Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Isaiah 34:7  
    
    And the �unicorns� shall come down with them, and the
bullocks with the bulls; and their land shall be soaked with
blood, and their dust made fat with fatness.  (KJV)
    
    Wild oxen shall also fall with them
    And young bulls with strong ones
    Thus their land shall be soaked with blood
    And their dust become greasy with fat.    (NAS)

Unicorns were figments of the KJV translators' imaginations.

The correct translation is "bull" or "wild ox".

/john

.2

>Unicorns were figments of the KJV translators' imaginations.

Seriously, the KJV translators must have had some reason to use "unicorn"
rather than "wild ox."

Richard

The Septuagint had "monokeras" in some of those places;
the Hebrew is (in one case) resh-yod-mem and in another
resh-alef-mem.

I doubt that anyone here is enough of a scholar of these ancient
languages and their cultural implications to understand why the
LXX translators used monokeras but modern scholars understand
the same Hebrew differently.

/john

Isa 34:7
W/YRDW  KAI\ SUMPESOU=NTAI
R)MYM =RMYM     OI( A(DROI\
(M/M    MET' AU)TW=N
{...}   KAI\ OI( KRIOI\
W/PRYM  KAI\ OI( TAU=ROI
(M )BYRYM       {..^KAI\ OI( KRIOI\}
W/RWTH  KAI\ MEQUSQH/SETAI
)RC/M   H( GH=
M/DM    A)PO\ TOU= AI(/MATOS
W/(PR/M ---
M/XLB   KAI\ A)PO\ TOU= STE/ATOS AU)TW=N
YD$N    E)MPLHSQH/SETAI

Job 39:9
H/Y)BH  BOULH/SETAI DE/
{...}   SOI
RYM     MONO/KERWS
(BD/K   DOULEU=SAI {..^SOI}
)M      H)\
YLYN    KOIMHQH=NAI
(L      E)PI\
)BWS/K  FA/TNHS SOU

Job 39:10
H/TQ$R  DH/SEIS DE\
RYM     ---
B/TLM   {..^SOU ^ AU)/LAKAS}
(BT/W   E)N I(MA=SI ZUGO\N AU)TOU=
)M      H)\
Y&DD    E(LKU/SEI
{...}   SOU AU)/LAKAS
--+     E)N PEDI/W|
(MQYM   ---
)XR/YK  ---

Deut 33:17
BKWR    PRWTO/TOKOS
$WR/W <sp>      TAU/ROU
HDR     TO\ KA/LLOS
L/W     AU)TOU=
W/QRNY  KE/RATA
R)M     MONOKE/RWTOS
QRN/YW  TA\ KE/RATA AU)TOU=
B/HM    E)N AU)TOI=S
(MYM    E)/QNH
YNGX    KERATIEI=
YXDW    A(/MA
--+     E(/WS
)PSY    E)P' A)/KROU
)RC     GH=S
W/HM <sp>       AU(=TAI
RBBWT   MURIA/DES
)PRYM   EFRAIM
W/HM    KAI\ AU(=TAI
)LPY    XILIA/DES
MN$H    MANASSH

    But aren't mistranslations or misrepresentations impossible for a divinely
    inspired work?  Would not an inerrant believer have to accept the past
    existence of unicorns?
    
    -dave

RE: .5  (quoting John,  AGAIN)

>Isa 34:7
>W/YRDW  KAI\ SUMPESOU=NTAI
>R)MYM =RMYM     OI( A(DROI\
>(M/M    MET' AU)TW=N
>{...}   KAI\ OI( KRIOI\
>W/PRYM  KAI\ OI( TAU=ROI
>(M )BYRYM       {..^KAI\ OI( KRIOI\}
>W/RWTH  KAI\ MEQUSQH/SETAI
>)RC/M   H( GH=
>M/DM    A)PO\ TOU= AI(/MATOS
>W/(PR/M ---
>M/XLB   KAI\ A)PO\ TOU= STE/ATOS AU)TW=N
>YD$N    E)MPLHSQH/SETAI

This is what it came out looking like on my screen.  Is this right?

Perhaps the KJV translators were using poetic license.  If the
verse flows it's easier to remember.

Tom

>This is what it came out looking like on my screen.  Is this right?

Yes.  Hebrew on the left, Greek on the right.  In that particular instance,
the Septuagint doesn't have "monokeras"; monokeras appears in the other
Septuagint citations.

Translations are not necessarily without error.  In particular, with the
discovery of many more ancient documents, the cultural meaning of more of
the ancient Hebrew sources is now better understood than it was by the
authors of the LXX or the KJV.

/john

    |The Septuagint had "monokeras" in some of those places;
|the Hebrew is (in one case) resh-yod-mem and in another
|resh-alef-mem.

    The Hebrew word "reem" conveys the idea of loftiness, power, and
    pre-eminence in the Bible.  At one time the image in the term answered to
    a reality in nature; at another it symbolizes an abstraction.  The
    rhinoceros was the original type.  The Arab "rim" is 2-horned: it was the
    oryx (the leucoryx, antelope, bold and pugnacious); but when accident
    or artifice deprived it of one horn, the notion of the unicorn arose. 
    In Isaiah 34:7 is meant the portion of the Edomites which was strong 
    and warlike, and the analogous animals that roamed their territory.

    Mike

>    But aren't mistranslations or misrepresentations impossible for a divinely
>    inspired work?  Would not an inerrant believer have to accept the past
>    existence of unicorns?
    
>    -dave
    
    The inerrantist believes the original manuscripts to be without error,
    not translations.
    
    jeff

    So that means that the "true" word of God which does not contain
    translation errors is available only to those who can read ancient
    Hebrew/Greek and not to us who read just English (or French, or German,
    etc...).  Yes?  No?

    It's said that the canonization process was divinely inspired.  Would
    not this mean that the documents chosen by those early church officials
    were inerrant?  IOW, did the canonization process put a proverbial
    stake in the ground in terms of biblical inerrancy on all fronts?

    If God does not continue to inspire the translation process, then would
    it be fair to say that the Bible is becomming more and more removed
    from the layperson who are, in terms of the original manuscripts,
    becomming more and more illiterate?  Was the inerrant Bible meant for
    the the eyes of biblical scholars or everyone?

    -dave

    It doesn't take too much effort to verify an English translation.  A
    good interlinear, Hebrew/Greek lexicon, Hebrew/Greek dictionary, and a
    Strong's concordance is about all you need.  Logos level 1 or 2
    software is good for most people too and you'll get all of the above
    plus some.
    
    After having said that, the KJV, NAS, and NKJV are still the best
    overall English translations (not necessarily in that order).

re Note 1341.10 by ALFSS1::BENSONA:

>     The inerrantist believes the original manuscripts to be without error,
>     not translations.
  
        Well, there are preachers and sects that teach that certain
        translations (the KJV, for example) are divinely inspired and
        inerrant.  Their arguments for why this is and must be are
        essentially the same as why the original texts are and must
        be inerrant.  Of course, those arguments sound silly to
        those who don't believe.

        Bob

>    So that means that the "true" word of God which does not contain
>    translation errors is available only to those who can read ancient
>    Hebrew/Greek and not to us who read just English (or French, or German,
>    etc...).  Yes?  No?
    
    This is a terrific overstatement, Dave.  The "errors" of good
    translations do not impact the truth of the message.

    >It's said that the canonization process was divinely inspired.  Would
    >not this mean that the documents chosen by those early church officials
    >were inerrant?  IOW, did the canonization process put a proverbial
    >stake in the ground in terms of biblical inerrancy on all fronts?
    
    I'm sure God guided the canonization but the methods used were not
    magical, they were reasonable.

    >If God does not continue to inspire the translation process, then would
    >it be fair to say that the Bible is becomming more and more removed
    >from the layperson who are, in terms of the original manuscripts,
    >becomming more and more illiterate?  Was the inerrant Bible meant for
    >the the eyes of biblical scholars or everyone?
    
    There is a science called textual criticism which informs and guides
    the honest translation process.  

    jeff

>     The inerrantist believes the original manuscripts to be without error,
>     not translations.
  
>>        Well, there are preachers and sects that teach that certain
>>        translations (the KJV, for example) are divinely inspired and
>>        inerrant.  Their arguments for why this is and must be are
>>        essentially the same as why the original texts are and must
>>        be inerrant.  Of course, those arguments sound silly to
>>        those who don't believe.

