Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    ...you forgot One Religion - the most sinister of all aspects of the
    New World Order.  I believe Revelation touches on this subject.
    
    Mike

re Note 1009.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Exactly what's so sinister about the potentiality and what's so upsetting
> to the Religious Right has yet to be explained, at least, to me.
  
        The Religious Right's program to take over this nation is
        well under way, whereas they haven't made much progress in
        taking over the rest of the world.

        Bob

Re: .1 Mike

>    ...you forgot One Religion - the most sinister of all aspects of the
>    New World Order.

I agree that the concept of there being One Religion is pretty sinister,
but I thought that this was what the religious right *wanted*.

				-- Bob

    Christianity isn't a religion.  Religion is man's attempt to reach God.

Re: .4 Mike

> Religion is man's attempt to reach God.

... which is exactly what Christianity is, as practiced by most people.

				-- Bob

I, too, thought the goal *was* one religion, as long as it is yours.

Without being facetious, isn't your goal to convert everyone in the world?

Steve

>Without being facetious, isn't your goal to convert everyone in the world?


Scripture is rather clear that everyone in the world will not be converted.
We (Christians) cannot convert anyone.  We are commanded in Matthew 28:19
and 20 to teach all nations.  Its the Word of God and the Holy Sprit working
in tandem that do the converting.  Most, will reject the teaching, however.



Jim

	Steve, Jim is right, as a Christian can not convert anyone. Only God
can. An excellent example of this is Mike Heiser's reply in the Dahmer topic
about how others have seen his life change from him knowing God. From
questions, to taking actions, all done on their own. 



Glen

 re .8



 I've also seen people "converted" whom I had never met before.  Example:
 One evening on visitation our pastor asked to visit a woman who had attended
 our church.  Off we went, armed with her address and apartment number.  We
 get to her building, walk up the stairs, and somehow or other knocked on the
 wrong door.  A man comes to the door, we ask for the woman we are to visit.
 "she doesn't live here" he responds.  Oh. We ask if he knows her. "No" he 
 responds.  OK..so, we introduce ourselves and identify our church and begin
 a conversation.  Turns out this man had been reading his bible for several
 weeks and was not sure how to be saved.  He asked us, and of course , we 
 obliged..


 One can show Christ through his life, no question about that.  However, that
is not to say that "door to door" evangelism is not to be practiced.



Jim

    In addition to what Glen and Jim have stated, Christianity is God's
    attempt to reach man.  He didn't have to die on that cross for us, but
    He did it out of love and the desire to eternally fellowship with us.
    
    Mike

.7 CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean"

The difference between teaching me and attempting to convert me is too thin for
a non-believer to see. 

So your goal is to teach everyone in the world, whether they want it or not?

Steve

| <<< Note 1009.9 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| One can show Christ through his life, no question about that.  However, that
| is not to say that "door to door" evangelism is not to be practiced.

	Jim, did you notice it was through your words, actions that he was
saved? Same concept, but applied in a different setting. 


Glen


PS	Did you ever make it to the woman's apartment?

RE:<<< Note 1009.11 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>


>So your goal is to teach everyone in the world, whether they want it or not?



 "my" goal is to be obedient to Jesus Christ.   As stated before, people are
 welcome to say "I'm not interested" if they don't want "it".




Jim

RE:    <<< Note 1009.12 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>



>| One can show Christ through his life, no question about that.  However, that
>| is not to say that "door to door" evangelism is not to be practiced.

>	Jim, did you notice it was through your words, actions that he was
>saved? Same concept, but applied in a different setting. 


no.  It was the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.  We just happened to be the
messengers.  Can you see the working of God in this?  We are at the wrong
apartment, and yet, here is a man just waiting for someone to knock on his
door and explain the Bible to him?  I'll never be able to describe the look
on his face, or the joy in our hearts.



>PS	Did you ever make it to the woman's apartment?


   She had moved earlier in the week.



Jim

Note 1009.4

>    Christianity isn't a religion.  Religion is man's attempt to reach God.

It's a clever slogan, but Christianity is a religion.

Shalom,
Richard

    
    This terminology of a "new world order" may not be familiar to many of
    us. However, according to Malachi Martin, Catholic professor, vatican
    insider and auther of the book "The Keys of This Blood" quotes "Those
    of us who are under seventy will see at least the basic structures of
    the new world government installed. Those of us under forty will surely
    live under its legislative, executive and judiciary authority and
    control". 
    I'll give you three guesses who the religious leader will be... the
    first two don't count!!
    The time we live in today is the most important in earths history (my
    own opinion).
    
      

>>>    It's a clever slogan, but Christianity is a religion.
    
    This is interesting.  It actually depends on how you define religion.
    We had a discussion about this very thing in Sunday School.  Our pastor
    disagreed with me on the point that "religion" is overshadowed by a
    sense of spirituality.  He disagrees that religion is defined as man
    reaching to God.  He pointed out that Communism for example, is a
    religion.  Yet a precept of communism is atheism and the economic
    equality of all.  I raised my hand and explained my view that whatever
    ism we follow, a deity is always involved, be it God or self.  
    
