Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    One of the biggest (although from the OT) is from Malachi 3:10.
    
    "Bring the whole tithe to the storehouse.  Test me in this saith the
    Lord and see that I don't pour out so many blessing upon you that you
    would not have room enough for them."
    
    So what do I do, pay that creditor this Tuesday, or write a check to
    the church.  I'm sometime afraid to do either one for fear of reprisal!
    
    -Jack

    .1
    
    Thank you for your response, Jack.  Interesting you chose the tithe.
    Jesus spoke a lot about possessions and wealth.  I don't recall Jesus
    mentioning the tithe.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Well, I was thinking of the money issue in general!  Just supporting
    the local church.
    
    -Jack

    .3
    
    I'm aware of how questions sometimes prompt thoughts beyond the
    scope of the original question.
    
    I do appreciate your response, Jack, especially since this topic seems
    to have less than universal appeal.  ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 1055.4 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Perhaps I am wrong in trying to understand if you have an
        ulterior motive here, but I interpreted your question as a
        challenge to those who put the whole of Scripture on a par
        with the quoted words of Jesus in the Gospels, since there
        are statements by Jesus which are traditionally, um, shall we
        say, "understood" in the light of other passages and not
        simply at face value.

        Bob

.0> If you believe _in_ Jesus, how come you don't believe Jesus?

an interesting question. it can be read many ways.

in a recent interview hosting drewermann (a well known and most controversial
contemporay german theologer), the man said that jesus was powerless with those
who had no faith in him. that jesus could only work his wonders where people 
responded to the faith (that he put in them) by returning faith.

much in this spirit, i translate "believe *in* jesus" to: believe in my fellow 
human being (as much as believe in myself, both of which is hard at times).
when i believe in (the best of) my fellow human, i believe in jesus.

"believing jesus" on the hander hand i read as "believing what jesus is 
reported to have said", in other words: believing the writers and the many
translators of the bible and the institutions and traditions which they
served.


andreas.

.5

Bob,

	The salvation message about Jesus so often seems to displace the
teachings of Jesus in the sermon on the mount.  The theology of Paul as
contained in his letter to the Romans too frequently seems to displace the
sermon on the plain.  There is a tendency to believe *in* Jesus at the
expense of believing much of what Jesus taught by word and example.

Shalom,
Richard

         >>>             -< Limiting Jesus to the salvation message >-
    
    It may seem this way Richard.  I for one speak of Jesus saving the
    world from sin on the cross.  I consider the social gospel vital within
    it's context.  Adhering to the social gospel as the primary hope of
    eternal life is a demonic teaching.  It presupposes that one can be
    justified before a Holy God if he/she does good works.  The very
    opposite is conveyed in the scripture.  We need the shedding of blood
    for the remission of sin.
    
    So, I do not limit Jesus in any way but I reject the teaching that is
    rampant in society today that we are saved by our good works.
    
    -Jack

.8 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    So, I do not limit Jesus in any way but I reject the teaching that is
    rampant in society today that we are saved by our good works.

But Jack, how can you worship a being that demands not that his subjects live as
he teaches, but that they worship him. Pure and simple, the only key into heaven
is to prostate yourself before him. Then, regardless of your actions, you are
welcomed into the kingdom. Isn't this the ultimate in pridefulness?

Steve

>>    But Jack, how can you worship a being that demands not that his subjects 
>>    live as he teaches, but that they worship him. Pure and simple, the 
>>    only key into heaven is to prostate yourself before him. Then, 
>>    regardless of your actions, you are welcomed into the kingdom. Isn't 
>>    this the ultimate in pridefulness?
    
    Steve, consider how one treats a spouse.  This is a proper analogy
    since the church is referred to as the bride of Christ.  In 1986, I
    married Michele Palmieri.  Since 1986, Michele and I have been very
    close, very far apart, very fun, very bored, very indifferent.....fill
    in whatever you want!  Same goes in my relationship with Christ.  The 
    ultimate way is that I am always very close with Him but alot of times 
    I will either fall into sin and indifference, only to see my need to
    restore fellowship with Him.   Key point...when I lose fellowship with
    Michele, it in no way means I am no longer married to her, right?  At 
    the same time Steve, say you lived next door to a woman who you were
    very good friend with on a plutonic level.  As the two of you continued
    through the years, one day she proclaimed, "Steve, because you and I
    have been friends all these years and because I have treated you well
    and have always been there for you, I declare us married!"  Well, you'd
    probably laugh wouldn't you?  I would!
    
    Being spiritually reborn is like getting married.  The fruits of a
    relationship are the like the fruit of the spirit...Peace, Patience,
    Kindness, etc.  The two are mutually exclusive.  Paul the Apostle
    addressed your very question about pride... "What shall we say then,
    shall we continue in sin that grace may abound?  God Forbid, how shall
    we that are dead to sin continue therein?"  Paul was asking a
    rhetorical question in Romans Chapter 6...if we are sanctified before
    God, do we have the right to sin freely knowing we have eternal life? 
    The answer is a hearty NO.  I have no more of a right to sin before God
    anymore than I have the right to cheat on Michele.  The beautiful part
    is that if I do sin, I have an advocate with the Father and I can
    approach the throne of grace boldly and ask forgiveness.  The answer is
    always, go on your way and sin no more!   
    
    So, after a whole lot of rambling, the answer is yes, it would be
    prideful...but I never said to be saved meant to act as we wish as long
    as we worship Christ.  Displaying the fruit of the spirit is a form of
    worship in itself.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

.10 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

Jack,

How long would you stay married if you never saw, or heard from, or had any
proof whatsoever that your spouse even existed? I appreciate the note, but to me
it completely missed the point.

I do not understand how you can worship a God that demands worship, not proper
behaviour, as the price of admission to heaven, even though the proof of His
existance is sketchy at best (and in my experience is non-existant). 

How easy would it be for God to make it clear that He does exist, what he
expects and what the rewards/punishments are. What is his purpose in playing it
so coy? And why would a loving God punish eternally those who act as he would
want them to, but fail to pick up on his existance. Just to make it more
interesting he throws in a half dozen other major religions, each with a claim
just as credible as the others. 

And we won't even go into how he created me such that I cannot see the 'truth'.

Steve

    Steve:
    
    Yes it comes down to faith.  Faith in a historical account of a
    resurrection.  Mohammed, Budda, Ghandi...these were all religious
    leaders who died and are still in the grave.  If good works were the
    solution to salvation, Christ' death and resurrection would be null and
    void as our works would conquer our sin nature and we would stand
    before God justified.
    
    Even the example Bob gave in another string about Adam and Eve...this
    is the foundation of our condition, sin and separation from God.  Jesus 
    had to be the sacrifice for our sin.  Upon accepting that, our good
    works are only the fruit of righteousness...but not righteousness in
    itself, any more than making dinner and giving Michele backrubs means
    that we're married!
    
    -Jack

.12 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    Yes it comes down to faith.  Faith in a historical account of a
    resurrection.  Mohammed, Budda, Ghandi...these were all religious

So what gives you that faith? What experience lead you to believe the Christian
account as opposed to the others?

    leaders who died and are still in the grave.  If good works were the
    solution to salvation, Christ' death and resurrection would be null and
    void as our works would conquer our sin nature and we would stand
    before God justified.

What is wrong with this? Why did God choose to have such a bloody redemtion? Why
did God choose to punish us for the sins of Adam and Eve in the first place? To
me the whole belief system falls apart right here, it just doesn't make any
sense to me whatsoever. When you add in what I call the inherent contradiction
of the usual description of God (all-loving, all-powerful, omniscient, and
discussed in other places in this conference) it makes even less sense.

    Even the example Bob gave in another string about Adam and Eve...this
    is the foundation of our condition, sin and separation from God.

Why are we separated for actions we had no control over? Why did God allow this?

    Jesus had to be the sacrifice for our sin.

Why? First, why is it *our* sin? Next, why not just forgive us for it, what did
dying on a cross prove?

	Upon accepting that, our good works are only the fruit of righteousness.

How can you accept this, it seems completely unreasonable to me. If you do a
good work, and I do an equal good work, is yours worth more than mine because
you are righteous? Or less because you have an ulterior motive and I am just
truly a good person? :^)

Does this give you an idea of why religious beliefs confuse me so badly?

Steve

    Steve,
    
    The Christian symbols may not make may not make any sense when
    evaluated literally.  However when understood as symbols they have
    meaning.  As symbols they also have the power to have altering meaning
    for different individuals and differing situations.
    
    I too believe that the Good works we are able to do are a result of our
    Faith.  I just don't think it makes any different whether that is
    Christian Faith, Bhudhist Faith, Pagan Faith, or Faith in Humanity.  If
    we have an attitude about living that says our own self importance is
    not the most important things.  that other people, animals, the earth
    are to be loved and valued.  That we must love others even when it is
    difficult to love others.  This belief structure when fully
    internalized leads to good works.  For Christians this implies living
    in Christ.  Creating a community of humankind based upon Christ's
    example and teachings.  It is pure arrogance for some Christians to
    believe that other religions including secular religions cannot lead
    one to the same Grace.
    
