Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Yes, I believe the Bible is a channeled work.  The essence of
    channeling or mediumship is the spirit of one in a non-physical
    body communing with the spirit of another in a physical body, and
    the awareness of this process is registered in the physical-emotional-
    mental senses.
    
    God-breathed, God-inspired, and Relelation are all words that have 
    been and can be used to describe this process.
    
    Leave it to you to ask this question Paul! :-)
    
    Karen

Let's define "channeled" explicitly.

Karen talks about it's "essense".

In the American Heritage Dictionary (1983) that I have access to at work,
the definition of channeled as we are talking about it does not exist.
Perhaps someone else's dictionary has a definition?

Collis

Collis,

Not to bring the Bible in NEW AGE terms, the American Heritage
Dictionary does define CHANNEL as a verb that "direct or guide
along some desired course". Definitely, the Bible does do that
for some of us.

Channel is also an "official route of communication"; definitely,
the Bible is God's official route of communication to us.

calvin

Well, the question was not "does the Bible channel us", but rather,
"is the Bible channeled"?

Was the Bible "directed or guided along some desired course"?

Was the Bible "an official route of communication"?

My answer to both questions is yes.  Therefore, the Bible was channeled.

Somehow, I don't think this answers the question Paul had in mind.  :-)

Collis

    .4  Collis,
    
               "Therefore the Bible was channeled."
    
    Glory hallelujah!  We agree!  ;)
    
               "Somehow, I don't think this answers the questions
                Paul had in mind."
    
    Well, that depends.  Do you also think that God reaches out to,
    communicates with, and directs and guides along some desired course
    other members of humanity today and throughout history, in ways that 
    are similar to the ways God inspired/guided the authors of the Bible?
    And if so, how are these other communications manifested?
    
    My born-again Christian friends tell me that channeling is clearly
    against God's will, that it is the work and deception of demons.  That
    channeling is contrary to God's way.  That it should not be done.  Now, 
    I maintain that a whole lot of channeling that goes on today is indeed 
    inspired by God -- guidance and direction and communication that is of 
    or from or sanctioned by God.  Guidance and direction and communication 
    that is, on the whole, not much different than men who were inspired 
    by God two millennia ago.
    
    If you agree with me, then what's the big bugaboo about channeling?
    Most everybody does it.  Born-again Christians do it.  It is pretty
    hard to avoid when one is walking and has a relationship with God.
    
    Paul   

Paul,

Ask you friends the two questions I asked in .4 without ever mentioning
the word "channeling".  See what they think.

The point I made (in a backwards way) in .4 is that the two definitions of
channeling given by Cal were not the same definition that is normally
meant when one speaks of "channeling" today.  I still think we need to
define "channeling" so that it applies to the type of "channeling" that
people in, for example, Dejavu, discuss.

Collis

    .6  Collis,
    
    Always scurrying to look it up in an "official book," eh?  ;)
    
    I thought I had given you a general definition in my .5 reply....
    communications, guidance, direction that is of and/or from and/or
    sanctioned by God.  As Karen said in .1, I think the processing of these
    communications can involve our physical senses as well as senses beyond
    the physical.  This is *my* first attempt at a definition.  I want
    to make it clear that I do not speak for anyone who notes in DEJAVU,
    since you mention DEJAVU.  I am also reluctant to go into the minutia,
    Collis, and start refining and re-refining these definitions down to the
    last molecule.   If you would care to offer your own definition of
    "channeling," the way you think the people in DEJAVU mean it or the 
    way you mean it or whatever, please do so.   If you want to instead 
    quote scripture about this subject, fine.  Just please offer your own
    personal interpretation along with things you lift out of the Bible.
    
    If you have the time, please address the contents of my last paragraph
    in reply .5 ... What's the big bugaboo about channeling?
    
    Paul 

    Collis,
    
    One more point about coming up with precise definitions...  defintions
    are contingent upon one's concept of God, among other things.   Please
    keep this in mind when trying to pin down a definition.
    
