Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re .0

As is quite often the case with objections to Christianity, every single one of
the objections (or claims that paganism is superior to Christianity) are based
not on Christianity but on distortions of Christianity.

We've told you time and time again, Patricia, that Christianity teaches that
both men and women are created in the image of God.  But you refuse to accept
what Christianity teaches, and you go on railing against something which is
_not_ what Christianity teaches.

If you start from a false premise of what Christianity is, your whole argument
is without basis in fact.

Don't you see this?

> In the Christian stories Jesus is assumed to be asexual

  No, Jesus is not asexual; he is God incarnate as a male human being.
  That he does not engage in sexual intercourse does not make him asexual.

> Paul is Celibate and states that Celibacy is a spiritual gift available
> only to a select few,

  Both celibacy and married life are honorable estates in Christianity.
  Marriage is clearly affirmed by Jesus through his presence at, and the
  beginning of his earthly ministry at the wedding in Cana.

> The Virgin Mary is a key symbolic figure, and Jesus' birth is considered
> more holy because it supposively did not include human intercourse.

No, this is not the case.  The purpose behind the Virgin Birth does not have
to do with "holiness because of no human intercourse."  Not at all.  The
miraculous Virgin Birth makes it clear that Jesus is the hypostatic union
of God in both Human and Divine natures.  Human, being born of the flesh of
the Virgin Mary, and God, being eternally begotten of his Father before all
worlds.

/john

    John,
    
    I do recognize and respect that as a Bible believing Christian you
    might have a problem with my question.
    
    I acknowledge that several persons in here have tried to answer my
    concerns about the allusion in Christianity to men being more Godlike
    than women.  Your answer has not satisfied me.  After carefully
    weighing the Biblical evidence and also knowing that there was some
    discussion in the early years of the Christian Church regarding whether
    women even had souls The two Adam and Eve stories, the Pages and pages
    of Patriarchal literature, the lack of concern about women in the old
    testament, and the ambiguity in the letters of Paul especially 1
    Corinthian's leads me to conclude there is amble evidence to identify
    an issue with the Biblical literature regarding gender.
    
    Carefully weighing the evidence that I cited also convinces me the
    human sexuality is suspect in Christianity.  Even sexuality within
    marriage.  If God does not have sex, Jesus does not have sex, Paul does
    not have sex, and Mary conceives virginally, where is the affirmation
    of human sexuality?
    
    I am not trying to convince anyone that Paganism is superior to
    Christianity.  As a woman, I perceive two potential paths to my own
    spiritual jouney.  Reformed Christianity or Goddess centered
    spirituality.  My endeavor to understand the differences is an
    important part of my spiritual quest.  I know many woman who have
    chosen one of the two options, put not many who have seriously
    struggled with the grasping the best of both. 
    
                                  Patricia

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I kind of wonder what you consider the main ingrediants of
        paganism to be?  When I view paganism, I do not view it from
        the perspective of worshipping a God of gender.  The most
        fundamental ingrediant of paganism I have heard is that 
        it is a belief system wherein MAN SEEKS AFTER GOD while 
        Christianity is a belief system wherein God seeks after man.
        Thats really the main difference I have come up with along
        (of course) with the corollary that with paganism we are 
        justified to God by the good works we do rather than justified 
        to God by the good works He does.
    
        These issues are to me so much more important in comparison 
        to the questions of gender that they are like comparing a
        light bulb to a star.
    
        I'd like to say a little more about sexuality.  I believe 
        sexuality is a good thing.  Its great and satisfying!
    
        So Christ and Paul were celibate.  And my 'guess' of your 
        explanation of why they were celibate is that they (as in
        Christianity) conveys the message that sexuality is a bad
        thing.
    
        I believe there are other possibilities.  The one that I
        believe in is that Paul and Christ did not have time for
        a spouse and thus for sex because they saw other things that
        attracted their interest.  They saw a world dying in sin and
        their sight was so acute that they simply expended all of their
        resources toward doing all that they could to restore man back
        to righteoussness.
    
        Please answer this question Patricia:
    
        If there was a fire in your house, would you take time to
        make love?
    
        Are you willing to consider the possibility that if we saw the
        human pain as perhaps God sees it and if our hearts ached as
        God's heart aches...If YOUR HEART ached in proportion to the
        magnitude of human misery...would that not equate to a greater
        crisis than a fire?
    
        I suggest that Paul and Jesus did not have sex because they
        saw a 'fire' (human suffering) to an acuteness that we have
        not.  And from that perspective, the idea of doling even a 
        second's worth of time to sex is as absurd as making love 
        while one's house is going up in flames.
    
        Now, as to my suggestion that we are all perverts.  Lets'
        hypothesize that there is no 'fire' and that our hearts are
        perfectly cleansed from sin.  I believe the act of making love
        would be one wherein each person's entire 'heart-focus' is one
        of complete selfless love for their partner.  And I admit that
        I fall far short of that (and thus am a pervert).
    
        When I speak of perversion, I essentially refer to the status
        of the heart.  To engaging in making love wherein the heart
        contains even an iota's worth of "what's in it for me?"  Rather
        than an experience where the totality of the language of the 
        heart is "What's in it for you?"
    
        And it may be another paradox...but then again I am finding
        Christianity to be loaded with paradoxes...the most pleasurable
        and rewarding sexual experience would be one wherein self interest
        is nonexistent and interest in and for the other person is all
        in all.
    
        I'd really like a thoughtful reply to this because I kind of think
        you drastically misunderstood the meaning behind my statements.
    
        I'm not down on sex.  I don't think its perverted.  I don't think
        Jesus or Paul were down on sex.  I just think they saw something
        more acutely than we do and for that reason, they were compelled
        to do something else with their time.
    
                                                      Tony

    Tony,
    
    I disagree with your definition of self interest.  In a state of
    perfect love, what is best for me is exactly what is best for my
    partner.  I cannot be happy unless he is happy and he could not be
    happy unless I was happy.  Sex is about the giving and receiving of
    intimacy and pleasure between two people.  If I were only giving and
    not receive I would be depriving my partner of the gift of giving and
    vice versa.
    
    I see the same thing with love of God.  Jesus tells us that we must
    love God with our whole self.  We also need and want and accept God's
    love for us.  If we could be in perfect harmony then the seeking after
    God and the God seeking after humankind would be the same thing.
    
    Patricia

    The Bible contradicts much of what "intellects" were saying in the
    various cultures along its historical timeline.
    
    Knowing Moses went to the finest schools in Egypt and learned all of
    this "state-of-the-art" thinking, it is fascinating to see what he has
    written in the Torah!  He knew all about the pagan gods of Egyptology. 
    He was probably raised to worship them as well since he lived in
    Pharoah's palace.  The Torah is 100% monotheism in service to the
    Almighty God:  
    
Deuteronomy 6:4
Hear, O Israel: the LORD our god is one LORD:

    Despite what the Bible says, people thought for years the earth was flat.
    
