Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Re: 656.94 quoting 656.59
    
    James 3:14-16 NIV
    
    (14) But if you harbour bitter envy and selfish ambition in your
    hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.
    (15) Such "Wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly,
    unspiritual, of the devil.
    (16) For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find
    disorder and every evil practice.
    
    If feminism is seen to be based on bitter envy (of males) and selfish
    ambition (by females) then yes, I say that it is a wisdom that fits the
    definition of these verses.
    
    James

    I'm not sure what you are asking.  Can you please clarify?  I've
    just read the referenced verse and see no reason for it to cause
    question of inerrancy.
    
    BTW, I'd prefer that you NOT take this over to womannotes.  I'd
    like to keep the two conferences separate, if you will.  If you wish to
    invite Paul to go Womannotes for this discussion, please do so.
    
    There are many discussions about CHRISTIANS in Womannotes that I do not
    invite to here, though I've thought it. :-)
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy
    

    James there is wisdom in what you've written. :-)

No, Patricia, you don't have my permission to use that quote in Womennotes.
It's not that I'm in the slightest ashamed of what I said, I will stand by
it.  But I have neither the time nor the energy to become involved in a
discussion over there, and I have no desire to be burned in effigy with no
opportunity to expound upon what I believe.

James Cameron got the sense of what I was saying.  No, the book of James does
not specifically reference feminism.  But James speaks of something that will
try to pass itself off as "wisdom," that is in fact not wise at all.  And
James gives us guidelines on how to distinguish this "wisdom" from God's
Wisdom.

    (14) But if you harbour bitter envy and selfish ambition in your
    hearts, do not boast about it or deny the truth.
    (15) Such "Wisdom" does not come down from heaven but is earthly,
    unspiritual, of the devil.
    (16) For where you have envy and selfish ambition, there you find
    disorder and every evil practice.

The NKJV translates it as "bitter envy or self-seeking."  James says that any
"wisdom" based on these is not from God at all, but is eartly (literally
terrestial), unspiritual (literally referring to the animal life we have in
common with the lower animals), or demonic in origin.  James further goes on
to say that where this "wisdom" holds sway, confusion and evil follow.

Feminism originally was a call for equality.  But one can hardly read any
feminist literature today without identifying the intense bitterness that is
not just present but often encouraged and cultivated, and the envy of
anything to do with men.  Note that the concept 'envy' doesn't convey that
the person doing the envying is not in fact defrauded of something.  The
American Heritage Dictionary defines envy as "Discontented desire or
resentment aroused by another person's possessions, achievements, or
advantages."  There is no hint that the other person may in fact have more
possessions or advantages, nor that the other person may not have obtained
those at your expense.  There is no hint of this in the Greek either (at
least that I can tell).  I agree that women have been shabbily and wrongfully
treated through much (most?) of history, and I wholeheartedly support efforts
to right those wrongs.  But feminism has moved far beyond a call for equality
into a bitter envying and resentment of everything male.

And self-seeking is the cornerstone upon which feminism is built.

James also indicates how to recognize God's wisdom:

"But the wisdom that comes from above is first of all pure, then
peace-loving, considerate, submissive, full of mercy and good fruit,
impartial and sincere."

Paul

"Who stole feminism?"

	Patricia, you could always paraphrase the comment in =wn=. I was
surprised the comment was allowed to stand in the file. Calling it demonic
could easily get someone fired.

>Feminism is not evil and demonic and stating that scripture says that it is
>evil and demonic is a sinful, twisted usage of scripture, particularly
>using a direct quote from James, and making Feminism the subject of
>that quote.

Lest you think I'm trying to wriggle out of anything:

I believe that much of the core of the feminist movement exactly matches the
description in James of earthly, demonic "wisdom."  Bitterness, envy, and
self-seeking abound.  Not that all feminism or all feminists do, but that
much of the current core does.  And it is neither sinful nor twisted to
identify it as such, but merely truthful.  I understand that the truth hurts
sometimes.  And I understand that even as I say that, you will not receive
it, but will only be further angered by it.  But James continues, "If you
harbor bitter envy and self-seeking in your hearts, do not boast and lie
against the truth."

I don't insist that it is always and only a satanic deception.  As James
mentions, it partially proceeds from our eartly, animal natures.  But I
believe that Satan is quite delighted by it and does all he can to encourage
it.

And I believe that God has nothing whatsoever to do with it.

>    The principles of feminism, i.e. the equality of all people, the
>    impartially of all people to God

Are your interactions in the note about husband/wife relations a good example
of your 'equality' and 'impartiality?'  I've repeatedly tried to portray that
God calls BOTH women AND men to sacrifice self for each other.  You have
repeatedly looked at only one side of that, have denounced the evil of asking
women to sacrifice self, and have quoted me as supporting that evil.  As far
as I can recollect, you haven't once even REFERRED to the equal call to men
to sacrifice self.

>Scripture supports that definition of the equality of all
>    people and the impartiality of God to all people.

Scripture supports that there is no difference in our relationship to Jesus. 
Scripture does not support that we are exactly the same, or that we have
exactly the same roles.

You get quite upset when I suggest that there are portions of the feminism
that you believe in that match James' description of ungodly wisdom.  Yet you
have no hesitation describing any usage of scripture that does not fit your
preconceived notions as "twisted" and "sinful."  You did it here, you did it
recently in regards to the notion that God could hate anyone.  So please
don't get on a high horse about not judging others.

Paul

>  I guess I'm trying to determine how to interpret the quote.  

I don't suppose you might consider taking my clarifications into account when
determining your interpretation?  Patricia, I have fully clarified what I
meant in that quote.  Yet you continue to harp upon how through that quote I
make the blanket claim that James says "Feminism" is evil.

Do you want to continue to insist to interpret that quote by claiming that a
certain ordering of words MUST make certain claims, despite my
clarifications, so that you can castigate me and by inference the other
members of this notesfile, or are you interested at all in talking about what
I actually meant?

Paul

	Patricia,

	I disagree with your assumption that a lack of response by
	the individuals = agreement with or support of any other
	individual's comments.

	I am quite busy, and often read in perusal mode.  If I happen
	to be "struck" by a comment, I may reply, I may not.  I may
	just leave it to the two who are in debate at the time.

	Please do not argue that by my silence, I am saying X.

	Karen

      Hi,
    
        With what little I've read here, I don't have a problem
        with the feminism Patricia advocates (as she defined it).
    
                                               Tony

      Hi,
    
        I hope Clay's replies don't get lost in the shuffle.  Clay,
        I think those are wonderful replies and I need to restudy 
        them.
    
        Thanks brother!
    
                                                  Tony

    Feminism as Patricia defines it is about as good as your gonna get
    trying to define feminism.
    
    Go over to womannotes and read the note where they've tried to define
    "feminism".  Feminism is just as diverse as Christianity.
    
    Nancy
    
    

    
    Sigh.  I believe what start out as a good thing; some much needed
    equality which I personally have been the beneficiary of has turned 
    ugly.  I would have to agree with Paul on the bent of modern feminism.
    I think it gives a bad name to women.  I think it is bitter and
    envious, and self-serving.  I do not believe it's goal is equality
    but to make those who disagree with them (especially men) pay for 
    the wrongs suffered by women throughout time.  I wish it would go
    away.  And I don't believe that James has to say the word feminism 
    to apply.  
    
    Jill
    

| <<< Note 656.108 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>



| It seems to me that from the lack of concern about the quote from the accepted
| portion of this community, that it represents the thoughts of this community 
| regarding Feminism in general and my interpretation of Feminism in particular.

	You know Patricia, you have hit the nail on the head I believe. It does
seem that no one has refuted it or made any question about it publicly, so I
agree with your assesment. Of course behind the scenes things could have been
said, but I guess we won't know that. One thing I have noticed a lot though,
when one who people feel are a Christian says something wrong, they get mail
and it gets taken care of there, without anyone knowing about it. But when
someone who is perceived as a non-Christian says something, it gets taken care
of here. Pauls notes on this subject serve as a good example of that. 

| That quote clearly implies that "James" says Feminism is evil. Since James 
| clearly does not say that, that quotes violates this communities standard for 
| Biblical accuracy.  

	I agree Patricia. I know that Paul did give a note explaining what he
meant and all, but to say feminism is not from God does not mean that one, Paul
is correct, or two, it's evil. Paul also seemed to be talking about you in his
first message, and then started to pin point more towards the extremists end in
a later note. But you're right, it really isn't about the author per say, as
anyone could have written it. In this case it just happened to be Paul.

| I am calling the members of this community to live up to their own standards
| Not to live up to my standards.

	You're asking a tall order Patricia...


Glen

    Glen,
    
    I'd say that you've been treated rather fairly in this forum.  I, for
    one, have taken an aggressive stand to not allow anything that could be
    considered a personal attack or insult towards you to stand in this
    conference.  They have been deleted from this conference.  Actually, I 
    can say I've done this rather often within the last 6 months alone.
    
    I find your note to merely reflect that while you call others to value
    your differences, you do not live up to the same standard.
    
    This saddens me greatly.
    
    Nancy
    

 re .117


 You called the beliefs of many in this conference "evil".




           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 657.24                  Full of Grace and Truth                    24 of 63
POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"             34 lines  13-JAN-1995 10:34
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are two very different issues.
    
    One is the quality of the analogy.  The anology is pure garbage and any
    woman who would voluntarily enter into such a relationship needs
    professional counselling.
    
    The analogy potrays precisely the problem with using Male God language
    and Husband and Wife language to mirror God's action.
    
    there is no equality whatsoever between God and humankind.  To use
    Husband/Wife language and then substitue the Divine/Human relationship
    for the Male/Female relationships implies the absolute authority of Man
    over women.  It implies woman standing in Awe/Fear of there husbands.
    
   ## That kind of analogy is evil to its core!.
    
    It also is not biblical according to New Testament language regarding
    the relationship of Husband and Wife.  I can see how the Old Testament
    can be translated that way.
    
    I guess that may be one reason why I am so opposed to the notion of the
    innerancy of the Bible.  It leads people such as Mark is doing here to
    say that as God is to Humanity, so Husband is to Wife.
    
