Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Why, it's because personal sin is *so* much more fun!

 What is "systemic" sin?

> What is "systemic" sin?

This says a lot.

Richard
 

 Well, it was a serious question, but evidently not worth an answer.




 Jim

re.3

Richard, I've never heard the term either. What is meant by it?

thanks,
ace

    Systemic - Of, relating to or affecting the entire body.
    
    In this context, yes, systemic sin is alive and well in this country.
    
    Ancient Israel fell into the same trap when they lived among the
    Canaanites instead of acting in obedience to God.  Paganism and
    idolatry infected the people of God...hence we have the book of Judges,
    a lesson in misery and a trophy of man's arrogance.
    
    -Jack

.4

> Well, it was a serious question, but evidently not worth an answer.

That's one possible understanding.

But for me, it's very telling that one has to ask what systemic sin is.

Richard

    Richard, you are minister, we are lay people.  There are terms taught
    in seminaries we are simply not aware of.
    
    One might ask, "What do you think of Aquinism?"  Well, if you really
    want to know what I think of Aquinism, then give an outline of what it
    is so that a conversation may ensue...instead of condescending to the
    audience.
    
    -jack

    Jack, but then he couldn't have as much fun with his "I've got a secret
    and I'm not telling" game. ;-)

    .9
    
    There's no secret.
    
    I have not been to seminary.  And where I come from, there is no laity.
    
    Richard
    

    Okay...so you don't have a secret.  Therefore, what is systemic sin?
    Is my definition a few back correct?  
    
    -Jack

    
    I've not heard the term systemic sin before this. At least it doesn't
    ring a bell. However, intuitively 'systemic sin' must refer to the sin
    of the group as compared to the sin of the individual. Certainly *all*
    sin is personal sin, but what happens when a group acting in consort
    commit sin? Is the systemic sin of bigotry more or less serious than
    the personal sin of the bigot? Is the systemic sin of greed and pride,
    more or less serious than the personal sin of greed and 'taking care of
    #1?'
    
    Now Richard may have something else in mind; I don't know. But this is
    what systemic sin means to me: the institutional, communal commission
    of sin(s) that separate us from God and the community of people he
    wants us to be.
    
    Eric

    re 1326.7 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
    
    Richard,
    
>> Well, it was a serious question, but evidently not worth an answer.
>
>That's one possible understanding.
>
>But for me, it's very telling that one has to ask what systemic sin is.
    
    I think these folks have a point.  Not everyone is familiar with the
    religious terminology that is common to each 'flavor' of faith (whether
    yours or anyone else's, mine included).  It may be so that others might
    be familiar with the concept that defines "systemic sin", but that they
    know it by other terms.  So, at least, all that is "telling" is that
    others don't understand your terminology.
    
    So, for the sake of getting a good discussion started (rather than
    simply turning people off for their seeming ignorance), how about
    giving us an ordinary-language definition of "systemic sin"?
    
    My first guess is that it's similar to what JWs call "inherited sin";
    but that's just a guess.
    
    -mark.

Systemic sin.  You and the others may have a better grasp of it than you
realize, Jack.  It is collective sin, the sin of a people (community or
nation) rather than the sin of an individual.  It is violence or
injustice carried out en masse.  It is slavery.  It is domination.
It is exploitation.  And, as you might imagine, it is much more.

Richard

    In other words, we waited 5 days to see a definition that most of us
    already guessed at.

    .16
    
    I told you it was no secret.  I wasn't using some obscure jargon.
    
    And I did figure that most of the participants here were smart enough
    to piece it together.
    
    What still gets me is why it is given so little attention that when it
    is mentioned it sounds like some obscure jargon needing explanation.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 1326.12 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     Certainly *all*
>     sin is personal sin, but what happens when a group acting in consort
>     commit sin? 

        Well, I'm not so sure that "all sin is personal sin".

        Remember that "sin" is a "falling short" of God's standards.

        Take the analogy of a physical system, a computer or car, for
        example.  Even if every part is functioning correctly the
        device may not function correctly if there is a flaw in its
        design, in the way the parts function together.

        Not every assemblage of good parts, even parts of the highest
        caliber, is well-functioning, or even functioning at all.

        It seems obvious to me that a society could fall short of
        perfection even if the members were free of personal sin. 
        They're not free of personal sin, of course, so that makes it
        harder to see the "forest for the trees".

        Bob

    >    Take the analogy of a physical system, a computer or car, for
    >    example.  Even if every part is functioning correctly the
    >    device may not function correctly if there is a flaw in its
    >    design, in the way the parts function together.

    But an inanimate system is made up of inanimate, dispassionate,
    unconscious objects. Human societies are not. It is just this
    difference, that humans are rational, self-aware beings, that makes me
    believe all sin is personal sin. I don't believe one human communities
    can be compared to physical system when regarding such uniquely human
    characteristics as sin, morality, or ethics.

    Eric

re Note 1326.19 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     I don't believe one human communities
>     can be compared to physical system when regarding such uniquely human
>     characteristics as sin, morality, or ethics.
  
        Well, at one point the Bible does describe people as "clay"
        in the hands of a potter -- certainly some aspects can be
        compared to inanimate systems!

        Bob

|    I told you it was no secret.  I wasn't using some obscure jargon.
    
    No, but you had several requests for clarification that went ignored
    for 5 days despite pleas for communication.  Something to consider in
    the future when introducing a term that may not be widely used.

I think "corporate sin" is the more widely used term.

Leslie

    How about "Guilt by association".
    
    So are you saying God predisposes people to sin by deciding where, when
    and with whom someone is born?  Smells a lot like that good-ole
    catholic notio of "Original Sin".
    
    

  According to the Bible we are *all* sinners.  We were born with a sin
  nature and the only hope for us is the blood of Jesus Christ, shed
  on our behalf, to pay our sin penalty.


 Jim

    History has proven that nations are clearly culpable and judged as an
    entire entity....hence the Babylonian exile and the great flood.
    
    -Noah

    I wonder if it works the other way.  IOW, if you hang around with the
    righteous, then you're in due to "salvation by association".

 No sir.

    > Well, at one point the Bible does describe people as "clay"
    > in the hands of a potter -- certainly some aspects can be
    > compared to inanimate systems!

    Certainly our fleeting physicality can be compared to more fundamental
    matter, but I was careful to point out 

         "when regarding such uniquely human characteristics as sin,
         morality, or ethics."

    Eric

    Israel was also judged and blessed as a nation - several times.
    
    I always thought that the corporate church was being judged/purged back
    in the mid '80s with the Bakker and Swaggart scandals.  There was more
    going on then besides those 2.  Christ will return for a spotless
    bride, not the modern day equivalent of Hosea's wife.
    
    Mike

    
    1 Cor 14
    
    For the unbelieving husband has been sanctified through his wife, and
    the unbelieving wife has been sanctified through her believing husband.
    Otherwise your children would be unclean, but as it is, they are holy.
    
    Hmmm... There seems to be a loophole in the not-saved-by-association
    clause. 
    
    Eric

    sanctified does not equal saved.  The verse is about how God views a
    household with just 1 saved spouse.

    
    Can one be sanctified without being saved? Or I should say, how can one
    be sanctified without being saved?

    Eric:
    
    If you consider Job, he sanctified his whole family by sacrificing to
    the Lord (Oppps....there's that ole blood thing again).  The concept of
    redemption in the oldest written book in scripture.
    
    -Jack

.22

>I think "corporate sin" is the more widely used term.

Leslie,

	I thought about using this term, but I was concerned it might
be interpretted as "sin commited by a corporation or corporations."

Richard

.26

>    I wonder if it works the other way.  IOW, if you hang around with the
>    righteous, then you're in due to "salvation by association".

Apparently, yes.  God was willing to spare Sodom if only 10 righteous men could
be identified.

Richard

    I think God was willing to do such a thing because He knew it would
    never happen!
    
    -Jack

.36

>    I think God was willing to do such a thing because He knew it would
>    never happen!

You're reading into the text.  It is conjecture on your part, you realize.

Richard

.23

>    How about "Guilt by association".

To some degree, it's true.  (But then, so is 'blessed by association.')

Though many people who lived in Germany under Nazi rule might honestly say
they did no harm to anyone, could they honestly say they were completely
free of guilt?

>    So are you saying God predisposes people to sin by deciding where, when
>    and with whom someone is born?  Smells a lot like that good-ole
>    catholic notio of "Original Sin".
    
I'm not much on 'original sin' myself.

Richard

    I don't think Jack is guessing since it is clear God has foreknowledge.

    .39
    
    Okay, the story is in Genesis chapter 18.  What verse indicates God
    already knew the number of innocents in Sodom?
    
    Richard
    

    And if he already did, wht does that say about a loving god?  The
    mythology in the OT is enough to turn me completely off, and S&G is
    only one of several stories in the OT of genocide.
    
    Killing off an entire tribe because one woman saw the ark?
    
    

    >wht does that say about a loving god?
    
    Loving is one thing.  Consistent and even Self Integrit are others.
    The inerrant position is weakened when it struggles to reconcile some
    OT stories with the heart of the gospels.

    I don't see a weakening at all.  I guess it's a matter of natural vs.
    spiritual perspectives.

    No, it's a matter of realizing that there's a contradiction between 
    loving your neighbors and exterminating them. 

    So, might we now consider the original question?

    Why isn't systemic sin given the emphasis that personal sin is given?
    
    Richard
    

    It's easier to focus on the small things one person does, rather than
    the big things a mob does.  Also some feel it is easier to work on a
    problem one person at a time.  
    
    It's kind of like the way I work on people to garden in a more
    earth-friendly way at the community gardens.  People have spent the
    years since the invention of DDT and 24D scorching the earth and
    dumping fertilizers on their soil in an attempt to overcome nature,
    forgetting that a garden is a part of the earth and that there are
    cycles.  Although we have a ban on most pesticides and all herbicides,
    there are people who cannot believe, at first, that one can use no
    chemical controls and still get a harvest.  they try to sneak in some
    of their stuff.  Rather than punish them by banishing them from our
    garden, I prefer education.  Other than handpicking, vinegar, companion
    planting, flour, and hot water, row covers, and maintaining a habitat
    for beneficial insects, most of us now use nothing stronger than soap
    to control harmful insects.  I try to find a person who follows the old
    "scorched earth" policy and show them a couple of tricks that will help
    them grow a healthy garden.  After a bit, they are asking for more
    ideas, and after a season or two are also believers.  My hope is that
    they will pass on the information to other gardeners and their
    families.  
    
    Hey, it is even working on some of the long-term gardeners that didn't
    know there was another way to garden, other than rooting out every weed
    that dares to show its head, dumping no nourishment to the soil other
    than chemicals, and spraying every bug spotted, as they were all likely
    to be bad.  
    
    Oops, I am rambling, as you might have guessed gardening is an
    obsession of mine.  
    
    I guess I am saying, the big problem was and is the heavy use of
    poisons in our environment.  Since I am only one person, the best way I
    have found to be part of the solution is to convince other people,
    one by one, that they don't have to kill the earth and her dependants
    to grow tasty, wholesome food.  Once people start going organic, they
    usually begin to apply the same principals to the other foods they buy
    and eat, as the food tastes better.  As this trend continues, the small
    organic farmers are beginning to get more business than the factory
    farms, and some large corporations begin to examine growing more
    organically to cash in on the "loony" people who are shopping in stores
    they can't market to.  
    
    Often it works like it did with Gallo, the small experimental organic
    vinyard produced better and more grapes than those that were grown with
    the scorched earth methods of the past.  Now they are 90% pesticide
    free, grow wildflowers between rows as a habitat for beneficial
    insects, and are getting better harvest than they thought possible. 
    Hopefully their success will drive others to grow in a more
    earth-friendly manner.  
    
    meg

    .46
    
    Thank you for your insights, Meg.
    
    Richard
    

    
    > Why isn't systemic sin given the emphasis that personal sin is given?
    
    Because personal sin is what *other* people have and systemic sin is
    what we participate in. And since we don't think we participate in sin,
    we are somewhat blinded to systemic sin.
    
    Eric

    .48
    
    I think you're onto something, Eric!
    
    Richard
    

>Systemic sin.  You and the others may have a better grasp of it than you
>realize, Jack.  It is collective sin, the sin of a people (community or
>nation) rather than the sin of an individual.  It is violence or
>injustice carried out en masse.  It is slavery.  It is domination.
>It is exploitation.  And, as you might imagine, it is much more.

>Richard
    
    Where in the Bible is slave-holding clearly identified as sinful?
    
    jeff

>    So, might we now consider the original question?

>    Why isn't systemic sin given the emphasis that personal sin is given?
    
>    Richard
    
    In America, individuals no longer have much of a national identity,
    only an individual identity.  I think that is why today we do not see
    much, if any, talk of the sins of the nation.
    
    Even Christians see themselves largely as individuals, not parts of a
    body or even a nation (of Christians).
    
    When the individual is paramount the concept of a collective is maybe
    impossible to conceive.
    
    jeff 
    

>    Where in the Bible is slave-holding clearly identified as sinful?

    "This I command you, to love one another."  Or something like that.

    Where in the Bible does is say that you can't beat the daylights
    out of someone without provocation?

    Tom

>    Where in the Bible is slave-holding clearly identified as sinful?

>>    "This I command you, to love one another."  Or something like that.

