Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

 You can't be serious.

of course i am serious, jim.

i consider jesus a great spiritual teacher and this particular thought
kept me busy last night.




andreas.

    Jesus was either who he said he was, a lier, or a loon.  He didn't
    leave the option of being *just* a great spiritual teacher.
    
    To paraphrase a famous Christian author.
    
    Jesus will not be married until the "marraige supper of the lamb",
    where he will take the church as his bride.  
    
    
    -steve

    Andreas:
    
    Understand that in order to qualify as the messiah for the world, one
    of these requirements would be to remain spotless and blameless before
    a Holy and sovereign God.
    
    Many in our society today choose the way of life activities and
    practices they feel are a part of their needs in life...expressing love
    and the like.  Jesus as the messiah remained sinless unto death;
    otherwise the payment for sin would not be adequate as he would have
    his own sin to deal with.
    
    The Old Testament speaks against the act of fornication and of
    adultery.  I submit to you not only did Jesus not take part in these
    activities, he also never looked upon a woman with lust.  Jesus the Son
    of God was in complete harmony with the Father and with the Holy
    Spirit.  It would have been impossible for their natures to contradict
    one another.  
    
    Jesus in His holiness kept the law completely.  This includes not
    looking upon a woman with lust and not giving in to temptation.  Jesus
    did not need these elements of love since he came with a specific goal
    in mind..to seek and to save that which was lost.
    
    -Jack  

what brought on this question was reading the notes in the
institutional church topic, particularly with regard to the
catholic church. 

let me redraw the thought process.

it started off with asking myself how extensive is the wisdom of a 
catholic priest when councelling on matters concerning the love between 
man and woman, when the priest has no sexual experience himself 
(ie. the priest is a virgin).

now the priest can take advice from his bishop. but the bishop  
has no sexual experience either. but the bishop can ask the pope,
only that the pope is also a virgin.

the case can now perhaps be made that the pope is the closest thing 
to a representative of jesus on earth which could then lead to the 
question about the basis of the wisdom of the authority which the 
pope can turn to.

but if you regard jesus as divine then for the case of jesus a different 
type of argument applies - someone who is divine may already be 
all-knowing and the sexual inexperience may be of no relevance.

if jesus on the other hand was not divine (as i believe), then the 
same question would apply to jesus as it applies to the pope, who is 
not divine, and to the bishop and to the priest, neither of which are 
divine.

basically, how extensive is the wisdom in matters related to the
full fruit of love, the spiritual, emotional *and* PHYSICAL union
between two lovers, from someone who has never experienced the fullness 
of love?




andreas.

re .3


i asked specifically for historical as well a scriptural accounts.

i presume you know that i am a non-believer and that i consider
that jesus touched on some universal truth which must be sought
out amongst many 'useless' pieces of scripture. just my opinion,
please!



andreas.

re .4


jack, i can't for the life of me imagine what engaging in a full 
relationship at the spiritual, emotional and physical level has 
to do with sin. also this type of love has nothing to do with lust 
(which adresses the physical aspects only).

there is so little known about the life jesus *before* the time that
he went public with his teaching. it may just be possible that he may 
have been deeply in love with someone before this time but that he
chose to serve the world instead, thereby making a big sacrifice, no?




andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    You are asking a hypothetical.  Your asking that assuming Jesus was not
    divine, then could he have not been a virgin or could he counsel on
    such matters.  In this case, then it is quite possible Jesus could have 
    died a non virgin.  It is also possible he could have died in sin.  
    However, the fact that he forgave sin on earth and is identified as
    preeminent with the Father, leads me to conclude that he is in fact
    divine.  As the pharisees asked, "Who can forgive sin but God alone?"
    The answer to a rhetorical question was, nobody can.
    
    -Jack

    Re: .7
    
    Andreas:
    
    I was waiting for that kind of reply.  I believe the union of two
    people committed to one another for life is in fact Holy and
    Sanctified.  Therefore, if it is at all possible Jesus was married at
    one time, then it stands to reason he would have died a non virgin.
    However, if he was not married, then sin is most definitely a factor
    here as it would result from fornication or from adultery.  If Jesus
    sinned, then he was not the messiah.  Just another spiritual leader.
    
    There of course is no historical evidence to the possibility Jesus was
    married or was in love (Eros) with a woman.  I believe Jesus was chaste
    unto death in order to devote himself to the cause for which he came.
    Understand that Jesus did not turn down the affection of women.  There
    is an incident where a woman who was in sin wept at his feet and wiped
    the tears from his feet with her hair.  As a side observer, I see this
    woman as a woman of great faith.  The pharisees thought she was being
    very forward.  Jesus rebuked the pharisees.  I believe she also poured
    expensive perfume upon him.
    
    -Jack 

re .8


agreed jack.

presumably we need a catholic now to explain how the priests, the bishops
and the pope do it. i mean pass advice on something they know nothing about.



andreas.

    This also assumes that the Creator needs to be married to understand
    His creation, which is nonsense.
    
    Mike

    I knew a priest once who became one since he lost his wife and children
    in a freak car accident.  He was an attorney at one time and was a
    great counselor for married people.
    
    Understand there are also many psychologists who come from
    backgrounds not necessarily qualifying them either.  There are some
    people who simply have the gift to counsel in such matters.  They are
    excellent communicators.
    
    -Jack

I Timothy 4:1-4
NOW the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart
from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils;
Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron;
Forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath
created to be received with thanksgiving of them which believe an know the
truth.
For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received
with thanksgiving:

re Note 1154.11 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

>     This also assumes that the Creator needs to be married to understand
>     His creation, which is nonsense.
  
        On the surface, at least, it is no more "nonsense" than to
        say that in order for the Creator to forgive the Creature the
        Creator must suffer "death" at the hands of the Creature.

        But a lot of people think this way.

        Bob

re .9


jack, if jesus was both human and divine, then as a human he also 
had to conquer temptations.

this is symbolised in the story of satan tempting jesus in the desert.

what if in reality, jesus *did* conquer all temptations of a good earthly 
life? whilst still sexually untouched he may have nevertheless fallen deeply 
in love and forsaken this earthly love for the higher (divine) mission. 

to me this type of sacrifice makes more sense than taking the story
of meeting satan in the desert literally. no offense intended!



andreas.

.11>  This also assumes that the Creator needs to be married to understand
.11>  His creation, which is nonsense.
    
mike, precisely. if we, women and men, are indeed created in the image 
of the creator then this must mean that what is referred to as creator 
is really a married couple, no?



andreas.

    ZZ        But a lot of people think this way.
    
    Bob, I will raise my hand here as one of them.  Certainly you recall
    the account of Jesus and Peter..."Thou art Peter and upon this rock I
    will build my church...etc."  Well, in the next few verses it goes on
    to say that Jesus explained to the apostles how he must be delivered to
    the pharisees and how he MUST be killed and raised again on the third
    day.  Peter began to rebuke him saying, this shall not be unto thee.
    
    Jesus turned to him and said; Get thee behind me Satan, for thou art an
    offense to me.  For you seeketh not the will of God but the will of
    man."
    
    Matthew 16 is the text.  Jesus affirmed his need to die on the cross
    and rise on the third day.  It is confirmed by the Words of Christ
    himself.  Why is it so difficult to believe?
    
    -Jack

    I have just finished reading this notes file and Andreas, I think that
    you are obsessed with sex.  Have you ever heard of the word CHASTITY.
    Have you ever read anything about the lives of any saints who gave of
    themselves the vows of POVERTY, CHASTY AND OBEDIENCE.  Not everyone has
    to experience sex to be fulfilled.  Just look at the problems involving
    open sex anytime and anywhere and with anyone.  Get a hold of yourself.
    
    There is no one on the face of God's green earth that will convince me
    that Jesus was not chaste and pure and totally obedient to his Father. 
    His main purpose (because God is so merciful and loves us very much)
    was to die for us and the sins that man has committed.  Jesus today is
    still being crucified because man just does not get it!  Man still sins
    today and will tomorrow and the rest of their lives.  
    
    If you don't think that you will not be held accountable for what you
    did and what you have failed to do, then no one can get through you.
    Prayer is your only hope and I hope that someone is praying for you.
    
    I am Catholic and I have been all my life.  I have met many wonderful
    priest and very few that were not so wonderful.  It is a calling for some
    and not everyone.  Too bad that those who did become priest and should
    not have, resulted in permanent damage to those they abused. 
    
    A person entering the priesthood (having never been married) has done
    so because of a calling to enter this life.  God gives graces to those
    who enter this life (which is not for everybody) and I believe that
    they are capable of understanding a man and woman relationship without
    having experienced that relationship.
    
    Jesus is the savior of the world and I hope you get to know Him before
    it is too late.
    
    Jeanne

re .18


hello jeanne, thanks for adding one more voice to this file.

>   I have just finished reading this notes file and Andreas, I think that
>   you are obsessed with sex.  Have you ever heard of the word CHASTITY.
>   Have you ever read anything about the lives of any saints who gave of
>   themselves the vows of POVERTY, CHASTY AND OBEDIENCE.  

i am not quite sure what is meant with chastity. i think that means virgin
right? the reason is i don't have my dictionary with me and english is not
my mother tongue - hence i use "sexually inexperienced" instead of the
term "chaste" which would probably come across alot better. i'll look it
up in the dictionary. generally i feel insecure in using terms in a foreign
language where i am not sure what they mean, therefore i use a simple 
vocabularly, which i grant you may well give the impression that i am
obsessed with sex!!

also jeanne, i am an atheist and live in a fairly deeply catholic country
(switzerland) just to shed some light on my perspective. the discussion
of celibacy (hope this is the right word!) and of non-admission of female
priests are big issues here in switzerland, germany and austria. which is
why i take an interest.

also, i am fairly certain that i am destined for hell as a non-believer,
but that doesn't stop me from making a serious attempt of discussing issues
which are either controversial or where i have a personal interest.




andreas.


ps. i hope you're goingto stay with us a little longer, jeanne. we need
    input from you in here. thanks.

    <<< Note 1154.5 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>it started off with asking myself how extensive is the wisdom of a 
>catholic priest when councelling on matters concerning the love between 
>man and woman, when the priest has no sexual experience himself 
>(ie. the priest is a virgin).
    
    	Frankly, a celibate priest or minister cannot counsel in such
    	matters -- at least from a perspective of personal experience.
    	At best he would only have a textbook knowledge of marital
    	matters.  Most times his counsel is more in the area of faith,
    	morality, and Church teaching.  This, however, is not meant to
    	discount his understanding of human feelings, temptations, 
    	interpersonal relationships.  And this is not to suggest that
    	the priest or minister is not trained to some degree in psychology
    	or sociology.  Many have academic degrees in disciplines such as
    	that.  What applies in these areas to relationships in general 
    	also apply to married relationships.
    
    	More and more churches are instituting mentorship programs where
    	couples in long-lasting marriages counsel engaged and newly-
    	married couples when first-hand experience is needed for counseling
    	purposes.
    	
>but if you regard jesus as divine then for the case of jesus a different 
>type of argument applies - someone who is divine may already be 
>all-knowing and the sexual inexperience may be of no relevance.
    
    	By Christian theology, Jesus was fully divine.  He was also fully
    	human.  
    
    	You raise an interesting point to ponder, Andreas.  It very 
    	well may be that Jesus gave up a romantic (though by the
    	theology I believe, not a physically romantic) relationship in
    	favor of his appointed ministry.  "Jesus was human in all things
    	like us but sin," according to our Catechism.  Yes, Jesus was at
    	one time a teenager, with surging hormones, and physical urges.
    	I'd find it hard to believe that He didn't get erections.  (Some
    	might find it sacriligious to ponder such things!)  But the point 
    	is that he did NOT give in to the urges of the body to which He
    	was entrusted while on earth.  He did not allow the the natural
    	mechanics of the body to drive him to lust or fornication.  This
    	understanding is where my pastor draws his strength from to
    	maintain his vow of celibacy.

>basically, how extensive is the wisdom in matters related to the
>full fruit of love, the spiritual, emotional *and* PHYSICAL union
>between two lovers, from someone who has never experienced the fullness 
>of love?
    
    	Is having sex the experience of "the fullness of love"?  Is that
    	what it takes?  Far too often today it is immoral sexual experience
    	that prevents people from subsequently experiencing the FULLNESS
    	OF LOVE in marriage.  Or far too often what people think is their
    	experience of the fullness of love in marriage ends in bitter
    	separation or divorce.  I understand what you are saying here,
    	but I just wanted to add a little perspective from a different
    	viewpoint.
    
    	And finally I want to suggest that NONE of us here on earth will
    	ever experience the fullness of love until we stand before Jesus
    	and he looks into our very soul, and we know that He knows what's
    	in there, and in spite of what HE sees in us, He forgives us and
    	welcomes us into his everlasting glory.  It will only be when we
    	experience that unconditional love that we will have experienced 
    	the true fullness of love.

    
    > if we, women and men, are indeed created in the image of the creator
    > then this must mean that what is referred to as creator is really a
    > married couple, no?

    Ooo, this is interesting. The Creator is an inseparable entity, both
    masculine and feminine. Just as a couple at marriage are no longer
    individuals, but joined together to form "One," so too the Creator is
    "One." In the case of marriage, the new unit become a unit of creation
    (or procreation). Hmmm.

    Is it possible that the masculine identity of God is largely
    grammatical and or cultural?
     
    Eric

    Just a personal belief.  I don't believe God is one sex or the
    other...or both for that matter.
    
    -Jack

    re: .6
    
    My (somewhat off topic) comments were in regards to the "great
    spiritual teacher" comment.  He was NOT a great spiritual teacher if he
    wasn't who he said he was.  That option simply isn't left open to the
    Bible reader.
    
    I do believe this indirectly answers the question posed, however. 
    Jesus, being divine, need not have participated in a marriage
    relationship (which is a cheap imitation of what is to come- the union
    of Jesus with the church) to know everything about it.
    
    By starting with the premise of Jesus not being divine (as you admit),
    you go down the wrong path of reasoning to come to a conclusion that
    isn't applicable.  
    
    As I said, Jesus can not be a "great spiritual teacher" unless he was
    who he said he was.  You have to view him as either a loon (some
    thought he was crazy, I'm sure, for saying he was God), a lier (saying
    he was God, but not really being God), or he was indeed God (in which
    case, your question is not relevent).
    
    
    I think you may be taking my notes in the wrong spirit.  I'm
    not jumping on you, I'm merely pointing out errors in your premise.  I
    admit, I didn't do much in the way of explaining this in my last note-
    which I appologise for.  This is not meant to be mean-spirited at all.
    
    
    -steve

re .20


i take your point of the human only being able to experience *full* 
love when s/he meets jesus. at that stage though the human would only 
be spirit and no longer body.

but whilst still on earth, how close do we come to the fullness of 
love whilst being both spirit and body?

of course just having sex is NOT experiencing the fullness of love. 

surely for humans the spiritual, emotional *and* physical union is
the closest, most intimate and most perfect unison, and one which takes
a lifetime to perfect and to deepen.

do man and woman unite physically only to make children or is it
to tend to and to deepen their unity? does the physical aspect of love 
between a man and a woman united in marriage have to stop after the 
menopause, just because babies can no longer be produced? i may be poorly 
informed, but aren't the pill and most prevalent forms of contraception 
against the council of the pope and his bishops? against the council of 
men which cannot know much about that fullness of love down here on earth??




andreas.

re .23


probably my fault steve, i am to blame. i instinctively took your 
note as being in the spirit of 'this is what the bible says, take it 
or leave it!' and i very aware that most of you folks are allergic 
to theology by snippet!

my premises are quite radical. i go from "junk the whole lot!" (that's 
all scriptures and *all* theologies) to start with and then go, "hey,
wait a minute, isn't there some truth in this and that 'snippet'?"
(by snippet i don't mean just a sentence, but a parable, or a gospel 
but certainly not all books of the OT and NT). as an atheist the 
premise is that there is no divinity whilst i fully recognise that 
there is something divine about life. hence, there is something
'magic' in the air.

of course you'll be aghast to hear that as an atheist, i first claim
jesus to be mine. yes, i'll assume that he was also an atheist. now
because my and your definition are so far apart and because you're 
probably as much an ok person as i am or anybody else is, we'll have 
to start scratching our heads if we want to discuss and build bridges 
to eventually get to a little better understanding of that man from 
nazareth.

doesn't it say in the bible somewhere that even fools or unbelievers
can be carriers of truth or that the divine speaks through many forms?

if at all, as joe implies, we'll know for sure when it's all over.

in the meantime i guess we can all agree, jesus and what he was all 
about will always be much of a mystery and it's up to us to get a little
closer to it, no?



andreas.

><<< Note 1154.14 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>
>                -< few things can stand the test of "nonsense" >-
>
>        On the surface, at least, it is no more "nonsense" than to
>        say that in order for the Creator to forgive the Creature the
>        Creator must suffer "death" at the hands of the Creature.
    
    It's also nonsense to leave the rejection of the Creator out of the
    equation.
    
    Mike

>surely for humans the spiritual, emotional *and* physical union is
>the closest, most intimate and most perfect unison, and one which takes
>a lifetime to perfect and to deepen.

Are you sure?  The bond of love between mother and child can (IMO) be
greater, no sex involved!  The strongest of human instincts is that of 
survival.  I'd wager that more mothers would forfeit their own lives to
save their childen vs a spouse demonstrating the same level of love.  Does
that make the mother-child love the greatest?  No, maybe just the greatest
we happen to know about, here, at this time.

I tend to think of the clergy as being tasked with a leadership role and to
a lesser degree councillors.  A priest, bishop, minister, deacon,
cardinal... need not empathize completely with all experiences of life in 
order to lead.  "How" you steer your ship in the right direction is "your"
problem.  The clergy just points the way.  Councilling addresses the "how"
which is secondary to the "where".  

