Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Two things :
    
        First of all, I believe the great number of Catholic and other
    Christian martyrs who died in witness to their Christian beliefs
    throughout the ages, and even today, bears witness to the zeal
    which the church preaches the Gospel of Christ against the "gospel
    of the world". The persecution and suppression of church activity
    around the world by state powers has been evident in every age.
     
        Even Catholics in such overwelmingly Catholic countries such as
    Mexico have, until very very recently, been persecuted in the 
    practice of their faith. All of the former Soviet Union, China, Japan,
    the Middle East, Africa (etc.) all sufferer/ed under religious 
    persecution and suppression by the state. This can hardly be considered
    to be a 'cozy' relationship between church and state.
    
        Secondly, I don't know the writings you cite, but the movement to 
    free blacks from slavery was kindled and fanned from the very churchs 
    you mentioned in your note. It was CHRISTIANS who demanded the end of 
    slavery and fought for it with their lives. Dr. Martin Luther King
    became a martyr in defending the values of freedom which he recieved
    through his Christian faith recieved, I believe, in the Baptist
    Church.
    
        It was not the godless in society, rooted in worldly values, which
    demanded the end of slavery, but real Christians who learned their
    faith and values through the Church you mention. These Churchs all owe
    the preservation of faith to the Roman Catholic Church which was once
    their foundation.
    
        You did not put any specifics in your opening note so it's hard
    to respond. I'm not certain I want to get into it either. I would like
    to ask you some questions, though. Based on the .0 note, it's clear that 
    the RC Church is not to your liking; now there are all these other
    Christian churchs which have formed through past few centuries. 
    What Christian Church denomination are you in most agreement with?
    Are you a member of that denomination?  What would that denomination
     have to "drop" or change in their doctrine or practices in order to be 
    what you believe the Church of Jesus Christ should be?  
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

    Re: 1
    
    Thanks for the reply, and I hope the discussion is worthwhile.
    
    Anyway, in regards to the Pope/Catholic involvement in the slave trade,
    it's clearly documented and easily found, that the RC Church authorized
    it on the part of Spain....I don't need to provide proof of this do I!
    
    I know of the countless individuals of all faiths that have died for
    the cause of God, per se...but I'm not talking about individuals I'm
    speaking of the history of the Catholic Church, from it's inception and
    throughout the years, it has been an arm of the state from inception.   
    
    I personally, was raised in a Baptist church, but now, with all
    respects, know it to be as limiting to my growth as any denomination
    would be.  I consider myself a "universalist" Christian...though
    Catholic means "universalist" too, that's not what I'm saying in other
    terms, I'm not of any denomination...Is Christ divided?  I'm JUST a
    Christian.
    
    Although this is not the topic for, I would just mention that I know
    that abolitionist movements have existed from the beginning of the
    European-African Slave Trade...they never had a significant effect, nor
    were they the primary cause of the ceasing of slavery.  European
    slavery started for economic reasons and it ended for economic reasons. 
    When slavery was no longer economically cost effective, and in light of
    industrial wages versus the cost of maintaining a slave it was not
    longer cost effective, slavery was ended, and replaced with "tenant
    farming"...instead of paying the slave the "ex-slaves" was made to pay
    the "ex-masters".  but that's another story.
    
    In terms of you saying "DEMANDED the end of slavery".  I'm reminded of
    the economic principle of "supply and demand" where "demand" is
    typically seen as adequate to require satisfaction and thus a "supply"
    of that which is demanded.  If the "demand" is not adequate then the
    "supply" will not be forthcoming...thus "demand" is no "demand".  
    
>    What would that denomination
>     have to "drop" or change in their doctrine or practices in order to be 
>    what you believe the Church of Jesus Christ should be?  
    
    All denominations need to "drop" the belief that they are a
    "denomination" in/of Christ's body...Does Christ have Catholic arm and
    Baptist leg and so on?  They'd subsequently have to drop all the
    reasons why they feel they may be better than any other as well.
    
    Playtoe

    re .2
    
    If slavery had indeed become only economically unrewarding then there
    would have been no Civil War; the South would not have insisted on
    introducing it into new territories. If there was no Christian ethical
    reason to reject slavery then it would have either spread everywhere
    (if economically valuable) or died out everywhere (if non-profitable)
    without the war. As it was, God convicted Christians of the practice
    of slavery and it was from Christian pulpits that it was denounced.
    
    I have never heard of the RC Church or Pope having sidelines in the
    traffic of slaves so I guess you will have to supply 'proof' for this.
    
    What I do know is that Christian teaching is that every person should
    be treated with dignity and should have a share in the good things of
    this earth which is provided to us by God. As we carry on this discussion,
    our current Pope, John Paul II, is in Gambia Africa to bring attention to 
    not only the needs of Third World Africa, but the systemic inequities 
    which have kept most Africans in such a poor state. This has also been
    the subject of many Encyclicals and Pastorals, all written for changes
    in our hearts and economic systems to convict injustice and to foster
    social justice.
    
    I am not a great historian and all kinds of things get written. I'm
    also far to busy and not inclined to do such research. Perhaps if
    you can bring forth only examples which occured in, say, your lifetime 
    it will be an easier and more relevant discussion. 
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

Playtoe,

	As I'm certain you're aware, pointing a finger at the Roman Church
for all the ills and evils throughout history would be a fruitless exercise.

	Very few churches of any variety in the southern states had the
wherewithal to pronounce slavery to be morally wrong.  The issue divided
many churches, including Methodists and Baptists, right along the Mason-Dixon
line.

	The one exception I know of was the Religious Society of Friends
(Quakers).  It seems a traveling minister by the name of John Woolman was
able to convince Quaker slaveholders to free their slaves virtually household
by household.

	To address the topic of your basenote, I would agree that Catholicism
has had a lingering influence on other Christian collectivities.  However,
I would acknowledge it as part of our rich (and sometimes lamentable) heritage.

