Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Patricia, this is the clearest I've seen you in your faith
    statement...thank you.
    
    As far as your last comments, my statements regarding sanctified living
    is secondary to the core purpose of scripture...that is...
    
    -Who was/is Jesus Christ?
    -What is the significance of his death and resurrection...and how does
     this relate to me personally?
    -What is the relationship between Jesus death and resurrection to the
     Mosaic law.  This is extremely paramount as Jesus claimed to FULFILL
     the law.
    
    I believe the third is where you and I don't see the same.  You see
    Jesus as fulfilling the law of love.  That is, to set an example of
    fulfilling the social gospel.  Is this a somewhat accurate guess?  The
    credance to what you believe would bring justice and acceptance of all
    diverse cultures and peoples throughout the world.
    
    I believe Jesus came to fulfill the law of love...by offering himself
    as a sin offering.  This is acknowledged by Jesus, God the Father, and
    the prophets.  The bone of contention here is that in order for humans
    to recognize this, humans would also have to come to grips with
    recognizing their natural state as decrepid, debased, and depraved. 
    These are harsh terms that humanity is simply unwilling or unable to
    accept.  
    
    Once regeneration takes place, the Holy Spirit can dwell within as we
    are made righteous through the righteousness of Christ.  Of what
    benefit can we be in fulfilling the social gospel...personal benefit
    that is...if we are in a state of adversity with the Most High?!
    
    Thanks for your note.
    
    -Jack

    Why Christianity?  Because it rings true.  I would recommend that
    if Christianity does not in any way ring true for someone that it be
    laid down (at least temporarily).  There are already too many nominal
    and fairweather Christians.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    Patricia, this is the clearest I've seen you in your faith
>    statement...thank you.
 
Thanks you Jack.
    
>    I believe the third is where you and I don't see the same.  You see
>    Jesus as fulfilling the law of love.  That is, to set an example of
>    fulfilling the social gospel.  Is this a somewhat accurate guess?  The
>    credance to what you believe would bring justice and acceptance of all
>    diverse cultures and peoples throughout the world.

Since God is Love, Jesus fulfilling the law of Love and fulfilling the Law of
God are equivalent statements.

    
>    I believe Jesus came to fulfill the law of love...by offering himself
>    as a sin offering.  This is acknowledged by Jesus, God the Father, and
>    the prophets.  The bone of contention here is that in order for humans
>    to recognize this, humans would also have to come to grips with
>    recognizing their natural state as decrepid, debased, and depraved. 
>    These are harsh terms that humanity is simply unwilling or unable to
>    accept.  

This is the false creeds and fuzzy doctrines that I reject.

1.  Jesus did not offer himself as a sin offering.  Jesus was executed
    for being a revolutionary.  Jesus proceeded in spite of the risk to
    his own life because he believed in what he was doing.  Jesus did not
    have to die.  Jesus' death was a human reaction to the political struggles
    of the time.

2.  The natural state of humanity is not decrepid, debased, or depraved. I 
    desire no part of any creed that has such a negative doctrine of humanity.



>    Once regeneration takes place, the Holy Spirit can dwell within as we
>    are made righteous through the righteousness of Christ.  Of what
>    benefit can we be in fulfilling the social gospel...personal benefit
>    that is...if we are in a state of adversity with the Most High?!
  

The Holy Spirit, The Cosmic Christ, The Goddess dwells within and all around 
all people.  Regeneration is the process of discovering that Spirit permeating
all of life.  Once a person discovers that Spirit, her/his life is changed. 
That Spirit is known by many names to many different people.  All persons are
born with an inate yearning to seek that spirit.  There are many different
paths.


The Gospel of Love is much more than a social Gospel.  It is a fundemental
way of living to live with Love as a core behavoir.  The Love I describe is
personal, passionate, and powerful.

If I may...

Patricia:

I've learned that many of the devout root their beliefs in the Bible and go
from there.  They start with the foundation of "Bible=Fact".  If the Bible is
an acurate representation of truth, then the devout are justified in looking
to the Bible to explain, well, to explain everything!  If it is not, then they
may be sadly mistaken.

Now, you and I and others might root our beliefs in what we sense in the world
and the cause/effect trends we note in these observations.  We apply the laws
of nature to examine the veracity of something like the Bible and it just
doesn't hold water.  If observations and analysis of nature is not a reflection
of the truth, then WE may be sadly mistaken.

Still others try to walk the fence and claim that the Bible = Truth as well as
observed nature.  The contradictions are plentiful and the debates have been
going on for centuries.

When you say... "All you know is what you read in a book that you have declared
holy and magical." consider the statement "All you know is that tiny portion of
the universe which you observe with mere, faulty human senses and what it
means to a mere human brain".

It takes a leap of faith to accept the Bible as truth.  It takes a leap of
faith to accept observed nature as truth.  It takes a leap of faith to
accept the Koran as truth.  Who's right?

-dave

>It takes a leap of faith to accept the Bible as truth.  It takes a leap of
>faith to accept observed nature as truth.  It takes a leap of faith to
>accept the Koran as truth.  Who's right?
    
    Probably the one that not only contains prophecy, but fulfilled
    prophecy.  The Bible calls prophecy the testimony of Jesus Christ.
    
    Mike

>1.  Jesus did not offer himself as a sin offering.  Jesus was executed
>    for being a revolutionary.  Jesus proceeded in spite of the risk to
>    his own life because he believed in what he was doing.  Jesus did not
>    have to die.  Jesus' death was a human reaction to the political struggles
>    of the time.


    For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten son to be a
    a revolutionary?



>2.  The natural state of humanity is not decrepid, debased, or depraved. I 
>    desire no part of any creed that has such a negative doctrine of humanity.


     Hmm..every child born in my family had to be taught to obey, had to be 
     taught to do right, and despite all the teaching they seem naturally bent
     to do what *they* want to do.  Where does that natural rebellion come from?
     I know you'll want to toss out what the Bible says, so perhaps you can tell
     us where this natural rebellion that is present in *all* children and has
     to be "disciplined out" (and never really is completely) comes from.




 Jim

    I don't think it's natural rebellion.  I think we're all just drawn to
    that which will cause our loss of innocence.  And that's *not* a rewrite
    of the Genesis story, my fundamentalist friend.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

>    I don't think it's natural rebellion.  I think we're all just drawn to
>    that which will cause our loss of innocence.  And that's *not* a rewrite
>    of the Genesis story, my fundamentalist friend.
    
 
    That would be easy to accept..however, we never grow out of it.  The
    world is still run on lies, deception, theft, challenge to authority,
    etc..Man's natural bent is to do what *he* wants to do..it's his
    nature..it is inborn.


    And please, I resent being labeled "fundamentalist" (or anything
    but a Christian).



 Jim    

    Patricia:
    
    The concept of Jesus being made a sin offering is mentioned by the
    prophet Isaiah in chapter 53.  This is where I get this teaching.  Now
    keep in mind that in the Hebrew culture, a "sin offering" had absolute
    and definite connotations...the offering itself had to be unblemished
    and the offering had to atone for the sin of a person or a people. 
    There was no mistaking this. 
    
    Now if you do not believe Isaiah was a prophet...a bonafied prophet,
    then thats okay.  You will of course have to determine this as truth or
    not on your own.  For myself and considering the historical evidence
    not only of Israel but of all the nations of humankind, I feel very
    confident in my understanding Isaiah was indeed a prophet and spoke for
    the most high.  So, by your definition, Isaiah was a liar...in which
    case all of scripture is a lie, or Jesus was a liar.  There is simply
    no other conclusion that can be drawn.  
    
    -Jack
                                

.8

>    That would be easy to accept..however, we never grow out of it. 

Who ever said we would?  And what would happen if we did?

Shalom,
Richard

  Nobody said we would..Patricia seems to disgree that man is in need of
 a savior (she believe that the natural state of ma...humanity is not
 depraved, etc [or so I gathered in her note to which I responded]), and
 I inferred that one needs merely to look at the natural state of rebellion
 of children, which in my opinion confirms man's sinful state.



 Jim

 ...and we won't grow out of it, though our acceptance of Christ's death
 on our behalf wipes the slate clean, until we reach heaven, something I
 look forward to.



 Jim

    Well, I don't buy that children are sinful simply by virtue of having
    been born.  Neither do Jews, I might add.  And Jesus was nothing if not
    a Jew.
    
    Yes, I believe we are all drawn to that which will cause our loss of
    innocence.  And I believe it's something that occurs over and over
    throughout our entire lives.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    But are we really answering the question, "Why Christianity?"
    

    Richard,
    
    Unfortunately the question of "Why Christianity?" cannot be answered 
    until one has a good understanding of what Christianity is.
    
    Now if you accept that Christianity is a product of humans and is
    defined by those who call themselves Christians then the question of
    "why Christianity?"   Or the converse "Why reject Christianity?" is
    dependent on which of the many definitions of Christianity one chooses
    to accept as the definition of Christianity.
    
    With my own filters, the loudest voice of Christianity that I hear is
    one that is worthy only of rejection.  That is the narrow, bigotted,
    anti woman, anti gay, anti semetic vision that defines all people as
    either children of light or children of darkness and then self
    justifies all its own prejudices by referring to the Cosmic war against
    the children of darkness and their mythological leader.
    
    Hope for Christianity as a religion and hope for humankind in general
    requires a different ideal vision.  That different ideal vision is well 
    founded in Christian Scriptures but it requires a whole different set
    of assumptions about the nature of scripture and how God's love for and
    intent for humanity is revealed.
    
    In my opinion the idolatry of scripture is not limited to those who
    identify themselves as Bible believing.  Even many liberal Christians
    who I have met have a difficult time taking a particular piece of
    Scripture and saying "This is Crap".  This is not holy.  It is not
    sacred. 
    
    In my opinion, we will not have an enlightened Christianity until the
    non fundementalist group of Christians is able to accept that their are
    many examples of dangerous, harmful, and therefore bad messages
    embedded within the Bible and also know how to deal with this material.
    
    I am deeply inspired by many passages within the Bible.  I am deeply
    inspired by the work of many good process theologians, Creation
    Spirituality practitioners such as Matthew Fox, and feminist
    theologians.   I am also deeply troubled by the amount of hate and
    hateful practices embedded within the Old and New Testament.
    
    Why Christianity or Why Reject Christianity has been a powerful
    question for me.  
    
    The answer continues to elude me in spite of meditation, prayer, study. 
    I believe that the Divine is telling me in a very profound way, that
    there are no simple answers to that question. 
    
    I believe that the message I am receiving is that "salvation" does not
    come because of the label one chooses to apply to themselves but that
    "salvation" comes from living one's life earnestly, following the
    spiritual quest that is part of all people and all cultures.
    
    "Salvation" for me is not about what happens to us after we die.  That
    is a mystery which I choose to leave to the creator. 
    
    Salvation for me is the quality of our life, here and now.  Salvation
    is a sense of wholeness.  Salvation is a sense of living as part of the
    ebb and flow of that which is eternal.  Salvation is trusting in the
    Goodness of the Divine and knowing that if we trust our own best
    intuitions and our own best knowledge of what is good and honest and
    right and faithfully commit to live by that knowledge and by sincerely
    regretting when we fail to live up to that commitment, rebounding again
    to follow that instinct.
    
    Salvation is being in touch with our own spiritual natures.
    
    There are many paths to Salvation.  Christianity offers one path. 
    Those who call themselves Christians though have the same opportunity
    to miss that path as do those who call themselves by any other label.
    
    When I see a spiritual pursuit that exemplifies  bigotry, meaness,
    narrowness, hostility, I pray for the practictioners regardless of what
    they call themselves.
    
    Jesus is my Savior.  Not because he was a magical replacement for
    animal sacrifices, but because the stories about him recorded in the Bible
    show me how a very real human being lives in  harmony with his
    own spirituality.  These stories are important to me not because they
    are historical fact but because the reach into the deepest places of my
    psyche and provide meaning. 
    

 Z   In my opinion, we will not have an enlightened Christianity until the
 Z   non fundementalist group of Christians is able to accept that their
 Z   are many examples of dangerous, harmful, and therefore bad messages
 Z   embedded within the Bible and also know how to deal with this
 Z   material.
    
    Then it is with regret I inform you that enlightened Christianity as you
    define it will never exist.  The many martyrs who died horribly under
    the thumb of Nero understood the concept of sin and the need to be
    redeemed.  The belief of the human condition in relationship to a Holy
    God has been accepted since the resurrection.
    
    Humanity could never possibly stand justified on its own merits...no
    matter how non sexist, non bigoted, non whatever we became.  We are
    redeemed from who we are, not from what we do.  It is not the apples
    that count but rather the tree and its root.
    
    -Jack

>    define it will never exist.  The many martyrs who died horribly under
>    the thumb of Nero understood the concept of sin and the need to be
>    redeemed.  The belief of the human condition in relationship to a Holy

Simply dying for something doesn't make it right.  Witness 
the German soldiers of World War II.


Tom

 Z   Simply dying for something doesn't make it right.  Witness 
 Z   the German soldiers of World War II.
    
    While I agree with this, I will qualify my statement further by saying
    the men and women who were eaten by lions, killed in the Coliseum,
    Burned on crosses, etc. were the direct disciples of Jesus Christ, were
    filled with the Holy Spirit upon conversion, and were the forebearers
    of what we know today as the local church.
    
    -Jack

 Patricia, do you ever wonder..I mean lay awake and night and wonder, toss and
 turn, about the question "what if the Bible is true..what if, one day I
 do have to stand before God and give an account for my life..what if Jesus
 really did die for *my* sins, just as He said.."?




 Jim

> Patricia, do you ever wonder..I mean lay awake and night and wonder, toss and
> turn, about the question "what if the Bible is true..what if, one day I
> do have to stand before God and give an account for my life..what if Jesus
> really did die for *my* sins, just as He said.."?

    Are you suggesting that, because you or whoever, has described
    an unbearable place and some stories around it that the only
    way she or anyone can be safe, they *MUST* do *EVERYTHING* that
    some book that you like says or suffer for eternity?

    What's more, you can't know for certain until you're dead
    whether or not it's true.  You must give up all personal
    freedom and thought and become a slave to how someone else
    thinks you should be on the slight chance that they may 
    meet a detestible fate.

    Sounds like the perfect scam.

    Yes, I've lain awake at night and realized this is bull.  God
    is Love.  Religion is here for US, we aren't here for religion.
    The purpose of religion is to get us to grow up and free us
    from our bonds.  Call those bonds sin or neurosis, I don't
    care.  God is great.  God is full of grace and forgiveness
    and Her essence is all present, all powerful Love.
    
    Worship and communion.  Not fear and damnation.  If you
    choose not to embrace the love then it is its own reward.
    And that can seem pretty hellish at times.
    
    Tom

    Tom:
    
    As Jesus in his practicality once stated, "Not all who cry to me Lord
    Lord shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but only those who do the will
    of my Father..."
    
    How can one worship a Holy God in an unredeemed state?

================================================================================
CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow"             13 lines   8-JUL-1996 10:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Patricia, do you ever wonder..I mean lay awake and night and wonder, toss and
> turn, about the question "what if the Bible is true..what if, one day I
> do have to stand before God and give an account for my life..what if Jesus
> really did die for *my* sins, just as He said.."?

    Fortunately, (or Unfortunately) I have been consumed with the question
    for the five years I have been noting here and the four years that I
    have been attending Andover Newton.
    
    I do admit to lieing there in bed at night asking Goddess/God who are
    you and how would you have me worship you.  
    
    It is not easy being drawn both to the sacred stories of Christianity
    and to the mystical connection of a Pagan ritual.
    
    The first time I layed on the earth on a warm summer day drawing heat
    and healing energy from the sun and sending all negative energy into
    the earth, I felt both a little silly, and a little frightened, that
    maybe God did not want me participating in Pagan ritual.  
    
    I believe in confronting my fears and neurosis.  Prayer is the best
    method I know of confronting all my fears.  When I ask Goddess/God who
    she/he is and how I should worship, I sometime get the visualization of
    a very warm woman, smiling over me saying, Patricia, you are doing just
    fine.  keep learning, loving, challenging, and speaking you mind!.
    
    
                              Patricia

    Z    I felt both a little silly, and a little frightened, that
    Z    maybe God did not want me participating in Pagan ritual.
    
    Oh Patricia, please for the love of God...listen to that still small
    voice....
    
    -Jack

>    How can one worship a Holy God in an unredeemed state?

    With a lot of love.

    Tom,
    
    >With a lot of love
    
    Amen brother.
    
    I like your postings.
    
    
                               Patricia

    Jack,
    
    For the love of Goddess, please find that still small voice.  It will 
    change your life.
    
                                        Patricia

    Whatever.  

    re .27
    
    > "Whatever"
    
    jack,
    
    That's one of my daughters favorite words too when she gets frustrated
    with me!.   (-:).
    
    I love you in spite of our theological difference.
    
    I pray for you and your family as I do for the other participants in 
    this file.   We are all one people.  Living, Loving, Struggling
    together.
    
                                   Patricia

>    I like your postings.

    Yers too :-)

    Tom

   Z  That's one of my daughters favorite words too when she gets frustrated
   Z  with me!.   (-:).
    
    Ha...you know me well! :-)
    
    See, Tom has this annoying habit of using words in a generic
    sense...taking no consideration on ramifications or the like.  I posed
    this to him about a month ago...
    
    Bill and Harry are in love.  Harry loves Bill, Harry is very mature but
    Harry is sixteen.  Is this love?  In other words, I was attempting to
    make Tom a little more accountable for generic postings of words like
    love.  No offense Tom but you foist out the word love without any
    qualifiers.
    
    My qualification...we are, as scripture teaches at enmity with God.  We
    are enemies of the most high in our natural state.  Therefore, the love
    you speak of Tom, simply is not in harmony with the two conflicting
    natures.
    
    Now Tom, you may consider me an idol worshiper for adhering to the
    principles of scripture.  I feel confident as I follow the habits of
    Moses, Paul, Daniel and all the other prophets.  The whole nation of
    Israel kept the writings of Moses in the Holy of Holies...per the
    command of the Most High.  I don't believe you do scripture justice. 
    I think you mean well, but I don't think you hold it is high
    regard...or any regard for that matter.  This leaves you with the
    prospect of becoming the law unto yourself.  This to me is more
    detrimental and has caused more violence in the world than scripture
    possibly could.
    
    -Jack
    
    

    RE .4 by DGAUTHIER
    
    
    Dave,
    
    I agree with you.  It takes Faith to believe whatever one believes.
    
    True Faith in my opinion is aware of the limitations of all human
    knowledge.  It is humbling in that awareness.  True Faith is comfort
    living with Mystery and Uncertainty.

    Hello, Jack,

    To whom is that last message directed?  To Patricia or to me?

>    love.  No offense Tom but you foist out the word love without any
>    qualifiers.

    Thank you.  Nor should you.  I differentiate between love and sex.
    One's an emotion/state of being and the other is an act.

    God's essence is Love.  God is Love.  I don't agree with everything
    in scripture, but they got that one right.  Please note that in
    the sentence, "God is Love" there are no qualifiers.  My intent is
    to go and do/be likewise.  Not to become equal to God but to surrender
    to His will - and His will is Love.

>    My qualification...we are, as scripture teaches at enmity with God.  We
>    are enemies of the most high in our natural state.  Therefore, the love
>    you speak of Tom, simply is not in harmony with the two conflicting
>    natures.

    Yup.  We have to grow up.  It is our nature to be immature but it is
    also our nature to grow up.  (do I smell a conflict here? :-)  As we
    grow we learn to love (I hope).  This is  in harmony with God and may
    appear to conflict with our earlier immature selves.

>    Now Tom, you may consider me an idol worshiper for adhering to the
>    principles of scripture.  

    No.  Only when you worship a book.

>    I don't believe you do scripture justice.

    I can't argue whether or not you believe something.  However, I
    try to follow the spirit of scripture:  Love God.  Love.

    Most of the New Testiment admonishes us to transcend this unhappy
    existence and learn to Love.  If we follow the teachings we will
    be a lot better off - even before we die.

>    I think you mean well, but I don't think you hold it is high
>    regard...or any regard for that matter.  This leaves you with the
>    prospect of becoming the law unto yourself.

    Hmmm.. Love God.  Love one's fellow human being.  Love.  All ordained
    by scripture.  These are laws I can live with.  And, no.  I didn't
    make this up.  These are the laws I choose to try to follow, just
    as you have choosen what laws you try to follow.

    Tom

 Z    God's essence is Love.  God is Love.  I don't agree with everything
 Z       in scripture, but they got that one right.
    
    And the interesting thing is in Matthew 5, it speaks of God's love as
    coequal...God will bring forth the sunshine and the rain to the just
    and to the unjust, (notice he makes a distinction here between two
    peoples), nevertheless, unlike we who tend to give more to those we
    know and love while withholding from those we do not know, God gives
    his love equally.
    
  ZZ   but they got that one right.
    
    I got kind of a chuckle out of this.  From whence did you determine
    this to be correct since scripture is not fully reliable?  By the way,
    I agree with you...I'm just wondering where your authority on this
    truth stemmed from.  
    
    FWIW, I believe your use of the verse in 1st John is being carried to
    excess.  I believe Love is certainly one of the most identifying marks
    of God...giving rain to the just and the unjust...but you will find
    that King David, a man after God's own heart, identifies other
    attributes of God which would conflict your belief.
    
    Love is an emotion, an intangible.  It produces wonderful fruit but
    there is no essence to it.  
    
    -Jack

>  ZZ   but they got that one right.
>    
>    I got kind of a chuckle out of this.  From whence did you determine
>    this to be correct since scripture is not fully reliable?  By the way,
>    I agree with you...I'm just wondering where your authority on this
>    truth stemmed from.  

    At this point it is self-evident to me.  Truth doesn't need
    authority to back it up.  One would hope that authority has
    truth to back *it* up, though.  :-)

>    FWIW, I believe your use of the verse in 1st John is being carried to
>    excess.  I believe Love is certainly one of the most identifying marks

    Well, when I have that part thoroughly figured out I'll move onto
    another part.  In the mean time, there's a lot to work on right there.
    
>    Love is an emotion, an intangible.  It produces wonderful fruit but
>    there is no essence to it.  

    Perhaps it is because it is essence itself.  I *do* hope you, and
    everyone else, bump into it at some time.

    Tom

| <<< Note 1243.30 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| See, Tom has this annoying habit of using words in a generic
| sense...taking no consideration on ramifications or the like.  I posed
| this to him about a month ago...

	It's always Tom has this, Glen does that, Patricia does whatever....
ever think it is you?

 Z   It's always Tom has this, Glen does that, Patricia does whatever....
 Z   ever think it is you?
    
    Sorry Glen...Patricia and I are having good dialog here and I refuse to 
    get trapped.  I have no problem with Tom either...I was just asking him
    to qualiffy his statements more.
    
    Sorry Glen, that you are having a hard time with me as of late.  Hope
    you get over it soon!
    
    Love, hugs, but no kisses,
    
    -Jack

	As of late? Nah.... I've just been quiet up until now. And that was
probably a mistake. You are very inconsistant, and I want you to realize this.
Because the alternative isn't pretty.


Glen

 Z   You are very inconsistant, and I want you to realize this.
 Z   Because the alternative isn't pretty.
    
    No Glen...you simply can't make a distinction between what I personally
    believe in regard to personal choices vs. what I believe is federally 
    mandated by law.  If anything, I am one of the more desirables.  I have
    my own convictions but in regard to the law of the land, I respect your
    right to hang yourself.  The Christian Coalition I am obviously not!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1243.38 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| No Glen...you simply can't make a distinction between what I personally
| believe in regard to personal choices vs. what I believe is federally
| mandated by law.  

	I can when you say others should not be saying anything to the rest of
the country. Because if you did see that both of the above should exist, you
couldn't have one and the other. It would be one.

| If anything, I am one of the more desirables.  

	No, not by a long shot. Why? Read on....

| I have my own convictions but in regard to the law of the land, I respect your
| right to hang yourself.  The Christian Coalition I am obviously not!

	You have the Christian Coalition as being just bad. Never knew that
about you. :-) If you had any respect for me along with having convictions for
the law of the land, then you wouldn't say that me, others, etc, couldn't speak
to others. 



Glen

    You have the Christian Coalition as being just bad. Never knew that
    about you. :-) 
    
    Ha!  Well, now you know.  I don't consider any group bad per sae so
    long as their intentions are honorable.  PETA, for example, is one of
    the most reprehensible organizations out there...but they do care about
    lice and as demented as I believe it is, I honor their stupid crusade.
    The Christian Coalition does in fact represent many of my interests;
    however, I will not become a part of it as it will most likely follow
    into the footsteps of many groups starting of well meaninged...it will
    become corrupt somehow.
    
 Z   If you had any respect for me along with having
 Z   convictions for the law of the land, then you wouldn't say that me, 
 Z   others, etc, couldn't speak to others.
    
    Apparently I wasn't clear the last 4 times I brought this up! :-)  Did
    I not say that you have a 1st ammendment right and that you should
    practice it?  Yes yes yes...I believe I did say that.  What I said
    though was if I found out PETA fell off the face of the earth, my
    response would be...
    
    
    
    
    Pass the ketchup....

RE:          <<< Note 1243.20 by THOLIN::TBAKER "Flawed To Perfection" >>>
                     -< Very practical, this God person. >-

>> Patricia, do you ever wonder..I mean lay awake and night and wonder, toss and
>> turn, about the question "what if the Bible is true..what if, one day I
>> do have to stand before God and give an account for my life..what if Jesus
>> really did die for *my* sins, just as He said.."?

  >  Are you suggesting that, because you or whoever, has described
  >  an unbearable place and some stories around it that the only
  >  way she or anyone can be safe, they *MUST* do *EVERYTHING* that
  >  some book that you like says or suffer for eternity?


     Not at all..I don't believe one can truly be saved simply because
     they are afraid of Hell.  I simply asked the question as I know many
     folks who came to salvation (myself included) wondering and pondering
     the question.  However, once I began to understand my sin, and the ulitmate
     consequences for it, did I begin to comprehennd the love that God has
     for us..what you don't understand, and I pray you do one day, is that
     it is not just a "book that says what I like", but a combination of the 
     Word of God contained in the book, and the Holy Spirit that leads one
     to the point of salvation.  I can do nothing, the "book" can do nothing
     without the power of the Holy Spirit.



    >What's more, you can't know for certain until you're dead
    >whether or not it's true.  You must give up all personal
    >freedom and thought and become a slave to how someone else
    >thinks you should be on the slight chance that they may 
    >meet a detestible fate.

    
     No, I can hold in my hands eyewitness accounts of the death and 
     resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.  What's more, in the book
     of 1 Corinthians there is mention of 500 other eyewitness accounts..
     I have given up nothing.

     Hell is a real place..Jesus spoke more of Hell than heaven.  However
 it is not escaping hell that is the mission of Christianity..it's seein
 you go to Heaven.



>Sounds like the perfect scam.

 
 The scam is the false doctrine that leads one to believe that Christianity
 is about anit women, anti gay, bigotry, etc.. 

RE CSLALL::HENDERSON 
1243.41

   >  I simply asked the question as I know many
   >  folks who came to salvation (myself included) wondering and pondering
   >  the question.

    It is my believe that all people of spirit come to belief through much
    pondering of the ultimate question.
    
>  However, once I began to understand my sin, and the ulitmate
>  consequences for it, did I begin to comprehennd the love that God has
>  for us.

	What you call sin, I call human imperfection.  The ultimate 
consequence for human imperfection is the greed, war, genocide, hatred,
violence, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse so rampant within this world.
Only when I begin to comprehend the potential for human love amongst all the
strive do I begin to comprehend the Love of God for us, that makes human love 
possible.


>     what you don't understand, and I pray you do one day, is that
>     it is not just a "book that says what I like", but a combination of the 
>     Word of God contained in the book, and the Holy Spirit that leads one
>     to the point of salvation.  I can do nothing, the "book" can do nothing
>     without the power of the Holy Spirit.


And what you don't seem to understand , is that the primary difference 
between you and I  is in the order of precedence.  I look to the Holy 
Spirit first and use the power of the Holy Spirit to test what is in "The 
Book" and you look to the Book first to test the holy spirit.  I look to the
Holy Spirit first because it is of God.  The Book is human and marred by human 
imperfection.

    
>     No, I can hold in my hands eyewitness accounts of the death and 
>     resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ.  What's more, in the book
>     of 1 Corinthians there is mention of 500 other eyewitness accounts..
>     I have given up nothing.


Jim, Can you see how in that statement you have picked and chosen.  You focus
on the accounts of the death and ressurection.  I focus on the accounts of the
LIFE, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ.  You also assume that the Book 
is 100% accurate.  I assume it is a book, subject to human 
interpretation, cultural understanding, biases, and imperfections.

>     Hell is a real place..Jesus spoke more of Hell than heaven.  However
> it is not escaping hell that is the mission of Christianity..it's seein
> you go to Heaven.

Heaven and Hell are mythological places.  I have no fear of Hell because a 
God of Love would not allow a Hell or eternal punishment.  I am absolutely
certain of that.   I am open to a number of different possibilities regarding
what happens to us after we die.  I may find out after I die.



>>Sounds like the perfect scam.

 
 >The scam is the false doctrine that leads one to believe that Christianity
 >is about anit women, anti gay, bigotry, etc.. 

With that statement, I agree with you Jim.  Even more dispicable, it is when
certain interpretations of Christianity are used to promote selfish greed,
anti women, anti black, and anti gay bigotry.

So Jim, I will continue to Pray for you and you can continue to pray for
    me.  I am sure both of us will continue to move  closer and closer to
     true spirituality.
                                          
                                       Patricia

 Z   I have no fear of Hell because a 
 Z   God of Love would not allow a Hell or eternal punishment.
    
    This of course is a presupposition based on how we as humans hope it
    will be.  
    
    -Jack

    
    Has the "God of Love" touted here by Patricia and others ever been so
    obviously a god of their own creation and imagination?  Their own words
    condemn them before the Almighty God.
    
    Repent of your sins, Patricia!  Seek faith in the True God, the God of
    the Holy Scriptures who speaks infallibly and with power through His
    prophets and Jesus Christ, the final revelation in this age.  There is 
    forgiveness and knowledge and love and everlasting life in the hand of 
    the True God - the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.  
    
    jeff

    re .44
    
    Jeff,
    
    I see the Mother smiling again!
    
                                        

>    I see the Mother smiling again!

    She's not the only one  :-)

    However,  Patricia, hell is very real and I believe it is
    part of God's great plan.

    I'm not talking about a place that Dante' dreamed up with
    physical demons with pitchforks forever tormenting you.
    
    But, I'm sure that at some point you have been tormented.
    People also go through hellish experiences.  *Much* of the
    time I believe this is God's way of telling us to "grow up."
    And it doesn't always happen to "bad" people.
    
    Pain makes for a very effective teacher.  Those who are
    "advanced" sometimes require more extreme measures to 
    inspire them to grow even closer to God.  Job comes to
    mind.
    
    In our Bible study we're starting to look into James.  We 
    looked at his point that we should, essentially smile our
    way through bad times - because after these hard times we
    will come out "better" having grown just that much more and
    hopefully grown closer to God.
    
    I believe that God is *very* practical.  This is exemplified
    by the following joke:
    
    There was a flood coming.  A Generic Holy Person (GHP) sat
    on his porch and watched it rain.  A bus came by, stopped and
    someone called out "C'mon!  Get in!  A flood's coming!"  He
    just sat there and replied, "Don't worry.  God will save me."
    The water rose.  A canoe came by.  The same transaction happened.
    Then a boat.  The GHP gets on the roof the water is so high
    and a helicopter comes by and lowers a ladder.  The GHP just
    waves them off.
    
    The flood rose even higher and swept the GHP away and he drowned.
    
    He gets to heaven and says to God, "I had so much faith in you.
    Why didn't you save me?!"
    
    God replied: What do you mean?  I sent a bus, a canoe, a boat
    and a helicopter.  What more do you want?
    
    -----
    
    I believe God's grace is always around.  You may choose sin
    which will ultimately bring about your own suffering or you
    can choose to accept the grace and surrender to God's plan.
    It's a little harder at first but it pays very real dividends
    in very real terms.  As I'm fond of saying, love is it's own
    reward.  You can love on this earth, while you're still alive.
    
    Yes, S/He is smiling.  And *very* adaptable with one **** of
    a sense of humor.
    
    Impersonal?  I think not.
    
    Tom

    
>    Jeff,
    
>    I see the Mother smiling again!
    
You mean you "see" the picture of the god ("Mother) you have created in your 
    vain imagination smiling again.  There is no "Mother", only God the
    Father and His Son and the Holy Spirit.  "Mother" is the deception of
    your rock hard heart, darkened by your wilful ignorance and blindness
    which you have brought on by suppressing the true witness in
    unrighteous thoughts and acts.
    
    I have also known your death for I was once dead myself.  But thanks be
    to God, Jesus Christ brought me from death to life!  It is not
    hopeless, your own resurrection, Patricia.  If I in my hardened and
    calloused heart can be saved from death, so can you and those like you.
    Jesus Christ offers new life for those who come to Him in repentance
    and faith.  If you can't believe it, ask Him to help you believe it. 
    He rewards those who seek Him!
    
    jeff     
                                        

re .43

 Z   I have no fear of Hell because a 
 Z   God of Love would not allow a Hell or eternal punishment.
    
 ;   This of course is a presupposition based on how we as humans hope it
 ;   will be.

  
 Jack,

 Well God did created man in his image, and eventhough it was tarnished by
 the actions of Adam, we as humans can still display similar qualities to
 Jehovah God. As parents, though we might punish our children for their
 good, we wouldn't punish them continually with acts that inflict 
 excruciating pain (in fact there are laws against this). As a loving
 Father can we expect anything less from God? eventhough as his creation
 we are all wayward. Jesus in giving his disciples the model prayer,
 instructing them to refer to God as "Our Father" helps us to relate to
 God from a human perspective, that he is a loving Father who wants us to
 turn to him so that he can embrace us and that he is not someone who is 
 cold and vindictive.

 In addition, passages of scripture such as Jeremiah 7:31 shows that burning
 children (or persons) is not something that has ever come into Jehovah's heart.

 The passages that speak of a fiery Gehenna are figurative and something that
 the Jews would have readily understood. In their time, Gehenna was a rubbish
 dump that was kept constantly on fire, here the bodies of dead criminals were 
 burnt as symbol of their destruction as it was felt their were not worthy of
 a proper burial and rememberance.

 Btw, Hell that is Sheol (Hebrew) or Hades (Greek) is something totally different
 to "Gehenna" or the "lake of fire". Confusion has a risen because the Bible 
 translators took it on themselves to translate all these different into the one
 English word "hell".

 Phil.

> There is no "Mother", only God the   Father and His Son and the Holy Spirit.
    
    Shhh! The Mother listens to all.
    
    But fortunately she is compassionate!  She is not Jealous.  She does
    not rage.
    
    She answers denial with Love.  Unconditional, compassionate, passionate
    Love.  
    
     She loves you Jeff.   Stop, listen, and feel the warmth.  
    
    
    

    Believe it, or else!

    If you  don't see it, you're blind (and I'm *not* hallucinating.)

    These threats may work with some people but they don't wash
    with many here.

    If you want to make any headway don't use the bludgeon.
    
    Your ancestors used to simply burn people at the stake for
    not believing the way they thought they should.

    Tom

	Jeff is back! Hang onto yer hats!!!! :-)

    re .46
    
    Tom,
    
    I agree with you.  To me that is the power of myth.  It points to real
    human happenings and provides meaning.
    
    Hell is created by human sinfullness.  Individual and collective.  Hell
    is different for each person, but we all find it.  And we can know
    salvation by accepting God's Grace.
    
    And as you do, I agree that this occurs in the here and now.  It is
    very real.  We need to be in "hell" let go, and turn to God's power to
    experience ourselves as "new creation" living in God, with God, by the
    grace of God.
    
    My journey back toward Christianity began when I could see the
    Christian myths and stories as truly relating to and inspiring my own
    life.

				      ^
				      |

Don't look now, but I think you just answered the question.


>    My journey back toward Christianity began when I could see the
>    Christian myths and stories as truly relating to and inspiring my own
>    life.

    Tom:
    
    I don't think it is really that important to me what you believe
    personally.  In other words, my personal intent would not be to beat
    belief out of you as some of those in ancient history did, (By the way,
    these people were into Papal worship which of course is Pagan.)
    
    Tom, looking at it from a historical perspective, any nation that
    adhered to idol or Pagan worship was eventually blotted out.  Edom,
    Philistia, Ammon, Canaan, and yes, even the Apple of Gods eye, Israel
    was obliterated for Pagan and Goddess worship.  Israel was spared only
    because God wanted to fulfill the promise of bringing the Messiah.  
    
    So instead of judging people harshly for their faith beliefs, you would
    do well to use history as a good litmus test, and heed the cautions
    that Israel and other nations overlooked.
    
    -Jack

	Rather than speculating what hell is, wouldn't it be better to
   	look to the Bible, the book that introduces the concept of hell 
        and gives understanding to what it really is.

	Phil.

re  398.154

>   Christianity, like all things human is a creation of mere mortals.

    This is merely subjective opinion with no basis in objective reality. 
    Critics have been making this claim for literally millennia to no avail. 
    The Judeo/Christian Scripture stands alone in its message, divine
    inspiration, infallibility, historical accuracy, and thousands of specific
    prophecies - 100% of which have come true thus far.  Many who've set out
    to prove Christianity wrong have become among the most ardent supporters.


>   What is important is not Christianity itself, but that which truly
>   inspires Christianity and every other religion.  
>   
>   One Truth!, One Divine, One Ultimate Reality!

    You claim above that Christianity is a creation of mere mortals and yet
    here you imply that all religions are divinely inspired.  Are you
    suggesting that God muddles around trying to get His message through with
    only partial success?  This paints the picture of a pretty inept god.


re. 1243.*

    I'm sorry you have such a warped view of Christianity but that's really
    all it is.  You've offered nothing but opinion for the false accusations
    you've made.  For the record (from Scripture):

    - God gave us His objective truth in His Word and in His Son and it is He
      that defines true Christianity.
    - There is no "Cosmic Christ" proclaimed by the Apostle Paul.
    - Christianity does not evolve.
    - True Christians do not worship a book.  But the word of God is no less
      written than if it had been spoken to us personally.
    - Salvation is not found following some teachings of Jesus but on what He,
      as the one and only divine Son of God, did at the cross.
    - The motive of the true Christian is love, not politics or economics.
    - Jesus was executed for claiming to be *GOD*, not for being a
      revolutionary.
    - The natural state of humanity *IS* decrepit, debased, and depraved.
    - Regeneration is being reconciled to God by God and drawing our life from
      Him.
    - There is only ONE path, and it *IS* narrow.
    - It is not bigoted, anti-woman, nor anti-Semitic.
    - We either belong to Him (your words "children of light") or not
      ("children of darkness") - this is *OUR* choice.
    - Satan is real.
    - The only "hope for humankind" is found in a personal, loving,
      relationship with Christ founded on the sacrifice He made for us.
    - Scripture clearly spells out its own nature and cross referentially
      interprets itself.
    - There are no examples of dangerous and harmful messages embedded within
      the Bible (unless it is by someone's subjective definition).
    - There are no hateful practices (condoned by God) embedded within the
      Old and New Testament.
    - Salvation is not being in touch with our own spiritual natures but being
      linked to God.
    - Christ offers the only path to salvation.
    - Jesus' is not a replacement for animal sacrifices.  He is THE sacrifice
      which they foreshadow.
    - Visualization's which contradict God's word are not sent by Him - God is
      consistent in His revelation to us.
    - One who truly has the Holy Spirit will see God's truth in the Scripture.

    All of the above is founded in Scripture (the self proclaimed Word of
    God) and consistent with the leading of the real Holy Spirit resident in
    true Christians.  I'll be happy to provide references but I suspect it
    would be a waste of time since you apparently keep what you like and
    throw out what you don't.

    Our record of the eye-witness account of what Jesus said is accurate (as
    any honest scholar will tell you, even non-Christians).  We have over
    24,000 New Testament document fragments - many dating to within a
    generation of the events described.

    You speak of fear and prejudice but there is alot of fear and prejudice
    against true Christianity in your own postings.  You seem to harbor your
    own.    

    You claim Jesus as your savior yet you have already denied Him many times. 
    You're denial of the very Scripture He Himself took to be God's word is
    just one example.  Without Jesus as your savior, you have no salvation,
    without salvation you do not have the Holy Spirit, without the Holy Spirit
    you cannot see God's truth in the Scripture.

    I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh but false Christianity is serious
    business.  It is very saddening when people believe they have found it but
    have not.  Satan's main weapon is not atheism but a false gospel - false
    Christianity.

    "The god of this age has blinded the minds of unbelievers, so that they
    cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the
    image of God." (2 Cor 4:4)

    
    Michael

    
>    Shhh! The Mother listens to all.
        
>    But fortunately she is compassionate!  She is not Jealous.  She does
>    not rage.
    
    But "Mother" doesn't exist, Patricia, except in your imagination.  It
    is meaningless to me and the universe for you to personify your own
    imagination.  You can't expect the world to bow to your god or to even
    acknowledge it, can you, really?  Besides, Mothers are not universally
    compassionate.  Many are jealous and a woman's rage can be historical.
    Even if there was a "Mother" I don't believe she is like you suggest. 
    Why even "Mother Nature" doesn't match your conception of yourself.
    
    >She answers denial with Love.  Unconditional, compassionate, passionate
    >Love.  
    
    But "Mother" doesn't exist except in your mind.  Again, I nor anyone
    else shall acknowledge your fantasy as anything but a fantasy.
    
    > She loves you Jeff.   Stop, listen, and feel the warmth.  
   
    But that which doesn't exist cannot love.  Your imagination is not
    love.  "Mother" cannot love for "Mother" is simply your idea and has no
    reality beyond your own thought. 
    
    jeff

>    (By the way,
>    these people were into Papal worship which of course is Pagan.)