But even as councillors, how much experience do you require of these guys?  
Should a priest council a confessed thief having never commited the crime 
himself?  Or is a priest, formerly a thief, necessarily the better choice?  
Should a priest council a married couple having never had sex?  

And how universally similar is this sort of love/sex experience anyway?
How much overlap is there between the experience as described by person 'A'
vs 'B' vs 'C'?  Can there be as much or more overlap with person 'D' who
happens to be a virgin?  Of course not you might claim?  Consider two people, 
Moe and Larry who both survived a plane crash and also consider Curly who
never set foot in a plane but survived a bad train crash.  Larry remembers
nothing about the crash because he fainted while the plane was still in the
air.  Now, which two people can relate better about being in a bad crash?
GEtting back to love/sex, is it the same experience for you as it is for your 
neighbor?  Is it the same for your partner????  In a lot of cases the
answer is that it's disimilar.

As for Jesus having had sex, who knows.  If he was "divine" as some claim, 
then maybe he could have been "endowed" with ALL experiences without having 
to go through the motions as a human.  I mean if this guy was "endowed"
with the power to raise people from the dead, having some insight into a
marital relationship seems like a triffle.


-dave

   <<< Note 1154.24 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>surely for humans the spiritual, emotional *and* physical union is
>the closest, most intimate and most perfect unison, and one which takes
>a lifetime to perfect and to deepen.
    
    	Tell that to a mother rocking her baby to sleep, or to an adult
    	son daily caring for his comatose father, or to Mother Theresa.
    
    	But I know what you're saying about marriage, and you're right --
    	it take a lifetime to attain that love and that relationship.  And
    	back to your original question, a priest will NOT have the personal
    	experience from which to draw to counsel couples in how-to's and
    	techniques.  He can give them his experience from celibate other
    	relationships he's had, for those experiences apply to marriage
    	as well, and he can instruct the couple in morals and Church
    	teaching.  The priest is not (nor should he pretend to be) the
    	final source of marital counseling.  Priest often refer couples
    	to marriage counselors.  And priests often refer couples to
    	Marriage Encounter and other marriage enrichment programs.
    
>do man and woman unite physically only to make children or is it
>to tend to and to deepen their unity? 
    
    	Catholic Church teachings holds that BOTH are equally the
    	purpose.
    
>does the physical aspect of love 
>between a man and a woman united in marriage have to stop after the 
>menopause, just because babies can no longer be produced? 
    
    	This question shows a serious misconception (pun intended.)
    
>aren't the pill and most prevalent forms of contraception 
>against the council of the pope and his bishops? against the council of 
>men which cannot know much about that fullness of love down here on earth??

    	As I said before, priests (and bishops and popes) counsel on the
    	theology and morality of the issue.  Birth control is a theological
    	and moral issue.  In fact, the theology of the Catholic Church holds 
    	that birth control, by its very nature of separating the procreative
    	from the unitive in sexual intercourse, diminishes "the fullness
    	of love" (as you put it) in marital sexuality.

re .27

> >surely for humans the spiritual, emotional *and* physical union is
> >the closest, most intimate and most perfect unison, and one which takes
> >a lifetime to perfect and to deepen.
>
> Are you sure?  The bond of love between mother and child can (IMO) be
> greater, no sex involved!  

dave, the bond between mother and child is not just spiritual and emotional. 
it is also physical. very much so. who's talking about sex?

but unfortunately, in most of the cases you are right. sadly. i know of 
mothers which turn away from their husbands just to look after the children, 
or of fathers which become married to their careers - the reason being that 
the marriage has effectively broken down since the commitment to the union 
went lost. in marriage, the precondition must surely be that the desire and 
the commitment is kept to maintaining and to renewing the union on a continuous 
basis.

in my observation good marriages are the exception. there are very few
good marriages. call me an idealist, but i do believe that the highest form 
of love (on earth) is all the same that lifelong spiritual, emotional *and* 
physical union as found in a good marriage. where the bonds to the mother 
and the father are replaced (renewed?) by the bonds to the partner.




andreas.

ps. that's it for today. i shan't pester you with my 'sermons' tommorrow!
    good night all!

   <<< Note 1154.29 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>dave, the bond between mother and child is not just spiritual and emotional. 
>it is also physical. very much so. who's talking about sex?
    
    	Well, given the topic title you chose -- Was Jesus a VIRGIN --
    	and all your ensuing participation so far, I was under the
    	assumption that you were talking about sex.
    
    	Given that you aren't, son't you think Jesus has some very physical
    	relationships?
    
>in my observation good marriages are the exception. there are very few
>good marriages. 
    
    	Sadly, I agree with you.
    
>call me an idealist, but i do believe that the highest form 
>of love (on earth) is all the same that lifelong spiritual, emotional *and* 
>physical union as found in a good marriage. where the bonds to the mother 
>and the father are replaced (renewed?) by the bonds to the partner.

    	All my devil's-advocate debating aside, I agree with you.  Paul
    	says in Ephesians 5:32 that the love between a husband and wife
    	is a sign of Christ's love for the Church.

>    	Tell that to a mother rocking her baby to sleep, or to an adult
>    	son daily caring for his comatose father, or to Mother Theresa.
    
    Slight nit, but I don't believe the latter applies because of the fact 
    that she won't present the Gospel message to Hindus on their death beds.  
    If she loved them, she wouldn't allow them to go to an eternal hell
    without having an opportunity to make a decision for Jesus Christ.
    
    Mike

re .30


joe, your devil's advocate debating gets us right to the core of the 
matter and to the tricky questions.

what the question about the virginity of jesus leads to are the following 
questions:

1) how far can an individual go and remain 'unblemished' when interacting
   with other individuals at all levels (spiritually, emotionally and 
   physically)

2) the value of sacrifice? is renouncing something you do know about
   a bigger sacrifice than renouncing something you know nothing about?



to 1) 
- at one extreme end, two consenting individuals may unite in the spirit
of love and stop short at sexual intercourse (i mean sexual intercourse in 
the narrowest possible sense, ie. all but penetration). if two virgins 
engage in an interaction of this type then do they retain their virginity?
- at the other extreme, does merely having feelings of romantic love for 
someone amount to losing ones virginity?


to 2)
which of the following two sacrifices do you consider the greater sacrifice?
- a rich man renounces all his material wealth 
- a poor man renounces material wealth, that is in this case, more concisely 
  renounces all prospects of gathering a personal material wealth



if, as at least the two of us agree, the highest form of earthly love
is the union in marriage, then jesus clearly renounced this type of love 
in order to fulfill a divine mission.

did jesus make a sacrifice by renouncing this love?

as jeanne has pointed out with regards to saints, i do believe, that 
the highest form of sacrifice a young person can make is to renounce
that lifelong union in love WHICH SO STRONGLY MOVES THE HEART. of course
it must be experienced before it can be renounced. which is why i cannot 
believe that jesus has NOT felt this love before taking up his divine mission.

if you consider that jesus aware of his divinity, did at some point feel 
the full depth and strength of love for a prospective mate, then due to the 
strength of the feeling and being painfully aware of his divine mission, 
i can well imagine that the experience could have been the last sacrifice 
of jesus the human, and the trigger to taking up his mission where he 
transformed the love for one human to the love for all of humanity?

i know i am way out of my depth here and quite possibly way out of line 
with my thinking above. i do not mean to upset anyone. but these where the 
thoughts behind the questions in .0 which is why i wondered if anyone else 
has ever pondered that subject.




andreas.

    
    > 1) how far can an individual go and remain 'unblemished' when
    >    interacting with other individuals at all levels (spiritually,
    >    emotionally and physically)

    We tend not to judge the actions of Jesus on what we believe to be
    sinful, we judge what we believe to be sinful on the actions of Jesus.
    That is to say, it is given the Jesus is 'unblemished' therefore
    anything he did, said or believed is, as a result, not sinful.

    Jesus did many things that were considered sinful by the Jewish
    religious leaders of his time. We, as Christians, see this as an
    illustration of error of the Pharisees and the like, and not Jesus.

                                       SALVATION
         
              A self-proclaimed athiest once told me why he did not 
         believe in GOD:
         
              "God is supposed to be good.  He's supposed to be all 
         love. Right?  So why is there so much suffering in the world?  
         Why are there little innocent children with bellies extended 
         dying of starvation?  Why are there others who suffer from 
         horrible diseases like cancer, etc.?  No, if there were a GOD 
         He would not allow that.  Somehow He would fix it.  After 
         all, He's supposed to be all powerful, isn't He?"
         
              This man had a point.  There is something terrible wrong 
         with the world.  And it seems to be getting worse and worse.
         
              We live in a scary world where the greatest cause of 
         death among teen aged youth is suicide; where a mother's womb 
         - once an inviolable sanctuary for a priceless creation; a 
         baby - is now the most dangerous place to live on earth, 
         because of abortion.  Now in some cities, Washington, D.C. 
         for example, there are more abortions than live births.  Our 
         children, if they escape death by abortion, drugs, crime and 
         suicide, may yet die of starvation, disease and homelessness 
         in a collapsed economy.
         
              The athiest was right about the suffering, except for 
         one thing: 
                         GOD's part in it.
         
              GOD didn't want the world this way either.  Yes, He is 
         all-powerful, and He is able to change things, but there is 
         one area where He has imposed upon himself a kind of 
         powerlessness: the area of MAN'S FREE WILL.
         
              Adam disobeyed GOD; didn't heed his warning about death, 
         and he sinned.  At that cataclysmic moment, the earth fell 
         under the curse of sin, suffering and death.
         
              The next two verses in Genesis (3:8-9) tell the whole 
         story of the rest of the Bible in a nutshell - and you should 
         let it break your heart.   (READ:  Genesis 3:8-9)
         
              God knew what Adam had done, but He searched for him, 
         and cried out with his whole heart,
              "Adam! Where are you?"
              Did you ever lose a child?  Even for 5 minutes?  It can 
         seem an eternity.
         
              God had lost us there, and the whole world died.

         
              From then on the whole story of the Scriptures is God 
         reaching out to man, raising up leaders, holy men, priests 
         and prophets, leading them, delivering them from bondage, 
         forgiving their sins, answering their prayers, even their 
         whining complaints to Moses in the desert, with miracle after 
         miracle, calling them to return to Him, to have faith, to 
         walk humbly in an ever more intimate relationship with Him.
         
              For He has created us for fellowship with Him, as St. 
         Augustine said, "you have made us for yourself, O God, and 
         our hearts are restless until they rest in you."
         
              My athiest friend, by-the-way, has since found this out 
         for himself and is now a true disciple of the Lord.  Praise 
         GOD!
         
              God's great desire, the desire He has had from all 
         eternity, is repeated like a refrain throughout the 
         Scriptures:
         
              "I will make my dwelling place among them, and they 
         shall be my people, and I will be their God."  (See Zech. 8)
         
              In Ezekiel 34:11-16 the Lord says He will seek out His 
         lost sheep; He will find them wherever they have strayed, He 
         will bind up their wounds and strengthen those that are weak, 
         and He will feed them on good pasture, for He will be their 
         own shepherd.  Jesus is the fulfillment of this prophecy.  He 
         is our "Good Shepherd who lays down His life for His Sheep" 
         (John 10:11)
         
              "For the Son of Man has come to seek and save that which 
         was lost." (Luke 15:4-7)
         
              God has a plan for us, and its not only to save us, but 
         to give us a glorious new future, a new heaven and a new 
         earth.  (Read: Revelations 21:1-5)
         
              God is going to make up for all sufferings and sorrows 
         experienced on earth with an eternity of joys beyond our 
         wildest dreams.
         
              He desires to give this to us as our inheritance, yet we 
         will also experience some of it even in this life, if only we 
         will come to Him with humble and contrite hearts.
         
              But something keeps drawing us away.  We become blind to 
         His plan, and deaf to the voice of our shepherd.  The soil of 
         our hearts becomes dry and hard like a desolate wasteland and 

         all our desires are for self-gratification in the here and 
         now.  We become fixed on the material things of life and lose 
         our eternal perspective.  There is no joy here.  Life becomes 
         merely a series of alternating pleasures and pains, and the 
         struggle is to keep pleasure at a maximum while keeping pain 
         to a minimum.  There is no peace here, only mounting stress 
         which sometimes manifests itself in various physical and 
         psychological problems, which inturn affect relationships, 
         and families self-destruct.  There is no real purpose to this 
         life, if this life is all there is; only a series of goals, 
         of temporary prizes to be won on the way to the top, which 
         you discover is the emptiest place of all.  And there is no 
         hope here, for when all activity finally stops, as it surely 
         will, the soul shrouded in darkness and headed for perdition, 
         can only despair.
         
              Why?  Why do human beings get so lost?  Why do we sin 
         and drift away from God?   Why do we get sick in our heads?  
         Why don't we sense or believe in God's tremendous love for 
         us?  Why do we deny our sinfulness?  Or, why do we sin again 
         and again?  And why do we get bound up with self-hatred and 
         condemnation, or else in denial and escapism?  As the 
         Scripture says "The whole head is sick."  (Isaiah 1:5)
         
              St. Paul addresses this problem in Romans 7:14 - 8:16.  
         He tells how our carnal nature, that is, our fleshly human 
         nature, has an inherent tendency to sin, as if it were 
         operating according to a law that is in opposition to the law 
         of God which is summed up in the "Ten Commandments".
         
              And so he says, "I do not understand my own actions, for 
         I do not do what I want, but I do the very thing I hate . . . 
         I see in my flesh another law which is at war with the Law 
         (of God) in my mind, making me captive to sin,"  (verses. 
         15,23)
         
              I would give a name to this law: the Law of Self.
         
              Jesus said, "He who would come after me must deny 
         himself, take up his cross daily, and follow me."  (Matthew 
         16:24)
         
              If you don't know that there is a law - a tendency - of 
         sin at work in your flesh, just try a little self-denial.  
         Just try fasting, or giving up your position in the 
         check-out line, or forgiving an insult, or biting your tongue 
         when you have a perfect right to complain.
         
              Then you will know what St. Paul is talking about here.  
         My father has a great saying: "I can resist anything but 
         temptation."

         
              St. Paul concludes by saying "Wretched man that I am! 
         Who will deliver me?"  He immediately praises God for the 
         answer: "Jesus Christ, our Lord."
         
              Romans 3:23 says: "All have sinned and come short of the 
         glory of God."  As a teen-ager, I found the Christian life 
         too difficult.  I felt I would never be as good as required.  
         So I quit trying.  But God drew me back to Himself and showed 
         me: it wasn't by my own efforts that I was to be saved, but 
         by His Work of Grace.  He is the God of my salvation not I, 
         myself.  He is the God who saves me because I cannot save 
         myself.
         
              All along God knew that the only thing the Law could do 
         for us was point up our sins, but it had no power of itself 
         to make us stop sinning.  It only made us guilty.  So, He 
         promised to do a new thing with us.  We read about it in 
         (Ezekiel 26:25-27)
         
              And to fulfill this prophecy, He sent His only Son Jesus 
         - the Ultimate Solution.
         
              "For God in Christ has done what the law, weakened by 
         the flesh, could not do: sending his own Son in the likeness 
         of our own sinful flesh.  (Roman 8:3)
         
              "For our sake, He made Him to be sin who knew no sin, so 
         that in Him, we might become the righteousness of God." 
         (2 Corinthian 5:21)  "For it is by grace that you have been 
         saved through faith.  It is not the result of your own 
         efforts, but it is God's free gift, so that no one can 
         boast."  (Eph. 2:8-9)
              Read: Isaiah 53:4-6)
         
              Ever since the fall of Adam, the world has been in 
         bondage to sin and to SATAN, and all the evil spirits who 
         prowl about seeking the destruction of souls.  He had much to 
         boast about.  No one was exempt from his influence.  Man was 
         separated from God and had no way of bridging the gap and 
         getting back to full communion with him.  God seeing our 
         plight, in his mercy, sent Jesus to take all the punishment 
         that was supposed to come down on us?
         
              This is what defeated Satan.
         
              Satan means accuser.  His main thing is getting us into 
         sin and then standing before the judgment seat of God, 
         "accusing us day and night" as the Scripture says, in the 
         hopes that we will be condemned and he can have us for 
         breakfast, lunch and supper for all eternity.
         

              But, Colossians 2:14-15 tells us that Jesus, by the 
         death on the cross He "cancelled the record of debt that we 
         had to pay; He has done away with it by nailing it to the 
         cross, and so He got rid of the Sovereignties and Powers 
         (Satan and his crew), and paraded them in public, behind Him 
         in His triumphal procession."  And thus it was that "God 
         delivered us from the dominion of darkness and transferred us 
         to the kingdom of His beloved Son, in whom we have redemption 
         and the forgiveness of our sins," (Colossians 1:13)
         
              You might ask:
         
              "How does this work itself out in my life here and now?  
         How come I don't feel redeemed and victorious over evil in my 
         life?"
         
              If there is one truth that has to be branded on your 
         heart so that it can never be forgotten, it's this:
         	   
         	   Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ and 
                   Son of God, God himself in the 
                   flesh, saw your sins even before 
                   you were born, and He died for you, 
                   personally, to remove your sins 
                   from you, "as far as the east is 
                   from the west."  And if you were 
                   the only human being on earth, He 
                   would still have come and done all 
                   that, just for you.
         
         "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten 
         Son, so that whosoever will believe in Him might not perish, 
         but have eternal life. (John 3:16)
         
              Once you realize that the Christian life is not based on 
         your commitment to Jesus, but first and foremost on His 
         commitment to you - which He took all the way to Calvary; 
         once you let your heart receive this Good News of His undying 
         love for you and invite Him into your heart to be your 
         personal Lord and Savior, and once you ask Him to fill you 
         and take over your life with His own Holy Spirit, then He 
         will reveal himself to you, and He will show you what kind of 
         God He really is, for you will have appropriated this great 
         salvation and it will be yours forever.  You will have sweet 
         fellowship with the Lord and the craving of His heart for 
         your love will be assuaged.  
         