>>        Bob
    
    Well, they are a terribly ignorant bunch.
    
    jeff

>    This is a terrific overstatement, Dave.  The "errors" of good
>    translations do not impact the truth of the message.

    But if errors exist, how can the message be 100% inerrant?

    I advocate that the message is sound, but to swallow every
    detail as absolutely true is folly.

    Tom

    RE .14 (Jeff)

    >This is a terrific overstatement, Dave.

    I don't know about that Jeff.  For example, I look at John 14:6

     "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
    except through me."      

    It seems that an awful lot of weight is being placed on the preposition
    "through".  How well was it translated?  I read the passage  and can
    see more than one possible meaning, all depending on how the word
    "through" is interpreted.  And translating the original manuscript is
    only as good as the accuracy of the translation method being used. 
    IOW, ow accurate are your translation sources?  How well does any 20th
    century scholar understand ancient Greek?  

    -dave

    >This is a terrific overstatement, Dave.

>>    I don't know about that Jeff.  For example, I look at John 14:6

>>     "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father
>>    except through me."      
    
    Remember textual criticism.  Remember the document I have posted here
    somewhere which desribes the accuracy of the Bible?  Also, realize that
    Christ is God as well as man.  Also realize that Christ's claims of
    exclusivity are not limited to this passage.  The whole Bible, from
    front to back, tells us who the true God is and what he requires.  And
    a constant message is the falsity of any other gods and their messages.

>>    It seems that an awful lot of weight is being placed on the preposition
>>    "through".  How well was it translated?  I read the passage  and can
>>    see more than one possible meaning, all depending on how the word
>>    "through" is interpreted.  And translating the original manuscript is
 >>   only as good as the accuracy of the translation method being used. 
>>    IOW, ow accurate are your translation sources?  How well does any 20th
>>    century scholar understand ancient Greek?  

>>    -dave
    
    Greek is a living language which at the time of much of the Bible's 
    writing (and many years before and after) dominated much of the western 
    and mid-eastern world.  The extant documents written in Greek are
    highly available and come from every facet of society.
    
    jeff 

>    Remember textual criticism.  Remember the document I have posted here
>    somewhere which desribes the accuracy of the Bible?  Also, realize that
>    Christ is God as well as man.  Also realize that Christ's claims of
>    exclusivity are not limited to this passage.  The whole Bible, from
>    front to back, tells us who the true God is and what he requires.  And
>    a constant message is the falsity of any other gods and their messages.

    I can't say as I've read all of those bloated essays.  (I wonder
    if the one who posted them got the author's permission...)
    
    But, what you're saying here, once again, is that the Bible is
    inerrant because Jesus said it was and we know that Jesus is 
    God because the Bible says He is.  If you believe it, it's true.
    If you don't believe it, it falls apart.

>    Greek is a living language which at the time of much of the Bible's 
>    writing (and many years before and after) dominated much of the western 
>    and mid-eastern world.  The extant documents written in Greek are
>    highly available and come from every facet of society.

    Still, one's faith is at the mercy of the translator.

    Tom

>    Remember textual criticism.  Remember the document I have posted here
>    somewhere which desribes the accuracy of the Bible?  Also, realize that
>    Christ is God as well as man.  Also realize that Christ's claims of
>    exclusivity are not limited to this passage.  The whole Bible, from
>    front to back, tells us who the true God is and what he requires.  And
>    a constant message is the falsity of any other gods and their messages.

>>    I can't say as I've read all of those bloated essays.  (I wonder
>>    if the one who posted them got the author's permission...)
    
    The one I'm referring to is relatively short and is not an essay per
    se.  Maybe Richard can find it with moderator skill.
    
    >>But, what you're saying here, once again, is that the Bible is
    >>inerrant because Jesus said it was and we know that Jesus is 
    >>God because the Bible says He is.  If you believe it, it's true.
    >>If you don't believe it, it falls apart.
    
    No, I'm simply responding to Dave's note and demonstrating that the
    meaning of Christ's words in the passage he noted is supported by many
    other passages and indeed the whole Bible.
    
    The only way we know Jesus is God is because the Bible records him
    saying so and demonstrates through the power of his testimony, his
    miraculous deeds, and the witness of those who knew him and lived with
    him.

>    Greek is a living language which at the time of much of the Bible's 
>    writing (and many years before and after) dominated much of the western 
>    and mid-eastern world.  The extant documents written in Greek are
>    highly available and come from every facet of society.

>>    Still, one's faith is at the mercy of the translator.
    
    One's faith in God through Jesus Christ is directly tied to the Bible. 
    Translation is a science which is practiced badly and well just as any
    other method.

    jeff

    I used John 14:6 one example of how the meaning of a passage can hinge
    on the translation of a single word.  In this and other cases, there may
    not be an exact translation into English using the repetoire of words
    available and the ambiguity of meaning which the chosen words may hold.  
    Take "through" for example.
    
    Greek is a living language but ancient Greek is not.  When I think of
    how difficult it is at times to understand Shakespeare, I would expect
    that the differences between modern and ancient Greek are even greater.
    I'm sure scholars come very close in understanding the original
    meaning.  But there is always error.  Heck, I sometimes have a tough
    time understanding exactly what my 10 year old niece is saying, nevermind
    ancient documents.  Maybe the error inherint in communicating with
    language cannot be avoided.  Maybe the mystics are right.
    
    I agree with Tom.  The jist of the message should be apparent.  But,
    given the margin of error in translation, squabbling over the exact
    meaning of a single word probably doesn't make sense.
    
    -dave
    
                                                             

    Actually John 14:6 doesn't hinge on "through."  "I am the way, the
    truth, and the life" is just as powerful.

    Well. the meaning certainly seems to hinge on the word "through" to me.
    That one word answers the question "how" one supposedly  gets to the
    father.  And it's just a lowly preposition which someone decided was
    the best English approximation to his/her understanding of the ancient
    original.  
    
    
    

    Yes.

    Depending on the preposition, "through", it could have subtle but
    profound effects.

    One way can be interpretted that Christianity is the only way
    to God.

    If he really said "No one gets to the Father anyway but my way"
    meaning Love, humility and obedience, it means something somewhat
    different.

    Tom

       <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 300.0               The Way, the Truth and the Life             110 replies
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Watch your peace & cues"          12 lines  29-AUG-1991 14:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If Jesus is God or one of the aspects of the triune God, to couch it in
more familiar terms, then when Jesus said:

"I am the Way, the Truth and the Life.  No one comes to the Father,
but through Me."

wasn't he really saying, "I am at one with God.  No one comes to God,
except by God.  To come to God is to come to Me.  To come to Me is to
come to God"?

In prayer,
Richard

    Interesting Richard and Tom.  Another one I've thought of would be like 
    someone who's standing at the head of a bridge, telling all who can hear
    that they have to come "through" him to get across the river.  IOW,
    Jesus was the example as Tom mentioned. And again, the meaning of the
    passagee hinges on that single word.
    
    Unicorns?  I don't believe in them outside the realm of fiction.  But I
    would expect that if someone can accept the story of Jonah and the
    whale, then unicorns shouldn't be too difficult to swallow (pardon the
    pun).
    
    -dave

|    Depending on the preposition, "through", it could have subtle but
|    profound effects.
|
|    One way can be interpretted that Christianity is the only way
|    to God.
    
    I agree.  However, if you eliminate "through" it is more of a testimony 
    to the Deity of Christ.  
    
    KJV
    Jesus saith unto him, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man
    cometh unto the Father, but by Me."

    NAS
    Jesus said to him, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one
    comes to the Father, but through Me."
    
    When you consider in context all of Christ's words, it is clear He is
    speaking of an exclusive relationship with Him for salvation.

    
    But of course he said "through".
    
    jeff

    Tom:
    
    Once again...the word love can be loaded with ambiguity.  Jesus way of
    love was through his death and resurrection to ransom himself as a
    payment for the sin of mankind.
    
    I will continue to inject the gospel message of justification through
    the resurrection as long as I have to.  Love is a universal term that
    crosses all religious barriers.  Christianity is based upon Jesus'
    nature and his mission while in the flesh.
    