    "Intellects" of that day thought exactly what the Koran and Veda say
    about the suspension of earth: it was held in place by sitting on the
    back of a giant turtle!  The Bible says it hangs upon nothing in empty 
    space.
    
    "Intellects" of that day thought rain was caused by a giant frog
    jumping in some celestial pond.  The Bible clearly outlines the
    hydrological cycle.
    
    Only God could've inspired such a drastic, and 100% correct, departure
    from the "intellect" of humans.
    
    Mike

      re: .5
    
      Patricia,
    
        I never said it was wrong to appreciate and find satis-
        faction in receiving.  That is a very different thing
        than the 'heart-attitude' of thinking only for the other
        person.  Thinking for the other person does not imply
        denying what another may want to do for you.
    
        One may be totally caught up in love for another that
        self is lost sight of.  This does not necessitate the
        inability to appreciate and allow what one might do for
        you.
    
        I think you sidestepped the basis of my reply and you
        are picking gnats while the landscape is full of giants.
    
                                             Tony

    I'm not picking gnats.  It is just a total difference of worldview.
    
    I believe that what is 100% best for our own self interest is what is
    best for the Universe.  Denial of self does not lead to fulfillment but
    to Hell.  The trinity I believe in, three concepts absolutely related
    is Love of Self, Love of Others, and Love of God.  We cannot find
    happiness if we neglect any one of the three.  A heart felt denial of
    oneself and one's own self interest is in reality a very selfish thing.
    
                                     Patricia

    re: .8
    
    Patricia,
    
      The way I understand it is that having good things happen to
      you is fine, but if there is a conflict between self and someone
      else, self is God if self is served.
    
      A good practical example is Nazi Germany.  Lets say that the
      only way to save a bunch of Jews basically meant you were going
      to get fried.  You have a choice to make - for self or for
      others.  If the choice for self is made, self is one's God.
      If the choice for others is made, self is not one's God.
    
      The first commandment of the 10 reads: "Thou shalt have no other
      gods BEFORE Me."  This means to me that having good things to
      happen for oneself is fine.  And doing things that are good for
      oneself is fine.  BUT, if there is a conflict between choosing
      for self and choosing for another, if self is chosen it is
      demonstrated that a god is placed before God.
    
      So, I can see that I went a little too far.  However, I do believe
      that if living for self takes precedence to living for others, that
      is the essence of idolatry.  It is the essence of Satan's attitude
      when he looked over at the throne and said, "I want to be like the
      Most High."
    
      All the while he didn't realize that the throne of God is the cross.
    
      If we still disagree, thats fine.  I can handle agreeing to 
      disagree.  But, that which we disagree about strikes at the core
      of Christianity.  It is a fork that perhaps is as close to the
      center of what the essence of Christianity really is.  Psalm 22
      as well as the closing scenes of Christ's life are a beautiful
      portrayel of one whose main concern (in the midst of intense 
      suffering) was not for self, but rather for others.    
    
                                                 Tony

    .0
    
    In all honesty, I don't know very much about Pagans.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      Patricia,
    
        Another huge disconnect which I brought up and which you
        have not responded to involves the matter of interpretation
        of why it is that Jesus and Paul were celibate.
    
        I gave an alternative explanation for it.  I believe reading
        about their lives as well as those of John the Baptist and
        Jeremiah suggests that these people were just so given to the
        Lord in the midst of such human need that they simply expended
        all they had toward restoration.
    
        On what basis did you interpret the celibacy of Jesus and Paul
        to mean that the Bible has a problem with sexuality?
    
                                                      Tony

    RE .9
    
    Being human means we are relational.  We are all connected to every
    other person on this earth.  Alienation and Isolation are Hell.  To be
    separate is to be "Lost"  Salvation is to be part of the chain of
    Humanity.  To be Connected is to be "Saved"
    
    What is absolutely essential to our humanity is to be connected to the
    "Chain of Being"  To the Source of Being and to Others.
    
    What is in our uttermost self interest is to be part of this chain. 
    Loving and being Loved is the secret.   Salvation will come when we
    learn to truly love every person we meet and love every person we will
    never meet.  there is difference in intensity of course.  The most
    important thing we can do for ourselves is to love someone else.  Love
    is magic.  What goes around comes around.  If we Love others we will be
    loved.  If we have a positive attitude we will find love and kindness
    everywhere.   God is Love.  Love is God.
    
                                         Patricia

    re -1 and others,
    
    Tony,
    
    There is no evidence to support your statement that Jesus was celibate.
    
    Whilst I realize that neither is there evidence to show that he was
    married, I would say that, be weighing every word and putting them, and
    Jesus into the context of the times when he lived, on balance, it is
    more likely that he was married.
    
    It is sometimes difficult to hold biblical and church truths apart, I
    know.
    
    Greetings, Derek.

    re .11
    
    Tony,
    
    I believe that Paul was a non practicing Homosexual.  Defining celibacy
    as a way to serve God for him, provided him a wonderful means of
    avoiding his agony regarding his sexual orientation.
    
    I would love to know more about what Jesus was doing between the age of
    twelve and approximately 27 when he began his ministry?  Do we know
    that he was celebate during that time?  Do we know that he was never
    married?  Do we know what his sexual orientation was?  
    
    The Bible does not mention one instance of a positive happy sex life. 
    The best the Bible has to say except for Song of Solomon about
    sexuality is neutral.  Its not sinful to have sex if you are married. 
    If you cannot control your urges, it is not sinful to get married. 
    Don't deny your spouse in marriage(with the implication that he might
    then not be able to control his sexual urges and be forced to sin).
    
    In exodus we are told that men having sex with their wifes renders them
    ritually unclean and unfit to meet God.

re Note 988.14 by POWDML::FLANAGAN:

>     The best the Bible has to say except for Song of Solomon about
>     sexuality is neutral.  

        Song of Solomon is one incredibly important "exception"!

        Bob

    .16  Actually, I've always thought of Song of Songs as downright
    erotic, tittilating and sensuous, rather than merely neutral.
    
    Yes, I find it even a little lusty.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Does anyone have Luke 23:34 cited by Jim in .15 handy?
    
    

    Yes, I looked it up.  It was when Jesus was on the cross and he
    stated.. "Forgive them Father..for they know not what they do".
    
    All I have to say on the subject is that Paul was a pharisee of
    pharisees and he knew the law both forward and backward.  We all have 
    human frailties but your implication yesterday was that if Paul was
    really a homosexual, yet as you have stated in the past, Paul is a
    homophobe, then Paul couldn't have really felt good about himself,
    seeing how he detested the homosexual act but was a closet gay himself. 
    
