Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Jay,
    
    FWIW, I agree with you.  I believe that good discussion even if
    strugglesome can have benefit.  However, I draw the line at personal
    insult as per the polices and procedures of this company.
    
    This is not the internet and the freedom there is definitely
    different..but remember with freedom comes responsibility.  Those who
    abuse freedom lose it.  And I think we are beginning to see how the
    internet exposes the debasedness of human nature at its best.
    
    Unfortunately, the policy that was posted .0 of 775 does not come with
    written instructions on its implementations.  And the moderators have
    an obligation to err on the side of conservatism.  Let us struggle
    amongst ourselves with this and not be so quick to criticize and accuse
    before we've even had chance to meld our work schedules together and
    discuss.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

      Hi Jay,
    
        Its just one of those weird things, huh?  I mean, I can 
        understand why it was done, but lets face it...
    
        if there was a 'Christian Conference' during the time of
        Christ (Christian = the church at that day), Jesus would
        have gotten write-locked mighty fast!
    
        "Your house is left unto you desolate"  Calling the pharisees
        hypocrites and dead man's bones.
    
        Just one of those things I guess.
    
    						Tony

    
    I'm really tired of people crying censorship.  I hardly think
    that the MODs introducing a breather in a conversation so that 
    people can calm down and stop insulting each other as censorship.
    This is not a ban of thoughts...it's a temporary break from it
    while the MODs talk to those involved.  Instead of complaining about 
    censorship, I feel people need to take responsibility for themselves
    to not allow themselves to egg on the unhealthy bantering that is 
    very apparent.  Sure, there is topics that we all skip passed, but 
    when the majority here have to hit NEXT UNSEEN close to 90% of the 
    time, something is wrong.  It gets old.  The reality this isn't
    the internet, this is DEC, and there are policies.  This is not a
    completely free environment where we can do whatever we want.  There
    are rules and when people step outside the rules, I think a breather
    and a reminder of the rules are in order.  I haven't seen any of
    the breathers as shutting any one person or one view down, but rather
    as giving all sides the time to cool off and think about the effects
    they are having on others.  We have a choice here!  We do this for
    ourselves before we enter a note or we cross the line and someone
    else does it for us.  We're adults, we understand rules, we understand
    that words have the potential to hurt or heal.  Lets make some better
    choices.
    

 Thank you, Jill

    On the other hand, there are conferences already dedicated to various
    faiths where their members can go without getting "bashed."  Maybe
    those feeling threatened should stay where they feel comfortable and
    let us have our conference back.  You can't have your cake and eat it
    too across all faiths.
    
    Mike

>        if there was a 'Christian Conference' during the time of
>        Christ (Christian = the church at that day), Jesus would
>        have gotten write-locked mighty fast!
>    
>        "Your house is left unto you desolate"  Calling the pharisees
>        hypocrites and dead man's bones.
    
    Amen, Tony!  I recently read that tombs in those days were painted
    white to signify there was a decaying/decomposing corpse inside.  This
    was to protect people from defilement and also getting ill from the
    odor.
    
    Couple that with Jesus calling the Pharisees "White-washed tombs!"  No
    wonder they were always so angry with Christ.  He didn't pull any
    punches with them!
    
    Mike

    
    Hmmm...last time I checked Jay...none of us are able to write to a
    write-locked note until the mods take the lock off.  Therefore, no
    single persons thoughts are being censored.  In perspective, it's
    a cool off time for everyone.
    
    Jilla

 Can we *please* cool it while the moderators attempt to work this?




 Thank you.



 Jim Co Mod

| <<< Note 776.7 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| On the other hand, there are conferences already dedicated to various faiths 
| where their members can go without getting "bashed."  

	Can you say that about CP? I don't seriously think you can. The bashing
gets done by members of this file. That was why the conference was started in
the 1st place, so people could share their perspectives.



Glen

    Glen, why don't you read what he wrote, its very clear.
    
    There are conferences for denominational participation, period.
    
