Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    As I see it, the major difference begins with a belief about the nature
    of the Bible and how the Bible is a source of Revelation.  Is this
    difference so great that further dialogue is impossible.

    Sometimes a common enemy serves to quell differences.  In the political
    arena, christians seem to rally more under the republican banner, against
    Clinton.  In something like this conference, the "enemy" might be someone
    like me.  Would you agree that this might be a contributing factor?
    
    The improvement in dialogue might extend beyond liberal<->conservative
    christians.  In "Crossing the Threshold of Hope", the Pope was
    uncharacteristically kind when he spoke of non-christian religions.   He 
    cited the differences but emphasized that it was important to focus on 
    the common ground and continue dialogue to improve relations.   
    
    What's this world coming to?
    
    -dave
    
    

    The difference between the two is that one is selective while the other
    is not.  Selective requires the reader to filter out that which is in
    essence, perceived garbage while cleaving to that which fits the image
    of their perception of God.  An example of one who was a selective
    reader would be likened to a slave owner in the 1800's, or a cult
    leader, or even Satan, as we saw he was very good at using scripture in
    portion to promote half truths.  
    
    "Thou shalt not surely die (lie), for when you eat thereof you shall
    become as God, knowing good and evil, (truth)"  
    
    In the three cases above...slaveowner, cult leader, Satan, they have
    become a law unto themselves.  Oh the danger of selective doctrine.
    
    -Jack

    Dave, I don't nor ever did see any enemies in this conference. 
    Remember, notes is a place of discussion but makes a poor evangelism
    tool!
    
    -Jack

    Well, maybe enemy is too harsh a term.  POint was that similar sides
    often set their differences aside and close ranks when opposed by a
    position which is radically different.  The examples in political
    history are many.  And it does seem to be a human tendancy to act this
    way.  
    
    What you said in .3 was interesting.  Would you say that regarding less
    palletable biblical stories as being symbolic is the same as 
    selectively choosing doctrine?  E.g. Is one being too selective if
    he/she believes the message of the gospels but regards Noah's Ark as
    being fiction with a moral?  ANd where does variability in interpretation
    come into play in the arena of being "selective"?
    
    -dave

>    Remember, notes is a place of discussion but makes a poor evangelism
>     tool!

And it's a poor craftman that blames his tools...

    I too think enemy is a harsh word.  I'll probably get some flack for
    this, but I mainly feel sorry for some of the participants in here.  I
    think you are shortchanging yourselves when it comes to a personal
    relationship with Jesus Christ.  You could have it so much better and
    be taken to a higher, more intimate level.  As these things go though,
    it is very difficult to communicate to someone what it is they are
    missing.
    
    Mike

Note 1257.3  (Jack)     
    
>     The difference between the two is that one is selective while the other
>     is not. 
                              
    Perhaps inappropriately Jack, but when I read your note I read
    
    "The difference between the two is that (Patricia) is being selective
    and I am being impartial."
    
    Is that what you are trying to say.
    
    
    I believe that you are being selective when you read the Bible.  I
    believe that when I read the Bible, I emphasis the consistent messages
    and discard  what is inconsistent and not relevent.   The reality is that
    both of us start with different assumption about the Bible and those
    assumptions drives selective behavoir.
    
    When I read two geneologies that are different, I (know) that they are
    written by different sources, that most likely neither is accurate, and
    look for the bigger message, and not historical detail.
    
    When you read two geneologies that are different, you (know) that there
    is some hidden key, that if you can comprehend it, you can reconcile
    the two.  
    
    Your belief that the two must be reconciled causes as much selective
    behavoir as my belief that neither is accurate and neither must be
    reconciled.
    
    
>     Selective requires the reader to filter out that which is in
>    essence, perceived garbage while cleaving to that which fits the image
>    of their perception of God.
    
    Another view.
    
    Selective may also require the reader to reconcile that which is not
    reconcilable and cling to an illogical composition which fits the image
    of their perception of the Bible.  Then the reader may create a
    perception of God based on their illogical composition.
    
