Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Eric,
    
    It's a mystery.
    
    My take at it, and I am sure there are bible believers who will have a
    better explanation.  I am digging into the dim recesses of memory from
    a fundamentalist sunday school about 30 years back.  
    
    Prior to the sacrifice of god's son, the only way to atone for sins was
    to sacrifice an animal, per earlier biblical law.  
    
    Abraham was asked to go to the mountain and give up his son as an
    article of faith, and also as an example of what god would do with his
    own son at a later date.  He also had to trust that god would do the
    right thing, and god did by having the ram caught in the brambles.  
    
    

    I recommend the truth.  If you can't reconcile this with other things
    you taught him about God, then you ought to tell him just that.  The
    time will come (at 14, it may already have come) that he's going to
    start thinking for himself.  If you feed him something that doesn't
    make sense to you, it probably won't make sense to him either and he'll
    just end up having to regurgitate it later on and sort it out for
    himself.  You may want to consider talking to him a little more like an
    adult as he's rapidly reaching that point anyway.  Maybe it's something
    you can work out together with him.  In the process, the two of you may
    come up with an acceptable answer.  And he'll probably respect you a hell
    of a lot more now and later on when teenagers *really* start breaking
    free.  
    
    my $.02
    
    -dave
    
                                                                           

    
    I guess I'm asking how to reconcile the apparent contradiction between
    the loving, caring God I know and a God that ask me to prove my faith
    by slaughtering my son. 

    Secondly, there is the animal sacrifice issue. After all it's those
    devil worshiping freaks who go around slaughtering animals in their
    bizarre rituals... I mean gross, right. Those violent blood thirsty
    occultists. Then we're presented with a God, our God, who demanded the
    same thing: the blood sacrifice of an animal. 

    In my own mind I can rationalize these stories, but I find it hard to
    put into words, *particularly* to a 14 year-old who, as Dave pointed
    out, is capable of reasoning for himself albeit in the frustratingly
    highly charged way that teens with this new found capacity
    (argumentative reasoning) do.

    Eric

        Genesis 22
22:8  And Abraham said, My son, God will provide Himself a lamb for a burnt
 offering: so they went both of them together.
22:11  And the angel of the LORD called unto him out of heaven, and said,
 Abraham, Abraham: and he said, Here am I.
22:12  And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing
 unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld
 thy son, thine only son from me.
22:13  And Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram
 caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and
 offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son.
22:14  And Abraham called the name of that place Jehovahjireh: as it is said to
 this day, In the mount of the LORD it shall be seen.
22:15  And the angel of the LORD called unto Abraham out of heaven the second
 time,
22:16  And said, By myself have I sworn, saith the LORD, for because thou hast
 done this thing, and hast not withheld thy son, thine only son:

    There are several things going on here.

    - The Law of First Mention is important in hermaneutics.  The first
      mention of love in the Bible is a father's love for his only begotten
      son (sound familiar?).
    - While God is a loving, caring, gentle God, He also cannot tolerate
      sin or allow it in His presence.  Sin will be judged.  Hell was
      created by God to judge Satan and the fallen angels.  It was not
      meant for people, but people will choose to go there by rejecting
      The Lamb of God.  I know this isn't popular today, but it is the
      truth according to God's Word and also resolves the apparent 
      contradiction.
    - Leviticus states that blood animal sacrifices are used because there
      life is in the blood (17:11).  This served as a placeholder or
      temporary covering for the sin of God's people until the Redeemer came.

    Only begotten son?
    
    Wht about Ishmael?  Or is he conveniently forgotten being the bastard
    offspring of Abraham and Sarah's handmaiden?
    
    meg

    I have yet to be able to adaquately resolve this sort of contradiction
    given that both images of God are true.  It's almost as if God has set
    Abraham up to fail.  On the one hand he has God's commandment "Thou
    Shall Not Kill" and on the other he gets an order from God to kill his
    son.  So no matter what he does, or fails to do, he's violating God's
    will.  
    
    If I had to explain this to my kid, I would suggest to him/her that
    maybe this story was made up to illustrate the point of how important
    it is to obey God, even if it means great sacrifice.  I'd suggest that
    God's NOT a hypocrite, that imperfect people wrote the Bible, and that 
    it shouldn't be taken literally at times.  Animal sacrifices were a big
    part of the religious culture of the ancient Hebrews.  I'd humble
    his/her belief that his/her hands are bloodless by reminding him/her
    that we pay people to kill the animals we eat, the ancients did it form
    themselves.    Occultists are perverted copycats in the regard to
    sacrifice... something like that.
    
    -dave

|    Only begotten son?
|    
|    Wht about Ishmael?  Or is he conveniently forgotten being the bastard
|    offspring of Abraham and Sarah's handmaiden?
    
    Abraham & Sarah disobeyed God's will when they took matters into their
    own hands.  A rabbi recently told me how ironic it is that the Koran 
    never mentions Ishmael by name when referring to Abraham's son.
    
    Mike

    No more ironic than referring to Isaac as Abrahams only begotten son.  

>    I have yet to be able to adaquately resolve this sort of contradiction
>    given that both images of God are true.  It's almost as if God has set
>    Abraham up to fail.  On the one hand he has God's commandment "Thou
>    Shall Not Kill" and on the other he gets an order from God to kill his
>    son.  So no matter what he does, or fails to do, he's violating God's
>    will.  

    I see it as a tough god for tough times.

    The concept of  "an eye for an eye", when it came out, was very
    radical.  It used to be if your neighbor looked at  you funny
    you'd simply waste him.

    The world simply wasn't ready for Jesus.  It took some 3000 years
    for the race to prepare and evolve.

    Or, maybe it's just God saying, "If you really loved me, you'd do
    it."  :*)

    Tom

.0

It's a good question.  Compliment your son on his questioning mind.

The story is one of many in the Bible that are troubling.  It is a story
of degree of trust.  It asks the question, "How far would you go in
trusting this Adonai (the Lord)?"

Abraham had already shown an incredible degree of trust by picking up
his family and leaving for literally God knows where.  It is more
than most would do or have ever done.

But then comes the ratcheting up.  And with it, these kinds of questions:

Would you do the unthinkable to your own child at God's instruction?  Would
God allow it to be carried out?  What if God hadn't provided a way out at
the last minute?  And just what kind of God would do this anyway?

As I see it, the story is one which provokes questions.  It may be helpful
to recognize that not all stories are for the purpose of supplying answers.

About animal sacrifice.  It's also an issue I wrestle with.  I once heard that
it is one of the most misunderstood of all ancient Hebrew customs.

Richard

Also see:
    
================================================================================
Note 747.0     When did Israel cease sacrificing animals and why?      4 replies
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat"                  4 lines  21-OCT-1993 18:39
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When did Israel cease sacrificing animals and why?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    In the days of the Second Temple, there was a custom to fasten a red-colored
    strip of wool to the head of the goat which was to be sent away on the
    Day of Atonement.  When this red ribbon became white, it was a sign that God
    had forgiven Israel's sins.  There is a statement in the Babylonian Talmud
    (Yoma, chapter 39b) that about "40 years before the Second Temple was
    destroyed...the red wool did not become white!"  The same passage informs 
    us that the gates of the Temple swung open on their own accord!  The 
    ancient rabbis believed that these events were indicators that the sins of 
    Israel were no longer being forgiven and the Temple would soon be 
    destroyed!  
    
    {from "The Search for Messiah," by Dr. Mark Eastman & Pastor Chuck Smith, 
     ISBN 0-936728-50-7}
    
    "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" John 1:29

re: This topic

And you begin to get a sense of why some of us logical thinkers cannot 
reconcile and believe. This is only one of many inconsistent stories from 
the Bible, and simply reinforces the inconsistency of a loving God when 
viewed against the backdrop of the real world...

Steve

    
    re .13 

    I am not looking for logic, but wisdom. Not for stagnant literal
    consistency, but spiritual development.