    -Jack

But if you don't have love then you don't amount to a hill of
beans.

    Examine this passage to see how love was actually used in the Greek. 
    Sheds a whole new light on what is being said!
    
    John 21:15-17
21:15  
    So when they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of Jonas,
 AGAPE thou me more than these? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest
 that I PHILEO thee. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.

21:16  
    He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of Jonas, AGAPE thou
 me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I PHILEO thee. He saith 
    unto him, Feed my sheep.

21:17  
    He saith unto him the third time, Simon, son of Jonas, PHILEO thou me?
 Peter was grieved because he said unto him the third time, PHILEO thou me? And
 he said unto him, Lord, thou knowest all things; thou knowest that I
    PHILEO thee. Jesus saith unto him, Feed my sheep.
    
    Can you see what is happening here?  AGAPE is the unconditional love
    that only God is capable of.  PHILEO is brotherly love.  Peter wasn't
    capable of AGAPE.  No man is.  In verse 17, God meets Peter where he is
    to minister to him - PHILEO.

Jesus *asked* AGAPE.  He didn't command.

What did Paul say?

    Tom:
    
    Yes, I agree with you that if one doesn't have love, they don't amount
    to a hill of beans.  In the context of John 14:6, Jesus was referring
    to "through me" as entering the narrow gate through Jesus' love...His
    sacrifice for the sin of humanity.  
    
    Through me...his way of loving which in my opinion is something we are
    incapable of...because that kind of love can only come from God
    himself.  
    
    Love is not an incorrect answer by any means, but it does need to be
    defined in this case because love is too ambiguous and universal.
    
    -Jack

    I don't quite get where this is going.

    Are you saying that people loving each other in the Agape way
    is as realistic as Unicorns?  Are we called upon to love each
    other that way?  If it is *IMPOSSIBLE* then how could a loving
    God demand it and not give us the means with which to do it?

    Tom

|    other that way?  If it is *IMPOSSIBLE* then how could a loving
|    God demand it and not give us the means with which to do it?
    
    He has given us the means.  We've been telling you about it for months
    (maybe even years).

>    He has given us the means.  We've been telling you about it for months
>    (maybe even years).

    But you said it was impossible.

    I personally don't believe it is impossible, even for people 
    who aren't christian.

    Tom

    
    > Love is a universal term that crosses all religious barriers.

    The Christian ideal of an unselfish, unconditional love is *not* a
    universal term that crosses all religious barriers. 
    
    Eric

|    But you said it was impossible.
    
    Unconditional love is beyond human capability.
    
|    I personally don't believe it is impossible, even for people 
|    who aren't christian.
    
    Okay Tom, do you love me?  How about Jack?  Jeff?
    
    I abide in Christ and am able to love you, Tom, through Christ who is
    in me.  I couldn't on my own, especially considering the events of 
    the week.

    regarding the first line of the last paragraph in .38

    And how would Tom sense this love from you that is admittedly not
    something you, on your own, wish to express, but that Christ does
    through you? I mean, what use is a love that has no, shall we say,
    sensible fruit?
    
    Eric

    By continuing to share the Gospel of Jesus Christ with him.

    Mike,
    
    I can love you unconditionally.  the Goddess says I must.  that doesn't
    mean I have to like you.
    
    meg

>    Okay Tom, do you love me?  How about Jack?  Jeff?

    Ok.  This is getting personal.  Glen, hold on....

    I love Jack so much I could kiss him on the mouth!  XOXOXOX

    And the best thing is, Jack won't even take offence at what
    I just said.

    I disagree with Jack all the time.  He's almost as pig-headed
    as I am.  He's a wonderfully fallible human and isn't afraid
    to be who he is.  I admire and love that.

    Others in this conference haven't opened up enough of themselves
    for me to see who they are.  They hide behind scripture.  Some
    deny and hate their humanness.  It's very difficult to love
    someone's being when they hate it.  Yes, we should strive to be
    better.  But to deny what we are is kind of like lying.

    Tom

 Z    And the best thing is, Jack won't even take offence at what
 Z       I just said.
    
    You're absolutely right!! :-)  I got a chuckle out of that one!! :-)
    
    One thing I fail to understand, how can goddess, a non being but more a
    state of being command one to love another unconditionally?  Is this a
    reference to the conscience?  
    
    -Jack

    re .40

    By the same measure then, so does Tom love you and the others you've
    listed.

    Eric

|    By the same measure then, so does Tom love you and the others you've
|    listed.
    
    Eric, I think Tom already answered this as a "No."  He loves Jack, but
    not Jeff and I because we "hide behind scripture" and "haven't revealed
    ourselves."
    
    So he proved my point: only God is capable of Agape, man isn't.  Tom put
    conditions on how he felt about Jeff and myself.
    
    Mike

    Jack,
    
    the goddess is as real to me as your book and dieties are to you.  Her
    lessons are all around us daily.  
    
    meg

    RE .43 (Jack)


    >...how can goddess, a non being but more a state of being command one to
    >love another unconditionally?

    Perhaps in the same way "goddess" or "god" commands a tree to grow or a
    bird to fly.  We tend to forget that the universe is bigger than just
    humanity, and God/GOddess has a relationship with trees, birds and
    planets for that matter just like with us.  God "commands" them without
    language, written or spoken.  There might be something to learn from in
    this.  I often wonder about God's relationship with the other 99.999999%
    of the universe and what we can learn from that.

    -dave

    Oh I understand that.  I was just wondering if Meg acknowledges goddess
    as a real personal god...one we will see one day or if goddess is just
    a state of mind.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    My version of the afterlife is far different from yours.  At the risk
    or trying to describe a rainbow to one who has been blind from birth, I
    know she will continue to send me into other lives for some time to
    come.  She is definitely not a state of mind.  Look around you outdoors
    she is everywhere, as she should be.  I have no need to feel that I
    must see her faces to face.
    
    meg

Not surprising that "goddess" worshippers say "she" is around everywhere,
for they have fallen into the ages old trap of worshipping the created
rather than the creator.

Our Father created your "mother".

/john

    She is the essence from which everything is created.

    Much the same way that I perceive God.

    God is everywhere and I interpret it in just that way.

    Tom

RE: .35 and .45

>    He has given us the means.  We've been telling you about it for months
>    (maybe even years).

    If He has given you the means, they why don't you?  Unless,
    of course, you consider hitting people over the head with a
    Bible "love."  It's not love, it's fear mongering.

    You've been playing both sides of this.  You say it's impossible
    and then you say the Jesus has given you the means.

    You condemn me for not loving you and yet you excuse yourself
    because, you say, no human can love without conditions.

    Jesus didn't hide behind scripture.  He loved everyone on his
    own, just like the Father, or the Goddess (Who is the same.)
    Jesus asked how can you love the Father whom you haven't seen
    if you don't love your neighbor whom you have seen?  If you conceal
    yourself, you're making it difficult.

    Tom

    John,
    
    As my mother gave birth to your god.  They are all one.  I accept the
    evidence of her works in the world.  Are you saying that you don't see
    your dieties' works and appreciate the evidence that they are here and
    all around you, or do you believe your dieties did not create the
    universe in the fist great rite?
    
    meg

    
    I know it doesn't matter too much, maybe not at all, but Tom's, Meg's,
    and Dave's perspectives cannot be called Christian by any reasonable 
    stretch of the term.  Why the charade?
    
    jeff

|    If He has given you the means, they why don't you?  Unless,
|    of course, you consider hitting people over the head with a
|    Bible "love."  It's not love, it's fear mongering.
    
    Tom, do you see no love in that Christ loved you so much that He died
    for you?  

|    You've been playing both sides of this.  You say it's impossible
|    and then you say the Jesus has given you the means.
    
    Correct.  When you have a personal, intimate relationship with the
    living God, Christ in you enables you to love those that you couldn't
    love on your own.
    
|    You condemn me for not loving you and yet you excuse yourself
|    because, you say, no human can love without conditions.
    
    I didn't condemn you.  I don't excuse myself, you proved my point for
    all of us.  I can't love those who reject me without God's Holy Spirit 
    within me.

|    Jesus didn't hide behind scripture.  He loved everyone on his
    
    Jesus is God.  He AGAPE'd everyone.  We can't do that unless we are
    born again and sealed by His Holy Spirit.
    
|    Jesus asked how can you love the Father whom you haven't seen
|    if you don't love your neighbor whom you have seen?  
    
