Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I stand proud as a Unitarian Heretic!
    
    Now is there any one in here who qualifies as being Orthodox!
    I'm taking nominations.  This will help me understand what Orthodoxy is
    
    Richard, are you Orthordox?
    Dave?
    John?
    Jim?
    Meg?
    Mike?
    Jack?
    Phil?
    Bob?
    Cindy?
    Debby?
    Tom?
    Eric?
    
    
    
    I think I may have found what unites us as a community!
    
    
    We are all heretics!
    
    well let's be proud of it.

    A couple helpful definitions...
    
    orthodox  1. Adhering to traditional or established beliefs, esp. in
    religion.  2. Commonly accepted; customary.  3a. Of or relationg to
    Christian churches derived from the church of the Byzantine Empire.  3b.
    Of or belonging to a branch of Judaism adhering strictly to the ancient
    Hebrew law.
    
    heretic  1. One who holds opinions that differ from established
    beliefs, esp. religious beliefs.
    
    
    I guess you can count me as a heretic.
    
    (is there some middle ground between these two poles where some
    might prefer to be pigeonholed?)
    
    -dave
    
    

    I'm a heretic.

    Yes, I am a heretic on some issues.  Being a heretic can be honorable
    IF said belief has some sort of basis for fact.  If it is conjured up,
    then it is a dishonorable heresy.
    
    -Jack

    Too heretical for some.  Too orthodox for others.
    
    Richard
    

 I'm only a sinner, saved by Grace.






 Jim

In the days when I considered myself a Christian, I was probably a lot
more heretical than I thought I was.  I didn't give it much thought at the
time.

				-- Bob

    Orthodoxy is for people who are either too lazy or too scared
    to do their own thinking or to make their own decisions.
    
    However, a heritic can sometimes operate and even thrive in
    an orthodox environment, as long as they keep their mouth shut :-)

    Tom

    Wow,
    
    After all these years I have discovered our unifying theme!
    
    
                                        Patricia

re Note 1274.2 by SMARTT::DGAUTHIER:

>     orthodox  1. Adhering to traditional or established beliefs, esp. in
>     religion.  2. Commonly accepted; customary.  

        Of course these definitions beg the questions:  Which
        tradition?  Is there just one set of "established beliefs"? 
        Aren't a lot of conflicting things "commonly accepted"?   How
        does "orthodox" differ from simply the "majority"?

        Bob

    The dichotomy probably developed in an environment where people felt a
    need to discern "us" from "them".  Rather than look to the common
    ground, people often look to the differences, however inconsequential
    they may be,                            
    
    -dave

|    Orthodoxy is for people who are either too lazy or too scared
|    to do their own thinking or to make their own decisions.
    
    Sounds like a Democrat: 'easier than thinking.'

    This is the unifying theme that unites the world: fear of death, fear
    of guilt, and fear of loneliness.

    Re .8 (Tom)
    
    Personally, I too gravitate toward a path of personal growth through
    learning and experience as opposed to faith.  And in the past, I used
    to also think that orthodoxy and/or blind faith seemed like laziness or 
    fear.  But, I've since noticed that this is not always the case.  One
    can accept an orthodoxy, on faith, without fully comprehending it.  The
    work part of it comes in learning about what you believe in.  And, IMO,
    it can sometimes take more courage to take a leap of faith than not.
    
    When I read "Crossing the Threshold of Hope" (interview with John Paul
    II), and when I consider on how the early church ran, I came to
    understand that it's a system where the authority (Rome) defines what
    it's followers will believe.  The followers believe the doctrine of the
    church out of faith in much the same one that one believe the Bible out
    of faith.  Jesus gave Peter the keys, Hell will not prevail against his
    church and, by association, having faith in the church is a road to
    salvation.  I'm not claiming this sort of faith is right or wrong.
    But given a certain viewpoint, it does make some sense.
    
    How would one classify someone like Mother Theresa in terms of being
    lazy or fearful?  I believe she is neither, yet she's an orthodox
    believer and devout catholic.
    
    -dave

    Dave,
    
    I have had the wonderful opportunity to meet some very devout Catholic
    sisters who do not blindly believe in  the teachings of the church
    hierarchy.  They are in much pain because of the hierarchies oppression
    of women.  I came to appreciate that the Catholic church is much, much
    more than the hierarchy of the Catholic church.
    
    It also takes great faith and courage to "stay in the rink" even when
    the institution is an imperfect human institution.
    
    I am learning about resignation and acceptance.  Ultimately acceptance
    that all human endeavor and all human institutions are imperfect.
    
    Acceptance that it is OK for individuals to be imperfect and it is also
    OK for institutions to be imperfect.  The leap of faith is in believing
    that if we individually and if we as part of institutions continue to
    walk with God, then we will be made more perfect.  Never perfect, but 
    constantly more perfect.  It is a lifetime walk.
    