    

    Speaking of cool-off time, I remembered other topics where we discussed
    how to discuss issues in this notes file, and I went back to look for
    them.  This seems an appropriate place and time to re-state some of things
    said earler, so I'm including extracts from notes 713.52,  713.53, 751.21,
    and 751.38.  The first 3 are my notes, the last is Harry's.
                                      ~~~~~~~
>    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?
                                      ~~~~~~~~
>    I think that in a heated exchange everyone should write their note 
>    offline, store it away, and re-read it several hours later or the next 
>    day while asking themselves these questions:

>   1) is this a personal attack or slander on anyone?
>   2) does this further explain or defend my viewpoint in a helpful way?
>   3) have I already said the same thing xxx times already?
>   4) what was my objective when I wrote this note?  Was my objective one
>         God would approve of?
>   5) would I be hurt if this note were written to me?
>   6) does this note contain flamatory, belittling, sarcastic, angry, or
         mean statements or rhetoric?  If so, can I say what I need to say 
         differently?

>   Then decide if you really want to put it in as is, edit it, or just delete
>   it and move on.
                                      ~~~~~~~~~
In addition, as Harry mentioned each person who is commited to this notes 
file can:

>            - pray regularly for all the conference participants
>            - pray regularly for the conference Moderators in their duties
>            - participate in a positive manner in the conference
>            - participate in a way that is Glorifying to God
>            - participate in a regular manner
>            - be willing to enter into the controversies in a Loving manner
>            - be sure to promote peace and shed light, rather than obfuscate
>            - [deleted]
                                       ~~~~~~~~~~~
Finally, from a Jewish newsletter, I include the following guidelines about
speech.  Although they may sound exceedingly hard & difficult to put into
practice, I think many passages from the Bible, from Leviticus & Deuteronomy 
to Proverbs to some of the letters in the New Testament such as James (Yaacov)
and others, back these up.

>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.

Leslie

      Hi Nance,
    
        Not to say you imply this, but this Conference is not
        characterized by denominationalism, is it?
    
        I mean, it ought be characterized by people who truly
        believe in its guidelines and want to champion the 
        scriptures and abide by them - even though understanding
        it differently for we all look through the glass darkly.
    
        It just scares me a little when denominationalism is
        mentioned - like it suggests that the wrong thing is
        being championed.
    
        Not that you meant this, but it could be taken that way.
    
        Only I know you better!    ;-)
    
    						Tony
                                                                

    May I suggest something?

    Let's all sit down, quietly and prayerfully, and re-read the first
    couple of entries in topic 2.

    I remember quite vividly working over those entries a while back, and
    at no time was there *any* suggestion that we were to be
    'denominational'.

    I must admit, though, that there is a definite 'Evangelical' bias in
    those entries, and that shows up in many of the participants here
    (myself included).

    But that in no way invalidates the participation of those from a
    non-Evangelical background from participating!

    The basis of this conference was deliberately phrased to be constrained
    (as best we - the Mods of the time - could ) by what CS Lewis called
    'Mere Christianity'. Now, I admit to being human, and I probably got it
    wrong in some points, but on the whole, I think it is reasonably
    'balanced' (to steal a word from Steve McConnell).

    I pray that the Lord will work in each of our hearts (mine especially)
    and draw us together in the areas where we share unity - the Diety of
    Jesus, The Virgin Birth, His Manhood, His Vicarious Atonement, His
    Death, His bodily Resurrection, Ascention, His being seated at the
    Right Hand of God the Father, and His Immanent Return.

    There is more, but that is available in 2.0 and 2.1.

    Read them for yourselves, pray about it.

    May the Lord Bless you in this task,

					Harry

    Like it was said, there are places where people can go and not worried
    about being offended in the event that their beliefs do not align with
    the clear teaching of God's Word.  There was nothing said in here from
    what I could see that cannot be proven by historical documents, church 
    documents, and the Bible.
    
    Mike

There is also no need for anyone to come in here and post *false* and
*misleading* claims about doctrines of churches to which they do not
belong.

/john

 I really don't want to write lock another topic, folks, but we've asked
 that we please cool it while we try and get this worked out.  Is that too
 difficult to understand?




 Jim

| <<< Note 776.14 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Glen, why don't you read what he wrote, its very clear.
| There are conferences for denominational participation, period.