    Paul has made it clear to me anyway in his letters that he had a very
    powerful sense of absolution from sin via the death and resurrection of
    Jesus on the cross.  He more or less stated that his account is clean
    and that he bears no guilt whatsoever.  This indicates a very strong
    foundation of faith in atonement and justification.  This doesn't 
    portray to me, a closet homosexual in a society infiltrated with the
    Mosaic law.  I also bring to your attention that Rome was filled with
    Homosexual acts and the Jews found Rome detestable.
    
    -Jack

      re: -1
    
      I don't think its possible to know whether or not Paul had
      homosexuality as a particular 'lust of his flesh.'  And I
      don't think it really matters.
    
      We all have our particular lusts of the flesh.  Christianity
      contains a gospel wherein the lusts of the flesh are crucified.
    
      In his letter to the Galatians, Paul said, "I am crucified with
      Christ."
    
                                                   Tony

    .18  It was merely another slam.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    Why does everybody have to be victimized in your book?
    
    -Jack

    .22  My book?  The Bible?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .22
    
    Seriously, I do not claim such a thing.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Ohhh...Alriiggghhtt!!!

    RE: .18
    
    And I was looking for a passage that said human sexuality was a
    wonderful gift from God.  I couldn't understand why I could not find
    that in Luke last night.
    
                                       Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    As with anything, human sexuality can be very beautiful or it can be
    very ugly.  For example, Corinth was the center of idolatry.  Sex was
    used as part of the worship to foreign gods.  Any XRated movie cheapens
    sex and any sex that is out of the sanctified context it was meant for
    is also ugly.  
    
    -Jack

>    And I was looking for a passage that said human sexuality was a
>    wonderful gift from God.  I couldn't understand why I could not find
>    that in Luke last night.

In a previous note it was that mentioned Song of Solomon is a book
that refers to sexuality in a positive light.  I agree.

Does it need to be said in more than one place to be so?

Other places that refer to sexual topics in a sinful light are places
where sexuality is misused, or in the wrong context (e.g. out of marriage).

-Steve

    Corinth was a vibrant Feminist spiritual oasis.
    
    It's all a matter of perspective.
    
    
                                           Patricia
    
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    I hate to disappoint you but temple prostitution was rampant in the
    Corinthian culture.  It was considered a sacred part of Baal worship in
    that society.
    
    -Jack

 I posted .15 as I found discussing the "sexual orientation" of the Lord Jesus
 Christ to be offensive, if not blasphemous.




 Jim

    So you say Jack.
    
    
    Sacred Marriage as a real spiritual ritual as part of a cultures
    religious practice is something I can understand and see the value and
    beauty in.  That is not the same thing as saying temple prostitution
    was rampant in Corinthian culture.  The real sore point to many men was
    not that sex was part of the sacred tradition but that woman were
    priestesses..
    
     

    It's not just Jack who says it.  Pick up any history book on the
    ancient city of Corinth.  The temple was placed there to worship
    Aphrodite.  The "priestesses" were there all day long to have sex with 
    men on the temple altars as part of their worship to Aphrodite.  Needless 
    to say it was a very popular port of call with the sailors as well as the
    locals.  No matter what you call it, it was prostitution at its
    sickest.  
    
    Mike

    I will research it.  I know it was something discuss for only a minute
    in my Corinthian Letters course and the instructor identified it as a
    rumor.  I will let you know what I find out.
    
                                  patricia

    .34
    
    Actually, Corinth was a hotbed of religious fervor of *many* kinds.
    
    It's not hard to understand why this was the situation when you realize
    what a busy port in the Mediterranean Corinth was.
    
    So far, it's been made to sound like there were only two to choose
    from: either keepin' it zipped under the 'staight-laced' early church
    or doinkin' in some temple of a Greek goddess.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Actually Richard, there were still only two modes of worship.  There
    was the church that propogated the Christian faith or their were many
    religions under the umbrella of Baal worship, similar to modern India.
    
    Remember the young man in 1 Corinth. 5?  He had sex with his fathers
    wife.  The horrible sin was what he did but what was worse in my mind
    was that the Church was condoning it.  They were a very free society
    indeed!
    
    -Jack

    Re: modern India
    
    it isn't just Hinduism.  Islam has several hundred variants/sects as
    well.
    
    Mike

>    Islam has several hundred variants/sects as well.

More than Christianity?

At least Islam worships our God, the God of Abraham, YHWH.

/john

    .36  I understand you're bias.  It's clear and simple.  No messy
    edges to be concerned about.  No vacillation or doubt.  No questions
    of serious consequence.  No anxiety, except over those who've come to
    a different conclusion.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    I respect the rights of the people to worship their deity, be it the
    God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, or a god carved out of Gold.  As I
    stated, 1st Corinthians 5 is a prime example of the conditions brought
    on by Baal Worship.  Rome also provides excellent examples!!
    
    -Jack

    actually first corinthian 5 is thought to be an example of the Gnostic
    influence not Baal worship.  Gnosticism with it believe that the flesh
    was evil and only the spirit was pure, often went in two directions
    around sexually.
    
    Abstinance because it was part of Evil Flesh,
    
    or
    
    Do what you want, because the flesh did not matter anyways.

    For the reader who might not be aware, "baal" is not neccessarily the
    proper name of a particular deity.  Baal (pronounced sorta like bay-uhl)
    can mean simply "lord."
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    >At least Islam worships our God, the God of Abraham, YHWH.
    
    ...which is Jesus Christ (see John 8:58 among others) who Islam rejects
    as God.

re .43

As do the Unitarians*, about half the Congregationalists, and numerous other
people who consider themselves Christians, not to mention the Jews.

They are in error by not accepting Christ as true God of true God, but I
wouldn't go so far as to lump them in with those who have been lured into
worshipping a completely different (and thus either non-existant or demonic)
god.

	*Here I include only the original Unitarians as they
	 constituted themselves before the merger with the
	 Universalists.

/john

    jim henderson,
    
    re: your reply .31
    
    i not quite sure i understand your position in regards the
    sexual orientation of Jesus and why you find it "offensive".
    
    i could easily understand (offensive) if someone had written
    that Jesus had a wild affair with John or Mary Magdelene, since
    those actions could be considered sinful.
    
    an orientation, however, is a state of being.
    
    is it possible that you believe that being gay is inherently
    evil?
    
    peter
    

      Hi Peter,
    
        Our flesh is inherently evil!  Give Romans 7 a read some 
        time!  Its a weird concept, but the Bible attributes the
        sinful lusts that pull on the mind to have their source
        in the flesh.
    
        Much of the source of the desire to do wrong is the flesh.
        It *IS* fallen.
    
