Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Truth WILL divide.

It divided the people in Jesus' day.

It divides the people today.

Collis

    Truth has divided Northern Ireland.  Which side do you suppose has
    the Truth?
    
    Richard

    Collis,
    
    Truth only divides if one of us decides we 'own' truth, and stop
    listening to other voices.
    
    Bonnie

    
    Truth divides, but all that divides cannot be so credited.
    
    Irena
    

    .3   Right on Bonnie.  Truth need not divide.  Division comes with a
    feeling that one "owns" truth, a feeling that "what I believe is not
    only good for me, but it is good for you too."  Why is it so difficult
    for we humans to afford each other dignity in our personal
    relationships with God?
    
    Paul
    

Personally, I wish truth didn't divide.  Specifically, I wish that "all
would come to repentance" and seek Jesus Christ as LORD.  However, history
is clear as are the words of Jesus.

I suppress truth.  You suppress truth.  We all suppress truth when it's
not what we want to hear or face up to.  The only difference is which
truth and to what degree.

Collis

     .6       
    
            "Specifically, I wish that 'all would come to reprentance'
             and seek Jesus Christ as LORD."
    
    And what if they don't?  Does this necessarily have to cause
    divisiveness?  If so, who/what causes it?
    
    Paul

    Conflict from outside of a religious collectivity actually
    reinforces cohesion of the group by strengthening identity,
    relationship and affiliation.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Paul,

  >Does this necessarily have to cause divisiveness?  If so, who/what
  >causes it?

Jesus, most people in this conference agree, was the best lover of people
that there ever was.

Jesus was verbally abused, whipped in an *extremely* painful manner, forced
to carry his cross (or part of it) to an execution site where he underwent
crucifixion (the most painful kind of death ever implemented by a government)
leading to death.

Does this help you to understand that division is inevitable?

Collis

    re .9
    
    I would hasten to add that crucifixion was usually reserved for
    insurrectionists.  It is likely the other two Jesus was crucified
    with were more than generic thieves.
    
    The teachings of Jesus, if taken seriously, are the most radical and
    subversive the world has ever known.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    .9  Collis,
    
           "Does this help you understand that division is inevitable?"
    
    No, it doesn't.  Humanity can, if it wants to, refrain from religious 
    persecution and intolerance.
    
    You did not answer my original question.  You said, "I wish that
    all would come to repentance and seek Jesus Christ as LORD."  And I
    asked, in turn, "What if they don't?"
    
    Paul
    

    .9  Additional thoughts...
    
          "Jesus ... was the best lover of people that there ever was."
    
    In general, I agree.  But let me make a point about "love."  You and
    other traditionalist Christian men seem to say, over and over and over 
    again, that displays of love between/among humans is basically too 
    meaningless and too "mushy."  Traditionalist Christian men, my experience 
    has shown, simply write off human acts of love by rendering them 
    "insignificant" in the sense that only God can show love.  Putting aside 
    Jesus's teaching of "love thy neighbor" for the moment, how many Christians
    today, espeically the men, would scoff at any holy man going around 
    loving and healing and caring and comforting people today?  A lot, I 
    think.  If it isn't the real Jesus, then forget about acts of love.  
    That's why I entered a topic about why Jesus, if he returned today, would 
    find it virtually impossible to open his arms to and give unconditional 
    love to humanity -- especially to the poor, the suffering, the lonely, 
    the destitute.  Unless he could PROVE that he matched a certain 
    interpretation of what the BIBLE says about the authenticity of Jesus, 
    then contemporary Christendom would ignore and ridicule Jesus, as well 
    as scoff at his acts of unconditional love.
    
    They scoffed at and ridiculed Jesus (as lover) two millennia ago and 
    they would scoff at and ridicule him today.  
    
    So much for "true love."
    
    Paul 

Paul,

Re:  .11

  >Humanity can, if it wants to, refrain from religious persecution and
  >intolerance.

I'd rather take the word "religious" out and simply deal with the
statement "Humanity can... refrain from... persecution and intolerance".

NO IT CAN'T!!!

This is the problem.  We are conceived in sin and we continue in sin
until our death.  We cannot choose to simply never sin.  We are unable
(Romans 7) to implement that choice even if we make it (which we, in
general, do not).

My other comment is, define "intolerance".  What you consider "intolerant"
someone else (me, for instance) may consider faithfulness to revealed
truth.  When does it become intolerance, if ever?  Tough question.  I don't
have an answer for it.

Back to your question (which I'm sorry I didn't answer).

  >What if they don't [come to repentance and seek Jesus Christ as LORD]?

I take it you are asking, "What is the response of Collis Jackson to those
who choose not to believe and accept?"

The answer is, I will love them.  I will discuss, debate, and argue with
them.  I will try to be a witness to them by my actions.  I will try to
meet their needs in a Christ-like manner.  It is *not* my position to
pronounce judgment.  It *is* my position to be discerning and to be as
faithful a witness I can be to the truth that God has revealed.

Collis

    Don - 
    
    You brought a beaming smile to my face with that one!  :-)
    
    I was inspired to have a look at the Science of Mind magazine to see
    what the quote for the day was and I think it's more than appropriate for 
    this particular topic.
    
    "And there are diversities of operations, but it is the same God which
    worketh in all."
    
          -I Corinthians 12:6
    
    Nanci 

    Nanci,
    
    Thanks for that verse!
    
    Karen

    	There are swords and there are "swords". If you insist that the
    literal weapon, a longish, flatish, metalic object with one or more
    sharp edges and/or a point, then he choose a poor weapon, for is not
    the lowly pen mightier? The sword of the NT divided a nation and then
    another and then another. A pretty righteous weapon, I think.

    Re. 17
    
    In addition to what you said, a sword can be used for other
    purposes besides killing; such as, separating, freeing from
    bondage, and during ceremonial acts (as in dance and knighting).
    
    Peace,
    Richard

"Why of course people don't want war.  Why should some poor slob
on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get
out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?  It is the
leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always
a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy,
or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship...
All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce
the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to
danger.  It works the same in any country."

Herman Goering
(Hitler's deputy)

"I regret that I have but one life to give for my country."

Perhaps the farmer is hopeful that if the country is defended, he will
*have* a farm to come back to.

Collis

    In the infantry the chances are 1 in 3 that you won't be coming
    back.
    
    Richard

Note 637.1

>Congratulations!  This puts you squarely with the majority, both in this
>conference and in the world.  But consider that the gate is narrow...  :-)

Whenever I see a remark like the above, two thoughts go through my mind.
1.) The speaker feels he/she belongs to a persecuted minority.
2.) The speaker feels he/she is a part of an elite few.

Richard

Re:  .22

Well, indeed I do see myself as part of the minority.  However,
I certainly do not see myself as persecuted.  Some who discuss
with me may see themselves as persecuted :-) although that's
certainly not my intention.

I don't think of myself as one of the "elite" few.  I acknoledge
that I'm one of the few (whether for good or bad).  But certainly
not elite as anyone is welcome to join - none excluded (whether
the issue be inerrancy or simply accepting Jesus' sacrifice on
the cross).

Richard, I'll try to fit into your categories better next time, 
though.  :-)

Collis

    .23  I was sharing my speculative thoughts rather than categorizing.
    
    I don't see the congratulations you offered Derek as genuine.
    I might be wrong though.
    
    Richard

I view your speculative thoughts as categorizing.  :-)

You're discernment that my congratulations was not genuine
is indeed accurate.  It was meant more in a humurous
fashion.

Collis