Peace,
Richard

    I would also like to add, that the Catholic Church was *the* original
    Christian church, and as such was originally an underground movement,
    worshiping in the catacombs, and subject to persecution. Under the
    Emperor Constantine, it became the state church of Rome. Subsequently
    the Greek and Russian Orthodox versions of Catholocism separated and
    later the various other denominations, which are now loosely and often
    incorrectly grouped under the title 'protestant' since many of them
    had their roots in protesting various abuses of the official church.
    
    The men who commanded the slaving ships and bought and sold slaves
    in America were in the vast majority, memebers of various non
    Roman Catholic demoninations, Epsicopal, Congregational, etc.
    
    Bonnie

        The News note of the CHRISTIAN conference, # 29.74, has an item from
    Pope John Paul II's African Visit where he acknowledges that Christians
    sinned by conducting slave trade and he asked forgiveness for this
    evil.
    
        I know that Catholic Christians, among Christians as a whole have
    been involved in this, but I still question statements about the RC
    Church "authorizing" it. In any case, the Lord poured His Light onto
    this evil and here in America and everyone paid with their own blood
    before it was ended.
    
        The Church is where we sinful people can hear the Word of God and
    have the benefits of His Sacraments of Grace. It is a gift for the
    sake of our conversion, not a place where we go once we're 'holy
    enough'. I know at one time I thought that once I believed I would 
    somehow never fall into sin again or face distress. At one time I
    did not feel 'good enough' to belong to a Church. 
    
        The opposite is true, of course, it is for sinners that Christ
    has come and therefore, because we still fall from time to time,
    we can be a great disappointment and scandal to others outside 
    (and sometimes inside) the Church. 
    
        I hope you will find forgiveness for Christians for slavery and
    racism as our Pope has requested. The best in all Christians does not
    want this estrangement to continue.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    
    

    Of course the Catholic Church is about to canonize an American Slave
    who escaped to the north through the Catholic church. I don't remember
    his name, it was Trudeau or something.

    Re.7

    Jim:
          The name is Tousseant (please forgive the the spelling, my
         French ancestors are probably rolling in their graves over it)

          The was a very interesting article in yesterdays N.Y. Times
         about the man and there is a bit of controversy surrounding
         his being canonized.  Some consider him a "bad" role model
         because he remained a slave all his life and even worked
         two jobs to support his masters when they became elderly
         and unable to provide for themselves. He also attended Mass
         every day for forty years which certainly says something about
         his devotion to his faith.

            A very interesting article and well worth reading. I still
         have the paper. I could send it to you if you are interested.
         Send me mail if you are.

                                                               Mike
    
        

      I suppose like any organization the RC church has had it's good
     and bad periods. If one is going to talk about the lingering
     influence of the RC church you should also include the some
     of the good stuff to add a little balance to the picture.
     Things like: hospitals, universities, libraries, orphanages,
     nursing homes and visiting nurses to name a few.

                                                               Mike 

                   * For Internal Use Only *

    Stories from CLARInet may not be redistributed to non-Digital
    employees.

(MOKHTOR DIOP)
Subject: Pope asks forgiveness for slave trade
Date: Sat, 22 Feb 92 9:15:05 PST
 
	GOREE, Senegal (UPI) -- Pope John Paul II asked forgiveness for the 
``shameful'' slave trade and encouraged cooperation between Muslims and
Christians in two homilies Saturday during his eight-day trip to Africa.
	After visiting the House of Slaves on the island of Goree, about 2.5
miles from Dakar, the pope asked God's forgiveness for the pain
inflicted on African nations and citizens and recognized the role of
Christians in the slave trade.
	``These men, these women and these children were victims of a
shameful commerce in which many who took part were baptized but did not
live up to their faith,'' the pope said in the St. Charles of Borromeo
church on Goree.
	The House of Slaves, built around 1780, held 60,000 slaves in
inhumane conditions before their departure across the Atlantic. It is
estimated that 12 million black slaves were shipped from Africa to the
Americas during more than 200 years of slave trade. 
	``Black men, women and children were brought to this narrow strip,
torn from their land and separated from their families, to be sold like
merchandise,'' the pope said. ``They came from all countries and,
chained, leaving for other places, kept as their last image of their
native Africa the mass of basaltic rock of Goree.''
	``We can say that this island will stay in the memory and in the
heart of all the black Diaspora,'' the pope said.
	John Paul warned against ``new forms of slavery, often insidious,
such as organized prostitution, which profits shamefully from the misery
of the population of the Third World.''
	The Polish-born pope invoked the need to continue sending aid to
Africa to help the continent and its people overcome their ``tragic
difficulties.''
	Later Saturday, John Paul told leaders of the Muslim community in the
Dakar Chamber of Commerce, ``Christians and Muslims should live in
peace, brotherhood and cooperation.''
	Citing Senegal as a ``good example of this conviviality,'' the pope
said dialogue should continue between the two groups in this West
African country in which 90 percent of the 6.8 million population is
Muslim and 5 percent Christian.
	``We should ensure all citizens, without regards to race, religion,
language or sex, can have a dignified family life and that all have the
same chance in the domain of education and health and that all can
contribute to the common good,'' the pope said.
	Calling the effects of war ``one of the largest evils of humanity,''
the pontiff said ``Christians and Muslims have a special duty to work
towards peace, to collaborate in the creation of social structures, both
national and international, which could reduce tensions and stop them
from escalating into bloody conflicts.''
	Saturday afternoon the pope also spoke to young people in Dakar's
Stadium of Friendship, which holds 60,000.
	The pope will return to Rome on Wednesday after completing his eighth
trip to Africa since being elected head of the Roman Catholic Church in
October, 1978.

    RE:8

    Mike, 
         yes that's him.


    Thanks
    Jim

    re 5
    
>    I would also like to add, that the Catholic Church was *the* original
>    Christian church, and as such was originally an underground movement,
    
    FALSE!  The original Christian Church was an "underground movement"! 
    