    By His Holy Spirit within us we do both.
    
    Mike

    
    re .45

    Mike,

    > Eric, I think Tom already answered this as a "No."  He loves Jack, but   
    > not Jeff and I because we "hide behind scripture" and "haven't revealed   
    > ourselves."

    Tom said it was "difficult," to love certain types, not that he in fact
    did not love those types. You have accused Tom of behavior that you
    find troubling, yet you do not see that as negating your claimed love.
    Why do different rules apply for Tom?

    You said that love is expressed by sharing the Gospel of Jesus. Since
    this is what Tom does you must realize that he does love you, despite
    his honest self-criticism of it being difficult.

    > So he proved my point: only God is capable of Agape, man isn't.
      
    I disagree. I would say that without God, man is not capable of Agape.

    > Tom put conditions on how he felt about Jeff and myself.

    Surly you don't mean to imply that you feel the same, identical
    personal warmth toward every single person you know?! At a fundamental
    level I am sure that you, like I, love everyone to the point of wishing
    they receive and recognize the grace of God as brought to us by Jesus.
    You, like I, wish that everyone (even those who hate us) experience the
    loving peace and comfort of, and reconciliation with, our Lord.
    *However* that doesn't mean we are personally delighted with everyone,
    nor that we find it an equally easy and pleasant experience to
    associate with everyone.
    
    Eric

>    I know it doesn't matter too much, maybe not at all, but Tom's, Meg's,
>    and Dave's perspectives cannot be called Christian by any reasonable 
>    stretch of the term.  Why the charade?

    Nor can you be called a christian for making such a presumptuous
    statement about me.

    You bear false witness and you do not repent.

    I think you should look a bit closer to home to find and
    repent of your own charade.

    Tom

    Well spoken, Eric.  Thank you.

    RE: .55

>|    If He has given you the means, they why don't you?  Unless,
>|    of course, you consider hitting people over the head with a
>|    Bible "love."  It's not love, it's fear mongering.
>    
>    Tom, do you see no love in that Christ loved you so much that He died
>    for you?  

    You're answering a different question.

    Jesus loved.  You're Bible thumping.  Jesus inspired faith.  You
    inspire fear.

>    Correct.  When you have a personal, intimate relationship with the
>    living God, Christ in you enables you to love those that you couldn't
>    love on your own.

    May you someday personally realize such a relationship.

>    Jesus is God.  He AGAPE'd everyone.  We can't do that unless we are
>    born again and sealed by His Holy Spirit.

    Agreed.  Whatever religion one is reborn into the Holy Spirit
    (Goddess or Shiva or whatever name  you want to place on It)
    it's what necessary to reach that point.   As I implied above,
    I sincerely hope you experience this someday.

>    By His Holy Spirit within us we do both.

    Yes.  Person by person.  Heart to heart.

    Tom

    |    I disagree. I would say that without God, man is not capable of Agape.
    
    Eric, I agree.  This is what I was trying to convey.

 ZZ    As my mother gave birth to your god.  They are all one.
    
    I guess I would have to get a better understanding of who "mother"
    is...but from the way you describe it, it seems you are describing
    matter and the elements thereof.  
    
    In my faith, One of the writers of scripture makes a comparison between
    the potter and the clay.  Interesting how the potter is an actual
    person, while the clay is an inanimate object....that being the created
    rather than the creator.  
    
    Question for Tom.  Tom, do you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh?
    
    -Jack

>    |    I disagree. I would say that without God, man is not capable of Agape.
>    
>    Eric, I agree.  This is what I was trying to convey.

    How can someone love without God being involved?

    The essence of God is love and the essence of love is God.

    God, Goddess, Brahma or whatever you want to call the almighty,
    is love.

    Tom

    
    > Eric, I agree.

    Cool! 

    My feeling is that man is not merely a conduit for passing God's love
    to other, but that a grace-filled person is a new creation who is (or
    should be) an instrument of God's love. Do you still agree?

    Eric

|    Jesus loved.  You're Bible thumping.  Jesus inspired faith.  You
|    inspire fear.
    
    Why does the Gospel of Jesus Christ scare you?

|>    Correct.  When you have a personal, intimate relationship with the
|>    living God, Christ in you enables you to love those that you couldn't
|>    love on your own.
|
|    May you someday personally realize such a relationship.
    
    You judge hastily.  I was born again on May 23, 1971.  Baptized with
    the Holy Spirit on October 10, 1983 (happened to my wife and I at the
    same time on our wedding anniversary!).  The most awesome decision and
    experience a person can encounter.  Saved, sealed, and anointed!

|>    Jesus is God.  He AGAPE'd everyone.  We can't do that unless we are
|>    born again and sealed by His Holy Spirit.
|
|    Agreed.  Whatever religion one is reborn into the Holy Spirit
|    (Goddess or Shiva or whatever name  you want to place on It)
|    it's what necessary to reach that point.   As I implied above,
|    I sincerely hope you experience this someday.
    
    I'm glad you agree that Jesus is God.  However, this places some severe
    tension on your choices of religion and names you apply to God.  His
    only name is YHWH.

|>    By His Holy Spirit within us we do both.
|
|    Yes.  Person by person.  Heart to heart.

    I prefer Holy Spirit to Holy Spirit within each born again person. 
    This is Biblical.
    
    Mike

>    Question for Tom.  Tom, do you believe that Jesus is God in the flesh?

   I believe you are God in the flesh.  We just haven't figured that
   out, yet.

   We are in His own image.  We learn to love each other.  We 
   learn to love God.  There isn't much difference in the two
   actions.

   Jesus alluded to it frequently.  "What you do to the least of
   you you also do to me."

   You might call me a literalist.  God is everywhere.  Then
   He is in you - permeates you.  The only way I can love God
   is to learn to love you.

   Now, how about that kiss?    ;^)  *

   Tom

   * (really, I'm just kidding.  Please don't contrue this to be
   sexual harassment.  If you do I'll change my note. :-)

|    My feeling is that man is not merely a conduit for passing God's love
|    to other, but that a grace-filled person is a new creation who is (or
|    should be) an instrument of God's love. Do you still agree?
    
    You're preaching to the choir!  AMEN!
    

    |    How can someone love without God being involved?
    
    Tom, I loved my family members before I was born again.  I still hated
    those who rejected me.

>    Why does the Gospel of Jesus Christ scare you?

    It doesn't.   You do.

>    You judge hastily.

    Tell Jeff that.

>    I'm glad you agree that Jesus is God.  However, this places some severe
>    tension on your choices of religion and names you apply to God.  His
>    only name is YHWH.

    I worship God.  Not a religion.  BTW:  If His name is YHWH, then
    why do you call Him "God?"

>    I prefer Holy Spirit to Holy Spirit within each born again person. 
>    This is Biblical.

    Same thing, with or without the "born again."  See my previous note.
    (A person need not be born again to be loved)

    Tom

|   I believe you are God in the flesh.  We just haven't figured that
|   out, yet.
    
    The oldest lie in the book, going back to the Garden of Eden.

>    Tom, I loved my family members before I was born again.  I still hated
>    those who rejected me.

    You were not without God, even then.

.54
    
>    I know it doesn't matter too much, maybe not at all, but Tom's, Meg's,
>    and Dave's perspectives cannot be called Christian by any reasonable 
>    stretch of the term.  Why the charade?

You're right.  It doesn't matter.  C-P doesn't regulate such things.  Never
has.

Meg has never claimed she is a Christian.  Dave has said he's a Christian,
but not the kind that would fit many contemporary Christians' filters.

In other words, no one here is being deliberately deceitful.  Why call it
a charade except to demean?

Richard

>|   I believe you are God in the flesh.  We just haven't figured that
>|   out, yet.
>    
>    The oldest lie in the book, going back to the Garden of Eden.

    Here we go again.

    *Everyone* likes to misinterpret this one.

    Once you have surrendered completely to God you will perceive that
    you have no will but His will.   You don't "play god," you are
    an extension of God.
    
    You run into trouble when you think that you're something special
    relative to the other extensions of God.
    
    I don't think you're going to understand this one if you don't
    want to.
    