    I also pointed out the inconsistency of the gov't. view of religion. 
    We know that secular humanism is a religion, the SCOTUS deemed it as
    such in the 1980's.  Yet I distinctly remember my Anthropology teacher
    teaching the evolution of man as FACT and not theory.  To me, this is 
    a form of state sponsored religion.  
    
    There was a religion in the New Testament call ..EPICUREANISM...
    The slogan of this belief was...Eat Drink and Be Merry for Tomorrow We
    Die.  This man in the parable of the rich fool followed this religion.
    The references of epicurianism are Luke 12:19, 15:23, and 1st Cor.
    15:20.  Now this is a religion, yet interestingly enough, it has no 
    connection with deity...only self.  
    
    So reflecting on the whole thing, I would say that religion is NOT
    man's attempt to reach God as I thought it was.  However, it
    Christianity a religion?  In the worldly sense, I would say that it can
    be defined that way.  I will say that Christianity is distinct from
    other religions as it is based on God reaching down to man and not the
    other way around.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    while i won't debate your definitions of religion, although
    i find them a bit slippery to get a hold on, i know that
    your characterization of Epicureanism is off the mark.
    
    Epicurus was a Greek philosopher. His teachings, rather than
    the self-indulgent cult of pleasure that you suggest, were
    more akin to Buddhism and Rationalism. Pleasure, he taught,
    was freedom from false desires, such as material wealth and
    political power. Truth, according to Epicurus, was to be 
    discovered by empirical observation and rational thought.
        
    in short, Epicurus and his school have gotten a bad rap 

    peter

    Peter:
    
    I don't doubt you may have a better handle on it.  I just learned about
    this yesterday.  Did they actually have the slogan, "Eat, Drink and be
    merry for tomorrow we die"?
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    i believe you will find that the source of this teaching,
    "eat, drink and be merry.." is the Holy Bible.
    
    peter

    It isn't a cute slogan, it is fact from God Himself:
    
John 14:6
Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
the Father, but by me.

    There isn't anything any man can do to earn his way to heaven.  
    
    Mike

.17 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

    I raised my hand and explained my view that whatever
    ism we follow, a deity is always involved, be it God or self.  

Jack, at times your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. It is these
kinds of blanket statements that make meaningful discourse difficult to obtain.

Now, listen carefully. I am atheist, or agnostic if you prefer. I do not follow
any ism that I am aware of, although you might be able to pigeonhole me into one
if you wish. There is (listen carefully here) no deity in my life. We are using
english, so I am using the english definition of deity, i.e. 1) a god or
goddess, 2) The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity. I do not
see myself (or anyone) as a deity. I apologize (sort of :^) for the sarcastic
tone of this note, but this particular assertion gets very old after a while,
since it is so patently incorrect. You cling to it because it fits your world
view, but I can guarentee that you are wrong. (Now, if you want to give deity a
new definition, you might make it fit, but why bother).

Steve

    .21 Mike,
    
    A religion might be accurately descibed as a belief system.  Who
    first reached out to whom is not what determines what is and what
    is not a religion.
    
    Christianity may be different from all other religions in some
    respects.  But saying Christianity isn't a religion is false.
    
    It does make a clever slogan, however.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    I don't see the definition of religion in the American Heritage
    Dictionary fitting Christianity.  Even this definition states works in
    meaning 2.  Christianity <> works.

| <<< Note 1009.14 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| >| One can show Christ through his life, no question about that.  However, that
| >| is not to say that "door to door" evangelism is not to be practiced.

| >	Jim, did you notice it was through your words, actions that he was
| >saved? Same concept, but applied in a different setting.


| no.  It was the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.  We just happened to be the
| messengers.  

	Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. Whether someone changes
their life because of how they view yours, or if you go door to door, the
actions that you did caused both. I had taken the fact we're the messengers as
a given. I guess I shouldn't have. Sorry bout that. 

| >PS	Did you ever make it to the woman's apartment?

| She had moved earlier in the week.


	Bummer.


Glen

RE:    <<< Note 1009.25 by BIGQ::SILVA "Nobody wants a Charlie in the Box!" >>>

>| >	Jim, did you notice it was through your words, actions that he was
>| >saved? Same concept, but applied in a different setting.


>| no.  It was the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.  We just happened to be the
>| messengers.  

>	Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. Whether someone changes
>their life because of how they view yours, or if you go door to door, the
>actions that you did caused both. I had taken the fact we're the messengers as
>a given. I guess I shouldn't have. Sorry bout that. 


 No.  It was the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.  We just happened to be the 
 messengers..as the Bible says..the seed was planted through the Word of God
 He used us to water the seed and Praise God it grew..




>| >PS	Did you ever make it to the woman's apartment?

>| She had moved earlier in the week.


>	Bummer.



  Don't quite get it do you?  I notice you didn't answer my question in .14
  about seeing God working in this..


 Jim

    We went caroling in our neighborhood tonight.  Nice to see some people
    in this world still enjoy such things.
    