    Eric

    This discussion reminded me of a true story I heard many years ago.  A
    teenage girl disobeyed her father, some relatively minor thing, maybe
    staying out too late or got caught smoking a cigarete or something.
    Anyway, her father decided that her punishment would be to take her dog
    out into the woods and shoot it with his shotgun.  She was not to
    return until the deed was done.  A few minutes later the shot was
    heard and the dog walked home.  
    
    I know there are differences.  But there are similarities too.  

.7

>|    Only begotten son?
>|    
>|    Wht about Ishmael?  Or is he conveniently forgotten being the bastard
>|    offspring of Abraham and Sarah's handmaiden?
    
>    Abraham & Sarah disobeyed God's will when they took matters into their
>    own hands.  A rabbi recently told me how ironic it is that the Koran 
>    never mentions Ishmael by name when referring to Abraham's son.

So Ishmael was not a begotten son of Abraham?  I don't buy it.

It is not at all unusual for the second son to supercede the first in
the Hebrew Testament.

Richard

    We know Ismael was a son of Abraham's.  However, if it is that critical to
    Islam, you would think the Koran would something like:  "Ishamel, son of
    Abraham!"  It doesn't.

    .0
    
    Eric,
    
    	Any thoughts on what's been entered so far?
    
    Richard
    

    Eric:
    
    Let me share with you how I would address this question with my son.
    
    Understand I am speaking to an eight year old.  Level of patronization
    is up to you! :-)
    
    In the previous chapters of Genesis, Abram was in what we would call
    today his old age years.  He was into his nineties and as you know,
    Grandma died just a few years ago at the age of 78.  Now if the Lord
    took Grandma at 78, and she seemed pretty old at the time, can you
    imagine how old Abram might have looked at ninety??  Abram, even at his
    old age was apparently very energetic and spry.  Gregory, go get your
    Bible...I want to show you something really interesting here.  Now open
    to chapter 12....
    
Z    The LORD had said to Abram, "Leave your country, your people and your
Z    father's household and go to the land I will show you. 
Z    "I will make you into a great nation and I will bless you; I will make
Z    your name great, and you will be a blessing. 
    
    Now this is important because God at this point is making a covenant
    with Abraham.  This is an unconditional promise made to Abraham...the
    calling of a nation.  This means that God had something very special
    for Abraham and as you can see from the verse, God made a promise to
    Abraham...that he would personally be blessed and the nation which
    would come from him would be a blessing to all humankind. 
    
    Now as you read further Gregory, scripture teaches us that God told
    Abraham his elderly wife Sarah, was going to have a child.  Now Sarah
    laughed at this because she didn't believe God...said something about
    being too old!  God did not like this faithlessness and as an editorial
    comment Gregory, I want you to be assured that I along with many of my
    colleagues in Christian Perspective believe God can do ANYTHING!! 
    Therefore, my friend Tom Baker and others couldn't possibly consider
    this incident a myth...but I digress!! :-)
    
    There is a lot that happens due to Abraham and Sarah's temporary
    unfaithfulness but after all is said and done, Sarah does have the
    baby...just as God promised!!  They named the boy Isaac and he grew.
    
    Now that we laid the important ground work, let's get to the question
    you asked.  As you may recall, many years before this incident took
    place, Cain and Abel were brothers who offered sacrifice to God.  Abel
    offered the best of his flock and God accepted his sacrifice...it was
    pleasing to him.  Cain on the other hand did not offer the best and was
    rebuked for this.  The sacrificial system was a picture of God offering
    his only son, Jesus, to die for your sin and mine.   
    
    After seeing the miraculous birth of his son, Abraham had a close
    relationship with God.  So much so that Abraham, while he may not have
    fully understood what God was doing, chose to go to the mountain with
    Isaac.  
    
Z    I will confirm my covenant between me and you and will greatly increase
Z    your numbers." Abram fell facedown, and God said to him, 
Z    "As for me, this is my covenant with you: You will be the father of
Z    many nations. 
Z    No longer will you be called Abram [80]; your name will be Abraham,
Z    for I have made you a father of many nations. 
    
    The affirmation of God's promise....
    
    Now here is the affirmation it was only a test...
    
Z    Some time later God tested Abraham. He said to him, "Abraham!" "Here I
Z    am," he replied. 
Z    Then God said, "Take your son, your only son, Isaac, whom you love,
Z    and go to the region of Moriah. Sacrifice him there as a burnt offering on 
Z    one of the mountains I will tell you about."
    
    God had absolutely no intention of having Isaac sacrificed.  It was
    strictly a test.  Abraham KNEW this because of two things.  He told
    those who travelled with him that both he and the boy WOULD return. 
    Secondly, when Isaac asked his dad where the sacrifice would come from,
    Abraham replied, "GOD WILL provide the sacrifice for us!"  
    
    Abraham was fully confident in this because he KNEW for a fact that
    God's blessing of a nation was definitely going to come through Isaac. 
    To kill Isaac would be a broken promise on the part of God.
    
    -Jack

    Ummmm.... pardon my asking, but what kind of a test is it if you know
    the outcome beforehand?  Your interpretation is interesting Jack, but
    it takes all the drama (and perhaps intended meaning?) out of the
    story.
    
    -dave

    Try telling that to Abraham.

re.19

Hi Jack,

I have a slightly different interpretation of the events.

According to some verse in the New Testment (Galatians 3 I think)
the indication is that Abraham believed God would raise Isaac from
the dead. It seems Abraham's knife was striking when the angel
stopped him.

Regards,
ace 

    That may be...one thing is for sure however, Abraham was fully
    confident that no harm would come to the boy...and both he and Isaac
    were going to return to the bottom on the mountain together!
    
    As I said to Eric, this is a further picture of God providing the
    sacrifice, and that no other could possibly do!!
    
    -Jack

re .0

	Eric,

	It is a good sign that your son is asking questions and this
	could be a good opportunity for both of you to get to know each
	other better as well as God and his Son Jesus.

	Why not look at the portion of scriptures together and explain how 
	you both feel about what you are reading. Consider some factors such 
	as , Abraham being about hundred years older than Isaac. That according 
	to Josephus Isaac was 25 years of age at the time, so he could easily 
	have over powered Abraham and thus was showing submission. That it took 
	about 3 days journey to climb up a mountain in the land of Moriah, one
	could think of the discussion taking place between the two and what
	was going through their minds. How would you feel about this command
	from God?. This certainly was a real test of faith, but as with
	other men of faith Abraham could see past the current situation.
	As Hebrews 11:17-19 NWT comments ''By faith Abraham, when he was tested,
	as good as offered up Isaac, and the man that had gladly received the 
	promises attempted to offer up [his] only-begotten [son], although it 
	had been said to him: "What will be called 'your seed' will be through 
	Isaac."  But he reckoned that God was able to raise him up even from 
	the dead; and from there he did receive him also in an illustrative 
	way.'' He trusted in God's promise that the seed would be through Isaac
	and figured that if need be he would raise him from the dead to 
	accomplish it.

	Scriptures to consider : Genesis 22:1-18 and 21:12  and any cross
	references scriptures that come to mind.

	It is noble that one lay down his life that others might live, but
	what if neccessity called for sacrifising the life of ones son?.
	An extremely painful decision for a parent to take. It may seem
	difficult for one to accept that God asked Abraham to sacrifice his
	son, but the angel restraining Abraham showed that God had not 
	intended for him to follow through. This was really a drama for our
	benefit so that we can see that God sacrifised His Son at great cost
	to himself, as a loving Father we can feel the hurt he must have felt 
	seeing His Son being sacrifised. Yet we also learn about Jesus' 
	submission to his Father's request so that others might live. Jehovah 
	God is a real person, but it is only by pondering on examples such as
	Abraham that we get to know how he must have felt.

	No doubt more questions will come from your study together, so note
	them down for further investigation. By further study both of you
	will learn more together.

	For a succinct answer regarding the animal sacrifices, again these 
	are illustrative and foreshadowed Jesus' sacrifice in the
	shedding his innocent blood and all that would be accomplished 
	through it (compare Hebrews 10:1, Collosians 2:16,17). It helps 
	us to see the reality in the heavens and the things being done by 
 	the highpriest Jesus Christ.

