Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Re 162.30
    
>    If you think that messing with the Bible is not messing with God
>    Himself, then I would ask you to consider "In the beginning was the
>    Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word WAS God."

The Gospel of John, Chapter 1, verse 1.

The word "Word" here does not refer to the Bible.  The word "Word" refers
to Christ.

The Greek word Logos, which is translated to the word "Word" in English,
is complex and has subtle, even poetic, nuances.  Logos can mean "the
place," "the wisdom," "the logic," and even "the sense," of God.  In no
way does it mean the Old Testament, the Septuagint, nor the
Deutero-canonicals.  It certainly could not have meant the New Testament.
At the time the "Word was made flesh and dwelt among us" the earliest
New Testament text was more than 30 years away from being written.

Neither Christ nor God is a collection of documents called the Bible.
To believe the converse is known as Bibliolatry.

Richard

    If my memory serves me correctly, the Greek word "Logos" was the
    translation of the hebrew word "Dabhar".  The definition Richard
    offered for Logos is basically the same for Dabhar with one important
    addition:  Dabhar also means "Creative Energy."
    
    It is my belief that Western theology has done Christians a great 
    dis-service by defining Logos and Dabhar as narrowly as it has. 
    I obtained much more from the first chapter of John's Gospel using 
    the more accurate transliteration of Logos or Dabhar...
    
    	In the beginning was the Creative Energy:
    	The Creative Energy was with God
    	and the Creative Energy was God.
    	It was God in the beginning.
    	Through it all things came to be,
    	not one thing had its being but through it.
    
    	....
    
    Karen

    Hmmm, just happen to read this last night.  It seems to fit in with 
    Karen's description of the Word as well.  It is from Ken Carey's book,
    Starseed, The Third Millennium:
    
    	The *word* that God sends into this turning age is metaconceptual,
    	telepathic, both more comprehensive and more specific than
    	linguistic terms.  This is the living word of which you have
    	scriptural mention, the luminous living information that inspires
    	those who receive it and nurtures whose who welcome it into
    	their lives.  In a literal as well as a spiritual sense it is
    	the staple foodstuff, the nourishment of the coming age.  It
    	flows outward from your heart to nourish you and all included
    	in your love.  It is the understanding of life itself, providing
    	you from within, a quality of individuality that will complement
    	the world around you.
    
    	The living information is inseparable from your life force.
    	Biologically, you have experienced the animation of your life
    	force, but you are not truly incarnate until you allow this
    	current into your conscious awareness.  Biologically, this
    	energy is the center of your life.  As you also allow it to 
    	become the center of your consciousness, your emotional realm
    	is activated as an instruement of perception.
    
    FWIW,
    
    Ro
    

    re .2:
    
    Karen,
    	excellent insight !  That puts a real - and positive - twist on
    that whole section of text. It leaves no meaning unturned and resounds
    through much of the rest of both the OT and even the NT. It also makes
    a lot more sense. Thanks.

    Gee thanks Dave,
    
    But I was really just the scribe for someone else's insight. :-)
    Von Rad, the Hebrew scholar deserves the credit, and Matthew Fox.
    Fox quoted Von Rad's work extensively in examining the original
    meaning of Dabhar.  It was Fox who suggested reading John's Gospel 
    using the original meaning.  
    
    I'm glad it was so helpful to you.  It certainly was to me.
    
    Karen

    "What has come into being in him was life,
    	And the life was
    		THE LIGHT
    			of all people.
    
    THE LIGHT
    	shines in the darkness and
    		the darkness did not overcome it."
    
    			John
    			NRSV
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re: .2
    
    Karen:
    
    I found the use of the Hebrew equivalent to 'Logos' interesting.  I
    think the Hebrew word you are referring to is spelled 'Dalet Beth Resh' 
    and is usually pronounced 'davar'.  I can't recall the use of Dabhar,
    but then there are several schools of thought on how to transliterate
    Hebrew words into English.  But to translate 'Davar' as 'creative
    energy' is a real mystery.  The word means, basically, 'word, speech'
    and it's many, many nuances include saying, message, report, advice,
    counsel, promise, decision, sentence, utterance, title (of writings),
    matter, affair, business, occupation, acts, events, things, cause,
    case, pleas, something, way, manner and (phew!) reason.  I could find a
    few others, if you wish, but I hope you don't!
    
    But 'creative energy'?...I doubt it!  I am not a scholar in Hebrew, so it's
    entirely possible that someone has found a meaning that the scholars I
    know like Gesenius, Brown, Driver and Briggs never realized.  So I
    would appreciate if you could tell me just where you came up with a
    definition of 'creative energy.'
    
    The use of the word 'logos' in Greek as a title in John 1:1 seems more
    to refer to Jesus in a particular role, that of spokesman for God. 
    Its of interest to note that this type of title in those days was used
    often to describe a function or duty performed by the bearer of the
    title.  For example the title 'Kal-Hatze', meaning "the voice or word
    of the king" was given to an Abyssinian officer.  His job was to relate
    the words of the king to the people and thus acted as the word or voice
    of the Abyssinian king.
    
    Aaron was, in like manner, given the responsibility of speaking for
    Moses.  God said to Moses of Aaron, "he must speak for you to the people; 
    and it must occur that he will serve as a mouth to you, and you will serve
    as God to him."  -- Ex 4:16 NW
    
    Jesus often served as his Father's Spokesman, or Word, while on earth. 
    He once told his listeners: "I have not spoken out of my own impulse,
    but the Father himself who sent me has given me a commandment as to
    what to tell and what to speak.... Therefore the things I speak, just
    as the Father has told me them, so I speak them."  -- John 12:49,50;
    14:10; 7:16,17 NW
    
    So it would seem that Jesus, as 'Logos' or 'Davar' could easily fit the
    definition of the word as used in John 1:1.  Sometimes what seems
    complex often has a simple solution.
    
    Larry
    

    Larry,
    
    As you requested, I refer you to the following books by Matthew Fox:
    
    _Original Blessing_
    _Coming of the Cosmic Christ_
    
    Dabhar is discussed in the opening of _Original Blessing_. 
    Fox also draws upon the works of Hebrew scholars Abraham Heschel 
    and Elie Wiesel, among several others whom are cited in the above 
    referenced books.  They consistently support Von Rad's definition 
    of Dabhar which was offered in .2.
    
    Karen
                        

Re:  168.1

Are you comments about logos only meant to be applicable to John 1:1
(and 1:14)?  The beginning and ending statements seem to imply that, but
your middle discussion tend to take a broader scope.

Thanks,

Collis

    Re: 1
    
    I see inconsistency in your statements:
    
>The Greek word Logos, which is translated to the word "Word" in English,
>is complex and has subtle, even poetic, nuances.  Logos can mean "the
>place," "the wisdom," "the logic," and even "the sense," of God.  
          ^^^^^^^^^^    ^^^^^^^^^             ^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^   
    
 >	In no way does it mean the Old Testament, the Septuagint, nor the
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>	Deutero-canonicals.  It certainly could not have meant the New
        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >	Testament.
        ^^^^^^^^^
    
    Then exactly what do you feel the Old and New Testaments, the
    Septuagint or some Deutero-canonicals are, if not the "wisdom, logic
    or sense of God?  Do you believe that the Bible is the produce of "Holy
    spake as they were moved by the Spirit of God."?
    
>Neither Christ nor God is a collection of documents called the Bible.
    
    Talking about taking things literally...this is absurd!  I never said
    God is a book.  What the ancients and the Bible both say is God is a
    "spirit" and "idea" expressed/described/hinted at in the Word of God.
    
    This subject definitely needs discussing...I'll get back with you one
    this.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 2
    
>    	In the beginning was the Creative Energy:
>    	The Creative Energy was with God
>    	and the Creative Energy was God.
>    	It was God in the beginning.
>    	Through it all things came to be,
>    	not one thing had its being but through it.
    
    Thanks for entering this Karen.  
    
    Also, understanding that the "Creative Energy" is "Intelligence +
    Force" (an Africanic definition), or "Power (force) of the Word
    (Intelligence)", God's Word (Counsel) is not just verbal communication
    but also includes "counsel by example" (imitating).  In other words, we
    perceive God's Word in the "life" of Christ, ("In the Word was life,
    and the life was the light of all men.)
    

    I believe that Jesus was the Word in flesh and not just a speaker from
    God.  There is a big differance.  One makes Him God the other makes Him
    just a man with out the Godhead.  The Bible makes it clear that the
    FULLNESS OF THE GODHEAD is in Him.
    
    
                                Marshall   
    

    re 12
    
    You know, that was one of the debated issues between the
    early/true/original Christians and the Roman Catholic church.  Myself,
    I always give credence to the original, moreso than outsiders who come
    in trying to change things.
    
    I say the reasoning in the statement "Jesus was the Word of God made
    flesh" is to say that Jesus was fleshly manifestation and thus example
    of the intent and meaning of God's Word...and these two, thought and
    action cannot be separated...as it is written, as said by Jesus, "If
    you think it (sin) in your heart you've already done the act...the
    actual performance however is an essential extension of the thought.
    
    The Bible says when sin is completed then comes the judgement.  We are
    given the parable of the two sons, one told his father that he would do 
    what his father had asked him but when the father went away he didn't,
    the other said he wouldn't, but later on did.  We are then asked "Why
    did the will of his father?"  Of course, the latter son did.  So we see
    that between the thought and the act is an opportunity to examine
    ourselves as to whether or not we will carry out the act.  If we think
    a sin and do not do it, but turn from the thought, do righteousness. 
    If we carry out the evil thought we sin.  
    
    The Lords Supper, as describe in scripture, seems to elude to a sort of
    daily ritual done alone and at home, as opposed to the tradition way of
    Communion on the first Sunday in Church.  Note it speaks about "don't
    you have a home to eat at, don't use the House of Prayer for dining, or
    commerce, or anything other than for prayer...keep the sanctity of the
    Lords house."  It also says, "drink the cup and eat the bread (body)
    and examine thyself, why wait for the judgement" (a paraphrase).  It
    says, "if we examine and judge ourselves we need not be judged by God".
    
