Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Would God hate the action of saying that someone else's views are 
    "of the devil" even when the views have nothing whatever to do with 
    Satan?
    
    Would God hate it any more or less if the person who DEFAMES others by
    saying that their views are "of the devil" is someone who considers
    him/herself saved?

>    Would God hate the action of saying that someone else's views are 
>    "of the devil" even when the views have nothing whatever to do with 
>    Satan?

Through the power of God the Holy Spirit, it has been revealed to us that
those things which separate us from God's will are "of the devil".

Satan is running around like a raging lion, seeking the ruin of souls.

He is the tempter, the father of lies, the evil one, the one who wishes
to turn as many hearts as he can away from God.

/john

    So, God wouldn't hate it if someone honestly believed YOU were 'of
    the devil' and told you so (in public, or wherever)?

If you read the first number of replies in this topic, you would see 
what God hates.  Your questions are speculative at best and require
a whole lot more detail than you give to make a judgment based on
what God's Word says about what God hates.

Too often, people declare what God would like and dislike; what
He hates and what He loves.  We know that He loves every one of
us, yet detests many of the things we do.  Ultimately, there comes
a point where God's hatred of what we do will turn to judgment
according to His righteousness and holiness which no one can impugn.

Then the world will see God do some things that some would consider 
"hateful" such as doing someone "harm and not good" or even bringing
someone to destruction.  And people then ask, how is this a God of Love?

It is precisely because of His love that even vengence and holy hatred
exist.  Because God defines morality, whatever falls outside of His
definition (His holiness) is evil.  Hating evil is a righteous act.

HOWEVER, HOWEVER, HOWEVER... very few people in this world can exhibit
holy hatred properly without mingling in their polluted, corrupted 
hatred (see previous notes on the subject).  Yet, David proclaimed that
he hated those who hated God and defames His character.

>	Would God hate someone constantly calling another a loser?

No.  He would hate the sin of not loving one's neighbor.

>	Would God hate it anymore or less if it was being done by 
>	someone who considers themself saved?

No.

>    Would God hate the action of saying that someone else's views are 
>    "of the devil" even when the views have nothing whatever to do with 
>    Satan?

On the face of this, if you call something of Satan that is of God, it is
blasphemy.  However, calling something of Satan that is of Satan is not
blasphemy and is actually righteous.  All in all, one needs to be careful
in such declarations.

>    Would God hate it any more or less if the person who DEFAMES others by
>    saying that their views are "of the devil" is someone who considers
>    him/herself saved?

There are many examples in the Bible: Nathan defamed King David; Samual
defamed Saul; John defamed Herod; Peter defamed a girl who was prophesying.
Many of these defamed people were indignant, some were repentant.  In 
these cases God CALLS people to proclaim the truth in what might be considered
defamation by those receiving the truth.  "The truth hurts" is an axiom
that comes to mind.

A simpleminded "are not - are, too" doesn't do anything to shed light
on whether the charge of "of the devil" is true or not, does it?  And
I find that many people are unwilling to reflect upon the validity of
some charges, just as Herod didn't, who finally beheaded his accuser.

If you really want to know what God hates, read the first 20 replies
of this topic.

mark

.25 Mike's reference to 1 John 4 displayed here for your edification.

1John 4:1 Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether
    they are of God: because many false prophets are gone out into the world.
  2 Hereby know ye the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus
    Christ is come in the flesh is of God:
  3 And every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the
    flesh is not of God: and this is that spirit of antichrist, whereof ye
    have heard that it should come; and even now already is it in the world.
  4 Ye are of God, little children, and have overcome them: because greater
    is he that is in you, than he that is in the world.
  5 They are of the world: therefore speak they of the world, and the world
    heareth them.
  6 We are of God: he that knoweth God heareth us; he that is not of God
    heareth not us. Hereby know we the spirit of truth, and the spirit of
    error.
  7 Beloved, let us love one another: for love is of God; and every one that
    loveth is born of God, and knoweth God.
  8 He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love.
  9 In this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent
    his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him.
 10 Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his
    Son to be the propitiation for our sins.
 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.
 12 No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in
    us, and his love is perfected in us.
 13 Hereby know we that we dwell in him, and he in us, because he hath given
    us of his Spirit.
 14 And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the
    Saviour of the world.
 15 Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of God, God dwelleth in
    him, and he in God.
 16 And we have known and believed the love that God hath to us. God is love;
    and he that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him.
 17 Herein is our love made perfect, that we may have boldness in the day of
    judgment: because as he is, so are we in this world.
 18 There is no fear in love; but perfect love casteth out fear: because fear
    hath torment. He that feareth is not made perfect in love.
 19 We love him, because he first loved us.
 20 If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he
    that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, how can he love God whom he
    hath not seen?
 21 And this commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his
    brother also.

    >        Would God hate someone constantly calling another a loser?
    
    Is the question, "would he hate _someone_" or is is "would He hate the
    _action_ of calling someone a loser"?  If its the latter, then yes He
    would hate it.  If its the former then no he would not hate the person.  I 
    think the question is better stated, "Would God call someone a loser?". 
    The answer is - absolutely not!  He sometimes does hate the attitudes
    and actions of a person, however.
    
    Bill Gilham gives a good illustration in his book "Lifetime Guarantee". 
    In the first case his son lies to him.  He tells his son, "God hates
    liERs.  When your mother and I got married we determined that we would
    never tolerate liERs in our house.  Now go to your room- you're going to
    be punished for being a liER".  In this case the sons identity is being
    attacked.  He is being labeled as a lier.  He is being told that his
    identity is that of a lier.
    
    In the next case the son again lies to this parents.  This time the
    father tells his son, "God hates lyING.  When your mother and I got married 
    we determined that we would never tolerate lyING in our house.  You
    weren't acting like who you really are.  Now go to your room- I am going to
    have to discipline you lyING".  In this case the focus is on the ACTION and 
    not the identity of the PERSON.  The identity of the son is not
    attacked, but the action of lying is shown to be wrong behavior.
      
    Concerning the other statement about deception being from Satan.  I
    felt that the original statement was worded stronger than I would have
    stated it.  However, Satan is going to try to get us to try to focus on
    meeting our OWN needs in OUR flesh, rather that allowing God to meet
    them through His Spirit.  I am being deceived when I think I have a right 
    to have supper on the table when I get home.  Satan most often deceives me 
    using first person singular language (with a Georgia accent) such as "I 
    can't believe my wife doesn't have supper ready.  I work hard all day long 
    while she stays at home.  She doesn't have to work outside the home -- why 
    can't she have supper ready".  See, in the above case he's trying to 
    deceive me into focusing on myself rather than seeking to love my wife 
    through me.  The bible says that husbands are to love their wives as Christ
    loved the church.  How did Christ love the church?  By serving and 
    ultimately by giving up His own life for His bride.  My role, according to 
    scripture, is to love my wife sacrificially (both in my attitud and in
    my actions).  How do I know if I'm hearing lies or whether I'm hearing 
    truth?  Because we first have scripture to weigh it against and second, as 
    believers, we have the Holy Spirit living inside of us.  God has given us 
    an objective standard of Truth in the Bible.  We don't have to be "tossed 
    to and fro by every wind of doctrine" based on subjective beliefs.
    
    In Christ,
    
    Bing 

	Mar, Bing, it was meant to mean hate the action. After reading it again
in Mark's note, I guess it's easy to see that I could have meant hate the
person. But it was the action I meant.


Glen

    Sayings we must also remember.
    
    "Judge not lest ye shall be judged"
    
    "Take the brick out of one own's eye before you try to take the speck
    out of the eye of another"
    
    "Blaspemy against the holy spirit is the greatest sin of all"
    
    "The spirit blowest where it wills"
    
    
    If I try to live my life by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and
    someone else condemns my beliefs based on their human understanding of
    where and how the holy spirit bloweth, then in my opinion, according to
    scripture they risk the greatest sin of all.
    
    It was when Jesus was accused of healing by demonic powers that he
    stated that  blashemy against the holy spirit was the only
    unforgiveable sin.
    
    It sounds to me, that the risk of calling the spirit which guides
    another person demonic, is a very severe risk.  
    
    I would not dare!.
    
                                     Patricia

Your Scripture references are close, Patricia.

>    If I try to live my life by the guidance of the Holy Spirit, and
>    someone else condemns my beliefs based on their human understanding of
>    where and how the holy spirit bloweth, then in my opinion, according to
>    scripture they risk the greatest sin of all.

(1) If someone condemns you, reflect on it and consider whether they
    may be right before taking insult.  King David did so when he fled
    Jerusalem because his son, Absolom was out to kill him.

(2) If you want to use Scripture to judge someone (regarding the greatest
    sin) then you should use all of Scripture or find yourself to be
    in danger of judging someone.  It isn't so much that we are not to
    judge, for there are plenty of Scriptures that say we should!  It is
    more that in the same measure that we judge, we shall also be judged.

    "Forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors" is a very sobering
    portion of the Lord's Prayer.  It means that we are petitioning God
    to forgive us in the same measure that we forgive others.  That can
    really hurt us at times.

    A lot of people abuse the "same measure" thinking that because they
    are not involved in the specific sin they judge, they therefore cannot
    be judged by the same measure.  In fact, this is not true, for the
    attitude of the heart is the standard by which we are measured.
    So if we judge someone according to their wicked acts, we may also
    judge our own wicked attitudes that are expressed in other acts that
    are different (on the outside) than those of the person we judge.

>    It sounds to me, that the risk of calling the spirit which guides
>    another person demonic, is a very severe risk.  
>    
>    I would not dare!.

    I often pull up short of this, too.  However, in some cases, it may
    be appropriate.  Jesus called some people "children of the devil."
    It is good to remind us that "children of the devil" is a correctable
    state and that we can become "children of God" when we repent of our
    sin, which means also recognizing it and not rejecting the Truth.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    I'm glad you pull up short of calling other persons beliefs demonic or
    satanic. 
    
    Your obviously take serious Jesus' warning that to blashemy
    against the holy spirit is an unforgiveable sin.
    
    Since I know I have been told at least three times by different persons
    that call themselves Christians that my beliefs are demonic or of the
    Devil or Satanic, I wish all Christians would reflect on scripture
    before they used those terms. 
    
    For their sake.  Not mine.
    
    
    Patricia

>    Your obviously take serious Jesus' warning that to blashemy
>    against the holy spirit is an unforgiveable sin.

Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit does not include ignorance or
even error.  The sin that will cause the Holy Spirit never to
return (and it is through Him that we are quickened to be co-heirs
with Christ) is ultimately unbelief: the disregard for and ultimate 
rejection the Truth.

Attributing God's work to Satan is akin to attributing the name YHWH
to the golden calf at the foot of Sinai.

>    Since I know I have been told at least three times by different persons
>    that call themselves Christians that my beliefs are demonic or of the
>    Devil or Satanic, I wish all Christians would reflect on scripture
>    before they used those terms. 

>        For their sake.  Not mine.

For your sake, too...

Careful.  You once said that I wrote something that was (can't find
the exact quote) "patently evil."  I'll look for it, in case you forgot.

Mark

    In the Jesus story, Jesus is curing the sick and the pharisees proclaim
    that he is curing the sick by Beezebul, (The Devil).  It is the spirit
    of God that allows Jesus to cure the sick.
    
    Jesus accuses the pharisees of blasphemy against the holy spirit.
    
    THe pharasees ignorance does not let them off the hook.
    
    One of the purposes of this file is for edification.
    
    According to this passages, if a Christian judges wrongly and accuses
    someone of being satanic who is actually attempting to conform their
    life to the Holy Spirit, then they risk blasphemy against the holy
    spirit.  
    
    Could anyone be that sure of how the Holy Spirit might influence
    another's life, that they would dare risk blasphemy?  I personally
    would never risk calling someone satanic or demonic even if I was very
    sure they were in error.
    
    

Btw, the quote was "evil at its core" in reference to 657.22.  My response
is in 657.67.  Your notes have been deleted by you from that notes string.

MM

>    THe pharasees ignorance does not let them off the hook.

The Pharisees were not ignorant; they were unbelieving.  They KNEW
the scriptures!  They therefore are responsible for the knowledge
that what Jesus was doing was of God and yet they STILL called it
of Satan to protect their positions.  It was not out of ignorance.

>    Could anyone be that sure of how the Holy Spirit might influence
>    another's life, that they would dare risk blasphemy?  I personally
>    would never risk calling someone satanic or demonic even if I was very
>    sure they were in error.

How does "evil at its core" translate with you?  From where or who does evil 
originate?  I do not think you've committed the unpardonable sin and would
not hold your ignorance against you for this.  Will you hold another person's
ignorance against them or would you pray "forgive me as I forgive others?"

Mark

    Mark,
    
    I don't hold anyone's ignorance against them and I hope that I have 
    forgiven any who have wronged me.
    
    Many of my friends are not Christians.  Many of my friends are
    constantly being told that there beliefs are satanic by well
    intentioned Christians trying to evengelize them.  Most of my friend
    believe that they have turned their lifes over to the divine as they
    understand the divine.  It is wrong for anyone to tell them that there
    beliefs are demonic.  It isn't even effective evengelizing.
    
    My goal with this note is to make every person who reads it think twice
    before insulting others in that way.  This note string about what God
    hates shows that there are some in here who just don't get it.  They
    are the audience that I would like to get to listen-for their
    edification.
    
    
                                     Patricia

More on the Pharisees.  (Cf. 45.46)  Jesus used His most strong language 
against the  Pharisees because of all people they knew the Scriptures and deliberately
attempted to hinder the coming of God's kingdom.  Thouhg not a Pharisee,
Herod epitomizes this attitude by searching the Scriptures to ascertain
where and when the Promised Child was to be born and plotted to kill the
child in a vain attempt to secure his throne.

This is not ignorance, but cunning.  Jesus had patience with ignorance.
He spoke with Nicodemus who came to ask Jesus questions.  In another note,
we are talking about exchanges between God and humanity where God asks
questions as if He doesn't know the answer, but any good teacher knows that
the best learned knowledge is discovered through revelation rather than
by dictum or lecture.  And teachers often employ a method of asking
questions - even when they are tired (as if this would catch someone
off guard; yes, Jesus got tired, but it didn't change His Godhood or
His ability to teach in this manner).

Jesus employed this method with the woman at the well.  And He was tired
and thirsty at the time.  It drew the person into the discussion and 
revelation and it also taught the disciples as it teaches us to this
day through its demonstration.

The Syrophoenician woman (705.*) who was healed because of her faithand
Jesus was demonstrating that by this, it doesn't matter if you are a
Jew or a Gentile, EVEN THOUGH Jesus came to the world through Israel.
The essential element is faith.

Mark

>    Many of my friends are not Christians.  Many of my friends are
>    constantly being told that there beliefs are satanic by well
>    intentioned Christians trying to evengelize them.  Most of my friend
>    believe that they have turned their lifes over to the divine as they
>    understand the divine.  It is wrong for anyone to tell them that there
>    beliefs are demonic.  It isn't even effective evengelizing.
    
It would be a good thing to examine the Scriptures to find out what
is a Satanic belief (that is, a belief that has its basis in the 
doctrine that opposes God's moral code) and then make a judgment.