    I'm glad no one's ever going to make *that* mistake again.   (right)
    
>    Tom, looking at it from a historical perspective, any nation that
>    adhered to idol or Pagan worship was eventually blotted out.

    If you include "Papal worship", what about Spain or Italy or...

>    So instead of judging people harshly for their faith beliefs, you would
>    do well to use history as a good litmus test, and heed the cautions
>    that Israel and other nations overlooked.

    I don't like being threatened.  I judge the stake burners harshly
    because they judged harshly.  Christianity is coming to mean more
    and more to me.  The stake burners have *badly* marred the good
    name of Christianity.  It was a religion run amuck.

    Tom

RE: .56  Michael

>    I'm sorry if this comes across as harsh but false Christianity is serious
>    business.  It is very saddening when people believe they have found it but
>    have not.  Satan's main weapon is not atheism but a false gospel - false
>    Christianity.

Amen to that!

    And a Gospel of Hate is a very false Gospel!
    
    
                                          Patricia

    Jeff:

>    acknowledge it, can you, really?  Besides, Mothers are not universally
>    compassionate.  Many are jealous and a woman's rage can be historical.

    Errr.. nor are *all* fathers.
    
>    >She answers denial with Love.  Unconditional, compassionate, passionate
>    >Love.  
>    
>    But "Mother" doesn't exist except in your mind.  Again, I nor anyone
>    else shall acknowledge your fantasy as anything but a fantasy.
>    
>    > She loves you Jeff.   Stop, listen, and feel the warmth.  
>   
>    But that which doesn't exist cannot love.  Your imagination is not
>    love.  "Mother" cannot love for "Mother" is simply your idea and has no
>    reality beyond your own thought. 

    Don't look now, but you're taking about the same "elephant".

    Remember:  God is big,  REAL BIG.

    I'm glad I cleared *that* one up.    (duck! :-)

    Tom

re .56

 Michael,

 Like you I'm in agreement that Satan has used false religion
 to blind peoples minds. Even so many are sincere in their
 belief's and feel like yourself that their doctrine is the
 correct one. Yet, in Christendom there are 6,000 different
 sects all with their different belief's of what they feel
 is the correct doctrine, they can't all be right.

 Though accurate knowledge is vital (John 17:3), the only 
 tangible sign that one has accurate knowledge is through 
 application and the fruit that comes from this. If it's
 rotten then discard it, if it's good then it must be from
 the true vine (compare John 13:34,35 & Matthew 7:16-20). 
 Jesus was confident that only his congregation would be
 united in this quality of self sacrifising love. Such
 fruit couldn't come from the teachings of Satan that
 blind peoples mind to the good news.

 At the end of the day, we all have a choice to make. But on
 a personal level we should also respect other peoples choices 
 for it is between them and their Creator. The persons one should
 be mostly concerned with is oneself, family and spiritual brothers
 and sisters, that's not to say one shouldn't show love to ones 
 neighbour and help them to see how God's Word can help them get to 
 know God and Jesus better and be a guiding light for their feet
 (compare Psalm 119:105).

 Phil.

re  .59

    Tom,

    I'm suprised to hear you "amen" my statement about false Christianity
    since you've previously stated that you believe all paths ultimately lead
    to God - "whatever works", "God is real big".

    False Christianity is serious because only the real Christian is
    reconciled to God.  Further, it paints a lie for the non-Christians to see
    (i.e. that it is bigoted or hateful).

    Michael

    RE: .63

    I see false Christianity as the religion where everything is 
    either black or white.  Where an absolute standard must be
    adhered to and *NO ONE* may even question it.  Where everyone
    who doesn't believe the way "we" do is damned for eternity.
    Where love is only to be spoken in abstract terms and can
    only refer to God.  All rewards are in the afterlife.

    I believe this belief is false and keeps people, either through
    fear or arrogance, from God.
    
    I do believe everyone will eventually come around to God.
    A belief in reincarnation helps.  They'll eventually get 
    there but, going in the direction they're going in, it may
    take a while.  God will see to it that their path will 
    turn around at some point.
    
    Yes, God is big.  But to use another analogy, some people 
    couldn't hit Him if He were the broadside of a barn.
    
    Tom

    Z    I do believe everyone will eventually come around to God.
    Z    A belief in reincarnation helps.  They'll eventually get 
    Z    there but, going in the direction they're going in, it may
    Z    take a while. 
    
    Just as a side note, reincarnation was a tenet of Baal worship founded
    by Nimrod, the great hunter.  Not that it matters, you will believe as
    you choose...but I respect you and care for you enough to at least let
    you know where beliefs originate from.  I find this to be love. 
    Incidently, Nimrod is considered by historians to be one of the most
    evil men that ever lived in history...so again...history is a wonderful
    litmus test.
    
    Yes it is time for yet another Tom parable.  Listen carefully and try
    to understand the allogorical significance...
    
    Fred grew up in a home where hierarchy did not exist.  The father made
    himself coequal with the son and accepted him as a buddy.  Dad would
    tolerate much of his sons behaviors and lifestyles...mainly because dad
    believed the self esteem of his son Fred was important and felt he
    could do his own thing.  In 1968, Fred was killed in a car accident
    while driving intoxicated.
    
    Similarly on the other side of the country, Michael grew up in similar
    circumstances...almost mirroring Freds situation.  Michael almost OD'd
    on heroine but was able to escape death.  Michael decided to enlist in
    the marines some time later.  Michael went through culture shock...his
    sergeant was constantly on him...disciplining him, making him do
    pushups for the slightest infractions.  History showed that Michael won
    the congressional medal of honor in North Vietnam...saving three other
    soldiers from death.  He learned in boot camp how to survive.
    
    Moral:  Tolerance and general acceptance does not always equate to
    love...or hate manifests itself in the strangest ways.
    
    Question: Tom, who showed greater love...the fathers of these boys or
    the boot camp sergeant?
    
    -Jack  

    By the way, I am not comparing God to a boot camp sergeant.  The
    sergeant in this case is synonomous with truth.
    
    

>    Just as a side note, reincarnation was a tenet of Baal worship founded
>    by Nimrod, the great hunter.  Not that it matters, you will believe as
>    you choose...but I respect you and care for you enough to at least let
>    you know where beliefs originate from.  I find this to be love. 
>    Incidently, Nimrod is considered by historians to be one of the most
>    evil men that ever lived in history...so again...history is a wonderful
>    litmus test.

    Ideas do not choose their inventors or holders.  *I* formulated
    most of my ideas about reincarnation while studying Hinduism.
    Like most religious tenents, people have a nasty habit of
    twisting them.  I understand that some people loaned money
    to other people on the promise of being paid back in the
    next life.  Go figure :-)

>    Yes it is time for yet another Tom parable.  Listen carefully and try
>    to understand the allogorical significance...

    Yup.  And I can make up the same type of stories to "prove"
    my points.

    A parent should raise a child to become *like* them.  Bring
    them up the their level.  When a son has grown he should be
    equal to his father.  Until then the father must be gentle
    when appropriate and firm when appropriate and exercise
    love whenever possible.

    After a child has grown s/he must find something "higher"
    than the parent to progress further.  God does pretty 
    well in this capacity.  

    Tom

    Actually Tom, what I am trying to communicate to you, and to others is
    that sober truth does not always equate to hate, no matter how sobering
    the message.  I find those who say something to the effect of..."A
    loving God would never do...."  Usually this comes up in the discussion
    of eternal damnation.  History proves otherwise.  As I mentioned
    before, Israel, Gods chosen people were all but obliterated due to
    what our BIG God referred to as harlotry...the intermingling of worship
    with Paganism, Goddess Worship, and Baal Worship in general.  Only a
    remnent survived the Babylonian exile and it was strictly because of
    God's mercy.   
    
    I do not worship a God who is tyrannical.  I believe God strives with
    me in my weaknesses and frailties.  I also believe, just as a parent,
    that God corrects me from time to time...in different ways he chooses.
    But A BIG GOD IS NOT subject to our determination of how grace, mercy,
    or judgement are meted out.  Furthermore, love is not determined by
    tolerance or even inclusion.
    
    -Jack

>    Actually Tom, what I am trying to communicate to you, and to others is
>    that sober truth does not always equate to hate, no matter how sobering
>    the message.  I find those who say something to the effect of..."A
>    loving God would never do...."  Usually this comes up in the discussion
>    of eternal damnation.

    This is scary.  I actually find myself agreeing with you to a point.

    My understanding of "eternity" is not "forever".  It is timeless in
    nature.  When in the throes of torment it often seems an eternity.
    God puts us through that - all too frequently.  It doesn't seem to
    be Her first choice, but it happens.

    The opportunity to "repent" or "rethink your game plan" is always
    there.  He has a lot of time.  It's more a case of how long do you
    want to put up with this grief before you change.

    This has reminded me of my freshman year.  I decided it was "right"
    to be an atheist.  Well, things got worse and worse and I became
    more and more unhappy until I said, "OK, I give up.  I get the 
    message.  You exist!"

    That was, I believe, the begining of my seeking.

    Tom

>And what you don't seem to understand , is that the primary difference 
>between you and I  is in the order of precedence.  I look to the Holy 
>Spirit first and use the power of the Holy Spirit to test what is in "The 
>Book" and you look to the Book first to test the holy spirit.  I look to the
>Holy Spirit first because it is of God.  The Book is human and marred by human 
>imperfection.
    
    The Biblical model is always for the child of God to follow His Word
    and the experiences will follow the child of God.  The model of chasing
    after experiences is never condoned in God's Word.
    
    Mike

>    Your ancestors used to simply burn people at the stake for
>    not believing the way they thought they should.
    
    Not exactly.  The Christians were the ones being burned.

>	Rather than speculating what hell is, wouldn't it be better to
>   	look to the Bible, the book that introduces the concept of hell 
>        and gives understanding to what it really is.

	Novel idea, Phil!  Especially since this is supposedly a Christian
    conference.  Only problem is, the majority in here reject it as myth so
    it seems pointless.
    
    Mike

>    I see false Christianity as the religion where everything is 
>    either black or white.  Where an absolute standard must be
>    adhered to and *NO ONE* may even question it.  Where everyone
>    who doesn't believe the way "we" do is damned for eternity.
    
    sounds like you just eliminated Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism as well.

>    Not exactly.  The Christians were the ones being burned.

Not after they became the power.

Witch burnings for example.  How about the Spanish Inquisition?

>>    I see false Christianity as the religion where everything is 
>>    either black or white.  Where an absolute standard must be
>>    adhered to and *NO ONE* may even question it.  Where everyone
>>    who doesn't believe the way "we" do is damned for eternity.
>    
>    sounds like you just eliminated Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism as well.

    No.  Just false Judaism, false Islam and false Hinduism.  Although
    Hinduism sees most other religions as valid.

    Tom

    
    Folks,
    
    Understand it correctly, pagans have taken more lives by far than any
    misguided Christian(s).  Rome, China, Soviet Union, Hitler etc.  If you
    want to base your decisions on body count, Christianity is the winner
    causing far, far, far fewer deaths than the pagans' wars against humanity.
    
    jeff

 Z   Not after they became the power.
    
 Z   Witch burnings for example.  How about the Spanish Inquisition?
    
    Tom, you need to get a better understanding of history before making
    blanket statements.  Maria Isabella, a very poignant believer of her
    time and a Bible inerrantist by the way, was stretched on a rack and
    had her innerds removed from her quite painfully.  Did you not believe
    me when I mentioned that those who inflicted this were into Pagan
    worship?
    
    Tom, remember your basic logic class...there is a fallacy called
    Equivocations...here is an example...
    
    Christians are gentiles.
    Gentiles murdered Jews in the Holocaust...
    Therefore, Christians killed Jews in the holocaust.
    
    There are stars in space...
    There is space in my trunk...
    Therefore, there are stars in my trunk.
    
    This is what you tend to do from time to time.  You will find if you
    are really interested in the subject that the witch burnings actually
    were motivated by land disputes more than religious zealotry. 
    Christianity was the vehicle used to hide behind in order to carry out
    their intent...much like slavery was the vehicle used by the North to
    propogate battle with the South.  Lincoln had slaves too Tom.
    
    -Jack

>Not after they became the power.
>
>Witch burnings for example.  How about the Spanish Inquisition?
    
    Your ignorance of history is showing.  The group responsible for the
    Inquisition has killed more Christians than anyone in history.

   RE: .76 Jeff

>    Understand it correctly, pagans have taken more lives by far than any
>    misguided Christian(s).  Rome, China, Soviet Union, Hitler etc.  If you
>    want to base your decisions on body count, Christianity is the winner
>    causing far, far, far fewer deaths than the pagans' wars against humanity.

   Oh.  I see.  Your definition of pagan is anyone who doesn't believe
   in your brand of Christianity.  And because you are such a small
   number you couldn't have killed that many people.  You're grouping
   atheists into that group too and any "misguided" Christians as
   well.  If anyone did anything nasty then they must not believe 
   the way that you do.

   Therefore, anyone who isn't just like you is nasty and prone
   to genocide.

   Right.

   Tom

>    How can one worship a Holy God in an unredeemed state?

    Are we speaking here of Kansas?
    
    *<8*}
    
    Richard
    

    
    > Lincoln had slaves too Tom.

    ??? From the age of seven onward Lincoln lived in a free state. Am I
    missing something?

    Eric 

> Z   Witch burnings for example.  How about the Spanish Inquisition?
>    
>    Tom, you need to get a better understanding of history before making
>    blanket statements.  Maria Isabella, a very poignant believer of her

I'm not saying that Christians haven't been persecuted.  But,
in a society that is ruled by "Christians", it's been the 
"Christians" that have been doing the killing.

I am reminded of a Quaker woman who went to Boston several
hundred years ago to preach and had her tongue cut out by
"Christians."

How did we get off on this silly tangent, anyway?

Tom

>    Understand it correctly, pagans have taken more lives by far than any
>    misguided Christian(s).  Rome, China, Soviet Union, Hitler etc.  If you
>    want to base your decisions on body count, Christianity is the winner
>    causing far, far, far fewer deaths than the pagans' wars against humanity.

>>   Oh.  I see.  Your definition of pagan is anyone who doesn't believe
>>   in your brand of Christianity.  
    
    You're extremely silly, Tom.  You obviously don't read replies or you
    can't understand obvious differences.  Rome is not Roman Catholicism,
    but Imperial Rome.  If you think China, SU, and Hitler practiced a
    different kind of Christianity, you'd be as ignorant as you seem.
    
    >>And because you are such a small number you couldn't have killed that 
    >>many people.  
    
    Read more, talk less.
    
    >>You're grouping
   >>atheists into that group too 
    
    Pagans are those who do not worship the true God.
    
    >>and any "misguided" Christians as
   >>well.  If anyone did anything nasty then they must not believe 
   >>the way that you do.
    
    If anyone did anything nasty, they weren't doing it within the
    authority of Christ's teachings in the Bible.

   >>Therefore, anyone who isn't just like you is nasty and prone
   >>to genocide.
    
    Anyone who is a pagan is prone to genocide.  I think history proves
    it.  Even in our own country you see our recent use of abortion by
    millions as infanticide, a pagan practice.

   jeff

    
    > Your definition of pagan is anyone who doesn't believe
    >   in your brand of Christianity.

    Well, duh! That's also the definition of cultist, heretic, false
    teacher....

    It took you long enough to figure it out :^)

    Eric

   Z    Oh.  I see.  Your definition of pagan is anyone who doesn't believe
   Z    in your brand of Christianity.  And because you are such a small
   Z    number you couldn't have killed that many people. 
    
    Tom, I'm not talking about faith issues here...I'm talking about actual
    historical accounts.  Please...feel free to check these things out for
    yourself.  God calls us to test the spirits.  Bible believing
    Christians were persecuted in those times for failing to acquiesce to
    the Papacy amongst other things.  Somewhat like Nero burning Bible
    believing Christians in the Coliseum in order to have twi light chariot
    races.  What an awesome spectacle this must have been.  
    
    -Jack 

    The Quaker woman mentioned a few entries ago was, I believe,
    actually hung to death by people who believed themselves to be
    the real Christians.
    
    Richard
    

    "Do not put out the Spirit's fire; do not treat prophecies [the Word of
    God] with contempt. Test everything [against God's word via the Spirit].
    Hold on to the good."  (1 Thes 5:19-21)

    We are admonished to not treat the Scripture as any less than the Word of
    God (prophecy) and not treat it with contempt (disregarding parts of it
    qualifies).  The same Spirit that inspired it reveals its truth to the
    believer.  We are to judge (test) the world by the Scriptures not the
    other way around.

    See also 18.822

    Michael

    It doesn't matter what you believe yourself to be if your actions prove
    otherwise.  

    .88
    
    I gotta go along with that.  Actions are the fruit.
    
    Richard
    
    

>          <<< Note 1243.88 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>
>                   -< real Christians don't do such things >-
>
>    It doesn't matter what you believe yourself to be if your actions prove
>    otherwise.  

    OK.  So real Christians don't go around offing other people,
    be they witches or Quakers or anyone else.
    
    So.....  When someone starts preaching the holy brimstone and
    gets people fired up to do some pagan burning, they aren't
    Christian.
    
    BTW: I've always thought "pagan" meant one who was a nature/
    Goddess worshipper.  My dictionary says it's anyone who's 
    not a Christian, Muslim, or Jew.  My mistake.
    
    Tom

re .62

    Phil,

    I agree with you for the most part.  Actions are the evidence of
    salvation.  And everyone is entitled to their choices.  But Christians are
    commanded to share the Gospel and to contend for the faith.  If someone
    comes forward with a "choice" and calls it Christian in a public forum, it
    is our duty to set the record straight.

    "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation.  Whoever
    believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will
    be condemned."  (Jesus - Mark 16:15-16)

    "...contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to the saints.
    For certain men whose condemnation was written about long ago have
    secretly slipped in among you. They are godless men, who change the grace
    of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only
    Sovereign and Lord."  (Jude 3,4)

    Michael

    Z    So.....  When someone starts preaching the holy brimstone and
    Z    gets people fired up to do some pagan burning, they aren't
    Z    Christian.
    
    Tom, just as a footnote, I have not seen this kind of dialog...at least
    here.  What I have seen is people expressing the need for Jesus Christ
    and his payment for sin on the cross.
    
    Tom, from the very same writer who stated, "...for God is love...",
    John the apostle was the pastor of the Ephesian church and wrote,
    
    "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they
    are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
    Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: every Spirit that cofess Jesus is
    come in the flesh is of God.  And every Spirit that confesseth Jesus is
    not come in the flesh is not of God.  and this is that spirit of
    antichrist..."  1st John 4:1-3a.
    
    So we can establish from this writer who proclaimed God is love, that
    there is truth and there is lie.  There are true prophets and there are
    false prophets.  And as I pointed out yesterday, God allows it to rain
    on both the just and the unjust.  Universal salvation is of a false
    origin...it has no basis of fact...at least in light of scripture.  
    
    -Jack

5:16  This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lust of
 the flesh.

5:17  For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the
 flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the
 things that ye would.

5:18  But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law.

5:19  Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery,
 fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

5:20  Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife,
 seditions, heresies,

5:21  Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I
 tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such
 things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

5:22  But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering,
 gentleness, goodness, faith,

5:23  Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

5:24  And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections
 and lusts.

5:25  If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

    .42
    
>    It is my believe that all people of spirit come to belief through much
>    pondering of the ultimate question.
 
    Oddly enough, I came from a non-religious family, and for some reason,
    I can never remember NOT believing in God.  I never really knew much
    about this God I believed in, but I did believe.  I never pondered it,
    never questioned it, it was just always there from my earliest
    memories.
    
    It was much later that I decided to accept Christ as my savior, and it
    really didn't take much pondering after I was witnessed to, though it
    took a VERY long time to sink in (bear fruit).  God has indeed been
    patient with me.  
    
    Jesus said that we need to be like the little children in our beliefs,
    and I think I understand what He was talking about when He said this. 
    Intellectual pondering and wondering is not necessary, nor even desired
    I imagine.  Not that we should ignorantly fall into any religion, but
    that we have a natural predisposition to - as well as an innermost
    "child-like" knowledge - follow God's chosen path, we need only to have
    that path pointed out to us in order to start walking down it. 
    Unfortunately, intellect can be more of a nuissance than a help in this
    matter.  I believe man's pride in his intellect have been a key to
    creating false religions/beliefs.  God does not fit into our
    intellectual understandings, nor can our limited faculties dissect or
    define the Almighty on our own terms.
    
    Why do you think God left us His word?  To point out the path with an
    authority above man's, so man does not attempt to intellectualize
    everything.  It is man's own intellect that is getting him into so much
    trouble today- rationalizing falsehoods as truth, because that's what
    we WANT to believe, and we can be very convincing to ourselves.  The 
    problem with intellect is that it does not stand alone.  Preconceptions 
    and emotion do not go away when we think, and in fact cloud many issues- 
    especially those around behavior and belief.
    
    I hope I'm making some sense here.  It is clear to me, but I wonder if
    I'm putting this into type in an understandable way.
       
    
>	What you call sin, I call human imperfection.  The ultimate 
>consequence for human imperfection is the greed, war, genocide, hatred,
>violence, physical, sexual, and emotional abuse so rampant within this world.
    
    "Sin" simply means to "miss the mark".  What is the mark?  God's glory
    (perfection).  "Human imperfection" is indeed good terminology in this
    essense, but you do not go far enough in your dissertation on what the
    "ultimate consequences of sin" is, nor do you reflect that this
    imperfection is in spiritual nature as well.   
    
    The evil you mention is not the ultimate consequence, but symptoms of
    mankind's corrupt nature.  It is a huge arrow that points an accusing
    finger at mankind, making obvious to all his nature.  The ultimate
    consequences do not occur in this life, but the next.  Jesus came down
    to die for us- not only to die for our sins- but to clean us up, to
    give a new, cleansed spirit to those who believe in Him.  Believing in 
    Him is simple, natural even, but in order to really believe, you need to 
    trust Him.  So many in here seem to "believe" in Jesus, but not trust Him. 
    They deny their nature - which Jesus clearly defines as being sin-based - 
    and their need of salvation from it.  They deny how Jesus defines Himself 
    and the Father, even thought He is very clear in His definition.  In short,
    they do not trust His word, therefore, they do not trust Him.
    
    "In the beginning there was the Word.  The Word became flesh..."
     
>Only when I begin to comprehend the potential for human love amongst all the
>strive do I begin to comprehend the Love of God for us, that makes human love 
>possible.

    We are made in God's image.  Although we are born into sin (and to be
    honest, I don't need the Bible to define man's nature to me, I can
    witness this for myself on a daily basis, and through history books),
    we still have attributes of God.  We can love, create, etc.   Because
    we have God's attributes (some of them) does not mean that we are
    "okay" before a Holy God.
    
    I think some are so focused on *one* of God's attributes, that they
    completely ignore other attributes that God Himself has revealed of
    Himself.  A few attributes revealed are: holiness, justice, goodness, 
    rightousness, creative.  He has emotions, as well - (righteous) anger, 
    love, hate (of sin), etc.
    
    God does indeed define love, but to say that God *is* love, and that's
    it, is cutting Him short - it is missing the big picture.  It is an 
    attempt to fit God into some little box of of one's own creation, or
    perhaps creating god in one's own image (of what one thinks god
    *should* be, rather than how He reveals Himself).

>And what you don't seem to understand , is that the primary difference 
>between you and I  is in the order of precedence.  I look to the Holy 
>Spirit first and use the power of the Holy Spirit to test what is in "The 
>Book" and you look to the Book first to test the holy spirit.  I look to the
>Holy Spirit first because it is of God.  The Book is human and marred by human 
>imperfection.

    This is an incorrect analogy.  What I see happening is that Jim (I
    believe this is who you are responding to) reads the Word of God and
    allows the Holy Spirit to interpret it for him, to reveal new truths
    and principles - to give him understanding of what is written.  Whatever 
    imperfections man has entered into God's word - and I would suggest that 
    the imperfections are not insurmountable, being translational 
    generalities that can be nailed down with a bit of study - are
    irrelevant ones.  Salvation is black and white, clearly stated in all
    accepted translations.
    
    Besides, the Holy Spirit is not "of" God, but IS God.
       
>Heaven and Hell are mythological places.  
    
    Then you fail to believe the two most basic realities that God speaks
    about in His Word.  Not only do they exist, but their reality is far
    more significant - more concrete - than our minor reality in which we
    currently live.
    
>    I have no fear of Hell because a 
>God of Love would not allow a Hell or eternal punishment.  I am absolutely
>certain of that.   
    
    Then you create a god in your out of your own imagination.
    
    A God of justice and holiness created Hell for Satan and his demons
    (fallen angels) for their rebellion and acts against His creation. 
    The lake of fire was NOT created for mankind, but this does not mean
    that some of mankind will not end up there.  It is a place separated
    from God, and those who reject God in life will be separated from God
    in the afterlife.  A God of love will not force His will on us, we have
    the freedom to choose to be with Him for eternity, or not.
    
>    I am open to a number of different possibilities regarding
>what happens to us after we die.  I may find out after I die.

    You seem to be open to all possibilities BUT the realities that God 
    Himself (the Creator of all things, definer of life and reality) defined 
    in His word.  This troubles me.
 
>So Jim, I will continue to Pray for you and you can continue to pray for
>    me.  I am sure both of us will continue to move  closer and closer to
>     true spirituality.
 
    Spirituality is a drug used by Satan to inebriate the masses, dulling
    them to the realities revealed by God, by combining black and white to
    make gray.  As with other drugs, those who use it get off on the warm
    and fuzzy feeling it bestows, but a cold, hard reality awaits them when
    it wears off.  The truth, and reality, cannot be escaped forever,
    though we can deceive ourselves throughout an entire lifetime by
    numbing our spirits with good feelings based on a lie.


    -steve      

RE .94 (Steve)

You spoke against intellect as a means to get at the truth (God).  Yet this God
supposedly created us armed to the teeth with senses, a brain and a curious
mind.  It would seem to me that wondering and intellectualizing would be
exactly what the creator of humanity designed us to do.  In fact, our very
survival depends on using these faculties (eat plants the look like this, flee
when you see a tiger, fire needs wood, etc... ).  Why is it invalid to extend
this wonderful gift to the realm of metaphysics and religion?

If you use biblical passages to dispute this, ask yourself why you accept the
Bible as truth.  When you come up with a reason, understand that you just
rationalized your acceptance of the Bible.  And rationalizing things is
something you just spoke against.  Then look at "how" you interpret it's
words.  The intellectualizing grows more and more.

In one sense I agree with you.  I think that the NT has been scrutinized to the
point where the "flavor" of what Jesus was teaching is lost in the artificial
noise.  His teachings were really quite simple to understand but often
difficult to follow.  So rather than "selling all that we have and following
Jesus", we intellectualize the thing to the point where we sell nothing,
something that WE wanted all along. That's the way I see it anyway.


> we have a natural predisposition to ... follow God's chosen path

This sounds VERY VERY much like Zen philosophy.  Just thought you'd like to
know.  It's a philosophy of doing what comes natural and living in the present
"(become like children", "sufficient for the day...")


-dave

    From this pagan,
    
    it seems that there are chapters and chapters of "justified" genocide
    in the book so many Christians seem to have idolized.  Moses and the
    Midionites, Jehu and the Baalites, the fall of Jerico, the
    Ammonites.....
    
    If the Bible is literal truth it would seem that this book justified
    killing a pretty healthy percentage of the population in the early
    days.  
    
    

    Re .96 (Meg)
    
    This sort of apparent incongruity is why I find it so hard to accept the 
    Bible as a work composed by God.  If my guess is worth anything, I'd
    say that it's an anthology of stories, written by men over the ages.
    But this is coming from someone who does not accept the Bible as
    absolute trute "carte-blanche".
    
    The one shinning beacon in the whole thing is the common theme of Jesus
    in the NT.  My puny interpretation (FWIW) is that he restated or maybe
    summarized all the stories into a single, simple philosophy which
    everyone can understand.  But even his message got garbled over the
    eons.  On this theme, I reccommend "The Gospel According to Jesus" by 
    Steven Mitchell.
    
    
    -dave
    
    

    Meg,
    
    You are absolutely correct in that respect.  Jehu and the Baalites is
    one of the many passages in the Bible that I find dispicable and
    absolutely not sacred.
    
    It is only through a process of idolization of the bible that
    Christians can accept these passages.  And if one accepts these
    passages as the word of God, then the burning of women as witches, the
    burning and  drowning of heretics, the Conquest are all deemed necessary
    and holy.
    
    Fortunately, the spirit of the commandment, "Thou shall not kill"
    speaks more directly to the hearts of women and men than the atrocities
    that follow directly after that commandment in the Exodus accounts.
    
    
                                   Patricia

     Z   If the Bible is literal truth it would seem that this book justified
     Z   killing a pretty healthy percentage of the population in the early
     Z   days.
    
    Meg:
    
    Speaking in human terms, I can empathize with your feelings.  However,
    consider the following...
    
    The Jewish people were a wandering bunch of vagabons.  Men, women and
    children who wandered through the desert...forty years, I can imagine
    how empty these people must have felt.  Finally after the last of that
    generation died off, they were allowed to enter the promised land.
    
    The Canaanite people were not congenial by any means.  The Canaanites
    were physically superior to anybody alive even today.  They were a very
    strong and very agile people and were not to be reckoned with.
    
    Now I realize that as humans, our faith can be shakey.  The Hebrew
    scribes wrote that as this group of vagabonds surrounded Jericho, these
    very towering and strong mens hearts were melting with fear.  Now why
    do you suppose this is the case?  Could it be that the news of what
    happened in Egypt spread throughout the region?  Could it be that these
    pagans knew what had happened to Egypt and knew in their hearts that
    the God of Abraham was with these people...and that they would suffer
    the same fate.  You see Meg, you cannot blame a small group of
    Vagabonds for the actions of their leader.  Now who do you suppose this
    leader is Meg?  
    
    -Jack

    By the way, I know snarfs are frowned upon in this forum so I won't do
    it even though I want to!

    snarfs?

    Re: .96 & genocide
    
    The Rig Veda (Hinduism) also speaks of the Aryan conquests in India 
    (destroyed the Indus culture).  Genocide is also a way of life in
    Islam.  The Jews have been on both sides of the genocide spectrum -
    several times.  It was common practice in the ancient world.  In the
    case of the Jews, it has happened in the modern era.  So what is your 
    point?  
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    re: .95 (Dave)
    
>You spoke against intellect as a means to get at the truth (God).  
    
    No, not really.  I spoke against over-intellectualizing things. 
    Perhaps I didn't get my point across very well.  I said that intellect can
    be a bigger stumbling block than a help, in many instances.  
    
>    Yet this God
>supposedly created us armed to the teeth with senses, a brain and a curious
>mind.  It would seem to me that wondering and intellectualizing would be
>exactly what the creator of humanity designed us to do.  
    
    Certainly.  But this is not the way to faith for many people.  The way
    to faith is paved with a yearning for that something missing in our
    lives...a hole that can only be filled by God.  You cannot
    intellectualize yourself to salvation.  It may be one step in your
    particular path, but that is all.
    
>    In fact, our very
>survival depends on using these faculties (eat plants the look like this, flee
>when you see a tiger, fire needs wood, etc... ).  Why is it invalid to extend
>this wonderful gift to the realm of metaphysics and religion?

    I didn't say it was invalid.  My whole contention was that it is not
    enough in itself. 
    
>If you use biblical passages to dispute this, ask yourself why you accept the
>Bible as truth.  
    
    Faith.
    
>    When you come up with a reason, understand that you just
>rationalized your acceptance of the Bible.  
    
    Faith != rationalization.  Rationalization is an intellectual animal-
    faith is a belief in something that the intellect cannot prove.
    
>In one sense I agree with you.  I think that the NT has been scrutinized to the
>point where the "flavor" of what Jesus was teaching is lost in the artificial
>noise.  His teachings were really quite simple to understand but often
>difficult to follow.  So rather than "selling all that we have and following
>Jesus", we intellectualize the thing to the point where we sell nothing,
>something that WE wanted all along. That's the way I see it anyway.

    Now you've got the right idea.  
    
> we have a natural predisposition to ... follow God's chosen path

    This is not exactly what I said, at least not within the context I
    intended.  You read the words, certainly, but I think you missed the
    overall message I was trying to convey.

    A better wording would have been: "we all have a God-sized hole in our
    lives...it is in our nature to seek Him".  Unfortunately, there's an
    awful lot of crap to wade through - deception and spiritual mumbo-jumbo
    that seeks to lead us down a wrong path.
    
    "Narrow is the path..."
    
    
    -steve                 

    I'd like to recommend a secular book entitled "Ancient & Modern Israel
    - an exploration of political parallels" by Ira Sharkansky (Political
    Science professor at Hebrew University).  History shows that Israel's
    few opportunities as a "world" power were really because the world's
    empires were busy somewhere else or temporarily weakened.  They were
    never really a major power, not even in the ancient world.  Israel was
    also a major highway for all the world's great military powers.  It
    still is, and they still have the world's superpowers telling them what
    to do with their own land.  Sharkansky explains all this in great detail.  
    
    For example, the Jews experienced some power during the Hellenistic
    period after Alexander the Great died and his kingdom was quartered
    off.  Greece had lost its power and/or was busy elsewhere, and Rome
    hadn't rose to power yet.  It was only under these circumstances that
    Israel managed to gain independence from Greece.
    
    Anyone who says Israel was destroying a large percentage of the world's
    people and committing genocide doesn't know their history.
    
    Mike

RE .103 (Steve)

A leap of faith defies reason.  It makes no sense to attempt to rationalize 
such an act.  I'm not saying this in a derogatory way.  I just mean to state 
that the two are mutually exclusive.  I think we may be in agreement on this.

But if you "leap" to the Bible, then you have to take it in it's entirety. I
dunno, maybe one can "leap" to some convenient subset of the Bible that 
"seems" acceptable, but then the "seeming" starts to smell like 
intellectualizing again.

>I didn't say it was invalid.  My whole contention was that it is not enough in
>itself.

If faith is used, I'd have to disagree and say that intellectualizing is
invalid.  If the Bible says that NOah shoved 2 of every animal on a boat made of
sticks, then that's what you've got to believe happened and forget about how
absurd it seems intellectually.

       vv
>Faith != rationalization.
A 'C' programmer :-)))

>> we have a natural predisposition to ... follow God's chosen path

>    This is not exactly what I said, at least not within the context I

Actualy, I just edited it out of .94....

"Not that we should ignorantly fall into any religion, but
    that we have a natural predisposition to - as well as an innermost
    "child-like" knowledge - follow God's chosen path, we need only to have
    that path pointed out to us in order to start walking down it."


>"we all have a God-sized hole in our
>    lives...it is in our nature to seek Him".

I'd rephrase "we all have a hole in our lives.. it's our nature to try to fill
it".  Maybe the meanings are similar.



-dave

    I only know about the history of the israelites from what I have read
    in a book which some people worship as the voice of god(dess)  32
    thousand women and children left after the order to kill all the men,
    non-virgin women, boys....... tells me a pretty healthy percentage of a
    tribe and the world's population at that time were wiped off the face
    of the earth.  (midionites)  All this because one Midionite woman saw
    the Ark of the Covenant?
    
    Hevites, Baalites, Jesubites, Malachites............  all tribes,
    completely wiped out by the Isrealites.  I still consider this a huge
    percentage.  
    
    The reason for this is your accusing only pagans of having brought
    genocidal acts into the world.  
    
    Yes I am aware of the indo-european bronze-age massacres as the ancient
    Celts came across Europe.  I am also aware of the Mongolion, Mohamedan
    and others who also did forced conversions to faiths.  I also remember
    the Crusades.  BTW Hitler's own words in "Mien Kampf" refers to himself
    as a non-denominational christian.  True, he went into a form of
    mysticism, but that was after the tides of his genocide and wars began
    to turn against him.
    
    I also know of the fairly successful genocide that went on in this
    country from the 1600's regarding the people that already were
    occupying this chunk of real estate, as well as the intentional
    destruction of their culture and religion through slaughter of animals
    sacred to the plains tribes, the destruction of orchards and sheep
    herds for the Dinee, the Apache, and the pueblo tribes in the
    southwest, the Sand Creek Massacre, the wounded knee Massacre, the
    broken treaties.......  All also committed by people who called
    themselves christians.  Looks fairly successful, after reading the
    booklet that was mailed to my house by some "christian" group calling
    the North American continent the only place where god could start his
    people out with no other humans present.  
    
    No, the pagans, the athiests, the practicers of Islam, Bhuddism,
    Hinduism, etc, aren't the only practicers of genocide.  meglomaniac
    believers in Yaweh have done more than their fare share as well.  
    
    meg

>    non-virgin women, boys....... tells me a pretty healthy percentage of a
>    tribe and the world's population at that time were wiped off the face
>    of the earth.  (midionites)  All this because one Midionite woman saw
>    the Ark of the Covenant?
>    
>    Hevites, Baalites, Jesubites, Malachites............  all tribes,
>    completely wiped out by the Isrealites.  I still consider this a huge
>    percentage.  
    
    History proves you wrong here too.  Sharkansky shows that the ratio of
    Jew to non-Jew populations were the same then as it is now (i.e., about
    equal) within Israeli borders.  The totals are just a small fraction of
    the worldwide population.
    
>    The reason for this is your accusing only pagans of having brought
>    genocidal acts into the world.  
    
    I've never made such claims.  You're confusing me with someone else.
    
>    the Crusades.  BTW Hitler's own words in "Mien Kampf" refers to himself
>    as a non-denominational christian.  True, he went into a form of
>    mysticism, but that was after the tides of his genocide and wars began
>    to turn against him.
    
    Regardless of what he wrote before entering power, he was a known
    Catholic while committing genocide.  He actually told the Vatican that
    he would once and for all take care of the Jew "problem" that they
    never solved.  The whole time the Vatican turned a blind eye to the
    entire holocaust.  Anti-semitism in the Church of Rome has never been a
    secret.  Like we've said before in here recently, "by their fruit you
    shall know them." 
    
>    themselves christians.  Looks fairly successful, after reading the
>    booklet that was mailed to my house by some "christian" group calling
>    the North American continent the only place where god could start his
>    people out with no other humans present.  
    
    Probably just jealous because the "victims" of genocide have more
    casinos and material wealth than them.
    
>    No, the pagans, the athiests, the practicers of Islam, Bhuddism,
>    Hinduism, etc, aren't the only practicers of genocide.  meglomaniac
>    believers in Yaweh have done more than their fare share as well.  
    
    On this we agree.  There have been things done in probably all
    religions, in their god's name, that were embarassing.  I just wanted
    to clarify that the finger-pointing is uncalled for.  You need to
    keep in mind that not all the historical battles in the Old Testament
    were condoned by G-d.  I'd have to research it, but there may not be
    much outside of the capture of the Promised Land.
    
    Mike

>>    themselves christians.  Looks fairly successful, after reading the
>>    booklet that was mailed to my house by some "christian" group calling
>>    the North American continent the only place where god could start his
>>    people out with no other humans present.  
>    
>    Probably just jealous because the "victims" of genocide have more
>    casinos and material wealth than them.

We slaughter them.  We take their land.  We deny them rights.
So now we let them open casinos.

Sounds like we're even now, doesn't it?
    
>    to clarify that the finger-pointing is uncalled for.  You need to
>    keep in mind that not all the historical battles in the Old Testament
>    were condoned by G-d.  I'd have to research it, but there may not be
>    much outside of the capture of the Promised Land.

Or, at least that's how the victors wrote about it.

Tom

>The whole time the Vatican turned a blind eye to the entire holocaust.

This is a lie, as the next several replies will document.

/john

From _The New York Times_, December 25, 1942,  p. 16 (editorial):

{QUOTE}
The Pope's Verdict

No Christmas sermon reaches a larger congregation than the message
Pope Pius XII addresses to a war-torn world at this season.  This
Christmas more than ever he is a lonely voice crying out of the
silence of a continent.  The pulpit whence he speaks is more than ever
like the rock on which the Church was founded, a tiny island lashed
and surrounded by a sea of war.  In these circumstances, in any
circumstances, indeed, no one would expect the Pope to speak as a
political leader, or a war leader, or in any other role than that of a
preacher ordained to stand above the battle, tied impartially, as he
says, to all people and willing to collaborate in any new order which
will bring a just peace.

But just because the Pope speaks to and in some cases for all the
peoples at war, the clear stand he takes on the fundamental issues of
the conflict has greater weight and authority.  When a leader bound
impartially to nations on both sides condemns as heresy the new form
of national state which subordinates everything to itself; when he
declares that whoever wants peace must protect against "arbitrary
attacks" the "juridical safety of individuals"; when he assails
violent occupation of territory, the exile and persecution of human
beings for no reason other than race or political opinion; when he
says that people must fight for a just and decent peace, a "total
peace" -- the "impartial" judgment is like a verdict in a high court
of justice.

Pope Pius expresses as passionately as any leader on our side the war
aims of the struggle for freedom when he says that those who aim at
building a new world must fight for free choice of government and
religious order.  They must refuse that the state should make of
individuals a herd of whom the state disposes as if they were lifeless
things.

{QUOTE ENDS}-

  Peter Hebblethwaite in _Paul VI_ discusses Montini's, Pius XII's
  right hand man, role in all this pp. 161-174.  The main book to read
  seems to be Owen Chadwick's _Britain and the Vatican_ which covers
  what Pius XII did and did not do.  Hebblethwaite quotes part of the
  Christmas address.

  "In his 1942 Christmas message Pius [XII] was more forthright than
  he had ever been before.  He condemned the idolatry of the state
  and alluded to `the hundreds of thousands of innocent people, put
  to death or doomed to slow extinction, sometimes (talora) merely
  because of their race or descent'.  The Pope judged this a strong
  statement.  So did the Germans."  p.170.

  The Holy See was threaten with retaliation for this breach of
  neutrality.  The German Foreign Office concluded "he is
  clearly speaking on behalf of the Jews".

  As Hebblethwaite points out - this showed the effectiveness of
  Pius XII's interventions.  It is  pity he did not do more.

