Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Jeff,

re.0

>What would make someone think that the one God that others worship is 
>not the same God they worship?

"I am Jehovah thy God..., thou shalt have no other gods before me" Exodus 20:2

 His name is Jehovah. Not all people worship Jehovah. Not all people want to
worship Jehovah. The assumption that you make is that everyone worships the
same entity. It's just not that way. 

	God is not contrary to Himself. 

Ace

Ace,

>  His name is Jehovah. Not all people worship Jehovah. Not all people want to
> worship Jehovah. The assumption that you make is that everyone worships the
> same entity. It's just not that way. 

Well, Jehovah is a nice (Hebrew?) name; but how do we know that the one God 
did not introduce himself to the Indians with a Sanskrit name, or to the 
Chinese with a Chinese name?

And what about the other questions in .0?


>	God is not contrary to Himself. 

No, I don't think so either.  Nor do I think He is as separative and 
exclusive as many would like to believe.

Jeff

    The "one god" idea comes about because Jesus is reported to have said
    "I am the way, the truth and the light. None come to the father but by
    me.". Therefore if you're a non-christian, you're never going to come
    to god.
    
    I'm not convinced.
    
    Pete.

re.2

	Jeff,

	God chooses to communicate with us. Since He has, is it not rational 
that He would also inform us when He has done so? Do you not also sign your
letters? So it is with God.

	
Ace

    If the difference between worshiping the True God and merely worshiping
    a facsimile boils down to using the right *name*, then all those people
    who worship "Jehovah" would be in a heap of trouble if it turned out
    that God's name were actually Yahweh.  :-)  (Unless, of course,
    differences in the translations of tetragrammatons don't count.)

    -- Mike

    Actually, on a slightly more serious note, the topic of religious
    pluralism is very near and dear to me.  One theologian who has devoted
    a lot of effort to this topic is John Hick; I read a couple of his
    books, one of which has the title "God Has Many Names" (speaking of
    God's name :-)).  Also, Hans Kung recently co-authored a book with
    individuals associated with other major world religions, which I think
    was an important effort at serious and *respectful* dialogue between
    religious faiths.  In my denomination, Quakerism, respect for other
    faiths has been a part of its history, to one degree or another,
    although it has traditionally been a Christian religion.  This tension
    between Quakerism's Christian roots and its Universalist tendencies
    have come to a head recently, and may lead to a reorganization of the
    Friends United Meeting in the near future.  As it happens, I belong to
    the Quaker Universalist Fellowship, which explicitly supports a belief
    in the validity of various religious paths (much to the chagrin of some
    of the Christian Quakers, I might add).

    The Quaker study center at Pendle Hill publishes six pamphlets a year. 
    One pamphlet that I have, "Many Religions: One God", by Carol R.
    Murphy, explores some of the ways that different faiths emphasize
    different aspects of the God-concept.  One of her comments relates
    directly to what you wrote, Jeff:  'It has been said by those who
    should know better that men of a differing belief worship "another
    god."  How many gods do they think there are?'

    -- Mike

    Jehovah is not a Hebrew name. In fact, the name Jehovah is mis-translation
    for the actual word the Hebrews used for God. I don't recall how it
    came about, but it was explained to me by a Scripture scholar.

    Peace
    Jim

    Jim, I don't remember all the details either, but off the top of my
    head it comes from the fact that the Hebrews used the tetragammaton
    YHWH to refer to God; they left out the vowels because they believed it
    inappropriate to spell out God's name in full.  The vowels come from
    the word Adonai, which is often translated in English as Lord; I don't
    remember exactly, but I believe that those vowels were placed alongside
    YHWH in print, so that those who read the scripture out loud would know
    to use that word instead of the holy name for God.  What happened is
    that Biblical translators who didn't understand that came up with the
    term "Jehovah".

    The Jerusalem Bible, by the way, has the distinction of using the word
    Yahweh instead of God in its translation of the Old Testament whenever
    the tetragammaton is used in the source text.

    -- Mike

Re: .4 (Ace)

> re.2
>
>	Jeff,
>
>	God chooses to communicate with us. Since He has, is it not rational 
> that He would also inform us when He has done so? Do you not also sign your
> letters? So it is with God.

	
Thanks for the reply, Ace; but I don't see how this addresses .2.

Jeff

re Note 327.8 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     The Jerusalem Bible, by the way, has the distinction of using the word
>     Yahweh instead of God in its translation of the Old Testament whenever
>     the tetragammaton is used in the source text.
  
        Traditional English translations used "LORD" (all caps)
        instead of the tetragammaton rather than "God."

        Bob

| God chooses to communicate with us. Since He has, is it not rational
| that He would also inform us when He has done so? Do you not also sign your
| letters? So it is with God.

	The Bible was written before a lot of this world was discovered, wasn't
it? No one knew of North/South America, the north & south poles, etc..., so who
is to say that God didn't communicate with them? It wouldn't be in the Bible
because the authors weren't in that part of the world.



Glen

| What happened is
| that Biblical translators who didn't understand that came up with the
| term "Jehovah".

	I thought the translators had the Holy Spirit guiding them when
translating the Bible, which is why a lot of Christians believe the Bible to be
100% true? Wouldn't the Holy Spirit (as a lot of Christians would say) have
shown them the coorect interpretation? Does this mean that the Bible does have
human interpretation to it?


Glen

re.9


	Jeff,

	Ah. I see.

	Let me ask the question this way.

	Of all the "sacred" writings that you are aware of, which ones claim
authorship of God? If they do not claim authorship from God, then it is 
irrational to claim that God is the author. 

	To my understanding, only two books claim authorship from God, so
there are only two choices. None of the other sacred writings claim God as
author. 1) The Bible, and 2) the Koran.

	All other religions are not based upon writings that claim God as 
its author so therefore on what basis do you assume that God is operating
under a different name?

Ace

RE.11

Hi Glen,

>No one knew of North/South America, the north & south poles, etc..., so who
>is to say that God didn't communicate with them? 

	Did He? Post the evidence, let's take a look.

Regards,
Ace

    RE: 1
    
    Excuse me, Psalms 68:4 says his name is JAH.  When Moses asked him who
    shall I say sent me, God said, Tell them I AM sent you"...point is God
    has and is known by MANY names.  
    
    There is only ONE GOD.
    
    Playtoe

    
    RE: .13
    
    Ace, what about writings today that claim they are from God?
    
    Carole

    Perhaps it is a mistake to assume that God is the "author" of any
    sacred work; rather, it makes more sense to look at a sacred work as an
    expression of the human understanding of God and God's revelation. 
    Certainly a work would not be considered sacred by a culture unless it
    was believed to express something of the nature of the Ultimate
    reality.  And that in turn presumes that the authors of those works
    were expressing that which they perceived from the Ultimate.

    The real problem that I see is in assuming that all Divine revelation
    must necessarily express itself in the form of an inerrant text that
    claims to have been authored directly by God.  There is simply no
    reason to assume that this must be the case.  I suspect that what this
    view really highlights is the all-too-human need for certainty in a
    stubbornly uncertain world.  It is true that the Koran makes such a
    claim about itself; however, unlike Islam, as Hans Kung pointed out in
    "On Being a Christian", Christianity is *not* inherently a book
    religion (although some Christians may view it as such).

    Any comparison between the Koran and the Bible makes the differences in
    their approaches to Divine revelation very clear.  The Koran was
    written during the course of one person's lifetime, and expresses few
    variations in style or content throughout its Surahs.  Moslem doctrine
    states that the Koran is not even supposed to be translated, since the
    Koran exists eternally in Heaven in the Arabic language.  In contrast
    to this sort of textual uniformity, the Bible is a library of many
    works written over hundreds of years, by many authors, in more than one
    language, reflecting many styles.  The Bible is a mixture of poetry and
    prose, myth and preaching, story and history, and (I would argue) does
    not make any absolute claim of having been "authored" as a complete
    scriptural entity by God.  The distinction between an absoluteness of
    divine authorship and falsehood in other religions is a faulty one; the
    value in any scriptural works lies in the inspiration of the humans who
    composed them, not in any alleged divine authorship.

    Divine revelation makes itself in many wonderful ways.  That is its
    beauty.

    -- Mike

re: Note 327.15 by Playtoe,

> When Moses asked him who shall I say sent me, God said, 
> "Tell them I AM sent you"

How's that for self-referential?  
(& we know what happens when things get self-referential, right?)

>...point is God has and is known by MANY names.  
>   There is only ONE GOD.

Good point, a VERY good point!

Peace,

Jim

Ace,

I concur with what Mike entered in .17, and I would add that I doubt any 
religion thinks that God picked up a pen and wrote a book.  Christ is 
considered to be God by many Christians and yet even He did not write a 
book as far as we know.  I would also venture to guess that much of the 
worlds scripture began as oral traditions and were later transcribed.

I am not a scriptural scholar, so I don't know if other scripture makes 
the claim of being "written by God;" but all scripture considers itself 
inspired by Divinity, and I think this is the important point.

Speaking of points... the point was that one God is one God.  I think it 
would be presumptuous for either of us to assume that we know what is 
"rational" in the eyes of God.  I think it is *we* who think that ours 
is the only way, that God only paid attention to *our* little 
geographical area of the earth, and not God.  God (in my opinion) didn't 
bestow a monopoly of Truth on any one culture.  Rather, in his infinite 
wisdom he offered divine knowledge to all peoples of the earth, all of 
whom are His creation.  We as humans think it unwise to bestow 
favouritism on any single child (if we have children).  Do we really 
think God picks favourites?  Or is it more "rational" to think that he 
provides each child (individually), or each culture (collectively) with 
what they need to traverse the path to Him?

Getting bogged down with names and spelling of the Divinity that lies 
beyond our comprehension seems silly to me.  If I called Him "His 
Holiness the Door Knob," I think it would matter naught to Him, as long 
as I continue seeking Him with all my heart and mind.

Jeff

.0  Hi Jeff,

     I've never really understood it when people of one religion point 
     fingers at another religion or people and say that the "other"
     people  are not worshipping the "one true God."  

Right.  You're not alone.  I've never understood it, either.  But
I have been trying hard to understand it for a long, long time.
In fact, I don't even think that God understands it or even
likes it.

   It would seem that *anyone* who  is worshipping one omniscient,
   omnipresent God is worshipping the *only*  God.  If someone
   worships one God, who is believed to be "everything"  and "the
   Truth,"  then how can that God be any other than the God that 
   others believe to be "everything" and "the Truth" (assuming that
   there  is one God)?

