're already studying the Bible.  It might be helpful too to ask
    yourself what's in the way of me accepting Jesus Christ as my Savior
    and Lord?  Maybe over time the objections will go away, maybe not.  But
    it's certainly worth knowing why you won't.
    
    Jill

    RE: .99
    
    Patricia,
    
    I read the passage you provided but did not perceive from Paul that
    Christ and God are not the same.  And unlike Glen I do believe people
    can take one piece and distort beyond belief, that's what most cults
    do.  Throughout the Bible God is revealing Himself to His creation and
    He is constantly introducing us to different attributes of Himself.  In
    Christ we see God as Savior, Lord, personal, near, Counselor, Prince of
    Peace, Intercessor, hope, but we still see that Christ is still the
    great I AM.  I think the distinction you're seeing there is nothing
    more than God revealing another side of Himself to His creation.
    
    As for salvation being universal or limited.  It's both.  It's offered
    universally to all people, but it's something a person must choose to
    accept so it is limited in respect to how many choose salvation through
    Christ.  Plus, Paul shows us in Romans 1 that God has made clear His
    eternal power and divine nature to all people since the beginning of
    His creation so that there is no excuse.  A side story on this verse,
    do you ever wonder why people swear using the names of Jesus Christ and
    God? I do.  I mean why not Buddha, or Hare Krishna, or any of the
    numerous other gods.  I believe it's directly related to this verse
    because they know instinctly that there is power in those names.  Deny
    it though they might try, they will have no excuse before God.
    
    Jill
         

    
    Patricia,
    
    I'll have to answer your questions about what you say or how you say
    that makes me feel the way I do.  I'm outta here in a few minutes, but
    will take the time on Monday to do this for you.  
    
    Jill

    RE:  .101
    
    Glen,
    
    As I have already said, just because I say it doesn't make it true. 
    This is my perception.  Patricia, can analyze my perception for herself
    and decide if it has any validity.  I'm sure she will weigh Jim and
    your comments in mind as well.
    
    Glen, I do analyze comments about being called a homophobic.  I'm not
    saying I have never been homophobic in my life.  I know alot more than
    I did years ago when all of a sudden a friend told me she was a
    lesbian. Then...you bet I was homophobic, as well as confused, and hurt
    for being lied to when I had opened myself up to someone I thought I
    knew and could trust.  But there are many times that just because
    you're trying to discuss the issue of homosexuality and you don't agree
    with what's said that you are labeled a homophobe.  That I don't agree
    with.
    
    Jill

    
    RE:  .103
    
    Great note Tony.

re Note 938.105 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     I'm fully aware that you and others don't accept
>     divine inspiration.  

        You may be "fully aware" of this, but if so you are "fully
        wrong"!

        I *do* most emphatically accept divine inspiration of
        Scripture.  I would have nothing to do with the Bible nor
        Christianity if I didn't recognize the spirit, the breath of
        God woven throughout the text and events recorded in
        Scripture.

        What I don't accept is *your* personal interpretation of what
        "divine inspiration" means!

        Your interpretation of this is that the human author was
        incapable of error or limitation (cultural or otherwise)
        during the writing.  I don't accept this, no more than I
        would accept the premise that every event depicted in the
        Bible is good and worthy of emulation.  One can and very
        often does learn truth from "imperfect" events and texts --
        especially when one comes to those events and texts with a
        critical mind.

>     Now if you're
>     premise is to see if it is the inerrant work of God, it helps to table
>     your skepticm (not forget it, but curb it) and analyze it as if it were
>     one whole book.  If that's indeed your purpose.  

        You can conclude almost everything if you can start by
        assuming the conclusion -- *especially* if you can then write
        off apparent contradictions between, in this case, the text
        and human reason, which is precisely what one would do if one
        assumes this particular conclusion!

        (The whole point of "assuming the conclusion" in mathematics
        is to see if contradictions result from so doing.  In the
        case of assuming that the Bible is a divine writing superior
        to human reasoning, once you've assumed that particular
        conclusion, any contradictions you discover can be dismissed
        as errors of human reasoning.)


>     It is too bad that you can't see your way to truly
>     look at the evidence based on my claims.  

        Perhaps we have. Earlier in the same paragraph you state that
        you came to this position by faith and not by "examining the
        claims".  I have no problem with that.  That is OK by me.

        But that is not the faith that God has blessed me with.  My
        faith in God is *not* tied to a particular attribute of a
        particular text.

        My life too has been blessed.  I too find wisdom and guidance
        in the Bible.  You may need the faith you have, but I see no
        particular reason why I would need the faith you have.

>     "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we 
>     do not see.  (HEB 11:1)  Yep! That's assuming all right!  Guilty 
>     as charged and thankful for it!

        My faith is in God, whom I do not see.  Are you claiming that
        you cannot "see" the Bible?

        Bob

    
    
    
    > I am going to continue to ignore your comments as the add absolutely
    > nothing other than your anger to the conversation
    
    ...nit, its more disgust than anger. And as far as your not repsonding
    to me, I don't care if you hold your breath until you turn blue in the
    face. I will continue to call them as I see them......
    
    David

| <<< Note 938.107 by CSC32::KINSELLA "Why be politically correct when you can be right?" >>>



| And unlike Glen I do believe people can take one piece and distort beyond 
| belief, that's what most cults do.  

	Jill, have I really given you that impression? That could not be
further from the truth. Take the Sodom and Gommorah story for instance. I know
many who say the cites got destroyed for homosexuality, when if you read the
story it clearly shows the real reasons. So I think the Bible can be distorted
by people. What note made you think differently?



Glen

    re: .104
    
      Hi Patricia,
    
        (By the way Jill...thanks!)
    
        I am more than willing to acknolwledge the fact that God has
        allowed His word to make Him appear strange and rough at the
        surface.  To wonder why He did so (I think) is a related topic
        that could take several hundred replies and that possibly is
        something we might all (in part) grapple with.
    
        I did relate the story of Joseph.  He appears strange and sounds
        rough to his brothers.  His brothers know him not.  After meeting
        his brothers, he leaves and WEEPS.  I believe Jospeph loves his
        brothers.  Somehow he must allow this.  He is a type of Christ.
        They must be delivered from Egyptian bondage (sin) and somehow
        this appearance of strangeness and roughness is a necessary 
        component of the cleansing process.
    
        Yes, the Word appears strange and rough.  It will do so at least
        in part until a last generation comes to know "what is the height,
        and length and depth and breadth of the love of Christ that they
        might be filled with all the fulness of God."  Some group will
        plumb the depths of the cross and they will find in all things
        that the cross is the essence of who God is.
    
        In my own search in trying to understand God and His dealings with
        the sin problem, I am astounded with how I am growing in finding
        how God's ways are _love_ all the while there is so much pain in
        this world.
    
        Nothing God does is inconsistent with the cross.  All the reason
        for pain is the existence of sin whose basis is partly a result
        of God creating His intelligent creation with free will - a
        capacity to appreciate variation in morality and to voluntarily
        serve the God of love or the route of sin.  In creating us with
        this capacity, he essentially gave Himself to the world.
    
        Being finite, it is not a stretch to at least consider the
        possibility that we lack all the answers and given our lack of all
        the answers, perhaps explanations for all the pain are out there
        but are veiled by the sinfulness of our own hearts.  Only faith
        can truly see all the answers and who here is perfect in faith?
        The magnitude of our unbelief is proportionately blind to the 
        magnitude with which we do not see a loving God and rather see 
        a 'rough' God and cannot reconcile 'this or that' from the 
        scriptures.
    
        Its not just bread...its bread and oil that gives life.
    
        One wide wide fork in the road that is our quest to know God is
        to survey the seemingly rough things in the word in the light of
        the cross and to conclude from that glimpse of the cross that
        God is love.  And in that to wrestle with God over how this can
        be.  But, all the while to retain that glimpse of the cross and
        believe He really is love.  Even though there are questions that
        we'd like answers to.  And I believe God longs to answer them.
        But, He cannot.  The ability to know the answer does not depend 
        on the heart of God, it depends on our own hearts, our own ability
        to discern.
    
        The other direction of the fork is to view good things about God
        in the light of the rough things.  And to question His goodness
        or His word or whatever else.  The cross is thus to that extent
        subordinated.  It is not held up as the emblem of His character...
        our own confusions are given perhaps a higher status.
    
        Don't get me wrong Patricia.  In my own search to understand some
        of the 'rougher' passages of scripture, I've even hollered at
        God.  I've questioned what kind of God is this.  But, all in all,
        even when there still are questions that still do not have answers,
        I look at the cross, reason that this is the heart of God always,
        and conclude that my sinful heart is not ready to plumb deeper into
        the word of God and reconcile the seemingly rough appearances of
        the surface of the word.
    
        Perhaps its audacity, but I think this is a good way to go!
    
                                                        Tony
    

    Tony
    
    Re 114:
    
    The problem is by not looking at the true nature of scripture many
    people can take metaphors which may in fact be demonic when applied to
    modern life and attribute them to the divine.
    
    The metaphor of God as an all powerful Man, beating and punishing a
    disobedient wife is a demonic metaphor.  Even the Bible itself warns us
    against false prophecy.  To attribute to God that which is not worthy
    of being attributed to God is false and sinful.
    
    An enlightened understanding of the scriptures will allow women and men
    to discern what is truly inspiration from a human work that contains
    both beauty and flaws mixed together. Enlightenment comes from the
    divine as a gift.   
    
    All sorts of false conclusions
    can be reached by idolizing this book, no matter how inpiring it may
    be at its best.
    
    Perhaps it is truly a revelation of the Wisdom of Goddess/God that
    Goddess/God made the errors in this book so obvious that Faith seeker
    would work hard to discern real Truth from falsehood even within
    scriptures.
    
    Revelation is not automatic.  It does take work, discernment, prayer,
    and Spirit.  I pray that Goddess/God helps each one of us find what we
    need in whatever Scriptures we are brought to experience.
    
    
    Shalom,
    
    
    Patricia
    

re Note 938.114 by STRATA::BARBIERI:

>         I did relate the story of Joseph.  He appears strange and sounds
>         rough to his brothers.  His brothers know him not.  After meeting
>         his brothers, he leaves and WEEPS.  I believe Jospeph loves his
>         brothers.  Somehow he must allow this.  He is a type of Christ.
>         They must be delivered from Egyptian bondage (sin) and somehow
>         this appearance of strangeness and roughness is a necessary 
>         component of the cleansing process.
  
        One problem I have with the logic that says that the Bible
        *must* be inerrant is that once one embarks on a quest for
        "inerrant truths" one is never satisfied.  One will tend to
        see new forms of inerrancy.

        Forgive me if I'm wrong about this, but in your paragraph
        which I cite above you are not only claiming inerrancy for
        the text but implying that an event depicted in that text
        must be a flawless, perfect event -- that the events
        themselves are worthy of emulation in every aspect.