    
    
>      An example of one who was a selective
>    reader would be likened to a slave owner in the 1800's, or a cult
>    leader, or even Satan, as we saw he was very good at using scripture in
>    portion to promote half truths.  
 
    
    Jack, this is a technique that you use, that bothers me.  YOu build on
    your own assumptions, never qualifying them as assumptions, assume that
    they are true, and then link them to evil.
    
    I read  "Patricia, who filters out what she does not want to believe is
    like A Cult leader, a slave owner or even Satan, as we saw he was very
    good at using ..."
    
    I ignore the tactic, Jack, but it is a very offensive tactic. 
    
    The reality is I attempt to read the Bible in context, making the best
    sense I can out of it, and just because my conclusions are different
    than yours, you try to link me to A cult leader, a slave owner or even
    Satan.
    
    Jack, I have always given you the benefit of the doubt and assumed that
    this is a tactic that you use out of ignorance and not as a deliberate
    ploy to win an argument by associating an opponent with evil.  You also
    maintain the stance of being friend, supporter, and best buddy even as
    you use this underhanded tactic.  I hope you are not more conscious of
    the tactic that you are using here.
 
                                                 Patricia

    I see it this way.  As a believer and as a person, I find it a real
    blessing to see somebody changed, converted, and regenerated.  I have
    to keep the perspective that I am merely a link in the chain that God
    uses to bring one to the savior.  Or admittedly, one may eventually be
    saved in spite of me.  I remember some who shared with me in my life
    and I remember coming to the savior in spite of their awkwardness,
    impatience, and lack of tact and manner.  
    
    The important thing to remember, and I especially address this to
    people such as Tom, that God should never be rejected or penalized due
    to the lack of foresight of humans.  "I want nothing to do with
    Christianity because so and so did this...or Falwell did this...or
    Bakker did this..."  These excuses don't make it with a sovereign and
    Holy God.  We are all accountable in this way.  
    
    -Jack

    I really am looking for real dialogue here.
    
    It seems to me, that real dialogue needs to start with understanding
    that both sides are attempting to do justice to the Bible with their
    own way of understanding it.
    
    I'm not going to convince Jack, Jim, Mike that their way of reading the
    bible is wrong.  They are not going to convince me that my way is
    wrong.  Where does it take us, if we start with a understanding that we
    both have differing assumptions about the Bible.
    
    
    Or asking the question another way.
    
    "Is an appropriate understanding of how to read the Bible necessary to
    be a Christian."  If so how do you know this?

    Jack,
    
    I would like to see you, Jack Martin take responsibility for your own
    noting style and the impact it may have on others.
    
    Tom and I are both accountable for our own spiritual development.  I
    have tried being very specific with your note, showing why it is
    offensive and in very poor taste.  If you disagree with me, say so.
    Don't change the subject by saying Tom is responsible for his choice
    even if someone is awkward etc.
    
    By the way jack.  To reject Christianity and to reject Christ are two
    very different decisions.  I may reject Christianity because of the
    tone and actions of those who call themselves Christians.  Even if I
    came to that decision, I would still follow Jesus as I understand
    Jesus.  

    No tactic of offense was meant.  What I am conveying here is that most
    of the accusations put forth toward Christians, i.e. Slave ownership,
    were actually committed by people who read the Bible selectively.  This
    is not an equivocal statement on my part..in other words, I am not
    portraying guilt by association.  I realize you are one of the great
    advocates for civil rights.  But I do stand by the premise that the
    failings of the church were greatly committed by people who followed
    beliefs through great selectivity and subjectivity.  We become a law
    unto ourselves and this is one of the greatest dangers of all.  
    
    -Jack

    Patricia, in a Christian Perspective conference, I find the adherance
    to baal worship, paganism, goddess worship and the like to be very
    offensive as well.  I believe it is very much out of the realm of
    Christianity and yet it is somewhat portrayed as being the same.  I see
    Tom referring to God as "Her" in order to make you and others feel
    included and I find that offensive as well.  Yet at the same time, I
    acknowledge your right to speak and I don't exhort you over this.  Why
    bother?
    