You and I seem to believe that God consistently reaches out to
his people on earth -- people of varied cultures, customs,
backgrounds -- in a variety of ways:  Through nature, through
meditation, through miracles, through writings, through special
encounters with certain people, places, and things.  We also seem
to believe that God can and does find a place for all of us at
his table once we open our hearts, minds, and souls to Him. 
Opening up and trusting the Spirit of God involves deep faith --
the kind of deep faith found in the spiritual lives of people
found in every corner of the earth, in cultures that existed
centuries before Jesus, in cultures that never even heard of the
Bible.

   The only way I can see this attitude being justified is if people
   think  that God is separate, non-inclusive, and therefore not
   "everything."

That's exactly right.  That is, a lot of Christians believe:

   1.  God is, by definition, *separate* from ourselves -- our
       bodies, minds, and spirits -- and separate from everything
       else He created.  In other words, God is "out there" --
       a separate personality (namely, the person Jesus) with
       whom we must strive to have a "relationship" --  rather
       than "in everything."  If the relationship is created in
       a certain specific way, we are saved.  If not, we are not.

       If one doesn't believe that God is "everything," then one
       has to believe God is separate.  

   2.  God is exclusive, and non-inclusive.  He reportedly
       excludes those millions of people who do not go through
       the specific process of establishing a relationship with
       the the person Jesus -- those millions of people who,
       through deep faith/trust in the Almighty, open their
       hearts and and hand over their lives to God.

           What would make someone think that the one God that others
           worship is  not the same God they worship?

According to a certain narrow-minded theory, we can worship our
brains out and pray till the cows come home .... But if we do not
go through the specific, preconceived motions of developing a
relationship with the person Jesus, then the worshipping/praying does
no good, and we have no chance of realizing the Kingdom of God.

In other words, according to this black-and-white theory, one
must come to know God one specific way, or else not at all.  One
must have a relationship with God one specific way, or not at
all. 

   If there is only one, then there is only  one.  Are we to believe
   that the majority of God's children are  worshipping an illusion
   while a minority of His children are owner's of  "the truth?"

You got it.  An illusion created by demons.  Unless you come to
know God in that one specific way, and go through that specific
set of motions -- unless you hold that ticket of immunity in your back
pocket -- then you are at the mercy of Satan (whose deceptions
are, interestingly enough, more powerful than God's efforts to
reach out to you), and there is nothing you can do about it. 
Praying to God, meditating,  communing with, and having faith in
God in general simply won't help.

In the eyes of many Christians, you can't have good without a
very powerful seat of evil.  And the evil, of course, always
triumphs over good, unless you come to know God THEIR specific
way.  There are good guys and there are bad guys, and it seems
that many Christians have more faith in, lend more credibility to,
the illusion of Darkness rather than the truth/power of Light.
This makes me wonder:  Who's really being deceived?

   From the standpoint of Christianity, people worshipped the "one
   true  God" long before Christ took physical form.  Were these
   people all over  the planet worshipping different Gods?

Yes, from the standpoint of a certain narrow Christian perspective.
Before Jesus incarnated into this world, no one was saved.
Hence, the definition of Jesus as the one and only "savior" for
the human race.

   If there is only one, then where  does the notion come from that
   "that god isn't *my* God?"

An unfortunate misinterpretation of the scriptures -- an
interpretation that breeds intolerance and exlusionism
into holy doctrine.... a doctrine that essentially says,
"What's good for me is good for you too.  As God's official
ambassador, I know Truth and you don't.  I know God and you
don't.  Therefore, for your own good, I will tell you what is
good, what is Truth.  God has deemed me qualified to do so."  

   ... then how can we assume that one set of scripture is  solely
   the word of God while all others are false?  How do we make this 
   determination?

Tragically.  The notion that the *only* way God reaches out to his
children is through the pages of the bible is, sadly, precisely
what causes many Christians to categorically write off the
validity/credibility of the spiritual lives of the vast majority
of their brothers and sisters on earth.  The notion that the
*only* way for *anyone* to know God is by embracing one narrow
interpretation of the scripture is contrary to the Spirit of
Christ.

   What would make someone think that the one omnipotent  God would
   only provide scripture to one little geographic area of His 
   earth and leave everyone else empty?

Good question, Jeff.  When you figure it out, let me know!  ;)

Seriously, if you begin with the premise that all other holy
writings, communications, and experiences don't count -- essentially
all those other ways in which you and I know God can/does reach
out to his children -- then it is easy to see how one piece of
writing, along with one specific interpretation of said writing, 
can itself be elevated to the level of Godhood.

Peace,
Paul

Within Hinduism, in AD 686, was born a great figure in the world 
named Samkara who recognized this problem and gave much solace to a 
large portion of humankind by spreading the teaching that all men are
created equal.  

From "The Spiritual Heritage of India" by S. Prabhavananda:

 "One morning when he was on his way to bathe in the Ganges, he met a 
 candala, a member of the lowest caste, the untouchables.  The man had 
 four dogs with him, and they were blocking Samkara's path.  For a 
 moment, inborn caste-prejudice asserted itself.  Samkara, the brahmin, 
 ordered the candala out of the way.  But the candala answered: 'If there 
 is only one God, how can there be many kinds of men?  How can there be 
 any distinctions of caste or creed?'  Samkara was filled with shame and 
 reverence.  He prostrated himself before the candala.  This incident 
 inspired one of Samkara's finest poems, the 'Manisa Pancaka'.  It 
 consists of five stanzas, each one ending with the refrain:

	"He who has learned to see the one Existance everywhere,
	 He is my master - be he brahmin or candala." "

From then on, Samkara went on to teach this philosophy throughout the 
country. 

At this point I should explain that while there, on the outside, appears 
to be polytheism in India, the book referenced above writes on this:

 "Casual visitors to this ancient land carry away with them the 
 impression of an elaborate polytheism.  True it is that India has always 
 had many gods - but in appearance only.  In reality she has but one god, 
 though with prodigal inventiveness she has called him 'by various 
 names'.  Indra, Varuna, Hiranyagarbha - Rama, Krishna, Siva: What does 
 it matter?  Whichever of these or of many others the Hindu chooses for 
 his adoration, that one becomes for him God himself, in whom exist all 
 things, including, for the time being, all other gods.  It is because 
 India has been so permeated with the spirit of "Ekam sat vipra bahudha 
 vadanti" [That which exist is One: sages call it by various names.] that 
 she has known relatively little of religious fanaticism, of religious
 percecution, of religious wars.  Characteristically she has sought truth 
 in every faith - even in faiths not her own."

re.16

Hi Carole,

>Ace, what about writings today that claim they are from God?
    
	I would wonder what took God so long to speak to us. 8*) No, It is
logical that God has been speaking to man for quite some time. God is a God of
purpose. The question is simply, *where* is God's speaking and what are the 
choices. 

re. .18

Jeff,

	To my knowledge no writings claim divine authorship other than the
Bible and the Koran.  

> but all scripture considers itself inspired by Divinity, and I think this is 
>the important point.

I think this is the important point also. Explain what you mean by scripture
other than the Bible and Koran claiming divine inspiration. Are you assuming
that they do, or do you know for sure? 

>God (in my opinion)

This also is a key point. We all have opinions, but what are your opinions based
on? Since you or I or anybody else in this conference are *not* God, then our 
opinion about what God is or should be like is totally irrelevant. We must look 
elsewhere. God exists, God created us with a purpose, and God has communicated 
that purpose to us. The only thing that remains is to seek Him. 
The "many names of God" argument is just human invention and is Satan's device
to keep mankind from apprehending God. It is not a good idea to claim Baal, 
Molech and Jehovah are the same God under different names (that is where this 
particular thought leads isn't it?). The practices of Baal and Molech were 
abominations to Jehovah. It's irrational to claim they are/were the same.

You also make an assumption that human culture is something that God somehow
accomodates. The basis of that assumption is also human opinion. On what basis
do you say that? 

Of all the "sacred" writings in the world upon which religions are based, I 
think *only* the Bible and the Koran claim divine authorship and therefore
are the only two that qualify as potentially containing God's speaking to us.
If anyone here has evidence to contrary, please post the quotations from those
writings here. All other human speculation is pretty much pointless.

Regards,
Ace

re.21

Hi Cindy

> From "The Spiritual Heritage of India" by S. Prabhavananda:

Does this writing claim to be authored by God? That is, could you post the
part that says, "I God say unto you..." or something similar?

If this is God's speaking to us, then surely God will identify Himself as the
author somewhere in the text. 

Thanks,
Ace

    re  .23
    
    Isn't your comment about "divine authorship" a bit strict (and 
    inconsistent)?  
    
    There are many writings, authored by men, but inspired by God.
    The Bible is one of them.  When you say "authored by God," do
    you mean that literally?  Or are you referring to humans inspired
    by God via their meditations/prayers?  
    
    If you literally mean "authored by God,"  then you must exclude
    most of the Bible.  The Bible is made up of series of stories
    transmitted, for the most part, verbally.  Eventually, men
    captured these stories on paper decades, even centuries, 
    after the death of Jesus.   Not that the Bible isn't an important
    God-inspired writing.  It is.  It just isn't directly "authored by
    God," from what I can tell.  
    
    If you *do* mean writings inspired by God, then you must include many 
    holy works, including the ones referenced by Cindy, including the
    Bible.
    
    By the way, A Course In Miracles is a modern holy work that claims 
    to be *directly* authored by God.   Will you add it to your list?    
    
    re:  Your comment to Jeff, regarding his comment on the nature of 
    God "(in my opinion)".  Let's be realistic.  Jeff has come to know 
    the Truth, come to know God, in the same manner, roughly, you and I
    and the rest of us have.  That is, he is not inventing God/Truth 
    according to what he *personally* wants God/Truth to be.  Some of us 
    hold the opinion that the Bible is the only, infallible, genuine word 
    of God, that there is only one way to know God and only one way to 
    realize the kingdom of God, realize "salvation."  Some of us hold 
    different "opinions" about God/Truth.  Jeff's "opinion" is no more 
    or less self-serving than yours.  
    
    Paul
     

    
    Ace,
    
    I gave you the author's name.  I wasn't presenting it as a writing of
    God's anyway.  It isn't a holy scripure, if that's what you're asking.
    It's published by the Vedanta Society.
    