              See, He has opened the pathway to the heavenly court 
         right through the wound in His heart.
         

              Come to Him, now.  Come in your heart.  Give your heart 
         to Him.  He's pouring His love and mercy out on you right 
         now.  Close your eyes, confess to Him all your sins, all your 
         pains.  Open your heart, He will wipe away all your tears, 
         let them flow, and give Him your life.  No matter what 
         condition it is in.  Even if you have made a mess of things.  
         He loves you.  Give it all to Him.  Let Him show you what 
         your God can do!
         
              He says all heaven rejoices when one sinner repents and 
         turns back to God.  I am going to give you one last 
         Scripture.  It tells about that celebration, and how the 
         Father will dance over you with joy.  (Read - Zephaniah 
         3:14-18)
    

Re .31

>>...go to an eternal hell without having an opportunity to make a decision for
>>Jesus Christ.

Spare me.

Assumming that there is a heaven and a hell, these people are going to 
"eternal hell" just because their not christian?  I know some "hell bound" 
hindus that are far more christian-like in behavior than a lot of "heaven 
bound" christians I know.  Where's the justice in that?

-dave

 ZZZ    Where's the justice in that?
    
    Dave, you are falling into the same trap that most of humankind falls
    into.  Jesus never addressed the issue of how basically good people
    were.  He made it clear that he came to redeem humankind.  This to me
    implies a need on our part.  
    
    If justice were truly served...I mean truly TRULY served, then we all
    would face eternal hell.  Therefore, justice is NOT what we should
    aspire for.  Grace is the element we desparately need because our sin
    separates us from God.
    
    In the case of Mother Theresa, I happen to believe her ministry is a
    noble one...and she is worthy of adulation.  However, by the precepts
    of the Catholic Church, one of her solemn responsibilities is not only
    to minister to those in need but also to make disciples of all nations.
    The depravity of humankind was brought upon by ourselves...by our own
    free will.  So in essence, Mike is correct.  The greatest act of love
    is to share the wonderful news of Christ crucified and resurrected.
    
    Jesus in the gospel of Matthew preached a wonderful message of love. 
    He said that if thy eye offend thee, pluck it out.  For it is better to
    enter eternal life with one eye or maimed then to enter eternal
    hellfire.  What Jesus was telling us is that there IS in fact something
    worse than death and that we need to be prepared for it.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    	WELL SAID
    
    Jeanne

    thanks, Jack.

re .34


jeanne, your note is an excellent presentation of the bible, from genesis
to relevation.

whilst this is slightly off the topic, my atheism is in good part rooted
in a skepticism toward the institutional church, which, in my eyes has largely
discredited itself from its inception. therefore i am also critical of
scripture and of theology, all of which are the produce of the institutional 
church.

i also believe the experience of god is not communicable and that any proof 
of 'god' remains thus confined to the individual. going from this basis,
i see little point in 'comparing notes' on images of god. a more valid 
approach for me, if god is supposed to be within us (if we are created in 
god's image, if god's kingdom is within us, to use scriptural terms) is to
travel towards this 'god' within, through exploring, experiencing and sharing 
in thought, in dialog and in interaction with others in the community of 
humans, since surely, 'god' must be everywehere a little.

hence my focus on jesus. in his time on earth, jesus was at least in part
human, and if jesus was also divine, then to any human, he would provide a
bridge to the divine.

now what did jesus really say and do in his time?

this gets us back to the questions raised in this topic. personally, i think 
every opinion is valuable. i trust you do too.




andreas.

    	re .31
    
    	I wasn't aware that Mother Theresa refuses to share the Gospel
    	message to dying Hindus.  Where did you hear this?
    
    	As far as I'm concerned, Mother theresa, by her actions and
    	ministry, shares the Gospel message with all.  Her life
    	abundantly EXUDES the Gospel message such that these wretched
    	lives -- the least of His brethren -- are compelled to ask
    	"Who are you and what is it in you that moves you to help
    	me when everyone else would have allowed me to die?"  She
    	and her ministry have converted multitudes to Christianity.
    
    	I think you're right.  It's a nit that you're picking.

   <<< Note 1154.32 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>to 1) 
>- at one extreme end, two consenting individuals may unite in the spirit
>of love and stop short at sexual intercourse (i mean sexual intercourse in 
>the narrowest possible sense, ie. all but penetration). if two virgins 
>engage in an interaction of this type then do they retain their virginity?
>- at the other extreme, does merely having feelings of romantic love for 
>someone amount to losing ones virginity?
    
    	There is more to chastity and sexual purity than simple virginity.
    
    	I don't know that I've ever seen a clear definition regarding
    	whether virginity is retained solely because penetration did
    	not occur.  As far as I'm concerned, that doesn't matter, for
    	even if clinical virginity is retained in the scenario you
    	present, sexual purity -- chastity -- is not.
    
    	Regarding the second half of the question, not only can virginity
    	be preserved, but so can sexual purity be preserved within a
    	chaste romantic relationship.
    
    	And to extend the discussion beyond your questions, I believe
    	that celibacy does not necessarily mean that sexual purity
    	is maintained.
    
>to 2)
>which of the following two sacrifices do you consider the greater sacrifice?
>- a rich man renounces all his material wealth 
>- a poor man renounces material wealth, that is in this case, more concisely 
>  renounces all prospects of gathering a personal material wealth
    
    	I miss your meaning here.

>if, as at least the two of us agree, the highest form of earthly love
>is the union in marriage, then jesus clearly renounced this type of love 
>in order to fulfill a divine mission.
>
>did jesus make a sacrifice by renouncing this love?
    
    	I suspect that He did.

>the highest form of sacrifice a young person can make is to renounce
>that lifelong union in love WHICH SO STRONGLY MOVES THE HEART. of course
>it must be experienced before it can be renounced. which is why i cannot 
>believe that jesus has NOT felt this love before taking up his divine mission.
    
    	I agree with you unless your concept of this love requires
    	sexual experience.

>i know i am way out of my depth here and quite possibly way out of line 
>with my thinking above. i do not mean to upset anyone. but these where the 
>thoughts behind the questions in .0 which is why i wondered if anyone else 
>has ever pondered that subject.
    
    	I don't consider this discussion out of line at all.  I find
    	it a refreshing change from the usual sniping that characterizes
    	this conference.  As you can see, you are not the only one who
    	ponders this subject, because as I mentioned earlier, for at least 
    	one priest I know this very subject is the source of strength from 
    	which he draws encouragement in keeping his vows of celibacy.  I'll 
    	grant that he probably looks at the subject and reaches conclusions 
    	different from the what you do, but you only asked about PONDERING 
    	the subject.

    In no way did I mean to belittle Theresa's ministry...I believe it is
    necessary.  I was only pointing out that had she kept silent about the
    message of redemption, all her beautiful work would eventually be for
    not.  I in no way was implying she didn't share the gospel.  Only that
    it was a necessary part of her work.
    
    -Jack

    Andreas
    
    Yes we all have our opinions, beliefs and personal experiences.  I
    understand your skepticism because the church is far from perfect no
    matter what religion you are.  You have to look beyond the imperfect
    church and develop what I refer to as FAITH.  If you dont' have the
    faith to believe and trust in God, then I don't know what else I can
    say to convince you about how wonderful God the Father, Jesus his
    Divine Son and the Holy Spirit are.  If you read the Gospel, you will
    notice that is is not a promise of easy success.  The heart of the
    Gospel is contained in these words.  "For whoever wishes to save his
    life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find
    it." Matthew 16:25  
    
    The Gospel does not promise a comfortable life to ANYONE.  It makes 
    demands, yet it holds A GREAT PROMISE - the promise of eternal life for 
    man, who is subject to the law of death, and the promise of victory 
    through FAITH for man, who is subject to many trials and setbacks.
    
    The Gospel contains a fundamental paradox - to find life, one must lose
    life; to be born, one must die; to save oneself, one must take up the
    cross.  This is essential truth of the Gospel, which always and
    everywhere is bound to meet with man's protest.
    
    Always and everywhere the Gospel will be a challenge to human weakness. 
    But precisely in this challenge lies all its power.  Man, perhaps
    subconsciously, waits for such a challenge.  Indeed, man feels the
    inner need to transcend himself.  Only in trancending himself does man
    become fully human.
    
    Let me ask you this, someone is diagnoses with a tumor on the brain and
    this tumor is malignant.  The person has gone through much pain for
    longer than she can endure.  All of a sudden an xray is taken and the
    tumor has vanished.  Also be aware that there is power in prayer,
    and this person has been prayed for since the grim diagnosis was
    made.  Can you believe that the FAITH of those praying resulted in what
    we call a miracle?  Unless you come to know Jesus and who he really
    was, Faith will probably be difficult for you to achieve.  With the way
    the world is today, my only consolation and deep peace comes from my
    Divine Savior, Jesus Christ.
    
    Amen
    Jeanne

>    	I wasn't aware that Mother Theresa refuses to share the Gospel
>    	message to dying Hindus.  Where did you hear this?
    
    It's part of the Pope's ecumenical agreement with the Hindu leaders
    (Dali Lama?).  I actually got it from a source that was quoting some
    Catholic periodical.  She said that she won't convert a dying Hindu out
    of respect for their religion.
    
    Mike

    
    Re.35
    
    Dave,
    
    >Spare me.
    
    Yes, that was my thought too.  (;^)  Mother Teresa, according to
    something I read a while back, prefers to *show* and *demonstrate* 
    the love of Christ to those who are dying, through her own actions.  
    
    Cindy

    Ohhh...I wasn't aware of that agreement.  I don't think it was wise to
    do that.
    
    Cindy, Jesus once asked the question, "What shall it profit a man if he
    gain the whole world yet lose his own soul?"  The same can apply here. 
    What possible good is there in dying in the comfort of anothers arms
    when the future will only bring a revelation of sin and eternal
    judgement?  Both rhetorical questions which call for an obvious answer.
    
    Mother Theresa in my opinion would have been better off following the
    will of God instead of the will of humankind...and this shows the
    perfect illustration of the human lack of reason.
    
    -Jack

                                                             
    Re.44
    
    Mike,
    
    The Dalai Lama is the leader of Buddhism - Tibetan Buddhism to be
    specific.  He is living in India as a refugee from Tibet due to the
    Chinese invading and obliterating their country and culture.
    
    Hinduism is different from Buddhism, however it is true that Buddhism 
    came from Hinduism, and therefore has common roots - sort of like 
    Christianity came from Judaism (very roughly speaking).  The Buddha is 
    one of the recognized 10 avatar incarnations of Hinduism.  Nine 
    incarnations have already come (including Ram and Krishna), and the 
    Hindus wait for Lord Kalki to come next.
    
    So endeth the eastern religion education sermon for today.  (;^)
    
    In any case though, I'm not sure who it is that the Pope has the
    agreement with, however it probably isn't the Dalai Lama.  There is no
    recognized head of Hinduism either, so it may be the local saints,
    sages and gurus in the areas that Mother Teresa works in.
    
    Cindy

    Re.46
    
    Jack,
    
    Just over 100 years ago, the first Hindu swami, Swami Vivekananda, 
    came to the US to address the first Parliament of World Religions.  
    He blasted the Christian missionary-types, saying that food is far 
    more important there than Bibles, given that the people are starving, 
    and to please stop with this kind of behavior in his country 
    (paraphrasing here, so don't quote me - I can get his exact quotes 
    if you'd like from his addresses to the Parliament).
    
    Yes, I realize you (and others) have your beliefs and your perceived 
    mission, but there are clearly times when action is called for to
    'behave' more like Christ (and provide the necessities of life so that
    the people can live better life, and *THEN* promote the Gospel, if you 
    feel called to), rather than just preaching and not feeding, clothing, 
    or educating.  In the zeal to preach and convert, these basic human
    needs that could alleviate much suffering in *this* world, seems to be
    passed by a lot of the time, by those who should be following in the
    Master's footsteps and actually passing around the loaves and fishes, 
    not just talking about them.
    
    Cindy  

RE .36

>>    Dave, you are falling into the same trap that most of humankind falls
>>    into.  Jesus never addressed the issue of how basically good people
>>    were.  He made it clear that he came to redeem humankind.  This to me
>>    implies a need on our part.
>>
>>    If justice were truly served...I mean truly TRULY served, then we all
>>    would face eternal hell.  Therefore, justice is NOT what we should
>>    aspire for.  Grace is the element we desparately need because our sin
>>    separates us from God.
>>              
                              vvvvvv
I don't aspire for justice, I expect it in an entity which is supposedly as
loving as God.  Either justice or unconditional acceptance (read "no hell").  
Presuming that none of us can stay out of hell without Jesus is like
saying that God screwed up when he designed man and that Jesus was a sort
of "Add-on, Band-Aid, Change Order" to remedy the design flaw after the
fact.  I can't help but think that the christian God judges people
individually for their personal actions and doesn't consider only those 
who claim to be christian as a group while sweeping all the rest into some
hell without even considering who they were or what the did.


>>    In the case of Mother Theresa, I happen to believe her ministry is a
>>    noble one...and she is worthy of adulation.  However, by the precepts
>>    of the Catholic Church, one of her solemn responsibilities is not only
>>    to minister to those in need but also to make disciples of all nations.
>>    The depravity of humankind was brought upon by ourselves...by our own
>>    free will.  So in essence, Mike is correct.  The greatest act of love
>>    is to share the wonderful news of Christ crucified and resurrected.
>>

If God is all powerful, and Jesus is the only way to God, and God loves all
his people, then why does he need Mother Theresa to inform them of Jesus? 
Requiring man to inform other men about Jesus in order to save man seems like 
a rather tenuous situation to be tolerated by God, don't you think?
What about everyone that lived and died before the year zero?  Are they all
burning in hell because they never accepted Jesus?  Is Moses, Abraham,
David and the rest of the party amoung them?  Is the 1 year old infant who 
dies for one reason or another condemmed to hell because he/she never 
accepted Jesus?  Too many holes in that theory man!

>>    Jesus in the gospel of Matthew preached a wonderful message of love.
>>    He said that if thy eye offend thee, pluck it out.  For it is better to
>>    enter eternal life with one eye or maimed then to enter eternal
>>    hellfire.  What Jesus was telling us is that there IS in fact something
>>    worse than death and that we need to be prepared for it.
>>

Then why didn't he just say it?  Ya know?  Why shroud it in some metaphor
about plucking out an eye?  Why was this passage not found in all the
gospels? If this is so important a concept, why wasn't it mentioned more or
described in cleared terms?  Why does it have to remain a vague concept,
disputed back and forth by theologians and scholars?  Why didn't Jesus
gather up his diciples, tell them to pick up their tablets and chizzles and
say "Now take this down guys cuz it'll be important to future generations
and we want to get this right.  There's a heaven which is a cool place and
a hell which is a real bummer.  Do like I tell you and when the time comes,
I'll send the evelator to bring you up to heaven, otherwise you'll fall 
down the shaft to this guy with a tail, nasty breath and a lust for
sticking people with fondu sticks"?  THAT'S WHAT I DISLIKE ABOUT THE
BIBLE.... ALL THE UNCLEAR, VAGUE METAPHORS!!!  

Hypothesis:

If there is a hell, maybe everyone who chooses to spit the God given gift of 
reason back in His face in favor of blind irrational faith are doomed to go 
there.  The bible is a temptation, a lazy man's way out of searching for
God with his mind.

No offense meant by that last blast.  It's just something that was sitting
on my chest for a long time.  Maybe God put it there and I'm doing all of
you a service by typing it out in this forum.


-dave             

    
    Sounds good to me, Dave.
    
    Cindy

          <<< Note 1154.44 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    I actually got it from a source that was quoting some
>    Catholic periodical.  She said that she won't convert a dying Hindu out
>    of respect for their religion.
    
    	I can show you Catholic periodicals that call for female
    	priests, abortion, a special blessing for cohabiting unmarried
    	couples, and a whole host of un-Catholic things.
    	
    	I suggest that this notion comes from a misquote of Mother
    	Theresa herself.

re .41


joe, thank you for being willing to get to the 'beef' of the matter.
i take my hat off to you for that.

    
>>to 2)
>>which of the following two sacrifices do you consider the greater sacrifice?
>>- a rich man renounces all his material wealth 
>>- a poor man renounces material wealth, that is in this case, more concisely 
>>  renounces all prospects of gathering a personal material wealth
>    
>    	I miss your meaning here.


replace 'material wealth' with 'love'. the case above was intended to be 
an analogy of the question 'is it a sacrifice for someone who has never 
known love to renounce all prospects to experience love'

to be fair, as i believe, one can neither renounce wealth nor love, but
both can be transformed. 


>>the highest form of sacrifice a young person can make is to renounce
>>that lifelong union in love WHICH SO STRONGLY MOVES THE HEART. of course
>>it must be experienced before it can be renounced. which is why i cannot 
>>believe that jesus has NOT felt this love before taking up his divine mission.
>    
>    	I agree with you unless your concept of this love requires
>    	sexual experience.

i also regard the sexual experience per se, as secondary and not strictly 
relevant. 

as you point out, the experience of love can be intense whilst the 
relationship can remain chaste (to use your term here).