    Mike

>    I don't see the definition of religion in the American Heritage
>    Dictionary fitting Christianity.  Even this definition states works in
>    meaning 2.  Christianity <> works.

However, the _practice_ of Christianity -- doing what Christ orders his
followers to do -- requires good works, insofar as each individual is
called and able.

/john

>>Jack, at times your ignorance is only exceeded by your arrogance. 

Why, thank you doctor (Insert Mr. Spock's voice here!)

>Now, listen carefully. I am atheist, or agnostic if you prefer. I do not follow
>any ism that I am aware of, although you might be able to pigeonhole me into one
>if you wish. 

Sure...why not.  Steve, the big promise Satan made to Eve in the garden was...
"for if you eat of the tree of knowledge, you will become as god, knowing good
and evil."  Well, be it myth or fact, a very sobering lesson is put forth here.
The lesson is that it is the very nature of man to be self sufficient, to be
in a position of decision, of power, of choice.  The Holy Spirit is who draws
us to yield our existence to the creator.

You may not consider atheism an "ism"...and that's fine.  Now you may not erect
a statue of yourself and worship yourself.  However, as an atheist, you must 
believe that you alone are ultimately the architect of your very being.  That
you were brought about by nature, by a fluke, whatever the case may be...and 
that you are to live your life...then perhaps just disappear.  I don't know. 
Bottom line is Steve, you are your own god.  Not in the conventional sense, but
you have created an image of yourself...to yourself...that you are self
sufficient.  It's interesting that Jesus compares us to sheep.  Sheep are 
amongst the most stupid animals on earth.  They have to be lead...they wander
astray...they are NOT self sufficient as a flock.  We as a human race
are the same way.  

-Jack

| <<< Note 1009.26 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>




|>	Jim, this is exactly what I am talking about. Whether someone changes
|>their life because of how they view yours, or if you go door to door, the
|>actions that you did caused both. I had taken the fact we're the messengers as
|>a given. I guess I shouldn't have. Sorry bout that.


| No.  It was the Word of God and the Holy Spirit.  We just happened to be the
| messengers..as the Bible says..the seed was planted through the Word of God
| He used us to water the seed and Praise God it grew..

	Jim, didn't I just explain that above? The last 3 sentences? 

| Don't quite get it do you?  I notice you didn't answer my question in .14
| about seeing God working in this..

	I did Jim, in the last 3 sentences. I said I had taken that as a given.
I even apologized for doing so. The message/actions in the human form came from
you and your friend(s), but God was behind it all.

Glen

>However, the _practice_ of Christianity -- doing what Christ orders his
>followers to do -- requires good works, insofar as each individual is
>called and able.
    
    very true, John.  I was thinking more along the lines of salvation,
    which doesn't require works.
    
    Mike

>"for if you eat of the tree of knowledge, you will become as god, knowing good
>and evil."  
    
    the oldest lie in the book, yet people today still swallow it hook, line,
    and sinker.  It's given us some of the biggest cults today, not to
    mention secular humanism, new age philosophies, and evolution.
    
Matthew 7:17-20
"-Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit.
-A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit.
-Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire.
-Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

    Let's examine the "fruit" of evolution.  Evolution has provided a basis
    for atheism, pantheism, humanism, communism, fascism, "New-Age" cults, 
    and any other philosophy or religion that denies the existence of God.  
    Not every evolutionist is an atheist or Communist, but every atheist, 
    pantheist, or humanist is an evolutionist by necessity.  

    In addition, evolution is the alleged cause for many of the evil and
    dangerous practices of this century.  Racism is one obvious example. 
    The subtitle of Darwin's "Origin of Species" was "The Preservation of
    Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."   In a later book, "The
    Descent of Man," Darwin wrote that natural selection would eventually
    eliminate what he called "the savage races" in favor of "the civilized
    races of men."  In addition to Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer
    and most Post-Darwin evolutionary scientists were racists.  This
    continued until World War II and Hitler emerged.  Hitler's actions gave
    racism a bad reputation among the educated.   It's interesting to note
    that Hitler himself was a devout evolutionary pantheist, deeply
    involved in the occult and imperialistic social Darwinism.

    Another "fruit" of evolution is the secular psychological counseling
    and psychiatric treatment with roots in the theories of Sigmund Freud. 
    Freud himself based his theories and techniques on Darwin, Lamarck, and
    Ernst Haeckel.  These theories have long been rejected by modern
    evolutionary biologists.  Despite that, the leaders of modern
    psychology (J.B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, Carl Rogers, etc.) have built on
    Freud's theories, and his atheism, even while rejecting much of his
    psychoanalytical theories.  All of this has had a devastating effect on
    religion, morality, the traditional family and time-honored values.

    The modern promotion of "alternate sexual orientations" is based on
    pseudoscientific theories in evolutionary logic.  Supporters take a
    leap of logic in stating that heterosexuality cannot be the norm for
    mankind since we have trees and flowers with male and female
    characteristics.