    Therefore, if we study the Word of God and allow it to dwell richly in
    our minds and hearts, such that only God's Word "is the head of our
    lives" we essentially become gods (small g), as thought and action,
    thus beingness is inseparable.  Surely you realize that every person is
    only known as a result of what they say and do.  And by this some
    people are considered divine, and others the contrary.
    
    Jesus was indeed more than just a speaker from God, he was in
    possession of the Spirit of God to the fullest extent; which of course
    enabled his speech and actions...not by might, nor by power, but by my
    spirit".  So we study to discern the Spirit of God, and try to imitate
    it, moreso possess it.  Surely you must agree that every thought and
    action you made was according to God's Word, that you are essentially
    of God and not of the world (acculturation), thus sons and daughters of
    God.  As it is written, "those that received him (Jesus, the Word of
    God) gave he the power to become the sons and daughters of God."
    
    There is a circular logic, a harmony of thought, to be found in God's
    Word.  There should be no contradictions/confusion in your heart and
    mind once you've understood God's Word.  If you feel there is
    contradictions/confusion in God's Word, then you need to reexamine YOUR
    thoughts, not God's Word...Reinterpreting Eve ought not to be a matter
    of interpreting God's Word in some form that contradicts other
    scripture.  If your conceptions don't synthesize with other conceptions
    in the Bible, it is YOUR misinterpretation, not the fault of the Bible
    or other men...you don't understand the metaphor/allegory or something
    else.  
    
    I may sound like I'm ministering, if I do say "Praise the Lord",
    because isn't that what we are all called to do as disciples, "feed the
    flock".  And, isn't it ungrateful of someone to criticize someone whose
    only tried to help you...if you don't care to receive my insights, just
    say "Thanks" anyway...you never know when it may be of use at some
    later date.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: .9
    
    I'm sorry, Collis.  Your question eludes me.  You probably have
    a different slant on this than I do.  I suppose that would come
    as no surprise. 8-}
    
    Richard

Re:  168.1, .9, .14

Sorry, Richard.  I'll try to be more specific.

  >The Greek word Logos, which is translated to the word "Word" in English,
  >is complex and has subtle, even poetic, nuances.  Logos can mean "the
  >place," "the wisdom," "the logic," and even "the sense," of God.  In no
  >way does it mean the Old Testament, the Septuagint, nor the
  >Deutero-canonicals.  It certainly could not have meant the New Testament.

Is this explanation of "Logos" meant simply to be an explanation of
the usage of "Logos" in John 1:1? 

Collis

    re: .13
    
    I was cheering you on until one of the last paragraphs.  
    
>    There is a circular logic, a harmony of thought, to be found in God's
>    Word.  There should be no contradictions/confusion in your heart and
>    mind once you've understood God's Word.  If you feel there is
>    contradictions/confusion in God's Word, then you need to reexamine YOUR
>    thoughts, not God's Word...Reinterpreting Eve ought not to be a matter
>    of interpreting God's Word in some form that contradicts other
>    scripture.  If your conceptions don't synthesize with other conceptions
>    in the Bible, it is YOUR misinterpretation, not the fault of the Bible
>    or other men...you don't understand the metaphor/allegory or something
>    else.  
    
    There is no confusion in my heart.  I am learning every day more about
    God's word.  I don't see any striking contradictions, and I do examine
    my thoughts daily, turning them over and burnishing them and bringing
    out new facets in my faith.  I feel that through my spirituality and
    with the help of all the religious sources I am led to, my conceptions
    synthesize perfectly.  I do not misinterpret, so there is no blame.  I
    understand completely where my spirituality lies, and I cultivate my
    garden gladly.  Will you visit my garden as I visit yours?
    
    -Jody

    Richard:
    
    Collis is correct.  If you are referring to the meaning of the word
    LOGOS as it is used in John 1:1, it would not refer to the Hebrew
    Scriptures and could not refer to the Christian Greek Scriptures.  It
    is being used as a title for Jesus however you wish to define that
    title.  It is just one of those words bearing many nuances to the basic
    definition and whose meaning can only be determined by its context and
    the understanding we get from related passages.
    
    Larry
    

    	A definition that fits in one place may not fit in another. I'm
    sure you know what "paper" means and use the term at least once a day.
    Can you say that you have used it with exclusively one meaning each of
    the last hundred times you have uttered it ?  Have you not refered to a
    piece of paper ( a manufactured material, often written upon ) and
    asked to see the daily "paper" ( a short term for "newspaper", meaning
    a source of written news ) ?  Paper is also a verb and can be used to
    refer to covering a wall or filling a theater. And paper is a word with
    few meanings, some have dozens. Why should "Logos", a word with many
    meanings and usages, be limited to one reference throughout a work ?

    I confess my density.  What I'm hearing is: though I'm not
    completely wrong, I'm not completely right, either.
    
    Yes, logos in John 1:1 is a title.  At the same time, I am of
    the understanding that the selection of the term "logos" was not
    an arbitrary one.  Logos is a word rich in connotations.  I guess
    the question is, "Are these connotations which I've suggested also
    applicable and valid in this context?"
    
    Richard

    RE: 16
    
    Jody, I'm sorry!  I didn't mean that for you personally.  If you're
    doing all that you say you are, then you're on the right track, IMO.
    I was just speaking in general.
    
    Sorry...
    
    Playtoe
    

re: .16, .20
>    I feel that through my spirituality and
>    with the help of all the religious sources I am led to, my conceptions
>    synthesize perfectly.  I do not misinterpret, so there is no blame.  I
 
    >   Jody, I'm sorry!  I didn't mean that for you personally.  If you're
    >   doing all that you say you are, then you're on the right track, IMO.
    >   I was just speaking in general.
    
    Thanks, I did indeed misinterpret you, since I was one of the most
    vocal in that dialog.  However as my statement at top here says, I am
    synthesizing and strengthening my spirituality with the help of ALL the
    religious sources I am led to - and this notesfile is one such source
    of new insight and old/new interpretation - and I am *very* glad to be
    here.
    
    thanks again,
    
    -Jody

    Where does the Bible self-referencially call itself, in its present
    totality, "God's Word"?
    
    Or is this one of those phrases that has worked its way into our
    speech, like "Trinity," "Original Sin," and "Lent"?
    
    Richard
    

    The Bible is full of references that this is God revealing His nature
    and His plan for us to us.
    
    God spoke to the patriarchs and to the prophets in words and deeds that
    are recorded in the Old Testament.  Jesus, the Son of God, spoke to
    thousands and his words and deeds, and the words and deeds of the
    Apostles are recorded in the New Testament.
    
    Christ established a visible Church inspired by the Holy Spirit to the
    end of time which in the course of time collected the books of the Old
    and New Testament.

    Trinity is a theological term that is Biblical, namely the mention of
    the three persons of God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  Mt 28:19, Jn
    14:16, 15:26, 2 Co 13:14, 1 Pe 1:2
    
    Original Sin is a theological term that described the sin of pride and
    rebellion to God which is the profound lesson of human nature contained
    in Gn 2-3.
    
    Lent has it's own note.  It describes a 40 day liturgical season which
    preceds Easter.

    Actually, it is an interesting question -- there is no doubt that the
    narrative of the Bible attributes many things to God, including
    speaking directly to certain people, but where does the Bible claim
    divine authorship in its entirety?
    
    Daniel

    The Bible makes no such claim to divine authorship in its entirety.
    
    The missing link is a continuity of followers of Jesus from the time of
    Jesus to the time when the New Testament was written and accepted as
    being canon.  Jesus gave us the Church; the Church gave us the Bible.

re Note 168.23 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     The Bible is full of references that this is God revealing His nature
>     and His plan for us to us.
                                           ^^^^

        Pat,

        Are you being deliberately ambiguous?  The question of this
        topic is "Exactly what is the 'this' in this sentence?"

        There are at least two readings:

        1)  "This" is "the Bible", as in:  "The Bible is full of
        references that the Bible is God revealing His nature and His
        plan for us to us."

        2)  "This" refers to the events recorded in the Bible, as in: 
        "The Bible is full of references that these events are God
        revealing His nature and His plan for us to us."

        Bob

    Also see new topic 613 "The Bible as God's Word"
    
    Richard
    

Re:  168.26

  >...the Church gave us the Bible.

As a Protestant, I protest.  God gave us His Word, not
people who believe in God.  Followers of God did indeed
organize what God had given.

I recognize that this is an area where Catholics and
Protestants historically disagree.  Regardless, I still
think it is hard to fathom why Roman Catholics refuse to
accept God's pre-eminent place in writing Scripture by
claiming that "the Church gave us the Bible".  Argghh.

Collis

    It's a matter of historical fact that Jesus selected Apostles to
    continue his ministry and that the Bible records an oral tradition in
    writing.  The process of the writing of the texts and their compilation
    was accomplished by people.  If you are reluctant to call such people a
    "Church", then that's fine by me.  The point is they called themselves a
    Church.

    It's a misunderstanding that I hope to correct that, doctrinally, Roman
    Catholics hold the Bible to be an inferior source of Revelation. They
    don't. The doctrine that the Bible is the word of God has always been
    held by the Catholic Church.

    The real doctrinal division between the Protestants and Catholics has
    been the rejection that the Roman Catholic Church has the ability to
    interpret the meaning of the Bible without error in matters of faith
    and morals in application to the conduct of ones' life.

    Many Roman Catholics have accepted the supremacy of individual
    interpretation of Scripture, probably without understanding what that
    implies.                     
    
    Many Protestants have accepted the teaching authority of the leaders,
    authors, and others regarding their interpretation of Scripture,
    probably without understanding what that implies either.

    re .30

    > Many Roman Catholics have accepted the supremacy of individual
    > interpretation of Scripture, probably without understanding what that
    > implies.                     
    > 
    > Many Protestants have accepted the teaching authority of the leaders,
    > authors, and others regarding their interpretation of Scripture,
    > probably without understanding what that implies either.

    Don't leave me guessing and making incorrect assumption.  What do these
    things imply?  You run right up to the brink of revelation... and then
    leave me hanging.  I would sincerely like to understand the Roman
    Catholic position better than I do now.