    The symbol of Adam and Eve implies that some evils are systematic evils
    and each one of us is in fact responsible for those evils even if we
    are not individually responsible for those evils.  These systematic
    evils produce reward for some and oppression for others.  It is not
    right, fair or good, in fact it is sinful for those rewarded by
    systematic evils, to refuse to take responsibility for the alleviation
    of the evils.  Rascism, Sexism, the Destruction of the earth, the
    hierarchical quest for power are all examples of systemic evils that
    individuals need to take responsibility for and work to alleviate.
    
    The symbol of the Crucified Lord is a symbol that tells us the power of
    unselfish love, even unselfish love to death is the most powerful force
    in the world.  It is a symbol that tells us that God intends to
    establish the reign of the divine here on earth, not be almighty
    conquest but by sacrificial love.  Oppression can be met with violence
    or oppression can be met with the simple act of courageous refusal and
    courageous resistance.
    
    There are many ways to look at the Christian symbols.  I am finding
    that I can be truly inspired by those symbols when I look at them as
    symbols.
    
                                  Patricia
    
                                Patricia

 >>   It is pure arrogance for some Christians to
 >>   believe that other religions including secular religions cannot
 >>   lead one to the same Grace.
    
    Patricia:
    
    Did you find the claims Christ made about him being the only way also
    arrogant?  Remember, it is Christ's own claims that lay the foundation
    for fundamentalist thinking.  I read through Yukon string about pure
    faith and I recall Andrew Yuille laying out about 15 scriptural
    references claiming Christ to be the only way...from both Jesus and his 
    closest followers, the forefathers of Christianity.  So I ask again,
    was Jesus also arrogant?
    
    Steve, as far as the whys, I don't claim to know Gods nature
    intimately.  Why did God institute the sacrificial system?  That's 
    what God required...that's all I know.  I know that Hebrews 11:6 says
    that without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sin.  Adam
    and Eve committed sin and separated humankind from God.  The only
    analogy I can think of is that if your parents were evicted from a
    newly bank owned property, would you as one of the children demand to
    stay saying, "hey, my dads delinquency in payments has nothing to do
    with me."  It was most likely be that you would be evicted with your
    parents.  God requires each of us to make a decision of redemption on
    our own.
    
    Whose religion is better?  Well, I like to test the spirits.  I
    personally see Christianity as the true faith because Jesus fulfilled
    the prophecies of the Old Testament.  He also backed his claims as to
    who he was.  I also see Christianity as the only faith where God
    reaches down to man as opposed to man trying to reach up to God.
    
    -Jack

To state that there is one and only one way to salvation is arrogance.

Note that I did not say it is wrong (bad, immoral, etc.) or that it is
incorrect.

But it is arrogance.

TTom

    Tom:
    
    I appreciate your forthrightness.  Many people in Jesus time also
    thought he was arrogant...however, Jesus always left people befuddled.
    He backed up everything he said.  I believe Jesus has every right in
    the universe to display the arrogance he did in his time.
    
    -Jack

    Christian particularity is arrogant.
    
    There are many ways to interpret that Jesus is the only way.  The most
    convincing to me is to follow the guidelines that Jesus taught and
    follow the model that he lived is the way.  The guidelines he taught
    are about loving your neighbor and your enemies, turning the other
    cheek, giving up all you have to the poor, even giving up one's own
    life if necessary for others.
    
    Focusing on Hebrews alone, and the magical powers of Jesus' death is a
    real distortion of the religion.
    
    Patricia

    If you say so!  I guess he was martyred for nothing then!
    
    -Jack

>    He backed up everything he said.  I believe Jesus has every right in
>    the universe to display the arrogance he did in his time.

I totally agree with Jack on this one. But, arrogance is one attribute
that has a lot of baggage surrounding it. 

For instance, the arrogance of Christians expressed as my faith is better
than your faith is both unjustified and indefensible. Who are we
interpret someone else's faith as less valid than ours. Also, in the
grand order of things our opinions matter not on how others will be
judged. They may, however, matter a great deal on how we are judged.

TTom

.15>  Did you find the claims Christ made about him being the only way also
.15>  arrogant?  

if by "only way" you mean "salvation as in continued life after death", then
to answer the above question one would have to know for certain whether jesus 
really overcame death.

since noone knows for certain, it is arrogant to claim his resurrection as a 
fact.

moreover, life after death seems to be a distinctly christian and a moslem
quest only. it seems that most people have settled for one life on earth, and
it seems arrogant to assume that who is content with having one life on earth 
would want more.


.15>  Whose religion is better?  Well, I like to test the spirits.  

are you challenging other religions with this statement?


andreas.

      Hi,
    
        Jesus said, after His sermon on the mount, "Be perfect, even
        as your Father in heaven is perfect."  The context was clearly
        behaviors, i.e. love your enemies, love those who curse you,
        turn your cheek, if a man steals, give him more!, etc.
    
        Do we believe Jesus?
    
        Or when He said to the woman caught in the act of adultery, "Sin
        no more."  Was He calling her to do something He knew was
        impossible?
    
        Or is it possible?  And if possible, whats the hold-up?
    
                                                       Tony

      Hi Steve,
    
        Did you ever give that manuscript a look?  It would answer 
        several of your concerns/questions.  (Not to imply you'd 
        believe it anyway.)
    
                                                  Tony

      Its hypothetically possible that some people might state that
      to insist that your own scientific theory that the earth is 
      round is arrogant.  After all, they might say, it might be flat.
    
      The only question is, is it true?  If it is, I can't see how it
      can be necessitated that truth must be said in arrogance.
    
      Such an asserion is foolishness.
    
      Regarding Hinduism, etc., there is a harmony here.  If faith works
      be a revelation of love (agape) according to Gal. 5:5,6 then it 
      is possible that all religions have some nuggets of light.  For
      example, creation is said to be a sufficient revelation of God's 
      love such that to not respond by faith is inexcusable.  Hinduism 
      may uphold creation as a revelation of a Creator and if so, Hinduism
      is in fact upholding a small subset of "the way, the truth and the
      life."  Or to put another way, there is some Christianity in such a
      belief system for Christ is the Creator and upholding His creation 
      is upholding the word of Christ for it is His word which created.
    
      I wouldn't want to insist that any nonChristian religions have no
      truth and I also wouldn't want to say that I have all the truth or
      that I don't have any error.
    
      But, the above can be harmonious with the notion that the truth that
      Christ exemplifies is the full package, free from error.

>>    since noone knows for certain, it is arrogant to claim his resurrection
>>    as a fact.
    
    Christianity is based on the faith aspect.  Remember doubting Thomas?
    Thomas doubted the person to be Jesus.  
    
    "Unless I see the prints of the nails on his hands, and thrust my hand
    into his side, I will not believe.  And after eight days, the disciples
    were within, and Thomas with them; then came Jesus, the doors being
    shut, and stood in the midst and said Peace be unto you.  Then he said
    unto Thomas, reach thee in my hand with thy finger and reach your hand
    into my side; and be not faithless but believing.  And Thomas answered
    unto him saying, My Lord and My God.   Jesus said unto him, Thomas you
    have believed because you have seen; blessed are they that have not
    seen yet believe."  John 20: 25-27.
    
    I imagined Thomas felt like he robbed himself because of his lack of
    faith.  Hey...it happens to the best of us.  Andreas, arrogance and
    assurance are two different things.  Andreas, the Spirit of God changes
    hearts...I have seen this first hand.  What a great opportunity for
    both you and I to display the faith that Thomas lacked.
    
    As far as challenging other belief systems, I firmly believe in this. 
    I believe there is a spiritual battle continually going and battling
    for the mind.  I believe it is important in a spirit lead way to
    confront false doctrine and ask people to investigate for themselves
    where the basis of their belief lies.  
    
    Eternal life is the most blessed of all gifts and isn't something to be
    shunned.  I believe eternity is concrete and is something we will
    participate in.  The big question is...do you want to face Jesus as
    your judge or as your savior?!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1055.22 by STRATA::BARBIERI "God cares." >>>



| Or is it possible?  And if possible, whats the hold-up?

	Tony, I thought the answer would have been easy. What the hold-up is
has to do with free will, doesn't it?


Glen

    
.24>   The only question is, is it true?  If it is, I can't see how it
.24>   can be necessitated that truth must be said in arrogance.

the essential difference between science truths and religious truths is 
that science truths are not absolute and not valid for infinity whereas 
religious truths claim to be.

a science truth holds only as long as its underlying body of theories and 
paradigm is falsified and replaced by a new paradigm and body of theories. 
falsification (and confirmation) of science truths is objective, methodical 
and reproduceable.

science truth are open to verification and subject to change by definition.
there's nothing arrogant or foolish about that person claiming the world is
flat, IF he can back his claim up with facts. if he can't it could well be 
arrogant or foolish to make such a claim in the first place.