>    	And to extend the discussion beyond your questions, I believe
>    	that celibacy does not necessarily mean that sexual purity
>    	is maintained.

how so? do you have in mind the case of celibacy at a later stage in life.
for example that of going celibate after having lived a sexually active 
phase of life?





andreas.

re .43



jeanne, thank you for giving this file your continued attention!

i am a big supporter of faith as you can see from the many discussions 
in this file (most recenty topic 1145 which has now moved on to topic 1156)
and i also believe that what is referred to as miracles happens all the 
time.

i am just cautious in giving a name to the source of the faith.
i believe part of the reason that we're here is to find that source,
within ourselves and within our fellow human and that this task 
probably fills an entire lifetime.



andreas.

re .49


> If there is a hell, maybe everyone who chooses to spit the God given gift of 
> reason back in His face in favor of blind irrational faith are doomed to go 
> there.  The bible is a temptation, a lazy man's way out of searching for
> God with his mind.
> 
> No offense meant by that last blast.  It's just something that was sitting
> on my chest for a long time.  Maybe God put it there and I'm doing all of
> you a service by typing it out in this forum.



dave, to me, your words are no more offensive than the, imo, often 
unreflected and impulsive raised index finger approach of: 'you must 
accept the whole of scripture or nothing!' which is so often heard in 
here.

which human has the right to tell YOU how YOU should walk through life?

who is to say how far YOU are in YOUR discovery?

noone.

for a CRITICAL, researching mind the 'take the whole lot or leave it 
doctrine' squelches all discussion and it is precisely this doctrine which 
has lead me towards a strong atheist position. at least from this position, 
scriptural inspirations can be discovered at leisure and with pleasure. 
what's more, they can even be shared in a spirit of trust with others who 
also value these treasures.

surely jack, mike and steve, if you consider it your duty to convey
the good news you must also be willing to get to the 'beef' of the matter
instead of talking of fornication and damnation. explain what you mean 
with such terms.

if what you always talk about really works, then you must be willing to 
submit to the test of equal spirits! all of us in here have our thoughts 
on the matter and exchanging them in a climate of mutual respect is, surely,
the only possible way that all of us can advance. at least, that's where i 
see the 'all or nothing' proposition work.

i mean jesus died for us all right, and each single one of us is accountable
on an individual basis. i don't see why we can't base the discussion on an 
even playing field and take it from there. where every voice counts.




andreas.

    Cindy:
    
    If I inferred preaching the gospel without ministering to the poor,
    that was certainly not my intent.  I don't believe I conveyed that
    message but perhaps I did.
    
    Mother Theresa's ministry is a sound one, however I believe it to be
    incomplete if the good news of Christ crucified and resurrected is not
    preached.  She is certainly meeting the temporal needs of the people
    but the eternal issues still exist.  For the record, I believe the
    steps of feeding and clothing the poor is vital to her witness...just
    finish that last step.
    
ZZ    The bible is a temptation, a lazy man's way out of searching for
ZZ    God with his mind.
    
    This would preclude that the mind of man isn't depraved...which I
    believe it is.  Again, we come at it from different perspectives. 
    Apparently you believe that man is basically good whereas I believe
    man is basically not good.  "For all have sinned and fall short of the
    glory of God."  This is all that matters in the big picture. 
    Therefore, it is not a lazy man's way out at all.  It requires faith in
    believing the unbelievable, and also understanding the true nature of a
    Holy God.  Using one's mind is actually the easy way out because humans
    are quite capable of compromise and rationalization.  End result, take
    a good look at history as the testimony of humans using their mind. 
    
    -Jack
    

Re .55

But you're justifying your belief in the bible with the contents of the bible.
That's crazy.  Consider a simple example, something that has nothing to do with
morality or metaphysics or any of that.  Take a hypothetical "math Bible" for
instance.  It claims to contain all the knowlege of math that man needs...>

- The Math Bible -
 Chapter 1) This is the Math Bible.  Everything herein is the truth. 
            All other ways of doing math are wrong.
 Chapter 2) Humans can't do math.
 Chapter 3) 1+1=3

Now, you pick up the math bible and read it.  You read "Chapter 2", the part 
about humans not being able to do math.  You notice that people sometimes make
mistakes when they try to solve math problems.  You need some more reliable way
to  do your math. You remember "Chapter 1", the part about the math bible being 
the only true math reference so you're going to use the math bible whenever you
have a math problem to solve.  Then you're faced with the math problem "1+1=?".
You open up the math bible, read "Chapter 3" and proclaim that 1+1=3.  

Now, someone comes up to you and challenges your solution to the problem.  You
claim that it's the correct solution... Ref: Chapter 3 of the math bible.  Then
your faith in the math bible is challenged.  You then site Chapter 1.  You're
then asked to explain why you can't use your God given brain to solve the math
problems instead of referencing the math bible.  You then site Chapter 2.

The math bible is foolproof.  And it's also wrong.  

- The Bible Bible -
 Chapter 1) This is God's word and God's word is the truth
 Chapter 2) You're depraved and your ability to reason is flawed
 Chapter 3) God created the Earth from nothing in the year 3000 BC.

Q: When was the Earth Created?
A: 3000 BC (Ref Chapter 3)
Q: But I've got fossils here that carbon date to be much much older.  How
   can you say that the Earth is only 5000 years old?
A: Your carbon dating stuff is all screwed up. (Ref Chapter 2)
Q: Hey, I know I make mistakes from time to time, but in general, human reason
   has proven itself to work out pretty well.  Why do you believe the bible
   instead of trusting your own reason.
A: Cuz the bible's the truth (Ref: Chapter 1)



-dave




    

    .44

    I'll go one further.  I speculate that the "source quoting some Catholic
    periodical" was less than favorable toward Catholicism.

    But then, I digress.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    The math bible can easily be disproved by trial and error.  However,
    history cannot be erased.  As far as the evolution debate and the age
    of the world, I follow Richards good advice and remain skeptical
    because evolution is based on theory and chance.
    
    Awaiting Mr. Bittrolf to come in here soon!!  :-)
    
    There is no question that belief in the bible is based on
    faith...that's what religious following is all about.  In the context
    of Christian apologetics, it stands that God's Word is authoritative
    over our own intellect...considering the Word of God is revered
    throughout the world and is recognized as authentic.  Heaven and Hell
    are an integral part of what Jesus taught, it cannot be ignored by
    skeptics or anybody else.  If one chooses to disbelieve it, then it is
    their God given right but then one must ask what it is that is drawing
    them to Christianity.
    
    -Jack

>If there is a hell, maybe everyone who chooses to spit the God given gift of 
>reason back in His face in favor of blind irrational faith are doomed to go 
>there.  The bible is a temptation, a lazy man's way out of searching for
>God with his mind.
>
>No offense meant by that last blast.  It's just something that was sitting
>on my chest for a long time.  Maybe God put it there and I'm doing all of
>you a service by typing it out in this forum.
    
    Dave, even if you didn't mean to offend, you just did in a big way. 
    The lazy person is the one who condemns the Bible without ever reading
    it or studying it.  Christians confirm their place with God through
    reading, studying, and analyzing Scripture.
    
    Finally, God doesn't contradict Himself so you should check your
    theology and your influences.
    
    Mike

    

Re .59

>    The math bible can easily be disproved by trial and error.  However,
>    history cannot be erased.  As far as the evolution debate and the age
>    of the world, I follow Richards good advice and remain skeptical
>    because evolution is based on theory and chance.

  No, it's based on good science - trial and error, as you so well put it.
  Against it, the bible's story of origins comes up short.
  
  Concerning history, can you provide, other than in the bible, a single
  contemporary reference to the a) Egyptian enslavement of the Hebrew
  people, b) the exodus from Egypt.  My guess is that you can't.  Since
  history can't be erased, and the bible lacks any independent confirmation
  of these events, a rational person can only conclude that the stories in
  the bible are based mostly or completely on myth.

>    
>    Awaiting Mr. Bittrolf to come in here soon!!  :-)
>    
>    There is no question that belief in the bible is based on
>    faith...that's what religious following is all about.  In the context
>    of Christian apologetics, it stands that God's Word is authoritative
>    over our own intellect...considering the Word of God is revered
>    throughout the world and is recognized as authentic.  Heaven and Hell
>    are an integral part of what Jesus taught, it cannot be ignored by
>    skeptics or anybody else.  If one chooses to disbelieve it, then it is
>    their God given right but then one must ask what it is that is drawing
>    them to Christianity.
>    
  The need for certainty, perhaps?

>    -Jack

/Mike

  ZZ    Concerning history, can you provide, other than in the bible, a single
  ZZ    contemporary reference to the a) Egyptian enslavement of the Hebrew
  ZZ    people, b) the exodus from Egypt.  My guess is that you can't. 
    
    Bzzzt.  There are documents from the works of Josephus.  Josephus was a
    biblical scholar following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D.  I
    believe he was born in the year 33 A.D.  Josephus works contain
    information on the Exodus as well as the slavery of Israel.
    There is an entire section on ancient Egypt and the antiquties of
    ancient Israel.  Josephus is about as contemporary as I can get.
    
    -Jack

    
    > Josephus was a biblical scholar following the destruction of Jerusalem
    > in 70 A.D.  I believe he was born in the year 33 A.D. 

    So your point is?... that he accurately reported the cultural myth of
    his time?

    The question is, are there any evidence or records of the events that are
    contemporary *to the events*. Maybe there is, I don't know, but citing
    Josephus isn't going to buttress the historic accuracy of biblical
    text.
    
    Eric

    Same goes with the history on the Spanish Inquisition....or the
    Mayflower.  The credibility of those sources are just as open to
    scrutiny.
    
    -Jack

    
    In the daily details and individual incidents, I suppose you're right.
    But there is considerable collateral evidence and record of the
    Inquisition and the Mayflower, beyond their self generated accounts. 
    
    Eric

Re .59

>> I follow Richards good advice and remain skeptical
>>    because evolution is based on theory and chance.

Better than blind faith.

While on the subject of "theory", let's mention a few others
like "The Theory of Gravity",  "The Theory that the Earth revolves
around the Sun" and "The Theory that the world is not flat".  
All of these are theories.  All happen to have huge bodies of
evidence (facts) supporting them, but they're just theories.
For example, NASA didn't "know" that there was gravity on the moon
but the theory predicted that there would be.  So they flew off to
the moon and VOILA! there was indeed gravity (another piece of 
evidence to support the theory). Evolution is a theory with a 
lesser, yet substantial and growing body of evidence supporting it. 
(welcome to the world of science)


Re .60

>>    Dave, even if you didn't mean to offend, you just did in a big way.
>>    The lazy person is the one who condemns the Bible without ever reading
>>    it or studying it.  Christians confirm their place with God through
>>    reading, studying, and analyzing Scripture.

Sorry but I've been called "lazy" before by others because I wouldn't spend
10s of hours per week reading and rereading and discussing the bible.  I was
also informed that if I didn't shape up I'd be going to hell with the rest
of the "unworthy".  I too was offended despite the fact that I've read and
studied the bible.  I've read it, reread parts and studied other parts
years ago.  I think  of myself as being open minded when it comes to this 
and other philosophies.   Anything less would not be in keeping with a true 
search for God.  HAve it make sense and I'll be a believer in a heartbeat.

>>    Finally, God doesn't contradict Himself so you should check your
>>    theology and your influences.
I agree.  But if God was the author of the bible, and passages in the bible 
contradict themselves, then God contradicts himself.  That (amoung other
reasons) is  why I don't believe everything that's written in the bible.

Re .62

Josephus also mentioned John the Baptist with a couple lines, sort of as an 
aside when telling of the significant current events of the day.  He never
mentioned the live of Jesus.  Why?  Also, it was common practice for historians
to "embelish" accountings of history with fabrications in order to emphasize
a point.  It's difficult to discriminate between the truth and the
embelishments when reading these ancient documents.  IMO, Josephus really
missed a big story when it came to Jesus.  But self proclaimed messiahs
were supposedly a dime a dozen at the time.  John stood out because he was
the first of the group to preech to the poor and baptize.  SO he got a
couple lines from Josephus.

re Note 1154.66 by CNTROL::DGAUTHIER:

> For example, NASA didn't "know" that there was gravity on the moon
> but the theory predicted that there would be.  So they flew off to
> the moon and VOILA! there was indeed gravity 

        Actually, Earth's tides are rather strong direct evidence for
        the moon's gravity.

        Bob

>years ago.  I think  of myself as being open minded when it comes to this 
>and other philosophies.   Anything less would not be in keeping with a true 
>search for God.  HAve it make sense and I'll be a believer in a heartbeat.
    
    My condolences to you for having been involved with a works-based
    church.

>I agree.  But if God was the author of the bible, and passages in the bible 
>contradict themselves, then God contradicts himself.  That (amoung other
>reasons) is  why I don't believe everything that's written in the bible.
    
    Apparent contradictions.  When you accept God's Word as His, the
    problem of resolution is with us.  I often find that there are great
    treasures behind every "apparent" contradiction, but you don't discover
    them by searching philosophies and/or ignoring the study of His Word.
    
    Mike

   <<< Note 1154.52 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>>    	And to extend the discussion beyond your questions, I believe
>>    	that celibacy does not necessarily mean that sexual purity
>>    	is maintained.
>
>how so? do you have in mind the case of celibacy at a later stage in life.
>for example that of going celibate after having lived a sexually active 
>phase of life?

	Celibacy does not mean never having had sex.  It meand not having
    	sex during the period of celibacy (which, for Catholic priests who
    	take such a vow, it usually means from the time of the vow until 
    	they die.)  It does not preclude prior experiences.
    
    	My meaning in saying that celibacy does not necessarily imply
    	sexual purity was that celibacy is widely interpreted as refraining
    	from sexual intercourse, or perhaps more broadly in refraining
    	from sexual contact with others.  It may even include a refrain
    	from masturbation.  In all cases it focuses on the physical
    	aspect of sexuality.  But chastity or sexual purity also involves
    	one's mind and one's heart.  It involves what you choose to read
    	and watch and listen to.  It involves what you choose to say.
    
    	So a specific example of a celibate not being chaste would be 
    	one who reads pornography or is an aficionado of sexual jokes,
    	conversation, and innuendo.  He may never experience sexual
    	release, thus fulfilling his vows of celibacy, but he is not
    	living a sexually pure life.  Likewise, one could lust in his
    	heart, yet still fulfill his celibacy.  But what did Jesus say
    	about such lust?
    
    	You can see that by what I'm talking about, true chastity is
    	very difficult to obtain.  I suspect that practically any true
    	celibate will still falter from time to time on the more stringent
    	definition of chastity.  But I believe that Jesus Christ was able 
    	to avoid sin even here.

 	
	Since we're on the subject, thought you might be
	interested to read what another religious text has
	to say about sexuality.  In this case, it's a Taoist
	text (I confess not to know much about Taoism though).

	"Hua Hu Ching - teachings of Lao Tzu", translated by
	 	Brian Walker, 1992

	Caution - adult theme below.....read at your own risk.....

	

	Sixty-Nine

	A person's approach to sexuality is a sign of their level
	    of evolution.
	Unevolved persons practice ordinary sexual intercourse.
	Placing all emphasis upon the sexual organs, they 
	    neglect the body's other organs and systems.
	Whatever physical energy is accumulated is summarily
	    discharged, and the subtle energies are similarly
	    dissipated and disordered.
	It is a great leap backwards.

	For those who aspire to the higher realms of living,
	    there is angelic dual cultivation.
	Because every portion of the body, mind, and spirit
	    yearns for the integration of yin and yang, angelic
	    intercourse is led by spirit rather than the sexual
	    organs.

	Where ordinary intercourse is effortful, angelic dual
	    cultivation is calm, relaxed, quiet and natural.
	Where ordinary intercourse unites sex organs with sex
	    organs, angelic cultivation unites spirit with spirit,
	    mind with mind, and every cell of one body with every
	    cell of the other body.
	Culiminating not in dissolution but in integration, it is
	    an opportunity for a man and woman to mutually 
	    transform and uplift each other into the realm of
	    bliss and wholeness.

	The sacred ways of angelic intercourse are taught only
	    by one who has himself achieved total energy 
	    integration, and taught only to students who follow
	    the Integral Way with profound devotion, seeking to
	    purify and pacify the entire world along with their
	    own being.

	However, if your virtue is especially radiant, it can be
	    possible to open a pathway to the subtle realm and
	    receive these celestial teachings directly from the
	    immortals.

    
    Re.55
    
    Jack,
    
    >If I inferred preaching the gospel without ministering to the poor,
    >that was certainly not my intent.  I don't believe I conveyed that
    >message but perhaps I did.
    
    OK, good.  It is important to note though, that this view is not 
    shared by all who go to other places and 'spread the good word' 
    while ignoring the obvious.
    
    While we're on the topic, I think it would go over much better if
    missionary-type Christians would go to foreign lands with the intent to
    learn and share views equally, rather than launch into an output-only 
    preaching session.  I am in utter shock to discover the complete 
    ignorance of many who do this kind of work (and even some people here 
    in this very conference), who don't know the first thing about the 
    religions and beliefs of the indigenous people in other lands, or even
    this one for that matter (especially given there are over 1 million
    Hindus in this country now, for starters). With this kind of an attitude 
    on the part of the messenger, it is no wonder that the Christian message 
    is so often ignored.
    
    Cindy
                           

    what do they mean by "spirit"?  Is this a deity or the spirit resident
    within each person?
    
    Are Taoists anti-homosexuality?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Cindy:
    
    Yes it would seem the best way to reach a dying nation is to learn what
    that nation is all about and the customs of the people.
    
    I know for example that Wycliff Ministries will not allow you to go
    until you've learned the language fluently and knows what the culture
    is about.  I agree with you.
    
    -Jack 

 ZZ   I am in utter shock to discover the complete 
 ZZ   ignorance of many who do this kind of work (and even some people here 
 ZZ   in this very conference), who don't know the first thing about the 
 ZZ   religions and beliefs of the indigenous people in other lands,
    
    Actually, utter shock might be stretching it as far as this conference
    goes.  Considering it's a Christian Perspective conference, one would
    assume there is some like faith in here...centered around Christian
    principles.  Therefore, it isn't a requirement that I be fluent in the
    history of Buddah.
    
    -Jack

>    history of Buddah.
    