        You don't need inerrant truths to rely on God.  Once you
        insist on inerrant truths as the basis of your faith, you run
        the serious risk of placing your faith upon texts or even
        events and persons themselves. 

    
>         Being finite, it is not a stretch to at least consider the
>         possibility that we lack all the answers and given our lack of all
>         the answers, perhaps explanations for all the pain are out there
>         but are veiled by the sinfulness of our own hearts.  Only faith
>         can truly see all the answers and who here is perfect in faith?
  
        I certainly agree with the above *except* that last sentence. 
        Remember, faith is the evidence of things *not seen* (Heb
        11).  A faith that sees clearly isn't faith.

        Bob

      re: .116
    
        Hi Bob,
    
          I'm not sure what you mean by the event being perfect, but I
          do believe that superimposed on what were human events can
          be perfect spiritual messages.
    
          Anyway, I'm a little confused by what you consider to be a
          perfect event.
    
          As to faith.  I believe faith is perfected by evidence.  Faith
          works by love (Gal 5:5,6) thus it works by revelation of that
          love which it works by.  Faith perfected has the characteristic
          of surviving in perfect darkness.
    
          My own understanding of the ultimate 'survivability' of faith
          perfected is to see God 'behind the veil' while one has sinful
          flesh.  I believe that the more one beholds God's love, the more
          one correspondingly receives a deeper revelation of the
          sinfulness of sin; i.e. "the commandment came [deeper revelation of
          the love of God], sin reveived [deeper revelation of the sinfulness
          of sin], and I died [suffering the alienation that results from
          feeling you are that sinner] (Rom 7:9).
    
          I believe that because of sinful flesh, when one sees God behind
          the veil, one's conscioussness will be fully awakened to the
          totality of the evil of evil.  One will (because of sinful flesh)
          feel to be that sinner.  
    
          This is walking through the valley of the shadow of death.  The
          conviction presses home that God could never accept you as you
          are.  Only faith perfected can survive this psychic terror.  
    
          The above is exactly what I believe Christ did on the cross.  He
          took our sinful flesh, grew in seeing God's love, and corres-
          pondingly grew in seeing the sinfulness of sin.  Gethsemane and
          the cross were physical events that corresponded to an inward
          experience of Christ "growing in wisdom and stature", i.e. seeing
          His Father behind the veil.  Because He came in the likeness of
          sinful flesh, He felt to be that sinner.  And he survived.
    
          Psalm 22 recounts how the event was pitch darkness.  No evidence.
          All is unseen.  Faith SEES through the darkness.  Christ relies
          on past accounts of His Father's love for Him.
    
          Anyway...faith is perfected by evidence.  Faith perfected has
          the characteristic of seeing when all is blackness.  When the
          entire psyche is weighed down with the overwhelming conviction
          that you are this rascal sinful flesh says you are (as activated
          by the coming of the commandment - the seeing of the love of God)
          faith sees through the blackness.
    
          Strange stuff I know, but I believe spiritual reality is rational
          and bearing the weight of sin is a phenomenon not arbitrarily
          imposed, but rather a spiritual reality God Himself cannot
          circumvent as evidenced by the cross.
    
          A remnant will be smitten by the same sword that smote the 
          Shephard.  A remnant will drink of the cup.  They will sup WITH
          (not instead of) the Lamb.  They will be baptized with His 
          baptism.
    
          This is the group that inhabits Mount Zion where anyone in whom
          is sin will be consumed (Heb 12).  This is the generation called
          Jacob who sees God's face (the veil is rent) (Psalm 24:3-6) and
          is the generation who endures Jacob's time of trouble (Jeremiah
          30).
    
                                                    Tony
              

      Hi Patricia,
    
        Please excuse me for not considering the possibility that one
        can embrace most of what I wrote in my reply to you save the
        part about believing in the infallibility of the word.
    
        I'm not sure about the demonic metaphor you speak of, but my
        inkling is that it is either a metaphor misapplied or one never
        intended by God.
    
                                                   Tony

    I agree totally agree with you.
    
    It is a metaphor misapplied and unapproved by God.
    
                                   Patricia

	Tony, if something that you believed was based on faith was somehow
proven, doesn't that make it a fact? The fact may strengthen your faith, but it
is now different than faith itself. Does this make sense to you?


Glen

      Hi Glen,
    
        Not sure what you're getting at.
    
        Come again?
    
                                    Thanks!,
    
                                    Tony

      Hi Glen,
    
        I think I might know where you're getting at.  Ultimately
        Faith is in God, but the evidence for God is supporting
        evidence...do we really see the real thing?  Has any of us
        been teleported to heaven and seen God Himself and the holy
        angels?  Come to think of it, even if we had, we might say
        its a halucination.
    
        I suppose ultimately we might not really 'know' anything for
        sure.  "Though Moses was raised from the dead..."  But, we
        can believe things and that belief is based on evidence.
    
        To turn the question back at you, can you give an example of
        something _known_?  And if possible, related to the issue of
        faith in God.
    
                                                  Thanks,
    
                                                  Tony

	Tony, how is this for an example. Your car dies on the way home from
work. You have to find a service station to fix your car who will not rip you
off. You put your faith in God that He will lead you to one. You find one, they
come get your car. They fix it, they don't rip you off, your faith in God that
this whole thing will work out now becomes a fact. 

	Now, you're in the middle of nowhere, but you need to get home as that
is where all of your clothes are. You put your faith in God that He will lead
you somewhere that will take care of your needs for the night. You make a call,
someone picks you up and drives you to the nearest train station which is 20
miles away. You end up making it home safely. Your faith in God that this whole 
thing will work out now becomes fact. 

	It was easy to think of this whole thing as it happened to me last
night. After I went to the station I went to the store next door. I asked about
the station (from someone who I ended up knowing) and he said they do great
work. My father came and picked me up, and his car is near death to begin with,
but he still took me to the train station. I had thought I would be spending
the night at their place. (which meant a trip to Walmart would have been in
order to get more clothes!)




Glen

re: .123 BIGQ::SILVA "Memories.....

Glen,

How can I put this...

Do you give God, or your faith in God, the credit for getting your car fixed and
getting you home? And once this happens it affirms your faith?

Then musn't you also assign the blame for the original breakdown (along with the
associated hassle and expense) to God also?

You stated that the whole thing worked out and your faith became fact. One of
the abiding mysteries that I see when I observe the behavior of Christians is
what you talk about in that note, ie. the willingness to credit God with the
good things that happen, without the corollary of also assigning some blame for
the bad things that happen. Seems awfully one side to me...

Steve

| <<< Note 938.124 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>



| Do you give God, or your faith in God, the credit for getting your car fixed and
| getting you home? 

	I give God FULL credit for getting the car fixed and me home. 

| And once this happens it affirms your faith?

	It strengthens it. But by my asking for help from God, He delivered. So
what has been proved is the action God took. I had faith that He would do this,
and He did. Does this help out any?

| Then musn't you also assign the blame for the original breakdown (along with the
| associated hassle and expense) to God also?

	It could have been caused by Him for some reason or another, it could
have been caused by Satan. It could be that the part was just worn. Who knows
the reason for the breakdown other than God Himself? The part was worn, it
could have broken down anywhere. Considering it's a 30 mile hike to and from
work, it could have broken down in a much worse location. Maybe God had a hand
in it dieing where it did? I couldn't tell you. I do know the last time this
happened (which I think it's the same problem) the car died about 1 mile from
work. There was a gas station about � mile away. It could have died anywhere,
but it did it there. But who knows? I certainly don't. I didn't ask for the car
to die. I did ask for help and He did deliver.

| You stated that the whole thing worked out and your faith became fact. 

	Maybe I did not specify it correctly. My faith was, is and always will
be there in God. But His works became a fact.

| One of the abiding mysteries that I see when I observe the behavior of 
| Christians is what you talk about in that note, ie. the willingness to credit 
| God with the good things that happen, without the corollary of also assigning 
| some blame for the bad things that happen. Seems awfully one side to me...

	Steve, I do not think that bad things can't happen from God. They could
be done for a reason. I can't read His mind. I don't know why He does things,
but I do know he does. This make any sense?



Glen

From .125 BIGQ::SILVA "Memories.....

>	Steve, I do not think that bad things can't happen from God. They could
>be done for a reason. I can't read His mind. I don't know why He does things,
>but I do know he does. This make any sense?

In a word, for me, No. 

Do you believe in an omipotent, omniscient, all-loving God? If you leave out any
of those three I can at least understand where you might be coming from. But I
can't reconcile the contradiction between the characterstics and the observable
behavior otherwise. 

Now, have you ever asked for help and not had it work out so well? How do you
reconcile this? Again, if things work out, it is God's divine hand, if they
don't it is Satan, or a test, or just bad luck. To me, you can't have it both
ways, but you obviously can and do. To me, it is just another of the
unfathomable mysteries of having faith.

Steve

    For two different answers to the question of bad things happening
    see the Prophets(Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel) for the 700BC majority
    view.  See Job for another view.

| <<< Note 938.126 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>



| Do you believe in an omipotent, omniscient, all-loving God? If you leave out any
| of those three I can at least understand where you might be coming from. But I
| can't reconcile the contradiction between the characterstics and the observable
| behavior otherwise.

	Read below and let me know if it clears things up.

| Now, have you ever asked for help and not had it work out so well? How do you
| reconcile this? 

	Easy. It wasn't the right thing to ask for. I usually ask for help, I
do not specify what I would like to see happen. A lot of times there was a lot
of pain and suffering that was had, but the end result was really the best. How
do I know this? Because I saw other ways it could have been handled, but as
more time went on I could see each one of those ways would have been even more
disastorous.

| Again, if things work out, it is God's divine hand, if they
| don't it is Satan, or a test, or just bad luck. To me, you can't have it both
| ways, but you obviously can and do. To me, it is just another of the
| unfathomable mysteries of having faith.

	I don't have it both ways. 


Glen

Note 938.128 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....."

|	Easy. It wasn't the right thing to ask for. I usually ask for help, I
|do not specify what I would like to see happen. A lot of times there was a lot
|of pain and suffering that was had, but the end result was really the best. How
|do I know this? Because I saw other ways it could have been handled, but as
|more time went on I could see each one of those ways would have been even more
|disastorous.

So you ask for help, and (sometimes) go through pain and suffering, but it turns
out for the best. And sometimes things work out relatively easily, and sometimes
they don't turn out very well at all (just guessing here)?

Bob, this sounds like what I (and pretty much everyone else I know) goes through
as a matter of course (without divine intervention). It's called life. I still
just can't see how you can attribute these occurences to a deity, especially one
that is all-knowing, all-powerful and all-loving.