.25> Andreas, the Spirit of God changes hearts...I have seen this first hand.
.25> What a great opportunity for both you and I to display the faith that 
.25> Thomas lacked.

jack, i have seen hearts changed, i have seen my heart changed, i *have* 
faith, but i don't put all of this down to god or anything in particular. 
i am content that i can't know everything - that doesn't make me have *less* 
faith in what i know to be true!


.25> As far as challenging other belief systems, I firmly believe in this. 
.25> I believe there is a spiritual battle continually going and battling
.25> for the mind.  

there is no objective measure of faith, so how can you go into battle against 
other faiths? destroying other people's faith is all but a loving act!
jack, the battle is only in your mind. i suspect, like many converts to 
christianity do, you just want others to partake in the happiness which 
you have found. you do not realise that it is possible for others to find 
themselves sources of happiness. whilst your intentions are good, you could
easily, as has been said, be mistaken as arrogant or as patronising.

no offence, you're ok btw!


regards,
andreas.

    I understand.  But I mainly want other people to share in eternal life.
    The happiness here on earth is only secondary!  Remember, for what
    shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, yet lose his own
    soul?  I believe this happens all the time.
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

.25> Eternal life is the most blessed of all gifts and isn't something to be
.25> shunned.  I believe eternity is concrete and is something we will
.25> participate in.  The big question is...do you want to face Jesus as
.25> your judge or as your savior?!

look jack, my mind is not equipped that well that i can fully grasp the
concept of eternity. all i can know for sure is that life stops with death.
to me this makes my life unique, all the more so as i only have this one
chance to give it meaning.

IF there were a continuation after life and such continuation were linked 
to something/someone sitting in judgement, then i'll have to face that 
bridge when i come to it. all i know for now, is that i can only ever trust 
that something/someone then, as much as i can ever trust my life now. as for 
now, all i know to be the greatest gift, is the gift of life. if i accept that 
gift, if i value it, if i pass it on as i have been given it, i can't be doing 
nothing wrong.


andreas.

> Remember, for what shall it profit a man if he gain the whole world, yet 
> lose his own soul?  I believe this happens all the time.
    
i agree. absolutely. our difference is only how we view the soul. 
remember, i am the pessimist, you are the optimist! when it comes
to living life, we probably mean much of the same.

peace,

andreas.

    Yes, most likely our lives are close in the way we lived and the way we
    live!

.14 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"
 Title:  Christian symbols

Patricia,

I have little trouble when I view religious objects as symbols, but I don't
believe that the majority of Christians see them this way, I believe that they
view them as facts. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.15 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    Steve, as far as the whys, I don't claim to know Gods nature
    intimately.  Why did God institute the sacrificial system?  That's 
    what God required...that's all I know.  I know that Hebrews 11:6 says

OK, then you must give up the concept of God being all-loving, these were not
loving actions. At that point you must also determine if the observable actions
of this entity are worthy of worship, or even respect.

    analogy I can think of is that if your parents were evicted from a
    newly bank owned property, would you as one of the children demand to
    stay saying, "hey, my dads delinquency in payments has nothing to do
    with me."  It was most likely be that you would be evicted with your

True, but I don't expect that the bank will have ME thrown in jail and refuse to
grant me a loan later.

    parents.  God requires each of us to make a decision of redemption on
    our own.

You can re-write this sentence to read God requires that each of us worship him
unreservedly or he will kill us.

    Whose religion is better?  Well, I like to test the spirits.  I
    personally see Christianity as the true faith because Jesus fulfilled
    the prophecies of the Old Testament.  He also backed his claims as to
    who he was.  I also see Christianity as the only faith where God

You've accepted these proofs on faith, there is precious little evidence to back
them up.

Steve

.23 STRATA::BARBIERI "God cares."
 Title:  Did You?

Tony,

Not yet, and I owe you that. So I will curtail my noting here, on this
particular subject anyway, until I can read it.

I won't believe it unless it has solid evidence to back it up, or at least
creates a plausible hypothesis. I haven't seen (and can't conceive) of a
hypothesis that removes the contradiction between God's reported behavior and
his claimed attributes (all-loving, omnipotent, omniscient), so I will take a
look.

Steve

.25 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    have believed because you have seen; blessed are they that have not
    seen yet believe."  John 20: 25-27.

Can someone tell me what the difference between the preceding quote and 'blessed
are the gullible' is? 

    As far as challenging other belief systems, I firmly believe in this. 
    I believe there is a spiritual battle continually going and battling
    for the mind.  I believe it is important in a spirit lead way to
    confront false doctrine and ask people to investigate for themselves
    where the basis of their belief lies.  

Hey! That's why I'm here, too! :^)

Steve

>	blessed are they that have not seen yet believe."  John 20: 25-27.
>
> Can someone tell me what the difference between the preceding quote and 
> 'blessed are the gullible' is? 

the quote "blessed are they that have not seen yet believe" just about sums 
up the nature of faith. a mature faith is ultimatley "blind faith", full and
complete trust/belief.

a mature faith [in whatever] is by nature irrational and confined to the 
individual. it is wholly based on a personal decision (or choice) for 
approaching the unknown.

in my definition, where gullibility is evidence of lack of effort, faith is 
more like the result of much effort. where gullibility is unquestioned 
dependence on outer guides/orientation, faith is more like unexplainable 
dependence on inner guide/orientation.

to me, faith is ultimately knowing the innermost self, gullibility is avoidance
of knowing just that.

well, that's my take on the subject.

i do wonder if "faith" is an essential element of the human being. i tend to 
think so. but i can't be sure since my thinking is influenced by an upbringing 
in a (religious) tradition of faith. as you appear to be unencumbered by
such tradition, steve, do you also see such a "need" for "faith"? or is this
a particularity of religion?


andreas.

.32> Patricia,
.32>
.32> I have little trouble when I view religious objects as symbols, but 
.32> I don't believe that the majority of Christians see them this way, I 
.32> believe that they view them as facts. 

whilst i also eagerly await patricia's comments (her writings in here are 
definitely my favourites! :-) allow me to make a comment.

it is very much debateable whether the majority of christianty views 'religious 
objects' as mainly fact or symbolic. there is definitely alot of space for 
symbolism in christianity.

hans kueng, a catholic professor of theology in tuebingen, germany (who has
since been withdrawn the right to teach by the church) writes in "being 
christian", with reference to bultmann and modern protestant theology, that 
demystifying the religious symbolism has its limits. particularly the old
churches, the roman catholic and greek orthodox churches, are rich in ritual 
and symbolism. symbols speak an own language.

like an image, a painting, a sculpture, music - only when attempts are made 
to articulate verbally the message of the symbol, and to make assertions based
on such interpretation, do such assertions become subject to criticism.

if the symbol (or the spirit of the symbol) is merely "felt", and one is 
"enriched" by it, so much so that one seeks with ones actions to find the 
same "feeling" in ones surrounding as "felt" from the symbol, then the case
can be made that the "purpose" of the symbol is fulfilled without much 
unnecessary side-tracking in articulations, debates and criticisms.

imo, the power of the symbols of christianity and getting to the spirit of 
these symbols, is quite probably what has kept christianity alive to this day. 
as kueng writes, the risk (or irony, whatever the case may be) of modern 
protestant theology's effort to demystify the symbolism, thus bringing the 
life of christ closer to ordinary life, is that by doing away with the symbols
(and their power) could result in the death of christianity.


any views on this subject?


andreas.

    Steve:
    
    You're asking Christianity to be scientific and that simply isn't the
    case.  There is no faith system I'm aware of that is scientifically
    provable unless you consider evolution a religion and even that has so
    many discrepencies.  
    
    -Jack

    As a outspoken 19 year old I went into my Freshman Theology course at 
    Stonehill College announcing that I was an Atheist.  The Priest
    teaching that course said, that's fine.  This course is about human
    existence.  Your challenge is to identify what human existence is
    about.
    
    Is there a reason we exist?
    Is there a reason that our conduct should be ethical?
    What is that reason?
    Are we related one to another?  To just our family and friends?  To all
    of humanity?  To both human and non human existence?  WHy are we here!
    Is there any meaning in our lifes?  How do we find meaning.
    
    Each of us has answers to those questions.  The collection of those
    answers is our religion.

.35 DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"

>>in a (religious) tradition of faith. as you appear to be unencumbered by
>>such tradition, steve, do you also see such a "need" for "faith"? or is this
>>a particularity of religion?

Interesting distinction, I'll have to think about this.

Actually, I was brought up Catholic. Part of the reason that I eventually moved
away from the church was its attitude every time I posed hard questions. Rather
than answer the questions, I was told to believe without evidence. It just
turned out that it is not in my nature to do this. 