    Eric

    I'm seldom regarded here as subtle.  A Roman Catholic can approach the
    Bible with a Protestant attitude while retaining a fundamental Roman
    Catholic identity.
    
    A Protestant can approach the Bible with a Roman Catholic attitude
    while retaining a Protestant identity.

    Sorry, Patrick.  I guess I was assuming the implications you were
    alluding to in .30 had some negative spiritual connotation.  Something
    along the lines of it being sinful for a Roman Catholic to accept
    personal interpretation over Vatican interpretation.  Thank you for
    expounding.
    
    Eric
    
    (I may call you ambiguous, but subtle?... Never! :^) )

    RE: .30
    
    Good point! There is a lot of practical aspects to religion that are
    shared by both sides. More so than you would think.
    
    Marc H.

Re:  168.30

  >It's a matter of historical fact that Jesus selected Apostles to
  >continue his ministry 

Agreed.

  >...and that the Bible records an oral tradition in writing.

Agreed - but note that this recording of "oral tradition" was
God's infallible Holy Spirit writing truth through people.

  >The process of the writing of the texts and their compilation
  >was accomplished by people.  

True, as far as you go.  However, you leave off the *most* important
part of the equation when you neglect to mention that God through
the Holy Spirit "breathed out" Scripture through his chosen
instruments.

  >If you are reluctant to call such people a "Church", then that's 
  >fine by me.  The point is they called themselves a Church.

I am not unwilling to call a collection of believers in Jesus Christ
a Church.  However, I think that it is very misleading to say that
"the Church" wrote a document where no one but the specific individual
(and perhaps the scribe when one existed) doing the writing had
*any input* to the document other than, of course, the true author
which was the Holy Spirit.

I think a much more accurate statement is to say that the Holy
Spirit wrote Scripture through chosen men for the edification of
all believers.

Now, in terms of *compilation* and *acceptance* of what was
Holy Scripture, I think it is entirely accurate to say that this
was accomplished by the Church.  But, again, it is very misleading
to indicate that the Church *wrote* the Scriptures.

  >It's a misunderstanding that I hope to correct that, doctrinally, Roman
  >Catholics hold the Bible to be an inferior source of Revelation.

Fortunately I do not hold that misunderstanding.

  >The real doctrinal division between the Protestants and Catholics has
  >been the rejection that the Roman Catholic Church has the ability to
  >interpret the meaning of the Bible without error in matters of faith
  >and morals in application to the conduct of ones' life.

Indeed, this is where the split is great.  In my opinion, the Roman
Catholic Church in the past set itself up in a way as to usurp the
position of God by claiming

 - to be able to give/withhold salvation
 - to be the source of the Bible
 - to be the sole interpreter of faith/morals/conduct
 - to be the only way to God
 - to be the mediator between man and God
 - etc.

I'm hard pressed to find a signficant area where the RCC did NOT claim
authority.

Fortunately, the RCC has backed off from some of these contentions.

  >Many Roman Catholics have accepted the supremacy of individual
  >interpretation of Scripture, probably without understanding what that
  >implies.

Many Roman Catholics have accepted the sole authority of the RCC
probably without understanding what that implies.
    
  >Many Protestants have accepted the teaching authority of the leaders,
  >authors, and others regarding their interpretation of Scripture,
  >probably without understanding what that implies either.

Agreed.  This can indeed be a significant problem.  IMO, though, this
is not as serious a problem as declaring something to be infallibly
true which is off the course.

History indicates that God works through individual prophets when
revealing a particular truth.  The RCC claims that God inerrantly
guides them as a church at times (NOT through a given prophet, i.e.
the church as a body often *votes* on issues and this is, in fact,
a critical part of RCC doctrine that the group will be guided
infallibly while individuals make errors) in making
certain pronouncements.  Although God can certainly work this way,
my study of church history shows that groups of people invariably
miss the mark to some extent and are extremely poor guides for
*infallible* truth (but very good guides for general truth and
principles).  That is why I reject the RCC claim (as well as the
issue that I believe their interpretation of Scripture is wrong
starting at the "Peter is rock" verse and all the assumptions that
proceed from this questionable interpretation.

(In regards to the Pope making pronouncements, although God could
certainly work this way, history again indicates that God selects
his prophets in a different way than the RCC does.  How many high
priests did God choose to be a prophet??

If you'd like to discuss more about the RCC, we should probably move
to (or create) an RCC doctrinal note.

Collis

re Note 168.35 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

>   >The process of the writing of the texts and their compilation
>   >was accomplished by people.  
> 
> True, as far as you go.  However, you leave off the *most* important
> part of the equation when you neglect to mention that God through
> the Holy Spirit "breathed out" Scripture through his chosen
> instruments.
> 
>   >If you are reluctant to call such people a "Church", then that's 
>   >fine by me.  The point is they called themselves a Church.
> 
> I am not unwilling to call a collection of believers in Jesus Christ
> a Church.  However, I think that it is very misleading to say that
> "the Church" wrote a document where no one but the specific individual
> (and perhaps the scribe when one existed) doing the writing had
> *any input* to the document other than, of course, the true author
> which was the Holy Spirit.
  
        This dispute -- which is ages-old and quite fundamental -- is
        for me the main reasons why I question Christendom's
        traditional reliance on doctrinal truth as the important
        Truth.

        Jesus describes himself as "the Truth".  John 1 described
        Jesus as "the Word".  I believe that "the Truth" is something
        that written (or spoken) human words do not adequately
        express (because human minds can't adequately comprehend),
        although obviously human words can have a quality of "truth"
        about them, they are never "the Truth".

        Rather, "the Truth" is something alive, something with which
        each person can have a direct relationship, something which
        causes all things and sustains them, something which can save
        us from what we might otherwise become left to ourselves.

        Bob

    .36
    
    Wow - That was on fire, Bob!  Thank you!
    
    Richard
    

    Bob -
    
    Yes!
    
    Nanci

    re: .36

    I'd agree with you if each person possessed an infallible conscience.
    
    The fact is we don't, and the visible and living presence of Jesus in
    the world is the Christian Church.

re Note 168.39 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     I'd agree with you if each person possessed an infallible conscience.
>     
>     The fact is we don't, and the visible and living presence of Jesus in
>     the world is the Christian Church.

        Where did the requirement for "infallibility" come in?

        I agree with you, none of us has an infallible conscience.

        If the Bible were infallible, nevertheless our consciences
        would still be fallible.

        If the Church in all its teaching were infallible,
        nevertheless our consciences would still be fallible.

        Neither you nor I can become infallible, Pat, regardless of
        whether or not we have an infallible scripture or church.


        Certainly "the visible and living presence of Jesus in the
        world is the Christian Church" -- I agree.

        However, certainly that includes all Christians -- fallible
        or not.

        If the Bible were infallible, nevertheless "the visible and
        living presence of Jesus in the world" would be fallible.

        If the Church teaching authority were infallible,
        nevertheless "the visible and living presence of Jesus in the
        world" would be fallible.


        There isn't any escape from being human and therefore being
        fallible other than God's gracious acceptance of us as we
        are.

        The Truth that is infallible is our living God.  Whether or
        not we can rely on scripture's infallibility makes no
        difference if we cannot rely on God.  Whether or not we can
        rely on our teachers' infallibility makes no difference if we
        cannot rely on God.  Whether or not I can rely on my
        conscience makes no difference if I cannot rely on God.

        If I can rely on God I don't need perfection in anything
        else.

        Bob

    .40  I'm submitting your name for deacon.  The Spirit speaks through
    you so clearly!
    
    Richard
    

    The outcome of .40 is inevitably despair in that God has abandoned the
    world until the time of the second coming.

    "The Spirit", or to use the Christian context, "The Holy Spirit"
    speaks through the Church and the Bible in a infallible way.

    To borrow some computer-speak, the Church and the Bible resolve 
    conflicts in the human conscience what God has revealed to us
    personally from what are the impulses of this worldly existence.
    
    Christianity inspires a God-centered life, not a self-centered one.
                                                                    

    
    Right on.  Now that's some passion that even moves me.  Humankind in
    all of our fallibility can still be drawn too and transformed by a
    living God/Goddess.  For some To say that this leads to despair and not
    to a wonderful optimism is to lack faith in this living Divine Source.
    
    To lack such faith in a living Divine Source and rely on the absolute
    authority of  scriptures collected and recorded and edited and selected by 
    fallible men could lead  to aristocracy and tyranny.  An aristocracy and
    tyranny that would impose censureship, restrict the rights of women,
    brutalize gay, lesbians, and bisexuals, control television and radio,
    and impose all sorts of punishment and hardships on those who do not
    tow the traditionalist line.  We are talking about the inherent worth
    and dignity of humankind to be in direct relationship to the Source of
    Our Being and govern ourselves or to be controlled by the few who deem
    themselves the keeper of the Book(of course appointed by divine
    authority).
    
    I choose democracy, cognizant of the fallibility of humankind yet
    optimistic of humankind's inherent worth and dignity.  'One nation,
    under God, conceived in liberty....'
    
    
    Patricia
    

Indeed.  Those who claim to be prophets of God and who
were revealed as such by their knowledge, power, love
and actions are those whom we should shun because their
hate, fear, war-mongering examples and traditions oppress
those who desire to be free of anything but their own
definitions of love and right.

Of course, this is just another interpretation of what
you said from a Biblical perspective.

Collis

    Sorry, I think your translation needs a little work.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    re: 168:44
    
    Indeed.  Taking the prophets out of historic context, refusing to 
    interpret them in terms of the culture of the day, and relying 100% on the
    men who wrote their stories and then to apply those precepts literally to 
    an entirely different situation does in fact lead to hate, fear,
    war-mongering, and oppression.
    
    Collis, there is nobody in this notes file who desires to be free of
    anything but their own definition of love and right.  Many of us refuse
    to be bound by a book which would be used by mortals, not by God, to
    oppress us. 
    
    Patricia
    

re Note 168.42 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     The outcome of .40 is inevitably despair in that God has abandoned the
>     world until the time of the second coming.