>>    Where in the Bible does is say that you can't beat the daylights
>>    out of someone without provocation?

>>    Tom
    
    Don't confuse the actions of some slaveholders with the act of 
    slave-holding.
    
    jeff

>    Don't confuse the actions of some slaveholders with the act of 
>    slave-holding.

    Are you implying that some slaveholders used no means of
    force or intimidation to keep their slaves?  That the slaves
    stayed and worked for  nothing because they thought it was
    the right thing to do?

    Tom

>    Don't confuse the actions of some slaveholders with the act of 
>    slave-holding.

>>  Are you implying that some slaveholders used no means of
>>  force or intimidation to keep their slaves?  That the slaves
>>  stayed and worked for  nothing because they thought it was
>>  the right thing to do?

>>  Tom
    
    Slaves have not worked for nothing.  Remember, slavery has a history
    longer than our country's measly 200 years.
    
    The Apostle Paul called himself a bond slave of Christ but got no
    wages.
    
    jeff

    

    Don't confuse the act of holding your brother as property with an act
    of brotherly love.


    Eric

RE: .55

You didn't answer my questions.

Especially:

>>  Are you implying that some slaveholders used no means of
>>  force or intimidation to keep their slaves?  That the slaves

Tom

| <<< Note 1326.55 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| The Apostle Paul called himself a bond slave of Christ but got no wages.

	Jeff, don't confuse what one wants to do and what one if forced to do.
Forcing someone to do your work is a sign of laziness. If buying another person
for sex is wrong, why isn't buying someone to do your own work also wrong?


Glen

>>You didn't answer my questions.

>>Especially:

>  Are you implying that some slaveholders used no means of
>  force or intimidation to keep their slaves?  That the slaves

>>Tom
    
    Well, I answered them in a way.  But you didn't answer my question -
    where in the Bible is slave holding identified as sinful?
    
    To answer your question more directly, no I am not implying that some
    slaveholders didn't force and intimidate their slaves.  But this says
    nothing about the rightness or wrongfulness of slave holding only that
    some people have sinned by mistreating slaves.  It certainly doesn't
    prove systemic sin.
    
    jeff

| The Apostle Paul called himself a bond slave of Christ but got no wages.

>	Jeff, don't confuse what one wants to do and what one if forced to do.
>Forcing someone to do your work is a sign of laziness. If buying another person
>for sex is wrong, why isn't buying someone to do your own work also wrong?

>Glen
    
    For starters, in the Bible prostitution is identified as sinful.
    
    jeff

    
    Mark 10:42-44
    
         Jesus called them together and said, "You know that those who
         are regarded as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and
         their high officials exercise authority over them. Not so
         with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you
         must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be
         slave of all.
    
    How can one hold a brother as property and comply with this
    teaching?
    
    Eric

    
    1 Tim 1:9-11
    
         We also know that law [1] is made not for the righteous but
         for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the
         unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or
         mothers, for murderers, for adulterers and perverts, for
         *SLAVE TRADERS* and liars and perjurers--and for whatever
         else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the
         glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me. 
         
    Slave trading is contrary to "sound doctrine." Slave trading is
    akin to adulterers and perverts.
    
    Eric

>    For starters, in the Bible prostitution is identified as sinful.

    But if she doesn't have a choice, it isn't prostitution.  It's
    rape.  Does the Bible explicitly condemn rape?

    Tom

    1 Cor 7:21
    
         Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble
         you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 
    
    If it is preferable for a slave to gain his freedom, it is sinful
    for you, as a slave-holder, to keep him from his freedom.
    
    Eric

    
    I Tim 1:9-11:  What version did you use, Eric?  My NASB says
    "kidnappers" where the translation you used says "slave traders".
    
    jeff

    
    > What version did you use, Eric?
    
    NIV, in this case.
    
    Eric

>    1 Cor 7:21
    
>         Were you a slave when you were called? Don't let it trouble
>         you--although if you can gain your freedom, do so. 
    
>    If it is preferable for a slave to gain his freedom, it is sinful
>    for you, as a slave-holder, to keep him from his freedom.
    
>    Eric
    
    I'm afraid it is not quite that simple, Eric.  Gaining one's freedom
    meant gaining freedom through the formal rules which dictated the
    several different types of slavery.  Of course a simple plea to a
    holder might have been in order.
    
    That a man may prefer to be free from slavery, it must not trouble him
    that he is a slave.  If a slave can legally gain his freedom, he is
    encouraged to do so.  It does not suggest that slave holding is sinful.
    
    jeff

    But, what does one have to do to maintain slaves?

    If someone is working off a debt, then it is, at worst,
    indentured servitude.

    But, so hold someone who is "owned" as chattel requires the
    use of force.

    If  you don't believe me, Jeff, then allow me to come to your
    house tonight and enslave you, your wife and  your children.
    And I can call myself a good christian in the process.

    Then I believe you'd think of some way of answering your own
    question.

    Or, perhaps, you could look at it as stealing someone's freedom.
    If you buy chattel then you are buying stolen goods and so are
    guilty of being part of that crime.

    Tom

    
    re .67
    
    > That a man may prefer to be free from slavery, it must not trouble him
    > that he is a slave.  If a slave can legally gain his freedom, he is
    > encouraged to do so.  It does not suggest that slave holding is sinful.


    I'm afraid I don't agree with you here. The clear context
    throughout the Bible, the New Testament anyway, is that being a
    slave in not desirable, in fact it is undesirable. But if the
    slave is a believer he, like all of us, is called to humility and
    in that spirit he should not be troubled by his lowly circumstance
    because his primary focus should be on God. Nonetheless, being free
    is the preferable state of a man, and the slave should gravitate
    toward that end. 

    While this verse doesn't address the slave holder (I suspect
    because slave holders were not the intended audience ) I simply
    don't understand how you can miss the message that to keep a man
    from being what God wants him to be is sinful, that holding
    another as property is sinful, that trading in human life is
    sinful, and that being anything other than "a slave to all" is to
    be less than what God expects of us.

    The New Testament doesn't address the power holders. They
    apparently were not approachable for conversion, or were
    uninterested, so the biblical authors addressed the audience they
    did have, the poor, the lowly, the slaves. What good is it to tell
    a slave that his master isn't doing God's will. Duh, he knows
    that. It's implied that the slave holder is unconverted and that
    the writers were ministering to the slave.

    Can you imagine Jesus coming to Galilee to buy a couple of slaves
    for his trip into the desert? 

    Eric

    >> If it is preferable for a slave to gain his freedom, it is
    >> sinful for you, as a slave-holder, to keep him from his
    >> freedom. 
    
    > I'm afraid it is not quite that simple, Eric.
    
    I'm quite sure that it is. Anything that we do to keep another
    from being what God wants him to be is sinful.
    
    Eric

|         with you. Instead, whoever wants to become great among you
|         must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be
|         slave of all.
|    
|    How can one hold a brother as property and comply with this
|    teaching?
    
    By being a servant of the Lord and doing His Will.
    

    
    > That a man may prefer to be free from slavery, it must not trouble him
    > that he is a slave.  If a slave can legally gain his freedom, he is
    > encouraged to do so.  It does not suggest that slave holding is sinful.


>>    I'm afraid I don't agree with you here. The clear context
>>    throughout the Bible, the New Testament anyway, is that being a
>>    slave in not desirable, in fact it is undesirable. But if the
>>    slave is a believer he, like all of us, is called to humility and
>>    in that spirit he should not be troubled by his lowly circumstance
>>    because his primary focus should be on God. Nonetheless, being free
>>    is the preferable state of a man, and the slave should gravitate
>>    toward that end. 

>>    While this verse doesn't address the slave holder (I suspect
>>    because slave holders were not the intended audience ) I simply
>>    don't understand how you can miss the message that to keep a man
>>    from being what God wants him to be is sinful, that holding
>>    another as property is sinful, that trading in human life is
>>    sinful, and that being anything other than "a slave to all" is to
>>    be less than what God expects of us.
    
    In the OT, God places Israel into slavery, several times.  

>>    The New Testament doesn't address the power holders. They
>>    apparently were not approachable for conversion, or were
>>    uninterested, so the biblical authors addressed the audience they
>>    did have, the poor, the lowly, the slaves. What good is it to tell
>>    a slave that his master isn't doing God's will. Duh, he knows
>>    that. It's implied that the slave holder is unconverted and that
>>    the writers were ministering to the slave.
    
    The NT was written for all who would learn of it.  Paul had access to folks
    in the Roman Emperors household.  Philemon was a slave holder.  Paul
    approaches him as a friend and asks him to be tolerant of his runaway
    slave whom Paul returned to him.  Some say there is a subtle plea to
    free the slave.  There is no condemnation of the practice, however.

>>    Can you imagine Jesus coming to Galilee to buy a couple of slaves
>>    for his trip into the desert? 

>>    Eric
    
    No.  He came to serve, not to be served.  But you simply can't conclude that
    the Bible supports the notion that slave holding is sinful in itself
    for to do so is to contradict the message we have been given concerning
    slavery in the Bible.  Did God sin, according to your position, by
    sending the Israelites into slavery?
    
    jeff

    We (believers) are bondservants of Christ, who in turn serves us out of
    His love for us.

    re .69 by APACHE::MYERS
    
>    The New Testament doesn't address the power holders. They
>    apparently were not approachable for conversion, or were
>    uninterested, so the biblical authors addressed the audience they
>    did have, the poor, the lowly, the slaves. What good is it to tell
>    a slave that his master isn't doing God's will. Duh, he knows
>    that. It's implied that the slave holder is unconverted and that
>    the writers were ministering to the slave.
    
    Actually, Philemon, the recipient of the letter of Paul, was a slave
    holder.  Specifically, he was the master/owner of Onesimus, a run-away
    slave who become a Christian while assocated with Paul (while Paul was
    under house-arrest in Rome).  The evidence throughout the letter is
    that Philemon was a Christian, and that he became one while he was a
    slave holder.
    
    The point of the letter was that Paul was sending Onesimus back to
    Philemon, and Paul was entreating him to treat Onesimus "as a beloved
    brother" (v.16), which is how Paul viewed him.  But, still, Paul never
    actually argued that Philemon was spiritually obligated to legally free
    Onesimus.

>    Can you imagine Jesus coming to Galilee to buy a couple of slaves
>    for his trip into the desert? 
    
    That's a pretty loaded rhetorical question; but since Jesus didn't do
    such a thing, we can't infer any conclusions about his view on slavery
    from it.
    
    Also, Jesus' ministry almost exclusively addressed issues that were
    important only to Jews.  He didn't address social and political issues
    of the Gentile world.  [And a Jew could sell himself into 'slavery' to
    another Jew to pay off debt; but the Law made clear stipulations on the
    conditions of such slavery, and the length of term for such a
    condition.  Thus, there wasn't any need for Jesus to address the
    matter, as the Law spelled out what was relevant on the matter *within
    the framework of Judaism*.]
    
    Similarly, the NT writings don't really address political and social
    issues with instructions on how to change them.  The NT focuses on
    faith in Jesus and the coming Kingdom of God, which will make all such
    issues a moot point, and it focuses on how Christians might endure
    hardships (physical and spiritual) that are imposed upon them by the
    world.
    
    There are many principles in the Bible which will guide an individual
    on whether he should or should not take advantage of some aspect of
    the this world's system, but again, the Bible doesn't teach a means to
    effect broad, 'systemic changes' to unjust features of this world. 
    That's what the Kingdom of God will do.
    
    -mark.

    I wonder how many times and in how many ways the Bible has been used to
    justify the institution of slavery.  What kind of company are you in if 
    you do the same?  Isn't it abundantly clear that slavery is wrong? 
    Weren't the Jews pissed off because the Romans were subjigating them?
    And wasn't this also true in Moses time in Egypt?  Isn't slavery
    contrary to the *heart* of what Jesus taught?  Isn't that enough?  
    
    Maybe this is why Jesus said that he was here to write the law onto
    our hearts on not on stone (where it can fall prey to manipulation and
    misinterpretation).
    
    -dave
    
      

>    Maybe this is why Jesus said that he was here to write the law onto
>    our hearts on not on stone (where it can fall prey to manipulation and
>    misinterpretation).

Guess what?....

>    I wonder how many times and in how many ways the Bible has been used to
>    justify the institution of slavery.  What kind of company are you in if 
>    you do the same?  Isn't it abundantly clear that slavery is wrong? 
>    Weren't the Jews pissed off because the Romans were subjigating them?
>    And wasn't this also true in Moses time in Egypt?  Isn't slavery
>    contrary to the *heart* of what Jesus taught?  Isn't that enough?  
    
    Don't confuse a discussion of the Bible's treatment of slavery, that
    is, that it is not condemned in any systematic way, with an idea that
    whosoever identifies the truth of the Bible's treatment of slavery is
    somehow in favor of slavery.  I certainly do not favor slavery but I
    also can't agree with .0's characterisation of "systemic sins", which
    is without a biblical basis or otherwise to broadly stated to be
    meaningful.
    
    jeff
    
    
      

.50
    
>    Where in the Bible is slave-holding clearly identified as sinful?
    
>    jeff

The Exodus comes to mind.  And the Hebrews were told to remember the
conditions from which they were saved in their demeanor towards foreigners.

