Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    Although your quote might be a little off
    Brothers and sisters of Christ should not scoff
    Could it be that such zealousness for the Lord of life
    Determines for so many others but periods of strife
    Enough of this mountain high wall of zeal
    For it creates an sort of aftificial appeal
    God came into the Temple that day
    Hell is what God saw in the way
    Incensed with the goings on Jesus saw
    Led him into a grimace of his jaw
    Mondays will come for us as a new day
    Noontime that day may see our zeal fade away
    Open our hearts to love one another
    Quoting often causes some to smother
    Realizing what Jesus wants us to share
    Seems to be of what we need to care
    Tomorrow ushers in new hope for the future
    Unless we choose to cut it up with the suture
    Vexed you may be with my reply
    Well, I ask you to stand by
    Yesterday I in my zeal may have offended
    Zeal of mine needed to be amended.
    
    	Ron

ps: the missing lines are symbolic of the word of God so often    
    incomplete from the "original" texts.

    Just because lines are missing 
    Knowledge of God is not hidden from even those who have gone fishing
    Peter, the rock from which the Church was made,
    X-ray vision, not needed, not even in the shade!

    	Some people are zealous in their effort to live their lives
    according to the teachings of Christ, doing good deeds and providing
    good examples. I admire these people. Others are zealous in spreading
    the words of Christ. I do not admire these people. The one group knows
    the spirit of Christ, the other merely quotes the text and knows
    nothing. Yet both are zealous "in the name of the Lord". Who do you
    refer to, what do you mean ?

    re .2 (DELNI::MEYER)
    
>    	Some people are zealous in their effort to live their lives
>    according to the teachings of Christ, doing good deeds and providing
>    good examples. I admire these people. Others are zealous in spreading
>    the words of Christ. I do not admire these people. The one group knows
>    the spirit of Christ, the other merely quotes the text and knows
>    nothing. Yet both are zealous "in the name of the Lord". Who do you
>    refer to, what do you mean ?
    
    Dave,
    
    	Aren't you overgeneralizing a bit about the second sort of people
    (who are zealous in spreading the words of Christ)?  How can you say
    with such assurity that *all* who "spread the word" are nothing but
    text quoters, who really know nothing, but (presumably) live private
    lives which are out of accord with the teachings of Christ?  With all
    due respect, Dave, aren't you being a little one-sided?
    
    								-mark.

    mark,
    	if they fit in the first category then I admire them. If they ONLY
    fit in the second category then I do NOT admire them. Does the addition
    of that one word, only, satisfy your question ?
    
    	Nobody answered my question. Which type of zealot is being refered
    to ?

    
    	Dave,
    
    	The verse referred originally to David and also to Jesus.  In each
    case the verse referred to both.  One who is Zealous for the Spirit as
    well as the Word.  Both Jesus & David were Zealous that the truth of
    Gods' word be expressed.  How can you say that you are zealous about
    doing the truth if you are not zealous in broadcasting the truth since
    that broadcasting of the truth strengthens it.  The more people that 
    know the truth of Jesus' teachings the more there are that are likely
    to follow those truths.  Like it says in romans (my paraphrase) How can
    they call on one whom they have not heard, and how can they hear unless
    there is a preacher.
    
    	_ed-

    I am starting to see Christianity, particularly the bible, and Jesus
    teachings, as a sort of lens. This lens can focus your energy to do
    God's works.  This focus, this concentration, is what I would call
    "zeal".  To commit to do something, to do it with all your heart, all
    the time (not just when you feel like it or when it's convenient).  And
    I think the difference between people who LIVE the word and those who
    simply espouse it or talk about it a lot is the difference between
    true prophets and false prophets.  Personally, I don't think a
    Christian has to espouse to everyone all the time to be a good
    Christian.  If someone brings it up, maybe I would feel comfortable
    talking about it, but I certainly don't feel comfortable discipling
    others in any way, shape, or form (although many Christians do).
    
    
    -Jody
    
    

    I have had several experiences with zealots in the past 
    who, in the end, were simply trying their best to over-compensate 
    for a *lack of faith* in their lives.  Although they would never 
    admit that outright, it was their actions that revealed the 
    incongruity between what they said, and how they put that into
    action in their everyday life.
    