I'm not sure if faith is an essential element of the human being. I see it more
as symptom of something that is an essential element, the need to understand. In
cases where we do not and cannot know the answers, we tend to make something up
and insist that it must be taken on faith.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
.37 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

    You're asking Christianity to be scientific and that simply isn't the
    case.  There is no faith system I'm aware of that is scientifically

Thanks Jack. You state this as a simple matter of fact, but you'd be surprised
how often this is fought tooth and nail by religious folks that insist that it
is provable. Given, then, that it isn't scientifically provable, what is it that
gives you such strong faith, i.e. why are you so sure you are right?

Steve

.38 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"

    As a outspoken 19 year old I went into my Freshman Theology course at 

Patricia, you, outspoken??? I find that hard to believe :^)

    Is there a reason we exist?
Reason in what sense?

    Is there a reason that our conduct should be ethical?
Yes.

    What is that reason?
IMO it is quite complex, but simply stated it has to do with the survival of the
species.

    Are we related one to another?  To just our family and friends?  To all
    of humanity?  To both human and non human existence?  
Depending on how far back you want to go, we appear to be related to all living
things.

    WHy are we here!
Where else would we be?

    Is there any meaning in our lifes?  How do we find meaning.
It is up to each of us to find our own meaning. Some find it in religion, some
find it in reruns of I Love Lucy :^)
    
    Each of us has answers to those questions.  The collection of those
    answers is our religion.
Only if you stretch the definition of religion considerably. My dictionary says
that religion is belief in a supernatural power. I don't have that. I do have
answers to your questions, though, even if the answer is I don't know.

Steve

    Steve,
    
    Why should we be ethical?
    Why should we care about the survival of the species?
    Is ethical that which contributes to the survival of the species and
    not ethical that which does not contribute?
    
    Perhaps spiritual is a better word than religion.  What is
    spirituality?  What is wonder?  What is Awe?
    
    Do we feel connected or inspired by these forces?
    
                          Patricia
    
                                        Patricia

Note 1055.8

Dear Jack,

>   I consider the social gospel vital within it's context.

(Whatever that means.)

>   Adhering to the social gospel as the primary hope of
>   eternal life is a demonic teaching.

First, I didn't mention the social gospel.  Second, nobody's teaching such
things.  Third, what chapter and verse are you relying on to identify this
as demonic?  Or do we sling slurs like "demonic" around just for effect?

>    So, I do not limit Jesus in any way but I reject the teaching that is
>    rampant in society today that we are saved by our good works.
    
Exactly what channel are you tuned to, Jack?  I never hear such things.

You actually had a better handle on the basenote question in .1 than you
have in .8.

Shalom,
Richard

.41 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"

    Why should we be ethical?

Well, you're getting into subjects that have entire series of courses devoted to
them. I'll hit on a few of the highlights and we can pursue ratholes from there,
if you wish. 

Socially, it has a survival component. In the small villages, clans, families
etc. of our ancestors it was clear that a member that could not get along would
have to be dealt with. As the size of these units grew (town, city, city-state,
country, etc.) these 'ethics' became codified, some by laws, some by religion,
some by custom. All have the same effect, to protect society at large from
individuals. 

Fear of punishment. As the social bonds break down (your victim is no longer
likely to be someone you have any remote connection to), laws (as opposed to
customs or taboos) were put into place to enforce the conventions.

Pursuit of reward. This is the religious system (combined with a generous fear
of punishment component). Note that the reward or punishment don't have to be
real, just believed. 

A darwinian component. No matter what you believe as to the origin of the
species, there is no argument that I am aware of against the natural selection
component. The bottom line here is that those that are ethical (play by the
rules) are more likely to find a mate and leave offspring. How many mass
murderers can you name that were married or had children?

Obviously this is an extremely complex subject, and I do not claim to have all
of the answers, but this touches upon what I believe are the most important
reasons. Also obviously, ethics are breaking down. The reasons for this tie back
into the previous paragraphs, but are the subject of another note. 

    Why should we care about the survival of the species?

You can look at a species as a single organism. Each 'organism' is wired to keep
itself alive. Each individual act within the species does not necessarily
contribute to it, but overall the species will wind up acting in it's own best
interests. BTW, you can also view a social structure, such as a religion, in
that light, and watch how it changes in response to 'natural selection'
pressures. Humans have evolved to the point, however, that we can (and do)
ignore many of the hard-wired imperatives, making our direction much less clear
than that of most species.

    Is ethical that which contributes to the survival of the species and
    not ethical that which does not contribute?

Not necessarily. I think that it used to be that way (i.e. that which was
accepted as ethical was by and large good for the species) but that may be
breaking down (see the last sentence in the preceding paragraph).

    Perhaps spiritual is a better word than religion.  What is
    spirituality?  What is wonder?  What is Awe?

Interesting question. I was going to say that we feel these emotions for things
that we cannot explain, but I feel awe that we can build and use a television,
even though I understand how they work. I feel awe whenever I look out of my
office window at Pikes Peak, even though I know how it got there. So I don't
know.

Steve

    Richard:
    
    There are participants here who do believe Jesus is not the only way.  
    They believe we are saved by our works of righteousness.  You may
    choose to see demonic as a condescending term for effect.  I believe
    that any doctrine not of Jesus Christ is of the devil.  I referred this
    same question to the 2nd epistle of John where the beloved apostle
    states that any man who preaches not that Jesus is the Christ is an
    antichrist themself.  
    
    -Jack

    Okay, let's see if you're right.
    
    How many here actually do believe, as Jack says, that "we are saved by
    works of righteousness"?
    
    Richard
    

difficult one, considering that i am still in the process of finding sense 
in the concepts of salvation and sin.

as for me, i am quite happy to accept that life is unique and finite, to 
accept that the human being "originates from the 'ape'", to see adam and eve 
symbolically and to see the original sin (the fall) as the human's awakening 
to consciousness.

so i am sure to understand something else in "salvation" than the biblical
meaning.
    

andreas.

>    How many here actually do believe, as Jack says, that "we are saved by
>    works of righteousness"?

That a couple of other things.

Certain conditions of faith must be also met and then there's that
charity thing.

TTom

    We are saved through the grace of God. If you are not saved, sucking up
    by doing good deeds isn't going to change that. However, a faith that
    bears no light is a dead faith, not a saving faith. Loving works of
    righteousness are the fruits of faith. Where there is only love for
    those who love us, there is no saving faith. Where there is
    condescension and ridicule, there is no saving faith. When we give only
    when we expect to receive, there is no saving love.

    This message of good works being the fruit of faith is often twisted
    into being a message of salvation through works. This twisting of a
    brother's words is to bear false witness and is most certainly not a
    sign of a saving faith.

    Eric

>    How many here actually do believe, as Jack says, that "we are saved by
>    works of righteousness"?

We are not.

But they are necessary, nonetheless.

/john

    Absolutely agree with all replies so far.  Faith without works is dead
    dead dead...just like a marriage without good works is dead dead
    dead...yet they are still married nonetheless.  
    
    Good works to please the Lord is an honorable act of faith.  Good works
    as a way to obtain cleansing from sin is a demonic doctrine.
    
    -Jack

.50>  Good works to please the Lord is an honorable act of faith.  Good works
.50>  as a way to obtain cleansing from sin is a demonic doctrine.
    
and good works for the sake of good works?


andreas.

    Good works for the sake of good works is great.  Since most of the
    world isn't Christian anyway, the world can use all the good works it
    can get!!!!!
    
    -Jack

i couldn't agree more. and that's where i (as a non-christian in this respect) 
see where the world's "salvation" lies: by doing good works in following the 
example set by jesus.

[of course the "example set by jesus" can be either "dieing on the cross" 
or "doing good works" (or both, as christians see it) but for non-christians 
"dieing on the cross" only benefits christians and is not relevant to
non-christians, whereas "doing good works" benefits non-christians and 
christians alike, in short: it benefits the world!!]



andreas.

    Yes...good works benefits the world.  Good works can be subjective
    however.  Remember that in their hearts, the elimination of Indians was
    a good work...the requirements to certify abortion training in our
    hospitals is a good work...communism is a good work...Hitler truly
    believed he was doing a good work.  Secondly, the context of Jesus
    teaching was that they (the world) would know that we are Christians by
    our love.  His promoting good works was to reveal another truth...that 
    we are Christians.  Works were supposed to be the fruit of
    righteousness but not righteousness in itself.
    
    Thirdly, it is kind of interesting that there are other religions in
    the world totally devoted to the doctrine of salvation through good
    works.  There have been religious leaders (Ghandi for example) who did
    nothing more than promote good works.  Why would people who believe
    this as a mode of salvation cleave themselves to Christianity which
    bases its foundation on a person rather than an action?
    
    -Jack

      re: .53
    
      Hi Andreas,
    
      I believe Jesus dying on the cross benefitted nonChristians 
      as well.  Save for the cross, I don't think humanity would 
      have existed beyond its parents first sin.
    
      I'll explain my rationale if you're interested.
    
                                                Tony

>      I believe Jesus dying on the cross benefitted nonChristians 
>      as well.  ...