-Jack,

	That's Buddha.
               ^^^^^^
	And I find that knowledge about another religion can substantially
reduce the volume of erroneous notions one holds not only about that religion,
but also one's own.

Shalom,
Richard

    Jack,
    
    True you aren't missionary going overseas to another culture, language
    and religion that you wish to convert people from either.  Are you
    saying that if you were in the position to work as a missionary you
    wouldn't learn anything about the predominent customs, language, and
    religions of an area you were going to?  
    
    meg

>	And I find that knowledge about another religion can substantially
>reduce the volume of erroneous notions one holds not only about that religion,
>but also one's own.
    
    AMEN!
    

    
    Mike Heiser and I agree on something?
    
    There is a God...I knew it!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    Yup.  That's one of the main reasons why I'm involved in Cult
    Awareness.  The more I learn, the more I reduce the myths about others 
    and confirm my own standing in Christ.
    
    Mike

    Re.72
    
    Mike,
    
    By 'spirit', I believe they're refering to each person's soul (where
    soul=spirit), uniting at the soul level (or heart level) vs. just at 
    the physical level.
    
    >Are Taoists anti-homosexuality?
    
    I've never heard that this is part of the religion, but I can't tell
    you for certain.  I'd be very surprised if it is though, given the
    nature of all that I've read.
    
    Cindy
                                

>    I've never heard that this is part of the religion, but I can't tell
>    you for certain.  I'd be very surprised if it is though, given the
>    nature of all that I've read.
    
    Cindy, I was just wondering since the author explicitly said man and 
    woman in the excerpt.

    >angelic intercourse
    
    Hmmm...interesting use of verbiage.  The pre-flood Genesis account may
    point towards such a thing on a more literal scale.
    
    
    -steve 

    
    Re.81
    
    Mike,
    
    Just glanced back at the writing again, and that's true, however also
    applying my limited knowledge of tantra as well, it's more from a 
    feminine/masculine energy perspective than an actual physical man/woman
    one. 
    
    From this view, homosexuality is not 'wrong' in any way, rather to
    actually experience what is being discussed in this book, the balance 
    of the energy patterns between the people are an important factor.  It 
    is possible for a man to possess a more feminine energy pattern (say if
    they carried it over from another recently lived life as a woman), and 
    if this is balanced by a man with a more masculine pattern, then what 
    they speak of here in this excerpt could then apply to two men (or two 
    women) as well.
    
    But I must say here that these are my own views, interpretations and
    speculations, and I cannot speak in any way for Taoism or even Hinduism
    or Buddhism (where tantra comes from).
    
    Cindy 
                

.79

>    Yup.  That's one of the main reasons why I'm involved in Cult
>    Awareness.  The more I learn, the more I reduce the myths about others 
>    and confirm my own standing in Christ.

I've seen what passes as "cult awareness" where Jim Jones, the Unification
Church, and the Branch Davidians get thrown in with Jehovah's Witnesses,
the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Roman Catholics.

This is hardly education.

Richard

    Steve, agreed on the Nephilim reference.
    
    Cindy, such a viewpoint requires too many assumptions for my feeble
    mind to process ;-)
    
    Mike

ZZ    Are you
ZZ    saying that if you were in the position to work as a missionary you
ZZ    wouldn't learn anything about the predominent customs, language,
ZZ    and religions of an area you were going to?  
    
    If I went overseas I would try to get accepted into something like
    Wycliff Ministeries.  Overseas missions requires the utmost commitment.
    I would prepare a few years before going over, learn the dialect, the
    customs, etc.  
    
    As far as C-P goes, I believe misconceptions can freely be voiced only
    to be rebuked at by my fellow C-Per's and glean what I can from it.
    
    -Jack

    Andreas,
    
    How dare you ask such a question! (;-)
    
    We actually can make any assumption we want about Jesus' sex life
    because there is no evidence to suggest that he was either a virgin or
    not a virgin, once married or never married, heterosexual or
    homosexual.
    
    It is interesting how many people think that Jesus would have blemished
    himself by engaging in sex.
    
    Sexuality is a wonderful natural part of human life.  Unfortunately
    institutional Christianity contains the mostly implicit assumption that
    there is something perverse about human sexuality.
    
    

>I've seen what passes as "cult awareness" where Jim Jones, the Unification
>Church, and the Branch Davidians get thrown in with Jehovah's Witnesses,
>the Mormons, Seventh Day Adventists, and Roman Catholics.
>
>This is hardly education.
    
    Richard, thanks for sharing your opinion.  I find that using the 
    foundation of God's Word leaves room for 0% error.  I prefer the safe
    route.
    
    Mike

>    Sexuality is a wonderful natural part of human life.  Unfortunately
>    institutional Christianity contains the mostly implicit assumption that
>    there is something perverse about human sexuality.
    
    this is false.  It's greatly encouraged within the guidelines of
    marriage.
    
    What we follow in Christianity in this area is rooted in the Levitical
    cleanliness laws of God.
    
    Mike

    Patricia:
    
    Do you believe the Mosaic law came from God on Mount Sinai?  Including
    the laws surrounding adultery and fornication?
    
    -Jack

            
    Re.85
    
    Mike,
    
    >Cindy, such a viewpoint requires too many assumptions for my feeble
    >mind to process ;-)
    
    Yes, well, it is a little 'out there' for most people...(;^)  But, 
    you did ask, so I thought I'd at least give it a shot.
    
    Cindy

    I hate to dissappoint you guys but 
    
    "no"  I don't use the book of Leviticus to guide my sex life!
    
    I believe that is a pretty preposterous way to use the book of
    Leviticus.   
    
    I also occasionally touch a football, eat lobster, and BLT sandwiches!
    I don't use the book of Leviticus to guide my cuisine either!
    
    
                                Patricia                                      
    
    

    Patricia, GASP!  I bet you even wear clothes mad of more than one kind
    of fiber, and eat Rubens as well.
    
    For Shame!

    	Meg, GASP!  I'll bet even you, Ms Tolerance, will forever find
    	ways to make fun of others' religious tenets...
    
    	For shame.  :^(

    Who has proven the sexual and eating guidelines in Leviticus are out of
    line?  From what I've been able to gather, it's taken most of us
    thousands of years to figure out the benefits of what God told them 
    back then.

    Like it was said in here today, better to educate ourselves first
    to the truth.

    Mike

    
    But, but...now just who is this Rubens guy anyway?
         
    Cindy

    But Joe,
    
    If one or more of the Levitican tenants are to be followed, shouldn't
    they all?  Or are people allowed to use snippets when it comes to
    convenience?  Blended fibers, and meat with milk are two tenants I see
    many people ignore, while using this particular book of the Bible to
    justify mistreating certain individuals.
    
    meg

How many times does this have to be explained.

In pre-christian Israel, the moral tenets of the law were binding on
everyone, even foreigners living in the land of Israel.

The ritual commandments were only binding on the Jews, and not on the
foreigners.

When Christianity spread from the first Jewish followers to the Gentiles,
there was some initial disagreement about whether Gentile converts to
Christianity would be required to take on the ritual laws as well as
the moral laws.

The fifteenth Chapter of the Book of the Acts of the Apostles documents
the discussions and decisions that the Gentiles would only be bound by
the moral law.

/john

    Patricia:
    
    You may not conduct your sex life by the book of leviticus.  But that
    wasn't my initial intent on asking the question.  I was talking about
    Jesus observance of the law.  HIS observance of the Mosaic covenant.
    
    You also brought up Leviticus which had alot of laws like lying with a
    woman haing her period, etc.  I wasn't referring to that either.  I was
    speaking specifically on adultery and fornication.  Jesus did not
    partake in either of these activities and therefore doesn't fit your
    definition of sex....that being it is a wonderful expression of love.
    
    Sex can be wonderful or it can be ugly.  This is determined by when and
    who!
    
    -Jack

    Regarding the distinction between moral laws and ritual laws: is
    there a list, or something ... or is the delineation something of a
    theological debate.

    Eric you missed a snarf!  For shame!

    Jack,
    
    I believe that there is a lot of evil caused by people making the Bible
    into something that it is not and then using it as a weapon against
    others.
    
    It is clear reading the book of Genesis that the Bible is not the
    innerrant word of God.  The book of Genesis is easy to analyze because
    it is clear where the different traditions are.  We can follow the
    Yawhist tradition and follow the Elohist tradition and see where it is
    overlaid with the Priestly tradition.  Then we can learn about each.
    
    The book of genesis is folk lore, and we can learn much about the early
    Israeli's by understand the folk lore and the evolution of the
    folklore.  By tracing the folklore from Near Eastern religions we also
    learn what is unique and beautiful about the Hebrew Religion.  The Old
    Testament text I am using, follows the theme of promise and
    fullfillment.  Each of these stories tell of God's promise to humankind
    and the fulfillment of that promise.
    
    The stories however are stories and they are set in the Near Eastern
    culture of the time.  That culture dictates much of the specifics of
    the folk lore.  Calling the stories folk lore, while admitting that
    they are not historic truth, does not mean they are lies.  Folk lore
    reflects the values of the culture.
    
    Story after story in the old testament we learn about the sexual mores
    of the culture.  Fornication is nowhere prohited for men.  The only
    fornication that is prohibited is the violation of another man's
    property rights in a woman.  Men are free in the old testament to take
    as many wifes and concubines as they want and are free to have sexual
    relationships with with prostitutes.  It is only women who are
    prohibited from having unauthorized sex.  It is permissible for a man
    to take a woman and add her to his concubines and never have sex with
    her.  Once he has done that though, it becomes a capital offense for
    her to have sex with anyone else or for anyone else to have sex with
    her.  Women's sexual needs are immaterial in the culture as is most of
    their other needs.  The most important thing women can do in the
    culture is to bear sons.
    
    Given this background a person can either reject the scripture as
    useless or accept the scripture for what it is and find meaning in it
    in spite of its shortcomings.  Being true and faithful however is not
    in Idolizing the scripture and glossing over that which is ugly in the
    scripture.  Fully addressing what is ugly in the scripture is the only
    honest way of holding up what is beautiful in the scripture.
    
    Jesus himself, as a redactor of the old testament scripture rejects
    that which is ugly and holds up that which is beautiful.  Each of us
    can follow his example and do the same.
    
    i think I quote richard who said somewhere, "the scripture was meant
    for humankind and not humankind for the scripture"
    
                              Patricia

    
    Snarfs are Satan's mind games! It is based on ancient gnostic
    religious rituals. Be gone you demon, Jack! 

    :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) :^) 

    Eric 

    Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.........
    
    (Gene Simmons look!)

ZZ    I believe that there is a lot of evil caused by people making the
ZZ    Bible into something that it is not and then using it as a weapon against
ZZ    others.
    
    Patricia, I would agree with this...considering some of the worst cults
    in history were spawned by this very practice.  
    
    I also thank you for your writings on the sexual practices of ancient
    people.  I would not disbelieve you but I am amazed of the concept that
    fornication was limited to penalty for women only.  I would like to
    corroberate this for my own edification.  I know that in one of the
    letters to the Corinthian Church, Paul stated, "Be not deceived, for
    neither idolators nor liars nor FORNICATORS, nor.....shall inherit the
    kingdom of God."  I believe this message was directed at the whole
    church and not just women.  I will check this out in more detail.
    
    I still think it would be good to ask your professor to substantiate
    the reasons for family lineages in the Old Testament.  The Chronicles
    and the Books of Kings are considered to be historical documents to the
    nation of Israel, and I know Israel considers their historical
    documentation to be very important.  It seems to me that a country who
    reveres the Old Testament as the word of Jehovah would consider a
    family lineage going back to Adam to be misplaced had it been folklore.
    
    -Jack

    The chronicles are not consider family documents.
    
    My discussion of sexuality was specific to the old testament.  Begin
    your corroboration there.  My original comment was about the Leviticuss
    Code.
    
    Paul is another subject, all to himself!
    
    
                               Patricia
    
    

    Speaking of Paul,
    
    Paul obviously felt that it was better to be celibate than not.  He
    used a number of different arguments to argue this point.  His most
    compelling argument being that married people are more concerned with
    thier partners than with doing God's work, and therefore celebacy
    allowed one to dedicate oneself fully to God's work.
    
    What stands out screaming in his defense of celibacy as the preferred
    life style for a cleric is that he DOES NOT ANYWHERE, cite the example
    of Jesus.
    
    If Jesus had been celibate, or if the tradition of Jesus Celibacy was
    known within his life time or shortly afterwards, Paul would have cited
    Jesus as an example.  His not citing that example could be interpreted
    as meaning that Jesus did not practice a celibate life style.
    
    The tradition of Jesus' celebacy may have been a tradition of the early
    or medieval church and not of the Jesus movement itself.
    
    Just a thought!
    
    Patricia

    Re: Paul.
    
    -Paul was a pharisee and was an expert on Old Testament concepts. 
    Therefore, Paul's advice regarding spiritual matters, fornication in
    this case, is the words of an expert.
    
    -Paul was a prophet and therefore a spokeperson for the most high.  Had
    he been a false prophet, he would have been subjected to the penalty of
    death for misguiding the people.
    
    -Paul advocated celibacy because he believed not marrying was better
    for those in the mission field.  One's time could be devoted strictly
    to God's work and not a family.  In my opinion, this gives creedence to
    family planning and shuns the idea we are ALL supposed to be
    multiplying.  Peter was a married man and my guess is that Peter didn't
    have the same flexibilities as Paul.
    
    -The Chronicles and the Kings ARE recognized as scriptural by the Jews. 
    Therefore, these documents hold equal weight to the Pentatuch.  
    
    -Jack

    Do you really believe that the Chronicles and Kings hold equal weight
    in Judaism to the Torah?
    
    One of the goals of the instructor of my class is to free the students
    from the misinterpretation of the Old Testament caused by centuries of
    interpreting the old testament through "Paul's Lenses".
    
    I believe it would be an interesting exercise to take any of Paul's
    quotation and usage of OT scripture and do an independent study of the
    scripture itself and Paul's usage of the scripture.
    
    Paul too is not God.  Paul too is a redactor(re interpreter) of
    scripture.    For better or worse!
    
    I choose to see Paul as one voice speaking within the Bible.  
    
    
                                   Patricia

    Okay, let's forget about Paul then.  Although as a footnote I can
    understand why your prof would want Paul excluded...considering she
    does not believe the New Testament is God breathed.
    
 zz   Do you really believe that the Chronicles and Kings hold equal
 zz   weight in Judaism to the Torah?
    
    Yes, it absolutely does.  It does however hold a different purpose than
    the Torah.  The Torah's purpose is to set a standard for Holiness and
    the trangression of God's holiness.  It's a simple concept of following
    the precepts of the law.
    
    The Kings and the Chronicles is the FOUNDATION of the historicity of
    Judaism and how it progressed after the Patriarchs and the Mosaic
    period as well as the Judges.  As I stated, the Jews were EXTREMELY
    detailed and accurate in their recording of family lineages as well as
    historical events.  Just glancing through the Book of Ezra for example,
    you will notice lineages with exact numbers within each lineage.  This
    is not a concept the Jews took lightly at all.   It would be
    interesting to see how a reformed Jewish Professor views lineages in
    light of folklore.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1154.108 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     -Paul was a pharisee and was an expert on Old Testament concepts. 
>     Therefore, Paul's advice regarding spiritual matters, fornication in
>     this case, is the words of an expert.
  
        Yes, but in another note this very week "we" have been
        bashing pharisees -- all pharisees -- as wickedly erroneous
        in their teaching.  Yes, Paul is a *reformed* pharisee, but
        as such "pharisee" is not to his credit, but something he
        must struggle to overcome.

        Bob

    True...Parisees were referred to as White washed tombs.  It is apparent
    though from Pauls letters that once he was revealed the concept of
    messiahship, he was able to apply his knowledge appropriately.  As in
    the letter to the Romans.
    
    -Jack

    	.97
    
    	That's a fair question, Meg, but you certainly aren't going to
    	get me to respect your questioning when it comes in the form
    	of nasty derision.  That was my point in my answer to you.

    Joe,
    
    the question still stands, however.  
    
    meg

    Meg:
    
    I know you wanted to hear from Joe but I believe there is a distinction
    between civil laws and ceremonial laws.  A man sleeping with a man for
    example is a civil law and a man lying with a woman during her period
    is transgressing from a ceremonial law, thus making him unclean.
    
    -Jack

    
    re .115

    How is that distinction made? Does the Bible say "this is ceremonial
    and that is civil?" Is the distinction something you infer from the
    Bible, based on...?

    Eric 

    Usually a ceremonial law is followed by the statement that you are
    unclean.  There is also usually a purification process.  
    
    In the case of a man lying with another man, this is not a matter of
    being clean or unclean.  This is spoken of as an abomination to God and
    is followed by "he shall be put to death."
    
    -Jack (Who would have received the death penalty many times over)

	Jack, the purification process is the killing of a dove or pigeon, and
the burning of another. Do you believe it should be practiced? If not, why
bring something you wouldn't do into this conversation?

>    I believe that there is a lot of evil caused by people making the Bible
>    into something that it is not and then using it as a weapon against
>    others.
    
    The dangers of the opposite stance are clearly evident as well.

    Glen:
    
    Blood sacrifices were abolished on Calvary 2000 year ago.  Jesus
    already paid the price for the stupid unclean things I do.  I do
    believe we are still called to holiness, don't you?

    
    Actually, Jesus dismissed the ceremonial cleanliness laws well before
    his death.

    Eric

    I agree with you.  Glen brought in the issue of blood sacrifices
    though!
    
    -Jack

    OK,
    
    Let me get this straight.  Jesus came fullfilled the talmudic laws and
    basically left with two covenants,  
    
    1.  Love your god with all your heart
    
    2.  Treat others as you would be treated.
    
    Yet we still hav people invoking Leviticus, (when convenient) to find a
    reason to treat others in a fashion they wouldn't wish to be treated,
    but say that other Levitican laws are no longer valid?  
    