Richard

    re 1326.75 by SMART2::DGAUTHIER
    
>    I wonder how many times and in how many ways the Bible has been used to
>    justify the institution of slavery.
    
    Lots.
    
>                                         What kind of company are you in if 
>    you do the same?
    
    Just out of curiousity, who is justifying slavery in this topic -- that
    is slavery of the sort that repulses you?
    
>                      Isn't it abundantly clear that slavery is wrong? 
    
    That Bible record indicates that at least some things that are
    "abundantly clear" as being "wrong" were tolerated, and/or were even
    legal under the Mosaic Law.  Polygamy comes to mind as being allowed
    under the Law, but later disallowed within the Christian arrangment.
    
    Again, slavery (by certain definitions of it) were allowed under the
    Law.  God himself allowed his people to be taken into slavery (to
    Babylon) as a punishment for idolatry.  But he also held the enslavers
    accountable (and later punished them, too).
    
>    Weren't the Jews pissed off because the Romans were subjigating them?
    
    In the first place, that subjugation was allowed by God; in fact, it
    began with God's allowing them to be subjugated by the Babylonians (not
    counting the earlier conquest of the northern kingdom by Assyria), then
    the Medes & Persian, and then the Greeks, finally followed by the
    Romans.  Some prophecies in Daniel are literally interepreted as being
    fulfilled by these subjugations.
    
    And secondly, that subjugation wasn't "slavery" by most definitions.
    Israel still had a varying degree of autonomy, and while life under
    Gentile influence may not have been great at times, it still wasn't
    "slavery", as they experienced in Babylon, or earlier in Egypt (prior
    to the exodus).
    
>    And wasn't this also true in Moses time in Egypt?
    
    That's a fair example of what unjust slavery was, and thus stands in
    contrast with later forms of subjugation that were not only less
    severe, but were, in some respect, even planned by God (like his
    allowance of the post-Babylonian loss Israel's complete political
    independence from other states).
    
>                                                       Isn't slavery
>    contrary to the *heart* of what Jesus taught?  Isn't that enough?  
    
    Well, actually, slavery served as the basis for a number of
    Jesus' illustrations (parables) which taught various facets of our
    obligations to God, Christ, and our fellow man in a positive way.
    
    There are also many cruel forms of slavery which one could clearly
    argue violate Bible principles; but the basic tenet of a man (or woman)
    being in legal servitude to another, for some just reason, isn't
    catagorically condemned.  The values of ancient societies are different
    than modern values, including values on collective responsibility (such
    that it was quite moral to take into "slavery" those of a conquered
    people -- which is something that Israel did with the Gibeonites during
    the days of Joshua).
    
    Ideally, and ultimately, the Bible teaches the hope for complete
    freedom from many forms of slavery (physical, spiritual, & moral).
    But it also teaches that man has certain moral and spiritual
    obligations which, effectively, make us "slave" of someone else (be it
    God, Christ, or our fellow man).
    
    -mark.

>    somehow in favor of slavery.  I certainly do not favor slavery but I
>    also can't agree with .0's characterisation of "systemic sins", which
>    is without a biblical basis or otherwise to broadly stated to be
>    meaningful.

    You mean you can't bring yourself to condemn slavery?

    Tom

>    somehow in favor of slavery.  I certainly do not favor slavery but I
>    also can't agree with .0's characterisation of "systemic sins", which
>    is without a biblical basis or otherwise to broadly stated to be
>    meaningful.

>>    You mean you can't bring yourself to condemn slavery?

>>    Tom
    
    Yes, that would be categorically correct.  The Bible does not
    categorically condemn slavery so I cannot either.
    
    jeff

>>    somehow in favor of slavery.  I certainly do not favor slavery but I
>>    also can't agree with .0's characterisation of "systemic sins", which
>>    is without a biblical basis or otherwise to broadly stated to be
>>    meaningful.

>    You mean you can't bring yourself to condemn slavery?

A lot of good Christian people throughout have history refused to acknowledge
systemic sin.  It's not only difficult to identify, but it can be disruptive
and painful to a large number of people to do anything about.

I don't know.  Maybe God just isn't clear enough.

Richard

    
    Does the Bible categorically condemn slapping a wife who does not
    please here husband?

    Does the Bible categorically condemn forcing sex on an unwilling wife?

    Does the Bible categorically condemn genocide in war?

    Does the Bible categorically condemn hitting a child with a whip?

    Does the Bible categorically condemn drug dealing?

    Does the Bible categorically condemn torture of prisoners?

    Does the Bible categorically condemn throwing rocks at a person until
    they expire?
     
    Just curious,
    
    	Eric

    Re .83 (Eric)
    
    In fact, I believe, it condones many of these.  And all of that flies
    right in the face of Jesus' teachings.  
    
    Contradiction piled on contradiction... debate on debate.  
    
    The frightening thing is that I believe a good defense of slavery can
    be argued using the Bible.  It's clearly wrong yet the Bible as a
    whole can be used to both defend and condemn it.  What kind of a guide
    is that?
    
    -dave

    Sounds like a guide in the hands of some irresponsible people.

Then put it down, Mike.

    
>    In fact, I believe, it condones many of these.  And all of that flies
>    right in the face of Jesus' teachings.  
    
>    Contradiction piled on contradiction... debate on debate.  
    
    You simply don't understand the God of the Bible, Dave (you'd have to be 
    a serious student of Him and His Word to begin to understand it). 
    You dismiss God's justice in favor of your own sentimental ideas about
    justice.
    
>    The frightening thing is that I believe a good defense of slavery can
>    be argued using the Bible.  It's clearly wrong yet the Bible as a
>    whole can be used to both defend and condemn it.  What kind of a guide
>    is that?
    
>    -dave
    
    A *good* and sound defense of slavery cannot be made using the Bible. 
    In other words the Bible cannot be a basis for saying human slavery is
    good.  But you also cannot categorically condemn a slave holder using
    the Bible.  However, the Bible does categorically condemn inhuman
    treatment of anyone, including slaves.
    
    I would think your relativistic worldview could grasp such a concept.
    
    jeff

>    You simply don't understand the God of the Bible, Dave (you'd have to be 

    And you do?

>    the Bible.  However, the Bible does categorically condemn inhuman
>    treatment of anyone, including slaves.

    Completely removing someone else's freedom isn't inhuman?   Try
    being on the receiving end of that sometime.  Then you can see
    just how de-humanizing it can be.
    
    Tom

| <<< Note 1326.87 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| You simply don't understand the God of the Bible, 


	The God of the Bible.... would He have a need to be something He is
not?

>    the Bible.  However, the Bible does categorically condemn inhuman
>    treatment of anyone, including slaves.

>>    Completely removing someone else's freedom isn't inhuman?   Try
>>    being on the receiving end of that sometime.  Then you can see
>>    just how de-humanizing it can be.
    
>>    Tom
    
    You're exaggerating, Tom.  No slave's freedom is removed completely. 
    Humanity is not autonomous, not free from God.  Try to see outside the
    "self as god" box, if you can.
    
    jeff

    >You simply don't understand the God of the Bible,
    
    Well, I think I do.  He's the God as seen through the eyes of people 
    who lived thousands of years ago.  They used him to explain the
    morality of their day and culture.  And as time changed, so did the
    morality of their God.  This, I believe, is why you see the things Eric
    mentioned in .83 on the one hand, and the revolutionary teachings of
    Jesus on the other.  But I'm in the business of fomulation my own
    opinions about this stuff and do not take the inerrant position.  I
    understand why you hold the positions you do.
    
    
    >you'd have to be
    >    a serious student of Him and His Word to begin to understand it
    
    A serious student or a student with a specific (inerrant) outlook? 
    There have been and are very serious students of the Bible and God who
    do not hold the inerrant position.  I refer you to John Shelby Spong
    and his book "Rescuing the Bible for Fundamentalism""
    
    
    >You dismiss God's justice in favor of your own sentimental ideas about
    >    justice.
    
    God's justice as seen through the eyes of an ancient, warlike nomadic
    tribe might manifest itself in terms of stoning, raids, rape, etc... .
    A more modern and mature view of God's justice might be fouind in the NT.
    Just my opinion, and something which I'm sure you'll disagree with for
    that very fact.
    
    
    >A *good* and sound defense of slavery cannot be made using the Bible.
    
    Probably true.  But defending slavery as being "good" would not be the
    issue for a 19th century slaveowner.  Just defending it as not being
    evil would be good enough.  
    
    If one governs oneself using the sensibilities of the ancient
    Isrealites, there's a danger that one might begin to behave like 
    them.  
    
    
    >I would think your relativistic worldview could grasp such a concept.
    
    I'm curious.  What does your Bible say about antagonism?
    
    
    -dave
         

>    You're exaggerating, Tom.  No slave's freedom is removed completely. 

    Is this a trick statement, or something.  A slave is:

	One completely under the domination of a 
	specified person or influence.

>    Humanity is not autonomous, not free from God.  Try to see outside the
>    "self as god" box, if you can.


    And if I did, I'd see that slavery is A-OK?

    You Bible thumpers can justify anything.  It's just like the 
    Pharisees, they believe they're doing God's work but they've
    come to know the law so well, they've mastered it.  The law
    becomes subject to them.

    Self as God is much closer to what Jesus intended than Ego as
    god.

    No wonder Hitler came to power....

    Tom

    
    Well Jeff, et al., are not saying that slavery is A-OK, carte blanche.
    And Tom, et al., are not saying they are self gods. I know it's fun to
    take an extreme view an put it in the mouths of those with whom we
    disagree, but all this does is make us all look immature and a little
    stupid. I know from personal experience :^)

    Eric

    

   > Contradiction piled on contradiction... debate on debate. 

    I personally believe that it depends on how you view the nature of the
    Bible. Given one perspective there are contradictions that need to be
    abrogated with (in my opinion) elaborate inferences, assumptions in
    word play. Where there is apparent contradiction in the words, one must
    look for the continuity in spirit.

    Eric

    
    I hate to pull out the dictionary, but it seems that we are not all on
    the same page when it comes to defining slavery.

    	slavery (sl�'ve-r�, sl�v'r�) noun
    	plural slaveries
    	1. The state of one bound in servitude as the property of a
    	   slaveholder or household.

    If we are all adopted children of God, that is to say brothers and
    sisters in Christ, and if we are told to be "a slave to all others,"
    how can we hold our brothers and sisters in bound servitude as
    property? Is it being suggested that we can be slaves to all and at the
    same time a slave-master?

    Eric 

    RE .94 (Eric)
    
    Yay.  There is common thread throughout in the spirit of the message.
    Many of the spiritual themes get repeated over and over again in the
    stories.  And it's interesting to see how the literal envelopes
    containing the themes change with time.  It's a pity the Bible wasn't
    added to over the centuries since the cannonization.  Those unique
    perspectives of God would have made interesting additions.  Of course
    they can be found in other sources.
    
    In a larger sense, if the ancients had a grasp on God and expressed
    that in the terms of their culture and traditions, might people of 
    other religious traditions also have somethign to contribute?  Why do
    we focus on one and dismiss all others as being false?  IMO, the notion
    of God held by modern Moslems and that held by modern Christians are
    closer than that held by the ancient Isrealites.
    
    -dave

    >You simply don't understand the God of the Bible,
    
>>    Well, I think I do.  He's the God as seen through the eyes of people 
>>    who lived thousands of years ago.  They used him to explain the
>>    morality of their day and culture.  
    
    Like I said, you don't understand the God of the Bible.  God revealed
    Himself to humanity as recorded in the Bible.  Your position is that
    God didn't reveal Himself, in effect that He is the creation of
    ancients, not real at all.  Furthermore, you obviously believe
    (ridiculously) that the morality of ancient times is a reflection of
    human values.  It clearly is not.
    
    >>And as time changed, so did the
>>    morality of their God.  This, I believe, is why you see the things Eric
>>    mentioned in .83 on the one hand, and the revolutionary teachings of
>>    Jesus on the other.  But I'm in the business of fomulation my own
>>    opinions about this stuff and do not take the inerrant position.  I
>>    understand why you hold the positions you do.
    
    This is completely understandable considering your approach to God, the
    Bible, and philosophy in general.  I urge you to reconsider since your
    basis is terribly flimsy.  God does not change.
    
    >you'd have to be
    >    a serious student of Him and His Word to begin to understand it
    
    >>A serious student or a student with a specific (inerrant) outlook? 
    >>There have been and are very serious students of the Bible and God who
    >>do not hold the inerrant position.  I refer you to John Shelby Spong
    >>and his book "Rescuing the Bible for Fundamentalism""
    
    A serious student of Him and His Word.  That is, you would have to
    believe that God exists and that He has revealed Himself to us in the
    Bible.  You do yourself no favors at all by bringing up such gadflys as
    Spong.
    
    
    >You dismiss God's justice in favor of your own sentimental ideas about
    >    justice.
    
    >>God's justice as seen through the eyes of an ancient, warlike nomadic
    >>tribe might manifest itself in terms of stoning, raids, rape, etc... .
    >>A more modern and mature view of God's justice might be fouind in the NT.
    >>Just my opinion, and something which I'm sure you'll disagree with for
    >>that very fact.
    
    It is really inappropriate to conceive of the nation of Israel as
    warlike or nomadic.  Again, you are not drawing valid conclusions from
    the Bible because you don't study it, you study those who share your
    unbelief.
    