Steve 

    RE:  .111
    
    Bob,
    
    My faith rests in Jesus Christ.  Whom I have not seen visibly, but whom
    I know personally.  My faith rests in God Almighty; Father, Son, and
    Spirit. Whom I have seen with the eyes of my soul.  Apart from God's
    leading we can know nothing of Him.  If we seek Him, it's because He
    first sought us. If we've seen Him, it's because He chose to reveal
    Himself.  How silly I would be to think that I in all my limitations
    could find God just because I chose to.  Read Job 38 if you ever need
    to be reminded of who God is. God revealed Himself to me.  He opened my
    eyes to His salvation through a personal relationship with Jesus
    Christ.  All I did was respond.  I still remember the details of that
    day vividly.  The moment he was no longer this Cosmic Big Guy in the
    sky who just generically loved everybody, but He told me that He very
    specifically loved me.  From that moment, He has changed my life.  Some
    people say wouldn't it be nice to think you know all the answers and
    that they are all bound up in a little book. They somehow think that
    would makes my life easy.  They think I never have to question
    anything, it's all written out for me.  I never have to choose.
    Foolishness.  Do you think that loving the Lord your God with all your 
    heart, soul, mind, and strength and loving thy neighbor as thyself is 
    an easy task?  All of my faith, my knowledge, my desire, my discipline,
    and my understanding of God is not enough to fulfill that one
    commandment.  My faith is put on trial every day and if I'm honest, it
    is still insufficient to obey Him.  I must rely on Him if I am at all
    going to live up to all I can be in Christ Jesus.  No, God is not
    trapped in a book, but He did choose a minuscule portion of His wisdom
    to share with us.   His Word has never failed me in my search to know
    Him more.  I have found nothing in it that has led me away from Him. 
    His Word, all of it, has only drawn me closer to Him.  The Bible only
    talks of one faith all the way through and that's faith in Jesus
    Christ.  Either we are of one faith or we are not. Jesus is the living
    Word of God.  The Bible is the written Word of God. My conclusion is
    that Jesus is the Son of God and that I need to have a personal
    relationship with Him.  I learned that from written Word of God which
    God revealed to me on that summer day was true.  Spotty inspiration...
    no, there is no peace in that.  Why believe that the parts of salvation
    in Jesus are true?  The Bible is not just another self-help book our
    society is so fond of where we can pick and choose what will help us
    and what we can discard.  Spotty inspiration? I suppose He's told you 
    which spots are true and which aren't?  Why would He tell me something 
    entirely different?  Why would He tell me there is only one way back 
    to Him and go around the world and tell others that any old way they 
    choose will get them back to Him?  You make me sound a fool for 
    believing that something as visible as the Bible could be from God.  
    But was Jesus not visible to the people of His day?  Did that make Him 
    therefore not God.  God chooses how to reveal Himself.  Jesus has 
    power.  The Bible has power.  I believe they are both of God.  I have 
    seen the power of each in my life.  And one day I will behold Him.
        
    Jill

           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 511.1               Recently This Effected My Life                   1 of 1
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"    68 lines  30-JUN-1994 02:08
                             -< Home Sweet Home! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Tonight my Pastor started a series entitled "Home Sweet Home".  He used
    for his text Revelation 21.  He also turned the pulpit into a "home"
    complete with microwave, TV/VCR, Dining Room Table, Picnic Table
    w/Umbrella.
    
    In Revelation 21 you find the description of Heaven.  What are some
    words that you can think of that describe heaven?
    
    Beautiful
    Peaceful
    No Tears - Happiness
    Singing
    Rejoicing
    Bright [from the Son]
    
    What are some words that you can think of to describe hell?
    
    Torment
    Everlasting Fire
    Separation
    Weeping
    Gnashing of Teeth
    
    Which description fits your home?
    
    Of course he went on to say so much more... but this is basically what
    it boiled down to.
    
    One of the things he mentioned was the level of machoism in christian
    homes that were inappropriate.  And he said two things in regards to
    women that stuck with me.
    
    1.  Yes, women are to be keepers of the home, but they are not
    *slaves* for men to order around or criticize.  He had a vacuum cleaner
    and a broom and asked several men to demonstrate their functions. :-)
    
    2.  That men who Bible thump their wives towards submission are not
    leaders, but weaklings and that this can be abuse.
    
    He also said some things to women about their roles...
    
    1.  A woman should make the mealtimes at home special.  He gave an
    illustration of what dinner is like in their home everynight, not just
    on special occasions.
    
    2.  A woman is also supposed to be her husbands #1 fan.  Her job is not
    to criticize her husband but to build him up.  He said he understood
    that in some homes there may not be much to encourage. :-) :-), but as
    wives we should find whatever good there is and praise it... and not
    say anything about the bad... unless asked.
    
    2a.  As a woman who was criticized incessantly while she was married, I
    can vouch for his advice ... and it does work both ways.
    
    All in all it was a wonderful service, not only was the pulpit
    transformed, but I was motivated to try harder at making my home a
    place of peace and rest.
    
    While he was speaking he popped popcorn and made icecream cones for the
    kiddos that were in church tonight. :-)
    
    I thank God for my Pastor... no other church like it this side of
    heaven!
    
    I hope you find this encouraging,
    Your Sis,
    Nancy
    
    

re: Note 938.130 by "Why be politically correct when you can be right?" 

Nice note, Jill.  While I don't accept a few of your points (probably fewer 
that you might think .-), I was very touched by your sharing.

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 938.131 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

Thank you for posting that here.  While I don't agree with every point, it 
sounds like a very good series of lessons.

Peace,

Jim

    I will stay away from the mudslinging and invite anyone to tell us what
    the old testament tells us about sexual morality particularly in its
    stories of Abraham, Sarah, Hagar, Lot Solomon, David.
    
    I invite anyone on the basis of these stories to extrapolate how any of
    us should follow the teachings of these stories in determining our own
    choices around our sexuality.
    
    Can I invite those who insist on the inerrant word of God theory to
    stick to the Bible and extrapolate for me what a should learn from my
    sisters Sarah and Hagar, and my brothers Lot, Solomon, David, and
    Abraham.  ON fidelity in marriage, truthfulness, sex with children, the
    partnership nature of a marriage, taking care and responsibility for
    one's offspring.
    
    Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    I'll take a quick stab.  My pastor explained it to us in the following
    fashion:  God's Perfect Will v. God's Permissive Will
    
    God's Perfect Will is the ideal, the Genesis 2:24 of One Man/One Woman
    for Life.  Then through the hardness of men's hearts, Moses started
    issuing decrees of divorce. (Permissive Will)  I remind you though that
    Jesus re-establish the principle of God's Perfect Will in his discourse
    in Matthew 18 concerning divorce.
    
    In each of the incidences that you mentioned, Abraham/Sarah/Hagar, Lot,
    David, and Solomon, (and many others similar incidences that you didn't
    mention) there were CONSEQUENCES to the disobedience of God's Perfect
    Will.  The life of David is a perfect example.  From a youth serving as
    a shepherd, he was a man "after God's heart", truly devoted and
    obedient to God.  Even when he had been anointed by Samuel as the next
    King of Israel, even after killing Goliath and being estranged in the
    presence of Saul and having to hide in the Wilderness, he had the
    opportunity to kill Saul but choose not to.  It was only years later
    when he sinned with Bathseba that he fell and he had terrible
    'consequences to his sin.'  First, that child born from that affair
    died.  Then a daughter, Tamar was raped by a half brother, who was then
    killed by Absalom, the heir apparent at that point in time.  Absalom
    was exiled for three years, but after his return he led a revolt
    against his father and publicly slept with his father's concubine. 
    Absalom was later killed much to David's heartache.  The incident with
    Bathesba was one large black blotch on a piece of pure white cloth,
    symbolizing Davi's otherwise pure life.  God's permissive will allowed
    David to marry Bathseba and Solomon was a product of that union.  But I
    don't need to go into what ills would eventually befall Solomon.
    
    Man has a free will.  He can obey God's word and live fruitfully and
    enjoy the abundance of God's love.  Or he can choose to disobey God,
    but he must realize that, even if he would be forgiven, as David
    received God's forgiveness from his affair with Bathseba, that there
    are consequences to his sin.
    
    This pastor told us a saying that bears repeating:
        Sin causes us to go further than we originally planned, sin lasts
    longer than we originally planned, and it costs us more than we
    anticipated.
    
    A wise Christian should choice to obey God's Word rather than suffer
    the consequences for disobedience.  

     Re 938.134 Patricia

    
>    Can I invite those who insist on the inerrant word of God theory to
>    stick to the Bible and extrapolate for me what a should learn from my
>    sisters Sarah and Hagar, and my brothers Lot, Solomon, David, and
>    Abraham.  ON fidelity in marriage, truthfulness, sex with children, the
>    partnership nature of a marriage, taking care and responsibility for
>    one's offspring.
    
     "all have sinned and come short of the glory of God"

     Or, in the common words of wisdom of the day :

     "No one's perfect"

 Hank

RE:         <<< Note 938.135 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ "Follow the Money!" >>>

       
   > This pastor told us a saying that bears repeating:
   >     Sin causes us to go further than we originally planned, sin lasts
   > longer than we originally planned, and it costs us more than we
   > anticipated.
    
   > A wise Christian should choice to obey God's Word rather than suffer
   > the consequences for disobedience.  



     A big hearty AMEN, to that.




 Jim

>RE:         <<< Note 938.135 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ "Follow the Money!" >>>
       
>   > This pastor told us a saying that bears repeating:
>   >     Sin causes us to go further than we originally planned, sin lasts
>   > longer than we originally planned, and it costs us more than we
>   > anticipated.
    
>     A big hearty AMEN, to that.

Ditto.  

Jim

    Each of us has different answers to how we interpret this material.
    
    My problems is with several vocal individuals who quite vocally
    criticize the note, the conference in general and by implication me,
    for raisings the questions.
    
    I personally think the question is an excellent question and in spite
    of some of the emotional responses has generated a lot of good
    discussion.
    
    I am skeptical of any who would limited discussion.  I wonder how this
    question would be handled in the other conference.
    
    Patricia

re: .135 GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ "Follow the Money!"

I am no Bible scholar, so please correct me if I missed something in the
thumbnail sketches presented. (I keep meaning to keep a Bible at my desk just so
I can look this stuff up).

He kills Goliath. This is considered goodness. (should the commandment read:
Thou shalt not kill unless it is Ok'd by God or the church?)

He doesn't kill Saul when he has the chance. This also is goodness?

He has an affair with Bathsheba. (This is badness, where killing was goodness)
He must be punished. So how does God punish him?
- He kills an innocent child.
- He causes another innocent to be raped by a half brother, who is then killed
  by Absalom (the only justice I see so far in this sordid tale).
- Absalom is then exiled (in response for killing the rapist?)
- Absalom then leads a revolt, sleeps with his fathers concubine (why is the
  concubine OK but Bathsheba as bad, or is the concubine Bathsheba, or does God
  embark on another series of punishing innocents for the sins of others to 
  punish David for this?)
- Absalom is killed. (Is this part of David's punishment for the 'Bathsheba
  incident', or Absolam's punishment for sleeping with the concubine, or for 
  killing the rapist? It's getting hard to keep track of).
- God then continues to rain down (unspecified in this note) punishment upon 
  Solomon.