    Tom

>    I know it doesn't matter too much, maybe not at all, but Tom's, Meg's,
>    and Dave's perspectives cannot be called Christian by any reasonable 
>    stretch of the term.  Why the charade?

>>Meg has never claimed she is a Christian.  Dave has said he's a Christian,
>>but not the kind that would fit many contemporary Christians' filters.

>>In other words, no one here is being deliberately deceitful.  Why call it
>>a charade except to demean?

>>Richard
    
    It is a charade, and deliberately deceitful, to have a conference called 
    "Christian Perspective" when those whose voices are loudest, Tom's for 
    example, cannot reasonably be called Christian at all.  What
    perspective, aside from that held by the principals of this conference, 
    would rise to such pretense?
    
    jeff

    Tom, don't be scared, I won't hurt you.  Honest!
    
|>    You judge hastily.
|
|    Tell Jeff that.
    
    What does this have to do with what you and I are discussing?

|    I worship God.  Not a religion.  BTW:  If His name is YHWH, then
|    why do you call Him "God?"
    
    God is a title that YHWH referred to Himself with.  He also used many
    other titles for Himself:
    
    Messiah (John 1:41)
    Son of God (John 1:34)
    Lord of Lords (Rev. 19:16)
    King of Kings (Rev. 19:16)
    Wonderful (Isa. 9:6)
    Counselor (Isa. 9:6)
    Mighty God (Isa. 9:6)
    Everlasting Father (Isa. 9:6)
    Prince of Peace (Isa. 9:6)
    Holy One (Mark 1:24)
    Son of the Highest (Luke 1:32)
    Emmanuel (Matt. 1:23)
    Lamb of God (John 1:29)
    Prince of Life (Acts 3:15)
    Lord God Almighty (Rev. 15:3)
    Lion of the Tribe of Judah (Rev. 5:5)
    Root of David (Rev. 22:16)
    Word of Life (1 John 1:1)
    I AM (aka YHWH, John 8:23,58)
    Advocate (1 John 2:1)
    The Way (John 14:6)
    The Truth (John 14:6)
    The Life (John 14:6)
    Dayspring (Luke 1:78)
    Lord of All (Acts 10:36)
    Saviour (2 Peter 2:20)
    Shepherd and Bishop of Your Souls (1 Peter 2:25)
    Author and Finisher of Our Faith (Hebrews 12:2)
    Chief Cornerstone (Ephesians 2:20)
    Righteous Judge (2 Timothy 4:8)
    Light of the World (John 8:12)
    Morning Star (Rev. 22:16)
    Head of the Church (Ephesians 1:22)
    Chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:4)
    Resurrection and Life (John 11:25)
    Alpha and Omega (Rev. 21:6)
    First and Last (Rev. 2:8)
    Jesus (Matt. 1:26)
    Elohim: The Creator
    El Elyon: The God Most High
    El Roi: The God Who Sees
    El Shaddai: The All-Suffiecient One
    El Gibhor: The God-Man
    Adonai: The Lord
    YHWH: The Self-existent One
    YHWH-jireh: The LORD Will Provide
    YHWH-nissi: The LORD Thy Banner
    YHWH-mekoddishkem: The LORD Who Sanctifies You
    YHWH-shalom: The LORD is Peace
    YHWH-sabaoth: The LORD of Hosts
    YHWH-raah: The LORD Thy Shepherd
    YHWH-tsidkenu: The LORD Our Righteousness
    YHWH-shammah: The LORD is There
    YHWH-rapha: The LORD that Heals

|>    Tom, I loved my family members before I was born again.  I still hated
|>    those who rejected me.
|
|    You were not without God, even then.
    
    I sure was.  I wasn't born again then.
    

>|   I believe you are God in the flesh.  We just haven't figured that
>|   out, yet.
>    
>    The oldest lie in the book, going back to the Garden of Eden.

>>    Here we go again.

>>    *Everyone* likes to misinterpret this one.

>>    Once you have surrendered completely to God you will perceive that
>>    you have no will but His will.   You don't "play god," you are
>>    an extension of God.
    
>>    You run into trouble when you think that you're something special
>>    relative to the other extensions of God.
    
>>    I don't think you're going to understand this one if you don't
>>    want to.
    
>>    Tom
    
    There's nothing new about your faith, Tom.  It's well understood as
    pantheism, or Buddhism, or Hinduism, or any other false religious
    system.  
    
    Jesus, the one and only Son of God who died for the sins of
    those who believe was raised from the dead.  He is God, every other
    claimant is a liar and the son or daughter of the devil, the Father of
    liars.
    
    Every single person that has ever lived, including Buddha and Gandhi
    and Mohammed and you and me, will bow one day and confess that Jesus
    Christ is Lord of the universe.  
    
    jeff

    RE: .72 
    
    You advocate discrimination.  This is against DEC policy.
    Why isn't Mike hopping mad about this abuse of corporate rules?
    
    Were I not the subject of the derision, I would delete it myself.
    Delete it or I'll ask another moderator to do so.
    
    Tom

    Re .54 (Jeff)

    What purpose does the label "christian" serve?  Why did Jesus choose a
    Samaritan in the parable?  Not trying to be antagonistic here Jeff,
    really, but I wonder whether it might in part have something to do with
    dissolving the stigmas people associate with labels.  Didn't Jesus
    attack the system of social labels so prevalent in his time?  Classes
    and social stigmas and "holier than thou" pigeonholes seemed to be
    among his favorite targets.  He pointed to the pagan Samaritan and
    associated with the prostitutes, tax collectors and the poor, all in
    defiance of the system.  He dismantles every moral pedestal he sees
    someone poised upon.  Was he trying to make a point with regard to labels?

    Is the label "Christian" just another version of this same old problem?

    I'm not "Christian" given some popular definition of the word.  So what?

    -dave

   Z    I believe you are God in the flesh.  We just haven't figured that
   Z    out, yet.
    
    Shudder!!  That was my initial response.  I read how you explained it.  
    Correct me if I'm wrong but are you thinking of the verse, "For I am
    dead to sin and it is not I who live but Christ who lives in us.  And
    the life I live I live by the name of the one who loved me, and gave
    himself for me."  (By the way, there's that ransom theme again).  The
    second line.....snide Tom....real snide!! :-)  
    
    I see this verse as of great importance in better understanding the
    position of the believer.  It proves biblically that since we are dead
    to sin, any goodness and agape love comes through the power of Christ
    himself.  I have to say Tom the claim you make above borders on being
    blasphemous and doesn't project your thoughts adequately.
    
  Z     We are in His own image.  We learn to love each other.  We 
  Z     learn to love God.  There isn't much difference in the two
  Z     actions.
    
    First, being made in his image only infers that we are created as a
    spiritual being...nothing more.  Your second sentence, is this
    referring to Christians only?  I ask because history shows we as a
    natural people learn to hate before we learn to love.  This has been my
    observation.
    
Z       Jesus alluded to it frequently.  "What you do to the least of
Z       you you also do to me."
    
    It's actually, "Whatever you do to the least of my bretheren, you do
    unto me."  This would imply Jesus referring to Christian brothers and
    sisters...since The Holy Spirit only dwells within the believer.  God
    does not dwell within unregenerate man.
    
Z       You might call me a literalist.  God is everywhere.  Then
Z       He is in you - permeates you.  
    
    Amen to that.  But the Holy Spirit will not abide or dwell within
    unregenerate man.
    
Z    The only way I can love God is to learn to love you.
    
    Unless of course you are alone...like Job, King David, and countless
    others throughout history whose love for God was mutually exclusive for
    their outlook for humanity.  Now on the other hand, there is the case
    of Jonah, who clearly showed his lack of love for God by his disdain
    for the Ninevites.  Your statement above rings true but not in all
    cases.
    
    -Jack

RE: .74


>|>    Tom, I loved my family members before I was born again.  I still hated
>|>    those who rejected me.
>|
>|    You were not without God, even then.
>    
>    I sure was.  I wasn't born again then.

    Then, if God wasn't with you, then who brought you to God?

    I don't think God ever left you.  You may have left Him,
    but not the other way around.

    Tom

 ZZ    Then, if God wasn't with you, then who brought you to God?
    
    My opinion..."No man cometh unto the Father except the Spirit of God
    draw him..."
    