    Then again I have met zealots who seem to me to be more authentic 
    for their zeal is based on a deep faith in God, their respect for
    their fellow human beings and the world in which they live.  These
    zealots "broadcast" their faith more loudly and clearly (imo) in this 
    way than in some of the proselytizing tactics I've been exposed to.
    
    But at the heart of the issue I venture to say that everyone longs 
    for an experience of deep faith in their lives, and I see zeal, 
    (appropriately expressed or not), as a step in the natural process 
    of opening up more completely to God.
    
    peace,
    Karen 

    _ed-,
    	there is nothing wrong with spreading the word. What better way to
    spread the word than through a shining example ?  Do you admire Mother
    Teresa ?  Most Christians ought to.(my opinion) How does she do the
    work of Christ ?  By preaching or by example ?  Before you try to tell
    me about her speaking tours, remember the relationship between the time
    spent talking and that spent doing. Also remember the purpose for those
    tours - to raise money for more good works. Now, how about Jimmy
    Swaggart (sp?) and Jim and Tammy Baker ?  They spent a LOT of time
    preaching the word, do you admire them ?
    	First make yourself into a shining example of Christ's word, THEN
    tell the world all about it.
    
    	Dave

    I GOTTA stop mistaking NOTES for MAIL. I've lost count of the REPLIES
    I've titled -< exit >- !  Oh, well.

    In the synoptic Gospels, one of the twelve was known by his
    affiliation with a political party: Simon, the Zealot.  The
    Zealots strongly favored local rule, rather than being ruled
    from Rome.  It's possible that Judas Iscariot was a member of
    a smaller party known as the Sicarii.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    If you read the book of Acts, and then read Revelations where a church
    has lost it's first love, I think you will see what zeal is and you
    will see that if you do not have zeal God will withdraw His Spirit.
    
    
    It is also clear in Acts that those who are not Christians could not
    stand the zeal of those that were and they placed the Christians in
    jail.   
    
    So, we as Christians have been told by Jesus that we must bare our own
    cross.  It is clear to me that if we show zeal we will be hated by
    those who do not understand the things of God.  Was not John the
    Baptist hated because of his zeal?
    
    
                                    Marshall
    

    There will always be false teachers and false professors of the way,
    truth, and life.  That does not mean that those that are true
    Christians should not keep the faith and keep the first love, ie zeal.
    
    I think alot of people think that zeal is suspost to be a gauge of true
    faith.  That is not what zeal is for.  Fruit, as found in Gal., is what
    we are to look for as a sign of true faith.  That does not mean that
    we are not to have zeal.  Zeal is commanded by God.  True zeal is a 
    result of love toward God.
    
    
                                  Marshall
    
    
    
    
    

>    So, we as Christians have been told by Jesus that we must bare our own
>    cross.  It is clear to me that if we show zeal we will be hated by
>    those who do not understand the things of God.

Funny how we can both relate to this and believe that it speaks directly
to our own condition, and yet, we otherwise share such divergent viewpoints.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard, while I do not hold, in general, to the same doctrines you
    hold to that does not mean that I do not look at you as my neighbor.
    While I may even hate some of your doctrine, that does not mean I
    hate you.
    
    
                                  In Christ,
    
                                             Marshall

    In the Psalms David said "I hate every false way" (KJV).  So to hate
    doctrine that is against God's word must be a sign of zeal.  David did
    not say I do not like, or I do not agree with, He said "I hate...".
    
    David also showed zeal by dancing before the Lord.
    
    Paul said let everyone that teaches doctrines that do not agree with
    what he had already taught be acursed, anathema.  So it appears that
    in both the Old Testament and New Testament to have zeal is to hate
    every false way.
    