    The implication is Submit, sexually and otherwise, or destroy your
    marriage.  That is not how any good marriage I know of is ordered.
    
    The problem may not in fact be in the notion of innerancy in general. 
    It is in the way very human, control oriented men make human analogies
    from the language.
    
    
    Patricia                           
    

| <<< Note 656.115 by CSC32::KINSELLA "You are a treasure." >>>


| Sigh.  I believe what start out as a good thing; some much needed equality 
| which I personally have been the beneficiary of has turned ugly.  

	You know Jill, I always get a kick out of stuff like this. Those that
have done little, or nothing at all, who reap off the real hard work that
others had to do are always the 1st ones to say we don't need X anymore. What I
would like to know Jill, are you one of these people who have reaped the benies
that someone else got you? 

	I seriously believe that with any group you have extremists. I do
believe it's that way with Christians, with groups ya can't mention here, with
people of colour, and yes, with feminists. From what I have seen from
Patricia's notes, she has never given me the impression that she is an
extremist. But you seem to take the word feminism, and lump everyone into one
group. It would be great if we could get rid of all the extremists at both ends
of the scale, and just have the middle people. But that is not going to happen,
and I believe both ends of extremists are needed to really help keep us
balanced, even though a lot of hardships can be caused. But while you would not
want to be considered one of those people who hold hateful signs up, or put in
the same catagory as the John Salvi's of the world, don't lump ANY group
together. Please take it on an individual basis.

| I would have to agree with Paul on the bent of modern feminism. I think it 
| gives a bad name to women. I think it is bitter and envious, and self-serving.
| I do not believe it's goal is equality but to make those who disagree with 
| them (especially men) pay for the wrongs suffered by women throughout time.  

	Jill, could you provide examples of all this? Women have come a long
way. I will give you that. But they have a long way to go. Are women treated
the same in every single state in this country? Nope. Some areas of the nation
women are treated better, others a lot worse. So it does not mean that the work
is done because SOME areas of the country women are treated as equals.

| And I don't believe that James has to say the word feminism to apply.

	Well, isn't it the norm for Christians to twist any Scripture to apply
to anything????? (how's that for lumping?) 


Glen

    
    	Patricia,
    	
    	Did you read my .110 ?
    
    	Karen
    
    	PS - my lack of response to notes .111 to .120 does not imply
    	my agreement with their content
    
    

| <<< Note 656.118 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I'd say that you've been treated rather fairly in this forum. I, for one, have
| taken an aggressive stand to not allow anything that could be considered a 
| personal attack or insult towards you to stand in this conference. They have 
| been deleted from this conference. Actually, I can say I've done this rather 
| often within the last 6 months alone.

	Nancy, you did it yesterday. :-)  But what seems to happen is I will
see a note, and then I will wait. I see nothing is done to the note, but mods
have conversed in other topics, so I end up responding to it. After I respond to
the note, it then gets deleted. I know this doesn't happen in every case, but it
seems to happen more often than not. 

| I find your note to merely reflect that while you call others to value your 
| differences, you do not live up to the same standard.

	That's where you're wrong Nancy. I DO live by the same standard. It's
just not a double one. You see, many can say a lot in here, they can even ask
me a lot of questions. But I am not allowed to answer them. They on the other
hand can say a lot and not worry about it. Well, unless I respond to it. I
think the same thing is happening with Patricia. It was said. If Patricia really
wanted to take it to the limits, she could easily get Paul fired. (but I know
Patricia isn't like that) You know, if she lived by Pauls version of feminism,
he would really be escorted out the door. But Patricia wanted to focus more on
how it is related to the Bible. She wants proof to back the claim. I think that
alone is not just commendable of Patricia, but it also pulls her out of Pauls
catagory of feminism. And to think all she had to do was be herself... go
figure....



Glen

      I'm too 'tired' to peruse this whole string.
    
      Patricia, is it possible that Paul's assessment of *feminism*
      was based on his personal understanding of what it means and is
      not based on your own definition for it?
    
      If so, its possible you both agree (at least a little).
    
      Lets face it, there's a faction of feminism that doesn't really
      like men a whole lot and as God is unconditional love...well, 
      it doesn't take a whole lot of mental gymnastics to figure out
      what side of the fence such a faction may (at least in part) be.
    
      Anyway, I'm trying to be fair!  Sorry if I failed ya.
    
                                    God Loves Ya (and I Hope I Do Too),
    
                                    Tony

    Patricia,
    
    You've asked for a moderator response.  We have agreed to this as our
    work schedules permit.
    
    However, *on my own* I must recall to your mind the "abuse" I received
    in PC regarding my faith...and NOTHING was done about it.  As a matter
    of fact you participated in the abuse.
    
    My choice was to leave PC. 
    
    Nancy

>PC

Phistian-Cursplective?

My silence has been an indication of lack of time.  This note was going
through a series of fast and furious quibbles and argument, and I have
been skipping over it.  Just happened to see the note about not responding
must mean agreement, in my case it just means I haven't been participating.

Leslie

    >The discussion degenerated into a
    >personal attack on my Feminist beliefs.  Romans 5 does not even
    >deal with feminism.  It is sad that we cannot even discuss a chapter in
    >the Bible together without this kind of hostility.
    
    Who was it that said, "I am feminist first and foremost!"?
    
    You brought feminism into the discussion Patricia... no-one else.
    

    	My silence certainly *CAN* be taken as agreement with the
    	scriptural description of Feminism (with a capital F).  I'm
    	not going to back down and accept that assessment as evil
    	or scripturally twisted.
    
    	If you (anyone -- not only accusers, but those who have
    	backpedaled) are unwilling to consider the follow-up clarifications
    	made about the statement, then you are destined to allow the
    	loudest yeller to dictate the direction and demeanor of these
    	discussions.
    
    	I don't see the original statement -- especially in light of the
    	clarifying statements -- as indicting all feminists or the
    	basic ideology of feminism.  But there is a difference between
    	the ideology of feminism and the current political movement
    	of Feminism.  (I capitalize one and not the other to help make
    	the distinction.  For all I know, the proper capitalizations
    	should be reversed.  So use you imaginations if you must.  Surely
    	you can understand my point, though.)  Paul has already indicated 
    	the attitides that he was addressing, and if any one person takes 
    	offense at those particular attitudes being called evil, I have to 
    	conclude that they also identify with those attitudes, and then the 
    	shoe appropriately fits.
    
    	Scripture does not have to list specific things for us to know
    	that it is talking about them.

Can we remember the context of my original comment, Patricia?

You entered a note describing how you were here to "prod" and "call to
responsibility" the Bible-Believing Christians in this notesfile.  In
response, I was calling into question your need to continually point out how
wrong-headed us Bible-Believing Christians are, and your need to try to say
that Scripture (as a whole) supports your views.  I was pointing out that
while I have been very active in defense of Biblical Christianity regarding
your views, that I have no need to go on the attack against ways in which I
believe you to be wrong.  

While doing so, as an aside, I mentioned that I do think you are quite misled
in your thinking and why, but in the context of acceptance that you do
believe that.  The portion you have become so upset about is preceded by the
sentence "Can we agree to disagree, Patricia?  I don't need to keep trying to
convince you that you're wrong," and is followed the sentence "I can just
accept that you believe what you believe."

Sounds like valuing differences to me, or at least tolerating them.

And that section is then followed by an appeal to recognize that we each
believe the other to be wrong, and a request for you to accept that and stop
trying to prove that we are wrong to stand on Scripture.

You've come into this file, and openly proclaimed the beliefs of many to be
"evil," "twisted," "sinful," "heresy."  You have persisted in that
denunciation in as many notes as you had the energy to enter.  For the most
part, people in this file have simply defended themselves and Biblical
Christianity against your very different beliefs.  But in this note, not in a
way intended as a direct attack, but simply as an aside to indicate that I
believe you are really wrong just as you believe I'm really wrong, I
mentioned that the feminism that you proclaim as "first and foremost" for you
matches James' description of 'wisdom' that is not from God.  And you've gone
balistic over this.  Glen's going on about people getting fired.

It's really amazing.  What sort of response do you think I'd get if I went
over to womennotes, went on and on in note after note about how 'evil' and
'twisted' feminism was, and then when someone said that fundamental
christianity was evil got all offended?

I've fully clarified what I said and what I meant in that note, yet you still
respond with:

>   The issue has to do with an individual quoting holy scripture.  He quoted
>   holy scripture directly quoting a small piece of James and adding his own
>    words to say Feminism is Satanic.  He cited James.  Scripture was
>    distorted in a most direct and blatant fashion to call my beliefs
>    Satanic.

I find two huge ironies in this sentence.  First, that you would complain
about Scripture being distorted in a "most direct and blatant fashion."  This
whole note is testimony to your attempt to distort a verse or two of
Scripture to support universal salvation, while wilfully ingoring pages of
Scripture that speak of judgement.  You get quite upset when I say that this
is a distortion of Scripture, but you do not hesitate to make the same claim
yourself.  This is just my "interpretation," Patricia.  :-)  What is your
basis to claim that I've 'distorted' Scripture, and why can that basis NEVER
be used against your 'distorted' 'interpretations?'

Second, it's ironic in that you prove your proficiency in quoting out of
context twice.  In this note, you have tried to take one sentence out of Paul
(the Apostle's) writing, and insist that it meant a certain thing based on
the words in that one sentence, despite reams of other words by Paul that
show that was not at all what he meant.  And now here in this note you are
doing the exact same thing to me.

>I honestly tried to
>    discuss Romans 5 in this note.  The discussion degenerated into a
>    personal attack on my Feminist beliefs.

I won't let you take the high road here.  I was very much discussing Romans 5
with you.  I was discussing the very verses that you wanted to discuss.  I
was, however, also insisting that conclusions based on Romans 5:18 would have
to be balanced by the rest of Romans 5, by the rest of Romans and by the rest
of Scripture.  I know that you found this frustrating, but you were not the
only one in this note who was willing to get to the bottom of what Paul was
saying in Roman's 5, as you imply here.