    Please go back and read it for the *content*. 
    
    Cindy

    "This small book, the New Testament, did not drop out of heaven.  As we
    saw, the Koran is supposed to have been kept in heaven, dictated
    sentence by sentence as God's direct word for man, and therefore to be
    infallibly true in every sentence.  It is thus regarded in every
    respect (linguistically, stylistically, logically, historically) as a
    perfect, holy book which has to be literally believed and may not even
    be interpreted or provided with a commentary.  And the Bible?  The
    Bible, both of the New and of the Old Testament--as Paul's letters in
    particular and the beginning of Luke's Gospel openly testify--was
    written and collected on earth.  Thus it is unequivocally *man's word*:
    collected, written down, given varied emphasis, sentence by sentence by
    quite definite individuals and developed in different ways.  Hence it
    is not without shortcomings and mistakes, concealment and confusion,
    limitations and errors.  So there emerged a highly complex collection
    of clear and less clear, stronger and weaker, primary and secondary
    documents of faith.

    "Bug is not *God's word* supposed to be recorded in these writings?  As
    so often , the important thing is to understand this sort of question
    in the right way: that is, how we can take seriously the human history
    of these writings while still believing in God's word....

    "The Bible is not simply God's word: it is first of all and in its
    whole extent man's word, the word of quite definite individuals.

    "The Bible does not simply contain God's word: there are not certain
    propositions which are God's word, while the rest are man's.

    "The Bible becomes God's word: it becomes God's word for anyone who
    submits trustfully and in faith to its testimony and so to the God
    revealed in it and to Jesus Christ."

    		Hans Kung, "On Being a Christian", pages 465-467

    
    RE: .22
    
    Hi Ace.....could you please explain your response to me?  I am not
    sure of what you are saying in .22.
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

    There seems to be a lot of discussion around claims of authorship, but
    that is only one possible way of looking at scripture.  I would define
    scripture, not in terms of any claims that it allegedly makes about
    Divine authorship, but rather in terms of the Divine inspiration that
    seems to be expressed in its the content.  What that means is that what
    comes under the heading of "scripture" is not so clean cut.  Many
    people would have a problem with that, I am sure.  Unfortunately, the
    world doesn't always present itself to us in clear and definitive
    terms.  Epistemological certainty might seem ideal, but what we can do
    as human beings is exercise our judgment as best we can about what in
    religious expression speaks to our own condition.

    Even the assertion that the Bible is the sole and inerrant Divine
    scripture is itself a human judgment, even though those who feel that
    way may criticize those who disagree with charges of human (as opposed
    to Divine) judgment.  All of us make our human judgments about what
    constitutes divine revelation.  Of course, in addition to critiquing
    faulty human judgment, there is the charge of *satanic* influence,
    one that is particularly obnoxious and offensive (unless, of course, it
    comes from the Church Lady, in which case it is obnoxious and funny).

    Some may insist on imposing their own criterion of alleged claims of
    divine authorship for what others must accept as "scripture", but those
    who don't view Divine revelation as manifesting itself in that way are
    under no obligation to accept that view.  This is true even if we made
    the leap of accepting that the Bible makes such a claim about itself
    (as if the Bible were a single work and not a collection of many
    writings composed over the course of centuries).

    -- Mike

Re: .22 (Ace)

>	To my knowledge no writings claim divine authorship other than the
>Bible and the Koran.  

Does this say something about other writings, or does it say something 
about your knowledge?

>I think this is the important point also. Explain what you mean by scripture
>other than the Bible and Koran claiming divine inspiration. Are you assuming
>that they do, or do you know for sure? 

One example is the many volumes of Hindu scripture, from the Vedas to 
the Upanishads.

>God exists, God created us with a purpose, and God has communicated 
>that purpose to us. 

Yes, through the many scriptures and oral traditions found in *every* 
culture within God's creation, and through the words of sages throughout 
the ages.

>It is not a good idea to claim Baal, 
>Molech and Jehovah are the same God under different names (that is where this 
>particular thought leads isn't it?). 

I suppose for the paranoid the answer would be "yes."

> It's irrational to claim they are/were the same.

Who made this caim?  Certainly not I.  If you insist on putting words in 
peoples mouths, please refrain from doing so with me.  Thanks.

>You also make an assumption that human culture is something that God somehow
>accomodates. The basis of that assumption is also human opinion. On what basis
>do you say that? 

I didn't make that assumption; you did (speaking of the fallibility of 
"human opinion," this is a good example).  I said nothing about God 
accomodating humanity.  What I said was I don't think there is 
favouritism in the manner in which God deals with humanity.  Do you 
think there is favouritism?

>Of all the "sacred" writings in the world upon which religions are based, I 
>think *only* the Bible and the Koran claim divine authorship and therefore
>are the only two that qualify as potentially containing God's speaking to us.
>If anyone here has evidence to contrary, please post the quotations from those
>writings here. All other human speculation is pretty much pointless.

As I said before, if you are truly interested and not playing games you 
can read the Hindu scriptures.  When you get through those volumes of 
God-inspired material I will be glad to discuss it with you.  If you 
decline to study this material, then I would suggest you refrain from 
making unfounded claims about other scripture not being God-inspired.

What is pointless is trying to have a discussion about "One God" with 
someone who can't get off the topic of scripture and comparisons of 
verbage.  The topic here, in case it has been forgotten, is *ONE GOD*.
Is the aspect of scripture the only thing from .0 that you are 
interested in, or capable of discussing?  There is much more in .0 if 
you read it.  I hope you do, and I hope you choose to discuss some of 
the other questions from that note so that we can add some balance to 
this discussion of One God.

Jeff

re Note 327.29 by SHALOT::LACKEY:

> >It is not a good idea to claim Baal, 
> >Molech and Jehovah are the same God under different names (that is where this 
> >particular thought leads isn't it?). 
> 
> I suppose for the paranoid the answer would be "yes."
> 
> > It's irrational to claim they are/were the same.
> 
> Who made this caim?  Certainly not I.  If you insist on putting words in 
> peoples mouths, please refrain from doing so with me.  Thanks.

        The proposition that ALL gods as worshiped by ALL humans are
        simply the same one true God is as unlikely as the
        proposition that NO gods worshipped ANYWHERE are actually the
        one true God unless they are known by the tetragammaton or
        "Jesus".

        Bob

    re  .28  Mike,
    
             Bravo!  Beautifully articulated messages.
    
    
    re  .29  Jeff,
    
             I agree and empathize with your perspective.  Hang in there.
    
    Paul
    
    PS.  Ace ... Do you regard A Course In Miracles as a holy work
         authored by God?   If not, why not?
    

    
   I found this poem in an old anthology ,, I think it fits here
    
    
      "The Universal Prayer"
    
 " Father of all! in every age,
     In every clime adored,
   By saint,by savage, and by sage,
     Jehova,Jove, or Lord!

   Thou great First Cause, least understood,
     Who all my sense confined
   To know but this, that thou art good,
     And that myself am blind ;

   Yet gave me, in this dark estate,
     To see the good from ill ;
   And, binding nature fast in fate,
     Left free the human will :

   What conscience dictates to be done,
     Or warns me not to do,
   This, teach me more than hell to shun,
     That, more than heaven pursue .

   What blessings thy free bounty gives
     Let me not cast away ;
   For God is paid when man receives,
     To enjoy is to obey.

   Yet not to earth's contracted span
     Thy goodness let me bound,
   Or think thee Lord alone of man,
     When thousand worlds are round :

   Let not this weak, unknowing hand,
     Presume thy bolts to throw,
   And deal damnation round the land
     On each I judge thy foe.

   If I am right, thy grace impart
     Still in the right to stay ;
   If I am wrong, O, teach my heart
     To find that better way !

   Save me alike from foolish pride
     And impious discontent
   At aught thy wisdom has denied,
     Or aught thy goodness lent.

   Teach me to feel another's woe,
     To hide the fault I see ;
   That mercy I to others show,
     That mercy show to me.

   Mean though I am, not wholly so,
     Since quickened by thy breath ;
   O, lead me wheresoe're I go,
     Through this day's life or death !

   This day be bread and peace my lot ;
     All else beneath the sun,
   Thou know'st if best bestowed or not,
     And let thy will be done.

   To thee,whose temple is all space,
     Whose altar,earth,sea,skies,
   One chorus let all Being raise,
     All Nature's incense rise !"

 Alexander Pope
    
    
    Doug

Bob,

>        The proposition that ALL gods as worshiped by ALL humans are
>        simply the same one true God is as unlikely as the
>        proposition that NO gods worshipped ANYWHERE are actually the
>        one true God unless they are known by the tetragammaton or
>        "Jesus".

That isn't what I said.  There is a big difference in "all gods as 
worshipped by all humans," and "all humans who worship one true God."

Do you not see the difference?

Jeff

re Note 327.33 by SHALOT::LACKEY:

> Do you not see the difference?
  
        Of course -- so what?

        I was simply using the dialogue between you and another as
        the context in which I made my statement.

        Bob

Re: .32

That's a beautiful poem.

Bob,

Sorry; I thought you were implying that I had made that proposition.
I agree with what you said, btw.

Jeff

    Bob .30,
    
    > The proposition that ALL gods as worshipped by ALL humans are
    > simply the same one true God is as unlikely...
    
    Hmmmm.  Well then again, is there any person or group whose worship 
    and belief of God encompasses the *totality* of who and what God is? 
    
    If God is indeed the creator of all things, then perhaps ALL gods who
    are worshipped are valid  >>to the extent<<  that they represent various 
    aspects of Creation and of the "one true God."
    
    Perhaps if we took all the gods that are and ever have been worshipped,
    put them all together and took a good look at what we had, we'd have a 
    greater understanding of the one true God.
    
    Just a thought...! :-)
    
    Karen

re.27
	Hi Carole,

	Okay. I'll explain this way.

	We both believe in God. Since God created us we probably both wonder,
what is God like? Why did He create us? What purpose does He have for me? Why
I am I here? Probably we all have wondered or asked these questions. Unless
a person is an atheist they have wondered about or taken steps find answers to 
these questions. Even atheist have thought about God. 

	The question then simply becomes "where can we find God, or where can
we find His speaking, etc." Some people will say that God is found in a
personal relationship with Jesus. Others will say that God is found in Islam.
Others will insist on eastern religions. And some 8*) 8*), will take the
illogical position that everybody worships the one same God under different
names. This can't be so, because the nature of these "God entities" are 
contrary to each other (but I digress 8*) ).