	Hope this helps 

	Phil.

	Sorry if I have repeated what others may have already written.

 

    Phil
    
    Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, many
    people have risked or sacrificed their sons and daughters so others
    would live.  (See the history of the world as it goes with warfare)  
    
    Besides, wasn't Lot perfectly willing to have his daughters mistreated
    by a mob so that he and his stranger guests could have peace?  

re .25


;    Fortunately or unfortunately, depending on how you look at it, many
;    people have risked or sacrificed their sons and daughters so others
;    would live.  (See the history of the world as it goes with warfare)

     Meg,

     Many people see it this way, but to which god is the sacrifice made?
     Some might argue it has been to Mars the god of war, as many wars are
     senseless. But is this the same as laying down ones life? in war the
     the point is taking the lives of others which may mean losing ones
     life. So I don't see a connection between the noble reasons why persons
     send their children to war, and God sending his Son so that others
     might live.

;    Besides, wasn't Lot perfectly willing to have his daughters mistreated
;    by a mob so that he and his stranger guests could have peace?

     To be honest I would need to do some research on this, but one comment I
     can make is that Lot and Abraham had a strong sense of hospitality.
     Hospitality, has the sense of showing love to strangers, and it would be
     unthinkable to allow these strangers to abused while his care.   

     Phil.

    Phil,
    
    Offering to give one's daughters to the mob so Lot and his guests could
    be left in peace, strikes me as an awful thing to do.  But then, I
    think women count and should not be treated like chattle.  

    Meg:
    
    While by our standards it was stupid, the sad truth is that women were
    chattle back then.  God handled the situation accordingly and neither
    the daughters nor the angels were put into harms way.  
    
    Lot typified a human response for sure.
    
    -Jack

    Has any other major religious figure elevated the status of women more 
    than Jesus Christ?  Seems to me that those in ancient Judaism treated
    women far better than their pagan counterparts.

    Depends on you pagan religions.  Read "When God was a Woman" sometime
    for information on religions prior to the patriarchal ones that came
    into being a few thousand years ago.  
    
    meg

    No thanks.  I find the title offensive and your summary incorrect.

re .27

	Meg,

	It may seem to be offensive to you today and I sympathise with you.
	But we have to take into consideration the custom of those times,
	that with these guests in his house then they were to be given
	protection even if it mean't losing his life. It is likely, that
	Lot realised that these two were no ordinary strangers having spent 
	the day with them and that they were indeed messengers of God. We cannot
	be sure what was going on in Lot's mind when he offered his daughters
	to this mob. Some argue that he was a coward in not offering himself.
	Yet, he confronted the mob on his own shutting the door behind him to
	protect his household. Would the mob have accepted an old man instead
	of the guests?, very unlikely. The mob would have realised that his
	daughters were engaged to two men of the city. Hence, offering his 
	two daughters may have be done to defuse or confuse the homosexual 
	inclined mob. Lot may have felt, that Jehovah God would protect his
	daughters if need be. Just as Sarah, Abraham's wife, was protected 
	while they were in the land of Egypt. His household and himself 
	certainly were protected when the mob were made blind. Whatever
	Lots intentions were, he was not condemned after this event by God
	but he and his daughters received divine protection. 

	Phil.

	

    
    Re .19 (Mike)

    >Has any other major religious figure elevated the status of women more
    >    than Jesus Christ?

    Actually Buddaha accepted women into his group as equals long before
    Jesus.  He ignored the discriminatory practices of soceity by accepting
    everyone, regardless of gender, age or position in the caste system.
    And when you think of it, how many of Jesus' disciples were women? 
    I'll be the first to say that Jesus did a lot in his time/culture for 
    the cause of women.  But it would appear that Buddha did more in his.
    
    Don't get me wrong Mike.  I'm not pitting Jesus agains Buddha.  On the
    contrary, I find them to be kindred spirits.  I just find it odd that
    on this subject both these great men professed the same revolutionary
    philosophy in their respective times and cultures.  Coincidence?

    -dave

Z    I just find it odd that
Z    on this subject both these great men professed the same
Z    revolutionary philosophy in their respective times and cultures.  
Z    Coincidence?
    
    Dave, many false religions have a basis of Sermon on the Mount
    concepts, so this wouldn't be odd at all.
    
    Buddhism is an atheistic based religion from what I understand.  This
    is a far cry from what Jesus taught!!
    
    -Jack

re Note 1333.34 by ASGMKA::MARTIN:

        "atheistic based religion"

    Yes that is a dichotomy isn't it!!! :-)

    Phil,
    
    Call it the mothering instinct, but being the parent of daughters, I
    find the whole story of LOT and his daughters offensive, demeaning and
    encouraging of serious dysfuntion of fathers with their daughters.  To
    me there is no excuse for his behavior that night or later opn after
    the city was lost.  
    
    jack,
    
    buddhists do believe in a devine, and no it isn't Buddha, although his
    image is around to focus one's mind on the devine, much as certain
    Christian churches use images of people and symbols to focus their minds
    on the devine, as do the Hindi, cargo cultists, pagans of some flavors,
    and others.  
    
    The UU churches have a great course in comparative religions, in fact
    Ill be sending my daughters to it as they are old enough so they
    don't make statements out of hearsay or ignorance about religions other
    than their own.    
    
    meg

 Z   although his
 Z   image is around to focus one's mind on the devine, much as certain
  Z  Christian churches use images of people and symbols to focus their
  z  minds on the devine, as do the Hindi, cargo cultists, pagans of some
  Z  flavors, and others. 
    
    Yes but Buddhism doesn't acknowledge a personal God or THE personal God
    of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    doesn't make the religion atheistic.  Oh, I forgot, my religion is too,
    isn't it?  That's ok mom still loves you.

    Of course there are also different versions of Buddhism...some are god
    free totally in the conventional sense while others deify Buddha
    himself.  This is a worshipping of the created in my book.
    
    -Jack

    There is also a sect of Buddhism that has adopted salvation by grace.

    re .38 (Jack)

    >Yes but Buddhism doesn't acknowledge a personal God or THE personal God
    >of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

    I don't want it to seem like I'm too compromising here, or
    disingenuous, but I wonder if Buddha wasn't in fact in touch with the
    very same God.  The verbiage and images are certainly different.  The
    Bible tends to anthropomorphise the image of God, giving him attributes
    like anger and love and a even a home in heaven, whereas the "God" in
    Buddhism is described by expressing nothing at all.  I'd like to
    address the notion of a "Personal" god in this context, but in the
    interest of brevity (which I've already breached), I won't at this
    time.

    These two notions of "God" seem to be very different at first, but this
    may just be due to the different ways mere humans are viewing the very
    same thing.  One possible indication of this which I find astonishing
    is that the fruits which we all seem to talk a lot about in here in
    this conf are virtually the same.  Two completely different cultures
    evolving separately in a "might makes right" kind of physical world
    come up with the same unlikely philosophy, one of loving one's enemy
    and devaluing possessions. How could this unlikely philosophy of life
    come from these different sources?  I wonder if they're not from the
    very same source.

    One more thing if I may...

    I believe that a very interesting view on this comes from Christian
    mysticism.  I've read some of Eckhart, the founder of catholic
    mysticism.  He (and other Christian mystics to be sure) seem to express
    the experience of God... something akin if not identical to what
    Buddhists experience... using the language and symbols of
    Christianity.  If one were looking to bridge Christianity and Buddhism,
    one might find these insights interesting.

    -dave

    The God of the Hebrew Bible is more than a "personal" God.  The
    God of the Hebrew Bible is also a God of history and of all humanity.
    
    Because God speaks to or through a human being doesn't make God
    "personal."
    
    Richard
    

    >The God of the Hebrew Bible is more than a "personal" God.  The
    >God of the Hebrew Bible is also a God of history and of all humanity.
    
    True.  But I was trying to keep it simple.  Buddhism tends to break
    down the barriers we tend to errect between humanity and the rest of the
    world.  Toa degree, the notion of a "personal" god in Buddhism is moot
    insofar as ego is seen as being false.
    