    As far as noting styles, I think what I said was very germane to the
    discussion.  You, Patricia and others are writhingly guilty of
    selective doctrine...as you have openly admitted.  You have become a
    law unto yourself.   It isn't a dig...it isn't an insult...it is an
    observation.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    What are you guilty of?  And why is it so much more important to you to
    point out what you think I am guilty of  and not yourself.
    
    I think that Tom refers to God as "Her" because he believes that God is
    not really either Male or Female and his referring to God as Her
    acknowledges the unfairness to women and maybe even to men of always
    referring to God as masculine.
    
    Jack, I don't believe the the God I worship is any different than the
    God you worship, Jeff worships, or any other Christian in here. 
    Further, I don't think that the God I worship is any different than the
    Goddess that Meg worships.  I believe that there is one Divine, and
    everything came into being through that Divine.  
    
    If you believe that you and I and meg are all worshipping different
    Gods, and that your God is the King God, then that is your problem and
    nobody else's. 
    
    Jack, if you were noting in Yukon, you would be at odds with the people
    in their too.  You just would not be able to hide behind your own sense
    of Bible believing self righteousness.
    
    Jack, don't associate me in a note string with Satan again.  
    

    Jack,
    
    Are you saying you are somehow above selectivity and subjectivity?
    
    Are you saying your "observations" are from a superior position to
    Patricia's?
    
    Are you saying she's missing the mark and you aren't?
    
    Richard
    

>    Tom referring to God as "Her" in order to make you and others feel
>    included and I find that offensive as well.

    God is gender inclusive/neutral/whatever.  God transcends gender.

    To use "He" exclusively would give the impression that God
    had mainly masculine attributes.  I can see how this would
    be offensive to some women.
    
    So, whom shall I offend?  Or shall I give up the use of pronouns
    when referring to the Almighty altogether?
    
>    discussion.  You, Patricia and others are writhingly guilty of
>    selective doctrine...as you have openly admitted.  

    I believe we are all "guilty" of that.

>    You have become a law unto yourself.

    If Pat is anything like me I believe you've missed the mark.

    I (try to) surrender to God, to what is true.  I *honestly*
    try to perceive what is true as best I can.  We do not make
    our own laws, but we make our own observations, learn what
    we can, where we can and try to worship God in the here and
    now.  If something gets in the way of worshipping God, then
    it's a problem and needs to be dealt with.  I try not to
    have an agenda but honestly perceive what God is revealing
    to me.
    
    Tom

>    I think that Tom refers to God as "Her" because he believes that God is
>    not really either Male or Female and his referring to God as Her
>    acknowledges the unfairness to women and maybe even to men of always
>    referring to God as masculine.

    Actually, Pat, I'm not that political.

    I do it more so I won't get stuck putting God in a "box".  So
    I won't just think of Him as some white guy.  He's more than
    that.

    There's God everywhere working through everything.  To restrict
    myself to just masculine stuff would be a shame and a pitty.

    Him, Her, That.  My little mind gets caught up in terms.  It's
    my problem.  This is my way of dealing with it.

    Tom

  ZZ    Further, I don't think that the God I worship is any different than the
 ZZ     Goddess that Meg worships.
    
    Meg, do you believe God sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross for your
    sins?  If so, congratulations as this is the God that I worship.  
    
  ZZ      Are you saying you are somehow above selectivity and subjectivity?
    
    No, I'm not.  I do however believe there is a core doctrine of belief
    we are to follow in order to be redeemed.  The notion that there are
    many roads to the Father is in my view, a demonic belief.
        
  ZZ      Are you saying your "observations" are from a superior position to
  ZZ      Patricia's?
    
    If it is from a superior position, it is not my doing.  I believe
    observations can be built on a foundation of stone or a foundation of
    sand.      
    
  ZZ      Are you saying she's missing the mark and you aren't?
    