    I believe, without diverting into the Calvanism/Arminian thingie, that
    the believer was appointed unto salvation.
    
    This of course is an indepth doctrine.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .78

>    Correct me if I'm wrong but are you thinking of the verse, "For I am
>    dead to sin and it is not I who live but Christ who lives in us.  And
>    the life I live I live by the name of the one who loved me, and gave
>    himself for me."  (By the way, there's that ransom theme again).  The

    Different words and better said.  Same message.

>    First, being made in his image only infers that we are created as a
>    spiritual being...nothing more. 

    It's a good start.

>    Your second sentence, is this
>    referring to Christians only?  

    About loving each other?  Why should we exclude non-christians?
    Jesus didn't.

>    I ask because history shows we as a
>    natural people learn to hate before we learn to love.  This has been my
>    observation.

    Some of us learn to hate easier than others.  It takes real
    inspiration to take the leap of faith to love others, especially
    those who disagree with you.   I don't see disagreement here.

>    God does not dwell within unregenerate man.

    I believe God is *EVERYWHERE*.

>    Your statement above rings true but not in all  cases.

    It rings true for me.  Another's milage may vary.  What may work
    for me may not work for another.   This is why I'm not so quick
    to judge the Hindus or Buddhists or Wiccan or.....

    Tom

    Excuse me.  I have a pot luck supper to go to..   :-)

One more.

>    My opinion..."No man cometh unto the Father except the Spirit of God
>    draw him..."

Yes.  But God goeth wherever God wanteth.

    Jack is pretty correct.  I was told the Gospel of Jesus Christ,
    admitted I was woefully inadequate and in need of a Redeemer, accepted
    Christ as my Lord and Savior and His vicarious atonement on the cross,
    and was born again.

    
    > I believe God is *EVERYWHERE*.

    Tom,

    I believe the vestige (or trace) of God is everywhere in creation. I
    don't think the God is everywhere. While the difference may seem
    slight, to me it is important. Reflection on the beauty and intricacy
    of a flower may lead us to the realization of God, the flower itself
    does not contain or possess God, merely the imprint of he awesome
    power. 

    Eric

.72
    
>    It is a charade, and deliberately deceitful, to have a conference called 
>    "Christian Perspective" when those whose voices are loudest, Tom's for 
>    example, cannot reasonably be called Christian at all.  What
>    perspective, aside from that held by the principals of this conference, 
>    would rise to such pretense?

The reader must decide which participants are bearers of good fruit and
which are not.  It's not decided for the reader in advance like it might
be elsewhere or like some might prefer.

One need not be doctrinally correct to be able to tell good fruit from the
not so good.

Jesus failed to fit the filters of the faithful of his time, also.  In fact,
it raised their ire to hear Jesus point to people outside the faithful as
favored by God.  Perhaps you don't see the parallel.  Others will though, I'm
sure.

Richard

    Tom:
    
    As I'm sure you're aware, your statements fall very much in line with the
    east.  But Zen seems to take it a step farther, saying that God not only 
    permeates all of humanity, but all that is non-human in the universe as
    well.  So, not only should one love God, and neighbor, but all facets
    of the Earth (and beyond) as well.  The barriers between huymanity and
    the rest of the Earth are dissolved in this philosophy.  So, not only
    is it wrong to hurt your neighbor, but it's also wrong to pollute a
    river.  Seems to be a wise philosophy,
    
    Other things you said reminded me so much of what Eckhart said about 
    the nature of God and man.  Man keeps God out with thoughts and ideas
    and hpilosophies and concepts and etc... .  It's only when someone
    empties him/herself of all that trash that God, by his very nature,
    enters.  Humility is the key.  Casting off one's erred notions aris
    key.  It's like a bottle, filled with air, held underwater.  Point to
    the contents of the bottle, and you say it's air.  Open the stopper,
    let the air out and the water flows in naturally.  Point to the
    contents now and you say it's water.  A man can become God by allowing
    Him to enter.  And that is achieved by emptying one's mind (letting
    the air out). The "individual" was never really real to begin with. 
    Reconnize the facade, dissolve the ego and let God in.  Well, that's
    how I understood him.
    
    Mystics of every age and culture seem to have have been saying this in
    different imagery and languages for millenia.  This is why I'm so
    interested in this approach.
    
    -dave
    
    

    Jeff,
    
    I don't claim to be Christian, as well you know from reading this file. 
    The christian church did nothing for me other than teaching me that
    most members of a certain church ignore what the bible says about
    brother and sisterhood.  
    
    meg

    Tom,
    
    Leave it there.  It is a true witness IMO, and tells me how much
    further we need to go in this world before the bully factor Yeshua,
    Siddhartha, Mother Theresa, mary, Yemaya, Hoahokomin, Ouray, Ghandi,
    etc. all tried to help people realize they needed to wipe out.  
    
    don't worry about it.  Mike and Jeff have shown me true christianity
    again as I learned it in the church of Will P.
    
    meg

 Z   don't worry about it.  Mike and Jeff have shown me true christianity
 Z       again as I learned it in the church of Will P.
    
    Meg:
    
    I will give my standard reply to this kind of statement.  Regardless of
    what kind of testimony the witness may bear, the observer, you in this
    case, will still be held accountable for what you believe.  
    
    It DOES matter what you believe.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Well I know that it matters.  However mom will happily give me another
    couple lives while I learn the errors of my ways, and will do the same
    for others also.  
    
    I also learn by example.  The people who seem to be claiming to be the
    most devout (devotion to one's diety is now a competitive sport?) seem
    to be the least able to tolerate other peoples to the point of
    appearing threatened.  If this is an example of what devotion to Yaweh
    and Yeshua is about I think I'll stick with Mom.
    
    mneg

    Christianity has never been an ecumenical faith.  It is exclusive
    through and through.  No other faith is like it.  No other faith can
    make the claims of God.  Other faiths try to be exclusive, but they have 
    nothing to stand on when compared to the true, living God.

    >Other faiths try to be exclusive,..
    
    I can remember being taught as a young catholic that all non-catholics
    are headed for the flames, including all non-catholic Christians. 
    Does the distinction of exclusivity in this matter reside at the
    "Christian vs non-Christian" level, some level under that, or perhaps
    outside?
    
    -dave

 
    Meg,
    
    You mischaracterise the debate as you always do, and purposefully I'm
    certain.  The argument here and nearly everywhere else here is not
    about devotion by any stretch of the imagination.  Tom is as clearly
    devoted to his beliefs as anyone else.  The subject is truth and
    nothing else.  To say this is a Christian Perspective conference is to
    say it is not a Hindu Perspective conference, or a Pagan Perspective
    conference or anything else.  Christian is a biblical term for those
    who, as recorded in the Bible, followed the resurrected Christ
    according to the apostolic witness and teaching.  All of these people
    who became followers undoubtedly were freed from and repented from the
    fear, worship, and belief in their gods, who were no gods at all but
    idols for destruction holding them in slavery and fear and subjection
    to lies, preventing them from worshiping the true and living God.  It
    is simply dishonest and deceptive for the pagan voice, whether yours or
    Tom's or Dave's, to be applauded or unchallenged in a conference called
    Christian Perspective. Tolerance for idolatry should be unheard of
    among professed Christians.
    
    You made your choice to worship your god.  Stop whining about it and
    blaming the Christian for your rejection of the true and eternal God 
    Almighty.
     
    jeff
    
>    I also learn by example.  The people who seem to be claiming to be the
>    most devout (devotion to one's diety is now a competitive sport?) seem
>    to be the least able to tolerate other peoples to the point of
>    appearing threatened.  If this is an example of what devotion to Yaweh
>    and Yeshua is about I think I'll stick with Mom.
    
>    mneg

>    I can remember being taught as a young catholic that all non-catholics
>    are headed for the flames, including all non-catholic Christians. 

Unless you are significantly older than 50, what you claim you were taught
is known as "Feeneyism" and was explicitly condemned in an apostolic letter
the Pope sent to the Archbishop of Boston in 1948 condemning the publications
of Father Feeney and his followers at Harvard.

The official teaching is "outside the church there is no salvation".
However, those who appear to _us_ to be "outside the church" may, in fact,
be inside the church in God's eyes.

/john

    >Other faiths try to be exclusive,..
    
