Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Assuming that I've parsed the question correctly, my answer is "yes".
Belief in the validity of the Bible is a subjective decision, so the Bible
is not an objective (non-subjective) source of information about God or
morality.

				-- Bob

>The Bible is not an objective (non-subjective) source of information about
>God or morality.

On the contrary, it is a supernatural source of information about God and
morality.

/john

    > On the contrary, it is a supernatural source of information about God
    > andmorality.
    
    But is it a *subjective* supernatural source of such information? :)
    
    Eric

| <<< Note 1246.2 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| On the contrary, it is a supernatural source of information about God and
| morality.

	But the people reading and interpreting it aren't! :-)

    Believing that the Bible is a non-subjective source is different than
    knowing that it is.  There are many believers through faith.  But the
    100% certainty which is required to claim absolute knowlege of this
    is another matter.

    -dave

    I find it interesting that Jesus spoke in parables.  I find it this way
    because it forces the seeker to ask questions and dig deeper in order
    to ascertain truth.  
    
    I believe scripture is set up much the same way...the Bible as a whole.  
    For example, I have seen the use of 1st John 3 frequently in here. 
    "...for God is love..."  Now does one actually conclude that love in
    it's purest essence is God?  We find by searching scripture that this
    passage is subjective until it is taken in context with scripture as a
    whole.  We learn as we dealve into scripture that love is one of many
    attributes of God.  For example, "...I will make thine enemies a
    footstool for my feet"  Does this mean he will not tarry with the
    wicked of the world for any amount of time?  I believe that God will
    tarry though it be only for a limited time.  I base this conclusion by
    observing the nature of how God acted with Israel in the desert and
    before the Babylonian exile.
    
    -Jack

    Jesus spoke in parables and great wisdom can be gleaned from these. 
    But is it valid to read into these parables beyond their obvious
    meanings?  
    
    I believe that the teachings of Jesus were meant to be very simple. 
    They were meant to be understood by everyone... the great scholars, the
    simple minded, the young, the old and the illiterate.  I believe they
    were meant for everyone and were posed in a simple way for everyone to
    capture.  For this reason, I resist complex interpretations of Jesus' 
    words.  They often seem like attempts to twist their intended meaning
    to become something desired by the interpreter.
    
    -dave
    
    

    Z    Jesus spoke in parables and great wisdom can be gleaned from these. 
    Z    But is it valid to read into these parables beyond their obvious
    Z    meanings?
    
    No, I do not think so.  I would like to pose a request to you Dave. 
    There is a parable in the gospel of Matthew around the 22nd or so
    chapter regarding the fourteen virgins and the oil lamps.  I would be
    curious from your perspective how you would simply interpret it.  
    Keep in mind that there is one customary fact in the times of Jesus. 
    Oil was representative of the annointing of the Holy Spirit.  
    
    I'd appreciate your answer and would also appreciate how Patricia or
    one who adheres to universal salvation would respond.
    
    Thanks and Rgds.,
    
    -Jack
                                  

    
    Hi Richard,
    
    To help me to understand your question will you tell me what "the mark"
    is?
    
    jeff

    RE .8 (Jack)
    
    I don't have a Bible here at my desk.  I'll have to read this over the
    weekend and get back to you.
    
    -dave

    
    Try: 
    	http://www.gospelcom.net/bible
    
    It's pretty cool.

    Dave:
    
    I will be glad to put it in for you.  It is actually short and this is
    again simply for discussion.  I am curious as to what you thought Jesus
    meant by this....
    
    "Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which
    took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.  And five of
    them were wise and five of them were foolish.
    They that were foolish took their lamps and took no oil with them.  But
    the wise took oil in their vessels with their lamps.
    While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.  And at
    midnight, there was a cry made, behold, the bridegroom cometh, go ye
    out to meet him.
    Then all those virgins arose and trimmed their lamps.  And the foolish
    said unto the wise, Give us of your oil, for our lamps are gone out. 
    But the wise answered, saying, Not so; lest there be not enough for us
    and you: but go ye then to them that sell, and buy for yourselves.
    And while they went to buy, the bridegroom came; and they that were
    ready went in with him to the marriage: and the door was shut.
    Afterward came also the other virgins saying, Lord Lord, open to us. 
    But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.  Watch
    therefore, for ye know neither the day nor the hour where in the son of
    man cometh."  Matthew 25: 1-13.
    
    -Jack

    By the way, some helpful tips which may bring parts of this to a better
    light...
    
  -  Oil is symbolic of the Holy Spirit, particularly in the Hebrew culture
     of that time.  
    
  -  Jesus referred to his church as the bride of the lamb.  Since he is
     the Lamb of God, this parable brings out interesting and sober
     ramifications.  For example, it is interesting to note that Jesus
     makes a definite distinction between wise and foolish.
    
     By the way, anybody feel free to discuss or address this.  Dave
    spurred me to enter it since he believed we should interpret the
    parables as they are written, and I wholeheartedly agree.
    