This is a_interesting point.

Western culture owes a lot to the influence of christianity. This is a
collective benefit.

To the individual non-christian, however, you could say that they are
worse off in the sense now they will be judged according to the lost
opportunity. 

TTom

    .48
    
    Amen!!
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

.54> Good works can be subjective however.  

reliance on community (for christians: community of faith) balances out 
subjectiveness.


.54> His promoting good works was to reveal another truth...that we are 
.54> Christians. Works were supposed to be the fruit of righteousness but not 
.54> righteousness in itself.

a christian particularity? not if the truth can only ever be credibly revealed 
through action - as the life and fruit of all influential spiritual leaders 
suggests.


.54> Why would people who believe this as a mode of salvation cleave themselves
.54> to Christianity which bases its foundation on a person rather than an 
.54> action?

to me the question is: is (and how is) jesus relevant to the rest of humanity?

since neither god nor devil fit into my perspective, i look at this question 
from a distinctly non-christian point of view.

i am still trying to work out whether the "message of love" as lived by jesus,
was more significant, as significant or less significant (for humanity) than 
the resurrection. 

the "message of love" is surely relevant to all humanity. 
it can unite humanity. this is where i see the dynamite power of christianity. 
but is the "message of love" central to christianity?

as i understand from reading on the history of early christianity, the early
christians, as the evangelists, luke, mark and matthew, concentrated on 
spreading the "easter message", the news of the resurrection. in this light,
the resurrection of christ is at the center of christianity - and is "proof" 
of a belief system based on god, the original sin and its consequences, 
redemption and salvation.

so the question i am working on is: is the believed relevance of jesus to the 
rest of humanity OUTSIDE this [judaic-]christian belief system, justifiable?
what makes the universal appeal of jesus? what about jesus transcends religious
doctrines? if the appeal of jesus was to transcend all belief systems and to
extend to all people, wouldn't this make him what he claimed to be - 
the saviour, the messiah?


andreas.

.55> Save for the cross, I don't think humanity would have existed beyond its 
.55> parents first sin.

i am certainly curious, tony, how you are going to explain your rationale to
this one happy atheist! :-)


andreas.

  Hi Andreas,

    This is a summary.  Please give it a FEW thoughtful reads!!   ;-)
    
    There is a spiritual reality at work here.

    If one has sin in their heart, one cannot see ITS CONTRAST in
    its fulness (unveiled) and live.  When Adam and Eve sinned, they
    could not see God unveiled.  For they would have seen the totality
    of the evil of evil, felt to be that evil person, experienced the
    guilt that naturally results, and despaired.  This psychic experience
    would have been of such a magnitude that the result would have been
    for the physical selves to eventually just give out - eternal death.

    The moment Adam and Eve sinned, God veiled His love so as not to 
    destroy them.

    Christ is our Mediator.  He took our flesh and submitted to the
    above reality.  He grew in seeing His Father's love and (via sinful
    flesh), He grew in seeing how bad sin is and He FELT to be that 
    sinner.

    At the cross, Jesus saw God unveiled, saw the evil of evil unveiled,
    felt to be that evil person, and experienced all of the guilt that
    naturally follows.

    THIS was the death of the cross.

    But, Jesus WAS righteous.  Though He FELT so guilty, faith held on 
    and He overcame the temptation to despair by faith.  Before His physical
    death, Jesus was victor over death (the spiritual death) and saw God's
    unconditional love for Him.

    THIS was the resurrection.

    The physical death and resurrection of Christ are schoolmasters and
    are flesh and blood, but God's word is spirit.  The above is the real
    death and resurrection.

    Life is inherent to righteousness and can even survive that guilt.
    Eternal death is inherent to sin and cannot survive that guilt.  This
    is a spiritual reality whose basis is God's character (love), His loving
    choice to create us with a capacity to appreciate love, and the corres-
    ponding reality that there is pain in CONTRAST.

    This is a reality God cannot avoid.  He can only veil.

    The basis for anyone's salvation is that Christ can make perfectly
    righteous.  Any true Christian has allowed some cleansing of heart to 
    take place.  

    Unless perfectly righteous, anyone, if seeing God unveiled, would 
    despair.  

    What then is the basis of such a person's salvation?

    That what God started, He can finish.  And if interrupted by death, it
    just means that they lacked sufficient oppurtunity to drink in (in their
    hearts) such a revelation of God's goodness that they allow Him to make
    them completely righteous.

    And what is the validation of this basis?  Jesus was, but He will have 
    a last generation that "follows the Lamb everywhere he goes."  They 
    GO ALL THE WAY.  They eventually see behind the veil, see the totality
    of God's love, see the contrasting totality of the evil of evil, feel 
    to be that evil person, experience the guilt, and survive just as their 
    Forerunner survived (by faith).

    This demonstration reveals to the entire universe that God's love is
    so good and that sin is so bad that those who decide to follow His way
    will be eternally safeguarded from sin again.  They will never touch 
    it again.  This is the atonement.

    Eventually, in love, God will unveil Himself.  But, only when the evil
    have so resisted Him that His love can no longer draw them.  God's saving
    hands are tied from saving them.

    How does the cross help the unsaved?  It allows for a purpose to a veil.
    It gives them a 'season' to give them life.  And it gives them this
    temporary life.  For without a veil, no sinner can live.

    And you mentioned the gospel writers speak of resurrection.  I hope you
    can better appreciate the spiritual resurrection.

    A faith that has the sight to see an infinitely loving God.  And this
    'sight' is so good that even if feeling to the core that you are the most
    evil creature in the world ("I am a worm and no man."), you still believe
    God loves you and accepts you perfectly.

    Which He does.

    Sin is deceptive.  In the sight of love unveiled, it disallows the sinner
    to believe the truth.  That God still loves him unconditionally.

    And there is NOTHING God can do about that reality.

                                                        Tony

tony,

your explanations of the death on the cross and of resurrection sound eminently 
sensible, even when viewed from outside the christian belief system.

particularly what you write on resurrection: "and He overcame the temptation 
to despair by faith.  Before His physical death, Jesus was victor over death 
(the spiritual death)" [of course the term "spiritual death" could mean all
sorts of things, but let's leave it at that for the moment.]

aren't you saying: "only with faith you come to life (you overcome death)" ?

doesn't this apply to all who have found faith (regardless of which faith)? 
isn't the avoidance of "spiritual death", the avoidance of leading a dead and 
meaningless life, the reason for having faith?

so what faith did jesus have? as a christian you talk of "a spiritual reality 
whose basis is God's character (love)". 

since god means different things to different people, what if the "spiritual 
reality" was JUST love? love, simple and pure, as a universal principle? love 
as the basis of life, as the means to overcome death and destruction? what if 
love and god were one and the same, no more, no less, the one and only and 
complete spiritual reality?

if love were "god", and taking your explanation of resurrection as overcoming 
"spiritual death", then i can see how the "message of love", as lived by jesus,
could have universal appeal. but, can the message of christianity be reduced to 
the "message of love"???


andreas.

    .45

    I'm still waiting for someone to say that "we are saved by
    works of righteousness."
    
    Richard
    

 ZZ   Okay, let's see if you're right.
        
 ZZ   How many here actually do believe, as Jack says, that "we are saved
 ZZ   by works of righteousness"?
        
      Yes, enough waiting.  What's the story Patricia!!!? Your future flock
    will challenge you with this question someday!
    
    -Jack
    

.62>  I'm still waiting for someone to say that "we are saved by
.62>  works of righteousness."

aren't you reading this string richard? have you got an opinion to add?
what do you think the discussion since .53 is about?


andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    This discussion is actually a bone of contention in CP.  There are
    those who adhere to the social gospel as a means of salvation and there
    are others like myself who see the social gospel as the fruit of the
    tree, but not the tree itself.  The two compliment each other but the
    social gospel has only temporal power without the cross.
    
    -Jack

      Hi Andreas,
    
        I just want to say AMEN for your willingness to thoughtfully
        read what I wrote down.  I will attempt a thoughtful reply to
        your reply, but it will take some time.  I am busy elsewhere.
    
        Thanks again Andreas.
    
        Is "God Bless" appropriate?   ;-)
    
        Well, good luck!!
    
                                                    Tony

Note 1055.64

>aren't you reading this string richard? have you got an opinion to add?
>what do you think the discussion since .53 is about?

I guess I was snoozing a bit, Andreas.

As for my perspective, Eric spoke my mind rather nicely in .48.  Hence, my
affirmation in .57.

Shalom,
Richard

    > This discussion is actually a bone of contention in CP.  There are
    > those who adhere to the social gospel as a means of salvation...

    What part of "I don't believe this" don't you understand, Jack.
    Salvation through the grace of God is not a "bone of contention" in CP.
    The social gospel is not espoused as the means for salvation. One would
    think you weren't paying attention.

    Eric

Steve,
    
>>  What is spirituality?  What is wonder?  What is Awe?