    -dave

    RE: .44
    
    Dave, the "personal" god is very much an issue in Pureland Buddhism.

    >Dave, the "personal" god is very much an issue in Pureland Buddhism.

    I don't know what Pureland Buddhism is.  I've read some about Buddhism
    in general and that's what I base my statements on.  But be careful
    about judging all of Buddhism by looking at one particular sect.  It
    could be like judging Christianity by Jim Jones or David Koresh.  

    One of the things I'd like to consider is that these are all different
    views of the very same god.  The descriptions change as a function of
    factors like culture and taught patterns of thinking.  So you get
    different "names" for god.. different descriptions, etc... .  They might
    all be artifacts.  I see the wisdom in judging how close someone is to
    god by noticing the fruits they bear

    One common thread between all of them are the mystics.  Sufists,
    Christian mystics, Buddhist mystics and Hindus, all claim to
    "experience" god first hand.  And all the mystics resist trying to
    describe their experience of god through something as crude and biased
    as words or cultured human notions.  The experience sounds quite
    intriguing.
    
    -dave

re.46

dave,

I admire your ability to attempt to pull together all the
religions in the world, but I don't think *any* of them
will agree with you! Fact is, life is full choices and 
this is one of them. 

best,
ace

.47

>I admire your ability to attempt to pull together all the
>religions in the world, but I don't think *any* of them
>will agree with you! Fact is, life is full choices and 
>this is one of them. 

Actually, there are some that would agree with Dave.  And they're not
very obscure either.

Of course, there are quite a few that would disagree with Dave, too.

Richard

    My question had two dimensions really: the first was
    understanding the idea of killing sacrifices in general (and the
    Abraham/Isaac story in particular), and the second was how to
    explain these concepts to a young probing mind -- a mind that is
    not as malleable as a small child's, nor as rational as a mature
    adult's.

    To the story itself, I believe that Abraham fully expected to kill
    his son, and that (eventually) Isaac fully expected that he would
    be killed. Furthermore, I believe that God was unsure of the
    Abraham's commitment until the end (Gen 22:12 "... Do not do
    anything to him. *NOW I KNOW* that you fear God, because you have
    not withheld from me your son, your only son.") To suggest
    otherwise is to make the events merely play acting, with the
    outcome pre-known by all the participants. What faith is there in
    that? I find the Abraham/Isaac story wonderful, for much of the
    reasons stated here. I don't think it was mentioned, but it also
    speaks to the teaching that 'faith without works is dead.' 

    Nonetheless, when confronted by a son asking if I would kill *him*
    if I felt God told me to do it, or why God would even ask for such
    a sign of faith, I stumbled. These are not questions I had really
    contemplated before. Regarding the first question (would I do as
    Abraham) I think my reaction should not have been to
    intellectualize or analyze the story, but to answer
    straightforwardly "No. I don't think I could ever do what Abraham
    was prepared to do." But that's really the whole point isn't it.
    It required extra-ordinary faith to do what Abraham did, that's
    what makes Abraham special among men. We are not all Abrahams. If
    we were, the Abraham/Isaac story would be treated with an
    apathetic yawn. But it's not. God IS is a loving and just God. But
    he is also just that: God. As God his commands should be followed
    without question and with full faith that his commands are always
    wise and just and in the end will only sever to make us better -
    to bring us closer to holiness - and are never meant to do us
    harm.

    Eric

    P.S. I've been very busy lately. I hope to reply more later.

    Re .47 (Ace)
    
    >life is full choices and this is one of them.
    
    Why?  Why can't someone embrace all of the religions simultaneously? 
    Are they really as exclusive as their orthodox believers claim they are? 
    And who's to say that it's incorrect or improper to choose all of them
    instead of just one?  Why can't the scriptures which seem to set a
    religion apart from the others be interpreted in such a way as they are
    not barriers?  I mean this sort of thing is done all the time internal
    to a religion... difficult passages being rationaized away as being
    something else like the Good Samaritain being explained away as Jesus
    in disguise.  So if believers feel that it's OK to interpret portions
    non-literally to make a religion internally consistent, theyn why can't
    they do the same thing when looking at all religions to make all of
    them consistent?  
    
    It's like a bunch of kids in a sandbox, drawing lines, staking off
    territory and building walls where there were none to begin with.
    
    -dave

    |    Why?  Why can't someone embrace all of the religions simultaneously? 
    
    Here's why.  God incarnate says so.
    
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.

>    Why?  Why can't someone embrace all of the religions simultaneously? 

    Some people do.
    
>    Here's why.  God incarnate says so.

    Having gone round and round on this one before, I'll simply say,
    "Well, that's your interpretation."

    Tom

    Tom:
    
    This sort of thing isn't open to interpretation.  An allegory or a
    parable is open to interpretation.  A commandment or a declarative
    statement is typically not.  Example.
    
    Harry...make your bed.
    
    Now by your logic, one can either put the sheets and blankets in an
    orderly fashion on the bed...or one can go to the lumber yard, buy the
    necessary materials, go into their room, and construct a bed.  This to
    me is how obvious John 14:6 is.  One can embrace the universal concepts
    of many religions...but one cannot embrace Christianity while embracing
    the doctrines of Buddhism or Hinduism for example.  Christianity
    doesn't compliment these religions at all, because the two doctrines
    are polarized.  
    
    Paul speaks of being unequally yoked.  If you take a mule and put it on
    the same yoke as an ox, you will garnish nothing but problems.
    
    -Jack

    .53 (Jack)
    
    >A commandment or a declarative statement is typically not.
    
    If this is true, then would not Matthew 10:35 (which seems declaratory)
    have to be taken literally as well? 
    
    "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against
    her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
    
    Would it not seem that even his declaratives must sometimes be taken
    non-literally?
    
    
    >but one cannot embrace Christianity while embracing
    >    the doctrines of Buddhism or Hinduism for example.
    
    Someone holding a noninerrant view could. I know you don't like the
    guy, but Gandhi did. 
    
    
    >...because the two doctrines are polarized.
    
    This is the sort of thing I really wonder about.  Are they really
    polarized or does the problem lie in my inability to translate foreign
    religions into my learned patterns of conceptualizing?  We look at
    Hinduism and claim it to be a polytheism because of the many gods it
    references.  Yet we know that the Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not 
    "really" separate Gods in our own religion.  It's a complex construct
    which requires a level of study and consideration which goes beyond a
    cursory evaluation of the doctrine, a level of consideration which we
    may unfairly withold from Hinduism.
    
    -dave
    

|    "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against
|    her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."
|    
|    Would it not seem that even his declaratives must sometimes be taken
|    non-literally?
    
    I see this happen every week.  In case you haven't noticed, becoming a 
    Christian isn't popular and frequently meets with some level of
    persecution.
    

    "For I have come to turn a man against his father, a daughter against
    her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law."

    I see no conditions mentioned, no exceptions noted.  IOW, given the
    literal interpretation, he has come to turn children against their 
    parents, even a good Christian child against a good Christian parent
    and a disinterested pagan children against his/her parents.  Absurd,
    isn't it?  I missed the point completely by taking it too literally,
    didn't I?  I failed to take into consideration the context of
    everything else he was saying at the time and so I missed the point.
    That's the price you pay for insisting on exact literal interpretations
    where nothing can be added, subtracted or modified, even when the
    global context demand otherwise. 
    
    I learned this lesson from Jack when he pointed out how I was mistaken
    in my interpretation of "Judge and you shall be judged".  
    
    So when I read John 14:6, I also remember him saying something along
    the lines of forgiving and one shall be forgiven; not judging and one
    would not be judged.  These would seem to open a window to heaven
    without the need of a personal savior.  So, perhaps, "but by me" might
    really mean "as I have forgiven and not judged", IOW Jesus=Example.  
   

    -dave

                                                             

Dave .54

>Are they really
    polarized or does the problem lie in my inability to translate foreign
    religions into my learned patterns of conceptualizing?