    Abortion is another "fruit" of evolution.  Pro-choice supporters today
    base their beliefs that the fetus hasn't evolved into a human being so
    it is fair game if the mother so chooses.  As we all know, Paul Weiss
    has easily put this view into question using nothing but common sense
    and logic.

    Evolutionary philosophy has been at the roots of both World Wars.  In
    the name of Social Darwinism, it has been responsible for unrestrained
    capitalism, while monopolizing and exploiting human and natural resources.
    Evolution is responsible for liberalism in biblical studies.  It has
    caused a shift in law and political science away from their original
    foundations in biblical and constitutional principles.  

    Finally, the overall breakdown in our traditional moral structure in
    society had evolutionary philosophy at its roots.  Its attempt to
    replace belief in a Creator with belief in animalistic psychology makes
    man forget that he will have to answer to that Creator some day.  As a
    result, the drug culture is flourishing, and sexual promiscuity abounds.
    And why not?  If man is merely an evolved animal, he may as well act
    like one.

    The fruit of evolution is corrupt and is proof that it is false.

All that shows is that people have misused evolution for their own
purposes.  The fact remains that the theory is still the best 
explanation of the evidence.

/Mike

    Richard:
    
    Defaulting to the belief of evolution because it is the best one
    available is a fallacy.  Galileo was considered a heretic because he
    declared the earth to be round.  His persecutors believed it was flat
    because it was the best scientific data they had.  
    
    -Jack

The matter of Galileo dealt with the relationship of scientific
discovery and church teaching, and what can be considered to be
allegorical and what must be taken to be literal.

Galileo's famous quote is, "The Bible teaches the way to go to heaven,
not the way the heavens go."

Galileo was given permission to teach the Copernican system as a
mathematical supposition, and compare it with the Ptolemaic system,
acknowledging that humankind cannot know exactly how God has made
things.

He then produced his work, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World
Systems" and received full approval from the Church for its publication,
including imprimatur (a statement that it contained nothing heretical).

However, the politics of the Reformation were in full swing at the time,
and the idea that there might be two ways to look at things was not at
all popular.  Advisors to the Pope convinced him that the book was
actually an argument for the Copernican system and that it violated
a codicil to the earlier agreement that he could only compare and
contrast the systems.  Galileo disavowed any recollection of the
codicil, and it is now believed that the codicil was forged.  This
was a factor in the recent exoneration of Galileo by the Vatican.

/john

 >Defaulting to the belief of evolution because it is the best one
 >   available is a fallacy.  Galileo was considered a heretic because he
 >   declared the earth to be round.  His persecutors believed it was flat
 >   because it was the best scientific data they had.  

Jack, I think Galileo taught a heliocentric solar system, not a round earth.
The flat earth teaching had been refuted by his time.  At any rate, Galileo
had the evidence on his side.  The Church heirarchy fought him for
many reasons, not the least of which was that the Counter-Reformation was
heating up, and they saw Galileo's theories as a threat to the authority.
of the Church's teachings.


/Mike

    I concede on that but do you see the point I was making about
    evolution?  The idea of accepting something as gospel only because
    there is nothing better to believe.
    
    -Jack

    reminds me of a bumper sticker I once saw:
    
    "Be an evolutionist...
    
    IT'S EASIER THAN THINKING!"

According to Webster's New World Dictionary:

religion - 1. belief in a divine or superhuman power or powers to be obeyed
and worshipped as the creator(s) and ruler(s) of the universe.  2. expression
of this belief in conduct and ritual.  3. a) any system of belief, worship,
conduct, etc., often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy; as, the
Christian religion, the Buddhist religion, etc.  b) any system....
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Under Christianity this same dictionary includes "the Christian religion;
doctrines taught by Jesus Christ."

I really don't care to play dueling dictionaries, but Christianity is a
religion.

Shalom,
Richard

Re          <<< Note 1009.37 by AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!" >>>
>
>    I concede on that but do you see the point I was making about
>    evolution?  The idea of accepting something as gospel only because
>    there is nothing better to believe.
>    
>    -Jack

The theory of evolution explains the facts better than any other theory,
including creationism.  If something better comes along, I'll take a serious
look at it.  Any replacement theory would have to be very convincing, however.
I accepted the possibility of evolution after a long period of studying it.
Why do you think that I mindlessly did so?

/Mike

I agree with Richard that Christianity is a religion, Jesus
himself said "But the hour is coming, and now is, when the
true worshippers will worship the Father in spirit and truth."
John 4:23 RSV

I like the definition in my dictionary on my desk.....
"Religion : An acknowledgement of our obligation to God;
practical piety; devotion; any system of faith or worship."


What has given religion a bad name is the practicers of false
religion. Take for example the Aztecs who made human sacrifices
to their gods. The important thing is to follow Jesus' footsteps
closely (1 Peter 2:21) and not to imitate the practices of false
religion.

Richard,

Regarding your initial question, from a biblical point of view
it's worth looking at Psalms 2 which is a prophecy that talks
of a time when the nations unite together against God and his 
anointed one. This "New World Order" speaks grandiose things 
as the only hope for mankind, however God's word tells us that 
it's only God's kingdom that will resolve mankinds problems 
(compare Matthew 6:10). Psalms 2 tells us that the nations 
(united together) will not acknowledge Jehovah's anointed one 
hence they find themselves in opposition to him. This culminates 
in Armageddon, which is God's war against them (Revelation 16:14,
16).

