Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    This certainly *is not* a Christian community.  There is no universal
    communing and no unity in doctrine, belief or practice.
    
    jeff

    
    So it's not a *catholic* community. No argument there. However, I say
    that it IS a Christian community. One that has opened its arms to the
    comments of both the zealot and the atheist. The hub of this community
    is exploration of Christian identities, thoughts and ideas, not the
    lock-step enforcement of a particular doctrine or dogma or ceremony.

    Sometimes the nay sayer drives the weak in spirit closer to God than
    does the evangelist. 

    Eric

| <<< Note 1092.1 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| This certainly *is not* a Christian community.  There is no universal
| communing and no unity in doctrine, belief or practice.

	We may not hold ourselves to one small part of the world, but we realize
people have different beliefs, and those beliefs don't disqualify them as 
Christians. Reason being you may ask? Because no human can hold the absolute
truth to every single solitary belief. The ONLY One who can tell what is truly 
in our hearts is God Himself. Only He can tell us who really IS a Christian, and
who is NOT. I can say this is a Christian community, but that is based on what 
I have seen discussed in here. We open ourselves to listen to the world, not 
just those with beliefs very very very close to our own. But in the end, does
God view this as a Christian community? We will all have to wait and ask when
we go to Heaven to be with Him.


Glen

    
    Unless Christianity can be defined, that is, have some limits around
    what it is or isn't, then it is a meaningless term.
    
    jeff

	According to your belief, which surprises me. According to the book you
hold so dear, it states all one has to do is believe in Him. Whether the person
have a lifetime ahead of them, or just seconds, if they believe in Him, and He
sees that in their heart, then they will get into Heaven, and therefor must be
Christians. 


Glen

    I am not the epitomy of virtue by any means.  Having said this, let me
    also add that I wouldn't note here had I not respected all of my
    colleages and friends here in C-P.
    
    The scripture admonishes the church toward likemindedness.  It would be
    dishonest for us not to admit that this is not the case.  We think
    differently and our ideologies are based very much on our own life
    experiences.  There are times when I feel like we do hunger for truth;
    however, our own biases and frames of reference keep us from doing
    this.  Hence we have a difficult time discerning biblical truth from
    emotional truth.  
    
    So to answer the question, are we a Christian community?  Well, it
    depends on the individuals point of view.  In ones view, no...in
    anothers, yes.  However, I hold to this next statement very closely.
    
    I can be right and you wrong.  You can be right and I wrong...or we can
    both be wrong.  However, we cannot BOTH BE RIGHT.
    
    Alot of people see religion as a crutch.  The old line, "...Okay...if
    that works for you..."  This is a fallacy.  If one ignores truth, then
    the good feeling is only a cheap counterfeit...and a dangerous one.  
    
    Until this point is acknowledged, there will always be conflict.  I
    don't necessarily begrudge conflict either...as long as it's contained.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    
    -Jack

    Below are the principles upon which my Faith is grounded.  Can these be
    considered Christian?   Are any contradictory to What is Christianity?

    Lately, I have been calling myself a Christian Unitarian Universalist. 
    What this means to me is that these Principles ground my Faith and
    provide the measure by which I critique the adequacy and reliability of
    all scripture.
    
    In studying Process Theology which is a branch of liberal Christianity,
    Process Thinkers generally agree that as humans we "prehend" or
    "intuit" certain universal truths.  They further claim that any system
    of religious dogma has to be faithful to these universal truths the we
    prehend.  Else the system  is Irrational."
    
    Are there universal truths intuitively available to humanity?
    
    What universal truths do others use to guage any system of dogma?

    
    UU Principles  We believe in:
    "  
        - The inherent worth and dignity of every person;

        - Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;

        - Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual
          growth in our congregations;

        - A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;

        - The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
          in our congregations and in society at large;

        - The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice
          for all.

        - Respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which
          we are a part;

    ZZ        - The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
    
    The Baptist church I attend also holds to this.  It is supposed to be
    the driving force which promotes evangelism and discipleship...just as
    Jesus did.
    
    ZZ        - Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
    
    We extend this a little further.  I believe is is our duty to extend
    this justice to God's holiness.  This can become tricky because it gets
    back to subjectivity.
    
    ZZ        - Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual
    ZZ          growth in our congregations;
    
    Absolutely...but then again, You will notice in the
    epistles...particularly Jude and 2nd John that they had harsh words for
    those who teach false doctrines.  Paul did the same but I want to point
    out that other writers did the same.  I think it gets back to the
    likemindedness issue.  This is required for pure fellowship.
    
    ZZ        - A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
    
    Agree with UU wholeheartedly here.  Question though, if UU accepts all
    modes of thinking on spiritual matters, then how can the finding of
    truth be purely noticable?  
    
    ZZ        - The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
    
    I believe in this too; however, I also believe that the church is to
    have a system of accountability.  Deacons are in a position of
    authority and yet at the same time, they are called to serve. 
    
    -Jack 
    

    ZZ        - The goal of world community with peace, liberty and justice
    ZZ          for all.
    
    Again, it comes down to what we are molded to think.  I would find this
    to be quite difficult...considering the governments of humankind are
    operated by sinful beings.  It appears things are getting worse more
    than better...and supposedly we live in a time of peace.  I think Jesus
    said it well when stating that the world will hate you for the
    testimony you are about to give!  I would be prepared for this if you
    are called to do the work of God!!!!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    ZZ        - The inherent worth and dignity of every person;
    
>    The Baptist church I attend also holds to this.  It is supposed to be
>   the driving force which promotes evangelism and discipleship...just as
>   Jesus did.
    
    Well that is a start for commonality
        
    ZZ        - Justice, equity and compassion in human relations;
    
    >We extend this a little further.  I believe is is our duty to extend
    >this justice to God's holiness.  This can become tricky because it gets
    >back to subjectivity.
   
    I don't know what it means to extend justice to God's holidness. 
    Justice, Equity, and compassion in human relations means that all
    we need to work toward just living conditions, equity, and compassion
    for all persons.
     
    ZZ        - Acceptance of one another and encouragement to spiritual
    ZZ          growth in our congregations;
    
    >Absolutely...but then again, You will notice in the
    >epistles...particularly Jude and 2nd John that they had harsh words for
    >those who teach false doctrines.  Paul did the same but I want to point
    >out that other writers did the same.  I think it gets back to the
    >likemindedness issue.  This is required for pure fellowship.
  
    Second Jude and Paul's letters are not used as the standard of
    encouragement to spiritual growth.  Spiritual growth is seen as unique
    for each person.  Every persons finds their spiritual center in
    different ways.  Different persons emphasize different aspects of
    spirituality.  
    
    ZZ        - A free and responsible search for truth and meaning;
    
  >  Agree with UU wholeheartedly here.  Question though, if UU accepts all
  >  modes of thinking on spiritual matters, then how can the finding of
  >  truth be purely noticable?  
   
    The UU church does not accept that any one person, book, or set of
    doctrines has the final word on what is true.  Truth is an abstract
    ideal that is always sought after, but never fully comprehended. 
   
     ZZ        - The right of conscience and the use of the democratic process
    
    >I believe in this too; however, I also believe that the church is to
    >have a system of accountability.  Deacons are in a position of
    >authority and yet at the same time, they are called to serve. 
 
    The democratic process implies that the accountability is to the
    individuals that make up the communities.  The UU church has a
    congregational style of administration which says that every member has
    an equal voice in church affairs.  The minister is accountable to the
    congregation.  The minister has freedom of the pulpit in speaking on
    the pulpit.  The minister also must be responsible to the people.  The
    people call the minister.  The people can also decide to fire the
    minister.  Of course there is a process in place and the UUA to help
    arbitrate.   
    
   
    
    A major difference Jack, is those are the principles I would use to
    test the validity of doctrine derived from scripture not vice versus. 
     Particularly 1.  the
     worth and dignity or every human,  2. Justice, equity, and compassion in
     human relations, and the3.  interconnect web of existence to which we are
     all a part.
    
    For instance, in the old testament we see the evolution of the notion
    of God from a tribal God to a Universal God.
    
    These principles and purposes would  call for the rejections of those
    pieces of scripture which image God as a tribal God.
    
    Justice, equity and compassion in human relations would call for the
    rejection of those scripture that call for treating some individuals
    with less justice, equity, or compassion than others.
    
    
    Since I hold some scripture as being more revelatory than other
    scripture, than I need some impartial method of ordering scripture. It
    is also a method of interpreting scripture.
    
    Theologically it is a belief that God's goodness is manifested in the
    world, that humanity has been created in the image of God, and that
    humanity, although also capable of evil, is capable of goodness and
    does intuitively know right from wrong.  We may not always act upon
    what is right but we usually do know what is right.  The spiritual
    person attempts to conform their behavoir to that which is intuitively
    known as good.  We can intuitively know what is good in the universe
    because God's spirit and God's holiness is present everywhere in the
    universe.
    
                                       Patricia

    This is an experiment in ecumenism.

    Mike

ZZ    For instance, in the old testament we see the evolution of the
ZZ    notion of God from a tribal God to a Universal God.
    
    Well, not exactly.  God made provisions in the law for welcoming the
    sojourner and the stranger as ones' very own family member.  It only
    seemed tribal because God chose a nation (Israel) to establish an
    eternal covenant (The Davidic Covenant).  It was always clear that this
    covenant would extend to the gentiles but the Pharisees of Jesus time
    never understood this which precipitated a violent response.  Jesus
    never excused them for their lack of forsight in this matter.  Keep in
    mind that Jesus very own lineage has Rahab, a Canaanite harlot and Ruth
    the Moabitess.  Abraham himself was from the nation of Chaldea.
        
ZZ    These principles and purposes would  call for the rejections of
ZZ    those pieces of scripture which image God as a tribal God.
    
    See above.  Remember that God called for non international marriages
    due to the fact that they were the chosen people for that time...and
    they were surrounded by nations heavily rooted in idolatry.  If you
    really look at the end result of what you stated above, the Isralites
    did indeed follow the formula of marrying out of the nation of Israel.
    Idolatry ensued, death ensued, and eventually one of the worst
    persecutions of the nation of Israel...that being the Babylonian Exile.
    On a per capita outlook, the exile would be up there with Hitlers
    genocides in Eastern Europe!
    
    -Jack

    Jack, 
    
    You get the results you do only by ignoring the fact that the image and
    nature of God changes throughout the scriptures.
    
    There is a clear tradition of a tribal God in the Old testament that
    orders the Israeli's to execute all the Caananites, so the Israili's
    can take over the promised land, to the Universal God of second Issiah.
    
    Jesus' message is more clearly a message of a Universal God, with just
    the one embarrassing story of the Syro-Phonecian woman.  A story that
    is judged by scholars as authentic because of the embarrasment factor.
    
    Your trying to find a unity  within the 1000 years of biblical writings
    distorts the Bible and eliminates the uniqueness of the individual
    pieces.
    
                                            Patricia

    
    It is clear from the Scriptures that God does not change.  Indeed he
    cannot change in any meaningful way.  Only that which has a potential
    existence can change.
    
    jeff

.2, amen, eric. this conference is quite unique for that "exploration of 
Christian identities, thoughts and ideas" and it is a very tolerant place 
at that. it has certainly raised my interest in the subject and encouraged 
me to approach the subject in an exploring rather than in a debating manner.
this is only possible when there is a lot of mutual trust and a sense of 
community.

i also find, that the more i am willing to question my beliefs, the firmer 
they become.

since i haven't had much time for noting lately, i would like to thank you
all for being so welcoming and tolerant of non-believers. there have been 
one or two contributions which i have made, where i thought this may be over
stretching the bounds of tolerance. not so, as you have shown.

you make this file special. 

andreas.

    Andreas,
    
    This file is all the better for your participation.  I remember being
    an atheist as a Freshman in a catholic college declaring myself in my
    Freshman Theology class as being an Atheist.  The class was human
    existence.  The Priest was wonderful.  He said.  Fine, you are an
    Atheist.  Now how do you define human existence and the value of human
    existence.  
    
    I got an A in the course.  Perhaps I had met my first liberal catholic
    priest.
    
                              Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    Oh I agree that God has changed.  The sacrificial system for example
    was strictly limited to the overseeing of the Levitical priesthood. 
    Under the New Testament teachings, we are all called to a high
    priesthood...and now we can all approach the throne of grace.  This
    opportunity was inclusive only to the Levitical priests who officiated
    the sacrifice.    
    
    Keep in mind however that like the Israelites persecuted Canaan, The
    Israelites were also persecuted many times in the OT.  The tribal God
    of Israel poured his wrath upon the children of Israel on quite a few
    occasions...as I mentioned in my previous note.  Israel was the
    instrument God used to establish his eternal covenant with humankind.  
    The point here Patricia is that God is no respector of persons...and
    he takes no bribes!  Israel was a beloved vessel for Gods
    purpose...nothing more!
    
    Re: The Syrophonecian woman:
    
    1. Many embarressing incidents happened to men in the bible.  If you
    think about it, circumcision itself is considered a private matter in
    our society.  Yet in ancient Israelm, the term is used very loosely. 
    No privacy there that's for sure.
    
    2. The story of the woman is an example of great faith.  She pondered
    to herself..."If I ONLY touch his garment I will be healed!"  Jesus was
    asking who touched him...not to embarrass her but to help her make a
    public confession of her great faith.  (I got the right woman here
    correct?)
    
    Gosh I missed you!!!! 
    
    -Jack

    re .14
    
    Jeff,
    
    There are a couple places in scripture where God/Jesus changes his mind
    based on human urgings, once by Abraham and once by the Syro phoenician
    woman.
    
    In accounting for the changes in the nature of God recorded in
    scripture, they are not about God changing but about differing human
    understandings about the nature of God changing.  The Bible provides
    hundreds of different interpretations of humanities relationship with
    God.
    
    I think people who consider themselves part of the Christian
    Perspectives community and not antagonists are more likely to
    understand scripture as revelation through human communications and
    understanding processes.  Every two human beings understands God
    differently because no two human beings think exactly alike. 
    Scriptures are rich in differing understandings of the Divine. 

    I guess I got my women mixed up...sorry!
    
    -Jack

  
>    The point here Patricia is that God is no respector of persons 
    
    > Israel was a beloved vessel for Gods purpose...nothing more!
    
    Jack if you truly believe this, then perhaps the god you worship is
    different than the God of love that I worship.  God is a respector of
    every person since every person was created by God in God's image.  God
    is the "Abba" of every person.
    
    Just as it is wrong for humans to only use people as vessel for their
    own purposes, so to it would be wrong for a God of love to use persons
    only for his purposes.  God created us to live fully, to enjoy life,
    and to work for peace, justice, and mercy among all people.
    
                                     Patricia
    
    
    
>    Re: The Syrophonecian woman:
>    
>    1. Many embarressing incidents happened to men in the bible.  If you
>    think about it, circumcision itself is considered a private matter in
>    our society.  Yet in ancient Israelm, the term is used very loosely. 
>    No privacy there that's for sure.
    
 >   2. The story of the woman is an example of great faith.  She pondered
 >   to herself..."If I ONLY touch his garment I will be healed!"  Jesus was
 >   asking who touched him...not to embarrass her but to help her make a
 >   public confession of her great faith.  (I got the right woman here
 >   correct?)
 
    Wrong women Jack, but all women are alike anyway! (:-)
    
    THis story is the only story I know of in the Bible, where Jesus comes
    up short.  He calls the woman a dog and intially refuses to help here
    because she is not from the house of Israel.  She answers him out of
    faith and out of her own self confidence and love for her child.  "Even
    us dogs deserve the crumbs from the children's table she replies"
    
    Jesus is impacted by her faith and by the rightness of her claim.  He
    heals her daughter.
    
    The embarrasment argument goes, that not all text in the Bible that is
    attributed to Jesus was actually spoken by Jesus.  Scholars have tried
    to discover the real Historical Jesus beneath the conflicting tests and
    theological perspectives of the Gospel writers.
    
    Multiple attestation is one criterion.
    Texts that do not support the theological slant of the author is
    another.
    
    The embarrasment arguement goes, that if the text really is
    embarrassing to the theological consciousness of the author, then
    chances are the author did not make it up.
    
    Examples.
    
    Jesus' death on the Cross.
    Jesus' prediction that the end time was imminent,
    Jesus' being caught short by the Syro Phoenician woman.
    The male disciples running away at the time of the cruxifiction.   
   
    
    > Gosh I missed you!!!! 
    
    
    Thank you.  I am glad.
    
                                              Patricia
    
   

    
>    There are a couple places in scripture where God/Jesus changes his mind
>    based on human urgings, once by Abraham and once by the Syro phoenician
>    woman.

     Where are these accounts precisely, patricia?
    
>    In accounting for the changes in the nature of God recorded in
>    scripture, they are not about God changing but about differing human
>    understandings about the nature of God changing.  The Bible provides
>    hundreds of different interpretations of humanities relationship with
>    God.
 
    There are no changes in the nature of God recorded in Scripture.  As
    God revealed Himself to us, our knowledge of Him increased and we saw
    Him differently but not altogether differently, of course.  As you
    live your life with your husband you will come to know him more and more
    and your perspective of him will change with the increase in knowledge.
    He can speed up or slow down the process by revealing more or less of
    himself to you.
  
    	
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Every person who knows me, will know me a little differently.  Some
    will know different aspects of me.  All will interpret who I am and
    what I stand for, through there own intuitions of the world.  None
    precisely comprehending exactly who I am and where I am coming from,
    because without all my experiences, no one but me can comprehend.  That
    is how it is with the 100's of human authors who have contributed to
    the Bible.  Each has interpreted his/maybe her revelation from God.
    
    Revelation is continuous.  EAch of us can continue to have an
    individual relationship with God.  We will all describe that
    relationship differently.
    
    

                      <<< Note 1092.2 by APACHE::MYERS >>>
    
>    So it's not a *catholic* community. No argument there. However, I say
>    that it IS a Christian community. One that has opened its arms to the
>    comments of both the zealot and the atheist. 
    
    	Is the athiest a part of the community, or just a guest...

    	Christianity is not a democracy.

.16> I remember being an atheist as a Freshman in a catholic college declaring 
.16> myself in my Freshman Theology class as being an Atheist. 

i remember when i was a freshman, my elder brother declared at a family 
gathering, that he had left the church because he saw no reason why he 
should pay church tax. "why take the struggle upon you, to question the 
existance of god when god doesn't bother you?" was my reaction at the time. 
the rest of the family agreed with me.
questioning faith is a hard, potentially unsettling and most likely futile
undertaking. 

i would have left it at that and would have lived happily with a traditionally
assumed and unreflected faith, happy with paying the church tax.

in recent years though, it has been the encounter of several forms of 
religious zeal, ranging from religious psychosis to plain fanaticism, which 
have made a personal confrontation with the traditionally assumed faith 
unavoidable. the result being a "no" to god and a "yes" to human.

i still pay church tax to this day. the day that i'll stop is when i no longer 
believe that the church attracts more than average humans.



andreas.

    This is a community that anyone who wants to consider themselves a part
    of the community, is a part of the community.  (IMHO)
    
    Are you a part of this community or just a guest?
    
    
                                              Patricia
    

    Andreas,
    
    I will challenge you with the same questions that I was challenged
    with.  Not about the existence or non existence of a God, but the issue
    of human worth.
    
    What does it mean to be human.  To whom to we owe allegiances?  Should
    we live a moral life?  Why?  What is a moral life?  How do we know what
    a moral life is?
    
    I believe that everyone has a Faith.  Faith can be identified by our
    answers to those questions.

        <<< Note 1092.26 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    This is a community that anyone who wants to consider themselves a part
>    of the community, is a part of the community.  (IMHO)
    
    	The question was not, "Is this a community?"  It was, "Is this
    	a Christian community?"
    
    	I have no doubts that this is a community.  I strongly doubt
    	that it is a Christian community in its current form.
    
>    Are you a part of this community or just a guest?
    
    	I do not consider myself a part of this community.  I do not
    	feel welcomed in spite of all the lip-service to "welcoming and
    	exploring" diverse ideas.  My ideas are far too often NOT welcomed.  
    	At the same time I do not want to feel welcomed by this conference 
    	in its current form, for I see my participation as the burr under
    	the saddle of self-justification on which many of you ride.