    Color me very confused.  This is too Orwellian for me to get a clear
    concept on.
    
    meg

    Joe, the Mother Theresa info came from a Catholic missions magazine
    called, "Marinole" (sp?), published by their mission society.  It details 
    and documents a lot of the ecumenical movement between Catholics,
    Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and even Animists.
    
    Nobody is doubting her sincerity and nobleness of her efforts.  
    However, she not only refuses to share Christ with Hindus, but also 
    forbids her nuns to do the same.  She said, "I love and respect all 
    religions.  All my people die beautiful deaths."
    
    Despite the hellishness of India's national religions, she's saying that 
    all religions are the same and is sending them to an eternal torment.
    
    Mike

>    Let me get this straight.

OK.  But pay attention.  You haven't quite got it yet.

>Jesus came fullfilled the talmudic laws and basically left with
>two covenants

Not covenants.  Jesus said that these are the two greatest commandments:

>    1.  Love your god with all your heart

Love THE LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with
all your mind.

	This includes doing what he commands and living a holy life.
    
>    2.  Treat others as you would be treated.

Love your neighbor as yourself.

	i.e., serve your neighbor, do not harm him (abort him)
    
>    Yet we still hav people invoking Leviticus, (when convenient) to find a
>    reason to treat others in a fashion they wouldn't wish to be treated,
>    but say that other Levitican laws are no longer valid?  

But Jesus did not say that these were the _only_ two commandments.  He said
that these two were the greatest, and summed up all of the rest of God's
revelation in the Law and the Prophets.

These two are the basis; the rest are details.

/john

    
    RE .123

    Some people see the two commandments you cite as two buckets, which are
    filled with the litmus tests of antiquity. This way they have a means
    to measure themselves against others to see who loves God more.  

    Others see them as the simple, loving and personal message of Christ,
    removing the hoops through which we must jump. 

    Eric

ZZ    Despite the hellishness of India's national religions, she's saying that 
ZZ    all religions are the same and is sending them to an eternal torment.
    
    No, I believe that when somebody dies in their sin, it was done of
    their own free volition.  Mother Theresa would have been guilty of
    quenching the Spirit and shirking the responsibility of fulfilling the
    Great Commission.  I believe this is important to discuss because it
    ties in with what I am saying about the social gospel.  The social
    gospel is wonderful in it's context but without the Gospel of salvation
    it is only temporal.  After that it becomes meaningless to the dying
    Hindu.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1154.119 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

> >    I believe that there is a lot of evil caused by people making the Bible
> >    into something that it is not and then using it as a weapon against
> >    others.
>     
>     The dangers of the opposite stance are clearly evident as well.
  
        And right you are -- one can make the Bible into something
        that it *is* and still err grievously by using it as a weapon
        against others.

        Bob

| <<< Note 1154.120 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Blood sacrifices were abolished on Calvary 2000 year ago.  Jesus
| already paid the price for the stupid unclean things I do.  I do
| believe we are still called to holiness, don't you?

	Well jack, why do you bring up stuff that doesn't even apply to you?
That was the whole point I was making.

RE: .112   Jack Martin

| I agree with you. Glen brought in the issue of blood sacrifices though!
    
	Jack, in note .117 you stated the following:


| Usually a ceremonial law is followed by the statement that you are unclean. 
| There is also usually a purification process.  
    
	What is the purification process for the above? 



Glen

    Glen:
    
    I don't subscribe to the ceremonial laws of the levitical priests.  I
    was pointing out te difference to Meg.
    
    -Jack

    I think we are straying from the original question though.
    
    What evidence do people have to suggest that Jesus was or was not
    celebate! 

   <<< Note 1154.123 by CSC32::M_EVANS "nothing's going to bring him back" >>>

>    Yet we still hav people invoking Leviticus, (when convenient) 
    
    	It appears to me that you do exactly the same.

         <<< Note 1154.124 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

>    Joe, the Mother Theresa info came from a Catholic missions magazine
>    called, "Marinole" (sp?), published by their mission society.  It details 
>    and documents a lot of the ecumenical movement between Catholics,
>    Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and even Animists.
    
    	That would probably be Maryknoll.  I suppose that since you
    	don't even have the name right, you are not using a direct
    	quote but rather someone else's interpretation of an article
    	therein.  And for that matter, I have to wonder if that
    	person is using yet someone else's interpretation.  
    
    	Sounds like the party game "telephone line".  Get me a
    	clear reference.  My mother gets that publication.  If 
    	you want I'll enter the article here if you can point 
    	me to it.
    
    	I suggest that you are being unfair to make the statements
    	you are without proper foundation for them.  
    
>    Nobody is doubting her sincerity and nobleness of her efforts.  
>    However, she not only refuses to share Christ with Hindus, but also 
>    forbids her nuns to do the same.  
    
    	Pure slander.  Why must you do this?  You certainly ARE
    	doubting her sincerity and nobleness!  I contend that you
    	are more interested in bashing the Catholic Church (so you
    	aim for one of the most upright Catholics alive today) 
    	rather than find out what is really truth.

re .70


cindy, thank you for entering this text!


it confirms my own theory that communication happens on three
levels (mind, emotion, body) and that it is at its fullest
(and most honest) when all three levels are equally and totally
involved.



andreas.

    re .133
    
    I agree with Joe's point about Mother Theresa.  She is one of the most
    inspiring religious people alive today.  She is an ispiration to
    Catholics and non Catholics alike.
    
                                    Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    Regarding evidence that Jesus was celibate.  There is no evidence that
    Jesus was married.  However, it gets back to the law and perhaps even
    the law of the Aaronic Priesthood.  Jesus was a high priest from the
    order of Melchizedek and was brought to a high calling.  Therefore, it
    was important in that culture that Jesus followed the laws of the
    priesthood, if anything as a testimony to the elders of the synagogue
    as well as the nation of Israel.  In order to be messiah, Jesus had to
    be spotless and blameless. 
    
    I did check into Old Testament commentaries and there is no mention at
    all that the laws against fornication and adultery only applied to
    women.  If in fact the cultures of those times practiced such ideas,
    then they were in fact living in sin.  Therefore, unless Jesus married,
    he did NOT transgress against the law of Moses, which is actually the
    law of the Father.  
    
    "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased."  This verse would
    not have taken place had Jesus transgressed the law.
    
    -Jack

    First of all jack,  Jesus was a carpenter, son of a carpenter and not a
    priest.  Although the book of Hebrews, may be very interesting, I
    believe it is very misleading to base your theology so much on that one
    book.  The Gospels really are a better source regarding the life of
    Jesus.
    
    Regarding, sexual morality, it is clear to anyone reading Genesis that
    only women are suppose to be sexually chaste.  Concubines are clearly
    acceptable for men throughout the old testament!  It is also acceptable
    throughout Genesis to offer one's wife or daughter as a way of assuring
    protection for oneself or one's male guests.  In these stories,
    following the Yahwist tradition and the Priestly tradition is
    interesting.  The Yahwist tradition shows no trace of regard for the
    ethics of the practice, where the Priestly tradition (at least in the
    Abraham story) adds that no sexually relations occured and that Abraham
    did not lie by saying sarah was his sister)  Of course no one questions
    the incestuous relationship there).
    
    The question of whether Jesus was or was not a virgin remains open. 
    The question of whether Jesus had been or had not been married remains
    open.  The question of whether he was heterosexual or homosexual also
    remains open.  
    
    Since the Bible, nowhere speaks of his celebacy, it is more logical to
    assume that he had been married at one time rather than that he had
    not.  Especially as Paul makes such a big deal of his own celebacy.
    
                             Patricia

 ZZ   I believe it is very misleading to base your theology so much on that
 ZZ   one book.  The Gospels really are a better source regarding the life of
 ZZ   Jesus.
    
    Very rarely do I use Hebrews as a text for what I believe although I
    believe everything written in the epistle.  The gospels are a better
    source if you want a play by play of how Jesus ministry happened.
    
    The book of Hebrews is one of those epistles that really digs deep
    into the essence of who Christ was and his very nature.  I consider it
    to be one of the most valuable of all the episltles because the writer
    correlates Jesus with Hebrew customs, ceremonies, and beliefs.  It is
    not what I would call just a nice book.  I would call it a theological
    masterpiece.  It dispells alot of the questions regarding Christ's
    deity, his purpose, his nature, etc.
    
    Re: Jesus being married, I speculate he was not because he had a
    specific purpose for coming here...to seek and save that which was
    lost.  I have no way of proving this other than, by your standard,
    using logic and intellect.  
    	
    	Was Jesus Homosexual.  I would say no because in my opinion dealing
    with homosexual feelings is equated to dealing with alcoholism or
    any other kind of dependency.  You already knew this so it should be
    of no consequence here.  Why would Jesus include this as a part of his 
    earthly nature.  It would seem he has enough to deal with but again
    this is just conjecture.
    
    -Jack

re .138    

>   Since the Bible, nowhere speaks of his celebacy, it is more logical to
>   assume that he had been married at one time rather than that he had
>   not.  Especially as Paul makes such a big deal of his own celebacy.
    

or to put it another way, it seems very unlikely that jesus did not engage,
at some point, in what we would today call a sexual relionship. 




andreas.

> or to put it another way, it seems very unlikely that jesus did not engage,
> at some point, in what we would today call a sexual relionship. 
						      ^^^^^^^^^^

ooops, a freudian slip here. read "relationship"!

what has sex got to do with religion!! ;-)



andreas.

>    Very rarely do I use Hebrews as a text for what I believe
    
>    The book of Hebrews is one of those epistles that really digs deep
>    into the essence of who Christ was and his very nature.  I consider it
>    to be one of the most valuable of all the episltles because the writer
>    correlates Jesus with Hebrew customs, ceremonies, and beliefs.  It is
>    not what I would call just a nice book.  I would call it a theological
>    masterpiece.  It dispells alot of the questions regarding Christ's
>    deity, his purpose, his nature, etc.
    
    
    
Jack,
    
    These two statements are contradictory!.
    
    Every Christian must define for herself/himself who Christ is, what is
    his work, how he effects salvation.  The answers to these questions are
    very different depending on which of the Gospels you use, the Pauline
    Letters, the pseudopauline letters, and the other Epistles.
    
    Your theology is heavily influenced by your believing that it is the
    book of Hebrews that most clearly identifies who Christ is and what his
    work is.  That is exactly what your statement says.
    
    At least be clear as to what is the source of your beliefs!
    
    I read the Gospel and learn that Jesus was a carpenter, son of a
    carpenter.  You read Hebrews and learn that Jesus was a priest in the
    order of Melchelzidek.
    
    Those are different answers with a huge difference in consequences for
    how we interpret the Bible and how we define Christianity. 

| <<< Note 1154.131 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| I don't subscribe to the ceremonial laws of the levitical priests. I was 
| pointing out te difference to Meg.

	A difference that you don't subscribe to. Yet is she to believe that
others should? 



Glen

    ZZ    I read the Gospel and learn that Jesus was a carpenter, son of a
    ZZ    carpenter.  You read Hebrews and learn that Jesus was a priest in
    ZZ    the order of Melchelzidek.
        
    ZZ    Those are different answers with a huge difference in consequences
    ZZ    for how we interpret the Bible and how we define Christianity. 
    
    No, those statements are not contradictory.  I hold the Epistle to the
    Hebrews in the highest regard; however, I don't often quote scripture
    from Hebrews in this conference....that was all.  
    
    Remember that Jesus held many titles.  He was a Carpenter by trade but
    he is also referred to as a high priest, the Prince of Peace, The Root
    of Jesse, The Light of the World, The Bright and Morning Star, etc.
    You will find interpreting scripture to show Jesus had many roles in
    life other than being a carpenter.  He was messiah, a healer, a
    teacher, also referred to as master.  
    
    As a trade, I sell solutions to customers.  I am also a dad, a teacher, 
    a student, and yes as Hebrews says, I am also of a high priesthood just
    as any other believer is.  
    
    Melchizedek is not an earthly priesthood.  There was no membership to
    this order other than Christ.  Melchizedek was a person in the Old
    Testament and is so rarely mentioned it is presumed he was not a real
    person.  Although he might have been, this can give creedance to your
    folklore argument.
    
    In Hebrews, the writer is showing the difference between the Aaronic
    Priesthood and the Melchizedek Priesthood.  The Aaronic Priesthood was 
    here to perform the duties of the Tabernacle and the sacrifice.  The
    Melchizedek priesthood is an eternal priesthood and is different from
    the temporal one.  This is why Jesus was not just a carpenter.  He was
    alos Lord, and a high priest!
    
    -Jack
    

    Jack,
    
    can you cite any other evidence regarding Jesus as high priest other
    than that coming from Hebrews?
    
                                      Patricia

 ZZ   A difference that you don't subscribe to. Yet is she to believe
 ZZ   that others should? 
    
    Glen, the ceremonial laws wer strictly for the purpose of approaching
    the Holy of Holies in a purified manner.  That was all.  Lying with a
    woman for example while she was having her period made the man
    ceremonially unclean.  She was unclean for 7 days I believe.  
    
    I'm not suggesting Meg or anybody else follow these laws.  I am
    suggesting however that as Jesus said, not one stroke of the law shall
    be removed.  It is not the method used to acquire Holiness, only Christ
    can bestow this.  We are however admonished to walk circumspectly.
    
    -Jack

    >There is no evidence that Jesus was married.  

    In the wedding at Canna (sp?), the original Greek versions of the
    gospel has the tenses/pronouns/etc. to be the one that would ONLY be
    used by someone to address his OWN bride.  

    That would indicate that Jesus was married.

    But then, what difference does it make?  There are two possibilities:

    1) He was celibate, obeying the commandments of Yahweh.

    2) He was validly married, obeying the commandments of Yahweh.

    Either way, he was obeying the commandments of Yahweh (as I believe he
    wished to do).  There are rules for living in a God-like manner either
    married or single.  The Scriptures (with the exception of Paul - whom I
    do not believe to be inspired) do not indicate a preference for one
    over the other.  No two of us came into this world with the same "to
    do" list.  As long as we're following that list, we're on the right
    path.  Jesus was no exception.

    Beth

    Beth

ZZ    can you cite any other evidence regarding Jesus as high priest
ZZ    other than that coming from Hebrews?
    
    Patricia:
    
    Yes I can.  The excerpt below is Psalm 110.  Follow the sequence
    closely.  There are only six verses here.
    
    "The lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou at my right hand until I make
    thine enemies a footstool for your feet. 
    ---------
    (I'm interrupting here to make a very important point.  Jesus IN THE
    GOSPELS quoted the above verse, referring to Himself as Lord.  The
    pharisees knew this and were on the verge of stoning him for his
    inference.)  To continue....Same Psalm.....
    ---------
    The Lord shall send the rod of thy strength out of Zion; rule thou in
    the midst of thine enemies. (No Question, this is a messianic prophecy
    and speaking of Jesus some 700 years B.C.)  continuing....
    
    Thy people shall be willing in the day of thy power, in the beauties of
    holiness, from the womb of the morning: thou hast the dew of thy youth.
    The Lord has sworn and will not repent, THOU ART A PRIEST FOREVER AFTER
    THE ORDER OF MELCHIZEDEK.  The Lord at thy right hand shall strike
    Kings in the day of his wrath.  He shall judge among the heathen, he
    shall fill the places with the dead bodies, he shall wound the heads
    over many countries."
    
    Important Points of Psalm 110....
    
    - David is a bonafied Prophet, no question about that.
    - Prophecy MUST be without error.
    - Jesus recognized Davids prophecy as authentic.
    - Jesus inferred the prophecy was about himself.
    - The prophecy speaks of Jesus as Lord.
    - The Messiah will rule over all with a rod of power.
    - Those of his own will be drawn to Him
    - Those who choose to reject will be judged.
    - Jesus Christ is of A HIGH PRIESTHOOD.
    
    That was what the writer of Hebrews was trying to illustrate.  The
    Aaronic Priesthood was temporary.  Once you die, you are no longer a
    part of that order.  Jesus is THE HIGH PRIEST forever, and called to an
    eternal priesthood.
    
    -Jack

re .147


beth, no i don't think it _should_ matter though it _seems_ to matter.
at least judging by the reluctance of adressing the questions in the
base note in here (with a few notable exceptions!)

thanks for providing the first piece of factual input to this discussion.
is the grammar which you refer to a general form of plural or a form to 
address couples only? could the plural have applied equally to the unity 
of jesus with his heavenly father? 

if there is indeed evidence that jesus was married then i'd consider
it phenomenal that this information is not generally available.



andreas.


ps. and welcome to C-P, beth. i hope you'll stay with us a while longer!

    	re .149
    
    	Woah, Andreas.
    
    	.147 is far from factual.  The thesis that the Cana wedding was
    	Jesus' own wedding has been presented and debunked in lots of
    	places -- perhaps there is even one in this conference, I don't
    	recall, though I do recall participating in a discussion of it
    	in a notesfile conference.
    
    	.147 is nothing more than a suggestion.  The only "factual" item
    	in there is the suggestion that Jesus addressed his own bride.
    	But no bride was addressed in the Gospel story.  The only woman
    	that Jesus addressed was his mother.  Are we to conclude that Jesus
    	was marrying her?

    Joe, I'll get you the exact volume and date as soon as I can.
    
    Mike

>    can you cite any other evidence regarding Jesus as high priest other
>    than that coming from Hebrews?
    
    the very definition of Messiah, who Jesus is.  Hebrews is quoting Psalm
    110:4, a Messianic Psalm.
    
    Mike

    .147
     >   In the wedding at Canna (sp?), the original Greek versions of the
     >   gospel has the tenses/pronouns/etc. to be the one that would ONLY
    >    be used by someone to address his OWN bride.
    
    please show us. I'd like to see it.
    