    
                                               Patricia

    Yes.  Dissatisfaction with papal doctrine is not uncommon.  But I
    believe that the RC church was never meant to be a democracy or a 
    system where the followers were meant to have an active role in making
    the decisions. Dissatisfaction is irrelevant when you weigh it against
    the belief that following the church leads to salvation.  If I
    interpret things correctly, and as I cited earlier, the idea is that
    what comes from Rome came from God.  Being dissatisfied with Rome is
    dissatisfaction with God.  
    
    I realize that not all catholics believe this.  But don't sell the
    authoritative approach short. It's been working successfully for some 2
    millenia now.  The dissatisfctions of some, here in the US, in 1996
    might be lost in the noise when you look at the historical "big picture".
    
    -dave
    

    Obedience is too often neglected.  The Word declares that Jesus Christ,
    our model, was obedient to the cross!

 Z    They are in much pain because of the hierarchies oppression
 Z       of women. 
    
    Seems to me they need to make a choice.
    
    -Jack

    DAve,
    
    I look at the authoritarian structure of the church as it developed in
    essentially monarchal times.  
    
    From the time of David on, the King was considered God's representative
    on earth.  The King had both Political authority and Spiritual
    Authority.  With the founding of the Catholic church the King's
    authority was splintered.  The relative authority of the King and the
    Pope was bounced back and forth thruout the middle ages.  Ultimately
    the King was seen to have political authority and the Pope Spiritual
    authority.
    
    Now the monarchy is essentially dead, and the Monarchial church
    structure may in fact be an anachronism.  I believe that politically,
    the democratic form of government, while not perfect, is the best
    possible form of government.  THere is also no reason why the Catholic
    church cannot evolve into a more democratic form of organization.
    
    The Old men that run the Catholic church are working very hard to see
    that that does not happen.  The forces within the church itself are
    pushing the church in that direction.
    
    I have more faith in Democracy than in Authoritarian structures.  I
    have faith that God can work thru a democratic form of leadership. I do
    not limit God's influence and sovereignty to a particular historic form
    of organization.
    
    Just my 2 cents worth from a historic perspective.
    

    The blind obedience thing is very difficult, especially for those
    raised in countries like the US where speaking out against authority is
    protected and often encouraged.  It's understandable that people who
    were bred to elect authority, criticize policy and take an active part
    in government would have a difficult time.  It's a whole different
    mindset.
    
    >Seems to me they need to make a choice.
    
    Perhaps in the meantime, learning obedience, while living with
    dissatisfaction may be considered the task at hand.
    
    When you think of it, we live with a million things we don't like, have
    no control over and are forced to live with... like storms and disease
    and growing old.  If one considers religious authority to be a facet of
    life that one has no control over, then accepting it becomes just
    another part of life.  Maybe it's all just in the way you look at
    things.
    
    -dave

 Z    They are in much pain because of the hierarchies oppression
 Z       of women. 
    
    Seems to me they need to make a choice.
    
    -Jack
    
    I thought I was clearer.
    
    They have made a choice.  They love the church and have chosen to stay
    in the rink and work for change from within even as they know that will
    be a long, arduous process.  I have tremendous respect for them.
    
    
                                          Patricia

    In regard to the choice issue, I believe since it is not a democracy
    that they should remove themselves from the church for their own
    betterment and the betterment of the church.  Betterment of course is a
    subjective term.  I admire their devotion to staying, but they are out
    of the scope of their responsibility within this kind of structure.  
    It isn't so much a matter of old men trying to quell an uprising of
    modernism as it is a group of men holding tight to the traditions and
    dogma of the institution.  Just my opinion.  
    
     Z   THere is also no reason why the Catholic
     Z   church cannot evolve into a more democratic form of organization.
    
    Your note was interesting, but you seemed to take into account the
    churches history in Europe...England to be precise.  Roman Catholicism
    is exponentially greater in many other parts of the world.  Central
    America, Spain, Portugal, and other sections without the Western
    influence.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    It is a fascinating subject.  Unfortunately there are too many
    different stands of interest.
    
    Modern Catholicism versus Modern Protestanism.
    
    The relationship of Church and State.  Did the Protestant revolution
    lead to the rise of Democracy?  Is it now time for a Catholic
    revolution?
    
    Has protestantism because more authoritarian than Catholicism.
    
    Has protestantism split decisively in two?  Are there any commonalities
    between the United Church of Christ and the Calvary Church?
    
    Wesley quadrilaterial.  Scripture, tradition, personal experience,
    someone help me with the forth?  What is the relevent value of each as
    a source of authority for modern women and men.
    
    How do religious institutions evolve over time.  How is Christendom
    evolving over time.
    
    What is the role of Christianity in the Developing Nations?
    
    Can Christianity co exist with the other major World Religions?
                                                               

    
    > If I interpret things correctly, and as I cited earlier, the idea is
    > that what comes from Rome came from God.  Being dissatisfied with
    > Rome is dissatisfaction with God.