  Martin Gilbert in _The Holocaust_ pp 622-623 explains that Pius XII
  offerred the Jewish community of Rome whatever Gold it might need to
  pay German ransom demands, and when on Oct 16, The Germans began combing
  the streets of Rome for Jews, Pius XII a few days earlier had personally
  orders the vatican clergy to open the sanctuaries of the Vatican to
  all "non-Aryans" needing refuge.  By Oct 16 477 Jews had been given
  sanctuary in the Vatican and 4,238 had been given sanctuary in other
  monasteries and convents.  Of 6,730 Jews in Rome only [!] 1,015
  were siezed.  Of these only 16 survived the war.

  On p 701. Gilbert also reports that the Pope along with the Red Cross
  and the King of Sweden demanded that the Hungarian Regent Horthy
  stop deportations of Jews.  On July 8th 1944 they stopped: 437,000
  jews had already been deported by this time from Hungary.

  On P. 451 Gilbert reports that Cardinal Gerlier of Lyons refused
  to surrender the children of Jews who had already been deported.

  There is a good discussion of the opposition put up by at least
  some of the German Catholic Clergy to Nazism in

  Richard Plant, _The Pink Triangle: The Nazi War against
  Homosexuals_, (New York: Henry Holt, 1986), pp. 130-137.

  Plant in particular refers to the courageous stand of
  Cardinal Konrad Preysing of Berlin and Cardinal Clemens
  von Galen of Munster.  Between 1937 and 1945 more than
  4000 clerics died in concentration camps [p. 136].

The following was the joint telegram the Dutch Churches (Catholic and non-
Catholic) to Reichskommisar Seyss-Inquart:

   The undersigned Dutch Churches, profoundly disturbed by the measures
   already taken against the Jews of the Netherlands by which they have
   become excluded from the ordinary life of the nation, have now learned
   with horror of the proposed action which would evacuate men, women,
   children, and entire families into German territory.  The suffering
   this would cause to thousands of people, the awareness that these
   measures are contrary to the deepest convictions of the Dutch people,
   and, above all, the resistance that such a step would constitute to
   God's commands of justice and mercy, compel us to petition you urgently
   not to have this directive carried out.  In the case of Christians
   of Jewish descent, we are moved by a further consideration: namely,
   such measures would sever them from participation in the life of the
   Church.  (Telegramm der niederlandischen Kirchengemeinden an
   Reichskommisar Seyss-Inquart", 1942, in Jakob Schlaffke, *Edith Stein
   Dokumente zu ihrem Leben und Sterben* (Cologne,1980), p.33

The following was read in every Catholic parish in Holland on July 26, 1942
under the authority of the Bishop of Utrecht:

   Dear Brethren,
   When Jesus drew near to Jerusalem and saw the city before him, he wept
   over it and said, "O, if even today you understood the things that make
   for peace!  But now they are concealed from your sight."...Dear brethren,
   let us begin by examining ourselves in a spirit of profound humility
   and sorrow.  Are we not partly to blame for the calamities which we
   are suffering?  Have we always sought first for God's Kingdom and
   his righteousness?  Have we always fulfilled the demands of justice
   and charity toward our fellowmen?... When we examine ourselves, we are
   forced to admit that all of us have failed....Let us beseech God...to
   bring about swiftly a just peace in the world and to strengthen the
   people of Israel so sorely tested in these days, leading them to true
   redemption in Christ Jesus. (*Hirtenbrief der niederlandischen
                                Bischofe vom 20. Juli 1942)

Both these texts appear in *Edith Stein* by Waltraub Herbstrith.  The
author points out that the first telegram was written to protest the Nazi
deportation of Jews to German territory.  There was a short lived respite,
but then continued.  The author writes:

   As the deportation of the majority of Jews continued, the Churches
   decided to express their concern publicly.  They composed a joint
   pastoral letter for their congregations that included the text
   of their telegram to the Reichskommisar.  Seyss-Inquart heard
   of their intention at the last moment and vetoed it.  While some
   of the denominations bowed to the command, the Bishop of Utrecht
   informed the Occupation that it had no right to intervene in
   ecclesiastical affairs."

The bishop then had the previous pastoral letter and the telegram read in
all parishes of Holland.  In direct response to this every Jewish Catholic
in Holland was immediately arrested and executed.

The author also points out that in reaction to the Jews of Holland being
made to wear the yellow star, many Dutch Christians began wearing the star
themselves.

  There's a book which describes the actions of Popes Pius XI, Pius XII,
  John XXIII, and to an extent Paul VI regarding the Jews. The title of
  this work is _Three Popes and The Jews_, written by Pinchas Lapide,
  an Israeli diplomat. [Hawthorn Books, New York 1967]

  According to Mr. Lapide, Vatican efforts resulted in the saving
  of 860,000 Jewish lives during WWII.  There are almost 100 pages
  detailing Pius' actions in the section titled "What Pius XII did for
  Jews", while 27 pages are devoted to what he did not do.

  Yet look at what the author describes in the section about what Pius
  did not do.

  "On September 13, 1943, the Governor General of Vatican City received a
  phone call from the Military Commander of Rome informing him that at 4 PM
  on the same day German sentries would be posted at the Vatican-Italian
  boundary line.  At the appointed hour Nazi paratroopers appeared in full
  battle dress and machine guns and took up 'protective patrol'." [p. 257]

  The next 2 pages describe how Pius intervened in raising whatever gold was
  required to help the Chief Rabbi meet a demand that he turn 50 Kg of gold
  over to the Nazis.

  On Oct 16, the round up of Roman Jews began.  Pius protested to the
  German ambassador and the ambassador stated he could do nothing with
  the Gestapo.  Pius then got the head of the Italian Red Cross to
  personally protest and was given as a reply "useless to get excited,
  useless to be concerned, useless to inquire."  Pius did get the rector
  of the German Church in Rome to appeal General Stahel.  This appeal
  apparently worked, for on Oct 17 the bishop was informed that upon
  hearing of the stand taken by the Vatican, Himmler had issued orders
  to stop the arrests. [pages 259-260]

  Then Pius published an editorial in the Osservatore Romano

  "After the Pope has in vain endeavoured, as is well known, to
  avert the outbreak of war ... he has used all possible means at
  his disposal in order to alleviate the sufferings which in any manner
  resulted from the heinous world conflagaration. With the aggravation
  of so much misery, the activities of universal and paternal succour by
  the Pope have mutliplied; they know no limitations, *neither of nationality,
  nor religion, nor race*. This manifold and ceaseless activity of the Pope
  has, of late, grown still in further in depth, due to the increased suffering
  of so many unfortunate people." [page 261]

  As the Jewish author states, to the tens of thousands who read the
  Osservatore, there was only one clear meaning to the Pope's words:
  Do all you can to hide and save Jews from the clutches of the Germans.

  Mr. LaPide points out that Pius XI issued 48 Anti-Nazi diatribes, sermons,
  speeches and encyclicals between 1930 and 1939.  That at least a dozen times
  Pius XI declared that "Nazism and Christianity are not compatible", that
  a "good Catholic can not serve the idols of racialism." These, along with
  Mit Brennender Sorge apparently fell on deaf ears. [page 237]

  In 1940, Pius said, "We were not afraid of guns pointed at us once; we
  shall fear them even less the second time.... We ought to speak words of
  fire against the atrocities in Poland, and the only thing which restrains
  us is the knowledge that words would make the fate of those wretches even
  worse." [page 231]

    try reading chapters 18-19 of "A Woman Rides the Beast" by Dave Hunt.
    Titles are: "Background to the Holocaust" and "The Vatican, the Nazis, 
    and the Jews."  I can post quotes that show the Vatican and Pius II 
    turned a blind eye.  the book has an extensive bibliography to use as a
    foundation for further research.  Here are some highlights:
    
On a recent "Primetime Live" show (ABC), Sam Donaldson interviewed an escaped
Nazi official.  On the same show an Ex-OSS military intelligence officer
confirms the Vatican's involvement with the Nazis.  U.S. intelligence, through a
burglary, found documents and photographs showing the Vatican was behind
smuggling thousands of the worst Nazi criminals to South America (Argentina)
after the war.  This is documented history and can't be denied.

The Popes are the ones who made it punishable by death for a non-Jew to marry a
Jew.  They also made them live in the ghettos and wear an identifying badge.  A
book that is extremely difficult to find contains some real startling
information about this.  The Simon-Dison Hall Center of Los Angeles, more
commonly known as the Nazi hunters, has library services to help you find
relevant books at their closest location.  "The Vatican & Nazi Germany" by
Hassler (a Catholic who worked in the Vatican Archives) is a book that will be
tough to get.  Hassler met an untimely murder just after he finishes it.
The closest copy of this book they could find to Mr. Hunt was in the library
of Southeast Louisiana State University.  This is a McGraw-Hill book that was
only in print a short time and is very uncommon, probably because someone is
taking them off the library shelves.  The book is about the Vatican and Nazi
Germany - how the Vatican literally put Hitler in power.  There's another book
that is more accessible called "Vicars of Christ" by Peter DeRosa, who is a
Jesuit Catholic historian.

Peter DeRosa says, "In 1936, the Bishop of Austenbrook talked with
the Fuhrer, Hitler, for over an hour.  Hitler assured his Lordship that there
was no fundamental difference between national socialism and the Catholic
church.  'Had not the church', he argued, 'looked upon Jews as parasites, and
shut them in ghettos?  I am only doing,' he boasted, 'what the church has done
for 1500 years, only more effectively!'"  As Catholics, Hitler and Mussolini
were never excommunicated from the Catholic Church.

Getting back to the "Primetime Live" program... Bishop Hudall was in charge of
the rat lines (underground railroad for Nazi war criminals) as a member of the
Nazi party and drove around with a Nazi flag on his car.  He was so open that he
eventually became an embarrassment to the Vatican and they got rid of him.  Ante
Pavolich was praised by the Pope and sheltered in the Vatican for 2 years after
WWII disguised as a Catholic priest.  This man was so evil, he once had a bowl
of what was believed to be raw oysters on his desk.  It turns out they were
human eyeballs.  The Croats and Nazis were accurate record keeps and they have
photos of all the dismembered bodies.  Pavolich ended up in Argentina too when
the Vatican was done with him, as the security advisor to Juan Peron.  

In 1929, the Catholics put Mussolini in power when the Concordat was signed.
They had a Catholic political party that was disbanded, they weren't allowed to
vote for anyone else, and it was a crime to say anything against the Catholic
church.  In 1933, the Concordat was signed that put Hitler in power.  All during
the war, the Nazis paid the Vatican hundreds of millions of dollars and Pope
Pius II remained absolutely silent about the Holocaust.  Eikman was the only
leader in the Holocaust that was *not* a Catholic, yet none of them were
excommunicated from the Catholic church.  90% of the SS was also Catholic.  If
the Pope had spoken out against the Holocaust, they would've listened, but
Judeocide is an official policy of the Vatican.  

>As Catholics, Hitler and Mussolini were never excommunicated from the
>Catholic Church.

They excommunicated themselves.

The rest of your quote is an ignorant pack of half-truths and lies.

/john

    John,
    
    Mike said:
    
>As Catholics, Hitler and Mussolini were never excommunicated from the
>Catholic Church.

    You said:
    
>>They excommunicated themselves.
    
    This is an equivocation on the term excommunicated.  You know full well
    that "excommunication" is a formal disciplinary act by the Roman
    church toward unrepentant sinning members. Members do not excommunicate
    themselves.  They may disassociate themselves and remove themselves
    from the relationship but this is not "excommunication" as formally
    practiced by Roman Catholicism.

>>The rest of your quote is an ignorant pack of half-truths and lies.

    I'm generally in agreement with you here.  The premillenial
    dispensationalist must have Roman Catholicism as an evil conspirator
    in the end-times saga, especially where the Jews are concerned, in
    order to make sense out of their eschatology.  
    
    jeff

    re .106
    
    Meg,
    
    I believe the argument you presented regarding the ancient Hebrews
    exterminating a good deal of the tribes assumes the Bible can be used
    as history, which it can only in a limited ways.  Most of the numbers
    used in the Bible are believed by real biblical scholars to be
    exagerrations.  
    
    The discussions in the Bible that say that the Israelites wiped out
    Caananite tribes cannot be taken literally.  They are also self
    contradictory.  One passage says a tribe is wiped out and later the
    Israelites are shown in battle again with the same tribe.
    
    Even the number of people whom moses led out of Egypt is greatly
    disputed.  Some historians say Zero, that the whole tale is a myth,
    others assume a small tribe then united with indigenous Caanaanite people
    who eventuality evolved into the Hebrew people.  There are a number of
    competing, scholastically sound theories out there right now.  It is
    clear to real historians though that the desserts did not support the
    number of people cited in the Bible.
    
    (A case can be made that both Moses' wife and Moses' alleged sister
    Miriam were priestesses)
    
    But even though the facts assume the historical accuracy of the bible,
    which is not the way to look at the bible, the conclusion is the same.
    
    The Israelites did attempt to wipe out all foreigners in the land.  The
    Biblical stories support this attempted Genocided as being God
    mandated.  It does set up the precedent with the Israelite Culture and
    then within the Christian Culture for the Extermination of the ungodly.
    
    The burning of heretics by Christians throughout the middle ages, is in
    my opinion supported by the biblical literature itself, particularly
    the Old Testament literature.
    
    I also understand that this in a modern perspective on history itself.
    I don't have the background to know whether the Ancient Israelites were
    any more violent or less violent than other people.  It was a very
    Bloody world then and even now.
    
    Biblical study really is fascinating, particularly once one can divorce
    themself from idolizing the book.    My own personal experience
    indicates though that for anyone brought up on "the book", it is very
    difficult not to idolize the book. 

    re .116
    
    it's outstounding that I find myself agreeing with Jeff.
    
    I do hate Catholic bashing.
    
    
    Germany has always been a very Protestant nation.  Almost all
    Protestant Christian Theologians in the 1920-1930's came from Germany.
    
    There had to be something very amiss in the German Christian Church to
    have allowed for the holecaust.  There also had to be something amiss
    with all Christian Churches worldwide to allow for the holecaust.
    
    I make that statement not as comdemnation but as self criticism.  The
    Christian Church to live up to its vision must be a force of justice
    and love.
                              

 Z   We slaughter them.  We take their land.  We deny them rights.
 Z   So now we let them open casinos.
    
    Tom, while I see your point, let's be careful not to be historical
    revisionists here.  Various tribes of North American Indians were
    continually in tribal warfare with one another.  Similar acts of
    barbarism, including canibalism, were not out of the ordinary amongst
    Indian tribes.
    
    This may not be germane to your point but let's not paint the picture
    here that while we attacked all these Indian tribes, they sat
    peacefully smoking the pipe.  
    
    -Jack

    The interesting thing is that the Bible condemns killing as a
    commandment but then condones wholesale killing later on.  In areas
    like this, there appears to be a double standard.  It's not till much 
    later when Jesus condemned killing catagorically, to the point of loving 
    one's enemies, that there's some consistency.  But it requires taking
    parts of the OT with skepticism.
    
    With regard to the Vatican and Hitler, even if it were true, it's peanuts 
    compared to the blatent acts of earlier times.  I'm thinking of popes 
    leading crusades into battle, plundering the region, condoning the 
    inquisition, etc... .  They're just people and people can be corrupted
    and screw up.  So what purpose does it serve to drag all this up
    anyway?  
    
    -dave

 Z   The interesting thing is that the Bible condemns killing as a
 Z   commandment but then condones wholesale killing later on. 
    
    Actually the commandment refers to 1st degree murder.  I believe that
    Israel was the instrument of God's judgement...considering the enemies
    of Israel were physically far more fortified and stronger than the
    Israelites.  The difference was that God went before them in battle.
    
    -Jack

    Actually the commandment " Thou shall not kill" 
     refered to Israelites only.
    
    
    The Old Testament should be looked upon as the evolution of Religious
    ideas. 
    
    The earliest writings in the OT identify Yahweh as a tribal God of the
    Israelites.  One of many tribal Gods.
    
    In this ancient mythological setting, the battles on earth amongst
    tribes paralleled the battles in Heaven amongst the Gods.\
    
    Within the Old Testament itself we can see the evolution of the idea of
    One Universal God, concerned with the well being of all humanity.  We
    can also see the evolution of abstract ideas of social justice.
    
    In the New Testament, we see both inclusionary and exclusionary
    theological concepts.  The idea of One God, and the primary principle,
    of Love for all humanity becomes more developed in the New Testament.
    
    Christianity like all religions continues to evolve.  It will evolve to
    be more in more in alignment with the Divine Reality or it will be
    superceded. 
    
      

	Having visited the British museum and having seen some
      	of the Caananite artifacts one can see why God passed  
	judgment on them. There were many jars that contained 
 	the ashes of their children that had been offered up
 	as a sacrifice to Molech (2 Kings 23:10), the parents
	had to look on without showing any sign of feeling 
        otherwise the sacrifice would have been invalidated.
	Now the Phoenicians (Caananites) at the time were great
	seafarer's but they were not just exporting their trade
	(purple) but also their debasing practices such as child 
	sacrifice.

	Now it may have been for this reason that Jehovah appointed 
	his nation the Israelites as an executional force before such 
	practices would be allowed to take root in other nations.
	The Israelites had been commanded to kill all the inhabitants
	of the land otherwise they would in time be induced to 
	follow their false worship. Though most of the inhabitants
	were killed by Jehovah (by getting them to kill each other)
 	the Isrealites failed in their God given assignment. Time
	showed that many Israelites were induced to follow Baal
	worship and as Jeremiah 7:31 NWT reads "And they have built the
	high places of Topteth, which is in the valley of the son of
	Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and daughters in the fire,
	a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up
	into my heart."

	So I agree with Jack that the Isrealites were an instrument of
	God's judgment.

	Now it would be wrong for a Christian to feel that they have a 
	mandate to kill for the apostle Paul shows that their weapons are 
	not carnal but spiritual (2 corinthians  10:3-4). Further, from
	a prophecy standpoint Jehovah has already appointed his
	executional force to remove the wicked at Armageddon (Revelation
	16:14,16, 19:11-21) of which his earthly subjects take no part.


	Phil.

re .122

	Patricia,

;Actually the commandment " Thou shall not kill" refered to Israelites only.

	It's interesting to note that the command not to shed innocent blood
	was given to Noah and his family (compare Genesis 9:6). According to 
	the Bible, from this family all the nations came from. And therefore 
	the command to not shed innocent blood has been given to all nations.


	Phil.

    >The rest of your quote is an ignorant pack of half-truths and lies.
    
    I don't think you can make such a statement without performing some
    well-rounded research (i.e., not just biased/Catholic sources).
    
    Mike

    I'm not usually one to shy away from verbal conflict but the
    way this discussion is going is making me very uncomfortable.

    Please let it cool down.

    Please?

    Tom

| <<< Note 1243.125 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| I don't think you can make such a statement without performing some
| well-rounded research (i.e., not just biased/Catholic sources).

	Mike, maybe the conclusions are partly based on your past visits here?

    Re: Phil,
    
    Yes, I was also going to bring up the fact that Cain murdered his
    brother Abel well before the time of Moses.  Murder is a natural
    transgression which needs not be written.
    
    -Jack

    	
    My favorite political slogan this season: a quadriplegic woman in my
    community is running for some office.  Her slogan: "Paralyzed from the
    neck down, not from the neck up!"  I can't get this truly funny slogan
    out of my mind.
    
    jeff

    RE .121 (Jack)
    
    >Actually the commandment refers to 1st degree murder.
    
    Where did that come from?  Is the 1st degree qualifier the word of God or 
    an artifact used to allow certain forms of killing?  
    
    >...considering the enemies of Israel were physically far more fortified 
    > and stronger...
    
    So if your enemy is stronger than you, you're justified in
    exterminating them in a sneak attack?
    
    >The difference was that God went before them in battle.
    
    The problem with this is that anyone can make the same claim whenever
    they want to kill someone.  "God told me to do it" can't be allowed as
    an excuse for murder.  
    
    If God wanted to clear the land for occupancy by the Israelites, then
    why did he use them to commit an act which violated one of his
    commandments, leaving the generations thereafter to puzzle over the
    contradiction?   An omnipotent God could have seen to it that no one
    was in the promised land when they arrived.
    
    It's not too difficult to see how "Thou Shall Not Kill" got watered
    down from an absolute to a relative mandate as a practical measure for 
    survival in the ancient world.  My question is in regard to who did the 
    watering down?  I don't recall there being a list of footnotes on the
    stone tablets.
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    
    
    

 Z   So if your enemy is stronger than you, you're justified in
 Z   exterminating them in a sneak attack?
    
    Dave, there were cases in scripture where the morning would come and
    hundreds of thousands of the enemy would be lying down dead...no
    apparent reason other than the hand of God striking an army.
    
    Keep in mind David that although the Israelites were fed manna and
    heard of the miracles, i.e. the plagues and the parting of the Red Sea,
    they were very quick to forget.  What better way for God to glorify
    himself...what better way than to urge the Israelites to follow his
    commands to the letter.  I believe the Battle of Jericho was a very
    clear and sobering message...the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob was THE
    GOD.  
    
    The Mosaic law instituted the death penalty for cases of murder. 
    Therefore, it follows logically that God did not see the act of war in
    the case of Jericho as murder.  Jericho was a clear case of God's
    judgement being meted out.
    
    -Jack

>    The Mosaic law instituted the death penalty for cases of murder. 

And for failing to observe the Sabbath, which we seem to have pretty
much discarded.

Let's also remember these instructions were given to a nomadic people who
lacked the luxury of being able to deal with offenses in any way but the most
expeditious.

Richard

    
    Your position is a pure rationalisation, Richard.  I don't think it is
    objectively possible to read the Bible accounts of God's revelation to
    the Jews of that time and say that they were based upon the
    circumstances.  God's laws represent God's real decrees and reflect His
    attributes.  Capital punishment for capital crimes is not a utilitarian
    concept but the justice of God.
    
    jeff

    The task of the believer is to reconcile the commandment with what the
    Israelites did to the Caananites.  I've read many responses that try to
    do this.   I've read that the poor little Israelites were led to a
    glorious victory over the big bad Caananites, testimony to the power of 
    the one true God.  If you believe the Bible, these sort of explanations 
    may make sense.  How else could you justifty what happened?
    
    But from an objective point, reading the Bible as an historical
    document, the Israelites wandered to an area that they wanted to settle, 
    led a sneak attack on the current occupants and massacred everyone there.
    They did this despite the fact that they had standing orders from their
    god not to kill.  If you DON'T believe the Bible represents the whole
    truth, cover to cover, then THIS sort of explanation makes sense.
    
    I'm curious.  If a story similar to Jericho was found in the Koran, how
    would you percieve the event?
    
    -dave

    Dave,
    
>    The task of the believer is to reconcile the commandment with what the
>    Israelites did to the Caananites.  I've read many responses that try to
>    do this.   I've read that the poor little Israelites were led to a
>    glorious victory over the big bad Caananites, testimony to the power of 
>    the one true God.  If you believe the Bible, these sort of explanations 
>    may make sense.  How else could you justifty what happened?

The task of every man is to subject himself to the self-attesting God of
Scriptures.  There is no tension between the Bible in its record and in its 
interpretation of events.  You, Dave, interject the tension by not knowing
or believing what it says (willful ignorance and unbelief for which you are 
culpable before God - but the Lord will reconcile to Himself those who repent
and turn in faith toward Christ as their Lord and Savior).
    
>    But from an objective point, reading the Bible as an historical
>    document, the Israelites wandered to an area that they wanted to settle, 
>    led a sneak attack on the current occupants and massacred everyone there.
>    They did this despite the fact that they had standing orders from their
>    god not to kill.  If you DON'T believe the Bible represents the whole
>    truth, cover to cover, then THIS sort of explanation makes sense.

First off your point is neither objective or historical.  The biblical record of
Israels' battles must include the biblical God which is integral to the 
record.  Secondly, there is nothing "objective" whatsoever about your
point.  Your "point" is full of presuppositions.

If you DON'T believe the Bible represents the whole truth (in this matter)
then you should ignore it altogether as any kind of record and rely on some
other source which you do believe in.
 
jeff

>If you DON'T believe the Bible represents the whole truth (in this matter)
>then you should ignore it altogether as any kind of record and rely on some
>other source which you do believe in.

    Isn't that sort of like throwing the baby out with the bath water?

    To say that you must either believe the Bible in it's entirety
    or reject it entirely is simply false.

    Tom

| <<< Note 1243.135 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| If you DON'T believe the Bible represents the whole truth (in this matter)
| then you should ignore it altogether as any kind of record and rely on some
| other source which you do believe in.

	Jeff, the above does not make sense. If one believes in the Bible 100%,
then that is fine for them. If another believes it is a great history book,
then they know up front that what is in there could be wrong, could be right.
In both cases there is a faith that is needed. That faith being in Christ, not
the book. That faith being in Christ showing you what it is He wants you to
see. And the latter is the hardest part with us being human and all. Because we
will still follow our own instincts from time to time. But if we have the faith
in Him, then we are set.


Glen

>The task of every man is to subject himself to the self-attesting God of
>Scriptures.

Says who?

>There is no tension between the Bible in its record and in its
>interpretation of events.

"Thou shall not kill". The Israelites killed the Caananites.  You're right
Jeff, there's no tension.

You, Dave, interject the tension by not knowing
>or believing what it says 

I know what it says.  I reread it last night.  I hold it's explanations
highly suspect as I do Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea and the
likelihood that someone could survive for days inside the belly of a whale.


>(willful ignorance and unbelief for which you are
>culpable before God)

Wrong.  I seek the truth wholeheartedly.  I choose not to IGNORe the
possibility that some of the Bible is fiction.  And if I am culpable, Jeff,
then that's between me and God.

>but the Lord will reconcile to Himself those who repent
>and turn in faith toward Christ as their Lord and Savior

Tried that.  Saw no difference in anything.  Still keep the avenue open
though.

>First off your point is neither objective or historical.

And yours is????  remove the beam Jeff.

>The biblical record of
>Israels' battles must include the biblical God which is integral to the
>record.

Makes about as much sense as saying that there's no truth in anything
written down by the ancient Greeks unless you take it in the context that
Zeus played a role in the events.  The truth's there, you just have to
filter it out from the chaff.

>Secondly, there is nothing "objective" whatsoever about your point.

Relative term.  I'm looking at the thing from the perspective of not
necessarily believing the accounting is the absolute truth.  The dictionary 
tells me that objective means "Uninfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice". 
Relatively speaking, who can be more objective about this thing?

>Your "point" is full of presuppositions.

How do you know what my "presuppositions" may or may not be?

>If you DON'T believe the Bible represents the whole truth (in this matter)
>then you should ignore it altogether as any kind of record and rely on some
>other source which you do believe in.

There are no other sources Jeff.  Remember that the Israelites exterminated
all traces of the other party involved in the ordeal.  As I said before,
there's probably a lot of truth in the biblical account along with some
chaff.

You didn't answer the question about the Koran.  Wonder why.

-dave
                                                            

	Dave,

>The task of every man is to subject himself to the self-attesting God of
>Scriptures.

>>Says who?

God, through His revelation in the Bible.

>There is no tension between the Bible in its record and in its
>interpretation of events.

>>"Thou shall not kill". The Israelites killed the Caananites.  You're right
>>Jeff, there's no tension.

But the same who said "Thou shalt not kill" said "kill the Caananites".
God makes the rules and the rules have to be understood in this context.
God reserves the right to make life and death decisions while limiting those
rights in His creatures.

>You, Dave, interject the tension by not knowing
>or believing what it says 

>>I know what it says.  I reread it last night.  I hold it's explanations
>>highly suspect as I do Noah's Ark, the parting of the Red Sea and the
>>likelihood that someone could survive for days inside the belly of a whale.

Well, I did say "not knowing or believing".  I should have said, not knowing
and not believing.  But a finer point may be made and that is that I would
think that even an unbeliever who was actually familiar and knowledgeable
about the accounts of God's giving of His laws and God's destruction of
CannaniteS could see that the two presuppose God's sovereignty which is
established in Genesis.


>(willful ignorance and unbelief for which you are
>culpable before God)

>>Wrong.  I seek the truth wholeheartedly.  

Not according to the Bible, you don't.

>>I choose not to IGNORe the..possibility that some of the Bible is fiction.  

But you have no reason or system for determining whether any is true or false.
So, you have arbitrarily made yourself the standard of what part of the Bible
is true or false and that is idolatry.  That is exactly what Adam did. 

>>And if I am culpable, Jeff,
>>then that's between me and God.

Yes, it is, Dave.  You are culpable and it is between you and God.  But
it would be between me, and you, and God if I didn't point out to you your
condition so that you might be saved from your sin as commanded in the Bible.
I know how you struggle, Dave.  I know how futile it is.  I've been there and
would still be there but for the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

>but the Lord will reconcile to Himself those who repent
>and turn in faith toward Christ as their Lord and Savior

>>Tried that.  Saw no difference in anything.  Still keep the avenue open
>>though.

You cannot trust Christ if you do not trust the self-attesting Christ of the
Scriptures.

>First off your point is neither objective or historical.

>>And yours is????  remove the beam Jeff.

No, mine is not!  My presupposition is that indeed God is the Creator of
all just as He says He is in Scripture and that what the Scriptures reveal
about God and men is true.  

>The biblical record of
>Israels' battles must include the biblical God which is integral to the
>record.

>>Makes about as much sense as saying that there's no truth in anything
>>written down by the ancient Greeks unless you take it in the context that
>>Zeus played a role in the events.  The truth's there, you just have to
>>filter it out from the chaff.

If you're thinking that the Greek philosophers used their religion as their
presuppositions you'd be completely wrong.  And if you even believe that
it would be possible to use the Greek mythology as the basis for any 
epistomology, you'd be completely wrong.  However, on the other hand,
the Bible is *the best* presupposition on which to build a theory of
knowledge for only it makes sense out of history and reality.

I challenge you to explain to me what method you shall use to say that
"the truth's there, you just have to filter it out from the chaff."
I don't think you can articulate even a sentence that would be explanatory
of a method.

>Secondly, there is nothing "objective" whatsoever about your point.

>>Relative term.  I'm looking at the thing from the perspective of not
>>necessarily believing the accounting is the absolute truth.  The dictionary 
>>tells me that objective means "Uninfluenced by emotion or personal prejudice". 
>>Relatively speaking, who can be more objective about this thing?

You are *not* as you say, uninfluenced or lacking personal prejudice in this
matter.  The Bible says you are in rebellion to God and that your mind will
do everything it can to suppress the truth.  I've been there and I see it in
you.

>Your "point" is full of presuppositions.

>>How do you know what my "presuppositions" may or may not be?

Several ways.  Most importantly the Bible states your presuppostions in that
you are at war with God.  Secondly, I can tell in part from the things you
have said here.

>If you DON'T believe the Bible represents the whole truth (in this matter)
>then you should ignore it altogether as any kind of record and rely on some
>other source which you do believe in.

>>There are no other sources Jeff.  Remember that the Israelites exterminated
>>all traces of the other party involved in the ordeal.  As I said before,
>>there's probably a lot of truth in the biblical account along with some
>>chaff.

So you somehow think you can accept the account of Israel as true but reject
the integral God of that account.  Will you please explain to me how you do
this?

>>You didn't answer the question about the Koran.  Wonder why.

>>-dave
                                                            
'Cause it wasn't clear. ;)

jeff

re .139
    
    
>You cannot trust Christ if you do not trust the self-attesting Christ of the
>Scriptures.
    
    That is fallacy and the idolatry of the innerrantist position.
    
    The reality of the Scripture is placed higher than the reality of God.
    
    The god of the innerrantist is not a sovereign god but a good bound by
    paper and binding.
    
    The innerrantist cannot accept, believe, or have faith in God's ability
    to speak directly to a human in any other time or place other than in
    those instances recorded in their Book.
    
    Since their god cannot penetrate directly to humans, then if I have a
    direct experience of God, then I must be creating my own god.
    
    
    I believe in the God whom each one of us can know directly and
    personally.  God certainly is an awesome God.

>God, through His revelation in the Bible.
And if you don't believe the Bible is the whole truth, then you don't 
necessarily believe that God said it was the task of every man... etc... .  

>But the same who said "Thou shalt not kill" said "kill the Caananites".
You see no contradiction in this?  If he wanted his people not to kill, then
why didn't he just kill the Caananites by himself and leave the Isrealites
out of it with their laws unbroken?  And where does that end?  How many 
transgressions of law can one condone by claiming that it was commanded by 
God?  Who's to say that someone's questionable acts were not genuinely 
commanded by God?  It's not like he comes down for all to see and witness 
the giving of an order.

> >>Wrong.  I seek the truth wholeheartedly.  
> Not according to the Bible, you don't.

Not surprized that's what the Bible says.  It has a tendency to claim that if
you don't agree, then you're doing something wrong.  And so I pose to you the
hypothetical math bible...

1) Everyting in the math bible is truth.
2) If you disagree with anything in the math bible then you're wrong.
3) 1+1=3

What does 1+1 equal?  A believer would respond "3".  Is (s)he right?


>But you have no reason or system for determining whether any is true or false.

All I have are the tools given me (senses, a brain, common sense, etc...).
If it's valid to take other ancient texts "with a grain of salt", then why not
treat the Bible in the same way.  People exxagerate and fabricate in the 
stories and mythologies they transcribe to paper.  We accept this of all
ancient religions.  Why should the Bible be exempt?  I know, I know, because
you accept it as absolute truth on the platfom of faith.

>So, you have arbitrarily made yourself the standard of what part of the Bible
>is true or false and that is idolatry.  That is exactly what Adam did. 

I'm not the standard.  The standard is how and why people of the past recorded 
events the way they did.  Unless there's a reason to believe otherwise, I
assume that the Isrealites would have written their Bible with some truth, some
fabrication, some exxageration, just like all the others did.

>I've been there and
>would still be there but for the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

In the meantime (while I'm waiting for this grace to happen)  I'll keep
struggling.  Seems that I was designed to do this and far be it from me to 
oppose my designer.

>No, mine is not!  My presupposition is that indeed God is the Creator of
>all just as He says He is in Scripture and that what the Scriptures reveal
>about God and men is true.

I understand this.  And if I held these same presuppositions, I'd agree with
you.

>If you're thinking that the Greek philosophers ...

I just plucked "Greece" out of the air as a quick example.  All I was trying to
say is that there can be such a thing as a document which contains both fact 
and fiction.  I look at the Bible in this way.  


>I don't think you can articulate even a sentence that would be explanatory
>of a method.

I'll let you articulate the sentance by telling me how you'd try to find the
facts hidden in the stories of the Koran.  

>You are *not* as you say, uninfluenced or lacking personal prejudice in this
That's why I used the term "relative" (more than once)

>So you somehow think you can accept the account of Israel as true but reject
>the integral God of that account.  Will you please explain to me how you do
>this?

How might you glean facts from the Koran, being as it is that you don't believe
in Allah?

>'Cause it wasn't clear. ;)

Hypothetical (because I don't have a copy of the Koran on hand at the moment).

Mohammed said that men should not kill each other. A group of ancient 
followers of Mohammed came upon a settlement and massacred them. They said that
Allah told them it was OK to kill this occassion.  There's archeological
evidence that a massacre took place at the time/place cited in the story.

Now, what's your guess (the guess of a devout Christian who doesn't believe in
Allah) about what REALLY happened?  Remember, you can't use anyting in the
story unless you take it in the context of Allah=God.

-dave

.121

> Z   The interesting thing is that the Bible condemns killing as a
> Z   commandment but then condones wholesale killing later on. 
    
>    Actually the commandment refers to 1st degree murder.

Not true.  Unless otherwise stated, it was understood that the commandments
were for internal use only, which is to say, the so-called covenant community.

Richard

.133
        
>    Your position is a pure rationalisation, Richard.

Why, thank you.  That's possibly the kindest thing you've ever said to me.

Richard

Patricia,
        
    
>You cannot trust Christ if you do not trust the self-attesting Christ of the
>Scriptures.
    
>>    That is fallacy and the idolatry of the innerrantist position.

It is true and even the most simple-minded can see it is true.  You cannot
say "I trust Christ", without equivocating - which you don't seem to mind
at all, and say "I don't trust the Christ of Scripture".  There is no
historical Christ lest He be the one revealed in Scripture.
    
>>    The reality of the Scripture is placed higher than the reality of God.

Can't parse that one.
    
>>    The god of the innerrantist is not a sovereign god but a good bound by
>>    paper and binding.

Your ignorance is desperately obvious, Patricia.  Sovereignty means ultimate
power and ultimate control.  I say God is sovereign because He says so in
the Bible.  And because God is sovereign He has written His redemptive plan
for humanity down in a book which is *the best* way to preserve His
revelation.  You don't believe in sovereignty at all.  Man is at the center
of your system, not the God of the Bible.
    
>>    The innerrantist cannot accept, believe, or have faith in God's ability
>>    to speak directly to a human in any other time or place other than in
>>    those instances recorded in their Book.

Well, if God has sovereignly given us His Word and interpreted history for
us in His book then I don't need faith to see that that which is contradictory
to it is false.
    
>>    Since their god cannot penetrate directly to humans, then if I have a
>>    direct experience of God, then I must be creating my own god.

Your direct experience of God, to be of God, the Creator and Redeemer, must
not contradict what God has sovereignly revealed in His Word.  Of course
yours does without bounds.
    
    
>>    I believe in the God whom each one of us can know directly and
>>    personally.  God certainly is an awesome God.

So do I.  And He is awesome.  But you don't know Him, Patricia.  You're
as guilty as Dave in suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.  You're
culpable before God just as Dave is.  But I've been there, as I have
told you, so I know that the grace of God is real and can remove the
enmity between you and Him through repentance and faith in Christ. But you've
voluntarily taken yourself to a more dangerous level than say, Dave has.
You are now engaged in teaching others the lies you have taught yourself
and so you are strengthening your bulwarks of rebellion with some very
consistent and effective bricks - all lies.  The castle you're building will
become your tomb at this rate.  There is a point where you will finally 
and dramatically lay the last brick and your destiny, but for God's
incredible grace, will be sealed up in wrath and eternal condemnation.
Please repent and have faith in the true God and the atonement He has
provided in Christ, the biblical Christ.

jeff

    Sounds like something from the Inquisition.

    Jeff,
    
    I don't agree with a word you are saying but I do enjoy reading your
    polemics! 

-->You cannot trust Christ if you do not trust the self-attesting Christ of the
-->Scriptures.
--    
-->>    That is fallacy and the idolatry of the innerrantist position.
--
--It is true and even the most simple-minded can see it is true.  You cannot
--say "I trust Christ", without equivocating - which you don't seem to mind
--at all, and say "I don't trust the Christ of Scripture".  There is no
--historical Christ lest He be the one revealed in Scripture.

For a living Christ that's a heck of a thing to say, to say that
he's bound up in the scriptures and can't do anything outside of
the scriptures.

If you are saying that scripture is the *ONLY* place one can come
to know Christ then I feel sorry that you've limited yourself that
much.
    
-->>    The reality of the Scripture is placed higher than the reality of God.
--
--Can't parse that one.

Scripture defines your reality, not God.  You take your cues from
a book, not the almighty.  I suggest you sit down and talk to Him
sometime.  Don't just talk, either.  Listen.
    
-->>    The god of the innerrantist is not a sovereign god but a good bound by
-->>    paper and binding.
--
--Your ignorance is desperately obvious, Patricia.  

This is getting insulting.  It is not allowed in Digital notes.

--Sovereignty means ultimate
--power and ultimate control.  I say God is sovereign because He says so in
--the Bible.

So the Bible has power over God, because the Bible is the ultimate word.

Right.

--  You don't believe in sovereignty at all.  Man is at the center
--of your system, not the God of the Bible.

You don't know her heart.  You're talking out of your hat.
    
-->>    Since their god cannot penetrate directly to humans, then if I have a
-->>    direct experience of God, then I must be creating my own god.
--
--Your direct experience of God, to be of God, the Creator and Redeemer, must
--not contradict what God has sovereignly revealed in His Word.  Of course
--yours does without bounds.

Not necessarily.  Although it probably contradicts *YOUR INTERPRETATION*
of His word.  Then again, what if some of His Word came from some other
source than the Bible?
    
-->>    I believe in the God whom each one of us can know directly and
-->>    personally.  God certainly is an awesome God.
--
--So do I.  And He is awesome.  But you don't know Him, Patricia.  You're
--as guilty as Dave in suppressing the truth in unrighteousness.  You're
--culpable before God just as Dave is.  But I've been there, as I have
--told you, so I know that the grace of God is real and can remove the
--enmity between you and Him through repentance and faith in Christ. But you've
--voluntarily taken yourself to a more dangerous level than say, Dave has.
--You are now engaged in teaching others the lies you have taught yourself
--and so you are strengthening your bulwarks of rebellion with some very
--consistent and effective bricks - all lies.  The castle you're building will
--become your tomb at this rate.  There is a point where you will finally 
--and dramatically lay the last brick and your destiny, but for God's
--incredible grace, will be sealed up in wrath and eternal condemnation.
--Please repent and have faith in the true God and the atonement He has
--provided in Christ, the biblical Christ.

Sez Jeff.  I believe God has other ideas.

Dave,

>God, through His revelation in the Bible.

>>And if you don't believe the Bible is the whole truth, then you don't 
>>necessarily believe that God said it was the task of every man... etc... .  

Again, you have no reason for *not believing* and *not accepting* that it
is the task of every man since the Bible makes this quite clear from 
cover to cover.  Your only reason is that you don't believe it.  But
unbelief is not the same as reasonable unbelief.

>But the same who said "Thou shalt not kill" said "kill the Caananites".

>>You see no contradiction in this?  

No.  You left out the reason I entered which demonstrates why there is no 
contradiction.  God is perfectly right to place limits on man's decisions 
over life and death and at the same time be free Himself to make decisions
concerning life and death.  He is the Creator and owner of all.  And all
of God's commands to kill various tribes were also provided with a reason!
Do you care?  Did you know that?