	Since  mankind has been around for at least 7,000 years, then
it is reasonable to assume that God also would have initiated some communication
with man before current publications. So this is what I meant when I said I
would wonder why God took so long to speak to us. 

	Therefore, we must look at all the "sacred" writings that claim
authorship from God. Not even the Vedas (which were alluded to) claim that God
is the author. Those who beleive that the Veda, for example. is authored by God
have the burden of proof of showing God's signature.  We must look for 
writings that say "Thus saith the Lord" or "I God say unto you" or some 
signature that would say that God wrote it. Only two "sacred" writings qualify,
the Bible and the Koran. 

Hope this clarifys,

Ace 

    Karen, what you describe sounds a lot like the way Hinduism perceives
    God.  Hinduism has many gods, but one God.
    
    -- Mike

The more narrow and rigid our requirements of God to make Himself
known to us, to that degree we limit our capacity to know Him.

Thus saith the Lord.

    RE: .38
    
    Thanks for the reply Ace.

>	Since  mankind has been around for at least 7,000 years, then
>it is reasonable to assume that God also would have initiated some communication
>with man before current publications. So this is what I meant when I said I
>would wonder why God took so long to speak to us. 

>	Therefore, we must look at all the "sacred" writings that claim
>authorship from God. Not even the Vedas (which were alluded to) claim that God
>is the author. Those who beleive that the Veda, for example. is authored by God
>have the burden of proof of showing God's signature.  We must look for 
>writings that say "Thus saith the Lord" or "I God say unto you" or some 
>signature that would say that God wrote it. Only two "sacred" writings qualify,
>the Bible and the Koran. 
    
    And so I am back to my original question.  What about writings today
    that claim to be authored from God, within the writings themselves?
    How would *you* view these?  From your description above, I have 4
    books at home that would be described as "sacred" writings from God.
    
>	The question then simply becomes "where can we find God, or where can
>we find His speaking, etc." Some people will say that God is found in a
>personal relationship with Jesus. Others will say that God is found in Islam.
>Others will insist on eastern religions. 
    
    And in addition, God can be found speaking to us within us (imo of
    course ;^)), and also through the written word today.
    
    >And some 8*) 8*), will take the
>illogical position that everybody worships the one same God under different
>names. This can't be so, because the nature of these "God entities" are 
>contrary to each other (but I digress 8*) ).

    Can't remember where I read this, but I recall the premise that God
    comes to people the way they need.  God came to the Hebrews in the
    way they needed.  God sent Jesus to the peoples of that land and
    he showed them the way *for them*.  And on and on.  These ways may
    not be meant to be interchangeable.  So, those who now call themselves
    Christians and feel strongly that they must follow Jesus probably must!
    But for Hindus, this would be going against the way that God has shown
    to them.  To me this is an interesting perspective and one that I like
    to ponder on now and then.
    
    
    Carole

    Regarding God's communication with us, I cannot agree that God only
    speaks to humanity through sacred writings.  As a Quaker, I believe
    that God continues to speak to all of us, no matter what our faith; one
    of the traditional beliefs of of Quakerism is a belief in "continuing
    revelation".  This means that God has always revealed himself to us,
    and continues to speak to us over time.  Unfortunately, our perception
    of the great mysteries is often full of uncertainty, which is why I
    believe that the struggle to understand God is also an ongoing process. 
    In fact, one of the problems with a doctrine of biblical inerrancy is
    that even this belief cannot achieve the theological certainty that
    lies at its basis, since Protestantism cannot agree among itself on the
    proper interpretation of the Bible.

    It is clearly a fallacy that a the only way a document can represent
    divine communication is by claiming to have been authored by God.  The
    humans who write great scripture--whether it be the Bible, the Koran,
    the Bhagavad Gita, or the Dhamapada--all express in written form what
    they have learned from their attempts at understanding God.  It is as
    simple as that.  We can appreciate what others wrote, hopefully in the
    same Spirit that it was written.  The value in scripture is not that it
    is a cookbook of Divine mandates, but rather a record of inspired
    insights from others who have shared in our efforts at understanding
    Divine revelation.  For the same reason, our fellow worshipers in a
    community of faith are also valuable to us.  And if claiming to be
    Divine communication is a necessary criterion for scripture, then does
    conversely claiming to be a human communication automatically
    disqualify the work as scripture?  If so, then much of the Bible cannot
    be scripture either, since human authorship is unashamedly expressed in
    many cases.

    -- Mike

re Note 327.42 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     The value in scripture is not that it
>     is a cookbook of Divine mandates, but rather a record of inspired
>     insights from others who have shared in our efforts at understanding
>     Divine revelation.  

        Mike,

        I think there are some people, perhaps a lot of people, who
        want a "cookbook of Divine mandates" and would never accept
        "a record of inspired insights from others" since, in their
        opinion, a real God wouldn't have it any other way.

        Bob

    
    Ace,
    
    Have you ever actually read works like the Rig-Veda and the Gita?
    
    Cindy

    re: .43
    
    > I think there are some people, perhaps a lot of people, 
    > who want a "cookbook of Divine mandates" and would never
    > accept "a record of inspired insights from others" since, 
    > in their opinion, a real God wouldn't have it any other way.
    
    I think it goes even further than that Bob.  I think some people 
    do not *want* a book of "Divine mandates" as much as they *need* it.  
    These mandates provide a way to navigate through the inherent 
    uncertainties, tragedies and contradictions of life, that will 
    otherwise drown a person in meaninglessness and despair. 
    
    Karen  

    .23   Bob,  
    
                "some want this.... some want that."
    
          Well, to quote a lot of born-again Christians  -- who are always
          so eager to say it --  "Never mind what you want.  What about 
          what GOD wants??"  ;)   ;)
    
    Ace, why so much emphasis on WRITINGS, as if writings were the only
    way in which God reveals himself to humanity?  Also, with regard to
    writings, why must they have the preface, "The Lord God says ... "
    to be truly inspired by God?   Why so much emphasis on the written
    word?   Human-invented things, like words, are always flawed --
    especially during translation -- and do not do justice to the
    remarkable boundless Divine essence of God, the Creator of 
    all that is.
    
    If, during my private meditations/prayers, God reveals Divine
    truths to me, to the point where I know these truths in my gut,
    need I attempt to write down these truths?  Is it possible to do
    justice to such revelations by writing them down?  Is the sense
    of experience more "pure" or valid than reading something out of
    a book -- a written accounting of SOMEONE ELSE'S experience?
    
    If you commune with nature somehow -- and God speaks to you, sends
    you a message regarding Divine Truth through the beauty/magnificence 
    of nature -- is His revelation (via nature) any less valid than these 
    holy texts that reveal Divinity via a man-made medium, namely, language?
    Revelation of truth need not always be put into words.  Is that a
    prerequisite for knowing Truth?  Must we know God only through the
    written medium?  
    
    Are these examples of revelation any less real/true than the 
    pieces of writing prefaced with "The Lord God hath said...." ?
    
    Also.... Carole asks a good question about holy texts in modern
    times that claim to be authored by God.  What is your opinion of
    those?  Did God stop communicating with, and revealing himself to,
    humanity at one point in history?
      
    Paul
    

    Ooops.  In .46 I was referencing reply .43, not .23.  Sorry,
    this topic  is growing faster than I thought.
    
    Paul
    

Somewhere in the old testament, I think it is in Proverbs, it says,
"A man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps."  

Should a statement like this be taken at face value, or should we build 
some interpretation of it in order to exclude a majority of humanity 
from its meaning?  And if we take it at face value and apply to all 
humanity, is it the "one true God" that is directing the steps of all 
cultures?

Jeff

    re  .45
    
    Nicely put, Sister KB.  Actually, I think that one's NEED of a 
    Cookbook of Mandates tends to blur one's vision of the mystery of 
    faith, the mystery of the Kingdom of God -- complexities, 
    inconsistencies, unfathomables, warts, and all.  I think there
    is great humbling beauty in the unfathomable nature of God.  Just
    because it may not make logical, rational sense to us, doesn't 
    mean it isn't part of God's plan for us.  I think our earthbound
    notion of logic isn't much to stake one's salvation on.  
    Man-made blueprints and cookbooks leave much to be desired.
    
    P.
    

>Somewhere in the old testament, I think it is in Proverbs, it says,
>"A man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps."  

	Proverbs 16:9 "A man's heart deviseth his way; but the LORD 
	directeth his steps."  (KJV)

			Alfred

    
    Re 40
    

>The more narrow and rigid our requirements of God to make Himself
>known to us, to that degree we limit our capacity to know Him.
    
    I don't agree with this...it seems to be a misconception of what the
    Hindu or the Egyptians had in mind when they created/identified lesser
    gods.  I believe it is a sign of "wisdom" to be able to distinguish
    different aspects of God's manifest powers, showing a long and on going
    relationship with God.  As it is written, "How long shall ye love
    simplicity".

     Hi Paul,
     
     Btw, it's nice to have you back! :-)
     
     re: .45
     
     > I think that one's NEED of a Cookbook of Mandates tends to blur 
     > one's vision of the mystery of faith, the mystery of the Kingdom 
     > of God....
     
     Yes it can.  All "Cookbooks of Divine Mandates" by their very nature 
     of being unable to completely define God, create a kind of spiritual 
     myopia.  But there is no way to get around this other than to 
     acknowledge this myopia, to acknowledge the incompleteness of any 
     cookbook.      
     
     And no matter how open, wise, loving or Christ-like we are, we each 
     still have our own "Cookbook of Divine Mandates" in our back pocket 
     which we refer to day in and day out.  Even the atheists and 
     agnostics have theirs.  For the Christian it may be the Bible, for 
     the Jew the Torah, for the artist, a paintbrush, for the sage, 
     silence, for the sailor, the sea.  Yet each of these "cookbooks" is 
     as authoritative as the next.  As is obvious, I'm speaking about 
     "cookbooks" in a broad sense.  I see them as an organization of the 
     ways in which we experience, relate to, categorize, and understand, 
     (or attempt to understand) our inner life and outer world.  (Some of 
     us share the same cookbooks.  Some of us don't, but do exchange 
     recipes... :-))
    
     > I think there is great humbling beauty in the unfathomable nature 
     > of God.  
    