And the discussion didn't degenerate into a personal attack on your Feminist
beliefs.  If you look through the first 58 replies to this note, there's not
a word about feminism.  As an aside in reply .59 in a request that you stop
trying to portray your views as supported by the Bible when they won't even
stand the test of including the previous verse, I did mention that I believe
much of Feminism to be evil. But in the next 35 replies, until you brought it
up again in response .93, neither I nor anyone else said a word about
feminism.  Hardly "degenerating into a personal attack."

I have no need to continue to attack feminism in regards to this passage in
James.  I never did have a need to make that attack, I was only noting that I
believe that you are as misled as you believe me to be, and asking that we
stop going head to head over it.  But I will not apologize for noting that
James' description of false 'wisdom' can be directly applied to much of
modern feminism, nor for James' description of where such 'wisdom' comes from
or what its results are.

You can retreat into a wounded silence if you must.  But I will not receive
your judgement that you were wrongfully treated here in this file.

Paul

| <<< Note 656.131 by PAULKM::WEISS "Trade freedom for His security-GAIN both" >>>



| It's really amazing.  What sort of response do you think I'd get if I went
| over to womennotes, went on and on in note after note about how 'evil' and
| 'twisted' feminism was, and then when someone said that fundamental
| christianity was evil got all offended?

	Paul, it really doesn't matter what the response was or not. What
REALLY matters is if it's warented or not. There is your key. If you go in and
rant and rave about feminism being evil, then yeah, you would deserve to be
scorched. If you were having a discussion, and you explained your beliefs and
got toasted, then you would have a point. But you've already had an offer from
Patricia to post your origional note in =wn=, but you decided to not let her do
that.

| I find two huge ironies in this sentence.  First, that you would complain
| about Scripture being distorted in a "most direct and blatant fashion."  This
| whole note is testimony to your attempt to distort a verse or two of
| Scripture to support universal salvation, while wilfully ingoring pages of
| Scripture that speak of judgement.  You get quite upset when I say that this
| is a distortion of Scripture, but you do not hesitate to make the same claim
| yourself.  

	Paul, let's say Patricia is doing to Scripture what you claim, just for
argument sake. Does that make her claim of your distorting Scripture any less
valid? No it doesn't, as you have not addressed what she is talking about. So
your first so called hole is non-existant, as it does nothing to prove or
disprove Patricia's claim. Why don't you just show that the Scripture backs your
claim? This way we will at least see this is something that is true, and not
something you are just projecting.

| Second, it's ironic in that you prove your proficiency in quoting out of
| context twice.  In this note, you have tried to take one sentence out of Paul
| (the Apostle's) writing, and insist that it meant a certain thing based on
| the words in that one sentence, despite reams of other words by Paul that
| show that was not at all what he meant.  And now here in this note you are
| doing the exact same thing to me.

	Just prove it Paul. If the proof is there, it shouldn't be hard.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    I believe Paul was referring to the extremists of feminism or feminists 
    who practice same out of hate or envy.  This can also be the case for 
    men who are overbearing and don't honor their spouses.
    
    -Jack

It is now 5:00 P.M. and I am just now catching up on the replies here.  So,
as part of the belief society in this string, I am stating for everybody 
that my silence was simply because I am now catching up.   

First, I think we need to once again understand the tenants of this 
conference.  The Christian conference is a forum for Bible based teaching
and edification.  No where to my knowledge does the conference policy state
that the the society as a whole need to be sensitive to anybody's special
doctrine.  Doctrines can be discussed but mainly the conference is to build
the body in light of scriptural knowledge.

Christian Perspective is a conference whose tenant is to provide a variety of
different belief systems under the "Christian" name.  To show this, one of 
the moderators I believe is an atheist or agnostic...can't remember which. 
That is absolutely fine.  That conference, unlike this, is more prone to 
direct and bluntly open differences where the parties will HOPE to agree to 
disagree in the end.  Most of the time it happens, sometimes it doesn't.

Patricia, as you are aware, you are a moderator in CP and I am a regular 
participant.  In some ways our belief systems are as compatible as oil and 
water...this is the case between me and alot of the CP members...yet at
the same time, I am able to log off and log in the next day...tomorrow is a
new start, I move on from the differences of yesterday.  I admonish you to
take this stance here if you want to enjoy the value of diversity...YES, even
if you get offended, it's going to happen.

I would also like to remind you that as a moderator, surely you have to come
to grips with the fact that MY belief system, as well as other BB Christians 
there, have had their faith system raked over the coals.  I know of one 
individual who used to appear regularly who stated on many occasions that the
nature of individual replies there made her heart ache.  Yet at the same time,
there was never any moderator action and the exchanges kept going.  I guess 
what I'm saying here is that as a moderator, it is your responsibility to 
meet the needs of those who hurt, even if you disagree with them.  I am no 
angel in this...I have at times not been spirit lead in my replies, I wrote
immaturely, tried to win an argument, etc.  Christianity is a growing process
and will always be throughout life.  To leave a conference would only short
change you of the diverse thinking available.  I encourage you to stay and I
encourage you to agree to disagree, then move on.  

You can't expect to be at harmony with BB Christians when you don't hold to 
the tenants they do.  It would be like me going into the Buddism conference 
and expect them to adhere to my teachings on the resurrection.  

In Christ,

-Jack

 I've been too busy working today to respond, save one, and likely would
not have replied more as a participant.  As a moderator, it has been stated
what we are doing.



Jim

    
    RE: .120   Glen,
    
    You're analogy is comparable to saying how dare she benefit from
    antibiotics since she did nothing to contribute to their discovery.
    We all benefit from alot of things we had nothing to do with.
    The women that fought for equality gave it to society as a gift.  
    I accept it gratefully.  I have no reason to feel guilty about that.  
    It's just like the finished work of Christ.  It was a gift.  I 
    accepted it gratefully and I have no reason to feel guilty about that.
    
    I don't that comment on the rest of your note would be a benefit
    to anyone and I really don't want to drag this out.
    
    Jill  

    Re: Note 656.104 by POWDML::FLANAGAN
    
>   Scripture does not support that Feminism is evil and Demonic.  
>   james (sic) never mentions Feminism.
    
    The verses discussed predate the concept and definition of the word
    Feminism.  Chuckle.  And automobiles for that matter.  Surprising it is
    not that no mention is made of Feminism.
    
    The verses support the possibility that Feminism is evil and of the
    devil, provided the narrow definition I mentioned earlier is taken to
    be true.
    
    The verses do not mention or support the concept of Feminism being
    demonic, but that is a possibility given the interpretation that
    Feminism is of the Devil.  I know of no scripture that states that all
    that is of the Devil is also demonic.  But given that demons are seen
    as servants of the Devil, it is reasonable to assume that anything "of"
    the Devil is also demonic.
    
    				       James

    Re: Note 656.108 by POWDML::FLANAGAN
    
>   It seems to me that from the lack of concern about the
>   quote from the accepted portion of this community, that it represents
>   the thoughts of this community regarding Feminism in general and my
>   interpretation of Feminism in particular.  
    
    I believe the probability of your perception (above) being correct is
    approximately 20%.  Backing evidence: not all of this community read
    and speak in all topics, of those who did read the quote, not all are
    willing to speak their side, either due to fear of inducing
    unprofitable interaction, or because it isn't all that important to
    them.
    
    Five elephants pass by.  The first is pink.  So is the second.  And the
    third.  And the fourth and fifth.  I can therefore reasonably assume
    that all elephants are pink?  Error of logic: extrapolating from the
    specific to the general case.
    
    				     James

				.... continuation from .1 ...

In the discussions on marriage relationships, etc, I believe that we have
often stressed the responsibility of the man to God as being paramount -
ie, 
- if he is not representing Christ perfectly to his wife (as we all fall
far short), he cannot expect her to be able to revere him as those same
passages show is ideal. 
- if he *is* representing Christ perfectly to his wife (the theoretical 
impossible, but ideal), he will, like Christ with the church, love her into 
perfection rather than ruling her into submission.

The question is not one of superiority, but of unique role and function, as 
in the childbearing exampole in .1

The line of administration is clearly shown as :

		God
		 |
		Jesus
		 |
		Man
		 |
		Woman

Obviously this is galling to a woman with leadership capabilities who 
is in a domestic or church situation where the men do not have these 
qualities.  Even worse is the domestic abusive situation, but I believe 
that different principles should be referred to here.  The question is 
whether misfitting personalities or social order justifies a change from :

		Model I				Model II

		God				God
		 |				 |
		Jesus		to :		Jesus
		 |				 |
		Man			      -------
		 |			     |       |
		Woman			    Man    Woman

If we were talking purely practical role activities, this might be a 
possibility.  However, the Biblical principles are based on spiritual 
realities, not circumstantial convenience.  It is on this basis that I 
would say that Model II is Biblically unacceptable.  
I *think* that Model II is the picture feminism would represent.  
I may be incorrect there.  I am sure that different feminists would hold
different levels of application of either model as relevant anyway.  I
would also re-emphasise that Model II is the working model as far as
spiritual accountability for one's soul is concerned. 

I have only, so far, represented the church situation, and the Christian
marriage situation. Obviously it is different again in application for the
single woman, and it is also different for the single man, who does not
have the opportunity to fulfil a part of his design role.  This need not
necessarily be seen as a problem for either, though it may sometimes result
in an imbalance or difficulty in coming to terms with the lifestyle.  I'm
not specially referring to sexual needs here; rather to general living
relationship, and personal expression and communication needs. 

Moving from Model I to Model II implies detaching the woman from her design
line of responsibility, and re-attaching at another point.  Because this
*is* the model for eternal spiritual accountability, it is assumed that it
will work for temporal accountability.  This is not necessarily the case. 
We have been given a pattern, and Model II is a replacement.  In Genesis 3,
the fall occurred when Model II was followed, but in taking an alternative
authority, Eve followed the devil, and Adam followed Eve, as : 

		Model III

		devil
		 |
		woman
		 |
		man

In replacing Model I with anything else, a non-recommended model is
substituted.  Any substitute for God's pattern has to come from another
source, which is, I believe, why feminism in general is sometimes flagged
as demonic.  

However, I believe that for any individual case, underlying principles need
to be examined, and the particular brand and area of application of the
name 'feminism' needs to be understood before condemnation is assumed, 
because the idea behind it arise because of desperate need, and an 
effective breakdown in men's fulfillment of their role.