So the sinister thing behind mankind's attempt for a "One World
Goverenment" is that such an adminstration will find itself in
oppostion to God's kingdom that in turn will destroy it. As
individuals we need to make a choice for whom we support, for
it is vital that we make the right choice for our families.
As Daniel 2:44 NWT reads "And in the days of those kings the 
God of heaven will set up a kingdom that will never be brought 
to ruin. And the kingdom itself will not be passed on to any other 
people. It will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, and it 
itself will stand to times indefinite;". The shrewd choice is to 
choose God's kingdom and reject man efforts for a "One World 
Government".

Phil.

FYI cited scriptures from NWT:

                              Psalms 2:1
  1 Why have the nations been in tumult
And the national groups themselves kept muttering an empty thing?
                                Ps2:2
  2 The kings of earth take their stand
And high officials themselves have massed together as one
Against Jehovah and against his anointed one,
                                Ps2:3
  3 [Saying:] "Let us tear their bands apart
And cast their cords away from us!"
                                Ps2:4
  4 The very One sitting in the heavens will laugh;
Jehovah himself will hold them in derision.
                                Ps2:5
  5 At that time he will speak to them in his anger
And in his hot displeasure he will disturb them,
                                Ps2:6
  6 [Saying:] "I, even I, have installed my king
Upon Zion, my holy mountain."
                                Ps2:7
  7 Let me refer to the decree of Jehovah;
He has said to me: "You are my son;
I, today, I have become your father.
                                Ps2:8
  8 Ask of me, that I may give nations as your inheritance
And the ends of the earth as your own possession.
                                Ps2:9
  9 You will break them with an iron scepter,
As though a potter's vessel you will dash them to pieces."
                               Ps2:10
  10 And now, O kings, exercise insight;
Let yourselves be corrected, O judges of the earth.
                               Ps2:11
  11 Serve Jehovah with fear
And be joyful with trembling.
                               Ps2:12
  12 Kiss the son, that He may not become incensed
And YOU may not perish [from] the way,
For his anger flares up easily.
Happy are all those taking refuge in him.

                             Matthew 6:10
  10 Let your kingdom come. Let your will take place, as in heaven,
also upon earth.


 
 

    Re: evolution
    
    Garth Wiebe has updated his excellent paper on the subject.  The new
    one is in 640.* in YUKON::CHRISTIAN.
    
    Re: religion
    
    systems, rituals, etc., yeah sounds like salvation through works to me.

Note 1009.42

>    Re: religion
    
>    systems, rituals, etc., yeah sounds like salvation through works to me.

Not every religion embraces the notion of salvation, personal or otherwise.

Shalom,
Richard

re .42

;    Re: religion
    
;    systems, rituals, etc., yeah sounds like salvation through works to me.

     Mike,

     Why should one infer that godly devotion means one is working ones own
     salvation?. Could it not mean one is showing godly fear in wanting to 
     do what is pleasing to ones God. Rather like a son not wanting to
     displease his father in anyway.

     What was Jesus' example as a Jew?. Did he attend the temple in Jerusalem
     at the time of the Passover?. Should Christians, who are not under the Law 
     Covenant,  observe Jesus' command to commemorate his death?. Ofcourse they
     should, by observing are they working out their own salvation? 

     There are many man made rituals that should be shunned by Christians.

     Talking of Jesus' command to commemorate his death, it is the only 
     commemoration he instructed Christians to observe. They were never commanded 
     to celebrate his birthday, also there is also no mention in the Bible of 
     the early Christians doing so. Yet soon many will be following a manmade 
     ritual soon, in celebrating Christmas. Now putting aside whether one should 
     observe Christmas or not, are those who celebrate such festivals working 
     salvation out for themselves?.

     Phil.

     

    >           -< Faith without works is dead, like a lifeless corpse. >-
    
    Agreed.  After salvation, we should serve Him out of love and gratitude
    for what He has done for us.
    
Titus 3:3
For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving
divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one
another.

Titus 3:4
But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared.

Titus 3:5
Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy
he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;

Titus 3:6
Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;

Titus 3:7
That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the
hope of eternal life.

    >     There are many man made rituals that should be shunned by Christians.
    
    Another is calling God a man-made name like Jehovah.  A name He's never
    associated with Himself.  If we're going to be accurate, we might as
    well go all out.          
    
    Anyway, you and others missed the point.  The systems and rituals that
    define religions are what is required to be saved.  Celebrating or
    commemorating events or observances are not required for salvation. 
    The celebration of birthdays, Passover, Christmas, or Communion are not 
    required for salvation.
    
    Mike

.29 AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"

Biblical references mean no more to me than references to the Greek myths. 

>>The lesson is that it is the very nature of man to be self sufficient, to be
>>in a position of decision, of power, of choice.  The Holy Spirit is who draws
>>us to yield our existence to the creator.