     Me too. :-)
    
     > Just because it many not make logical, rational sense to 
     > us, doesn't mean it isn't part of God's plan for us.
     
     Yes, it is here where we must also value the non-logical and 
     non-rational ways to apprehend the nature of God.  Art, music, 
     dance, nature, silent meditations, etc. fill in the gulfs and voids 
     that no words, or logic can ever do.  I know much of God's plan 
     for my life has been communicated to me through these means.  
     
     > Man-made blueprints and cookbooks leave much to be desired.
     
     Yet neither can we do without them! :-) They do serve a very useful 
     purpose;  they act as stepping stones to greater levels of 
     understanding.  We just need to be observant as to how addicted to 
     the cookbooks and blueprints we become, for addictions tend to 
     impede growth and understanding.
     
     Kb

Re: .51 (Playtoe)

     >>The more narrow and rigid our requirements of God to make Himself
     >>known to us, to that degree we limit our capacity to know Him.
    
>    I don't agree with this...it seems to be a misconception of what the
>    Hindu or the Egyptians had in mind when they created/identified lesser
>    gods.  I believe it is a sign of "wisdom" to be able to distinguish
>    different aspects of God's manifest powers, showing a long and on going
>    relationship with God.  As it is written, "How long shall ye love
>    simplicity".

Sorry, but you lost me.  I don't see how what you said (which I agree 
with) has anything to do with what I said... unless maybe you 
misunderstood the sentence.

What I was saying (in case it helps) was that if we have a narrow idea 
of what God is or should be, then we limit our ability to know Him 
fully.

Is this what you thought I meant?

Jeff

    Re: The One God vs the many gods
    
    I've read the notes up til now, and I have the following comments:
    
    1)	There's only "one" Supreme Creator God, worshipped in the universe,
    and those who worship the Creator under any name worships the same one,
    whether they agree or not...this is being objective about it.  
    
    2)	There are "many" lesser gods, and the first commandment says, "Thou
    shalt have no other god before me."  Which could be interpreted as an
    acknowledgment of those lesser gods, but none are greater than the
    Supreme Creator.  Paul tells us that "our god is whom we serve", sin
    therefore could be a god to some, like money or sex or status or the
    wind or the sun or the moon...but the Supreme Creator created ALL those
    things, to fulfill the purpose HE has determined.
    
    3)	As it is written "Holy men spake as they were moved by the spirit
    of God".  So one could say that, technically, God was the author
    because it was by his Spirit that these concepts and ideas were
    written.  That a man wrote it, or was the scribe, and used his own
    terms to write it, may incline some to believe "man" wrote it.  Truly,
    Paul tells us, in a certain scripture, that he felt that felt that he
    was sufficiently filled with the Spirit to be able to make certain
    comments over and above that which was already written, and Moses did
    the same...so in those instances, man DID write it...but they wrote it
    IN THE SPIRIT OF GOD.  So we must ask the question.  If, for instance,
    my spirit is in you and out of that spirit you wrote something, would
    or could you claim it as solely your own conception and authorship?
    
    4)	I think there's some aspects, regarding the "SPIRIT", that we
    aren't covering.  
    
    5)	The "written" word, was preceeded by a long history of oral
    tradition.  
    
    Playtoe

    re  .52
    
    Ah, you are a very wise woman, Sister Mary Margaret Berggren.  ;)
    Nicely put.
    
    Brother P.
    
    re .54  Playtoe,
    
    I generally agree with what you say, especially the part about 
    men writing God-inspired things via the Spirit of God dwelling within.
    I think this is how it happens indeed.
    
    But please clarify something for me..... Were the men who authored
    the Bible the only ones throughout history able to write by way of
    God's Spirit?  If so, why?  If not, who were the other (non-biblical)
    humans?   Have men/women in modern times been able to author holy
    writings in the same manner, via the Spirit of God?  If so, who/what?
    If not, why not?
    
    By the way, stop quoting me so much!  You know .... "Paul said this
    and Paul said that....."  8)  How embarrassing, not to mention flattering!
    ;)   ;)  ;)
    
    Paul
    O:^)
    
    

re.29

	Jeff,

	Really, there is no reason to get uptight. I am really answering the
.0 question to the best of ability. If you choose not to understand my
explanation, that is okay too. If you choose to understand my explanation and
then disregard it, that is even better. But if you decide to accept what I'm
saying to you wholeheartedly, that is the best! 8*) 8*) 
	

>>	To my knowledge no writings claim divine authorship other than the
>>Bible and the Koran.  

>Does this say something about other writings, or does it say something 
>about your knowledge?

	Both.  8*)  8*)

>>I think this is the important point also. Explain what you mean by scripture
>>other than the Bible and Koran claiming divine inspiration. Are you assuming
>>that they do, or do you know for sure? 

>One example is the many volumes of Hindu scripture, from the Vedas to 
>the Upanishads.

	Let's pretend I'm from Missouri for a minute.  8*)

	SHOW ME a verse in the Vedas that claims divine authorship.

>> It's irrational to claim they are/were the same.

>Who made this caim?  Certainly not I.  If you insist on putting words in 
>peoples mouths, please refrain from doing so with me.  Thanks.

	Well, let's take a different approach. Let's say you convince me and
I become a "one God many names groupie". And I come to you and say "Jeff, are
Jehovah, and Molech, and Baal, all the same "god"?". 

What would you say and why?


Ace

re.46

Paul,

>Ace, why so much emphasis on WRITINGS, as if writings were the only
>    way in which God reveals himself to humanity?

 A very fair question.

How else would God speak to humans throughout the ages? Given that Moses didn't
have access to an RRD40 (CDROM) 8*)  8*), what other practical means would we 
have of knowing God's speaking throughout milleniums?


Ace

    re  .57
    
    Ace,
    
             "A no brainer?"
    
    Only if you choose to make it so via one-dimensional thinking.
    
             "How else would God speak to humanity ... "
    
    Well, if you had read the remainder of my reply in .46 -- the
    stuff that follows my first question -- you would have discovered
    a dozen other questions, based on a few examples and scenarios I
    posed ... and perhaps you would have addressed them too.   I am very 
    interested in what you think, but you haven't addressed 99 percent 
    of the things I have asked you about in the span of several replies.
    
    Paul

 

re. Modern writings

	There have been a few questions about modern writings and whether they
also are of divine authorship.

	I doubt it. 8*)

	This does not mean of course that people today are not "inspired". 
However, the revelation of God is the basis by which all inspiration of God is 
realized. What is important is to discern God's revelation, hence we must look 
at what He has said throughout the ages.

Regards,
Ace

    I need to add something to my reply in .58:
    
    Ace,
    
    Re:  Your question, "How else would God speak to humans ...?"
    
    In addition to re-reading reply .46, take a look at Karen's beautifully
    worded soliloquy in reply .52.  This is the sort of thing I am talking 
    about.  Truth *can* be communicated in non-verbal, non-written ways, and
    communicated beautifully and effectively.  I believe the One True God 
    *does* employ these varied means of communication to reach out to his 
    children in all corners of the earth.
    
    Paul
    
    

    RE: 53
    
    Hi,
    
    You didn't reference any particular note in your reply, #40, and #39
    and those prior to it, were discussing the "many gods" of hinduism and
    other religions.  So I interpreted your comment "The more narrow and
    rigid...." as referring to the creating/identifying of the "many gods"
    by those groups who worship "many (lesser) gods".  
    
    I was just saying, if the "One God" is kept in perspective as
    "supreme", the acknowledging of lesser gods, is no different than
    acknowledging the saints or prophets or the Jesus (who cautioned us
    against putting him before "him who sent me").  
    
    Sorry, if I misinterpreted.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 55
    
>    But please clarify something for me..... Were the men who authored
>    the Bible the only ones throughout history able to write by way of
>    God's Spirit?  If so, why?  If not, who were the other (non-biblical)
>    humans?   Have men/women in modern times been able to author holy
>    writings in the same manner, via the Spirit of God?  If so, who/what?
>    If not, why not?
 
    No, the Hebrews/Jews are NOT the only Spirit Filled writers of the
    world...that's rather absurd in my book...because the Hebrews,
    themselves didn't conceive those writings but borrowed and copied them
    from others (i.e. Egyptians and Canaanites), according to history.  I
    believe the Quran, is of divine inspiration, and the Rig Vida(?), and
    that any person who can get "caught up" in the spirit of God, and can
    write at the same time, writes divine thoughts...of which there are
    many other books.  
    
    I guess we must ask the question, how do we determine what is "divinely
    inspired"?  Or, what kind of thoughts and idea emanate from a person
    "caught up" in the Spirit of God?  I believe we, as humans, are closer
    to that Spirit and express that Spirit more that many care to admit.
    
    I will respond with a quote from a book I believe to be
    "divinely inspired" by the Spirit of God, attributed to Hermes
    Trismegistus (Egyptian), aka Thoth (god of writing in the Greek
    Pantheon):
    
    "Then said Pymander unto me, Dost thou understand this Vision, and what
    it meaneth?  I shall know, said I:  Then said he, I am that Light, the
    MInd, thy God, who am before that moist Nature that appeared out of
    darkness; and that bright and lightful Word from the Mind, is the Son
    of God.
    
    "How is that quoth I?  Thus, replied he, Understand it:  That which in
    thee seeth and heareth, the Word of the Lord, and the Mind, the Father,
    God, differ not one from the other; and the union of these, is life."
    
    And again,
    
    "God is in the Mind, the Mind in the Soul, the Soul in the Matter, all
    things by Eternity."
    
    "All this Universal Body, in which are all Bodies, is full of Soul, the
    Soul full of Mind, the Mind full of God."
    
    "For within he fills them, and without he contains them (Acts 14:17),
    quickening the universe"
    
    Now, I can relate to the statement "That which in thee seeth and 
    heareth, the Word of the Lord, and the Mind, the Father,
    God, differ not one from the other; and the union of these, is life."
    Which is to say there is something inside me and everyone that goes
    beyond our ability to comprehend or detect, and I can relate to that
    being God within us.
    
    So in that light, I'm willing to believe that given one who has sought
    and attained to the knowledge and spirit of God, one could write
    something divinely inspired.  
       
>    By the way, stop quoting me so much!  You know .... "Paul said this
>    and Paul said that....."  8)  How embarrassing, not to mention flattering!
>    ;)   ;)  ;)
 
    Well, that might be more than a notion...if one believes in
    reincarnation...I aint the one who's gonna doubt it!
    