    
    >A *good* and sound defense of slavery cannot be made using the Bible.
    
    >>Probably true.  But defending slavery as being "good" would not be the
    >>issue for a 19th century slaveowner.  Just defending it as not being
    >>evil would be good enough.  
    
    I really don't mean that slavery can be defended as a good thing.  I
    mean that an effective defense of slavery cannot be made using the
    Bible.  But you're right, slave holding cannot outright be called bad
    using the Bible as the standard.
    
    >>If one governs oneself using the sensibilities of the ancient
    >>Isrealites, there's a danger that one might begin to behave like 
    >>them.  
    
    The sensibilities of the ancient Israelites falls comfortably within
    the sensibilities of all of humanity.  What you really are saying, in
    effect, is that the law of God and the things God directed are bad. 
    But the Bible says that he who does the will of God shall live forever,
    which means that he who trusts and obeys Him (trusts His Word and obeys
    His commands) has assurance of salvation and eternity with Him. 
    
    
    >I would think your relativistic worldview could grasp such a concept.
    
    >>I'm curious.  What does your Bible say about antagonism?
    
    I'm not trying to antagonize you, Dave.  I know it doesn't take much, a
    few direct, pointed statements, but nevertheless that is not my
    intention.  What I mean to say is that a relativistic worldview such as
    your own should be able to grasp the difference between saying
    something is good and saying something is not condemned. Yet your
    words indicate that you actually see this subject as quite black and 
    white.  I thought only Bible thumping, ignorant, traditional folks like
    myself were capable of such simplistic viewpoints.
    
    jeff
         

|   <<< Note 1326.86 by BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/" >>>
|
|Then put it down, Mike.
    
    Glen, you're not being mean-spirited, are you?

    Re .97 (Jeff)
    
    Well, Jeff, as always, I disagree with most of what you said.  I won't
    keep riding the exponential curve of replying to your reply of my
    reply... and generate a reply that's hundreds of lines long.  What I
    will do is refer you to Spong(the "gadfly")'s book.  His views on this
    make a lot of sense to a reativist like myself.  You do yourself no
    favor by not at least skimming the book.  At the very least, it might
    give you better insight as to how/why others in this conference think
    the way they do.
    
    >I'm not trying to antagonize you, Dave.
    Perhaps not, but that's the effect.  I may not be alone by interpreting
    your statements in this way.
    
    >What I mean to say is that a relativistic worldview...
    I do, and I did.  The fact that you never sensed that may be testimony to
    the communications casm which exists between us.
    
    
    -dave
    
    

| <<< Note 1326.98 by PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| Glen, you're not being mean-spirited, are you?

	No. Just trying to pass along a little brotherly love.

    Thanks.  I thought I'd ask first since I know you wouldn't want to make
    me cry on purpose.

>    Well, Jeff, as always, I disagree with most of what you said.  I won't
>    keep riding the exponential curve of replying to your reply of my
>    reply... and generate a reply that's hundreds of lines long.  What I
>    will do is refer you to Spong(the "gadfly")'s book.  His views on this
>    make a lot of sense to a reativist like myself.  You do yourself no
>    favor by not at least skimming the book.  At the very least, it might
>    give you better insight as to how/why others in this conference think
>    the way they do.
    
    I know the arguments against orthodox Christianity.  I have studied
    them.  I am well-acquainted with views such as Spong's.  There's
    nothing new or unique in any of them.
    
    jeff    
    

    Anyone think we can get back to the topic, instead of continuing to
    bash people for being too orthodox or too questioning?
    
    Like I said earlier Richard, sometimes attacking systemic sins takes
    reaching on person at a time.  Individuals seem to think better
    one-on-one than they do in mobs.  
    
    meg

    
    
    We don't have a corporate sense in our culture today.  Individualism
    rules.  It is difficult, if not impossible, to appeal to a corporate
    sense of duty or anything else today.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    I am afraid I disagree.  If this were true then we wouldn't have
    dittoheads, klan rallies, anti nuke demonstrations, fashion and food
    trends......
    
    People seem to have an unconscious wish to conform to certain norms
    with other people.  This desire often will have the side effect of a
    group of people doing something many of the individuals within the
    group would never do on their own.  There is both good and evil in this
    human tendancy, depending on the groups and what they are binding
    together to do.  
    
    One problem I do see is that people seem to have a "bully factor"
    hardwired into their combined psyches.  This is what is likely to spawn
    hate groups regarding people who are different from others, be it the
    color of their skin, their religions, their nationalities, or the sex
    of their life partners.  It gives "us" a chance to feel somehow better
    than the people who are different from "us"
    
    meg

    
    Jeff, Mike, et al.,

    Does the Bible address systemic, or corporate if you prefer, sin at
    all? That is, are there cultural, societal or institutional practices,
    that are condemned in the Bible?

    This is a sincere question. I'm not trying to put anyone in a corner so
    I can yell "Ah ha!" 

    Eric

    P.S. I'd like some answers to the questions I raised in .83, if that's
    OK.

    Eric,
    
    I don't think the bible categorically condemns any of those things, and
    in some cases seems to encourage it.  The OT was a pretty violent set
    of books, recording the early history of a nomadic tribe which seemed
    to get into some pretty serious scrapes with other nomadic tribes of
    the time.  One would hope that humans have advanced a bit beyond that,
    but after the last few years of seeing what goes on in the former
    Yugoslavian Republic, parts of Africa, Asia, South America, the
    treatment of the native population in New Zealand and Australia, I am
    not really sure.  
    
    

    RE .105 (Meg)
    
    A lot of the behavior you mention is also seen in the animal kingdom.
    It makes me wonder how much of this behavior is designed in, how much
    is learned and how much is chosen after thoughtful considerattion.  If 
    you believe that the theory of evolution has some merit, you might want
    to consider the environmental pressures which may have driven the
    evolution of human group behavior.  A bestseller which addresses this
    subject  is "The Moral Animal" by Richard Wright.  
    
    With regard to corporate sin, if a behavior, or even a predisposition
    for a behavior was "designed in", then who is to blame for that?  If
    environmental conditions predispose a group to behave as a group, then
    how accountable are the individuals in the group for the resulting
    behavior?                                          
    
    -dave

|    Does the Bible address systemic, or corporate if you prefer, sin at
|    all? That is, are there cultural, societal or institutional practices,
|    that are condemned in the Bible?
    
    Eric, I think a lot of what is said about individual sins also applies to 
    corporate sins.  Some examples where we see corporate consequences for
    corporate sins are Idolatry and Immorality.
    
    Mike

    Dave,
    
    I still hold individuals as respnsible for their part in a mob or
    corporate crime.  My gardening experience has taught me that one person
    changing the way "things are always done" can become contagious,
    although it feels pretty naked out there when one starts something new.  
    
    I don't know.  I believe the "bully factor" actually evolved to keep
    people safe from marauding beasties, but the evolvement went too far
    and got twisted into "anyone who is different from us."  it seems to
    run in most social animals, be it wolves, some birds, primates or
    people.  
    
    meg

    Thanks Mike.
    
    EM

>    Jeff, Mike, et al.,

>    Does the Bible address systemic, or corporate if you prefer, sin at
>    all? That is, are there cultural, societal or institutional practices,
>    that are condemned in the Bible?

 
    Oh yeah, "the nations", Israel, specific nations, etc. are cited for
    their corporate sins in the Bible.  But most of us can hardly
    comprehend the concept.  
    
    Indeed, the sin of Adam had a corporate effect
    on humanity, with both corporate and actual, personal application, i.e.
    we are all corporately guilty of Adam's sin with Adam acting as our
    federal head, if you like, and we are also actually guilty of sin from our
    own personal actions as the biological offspring of Adam.
    
    jeff

    Re .110 (Meg)
    
    >I still hold individuals as respnsible for their part in a mob or...
    
    Yes, but are they "as" responsible as someone who chose the immoral
    behavior without the group or environmental pressure?  For example,
    it's easy for me to refrain from joining the IRA and engage in some of
    their activities.  It's far less easy for a young man in northern
    Ireland given the group pressures, social education and geographical
    predispositions being what they are.  How much can you blame the young
    IRA member who bombs a store?  100% ?  How much of the responsibility
    lies with all the people around him who taught him through word and
    example that this is what he should do?  And how much is God's "fault" 
    for seeing him born into the situation?  Is the young man responsible?
    Yes.  But how much?  If I decided to quit my job, buy a 1-way to
    northern Ireland, join the IRA and bomb cars, am I more responsible for
    any immoral acts which I commit?
    
    For those Christians who might be listening in, I think Jesus said
    somewhere that there would be punishment for those who lead children
    into sin.  This would seem to indicate that those who educate youngsters
    to become sinners will be held responsible.  
    
    Meg, as far as the "bully factor" goes, a lot of this (in theory
    anyway) has to do with appearing attractive to potential mates. 
    Dominant males are viewed by females as having a greater potential to
    provide for their young (and pass their genes into the next generation)
    than the meek.  Since I'm talking to someone who might not flatly
    reject it, I'll delve a bit more into Evolution and mention that
    dominant "bully" behavior not only has a lot of survivability value
    (e.g. take food from the meek in times of famine) but it also attracts
    females (who also don't want to starve, or see their children starve).
    Getting those genes into the next generation means everything when it
    comes to behavior. Males dance the dominant dance more than females
    because they have to  win over females.  But the females play an
    equally important role in demanding the males be "bullies" before
    winning them over as mates.  The interplay is complex, and facinating.
    Most of what I mention happens at the subconscious level as it is
    evolved and does not require conscious "thinking".  The book I mentioned
    addresses all of this.
    
    -dave

    >I still hold individuals as respnsible for their part in a mob or...
    
>    Yes, but are they "as" responsible as someone who chose the immoral
>    behavior without the group or environmental pressure?  For example,
>    it's easy for me to refrain from joining the IRA and engage in some of
>    their activities.  It's far less easy for a young man in northern
>    Ireland given the group pressures, social education and geographical
>    predispositions being what they are.  How much can you blame the young
>    IRA member who bombs a store?  100% ?  How much of the responsibility
>    lies with all the people around him who taught him through word and
>    example that this is what he should do?  And how much is God's "fault" 
>    for seeing him born into the situation?  Is the young man responsible?
>    Yes.  But how much?  If I decided to quit my job, buy a 1-way to
>    northern Ireland, join the IRA and bomb cars, am I more responsible for
>    any immoral acts which I commit?
    
    The young man is 100 percent responsible.  But he does not share the
    responsiblity alone.  Certainly the people who taught him through word
    and deed are also responsible to some degree.  In God's eyes we are all
    guilty of sin, corporately and personally, and that sin is our
    destruction.  But Jesus was crucified for those who would believe,
    trust, obey and thus be acquitted of their guilt.
    
    >For those Christians who might be listening in, I think Jesus said
    >somewhere that there would be punishment for those who lead children
    >into sin.  This would seem to indicate that those who educate youngsters
    >to become sinners will be held responsible.  
    
    This truth is a basis for the "culture wars", I think.  Christians
    believe they must protect our corporate institutions as much as is
    possible from a secular, largely atheistic worldview which is in
    control today.  This is part of being "salt and light" (Jesus's words).
    An excellent example of biblical corporate responsibility for sin is, I
    believe, the U.S. court-sanctioned right of abortion.
    
    It is startling to me to see how violent, nihilistic, crime-ridden,
    drug-infested, and generally immoral our country is today.  It is so
    easy to see, for me, how in our society this deterioration is sourced
    in our laws and institutions.
      

    jeff

>    It is startling to me to see how violent, nihilistic, crime-ridden,
>    drug-infested, and generally immoral our country is today.  It is so
>    easy to see, for me, how in our society this deterioration is sourced
>    in our laws and institutions.


What do you suggest?  Should we replace our democracy with 
a theocracy?

Tom

    > The young man is 100 percent responsible.  But he does not share the
    >    responsiblity alone
    
    Well, after the entire 100% is accounted for, I can't see any more 
    responsibility to be shared by anyone else.  It's sort of a math thing.
    I won't argue with you if you claim the sum total of responsibility
    exceeds 100%.
    
    >But Jesus was crucified for those who would believe,...
    
    Not wanting to be told to get back to the subject, I'll dare to stray a
    bit here.  I just read last week in the gospels, phrases which would
    seen to eliminate the need for a personal savior.  Jesus said more than
    once that we will be judged in the same way we judge others and that
    we will be forgiven insofar as we forgive others.  If I'm a lenient
    judge who forgives everyone, why do I need Jesus' sacrifice?  
    
    ( Why do I feel like I've just opened a bag of worms :-| )
    
    
    >Christians
    >    believe they must protect our corporate institutions as much as is
    >    possible from a secular, largely atheistic worldview which is in
    >    control today. 
    
    I won't fall down that rathole, but I will suggest to you the possibility 
    that God might have placed you and other orthodox Christians in this
    situation to see how well you can work with it.  If it was easy, then
    what's the point?
    
    -dave
    

    
    > Should we replace our democracy with a theocracy?

    All a theocracy will do is corrupt the religion. To those who wish
    America was a Christian nation, in a legally enforced sense, all I can
    say is, be careful what you wish for....
    