>>If he wanted his people not to kill, then
>>why didn't he just kill the Caananites by himself and leave the Isrealites
>>out of it with their laws unbroken?  

You have a false presupposition about "thou shall not kill".  It is not given
without explanation and qualification.  And this is why I know you are 
ignorant, rather than knowledgeable, concerning the very topic we are 
discussing. 

>>And where does that end?  How many 
>>transgressions of law can one condone by claiming that it was commanded by 
>>God?  Who's to say that someone's questionable acts were not genuinely 
>>commanded by God?  It's not like he comes down for all to see and witness 
>>the giving of an order.

We *are* discussing God's commands to kill the Caananites, aren't we?  Only
those acts commanded by God and those acts of killing meeting the qualifications
of the law are presumed to be within God's will.


> >>Wrong.  I seek the truth wholeheartedly.  
> Not according to the Bible, you don't.

>>Not surprized that's what the Bible says.  It has a tendency to claim that if
>>you don't agree, then you're doing something wrong.  And so I pose to you the
>>hypothetical math bible...

>>1) Everyting in the math bible is truth.
>>2) If you disagree with anything in the math bible then you're wrong.
>>3) 1+1=3

>>What does 1+1 equal?  A believer would respond "3".  Is (s)he right?

If 1 is true (really) then 3 must be true. 2 is irrelevant to the truth of 3.
This is another example of how you continue to suggest (as I've mentioned 
before) that there is something wrong with the Bible (but you never really
point it out).  Your actual system for determining truth is this:

1) 1+1=2
2) If the math Bible does not agree with 1, it is false.

>But you have no reason or system for determining whether any is true or false.

>>All I have are the tools given me (senses, a brain, common sense, etc...).

No, that's not all you have.  You have your presuppositions.  In any case, no
one seriously pursuing the truth looks to themselves.  If you're serious you
must have a method, a formal method. And they are available to us all in the
form of logic, for example.

>>If it's valid to take other ancient texts "with a grain of salt", then why not
>>treat the Bible in the same way.  

First of all, there is a difference between skepticism and a method for
determing truth, which is the subject here.  Secondly, it is *not* valid to
suggest that all ancient texts are equal and should be handled in the same
way.  For example, the content of the Bible in terms of its accuracy, as 
compared to other ancient manuscripts is so superior that it must be treated
differently.  Similarly, the content, the majesty of its style, its system
of ethics, and so on are far superior to all other such ancient texts.  There
are many reasons for not treating all ancient texts the same.

>>People exxagerate and fabricate in the stories and mythologies they 
>>transcribe to paper.  

Certainly people do.  But it is not universally true.

>>We accept this of all ancient religions.  

"We" do?  No, "we" don't.  Since it is not universally true there is no
reason to approach it this way.

>>Why should the Bible be exempt?  I know, I know, because
>>you accept it as absolute truth on the platfom of faith.

For one thing, the Bible does not appear to be an exaggeration or fabrication
in any respect, like so many ancient religious writings.  This is an external
support.  But the Bible itself says that it is not a fabrication or 
exaggeration but that every word is true and is safeguarded by God as the
word of God for all eternity.  To say that it is untrue is to contradict it's
own testimony about itself, which is clear and unequivocal.

>So, you have arbitrarily made yourself the standard of what part of the Bible
>is true or false and that is idolatry.  That is exactly what Adam did. 

>>I'm not the standard.  The standard is how and why people of the past recorded 
>>events the way they did.  Unless there's a reason to believe otherwise, I
>>assume that the Isrealites would have written their Bible with some truth, some
>>fabrication, some exxageration, just like all the others did.

But this is exactly what I said.  *You* have decided how the Bible should be
measured.  And you have decided that it should be considered like any other
book of its kind.  *You* have decided what presupposition you will use in
reading the Bible.  *You* are in contradiction with the words of the Bible
itself which says you have no basis, except your spiritually dead and
rebellious condition, for rejecting what the Bible says.  And you haven't
even mentioned an objective method you would use to decide what is true
and what is false.  

>I've been there and
>would still be there but for the grace of God in Jesus Christ.

>>In the meantime (while I'm waiting for this grace to happen)  I'll keep
>>struggling.  Seems that I was designed to do this and far be it from me to 
>>oppose my designer.

You must concentrate on approaching God without your presuppositions.  You
must *ask* God to open your eyes.  You must read the Bible as His Word, not
mans' word.  Faith comes from hearing His Word.

>No, mine is not!  My presupposition is that indeed God is the Creator of
>all just as He says He is in Scripture and that what the Scriptures reveal
>about God and men is true.

>>I understand this.  And if I held these same presuppositions, I'd agree with
>>you.

Well, you cannot hope to actually know God, the true God, unless you adopt
the presupposition I stated for God has chosen His word as His source of
knowledge of Him.

>If you're thinking that the Greek philosophers ...

>>I just plucked "Greece" out of the air as a quick example.  All I was trying to
>>say is that there can be such a thing as a document which contains both fact 
>>and fiction.  I look at the Bible in this way.  

Again, the Bible does not look at itself this way.  Again, you have no system
that is objective for making your determinations - a purely irrational
approach.  The truth of the matter is that fiction is what you want to be
fiction and fact is what you want to be fact.  

>You are *not* as you say, uninfluenced or lacking personal prejudice in this
>>That's why I used the term "relative" (more than once)

You're not even "relatively" objective, Dave!  Relative to what?  Your 
position is solidly influenced by your own desires, your spiritual state,
your influence by the world you live in, which is hostile to God, and so
on. 

>So you somehow think you can accept the account of Israel as true but reject
>the integral God of that account.  Will you please explain to me how you do
>this?

>>Hypothetical (because I don't have a copy of the Koran on hand at the moment).

>>Mohammed said that men should not kill each other. A group of ancient 
>>followers of Mohammed came upon a settlement and massacred them. They said that
>>Allah told them it was OK to kill this occassion.  There's archeological
>>evidence that a massacre took place at the time/place cited in the story.

>>Now, what's your guess (the guess of a devout Christian who doesn't believe in
>>Allah) about what REALLY happened?  Remember, you can't use anyting in the
>>story unless you take it in the context of Allah=God.

>>-dave

You've got a problem, Dave.  You are assuming the truth of the written record
that Mohammed said that men should not kill each other.  That is, you are
assuming that it is recorded that Mohammed said, "do not kill".  Are you
also presuming that Mohammed said, as written in the record and in the first
person, "go kill that tribe"?   If not, then your argument does not translate
to the Biblical account.

In the Bible, God said in the first person and authoritatively, "thou shall
not kill" and "kill that tribe".  

jeff

    David:
    
    Are you familiar with this history of Islam...how it began...that sort
    of thing?
    
 Z   The innerrantist cannot accept, believe, or have faith in God's ability
 Z   to speak directly to a human in any other time or place other than
 Z   in those instances recorded in their Book.
    
    If you are referring to New Age philosophies, then I would
    disagree...since God has chosen to reveal himself the way he has.  If
    you REEALLY REEEEALLY believe that God is sovereign, then you would
    concur that God is in the center of all things.  new Age philosophies
    regard humankind as being the center of all things...which of course is
    contrary to a sovereign God.
    
    However, your point above is also false simply by the reasoning that
    God spoke to many of the prophets during the OT times that aren't
    recorded in scripture.  
    
    Finally as a third point, you see God and God's word as mutually
    exclusive...I don't.  But assuming you are correct in the idolatry
    aspect of your point, I would pose this challenge to you.  What makes
    your presuppositions, which by the way are blatantly and obviously from
    your mind any less idolatrous!?
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    All I can hope for for a few people is that they learn about g-d(dess)
    in the next life, as it is obvious they have closed their hearts and
    minds against knowing her in this one.  If by your fruits and voices I
    should know you, then I can't say that a few people in here will learn
    her love in this world.  
    
    meg

    Our hands have been tipped and it's not hard to see what cards
    we're each holding.  We've perhaps better answered "why *not*
    Christianity?" than "why Christianity?"
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

 Why Christianity?  It is the only means for man to be reconciled
 to God, through a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ who died
 for the remission of our sin, without which we would be eternally
 separated from God.




 Jim

> Why Christianity?  It is the only means for man to be reconciled
> to God, through a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ who died
> for the remission of our sin, without which we would be eternally
> separated from God.

    Unfortunately, such absolute views have, in the past, been twisted
    and mauled to the extent that great evil has been done.  People
    burned, tortured and whole societies terrorized by zealots bent
    on "saving their souls."

    Absolute views sometimes spawn abolute corruption, especially when
    people are taught and threatened not to question or explore any
    aspect that the experts have declared.  "Just believe it or
    God will punish you."

    Tom

    Hi Tom,
    
> Why Christianity?  It is the only means for man to be reconciled
> to God, through a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ who died
> for the remission of our sin, without which we would be eternally
> separated from God.

>>    Unfortunately, such absolute views have, in the past, been twisted
>>    and mauled to the extent that great evil has been done.  People
>>    burned, tortured and whole societies terrorized by zealots bent
>>    on "saving their souls."

So, is the "view" valid or not, Tom?

>>    Absolute views sometimes spawn abolute corruption, especially when
>>    people are taught and threatened not to question or explore any
>>    aspect that the experts have declared.  "Just believe it or
>>    God will punish you."

>>    Tom

So, is the "view" valid or not?

jeff

>> Why Christianity?  It is the only means for man to be reconciled
>> to God, through a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ who died
>> for the remission of our sin, without which we would be eternally
>> separated from God.

 >   Unfortunately, such absolute views have, in the past, been twisted
 >   and mauled to the extent that great evil has been done.  People
 >   burned, tortured and whole societies terrorized by zealots bent
 >   on "saving their souls."



     So?   The fact that human beings have done horrible deeds in the 
     name of God does not change the basis of Christianity.



    >Absolute views sometimes spawn abolute corruption, especially when
    >people are taught and threatened not to question or explore any
    >aspect that the experts have declared.  "Just believe it or
    >God will punish you."

    
     I've never had anybody, even in my pre-Christian days, say "just believe
     it or God will punish you" to me.  Nonetheless, should anybody had done
     so, it reflects on man, not God.



 Jim

Perhaps there's more than one way to know God and everyone is correct in their
approach.  Maybe God created Jeff to be a staunch believer in the Bible and me
to be a skeptic.  And maybe the only true sin either of us could commit would
be to deny the truth in how we were designed to seek God.  And maybe it's the
effort that matters and not the approach.

It might be incorrect for on e person to tell another "You couldn't possibly
know God because you aren't doing it my way".  Might make as much sense as
saying "You can't get to Denver by travelling north, you have to travel south
like I did.  It all depends on where you start the journey and maybe, by
design, we do not all start from the same point.

Perhaps heaven is filled with  Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists and
atheists.  I think there's probably room for all of us.


Responses:

 Jeff:  I won't fight anymore. You win.  Congratulations.

 Richard: the Mohhamed thing... I was just trying to get Jeff to admit there
  was a double standard.  I used Islam because I thought it would be a better
  bait.  Any non Judeo-CHristian religion would have done, even a ficticious
  one.  Not sure if Mohhamed said "Thou Shall Not Kill".  Doesn't matter.


-dave

    Z    Unfortunately, such absolute views have, in the past, been twisted
    Z    and mauled to the extent that great evil has been done.  People
    Z    burned, tortured and whole societies terrorized by zealots bent
    Z    on "saving their souls."
    
    Alas...the stupidity of mankind as they walked by the flesh and not by
    the Spirit.  Nevertheless, I echo the question...do the failings of our
    past change truth?  
    
    -Jack

    
    Hi Meg,
    
>    All I can hope for for a few people is that they learn about g-d(dess)
>    in the next life, as it is obvious they have closed their hearts and
>    minds against knowing her in this one.  If by your fruits and voices I
>    should know you, then I can't say that a few people in here will learn
>    her love in this world.  
    
>    meg
    
    Who is "g-d(dess)" that we might "know her"?  Can you name even one
    reason why we should believe in her existence much less know her?  Isn't 
    she just a figment of your imagination?  Haven't you, like the ancient 
    pagans, simply projected your fears and desires into personalities?  
    Isn't your religion purely (wo)man-made?  I don't believe in Zeus nor 
    Aphrodite nor any other pagan god and for many good reasons.  What reason 
    can you give for believing in "goddess"?
    
    BTW, Meg, you don't *have to* worship false gods.  You are not beyond
    the reach, if I was not, of the true and living God through His
    precious and mighty Son, the Lord Jesus Christ.  This is a day of grace
    and God has graciously condescended to our pitifully depraved souls and
    provided the sacrifice which can make us justified, that is, Lord Jesus
    Christ.  Being adopted into the family of God is spectacular!
    
    jeff

    Jack,    
    >Alas.. the stupidy of mankind as they walked by the flesh and not by 
    >the Spirit.  Nevertheless, I echo the question...do the failings of our
    >past change truth?
    
    
    
    The issue is that the failings of the past are all wrapped up in that
    package which you call "truth".
    
    That "truth" then allows for the repetion of the atrocities of the
    past.
    
    There may be an ideal Christianity and a human Christianity.  The human
    Christianity falls very far short of the ideal.   some versions of "truth"
    idolizes the human version with all its falsehoods and imperfections.
    
    
                                        Patricia
    
                                       

    Jeff,
    
    You don't have to believe in the Mother.
    
    
    She loves you anyways!
    
    
    So if the Father will only love you if you worship him as the Bible
    says and the Mother will love you unconditionally, you can choose to 
    cover all the bases and take the safe choice!
    
    You are loved either way!
    
    
                                     Patricia

Hi Dave,

>Perhaps there's more than one way to know God and everyone is correct in their
>approach.

Christianity makes the supreme claim that only Christ is the way to God and
that all other paths are incorrect and lead to eternal death.

>Maybe God created Jeff to be a staunch believer in the Bible and me
>to be a skeptic.  

No.  I too was a skeptic like you.  God has re-created me.

>And maybe the only true sin either of us could commit would
>be to deny the truth in how we were designed to seek God.  

Our true sins are innumerable, Dave.  

>And maybe it's the effort that matters and not the approach.

Man's efforts are for naught where God is concerned.  Indeed it is the
very lack of effort (toward our salvation) that is required to save us.
It is the completely successful and completed effort of Christ on which 
we must trust, denying all that would contradict that.

>It might be incorrect for on e person to tell another "You couldn't possibly
>know God because you aren't doing it my way".  Might make as much sense as
>saying "You can't get to Denver by travelling north, you have to travel south
>like I did.  It all depends on where you start the journey and maybe, by
>design, we do not all start from the same point.

We all start from the same point of need.  But different people go different
places trying to satisfy that need.  But "satisfaction" is more than a good
feeling or hope in our efforts.  To be satisfied one must arrive, one must
have the need satisfied.  Our need is to be reconciled to the Lord, to be
forgiven, to have a new life, a spirit which is not in rebellion with God
but is working with God to achieve God's purposes and glorify God.

>Perhaps heaven is filled with  Christians, Jews, Moslems, Buddhists and
>atheists.  I think there's probably room for all of us.

In this case "heaven" would be hell.  There are exactly one group of people
in God's heaven - those who have believed God and who in their belief have
been born again.

> Jeff:  I won't fight anymore. You win.  Congratulations.

Well, it wasn't a "fight", Dave, in my view.  I am simply contending for
the faith *and* attempting to help you see the truth about yourself, so that
you might be saved.  My motivation is not animosity but your reconciliation
to God. Try to see it this way if you can.

> Richard: the Mohhamed thing... I was just trying to get Jeff to admit there
>  was a double standard.  I used Islam because I thought it would be a better
>  bait.  Any non Judeo-CHristian religion would have done, even a ficticious
>  one.  Not sure if Mohhamed said "Thou Shall Not Kill".  Doesn't matter.

>-dave

Your basic problem, Dave, is that you don't have an objective system of
any sort on which to argue your beliefs.  Therefore, your personal beliefs,
no matter how strongly you hold them because of your lack of objective
support, are not capable of being effectively argued in a public arena 
where there is a presupposition that we actually can agree that truth and
falsehood are real.

jeff

Hi Patricia,
    
>    You don't have to believe in the Mother.

Well, you certainly act as if it is important that I do.  And if Mother
is God, I want to, you know!  BTW, are "Mother" and "g_d(dess)" the same?
Or do I have to know the both of them.
    
    
>   She loves you anyways!

How does she demonstrate her love.  I can't possibly believe that she loves 
me unless she will demonstrate it.  Will you give me some information about
her love so that I might identify it and thus entertain it?  
    
>    So if the Father will only love you if you worship him as the Bible
>    says and the Mother will love you unconditionally, you can choose to 
>    cover all the bases and take the safe choice!
 
Are you saying that the Father and Mother are married?  How do you know
this?  Now my Father, God Almighty - Jehovah, says that Mother is not
only a figment of your imagination but an abomination to Him.  How am I
to reconcile my loving and trustworthy Father's word concerning "Mother"
with your idea of their relationship?
   
>    You are loved either way!
    
Well, I'm not so sure, Patricia.  You won't mind if I require a bit more
than your word on the matter will you?  BTW, is there a place you might
direct me where I could actually find out more about "Mother"?

jeff

    RE Jeff:
    
    >I am simply contending for
    >the faith *and* attempting to help you see the truth about yourself, so
    >that...
    
    Well, you have the exact opposite effect, Jeff.  I think you should
    know that.  I can be told only so many times that I'm wrong in everything 
    I think, I'm ignorant, and I'm going to hell, before I just have to walk 
    away.  My replies to your replies etc... would be only a greater
    escalations of a conversation which has no hope of converging on
    anything.  
    
    -dave
    

| <<< Note 1243.157 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Alas...the stupidity of mankind as they walked by the flesh and not by
| the Spirit.  Nevertheless, I echo the question...do the failings of our
| past change truth?

	No, it does not. But it does illistrate that those of the past thought
they had the absolute, and they were wrong. Sort of like what is going on today
with life. 

	Truth is Him, and when people start looking to a book for Truth, they
lose sight of Him. That is unless He directs them to the book. But then that
could be any book, huh?

| <<< Note 1243.158 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Who is "g-d(dess)" that we might "know her"? Can you name even one reason why 
| we should believe in her existence much less know her? Isn't she just a 
| figment of your imagination? Haven't you, like the ancient pagans, simply 
| projected your fears and desires into personalities?

	You of all people are asking these questions. Too funny. 




Glen

    
    re .157

    > Nevertheless, I echo the question...do the failings of our past
    > change truth?

    No; the failings of the past don't change truth. But the failings of
    those who claimed infallible possession of the truth in the past, makes
    me very suspicious of those claiming infallible possession of the truth
    today. So, it is not the message of truth that is being questioned, but
    rather the trustworthiness of the messenger.

    I speak only for myself, of course.
    
    Peace,
    	Eric

     Hi Eric,
    
    > Nevertheless, I echo the question...do the failings of our past
    > change truth?

    >>No; the failings of the past don't change truth. But the failings of
    >>those who claimed infallible possession of the truth in the past, makes
    >>me very suspicious of those claiming infallible possession of the truth
    >>today. So, it is not the message of truth that is being questioned, but
    >>rather the trustworthiness of the messenger.

    I think there is a very good way to separate the human messenger from the 
    message (truth).  First, understand the messenger's presuppositions. 
    If that messenger is basing authority upon another messenger (the Bible
    for example), understand that other messenger very well.  Then compare
    the messenger's claims/behavior with that of the authoritative message.
    It's pretty easy then to see where the messenger has corrupted the
    message or is ignoring the message altogether.
    
    The Roman Catholic church's (who most people blame implicitly and
    explicitly when they disparage "Christianity" and its record of
    atrocities)  approach to the message (the Bible) is that the message is
    inadequate as a revelation to the layman - that the RC heirarchy must
    interpret that message and that *tradition* is equal in authority to 
    the message.  *You can expect many atrocities where man's
    wisdom/traditions are equal with God's word and where the presupposition 
    exists that God's word is not adequate to self-attest*.  All RC
    atrocities are a direct reflection of how the RC heirarchy views
    themselves.
    
    You will not find in history the same atrocities when the Scriptures
    are held as authoritativly the Word of God because the Word of God does
    not allow such.
    
    However, let's also understand that man's systems or religions are
    themselves responsible for many atrocities.  And non-Christian
    theistic religions are very prone to persecute.
    
    As far as I'm concerned what atrocities the RC church has committed in
    history and the atrocities committed by non-Christian religions and
    humanism are all a complete proof of a major tenent of the Bible - that
    humanity is corporately and invidually sinful and depraved, no one can
    escape it, and that our obvious need of a Redeemer is clear.
    
    jeff
    
    >>I speak only for myself, of course.
    
    >>Peace,
    >>	Eric

|    That "truth" then allows for the repetion of the atrocities of the
|    past.
    
    Similar statements have been made several times in this thread now.  
    
    It baffles me as to why someone would deprive themselves of a personal
    relationship with the only living and breathing God just because of
    mistakes and misrepresentations by humans.
    
    When the Books are opened and each person has to give an account of
    their life to God, do you really think "I rejected you because of all
    the awful things people did in your name" will be acceptable?
    
    think about it!
    Mike

    RE: .166 Eric

    No.  You're not the only one to hold those beliefs.  IE:  Me too :-)

    RE: .168

>    When the Books are opened and each person has to give an account of
>    their life to God, do you really think "I rejected you because of all
>    the awful things people did in your name" will be acceptable?

    Well.... when looked at in the light of that a religion is
    known by it's fruits....  Sounds like a good reason for rejecting
    a branch of religion.  This, of course, doesn't mean rejection
    of God.

    How do we know that Mother/God/Whomever loves us?  How do you
    know if the sun is shining if your eyes are closed?  Why,
    you feel it, of course!
    
    You mean you don't feel it?  Maybe it's because you're stuck in
    some book.

    Tom

    Dave,

    >I am simply contending for
    >the faith *and* attempting to help you see the truth about yourself, so
    >that...
    
    >>Well, you have the exact opposite effect, Jeff.  I think you should
    >>know that.  I can be told only so many times that I'm wrong in everything 
    >>I think, I'm ignorant, and I'm going to hell, before I just have to walk 
    >>away.  

    >>-dave
   

   I'm not sure of what you mean but I will say, Dave, that I'm sure you are
   not wrong in everything you think, not ignorant in everything.  The only
   way you are going to see the truth about yourself, where God is concerned
   and where your relationship to Him is concerned, is to discard your wrong
   ideas about God of which you offer and have aplenty.  Your ignorance of
   God is the issue not your general ignorance.  Considering your eternal
   destiny it would be criminal to let you entertain any other end for 
   yourself in your present state.  *You* walk away, not I.  Remember this.
   
   As distasteful as the exclusive claim of God is to you now, it can only
   get worse as time goes on, Dave.  You will be old (should God allow it) 
   and calloused before you know it.  There is little hope for the one who
   continues to fortify their rebellious position year after year, especially
   in the light of God's constant witness and testimony to you here and
   elsewhere, I'm sure.

   jeff

    re .167
    
    I speak as a former Congregationalist turned Unitarian Universalist.
    
    It was the Calvinist Church the perpetuated the witch burning in New
    England.
    
    It was the Calvinist Church that executed Michael Servetus in Geneva.
    
    The Catholic Church was only exclusively responsible for Christian
    atrocities prior to the reformation.
    
    Both Catholics and Protestants have at times distorted the principles
    of Christian love and committed their fair shair of atrocities.
    
    Both churches have also sat back and watched other atrocities being
    committed.
    
    Catholism and Protestianism are both Human institutions.
    
    
    The Universal church is only an ideal, beyond all human institutions.

    
>    Catholism and Protestianism are both Human institutions.
    
    
 
   Jesus Christ and His death on your behalf is not.  





  Jim

    RE .168 (Mike)
    
    It's not a rejection of God based on the actions of others.  It's more a 
    questioning of the sources and interpretations these others used to 
    justify their actions.  
    
    At least that's the way it is for me.
    
    I liked the title to .168 "it's a *PERSONAL* decision".  Would you say
    that it's a personal quest?
    
    -dave

    
    
    >It was the Calvinist Church the perpetuated the witch burning in New
    >England.
    
    And how many "witches" were burned?  12? 17?

    >It was the Calvinist Church that executed Michael Servetus in Geneva.
    
    How many people is this?
 
    >The Catholic Church was only exclusively responsible for Christian
    >atrocities prior to the reformation.
    
    Yes, of course.

    >Both Catholics and Protestants have at times distorted the principles
    >of Christian love and committed their fair shair of atrocities.
    
    Well, my post was not an attack on Catholicism but a defense of
    Christ.  The system I described for understanding RC atrocities
    or any such inconsistencies is still valid and important, I think.

    >Both churches have also sat back and watched other atrocities being
    >committed.

    Well, the church, nor Christ, ever claimed that man's action, or inaction
    for that matter, would solve the depravity of man, the sinfulness of
    man.  In fact Christ made it clear that He would finally take care of it 
    all in the consummation of time and that until then the righteous, the
    poor, the weak, etc. will suffer, akin to Christ, the wrath of the 
    unrighteous.
    
    >Catholism and Protestianism are both Human institutions.
    
    No, they're not.  The concept of the Church is absolutely biblical
    and instituted by God Himself.

    >The Universal church is only an ideal, beyond all human institutions.

    Not according to the Bible, it's not.  The Universal church is real
    today and consists of those past and present who trust Christ for 
    their salvation and have been adopted into the family of God.

    jeff

>Well, you certainly act as if it is important that I do.  And if Mother
>is God, I want to, you know!  BTW, are "Mother" and "g_d(dess)" the same?
>Or do I have to know the both of them.
 
    Jeff,
    
    The Divine Reality, Goddess/God is the true reality behind ALL images
    of the Divine.  Goddess, Mother, Father, God, Creater, Spirit are for
    me all alternative images pointing to the same divine reality.
    
       
    
>>   She loves you anyways!

>How does she demonstrate her love.  I can't possibly believe that she loves 
>me unless she will demonstrate it.  Will you give me some information about
>her love so that I might identify it and thus entertain it?  
    
	The reality behind the image is the same reality as behind your
    image of God the Father.  She demonstrates her love for humanity in the
    same way God the Father demonstrates his love for humanity.
    
                                                               .
 
>Are you saying that the Father and Mother are married?  How do you know
>this?  Now my Father, God Almighty - Jehovah, says that Mother is not
>only a figment of your imagination but an abomination to Him.  How am I
>to reconcile my loving and trustworthy Father's word concerning "Mother"
>with your idea of their relationship?
    
Actually if you read the Old Testament with a careful eye and also look at
    the archeological evidence you can find remnants of the myth of Yahweh
    and his Cohort Asherah. 
    
    In the old testament, Yahweh does not seem to be any where near as
    concerned about Asherah as he is about the Male God "El" or Baal.
   
>>    You are loved either way!
    
>Well, I'm not so sure, Patricia.  You won't mind if I require a bit more
>than your word on the matter will you?  BTW, is there a place you might
>direct me where I could actually find out more about "Mother"?

    Reading your own Bible is a good starting point.  Isaiah has many
    passages which identify God as a woman.  There is a beautiful image of
    God pictured as the mother who takes care of her chicks and will never
    forsake them.
    
    Their is another beautiful image of us being nursed by God at her
    breast in Isaiah.
    
    Proverbs 8 has beautiful imagery of the Maiden who has been with God as
    his sweat Darling Child since creation.  
    
    Archeological Evidence shows a memorial of God and his Asherah.  Bronze
    figurines are found all over the world in memory of God the Mother.
    
    Jesus has a parable of the Woman who searches for the lost coin as a
    New Testament image of God the mother.
    
Given the culture of the time of the Old Testament and the New Testament,
    it is predictable that Biblical images of God are mostly Male.  What is
    extraordinary though is that in spite of the heavy Patriarchal nature
    of society at that time, there are still so many images in the Bible of
    God as Mother, Maiden, or Crone.
    
						Patricia
                                    

>    >It was the Calvinist Church the perpetuated the witch burning in New
>    >England.
>    
>    And how many "witches" were burned?  12? 17?
>
>    >It was the Calvinist Church that executed Michael Servetus in Geneva.
>    
>    How many people is this?

    The point is that an organization with absolutist attitudes is
    inclinded to take matters into their own hands and "do God's
    work."  Sometimes this has taken the form of breaking God's
    law and torturing and killing people who disagree with them.

    That's all.

    Tom

    PS: you'd probably feel differently if you were one of the 17..

 Z   But the failings of
 Z   those who claimed infallible possession of the truth in the past,
 Z   makes me very suspicious of those claiming infallible possession of the
 Z   truth today. 
 
    Eric, FWIW, I base what I believe as truth strictly upon that which I
    see and what has been forthtold to me either through scripture or
    history.  In other words Eric, change in belief for me at least must
    pass a very strong litmus test.  I believe since God tells us to test
    the Spirits that this is a very reasonable position.  
    
    I fear Pagan ritualism and goddess worship simply for the reason that
    it is concocted in the mind of a depraved species and has no basis for
    truth.
    
    -Jack

|    You mean you don't feel it?  Maybe it's because you're stuck in
|    some book.

    Tom, I feel it alright.  It's just that I have a foundation for the
    experiences I feel and know what God says is okay and what isn't.
    
    Mike

|    The Catholic Church was only exclusively responsible for Christian
|    atrocities prior to the reformation.
    
    Wrong!  I'd suggest you take some history classes at Andover-Newton. 
    You need to look no further than the Bosnia-Serb-Croatia conflict with
    an example.  
    
    Mike

    
    > Well, my post was not an attack on Catholicism...

    Thanks for clearing that up as your original note gave the opposite
    impression. I was personally offended by the broad defamation of Roman
    Catholicism as a Christian faith. In my mind you only succeeded in
    making my point.

    Have a good day.
    	Eric

    King Solomon said it well....
    
    "There is a way which seems right unto a man; but its end is the way of
    death."
    
    Amazingly, the very thing which has driven humanity to a debased state
    is....you guess it...our feelings!   We feel a certain way and we act,
    many times impulsively upon how we feel.  
    
    -Jack

|    I liked the title to .168 "it's a *PERSONAL* decision".  Would you say
|    that it's a personal quest?
    
    Dave, "quest" sounds too much to me like its something you do.  I don't
    believe that's possible.  Jesus Christ did everything, we just have to
    accept who He is and what He has done.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1243.178 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Tom, I feel it alright.  It's just that I have a foundation for the
| experiences I feel and know what God says is okay and what isn't.

	As does Tom. As do I. As does Richard. As does Jack. As does....  what
you can't seem to realize is that your way is not the only correct way, if it
is correct at all. (and yes, the same applies to everyone else)


Glen

|    The Divine Reality, Goddess/God is the true reality behind ALL images
|    of the Divine.  Goddess, Mother, Father, God, Creater, Spirit are for
|    me all alternative images pointing to the same divine reality.
    
    I'm not Jeff, but how can the same entity be so contradictory?  I'll
    have none of a divine reality where there is no stability, security or
    consistency.
    
    Mike

|	As does Tom. As do I. As does Richard. As does Jack. As does....  what
|you can't seem to realize is that your way is not the only correct way, if it
|is correct at all. (and yes, the same applies to everyone else)
    
    Care to elaborate?  For example, what is your foundation and how do you
    know what is right and wrong beyond any doubt?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

 Glen uses road signs.





 Jim

| <<< Note 1243.185 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Care to elaborate?  

	Sure.

| For example, what is your foundation 

	God

| and how do you know what is right and wrong beyond any doubt?

	God

| <<< Note 1243.186 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>

| Glen uses road signs.

	:-)

 Z   As does....  what
 Z   you can't seem to realize is that your way is not the only correct way,
 Z   if it is correct at all. (and yes, the same applies to everyone else)
    
    Glen, you have once again failed the litmus test...as there are many
    gods.
    
    -Jack

    Re .184/.185
    
    >I'll have none of a divine reality where there is no stability, security
    >or consistency.
    
    And how do you judge what's  stable? secure? consistent?
    
    >...how do you know what is right and wrong beyond any doubt?
    
    Isn't this where faith comes in?
    
    -dave

    Dave:
    
    One must know the nature of God in order to discern what is holy and
    sanctified.  Like what has been discussed numerous times, it is not
    only faith in a god but faith in the source of understanding God's
    nature...or getting a vague glimpse of it.  This is again why true
    fellowship cannot exist where likemindedness is not prevelent.
    
    -Jack

    I wonder.  Is anyone getting any work done?  :-)

    Tom:
    
    I made DEC100 this year...customers are happy, region is restructuring
    and I will handle a new area this year!  But go ahead and call Glen's
    boss and bend his ear! :-)
                 

Re  1243.175

>   Isaiah has many passages which identify God as a woman.  There is a
>   beautiful image of God pictured as the mother who takes care of her chicks
>   and will never forsake them.

    Where is this?  Are you perhaps refering to Ruth 2:12 or Matthew 23:37? -
    "O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, you who kill the prophets and stone those sent to
    you, how often I have longed to gather your children together, as a hen
    gathers her chicks under her wings, but you were not willing."

    This is simply an illustration.  It no more implies God the mother than it
    does God the hen.


>   Proverbs 8 has beautiful imagery of the Maiden who has been with God as
>   his sweat Darling Child since creation.

    "Does not wisdom call out?  Does not understanding raise her voice? "
    (Prov 8:1)

    The proverb is simpling using ther pronoun "she" to refer to the
    attribute of wisdom (which God did have at creation).


>   Their is another beautiful image of us being nursed by God at her
>   breast in Isaiah.

    "Who is it he is trying to teach?  To whom is he explaining his message?
    To children weaned from their milk, to those just taken from the breast?"
    (Isa 28:9)

    Again this is simply an illustration.  Note the impersonal quality of the
    last question.  The first two contain the personal word "he" the last does
    not.  The text does not say "her breast" but rather "the breast" - typical
    of an illustration.


>   Jesus has a parable of the Woman who searches for the lost coin as a
>   New Testament image of God the mother.

    A parable is an illustration by definition.  This does, not in any way,
    indicate Jesus teaching us about God the mother.


    Incidently, I have know problem with God having feminine attributes.
    However, I choose to respect the form of address he ALWAYS uses in his
    word.  He overwhelmingly describes himself in the masculine.

    Michael

    How many women have wings and give birth to chickens?

>    Glen, you have once again failed the litmus test...as there are many
>    gods.
    
    Jack,
    
    Since my religion is a monotheistic religion, then you fail the litmus
    test by your belief in many gods. (:-).
    
    
                                          

    Ha ha...remember the account in John 10?  Jesus quoted scripture
    himself...what an idolator by some standards huh??!!  
    
    "Is it not written, ye are gods??"  Jesus acknowledged the Psalmist
    here as in Paganism, many gods are acknowledged.  I see any
    personification of God contrary to his nature as another god.  The
    writer of the epistle of John also acknowledged there are false gods
    and false Christs.   
    
    -Jack

re Note 1243.162 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

> How does she demonstrate her love.  I can't possibly believe that she loves 
> me unless she will demonstrate it.  Will you give me some information about
> her love so that I might identify it and thus entertain it?  

        It seems supremely arrogant to demand a proof of God's love.

        Bob

re .194

You're wasting your time.

Patricia has made these same claims with these same verses before and has
been given the same answers.

/john

	I guess it just shows you that more that yourself are wrong in this,
John. :-)

    Jeff,
    
    The evidence of the mother's love is all around you.  Whether or not
    you choose to live in that love is up to you.  As far as pagans being
    the people who make up religions to rule out fears, I would suggest
    reading again your old testiment.  many of the same myths are covered
    in the Judaic scripts, as they are in the Sumerian, Greek, Vadic, Hindi,
    dinee, Sioux, Ute....... and a lot of other cultures and religions.  
    
    for me it is wrong to say all people are depraved, we are created in
    her image, and blessed to live on her life-supprt system so cleverly
    designed for us.  since Mom is not depraved, neither are we.  However,
    we do have the free will to ignore the only commandment I recognize
    both from her in all her manifestations, and in your own book of
    shadows.  Love your mom with all your heart, and treat others as you
    would be treated.  Being pagan I also am bounded by the three fold
    rule, much as your "bread upon the waters."  What I give to others, I
    get back three times.  So I can't wish anyone ill, no matter the
    provocation.  I can only hope they will come to know her, if not in
    this lifetime, in the next.  
    
    meg

    Hi Bob,
    
> How does she demonstrate her love.  I can't possibly believe that she loves 
> me unless she will demonstrate it.  Will you give me some information about
> her love so that I might identify it and thus entertain it?  

>>        It seems supremely arrogant to demand a proof of God's love.

>>        Bob
    
    Why does it seem so, Bob?  
    
    jeff

    Bob:
    
    What do the tenets of your churches faith statement say about Pagan
    worship?
    
    -Jack

    My dictionary tells me that a pagn is one who is not a christian,
    moslem of jew.  Do you concur with this definition?  Is it possible for
    someone to worship the one true god without having to identify with
    any of these faiths?

    -dave

 Z   My dictionary tells me that a pagn is one who is not a christian,
 Z   moslem of jew.  Do you concur with this definition?  Is it possible
 Z   for someone to worship the one true god without having to identify with
 Z   any of these faiths?
    
    I would concur with this.  Christians, Moslims and Jews acknowledge the
    God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob.  Goddess worship is the worship of a
    false god.
    
    -Jack

    It seems like a pagan is one who worships the creation rather than the
    Creator.

Our Father created their Mother.

>Our Father created their Mother.

Don't look now but they're the same.

Only the faces have been changed to confuse ....  :-)

    RE .208
    
    I tend to agree.
    
    Volaire once said
    
    "If God made man in his own image, man has certainly returned the
    compliment."
    
    Maybe all the different "images" are artifacts.  Just different views
    of the same thing.
    
    -dave

.204

>    My dictionary tells me that a pagn is one who is not a christian,
>    moslem of jew.  Do you concur with this definition?  Is it possible for
>    someone to worship the one true god without having to identify with
>    any of these faiths?

As it is with so many dictionary definitions, it's a little too generic and
fails to incorporate important subtleties.

Originally, pagan meant someone from the country.  In other words, a backwards
superstition-believing bumpkin.

Richard

    One of our tenents, and for those who have read the Chalice and the
    Blade and other historical works on religions is that our goddess gave
    birth to your god.  masculine goheads only really started showing up on
    the planet when there were enough people to start fighting over turf.  
    
    However for those who believe the world is less than 8K years old, then
    the knowlege of the pre-agrarian societies is probably one of those odd
    "mysteries."
    
    As a few here know the relationship of the creator and creation is much
    closer in my religion.  We honor our life support system that was
    created during the great rite, and work to protect it, as it is another
    living being created for us to live on.  Since we have no end-times, we
    know this is our planet, and our children's planet, and their
    children's planet.......
    
    It still amazes me on how many people misinterpret their own biblical
    teachings of dominion as something less than stewardship, and seem to
    have some twisted belief that their own life support system is
    meaningless, as "god is coming soon."  If I was in your shoes I would
    wonder just what kind of stewardship I had provided and would feel like
    a kid who totaled a parent's car if he or she shows up anytime soon.  
    
    Meg, An earth loving, Goddess worshipping, card carrying witch.

tenets

NNTTM

 Z   As a few here know the relationship of the creator and creation is
 Z   much closer in my religion.  We honor our life support system that was
 Z   created during the great rite, and work to protect it, as it is
 Z   another living being created for us to live on.  Since we have no
 Z   end-times, we know this is our planet, and our children's planet, and their
 Z   children's planet.......
 
    I know there is a string for this...but I have always failed to see how
    you reconcile the above with the act of abortion...or the end result of
    it.
    
    -Jack

    
    > As a few here know the relationship of the creator and creation is much
    > closer in my religion.

    I don't know your religion, I mean I know it only from your entries
    here, but there are, and have been, Christian theologians who see the
    creator connected to all things created. Jesus indicated this when he
    spoke of the lilies of the field and the sparrows in the air. Saint
    Bonaventure, a 13th century Franciscan, wrote at length about the
    vestiges of God being within all things created.

    Eric

    God as being masculine, feminine?  It's ridiculous.  What next, God's
    black, white, asian, european, tall, slender, speaks french... . 
    People's perceptions about God are one thing.  But that's not what
    defines God.
    
    -dave

>    God as being masculine, feminine?  It's ridiculous.  What next, God's
>    black, white, asian, european, tall, slender, speaks french... . 
>    People's perceptions about God are one thing.  But that's not what
>    defines God.

    Perhaps it's not so much that God takes attributes from the world
    but that each of the attributes has as its essence, God.  EG.  Men
    get their masculinity from God.  Women get their feimininity from
    God.  I have *no* idea where the french get their language, though :*)

    God does the defining.  What is defined (that's us!) cannot, with honesty, 
    define God.

    Tom

|Originally, pagan meant someone from the country.  In other words, a backwards
|superstition-believing bumpkin.
    
    at least they're consistent ;-)

|    One of our tenents, and for those who have read the Chalice and the
|    Blade and other historical works on religions is that our goddess gave
|    birth to your god.  masculine goheads only really started showing up on
|    the planet when there were enough people to start fighting over turf.  
    
    What is the point of origin?  where did goddess come from or who
    created her?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>    What is the point of origin?  where did goddess come from or who
>    created her?

    Isn't that kinda like asking, "Who created God?"

    Don't look now, but I think we're talking, ultimately,
    about the same deity.

    |    God.  I have *no* idea where the french get their language, though :*)
    
    from the Franks, Galls, Romans, and Germans. ;-)

|    Isn't that kinda like asking, "Who created God?"
    
    No.  God's name is YHWH - "I AM" -> present continuous tense.  No
    beginning, no ending.  Who was, and is, and is to come.  The same
    yesterday, today, forever.

|    Don't look now, but I think we're talking, ultimately,
|    about the same deity.
    
    Think again.  "He" <> "She"

    ZZ    Isn't that kinda like asking, "Who created God?"
    
    No it isn't.  Goddess worship has its origins from many cultures.  The
    Greek Empire, the Babylonian Empire, many of them.  
    
    ZZ    Don't look now, but I think we're talking, ultimately,
    ZZ    about the same deity.
    