The same creator who made us such that it is our nature to be self-sufficient?
Sounds kinda like catch-22 to me...

>>Bottom line is Steve, you are your own god.  Not in the conventional sense,
>>but you have created an image of yourself...to yourself...that you are self
>>sufficient.

How does this follow? I don't believe that children have a creator in the sense
you use it either, but they are not self sufficient. I also am not self
sufficient. The difference, perhaps, is that my dependencies do not include a
being that leaves no evidence that they exist. By the dictionary definitions of
the word, I am not my own God. My understanding of your argument is that by not
believing in God, I do not believe in God, i.e. your definition of someone that
does not believe is someone who believe in themselves as God. It just doesn't
wash.

BTW, in the wild, sheep can (and do) do quite nicely on their own.

I guess the question is what do you mean by self-sufficient. 

.32 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

    Let's examine the "fruit" of evolution.  Evolution has provided a basis
    for atheism, pantheism, humanism, communism, fascism, "New-Age" cults, 
    and any other philosophy or religion that denies the existence of God.  
    Not every evolutionist is an atheist or Communist, but every atheist, 
    pantheist, or humanist is an evolutionist by necessity.  

Nope. Most atheists will tell you that evolution is the best theory we presently
have to explain the observable facts. If another theory presents itself that
better explains things, it will be adopted. I may also reject evolution as not,
in my opinion, bearing to scrutiny, but still be atheist. The two are not
connected, and evolution in now way provides a 'base' for my atheism. Lack of
any real evidence in God, and the multitude of contradictions in religion and
religious teachings, provide that base. In a very real sense I was taught
atheism by Catholic nuns in religious school.

Regarding the Hitler (who I understand was devoutly religious) paragraph, I'll
bet I can show just as many cases of religiously motivated racial cleansing than
you can find of any other motivation. But what is the point either way? Nuts
will use whatever handle they can find to push whatever they want.

Regarding Freud, et al, it must be comforting to have such a sharp black and
white good and evil view of the world. By the way, I hurt my foot the other day,
is that caused by evolution also?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.37  AIMHI::JMARTIN "Barney IS NOT a nerd!!"
 
    I concede on that but do you see the point I was making about
    evolution?  The idea of accepting something as gospel only because
    there is nothing better to believe.


Jack, (as has been said before) who is accepting anything as gospel (excepting
you with the gospels)? If something better comes along it will be accepted. All
that has been said is that it is the best explanation currently around to
explain observable phonemenon. It certainly does a better job than creationism.
I know Christians that also believe in evolution, I know of nobody that believes
in creationism that is not Christian.

By the way, I somehow cut a line from my previous post. Where it says "Biblical
references..." it should also have said that using them as proof, therefor, is
not valid from my point of view.

Steve

re .45

    >     There are many man made rituals that should be shunned by Christians.
    
;    Another is calling God a man-made name like Jehovah.  A name He's never
;    associated with Himself.  If we're going to be accurate, we might as
;    well go all out. 

    Mike,

    Then perhaps you can help me for I would love to know the correct
    pronounciation for the Tetragrammaton. Please tell me how it
    should be pronounced, so I can follow through with your suggestion.
    The Messiah is commonly known by the English name Jesus, are 
    you also suggesting that persons should be accurate by using
    his name in it's original language?. 

    In my opinion your being pedantic and that using a commonly known 
    rendition of God's name as mentioned in places such as Exodus 6:3 KJV & 
    Psalms 83:18 KJV Jehovah, has God's blessing. Just as referring to 
    the Messiah by the name Jesus has his blessing. For it would not
    seem right to always refer to the Messiah by his title and not his
    name so to with God. God made his name known to Moses for he intended
    for it to be used, whether in ancient Hebrew, English, Italian or
    whatever.

;    Anyway, you and others missed the point.  The systems and rituals that
;    define religions are what is required to be saved.  Celebrating or
;    commemorating events or observances are not required for salvation. 
;    The celebration of birthdays, Passover, Christmas, or Communion are not 
;    required for salvation.

    Thanks for clarifying I understood that you were insuating that anyone
    who practices systems or rituals are working out salvation for themselves.
    Which sounded hypocritical with the annual ritual of the Christmas 
    celebration coming up. But I can't understand how one can claim not
    to be religious and yet observe religious holidays.

    Btw Jesus made it plain what was required for salavation...

    "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of
     heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
     Matthew 7:21 RSV 

     It is those who do God's will who will be saved. Is doing God's will
     religous? are those that do God's will working out salvation for
     themselves?. 


    Filipo

>    Then perhaps you can help me for I would love to know the correct
>    pronounciation for the Tetragrammaton. Please tell me how it
>    should be pronounced, so I can follow through with your suggestion.

As you know quite well, the ancient Hebrews (and Jews today) pronounced it
"Adonai", considering YHWH too sacred to pronounce.  As a result, the exact
pronounciation was lost.

/john

re .49

John,

Yes you are right that I knew that the correct pronounciation
is lost, but Mike was suggesting that one has to be accurate.