        Yes, Pat, if you really believe that God is not a personal,
        living presence in this world and not present in every
        believer's heart and that therefore the only presence of God
        is in infallible doctrine, then I can understand that you
        would be in very deep despair.

        I would be in deep despair if I felt that all we had of God
        were some writings and some teachings, and I'm sure that my
        response to that despair would be to proclaim those writings
        and teachings infallible.

>     Christianity inspires a God-centered life, not a self-centered one.
  
        I certainly agree.

        Bob

    Knowledge of Christ doesn't come to the individual spontaneously
    through some miracle for most of us.  There's someone out there, a
    Christian who is in this world proclaiming the good news of Jesus
    Christ to us.  That's the first act.

    Faith in, Hope of, and Love for Christ is an act of free will.  The
    final act is a personal one.

    The mission of the Church is facilitate this conversion of life away
    from sin and towards God.

    Most of this conference loses sight of this and resorts to complaining
    over the faithfulness or effectiveness of what the Church does or
    doesn't do to share the word with the world.

    Historical knowledge of Christ doesn't come spontaneously to people; but
    the direct *experiential* knowledge of Christ is a different story
    altogether.

    If you believe (as I do) that there is that of God within everyone,
    then the fact of the experience of God does not depend on the accident
    of circumstance that involves whether or not you happened to have heard
    about certain historical events.
    
    The value of religious institutions and traditions are that they can
    point the way that others have taken.  But ultimately others cannot
    take the path for us--it is up to us to do that, to experience the
    divine ourselves.  Religion is something *experience*, not merely
    taught.  It is like trying to take a chemistry class that is all
    lecture and no lab.  Incidentally, this emphasis on the experential
    value of religion was the message expressed in Herman Hesse's wonderful
    novel "Siddhartha".

    -- Mike

re Note 168.48 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Knowledge of Christ doesn't come to the individual spontaneously
>     through some miracle for most of us.  There's someone out there, a
>     Christian who is in this world proclaiming the good news of Jesus
>     Christ to us.  That's the first act.

        Certainly.

        Nothing I have been writing above means or is intended to
        imply that I do not value Scripture and Church teaching as
        profitable for bringing people to Christ.

        In fact I value them highly.

        But I see no need to ascribe inerrancy to any physical source
        of information about Christ, since the objective of Christian
        faith is not information, nor faith in information, but faith
        in the living God.

        (I do suspect that those who insist that certain sources of
        information about Christ must be inerrant or else all is lost
        actually do a lot of harm by legitimizing the rejection of
        Christ by those who can see incompleteness or inconsistency
        in the physical sources of information.)

>     The mission of the Church is facilitate this conversion of life away
>     from sin and towards God.
> 
>     Most of this conference loses sight of this and resorts to complaining
>     over the faithfulness or effectiveness of what the Church does or
>     doesn't do to share the word with the world.

        Is complaining about perceived inadequacies in human
        performance always a bad thing?  I agree that "just
        complaining" is often of little value and can detract from
        otherwise noble efforts, but complaining with a purpose,
        with an intention to amplify, correct, and suggest
        alternatives is often very constructive.

        (Of course, if the teacher is perfect, then no criticism is
        valid or of value -- is that the point?)

        Bob

Re:  168.46
    
  >Taking the prophets out of historical context...

  >...refusing to interpret them in terms of the culture of the day, 

  >...and then to apply those precepts literally to an entirely different 
  >situation 

We are in agreement that this methodology is very bad and, in fact, is
not what it typically practiced by Evangelicals.  It certainly is not
what I was taught.

  >...and relying 100% on the men who wrote their stories 

I am not relying on men but rather on God.  Of course, you can view
it differently if you choose to reject the claims of the prophets of
God.  I choose to accept them.

Our differences appear not to be in proper interpretation, but rather
proper foundation for understanding the prophets.  I accept what they
say as coming from God, you reject this.  I categorize the position
of those who accept what the Bible says as "Biblically-based".

  >Many of us refuse to be bound by a book which would be used by mortals, 
  >not by God, to oppress us. 

Indeed, many refuse to be bound by God's revelation to us through His
prophets which is viewed as being oppressive.  I, on the other hand, choose 
to submit (although imperfectly) to what God has revealed through His prophets.
God has given us a choice.

Collis

Re:  168.50

  >But I see no need to ascribe inerrancy to any physical source
  >of information about Christ, since the objective of Christian
  >faith is not information, nor faith in information, but faith
  >in the living God.

I, too, have no individualistic need to ascribe inerrancy to any physical
source of information about Christ.

However, I do need to confront the claims of prophets that they spoke
for the living God - and that they did so accurately.

  >(I do suspect that those who insist that certain sources of
  >information about Christ must be inerrant or else all is lost
  >actually do a lot of harm by legitimizing the rejection of
  >Christ by those who can see incompleteness or inconsistency
  >in the physical sources of information.)

They issue, of course, is not the reason why an individual chooses to
believe or not believe.  The real issue is, "how do I choose to respond
to a Bible that claims accuracy written by prophets that God chose to
speak through?"

The discussion of this keeps being moved from the claims of the Bible to 
those who accept those claims.  I expect that this is because we are
easier targets (at least we make errors :-) ).

Collis

    >Indeed, many refuse to be bound by God's revelation to us through His
    >prophets which is viewed as being oppressive.  
    
    Collis, allow me to remind you that to bear false witness is a sin, at
    least according to the Ten Commandments.  I would appreciate it if you
    refrained from making this repeated and utterly bogus claim that people
    who disagree with you over what constitutes God's revelation are
    "refusing to be bound by God's revelation".  A person isn't "refusing
    to be bound" by something simply because they sincerely disagree with
    you over what constitutes an example of the binding authority.

    It's really a very straightforward concept.  If you don't believe that
    something represents God's revelation, then you aren't "refusing to be
    bound by God's revelation" when you don't follow it.  The disagreement
    here is not over whether or not one should accept divine revelation,
    but rather over what constitutes the divine revelation that we should
    be following.  We are all seeking to follow God here, and to accuse
    others of "refusing to be bound by God's revelation" implies willful
    disregard of a known and accepted revelation.  To suggest that people
    are being willfully disobedient to an divine authority when they don't
    even believe it comes from God is disingenuous at best, and malicious
    at worst. If you can provide any examples of anyone in this notes
    conference who has stated that they believe that God has revealed X,
    but that they disagree with it anyway, then you would have a case.

    I would therefore appreciate if you refrained from characterizing
    people who disagree with you over what constitutes God's authority as
    if they were therefore willfully and knowingly disobeying God's
    revelation, since you know fully well that this is not the case.

    -- Mike

re Note 168.52 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> However, I do need to confront the claims of prophets that they spoke
> for the living God - and that they did so accurately.
  
        Why does one need to "confront" such claims?  Where does this
        need to "confront the claims of prophets" end?  Do I also
        need to "confront the claims" of the Koran or the Book of
        Mormon?  Perhaps the confrontation that matters is between
        such prophets and God -- but I am not a party to that!

        Besides, is there ANYTHING that one could validly conclude
        about the entirety of Scripture just because true prophecy is
        contained within?

        Remember, Collis, that my position is NOT that "the Bible is
        flawed."  Rather, my position is that the Bible nowhere makes
        the claim for word-for-word Divine authorship for its
        entirety and hence word-for-word inerrancy.  Word-for-word
        Divine authorship is a human doctrine, authored by humans to
        fill a need that some humans have that they do not let God
        fill instead.

        Bob

Re:  168.53
    
  >It's really a very straightforward concept.  If you don't believe that
  >something represents God's revelation, then you aren't "refusing to be
  >bound by God's revelation" when you don't follow it.

The response is really quite simple as well.

Whether you believe it or not, it is truth (as revealed through God's
prophets).  Sincerely believing that it is not truth is irrelevant.  You
still are "refusing to be bound by God's revelation".

  >I would therefore appreciate if you refrained from characterizing
  >people who disagree with you over what constitutes God's authority as
  >if they were therefore willfully and knowingly disobeying God's
  >revelation, since you know fully well that this is not the case.

I recognize that you view this as simply as personal belief of mine.

You recognize that I view this as God's declaration to all of us.

I am happy to agree with you that many disobey God's revelation not because
they are intend to disobey God but simply because they refuse to take
God (or His prophets) at His word.

I recognize that believing the truth of God's Word and assuming the truth
of God's Word in this conference appears as close-mindedness and an
unwillingness to accept people who disagree with me.  Oh well.  At
times I choose this.

Collis

Re:  168.54

  >Why does one need to "confront" such claims?  

It is true that many people call themselves Christians and choose
not to confront various claims in the Bible.  Personally, I don't
think that this is the appropriate response that God has for us.

  >Remember, Collis, that my position is NOT that "the Bible is
  >flawed."  

  >Rather, my position is that the Bible nowhere makes
  >the claim for word-for-word Divine authorship for its
  >entirety and hence word-for-word inerrancy.  Word-for-word
  >Divine authorship is a human doctrine, authored by humans to
  >fill a need that some humans have that they do not let God
  >fill instead.

You're rebuttal evidence of why is this not so does not measure
up in my opinion.  The Bible claims it is truth, that the Holy
Spirit is the author and that the slightest stroke of the pen of
the Law is not going to pass away for a long time (amongst many
other claims).  Do you accept this or do you rather choose to 
believe that parts of the Law are not true (and/or were not true 
when written), that God is not the author of Scripture and that 
the Bible (when properly interpreted) will at times lead to 
falsehood instead of truth?

Collis

re Note 168.56 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Do you accept this or do you rather choose to 
> believe that parts of the Law are not true (and/or were not true 
> when written), that God is not the author of Scripture and that 
> the Bible (when properly interpreted) will at times lead to 
> falsehood instead of truth?
  
        I certainly do not believe that God is the author of all
        words as written in the Scripture text.

        It claims to be written by humans in places.

        It has the form of a document written by humans.

        To believe that God is the author of all words as written in
        the Scripture text is to claim that the Scripture lies, and
        that therefore God is a God of deception.

