Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I've heard the name Randy Weaver linked with Christian Identity.

Richard

    	Sounds like "strike one" for the group.

    Not sure where else to put this, but I have a question.
    
    What are the CP prerequisites for beliefs/doctrine in Christ to be able
    to earn the right to call yourself a Christian?  If this has been
    covered already, please provide a pointer (I didn't see one).
    
    thank you,
    Mike

re Note 1084.3 by PHXSS1::HEISER:

>     What are the CP prerequisites for beliefs/doctrine in Christ to be able
>     to earn the right to call yourself a Christian?  If this has been
>     covered already, please provide a pointer (I didn't see one).
  
        2000 years of debate by the best minds, plus a lot of less
        savory stuff, has failed to define "the right to call
        yourself a Christian", and neither have we.

        Bob

	Bob... I couldn't agree with you more!

    Mike,
    
    Just in case you are not aware, there is a notes file available for
    Christians with a narrower definition of Christianity. (-:)
    
    If the purpose of your question is for self definition, then that file
    may be helpful.  
    
    In my opinion, the very existence of this file honors the fact that for
    each one of us, our religious identification is a very important, but
    personal matter.  My definition is that being a Christian means to make a
    personal commitment to follow Jesus Christ as each of us understands
    Jesus Christ.
    
                                     Patricia

    "Christian Identity" (see basenote) has been closely associated with
    the recent militia and superpatriot activity.
    
    Richard
    

>       2000 years of debate by the best minds, plus a lot of less
>       savory stuff, has failed to define "the right to call
>       yourself a Christian", and neither have we.

    But God does have the right to define who is a Christian and who is not.
    God's plan of salvation (what we know as Christianity) is older than
    humankind itself.  He has made the fullness of that plan known to us
    nearly 2000 years ago.  Debating objective truth does not change it.
    God's plan is not open to a vote.  No we cannot define Christianity,
    but God can, and did, and told us about it in His word.

>Debating objective truth does not change it.

Sadly, polls indicate that 75% of Americans do not believe
there is such a thing as objective truth.

On the last day, all will learn the Truth.

/john

>On the last day, all will learn the Truth.

*One* way or another :-)

re Note 1084.8 by SLBLUZ::CREWS:

> Debating objective truth does not change it.
  
        This is entirely true -- I agree with you 100%.

        And it is equally true that strident declarations that "this
        is the objective truth" or "I have the objective truth" are
        worthless for determining what is indeed true.

        Bob

    Is it unreasonable to suggest that to be a Christian, one must follow
    Christ's model and adhere/obey His words and teachings?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    It is not unreasonable.

    However, the debate seems to be whether or not the Bible
    100% accurately describes Christ's model and faithfully
    echos His words.

    Perhaps this uncertainly is a blessing as opposed to a
    curse.  This way each person must explore her/his own
    soul to determine what is right instead of swollowing
    some dogma whole.  Whatever our decision is, is ours.
    That way the Bible believers accept that base of their
    own free will and the spirit believers accept their
    stance of their own free will.  It then becomes *our*
    faith and not something we follow robotically.  That
    wouldn't be faith, would it?

    The trials God sends us are often Her greatest blessings.
    (Although, sometimes I feel a little *too* blessed :-)

    Tom

|    However, the debate seems to be whether or not the Bible
|    100% accurately describes Christ's model and faithfully
|    echos His words.
    
    I expected this response, but I don't understand it.  Archaeologists
    have proven that the New Testament has more background support than any
    other ancient work.  In varied extrabiblical tests, it is rated at over
    99% pure (fraction taken off for spelling errors only).  You will not
    find many reputed historians who doubt the events.  Historically
    speaking, the above accusations are baseless.
    
    Mike

re Note 1084.14 by PHXSS1::HEISER:

> |    However, the debate seems to be whether or not the Bible
> |    100% accurately describes Christ's model and faithfully
> |    echos His words.
>     
>     I expected this response, but I don't understand it.  Archaeologists
>     have proven that the New Testament has more background support than any
>     other ancient work.  In varied extrabiblical tests, it is rated at over
>     99% pure (fraction taken off for spelling errors only).  You will not
>     find many reputed historians who doubt the events.  Historically
>     speaking, the above accusations are baseless.
    
        Well, Mike, being the logical pursuer of objective truth that
        you are, you would be the first to admit that "no error has
        been found [in the things that can be independently
        verified]" does not prove that "no error exists [in the
        things that cannot be independently verified]".