    Paul
    

    RE:  CHANNELING
    
    IMO, "Channeling" is a very appropriate term to apply to the authors of
    the Bible, indeed "holy men spake as they were moved by the holy
    spirit".  However, I do see a slight difference between Channeling and
    speaking by God's inspiration.  
    
    In "Channeling" the spirit that is speaking is in direct possession of
    the person/vehicle through whom the speech comes.  And indeed, this is
    what apparently is taking place when the Angels came to Abraham
    regarding Sodom and Gomorah, the bible seems to imply that it was
    infact God speaking to Abraham, as the Angel is using 1st person
    grammar.  I would also say that Jesus was a "Channel".
    
    However, "inspiration" does not have the direct possession.  Prophets,
    according to scripture, are giving their message prior to their
    speaking to the people.  God appears in a "vision", which serves to
    "inspire" the prophet to speak:  "Say this unto them, Thus saith the
    Lord...."
    
    Another thing, I mentioned in another note how Satanist's get their
    rituals, ceremonies and beliefs, from the Bible or religious doctrines. 
    So if we find them "channeling" this is evidence that it is occuring
    with the righteous.  Only difference is who they are channeling!
    
    I have read "Ramtha", a book that is allegedly the product of Channeled
    knowledge.  I must say that I believe the book, for the simple fact
    that I don't believe that the woman through whom Ramtha speaks knows
    the kind of wisdom and knowledge that she is speaking.  The book
    reveals some answers or responses to questions that go far beyond
    anything I've ever heard normal humans to speak.   I know how much
    study and learning it takes for us to come to fully assured faith and
    confidence in things unseen and her speechs (or Ramtha's) show a great
    deal of experience and learning, which, again, I don't believe the
    woman has...much the same as Bible wisdom.
    
    As the Quran says, "If you think man wrote it, have him produce
    another!" 

I'm not going to try to find or construct a definition of channeling,
although I will make comments if others do.  Primarily because time is
limited and I think this is a difficult task.  But I do believe that
the definition of channeling (or a definition of channeling) is very
important before we start to talk about it.  Or else, we'll just be
agreeing or disagreeing on what we don't understand (at least, understand
similarly).

But I will take a shot at .5.  The big deal about "channeling" is that
some forms of "channeling" are explicitly condemned.  For example,
contacting people who have died is explicitly condemned.  (Don't ask
me how this fits in with prayers to saints!)  There is a Scripture
reference for this, if you like.  I still don't have my on-line Bible,
so these references are harder to come up with.

Collis

    If you don't mind Playtoe, I'd like to clarify any misconceptions
    people may have regarding something you noted in .9:
    
    > In "Channeling" the spirit that is speaking is in direct possession
    > of the person/vehicle through whom the speech comes.
    
    Possession in this instance should not be interpreted to mean a
    "hostile" take over of one spirit over another.  A "sharing" of 
    consciousness of the two beings involved would be a more accurate 
    way to understand the dynamics.  There is a collaboration that 
    occurs between the two involved, not a subjugation or a domination
    of one over the other.
    
    Karen

    Collis,
    
    Could you please include the Scripture which says that speaking to
    the dead is prohibited?  I find it hard to understand why God would
    not want us to be able to communicate with those we love who have
    passed on.  To me there is no separation and only a thin veil keeps us
    from those we love in Spirit.  I have often felt those I love close to
    me and 'spoke' to them through my thoughts.
    
    Ro
    

Re:  .12

The specific injunction is against using mediums and spiritists to
contact the dead.  I still don't have a concordance here, but I can
refer you to I Sam 28 where Saul does exactly this although it is clear
that the LORD has commanded this not be done.

Sorry I can't be more specific.  Soon (I hope), I will have my Bible
back on line and then this would be easy to find.

Collis

    
    
    re: 12
    
    This scripture should tell you about using mediums and spiritist who
    contact the dead.
    
    I think these are the right ones; 1 Sam 28:3, 28:9
                                      2 Kings 21:6, 23:24
                                      2 Ch. 33:6
    
    Hope this of some help.
    
    Peace,
    Bill

    Collis,
    
    I thought that Saul was punished not for speaking to the dead but
    for failing to obey God's word and destroy some group of people.
    