.23

in C-P, as a "*christian* community", the atheist is a guest. imo. and as a 
guest the atheist should remain respectful of the christians in the community,
though the atheist will have her/his piece to say, else s/he wouldn't be in 
here. [this respectful approach to the majority of the noters in the conference
is what in turn can be expected of outspoken christians in non-religious 
conferences.]


personally, C-P, is very definitely a "home character" type of community.
much like in my own family, with beliefs ranging from dogmatic to atheist, 
which is no hindrance to staying close as a family.


andreas.

    JOe,
    
    so the question you pose, is can a Christian community be inclusive of
    those who want to participate without calling themselves Christian?
    
    As a liberal Christian, I define Christ as the incarnation of divine
    love in humanity, revealed in the life, death, and ressurrection of
    Jesus.  All humanity can be adoption be children of God and incarnate
    with Divine love.
    
    I believe that God loves every single person, whether they define
    themselves as Christian or not.  I know quite a few people who will not
    define themelves as Christian because they consider Christians a self
    righteous group of people.
    
    I believe that this is a community that will include anyone who is
    interested in being included.  It is your choice to participate in the
    conference without considering yourself a member of the community.
    
    I don't thinks we should define ourselves by guests who seem to be
    antagonistic of the community.  But again, just my opinion.  I do
    welcome you to participate though.  I will try to listen to you.
    
                                       Patricia

    Patricia,
    
>    Every person who knows me, will know me a little differently.  Some
>    will know different aspects of me.  All will interpret who I am and
>    what I stand for, through there own intuitions of the world.  None
>    precisely comprehending exactly who I am and where I am coming from,
>    because without all my experiences, no one but me can comprehend.  That

     Of course they will know you differently but not altogether differently
     or there would be no basis for saying that anyone "knows" you.  Indeed
     if there is not some consistency in "you" then you cannot be known in
     any meaningful sense.  You and I have a characteristic unique absent in
     God and that is that we change.  God is changeless.
     
>    is how it is with the 100's of human authors who have contributed to
>    the Bible.  Each has interpreted his/maybe her revelation from God.
 
     According to the Bible, God has revealed Himself in the Scriptures to
     men and has deliberately included what He wants to say to us.  According
     to the Bible, the Scriptures are worthy and reliable, supernaturally
     protected from error.   

>    Revelation is continuous.  EAch of us can continue to have an
>    individual relationship with God.  We will all describe that
>    relationship differently.
 
    I agree that revelation is continuous but it is primarily acheived through
    His Word.  We may describe our relationship differently but it must not
    be contradictory either to the Bible or to each other's testimony for
    contradiction demonstrates falsehood.

    jeff    

    Well now, this has absolutely no background, but ....  And I am
    certainly not a Biblical scholar, nor are the other people in my Bible
    study group (2 WWII war brides from England, a retired farmer and
    myself), but....

    My Bible study group has been batting around the notion that God
    doesn't change, people change.  And that over the centuries we have
    changed in a way that could be seen as growth.  And the way God relates
    to us changes according to how much we have grown.  When Adam and Eve
    were in the Garden, they were treated like infants who couldn't take
    care of themselves.  When the 10 commandments were given it was because
    we had grown enough to follow rules.  When Jesus reduced those
    commandments to two, it was because we had grown enough to understand
    that following those two perfectly would mean following the intent?,
    spirit? of the 10 commandments.

    
.27>  I will challenge you with the same questions that I was challenged
.27>  with.  Not about the existence or non existence of a God, but the issue
.27>  of human worth.

patricia, some fifteen, twenty years on, we are unlikely to respond as we 
would have when we were freshmen.

i tried to post my response to the "why" in 1078.11



andreas.

>    My Bible study group has been batting around the notion that God
>    doesn't change, people change.

     You have no reason to only bat this idea around.  The Bible (and that
     is what you are studying, you said) is absolutely replete with statements
     of God's unchanging nature.  Shall I list a few?

>    And that over the centuries we have
>    changed in a way that could be seen as growth.  And the way God relates
>    to us changes according to how much we have grown.  When Adam and Eve

     Historically, there is every reason to believe that God revealed Himself
     to us in a deliberate way for specific reasons, some possibly being our
     level of knowledge.

>    were in the Garden, they were treated like infants who couldn't take
>    care of themselves. 

     I don't think they were treated like infants.  They had considerable
     responsibilities.

>    When the 10 commandments were given it was because
>    we had grown enough to follow rules.  

     I'm not sure "grown enough" was the criteria.  I rather think that it
     was quite out of necessity for the Hebrew Egyption slaves to know what
     their God expected of them precisely.

>   When Jesus reduced those
>    commandments to two, it was because we had grown enough to understand
>    that following those two perfectly would mean following the intent?,
>    spirit? of the 10 commandments.

     What is most probable, in my view, is that the more perfect God's
     revelation, the simpler it's message.

     jeff

        <<< Note 1092.30 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    so the question you pose, is can a Christian community be inclusive of
>    those who want to participate without calling themselves Christian?
    
    	Suppose I lived in a Jewish neighborhood, hung out with all the
    	Jewish people, considered them my friends, etc., but I refused to
    	accept their beliefs, and in fact even spoke out against them.
    	Do you think I would be a part of that Jewish community?  If
    	the neighborhood evolved over time such that half of the residents
    	were like me, don't you think that the remaining Jews there would
    	lament the passage of the way it was?  Would they still consider 
    	their neighborhood a Jewish community?
    
    	As for all the rest of your note, I have no disagreement.

> >    My Bible study group has been batting around the notion that God
> >    doesn't change, people change.
> 
>      You have no reason to only bat this idea around.  The Bible (and that
>      is what you are studying, you said) is absolutely replete with statements
>      of God's unchanging nature.  Shall I list a few?

    	No thank you.  That part of the statement was meant as a prelude,
    not as a question.  Good grief!

> >    were in the Garden, they were treated like infants who couldn't take
> >    care of themselves. 
> 
>      I don't think they were treated like infants.  They had considerable
>      responsibilities.

    	I think you are taking the analogy a bit to literally.  

> >    When the 10 commandments were given it was because
> >    we had grown enough to follow rules.  
> 
>      I'm not sure "grown enough" was the criteria.  I rather think that it
>      was quite out of necessity for the Hebrew Egyption slaves to know what
>      their God expected of them precisely.

    	Again, you are taking an analogy too literally.

> >   When Jesus reduced those
> >    commandments to two, it was because we had grown enough to understand
> >    that following those two perfectly would mean following the intent?,
> >    spirit? of the 10 commandments.
> 
>      What is most probable, in my view, is that the more perfect God's
>      revelation, the simpler it's message.

    	That sounds like a different twist on the same idea I was trying to
    express.  Lets see if I can express this in a way which is more clearly
    an analogy.

    When God's children, the human race, were born (the Adam and Eve
    story), we had a lot to learn.  Like any child who is growing the
    lessons came slowly over time.  Thus as my group's study moves through
    Genesis, it struck us that God was treating the people in the story
    first like babies and then like willful toddlers.  

    
    
    re ,33
    
    Andreas,
    
    I don't think it is possible to prove whether God exists or does not
    exist.  I accept the fact that you do not believe in God without any
    desire to change your mind.
    
    I don't believe that one needs to believe in God to have values or to
    be a person of faith.  Faith also means trust.  What do you trust in. 
    The potential goodness of humankind.  The power of love.  The dignity
    of all people.  Equality, justice, and equity for all?
    
    Why do you believe in these things. (if you do),  My questions are
    meant to accept and understand you and your value system.  I'm sorry if
    the questions did not come across that way.
    
    I don't believe anyone would answer these questions that same way in
    their 40 and 50 as in there college years.  
    
                                        Patricia
    
                                        

Re: .21 Jeff

>>    There are a couple places in scripture where God/Jesus changes his mind
>>    based on human urgings, once by Abraham and once by the Syro phoenician
>>    woman.
>
>     Where are these accounts precisely, patricia?

I'm not sure what verses Patricia was referring to, but for examples of
God changing his mind see "contradiction 9" in 1082.1 and 1082.33.

				-- Bob

    My guess is the instance where God calls Abraham to sacrifice
    Isaac...then changes his mind.  Is this correct?
    
    I stand on the belief this was strictly to test the faith of Abraham. 
    It would have to be, since God already foretold Abraham that Isaac,
    would be born and from his seed would come a great nation.  He also
    said the same thing of Ishmael however.  
    
    -Jack

    
    Hi Bob,
    
    Thanks for the pointer, though I'd like to see Patricia respond to the
    question herself.  I'll look at the notes you identify and see what
    you're talking about.
    
    jeff

           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 705.1                     Women in the Bible                        1 of 84
POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"             81 lines  29-MAR-1995 09:34
                         -< The syrophoenician Woman >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Mark 7:24-30 
 
"The Syrophoenician Woman's Faith" 
 
    "From there he set out and went away to the region of Tyre.  He entered
    a house and did not want anyone  to know he was there.  Yet he could
    not excape notice, but a woman whose little daughter had an unclean 
    spirit immediately heard about him, and she came and bowed down at his
    feet.  Now the woman was a  Gentile, of Syrophoenician origin.She
    begged him to cast the demon out of her daughter.  He said to her, 
    "let the children be fed first, for it is not fair to take the
    children's food and throw it to the dogs."  But she  answered him,
    "Sir, even the dogs under the table eat the children's crumbs."  Then
    he said to her, "For  saying that, you may go-the demon has left your
    daugher.:  So she went home, found the child lying on  the bed and the
    demon gone. "
 
Matthew 15:21-28 
 
"The Canaanite Woman's Faith" 
 
    "Jesus left that place and went away to the district of Tyre and Sidon. 
    Just then a Canaanite woman from  that region came out and started
    shouting, "Have mercy on me, Lord, Son of David; my daughter is 
    tormented by a demon."  But he did not answer her at all.  And his
    disciples came and urged him saying,  "Send her away, for she keeps
    shouting after us."  He answered, "I was sent only to the lost sheep of
    the  house of Israel"  But she came and knelt before him saying, "Lord,
    help me"  He answered, "It is not fair  to take the children's food and
    throw it to the dogs."  She said, "yes, Lord, yet even the dogs eat the 
    crumbs that fall from their masters' table.  Then Jesus answered her,
    "Woman, great is your faith!  Let it  be done for you as you wish.  And
    her daughter was healed instantly."  
    
     (end scripture) 
 
 
    These passages are two passages that intrigue me.  I inserted the
    passage from Mark first and then   the Passage from Matthew based on my
    agreement with the many scholars that  Mark was written first  and
    available along with a collection of sayings called "Q" to the writer 
    of the Gospel of Matthew. 
 
    Two things intrigue me about this passage. 
 
    First of all it is the only instance in the Bible that I recall when
    someone successfully morally challenges  Jesus. 
 
    The woman asks for help.  Jesus says no, calling her a "dog" because
    she is not from the house  of Israel, The women offers a perfect
    retorts "Even Dogs get to eat the scraps from the children's table."  
    Jesus changes his mind and helps her. 
 
    Second, it shows the fallibility of Jesus.  Jesus is tired and weary
    and responds to a woman asking for  help with an insult.  "I
    can't help you.  You are a dog.  I came to help the lost sheep of the
    house of  Israel."  The woman's response out of faith caused Jesus to
    respond from his more powerful self. 
 
    As a woman, I find this passage wonderfully  powerful for many reasons. 
    The hero of the passage truly is  the woman.  She is strong, determined
    and powerful.  Even Jesus responded to her Faith and her sense of 
    moral justice. 
 
    I also find this passage inspiring in  its description of a very real,
    human Jesus.  Jesus for me saves by  being a role model.  Jesus portrays
    the power of a human life lived in obedience to the will of  the
    divine.  Some people need Jesus to be infallible to portray Divinity.  I
    need Jesus to be fully human to  potray how a human life can respond to
    Divinity.  In the Epistles, Paul describes Christ  as the "first fruit" 
    By adoption each one of us can become like Christ, a son or daughter of
    the Divine.   Jesus, in his life lived shows us how. 
 
    This passage shows that the Divine is present in each one of us, and
    the divine spark in the  Syrophoenician Woman, was even able to inspire
    Jesus to his more powerful self. 
 
 
                                        Patricia  

    	Perhaps Jesus didn't change his mind at all.  Perhaps he fully
    	intended to help the woman all along and merely tested her faith.
    	Jesus did NOT believe that he was only sent to minister to the
    	house of Israel -- if the parable of the Good Samaritan is to
    	be believed...

.37

patricia, didn't we touch this subject in 1055?

>    			   Faith also means trust.  What do you trust in. 
>   The potential goodness of humankind.  The power of love.  The dignity
>   of all people.  Equality, justice, and equity for all?
    
>   Why do you believe in these things. (if you do)

evil, hate, inequality, injustice and inequity all have their place in the 
world, as much as the good, love, equality, justice and equity. in my personal 
experience, following the latter brings more growth and fulfillment.

with regards to faith, if pushed to it i'll say that i 'trust' life, that 
there is a deeper meaning to life and that this meaning 'reveals' itself 
as life progresses. there is no rational basis for this irrational trust 
other than saying that the meaning of life must be immanent to life itself.

>   My questions are meant to accept and understand you and your value system. 

i do believe that every one of us has some of the "truth" within her/him, 
that noone "owns" the truth and that together, we live in and make the world 
which we deserve.



andreas.

Thanks Andreas
    
    I think that is a rather elegant personnal statement.
    
                                            Patricia

>evil, hate, inequality, injustice and inequity all have their place in the 
>world, as much as the good, love, equality, justice and equity. in my personal 
>experience, following the latter brings more growth and fulfillment.

>with regards to faith, if pushed to it i'll say that i 'trust' life, that 
>there is a deeper meaning to life and that this meaning 'reveals' itself 
>as life progresses. there is no rational basis for this irrational trust 
>other than saying that the meaning of life must be immanent to life itself.

>i do believe that every one of us has some of the "truth" within her/him, 
>that noone "owns" the truth and that together, we live in and make the world 
>which we deserve.

    re .41/.42
    
    I was reading Alfred North Whiteheads book "Religion in the Making" 
    Whitehead was the Mathematician/Physicist with an intense interest in
    Philosophy Theology that is consider the forefather of Process
    Theology.
    
    There is a topic in here with some great information entered by Mike
    Valenza on process theology.  There is even more information in the UU
    notes file, also entered by Mike.  I'm in the process of writing a
    paper on Process Theology and its relationship to Feminist theology. 
    It will complete my directed study in Theology.
    
    Whitehead as a physicist was intrigued by the discoveries the the
    smallest building block of material things are energy and not mater
    itself.  His conclusion is that all things are "In process" and
    "related" to every other thing in the universe.   He developed a
    metaphysics that combined his work as a scientist with his interest in
    Philosophy.   His work is generally considered process philosophy
    whereas the work of his students in considered Process Theology.  The
    Theology School at the University of Chicago has the institution renown
    for this school of theology.
    
    Religion in the making is one of his most readable works.  I avoid his
    heavier works because I don't have the Math and Science background.  I
    would think that some of you with that background would find his work
    fascinating.
    
    Process Theology rejects traditional Deist notions such as the
    omnipotence and omnicience of God.  God is defined by Charles
    Hartshorne, who is attributed with taking Whiteheads Philosphy and
    producing a theology from it, as Creative/Responsive Love.  Process
    Theology asserts that God has both a unchanging and changing aspect. 
    It is relational.  Love is relational.  As a process theology student I
    would assert that Love could not be love if it were not mutual.  For
    God to love humanity, there is a mutual responsiveness in that love. 
    God is affected and does respond to humanity.  God is not independent
    of humanity and does in a sense need humanity.  A relationship is not a
    relationship if both sides do not give and take in that relationship.
    
    Nakoma Brook combines Process Thought with Feminist thought.  She wrote
    a terrific book which uses the Gospel of Mark to show the relational
    aspect of God's Love revealed in Jesus Christ.
    
    This story of the Syrophoenician woman is the one the intrigues me most
    right now.  There is revealed in that story a definite mutual
    relationship between Jesus and the women.  There is a definite give and
    take between the two.  Jesus is impacted by the love and rightness of
    the woman's claim.  Jesus' response in light of the authentic power of
    Love in the conversation is a better, more nobler response than prior
    to the conversation.  Jesus too learns from and grows in light of his
    human relationship.
    
    That analysis may be uncomfortable  if we cannot fully accept the
    humanity of Jesus as well as the Divinity.  All humans including the
    human Jesus are fallible.  All humans are influenced by their human
    experience including their human past.  Jesus is influenced by his
    childhood just as each of us is.  Jesus is influenced by his culture
    just as he is.  Jesus is influenced by the Syrophoenician woman and
    responds out of Love to  her higher claim.
    
                                   Patricia 

    Gee,
    
    I think I might have just drafted the introduction to my paper!
    
    
                                 Patricia

    So what is an ecumenical Christian Community?
    
    And how do we become one?
    
    How does it get decided who can be in the ecumenical Christian
    Community?
    
    How does it get decided who is outside the ecumenical Christian
    Community?
    
    Which of these should be criteria for membership
    
    a.  Adherence to some specified doctrine?
    b.  acceptance of Jesus as a Savoir?
    c.  acceptance of Jesus as a role model?
    d.  desire to be a member?
    e.  desire to learn more about Christianity
    f.  Other?
    g.  all of the above?
    h.  none of the above?
    
    

    Some people reject ecumenical efforts.  It never made sense to me.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Patricia, I am assuming that the addition was intentional, and an
    attempt to gain some consensus, but I would like to highlight your
    addition of the word "ecumenical" as it throws a whole different light
    on what you seem to be asking.  

    I did actually start a different note but then decided that they both
    did belong together.  I suspect that ecumenical might be one of those
    loaded words that means something different to different people.  
    
    Without having a clear direction, I am trying to determine how the
    various people who note in here define this file.

.47

patricia, your list is a good starting point.
my reply on it:

no	a.  Adherence to some specified doctrine?
noish   b.  acceptance of Jesus as a Savoir?
yes     c.  acceptance of Jesus as a role model?
yes     d.  desire to be a member?
yes     e.  desire to learn more about Christianity
        f.  Other?
        g.  all of the above?
        h.  none of the above?



"e.  desire to learn more about Christianity"

that's a difficult one because it really depends on what christianity is 
all about and who says so and why...
hence the "no-ish" to your "b.  acceptance of Jesus as a Savoir?"

the following thought crossed my mind aswell. what, if not a certain doctrine,
is to bind members of a community which refers to itself as christian?

it seems to me that the term 'christian' is as overloaded as the term 
'ecumenical' (hence the need for the latter term in the first place).



andreas.

i would also want to add one more point to the list in .47

"a desire to share thoughts on the founder of christianity"


this was certainly my origininal motivation for joining this conference,
and it still is.

it seems that it is only a matter of how deep you are prepared to dig. 
essentially, jesus of nazareth still remains a riddle to this day.
why is this so?

this conference strikes me as sufficiently founded in theology and doctrine 
to provide discussions of depth. yet at the same time it is a place which is 
open to unconventional thoughts and as such, presents the unique potential of
gaining some valuable insights into christianity.



andreas.

Note 1092.0

>So what is a Christian community and is this one?

I believe C-P is something of a vehicle for Christian community.

I suspect those who are least likely to see a Christian community in C-P are
those who don't want to see a Christian community in C-P.  I suspect those
most likely to see a Christian community in C-P are those who most earnestly
seek a Christian community within C-P.

Yes, we have our detractors.  There are those who would like to see C-P
crumble and collapse.  What does it reveal about the hearts and minds of
those who find C-P so threatening?

Yes, we disagree on a number of issues.  I know of no community that's entirely
disagreement-free.  Surely a feigned and superficial fellowship glorifies
only that which is feigned and superficial.

Would we be better served by taking measures to insure homogeneity, to squelch
all but the most petty of disagreements?

Jesus said, "If you love only your friends (allies, like-minded supporters),
why should you receive a blessing?"

Shalom,
Richard

>I suspect those who are least likely to see a Christian community in C-P are
>those who don't want to see a Christian community in C-P.  I suspect those
>most likely to see a Christian community in C-P are those who most earnestly
>seek a Christian community within C-P.