<Interesting question. I was going to say that we feel these emotions for things
<that we cannot explain, but I feel awe that we can build and use a television,
<even though I understand how they work. I feel awe whenever I look out of my
<office window at Pikes Peak, even though I know how it got there. So I don't
<know.

    
    I'm glad that you are not sceptical about the feeling of Awe and Mystery.
    
    I truly believe that 'spirit' is more important than any religios
    doctrine or dogma. 
    
    It is the foundation of all true spirituality.
    
    Patricia

    Andreas,
    
    The message of CHristianity is the message of Love.  Inclusive love for
    all people.  Love in Community.  Giving and receiving love.
    
    That is not where Christianity is being reduced.
    
    It is when Christianity is reduced to some enigmatice theory of
    atonement, that the Christian message is distorted.
    
    Christianity in its fullness is about Jesus, the incarnation of God's
    love!  The modeling of  Emanuael  God, with us.  THe first fruit of
    God's love showing all humanity what it is like to live in perfect
    love, harmony and obedience to the Grace of God.  It is life fully
    lead.  Love, friendships, community, anguish, grief, sadness, anger.
    
    It is faith and even lack of faith even if just for a brief moment.  It
    is a life displaying the joy of community living and the sadness of
    being abandoned by the community.
    
    It is a powerful message to say God is Love and Jesus is the
    incarnation of God's Love with us.
    
    Patricia

    Jack,
    
    I do not believe that we are saved by works of righteousness.
    
    We are saved by our Faith in That which is much bigger than the
    individual. 
    
    I believe that we are capable of acts of righteousness because of our
    Faith regardless of the doctrines of that faith(or lack of doctrines)
    
    Patricia

    Andreas,
    
    I believe that Richard again asked the question again because he knows it is
    a trick question.
    
    Your replies indicate that even though you do not consider yourself a
    Christian in the same sense that Jack does, that you have Faith in the
    power of Love, faith in the goodness and worth of the world, Faith in
    the example of Jesus Christ.  It is that Faith which may in fact be a
    humanist Faith, that allows people to commit their lifes to the benefit
    of other without the necessity of some mythical carrot at the end of
    the string.
    
                                 Patricia
    
    

Actually, Patricia, I didn't perceive the salvation that Andreas talked
about was the same as the salvation that Jack was talking about.  I suspect
Andreas kind of knew this, too, since he put the word salvation in quotation
marks in .53.

Shalom,
Richard

 Z   Your replies indicate that even though you do not consider yourself a
 Z   Christian in the same sense that Jack does, that you have Faith in the
 Z   power of Love, faith in the goodness and worth of the world, Faith
 Z   in the example of Jesus Christ. 
    
    Patricia, is this the kind of faith required for salvation?  If so...
    
    1. Was His death on the cross meaningless?
    
    2. What distinguishes Jesus from Ghandi, another great moral teacher?
    
    Good to see you back.
    
    -Jack

.73> Actually, Patricia, I didn't perceive the salvation that Andreas talked
.73> about was the same as the salvation that Jack was talking about.  

actually dear richard and patricia :-), it seemed to me that there might
have been an ever so tender and fragile moment of accord on that bone of 
contention, "salvation", in this string for the length of about 10 replies 
starting from .52 :-)

but i may have been misinterpreting... to my .58, which was actually directed
at jack, a very unexpected (to me) and also very sensible view of "death" and 
"resurrection" followed with tony's .60 
i am very interested in continuing this thought process (and am still awaiting
any/all input to .61), though i suspect that the "resurrection" as defined by
tony may not the be the traditional one. 


andreas.

.74> 1. Was His death on the cross meaningless?

it seems that between the time of his baptism and his death, there were only
six months to three years, where jesus spread his message. considering the
effect the man had within such a short time frame, how can you suggest his 
life was meaningless?

.74> 2. What distinguishes Jesus from Ghandi, another great moral teacher?

there are a few differences. most importantly, we have a lot more evidence
on the mahatma's words, work and life than what we know about jesus. also, 
ghandi was a political, not a spiritual, leader. as such he probably benefited
his own people more materially, in his lifetime, than what jesus did. in fact 
it is not at all unlikely that ghandi took that man jesus as a great example.



andreas.

re .70

patricia, i am currently inquiring into the "message of christianity" from a
historical perspective. i am reading hans kueng, a fellow countryman, a very 
knowledgeable author. a catholic theologian who was also appointed official 
advisor to the vatican council by john xxiii. i am not through the 800 page 
book yet, it is rich in research material and references and a veritable 
treasure.

but judging by what i've read so far, about a quarter, it seems that there
are theologians who might well give you right.


andreas.

>I am reading Hans K�ng, a fellow countryman, a very knowledgeable author.

And no longer authorized to claim to be a Catholic theologian, due to
his writings, mostly those later than "On Being a Christian"; but he
began to depart from orthodox teachings as he wrote even that book.

/john

an interesting point - are catholic critics no longer catholic? see 463.44


andreas.

One of the most disturbing trends in the Western Church has been a
tendency for some to loosen their grip on the singularity of Jesus
Christ.

We have been bullied into this by powerful theological voices which
have suggested that Christianity must come to terms with its own
"parochiality".  It has no right to challenge Islam or any other
religion.  It is merely the Western face of God.  It must therefore
surrender its commitment to being accepted in every part of the
world and be content to be one face and one voice among many.

This view is to be rejected firmly.  Of course we hear and respond
to those who resist the militaristic methods of some evangelism.
All mature Christians deplore forms of presentation which are
insincere, manipulative, or coercive.  But to be concerned for
these things does not mean we cease therefore to proclaim the
uniqueness of Christ.  To do so is a denial both of our history
and our theology.
			-- The Most Rev. and Rt. Hon. George L. Carey
			   Archbishop of Canterbury

re Note 1055.78 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >I am reading Hans K�ng, a fellow countryman, a very knowledgeable author.
> 
> And no longer authorized to claim to be a Catholic theologian, due to
> his writings, mostly those later than "On Being a Christian"; but he
> began to depart from orthodox teachings as he wrote even that book.
  
        One wonders if one can be a theologian AND a Catholic, if the
        answers to inquiry are already known before the theologian
        begins.

        Bob

To be catholic, the answers to any inquiry must be consistent with the
historic deposit of faith, entrusted by the Apostles to the Church
until the end of the ages.

/john

      Hi Andreas,
    
        Glad to see in .75 that you are interested in continuing a
        dialogue on this.  It'll be awhile, though I think I've a 
        nice reply all in my head!!
    
      Hi Patricia,
    
        You alluded to an "enigmatic doctrine of the atonement" or
        some such thing.  Was that referring to my reply?  Just
        wondering.
    
                                                Tony

    Tony,
    
    I was not referring to any one particular note.  I am referring to the
    doctrine of a loving father requiring the death of his only son, to
    satisfy the father's need for payment for sin.

    You don't think it's in Gods nature to require this?  Did he not
    institute the sacrificial system under Moses?
    
    -Jack

    I think God still asks us to make sacrifices.  We're not required,
    however, to ritually kill animals under the guise of sacrifice.
    
    What did the prophets say the Lord required?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      AMEN Patricia!
    
      I've done word studies on the word 'blood' and I have NEVER seen
      its role being a financial sort of currency given by the Son to
      the Father in order to appease Him.
    
      ALWAYS, it is something that is sprinkled in the sanctuary which
      cleanses it from sin.  ALWAYS.  And when I mean always, I mean over
      a hundred times.  Hebrews points to the purpose of the blood being
      to cleanse the conscience from sin to the point where there is no
      remembrance of sin.
    
      Jack, I suggest you look just a smidgeon deeper at the sacrificial
      system and pay close attention to what is actually accomplished.  And
      give hebrews 10:1-4 a look.  The insufficiency of animal sacrifices
      is that the people, after the sacrifices, still had a remembrance of
      sin.  This implies two things.  One, should God require a price for
      appeasement, animal sacrifices would also have been insufficient for
      that.  As this is not mentioned as an insufficiency, it follows that
      there is no such need!  Two, the purpose of the cross is to cleanse
      the heart from sin.  There is no other purpose!
    
      2 Corin 5 somewhere
      If I am beside myself, it is for God or if I am of sound mind, it is
      for you.  For the love of Christ constrains us and we judge thus...
      that if one died for all, then all died.  And He died for all that
    
      [why did He die for all...because the Father required judicial
       satisfaction?]
    
      that whosoever lives for himself might live for He who died for
      him and rose again.
    
      No, there is only one role for the blood.  And while not orthodox, it
      is VERY scriptural.
    
      The role is to cleanse from sin.  Sin being the only condemnation
      there is.
    
                                                        Tony

    Tony:
    
    I was addressing the issue that it isn't above God to require
    sacrifice....that God's holiness cannot be secondary to His compassion.
    Consider Jericho, Babylon, the destruction of Jerusalem...ever read
    Josephus?  Very graphic and detailed incidents of the Roman destruction
    of Jerusalem.  It is not beneath a loving God to allow such atrocities
    to happen...that was all the point I was trying to make.
    