This alone is enough to eliminate this from serious consideration. To my 
knowledge no one has done this and if even if one were to do it, still the
difficulty of it makes it impractical to bring mankind into knowing about God
and even less a personal relationship with Him. Until you offer more than a
theory and demonstrate how you've synthesized all the religions of the world
into a single belief system then your argument remains uncompelling. I think
its a matter of choice at this juncture in history.

The gospel of God is simple and obtainable to the believing heart. 

Regards,
Ace

    Re .57 (Ace)

    You're right.  It's a theory.  But I wouldn't say that it's undeserving
    of consideration.  I can't synthesize all the world religions into one. 
    But then again, Christianity can't synthesize all of it's denominations
    into one.   But, even if they're all slightly different, perhaps all
    denominations of Christianity "got it" in the ways that are important,
    and the differences are incidental.  In the same way, perhaps all the
    world's religions, which are not synthesized into one, all "got it" and
    the differences are incidental.  If that's true, think of the untapped 
    source of wisdom which may lie undiscovered in the realm of those who
    we've shunned.  Think of the gains we've made in this country once
    we've come to realize that people of diffent color or ethnicity have
    something to contribute.
    
    >The gospel of God is simple and obtainable to the believing heart.
    
    Yes.  But it's not alone. 
    
    -dave

Hindu:	Love God.  Surrender to God.  Do your duty.

Buddhism: Think about God and don't let anything get in the way,
	  exspecially your mind/ego.

Christianity: Love God, Love your neighbor

Is it so impossible to 	1. Love God
			2. surrender to God
			3. think about God
			4. Love your neighbor?

They may not seem like exactly the same thing, but
they don't conflict, either.

Tom

    ...but each one serves a different God.  The name, manifestations,
    nature, and character are different in every case.

>    ...but each one serves a different God.  The name, manifestations,
>    nature, and character are different in every case.

    No.

    "A rose by any other name..."     How many names have we
    used for God?   The Father.  The Holy Spirit.  The Son.  Yawah.

    And how about Jesus?  The Christ.  The Messiah.  Son of God.  Son
    of Man.

    Character?  There are many sides to God's personality.  I think
    it presumptuous to think that we could define God's character.
    Define the infinite?  right.

    Manifestations?  "Your vision can't be right because you only
    heard a voice from a stream, not burning bush.  God can only
    speak through burning bushes."   right.
    
    Most religions see God speaking to people in whatever way the
    person will understand.  Your religion (and I didn't say Christianity)
    says the God is bound up in a book - stagnant and unreachable.

    They are different gods, alright.  But only in your mind.

    Tom

    It's been said that God made man in his own image.  Consider all the
    apparently different colors, sizes, statures and the two genders of the
    image of God we see in the world.  Sure, someone can point out 
    differences between individuals, but we're all still (wo)men.
    We've grown first to see that the differences are unworthy as material
    to build barriers, and later to see the diversity as an opportunity to
    extend ourselves as a group.  
    
    Don't worry, I won't push the metaphor any farther.
    
    -dave
    
    

 Z   Is it so impossible to  1. Love God
 Z                           2. surrender to God
 Z                           3. think about God
 Z                           4. Love your neighbor?
    
    Simply put...anybody who rejects the death and resurrection as payment
    for sin hates God, and is at enmity with the Most High.
    
    -Jack
    

>    Simply put...anybody who rejects the death and resurrection as payment
>    for sin hates God, and is at enmity with the Most High.

    Simply put...I don't believe you.

    Tom

	Jack Martin.... how utterly ridiculous that statement is. Lets see....


You never really knew anything about Christ. I tell you about Him and God. You
end up thinking God is this cool guy. You end up thinking the death was not for
the forgiveness of sins. Yet you say this means you hate God. I don't think so. 

  ZZ      Simply put...I don't believe you.
    
    And therein lies the real issue.

  Z  You never really knew anything about Christ. I tell you about Him and
  Z  God. You
  Z  end up thinking God is this cool guy. You end up thinking the death was
  Z  not for the forgiveness of sins. Yet you say this means you hate God. 
    
    Glen, if a soldier in battle died in your place...valiantly and without
    reservation, and you later chose to scoff or disregard the death of
    said soldier, what outlook do you suppose that soldier would have of
    you were he able to come back to life and meet you?
    
    
 Z   I don't think so. 
    
    And therein lies the real issue.
    
    -Jack

    The mounting evidence of the Torah codes suggest that you better start
    believing the book you condemn.

    
    > Simply put...anybody who rejects the death and resurrection as payment
    > for sin hates God, and is at enmity with the Most High.

    Is not understanding, not knowing, or not believing 100% in 100% of
    what you say, the same as 'rejecting?'

    Eric

>    The mounting evidence of the Torah codes suggest that you better start
>    believing the book you condemn.

    Simply because I do not interpret the Bible *exactly* the way
    you do doesn't mean I condemn it.

    Stop trying to put words in my mouth.  It's a form of lying.

    Tom

  ZZ    Stop trying to put words in my mouth.  It's a form of lying.
    
    Tom, this is posturing and is a subtrifuge from the point at hand.  You
    don't believe in the tenet of why Christ came and that's fine.  That's
    your belief system.
    
    -Jack
    

>    Tom, this is posturing and is a subtrifuge from the point at hand.  

    Someone's trying to put words in my mouth.  I'm addressing that.


>   You
>    don't believe in the tenet of why Christ came


    That's incorrect.  I just don't believe the same thing you do.

    Tom

re .62

;    It's been said that God made man in his own image.  Consider all the
;    apparently different colors, sizes, statures and the two genders of the
;    image of God we see in the world.  Sure, someone can point out 
;    differences between individuals, but we're all still (wo)men.
;    We've grown first to see that the differences are unworthy as material
;    to build barriers, and later to see the diversity as an opportunity to
;    extend ourselves as a group.  
    
;    Don't worry, I won't push the metaphor any farther.

	Dave, 

	One thing we all have in common is that we have the capacity to show
	love, wisdom, harness power and exercise justice. Trouble is since
	Adam's rebellion and subsequent fall into imperfection, the image
	has been tarnished. Hence, man doesn't know how to show these qualities
	in harmony with one another or to the extent that God does. Eg love is 
	shown without justice or vice versa justice is meted out without love 
	and mercy. Further, some will stop showing love if they reach a certain
	boundary. If we were perfect in showing these qualities, that is perfectly 
	reflected the image of God, then would there be any of the problems that 
	man experiences in living with his neighbour on this planet?.

	Jesus, told the Samaritan woman, that God is a spirit (John 4:24). Hence,
	it wasn't our physical appearance that God made man in his own image 
	(Genesis 1:26-27). If we ponder on how we differ from the rest of God's 
	creation on earth, ie the animal kingdom, then we will realise in what way
	man was made in God's image eventhough that image has now been tarnished.

	Phil.	

    Re .73 (Phil)

    Well, I said that "it's been said" that God made man in his image.  I
    was trying to appeal to those who took those words to heart.  I don't
    believe the Adam and Eve story, so I don't believe that the totality of
    humanity is forever tarnished by something that they did.  I appreciate
    and respect what you're trying to do, but I feel that it's important to
    know where I stand on this.  If I had to guess, I'd say that the
    ability to love, and hate, perform good deeds and bad are all designed
    into humanity, if indeed humans were designed at all.  If we're evil at
    times, and all of humanity isn't one happy party, it's because God 
    meant it to be that way.  Shunning evil and pursuing those things we
    deem noble are a sign of understanding and maturity.  Just my guess.

    Anyway, I guess the point I was trying to make in .62 was that there's
    a huge diversity of genuine wisdom out there that we're ignoring,
    almost as if we were using an isolationist "holier than thou" mode of
    thinking.  "I know I'm right, ergo everyone who doesn't think like me
    is wrong, therefor there is nothing I can learn from them".  And that
    kind of thinking has proven itself to be dead wrong time and time
    again.

    It's one thing to thoroughly evaluate something then say it has no
    value.  It's a different thing to make that same statement having made
    only a cursory glance at it.  What a shame.


    -dave

  ZZ   That's incorrect.  I just don't believe the same thing you do.
    