However, why should one follow the Jews tradition of
substituting "Adonai" for YHWH?. God made the Tetragrammaton
known to Moses and also made sure that the Bible writers penned
it. Should one ignore God's word because of the superstition
of the Jews?. Jesus himself admonished the Religious
leaders "Adroitly you set aside the commandment of God in
order to retain your tradition". Mark 7:9 NWT

If God wants to be known by his name then surely one should
use it even though the rendentition may not be totally 
accurate.

Filipo

    >Regarding the Hitler (who I understand was devoutly religious) paragraph, I'll
    
    Steve, don't kid yourself.  Hitler was deeply into the occult.
    
    >Regarding Freud, et al, it must be comforting to have such a sharp black and
    
    Freud was a pervert.

>    Then perhaps you can help me for I would love to know the correct
>    pronounciation for the Tetragrammaton. Please tell me how it
>    should be pronounced, so I can follow through with your suggestion.
    
    Nobody knows today.  It was too holy to the Jews to even pronounce YHWH
    so eventually the pronounciation was lost.
    
>    The Messiah is commonly known by the English name Jesus, are 
>    you also suggesting that persons should be accurate by using
>    his name in it's original language?. 
    
    Yeshua Ha Mashiach isn't required by an omnipotent, omniscient, and
    omnipresent God.  If you prefer it, by all means.

>    In my opinion your being pedantic and that using a commonly known 
>    rendition of God's name as mentioned in places such as Exodus 6:3 KJV & 
>    Psalms 83:18 KJV Jehovah, has God's blessing. Just as referring to 
>    the Messiah by the name Jesus has his blessing. For it would not
>    seem right to always refer to the Messiah by his title and not his
>    name so to with God. God made his name known to Moses for he intended
>    for it to be used, whether in ancient Hebrew, English, Italian or
>    whatever.
    
    I'm sure God honors the intentions of a righteous believer.  However,
    that doesn't change the fact that man took YHWH and added the vowels of
    Adonai to come up with Jahovah.

>    Btw Jesus made it plain what was required for salavation...
>
>    "Not every one who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of
>     heaven, but he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."
>     Matthew 7:21 RSV 
>
>     It is those who do God's will who will be saved. Is doing God's will
>     religous? are those that do God's will working out salvation for
>     themselves?. 
    
    your theology is putting the cart before the horse.  Salvation comes
    first, then the desire to do God's Will.  People who aren't saved have
    no desire to do God's Will.  God isn't into some spiritual blackmail or
    an ogre that requires service for salvation.  God's gift of love and
    grace is there for us to accept out of free will.  Jesus was warning of 
    false prophets and teachers in the quoted passage.

    Mike

re .52

Mike,

;However,
;    that doesn't change the fact that man took YHWH and added the vowels of
;    Adonai to come up with Jahovah.

Where did you learn this?, it's the first time I have heard of it. 


Phil.

>Where did you learn this?, it's the first time I have heard of it. 

It has been discussed several times in this conference: 327.8 is one example.

It is a fact.

/john

    Thanks, John.  Glad I'm not the only one who's read of this fact.

re .54,.55

I read Mike Valenza's comments 327.8 (off the top of his 
head) and looks like I need to do some research to see how 
the choosing of the vowels came about. If Mike's reply is 
correct, then I still contend that the use of LORD or Lord 
as translated from the word Adonai is substituting what God 
had originally intended to be in his Word. Thereby a manmade 
tradition is being elevated above God's Word by some.

Many people are surprised that God even has a name, but 
we are assured by Jesus' prayer "And I have declared unto 
them thy name, and will declare it;" John 17:26a KJV. Jesus
will ensure that God's name is not hidden (also compare
Matthew 6:9).

Phil.

.51 FRETZ::HEISER "Grace changes everything"

    Steve, don't kid yourself.  Hitler was deeply into the occult.

Not that it isn't possible, but where did you get this information from?
Actually, you can't use occultism, or atheism, or whatever to prove that the
overall philosophy is evil any more than I can use the death cults, crusades or
inquisition to prove that the philosophy itself is evil. Sick extremists can and
do use pretty much any justification to do what they want. Great good and/or
harm can come from pretty much any philosophy, but I would wager that most
practitioners of anything remain pretty neutral.

    Freud was a pervert.

So is Jim Bakker :^)

Steve

�>    Steve, don't kid yourself.  Hitler was deeply into the occult.
�
�Not that it isn't possible, but where did you get this information from?
    
    There's been several books written about it, by secular historians,
    evangelicals, and ex-Vatican members.  
    
    Look at the swastika symbol.  Straighten the bars and what do you see?
    
    It's a broken cross, just like the peace symbol.  It standard practice
    in the occult to defile anything holy.
    
    Mike

Note 1009.58

>    Look at the swastika symbol.  Straighten the bars and what do you see?

>    It's a broken cross, just like the peace symbol.  It standard practice
>    in the occult to defile anything holy.
    
This is hysterical and uneducated speculation, Mike.