    Playtoe   
    

Ace,

I think this has been mentioned before, maybe in the "other" conference, but
C. S. Lewis used an interesting allegory in his book "The Last Battle".  In the
Narnia stories Aslan is a Christ figure (a lion who is the son of the
Emperor-over-the-sea) while Tash is a demon who is worshipped, generally with
human sacrifices, in Calormen.  In the last days of Narnia, when Narnia was
conquered by Calormen, the Narnian "religion" was corrupted by the "heresy"
that Aslan and Tash were one and the same: instead of two beings there was
actually a single Tashlan.

A good-hearted Calormenian, who has served Tash all his life, found himself
face to face with Aslan and prepared to die since he was confronting the enemy
of Tash.  He was surprised when Aslan told him that the good he did in the name
of Tash was counted as service to Aslan.  He asked if it was true, then, that
Aslan and Tash were one and the same, and Aslan answered that Aslan and Tash
were not the same but were opposites, so that any good deed done in the name
of Tash was really done for Aslan, and any evil deed done in the name of Aslan
was really done for Tash.

C. S. Lewis might have said, then, that any good deed done in the name of
Molech or Baal was really done for Jehovah, and any evil deed done in the name
of Jehovah was really done for Molech or Baal.

Just a perspective for you to consider...

				-- Bob

    Regarding the suggestion that God communicates to us through writing
    because, it is rhetorically asked, "How else would God speak to
    humans?"--to me, that seems to beg the question.  It certainly doesn't
    answer how God managed to speak to the humans who authored those
    writings.  It is hardly any news that many many parts of the Bible
    claim human authorship.  On the other hand, it is a point of dispute
    whether it claims divine authorship, especially when we are talking
    about the Bible as a whole.  Regarding its human authorship, most of
    the New Testament epistles, for example, are introduced by a
    salutation, are written by self-identified individuals, and are
    addressed to specific people concerning specific situations.

    All of this is quite different from the way that the Koran generally
    presents itself.  One point that quickly becomes obvious when reading
    the Islamic scripture is the frequent use of the first person when
    referring to Allah and his heavenly court.  It isn't a case of an
    author recording that "the Lord sayeth this", and then using a
    *quotation* of divine words spoken in the first person (such as in
    Genesis 1, where it says 'God said, "See, I have given you every plant
    yielding seed that is upon the face of all the earth"').  In that case,
    it would be clear (because that is what it means to "quote" someone
    else) that the person being quoted was not the ostensible author. 
    Rather, the narrative and preaching in the text itself uses the first
    person.  For example, turning to a random page in the Koran, I open 
    Surah VI ("The Cattle"), and read:

        Do they not consider how many a generation We have destroyed before
        them, whom We had established in the earth as We have not
        established you, and We sent the clouds pouring rain on them in
        abundance, and We made the rivers to flow beneath them, then We
        destroyed them on account of their faults and raised up after them
        another generation.

    This was not Mohammed quoting Allah--this was the voice of Allah
    directly speaking in the text itself.  Mohammed's words in the Koran
    are in the form of dictated speech, preceded by the command "Say:".

    Once you read very much of the Koran, it becomes clear that putting it
    and the Bible together in the same breath as each claiming divine
    authorship doesn't really wash.  The Bible doesn't even come close to
    measuring up to the Koran's degree of assertion of divine authorship.

    So the question still remains: if God speaks to people through
    writings, how did God speak to the people who did the writing? 
    Regarding the biblical authors, their human authorship, and the
    specific issues that concerned them at the time of writing, shine
    through in the words of the Bible.  They *proclaimed* their own human
    authorship.  They often wrote in the first person, as themselves. 
    "Paul, a servant of God and an apostle of Jesus Christ", begins a
    typical epistle.  As a side note, if some of the epistles are indeed
    pseudonymous (e.g., II Peter) that would be even more telling, because
    that implies that it was important to associate these works with
    specific *human* authors in order to establish credibility.

    So it gets back to the original topic; once we push the "divine
    authorship" claim back one more step, and ask how it is that God spoke
    to the authors of the Bible, we then must ask how it is that God speaks
    to anyone at any time.  How does God speak to us today?  How has God
    spoken to the people of various cultures and historical eras?  I think
    that many people have offered some interesting and valuable clues about
    the many ways that God continues to reveal himself to us in our lives
    today.

    -- Mike

re.63

	Hi Bob,

	Yes I read the Chronicles of Narnia several times. One of my
favorite series! I used to read them to my children every night as an excuse
for my reading them myself 8*). After they had long been snoozing in my lap, I 
would continue reading before carrying them to bed.

	Now your point is well taken, however, that is not the same as 
God's revelation of Himself to mankind. He may extend mercies to the
unknowing, but that is much different than a one God with many names. And to
call the righteous God by the name of the abominable "gods" is wrong.

	But your note has reminded me that it is time to read the series 
again. My favorite was Reepacheep (sp?) the brave mouse.

Laters,
Ace

re.60

	Hi Paul,

>Truth *can* be communicated in non-verbal, non-written ways, and
>    communicated beautifully and effectively. 

	Why yes, of course! The Bible was penned by humans, borne by the Spirit
of God. God has chosen to communicate *through* mankind. The question is simply
which ones has He/ is He speaking through? My daily experience is one of God's
instant speaking (rhema) within me. Without the rhema of God I am just  
practicing dead religion. However, I can't have God's rhema without God's
constant speaking (logos). In other words, there is that which God has eternally
and durably spoken, and there is that which He instantly speaks. God has 
commanded that we love Him with all our heart, and based on that He speaks to
us right now asking us "are you loving Me with all your heart in what your doing
right now". His eternal and constant speaking is the *basis* upon which his
instant speaking is realized. (Formula: Logos + Spirit = Rhema). Because God
reveals to us that we must love Him above all, He then has the way to inspire
us to love Him every moment. Without His constant speaking, we would have no
understanding that God desires us to love Him. 

I too am inspired by creation, but that is based upon God's revealing of
Himself as the awesome Creator. This is okay, but it should lead us to seeking
God at a more personal level, that is, "what is man that thou are mindful of
him..? For if we secure God's constant speaking concerning His purpose with us,
then He has the ground to "rhema" us. 8*)

	The connection to this note is this. That the one God is consistent and
has communicated to us since the beginning. The multifarious "sacred" writings 
upon which religions are based are mutually exclusive, or said differently,
they cannot all be the speaking of the one God because they are in 
contradiction. Therefore, the question is where does one find God's speaking?
And that quest begins with "where has God said He has spoken"? Only two
writings qualify, the Bible and the Koran. 

	Any "inspirational messages" not based upon God's constant speaking
has its source in an entity other than God. 

Regards,
Ace

P.S re.46 and .52: Yes, I read those works of art.  8*)  8*)

 

	

 
RE: .59  re. Modern writings  (Ace)

>	There have been a few questions about modern writings and whether they
>also are of divine authorship.

>	I doubt it. 8*)

    Why do you doubt it if the only means of identifying divine authorship
    that you have given so far is that they claim to be authored by God,
    and some of these modern writings do just that.
    
    
    Carole

re.67

Carole,

>...only means of identifying divine authorship
>    that you have given so far is that they claim to be authored by God,

key words are "given so far". 8*)

It is not the *only* means. It is the first "sort". We look for those which
claim divine authorship, then we must use other criterion to make a final
determination.

Regards,
Ace

re.68

    Ace,

>>...only means of identifying divine authorship
>>    that you have given so far is that they claim to be authored by God,

>key words are "given so far". 8*)

>It is not the *only* means. It is the first "sort". We look for those which
>claim divine authorship, then we must use other criterion to make a final
>determination.

    Well, if there are more, would you please share them?  So far the above
    is the only one you've mentioned.
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

re Note 327.57 by LEDS::LOPEZ:

> How else would God speak to humans throughout the ages? Given that Moses didn't
> have access to an RRD40 (CDROM) 8*)  8*), what other practical means would we 
> have of knowing God's speaking throughout milleniums?
  
        Until the advent of the printing press, traditions and myths
        were passed down orally from generation to generation with
        amazing accuracy.

        Bob

Re: .56 (Ace)

>	Really, there is no reason to get uptight. I am really answering the
>.0 question to the best of ability. 

I'm really not uptight... but it is irritating when discussions like 
this get bogged down in circular logic based on semantics and other 
common rat hole phenomenon.  If you are addressing the original 
questions to the best of your ability, then that is all I can reasonably 
ask.

>If you choose not to understand my explanation, that is okay too. 

If didn't want to understand your (and other's) viewpoint I wouldn't 
have asked the original questions.	

>	SHOW ME a verse in the Vedas that claims divine authorship.

I have no interest in getting into a discussion of scripture 
comparisons.  Others might, and if so you can start a new topic and 
delve into it.  You asked for an example and I gave you one.  If you 
really want to know, then "show" yourself.  I don't care whether you 
believe it or not.  But unless you have read all the world's scripture 
and know for yourself, then (imo) you shouldn't make blanket statements 
about them.

>	Well, let's take a different approach. Let's say you convince me and
>I become a "one God many names groupie". And I come to you and say "Jeff, are
>Jehovah, and Molech, and Baal, all the same "god"?". 
>
>What would you say and why?

First of all, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything.  I have 
made statements that I didn't understand certain positions, and I have 
asked some questions, but I'm not pushing any point of view.

As for the question above, I would say that I cannot answer the question 
because I am unfamiliar with the names "Molech" and "Baal," so I don't 
know to what or whom they refer.  If you replaced Molech and Baal with 
Allah, Siva, God, Lord, and Divine Spirit, then I would say that they 
all refer to the one true God.

Jeff

Re: .66 (Ace)

>The multifarious "sacred" writings 
>upon which religions are based are mutually exclusive, or said differently,
>they cannot all be the speaking of the one God because they are in 
>contradiction. 

Perhaps they seem that way, but do you know for sure that God considers 
them mutually exclusive?  Our company is made up of many different 
departments with different tasks and goals, some of which might seem 
very contradictory to some within those departments.  However, everyone 
within the company, regardless of their background (culture), recognize 
the one true CEO.  And the one true CEO considers all departments to be 
valued parts of his company.  If someone in manufacturing read their 
department's charter, and recognized that it (directly or indirectly) 
was from the CEO, then they have recognized a truth.  If this same 
person, however, reads the charter of a Marketing department, it would 
be an error to think that it is not from the same CEO, even if the two 
charters seem to be contradictory.  Do you know for sure that the one 
true God does not have similarly varied interests in the vast diversity 
we call humanity?