    This is a common and unfortunate misconception non-Catholics have
    regarding the papacy. The church does not consider the word of the pope
    to be the word of God. And thank goodness for that. 
    
    Take a look at:
    http://www.microweb.com/burnside/sfburns1.htm, which address the issue
    of church infallibility and its prohibition of women priests.
    
    Eric

Hi Patricia:
    
Z    The relationship of Church and State.  Did the Protestant revolution
Z    lead to the rise of Democracy?  Is it now time for a Catholic
Z    revolution?
 
From my limited understanding...

I believe the reformation came around the same time as the revolution.  Patrick
Henry's famous line, "Give me liberty or give me death".  This quote came in 
midst of the time of the American Revolution.  I don't think it was so much a
protestant revolution as it was a desire for people, who happened to be 
Christians or deists, to have the right to self determination and free 
themselves from the tyranny of King George.

I find it interesting that many strong believers condoned and promoted the use
of the sword as a means to achieve peace.  Incidently, we live in a Republic,
not a democracy.  Our national trust is built through representation and not
the vote of the constituent.
   
ZZ    Has protestantism become more authoritarian than Catholicism.
    
I will be looking at the web page Eric provided.  I don't believe the 
question can be answered accurately.  Bible believing churches subject 
themselves to the authority of scripture...which promotes a level of hierarchy.
It is important to note that Jesus displayed the importance of hierarchy by
example...washing the feet of the flock.  He who is greatest among men truly 
must be a servant to all.

Z    How do religious institutions evolve over time.  How is Christendom
Z    evolving over time.
 
Unfortunately I see Christendom devolving over time.  I believe the church is 
heading toward eventual apostacy but I also believe the church will one day 
be removed from the earth.  This doesn't mean that the church can't experience
further blessings in the future, i.e. tremendous growth and wisdom.  But like
ancient Israel, the church can certainly go through a purging.
   
ZZ    What is the role of Christianity in the Developing Nations?
  
The role is found in Matthew 28, the great commission.  We are to go into 
the world and preach the gospel to all nations, baptising them in the name 
of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, TEACHING THEM ALL THAT I HAVE COMMANDED YOU.
I state here unequivocally that this involves both the elements of understanding
the redemptive process and demonstrating the love of Christ, i.e. feeding the 
poor, ministering to the sick.
  
ZZ    Can Christianity co exist with the other major World Religions?
  
This is a very broad question.   Since the church has in fact survived all 
these years, it stands to reason they can co exist.  I would be more dubious 
in the belief they can work together to provide the ultimate goal, since 
another religion would not want a conversion to Christianity to occur.

-Jack

    
    While the Church is not a democracy, in an modern political sort of
    way, neither is it a totalitarian regiem. There is a tremendous about
    of debate that goes on within the Catholic community; and not just
    among lay-people, but the clergy as well.
    
    Eric

    Re .24 (Eric)
    
    Well, I wasn't talking about papal infallibility specifically.  I was
    talking about the notion that God is somehow directing the course of
    the church.  Faith in that concept can probably be validated by the
    tradition of popes starting with Peter plus Jesus' words about his
    church.  And if God/Jesus is pulling the strings in Rome, then how can
    someone go wrong by following the church.  
    
    If I recall, there was a very strong theme of obedience taught to us in 
    catechism.  The beliefs we were expected to adopt were defined to us.
    And we were taught that the catholic church was God's church (IOW, HE
    controls it, not humans).
    
    Well, that's what I remember about it anyway.  
    
    -dave

    ONe can be called to obedience!
    
    One can also be called to rebellion!

    The question comes to mind on who "owms" the church?  If a church is a
    sort of private club, and a member doesn't want to play by the rules,
    then can the church excommunicate disobedient members?  Or does the
    church belong to it's members?  Should a catholic leave the church if
    (s)he disagrees on a matter of doctrine?  Or does (s)he have the right
    to stay and work for change?  
    
    Are churches artifacts or divinely inspired or controlled institutions?

    -dave

    Dave,
    
    another way to ask the question is
    
    Is the church a Divine institution or a Human institution. 
    
    By church I am referring to the actual existing church and not the
    ideal church.  Of course, the next question may be, if the Church is a
    Divine institution, then which church is the divine institution.
    
    Now if all existing Churches are moving toward being the divine church,
    then who should determine the movement.  The hierarchy or all the
    people.  If that movement is lead by God, then does God work thru the 
    hierarchy alone, or does God work thru all the people.
    
    for the protestant church, one might add, does God work thru the Bible
    alone, or does God work thru the Bible and thru individuals.  
    And if thru individuals too, then thru church leaders or thru all
    church members.

        re .27

    What Christian denomination *doesn't* believe they are guided by the
    Holy Spirit (God), that they are not "God's church!" :^)

    I think the Catholic church, at least the Catholic church of today, is
    *far* more open to discussion and debate than many other Christian
    churches represented here. I can't speak about how things were before
    Vatican II, though.

