[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Title:Discussions from a Christian Perspective
Notice:Prostitutes and tax collectors welcome!
Moderator:CSC32::J_CHRISTIE
Created:Mon Sep 17 1990
Last Modified:Fri Jun 06 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:1362
Total number of notes:61362

36.0. "Redefining Christianity ???" by JOKUR::CIOTO () Mon Oct 01 1990 22:06

       "You're redefining Christianity."
    
       "You're changing the meaning."
    
       "You're changing the rules."
    
       "Your inventing your own meanings and rules."
    
       "Your taking scripture out of context."
    
       "You're interpreting scripture incorrectly."
    
    
    Many Christians, usually of the conservative variety, often aim these
    statements at other Christian (and non-Christian) brothers and sisters
    in an attempt to point out how they (the errant Christians and
    non-Christians) are intentionally bypassing the "real truth" of God in 
    favor of making God (and the gospels) fit into their own personal
    pre-conceived notion of what they think God should be -- casually 
    altering the truth to suit their their *own* personal view of what 
    they want God to be -- sort of like inventing their own God.
    
    My question is:  Is it really possible that those who follow Jesus and
    study his teachings can "redefine Christianity" and "change/invent the 
    meaning of the scriptures" and "change/invent the rules."  And is it
    a fair argument?  In other words, the gospels are there for humanity to
    read and study and interpret and live by, just as other holy writings
    are there for the same reason.  Does it serve any useful purpose for
    any of us to NOT ONLY discuss/disagree with what these writings mean,
    BUT ALSO go one step beyond and imply that the person with whom you
    disagree is trying to "redefine" and "change" and "invent" things in
    order to make-over God so that God suits his/her own preconception.
    
    There always have been and always will be different ways of
    interpreting the life of Jesus and the contents of the gospels, just 
    as there always have been/will be different ways to interpret and
    understand the true meaning of all other things that are God-inspired
    -- writings, experiences, communications, apparitions, and other ways
    in which God reveals himself to humanity.   
    
    The many ways in which God reveals himself must be processed,
    understood, transcribed, translated, and communicated by mere
    humans, men and women like us.  So in actuality, the Bible as well as
    all these other instruments by which God reveals himself, are tools and
    guideposts -- tools, in part, crafted by man.  Unless we are ascended
    masters ourselves -- and fundamentalist Christians don't think anyone
    can be an ascended master, except Jesus -- then how can we point to one
    another and say, "You're redefining the 'true' meaning and inventing
    'your own'."   To that I usually say, "The 'true' meaning that YOU
    understand is, in my eyes, just that -- YOUR understanding, YOUR
    interpretation.  An understanding that, by the way, I respect."
    
    Some dear friends of mine, who happen to be born-again Christians,
    have during the past few years BESEECHED me to read the gospels so that
    I would come to know the "one true God."  You see, they were
    distressed that many of the non-bornagain Christian ways in which I
    have come to know God and develop deep faith in recent years -- the deep, 
    meaningful, loving, personal ways in which God has reached out to me as 
    well as the path down which he has led me -- are pretty much inspired 
    by demons.  (That's all right.  I'm praying for you all too!  ;) ;))
    
    Anyway, I read the gospels.  It was the first thorough reading since
    I was in high school -- Catholic CCD.   Well, as you would have
    guessed, my friends asked in excited anticipation, "Well???  What did
    you think?"  So I answered them.  I told them that I was glad I read the
    Bible (again) because the life/teachings of Jesus are great in that
    they enhance some of the wonderful aspects of my existing relationship
    with God, which have come about via what many would call things
    relating to "New Age" mysticism.  I told them Jesus's words, in
    general, make sense in light of the many ways I have already come to know 
    God. Their reactions were, well, a bit exasperated.  "That just can't be,"
    they said, "It's a virtual impossibility.  One or the other must be
    correct; they both cannot be correct."  But I continued to thank them
    for pointing me toward the Bible, simply because the master, Jesus the
    Christ, has made my faith in God so much better!  That there were
    stark patterns of Truth and major similarities between the "NA" ways in
    which I had come to know God and the life/words/teachings of Jesus. 
    That I did not have to download one to accommodate the other.
    
    As it tured out, my friends told me that I was taking the personal
    liberty of redefining, changing, inventing, misinterpreting, and so on
    and so forth -- all in an effort to mold God into my own image, so to
    speak.  Their reaction was disappointing.  Because I am sincere and 
    serious about my walk with God and about my faith.  I also found it a
    bit uncanny that they were telling me the "correct" way to appreciate
    Jesus.  I've often hear these lines used by conservative Christians when
    they reach a point of disagreement with others as well.  
    
    Anyway, enough said for now.  Again, I would like to know what you
    think about this phenomenon -- certain Christians telling other
    Christians, and the rest of humanity, that they are "redefining" the
    truth when their understanding of the truth doesn't strike a precise
    match.  Is it actually possible to "redefine Christianity" and is it 
    in keeping with the Spirit of God to accuse others of doing so?
    
    In God's love,
    Paul 
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name
DateLines
36.1how do we know?SSGBPM::PULKSTENISHe is our strengthMon Oct 01 1990 23:3140
    
    re -1
    
    >Is it actually possible to "redefine Christianity" 
    
    Not when it's not possible to "define" it to begin with. ;^)
    
    
    >in keeping with the Spirit of God to accuse others of doing so?
    
    Scripture tells us to be discerning, to question, to not believe
    everyone who claims to come bearing light, but to study the
    word and see how what they teach/preach lines up with God's holy
    writing - the Bible.
    
    That's why the Bible is so foundational. Otherwise, what will
    one study? What will one use as a plumbline? Personal spiritual
    experiences/feelings? How dependable are they? How do we know
    whether they are or are not? How do we check out our teachers/guides/
    masters? What do we hold them up against, to see how much of truth
    they contain? 
    