Jeff

    re  .61  Playtoe
    
    Thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I agree with the gist of it.
    As for your suggestion that I might be St. Paul reincarnated ...
    well... I don't know just how to take that!  8)  Now that you
    mention it, we both seem to have a proclivity for writing 
    long-winded messages!  ;)
    
    How 'bout it KB?  If I was St. Paul, then which biblical character
    were you?  ;)  We all must have been in the same spiritual gang 
    at one time or another?  With reincarnation, anything's possible! ;)
    
    
    .66  Ace,
    
        "The multifarious 'sacred' writings upon which religions are
         based are mutually exclusive, or said differently, they cannot
         all be the speaking of the one God because they are in 
         contradiction."
    
    Thanks for taking the time to reply.  This is the only thing you
    said that really presses a button, however.  I was going to write
    another long-winded rebuttal, but in .72  Jeff already said much of what
    I was going to say.  But let me say this:  ;)
    
    By whose standard are you defining "contradiction"?  Our limited
    earthbound senses and limited understanding of the totality of  
    the universe leads us to a certain earthbound logic -- a limited
    basis for determining what makes sense and what does not.  Great truths
    need not make complete sense to us and need not fit into that
    box we call "logic."   For example, Einstein's theory of relativity 
    didn't make much sense to a lot of people, but it is truth.  For
    example, the holy trinity (triune) is not logical and perhaps appears
    contradictory in the eyes of many.  Yet millions accept it as divine
    truth and do not fry their brains trying to understand it.
    
    What may seem spiritually contradictory to you may make *perfect*
    sense to God from *HIS* vantagepoint. In fact, what may seem spiritually 
    contradictory to you may appear as spiritually *compatible* to 
    many others!  This topic is proof of that.
    
    What I am trying to say is ..... Why put all your spiritual eggs in
    one basket, and then prop this basket up with your earthbound
    criteria of what is logical and what is not?  To put all one's chips 
    down on only one particular manifestation of God (the person Jesus) 
    and only one God-inspired communication (the Bible) while simultaneously 
    categorically writing off all the other religions, spiritual lives, 
    Divine manifestations in the world, seems *illogical* in and of itself.  
    And what is this all based on?  An earthbound perception of 
    contradiction.  It's like saying:  "It cannot be Divine, for I 
    do not understand it."
    
    Just a few more cents,
    Paul

re.71

Hi Jeff

>If you replaced Molech and Baal with 
>Allah, Siva, God, Lord, and Divine Spirit, then I would say that they 
>all refer to the one true God.

	I see. 

	How about Jehovah or how about Jesus? Do they also refer to the one
true God?

Thanks,
Ace

Great analogy, Jeff!

Nanci

Re: Paul

>    How 'bout it KB?  If I was St. Paul, then which biblical character
>    were you?  ;)  

Maybe Lot's wife?  ]:-0

Re:.74 (Ace)

>	How about Jehovah or how about Jesus? Do they also refer to the one
>true God?

You already had Jehovah in the sentence.  I replaced the other two 
names, not Jehovah.  Surely a careful reading of my entries in this 
topic would indicate that I would not leave out *any* name which refers 
to "one true God."

Jeff

    Although these kinds of analogies often fall into the danger of
    simplistic reductionism, perhaps an analogy from physics might be
    interesting here.  Prior to the development of Quantum Mechanics, it
    was assumed that physical phenomenon can exhibit the behavior of
    particles, or of waves--but not both.  Particles and waves, in the
    everyday world that we experience, are mutually contradictory.  But
    what scientists discovered was that in the shadowy realm of Quantum
    phenomenon, it depended on what they were trying to measure.  If they
    were looking for wave phenomena, they found it; if they were looking
    for particle behavior, they found that too.  What they had discovered
    was the principle of complementarity.  It was a radical departure from
    their previous understanding, and to this day it seems strange to our
    ears.

    I think that where quantum physics is interesting is that it
    illustrates a kind of reality which (if we are to accept the Copenhagen
    interpretation) is always just a little bit opaque to us.  The best we
    can do is try to grasp a part of the reality that we are looking for. 
    It all depended on what the observer was looking for.  Sometimes this
    meant looking for apparently contradictory things, and this seemed to
    make no sense, and yet these differing attributes seem to hold.

    This did not mean that Quantum Reality did not obey rules.  It most
    certainly did.  But the game was different than it was thought to be. 
    Nature was found to be predictable at a statistical level, but in
    individual cases it was indeterminate.  The observer partly determined
    the outcome of an event just by observing.  At higher levels of nature,
    the logic of determinate and certain order may seem predominant, but
    even then I don't think it is complete.  A purely deterministic
    metaphysics doesn't account very well for human free will, for example.

    Now perhaps this is a grand leap to make inferences about religion from
    physics.  But what interests me is *why* certain kinds of reality seem
    to exhibit this sort of complementarity.  One thing that many religious
    faiths may agree on is the unfathomable mystery of the Ultimate.  What
    we as human beings can do is grasp that of the Ultimate that we can. 
    The complementary approaches of the various religions to the Ultimate
    seem inconsistent with each other, but science has shown us on at least
    one level that this does not necessarily contradict the way that
    reality works.  

    Perhaps nature exhibits this partial opaqueness because we are a part
    of nature, and nature is a part of us.  Newtonian physics had no place
    for this view; it saw the components of the universe as mutually
    independent, interacting much like billiard balls might, moving merrily
    on their courses without being of part of one another in any
    substantial way.  Newtonian physics assumed, contra Einstein, the
    possibility of an independent observer existing in a privileged
    position, precisely because the world was not viewed in organic terms.

    But is reality that way?  I believe that a philosophy of organism more 
    accurately describes the world, and not only at a fundamental quantum
    level.  Perhaps the degree that certainty and determinism play a role
    in our lives depends on the phenomena in question.  Some aspects of
    life it describes fairly well, but it never managed to encompass
    everything completely.  I think it is clear that nature is deeply
    interrelated.  And the inability for one component of nature to retreat
    to a privileged position independent from the rest of nature means that
    we, as parts of nature, cannot help but encounter opaqueness and
    uncertainty in our understanding the world.  We are a necessary part of
    that which we observe.  This suggests to me that the days of naive
    optimism about complete human certainty and a totally deterministic
    view of nature belong to another era.

    I believe that God, as the ultimate reality, is also immanent, and part
    of us as we are part of God.  It is this reality, of God and humans
    interacting and affecting one another, that perhaps also allows for the
    possibility of complementarity in our understanding of God.  As in
    science, this does not mean that there are no rules, but it does leave
    room for uncertainty and complementarity.  And this is perhaps how the
    people of different cultures and times can perceive God in their
    various ways. 

    -- Mike

    Ahhh, excuse me, (especially *YOU* Jeff!).  
    
    I was known as Sophia.
    
    ;-)
    
    Kb

    Re: 64
    
>    Once you read very much of the Koran, it becomes clear that putting it
>    and the Bible together in the same breath as each claiming divine
>    authorship doesn't really wash.  The Bible doesn't even come close to
>    measuring up to the Koran's degree of assertion of divine authorship.
    
    I don't know about that.  I don't think it's such a far stretch.  In
    the Koran you've got God speaking and we know some man wrote it or
    scribed it, it's not as if anyone thinks God actually wrote it.  On the
    other hand, the scribe is careful to say, Hey I'm a scribe and/or
    prophet, and God told me to tell you this.  The Muslim is merely
    expressing more humbleness to God, by not mentioning himself (scribe or
    prophet) as that is assumed and insignificant.  The bible's way of
    writing tends to add some sort of value to those messenger's mentioned
    and detract from the message...I think that's the major difference,
    both claim to contain the "actual" words of God.
    
    Playtoe

    From Paul's .73 (wow, sounds like I'm referring to scriptural 
                     reference here!  And I feel so privileged
                     to be in the company of such as St. Paul and
                     Sophia, no less! ;^))
        
    .66  Ace,
    
        "The multifarious 'sacred' writings upon which religions are
         based are mutually exclusive, or said differently, they cannot
         all be the speaking of the one God because they are in 
         contradiction."
    
    Than how do you account for the contradictions in the Bible itself?
    
    Carole

    RE: How to determine "divine authorship"
    
    Well my brothers and sisters, there's really only one sure fire way to
    determine if any particular doctrine is of "divine authorship", and
    that is by testing it...read it, believe it, stand on it, and if you
    end up "knowing" God, or in the Kingdom of God, then you know it is
    divine words...divine words should lead to divine realities.
    
    On the other hand, curiosity seekers and "intellectuals" well never
    "rationalize" their way into an understanding of the "mystery" of God!
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 73
    
>If I was St. Paul, then which biblical character
>    were you?  ;)  We all must have been in the same spiritual gang 
>    at one time or another?  With reincarnation, anything's possible! ;)
 
    Well, my given name is Steven, so it could be that I was Stephen in the
    Book of Acts, "chosen for his faith"...I personally relate to that
    belief and have studied Stephen well.   

re.73

Paul,

>This is the only thing you
>   said that really presses a button, however.

Hmmm, you got buttons eh? 8*)  8*)

>Why put all your spiritual eggs in
>   one basket, and then prop this basket up with your earthbound
>   criteria of what is logical and what is not? 

And yet another fairish question. 

About logic. Firstly it is not necessary to understand the logic of what I
believe to experience it. God made us with a mind to understand Him, but my
observation is that some here prefer knowledge about God and not God Himself.
Some prefer to talk about God, but do not know how to talk to God. What I
believe is absolutely logical to the human mind. Now you can change the rules
of the human mind and anything becomes imaginatively possible. However, in
cold hard light of day our speculations, philosophies, and imaginations mean 
ZIP. 

	So my faith in not based on my logic. No sir. There are many things that
are not logical to the human mind about what I believe. 8*)  They are spiritual
in nature. However, the process of determining God's speaking is absolutely
logical. Now you can "what-if" the universe into a paradigm shift oblivion, but 
in so doing you obliterate your own words. Let's face it folks, we can talk
about your/my paradigm, your/my view of the universe until we return to dust!
But it ain't gonna make one ounce of difference to absolute truth. What matters
here is finding a dynamic, personal, experiential, buoyant, energizing, 
engaging, enlightened, loving, living, intimate, life-giving, empowering,
knowledge-surpassing relationship with the Triune God. If you're (plural)
still wondering about God, speculating about God, philosophizing about God
then you haven't found Him. Logic or not logic, once you've tasted the
geniune article, you know it!  I am not only drinking in God, I'm swimming in
Him! Everything else becomes a child's toy. 