    Eric

|    for the protestant church, one might add, does God work thru the Bible
|    alone, or does God work thru the Bible and thru individuals.  
|    And if thru individuals too, then thru church leaders or thru all
|    church members.
    
    He should work thru the Bible and thru individuals, including every
    single believer in Jesus Christ.  Christians are all children of God. 
    The key here is to have a baseline to make sure that it is God using
    you without contradicting His Word.
    
    However, as Paul wrote, everyone in Christ has a gift and ministry. 
    The body of Christ has great variety in making up the functional
    church.  Some of us are leaders, pastors, teachers, prophets, workers,
    exhorters, etc.  We all have our roles in the body of Christ.
    
    Mike

 Z   Should a catholic leave the church if
 Z   (s)he disagrees on a matter of doctrine?  Or does (s)he have the
 Z   right to stay and work for change?
    
    I think the question is more will the person be willing to acquiesce to
    the teachings of the church.  If not, then they should leave.
    
    One thing I admired George Washington for was that he created a
    Continental Congress before revolting against the British.  Until this
    happened, GW was bound by British law.  He created his own country
    before revolting.  He left the fold to begin a work in another, one
    might say.
    
    -Jack

.25

>I believe the reformation came around the same time as the revolution.

Not a historically accurate perception, Jack.

Richard

.31

>    I think the Catholic church, at least the Catholic church of today, is
>    *far* more open to discussion and debate than many other Christian
>    churches represented here. I can't speak about how things were before
>    Vatican II, though.

I agree.

Richard

.33

>    One thing I admired George Washington for was that he created a
>    Continental Congress before revolting against the British.  Until this
>    happened, GW was bound by British law.  He created his own country
>    before revolting.  He left the fold to begin a work in another, one
>    might say.

I have great admiration for Jesus Christ, who didn't stop being a Jew just
because his ideas clashed with those in power.

Richard

 Z   I have great admiration for Jesus Christ, who didn't stop being a Jew
  Z  just because his ideas clashed with those in power.
    
    Nevertheless, George Washington followed the proper procedure.  He
    realized there was a need to be subject to those in authority over him. 
    Therefore, by removing himself from that authority, he was no longer
    subject to tyranny.  I respect his motives.
    
    Does anybody know when Patrick Henry made that statement, "Give me
    liberty or give me death."  I thought he was part of the reformation.
    
    -Jack

    Just an FYI, Patrick Henry and the Reformation were separated by two
    centuries. You may be thinking of the "Age of Enlightenment," which was
    during the 18th century and was advanced by such Americans as
    Jefferson, Paine, and Franklin.
    
    Eric

    re .37
    
    JACK!
    
    Color me shocked.  Are you saying Christ was less than perfect, in that
    he didn't follow "procedure?"  
    
    Maybe I misunderstood here?
    meg
    
    Color me a heritic.  I left Christianity for the same reasons Jack
    feels women should leave Catholisism.  from what I have learned in
    these files, I have made the correct decision for me and mine.  
    
    meg

    Eric:
    
    Well, I guess I was off a bit on that one!!! :-)
    
    -Jack

    Meg:
    
    I found your entry humorous! :-)  
    
    Actually, if you really think about it, it was the pharisees that
    swayed from following procedure in the first place, not Jesus!
    
    -Jack

    Re .30 (Patricia)
    
    >Is the church a Divine institution or a Human institution.
    
    Excellent question.  If one thinks that it's not divine, and subject to
    the full array of human failings, then one has the duty to question 
    and help guide the church.  If it is divine, then I think blind
    obedience seems to be the track to follow.  Why?  If you obey, you'll
    be on track (because God will see to it that the church is on track). 
    If you disobey, you MAY be acting as God's tool in guiding the church,
    but you may not.  Obedience is the sure thing in the scenario of a
    divine church.  Disobedience may be disobedience to God.
    
    
    Re .31 (Eric)
    
    >What Christian denomination *doesn't* believe they are guided by the
    >Holy Spirit (God), that they are not "God's church!" :^)
    
    I'd say that they all believe they're on track.  But does that
    necessarily mean that all others are not?  IOW, can more than one
    church be divinely inspired?  Might the details that make them differ
    be inconsequential?  I can't resist here.... might the difference
    between major religions be inconsequential?
    
    >I think the Catholic church, at least the Catholic church of today, is
    >*far* more open to discussion and debate than many other Christian...
    
    But the power to shape the church remains with a single individual.  He
    may opt to listen to and be swayed by the debates below, but he doesn't
    have to.  It's like having a panel of advisors, ora king listening to
    his subjects.
    
    
    
    Re .32 (Mike)
    
    >The key here is to have a baseline to make sure that it is God using
    >you without contradicting His Word.
    
    Can you imagine how tough it would be to get all churches to agree on a
    baseline?
    
    
    Re .33 (Jack)
    
    >I think the question is more will the person be willing to acquiesce
    > to the teachings of the church.  If not, then they should leave.
    