    We have no choice but to examine these things, for we know that
    wolves come in sheep's clothing. That means that I must peel away
    the layers of what someone "preaches" to get to the heart of the 
    matter. Is it in harmony with the Bible? That's the test.
    
    What if I have a beautiful spiritual experience which is in 
    conflict with the Bible. What do I do with it? Do I run with
    it, or do I recognize it as a red herring, designed to take
    me *off* the path.
    
    Interesting exchange, here. Thanks for your thoughts in the
    basenote, Paul. I found a slight accusatory tone, one of
    divisiveness, almost -- am I picking up something that you
    know isn't there?
    
    In Jesus,
    Irena
           
36.2The Definitions are Ours; the Spirit is God'sWMOIS::REINKEHello, I'm the Dr!Tue Oct 02 1990 09:5413
36.3Love Them UnconditionallyPCCAD1::RICHARDJBluegrass,Music Aged to PerfectionTue Oct 02 1990 11:0614
    
RE: Paul
        
>    Anyway, enough said for now.  Again, I would like to know what you
>    think about this phenomenon -- certain Christians telling other
>    Christians, and the rest of humanity, that they are "redefining" the
>    truth when their understanding of the truth doesn't strike a precise
>    match.  Is it actually possible to "redefine Christianity" and is it 
>    in keeping with the Spirit of God to accuse others of doing so?
    
        I think we should forgive them.
    
    Peace
    Jim    
36.4reflectionsXLIB::JACKSONCollis JacksonTue Oct 02 1990 12:5547
Good question, Paul.

As is very apparent, people read very different things when they read the
same Bible.  This is because of their preconceptions.

I'm reminded of the Jehovah Witness (no flame here) who came to my house
4 weeks ago as we were packing to move.  My wife spent a half hour talking
with them (2 women) and then I joined in for another half hour.  The subject
wound up on whether or not Jesus was God (no surprise there).  She told
me that she had read the Gospel of Matthew just in the past month and
found numerous references that showed that Jesus was not God.  I asked her
to point them out to me and she said they were too numerous.

Naturally, I too have read the Gospel of Matthew and have come to the
opposite conclusion.  What is clear here is that we *both* came with
opposite expectations and beliefs and so we *both* read very different
things.  In fact, she readily admitted that she read the Gospel of Matthew
intentionally looking for proof that Jesus was not God.

Part of the question then is, "what will an independent reader without
preconceived ideas believe they have read?"  Of course, there are no such 
people.  And, "what right do you or I have to impose *our* understanding
of the Scripture on others?"

Well, the Scripture says that we have not only a right but a responsibility
to lead others into truth and out of evil.  So, although it may be
judgmental (and it is), God has commanded that his followers spread the
truth and nip the lies in the bud.  This is obvious if you just look at
the letters that Paul wrote and what he was doing.  Much of his writing is
to proclaim what was really true and despute that which was really false.

Given all of this, back to your question.  Is it fair to judge a person
for his/her prejudices (not meant in a harsh sense) when reading the
Scripture?  I don't know.  I certainly think it is better not to.  If
you can deal with the *real* issue which is what a verse of Scripture
means and the biases that we each bring to understanding that verse, then
I think it is much more likely that real progress to understanding the
Scripture will be made.  I also think this is a response more conducive
to bringing love into the life of both (which is a good thing).

There *are* times when the Church has a responsibility to condemn.  Matthew
18 talks some about this.  However, I don't think this is the perogative of
the individual.  (I wonder if I live up to this?)

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  Again, good question.

Collis
36.5tough issueXANADU::FLEISCHERwithout vision the people perish (381-0899 ZKO3-2/T63)Tue Oct 02 1990 13:4940
re Note 36.4 by XLIB::JACKSON:

        Collis,

        And your good response raises some other good questions.

> Well, the Scripture says that we have not only a right but a responsibility
> to lead others into truth and out of evil.  So, although it may be
> judgmental (and it is), God has commanded that his followers spread the
> truth and nip the lies in the bud.  This is obvious if you just look at
> the letters that Paul wrote and what he was doing.  Much of his writing is
> to proclaim what was really true and despute that which was really false.

        The history of Christianity is full of examples of this
        "spreading the truth and nipping lies in the bud."  I agree
        that it is commanded in Scripture, so we can't just dismiss
        it.

        We have had the Crusades, the Spanish Inquisition, and since
        the Reformation a true flowering of "disputing that which was
        really false."

        It would appear to the outsider that Christians mostly attack
        other Christians.

        Is this the way we are supposed to live?  Does Scripture give
        any examples of how a doctrinal disagreement between
        Christian factions should be settled?  I would suppose that
        the dispute about whether Gentiles needed to be circumcised
        first was such a dispute.  Acts 15 describes the way the
        apostles settled the dispute.  Note that, although they
        quoted a passage from the Hebrew Scriptures, that passage did
        not directly address the question at hand.  Rather, the
        apostles applied that passage as a principle in this case. 
        It was very clear that they didn't just quote Scripture, but
        rather met as an authoritative council and reached decisions.

        Is something missing in the Church today?

        Bob
36.6Keeping the goal in sight...BSS::VANFLEETTreat yourself to happinessTue Oct 02 1990 14:1027
    Collis -
    
    I'm having trouble with the phrase "nip lies in the bud".  It seems to
    me that the doctrinal differences that seem to cause the most trouble
    between Christian sects are largely a matter of differences of
    interpretation i.e. opinion.  For example if you get a new haircut and
    come to me to express your delight at your new look (which is obviously
    very personal to you) and I look at you doubtfully and suggest you go
    back to the old style that I preferred, this would probably cause some
    friction between us.  That would not mean that your pleasure at your
    new look was any less the truth than my aversion to it. 
    