    Eric

    > The young man is 100 percent responsible.  But he does not share the
    >    responsiblity alone
    
>>    Well, after the entire 100% is accounted for, I can't see any more 
>>    responsibility to be shared by anyone else.  It's sort of a math thing.
>>    I won't argue with you if you claim the sum total of responsibility
>>    exceeds 100%.
    
    In law one is guilty or they are not, 100 or 0 percent.  Sentences may
    vary, but responsibility or accountability is binary.
        
    jeff    

>    It is startling to me to see how violent, nihilistic, crime-ridden,
>    drug-infested, and generally immoral our country is today.  It is so
>    easy to see, for me, how in our society this deterioration is sourced
>    in our laws and institutions.


>>What do you suggest?  Should we replace our democracy with 
>>a theocracy?

>>Tom
    
    No, a theocracy is out of the question.  However, laws, institutions,
    government should be shaped primarily by Christian values and ethics.
    This is the only way to reduce the cultural rot which has set in and
    would heal our land and eliminate many national, "systemic sins".
    
    jeff 

    
    > In law one is guilty or they are not, 100 or 0 percent.  

    True, for a given charge. But one can be 100% guilty of killing
    someone, yet 0% guilty of murder. 

    > Sentences may vary, but responsibility or accountability is
    > binary.

    This isn't true. One's culpability of a given crime is often mitigated
    by the circumstances surrounding the crime and the criminal. I believe
    the New Testament even that Christians, by their profession of faith,
    are even more accountable for their actions than non-believers, in
    certain areas. 

    Eric

    
    > No, a theocracy is out of the question.  However, laws, institutions,   
    > government should be shaped primarily by Christian values and ethics.   
    > This is the only way to reduce the cultural rot which has set in and   
    > would heal our land and eliminate many national, "systemic sins".   

    At a high level I agree with this. But the devil's in the details. It
    is a Christian value that we worship the one true God. Certainly you
    wouldn't suggest sweeping laws restricting practice non-Christian
    faiths. Or would you?

    Eric
     

    >In law one is guilty or they are not, 100 or 0 percent.
    True.
    
    >...but responsibility or accountability is binary.
    False.
    
    
    Think of all the decisions where one defendant pays X% of some disputed
    amount, another defendant pays Y% and the plaintiff has to absorb Z%,
    all based on how the judge distributes responsibility.
    
    How responsible is a 6 year old who shoplifts under the direction of
    his/her parents?  

>    No, a theocracy is out of the question.  However, laws, institutions,
>    government should be shaped primarily by Christian values and ethics.
>    This is the only way to reduce the cultural rot which has set in and
>    would heal our land and eliminate many national, "systemic sins".

    We can't even agree what is Christian and what isn't in this 
    file.  Are you talking about your "christian" values or  mine?

    Tom

    Actually I think most of us own a piece of the" cultural rot" by
    complaining about it, but isolating ourselves from the very people who
    need something beyond what their families are providing, in the hopes
    that we won't "catch" the rot.  
    
    Volunteering to help out in schools with scouts or other extra
    curricular activities and sharing a vision of a bright future with
    individuals who only hear gloom, doom and a dislike of those who are
    different, could go a lot further than hiding within ones, home, work
    and church, no matter what the religion.  
    
    Unfortunately I believe there are individuals in all communities who
    have decided the end-times are near, and are doing nothing to bring
    beauty and joy to the world because of those beliefs.  While I believe
    this can make for a self-fullfilling prophecy of the tribulations, I
    doubt Mom, God or tomato, appreciates our not living our lives to the
    fullest, including the tenants of our faiths.  This includes service to
    those not as fortunate as we are, in my pagan faith.
    
    meg

    
    > No, a theocracy is out of the question.  However, laws, institutions,   
    > government should be shaped primarily by Christian values and ethics.   
    > This is the only way to reduce the cultural rot which has set in and   
    > would heal our land and eliminate many national, "systemic sins".   

>>    At a high level I agree with this. But the devil's in the details. It
>>    is a Christian value that we worship the one true God. Certainly you
>>    wouldn't suggest sweeping laws restricting practice non-Christian
>>    faiths. Or would you?
    
    No, I would not suggest laws which unnecessarily limited freedom of
    worship.

    jeff
     

>    No, a theocracy is out of the question.  However, laws, institutions,
>    government should be shaped primarily by Christian values and ethics.
>    This is the only way to reduce the cultural rot which has set in and
>    would heal our land and eliminate many national, "systemic sins".

>>    We can't even agree what is Christian and what isn't in this 
>>    file.  Are you talking about your "christian" values or  mine?

>>    Tom
    
    We could certainly agree what is "Christian" and what is not if everyone
    agrees to a reasonably objective standard as the basis.  And despite
    the equivocation and relativism of our day, Christianity is understood,
    among the reasonable, to be a particular thing rather than anything.
    
    jeff

    >In law one is guilty or they are not, 100 or 0 percent.
>>    True.
    
    >...but responsibility or accountability is binary.
>>    False.
    
   What I meant is that in the law a person is either 
    responsible/accountable/guilty or they are not.  A defendant is 100
    percent guilty or 0 percent guilty.  Two defendants in the same case
    are individually 100 percent or 0 percent guilty of a given charge. 
    Guilt is binary.  This is devolving to miss the point, I'm afraid.
    I'm basically responding to your question of how much guilt does a
    person have for a crime.  I have said 100 or 0 percent.  You attempted
    to break up guilt into percentages, I think.
     
>>    Think of all the decisions where one defendant pays X% of some disputed
>>    amount, another defendant pays Y% and the plaintiff has to absorb Z%,
>>    all based on how the judge distributes responsibility.
    
    >How responsible is a 6 year old who shoplifts under the direction of
    >his/her parents?  
    
    The child is 100 percent guilty of shoplifting.  His parents are 100
    percent guilty of something like contributing to the delinquency of a
    minor.  In our laws, the sentences will reflect the facts of the case
    but I don't think the sentence will be based upon percentage of
    total responsibility in any quantifiable way.
    
    jeff

    
    > ...unnecessarily limited freedom of worship
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    "I have a bad feeling about this."
    			Han Solo
      
    It is just such equivocations that make me uneasy. Who's to say what
    will become *necessary* to curtail in the name of Christian values and
    ethics, or in the crusade against "cultural rot." The folks behind the
    Christian Coalition have proposed legislation and *amendments to the
    constitution* in the name of Christian values, with which I have strong
    objections. It is this that I fear when I think of "laws, institutions, 
    [and] government ... shaped primarily by Christian values and ethics."

    Eric
               

    I dunno about nailing down a definition for Christianity.  In another
    string, I was talking about how Gandhi lived the life prescribed by
    Jesus (no posessions, non-violence, acceptance of everyone, turn the
    other cheek, etc...) but did not believe Jesus was God.  In the eyes
    of most Christians, this excluded him from Christianity.  Yet I cannot
    think of anyone who lived in the 20th century that was more christian
    than Gandhi.  (This is my opinion Jeff, and I know you don't share it).
    
    Are we talking about adopting Christian morality on the secular level
    or Christianity?
    
    -dave

    
    > ...unnecessarily limited freedom of worship
         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>>    "I have a bad feeling about this."
>>    			Han Solo
    
    But this is the case today, Eric.  There are limits to what people may
    do in the name of "worship".
      
    >>It is just such equivocations that make me uneasy. Who's to say what
    >>will become *necessary* to curtail in the name of Christian values and
    >>ethics, or in the crusade against "cultural rot." The folks behind the
   >> Christian Coalition have proposed legislation and *amendments to the
    >>constitution* in the name of Christian values, with which I have strong
    >>objections. It is this that I fear when I think of "laws, institutions, 
    >>[and] government ... shaped primarily by Christian values and ethics."

    >>Eric
    
	Could it be that your fear is irrational or misplaced?  Have you
    taken the time to really consider what ought to scare you about the
    present situation?  BTW, many of our laws have at one time been much
    closer to reflecting Christian values and ethics and things were better
    then.  There's no constitutional amendment required, really, to be a
    more self-consciously Christian country unless the nature of society is
    that once it has moved in an overwhelming direction cannot informally
    change its course.
    
    jeff               

|    All a theocracy will do is corrupt the religion. To those who wish
|    America was a Christian nation, in a legally enforced sense, all I can
|    say is, be careful what you wish for....
    
    I agree with you, Eric.  The Church has always been at its purest and
    has made its biggest impacts while persecuted.  God never intended for
    the Church to be in governmental rule in His place.  It hasn't worked
    in the past either when that unfortunate status happened.
    
    Mike

|    of most Christians, this excluded him from Christianity.  Yet I cannot
|    think of anyone who lived in the 20th century that was more christian
|    than Gandhi.  (This is my opinion Jeff, and I know you don't share it).
    
    They are out there.  It's more refreshing when you meet them in person
    instead of seeing them on the 6 o'clock news.  Some could argue Mother
    Theresa performed more Christian works than Gondhi.

>    I dunno about nailing down a definition for Christianity.  In another
>    string, I was talking about how Gandhi lived the life prescribed by
>    Jesus (no posessions, non-violence, acceptance of everyone, turn the
>    other cheek, etc...) but did not believe Jesus was God.  In the eyes
>    of most Christians, this excluded him from Christianity.  Yet I cannot
>    think of anyone who lived in the 20th century that was more christian
>    than Gandhi.  (This is my opinion Jeff, and I know you don't share it).
    
    I understand it is your opinion, Dave, but people serious about truth and
    government and reality and so on generally submit, for the sake of
    discussion and dialogue and reality, to more objective basis than
    personal opinion.
    
    jeff

RE: .130

>    BTW, many of our laws have at one time been much
>    closer to reflecting Christian values and ethics and things were better
>    then.

    Well, maybe if you belonged to the right ethnic group.
    
    Tom

>    BTW, many of our laws have at one time been much
>    closer to reflecting Christian values and ethics and things were better
>    then.

>>    Well, maybe if you belonged to the right ethnic group.
    
>>    Tom
    
    I think all ethnic groups have all done better in the past under a more
    self-consciously Christian ethic shaping our govt.  But you're probably
    referring to blacks in your comment, aren't you.  Blacks certainly have
    enjoyed better days - stronger families, less crime, legitimate
    children, peaceful communities, etc. in the past than they do today.
    
    Slavery is a universal phenomenon and its introduction in our country 
    was not on the basis of a Christian mandate or precedent.
    
    jeff

    Or if you weren't a Native American, Hispanic or woman.  

    Re .132 (Mike)
    
    > Some could argue Mother
    >    Theresa performed more Christian works than Gondhi.
    
    Some would.  And I won't compare Mother Theresa to Gandhi.  IMO they're
    both of a calibre which I am in no position to judge.
    
    BTW, do you find it pleasurable to misspell Gandhi as "Gondhi"?  The
    last time I pulled a stunt like that I got a spanking.
    
    
    
    
    Re .133 (Jeff)
    
    My opinion in this matter is based on observations and reasoning.  I am
    serious about "truth and government and reality" to the point of
    enduring your endless stream of insults and antagonisms.  To be honest,
    I'm not sure if Gandhi was a better Christian than Mother Theresa. 
    But, from the looks of it, he was a far better Christian than you.
    
    -dave
    
    

|    BTW, do you find it pleasurable to misspell Gandhi as "Gondhi"?  
    
    Doesn't matter to me how I spell it.  
    
    |  The last time I pulled a stunt like that I got a spanking.
    
    yeah, but you enjoyed it. ;-)

>    Or if you weren't a Native American, Hispanic or woman.  


    I just knew I forget *something*.  Like 3/5ths of the population....


    Ooops!  :*)

    Tom

    (I *knew* there was a reason for Meg being here)

    >>|    BTW, do you find it pleasurable to misspell Gandhi as "Gondhi"?  
           
    > Doesn't matter to me how I spell it.  
    
    What an odd thing to say... 
    
    Eric

    
    > 	Could it be that your fear is irrational or misplaced?  Have you
    > taken the time to really consider what ought to scare you about the
    > present situation?  BTW, many of our laws have at one time been much
    
    You know your right. Now that I think of it I'm just an ignorant,
    unthinking boob - who parrots what I reads in the atheistic liberal
    press without one iota of critical thinking on my part. 
    
    > There's no constitutional amendment required,...
    
    The Christian Coalition, and I assume others, think (or at least
    thought) otherwise. The proposed at least one constitutional amendment
    in their "Contract with the American Family."
    
    Eric

    |    What an odd thing to say... 
    
    Kinda what I think when I see some of the names used for God/Jesus
    Christ in here.

    
    re .142

    You lost me. 

    It *sounds* like you're upset about some name someone used in referring
    to God and therefore you've decided to disregard the proper spelling of
    personal names as some sort of protest... or something like that. I
    must be wrong because that's far to close to the "rational" thinking
    of my teen-ager.

    You don't have to, but can you try again to explain to me why it
    doesn't bother you to spell names incorrectly.

    Eric

    Mike,
    
    there are people in this forum who are not christian even by the most
    liberal definition allowed by you.  does it matter that some of us
    refer to our diety as Mom, great mother, Allah, or any of the other
    thousand of saecret words for a diety?  Tomato is what a friend and I
    came up with when discussing our beliefs, as we both believe in a
    higher power(s), but she is a conservative Methodist Christian, and I
    am not.  I can no more refer to my diety as god than you can as mom. 
    (actually it might be easier for me, as I accept duality in the devine)  
    
    However Ghandi was a real person with a preferred spelling of his name. 
    I would think you could manage that.  
    
    meg

    >Kinda what I think when I see some of the names used for God/Jesus
    >    Christ in here.
    