    When the 'witch of Endor' called up the ghost for him, as I recall it,
    the ghost (of ????) told him to do what God had commanded.
    
    Also, in the Roman Catholic tradition (which was the tradition of
    the entire church for the first 1600+ years) intercessory prayer
    is made to the saints (who are of course dead). The modern RC
    church, the Anglican (Holy Catholic) and the Russian and Greek
    Orthodox churches continue to adress intercessory prayers to the
    saints (i.e. communicate with the dead). So even if some groups
    of Christians believe that the Bible prohibits communication with
    the dead, they certainly to not speak for all Christians, and are
    not, as far as I know, even in the majority, in their theology.
    
    Bonnie

    
    
    RE: .14
    
    To me, the Book of Samuel shows how God will use this form of
    communication to get information through.
    
    I read the other passages also.  To me, what I think was happening
    was that these gifts were misused.  Many things can be used for
    evil.  It doesn't make the act itself evil.
    
    If you read the passages in Samuel, you will see that this 
    communication was not evil in any way.
    
    Carole

Re:  82.16

  >To me, the Book of Samuel shows how God will use this form of
  >communication to get information through.

To me, Samuel 28 shows how Saul used this form of communication to
get information through.

There were well-prescribed ways that God had ordained to reveal his
Will.  These included dreams, Urim and prophets.  Saul tried all these.
God *refused* to answer him this way.  To say that it was *God* who
then chose a medium or spiritist as the proper channel is a leap of
logic.  Is was *Saul* who chose this medium after *explicitly* commanding
mediums and spiritists to not practice in the land.

Saul did a similar thing earlier which reflects his obedience to the
LORD.  Saul was waiting to go to battle.  But, before the battle, he
needed to offer a sacrifice to the LORD.  By law, this was Samuel's
responsibility and Saul was not allowed to offer the sacrifice.  He did
anyway.  Samuel came, saw what had happened and condemned Saul's
actions to the extent of saying that the kingdom would be taken from
Saul's hands and given to another.  

In fact, it was this incident which caused God to remove His Spirit
from Saul.  From here on out, Saul's actions can *not* be ascribed to
God's will, only to Saul's will.  Saul practiced much disobedience of
God's will after this point.

I still don't have a concordance which would allow me to look up the
appropriate verses in the law.  But, as I wrote that last sentence,
God reminded me of a verse I memorized several years ago because
it seemed an important thing to know.

Leviticus 19:31

  "Do not turn to mediums or seek out spiritists, for you will be
   defiled by them.  I am the LORD your God."

Let us use the Word of God to more fully conform to His Will so that
we may grow more and more into the likeness of His Son, Jesus Christ.

Collis

Re:  prayers to saints

I *asked* you not to ask me about this.  :-)

At this time, I don't want to pursue this.

Collis

    re:  .17 use of Urim [and Thumim?]
    
    Anyone know more about Urim?  My recollection is that Urim and Thumim
    were a form of divination or dice throwing.
    
    DR
    
    

Bonnie,

I believe that is the correct understanding (although I might have phrased
it differently. :-) )

Collis

    Collis,
    
    :-) if you were referring to .19 that was Don (DR) not me :-)
    
    Bonnie
    
    (b_reinke)

    
    Re .19
    
    DR,
    
    Urim and Thumim, from my dusty gray cells, were part of the ornaments
    used to symbolize something upon the priests garments. I have heard it
    said that the early priestly garments containing these two elements wee
    the shadow of Christ speaking 'in spirit and in truth'. No longer
    needed the old garments or the old sacrifice, for that matter.
    
    Jamey

    .18  Collis,
    
    So what about communications with saints?  Seriously, it seems you are
    saying that channeling is evil, except when Christians are doing it for
    the purposes of receiving guidance from saints/archangels/JMJ/other
    Christian idols who have ascended into heaven.  Non-BA Christians are
    just as serious about praying to God for guidance/direction of/from God
    in similar circumstances.
    
    I essentially agree with Carole.... there are lots of things in the
    Bible, especially OT, that are meant, IMHO, as warnings not to abuse
    certain things.  Not looking at many of these "laws" as non-abuse directives
    ignores the common unhealthy situations people of the day could
    easily get themselves into.  For goodness sakes, I would ALSO caution
    people before they decide to run off and open themselves up to arbitrary 
    channeling.  That it ought not be used for benign experimentation. 
    That it should be coupled with pure intentions, proper discipline,
    prayer, and especially faith/service to God.  Therefore, to me some of 
    these OT cautions against channeling are quite understandable.
    
    You mentioned the ban of channeling, found in Lev.  Do you
    wear clothes woven from two or more fabrics from two or more different
    kinds of animals?  Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't Lev. 19:19
    outlaw that as well?  What about how the OT directs men not to sit in
    furniture after they masturbate, since the furniture will become as
    sinful as the masturbator?  Not to mention circumcision and eating
    certain kinds of animal flesh.  It seems we can easily lose sight of the
    fact that many of "God's laws" were put on the books to help keep
    people clean and healthy.  Practical reasons.
    
    Paul
          

Paul,

Do you acknowledge that some law is ceremonial and some is moral?  Or
is there some other division?  Or no division at all?

I believe that some law *is* ceremonial, and some law *is* moral law.
The teaching in the New Testament, I think, confirms this.

This issue is similar to the issue of homosexuality.  The Bible does
nothing accept condemn.  Those who wish to believe that a practice is
acceptable both limit the definitions used in the Bible to mean only
a portion of the activity and then use an argument of silence on the portion
they claim the Bible does not discuss.

Personally, I do not think that this is the best scholarship.

Collis

    re  .24
    
    Dear Professor Collis,
    
    Sorry my scholarly comportment doesn't suit your high-minded standards.
    
           "I believe that some law *is* ceremonial, and some law *is*
            moral law."
    
    Since you like definitions, define "moral."  And who among us is better
    qualified to determine what is "ceremonial" and what is "moral?"  Seems
    like I'm not the only one who allegedly likes to pick and choose.  BTW,
    the fact is that homosexuality is not a practice, it's a state of
    being.  You like facts .... deal with that fact.  That one can condemn
    the sin without condemning the sinner is a Christian myth.
    
    And at your convenience, please answer my questions in .23  
    instead of wasting disk space telling me how unscholarly I am.
    
    Paul
    

ReRe:  82.25

  >Since you like definitions, define "moral."  And who among us is better
  >qualified to determine what is "ceremonial" and what is "moral?"  

Perhaps we first need to agree whether or not a distinction is made in
the New Testament (and the Old Testament as well).  If you see no
distinction, then we can discuss that.  If you do see a distinction made,
then we can discuss what that distinction is.  It is at that point
that we can discuss "moral" and "ceremonial".  But it looks like we're
not at that point yet.

  >BTW, the fact is that homosexuality is not a practice, it's a state of
  >being.  

I'm sorry for the confusion.  I was using the word as a practice.  I
will try to conform in the future to using the word as a state of
being.  Anyway, my comment referred to homosexual acts, not the state
of being of homosexual feelings.

  >You like facts .... deal with that fact.  That one can condemn
  >the sin without condemning the sinner is a Christian myth.

Feel free to explain why you see it as a myth.  I've heard the claim,
but either haven't heard (or don't remember) the explanation.
    
  >And at your convenience, please answer my questions in .23  
  >instead of wasting disk space telling me how unscholarly I am.
    
I seem to have hit a nerve.  Sorry if I offended you, but I do not retract
my statement about what I consider inferior scholarship.  We'll just have
to agree to disagree.

Is this the question you're talking about?

  >So what about communications with [dead] saints?

I explicitly said I would not discuss this.

Collis

    re: 25
    
>	That one can condemn
    the sin without condemning the sinner is a Christian myth.
    