    I realize that God desires mercy over sacrifice.  Isaiah 1 is a perfect
    example of this.  I do believe however that the death of Christ on the
    cross is the foundation of necessity to forgiveness and access to a
    Holy God.  Without it, we are left unredeemed.
    
    -Jack

RE: 1055.61

Hi Andreas,

  Finally, my reply to you!  This is the reply I said quite awhile
    back that I would make to you.  I gave it much time and thought.
    I hope it blesses.

The main point I think you suggested and that I have a different
belief on is your notion that the concept of love is sufficient.
It sounded almost as though if there was a God, His impact on
human behavior would of no different magnitude than if the
concept of love alone were there (apart from any intelligent,
live existence).

I believe that it makes all the difference in the world!  A
person wrote:

"By very nature, the desire of love and goodness cannot exist
nor be seen unless it is directed toward humankind individually.
In other words, the desire of love is not revealed to me until
I can see that love actually reaching toward me, having me in
specific focus, with the ultimate intent that I, too, possess
that same desire.  Nondirected love is not love.  Its very
essence requires specific direction.  It cannot exist as a mere
philosophy or principle that knows nothing of specific persons. 
It must, like any worthy desire, be alive, intelligent, and
therefore focused on other intelligent beings.  It cannot be
revealed or perceived in any other stance.  The light, in other
words, cannot enlighten my mind unless I have evidence that it
is deliberately aimed and targeted at me.  Whether I am
sinlessly perfect or severely sinful, what goodness I do achieve
can never exceed the extent to which I perceive this to be the
case."

We love because He first loved us.

You may disagree with the above, but I think the following
attests to its validity.

Suppose there are two infants.  One grows up with a pair of
loving parents.  The mother and father are perfect.  They direct
unconditional love toward their child.  The other infant grows
up in a 100% emotionally sterile environment.  With virtually no
demonstration of love directed at that child through the course
of her life, she is 'educated' to the concept of love.  Educated
to the concept equivalent to the very love the other child had
focused on her all her life (but all the while no love is ever
focused on her individually).

Which child would you expect to manifest loving behavior?  If
you say the child with the loving parents, you then agree to
benefit to having love directed to a person individually.  If
you answer that you expect the two children to manifest
equivalent behavior, you would feel that there is virtually no
significant difference to a person being exposed to love
personally directed toward her or to the concept only being
exposed.

But, I think there is more support for my belief that the
concept of love falls far short of love being individually
showered on persons.  In Romans 5, Paul said the following...

Romans 5:6-8 
6 For when we were still without strength, in due time Christ
died for the ungodly. 7 For scarcely for a righteous man will
one die; yet perhaps for a good man someone would even dare to
die. 8 But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that
while we were still sinners, Christ died for us.

I heard one person preach on what God's love is like and the
person mentioned how he was pretty sure that when Paul spoke of
the possibility of one man maybe dying for a good man that he
was referring to a well known story called Admetus and Alcestus.
According to this story, Admetus realized something was wrong
and so he appealed to the gods to find out what it was.  He was
told that he was going to die unless he could get someone to die
in his place.  Now, Admetus was a very good man.  So Admetus
tried to get someone to die for him and no one (including his
parents) would.  But, his wife Alcestus decided that because
Admetus was such a good man and so important to his country and
stuff that she would die for Admetus.  And the Greeks (it was
Greek mythology) championed this as the apex of love.  No higher
love than this.  They called it heavenly eros.

Imagine Paul citing this story and saying that that wasn't love
at all. Paul wouldn't even use the word eros.  The NT Bible
writers took an obscure Greek word, agape, and showered it with
meaning.  In contrast to eros, Paul said that God commended His
love for us in that while we were enemies Christ died for us. 
God died for evil men.  For those who wanted Him dead forever.

One point I wanted to make is that the Greek civilization was
extroadinarily cultured.  Their philosophies and other works
were magnificent.  However, you could scour every single piece
of literature and you could not find the concept of love that is
like what Paul and other Bible writers shared.

Why not?  How could this be possible?  And I believe the reason
is because we are by nature evil.  We cannot even, of ourselves,
come up with the CONCEPT.  Even the concept itself of this love
had to be INJECTED into the world.  It is divine work through
and through.

The Bible even pictured two men who demonstrated a willingness
to forego salvation and that for evil people...

Exodus 32:32 
32 "Yet now, if You will forgive their sin -- but if not, I
pray, blot me out of Your book which You have written."

(Moses here refers to the book of life.)

Romans 9:3 
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for
my brethren, my countrymen accor- ding to the flesh,

God has injected GRACE into this planet and that grace is, at
least in part, a revelation of His love focused individually on
each and every one of us.  I submit that without this work,
humanity could not have even come up with such a concept of
love.  But, also, the concept is not nearly as effectual (if at
all) as is that love personally directed individually on each
and every one of us.

As a child thrives on that love personally directed toward her,
so can we thrive on that love God personally directs on each and
every one of us.  God sends the sun and rain (revelations of His
love) on the just and the unjust.  All in the hope that we will
respond to it by faith and allow that love to perform its work
of fashioning us into that same loving image.  It is one thing
to mentally understand the concept that a loving mother
sometimes comforts her child by holding her in her arms; its
quite another to experience first-hand those arms actually
around.

Isaiah 49:14-16 
14 But Zion said, The LORD hath forsaken me, and my Lord hath
forgotten me. 15 Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she
should not have compassion on the son of her womb? yea, they may
forget, yet will I not forget thee. 16 Behold, I have graven
thee upon the palms of my hands; thy walls are continually
before me. 

We can know God so intimately, I believe, that we can experience
His arms around us each individually.  Just as a child in an
emotionally sterile environment is missing something that the
child with loving parents has, so is the concept alone missing
something that a loving God personally directing that love to
each and every individual provides.

Ok Andreas, now to your reply (1055.61)...

>your explanation of the death on the cross and of the
>resurrection sound eminently sensible, even when viewed from
>outside the Christian belief system.

Thanks Andreas.  I just want to add that Jesus relied on much
more than a concept.  He once spoke of how we can run to the
Father and exclaim, "Abba Father! (daddy!)"  When He hung on
that cross and said, "Father into Your hands I commend My
spirit" He was not commending Himself to a concept alone.

You also said:

>aren't you saying: "only with faith you come to life (you
>overcome death)" ?

>doesn't this apply to all who have found faith (regardless of
>which faith)?  isn't the avoidance of "spiritual death", the
>avoidance of leading a dead and meaningless life, the reason for
>having faith?

Oh boy.  There's a lot packed into this!  First off, to address
finding "faith (regardless of which faith)".  I didn't intend to
refer to faith as a denomination or a mere philosophy per se.  I
meant to refer to faith as a PERCEPTION.  The same author I
quoted before wrote:

"This perception - the perception spoken of throughout this
study - is known in Scripture as faith.  It is what Paul calls
"the full assurance of understanding, to the acknowledgment of
the mystery of God ... in whom are hid all the treasures of
wisdom and knowledge" (Col. 2:2,3).  The connection between
faith and perception and understanding is also implied in Paul's
declaration that "faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the
word of Christ" (Rom 10:17).

Hebrews 11:1 describes faith as both an "assurance" and a
"conviction."  Both terms denote a perception by which something
is believed to be real and thus profoundly true.  Elsewhere in
Hebrews 11 faith is described as Sarah's perception of God's
faithfulness ("she considered Him faithful who had promised" -
vs 11), as Moses sense of value (that power by which he
"considered the reproach of Christ greater riches than the
treasures of Egypt" - vs 26), and as the capacity to hold the
providence and love of God to be the supreme reality in the face
of nearly overwhelming contrary evidence (as in Noah's
determination to build an arc, Sarah's belief in the promise of
a child despite her age, and Abraham's obedience to a call to
abandon the securities of life).  In each case faith is that
power of perception by which value is understood, and by which
that value is significant enough, relevent enough, and powerful
enough to serve as the final reality of being despite apparent
dominance of contrary reality.

This last point is worth repeating: any genuine perception of
the godness and love of God will hold that reality not merely as
one of many of which the mind is aware, but as the chief
reality, that capable of overriding every other, that by which
one's ultimate frame of reference is shaped.  Any lesser role
for this perception effectively ends that perception.  In a
crisis, this perception must dominate or cease to exist.

It is precisely because all goodness is perceptual that faith is
vital to any moral attainment.  Faith is that perception within
which all sense of value, and thus all right desire, resides. 
The inherent ethical content, function, and purpose of faith
simply cannot be denied.  Paul, in fact, goes out of his way
repeatedly, to identify Abraham's faith as actual righteousness
(Rom 4:3,5,9,11,22).

[interruption: I personally don't think I agree with this.  I
believe that faith is the channel through which actual
righteousness is allowed to indwell the heart.]