    RE: Basenote
    
    Truly the Catholic Church sponsors and funds many institutions which
    benefit the society, and as such this reflects the "cozy" relationship
    it has with the State, as was mentioned before.
    
    However, the point of my bringing up the matter of this influence is to
    point out the "materialization" of a "spiritual" doctrine of religion. 
    I'm merely concerned about the modern Christian's idea of direction and
    ultimate reality of a life in Christ.  Jesus says we must "hate this
    world", which seems to be a contradiction of the reality of things
    presently done by the Catholic Church.  Is it the responsibility of the
    of the CHURCH to do such things?  Should the CHURCH focus solely on the
    matter of God and heaven and saving souls?
    
    Playtoe

    um, Playtoe, that's what I just said, the original Christian Church
    was an underground movement. 
    
    That movement eventually achieved respectability with the conversion
    of the Emperor Constantine and became the state church of Rome. It
    was from that Church that all other denominations of the Christian
    church separated, living the Roman Catholic church one of the few
    that still holds direct succession of their priests from St Peter.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: 14
    
    So I see what you're saying, the first "European" Christian Church was
    an Underground Movement...if infact this group ultimately became the
    "state church of Rome".  But surely this is not to be interpreted as
    meaning that the "first" Christians were Europeans...that's a
    linguistic fallacy of speech.  
    
    I think you've got some history misconceptions.  When did the Roman
    Catholic Church begin?  When did Peter die?  
    
    It is dubious to propose a "smooth" transition from the early/first
    Christians to the Roman Catholic church!
    
    Finally, the first Christians were forced underground, and that was
    necessitated by the onslaughts of the notorious Roman militia.  Now, if
    the Roman Church began as an underground movement, that's
    understandable, but that's not to say that the first Christians and
    their churches were "underground" in nature.  I mean it is "resistence"
    to good causes, and "exposure" to bad causes, which cause them to go
    underground...
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe,
    
    The apostles of Jesus, who lived in Palestine founded the church. One
    of their main evangelists was St Paul and their first spiritual head
    after the resurection was St Peter, he is considered to be the
    first Pope. This is the first Christian church. It was originally a
    small group of people, almost a sect or cult by modern standards. With
    increasing persecution especially under Calligula the church was
    forced underground in Rome - surely you've heard of the stories of
    people worshiping in the catecombs, of the house churches, of the
    use of the fish symbol to let others know that one was a Christian.
    
    The Roman Catholic church is the direct lineal descendant of those
    early Christians. The rest of the Christian denominations separated
    off from the original church over the centuries. All you have to
    do is read any history text to discover this.
    
    Many of the Christian denominations that separated from the Roman
    church did so with the intention of getting back to something closer
    to the original church or their impression of the origninal church.
    But it is simple historical fact that the Roman church never split off
    it was the part of the church that others left. So even if at times
    it fell away from the original standards set by Christ and the
    early Apostles, one cannot deny the continuity of historical record.
    
    Bonnie

    Re: 411
    
>    The apostles of Jesus, who lived in Palestine founded the church. One
>    of their main evangelists was St Paul and their first spiritual head
>    after the resurection was St Peter, he is considered to be the
>    first Pope. 
           ^^^^
    
    Stop right there!  I don't understand it and I don't think I want to! 
    I wonder how many a people believe what you've stated above?  All the
    historical evidence of those times clearly reveal the animousity the
    Roman state had with a doctrine like Jesus', as a result they were
    compelled to squash the original Christian movement and it's teachings
    of freedom and independence through Christ Jesus.  After having
    successfully done this the Roman Catholic Church established itself,
    and during the Councils of Nicea determined what should be taught of
    the Doctrine of Jesus, and how it should be interpreted.  I think it is
    quite devious of whomever started this idea of "St. Peter being the
    first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church", but surely those is gross
    stretch of the truth.
    
    I don't care to discuss it any further.
    
    Playtoe

    re:17
        
    

    >All the
>    historical evidence of those times clearly reveal the animousity the
>    Roman state had with a doctrine like Jesus', as a result they were
>    compelled to squash the original Christian movement and it's teachings
>    of freedom and independence through Christ Jesus.  After having
>    successfully done this the Roman Catholic Church established itself,
>    and during the Councils of Nicea determined what should be taught of
>    the Doctrine of Jesus, and how it should be interpreted.  I think it is
>    quite devious of whomever started this idea of "St. Peter being the
 >   first Pope of the Roman Catholic Church", but surely those is gross
>    stretch of the truth.
    
  First off the Roman Empire was not successful in squashing the original
    Christian movement. Didn't you ever hear about the underground Church
    and the catacombs ? The Catholic church was established long before
    the Council at Nicea. The Bishops of Rome that followed St. Peter after
    his death in the first century were; Linus, Anacletus, and Clement. At
    the end of the first century there were an estimated half million
    Christians in the Roman Empire.
   

    Jim

    As a Catholic, Playtoe, tho an Anglican Catholic, I look to the
    first Bishop of Rome (who the Roman Catholics refer to as the
    first Pope) as the first Bishop of my church as well.
    
    Playtoe, may I suggest you read a little European history and
    some church history. You are woefully uninformed on material 
    that is common knowledge and readily found in any history book.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: 18
    
    Although I'd like to believe that which you've said I simply can't, the
    final "squashing" of the original Christian occurred with the Councils
    of Nicea and the changing of the original intent of the scriptures and
    teachings of Jesus.  Look at it any way you want, but that was and still
    is the Pope replaced God in the people's lives.  And that's what makes
    it so hard for us to find God for ourselves, in a personal way, because
    we tend to be swayed by other people too much...and can't noone, not
    even the Pope, save you if God's is angry at you!
    