        As I believe that homosexual acts is sin, I have no problem
        if Jesus' flesh was laden with this 'lust', but I would have
        a problem if anyone proposed that His flesh was not crucified
        and that He submitted to its pull.
    
                                                     Tony
                       

    thanks, Tony..
    
    i have no trouble understanding your position here but
    this is not exactly what i understand that Jim Henderson
    is maintaining.
    
    Jim wasn't saying that stating that Jesus took our flesh
    (which is inherently evil) is offensive and blasphemous
    but that suggesting that Jesus might have *been* gay was..
    unless i misunderstood him.
    
    of course, i can readily relate to the thought that Jesus
    was gay but did not sin.
    
    peter

RE:       <<< Note 988.45 by RDVAX::ANDREWS "twinkle, twinkle little bat" >>>
                                -< i'm puzzled >-

   > jim henderson,
    
   > re: your reply .31
    
   > i not quite sure i understand your position in regards the
   > sexual orientation of Jesus and why you find it "offensive".
    
   
   I find it offensive as 1) The Bible is quite clear (despite protestations
   by some to the contrary) that homosexuality is sinful, 2) we are talking 
   about God Himself who was on this earth in human form and applying to 
   Him the sinfulness of humans, about which the Bible is quite clear that
   He was without sin.  3) His mission here on earth had nothing whatsoever
   to do with sexuality, but of seeking and saving those who are lost.

    
 
 >   is it possible that you believe that being gay is inherently
 >   evil?
    
  
   I believe that homosexuality is sinful. Inherently evil?  Not anymore
   inherently evil than other sinful activities in which humans engage.



 Jim    

    jim,
    
    let me put it another way...
    
    is being gay..just being, not doing..sinful?
    
    from you have written it appears to me that you think so...
    
    peter

RE:       <<< Note 988.49 by RDVAX::ANDREWS "twinkle, twinkle little bat" >>>
                             -< essence vs action >-

       
   > let me put it another way...
    
   > is being gay..just being, not doing..sinful?
    

     As I have read and understood the Scriptures, right now I believe
     it is not.




   >  from you have written it appears to me that you think so...
    
    Sorry to have mis-lead you.



 Jim

    There is absolutely no proof that either Jesus or Paul were predisposed
    to homosexuality.
    
    While we're on the subject, it has been implied in the past (can't
    provide pointers) that David and Jonathan were gay or had a homosexual
    love for each other.  Again, I submit that there is absolutely no
    substantiation to this claim either!
    
    -Jack

>        As I believe that homosexual acts is sin, I have no problem
>        if Jesus' flesh was laden with this 'lust', but I would have
>        a problem if anyone proposed that His flesh was not crucified
>        and that He submitted to its pull.
    
    If Jesus had *ANY* sin, He couldn't have been the Messiah nor could He
    have been that spotless Lamb to atone for the sins of the world.
    
    Mike

      re: .47
    
      Hi Peter,
    
        I am not comfortable with the 'being gay' idea.  We know
        that several behaviors have their source of origin that 
        is (at least largely) the flesh.
    
        Christianity is an experience wherein there is involved
        a literal tranformation of mind.
    
        So, hypothetically, a person could suffer from the propensity
        (or pull) toward homosexual behavior, but submit his/her mind
        to the propensity (or pull) of the Spirit.  Not to suggest that
        the time duration of transformation is immediate, but the MIND
        itself is transformed from one set of behaviors (sinful) to
        a whole other (sinless).
    
        To me, the essence of Christianity is the heart-change and the
        realm of behaviors encompassed by the heart-change are all that
        is sinful.  God really can renovate the heart!
    
        Peter, I really don't know your posture toward what is and what
        is not sin, but I have no problem with sharing with you the 
        deep conviction that WE ALL are better equipped to discern just
        what is sin AND the gift of turning away from it (repentance) as
        we behold the cross.
    
        My greatest need in this world is to better see the love expressed
        there and as I do, I am more sensitive as to knowing what is sin
        and what is righteoussness and I am more willing to permit God
        to give me His heart (even the righteoussness of Christ).
    
                                                    Tony

    .52 is not true.  "Messiah" does not mean "sinless one."  The notion
    of necessary sinlessness is dogma.  Some do not make a distinction.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.46

>       Our flesh is inherently evil!

I don't buy this either.  God said it was good.  Give Genesis 1 a read
sometime.

Furthermore, such a statement serves to undergird the sexual negativity
Patricia alluded to earlier.

Shalom,
Richard

    Dearest Richard, 
    
    >.52 is not true.  "Messiah" does not mean "sinless one."  The notion
>    of necessary sinlessness is dogma.  Some do not make a distinction.
    
   He will be God, the Eternal Father -
                   Isaiah 9:6                    John 8:58, John 20:28,
                                                 Revelation 2:8
    
   Shall Be Immanuel - Isaiah 7:14           Matthew 1:23, Luke 7:16
           (God With Us)

    Can God sin?  
    
II Corinthians 5:21
For he hath made him to be sin for us, WHO KNEW NO SIN; that we might be made
the righteousness of God in him.

    regards,
    Mike

    Correct!  Just as the sacrifice for the burnt offering MUST be an
    unblemished lamb.  Any other was unacceptable to God.  This is not
    dogma.  God required what is referred to in Isaiah 9 as "a sin
    offering"  A sin offering had to be without mark, speckle, and
    unblemished...a perfect sacrifice.  
    
    -Jack

    .56
    
    Dearest Michael,
    
    	I did not say that the Christ sinned, only that a state of
    sinlessness was not a requirement of the anticipated Messiah.  It's
    erroneous to state without equivocation that it was.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard, God through Isaiah (chapter 9 which Jack just referenced) said
    otherwise.

    .57
    
    It *is* dogma - or you don't know the meaning of the word.
    DOGMA <1. a doctrine; tenet; belief 2. doctrines; tenets; beliefs>
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .59
    
    	Chapter 9 of Isaiah speaks of a future king basing his power on
    right and justice.
    
    	Tell me, were the ancient Jews anticipating "the sinless one" or
    "the annointed one"?
    
    	Where in chapter 9 of Isaiah does it say "above all, sinlessness
    will be required of the Messiah"?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .57
    
        I suggest that you are speaking about a chapter in the Hebrew
    Bible other than Isaiah 9.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      re: .55
    
      Hi Richard,
    
        Regarding the flesh, your position and logic are excellent
        save for the notion that man's flesh underwent a change.
    
        I believe it did and for support suggest you take a concordance
        and read (especially New Testament) scriptures which contain
        the word flesh.  I especially recommend Romans and Galatians.
    
        I'd be interested in you posting the flesh texts in Romans
        and Galatians and any other scripture you would like and 
        (with that) defending the position that our flesh did not 
        undergo any change.  (And by inherent, I mean inherent to that
        flesh after it changed, i.e. after the fall.)
    