This is why John declares, "This is the victory that has
overcome the world - our faith" (1 John 5:4).  And this is why
it is written that "without faith it is impossible to please
Him" (Heb 11:6).  This verse continues: "... for he who comes to
God must believe that He is, and that He is a rewarder of those
who seek Him."  This simply means that faith is a perception of
an individually focused love capable of overriding every other
reality.  Again, such faith is the essence of moral perception,
not a moral bypass.  Faith and sin are thus mutually exclusive
(Rom 14:23)."

The best definition of faith that I  have heard is that faith is
a heart-appreciation of the love of God.  Trust is a subset of
this definition, but the word trust (in and of itself) is
motivation neutral.  The motivation could be totally selfish. 
But, faith is comprised of only a rightly motivated trust (among
other things).

Going back to the two infants, lets take the infant who has
loving parents.  Suppose the father isn't quite perfectly
loving.  Once in awhile his patience wears thin and he just
snaps!  He hollers a little bit and scares his child.  He
sometimes falls short of what a perfect parent would be.

Perhaps being a little loose with the term faith, what is the
child's faith in the father?  Is it not a response to the
identity of the father that the child perceives?  Is the child's
behavior going to be as good if the child's faith includes
perception of something that falls short of perfect love?  Do
you see what I'm saying here?  We could never be expected to
love more than the love that we perceive for we wouldn't know
any better love.

Getting back to something you said...

>doesn't this apply to all who have found faith (regardless of
>which faith)?

Regardless of which faith...

The only faith I look to is that faith that rests on an unmarred
picture of God's love.  And here I freely admit that my faith
falls short of that.  Only Christ looked behind the veil.  Only
He came to the point of seeing God 'face to face' as it were. 
Only He beheld that love completely untainted by erroneas
concepts of what God is like.  I cannot picture any other faith.

This is a crucial point Andreas.  If you follow my reasoning,
faith is perceptual and thus perfect faith must (among other
things) be inclusive of a perception that sees the object of its
faith (God) CLEARLY.  For example, I would say that any concept
of God that includes the horrible idea that He created people to
be unconditionally immortal (all the while knowing through
foreknowledge that some would choose to reject Him and be lost
and thus suffer an eternity of agony) is a concept that simply
cannot allow for one to have perfect faith.  There is some
imperception there.  God must be seen clearly.

As an aside.  I believe we will never see God's love in its
fulness.  This is an experience for eternity, but the last
generation will see God's love such that there are no
misconceptions (no false pictures of Him) and such that the
degree to which they see it is such that the power (lust) of sin
is completely overwhelmed by the motivation of divine love
(which is appropriated by faith).  "Where sin abounds, grace
does much more abound."

This, to me, is the essence of denominationalism.  This is where
I will freely stand up for a unique 'religion' if you will.  The
one that most accurately paints a picture of what God is like
and of what the experience of righteousness by faith is really
like.  

So when you say "regardless of which faith", I can only say,
"There is only one real faith and it is the one that rests on an
unmarred picture of what God is like."  And that faith doesn't
exist today.  Testimony to that fact is the lukewarmness of
Christianity.  It will exist some day I believe.

As far as a reason for having faith, I think the ultimate reason
is to love as He loves.  And I don't think we really have a clue
as to what that is.  Greek culture couldn't find it.  Mankind,
left to itself, cannot.  But, it will be found as a group
continues to kneel before the cross.  The ultimate reason for
having faith is perfection of character - sinlessness.  If
anyone says the reason is eternal life (which one will have),
they are saying they'd rather have the gift than the Giver. 
They are just revealing their own selfishness that still needs
rooting out.  Righteousness is the ultimate aim of faith.  Faith
is the channel through which the righteousness of God is
appropriated.  Thats what its all about.

I don't think I need to quote anything you wrote about love as a
concept; I said enough on that.

You also said...

"since God means different things to different people..."

I hope the above makes it plain that the ideal will be when God
means the same thing to all of His followers.  That is, He is
seen as He is.  His love is understood as it really is.  John
said, "God is love."

Ephesians 3:14-19 
14 For this reason I bow my knees to the Father of our Lord
Jesus Christ, 15 from whom the whole family in heaven and earth
is named, 16 that He would grant you, according to the riches of
His glory, to be strengthened with might through His Spirit in
the inner man, 17 that Christ may dwell in your hearts through
faith; that you, being rooted and grounded in love, 18 may be
able to comprehend with all the saints what is the width and
length and depth and height -- 19 to know the love of Christ
which passes knowledge; that you may be filled with all the
fullness of God.

This, I believe, is prophetic of a last day group.  Now can you
picture such an occurance all the while some people in such a
group have God meaning something different than other people in
that group do?!!  Isn't that ludicrous?  If a group comes along
that comprehends the dimensions of God's love, if that is what
their faith is perceiving, and if that group is "filled with all
the fulness of God" can you imagine them having DIFFERENT ideas
of what God is like?

They will have the same idea Andreas.  Just like the healthy
child with the loving parents might say, "I KNOW my father and
my mother!!  I KNOW THEM!!!"

Finally, you said...

>Can the message of Christianity be reduced to the "message of
>love"???

If love as a concept only...NO.  And I appeal to your own logic.
Ask yourself if there is any significant differences between
that child raised by loving parents and the child raised in a
100% emotionally sterile environment who is given a 'computer
printout' definition of what love is.

Is there a difference to you Andreas?

There is a profound difference between a concept and a Being
(with a capital "B") who is directing perfect, infinite love on
you personally this and every moment of your life.  Who says, "I
love you" and demonstrates it by showing that were you to want
Him condemned FOREVER, He would choose to be condemned forever
in the hope that that love revealed might warm your heart and
motivate you to choose another way.

There's all the difference in the world between a concept and
one who personally focuses His love on you and invites you to a
relationship with Him.

And finally, I am the first to admit that Christianity (and that
includes me) has not revealed that God very well at all.

					God Bless,

					Tony

tony, thank you very much for putting in so much thought for this discussion!
discussion at such a level is a rare opportunity and i much appreciate it.
i am afraid though that we are now approaching the point where we might mean 
the same thing but say it completelty differently, or vice versa! :-)

the notion of a spiritual reality "love", as something existing outside 
the human, timeless and universal, something which would ultimatley be 
"the basis of life, [and] the means to overcome death and destruction" (re .61) 
seemed like an exciting thought.

the thought of such a spiritual reality is most certainly heart-warming even 
though such a reality is inaccessible to rational proof. love as the ultimate 
spiritual reality would be much more than a concept though. it would, quite 
literally, replace "god".

i don't mean to argue god's existance. i do understand that being strongly 
moved by the language of the heart can lead to belief in god. but, and this 
may sound a little paradox, whilst living by the "language of the heart" 
is fulfilling and whilst the "language of the heart" when experienced is
experienced as self-evident, the existance of "god" is ultimatley just human 
explanation of such experience.

> The best definition of faith that I  have heard is that faith is
> a heart-appreciation of the love of God.  

this is a beautiful definition, particularly the term "heart-appreciation".
it seems so obvious that heart-appreciation or heart-language cannot be
articulated without misunderstanding. with so many people living by jesus, 
their faith could very well be one and the same faith despite the different
denominations. to me the only point of such faith, in and with jesus, can 
only be to *live* the faith, not to rationalise it into a theology. since 
the communications of the heart do indeed appear to take place on a 'different 
plane'.

i agree with your statement on the directedness of love, the communications
of the heart. consider that as much as the hypothetical infant raised without 
human contact, a hypothetical astronaut raised with much love will no longer 
experience love should he become detached from all human contact and drift 
in empty space until the end of his time.


> As far as a reason for having faith, I think the ultimate reason
> is to love as He loves.  And I don't think we really have a clue	
> as to what that is.  Greek culture couldn't find it.  Mankind,
> left to itself, cannot.  But, it will be found as a group

if by "He" you referred to jesus, then i would agree with you, though 
the question of whether "love" as a spiritual reality was born out of
humanity or whether it is a universal reality existing outside humanity
is endlessly debatable. [the thought of such a spiritual reality existing 
outside humanity is certainly exciting and carries enormous implications, 
though imo, answering this unanswerable question is not central to life, 
as it is sufficient to acknowledge that already at the human level this
reality of "love" very certainly exists...]
in any case it seems that jesus, like no other religious leader, has 
elevated this spiritual reality (this "love" as i see the whole meaning 
of his being) to the most crucial issue of humanity: salvation.
not only by acceptance and liberation of the self, but by making the self
as valuable and as important as the other and by making the other as valuable
as the self and to hold both in highest esteem. 




andreas.

    Andreas,
    
    thanks for pointing me back to this topic.  I scanned a few of your
    replies and they are very interesting. 
    
    One of the peculiarities of this noting medium is that each of us is
    having conversations with many people at the same time and some time. 
    I am not as apt to follow one persons continued train of thought as
    much as bounce around the different topics.  When I have more time, I
    intend to go back and reread this string.
    
                                    Patricia