        Bob

>I am happy to agree with you that many disobey God's revelation not because
>they are intend to disobey God but simply because they refuse to take
>God (or His prophets) at His word.

    That would be nice, except that you are not agreeing with me at all. 
    
    -- Mike

Re:  168.57

> Do you accept this or do you rather choose to 
> believe that parts of the Law are not true (and/or were not true 
> when written), that God is not the author of Scripture and that 
> the Bible (when properly interpreted) will at times lead to 
> falsehood instead of truth?
  
  >I certainly do not believe that God is the author of all
  >words as written in the Scripture text.

"All Scripture is God-breathed."
"The word of the Lord stands forever - and this is the word
that was preached to you."
"No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own
interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in the will
of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by
the Holy Spirit."
"Thy Word is truth."

Perhaps if you indicated what words you do accept as God-breathed,
we can proceed from there.

  >It claims to be written by humans in places.

Yup.

  >It has the form of a document written by humans.

Yup.

  >To believe that God is the author of all words as written in
  >the Scripture text is to claim that the Scripture lies, and
  >that therefore God is a God of deception.

This logic would also so that since the Father is God that
Jesus cannot be God (your analogy is that since men wrote the
Scripture that God did not which is direct conflict with the
verses mentioned earlier in this string).

Clearly your grasp of the facts and mine do not coincide.

I'd be happy to lend you the book "The Inspiration and
Authority of the Bible" by Benjamin B Warfield" which, I believe,
will go a long way towards reconciling our views.

Collis

Re:  168.58

     >>I am happy to agree with you that many disobey God's revelation not because
     >>they are intend to disobey God but simply because they refuse to take
     >>God (or His prophets) at His word.

  >That would be nice, except that you are not agreeing with me at all. 
    
I am agreeing with you within the framework that I have accepted.  That's
all the agreement that I can honestly offer.

Collis

>I am agreeing with you within the framework that I have accepted.  That's
>all the agreement that I can honestly offer.

    Not at all, Collis.  You don't agree with me in any sense.

    The problem is that you insist on using wrongful characterizations of
    those who disagree with you, and once again I have asked you to refrain
    from bearing false witness against myself and others.

    You are fully aware that I and no one else in this notes file is
    "refusing to take God at His word".  You can criticize me for "refusing
    to believe that certain words are God's words" if you wish--I would
    have absolutely not problem with that.  That would be an *accurate*
    and *objective* characterization.  If you want to even go farther
    and say that "we refuse to believe what is plainly and clearly God's
    word", as much as I would disagree with the "plainly and clearly"
    adjectives, at least it would still use language that does not falsely
    characterize my beliefs, actions, or motivations. But to accuse someone
    of "refusing to take someone's word" is only meaningful if that person
    accepts that those words indeed belong to that individual.  The
    language you use is misleading because it implies intent and acceptance
    by the other party that indeed those words are God's words.  

    To reiterate, *if* anyone in this notes file stated that they believed
    that certain words were God's and that they refused to accept them
    anyway, then your characterization would be accurate.  But no one that
    I know of meets that criterion.  If I had in my possession a letter
    that I (but not you) believed came from you parents, and which told you
    to move to Hawaii and dance the hula with coconuts on your head, I
    could not accuse of "deliberately refusing to take your parents at
    their word" if you would not believe that letter to be your parents
    word, and the use of such language would be a wrongful characterization
    of your behavior.  Only if I convinced you that the letter did indeed
    come from your parents, and only then if you continued to refuse to
    take the letter at its word, would that language be acceptable.  It is
    as simple as that.

    I understand that your framework is different than mine.  That isn't
    the point.  The point is that it is possible to have a framework that
    is different from someone else's and still use language that
    objectively describes what the other person believes.  It is a matter
    of being honest and fair in making an objective characterization of
    what others believe, no matter how much you believe they are wrong.  It
    involves the ability to separate statements *about* what others believe
    from your personal framework of what they *should* believe.  It is this
    distinction that you are not making, and in conflating the two kinds of
    statements you are producing something that wrongfully describes what
    others here believe.

    Accusing others of "refusing to take God at his word" is a statement
    about an alleged objective fact outside your own framework, *about*
    someone else's framework.  It is possible to objectively characterize
    another person's framework by stating, "Person A believes X", even when
    you disagree with what person A believes.  This is not what you are
    doing, however.  And what you say about others here is untrue, and
    constitutes the sin of bearing false witness against others.  And I
    ask you to refrain from making such knowingly false characeterizations
    of what others believe.
    
    -- Mike

In article <168.53-930308-143640@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>,
valenza@deming.enet.dec.com (From soup to notes.) writes:
|>From: valenza@deming.enet.dec.com (From soup to notes.)
|>Newsgroups: dec.notes.valuing_diffs.christian-perspective
|>Subject: Re: Logos: the Word
|>Date: Mon, 8 Mar 93 14:36:40 EST
|>X-Conference: LGP30::CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE (new topics or replies via
|>News or Notes)
|>X-Note-Id: 168.53 (53 replies)
|>X-Reply-Subject: (none)
|>
|>Title: Logos: the Word
|>Reply Title: (none)

Mike,

I really hesitated to jump in here but I'm waiting for a compile to finish
so I might as well. 8-)

|>
|>    >Indeed, many refuse to be bound by God's revelation to us through His
|>    >prophets which is viewed as being oppressive.  
|>    
|>    Collis, allow me to remind you that to bear false witness is a sin, at
|>    least according to the Ten Commandments.  I would appreciate it if you
|>    refrained from making this repeated and utterly bogus claim that people
|>    who disagree with you over what constitutes God's revelation are
|>    "refusing to be bound by God's revelation".  A person isn't "refusing
|>    to be bound" by something simply because they sincerely disagree with
|>    you over what constitutes an example of the binding authority.
|>
|>    It's really a very straightforward concept.  If you don't believe that
|>    something represents God's revelation, then you aren't "refusing to be
|>    bound by God's revelation" when you don't follow it.  The disagreement

I guess I would respond that what you believe is irrelevant to whether
or not you're rejecting God's revelation.  The question is not whether or not
you believe you are rejecting God's revelation but whether or not you actually
are.  In order to answer that question you have to know God's
revelation.  The criteria for determining God's revelation is what this
stream is about, or seems to be about.


|>    here is not over whether or not one should accept divine revelation,
|>    but rather over what constitutes the divine revelation that we should
|>    be following.  We are all seeking to follow God here, and to accuse
|>    others of "refusing to be bound by God's revelation" implies willful
|>    disregard of a known and accepted revelation.  To suggest that people
|>    are being willfully disobedient to an divine authority when they don't
|>    even believe it comes from God is disingenuous at best, and malicious
|>    at worst. 
|> ...

That fact that someone is seeking is also no guarantee that someone is not
refusing to be bound by God's revelation.  Sincerity also doesn't
count.  The only way I can be sure that
I am abiding by God's revelation is to make sure that I know what it is,
otherwise there is a good chance that I am refusing to be bound by it.  It
is much more likely that I'm refusing to be bound by God's revelation than
that I am being bound by it.

|>
|>    -- Mike
|>

Paul
(normally silent)
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Re:  168.61

  >You are fully aware that I and no one else in this notes file is
  >"refusing to take God at His word".  

Absolutely, positively false.  If indeed God says what the Bible
says He says and you deny it, then you are indeed "refusing to
take God at His word".  Do you agree with that?

Since I accept the claims of the Bible, then I do indeed sincerely
and honestly believe that you are refusing to take God at His Word.
Do you now agree with that?

I am *not* claiming that you believe this or that you believe that
the Bible is indeed from God.

  >The language you use is misleading because it implies intent and acceptance
  >by the other party that indeed those words are God's words.

It is not my intent to be misleading in this area (although I agree
that this could certainly be misleading).  Fortunately, this discussion
(and previous discussions like it) clear up any misconceptions about
this.  You do not take God at His word not because you believe what He
says and choose to not accept it, but rather because you don't believe
that He said it and don't accept it based on your personal beliefs about
God.

I acknowledge that I am a square peg in a round hole in this conference.
I accept that there is an absolute truth as God has revealed.  It is
the desire of many in this conference to either claim that there is no
absolute truth or to converse as if there is no absolute truth.  I 
sometimes choose to discuss the truth as the truth that it is without
disclaimers.  Some see this as being presumpteous, other see this as
misleading, still others see this as speaking the truth bodly.  Take
your pick.

  >Accusing others of "refusing to take God at his word" is a statement
  >about an alleged objective fact outside your own framework, *about*
  >someone else's framework.

It is a statement that accepts an absolute truth which you deny.  It
continues to be true no matter.  The day will come when God Himself
will say something similar to you (I expect).  Your arguments which
depend on relative truth will make about as much impression on God on
that day as they make on me today (I also expect).

Collis

    >The question is not whether or not you believe you are rejecting God's
    >revelation but whether or not you actually are.

    I agree with that statement, Paul.

    >In order to answer that question you have to know God's revelation.  

    I agree with that statement as well, Paul.  And since there is not a
    consensus here about what that exactly constitutes that revelation, it
    is inappropriate and inaccurate to accuse someone of "refusing to be
    bound by X" when the other party doesn't accept the X designation in
    the first place.  The whole sentence is null and void--kind of like the
    question "when did you stop beating your wife?"

    If someone doesn't accept a revelation as God's, then, if they are
    honest seekers (which I believe all of us here are), *of course* they
    aren't going to be bound by it!  That goes without saying.  It adds
    nothing to the content of the discussion to accuse another party of
    "refusing to be bound by" a revelation when its very status as a
    revelation is not accepted by them.  Language like that, if it has any
    content at all, implies that the other party *does* accept its status
    as revelation.  Of course, the person doing the accusing accepts that
    status, but that isn't the point--the person doing the accusing is not
    the person being characterized!  When describing the person being
    characterized, interjecting one's own framework to objectively describe
    the framework that the other party is working from is a kind of
    equivocation.  It creates a false implication.

    -- Mike

>If indeed God says what the Bible
>says He says and you deny it, then you are indeed "refusing to
>take God at His word".  Do you agree with that?
    