To summarize, 

Sin=Adultery?
Punishment is one dead infant daughter, one raped daughter, one dead half
brother rapist, one dead son, and one son that undergoes a truly amazing amount
of grief. Well, that should teach old David a lesson, not to mention the people
that were *directly* hurt.

I've *GOT* to get a Bible!

Steve

    .140
    
    The "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" commandment was understood to mean
    "Thou shalt not kill a fellow Israelite."
    
    My source?  "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," by Bishop John
    Shelby Spong.
    
    Richard
    

  Re 938.140 <Doesn't the sinner ever get punished>

  Yes, the sinner gets punished by reaping what he sows, in deep anguish David 
  laments Absolom's death :

 "Absalom, Absalom, my son, my son, would to God that I had died in your place"

  A paraphrase of sorts, don't you have children? Cant you hear David's grief?

  Eventually David wrote Psalm 51, a Psalm of godly sorrow for what he had done.

  Have mercy upon me O God, according to Your lovingkindness; according to the
  multitude of your tender mercies, blot out my transgressions. Wash me 
  thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin, for I acknowledge
  my transgression and my sin is ever before me...
  deliver me from the guilt of bloodshed...

  David pleads with God to cleanse his sin and relieve his guilt.
  
  Our heavenly Father forgave him, but the sword never departed from his house.

    
    
    
    
    
    
    Steve:
    
    I hope I can fill in some of the blanks I may have left out yesterday.
    
    The first sin David committed in the Bathseba incident was covetness -
    "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife..." Covetness left uncheck
    then begats other sins, first adultery with Bathseba then murder by
    having her husband deliberately killed in battle.
    
    The prophet Nathan confronted David (1 Samuel 12) and David
    subsequently repents.  Nathan pronounces God's punishment. {Up to this
    point in David's life, he led a remarkably sin-free life.  God even
    states that David "was a man after my own heart."}  David's life was
    spared, but he lived with the consequences of his sin the rest of his
    life.  Any parent will tell you how heartbroken they are when their
    children go astray.
    
    Nothing negative about Tamar is recorded in the scriptures but some
    speculate that perhaps she unwittingly flirted or lured her
    half-brother.  She obviously didn't give permission for his taking
    of sexual liberties because it was recorded she was raped.  According
    to Jewish custom and law, the half-brother could have married his
    sister but refused, causing her a lifetime of shame and motivating
    Absalom into revenge.
    
    As for Absalom, he is depicted as a handsome, atheletic individual
    {with probably a good potion of his father's charisma} since he
    subsequently was able to convince important allies of David to support
    his revolt.  He slept publicly with David's concubine, much to David's
    embarrassment and the Bible records David kept his concubine after
    returning to Jerusalem after the revolt was squashed but he never slept
    with them again.  This precludes Absalom sleeping with Bathseba since
    David would subsequently fathers Solomon by Bathseba.
    
    As for Solomon, HIS sins, mainly covetness and multiple wives, would
    eventually lead him into much dispair LATER in his reign (Ecclesiates).  
    At the outset of his reign, he glorified God by building the first Temple
    and God asked Solomon what he wanted.  Solomon answered that he wanted
    wisdom and became famous for such (Proverbs).  But due to his wordly
    living, Solomon would lament so sorrowfully at the end of his reign.
    
    As I mentioned yesterday, we all have a free choice whether to follow
    God's Word (His Perfect Will) or to choose something less (His
    Permissive Will).  If and when we do sin, WE PAY THE CONSEQUENCES. 
    Depending on that sin(s), innocent people will get hurt (victims).
    
    I hope this helps a little.  I do pray that you do pickup a Bible and
    begin reading it earnestly.
    
    Ron

    Steve,
    
    Your questions are excellent one's.  My struggle to read this
    literature, experience the anger of it being called the innerant word
    of God, and then slowly come to terms with once I stop thinking of the
    literature as the innerant word of God myself, then I can begin
    learning from it.
    
    Recognizing that the historic books are history mixed with legend and
    folklore and myth.  Recognizing that it is the word of the author
    describing the history of the people interpreted through the authors
    theology.  Then leading to my own questions.
    
    I believe that meaning can be found in these writings once we bracket
    the prejudices and cultural brutality and ask the right questions.  The
    right questions are different for each of us.  They are the questions
    we bring to our reading.
    
    If we do not free ourselves from the belief in the Innerancy we are left
    with only two alternates in applying the learnings of these stories.
    
    1.  Blind and irrational acceptance.
    2.  Atheism(or at least skepticism).
    
    For me the only acceptable alternative is to free myself from the
    fetters of innerancy.
    
    Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    Again I reiterate...the mentality of women being property is rampid
    throughout that whole sector of the globe...This Very DAY!!!  
    
    I made a statement to my distinguished colleage (Patricia) a few months
    ago that women in the US have far more equality than women in other
    parts of the world.  She disagreed with this premise and I literally
    sat in front of the terminal with a dumbfounded look....and my mouth 
    dropped.  
    
    Patricia, the bad news is that Kuwait is becoming the first and only
    Middle East country that allows women to vote.  Pathetically, this
    side of the world is still years behind the US in equal rights.  The
    worse news is that it has been this way for thousands of years.  Do you
    really believe the Bible had anything to do with this?  
    
    Here's a for instance...say the crime bill passed and they allowed the
    ban on assault weapons, would it make sense for me to state that the
    Constitution is no good anymore because the 2nd ammendment has been,
    how shall I say...violated?  It's simply a fallable argument.
    
    The Bible is full of lies....but the Bible Does NOT lie.  All those 
    incidents happened but you fail to communicate that every one of those
    incidents were the result of...or brought about lethal consequences.
    Remember...sin equals death...sin equals death, just like 1 plus 1 = 2.
    
    Myth...Folklore...?  The historical aspect or the prophetic aspect...
    or....just the parts we want to go through denial over.
    
    Respectfully,
    
    -Jack

re: Note 938.145 by Jack

>    Patricia, the bad news is that Kuwait is becoming the first and only
>    Middle East country that allows women to vote.  Pathetically, this
>    side of the world is still years behind the US in equal rights.  The
>    worse news is that it has been this way for thousands of years.  Do you
>    really believe the Bible had anything to do with this?  

According to an Islamic friend of mine, who has lived in both Iran and the US, 
excepting the last couple of decades, for the last 400 years or so Middle East 
women have had more equality with men than women in the rest of the world.  
They had equality in property ownership, inheritance, and many other areas.

Peace,

Jim    

    I don't doubt your friend and guite frankly, I'm amazed.  However, I
    would ask your friend if we have surpassed the middle east over the
    last 60 years.  It can be said that the women's movement in the last
    few decades has done wonders. (Not the feminist movement mind you),
    Is it not true that women are treated as property, not allowed to even 
    fellowship with men in services never mind speak, not allowed to vote,
    must dress accordingly and address men accordingly, give opinions only
    when asked????  
    
    Patricia, if we were having an Islamic Perspective notes conference and
    we were all over in Saudi Arabia right now, do you think you would even
    be in the conference as the valued participant that you are?  I think
    not!!
    
    -Jack

re: Note 938.147 by -Jack

I was surprised as well.  He was explicit that the West has only "caught up" 
since the late sixties/early seventies.

Alas he has moved to the left coast and I have lost contact with him.

Peace,

Jim

    Jack,
    
    re: 938.147
    
    
    I was going to reply to your note in the processing topic regarding
    complete, unambiguos, concices communication without metaphor or
    assumptions.  I was going to ask whether you were joking because I
    believe such a standard for communication would mean no one would ever
    be allowed to talk with anyone because such is impossible.  All
    communications is filled wit ambiguity.  That includes memo's between
    you and I and written documents such as the scriptures.
    
    I don't remember exactly what your question was regarding women in the
    U.S. having more rights than women anywhere else in the world.  I
    remember seeing many assumptions built into your question and choose to
    answer with a very concise very ambiguosu "No"  You wrote something
    like
    "Hasn't it been proven that women in the U.S. have more rights...etc."
    
    Women in the U.S may have more legal rights.  I personally appreciate
    that I live in the U.S. and at this time in our history. I truly
    apprecitate that I live in New England, home of the revolution and home
    of religious freedom and the Unitarian tradition.
    Intellectual Freedom is very important to me.  I would not want to be a
     women living in any of the Middle East Countries.  I would like to
     experience living
    in Europe but I suspect women do not have as much equality with men
    there.  I cannot back that statement up with fact.
    I do serious listen to the accusation by the public figures of the more
    totalitarian states that are freedom is somewhat illusionary because of
    the amount of crime.  Women are significant victims of violent crimes
    and rape, both violent and non violent.  
    
    My tendency is to agree with your statement that women in the US have
    more freedom.  I don't know that for sure. 
    
    I do know that the Bible contains both messages of liberation for
    Blacks, 3rd world nations, women, gays and lesbians, and other oppressed
    groups.
    i.e.
    The Law of God is written on our hearts.
    Let he who is without sin throw the first stone.
    In Christ there is no Male nor Female, Slave or Free, Gentile or Jew.
    Those of Christ are New Creation.  Doing something radically new.
    God continuous demand in many books of the bible to take care of the
    widow and orphans, to give our cloak to our neighbor in need.
    
    The Bible also contains messages of oppression. 
 
    (i.e. Wifes obey your Husbands.) (Fornication is evil)
    (men sleeping with men is an abomination, etc)
    Hard times are a result of personal and collective sinfulness. 
    Prosperity is the result of being in God's favor.  Therefore it is the
    poor's fault that they are poor.
    
    If the views expressed in this notes file present a fair representation
    of the Conservative Christian perspective, than the messages of liberation
    the message of God favoring the poor, the sick, the oppressed, the
    underdog is minimized  and the message of oppression is maximized.
    
    The message of not judging our neighbor and looking into our own hearts
    and souls is minimized and the message to judge everyone else to create
    a controlled holy community is maximized. 

    You bring up some valid points.  Here is where we differ.
    
    I believe God is a personal God and we are required to meet Him on His
    terms.  I believe that it is our obligation to God to strive for
    Holiness/setting ourselves apart from the world.
    
    In your victims list, you mentioned some groups that I believe warrant 
    equality and Christian love to help strive toward equality.  I believe 
    there are others who do not because their actions are not sanctified in 
    the eyes of God.   It is not my privelage to pick and choose off the
    apple tree.  I believe ALL scripture is under divine inspiration.  This 
    is why I thank God for Jesus atoning sacrifice on the cross because I
    would be amongst the condemned, I am a charity case in this area no 
    doubt.
    
    Regarding succunct, non-ambiguous remoarks.  Patricia, there are 
    individuals in this conference who, quite frankly, speak in riddles.
    I feel in extreme circumstances when a major conflict breaks out, 
    these practices need to be implemented.  No sob stories...just straight
    talk!!  
    