	Nancy, based on what your saying, I get the impression that Catholic's
are not Christians. You want people to go to their own conferences so they
won't get bashed. Why can't they be here to discuss their faiths? A Christian
should be able to discuss their faith in here without being bashed. A Christian
should not have to go to a conference that is based on their faith as the only
out for not getting bashed. 



Glen

	Tony, I think we're thinking alike on this. I guess that will mean you
should change your mind... ;-)


Glen

    Glen,
    
    Actually that is a very good question.  I think however, that you tend
    to assume a bit too much when asking your question though.  Your
    tendency to make accusations whilst asking a question really makes your
    question seem insincere.  [that was a freebie]
    
    Now to answer your question and your accusation;
      This conference is based on the Bible, the inerrant word of God. 
    It has made a statement of faith but has not identified itself with any
    denomination.   However, people of particular denominations find
    themselves noting in here and often times find their "doctrine" being
    challenged.  Catholicism is no exception.  I guess you could say that
    regardless of the "denomination" almost all doctrinal stances of one
    faith or another have been challenged in this conference. Why even my
    own.
    
    The question is do we give catholics a higher status than all other
    doctrine?  
    
    

    Brothers and sisters
    
    It's time to really think and examine ourselves honestly before God.
    It's time to drop our denominational pride and defences and allow God
    to show us how we are behaving here. It's true we need to defend our
    faith, but at what cost??? Please submit to the authorities here (as is
    commanded in Gods word) so that they can prayerfully find a solution to
    this situation. Please pray for this conference and the witness we have
    here to the unsaved. Please remember that love covers over a multitude
    of sins. Please pray that the MODs may have Godly wisdom. Ask God what
    your responsibiliy is here. This is not the time to be a bunch of
    moaners/stiff-necked/whingers/rebellious - this is a time to show true
    love and support for each other (after all we've got to put up with
    each other for eternity haven't we!!)
    
    If any of my notes have caused offence or hurt to anyone I ask you
    forgiveness - it has not been intentional.
    
    To those who are not christians I ask you to respect our faith, to show
    patience whilst we work this through and to please keep in touch 'cos
    hopefully you'll soon start to see the real love of Christ in this
    place and realise that beneath the (sometimes heavy-handed) debates
    there is a wonderful faith and life that can truly meet all your needs.
    
    Love
    Ben
    
                   

| <<< Note 776.23 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Actually that is a very good question. I think however, that you tend to 
| assume a bit too much when asking your question though. Your tendency to make 
| accusations whilst asking a question really makes your question seem insincere

	Gee Nancy, here I thought it was honesty. I explain how I took it, and
ask if that was what you meant. By doing so you know exactly where I am coming
from, and then you can either agree, or show me where I was wrong. There are
zero games being played this way because you know why I am asking the question
up front. 

	Also, in order for it to be an accusation, I would have to tell you
this is how it is (which I don't like seeing this happen), not ask if that was 
what you meant. So I believe your statement should be readdressed. 

| Now to answer your question and your accusation;

	Question, yes, accusation, no. Btw.... I did notice even though Tony
shared the same view as I, you never claimed he was making an accusation. I
wonder why.....

| The question is do we give catholics a higher status than all other doctrine?

	You have your own views, based on your beliefs, just what Christianity
is all about. Others also have their beliefs. If people who believe that the
Word of God is their guide, then a discussion of the different interpretations,
denomination doctrines, etc, should be able to take place. It shouldn't be any
denomination given higher status than the other, as the denomination part of it
is not nearly as important as knowing Him, trying to be like Him, having Him
use you, etc. ALL of those things are important. It shouldn't come down to
either bash a denomination or give them a higher status.

	What I have found with this conference is that a lot of times one can
not have a discussion about differences. Just arguments. Maybe that is part of
the problem?



Glen

| <<< Note 776.26 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>

| Good observation there, Glen.  The reason for that, I believe is not
| [just;-] that we're an awkward bunch, but that the focus of the conference
| is on the very things that matter most to each of us.  It's because they
| so are central to the reason for our existance, that folks can be very
| sensitive to any suggestion that they've got it wrong to any degree.