    My experience with most enthusiastic and well meaning Christians has
    been that they want to nip what they judge to be my "lies" in the bud
    when I see our differences to be nothing more than a difference in the
    way each of us approaches God.  I don't doubt their sincerity but,
    naturally, being attacked and told that I am not living from the truth 
    tends to get my dander up a bit.  :-)  
    
    My question is, why does it seem that so many of these enthusistic and
    well-meaning people fail to see that we each have to find our own way
    to God.  My path may not be the easiest or the one someone else would
    choose but if it gets me there then isn't it just as valid as anyone
    else's?
    
    Nanci
    Nanci
36.7Mind if I jump in? :-)CARTUN::BERGGRENShower the people...Tue Oct 02 1990 14:3019
    Hi Nanci and Collis,
    
    Hope you don't mind if I jump in...
    
    I think the crux of the matter is that most of the enthusiastic, 
    well-intentioned Christians that you referred to sincerely believe 
    that your path, as long as it differs from theirs, will *not* lead 
    you to God, but rather away from God.  I believe that belief is 
    the essence of that particular Christian religion - their Way is the
    one and only way according to their interpretation of the Bible, so 
    by definition, it is impossible to see *any* validity in your way 
    as a way to develop a personal relationship with God and Jesus.
    
    No judgement intended here, just my perception of what I understand. 
    If I am wrong, please edify.
    
    Thanks,
    
    Karen                                                         
36.8Do we *really* want to know the truth?XLIB::JACKSONCollis JacksonTue Oct 02 1990 16:3730
You are quite correct, Karen.

Nanci, you too have raised a good point.  Christians are to share the
truth *in love*.  This is **sooooo** difficult, at times.  I think we
all fail at this to some extent or another.  The other factor that makes
this even more difficult is that God hates error (darkness, lies) and
wants us to hate it to.  Exactly what is error is not agreed upon by
all.

I believe the Scriptures are *quite* clear on some matters.  However,
debate *rages* over these matters where it is *quite* clear (in my
opinion).  Does this mean that Scripture is not clear?  Perhaps, but
I don't think so.  I think some are misguided and I think that some
are intentionally hostile.  I think that some like their own beliefs
more than they want to learn the truth.  In fact, I think the vast
majority would prefer to have their own belief confirmed rather than
KNOWING what the truth is.  To some extent I see this as human nature.

So the controversy will always be there despite (and partially because of)
the clear claims of Scripture.  However, that does not mean that two
people who disagree can not share in an environment such as this in a
relatively reasoned manner.  I may be convinced that you're wrong in
some things, but I can still talk with you (I hope) in a loving manner
and explain why I believe what I believe.  Hopefully when this is done
you will look past your preconceptions and ask, "Is what he says true?"
and I will look past my preconceptions and ask, "Is what she says true?"

I desire to do this and that's part of why I share here.

Collis
36.9Further thoughts....JOKUR::CIOTOTue Oct 02 1990 16:44156
Re:  .1   Irena,
    
        >Is it actually possible to "redefine Christianity"? 
    
     Not when it's not possible to "define" it to begin with. ;^)

The men who wrote the Bible tried pretty hard to define things! ;)    
    
    Scripture tells us to be discerning, to question, to not believe
    everyone who claims to come bearing light,

Well, sure, even non-BA Christians do this, Irena.  The process
of praying to God for divine guidance in questioning and
discerning that which is of/from/by God, need not be Bible-based.
I don't accept every sweet-smelling bright light that comes down
the pike, either.  But this, I think, is a different question
from Christians accusing others of not interpreting/appreciating
the contents of the Bible, or accepting and developing a
relationship with Jesus in the "correct" way.

   but to study the word and see how what they teach/preach lines up
   with God's holy writing - the Bible.

You mean lines up with the way you and others might understand
this writing to mean.   The Bible, because it was written by men,
is not "God's holy writing" in the sense that God Himself wrote
it.  It is, however, a holy writing in the sense that it provides
some very powerful insights into the nature of the Spirit of God
and creation.  It is not *the only* tool available to humanity,
for God has revealed Himself to humanity in a plethora of other
ways in addition to one collection of writings called the Bible.
These other ways include other writings and other forms of
communication.  You apparently believe the Bible is the *only*
vehicle through which the Truth of God is revealed.  Because it
says so in the Bible, I suspect.  And you are entitled to, and
I respect, your view of the Bible; however, I still do not
understand why you feel compelled to tell others, who appreciate
the Bible (and Jesus) in a somewhat different way, that they are
redefining and reinventing the word of God.
    
    That's why the Bible is so foundational. Otherwise, what will
    one study? What will one use as a plumbline? Personal spiritual
    experiences/feelings?

It sounds as if your spirtual life would collapse if you
discovered an "error" -- whatever that means -- in the Bible. 
What would you do if that ever happened?   Why is it necessary
for you to have an airtight, infallible blueprint to the Truth? 
To the nature of God?  There are so MANY other things in the
world -- past and present -- that are God-breathed that one can
study, besides the Bible, IMHO.  The Bible is one powerful holy
book, but it a book nonehtless, written by men.  And the
Spirit/Truth of God is *not* the Bible, IMHO.  In my opinion, the
Bible as well as any other holy writing or God-inspired
communication is *not* intended to be a plumbline;  these are
merely tools that offer insights, guidance, and direction into
knowing the Spirit of God -- something that is felt, something
that cannot be put into or reduced to mere words.