This is why I put my all spiritual eggs in this basket. 

Regards,
Ace

re.77

Jeff,

>You already had Jehovah in the sentence.  I replaced the other two 
>names, not Jehovah.  Surely a careful reading of my entries in this 
>topic would indicate that I would not leave out *any* name which refers 
>to "one true God."

I've learned not to take these things for granted. 

Then you agree that Jehovah and Jesus may be considered as the one true God as 
well? Yes?

Ace

Re .85 (Ace)

> I've learned not to take these things for granted. 

You don't have to take for granted those things which are plainly 
stated.

>Then you agree that Jehovah and Jesus may be considered as the one true God as 
>well? Yes?

Once again, I have already stated that Jehovah was included in the 
*examples* presented in a previous note.  I highlight "example" because 
that is all they were intended to be; they were not intended to be an 
all-inclusive list.

THERE ARE NO EXCLUSIONS from the possible list of names *IF* the name is 
used to refer to one true God.  A culture or religion could call the one 
true God by the name "owerdshf" and it is acceptable to me.  The 
important common denominator is that it refers to one true God.  

Jeff

As you stated a few notes back,

"The reality of God is what matters"

    
    Ace,
    
    Can you prove that there isn't One God with many names?
         
    Cindy

    No one can prove anything about God, Cindy.
    
    Mike

    
    Ok Mike.  Prove it!
    
    Cindy

Where did you go, Ace?

Jeff

               <<< VAXWRK::$1$DUS6:[NOTES$LIBRARY]INDIA.NOTE;3 >>>
                            -< The INDIA notesfile >-
================================================================================
Note 619.10                 Where Are the Scriptures                    10 of 11
SQM::SAXENA                                          22 lines  14-OCT-1991 13:27
                               -< my two bit... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Vedas as per the Puranas are as old as time and were not written by
    anyone but were created by Brahma when He created time, space and
    matter. To the beleivers, this places the Sanatan Dharma (which is based
    on the Vedas) as the oldest relegion in the world. That may seem an 
    exaggeration but it portrays the lofty fact that Vedas enquires into 
    the Truth which is beyond time and emanates from God. 
    
    Vedas like any enquiry into truth were never static and continued
    grasping new ideas and discarding others. And this enquiry into the
    Truth ended (i.e the Vedas stopped growing) when the truth was finally 
    found and culminated into Vedantas- the Crest of Vedas. The final truth 
    they found could be summarised into one short sentence. 
    
    Re 19.0, If someone is curious to look at old books in India, The National
    Museum could be a good point to start although I beleive some individuals 
    too claim to hold the original such-and-such.
    
    If one wants to do research work, try GITA-RAHASYA by Tilak. i do not
    have the copy here with me but it is a very well researched book which
    takes the reader through the history of Gita and I beleive it does
    delve into the origin of Vedas and the like. It really is excellent.
    

    You want proof Cindy?  Oh sure.  Make me do all the hard work! ;)
    
    I know that, because every Christian I ever met told me that.  They
    told me if I wished to know God, I needed to have faith, and that I
    will never be able to otherwise perceive Him.  In other words, even
    Christians would say I am right.
    
    Mike

    
    You really *do* have to do the hard work, Mike.
    
    If you want the proof, that is.  However, it's all internal work.  
    Each person must prove it to their own self.  
    
    Then you will know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, who God is.
    
    But if you look outside only and go through the 'faith' routine, you
    won't find God.  (Pssst...the people who told you that don't have a
    clue either. Imo.)
    
    Cindy

    Well, actually, I've already done the hard work and concluded that God
    was unprovable, unavailable, and therefore irrelevant.
    
    Mike

>    was unprovable, unavailable, and therefore irrelevant.
    
I had a manager like that once...

:-)
Jeff

re.91

Jeff,

I took your advice and re-read your notes. 

I sensed from them that I wore out my welcome.

Laters,
Ace

Ace,

> I took your advice and re-read your notes. 
> 
> I sensed from them that I wore out my welcome.

You haven't worn out your welcome as far as I'm concerned.  You are one 
of the few people with a more fundamentalist approach who will attempt 
to address some of these questions; and I ask the questions because I am 
genuinely interested in other's views on these things.  

In your last reply to me you asked yet again whether I thought that 
Jehovah was a valid name of the one God.  Because, from my view, I had 
answered this question numerous times already, I didn't/don't understand 
why you kept pushing the question.  This doesn't, however, mean that you 
wore out your welcome.  It simply means that you either ignored my 
previous comments, or you didn't understand them.  I hope it was lack of 
understanding rather than suspicion or intentional disregard for the 
answers.  If you thought I *hadn't* answered the question, then you 
could have simply stated that.  You made it sound as though I was 
evading the question when in fact I thought I was blatantly stating the 
answer.  Anyone else who thought I was evading the question or had not 
answered it is welcome to speak up.

Now I am *not* accusing you of this, but let me share some of my 
experience in this regard.  My experience has been that I have never met 
a fundamentalist who was willing to pursue and discuss these questions.  
There have been times when attempts were made to answer such questions, 
but the discussion has always failed to continue when there was either 
no longer a biblical reference on which to rely, or biblical references 
became contradictory.  In such discussions there has almost always been 
a significant amount of defensiveness on the part of the person with 
whom I was trying to have the discussion.  My goal in such discussions 
has always been to simply follow a line of thought or reasoning to see 
where it leads, and has never been to argue, push a point, or try to 
convince the other person of my point of view.  So there is really no 
call, from my perspective, for defensiveness.

From my perspective, God gave us minds as development tools to 
constantly improve our ability to perceive and to make wise choices.  If 
we use the mind only for purposes of memorization and repitition it does 
not do credit to the fascinating mechanisms which God provided us; 
mechanisms which allow us to think for ourselves, and serve God, with no 
contradictions.  To me there is nothing to fear in venturing as far as 
the mind can venture in the pursuit of truth, even if that venture takes 
us outside of commonly held notions of God and scripture, because I do 
not perceive God to be vengeful, vindictive, or even rigid regarding the 
earnest seeker's choices and methods.

Rereading the base note and subsequent replies will reveal there are 
many questions in here which have not even been addressed.  If you are 
willing, I am still very interested in hearing your (and other's) views 
on these questions.

Jeff

Re: 327.99

Jeff,

> In your last reply to me you asked yet again whether I thought that 
> Jehovah was a valid name of the one God.  
...
> Anyone else who thought I was evading the question or had not 
> answered it is welcome to speak up.

I thought that Ace had been asking about both Jehovah and Jesus.  It did
seem to me at the time that you might be trying to evade the second part
of the question, whether Jesus is/was also the "One True God". 


Joe

Re: .100 (Joe)

>I thought that Ace had been asking about both Jehovah and Jesus.  It did
>seem to me at the time that you might be trying to evade the second part
>of the question, whether Jesus is/was also the "One True God". 

Please keep in mind that I was not (in any of the notes) making 
statements about who is the "one true God."  What I was questioning and 
implying was related to the possibility that those who refer to the "one 
true God," by whatever name, are refering to the same "one true God."  I 
made no inferences to some names being more or less plausible than 
others.  Note also my statement from .86:

  THERE ARE NO EXCLUSIONS from the possible list of names *IF* the name is 
  used to refer to one true God.  A culture or religion could call the one 
  true God by the name "owerdshf" and it is acceptable to me.  The 
  important common denominator is that it refers to one true God.  

People differ in their interpretations and understanding of Christ and 
God, and the relationship of the Father and the Son.  It was not my 
purpose to enter into that discussion.  But I made it clear in the above 
statement that the criteria was not the *name*, but whether or not it 
referred to the "one true God."  If people consider Jesus to be a name 
for the "one true God," then that name is as viable as any other.

Jeff

    In Herman Hesse's novel Siddhartha, the protagonist, who was a
    contemporary of the Buddha's, sought the meaning of life.  He met the
    Buddha during the course of his seeking, and although he agreed that
    the Buddha had found enlightenment, he also felt that life's meaning
    could not be *taught*, but only *discovered* through the crucible of
    experience.  What the Buddha had found had worked for the Buddha, but
    Siddhartha needed to *understand* for himself, and understanding cannot
    be taught.  Thus, while his friend became a disciple of the Enlightened
    One, Siddhartha instead continued on his own journey, which spanned the
    gamut of experiences, from asceticism to luxury, from loneliness to
    love.  Through these experiences, he came to a better and more
    enlightened understanding.

    I believe that there is value to both teaching and experience in the
    religious life.  There is no need for each of us to reinvent our
    respective religious wheels from scratch, when those who have been
    there before us can provide us with valuable information and insights. 
    But teaching alone is not enough; the religious life must be
    understood, through experience.  What this means is that doctrine and
    experience may conflict with each other; but that is healthy.  Out of
    this uneasy dialectic excess can be tempered, but also positive new
    insights can arise.

    Religious dogmatism destroys this dialectic by eliminating one of its
    terms.  The value of experience is thus diminished as it defines the
    relationship of experience to doctrine as one of subservience.  It
    denies the validity of experiences that don't coincide with its own
    preconceptions.

    Some may relate to God, to the Ultimate, to the Ground of Being, in
    ways other than one's own doctrine defines.  But philosophies and
    doctrines are at best approximations of reality.  Doctrine should not
    get in the way of the relationship, whether the One who is worshiped is
    called Yahweh, or Krishna, or Allah.

    -- Mike

Re: .102 (Mike)

>   ...understanding cannot be taught.  

Absolutely.  

There is a lot of value in the points you made.  Scripture was never 
intended to negate or reduce the value of experience.  Rather, scripture 
was to provide a guiding light to lead one *to* experience, and in some 
cases to act as a confirmation and framework for understanding 
experience.

>   What this means is that doctrine and 
>   experience may conflict with each other; 

Yes, and often it is only through experience that the *true* meaning of 
scripture is understood.

>   The value of experience is thus diminished as it defines the
>   relationship of experience to doctrine as one of subservience.  It
>   denies the validity of experiences that don't coincide with its own
>   preconceptions.

Which is funny since most doctrine has experience as its foundation.

Jeff