	But no one says one has to change their belief to equal that of
another. I think everyone agrees that it isn't likely two individuals can have
the EXACT same beliefs. That would run from Christian to Christian, to each
member of a certain denomination. Yet we can't seem to get to the point where
discussions of this can happen without madness.

| We have to consider carefully whether it's the LORD we're defending, or the
| our own position.  This can often be hard for the individual to differentiate.

	Agreed. Of course I think a lot of the arguments would go away if
people did not tell what another meant, but ask.

| There is another side to this, however, which is that there is a central
| core which is immutable.  Areas of Christian witness to the essentials of
| God, and of salvation which the Bible makes clear.  When these are attacked, 
| we need to be able to demonstrate and uphold the foundations of the faith - 
| to explain the reason for our confidence in the LORD.

	Christian witness consists of what..... Christians? We are all unique,
so our witness will be as well. And I think because of this difference, we're
able to reach those that may not like a particular style (style as in
presentation), etc. Of course that is just my humble opinion. :-)

| Everyone has a different idea of where these precise limits lie.

	Agreed. But again, no one says another has to change their own belief.

| The purpose of this conference is that we should all be able to share in
| our faith, inasmuch as it is based upon the Bible (as per the guidelines).
| There are other denomination-specific conferences, as has been mentioned,
| where people can share in more depth on very particular interpretational
| views, and where there isn't one to suit a view, it cn be started.  

	But sometimes they do cross over each other. Do you not discuss them,
thus closing out certain people? I'm not sure that is really doing God's plan
or not. What do you think?



Glen

Hi Glen, 

The significant point that should enable us to differentiate, between
essentials and detail is the Holy Spirit within the believer.  Generally,
Christians have a large central area of agreement where He witnesses
within.  That is why our individual differences - and individuality -
only enrich the family of God, rather than dividing it.  One problem is
that we tend to focus more on the boundaries of the faith rather than on
the heart, because we all (think we) know it so well. 

In a lot of denominational issues that have been discussed, it has been 
recognised that these issues are not at the heart of the faith, and can be 
discussed dispassionately.  For instance, forms of church government, which 
denominations can be very strict about, yet we here can see and share
different emphases from scripture.  Similarly with how different churches 
view divorce and remarriage, which is a very sensitive subject for many 
folk.  But no-one here has been excommunicated for their beliefs, because 
we're all working from trying to understand what the scriptures say about 
the subject.

There is a problem when some groups are perceived as going outside the 
scriptural limits in ways which change the essentials of the faith.  The 
closer any group is to the general basis, the more difficult such exceptions 
become, because while the difference externally looks trivial, from inside, 
it looks important because of the particular area it affects.  Those sort 
of differences are always going to cause maximum friction - and not only in 
this conference!

Each of us can only operate within the degree of revelation that God gives
us.  Where these conflict, it is liable to take a long time, and be 
potentially very deep reaching before any move in perspective occurs.

I do not believe that a conference, like this, is a practical medium for 
resolving differences which are heald very dearly and deeply.  The reason 
for this is that this involves a moving of the Spirit within, typically 
needing a perception of the Spirit within each other in dialogue.  This 
needs as full a communication as possible, rather than just words, with no 
personaluity or tone.  However, this medium is fine for sharing in 
non-contraversial discussions.  And even given the communication limits, to 
make this a place where we can share in fellowship, we do need to maintain 
the sanctity of the Word, as indicated in the guidelines, suporting the 
basis of the faith.

I don't know if I'm answering you, or woffling, so I'll stop!

								Andrew

>The significant point that should enable us to differentiate, between
>essentials and detail is the Holy Spirit within the believer.

No, within the Church.  Not the individual.

The Bible specifically says that the gates of hell will not prevail against
the Church.  It does not provide that assurance to personal interpretations
by individual members.

/john

Lets not start it here, John!  I'm not making a point of individual 
authority here, but of Holy Spirit authority, as our source (and the source 
for the church, collective).

							Andrew

    Glen,
    
    It is getting rather tiring of your constant interation that you are
    being picked on by me.  I discovered long ago that there is no such
    thing as a progressive discussion between us, therefore, I stopped
    answering your questions for they lead nowhere.  I made an exception
    this time and answered you.  And as usual you didn't listen to me, you
    only continued with more veiled accusations i.e., you always pick on
    me.
    