This only constitutes a brief introduction to an immense topic and deep
social problem, but I hope it is helpful for us in understanding the
viewpoints, and gives us a practical point to move on from. 

Moreover, it is all I have time [or line count] for now

					God bless
							Andrew 

    Ha.  Now caught up on this string and I'd like to mention that Unionism
    fits the James 3:14 definition rather nicely as well.  No idea if you
    guys over in Country Number One have Unions as bad as us in 61 (Oz) or
    44 (UK) have had... bitter envy and selfish ambition.
    
    [And Petria just interjected; "and the people in Haiti, they are
    yelling and screaming for help, they are bitterly envious of those with
    food and resources, and their actions are purely selfism ambition for
    an increase in their food supply" said tongue in cheek]
    
    And just for the record, I _believe_ that a significant proportion of
    Phem inist (and economic) activity is induced by the Devil, and not
    merely because of what James 3:14-16 says.
    
    But gee it's nice when I get scriptural support... ;-)
    
    James

Hi Patricia.

I want to apologize for the way that our interaction here escalated, and the
way that I contributed to that escalation.  I have stood strongly against
things you have said, I have pointed out what I believe to be inconsistencies
or indicative attitudes, and I have set forth what I believe to be Truth in
Christ.  I don't apologize for any of that.

But I have been caught up in a spirit of 'debate,' and have not been nearly
as gentle as Christ would have me be.  I still have much to learn about
balancing Christ's Grace with His Truth.  I've been noting for 10 years, and
I still often fall into taking an attitude in notes that I would NEVER take
in person.  It has never been my intention or desire to attack you
personally.  And I deeply apologize for phrasing my responses in such a way
that they have been received as attacks by you, and for the hurt I know I
have caused you.  Can you forgive me?  Christ has not finished His work in me
yet.

I really do wish you Godspeed, Patricia.  I pray that your seeking for 
Truth - which I really see in you, despite our disagreements - will lead you
to the Fountain of Real Truth.  I pray that one day, we might meet at the
banqueting table, with all our errors and weaknesses purged away, and have a
good long talk.

God Bless, Patricia.

Paul

    re: .8
    
    > submissive   
    
    I think this quality alone sort of takes feminism out of the 'true
    wisdom' category, as mentioned in the Bible.
    
    -steve

    I've gone back and read Paul's note and really looked it over, because
    if indeed it were an attempt to actually quote Scripture and thereby
    distort it and it did imply that James was directly saying that Feminism 
    is evil, I would have to agree that it would violate the community's
    standard for Biblical accuracy. When I read it however, I come to the
    conclusion that its chief problem is that it's poorly punctuated (sorry
    :-)). As I read toward the end of Paul's quote, I see it like this
    
    ...that the *wisdom* [of feminism], which is based on bitter envy and
    self-seeking, "is earthly, unspiritual, of the devil," and where it is
    found there is "confusion and disorder and every evil thing." (James
    3:14-16 cited).  (Or something along those lines.)  The plain 
    (James 3:14-16) at the end without quotes within the sentence is 
    misleading toward indicating that Paul is directly quoting the entire 
    phrase from the Bible, whereas in reality the majority of the sentence is 
    paraphrase.  It's not uncommon in writing to combine paraphrase and direct 
    quote, but punctuation is critical  - and punctuation is not usually 
    something given much attention in Notes, which is such an odd mix of 
    writing/conversation.
    
    I can't honestly conclude from really studying the note that Paul was 
    deliberately twisting Scripture to say that Scripture said such and such, 
    only that he was paraphrasing in an attempt to get his point across,
    and needs to be more careful with punctuation. (But I'm not a mod, so I
    don't know if my opinion counts ;-).)
    
    Rebecca 
    

>    Ha.  Now caught up on this string and I'd like to mention that Unionism
>    fits the James 3:14 definition rather nicely as well.  

Yes, James (Cameron), I've also noted the marked similarity between Unionism
and Feminism.  Both came into being to fight against clear and undeniable
wrongs.  Both were completely justified in their inception, both began by
standing for a recognition of their own humanity.  And many people in both
movements remained there - content to seek that recognition, and desiring to
see the good in the group that had been oppressing them.

But a core group within both turned.  The recognition of the oppression they
had undergone, and the frustration with the slowness of change, created
bitterness, envy, and hatred.  Pushing for their own rights and recognition
of their humanity turned into inordinate self-seeking.  And the groups moved
beyond seeking the recognition of their own humanity into seeking power over
the group that had oppressed them.  

Unions moved far beyond seeking a fair deal from their employers.  They
developed, then cultivated and encouraged, a belief that all employers were
inherently evil and not to be trusted, that all were oppressors.  They won
the recognition of their rights, but did not stop there.  Because the other
group had been in the wrong before, they viewed anything and everything from
the other group with distrust as something inherently "wrong," and because
they knew that they had started by being in the right, they came to view any
of their own views as inherently 'right.'  They pushed and bullied and
demanded more and more from their employers, until they became more the
oppressors than the oppressed.  But they never challenged within themselves
the belief that they were the oppressed, they justified every abuse that they
perpetrated under the blanket of fighting back against oppression.

Now there is a small core of people who are still passionately pro-union, who
still believe they are the oppressed ones, who cannot see that the abuses
they are now participating in bear a striking resemblance to the abuses they
originally formed to combat.  Most other people, who are not within the union
'filter,' are free to see that unions have in fact become what they
themselves hate.

I see Feminism going down the same road.  Feminists have not yet gained the
upper hand to becoming active oppressors, though they are coming close to
doing so in the academic arena.  But a core group has made the shift from
fighting for recognition of their humanity, to, in bitter envy, hatred, and
self seeking, and without realizing it, fighting to BECOME oppressors.

It is sad how predicatable we human beings are.

Paul

    I have stated in the past that I am a Christian Feminist.  But on
    further thought I find this terminology to invoke too strong a
    perception of just what that is.
    
    Firstly, feminism in and of itself is not inherently evil.  As a matter
    of fact, I bellieve that it is good.  For God never intended for woman
    to be oppressed or abused by their husbands and fathers.  
    
    Unfortunately, I believe that today when most people hear the term
    "feminist" the connotation is negative and the image is a woman who is
    self seeking and controlling.
    
    THIS IS NOT what I want associated with me as a Christian.  I object
    strongly to this, but realize that there is little I can do to change
    this perception.  I've always been told, "the squeaky wheel gets the
    grease".  And the media certainly knows how to grease the extreme
    feminists that exist in our country.
    
    Therefore, I must rethink the terminology of which I wish to be
    associated as a Christian Woman.  Perhaps that's it, Christian Woman.
    Well, ladies if you have any input, I'd certainly be willing to listen!
    
    Nancy
    

    Nancy-
    
    Is it fair to think of a Christian Feminist/Christian Woman as 
    a Proverbs 31 woman?  I think Prov. 31 gives a good model of what a
    christian woman (whether she be married or single) can pattern or model
    their life after:  strong, in all aspects: body, mind and soul; loyal, 
    honest, industrious, etc.
    
    I could think of no greater compliment (and testimony to the Lord) than 
    to be thought of in that manner by my husband, family & friends.
    
    Karen

>    It is too easy to define feminists by defining the most radical, most
>    fanatic elements in the group.  That is about as fair as defining
>    Christians in terms of Christian Fanatics.

Remarkably enough, Patricia.  we are in agreement here.  :-)

Can we pause for just a moment and enjoy that?  :-)

I know it might not have been obvious in my note, but my recognition that
this attitude does not DEFINE feminism is in fact there:

.48> Both came into being to fight against clear and undeniable
.48> wrongs.  Both were completely justified in their inception, both began
.48> by standing for a recognition of their own humanity.  And many people in
.48> both movements remained there - content to seek that recognition, and
.48> desiring to see the good in the group that had been oppressing them.

.48> But a core group within both turned.  

.
.
.

.48> a core group has made the shift from
.48> fighting for recognition of their humanity, to, in bitter envy, hatred,
.48> and self seeking, and without realizing it, fighting to BECOME 
.48> oppressors.

Note my recognition that many people within Feminism are content to seek the
recognition of their humanity, and desire to see the good in the group (men)
oppressing them.  Note also the emphasis that it is a core group within the
movement that I believe has turned toward bitter envy and self-seeking.

I recognize in much of what you have written here that you are not fully
within that core group, Patricia.  I hear your emphasis on the recognition of
the humanity of all persons, and I applaud it.  But I will own, to use your
word, that I have felt that you might have a foot in that core group, and
that in some places that impression has come through my notes.  I owe you an
explanation as to where that impression comes from.

One of the signs that I have come to recognize as a tell-tale warning that
someone is entering that core group mindset (regardless of the issue
involved) is a tendency to see everything in terms of oppression of their
group.  Even seemingly unrelated issues come to be seen as another example of
the oppression.  A case where oppression is falling equally on two groups, is
seen only as oppression on the one group. The 'filter' of being oppressed
begins as simply an awareness and recognition of what was always there and
not noticed, but subtly turns and begins to block out information that does
not support the filter.

I've seen signs of that tell-tale warning in your notes, Patricia.  And so I
fear for you, that what really has begun as a fight for the recognition of
the humanity of all persons, might be beginning to turn into something else.

I know that for myself, I have to constantly be on my guard, as I seek to
follow the Truth of Jesus, that I don't let the filter of His Truth subtly
turn and begin to block out His Love and Grace.  I've failed in that to some
extent in this note.

Be careful, Patricia.  That slow and subtle turning from what began as
something good into something that is not good at all has happened to better
persons than you or I.

Paul

| <<< Note 662.41 by CSC32::KINSELLA "You are a treasure." >>>

| RE: .120   

	Jill.... it had to of been a long day.... we don't have 120 replies in
this note!!! :-)

| You're analogy is comparable to saying how dare she benefit from antibiotics 
| since she did nothing to contribute to their discovery.