    Once again this is not the case.  In Meg's note, she stated that the
    God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob was born from Mother...or the Goddess
    she worships.  YHWH as Mike put it states numerous times that He is 
    Preeminent above all things.  In other words Tom, no beginning.
    
    -Jack

Re .221

>    No.  God's name is YHWH - "I AM" -> present continuous tense.  No
>    beginning, no ending.  Who was, and is, and is to come.  The same
>    yesterday, today, forever.

Then why cannot the universe have this same attribute of not neding to be
created?

"Creation" only makes sense in the realm of time.  IOW, time must first
exist before anything can be created.  But if God created everything, and
if time exists, then God created time.  And this is impossible because time
would have to already have been in existence for it to have been created.

"Creating" time makes no sense.  We may be trying to apply our earthly
understanding of things in a realm where it's too limited to explain things
(IMO).  Like a flatlander trying to describe a third dimension.  In the same
way, requiring the universe to have a "creator" may not make any sense. 
Maybe the universe was not "created", as we understand and use the word.

-dave

>    No.  God's name is YHWH - "I AM" -> present continuous tense.  No
>    beginning, no ending.  Who was, and is, and is to come.  The same
>    yesterday, today, forever.

>>Then why cannot the universe have this same attribute of not neding to be
>>created?
    
    Well, explain then how what is here came into existence.

>>"Creation" only makes sense in the realm of time.  IOW, time must first
>>exist before anything can be created.  But if God created everything, and
>>if time exists, then God created time.  And this is impossible because time
>>would have to already have been in existence for it to have been created.
    
    I think you made an error in wording maybe or maybe your logic is
    simply all wrong ;)  Anyway, you are contradicting yourself when you
    say that time would have to already exist for it to have been created. 
    This is a completely contradictory, and therefore false, statement.

>>"Creating" time makes no sense.  We may be trying to apply our earthly
>>understanding of things in a realm where it's too limited to explain things
>>(IMO).  Like a flatlander trying to describe a third dimension.  In the same
>>way, requiring the universe to have a "creator" may not make any sense. 
>>Maybe the universe was not "created", as we understand and use the word.

>>-dave
    
    Creating time does make sense, your earlier logic notwithstanding. 
    We have an excellent account of how everything that is made exists. 
    The Bible describes its creation in some detail.
    
    jeff

    God is outside of time.

Here we go again Jeff...

>Well, explain then how what is here came into existence.

The point is that I'm willing to say "I don't know how it came into existence".
And I'm willing to say that I may not be able to know. Not knowing is not
comfortable, but I find it to be more palletable than believing Genesis.

>I think you made an error in wording maybe or maybe your logic.

No Jeff, we just have another one of our routine communication blocks.  In
my mind, the word "create" means to bring into existence.  The functinal word
there is "bring".  It's an action that takes place in time.  To me, things that
were created did not exist "prior" to when they were created and did exist
"after" they were created.  The functional words there are "prior" and "after".
The everyday definition of the word "create" implies a bed of time in which 
the action "create" can take place.  I admit that this is my interpretation 
and, if it disagrees with yours, must be false :-)

>Anyway, you are contradicting yourself when you
>    say that time would have to already exist for it to have been created.

Exactly.  I was stating it as a self contradictory statement, testimony that
there's something wrong with "creating time".  That was my whole point.

The direction I was driving in was to make the reader aware that something
exists which was not created and which was not God.  This something is time.
If time, something we consider to be part of the physical universe, can have
this feature, then why cannot the rest of the universe somehow have this 
feature as well?  
                 

>    We have an excellent account of how everything that is made exists.
>    The Bible describes its creation in some detail.

Yes it does.  But the question that now pops up is whether or not this
explanation is a reflection of the truth.  Greek mythology has an account of
how the universe was created.  That's not enough for me to accept it as truth.
The missing piece here (if I may) is the leap of faith.  Saying that the bible
is the truth because the bible says it is doesn't hack it (without a leap of
faith that is).  It's like defining a word with itself.

-dave

>   "Creating" time makes no sense.

    The existance of a temporal subset of a larger reality is not
    inconcievable.  This is analogous to a line segment in 3-D space.  Where
    our "time" is the line segment and God's is 3-D space.

    With regard to the universe having the attribute of "not needing to be
    created":  The evidence so strongly points to a temporal boundry point,
    "a beginning", that few, if any, scientists even entertain the idea of a
    "steady state" (forever existing) universe anymore.

    Besides, God told us he created it.  What more do you want? :-)

    Michael

    so the answer is simple.
    
    
    Why Christianity?
    
    	Because the Christian message and the Christian vision is
    inspiring.
    
    Why not Christianity?
    
    	Because the fanatics have so distorted the Christian message that
    the distorted message is mistaken for the real message and held in
    contempt.
             

Re .227

>The existance of a temporal subset of a larger reality is not
>    inconcievable.

Agreed.  But then where did the larger time line "come from"?  Or the 3-D
space you used in symbolism?  Time, however long the segment, could not have
been "created" for the reasons stated earlier.  One way out is to say that
time itself is a "piece" of God.  But we know time as being a facet of our
universe.  Does this mean that God = Universe?  Things are beginning to smell
a little like mysticism here!

I think the problem is that everything we've ever had to deal with in our
lives is embedded in the realm of time.  Asking us to think outside of this is
like asking a blind person what the stars look like. We cannot conceive of
anything existing outside of time.  So, we tend to think of every "effect" as
NEEDING a "cause".  ANd then  we ask "what caused the universe". This may not
be a valid question in the larger reality you referred to.

> The evidence so strongly points to a temporal boundry point,
> "a beginning", that few, if any, scientists even entertain the idea of a
> "steady state" (forever existing) universe anymore.

Yes.  But that's only from our puny perspective.  There may be many many more
variable that we're unaware of.  I'm not posing an answer here.  Just stating
that our abilities to understand the "big picture" may not be adaquet and that
extrapolating out understanding beyond where we know them to apply may not be
valid (like insisting that the universe needs to have been created).

>What more do you want?

Evidence that the source is a reflection of the truth :-))  That's all it
would take to turn this non-believer into a staunch believer.

-dave

    Z    Because the fanatics have so distorted the Christian message that
    Z    the distorted message is mistaken for the real message and held in
    Z    contempt.
    
    Ouch...her queen is threatening my rook! :-)  I was wondering where my
    favorite chess player went to!  
    
    -Your loving fanatic!

Hi Dave,
    
>Well, explain then how what is here came into existence.

>>The point is that I'm willing to say "I don't know how it came into existence".
    
    What you are *also* saying is that you reject the explanation God has
    given.  You may pride yourself on saying "I don't know" but it does not
    add to the discussion, satisfies no one, explains nothing.
    
>>And I'm willing to say that I may not be able to know. Not knowing is not
>>comfortable, but I find it to be more palletable than believing Genesis.
    
    So you believe no explanation whatsoever is better than the biblical
    explanation.

>I think you made an error in wording maybe or maybe your logic.

>>No Jeff, we just have another one of our routine communication blocks.  In
>>my mind, the word "create" means to bring into existence.  The functinal word
>>there is "bring".  It's an action that takes place in time.  To me, things that
>>were created did not exist "prior" to when they were created and did exist
>>"after" they were created.  The functional words there are "prior" and "after".
>>The everyday definition of the word "create" implies a bed of time in which 
>>the action "create" can take place.  I admit that this is my interpretation 
>>and, if it disagrees with yours, must be false :-)
    
    The principle of causality is well established and must be a given to
    have a meaningful discussion.  Though time is a difficult reality to
    discuss it is simple to say and *understand* that time did not exist 
    before it was created regardless of the use of the word "before".

>>The direction I was driving in was to make the reader aware that something
>>exists which was not created and which was not God.  This something is time.
>>If time, something we consider to be part of the physical universe, can have
>>this feature, then why cannot the rest of the universe somehow have this 
>>feature as well?  
    
But time was created. It is just a difficult thing to discuss.  But we know
    what we mean when we say it was created.  We do not know what it means
    to exist outside of time.  But we cannot dismiss that which we cannot
    know exhaustively especially when God has revealed so much to us.         

>    We have an excellent account of how everything that is made exists.
>    The Bible describes its creation in some detail.

>>Yes it does.  But the question that now pops up is whether or not this
>>explanation is a reflection of the truth.  Greek mythology has an account of
>>how the universe was created.  That's not enough for me to accept it as truth.
    
    So you really believe that the Greek mythology is as probable or as
    good an explanation as the Bible's explanation?  If you only had an
    objective method.
    
    What is "enough" for you, Dave?
    
>>The missing piece here (if I may) is the leap of faith.  Saying that the bible
>>is the truth because the bible says it is doesn't hack it (without a leap of
>>faith that is).  It's like defining a word with itself.

>>-dave
    
    The Bible says that God's existence is evident to every man and woman. 
    We are made in the image of God.  We cannot erase that image.  The
    universe declares constantly many of His attributes. Therefore, we are 
    culpably guilty for our sin of unbelief.
    
    But you are right in a way, Dave.  You cannot accept the truth of the
    Bible as the very Word of God without the Holy Spirit, God Himself,
    enabling you to do so.  You have the freedom to believe but you lack
    the ability to believe.  Only God can give you the ability.  And He
    freely offers the ability to all.  Seek faith and repentance, Dave.
    
    jeff

   Z     Only God can give you the ability.  And He
   Z     freely offers the ability to all.  Seek faith and repentance, Dave.
    
    Dave, keep in mind that this admonition applies to all!  It is
    something I need to apply to my life daily!
    
    -Jack

re .231 (Jeff)

>What you are *also* saying is that you reject the explanation God has given.

If I knew the explanation came from the one true GOd you speak of, I wouldn't
reject it.  I see the explanation coming from the bible, not a text which I
accept as the undisputed truth.

>You may pride yourself on saying "I don't know" but it does not
>add to the discussion, satisfies no one, explains nothing.

It's a frank statement about my understanding of the extremes posed in this 
subject (thing like creating time).  If you see no value in this, then so be 
it.

>So you believe no explanation whatsoever is better than the biblical 
>explanation.

When posed with an explanation, one can either say that they know it to be 
true, know it to be false or not know if it's true or false.  I choose the
third option in much of what Genesis has to say.  This is different than
believing or not believing.  There're only 2 options with believing.

>Though time is a difficult reality to
>    discuss it is simple to say and *understand* that time did not exist
>    before it was created regardless of the use of the word "before".

When you say "time did not exist before it was created" you're claiming that
it was created.  It had a "creator" (God).  He's the one tht "caused" time?
But it doesn't make sense to talk about cause/effect outside of time.  See 
the problem?  

All I'm suggesting here Jeff is that we're dabbling outside our element here
and that our "common sense" logic may fall apart, as it appear to do in this
case.  Cause/Effect are so deeply ingrained in our existence that English may
well not be an adaquet means to discuss the subject.  Struggling for a word 
like "create" which does not imply time is evidence of this.  Is this struggle
a reflection of our reluctance to admit that not everyting needs a cause?  It
might well be.

>But time was created. It is just a difficult thing to discuss.

It's an irritating subject, I'll admit.  Is it the struggle for a word or a 
concept?

>But we know what we mean when we say it was created.
Jeff, I think you're stuck in the space which requires everything (outside of
God) to have a cause.  I know, I'm stuck too. I feel like a flatlander trying
to describe a third dimension.  But I consider the possibility that some 
things may not require a cause, even though I've never experienced anything 
like that directly.  

Eastern philosophy solves the problem by claiming that time runs in a loop. 
Asking when the universe "started" is like searching for an end in a circle.
If you go far enough in time, you end up right back where you started. 
Impossible?  Not if time is curved in on itself in some higher dimension 
(God perhaps?).  It's like the 2-D surface of the Earth curved in on itself
in a third dimension, giving us a spherical world.  A flatlander travelling 
east long enough would find him/herself right where he/she started.  With no 
knowlege of a 3rd dimension, he/she would find this to be very bizzare.  With 
no knowlege of a dimension higher than time, we'd find the notion of time in 
a loop to be very bizzare.

Not saying this is the way it is or attempting to prove it.  Just saying that 
the possibility exists for the universe to have no cause given my
understanding of time.

>So you really believe that the Greek mythology is as probable or as
>    good an explanation as the Bible's explanation?

I never said that.  But an onjective method would be one which you compare the
story to known truth.  The story's probability of being the entire truth might
be indicated by how well it measures up with what you know to be true.  The
big question remains... How do you know what's really true?   How do you get a
yardstick with which to test religions?  

>What is "enough" for you, Dave?

From what I can see, I was designed to never be satisfied.  I'm given fallable
senses and a fallable brain to examine a tiny part of physical existence. 
With these, how can I make a determination which is "enough".  For these
reasons, I wonder if the effort isn't what's important despite the
hopelessness of the task.  This idea is not mine BTW.

Another approach, the eastern approach, is to experience God.  God can be
found within through mindful living.  Jesus said much the same thing if you
look at the gospels from that angle.  Reading a book called "Living Buddah, 
Living Christ" which explores this.

>The Bible says that God's existence is evident to every man and woman.
This "cries" out for a definition of "God".  Given the right definition, I'd
agree with this wholeheartedly.

As for the rest of it, in the interest of getting at the truth and
entertaining all possible avenues I here and now ask God for the show me the
truth.  This request is sincere.  It's also a request I've been making for a
long time now.  

It's said that Jesus is knocking at my door.  I don't hear any knocking.  No
matter, I open all the doors I see anyway.  No one there.  No matter, I step
through and look around.  Still no one.  No matter.  "I" start knocking on
every door I see, hoping one of them is his.  No answers. I call out.  NO
answers.  No matter, I'll still keep looking in whatever way I can.  This
includes looking for answers in this conference.

-dave

-dave 

    Jeff and Jack you can believe all you wish in whtever g-d you wish.  I
    will continue to believe in the mother and her creation of the
    universe, even to the god that she created same with.  
    
    jack,
    
    Being a pagan means giving people the right to decide what is right for
    themselves, as long as it does not intentionally hurt a breathing
    creature.  As I have said in the past.  nature, God, Goddes has quite
    an efficient abortuary, or is red of tooth and claw, as you choose to
    think.  She has blessed me with 8 confirmed pregnancies but has chosen
    to give me three living children.  She chose to give my mother 4 living
    children, but also gave her 14 years of spontaneous abortions between
    the first and second living child.  Somehow, I doubt she begrudges
    bpeople the occaisional choice of their own, but if she does, that is
    between that person and her creator.  As a friend and pagan midwife
    says, "If that particular spirit is meant to exist on this earth Mom
    will find a way."  
    
    meg

.217

>|Originally, pagan meant someone from the country.  In other words, a backwards
>|superstition-believing bumpkin.
    
>    at least they're consistent ;-)

Many looked down their noses at the largely rag-tag first generation
followers of Jesus, too.  I guess it all depends on whose bull is being
gored, eh?

Richard

    
    > I guess it all depends on whose bull is being gored, eh?

    This is too funny! Did you intend the double-entendre? I've always
    heard the expression ".. ox is being gored," but using the word "bull"
    had a whole new dimension when you're referring to people's comments,
    rhetoric and dogma... :^)

    Eric

    .236
    
    I wish I could claim cleverness.  But alas, I cannot.  It was more a
    case of bovine intervention.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Hello Folks,
    
    Taking a bit of a different tack concerning the question, "Why
    Christianity?" and an answer I offer the following for those who like
    to level all religions as "interfaces" to God, if you will.  I've
    always believed that this was a completely irrational approach to
    understanding religions and that it really reflects a presupposition
    held in ignorance.  But I guess this is the nature of all "popular"
    religions in that they reflect desires rather than reality.
    
    I was ordering some Christ-centered books from Westminster Theological
    Seminary Bookstore over the phone this morning.  The man I was speaking 
    with had an obvious accent and I asked him where he was from.  He said
    India.  I asked him if he was a Christian and he said yes.  I went on
    to praise God with him that God had saved him from an environment that
    is theologically and practically hostile to Christianity (and has been
    for many, many years - maybe forever), that is, India and Hinduism.  He
    joined me in praising God.
    
    He shared with me how his great grandfather was the first convert to
    Christianity in his family.  His GGF was summarily poisoned by his own
    family but survived.  He was taken in by a Christian missionary with
    the surname of Bunyan who nursed him to health and taught him the faith
    and encouraged him in his work for the Lord.  The GGF added the name
    Gideon to his own surname which was the name of a Hindu goddess.  This
    was not appropriate so he changed his last name to Bunyan.  The GGF
    lived a long life serving the Lord with much persecution.
    
    The son of the GGF, the grandfather of the man I was speaking with,
    also became a Christian and then a minister.  He was the first Bishop
    of South India and had a long life.  The grandfather then had a son,
    who is the father of the man I was talking with.  The son also became a
    minister in the Christian church.  However, by the time of his life
    (and even moreso now), since the govt. is largely a reflection of
    Hinduist thought and practice, to convert to Christianity means to lose
    the privileges and govt. support due to the caste one is in.  97% of a
    Indian Christian converts are in the lowest caste and are therefore
    denied even the most fundamental necessities of life.  Of course the
    caste system is also the result of Hinduism.
    
    The point is that Hinduism is an oppressive, evil religion as it is
    practiced.  It is not one of the benign interfaces to the God of
    Israel. 
    
    jeff

>    The point is that Hinduism is an oppressive, evil religion as it is
>    practiced.  It is not one of the benign interfaces to the God of
>    Israel. 

    And the Spanish Inquisition is just one manifestation of how
    Christianity is "practiced."  It used to murder and burn the
    people of Israel and anyone else who didn't "tow the line."

    As practiced, Christianity has been pretty evil in it's own
    way.

    The premise of the previous reply is completely without merit.

    Tom

    Tom, you err once again.  Christians had nothing to do with the
    Inquisition.

    |    children, but also gave her 14 years of spontaneous abortions between
    
    this seems to be a strange way to refer to miscarriages.  Abortions are
    pre-meditated acts.  Miscarriages are mostly due to health problems
    with the mother, child, or both.  Spontaneous pre-meditation is an
    oxymoron.
    
    Meg, what is your view of someone who snuffs out what the goddess has 
    given them?  Do you see everything as amoral?
    
    Mike

>    Tom, you err once again.  Christians had nothing to do with the
>    Inquisition.

    I'm not in the mood to play games.  The people in charge thought
    of themselves as practicing Christians.
    
    Tom

    Re .239 (Tom)  
    
    Agreed.  Everybody's poop stinks.  We just prefer not to smell our own.
    
    
    Re .240
    
    >Christians had nothing to do with the Inquisition.
    
    No more than Hindus have anything to do with the persecution Jeff 
    mentioned.  It's a philosophy and religion of peace and acceptance and
    love.  Those who claim to follow it's philosophy and persecute others
    are missing the point... just like the Inquisitioners.
    
    
    Re .237
    
    Don't shake a condescending finger at the oppressors.  If they happened
    to be christian, they'd probably be oppressing the hindus, or the
    moslems, or the blacks, or the whites, or the handicapped or whoever
    wasn't "like them".  Jeff, it serves no one to drive a wedge between 
    christianisty and hinduism.  Didn't Jesus teach acceptance and love of
    everyone?  Even your so called "enemy"?  "Turn the other cheek"?  I find
    these facets of christianity so important in a situation like this. 
    And guess what, the hindu religion has it's counterparts (the the
    degree that it's almost scary).  
    
    If you think hindus are all intolerant bullies, remember Ghandi.
    
    
    -dave
    

    
    The caste system, a cruel system of differentiation of incredible
    proportion and consequence, is based exclusively upon Hinduism.  Take
    your "peace and love" theme and test it against the caste system.
    
    jeff

>    The premise of the previous reply is completely without merit.

>    Tom
    
    Tom, please don't use the word "premise" in your replies.  I shudder
    when I think of how illogical your replies are *always*.
    
    jeff

    As Christianity sactified the institution of slavery so does
    Hinduism promote the caste system.
    
    In other words:  NOT!

>    Tom, please don't use the word "premise" in your replies.  I shudder
>    when I think of how illogical your replies are *always*.

    That made me laugh out loud.

    Tom

Re  .243

>   And guess what, the hindu religion has it's counterparts (the the
>   degree that it's almost scary).

    A counterfeit works best if it closely resembles the original.  If
    Christianity is true, there is active evil out there creating
    counterfeits.  One of Satan's best weapons is false religion.

Re  .246

    Christianity DOES NOT sanctify the institution of slavery

    Re .244 (JEff)
    
    Remove the beam Jeff.

    Hinduism *REQUIRES* the caste system.  The beliefs of fulfillment of
    your caste duty and jati, and their relation to reincarnation, are the
    very essence of reward and punishment at the hands of the Hindu gods.
    To say otherwise shows cultural misunderstanding.
    
    The very fact that Buddhism originally gained popularity (~500 B.C.) is 
    because they rejected the caste system.  By rejecting caste there is
    the implication of having characteristics of a universal religion.  No
    longer was Hinduism the only choice.  Whether you were a Brahman
    priest, Kshatriyas warrior, Vaishyas commoner, Sudra slave, or an
    Untouchable, you still had a chance for "enlightenment."
    
    Hinduism/Brahmanism requires you to be a Brahman, Kshatriyas, or
    Vaishyas, with the only chance for advancement found in fulfillment of
    your caste and jati duties.
    
    Mike

>    Christianity DOES NOT sanctify the institution of slavery

    Just my point.  Hinduism does not sanctify the caste system either.

>    A counterfeit works best if it closely resembles the original.  If
>    Christianity is true, there is active evil out there creating
>    counterfeits.  One of Satan's best weapons is false religion.

    Err... don't look now but Hinduism is older, by at least 3 times,
    than Chistianity.

    Even so, I *still* don't believe that Christianity is counterfeit.

    Tom

    Re: .251
    
    |    Just my point.  Hinduism does not sanctify the caste system either.
    
    maybe we should define sanctify.  Regardless, Hinduism requires the
    caste system.  It doesn't work without it.
    
|    Err... don't look now but Hinduism is older, by at least 3 times,
|    than Chistianity.
    
    yeah, but if you include Judaism, of which lies a major percentage in
    the roots of Christianity, it's a non-issue.
    
    Mike

    Hi Mike,

    I'm begining to understand why my notes don't make sense to you.

 ZZ    Just my point.  Hinduism does not sanctify the caste system either.
    
    Well, Tom...it seems that you are denying what others are confirming as
    an attribute of Hinduism.  Being unfamiliar with it, I ask you as
    somebody who claims what you do...is the caste system a primary tenet
    of the Hindu faith or is it something limited to specific sects of
    Hinduism? 
    
    Incidently, Christians who embraced slavery did so because they were
    ignorant in their understanding of scripture.  
    
    -Jack

    Re .247 (Michael)
    
    The commonalities are astonishing.  Many have written about this. 
    Amoung them are highly recognized devout christian theologians.
    I have a personal friend, a catholic trappisty monk, who traveled to 
    and lived in Japan to study this.  His insights are remarkable.
    There are many eastern authors on the subject as well, but you'd
    probably be more comfortable with the christians.
    
    If you can't accept non-christians as having insight to the truth, at
    least start by not disliking them.  It's what Jesus would ask :-)
    
    
    Re .248, .250
    
    The caste system is a social system born of a twisted interpretation 
    of what the Buddah taught.  His life and teachings epitomized the
    golden rule, long before Jesus was even born.  Sorry if you find that
    offensive, but it's true.  As Jesus would be appauled to see klansmen 
    using his name to justify their social causes, so would the Buddah be
    appauled to see a caste system.   
    
    
    
    I feel like this is a political campaign, each side dragging the muck
    of the other side around in an effort to denegrate the other.  The
    caste system, the crusades, the inquisition, slavery, blah, blah,
    blah... .  I won't do it anymore.  It's not "christian".  
    
    -dave
    
    

Re  .251

>   Err... don't look now but Hinduism is older, by at least 3 times,
>   than Chistianity.

    Jesus is called the "Lamb slain from the foundation of the world" Rev 13:8

    God planned to die for our sin before the world was even created.  He has
    been working with His people since the very beginning.  Look at Abel.
    Look at Enoch.  God's plan (Christianity) has been there from the VERY
    beginning even if His full revelation of it only dates back 2000 years. NO
    religion is older that God's plan for salvation.

    Satan, has also been at work since the beginning to deceive us.

    Michael

>    I feel like this is a political campaign, each side dragging the muck
>    of the other side around in an effort to denegrate the other.  The
>    caste system, the crusades, the inquisition, slavery, blah, blah,
>    blah... .  I won't do it anymore.  It's not "christian".  

    My point is that the transgressions on both sides are NOT 
    based on what the respective religions truly stand for.

    Just to double check, I just went and asked someone who
    grew up in the Hindu tradition.  He said that the caste
    system was in place and when Hinduism came around the
    religion was adapted to fit the situation.  As practiced, 
    Hinduism was made to adapt to society.

    Tom

    >My point is that the transgressions on both sides are NOT
    >based on what the respective religions truly stand for.
    
    Absolutely.  The abominations come from the people, not the truth of
    the religion.  I may not have said this explicitly, but I inferred this
    when I said that both Jesus and Buddah would be appauled by the caste
    system and the klan.
    
    We tend to judge a religion by the way it's proclaimed followers tend
    to live.  By that metric, there is no beaming example of a righteous
    religion.  
    
    And then there's fear.  Jesus never said pagans were evil or devils or
    anytihng of the sort.  In fact he embraced them with open arms.  THAT'S
    the example people should be taking notice of. 
    
    -dave
    

    
    Then Dave, Tom, Patricia, and all the rest who like clockwork drag up
    the atrocities committed in the name of Christianity, in history, need
    to stop doing so.  To do so is a not a defense of your views at all. 
    In fact, it is certain that you can only make Christianity look good as
    you bring up atrocities and when nonChristian religions, especially
    the ones you borrow from to build your own, are spectacularly cruel and
    practiced right up to this very minute.
    
    jeff

    
    And Dave, I'm really tiring of you telling us what Jesus did and didn't
    do, what he did and didn't teach, what he did and didn't say.  You are 
    completely unqualified to make such strident statements. The only record 
    we have concerning Jesus is the Bible and you have absolutely taken your 
    stand against its reliability, authority, and veracity.
    
    jeff

    Soo.....how bout them Patriots!

    Jeff, I see there being a vast difference between what Jesus taught and
    what christians practice.  The same can be said for hindus I guess. 
    Same for moslems.  If I speak down to the something like the inquisition,
    this is not an attack on Jesus.  Something like the inquisition is a
    warning that man can twist something like a religion to suit his own
    needs.  And it's an example that everyone.. EVERYONE of every religion
    can screw up, despite whatever banner he/she happens to be waiving.
    
    -dave

>    And Dave, I'm really tiring of you telling us what Jesus did and didn't
>    do, what he did and didn't teach, what he did and didn't say.  You are 
>    completely unqualified to make such strident statements. The only record 
>    we have concerning Jesus is the Bible and you have absolutely taken your 
>    stand against its reliability, authority, and veracity.

    Yeah.  But he's the only one here who has called for peace.

    Tom

>    Soo.....how bout them Patriots!


    RIGHT ON!   :-)

>You are completely unqualified to make such strident statements.
Not completely.  I cite the blatently obvious themes.

>The only record we have concerning Jesus is the Bible 
Not true.  Right off the bat, the Koran and gnostic gospels come to mind.

>...and you have absolutely taken your stand against its reliability,
>authority, and veracity.

Reliability and veracity?  Not true.  I think it contains a lot of truth.

But I won't "tire" you any more with this.

Re  .255

>   The commonalities are astonishing.  Many have written about this.
>   Amoung them are highly recognized devout christian theologians.

    There are commonalities.  I've read a lot on the subject also.  The
    problem is that NONE of the commonalities contain God's plan of salvation
    that He has given us in His word.  I have no respect for a "Christian"
    theologian's position if it compromises the gospel (even by omission) for
    the sake of exploring commonalities.  I have to wonder what a "Christian"
    hopes to accomplish by this.  The Scriptures contain God's fully
    sufficient revelation.  Sharing the gospel with the followers of other
    religions should be their PRIMARY concern.  If we explore commonalities 
    as a means to "make friends" then OK, provided this is not the ultimate
    goal.  If it is to say "you have some of the truth but here is the whole
    truth" then OK.

    The true gospel has basically three elements:
       1. who Christ is - fully God and sinless man in one person (anything
          less that full deity could not pay for the sins of all mankind).
       2. who we are - sinners with no hope, condemned to eternal separation
          from God.
       3. what Christ's death accomplished - the full payment of the penalty
          for our sins (any attempt on our part to pay rejects what Christ
          did for us) and the restored relationship with Him this brings.


>   If you can't accept non-christians as having insight to the truth, at
>   least start by not disliking them.  It's what Jesus would ask :-)

    Have I done this?  I don't think so.  I contend against the religious
    systems which keep them from a relationship with the true God, who is
    Christ.

    Michael

    Dave, (.255)
    
    the caste system started with the Aryans, long before Buddha came on
    the scene.

>    religions should be their PRIMARY concern.  If we explore commonalities 
>    as a means to "make friends" then OK, provided this is not the ultimate
>    goal.  If it is to say "you have some of the truth but here is the whole
>    truth" then OK.

    I think loving your neighbor makes for a perfectly adequate
    goal.  If understanding where they are coming from from a
    religious standpoint helps you be less suspicious, then
    understanding their religion seems to be a good start.

    After listening to their side, let us tell our side.  But
    we shouldn't let it get in the way of loving each other.

>    The true gospel has basically three elements:
>       1. who Christ is - fully God and sinless man in one person (anything
>          less that full deity could not pay for the sins of all mankind).
>       2. who we are - sinners with no hope, condemned to eternal separation
>          from God.
>       3. what Christ's death accomplished - the full payment of the penalty
>          for our sins (any attempt on our part to pay rejects what Christ
>          did for us) and the restored relationship with Him this brings.

    What about love?

    It looks like your "true gospel" is lacking if love is just
    an afterthought.

    Tom

    re:243(?)
    
    etc. etc.etc.
    
    |                     Jeff, it serves no one to drive a wedge between 
    |christianisty and hinduism.  Didn't Jesus teach acceptance and love of
    |everyone?  Even your so called "enemy"?  "Turn the other cheek"?  I find
    |these facets of christianity so important in a situation like this. 
    |And guess what, the hindu religion has it's counterparts (the the
    |degree that it's almost scary).  
    
    The Gospel of Christ will bring division.  There is no warm-fuzzy,
    middle-of-the-road, everybody's happy stance.  You are either for Christ
    as He as revealed Himself in the Bible, or you are against Him.  Noters,
    even families, will choose-up sides as to what Jesus Christ ultimately
    means to them:
                                    - - -
    
    Matthew 10:34-36 (The word's of Jesus)
    
    Do not suppose that I come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not
    come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn "a man
    against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law
    against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his
    own household."
    
                                    - - -
    
    Of course these verses can be twisted pretty nicely!  
    
    John
    
        
                  

>    Do not suppose that I come to bring peace to the earth.  I did not
>    come to bring peace, but a sword.  For I have come to turn "a man
>    against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law
>    against her mother-in-law - a man's enemies will be the members of his
>    own household."

    Yes. He came to shake things up.  When the younger generation
    breaks with tradition there is often strife.  But he was talking 
    metaphorically when he said "sword."

    So, put down your sword, Peter.

|    What about love?
|
|    It looks like your "true gospel" is lacking if love is just
|    an afterthought.
    
    
    there is no greater love than John 3:16

Re: .271 Mike

>    there is no greater love than John 3:16

I think greater love is at least theoretically possible:

	"For God so loves the world that no one will perish - whether they
	deserve it or not."

				-- Bob

.244
    
>    The caste system, a cruel system of differentiation of incredible
>    proportion and consequence, is based exclusively upon Hinduism.  Take
>    your "peace and love" theme and test it against the caste system.
    
And in contrast, are we also to believe the system of capitalism and
democracy is utterly benign and based exclusively upon Christianity?

Richard

 re "sword"  a couple other places where the word "sword" is used:

 Eph 6:17 where Paul write of the armour of God "and take the helmet of
 salvation, and the sword of the Sprit, which is the word of God"..notice
 that the sword is the only piece of armour intended as and offensive tool..

 Hebrews 4:12  "For the Word of God is quick and powerful and sharper than
 any two edged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and
 spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts
 and intents of the heart"

 Interesting when taken along with the passage from Matthew quoted earlier,
 the sword that Jesus brings..



 Jim

    The authorship of the letter to the Ephesians is not beyond dispute.
    Hebrews is widely accepted as not having been written by Paul.  In any
    case, Paul is not Jesus.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

| <<< Note 1243.245 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| Tom, please don't use the word "premise" in your replies.  I shudder
| when I think of how illogical your replies are *always*.

	It doesn't change the fact that Tom is right. But it does give you a
deflection to not answer his question.

| <<< Note 1243.248 by SLBLUZ::CREWS >>>


| Christianity DOES NOT sanctify the institution of slavery

	It surprises me that up until this note, anyway, everyone except for
those who are strong Right Christians have seen the truth. The RRC say that it
wasn't Christians who did the slavery, or SI thing. Yet they don't seem to
realize that the same thing holds true for Jeff's little story. Let's judge
everyone but those who are in our backyard.


Glen

>    The authorship of the letter to the Ephesians is not beyond dispute.
>    Hebrews is widely accepted as not having been written by Paul.  In any
>    case, Paul is not Jesus.
    
 
  Yet, Paul's writings are affirmed as scripture.  

 can someone translate .277?





 Jim

	It's simple, Jim. What happened to the person in Jeff's story has
nothing to do with the the Hindu religion, as slavery had nothing to do with
the Christian religion. But in both cases it were the people withing their
religion who did the wrong. But Jeff seems to only acknowledge that for the
Christians of the world, and not for the Hindu's.


Glen

    Mike,
    
    Abortions are terminations of pregnancy, period.  Spontaneous abortion
    is the correct medical terminology for a miscarriage.
    
    My views and opinions of others' choices are not what is important,
    that is between them and the mother.  Since I don't walk in their
    shoes, I have no idea why a person makes a choice, even if it is to
    have an 18th child when 7 have already starved to death.  
    
    meg  

Re  .272

>>   there is no greater love than John 3:16
>
>    I think greater love is at least theoretically possible:
>
>       "For God so loves the world that no one will perish - whether they
>       deserve it or not."

    Bob,

        This IS virtually what John 3:16 is about.  The only alteration needed
    is that the word 'will' be changed to 'has to'.

        "For God so loves the world that no one has to perish - whether they
        deserve it or not."

    What some seem to want is:

       "For God so loves the world that He FORCES EVERYONE to choose Him (and
       thus not perish) - whether they want it or not."

    Michael

Re: .283 Michael

My point is that God's love as depicted in John 3:16 is conditional rather
than unconditional.  Does God love atheists?  Apparently not - or at least
He has a funny way of showing it.

				-- Bob

>My point is that God's love as depicted in John 3:16 is conditional rather
>than unconditional.  Does God love atheists?  Apparently not - or at least
>He has a funny way of showing it.


 I love my oldest son, however, he has chosen to live a life that is totally
 against the life I would have him to lead, one that is destructive to him and
 others.  My love hasn't changed..but, I will have no fellowship with my
 son, until he determines to change the direction of his life.


 

 Jim

Jim,

If your son died and God gave you the choice of sending your son to heaven
or sending your son to hell, which would you choose?

				-- Bob

 Of course I'd choose that he go to heaven..however, he has had many 
 opportunities to choose Christ and has refused.  I continue to pray,
 of course.  As a father, my heart breaks



 Jim

Re  .275

>   The authorship of the letter to the Ephesians is not beyond dispute.

    Mere speculation and beside the point.

>   Hebrews is widely accepted as not having been written by Paul.

    I don't quite agree with the "widely accepted" part, but yes, its
    authorship widely is in doubt.  However its inspiration isn't.  Besides
    Jim didn't quote this one specifically as Paul's.

>   In any case, Paul is not Jesus.

    So?  He was inspired by the Holy Spirit.  He was an Apostle chosen by
    Jesus personally.  As Jim pointed out his letters were acknowledged as
    scripture by Peter.  Nor were they disputed by the other Apostles.

    Did Jesus physically write Matthew?  No.  The Holy Spirit brought
    rememberence and inspiration to Matthew also.

    All this simply deflects the issue.  That the Word of God is described as
    a sword is not in doubt by Biblical scholars.  Reference also Isa 49:2,
    Hos 6:5, Rev 1:16.

    Michael

     Hi Richard,
    
>    The caste system, a cruel system of differentiation of incredible
>    proportion and consequence, is based exclusively upon Hinduism.  Take
>    your "peace and love" theme and test it against the caste system.
    
>>And in contrast, are we also to believe the system of capitalism and
>>democracy is utterly benign and based exclusively upon Christianity?

>>Richard

   No, I haven't suggested that, though many of the fundamental principles of 
   capitalism and democracy are based upon Christian principles and are
   therefore good and right.  

   The caste system, and thus Hinduism, are decidedly at odds with Christian
   principles and result in constant oppression and cruelty to those who
   are in it.  Not only are the adherents alienated from God but they are
   oppressed in the name of god.

   jeff

    I wonder what is worst!
    
    
    To live one lifetime as an outcast or to be tortured forever in Hell!
    
    
    
    just to put the reward/punishment scheme into perspective.
    
    
    
    Mahatma Ghandi himself protested and worked against the caste system!
    
    
                               Patricia

    Hi Patricia,
    
    >I wonder what is worst!
    
    >To live one lifetime as an outcast or to be tortured forever in Hell!
    >just to put the reward/punishment scheme into perspective.
    
    You've got a false dichotomy here.  Reality is not contradictory and
    reincarnation and biblical life/death are mutually exclusive.
    
    >Mahatma Ghandi himself protested and worked against the caste system!
    
    So?  This isn't a personality contest and Ghandi failed anyway. Just
    goes to show the power of pagan religion.  I know it doesn't make sense
    that such delusion should hold sway over so many souls.  But, there it
    is!

     >Patricia
	
     jeff

    Reencarnation and Heaven are two different viewpoints on what happens
    to the earthly body after it dies.   Both attempt to provide at least
    partial answers to the problem of good/evil and it's reward/punishment.
    
    There really are similarities between the Biblical acceptance of
    Slavery, "Slave, honor your master" and the Hindu Caste system.  Both
    are based on the same premise that this life is temporal and therefore
    one's condition in this life is not critical.
    
    Mahatma Ghandi was successful in many ways.  He was not entirely
    successful in bringing about all the changes in this world that he
    would have wanted to.   The same can be said of Jesus Christ as well.
    Both the fundementalist Christian perspective and the fundementalist
    Hindu perspective are similiar in that both are oriented toward some
    other reality beyond what we experience in our lives.
    
    Persons comfortable with themselves do not have to denigrate others.  A
    religion comfortable with itself, does not have to denigrate the
    religion of others.                                 

    Ghandi failed?  Why, because the caste system still exists?

    Jesus spoke out against hatred and violence.  Do these not still
    exist in the Christian world?  DOes that make Jesus a failure?

    I don't think so.

    
    You're crazy, Patricia!  ;)
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1243.291 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| So?  This isn't a personality contest and Ghandi failed anyway. Just
| goes to show the power of pagan religion.  

	And Christianity. It took a long time for each thing to be found false.
Many lives were lost before this happened. Please don't pass off that
Christianity can be any different than the other religions when their history
shows this to not be true.

    
    Please, Dave, I'm sickened by your comparison of Christ and Ghandi.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1243.296 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Please, Dave, I'm sickened by your comparison of Christ and Ghandi.

	You could leave the conference then. :-)

    Jeff, I feel that if I said "1+1=2", you'd get "sickened".
    
    -dave

>    Jeff, I feel that if I said "1+1=2", you'd get "sickened".
    
>    -dave
    
    Well, that's a nice exaggeration, Dave.  I haven't used that word in
    communication with you before or anyone else, now have I?  It also
    continues your process of obfuscating the truth.  It must be clear why
    I am sickened yet you won't for a moment entertain my reason.
    
    You very mistakenly and conveniently mischaracterize my view of you by
    such a statement. 
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1243.296 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Please, Dave, I'm sickened by your comparison of Christ and Ghandi.

>>	You could leave the conference then. :-)
    
    You'd like that wouldn't you, Glen.  But who would then be such a thorn
    in your side?  Who would God use to be his witness that he can save
    anyone, no matter how deceived and entrenched in sin?  I'm not leaving,
    pal.  
    
    Dave's and Patricia's view of Ghandi and Christ as equals is sin against 
    God himself, not me.  But I can't help but be sickened by the
    comparison.  I'll try not to say so in the future.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1243.299 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Well, that's a nice exaggeration, Dave.  

	Jeff, if he had used the word, "disagree", would that have been closer
to the truth? I suppose someday you will agree with someone in here.... but I
don't see it all too often anywhere else, so I don't expect to see it here.

| It must be clear why I am sickened yet you won't for a moment entertain my 
| reason.

	I find your reasonings quite entertaining. 

| You very mistakenly and conveniently mischaracterize my view of you by
| such a statement.

	It's not really off by much, Jeff.


Glen

| <<< Note 1243.301 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| You'd like that wouldn't you, Glen. But who would then be such a thorn in your
| side?  

	This to me would be an unChristian reason to stay. But I thought there
was some rule where you couldn't hang out with those you feel are non-believers?

| Who would God use to be his witness that he can save anyone, no matter how 
| deceived and entrenched in sin?  

	Someone who actually has a chance at getting through to someone maybe?
Your style doesn't work in most cases. I mean, how many people in here have you
"saved"? If God is love.... and if you want to be like God.... then do it with
love, not scorn. 

| Dave's and Patricia's view of Ghandi and Christ as equals is sin against God 
| himself, not me.  

	Then let God handle it if you feel so strongly about it.



Glen

    
    You really don't know what you're talking about, Glen.  
    
    jeff

    Why not Christianity???

    Gandhi
    
    nnttm

    Gandhi said he would be a Christian were it not for the Christians he
    knew.  Some can easily see why Gandhi felt the way he did.
    