                                                 Tony
                                                     

    My apologies, the reference was not Isaiah 9; rather, it was Isaiah 53.
    
    "And he made his grave with the wicked, and with the rich in his death;
    because he had done no violence, neither was any deceit found in his
    mouth.  Yet it pleased the Lord to bruise Him; for he hathe put him to 
    grief.  And He (God) shall make his (Christ) soul a sin offering; he
    shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasures of the
    Lord shall prosper in his hand....(Key section) - He shall see the
    travail of His soul, and SHALL BE SATISFIED.  By his knowledge shall my 
    RIGHTEOUS servant justify many; for He shall bear their iniquities."
    Isaiah 53:9-11.
    
    There are three very key points in this passage:
    
    1. He is referred to as one who had no deceit and had done no violence.
    
    2. He expands on this later when God refers to Jesus as, "My Righteous
       Servant.  The Psalmist David in Psalm 22 says there is none
       righteous, no not one!  There is no one who doeth good.  Yet here
       God refers to Jesus as good!  Only sinlessness or sacrifice for sin
       can restore fellowship with God.  Jesus needed to qualify to bear
       the iniquities of the world.
    
    3. This is key.  The book of Leviticus focuses on the different
       sacrifices, particularly the ceremonial sacrifices.  It was required 
       that a sin offering (What Messiah is referred to here), must be a
       lamb, bull, or goat that is without blemish, spot, or mark.  It must
       be perfect in every way; otherwise, it was unacceptable to God to 
       atone for the sin of Israel.
    
    Richard, if the belief in Christ' sinlessness is a dogma, then it is a
    belief because it is heavily supported.
    
    -Jack 
    

    Tony,
    
    It is Paul's discussion of the flesh that lead some to the conclusion
    that Paul had a homosexual orientation.
    
    There are passages that clearly show that he was tormented by the
    desires of his own flesh.
    
    Now there are two ways of interpreting these.  One that the flesh is
    evil.  The other is that Paul was deeply tormented at times by his
    sexual desires and found wonderful Grace to overcome that torment.
    
    One can either look at the object of what Paul found tormenting and
    build one's theology around that 
    
                                or
    One can look at the inner reality within Paul and understand how Grace
    allows him to overcome his gravest temptations.  
    
    I choose the second.  I know my "addictions" my "nerdiness"  those
    things that make me feel less of a person than I want to be.  It is
    those things that I turn to the divine for and pray for God's Grace to
    help me overcome.
    
    In this way, Paul uses Sexual desires as an example, not as the
    Absolute Evil which we need to overcome.  Many things can be
    substituted for the example Paul uses,   Alcohol, Gossiping, Chronic
    Blaming, Gambling, Avoiding one's feelings, avoiding intimate
    relationships, quarreling, self righteousness, egoism, selfishness,
    need for material security, greed, overeating, etc etc etc.
    
    The need is for each of us to examine ourselves first, not others and
    know which of this list or other list is the thing that is "sinful" for
    us and then believe that the Divine can provide the Grace necessary to
    transcent that "lust".
    
                                        Patricia 

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I'm not sure about your conclusion mainly because of what
        I see as the overall context of the books of Romans and
        Galatians.  For example, the book of Romans is quite an
        exposition on the gospel - surely the most thorough of all
        the Bible.
    
        Its entire application is _universal_; we all, as we behold
        the mirror of James 1 (the perfect law of liberty) see defects
        in our character.  Paul certainly beheld that mirror.
    
        I presently have difficulty taking a letter such as Romans,
        finding it to have universal application, and finding it to
        be an exposition of the gospel and with that context concluding 
        that Paul implies what his specific 'lusts of the flesh' were.
    
        The only wrench in my stance I can see is the possible assertion
        that only SOME people can have the struggle Paul alludes to in
        Romans 7,8.  However, I don't see it that way.  My understanding
        is that should someone not personally know of the struggle of
        Romans 7, that person has probably not beheld the mirror to a
        whole lot of depth.  Such a person is probably more prone to 
        turn away from that mirror (see James 1:21-25).
    
        I see Romans 7 as describing a person who has seen the standard
        of righteoussness to a fairly deep extent and thus seen (in
        contrast) his own wretchedness.  That person finally found deliver-
        ance in Christ.
    
        He didn't turn away.
    
        To summarize...the themes from where you make your stand are so
        broad in application that I don't understand how it can be known
        that one single 'lust of the flesh' then obviously describes the
        specific experience of Paul.
    
        His work is not autobiographical; it is one of being a slave and
        thus a conveyer of the gospel.
    
        How do you conclude what his specific problem was by the way?
        How do you know without any uncertainty that perhaps he was
        a kleptomaniac or something?
    
                                                       Tony

    There are many different clues.
    
    1. It is obvious that he sees the sexual urges as being very difficult
    to control.  He sees his flesh as being sinful flesh.  He describes his
    torment at wanting to do what is right and yet being tempted by sinful
    flesh.
    
    2.  Celebacy provides comfort and a spiritual gift for him.  
    
    3.  He defines sex within marriage to be OK but does not describe it as
    being any real joy.  It's benefits are that it frees one from Physical
    longings.  He despairs at his physical longing, agrees marriage is OK
    and yet does not get married.
    
    4.  He talks about an undefined affliction and how he prayed three
    times for god to remove that affliction and his answer was as I
    remember that he has what he needs to overcome the affect of that
    affliction.  I believe it is that affliction he describes that is his
    homosexual orientation.
    
    (I also must admit, that I did not figure this out myself.  John
    Spong's book (my memory of it anyways) is my source.
    
                              Patricia 

    Patricia, are you saying Paul's "thorn in the flesh" is homosexuality?
    
>    1. It is obvious that he sees the sexual urges as being very difficult
>    to control.  He sees his flesh as being sinful flesh.  He describes his
>    torment at wanting to do what is right and yet being tempted by sinful
>    flesh.
    
    I have the same problem.
    
>    2.  Celebacy provides comfort and a spiritual gift for him.  
    
    I can't answer this.
    
>    3.  He defines sex within marriage to be OK but does not describe it as
>    being any real joy.  It's benefits are that it frees one from Physical
>    longings.  He despairs at his physical longing, agrees marriage is OK
>    and yet does not get married.
    
    I agree with Paul here too.
    
>    4.  He talks about an undefined affliction and how he prayed three
>    times for god to remove that affliction and his answer was as I
>    remember that he has what he needs to overcome the affect of that
>    affliction.  I believe it is that affliction he describes that is his
>    homosexual orientation.
    
    I've prayed for afflictions too in the past that I still have.
    
    I guess I better tell my beautiful wife and 4 children that I'm a
    homosexual since I agreed with Paul on 3 of the 4 above.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    Make it 2 out of 4.  You got married and Paul didn't. 
    