    Which is.....that you need Jesus' death and resurrection as a redeeming
    act for salvation???

    .74
    
    I don't think anyone is saying that there isn't wisdom to be found in
    other religions.  In fact, it is my belief that there are many moral
    truths to be found in non-Christian religions.  
    
    The problem lies with the narrow vs. wide path.  Who is right regarding
    the way to get to heaven?  Will good deeds get you there?  Will
    following strict dogma get you there?  Can man get himself to heaven by
    his own actions?  According to many religions, we are in control of our
    afterlife... our actions determine how pleasant/unpleasant it will be. 
    
    According to Christianity, man cannot earn his way to heaven.  Heaven
    is a gift of God to those who accept it via accepting HIS own
    sacrificial offering for OUR iniquity.  Christianity is unique in this.
    While many religions are man's attempt to reach God, Christianity is
    about God reaching down to mankind, out of love for his creation.
    
    
    
    -steve

    
    .71
    
    It's odd that Mike makes a fallacious, and I might add inflammatory,
    accusation against Tom (that he condemns the Bible), but it is Tom
    that is accused of subterfuge for pointing out the false
    characterization of his beliefs. Some people, it seems, not only consider
    themselves capable of inerrantly interpreting the Word of God, they
    also think they can see into another's heart, to inerrantly interpret
    the beliefs and character of their neighbor. Some times it hurts to
    have your faith and words twisted and perverted by another's reckless
    paraphrase, and we must speak out in the hopes of preventing the spread
    of the falsehood. If that is subterfuge, it is only so to those who
    have no desire for truth.

    Eric                            

    Hi Eric:
    
    I was only saying that accusing Mike of a form of lying is a
    subterfuge.  (Thanks for the correct spelling) :-)
    
    -Jack

    Re .76 (Steve)
    
    Thank you for the reply.  One thing worth considering is that other
    religions may have unique perspectives of known wisdoms, and those
    perspectives are worth considering.  E.g. maybe a Christian who hasn't
    quite gotten the gospel message of non-violence from the Bible might
    "get it" if they study Buddhism.  I can remember in grad school,
    referring to more than one text on a subject I was studying, sometimes
    finding value in the delivery other authors would provide.  That sort
    of thing.   People might be doing themselves a great diservice by
    summarily dismissing all but their own flavor of their own religion.
    
    It's interesting what you said about the narrow and the wide.  I
    remember reading about Gandhi suggesting that all the great religions
    of the world prescribe the same narrow path (simple living, service,
    unconditional love) and pointing out how wide and well populated the
    wide path is.  Point being that the narrow path may need not be to
    follow one particular interpretation of one particular religion
    exclusive of everything else.  
    
    Yes, orthodox Christianity does seem to be unique in it's belief that 
    heaven is a gift and not earned in some way.  But the orthodox view of
    Jesus' teachings and life is not the only view.  
    
    
    Re .77 (Eric)
    
    >Some times it hurts to have your faith and words twisted and perverted
    >by another's reckless paraphrase...
    
    I agree.  But I also want to say that these reckless statements are
    often seen as being just that, and end up damaging the image of the
    one(s) making the statements.
    
    
    -dave
    
    

    

    > I was only saying that accusing Mike of a form of lying is a   
    > subterfuge.

    As I said, only if you find truth to be a deceptive stratagem in a
    conversation about beliefs.

    Eric

    .79 (Dave)
    
>    Thank you for the reply.  One thing worth considering is that other
>    religions may have unique perspectives of known wisdoms, and those
>    perspectives are worth considering.  E.g. maybe a Christian who hasn't
>    quite gotten the gospel message of non-violence from the Bible might
>    "get it" if they study Buddhism.  
    
    I don't necessarily disagree with this thought, but... 8^)  
    
    It is my belief that the Bible is inspired by God, and is
    complete in itself.  For better understanding of truth, for the
    Christian, it is best to study the Bible and pray for understanding. 
    Use commentaries and extra-Biblical writings that expound on particular
    themes (by respected and knowledgeable authors), if necessary.  I
    believe that God has provided a great deal of wisdom to many of these
    writers so they can share with the rest of us, to help us along.    
    
    Now, can the study of other religions be useful?  I'm sure it can for
    some things.  I don't recommend "trying them out", however.  There is a
    difference between study and participation.  
    
>    I can remember in grad school,
>    referring to more than one text on a subject I was studying, sometimes
>    finding value in the delivery other authors would provide.  That sort
>    of thing.   People might be doing themselves a great diservice by
>    summarily dismissing all but their own flavor of their own religion.
 
    The difference, to the Christian, is that other religions don't
    necessarily worship the same god (this would equate to studying an
    Algebra book for a Calculus final).  Of course, this may not matter if
    you are only looking for a different perspective on a known truth, but
    it can lead down the wrong spiritual path.  I'm not convinced all
    different perspectives are valid, either.
        
>    It's interesting what you said about the narrow and the wide.  I
>    remember reading about Gandhi suggesting that all the great religions
>    of the world prescribe the same narrow path (simple living, service,
>    unconditional love) and pointing out how wide and well populated the
>    wide path is.  Point being that the narrow path may need not be to
>    follow one particular interpretation of one particular religion
>    exclusive of everything else.  
 
    The difference is that in Christianity, the narrow path is Jesus.  The
    wide path is mankind trying to earn his way into heaven.
       
>    Yes, orthodox Christianity does seem to be unique in it's belief that 
>    heaven is a gift and not earned in some way.  But the orthodox view of
>    Jesus' teachings and life is not the only view.  
 
    No, the orthodox view is not the only view.  However, one view is
    adhered to by all Christian denominations - Jesus gave up his life on
    the cross and took upon himself our sins, so we could have eternal life
    with God.  The rest is mere doctrinal quibbling by comparison.
    
    
    
    -steve

re Note 1333.77 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     Some people, it seems, not only consider
>     themselves capable of inerrantly interpreting the Word of God, they
>     also think they can see into another's heart, to inerrantly interpret
>     the beliefs and character of their neighbor. 

        Inerrancy is addictive.  Once you have a little of it, you
        not only expect but demand more of it.  After all, if
        inerrancy is required in some things, it certainly can't hurt
        to have inerrancy in other things.

        Bob

    RE .81 (Steve)

    >It is my belief that the Bible is inspired by God, and is 
    >complete in itself.

    Perhaps.  But perhaps God inspired other complete works in other
    lands for other people.  A paraphrased version of a divinely inspired
    and compete work in terms of a foreign language and culture may *seem*
    different to us from our subjective point of view.  

    >For better understanding of truth, for the Christian, it is best to
    >study the Bible and pray for understanding.

    Absolutely.  It's expressed in the terms and through a culture you
    understand best.  

    >Use commentaries and extra-Biblical writings that expound on
    >particular themes...

    Something to consider is that the holy scriptures of other religions
    might fit that bill.  And I agree, it's always wise to consider the
    source.  How does one know if source is good?  Perhaps one should
    consider the quality of the fruits you see.  A work from a Moslem
    activist who promotes car bombings would, IMO, be less worthy than a
    book written by a fundamentalist Christian who works to relieve
    suffering in the third world.  But by the same token, I'd shun a book
    by a Christian named David Koresh whereas I might read one written by
    Mahatma Gandhi.  In both cases, it looks like one side "got it" and the
    other did not.

    >I don't recommend "trying them out",

    If you love God and neighbor, as was taught by Jesus, you may be
    engaged in a defacto practice of major parts of other world religions. 
    Loving God and neighbor is hardly unique to Christianity. And yes, I
    agree that following certain interpretations of foreign religions could
    well lead you down the wrong path.  But this is also true of following
    certain interpretations of Christianity too (Koresh, Jones, KKK,
    etc...).  I believe that one should be very careful in this regard.
    I do not believe in blindly following the teachings of a church because
    it happens to be labeled properly.

    >The difference, to the Christian, is that other religions don't
    >    necessarily worship the same god.