        Bob

    I've yet to see a conclusive list that shows errors in the Gospels.  
    I've heard of the revisionist history projects like the Jesus Seminar 
    (even know one of the members), but they make as much sense as the 
    skinheads who say the holocaust never happened.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1084.12 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Is it unreasonable to suggest that to be a Christian, one must follow
| Christ's model and adhere/obey His words and teachings?

	No, it is not unreasonable. Let me ask you something.... was the Bible
put together as a book before or after His death?

| <<< Note 1084.14 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| I expected this response, but I don't understand it. Archaeologists have 
| proven that the New Testament has more background support than any other 
| ancient work.  

	Are you now using archaeologists to back your claims about the Bible?
Are they God inspired people, or just people out looking for answers using
human means? 

| You will not find many reputed historians who doubt the events.  

	Reputed by who's standards? Are these historians inspired by God, or by
history?

| Historically speaking, the above accusations are baseless.

	Realistically, they are not baseless.

    Glen, I'm talking about secular historians and archaeologists.

>    Glen, I'm talking about secular historians and archaeologists.

    I think that's his point.

    After many of us have been derided as being deceived by 
    the devil because we believe what we have seen and felt
    you then turn around and imply that archeologists cannot
    be deceived by the same devil.

    Some deride secular "proof" until they use that "proof"
    to back up their faith.

    Tom

    well if I mention historians and archaeologists with a
    Christian-bias, you'll use the same argument against their credibility.

| <<< Note 1084.19 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, I'm talking about secular historians and archaeologists.

	So secular is ok?

| <<< Note 1084.21 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| well if I mention historians and archaeologists with a
| Christian-bias, you'll use the same argument against their credibility.

	It would seem if you would use humanistic people to prove the Bible,
but you go on and on you can't do that to everyone else, it would seem you have
not been very consistant. In fact, you contradicted your own beliefs. With what
you said above, you put your beliefs aside and went on what you thought we
would want. Is that the truth as it is to you? If it is, then you can stop
telling people like me, Dave, Patricia, etc that we don't know the true God.
And if you do not believe it, why would you do it?


Glen

 Jeepers, Glen, read what he is writing for crying out loud...

	I did Jim.

  are you then saying that we should not consider discoveries by non
  christian archeologists, because they are non-Christian?  If they
  find evidence that supports the Bible, mind you I don't need the proof,
  it isonly those who deny the authenticity of the Bible who demand proof,
  it is to be ignored because they are non-Christians?



   Jim

	Jim, seeing many Christians say that people have to trust Him, not in
humans, or human things, how can you back something that is human? That's a
major contradiction, don't you think?


Glen

    .27
    
    Glen, I can see where Mike is coming from in .21.  It's a "damned if
    you do and damned if you don't" situation.  Added to that, it's impossible
    to find uniformity among either religious or secular researchers.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

	Richard.... what I am trying to get at is if person "A" finds things to
back the Bible, it appears Mike uses that researcher as one of the proofs the
Bible is accurate. Yet if somewhere down the line that same person found proof
that the Bible was not accurate, would he still back this person? It appears
that he will back researchers ONLY IF they agree with what he thinks is true.
And I see the contradiction because if the same person believes differently
later down the line, and Mike doesn't back her/him still, then Mike can't use 
humans to prove the Bible because then he only uses those who agree with him, 
as long as they always agree with him. That isn't proof. And that is more in
line with what Mike, Jeff, and the rest of them accuse others of doing with
their beliefs.


Glen

    Glen,

    How do know the moon isn't made of cheese?  Do you know the location of
    the magnetic north pole?  How?  How do you know that Mt. Everest is really
    the tallest mountain?  Have you measured it?  At some point we all must
    accept, on faith, the authority of others.  We must all weigh the
    trustworthiness of the source.

    It is an added credibility to a position when someone who doesn't agree
    with it corroborates it.  If a non-Christian corraborates the Bible this
    lends credibility to the Biblical account.  It amazes me that this even
    needs to be pointed out.

    Your accusation of selectively accepting/rejecting research evidence is a
    straw man without basis.  On the other hand we all have access to the
    Bible and can clearly discuss and point out where belief systems vary from
    what is written.

    Michael

    Just to echo Glen, they can't have it both ways.  "If it's from the
    Bible, it's true.  If someone supports the Bible through scientific
    discovery, they're right.  If someone find the Bible flawed through
    scientific means then they must be deceived by the devil."

    Placing one's religious faith in science is precarious at best.
    Science has flip flopped on many issues.

    Tom

| <<< Note 1084.30 by SLBLUZ::CREWS >>>

| At some point we all must accept, on faith, the authority of others. We must 
| all weigh the trustworthiness of the source.