    How about the joy in sex?
    
    2 out of 4 doesn't cut it.  

    .64  I know where you're coming from and I know it seems perfectly
    logical and acceptable to you.  This is sincere, not sarcasm.
    
    It is, nevertheless, dogma.
    
    It is also a matter of interpretation, as is evident by your use of
    parentheses.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

  >>      It is also a matter of interpretation, as is evident by your use of
  >>      parentheses.
    
    I used parenthesis for our wonderful readers out there.  Grammatically,
    I was distinguishing between the 1st person and the 2nd person.  
    
    Incidently, what is dogma anyway?  It is a belief correct?  It is a
    belief based on some frame of logic, source, or fiction.  If what I 
    believe is dogma, it is based on logic and a source which follows a
    sequence.  Therefore, dogma or not, it is substantiated.
    
    -Jack

>    Make it 2 out of 4.  You got married and Paul didn't. 
>    
>    How about the joy in sex?
    
    I think sex is overrated.  So now what?

    .72
    
    Gosh, I've *never* thought *sex* was overrated.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.71
    
>    I used parenthesis for our wonderful readers out there.  Grammatically,
>    I was distinguishing between the 1st person and the 2nd person.

I think I might give our wonderful readers out there a little more credit
than you have, then.

Richard
    

    
      Patricia,
    
        I found the analysis to be a stretch.  I'm not denying that
        Paul might have had homosexual tendencies, I'm just saying
        that I don't see _proof_.
    
        I think the world 'overrates' sex.  And I also think that
        if we saw things as Jesus did on earth, we would (to para-
        phrase Paul) live as though we were not married.  That is...
        both partners, being one flesh (one in Spirit) would not
        stroke each other and would be 'poured offerings giving all
        that they had for the restoration of the world.
    
                                                   Tony

    Tony,
    
    I never said that there was proof.  I said, I believe that Paul was a
    nonpracticing Homosexual based on my reading of the Bible and my
    agreeing with John Spong.
    
    There is absolutely no proof regarding most issues regarding Biblical
    Criticism.  We are dealing with manuscripts 2000 years old with little
    independent evidence verifying those records.
    
    A question I find important is, If we could embrace the possibility it
    were true, how might it impact our reading of scripture.  How might it
    impact the meaning of Paul's writing for us today.
    
    We could in fact define Paul's affliction as any affliction and ask the
    same question.  I think the answers are relevant even if we cannot be
    100% sure of what the affliction is.
    
    
    The reaction to the thought that either Paul or Jesus could have had a
    homosexual orientation demands the recognition of exactly what we think
    the sin is.
    
    Is the sin having a homosexual orientation or is the sin same sex
    intercourse.  And if two  people with a homosexual orientation have
    a relationship with each other, where is the line drawn between a
    approved relationship and a 'sinful' one?
    
    
    

 >>   I think I might give our wonderful readers out there a little more
 >>   credit than you have, then.
    
    Yes...then again...you didn't understand it until I explained it to you
    either! :-)

    .77  Not true and I don't believe your explanation.
    
    Richard
    

Naaayyhhh                  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
                      oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
                   oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o         o$   $$ o$
   o $ oo        o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o       $$ $$ $$o$
oo $ $ "$      o$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$o       $$$o$$o$
"$$$$$$o$     o$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$o    $$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$  """$$$
   "$$$""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     "$$$
    $$$   o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     "$$$o
   o$$"   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       $$$o
   $$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" "$$$$$$ooooo$$$$o
  o$$$oooo$$$$$  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$"$$$$   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     $$$$""""""""
 """"       $$$$    "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"      o$$$
            "$$$o     """$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"$$"         $$$
              $$$o          "$$""$$$$$$""""           o$$$
               $$$$o                 oo             o$$$"
                "$$$$o      o$$$$$$o"$$$$o        o$$$$
                  "$$$$$oo     ""$$$$o$$$$$o   o$$$$""
                     ""$$$$$oooo  "$$$o$$$$$$$$$"""
                        ""$$$$$$$oo $$$$$$$$$$
                                """"$$$$$$$$$$$
                                    $$$$$$$$$$$$
                                     $$$$$$$$$$"
Have a nice day!!!                    "$$$""""

>    There is absolutely no proof regarding most issues regarding Biblical
>    Criticism.  We are dealing with manuscripts 2000 years old with little
>    independent evidence verifying those records.
    
    You mean all the works of Josephus, Philo, and all the Roman officials
    of the era don't count?!

    Count for what?

    count as "little independent evidence"?  I think there's a lot more
    than a little independent evidence!

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I think I see where you're coming from.  Christ is of little
        good to us unless in His human experience, it can be said that
        He reached down to the muck and mire of what I am (yet without
        sin).
    
        I have no problem with the possibility that Jesus had the
        peculiar 'lust' of homosexuality.  I would only insist that if
        He did, He was without sin.  That is, He crucified every pull
        of the flesh.
    
        I think we might disagree as to what is temptation and what is 
        sin.  James seems to define sin as a thought 'harbored.'  There
        is a verse that says that even our minds can be brought into
        captivity to God.  I do not think Jesus harbored a single sinful
        thought.  We need not 'cut the chord' at whether or not the
        physical act was ever committed.  It goes well before that for
        Jesus.  The harbored thought was not even there!
    
        And if Jesus did not suffer from the desire to commit a certain
        particular sin that I might be afflicted with, does that make Him
        a Savior not nigh at hand?  I don't think so for I believe the
        real issue are the alienations that arise from the struggle.  The
        feeling of forsakenness; the pressing to the heart that God cannot
        accept one such as me.  
    
        In other words, from the perspective of all the psychological 
        dynamics that are involved with 'feeling oneself to be that
        sinner', Christ reached all the way down to the bottom of that
        pit and demonstrates that the great chasm of feeling forsaken 
        by God can be bridged!
    
                                                     Tony

    But tony,
    
    Don't you see, that the other side of the alienation due to the
    struggle is the experience of salvation also due to the struggle?
    Without the real struggle, we can have neither?
    
    As humans we can freely choose to be alienated or freely choose to be
    part of God's plan for us.  This is the choice we have and it is the
    choice Jesus modeled.
    
                               Patricia

      Sorry Patricia, I don't follow you!
    
                                              Tony

    Curiosity Question to anybody who might be leaning in this direction.
    
    Why would anybody who believes in Jesus Christ want to openly entertain
    the dabbling into witchcraft?
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Define believes in
    
    Define witchcraft
    
    and maybe I can explain.  To me many pastors and priests fpractice
    magic on a daily basis, regardless of what they want to call it.
    
    meg

Z    Define believes in
        
Z    Define witchcraft
    
    I understand that knowledge is powerful.  Are you asking me to define
    witchcraft or are you saying that people dabble in order to define
    witchcraft?  If it is the first, then I see witchcraft as the worship
    of the created, that being the elements recently listed in womannotes.
    If it is the second, then I see knowledge as useful in combating idol
    worship.  
    -Jack
    

    sometimes I wonder about the opposite.
    