    Possibly.  But that's assuming that their goal is to be totally
    satisfied with the church.  Some dissatisfied followers might choose
    to stick it out and remain dissatisfied.  Using the analogy of parent
    and child, a child might not want to clean his/her room every day, but
    does so anyway, opting not to run away.
    
    
    In a larger sense, what's the goal of a church?  Is it to appease the
    desires of it's members or point a way to God?  E.g.  if the pope is
    pointing the way to God, and the members of the church don't like where
    they think he's pointing, are they right for wanting change?
    
    
    -dave
    
    
    Patrick Henry was a patriot spy who got caught in the act.  When he
    asked for liberty or death, the British obliged with the latter.  That
    same act might have given him the former as well.
    
    
    

    Dave,
    
    I believe that major world religions and many minor religions are
    divinely inspired, just as I believe that the Bible is Divinely
    inspired.  I believe that all people of real faith are Divinely
    inpired.
    
    I also believe all are human and all are imperfect.  The Catholic
    church is Divinely inspired, but it is imperfect.  The Pope is divinely
    inspired, but he is imperfect.  The Apostle Paul, was divinely inspired
    but was imperfect.
    
    I believe that each of us in this notes file has also been divinely
    inspired but each of us is also imperfect.
    
    The difference amongst faith communities that allow faith communities
    to live in harmony with each other are most likely inconsequential. 
    those difference that bring about war, disasters, killing, oppression,
    and hardships are not inconsequential.  I believe that there are some
    sinful traditions within all the religions.
    
    If any of the Christian Churches were a Divine institution, then
    Christianity would not be fractured.  Every Christian Church has
    sincere Christians praying for guidance.  If any of the churches were
    divine, then those praying for guidance would easily find the Divine
    church.  All the churches are imperfect, and therefore the task of each
    Christian is to help move the church more toward perfection.  It may in
    fact be the abstract, ideal church that we move toward perfection.  My
    sisters who remain nuns, attempt to move the Catholic Church toward
    perfection.  By my chosing the UU Community rather than a Christian
    Church, I am part of a community that provides external pressure to the
    Christian Community.  I am also able to use the best of Christianity in
    a ministry that includes non Christians.  I believe as Martin Luther
    stated that each one of us shares in the Priesthood of all believers. 
    I believe as James Luther Adams states that each one of us shares in
    the Prophethood of all believers.  A prophet calls a traditional
    institution to repentence.  EAch one of us is responsible for answering
    our own calling.
    
    patricia

re Note 1274.22 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     In regard to the choice issue, I believe since it is not a democracy
>     that they should remove themselves from the church for their own
>     betterment and the betterment of the church.  

        Would you have applied the same logic, without
        qualifications, to a citizen of China (far from a democracy)
        fighting for change?  Should they all leave the country, and
        not try to change the country?

        Should an employee of Digital (another non-democracy) who
        believes something should be changed in how the company is
        run just leave, and never try to change it from within?

        Bob

re Note 1274.33 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     He created his own country
>     before revolting.  

        I believe that most people would view the creation of a new
        country (in the same territory as an existing country) as the
        same thing as a "revolt".

        Bob

        Z    Would you have applied the same logic, without
        Z    qualifications, to a citizen of China (far from a democracy)
        Z    fighting for change?  Should they all leave the country, and
        Z    not try to change the country?
    
    Good question and a tough one to answer.  The question appled here is
    how would the scriptural admonishment of being subject to those in
    authority over you be applied to a communist regime.  Before attempting
    to make a change for the better, I would renounce my
    citizenship...since a communist regime is not interested in democracy,
    change, or my opinion.  Having removed myself from that membership, I
    now exercise the act of revolt, since they are stealing money from me,
    a non citizen.  Simplistic?  Perhaps but this is a complicated issue
    and I don't know if it is an adequate parellel to the Catholic Church,
    since membership is optional whereas oppression in China is not..at
    least not without the fear of death.
    
    Z        Should an employee of Digital (another non-democracy) who
    Z        believes something should be changed in how the company is
    Z        run just leave, and never try to change it from within?
    
    Another good question.  I believe that attempts can and should be made,
    but I also think there reaches a point of no payback.  In other words,
    my devotion for only goes so far...much like my devotion toward a
    church I believe falls short of the test of scripture would only go so
    far.  In other words, I'd leave.
    
    -Jack

|    I believe that major world religions and many minor religions are
|    divinely inspired, just as I believe that the Bible is Divinely
|    inspired.  I believe that all people of real faith are Divinely
|    inpired.
|    
|    I also believe all are human and all are imperfect.  The Catholic
|    church is Divinely inspired, but it is imperfect.  The Pope is divinely
|    inspired, but he is imperfect.  The Apostle Paul, was divinely inspired
|    but was imperfect.
|    
|    I believe that each of us in this notes file has also been divinely
|    inspired but each of us is also imperfect.
    
    does this mean that God isn't powerful enough to perform His perfect
    will while using a vessel or God isn't power enough to control a human?