    -Jack

    
    We really can't proceed to talk to the topic issue until Richard
    defines what he means by "the mark".  Of course, that shouldn't
    prohibit discussion of everything else in the universe ;)
    
    jeff

    The phrase, "miss the mark" really defines the word Sin.  Sin was an
    archery term defining the distance an arrow is from the bullseye...the
    mark of perfection.  
    
    So in the context of the true meaning, is the context here that anybody
    seeing scripture as the ultimate authority is as likely to fall into
    sin as one who doesn't?  Is that what the basenote means?

Re .12 (Jack)

He advises the members of his audience to be ready for the coming of
the son of man at all times cuz they don't know when that'll be. (He gave it
away in the last line)

In the context of the cultural and religious beliefs of his audience at that
time and place, it would call for them to be in a state which is attained
through living in accordance to the Torah.  In the context of a christian,
it might mean accepting Jesus as saviour. 

My suspicions...

In the context of buddhist, it would mean being in a state of enlightenment.
In the context of a Native American, it would mean being in touch with the
spirit of nature.  Etc... .  

Jesus spoke to Jews of the 1st century using language and metaphors which made
sense at that time and place.  How would he have spoken to an audience in a
different land and/or time?  Would he have spoken to them in terms of the God
of the ancient Jews?  Or, if his new audience already had taps into God in
the context of different words and metaphors, would he use those?

It all comes down to a matter of faith again, doesn't it?  If you believe that
the bible = unequivocal truth, then Jesus=God=Son-Of-Man, etc... until you find
yourself filling your lamp with exactly the same kind of oil described in the
bible... to the letter!  But a jewish "full lamp" might have one kind of oil, a
christian lamp's oil might be slightly different, and other lamps of other
cultures might all be filled with slightly different oils.  If they all burn,
the flavor of the oil doesn't matter.  A lamp, a torch, a flashlight, a jar of
fireflies, whatever, they all work. (Pardon my extension of the metaphor)

You see, we're quick to interpret certain parts of the bible in terms which
allow us to function in a time and place which was different from ancient
Judea.  E.g. we interpret "sell all you have, give it to the poor and then
follow me"...to..."don't worship money, give to charity and believe in Jesus".
Why? because we can't survive here in 1996 USA with no money at all.  So why
is is so difficult to allow others who live in different cultures to
recognize and practice these wisdoms in a way which makes sense to them?

-dave

Z    So why is is so difficult to allow others who live in different cultures 
Z    to recognize and practice these wisdoms in a way which makes sense to
Z    them?
    
    I will address this in a second.  One of the points I wanted to make
    was made and I appreciate your help.  You spoke of metaphors which of
    course would negate the theory of simplistically reading and
    understanding the parables for how they appear.  Jesus made it clear to
    the disciples he spoke in parables to confound the wise.  Hence the use
    of parables was to make an illustration.  You are correct that the oil
    is a metaphor; however, as you mentioned, Jesus definitely had a
    specific message in giving parables.  Jesus spoke in John 8 of the
    comforter.  He was referring to the Holy Spirit and the Holy Spirit is
    the comforter the believer receives.  It is the Holy Spirit ALONE which
    regenerates a person, through the blood of Jesus Christ.  In other
    words Dave, there IS NO other kind of oil that can be used, since
    without the blood of Christ, mankind is left unredeemed.
    
    Buddhism rejects the person of the Holy Spirit; therefore, the question
    is asked, how can a Buddhist be redeemed and reconciled before a Holy
    God?  The parable clearly indicates the following...
    
    -Five virgins were wise and five were foolish.
    
    	How does this specifically apply to humanity?  Maybe that we hear
    the word and receive or reject it.
    
    -The bridegroom who in this case is clearly the Messiah.  He is coming
    for his bride, the church.  The bride is mentioned as having made
    herself ready for the bridegroom.  The church is certainly fallable in
    its human element but in the twinkling of an eye, the church will be
    changed and become unchastened.  Because Dave, all the corruption of
    our selves will be swept away.
    
    Another very interesting point.  When the five foolish reappeared, the
    groom exclaimed, "Verily I say unto thee, I do not know you."  The door
    was closed tight...just as the door to the ark was closed and judgement
    ensued upon unrighteous humanity.  
    
    Remember Dave, whether you see it as metaphorically or not, Noah's
    message of salvation from the wrath of God was not insincere.  No one
    perished in the flood because the ark lacked room.  They perished in
    the flood because, like the five foolish virgins, they refused to
    believe and obey God.  They refused to respond to God's message of
    repentence.  All who wanted to come on board did.
    
    To address your question above, I answer with the words of King
    Solomon, "There is a way which seems right unto a man.  But its end is
    the way of death."  In other words David, one can use water to fill
    their lamps.  But no matter how much it may make sense to them, there
    is absolutely no replacement for the Holy Spirit in our lives.
    
    -Jack

    Richard, do you concur with my explanation of the parable?  I believe
    this is a very profound illustration our savior made.  I am open to
    other suggestions if you feel I have erred in this!
    
    -Jack

Re: .17

Sorry, Jack, but you've contradicted yourself.