    Just to clear any misunderstandings Mike, I'm not comparing Gandhi to
    God.  Not sure why all Christian I speak to about Gandhi automatically
    assume that I am.  I'm just saying that how he lived his life was
    courageous, noteworthy and (dare I say) christian.  
    
    
    
    -dave

    so is it "Gandhi" or "Ghandi"?  the last 2 replies used both.

    This is getting a little out of hand.  I've detected a
    little name calling as well.

    I know I can get just as firey as the next person.  But
    I get uncomfortable when certain lines are crossed.

    Please.  Can we watch our language.

    Thank you,

    Tom

    (Playing moderator)

    
    Thank you, Tom. Like a splash of cold water, I needed that.

    Back to the -.148 (that is the base note):

    It seems that we agree that there is such a concept of systemic sin,
    it's just that we don't agree on what systemic practices are sinful.
    Some say slavery and apathy to the poor are examples of systemic sins,
    others disagree saying (only?) idolatry and immorality can be
    considered systemic sin.

    I am only speaking from my own experience here, but at my church we
    consider human rights, hunger, poverty, etc. to be systemic sins. These
    are taken quite seriously and we are all called by Christ to ameliorate
    human suffering. But then again some have said that I don't belong to a
    Christian church so this may be moot. 

    Eric 

 ZZ    Well, maybe if you belonged to the right ethnic group.
    
    Just as an FYI, you will find the United States has a far more tolerant
    record on human and civil rights than most countries in the whole world
    today....yea the majority of countries in Africa, i.e. The Sudan,
    Ethiopia, Libya, Nigeria, Somalia have the most ghastly, crude and
    violently barbaric cultural practices in the history of civilization. 
    I haven't even begun to touch on Asiatic cultures and socialistic
    societies in our own hemisphere.  There is no question in my mind that
    Judeo Christian foundations found in the Western European cultures are
    far superior to that of others.  I say this simply by a means of
    observation.  
    
    Dave, just as an FYI, Ghandi may ACT more Christian than a
    believer...but Ghandi by his own admission is NOT a Christian. 
    Therefore, he can't be more Christian than anybody else.
    
    -Jack 

    Eric,
    
    I agree with your definitions, but thenI am not a Christian by any
    stretch of the imagination. 
    
    I am a firm believer in the creed of how you treat the least person is
    how you will be treated in the afterlife.  This may mean ignoring the
    barbarous behavior of some people while working as an example to make
    it clear there are better ways to act, as well as helping when needed.  
    
    The schools, scouting organizations, red cross, and dozens of mentorship
    programs from Big brother to midnight basketball are in crying need of
    volunteers to help people at risk.  Each child reached and lifted up to
    see a different world than early parenthood, a short brutal life, and
    then early death is a beginning toward ending that systemic illness
    that breeds hatred, intolerance, and god(dess)less behaviors.  
    
    meg
    meg

    Jack,
    
    Being a member of several different minority groups, and having
    ancestors that were solidly in same, I strongly disagree that
    christianity did many of my predescesors much good, other than measles,
    intentional infection with smallpox, theft of land, hangings, burnings...
    Genocide, just a few minor thingies.  
    
    The history of the US, and the history of Europe (pre and post
    christianity) is not a pretty one regarding dealing with people of
    difference.  
    
    "let us in the name of the holy trinity all take the slaves we can sell" 
    (thankyouverymuch Columbus)

    Meg:
    
    No doubt there is blight on the history on every culture of the
    world...this is the heritage of humanity.  We have nothing of value to
    offer a Holy God.  Thanks for helping me prove that point.
    
    What I was saying is you will find the Judeo Christian heritage far
    more tolerable than most cultures in the world today.  The entries here
    have shown it is still vogue to perpetrate the evils of the world on
    whitey...which is of course silly and absurd.
    
    -Jack

    
    re .152
    
>    I strongly disagree that christianity did many of my predescesors much
>    good, other than measles, intentional infection with smallpox, theft of
>    land, hangings, burnings... Genocide, just a few minor thingies. 
    
    Sometimes we need to separate Christianity from the actions of
    individuals who profess to be Christian. The autrocities you site are
    not the failings of Christianity, but of ignorantly self-obsessed who
    believed they were wisely pious. 
    
    Eric

    
    > The entries here have shown it is still vogue to perpetrate the evils
    > of the world on whitey...which is of course silly and absurd.          

    I must have dozed off, 'cause I don't know *what* you're talking
    about. 

    Eric

    In other words, he is excusing the sin of bigotry by some people by
    saying the sin of remembering by others is as bad.  
    
    meg

>    have shown it is still vogue to perpetrate the evils of the world on
>    whitey...which is of course silly and absurd.

    No.  Being a "whitey", I don't think we're especially prone to
    be the worst.  However, we aren't the wonderful tolerant folks
    we'd like to think we are, either.

    We's just plain folks, inclined to be just as nasty as others
    in the world.  I think we can do better.

    I think our (most of us in this file) best bet is to follow the
    spirit of Jesus's teaching, not just the letter.

    Tom

    Re .150 (Jack)
    
    >Dave, just as an FYI, Ghandi may ACT more Christian than a believer...
    
    But if actions speak louder than words )of beliefs) ?????
    
    Gandhi didn't want to associate himself with the mainstream christian
    of the day because of the hypocricy he saw.  Remember, he had just 
    witnessed the carnage of 2 world wars, mostly Judeao-Christian affairs
    BTW, and saw this to conflict with christianity as Jesus would have
    wanted it to be.  But he certainly did not reject Jesus and his
    teachings,  in fact quite the opposite.  He pleaded with Christians of
    his day to follow the teachings of their own Jesus, always pointing out
    the sermon on the mount and the gospel passages of non-violence.  In
    the eyes of orthodox christianity, he did everything EXCEPT accept
    Jesus as God and that alone excluded him from christian membership. 
    But who's the authority when it comes to deciding who's christian or
    not?  Looking at the thing from a non-inerrant position he was better
    than most.  Who ARE good christians?  The Pope?  Billy Graham?  Line
    them up, the Pope (weilding power and money from a throne in Rome),
    Billy Graham (cruising around in a limo, while listening to his private
    radio station) or Gandhi spinning cloth in a hut, preaching
    non-violence and unconditiona acceptance.  Who do you think Jesus would
    point to as being the one who's following instructions?  These sorts of
    images come to mind when I attempt to describe what it is to truely be
    christian.
    
    I recall the passage where a father asked 2 sons to go do soem work. 
    One said that he would but didn't (gave lip service but did not act),
    the other said he wouldn't but actually did his father's bidding. Jesus
    recommended that the second was the more honerable, suggesting that
    actions speak louder than words.  Is this a fair interpretation?
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    
    

    >Dave, just as an FYI, Ghandi may ACT more Christian than a believer...
    
>    Gandhi didn't want to associate himself with the mainstream christian
>    of the day because of the hypocricy he saw.  Remember, he had just 
>    witnessed the carnage of 2 world wars, mostly Judeao-Christian affairs
>    BTW, and saw this to conflict with christianity as Jesus would have
>    wanted it to be.  But he certainly did not reject Jesus and his
>    teachings,  in fact quite the opposite.  He pleaded with Christians of
>    his day to follow the teachings of their own Jesus, always pointing out
>    the sermon on the mount and the gospel passages of non-violence.  In
>    the eyes of orthodox christianity, he did everything EXCEPT accept
>    Jesus as God and that alone excluded him from christian membership. 
>    But who's the authority when it comes to deciding who's christian or
>    not?  Looking at the thing from a non-inerrant position he was better
>    than most.  Who ARE good christians?  The Pope?  Billy Graham?  Line
>    them up, the Pope (weilding power and money from a throne in Rome),
>    Billy Graham (cruising around in a limo, while listening to his private
>    radio station) or Gandhi spinning cloth in a hut, preaching
>    non-violence and unconditiona acceptance.  Who do you think Jesus would
>    point to as being the one who's following instructions?  These sorts of
>    images come to mind when I attempt to describe what it is to truely be
>    christian.
    
    Jesus came to remind the Jews and to testify to the world in the flesh 
    that humanity is doomed and that only God can save a man from his sin. 
    He made it clear through his teachings how far short everyone comes
    from being what God created man to be, no matter how "good" they think
    they are.  He reminded the Jews and he testified to the world that the 
    Savior, the only one able to save man, God Himself, would himself provide 
    the way to redeem a man, as he had always done, for all who would 
    believe in Him and His substitutionary death, would be saved from 
    certain, just, eternal condemnation.  The redemption of those who
    believe not only secures a glorious eternity but enables a man to grow
    in this life to be more like Christ.
    
    It is no wonder that some people, many people and especially moralists, 
    can see the goodness in Christ and in his teachings for they are truth 
    itself.  It is no wonder that people can adopt certain attitudes and 
    practices which do not contradict some of Christ's specific teachings.
    But all such people, absent the supernatural regeneration through trust 
    in Christ's substitutionary death for their sins alone, are dead and
    condemned already even though they may impress men with their deeds. 
    
    It seems completely unreasonable and unobjective to insist that
    Gandhi, a man who publicly rejected the central tenet of the whole
    biblical history of God and man, would be called a Christian. Of
    course he didn't call himself a Christian.  I suspect he was a
    committed Hindu.  
    
    No matter, it is just inappropriate in a reasonable discussion and 
    invalid in formal argument to intentionally equivocate, as is constantly 
    done here by some. Such invalid arguments are the fuel for much of  
    the contention here, I suspect.
    
    jeff
    

|    But if actions speak louder than words )of beliefs) ?????
    
    Going to church without ever missing a Sunday doesn't save you. 
    Feeding the hungry doesn't save you.  Clothing the naked doesn't save
    you.  Sheltering the homeless doesn't save you.  Praying for the sick
    doesn't save you.  How are you saved?
    
    Ephesians 2:8-9  
    For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is
     the gift of God:  Not of works, lest any man should boast.
    
    What did Jesus Christ say about requirements for being saved?
    
    John 8:24  
    I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye
     believe not that I AM, ye shall die in your sins.
    
    This is why Ghandi and many others aren't saved: they don't accept
    Jesus Christ as God.
    
    What must you do to be saved?
    
    Romans 10:9-13
    That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
     believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
    shalt be saved.  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;
    and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.  For the
    scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.  For
    there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same
    Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.  For whosoever shall
    call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
    
    Ghandi never did this.  Buddha never did this.  Mohammed never did
    this.  Confucius never did this.  All it takes is simple faith in 
    Jesus Christ's vicarious atonement for you.  So simple, it causes 
    the proud to stumble.
    
|    Gandhi didn't want to associate himself with the mainstream christian
|    of the day because of the hypocricy he saw.  Remember, he had just 
|    witnessed the carnage of 2 world wars, mostly Judeao-Christian affairs
    
    I might have been sleeping that day in history class, but I don't
    recall WW1 and WW2 being fought in the name of Jesus Christ.
    
|    the sermon on the mount and the gospel passages of non-violence.  In
|    the eyes of orthodox christianity, he did everything EXCEPT accept
|    Jesus as God and that alone excluded him from christian membership. 
    
    Rejecting the Gospel of Jesus Christ is rejecting Him as God, Savior,
    Redeemer, and His sacrifice on the cross.  This is the blasphemy of the
    Holy Spirit.
    
|    But who's the authority when it comes to deciding who's christian or
|    not?  Looking at the thing from a non-inerrant position he was better
    
    God and His Word.
    
|    than most.  Who ARE good christians?  The Pope?  Billy Graham?  Line
|    them up, the Pope (weilding power and money from a throne in Rome),
|    Billy Graham (cruising around in a limo, while listening to his private
|    radio station) or Gandhi spinning cloth in a hut, preaching
    
    I've never seen Billy Graham do this, have you?  I didn't realize he
    owned his own media facilities too.  Is this true?
    
|    non-violence and unconditiona acceptance.  Who do you think Jesus would
|    point to as being the one who's following instructions?  These sorts of
|    images come to mind when I attempt to describe what it is to truely be
|    christian.
    
    Who has been used more by God to save millions of lost souls to a
    saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and His Gospel? 
    
    A. Ghandi
    B. Pope John Paul II
    C. Rev. Billy Graham
    D. Buddha
    
    Dave, sounds like you want to try and earn your own way to heaven on
    your righteousness.
    
    Isaiah 64:6  
    But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as
     filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like
    the wind, have taken us away.
    
    Something to think about: the original Hebrew uses a word for "filthy
    rags" that literally means menstrual cloths.  That is *our*
    righteousness!
    
    Mike

>    That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt
>     believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou
>    shalt be saved.  For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness;


    Of those who do this, and only this, many maintain their hearts
    of stone.  The Holy Spirit never enters in.  They are dead.  How
    can such people have a life after death if they were never alive
    to begin with?

    Gandhi, from what I can tell, opened his heart, or had his heart
    opened, whichever the case may be.  And, by all accounts, the 
    Holy Spirit was with him.  The fruit of his faith was great.  
    What he called himself is not as important as some may think.

    Tom

|    opened, whichever the case may be.  And, by all accounts, the 
|    Holy Spirit was with him.  
    