    But once again, I will answer your question regarding why I didn't
    respond to Tony.  Because he didn't directly ask *me* a question.  You
    did.
    
    Nancy

| <<< Note 776.28 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>



| One problem is that we tend to focus more on the boundaries of the faith 
| rather than on the heart, because we all (think we) know it so well.

	I couldn't agree more!

| But no-one here has been excommunicated for their beliefs, because we're all 
| working from trying to understand what the scriptures say about the subject.

	I think you're wrong about this Andrew. Maybe not the words spoken, but
the end results are the same. I say this because people are told to go to their
own denomination notesfiles to discuss things so they don't get bashed.



Glen

Maybe I worded that badly.  I meant that even where people need to share
their denominationally specific discussions in their own conference, they
can still discuss the general basics of Christianity here. 

							Andrew

| <<< Note 776.31 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| It is getting rather tiring of your constant interation that you are being 
| picked on by me.  

	Nancy, if it is any help, I think it has more to do with the file. It's
the messenger, not the message that gets looked at. Others have noticed this
too.

| I discovered long ago that there is no such thing as a progressive discussion
| between us, therefore, I stopped answering your questions for they lead 
| nowhere.  

	I'm glad Jesus doesn't think that way.

| But once again, I will answer your question regarding why I didn't respond to 
| Tony. Because he didn't directly ask *me* a question. You did.

	You might want to reread his note Nancy. The very first sentence asks
you a question. The same general question I did. Hmmmm......


Glen

| <<< Note 776.33 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>

| Maybe I worded that badly. I meant that even where people need to share their 
| denominationally specific discussions in their own conference, they can still 
| discuss the general basics of Christianity here.

	They will intersect each other from time to time. I think when they do,
we have conflict.


Glen

    Glen,
    
    Why don't you re-read Tony's note.  He didn't ask a question at all, he
    made an observation and then ended with I *know* that is not what you
    meant.
    
    You made your observation into an accusation and then asked.  Big
    difference in both approach, style and ability to communicate.
    
    I am also glad that Jesus understands the heart content whereas I don't
    Glen.  I've said this now at least 2 others times to you, but I guess I
    must say it again.  "I don't know the heart content of anyone but
    myself", therefore, I cannot continue in a discussion where it is not
    clear to me what is being asked, and what is being subtly accused.
    
    I find your notes extremely frustrating, inflammatory and
    unchallenging.  They tend to be more of a pick-a-part-a-noter then
    actually struggling for understanding.
    
    I'm sorry I even attempted to answer the question you asked, see the
    circular discussion that has already begun.  You asked a question, I
    answered, you took  my answer and then picked it apart.
    
    What's the point of continuing, cause you'll just do the same with this
    response.
    
    I've got better things to do with my time, and I truly believe if you
    think about it, so do you.
    
    God Bless You, 
    Nancy

    Glen,
    
    You use the term bashing as though it is a drawn conclusion that
    bashing has occurred.  I'd just like to point out that this is your
    opinion and not a concensus of the moderatorship at this given time.
    
    Stay tuned.

| <<< Note 776.36 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Why don't you re-read Tony's note. He didn't ask a question at all, he made an
| observation and then ended with I *know* that is not what you meant.

	Nancy, maybe we aren't looking at the same note. I am refering to note
.16 of this string. He asks a question, he gives his view of how he believes it
should be, and ends it with stating he isn't trying to put words into your
mouth (like your view was like his question)

| You made your observation into an accusation and then asked.  