Correct me if I am wrong, but when you say "personal spiritual
experiences/feelings" you seem to be implying that they are
fickle, too closely tied to earthly desires, and more related to
Self than to God.  I think spiritual experiences/feelings are
indeed a MAJOR part of the equation, but not in the way you
imply.  I, like many Christians, have these experiences as a
result of faith in, glory to, and direction from God -- not in
spite of them.  Experiences can be God-inspired, not just the
result of someone's personal flesh-and-blood whims and urges.

    How dependable are they? How do we know whether they are or are
    not? How do we check out our teachers/guides/ masters? What do we
    hold them up against, to see how much of truth they contain? 

We rely on the sum total of our experience as humans inhabiting
the earth, and we follow what feels right in our hearts.  And please
do not differentiate that what "feels right to us" is different
than what "feels right to God."  You yourself must have reached a
point where you thought accepting your current view -- your
undersatnding of God, Jesus, and the Bible, felt right to you. 
Just like Collis felt it was right to abandon his study of A
Course In Miracles to pursue traditionalist Christianity.  That
is part of the problem, I think, with those who get the urge to
tell others they are redefining the word of God to suit their own
personal interests.  I, like you and Collis and Karen and others,
*do* wish to know God and live according to his Truth, and serve
the Holy Spirit and so on.  We ALL pray to God to inspire us and
guide us to what HE wants, not what WE want.   What I find
uncanny is that the motives/intentions of non-BA Christians
always seem to come into question -- ALWAYS.

And how dependable are *your* interpretations of the scriptures?  
Of the ways in which God has communicated with you?  About the
things that you feel are of/from God?  Probably not any more or
less dependable than *my* interpretations and ways in which God
has communicated with me, or those of many other non-BA
Christians.   Yes, there have been times when I listen to
fundamentalist Christians quoting Jesus, and I think to myself,
"Wow!  Are you missing the point of what Jesus *really* meant!" 
That is a normal human reaction, but one that I resist.  To go
beyond friendly disagreement by telling a brother or sister that
he/she is "reinventing" the word of God is not too cool, IMHO,
since the sum total of my path to God, to date, has shown me that
judgement is not compatible with the Spirit of God.  There's
nothing wrong or worn out about saying, "Let God handle it."  If
we don't, we run the risk of pretending we are Gods ourselves --
a concept that Christians commonly lay on "New Agers."  Do you
think I am judging?   Maybe.  But since when is it "judging" to
be intolerant of intolerance?  Never mind, I don't want to jump
into any ratholes today.  ;)  ;)

    We have no choice but to examine these things, for we know that
    wolves come in sheep's clothing. That means that I must peel away
    the layers of what someone "preaches" to get to the heart of the 
    matter.

In general, agreed.

    Is it in harmony with the Bible? That's the test.

There are other standards of what constitutes the Spirit of God
besides your interpretation of a holy writing.  Sorry, Irena,
there *are* other perspectives out there.

    What if I have a beautiful spiritual experience which is in 
    conflict with the Bible. What do I do with it? Do I run with
    it, or do I recognize it as a red herring, designed to take
    me *off* the path.

That would be quite a dilemma for you.  If you are truly asking
for advice ... I would say pray for inspirational divine guidance
from God until the matter is resolved.  The call is really yours.
I, on the other hand, have a different walk with/path to God,
which sees the Bible from a slightly different vantagepoint. 
From my vantagepoint, given the same dilemma, I might come to a
different resolution, simply because the "experience" or the
"conflict" might be different.  In either case, I would hope we
respect the sanctity of each other's relationship with God.  And
the bottom line for me is ... telling a brother/sister that
he/she is "redefining" the Truth/Word of God essentially violates
that sanctity.
    
    Interesting exchange, here. Thanks for your thoughts in the
    basenote, Paul.

Thanks.  You know I try to rock the boat a little .... ;)  Jamey
knows that!   8^)

    I found a slight accusatory tone, one of
    divisiveness, almost -- am I picking up something that you
    know isn't there?

Probably.  It hasn't occured to me, since I was concentrating
heavily on making my points.  Sorry ... my intent is not to cause
divisiveness.

Paul
36.10To listen and learn...BSS::VANFLEETTreat yourself to happinessTue Oct 02 1990 17:3815
    re: .8, Collis
    
    Thank you for illustrating my point so nicely.  You're right - debate
    does rage over matters which may be *quite* clear to you and *equally*
    clear to me and yet, there is disagreement between us.  Your judgement
    that "some are misguided and I think some are intentionally hostile"
    could be applied to either party in the disagreement.
    
    I would tend to take exception to your use of the word "clear" when
    applied to something from which such, to paraphrase your own words
    "raging debate" arises.  However, I do agree that we can still share
    ideas and beliefs with those not of like mind and possibly expand our
    own spiritual horizons.  :-)  
    
    Nanci
36.11"Clear"XLIB::JACKSONCollis JacksonTue Oct 02 1990 18:243
I call 'em as I see 'em.

:-)
36.12Mud...BSS::VANFLEETTreat yourself to happinessTue Oct 02 1990 18:505
    Me too!
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci
36.13What are you really saying?JOKUR::CIOTOWed Oct 03 1990 17:29109
    
    
    
    
Collis,
    
Re .4: As is very apparent, people read very different things when they
       read the same Bible.  This is because of their preconceptions.

       Part of the question then is, "what will an independent reader
       without preconceived ideas believe they have read?"  Of course,
       there are no such  people.  And, "what right do you or I have to
       impose *our* understanding of the Scripture on others?"

       Well, the Scripture says that we have not only a right but a
       responsibility to lead others into truth and out of evil.
       So, although it may be judgmental (and it is), God has commanded
       that his followers spread the truth and nip the lies in the bud.