As for effective evangelism, it depends on the soil in which the seed is
planted.  Thorny cacti survive well in arid soils but not in moist, and
soggy soils.  I don't think Jesus used the same approach with everyone
even though His message was the very same uncompromised Truth.

>    My goal with this note is to make every person who reads it think twice
>    before insulting others in that way.  This note string about what God
>    hates shows that there are some in here who just don't get it.  They
>    are the audience that I would like to get to listen-for their
>    edification.
    
Remember that Jesus did use strong language with unrepentant persons.
Your caution is well taken, and I hope you've read the Scriptures as
it pertains to what God does indeed hate rather than only calling some
people's attention to "their" propensities.  Remember also that when a
finger is pointed, three fingers point back.  How about a handshake?  :-)

Mark

    Mark,
    
    Does anyone here think they have the same authority to use strong
    language as Jesus.
    
    If Jesus is God, then he knows the hearts and souls of those with whom
    he is talking.  To my knowledge, no one here knows the hearts and souls
    of those to whom they are talking.
    
                                          Patricia
    
    

    ...but the Holy Spirit per 1 Corinthians 12 can manifest itself and
    empower the believer with discernment and such knowledge.

>    Does anyone here think they have the same authority to use strong
>    language as Jesus.

Authority is granted to Jesus followers to do as He did.  We are specifically
empowered to do as Jesus did.  However, sometimes its like empowering a
five year old to drive the family car.  Not everyone employs the tools
of authority effectively and can be as damaging as a five year old behind
the wheel.

Peter used strong language.  Paul used strong language with Peter, too.
Paul said "I opposed him to his face."  As Christians, we like to think
that there is never need for confrontation.  Hey, Jesus even gave his
disciples some proverbial "dope slaps" because they were so "slow."

Jesus is our example.  Using the authority appropriately is a task not 
mastered by all, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't be employed.  Instead,
we should endeavor to employ appropriate authority.

Same with hatred, by the way, in accordance with the theme of this note
string.  Obviously, if God hates some things, there is such a things as
appropriate hatred, perfect hatred, and holy hatred.  We have difficulty
imagining that from our (children) eyes because we have only experienced
inappropriate hatred (corrupted by our fallen nature of selfishness).
But "when we put away childish things" we begin to see things as God sees 
them and learn to employ even hatred and admonishment appropriately.

Mark

    re .40  I am cross posting note 9.211 below:
    
           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;2 >>>
                          -< The CHRISTIAN Notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 9.211                     Good Morning Verse                     211 of 292
ODIXIE::HUNT                                          8 lines   6-SEP-1994 08:31
                        -< Speaking the Truth is Love >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    As a result, we are no longer to be children, tossed here and there by
    waves, and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of
    men, by craftiness in deceitful scheming; but speaking the truth in
    love, we are to grow up in all aspects into Him, who is the head, even
    Christ,
    				Ephesians 4:14,15
    
    [NOTE: truth with out love is harsh, love without truth is weak]
    
    

    Can you explain how you reconcile that to unless you are like little
    children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!
    
                                   Patricia

>    Can you explain how you reconcile that to unless you are like little
>    children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!

What?  Putting away childish things?

Easily and the answer has to do with context.

Ask, in what way or ways am I to be like a little child?
Ask also, in what way or ways should I put away childish things?
See the surrounding Scripture for the context of these statements.

There is a major difference between being childlike and being childish.

    And each one of us has a "wonder Child" (from John Bradshaw) at the
    core of our being.  And when we connect to that Wonder Child we connect
    to God who dwells within us. 
    
    to get to that wonder child we have allow God to help us throw off all
    the dysfunction and sin which our growing up in a "fallen" world has
    caused to overshadow that wonder child.
    
                                   Patricia

	re. the Holy Spirit discussion

	The Holy Spirit will not contradict God's word.  If someone
	is acting in a way that contradict's God's word, it is not
	by way of the Holy Spirit's leading.

	Karen

    >Can you explain how you reconcile that to unless you are like little
    >children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven!
    
    When we come to God we are to have the faith of a little child.  A
    little child jumps into their parents arms, not questioning whether
    the parent will catch them or not.  They know the parent loves them and
    would not let them fall.
    
    At the same time there are many people who prey on children.  A person
    comes to a little child and says, "your mommy told me to pick you up
    and for you to ride home with me".  Just as we, as parents, instruct our
    children to be careful who they listen to, we must also be careful to
    discern that which is of God from that which is not.  We can have
    complete faith that what God has said in scripture in truth.  We can
    have complete faith that if He is calling us to obey Him in a
    particular area that He will be the one who enables us.  We need to
    test our beliefs against the objective standard of scripture that our
    heavenly Father has provided for us so we don't just go with the flow
    of the thinking of the day.  Just as the child abducter deceives the
    child into thinking there is no danger, Satan will seek to deceive us
    into thinking that "we can be like God" or whatever else might tickle
    our ears.
    
    Love in Christ,
    
    Bing
    

I've noted the barrage of notes you're entering here, [in CHRISTIAN, over
many notes] Patricia.  I really don't have the time to get involved in
responding right now.  You've presented so many anti-christian ideas that I
wouldn't know where to start.

I'll just note for the moment that I find it very ironic that you've come
back here to CHRISTIAN with the stated intention (reply .37) of telling us
how wrong we are for having told you you're wrong.

Paul

P.S.  I've wanted to ask you, why did you delete all your notes from your
prior interactions here?

re:         <<< Note 45.46 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    And each one of us has a "wonder Child" (from John Bradshaw) at the
>    core of our being.  And when we connect to that Wonder Child we connect
>    to God who dwells within us. 
    
>    to get to that wonder child we have allow God to help us throw off all
>    the dysfunction and sin which our growing up in a "fallen" world has
>    caused to overshadow that wonder child.
    

	B.C.V. *please*??

i.e. Book, Chapter, Verse (of the Bible)

more clearly: *where* is the Scripture to support this ?

	This is 'New Age' - and as such has no place in the life of *any*
Disciple of Jesus.

	hazza :*]

    Paul,
    
    I love you too!
    
                               Patricia

    re .50
    
    Gee,
    
    I thought it was classical Christian Theology recast to use the
    language of the Recovery movement.
    
    I've seen some wonderful things happen in the Recovery movement when
    people turn their lifes over to God.
    
    I'm sorry you have such a problem with it.
    
                                   Patricia

re: .52 re: .50

	B.C.V *please*

The language used is an uncomfortable expression for Hazza.
Do you have Scriptural support in a language that Hazza can understand?

Mark

Palindrome Snarf.

    How about.
    
    1.  If we abide in God, God will abide in us.
    2.  Growing up in a fallen world keeps us from finding God.
    3.  When we ask for God's help to Find him within ourselves, we are
    able to find God.
    4.  By the Grace of God, we recover from whatever was alienating us
    from God.  We live in Christ.
    
                                  Patricia

    God won't abide with you until you deal with the sin problem.  The
    following is why "dysfunctional recovery" and "the child inside" has 
    nothing to do with God or the Bible.
    
{ from "The Bible, Psychology, and You - An Abridgment" by Wendell E. Miller,
  Biblical Counseling Association }

Bob and Jane have just discovered that their daughter has been sexually abused
for several years.  They are distraught.  Bob is angry.  Where should they go
for help?  Where would you go for help?  Would you seek help from a counselor
who uses psychotherapy, from someone who relies on the Scriptures for counseling
principles, or from an integrationist (a counselor who uses a mixture of
psychological theory and the Bible)?

Sufficiency for Problems of Mind and Behavior
---------------------------------------------
The Scripture declares that God "has given us all things that pertain unto life
and godliness..." (2 Peter 1:3).  "Godliness" includes both mind and behavior.
Therefore, God says that the Scriptures are sufficient for structuring both mind
(thoughts) and behavior (actions) in godliness - as 2 Timothy 3:16 also teaches
("instruction in righteousness").  Is God able to give Bob, Jane, and their
daughter peace in their hearts (John 14:27)?  Is He able to take away Bob's
anger (Ephesians 4:31-32)?  Is He even able to use the sexual abuse of their
daughter to make her a more godly woman (Romans 8:28-29)?

Psychology and the "Natural Man"
--------------------------------
The roots of psychotherapy (psychological counseling), and its "great" teachers,
are unsaved men.  God says that the "natural man" (unsaved) cannot know the
things of God because spiritual truth must be spiritually discerned
(1 Corinthians 2:14).  How can the *unsaved* help believers grow in godliness of
mind and behavior?  God says that the unsaved mind is hostile to Him (Romans
8:7).  Should Christians expect to find help in pleasing God from *those who
oppose Him*?  And yet, generally speaking, integrationists accept and teach that
the theories of the unsaved are necessary for making changes in mind and
behavior that are pleasing to God.

Truth vs. Diverse and Mutually Contradictory Systems
----------------------------------------------------
There are more than 250 secular psychological counseling systems!  These secular
systems contain mutually contradictory theories, teachings, and techniques.
Logically, all but one must include error.  Is there any reason to believe that
any of them is free from error?  How could *anyone* expect to select truth from
error while searching through this maze of mutually contradictory systems?

Psychological "Truth" is Changeable
-----------------------------------
With integrationists, as well as with other psychologists, "truth" is
changeable.  New "truth" replaces old "truth" as new "truth" is theorized,
conceived, or discovered.  Are you willing to depend upon "truth" that is
changeable?

With Integrationists, "God's Truth" Becomes Contradictory
----------------------------------------------------------
With integrationists, "truths" of psychology are "anointed" by saying, "All
truth is God's truth."  Then, when the "truths" of 2 integrationists are
mutually contradictory, "God's truth" of one integrationist contradicts "God's
truth" of another integrationist.  Do you believe that contradictory "truth" is
God's truth?

Dangers of Integration
----------------------
How can an integrationist add *his* "truth" to truth which God says is
sufficient, without being in grave danger of neglecting, replacing, or
contradicting some of the truth that is a part of God's sufficiency?  Is there
not danger of weakening Christianity by attempting to integrate (mix) "truths"
of man with God's Word (1 Peter 2:2)?  Could it be that attempts to integrate
psychological "truth" with the Scriptures have weakened Christianity?

Self-Satisfaction and Integration
---------------------------------
Integrationists have promoted the secular concepts of self-esteem, self-worth,
self-image, and self-love.  If the unsaved are taught to "feel good" about
themselves, can we expect them to respond to the Gospel?  If carnal Christians
are taught to "feel good" about themselves, will they feel the sense of guilt
that God designed to lead them to repentance?

Self-Awareness and Integration
------------------------------
Some integrationists, using Freudian [editor's note: this guy was a pervert!]
theory, teach that self-awareness of subconscious motives is the path to
Christian growth.  If Christians look within themselves, will they find truth
and light (John 17:17, Psalm 27:1)?  Is self-awareness the route to Christian
growth (Philippians 1:6, 2:13)?

Eternal Rewards and Integration
-------------------------------
If problems from the past hamper one's Christian growth, which would be more
effective, the "truth" of psychology - or the Word of God?  Are you willing to
risk future rewards for yourself, and for those whom you love, by relying on
human theories rather than the Word of God (2 Corinthians 5:10)?

Awesome Implications of Integration
-----------------------------------
If growth in the Christian life (overcoming problems of mind and behavior)
depends upon psychological "truth," then Christianity had to to wait hundreds of
years for psychology to do what God failed to do!  Did God lie when he said,
hundreds of years before Freud, that *He had already given us all that is
needed* for godliness of mind and behavior (2 Peter 1:3)?  Do humans have the
awesome knowledge and wisdom: 1) to contradict God's declaration that His Word
is sufficient; 2) to select theories from secular and often ungodly sources that
"correct" supposed deficiencies in God's Word; and 3) to "make" these theories
equal to God's Word by declaring, "All truth is God's truth"?

Integration and the Religion of Self
------------------------------------
Biblical truth is God-centered (theocentric) whereas psychological counseling
systems are man-centered (anthropocentric).  The focus of Biblical truth is
*God*.  The focus of psychology is *self*: self-esteem, self-worth, self-image,
self-love, self-awareness, and self-actualization.  With centers of importance
that are opposite ("God" or "self"), would you expect God's will in believers'
lives to be helped, or hindered, by "integrating" the theories of psychological
counseling systems with God's Word?

Integration, The Glory of God, and "Other gods"
-----------------------------------------------
The Scriptures teach that man was created for God's glory (Isaiah 43:7).  If
Christians turn from God's truth and to psychologists and *their* "truth," will
God received the glory, or man?  Is it possible that God looks at this rejection
of His truth in favor of secular "truth" as having other gods before Him (Exodus
20:3)?

Integration and the Holy Spirit
-------------------------------
The Scriptures teach that "it is God who works in you both to will and to do His
good pleasure" (Philippians 2:13).  Thus, God's provisions for overcoming
problems of both mind and behavior, and for becoming godly persons, include both
the Word of God and the indwelling Holy Spirit.  If a person rejects, replaces,
or adds to the truth that God has given in His Word to accomplish His well, and
that God says is sufficient, is the work of the Holy Spirit helped - or
hindered?

Integration and Prayer
----------------------
Biblical counseling relies on principles that God has provided in His Word, on
the Holy Spirit, and on the power of prayer.  When Christians reject, replace,
or add to truth God has given and declared to be sufficient, should they
expect God to honor their prayers?

Inspiration of the Scriptures
-----------------------------
"All Scripture is given by inspiration of God."  More literally translated, "All
Scripture is God-breathed" (2 Timothy 3:16).  Human authors wrote in their
individualistic styles, but these "holy men of God spoke as they were moved
along by the Holy Spirit" (2 Peter 1:21).  Do you believe that the autographs
(original manuscripts) of the Scriptures were inspired by God?

Inerrancy of the Scriptures
---------------------------
Knowing that the original manuscripts were "God-breathed" (inspired of God), it
follows that the original manuscripts were inerrant.  Do you believe that the
original manuscripts of the Bible were without error?

Inspiration, Inerrancy, and the Authoritative Word of God
---------------------------------------------------------
Over the centuries God has superintended the preservation of the content of the
original Scriptures to an amazing degree of accuracy, so that the Scriptures are
still the authoritative Word of God on every matter or issue which they address
(Matthew 4:4).  Do you believe that the Scriptures are today the authoritative
Word of God on every matter or issue that they address?  If the Scripture are
not the authoritative Word of God, *every* doctrine of Scripture (*even*
salvation) is open to question and doubt, and faith in the original
inspiration of the Bible is *meaningless*!

Authority and Sufficiency
-------------------------
If you do accept the Scriptures as the authoritative Word of God, then,
logically, you must also accept what God says about His Word.  God says that the
Scriptures are sufficient for structuring our minds and our behavior in
godliness (2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:3).  Do you believe this?

Logical and Illogical Choices
-----------------------------
Will you choose to believe God's claim about the sufficiency of the Scriptures?
Or, will you attempt to hold the illogical position that the Scriptures are
indeed the authoritative Word of God, but wrongly claim to be sufficient for
godliness of mind and behavior?  Or, will you attempt to hold the equally
illogical position that the Scriptures are indeed the authoritative Word of God,
but that, in order to succeed in the Christian life, the "truth" of psychology
is needed?  Logically, you must accept God's claim to the sufficiency of the
Scriptures regarding godliness of mind and behavior without any help from
psychology, or else you must acknowledge that you do not really believe that
the Scriptures are the authoritative Word of God.