    Playtoe

   
     The attitude of the government of the Roman Empire towards
    Christians, for the most part, should be described as indifferent.
    The were simply one of hundreds of religions that the empire
    tried very hard to ignore.
     There were some periods when when active persecution of Christians
    was carried out with the ruthless efficiency that is such a trademark
    of the Roman Empire.
     However, if you look at why these persecutions took place you will
    find that they were carried out to placate the majority of the 
    population who saw the Christians as a threat to law & order and
    the stability of the empire. The Roman government, much as our own, 
    was very much in tune with how the political winds were blowing and
    when became clear that people expected the imperial government do
    "do something about the Christian problem" they would respond just
    like our government does when the public expects them to "do something
    about the drug problem" or whatever the problem of the month is.
     To be sure the empire's idea of "doing something" was draconian, but
    it in no way had anything to do with the empire fearing Christians
    or Christianity. They were considered to be a bunch of crack-pots
    who were a nuisance and a minor one at that. If rounding up and killing
    off a some of them was the politically correct thing for the government 
    to do periodically to show the populace that they were on top of things
    then the government would go through the trouble of doing it and that
    was how the persecutions were viewed, as a inconvenience because of the
    time, effort, money and resources involved. A big waste of tax money 
    as far as imperial administrators were concerned. 
      The Imperium's concerns and vision were global ( or at least they
   thought they were global ) in scope. The doings of a small sect on
   what was viewed as the lunatic fringe were not seen as anything to
   waste, time, money or effort on unless it was a political necessity.
 
   
                                                                
                                                                Mike

    Playtoe,
    
    It is of no importance to me if you choose or do not choose to
    believe matters of provable historical record. It doesn't change
    the past or the record or the truth. The only person who is affected
    by your belief is you yourself. I'd encourage you to read up on the
    subject, but that is all I can do.
    
    Bonnie

    RE: 22
    
    This is the problem, Bonnie.  You're looking at the history of events,
    of the change of position and power.  And seeing that the Roman
    Catholic church gained the position of power concerning that event they
    had the power to define...and you believe their report.
    
    I, on the other hand, specialize in the "Intellectual and Conceptual
    History of the World", the transmission and transfer of ideas.  And if
    the early Christians and the Roman Church had so much affinity, why was
    it necessary to change the interpretation and meaning of the original
    doctrine of Jesus?  If Roman Pope's really succeeded Peter, why didn't
    they maintain the integrity of Peter's beliefs?
    
    You can be deceived by those in power, but I, as God, "am not a
    respecter of persons", I don't care about your position of power, I am
    looking at the intellections and conceptions.
    
    I know you don't understand this..as usual...but nevertheless I feel
    compelled to say it.
    
    I've done more reading than you think, and it was because of the
    falsehoods that modern history conveys, by virtue of those in power
    desiring to justify and/or present themselves in a positive light, that
    has prompted me to move into the deeper reality of historical events.
    I tell you the early Christians and the Roman Catholic church are two
    different modalities of social and religious behavior.  The early
    Christian "lived by" what he believed.  The Roman Catholic congregation,
    however, could only "think" what he believed, and was forced to "live
    by" the codes mandated by the Empire...thus we see so many "pagan"
    trappings in the Catholic form of worship.
    
    It is of no importance to me if you choose or do not choose to believe
    matters of provable historical record.  It doesn't change the past or
    the record or the truth.  The only person who is affected by your
    belief is you yourself.  I'd encourage you to read up on the subject,
    but that is all I can do.;-)
    
    Playtoe 

    re: the persecuted Christians
    
    I think if you study history you'll find that the Christians who the
    Romans persecuted were the "Gnostic" ones.  Gnosticism was very
    prominent in those times.  Roman Christians, not Catholics, who
    believed in Gnostic teachings were forced into the catacombs and such. 
    
    To be valid at all, the Roman Catholic Church HAD to make itself
    connected with the disciples, and they simply choose to use Peter as
    that connection...but they had no fellowship with Peter, and you can
    find NO RECORD of it in your historical notes, all you can find is a
    Catholic assertion of this, but that's a falsehood in reality.
    
    In the Bible, the book of "Roman", do you think this is the "Roman
    Catholic" church?  Or this this was the underground group which
    ultimately became the Roman Catholic Church?  If you do then we've
    really got a communication problem...
    
    PLAYTOE

    Re: .23
    
    Huh? You don't make any sense at all.
    
    Marc H.

    Playtoe,
    
    as I said, the history is there to be read, read it or not, as you
    choose...
    
    nuff said
    
    Bonnie

    re 25
    
    Don't worry about it, perhaps it wasn't meant for you to understand.
    
    Playtoe
    

    re 26
    
    Bonnie....no, TOO MUCH already said...
    
    Playtoe

    Re: .27
    
    Oh, I understand.......
    
    
    Marc H.

    
    Perhaps, you'll notice that the nature of this topic, "Lingering
    Influences", is a reflection upon the nature of thought derived from a
    study of the "Intellectual and Conceptual History of the World".  To
    perceive Catholic influences in the churches which split from it, is in
    line with the tracking of intellectual and conceptual elements of
    religious doctrine.  To discover those beliefs and behaviorism's that
    blacks still hold, from days of slavery, is another form of a study of
    "The Intellectual and Conceptual History of the World".
    
        "It takes a life changing experience to change your life."
    
    						by Playtoe
    
    Whenever we go through a new experience, we experience change.  In
    order to know exactly how that experience effected us we need to know
    what we were like prior to the change.  Only then can we assess whether
    we are "better off" by the change, or we can determine the degree in
    which we have changed, etc., but if we don't know what was going on
    prior to a change it's impossible to say "I'm better off than I use to
    be", cause although you may very well be you really can't be sure
    unless you know how you use to be.
    
    That some may not have a clear idea of what I'm talking about is
    expected, this is an advanced study, and exercise of mind.
    