	Jill, that is taking something that not everybody would be qualified to
do, and comparing it to something everyone could do. To come up with
antibiotics, schooling has to be achieved. Not everyone, man or woman, can do
what would be required, as it is at such a high level. To help in the womans
movement you have high level jobs as well, which again, schooling is needed.
Not everyone could do what is required as well, but there are so many different 
jobs at so many different levels, one can find something that is suited to them 
much easier. There is your difference.


Glen

    re 662.54
    
    >Jill.... it had to of been a long day.... we don't have 120 replies in
    >this note!!! :-)
    
    These notes were moved from the 656.* note (Romans 5) where there were
    140 replies, before the move.  [But maybe you knew that and were being
    sarcastic?]
    
    Bing

    As an aside (meaning not related much to any previous note  8^) ), I've
    done a bit of thinking on 'feminism'.  Without definition or
    explanation, 'feminism' reeks of inequality.  Although I understand the
    reason for this movement, I have to question the motivation behind
    using such a loaded term.
    
    Feminism speaks of a one-sided promotion of a specific gender.  When
    you get involved in such a lopsided political view, it becomes very
    easy to ignore balance in promoting your view.  Look at unionism in
    America, look at the equal rights movement
    (specifically ratial quotas, and similar things it has spawned).  The 
    modern evolution of these movements have taken them well beyond 
    their intended purpose of equity...some have turned into a power trip 
    of retribution.
    
    I am not against fair treatment of everyone, however, when you start a
    group that espouses a promotion of only one group, history proves that
    at some point it inevitably becomes very one-sided, tainted and destructive.
    
    Rather than being a feminist, how about being a good Christian?  The
    New Testament tells us clearly how to treat one another.  It shows
    clearly how husbands and wives should treat each other, and it shows
    clearly that we are to put God first so that we may achieve our goals
    of fair treatment.  Best of all (besides being God's word), it is
    BALANCED for all time.
    
    With that said, I do understand that to bring about positive social
    change, sometimes you have to create a "movement" or activist group to
    promote positive changes in laws.  I believe this is true only because 
    too many Christians have been derelict in their duty to their fellow man.
    
    It is the unfortunate nature of such activist groups to lose sight of
    their goals and become tainted.  It would seem that rather than turning
    to God, we turn to man (activist groups) today.  Instead of standing up
    for basic human rights as Christians, we need some other title.  This
    saddens me.
    
    
    -steve  

>   As an aside (meaning not related much to any previous note  8^) )

Hey, Steve.  Your note is nearly a copy of mine at .48.

So though you didn't intend relating to any previous notes, you did anyway.

:-)

Paul

    A womanly SNARF!

    re: .57
    
    Oops...maybe I should have said "not *meant* to be related to any
    previous note"?  8^)

    re: .51 Nancy
    
    I'm not sure if I have any valuable input, but I'm going to ramble for
    a moment.  (I like your suggestion Karen, regarding Proverbs.)
    
    I do not and have never considered myself to be a feminist. At the same
    time, I have never believed that women were somehow lesser than men,
    or that I should limit my activities and talents to those things
    considered traditionally feminine.  I believe that women and men are 
    equally competent and capable in the utilization of those talents with 
    which God has gifted them, which is unique to each individual, and is 
    rarely equal from individual to individual.  I do not believe that men 
    and women are the same, nor do I desire them to be; I celebrate their
    differences (most of the time ;-)). I have at points in my life furthered 
    a cause for women, but never because I had placed an emphasis on doing so, 
    but because I was pursuing something that I loved to the best of my 
    ability and one side effect was increased opportunity for other women in 
    that area. I don't think I understand what feminism is. I am a human being 
    created in the image of God, as are each of you, and none of us can be so 
    simply defined as feminism or other ideologies would define us. We will 
    never save ourselves, no matter how many well meaning ideologies we come 
    up with; in God and God alone lies our definition, and in God alone lies 
    our salvation....
    
    I would also like to hear other womens' ramblings on this topic.
    
    Rebecca         

    .60
    
    Absolutely. :-)  I couldn't agree with you more.  However, having come
    from an era of abusive men empowered by the religious powers to be
    [whether directly or indirectly], I've taken a few more steps in the
    effort towards equality.
    
    Let me also explain that I do not believe that men and women were
    created to be 100% equal otherwise there would not be two sexes.  I
    wholeheartedly embrace Biblical submission for both men and women.  
    
    And I, too, am interested in hearing more from others.
    
    Nancy
    
    

    
    RE: .54  
    
    Yes it was a very busy day. :-)
    
    Glen all of a sudden you went from idealizing the real hard workers to
    saying I could take a smaller yet contributing role in the women's
    movement. How generous of you.  ;-)  Thanks just the same, but you see
    I have a vital role in a movement I believe in.  A movement where there
    is equality and everyone regardless of education can have a role in
    making a life saving difference.  Secondly, I don't believe I have to
    be part of the women's movement to make a difference.  When I
    befriended a coworker years ago and picked up on some things that
    seemed like there was abuse in her past, I recommended counselling and
    helped her move in that direction.  It's been over 5 years now and
    we're still friends, actually she's one of my best friends.  It took 
    years for her to acknowledge the abuse in her childhood and years to 
    come to a place where she is an empowered woman.  She's not at the 
    end of her journey yet but she has made remarkable steps towards 
    recovery.  I believe I made a difference.  I believe I contributed 
    towards her accepting her own goodness and equality and the love of 
    her heavenly Father.  I don't have to be in some organization to do 
    that and just because I'm not in a women's organization doesn't mean 
    I'm doing nothing.  
    
    Jill

	Oh Rebecca, if that's rambling, I wish you'd do more!

	I tried to put that sort of sentiment into a note, but
	couldn't find the words.  Will a hearty "ditto" suffice ?

	(BTW, even in my BC, more liberal days, I used to cringe
	when called a feminist.  I don't know why, except that 
	it seemed a bit limiting.)

	Karen

| <<< Note 662.55 by ODIXIE::HUNT "Remember your chains are gone" >>>



| These notes were moved from the 656.* note (Romans 5) where there were 140 
| replies, before the move. [But maybe you knew that and were being sarcastic?]

	Wow Bing... I wish I could say that..... I read they were moved, but
after I wrote that note. Oh well...... :-)

Glen

| <<< Note 662.62 by CSC32::KINSELLA "You are a treasure." >>>


| Glen all of a sudden you went from idealizing the real hard workers to saying 
| I could take a smaller yet contributing role in the women's movement. How 
| generous of you.  ;-)  

	You're welcome. :-)  Each role is important in the womens movement. You
don't always get such a varying of roles in something. Antibiotics does not
have this large a luxory. 

	If you take *me* for example, there is a group that I do help out in.
Maybe not at the top level, but I am there. It is imortant that I am there. 

| A movement where there is equality and everyone regardless of education can 
| have a role in making a life saving difference.  

	Aren't all the groups that are out there part of what you're in?

| Secondly, I don't believe I have to be part of the women's movement to make 
| a difference.  

	Then what have you done to better women as a whole?


Glen

    
    >Then what have you done to better women as a whole?
    
    I think it's sad to say that a person hasn't made a difference
    unless it's affected a whole community.  What happened to the
    concept that one person can make a difference.  I affect one
    life which in turn affects another....  I feel called to make
    the contributions that God lays on my heart Glen.  This is on
    a one-on-one level.  I'm sorry if you don't feel that's good
    enough, but your not the Person I'm out to please.  I reject
    this concept that unless you've changed things for all womankind,
    that you've contributed nothing.
    
    >Aren't all the groups that are out there part of what you're in?
    
    No they are not.  Many group, especially the ones your referring
    to do not help others learn about the life-saving, life-giving
    gospel of Jesus Christ.  As a matter of fact, most teach the people
    they are "trying to help" to put faith in themselves rather than any
    authority.  So they most definitely are not a part of building the
    kingdom of Jesus.
    
    BTW...garlic has some great antibiotic properties and there are
    other holistic treatments that don't take a Phd to figure out.  I'd
    recommend visiting your local health food store for more information.
    It could do you a lot of good.  Pass it on.  :-)
    
    Jill

 Maybe we need a separate topic for garlic? :-)

>Note 662.29 POWDML::FLANAGAN  -< Good bye >-

This is as far as I've gotten to read since last Friday.  Even now, I'm 
putting off some more of my intesive task to skim through (and ignore)
some entries.

I think Patricia is wrong on several counts:

(1) that this community is not standing by its Biblical standards

    I have read Paul's quote several times and clearly understood where he
    was coming from before his clarifications.

(2) How is feminism distinct from chauvinism?  Both are bigotry, *DEPENDING*
    on the expression and definition of these.  In some definitions, *I* could
    be considered a feminist - even with my marriage analogy of the God-man
    relationship.  Most of my feminist friends would probably die laughing
    at the notion.  

    However, perhaps we can learn from this the reaction of those who 
    revolt against those who call themselves Christian but have little
    knowledge of Jesus, Himself.

(3) How is it that anyone can judge Patricia's brand of feminism?  Several
    notes, including the one Jim references which was in response to an
    analogy I gave (which I firmly stand by), indicate that there is a 
    one-sided understanding of male/female relations.  While the words of
    equality before God come fromthe fingertips, Paul rightly shows Patricia's
    definition of equality to be lacking.

(4) I think to say that the passage in James doesn't deal with feminism is
    the same thing as saying it doesn't deal with any labeled set of beliefs.
    In fact, it has everything to do with everyone's beliefs!  Therefore, it
    is not a distortion of Scripture.  It is a contention as to whether the
    Scripture applies (a) to feminism in general (which is very unclearly 
    defined) and (b) to Patricia's brand of feminism (which has been articulated
    [and perhaps misinterpreted by some, which is what communication and 
    clarification are suppose to be for]).  

(5) Since Paul did clarify his statements (which I felt were quite clear), 
    he attempted to communicate.  I did not see any attempt to receive that 
    communication.

-----------

Since I have 40 notes to go, this may all be moot, or reinflammatory to
Patricia because I do not side with her judgment on this matter.

Feminism, as a *general* persuasion seems to be interpreted by society
as counter-chavinism.  Chauvinism is wrong, and by definition, two wrongs
are not right.

Having said that, I believe that I hold some feminist ideals near and dear
to my heart, and endeavor to practice them better than many feminists I know.