Which Will You Choose?
----------------------
Will you choose to believe God's claim that the Scriptures are sufficient for
structuring both mind and behavior in righteousness, or will you disbelieve God?
 Will you choose the Scriptures as your source of truth for living, or will you
search for psychological "truth"?  Will you choose pastors, biblical
counselors, and other theologians as your teachers of truth, or will you look
to those who teach a mixture of biblical truth and psychology?  Will you choose
to test all of the teachings of everyone to see if indeed they teach biblical
truth (Acts 17:11)?  Or will you accept whatever is taught by Christians who are
held in high esteem?  Will you choose, as God gives you influence, to promote
*unity in God's Word* by helping others understand the Scriptures, and by
helping them become perceptive to error?  Which will you choose - for yourself,
for those whom you love, and for those for whom God gives you the oversight -
the Word of God, or an amalgamation of the Word of God and theories of
psychology?  The Bible or psychology?  Your choice has awesome and eternal
implications!

... is our making up our own definition of who He is.  The second of the ten
commandments "Thou shalt make no idols" is redundant to the first, "Thou
shalt have no other gods" if the idols are representations of other gods. 
The second commandment does not tell us not to worship representations of
other gods, that's already covered by the first commandment.  The second
commandment tells us that we are not to craft an image of God according to
what WE think He is like, but we are to worship Him as He describes Himself.
I don't believe this has anything at all to do with physical representations,
but has everything to do with our "imagining" god to suit our sensibilities,
rather than accepting Him as He is.

It does not matter at all that we call the image that we create 'God', and
claim that our image is the same God who has revealed Himself to us.  When
the Israelites made the golden calf, they didn't say "Forget the god who
brought us out of Egypt, we will worship this calf-god instead."  No, not at
all.  They were not turning away from the god who had brought them out of
Egypt.  They were worshipping that very same god.  They said "These are your
gods, O Israel, who brought you out of Egypt."  Only they created their own
image of who God was, and worshipped that, instead of worshipping God as He
was.

God's response?  Was it "Images and forms are not important, they are
worshipping me as the god who brought them out of Egypt, so I will delight in
and accept their worship?"  Or was it "Oh, those foolish people, they are not
worshipping me as I truly am, but I know their hearts are in the right place,
so I will accept their worship?"

No, God's response was "I have seen these people, and they are a stiff-necked
people.  Now leave me alone so that my anger may burn against them and that I
may destroy them."

It was precisely this sin, idolatry - making our own image of God instead of
accepting Him as He defined Himself, over which God repeatedly judged the
Israelites and ultimately exiled them from the land of promise.

If the Bible isn't just a collection of fairy tales and myths, if the creator
of the Universe really did reach out to the tribe of Israel and reveal
Himself, then it is abundantly clear that He has very little tolerance of
being misrepresented.

Persistently, Patricia, you bring your own image of who you would like God to
be and try to force God, who revealed Himself through Israel and through
Jesus, into that image, ignoring and lopping off anything which doesn't fit
your image.  We had a long discussion last time you were here because you
insisted that we can't call God 'King,' and another long discussion because
you will accept no concept of judgement, both of which are very clearly true
of the God who revealed Himself to the Israelites.  There are multiple more
examples in the notes you've posted today.

I don't think God's response to your creating your own image of Him will be
one whit different than it was when the Israelites created the golden calf to
represent their idea of who God is.  I pray that there is a Moses in your
life to intercede for you.  I believe Jesus can be that intercessor, I know
that I was guilty of the same sin of making God over in my own personal image
of who I wanted Him to be for many years.  I like to think that I would have
been saved despite that.

Paul

P.S.  Yes, I love you too, Patricia, and I mean it.  If a friend were about
to get behind the wheel of a car while very drunk, what would be the 'loving'
thing to do?

>    How about.
>    
>    1.  If we abide in God, God will abide in us.

Who is God and how do we know Him?

>    2.  Growing up in a fallen world keeps us from finding God.
 
How so?

>   3.  When we ask for God's help to Find him within ourselves, we are
>    able to find God.

The Bible says that (by implication) casual seeking isn't enough.
By explicit text, God rewards those who diligently seek Him (Hebrews 11:6b).

>    4.  By the Grace of God, we recover from whatever was alienating us
>    from God.  We live in Christ.

I can agree to this.  But then we must understand this in the context of
"Who is God and how do we know Him?"

Mark


    
             

	ok, from all the notes I have seen, God would hate the action of the
person calling someone a loser. thanks.

>	ok, from all the notes I have seen, God would hate the action of the
>person calling someone a loser. thanks.

What's the CONTEXT, Glen?  Jesus called people "white washed tombs."
God certainly didn't hate that.

MM

	I get a message from someone who has on many occassions said he is a
Christian. In it it says,

	"you're a loser"




Glen

    Glen:
    
    Thank you very much by the way, for your support off line.  I certainly
    appreciate it and will keep you in mind.
    
    Now to the question at hand.  The question is What are you losing at? 
    And are you in fact actually losing???
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

	Jack, that was the first line in the message, and what followed were
the reasons why. It was meant in a derogatory manner.

 I wonder if, now that we've answered the question about whether or not
 God hates when someone calls someone a loser, we could take the discussion
 about who said what about who when, offline?



 Your Friendly Moderator

    Glen,
    
    I wish you could read some of the stuff I've gotten offline this week! 
    Sorry misery loves company you know. :-) :-(
    
    I am so sorry that someone said this to you.  God knows you've miffed
    my muffins a few times, and I''ve miffed yours.  I look back now and
    see how *self* is indeed not a pure thing at all, for when *self* rises
    to the occasion all others do not matter.  This is part of the reason I
    have a problem with all the "self love" psychology today.... but that's
    another tangent.
    
    I believe that God's heart was incredibly grieved that someone would
    [if you are correct] say this to you and yes I believe that there might
    even be some righteous anger as well.  But I don't know that *hate* is
    defined this way or even supported in the Bible.  
    
    In some instances, I believe hate has been mistaken for anger, for
    righteous anger when viewing God's vision of his people.  I do believe
    that there are things that God hates and some are expressed quite
    clearly in the Bible, but I think there are more things that grieve and
    make Him angry versus hate.
    
    I, myself, have said things I wish I could swallow back whole, but I
    cannot take them back and now I must live with the consequences of
    those words.  Yes words have consequences.  
    
    Vengence is mine sayeth the Lord.  Forgiveness is all but a moment away
    and frees us from the bondage of retribution and the satisfaction is
    never brings.
    
    Nancy
    

Patricia, I'm afraid I've gotten off to a poor start with your return here.

Your views are at the very least, taken strictly factually, widely divergent
from Christianity as it has been understood by the vast majority of those who
have called upon His Name for 2000 years.  They are, in the opinion of many
here including myself, beyond divergent, extending to being completely
incompatible with Christianity.

I believe that your beliefs are quite mistaken.  You got quite upset last
time you were here about the way in which I said that, despite my attempts to
explain why I would say that.  Yet though I disagree with you, I have no need
to chase you down, to try to seek you out in forums where your views are
accepted and tell you how wrong I think you are.

I will admit to some amount of frustration at what I perceive as your doing
exactly that - coming here with the express intent of showing people how
wrong they are.  And I know that I am one of the people you are trying to
prove wrong, by the fact that one of your first acts back here was to post
the quote that I mentioned above.  I will admit to frustration at the
prospect of trying to counter all of the [perceived by me] anti-christian
views that you will propound here.

Yet my frustration is no excuse for treating you with sarcasm.  I'll try to
do better.

Paul

    Paul,
    
    I'm not trying to be personal with you.  As I said, I have been subject
    to three separate notes by three separate noters from this conference
    either insinuating that my beliefs are satanic are actually stating it.
    
    Once was in this conference and twice in another conference.  I have
    also seen another individuals beliefs inferred as Satanic by a Forth
    noter from this conference.  If the Bible is the highest standard of
    members from this conference, then that should stop.  I have not been
    looking for these violations.  If I was to look, I am sure I could find
    more.
    
    I guess I do take comfort in knowing that Jesus' actions were also
    considered Satanic by the Religious Conservatives of his day.
    
                                      Patricia
    
    

    .67
    
    I'm curious why you are defining people by this conference or better
    yet how?  By participation, by their admittance of being a Christian? 
    There are many people who note in here but wouldn't consider themselves
    regulars.
    
    I find your note to be accusatory of the conference itself.  Perhaps
    this is not how you meant to come across?
    
    Nancy
    
    

    Would God hate it if someone made statements which amounted to
    negative accusations about a 'conference'?
    
    (See YUKON::Christian, note 577.*, where many negative statements
    are made about another conference.)

    I don't think God would hate it.. do you?
    
    :-) :-) :-)  
    
    What I do think he dislikes is divisiveness.

    All Patricia did was to just MENTION that a particular group of
    individuals are noters here, by the way.
    
    The negative statements in YUKON::Christian note 577.* make
    specific negative statements ABOUT the entire notesfile.

    It seems rather strange that if Patricia even MENTIONS that a few
    individuals are noters in this conference, then someone suggests
    that it could be 'accusatory' about this notesfile.
    
    Meanwhile, in another topic (577.*), some folks here made
    exceptionally negative comments about another notesfile,
    but somehow such comments DO NOT amount to being 'accusatory'.
    
    (Or if they ARE 'accusatory', they're allowed by some special
    right that Patricia apparently doesn't have.)

Whew, I've just skimmed through a ton of notes in this topic, which I feel is
a very delicate one that touches several important and difficult issues, most
of which I feel inadequate to say much about.  However, there are one or two
things I want to say in regards to this question:
   
    How do we clothe our soul in thoughts, words, and deeds that are
    characterized by love while at the same time championing that which 
    we feel is morally and intellectually the truth and right?

First of all, I want to share something I read recently that made a lot of
sense to me.  I read that one of things that happened in the Fall of
Creation was that evil or bad (the antithesis of good) was internalized in 
human beings; we figuratively consumed it and made it a part of us.  Before
that, real choice existed as it still does, but Adam and Chava had the ability
to clearly distinguish good choices from bad ones.  Adam and Chava could have 
chosen to be faithful and obedient to God.  They knew what they were doing was
not right when they chose to doubt God and eat the forbidden fruit.  

Now that sin is a part of us however, the picture has gotten muddied for us and 
we're not always able to clearly distinguish the good choice from the evil or 
the bad choice.  That is one reason why God gave us His instruction in the Word
to help and guide us to choose what is good and not what is bad.  But now good
and bad are entwined together in us, and its difficult sometimes to not be 
blinded by our fallen desires.  So we don't always make the good choice.  

I think the above affects those who love God and want to follow Him as well as
those who have moved away from God, and those who have rejected Him outright.
The degree to which we're able to make the right choices is the degree to which
we have humbled ourselves and are filled with the Spirit at that point in time.
Part of growing closer to God is to make the choice for bad less and less, and
to have the good in you grow more and more.  Growing closer to God is not 
something we do on our own, but we do contribute to it.  Its an intertwined 
relationship of struggling to make the right distinctions based on God's
Holy Word, allowing God to work on and in us, accepting the cleansing that
Yeshua has made open to us, and both conciously and subconciously dying to 
self - by that I mean dying to the me first attitude.

So now, to sort of address Glen & Patricia, all people, Christians included, 
make mistakes in their interpersonal relationships and exchanges.  Life seems 
to require choices and judgements.  I have sat here trying to create a 
believable scenario in my head where people could honestly live without making
value judgements, choices, preferences, and decisions based on what they either 
thought was right and wrong, or on what their desires were, and I could not do
it, which doesn't mean that its impossible although right now, I stronly 
believe it would be impossible.

More than that, I think that if we love God we must make choices and strive
to discern right from wrong which obviously means that I believe that there
is a moral standard which is set by God's character, and to which we must
strive to adhere.  There is a basis for making judgements and determinations.
If there were not, all talk or activities with the idea of justice, fairness,
and even mercy would be pointless.

However, at times we need to be satisfied with a certain level of ambiguity
in our lives because we are not able to comprehend everything about God, life,
and ourselves.  The only way I've found to deal with the conflict that develops
between my need for clarity and absolutes and my intellectual and moral limita-
tions as a human being is to rest in knowing that God is sovereign.  One thing
resting in knowing that God is sovereign means for me is that I don't always 
need to prove my point or have the last word, I can walk away when an argument
or debates seems pointless, fruitless, or even counterproductive.  I think
many people, in their zeal to fight for God's cause, get caught up in the 
moment and frustrated and blurt things out in ways that they don't intend or
don't realize how hurtful they sound.  I do this sometimes.  My goal is to do
it less and less.

Leslie

The following is excerpted from an internet listserver called shabbatshalom.
It concerns controlling our tongues in what we say about and to people.  I
realized how often I fail in regards to the things that are set forth here,
and how much growing I have to do in this area.  I put it in here, because 
I think it has bearing on this topic for all of us.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aish HaTorah's
Shabbat  Shalom  Weekly

Nisan 1,  5755
April 1, 1995

PLEASE FORWARD THE SHABBATSHALOM
TO A FRIEND WHO MIGHT ENJOY IT AND WANT
TO SUBSCRIBE -- OR POST IT WHERE IT WOULD
BE APPRECIATED.      THANK YOU!
               .
               .
               .
TORAH PORTION:    Tazria , Leviticus 12:1 - 14:9

     The Torah continues with the laws of physical and spiritual
purity.  The  focus  of  this  portion  is upon  Tzora'as, a  physical
affliction for transgressing the laws of  speech.   It   progressively
afflicts home, clothes and skin unless one cleans up his speech.

     There are two types of speech transgressions: 1) Loshon Hora
(literally "evil tongue")-- making a derogatory or damaging  statement
about someone even though you  are speaking  the truth.   2)  Rechilus
(literally  "tale  bearing") --  telling someone  the negative  things
another person said about him or did against him.

ESSENTIAL LAWS CONCERNING SPEECH:

     1)   You are forbidden to make a derogatory comment -- the person
                did something wrong, has faulty character
                traits or lacks a virtue -- even if it's true.
     2)   Any comment, even if not derogatory, that might ultimately
                cause financial loss, physical pain,
                mental anguish or any damage is forbidden.
     3)   Any method of conveying or implying derogatory information
                about others is forbidden:   writing, hand
                motions, facial expressions.
     4)   One is not allowed to relate derogatory information even in
                jest.
     5)   Even if the derogatory statement won't cause damage or loss,
                it is forbidden.
     6)   When it is necessary for someone to know derogatory
                information for a constructive purpose,
                you are obligated to relate the information to him, i.e.
                someone is planning  to cheat or harm another person.

DVAR TORAH:  based on Growth Through Torah  by Rabbi Zelig Pliskin

     The metzora is a person afflicted with the skin disease --
Tzora'as -- for speaking badly regarding  another person.   The  Torah
states regarding him,  "And (he)  shall call  out: Unclean,  Unclean."
(Lev. 13:45)  He is making a declaration so that others will stay away
from him as well as hopefully avoid verbal pitfalls.