	This is a cop out. If you are to believe something about Him is true,
then it is an absolute. You can't pick and choose like you suggest. Because it
still comes down to as long as they believe the same as you today, you will
believe them. But come tomorrow, if they believe differently, then somehow
these scholars are now just flawed. You can't have both. 

| If a non-Christian corraborates the Bible this lends credibility to the 
| Biblical account. 

	No, that is not true. Do you think all those Christians and
non-Christians who thought slavery was ok'ed in the Bible had credibility just
because they had numbers? I think not. Having others agree does not make it
credible. Look at smoking. Look at AIDS (a gay disease?). Look at the wrongs
that were done in the name of the Bible (which were mis-interpretations of what
the Bible said). 

| It amazes me that this even needs to be pointed out.

	You can point it out, but it does not make it so. 

| Your accusation of selectively accepting/rejecting research evidence is a
| straw man without basis.  

	No.... it is far from being a strawman. If you agree with the person
one day because they believe like you... then reject them the next because
their beliefs are different now....that is not a strawman. And you and I both
know that the same people who say it is ok for the person to give credence to
the Bible today would be denounced if all of a sudden (s)he found proof that
showed the Bible to be a hoax. Same person... but once he was credible, now the
person is not.



Glen

Re  .32

>|  At some point we all must accept, on faith, the authority of others. We must
>|  all weigh the trustworthiness of the source.
>
>   This is a cop out.

    This is reality.  You then proceeded to synthesize your strawman with my
    point.  I'll not debate on that basis.


>|  If a non-Christian corraborates the Bible this lends credibility to the
>|  Biblical account.
>
>   No, that is not true. Do you think all those Christians and
>   non-Christians who thought slavery was ok'ed in the Bible had credibility
>   just because they had numbers?

    First, I said "lends credibility" not proves.  Witnesses in a court of law
    are worthless by your reasoning.

    Then you go on to contrast an opinion based scenario with an evidence
    based one.


>|  Your accusation of selectively accepting/rejecting research evidence is a
>|  straw man without basis.
>
>   No.... it is far from being a strawman.


    It is most definitly a strawman.  Notice the words "if" and "would be."
    You've proposed a hypothetical scenario, as a potential fact, without
    offering proof.  If objective reality exists, then by definition
    falsification of that reality can not.

    Michael

| <<< Note 1084.33 by SLBLUZ::CREWS >>>

| This is reality.  

	No, it is a cop out. You must accept faith not in or on the authority
of others. You have to accept it ONLY through God. And to say one is credible
one day when they agree with you, and say their not credible when they don't,
makes you out to be nothing more than someone who backs the view of others who
agrees with them. That isn't saying the people have done anything other than
agree with you. They still could be wrong.

| First, I said "lends credibility" not proves.  

	In reality, it does not. You are basing the credibility on a person,
not Him.

| You've proposed a hypothetical scenario, as a potential fact, without offering
| proof.  

	Then tell me yes or no.... if you agree with a scholar one day, that
person is credible. If the same scholar later says something that goes aginst
the Bible, you will find that same person as not being credible, right?




Glen

>but you go on and on you can't do that to everyone else, it would seem you have
>not been very consistant. In fact, you contradicted your own beliefs. With what
    
    I have the impression that rejecting any evidence in support of the Bible, 
    secular or biased, is a double standard that is a waste of time to
    address.
    
>would want. Is that the truth as it is to you? If it is, then you can stop
>telling people like me, Dave, Patricia, etc that we don't know the true God.
    
    I never said this.
    
    Mike

>   You must accept faith not in or on the authority of others. You have to
>   accept it ONLY through God.

    This is misleading in that it denies that faith CAN be bolstered by
    evidence which, in large part, comes from the authority of others.  I've
    not said otherwise.

>   Then tell me yes or no.... if you agree with a scholar one day, that
>   person is credible. If the same scholar later says something that goes
>   aginst  the Bible, you will find that same person as not being credible,
>   right?

    It is a proven waste of time to debate hypothetical scenarios and I refuse
    to engage in it.  What an individual scholar says is not the issue.  The
    evidence is.  And, as a whole, the evidence, year by year, decade by
    decade, continues to increase in support of the Biblical record.  One by
    one the postulated historical inaccuracies of the liberal theologians are
    falling in silence.  They don't even deny the evidence and yet you believe
    we should?

    Michael

    Re: .29
    
    IF ALERT:  You have been reported to the IF Police for too many "IF"'s 
    entered in a reply.  Please refrain from this in the future.