Mark

Okay.  I'm caught up on this string.  Funny thing about extracts, though:
my extract started with note .4 to note .60.  I didn't read .0 through .3
until last.  Excellent pair of notes, Andrew.  I intend to use them, too!
(Jael, you're aces with me, too.)

I said something a long time ago that stated that there are no real gray
areas; only temporarily gray areas.  Once something is touched, acted on,
or even thought about, it immediately becomes black and white - good or bad.

Proper use of something is good (white) - improper use of something is 
evil (black).  

As it applies to males and females, improper use of sexuality is evil;
proper use of sexuality is good.

So what's proper use?  And what is improper use?
So what's moral?       And what is immoral?

We, in Christian, find the Bible to be authoratative (*all* of it) on
defining what is moral and what is immoral.  If there are passages that 
cause problems (largely because our filters do not allow us to parse the
true meaning or intent of the text), let us seek to see the true meaning
and intent.  This is why I congratulate Andrew (.1 and .2) for his wisdom
and insight.


Filters


    "What we are and how we perceive things are the sum total of our
    experiences. Our experiences cause us to perceive new things
    through this filter."

    This is an excuse to think the way we want to and deny the truth
    when we are faced with it.  But how can we know we are faced
    with the truth if each one of us is colored by a different filter;
    a different set of life circumstances and experiences?

    Galileo was faced with some learned people, religious ones at
    that, whose experience and filter led them to believe that the sun
    moved around the earth.  They even had most of humanity in
    agreement with them.  But Galileo, not allowing the experience of
    seeing the sun rise in the east and set in the west to determine
    the truth of the matter, considered the alternatives in search of
    _what_actually_happens_.

    Removing the filter.  A filter is not to be embraced.  It is to be
    recognized for what it is and is to be held suspect when considering new
    things.  "How can my experience be a hinderance to knowing
    what is actually happening, or what is actually the way it is and
    why?"

    "We see through a glass, darkly."  But "God is a rewarder of those
    who diligently seek Him."  The dark glass is not how we must see
    things, but how we are hindered in seeing them: through a filter.  
    To see clearly, we must seek diligently, as Galileo sought.

    1Corinthians 13:12 For now we see through a glass, darkly; but
    then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even
    as also I am known.

Archetypes

    It is backwards to see something as it is and declare that because
    of it an ideal cannot exist.  Experience is a poor metric towards
    understanding the ideal and the true.  Experience sees the world
    as flat, until new experience sheds light on the matter.  Anyway, in
    this matter, we have accepted the experience of someone else.  Has
    anyone circled the globe (or perhaps have we accepted the word of
    people who have made circular trips on a disc)?  Has anyone
    been to space to see the globe (or perhaps have we accepted some
    elaborate fabrications)?

    Because experience is so unique and changeable, truth becomes
    personal, and by that I mean that everyone has their own truths
    and no ones truth is absolute Truth.  We are left with the
    question, "is there an ideal?"  Is there an absolute?

    In Philosophy 101, the professor asked the class if they knew what
    a chair was.  Everyone nodded affirmatively, so he called on a few
    to describe a chair.  One said, a chair has four legs, a back, and
    you sit on it.  Another said, a chair has rollers, arm rests and
    you sit on it.  Another said the chair has three legs and no back.
    The professor then went on to demonstrate that there is something
    about "chair-ness" that gives us universal understanding, yet we 
    each have personal distinctions about chairs and what constitutes 
    a chair.  In other words, if asked what is "chair-ness" (the qualities 
    necessary to be a proper chair), how does this change your perspective?  
    A person no longer has to think of a chair through only their 
    experience (filter) with chairs.

    Discarding the filter may seem impossible, for we are a product of
    our experiences, and our experiences are NOT to be denied; they are 
    simply to be moderated by the archetype as we discover more and more
    about what the ideal is.  When we see the ideal, we can recognise
    the deficit in the actual and attempt to bring the actual into
    alignment with the ideal.

In this conference, there is an absolute Authority and He has given us
His authoratative Word for ideals.  Bible-believing Christians in this 
conference have a time of it attempting to discuss the Truth of the
Bible through our acknowledged filters, but we recognize the archetype
and attempt to "climb over any doctrinal filter" to see the Truth clearly.
God rewards those who *diligently* seek him.

(I hope to get to another note where my anaolgy was long discussed without
me, but I have an indexing task to do today - which is why I'm procrastinating
and commenting on this string.)

Mark

    .69
    
    AMEN!   Great note Mark!  Filters.. hey can you put a title on that now
    so I can find it later on more easily?
    
    Nancy

    re: 622.60
    
    Thanks for your well written thoughts, Rebecca.  A couple of statements
    which especially struck a chord with me and which I feel bear
    repeating:
    
    > "I do not and have never considered myself to be a feminist.  
      At the same time, I have never believed that women were somehow
      lesser than men,..."
    
    This sums up my feelings too, although there have certainly been those
    (both women and men) who tried to have me believe otherwise....
    
    > "I do not believe that men and women are the same, nor do I 
      desire them to be;..."
    
    As others within this conference have stated on several occasions, in
    several different topics, God created male and female with some
    commonalities and differences.  The differences cause us to fulfil
    different roles and should not be used to pit us against each other,
    because if it is an "us-against-them" (men vs. women) mentality, it is
    ultimately rebellion against God for creating us as He did.
    
    > "I am a human being created in the image of God, as are each of you,
      and none of us can be so simply defined as feminism or other
      ideologies would define us."
    
    YES!  One of the things I have a hard time with is when a person or
    organization tries to put me in a box because I identify myself as
    thus-and-so.  For example, it seems these days if you call youself a
    Christian, the thinking goes that you are narrow-minded, in favor of
    violent pro-life activities, uneducated, boring,....etc.  If you call
    yourself a Christian woman - boy, you are really putting yourself down! 
    Needlessly submitting yourself to a life of servitude or the slavish
    demands of another.  These sterotypes are in no small part due to the
    media.  I don't like using my affiliation with a group or an organization
    as an identifier because I can think for myself and the chances that I
    agree 100% with everything the organization does is slim. (i.e. in the 
    area of MA that I grew up and still live in, the population is mostly 
    Catholic.  People use this identifier like it's national origin/heritage.) 
    I find this odd - it's like they are so afraid to stand on their own, to 
    have their own thoughts.  The Catholic church is like an umbrella, a 
    covering to them, so that makes anything they do OK.
    
    I've rambled enough....
    Karen
    
    p.s.  My reference to the Catholic church was not meant as a put down,
    just as an example of some of my observations of attitudes that I have 
    experienced from some affiliated with this church.  It is not my
    intention to offend anyone.    

    Karen and Rebecca,
    
    You are correct in what you have written.  It is with sadness that I
    didn't realize the "connotation" behind the term I had used so readily. 
    It is a shame to me.
    
    Unfortunately, what I see today in many of our churches is still this
    dysfunctional attitude toward women.  It's better than it was 20 years
    ago, I agree, but I still inequities and biases that are unhealthy. 
    I've seen children and women abused by their fathers and husbands in
    the name of the Lord.  I see the Bible used to "whip" them into guilt
    so deep that they submit to things God never intended for a woman.
    
    How do I know God never intended them for a woman?  Some of it is
    common sense.  But mostly because the Bible models mutual submission
    and the leadership position is given to the male.  If you look at
    examples of good leaders in the Bible, you don't find them verbally or
    physically abusing their people into submission.  They lead by example.
    
    I happen to believe that there are a lot of hurting women in this world
    as a result of this behavior.  A woman recently wrote in womannotes
    stating that while she was still a Christian she was abused by a
    Christian father and thusly her relationship to God is not what it
    should be.  God know longer exists in her mind as "one God", but
    Universalism has crept in and touched her where her pain is and this
    has now become her statement of faith.  
    
    She's not alone.  I was there... and some of the participants in this
    file.  As a Christian woman who wishes to see proper relationships
    between men and women in the church, as well as at home, I must be true
    to my convictions and try to make a difference.
    
    I think anyone who has known me in this file for a while knows very
    well how I feel about "family", "wifely submission" and "servitude".  
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

| <<< Note 662.66 by CSC32::KINSELLA "You are a treasure." >>>



| >Then what have you done to better women as a whole?

| I think it's sad to say that a person hasn't made a difference unless it's 
| affected a whole community.  

	Jill, if you have enlightened one person to part of the cause, then you
have done something to better women as a whole. This person would have seen
what they thought, were doing wrong, etc, and not do it anymore. In turn this
person will no longer be doing this to other women they meet.  

| I'm sorry if you don't feel that's good enough, but your not the Person I'm 
| out to please.  

	I guess if you had questions about what I was saying it would have been
better to ask me about what I said, and not tell me. You see, what you said
about me was wrong. 

| I reject this concept that unless you've changed things for all womankind,
| that you've contributed nothing.

	Jill, you need to look at the reality. If you change someone's mind to
not be demeaning towards women, you HAVE helped all womankind.

| >Aren't all the groups that are out there part of what you're in?

| No they are not.  Many group, especially the ones your referring to do not 
| help others learn about the life-saving, life-giving gospel of Jesus Christ.  
| As a matter of fact, most teach the people they are "trying to help" to put 
| faith in themselves rather than any authority. So they most definitely are not
| a part of building the kingdom of Jesus.

	Jill, what groups are you referring to? Could you speculate as to why
you feel they think this way?


Glen

    re: .72
    
    Nancy,
    
    I do not mean to imply that there are no problems or abuses, or that
    said problems and abuses should not be addressed or that I am unaware
    of the abuses perpetrated against women. I have great admiration for your
    convictions, your compassion and your active work in this area. And I 
    think that we agree that both men and women need help if there is going 
    to be any permanent change in the abuses women experience. And that we 
    each have a responsibility in the way we conduct our lives (example) and 
    in reaching out to others directly and indirectly toward affecting those 
    changes, be our influence large or small.
    