     The Shaloh HaKodesh, a 17th century mystic and halachic codifier,
interprets the declaration with an interesting twist.  The metzora  is
a person who  finds fault  with others;  when he  cries out  "Unclean,
Unclean" he is actually projecting  his own  faults and  imperfections
onto others.  The Sages say (Talmud Bavli, Kidushin, 70a), "Those  who
try to invalidate others do so with their own blemishes."

     When you find fault in others, it is often because you have these
same tendencies.  Remember:  When you point a finger at someone, three
fingers point back at you.

     There are two ways to "elevate" yourself.  One with actual
accomplishments.  The other, by  trying to  make others  appear to  be
less.    It  has been  said that  elevated people  speak about  ideas,
mediocre  people speak  about things,  and inferior  people speak  ...
about people.

     <<< Note 45.65 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


	Nancy, what a lovely note. Thank you for posting it. You made a lot of
excellent points. 



Glen

         <<< Note 45.72 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>

	Suzanne, I understand your frustrations. I've been there a few times
myself. With your header of:


      -< Does it make it 'ok' if the negativity is from Christianoters? >-


	That was the reason I even asked about the "loser" thing in the first
place. While I do not think the above header applies to most of the people in
here, from time to time it does seem to apply to some. (both perceived
Christian & perceived non-Christian) 



Glen

           <<< Note 45.74 by MTHALE::JOHNSON "Leslie Ann Johnson" >>>



	Leslie, what you said about making value judgements was great. I do
believe it is an impossibility, but one would hope the obvious ones wouldn't go
by the boards. But, what is obvious to one may not be to another I suppose. OR,
their beliefs, at this time anyway, are different. All in all, it was a very
good note.


Glen

       Proverbs 6:16 -19

           16  These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are]
          an abomination unto him:
           17  A proud look, a lying tongue, and the hands that shed
          innocent blood,
           18  A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be
          swift in running to mischeif,
           19  A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth
          discord among the brethren.

         Zechariah 8:17

           17  And let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against
          his neighbour; and love no false oath: for all these [are
          things] that I hate, saith the LORD.

       Romans 12:9

           9  [Let] love be without dissimulation. Abhor that which is
          evil; cleave to that which is good.


         Proverbs 13:5

           5. A righteous [man] hateth lying: but a wicked [man] is
          loathsome, and cometh to shame.

        Proverbs 28:9

          He that turneth away his ear from hearing the law, even
          his prayer [shall be] abomination.

.72>    The negative statements in YUKON::Christian note 577.* make
>    specific negative statements ABOUT the entire notesfile.
    
.77> With your header of:
>
>      -< Does it make it 'ok' if the negativity is from Christianoters? >-
>
>	That was the reason I even asked about the "loser" thing in the first
>place. 
    
    	Is the implication in .72 and .77 that Christians aren't allowed,
    	by their faith, to express negativity?
    
    	I almost get the sense that .75 is supporting that notion:
    
>ESSENTIAL LAWS CONCERNING SPEECH:
>
>     1)   You are forbidden to make a derogatory comment -- the person
>                did something wrong, has faulty character
>                traits or lacks a virtue -- even if it's true.
    
    	etc...
    
    
    	Though I *do* question whether there is a difference between
    	saying something ABOUT someone else in public, and saying
    	something TO someone else in private.

Is "white washed tomb" a deragatory remark?

In regards to some of the recent replies to this note, and considering the
insulting mail that you received from someone else, Glen, the Holy Spirit has
been after me in regards to some of my recent interactions with you in this
file.

You have sorely provoked the members of this file, Glen.  For more than five
years, you have attacked the basis of fellowship in this conference - faith
in Christ as guided by the Bible - sometimes subtly and sometimes openly.
This has been identified as harassment by many members of this file for
years, and you have been repeatedly asked, sometimes politely and
unfortunately sometimes far from politely, to stop.  Yet you have continued.

Speaking personally, at first I was glad to work with you and discuss with
you.  I hope our more recent interactions have not blotted out your memory of
our earlier discussions, which though prolonged and sometimes heated were
respectful on both sides.  I expressed admiration for you in what I perceived
to be your gentle persistence, and at times I even defended you from attacks
by other members of this file.

Yet as years passed, and I saw the endless circular arguments and
controversies that you provoked, I became convinced that I should no longer
participate in these discussions with you.  I referenced Titus 3:9-10, which
exhorts believers, after warning a person of their divisiveness several
times, to have nothing more to do with them.  And I don't apologize for that,
I still believe that is the appropriate response to much of what you post
here.

But I have allowed myself to go beyond that.  I have allowed your continued
provocation to get to me.  In many notes, I entered replies in response to
your entries which did not ignore your arguments, did not refute them, nor
did they even rebuke them.  They were simply sarcastic digs.  Being honest
before the Holy Spirit with myself and with you, their only real purpose was
to demean you.

I apologize, Glen.  That is behavior which is not in any way worthy of a
servant of the King of Kings.  Please forgive me for responding to you in a
way that was degrading both to you and to me.  I will not repeat it.

Paul

    Paul,
    
    You have four paragraphs of why Glen deserves to be treated badly
    followed by an ending two paragraphs apologizing for your way of
    treating him.
    
    As a Christian, may I dare to offer you the edification that your
    apology feels to me like a seriously mixed message.
    
    I think Glen has done a marvelous job not responding in kind to a lot
    of animosity.
    
                               Patricia
    

Paul is not apologizing for the reasons he gave himself for sarcasm,
but only the sarcasm.  It's not a mixed message at all.  It is very clear.
Glen has been an antagonist for many years and the best words I have to
offer are Daryl Gleason's.

Mark

My intent in doing that was mostly to try to make clear what I was
apologizing for and what I was not apologizing for, since a blanket aplology
might be misinterpreted later.  And yes, my response taken as a whole is a
mixed message because I still believe that Glen's involvement here more
closely resembles harassment than anything else.  But you are correct that
the two should not be mixed, because it weakens both.

Paul

	Paul, I do accept your apology. I was left with a lot of mixed messages
from your note though. I do remember the exchanges we had over the years in
mail. And like you said, they were pretty cool. :-)  But one word sticks out
over and over again. "Provoked". If speaking my mind, and at times holding
people to the same standards that they hold other people at is provoked, then I
would guess that was what I did. My intentions were not to provoke, but to
prod. If I don't know something, I ask. People may not want to hear the
questions, but I ask anyway. I'd rather know, than assume. If I have an opinion
about something, I will state it. Again, people may not want to hear is, but
there is a lot that goes on in here that I could do with out. In the end, I
don't think I have done too much different from anyone else, except that on a
lot of things, my view is the oppisite of yours. Having opposing views should
not be a valid reason to insert the label "provoked".

	I know I'm far from perfect, and never have or will claim I am even
close, but I think that most of what is considered proving is really a
difference of opinion. 


Glen

| <<< Note 45.86 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>

| Glen has been an antagonist for many years and the best words I have to offer 
| are Daryl Gleason's.

	Mark, having a difference of opinion, or different beliefs, is not
being an antagonist.


Glen

Glen, I apologize for the way that I have responded to your notes in a
sarcasticly demeaning way.  There is no excuse for such behavior.  I ask you
to forgive me, and I will not repeat it.

I also apologize for mixing my apology with a restatement of other actions of
yours that I disagree with, as a way of minimizing and making excuses for my
actions.  My actions stand alone and I am responsible for them.

Paul

Prod and provoke mean the same thing.

| <<< Note 45.87 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>


| I still believe that Glen's involvement here more closely resembles harassment
| than anything else.  

	Paul, a difference of opinion or a different belief does not in any way
equal harrasment.


Glen

>	Mark, having a difference of opinion, or different beliefs, is not
>being an antagonist.

You consistently violate the premise of this conference with your "prodding"
which is just as wrong as John Leabeater did when he went into the HINDU
conference and challenged their Vedas with the Bible.  You are an antagonist
and if you do not recognize it, perhaps you don't know what the word means.
I'll grant you that much, but you have been told the definition a few times.

Mark

	They are for one meaning Mark, but under that meaning it isn't bad.

    Glen,
    
    You can feel good about being in good company.  Jesus confronted and 
    provoked a whole lot of people too.
    
    It is dangerous though.  It has been known to lead to crucifixition.
    
                             Patricia

    Paul,
    
    I appreciate that you saw my point and responded to it.
    
    
                                     Patricia

>| I still believe that Glen's involvement here more closely resembles 
>| harassment than anything else.  
>
> Paul, a difference of opinion or a different belief does not in any way
> equal harrasment.

In some contexts, many contexts, most contexts even, you are perfectly
correct.  A simple difference in belief does not constitute harassment.  But
when a group of people gathers and states, up front, that a particular belief
is the basis for their gathering and for participation in their group, and
someone joins the group and repeatedly, consistenly, and constantly attacks
that particular belief that was stated as the basis for the group, then it
most certainly does constitute harassment.

Paul

>    You can feel good about being in good company.  Jesus confronted and 
>    provoked a whole lot of people too.
 
But Jesus provoked people about the Truth and never contradicted Scripture.
That's where the anaolgy breaks down.

Mm   

    If you apply human logic to what Jesus said, he contradicted scripture.
    
    If you apply God's logic, then "obviously" he did not contradict
    scripture.  He amplified it are corrected a false understanding of
    scripture.
    
    Might the same analogy be true to what you are so sure is the meaning
    of scripture?  
    
    
                                     Patricia
    
    
    

	God hates snarfs!!!

	Mark, did the Gentiles have to follow the Law? No. They had to follow
the 10 commandments +2. A lot of changes were made when Jesus came Mark. 

>	Mark, did the Gentiles have to follow the Law? No. They had to follow
>the 10 commandments +2. A lot of changes were made when Jesus came Mark. 

You don't even know what you're saying.

The +2, in fact the plus one is the only commandment that matters because
Jesus said that ALL of the law and the prophets hinge on this commandment.

Mark

    All 613 laws of the Torah are summed up in the 1 commandment were
    called to follow.

Glen, I'd be interested in your response to reply .97.

Paul

| <<< Note 45.97 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

	I wasn't going to address this cuz you're not going to like the
answers. But seeing you did ask, here it is....

| In some contexts, many contexts, most contexts even, you are perfectly correct
| A simple difference in belief does not constitute harassment.  

	In all cases Paul.

| But when a group of people gathers and states, up front, that a particular 
| belief is the basis for their gathering and for participation in their group, 
| and someone joins the group and repeatedly, consistenly, and constantly 
| attacks that particular belief that was stated as the basis for the group, 

	Paul, I will give you that once the switch from being a conference that
you could talk about different beliefs to one that allows one way of thinking,
I did not switch as quick as people would like. My notes were promptly set
hidden. Now let me ask you something, if I am doing what you stated above, why 
aren't my notes set hidden now? Over the last 2-3 years my notes were set hidden
mostly due to responding to other people's notes who had gotten set hidden. I
have had no notes that I can recall set hidden/deleted for interpeting Scripture
differently. But the mods can list why my notes have been deleted as I am sure
they keep some sort of log. I am not going against the premise, and for you to 
say so means one of two things:

	1) You're living in the long past, which means you need to move to the
	   present.

	2) You believe a different interpretation of any part of Scripture is
	   equal to harrassment. 


Glen

Fishing.... 

This notes conference is dedicated to fresh water fishing. 
Salt water fishing can be discussed elsewhere.  

"Hey, salt water fishing is fishing, and what about aquatic life in 
the estuaries where fresh water meets salt water?"

"This conference is for fresh water fishing."

"No, I think it should be for all kinds of fishing.  Fresh water fishing isn't
the only kind of fishing, you know."

"That doesn't matter.  We want to discuss fresh water fishing; not salty water
fishing; not fishing in the briny estuaries."

----

Note xx.x

"Yesterday, I fished in on a lake and caught some wide-mouthed bass..."

"Yeah, but if you fished on the bay, you could catch some flounder..."

"This notes conference is about fresh-water fishing."

"It should be about all fishing."

"It isn't.  We don't want to talk about that kind of fishing."

"Are you intolerant of salt water fishing?"

"What!?  Look, we just want to talk about fresh water fishing.  We don't want
to talk about other fishing."

"You are intolerant!  This is a double standard!  You can talk all you 
want about fresh water fishing but don't allow talking about other fishing.
And after all, the world is covered with salt water, and more fish are in
salt water than fresh water, and there are many more different kinds of fish..."

"This notes conference is about fresh water fishing."

>Now let me ask you something, if I am doing what you stated above, why 
>aren't my notes set hidden now? 

(a) because I removed myself from the moderator panel
(b) because banning for life must come from corporate
(c) because the current moderator panel is more patient with you
(d) because it shows the world what you really are
(e) all of the above

Mark

	Why Mark, thank you for answering. :-)  Mark, could you find a note
that you would have set hidden for breaking the guidelines? If not, then isn't
what you wrote more built on emotion and not on reality?


Glen

You are an antagonist to this conference.  You have been for a while.
If it didn't feel like squashing a gnat with a hammer, I'd have gone
to corporate a long time ago to get you banned for harrasment of a
noting community when you have been asked repeatedly to desist.  Your
notes have remained only by the good graces and tolerance of the 
moderators, and in many cases, they are rightfully just plain ignored
for the dribble they are.  I again refer to you note 152.107 (by Daryl
Gleason) as your hope, and notes 30.10-.12 in hopes that it would sink
in before you find it too late.

Mark

>	2) You believe a different interpretation of any part of Scripture is
>	   equal to harrassment. 

When that 'different interpretation' can only be reached by ignoring large
portions of Scripture, and those portions are ignored or discounted when
pointed out, then it is effectively, if not explicitly, discounting the
authority of Scripture.

Quoting Scripture that backs up a point is *never* sufficient.  If a person
wants to believe the God is only trusting and tolerantly loving and accepting
(and I can really understand wanting to believe that), they can easily
accumulate reams of scriptures - both Old Testament and New - which support
that view.  Conversely, if a person wants to believe that God is a harsh God
of judgement and condemnation (I don't know why anyone would WANT to believe
that), they can also accumulate reams of scripture - both Old Testament and
New - which support that view.

Neither view is complete.  A Scriptural position must always reasonably take
into account the *whole* of Scripture, not just the portions deemed
acceptable.

Paul

    
    
    How Jesus might be treated if he visited this
    conference?
    
    
                                  Patricia

    Perhaps he might be asked to go away!

>    How Jesus might be treated if he visited this
>    conference?

He would be welcome with open arms and would set our notions straight
about the Scriptures (all of them).  It would have been great to have
gotten the lesson those two men on the Road to Emmaus received that
late afternoon.

But you haave to know who Jesus is to understand how he might be treated by
this conference.

Mark

 Nobody is being asked to go away.  It is clear what the purpose/premise of
 this conference is. The guidelines of this conference do not invite disagree-
 ment/debate over that premise.  If there are those who do not agree/support
 the premise of this conference there are conferences where they are welcome
 to participate.  Mark's fishing analogy is a good one.  We are here to discuss
 from the premise as outlined in 2.*  




 Jim

To understand how Jesus might be treated, you have to examine Jesus'
recorded interactions with people.  