>    Another very interesting point.  When the five foolish reappeared, the
>    groom exclaimed, "Verily I say unto thee, I do not know you."  The door
>    was closed tight...just as the door to the ark was closed and judgement
>    ensued upon unrighteous humanity.  
    
>All who wanted to come on board did.
    
In the Noah's ark story it's clear that there were plenty of people who
wanted to come on board the ark but didn't.... *after* it started raining!
Similarly, in the story of the ten virgins, the five foolish bridegrooms
wanted to attend the wedding, but they were locked out.

				-- Bob

    >You spoke of metaphors which of
    >    course would negate the theory of simplistically reading and
    >    understanding the parables for how they appear.
    
    Well, not in my mind.  It's clear that there's symbolism and one should
    read past this first layer (e.g. Jesus = groom).  But the ferther you
    read into it (like maybe oil = holy spirit ???) the ferther you may be
    wandering from the intended meaning.  To me, the message is "be ready,
    the time of judgement is unpredictable, there's no 2nd chance"  Period!
    Anything more would require deeper levels of interpretation which some
    might not be able to "get", an exclusionary tactic which I do not
    believe Jesus would have intended.
    
    >Jesus made it clear to the disciples he spoke in parables to confound
    >the wise.  Hence the use
    >of parables was to make an illustration. 
    
    I can see how a parable would illustrate a point, but cannot see how
    a simple parable would confound the wise.  Would he not want ALL
    listeners to understand what he was saying, even the wise?  Isn't 
    that why the parables were so simple?
    
    >It is the Holy Spirit ALONE which regenerates a person...
    
    OK, but by how many different names does one recognize the holy spirit?
    I can remember when it used to be called the "Holy Ghost".  In french
    it would be "l'esprit <something or other)", etc... .  You might
    quickly equate all of these as merely differences in language and I'd
    quickly agree with you.  The fact that they all stem from the same
    religious tradition is key.  Even though this point is kinda silly, it
    does illustrate how different people can be talking about the exact
    same thing using different words.
    
    But is it possible for different people of different cultures to be
    talking about the exact same holy spirit, only using words and
    descriptions which are a reflection of the culture in which it arose?  
    
    Consider 2 paths leading up to the same summit starting on opposite
    sides of a mountain.  Both climbers can see their trails lead to the
    top and both claim to have "THE" path to get there. They go their
    separate ways, knowing for sure that the other will be lost forever...
    until they meet at the summit.  When the bible tells you to use a
    specific path, is it saying that this is the path for all of mankind or
    the path which is appropriate for the audience of it's (the bible's)
    message?  Were these directions given again and again to different
    people in different lands and times, identifying appropriate paths for
    them in terms which made sense to them?  
    
    You see, many  many good people have lived and died without ever
    hearing about Jesus. Many others have been born into societies where
    different religious beliefs were ingrained into their very fiber before
    hearing word 1 of any western religion.  God placed them where they are
    and saw to it that these ideas were driven into them as small children
    (it was his plan).  What was he doing, setting them up to get lost? 
    Or revealing himself in a different way?
    
    >Buddhism rejects the person of the Holy Spirit; therefore, the question
    >is asked, how can a Buddhist be redeemed and reconciled before a Holy
    >God?  The parable clearly indicates the following...
    
    It's odd that you say this at this time because I was just reading of
    how a buddhist monk named Tich Naht Hanh was pleased to hear a baptist 
    minister's description of the Holy Spirit as "the energy of God"... a
    notion which he claims was very very familiar to him in his own
    spiritual pursuits.  Again, maybe another case of two different
    cultures looking at the same thing but appearing different in the
    clumsy terms of language.
    
    Do you believe King Solomon's word's were divinely inspired?
    
    -dave

.15
    
>    So in the context of the true meaning, is the context here that anybody
>    seeing scripture as the ultimate authority is as likely to fall into
>    sin as one who doesn't?  Is that what the basenote means?

Close enough.

Richard

Note 1246.18

>    Richard, do you concur with my explanation of the parable?  I believe
>    this is a very profound illustration our savior made.  I am open to
>    other suggestions if you feel I have erred in this!

To be honest, I kind of skipped over it since it really didn't deal with the
basenote.

Richard

    
    Hi Richard, we are still waiting for some description of "the mark" so
    we can discuss this further.  Why are you not responding to the
    question?
    
    jeff

    Bob:
    
    Thanks for the observation.  I actually meant, as David mentioned, that
    all who wanted to enter the ark BEFORE the doors were closed did so by
    faith.  
    
    "and the disciples came to him and asked, Why do you speak in parables?
    He answered and said, Because it is given unto you the mysteries of the
    kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. For whosoever has, to
    him shall it be given: but whosoever has not, from him shall be taken
    away even that which he has.  Therefore, I speak to them in parables:
    because they seeing, see not; and them hearing, hear not, neither do
    they understand.  And in them is fulfilled the prophesy of Isaiah, By
    hearing, you shall hear, and shall not understand; and by seeing you
    shall see and not perceive;
    
    Dave, here is the key to this...
    