    Gee mike,
    
    I thought God gave each of us Free Will!
    
    Every human has free will.  Every human interprets God's call.  Every
    human interprets God's inspiration.

    He does, but in the example of Paul, he was a willing vessel for God
    and his free will was to do God's Will.  Now explain to me how God can
    screw that up or how Paul overpowered God.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    ARe you a willing vessel for God?  Is your free will to do God's will?
    
    Now are you going to blame God, everytime your screw up?
    
    What do you think makes Paul so different?

>    He does, but in the example of Paul, he was a willing vessel for God
>    and his free will was to do God's Will.  Now explain to me how God can
>    screw that up or how Paul overpowered God.

    Yes.  The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.

    Paul isn't God.  This is what makes his writings so much 
    more compelling.  He's one of us, conveying to us what
    he has experienced, seen and what he believes.

    Mike,

    I see and understand where you believe the Bible is inerrant.
    This doesn't threaten me.  Misunderstanding the nature of
    God does not negate one's devotion or sincerety.
    
    But, you may be right.

    In that light, do you understand where we're coming from?
    Does this condemn us?  Are we still allowed to love God?
    Are we your enemy?

    Tom

    I don't believe we screw up when we are doing God's will.  I don't see
    any evidence in scripture that Paul screwed up when doing God's will.  
    We only screw up when we are being selfish.
    
    Mike

 re .52


 
 amen, and amen

    Peter tried to do God's will by trying to stay awake.

    But he slept.

    Tom

 Peter also submitted to God's will (documented in Acts and in the letters
 he penned).

    My point exactly.

    He submitted, and yet all his actions were not perfect
    or what God/Jesus asked him to do.

    Tom

| <<< Note 1274.52 by PHXSS1::HEISER "maranatha!" >>>

| I don't believe we screw up when we are doing God's will.  I don't see
| any evidence in scripture that Paul screwed up when doing God's will.

	I would agree with the above. This is one reason why I don't think the 
Bible is the inerrant Word of God. Paul wasn't following God 100%. He was
human, just like us.

| We only screw up when we are being selfish.

	Making mistakes from misinterpreting is not being selfish. We are
human, not God. We can't be or do things 100% correct 100% of the time.

    Jim,
    
    The point is that Peter, Paul, the Pope were/are all men committed to
    doing God's will.  Yet each is human and none can do God's will 100%.
    When they don't, they screw up.  Just like Peter falling asleep and
    just like Peter denying he knew Christ.  The Bible records the trials
    and the tribulations.  The Bible records the imperfections.
    
    Paul's letters, are his own personal letters to the various churches. 
    He worked real hard at subjecting himself to God's will.  BUt he was
    not perfect.  He was human.  And the errors in his judgement as well as
    the inspiration in his judgements show up side by side in his writings.
    
    Perhaps God expects each of us to be able to separate out the wheat
    from the Chaff.
    
                                  Patricia

    
>    Paul's letters, are his own personal letters to the various churches. 
>    He worked real hard at subjecting himself to God's will.  BUt he was
>    not perfect.  He was human.  And the errors in his judgement as well as
>    the inspiration in his judgements show up side by side in his writings.
    
 


 Then the question once again becomes did God leave us here just to guess
 and hope we have it right..ie, no target to shoot at, an exam with no
 prior instruction on the subject matter, a track race with no defined course
 to run, etc.?




 Jim

    .43
    
    A minor nit about your belief that many minor religions are divinely
    inspired, as well as the Bible being divinely inspired.
    
    In order for this to be correct, God would have to be of two minds.  In
    the Bible, Jesus clearly says "No one goes to the Father but through
    me".  Yet some minor religions don't acknowledge Jesus at all (or if
    they do, they give him the status of teacher and not God).  Why would
    God on one hand say Jesus is the only way, and on the other say
    that Jesus is NOT the only way?
    
    End of nit.  I return you now to the regularly scheduled discussion
    already in progress.   8^)
    
    
    -steve     

|    Peter tried to do God's will by trying to stay awake.
|
|    But he slept.
    
    then he wasn't doing God's will.  Neither was he doing God's will when
    he denied Christ 3 times.

|	Making mistakes from misinterpreting is not being selfish. We are
|human, not God. We can't be or do things 100% correct 100% of the time.
    
    God doesn't make mistakes.  The born-again believer in Christ is
    correct 100% of the time, through the Holy Spirit, when doing God's
    will.

.41

>    Actually, if you really think about it, it was the pharisees that
>    swayed from following procedure in the first place, not Jesus!

I suspect not all of Jesus' contemporaries saw it that way.

Richard

> Then the question once again becomes did God leave us here just to guess
> and hope we have it right
    
    God leaves us with Faith to know when we have it right.
    