    If one was sure that a foreign religion did not worship the same God
    which you know to be true, then I can see why one would want to avoid
    it.  But, as you know, appearances can be deceiving.  How do you know
    if the God of a foreign religion isn't in fact the same god you
    worship?  How do you know God didn't inspire both?  You said earlier
    that God may inspire modern authors and that it may be valid to heed
    their works.  Why could not God inspire ancient authors of foreign
    cultures in the same way?  

    Consider that you were fluent in both ancient Greek as well as modern
    English and that someone handed you 2 copies of the Bible, one in each
    language.  You did not know which came first in time or that one was
    actually a translation of the other.  You'd read
    them both and claim that they were 99% identical in content. 
    Everything matches except for the the general definitions of some of
    corresponding words.  You'd say that one might be a copy of the other,
    or, perhaps, they were both written as originals by the same author.  
    But in either case, you'd say that it was clear that they both came 
    from the same source and had the same message.  And you might also
    claim that, even though the ancient Greek version claims that it is the
    only true source for God's word, the English source is so close to the 
    Greek that claiming it as being categorically false would be absurd.

    Admittedly, the difference between the Bible and foreign scriptures are
    much greater than the fictitious 1% I mentioned above.  But there's a
    lot of overlap too.  If the truths you see in the Bible are divinely
    inspired, could not these same truths as they appear in, perhaps, the
    Upanishads also be divinely inspired?  If it is, are you doing yourself
    a service by categorically ignoring them?

    Steve, I don't know how to determine what scriptures (if any) are true
    or not other than by judging the fruits.  I feel that it is my duty to
    make these determinations by using the good tools provided me, namely
    my senses and good sense.  Not making any accusations here, but I
    believe that accepting something blindly on faith alone is tantamount
    to being irresponsible.

    >one view is adhered to by all Christian denominations...

    I think we addressed this in another string, maybe the one on Gandhi.
    But, in a nutshell, I think it comes down to a matter of defining what
    a Christian is.  Orthodox Christians all hold true the nature of Jesus
    as you stated.  Other less orthodox views hold the same thing to be
    true, but is a less literal sense.  They water it down with symbolism
    and metaphor (create a gray area) yet they also claim to be Christian. 
    Personally, I don't care what someone calls themselves, it's just a
    word.  

    -dave

    .83 (Dave)
    
>    Perhaps.  But perhaps God inspired other complete works in other
>    lands for other people.  A paraphrased version of a divinely inspired
>    and compete work in terms of a foreign language and culture may *seem*
>    different to us from our subjective point of view.  

    Jesus sent his disciples out to share the gospel with all nations and
    tongues.  The baptism of the spirit they received gave many the ability
    to speak in different languages - languages that enabled them to share
    with foreign lands.  
    
    While I understand your point, I don't think God would inspire other
    "complete" works that leave out the atoning sacrifice of His Son.  In
    fact, it is written that "the word became flesh", in the gospel of
    John, speaking of Jesus.  If Jesus is the Word, then no other religion
    is complete by God's standards.  
    
    This is not a subjective conclusion.  Look at the toumb of Mohammad, or 
    any other "prophet" who a religion is based upon... it is still full.  
    They worship a dead leader.  Christ's toumb is empty.  This is the very
    basis of our faith, and is absent in other religions who base theif
    faith in their own works (be good and you'll go to heaven).
    
    There is much of value in some other religions, but those things of
    value (love your neighbor, do good deeds, etc.) are also found in the
    pages of the Bible.  
    
>    Absolutely.  It's expressed in the terms and through a culture you
>    understand best.  

    The thing about Christianity, is that it crosses all cultural and
    language boundaries.  The Bible is translated into more languages than
    any other book I know of.  The basic truths of it can be understood by
    children from any walk of life - this is as it was intended.  While
    there are more complex truths to be found in it, you only need the
    basics for the purpose of salvation and a full life in Christ.  Once
    you have these, God has a way of leading you on the right paths to
    righteous living... if you let Him.
    
>    Something to consider is that the holy scriptures of other religions
>    might fit that bill.  
    
    Perhaps in some ways they can, but not in the most important way, that
    being the way to salvation.

>    If you love God and neighbor, as was taught by Jesus, you may be
>    engaged in a defacto practice of major parts of other world religions. 
    
    No doubt about it.
    
>    Loving God and neighbor is hardly unique to Christianity. 
    
    No, this part is not unique.

    >>The difference, to the Christian, is that other religions don't
    >>    necessarily worship the same god.

>    If one was sure that a foreign religion did not worship the same God
>    which you know to be true, then I can see why one would want to avoid
>    it.  But, as you know, appearances can be deceiving.  How do you know
>    if the God of a foreign religion isn't in fact the same god you
>    worship?  How do you know God didn't inspire both?  
    
    In the case of the Jewish religion, we do worship the same
    God, though I believe that this religion is missing a key
    ingredient, that being the Savior.  
    
>    You said earlier
>    that God may inspire modern authors and that it may be valid to heed
>    their works.  Why could not God inspire ancient authors of foreign
>    cultures in the same way?  

    He could, but it would seem that this is not what He did.  He would not
    inspire a religion that left out His plan of salvation.  It's not a
    matter of calling Jesus by a different name, it's a matter of His plan
    being left out completely from other religions.  They may be inspired
    in part, but I could not consider them "complete" religions, inspired
    by God, without this key element.
    
>    If the truths you see in the Bible are divinely
>    inspired, could not these same truths as they appear in, perhaps, the
>    Upanishads also be divinely inspired?  If it is, are you doing yourself
>    a service by categorically ignoring them?

    The basis of my relationship with God, and of Christianity itself, is
    the Bible.  Through the Bible I know of God's promises and plan of
    salvation.  In my educated opinion, the Bible is complete.  I need
    nothing else (though I will look to reputable scholars for instruction
    from time to time, checking what they say with the Bible, to expand my
    knowledge of Biblical texts).  The truths that can be found in other
    religions already exist in the Bible.  Why do I need to look at the
    religious texts of other religions, unless I wished to understand
    better THEIR religion (and there is value in understanding other
    religions, IMO)?
    
>    Not making any accusations here, but I
>    believe that accepting something blindly on faith alone is tantamount
>    to being irresponsible.

    "Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen..."
    
    Is my faith really blind, in a way? (and I know you aren't pointing
    fingers, and I didn't read your note this way at all, I just want to
    expand a bit on this idea) 
    
    It is said that faith comes by hearing the Word of the Lord.  Why?  
    Because deep down inside of us, we are programmed to recognize the truth.  
    This recognision can be painful for some, but this must be endured if we 
    are to follow God.  God's Word hits us right smack center in this 
    programmed "truth sensor"... and we have to make a decision upon hearing 
    it.  Do we deal with the pain it may cause (for some), or do we r
    ationalize it away? 
    
    For many of us, it is hard to deal with the truth, so we ignore it.  The
    longer we ignore it, the easier it gets (usually, it has to do with
    something in our life that we don't with to give up... but Jesus says we
    must lose our life if we are to save it).
    
    While I seem to going astray from your point, above  8^) , I'm really
    not.  In order to understand what is from God, we must understand both
    the nature of God and of ourselves.  Only in the Bible does God
    point-blankly tell us our nature, His nature, and how He has dealt with
    this situation so that we CAN live with Him.  As He is Holy, we, as
    sinners, cannot live with Him without intervention... intervention
    beyond what is in our own power to accomplish.  
    
    It comes down to the fact that I don't really have "blind" faith, but
    my spiritual self has been struck dead-center with the undeniable truth
    that is written in the Bible.  I've experienced both the denial of
    truth, as well as (thank God) the acceptance of it.  Through this
    process, I know beyond doubt, that what the Bible says is true.  
    
    I'm sure my understanding has been helped more than a little by the Holy
    Spirit.  Things that seem obvious to me now, never did before I became
    a Christian.
    
    I realize that I've rambled a bit on this answer, but I wanted to share
    a bit on why I don't believe that my faith in God's Word is "blind". 
    While other writings from other religions do touch upon the truth, they
    do not have the whole story, and some adamantly deny the truth - thus
    deny God who is the author of truth.                       