    Cordially,
    
    -Jack

re: .141 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Luke 1.78-79"

    The "Thou shalt not kill (murder)" commandment was understood to mean
    "Thou shalt not kill a fellow Israelite."

Now THAT makes a lot more sense to me, given the history of Christianity.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.142 DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR

David may have suffered, but only through the (greater) suffering of others.
It's like we punish Ted Bundy by jailing his relatives, or by having them
attacked. Does this sort of punishment really make sense to you?

  Our heavenly Father forgave him, but the sword never departed from his house.

Does this mean that even though forgiven, the punisments continued. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.143 GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ "Follow the Money!"

    David's life was
    spared, but he lived with the consequences of his sin the rest of his
    life.  Any parent will tell you how heartbroken they are when their
    children go astray.

Agreed, it's heartbreaking to David but it was *DEADLY* to his children. This is
justice? 
    
    God asked Solomon what he wanted.  Solomon answered that he wanted
    wisdom and became famous for such (Proverbs).

Apparently God did not give Solomon much wisdom or he wouldn't have blown it so
badly :^)

    As I mentioned yesterday, we all have a free choice whether to follow
    God's Word (His Perfect Will) or to choose something less (His
    Permissive Will).  If and when we do sin, WE PAY THE CONSEQUENCES. 
    Depending on that sin(s), innocent people will get hurt (victims).
 
If you've seen my previous posts in the atheists note, then you've seen my
arguments against an OOAL God truly allowing free will, it did not exist for
Eve, it cannot exist for us.

    I do pray that you do pickup a Bible and begin reading it earnestly.

I will pick up a Bible, but would probably use a different adjective to describe
my reading of it :^)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.144 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"

Patricia,

I tend to agree with you. I did not mean to imply that there was nothing to be
learned from the Bible, but as the basis for one of the major religions in the
world it leaves much to be desired, and to be viewed as inerrent takes major
logic contortions. My atheism is not based on the Bible, however, for either
what it does or does not contain. Rather it is based on a complete and total
lack of any empirical evidence to the contrary. I realize that your mileage may
vary. For many, evidence (or evidence beyond we're here, someone must have done
that) is not required, and that is fine. It just doesn't work for me.

  Re: Steve B

  David killing Goliath.  The Philistines were a perverted blood-thirsty lot.
  They were philosophically akin to the modern Nazis with the added dimension
  of being totally depraved in sexual morals. It was God's command to
  exterminate them. Many of their religious rites were unspeakable acts of 
  incest, cannibalism and etc commited against their children. If they survived 
  they became like their parents.

  Israel was the true earthly theocracy created by the only True God to 
  teach the Gentiles about Himself and His righteousness. Terms of surrender 
  were drawn up for nations who would repent, bow to Him, His kingdom and 
  His Law (The Torah), though they were only required to keep the Noahic
  covenant, unless they converted. Israel was to be a light to the Gentile 
  nations drawing them into the mosaic covenant. David's sins were a hindrance 
  to God's plan, causing the Philistines to blaspheme His Name.

  It is God's perogative to do with His creation as He pleases. He usually
  punished the unrepentant gentile nations with their own forms of violence.
  

  David's punishment and the suffering of his household.

  David was the King of Israel, Our Heavenly Father punished him publicly
  and severly for the grievous sins he had commited. 

  The fact that God allowed David to live after what he did to Uriah was
  a public demostration of the MERCY of Our loving Heavenly Father.

  There was no sacrifice in the Hebrew system for wilful sin, premeditated
  murder was punishable by death. God spared David's life because he 
  acknowledged his guilt and pleaded for mercy.

 "Have mercy on me O God, according to Your lovingkindness, according to the
  mulitude of your tender mercies, blot out my transgression. Wash me
  thoroughly from my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin, for I acknowledge
  my transgression and my sin is ever before me...

  For you do not desire sacrifice, or else I would give it, You do not delight
  in burnt offering. The sacrifices of God are a broken spirit, a broken and
  contrite heart. These O Jehovah, you will not despise".

   Psalm 51. NKJV.

    I also think that both Steve B and Patricia have been concentrating on
    the Old Testament when in the New Testament, Jesus begins a new
    covenant.
    
    That covenant simply is that believing on the name of Jesus Christ
    ***YOUR*** sins are forgiven and you have everlasting life.
    
    This still doesn't relieve you of the discomfort you will experience
    because of the consequences of sin.  If a Christian sins and confesses
    his sin and asks for forgiveness, God will grant forgiven.  God will
    not obliterate the consequences of the sin however. {If a Christian
    commits murder, he may ask forgiveness of God, but God will not bring
    the deceased back to life.}
    
    There are a multitude of sins that I commited before I became a
    Christian.  Many of those sins have their effect on my life today.  The
    difference today is, and this is a test to see if you are a true
    believer, if a Christian sins and is mentally troubled by the sin {the
    working of the Holy Spirit upon the Christian's heart}, they are a true
    believer.  If a so-called believer can sin without remorse {their heart
    is hardened}, they are not a true believer.
    
    Ron

re:  God's punishment for sin, et cetera...

One school of thought I've heard to explain much of Isreal's plight in the Old 
Testament breaks things down into 4 cases:

1 People do bad things and good things happen to them
2 People do bad things and bad thing happen to them
3 People do good and good things happen to them
4 People do good things and bad things happen to them

Cases 2 & 3 are easy to understand: a just God metes out reward or punishment.

For case 1, well, God winks an eye at it, we misunderstand what is written,
it's part of God's greater plan, or some other rationalization is devised.

For case 4, well, rain falls on the good and wicked alike, there must have 
been some unknown sin that was committed, it's part of God's greater plan,
or some other rationalization is devised.

Of course some point out that if the above is the case, random processes could 
replace God.

Just tossing this out FWIW.  (I have a tough time buying it.)

Peace,

Jim

    For case 4, well, rain falls on the good and wicked alike, there must
    have
    been some unknown sin that was committed, it's part of God's greater
    plan,
    or some other rationalization is devised.
    
    Yeah...that's what Jobs friends were trying to make Job believe, and
    look how God reacted to them!!!  But I see your point!
    
    -Jack

re: .152 DNEAST::DALELIO_HENR

So the commandment is unless God orders otherwise. That's fine.

  Israel was the true earthly theocracy created by the only True God to 
  teach the Gentiles about Himself and His righteousness. Terms of surrender 
  were drawn up for nations who would repent, bow to Him, His kingdom and 
  His Law (The Torah), though they were only required to keep the Noahic
  covenant, unless they converted. Israel was to be a light to the Gentile 
  nations drawing them into the mosaic covenant.

Doesn't seem to have worked out to well...

  It is God's perogative to do with His creation as He pleases. He usually
  punished the unrepentant gentile nations with their own forms of violence.

I agree absolutely! However, this is God's right and His alone, mortals should
not be in the business of carrying out their own interpretation of his will. 

  David was the King of Israel, Our Heavenly Father punished him publicly
  and severly for the grievous sins he had commited. 

No! He punished David by doing terrible things to innocents that David loved.
Please tell me how this is just. 

  The fact that God allowed David to live after what he did to Uriah was
  a public demostration of the MERCY of Our loving Heavenly Father.

And the fact that he killed innocents in order to punish David is a public
demonstration of the UNJUSTNESS of God. How do you reconcile this?

Steve

 > No! He punished David by doing terrible things to innocents that David loved.
 > Please tell me how this is just. 

 Under the Abrahamic-mosaic  Covenant, God dealt with families, it was David's
 responsiblity both as a father and the King of Israel to keep the Commandments,
 he had to write out The Torah before he could be annointed as King of Israel
 (and Judah) he broke them, both he and his family suffered, 

 It is just because God forewarned commmandment breakers that in many cases 
 their family would be involved in their punishment.

 God removed the protective hedge about Job and he hadn't done anything to
 deserve it. He lost his children, his possesions and friends because Satan
 challenged God "take all that he has and he will curse you to your face"
 Job in the midst of his suffering said "though He slay me, Yet will I trust
 Him" and proved Satan wrong by blessing and not cursing God. We are His to 
 do with as He  pleases. He gave us self awareness such as He has, we owe our 
 existance and self-identity to Him. Why shouldn't we bless Him even when 
 bad things happen? Yes its hard to do sometimes, but at very least we ought 
 not to question His righteous character, after all you wouldn't even be here
 but for Him.

 Even if Our Heavenly father removed the protective hedge from David and His 
 family, David had himself to blame. I believe in deuteronomy there is a 
 litany of blessings and cursings, they were to be shouted from the mountain
 tops of Israel. Blessings for Israel and the families of the 12 tribes when 
 they kept the commandments, cursings when they broke them. 

 Even David, His annointed and beloved one was not an exception.

 The bottom line 

  "Our God is in heaven, He does whatever He pleases"    Psalm 115:3 

 Hank D

re: .157

 Under the Abrahamic-mosaic  Covenant, God dealt with families, it was David's

For me, this is one of the fatal flaws in Christianity. I simply do not
understand how you can call the punishment of innocents for anothers act just.
I know that it's subjective, but it sure makes me feel like my 'relative' morals
are superior to this type of action. But you've been doing it since Eve...

 deserve it. He lost his children, his possesions and friends because Satan
 challenged God "take all that he has and he will curse you to your face"
 Job in the midst of his suffering said "though He slay me, Yet will I trust
 Him" and proved Satan wrong by blessing and not cursing God. We are His to 

So God can be goaded into torturing his faithful followers by Satan? Not only
does he not turn the other cheek to this insult, but again he tortures innocents
to prove a point with a being he should not even be listening to. Does God
follow his own advice?

  "Our God is in heaven, He does whatever He pleases"    Psalm 115:3 

Now if this were the basis for Christianity, and you give up the all-loving
(just, merciful, etc.) component, and make God an ornery son of a gun, than at
least it would have some logic to it.

Steve

    Steve:
    
    Not meant perjoratively, just a challenge.
    
    The real fatal flaw is that you appear to be putting God in a pretty
    little box that fits the way you think things ought to be.  I for one 
    make it a point never to make apologies on God's behalf.  
    
    If God is honery, then I for one trust He knows what he is doing..
    even if I don't believe he is!!!!
    
    -Jack

re: Note 938.158 by Steve "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" 

>[Job...]
>
>So God can be goaded into torturing his faithful followers by Satan? Not only
>does he not turn the other cheek to this insult, but again he tortures 
>innocents to prove a point with a being he should not even be listening to. 
>Does God follow his own advice?

Not all Christians believe this to be a factual, historic account.  
It is often classified with the Wisdom books.  (Proverbs & such.)

Peace,

Jim

re: .159 AIMHI::JMARTIN

Not a fatal flaw, actually. 

What I was pointing out was the contradiction between the Christian description
of God as Omnipotent, Omniscient AND All-Loving. My original premise was that
the contradictions are present all around us today. As I see more of the Bible I
realize that they are just as prevelant there. 