>    ..ie, no target to shoot at, an exam with no
> prior instruction on the subject matter, a track race with no defined course
> to run, etc.?

    The Bible does not have to be innerrant to provide instruction.  Life
    has no defined course.  We move along life doing the best we can.
    
    The Church does not have to be perfect, to uplift our hearts, souls,
    and minds. We all need to learn to live with our own imperfection and
    the imperfection of others.
    
    God provides us the Holy Spirit to guide us along the journey.  If it
    is our intent to follow the Holy Spirit, we will find that spirit.
    
    
    If one is able to find God everywhere, then one is less in need of
    one absolute source.
    
     



 Patricia
                                                      

    The Pharisees were bound to the Torah very similarly to the way
    fundamentalist Christians are bound to the Bible.
    
    Richard
    

>    God doesn't make mistakes.  The born-again believer in Christ is
>    correct 100% of the time, through the Holy Spirit, when doing God's
>    will.
    
    Can't you see that this statement says nothing?
    
    Is not the non believer also correct 100% of the time when doing God's
    will or do you think that the non believer cannot do God's will?
    
    Does the born again believer ever not do God's will?
    
    So sometime the born again believer is correct doing God's will and
    sometimes the born again believer is incorrect not doing God's will.
    
    Sometimes the non Believer is correct doing god's will sometimes
    incorrect for not doing God's will.

    
>    God leaves us with Faith to know when we have it right.
 

     who has it right?  You? Me?


     How do we know, and who/what is the arbiter?
   

>   In the Bible, Jesus clearly says "No one goes to the Father but through
>    me".  Yet some minor religions don't acknowledge Jesus at all (or if
>    they do, they give him the status of teacher and not God).  Why would
>    God on one hand say Jesus is the only way, and on the other say
>    that Jesus is NOT the only way?
      
    
    Why would Christianity say that Jesus is human and Jesus is divine?
    Why would CHristianity say that Jesus is God and Jesus is the way to
    God.
    
    
    I personally think the answer to your paradox may lie in the statement
    that whatever we do unto the least of Jesus' we do unto Jesus'.
    
    Each of us, no matter in what religion we believe may encounter Jesus
    every day in every human interaction.  Perhaps it is in each of those
    interaction, that it is determined who get's to the Divine!
    
    

|    Is not the non believer also correct 100% of the time when doing God's
|    will or do you think that the non believer cannot do God's will?
    
    If the non-believer can do God's will, why is he/she still a
    non-believer?  God wills that nobody perish and that all will come to a
    saving knowledge of the gospel of Jesus Christ.
    
|    Does the born again believer ever not do God's will?
    
    Sure, when they are being selfish.
    
    Mike

|    Why would Christianity say that Jesus is human and Jesus is divine?
|    Why would CHristianity say that Jesus is God and Jesus is the way to
|    God.
    
    Because ancient rabbis and Hebrew prophets in the Tanakh, Talmud,
    Mishnah, Targum, etc. taught that the Messiah would be a supernatural,
    physical manifestation of YHWH.  Let me know if you need references.
    
    Mike

>     who has it right?  You? Me?

    Both of us do.  But only partially.
    

>     How do we know, and who/what is the arbiter?
    
    
    Focusing on theological questions is somewhat of a game.  I bet there
    is not a whole lot of different between how we make important decisions
    for our lives.
    
    we will each be judge by the fruit that we bear!
    
    
    patricia
   

| <<< Note 1274.60 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>

| Then the question once again becomes did God leave us here just to guess
| and hope we have it right..ie, no target to shoot at, an exam with no
| prior instruction on the subject matter, a track race with no defined course
| to run, etc.?

	Jim, you are 100% correct. And due to this we must rely on Him
exclusively. We are dealing with situations that happen now. So why wouldn't we
rely on God now to show us the answers? Where He leads us is His business.

| <<< Note 1274.63 by PHXSS1::HEISER "maranatha!" >>>

| God doesn't make mistakes. The born-again believer in Christ is correct 100% 
| of the time, through the Holy Spirit, when doing God's will.

	The wording above would make sense if it read anyone is 100% correct if
doing God's Will. Killing is wrong. One does not have to believe in Christ to
believe that killing is wrong. If one also believes that killing is wrong, they
have done God's Will. They do not need to believe in Him for the Will to be
done.

	And the key part that applies to Paul is..... when doing God's Will. If
you make a mistake, you say you did not do God's Will. And I would agree with
you on that. But where we differ is when it comes to Paul. I believe that Paul
was not doing God's Will when he stated his opinion. This also shows the Bible
is not inerrant as human influences are in it.



Glen

| <<< Note 1274.68 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day" >>>


| who has it right?  You? Me?

	God.

| How do we know, and who/what is the arbiter?

	Through Faith that He can show us regardless of any obsticles that come
our way. 

| <<< Note 1274.70 by PHXSS1::HEISER "maranatha!" >>>

| If the non-believer can do God's will, why is he/she still a non-believer?  