    If I may use an analogy.  I believe Patricia's seminary has embedded
    her ability to hit a triple off the wall while it is possible I can
    only hit a double or a single.  However, they insist she run to what I
    know as third based while I am running to first.  Smug???  It may be
    perceived that way but I'm sure the feeling is mutual.  
    
    Patricia, I was actually taken back that you didn't sign your last
    entry.  I think you did this to me once a year ago and apparently you
    were perturbed at me.  Why you are I can't comprehend...since it has
    been obvious for a few years now that you believe my doctrine is not of
    God either.  Why should the example of Satan be of any offense or
    surprise to you?  Incidently, in all fairness I never mentioned your
    name in that note.  You took it upon yourself to take it personally and
    I meant it generically.  
    
    And finally, the he/she thing can be a circular argument.  Since God is
    genderless, it is safe to say the absurdity of referring to God as
    "she" is as petty as referring to God as "he".  The fairness issue in
    this case is built upon a silly premise, since God is genderless
    anyways.  However, the term "she" implies goddess worship which is why
    I find the pronoun to be offensive.  
    
    -Jack 

    Jack,
    
    	I don't believe Patricia's superior position is of her "own doing"
    either, though you appear to think it is.
    
    Richard
    

|    When I read two geneologies that are different, I (know) that they are
|    written by different sources, that most likely neither is accurate, and
|    look for the bigger message, and not historical detail.
    
    ...but then you miss out on the acrostics (i.e., hidden messages in
    the translation of the names) ;-)
    
|    Your belief that the two must be reconciled causes as much selective
|    behavoir as my belief that neither is accurate and neither must be
|    reconciled.
    
    Frankly, it is beyond me how taking God's Word as a supernaturally
    engineering, integrated whole, is being selective.
    
    Mike

|    "Is an appropriate understanding of how to read the Bible necessary to
|    be a Christian."  If so how do you know this?
    
    Jesus Christ said if you love Him, obey His Word.

    Richard, to me, feelings are the very last element of faith.  Feelings
    are a very poor tool for determining truth.  
    
    -Jack

A dialogue where only one side has an open mind is doomed to eventual failure.
I've seen huge strides in the space of understanding and respect on the part
of Patricia and Tom and... and I like to think myself.  I fear that I've seen
little or nothing in that space from some of the more conservative christian
participants.  

Everyone has a personal relationship with God, even atheists.  Everyone may
some day have to account for their beliefs and actions.  But all of that is
between God and the individual.  Those relationships are not for others to
condemn or approve.  "Judge and you shall be judged" ???


-dave

    Once again another individual misusing the context Jesus spoke of with
    reference to the judgement quote.
    
    Stating an opinion based on a reference is not a judgement Dave.  This
    has been bantered about before.  If we are born into seperation and
    depravity, then a personal relationship cannot be obtained except from
    the drawing of the Holy Spirit.  Jesus made this clear by his very own
    words.  "He who believes in the Son of God hath life but he who does
    not believe shall not see life but the wrath of God abideth in him." 
    
    Or is this just one of those verses directed at the other people?
    
    -Jack

>A dialogue where only one side has an open mind is doomed to eventual failure.
>I've seen huge strides in the space of understanding and respect on the part
>of Patricia and Tom and... and I like to think myself.  I fear that I've seen
>little or nothing in that space from some of the more conservative christian
>participants.  

    Actually, Dave, I disagree.

    The conservative side hasn't changed any of their core beliefs.
    I think this is a good thing.  However, I've seen some bending
    in other areas, not so central to their faith.

    I believe some views on women have moved as have ways of expression.
    The tone in some cases has softened.

    Believe it or not, in our own way we're trying to get along in 
    here.  There are certain things we won't bend on but, as this
    note shows, we're trying to reach understanding where we can.

    Communication, even though it gets a little rough sometimes,
    is happening.  I'm learning to understand, not necessarily
    agree with, their point of view and I'm learning to deal with it.
    I *think* Jack is starting to see that my use of "Her" is
    for inclusion of the feminine, not for "Goddess worship".
    He may not use "Her" but it may not upset him as much as
    before.
    