    Absolutely not.  Even if we accepted for the sake of argument that your
    understanding of divine revelation is true and mine false, I would only
    be "refusing to take God at his word" once I accepted that it was his
    word that I was disagreeing with.  Until that time, I am not refusing
    to take God at his word.  A person can't be guilty of not taking
    someone at their word if they don't believe that it is their word in
    the first place.  Period.
    
    To insist to accuse me of not taking God at his word is to bear false
    witness against me, and I request once again that you refrain from
    making this accusation.  Say all you want that I do not accept that the
    Bible is God's word--but to accuse me of not taking God at his word is
    inaccurate and greatly misleading.  
    
    The issue here is not one of absolute truth versus relative truth. 
    That is a canard.  The issue here is how you can objectively
    characterize another person's beliefs, motives, or actions, EVEN WHEN
    YOU BELIEVE THEM TO BE WRONG.  Even if you believe that you have
    absolute truth on your side.  It is a matter of being both objective
    and fair.  It means using language that does not equivocate, that
    describes another person's beliefs in a way that doesn't conflate own
    perspective with it in such as way as to falsely describe the other
    person.  I really believe that it really isn't that difficult a concept
    to grasp.
    
    -- Mike

    
    RE: .65
    
    >I would only be "refusing to take God at his word" once I accepted
    >that it was his word that I was disagreeing with.  Until that time, 
    >I am not refusing to take God at his word.
    
    No offense Mike but this answer is comparable to as long as German
    people didn't accept what was going on in the concentration camps 
    despite all the evidence to the contrary, they were not condoning it.
    
    Jill

    .66
    
    I have the advantage of knowing Mike personally.  He is the polar
    opposite of those mesmerized by complacent ignorance under Nazi Germany.
    Mike will stand up for what he believes even when it is contrary to
    popular and traditionally-held notions.
    
    Richard
    

re Note 168.59 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> "All Scripture is God-breathed."

        Nothing about the source of the written words or inerrancy.

        "Breathing" is very different from writing.  As has been
        pointed out before, God breathed Adam's life -- nothing
        inerrant there. :-)

> "The word of the Lord stands forever - and this is the word
> that was preached to you."

        Clearly NOT referring to the written text, since "that [which]
        was preached to you" was not written at that time.  It
        possibly refers to the message, not the literal sequence of
        words.  More probably it refers to Christ.

> "No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own
> interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in the will
> of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by
> the Holy Spirit."

        Again, this verse distinguishes between the "prophecy" and
        that in which the "prophecy" has been recorded and passed
        down, "Scripture" -- it also clearly does not apply to the
        entirety of the modern canon.

        (It also would be a rather useless test, since it begs the
        question "what is Scripture?")

> "Thy Word is truth."

        And Jesus is The Word (John 1).  Nothing about Scripture in
        this verse.


> Perhaps if you indicated what words you do accept as God-breathed,
> we can proceed from there.

        All of them.

        However, I certainly do not believe that God is the author of
        all words as written in the Scripture text.

        The word "breathed" does not mean "written", and God is
        perfectly able to say "written" if that's what God intends --
        but the Scripture does not say that.

        However, it serves the needs of certain agendas to read it as
        if "breathed" means "written".


> I'd be happy to lend you the book "The Inspiration and
> Authority of the Bible" by Benjamin B Warfield" which, I believe,
> will go a long way towards reconciling our views.
  
        OK -- thanks.

        Bob

    .66
    
    With all respect, Jill, I find the comparison shakey at best and very
    difficult to read at worst...
    
    I wish I knew how to convey it properly, but my ability to communicate
    is fatally impaired regarding that subject....
    
    Daniel

    
    RE: . 69
    
    Thanks Daniel.  You right Daniel the comparison is shakey because we
    are no longer talking in the realm of human life, but eternal life. 
    The loss of both causes great sorrow in my heart.  So perhaps the
    comparison is accurate only from my perspective.
    
    Jill

    I don't think the question of condoning concentration camps makes for
    an exact analogy with the question of defining what constitutes a valid
    definition of "refusing to take someone at their world", but in any
    case people can condone or condemn conceivable, potential, or
    hypothetical events or actions all the time.  I can condemn something
    that *might* exist; then my condemnation is absolute morally, but
    contingent on the state of the world.  

    Perhaps an expansion of my earlier analogy will make more sense here.
    We can imagine a child who always obeys her parents.  She cleans up her
    room when told to, brushes her teeth, eats her vegetables.  A model
    child in every way.  But then a third party gives her some instructions
    that are allegedly from her parents.  The contents of the instructions
    are irrelevant, but for whatever reason she has doubts that this is
    indeed what her parents have said--not because she doesn't want to obey
    her parents, but because of sincere doubts that these instructions
    indeed came from them.  She would, however, obey them if she later
    became convinced that they did in fact come from her parents.  Now if
    the third party then accused the child of not taking her parents at
    their word, the accusation would simply be ridiculous, not to mention
    an inaccurate bearing of false witness against that child.  

    That is the issue here.

    -- Mike

    Hi Jill,
    
    I understand and respect your sense of loss...
    
    I think for me though the difference lies in what people did to OTHER
    people in concentration camps vs. what someone does to and for
   *themselves* regarding their religious beliefs...
    
    I think maybe how I was raised in this is better explained away from
    this comparison, so I'll give a pointer to the note I entered in 584.*
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel 

    re:           <<< Note 168.71 by DEMING::VALENZA "From soup to notes." >>>

    Mike,
    	
    	I'm about to get lost in these analogies. 8-)
    
    >Perhaps an expansion of my earlier analogy will make more sense here.
    >We can imagine a child who always obeys her parents.  She cleans up her
    >room when told to, brushes her teeth, eats her vegetables.  A model
    >child in every way.  But then a third party gives her some instructions
    >that are allegedly from her parents.  The contents of the instructions
    >are irrelevant, but for whatever reason she has doubts that this is
    >indeed what her parents have said--not because she doesn't want to obey
    >her parents, but because of sincere doubts that these instructions
    >indeed came from them.  She would, however, obey them if she later
    >became convinced that they did in fact come from her parents.  Now if
    >the third party then accused the child of not taking her parents at
    >their word, the accusation would simply be ridiculous, not to mention
    >an inaccurate bearing of false witness against that child.  
    
    It would only be ridiculous if they were lying to her.  If in fact the
    third party was communicating information which came directly from her
    parents then she would be refusing to take her parents at their word
    since they had explicitly said the words. She might not trust the
    messenger but she would still be acting contrary to her parents'
    specific instructions.  If there was no way she could validate the
    truthfulness of what the third party was saying then you might not
    blame her, but you can't say whether or not she is taking her parents
    at their word except by looking at what is being said by the third
    party.
    
    >That is the issue here.
    
    
    You're saying that her intent is what counts in determining if she is
    "taking her parents at their word".  I'm saying that her intent is
    irrelevant.  The question of whether or not she is "taking her parents
    at their word" depends upon whether the words actually came from her
    parents or not.
    
    At some point I guess this gets into symantics....
    
    >-- Mike
    
    
    Paul
    

    >It would only be ridiculous if they were lying to her.  If in fact the
    >third party was communicating information which came directly from her
    >parents then she would be refusing to take her parents at their word
    >since they had explicitly said the words.

    I could not disagree more, Paul.  My analogy purposefully did not state
    whether or not the third party was lying, telling the truth, or
    mistaken.  It simply doesn't matter. 

    >You're saying that her intent is what counts in determining if she is
    >"taking her parents at their word".  I'm saying that her intent is
    >irrelevant.  The question of whether or not she is "taking her parents
    >at their word" depends upon whether the words actually came from her
    >parents or not.
    
    Well, intent is really what is implied by saying that someone isn't
    taking X at their word.  The implication is one of willful doubting or
    disbelief.  But what I am saying is not just that intent is what
    counts, but also understanding and knowledge.  What does it really mean
    to say that you aren't taking someone at their word?  What are you
    really commenting on about that person?  To say I don't take someone at
    their word means that I call them to question as a source (of
    authority, information, etc.)  It means that I doubt the believability,
    legitimacy, knowledge, sincerity, or relevance of that person's
    information or instructions to me.  Given that definition, it is 
    meaningless to say that I am calling someone into question or doubting
    their legitimacy in some way if I don't even believe that the person is
    involved.  Even if I am mistaken and it turns out that this person is
    the source, the reason I don't accept the message is not because I call
    them into question as a source, but rather that I call into question
    *that* they are the source.

    If I tell you that the moon is made of green cheese, and you say that I
    am wrong, you are not taking me at my word.  You are doubting me as a
    source of reliable information about the composition of the moon.  To
    characterize someone as not taking another at their word is thus a
    characterization of their intent.  Intent is what it is really all
    about.  To impose my understanding of what is true or false upon this
    characterization confuses the basic point, which is that I am doubting
    the reliability or authority of another individual when I do not take
    them at their word.  But if I don't accept that the individual is even
    involved, then my doubt is not on the reliability of that individual,
    but on whether or not that individual is even the source.  Quite a
    different issue altogether.

    When I was a child, I saw a television commercial that commented on
    Wilt Chamberlain's having scored 100 points in an NBA game.  I didn't
    believe it--I could not imagine any single player scoring 100 points in
    a professional basketball game.  I did not trust the source.  But later
    I found sources that I trusted, and realized that it was true.  If we
    get information, even improbable information, from sources that we
    trust, we are more likely to believe it, to take it at its word.  Until
    we hear that this information comes from reliable sources, we doubt
    it--not because we don't take the reliable sources at their word, but
    because we don't know yet that they come from sources we count as
    reliable.  It was only *because* we took those reliable sources at
    their word in the first place that we can change our minds about a
    belief once we know it came from those sources.  We trusted those
    sources just as much before we knew where the information came from as
    later; we took those sources at their word both before and after.  What
    changed was not that we started taking them at their word--we were
    doing that all along--but rather that we now knwo that they are the
    sources and thus because we take them at their word we can believe
    them.  

    -- Mike

re Note 168.56 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Re:  168.54
> 
>   >Why does one need to "confront" such claims?  
> 
> It is true that many people call themselves Christians and choose
> not to confront various claims in the Bible.  Personally, I don't
> think that this is the appropriate response that God has for us.
  