SOME Pharisees were treated poorly.  Some were treated with respect.
Some people were treated with words they might find offensive and did
find offensive.  Some people were treated with words of kindness and
compassion.  

The question is, how well do you know Jesus to understand how Jesus 
would receive the people in this conference?  The answer is that he
would treat us individually according to what we needed and not what
you or I think each other needs.

You may be offended by some of my words; I would be surprised if Glen
wasn't but it is his hope of salvation that has driven Daryl to write
152.107 as well as the many other notes for (not only) his benefit.
You may be offended to discover the definitions some people have for
Christian and nonChristian, and you would be correct to say that our
definitions do not matter.  However, to be a Christian - a follower
and emulator of Christ, one needs to study who Christ actually was on
earth, and who Christ is living in us (which is not some foo-foo
euphamism to indicate a "Christ-consciousness").  Christ was no
mamby-pamby anemic boot-licking panderer to people.  He is the King of
kings and Lord of lords and even in His submission to the Father, 
even unto death, He wielded all power and authority.  He never minced
words with those who were full of guile and makers of their own gods.
He offered life on His terms, not on theirs.

We accept God's terms, or we are judged by them.

Mark

Patricia, I've noted your repeated attempts to equate Glen's rejection with
Jesus.  I'll just note that while it is quite true that Jesus told His
disciples that they would be rejected if they truly followed Him, the
converse is not true:  being rejected doesn't mean you're on the right path.

Every single group of wacked-out fanatics has gone down in flames believing
that the fact that everyone was telling them they were wrong was yet another
proof that they were right.

Paul

     Jesus words were not conforting to many of the men of the day.  Even to
     Peter, whom we assume he had love and respect he said 
    
    "Get behind me Satan"
    
     Jesus' words were radically discomforting. 
    
     Particularly to those who insisted they had all the answers.  None of
    us can afford to be too smug in our answers.
    
    
                                    Patricia
    
                                           patricia

Hmmm.... I re-read that note as I posted it.  I was not intending to equate
you or Glen with 'wacked-out fanatics.'  I was simply noting that people who
we can all agree were really off the track - David Koresh, et al - are
generally convinced that they alone are right and that the fact that people
disagree with them is evidence of their being correct.

The notion of "If I'm right, I will be persecuted" falls into a category that
I have come to call "dangerous truths."  It is perfectly true that "people
loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil," and that
"Everyone who does evil hates the light," just because it is light.  I agree
and believe that if we really follow the light of Christ, we will be hated
and persecuted.

But looking at disagreement and persecution as a sign that we are going the
right way leaves us *incredibly* vulnerable, because it cuts off one of the
main ways for us to tell when we are going the *wrong* way.

I recognize that truth, but I try to be *very* careful with it.

Paul

>     Particularly to those who insisted they had all the answers.  None of
>    us can afford to be too smug in our answers.

Too true.  Too true.  Let's allow this to reflect on each of us.

MM

| <<< Note 45.110 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| You are an antagonist to this conference.  

	Mark, again I ask you to produce a note that goes against the premise.
Not liking what I have to say is not the same as violating the rules. If I am
not violating the rules, then how can I be an antagonist?




Glen

| <<< Note 45.111 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| When that 'different interpretation' can only be reached by ignoring large
| portions of Scripture, and those portions are ignored or discounted when
| pointed out, then it is effectively, if not explicitly, discounting the
| authority of Scripture.

	Paul, there have been few instances where my perceived interpretation
of any part of Scripture was changed by anyone in here. You say ignore large
portions of Scripture, but if you could provide an example, it would be
helpful. Maybe you are one who believes a different interpretation is equal to
ignoring, I don't know. 

| Neither view is complete. A Scriptural position must always reasonably take
| into account the *whole* of Scripture, not just the portions deemed acceptable

	Gee, I've been talking about the pick and choose method used by some
Christians for years Paul. 


Glen

No.

Notes 152.107, 30.10, 30.11, 30.12

| <<< Note 45.118 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| Patricia, I've noted your repeated attempts to equate Glen's rejection with
| Jesus.  

	I have no rejections with Jesus.

| Every single group of wacked-out fanatics has gone down in flames believing
| that the fact that everyone was telling them they were wrong was yet another
| proof that they were right.

	Paul, I am not one who says anything about, "everyone telling me I am
wrong, so that is more proof that I am right." What I have been saying all along
though, is you can say I am wrong about <insert subject>, you can say that I am
a non-Christian. But my life with Jesus is between He and I only. He, and ONLY
He, can truly know what is in my heart. The same goes for any one of you. 

	I mean, if on ones deathbed one can cry out for Jesus to take them into
Heaven, and if in their hearts they really mean it, He will know, and He will
take them into His arms. But when one cries out to Jesus on their deathbed, does
that mean they have all the beliefs that you do? No. It means that they believe 
in Him, and that they are asking Him to take them into Heaven. Yet for the 
living it is somehow different? A bit hypocritical there, don't ya think?


Glen

Glen

	Why Mark, 152.107, 30.10-12 are wonderful example of notes of mine that
go against the premise. NOT!  Thanks for proving something to me Mark.


Glen

>	Why Mark, 152.107, 30.10-12 are wonderful example of notes of mine that
>go against the premise. NOT!  Thanks for proving something to me Mark.

Perhaps you misunderstood their intent.

Glen, my note was not addressed to you, it was addressed to Patricia.  I know
that you have not proclaimed that people disagreeing with you is evidence
that you are right.

But responding to your reply anyway, I do not, nor have I ever, questioned
your salvation.  That is between you and Jesus alone.  It is before your
Master that you will stand or fall.

And yes, I glory in the fact that being correct about everything or even most
things, on our death bed or in life, is not the gate to salvation.  If
correct doctrine were the ticket to heaven then no one, myself most certainly
included, would ever make it.  I glory in the fact that accepting Jesus is
all that we need.

Yet Jesus continually said that those who love Him are those who follow His
commands, and He continually warned His disciples about being deceived. 
While we are not called to question each other's salvation, we are most
definitely called to question each other about how we are following His
commands.

Paul

Bear fruit in keeping with repentence.  Matthew 3:8 

>He would be welcome with open arms and would set our notions straight
>about the Scriptures (all of them).  It would have been great to have
>gotten the lesson those two men on the Road to Emmaus received that
>late afternoon.
    
    "Pictures of Christ in the O.T." was probably the lesson! ;-)
    
    Re: complete Bible for context
    
    Here's one of my favorite Chuck Missler quotes (emphasis is mine):
    
    "We possess 66 books, penned by 40 authors over thousands of years, yet 
    the more we investigate, the more we discover that the books of the Bible 
    are all actually elements of a highly *integrated* message system in which 
    every detail, every number, the names, even the elemental structures 
    within the text itself, are clearly the result of intricate and skillful 
    supernatural 'engineering.'  The more we look, the more we realize that 
    there is still much more hidden and thus reserved for the diligent 
    inquirer.  Would you expect anything less in the Word of God Himself?"

>     Jesus words were not conforting to many of the men of the day.  Even to
>     Peter, whom we assume he had love and respect he said 
>    
>    "Get behind me Satan"
>    
>     Jesus' words were radically discomforting. 
    
    You have to look at the context of why Jesus said this and what Peter
    was doing to try and prevent God's Will from happening.  Christ showed
    great discernment in recognizing who He was dealing with and wasn't
    directly talking to Peter.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 45.128 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>


	First off, Paul, this was a great note. 

| Glen, my note was not addressed to you, it was addressed to Patricia.  I know
| that you have not proclaimed that people disagreeing with you is evidence
| that you are right.

	I had thought you were addressing both of us because in a later note
you mentioned something about you weren't saying Patricia or I were fanatics. 

| But responding to your reply anyway, I do not, nor have I ever, questioned
| your salvation. That is between you and Jesus alone. It is before your Master 
| that you will stand or fall.

	Paul, on this we agree 100%. It is also my belief that it applies to 
each and every one of us. 

| Yet Jesus continually said that those who love Him are those who follow His
| commands, and He continually warned His disciples about being deceived. While 
| we are not called to question each other's salvation, we are most definitely 
| called to question each other about how we are following His commands.

	I agree with what you are saying here. There is no reason why anyone
CAN'T question each other about how we are following Him. It's when it is taken
to the next step, which is so often done, that it becomes wrong. (which you
also pointed out)


Glen

    	re .106
    
>if I am doing what you stated above, why 
>aren't my notes set hidden now? 
    
    	Well, Glen, just a quick look of DIR/AUTH=SILVA/SINCE=1-jan-1995
    
    	shows at least 4 notes hidden.
    
    	Since I can't see the notes, I can't say that they were hidden
    	because of violations of the conference rules, but they are 
    	hidden nonetheless.
    
    	In 662.27 you also mention that mods are working against you,
    	so either your memory (from January) is short, or you've 
    	changed your perception since then.
    
    	And do you really deny that you do not seriously hold and support
    	the position that "the Bible is not the inspored word of God, but
    	is merely the complied words of men"?  This position in particular
    	is what people are referring to.

| <<< Note 45.133 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| Well, Glen, just a quick look of DIR/AUTH=SILVA/SINCE=1-jan-1995

	Joe, why when I did just that it came up saying, "No such note"? Yet
you went on to say:

| shows at least 4 notes hidden.

	Funny how that worked.

| Since I can't see the notes, I can't say that they were hidden because of 
| violations of the conference rules, but they are hidden nonetheless.

	Well Joe, seeing your magic wand seems to show you 4 hidden notes, list
them and I will gladly send them to you. If I responded to someone elses note,
and their note ended up getting set hidden, then mine would automatically get
hidden also. Standard procedure.

| In 662.27 you also mention that mods are working against you,

	Wow.... how you got that from what I said is beyond me. Go back one of
my paragraphs and you will have your answer. Of course, if you choose to think
something differently, that's your own perogative. It would be false though.

| so either your memory (from January) is short, or you've changed your 
| perception since then.

	Neither. You interpreted what I said wrong.

| And do you really deny that you do not seriously hold and support the position
| that "the Bible is not the inspored word of God, but is merely the complied 
| words of men"?  

	I'm not saying anything about what you wrote above. What I am saying is
that I am not going against the premise with my notes. 

| This position in particular is what people are referring to.

	I guess it would be the right thing for them to do if I were to start
discussing that subject. My notes do not though.


Glen

    blather blather blather

                   <<< Note 45.134 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, why when I did just that it came up saying, "No such note"? Yet
>you went on to say:
>
>| shows at least 4 notes hidden.
>
>	Funny how that worked.
    
    	If you use the DIR command wrong, it only checks basenotes.
    
    	Funny how that works...
    
>	Neither. You interpreted what I said wrong.
    
    	But the premise of your arguments is that we all have different
    	beliefs and are entitled to them, and for us those beliefs are
    	not wrong.  Why do you try to deny to me what you argue for 
    	yourself?
    
>| And do you really deny that you do not seriously hold and support the position
>| that "the Bible is not the inspored word of God, but is merely the complied 
>| words of men"?  
>
>	I'm not saying anything about what you wrote above. What I am saying is
>that I am not going against the premise with my notes. 

    	I don't understand your answer.  Besides, I asked a yes/no
    	question, not an essay question.  So yes or no, do you deny
    	the statement above?

| <<< Note 45.136 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| If you use the DIR command wrong, it only checks basenotes.

	Gee Joe, I did it just like you stated. So why not list the notes then?

| >	Neither. You interpreted what I said wrong.

| But the premise of your arguments is that we all have different beliefs and 
| are entitled to them, and for us those beliefs are not wrong.  

	My arguments in here do not go against the premise. What is written
above is a true statement. Go read the notes in this file. Does everyone think
the same on every little thing? Do those who you perceive to be Christians
think the same on every little thing? If your answer to the 2nd question were
to be yes, then you would have a point. But you know that even those who you
would perceive to be Christians have different beliefs from yourself on some
issues. So what point are you really trying to make here Joe? 

| Why do you try to deny to me what you argue for yourself?

	How you perceive something does not mean it is the truth. 

| >| And do you really deny that you do not seriously hold and support the position
| >| that "the Bible is not the inspored word of God, but is merely the complied 
| >| words of men"?  
| >
| >	I'm not saying anything about what you wrote above. What I am saying is
| >that I am not going against the premise with my notes.

| I don't understand your answer.  

	It's simple Joe. If I talked about what I wrote above, you would be
correct that I am going against the premise. My notes do not go against the
premise though.

| Besides, I asked a yes/no question, not an essay question. So yes or no, do 
| you deny the statement above?

	My beliefs are as they are. You know my beliefs, and you know the
answer to the question above. I can not answer it in here, but will gladly send
you mail. What you should try to distinguish is am I stating a belief in here
that goes against the premise? If so, it should be deleted. If not, then you
are making much to do about nothing.



Glen

    	I rest my case.

	Wow.... another jo diversion..... how nice...

 Kindly take the Glen/Joe gabfest to mail.





 Thank you.

Glen, what you just did here is, well, I don't know what to call it.  But you
do it a lot.  I'm sure it must make sense to you, but this is how it always
looks from here, taking a simple analogy.  This is not meant in a nasty way,
Glen, but simply to indicate to you how your interactions here often seem to
me, and I would guess to other people also.

"Your car is out of gas, you have to put gas in the car to make it run."

"No I don't, it has leather upholstery."

"What does that have to do with it?  It needs gas to run regardless of what
kind of upholstery it has."

"But I just said it has leather upholstery."

"That has nothing to do with the gas."

"Leather upholstery is better."

"Well, so what?  You still need gas to make the car run."

"The steering wheel is leather too."

"*WHY* do you keep talking about leather?  That has NOTHING to do with the
engine!!"

"Prove that I ever said the upholstery wasn't leather."

"WHAT?"

"You keep trying to tell me I don't need leather."

"Well, of course, we're talking about the engine."

"But it DOES have leather upholstery."

"ARGH!  SO WHAT!  IT NEEDS GAS!"

"But you said that I said the upholstery wasn't leather, and that's not true."

"I NEVER SAID THAT!!  AND IT DOESN'T MATTER ANYWAY!"

"It's really very simple, the upholstery is leather."

"I give up."

"So you admit you can't prove that I ever said the upholstery wasn't leather?
Why are you always accusing me of things I didn't say?"

    better check the blinker fluid and the muffler bearings too.

 The frebitz injectors, man!  

| <<< Note 45.141 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>


	Paul, you're gonna have to be more explicit than that. What are you
talking about?


Glen

	Thank you, Mark and Paul, for your analogies.

	spot on!

>	Paul, you're gonna have to be more explicit than that. What are you
> talking about?

The whole point is, being more explicit won't help a bit.  Thousands upon
thousands of lines of explicitness haven't helped a bit.  Glen, much of what
you say here seems to be utter nonsense, not necessarily because it *is*
nonsense, but because it comes from a completely different set of premises
and a different world view.  And I'm sure that much of what I and others say
must seem to be nonsense to you.  As far as I can tell, there are two
possible explanations for this:

1) We're wacked out, mind-controlled, twisted fanatics with no connection to
   reality.

2) We follow God's wisdom, which is foolishness to the world.