    Any cleared up misunderstandings is progress.
    
    And, what would this place be without the conservatives?
    Blessed be all of us  :-)

>Everyone has a personal relationship with God, even atheists.  Everyone may
>some day have to account for their beliefs and actions.  But all of that is
>between God and the individual.  Those relationships are not for others to
>condemn or approve.  "Judge and you shall be judged" ???

    Yeah.  I'm still working on that one ;^)

    Tom

    >Once again another individual misusing the context Jesus spoke of with
    >reference to the judgement quote.
    
    ...in your opinion perhaps?
    
    The difference between expressing an opinion and judging are small at
    best.  Definition #3 for the word "judge" in ther American Heritage
    is... "To form an opinion about" (whether it's based on a reference or
    not).  
    
    Is it proper to form opinions about the relationship someone else has
    with God?
    
    -dave

    |condemn or approve.  "Judge and you shall be judged" ???
    
    Dave, this is a pretext.  I would like to request that you study
    Matthew 7 before attempting to apply this passage.  As you read the
    first half of the chapter, keep these guidelines in mind:
    
    1. Who is Christ talking to?
    2. Who is He talking about?
    3. What is He saying to them?
    4. Can we determine who the dogs and swine are without judging?
    5. Cross reference this to John 7:24 and Romans 14
    
    Then you can make more practical application.
    
    In Christ,
    Mike

    Re .25 (Tom)
    
    In .23, I was referring to understanding and respect, and not really 
    to changing core beliefs or even bending them.  
    
    It just seems like non-christians are treated like 2nd class (or worse)
    citizens sometimes.  Maybe it's a misinterpretation on my part.
    
    -dave

 Z   It just seems like non-christians are treated like 2nd class (or worse)
 Z       citizens sometimes.  Maybe it's a misinterpretation on my part.
    
    I usually don't give an indepth opinion unless the discussion is
    brought up by somebody else.  I think within this whole conference, I
    am the host of about 5 strings.  
    
    If you were to have a talk show on the radio, I would find your being
    offended at the guest as somewhat without precedent.  If we were in a
    Paganism Conference, a Wiccan Conference, Bagels, Catholic Theology,
    Unitarian Universalism Conference, then I would do more questioning and
    attempt to deduce through more questioning.  Non Christians certainly
    shouldn't be treated as second class citizens; however, non Christians
    who claim to be Christians need to stand the test of their faith.  I
    see that many of the times this is done here, people stomp off, get
    their feelings hurt, whatever.
    
    I don't see the dialog here as 2nd class anything.  
    
    -Jack

.21
    
>    Jesus Christ said if you love Him, obey His Word.

Are you saying that Jesus was referring to the canon here?

Richard

.22

>    Richard, to me, feelings are the very last element of faith.  Feelings
>    are a very poor tool for determining truth.  

"What is essential is invisible to the eye.  It is only with the heart that
one can see rightly."

Even God looks to the human heart.  It is upon our hearts that our creditials
are written.  (I'm sure you know where to find the supporting verses.)

I fail to see that you're on to any better way of determining truth.

Richard

re Note 1257.16 by THOLIN::TBAKER:

>     So, whom shall I offend?  Or shall I give up the use of pronouns
>     when referring to the Almighty altogether?
  
        This is what I (almost always) do.

        Bob

re Note 1257.18 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>   ZZ    Further, I don't think that the God I worship is any different than the
>  ZZ     Goddess that Meg worships.
>     
>     Meg, do you believe God sent Jesus Christ to die on the cross for your
>     sins?  If so, congratulations as this is the God that I worship.  
  
        Some of us make the distinction between the objective reality
        which is God and the various doctrines about God.  Those who
        do can easily see Meg as worshiping the same Divine without
        Meg having to agree to the theology you hold.

        On the other hand, some here seem to maintain that the
        objective reality is the text of the Bible itself.