    I'm quite certain that there is enough diversity in true Christianity
    to please even the most sensitive of us.  However, I believe that those
    who do not see this as a Christian community are most likely those who
    insist that Christianity is definitive and do not equivocate on the
    term (which any reasonable, logical person knows that equivocation is a 
    logical fallacy,i.e. falsehood).
    
>Yes, we have our detractors.  There are those who would like to see C-P
>crumble and collapse.  What does it reveal about the hearts and minds of
>those who find C-P so threatening?

    I can't imagine who would like to see C-P collapse.  It is a threat to
    no one.  Only truth causes discomfort.
    
>Yes, we disagree on a number of issues.  I know of no community that's entirely
>disagreement-free.  Surely a feigned and superficial fellowship glorifies
>only that which is feigned and superficial.

    There can be no fellowship among light and darkness. 
    
>Would we be better served by taking measures to insure homogeneity, to squelch
>all but the most petty of disagreements?

    Depends upon your goals.  It doesn't matter, the embrace of error is so
    broad here that one could not set a workable measure.
    
>Jesus said, "If you love only your friends (allies, like-minded supporters),
>why should you receive a blessing?"

    That, He did.  
    

re Note 1092.54 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     There can be no fellowship among light and darkness. 
  
        This is one of those phrases that sounds so poetic and
        profound that it must convey truth -- but does it?

        Imagine a page of light paper, upon which something is
        printed in equally light ink.

        Imagine a piece of dark paper, upon which something is
        printed in equally dark ink.

        Neither works.

        What works is an appropriate "collaboration" between light
        and dark.

        Bob

    I don't believe that analogy would apply to the fellowship aspect.  As
    Paul stated in 2nd Corinthians 6, "Be not unequally yoked with non
    believers, for what fellowship hath light with darkness."  He is asking
    a rhetorical question to which the answer is, none!  Consider the last
    supper for a moment.  Did Judas have true fellowship when breaking
    bread with Jesus?  
    
    -Jack

    .56
    
    So, Jack, do you consider yourself "unequally yoked"?
    
    I, for one, cannot speak for Judas Iscariot.  At least Judas never
    lingered in denial.
    
    Richard
    

    	What about Judas Iscariot?
    
    	Did he have a different theology than the rest of the Apostles?
    	(Or did he succumb to temptation more easily...)

    Taken from my .6
    
Z    I am not the epitomy of virtue by any means.  Having said this, let
Z    me also add that I wouldn't note here had I not respected all of my
Z    colleages and friends here in C-P.
    
    I don't know the hearts as God knows them.  I can only speculate on
    what I read.  I believe there is a spirit of confusion in this
    conference and I don't believe God is the author of confusion.
    
    -Jack

    Judas had the same problem as the church at Sardis as well as the Jews
    in Acts 19:13-20...
    
    they professed Christ, but didn't possess Him.
    
    Mike

    .59
    
    I don't believe I am confused.  I suspect you don't think you're
    confused either.
    
    Richard
    

    Yes...but matter and anti matter are stable within their own
    environment.  Put them together and they are in a state of confusion.
    Kind of like the Ford Administration! 
    
    -Jack

    Matter and anti-matter is supposed to represent you and me, eh?
    
    Richard
    

    	Does it matter?

    
    Re the base note:
    
    ;So what is a Christian community and is this one?
    
    Jesus, gives guidelines on this....
    
    "I am giving YOU a new commandment, that YOU love one another, just as
    I have loved YOU, that YOU also love one another. By this all will know
    that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love amongst yourselves." John
    13:34,35
    
    Christians show obedience to the direction of their leader Jesus.
    Especially in this command to show love, which can at times be
    difficult for it would mean overcoming in built predujices that
    may have been picked up from the spirit of the world.
    
    By being obedient, Christians will display fruit. In the above passage
    the fruit of love is mentioned, this would bring peace and unity as
    Paul put it "I, therefore, the prisoner in [the] Lord, entreat YOU to
    walk worthily of the calling with which YOU were called, with complete
    lowliness of mind and mildness, with long-suffering, putting up with
    one another in love, earnestly endeavouring to observe the oneness of
    the spirit in the uniting bond of peace." Ephesians 4:1-3 NWT
    
    Jesus said that "all will know YOU are my disciples", in otherwords
    people will be able to judge for themselves whether or not a
    professing Christian community displays fine or rotten fruit.
    
    IMO the only uniting bond of this noting community is that we all work
    for the same company. That's not to say that a Christian community is
    not evident today, but this would be the wrong place to find one.
    
    Phil. 
    

    I think agape is evident.  As evident as it was in the time of Jesus.
    He had his noisey detractors, too, you'll recall.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    He also told us not to chase every wind of doctrine and beware when
    everyone spoke well of you.

    Jesus never advocated "balance."
    
    I know of no one here who chases every wind of doctrine.  And I know
    of no one here who everyone speaks well of.
    
    But thanks for your thoughtful input.
    
    Richard
    

    	But I do know of some people whom I've never seen you 	
    	speak well of.

================================================================================
Note 1034.1                    Are we a community?                       1 of 37
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire"                16 lines   7-JAN-1995 13:17
                                -< Yes and no >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Much to the chagrin and dismay of some, we are a community.

Genuine and lasting bonds have been created.  Many of each other's deepest
joys and burdens have been lifted up and shared.  Some of us have prayed
and provided caring support for others in the community.  Some have gone
out of their way to connect with other participants.

Much to my own chagrin and dismay, we are not as much of a community
as I would like us to be.

There is still much distrust, suspicion, and withholding of affection.
Perhaps it goes with the territory of non-homogeneity.  I don't know.

Shalom,
Richard

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This is a community.  It is a delemma though to know how to integrate
    the distractors into the community.  There are those who don't want
    this to be a community, who state they do not wish to be considered
    part of this community, and yet they note here.  They are critical of
    the values of the community.
    
    How can a community be inclusive enough even to make room for those
    who are opposed to the community?  On a personal level I ask myself
    what is the appropriate response to those who are hostile to me and
    that have publically proclaimed both that they do not want to see this
    community succeed and that they do not want to see me succeed.
    
    I link the two because I believe that the creation of spiritual
    community is an important task if not  the most important task of a
    minister.   A ministers roles is to create an environment in which
    every member of the Congregation can experience spiritual growth. 
    Creating a healthy spiritual community is the best way of doing that. 
    In an environment in which the minister is not the final authority, and
    insight can be generated by any individual within the Congregation,
    then growth comes not directly from the minister but from members
    interacting in a spirit of love, one from another.
    
    I also believe that all real community is spiritual community.  Where
    there is real community there is love and where there is Love, there is
    God.  God is Love and Love is God.
    
    How do I love enough to love those who would hope that I fail?  That is
    perhaps one of my greatest challenges.
    
                                         Patricia
    
                 

A community in the sense that we are all 'here' to share common
interests? Obviously.

A Christian community? Obviously not, since we are not all 
Christians.

A community does not imply that we agree, only that we share
common interests.

Steve

ZZ    How do I love enough to love those who would hope that I fail? 
ZZ    That is perhaps one of my greatest challenges.
    
    Therein lies the great dichotomy.  I like to contribute here because I
    like everybody to succeed.  Had I wished you to fail, then I wouldn't
    correspond with you on a regular basis.  Arrogant sounding....perhaps
    but there it is!
    
    I don't claim to have all the answers.  I'm simply stating that if one
    has faith in what they believe, then one must assume they are correct.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    I hope that if you hang around here long enough, you too will see the
    light, as painful as that may be for you!
    
    Jack, I don't see you as a detractor from this community even if you do
    commonly disagree with the majority opinion.  I believe that you still
    see yourself as a part of the community and you are still willing to
    learn from the community and even be changed by the community.  All
    genuine committment involves change.  You change the community and the
    community changes you.
    
    Steve,
    
    A believe a true community is defined by more than shared interest. 
    True community implies commitment to the members of the community one
    for another.  For me, the commitment is what distinguishes a community
    from a grouping of people.
    
    As far as Christian community versus some other kind of community, I
    guess I am struggling to use the term Christian community to embrace
    all of humankind.  I am a Universalist and believe that everybody is
    part of God's community.  We are a community of all humanity.  As I
    believe that we believe in God only on faith, none of us can truly know
    whether there is a God or is not a God.  As a community of women and
    men we are equally joined together regardless.  If there truly is a
    God, then God is the God of all humanity including those that do not
    believe in God.  If there is no God, then we are still a community of
    people seeking meaning for our human existence.  One way or another, we
    are all in this boat together.
    
                                Patricia

    Jack,  I should have put one of those smiley faces after that first 
    sentence!
    
                                    Patricia

    Touche!  I had that coming! :-)

| <<< Note 1092.76 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Touche!  I had that coming! :-)

	With or without the smiley, Jack???? heh heh

.71

Just because someone lives in the neighborhood doesn't mean they want to
be a part of the community.

Being part of a congregation is a more deliberate choice.  This is not to
say that you as the pastor will be without your prophets, reformers and
dissenters, however.

Shalom,
Richard

         <<< Note 1092.71 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    There are those who don't want
>    this to be a community, who state they do not wish to be considered
>    part of this community, and yet they note here.  They are critical of
>    the values of the community.
    
    	I know you are speaking directly to me, Patricia.
    
    	The lion tamer is not welcome in the Lion's den, yet he
    	goes there anyway.
    
    	You are correct, I am very critical of some of the values 
    	expressed here -- and many times they are the prevailing values.
    	If this conference did not try to masquerade as something it
    	really is not, I wouldn't have the problems that I do with it.
    	
    	I come here, and will continue to come here as long as I am
    	able, to ensure that my Christian viewpoint is heard for
    	balance.  I will not allow through my silence the impression 
    	that views such as mine do not exist.
    
    	You weave an attractive picture of "community", but I fear
    	that as you all hug and sing kum-ba-ya your "community" will
    	follow you like lemmings.  Do I want you to fail?  As you
    	currently portray your intentions, yes.  No diferent than
    	I want Bill Clinton to fail, and no different that I wanted
    	Mz. Elders to fail.  We all see right and wrong, and to remain
    	silent on the wrongs we see is to implicitly support them.
    
    	Sorry, Patricia, but I find no remorse in the positions I have
    	taken in this conference, and I have no intention of ever
    	giving the impression that I accept association with many of
    	the principles espoused herein.  If I am ever erroneously 
    	associated with them, it is by my own fault for not sufficiently
    	expressing my rejection of them.
    
    	Rename your community to something more truthful, and I'll
    	no longer feel compelled to remain here for balance.
    
>    How can a community be inclusive enough even to make room for those
>    who are opposed to the community?  
    
    	A good question, and one with which conservative America has
    	struggled throughout the whole liberal movement of the past
    	few decades.

    Joe,
    
    Ultimately conservative American does not give a damn about inclusive
    community.  Conservative America thinks that the priveledged can
    continue to enjoy there priveledges while others starve and die on the
    streets.
    
    Joe, I was not specifically talking about you when I addressed those
    who note here yet do not feel like members.  You are one of the most up
    front in that respect though.
    
    But we all are part of a community whether we like it our not.  We all are
    part of the community of humankind for one and we all impact each other as
    we note here. When we step into the rink, we are part of community.  You
    are impacted by me and I am impacted by you.  Other people are impacted
    by the dialogue between you and I as they are also impacted by direct
    dialogue with you.
    
    If Christianity is ultimately not about what we think with our rational
    minds but how we give ourselves over to the divine and how we bear
    fruit than every action is part of our Christianity.  We are impacted
    precicely as we struggle with each other in defending our own
    individual truths.  How I go about creating community, not so much
    here, but in my life is about how I go about including within the
    community those whom I might be tempted to want to exclude.  So Joe,
    welcome to our community here.
    
                             Patricia

    
    > The lion tamer is not welcome in the Lion's den, yet he 
    > goes there anyway

    Neither is a bull welcome in a china shop... :-) But we don't beat the
    bull into submission, we just keep picking up and repairing the china.
    The bull is always welcome here, however, we just wish he didn't break
    so much china on his way through. :-)

    	Eric

ZZ    Ultimately conservative American does not give a damn about inclusive
ZZ    community.  Conservative America thinks that the priveledged can
ZZ    continue to enjoy there priveledges while others starve and die on
ZZ    the streets.
    
    What annoys me Patricia is societies perpetual habit of using business
    practices that have proven to fail.  You are confusing prudence with
    compassion and until you get over that hump, you will never understand
    the belief that give aways SIMPLY DON'T WORK!  Remember, the AFDC
    example I gave you a few months ago was dismissed as a non truth by
    you...when in fact, it IS a truth.  The AFDC is GUILTY of interfering
    with the cultural traditions of black Americans...and you insist that 
    we continue to espouse failed policies.  It is this trend I would like
    to see changed but like Lot's wife, you continually desire to look
    back...look back to the idols that have incurred massive debt and
    continues to promote crime, illigitamacy, and all those goodies the
    great society has hoisted upon us privaleged folk.
    
    Blame Reagan...Bush...whomever!  The trend must cease!!!!!
    
    -Jack
    
    Remember, you set the tome of this dialog, not me! 

    	re .81
    
    	I'm sure that the money changers valued their business as
    	you value your fine china.

    re .81
    
    Eric,
    
    Your reply made me smile. I think many misunderstand Jesus' command
    to preach the good news, in that they might do so like a bull in
    a china shop. Part of the christ like personality should be compassion
    and empathy. Many persons of whatever religion have a life time of
    experiences, which can be like a spiritual crutch. What I see, from
    time to time, is persons trying to knock away the other's spiritual 
    crutch. The trouble is if they succeed then it could be damaging to 
    the other person for they might fall, as it were. How more loving it 
    would be to show a person how the good news will benefit them and 
    mankind in general. They can then choose which path to take, and if 
    they decide to throw what has been their spiritual crutch then they 
    will do so without being stumbled.
    
    Ofcourse, it is right to highlight religious hypocrisy but not in the
    way of making personal attacks. For if a persons heart is rightly 
    inclined, then they will recognise rotten fruit and take the
    appropriate corrective action. Highlighting religious hyprocrisy
    should be done with tact and respect for the other person. However,
    keeping quiet would not be the loving thing to do.
    
    Those that attempt to get oneupmanship, ie my religion's better than
    yours, often cite Jesus' attack on the Pharisees. But they forget that
    as religious leaders such ones were reprehensible and that Jesus'
    concern was for those who were burdened down by these leaders. By
    highlighting the hypocrisy of the Pharisees the common people could
    break free from their yoke and take on Jesus' yoke which was light.
    Righthearted ones would recognise the oppression of the Pharisees and
    realise the need to break free. "Come to me, all YOU who are toiling
    and loaded down, and I will refresh YOU. Take my yoke upon YOU and
    learn from me, for I am mild-tempered and lowly in heart, and YOU
    will find refreshment for YOUR souls. For my yoke is kindly and my 
    load is light." Matthew 11:28-30 NWT Jesus' concern was to build up
    the spirituality of the common people not knock them down. Jesus'
    dealings with his disciples showed that he was true to his word.
    Often disagreements, such who was the greater among them, would spark
    up between the disciples. But rather than get angry with them Jesus
    would be mild and kind but at the same time firm, thus nudging or
    urging them to take the path that leads to life.
    
    Paul, recognised the need for love of fellow man, when he wrote
    "If I speak in the tongues of men and of angels but do not have love,
    I have become a sounding [piece of] brass or a clashing cymbal."
    1 Corinthians 13:1 NWT in others words if one attacks another's religion
    without displaying the quality of love, then one is just making alot
    of aggraviating noise rather like the sound a bull will make in a china
    shop.
    
    
    Phil.
    

    .83
    
    Joe,
    
    Wasn't the money changers incident in the house of God?. However, here
    we note in an employee interest notes conference and thus respect for
    fellow employee should be shown accordingly, no?.
    
    Phil.

    
    BTW I would like to add to my reply .84, that one should also recognise
    that persons can be over sensitive with their religion when someone
    makes a disparaging comment regarding it. Even if it is done tactfully
    and the remark is truthful. It takes a lot of courage to highlight
    religious hypocrisy in a loving way.
    
    Phil.

    Re: Note 1092.83 by CSC32::J_OPPELT
    
    The china in my note represents the faith and spirit of this
    conference. The bull represents those participants who run
    callously roughshod through this conference tearing down and
    disparaging the ideals that others hold precious. It is the
    bludgeoning manner of some notes that I am spotlighting, not the
    fact that there is honest and deeply felt disagreement. A prime
    example is your very reply to my note where you debase not only my
    belief, but also the personal character by which I hold those
    beliefs dear. (I'm assume, of course, that you understood the
    symbolism in my note. If you didn't get it, then I apologize.) 

    So while you might see yourself as the Great White Hunter coming
    in to tame the savage beast, others may see you as merely abusing
    the animals.

    Eric

    Eric:
    
    This is what I see as a problem in this conference.  What I see is alot
    of devils advocates in here.  It is apparent there are two factions in
    this conference.  One faction was addressed by Bob in his humerous
    reply...which I did think was humerous by the way, when he implied that
    Heiser, Benson, Martin, Covert, etc. were following another God.  So
    here we have a bundle of individuals we might call conservative,
    fundamentalists, whatever.  Then on the other side we have a group of
    individuals who don't believe the bible is the Word of God, who believe
    some of it is the word of God, who believe almost all is the word of
    God...whatever, and hence their doctrines are intertwined with this
    belief and reach a different conclusion.  In essence both of these
    parties have put their stakes in the ground and build their arguments
    upon these stakes.  I truly admire people of principle whether or not I
    disagree with them and that's why I like noting with Patricia so much!
    A day without Patricia is like a day without my orange juice and I'll
    tell you it's a real bummer!
    
    But now to the nitty gritty.  There is yet a third faction Eric.  Now
    this faction is made up of well intentioned individuals who simply
    don't seem to want to make a commitment on voicing an opinion...lest
    they offend a certain person or party and the solidarity of
    liberalism/conservatism is weakened.  Arguing through silence and
    playing devils advocate...even to the point of compromising what the
    doctrines of their own church teach them...all in the name of
    sensitivity.  One may find that if more people put their stakes in the
    ground and stand for their principles there might be less condescension
    in this conference.
    
    Let's face it Eric...there has been bickering in C-P for years and will
    most likely continue to be.  Since we aren't gluttons for punishment,
    the participants must take some sort of satisfaction in the dialog!
    
    -Jack

 Eric,
       
>    The china in my note represents the faith and spirit of this
>    conference.
    
    I like your metaphor!
    
                                    Patricia

    
    Very good note, Jack. Thank you.
    
    I'm not sure I agree 100% (maybe 95% :-)), but you've given me some
    things to think about. 
    
    	Eric

.84 RDGENG::YERKESS "bring me sunshine in your smile"
 Title:  Love of neighbour


Phil,

Very nice note. It articulates nicely the path I strive (and
sometimes fail) to follow, although obviously from a different
trailhead! :^)

Steve

   <<< Note 1092.87 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    The china in my note represents the faith and spirit of this
>    conference. 
    
    	Oh, I understood what you were saying.  If you didn't
    	understand that I see that same faith and spirit here 
    	as shards of earthen pottery, ready to slice the skin
    	of the unsuspecting admirer, then I didn't make myself
    	clear.  I'm not saying that people are not entitled to
    	hold to them -- under a different name that same faith
    	and spirit might be diamonds!  But I have seen (among
    	other things) nearly every Commandment shattered in here 
    	under the guise of "Christian perspectives", and to me 
    	that "spirit" is far from being fine china in this setting.
    
>    The bull represents those participants who run
>    callously roughshod through this conference tearing down and
>    disparaging the ideals that others hold precious.
    
    	Ah, but when the ideals that I hold precious are daily trampled,
    	I am supposed to remain silent...
    
>    It is the
>    bludgeoning manner of some notes that I am spotlighting
    
    	I do not coddle.  Sorry.
    
>    So while you might see yourself as the Great White Hunter coming
>    in to tame the savage beast, others may see you as merely abusing
>    the animals.

    	Would you expect the hunter to expect the beasts to view him 
    	any differently?