    Playtoe

    I suspect that the early Christian church had its share of diversity
    from the very beginning.  A clear example of this can be found in
    Paul's epistle to the Galatians, where he defends himself over a
    particular issue by sharply criticizing the man Catholics consider the
    first Pope.  He describes how he told Peter "to his face" that he was
    dead wrong, and he also accused Peter of "hypocrisy" (NSRV
    translation--some translations use the word "insincerity").  This was
    not over some trivial issue, either; it dealt with a significant
    doctrinal question that concerned the very definition of Christianity
    in its early separation from its parent religion, Judaism. I wonder how
    John Paul II would react if one of his bishops published a public
    document that accused *him* of hypocrisy in an important doctrinal
    matter.  Somehow the phrase "called out on the carpet" comes to mind.

    I don't think there is really a lot of information about the
    organizational evolution of the early Christian church.  I have
    sometimes seen references in scholarly literature to the various New
    Testament epistles as addressing "Johannine churches", "Pauline
    churches", etc.  Be that as it may, you do see clear evidence of a
    strong institutional authority developing in Rome in the epistle I
    Clement, a non-canonical epistle that was written sometime around the
    end of the first century AD.

    I suspect that this process is a good example of what postmodern
    analysis sees as the marginalization of the Other; the prevailing
    institution out of early Christianity, the Roman Catholic Church,
    defined whatever didn't correspond to its own metanarrative as
    "heresy".  Put another way, the winners get to write history.  Whatever
    diversity may have characterized the early Christian church, the urge
    towards a metanarrative was clearly stronger; and that which did not
    fit into the homogenization process was simply marginalized out of
    existence.  The prevailing institution could then equate Christianity
    with itself. It was the Norm, and anything that characterized a broader
    diversity was a deviation from that norm.  There would have been  less
    political capital in being the prevailing institution of the early
    Christian church than in being one and the same as the early Christian
    church.  

    This is certainly characteristic of patriarchal institutions, which, in
    the realm of gender issues, characterize males as the norm, and females
    as the exception to the norm.  The fact that women were excluded from
    the sacred halls of temporal Christian power was thus par for the
    course; the definition of "heretics" in matters of doctrine was another
    manifestation of this marginalization process.

    -- Mike

    Re: 31
    
    If I'm not mistaken, however, wasn't Paul's criticism of Peter in
    regards to Peter's behavior in the presence of Jews?
    
    On the rest of your note, I agree, and applaud your scholarly approach
    to the question.
    
    Playtoe

 Re : .23
    
>    I, on the other hand, specialize in the "Intellectual and Conceptual
>    History of the World", the transmission and transfer of ideas.  And if
>    the early Christians and the Roman Church had so much affinity, why was
>    it necessary to change the interpretation and meaning of the original
>    doctrine of Jesus?  If Roman Pope's really succeeded Peter, why didn't
>    they maintain the integrity of Peter's beliefs?
 
Q1 :  Where is the "real doctrine of Jesus" given?

Q2 :  How has the "real doctrine of Jesus" been transmitted through the
      ages so as to be 'properly taught' and spread as Christ commanded
      to the apostles?

    As for the disagreement in Acts between Peter and Paul, that was a view into
the discernment process in the development of Christian doctrine. You will also
see that the Roman Catholic Church is aligned with the outcome of that doctrinal
struggle. 

    Although the Pope does have authority to speak infallibility, every time the
Pope speaks this is not the level of authority used. Actually there have 
been VERY FEW instances when the Pope has proclaimed a doctrine with 
infallibility and then only after it has been spiritually discerned within 
the Body for some time. 

     As for your statement that it was Gnostic Christians who were the ones
persecuted by the Romans rather than those who held Roman Catholic beliefs,
this is not at all supported by archeological evidence found in the 
catecombs themselves. The burial tomb of St. Peter himself has been found 
according to the markings on the tomb, in a central location and in obvious
respect. Also, the other markings, words, and symbols found on the tomb and
throughout the catacombs supports that the Roman Catholic doctrines and
beliefs were the ones being practiced, honored, and remembered by those
under persecution. They also show a continuity to the central status given
to the Roman Church and the Office of Peter (the Papal seat) in the 
church that emerged from the persecutions. 

    Mary
  

    
    Another thing :
    
    >  If Roman Pope's really succeeded Peter.....
    
    From this statement and from another one from a different reply, I
    get the impression that you believe that all the Popes come from Rome
    and the mechanism for becoming the Pope is to get the position of 
    Bishop of Rome; then when the current Pope dies the Bishop of Rome
    is next in line. 
    
    Also, it seems implied that you believe that the Pope becomes Pope
    in some manner of 'lineage'.
    
    The Pope is chosen by a group of Bishops who have been elevated to
    Cardinals. The regional churchs throughout the world all have a 
    Cardinal represenative. When it is time to choose a new Pope, he is
    elected by the body of Cardinals. The Pope may be from anywhere since
    the Cardinals come from everywhere. The process of choosing a Pope is
    more democratic than the governing conditions in the countries of the
    churches the Cardinals serve. Pope John Paul II was from the
    Polish Church before being elected to the Papacy. 
    
    Also, doctrine, is not either developed or issued based on the sole
    action of a Pope; it is generated by the work of the Holy Spirit
    throughout the Church and discerned by this same body. The Papal
    pronouncement that a doctrine is infallible is not a statement that
    the Pope is perfect or incapable of error; it means that through the
    process of discernment that the Church has undergone in percieving
    a Truth given by the Holy Spirit, it has found that that Truth is to
    be defined at the level of a Doctrine of Faith. 
    
    When Paul and Peter argued in Acts, they were in the process of
    discernment of the Truth; it is not a true impression that the Pope
    makes all decisions on his own or that because he is Pope he is 
    personally always right. It is true of our Catholic beliefs that 
    the power of the Holy Spirit will lead the Church in Truth in all
    areas of Doctrine involving issues required for our Salvation and 
    that once these have been discerned and given to the Church they are
    not to be changed. Jesus Christ is the same yeaterday, today, and
    forever.
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    

    re33
    
    The evidence is clear.
    