    

                      <<< Note 1154.153 by CSC32::KUHN >>>
    
>                                 -< $show me >-

    	Jay -- does this say that you're willing to pay for the proof?
    	Or are you just giving us the VMS comand to generate the proof?
    
    	:^)

    Maybe he's from Missouri.  I'd like to see this "proof" too.
    
    Mike

re .4

>    Jesus in His holiness kept the law completely.  This includes not
>    looking upon a woman with lust and not giving in to temptation.  Jesus
>    did not need these elements of love since he came with a specific goal
>    in mind..to seek and to save that which was lost.


Does the bible not say that Jesus came to us as a MAN, not as a supernatural 
being ? And is it not in man to look upon others with lust, even the most 
devout ?

    Even more important, did not Jesus as a man also need to love and be
    loved just like every human being needs to love and be loved?

    Oh Stop it!
    
    You are saying that a part of the triune could be really human?  For
    shame!!!!!
    
    
    ;-)
    
    if a god sent a child down to the earth, it would be to have that child
    be a human, I would think.
    
    meg

    Jesus had the attributes of both.
    
    Just because one is fully human doesn't necessitate the need for Eros
    love.
    
    -Jack

    	.157
    
    	Patricia -- your entry seems to confuse love with lust.

  <<< Note 1154.156 by UTROP1::utr090.uto.dec.com::LITTEL_M "Marco Littel" >>>

>Does the bible not say that Jesus came to us as a MAN, not as a supernatural 
>being ? 
    
    	Yup.  He was like us in all things but sin.
    
>And is it not in man to look upon others with lust, even the most 
>devout ?
    
    	That's the sin nature of man.
    
    	I gave some detail on my personal belief in this matter back 
    	in .69.

    Joe,
    
    I don't confuse love with lust and I'm sorry if my note seemed to imply
    that I do.
    
    I do find that many people in here have not fully thought through what
    it means that Jesus was fully human. (I do recognize that the Creed
    says fully human and fully divine, I am focusing on the fully human
    part of that dualism.
    
    To be fully humans means to have a full set of human emotions.
    
    To be fully human means to have a full set of emotional and physical
    needs.
    
    To have sexual needs is part of being human.  To experience sexual
    feelings is part of being human.  If Jesus is fully human, he certainly
    had sexual feelings.  Now I do not know how Christianity distinguishes
    between normal healthy sexual feelings and lust.
    
    I also have a real problem if anyone thinks having any feeling is
    wrong.  All a belief that feelings are wrong does is teach people how
    to repress feelings which leads to a whole lot of disfunctions.
    
    THat is why I believe that Jesus is fully human.  I believe that Jesus
    had a full range of human emotions and feelings.  I believe that Jesus
    experiences sexual feelings as a normal healthy man would experience
    sexual feelings.  (I do believe women and men experience sexuality
    differently but that is another rathole).
    
    I don't know whether Jesus was ever married or whether he ever sexually
    acted on his feelings.  
    
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    Actually there is nothing I can disagree with you on...surprise
    surprise!!! :-)
    
    However, to carry the conversation further, although Jesus was fully
    human, he is also referred to as the Second Adam.  Adam was at one time
    in complete fellowship with God.  Therefore, unlike we who only have
    human attributes, Jesus had the ability to maintain pure fellowship
    with the Father throughout his life.  As far as we're concerned, there
    is a constant battle between the flesh and the Spirit.  Jesus practiced
    all the attributes of a Spirit filled life, including self control.
    
    Self control is not in my opinion a repression of one's feelings.  It
    is a mark of obediance and a willingness to live above reproach.
    
    -Jack

    If Adam was at one time in full fellowship with God when did he fall
    out of full fellowship with God.   What specific moment?
    
    i.e. when he first thought about eating the fruit or when he took the
    first bite?
    
                                           Patricia

 ZZ   i.e. when he first thought about eating the fruit or when he took
 ZZ   the first bite?
    
    I actually believe it was when he touched the fruit.  That was part of
    the condition too.  "For if you eat of the fruit of the tree...even if
    you touch it you shall surely die."  He probably thought about eating
    it a number of times...who knows.  But being tempted is not a sin. 
    Acting upon it is.
    
    -Jack

 ZZ   Jesus had no woman
 ZZ   to point to account for his problems (Genesis 3.12-13). %^}
    
    Yes, Jesus had a severe handicap!! :-)
    
    What a horrible testimony of the lack of integrity our first man had!
    :-)  Pointing the finger at poor Eve when he knew what the consequences
    would be.  Unbelievable!
    
    -Jack

.163

>    However, to carry the conversation further, although Jesus was fully
>    human, he is also referred to as the Second Adam.

The main difference being that, as the "second Adam," Jesus had no woman
to point to to account for his problems (Genesis 3.12-13). %^}

Richard

.167

And Yahweh apparently took Adam's word for it to some degree (Genesis 3.13).
    
Genesis 3:12-13

And the man said, The woman whom thou gavest [to be]
with me, she gave me of the tree, and I did eat.  And the
LORD God said unto the �woman,� What [is] this
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[that] thou hast �done?� And the woman said, The serpent beguiled
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
me, and I did eat.

    I never really understood why it was that Adam got the reputation as
    the fall guy when Eve was actually deceived first.
    
    -Jack

    But why did they not die on that very day?
    
    And what would have happened if they ate from the tree of life?
    
    And why were they actually thrown out of the garden?

.169

>    I never really understood why it was that Adam got the reputation as
>    the fall guy when Eve was actually deceived first.
    
You may have just opened a can of worms yourself, Jack. &^}

Richard

    WHY was Eve found guilty when she was never told
    that she could not eat of the tree.  God told Adam that he could not
    eat!
    
    Guilt by association?

 ZZ       But why did they not die on that very day?
    
    The promise that the day they ate of the tree they would die was
    strictly a spiritual death.  Humankind incurred the judgement of God on
    that day.  Part of the curse was that they would yield fruit by the
    sweat of their brow and that to dust they would return.  It was then
    that they would perish physically.
        
 ZZ       And what would have happened if they ate from the tree of life?
    
    I don't recall a tree of life in the garden.  I know only of the tree
    of the knowledge of good and evil.
    
    The tree of life is spoken of in Revelation and during the 1000 year
    millineum, those who are of His flock will be able to eat of that tree.
    This is a future event.
        
  ZZ      And why were they actually thrown out of the garden?
    
    My GUESS is that the garden represented a life of abundant peace and
    joy.  Through Adams disobedience, he incurred the penalty of turmoil
    and for lack of better phrase, the need to survive.  In the garden, all
    their physiological needs were met, unlike outside.  I believe this
    depicted clearly the price of their choice!
    
    -Jack

        <<< Note 1154.162 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    I do find that many people in here have not fully thought through what
>    it means that Jesus was fully human. 
    
    	See the last half of my .20.
    
>    To be fully humans means to have a full set of human emotions.
>    
>    To be fully human means to have a full set of emotional and physical
>    needs.
>    
>    To have sexual needs is part of being human.  To experience sexual
>    feelings is part of being human.  If Jesus is fully human, he certainly
>    had sexual feelings.  
    
    	Having the needs does not require that we fulfill them.  Jesus
    	also fasted to show us that.  He did not give into the temptations
    	of Satan while he was fasting.
    
>    Now I do not know how Christianity distinguishes
>    between normal healthy sexual feelings and lust.
    
    	Lust is an action that is a response to sexual urges.
    
>    I also have a real problem if anyone thinks having any feeling is
>    wrong.  
    
    	Feelings are neither right nor wrong.  The Catholic Church 
    	teaches this.  Sin occurs (or is avoided) in the actions 
    	(or inactions) we choose as a response to those feelings.

    Yes, you are right.  There is a Tree of Life in the garden. 
    Hmmm...good question.
    
    And yes, the command was given before Eve was created.  Guilt by
    association.  I am quite curious about this myself!  Seems to me that
    sin should not be imputed upon Eve.
    
    -Jack

    >  But why did they not die on that very day?
    
   >> The promise that the day they ate of the tree they would die was
   >> strictly a spiritual death.  
    
    Well at least we agree that the bible does not always have to be read
    literally.
    

re Note 1154.169 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I never really understood why it was that Adam got the reputation as
>     the fall guy when Eve was actually deceived first.
  
        Actually. I Timothy 2:14 says:  "And Adam was not deceived,
        but the woman being deceived was in the transgression."

        I never understood how Paul could say this, since in the
        Genesis account they appear to be equally deceived (although
        Eve goes first).  (It could, of course, be Paul's prejudice
        regarding women showing;  he probably thought of women as
        easily deceived, whereas to him men were not.)

        Bob

    Actually, I always agreed that the Bible is loaded with allegorical
    accounts.  Where we tend to disagree alot is what exactly is
    allegorical.
    
    For example, I believe the account of Jonah to be an actual occurance.
    
    -Jack

    Eve did in fact know that the fruit was forbidden.  She explained this
    to the serpeant.  The mandate however was given to Adam.  
    
    -Jack

    Bob,
    
    The point about the tree of life is that even in the garden, Adam and
    Eve were mortal.  They had an opportunity for immortality if they ate
    the tree of life.  When they ate of the tree of knowledge, God needed
    to expell them from the garden so that they could not eat of the tree
    of life and become immortal.
    
    Paul's reinterpretation in Romans (5?)  says that Adam and Eve were
    immortal and brought death into the world by eating of the fruit.  A
    careful reading of the creation account shows that Paul's
    interpretation is false.
    
    In the Ancient world the two characteristics that were seen as
    separating humans from gods were immortality and knowledge which is the
    subject of this myth.

re Note 1154.175 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     And yes, the command was given before Eve was created.  Guilt by
>     association.  I am quite curious about this myself!  Seems to me that
>     sin should not be imputed upon Eve.
    
        Jack,

        I expected you, of all people, to jump right in and say:
        "Adam, the husband, was the spiritual head of Eve, the wife,
        and so his transgression led them both (and their family) to
        ruin."

        Bob

    I thought of it but I figured I'd wait for you to say it!!! You didn't
    fail me!  :-)
    
    Actually if you think about it though, there is no reason why that
    wouldn't be plausable!

    
    Same here, Bob.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    topics like this make me nauseous.  the degradation of the Messiah has
    no place in Judaism or Christianity.

    Mike

re Note 1154.184 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

>     topics like this make me nauseous.  the degradation of the Messiah has
>     no place in Judaism or Christianity.

        Mike,

        This isn't degradation, it is examination of the Messiah.

        If you believe that the Messiah cannot withstand examination,
        then that is your problem.

        I believe that God's will is served by *any* sincere
        investigation into such topics.

        We do have a little bit of fun from time to time, and tease
        each other, but this is intended to be an *informal* forum,
        not a somber one.

        Bob

    I disagree.  Examination is one thing, but the implications of this
    topic go too far.  There's nothing Christian about this "perspective"
    of the Messiah.
    
    Mike

    It is only in a religion which believes that there is something inherently
    wrong with human sexuality, that offense could be taken for suggesting
    that a God become human may also engage in human sexuality.
    
    If human sexuality is believed to be a gift of God, then there is no
    issue with the discussion.
    
    
                                   Patricia

    It is only in a religion that misunderstands human sexuality within the
    context of God's Word, and having no comprehension of the prerequisites
    for atonement, that would cause one to even consider God taking on
    human form and having sex with His creation.
    
    You may as well be a Mormon since they believe God had sex with Mary.  
    
    Mike

RE: .0

Andreas,

I see no evidence in Scripture that Yeshua was married. I think he came
here with a set purpose which was twofold: 1) to offer Himself in our
stead as a sacrifice 2) to teach people about God's purposes, including
how to live and identify Himself as the Messiah and Son of God. As such,
I do not think he had sexual relations with anyone. However, I do think
He was emotionaly close to a number of people, both men and women. The
sisters Mary & Martha, and their brother Lazerus, John, and the other 12,
Mary Magdalene, & others as well. He was actively involved in their lives,
and cared about them as people care for those to whom they are close. I
think he shared their laughter and their tears.

As far as Roman Catholic priests and nuns go, I think celibacy is misguided.
They use Yeshua as an example, as well as a couple of Paul's statements about
marriage or not marriage during historically difficult times. I think priests
are considered to be married to the church, but I think that this does not
need fill the need that God has placed in us for the bond of matrimony with
another real person. I think that Yeshua cannot be used as a normative 
example for celibacy because of His uniqueness being part of the unity of God,
and in His purpose for coming. And I think Paul's statements have been taken 
out of historical context. I think the Jewish view of marriage and sex is a 
much healthier, normative attitude: "may you be for Torah, for good deeds, and
the marriage canopy." I think marriage and sex within marriage are very good.

Leslie

    >the marriage canopy." I think marriage and sex within marriage are very good.
    
    ...and sometimes downright awesome.  Somehow we've been branded as a
    bunch allergic to human sexuality.  I don't see that being the case in
    any of the Christians I know.
    
    Mike

        <<< Note 1154.187 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    It is only in a religion which believes that there is something inherently
>    wrong with human sexuality, 
    
    	Your continued repetition of this lie is taken as a great
    	offense by this Christian -- especially in the context of
    	this supposed Christian notes conference, and even moreso
    	in light of your announced future Christian ministry.
    
>    If human sexuality is believed to be a gift of God, then there is no
>    issue with the discussion.
    
    	But the question is, a gift to whom?  Far too many people
    	are stealing the gift God has clearly given to married 
    	spouses, and the subsequent misuse of that gift is clearly
    	manifesting itself today.  Some of the uses that you have 
    	unequivocably gone on record in this conference as supporting, 
    	Patricia, are plainly not in the best interest of society
    	or the individual in the vast majority of cases.  Using
    	your future leadership position to further that misuse
    	will only lead to more disaster, and that result will be
    	on your head.  Hiding the truth behind sweet-talk of "gifts",
    	human empowerment, and the like are nothing more than the
    	fabrications of man (humankind, lest we revisit that rathole)
    	and are not Godly, virtuous, or even healthy.

    
    Re.191
    
    Beyond the point that I think your note is totally unfair toward
    Patricia in general...I'd like to know just what she has gone on 
    record as supporting in regard to human sexuality that you find 
    to be 'wrong'.
    
    And...maybe we should take our opinions and spiritual experiences 
    and go elsewhere, with all the inferences that have been made today
    ...(;^(    
    
    Cindy

re .184


>    topics like this make me nauseous.  


mike, i can understand that the meeting of different perspectives can be 
very upsetting. i know from experience. though it sounds unlikely i have
had on two occasions very bad nights and nightmares due to discussions in 
THIS FILE! once it was to do with joe and last time it was jack's (playful) 
remark that he was brainwashed which i found so troublesome. in either
case, clarification later on put my mind at rest.

i live in a wealthy society, with equal opportunity, a social market, where
there is little social and political unrest, and where the importance of god 
is fading (see 1051.17). this is the reality which i live in, which works and 
which i take as a given. yet i think that the core of the message of 
christianity could still be of significance in this reality today and in the 
future. my endeavour in here is to understand the nazarene and to hopefully 
explain his significance in today's and tomorrow's categories. in the 
categories of a world which is essentially liberated, sexually and otherwise, 
and which is happily godless.


>   the degradation of the Messiah has no place in Judaism or Christianity.

in my view mike, the messiah is degraded by the body of doctrine and dogma
surrounding him, and the only way to resurrect his significance is to look 
behind the dogma and the doctrine.

i don't mean to cause you an upset but i can't ignore what is important to 
me either. and that is a messiah who makes sense in the modern world.





andreas.

re .192



cindy, i can well understand your disappointment after the opposition
you've been getting from mike in the astrology and the spiritual experiences
topics. i am sure, i am not the only one in here who has been following 
what you write with interest. it's new, it's thought provoking and certainly
alot more refreshing than the little changing litany out of mike's corner.
[sorry for this snipe mike, but i suspect if you came out a bit more,
particularly in the spiritual experiences topic where you seem to have 
some insight, then what you write would be taken with more interest than 
the discouraging "thou shalt ..."]

as for joe's response to patricia, i suspect that here the discussion has 
touched upon a wall which divides the different views on sex and marriage;
ie. in-/out of wedlock. these types of differences are unavoidable and given 
the strength of feeling particularly with regards to sex/marriage, i think 
we've done very well to come so far in this topic. much of the credit for
this goes to joe.






andreas,

re .189


leslie, i like how you put more emphasis on the relationships which jesus
*did* have rather than wondering if any of these were sexual. why should we 
home in on sexuality when discussing relationships? and why, on the other 
extreme, should sexuality be excluded completely when discussing relationships?
it really does depend on where one stands on the subject of relationships and 
sexuality.

also, from what you write i understand that scripture doesn't provide an 
unequivocal answer to the questions in .0, and that we are left to draw our 
own conclusions on the subject... that is, if we consider it significant, 
right?



andreas.

    Cindy:
    
    Do you believe love and sex are synonomous?
    
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1154.184              did jesus die as a virgin?                 184 of 196
OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall"                 4 lines  13-OCT-1995 17:58
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    topics like this make me nauseous.  the degradation of the Messiah has
    no place in Judaism or Christianity.

    Mike
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1154.187              did jesus die as a virgin?                 187 of 196
POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine"               9 lines  16-OCT-1995 12:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is only in a religion which believes that there is something inherently
    wrong with human sexuality, that offense could be taken for suggesting
    that a God become human may also engage in human sexuality.
    
    If human sexuality is believed to be a gift of God, then there is no
    issue with the discussion.
    
    
                                   Patricia
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1154.191              did jesus die as a virgin?                 191 of 196
CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?"                 26 lines  16-OCT-1995 19:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        <<< Note 1154.187 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>  "  It is only in a religion which believes that there is something inherently
>    wrong with human sexuality, 
    
    	Your continued repetition of this lie is taken as a great
    	offense by this Christian -- especially in the context of
    	this supposed Christian notes conference, and even moreso
    	in light of your announced future Christian ministry.
    