    The danger I see is mixing Christianity with secular humanism.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1092.93 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     The danger I see is mixing Christianity with secular humanism.
  
        Are any participants in this conference practicing or
        professing secular humanists?

        Bob

    Jack,
    
    Do you see any problem in mixing Christianity and humanism?
    
                                     Patricia

    Jack,
    
    I think you did a good job summing up the root of the differences
    seen in this conference. It seems to pivot on the degree of
    mysticism/divinity with which one endows the Bible -- it's authors,
    compilers, translators and editors. I have entered many notes
    expressing and explaining my views on the nature of the Bible, so
    there should be no confusion regarding my frame of reference. 

    > But now to the nitty gritty.  There is yet a third faction Eric.  Now
    > this faction is made up of well intentioned individuals who simply
    > don't seem to want to make a commitment on voicing an opinion...lest
    > they offend a certain person or party and the solidarity of
    > liberalism/conservatism is weakened.

    This is where my agreement with you begins to become strained. I
    would put myself in this group (I don't think the word faction
    applies here). Although I definitely try to be inoffensive (most
    of the time anyway), the lack of zealous, unwaveringly certain
    statements on my part has more to do with my own uncertainty on
    issues and ideas than anything else. I have more questions than
    answers compared to other noters, I guess. 
                                                     
    > Arguing through silence and playing devils advocate...even to the
    > point of compromising what the doctrines of their own church teach
    > them...all in the name of sensitivity.

    If I am silent I am thinking; if I ask questions I am learning.
    When I feel a strong conviction I will speak out... hopefully with
    some sensitivity. On occasion my silence is merely to avoid
    pointless, protracted bouts of verbal abuse. On other occasions
    it's because I simply hit Next Unseen when I see certain names in
    the title bar.

    > One may find that if more people put their stakes in the ground
    > and stand for their principles there might be less condescension
    > in this conference.

    I disagree. You would have Northern Ireland. You would have a
    ratcheting up of the demonizing rhetoric. Only if you allow,
    through conference policy, a single stake in the ground will you
    have less condescension.

    Peace,

    	Eric

    PS. Man, I miss Jim Kirk and Marc Hildebrant... and many others.
    
    

   ZZ        Are any participants in this conference practicing or
   ZZ        professing secular humanists?
    
   ZZ        Do you see any problem in mixing Christianity and humanism?
    
    Patricia, I see you as a humanist and I honor the concern with human
    beings, their values, capacities, and achievements.  Jesus calls us to
    be the salt of the earth and what better way to reach the world for
    Christ than to help fulfill the needs of the community.  The danger I
    see in secular humanism however, is the philosophy that the aid to
    humanity is the measurement of righteousness we use before a holy God.
    In that aspect, we become our own God and Gods righteousness takes a
    back seat.
    
    Bob, to answer your question, I do see secular humanism professed in
    this conference.  I see a consistent philosophy brought forth that
    humankind is basically good, humankind is born good and that sin is not
    really a problem in the age old dilemna of righteousness before a holy
    God.  
    
    -Jack 
    

    
    >	Ah, but when the ideals that I hold precious are daily trampled,
    >	I am supposed to remain silent...

    I said no such thing.

    
    >   I do not coddle.  

    This I believe.

    >   Sorry.

    This I do not.

    
    >	Would you expect the hunter to expect the beasts to view him 
    >	any differently?

    I suppose not. I guess I expected more from someone claiming to
    represent Christ. 

    What is apparent is that you're not concerned with "converting" me to
    your way of thinking; you only wish to have this conference cease and
    desist using what you think is your trademark: the word Christian. 

    Eric

    By their nature, Christianity and secular humanism are diametrically
    opposed.  God saves us, they save themselves.

re .91
    
    Steve,

    Thank you, it's good to see that you feel this way. The qualities
    of compassion and empathy along with mild-temperedness have always
    warmed me to others. For this reason I have been drawn to learn 
    more about Jesus' life and ministry. Like you, I sometimes fail, 
    but have found the example that Jesus left the perfect pattern
    to follow.

    Phil.
    
                                                               

    Anyone who thinks that Christianity and humanism are oppposed to each
    other are either not reading scripture carefully or are distorting the
    term humanism.
    
    the Prophets and the the Gospels are full of humanism.  i.e. humans
    being called by God to take care of each other.  God calls humans to
    feed the poor, heal the sick, visit the prisoners, take care of the
    widows and orphans. 
    
    Israel's failure to take care of all the people is a large part of the
    reason given for the downfall of Israel.  Then in the gospels we have
    the parable of the good samaritan, Jesus' example of healing and
    feeding the multitude, Jesus weeping with humanity.
    
    I don't understand this supposedly Christian objection to following the
    teachings of Jesus and the prophets.
    
                                  Patricia
    
                              

    Patricia:
    
    I will repost what I wrote 10 replies ago.  I don't think you read it
    carefully enough!
    
    
ZZ    Patricia, I see you as a humanist and I honor the concern with
ZZ    human beings, their values, capacities, and achievements.  Jesus calls us
ZZ    to be the salt of the earth and what better way to reach the world for
ZZ    Christ than to help fulfill the needs of the community.  The danger
ZZ    I see in secular humanism however, is the philosophy that the aid to
ZZ    humanity is the measurement of righteousness we use before a holy
ZZ    God.  In that aspect, we become our own God and Gods righteousness takes
ZZ    a back seat.
    
    So as you can see, I do espouse aspects of humanism.  What I shun is
    the idea of putting humanism in the seat of preeminence over the
    mission of Jesus Christ, to die and be resurrected for a lost world.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    You decide for yourself what is important for your spirituality which
    is fine.
    
    But then you try to read that into scripture ignoring everything that
    does not support your own choices and then try to barger others into
    accepting what you have defined as important to you.
    
    Scripture gives a lot of examples of what is important for humanity. 
    No where however does it say that what is important for humanity is to
    believe in  Jesus as an atoning sacrifice.
    
    In many places scripture proclaims that it is important to feed the
    hungry, heal the sick, take care of the widow and orphan, and visit the
    prisoner.  If you choose to ignore all that scriptural evidence, then
    do so up front and not while claiming that your religion is biblically
    based while my theology and other liberal to moderate theologies are
    not.

Re: Patricia
    
ZZ    But then you try to read that into scripture ignoring everything that
ZZ    does not support your own choices and then try to barger others into
ZZ    accepting what you have defined as important to you.
  
I assume by the above you are referring to the atonement since your next 
paragraph follows that line of thinking.  I do not ignore, Patricia, what is
in scripture but I do try to prioritize and put things in their proper order.
For example, once a week I clean the kitchen floor, clean the bathrooms,
vacuum the whole house, and cut the grass.  I don't do these random acts of
kindness to win Michele's favor.  I already won that on May 31, 1986.  I do
these acts of kindness because, aside from liking a neat house, I love Michele
and don't want her to have to do it.  My love for Michele stems from a heart
condition and a vow I made to Michele that I would honor her in thought and
deed.  Acts of righteousness...not to lose or gain the marriage but because I
love her...period!
  
ZZ    Scripture gives a lot of examples of what is important for humanity. 
ZZ    No where however does it say that what is important for humanity is to
ZZ    believe in  Jesus as an atoning sacrifice.
  
Well, you and I differ on this point.  Many a time have I brought up the point
that Jesus claimed to be a fulfillment of the law...not to condemn the world,
but that through him the world might be saved.  If you study the New 
Testament, you will notice that the Church is referred to as the Bride of 
Christ.  Also many a time Jesus uses a bride and a bridegroom in his
parables.  Christ being the bridegroom and the church being the bride.  Back
to the Michele analogy.  Had not May 31, 1986 occured, there would be no
Michele, no children, no home in my life.  Therefore, the acts of righteousness
would be for the sake of keeping myself neat and orderly, not to display love
for my wife.  Jesus claimed to be the only way.  I accept this as truth.  
  
ZZ    In many places scripture proclaims that it is important to feed the
ZZ    hungry, heal the sick, take care of the widow and orphan, and visit the
ZZ    prisoner.  If you choose to ignore all that scriptural evidence, then
ZZ    do so up front and not while claiming that your religion is biblically
ZZ    based while my theology and other liberal to moderate theologies are
ZZ    not.

Consider the parallel Patricia.  Everything you said above cannot be disputed
and it would be sin on my part to state otherwise.  But let's get back to
the priority issue again.  For whose glory are all these acts of goodness being
done?  For yours or mine?  Are you doing these acts of goodness because you 
love God or is it because you want to try and win Gods affection.  There is a
vast difference.  

Yes, I define this question as exceedingly important to me.  In your study of
1st Corinthians, you may remember that Paul wrote, "If I givee all my 
posessions to feed the poor...if I give all that I have, yea even my very
own life, then I am nothing."  He was distinguishing here the difference 
between charity with compassion and charity without.  Charity if done not for
the glory of Jesus Christ but for glory of humanity, although the benefits 
still remain for the receiver, is of no effect for the giver.  That simply put 
is how I prioritize the gift of giving.  Giving for the glory of humanity is
out of context with righteous giving.

-Jack 
                                                                        

   <<< Note 1092.98 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>
    
>    I suppose not. I guess I expected more from someone claiming to
>    represent Christ. 
    
    	A weak attack at best.
    
    	Did Christ hold his tongue regarding those things he saw
    	were evil?  Did he not clearly call them evil?  Do I do
    	any less?  Do I do any more?

>    What is apparent is that you're not concerned with "converting" me to
>    your way of thinking; 
    
    	That is correct.  I plainly state what I believe.  I plainly 
    	state what I see as contrary to my beliefs.  If I have ever
    	given the impression that I've been trying to convert anyone,
    	please accept my apologies.  Or perhaps you're mixing my entries
    	with someone else's.
    
    	Conversion can only come fron within yourself.

| <<< Note 1092.79 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| >    There are those who don't want
| >    this to be a community, who state they do not wish to be considered
| >    part of this community, and yet they note here.  They are critical of
| >    the values of the community.

| I know you are speaking directly to me, Patricia.

	Joe, I could be wrong, and I'm sure I'll find out later if I was, but I
think Patricia was applying this to several people. Yes, I would believe you
are one of those people, but I think it was directed at you all, not directly
at you.

| If this conference did not try to masquerade as something it really is not, I 
| wouldn't have the problems that I do with it.

	Joe, understand something. This is not the Christian conference. There
aren't rules made up left and right to prevent people from noting. This is a
community where people are allowed to discuss their own perspectives. You do
not believe them to be the truth. That is fine. You can believe that. But
understand that perspectives is someones point of view. To that person, it is
the truth. Nowhere does the name state that anything that is written in here is
the absolute Truth. Most in here who believe in God realize that humans are not
capable of knowing or acheiving the absolute Truth, as only He possess that.
But people try, and they share their perspectives on the subject. What I see
happening is that possibly you're projecting your own thoughts of what you see
as wrong, onto the conference. This isn't something you should be doing. 

	It could come down that you have it 100% correct. It could come down
that someone else has it 100% correct. It could come down that no one has it
100% correct. Giving human free will, the latter is probably the most accurate.
With the name perspectves, and with what I just wrote, I don't believe you can
honestly say there is any type of masquerade going on here.

| I come here, and will continue to come here as long as I am able, to ensure 
| that my Christian viewpoint is heard for balance.  

	As well as it should be. I think what would be greatly appreciated
though is if you would not make accusations about things though. I mean, unless
you can say your way is 100% correct, how can you say that others who talk
about their differences are masquerading?

| I will not allow through my silence the impression that views such as mine do 
| not exist.

	Sometimes your views are wonderful Joe. They really should be heard.
They help a great deal.

| Do I want you to fail? As you currently portray your intentions, yes.  

	Christian perspectives is just that, perspectives. If that is something
bad, well.... I guess I don't know what bad is.

| Rename your community to something more truthful, and I'll no longer feel 
| compelled to remain here for balance.

	Wow..... has it come down to the word according to Joe again? When you
become God, you will be able to say that your view is "the" view to have. You
will never become Him, so at best, your version of Christianity is no more than
a perspective. State your perspective, but don't insult others who believe
differently than you do.


Glen

| <<< Note 1092.93 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| The danger I see is mixing Christianity with secular humanism.


	Jack, would you say your version of Christianity matches Joe's? I know
you are going to kill me for this, but....... while I see both of you being of
the conservative nature, I see you being the more liberal. :-)  Your views can
sometimes be far apart, yet you both are still Christians, aren't you? No one
person has it correct. We need to start focussing on the people in this world.
That includes those who perceive themselves to be Christians, and those who
perceive themselves to be from a different religion, or from no religion at
all. If we focus on doing God's Will, there is so much that can be
accomplished. I know you will agree that God has different people doing
different things. Lets focus on His world, it's needs, how He can use us. I
think a lot more will be accomplished. I know we all would get along better. :-)



Glen

    Glen:
    
    I agree that the focus of the church needs to be on the world.  I hope
    you took a good gander at my .105 because this was the focus of my
    comments regarding secular humanism.  I see taking the interest of
    persons or a people as a good thing, as long as it is in the context of
    glorifying God and not self.  I see, particularly in our society, a
    bent on promoting good works in the name of humanity instead of
    glorifying Jesus and promoting his name throughout the world.  I was
    trying to point out to Patricia that as scripture states, "...all of
    our works are as filthy garments..." to God if they are not done in the
    proper context.  This is why I see a danger to government being the
    primary source of charity while the church takes a back seat.  It is
    done in the name of uncle Sam instead of in the name of God!
    
    -Jack
    

                  <<< Note 1092.107 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, understand something. This is not the Christian conference. 
    
    	No, but it masquerades as *a* Christian conference.
    
> community where people are allowed to discuss their own perspectives. 
    
    	Fine.  Then call the conference THEIR_OWN_PERSPECTIVES, or
    	even RELIGIOUS_PERSPECTIVES, but many of "their own" perspectives
    	embraced here are clearly not Christian.
    
    	As much as you take issue with it, 'masquerade' is an excellent
    	choice of words.
    
> understand that perspectives is someones point of view. 
    
    	Perfectly understood.  But when there are some things that are
    	clearly Christian, and other things that are clearly not, then
    	embracing those from the latter under the guise of being a
    	Christian perspective is dishonest.

| <<< Note 1092.109 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I see taking the interest of persons or a people as a good thing, as long as 
| it is in the context of glorifying God and not self.  

	Exactly. I could not agree with you more, Jack. (and it pains me to
agree that much...heh heh...:-)

| I see, particularly in our society, a bent on promoting good works in the name
| of humanity instead of glorifying Jesus and promoting his name throughout the 
| world.  

	Now apply what you wrote above to the Christian Perspectives conference
Jack. Where do you see people promoting self over God? I don't see that with
those who write in here and are religious.

Glen

Frankly, I'm glad this conference doesn't fit the paradigm of its
antagonists.

Shalom,
Richard
(A Christian)

| <<< Note 1092.110 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >	Joe, understand something. This is not the Christian conference.

| No, but it masquerades as *a* Christian conference.

	It is a Christian PERSPECTIVES conference. This is where one comes and
discusses their views on Christianity, on what it means to them, their beliefs,
their non-beliefs, etc. That is what I see you missing. You are too hung up on
the word Christian to really look at what is going on. (imho)

| > community where people are allowed to discuss their own perspectives.

| Fine. Then call the conference THEIR_OWN_PERSPECTIVES, or even 
| RELIGIOUS_PERSPECTIVES, but many of "their own" perspectives embraced here 
| are clearly not Christian.

	They are not Christian according to your own perspective of what
Christianity is. While you and the others are discussing your perspectives in
here, it is named appropriately. Until you can say your perspective is 100%
right, you can not seriously say the name should be changed because many in
here express perspectives differently than your own. Can you say this Joe?

| > understand that perspectives is someones point of view.

| Perfectly understood. But when there are some things that are clearly 
| Christian, and other things that are clearly not, then embracing those from 
| the latter under the guise of being a Christian perspective is dishonest.

	Wow... so many folds in this one. 2 or 3 anyway. Let's look at it:

1) You understand that a perspective is someone's point of view. This is a good
   base.

2) You talk about embracing things your own perspective says are not Christian.
   This is not something you should be doing if your own perspective is any way
   different. People will state their beliefs, which are their perspectives. 
   You, I, or anyone else could have different perspectives on what any one
   verse could mean from the Bible, to what is right and wrong, to anything. 
   But it comes down to one thing, and that is we all have our perspectives
   on what Christianity is, means, etc. and we all share it here. Do I embrace
   everyone elses perspective? Nope. Nor do they mine. They don't need to. They
   are not asked to. You are not asked to.

3) Talking about the many different shapes Christianity has, and calling it
   Christian Perspectives, is not dishonest. I would think it is far more
   honest for this file to call itself what it does, as there are so many
   different views. The Christian notesfile has many different views (although
   not as wide as they make rules to prevent this) in a place called Christian.
   Truly not everyone agrees with everyone else when it comes to what all the
   Scripture means, how it is interpreted, what day the Sabbath really is on, 
   the denomination, etc. Yet you all fit under one neat and tidy name. Would
   you say they are being dishonest? By your own logic you put forth, you 
   would have to.

	It comes down to you have your perspective of what it is supposed to be.
That is fine. Others may have another perspective. While people are talking
about these perspectives, it would seem this is the place to do it, and the
name is appropriate.




Glen

 Z   Now apply what you wrote above to the Christian Perspectives conference
 Z   Jack. Where do you see people promoting self over God? I don't see that
 Z   with those who write in here and are religious.
    
    Glen:
    
    An atheist for example, can be the most generous person in the
    world...and is to be commended as a model citizen and a decent person
    with a generous heart.  Same goes with an agnostic, a religious
    individual, a prosthelyte of faith...anybody.
    
    If however that generosity is done in the name of humanity...in the
    name of spreading random acts of kindness, in the name of community and
    yet one does not recognize it is to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ,
    then the world may still temporarily benefit from it but the giver will
    still have to account for their sin condition and face death and hell.
    That is my only point on this.  I encourage anything that promotes
    goodness but I firmly believe that due credit needs to be given for
    that goodness...for in us dwelleth no good thing!
    
    -Jack

    
    re Note 1092.115 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN
    
    > An atheist for example,...
    
    But Glen specifically said "I don't see that with those who write
    in here and are religious.
            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    I'm sure everyone will agree that ateists don't speak from a
    Christian perspective. :-) 
    
           Eric

    	.114
    
    	So what you're saying, Glen, is that any perspective expressed
    	by a self-proclaimed Christian is a Christian perspective.  Am
    	I correct?

    Perhaps its just late in the day!
    
    The more I listen to this hairsplitting regarding what is Christian and
    what is not, the less I want to be one.

    Good statement to expound yet another question...and I think this is
    fair and we must ask ourselves this also.
    
    Patricia, pretend you are in front of a group of church elders.  You
    are being strongly considered for position as shepherd of the flock.
    
    The question is posed, "Patricia Flanagan, if you weren't a Christian,
    what changes would there be in your life as opposed to what you are
    like today?"
    
    Just curious, how would you answer that?
    
    -Jack

re Note 1092.110 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	Perfectly understood.  But when there are some things that are
>     	clearly Christian, and other things that are clearly not, then
>     	embracing those from the latter under the guise of being a
>     	Christian perspective is dishonest.
  
        This conference, as a conference, embraces nothing in
        particular.

        Many, if not most of the participants, embrace particular
        understandings on the nature of Christianity.

        This conference was established in part to permit the
        discussion of Christianity at the most fundamental level.  We
        must be able to discuss what the fundamentalists in other
        forums take as their indisputable starting points.  We
        discuss what are, in other forums, the stated and unstated
        assumptions.

        *Of necessity*, to allow discussion of Christianity at the
        most fundamental level (which includes what is the nature of
        revelation, the Bible, truth, and God), we *must* allow and
        even encourage participants to express positions that violate
        the understanding of Christianity held by other participants.