What you say here doesn't make much sense to me, Collis.  It
seems duplicitous.  First you say that everyone has his/her
"preconceptions." Then you claim a right to "impose our
understanding" of the scriptures onto others, preconceptions and
all, and "nip lies in the bud."  You even admit that it is
judgemental.  How would you square this form of judgement with what
Jesus teaches about non-judgement?   Are you so sure about the
infallibility of your own human perception/understanding that God
is pleased that you tell brothers and sisters, "My understanding
is not only good for me, it is good for you too."  

   This is obvious if you just look at the letters that Paul wrote
   and what he was doing.  Much of his writing is to proclaim what
   was really true and despute that which was really false.

Oh, now you're interchanging "Paul" and "God" -- saint Paul, that
is.  ;)  In the previous sentence you said "God has commanded
that ..."  But now you are quoting Paul's letters.  You will say
that Paul was inspired by God, if I am not mistaken.  So, as I
read it, your (Collis's) understanding of Truth, which you feel a
right to impose on others, is inspired by Paul, who is inspired
by God.   Hmmm.  At least two steps removed from God.  Before you
lead any more horses to water, Collis, it would be nice for you
to double check to see if you are right!  ;)  ;)

   Given all of this, back to your question.  Is it fair to judge a
   person for his/her prejudices (not meant in a harsh sense) when
   reading the Scripture?  I don't know.  I certainly think it is
   better not to.

More duplicity?  First you say that your right/responsibility to
lead others to Truth and "nip lies in the bud" is judgemental.
Then you say here it is not fair to judge a person.  Is this the
good old love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin stuff?  ;)  (And I'm not even 
the one who maintains that God has to be perfectly consistent!)  ;)

   If you can deal with the *real* issue which is
   what a verse of Scripture means and the biases that we each bring
   to understanding that verse, then I think it is much more likely
   that real progress to understanding the Scripture will be made. 
   I also think this is a response more conducive to bringing love
   into the life of both (which is a good thing).

I am not so sure about this, if I read you correctly.  Do you
*really* want me to try to dig up and expose all of the personal
biases you and Irena bring to understanding scripture?  Is it
really my place to do that?  Or is it God's?  For example, if I
said that you and other traditionalist Christian American men,
who talk so intensely about your relationships with Jesus the
"man/person" and God, the "father," have a biased viewpoint,
askewed from the reality of the divine essence of God, simply
because SO MANY American men yearn for their fathers, who were
not there for or distanced themselves from their sons  -- because
father/son relationships in our culture suffer so acutely -- what
productive purpose would that serve?   I have caught myself
saying things like this before, and I don't like this sort of
thing.  The same feeling applies when I hear certain Christians
telling me and others that we are "redefining" and "reinventing"
and "changing" the word of God to serve Self --  rather than God.
It's not that these things aren't possible.  The question is:
Whose place is it to point out stuff like that without our
invitation to do so?  Ours or God's?   Agreeing to disagree is one
thing, but questioning each other's motives and intentions are
something else entirely, IMHO.  If our personal biases are
getting in the way, then with prayer and meditation and faith,
God will reveal the obstacles and clear the way.

BTW, what about all those personal biases that Jesus's desciples
and all the other men who wrote the Bible bring to the Bible? I
think there are a whole lot of ancient cultural/personal biases there,
don't you?   This is one reason why I can't agree with you that
the Bible is a perfect, infallible work.

   There *are* times when the Church has a responsibility to
   condemn.  Matthew 18 talks some about this.  However, I don't
   think this is the perogative of the individual.

Condemn??  How would you square this with Jesus's lessons about
forgiveness?  How many times can my brother sin against me and I
have to forgive him?  Seven times?  No, not seven times, but
seventy times seven.  BTW, I am suspect of anything "the church"
or any other organized bunch of humans does against an
individual.  And doesn't Matthew 18 address what happens when
"your brother sins against you," which, to me, seems different
than a brother interpreting Jesus's words and establishing a
personal relationship with God?  Did I redefine anything???
;)  ;)              

Paul
36.14Sorry this is so longXLIB::JACKSONCollis JacksonFri Oct 05 1990 17:57150
Re:  36.13

Hi, Paul.  Good to see you.
    
  >First you say that everyone has his/her "preconceptions." 

Yes.

  >Then you claim a right to "impose our understanding" of the scriptures 
  >onto others, preconceptions and all, and "nip lies in the bud."  
  >You even admit that it is judgemental.  How would you square this form 
  >of judgement with what Jesus teaches about non-judgement?   

The word "judge" is used in two different ways.

Anytime we choose between anything, we "judge".  This judgment is not only
good, it is very important.  We *are* to "judge" between that which is
right and that which is wrong.  In fact, we are held accountable for
making these judgments.  This is better termed "discernment".

The other meaning of judge is to "cast judgment" in terms of applying
a penalty to the person judged.  This is what we are *not* to do on
our own.  This is the responsibility (and right) of the appropriate
structure (family, church, government).

So we are to discern, but we are not to cast judgment.  Is this clear?

  >Are you so sure about the infallibility of your own human 
  >perception/understanding that God is pleased that you tell brothers 
  >and sisters, "My understanding is not only good for me, it is good 
  >for you too."  

In a very limited number of things, the answer is YES.  Again, my
judgment (discernment) is NOT LIMITED to simply what I think.  What
I think includes a *tremendous* amount of thinking and interpreting
by others.  So the confidence of what I believe can be determined
appropriately.

However, the question is more than what you pose.  God has given me a
responsibility to act on what I believe He has revealed *even
if* I don't KNOW it to be a fact.  I am to respond to what God reveals
*as best as I can*.  This is my responsibility.

  >Oh, now you're interchanging "Paul" and "God" -- saint Paul, that
  >is.  ;)  

I'm not doing anything the Bible doesn't commonly do with Scripture.