    Richard
    

    .299
    
    Well, I don't understand why you are sickened, Jeff.  Perhaps you're
    sickened on God's behalf?  Surely you realize God is not so petty.
    
    Richard
    

Note 1243.289

>   No, I haven't suggested that, though many of the fundamental principles of 
>   capitalism and democracy are based upon Christian principles and are
>   therefore good and right.

I suspected as much.  Precisely to which fundamental principles that are based
on Christian principles are you referring?

>   The caste system, and thus Hinduism, are decidedly at odds with Christian
>   principles and result in constant oppression and cruelty to those who
>   are in it.  Not only are the adherents alienated from God but they are
>   oppressed in the name of god.

I don't see it all that different from historic efforts by self-professed
Christians to keep people in cultural tow.

Richard

> <<< Note 1243.248 by SLBLUZ::CREWS >>>

> Christianity DOES NOT sanctify the institution of slavery

I'm sure our readership is intelligent enough to know that this is simply
playing games with either words or history.

Richard

 I'm sure our readership is intelligent enough to know that the slavery
 in the Bible and that which is part of this country's history are 2
 different things.




 Jim

>    Gandhi said he would be a Christian were it not for the Christians he
>    knew.  Some can easily see why Gandhi felt the way he did.
    
 
  'tis a shame that he looked to humans rather than Christ.  It is sad
 that many of us Christians do not represent our savior very well, this 
 writer included at times.  A former pastor of mine once said "our lives
 may be the only Bible some people see".  Nonetheless, Christ was still
 there, His nail pierced hands reaching for Ghandi, and it is he who
 refuses to take the hands who are lost.




 Jim    

    Re: .311
    
    Correct, Jim.  All you have to do is research what a bondservant was.

I'm also sure that our readership is intelligent enough to know that it
was largely due to the efforts of William Wilberforce and his Christian
friends, companions, and family (all of his sons became priests and one
is a famous Bishop) that slavery was abolished in the entire British
empire.

Likewise, I'm sure that our readership is intelligent enough to know
that it was radical Christians in the United States who worked for
the abolition of slavery as well.

/john

    Slavery is slavery . <period>

>   No, I haven't suggested that, though many of the fundamental principles of 
>   capitalism and democracy are based upon Christian principles and are
>   therefore good and right.

>>I suspected as much.  Precisely to which fundamental principles that are based
>>on Christian principles are you referring?

To name a few:

1. The inalienable rights granted by our Creator.
2. The equality of men because of the Creator.
3. Private property.
4. The rule of law.
5. Liberty to pursue happiness.


>   The caste system, and thus Hinduism, are decidedly at odds with Christian
>   principles and result in constant oppression and cruelty to those who
>   are in it.  Not only are the adherents alienated from God but they are
>   oppressed in the name of god.

>>I don't see it all that different from historic efforts by self-professed
>>Christians to keep people in cultural tow.

>>Richard

Well, we know about your rose-colored glasses, Richard.

    
>    Well, I don't understand why you are sickened, Jeff.  Perhaps you're
>    sickened on God's behalf?  Surely you realize God is not so petty.
    
>    Richard
    
    I know you don't understand, Richard.  You don't know Christ and
    therefore you can't possibly understand the awe and reverence I have
    for him.  It is from this position of love and gratitude to Christ,
    being very God, that a comparison to G(h)and(h)i, a mere man, is
    sickening.
    
    And in case you didn't know, God is jealous of his own name and of his
    own glory.  Surely such a comparison to him is not petty.  It is
    another example of how depraved men are that they don't acknowledge
    Christ as God and give him due reverence.
    
    jeff

    John,
    
    You are absolutely right.  The Christian ideal will all push toward
    Love, Mercy, and Justice for all.  It is a false Christianity that
    supports injustice.
    
    I argue so vehemously against the innerrantist position, because I
    believe that it is the innerantist position that allows for Bible based
    oppression.  It is for me a position which I believe promotes the
    letter of the writings rather than the Spirit of the scripture.
    
    The letter of the writings clearly states that Slavery is a normal
    condition and that slaves should do nothing to try to change there
    condition.  Slaves should obey and work hard for their masters. 
    Masters should not mistreat slaves.
    
    The Spirit of scripture though clearly shows love, mercy, and justice
    as normative.  The Spirit of scripture consistently shows Jesus on the
    side of the disadvantaged.  Slavery is clearly against the Spirit of
    Scripture.
    
    

ZZ     Slavery is slavery . <period>
    
    You are taking something and making it absolute.  Was it wrong of
    Rachel's father to keep Isaac in servitude for seven years?  Well it
    was certainly wrong of dad to give him the hand of Leah but if my
    biblical history serves me correctly, Isaac took upon the role of slave
    as an act of free volition.  In the text of biblical slavery under the
    Mosaic law, much of slavery as an institution was used as in the case
    of Isaac...to obtain a further goal or like many, to pay off a debt.   
    In a sense Patricia, when one purchases land on a note, they become a
    slave to the mortgagor.  
    
    Therefore, your statement above is more involved than you give it
    credit.  I do not try to belittle what slaves of our country have
    endured by any means.  However, I will state unequivocally that those
    in the 1800's that used biblical history to endorse slavery....read
    carefully here Patricia, did so because they did not understand nor
    believe the tenet of the authority of scripture.  Since they didn't
    believe, they became a law unto themselves.  
    
    -Jack

    Z    The letter of the writings clearly states that Slavery is a normal
    Z    condition and that slaves should do nothing to try to change there
    Z    condition.  Slaves should obey and work hard for their masters. 
    Z    Masters should not mistreat slaves.
    
    I find it interesting that Paul starts some of his letters by saying,
    "Paul, a bondservant and prisoner of Jesus Christ..."  Do you think it
    was beneath Paul to subject himself in this manner?
    
    -Jack

    re .289, .309
    
    Also see note 70...

Jeff,
    
>  You don't know Christ and therefore you can't possibly understand the awe
>   and reverence I have for him. 
    
     I find it very objectionable and very Unbiblical that you would
    pretend to know what is in Richard's heart and what Richard's relationship
    is with Christ.  
    
    
    
>     It is from this position of love and gratitude to Christ,
>     being very God, that a comparison to G(h)and(h)i, a mere man, is
>     sickening.
    
    
    All women and men are images of God.  Jesus Christ is the most perfect
    image of God.  Trinitarian principles declare Jesus Christ to be fully
    human as well as fully divine.  For me the unique aspect of
    Christianity is the fully human Savior.  A savior with all the human
    capacities to screw up, but also exhibiting and modelling a life
    completely dedicated to and honoring of God the Father/Mother.  A life
    fully inspired by God the Holy Spirit.
    
    There are certain human hero's that I have.  None of the human hero's
    are perfect.  All are flawed.  But it is in the ability of these hero's
    to live "Christ" like lifes, that I am inspired myself to try to live a
    more Christ like life.  Mahatma Gandi, Martin Luther King Jr, and
    Mother Theresa are three hero's who examplify "Christlike" lifes.  I
    don't agree with all that any of them believe or do.  Their human
    imperfections does not prevent me from being inspired by them. 
    
    Each of those three hero's in some way help me to understand Jesus. 
    Martin Luther King Jr for instance helps me to understand Jesus'
    Cruxifixion.
    
    Jeff, you can say you are sickened by my comparison of Gandhi to Christ
    only because you do not understand my comparison and because you read a
    lot more into than is there. 
    
    You judged Gandhi a failure because he did not eradicate the caste
    system in India.  If Jesus is the most perfect and most complete
    example of God's incarnation in humanity and we don't judge Jesus as a
    failure for not eradicating the evils he contended with, then how can
    we judge Gandhi, a mere mortal, a failure for not eradicating the evil
    of the caste system.
    
    I too live in Awe and reverence for Jesus.  I just don't see things the
    same way you do.   I pray that someday you will understand that there
    are many ways to show Awe and reverence.
 

| <<< Note 1243.314 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| I'm also sure that our readership is intelligent enough to know that it
| was largely due to the efforts of William Wilberforce and his Christian
| friends, companions, and family (all of his sons became priests and one
| is a famous Bishop) that slavery was abolished in the entire British empire.

| Likewise, I'm sure that our readership is intelligent enough to know
| that it was radical Christians in the United States who worked for
| the abolition of slavery as well.

	And let us not forget the radical Christians who are allowing gay and
lesbian couples, singles, into their churches and performing marriage
ceremonies, and showing people that the g/l/b/t community are people, not sex
machines. That homosexuality is ok, and not some sort of sickness. Yes, let us
not forget them. And to think they are treated the same way that the radical
Christians from years past were should tell you something.... history repeats
itself. 


Glen

| <<< Note 1243.317 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| You don't know Christ and therefore you can't possibly understand the awe and 
| reverence I have for him.  

	The second part may very well be true. But there is NO way that you can
say Richard does not know Christ. That is unless you are Christ Himself. For
you to say he doesn't know Him shows the one thing that some Christian's need
to learn. To come down from their high horses, and let God rule. In order for
that to happen, you can't speak for Him on matters you can't possibly know.
Yes, Richard's and your beliefs are different (actually, it seems anyone and
your beliefs are different). But you can not say Richard doesn't know Him just
based on that. Everyone learns and knows Christ through different avenues,
different levels, etc. Please keep that in mind before you talk for Him.



Glen

    Re .318 (Patricia)
    
    Yes, I see the contradiction of the letter of the bible and the spirit 
    in many places.  An objective observer would see many contradictions
    between OT stories and the spirit of the NT.  I attribute this to the
    human factor which I believe was injected through it's many authors and 
    editors through the ages.  
    
    
    (Jeff)
    
    ,,,elaborating on what Glen said in .303...
    
    If your mission is to convert lost souls to christianity, you may want
    to excercise a bit more tact.  Too much evangelism can, and often does,
    have the exact opposite effect that you desire.  Beating people over
    the head with a bible just makes them want to walk away from the
    beating.  
    
    
    (All)
    
    I have a tough time with the notion that the only way to God is through
    a belief in Jesus.  Sure, in Hell (if it exists) there'll be those who 
    knew of Jesus and didn't accept.  Bbut then there are thos who never 
    heard of him, like the 3 year old child who died of starvation in a third
    world country, the 2 month old American child who died of SIDS and who
    didn't have the congitive ability to accept anything, and then there's 
    everyone who lived and died before Jesus was born.  So who's in or
    going to Hell?  Besides the obvious Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Dave
    Gauthiers, there would be a lot of very innocent children, suffering
    eternal punishment... for what?  I guess Abraham and Jacob and Moses and
    the rest of the crew would also be down there... because they didn't 
    accept Jesus?  Is this how a fair and loving God judges his people?
    Should the NT passages which indicate that the only way to God is
    through Jesus be rethought?
    
    -dave

    
>  You don't know Christ and therefore you can't possibly understand the awe
>   and reverence I have for him. 
    
    >> I find it very objectionable and very Unbiblical that you would
    >>pretend to know what is in Richard's heart and what Richard's relationship
    >>is with Christ.  
    
   Patricia, please, you cannot speak objectively or biblically about
    anything for you reject both objectivity and the bible as it attests to
    itself.
    
    I don't have to "pretend" to know what is in Richard's heart.  His
    words reveal his heart quite well. 
    
>     It is from this position of love and gratitude to Christ,
>     being very God, that a comparison to G(h)and(h)i, a mere man, is
>     sickening.
    
    
    >>All women and men are images of God.  Jesus Christ is the most perfect
    >>image of God.  Trinitarian principles declare Jesus Christ to be fully
    >>human as well as fully divine.  For me the unique aspect of
    >>Christianity is the fully human Savior.  A savior with all the human
    >>capacities to screw up, but also exhibiting and modelling a life
    >>completely dedicated to and honoring of God the Father/Mother.  A life
    >>fully inspired by God the Holy Spirit.
    
    Jesus Christ is not the most perfect, but *the* perfect image of God as
    a human and very God as God.  You know, Patricia, I don't care what
    *your* view of Christ is as it is founded upon absurdity.  No one else
    should care either.
    
    >>There are certain human hero's that I have.  None of the human hero's
    >>are perfect.  All are flawed.  But it is in the ability of these hero's
    >>to live "Christ" like lifes, that I am inspired myself to try to live a
    >>more Christ like life.  Mahatma Gandi, Martin Luther King Jr, and
    >>Mother Theresa are three hero's who examplify "Christlike" lifes.  I
    >>don't agree with all that any of them believe or do.  Their human
    >>imperfections does not prevent me from being inspired by them. 
    
    Your valuation is meaningless to me, Patricia, as far as it rejects
    what Christ values.
    
    >>Each of those three hero's in some way help me to understand Jesus. 
    >>Martin Luther King Jr for instance helps me to understand Jesus'
    >>Cruxifixion.
    
    Every idle word shall be accounted for, Patricia.  You have no fear of
    God at all, do you.
    
    >>Jeff, you can say you are sickened by my comparison of Gandhi to Christ
    >>only because you do not understand my comparison and because you read a
    >>lot more into than is there. 
    
    You're all over the map, Patricia.  You don't know why you say what you
    say.  You're a mess theologically and epistomologically.  All I know is
    that I've seen such messes thoroughly straightened out by the power of
    God in Christ to regenerate the heart and the mind so that all of the
    falsehoods and personal idols fall away in the glory of the truth of
    Jesus Christ and the grace which is in him.
    
    >>You judged Gandhi a failure because he did not eradicate the caste
    >>system in India.  
    
    I only judged Gandhi a failure because you or someone else elevated his
    *efforts* to success in defense of Hinduism.  It's a silly proposition
    anyway.
    
    >>If Jesus is the most perfect and most complete
    >>example of God's incarnation in humanity and we don't judge Jesus as a
    >>failure for not eradicating the evils he contended with, then how can
    >>we judge Gandhi, a mere mortal, a failure for not eradicating the evil
    >>of the caste system.
    
    Jesus Christ accomplished perfectly and completely what he set out to
    do.  Jesus Christ promises to eradicate evil in the end.  I look
    forward to that day.  But it can only be a source of fear for you,
    Patricia, for you'll be cast into the outer darkness with the devil and
    his angels unless you repent and have faith in Christ.
    
    >>I too live in Awe and reverence for Jesus.  I just don't see things the
    >>same way you do.   I pray that someday you will understand that there
    >>are many ways to show Awe and reverence.
    
    You deceive yourself, Patricia.
 
    jeff

    
    Dave,
    
    You don't know what you're talking about in your characterization of
    the OT and NT messages concerning salvation.  You're presumptiveness
    continues to leave you in a position of ignorance where the Bible is
    concerned and thus your conclusions are not the Bible's conclusions.
    
    And I don't care too much what your view is concerning evangelism.  And
    when you find yourself agreeing with Glen you really destroy your case,
    in my opinion.
    
    jeff

Re  .318

>   I argue so vehemously against the innerrantist position, because I
>   believe that it is the innerantist position that allows for Bible based
>   oppression.

    This is the old "guilt by association" fallacy.  That some misguided
    people use the Bible for oppression is not in doubt.  That some of them
    were said to believe in inerrancy is not in doubt.  That this means
    inerrancy is the problem is an invalid conclusion.


>   The letter of the writings clearly states that Slavery is a normal
>   condition and that slaves should do nothing to try to change there
>   condition.

    Only your failure to take into account the proper textual and historical
    context can bring you to this conclusion.  Believers in inerrancy, as a
    whole, do not come to this conclusion.

    It is your misunderstanding of Scripture viewed from an inerrent position
    that leads you to believe that inerrancy is "the problem."


>   The Spirit of scripture though clearly shows love, mercy, and justice
>   as normative.

    Yes, and so does the inerrant Word of God.  Even if your opinion is
    otherwise.

    Michael

    Taking a vote.  Who had to look up "epistomologically"?  
    
    I tried, but it wasn't even in the office edition of the American Heritage 
    Dictionary.
    
    -dave

    
    Dave, it is in my dictionary.  Mine is the second college edition.  I
    don't expect you'd find such words in an office edition.  However, it
    is actually spelled, "epistemologically".
    
    jeff

>| Likewise, I'm sure that our readership is intelligent enough to know
>| that it was radical Christians in the United States who worked for
>| the abolition of slavery as well.

>	And let us not forget the radical Christians who are allowing gay and
>lesbian couples, singles, into their churches and performing marriage
>ceremonies, and showing people that the g/l/b/t community are people, not sex
>machines. That homosexuality is ok, and not some sort of sickness. Yes, let us
>not forget them. And to think they are treated the same way that the radical
>Christians from years past were should tell you something.... history repeats
>itself. 


 I suspect that were  people who worked for the abolition of slavery,
 and even those in the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s through today 
 would be appalled to see their movements compared to the "homosexual
 rights" movement of today.



 Jim

    epistemology
    
    epistemology (�-p�s'te-m�l'e-j�) noun
    The branch of philosophy that studies the nature of knowledge, its
    presuppositions and foundations, and its extent and validity.
    [Greek epist�m�, knowledge (from epistasthai, to understand : epi-,
    epi- + histanai, st�-, to place, determine) + -LOGY.]
    - epis'temolog'ical (-me-l�j'�-kel) adjective
    - epis'temolog'ically adverb
    - epis'temol'ogist noun
    
    The American HeritageR Dictionary of the English Language, Third
    Edition copyright � 1992 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Electronic
    version licensed from InfoSoft International, Inc. All rights reserved.

    
>    I have a tough time with the notion that the only way to God is through
>    a belief in Jesus.  Sure, in Hell (if it exists) there'll be those who 
>    knew of Jesus and didn't accept.  Bbut then there are thos who never 
>    heard of him, like the 3 year old child who died of starvation in a third
>    world country, the 2 month old American child who died of SIDS and who
>    didn't have the congitive ability to accept anything, and then there's 
>    everyone who lived and died before Jesus was born.  So who's in or
>    going to Hell?  Besides the obvious Adolf Hitler, Joseph Stalin and Dave
>    Gauthiers, there would be a lot of very innocent children, suffering
>    eternal punishment... for what?  I guess Abraham and Jacob and Moses and
>    the rest of the crew would also be down there... because they didn't 
>    accept Jesus?  Is this how a fair and loving God judges his people?
>    Should the NT passages which indicate that the only way to God is
>    through Jesus be rethought?
    
 

 There is plenty of Biblical evidence that children will not be sent to
 Hell for rejecting Christ..you bring up valid questions however, and the
 answers are there in the Bible..


 

 Jim

hypocritical

heroes

NNTTM

    Isaiah!
    
    I do learn!

Note 1243.334                   Why Christianity?                     334 of 335
DELNI::MCCAULEY                                      53 lines  23-JUL-1996 11:09
                     -< Why the position must be exposed! >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michael,
    
    My experience in this file and in another file have convinced me that
    the innerrantist's position is hippocritical and and an excuse for a
    conservative social, political, and economic agenda.
    
    I accepted the challenge that many Unitarian-Universalist are
    biblically illiterate and spend the time, money, and energy to study
    the Bible.  I know what is in the Bible.  I know where many of the
    problem areas of the Bible are.  I know what in the Bible inspires me
    and what in the Bible repulses me.  I know the Bible contains hundreds of  
    different theological positions.
    
    I base my charge of hippocracy on two examples.  ONe I initiated
    recently here regarding illegal aliens, and the other I initiated some
    time back, both here and elsewhere regarding women wearing hats in
    church.
    
    Regarding illegal aliens, it is absolutely clear what the biblical
    position is regarding foreigners and strangers.  Every Christian should
    support immigrants in whatever way is necessary including personal
    economic support, political lobbying, and collective economic support. 
    There is no alternative if you accept the Bible as a guidebook for
    living.  Yet browsing through that topic shows the dancing being done
    to support a nationalistic, isolationist, conservative position.
    
    Anyone who believes the voice of Paul is the voice of God in our Bible
    also knows that women are commanded to wear hats in church.  Most
    Christians have abandoned that mandate.  Some have abandoned it because
    they know Paul was human, and was a sexist, in spite of his admirable
    characteristics.  Others have abandoned it because they pretend it does
    not demand what it demands.
    
    In contrast to the prolific statements in the Bible regarding how we
    should treat strangers, there are eight statements, at least five of
    which are ambiguos that can be interpreted as condemning homosexuality.
    The innerantist make a heydey of using those verses to condemn.
    
    I find nothing laudable in the innerantist position.  It is not
    objective.  It distorts Biblical passages to harmonize them with other
    passages, it ignores the cultural contexts, It creates false Gods out of all
    the authors of the Bible and out of the Bible itself. It is used
    selectively when it supports an economic or political objective and it is
    used as a weapon.
    
    I know it has been used as a weapon because it has been used personally
    as a weapon against me, it has been used here as a weapon against
    homosexuality, and it was used as a weapon to support slavery.
    The innerantist position is false doctrine, it contributes to evil, and
    it is a position that needs to be exposed for exactly what it is.
    
    The Spirit is more powerful than the word, and the Spirit will prevail.
   

   Z     Anyone who believes the voice of Paul is the voice of God in our Bible
   Z     also knows that women are commanded to wear hats in church.  Most
   Z     Christians have abandoned that mandate. 
    
    Patricia:
    
    I thought this issue was straightened out last year.  Remember we
    talked about the festival mentality in Corinth?  I guess you rejected
    my point!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1243.326 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I don't have to "pretend" to know what is in Richard's heart.  His
| words reveal his heart quite well.

	Jeff.... if someone is given a gift that they don't like, they are
probably not going to say anything about it not being a good gift. Their words
do not speak what is in their heart. Now apply it to Richard. You spot note in
here, and you miss an awful lot. You don't hang out with Richard, you don't
even know Richard. Yet you speak as though you know what is in his heart.
Again, I ask you to let God handle it, as obviously you are not doing a very
good job. The way you come across it seems that the only way to God is through
pure negativity. And that isn't the way to Him. 

| You deceive yourself, Patricia.

	You deceive a lot of people as well, right Jeff? Yourself included???


Glen

| <<< Note 1243.331 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>


| I suspect that were  people who worked for the abolition of slavery,
| and even those in the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s through today
| would be appalled to see their movements compared to the "homosexual
| rights" movement of today.

	Jim.... you just don't get it. I was not comparing the movement to
things of the past.... I was comparing how it took radical Christians to show
the world what was wrong. 

    Glen,
    
    I can speak for movements.
    
    Unitarians and Universalist made up a huge number of the abolitionist.
    The made up a huge number in the Fight for Woman Suffrage.
    They were an very active part of the Civil Rights Movement.
    
    The Unitarian/Universalist church today is a leader in the fight for
    Gay rights.
    
    The support for each of the movements comes directly from our
    Principles and Purpose.

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1243.337                   Why Christianity?                     337 of 340
MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs."            11 lines  23-JUL-1996 11:35
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Z     Anyone who believes the voice of Paul is the voice of God in our Bible
   Z     also knows that women are commanded to wear hats in church.  Most
   Z     Christians have abandoned that mandate. 
    
    Patricia:
    
>    I thought this issue was straightened out last year.  Remember we
>    talked about the festival mentality in Corinth?  I guess you rejected
>    my point!
    
    
That is exactly my point Jack!
    
    
    Now why do you not use the same logic in evaluating Paul's statement
    about wearing hats in church and Paul's statements about homosexuality!
    
        
    -Jack

 Z   The Unitarian/Universalist church today is a leader in the fight for
 Z   Gay rights.
    
    And that's fine Patricia.  Just be sure that your venting is toward
    those who oppose you...ALL...who oppose.  In your zeal to afford these
    rights, you sometimes seem to target...those people.  In other words,
    you fail to mention that our very own president for example, also
    believes in things contrary to the movement of the 90's.  
    
    -Jack

>	Jim.... you just don't get it. I was not comparing the movement to
>things of the past.... I was comparing how it took radical Christians to show
>the world what was wrong. 


  There you go!

 Z   Now why do you not use the same logic in evaluating Paul's statement
 Z   about wearing hats in church and Paul's statements about
 Z   homosexuality!
    
    A point that is certainly worthy of an answer.  
    
    I believe Paul mentions the issue of unnatural affection three times in
    his letters...twice to the Corinthian church and once to the Church of
    Rome..(or it may be the other way around.)  Of course there is the
    reference in Romans 1 to which Glen's inerrent interpretation outweighs
    that of Biblical scholars.  Then there is the incident in 1st
    Corinthians 5 where a young man is having an illicit affair with his
    fathers wife.  The interesting thing about this incident mind you is
    that Paul's condemnation of the act was somewhat secondary to his
    admonition that the church was approving of such behavior.  This would
    certainly raise a red fleg with me were I in your shoes.  
    
    The third is also interesting.  It is a blanket statement, a universal
    statement which applies to doctrinal matters and not in regard to
    church conduct.  Paul states, "Be not deceived, neither fornicators nor
    idolators nor drunkards, nor haters of God, nor effeminate shall enter
    the kingdom of God."  This is paraphrased as I can't remember exactly
    where the reference is.  
    
    As a point of humility, I must state here that I am most certainly a
    candidate for the above...I believe many are.  I believe with certainty
    that the above applies to individuals who have not been regenerated by
    the blood of Jesus Christ.  In that case, then yes, one would appear to
    God as probably all of the above.  
    
    We are all put on this earth with different attributes.  How we use or
    misuse these attributes is what God is looking at.  I strongly believe
    sex outside of its context is a misuse of our attributes and is
    something that brings shame to the body of Christ...namely the church. 
    Just as it brought shame to those spiritual babes in Corinth, I believe
    it is something to be avoided and not condoned within the body of
    Christ.  
    
    -Jack

 Z   As a point of humility, I must state here that I am most certainly a
 Z   candidate for the above...I believe many are.  I believe with certainty
 Z   that the above applies to individuals who have not been regenerated
 Z   by the blood of Jesus Christ.  In that case, then yes, one would
 Z   appear to God as probably all of the above. 
    
    Allow me to qualify this a little better.  I WAS a candidate for the
    above, for the above is an indictment on the natural condition of
    humanity.  Without redemption, we are children of darkness and enemies
    of the Most High.  Were it not for grace, this charity case would be
    lost.
    
    -Jack

re .325

;    I have a tough time with the notion that the only way to God is through
;    a belief in Jesus.  Sure, in Hell (if it exists) there'll be those who 
;    knew of Jesus and didn't accept.  Bbut then there are thos who never 
;    heard of him, like the 3 year old child who died of starvation in a third
;    world country, the 2 month old American child who died of SIDS and who
;    didn't have the congitive ability to accept anything, and then there's 
;    everyone who lived and died before Jesus was born.  So who's in or
;    going to Hell? 

   Dave,

   The Bible shows that both good and bad go to hell, even Jesus spent 3 days 
   there (compare Psalms 16:10, Acts 2:27,31, Psalms 9:17, Job 14:13). 
   Confusion arises in that Bible translators have translated the Hebrew
   word Sheol, Greek words Hades and Gehenna as hell. Now Sheol and Hades
   are the same as brought out by comparing Psalms 16:10 and Acts 2:27,31.
   But Gehenna is totally different as it refers to the symbolic "Lake of
   fire" that is mentioned Revelation 20:14 which means the second death.
   Hell, that is Hades and Sheol, is the common graveyard of mankind.

   One person who does remember the many young children who have died from
   starvation, is Jehovah God. Jesus said he knows each individual to the
   minutest detail to the point he can number the hairs on ones head (
   compare Matthew 10:28). Jesus told that the time is coming when he
   will resurrect both the just and unjust from the memorial tombs 
   (John 5:28,29). In revelation 1:18 he gives the encouraging words that 
   he has been given the authority to be able to resurrect persons
   from Hades (hell). This is a wonderful hope of seeing dead loved ones
   again, whether or not the were believers before they died (compare Acts 
   24:15).Revelation 20:13 shows that Hades will be emptied of all it's
   occupants whether believers or unbelievers, before itself is thrown
   into the "lake of fire" and is totally destroyed (compare Revelation
   21:4 which shows death will never again plague mankind in otherwords
   it will cease to exist).

   When will these things take place, well it will be under Christ's millenial
   rule over the earth (compare Revelation 5:9,10). Under this current system
   starvation exists because of mankinds greed. What would be the point of
   Jesus resurrecting persons under this system, just for persons to starve
   again because of this greed. Yet, Jehovah God created the earth with
   enough food to sustain all living things but as Ghandi observed "there is
   enough for everyones needs but not for everyones greed". Under Christ's
   rule, the Bible promises that there will be an abundance of food for all
   (Psalms 72:16, 67:6, Ezekiel 34:27). It would be appropriate that persons
   would be resurrected under the right conditions, to an earth in which God
   had originally intended it to be, a paradise, with no crime, no war but
   peace and security (Psalms 37:9-11, Psalms 46:9).

   Now persons would argue that those who are resurrected are judged by their
   previous life course. Yet, Paul tells us in Romans 6:7 that those who have 
   died have been acquitted from sin. In otherwords they have already paid in
   full the wages of sin which is death (Romans 6:23) and therefore on can 
   assume that any judgment as spoken of in John 5:29 is based on the things 
   they do after their resurrection. At this time the earth would have been 
   restored to paradise and filled with the very knowledge of Jehovah 
   (compare Isaih 11:9). 

   Now under such conditions not everyone will want to choose life, some will 
   still want to rebel as Adam did. Do you feel it fair and just on God to allow 
   persons to make this choice, under such conditions?.


   The resurrection hope as mentioned in the Bible is a wonderful one for by
   means of it, all the injustices that have gone over the centuries since
   Adam's rebellion will be put right by our merciful and loving God.

   Phil.

    Phil,
    
    re .346
    
    Am I correct in reading a universalist belief in your note?
    
    Will all be saved at the millenium?  Will all possibly be saved at the
    millenium?
    
                          Patriciad

| <<< Note 1243.342 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| And that's fine Patricia.  Just be sure that your venting is toward
| those who oppose you...ALL...who oppose.  In your zeal to afford these
| rights, you sometimes seem to target...those people.  In other words,
| you fail to mention that our very own president for example, also
| believes in things contrary to the movement of the 90's.

	Jack.... why in the world are they going to worry about what other's
think or do if they are out to do what they believe God is telling them to do?
They don't have to go around and condemn others to get the work done. The no
condemning way is how I have seen the Unitarian's go about their business.
People don't have to agree with them, and they just keep going on their way.
With your message above, it appears that they should be out to condemn. While
that may be the Christian way for some people, it is not one that I would
recommend. And I can't imagine God justifying that either.


Glen

re .347

Patricia,

;    Am I correct in reading a universalist belief in your note?

No, there will be some who do not receive a resurrection but I
would qualify that by saying it will be Jehovah God who decides
who is resurrected. In Jesus' illustration of the sheep and the
goats, the goats receive the adverse judgment of being everlastingly
cut off (Matthew 25:46). They will go direct to the "lake of fire" 
that symbolises their destruction. 

Even so, we believe that countless billions will be given the opportunity
to come to know God under the right conditions and therefore will be given
the chance to be judged as righteous (John 17:3).

;    Will all be saved at the millenium?  Will all possibly be saved at the
;    millenium?

All those resurrected during the millenium will have the opportunity
to choose life, but not all will want it (compare Revelation 20:7-9).
God will not enforce life on those that don't want it, which is only
fair.


Phil.

    Phil,
    
    an interesting perspective.  Thanks for sharing it.
    
                                      Patricia

Re  .325

    Dave,

    The Messiah was promised way back in the Garden of Eden - right after Adam
    and Eve sinned.  Those in the Old Testament put their faith in God to save
    them as do Christians today.  There are even those recorded who never died
    physically, so close was their walk with God, Enoch and Elijah.  The Jews
    even refered to heaven as "Abraham's bosom" - the implication being that
    Abraham is there (Luke 16:23).

    An example of the fate of innocent children can be found in 2 Sam 12:23
    where king David's newborn son had just died and He said "I will go to him
    [when I die]."  The implication here is that the child is in heaven and
    that David would go to be with him after he himself died.  God knows the
    age at which a person is culpable for their sin.

    Those who wish to truly know God on His terms will be found by Him.  He
    WILL send someone.  Reference the story of Philip and the Ethiopian
    Acts 8:26-40.

    Everyone get to choose Dave.  Let God worry about others, what are YOU
    going to choose.  You have been told that the only way we are saved is by
    the sacrifice of God's, one and only, uniquely, divine son.  Are you going
    to let God save you, the only way He said He would, or are you going to
    try it on your own?

    Michael

    Re .351
    
    If/when I'm faced with a choice, I'll choose the option that makes the
    most sense at the time.  If the correct choice is as obvious as you
    claim it is, I shouldn't have any problem.  If you get there ahead of
    me, and see me puzzling over what to do, give a holler, or drop a rope,
    or whatever.  
    
    >Those who wish to truly know God on His terms will be found by Him.  He
    >    WILL send someone.
    
    Still waiting. Reread the bottom of .233.  While I'm waiting for a
    revelation, I'll keep searching.  It's an intresting way to pass the
    time anyway.  And if no one's coming, it might even be a constructive
    thing to do.
    
    From what Phil has to say, it appears that the point of death is not as
    significant a thing as we've been led to believe.  IOW, you don't "cash
    in" when you die, there's still time to play a few more cards.  This 
    would allow for everyone (including atheists and pagans of every flavor)
    a "2nd chance".
    
    From what you had to say, there seems to be room in heaven for the
    innocent and the righteous of times prior to Jesus without a 2nd
    chance.  If this is so, then the statement that "the only way to heaven
    is through Jesus" would  have exceptions, at least in the context of a
    literal interpretation of the passage.  And so, how literally should
    the passage be taken, knowing there are exceptions?  If others can get
    to heaven without knowing Jesus, then could "through him" mean
    something other than knowing him?
    
    -dave
    
      

    
>    From what Phil has to say, it appears that the point of death is not as
>    significant a thing as we've been led to believe.  IOW, you don't "cash
>    in" when you die, there's still time to play a few more cards.  This 
>    would allow for everyone (including atheists and pagans of every flavor)
>    a "2nd chance".
 

     There is significant Biblical evidence stating otherwise.  One's choice,
     particularly those who have been presented with the opportunity in 
     this life, needs to be made here and now.  "it is appointed unto men
     but once to die, and after this the judgement" "Now is the appointed time..
     today is the day of salvation"..

     



 Jim


   
        
      

Z    The no condemning way is how I have seen the Unitarian's go about their
Z    business.  People don't have to agree with them, and they just keep going 
Z    on their way.  With your message above, it appears that they should be out 
Z    to condemn.
    
    Glen, the nation of Israel went through a similar period during the
    days of the prophets.  The nation did what was right in their own eyes. 
    They became a law unto themselves.  God sent Isaiah to the wealthy,
    Jeremiah to the common folk, and Daniel to the elite in Babylon.  All
    throughout their time they stated...Repent Repent Repent, for the
    judgement of God is at hand.  Even as all those in the Southern kingdom
    were chained and hooked, exiled and on their way to a long journey to
    Babylon, the chief of the Babylonian army stated, "The God of your
    fathers has judged you."  The enemy even knew they were an instrument
    of the judgement of God.  
    
    The prophets continued to attempt to show Israel how they erred...they
    did not listen.  I believe it is the responsibility of the church to
    admonish one another toward holy living.  For heavens sake if Patricia
    has a beef with the religious right, then please let her make her
    case...no problem there.  But just be sure not to do what Hitler did. 
    Find a target group to vent the ills of society upon.  The blame is
    shared by MANY!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1243.354 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, the nation of Israel went through a similar period during the days of 
| the prophets. The nation did what was right in their own eyes. They became a 
| law unto themselves.  

	Jack, you can site cases for and against radical christians doing their
thing. In the case of the Unitarians, I believe they, and other denominations
under the Christian umbrella are making the right choice. I believe this is
what God wants them to do. Btw, remember that most of these churches are made
up of hetersoexual people.



Glen

.311

> I'm sure our readership is intelligent enough to know that the slavery
> in the Bible and that which is part of this country's history are 2
> different things.

Lemme see.  The Hebrews under Pharoah in Egypt and home-grown indentured
servitude.  Different times, different places, different people.  What else?
I'm not too bright, you know.

Richard

.312    
 
>  'tis a shame that he looked to humans rather than Christ.

Is not the church the body of Christ?

Richard

.314

>Likewise, I'm sure that our readership is intelligent enough to know
>that it was radical Christians in the United States who worked for
>the abolition of slavery as well.

And surely we're all aware that Quakers and abolitionists were denounced
sharply by no small number of Bible-believing Christians, some even clergy.

Richard

.316

>>>I suspected as much.  Precisely to which fundamental principles that are based
>>>on Christian principles are you referring?

>To name a few:

>1. The inalienable rights granted by our Creator.
>2. The equality of men because of the Creator.
>3. Private property.
>4. The rule of law.
>5. Liberty to pursue happiness.

I may wear rose-colored glasses, but I'm not quite gullible enough to
swallow this.

.317
    
>    I know you don't understand, Richard.  You don't know Christ...
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A rather queer assumption.  I would assure you that it is a false one if
I thought it would do any good.  But I don't.  And fortunately, it isn't
important what you do or do not believe about me.

Richard

.326

>    I don't have to "pretend" to know what is in Richard's heart.  His
>    words reveal his heart quite well. 

I certainly hope my heart is revealed in what I say.  And I think our readers
have gotten a pretty clear picture of your inner workings from what you've
said, too.

Richard

> I suspect that were  people who worked for the abolition of slavery,
> and even those in the Civil Rights movements in the 1960s through today 
> would be appalled to see their movements compared to the "homosexual
> rights" movement of today.

This is true.  There are some.  And there were some blacks opposed to the civil
rights movement and there are some gays opposed to the gay rights movement, as
well.

Richard

    |    Slavery is slavery . <period>
    
    thank you,
    Mike (slave and bondservant of Jesus Christ)

   Hi Richard,
    
>>>I suspected as much.  Precisely to which fundamental principles that are based
>>>on Christian principles are you referring?

>To name a few:

>1. The inalienable rights granted by our Creator.
>2. The equality of men because of the Creator.
>3. Private property.
>4. The rule of law.
>5. Liberty to pursue happiness.

>>I may wear rose-colored glasses, but I'm not quite gullible enough to
>>swallow this.
    
    Well, you're not capable of denying it either, are you?  
    
    jeff

 Z   I believe they, and other denominations under the Christian umbrella are 
 Z   making the right choice. I believe this is
 Z   what God wants them to do. 
    
    The right choice being....what?  
    
 Z   Btw, remember that most of these churches
 Z   are made up of hetersoexual people.
    
    That's fine.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1243.364 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| Well, you're not capable of denying it either, are you?

	Jeff.... that was pretty lame, don't you think? 

| <<< Note 1243.365 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| The right choice being....what?

	1.) Not looking down on gays
	
	2.) Viewing gays for who they are, not what they are

	3.) Welcoming gays into their church (welcomes as saying, come to our
	    church, not the, "we don't deny them entry")

	4.) Performing marriages

	5.) Working with the communities without a problem (ie, they don't care
	    if you're color is different, gay, different ethnic, etc)

	6.) Lets them know the truth, that God loves them for who they are.

	7.) If they believe homosexuality is a sin, they let the only person 
	    who is capable of handling it... well... handle it. God.





Glen

| The right choice being....what?

>	1.) Not looking down on gays
    
    What does this mean, Glen?  If it means not condemning gays in their
    hearts for their homosexuality, then this would be the way most all of
    the bible-believing Christians respond.  If it means approving of gays
    in their hearts because they are gay, this would be impossible.
	
	>2.) Viewing gays for who they are, not what they are
    
    What's the difference?
    

	>3.) Welcoming gays into their church (welcomes as saying, come to our
	>    church, not the, "we don't deny them entry")
    
        This seems practically impossible.  What would one do, run an ad?
        And if you also mean, welcome gays as being okay before God in
        their homosexuality, this will never happen.  If you mean welcome
        gays as sinners needing a Savior, as we all do, then this precisely
        what the churches I've known, would do.

	4.) Performing marriages
    
        It will never happen.  The Bible condemns homosexuality
    unequivocally and so must the Christian church.

	>5.) Working with the communities without a problem (ie, they don't care
	>    if you're color is different, gay, different ethnic, etc)
    
        What does this mean?

	>6.) Lets them know the truth, that God loves them for who they are.
    
        This is false, not the truth.  God does not love sinners for who
        they are.  Who they are is largely a reflection of what they do.
        Indeed, unbelievers of all stripes are under the wrath of God and
        will face a terrible judgement with terrible punishment according
        to the Bible.

	>7.) If they believe homosexuality is a sin, they let the only person 
	>    who is capable of handling it... well... handle it. God.

	But God has already "handled it" in that he has told us clearly
    what is sin and what is unacceptable.  It is by the preaching of his
    commands, detailing our failure to obey those commands, indeed our active
    rebellion against those commands, and the offer of forgiveness and
    everlasting life which is how God "handles it".

    jeff

| <<< Note 1243.368 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| What does this mean, Glen? If it means not condemning gays in their hearts for
| their homosexuality, then this would be the way most all of the 
| bible-believing Christians respond. If it means approving of gays in their 
| hearts because they are gay, this would be impossible.

	Definitely the 1st part, but you got the 2nd part wrong in one area. It
should be:

If it means approving of gays in their hearts because they are people

| What's the difference?

	Gays are people. That's what they should be viewed as. For many
Christians, when they hear the word gay, they stop looking at the person as
human.

| This seems practically impossible. What would one do, run an ad?

	There are Welcoming Congregations that have sprung up all over the
place. These allow gays access into the church, and allows both homosexuals and
heterosexuals the opportunity to put all of the views up in the forfront so
they can work through the issues. Both sides can have misconceptions about the
church. And how I have seen this accomplished is through church flyers. Gay
people do go to most churches. The word would spread from there.

| And if you also mean, welcome gays as being okay before God in their 
| homosexuality, this will never happen.  

	It is happening now. Seeing their homosexuality is part of them, like
breathing is for you, it would seem that there should be no problem.

| If you mean welcome gays as sinners needing a Savior, as we all do, then this 
| precisely what the churches I've known, would do.