>>    I can remember being taught as a young catholic that all non-catholics
>>    are headed for the flames, including all non-catholic Christians. 
>>    Does the distinction of exclusivity in this matter reside at the
>>    "Christian vs non-Christian" level, some level under that, or perhaps
>>    outside?
    
>>    -dave
    
    It might be helpful to understand that Roman Catholics practice a
    sacerdotal religion.  That is, one's redemption is directly tied to
    one's participation in the seven sacraments of the RC church.  If one
    doesn't partake of these sacraments, in their system, it is nearly
    impossible to be saved.  They were much more dogmatic in the past about
    this than they are today.
    
    The Reformation was the rediscovery of the redemption message of the
    Bible - salvation by faith alone in God's grace in Christ alone.  This
    results in a rejection of sacerdotalism of any sort, though biblical
    sacraments (baptism and the Lord's supper) are faithfully practiced but for
    vastly different reasons than in a sacerdotal system.  There is room in
    the biblical salvation of "faith alone in Christ alone" for a
    practicing Roman Catholic to become a biblical Christian.
    
    You don't often see Reformed Christians converting to sacerdotalism but
    sacerdotalists are converted to "faith alone in Christ alone" every
    day, in the hundreds and thousands in parts of the world.
    
    jeff

    Dave,

    Christian Mysticism has been around for quite some time.
    All too often people have been "spooked" by them. People
    generally don't like to be spooked.

    If you're interested, check out Evelyn Underhill.

    RE: .93  Jeff

>    You mischaracterise the debate as you always do, and purposefully I'm
>    certain.  

    This just means she sees things differently from the way you do.

>    nothing else.  To say this is a Christian Perspective conference is to
>    say it is not a Hindu Perspective conference, or a Pagan Perspective
>    conference or anything else.

    We're talking about christianity.  One way to do it is to contrast it
    to other religions.  I don't see a problem.

>    All of these people
>    who became followers undoubtedly were freed from and repented from the
>    fear, worship, and belief in their gods, who were no gods at all but
>    idols for destruction holding them in slavery and fear and subjection
>    to lies, preventing them from worshiping the true and living God.  

    Worshipping idols doesn't make sense.  I don't worship idols.
    I do, however, sing to a cross on occasion.  I see it as a 
    symbol, not a god in and of itself.

>    It
>    is simply dishonest and deceptive for the pagan voice, whether yours or
>    Tom's or Dave's, to be applauded or unchallenged in a conference called
>    Christian Perspective. 

    I am not a pagan.  I am a christian.  You reject me.  Jesus doesn't.

    Your language approaches a call for discrimination - a call to
    disallow a certain point of view from being expressed.  This is
    not allowed by Digital policy.  Please be careful.


>    Tolerance for idolatry should be unheard of among professed Christians.

    I don't think anyone here worships idols.  And besides, you are
    in Digital.  If you can note here then anyone, even idol worshippers,
    may.  You are advocating discrimination.  As I said, *that* is not
    to be tolerated anywhere within Digital.
    
>    You made your choice to worship your god.  Stop whining about it and
>    blaming the Christian for your rejection of the true and eternal God 
>    Almighty.

    She's not whining about her choice.  She's lamenting how your
    practice of "christianity" comes across as unhealthy.

    Tom

    Z    Your language approaches a call for discrimination - a call to
    Z    disallow a certain point of view from being expressed.  This is
    Z    not allowed by Digital policy.  Please be careful.
    
    Tom, there is nothing to be careful of here.  I see this as healthy
    dialog.  Let's let the two parties figure it out for themselves.
    
    Since Jeff is not in a position of authority in this file, he cannot
    discriminate.  Advocating exclusivity is a perfectly viable point of
    view...no matter how heartless it may appear to you.
    
    -Jack

    Well, all that may be, but I remember being told that non-catholics
    were doomed.  I remember the catechism (sp) teacher answering a
    student's direct question on this in a reluctant way (probably not
    believing it herself).  I don't believe she said anything about
    "sacerdotal" anything, we were only 7 at the time.  I remember feeling
    bad about my non-catholic classmates in public school, thinking that
    they were doomed.  Then I began to think that they might be evil and
    wondered whether or not I should even associate with them.  I can
    remember avoiding a friend of mine with this new found ~knowlege~
    because he was a Baptist.  He asked me why I was avoiding him.  I
    didn't want to answer.  I didn't have the courage to tell him that I
    thought he was going to Hell.  I didn't want to believe it myself, but
    hey, the church said this was the case and who was I, a mere 7 year old
    to argue with God?  Eventually (and thankfully) I drifted away from
    believing this absurd doctrine and rekindled my friendship with the
    Baptist child.  If God had a hand in that, then I'm grateful.
    
    These are the sorts of things that happen in a seven year old's mind
    when you tell them that some are saved and others are not.
    
    How many childhood friendships have been dissolved in the present
    because of religious doctrine?  How many christian children are
    avoiding non-christian children because they're seen as being "doomed"
    or "unworthy" or "evil"?
    
    I cannot believe God would want this.  I cannot believe God shuns or
    dooms children based on a religious label.
    
    I'm glad that the catholic church has matured to a point where it
    realizes that non-catholic chritians are OK.  I eagerly await the day
    when it matures to point when it realizes that non-christians are OK too.
    
    
    -dave

|    I can remember being taught as a young catholic that all non-catholics
|    are headed for the flames, including all non-catholic Christians. 
|    Does the distinction of exclusivity in this matter reside at the
|    "Christian vs non-Christian" level, some level under that, or perhaps
|    outside?
    
    Just about everyone stakes a claim that salvation is only through them. 
    Very few can back it up though.  That's why it is critical to be able to
    separate the chaff from the wheat and the sheep from the goats.

    Drifting a bit from unicorns, aren't we?
    
    Richard
    

    Jeff,
    
    Someday you may actually experience the love of god(dess) and then you
    may actually understand your place in the cosmic foodchain (or not, I
    don't know)  This is Christian-perspectives, and I was asked to
    participate here, and I do believe you need to be aware not only that
    there are others out there with messages but how some approaches appear
    to those of differing beliefs.  I have a perspective on Christianity,
    even if it isn't the one you would like for me to have.  I was
    raised in a fundamentalist faith, and have learned some pretty valuable
    lessons through it.  I still continue to learn from those who choose to
    do what appears to me to be idolatrizing a book or doctrine without
    ever thinking for themselves (too dangerous?)   I have learned that
    there are many similarities in teachings be it Mom's, Buddha's, Krshna,
    Vishnu, Yaweh, Adonai, isis, Astarte, Zeus, Thor..... or any of the
    other symbolic names people have used for the universal truths.  YMOV
    
    Now if you really, really don't like hearing from some people who
    won't be run out of the file as easily as you managed with some of the
    differing voices, that's fine.  You don't have to like me or even
    answer any queries I make.  There is also a file that does not allow
    for differing beliefs, which I also know you are familiar with.  I
    don't note there for obvious reasons, beginning with the fact that I
    don't take the first premise for noting there to be truth, light or
    love.  
    
    Tom,  don't worry about discrimination.  I have found that people who
    make the statements they feel they need to make themselves and their
    beliefs look more foolish than if they were quiet (and yess that goes
    for me as well)
    
    meg

    
    You always skirt the issue, Meg, usually with a slam toward orthodox
    Christians.  
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    I answer as fully as I am able Jeff, it is just difficult to describe a
    rainbow to someone who has never seen one.  Now it is true that when I
    see little heat or light I will point it out.  I do know many orthodox
    christians that I have a wonderful relationship with and we can
    actually share love of each other and our respective dieties.  However
    I don't get that from someone who just jumps up and down and screams
    that anyone who doesn't believe the same way that someone does is going
    to hell in a bucket.  (At least I'm enjoying the ride ;-)  ) so I try
    to explainit again, but one has to be open to listening to
    explainations before they get understood.  
    
    meg

    
    You do not answer as fully as you are able, Meg.  You answer as you
    please.
    
    The issue is never the color of the rainbow.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    I didn't know that you were attempting to become a mind reader.  BTW at
    least with this old witch you aren't very good at it.  The issue is the
    color of the rainbow.  You don't see it as far as I can tell, let alone
    be able to distinguish the colors, and that's ok.  Then you tell me what
    I think it should look like, and that is not ok, according to my
    version of the golden rule.  Yours may vary and probably does.  
    
    meg

    Re .96 (Tom)

    >Christian Mysticism has been around for quite some time.
    >    All too often people have been "spooked" by them. People
    >    generally don't like to be spooked.