    
                                In Christ,
    
                                           Marshall
    
    

     On my list of things to do before the end of the century is
  to finish reading "The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire" by
  Edward Gibbon. 
     Quite by coincidence I read a section that was about the zeal
  of Christians over the weekend. One thing that was interesting was
  how much difference there is between the general perception of
  of how Christians were oppressed and what probably happened.
      The officials of the empire went out of their way ignore the
  Christians. Even when ordered to crack down on Christians most
  officials tried to get the Christians to keep a low profile. Much
  to the amazement of most imperial administrators this did not happen.
  In fact just the opposite happened. Many Christians wanted to be 
  persecuted. The informed officials of were and when they would be
  gathered and often provided lists of church members to the authorities.
      One group of several hundred Christians presented themselves to
  a provincial governor and demanded to be prosecuted to the fullest
  extent of the law. The amazed governor asked them, "If you value
  your lives so little surely you could find some rope ?".
       Many administrators wrote to Rome asking what to do about the
 large numbers of Christians who wanted to be prosecuted and complained
 about them clogging up the courts and tying up resources. Gibbon writes
 that the reports of large scale persecution of Christians were for the
 most part fabrications of later writers and that the authorities were
 at a loss as to deal with zealous Christians and tried to avoid the
 problem as much as possible.
       Most Roman citizens found this zeal very disturbing and felt that
 that the empire should do something about these people. The prevailing
 attitude of most Romans was that Christians were undermining the civil
 authorities. Christian refusal to cooperate with the authorities made
 most people see them as a threat to law and order. Many Christians
 would not pay their taxes, serve in the legions or offer tribute to
 the Emperor. This defiance left the majority of Romans citizens 
 outraged. The prevailing view of the population was that imperial authority
 was the only thing preventing anarchy. Christians were viewed as eroding
 the foundations civilization.
        This raises an interesting question. When does zeal cease to be
 an admirable quality and become a social problem ? When does zeal begin
 to infringe upon the beliefs and rights of others ? How much zeal is
 enough and when does it become too much ?

                                
                                                               Mike
        
        
                
        
 

That certainly is a new perspective on Christian history, Mike.

As I've learned about the early centuries, persecution was rather
sporadic.  I had never read that Christians were seen to be undermining
government (at least compared to non-Christians).  

Collis

    Mike, that is interesting in light of the disputes between the Gnostics
    and other Christians.  One thing that the "orthodox" Christians
    resented about Gnosticism was that its adherents were completely
    uninterested in being martyrs.
    
    -- Mike

 Collis & Mike:

     The Roman government didn't see the Christians as much of 
  threat but the general population saw them as threatening the
  status quo and created a lot of pressure from the bottom up
  to do something.  
      A lot of the Christian Bishops tried to cool the enthusiasm 
  for becoming a martyr. Having large numbers of people deliberately
  getting themselves executed was not conducive to the growth and
  stability of the church.
      There is a lot of interesting material on the early church
  in "The Decline And Fall..." that has given me a different historical
  perspective that is at odds with the "Christians being thrown to the
  lions" stuff that is the popular image of what happened. There were 
  a lot of complex social and political factors in play both within the
  early church and the Roman government and in the relationship between 
  the two. 
       The work is far to long for me to recommend to anyone, but reading
  selected sections might be of interest to some. 

                                                     Mike       

         
      
      

    Mike,
    	what you reported did not say that Christians were not thrown to
    the lions, it only said that some of them - perhaps a few, perhaps the
    majority - were volunteers. 
    	I guess that they had not heard of rendering unto Ceasar, etc. 
    
    	My own view is that there is no good or glory in being hated, it
    only sets you on cross-purposes with the will of Christ. Christ taught
    LOVE, and those who seek to be hated have simply not heard the words of
    Christ - they are not his followers and are not Christians. It is
    possible to be hated for what you are - ask a Jew, Black or Iraqi - but
    to seek that hatred, to revel in it, is both stupid and contrary to the
    teachings of Christ. A Christian must show a good example and lead
    others TO Christ, not offend others and drive them FROM Christ.

Note 167.14

>    Richard, while I do not hold, in general, to the same doctrines you
>    hold to that does not mean that I do not look at you as my neighbor.
>    While I may even hate some of your doctrine, that does not mean I
>    hate you.

Yes, in Christ, I love you, too.

My beliefs, however, are so integral to who I am that you might as well
hate me.

Richard

    Re .16
    
    My History_of_the_New_Testatment class taught the same thing.
    Rome, generally speaking, did not suppress a wide variety of
    religious thought and practice.
    
    Peace,
    Richard