    By confessing his rejection of Jesus Christ, he blasphemed the Holy
    Spirit.  The Holy Spirit was not with Ghandi.
    
    |The fruit of his faith was great.  
    
    You mean the fruit of his works was great.  He had no faith in the God
    of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, nor their Messianic Redeemer and Savior.
    
    Mike

    Re .159 (Jeff)
    
    I can see why you find my comments to be irrational if you view them
    from an inerrant perspective.  They violate biblical tennants which you
    hold as being true.  Perhaps there exists another base of confussion in
    the rootword of "CHRISTian".  My definition falls more in line
    with someone who follows the teachings of Jesus but does not
    necessarily equate him to the biblical messiah or christ.  I do not see
    orthodox christianity as being the owners of the definition of the word
    "christian".  It may mean different things to different people.  It's
    important to establish a definition before using it ferther. Given
    your definition, Gandhi is not a christian.  As you cited, he did not
    accept the whole history of God in the biblical sense.  He tended to
    disconnect Jesus from the OT.  To him, Jesus teachings were true
    because he experienced them to be so and he accepted them on that
    basis.  Some of the more violent OT stories were less acceptable in his
    eyes.
    
    The religious beliefs of Gandhi are not easily pigeonholed.  He called
    himself a follower of all true religions, Hinduism and Christianity (or
    should I say the teachings of Jesus here) being amoung them.  He saw the
    cores of the religions to all be the same and the differences to be 
    cultural and less important.  He was what he was. It's not for us to
    judge him.
    
    Thanks you for keeping the tone of your reply down and thank you for
    not misspelling "Gandhi".
    
    
    Re .160 (Mike)
    
    Your arguments make perfect sense from an inerrant perspective.  FWIW,
    I feel a need to view these passages with a more critical eye.  Many
    OT passages I hold suspect because of the company they keep (the flood,
    Johna and the whale, etc...).  I know that you accept them to be true
    and understand why you believe Jesus was who you (and the christian 
    Bible as a whole) claim him to be.  
    
    No, you weren't asleep in history class.  The war was not fought in
    Jesus' name.  The hypocricy Gandhi saw was that his followers were not
    following his example or teachings.  Where he was honored to be
    thought of as a follower of Jesus' teachings and believer in his
    philosophies, he did not want to be pigeonholed with those who started
    and fought in world wars.  As others have cited, there can be a huge
    disconnect between actions and beliefs.  Gandhi tried to live his lief
    by keeping the two in synch.  He pleaded with others to do the same.
    
    >    Who has been used more by God to save millions of lost souls to a
    >    saving knowledge of Jesus Christ and His Gospel?          
    
    I don't know if the orthodox view of Jesus is "saving".  I can't answer
    that question because I see it as being loaded.
    
    >Dave, sounds like you want to try and earn your own way to heaven on
    >    your righteousness.
    
    My righteousness ???   Nothing to brag about I'm afraid.  No, I seek
    the truth, whatever it is.  Many have equated God with truth.  That's
    fine by me too.  The more I search, the less important I see my
    personal destiny to be.   I seek the wisdom and insights of many who
    have been heralded as having special knowlege in this space.  This
    includes Jesus.  I wade through the quagmyre of the gospels and wonder
    what the real truth is.  I read the cannonized gospels, the gnostic
    gospels and sources which you would call pagan, including the thoughts
    of Gandhi.  You use the Bible and faith in your journey.  I use a
    different means.  If I knew your approach to be truer, I'd use it.
    
    And thank you for not misspelling Gandhi.  
    
    
    

>    By confessing his rejection of Jesus Christ, he blasphemed the Holy
>    Spirit.  The Holy Spirit was not with Ghandi.

    I don't think he rejected Jesus Christ.  In fact, he was quite
    inspired by Him. 
    
>    You mean the fruit of his works was great.  He had no faith in the God
>    of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, nor their Messianic Redeemer and Savior.

    As I said above, he had enough faith in what Jesus said to
    actually put it into practice.  Which is more than I can
    say for most of us.

    No faith in God?  Don't be silly.  To him the God of Abraham,
    Issac and Jacob is also the God of all humanity.  It's only
    that He goes by many, *MANY* names.  Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma
    are but different qualities of the One God.

    Gandhi didn't get hung up on labels.  Heaven knows Jesus certainly
    didn't (taxcollectors and prostitutes and gentiles and all).

    Why should we?

    Tom

|    I don't think he rejected Jesus Christ.  In fact, he was quite
|    inspired by Him. 
    
    Ghandi/Gandhi rejected Christ as God.  That is blaspheming the Holy
    Spirit (i.e., the unforgiveable sin).
    
|    No faith in God?  Don't be silly.  To him the God of Abraham,
|    Issac and Jacob is also the God of all humanity.  It's only
|    that He goes by many, *MANY* names.  Shiva, Vishnu and Brahma
|    are but different qualities of the One God.
    
    The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob does not promote or condone sexual
    immorality, substance abuse, self-mutilation and suicide, murder, and
    other detestable practices performed in the worship of the Destroyer
    and its manifestations.  We've gone over this before too.  Brahmanism
    was never intended to be a universal religion.  It's for Brahman
    priests only.

|    Gandhi didn't get hung up on labels.  Heaven knows Jesus certainly
|    didn't (taxcollectors and prostitutes and gentiles and all).
|
|    Why should we?

    We (Christians) aren't hung up on labels either.  I know plenty of
    ex-{insert favorite down-&-out group label} who are now Christians,
    confessing Him as Lord and Savior, saved by the blood of Jesus Christ,
    and living a restored life.  The issue is what will you do with Jesus 
    Christ as God and His vicarious atonement.
    
    Mike

>    Ghandi/Gandhi rejected Christ as God.  That is blaspheming the Holy
>    Spirit (i.e., the unforgiveable sin).

    So, it's better to give lip service than to dig in and live
    what we were taught?

>    The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob does not promote or condone sexual
>    immorality, substance abuse, self-mutilation and suicide, murder, and
>    other detestable practices performed in the worship of the Destroyer
>    and its manifestations.  

    Well, that didn't stop us, now did it?

    If you're referring to the Thuggies (*a* cult of Kali worshippers)
    I believe they were more seriously screwed up than the Jim Jones
    people.  Yes.  There is a *long* history of people taking a 
    perfectly good religion and butchering and twisting the basic
    beliefs to the point where they justified doing some pretty
    horrific things.  I'm sure glad it can't happen here :*)

>    We've gone over this before too.  Brahmanism
>    was never intended to be a universal religion.  It's for Brahman
>    priests only.

    I didn't say that the Hindus had their religion down right, either.
    We're no better.  We had slaves for the longest time.

    Tom

You are telling lies; why do you tell lies:

>    "let us in the name of the holy trinity all take the slaves we can sell" 
>    (thankyouverymuch Columbus)

Writing less than 45 years after Columbus returned with the reports of the
existence of the New World, the Pope decried the enslavement of all people as
contrary to Christian teaching and the will of the Most Loving Triune God,
but instead very certainly the deadly work of the greatest enemy of the
human race himself:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sublimus Dei

Paul III Pope. To all faithful Christians to whom this writing may come,
health in Christ our Lord and the apostolic benediction.

The sublime God so loved the human race that He created man in such wise
that he might participate, not only in the good that other creatures enjoy,
but endowed him with capacity to attain to the inaccessible and invisible
Supreme Good and behold it face to face; and since man, according to the
testimony of the sacred scriptures, has been created to enjoy eternal life
and happiness, which none may obtain save through faith in our Lord Jesus
Christ, it is necessary that he should possess the nature and faculties
enabling him to receive that faith; and that whoever is thus endowed should
be capable of receiving that same faith. Nor is it credible that any one
should possess so little understanding as to desire the faith and yet be
destitute of the most necessary faculty to enable him to receive it. Hence
Christ, who is the Truth itself, that has never failed and can never fail,
said to the preachers of the faith whom He chose for that office 'Go ye and
teach all nations.' He said all, without exception, for all are capable of
receiving the doctrines of the faith.

The enemy of the human race, who opposes all good deeds in order to bring
men to destruction, beholding and envying this, invented a means never
before heard of, by which he might hinder the preaching of God's word of
Salvation to the people: he inspired his satellites who, to please him, have
not hesitated to publish abroad that the Indians of the West and the South,
and other people of whom We have recent knowledge should be treated as dumb
brutes created for our service, pretending that they are incapable of
receiving the Catholic Faith.

We, who, though unworthy, exercise on earth the power of our Lord and seek
with all our might to bring those sheep of His flock who are outside into
the fold committed to our charge, consider, however, that the Indians are
truly men and that they are not only capable of understanding the Catholic
Faith but, according to our information, they desire exceedingly to receive
it. Desiring to provide ample remedy for these evils, We define and declare
by these Our letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary
public and sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, to which
the same credit shall be given as to the originals, that, notwithstanding
whatever may have been or may be said to the contrary, the said Indians and
all other people who may later be discovered by Christians, are by no means
to be deprived of their liberty or the possession of their property, even
though they be outside the faith of Jesus Christ; and that they may and
should, freely and legitimately, enjoy their liberty and the possession of
their property; nor should they be in any way enslaved; should the contrary
happen, it shall be null and have no effect.

By virtue of Our apostolic authority We define and declare by these present
letters, or by any translation thereof signed by any notary public and
sealed with the seal of any ecclesiastical dignitary, which shall thus
command the same obedience as the originals, that the said Indians and other
peoples should be converted to the faith of Jesus Christ by preaching the
word of God and by the example of good and holy living.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

|    people.  Yes.  There is a *long* history of people taking a 
|    perfectly good religion and butchering and twisting the basic
|    beliefs to the point where they justified doing some pretty
|    horrific things.  I'm sure glad it can't happen here :*)
    
    It's not just the people, it's in all the religious books where the
    *IDEAL* is presented as a motivational goal.
    
    What happens when your source, my source, Ghandi's source, Buddha's 
    source, Mother Earth's source, Rev. Moon's source, Joseph Smith's 
    source, Mary Baker Eddy's source, Ellen G. White's source, Charles Taze 
    Russell's source, Edgar Cayce's source, Dali Lama's source, and Luke 
    Skywalker's source all contradict each other?  Are we that bad in 
    misinterpreting God or is God schizophrenic?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    John,
    
    This quote came from a diary of columbus.
    
    check the People's History of the United Statews some time, good
    reading.  
    
    meg

    
>    I can see why you find my comments to be irrational if you view them
>    from an inerrant perspective.  They violate biblical tennants which you
>    hold as being true.  
    
    Bear with me, Dave, as I am apparently in a rare position of not
    offending you ;-)  I want to suggest to you that comments such as yours
    are not irrational to me because of *my* inerrant perspective, but in
    spite of my inerrant perspective.  Anyone who is going to have a
    serious discussion of a truth claim (i.e. Gandhi was a Christian) will
    start with the Bible (since it is the record of Christ which we
    possess) as the source for the definition of a Christian.  Anyone, no
    matter their position on inerrancy, who will read the Bible objectively
    and honestly and summarize its major themes will identify the doctrine
    of salvation via Christ's substitutionary atonement on sinners' behalf. 
    Another clear doctrine will identify that those who called
    themselves Christians were those who had heard the message of Christ's
    substitutionary atonement on their behalf, repented by God's grace,
    were regenerated by the Holy Spirit and then followed Christ.  This
    progression of events is recorded multiple time in the Bible. 
    Conversely, those who do not believe in Christ's substitutionary
    atonement are not regenerated and are not called followers of Christ. 
    This, again, is a repeated theme in the Bible.
        
    >Perhaps there exists another base of confussion in
    >the rootword of "CHRISTian".  My definition falls more in line
    >with someone who follows the teachings of Jesus but does not
    >necessarily equate him to the biblical messiah or christ.  I do not see
    >orthodox christianity as being the owners of the definition of the word
    >"christian".  It may mean different things to different people.  It's
    >important to establish a definition before using it ferther. Given
    >your definition, Gandhi is not a christian.  As you cited, he did not
    >accept the whole history of God in the biblical sense.  He tended to
    >disconnect Jesus from the OT.  To him, Jesus teachings were true
    >because he experienced them to be so and he accepted them on that
    >basis.  Some of the more violent OT stories were less acceptable in his
    >eyes.
    
    This is the heart of the matter and that which is maddening to me and
    which fosters contention here so often.  I think it is simply
    equivocation.  While you have a right to call Gandhi whatever you
    please, calling him a Christian, by your own definition, naturally
    antognizes because he is not a Christian and he is not a Christian
    according to the definition which is well-established and codified in
    the Bible, and he did not even call himself a Christian.  
    
    But I understand that without the freedom to define things the way you
    want them to be, this conference would have no basis for existence.  At
    best this conference could be called Liberal Christianity (after
    Liberal Theology).  I personally think that a technically accurate name 
    would be Paganism since that is the predominant worldview represented 
    here.  
        
    jeff

Christopher Columbus's diary is not a source of teachings about
Christianity, and it was Christianity you were decrying.

/john

    John,
    
    I don't decry christianity, I decry the perversions people have made of
    it, and the systemic sins perpetrated in the name of christianity.
    