  >So, as I read it, your (Collis's) understanding of Truth, which you feel a
  >right to impose on others, is inspired by Paul, who is inspired by God.

As I read this sentence, I'd say there's more error there than truth.  Let
me explain.

First, God *breathed* the Scripture through Paul, Paul was not "inspired"
by God to write (inspired is a *very* poor translation, in my opinion).

Second, my understanding of Truth is not "inspired" by Paul, it is
a consciously aware, detailed analysis of what God said through Paul.

Third, my understanding of Truth is *not* simply "Collis Jackson's
understanding of truth".  It is much more than that.  It is actually
(in the vast majority of cases) the interpretation of God's Word by a
solid consensus of those who followed God down through many centuries.

  >Is it fair to judge a person for his/her prejudices (not meant in a 
  >harsh sense) when reading the Scripture?  I don't know.  I certainly 
  >think it is better not to.

I certainly agree that judging others is *not* the responsibility of
the individual (particularly in the case of casting judgment).  Rather,
it is the responsibility of the God-defined structure which is sometimes
the family, sometimes the church and sometimes the government.

However, sharing what God says and doing what God tells us to do *is*
a responsibility of the individual.

  >More duplicity?  First you say that your right/responsibility to
  >lead others to Truth and "nip lies in the bud" is judgemental.
  >Then you say here it is not fair to judge a person.  

Hopefully the above answered that question?  I certainly agree that at
times it is difficult to ascertain exactly what an individual's rights
and responsibilities are when following God.

  >Is this the good old love-the-sinner-hate-the-sin stuff?  

No, that comes later. :-)

  >Do you *really* want me to try to dig up and expose all of the personal
  >biases you and Irena bring to understanding scripture?  

No, it is your place to dig up and expose all of the personal biases
*you* bring to understanding scripture.  It is a much lessor responsibility
for you to expose my biases or someone elses biases (ref. "the speck in my
eye and the log in yours").

  >Is it really my place to do that?  Or is it God's?  

Individuals do have a responsibility in this area (ref.  "the speck" again.
Note that after the speck is removed, then they are free to help remove
the log.)  God continues to work through PEOPLE.  Even though we mess
up.

  >The question is: Whose place is it to point out stuff like that without 
  >our invitation to do so?  Ours or God's?   

In a particular situation, I think that a person nees to earn the right
to intercede or share.  Here in a notes file, the right to comment or
question is almost an assumed right.  However, in personal relationships,
this is not true at all.

  >Agreeing to disagree is one thing, but questioning each other's motives 
  >and intentions are something else entirely, IMHO.  

I agree.  I'm not sure why you were writing this??

  >BTW, what about all those personal biases that Jesus's disciples
  >and all the other men who wrote the Bible bring to the Bible?  I
  >think there are a whole lot of ancient cultural/personal biases there,
  >don't you?   

No.  The Holy Spirit, i.e. the Spirit of Truth, kept the Scriptures free
of error.

  >Condemn??  How would you square this with Jesus's lessons about
  >forgiveness?  How many times can my brother sin against me and I
  >have to forgive him?  

Again, Scripture makes IMO a clear, discernable, (what_other_words_can_
_I_use_here) distinction between the role of an INDIVIDUAL and the role
of a STRUCTURE (family, church, government).  The roles are QUITE
different.

  >BTW, I am suspect of anything "the church" or any other organized bunch 
  >of humans does against an individual.  

I am sure you are.  Can you show me (Scripturally) why they should NOT
do this?  I can show you many references as to why they SHOULD.

I hope that you (and others!) understand this issue.  From my experience,
the roles of the individual, family, church and government as defined in
the Bible are VERY POORLY understood by the average individual, including
the average believer.  There questions come up time and again.  And
despite answering them in a way which is clear (at least to me), they
are raised again in another context.  If it's not clear to you, let's
discuss this until what I'm saying IS clear and then we can proceed from
there.  I'm not saying until you agree; just until you understand.

Collis
36.15CLOSUS::HOEDaddy, can I drive?Tue Oct 09 1990 13:5923
Nanci,

>>>My question is, why does it seem that so many of these enthusistic and
    well-meaning people fail to see that we each have to find our own way
    to God.  My path may not be the easiest or the one someone else would
    choose but if it gets me there then isn't it just as valid as anyone
    else's?
    
Let me reflect on your statement, "My path may not be the
easiest...". How true! My path was torn with trials and
suffering. It doesn't get easier either. Yet, I still believe
that He gave me live, loved me from the day of my birth, to my
baptism, confirmation, and response to His calling to serve Him.

I, surely, do not want my son to live the horrors of war, or
loosing of a spouse, or having to make choices that affect my
life that are not easy to make. I want him to have a life free
from conflict. I know that this is not possible but I will do my
best to live the example that Jesus gave us to live by; and pray
that he will seek Jesus's advise as he would from his best friend
or father.

calvin
36.16different paths, same entrancewayXLIB::JACKSONCollis JacksonTue Oct 09 1990 14:065
I agree we each have a different path.  We're different people.

But we all go through the same door at the end of the path.

Collis
36.17CARTUN::BERGGRENPlease, don't squeeze the shaman...Tue Oct 09 1990 14:297
    Yes Collis -1
    
    > ...we all go through the same door at the end of the path.
    