        Actually, upon further reflection, I realize that I am (in
        this topic) "confronting" claims ABOUT the Bible, as well as
        claims OF the Bible.  I usually find I have much more trouble
        with claims about the Bible than with the claims of the
        Bible.

        Bob

Re:  168.65

  >Even if we accepted for the sake of argument that your
  >understanding of divine revelation is true and mine false, I would only
  >be "refusing to take God at his word" once I accepted that it was his
  >word that I was disagreeing with.  Until that time, I am not refusing
  >to take God at his word.  A person can't be guilty of not taking
  >someone at their word if they don't believe that it is their word in
  >the first place.  Period.

We've reached an impasse.  You sincerely believe that you are not refusing
to take God at His word if the Bible is indeed true and I sincerely
believe that you are (despite the fact that it is your decision in full
knowledge to not believe that the Bible contains God word).

Note 168.68

  >I've seen those many times -- they don't make the case 

Perhaps what you need is the logical case built up bit by
bit.  

    >> "All Scripture is God-breathed."

  >Nothing about the source of the written words or inerrancy.

Nothing about the source?!  Incredible.  This statement says
the source is God.

It is quite true that there is nothing in this statement about
what God saying being true.  I do believe, however, that it
might be possible to find a reference to this somewhere else 
in the Bible.  :-)

  >As has been pointed out before, God breathed Adam's life...

Which, of course, says nothing about the source of Adam's life...

     >> "The word of the Lord stands forever - and this is the word
     >> that was preached to you."

  >Clearly NOT referring to the written text, since "that [which]
  >was preached to you" was not written at that time.  

O.K., this is what you are not willing to accept (quite errorneously
in my opinion which I'll address in a moment).  What *are* you
willing to accept that this text says?  Will the word that was
preached to them stand forever?  What do you interpret it to mean
that it will "stand forever"?

Now, according to what it says.  This is a quote from the Old
Testament applied in the New Testament.  The Old Testament quote
refers to the written (and spoken) Word of God.  What was preached 
was from God's Word (the Old Testament at least) and an *explicit*
reference to the authority of God's Word is made in this statement.
In other words, if they reject the message, they are rejecting God
and His Word, not simply the words of a human.

     >> "No prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own
     >> interpretation.  For prophecy never had its origin in the will
     >> of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by
     >> the Holy Spirit."

  >Again, this verse distinguishes between the "prophecy" and
  >that in which the "prophecy" has been recorded and passed
  >down, "Scripture" -- it also clearly does not apply to the
  >entirety of the modern canon.

Again, what *will* you accept from this verse?  Is all prophetic
prophecy spoken and/or written by the Holy Spirit?  Do you accept
that all prophecy in the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit?

     >> "Thy Word is truth."

  >And Jesus is The Word (John 1).  Nothing about Scripture in this verse.

Why do you wish to define "Word" in one and only one way - the way
that is most convenient for you in this discussion - when it is used in 
a different (and I dare say more natural way) literally hundreds 
(thousands?) of times throughout the Bible in a way where defining Word
as Christ is nonsensical?

The issue here appears to be a matter of your heart, not of your
interpretive ability (which I believe is far better than your
previous comment implies).

    >> Perhaps if you indicated what words you do accept as God-breathed,
    >> we can proceed from there.

  >The word "breathed" does not mean "written", and God is
  >perfectly able to say "written" if that's what God intends --
  >but the Scripture does not say that.

I'm interested in this.  Believe it or not, you are the *first* person
I have understood to accept that all Scripture is God-breathed who
believes that the Holy Spirit is not the author of all Scripture.

  >However, it serves the needs of certain agendas to read it as
  >if "breathed" means "written".

I do think it is fairly presumpteous, in such a minority position,
to accuse those vast majority who see this connection as natural and
even *required* by a full understanding of the text as simply trying
to serve their own agenda.

     >> I'd be happy to lend you the book "The Inspiration and
     >> Authority of the Bible" by Benjamin B Warfield" which, I believe,
     >> will go a long way towards reconciling our views.
  
  >OK -- thanks.

Send me your address and I'll mail it out.

Collis

    Re: .76

    The impasse is a semantic one.  The meaning that you claim belongs to
    the phrase "not taking someone at their word" is not one that I believe
    most people would assign to it.  Furthermore, the use of that phrase
    has tremendous power as a discrediting device, since it implies that I
    and others do not recognize or accept God's authority.  Since you know
    that I do accept God's authority, this constitutes bearing false
    witness against me.  The phrase is deliberately provocative and
    a put down, and conveys an inaccurate impression.

>(despite the fact that it is your decision in full

    Despite?  Not despite--try "because".  The decision as to whether
    information comes from a reliable source is crucial in determining
    whether or not I can accept the information.  I cannot be guilty of
    doubting someone's authority when I don't believe it is their authority
    that I am doubting.  Period.  Your insinuations that I and others doubt
    God's authority are false, and this is what that phrase conveys.

    -- Mike

    RE: 78
    
    This has been a good string for me because it has helped me become more
    specific in how I feel.  Mike you say things very clearly.  
    
    I too agree with you.  I accept the authority of Goddess/God.  I do not
    accept the bible as the word of God and therefore do not take the bible
    as authoritative.  The bible is a great book.  The fact that it has
    survived for thousands of years and is the most read book in the world
    attests to its greatness.  All great books are inspired.  I like Mike's
    phrase 'that of God'.  'That of God' which is within each of us can
    know what is sacred and what is not.  The more I read and connect to
    that which is sacred in the Bible, Philosophy, World Religion, The
    Declaration of Independence,  secular humanism, Classical Mythology,
    Revisionist Mythology, the more I know of the Divine.  The more I live
    my life in a way that honors and appreciates the goodness of all that
    is created, the more I know the Divine.  The more I live my life as
    part of an interdependent web of existence, the more I know the Divine.
    
    
    Patricia
    
    

re Note 168.77 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Perhaps what you need is the logical case built up bit by
> bit.  

        You can't build a logical case from bits none of which is
        solid.  You are attempting a proof by exhaustion -- throwing
        inconclusive bit after inconclusive bit together in the hope
        that the listener will fail to see that they don't constitute
        a logical chain of proof at all.  You are attempting to cover
        a floor that needs 100 tiles with 50 tiles by spreading them
        apart far enough. :-)


>     >> "All Scripture is God-breathed."
> 
>   >Nothing about the source of the written words or inerrancy.
> 
> Nothing about the source?!  Incredible.  This statement says
> the source is God.

        That is not the only reading;  to me it's not even the most
        plausible reading.  Remember, my statement was about the
        source of "the written words" -- if God or anybody else wants
        to say that these words are mine, then they can use the word
        "write".  The use of the word "breathe" to me is obviously to
        draw a distinction to the concept "write" (or even the
        concept "speak").  You seem to think that God was just having
        a tough day using the thesaurus when he chose that word. :-}


> What do you interpret it to mean
> that it will "stand forever"?

        I said before -- most probably it means Christ stands
        forever.  It is clear that the kernel of the message about
        which this passage is speaking is Jesus, not just a rehash of
        the old testament as already written.  Jesus had yet to be
        written up in the popular press. :-)


> In other words, if they reject the message, they are rejecting God
> and His Word, not simply the words of a human.

        Well, I read it as "they are rejecting God, not simply the
        words of a human."


> Is all prophetic
> prophecy spoken and/or written by the Holy Spirit?  Do you accept
> that all prophecy in the Bible is written by the Holy Spirit?

        Written?  No.  Written by people who observed and understood
        this to be God's working?  Yes.


>      >> "Thy Word is truth."
> 
>   >And Jesus is The Word (John 1).  Nothing about Scripture in this verse.
> 
> Why do you wish to define "Word" in one and only one way - the way
> that is most convenient for you in this discussion - when it is used in 
> a different (and I dare say more natural way) literally hundreds 
> (thousands?) of times throughout the Bible in a way where defining Word
> as Christ is nonsensical?

        I actually don't view reading "Word" as "Christ" as
        "nonsensical" in the contexts you mention above.  Christ is
        the personal expression of God, through whom all creation was
        accomplished, through whom all salvation is rendered. 
        Textual words are at best created things on a par with atoms,
        light, the planets, our bodies -- they are ALL the expression
        of God.  It seems silly -- bordering on the irreverent, some
        might suggest blasphemous -- to say "this text is the Word of
        God" when there is a so much more important -- and more real
        and living -- Word of God.  Everything important you want to
        say about the text surely can be said about Jesus.


> The issue here appears to be a matter of your heart, not of your
> interpretive ability 

        ... or of your heart, or of your interpretive ability, or it
        just may be that we are all human, as were those who wrote
        Scripture.


> I'm interested in this.  Believe it or not, you are the *first* person
> I have understood to accept that all Scripture is God-breathed who
> believes that the Holy Spirit is not the author of all Scripture.

        Really?  I know that it was standard Roman Catholic teaching
        as of the time I was in high school that "Scripture is
        inerrant in faith and morals" but that in matters not
        relating to "faith and morals" the human was the author. 
        They certainly believed then and now that Scripture was
        "inspired" by the Holy Spirit (the word "inspired" has the
        Latin word for "breathe" as its root).

        Bob

    Protestant and Roman Catholic doctrine are probably the same, in
    principle, using different doctrinal formulae.
    
    Protestant practice, and this varies from sect to sect, probably has a
    broader definition of biblical inerrancy.
    
    Roman Catholic practice doesn't place a great emphasis on reading the
    Bible in religious education in my opinion.

    RE: .81
    
    You are correct about the lack of emphasis on the Bible in the Roman
    Catholic faith. I *never* had any reason to read the Bible for my
    Christian education classes....and I had classes until I left High
    School. The only time I heard from the Bible was during the Mass
    when the readings occured.
    
    The impression I had was that if it was needed...the Church would tell
    you.
    
    I'll leave out my opinion of this, in the spirit of discussion.
    
    Marc H.

Re:  168.80

  >You can't build a logical case from bits none of which are solid.