    Why would anyone who seriously believed in the interconnected web of
    all existence want to dabble in a religion so often defined narrowly
    and exclusive to the few!

    Jack,
    
    OK, I will assume your question is an honest question, even though it
    could have been asked in not quite as disparaging a way.
    
    I am very interested in both Christianity and in Paganism.  I believe
    that Neo-Paganism, or the Paganism of today  is needed because it
    affirms the feminine face of the Divine and because it is earth
    centered and body centered where Christianity tends to be Male,
    dualistic, anti body, and thereby anti earth.
    
    Stealing a line from "The Mist of Avolon"  I believe that all Gods are
    one god.  THere is one divine reality.  Somepeople experience that
    reality through Jesus Christ.  Some experience it through the Goddess,
    some experience it through other forms.  Once one realizes that it is
    the same reality behind the form of worship, then one is free to
    "dabble" in whatever form of worship that brings them closest to that
    divine reality.
    

    Jesus said it himself, "Many are called but few are chosen". 
    Christianity is exclusive to the few because of a lack of faith, not
    because it's a club.
    
    You used the word narrow and I commend you for it, "Narrow is the way
    which leads to life and few are those who find it."  The words of the
    master himself.  Do you believe?
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    When I ask your definition of witchcraft, it is because i need to know
    what you think it is before I can give you a straight answer. 
    
    This is the same reason I ask what you mean by believing in Jesus.
    
    I would then be happy to answer your question as understandably as I
    can.
    
    meg

    Jack,
    
    A god who chooses only the "few" at the expense of the many,  is not a
    god I would choose to follow.  I maintain my interest in Christianity
    only because of the good Christians I know who have a larger vision of
    what Christianity is all about.  I have no desire to belong to any
    exclusive club.

    Patricia:
    
    You and I had an agreement on an issue about seven months ago.  It was
    a momentous occasion. :-)  I recall us discussing the issue of God and
    gender and I thought we both came to the same conclusion that God is
    genderless.  God is not man nor is God woman.  I believe the use of the 
    word, "He", is strictly as a frame of reference...nothing more.
    
    Therefore, the usage of the goddess for the purpose of identifying the
    feminine side of God is...kind of a moot exercise don't you think? 
    What's the point of it and moreover, why on GOD's green earth would one
    want to use Paganism as a vehicle for this?  Seems it would be more
    honoring to God to call God "she", rather than bringing the whole wicca
    thing into it!
    
    -Jack

    I for one choose Wicca over the brand of Christianity that treats the
    Bible as a divine object.  I see no substantial difference between Wicca
    and a more enlightened kind of Christianity.  Between those two the
    difference is in form.  For me, the Christian Bible, while having some
    wonderful insight is not enough.  It has too few real, significant, and
    powerful stories about women.  It needs to be supplemented if not
    rewritten.   IMHO.

    One exception Patricia,
    
    We don't believe in christ as a "son of Mom"  and we don't believe in
    g-d's evil twin.  
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    My understanding of Wicca isn't so much the nonsensical stigma we grow
    up with.  I see witchcraft and New Ageism as going hand in hand.  
    
    Question, why would such a high degree of esteem be put upon the forces
    such as fire, water, air, and earth?  Why would one want to use these
    forces as symbolic of the attributes of God?  They are so mundane in
    light of the power of God, they don't do God justice.
    
    -Jack 

    jack,
    
    Well you didn't really answer my questions, but I think it is a
    difference in definitions.  Wicca and "the craft" and "witchcraft" are
    all different to me.  
    
    Witchcraft is the practice of magic.  This can be as simple as
    imploring a diety to help one with health, wealth, vision,
    patience..... all the way to asking something to be changed.  I
    consider what certain people do around their communions to be working
    magic or practicing witchcraft.
    
    Wiccan's come in flavors of goddess worship just as Christians come in
    their beliefs, from high ritual and nothing else is correct, to more
    informal celebratory groups.  Some groups are "New Agey" and some are
    more into the old ways, Celtic, Native American, Indo-European, and
    others.  Ceremonies, rituals, sabbaths, masses, meetings or whathaveyou
    vary as well.
    
    So, I guess what I am asking, is what do you really want to know about
    us?
    
    meg
    
    

    Well, your last note told me alot.  I didn't realise Wicca and
    Witchcraft were mutually exclusive but now that I see the terminology,
    I can understand how that would be the case.
    
    In as far as what I want to know about wiccans, I imagine there are
    whole books on the subject and from what you said, different flavors to
    boot.  What I was really asking is how can one who believes in Jesus
    Christ as Lord and Savior dabble in worship contrary to the teachings
    of Jesus, i.e. worshiping other gods, etc.?
    
    -Jack

		There shall be no strange god among you
		  nor shall you worship any alien god.
		I, the Lord, am your God
		  who led you forth from the land of Egypt.

					-- Psalm 81

    Well Meg,
    
    I do believe that we are all "children of Mom"  I don't believe in
    God's evil twin either.  For me the concept of the Devil is really
    bizarre in Christian theology since God is identified as the creator of
    everthing and God is all identified as all powerful, it is
    inconceivable then that an all powerful, good, loving God would create
    the Devil.  I believe in the power of myth and the power of metaphor. 
    I do see much in both Neo Paganism and in Christianity as myth and
    metaphor.
    
                                         Patricia

    re .100
    
    A psalm from the pre monotheistic days of Israel when Yahweh was seen
    as the tribal God of the Israeli's competing with the alien tribal
    Gods.

Christians also don't believe in God's evil twin.

That is dualism, not Christianity.

Satan is not a twin, but a being created by God, who chose to rebel against
God and to recruit others into his opposing army.

/john

    But it is conceivable that God created angels.  It is also possible
    that angels were created with free volition.  
    
    The perception we have of the devil, or the deceiver, is conjured from
    folklore and from myth.  The pitchfork thing and the horns are of
    course nonsense; however, this doesn't by any means discredit the fact
    that Lucifer exists.  
    
    Jesus believed in Lucifer, why shouldn't I?
    
    -Jack

    Most people in the first century believed in real good and evil spirits
    inhabiting the world.  They lived in a time of a mythic world view.