        Bob

        P.S. As an exercise for the reader, count how many
        occurrences of the word "Christian" (or its derivatives)
        appear in the above re-statement of this conference's
        purpose.  How many occurrences of "religion" appear?

    re .119
    
    Who I am and what I hold sacred does not necessarily have anything to
    do with the title "Christian"
    
    As I hear more and more people insist on a definition of that term
    which in my opinion is small, exclusive, and mean, and more and more of
    the spiritual, caring people I know reject that term soley because of
    the way it is use, then I wonder to what extent I too need to move into
    the Post Christian world.  Maybe even in staking out what small role I
    may play in defining the world.
    
    For me, what would not be impacted is my spiritual journey, my usage of
    holy Scripture and my relationship with the Divine.  All that would be
    impacted is what name I use to define myself.  The word "Church" really
    does have a negative connotation to too many good people. 
    
    Maybe I should let the fundementalist have their way and let them have
    the term to use or misuse as they like!.

    To me, the world Christian can be an adjective or a verb.
    
    One acts Christian and this is all good.  One can act Christian and not
    be a Christian...which is not meant perjoratively...it simply means the
    person is not identifying themself as a follower of Jesus Christ,
    though they are a very good community individual.  
    
    I believe Jesus own words in the synoptic gospels do apply to us
    today...that being no one can serve two masters, for he will hate the
    one and love the other, or he shall hold to one and despise the
    other...  
    
    If Jesus death and resurrection has no meaning, then the label of
    Christianity is of no effect or consequence (IMO).  
    
    I'd be interested to hear opinions on this last statement from others,
    i.e. Eric, Richard, Bob...  This would be a good opportunity to voice
    honest support for what you believe, even though you'd be agreeing
    openly with me!
    
    -Jack

 Acts 11:26 is the first usage of Christian in the Bible.  Of whom were they
 speaking and what were their beliefs.  Acts26:28 is the second use of the
 term "Christian" in the Bible, where King Agrippa tells Paul "almost thout
 persuadest me to be a Christian"..what did Paul say to Agrippa that "almost
 persuadest" him to be a Christian.  Obviously he had to say something that
 defined what a Christian is for Agrippa to be "almost persuaded" (a state
 that many find themselves in today..so close and yet so far..jh) to be come
 one.  




 Jim

| <<< Note 1092.115 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| If however that generosity is done in the name of humanity...in the
| name of spreading random acts of kindness, in the name of community and
| yet one does not recognize it is to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ,
| then the world may still temporarily benefit from it but the giver will
| still have to account for their sin condition and face death and hell.

	Jack, thanks for clearing it up. At least you realize that those who
consider themselves religious aren't the ones who don't promote Jesus. That was
what I wanted to know.




Glen

| <<< Note 1092.117 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| So what you're saying, Glen, is that any perspective expressed by a 
| self-proclaimed Christian is a Christian perspective. Am I correct?

	Yes, a perspective about that Christian's life, belief, etc. You, I, or 
anyone else can not know what is in the heart of the individual. We can not know
if the person believes in Him or not. Only Jesus can. If in the heart of the 
individual they believe what they are saying, then the person is not a liar, a
joker, etc. Does it mean that what the person is saying is 100% right? Maybe,
maybe not. They won't know that until they meet up with Him. Does it mean
everyone will agree with the individual? I guess there is always the
possibility, but I highly doubt you can ever get everyone to agree on anything.
(imho)


Glen

ZZ    At least you realize that those who
ZZ    consider themselves religious aren't the ones who don't promote Jesus. 
    
    Be careful not to restate out of context.  What I said was people who
    don't follow the GOSPEL of Jesus Christ.  There are people who profess
    Jesus but who do not possess Jesus.  
    
    "Lord, did we not prophesy and cast demons out in your name?  Truly
    truly he said, I never knew you.  Depart from me ye cursed into
    everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels."  
    
    This is from the synoptic gospel of Matthew I believe.  Imagine...from
    Jesus' own mouth...shudder!
    
    -Jack

    Where was it that the opposite was stated.
    
    i.e. when others were casting out demons in the name of Jesus and the
    disciples complained, What did Jesus say?
    
    
                                              Patricia

    My reply:
    
    | and
    | yet one does not recognize it is to promote the gospel of Jesus Christ,
    | then the world may still temporarily benefit from it but the giver will
    | still have to account for their sin condition and face death and hell.
    
    Glen's response
    
    Jack, thanks for clearing it up. At least you realize that those who
    consider themselves religious aren't the ones who don't promote Jesus.
    That was what I wanted to know.
    
    What I was saying Patricia was that promoting Jesus is a good thing. 
    Promoting the gospel of Jesus may be something entirely different
    because the gospel focuses on the other issue (starts with an A, ends
    with a T, has the word tone in the middle).
    
    Regarding the casting out of demons...this is a good point.  The
    apostles were arguing amongst themselves...it seems throughout their
    three year stint, as to who was the greatest.  Imagine the indignation
    when they found out other believers were given the power they were
    given.  But an incident happened in the book of Acts that in todays
    society would have had the exorcist cult up in arms.  See below!
    
    "Then certain of the vagabond Jews, exorsists, took it upon themselves
    to call over them which had evil spirits the name of the Lord Jesus,
    saying, we adjure you by Jesus WHOM PAUL PREACHES.  And there were
    seven sons of one Sceva, a Jew, and chief of the priests, which did
    so.  And the evil spirit answered and said, Jesus I know and Paul I
    know, but who are you?  And the man in whom the evil spirit was leaped
    on them, and overcame them, and prevailed against them, so that they
    fled out of the house naked and wounded.  And this was known to all the
    Jews and Greeks also dwelling in Ephasus, and fear fell upon all of
    them, AND THE NAME OF THE LORD JESUS WAS MAGNIFIED."  Acts 19:13-17.
    
    Amazing.  Non believers who thought they had the power of the Holy
    Spirit within them...Jews in fact, whose father was a Chief Priest.  I
    find this a remarkable testimony, not only on the use and abuse of
    ministering in Jesus name but also the sobering reality of demonic
    forces in the world.  Patricia, do you have the faith to believe this
    incident happened?
    
    -Jack

    LiterallY?
    
    No!

    Sorry you feel that way.  I believe this is a historical event.
    
    I believe you cheat yourself out of the richness of history by lack of
    belief.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1092.130 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I believe you cheat yourself out of the richness of history by lack of belief.

	Jack, belief in Him, or in a book?

Patricia,

As Darth Vader would say, "Your lack of faith is disturbing."

				-- Bob

    Glen:
    
    This isn't a doctrinal issue.  This is the disregard for a sequence of
    events which happened on Pauls third missionary journey.  Blatant
    disregard for a historical event.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Acts is not a Historical record.  The are many inaccuracies in that
    book.  It contradicts many biographical points identified by Paul in
    the letter to the Galatians.  Acts also distorts the extend of the
    quarrells between Paul and the Jerusalem Jews.
    
    you Jack cheat yourself of a historical understanding of the period of
    Christ and his followers by insisting that the Gospels potray accurate
    historical information.
    
    It is a doctrinal issue.  It frames the doctrines of revelation and
    biblical authority.
    
    Even more incredible I don't believe that Paul studied under Gameliel
    and there is reason to doubt whether Paul was even at the stoning of
    Steven.  all in all Acts tells a pretty distorted history attempting to
    convince "Lukes" audience that there was unity between the Jewish and
    Gentile Christians of Paul's time.
    
    This is based on a book I am reading on Paul and the authors method of
    deciding between information in Acts and in Paul's letters.  The
    assumption is that since Paul did write his own letters they are the
    more accurate.  In the letters he says he is not known by appearance to
    the Jerusalem crowd and went to Jerusalem only for 2 weeks to visit
    with Peter.
    
                              Patricia
    
                                           Patricia

    Okay Patricia.  When exchanging information with you I will omit the
    usage of Act.
    
    
    and John...
    
    
    
    and a good portion of Matt, Mark and Luke..
    
    
    
    definitely Timothy, Titus and Philemon
    
    
    
    and Colossians and Ephesians...
    
    
    
    and Revelations 
    
    
    If I'm coming across patronizing, I am attempting to illustrate how you
    have disected the Word of God.  
    
    
    
    and finally the letters to the Corinthians!
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1092.125 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| So what you're saying, Glen, is that any perspective expressed by a 
>| self-proclaimed Christian is a Christian perspective. Am I correct?
>
>	Yes, a perspective about that Christian's life, belief, etc. 
    
    	So, as a hypothetical example, if this Christian expresses a 
    	belief in the sacrifice of one's firstborn daughter to ensure 
    	future fertility, that would still be a Christian perspective?

    
>    Acts is not a Historical record.  The are many inaccuracies in that
>    book.  It contradicts many biographical points identified by Paul in
>    the letter to the Galatians.  Acts also distorts the extend of the
>    quarrells between Paul and the Jerusalem Jews.
 


   Please elaborate.

   
        
>    Even more incredible I don't believe that Paul studied under Gameliel
>    and there is reason to doubt whether Paul was even at the stoning of
>    Steven.  all in all Acts tells a pretty distorted history attempting to
 
     There is every reason in the world to believe that Paul would be there
     based on his position as a Jew and his view of Christians pre-Emaeus.

       
>    This is based on a book I am reading on Paul and the authors method of
>    deciding between information in Acts and in Paul's letters.  The
 
     I'm sure you're reading material from both sides of the issue in your
     search for the truth.

  


 Jim

    Watch...I can prove that demons exist....watch this.....
    
    
    
    
    Glen, a voice just told me that your TV recently busted and you have to
    return it to Lechmere.  The demon is laughing because you have to drive
    all the way up to Rockingham tonight...ha ha ha!
    
    
    
    
    Bye!

| <<< Note 1092.133 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| This isn't a doctrinal issue.  This is the disregard for a sequence of
| events which happened on Pauls third missionary journey.  Blatant
| disregard for a historical event.

	Based on a book that you believe has no flaws. To one who sees the
flaws in the book, it can not be a blatent disregard, as they don't hold the
book at the same value you do.

| <<< Note 1092.136 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >| So what you're saying, Glen, is that any perspective expressed by a
| >| self-proclaimed Christian is a Christian perspective. Am I correct?
| >
| >	Yes, a perspective about that Christian's life, belief, etc.

| So, as a hypothetical example, if this Christian expresses a
| belief in the sacrifice of one's firstborn daughter to ensure
| future fertility, that would still be a Christian perspective?

	To that person? Yup. It sure is. 

| <<< Note 1092.138 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Glen, a voice just told me that your TV recently busted and you have to
| return it to Lechmere.  

	The demon is pulling one over on ya Jack. I bought the tv at Sears....
13 years ago. :-)

| The demon is laughing because you have to drive all the way up to Rockingham 
| tonight...ha ha ha!

	The demon is laughing cuz he pulled one over on ya Jackel!!!! :-)


Glen

 Thud.

    	And, Glen, should *we* accept it as a Christian perspective?

| <<< Note 1092.142 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| Thud.


	Jim, if that's in ref to .140, reread what I wrote, along with what I
wrote in .125. Joe did not include the latter part of it in his note. I was
going to rewrite it again, but I figured if anyone took it the way you did, i'd
tell them to go reread .125. :-)

	Joe, see note .144

    	re .145
    
    	No.  .125 is not clear to me.
    
    	I asked a simple yes/no question.  Surely you can accommodate it.

	Let me explain .125 to you:


	>>Yes, a perspective about that Christian's life, belief, etc. 

The Christian is talking about her/his life, beliefs, etc. Pretty straight
forward.

	>>You, I, or anyone else can not know what is in the heart of the 
individual. We can not know if the person believes in Him or not. Only Jesus 
can. If in the heart of the individual they believe what they are saying, then 
the person is not a liar, a joker, etc. 

What this is saying is if a Christian claims to be one, only God knows for sure
if she/he is. If the person makes a statement based on their beliefs, then they
can not be called a liar, a joker, etc, because they really believe what they
are saying.

	>>Does it mean that what the person is saying is 100% right? Maybe,
maybe not. They won't know that until they meet up with Him. 

The person can believe anything. Even your scenerio. Does it mean that this
person is 100% right? Only God knows for sure. 

	>>Does it mean everyone will agree with the individual? I guess there 
is always the possibility, but I highly doubt you can ever get everyone to 
agree on anything. (imho)

In other words, you may not view the person in the scenerio that you gave as
being a Christian. That is your belief. Another may feel the person is a
Christian. That is their belief. Only God knows for sure though. 

Joe, to give a yes or no answer to your question is pointless, as for each
individual, the situation changes. The person from your scenerio talked about
what they believe to be a Christian perspective. If you said to the individual
that they are wrong, that would be your Christian perspective. If you were in
this notesfile talking about it, you both would be sharing your Christian
perspectives in a notesfile called just that.


Glen

    Jackal! Jackal! Jackal!  ref. 1092.138 that voice you heard did not say
    it quite that way. :-)  Beware you may find a 13 year old TV in your
    yard next to some other stuff you have been collecting. :-)
    
    bye

    AAaaaaaaargggghhhh...You DISCOVERED ME!!!!!!!!!!

    <------those voices will get in trouble everytime!!!! :-)

.115 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    goodness but I firmly believe that due credit needs to be given for
    that goodness...for in us dwelleth no good thing!

So, Jack, for your Godless saint, where does the credit go?
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
.116 APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively"

    I'm sure everyone will agree that ateists don't speak from a
    Christian perspective. :-) 

True, but they still can have a perspective on Christianity.

    	.147
    
    	Fuzzy morals.  It will be the downfall of this society.

| <<< Note 1092.152 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| Fuzzy morals.  It will be the downfall of this society.

	No more fuzzy than your own. You know that you can't call your morals
absolute, as you have admitted to that. We can only do as best we can for human
beings. We may not always be correct, but IF we rely on Him, we should be ok. 


Glen

 Tell us about God's morals, Glen.

    re .152
    
    It's not fuzzy morals that are a problem!
    
    It is bad morals!
    
                                Patricia

    Tell us about "God's" morals Jim!
    
                                    Patricia

    
>    It's not fuzzy morals that are a problem!
    
>    It is bad morals!
    
 
   What are bad morals, and how does one know if they are bad?



 Jim

 I can tell you about God's morals as they are spelled out in the Bible, which
 I suspect would be summarily rejected by many participants herein.  Glen
 said God's morals are not fuzzy (or something to that effect) and I'm 
 curious as to what he sees as God's morals.




 Jim

 ZZZ   So, Jack, for your Godless saint, where does the credit go?
    
    The credit goes to the saint of course.  And a person who is a great
    humanitarian and yet does not acknowledge a God would have no choice
    but to give credit to his/her own goodness.  That is the caveat though
    IMO, that there is no human goodness in the true sense.  
    
    -Jack

    re 157/159
    
    > What are bad morals and how does one know if they are bad?
    
    Ultimately each one of us is created in the image of God.  Are
    intellect and our conscience and our ability to discern right from
    wrong are those aspects of humanity that are most divine.
    
    Yes we all sin!.  But all humans have a conscience.  Religious
    commitment, prayer and meditation all help "sinful" humans in
    developing our conscience. 
    
    God wants to draw all people toward God's self.  Creating a conscience
    in humanity is the tool.  A person of faith will work constantly to
    move their behavoir into harmony with our God given reason and our God
    given conscience.
    
    This is why I believe it heretical to say that the basic condition of
    humankind is sin.  The basic condition of humankind is to have been
    created in the image of God and fallen away from God by sin.  To
    develop one's conscience and to bring one's life into harmony with our
    conscience is the way to return to God.
    
    the human concience is that aspect of God's spirit that lives inside
    each one of us.  If we let our lights shine, then that aspect of  God that
    lives inside of us will be displayed as often as we are in harmony.
    
    We know what is good and bad by listening attentively to that "still,
    small voice" and letting it guide our lives.
    
    So what is bad.
    
    To kill, to steal, to lie, to let others starve, to let others die of
    violence, to not make a difference, to waste the gifts that God has
    given us.
    
    
                                         Patricia

| <<< Note 1092.158 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

| I can tell you about God's morals as they are spelled out in the Bible, which
| I suspect would be summarily rejected by many participants herein. Glen said 
| God's morals are not fuzzy (or something to that effect) and I'm curious as to
| what he sees as God's morals.

	Jim, you use the Bible for your morals. Other people do as well. You
know having a beer is not a sin. You know there are some who believe it is. Who
is right, and who is wrong? There is one example of fuzziness using the Bible. 

	When I stated that God's morals are not fuzzy, it was due to He is the
only One who is perfect, He is the only one who knows what He means 100%. What
we humans do to the morals God brings forth, makes them become fuzzy. The beer
example is just one of many. 



Glen

	Ooopppsss.... forgot to answer one thing from Jim's note. God's morals
are something I learn from prayer, and he shows me in many ways. Warning lights
come on all the time in the form of a conscince. He shows other things other
ways. You could be wondering about something, and He could provide the answer
for you through someone else. There are so many avenues He can use.


Glen

 I never said having a beer is not a sin (assuming you are referring to 
 discussions in another conferences).





 Jim

| <<< Note 1092.163 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| I never said having a beer is not a sin (assuming you are referring to
| discussions in another conferences).

	Jim, I didn't say it was you. I truly doubt you would have a beer the
2-3 times a year you do if you thought it was a sin. I was giving an example of
how 2 people can look at the same book and come up with one thing being a sin
to one, and not to another. 


Glen

.159 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    The credit goes to the saint of course.  And a person who is a great

That's interesting. So good can be done in the world that God is not
responsible for?

Steve

    Sitting around the campfire singing combuyah my Lord is not an
    acknowledgement of doctrinal agreement.
    
    It is a heartfelt, spirit felt desire to live in the presence of the
    Living God.  It is getting out of the rational quibling over
    intellectual concepts and seeking the life giving spirit of God.  It is
    a prayer to live one's whole life in God's presence.
    
                               Patricia

  ZZ      Sitting around the campfire singing combuyah my Lord is not an
  ZZ      acknowledgement of doctrinal agreement.
    
    I apologize for this since I happen to like the song.  Kumbaya is one
    of those songs dragged in the mud when somebody despises disingenuous
    touchy feely symbolism that hides truth and reason.  Kind of like the
    bad rap the perverbial mother n law gets in our society.  
    
    -Jack  

    I do a lot of touchy, feely stuff!
    Even if it is not politically correct to do Touchy feely.
    
    What you are saying is that Kumbaya is not "politically correct"
    
                                  
                               Patricia

    No, I'm saying I used Kumbaya inappropriately.  And I have no problem
    with touchy feeley stuff as long as it is genuine. 
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1092.153 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>
    
>	No more fuzzy than your own. You know that you can't call your morals
> absolute, as you have admitted to that. 
    
    	Ah, but I am not so confident as to rely on *MY* own morals,
    	which I know are fuzzy, thus I defer to a morality that has
    	been developed through the collective wisdom of many people
    	who were all more wise than I, and which has been tested by
    	the trials of time.  I have admitted to *THAT* many times,
    	and I have NEVER said that that morality is fuzzy -- in fact
    	I've been quite vocal to the contrary.
    
    	No, Glen, you NEED the inconsistency of individual immoral
    	judgement to justify the continued inadmission of your 
    	sinfulness.  You need the exaggeration of petty differneces
    	(beer or no beer) to allow room in your mind for the gross
    	differences you've expressed here.  You need these things so
    	that you can then be able to blur the discinction between 
    	"Christians' perspectives" (perspectives of individual 
    	Christians) and "Christian perspectives" (perspectives that 
    	are Christian.  Remember, Christian means Christ-like.)

| <<< Note 1092.170 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| Ah, but I am not so confident as to rely on *MY* own morals, which I know are 
| fuzzy, 

	Good..... we both agree.

| thus I defer to a morality that has been developed through the collective 
| wisdom of many people who were all more wise than I, and which has been tested
| by the trials of time.  

	I defer to Him alone. He is the ONLY One who is perfect in every way. 

| I have admitted to *THAT* many times,

	Yes, you have.

| and I have NEVER said that that morality is fuzzy -- in fact I've been quite 
| vocal to the contrary.

	Use the drinking scenerio and you will see the point I was making about
fuzzy. To you, your version of morals is correct. To someone else, theirs are.
Both people could use the Bible, both could have differences.

| No, Glen, you NEED the inconsistency of individual immoral judgement to 
| justify the continued inadmission of your sinfulness.  