	And then they would try to err.... convert them. And that just does not
work. Because no matter how much one hides, they are still homosexual.

| It will never happen.  

	It happens now.

| The Bible condemns homosexuality unequivocally and so must the Christian 
| church.

	I know you believe the Bible says that, Jeff. Just like in the past
when people thought the Bible said slavery was ok. What you fail to see though,
is the Bible is talking about lust. And to steal a page from your book, the
Bible never says two homosexuals can't be married together.

| What does this mean?

	They don't care if you are gay, white, black, jewish, etc.

| This is false, not the truth. God does not love sinners for who they are.  

	Why He most certainly does. I know God loves you, me everyone. Even
those who reject Him. Are you telling me He can love someone who rejects Him,
but not the homosexual?

| But God has already "handled it" in that he has told us clearly what is sin 
| and what is unacceptable.  

	Except it would appear that you have it wrong.... like back in the days
of slavery.



Glen

| What does this mean, Glen? If it means not condemning gays in their hearts for
| their homosexuality, then this would be the way most all of the 
| bible-believing Christians respond. If it means approving of gays in their 
| hearts because they are gay, this would be impossible.

>	Definitely the 1st part, but you got the 2nd part wrong in one area. It
>should be:

>If it means approving of gays in their hearts because they are people
    
    Either gays are people who must be respected as people or they are gays
    who must be respected as people.  All Christians respect all people as
    people (or should at least) but gays will never be respected for their
    homosexuality, in the bible-believing church.

| What's the difference?

	>Gays are people. That's what they should be viewed as. For many
>Christians, when they hear the word gay, they stop looking at the person as
>human.
    
    I think you're completely wrong in your assertion.  Do you have any
    statistics to back up your claims?

| This seems practically impossible. What would one do, run an ad?

	>There are Welcoming Congregations that have sprung up all over the
>place. These allow gays access into the church, and allows both homosexuals and
>heterosexuals the opportunity to put all of the views up in the forfront so
>they can work through the issues. Both sides can have misconceptions about the
>church. And how I have seen this accomplished is through church flyers. Gay
>people do go to most churches. The word would spread from there.
    
    You don't seem to understand, Glen.  "Welcoming Congregations" are not
    bible-believing congregations and cannot be considered a part of
    Christ's Church in any sense of the word.  "Wecoming Congregations"
    say, "homosexuals are welcome here as homosexuals and we approve, in
    the name of God (whose God, only they know), of homosexuality as a
    valid lifestyle before God" or something to that effect.  No
    bible-believing congregation will ever be this sort of "welcoming
    congregation".

| And if you also mean, welcome gays as being okay before God in their 
| homosexuality, this will never happen.  

	>It is happening now. Seeing their homosexuality is part of them, like
>breathing is for you, it would seem that there should be no problem.
    
    It is not happening in bible-believing churches.  And we must make this
    distinction.  All sin is a "part of" the natural man and becomes so
    through habitual practice and hardening of the heart and conscience. 
    But God says the reality is that what men consider a "part of them" is
    actually an abomination to him and that he has come to save us from
    this bent, this sin of rebellion and deceitfulness, and to bring us
    into the light of the truth which is found in His Son and the
    significance of Jesus's death and resurrection.  New life is to be
    found in Christ, for the homosexual and for all other sinners.

| If you mean welcome gays as sinners needing a Savior, as we all do, then this 
| precisely what the churches I've known, would do.

	>And then they would try to err.... convert them. And that just does not
>work. Because no matter how much one hides, they are still homosexual.
    
    Well, you're right.  Conversion is the goal of much Christian activity. 
    I know you think that homosexuals cannot be converted but that is
    neither biblical nor does it line up with what thousands of homosexuals
    say.

| It will never happen.  

	>It happens now.
    
    Again, when I say "it will never happen", I mean it will never happen
    in bible-believing churches.  Anything can and does happen in
    organizations which do not hold to a biblical basis.

| The Bible condemns homosexuality unequivocally and so must the Christian 
| church.

	>I know you believe the Bible says that, Jeff. Just like in the past
>when people thought the Bible said slavery was ok. What you fail to see though,
>is the Bible is talking about lust. And to steal a page from your book, the
>Bible never says two homosexuals can't be married together.
    
    You are a broken record, Glen, on this topic.  Repetition can be useful
    but not when it is patently false.  The Bible is very clear concerning
    homosexuality - it is condemned unequivocally.  Slavery is not, of
    course, though it's sinfulness may be deduced from the Bible.  
    
    You have fantastically separated lust from homosexual activity/desires. 
    
    The Bible doesn't have to say two homosexuals can't be married when it
    condemns homosexuality altogether.  This should be obvious to all.

| What does this mean?

	>They don't care if you are gay, white, black, jewish, etc.
    
    Such statements only have meaning in a political context, Glen.  The
    bible-believing church shall be color and race-blind.

| This is false, not the truth. God does not love sinners for who they are.  

	>Why He most certainly does. I know God loves you, me everyone. Even
>those who reject Him. Are you telling me He can love someone who rejects Him,
>but not the homosexual?
    
    You have no basis on which to say you know that God loves you or me or
    anyone.  It is only your desire which formulates your belief.  The
    Bible does not separate the love of God and the justice of God.  These
    two attributes are simply two of many. But you don't get your ideas or
    beliefs from the Bible.  Yours are your own or those of the world
    around you, whichever ones meet your objectives it appears.

    
    jeff

I'm actually glad I asked this question so I can dispell some of the myths
perpetrated in this conference once and for all.

| The right choice being....what?

ZZ	1.) Not looking down on gays

I never look down on people for who they are.  I frown upon their actions.
	
ZZ	2.) Viewing gays for who they are, not what they are

Gay individuals are people.  People who are subject to the same emotional needs
as anybody else.  You might want to tell the activists what you told me 
because I don't think they are getting it.  Okay, I got that one...

ZZ	3.) Welcoming gays into their church (welcomes as saying, come to our
ZZ	    church, not the, "we don't deny them entry")

Please...you Glen, have been invited by me in the past to come to my church.
I believe all who hunger and thirst for righteousness can find truth if they 
really seek it.  Why would I or anybody in my fellowship deny somebody entry?

ZZ	4.) Performing marriages

Ahh...now we are crossing over the line from who we are to what we do.  I would
hold my church in utter contempt for sanctioning such a union.  But since we 
live in a republic under the seperation of church and state, I would 
acknowledge your free right to apostacy.  

ZZ	5.) Working with the communities without a problem (ie, they don't care
ZZ	    if you're color is different, gay, different ethnic, etc)

Well, the Baptist Church I attend from time to time is in Fitchburg and has 
people from different backgrounds.  I guess I'm not sure what you are implying
here.  Secondly, understand that segregation within churches has gone on since 
the Civil war.  Glen, this is a phenomenon that has baffled me to no end.  It
is something that has been sanctioned by both white churches AND black 
churches.  It is the last stitch of tradition stemming back from the Old
South.  I'm kind of at a loss as to what can be done.  Change is something 
humans are resistant to. 

ZZ	6.) Lets them know the truth, that God loves them for who they are.

Yes, as I addressed in the first few points.  This is acknowledged in scripture
and has been acknowledged by fundamentalists in here many times.  

ZZ	7.) If they believe homosexuality is a sin, they let the only person 
ZZ	    who is capable of handling it... well... handle it. God.

Let's clump points 6 and 7 together.  I have mentioned this to Tom frequently 
and I will mention it again.  God's love and the element of tolerance are 
not always in harmony with one another.  In fact, there are biblical historical
accounts where the opposite occurs..."God chasteneth those whom he loves", "He 
who spares the rod hateth his child".   There are also countless passages 

God spoke of Israel, the apple of His eye as an abominable harlot.  He did so 
because they lost focus of God's word, killed the prophets, and in doing so, 
became a law unto themselves.  This Glen, is what you are sanctioning here...
you want to become a law unto yourself.

You brought up in point seven the God is the only one capable of handling it..
and that we should let God handle it.  Glen, I am here to tell you today...you
WILL NOT want God to handle it.  You would be far better off if you become
unlike those who ignored, ridiculed, and murdered the messengers of God.  

"So then faith comes through hearing, and hearing by the Word of God."  Do you
believe the words of the master Glen?  I mean...do you RRREEEAALLY believe it..
or are you just paying lip service to the world and deceiving yourself. 

-Jack

 Z   Yes, as I addressed in the first few points.  This is acknowledged in
 Z   scripture and has been acknowledged by fundamentalists in here many times.
    
    I would like to qualify this a little further since I brought it
    up...i.e. God's love.  I made this statement based on the well known
    John 3:16, "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten
    son.  That whosoever believeth in him should not perish but have
    everlasting life."    
    
    I think it needs to be pointed out, once again, that love is an
    attribute of God which has been misconstrued to encompass his whole
    person.  This stems from the misuse of 1st John 3.
    
    Psalm 5:4 - "The foolish shall not stand.  Thou hatest the workers of
    iniquity."
    
    Psalm 11:5 - "The Lord trieth the righteous, but the wicked and him
    that loveth violence his soul hateth."
    
    Psalm 26:5 - "I have hated the congregation of evildoers and will not
    sit with the wicked."
    
    Understand that the word hate is the same hebrew word as the word hate
    in Esther 9:1.  This verse speaks of Haman's hate for the Jewish
    people.  Haman wanted to do what Hitler did in the 20th century.  Wipe
    out Jewry from the land.
    
    -Jack
    

| <<< Note 1243.370 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| but gays will never be respected for their homosexuality, in the 
| bible-believing church.

	If we went just by what you believe the Bible to be saying, then what
you have just said contradicts the Bible. Homosexuality is not a sin according
to what you have said in the past. It is only the sex part of it. 

	But now lets base it on reality. Gays are being respected for their
homosexuality in bible-believing churches. Not everyone interpretes what is
called lust in the Bible as homosexuality like you do.

| I think you're completely wrong in your assertion. Do you have any statistics 
| to back up your claims?

	How about 1st hand knowledge. Does that work ok? Do you think someone
who holds up a sign that says, "God hates fags", and puts a Bible verse with
it, is respecting the human being? The Bible never uses the word fag, and the
word fag is being used in a demeaning manner towards gays. I know this from
interacting with these people during the March on Washington in 1993.

| You don't seem to understand, Glen. "Welcoming Congregations" are not 
| bible-believing congregations 

	According to you, maybe. But considering when I was at a friends
funeral a couple of weeks back the priest, who was Irish Catholic, talked of
such a thing. Imagine that.....

| "Welcoming Congregations" say, "homosexuals are welcome here as homosexuals 
| and we approve, in the name of God 

	I know you find it hard to accept, but the world is changing. Just like
in the days of slavery, spanish inquisition, and burning of witches to name a
few. People are realizing the truth, and they got that way through God, the
Father of Jesus Christ.

| No bible-believing congregation will ever be this sort of "welcoming
| congregation".

	Again, you are wrong. 

| It is not happening in bible-believing churches.  

	Wrong.

| And we must make this distinction.  

	You can make it, but you are wrong.

| Well, you're right. Conversion is the goal of much Christian activity. I know 
| you think that homosexuals cannot be converted but that is neither biblical 
| nor does it line up with what thousands of homosexuals say.

	Errr.... why would homosexuals say that, Jeff?

| You are a broken record, Glen, on this topic.  

	Consistant. But then you could only use that when you describe
yourself. It would sound, "too good" to use it with someone else you don't
agree with.

| The Bible is very clear concerning homosexuality, it is condemned 
| unequivocally.  

	Then it isn't clear now.... is it? Because many bible-believing 
Christians see it differently.

| Slavery is not, of course, though it's sinfulness may be deduced from the 
| Bible.

	But people thought the Bible said it was ok. Just like people think
homosexuality is (in my best George Bush voice), "Baaad!" 

| You have fantastically separated lust from homosexual activity/desires.

	No.... what I have done is tell you that the Bible was not talking
about homosexuals. It was talking about lust. For a man to give up what was
natural and to use a man as a woman, that person is heterosexual. Because to
have sex with a man AND have it be unnatural, one has to be heterosexual. For
me to have sex with a woman is unnatural.

| The Bible doesn't have to say two homosexuals can't be married when it
| condemns homosexuality altogether.  

	But it does not condemn homosexuality.

| Such statements only have meaning in a political context, Glen. The 
| bible-believing church shall be color and race-blind.

	Ahhh.... notice how you didn't say gay.....

| You have no basis on which to say you know that God loves you or me or anyone.

	Errrrr.... from what He has shown me, that is my belief.

| It is only your desire which formulates your belief.  

	Jeff.... I don't really care if God loves you to the point that it is a
desire.

| But you don't get your ideas or beliefs from the Bible.  

	This is a lie. The Bible, if God chooses, can be a very useful tool.
But He has to lead someone to the book, not the other way around.

| Yours are your own or those of the world around you, whichever ones meet your 
| objectives it appears.

	Again.... this is also a lie. Maybe you should take some time to know
me before you say these things. Oh... this might be the point where you say,
"Your words speak for you". Well... you were wrong with Richard, so I guess
being wrong again won't be too bad. Of course you could believe differently. 


Glen

| <<< Note 1243.371 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Please...you Glen, have been invited by me in the past to come to my church.
| I believe all who hunger and thirst for righteousness can find truth if they
| really seek it.  Why would I or anybody in my fellowship deny somebody entry?

	Jack.... I'm talking aboout the church.... not you. Please try and
understand that.....

| You brought up in point seven the God is the only one capable of handling it..
| and that we should let God handle it.  Glen, I am here to tell you today...you
| WILL NOT want God to handle it.  You would be far better off if you become
| unlike those who ignored, ridiculed, and murdered the messengers of God.

	Ahhhh Jack..... you make many assumptions. One being that God is going
to find homosexuality wrong. And two, that God will wait until the end before
He does something. Both are wrong assumptions.



Glen

| but gays will never be respected for their homosexuality, in the 
| bible-believing church.

>	If we went just by what you believe the Bible to be saying, then what
>you have just said contradicts the Bible. Homosexuality is not a sin according
>to what you have said in the past. It is only the sex part of it. 
    
    Glen, you're confused.  Homosexuality is about sex.  It has no other
    meaning as a word.

	>But now lets base it on reality. Gays are being respected for their
>homosexuality in bible-believing churches. Not everyone interpretes what is
>called lust in the Bible as homosexuality like you do.
    
    What bible-believing churches are you referring to?

| I think you're completely wrong in your assertion. Do you have any statistics 
| to back up your claims?

	>How about 1st hand knowledge. Does that work ok? Do you think someone
>who holds up a sign that says, "God hates fags", and puts a Bible verse with
>it, is respecting the human being? The Bible never uses the word fag, and the
>word fag is being used in a demeaning manner towards gays. I know this from
>interacting with these people during the March on Washington in 1993.
    
    First hand knowledge does not work as a statistical proof.  And you
    are basically painting all bible-believing Christians with the brush of
    what you saw a very small number of people do at one event.

| You don't seem to understand, Glen. "Welcoming Congregations" are not 
| bible-believing congregations 

	>According to you, maybe. But considering when I was at a friends
>funeral a couple of weeks back the priest, who was Irish Catholic, talked of
>such a thing. Imagine that.....
    
    So the Irish Catholic church, as a corporate organization, is now in
    favor of "welcoming congregations" ideas?  I doubt it very seriously.

| "Welcoming Congregations" say, "homosexuals are welcome here as homosexuals 
| and we approve, in the name of God 

	>I know you find it hard to accept, but the world is changing. Just like
>in the days of slavery, spanish inquisition, and burning of witches to name a
>few. People are realizing the truth, and they got that way through God, the
>Father of Jesus Christ.
    
    The world is changing, that is a fact.  But God's Word does not change. 
    He's spoken the truth and He has made it quite clear what is sinful and
    what is not.  And he will have the final word.
    
| Well, you're right. Conversion is the goal of much Christian activity. I know 
| you think that homosexuals cannot be converted but that is neither biblical 
| nor does it line up with what thousands of homosexuals say.

	>Errr.... why would homosexuals say that, Jeff?
    
    Thousands of homosexuals have found new life in Jesus Christ and have
    repented of homosexuality.

| You have no basis on which to say you know that God loves you or me or anyone.

	>Errrrr.... from what He has shown me, that is my belief.
    
    Like I said, you have no objective basis.  What God has shown you is
    strictly subjective and can be anything you want it to be.  

| It is only your desire which formulates your belief.  

| But you don't get your ideas or beliefs from the Bible.  

| Yours are your own or those of the world around you, whichever ones meet your 
| objectives it appears.

>	Again.... this is also a lie. Maybe you should take some time to know
>me before you say these things. Oh... this might be the point where you say,
>"Your words speak for you". Well... 
    
    	If there is anything authentic in your words and if your words are
    a reflection of your heart, then I do "know" you though I've never seen
    you.  Do I know you exhaustively?  No.  I certainly know perfectly how
    you approach the Bible.  You've made it completely clear.  There are
    hundreds of people who know how you approach the Bible.  I'm making no
    special claim of knowledge regarding you.
    
    jeff

Z    No.... what I have done is tell you that the Bible was not talking
Z    about homosexuals. It was talking about lust. For a man to give up what
Z    was
Z    natural and to use a man as a woman, that person is heterosexual.
Z    Because to have sex with a man AND have it be unnatural,
    
    Glen, for somebody who sees scripture in the same light as Aesops
    fables, i.e. just another great book to which we can glean principles,
    you seem to claim great authority of knowledge in the area of Old
    Testament dispensationalism.  By your definition, not being married is
    also unnatural since God said it is not good for man to be alone.
    
    What is being proposed here is a perversion of the natural order of
    things.  I am quite frankly surprised that this priest condoned such a
    lifestyle in an individual if this is in fact what he did.  The RC
    church is staunchly against these kinds of arrangements.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1243.375 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Glen, you're confused. Homosexuality is about sex. It has no other meaning as 
| a word.

	Are you then saying that heterosexuality is about sex? I hate to inform
you, but you are wrong. Even the dictionary has one version of the word to be a
homosexual person. Take some time and look things up, please. 

| First hand knowledge does not work as a statistical proof.  

	Oh.... of course not. First hand knowledge is pure trash. Be real,
Jeff.

| And you are basically painting all bible-believing Christians with the brush 
| of what you saw a very small number of people do at one event.

	No, jeff. You should reread my notes. I don't paint all bible-believing
Christians with that brush. If that were so, I wouldn't say that there are some
who believe differently than you, would I? In fact, if we got right down to it,
I would suspect that no one believes as you do. Mainly because no two people
can have the same exact beliefs 100% of the way.

| So the Irish Catholic church, as a corporate organization, is now in
| favor of "welcoming congregations" ideas?  I doubt it very seriously.

	Corporate organization? Please explain this one?

| The world is changing, that is a fact.  But God's Word does not change.

	Just the different interpretations of the book. 

| Thousands of homosexuals have found new life in Jesus Christ and have
| repented of homosexuality.

	Then if they are homosexuals saying this, they haven't converted. They
have just supressed. They know they will always be a homosexual.

| I certainly know perfectly how you approach the Bible. You've made it 
| completely clear.  

	Then tell me how I approach the Bible. Let's see if you even know that
much about me.



Glen

| <<< Note 1243.376 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| Glen, for somebody who sees scripture in the same light as Aesops fables, 
| i.e. just another great book to which we can glean principles, you seem to 
| claim great authority of knowledge in the area of Old Testament 
| dispensationalism.  

	No... I am giving what I believe is the correct interpretation of the
passage. I mean, God showed me.


Glen

    
    No more, Glen.  Maybe some other time.
    
    jeff

 Why does it seem that just about every topic with frequent entries
 winds up being ratholed with the homosexuality issue, he asked rhetorically..




 Jim

 Z   Then if they are homosexuals saying this, they haven't converted. They
 Z   have just supressed. They know they will always be a homosexual.
    
    This one particularly caught my attention.  Everytime I bring up the
    alcoholic parellel, I am ridiculed.
    
    Thanks for clarifying this Glen.
    
    -Jack

    Hot issue I guess.
    
    Like abortion.
    
    NOT THAT I'M TRYING TO STIR THAT UP!!!
    
    
    Lemme see, where were we.....
    
    
    
    

| <<< Note 1243.379 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| No more, Glen.  Maybe some other time.

	Of course not, Jeff. As then it would be known that you make the claim
you know what is in the hearts of people in here by their notes, but when it
comes time to showing it one way or the other, you really can't.


Glen

| <<< Note 1243.381 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| This one particularly caught my attention.  Everytime I bring up the
| alcoholic parellel, I am ridiculed.

	They are parellel because both are surpressed. They are not parellel if
they are being compared as a defect. And you try to compare the homosexual
period, to the alcoholic. 



Glen

Re  .334

>   My experience in this file and in another file have convinced me that
>   the innerrantist's position is hippocritical and and an excuse for a
>   conservative social, political, and economic agenda.

    Some may be guilty of this but this does not reflect on the position of
    inerrancy itself.  AGAIN this is attempting guilt by association.  If your
    worried about taking the authority of Scripture to the extreme, as some
    do, and turn it into legalism, I agree this is wrong.  However if we don't
    use the Scriptures as our measure we end up misrepresenting who God says
    He is - which is blasphemy.

    God's Word is the expression of His nature and He values it above His very
    name.  

    Just as some "legalize" God's Word due to a lack of the filling of God's
    Spirit so to do you do the opposite.  You trivialize and scorn God's Word
    due to your lack of the Holy Spirit.

    I know you disagree and feel that you have the Holy Spirit but understand
    that according to the very Scripture you deny, you cannot have the Holy
    Spirit without the regenerative work of Jesus Christ in your life.  Since
    you deny Him to be the uniquely divine Son of God and that His work on the
    cross was neccessary for the payment of our sin - reconciling us to Him -
    and that only through this reconciliation can we receive the Holy Spirit,
    it is on this basis I can say you do not have the Holy Spirit and CANNOT
    understand His Word.  This is the testimony in God's Word and I believe it.


>   I accepted the challenge that many Unitarian-Universalist are
>   biblically illiterate and spend the time, money, and energy to study
>   the Bible.

    That's admirable if you wish know God through His word but you are wasting
    your time without the salvation that only Christ can give.

>   I know where many of the problem areas of the Bible are.

    As do I.  I have yet to see you give any that aren't the tired, 100+ year
    old trappings that flow from higher critisism and have been discredited
    for years.

>   I know the Bible contains hundreds of different theological positions.

    The Bible contains ONE theological position: God's.
    
>   I base my charge of hippocracy on two examples.                 

    Which have satisfactorially been address elsewhere.

>   I find nothing laudable in the innerantist position.  It is not objective.

    Not suprising since it leads to direct contradiction of your own picture
    of God and how you want Him to be.  The Scripture is God's word, and as an
    expression of His nature - from which all objective reality stems - it is
    objectively true.
    
>   it ignores the cultural contexts

    Exactly the opposite.  It is you who do this - as is evident by your
    contention that inerrancy promotes slavery.

>   it is used as a weapon.
    
    Yes, against sin, false religion, and all false pretenses that are in
    conflict with God stated nature and plan.
    
    "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.  
    The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the 
    contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.  We demolish 
    arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge
    of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
    (2 Cor 10:3-5)

    As pointed out previously in this note, God's Word describes itself as a
    sword or weapon in several passages: Isa 49:2, Hos 6:5, Eph 6:17, Heb
    4:12, Rev 1:16.

    Note also in Eph 6:17, "the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of
    God", that the Word is the weapon of the Holy Spirit resident in the
    heart of the believer."


    Michael
    

    Patricia,
    
    Speaking of Higher Criticism (re .-1).  This reminded me to address some
    of the other statements you've made.
    
    The views raised by Higher Critical analysis of the Scriptures originated
    over 100 years ago by Julius Wellhausen and others.  These views include
    the ideas of Judaism evolving and that the texts contain numerical
    population exaggerations.  These theories have been discredited for years
    due to faulty assumptions made by the authors and discoveries in the
    objective archeological record.  Even so, many of these schools of thought
    remain today.

    An example of one of the faulty assumptions can be found in your own note
    (.117).  You said that "real" historians believed that the desert could
    not support the number of Jews that came out of Egypt.  This obviously
    denies the possibility of the divine miracle of "mana" clearly recorded in
    scripture.  So the faulty logic is this:  there are no miracles; the
    desert can't support the number of people; therefore the record is false.

    In the words of the esteemed archaeologist William F. Albright "Ther can
    be no doubt that archaeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of
    the Old Testament tradition."  "The excessive skepticism show toward the
    Bible by important historical schools of the eighteenth and nineteenth
    centuries, certain phases of which still appear periodically, has been
    progressively discredited.  Discovery after discovery has established
    the accuracy of innumerable details, and has brought increased recognition
    to the value of the Bible as a source of history." 

    Henry M. Morris "It must be extremely significant that, in view of the
    great mass of corroborative evidence regarding the Biblical history of
    these periods, there exists today not one unquestioned find of archaeology
    that proves the Bible to be in error at any point." 

    
    The following passage is applicable to the devotees of Higher Criticism:

    "For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, 
    but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  Where is the wise 
    man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not 
    God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For since in the wisdom of God 
    the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the 
    foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.  Jews demand 
    miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ 
    crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,"
    (1 Cor 1:18-23)

    Michael
    

    
    Excellent entries, Michael.  
    
    jeff

.364
    
>    Well, you're not capable of denying it either, are you?  

God only knows of what I am capable.

Richard

    My hypothesis has again been affirmed:
    
    The one who claims the superiority of the Bible because it is
    supposedly a non-subjective source is no less likely to miss the
    mark than the one who doesn't.
    
    Richard
    

Re .386 (Michael)

>there exists today not one unquestioned find of archaeology
>    that proves the Bible to be in error at any point."

Well, that all depends on what your threhold of "proof" is.  You can place it
to be so high that even the theory of gravity cannot be proven.  All we have on
gravity is an enormous collection of observed facts with only contested 
theories on how it really works.  But if proof is something more realizable,
like maybe >=99% probable, then there are mountains of proof that many accounts
in the Bible are in error or are exaggerations.

The quotes you had in your note were interesting.  But you won't find many
scientific reports disclaiming biblical stories.  This is probably due to
the fact that most scientists don't regard the Bible as containing
accurate data, theories or explanations of the physical world.  IOW, it's
not considered to be a source of scientific theory or accurate data and
doesn't merit consideration or critique.  Sorry, but that's the way it's
regarded and tht's why you won't find much head-to-head discreditation.

The contradictions are apparent given normal interpretations of the Bible.
E.g. "It rained for 40 days/nights and flooded the entire surface of the
earth".  There isn't enough water on the planet to do this and there's a
>=99% probability that there never was.  This claim could be in error (in
the <=1% probable range) and so it's not absolute proof.  Then again, the 
theory of gravity could be wrong and you could go floating out of your chair
as you're reading this.

And there's also the fact that all the applied scientific theories that
made the computer possible are "unproven" and that you'll never get this
message I'm typing.  Guess what?

I did not address faith in the veracity of the Bible.  If one begins with
an absolute acceptance of the Bible, then, by definition, all of it's
claims are 100% true.  In that context, biblical accounts cannot be disproven
because they are presupposed to be true.  There's no point in even trying!
Conflicts with science would only be testimony to the inaccuracies and flaws
of science.  "Try again until you agree with the biblical accounts until you
get it right"

-dave

re Note 1243.380 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  Why does it seem that just about every topic with frequent entries
>  winds up being ratholed with the homosexuality issue, he asked rhetorically..
  
        Agreed -- discussion of homosexuality should be done in the
        appropriate existing topic(s).

        (It is entirely reasonable and appropriate to reply to an
        item under one topic and place that reply under a different,
        more appropriate topic.  It isn't automatic to do this
        under notes -- I find that the easiest way under the
        character cell version of notes is to reply to the note, then
        say "no" when it asks you to enter the reply, and then go to
        the topic under which you want it, and then do
        "reply/last/noedit".)

        Bob

Re  .352

>   From what you had to say, there seems to be room in heaven for the
>   innocent and the righteous of times prior to Jesus without a 2nd
>   chance.  If this is so, then the statement that "the only way to heaven
>   is through Jesus" would  have exceptions, at least in the context of a
>   literal interpretation of the passage.

    Dave,

    Did I not say that the Messiah was promised back in the very beginning?
    Why do you say that "the only way to heaven is through Jesus" would have
    exceptions?  The the death of Christ has always been the basis for
    salvation in every age.  The requirement for salvation in every age has
    always been faith in God.

    Michael

Re  .390

>   Well, that all depends on what your threhold of "proof" is.  You can place
>   it to be so high that even the theory of gravity cannot be proven.

    Your implication that the "proof threshold" must be set unreasonably high
    is unfounded.

>   But if proof is something more realizable, like maybe >=99% probable, then
>   there are mountains of proof that many accounts in the Bible are in error
>   or are exaggerations.

    This is a commonly taught (and believed) misconception.  The amount of
    constistency and corroboration, both internal and external, far far
    outweigh the apparently conflicting or erroneous accounts.

    Michael

    >Did I not say that the Messiah was promised back in the very
    >beginning?
    
    Yes you did.  So are you saying that a belief in the prophecy is as
    good as believing in the man while he was alive?  A belief in the man
    long after he died?
    
    -dave

    re .393
    
    >Your implication that the "proof threshold" must be set unreasonably
    >high is unfounded.
    
    I'm not implying anything.  Just asking what level of certitude is
    required to prove or disprove something.  In some systems, the ones
    which require unreasonably high levels of certitude, the Bible cannot
    be disproven.  Just wondering if you're thinking in that space. If so,
    then there's no point is trying to disprove anyting in the Bible.
    
    >The amount of
    >constistency and corroboration, both internal and external, far far
    >outweigh the apparently conflicting or erroneous accounts.
    
    Well, where do you draw the line?  The Bible says there was a city in
    ancient times called Jeruselem.  Archeologists agree.  Is that one point
    in which there is corroboration?  If you tally up totality of these
    small points, then the numbers will indicate that there's a large body
    of corroborating evidence.  Maybe it's more appropriate to address
    those areas where there "appears" to be confilct.  And I know, we've
    discussed some of this before.  BTW, I read "Genisus and the Big BAng".
    
    -dave

>   My experience in this file and in another file have convinced me that
>   the innerrantist's position is hippocritical and and an excuse for a
>   conservative social, political, and economic agenda.

>    Some may be guilty of this but this does not reflect on the position of
>    inerrancy itself.  AGAIN this is attempting guilt by association.
    
    "Guilt by association" misrepresents what I have said.  
    My statement makes a specific conclusion based on my experience with a
    specific group of people.  i.e. this file and those within it who take
    an innerantist position.
    
    Based on the live examples throughout this file of abuses committed in
    the name of an innerrant bible and based on my knowledge of what is in
    the bible, I hypothesize that the principle of Biblical Innerancy
    itself leads to abuse.
    
    The Gospel of John really does say the world is divided between
    children of light and children of darkness.
    
    Revelations really does describe horrible tortures and punishment
    inflicted on the unrighteous (i.e. children of darkness)
    
    The Bible really does tell slaves not to attempt to change their
    positions in society.  The Bible really does tell women to obey men.
    
    The Bible really does potray Jews as killing Christ.
    
    One has only two choices in understanding these statements.  They are
    either the word of God or they are not the Word of God.  Believing
    these statements are the innerrant Word of God leads to oppression.  A
    logical conclusion then is that God either demands the villification
    and perhaps even destruction of those proven to be children of darkness or
    that these words are not the words of God.
    
    I know by direct revelation from the Spirit of the God of Love that
    these words are not the words of god.
    
    This knowledge does not invalidate the Bible for me.  This knowledge
    means that I must study the Bible critically and with suspicion.
    
    I have been taught at Andover Newton Theological School the tools of
    Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, Forms Critism, and Theolical
    Criticism.  We have also discussed Constructionist, Deconstructionist,
    and Reconstructionist theories of Biblical Study.  These tools are
    taught at ANTS, at Harvard Divinity School, at Princeton Divinity
    School and at every non fundementalist school of Theology.
    
    These tools contradict the fundementalist faith assertion that the
    bible is the direct channeled Word of God.  Therefore it is necessary
    that fundementalists reject these well established and respected tools
    to maintain the primary premise of their faith.  i.e. the Bible can
    accurately be read as the word of God.
    
    
 >   However if we don't
 >   use the Scriptures as our measure we end up misrepresenting who God says
 >   He is - which is blasphemy.

    I would maintain that by insisting on the belief in innerancy one
    misrepresents who God is.  That can be blashpemy.
    
>    God's Word is the expression of His nature and He values it above His very
>    name.  

    I think this statement is riduculous.  I pass on logical argumentation
    here.
   
   >   You trivialize and scorn God's Word
   >   due to your lack of the Holy Spirit.

    I trivalize nothing.  I believe it is very dangerous and very wrong
    that some of the things written in the Bible are used as the Word of
    God.
    
    I do scorn that hate, torture, destruction, killing are said to be the
    word and commandment of God.
    
    
  >  I know you disagree and feel that you have the Holy Spirit but understand
  >  that according to the very Scripture you deny, you cannot have the Holy
  >  Spirit without the regenerative work of Jesus Christ in your life.  Since
  >  you deny Him to be the uniquely divine Son of God and that His work on the
  >  cross was neccessary for the payment of our sin - reconciling us to Him -
  >  and that only through this reconciliation can we receive the Holy Spirit,
  >  it is on this basis I can say you do not have the Holy Spirit and CANNOT
  >  understand His Word.  This is the testimony in God's Word and I believe it.

    
    I know you believe all that.  And it is sad.  Michael Servetus was
    burned because the Calvanists of Geneva believed the same things about
    him as you believe about me.   The thought is horrifying.  If I were
    living in a less "enlightened" period I would be murdered for my
    beliefs.
                                   
>   it is used as a weapon.
    
>>    Yes, against sin, false religion, and all false pretenses that are in
>>    conflict with God stated nature and plan.
    
>>    "For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does.  
>>    The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the 
>>    contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds.  We demolish 
>>    arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge
>>    of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."
    (2 Cor 10:3-5)

>>    As pointed out previously in this note, God's Word describes itself as a
>>    sword or weapon in several passages: Isa 49:2, Hos 6:5, Eph 6:17, Heb
    4:12, Rev 1:16.
   
    
    I am aware of all those quotes and even worse quotes.  They are what
    makes the principle of innerrancy so dangerous.

  Z  Yes you did.  So are you saying that a belief in the prophecy is as
  Z  good as believing in the man while he was alive?  A belief in the
  Z  man long after he died?
    
    Dave, in the gospel of John, Jesus made a claim that had the pharisees
    up in arms...
    
    "Then the pharisees said to him, you are 30 years old, and you know
    Abraham.  Jesus said unto them, verily verily I say unto you, before
    Abraham was, I AM."  
    
    The pharisees knew EXACTLY what Jesus was inferring here, and it was
    this claim amongst others which labeled him as a blasphemer.  
    
    All this to say God is outside the realm of time.  The sacrificial
    system under the Mosaic law was a forshadowing of the sacrifice made by
    Jesus Christ.  The sin offering was a picture of the Messiah.
    
    -Jack

Re .397 (Jack)

I thinnk I understand what you have said.  And it then makes sense to say
that Abraham, etc... could receive salvation through Christ, regardless of
when he lived.  If iI may... Abraham believed in God, and God=Jesus,
therefor Abraham believed in Jesus and could attain salvation.  Knowlege of 
Jesus' teachings are not necessary.

Would it also be true that all Jews and Moslems who believe in the same God
also believe in Jesus and can attain salvation?

-dave

    Hi Dave:
    
ZZ    I think I understand what you have said.  And it then makes sense to say
ZZ    that Abraham, etc... could receive salvation through Christ, regardless
ZZ    of when he lived.  If iI may... Abraham believed in God, and God=Jesus,
ZZ    therefor Abraham believed in Jesus and could attain salvation. 
ZZ    Knowlege of Jesus' teachings are not necessary.
    
    Yes, it very much makes sense.  But keep in mind that Abraham was
    justified by FAITH and it was credited to him as righteousness.  There
    is a chapter in Romans dedicated to the very issue we are discussing
    here.  Paul was comparing the works of the law (the circumcision of the
    flesh) to justification by grace through faith (the circumcision of the
    heart).  There is a clear allegory here.  Also understand probably the
    most important aspect of this.  Abraham was initially called by God and
    not the other way around.  Abraham was a Chaldean, minding his own
    business when God came to him and said, "Come out from the land of your
    forefathers and I will make thee a great and mighty nation.  Behold, I
    will make thy decendents as the sands of the sea and those who bless
    you I will bless and those who curse you I will curse." (paraphrased).
    Abraham was justified by faith in that he followed the Lord; however,
    it was Jehovah God who called Abraham out of a Pagan nation.  Abraham
    did not know the name of Jesus but God had made an unconditional
    covenant with Abraham...and Abraham followed.
    
ZZ    Would it also be true that all Jews and Moslems who believe in the same
ZZ    God also believe in Jesus and can attain salvation?
    
    No, I don't believe this to be true.  Jesus is the object of one's
    faith...much like the sacrifice and the blood of the sacrifice was the
    object of one's faith.  Even James who penned one of the books stated,
    "You believe in God, you do well.  The demons also believe and
    shudder."  Jesus also stated, "not all who cry to me Lord lord shall
    enter the kingdom of God, but he who does the will of my Father."  Now
    if you're asking if a Moslim or a Jewish individual can believe in
    Jesus and be saved...absolutely.  However, I think you are saying since
    one believes in God, and Jesus is God, then they must by default also
    believe in Jesus.  I don't believe this to be the case because just as
    the demons, a believe in God the Father without God the son is left in
    an unredeemed state.
    
    -Jack  

    Patricia:
    
    The problem with your outlook is that you have this somewhat myopic
    view of the world.  Jesus himself recognized there was poverty,
    injustice, and disparity in the world.  Sometimes you seem to take
    scripture and try to force it into a box with a rake handle.  Anything
    refusing to budge into the box is cast out as fodder and uninspired.  
    
 Z   the bible, I hypothesize that the principle of Biblical Innerancy
 Z   itself leads to abuse.
    
    So you think that truth should be discarded because X group is not
    afforded equal rights...that sort of thing?  I would say that the
    inerrancy of scripture helps to mold absolutes in the convictions of
    individuals.  
        
 Z       The Gospel of John really does say the world is divided between
 Z       children of light and children of darkness.
    
    Actually, it goes deeper than that.  Scripture teaches that the world
    IS darkness..which may account for Jesus calling the church the Light
    of the World and the Salt of the Earth.  There is no division here.  It
    is more equated to a wide gate vs. a narrow gate.  Keep in mind that
    Jesus was not founding a new way of thinking here.  He was proclaiming
    something that had been the norm for thousands of years.
        
 Z       Revelations really does describe horrible tortures and punishment
 Z       inflicted on the unrighteous (i.e. children of darkness)
    
    Have you actually studied the book?  If so, then you will realize that
    for most of the content, the church is no longer existent on earth and
    the people are continually blaspheming God although he is continually 
    calling them to repentence.  This is clearly a case of God withholding
    wrath until the very last moment.  You see this as punishment...I see
    this as a clear wake up call.
        
 Z       The Bible really does tell slaves not to attempt to change their
 Z       positions in society.  The Bible really does tell women to obey
 Z       men.
    
    Now are you speaking of voluntary servitude?  Because this is what Paul
    was referring to.  (We've touched on this numerous times...is your lack
    of belief that strong?)
        
 Z       The Bible really does potray Jews as killing Christ.
    
   That's like saying Washington is really portrayed as being first
    president.  There is no question Patricia, that historically Judas
    betrayed Jesus to the Pharisees, and the pharisees used the strong arm
    of Rome to crucify Christ.  Gosh anybody should see that.  What's so
    horrible about acknowledging a historical fact?  By the way, ultimately
    your sin and mine put Jesus on the cross; so I believe we are all as a
    human race culpable for this.
    
    -Jack

Re  .396

>   Based on the live examples throughout this file of abuses committed in
>   the name of an innerrant bible

    This is a ridiculous, one sided charge.  In a debate of ideas, there is
    going to be conflict.  Do you define abuse as the challenging of your
    ideas?  I can equally make a case that those who hold to inerrancy are
    abused by those that don't.

    Seriously, the most likable, caring, loving, people I know in this world,
    BAR NONE, are Christians that hold an inerrant view of Scripture.  All it
    takes is ONE such person to completely invalidate your hypothesis, that
    inerrancy leads to abuse.

>   and based on my knowledge of what is in the bible,

    You refuse to acknowledge the entire point of the God's message in the
    Bible and you've already demonstrated a lack of real understanding about
    what His word says.  Therefore this is not a premise I can accept.

>   I hypothesize that the principle of Biblical Innerancy
>   itself leads to abuse.

    Now you've changed your hypothesis.  You previously stated that inerrancy
    was hypocritical and an excuse for a conservative social, political, and
    economic agenda.  I assume your implying the "abuse" is expressed in these
    "agendas".

    Outside of real abuse and oppression (terms you need to define better)
    what is wrong with the expression of ideas that stem from a conservative
    position (I suppose those who hold to inerrancy should not vote either).

>   The Gospel of John really does say the world is divided between
>   children of light and children of darkness.

    We are all "children of darkness" due to our rebellion against God. The
    point is that God has invited EVERYONE of us to join His family, those
    that accept are adopted into it based on the imparted righteousness of
    Christ, becoming "children of light".

    I think Jack has explained this statement and the others so I won't
    continue (Thanks Jack).

>   One has only two choices in understanding these statements.  They are
>   either the word of God or they are not the Word of God.

    It is also possible that only some of your statements are from the word of
    God and that some aren't (distorted and untrue, as is the case with some
    here).  Again you've failed to take into account the proper context of any
    of the passages from which you take your statements.

>   Believing these statements are the innerrant Word of God leads to opression.

    A valid conclusion cannot safely be reached when based on faulty
    assumptions.

>   A logical conclusion then is that God either demands the villification
>   and perhaps even destruction of those proven to be children of darkness or
>   that these words are not the words of God.