        As I have illustrated before, this is a lot like trying to
        slake your thirst in the desert at a sign that points to the
        oasis, rather than at the oasis itself.  The sign is
        certainly an "objective reality", but so what?  The oasis is
        a much more important "objective reality", and it is quite
        distinct from even the most accurate sign!

        There might even be other signs that point to the same oasis
        but from different directions (and therefore they point to
        different directions).  Note that this is not the same as
        saying it doesn't matter which direction you go to get to the
        oasis!

>     However, the term "she" implies goddess worship which is why
>     I find the pronoun to be offensive.  
    
        Perhaps, then, we should all abandon gender-specific terms to
        refer to God, since I assure you that there are people who
        are just as offended by the implications of referring to God
        as male as you are offended by the implications of referring
        to God as female. You do follow the "golden rule", right?

        Bob

Re .27 (Mike)

I reread Matthew 5-7 last night.  Below are the answers to your questions...

    1. Who is Christ talking to?
No one in particular (the multitude)

    2. Who is He talking about?
In regard to "Judge and you shall be judged", he's talking "about" no one in
particular. Or, if you must, then he's talking about not judging "others".
The swine and the dogs are another matter.

    3. What is He saying to them?
Good question.  Jesus tells the multitude not to be judgemental with 2
amplifications ("for you will be so judged" and "why do you try to remove the
speck from your brother's eye...").  Then he goes on with the pearls/swine
passage.  The first form of judgement which Jesus says to avoid is judgement of
censure of disapproval.  The second form advises not to offer objects of value,
special privileges or participation in sacred things to those who are incapable
of appreciating them.

    4. Can we determine who the dogs and swine are without judging?

If "judging" means to make a determination, then no.  But if "judging" means to
disapprove or censure, then yes.  Don't cast your pearls before the swine.
Also, don't condem, blame or disapprove of the swine.

    5. Cross reference this to John 7:24 and Romans 14

No. I feel that this would not be appropriate.  If they were indeed the words
of Jesus, they should be able to stand on their own.  If Jesus was indeed
speaking to the mixed crowd of the multitude, the meaning of his words should
require no reliance on other sources which they (the multitude) did not have
at the time/place.  I feel that complicating the message by referring to other 
sources could very easily misdirect an interpretation of the meaning.

With regard to my earlier use of "Judge and you shall be judged", and using the
interpretation above, I do not feel that I was using the phrase out of context.
It's one thing to avoid contact with someone who you feel is unworthy and it's
another to come out and claim that their beliefs, methods or relationship with
God is wrong.                                               

-dave

|>    Jesus Christ said if you love Him, obey His Word.
|
|Are you saying that Jesus was referring to the canon here?

Richard, I'm not sure one could make that argument without careful
    research.  I think it applies to the Tanakh, which Christ taught from, 
    as well as His own spoke Word as recorded in the gospels.
    
    Mike

Re: .34 (Dave)
    
|    1. Who is Christ talking to?
|No one in particular (the multitude)
    
    The disciples.  The answer is in 5:1.  He went up to the mountain to
    escape the multitude so He could minister to His disciples.  The
    extension of this is that He is speaking to Christians.

|    2. Who is He talking about?
|In regard to "Judge and you shall be judged", he's talking "about" no one in
|particular. Or, if you must, then he's talking about not judging "others".
|The swine and the dogs are another matter.
    
    The Pharisees.  Going back to chapter 6, Jesus Christ gives several
    examples of how men who think they are righteous and flaunt it in
    public.  Especially verse 6:5.  The extension of this is that He is
    speaking to non-Christians.

|    3. What is He saying to them?
|Good question.  Jesus tells the multitude not to be judgemental with 2
|amplifications ("for you will be so judged" and "why do you try to remove the
|speck from your brother's eye...").  Then he goes on with the pearls/swine
|passage.  The first form of judgement which Jesus says to avoid is judgement of
|censure of disapproval.  The second form advises not to offer objects of value,
|special privileges or participation in sacred things to those who are incapable
|of appreciating them.
    