	No, I NEED Him to guide me. It's pretty simple. BTW, when did I ever
say I WASN'T a sinner?

| You need the exaggeration of petty differneces (beer or no beer) to allow room
| in your mind for the gross differences you've expressed here.  

	Joe, the example is one of many that show 2 people can read the same
book, yet see it differently. Remember what absolute means Joe? The example
shows that humans aren't even close to absolute. Only He is. BTW, however you
feel about what will happen to my soul due to homosexuality, the same thing
could be done by someone else towards one who drinks a beer. Still a petty
difference? Nope....

| You need these things so that you can then be able to blur the discinction 
| between "Christians' perspectives" (perspectives of individual Christians) 
| and "Christian perspectives" (perspectives that are Christian.  Remember, 
| Christian means Christ-like.)

	Like I have said before Joe..... it appears, anyways, that the closer
one is to the Right, the more often they tell you what you are thinking, why
you do X or Y, etc. You are wrong about what you wrote above.


Glen

                  <<< Note 1092.171 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	I defer to Him alone. 
    
    	How do you know?  (Why am I wasting my time asking this again...)

>	Use the drinking scenerio ...
    
    	I already commented on your use of this.  Why do you use
    	it again to prove something to me?  (Unless you intend to
    	prove my point for me...)
    
>| You need the exaggeration of petty differneces (beer or no beer) to allow room
>| in your mind for the gross differences you've expressed here.  
>
>	Joe, the example is one of many that show 2 people can read the same
>book, yet see it differently. 
    
    	I rest my case.  Most of that "many" you've used are on par
    	with your beer example.
    
>BTW, however you
>feel about what will happen to my soul due to homosexuality, the same thing
>could be done by someone else towards one who drinks a beer. Still a petty
>difference? Nope....
    
    	Homosexuality and beer.  Ditto above.  (BTW, I'm not the one
    	who brought up homosexuality.  Make a note of that...)

>	Like I have said before ...
    
    	Yes, Glen.  Like you said before.  It didn't make a difference
    	then either.

 Geesh, I should have kept my mouth shut on the beer thing.  I should have
 known somebody wouldn't understand.





 Jim

.170 CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?"

Joe,

What happens if the collective wisdom upon which you rely
for you morals turns out to be wrong? Are you still OK,
or do you not acknowledge this as a possibility?

Truly Curious,

Steve

	 Note 1092.174 

	Steve --
    
	It hasn't been wrong for millenia.  Why should it suddenly
    	turn wrong now?
    
    	You are correct in suggesting that I don't acknowledge it
    	as a possibility.

	Joe, I could be wrong, but I believe Steve is talking about your
interpretation of the morals you speak of from the Bible. Unless you're God,
you can't possibly have it 100% right. 

    	Do you have an escape sequence or something that keeps entering
    	the same thing into your notes?
    
    	Check your data line.

	When you stop talking like you have it 100% correct, I won't have to
keep giving the same line. It's really up to you.


Glen

 ZZ   Unless you're God,
 ZZ   you can't possibly have it 100% right. 
    
    If God didn't think we could get it right, he wouldn't have told us.
    
    I believe secular humanistic dogmas have made our society sick.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1092.179 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZ   Unless you're God,
| ZZ   you can't possibly have it 100% right.

| If God didn't think we could get it right, he wouldn't have told us.

	God gave us free will as well Jack. That comes into play here.

| I believe secular humanistic dogmas have made our society sick.

	I don't believe this fits into that catagory. I believe it is a more
realistic approach to it. Think about it. There is only One who is perfect.
That's God. Only One has the capability of always knowing what is right, what
is wrong. That's God. Every human being on this planet can't even come close to
Him. So how can any one of us have it 100% right? 


Glen

.179 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    If God didn't think we could get it right, he wouldn't have told us.

Of course, he could have made *sure* that we got it 100% right without the
possibility of misinterpretation, but for some reason chose not to...

Joe,

Thanks for your answer, I do appreciate it. 

Glen, (said Steve, in the 
rather odd position of backing up Joe) if I have it right, Joe doesn't
maintain that he has it right. He maintains that the Catholic Church has
it 100% right, due to hundreds of years of study and experience. Where Joe's 
view differs from the official view, he takes the official view in 
preference over his own. 

Did I get it right, Joe?

Steve

 ZZ    all human institutions including the church are capable
 ZZ    of wrongdoing!
    
    I agree they are capable of wrongdoing.  I don't agree the church is a
    human institution.  The church is a Godly institution left in the
    stewardship of humans.  Under the auspices of man, a church can become
    apostate as is the case these days; or it can yeild it's own will to
    the will of the Holy Spirit and flourish.
    
    -Jack

    Well, 
    
    obviously the Pope of the Catholic Church does not agree with Joe
    that the Church has it 100% right. 
    
    He just apologized to the women of the world for the oppression they
    have suffered and specifically by the oppression caused by the church.
    
    So in this case, I'm more inclined to go along with the Pope and
    acknowlege that all human institutions including the church are capable
    of wrongdoing!
    
                               Patricia

	Based on what Patricia just said, it does make sense that the Church
itself does not have it 100% right. The interpretation factor is another reason
for no one having it 100% right. Free will is another. The curchs of the world
are made up of human beings, and are also part of the crowd for not having it
100% correct. 



Glen

    i'M BAFFLED...HOW DID MY .183 END UP BEFORE YOUR .184?
    
    -jACK  

| <<< Note 1092.186 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| i'M BAFFLED...HOW DID MY .183 END UP BEFORE YOUR .184?

	esp???? :-)

    The thought had occured to me.  I think Patricia being a moderator is
    trying to convince me that I am insame!
    
    -Jack

    I don't know what you guys are talking about!

    AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!!!!!!!
    !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    
    (Running off in the distance with arms flailing in the air)

    Ha Ha, I got you!
    
                                           Patricia

| <<< Note 1092.188 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| The thought had occured to me.  I think Patricia being a moderator is
| trying to convince me that I am insame!

	insaNe....nnttm

    	re .181
    
    	Yes, you have correctly described my position, Steve.  Thanks.

        <<< Note 1092.182 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>
>              -< Even the Pope knows the church isn't 100% right >-
>    
>    obviously the Pope of the Catholic Church does not agree with Joe
>    that the Church has it 100% right. 
    
    	How many times does this have to be cleared up?  The "it" that
    	the Church has 100% right is morality, faith and doctrine.
    	"It" doesn't include the actions of individuals, groups, leaders,
    	etc., acting in the name of the Church.  There is no moral,
    	faith, or doctrinal stance that says to oppress anyone, or
    	to murder or discriminate against or to rob anyone.  These
    	things were done, however, often in the name of the Church.
    	These are the things that the Pope apologizes for.
    
    	No, Patricia, you are wrong in thinking that the Church and I
    	do not agree, for if we do (in matters of morals, faith or
    	doctrine) I am committed to change to match the Church.
    
>    So in this case, I'm more inclined to go along with the Pope and
>    acknowlege that all human institutions including the church are capable
>    of wrongdoing!
    
    	The humans within the institution are the reason for the
    	wrongdoings.

| <<< Note 1092.194 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| How many times does this have to be cleared up? The "it" that the Church has 
| 100% right is morality, faith and doctrine.

	Joe, was it a human being, or a group of human beings that determined
the morality, the faith, the doctrine? Was it the same person(s) mentioned who
read some sort writings that may have led them to this conclusion? If humans
were involved, then you lost your 100% right. So was it humans or something
else? If something else, what was that thing?



Glen

 ZZ   If something else, what was that thing?
    
    "All scripture is God Breathed and is useful for teaching, for reproof,
    for correction, and for training in righteousness."

	Jack, if that is the thing used, then it is only as good as the person,
or group of people who are interpreting the Scripture. Seeing humans are not
perfect, they can't possibly have it 100% correct.


Glen

    But it can Glen, because Paul the Apostle was a prophet.
    
    -Jack

>    But it can Glen, because Paul the Apostle was a prophet.
 


  Lookout..here comes 1Cor 7:25 again

    Communicable snarf!!!!

    Oh...that's right.  Prophets can't give opinions.
    
    Glen, a prophet can do two things.  He/she can foretell a message from
    the Lord.  Messianic prophecies are foretelling of the future.  A
    prophet can also forthtell a word from the Lord...that being something
    that is already revealed through scripture.  John the Baptist was a
    great prophet who told Herod he shouldn't sleep with his brothers
    sister.  He was ForTHtelling what had been revealed in the Old
    Testament law.  He was giving an opinion based on his source of truth.
    
    Paul was forthtelling the proper steps to take in being a being a
    missionary...that being not to marry if possible.  If however you need
    the companionship it is better to marry than to burn with desire.  I
    don't see this as anti prophetic.
    
    -jack

                  <<< Note 1092.195 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, was it a human being, or a group of human beings that determined
> the morality, the faith, the doctrine? 
    
    	It was the Holy Spirit.

| <<< Note 1092.198 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| But it can Glen, because Paul the Apostle was a prophet.

	Come on Jack, he was a human, and can only be as good as a human can
be, which is not even close to 100%.

| <<< Note 1092.201 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Glen, a prophet can do two things. He/she can foretell a message from the 
| Lord.  

	Do they say it ain't from God?

| Paul was forthtelling the proper steps to take in being a being a missionary.
| that being not to marry if possible.  

	If he gave his own opinion in anything but a book that claims to be
GOD'S WORD, it would be ok.



Glen

| <<< Note 1092.202 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >	Joe, was it a human being, or a group of human beings that determined
| > the morality, the faith, the doctrine?

| It was the Holy Spirit.

	I believe the Holy Spirit could have been involved, but it does not
mean that human free will didn't come into play

    What if a demon told you the Bible is truth, would you believe it?

| <<< Note 1092.206 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| What if a demon told you the Bible is truth, would you believe it?

	If the Bible is the Truth, God will show me. 

    Okay, then let's touch on this subject.
    
    I am currently reading the book of Job.  I believe the book of Job is
    divinely inspired.  If you recall, Job had three supposed friends
    around him during his depravity.  Contained in Job is about 11 chapters
    of nothing but sheer advice.  Now these friends were giving him shabby
    advice because their advice did not conform or adequately exbound on
    the nature of God and his Holiness.  They understood God was Holy but
    they assumed that since Job was suffering, he must have had terrible
    sin in his life.
    
    Ironically, later in the book, a young man named Elihu shows up and
    gives a good lecture to his elders on the Holiness and grace...and
    nature of God.  Elihu proved to be correct in his advice...(Out of the
    mouth of babes!)  Elihu had a clear understanding of the nature of God
    as opposed to the elders who were lecturing Job.
    
    Glen, I am of the opinion that the Bible is full of lies...but the
    Bible does not lie!  The scriptures are broken mainly into historical
    accounts, poetic and temporal blessings, and finally prophecy.  I would
    like to focus on prophecy because this is germaine to the discussion.
    Like Elihu, Paul also had revealed to Him a knowledge of the
    nature of God, otherwise, the conversion of such a proud Pharisaical
    Benjamite could never have taken place.  While other biblical heroes
    and prophets sometimes resisted God, Paul did not have that problem. 
    Therefore, since Paul was a prophet and had to fulfill the 100%
    accuracy requirements of a prophet; and since Paul, like Elihu had a
    clear understanding of the nature of God, then I conclude and believe
    that any editorial comments made by Paul, just like Elihu, are divinely
    inspired and conform to the requirements for sanctified
    living....INcluding some of the advice on societal sins we take for
    granted today.
    
    So the bottom line is on you Glen.  You either believe by faith or
    reject by disbelief!  Choice is yours bud...and mine too!
    
    -Jack

>	If the Bible is the Truth, God will show me. 


  He has...you don't want to see it.

| <<< Note 1092.209 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| >	If the Bible is the Truth, God will show me.

| He has...you don't want to see it.

	He has shown me it is not.

| <<< Note 1092.208 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>



| Glen, I am of the opinion that the Bible is full of lies...but the Bible does 
| not lie!  

	Jack, what you are saying is wild! How can the words, "Bible is full of
lies" be stated in one breath, and that it is the inerrant Word of God be
spoken in the next one? They cancel out, don't they?

| Therefore, since Paul was a prophet and had to fulfill the 100% accuracy 
| requirements of a prophet; 

	Based on something that uses itself only as proof it's correct. Doesn't
work here, Jack. Let's see.... do you think those in charge of the Inquisitions
were saying they weren't 100% correct? I'd be leary of any human being who
claimed to have it 100% correct, regardless of how religious they might be.
Humans can't even come close.

| that any editorial comments made by Paul, just like Elihu, are divinely 
| inspired and conform to the requirements for sanctified living....

	Jack, editiorial comments by a human being do not belong in a book that
claims to be the inerrant Word of God. Plain and simple.

| So the bottom line is on you Glen. You either believe by faith or reject by 
| disbelief!  Choice is yours bud...and mine too!

	Jack, you have taken it, and then given me an option. Believe by faith
was the 1st one. Gee, by who's faith, Jack? My beliefs in this matter are
different than yours. My faith is what tells me this is not the inerrant Word
of God. But by what you wrote above, it implies I have to believe as you do,
and that is the correct way. That is hogwash if that is the case. If I believe
what God has shown me, then I am believing by faith. 


Glen

Z    Jack, what you are saying is wild! How can the words, "Bible is full of
Z    lies" be stated in one breath, and that it is the inerrant Word of God
Z    be spoken in the next one? They cancel out, don't they?
    
    "For if you eat of the fruit of the tree, you will not die for your
    eyes will be opened and you will become as god, knowing good and
    evil."  
    
    Lie!  This is what I meant.  The Bible contains actual commiting of
    lies.  
    
    The prophets were 100% correct.  The reason they were correct Glen was
    because they were given direct revelation from God Himself.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1092.212 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

> Z    Jack, what you are saying is wild! How can the words, "Bible is full of
> Z    lies" be stated in one breath, and that it is the inerrant Word of God
> Z    be spoken in the next one? They cancel out, don't they?
>     
>     "For if you eat of the fruit of the tree, you will not die for your
>     eyes will be opened and you will become as god, knowing good and
>     evil."  
>     
>     Lie!  This is what I meant.  The Bible contains actual commiting of
>     lies.  
>     
>     The prophets were 100% correct.  The reason they were correct Glen was
>     because they were given direct revelation from God Himself.
  
        Jack,

        What I think you are suggesting is essentially my position: 
        the Bible is only as inerrant as an individual's (or a
        group's) discernment of which parts are of God and which
        parts are of human origin, which parts are true and which
        parts are lies (and which parts are sincerely-offered human
        advice, neither lies nor unchanging verities).

        It is of little significance to talk about inerrancy of the
        Bible without inerrancy of interpretation -- it would be kind
        of like talking about using a perfectly marked measuring
        stick to make perfect measurements when nobody can see the
        markings perfectly.

        Bob

| <<< Note 1092.212 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| The prophets were 100% correct.  The reason they were correct Glen was
| because they were given direct revelation from God Himself.

	And to add what Bob said, didn't one of the prophets you talk of also
deny knowing Jesus 3 times? I mean, if free will could be used there, why
couldn't it also have been used in writing the Bible itself? 


Glen

    Thanks Bob.  Glen, consider the following two prophets...Moses and
    Jonah.  It is no secret these two men amongst their great usefulness
    also had human frailties.  We all know about Jonah and Moses never saw
    the promised land because of lack of faith; yet God used these men in a
    mighty way.
    
    I don't deny prophets can have their frailties but remember that Peter 
    did not have the Holy Spirit when denying Jesus three times.  Besides,
    I'm not sure he was given the gift of prophecy but assuming he was, I
    concur a prophet could have human weaknesses.  However, when a prophet
    says, "Thus saith the Lord...", what follows MUST be 100% correct...on
    the bullseye!
    
    Paul as a prophet and proclaimer of the Gospel was setting guidelines
    to the new church...a church that was without direction without his
    ministry as clearly shown throughout his letter to Corinth.  
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1092.207 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	If the Bible is the Truth, God will show me. 
    
    	"I sent you a canoe and a boat and a helicopter.  What were
    	you waiting for!?!"

    >	He has shown me it is not.
    
    He who?

    	Why bother asking, Mike?

    You know, I really hate to bring this up, but the Adversary respects
    God's Word a lot more than humans who place themselves under the
    Christian umbrella.  Anyone who has experience with a demoniac, and how
    they react to the Bible, will know what I mean.  If your personal theology 
    doesn't acknowledge the opposition, that's a whole other issue.
    
    Suffice it to say, the Bible is truthful when it says, "even the demons
    believe and tremble."
    
    Mike

    Well Glen, I believe the Bible is as valid as God speaking the words
    that brought the worlds into order.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1092.215 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| However, when a prophet says, "Thus saith the Lord...", what follows MUST be 
| 100% correct...on the bullseye!

	I agree it should be, but not being God Himself, we can't really know
if the person got it right. A prophet is still a human being, which is not
capable of getting it 100% correct.


Glen

| <<< Note 1092.216 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >	If the Bible is the Truth, God will show me.

| "I sent you a canoe and a boat and a helicopter. What were you waiting for!?!"

	The Truth.

| <<< Note 1092.220 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Well Glen, I believe the Bible is as valid as God speaking the words
| that brought the worlds into order.

	That is your belief Jack, and I respect that. That's why I always try
to spell the, "Word of God" with a capital W, out of respect for those who 
believe as they do. Do you respect my beliefs?

ZZ    I agree it should be, but not being God Himself, we can't really know
ZZ    if the person got it right. A prophet is still a human being, which is
ZZ    not capable of getting it 100% correct.
    
    Correct which is why I brought up the word faith in my discussion.  It
    would seem you don't have the faith that I do in the Word of God.  Do I
    respect that?  Well, I do respect your right to believe as you do. 
    What I find confusing and sometimes offensive is that you identify
    yourself as a Christian and don't appear to have that faith.  I don't
    deny you believe in Jesus but I find it still amazing that you would
    malign the authority of scripture and yet believe in Jesus.  I don't
    know I guess I just don't see the harmony in this.
    
    -Jack

    re: .224
    
    Jack,
    
    I read your note to Glen.  I am a person like Glen who places my Faith
    directly on God and recognize the Bible as a less than perfect
    revelation of the word of God. 
    
    Just as you cannot comprehend why Glen and I cannot have Faith in the
    bible as "Truth", I cannot comprehend how you and your fellow bible
    believers put more Faith in the bible than in the Living God.
    
    You and your fellow bible believers seem to have a real fear of the
    Spiritual which is the center of my religious life, and from reading
    Glen's notes, I assume is the center of his life.
    
    So we have it, that what I assume is the cornerstone of Faith, you see
    as a lack of faith, and what you assume as the cornerstone of your
    Faith, I see as a lack of Faith.
    
    Given that, I think that we need to understand this difference and not
    keep hounding each other about how right or wrong one position or the
    other is.  
    
    There is plenty of agreement  between the two groups in spite of the
    differences.  I think it might be more beneficial focusing on the areas
    where there is agreement instead of constantly quibbling over which
    position is right or wrong.
    
    
    I suspect that those who believe in the Bible as the ultimate source of
    their faith, also feel the Living presence of God in their lifes, and
    those who believe in the direct relationship with the Living God, also
    find much that is revelatory in the Scriptures.  If we all accepted
    this their would be much less fighting and a much stronger Christian
    Community.
    
                                 Patricia
    

| <<< Note 1092.224 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Correct which is why I brought up the word faith in my discussion.  

	Faith CAN be = to 100% on CERTAIN things. Faith does NOT mean that it
is. When you have differences on the Sabbath, on the use of alcohol, etc, all
based on faith, then it's clear that faith does NOT mean it's equal to 100%.
Remember, in the case of drinking, if one gets drunk, it is a moral issue to
many. If one has 1 beer, it is still a moral issue to some (but the #'s drop).

| It would seem you don't have the faith that I do in the Word of God.  

	On this you would be correct.

| Do I respect that? Well, I do respect your right to believe as you do.

	Thank you.

| What I find confusing and sometimes offensive is that you identify yourself as
| a Christian and don't appear to have that faith.  