Nor would I desire to.

  >You are attempting a proof by exhaustion -- throwing
  >inconclusive bit after inconclusive bit together in the hope
  >that the listener will fail to see that they don't constitute
  >a logical chain of proof at all.

Indeed this is exactly the opposite of what I, a seeker of truth,
desire to do.  I desire all falsehood to be shown for what it is
and all truth (Thy Word is truth) to be shown for what it is.

      >> "All Scripture is God-breathed."

  >That is not the only reading;  to me it's not even the most plausible 
  >reading.

Feel free to share your interpretation since I've shared the
commonly accepted one.

  >Remember, my statement was about the source of "the written words" -- 
  >if God or anybody else wants to say that these words are mine, then 
  >they can use the word "write".

Would it convince you if the words of a human author were referred to
as God's words?

Would it convince you if the words in the Bible attributed directly to
God were referred to as the prophet's words?

What proof do you need?

  >I said before -- most probably it means Christ stands forever.  

I think significant research in the Bible will show you that the
hundreds/thousands of references in the Bible to "the Word of God"
are incredibly strained by forcing this interpretation on it.  Or
do you only wish to make this the interpretation in a few select
contexts?  And why should we take this interpretation which is/was
*totally foreign* to the intended audience and say that the normal/
natural interpretation is not only not what was meant, but is it
fact wrong?  

I agree with the principle of interpretation which says that we should
interpret something to mean the most likely meaning (based on the
words and the contexts) unless there is good reason for believing
otherwise.  Do you agree with this?  If so, do you think the
understanding I have is a natural understanding?  If so, what are your
good reasons for giving a different interpretation?

     >> In other words, if they reject the message, they are rejecting God
     >> and His Word, not simply the words of a human.

  >Well, I read it as "they are rejecting God, not simply the
  >words of a human."

And why should we assume that the words are of a human when the text
says it is the word of God?  Oh, that's right.  We shouldn't expect
"word" to mean "word" in this context since at least once the Bible
called Jesus Christ the Word.

  >Written?  No.  Written by people who observed and understood
  >this to be God's working?  Yes.

You do not know the meaning of God-breathed if you think that this
means that people wrote based on their own understanding rather than
God wrote through them.

  >Christ is the personal expression of God, through whom all creation was
  >accomplished, through whom all salvation is rendered. 

Agreed!

  >Textual words are at best created things on a par with atoms...

I'm not talking about the physical text.  I'm talking about words
(which may or may not be written down).  I don't know exactly how to 
classify words, but you can't destroy words simply by burning the Bible.  
Even after all Bibles are destroyed (along with the earth), the Word of 
God will exist forever.

To claim that the constant references to the Word of God in the
Old Testament hundreds of years before Christ did NOT refer to
what God said but only to the promised Messiah is ludicrous, in
my opinion.  It assumes that God intentionally deceived people
by communicating in a way that He *knew* they would not understand
again and again and again (when He says something simple like 
the Word of our God shall stand forever.  Ah, so Christ never
sits. :-) ).

  >They certainly believed then and now that Scripture was
  >"inspired" by the Holy Spirit (the word "inspired" has the
  >Latin word for "breathe" as its root).

Inspired is the opposite action of breathed.  There is a discussion of this
in an early topic (18 maybe?)  I don't know the Latin; I examined the 
Greek at one point.

Collis

Re:  168.78

  >Furthermore, the use of that phrase has tremendous power as a 
  >discrediting device, since it implies that I and others do not 
  >recognize or accept God's authority.  

If

  1)  The words of the Bible as recorded by prophets are
      indeed authoritative and from God

  2)  You reject the Bible

then

  3)  You reject God's authority

Whether you reject it because of ignorance, because you don't
accept premise 1 or for any other reason, the logic remains.  If
the first 2 statements are true (and I believe the first and
you claim the second), then the third is true as well.

  >Since you know that I do accept God's authority...

See above.

  >Your insinuations that I and others doubt God's authority are 
  >false, and this is what that phrase conveys.

No insinuations in this response.

If, however, you believe for whatever reason that I reject God's
authority, I will simply accept that statement for what I perceive
it to be - a claim made by one who rejects what God through the
prophets made clear to us.

Again, we are at an impasse.

Collis

>If
>
>  1)  The words of the Bible as recorded by prophets are
>      indeed authoritative and from God
>
>  2)  You reject the Bible
>
>then
>
>  3)  You reject God's authority

    That depends on what you mean by "reject God's authority".  If you mean
    reject what God orders, then your reasoning would be correct.  Given
    that definition, if you were merely claiming that, I would not have
    objected strenuously, even though I obviously disagree with that as
    well.  In that case, you would have been making a statement about how
    you felt my own beliefs conformed to reality, instead of what my
    beliefs are or how they are formulated.  Unfortunately, it is the
    latter that your statement that I "don't take God at his word" pertains
    to.

    There is a subtle issue involved here.  Your statement concerns not
    merely whether or not I reject what God has authoritatively
    ordained--that case, we would indeed be at an impasse.  It is possible
    to sincerely and mistakenly reject God's authority while still
    believing that God is authoritative; obviously, you believe that I
    reject God's authority, but even if that were true it would not affect
    whether or not I rejected or accepted that God is authoritative.  And
    the question here is whether or not I reject that God is authoritative. 
    It's a slightly different concept, certainly, but extremely important. 
    That is what "not taking someone at their word" implies--that you don't
    accept *that* the person is authoritative.  Since you know fully well
    that I believe that God is authoritative, then saying something that
    implies that I do not is hardly a very honest assertion.  Since you
    also believe the Bible comes entirely from God, then you might want to
    consider that God said something pretty authoritative about bearing
    false witness against others.

    You can claim, if you wish, that I "reject the words and instructions
    of God."  If that had been what you said, instead of that I "don't take
    God at his word", I would not have objected in this way, even though I
    obviously disagree with that statement as well.  While I would disagree
    with that statement, it at least would not have falsely characterized
    what my beliefs, motives, and actions are.  It would have been a
    statement *about* my beliefs--namely that you believed they were
    wrong--rather than a statement of *what* my beliefs were and how they
    were formulated.

    To consider things from another perspective, given the definition you
    apparent use "rejecting God's authority", I happen to believe that
    you reject God's authority in certain areas, because I believe that
    your beliefs do not conform to God's.  But I do not claim that you
    reject that God is authoritative, and I would not assert that you do
    not take God at his word, because I know that is not true, and it would
    be lying to say so.  However, it would serve as a convenient put down
    of one's religious legitimacy to say that kind of thing.

    For reasons I stated in early postings, "not taking someone at their
    word" implies doubting, as a general principle, that what the other
    person says is reliable or relevant.  I gave several analogies to show
    why that statement makes that implication.  We are talking here about a
    general, absolute principle--trusting God as the ultimate source of
    truth.  To confuse the necessary with the contingent is to equivocate
    (Whitehead referred to this as the fallacy of misplaced concreteness.)
    Certain specific statements may or may not come from God--now we are
    talking about certain contingent truths. 

    I explained how this was the case already, but I'll reiterate.  I can
    trust someone as a reliable source on NBA statistics.  That is an
    expression of a  general principle.  Now I hear an improbable statistic
    from a third party who I don't take on their word.  I doubt what this
    person says.  They tell me it came from the reliable source.  I might
    still doubt it.  All along, I take the reliable source at his word,
    even if, unbeknownst to me, that statistic did actually come from him. 
    I go to the reliable source, ask him about the statistic, and he says,
    "Yes, indeed, I did tell the other party about this statistic."  I say,
    well, since I take you at your word, I believe that this statistic is
    true, although I didn't before.  I didn't suddenly start taking him at
    his word at moment.  I always did take him at his word.  That's the
    general principle--I trust him as a source.  But until I found out that
    he was the source, I could not apply taking him at his word to that
    concrete situation.  That's the contingent side of taking someone at
    their word.

    Either you believe that people here don't believe that God is
    authoritative, or you don't.  If you don't, then claiming that people
    here don't take God as his word is inaccurate and totally
    imappropriate.  To my knowledge, it is not true of anyone in this notes
    file.

    If you are claiming that people here reject God's authority because
    they don't accept what you think you know to be God's word, then you
    are making an objective statement about how what we believe matches up
    with God's words.  That is different than making a statement about the
    general principles that underlie how others here relate to God.  To
    confuse the two is to equivocate, and leads to false implications.

    -- Mike

    Oh! 98 lines!

    Why quibble over the word "authoritative"?  In one sense of the word,
    it forms part of the definition of what it means to be "God" in any
    religion.

    The more direct issue is "Has God revealed a distinctive plan: a way to
    conduct our lives"?

    What is the source of, and the clarity of this revelation?

    After that's settled, then the questions around following this plan
    makes a bit more sense.

Mike

I'm not attempting at all to claim that you don't believe
that God is authoritative or that you choose to submit
to your view of His authority.  If that helps.

Collis

Premise:

The Bible is a compilation of writings.

The writings contained within the Bible are generally considered to
be inspired by God.

Therefore....
^^^^^^^^^

I think it's this "therefore" part, the conclusion(s) we draw, which finds
us at variance.

Richard

    Collis,
    
    Yes, it does help.  Thank you.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 168.81 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Roman Catholic practice doesn't place a great emphasis on reading the
>     Bible in religious education in my opinion.
  
        You are right, but I think that the emphasis should be
        greater.

        I feel quite fortunate that the Catholic high school that I
        attended did put emphasis on reading and studying Scripture,
        and in fact one of the four years of religious instruction
        was solely Bible study.

        Bob

    Patricia:
    
    What is your belief in this verse.
    
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word 
    was God.  He was in the same in the beginning with God."  John 1:1,2.
    
    -Jack

    It means that God is available to us directly and God has always been
    available to humanity directly as the living Word of God.  At different
    times this word has been know as Christ, Divine Wisdom, Holy Spirit,
    Sophia, Great Spirit.  Same word.  Same living God.  Different names.
    
    This living Word of God becomes incarnate in Humanity.  Thus when Jesus
    says what you have done others you have done to me,  this "word" is
    embodied.
    
    Patricia