"Where is the wise man?  Where is the scholar?  Where is the philosopher of
 this age?  Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For since in
 the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was
 pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who
 believe.  Jews demand miraculous signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we
 preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to
 Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the
 power of God and the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser 
 than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is greater than man's strength."
								1Cor 1:20-25

"Do not deceive yourselves.  If any one of you thinks he is wise by the 
 standards of this age, he should become a 'fool' so that he may become wise.
 For the wisdom of the world is foolishness in God's sight."  1Cor 3:18-19

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave 
 thanks to Him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts
 were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. ...
 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshipped and served created
 things rather than the Creator - who is forever praised.  Amen."
							Rom 1:21-22,25

They are totally different views of the world, and they make no sense to each
other.  They are never going to make sense to each other.  As I said once
before, it's like being in a restaurant in Italy, with a waiter who speaks no
English, *insisting* on continuing to speak to the waiter in English, as if
by enough repetitions the English will eventually make sense to him.

It never will, Glen.

Paul

       Proverbs 6:16 -19

           16  These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are]
          an abomination unto him:
           17  A proud look, a lying tongue, and the hands that shed
          innocent blood,
           18  A heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be
          swift in running to mischeif,
           19  A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth
          discord among the brethren.

| <<< Note 45.146 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| The whole point is, being more explicit won't help a bit. Thousands upon
| thousands of lines of explicitness haven't helped a bit. Glen, much of what
| you say here seems to be utter nonsense, not necessarily because it *is*
| nonsense, but because it comes from a completely different set of premises
| and a different world view.  

	Paul, how many times have you told me that I should not go into the
Bible with any pre-conceived notions? Aren't you REALLY doing that here? If
you look at the words written, and take no preconceived notions into
consideration, you probably would not be having the difficulties you're having 
now. I have on many occassions gotten mail from people who see people going off
on a tangent because I was the one who wrote the note, yet felt if someone else
wrote the same thing, it would not have blown up. Something to think about
anyways.

| And I'm sure that much of what I and others say must seem to be nonsense to 
| you.  

	Paul, this is a false statement. They are your beliefs, and they are
your interpretation of what you feel Scripture is saying. I may not always
agree with your interpretation, but I do not think it is nonsense. (that also
goes for almost everyone else in here [- 1 person at times].

| 1) We're wacked out, mind-controlled, twisted fanatics with no connection to
| reality.

| 2) We follow God's wisdom, which is foolishness to the world.

	I tend to believe that we all follow # 2 in a way. But it is that we
follow what we believe to be God's wisdom, which is foolishness to the world.
To say it the way you did above would mean that we know what His wisdom is all
the time. That would mean we do not make any mistakes. But being human, we do.
Can you see this?


Glen

>	I tend to believe that we all follow # 2 in a way. But it is that we
>follow what we believe to be God's wisdom, which is foolishness to the world.


 and your knowledge of God's wisdom is based on what?  How do you know that
 the wisdom you are following is from God?




 Jim

| <<< Note 45.150 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| and your knowledge of God's wisdom is based on what?  How do you know that
| the wisdom you are following is from God?

	Thanks Jim, for helping illustrate how the words spoken aren't being
considered, but put back on me. 


Glen

 I'm trying to put any words back on you, Glen.  There has to be some means
 by which we can test what we feel is from God, wouldn't you agree?  There
 has to be some standard.





 Jim

	If God ONLY used ONE method to relay His messages to us, then I would
agree Jim. But He uses many things to relay the message He wants us to hear.



Glen

Glen, as gently as I can say it, the leather upholstery really, really
doesn't make any difference.  I know that you're sure that it does, you've
said so for five years.  But no matter how much you believe that the leather
upholstery is important to make the car go, I know it's not.  I've tried
every way I possibly can to say that the seats could be covered with burlap
and it wouldn't make any difference to the engine, but it just doesn't ever
get through.  I know that you are equally frustrated that I just can't see
how important the leather is to making the engine work, but trust me, it
makes no sense to me, and it isn't ever going to.

This conversation is just as pointless as the hundreds we've had in the past.
As long as you're talking about the upholstery and everyone else is talking
about the gas the engine needs, it will remain pointless.  I will stop now
trying to convince you to put gas in the tank, and sadly leave you by the
side of the road polishing your seats to get your car to go.

You will, no doubt, respond with another point about the leather, but I'm
afraid that I'm going to have to ignore it.

Shalom, Glen.

Paul

	Paul, does this mean you believe there is only ONE way God ever sends
us His messages? That if you're talking to a priest, and he answers your query,
you should not listen to him? If a parishioner helps you with your query, you
should not listen to them either? If the answer comes over the radio, you
should not listen to it? This is not about leather, etc, it is about the
reality of the situation. Which is it Paul?

	ONE way God sends us His messages

	Limitless ways God sends us His messages

    Glen,
    
    There may be a variety of messengers but there is only ONE message.  If
    the priest contradicts the Word then he is wrong, if the the friend
    contradicts the Word then he is wrong.  The radio personality
    contradicts the Word then they are wrong.  ONE standard, ONE message,
    ONE rule.
    
    Kent
    

    	What is the test that we should use to know that a message is
    	from God and not the great deceiver disguised as an upholsterer?

	Joe, you might want to stay away from that taco place you're eating at

    I've only got cloth seats, and I had to cover one with an imitation
    sheep-skin seat cover to keep the seat-stuffing inside.

What I've really wanted to say all these years out in the open is this:

Shut up, Glen.  Just shut up.

But more politely (and sincerely), I do hope you will heed 152.107.

	Why Mark, what a wonderful reply. Thank you ever so much for posting
it. 

You can talk to me, Glen.  But I can't guarantee to reply for a while, 
because of all that's happening here (like, would you believe, work?)

And I tend not to get involved in circular discussions usually.  Or have I 
said that before??? ;-)

								&

There, I feel better.  I'm off this merry-go-round for good, too!

ha ha ha ha ha ha 

I talk to people about the merry-go-round and they just roll their
eyes.  I'll join the ranks of those who pity the rest of you going
round and round.

ha ha ha ha ha [thud]

P.S.  Some mod ought to find out where this went off topic and 
move it.  

OH!  I thought it had moved on to practical examples ? ;-)

You are entitled, Sir.

>    I think Glen has done a marvelous job not responding in kind to a lot
>    of animosity.

You know, I was thinking about this, that Patricia said back in response .85.
And I've agreed with that, and used to point that out myself.  Glen has
indeed generally not responded with animosity.  But the way it holds Glen up
as being victimized by the 'animosity' of others, and as a hero isn't right
either, and I haven't known how to articulate why.

Suppose I decided I liked you.  And I decided I wanted to be near you.  I'm a
simple soul, and I have enough money that I don't have to work.  So I decide
to just stay near you all the time.  I don't really need to talk to you, I
just enjoy being in your company.  So I just stand right next to you, all the
time, smiling at you.  At first, you're not sure what to make of me, so
you're polite.  But I'm just always there at your elbow.  I walk next to you
from your car to work and back, every day.  I come into your place of work
and just sit quietly in your office.  You have to use the handicapped
bathroom at work so you can lock the door, otherwise I'd follow you in to
stay near you.  If you go somewhere I can't follow, I just sit outside and
wait until you come out.  Pretty quickly, this gets on your nerves, and you
ask me to stop.  I just smile politely, and continue. You ask more
insistently.  I just smile politely, and continue.  After a while you yell
and scream at me.  I just smile politely, and continue.  Finally you're
provoked to violence because I won't leave you alone, and you hit me.  I just
smile politely, and continue.  You knock me unconscious by hitting me over
the head with a board.  When I regain consciousness, I return to your side
with a smile and never a word of reproof.  You get a restraining order from
the police.  I just smile politely as the police drag me away, and as soon as
I get out of jail I'm right back at your side with a smile.  Despite your
angry, sometimes even violent actions toward me, I never respond in kind, I
always just smile politely, and continue.

Am I a hero?

Who is the antagonist in this story?

Paul

    	re .158
    
    	Fine, Glen.  Now skip past the title of .157 and answer the
    	question, because to me the question addresses the crux of 
    	the problem.

    Hours later the Un-man [Weston] began to speak.  It did not even
    look in Ransom's direction; slowly and cumberously, as if by some
    machinery that needed oiling, it made its mouth and lips pronounce
    his name.

    "Ransom," it said.

    "Well?" said Ransom.

    "Nothing," said the Un-man.  He shot an inquisitive glance at it. 
    Was the creature mad?  But it looked, as before, dead rather than
    mad, sitting there with head bowed and the mouth a little open,
    and some yellow dust from the moss settled in the creases of its
    cheeks, and the legs crossed tailor-wise, and the hands, with
    their long metallic-looking nails, pressed flat together on the
    ground before it.  He dismissed the problem from his mind and
    returned to his own uncomfortable thoughts.

    "Ransom," it said again.

    "What is it?" said Ransom sharply.

    "Nothing," it answered.

    Again there was silence; and again, about a minute later, the
    horrible mouth said:

    "Ransom!"  This time he made no reply.  Another minute and it
    uttered the name again; and then, like a minute gun, "Ransom...
    Ransom... Ransom...," perhaps a hundred times.

    "What the hell do you want?" he roared at last.

    "Nothing," said the voice.  Next time he determined not to answer;
    but when it had called on him a thousand times he found himself
    answering whether he would or no, and "Nothing," came the reply. 
    He taught himself to keep silent in the end: not that the torture
    of resisting his impulse to speak was less than the torture of
    response but because something within him rose up to combat the
    tormentor's assurance that he must yield in the end.  If the
    attack had been of some more violent kind it might have been
    easier to resist.  What chilled and almost cowed him was the union
    of malice with something nearly childish.  For temptation, for
    blasphemy, for a whole battery of horrors, he was in some sort
    prepared: but hardly for this petty, indefatigable nagging as of
    a nasty little boy at a preparatory school.  Indeed no imagined
    horror could have surpassed the sense which grew within him as the
    slow hours passed, that this creature was, by all human standards,
    inside out - its heart on the surface and its shallowness at the
    heart.  On the surface, great designs and antagonism to Heaven
    which involved the fate of worlds: but deep within, when every
    veil had been pierced, was there, after all, nothing but a black
    puerility, an aimless empty spitefulness content to sate itself
    with the tiniest cruelties, as love does not disdain the smallest
    kindness?  What kept him steady, long after all possibility of
    thinking about something else had disappeared, was the decision
    that if he must hear either the word Ransom, or the word Nothing a
    million times, he would prefer the word Ransom.

       .
       .
       .
    Then all at once it was night.  "Ransom... Ransom... Ransom...
    Ransom" went on the voice.  And suddenly it crossed his mind that
    though he would some time require sleep, the Un-man might not.

| <<< Note 45.168 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| But the way it holds Glen up as being victimized by the 'animosity' of others,
| and as a hero isn't right either, and I haven't known how to articulate why.

	I agree that hero is not a term that should be used. As far as being
victimized by the animosity, I guess I could compare it to Nancy and woman
notes. She did not deserve what she got, but got it she did. I don't know if
that is victimizing or not, just wrong in my book. (in other words, I ain't
claiming victim)

| Am I a hero?

	No, but I didn't think anyone was claiming I was.

| Who is the antagonist in this story?

	Apples and oranges Paul. 

	Mark, who's Ransom?

	Joe, I'll send you mail on this, even though we have discussed this a
million times and you know my position. I can not discuss it in here. 


Glen

>	Mark, who's Ransom?

Read the book: Perelandra.  You'll like it actually.  Well, maybe.

Ransom is the name of the Protagonist.

Perelandra is the second of a trilogy.  The third book is a chilling
and more realistic than the first two (which take Ransom to Mars, then
Venus, aka Perelandra).  Inthe third book, "That Hideous Strength" it
talks about how one person is very gradually sucked in to an evil 
organization.  Deception doesn't konk you on the head and take you
away; it boils you like the frog in the beaker, one degree at a time.
And we think to ourselves, "ah, this isn't so hot."

MM

    .171
    
    I'm not sure the comparison is the same.  Womannotes may have a
    political slant, but it doesn't espouse a target audience other than
    perhaps women.  But then it is clearly by its history for all employees
    who dare to enter the fray. :-)
    
    This conference has definitely indicated a target audience with a
    agreed premise for discussion, The Bible as the Inerrant word of God.
    And I believe if you'd listen for just a moment, Glen, you would
    understand what is being offered here.
    
    We don't want to argue over the Bible with folks who don't even hold it
    as the entirety of God's written Word.
    
    Just don't wanna, just don't wanna. :-)
    
    This doesn't in any way mean that YOU are not liked or hated for your
    belief that is different, its just that only bickering comes forth from
    this type of basis on discussion.
    
    There are plenty of other conferences that invite the discussion over
    inerrancy, we don't.  
    
    FWIW, while we've butted heads time and time again, I've never lost
    sight of your humanity.  You are worthy of respect and courtesy.  
    
    Nancy

    Ray, some call it maturation. ;-)
    
    Mike

    Ray!!!!!!!  Like WOW!!! How GREAT to see you show up. :-)
    
    Nancy

    I've had that very same experience, Ray.  Hard to put into words, isn't
    it.
    
    -steve

| <<< Note 45.177 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I'm not sure the comparison is the same.  Womannotes may have a political 
| slant, but it doesn't espouse a target audience other than perhaps women.  

	And this file has a taget audience for Christians. 

| But then it is clearly by its history for all employees who dare to enter the 
| fray. :-)

	Nancy, isn't this file the same? Or are all those you deem as
non-Christians not allowed to participate? I'm sure it isn't that way.
So how is it different.

| This conference has definitely indicated a target audience with a agreed 
| premise for discussion, The Bible as the Inerrant word of God.

	And wn is about women. 

| We don't want to argue over the Bible with folks who don't even hold it
| as the entirety of God's written Word.

	Then it would appear that it really is not my problem like people have
stated it, is it? To discuss what certain Scripture means to anyone, is just
that, discussing what it means. If this is taken and made into being an
antagonist, then I think you may have the meaning wrong.

	Btw, you mentioned inerrancy. I didn't, as that would be against the
premise. But it does help illistrate once again that you sometimes don't look
at the words written, but the person. This is where I think the problem is.



Glen

| <<< Note 45.178 by USDEV::LEVASSEUR "John_BigbooTAY@planet10.yoyodyne.com" >>>


| Now he or she (we'll be PC here) says something that senda twinge right down 
| yer sciatic nerve. Do you: raise your hand in protest, run up to pulpit and 
| demand equal air time, do you corner the celebrant after the service for a 
| lively few roundss of spiritual rugby, do you get a buncho fellow congregation
| members together to challange his/her theology, or do you ever just sit there 
| and open up your mind, soul or whatever and ponder what was said that you 
| didn't quite like?

	Ray, good question(s). :-)  I guess it really depends on what is said.
If it makes me twinge, I would definitely talk to the person afterwards, to see
if the interpretation I got out of it matched the one he/she him/herself meant
to give. From there, well, it really depends on what was said. If I
misunderstood what was being said, I would tell them what I thought they meant.
If I was correct, I would question them. Pretty simple.



Glen

    In a UU Church the minister is not seen as a hierarchical authority
    figure.  Just as a person with specialized calling and training.
    