	Jack, when you have all Christians under 1 denomination and no
differences within that denomination, when you have all Christians believing 
everything exactly as all the rest, then the above will make perfect sense. In 
this world, you don't have that. So unless you are willing to say that your 
denomination is the ONLY one, and that your beliefs are equal to God's 100%, 
you can't seriously say the above, can you? All you can really say is my
beliefs do not match yours.

| I don't deny you believe in Jesus but I find it still amazing that you would
| malign the authority of scripture and yet believe in Jesus.  

	Reread the above.



Glen

  ZZ   I cannot comprehend how you and your fellow bible
  ZZ   believers put more Faith in the bible than in the Living God.
        
  ZZ    You and your fellow bible believers seem to have a real fear of the
  ZZ    Spiritual which is the center of my religious life, and from
  ZZ    reading Glen's notes, I assume is the center of his life.
    
    Patricia:
    
    Your intellectual knowledge of Jesus is biblically based.  You could
    not have gotten that knowledge anywhere else.  Speaking for myself, I
    do have a fear of what you call the Spiritual because I firmly believe
    you are misconstruing the definition of Spiritual for conscience...and
    I believe the conscience of humankind is suseptable to sin (hence you
    get your sociopaths, etc.).  I find this an extremely dangerous road to
    take.  I believe I've heard you refer to it as that small little voice
    we need to listen to.  Sorry but I believe this to be a doctrine of
    demons and needs to be shunned....and out of high respect and caring
    for you, I would suggest that you shun this kind of thinking.  It will
    ultimately lead to a road of destruction (sorry to sound so
    mellow dramatic)
    
    -Jack

	Jack, why should ya stop the mello-dramatics now? :-)  But seriously,
you pray to God, right? Can you list all the ways (the ones you remember) that
he has answered your prayers? My guess is that the only way He ever used on you
would be through the Bible, as your last note seemed to reflect that. Is this a
true statement, Jack? 

	For *me*, God does use the Bible. He also uses many other things too. 



Glen

    Glen:
    
    Yes, God reveals himself through nature.  This is why most
    civilizations...both progressive and backward, acknowledge some sort of
    deity.  In fact, Romans 1 states that the very nature of God has been
    revealed to all...so that they are without excuse.
    
    What I am saying to you is that who Jesus Christ is to you...you would
    not known of him were it not for the Bible...unless of course you are a
    prophet which I assume you are not.  So this is where the nitty gritty
    comes in.  If you can freely accept the belief or biblical teaching
    that Jesus existed...that he performed miracles, that he awakened
    people from the dead, that he died on a cross, that he converted Paul
    and Paul lead multitudes to Jesus, then I consider it a maligning of
    the person of God to not accept scripture as a whole.  I agree Glen
    that scripture should be dissected and should be determined if it is
    factual, allegorical, symbolic, whatever.  But in all honesty, what I
    have seen here, and I'm just voicing an observation, is the Word of God
    being prostituted or manipulated for social agendas.  I'm not referring
    to the speculative issues like was Paul gay...or was Timothy's letter
    written by Paul...or was even Jesus gay.  I believe the suggestions are
    personally radical but they are at least worthy of critical thinking. 
    
    No...I'm talking about the abuse of the authority of scripture. 
    Ignoring certain passages because they make one feel uncomfortable...or
    they are politically incorrect...so we'll accept verses 1-12 and 16
    through 25 but 13 through 15 simply doesn't conform to God being made
    in my image.  It is that kind of thinking I consider dangerous because 
    human conscience intervenes and critical thinking and objective
    extrapolation gets thrown out the window.  The result is that false
    doctrine takes prescedent and hence God's nature is maligned.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1092.229 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Yes, God reveals himself through nature.  

	Then why should I screw around with what He wants to use and only use
one thing for Him to reveal whatever it is He wants me to know at that time?

| What I am saying to you is that who Jesus Christ is to you...you would not 
| known of him were it not for the Bible...

	This is not true. Are you telling me that all of the denominations that
make up the Christian faith would not exist if the Bible wasn't around? That no
one would learn about God? Jack, what year was the Bible 1st released? How did
people get by before it was released? 

| If you can freely accept the belief or biblical teaching that Jesus existed...
| that he performed miracles, that he awakened people from the dead, that he 
| died on a cross, that he converted Paul and Paul lead multitudes to Jesus, 
| then I consider it a maligning of the person of God to not accept scripture as
| a whole.  

	Jack, how many things have you learned as a kid from a history book
that was later found to happen differently? Isn't the book only as good as the
human who is writing it? We all have free will. We all are far from being
perfect. IF the Bible were the Word of God, there would be one version. But is
there? Are there any versions that people are told to stay away from? What
about the lines in Mark that were there, but then were gone, only to be added
back later? Yet we are to believe that throughout all the translations, etc,
that it is pure? That the origionals are pure? Pure based on what the authors
stated, but it is my belief that it is not pure as He is. 

| But in all honesty, what I have seen here, and I'm just voicing an observation
| is the Word of God being prostituted or manipulated for social agendas. I'm
| talking about the abuse of the authority of scripture. Ignoring certain 
| passages because they make one feel uncomfortable...or they are politically 
| incorrect...so we'll accept verses 1-12 and 16 through 25 but 13 through 15 
| simply doesn't conform to God being made in my image.  

	Ok Jack. Now if you would, tie the above into me. I mean, you were
talking about me, so tie this in. To be honest, Jack.... I don't think you can.


Glen

    Jack,
    
    re: 227
    
    You are saying exactly what I have said.  You have no faith that the
    living spirit of God can break through directly to human life.  You
    define the breaking through of the living spirit of God as something
    that happened only in the past to a handful of prophets and then
    through the historical Jesus Christ.
    
    To me, that is a serious lack of faith.
     
                                     Patricia
       

    Jack,
    
    How about ignoring certain passages in scripture because they are lies
    and false!.
    
    "slaves obey your masters and don't do anything to change your
    situation"
    
    "Women obey your husbands"
    
    "just as Jesus is head of the church, so men are head of women"
    
    "God ordered the Hebrews to slaughter the canaanites."
    
    "God ordered Elisha to murder those he invited to worship Baal"
    
    Jack, while I agree that the Bible is revelatory, I also know that we
    must have a means to separate the wheat in the Bible form the chaff.
    
                                      Patricia

	Jack, please respond to note .226. Ya missed that one. :-)

        <<< Note 1092.225 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    I cannot comprehend how you and your fellow bible
>    believers put more Faith in the bible than in the Living God.
    
    	I doubt that any Bible-believing Christian does not place
    	all his faith in the Living God in parallel with his faith
    	in the Bible.
    
    	I think the disagreement revolves around what "the Living God"
    	means.
    
>    You and your fellow bible believers seem to have a real fear of the
>    Spiritual which is the center of my religious life, 
    
    	Some of "the Spiritual" that you have expressed in notes is
    	not part of "the Living God" that I know.
    
>    Given that, I think that we need to understand this difference and not
>    keep hounding each other about how right or wrong one position or the
>    other is.  
    
    	It'll all come down to the same thing in the end, though. 
    
    	Whether we're fighting about faith, or "the Living God" or
    	"the Spiritual" or whatever, you are willing to accept input
    	from things that I am not willing to accept, and vice versa.
    
>    There is plenty of agreement  between the two groups in spite of the
>    differences.  I think it might be more beneficial focusing on the areas
>    where there is agreement instead of constantly quibbling over which
>    position is right or wrong.
    
    	To those of us who believe in absolute sources, this cannot
    	be acceptable.  It is more than a quibble.  It is a matter
    	of fundamentals and foundation, and in acceding to the call
    	to ignore that point I undermine my foundation and give
    	tacit approval to yours.  Just as with the erosion of morals,
    	the erosion of one's faith and doctrine begins with apparently
    	innocent equivocation.
    
>    I suspect that those who believe in the Bible as the ultimate source of
>    their faith, also feel the Living presence of God in their lifes, and
>    those who believe in the direct relationship with the Living God, also
>    find much that is revelatory in the Scriptures.  If we all accepted
>    this their would be much less fighting and a much stronger Christian
>    Community.
    
    	I agree with your first sentence.  But is our purpose merely
    	to "create community"?

        <<< Note 1092.232 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    I agree that the Bible is revelatory

    	Then why do you argue with us so much?
    
    	"But that's out of context," you say.
    
    	It's no more out of context that the biblical quotes you
    	used in .232.

.208

Jack,

Did Job's friends, giving the bad advice and showing
a misunderstanding of what God is about, go to heaven?

Or more generically, is belief in God enough or does
you actually have to get it right, like Job's young
friend?

Steve

 <<< Note 1092.236 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Gardeners Creed: Weed 'em and Reap" >>>

>Did Job's friends, giving the bad advice and showing
>a misunderstanding of what God is about, go to heaven?

	I don't recall that we are told of his outcome, and his
    	outcome is not the point of that Book.  The point is that
    	Job prevailed and held to his faith in spite of the
    	naysayers.  We are called to do the same.
    

    .236
    
    God told Job's friends that whatever Job prayed for them would be what
    happened.  The Hebrew Bible doesn't dwell much on the notion of going
    to heaven.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

But my basic questions still stands, is belief in God
enough or do you have to get the other nuances correct?

Steve

    Did anyone ever try to seek understanding in the book of Job from the
    perspective of Job's wife?
    
    The invisible other!  
    
    A hidden message in the story is that wifes and children are
    interchangeable.  Job was made whole in the end!  

    Couldn't be Patricia.  Jobs children died in chapter 2 I believe. 
    Job's wife said "Curse God and Die" in a later passage.   Don't worry,
    Jobs wife doesn't represent emotional women.
    
ZZ    Or more generically, is belief in God enough or does
ZZ    you actually have to get it right, like Job's young
ZZ    friend?
    
    I believe there is a specific plan to obtain eternal life.  You cannot
    just believe in God.  The plan is specifically spoken of in the
    epistles and the Book of Acts.  These books focus on doctrinal issues.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1092.235 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| >    I agree that the Bible is revelatory

| Then why do you argue with us so much?

	I don'r view Patricia's notes as arguing. She discusses her
differences. 

| "But that's out of context," you say.

	If she views it as being out of context, then to her it is just that.
What she does from there is starts a discussion about it.

    	Of course, Glen.

    >	To those of us who believe in absolute sources, this cannot
    >	be acceptable.  It is more than a quibble.  It is a matter
   > 	of fundamentals and foundation, and in acceding to the call
    >	to ignore that point I undermine my foundation and give
    >	tacit approval to yours.  Just as with the erosion of morals,
    >	the erosion of one's faith and doctrine begins with apparently
    >	innocent equivocation.
    
Joe, are you saying that to understand that another person is inspired
    differently than you and to accept that persons difference is an
    erosion of your own faith?
    
                                    Patricia 
    
       
    >	I agree with your first sentence.  But is our purpose merely
    >	to "create community"?
    
    Jesus says that we should love God with all our heart soul and mind and
    love our neighbors as ourselves.  Tied up in my definition of community
    is the idea of committment and responsibility and love for each of the
    members of the community.  Humans are totally relational.  We learn, we
    love, we live in community.  For me the creation of spiritual community
    is a high priority.
    

re Note 1092.241 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I believe there is a specific plan to obtain eternal life.  You cannot
>     just believe in God.  The plan is specifically spoken of in the
>     epistles and the Book of Acts.  These books focus on doctrinal issues.

        Does that mean that Christianity is a kind of gnosticism,
        i.e., "special knowledge" is required for salvation?

        Or is "the plan" something that is carried out entirely by
        God?  If not, wouldn't that be salvation by a work?

        Bob

    ZZ        Does that mean that Christianity is a kind of gnosticism,
    ZZ        i.e., "special knowledge" is required for salvation?
    
    I believe one has to hear...which is why we are commissioned to preach
    the gospel and make disciples of all nations.  Consider again Phillip
    and the Ethiopian Eunich.  The Eunich was reading Isaiah 53 about the
    forecoming of the messiah and Phillip asked, "Do you understand what
    you are reading?"  The response was, "How can I understand lest
    somebody explain it to me?"  I believe salvation involves hearing,
    believing, and receiving.
    
            Or is "the plan" something that is carried out entirely by
            God?  If not, wouldn't that be salvation by a work?
    
    I do believe it is the Holy Spirit which prepares our hearts to hear
    the gospel and receive it.  Since it is faith which is the driving
    force to receive grace, I don't think it would be a work.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1092.241 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I believe there is a specific plan to obtain eternal life. You cannot just 
| believe in God.  

	Then are you saying that those who cry out to Him on their deathbed are
not saved Jack?


Glen

        <<< Note 1092.244 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

> Joe, are you saying that to understand that another person is inspired
>    differently than you and to accept that persons difference is an
>    erosion of your own faith?
    
	Understanding and respecting another's difference is one
    	thing.  Accepting it is another.
    
    	Correct.  I cannot accept it without compromising my beliefs.
       
>    Jesus says ...
    
    	Spare me.  You've rejected so much of what Jesus says that
    	I cannot take seriously your attempt to club me with His
    	words when it is convenient for you.
    
>    Tied up in my definition of community 
>    is the idea of committment and responsibility and love for each of the
>    members of the community.  
>    For me the creation of spiritual community
>    is a high priority.
    
    	Community also has commonality.  A common goal.  A common
    	ideal.  Common characteristics.  SOMETHING that is valued
    	enough by the members that it transcends their differences.
    	Is that commonality here "Christian" such that we can call 
    	this a Christian community?  I think not.  Is it our
    	spirituality such that we can call this a spiritual
    	community?  I think not.
    
    	Is the commonality our desire to argue with each other?  
    	Perhaps.  Surely it is our desire to participate in this
    	notes conference for whatever respective reasons we have.
    
    	At best we are a notes community.

    
>	Understanding and respecting another's difference is one
>    	thing.  Accepting it is another.
    
>    	Correct.  I cannot accept it without compromising my beliefs.
    
    I don't understand how accepting another persons difference is any
    different than respecting another person's difference.  Is it possible
    that we are using the word accept differently?
       
>    Jesus says ...
    
   > 	Spare me.  You've rejected so much of what Jesus says that
   > 	I cannot take seriously your attempt to club me with His
   > 	words when it is convenient for you.
   
    I'm not trying to "club" you.  I'm trying to understand you and have
    honest dialogue with you.
    
    I do not believe that everything in the Bible attributed to Jesus is
    actually said by Jesus.  I agree with a fairly rigorous process
    accepted by scholars of the historical Jesus to define what has
    actually been spoken by Jesus, and what is  added by the author of the
    particular Gospel.  I call myself a Christian precicely because I
    believe there is great merit and revelation in what Jesus actually
    said.  
    
    The love God and love your neighbor commandment is throughout the
    Gospels and the letters.  I have consistently identified that
    commandment as the defining commandment of my understanding of
    Christianity.  I add it in this note only to try to help you understand
    what I mean by community and why I think community is central to
    spiritual life.
    
    
     
    
    >	Community also has commonality.  A common goal.  A common
    >	ideal.  Common characteristics.  SOMETHING that is valued
   > 	enough by the members that it transcends their differences.
   > 	Is that commonality here "Christian" such that we can call 
   > 	this a Christian community?  I think not.  Is it our
    >	spirituality such that we can call this a spiritual
    >	community?  I think not.
 I would like this file to be a spiritual community.  I believe that we
    share a whole lot in common.  If the small number of us in this file
    cannot define our commonality and talk without beating on each other
    then there is no way the community of all humankind could ever possibly
    live in peace, love, and harmony, one with another.
    
                                   
                                       Patricia

        <<< Note 1092.249 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    I don't understand how accepting another persons difference is any
>    different than respecting another person's difference.  Is it possible
>    that we are using the word accept differently?
    
    	Perhaps we are.  I understand your call to acceptance (precipitated
    	by your statement in .225 suggesting we set aside our differences) 
    	as asking me to let go of my absolutism to instead focus on what
    	we have in common.  If I do this, I am the one who must dilute my
    	beliefs to join you in your spiritual vision.  What we have in
    	common is mere fluff compared to the theological differences we
    	have.  I am not willing to let go of that much to find a common
    	ground -- especially to then call the results "Christian community."
       
>    I do not believe that everything in the Bible attributed to Jesus is
>    actually said by Jesus.  
    
    	But it sure is convenient to use those that fit your vision.
    
    	Knowing, as you do, where I'm coming from with my view of the
    	Bible, it should be obvious why I find no merit in your selective 
    	use/rejection of it.  Regardless of whether I am right or wrong
    	in my respect for the Bible, and regardless of whether you are
    	right or wrong for the same, you should know that I see your
    	selective use of the Bible -- especially when directed at me --
    	as verging on the offensive.
    
>    accepted by scholars of the historical Jesus 
    
    	Just as one can find a priest or minister to condone/condemn
    	what he wants condoned/condemned, so too can one find scholars
    	to support/reject what he wants supported/rejected -- and this
    	holds for any subject matter at all, not just Biblical issues.
    
>    I add it in this note only to try to help you understand
>    what I mean by community and why I think community is central to
>    spiritual life.
    
    	A spiritual community *is* central to spiritual life, but that 
    	spiritual community needs some semblance of common spirituality.
    	The spiritualities expressed in here are far from common, and
    	quite often are like oil and water.
    
    
>   I would like this file to be a spiritual community.  I believe that we
>    share a whole lot in common.  
    
    	From a spiritual perspective we have:
    
    		Believes in God   ---------  Does not believe in God
    			|\
    			| \
    			|  \_____  Non-Christian
    		    Christian
    			|\
    			| \
    			|  \_____  Bible is not Word of God
    		Bible is Word of God
    
    
    	Perhaps you can help me see whole a lot in common spiritually
    	in that...
    
>    If the small number of us in this file
>    cannot define our commonality and talk without beating on each other
>    then there is no way the community of all humankind could ever possibly
>    live in peace, love, and harmony, one with another.
    
    	You are mixing apples and oranges.  People of varying faiths
    	-- even opposing faiths -- can live in peace, love, and harmony.
    	We see that all over our nation.  But forcing them to find a 
    	common spirituality and trying to make them into a "spiritual 
    	community" will work as well as this "spiritual community"
    	exercise does here.

    Joe,
    
    What is the "Christian" community and who do you consider part of it?
    
    How many people should be part of the "Christian" community?  What
    percent of the population do you think God wants to be part of this
    community?.
    
    
    
    What theological differences do we have that are so great that we
    cannot discuss the points of agreement rather than being oppositional
    and disagreeable to each other?
    
    
                                  Patricia
    
                                   

        <<< Note 1092.251 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    What is the "Christian" community and who do you consider part of it?
    
    	There is no "THE Christian Community".  There are Christian
    	communities, and I see the YUKON:: conference as being one.
    	There is a generally-shared spirituality; a commonality that
    	they can all draw upon and return to when they stray.  Sure,	
    	there are differences, but the general commonality is bigger
    	than the differences.
    
>    How many people should be part of the "Christian" community?  What
>    percent of the population do you think God wants to be part of this
>    community?.
    
    	Irrelevant to me.
    
>    What theological differences do we have that are so great that we
>    cannot discuss the points of agreement rather than being oppositional
>    and disagreeable to each other?
    
    	I guess you haven't been paying attention.  I've been very
    	direct and vocal on quite a few items.

    re: .245
      Hi Bob,
    
        I really liked your question!  I have come to believe that faith
    	comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God - of which even
    	creation is a part of the manifestation of His word.
    
        Faith has to respond to _some_ knowledge of God, but when one
      	begins to insist upon how much...well, I begin to wonder.
    
        I think the big thing is to strive for more of a knowledge of
        God, not to 'get saved', but to have more love for faith to work 
        by such that we can be made more like Him.  In other words to
        better glorify God.
    
    							Tony

    	re: .250
    
        Hi Joe,
    
    	  I think a more tangible definition of 'fluff' would be the
    	  extent to which we all disgrace Christ by so falling short 
    	  of His character.
    
          Validate your doctrinal unity by showing me how it produces
          nothing short of the character of Christ.  Otherwise, its
    	  fluff to me.
    
          We demonstrate our love for Him by how we love others.
    
          The true unity in the truth is when we love others as He did
          AND WHEN PEOPLE SEE THAT, some will most surely be curious
          as to what 'word' (i.e. doctrine among other things for we
          are cleansed by the word) produces the character of Christ.
    