    I think you missed the heart of the issue.  If you read John 7:24, a
    parallel cross-reference to this passage, you would've gained more
    insight.  Jesus Christ is warning the disciples (Christians) to not
    judge unrighteously, if we do we are judged by the same standard of
    measure by which we judge.  What is this standard of measure?  It is
    God's Word - the only way by which we can objectively measure
    righteousness.  We are to judge by God's Word, not by our opinions
    (this is what Romans 14 deals with).  

|    4. Can we determine who the dogs and swine are without judging?
    
    There is no way to know who are dogs and who are pigs (spiritually 
    speaking) without judging righteously by the foundation of God's Word.
    Now in keeping the context within God's entire Word, here are some
    areas we are not to judge: 
    
    1. Do not judge motives - 1 Corinthians 4:5
    2. Do not judge by outward appearances alone - John 7:24
    3. Do not judge if your life is no different - Romans 2:1-2
    4. Do not judge by your personal, devotional, obervational, or cultural
         standards - Romans 14
    
    Continuing the context of God's Word, here are some areas where we can
    judge righteously:
    
    1. Judge actions and behavior (fruit) - 1 Corinthians 5, Matthew 7:17,
       Philippians 3:2 (many more)
    2. Judge words - Ephesians 5:6-7
    3. Judge teaching - Galatians 1:6-9.  
    
    This protects the church, prevents sin, and restores the brethren.

|    5. Cross reference this to John 7:24 and Romans 14
|
|No. I feel that this would not be appropriate.  If they were indeed the words
|of Jesus, they should be able to stand on their own.  If Jesus was indeed
    
    As I said, John 7:24 is Christ speaking so it is appropriate.  Romans
    14 is appropriate because it deals with how Christians should not judge
    other Christians.  I'm surprised you didn't read them first before
    judging ;-)
    
|With regard to my earlier use of "Judge and you shall be judged", and using the
|interpretation above, I do not feel that I was using the phrase out of context.
|It's one thing to avoid contact with someone who you feel is unworthy and it's
|another to come out and claim that their beliefs, methods or relationship with
|God is wrong.                                               

    Dave, think about the context.  Christ was teaching believers how to or
    how not to judge non-Christians based on the foundation of God's Word -
    the only vehicle for righteous judgment and using complete context of
    scripture.  You performed a pretext in your application.
    
    Mike

re .36

|    1. Who is Christ talking to?
|No one in particular (the multitude)
    
;    The disciples.  The answer is in 5:1.  He went up to the mountain to
;    escape the multitude so He could minister to His disciples.  The
;    extension of this is that He is speaking to Christians.

Mike, this is the first time I have heard this interpretation.

According to Matthew 7:28-29 the crowds were present...

"Now when Jesus finished these sayings, the effect was that the crowds
were astounded at his way of teaching; for he was teaching them as a
person having authority and not as their scribes." NWT

So the crowds were present along with Jesus' disciples at the Sermon 
on the Mount.

Phil.

    Phil, the disciples were the main focus of this teaching. 
    Non-Christians can't judge using God's Word if they don't even believe
    in it.  The crowd appears (including parallel passages) to be much larger 
    at the end of chapter 7 than at the end of chapter 4.  This suggests to 
    me that the teaching covered several days.  People wandered up as they
    heard the authority with which He taught.
    
    Mike

Re .36 (Mike)


>The disciples.

Mat 4:25 and 5:1 indidicate that both the multitude and the disciples were
present...
"And tehre followed hium great multitudes of people from..." "And seeing the
multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set his disciples came
unto him".

I'll admit that it's unclear, but every other interpretation I've heard had
him preaching to the multitude.

One clarifying passage is Mat 7:28 "And it came to pass when Jesus had ended
these sayings, the people were astonished at his doctrine"  (the "people" were
astonished, not to say that the disciples weren't people)

>The Pharisees.