    When people have disagreed with the UU minister(which most likely a
    bunch of people do at each service since a whole spectrum of beliefs
    are included within our denomination,) people have on rare occasion
    risen and offered their suggestion.   Usually one or more members will
    go up to the minister after the service and discuss the difference of
    opinion. 
    
    If someone is really vocal and has a markedly different perspective
    then she/he will sometimes be asked to prepare a subsequent sermon.
    
    Differences are welcomed and encouraged in our congregation.
    
    We see it as a powerful means to spiritual growth and to a search for
    truth.
    
                                   Patricia
    
    
                                     Patricia

	Wonderful note Patricia. 

    doublemindedness (cf, the topic)

	Mark, I'm sure cf doesn't mean centerfield... :-)  What does it mean?

I'm with you, Ray.  I've been going through the same thing over the past few
years.  May God continue to bless you as you open your heart to receive Him.

>    We see [differences welcomed and encouraged] as a powerful means to 
> spiritual growth and to a search for truth.

I might agree that this is a good means to search for truth, but I'm not sure
I agree that it's a good way to actually find any.

Paul

    The alternative is to isolate oneself with all likemindness people and
    never have any of one's basic assumptions challenged all the while
    proclaiming that ones own assumptions are absolute truth and everything
    else is false.
    
                                 Patricia

>    The alternative is to isolate oneself with all likemindness people and
>    never have any of one's basic assumptions challenged all the while
>    proclaiming that ones own assumptions are absolute truth and everything
>    else is false.

Apparently you don't realize that this conference doesn't do that.
It doesn't assume absolute truth nor declare everything else false.

It DOES contend that there IS an absolute Truth and that some of the
everything else is false and leads to destruction.  As we go through 
life, we identify what is false (by the "Guidebook") and what is true.

It only seems that rigid when one falls into the "false" category.

Mark

P.S. 

P.S. = Postscript
e.g. = for example
i.e. = that is
c.f. = cross-reference; for your reference
etc. = et cetera; and so on
sic  = reprinted as it was printed; as is
ergo = therefore
PC   = personal computer
PeeCee = politikally [sic] Correct
CP   = corrupted perspectives

The whole Bible is a testimony that there exists such a thing as Real Truth,
and that the Creator of the Universe has gone to tremendous pains to share
the Truth with us.  Throughout the Old Testament, God's people come under
judgement again and again and again for turning from the Truth God revealed
to them.  When the promised Messiah came, Jesus said "I am the Way, the
Truth, and the Life," and promised dire eternal consequences to those who
rejected Him.

There's no leeway in the Bible for alternate truths.  There is a tremendous
compassion and tender calling to those who are in error, but always in the
context of recognizing that there *is* error.

To follow the Christ, to allow Him to be who He said He is, to allow God to
be who He says He is, is to proclaim that Truth exists, and that whatever is
not in accord with that Truth is falsehood and error.

It doesn't fit to well with the world's ideal of openmindedness, I agree.

Paul

	Paul, I think what Patricia might mean is if you only stayed around
those of likemindedness, you would formulate your beliefs. Your beliefs are
taken from how you interpret the Bible. Without ever interacting with those
other than your own kind, you will go on to believe that you have the truths
that God wants you to have, and everything is great. When in fact, through
interacting with others, you could find that what you thought was right, is
wrong. At least that was how I interpreted her words. 

	Mark, thanks for the cf explaination. :-)


Glen

>	Paul, I think what Patricia might mean is if you only stayed around
>those of likemindedness, you would formulate your beliefs. Your beliefs are
>taken from how you interpret the Bible. Without ever interacting with those
>other than your own kind, you will go on to believe that you have the truths
>that God wants you to have, and everything is great.

This conference is full of Protestants and Catholics, Presbyterians,
Lutherans, Nazarenes, Baptists, non-denoms, Church of Christ, you name it.
There's a whole lot of interpretation room in the Christian realm.

Trouble is, we all look alike to some people as fundamental Bible thumpers.
Faugh!  That's (a) prejudice and (b) indiscriminating.  (And discrimination
is a good thing for some things.)

The likemindedness you see is awash with varying interpretations.  BUT
WE DON'T EDIT, CUT, OR PASTE THE BIBLE IN THE SEGMENTS WE'RE COMFY WITH.

That is a very disctinct difference.  You either refuse to recognise it,
or your willful ignorance sets harder each day.

There is Truth and there is falsehood and the Bible is the Authority to
tell right from wrong.  Isaiah 5:20 warns people of the peril of calling
sweet, bitter and bitter, sweet; calling light darkness, and darkness light.
Any serious student of Christ needs to study the word so that he can tell
the difference between Truth and error.

Mark

Of course I understand that, Glen.  And yes, I understand the necessity of
being challenged.  But that "be open to be challenged" often turns into
"don't claim anything is wrong," which isn't a good place to be.

Paul

Glen,

That's right on - if you discount any other external influence.  The 
Christian relies on the Holy Spirit actually dwelling inside him to teach 
him what the Bible means - according to verse like 1 Corinthians 2:13 :
  "This us what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words 
   taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words."

Anyone can *claim* to have the Holy Spirit, and His inspiration in 
understanding.  However He will only occupy someone who opts to be prepared 
by God's method, of cleansing by the blood of Jesus.  I'm sure you know all 
these, as we've given chapter and verse many times, but I'm happy to look 
them out again!

Meanwhile, there's plenty of spirits around, all eager to convince anyone 
that they're the ultimate, and the way ahead.  But only the LORD Jesus will 
get anyone there...  

So while from the outside it looks as though some of us are a closed 
system, our witness is that we are open to the Author, rather than just to 
any passing spirit.  Like I mentioned Ephesians 4:14 a bit back - 'not to 
be blown about by every wind of teaching...'

								Andrew

| <<< Note 45.194 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" >>>


| This conference 

	Let's start with this Mark. I went back and read Patricia's notes, and
she never confined her comments to THIS FILE. I know I was not doing that
either in the reply you responded to. Read the words written Mark. If you
wonder about something, ask. Please don't assume.

| Trouble is, we all look alike to some people as fundamental Bible thumpers.

	To some, yeah. But then my GUESS would be that those very people have
not taken the time to look at individuals, to look at the words written, but
have just lumped them into one type of people. To me, that is not the right
thing to do with ANYONE.

| The likemindedness you see is awash with varying interpretations.  BUT
| WE DON'T EDIT, CUT, OR PASTE THE BIBLE IN THE SEGMENTS WE'RE COMFY WITH.

	Neither do I Mark. I do discuss what the words mean to me though.

| That is a very disctinct difference.  You either refuse to recognise it,
| or your willful ignorance sets harder each day.

	Or we just have a different interpretation of what certain parts of
Scripture mean. I really think this is the one that best fits.


Glen

| <<< Note 45.195 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>

| Of course I understand that, Glen.  And yes, I understand the necessity of
| being challenged.  But that "be open to be challenged" often turns into
| "don't claim anything is wrong," which isn't a good place to be.

	Paul, I agree with this 100%!


Glen

         <<< Note 45.189 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    The alternative is to isolate oneself with all likemindness people and
>    never have any of one's basic assumptions challenged all the while
>    proclaiming that ones own assumptions are absolute truth and everything
>    else is false.
    
    	There is another side to this, Patricia.  I choose to surround
    	myself with likeminded people to reinforce the truth that I
    	know I would stray from were I to abandon those likeminded 
    	people and instead allow myself to be influenced by counter-
    	truth minds.
    
    	I do this in things other than religious faith too.  I chose to
    	shy away from my friends of my youth when I got married.  We
    	were (and they still are) more interested in selfish pursuits.
    	Most of them are divorced now, and still party like frat brothers,
    	and see me as boring and shackled by marriage.  They have fun,
    	and I could see myself adopting the "truth" of their lifestyle,
    	but I instead choose to "isolate myself" with likeminded couples
    	who have strong marriages, and we appreciate each other for 
    	our examples to and support for each other.
    
    	There is absolutely nothing wrong with isolating ourselves in
    	a common mindset.  It is a mechanism to protect ourselves from
    	the encroachment of non-truth upon our truths.

    SNARF!

    My observation is that there is tremendous disagreement in here on what
    is the truth, but that because people use the same language there are
    those allowed in and allowed to be listened to and then there are those
    who are excluded.  
    
    From my perspective and from the UU perspective, all humans are
    fallible and none have the ability to totally have the truth.  To
    listen and search for the core of everyone's truth gives each of us a
    greater ability to discern the truth.  to begin with the assumption
    that only 1% of the people or 5% or whatever have any knowledge of the
    truth and only listen to that 5% allows for major missed opportunities.
    
    My theology, although liberal is very monotheistic.  I believe that
    there is only one Divine reality and that reality exists independent of
    my ability or anyone else's ability to totally understand it. 
    
    I believe that we can be pointed toward the truth of Divine reality
    from many directions.  
    
    After conversing in here for a while and after arguing and yelling at
    times and listening at times, I understand a whole lot more about
    communications and truth and scripture than I did before.
    
    Having Nancy sent me a note that I had written in answer to one
    question and then having her apply it to another question made me aware
    that anwers really are particular to the question asked and do not
    stand as absolute truth by themselves.  
    
    That knowledge applies to my reading of the book of Corinthians with
    all of its answers to particular questions.  It may be key to why there
    appears to be so many contradictions i Romans.
    
    What is truth?  is really a important questions.
    
    

                   <<< Note 45.193 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Paul, I think what Patricia might mean is if you only stayed around
>those of likemindedness, you would formulate your beliefs. 
    
    	As I mentioned to Patricia, there is another side to this.  One
    	can choose to seek out those of a like mind to find support for
    	a belief that we've already formulated.
    
    	That is the purpose of this conference.  That is why I come here.
    	I come here to find a bible-based Christian gathering and to be 
    	with people who share my point of view and support what I already
    	believe.

                   <<< Note 45.197 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

> Read the words written Mark. 

> look at the words written

> I do discuss what the words mean to me though.

	But this conflicts with what you've written elsewhere:
    
    > But the key is not to look at the words written, but to look at
    > what it meant.  (Soapbox, 56.218)

    
>    My theology, although liberal is very monotheistic.  I believe that
>    there is only one Divine reality and that reality exists independent of
>    my ability or anyone else's ability to totally understand it. 
    
 
     Fortunately our daily lives (apart from spiritual things) aren't conducted
     in such a fashion.  Can you imagine if, say, a carpenter came along and
     decided that he didn't agree with the standard of measurement for inches
     and feet and chose to build by what he felt was his own reality?  Or, if
     a school gave exams and decided to fail a student who achieved 100% on
     an exam because the teacher felt they had a better grip on what the 
     measurement is?   Or, the Boston marthon was run with no finish line?
     "Folks, just run til you feel that you've run enough and we'll let you
     know if you've completed it or not, depending on how we view reality".

     There are absolutes all around us.  We're born, we live, we die.  Life
     around us in the animal world is governed by absolutes.  Why is it so
     hard to accept that there are spiritual absolutes as well.



   >I believe that we can be pointed toward the truth of Divine reality
   > from many directions.  
    

     Of course...and it winds up in one place "I am the way and the truth and
     the life..no man cometh unto the Father but by me".  




     Jim





   

    Hi Jim,

    Maybe I misunderstood, but I thought Patricia was saying that she
    *does believe* there is absolute truth, and the truth is not just 
    relative or subjective, but exists apart from our perceptions,
    but that being limited, fallible human beings, we may sometimes 
    not completely understand the truth, or may make mistakes about what 
    it is.  I can agree with her in this, if what I've restated is what
    she meant.

    Leslie

| <<< Note 45.202 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| As I mentioned to Patricia, there is another side to this. One can choose to 
| seek out those of a like mind to find support for a belief that we've already 
| formulated.

	On this I agree. It's when you ALWAYS do this you cut yourself off from
the rest of the world, which keeps you in a cocoon.

| <<< Note 45.203 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| But this conflicts with what you've written elsewhere:

| > But the key is not to look at the words written, but to look at
| > what it meant.  (Soapbox, 56.218)

	Joe, funny how you conviently left off the part that said if you have
questions, ask. That would take care of the above. 


Glen

    Leslie,
    
    What you stated is exactly what I meant.
    
                                 Patricia

  re .208



 My apologies for misunderstanding.




 Jim

    Andrew,
    
    I approach the question from my perspective.  I am a person with my own 
    set of strengths and weeknesses.  Reading all the arguments about
    nurture and nature it is not clear why I have the strengths and
    weaknesses I do but I am getting pretty good at recognizing them.
    
    I do accept that my strengths are gifts.  One of my biggest strengths
    is my intelligience and since I did nothing to be born and/or raised 
    intelligient, it is a gift.  I thank God for that gift.  I have a
    responsibility to God to use that gift to the best of my ability to
    bring about the kingdom of God on Earth.
    
    Anything that helps me do that is good.  Anything that distracts me
    from doing that(using my gift to do my part) is sinful.  That approach
    informs my definition of equality and my definition of feminism.  I do
    not feel called to be a full time homemaker, and I have made the active
    choice not to become one.  I am feeling called to continue in Theology
    School and become a minister, a writer, or a pastoral counsellor.  It
    is not clear to me, where I will be lead.  I don't fully understand the
    forces that are influencing me, but I trust them, and follow them. 
    
    I have been amazed at rediscovering the Bible, how much inspiration is
    in there.  I don't read it trying to harmonize the various books but I
    let paradox be paradox.  I'm rereading Mark right now and I love the
    book of Mark.  It is not the same a Matthew and it is not the same as
    Luke, and it is certainly not the same as John.
    
    I have been taught to let the individual book speak for itself.  Not
    try to read Mark through the eyes of Matthew etc.  For instance if in
    the book of Mark, let the annointing of Jesus be the annointing of
    Jesus' head.  Don't try to reconcile it with the other accounts or
    similiar accounts.  Find the truth in each of the books without
    worrying about what I call paradox and you call apparent
    contradictions.  There may be a truth in mark that is different than a
    truth in Matthew, but there is a Truth that is best comprehended in
    light of the truths of all the books.  That is my approach.
    
    As a feminist, I find amazing inspiration in the person and work of
    Jesus of Nazareth.  For the most part I find amazing inspiration in the
    person and work attributed to Paul.
    
    There are however a handful of passages that are appalling.  What is
    the truth of those passages.  passages like women should shut up in
    church and slaves should obey their masters, and if women have a
    question they should go home and ask their husbands.  there may be some
    cultural truth in these statements in that the statements accurately
    reflect the culture of the time.  God's truth however is not directly
    revealed in those statements.  Perhaps they are warning lights to
    remind us that truth is not so easy to extract from the texts.
    
    I am convinced for instance that when Paul in 1 Corinthians said that
    women should be silient in church, he was speaking out of anger and
    relying upon common cultural messages, just as if a minister where to
    tell Leslie that she throws a ball like a girl.  We also know from
    Corinthians that Paul had enourmous respect for Priscilla, who I call a
    apostle and who I expect did a lot of speaking in church.  What is
    God's truth behind those two contrasting messages.
    
    We do know for sure that the Wisdom of God is not easy to discern. 
    So the question, what is truth, is a good question.
    