    I will discuss this conclusion since you base it on two of your statements
    which are true (even if portrayed in a simplistically misleading manner). 
    First, as you say, this is "A" (one) logical conclusion.  It is not the
    only one.  Second, your use of the word "perhaps" further shows that
    though you may know what the text of the Bible says you do not have
    understanding of what it means.

    God desires that NO ONE should perish.  All you have to do is let Him save
    you.  "He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone
    to come to repentance." (2 Peter 3:9)  Of those that will perish in events
    recorded in Revelation God says: "They perish because they refused to love
    the truth and so be saved." (2 Thes 2:10)
    
>   I know by direct revelation from the Spirit of the God of Love that
>   these words are not the words of god.

    I also claim direct revelation from the Holy Spirit (as do dozens of
    people I know personally), who is the God of Love, and He affirms His
    word.  Now you and I can't both have received these opposite messages from
    the same "god."  One of us is does not have the truth.

    The Scriptures clearly tell us that consciously directed spiritual
    deception exists and that God's word is the measure by which we are to
    "test everything, hold on to the good" (1 Thes 5:19-21).  How do you
    KNOW your "revelation" is from God?

    "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Cor 11:14)

    Trouble is, in your theology there is no Satan or "evil spirits" to
    account for a false message.

    
>   This knowledge does not invalidate the Bible for me.  This knowledge
>   means that I must study the Bible critically and with suspicion.

    Why do you bother with the Bible at all?  Your theology does not stem from
    it.  You've spend all that money to educate yourself on courses that teach
    an extremely prejudiced, anti-supernatural, view of Scripture and all you
    do is bolster your own preconceived notions toward God's word and alienate
    yourself from Him even further.

    Michael
    

Re  .396 (cont.)

>   I have been taught at Andover Newton Theological School the tools of
>   Historical Criticism, Literary Criticism, Forms Critism, and Theolical
>   Criticism.  We have also discussed Constructionist, Deconstructionist,
>   and Reconstructionist theories of Biblical Study.  These tools are
>   taught at ANTS, at Harvard Divinity School, at Princeton Divinity
>   School and at every non fundementalist school of Theology.

    Is this supposed to impress me?  Jesus also faced the religious teachers
    of his day who had knowledge but no faith.  Some of his harshest words
    were directed at them.

    As I've already shown (and this is just the tip of the iceberg) these
    "tools" of analysis are riddled with false presuppositions and
    anti-supernatural bias.


>   These tools contradict the fundementalist faith assertion that the
>   bible is the direct channeled Word of God.  Therefore it is necessary
>   that fundementalists reject these well established and respected tools
>   to maintain the primary premise of their faith.  i.e. the Bible can
>   accurately be read as the word of God.

    "Well established and respected tools?"  This is laughable to anyone who
    knows the problems therein.

    In reality it is exactly the opposite.  Those who have rejected what the
    Scriptures clearly teach (because they simply don't like it) have come up
    with a set of tools that presupposes the Scriptures are wrong.  They are
    right only in their own minds.  You present this as if there is some
    objective superiority to their view but it is in reality just subjective
    nonsense.

    Professor H.H. Rowley "it is not because scholars of today begin with more
    conservative presuppositions ... but because the evidence warrants it." 

    One of the greatest theologian/philosophers of our time, Francis Schaeffer,
    likened higher criticism with a drug trip, both are an escape from reason.

    
Re  .118

>   There had to be something very amiss in the German Christian Church to
>   have allowed for the holecaust.

    Its ironic that you should be the one to bring this up since it is the
    very "tools" of Higher Criticism that you study that had their origins in
    Germany and are the direct source of what was "amiss".  By the time of
    Hitler it had so thoroughly destroyed the "faith" of churches in Germany
    that they had a pitiful influence and were no longer the "salt" and
    "light" they were are called to be.  A few of the Christians who were
    faithful to God and His word did stand up to Hitler but they were
    imprisoned and executed.

    It has taken longer for the effects of these "tools" to take hold in this
    country but the effects on the church have been just as devastating.

    Just curious, do you believe in sin in any form?  Can you tell me, based
    on your theology, why the holocaust was wrong?  What should Hitler's
    punishment be?
    
    Michael
    

Re  .396 (cont.)

>   I would maintain that by insisting on the belief in innerancy one
>   misrepresents who God is.  That can be blashpemy.

    I guess that depends on who your god is.  I believe in the God who has
    revealed Himself via the Bible and so, BY DEFINITION, inerrancy (the Bible
    is true) cannot misrepresent Him.


>>   God's Word is the expression of His nature and He values it above His very
>>   name.  
>
>   I think this statement is riduculous.
>
>>  You trivialize and scorn God's Word
>
>   I trivalize nothing.

    "for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." (Ps 138:2)
    Sounds like trivialization to me.

    
>   I know you believe all that.  And it is sad.

    What is sad is your rejection of Christ.  What you fail to realize is that
    He is trying to rescue you from all the horrors you claim are in His word.
    God desires no one to perish, but it is our rejection of Him that leads to
    separation from Him - all that is good - which is Hell.


>   Michael Servetus was burned because the Calvanists of Geneva believed the
>   same things about him as you believe about me.   The thought is
>   horrifying.

    YES it is.  But this is guilt by association again.  You judge the Master
    and His word by the servants.


>   If I were living in a less "enlightened" period I would be murdered for my
>   beliefs.

    Not by me or anybody else I know who holds to inerrancy.  It is God who
    will hold you accountable unless you turn to Him in repentance.

    It is not my desire to argue with you but to defend against false
    accusations.  Only God can convince you of His truth.
    
    Michael
    

    Re .395
    
    Hi Dave,
    
    FYI: I believe it was Mike Heiser which recommended "Genesis and the Big
    Bang" in 1164.61.
    
    I've not read that one myself.
    
    Michael

    welcome back Michael!
    
    
    I'm happy to see you in such good form!
    
    
                                       Patricia

re Note 1243.202 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

> > How does she demonstrate her love.  I can't possibly believe that she loves 
> > me unless she will demonstrate it.  Will you give me some information about
> > her love so that I might identify it and thus entertain it?  
> 
> >>        It seems supremely arrogant to demand a proof of God's love.
> 
> >>        Bob
>     
>     Why does it seem so, Bob?  
    
        jeff,

        I must have thought that it was supremely obvious that it was
        supremely arrogant for a creature, dependent upon a creator
        not only for existence but also for all that sustains, to
        claim that unless the creator does yet more that there is no
        proof of love.

        It certainly is obvious to anyone who has been a parent --
        what child has not, at some point, cried out "you don't love
        me" to even the most loving and nurturing parent?

        It "seems" the sky is blue -- would you challenge me on this,
        too?

        Bob

        P.S.  Jeff, didn't you have some idea of what was going on in
        my personal life that week, why I might not respond to your
        silly rhetorical taunts?

    Why Christianity?
    
    I read a book a few years back called "Molecules of the Mind" (I forget
    the author).  The book talked about the most recent developments in the
    areas of brain anatomy, brain physiology, physhchemistry, etc... .  in 
    part it described personality traits in these hard physical terms. 
    Some people behave as criminals for these chemical reasong, others
    behave as sait for these physiological reasons, etc... .  It
    was sort of depressing to think of people in this way.  Anyway....
    
    One of the leading scientists in this area was asked if she believed in 
    God.  Much to the interviewer's surprize, she said that she did.  When 
    he asked her to explain, she said that she believed because it makes
    her feel good to believe, that she was "meant" to believe.  The
    interviewer was still puzzled.  She said that it didn't matter if there
    was a God or not.  All that mattered is that she "liked" to believe
    there was.
    
    If a pill works, does it matter if it's a placebo?
    
    -dave

    Dave,
    
    What do you think of the quote.
    
    "God is a metaphor for the mystery behind the Universe"
    
    Is there a mystery?
    Is there something more than that which can be broken into concrete
    parts?
    Can we love and believe in that mystery without fully comprehending
    that mystery?
    
                                  Patricia

    Bob:
    
    As an observer, I see Jeff's question as "testing the spirits" as
    commanded in scripture.
    
    But as you know, I believe goddess worship is as vile as prostitution
    or any other vice out there.  And this isn't a taunt...it is honesty.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1243.409 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     As an observer, I see Jeff's question as "testing the spirits" as
>     commanded in scripture.
  
        Jeff's question seemed (there's that word again -- do I have
        to explain "why"?) to be saying that a god isn't a loving god
        unless that god takes some action in addition to creation and
        sustenance in favor of the creature.

        I suspect the "goddess" as being offered is not believed to
        have made an act comparable to dying on a cross on behalf of
        the creatures, and that Jeff was using that fact alone to
        disqualify the "goddess" -- I was merely pointing out that
        creation and sustenance were quite ample proofs of love in
        themselves -- it would be arrogant for a creature to *demand*
        that a creator do more as a sign of love.

        Bob

 ZZ     -< oh, why bother >-
    
    No no...you explained it well.  Thank you!
    
    -Jack

Re .408 (Patricia)

>    What do you think of the quote.
>
>    "God is a metaphor for the mystery behind the Universe"

Well, traditionally, "God" seems to play more of a role of "demystifier" (if
that's a word).  Of course, that just shifts all the mystery from universe to
God.  Instead of standing in awe of the universe, one stands in awe of God.
Instead of worshipping the sun, the ancient egyptians invented and worshipped
a personality "Ra".  But this is a common theme in most religions and
mythologies.



>Is there a mystery?
Yes.  There is to me anyway.



>Is there something more than that which can be broken into concrete parts?

Yes.  E.g. what "concrete parts" does one assign to the idea of the number "5"
or to an emotion, or a philosophy?  They exist and they exist outside the
physical.  And the destructive approach at looking at the universe (universe =
sum of parts) is not the only way to look at things.  A systems approach might
look at the universe as a single entity, not a sum of parts.  Looking at the
universe as a collection of parts may be as valid as looking at a personal
friend as a... "liver + potassium + hair + water + femur...".



>Can we love and believe in that mystery without fully comprehending
>    that mystery?

Contrary to the cliche' "everybody loves a good mystery", I don't know if
"God as mystery" is worthy of being loved.  It's like loving a question.


-dave

> > How does she demonstrate her love.  I can't possibly believe that she loves 
> > me unless she will demonstrate it.  Will you give me some information about
> > her love so that I might identify it and thus entertain it?  
> 
> >>        It seems supremely arrogant to demand a proof of God's love.
> 
> >>        Bob
>     
>     Why does it seem so, Bob?  
    
>>        jeff,

>>        I must have thought that it was supremely obvious that it was
>>        supremely arrogant for a creature, dependent upon a creator
>>        not only for existence but also for all that sustains, to
>>        claim that unless the creator does yet more that there is no
>>        proof of love.
    
    Well, it isn't obvious at all.  God goes to great lengths to describe
    to us His love for us and He demonstrated it repeatedly but supremely
    in Christ's death for our sins.  
    
    Patricia (Meg and others too) are positing a god and insisting that she
    loves me/us.  Since the Lord of the universe proved His love much
    beyond creating us and since He places His acts in the context of His
    love for us, it is appropriate to ask how another god shall too
    demonstrate her love to us.

    >>    It "seems" the sky is blue -- would you challenge me on this,
    >>    too?
    
    But the sky is blue to our eyes.  Anyone can observe this.  We cannot 
    similarly observe or discern the love which pagans posit for their
    gods.

    >>    Bob

    >>    P.S.  Jeff, didn't you have some idea of what was going on in
    >>    my personal life that week, why I might not respond to your
    >>    silly rhetorical taunts?
    
    I'm sorry Bob but I had/have no idea of what was going on in your
    personal life that week.  I asked you a question which I wanted you to
    answer - it was not a rhetorical question and certainly was not a
    taunt.  You should know me better than that.  I don't think I've been
    less-than-forthcoming in my participation here, have I?
    
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    If you are unable or unwilling to see her love there is nothing I can
    do to open your eyes.  I personally don't need my god to torture one
    of her children to understand that she loves me.  the evidence of what
    she has given me is plenty.
    
    meg

    
    Hi Meg,
    
    You haven't taken even a moment to describe "her love" or
    manifestations thereof, have you?  
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Her manifestations are all around you, beginning with the planet you
    walk on, so far the only one known to inhabit intellegent life.  It
    includes you and your opportunities to find her love, the smile in a
    babies face, the birds nest in the rain gutter, the plants i lovingly
    attend to, the air you breathe, the harmony in a relationship between
    two people.  If this isn't enough for you and you need more signs, then
    I can't help you, but she is still there for you when you need her.
    
    meg
    
    meg

    Hi Meg,
    
>    Her manifestations are all around you, beginning with the planet you
>    walk on, so far the only one known to inhabit intellegent life.  

    So, you are positing the earth as her creation then.

    >It
    >includes you and your opportunities to find her love, the smile in a
    >babies face, the birds nest in the rain gutter, the plants i lovingly
    >attend to, the air you breathe, the harmony in a relationship between
    >two people.  If this isn't enough for you and you need more signs, then
    >I can't help you, but she is still there for you when you need her.
    
    Is "It" referring to more of "her manifestations", i.e. her creations?

    Tell me, does she also manifest or create the agony on the face of the 
    tortured Christian, or the Hindu's "house" in the filth of the garbage 
    dump, or the poisonous hemlock, the pollution of volcanoes, or the 
    domestic violence which destroys relationships?

    Of course, it "isn't enough for" me.  You've done nothing but assert that
    your god is real.  You haven't yet provided any *proof* that she exists at
    all.  And you're not even too interested in doing so.  And furthermore,
    this god (is she the only god, by the way?) you posit is much too much
    like the "god of this world", that is, Satan, who being the father of
    lies, works so effectively with the wicked human heart to deny the worship
    and service of God Almighty the Creator in favor of that which is created 
    and creaturely such as you have described your god above.

    But while we are yet sinners, Christ died for us.  God's wonderful grace!
    The depravity and bondage to wickedness of the human soul may be set free
    from darkness and evil by the light of the world, Jesus Christ, in whom
    there is no darkness at all!  Meg, you're not out of God's reach.  Your
    god is not so powerful that she can withstand the grace of God. Won't
    you flee to God, the maker of it all, Meg?  

    jeff

>    But while we are yet sinners, Christ died for us.  God's wonderful grace!
>    The depravity and bondage to wickedness of the human soul may be set free
>    from darkness and evil by the light of the world, Jesus Christ, in whom
>    there is no darkness at all!  Meg, you're not out of God's reach.  Your
>    god is not so powerful that she can withstand the grace of God. Won't
>    you flee to God, the maker of it all, Meg?  

    I believe you're talking the same god here.  "Meg's god" is the
    same god that sent Jesus to Earth.

    And your god is the same one that created those polluting
    volcanos.  Why did He create them if He is good?  It is not
    up to me to judge God's creation.  I have faith He knows
    what He's doing.

    Meg perceives God in one way and you perceive Him in another.
    The difference is in the perception, not the god.

    "My angle is right and yours is wrong."  Gimme a break.  That
    borders on silliness.

    Why does it bother you so much that someone thinks or perceives
    things in some way different from you?  So much so that you 
    accuse them of following Satan.

    Tom

     Hi Tom,

>    But while we are yet sinners, Christ died for us.  God's wonderful grace!
>    The depravity and bondage to wickedness of the human soul may be set free
>    from darkness and evil by the light of the world, Jesus Christ, in whom
>    there is no darkness at all!  Meg, you're not out of God's reach.  Your
>    god is not so powerful that she can withstand the grace of God. Won't
>    you flee to God, the maker of it all, Meg?  

>>    I believe you're talking the same god here.  "Meg's god" is the
>>    same god that sent Jesus to Earth.

      But I don't care what *you believe*, Tom.  I'm asking Meg, not you.
      Furthermore, Meg has never suggested that her god sent Jesus to
      Earth.  Did you Meg?

    >>And your god is the same one that created those polluting
    >>volcanos.  Why did He create them if He is good?  It is not
    >>up to me to judge God's creation.  I have faith He knows
    >>what He's doing.

     I *know* God created volcanos because He has told me so in the
     Bible.  I know that God is ultimately responsible for all that
     occurs in the universe because He has said so in the Bible.
     Meg posited her god as being manifested (or creator of - it is
     yet to be seen what she meant exactly) in various things, which
     all have that character of pleasantness.  I asked her if those
     sorrowful things also are manifestations (or creations) of her
     god.

    >>Meg perceives God in one way and you perceive Him in another.
    >>The difference is in the perception, not the god.

     This is extraordinary understatement, Tom, with lack of understanding
     abounding.  I do not perceive God.  God reveals Himself to me in His
     creation and in His Word.  I do not argue from creation to God but
     from God to creation.  Meg truly perceives her god, as far as I can
     tell.  That is, she looks around her at nature (actually only that
     pleasantness in nature), then extrapolates to her god, filling in
     the details from her imagination.

    >>"My angle is right and yours is wrong."  Gimme a break.  That
    >>borders on silliness.

     First off, I don't think Meg shares your view of who God is and
     my questions are directed at her god.  Secondly, I agree that
     if her god or your god or my god is a projection of our imaginations
     then it would be silly to split hairs over who is right.  We'd all
     be right in our own eyes.  But God Almighty, the God I know (who
     condemns your view of god) doesn't accept but condemns the one who
     worships the god of their imagination instead of the true God.

    >>Why does it bother you so much that someone thinks or perceives
    >>things in some way different from you?  So much so that you 
    >>accuse them of following Satan.

    Well, it doesn't.  The thing that bothers me is that people are living
    in flames, under the judgement of God, and that your time of reckoning
    won't be too long off in any case, and then it will be too late to
    repent and be forgiven.  The context for these "lives in flames" is
    here anyway often shrouded in talk of god.  It is out of love that I
    attempt to understand your views and alert you that your "perceptions"
    actually deceive you rather than bring you close to the true God.  And
    the Bible makes it clear that those not serving and worshiping the true
    God are indeed followers of Satan.  I followed him once too so I know
    the difference!  

    jeff

>     be right in our own eyes.  But God Almighty, the God I know (who
>     condemns your view of god) doesn't accept but condemns the one who
>     worships the god of their imagination instead of the true God.

    You mean the same god that makes me trip over my feet when
    my ego gets too big, that shows me that learning to love
    others is in my own best interest and then sends me enemies
    so I can learn to love them too, that makes it clear that
    if I have any hope of living anything close to a happy life
    I'd better tune into His teachings, who is constantly with
    me and that has brought me into a loving church community 
    condemns me because of my view of Her?

    God has intervened in my life too many times for me to 
    even contemplate that it's my imagination.

>     abounding.  I do not perceive God.  God reveals Himself to me in His
>     creation and in His Word.  I do not argue from creation to God but

    When someone reveals something to you, you still have to take
    the step of perceiving it.

    I haven't created God.  But I do my best to see Him.

    Tom

>     be right in our own eyes.  But God Almighty, the God I know (who
>     condemns your view of god) doesn't accept but condemns the one who
>     worships the god of their imagination instead of the true God.

    >>You mean the same god that makes me trip over my feet when
    >>my ego gets too big, that shows me that learning to love
    >>others is in my own best interest and then sends me enemies
    >>so I can learn to love them too, that makes it clear that
    >>if I have any hope of living anything close to a happy life
    >>I'd better tune into His teachings, who is constantly with
    >>me and that has brought me into a loving church community 
    >>condemns me because of my view of Her?

    No, Tom, not that one.


     jeff

>    No, Tom, not that one.

    Well, that's the only god I believe in.  Occasionally
    I get sidetracked and set up someone else's opinion
    as god or some material thing, but those illusions
    keep getting slapped down.  That's my god.

    What god is condemning me?

    Tom

>    No, Tom, not that one.

>>    Well, that's the only god I believe in.  Occasionally
>>    I get sidetracked and set up someone else's opinion
>>    as god or some material thing, but those illusions
>>    keep getting slapped down.  That's my god.

>>    What god is condemning me?

>>    Tom
    
    The only living and true God who says, "Thou shall have no other gods
    before me".  The only living and true God who says, "Thou shall not
    make for yourself an idol."  The only living and true God who says,
    "Thou shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain".  The only
    living and true God who says, "The Lord your God is One."  The only
    living and true God who says, "unless you be born again you shall not
    enter the kingdom of heaven".  The only living and true God who says,
    "Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is
    Lord".  The only living and true God who says, "No one may be saved but
    by me [Jesus]".
    
    jeff

    So you're saying that the god that has revealed Himself
    to me is not God because He isn't kind, ever present, loving,
    nuturing, firm and persistent?

    Tom

2Corinthians 11


 13. for such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming them-
     selves into apostles for Christ

 14. And no marvel, for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of
     light.


    transformed meaning "masquerading" as an angel of light..

 

    .425
    
    I think all of us want to avoid those guys, Jim.  But you know,
    those guys are convinced that they really do have it right.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
    

    
    Hi Tom,
    
>    So you're saying that the god that has revealed Himself
>    to me is not God because He isn't kind, ever present, loving,
>    nuturing, firm and persistent?

>    Tom
    
    No, not at all.  First off from all that you've said you have a 
    fundamental problem in that you have no "revelation" of your god.  
    S/he is strictly subjective.  
    
    Secondly, your description of your god, abstract as it is, is at odds
    with God as He has revealed Himself in the Bible.  For example, you
    constantly say that the Buddhist is worshiping the same God that the
    Christian is.  But the Buddhist in no way worships Christ but worships
    Buddha, an atheist.  
    
    In summary your concept of god, which is purely private, is at gross
    odds with God who has revealed Himself through the Scriptures. 
    Therefore, you are worshiping a false god and are condemned for doing
    so by God Almighty.  But!!  Millions of people have been snatched from
    the jaws of false religion and brought into the light of truth, that is
    the saving knowledge of Christ.  You too can be saved from spiritual
    death, Tom.
    
    jeff

re Note 1243.427 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     No, not at all.  First off from all that you've said you have a 
>     fundamental problem in that you have no "revelation" of your god.  
>     S/he is strictly subjective.  
  
        Jeff, 

        Time and time again the notion that any "revelation" is
        purely objective has been dispelled -- so his fundamental
        problem is your fundamental problem, too.

        Bob

>     No, not at all.  First off from all that you've said you have a 
>     fundamental problem in that you have no "revelation" of your god.  
>     S/he is strictly subjective.  
  
>>        Jeff, 

>>        Time and time again the notion that any "revelation" is
>>        purely objective has been dispelled -- so his fundamental
>>        problem is your fundamental problem, too.

>>        Bob
    
    Well, I haven't seen such a dispelling anywhere.  But we needn't argue
    for the purely objective revelation since that is not what I am suggesting
    where Tom is concerned.
    
    I at least have a reference point outside of myself, the Bible and the 
    self-attesting God revealed there.  It is objective in that it is
    written and abounding in statements and explanations about reality.  
    These statements are available to everyone here and may be considered, 
    discussed, argued, compared to our lives, our world, our condition, our
    needs, and so on.  Tom, on the other hand, has no such objective source, 
    that I'm aware of.  His problem is not my problem at all.
    
    jeff

re Note 1243.429 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     Tom, on the other hand, has no such objective source, 
>     that I'm aware of.  His problem is not my problem at all.
  
        I suspect that Tom (he will have to speak for himself, of
        course) has many more objective sources (using "objective"
        the way you do, i.e., an object outside of oneself) than you
        do.

        (I think you are sliding between two very different uses of
        the word "objective" -- one simply being "an external object"
        and the other "facts or reality without reference to feelings
        or opinions".  It "seems obvious to me" that all human beings
        have access to the former, and none truly have access to the
        latter.)

        Bob

>     Tom, on the other hand, has no such objective source, 
>     that I'm aware of.  His problem is not my problem at all.
  
>>        I suspect that Tom (he will have to speak for himself, of
>>        course) has many more objective sources (using "objective"
>>        the way you do, i.e., an object outside of oneself) than you
>>        do.
    
    We'll see.  

        >>(I think you are sliding between two very different uses of
        >>the word "objective" -- one simply being "an external object"
        >>and the other "facts or reality without reference to feelings
        >>or opinions".  It "seems obvious to me" that all human beings
        >>have access to the former, and none truly have access to the
        >>latter.)

        >>Bob
    
    Well, *I* know what I'm talking about. ;)  I only generally agree with
    your characterisation of my meaning for "objective".  It wouldn't be
    worth my time to discuss the fuller meaning of "objective" without
    first discussing whether the simple "not I" concept is understood or
    valued.
    
    Of course I completely disagree with your assertion that we have no
    access to facts and reality without reference to feelings or opinions. 
    Christianity has always been based upon a foundation of the Scriptures,
    both Old and New, being the self-attesting Word of God.
    
    jeff

    Thinking about this I'm about to conclude that this is a classic
    case of someone trying to get a speck out of my eye when they have
    a beam in their own.

    I'm doing my best to learn to love God, to serve God, to accept
    and live the way I believe God wants me to live.  I've  joined
    a church and experience the love of God day after day.  I also
    try to share that love day by day.  I may not go around preaching
    but show love and kindness when I think I can get away with it.

    God's essence is love.  Ok, I might be stressing that point more
    than you like or than is appropriate, but I don't think so.  Is
    every other Christian's faith *PERFECTLY* balanced?  I think 
    that many who call themselves Christians don't stress it nearly
    enough.

    As far as condoning or accepting other people screwing up, I try
    to spend my time improving myself and those I am responsible
    rather than sitting on the sidelines critisizing others who are
    doing their level best to get by.  If I did that I believe I'd
    be doing much more harm than good.  I would be guilty of
    hypocracy.  Yes, I am hypocritical.  But I'm aware of it and
    I try not to be.  Perhaps you should too.

    Homosexuality contines to be an excellent case in point.  And 
    Glen, bless his heart, puts up with being an example with the 
    constant harrassment  and spotlight it entails.
    
    I have faith that at some point orientation will cease to be
    an issue in Glen's life.  God will see to it that he will transcend
    it, much like I expect at some point to transcend my own
    sexuality.  The distraction of sex will simply go away and
    all action will be devoted to the worship of God.
    
    God will provide.  I have to work as well but I have faith that
    God has things well in hand.  He has not given up on us.  He is
    all around us all the time, tying us together. 
    
    I'm inclined to let Him do His work.  I don't know what He knows
    and so for me to try to do His work would be folly and, well, a
    waste of my time and energy.  Love, pray, work and celebrate
    my association with the Almighty.  That's my job.
    
    But there seem to be people here who fret and worry that God
    isn't watching over everyone and that God isn't active in the
    world.  To those people I ask "Where is your faith?!?"  Please
    don't spend your time trying to tear mine down when you have
    precious little to begin with.

    God provides.  God cares for us.  Isn't that what Jesus said?
    And isn't faith important?
    
    Really!  Where do you get off telling me I'm screwing up when
    all you've done is fret and worry about what other people are
    doing, or thinking or praying and lecture me on how love isn't
    really important.

    I think I've just figured out where the false god really is.  
    he's trapped in some people's interpretation of some book.
    That god is dead.  The living God is among us, here and now
    and His essence is Love.  Wake up!

    Tom

    
    I think my point is made.  Tom either has no objective basis for
    discussing his god/beliefs or he won't share it if he does.  I
    suggest that it is highly probable that Tom's "faith" is "faith in 
    his own ideas about god" and therefore, completely subjective.  Tom's
    god is no more compelling than Meg's or Patricia's or any other
    pagan's.
    
    Compare Tom's subjective god (if you can get the slightest information
    about it/him/her) against the God of the Scriptures and then the
    question "Why Christianity" is answered at least in relation to the
    alternative pagan religions.
    
    jeff

    RE: .433

	:-)

    My perception of God has been shared by many people, in books
    and in direct fellowship.  It is not without basis in the Bible.

    One's faith is a very personal and subjective thing.  To believe,
    as has been pointed out, that such things can be "objective", is
    folly.

    Please stop pretending not to be human.  And please stop 
    attacking me for loving God.

    Tom

>   My perception of God has been shared by many people, in books
>   and in direct fellowship.

    God doesn't put His truth up to a vote.

>   It is not without basis in the Bible.

    Where?

>   One's faith is a very personal and subjective thing.  To believe,
>   as has been pointed out, that such things can be "objective", is
>   folly.

    God's truth is not subjective.  To believe He does not DEFINE objective
    reality and that He has not revealed His objective truth is folly.

>   Please stop pretending not to be human.  And please stop
>   attacking me for loving God.

    The problem is your rejection of Jesus Christ as the uniquely divine
    Son of God and of Jesus' sole ability to save ALL of us and restore our
    relationship with the Father.  The consequences of this rejection are
    terrible. Therefore this is not an attack.  It is a loving message
    relayed from God's word.

    Where is the idea that 'Christ is not the only way to God' found in the
    Bible?

    Michael

| <<< Note 1243.433 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| I think my point is made. Tom either has no objective basis for discussing his
| god/beliefs or he won't share it if he does.  

	I'm sure Tom would gladly share his God/beliefs. But my guess is he
doesn't need to spend countless time trying to defend your reactions. You see,
it is between him and Him. You're not included in the picture.

| I suggest that it is highly probable that Tom's "faith" is "faith in his own 
| ideas about god" and therefore, completely subjective.  

	How nice of you to state that. Too bad latter on you go off like it is
some sort of fact. 




Glen

>>   It is not without basis in the Bible.
>
>    Where?

    I don't have a Bible here, but doesn't it say something about
    God being everywhere, that He cares about us and will provide
    and that God is love and that it is important for us to also
    love?

    Such things were also taught to me by a Hindu teacher.  Because
    a Hindu said them doesn't mean they're false.
    
>    God's truth is not subjective.  To believe He does not DEFINE objective
>    reality and that He has not revealed His objective truth is folly.

    But, being human, our perception of Him *is* subjective.  We are
    not machines.  Machines can't love.
    
    Tom

>   I don't have a Bible here, but doesn't it say something about
>   God being everywhere, that He cares about us and will provide
>   and that God is love and that it is important for us to also
>   love?

    All true.  These concepts are not the problem.  You didn't address the
    belief that is the problem.  Here it is again:

    The problem is your rejection of Jesus Christ as the uniquely divine Son
    of God and of Jesus' sole ability to save ALL of us and restore our
    relationship with the Father.

    Where is the idea that 'Christ is not the only way to God' found in the
    Bible?


>   But, being human, our perception of Him *is* subjective.

    It would be if it weren't for the fact that HE CAME TO US.  He told us who
    He is and who we are and what his plan is to rescue us from the
    destruction of our own making.

    Michael

>    It can be accurately said that Moses and all his predecesors managed
>    without an "objective basis," considered so pivotal here, can it not?
    
>    Richard
    
    No, it certainly cannot.  God revealed Himself through His words and
    through heavenly messengers directly to men prior to delivering the 
    *written* law by His own finger and then the whole law via Moses's fingers.
    
    jeff

    It can be accurately said that Moses and all his predecessors managed
    without an "objective basis," considered so pivotal here, can it not?
    
    Richard
    

.440

>    God revealed Himself through His words and
>    through heavenly messengers directly to men prior to delivering the 
>    *written* law by His own finger and then the whole law via Moses's fingers.

This process did not end with the canonization of the Book, as many would
have us believe.

Richard

>>   But, being human, our perception of Him *is* subjective.
>
>    It would be if it weren't for the fact that HE CAME TO US.  He told us who
>    He is and who we are and what his plan is to rescue us from the
>    destruction of our own making.

    Yes.  And some of us saw Him as our savior, others saw Him as
    a very wise man and others saw Him as a threat and murdered Him.

    Today, some see Him as a cruel boss who must be obeyed, others
    see Him as a good friend and companion, some don't believe in
    Him at all.  I see Him as my mentor and teacher, the one who
    takes me from my pettiness to glory by using whatever means
    (ie. everything) at His disposal to rid me of my selfishness
    and meanness that stop me from fully loving God.

    I guess you could call that salvation.
    
    Tom

    .442
    
>    God revealed Himself through His words and
>    through heavenly messengers directly to men prior to delivering the 
>    *written* law by His own finger and then the whole law via Moses's fingers.

>>This process did not end with the canonization of the Book, as many would
>>have us believe.

>>Richard
    
    I know you believe this is true, Richard.  But the canon does not
    support your assertion, it denies it in fact both directly and
    indirectly.
    
    jeff

    .444
    
    I suspect you're speaking of the warning at the end the Revelation,
    which was self-referential.
    
    The Bible does not say "direct revelation will end with the canonization
    of these texts!"
    
    Richard
    

    .445
        
    >I suspect you're speaking of the warning at the end the Revelation,
    >which was self-referential.
    
    You have no reason to bet your beliefs upon such a basis.  As a matter
    of fact, it makes almost no sense for God to have inspired John to
    write, "...if anyone adds or detracts from this book..." and be talking
    about Revelation only.  
    
    >The Bible does not say "direct revelation will end with the canonization
    >of these texts!"
    
    >Richard
    
    No, but the Bible does say that the words we have in the Bible are all
    that is necessary to make a man *perfect*.  It follows that nothing
    else is necessary.  And from that it follows that all else is suspect. 
    And it follows from that that certainly what one believes has been
    revealed to him/her directly should not, at an absolute minimum, be
    contradictory to that which is necessarly "enough".  I've yet to hear
    anything from anyone promoting direct revelation that is either not
    contradictory to what is written or is not already contained in
    Scripture.  The idea that there is revelation beyond the canon is like
    the idea that there are UFOs - as yet a totally unfounded idea. 
    
    jeff

    Proverbs 30:5-6 says essentially the same thing so the concept still
    stands.

    .448
    
    I have no problem with Proverbs 30.5-6.  Proverbs 30.5-6 does not
    limit itself to any text or texts.
    
    Richard
    

     Hi Richard,
            
>    You have no reason to bet your beliefs upon such a basis.  As a matter
>    of fact, it makes almost no sense for God to have inspired John to
>    write, "...if anyone adds or detracts from this book..." and be talking
>    about Revelation only.

>>On the contrary, reason demands that John of Patmos could have speaking
>>*soley* of his apocalyptic text (scroll/book).  It makes no sense that John
>>of Patmos could have been referring to anything else.

    If you presume that all of the canon is inspired, it makes no sense to
    suggest that God's blessing/curse upon changes to the book would only
    apply to Revelation.  Furthermore, since God was purposefully creating
    the canon and since Revelation would naturally and purposefully fall at 
    the end of the canon, it makes even more sense that God was talking about 
    all of what would become Scripture.  One cannot reasonably agree that God
    inspired the canon *and* only wanted to protect the words in one
    section, that is Revelation.  Revelation as interpreted by so many,
    that is apoctalyptically, does not address some very important and
    significant doctrines provided elsewhere in Scripture.  It simply
    doesn't make sense for God, who inspired all of the canon and brought
    it into being, to only want to protect Revelation from change.
    
>    No, but the Bible does say that the words we have in the Bible are all
>    that is necessary to make a man *perfect*.

>>This perfection, exactly what is it to your way of seeing?

    The context of the language is that the Scriptures themselves, that is
    the will of God for man defined and described there, is all that is
    necessary for man to know God and to perform His will.  Since it is
    enough knowledge of God's will to result in perfection of His will,
    then extra-biblical revelation is unnecessary.  I realize that many,
    many folks think God talks to them, and He does, but it is by way of
    illuminating the meaning of the Scriptures.  And those who believe they
    have heard His voice yet the voice contradicts Scripture, are merely
    deceived.
    
    jeff

re Note 1243.450 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

> >    You have no reason to bet your beliefs upon such a basis.  As a matter
> >    of fact, it makes almost no sense for God to have inspired John to
> >    write, "...if anyone adds or detracts from this book..." and be talking
> >    about Revelation only.
> 
> >>On the contrary, reason demands that John of Patmos could have speaking
> >>*soley* of his apocalyptic text (scroll/book).  It makes no sense that John
> >>of Patmos could have been referring to anything else.
> 
>     If you presume that all of the canon is inspired, it makes no sense to
>     suggest that God's blessing/curse upon changes to the book would only
>     apply to Revelation.  

        I see a lot of human reason, human opinion (and, I suspect,
        behind it, human feelings) in what both of you are saying
        above.

        This is an example of how any discussion using the Bible as
        its basis fails to meet the definition of "objective" (at
        least the definition "facts and reality without opinion and
        feelings").

        Bob

    
    I don't agree with your conclusion, Bob.  This discussion is far from
    comprehensive.  And, for example, when I say "presume" I'm not saying
    that there is any doubt that the canon is inspired, according to the
    canon itself, I am saying "presume" only as a basis for argumentation
    so that Richard's position and my position may be compared.
    
    A process of logical deduction is formally and practically objective.
    Deducing from the Word of God is normal and natural and easily done.
    
    jeff

    
    Furthermore, Bob, the definition of objective as "facts and reality
    without regard for feelings and opinion" is a presupposition itself in
    that it presupposes that any fact and all of reality have meaning
    without any reference to God.  The Biblical basis for 
    knowledge directly rejects such atheistic presuppositions.
    
    jeff

Then, by your definition, a discussion about God cannot be objective.

    Tom,
    
    In spite of the ping pong, this note has been a powerful note for me
    and your insight and feedback has helped make it powerful.
    
                                        Thanks,
    
    
                                        Patricia

>Then, by your definition, a discussion about God cannot be objective.
    
    Most everyone here believes a god exists, for personal and
    epistemological reasons.  We are not discussing God's existence.
    
    What we are discussing in this particular topic is "why Christianity?"
    (rather than another religion).  So, we can discuss the reasons for
    believing Christianity and this has and will lead to a discussion of
    "why not" other religions, especially when propositions concerning
    other religions are made in their relation to Christianity.
    
    We can "objectively" compare religious systems, at least those which
    make propositions in the form of truth claims, by observing the
    fundamental rules of argumentation which are rational and logical in 
    our analyzing those systems for internal consistency and for external
    consistency.  The law of non-contradiction is indispensible in such a
    discussion.
    
    jeff
    
    

    Thank you, Patricia.  I tap into stuff that's not all
    my making.  And it's kinda interesting that it's not only
    the people in the this conference that I agree with that
    inspire me but also those who disagree.

    For this space I am grateful.


..............................

    Now, Jeff,

    You said:

>Note 1243.453                  Why Christianity?                     453 of 456
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    
>    Furthermore, Bob, the definition of objective as "facts and reality
>    without regard for feelings and opinion" is a presupposition itself in
>    that it presupposes that any fact and all of reality have meaning
>    without any reference to God.  The Biblical basis for 
>    knowledge directly rejects such atheistic presuppositions.
>    
>    jeff

    Assuming that God is the bounds or your universe, that nothing
    happens outside those bounds, and because objectivity has no
    reference to God, "true" objectivity cannot exist, especially when
    refering to God.

    So, when you try to argue "objectively" about religions you 
    must by necessity do it from one and only one standpoint.  You
    cannot look at it from any other way.  You can only argue in
    reference to your god and so cannot argue "objectively."
    Other options, by necessity, cannot be entertained.

    I'm not telling you that you have to change.  I just think
    your logic is flawed.

    Warning:  This can get very silly very quickly :-)

    Tom

    
    I don't understand what you just said, Tom.  Will you expand your
    comments?
    
    jeff

.450

Hello Jeff,

>    If you presume that all of the canon is inspired, it makes no sense to
>    suggest that God's blessing/curse upon changes to the book would only
>    apply to Revelation.  Furthermore, since God was purposefully creating
>    the canon and since Revelation would naturally and purposefully fall at 
>    the end of the canon, it makes even more sense that God was talking about 
>    all of what would become Scripture.  One cannot reasonably agree that God
>    inspired the canon *and* only wanted to protect the words in one
>    section, that is Revelation.  Revelation as interpreted by so many,
>    that is apoctalyptically, does not address some very important and
>    significant doctrines provided elsewhere in Scripture.  It simply
>    doesn't make sense for God, who inspired all of the canon and brought
>    it into being, to only want to protect Revelation from change.

John of Patmos may have been inspired to record his revelation, but it is
obtuse to believe that he was referring within it to a canon which would be
determined a couple of hundred years after his work was first circulated.
To say it is otherwise is a superimposition upon the work and an authentic
addition to Scripture.

Richard

re Note 1243.456 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     The law of non-contradiction is indispensible in such a
>     discussion.
  
        And what is "the law of non-contradiction"?

        Bob

    Hebrews 1:1 sealed up the canon for me long before the canon figured it
    out.

    
    I disagree, Richard, with your conclusion.  But don't have time to
    discuss why at the moment.
    
    jeff

.462
    
>    I disagree, Richard, with your conclusion.  But don't have time to
>    discuss why at the moment.

I understand that you disagree.  It's really quite alright with me that
you do.

Richard

.446
        
>    You have no reason to bet your beliefs upon such a basis.  As a matter
>    of fact, it makes almost no sense for God to have inspired John to
>    write, "...if anyone adds or detracts from this book..." and be talking
>    about Revelation only.

On the contrary, reason demands that John of Patmos could only have been
speaking *soley* of his apocalyptic text (scroll/book).  It makes no sense
that John of Patmos could have been referring to anything else.

>    No, but the Bible does say that the words we have in the Bible are all
>    that is necessary to make a man *perfect*.

This perfection, exactly what is it to your way of seeing?

Richard
(edited and re-entered)

    Jeff,
    
    speaking of presumptions,
    
    1.  your presumptions about the Bible are presumptions held only by you
    and a narrow group of Christians.   But we already recognize that that
    presumption is the basis for much of the disagreement here.
    
    2.  Your writing indicates another presumption that is widely
    recognized by the woman's movement as erroneous.  That is the
    presumption that mindbase knowing is to be valued exclusively over
    heart based knowing.  When I argue based on feelings, you conclude that
    I am arguing from a weaker position.  I believe that the most
    compelling discussions occur when human interact from a basis of soul,
    heart, body, and mind.   As I woman, that order is the right order for
    me.  Real knowledge requires all four!.
    

 ZZ   1.  your presumptions about the Bible are presumptions held only by you
 ZZ       and a narrow group of Christians. 
    
    Interesting you defined us as a "narrow group of Christians".  Kind of
    like the woman in the crowd who yelled to Pilate, "May his blood be on
    us and our children."  
    
    -Jack