    
    
    

    >Are we that bad in misinterpreting God 
    
    Probably.  Misinterpreting God is one thing.  Misinterpreting each
    other's interpretations is another compounding factor (IMO).    The
    fact that there's so much difficulty makes me wonder whether or not 
    the struggle was "designed in".  Sometimes I grow weary of the
    debates.  Sometimes the approach of the mystics seems soooooo
    appealing.  Just stop fighting about it and simply let God happen
    to you.
    
    
    
    

>I decry ... the systemic sins perpetrated in the name of christianity.
    
Christians pray for those who perpetrate them:

    Let us pray for all who have not received the Gospel of Christ:

	For those who have never heard the word of salvation
	For those who have lost their faith
	For those hardened by sin or indifference
	For the contemptuous and the scornful
	For those who are enemies of the Cross of Christ and
	    persecutors of his disciples
	For those who in the name of Christ have persecuted others

    That God will open their hearts to the truth, and lead them to faith
    and obedience.

	Merciful God, Creator of all the peoples of the earth and
	lover of souls: Have compassion on all who do not know you
	as you are revealed in your Son Jesus Christ; let your Gospel
	be preached with grace and power to those who have not heard
	it; turn the hearts of those who resist it; and bring home to
	your fold those who have gone astray; that there may be one
	flock under one shepherd, Jesus Christ our Lord.  Amen.

					-- BCP pp 279-280

    RE: .168 Mike

>    What happens when your source, my source, Ghandi's source, Buddha's 
>    source, Mother Earth's source, Rev. Moon's source, Joseph Smith's 
>    source, Mary Baker Eddy's source, Ellen G. White's source, Charles Taze 
>    Russell's source, Edgar Cayce's source, Dali Lama's source, and Luke 
>    Skywalker's source all contradict each other?  Are we that bad in 
>    misinterpreting God or is God schizophrenic?

    Well, some would say that the Bible contradicts itself.  Some
    people believe that a little interpretation here and some
    "if you look at it in a cultural context" there manage to
    see the Bible as cohesive.

    I will grant that some "religious texts" are pure doggie doo doo
    and that some religions are bogus.  I'm sure Gandhi saw this, too.
    But he, as I, also see that the major religions have many of the 
    same recurring themes.  Be nice to each other and believe in God.

    God schizophrenic?  Nah.  But, why did he leave us nut-cases to
    run the asylum?  :*)

    RE: Note 1326.173  Dave

>    >Are we that bad in misinterpreting God 
>    
>    Probably.  Misinterpreting God is one thing.  Misinterpreting each
>    other's interpretations is another compounding factor (IMO).

    *EXCELLENT* point!

    Even we liberal Congregationalists are guilty of that.  It's 
    uncomfortable when I hear one of our ministers mis-representing
    what the Hindus believe or what the Witnesses believe.
    
    It's almost like when people look at a different religion they
    do it with the agenda of finding some fatal flaw so they don't
    have to change the way they think.

    Tom

Actually, this goes right along with the idea that man is
just a wretched piece of "stuff" who doesn't know his ""
from a hole in the ground.

Why should figuring out a religion be any different?

Tom

|    Well, some would say that the Bible contradicts itself.  Some
    
    It seems to me that critics say that about every holy book.  Maybe the
    Bible draws more fire because of it daring to go where no other book
    goes (i.e., prophecy).  Maybe it's because of its high level of truth 
    and integrity.  Maybe because no other figure claimed to be God, died
    for the sin of the world, and rose again.  Sounds like several levels
    above the rest.
    
|    God schizophrenic?  Nah.  But, why did he leave us nut-cases to
|    run the asylum?  :*)
    
    Sometimes I wonder too ;-)  Seriously, we are created in God's image. 
    do you agree with that?  I also believe that God has created us with
    the knowledge of His Truth built-in.  God's Word also says how the few
    common points among the world's religions came to be and how they were
    corrupted.
    
    Romans
    ------
    1:18  For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
    ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in 
    unrighteousness;
    1:19  Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for
    God hath shewed it unto them.
    1:20  For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world
    are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his
    eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
    1:21  Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God,
    neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their
    foolish heart was darkened.
    1:22  Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
    1:23  And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made
    like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping
    things.
    
    2:14  For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the
    things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto
    themselves:
    2:15  Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their
    conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while 
    accusing or else excusing one another;
    2:16  In the day when God shall judge the secrets of men by Jesus
    Christ according to my gospel.
    
    God created us in His image, with His truth inherent within.  When we
    are not following His truth and His Gospel, it is then that we are not 
    at peace and are continually searching.  He calls us all to the cross
    to view His Love and the chance to accept the salvation He has
    provided.

|>    >Are we that bad in misinterpreting God 
|>    
|>    Probably.  Misinterpreting God is one thing.  Misinterpreting each
|>    other's interpretations is another compounding factor (IMO).

    He created us to be critical thinkers.  He gave us logic.  He made His
    Will known to us.  He provided a way of salvation so that we can be in 
    communion with Him and know His will always.  God is not the author of
    confusion.  YHWH is a God or order, not chaos.  
    
    The bottomline for me is that we aren't that terrible at
    interpretation.  To say we are that incompetent is an insult to Jesus
    Christ the Creator.  The problems we face, and why there are so many
    contradictory religions, are basically refusal to accountability to God
    or spiritual blindness.
    
    Mike

|Actually, this goes right along with the idea that man is
|just a wretched piece of "stuff" who doesn't know his ""
|from a hole in the ground.

    God created everything and said it was good.  God doesn't make junk. 
    Humans aren't wretched stuff.  Jesus Christ, God the Son, wouldn't die 
    for every person in the world if they weren't priceless to Him.  
    However, humans do have sin and do need a Savior.  Humans also know the
    Truth.  There is only 1 path to salvation.
    
John 14:6  
    Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
 cometh unto the Father, but by me.

>    God created everything and said it was good.  God doesn't make junk. 
>    Humans aren't wretched stuff.  Jesus Christ, God the Son, wouldn't die 
>    for every person in the world if they weren't priceless to Him.  
>    However, humans do have sin and do need a Savior.  Humans also know the
>    Truth.  There is only 1 path to salvation.

Well, tell Jack that.   :-)

    
    After writing my last note to Dave, it dawned on me clearly that it is
    virtually impossible for me, an orthodox Christian who is committed to both
    the truth of the testament of Christ in the Bible and to the discipline
    of logic, to be able to participate here in a successful, joyful, or
    meaningful way.
    
    Not too long ago it became apparent to me that most of our culture -
    regardless of what people say to the contrary, regardless of what they 
    read, and regardless of the systematic orderliness of most every aspect
    of their lives and existence - are simply unable to think straight.  I
    think it was different in the past in our country.  And I wonder what
    will cause it to change for the better or if it ever will change.
    
    If I can't communicate here, for the lack of a commonly agreed to reality 
    and methods with which to investigate, discover, and arbitrate positive
    knowledge of that reality, then I ought to go.
    
    Surely I have tried.  I am sorry for all of the misunderstandings over
    the years and for the consequences - hurt feelings and offenses taken.
    
    Don't think I'm being particularly critical of the people in this forum
    for it's not much different in any other similar forum, even among the
    Bible-believing.
    
    If any of you would like to discuss Jesus or the Bible, especially if
    you want to believe - no matter the circumstances surrounding your
    desire - feel free to drop me a line.  I'm a gentle person really,
    especially with the vulnerable, seeking, and tenderhearted.
    
    jeff

    Re .170 (Jeff)
    
    Taking the non-inerrant view is a double edged sword.  It leaves one to
    wonder just which parts of the Bible are true and which are not.  But
    the other edge gives one the liberty pick and choose from all the
    pieces to fashion an explanation that may be easier to reconcile with
    other accepted beliefs.  E.g. I choose not to believe in the story of
    the flood.  This fits better with my observations of how the physical
    world works.  When I examine the accountings of Jesus' life, I continue
    the process of scrutinizing.  Which parts seem like they were accurate
    accountings of the man... Which seem like they might have been
    exaggerations... which seem like fabrications?  It's not an easy task
    and I'll never come up with absolute answers.  But I feel that the
    estimates I come up with are probably closer to the truth than taking
    the Bible in an inerrant way.  That's just my guess.  I may be wrong.
    But, using the Bible as a source, even as THE source, but not
    necessarily as a flawless source, I come up with a definition for 
    "christianity" which differs from yours.  It may be shakier when
    examined solely from inside the context of the christian Bible, but I
    feel it stands better than the orthodox definition when viewed in a space 
    where I try to reconcile it with the other world religions and my
    observations of the physical world.  
    
    Got to go.  
    -dave
    

>.134

>RE: .130

>>    BTW, many of our laws have at one time been much
>>    closer to reflecting Christian values and ethics and things were better
>>    then.

>    Well, maybe if you belonged to the right ethnic group.
    
>    Tom

I concur.  We know now that when the so-called founding fathers spoke of
"all men" in their documents, they were actually referring to white
landowning adult males.

This, of course, would exclude blacks.  But it would also exclude Native
Americans, women, and others.

Richard

.138

>|    BTW, do you find it pleasurable to misspell Gandhi as "Gondhi"?  
    
>    Doesn't matter to me how I spell it.  

What does matter to you how you spell it?  Would it come across as
respectful to you to deliberably (or ignorantly) misspell the name
of Jesus, for example?

Richard

    Re: -1
    
    Worse things have been done to the name of Jesus in here.  It is
    is ironic how esteemed Ghandi/Gandhi is in here and how much disrespect
    Christ receives given the conference name.

    Mike,
    
    I don't think you even see the non-christians in this file down talk
    Jesus.  we may not believe in his divinity as you do, but it would be a
    stretch to me to say that is disrespectful.  I have no respect for
    peole who have used your divine's name in vain, as a justification for
    murder, genocide, rape, spousal abuse, child abuse, sexism, racism....
    just as I have no respect for the awful people who are doing same in
    the name of Mohamed, Krishna, Vishnu, Arratia, Inana, or tomato.  
    
    meg

.184

>    Re: -1
    
>    Worse things have been done to the name of Jesus in here.  It is
>    is ironic how esteemed Ghandi/Gandhi is in here and how much disrespect
>    Christ receives given the conference name.

What is your definition of esteem?  What is your definition of respect?

In what way has the conference done worse things to the name of Jesus, to
your way of thinking?

Richard

    RE: .185 Meg

    Please, use the proper name, "Tomato."

    Tom

re Note 1326.180 by ALFSS1::BENSONA:

>     Not too long ago it became apparent to me that most of our culture -
>     regardless of what people say to the contrary, regardless of what they 
>     read, and regardless of the systematic orderliness of most every aspect
>     of their lives and existence - are simply unable to think straight.  I
>     think it was different in the past in our country.  And I wonder what
>     will cause it to change for the better or if it ever will change.
  
        You may be a gentle person, Jeff, but that has got to be the
        all-time winner for arrogance in this conference.

        There are at least two explanations for your observation that
        "few people think straight like me."

        Bob

    
    Is there any chance that anyone who feels nothing can be condemned
    unless the Bible explicitly condems it, please address .83
    
    Thanks,
    Eric

>     Not too long ago it became apparent to me that most of our culture -
>     regardless of what people say to the contrary, regardless of what they 
>     read, and regardless of the systematic orderliness of most every aspect
>     of their lives and existence - are simply unable to think straight.  I
>     think it was different in the past in our country.  And I wonder what
>     will cause it to change for the better or if it ever will change.
  
>>        You may be a gentle person, Jeff, but that has got to be the
>>        all-time winner for arrogance in this conference.
    
    Well, that's the trouble with generalizations, as useful as they can
    be.

>>        There are at least two explanations for your observation that
>>        "few people think straight like me."
    
    Yeah, I know. 
    
    jeff 

    
>    Does the Bible categorically condemn slapping a wife who does not
>    please here husband?
    
    yes.

>    Does the Bible categorically condemn forcing sex on an unwilling wife?
    
    yes.  And it also categorically condemns women or men withholding sex
    from a spouse.

>    Does the Bible categorically condemn genocide in war?
    
    Probably.  Of course, God's judgement upon other nations and the
    subsequent destruction by Israel would be excluded.

>    Does the Bible categorically condemn hitting a child with a whip?
    
    No.

>    Does the Bible categorically condemn drug dealing?
    
    Yes.

>    Does the Bible categorically condemn torture of prisoners?
    
    Yes.

>    Does the Bible categorically condemn throwing rocks at a person until
>    they expire?
    
    No, as a form of capital punishment it is sanctioned by God in the
    nation of Israel.
     

    Jeff,
    
    Sourses for the condemnation?
    
    Certainly isn't in Leviticus.

1 Corinthians 12:3  
    Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of
 God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord,
 but by the Holy Ghost.

    Jesus is Lord.  Gandhi is not.  But then, Gandhi never claimed to be.
    
    Has this something to do with esteem or respect, as you see it?
    
    Richard
    

    Richard, thanks for your confirmation.

    I would also agree with the title bestowed on Gandhi by the Indians:
    Mahatma, which means "Great Soul."
    
    Richard
    

It seems to me that there are a number of things at work to keep us from
paying too much attention to systemic sin.

1.  There is a tendency among us to give the greater focus to what happens
between the bellybutton and the knees.

2.  We have a kind of reverence for rugged individualism.  It is a part of
our self-image as a nation.

3.  The church doesn't have the stomach to clash with the state.

Richard