    This string has prompted my thoughts in another direction, so I'm going
    to think out loud some more (please bear with me). Karen (I think both
    Karens) mentioned the limiting aspect of being labeled a feminist - or
    anything else for that matter. I'm led to wonder about mankind's
    propensity for labels, why we seem to need to define and
    compartmentalize. It seems to me that to identify oneself primarily
    with one's ideology, or race, or gender or class, etc. is such a small
    thing compared to the wonder of being created in the image of God. Yet 
    we seem fearful of the uniqueness and complexity of each other; instead of
    celebrating it, we seem to need to minimize it.  Mankind has turned
    its back on God and the rules for life that He so lovingly set forth
    for our nurturance and protection. And in so doing we have less control
    of our lives than had we embraced all that God intended for us. Perhaps
    our need to label reflects our attempt to take control and "fix" the
    awful mess we've made of things - or least to give ourselves the
    illusion of control by breaking things down into manageable fragments.
    Fragments of humanity. It will never ever work without Him. We are His
    creatures, and we *cannot* live apart from Him, cannot be whole without
    Him. That is not to say that we do not try to make things better, to
    reach out to our neighbor, to love our neighbor and right what wrongs
    we are enabled to right. But the human race will never be healed
    without God.  And when human beings so adamantly identify themselves with
    one segment of humanity, even one segment of their own self, in the case 
    of feminism, their gender, what can that mean to their fullness of being 
    as one created in the image of God?
    
    I think I remember reading that at one time, as his music career was 
    ready to take off, Keith Green felt that God was asking him to give up
    performing. It was all he had ever dreamed of doing, and he had every
    indication that he would enjoy great success at it, serving God through
    his music. But it was as if God was asking him if he would yield even
    that to Him. So he stopped, with no indication that God would ever
    allow him to perform again. Fortunately for us He did and Keith did.
    But how willing are we to take such a chance on God, to be so totally
    yielded to Him?  As parents, are we willing to lay our children on the
    altar as Abraham did Isaac, not knowing that the knife will be stayed? 
    As feminists, or espousers of other ideologies, are we willing to lay
    aside those deepest convictions should He require it? As artists,
    musicians, writers, spurred by the great need to create and share, are we
    yielded enough to yield even that to Him?  No matter what it may be, are 
    we willing to wrench from the center of our being that very thing which 
    we have come to believe defines us, and allow God to define us instead, 
    to fill us with His very self?
    
    Rebecca     
    

    >No matter what it may be, are we willing to wrench from the center of 
    >our being that very thing which we have come to believe defines us, and 
    >allow God to define us instead, to fill us with His very self?
    
    AMEN AND DOUBLE AMEN! :-)  
    
    Exactly, to the point, straight forward, syntax in perfection!
    
    

    >I'm led to wonder about mankind's
    >propensity for labels, why we seem to need to define and 
    >compartmentalize. 
    
    Words that come to mind as I think of this question:
    
    Fear
    Control
    Insecurity
    
    or
    
    Organization
    Clarity
    
    Where are the most labels in the world found?  Grocery stores, of
    course. :-)  
    
    We've set up a system of metrics and labels in this country that come
    from our innate need to be "orderly".
    
    Some verses I found with the word "order" and "disorder" included:
    
    1Corinthians 14:40  Let all things be done decently and in order.
    
    1Corinthians 15:23  But every man in his own order: Christ the
    firstfruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming.
    
    1Corinthians 16:1  Now concerning the collection for the saints, as I
    have given order to the churches of Galatia, even so do ye.
    
    
    DISORDERLY
    
    2Thessalonians 3:6  Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our
    Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that
    walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
      7  For yourselves know how ye ought to follow us: for we behaved not
    ourselves disorderly among you;
    
    2Thessalonians 3:11  For we hear that there are some which walk among
    you disorderly, working not at all, but are busybodies.
    

    Now you may be asking what has this "order" business got to do with the
    "need to label" ideals, people, races, etc.
    
    Paul was most certainly one of the most meticulous men when it came to
    the things of God.  His goal was to set in order the churches via the
    covenants and commandments of God.
    
    Paul declares, "Let all things be done decently and in order!"
    
    It is within each of us to be somewhat organized though everyone has
    different levels.  We set up our "differing degrees" of orderliness in
    most of our most mundane tasks i.e., washing clothes, cleaning house,
    and cooking.
    
    But this very nature also leaks over into our daily involvements with
    our friends, relatives, peers and leaders.  We tend to categorize good
    leaders from bad leaders.  OOOOps there's a label!
    
    God knew our nature, that's why he wrote:
    
    Matthew 7:1  Judge not, that ye be not judged.
      2  For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what
    measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
    

    Now when do we cross the line from being orderly to being judgemental!
    And are we ever called to judge righteously?  Of course we are.  
    We are called judge righteously in Matthew when Brother has a grievance
    with another Brother.
    
    Why would we cross the line?  That is where "fear, insecurity, and
    control" along with our life experiences comes into focus.  Our fears
    cause us to withdraw from conflict or relationships where rejection is
    possible, from tasks at which we may "fail" or from, yes, even
    evangelizing and telling others about Christ.
    
    The key is back to what Rebecca said... being willing to lay down our
    "selves" and surrender it all to God for His making.
    
    And those who really want this in their lives and ask God for the
    strength, courage and wisdom to be this pliable will find the answer
    in their own God-made tapestry of life.
    
    Nancy
    
    

    
    RE: .75
    
    Nancy, shouldn't this be AWOMEN and DOUBLE AWOMEN?!?!  
    This is a note on feminism after all.  :-)
    
    I had some ramblings of my own today and was looking things up
    in my dictionary (a favorite hobby of mine).
    
    I looked up ism to see what it means:
    
            1. Action, process; practice 2. Characteristic
               behavior or quality  3. State; condition;
               excess of something specified 4. Distinctvie
               or characteristic trait  5. Doctrine, theory
               or system.
    
    Now if I look up feminine it means:
    
            1. Of or belonging to the female sex  2. Characterized
            by or possessing qualities generally attributed to woman
            3.  Consisting of members of the female sex
    
    Now if I put these two together to come up with feminism, I would
    think of a group of women whose highest goal is to possess feminine
    qualities rather than a group of women whose goal it is to be equal
    with men.  
    
    Oh well...just rambling a little.
    
    Jill
    

    > Nancy, shouldn't this be AWOMEN and DOUBLE AWOMEN?!?!
    > This is a note on feminism after all.  :-)
    
    hee hee hee, resurrection from the past!  
    
    Patricia would be proud if she were here!
    

    Glen,
    
    J.62> ....the story of my friend....
    J.62> Secondly, I don't believe I have to be part of the women's
    J.62> movement to make a difference.
    
    G.65> Then what have you done to better women as a whole?
    
    J.66>  I think it's sad to say that a person hasn't made a difference
    J.66>  unless it's affected a whole community.
    
    G.73>  Jill, if you have enlightened one person to part of the cause,
    G.73>  then you have done something to better women as a whole.
    
    I had already answered this in .62 so I'm not so sure why you asked it
    again in .65.  This seems like it should have been your initial answer
    to .62.  I don't understand why it wasn't.
    
    ----------
    
    J.66> I'm sorry if you don't feel that's good enough, but your not the
    J.66> Person I'm out to please.
    
    G.73> I guess if you had questions about what I was saying it would
    G.73> have been better to ask me about what I said,  and not tell me.
    G.73> You see, what you said about me was wrong.
    
    I wasn't talk about you or the role you take.  I was talking about
    what I do not appearing to be up to your standards as you seemed to
    ignore my contribution I noted in .62.  Nor am I going to sit here and
    list for you the things I do to change incorrect mindsets.  I was
    looking at reality, you didn't appear to acknowledge that.  I'm sorry
    if there was a cross in communications.
    
    ----------
    
    G.73> Jill, what groups are you referring to? Could you speculate as
    G.73> to why you feel they think this way?
    
    I'm referring to women's groups like NOW, but it could be expanded to
    any group that puts themselves or tells others to put themselves in
    a position of authority and does not recognize the authority of God
    and the life-giving message of the gospel of Jesus Christ.  That is
    what I'm in.  I'm into worldwide evangelism.  So I don't think that
    all groups are a part of what I'm in.  I believe they are deceived
    into thinking that mankind is of utmost importance or in some cases
    equally deceived into thinking that every other creature God made is
    just as important as mankind.  
    
    We're nearing a close here Glen.
    
    Jill

    Re: Note 662.79 by CSC32::KINSELLA
    
>   [...] a group of women whose highest goal is to possess feminine
>   qualities [...]
    
    That sounds appealing!
    
    James

    Karin, You appear to dislike the thought that someone would look down
    on you. Let me give you food for thought.
    1) God created first Adam and from him Eve. This concept was not a
    winner. God then created the second Eve and from Her the second Adam.
    We all accept this was a better concept.
    
    2) Men cannot give birth. Only women have this privilage. I can shout
    and rage that I want a baby, that I want to produce a living being from
    my flesh so that it will be a special part of me, but God in His wisdom
    didn't make that possible.
    
    3) A women has been chosen to crush the Devil not man. A women, His
    earthly mother.
    
    4) God made us in His likeness, He didn't give that privilage to the
    angels. He gave it to us. How do you feel being looked up to by the
    angels because you were made in Gods likeness.
    
    5) Smile when you are looked down upon by earthly people, only then can
    you learn what it is to be humble. Accept this as your cross that will
    bring you nearer to Jesus for there is never a cross without Jesus and
    never Jesus without a cross.
    
    Your concerned brother in Christ
    
    Peter

| <<< Note 662.81 by CSC32::KINSELLA "You are a treasure." >>>


| G.73>  Jill, if you have enlightened one person to part of the cause,
| G.73>  then you have done something to better women as a whole.

| I had already answered this in .62 so I'm not so sure why you asked it
| again in .65.  This seems like it should have been your initial answer
| to .62.  I don't understand why it wasn't.

	In .65 you stated that you were sorry that I didn't think your
contributions were good enough, when all I wanted to know was what you have
done. You mentioned about individual contributions, but made it seem like I
didn't think that could be good enough unless you went out and joined the
womans movement on an official basis. I was letting you know that was NOT what
I thought, and that the reason behind the question was to just see what you
feel you have done. Nothing more, nothing less. 

| J.66> I'm sorry if you don't feel that's good enough, but your not the
| J.66> Person I'm out to please.

| G.73> I guess if you had questions about what I was saying it would
| G.73> have been better to ask me about what I said,  and not tell me.
| G.73> You see, what you said about me was wrong.

| I wasn't talk about you or the role you take.  