>Q1 :  Where is the "real doctrine of Jesus" given?
    
    The real doctrine is given in the Bible, but what I find to be the
    problem is reflected in the question Paul asked the Eunuch "How readeth
    thou?"
    
>Q2 :  How has the "real doctrine of Jesus" been transmitted through the
      ages so as to be 'properly taught' and spread as Christ commanded
      to the apostles?
    
    Firstly, I believe as the scriptures say, "The Holy Spirit shall guide
    you into all truth", and again in James, "No man need teach you
    anything, we are all taught of God"...this affirms Gnosticism, and on
    the other calls to task the idea of a POPE determining truth for the
    individual Christian.  If the Pope knew the infinite knowledge of God
    he could then make decisions for the world, but he doesn't, he's a man
    just like you and I, hasn't been granted any more years of life than,
    hasn't been granted any powers by God, but only by men.
    
    Personally, I don't have a problem with the European religious ideas,
    but when they take them and impose them upon the world it becomes a
    problem.  
    
>the discernment process in the development of Christian doctrine. You will also
>see that the Roman Catholic Church is aligned with the outcome of that doctrinal
>struggle. 
    
    That's fine if Catholics think so, but what if the Baptist, or the
    Pentecostal doesn't think so, what happens then?
    
>    Although the Pope does have authority to speak infallibility, every time the
    
    I have serious problem with the idea of this!  Not that I resent
    authority, but I do reject human god-figures, I believe it's a form of
    idolatry.
    
    I think in order to discuss Catholic vs Gnostic beliefs, and to make
    conclusions about what the persecuted ones believed, you first need to
    know both sides of the matter...you need to study Gnosticism.  I have
    and I find more doctrine that supports their beliefs and Romam
    Catholics stand primarily alone in certain interpretations.  Have you
    ever read the Quran?  If you ever do you'll find that it too supports
    Gnosticism.  More holy doctrine in the world supports the revelation of
    God coming to the individual, than supports the need of and the
    credibility of an "infallible" Pope.
    
    Again, I don't have a problem it Catholics follow their leader, but
    when their leader imposes himself upon the world, it is a problem.  Of
    course, Catholics may not think so, but look around, every one else
    (ie, other nations) are having a problem with the religious aspects of
    European rule...you must'nt be like the Ostrich about things.
    
    If you don't care to discuss it further that's OK.
    
    Playtoe

    re .35
    
        I believe your arguement concerning the Eunuch perfectly makes the
    point about the need for the Teaching Church. It is given in Acts
    8:30-35. In it, Phillip (not Paul) meets a Eunuch who is reading 
    Isaiah. Phillip asks, "Do you understand what you are reading?"
    and the Eunuch replied, "How can I unless someone instructs me?"
    He then invites Phillip to sit with him and Phillip explains the
    passage and Jesus to the Eunuch. Understanding after the instruction,
    the Eunuch believes and is baptised.
    
        I don't have the time to outline the proofs that Christ established
    the Church on Peter and gave the Apostles the powers to exercise the
    authorities mentioned. If you will read about the gifts of the Holy
    Spirit, you will see that not all gifts are given to all people.
    Likewise, not all are called to be apostles, or teachers (etc.). It
    is clear that teaching is necessary as a ministry within the Body of
    Christ. 
    
        The power of the Holy Spirit to know the Truth and to keep it 
    pure was given to the Apostles and then to the Bishops along with the
    mission to evangelize and baptise people into the faith. This does not 
    mean that we do not also have the Holy Spirit or the gifts of the 
    Spirit, but we have what we need for our God-given Ministry and calling
    in life. We have the Holy Spirit within to give us inner witness to 
    Christ so that we can grow in Christ.
    
        Your arguement that we all have personal interpertation does is not
    in harmony with the greater truth that God is One and that, therefore,
    there can be only one Truth. The problem with everyone insisting on 
    their own interpertation of Scripture and our own "hearing" of the
    Holy Spirit is that conflicting truths CANNOT be correct and therefore
    the personal interpertation cannot be correct, at least in some cases.
    
        What makes YOUR personal interpertation more valid than mine if
    we both "feel" that this is what the Holy Spirit is saying? We both 
    read the same line of scripture but see it's meaning differently. 
    
        The Catholic response is to trust that the Holy Spirit is indeed
    guiding the Church and has given Teaching Authority to those who have
    been called BY GOD to serve in those Ministries. Although we may
    certainly read scripture, in conflicts of interpretation the Church has
    final authority.
    
        In another way this also makes sense. I, for example, have only 
    about 12 years of Christian committment. Of these years, most of my 
    time has been in working a more than full-time job, commuting, doing
    daily duties, sleeping, and eating. Subtract out recreation, shopping,
    and socializing and you can see how part-time my theological studies
    have been. How can I or any other person in the same position claim
    supreme scripture authority, particularly over full-time, God-called
    Clergy?
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    
    

    re 34 
    
>    From this statement and from another one from a different reply, I
>    get the impression that you believe that all the Popes come from Rome
>    and the mechanism for becoming the Pope is to get the position of 
>    Bishop of Rome; then when the current Pope dies the Bishop of Rome
>    is next in line. 
 
    Instead of "Roman Pope's" I should have said "Catholic Pope's", you're
    right they may not all be "Roman", but they are all "Catholic"...I
    thank you for the concise info on how Pope's are elected.
    
>    Also, doctrine, is not either developed or issued based on the sole
>    action of a Pope; it is generated by the work of the Holy Spirit
>    throughout the Church and discerned by this same body. The Papal
>    pronouncement that a doctrine is infallible is not a statement that
>    the Pope is perfect or incapable of error; it means that through the
>    process of discernment that the Church has undergone in percieving
>    a Truth given by the Holy Spirit, it has found that that Truth is to
>    be defined at the level of a Doctrine of Faith.          ^^^^^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^           ^^^^^^^^^   
    
    I agree that an individual's truth is invariably defined without domain
    afforded them by their level of faith.  However, no man nor group of
    men can define truth for every man...do you think so?  If not, why do
    Catholics believe Pope's can?  
     