Z    No, it is a cop out. You must accept faith not in or on the authority
Z    of others. You have to accept it ONLY through God. And to say one is
Z    credible one day when they agree with you,
    
    Glen must have God's phone number.

>    Glen must have God's phone number.

    Then why don't you ask him for it?  It's not unreasonable to think 
    he has some connection to Him.

    Tom

    A cute way of saying how amazed I am in Glen's knowledge of
    God...especially when all he has to go by is his feelings and what he
    learned in CCD some years back.  OR...maybe Glen is a prophet.
    
    -Jack

    Note:  If Glen is in fact a prophet, then this means that all the other
    prophets were false prophets, since they believed scripture was God
    breathed.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1084.36 by SLBLUZ::CREWS >>>

| This is misleading in that it denies that faith CAN be bolstered by
| evidence which, in large part, comes from the authority of others.  I've
| not said otherwise.

	People have done that in the past. Look where it got them. Thanks for
helping me prove my point.

| It is a proven waste of time to debate hypothetical scenarios and I refuse
| to engage in it.  What an individual scholar says is not the issue.  The
| evidence is.  And, as a whole, the evidence, year by year, decade by
| decade, continues to increase in support of the Biblical record.  One by
| one the postulated historical inaccuracies of the liberal theologians are
| falling in silence.  

	But would you support the same person if they found something that
discredited the Bible? Why is that so hard to answer? It should be very obvious
as to what that answer is. It is *my* belief that YES you WOULD discredit the
works of such an individual. That is unless your beliefs change drastically.
You believe the Bible to be God's Word. If someone says it isn't, you are not
going to agree with them. You would not give them credit for doing a good job
on the research because they did not come to the conclusions that back your
faith. So you would have to discredit the studies. Again, this is my view on
your beliefs. It may or may not be accurate. Only you can say that.


Glen

| <<< Note 1084.38 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen must have God's phone number.

	Only the Pope has that.... 

| <<< Note 1084.40 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| OR...maybe Glen is a prophet.

	I had a teacher who was a Prophet. Mr. Prophet was a great teacher. 

RE: connections.

Everyone here has some connection with the Holy Spirit, or they
probably wouldn't be here.  We can all learn from each other's
connection.

Tom

    Prophet was an NEA hack Glen...don't be fooled!

    "James Luther Adams" A UU theologian, nicely paraphrases Martin Luther,
    when he call the Church "The Prophethood of all believers".

    Glen, your analogy is flawed because it assumes that a scientist's
    change of mind from a previous stance is embraced by the scientific 
    community.  

| <<< Note 1084.48 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, your analogy is flawed because it assumes that a scientist's
| change of mind from a previous stance is embraced by the scientific
| community.

	Mike, if you were to go by the scientific community, you would believe
man was a caveman, and Adam and Eve were not real. Please don't use things that
you yourself would never follow.



Glen

    Glen, you can't base your argument on speculation and treat it as fact. 
    The extension of your logic is nonsensical:

    - *IF* you drive to work, you should ride a bike because there might be
      a bomb in your car.

    As I said, it's not only illogical, but contains too many assumptions.

    Mike

| <<< Note 1084.50 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, you can't base your argument on speculation and treat it as fact.
| The extension of your logic is nonsensical:

	Mike, you are one of two people who keep harping on it as being fact. I
believe I have asked if it were true, and I was then told the person would not
answer a hyperthetical situation. I do wonder if I asked that same person if
someone came up to them and put down God, if that person would stand up to the
one putting down God... would he have ansswered? 

	It is not a fact, Mike...even though you and Mr. Crews keep saying so.


Glen

    Okay, thanks Glen.  Since we know this is hypothetical, what are the
    reasonable chances of this happening?  Is there any precedence for your
    argument?  If so, how common is it? 
    
    The reason I'm asking is because I seriously doubt that this could happen.  
    In the research I've done, the scientific community is as split on
    theological matters as you and I are and will defend their beliefs
    (i.e., they have bias).  They are just a reflection of society in general.
    
    That's why I believe the Biblical support from a non-Christian scientist is
    significant.  It is magnified when the scientist is well respected in
    his/her field.  There is too much pride involved for one of them to
    step out and support anti-evolutionary beliefs.  A scientist who makes
    a stand like this has to really have their facts straight because it
    will be scrutinized to the last detail.  It can make or break their
    careers in the religious world of science.  There are many modern-day 
    examples of this too, let me know if you're interested in seeing some.
    
    Mike