    I agree 110%!                                               
    
    Karen
36.18Follow the yellow brick road!BSS::VANFLEETTreat yourself to happinessTue Oct 09 1990 14:449
    Collis - 
    
    Are you sitting down?  ;-)  Good!  I agree - we do all go through the
    same door at the end of the path and , IMHO, all paths lead, not to
    Rome, but to God.  
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci
36.19reconciliation timeXLIB::JACKSONCollis JacksonTue Oct 09 1990 18:4511
  >all paths lead... to God

I'd like to agree with you, Nanci.  Can you reconcile for me Jesus'
comment with yours?  :

  "Enter through the narrow gate.  For wide is the gate of broad is the
   road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.  But small
   is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few
   find it.  (Matt 7:13-14 NIV)

Collis
36.20WMOIS::REINKEHello, I'm the Dr!Tue Oct 09 1990 19:255
    Someone once wrote, 
    
    "Choose a path with a heart."
    
    DR
36.21Maybe this will help...BSS::VANFLEETTreat yourself to happinessTue Oct 09 1990 19:3927
    Collis - 
    
    Since I don't believe that the New Testament or the Bible as a whole is
    God-breathed it's difficult for me to reply to you from your frame of
    reference.  My interpretation of that passage would be that the "narrow
    road" that the passage refers to is the door to God that I spoke of in
    my previous note.  I believe that we can bring all manner of evil upon
    ourselves by not living and acting in alignment with the Divine
    Presence we all have within us.  By choosing to align ourselves with
    that which is not God we may be leading ourselves, or others into a
    form of "destruction", destoying a trust, or a love, or a friendship,
    or even a life.  We have been given the gift of free will so the choices 
    to go against that Divine Presence in each situation that life presents 
    are much more numerous than choosing that which is of God.  (The 
    difference between the broad and narrow path.)  However, it is still my
    belief that God has a different path in mind for each individual. 
    Since we don't all come from the same background and experience level,
    I don't see how it could be otherwise.  I couldn't get to California
    from Colorado via the same path you would take from New England or the
    path someone else might take from Alaska.  However, our paths would
    inevitably converge somewhere along the way, probably fairly close to
    the goal.
    
    And Collis - you don't have to agree with me, but it's nice that you
    want to.  :-)
    
    Nanci   
36.22Thanks for the interpretationXLIB::JACKSONCollis JacksonTue Oct 09 1990 19:5515
Thanks, Nanci, for that explanation.  That's not the way I would
define "destruction", however.  It doesn't quite seem to fit the
context either which, a few verses later says,

  "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom
   of heaven."

  and

  "Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you.  Away from me,
   you evildoers!'"

But I do want to agree with you (or at least for us to agree :-) ).

Collis
36.23There is more in heaven and earth, Horatio...BSS::VANFLEETTreat yourself to happinessTue Oct 09 1990 20:2727
    Collis - 
    
    These passages are some examples of why I don't believe that ALL of the
    Bible is God-breathed.  These passages sound, to me, more like the God
    of vengeance of the Old Testament, than the loving Christ of the New
    Testament.  In studying the history if Christianity and using different
    techniques with which to study the New Testament I found that each of
    the gospel authors were unique in that they had a different purpose in
    mind for which their particular gospel was written.  During the early
    days of Christianity different conversion techniques were used by
    different groups (as are still in evidence in the different branches of
    modern Christianity) and certainly fear was and still is one of those
    techniques.  One of the most psychologically vulnerable parts of a
    person's psyche is the fear of mortality.  It seems it's being used
    most effectively in these passages.  
    
    For myself, fear is a negative emotion and not of the Source, God.  I
    have found that when I am motivated out of fear, the road is bumpy and
    full of pitfalls and hurdles along the way.  When I am motivated out of
    love, however, things go smoothly and with ease.  If God created the
    world as a learning tool for us to know and love Him then it seems to me 
    that the nature of the world must reflect the nature of God. 
    Therefore, I don't believe that God would have us come to Him motivated
    out of fear, but rather out of love and a will*ingness to surrender to 
    the Divine Presence.
    
    Nanci   
36.24not always 'loving'EREMO::BULLARDThu Oct 11 1990 19:497
     - loving christ of the new testament.
    
      Yes, by all means! Thats why he corrected false religion.
    See Jesus vs. the Pharasee's and temple merchants, to verify
    that myth that Jesus was always 'loving' and passive.
    
    chuck 
36.25Pacifists are *not* passiveCSC32::J_CHRISTIEA Higher CallingThu Oct 11 1990 20:0714
    re .24
    
    chuck,  The incident at the Temple is what pacifists call
            a 'direct action'.  I will be speaking on this very
            matter (John 2:13-22) the morning of October 20th,
            at 7:30 AM, at Stratmoor Hills United Methodist Church.
            This quarterly breakfast is sponsored by Pikes Peak United
            Methodist Men.
    
            All are welcome!  To my knowledge it is free.  They may take
            an offering to cover the costs of the breakfast.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
36.26What is the difference? ANKH::SMITHPassionate committment/reasoned faithWed Oct 17 1990 13:4873
What is the difference between:
	Self-righteous intellectualism that
	elevates human reason above all else and is condescending toward
	"non-intellectual" folks
and
	Self-righteous Christianity that
	elevates the Bible above all else and is condescending toward
	"non-believing" folks?

Answer:  IMO, they are equally obnoxious.

=============================================================================

What is the difference between:
	Someone who jumps into every string to 
	divert the discussions by his efforts
	to "expose ignorance and hypocrisy" --
and
	Someone who jumps into every string to
	divert the discussions by inserting his
	own view of "God's absolute word?"

Answer:  IMO, they are equally destructive and distracting to essential
	discussion. 
	
	*However*, the second person is discussing from "*a* Christian
	perspective" and is *usually* well-intentioned and motivated by
	love and concern,
	whereas the first person disavows *having* a Christian perspective
	and approaches the discussion with an apparent need to be
	destructive at worst, and self-important at best.