	I see we're back to telling me why I do what I do. You are wrong. I
made an observation. I stated the observation. I then asked if that was what
you meant. If I didn't ask if that was what you meant, then you could say I was
making an accusation. While you may not like it, I think the honesty approach
that I use, letting you know exactly how I took it, is a good approach. Why do
I feel this way? I would rather you know how I took something in hopes of
spending fewer notes to clear up what was said. It also shows you that I am not
playing any games, but expressing things up front and honestly. No accusation
has been made. The only thing that can be said is that an observation has been
made. Anything else would be uninformed, or an out right lie. 

| I am also glad that Jesus understands the heart content whereas I don't Glen. 
| I've said this now at least 2 others times to you, but I guess I must say it 
| again.  "I don't know the heart content of anyone but myself", 

	Then how in the world can you honestly say that I took an observation
and turned it into an accusation? The ONLY way you can SAY that, is if you knew
what was going on in my heart.... at which point you would have realized that
the statement should not have been made in the first place.

| therefore, I cannot continue in a discussion where it is not clear to me what 
| is being asked, 

	I believe asking questions would be appropriate.

| and what is being subtly accused.

	Again, how can you justify the above? It can not be a true statement
unless you know it is true. I am telling you it is not. Either you feel you
know differently, or you have made a mistake. Which is it?


Glen

| <<< Note 776.37 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| You use the term bashing as though it is a drawn conclusion that bashing has 
| occurred.  

	Nancy, I am basing the word bashing from other people's replies. 

| I'd just like to point out that this is your opinion and not a concensus of 
| the moderatorship at this given time.

	I think you ought to be asking those who made the claims to begin with.



Glen

    
    
    "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God."
    	-Matthew 5:9
    
    "If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with
     everyone."  -Romans 12:18
    
    

    .40
    
    Amen.

"Decision determines direction.  Direction determines destiny." - Howard
Hendricks.

1. Do you have a heart open to correction?

2. Do you cherish your opinions more than God's Word?

3. Are you of the opinion that you were born a {insert denomination} and will
   die a {insert denomination}?

4. Do you cherish your traditions more than the truth, even if they conflict
   with the truth?

5. Do you rationalize your not obeying the truth?

6. Do you get mad at the delivery person or God's messenger?

7. Do you tolerate falsehood of any kind?  (cf. 2 John, 3 John)

8. Do you compromise the truth? (cf. 2 John, 3 John)

9. Do you think unity and peace are more important than truth?
   (cf. Ephesians 4:21, John 14:6)

10. Would you leave everything (church, job, friends, family, etc.) in pursuit
    of the truth?

Absence of desire for truth is evidence of a lost condition.  Desensitizing
yourself to truth upon exposure to God's truth is rejecting God.

Hi Mike,

For about all of your questions in 776.42, the person who is in danger, is
the one who really believes that their answer is the selfless, God centred
/ Bible centred one, when really their heart is self centred.  That is for 
God to deal with, not man directly.

Where man chooses to touch the sensitive areas of conviction, he can only
make the hurt rankle, and cause them to be covered up against further 
conviction.  Where God touches them, He does so to heal, reaching right to 
the heart of the problem.

							Andrew

1. Do you have a heart open to correction?

	Yes.


2. Do you cherish your opinions more than God's Word?

	As I don't perceive the Bible to be God's Word, in practise I subject 
it to what you may view as my opinion. I perceive God's Word as being expressed
through the individuals. This is not the official conference stance, so I don't 
use it here, but it is my personal position, in answer to the question.		


3. Are you of the opinion that you were born a {insert denomination} and will
   die a {insert denomination}?

	No. I have already changed denominations.

4. Do you cherish your traditions more than the truth, even if they conflict
   with the truth?

	In my personal life I do not have any external source of truth other
than God Himself to supersede my personal perception of what God says so I am 
not aware of any conflict from different sources.				

5. Do you rationalize your not obeying the truth?

	See #4.

6. Do you get mad at the delivery person or God's messenger?

	I could at first, but then He always shows me WHY He sent the message
He did. To be angry at the messenger is going to cloud the message.

7. Do you tolerate falsehood of any kind?  (cf. 2 John, 3 John)

	No. 

8. Do you compromise the truth? (cf. 2 John, 3 John)

	NO.

9. Do you think unity and peace are more important than truth?
   (cf. Ephesians 4:21, John 14:6)

	Unity and peace will be achieved by truth.

10. Would you leave everything (church, job, friends, family, etc.) in pursuit
    of the truth?

	Only if He led me down that path.

    
    That was lovely Jay.

    That was much better... :-)
    
    Thanks Jay.