    Eckhart was posthumously excommunicated.  I think he spooked Rome.
    When he was alive, they let him be, probably because of his immense
    popularity with the people.  They reinstated him some time after his
    excommunication and is now heralded as the father of catholic
    mysticism.  

    It takes time, but they do come around.

    >If you're interested, check out Evelyn Underhill.

    I am.  I will.   Thanks!
    
    -dave

| <<< Note 1341.103 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| You always skirt the issue, Meg, 

	Meg, have you ever worn a skirt?

| <<< Note 1341.105 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| You do not answer as fully as you are able, Meg.  You answer as you please.

	I always love it when one says one thing (Meg saying how she is
answering), and then some born again far right Christian comes along and thinks
they know why one does X or Y, even though the reason(s) have already been
given. Simply pathetic.

    Personally, I'm glad people don't answer as fully as they might.
    
    If they did notes would be even longer than they are now.
    
    A bit of judicious self-editing keeps time here from getting out of
    hand.
    
    Tom

    Ya got the big alligators and long haired geese...hippos' and elephants
    and chimpanzese....cats and rats and elephants who will..toot your horn
    but the greatest animal is the unicorn!! 
    
    Is that right?!

    I would not label Meg dishonest any more than I would label certain
    self-identified Christians as kind or even Christ-like.
    
    Some people's version of Christianity is about culling.  C-P is not.
    
    Richard
    

    Glen,
    
    You haven't seen my interviewing clothes.  ;-)
    
    meg

>I have a perspective on Christianity

Suggestion for the moderators:  Please change the name of the conference
to "Perspectives on Christianity."

That is something totally different than "Christian Perspective" and more
honestly represents the direction the moderators seem to wish for this
conference to take.

/john

    Speaking as a participant, I don't think C-P should be about culling
    perspectives on Christianity any more than C-P should be about culling
    contributions from a Christian perspective.
    
    There are those, as I'm certain you realize, who would cull Catholics
    from Christianity.  Apparently the impulse to exclude is a strong one.
    
    Richard
    

    I haven't finished this string yet, but I think what Jeff was saying in
    regards to his taking the name of this conference to task, is that the
    name is misleading.  If this conference were to be called religious
    perspectives, he would likely have no problem with it.
    
    Now, while I see various perspectives on religions outside of
    Chritianity, I also see many topics of discussion based on Biblical
    passages... in fact, this is the mainstay of this conference.  While
    the replies to these topics may stray from Christianity, the topics of 
    interest are very much Christian-based.
    
    If Jeff believes that some replies may lead the reader astray from
    Christian fundamentals (and I do believe this to be the case in some
    topics), then it is up to Jeff to promote his perspective on the 
    discussion in question.  This is why I've argued in here before, and
    why I'll do it in the future.
    
    I do think that if you call a conference "Christian" Perspective, you
    should promote this point of view.
    
    
    My two pennies worth.

    .117
    
    Well thought out and spoken with courtesy.  Thank you.
    
    I believe there is very little outside a true Christian's experience of
    life.  I don't draw rigid lines between the sacred and the secular.  I
    realize some do, and that, in fact, one's identity becomes entangled
    and defined by such separations.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Perspectives on Christianity would be a much better name for this
    conference for that best describes the nature and tone of the
    discussions here.
    
    jeff

    The trend of this conference appears to be trying to compromise 
    CHRISTIAN and RELIGION.  Being all things to all people can be very 
    difficult.

    .120
    
    It's apparent at least to me that C-P is not trying to be all things to
    all people.  Were it so, C-P would be rushing to meet the desires of the
    ones who find the name displeasing.
    
    Richard
    

    I was referring to it in a religious sense.

Jn 19:19  And Pilate wrote a title, and put [it] on the cross.
And the writing was, JESUS OF NAZARETH THE �KING� �OF� �THE� �JEWS.�
19:20  This title then read many of the Jews: for the place
where Jesus was crucified was nigh to the city: and it was
written in Hebrew, [and] Greek, [and] Latin.
19:21  Then said the chief priests of the Jews to Pilate,
Write not, The �King� �of� �the� �Jews;� but that he said, I am �King� �of�
�the� �Jews.�
19:22  Pilate answered, What I have written I have written.

"Oh, please!  Oh, please, alter the name to make it more fitting!"

"You're liable to confuse or mislead with such a designation!"

    
    Richard came up with this conference and Richard had a very
    specific purpose in doing so.  This conference wasn't designed to be
    Perspectives on Christianity.  On the contrary it is very purposefully 
    Christian Perspective.  To change the name to something more accurate is 
    to acknowledge the truth that Christianity is a non-subjective reality, 
    something Richard cannot possibly acknowledge for it would not only
    completely undermine his own beliefs about himself and the world but
    also all of the other voices here which rest on the same foundation.
    
    In other words, it ain't gonna happen.
    
    jeff

    .124
    
    Thanks for the credit, erroneous as it is.
    
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 1341.114 by CSC32::M_EVANS "be the village" >>>


| You haven't seen my interviewing clothes.  ;-)

	There are clothes just for interviewing? Uh oh... no wonder why I am
still here. :-)

| <<< Note 1341.119 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Perspectives on Christianity would be a much better name for this conference 
| for that best describes the nature and tone of the discussions here.

	Jeff, the tone is set by the participants. If one is very far to the
right, then they will take offense a lot easier when it comes to their beliefs.
If one is more liberal, they might not take offense against their beliefs as
much. 

	But I think all sides tend to get a bit off kilter when one tells
another why they feel, think, write the way they do, and even if the person
they are talking about explains why they do what they do, the originator still
keeps saying, "No, that is not true. You do it because....." OR.... someone
won't ask another what they meant. I was happy to see Mike Heiser send me mail
this morning. He expressed how he thought, and I sent my reply. The matter was
cleared up. More people need to do this.....hint hint

    
    You may squabble over a technicality, Richard, but the message is true
    nonetheless.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1341.124 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| to acknowledge the truth that Christianity is a non-subjective reality,
| something Richard cannot possibly acknowledge for it would not only
| completely undermine his own beliefs about himself and the world but
| also all of the other voices here which rest on the same foundation.

	This is a classic example of what I just mentioned. 

| <<< Note 1341.128 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| You may squabble over a technicality, Richard, but the message is true
| nonetheless.

	You just can't stop yourself, can you.... one would think you were God
or something. You aren't even close

    
    Thanks for the pointers, Glen.
    
    jeff

.128
    
>    You may squabble over a technicality, Richard, but the message is true
>    nonetheless.

Oh, it's *ME* who is "squabbling over a technicality," eh?

It's just one more thing I've got wrong, I guess.

Richard

    
    Yes, it's you, Richard. 
    
    jeff

    Well Richard,
    
    At least we won't need blankets when we go, at least not in some
    people's worlds.
    
    ;-)
    meg

    
    Passing thought: 

    Anyone who consistently misconstrues the words and intentions of his
    neighbor, can most assuredly not be trusted to credibly interpret for
    me the mind of God.

    Eric

    
    Amen, Eric.
    
    jeff

	Then I hope you take heed to it and stop speading untruths about
people.

    Glen:
    
    Case in point.  I asked Meg a few days ago if she believed in a
    personal God.  Her reply was that she didn't believe she needed to
    believe in a personal God to be close to God...something to this
    effect.
    
    A few replies ago...perhaps in another string, she accuses me of
    reading trying to read her thoughts when I implied she didn't believe
    in a personal God.  
    
    Meg...I'll ask you again...do you believe in a personal God...i.e. that
    God is a spiritual being.
    
    -Jack
    

    Jack,
    
    Please try to understand what I wrote, even though my metaphysics are
    different from yours regarding an afterlife.  
    
    My goddess is personal.  However, I don't expect to be with her after
    this life has ended.  I have far too much work regarding learning.  I
    could be pleasantly surprised, but I expect I will be back hear again
    after shedding this shell.
    
    meg

|    could be pleasantly surprised, but I expect I will be back hear again
|    after shedding this shell.
    
    ...just don't eat the pudding. ;-)