What I am learning is that when pressed most Christians prefer to give up the
all loving component, although sometimes the definition of AL is expanded to the
point that it becomes meaningless to me, as in the last few notes in this topic.

Those who do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible have an easier time, as
they can throw out the parts that don't make sense.

Steve

Note 938.161

>Those who do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible have an easier time, as
>they can throw out the parts that don't make sense.

Steve,

	I can't speak for all who do not accept biblical inerrancy, but I
wouldn't say that we all "throw out" the parts that don't make sense.

	Personally, I keep them and wrestle with them.  Occasionally, I am
surprised to find a nugget where I hadn't expected it.

Shalom,
Richard

.162 CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Luke 1.78-79"

Richard,

Throw out was a poor choice of words. I should have said something more along
the lines of looked for alternate meanings.

Steve

    .163  :-)
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Another alternative to looking for alternative meanings is to accept
    what was written as the testimony of the author and attempt to
    understand it from his/her perspective.  This involves discerning what
    is common in the cultural arena at the time of the writing and what is
    truly unique to Judeo-Christianity.  The more we understand the passage
    the more we can find meaning in it.  But the meaning is in
    understanding the human author and the story he/she is attempting to
    tell.  We also must understand what we are bringing to the reading.
    Each of us selects out passages that inspire us based on our early
    teachings, the clerics we find inspiring, and our own life stories. If
    four of us were suffering, one might look to the prophets to
    understand the suffering, another to Job, another to the Gospel, and
    another to Paul.  Each of us may find comfort and understanding in what
    we read.  Why did each of us choose the passage that we relate too! 
    And how do we relate to that passage?
    The Bible is alive because new meaning is created every time an
    individual brings his/her experiences to the reading.  It is rich and
    deep because it does offer assurance, hope, wisdom, and comfort to
    millions of diverse persons each bringing different aspects of
    themselves to the reading.  Such a book could not have survived for
    2000-3000 years as  holy literature without such depth.
    
    Patricia

  Another alternative :

  Figures of speech, metaphors, allegories are all used in the Bible.
  Even the most adamant literalist will agree that the "sun rises" 
  is a figure of speech or that the "lion of the tribe of Judah" is
  not a literal lion.

  Hank

    Check the Bible for what it says about God's Word!  It's always best to
    interpret Scripture with Scripture.
    
2 Thessalonians 2:13  For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, 
    because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye 
    received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of 
    God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

Hebrews 4:12  For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than 
    any two-edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and 
    spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts 
    and intents of the heart.

2 Timothy 3:16-17  All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is 
    profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in 
    righteousness:  That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished 
    unto all good works.

Isaiah 55:10-11  For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and 
    returneth not thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth 
    and bud, that it may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
    So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return 
    unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall 
    prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.

Psalms 1:1-3  Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the 
    ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of 
    the scornful.  But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law 
    doth he meditate day and night.  And he shall be like a tree planted by 
    the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his 
    leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.

Psalms 19:7-10  The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the 
    testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.  The statutes of 
    the LORD are right, rejoicing the heart: the commandment of the LORD is 
    pure, enlightening the eyes.  The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring
    forever: the judgments of the LORD are true and righteous altogether.
    More to be desired are they than gold, yea, than much fine gold: sweeter
    also than honey and the honeycomb.  

    When Scripture speaks of the word, it is rarely (if ever) speaking of the
    written word.  Interpretter's One-Volume Commentary on the Bible
    

 Vine's expository Dictionary of the Bible seems to disagree with that.




 Jim

    Experts will vary, will they not?
    
    Richard
    

    The Word of God is the Word that is written on the heart of the
    believer and not the words of humans written in a book, no matter how
    inspired those words may be.
    
                                   Patricia

>    The Word of God is the Word that is written on the heart of the
>    believer and not the words of humans written in a book, no matter how
>    inspired those words may be.
    
    God's Word was verbally spoken to Moses in the form of the 10
    Commandments.  God's Word was verbally spoken to the disciples in the
    form of Jesus Christ.  The Bible contains God's Word as far as this
    goes.  You can't deny that, there are far too many eyewitnesses.
    
    As I pointed out in Psalm 19:7-10, God's Word is Perfect, Sure, Right,
    Pure, Clean, and True.  The Bible stands up to the test.  The Bible
    contains self-validating features.  Prophecy is one.  Literally 400+
    prophecies have been fulfilled exactly as it said they would. 
    Especially the 332 Messianic prophecies!  They virtually confirm most
    of the OT.  The NT is truly God's Word because it has also seen some of
    its prophecies fulfilled and doesn't contain a single contradiction
    with itself or the OT.  
    
    Another is the effect and changing of lives on the people/believers.  
    Hebrews 4:12 says God's Word is *ALIVE*.  There is a supernatural
    transaction/transformation taking place when you read it, study it,
    live by it.  God performs His Will in you as you strive to know more of
    Him.  Believers grow in spiritual strength as you desire to grow closer
    to God.
    
    The more I study and discover it, the more I realize that every detail,
    every number, every placement, every subtlety of the text is there by 
    supernatural engineering.
    
    Mike

re: Note 938.167 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>                    -< what the Bible says about the Bible >-

>    Check the Bible for what it says about God's Word!  It's always best to
>    interpret Scripture with Scripture.

Quite some time ago there was a conversation in here about self-reference and 
Kurt G�del's Incompleteness Theorem.  

Basically, a self-referencing system leads to paradoxes.  There are obviously 
true statements that can't be proven true, there are statements that can be 
proven both true and false, and statements which can be proven to be 
unprovable.  Thus to read what the Bible says about itself can lead to 
paradoxes.

		The statement below is true.
		The statement above is false.

This is not necessarily bad, as it could well necessitate Faith, but it is 
very shaky ground to say that there are absolutely no contradictions in the
Bible.  It can be proven mathematically that there will be.  If there weren't,
people would interpret everything the same way, and how much fun would That
be?  .-) 

Peace,

Jim

	RE: .171


		Patricia, GREAT note. Short, sweet and to the point. Thanks 
	for putting it in. :-)


	Glen

 re .171/.174


 Well, I'd ask how one is to know its from God, but that's been asked
 before..




Jim

    .171 is also very Pauline.  I probably should footnote it if I had
    memorized the chapters and verses from Corinthians.
    
    I believe it is around 1 Cor 2.

    >Kurt G�del's Incompleteness Theorem.  
    
    God uses the foolish to confound the wise.  If God inspired what's in
    the Bible, then what He says about it must be true.
    
    Mike

    Patricia and Glen, God probably did inspire the men of the Bible in
    their hearts to get them to write down what they did.  However, the
    Bible also says that God will not contradict His Word.  If we are
    inspired with words today, they better not contradict what's already
    recorded.  Why?  Because God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.

    God inspires each of us.  That does not mean that any of us has perfect
    knowledge or Wisdom.  We have human wisdom.  Anything humans write is
    imperfect.  All the books of the bible, written by imperfect humans
    contradict each other.  All the books of the bible are written by
    humans who had no clue regarding what life is like today.  The bible is
    limited in its advice about things that were not present in biblical
    times.  That is why the Word of God written on our hearts is such a
    better God.  As Paul says in 1 Cor 2, "We have the minds of Christ, who can
    instruct us"  

re: Note 938.177 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    God uses the foolish to confound the wise.  If God inspired what's in
>    the Bible, then what He says about it must be true.

Yes, and many mathemeticians worked very hard to prove that Number Theort was 
100% provable.  Kurt G�del devised a simple method (thus confounding the 
"wise") to prove it incomplete in a mathematically rigorous way.  The
requirements for a system that is incomplete is simply the inclusion of
adding, subtracting, multiplying and dividing. 

Essentially, he devised a way to mathematically represent the statement

		This statement cannot be proven true.

Prove it true, and it is false, be unable to prove it and it is true.

Human language goes way beyond these requirements, thus elements of language 
are not completely without ambiguity.  Any language that IS completely without 
ambiguity would be so boring as to be trivial.  

If you want some practical proof as to the ambiguity of the Bible, you need 
only consider the number of Christian denominations which disagree with each 
other on various points.

Further understand though, that this in no way denies ANY truth, only that
there are some areas of the truth that lead to ambiguities, and there
certainly are truths that are unambiguous, though we might argue which these
are. 

As for your statement "then what He [God] says about it must be true", it begs
our understanding and interpretation of "what He says". 

I recommend Douglas Hoffstader's (Pulitzer Prize winning, BTW) book, _G�del, 
Escher, Bach; an Eternal Golden Braid_.

Peace,

Jim    

>    God inspires each of us.  That does not mean that any of us has perfect
>    knowledge or Wisdom.  We have human wisdom.  Anything humans write is
    
    Are you saying God is fallible when humans are under His inspiration?
    
>    imperfect.  All the books of the bible, written by imperfect humans
>    contradict each other.  All the books of the bible are written by
>    humans who had no clue regarding what life is like today.  The bible is
    
    Be more specific.  What books/chapters/passages/verses contradict each 
    other?
    
>    limited in its advice about things that were not present in biblical
>    times.  That is why the Word of God written on our hearts is such a
>    better God.  As Paul says in 1 Cor 2, "We have the minds of Christ, who can
>    instruct us"  
    
    God is the same yesterday, today, and forever.  How is it that an
    omnipotent, onmipresent, omniscient Creator doesn't know what's best
    for his creation thousands of years down the road?  
    
    Also, you misquoted 1 Corinthians 2:16.  You may want to check out the
    rest of that chapter as well as Proverbs 30:5-6.
    
    Mike

>If you want some practical proof as to the ambiguity of the Bible, you need 
>only consider the number of Christian denominations which disagree with each 
>other on various points.
    
    Consider the vital points they do agree on (i.e., for salvation) and
    the points they disagree on.  The Protestant denominations aren't that
    far apart.

    Patricia:
    
    Point #1 - You make claims about "contradictions, misquotes,
    and corrections," but you fail to provide:
         a. Chapter & Verse
         b. Proof your claim
    
    My conclusion #1 - I have to discount "everything" you say since you
    choose not to back up your statements and claims.
    
    Point #2 - Why argue about those 'minor' points, mainly doctrination
    interpretations, and try not to find the vast areas that most
    Christians agree upon?  Throughout history, because Christians differed
    upon a particular 'interpretation', they went off and formed their own
    sect or denomination.  Even in the church I attend, there is not 100%
    agreement on 100% of the issues, but the vast majority still choose to
    worship together.  It's been said time and time again, but if someone
    is looking for the PERFECT CHURCH, they won't find it here on earth.
    
    My conclusion #2 - Nowhere in the Bible will you see Catholic Church,
    Presbyterian Church, Baptist Church, etc.  There only is the CHURCH -
    one body, one faith, one God, one saviour!
    