================================================================================

What is the difference between:
	Someone who quotes long dissertations containing insulting
	labels (ex., "bible-bangers") and then claims "*I* wasn't the
	author!" -- instead of writing thoughtful comments on their own
	beliefs and experiences
and
	Someone who quotes Scripture as the sole authority, insists
	that those who disagree are not Christians and then claims "*I*
	didn't say this -- *God* said it!" -- instead of writing
	thoughtful comments on their own beliefs and experiences?

Answer:  IMO, they are equally insensitive to others, equally lacking in
	valuing differences, and equally fearful of being vulnerable in
	any *real* sharing.

===============================================================================

What is the difference between:
	Someone who insists that *his* definition of
	Christianity is *the only* definition
and
	Someone who insists that *his* definition of
	Christianity is *the only* definiton?

Answer: No, that isn't a typo -- there is no difference!
	It does not matter *where* that "definition" of Christianity
	comes from -- a fundamentalist Christian, a liberal Christian,
	or an agnostic with an ax to grind!

===============================================================================

To my more conservative or fundamentalist Christian sisters and brothers:
    
    If this note insults any of you, my sincere apologies!  Although I may
    strongly disagree with you on many details, "if your heart is right,"
    my intention and effort is to love you.

    Nancy Smith
36.27CSC32::M_VALENZANoter on board.Wed Oct 17 1990 13:579
    Nancy, I agree with you.  Religious fundamentalism isn't the only haven
    for dogmatic intolerance, unfortunately; sometimes the opposite poles
    on religious debates have more in common with one another than with the
    middle ground.  Thus it is possible to switch one's allegiance to the
    other extreme without really changing one's outlook very much; former
    fundamentalist Christians then become the new fundamentalist
    anti-Christians.

    -- Mike
36.28Putting it in perspectiveXLIB::JACKSONCollis JacksonThu Oct 18 1990 13:3471
Re:  36.26

  >Self-righteous ... that elevates ... and is condescending 

Self-righteousness is always obnoxious.  However, I'm not sure I would
consider "elevat[ing] the Bible above all else" as an aspect of
self-righteousness.

We all have a different standard we use when we make judgments.  To
acknowledge this does not make an individual self-righteous.  You are
quite correct in saying that being condescending toward others is not
a proper attitutde.  However, being condescending implies two things:

  1)  believing that you have more "knowledge" on an issue
  2)  pushing that "knowledge" on another in a way to puff yourself up.

It is #2 which, in my opinion, is wrong.  There is nothing wrong, in
my opinion, to sincerely believing that you may have more "knowledge"
on an issue than another.  What is critical is that you are still open
to be taught and are not puffing yourself up.

  >jumps into every string to divert the discussions 

In a conversation, it is impolite to jump in.

In a notes conference, it is the norm.

Now, it is not appropriate to intentionally "divert the discussions".
However, it is quite appropriate to share from your own experience and
beliefs what is directly relevant to the subject.  Now it is possible
that others disagree about the relevance in which case the noter jumping
in needs to exercise good manners and not intentionally offend others.

  >Someone who quotes ... instead of writing thoughtful comments...

Quotes are very useful.  They help to explain what you believe and why
you believe.  They support your position by showing that your belief is
not an isolated, off the wall idea but rather (perhaps) a well-established
idea.  Particularly if the source of the quote is held in general high
esteem.

Now, it is the responsibility of the quoter, in my opinion, to discuss
what is quoted (as a general rule).  Since words are slippery things,
just about any quote can be misinterpreted to some extent.

Going back to the author and claiming the authority of the author is,
in my opinion, partially acceptable and partially unacceptable.  Because
the author *is* entitled to the authority that the author is entitled to
(whatever that is).  However, except in the case of "clear" quotes, it
may still be at issue exactly what the author was saying.  Certainly,
going back to the author's authority should be a *last resort* and not
a first resort (after first discussing your own opinions and experiences).

  >Someone who insists that *his* definition of Christianity is *the only* 
  >[correct] definition

It is clearly anyone's right to believe what he/she chooses to believe
in this country.  It is equally clear that we, in general, have to
right to share our beliefs with each other.  What is *not* appropriate
is to share those beliefs in order to put down others.  Sometimes
just sharing a belief will be viewed as a put-down.  This, unfortunately,
tends to destroy communication and relationships.  Sometimes the
sharing of a belief will be done as a put-down.  This, too, tends to
destroy communication and relationships.

Both the receiver and giver of beliefs (which we all are both) need
to be sensitive to the other.  Some hard feelings are, in my opinion,
almost unavoidable because we tend to take offense easily, even when
none was meant.  But we can share, forgive and hopefully grow.

Collis
36.29WILLEE::FRETTSAncient Mother I feel Your laughterThu Oct 18 1990 13:419
  
    RE: .28  Collis
    
    >Self-righteousness is always obnoxious.  
    
    
    Boy, isn't *that* the truth! ;-)
    
    Carole
36.30ChristianityACE::MOORETue Nov 06 1990 21:0816
    
    Christianity is a way of talking as well as a way of talking.
    
    The true expression of Christianity is not a sigh, but a song.
    
    If you want to defend Christianity, practice it.
    
    Christianity is a roll-up-your-sleeves religion.
    
    To feel sorry for the needy is not the mark of a Christian - to
    help them is.
    
    The Christian who is pulling the oars doesn't have time to rock the
    boat.
    
                                RM
36.31SYSTEM::GOODWINThe Q continuumWed Nov 07 1990 07:2110
    "Christianity is a way of talking as well as a way of talking."
    
    	Please explain. What is 'a way of talking as well as a way of
    talking'. Did you make a spelling mistake? Was it walking you meant?
    
    "To feel sorry for the needy is not the mark of a Christian - to
    help them is."
    
    	So being good is a mark of a christian? What about non-christians
    who do good? Are the christian because they do good... or what?