>    If human sexuality is believed to be a gift of God, then there is no
>    issue with the discussion.
    
    	But the question is, a gift to whom?  Far too many people
    	are stealing the gift God has clearly given to married 
    	spouses, and the subsequent misuse of that gift is clearly
    	manifesting itself today.  Some of the uses that you have 
    	unequivocably gone on record in this conference as supporting, 
    	Patricia, are plainly not in the best interest of society
    	or the individual in the vast majority of cases.  Using
    	your future leadership position to further that misuse
    	will only lead to more disaster, and that result will be
    	on your head.  Hiding the truth behind sweet-talk of "gifts",
    	human empowerment, and the like are nothing more than the
    	fabrications of man (humankind, lest we revisit that rathole)
    	and are not Godly, virtuous, or even healthy."


Response from Patricia:

Joe,

It is hard in this conference when there is back and forth conversation between
two people for others to always follow the context of the conversation.

I do believe there is a tendency in Christianity to undermine human sexuality. 
I believe that may have been cultural in development in may have developed in 
reaction to unhealthy sexual practices of the day and to Pagan cult prostitution
as well. (Maybe).   Paul as an example does not have a healthy attitude about
human sexuality and partially as a result practiced celibacy himself and 
identifies celebacy as preferable to married life.  He does support sexuality
within the bounds of marriage(better to marry than to be aflame in passion).


Mike Heiser stated that he found this discussion regarding whether Jesus died a
virgin to be nauseus.  THat is the specific Christian response that I was 
refering to that undermines human sexuality.

Andreas question was based on whether  a priest, or some other celibate
individual (including potentially) Jesus understood human nature enough to offer
counsel on human sexuality.  My answer is that since there is no evidence in the
bible that Jesus was never married and there is no evidence that he was
celibate, we do not need to assume that he was celebate.  Why would either
question cause someone to be nauseus?  I certainly don't understand.

Joe,  you and I are in agreement on one important question regarding human 
sexuality.  We both believe that sexuality is best within committed, loving,
monagamous relationships.  We are in disagreement though in my including 
committed, loving, monagamous homosexual relationships within this group of 
healthy relationships.

We are in agreement that random, non intimate sexual relationships are 
unhealthy.


I 100% support and promote the policy of the Unitarian Universalist Association
in regard to my opinions and view regarding sexual ethics.  I am 100% committed
to taking a stand on behalf of the views regarding sexual ethics promoted by
my faith community.

You and I do have a lot more in common on the stands we take than we have that
is different.

                                Patricia

RE:  <<< Note 1154.195 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>


>also, from what you write i understand that scripture doesn't provide an 
>unequivocal answer to the questions in .0, and that we are left to draw our 
>own conclusions on the subject... that is, if we consider it significant, 
>right?

Andreas,

Although the gospels and letters never say anything like "Yeshua was single
and never married", they never ever speak of a wife or of Yeshua having been
in a married state. He was a nomadic teacher with no home of his own once he 
began teaching. On the execution stake, his concern for anyone's earthly 
welfare was directed towards his mother; no wife is mentioned. These things,
coupled with his uniqueness in being the Son of God and his unique purpose in 
coming to earth (which I talked about in my previous note), convince me that 
He did not marry. Though I suppose this could be called arguing from silence.
"...if we consider it significant ..." - I guess in some ways I do, but not 
because I think marriage and sex are "dirty" - they are not!, but because 
although He shared in human form, He also remained God. I realize this reason 
may not make not make any sense to you, but it does to me.

Leslie

                                                      
    Re.196
    
    >Do you believe love and sex are synonomous?
        
    What is the point you're trying to make, Jack?
    
    I happen to be in line with what Patricia wrote about sexuality in her
    latest response, if that's what you're wondering.
    
    Cindy

>also, from what you write i understand that scripture doesn't provide an 
>unequivocal answer to the questions in .0, and that we are left to draw our 
>own conclusions on the subject... that is, if we consider it significant, 
>right?
    
    Andreas, I believe scripture does answer this question.  Christ hasn't
    married yet because His bride will be the Church.  He has had to keep
    Himself pure, not only for the sake of the Torah, but also to be able
    to provide the atonement.  If He committed fornication, He could not be
    the spotless Lamb that takes away the sin of the world.
    
    You have to ignore far too much scripture and historical fact to make the 
    allegations that are being made in here.
    
    Mike

>Mike Heiser stated that he found this discussion regarding whether Jesus died a
>virgin to be nauseus.  THat is the specific Christian response that I was 
>refering to that undermines human sexuality.
    
    Your allegations are what undermines the deity and perfection of God.
    
>Andreas question was based on whether  a priest, or some other celibate
>individual (including potentially) Jesus understood human nature enough to offer
>counsel on human sexuality.  My answer is that since there is no evidence in the
>bible that Jesus was never married and there is no evidence that he was
>celibate, we do not need to assume that he was celebate.  Why would either
>question cause someone to be nauseus?  I certainly don't understand.
    
    This is an argument from silence.  You have no proof whatsoever to make
    these allegations.  As I said before, you have to ignore too much
    scriptural and historical fact to make these allegations.  With all due
    respect, for all the religious training you've had, you still have a
    lot to learn about God's Word.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    My only allegation is that Jesus was fully human.  Sexuality is a part
    of every human's make up.
    
    The Bible records one incident (Jesus at age 13) between the time he
    was an infant and the time he was 30 and began his ministry.  The
    average life span was not too much older than 30 at this time in
    history.
    
    We know absolutely nothing about what Jesus was doing between the age
    of 13 when he "became a man" and the age of 30 when he began his
    ministry.  A conjecture that he was married during that time is as
    valid as a conjecture that he was not married.
    
    It is significant that Paul does not cite Jesus' celebacy especially as
    he (Paul) thought celebacy was the preferred state and that citing
    Jesus' celebacy would enhance his argument.
    
    Your contention that Jesus could not have been a perfect sacrifice if
    he had engaged in sex, says a lot about your view of sex.
    
                                      Patricia

      Hi,
    
        Just a couple thoughts.
    
        In one sense, sex within even marriage is wrong.
    
        Paul speaks in Corinthians of a time when those who are married will
        act as though they are not.  Boy, I could really be bastardizing
        this quote!!!  (I'll try to find it.)   The Bible also speaks of
        persons who were single for the sake of God.  Jeremiah is one.
    
        I believe the context is endtimes when God will have a perfected
        last generation.
    
        Now think about it.  Here is the God-Man who is the Saviour of the
        world.  He literally pours out His life for the betterment of
        others.  Why in the world would someone who is going to the cross
        get married???  Something like having a spouse and caring for her
        as well as a family is ridiculous in light of the mission Jesus
        had.  He doesn't have time for that!
    
        Similarly, I believe, that as a corporate body of God's believers
        have more and more of the mind of Christ, married persons will no
        longer spend time 'stroking' and paying attention to each other.
        They will be secure in each other's love for them and will
        direct their love outward 100%.  
    
        When, in the spirit, one comes to have the mind of Christ and
        (thus) realizes the worth of a soul, doing things like making
        love would be akin to watching TV while the living room is on
        fire.
    
        Thats why people will someday act as if they are not married.
        They will be so poured out for the Lord.  They will see the
        fire that is the desparate spiritual state of this world *as
        Jesus sees it* and they will make decisions appropriate to that
        heart-seeing.
    
        From the standpoint of Jesus' mission and His desire to be a 
        living sacrifice for the Lord, I just can't see Him parsing any
        of His time/energy to a marriage relationship.  That just doesn't
        make any sense.
    
    							Tony
                     
        

    Patricia,
    
>    My only allegation is that Jesus was fully human.  Sexuality is a part
>    of every human's make up.
    
    So right off the bat your argument from silence is based on a faulty
    assumption.  The facts state that Jesus wasn't fully human.
    
>    The Bible records one incident (Jesus at age 13) between the time he
>    was an infant and the time he was 30 and began his ministry.  The
>    average life span was not too much older than 30 at this time in
>    history.
    
    I doubt this is true since 30 was the age that every High Priest
    started his ministry.
    
>    We know absolutely nothing about what Jesus was doing between the age
>    of 13 when he "became a man" and the age of 30 when he began his
>    ministry.  A conjecture that he was married during that time is as
>    valid as a conjecture that he was not married.
    
    your conjecture doesn't fit the context of God's Word and the Gospel
    message.
    
>    It is significant that Paul does not cite Jesus' celebacy especially as
>    he (Paul) thought celebacy was the preferred state and that citing
>    Jesus' celebacy would enhance his argument.
    
    It may also be significant knowing that Paul was married and human and 
    Jesus wasn't on both counts.
    
>    Your contention that Jesus could not have been a perfect sacrifice if
>    he had engaged in sex, says a lot about your view of sex.
    
    Patricia, you know nothing about my view of sex.  Neither do you know
    what God says about sex and what the requirements are for perfect
    atonement.  You fail to realize that if Christ had sex, we would all be
    eternally lost.  Even if He had gotten married first, then He would be
    a bigamist since the Church is His bride.
    
    Mike

    re: .203
    
    Minor nit:  the life-span of this time may be "averaged" to 30 or so,
    but this was probably due to a high infant mortality rate.  If you got 
    past the age of 12 or so, your chances of living a relatively long (60 
    years or more) life were fairly good.  
    
    
    End of nit.  Please continue.  8^)

Thanks for the nit correction Steve. I was actually going to go home &
look that up because it didn't sound quite right to me. In fact it might
still not be a bad idea.

Leslie

RE:                    <<< Note 1154.204 by LUDWIG::BARBIERI >>>

Tony,

I can agree with you in the aspect of marriage being incongruent with
Yeshua's purpose or mission, but the other stuff, about sex within
marriage not being good, and sex being for the purpose of 'stroking'
each other, I cannot agree with.

>        Similarly, I believe, that as a corporate body of God's believers
>        have more and more of the mind of Christ, married persons will no
>        longer spend time 'stroking' and paying attention to each other.
>        They will be secure in each other's love for them and will
>        direct their love outward 100%.  
>    
>        When, in the spirit, one comes to have the mind of Christ and
>        (thus) realizes the worth of a soul, doing things like making
>        love would be akin to watching TV while the living room is on
>        fire.
    
The above sounds totally absurd to me! I believe that God gave us bodies and 
made sex pleasurable as something good for us within the context of marriage.
I don't think its some kind of ego thing or the only way we can feel
secure of partner's love, though I think it does give an added dimension
of love and bonding to marriage. I see that as positive though, not negatively
as you seem to do. I expect marriage & sex within marriage to be the normative
way for us as long as the earth exists. Does anyone have the reference for
the passage to which Tony is refering? Perhaps Paul is speaking of married 
people acting as if they were unmarried as a bad thing, not good?

Leslie

re .201


>   Andreas, I believe scripture does answer this question.  Christ hasn't
>   married yet because His bride will be the Church.  

how does this work out at the physical level, mike?




andreas.

    >how does this work out at the physical level, mike?
    
    I'm not convinced it does.  It's a spiritual union, one of the highest
    level.
    
    Mike

        <<< Note 1154.197 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>Joe,  you and I are in agreement on one important question regarding human 
>sexuality.  We both believe that sexuality is best within committed, loving,
>monagamous relationships.  We are in disagreement though in my including 
>committed, loving, monagamous homosexual relationships within this group of 
>healthy relationships.
    
	Agreed on the homosexual relationships.  I disagree with your
    	first statement, though.  You failed to include 'married' as
    	a qualifier.  Without it, my beliefs do not agree with your
    	statement.
    
    	Clearly I believe this as a matter of morals within my religious
    	faith, but there is more to it than just religious reasoning.
    	Studies show that of couples who cohabit out of wedlock fully
    	40% end up splitting up within 18 months.  And of those who
    	go on to marry, nearly 70% end up divorcing.  The children of
    	these unions are forgotten in the casualty counts.
    
    	And you have embraced the concept of divorce as a means for
    	women to empower themselves and take charge of their happiness.
    	(Don't ask me for a pointer.  Surely you recall this, for I
    	called you to task on it at the time.)  Studies show that only
    	10% of spouses are happier after divorce.  Again, kids are
    	the biggest losers.  More and more our next generations are
    	finding the decks stacked against them!

>I 100% support and promote the policy of the Unitarian Universalist Association
>in regard to my opinions and view regarding sexual ethics.  I am 100% committed
>to taking a stand on behalf of the views regarding sexual ethics promoted by
>my faith community.
    
    	And thus I said what I did yesterday.  The ethics you present
    	here, if they are parallel to UU's, are a social time bomb.
    	Whether they are of your own making or from somewhere else
    	does not matter.

      Hi Leslie,
    
        I definitely overreached and consider sex within marriage a
        good thing.  My point was/is that if we had the mind of Christ
        that we can have this side of the 2nd coming, I do not believe
        we would then be sexually active.  Only because it would be an
        absurd thing to do from the perspective of the urgency with which
        we would view the status of the world and our need to minister.
    
        Not that its bad in and of itself, but that some circumstances
        can call for us to make other choices.  The critical status of
        this world being one of them.
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        Your correlation of church being the bride and that (thus) Christ
        could not have had a wife is nonsense to me.  You are taking
        metaphor and applying it to the physical.
    
        It just doesn't make sense.
    
        Neither does your assertion that Jesus did not walk entirely by
        faith, i.e. "of Mine own self, I can do NOTHING."  He lacked
        foreknowledge (omniscience), He lacked omnipresence, and when He
        laid aside His divine attributes, it was not a package deal.
    
        He walked as a MAN yet without sin.
    
        I maintain that Jesus did not have sex because being married would
        be ridiculous from the standpoint of His mission.
    
    						Tony
                                     

        Tony,

        Does engaging in love-making with your spouse make you less
        able to serve God?  I don't see these things as imcompatible.
        Yes I would agree that for married persons, the family, including
        one's spouse is high on the priority list and does take some
        time which a single person could give to some other endeavor, but 
        I see nurturing a family and partnering with a spouse as form of 
        ministering to the needs of the world as well.

        Leslie

>    So right off the bat your argument from silence is based on a faulty
>    assumption.  The facts state that Jesus wasn't fully human.

Wrong.

The orthodox Christian faith states that Jesus is fully human and fully God.



/john

The Jesus Christ of the Bible is fully God and fully Man.

/john

    correct, John.  I should've said "Jesus wasn't totally human."
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Still not the right words.  Jesus was totally human and totally God.

Maybe you want to say "Jesus wasn't _only_ human."

/john

       Hi Leslie,
    
         I don't know.  I just foresee the possibility that if we saw
         the needs of this world as Jesus sees them, our minds would
         be so consumed with our need to be living sacrifices that
         lovemaking would be bizarre under the circumstances.
    
         As an analogy (a rough one I admit), I witnessed a pretty
         horrible accident Sunday night.  The state of mind I was in
         was such that I couldn't consider making love.
    
         I feel that if i saw the spiritual needs of others as Jesus 
         sees them, that in my heart, I would be more overwhelmed than
         even when I witnessed the horrible accident.
    
         Under circumstances of *truth*, I don't think making love would
         even be a consideration for exactly the same reason I couldn't
         think of it when I saw the guy wracked in intense pain because 
         of what had just happened to him.
    
         The truth is just something we are so blind to so making love
         seems a-OK.
    
    						Tony

    	Without the marital act there would be no need for religion.
    
    
    	For very soon the human race would die out, and there would
    	be no created to worship and obey the creator.

    Tony,

    Are you familiar with Ecclesiastes, "there is time to laugh and a time 
    to cry" and so on?  I think all aspects of living can belong to the 
    kingdom of God. There is a time to attend to the needs of an accident
    victim, there is a time to laugh and play with your children, there is
    a time for fasting, and a time for feasting, there is a time to help in
    a soup kitchen, preach a sermon, smell a rose, gaze at a sunset, and all
    of it can be done to God's glory. Even in the urgency of his mission, 
    Yeshua had time for feasting and enjoying good things as well as healing 
    and teaching.

    Leslie

Re: .209 Gutzwiller

>>  re .201

>>  Andreas, I believe scripture does answer this question.  Christ hasn't
>>  married yet because His bride will be the Church.  

>   how does this work out at the physical level, mike?
>   andreas.


    You get lots of little chapels.   ;-)

    Greetings, Derek.

>    You get lots of little chapels.   ;-)


considering what fills these chapels that bride brings quite a substantial
dowry! 

does this mean that the married jesus will be wealthier than bill gates? ;-)




andreas.

    Re: last 2
    
    This IS NOT SOAPBOX.  SOAPBOX is SOAPBOX.

    .224
    
    Please, Mike.  Please?
    
    Richard
    

    Go dog go!

>    Go dog go!

What exactly is that supposed to mean, Jack?

Richard

> considering what fills these chapels that bride brings quite a substantial
> dowry! 


coming to think of it, this just could a reason for the church to justify
its considerable material wealth!



andreas.

ZZ    SOAPBOX is SOAPBOX.
    
    then
    
ZZ    Please Mike, Please?
    
    then
    
ZZ    Go dog go.
    
    No meaning at all but as a consolation, the book, "Go Dog Go" was a
    childrens book geared as a disparage on the Republican Party!
    
    -Jack

>coming to think of it, this just could a reason for the church to justify
>its considerable material wealth!
    
    Andreas, most churches aren't that wealthy.  It would probably be
    better to specify which one you are referring to.
    
    Mike

      Hi Leslie,
    
        Maybe we differ on how long these seasons can be!!
    
        I suppose one could have the full awareness of the sinful 
        plight of this planet with the same ache for its recovery
        and in a period of privacy have it be perfectly acceptable
        to make love.
    
        But, I have to admit that I then do not know how the Corinthians
        verse fits in.
    
    						Tony