   
    -steve

    
    RE .84 (Steve)
    
    Well, I would say that our difference of opinion stems from the
    difference in positions from which we view the matter.  I evaluate all
    religions on an equal basis, using, amoung other things, the proverbial
    "fruits" as a metric of truthfullness.  And you begin with taking the
    Bible as truth.  From that standpoint, I can see why non-Christian
    religions have little or nothing to offer.  The Bible claims itself to
    be complete and the sole source of truth in these matters.  Period!  If
    you believe that, as you would hae to if you hold an inerrant position,
    then there's no point in looking outside the Bible.
    
    Regardless... here are a few more thoughts...
    
    >I don't think God would inspire other
    >    "complete" works that leave out the atoning sacrifice of His Son.
    
    Maybe they didn't...
    
    >He could, but it would seem that this is not what He did.  He would not
    >    inspire a religion that left out His plan of salvation. 
    
    Maybe he didn't.
    
    It's what I've been trying to say all along.  Maybe the words you read
    in the Bible were never meant to be taken as literally as western
    Christianity has taught.  If that's so, then all sorts of possibilities
    of (partial) reconcilliation with other world religions are possible. 
    E.g. Gandhi said that he could accept the notion of Jesus being the son
    of God and risen (in spirit) for our sake.  It all hinges on
    interpretation and, perhaps, consessions in the space of inerrancy.
    
    >Look at the toumb of Mohammad, or any other "prophet" who a religion is 
    >based upon... it is still full.  They worship a dead leader.
    
    Islam is based on the God of Moses, Abraham and Jacob.  Mohammad is
    regarded as a prophet, a mere mortal who is worshipped as much as a
    Christian would worship an OT prophet.  I'm sure Mohammad's tomb is
    full.
    
    >Christ's toumb is empty.
    
    There are many who would dispute this, especially the orthodox Jews of
    the time.  The nation of Islam also disputes this.  Me?  I assess the
    probabilities as best I can.  Which is more likely, that Jesus, a man, 
    rose from the dead or that this was a story created by some of his
    followers to promote their budding religion?  All accounts of Jesus's
    life which failed to mention the resurrection were summarily dismissed
    in the connonization process.  Etc... .  From a standpoint of
    evaluating all of this from the outside, as it were, it would seem much
    more likely that the tomb of Jesus, like Mohammed, Buddah and all the
    rest, is full as well.  
    
    >The thing about Christianity, is that it crosses all cultural and
    >    language boundaries.
    
    The essense of the spiritual message is the same.  But images were, are
    and will remain foreign to most.  I remember reading how vehemently
    Gandhi objected to forcing someone to forsake his/her own valid
    religion, in favor of something foreign.  It would be like asking you
    to worship God through Hindu or Moslem scriptures and imagery.  But,
    again, if you hold a position that the Bible  is the sole valid source
    of spiritual truth, then forcing it on others would be required,
    however distasteful they would find it to be.
    
    >The basis of my relationship with God, and of Christianity itself, is
    >the Bible.
    
    >In my educated opinion, the Bible is complete.
    
    >I need nothing else.
    
    There's the difference that makes all the difference.  If you are right,
    then you're sitting pretty.  If not, then there's no possibility of
    learning the truth until and unless you look beyond the Bible.
    
    >Why do I need to look at the religious texts of other religions, unless
    >I wished to understand better THEIR religion 
    
    Even the most devoted Christians will not claim to understand al of the
    Bible. If a point in the Bible has been paraphrased in the scriptures
    of a different culture, and that version of the wisdom is expressed in
    a way which you can better understand, then therein lies the reason for
    studying the other religions.  
    
    Also, we have to share this world with people of other religions.  In
    the interest of cohabitating the planet in peace, it may be wise to
    understand their belief systems.  E.g Moslems do not worship Mohammed, 
    Buddah is not regarded as a God, etc... and by the same token, if they
    studied Christianity, they would not see it as a polytheism which
    worships 3 gods.  You may not be able to see how it would help, but
    learning other religions won't hurt.
    
    >"Blessed are those who believe yet have not seen..."
    
    Then what's the criteria I should use in deciding whether or not I
    should worship Zeus?  I have not seen Zeus.  Would I be blessed if I
    simply believed in him?  See the problem?  I've got ancient scriptures
    from Greece on the one hand and ancient scriptures from Judea on the
    other.  If I chose Zeus despite the fact that I hadn't seen, then I'd
    be iresponsible.  So why should I leap in the direction of
    Jesus=Messiah?  Because that's what someone said that someone said that
    Jesus said decades after the fact?  After he died and was risen?  I
    dunno Steve.  I guess I'm not blessed.
    
    With regard to what you said about faith and truth, when I began
    reading  you explanation, I had to smile because it is almost exactly
    what I read the other day in a book about mysticism.   It "sells" God
    in much the same way (God is obvious) but minus the references to the
    Bible as being the sole source of wisdom.  All I can say is that if
    the Bible works for you, then I'm glad.  Really!  It does not work for
    me.  You said that you could not deny the truth that was revealed to
    you by the Lord.  Well, neither can I and a big part of that truth
    that's being revealed to me is telling me that taking the Bible too
    literally is a big mistake.  It's also telling me to keep an open mind,
    try to stay humble and to learn from the viewpoints of others.  No,
    it's not an easy route to go.  And yes, at times the path looks very
    narrow indeed. 
    
    
    -dave

    .85 (Dave)
    
    I don't take the Bible too literally.  There are parts that are meant
    to be literal, and parts that are meant to be imigery.  
    
    Our difference seems to be more than point of view, but of fundamental
    belief difference.  I wish you well in your search for truth.  The
    following is a bit of my trek (abreviated beyond anything Reader's
    Digest could do on their best day  8^) ).
    
    While I've always had a loose belief in "God", I was also quite turned
    off by the preaching of others and the "Jesus freaks".  I've always had
    some respect for the Bible, but never read it or believed it was really
    true.  One thing that made it difficult for me to believe was that a
    loving God could punish someone eternally for what they've done in
    their insignificant time on this earth.  I've turned my back on God
    more than once, and have spent most of my life running away from the
    truth.  You really can't hide from it, though.  You can pretend it
    doesn't exist, but it will catch up to you sooner or later... and it is 
    my prayer than it catches up to everyone while they are still alive.
    
    God never turned His back on me, however.  He used that kernal of
    respect that remained for Him and His Word to bring me into His family. 
    The trek was long and hard, and I still have my ups and downs, but I no
    longer doubt God or His Word.  I'm absolutely certain in my faith - not
    because some preacher told me so (even after becoming a Christian, I
    never went to church regularly), but because God gave me understanding
    of the truth.  He opened my eyes to what is going on around me, and
    showed me how His Word is applicable (even certain restrictions I
    didn't really like at the time) to my life and the lives of others.
    
    I have a long way to go, but I know I'm on the right path, and not by
    accident.  I guess you could call this brand of certainty "faith"...
    perhaps childlike, but not a blind faith by any measure.  Blind means
    you cannot see, and I can see better now than I ever could before.  
    
    While you may find this unhelpful in your search for truth, I hope it
    gives you at least a small bit of background on me.  I was not born
    into a Christian family (though my family, through prayer, seems to be
    coming around these days! something I'm very excited about), nor was I
    raised in a strict moral environment.  We rarely went to church, and at
    one point I thought it terrible that a cousin of mine god "saved" (of
    course I was young and had no real understanding of this, but it's odd
    that this word struck the cord it did).  Yet in spite of my negativity
    towards Christianity, I was brought into God's family... somehow.  God
    has a way of seting our feet upon the right path, all we have to do is
    as.  It may not happen immediately, but it will happen in God's good
    time.
    
    Okay, enough babbling for now.  I thought this form of note would be
    better than a more argumentative one (my usual fare).  I'm not out to
    discredit any honest search for truth.  God will bring truth to all who
    honestly seek it, and are prepared to accept what they find (and even
    if they aren't, sometimes  8^) ).  I hope I haven't bored everyone to
    tears.  8^)
    
    
    -steve