    Ron
    

re: Note 938.182 by Mike "Maranatha!" >>>

>>If you want some practical proof as to the ambiguity of the Bible, you need 
>>only consider the number of Christian denominations which disagree with each 
>>other on various points.
>    
>    Consider the vital points they do agree on (i.e., for salvation) and
>    the points they disagree on.  The Protestant denominations aren't that
>    far apart.

Looks like you didn't read the paragraph that directly followed the one you 
quoted.  It provides context.

Peace,

Jim

re Note 938.183 by GUCCI::RWARRENFELTZ:

>     Even in the church I attend, there is not 100%
>     agreement on 100% of the issues, but the vast majority still choose to
>     worship together.  It's been said time and time again, but if someone
>     is looking for the PERFECT CHURCH, they won't find it here on earth.
  
        Ron,

        I have no problem with Christians who have differing
        interpretations of Scripture and/or differing doctrines
        worshiping together.

        On the other hand there are many Christians who do object to
        worshiping with Christians with whom they have a doctrinal
        disagreement of "important" points.  (It isn't clear that the
        Bible supports the notion of a defined list of "essential
        doctrines" -- clearly the creeds, which are such lists of
        "essential doctrines", came much later.)

        In fact many Christians go much farther than merely declining
        to worship together with those who differ on "essential
        doctrines" -- they in fact deny that the others are Christian
        at all.

        So while I agree that Christians can and should worship (and
        work) together with Christians with whom they may have
        doctrinal differences, many others come pretty close to
        requiring 100% agreement on at least "essential doctrines"
        (and, John Covert please correct me if I'm wrong, the Roman
        Catholic Church requires 100% agreement on *all* doctrine --
        you pretty much are expected to give the Church a "blank
        check" to your mind).

        Bob

    Bob: 
    
    I agree with you in .185.  If we, calling ourselves Christians, can
    live on this same planet together, I see no reason why we can't worship
    together.
    
    In the NT, the reason for the home churches was because of the lack of
    modern transportation as we know it.  The gospels show where even the
    12 disciples disagreed on some issues.  But Jesus called us all to
    serve the same God.  
    
    I personally find no reason why we Christians can not worship together. 
    For example, in our church, our varied music selections would appeal to
    old, young, charismatic, gospel, etc.  Not all at the same time but the
    music ministry makes an effort to include all the many forms.
    
    Why can't the CHURCH worship together?
    
    Ron

| <<< Note 938.181 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


	Patricia, first off I want to say that .179 says it all!


| >    God inspires each of us.  That does not mean that any of us has perfect
| >    knowledge or Wisdom.  We have human wisdom.  Anything humans write is

| Are you saying God is fallible when humans are under His inspiration?

	When we get an inspiration to build an entertainment center following
the directions given to us, what happens? Does everything turn out perfect? Not 
always because of free will. When we are inspired by God, we CAN have it turn 
out wrong? Yes. Why? Because of the same free will. Free will can prevent us
from doing what He wants us to do. He may have given us the inspiration to go
out and do something, but free will does not mean it will turn out right.



Glen

    Glen, I'm sorry to hear that your god is limited by man's free will.  

    RE:  Ron Warrenfield and Mike Heisser,
    
    I accept that both of you have interpretations of scripture that is
    radically different than mine.  No matter what evidence I provide for
    contradictions in scripture you need to refute them since your faith is
    tied to the innerrancy claim.  Some of the questions I can ask and get
    differing answers to are,
    
    Should women speak in church?
    Where did Mary and Joseph Go after the Birth of Jesus?
    What were the names of the 12 disciples?
    When in Jesus' ministry did he enter and turn the tables in Jerusalem?
    Who did he appear to first after his ressurection?
    Which version of the creation story is correct?
    Is it appropriate to eat meat sacrificed to Idols?
    What is the correct name to call God by?
    Is Jesus and God the same person?
    Is salvation to all or to a chosen number?
    To we gain salvation only by faith or also by works?
    What is faith?
    What is the geneology from Adam to Jesus?
    
    These are just a few.  I've seen some amazing hoops by innerrantists
    trying to reconcile the differences.  They are recorded in this file.
    
    
    I choose to express my religious beliefs positively and not to attempt
    to convince you that the Bible is not innerrant.  
    
    It is irrelevent to me whether the prophesy in the Bible are
    Historically true or not because I do not think there value is in there
    historic truth.
    
    The bible is an amazing book because it is a witness to the faith of
    many different authors and in its diversity provides much that each one
    of us can relate too.  Consciously or not, we all pick and choose which
    passages we need at any one point.  I believe that God speaks to us
    individually and personally in the process of our seeking out and
    finding
    confort, support, affirmation, in the various passages.  I read the
    prophets not to attest to whether the prophets were right or wrong in
    their predictions but to understand why they wrote what they did, what
    it provided to their readers and their audiences and what it means to
    us today.
    
    I find no value whatsover in going through the prophets, picking out
    their prophesy and trying to convince those whom I will not convince
    anyway that they are not historically accurate.  It is just not a
    relevent question for me.
    
    It becomes a relevent question only when someone tries to force feed
    onto me a point of view that I do not feel contains merit.  I do
    sometimes get a little emotional when someone tells me I am not a
    Christian because I do not believe in the innerrancy of the Bible.
    
    Patricia

    Hello Patricia:
    
    I for one do not see holding the Bible as inerrant a prerequisite for
    salvation; however, I do see it as inviting apostate beliefs, since we
    use our own fallable standards to determine what is inerrant and what
    isn't.  
    
    A very sobering verse:  "If thou shalt believe with thine heart the
    Lord Jesus and believe God hast raised Him from the dead, then thou
    shalt be saved"  Romans 10:9    
    
    What an accurate and beautiful promise!
    
    God Bless,
    
    -Jack

    Re: Patricia's questions
    
    Most of these (probably all) are answered in Scripture.  I could supply
    verses and explanations, but it appears you've been down that road with
    others.  What I've found in my personal study is that sometimes other
    reference books help in interpreting Scripture.  A book on the customs,
    culture, and practices of Israel is one that is handy.  Commentaries and
    Hebrew/Greek dictionaries are also invaluable.  I've made a point
    lately to become more familiar with the culture through the Messianic
    Jews' eyes.  It not only sheds more light on the Bible and symbolism
    pointing to God/Jesus, but it is a fun/real way for children to learn
    (Deuteronomy 6:4-9).  I even bought a menorah and prayer shawl (talid?) 
    to prepare for the Fall Feasts of Israel.  ;-)
    
    As an example, it's true there are 2 different geneaologies of Jesus in
    the synoptic gospels.  One was presented the traditional Hebrew way
    through the father's lineage.  The other, I believe from Luke, went
    against tradition of the day and listed it through Mary.  If you didn't
    do some external research to figure this out, you wouldn't know it and
    would think there was an error.
    
>    It is irrelevent to me whether the prophesy in the Bible are
>    Historically true or not because I do not think there value is in there
>    historic truth.
    
    Like it or not, it's the one thing that separates the Bible from the
    Islamic Koran and Hindu Veda.  The others don't even make an attempt at
    prophecy.  The Bible does, and does it remarkably.  Also, Revelation
    19:10b says "For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy." 
    BTW - you said you didn't like Revelation, but the first 3 chapters
    have excellent messages to the 7 churches from Jesus Christ.  These 7
    churches are symbolic of many of the types of churches we have today. 
    It's a great study!
    
>    It becomes a relevent question only when someone tries to force feed
>    onto me a point of view that I do not feel contains merit.  I do
>    sometimes get a little emotional when someone tells me I am not a
>    Christian because I do not believe in the innerrancy of the Bible.
    
    I wouldn't go that far (don't really know you), but I believe you may 
    be short-changing yourself.  There's so much to learn about the Lord in 
    it.  There have been times in my life where I have questioned things in 
    God's Word, but in prayer I always sense the Holy Spirit reassuring me 
    that it is inerrant - because it's from God.  Finally, having met the 
    requirements for salvation, my view of the Bible won't affect me either 
    way.  I will not lose my salvation for thinking parts of it are fallible.  
    The price I would pay is not growing as a Christian and not drawing 
    closer to God because I wouldn't know as much about Him.
    
    hope this helps,
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I do appreciate your sharing what works for you with me.  We both do
    agree that there is much of merit in the Bible.  I think it is
    wonderful that you are working so hard to understand the culture and
    practices of the time.
    
    

| <<< Note 938.188 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>



| Glen, I'm sorry to hear that your god is limited by man's free will.


	Uh.... how did you get that from what I said? Humans are limited
because of free will, not God.


Glen

>| Glen, I'm sorry to hear that your god is limited by man's free will.
>
>
>	Uh.... how did you get that from what I said? Humans are limited
>because of free will, not God.

Glen, thanks for proving my point.  Humans under the inspiration of God
    cannot have their free will impact God's will because God isn't limited
    by anything.

    thanks,
    Mike

| <<< Note 938.194 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| >| Glen, I'm sorry to hear that your god is limited by man's free will.
| >
| >
| >	Uh.... how did you get that from what I said? Humans are limited
| >because of free will, not God.

| Glen, thanks for proving my point.  Humans under the inspiration of God
| cannot have their free will impact God's will because God isn't limited
| by anything.

	Mike, explain something to me. Have you ever thought you were following
what God wanted you to do only to find out later you were wrong? 



Glen

    >	Mike, explain something to me. Have you ever thought you were following
>what God wanted you to do only to find out later you were wrong? 

    Nope.  Of course, I believe the Bible is inerrant and live by it too. 
    In balancing wants/needs when going to the Lord in prayer, I make sure
    I'm adhering to His Word.  I also don't make a move unless God "opens the
    doors."  That way I know I'm in His Will.

    Mike

.196 FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!"

I also don't make a move "unless God "opens the doors."  That way I know I'm in
His Will.

He actually opens doors for you!? And you're in his will!? Cool! :^)

Seriously, though, what do you mean by opening doors?

Steve

    Opening doors could be anything requiring a major decision.

| <<< Note 938.196 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>



| Nope.  Of course, I believe the Bible is inerrant and live by it too. In 
| balancing wants/needs when going to the Lord in prayer, I make sure I'm 
| adhering to His Word.  I also don't make a move unless God "opens the doors."
| That way I know I'm in His Will.

	Wow Mike, you are the first person I have ever heard never made a
mistake since finding God. You are the first person who has ever said they
never misinterpreted a message from God. You are a one of a kind person Mike.
There is no one, regardless of how holy they are, that I know would ever make
that claim. You are a god Mike. That can be the ONLY answer. Humans make
mistakes. It can't be helped. Humans sin, it can't be helped. But for some
reason you feel as though you don't.....


Glen

   > Humans make mistakes. It can't be helped. Humans sin, it can't be helped.
    
    It can be helped.  Our sin condition cannot be helped.  We do have the 
    ability to forsake our sin but we choose not to do so.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 938.200 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

| > Humans make mistakes. It can't be helped. Humans sin, it can't be helped.

| It can be helped.  Our sin condition cannot be helped.  We do have the
| ability to forsake our sin but we choose not to do so.