I disagree.  I think he was speaking to everyone, instructing them how not to
judge others, all others.  Chapters 5-7 talk about a lot of things.  The
subjects and objects vary along the way.  My interpretation.

>I think you missed the heart of the issue.

Actually, I paraphrased an interpretation of someone named F.F.Bruce, a
renowned biblical scholar from the University of Manchester.  He wrote a book
(which I bought) called "The Hard Sayings of Jesus".  He seemed rather
confident that his interpretation was valid.  My interpretation happened to
be in line with his.  I just paraphrased his because he's more elegant and
makes fewer mispelinsg :-)

The sermon on the mount is only found in Matthew.  It was an address to the
multitude (I and others feel), many of whom had never heard or seen Jesus
before.  His message was to the common man who I'm sure Jesus would not want
to confound with complex messages which require cross referenceing to other
sources of which they would not have been aware.  Again, I go back to a simple
interpretation as it would have been made by the common man.  This stuff was
not meant for biblical scholars.

>Christ was teaching believers...
Christ was teaching everyone in the multitudes.  For the most part, I'd say
they were not believers, rather, inquisitive people and potential believers.

-dave


P.S. I was incorrect in saying that Jack "judged" others by formulating an
opinion.  Simply formulating an opinion is not the kind of judgement Jesus was 
speaking against.  If ("IF") he or others spoke dissaprovingly of the beliefs
of others, then this would fall into the catagory of judgement which Jesus
spoke against.

.35

>|>    Jesus Christ said if you love Him, obey His Word.
>|
>|Are you saying that Jesus was referring to the canon here?

>Richard, I'm not sure one could make that argument without careful
>    research.  I think it applies to the Tanakh, which Christ taught from, 
>    as well as His own spoke Word as recorded in the gospels.

I tend to agree.

Richard

 Z   If ("IF") he or others spoke dissaprovingly of the beliefs
 Z   of others, then this would fall into the catagory of judgement which
 Z   Jesus spoke against.
    
    Well, let me qualify this.  As far as speaking disapprovingly of
    others, this isn't the case.  For example, I know atheists whom I
    respect highly.  I don't show disapproval because I believe we all have
    to make our own choices.  
    
    Proclaiming Christians are to follow the precepts of Jesus Christ. 
    Jesus Christ never placed an honor on Baal worship of any kind.  He
    never supported the doctrines of men such as New Age, Paganism, or
    Goddess worship.  Even John, one of his closest apostles said to his
    church, "Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
    they are of God....and every spirit that confesses not that Jesus
    Christ has come in the flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of
    antichrist."  
    
    Yes David, this is the same apostle who proclaimed six or so verses
    later that God is love.  Jesus was not speaking against the
    admonishment of building the body of Christ.  Jesus never said we are
    not to exhort the church from following demonic teaching.  This is a
    very acceptable and common practice within the church...has been since
    its inception.  
    
    I have not see anybody say that so and so in condemned.  I have seen
    some like myself say that scripture teaches if one does not believe in the
    saving grace of Jesus Christ through death and resurrection, then one
    stands in condemnation and in the wrath of God.  Any other teaching in
    this matter is, based on the tenets of what Christ taught, false,
    demonic, and should be shunned at all cost.  This is an exhortation to
    other believers.
    
    -Jack

    jack,
    
    Since you addressed me although I have not participated in this string,
    yet.  I believe that Jesus was a teacher, as was Budda, Mohammed, 
    Cassandra, Lao Tse............
    
    I am unabashadly pagan and plan to remain that way.  However I do
    exist in the world just as you do, and will deal with my maker head on
    in the next life, just as you will have to.  
    
    On another level, I had a houseful of friends of all flavors of beliefs
    over the last week.  (Best Friends father died)  We did come to an
    agreement on how to talk about our belifs in higher powers.  Liz looked
    the whole thing over, and declared this to be "Tomato"  when you look
    at things that way there is dialog.  when everyone believes they have
    the only true way, and won't listen to others, then there is no
    learning for anyone.  
    
    As for why I am in this file, I was invited.  
    
    meg