    FOR THIS PEOPLE'S HEART IS WAXED COLD, and their ears are dull of
    hearing; and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should
    see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand
    with their heart and be converted, and I should heal them."  
    
    David, the pharisees did not have...begins with an "f".  Yes...faith! 
    They lacked faith and turned a blind eye toward truth.  To tie thius
    with another example, are you familiar with the account some 1700 or so 
    years before Christ...an account between Moses and Pharoah...the
    sovereign of Egypt?  Moses continually said, "Let my people go".  In
    every case, Pharoah hardened his heart and would not let the people
    go...causing plague after plague upon Egypt.  Finally, on the ninth
    time of Moses request it takes an interesting twist.  It says that GOD
    HARDENED pharoahs heart.  In other words David, pharoah insisted on
    godlessness and proved so by his lack of faith.  The pharissees of
    Jesus time also insisted upon this and Jesus obliged them by speaking
    in parables.  In other words, Jesus did not interfere with their free
    volition to reject truth.
    
    -Jack 

    Patricia:
    
    In light of your own theology, do you believe in the direct words of
    Jesus here? 
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    If we had a reliable source of the "direct words" of Jesus, I would
    believe in them.  The sources we have are from persons who recorded the
    oral traditions about Jesus, 30 to 100 years after he lived.
    
                                           Patricia

    Then I would submit to you that by the law of averages, Christianity in
    its intent is a sham.

    Re .24 (Jack)
    
    Jack, you explain biblical stories and parables in terms of the bible.
    This is a perfectly valid thing to do if you accept bible as fact.  But
    if you don't, you question the explanations as much as the stories
    themselves.  There's a certain amount of "suspicion by association" (if
    I may) that comes into play.
    
    You mentioned the story of the Exodus. In that, there's mention of
    parting the Red Sea and turning the Red Sea into blood.  I seriously
    doubt that the Red Sea was ever blood or that it was ever parted.  And
    so, the explanations which are associated with these events are also
    suspect.  What CAN be gleaned from the story, albeit quasi-fiction in
    my mind, is the message that God took care of his folowers and that
    Pharoah was punished for his lack of faith or belief.  
    
    >The pharissees of Jesus time also insisted upon this and Jesus obliged 
    >them by speaking in parables.  
    
    How does speaking in parables oblige those who are godless?  Still not
    clear on what you think is the special relationship between Jesus'
    parables and the pharissees.  It seems odd to me that they would not be
    able to gather the meaning Jesus projected in the parables, even if
    they didn't accept them as truth.
    
    >In other words, Jesus did not interfere with their free volition to
    >reject truth.    
    
    Rejecting truth is one thing, not being able to see it is another.  
    It's been said that the truth of the bible is self evident.  It may not
    be self evident to some and in a sense of bible as authority, it's not
    self evident to me.  Yet I do see truth in many of it's themes,
    especially the gospels.  These I accept and cling to while holding the
    rest in doubt proportional to how much it defies my experiences or
    sense of "common sense".
    
    Why am I so fascinated with the eastern approach?  It does not ask for
    faith or knowlege of any kind.  It proposes that God can be experienced
    here and now in this life. (The kingdom of heaven is at hand ???)  How
    can this be achieved?  In western terms, live the way Jesus lived and
    behave the way he advised you to behave.  It's said that salvation
    "through" Jesus means salvation by following his example.
    
    
    -dave
    
    

    re .27
    
    
    jack,
    
    Your reply again shows how much lack of faith there really is in the
    inerrantist position.  If it can't be precise, consistent, and handed
    down directly from God, then it must be a sham.
    
    Now "if one can experience God in a blade of grass", then an innerrant
    Bible is unnecessary.
    
    Let go of that need to control the experience, and faith will come!

    Patricia:
    
    My statement in .27 was rhetorical.  I am pointing out that it is you,
    Patricia, who continually retorts to a lack of faith claim on your own
    part.  We are once again on the merry go round.  Your faith, and the
    tenets of your church call for subjective belief.  Because of this, you
    have become a law unto yourself...the very essence that created the
    great monsters you so very much hate from past history.
    
    -Jack

        >  We are once again on the merry go round. 
    
    I agree jack.  There doesn't seem to be any way that I can keep you
    from going around in circles, though!  ;-)

    Eeehhehehe...snicker snicker!

Re  .28 (Dave)

>   I seriously
>   doubt that the Red Sea was ever blood or that it was ever parted.

    Dave, in 1243.233 you indicated that you're seeking.  However, do you
    allow for the possiblility of a God who created everything and is more
    than capable of these kind of miracles?  Is your doubt in your way?
    Trust Him first.  He'll explain later.


>   It's been said that the truth of the bible is self evident.

    God's nature and power are evident in His creation (Rom 1:20).  The truth
    of the Bible is self evident to those who first trust in God and have
    received the Holy Spirit, who lives in the heart of the Christian, and
    guides us in its understanding.  After all who better than the author
    Himself to explain it.


>   It [the eastern approach] proposes that God can be experienced here and
>   now in this life. (The kingdom of heaven is at hand ???)  How can this
>   be achieved?

    Yes! The kingdom of heaven is at hand!  God can be experienced here and
    now in this life.  "no one can see the kingdom of God unless he is born
    again." (John 3:3)  We are born spiritually into God's family (and thus
    His kingdom) when we trust Christ to reconcile us.  His Spirit comes to
    live in the heart of the Christian.

    "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be
    with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him,
    because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives
    with you and will be in you.  I will not leave you as orphans; I will come
    to you."  (John 14:16-18)  "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the
    Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you
    of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

    But yes it does require faith.

    Michael

>    "And I will ask the Father, and he will give you another Counselor to be
>    with you forever - the Spirit of truth. The world cannot accept him,
>    because it neither sees him nor knows him. But you know him, for he lives
>    with you and will be in you.  I will not leave you as orphans; I will come
>    to you."  (John 14:16-18)  "the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the
>    Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you
>    of everything I have said to you." (John 14:26)

>    But yes it does require faith.

    Yes, Michael
    
    It requires Faith to believe in that Spirit which lives within us.  It
    requires Faith to believe that that spirit will teach us all things.
    
    What I see so frequently from those who believe in a book, is a fear of
    that Spirit.  Not faith in that Spirit.
    What I see so frequently from those who believe in a book, is a vain
    attempt to try to stiffle that Spirit and make it conform to the words
    written by human hands.
    
    There is only one way to test the Spirit.  It is not by intellectually
    comparing the Spirit to a book.  "By thy fruits you shall be known". 
    Those persons living by the Spirit can be known by their fruits.  "A bad
    tree cannot bear good fruits and a good tree cannot bear bad fruits".

                                                                        

Z    It requires Faith to believe in that Spirit which lives within us.  It
Z    requires Faith to believe that that spirit will teach us all
Z    things.
        
Z    What I see so frequently from those who believe in a book, is a
Z    fear of that Spirit.  Not faith in that Spirit.
    
    I fear nothing.  I revere the Holy Spirit because it is the Holy Spirit
    that has given me the mark of righteousness through grace...and because
    of who the Holy Spirit is.
    
    Judging from your first paragraph, am I to assume you DO believe in the
    Holy Spirit?  The person and comforter that one receives upon
    conversion?  Or are you just giving yourself lip service?  Yes, we are
    well aware of your axe to grind against those who revere the Word of
    God...but I don't in my opinion believe God really cares about that
    aspect of your walk.
    
    I am going to be interested in your answer here...
    
    Z    It requires Faith to believe in that Spirit which lives within us.  It
    Z    requires Faith to believe that that spirit will teach us all
    Z    things.
    
    I am repeating the words you mentioned above because you will one day
    be accountable for this proclamation.  Are you of the Spirit or are you
    of another spirit?
    
    -Jack
    

re .28

Dave,

>   I seriously
>   doubt that the Red Sea was ever blood or that it was ever parted.

I hope you don't mind a correction, but it was the Nile river that was
turned to blood and not the Red Sea.

On a light note, I'd like to relate an experience I heard (maybe urban
legend). A teacher asked a class of young children to relate some
miracles. A Jehovah's Witness child put their hand up, and spoke
of Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea. The teacher responded
that this wasn't a miracle, because experts thought that the Israelites 
had crossed where the water would only have been 6 inches deep. The
teacher asked the class again, and the Witness child put their hand up 
again. After a little while, because no other child put their hand up,
the teacher allowed the child to answer. In response the child said
"Certainly what was a miracle, was Pharaoh and his army drowning in 
six inches of water!." 

Well it made me chuckle.

Phil. 

    Re .33 (Michael)
    
    I allow for the possibility of a God who created everything.  Serious
    doubt of this exists though for several reasons, amoung them the
    unresolved paradox of "creating time" I proposed in 1243.  I also consider
    the possibility that the bible is a work of man and contains a lot of
    fiction, miracles included.  IOW, in my mind, it's far more probable that
    someone composed some fiction, or exaggeration of fact than it is for a
    genuine miracle to have occured.
    
    >Is your doubt in your way?
    Absolutely.  I also doubt the veracity of ancient greek mythology.  How
    about you ?  :-)
    
    >Trust Him first.  He'll explain later.
    Is this not asking for faith?  I was told that faith comes from grace
    and that grace comes from asking.  I've asked and am still waiting.
    
    >God's nature and power are evident in His creation (Rom 1:20).
    "God as creator" is an explanation for the existence of the universe.
    Is this "explanation" a human artifact or the truth?  You suggested
    that it's truth and that this will be revealed in time by the Holy
    Spirit which you get from faith which comes from grace which comes from
    asking.  Wheeeew.... :-)  I'm wide open to receiving the truth from the
    Holy Spirit or any other source worthy of being trusted.  NO
    revelations yet, but in the meantime, I'll try other sources.
    
    Looking at (John 14:16-18) and (John 14:26) from a more easterly
    direction, it sounds very familiar.
    
    Re .36 (Phil)
    
    You're right, of course, about the Nile turing to blood.  And I too
    agree that some of the conventional explanations for the biblical events
    are too much of a stretch.  They're entertaining to read, but probably
    not true.  The most probable explanation is that the miracles were
    exaggerations or full fiction.  Before the Suez Canal Was built, wasn't
    there a way to walk from Egypt to the Sinai without having to deal with
    the Red Sea?
    
    -dave
    
    
    
    
    

 Z   IOW, in my mind, it's far more probable that
 Z   someone composed some fiction, or exaggeration of fact than it is
 Z   for a genuine miracle to have occured.
    
    I have always been bewildered by these kinds of answers.  Here we have
    an historical document.  The interesting thing is the Jews over in
    Israel today very much believe in their history and pride themselves on
    their ability to document lineages and keep accurate records of
    historical accounts.  Indeed Abraham is considered the father of the
    nation and Moses is given great credance over there as one of the
    greatest prophets and lawgiver of their heritage.
    
    And yet when it is suggested by some ignoramous on the street today,
    that the holocaust never happened, that it was a fictitious event that
    was conjured up, I would venture to say that most in this file would
    consider this to be the height of bigotry.  Now...why is that?
    
    -Jack

    Jack, look into the bible itself for ambiguiity.  How many gospels are
    there?  Note the differences.  How many gnostic gospels were discarded
    because their accounting were too far astray from the four that were
    kept?  And yet all of these gospels were written by the Jews and
    contain historical fact.
    
    I'm sure the bible contains a lot of historical fact.  I never denied
    this.  Neither do I discount the possibility that it's tainted with 
    exaggeration and/or some outright fiction.   
    
    I saw (and recorded) a documentary on the tube where biblical
    historians were interviewed about the people and times of ancient
    Judea.  They said that it was common for documents to be "embelished"
    with what was thought to be impertinent fiction as a means of modifying
    the reader's interpretation.  They were not talking about the bible
    per-se. They just said that this was common practice for the peopl of
    that time and place. If one does not believe that the bible contains
    objective truth, the product of divine inspiration, one might expect
    that this practice of adding impertinent exageration/fiction woul dhave
    been used  in biblical accounts as well.  As I said, I recorded the
    documentary (3 parts, 1 hr/part).  I'd be glad to mail it to you.
    
    >Now...why is that?
    
    Because we live in a culture where journalism prides itself on being
    objective.  Objective observing is a mainstay in the scientific method
    (something which didn't exist in the years of the OT) and this method
    has flowed out into journalism (save the "Enquirer" and the like). 
    Film footage of the camps exists.  And we live in close temporal
    proximity to the event.  We can talk to survivors, the allied soldiers
    who were there and even the nazis who ran the campe. Interviews with 
    these witnesses are documented by many different means (voice, film, 
    written) and by many different interviewers.  The evidence, although
    denied by some, is monumental.  The OT has one account of each event
    and was written by people who's objectivity in reporting is in
    question.  The gospels (gnostic and not) were written by several. 
    The degree to which they concur is evidence of what was probably 
    historical fact.  Where there is conflict or gross omissions, one has
    to be more suspicious.  One must also remember that the gospels were
    written decades after Jesus' life, a time of the evangelists where
    the written accounts of Jesus might have been influenced by the way
    people wanted to remember things.
    
    -dave
    
    
    

    
    BTW, we still can't discuss .0 in a meaningful way since Richard won't
    clarify his question/statement.
    
    jeff

    Richard, for crying out loud you are the host of this string.  Please
    clarify the statement.
    
    Thank you.
    
    

    
    Nice software you've got there, Eric!  The question is not what does
    "miss the mark" mean but what is "the mark" under consideration.
    
    jeff

re Note 1246.43 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     Nice software you've got there, Eric!  The question is not what does
>     "miss the mark" mean but what is "the mark" under consideration.
  
        You *clearly* didn't understand Eric's posting at all, did
        you?  "Miss the mark" is a figure of speech -- it cannot be
        understood merely by parsing it into a verb "miss" and an
        object "the mark"!

        Eric's posting gives some likely rough equivalents for the
        figure of speech "miss the mark".

        It is meaningful to ask what Richard meant by "miss the mark"
        -- Eric gives some clues to the answer.

        It is absurd to ask what Richard meant by "the mark".

        Bob

Must we be so hard on each other?

 ZZ    It is absurd to ask what Richard meant by "the mark".
    
    I don't necessarily agree with this because "the mark" in this case
    would clearly identify what the writer sees as obtaining righteousness. 
    There are some who solely subscribe to the social gospel while others
    see the social gospel as the fruit of faith in the resurrected Christ.
    
    -Jack

    
    You have no basis for making your statement, Bob.  If "miss the mark"
    is a figure of speech, which it is, it is a figure representing
    something else.  But then you're the same guy who says, "it seems blah
    blah blah..." but when asked, "why it seems blah blah blah..." you are
    silent.  I think you've devised your own secret method for writing and
    interpreting language, at least in this forum.
    
    Richard is comparing two positions in relation to one position
    "the mark", and asking a question.  A question cannot be answered
    unless it is clear and he has constructed his question in an unclear
    fashion.  It is so unclear that it cannot be addressed as it is written
    which is obvious from the lack of discussion of the topic.  Clearly
    there is interest in the discussion, unlike other empty-reply topics.
    
    jeff

re Note 1246.47 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     But then you're the same guy who says, "it seems blah
>     blah blah..." but when asked, "why it seems blah blah blah..." you are
>     silent.  

        Example, please.

    
    In 1243.
    
    jeff

.41

>    Richard, for crying out loud you are the host of this string.  Please
>    clarify the statement.
    
>    Thank you.

Permit me to remind you that I said in .21 that your paraphrase in .15 was
"close enough."  Would you have me clarify it even more, my friend?

Richard

    Well at least be nice enough to communicate this to Jeff...who
    apparently still did not understand what you meant.  A little simple
    communication and consideration will go a long way for all of us.
    
    Your friend,
    
    -Jack

>    I at least have a reference point outside of myself, the Bible and the 
>    self-attesting God revealed there.  It is objective in that it is
>    written and abounding in statements and explanations about reality.  
>    These statements are available to everyone here and may be considered, 
>    discussed, argued, compared to our lives, our world, our condition, our
>    needs, and so on.  Tom, on the other hand, has no such objective source, 
>    that I'm aware of.  His problem is not my problem at all.

>>But the real question is has Tom missed the mark?  And if so, has he missed
>>the mark to a greater or lesser degree than those reliant solely on the Book?

    Of course he's missed the mark.  It is idolotrous to worship or condone
    the worship of other gods, for example.  It is unpardonable to fail to
    serve exclusively and completely the Lord Jesus Christ, for example. 
    It is evil to condone what God has condemned, homosexuality as an
    example.
    
>>Who's exam is Tom flunking?
    
    God's exam as revealed in the Bible.

    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    When did you become god to know Tom's relationship with her?
    
    

    Howdy Meg,
        
>   When did you become god to know Tom's relationship with her?
    
    Tom has revealed his heart here through his words.  God has revealed
    Himself through His words.  It is easy to compare the two.
    
    jeff
    

    God does not end at the end of Revelations.

    The Bible holds some of the notes and some of the words.
    Our lives fill in the rest of the song.  Only then can
    we sing God's song with all our hearts.  Pity the poor
    souls who cannot sing.

>   When did you become god to know Tom's relationship with her?

    What *I'd* be curious to find out is what is *Jeff's* relationship
    with Her?  :-)

    Tom

    
    Y'all are devolving to absurdity as quickly as you can enter a note.
    
    jeff

RE: .57

	:-)

re Note 1246.55 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     Tom has revealed his heart here through his words.  God has revealed
>     Himself through His words.  It is easy to compare the two.
  
        Since you seem to think that only the Bible is "objective",
        aren't you comparing apples and oranges here?

        (At a minimum, how do you know if Tom's words really reveal
        his heart if you can't trust them?)

        In the universe you've set up for yourself, you can't do what
        you're trying to do!

        Bob

>     Tom has revealed his heart here through his words.  God has revealed
>     Himself through His words.  It is easy to compare the two.
  
>>        Since you seem to think that only the Bible is "objective",
>>        aren't you comparing apples and oranges here?
    
    No.

    
    	jeff

	Jeff, could you explain that please?

    
    Sure, Glen!
    
    Tom's words about himself are subjective.  God's words about Himself
    are subjective.  Bob's contradiction doesn't exist.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    re .57
    
    No, we are not devolving to absurdity.
    
    You have created an idol out of paper and ink and are arrogantly
    belittling many of us for not worshipping your idol!
    
    You jeff have missed the mark and are very lucky that the Divine is
    tolerant, loving, and patient.
    
    As far as I am concerned, you can worship any Divinity you wish.  Just
    stop whining to us that we should worship your book!.

	
    Hi Patricia,
        
    >You have created an idol out of paper and ink and are arrogantly
    >belittling many of us for not worshipping your idol!
    
    I know you keep asserting this to be true but, of course, it is
    completely false that I worship paper and ink.  I worship God who has
    chosen the excellent method of the written word to reveal His will to
    us in these days.
    
    
    >You jeff have missed the mark and are very lucky that the Divine is
    >tolerant, loving, and patient.
    
    I *know* I've missed the mark!  But at least I know what the mark is.
    And at least I know who did hit the mark on my behalf.
    
    >As far as I am concerned, you can worship any Divinity you wish.  Just
    >stop whining to us that we should worship your book!.
    
    I'm not whining, Patricia.  And I don't want you to worship a book but
    worship the God who wrote the book!  
    
    This is the *Christian* Perspective forum and the Christian voice should 
    be acknowledged and respected here.  I'm not demanding or suggesting
    anything that is new with regard to Christianity.  Christianity has
    always based its knowledge of God upon the Scriptures, the Word of God.
    
    jeff

>    I *know* I've missed the mark!  But at least I know what the mark is.
>    And at least I know who did hit the mark on my behalf.

    I'm not sure about that.

>    I'm not whining, Patricia.  And I don't want you to worship a book but
>    worship the God who wrote the book!  

    God didn't write the book, people did and people decided which
    books would be included and which would be excluded.  No, Patricia,
    don't worship the god who wrote the book.  You may, however, worship
    the God who inspired the book.  She's really a great one to have
    around :-)

>    This is the *Christian* Perspective forum and the Christian voice should 
>    be acknowledged and respected here.

    I agree.  Then why, Jeff, do you keep denying it and telling me
    it's wrong?

    Tom

    
    Extremely calculated selective editing is a cowardly practice, Tom.
    
    jeff

RE: .66

That's just plain nasty.  I hope you delete it.

Tom

    
    No, Tom, I'm simply asking you to be honest.  This medium is difficult
    enough as it is without the cheap tactics you used a couple back.
    
    jeff

It seems you'll do anything to try to get at me.

Resorting to name calling does not become a conference
that calls itself Christian.

Tom

    I would ask all to maintain civility, if not charity.  To do less will
    win neither hearts nor minds nor souls.
    
    Richard
    

	Jeff, that was low even for you. I'm sorry you wrote that. I had
thought better of you.


Glen

1243.429

>    I at least have a reference point outside of myself, the Bible and the 
>    self-attesting God revealed there.  It is objective in that it is
>    written and abounding in statements and explanations about reality.  
>    These statements are available to everyone here and may be considered, 
>    discussed, argued, compared to our lives, our world, our condition, our
>    needs, and so on.  Tom, on the other hand, has no such objective source, 
>    that I'm aware of.  His problem is not my problem at all.

But the real question is has Tom missed the mark?  And if so, has he missed
the mark to a greater or lesser degree than those reliant solely on the Book?

Whose exam is Tom flunking?

Richard
(Edited and re-entered)

    Re: missing the mark
    
    We're all sinners.

 Romans 3:10,23  as Mike said, we all miss the mark.




 Jim

    Sorry...I guess I missed that.
    
 Z   You jeff have missed the mark and are very lucky that the Divine is
 Z       tolerant, loving, and patient.
    
    Interesting the sheer irony of the statement above...considering
    Patricia's uncontrollable bent toward Psalm 103!
    
-Jack

> Z   You jeff have missed the mark and are very lucky that the Divine is
> Z       tolerant, loving, and patient.
    
>    Interesting the sheer irony of the statement above...considering
>    Patricia's uncontrollable bent toward Psalm 103!
    
I guess I'm pretty thick.  I don't see "the sheer irony."

Richard

    The irony is that while Patricia condemns Jeff for "worshipping a
    book", she uses the attributes of God listed in the Psalms as her
    indictment.  
    
    -Jack

    I understand, why Bishop Spong wrote the book titled
    "Rescuing the Bible from Fundementalism".
    
    
    I get criticized as much for using the Bible as I do for anything else.
    
    

    .76
    
    Need one exalt the book in order to use it or quote from it?
    
    Richard
    

    No but as you say Richard, using it out of context shows a
    misunderstanding of the passages intent or it shows an agenda.  Either
    way it is not too flattering.
    
    -Jack

>    Need one exalt the book in order to use it or quote from it?

    Whether or not it is 100% accurate, it's still a pretty neat book!

    Lots of wisdom and lots of directions on how to connect with God.

    I try to take what I can.  What I can't I either don't need or
    can't use *now*.  I don't know about later.  I have faith She
    will let me know.  I've come to trust Him on things like this.

    Tom

Back to the topic:

It seems to me that objectivity requires some measure of detachment.
But those who hold that the Bible is objective because it is outside
of themselves appear to be the least detached from it.  External, it
seems to me, is not necessarily objective.

Richard

.79

>    No but as you say Richard, using it out of context shows a
>    misunderstanding of the passages intent or it shows an agenda.  Either
>    way it is not too flattering.

Then I'm still missing "the sheer irony" you spoke about.

Richard

    The irony I'm referring to is simply her use of scripture when it is
    convenient.  How could she possibly know if Psalm 103 is fact or
    fiction.  How could we possibly know the nature of God had we not the
    written Word of God?  Feelings???  Ouuu....dangerous measuring stick. 
    Very unreliable!
    
    -Jack

>    The irony I'm referring to is simply her use of scripture when it is
>    convenient. 

    Others here use science, other means of revealing truth, in
    the same way.
    
    Tom

    Okay...Tom that was an acceptable rebuttal.  I concede your point here!
    
    Now go away and don't come back until Thursday!!! :-)
    
    -Jack

.83

>    The irony I'm referring to is simply her use of scripture when it is
>    convenient.

Are you saying it would be less ironic to you if Patricia used Scripture
when it was other than convenient?

>    How could she possibly know if Psalm 103 is fact or
>    fiction.

Is what is factual all there is to truth?

>    How could we possibly know the nature of God had we not the
>    written Word of God?  Feelings???  Ouuu....dangerous measuring stick. 
>    Very unreliable!

I believe God would have made Godself known even if the Book had never come
about.  I take it this is different from what you believe?

Richard

    The truly ironic thing is that Patricia is not even familiar with Psalm
    103.  Any knowledge of its content is (intuitive ! (-:))