	Jack, do all mistakes that deal with sin mean a person couldn't have
believed they were doing right? An example of this was the burning of witches.
They thought this is what was supposed to be done. 


Glen

    Oh, I'm with you on that issue.  Look at Saul, persecuting the Church
    in the name of God.  You may remember Pauls message in Romans 10,  His
    prayer for the Jews was that they be saved.  They had a zeal for God
    but their zeal was not based on knowledge.  Having not the
    righteousness of God, they tried to put on their own.  
    
    The actions of the "witchburners" was based not on knowledge, but on
    political purposes.   Yom Kippur, I believe was instituted as a day of
    atonement to atone for sins done in ignorance.  The witchburners had
    the ability to know Gods word but instead acted out of ignorance.
    Saul openly admitted his sin was committed out of ignorance.  
    
    -Jack
    

.198 FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!"

    Opening doors could be anything requiring a major decision.

Mike, I may have misunderstood.

What I thought you meant was that you didn't make a major decision (or at least
act upon it) unless the doors were opened for you. My question referred to what
do you perceive as an open door, or a sign if you will.

Or do you mean that you sort of cruise along until an opportunity presents
itself, and then take that as a sign since you didn't actively seek it?

Steve

    Sin is not merely what you do.  Sin is also what you don't do.
    
    Even those who are innocent of sins of commission can never escape
    sins of omission.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>	Wow Mike, you are the first person I have ever heard never made a
>mistake since finding God. You are the first person who has ever said they
>never misinterpreted a message from God. You are a one of a kind person Mike.
>There is no one, regardless of how holy they are, that I know would ever make
>that claim. You are a god Mike. That can be the ONLY answer. Humans make
>mistakes. It can't be helped. Humans sin, it can't be helped. But for some
>reason you feel as though you don't.....
    
    Nice spin you have there Glen.  You asked nothing about sin and making
    mistakes, only of inspiration.  They aren't the same and that's why I
    gave the answer that I did.  Of course I sin and make mistakes, but I
    don't under God's direction.
    
    Mike

>What I thought you meant was that you didn't make a major decision (or at least
>act upon it) unless the doors were opened for you. My question referred to what
>do you perceive as an open door, or a sign if you will.
>
>Or do you mean that you sort of cruise along until an opportunity presents
>itself, and then take that as a sign since you didn't actively seek it?

    Steve, take the rounds of TFSO as an example.  I prayed for God's Will
    to be done in terms of employment.  If I was to be TFSO'd, then that
    meant God had something better/different in mind.  If I was to stay at
    DEC, then God would open the proper doors for that to happen.  Meanwhile I 
    tested the waters by submitting resumes at a few places.  I prayed
    for His Will to be done and for Him to get the glory and I'm still
    here.  Praise God (I think ;-))!  I usually only do this for major
    decisions and I realize I should do it more.  In drastic times, I'm
    much more demanding.  For example, back in July my youngest son had a
    nasty fall on a Casco Bay ferry.  By the damage and blood, I *knew* he
    had broken his nose.  My wife, kids, parents, and myself immediately
    gathered around him and prayed for him.  It was quite a sight to the
    passengers and ferry employees ;-).  Anyway, praise God because he was
    healed.  Everyone there has no doubt that a miracle was performed on
    that day.
    
    As for the second question, I would hope I would never do this.  You can 
    be deceived this way.  If you operate this way, you have more reason to 
    make use of 1 John 4.  I'd be cautious of people that run around
    looking for signs.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 938.205 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| Nice spin you have there Glen. You asked nothing about sin and making mistakes
| only of inspiration.  

	Mike, here is what I asked you:

>Mike, explain something to me. Have you ever thought you were following what 
>God wanted you to do only to find out later you were wrong? 

	Sounds like I was talking about making a mistake to me Mike. So what I
wrote stands:


	Wow Mike, you are the first person I have ever heard never made a
mistake since finding God. You are the first person who has ever said they
never misinterpreted a message from God. You are a one of a kind person Mike.
There is no one, regardless of how holy they are, that I know would ever make
that claim. You are a god Mike. That can be the ONLY answer. Humans make
mistakes. It can't be helped. Humans sin, it can't be helped. But for some
reason you feel as though you don't.....



Glen

>>Mike, explain something to me. Have you ever thought you were following what 
>>God wanted you to do only to find out later you were wrong? 
>
>	Sounds like I was talking about making a mistake to me Mike. So what I
>wrote stands:
    
    doesn't sound that way to me at all. 

| <<< Note 938.208 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| doesn't sound that way to me at all.


	Ok, how did you take it?

	Also, now that you know what I meant, can you address the issue?


Glen

>	Ok, how did you take it?
    
    I thought you were asking about making a mistake while acting on an
    inspiration from God.

>	Also, now that you know what I meant, can you address the issue?
    
    When I've followed the flesh instead of God, I have made mistakes.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 938.210 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>



| I thought you were asking about making a mistake while acting on an 
| inspiration from God.

	Oh.... well, let me ask you something. Do you believe that any time you
have ever acted on an inspiration from God that you have done it exactly the
way He wanted you to with no outside human influences or your own free will
creeping in?



Glen

| <<< Note 938.212 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| -< YES >-

	Oh.... how can you be sure? 

    because my God is infallible, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.

| <<< Note 938.214 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| because my God is infallible, omnipotent, omnipresent, and omniscient.


	So isn't my God. But my God gave us free will. Free will can play into
it all. If you don't believe so, then why do you make mistakes? Are you saying
you aren't always inspired by God? 

    Gee Mike,
    
    It sure sounds to me like you are saying that you are infallable,
    omnipotent, and omniscient.   
    
                               Patricia

>it all. If you don't believe so, then why do you make mistakes? Are you saying
>you aren't always inspired by God? 
    
    because I don't always seek for or follow His inspiration as I should. 
    When I'm in His Will, I'm perfect.  When I'm not, my free will shows
    just how fleshly and infallible I really am.

re: Note 938.217 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    because I don't always seek for or follow His inspiration as I should. 
>    When I'm in His Will, I'm perfect.  When I'm not, my free will shows
>    just how fleshly and infallible I really am.

This strikes me as essentially useless.  (That's not meant as an insult.)  One
might as well say "I am right when I am right and I am wrong when I am wrong".
I think only the Divine Infinite can reasonably say "I will be what I will 
be".  How is one to know when an action is in God's will or not?  Certainly
sometimes it's obvious, but sometimes it is not.  Everyone acts, and observes
other's actions from their own perspective.  A person might do something and
believe themselves to have fallen far short of what God asks of them, while
another person, observing the first, might see the first person's actions as
wholy God inspired.  Who is to say?  (Well, God is, obviously, but as WE are 
not God, we can't always tell.)

Peace,

Jim

	Jim, great note. You saved me the time of having to put something
similar in, and you probably used fewer lines to say it. :-)


Glen

>wholy God inspired.  Who is to say?  (Well, God is, obviously, but as WE are 
>not God, we can't always tell.)
    
    Balderdash!  Knowing God's Will isn't rocket science.

re: Note 938.220 by Mike "Maranatha!" 

>    Balderdash!  Knowing God's Will isn't rocket science.

As I said, sometimes it is obvious, sometimes it is not.
If it were always so easy, 99.9% of the discussion in this file wouldn't 
exist, and there would by exactly one Christian denomination.

Peace,

Jim

        re Note 938.220

    >  Balderdash!  Knowing God's Will isn't rocket science.

    You're right. On occasion it is magnitudes more difficult.
    
    Eric

    It's just a matter of getting on the same page or wavelength ;-)

| <<< Note 938.223 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>



| It's just a matter of getting on the same page or wavelength ;-)


	Mike, what if you THINK you are on the same wavelength and later find
out you weren't?


Glen

    I'll let you know when that happens...

| <<< Note 938.225 by FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything" >>>



| I'll let you know when that happens...


	Mike, please clear something up for me. It would appear that you are
saying you aren't always on the same wavelength as God. True or false?

	You also have said, I believe, that when you are inspired, you are on
the same wavelength. True or false?

	If the answers are true, which I think they are, why aren't you always
inspired by God?

>	If the answers are true, which I think they are, why aren't you always
>inspired by God?

	Can someone write in what Romans 7 is? I don't carry a Bible at work.


Glen

    Glen, you really should, at least in an electronic format.  Remember to
    pray before reading so you can spiritually discern it.
    
Romans 7:1
KNOW ye not, brethren, (for I speak to them that know the law,) how that the
law hath dominion over a man as long as he liveth?

Romans 7:2
For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long
as he liveth; but if the husband be dead, she is loosed from the law of her
husband.

Romans 7:3
So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall
be called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free from that law;
so that she is no adulteress, though she be married to another man.

Romans 7:4
Wherefore, my brethren, ye also are become dead to the law by the body of
Christ; that ye should be married to another, even to him who is raised from
the dead, that we should bring forth fruit unto God.

Romans 7:5
For when we were in the flesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law, did
work in our members to bring forth fruit unto death.

Romans 7:6
But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held;
that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the
letter.

Romans 7:7
What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin,
but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt
not covet.

Romans 7:8
But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of
concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.

Romans 7:9
For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin
revived, and I died.

Romans 7:10
And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.

Romans 7:11
For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.

Romans 7:12
Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

Romans 7:13
Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it
might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the
commandment might become exceeding sinful.

Romans 7:14
For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.

Romans 7:15
For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I
hate, that do I.

Romans 7:16
If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.

Romans 7:17
Now then it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth in me.

Romans 7:18
For I know that in me (that is, in my flesh,) dwelleth no good thing: for to
will is present with me; but how to perform that which is good I find not.

Romans 7:19
For the good that I would I do not: but the evil which I would not, that I do.

Romans 7:20
Now if I do that I would not, it is no more I that do it, but sin that dwelleth
in me.

Romans 7:21
I find then a law, that, when I would do good, evil is present with me.

Romans 7:22
For I delight in the law of God after the inward man:

Romans 7:23
But I see another law in my members, warring against the law of my mind, and
bringing me into captivity to the law of sin which is in my members.

Romans 7:24
O wretched man that I am! who shall deliver me from the body of this death?

Romans 7:25
I thank God through Jesus Christ our Lord. So then with the mind I myself serve
the law of God; but with the flesh the law of sin.

	Mike, thanks for proving something to me. It's called convienence. If
you do something wrong, then it is because you did not follow God. If you do
something right, then you have followed God. It's easy when you can do it this
way, but it says nothing of the times that YOU thought YOU WERE following GOD'S
will only to find out you weren't. That is, unless you take that and put it
under the do something wrong catagory. But you really can't do that as earlier
in this string you stated it doesn't happen to you.


Glen

    Thanks for sharing what you read into it.
    
Romans 6:1
WHAT shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound?

Romans 6:2
God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein?