Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    Playtoe:
    
            I am fairly familiar with Mann's works. Although I have to
     admit that it has been quite a while since I've read the Joseph
     stories. Mann's works are not exactly "lite" reading. Not exactly
     the kind of books you knock off on a weekend. It will probably
     come as no surprise to you that Mann spent years researching
     Egyptian history and mythology before and during the writing
     of the Joseph novels.
            When reading Mann I often find that I read a paragraph and
     spend quite a while thinking over what I've just read.
            If you liked the Joseph stories there are a couple of
     other works by Mann you might like. "The Holy Sinner" is a medieval
     tale that explores the sinful nature of humans and the importance
     of faith, repentance and salvation through grace. As with all of Mann's
     works the writing itself is beautiful.
            Also, I would highly recommend, "The Magic Mountain". I have
    to tell you that I regard this as one of the most profound works
    I have ever read.  If you want to read this one set aside some time.
    This is not an easy book to read as it operates on several levels.
    The book is a rather long examination of human values. Mann spins
    a tale in which religious and secular philosophy, the profane and
    the sacred, the meaning of life and death and our need and reasons
    for love and all the interrelationships between these things are 
    examined in detail. It seemed slow going at first but as I got
    deeper into the book I found it almost impossible to put down.
    It gets my vote as "The Great" masterpiece of 20th century literature.
       In "Faust", Mann does a superb job of reworking Goethe's verse
    version of the tale into very readable prose.
       Sorry to ramble on so, but yeah I've heard of Thomas Mann. You
    just happened to name one of my favorite writers. 
       I guess I better nip on down to the library and check out the
    Joseph novels and reread them so you and I can share some observations,
    insights and opinions.
    
                                                       Mike

    Re: 1
    
    Yes, I first found "Joseph In Egypt" about 8 years ago, and couldn't
    put it down til through, and hated that I finished it because it was so
    wonderful.  I am very interested in Egypt and that's why I picked the
    book up in the first place.  I can til the man knows Egypt, his
    writings do not conflict with the major Egyptologists.  But, most
    intriguing I find his religious philosophy so understandable and real. 
    You can't refute his reasoning.  Much of it evolves around scripture,
    not taking it out of context, but helping you to understand "the"
    context, equating scriptures that oftentimes you had forgetton or
    didn't find necessarily relevent to the whole big picture.  He opens up
    the bible and history so clearly that it makes me think he is an angel
    himself...and no doubt he is.
    
    I will look it getting the books you've mentioned, I love to read books
    that broaden my scope, justifiably, on scripture...and I've read many
    already, and it seems I have much more to go.  
    
    I like Mann's kind of writing.  I feel it is more fruitful to my
    Christian faith than guys like C.L. Lewis, or Joseph Campbell, or
    others who try to debate the validity of the bible.  Mann does not do
    this, but proceeds from the premise that it is true...and I love that!
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

    
    Re.2
    
     Playtoe:
    
             You are being unintentionally funny with the remark
    about Mann being an angel. Thomas Mann died in 1955 if I remember
    correctly. He was born into a very wealthy German shipbuilding
    family in Hamburg in the 1870's ( again this is from memory
    so I may be off a bit on the dates).
              His father was a university professor and Thomas followed
    in his fathers footsteps and eventually was hired to fill what had been
    his father's post at the university.
              Mann left Germany shortly after Hitler came to power for
    two reasons. He realized that academic freedom was as good as dead
    with the Nazis in power and his wife had one Jewish grandparent
    and that was enough to make him worry that her and his children
    could be rounded up and sent to the camps. Mann and his family
    fled Germany and came to the US were they settled in L.A. Calf.
              I certainly agree with you about Mann's ability to 
    bring the Old Testament to life and to bring out the importance
    of things that might be overlooked. A true literary genius in
    my opinion.
              The other books I mentioned are allegorical rather than
    specifically Scriptural, however they deeply explore Christian
    philosophy and themes and I would recommend them to anyone who
    is looking for serious, thought provoking literature.
    
                                                       Mike
    
    P.S. If you have trouble finding any of his books let me know.
         I know a used book store where a lot of college students
         sell their old books and Mann's works turn up quite often
         at bargain prices.
              
            

    I've not read any of Mann's books but they do sound interesting.
   
    I agree with his assessment of sin as meaning folly and clumsy 
    dealing with God.  I believe it is also translated as "missing the 
    mark."  Regarding wisdom:
    
    > Whereas wisdom meant foresight and care for the future.
    
    I would also add that for me, wisdom includes caring for the 
    present, as well as the future.  This reminds me of the question 
    many native peoples would contemplate while making a decision, 
    especially one of great magnitude:
    
    "What effect will this decision have upon seven generations out?"
    
    Not an easy question to answer, but an imperative one.  My desire is
    that more people would contemplate this as a central question in the 
    decision-making process, especially in the corporate world.  It could 
    save a species or two from extinction.  It could save us.  
    
    With all due respect God,
    
    Karen
           

    
    
    In at least one place, the Bible indicates that wisdom begins with a
    fear of the Lord. Sin began with disobedience of the Lord.
    
    Jamey

    Karen,

    Your comment about "seven generations" reminds me of something that has
    been on my mind lately.  I have been contemplating lately the ways in
    which right actions don't necessarily correlate with immediate results. 
    This relates to what a member of my local Quaker meeting calls the
    "Johnny Appleseed" theory--you spread the seeds and then move on
    without worrying about waiting to watch the trees to grow.  Being in
    tune with a Higher Will brings an inner peace that may not correlate
    with immediate results. 

    Sometimes you may not feel like offering your hand in reconciliation
    with someone you are in conflict with--maybe even that person will not
    respond to your offer.  But so what if they don't?  Is saving face all
    that matters?  You did all you could have done, you did the right
    thing, and can live with yourself in peace.  And if they do respond,
    you have initiated a reconciliation that will make it all worth it. 
    The immediate result is not the reason for attempting reconciliation;
    you do it simply because it is *right*.  I admit that I often don't
    live up to that ideal (I'm human, after all), but that, to me, is an
    important source of wisdom that I strive for.

    I like the comment that Harold Loucks, an Australian Quaker, once made: 
    "An act of love that fails is just as much a part of the divine life as
    an act of love that succeeds.  For love is measured by its fullness and
    not by its reception."  Violence and hate may have its own short-term
    benefits, but the long term results are that violence and hate
    perpetuate themselves.  Though love and nonviolence may not always seem
    as "effective", by living your life in agreement with those principles
    you plant the seeds, even if you aren't around to watch them grow.

    The following quote from Harold Brinton, in his book "Friends for 300
    Years", summarizes this view for me:

        The problem of consistency and compromise faces every thoughtful
        man [sic].  The soldier feels compelled to do many things contrary
        to the code of morals which he has accepted from childhood.  The
        pacifist finds it impossible to extricate himself from all
        connection with war.  Each is uneasy.  For both there is a sense of
        frustration and failure.

        The problem may be stated in this way:  Should men [sic] try to
        live up to the highest they know, squarely facing the probability
        of failure? or, Should they direct their efforts toward a lower
        goal with some likelihood of attainment?  Most persons accept the
        second alternative, believing that some gain is better than none at
        all.

        Yet, in accepting the lower and more attainable standard, there are
        few who do not preserve some area in life in which they can pay
        homage to the highest.  This is especially true of adherents to the
        great religious faiths which all began by repudiating compromise,
        though, as the number and variety of their members increased, they
        gradually came to accept it.  Even so, they tried to retain a way
        by which consistency could be somewhere saved in spite of general
        compromise.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike .6,
    
    I really appreciate your thoughts.  I strive for the same wisdom as
    you, and I especially found these words by the Australian Quaker, 
    Harold Loucks, which you quoted especially inspiring.  I feel they bear
    repeating :-):
    
    > "An act of love that fails is just as much a part of the divine life
    >  as an act of love that succeeds.  For love is measured by its fullness
    >  and not by its reception."
    
    Interesting thoughts as well by Harold Brinton regarding the moral
    dilemas the soldier and pacifist often find themselves in.
    
    Thanks Mike; good food for the heart and mind.
    
    Karen       

  
      I did go to the library and check out the "Joseph" novels and
 have been re-reading selected sections of them. What follows will
 are some the impressions that I've gotten that strike me as important
 aspects of this set of novels. 
      Essentially what Mann seems to have been trying to do in these
 books is pursue the dual purpose of presenting history as myth and
 myth as history. Which will mirror our own human experience and
 is a traditional aspect of our culture. 
      Mann endeavors to present the story through not only the eyes,
 but though the mind of a person of the period. Thus Divine nature
 is not only part of human existence, but the engine that drives human
 existence and pervades every aspect of the human experience.
      In order to do this Mann intentionally reverses one of the basic
 themes of modern Christian thought, that is sin began with knowledge
 which resulted in disobedience. Mann puts forth the concept that moral
 consciousness beings with knowledge of the nature of God as it acts in
 your life. The axiom that the author puts forward is that ignorance 
 is sin because it separates us from experiencing God coming into being
 in our individual lives.
      Rationality and self-consciousness which are generally viewed as
 the beginning of sin are viewed by Mann as essential elements of an
 existence that God oriented. Only the intelligent, conscious human 
 will see the role of the Divine in both history and nature. It is this 
 manifestation of the Divine that endows history mythological greatness
 and mythology with historical importance in these books.
      With the "fall" came consciousness and with this knowledge which
 allows recognition of God and willingly obedience and service to God.
      This parallels the idea of myth as non-historical and pre-consciousness
 and history which represents consciousness and knowledge. This establishes
 God as a transcendent reality that has moved mankind from ignorance
 to knowledge and given us moral consciousness. Myth and history, ignorance
 and knowledge are all manifestations of the Divine nature, but if we
 ourselves are ignorant we will unaware of this and we will be ignorant
 of Divine nature and be in a state of sin.
      This use of use of parallel themes or theme and variations also
 parallels repetitive occurrences in history and myth and human life.
 The use of multiple themes and variations that all mirror each other are
 something of a structural trademark of Mann's writing. 
      In these novels the the "Old Covenant" of God and Israel can only
 exist with a "fallen" mankind because only the self-conscious human would
 see the importance of serving God. Also with this covenant is comes the
 realization of the Divine nature as manifested in the material world.
 With moral conscious comes the belief that God is all around us and
 not some abstract entity "out there" some place.
      Again Mann's use of parallel structure is revealed. God is envisioned
 as both a physical (the natural world) and spiritual entity and humans
 are also both physical and spiritual which is a manifestation of the Divine
 nature in humans. In his novels man creates a cycle of the living God who
 is the natural universe that includes humanity that has a spiritual nature
 that is one with the Divine nature. Mann closes the circle of God, humanity,
 the physical and the spiritual. So, the idea of the "sacred" is not something
 isolated from "fallen man", but is the unity of mankind, God and nature.
 Sin, then becomes something that removes the individual from this perfect
 universal relationship and that is ignorance, lack of insight, failure
 of the moral self-consciousness.
       The great message of these books, if you will, is that path to a 
 moral life and participation in the Divine nature are inexorably linked with
 intelligence, foresight and the desire to do so because one "knows" that
 one should because it has been intellectually internalized, not because of
 faith.
        Mann give his Old Testament characters a very comprehensive world
 view. They are shown to have a deeper understanding of God and the Divine
 nature manifested in the world around them and their relationship with
 God than modern humanity does. They see and feel the presence of the Divine
 and have great understanding of it. 

         So much for my attempt at literary criticism. I hope this gives
 some of you a idea of the structural and philosophical content of these
 books.
         I'd certainly be interested to hear any opinions people might
 have of the ideas Mann presents.
         
         However !!! and I mean this. I have NO intention of defending
 or justifying the content of these books. I AM NOT Thomas Mann so please
 do not confuse the critic with the author. If you take exception to my 
 interpretation of Mann's writings that's a different story and I would be
 willing to discuss how and why I arrived at these opinions.


                                                       Mike 

 

    re .8
    
    Much credit to you, Mike, for your effort.
    
    Richard

    Thanks, Mike!  That's definitely something I want to add to my
    Christmas wish list!  
    
    :-)
    
    Nanci

    
    	Sin:  Falling short of the glory (glorious expectations) of God.
    	Wisdom: The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.  Obediance
    		to God is the continuation of that wisdom.
    
    	_ed-

    "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."
    
    Fear.  Fear ?  _ed-, could you perhaps provide a little personal
    elucidation on how you understand these quotes and how they relate to
    "wisdom" ?  Wisdom: Understanding of what is true, right, or lasting.
    Also "common sense" and "good judgement". How does FEAR lead to
    understanding ?  Fear may lead you to do many things, some of which may
    or may not be right, but not to understanding. Only to doing. That is
    not wisdom, that is survival. There may be some wisdom in survival, but
    that is often refered to as street smarts.

    
    Dave,
    	Fear: (Eds' definition) The reverencial respect and honor given
    		to God.
    
    	When we give God the honor and glory due Him and give Him control
    	of our lives; thats' WISDOM.
    
    _ed-

< Note 114.12 by DELNI::MEYER "Dave Meyer" >
                     -< fear ?  but wisdom conquers fear. >-

    "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

My cut at this is:

Fear: an awsome subjection to God. God in total control of your
lives as a father would be to his children. A growth process from
which man comes from.

Wisdom: given by God to man; the capability to differenciate the
degrees of right and wrong (note: NOT just RIGHT from WRONG).
Solomon's wisdom of two fathers fighting over their son
(supposedly from a common wife); he took a sword to divide the
baby in half, the father who loved the baby would not want to see
the baby die, the father who fought for the baby for what ever
other reason lost the son. Would Solomon hve killed the baby?
That's wisdom.

calvijn

Dave,

This was a verse that I misunderstood for a long while because I
misunderstood the word "fear" just as you do.

Fear, as the Old Testament talks about it in the context of fearing God,
is indeed a reverential respect and worship.  It is an acknowledgement
of the total awesomeness of God which when contrasted with our own
puniness creates a range of emotions.  It is an acknowledgement of the
total purity of God when when contrasted with our own s--fulness causes
us to revere and love God for who He is.

Collis

    There are eight definitions of FEAR in the AHD, six of them are
    unreservedly negative. The other two (one noun, one verb) refer to awe
    of God. Given the violent nature of the OT God, it would seem quite
    fitting that one should FEAR God according to any of the definitions
    provided, just as it would seem wise to fear the neiborhood bully.
    Those who do not fear him are subject to having their cities thrown
    down and their entrails wrapped about their murderers. It is well
    indeed to be in awe of such a power, to show reverence to it, to bow
    down in subjugation in it's presence.
    But then, I'm one of those liberals who picks and chooses what I
    believe, so what could I know ?

Re:  114.16

I have heard that the Hebrew underlying the word translated fear is the 
"awe" definition.  Since I don't really know Hebrew (one semester which
I've long since forgotten) and do not have Hebrew reference works, I
can't check this up.  

  >But then, I'm one of those liberals who picks and chooses what I
  >believe, so what could I know ?

What I see that goes on with most people (liberal or conservative) is
that they pick and choose much too early in the interpretation process.
They haven't done the work on the text, they haven't done the work on
the Bible in general, they haven't done the work on the culture, etc.

Yes, we all need to come to conclusions.  But we need to remember why
we came to a particular conclusion and be open to receiving more
evidence and resist coming to a conclusion where we know that we're
missing important information.

Collis

    Re: The Fear vs Wisdom discussion
    
    Now, you are beginning to arrive at the valididation of Mr. Mann's
    basenote.  Again, Mr. Mann says, "Sin is a lack of foresight, Wisdom is
    foresight and preparedness for the future".  
    
    If you fail to foresee that God's laws and will have an ultimate
    consequence for every act, and proceed into the moment without thinking
    about what God's will is in this matter...a lack of foresight...then we
    most often find that we have sinned.  And sin is no sin until the act
    is completed.  Even in thought, if you don't complete the thought, but
    check it, because you foresee God's will, you have not sinned.  
    
    You cannot stop thoughts from entering your mind, you cannot suppress
    the lust of the flesh and eyes from generating the thoughts of
    wickedness and evil, but "by the renewing of the mind", and "the
    knowledge of God's will", are we able to "head-off" the course of evil
    and turn and go the other way...foresight is wisdom...look ahead.
    
    The Fear of the Lord, is twofold.  1)God has no fears, but is 100%
    love, except that he fears that man will die.  Therefore he gave us
    commandments, because he fears that if we do against these commandments
    we will die.  So 2)when man finds the fear of the lord this basically
    means that he knows Gods commandments.  Fear of the Lord is the
    beginning of Wisdom, because if we obey his commandments (generated out
    of his fear for OUR lives) we are wise.  I hope you understand this.
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

The following statements about SIN will contribute to the understanding
of the string of entries in Note 91 concerning the Bible and Homosexuality.


SIN in its primary sense is a state of being before it becomes a
specific act.

SIN is a state of alienation or estrangement from God, our neighbor and
ourselves which results in acts of violence and oppression, apathy and
inaction, and othe expressions of separation from our true being.

In order to be sinful, behavior must involve free-will choice and must
alienate one from God.

ONLY GOD can truly discern whether or not an act is sinful and ONLY GOD
can judge the actor.

Peace,
Richard

I think the definitions you provided are rather good.  But I do have a
few comments.  :-)

Sin can results in much more than simply "acts of violence and oppression,
apathy and inaction" which you include in "other expression of separation
from our true being".  I just wanted to point out that these other
expressions of separation are many and that they are just as evil as
the ones you specifically listed.  (In other words, I agree with you.  :-) )

Collis

    RE: .19, Richard,
    
>SIN in its primary sense is a state of being before it becomes a
>specific act.

    Is this the same thing as "original sin"?  Sounds like it to me.
    
>SIN is a state of alienation or estrangement from God, our neighbor and
>ourselves which results in acts of violence and oppression, apathy and
>inaction, and othe expressions of separation from our true being.
    
    Ah, but how does that state come about in the first place if not
    through some act of disobedience?  Isn't the state of alienation or
    estragement itself *caused by* sin?
    
    Again, it seems to me that you are describing the doctrine of original
    sin.  If so, I won't argue with you on that -- even though it isn't my
    view -- but it would certainly be very helpful if you would say whether
    or not this is your belief.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

Note 114.21
    
Nancy,

	I derived this definition from the course I took called _The
Bible and Homosexuality_ and it doesn't necessarily reflect my own.
The instructor and materials were of a more fundamentalist perspective
concerning the Bible than I am.  To me, this definition of sin seemed
adequate for our purposes, however.

	"Original sin" was not discussed during the course.  The concepts
of "sins of omission,""sins of commission," and "sins of thought, word and
deed," were only briefly touched upon.

	I placed the note about sin here in order to avoid derailment of
the topic of Note 91.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    You've still left me puzzled!! *I* certainly perceived that your
    definition of sin was the foundation of the points you were leading
    up to.  Are you saying it's irrelevant?  If so, I'll not sidetrack
    you further.
    
    And I sure thought it was your own point of few, so forcefully did
    you espouse it!!  :-)
    
    Confused,
    Nancy

	Actually, Nancy, things are going much smoother in 91.* than
I had anticipated; a most welcome surprise.  I had planned to point
to 114.19 in the event that sin came up, in order to provide a pivotal
definition in connection with the entries concerning _The Bible and
Homosexuality_.

	I may not need to use 114.19.

	This probably confuses things even more.  But, what can I say?
I'm new at orchestrating a suite of notes! ;-}

Peace,
Richard

>The following statements about SIN will contribute to the understanding
>of the string of entries in Note 91 concerning the Bible and Homosexuality.
    
    I don't think so. :-)
    
>ONLY GOD can truly discern whether or not an act is sinful and ONLY GOD
>can judge the actor.
    
    So we can hate things that seperate one from God? And still love the
    sinner? How can we not?
    
    			Alfred

    While I'm here. Where did .19 come from? What is the Biblical
    basis (if any) for it? Does someone have a Biblical explaination
    of what sin is?
    
    		Alfred