    It is no myth!  Sin must be condemned, "sin" cannot enter into heaven
    and does not repent.  But a sinner can repent, and upon repentence
    enter into heaven.  You must never condemn the sinner to hell, as it is
    written "the word is nigh thee" we aren't to say who goes to hell or to
    heaven.  The possibility of a sinner repenting is always made
    available, and therefore is not to be condemned.
    
    Perhaps, we sometimes confuse "judgement" with "fate".  A sinner may
    die in their sins, having never been judged or condemned by anyone, and
    they still go to where they are supposed to go.  
    
    The issue of "condemn sin, but not sinners" is a profound concept, as
    profound as the idea of "turning the other cheek" to an enemy, or
    "feeding and clothing thine enemy, for by such things we heap coals
    upon their heads", do you understand these other concepts?
    
    

    Hi,
    
    Although I am not a Catholic, and I do not see a good reason for
    praying to a *saint*, I will ask this question.
    
    Why would anyone want to pray to a lower being than God when God
    has made the way for us to communicate with Him clear and wide open?
    
    Jesus Christ Himself taught us how to communicate with God.  In Matt
    we are given the Lord's prayer and that prayer is our model for prayer,
    if you are a Bible believing Christian.  If you take the name Christian
    then you should do what your teacher has taught.  And what Jesus taught
    was prayer directly to God.  The book of Hebrews makes it clear that
    we have only one priest and that is Jesus Christ.  And Jesus Christ is
    God (Isaiah 9).  
    
    Therefore, *even if* it were ok to pray to a lower being, why?  You
    can go directly to God.  If you are just giving prayer a new name 
    called *channeling* then what is the big deal.  But if you are trying
    to bring the New Age teachings into Christian doctrine I must stand 
    opposed to that.  For the New Age doctrine is Hinduism and materailism
    put together.  I have studied what an ex New Ager has had to say about
    the New Age doctrine.  I am a follower of Christ and not a Hindu.
    I will not add to the teachings of the bible (KJV).
    
    
                                     Marshall  
    

    Hello - I agree with Watkins about prayer, but that doesn't mean I
    don't think the saints can help us.
    
    I often feel the presence of St. Francis.  On at least four occasions,
    I have spontaneously requested and (I believe) received his help, when
    in the presence of what you might call "dark" forces.  I do not regard
    this as prayer, but rather as a request that I might make to anyone
    among us.  Only St. Francis isn't using a physical body at this time.
    
    You have only to read his prayers to know that he was a master at what
    I call transmutation, which is how I attempt to deal with dark forces. 
    
    DR

    re:28

    Do you ask people to pray for you ? If so why ? You can go to God 
    directly. 

    The idea of Praying to saints is nothing more than asking them, who we
    believe to be in the presence of God, to pray for us, or intercede for
    us.

    There is a story that I heard that goes something like this :

     When, Mary the mother of Jesus was on her death bed, Peter asked her,
     "Mary, when you come into the presence of your son Jesus, tell him that I
     love him." Mary responded to Peter, " you can tell him yourself.
     Why do you ask me to tell him ?" Peter replied, " I know that I can
     tell him in my prayers, but it would give me great comfort, knowing
     that you will tell him as well."

    You can write letter to a person who is not with you, but wouldn't it
    give you great comfort if someone delivered that letter to the person
    for you, rather than sending it through the mail ? Either way it gets
    to the person, but having a friend deliver it is reassuring.
     
    So it is with praying to saints. 

    Peace
    Jim

    My Bible teaches that God is with us always.  A person you might send
    a letter to is not always with you.  God is not just in heaven.  I
    actually have a relationship with God here and now.  The Holy Spirit
    is my comfort.  Why would I want to talk to someone through another 
    person while that someone is right there with me?  That would not
    show love at all.  Jesus said I will not leave you nor forsake you.
    Did Jesus lie to me?  No, He did not lie.  He walks with me each day.
    
    
                               Marshall

    I'm not Jim.  But, I seriously doubt that Jim will disagree with
    what you've said.
    
    Richard

    RE:.31
    Richard is right, I don't disagree with you, but I feel you missed
    my point. Anyway, I ain't got the time to go further. Maybe someone
    else can help out ?
    
    
    Peace
    Jim