	I think I am beginning to see something here. Let me know. Do you
believe that one has to conciously know they are doing God's Will? 





Glen

>> Then the question once again becomes did God leave us here just to guess
>> and hope we have it right..ie, no target to shoot at, an exam with no
>> prior instruction on the subject matter, a track race with no defined course
>> to run, etc.?

>God leaves us with Faith to know when we have it right.

He also left us with a set of marvelous senses, a brain and a whole universe to
explore.  It is not conjecture to state that these exist, it is hard fact!
Before jumping off to the Bible, or the Koran or anything else, one might
consider using what one has apparently been given as tools to work with. For
this reason, sometimes I wonder if simple faith is tantamount to rejecting the
tools, the gifts, we were given to find God.  Exploring these texts would and
should be part of the search but the veracity of what one gleans would have to
come under the same scrutiny as anything else observed in the universe.  This
is why I approach the Bible the way I do.

>Why would God on one hand say Jesus is the only way, and on the other say
>that Jesus is NOT the only way?

I've often wondered what Jesus really meant when he said "through me".  I
wonder if he meant to use his life and teachings as a guide and "believing in
Jesus" is equivilent to believing his teachings were correct and following his
example.  If this were so, then anyone who uses a similar approach could also
claim to be the "only way" (since they are both the same way).  For example, 
Consider a solitary bridge reaching out an island, and a man is standing at the
foot of the bridge saying "no one gets to the island except by this bridge". 
Next to him there is a woman saying the very same thing.  They're both right
because they're both talking about the same bridge.  Why do I consider such a
possibility?  To bridge the striking similarities I see in the approaches of
the major world religions.  Why would I want to do that?  It's all part of
making sense out of the facts I've gleaned from using my god given toolset.

-dave

>    God doesn't make mistakes.  The born-again believer in Christ is
>    correct 100% of the time, through the Holy Spirit, when doing God's
>    will.

Except when s/he's not.

Patricia's right.  That holds no meaning.

    I believe we are commanded to rightly divide the word of God.
    
    As far as Peter's blunders before the crucifiction, I would say that he
    did not have the Holy Spirit at the time.  I put emphasis on this
    because Peter the Great Chicken 50 days later became Peter the BOLD
    believer on the day of Pentacost...and suffered and counted it joy.
    
    However, Peter also believed one needed to convert to Judaism before
    converting to Christianity...which was faulty logic and a
    presuppoosition based on his upbringing.  Paul in violation to the call
    of the Holy Spirit went to Jerusalem when commanded to go elsewhere. 
    So the presumtion is correct.  Those of us in the family of God, those
    who have been sealed with the Holy Spirit, such as Paul and Peter, were
    not infallible.
    
    I would however also say that the writings of Peter and Paul were not
    of themselves.  I believe the writings were divinely inspired, (God
    breathed), as has been mentioned before.
    
    -Jack 

| <<< Note 1274.79 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Be A Victor..Not a Victim!" >>>

| As far as Peter's blunders before the crucifiction, I would say that he
| did not have the Holy Spirit at the time.  

	Yet we are to hold His writings are him being under God's will....

>    I would however also say that the writings of Peter and Paul were not
>    of themselves.  I believe the writings were divinely inspired, (God
>    breathed), as has been mentioned before.

    Yeah.  That sounds right.

    But the Word came through these wretched, sinful bodies.

    Could God make whatever they wrote perfect or inerrant?

    Yes.

    Could God have allowed these inspired people to make mistakes 
    while writing?

    Yes.

    Two possibilities.  I choose to beleive the latter because it
    includes more people which I believe is more in following with 
    the rest of the Gospel.

    BTW: If I recall, James' letter is in Greek but has horrific
    spelling/grammar.  But his heart's in the right place.

    Tom

   ZZ    Yet we are to hold His writings are him being under God's will...
    
    This would make sense since his epistles were written well into his
    ministry after meeting Jesus on the Road to Damascus.  Glen, if this is
    in relation to Romans 1:20 and thereabouts, I think it is really sad
    that you're throwing out the baby with the bathwater.  To discredit
    scripture as God breathed because of this is a travesty, (If this is
    what you are doing).
    
    -Jack

	Jack, as usual you don't retain what you have read. Please go back and
make a list of all the different reasons why I think the Bible is not the Word
of God. Go 'head. You will see MANY MANY reasons.

    re .41
    
    And if people find that the pharisess of today are swayed from the
    proper procedure people are to leave instead of stand up and try to
    stop things that are wrong?
    
    Jack, This is what I see you saying.  There are many people,
    particularaly many women who are trying to have a voice in their
    churches.  There are others like me that have found the church to
    hidebound and confining, to the point of interfering with finding the
    love of god(dess) that leave.  
    
    Oh well, at least we give you something to pray about.  I can only hope
    for your own sake that maybe you will listen to what (s)he says when
    (s)he attempts to speak to you heart.  
    
    meg