    Even Jesus did not "define" truth for men, he did only that which he
    was sent to do and teach, by God.  Jesus was an "example" for men to
    follow, the Pope he is one we must obey, am I right or wrong?
    
    Answer me this...With God the Father, Jesus the Son, and the Holy
    Spirit to guide you, where does John the Pope fit in, and how must you
    view him in relationship to the Trinity?  Is the Pope a "Christ" figure
    for the Catholics?  
    
>    personally always right. It is true of our Catholic beliefs that 
>    the power of the Holy Spirit will lead the Church in Truth in all
                                            ^^^^^^^^^^
    
    Here's a good example of the difference of a Catholic interpretation vs
    a Gnostic one!  The Bible "the Holy Spirit will lead YOU into all
    truth".  The Catholic (Pope and/or decision makers) says this scripture
    is referencing the Church body, congregation, or assembly, PRIMARILY,
    and the individual SECONDARILY!  The Gnostic says the opposite.  The
    Church leaders may be WRONG, but each individual PRIMARILY should know
    the truth, and each individual is a church, a TEMPLE OF GOD.
    
    
>   that once these have been discerned and given to the Church they are
>    not to be changed. Jesus Christ is the same yeaterday, today, and
 
    I don't understand what you mean by this...I understand the Bible to be
    the "unchanging" Doctrine given to the Church and that's all.  However,
    I seem to hear something a little different, a little more implied in
    your words.
    
>   When Paul and Peter argued in Acts, they were in the process of
>    discernment of the Truth; 
    
    Wasn't it about how Peter would sit with the Gentiles and unsaved folks
    when Jews weren't around, but when they were around would always sit
    with the Jews...and Paul checked him, Why do you do that, are aware
    that you are confusing the Gentiles and unsaved folks when you do
    that? {basically}...Paul was in a process of getting Peter straight! 
    And Peter understood and got back in line!  Now what are you saying
    this has to do with the Catholic church?
    
    Playtoe

    re 36
    
>        I believe your arguement concerning the Eunuch perfectly makes the
>    point about the need for the Teaching Church. It is given in Acts
    
 >   and the Eunuch replied, "How can I unless someone instructs me?"
    
>    He then invites Phillip to sit with him and Phillip explains the
>    passage and Jesus to the Eunuch. Understanding after the instruction,
>    the Eunuch believes and is baptised.
    
    I don't agree.  I believe that all the Phillip (thanks for the
    correction) told the Eunuch about understanding the Word of God, is
    that he must be baptised and born again...he explained what he needed
    to do to be saved, and thereby the Holy Spirit would guide him into the
    understanding of God's Word...verified by the fact that at the end of a
    not too long conversation the Eunuch was "baptised".  Now what do you
    feel the conversation must have been about, to the end that the Eunuch
    got baptised, after the question "How can I unless someone instructs
    me?"  Do you think Phillip said "Let me explain it to you" or "Let me
    tell you about how you can come to understand on your own".
    
    I have a "Teaching Ministry"...as an individual, and me body is the
    Temple of God, I am the Church (an intergral part, if I'm looking at an
    actual church building and say to you go touch the church, you would
    feel that by touching any brick, any window, any step, any part of the
    building is effectively the Church, and in that same sense, I am the
    Church, though just one small part of the united whole...the Gnostic
    makes the individual worthy of God and the Kingdom, which is the "true
    teachings of Jesus"...for the Catholic the CHURCH represents some
    abstract concept of a unified spirit of being a member of the faith,
    the "Church Body", headed by the Pope...
    
    Playtoe

    re .38

    Playtoe,

	Phillip explained the passage of Isaiah given in Acts which 
    was a prophesy about Jesus; Phillip explained to the Eunuch that 
    Jesus is our Savior and that he came and died on the cross for the
    salvation of everyone. Perhaps you will call this evangelical
    rather than 'teaching' and perhaps you're right. 

        Nevertheless, we are instructed by Scripture that the church
    ministries include a teaching ministry. Now the Holy Spirit would
    not raise up teachers if the same Spirit gave each believer perfect
    knowledge and interpretation of the Word of God. There would be
    no need for this ministry and everyone would have the same knowledge
    and same understanding without instruction.

        The existing situations are proof that this is not the case.
    You have yet to answer my questions that I posed in my last reply
    and I would like to read your responses.

        I would also like to point out that the Epistles of the New 
    Testament were written teachings and instructions to the existing
    believers of that day. These believers recieved the same Holy Spirit
    yet they required instruction. The instruction they recieved was 
    given by the Apostles and on the authority of Jesus. 

        The Bishops of the Church have the same teaching authority as
    handed down to them through the ages; this is one reason why the
    church calls itself "apostolic". This is also why the replacement
    for Judas had to be a person who had recieved instruction and teachings
    from Jesus Christ himself and who had been a witness to his actual
    life, death, and ressurrection (see Acts 2:15-26).

        You can see in that account that the Apostles, in making this
    choice, actually gave it over to Jesus to make. Callings to vocations,
    Priest, Bishop, Cardinal, and Pope, are all discerned through similar
    guidance by the Holy Spirit. 

        Catholics also believe they are worthy of God and the Kingdom, but
    only because we accept Jesus Christ as our Lord who is our Worth before
    God the Father. We do believe that all members of the faith comprise the
    Body. That does not make us less, but shows us the true relationship
    we have with one another in Christ. St. Paul clearly states that we are
    all members of one Body and he likened it to different body parts but
    one body. Also, we have different gifts and ministries, but we all
    are expected to use our gifts and talents to benefit the full assembly.