	Jill, my comment was to your assertion that I didn't think what you
have done, or do in general, is good enough. That was a projection by you. I
have never made this statement. I do not know what you have done. I DID ask
you, but you never really answered.

| I was talking about what I do not appearing to be up to your standards as you 
| seemed to ignore my contribution I noted in .62.  

	Jill, I never said that. You projected this view yourself. That is why
I said it would be better to ask, than to imply. I even backed your claim that
individuals can help the cause. What I wanted to know was what you have done,
not question what you have done.

| Nor am I going to sit here and list for you the things I do to change 
| incorrect mindsets.  

	That's your perogative. So we will end up with you claiming X, but the
buck stops there.

| G.73> Jill, what groups are you referring to? Could you speculate as
| G.73> to why you feel they think this way?

| I'm referring to women's groups like NOW, but it could be expanded to any 
| group that puts themselves or tells others to put themselves in a position of 
| authority 

	The US Government???? :-)

| and does not recognize the authority of God and the life-giving message of the
| gospel of Jesus Christ.  

	Here is where you run into trouble. What you believe to be the message, 
another Bible believing Christian could think something else. You won't find 2 
people that agree on every aspect. There is only one correct version of 
everything, and that's God's. Everything else is a pale comparrison, and every 
other version can't really be proven write/wrong until they get to Heaven and 
meet up with Him.


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 662.84 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>other version can't really be proven write/wrong until they get to Heaven and 
>meet up with Him.



 Yep, its all a big guessing game, isn't it.  Can you imagine what it would
 be like if, say, tests were given out in school in this manner?  Well, kids
 here's your test..there's no book to study, there is a right answer but
 you won't know what it is til you turn the test in!  I'm not going to tell
 you the right answer, you just have to go with what you *think* is right!
 You may pass, and you may fail, but you'll find out when you turn in the
 paper!  Good luck, kids!


 
 Jim

| <<< Note 662.85 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

| >other version can't really be proven write/wrong until they get to Heaven and
| >meet up with Him.

| Yep, its all a big guessing game, isn't it. Can you imagine what it would be 
| like if, say, tests were given out in school in this manner?  

	Jim, human test scores do not = absolute. The ONLY absolute is God,
period. Anything else is pale in comparrison. Or are you one who believes
differently?

| I'm not going to tell you the right answer, you just have to go with what you 
| *think* is right!

	And that is what is going on now. Otherwise you should be able to find
many people, like say millions, who could agree on every aspect of the Bible,
with ZERO differences. But you will be lucky if you can even find 2 people who
have the same aspects on every part of the Bible.

Glen

    Oh, I'd say I'm pretty lucky then because I know that Jim and I believe
    in the same way and I know that my best friend Carmen and her husband
    believe the Bible says the same things.  Hmm, I could even come up with
    a few more... 

    Seems I'm with you Nancy! Hum, I know my family (Peggy and the 3 kids)
    do as well...
    
    I know the folks at my church also believe the Bible also says the same
    things.... Gee, seems we're all fairly lucky... 
    

RE:               <<< Note 662.86 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>


>| >other version can't really be proven write/wrong until they get to Heaven and
>| >meet up with Him.

>| Yep, its all a big guessing game, isn't it. Can you imagine what it would be 
>| like if, say, tests were given out in school in this manner?  

>	Jim, human test scores do not = absolute. The ONLY absolute is God,
>period. Anything else is pale in comparrison. Or are you one who believes
>differently?


precisely..human test scores do not have eternal consequences, yet we do
provide instruction to humans before giving them a test.  Do you think
that the Creator of the Universe, who will judge each human would do
less? Or does he leave it "chance"?




>| I'm not going to tell you the right answer, you just have to go with what you 
>| *think* is right!

>	And that is what is going on now. Otherwise you should be able to find
>many people, like say millions, who could agree on every aspect of the Bible,
>with ZERO differences. But you will be lucky if you can even find 2 people who
>have the same aspects on every part of the Bible.

But Christians agree that there is one way to Salvation and in the ultimate
authority of the Bible




Jim

| <<< Note 662.89 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready" >>>



| precisely..human test scores do not have eternal consequences, yet we do
| provide instruction to humans before giving them a test.  

	Have you ever taken a course where you found out that the human doing
the teacher made a mistake? Humans instructing humans what they believe is
God's view may have a lot of things right. AND, it is something that should be
done. But it does not mean it will be done correctly, or that what they are
saying is right. 

| Do you think that the Creator of the Universe, who will judge each human would
| do less? Or does he leave it "chance"?

	To be honest, He does kind of leave it to chance. If He didn't, there
would be one religion, one denomination, one absolute. He also doesn't force
anyone to follow Him, so He is leaving it to chance once again. I do believe He
does instruct us, but I do not believe that we as humans, can have it 100%
correct. 

| But Christians agree that there is one way to Salvation and in the ultimate
| authority of the Bible

	You forgot to add that they can not agree on what the Bible says Jim.
There is more with what you wrote above, but it is not allowed in this file as
it would go against the policy of believing the Bible to be inerrant.



Glen

Job 38:2 Who is this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

I've enjoyed the ramblings, but not the he-said/she-said drip-drip-drip.
Please continue.

Coming off Rebecca and Nancy's responses (.74 and on) regarding labels,
humans feel the need for conformity.  For teen agers, we call it peer
pressure, but adults have it, too.  And it is conformity for the sake of
proclaiming IDENTITY saying "This is who I am!"  Like drops of water, we
merge with other drops of water to form pools or people.  There is a
naturalness about it in the human realm of reality. 

The problem arises when ideologies conflict.  That is, who you are impinges
negatively on who I am (and want to be).  How are conflicts resolved?
Sometimes through communication and understanding, and arriving at agreement;
sometimes determining that the differences, though unresolvable, don't matter 
so much and agreeing to disagree is an acceptable resolution; sometimes
through power stuggles with a victor and a vanquished.  This last resolution
is not avoidable when "irresistable force" meets "immovable object."
In the Spiritual (actual reality) realm, there is an Ultimate Arbitor 
who will resolve all conflicts by agreement of persons or by victory and
vanquishment.  

When we are sure of an Absolute Authority we must align ourselves to Him
(coming into agreement).  Those who are not sure are "tossed by every wind
of doctrine" and are conformed to this world.  If you want to PROVE what
is good, acceptable, and perfect will of God, we must be transformed by
the renewing of our minds (getting out of the world's way of looking at 
things).

  Romans 12:2 
    And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing
    of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
    perfect, will of God.

Mark

  Re .90




 Nevermind

    re: .74 & .91 regarding "labels"
    
    I agree with Mark's reasoning that humans feel the need for conformity,
    hence the "labels".  In a perfect (or more enlightened) world, I think
    more people would question, as Rebecca does (and I also), 
    
    .74> "...mankind's propensity for labels, why we seem to need to define and
    compartmentalize.  It seems to me that to identify oneself primarily
    with one's ideology, or race, or gender or class, etc. is such a small
    thing compared to the wonder of being created in the image of God.  Yet
    we seem fearful of the uniqueness and complexity of each other; instead
    of celebrating it, we seem to need to minimize it."
    
    or as I so eloquently (NOT!) put it in .71: "...to put me in a box..."
    
    re: .83 
    
    Peter-  I'm assuming your reply was directed to me and not Karen
    Jennison (as I'm the one who entered a long-winded note....)
    
    > Karin, You appear to dislike the thought that somone would look down
    on you.
    
    I believe you inferred this from my statement in .71 in which I referenced
    Rebecca's .60 "...I have never believed that women were somehow lesser
    than men,..." and responded with "This sums up my feeling too,
    although there have certainly been those (both women and men) who tried
    to have me believe otherwise....".  You are correct that I don't like
    being looked down upon; I don't know any person that seeks that out.  
    However, that was not my point, which was:  regardless of what
    others may think (regarding the equality/non-equality of men & women) 
    or have tried to teach me, I have my own thoughts on the subject and 
    am not persuaded to change them, because my spirit (which bears witness
    to the Holy Spirit) convicts me otherwise.  If someone chooses to "look
    down" on me because of my convictions, there's nothing I can do about
    that. 
    
    I am a strong-willed person.  I usually have definite ideas/thoughts 
    on any given subject.  That's not to say I cannot have discussion with
    someone and hear and/or accept their point of view, or learn from them. 
    It may just mean (as in the example of equality between the sexes) that
    I am not willing to change my understanding of how it is, or should be. 
    I am not one to be blindly led, believing whatever is told me, without
    convincing proof, argument, discussion, Authority, the Bible.  I believe 
    these are good qualities.  However, these, like anything else taken to 
    extreme, is not good (i.e. it could cross the line into stubborness, 
    pride, unteachableness).  It's like the saying "You're so right, 
    you're wrong".
    
    Regarding your points # 1 - 4, I think if you read my .52 and .71
    (paragraph 5) you will see where I'm coming from.  You have
    misinterpreted or not understood my comments.  
    
    If this helps to clarify at all:  I'm usually strongly in agreement 
    with Mark Metcalfe, as is the case in this string, if that helps you 
    to understand where my head is at.  I just don't express myself as well
    as he does with the written word.  
    
    Lastly, #5, I agree with you.  
    
    > 5) Smile when you are looked down upon by earthly people, only then
    can you learn what it is to be humble.  Accept this as your cross that
    will bring you nearer to Jesus for there is never a cross without Jesus
    and never Jesus without a cross.
    
    The Lord uses many, many ways to teach us to be and keep us humble 
    (Can I hear an AMEN!?  I hope I'm not alone in this!)
    
    In Christ,
    Karen  
    
         

>  Re .90
>
> Nevermind

That's the idea, Jim!

:-)

Paul

    
    Well I'm sorry Glen if I misunderstood you.  I apologize.  
    
    As for the rest, Jim said it best....nevermind.  There is no
    benefit to this.
    
    Jill

      re: .74
    
      Really appreciated your reply!
    
                                              Tony