                                      Patricia

    	re .206
    
    	And why is being in that cocoon really so bad?  

Humans are fallible.  The Bible is not.

The Bible contains the whole Truth.

| <<< Note 45.211 by USDEV::LEVASSEUR "John_BigbooTAY@planet10.yoyodyne.com" >>>



| Funny how some times when Christians clumps together, "well look at'em goody 
| two shoes over there!" If they stay in a Christian ghetto, they get labeled, 
| if they come out to share what they believe to be TRUTH, then they are labeled
| as ingnorant, outmoded and hate mongers. Thye're sorta damned if they do or 
| don't by society.

	I see this happening from time to time, and I think it is wrong. Most
Christians I have talked to agree that the vocal minority that are exactly what
you have stated above IS what sticks in middle Americas minds. But I have
started to see more and more people see Christians as individuals. The more
this happens, the less we will see/hear of what you wrote above Ray.

| It is ok TODAY, for Christians to come out of the closet, so long as they do 
| not start with the ABSOLUTE and JESUS IS THE ONLY WAY, but then as Christians 
| that's what we believe, gee whizzo, a bit of a paradox.

	Ray, I think HOW one does this will determine if what you say is true.
I have had many conversations with Christians who have stated just what you did
above, but have done so in a way that made me, and others, want to listen. But
then I have seen people like a friend of mine once who went away for a weekend
for one of those in the spirit meetings come back to work and tell everyone
they will die unless they turn their lives over to Jesus. That he only spoke of
the horrible stuff that will happen to them if they don't make the switch, not
anything about what He could do for them. So you can see that presentation will
determine how one accepts the words spoken. Of course in both cases I
mentioned, it doesn't mean that the words spoken weren't the truth, just how
they were spoken either turned someone on/off.


Glen

| <<< Note 45.213 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| And why is being in that cocoon really so bad?

	If one wants to be like Jesus, if one wants to spread His message, how
can one live in a cocoon?


Glen

Ray,
  You have made my departure a whole lot more brighter.  In fact, I'm
ending my participation in this string with your note.  Thank you very much.

Mark

    Mark,
    
    Even those who do accept that the Bible contains the "Whole Truth"
    cannot rely upon there own ability to extract the "Whole Truth" from
    the book.
    
    When I say that based on the Bible, God offers salvation to all people
    and all people will ultimately accept it,   I get beat up for it even
    when I try to show exactly where the Bible says this.
    
    Some say that God offers salvation to all people and only some accept and
    some do not.  This is a tolerated view in here.
    
    Some say the diametrical opposite.  God offers salvation only to a
    limited number of people and everyone God offers it to is saved.
    That is another tolerated view in here.
    
    Which of the three is the truth!
    How do you know?
    Why is there such divergence of opinion?
    
                                     Patricia
                                         Patricia

Ray,

I liked your note very much, thanks.

Leslie

                   <<< Note 45.217 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| And why is being in that cocoon really so bad?
>
>	If one wants to be like Jesus, if one wants to spread His message, how
> can one live in a cocoon?

	First of all, drop the "be like Jesus" stuff.  You bring this up
    	frequently, and you speak as if you are some kind of authority
    	on it.  It's old.  It's tired.  And coming from you in particular,
    	I find it insulting.
    
    	Secondly, how can you even begin to equate spreading Jesus' word
    	with allowing oneself to be exposed to truth-corrupting influences?
    	Satan would like nothing better than for us all to adopt that
    	philosophy.

 re .219 first paragraph.




Romans 10:14  How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed? 
and how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard? and how shall 
they hear without a preacher? 

| <<< Note 45.221 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >	If one wants to be like Jesus, if one wants to spread His message, how
| > can one live in a cocoon?

| First of all, drop the "be like Jesus" stuff.  

	Then I take it you do not want to be like Him? I highly doubt that Joe.

| You bring this up frequently, and you speak as if you are some kind of 
| authority on it.  

	The 1st part of what you wrote is true. The 2nd part of whay you wrote
is your own perception, not mine. It is a false statement. The only one who
has some kind of authority on it is Jesus Himself. All we can do is strive to
be like Him. 

| It's old. It's tired. And coming from you in particular,

	Thank you Joe for providing another example that the words aren't read
by some, just assumptions made on the person.

| I find it insulting.

	There isn't anything I can do about your own contrived perceptions. I
suppose if you looked at the words written, it would help.

| Secondly, how can you even begin to equate spreading Jesus' word with allowing
| oneself to be exposed to truth-corrupting influences?

	Joe, again, you have provided yet another example that some take the
words, and equate them back to me. If they had read the words, they would
clearly see what was being talked about. You asked what would be wrong with
being in a cacoon. I answered. You took the answer and made it into a "Glen"
thing, instead of just reading the words written and made it into an anybody
thing. (which is the meaning behind it)

| Satan would like nothing better than for us all to adopt that philosophy.

	Making false statements is something Satan likes to see as well Joe.
And you have made several in this note.



Glen

RE:         <<< Note 45.212 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

Hi Pat, (is Pat okay or do you prefer Patricia?)

Although your note was in response to Andrew (who so often blows me away with
his wonderfully perceptive and lovingly truthful and balanced notes), there 
were a couple of items in your note to which I'm responding.

>    I have been amazed at rediscovering the Bible, how much inspiration is
>    in there.  I don't read it trying to harmonize the various books but I
>    let paradox be paradox.  I'm rereading Mark right now and I love the
>    book of Mark.  It is not the same a Matthew and it is not the same as
>    Luke, and it is certainly not the same as John.

>    I have been taught to let the individual book speak for itself.  Not
>    try to read Mark through the eyes of Matthew etc.  For instance if in
>    the book of Mark, let the annointing of Jesus be the annointing of
>    Jesus' head.  Don't try to reconcile it with the other accounts or
>    similiar accounts.  Find the truth in each of the books without
>    worrying about what I call paradox and you call apparent
>    contradictions.  There may be a truth in mark that is different than a
>    truth in Matthew, but there is a Truth that is best comprehended in
>    light of the truths of all the books.  That is my approach.

I find the Word of God very inspiring as well.  Every reading tends to 
uncover fresh insight about my indentity in Yeshua & how I ought to behave
as a human being!  Most of that insight is pretty humbling too!

There is something to be said for reading each book as a single entity.  
Paying attention to whom the writer's original audience was, and why the 
writer was writing that particular book helps us to understand it too.
I agree that one can gain much from confining oneself to the book in question,
but I find that the more I read, and put all the writings together, the 
deeper my understanding and *awe* of God grows.  More and more, I am
seeing the Bible as an integrated whole even though written over many years by
many different people.  Something written in one passage brings illumination
to something I was less clear on in another passage.  What's been really
exciting for me is to begin really grasping how the "old" and "new" testaments
are continuous in their revelation.
    
>    As a feminist, I find amazing inspiration in the person and work of
>    Jesus of Nazareth.  For the most part I find amazing inspiration in the
>    person and work attributed to Paul.
    
>    There are however a handful of passages that are appalling.  What is
>    the truth of those passages.  passages like women should shut up in
>    church and slaves should obey their masters, and if women have a
>    question they should go home and ask their husbands.  there may be some
>    cultural truth in these statements in that the statements accurately
>    reflect the culture of the time.  God's truth however is not directly
>    revealed in those statements.  Perhaps they are warning lights to
>    remind us that truth is not so easy to extract from the texts.
    
>    I am convinced for instance that when Paul in 1 Corinthians said that
>    women should be silient in church, he was speaking out of anger and
>    relying upon common cultural messages, just as if a minister where to
>    tell Leslie that she throws a ball like a girl.  We also know from
>    Corinthians that Paul had enourmous respect for Priscilla, who I call a
>    apostle and who I expect did a lot of speaking in church.  What is
>    God's truth behind those two contrasting messages.
    
   I think Paul gets a kind of a bad rap over this stuff, in part because 
   of the cultural bias that's been used to translate, interpret, and 
   understand what he wrote.  I've been finding it very helpful to begin
   using interlinear Bibles (Greek & Hebrew) along with a good dictionary/
   lexicon to dig a little deeper into the passages, plus, as you say,
   to look at how he responds to women in the ministry along side of him -
   such as Priscilla.  And I've gotten some valuable insight from reading
   other Biblical scholarship material as well.  For me, comparing Paul's
   statements about women in some of his letters with some of the women 
   visible on the pages of the N.T. and his relationship with them begs the 
   question: was Paul schizo when it came to women, or have his words been 
   misappropriated?  I don't think he was schizo and I don't think he was 
   anti-women.  

   Anyway, what topic is this?  Its probably time for me to leave the notes
   file & check on my compile.  This weekend I'll try to write something on 
   the woman-should-be-silent passage over in either the woman or the 
   patriarchy note.

   Leslie

   PS.  :-) Happily, it wasn't a minister who told me I threw the softball like
        a girl, just a guy about my age (I was 21 or 22 when the incident 
        happened).

    	Sigh...

| <<< Note 45.225 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


| Sigh...


	Nice to see the diversion Joe. 

 Gentlemen, please...this is not SOAPBOX.  Is it too much to ask that this
 back and forth between Glen/Joe (which adds little to the discussion) be 
 taken to mail or elsewhere?




 Jim

	Ray, it struck me as funny that you say ya don't watch tv, but mention
Models Inc. That's a new show! :-)

	Ray, if you don't watch tv, how do you know there are 100 shows?? :-)

    Ray,
    
    I am sorry that your religious beliefs were not valued in the gathering
    to which you were a part.
    
                                     Patricia

errrr ray.... it was a joke son.... a joke I tell ya!

 Ray, I've enjoyed your recent entries...thank you for them.





Jim

      Hi Ray,
    
        Let me second what Jim said.  God BLESS you brother and
        "shine on you crazy diamond!"  Oops, I guess I used to
        listen to worldly music at one time!
    
        Good stuff Ray!
    
    						Tony

      Hi Patricia,
    
        I know this is off the topic a bit, but I want to make my
        own comments to the first set of text Leslie cited from 
        one of your replies.
    
        The following depends on my own belief that the book of
        Isaiah is inspired.  Isaiah 28 says that the way to dig for
        truth is to do a line upon line, precept upon precept, here 
        a little there a little study of the scriptures.
    
        I have found by far most of my insights NOT by compartment-
        alizing scripture into separate books (as in, "Hmmm, what does
        Matthew say...what does Luke say...what does Hosea say...etc.),
        but rather by approaching it precisely as Isaiah 28 instructs 
        us to approach it.
    
        The extent to which wisdom can be found is suppressed by a
        compartmentalized manner of studying scripture.  It will be 
        impossible to find some of the deeper nuggets of truth.
    
        Just Isaiah 28's 0.02 cents worth...
    
    						God Bless,
    
    						Tony

    
    <----- :^))

 :-)


 FWIW, I listen to worldly music at times (though I've restricted myself
 somewhat) love Woody Allen movies and Monty Python and MST3000!




 Jim

    
    MST3K is the only TV there is.
    

 Won't argue with you there




 Jim

    Don't even know what Mst???? is.

      Hi Ray,
    
        Actually, I listen to some worldly music too.  But, Pink
        Floyd (from which I quoted from) is too worldly for me!!
    
        I guess I feel a little weird throwing nonChristian stuff
        on, but once in a blue moon I might put on 'Tea for The
        Tillerman.'
    
        One thing I find to be agreeable to almost everybody is
        Peanuts music.  Vincent Gieraldi Trio.  That Charly Brown
        background music is appealing!!
    
        Its great hearing from you Ray.
    
    						Tony

 I'll listen to jazz and classical, some rock and folk.  I like acoustic
 guitar music and bluegrass.  I don't make a steady diet of it.  I just love
 music, almost any kind.


 MST=Mystery Science Theatre.  Its on Comedy Central and usually has some
 old corny monster movie with 3 guys (well 2 robots and a guy) throwing in
 their own dialogue.  Some of them are hilarious.




 Jim

Nancy,

>    Don't even know what Mst???? is.

	I'm with you - so to speak. Hey guys, "huh!?"

	(must be some weird Murikan teevee show - oh, hang on, Nancy's one of
them, hmmm - must be sumpthin' else ;')

	h :*]

	MST3K does hav its moments.  We don't have cable; I've seen some
episodes on borrowed tapes.  You Aussies probably use PAL-format tapes,
not VHS-format, right?

We use VHS format - I believe it is the same as that of the UK....


Chele

	If you use VHS-NTSC, then you're compatible with the USA.
If it's PAL (don't know if it's called VHS-PAL), then you're compatible
with the UK.  PAL is apparently a slower scan rate, I believe 50 fields
per second (interlaced), versus 60 fields per second (interlaced) for
NTSC.  I believe it may have been originally derived from the frequency
of the standard AC power for each country (50 Hz or 60 Hz).

I hope this doesn't offend anyone but <duh>?

elehC

Wow!,
	techno-babble!

	As I understand this stuff (and I admit that the following is probably
wrong, but the gist is sorta correct)

	VHS - a de facto standard created by the JVC (I think) with
	      a different tape path cassette size to the competing
	      Beta (Sony) and (?anybody remember) by Philips

	NTSC - Never Twice the Same Colour - the Murikan TV transmission
	       standard

	PAL - Phase Alternating Line (Aust uses the '-D' variant "Delay")
	      Europeand (and Australian) standard for TV Transmission

	SECAM - (no idea) - the Japanese TV transmission standard


	An NTSC-VHS cassette will 'go into' a PAL-VHS VCR - but you won;t get a
picture - the encoding is different - you may (or may not) get sound.

	Any other combinations will have varying degrees of success - e.g.
VHS-PAL in a VHS-PAL-D (i.e. Australian) VCR will (probably) work fine, but
going VHS-PAL-D tape in a (UK) VHS-PAL machine will give picture, but no sound
(probably).

	As for SECAM - who knows?


	There's nothing like "Standards" - and these are nothing like standards!

	Makes it difficult to send tapes to people OS (cost ~$Aus80 to convert 1
tape from PAL-D to NTSC)

	hazza :*]

The difference between PAL-D and PAL appears only on the air; tapes are
identical.

/john

    
    If you desire more information on MST3K (Mystery Science Theater
    3000) there is a conference at BOOKIE::MST3K.
    
    

Patricia,

I want to reply to .189 (and your note 706 too), but when I can give it due
time!  I've got deadlines for a couple of weeks which mean I haven't much
spare.  Others have made good input there,  but I hope to be back! 

								Andrew

	Ray,
	
	Stop it.  Stop it right now.  I just choked on a piece of lily
	white rice from laughing at your notes.

	No more funny stuff allowed!

	;-)

	Karen

	PS - It is so *good* to see you here!!! 

    Still giving aria lessons to pork, eh Markem?
    
    8^{)

    Markem is gone Brian!!! He's no longer with us. :-(  But Welcome BACK!

    
    Brian?!  Where have you been and why are you back?
    
    jeff

>    Brian?!  Where have you been and why are you back?

	Why does *anyone* come back?

	Nice people, great fellowship, nice people and an opportunity to Praise
God! (oh, and the nice people too)

	It is wonderful to see you here Brian,

						In Him who is Lord,

								    Harry