          Until that happens, I am inclined to link up with Patricia
          with the inward conviction that I am Laodicaea.
    
    	  Perhaps the prayers of publican and Pharisee apply?
    
    						Tony 

<----Tony, great note. I think you do a lot to help bring people to Him just by 
     your own works, which is really God using you.... the style is wonderful.


Glen

                    <<< Note 1092.254 by STRATA::BARBIERI >>>
    
>    	  I think a more tangible definition of 'fluff' would be the
>    	  extent to which we all disgrace Christ by so falling short 
>    	  of His character.
    
    	That's not a definition of fluff.  That's a definition of sin.
    
>          Validate your doctrinal unity by showing me how it produces
>          nothing short of the character of Christ.  Otherwise, its
>    	  fluff to me.
    
    	The problem with this is that the "doctrinal unity" I might
    	describe (and have described) will be rejected by you, just 
    	as I reject some of yours (especially where we differ).  The 
    	problem is the openness to each other's doctrine, and I really 
    	see very little of that -- on my part just as much as on the 
    	part of others.  
    
>          We demonstrate our love for Him by how we love others.
    
    	Love has little or nothing to do with doctrine.  All doctrines
    	espouse love.  If love were all that matterd, why would you
    	have a problem following the doctrine of some faith expression
    	other than your own?  
    
>          The true unity in the truth is when we love others as He did
    
    	Unity in what "truth"?  We can love others as Christ did
    	without knowledge of Him, or even without religious foundation.
    	Do you suggest that a hindu cannot love as Christ did?  Do
    	all such people share "unity in the truth"?  An what of some-
    	one who loves others as Christ does, yet undermines or contorts
    	so many of His teachings?  Is that still unity in the truth.
    
>          Until that happens, I am inclined to link up with Patricia
>          with the inward conviction that I am Laodicaea.
    
    	Patricia is one such "someone" mentioned above.  You are welcome
    	to claim allegiance with her.  Doing so is not a convincing 
    	argument of "truth" to me.
    
>    	  Perhaps the prayers of publican and Pharisee apply?
    
    	Likewise Isaiah 5:20.

    Hi Glen,
    
      Thanks!
    
      And the truth is, I link up with Joe with a solemn belief that all
      of the word is inspired.  But, I also have a solemn belief that
      Christianity is NOT unified for the same truth that brings unity
      is that same truth that produces Christlikeness of character.
      That is true unity, "when you have love one for another" and lets
      not depreciate what that really means, i.e. "Be ye therefore 
      perfect even as your Father in heaven is perfect."
    
      So, I admit I'm not hot on the idea that we can 'sparse' the word.
      But, I am also not hot on the idea that any group is really much
      of a community; not in the biblical sense, i.e. "till we all come
      to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ."
    
      I'm sure the brunt of my words are from my lips and not my heart,
      but my impulse is not to talk of how "we have it together", but 
      rather to yolk up with those who are beginning to, by the grace of 
      God, realize at least a little bit how wretched we really are.
    
      Thats my kind of company because thats where I'm at.
    
      I'm not ready for translation.
    
      We'll have to do up a break together Glen.
    
    							Thanks Again,
    
    							Tony
                                             

    >We can love others as Christ did without knowledge of Him, or even
    >without religious foundation. Do you suggest that a hindu cannot love
    >as Christ did?  Do all such people share "unity in the truth"?  An what
    >of some- one who loves others as Christ does, yet undermines or
    >contorts so many of His teachings?  Is that still unity in the truth.
   
    
    I would stick with the person who loves as Christ loves, rather than
    with the one who believes as some religion says one should believe!
    
    Where there is God there is love and where there is Love, there is God.
    
    God is Love!!
    
                                 Patricia 

      re: .256
    
        Joe,
    
          I see we differ by miles.
    
          You say that a Hindu can love as Christ does.  You ask what
     	  doctrine has to do with 'loving.'
    
          "The message of the cross is the power of God unto salvation."
    
          "For the LOVE of Christ constraineth us because we judge thus.
          That if one died for all, then all died.  And He died for all
          that those who live *should no longer live for themselves* but
          for He who died for them and rose again."
    
          "O foolish Galatians, who has bewitched you that you should not
          obey the truth before whose eyes Jesus Christ has been evidently
          set forth crucified among you?  This only I want to learn from
          you.  Received ye the Spirit by the law or by the hearing of
          faith.  Having begun in the Spirit, are ye now made perfect by 
          the flesh?"
    
          The word is the power Joe.  A Hindu cannot love as Christ loves
          Because by beholding we become changed and he has not had the
          oppurtunity to behold Christ hung for Him.
    
          The most zealous I have ever been, the most I have ever loved,
          is when I have caught a deeper glimpse of Christ hung for me 
          and as Wesley would say, "I have felt my heart strangely warmed."
    
          The measure of one's love is exactly proportionate to the extent
          to which one's faith appropriates the word of God.  We are washed
          by the water of the word.
    
    	  The MESSAGE is the power.
    
          Thus our understanding of the good news is that revelation of
          love which when received by faith is the means through which
          the heart is changed and its the changed heart that is the 
          source of loving differently.  (Of course this is a continuous
          process.)
    
          My point is not so much to express agreement with things Patricia
          believes, it is to align myself with her as one who has a sense
          of being exactly what Christ tells Laodicaea she is.  (Or should
          I have said "he" Patricia?  ;-)  )
    
          In the sense of how I understand God to describe unity, it is
          simply nonexistent, I believe.
    
          Unity and the character of Christ are essentially the same thing.
    
    							Tony
                                            

	Tony, I knew you believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God, just as
Joe does. But I was talking about how you presented yourself here, and in other
places. You really do try to be like your words, and that alone is quite an
accomplishment. We both have our differences on a host of things. We have some
things in common with beliefs. But the one thing that stands out with you is
one can discuss the differences, without getting condemned for believing
something different. What I hear you say a lot of times in mail, or when we
meet together, is that you will pray for <insert person and action>. You take
it out of your hands, and put it back into His. You allow Him to solve a
problem when there is an impass. You don't condemn others. I think that quality
helps show you practice what you preach. I like that.


Glen

	Patricia.... GREAT note!

    Glen, GREAT note!

    	I disagree.

    Joe,
    
    I know that you disagree and I respect that you disagree.
    
    If God truly is love as stated in 1 John, then Christ is the
    incarnation of that divine love in humanity.  Love is a gift of God. 
    Christ is the perfect incarnation of that love.
    
    I don't believe that any human can love as Christ loves.  Christ is
    perfect in his love and no human reaches that level of perfection.  But
    to the extent to which a human has love within them that is the extent
    to which Christ lives in them.
    
    I don't feel that it is so important that we name Christ, Christ, but
    that we respond to Christ in us, that we respond to the incarnation of
    God's love.  As stated in Matthew, "by their fruits they shall be
    known"  A good tree cannot bear bad fruit and a bad tree cannot bear
    good fruit.  Any person who comes close to loving a Christ loves, is a
    person of Faith.  A Faith that resides within them and influences their
    every action.
    
                                   Patricia

      Hi Glen,
    
        Thanks Glen, I appreciate that.  
    
        I didn't reply because of anything you said or anything like 
        that.  I said what I did about the word of God because, in
        linking myself with Patricia, I could see the 'logical leap'
        being made that I share some beliefs with Patricia that I
        really don't.  And I personally consider the 100% inspiration
        of the word belief to be so important to me that I wanted to
        make note of that.
    
        Hi Joe,
    
        Do you realize that you essentially stated that the changed 
        heart experience is no greater with Christianity than with
        Hinduism??!!!
    
        That to me is blasphemous!!
    
        Christ came to lead us to repentance.  He died on the cross 
        to melt our hearts and to mold them after His own.
    
        How can you possibly imply that the revelation of the cross
        _does not_ change the behaviors more than a lack of such
        revelation?                                         
    
        How can you separate the heart change from the distinctiveness
        of Christianity?
    
        Christianity, rightly understood, is the restoring of the character
        of God in man.  It IS the heart change!
    
    							Tony

    Tony,
    
    And that is where you and I do disagree.   MY personal experience has
    shown me people of love and people of Faith belonging to different
    faiths.  Christians have no monopoly on goodness/Godness.  Christians
    have no monopoly on the ability to love (or  to hate).
    
    I'm not as clear as you regarding exactly what Jesus did on the cross,
    but I am convinced that whatever he did in his life, in his death, and
    in his ressurrection he did for all humanity.
    
                                            Patricia
    
    

      Hi Patricia,
    
        Don't get me wrong!  I agree with you!  BUT, I disagree as the
        THE EXTENT to which one of another 'religion' can love.  
    
        First off, faith works by love.  A revelation of truth.  Thus
        to have true faith, one must be responding to a revelation of
        truth.  All faiths have some truth.  All, I assume, believe in
        a Creator and creation itself is a revelation of love.  All faiths
        have some characteristics of Deity that I am sure are in common
        with who God really is.  Thus all have the capacity for faith to
        lay hold of the word of Christ.
    
        But, if the cross is the power, I have to believe that if you had
        two people very alike and their only difference is that one had
        the oppurtunity to behold the cross _deeply_ and the other lacked
        any oppurtunity to behold the cross.  And if these two hypothetical
        people were the same in every other respect.
    
        I contend that the person blessed to behold the cross would love
        more.  For the cross is the power and by beholding we become 
        changed.
    
        I never said others don't love.  I am speaking of the extent to
        which people love.  Among other things, its a function of the
        amount of love they were blessed to behold.
    
        What do you think?
    
    							God Bless,
                                                   
    							Tony

re Note 1092.267 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI:

>         But, if the cross is the power, I have to believe that if you had
>         two people very alike and their only difference is that one had
>         the oppurtunity to behold the cross _deeply_ and the other lacked
>         any oppurtunity to behold the cross.  And if these two hypothetical
>         people were the same in every other respect.
  
        That's an interesting point, Tony:  what does it mean to
        "behold the cross"?  Does it mean merely to distinguish those
        who physically (or in the mind's eye) saw a particular man
        (Jesus) on a particular wooden object from those who don't? 

        Or does it mean to see beyond the physical cross, to a God
        whose love for humanity is *so* deep that no sacrifice is too
        great in order to attain for humanity salvation from evil,
        and salvation from separation from God, even for those who in
        no way deserved or could merit it themselves?

        I think that it is quite possible for someone who lacked the
        knowledge of the physical detail of Christ's death to
        nonetheless experience God well enough to see what lies
        deeply beyond that death, and to humbly accept it.

        Bob

    Tony,
    
    There is a lot of agreement but some subtle disagreement as well.
    
    implicit in my belief is a rejection of the theory of atoning sacrifice
    as identified in this file by some such as Jack.
    
    What Christ did on the cross was to chose death in the most horrible of
    fashion to remain true to his beliefs, his love of God, and his love
    for all humanity.  It was the ultimate sacrifice.  Love perfected. 
    Christ died for all of humanity.
    
    All expressions of love are evidence of the incarnation of God's love. 
    I believe that knowledge of Christ and Christian scriptures contain a
    direct revelation of God's love for humanity.  I am also convinced that
    there are other ways in which God reveals Godself to humanity.  I
    cannot and do not take that step in insisting that God's revelation to
    Christians is more perfect than God's revelation to people of other
    Faith.  I believe that God meets each of us where we are.  He meets the
    Christian in the revelation of Jesus, he meets the Jew, the Hindu, the
    Budhist, the Pagan, the Atheist, the Agnostic where each of them are. 
    As Jesus infers in Matthew.  The only yardstick to measure the
    efficasy(sp) of God's revelation to humanity is in the good fruits that
    humanity produces.  If an atheist shows  there good fruits thru
    there love of humanity, then God has siliently and in secret worked
    God's magic in that person's life.
    
    In reading Alfred North Whitehead last night Whitehead describes
    religion as those internal beliefs, intimately held that transform
    personality.  To love as Christ loves(or even close) a person must have
    a very strong set of internal beliefs that in my opionion are from God,
    even if not explictly stated as a belief in a personnel God.
    
                                 Patricia

      Hi Bob,
    
        Great note!
    
        Hebrews 10:1-4 says that shadow cannot perfect the conscience
        and only VERY IMAGE can.
    
        I believe there is an endtime transition of covenant and a
        people will realize that Christ's physical death and resurrection
        and literal blood are efficacious for _nothing_.
    
        His sacrificial death was feeling the full load of alienation
        that one naturally would feel should one have a full revelation
        of his sinfulness (though He was without sin).  His resurection
        was overcoming the awful temptation to despair by faith and 
        believing His Father loved and accepted Him.  His blood which
        is sprinkled in the sanctuary (the conscience) is that revelation
        of self-emptying love so poignantly demonstrated on the cross.
        And also the revelation of our Forerunner behind the veil, i.e.
        our Example for it then follows that some come after Him behind
        the veil.
    
        So, Bob, where I'm at right now with my beliefs is I agree with
        you that the physical cross is a shadow, but I am convicted that
        the very image which it represents is still "cross-revelation."
    
        When I survey the cross, I don't survey physical suffering so
        much as I survey He who "in the days of His flesh when He had
        offered up prayers and supplications with vehement cries and tears
        to Him who was able to save Him from death and was heard because 
        of His godly fear.  For though He was a Son yet He learned obedience 
        by the things which He suffered.  And having been perfected, He 
        became the Author of eternal salvation to all who believe in Him."  
        (Heb 5 somewhere)
    
    							God Bless,
    
    	       						Tony

Bob
    
    "        Or does it mean to see beyond the physical cross, to a God
        whose love for humanity is *so* deep that no sacrifice is too
        great in order to attain for humanity salvation from evil,
        and salvation from separation from God, even for those who in
        no way deserved or could merit it themselves?   "
    
    I like that imagery!
    
                                    Patricia

Re: Note 1092.269   

    Hi Patricia,
    
    �implicit in my belief is a rejection of the theory of atoning sacrifice
    �as identified in this file by some such as Jack.
    
     Does this mean that you reject ALL theories of an atoning sacrifice?
     Ya know Patricia, the following really is not the main point of my
     reply, but I have seen people 'sparse' scripture on the basis that
     they do not see other possibilities for what 'hard to understand' 
     texts might mean.

     What is atonement?

     I believe its reconciliation.

     What needs to be reconciled?

     I believe it is our minds/hearts?

     If the cross contributes to our reconciliation, how does it do so?

     I believe the cross is the demonstration of love such that when
     'sprinkled' into the mind/heart of man, removes the source of
     alienation (sin) and reconciles the heart of man back to God.
     The High Priest is continually working to bring the revelation of
     the cross to view in the desire that if we receive that 'message'
     for "the message of the cross is the power of God unto salvation",
     it will save our hearts from sin and restore them back to God -
     which is back to harmony with His character.

     This is the atonement the Bible speaks of.  Leviticus says the Priest
     takes the blood and after sprinkling the sanctuary with it, the
     congregation is cleansed of all their sin.  Hebrews is more explicit.
     The result of the sprinkling of the blood is that the worshippers 
     are so purged that they don't even have a remembrance of sin!

    �What Christ did on the cross was to chose death in the most horrible of
    �fashion to remain true to his beliefs, his love of God, and his love
    �for all humanity.  It was the ultimate sacrifice.  Love perfected. 
    �Christ died for all of humanity.
    
     Sounds good to me.  I do think that you leave out much of what the
     experience entailed.  Which is the inevitable byproduct of seeing 
     agape unveiled (going behind the veil into the Most Holy and seeing 
     the unveiled glory [i.e. character] of God) while one is laden with 
     sinful flesh.  The byproduct is having the full revelation of the
     evil of sin being revealed to the mind and feeling to be that evil
     person.  The resulting psychological pain is called death and overcoming
     the temptation to despair and (instead) believing God loves you (which
     He does) is the resurrection.


     I'll continue...

Re: Note 1092.269   

    Continuing on...

    �All expressions of love are evidence of the incarnation of God's love. 
    �I believe that knowledge of Christ and Christian scriptures contain a
    �direct revelation of God's love for humanity.  I am also convinced that
    �there are other ways in which God reveals Godself to humanity.  I
    �cannot and do not take that step in insisting that God's revelation to
    �Christians is more perfect than God's revelation to people of other
    �Faith.  I believe that God meets each of us where we are.  He meets the
    �Christian in the revelation of Jesus, he meets the Jew, the Hindu, the
    �Budhist, the Pagan, the Atheist, the Agnostic where each of them are. 
    �As Jesus infers in Matthew.  

     I agree with all of this.  And for all people's, He is actually 
     meeting them with the revelation of Jesus (whether they know it or
     not).

    �The only yardstick to measure the
    �efficasy(sp) of God's revelation to humanity is in the good fruits that
    �humanity produces.  

    I suggest a caveout to this.  It is true that good works demonstrates
    one's faith, BUT the Word also says that man looks on the outward act
    while God looks on the heart.

    I wonder if guaging by works is not entirely valid until the extremely
    peculiar 'mark of the beast'/'seal of God' time when there is an
    incredible polarization that takes place.  At which time, one group
    fully reflects the character of Jesus, i.e. "Here are they who keep
    the commandments of God and have the faith OF Jesus" and the other
    group fully reflects the character of Satan.  They seek the lives of
    the last day remnant.

    During such a time of polarization, it would be entirely safe to judge
    by works.  But, it is possible in these 'grey' times to see two people
    performing the same outward act.  And each for entirely different
    motivations.

    �If an atheist shows  there good fruits thru
    �there love of humanity, then God has siliently and in secret worked
    �God's magic in that person's life.
    
     No man has agape love in his heart inherently.  It must be installed.
     The work of installing agape in the heart is the work of God.  Man's
     willingness to allow agape in the heart is called faith.

     How is it that an atheist has faith Patricia?

    �In reading Alfred North Whitehead last night Whitehead describes
    �religion as those internal beliefs, intimately held that transform
    �personality.  To love as Christ loves(or even close) a person must have
    �a very strong set of internal beliefs that in my opionion are from God,
    �even if not explictly stated as a belief in a personnel God.
    
     I agree, but there is only one channel through which the love of God
     is installed into the heart.

     That channel is faith.

							God Bless,

							Tony

    Tony,
    
    Everybody believes in something.  Faith are those inward precepts that
    mold our character.  I have no doubt that Love/Faith/Grace are put
    there by God.  They are God's gifts.
    
    Many who call themselves Atheist(or Agnostic) do so in revolt against a
    particular definition of God which they find unworthy.(i.e. the
    omnipotent, omniscent, all loving God who allow evil and suffering in
    the world).  Many Atheists whom I know have an inward faith in Love,
    community, sharing, honesty, communications."  There lifes are
    transformed by these beliefs.  This to me is Faith.  It is also
    biblical.  Paul and Romans talks about the Gentiles who have not heard
    the word of God but have the law of God written in their hearts.  And
    the law of God is to love.  Many secular humanists have great Faith. 
    Transforming faith.  Good works come from the heart.  not all works
    come from the heart, but those works that do not come from the heart
    will eventually expose themselves and bring pain.  In secular language
    that is what Co-dependents is all about.  People who think they can
    prove their own value to themselves thru their accomplishments.  People
    who do not know that they are loved and accepted for who there are and
    not for what they do.  Persons with that inward love and acceptance
    also do good works.  But it is not to prove that they are good.  There
    is a biblical correspondance to the secular psychology.
    
    It is the magical atonement theology that I reject.  Atonement in a
    psychological or metaphorical way makes great sense to me.  I strongly
    believe that every choice the Jesus made in his lifetime was free
    choice.  Every choice that those who he came in contact made was free
    choice.  The unfolding of Jesus' life was not pre-ordained.  Jesus was
    not born to die on the cross.  But Jesus did die on the cross and the
    cross did  become a powerful symbol of the sacrifice that Jesus made
    for all humanity.  I am searching for the deeper meaning in biblical
    literature.  What the Bible actually says about Jesus and ransom and
    what historical theologians have said are different.  The Bible is not
    dogmatic.  What is brilliant about the Bible is that it is full of
    stories and sayings none of which have precise for all time meaning. 
    The bible lives in many different times and circumstances because the
    stories and sayings have relevance to different times and
    circumstances.