    John,
    
    Reading the way many christians write in this and other files, it
    appears to me, (but I am not montheistic) that the amount of attention
    focused on your dark "angel" is to the point of deification.  Given the
    "devil made me do it" attitudes of many this is also deification, for I
    believe that only a god can influence a person (without coercion) to do
    something which they know to be wrong or karmically bad unless they
    decide to do it for reasons of their own.  
    
    jack
    
    Recognition of what makes the world in the calling of earth, air, fire
    water (depending on the circle) spirit, is why these are called.  They
    are all part of the universe, and mom and her consort made tht.  It
    helps focus one on what is being celebrated.  I've called quarters in
    circles for handfastings (weddings), sabbaths, moon circles,
    celebrations of life (memorial/funeral services), births, welcoming a
    new baby to a circle, naming ceremonies.................
    
    If your god isn't part of your earth and the world and universe than
    what is it?
    
    meg

>    de debbil made me buy dat dress

The devil is the tempter; one can only honestly blame ones self for acting
upon temptation.  Blaming someone else only compounds the sin, and is not
Christian teaching.

>    If your god isn't part of your earth and the world and universe than
>    what is it?
    
He is the creator of the earth and the world and the universe, of all that
is, seen and unseen.

He is both immanent (in his creation) but also transcendant (exists outside,
before, after, and independent of his creation).

/john

    so around god(s) and their creations we agree.  
    
    As far as I am concerned the only thing that tempts me is me.  I own my
    stuff for being tempted, as well as for acting on it.  I certainly
    don't elevate my temptations to some being or diety outside of me.  
    
    meg

    Creating gods to account for the human condition that the Bible
    explains quite clearly.  I see a general theme that rationalizes away 
    personal responsibility and accountability in some areas of life.  
    
    What I find amazing is that we seem to be a culture that seems to be
    de-evolving into supersticion, creating gods to explain our behaviors,
    events and thoughts.  If we really define "God" as an all-powerful
    being, then there can only be one.  If there are many, then such a
    concept is made irrelevant, and we are free to follow whatever path we
    chose, with no consequences (or judgement) for our actions.  After all,
    if there are many gods, who will judge you?  You may very well decide
    to follow an "evil" god and are only subject to its judgement on your
    deathbed.  Or, you can follow many gods, each of which defines goodness
    differently.
    
    I admit to taking this note one step beyond what it written in .109,
    but this is the logical conclusion.
    
    
    -steve

>    explains quite clearly.  I see a general theme that rationalizes away 
>    personal responsibility and accountability in some areas of life.  

    Well, I don't see the same thing.  The law of karma - what you do to
    others you also do to yourself - is a major theme of many pagan religions.
    There is direct accountability for whatever you do.  Contrast this
    with a Messiah that "forgives" you.  It seems the personal accountability
    is more lacking in many Christian circles.
    
>    What I find amazing is that we seem to be a culture that seems to be
>    de-evolving into supersticion, 

    Priests transubstantiating wine into blood?  This doesn't strike you
    as superstition?

>    creating gods to explain our behaviors,
>    events and thoughts.

    Most of these gods were around *long* before Moses was dumped in
    the swamp.

>    If we really define "God" as an all-powerful
>    being, then there can only be one.

    Well, in the Hindu tradition, there *is* only one god.  Shiva,
    Vishnu and Brahma (and the others) are simply different aspects
    of the same one.  The creator, the sustainer and the destroyer.

>    If there are many, then such a
>    concept is made irrelevant, and we are free to follow whatever path we
>    chose, with no consequences (or judgement) for our actions.

    See above comment on karma.

>    After all,
>    if there are many gods, who will judge you?  

    You will.  And you can be a far harsher judge of yourself than
    any loving god.

>    You may very well decide
>    to follow an "evil" god and are only subject to its judgement on your
>    deathbed.  Or, you can follow many gods, each of which defines goodness
>    differently.

    See above comment on karma.
    
>    I admit to taking this note one step beyond what it written in .109,
>    but this is the logical conclusion.

    It just doesn't sound like you know your pagans.

    Tom

|    Well, I don't see the same thing.  The law of karma - what you do to
|    others you also do to yourself - is a major theme of many pagan religions.
|    There is direct accountability for whatever you do.  Contrast this
|    with a Messiah that "forgives" you.  It seems the personal accountability
|    is more lacking in many Christian circles.
    
    Comments like this shows that one doesn't understand the purpose of the
    cross and accepting Christ as their Savior.

>    Comments like this shows that one doesn't understand the purpose of the
>    cross and accepting Christ as their Savior.

    Comments like this show that the author has taken an answer out of
    context.

    The comment I was responding to was "pagan religions have no 
    personal accountability."  I answered that this was indeed not
    the case and that some "Christians" abdicate their own responsibility
    because whatever they do they figure they'll be forgiven.

    Tom

    I never said "pagan religions have no personal accountability".  Please
    read my note again.
    
    
    -steve

RE: -.1
>    I never said "pagan religions have no personal accountability".  Please
>    read my note again.

Your first note said:

>    Creating gods to account for the human condition that the Bible
>    explains quite clearly.  I see a general theme that rationalizes away 
>    personal responsibility and accountability in some areas of life.  

How are they different?

Tom

|    personal accountability."  I answered that this was indeed not
|    the case and that some "Christians" abdicate their own responsibility
|    because whatever they do they figure they'll be forgiven.
    
    well this is an improvement.  I didn't notice the quotes around
    'Christians' before.
    
    Christianity *REQUIRES* accountability and humility to our God and
    Savior.

RE: .115
    
>>    I never said "pagan religions have no personal accountability".  Please
>>    read my note again.
    
>Your first note said:

>>    Creating gods to account for the human condition that the Bible
>>    explains quite clearly.  I see a general theme that rationalizes away 
>>    personal responsibility and accountability in some areas of life.  

>How are they different?

    There's plenty of difference.  I was accused of saying that pegan
    religions have NO personal accountability.  What I said above is quite
    different.  I said "I see a general theme that rationalizes away
    personal responsibility and accountability **in some areas of life**.
    
    My statement was not all-inclusive.
    
    
    -steve

    Kind of like comparing these two sayings...
    
    "Money is the root of all evil". Wrong...
    
    "The Love of money is the root to all KINDS of evil"  Correct...

    Or kind of like saying "man is depraved" therefore there is stuff in
    the world we would rather not deal with.  
    
    Sorry, don't buy it.  Mom has a definite set of rules that I follow
    regarding treating others, with or without any superstitions, just as
    some others have the same in their christian beliefs.  
    
    However showing up for my next rebirth and saying I should be forgiven
    for being a rotten human and shouldn't have to learn fromo my mistakes
    isn't wone of them.
    
    meg

 Z   However showing up for my next rebirth and saying I should be forgiven
 Z   for being a rotten human and shouldn't have to learn fromo my
 Z   mistakes isn't wone of them.
    
    Why's that...other than pride?

|    However showing up for my next rebirth and saying I should be forgiven
|    for being a rotten human and shouldn't have to learn fromo my mistakes
|    isn't wone of them.
    
    I agree.