The origins of the swastika and the peace symbol are *not* rooted in
the instrument of Jesus' (and a lot of others') death.

Richard

    Wasn't the swastika actually an Indian cult/occult symbol?
    
    (Note:  Not the Indians who migrated from Siberia to America 100's of
    years ago.  I am referring to India.)
    
    -Jack

    I'd need to look it up, but as I recall the swastika, which resembles
    4 arms bent at the elbow and joining hands at the center, was an East
    Indian symbol meaning "friendship."
    
    Hilter supposedly inverted (or mirror-imaged) the symbol.
    
    Richard
    

    re .58

    > Look at the swastika symbol.  Straighten the bars and what do you see?    
    > It's a broken cross, just like the peace symbol.  It standard practice
    > in the occult to defile anything holy.

    I'm reminded of what that great pervert Sigmund Freud once said,
    "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar."

    	Eric
        

The peace symbol is taken from the semaphore signals for

	N	(nuclear)
and	D	(disarmament)

superimposed over each other.

/john

    .63  That is my understanding of the peace symbol's origin as well.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re .54,.55

  Thanks Mike & John, I found out how the spelling Iehouah, and
  eventually, Jehovah came about from a publication "The DIVINE
  NAME That Will Endure Forever" a 31 page booklet from the WTB&TS.
  From pages 7&8, it mentions that when the Hewbrew langauge was
  written down, it was done so without vowels. This was not a 
  problem to the readers then, because they would know what vowels
  to use just as in English we know what vowels to use with 
  abbreviations, eg Ltd represents Limited.

  Now there are two things to note, one has already discussed been
  discussed that is the superstitous idea of the Jews that felt it
  was wrong to say the divine name. So when they came to it in their
  Bible reader they would utter the word 'Adhonai' ("Sovereign Lord"|).
  The second thing is that, in the second half of the first millenium
  CE or AD, Jewish scholars invented a system of points to represent
  missing vowels. This was put into place so that the pronunication
  of the Hebrew langauage could be preserved.

  The thing is that when it came to God's name, the correct pronunciation
  had been lost due to tradition of uttering "Adhonai", so in most cases
  they put vowels marks reminding the reader that they should say
  "Adhonai".

  So it was from these vowel marks that came the spelling Iehouah, and
  eventually, Jehovah which in turn became the accepted pronunciation
  of the divine name in English. It retains the essential elements
  of God's name from the original Hebrew.

  Because of the Jewish tradition of uttering 'Adhonai' instead of the
  divine name, the correct pronunication has been lost. Therefore,
  should one use Jehovah or as some modern day Hebrew scholars suggest
  Yahweh?. Well as argued in other replies, the English Jesus is not the 
  correct pronunication but is acceptable. Whether one chooses to use
  Jehovah or Yahweh, the important thing is to use God's name ( compare
  Matthew 6:9).

  Phil.
  

      Hi,
    
        Acknowledging its way off the topic, a couple cents
        on the name of God...
    
        Is there any importance to the phonics of the name of
        God?  As an analogy, is the English word 'love' (if
        understood with the exact same meaning that the scriptural
        Greek word 'agape' has) any worse than agape because it
        has a different pronunciation?  Isn't God above language
        and isn't the important thing the meaning/concepts behind
        language?
    
        Check out what happened to Moses when He saw God's 'name.'
        The Lord filled Moses with a deeper revelation of His
        character.
    
        Just my own opinion, but the importance of the name of God
        has nothing to do with its phonics (pronunciation) and has
        everything to do with the character that name implies.
        When someone thinks 'Tony Barbieri', the important thing is
        not the pronunciation of my name, the important thing is who
        I am, what kind of person I am.
    
        To get all hung up on the pronunciation of God's name rather
        than to get hung up on who God is as being the real important
        thing about God's name, is to miss the boat (I think)!
                
                                                 Tony

re .66

 Tony,

 I agree with what your saying, but add that it is important to
 *use* the name and not always replace it with a title. A name
 identifies a person a title doesn't.

 The title LORD [Adhonai] has the meaning of Sovereign Lord.

 The name Jehovah [YHWH] has the meaning of "He causes to become", 
 in other words Jehovah is a God of purpose. Hence, one can put 
 faith in what Jehovah has promised and that what is prophesied 
 in the Bible will happen as foretold.

 The Hebrew names had meaning, which is interesting to look up
 when researching on a certain biblical character.

 Phil. 

    Re: .58 et al
    
>    Look at the swastika symbol.  Straighten the bars and what do you see?
    >
>    It's a broken cross, just like the peace symbol.  It standard practice
>    in the occult to defile anything holy.
    
    Richard, please see "Hitler's Cross" by Erwin Lutzer on Moody books.
    
    Mike

Note 1009.68

>    Richard, please see "Hitler's Cross" by Erwin Lutzer on Moody books.
    
Mike,

	You realize this author made this stuff up if he said it, don't you?
The swastika was not derived from the cross of crucifixion, but from an
Eastern Indian symbol.  Neither was the peace symbol, which was not the product
of occult influences.

Shalom,
Richard