        Christ said that when two or three are gathered in His name, there
    He is also. Church is a communal; we are meant to be in unity, harmony,
    and in service to one another. Jesus says that if we don't have this
    harmony in our lives then we are not to be at the altar, but to leave
    the gift we had intended to give God and to go make peace with our
    brother first. Until we can be forgiving and loving of one another and
    at peace with God then the larger desires for peace and reconcilliation
    (between families, countries, races, religions, etc.) cannot occur.

    Peace,

    Mary

    I think that Paul's account in Galatians of the apparently bitter
    dispute between himself and Peter is more interesting than the account
    that appears in Acts, since Paul was one of the actual parties in that
    dispute.  It is unfortunate that we don't have Peter's side of the
    story; he probably would have painted himself in a more favorable light
    than Paul did.  As it is, Paul clearly makes himself the hero of the
    story, at Peter's expense.  The reason he would do this is obvious; this
    story occurs in the broader context of the  opening passages of that
    epistle, which he uses to justify his own status as an apostle--to
    convince his readers of the legitimacy of his authority.

    Why he would feel the need to do this is an interesting question.  I
    don't know if he is presumed to have occupied an official office
    established by a centralized church authority (perhaps Protestants and
    Catholics would differ on this question.)  Of course, Paul was not one
    of the original apostles, and the question of apostolic succession
    clearly arises here.  It is interesting that, with respect to the
    original apostles, one New Testament scholar (I think it was E.P.
    Sanders in his book "Jesus Within Judaism") argued that "The Twelve"
    were probably not exactly 12 in number, and in fact were not a fixed
    set of individuals; in other words, the apostles as a group were a
    fluid entity.

    Regarding the dispute between Paul and Peter, it is true that the Roman
    Catholic Church embraced the result of that struggle.  But then that is 
    a tautology; the winners in a struggle, by definition, embrace the
    doctrine that wins.  The result is, of course, that the losing doctrine
    then becomes defined as "heresy".  Legitimate and honestly formulated
    differences of opinion have no place in an organization that claims for
    itself the sole right to make theological determinations.

    The suppression of heresy within the church is distinct from the
    suppression of Christianity by the authorities in society as a whole. 
    I think it was Elaine Pagels who pointed out that one reason the
    Gnostics so infuriated "orthodox" Christians ("orthodox" by virtue of
    the fact that they were the winners within Christianity, and thus got
    to describe themselves as such) was that the Gnostics made a point of
    avoiding martyrdom within the Roman Empire; they simply didn't see the
    point in dying for their faith. This certainly could not have sat well
    with Christians who saw their brothers and sisters tortured and killed
    for the faith, and probably lent a certain bitterness to the dispute
    between the rival theologies. Of course, the Catholic Church of that
    era was also a product of its times; democracy, pluralism, and
    tolerance for diversity was not the order of the day in ancient Rome,
    and the Church simply inherited the patriarchal and authoritarian
    values of its culture.  I think that its claim of doctrinal
    infallibility, self-serving though it may seem to outsiders, has to be
    understood in that light.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: 39
    
>    ministries include a teaching ministry. Now the Holy Spirit would
>    not raise up teachers if the same Spirit gave each believer perfect
>    knowledge and interpretation of the Word of God. There would be
>    no need for this ministry and everyone would have the same knowledge
>    and same understanding without instruction.
    
    Actually, my friend, what you are saying isn't likely here is what the
    prophecies have said is the goal.  The idea is that God will put his
    spirit in our hearts and minds and be all and each our personal
    teacher and we will need no longer to teach each other of God.  I'll
    have to get the verses to be more specific.
    
    I didn't answer your questions because I feel that in doing so I would
    create to big of gulf between us...our interpretation of scripture is
    quite opposing.  Like the above...God wants us to be on one accord, one
    spirit, etc, and that can only be made a reality with one teacher and
    that the Holy Spirit.  Phillip, therefore, must have instructed the
    Eunuch to the Holy Spirit, lest he teach contrary to the gospel and
    teachings of Jesus and the prophets.  
    
    I agree that the apostles teach and instruct, but we differ on the
    nature of those teachings and instructions.  I believe the apostles
    TAUGHT the individual to look to God for answers, not to any man.  You
    seem to be saying the opposite, seek instructions from men, and ideally
    the Pope and his constituents.  I'll have to take more time to explain
    this, because I can see how thoroughly entrenched the idea of Papal
    authority is in your life...
    
    Playtoe

    re: 40
    
>    dispute.  It is unfortunate that we don't have Peter's side of the
>    story; he probably would have painted himself in a more favorable light
>    than Paul did.  As it is, Paul clearly makes himself the hero of the
>    story, at Peter's expense.  The reason he would do this is obvious; this
    
    With all respect, I personally think this sort of attitude is not good. 
    How can you suppose that men lead by the holy spirit would have such
    self serving motives?  I could never even question Paul's integrity in
    this manner...not defending Paul or Peter, but taking the Scriptures AS
    REVEALED is our obligation of faith.  
    
>    Why he would feel the need to do this is an interesting question.  I
    
    Why you would feel the need to do this is also interesting...surely you
    only speculate without reason or proof that this is possibly the case. 
    You don't have Peter's side, so how can you ever proof your point, you
    leave yourself, therefore, in doubt for ever.  This is not a good
    attitude, you've got to take what is there and go with that.  Do you
    know how it makes you look as you sit there questioning the motives of
    an apostle?  Do you question the Pope too?
    
    Not meaning to offend you, but rather you than God for sure!
    
    Respectfully yours,
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe, while I understand that you don't mean to offend, I am not
    sure how you expected to do otherwise.  With all due respect, it really
    *doesn't* matter to me whether you think "my sort of attitude" is good
    or not.  I stand by my comments.  

    While I think it's fine that you would not presume to question Paul's
    integrity, one can say that since Paul himself questioned the integrity
    of another apostle (accusing Peter of "hypocrisy" or "insincerity"),
    then those who criticize apostles seem to stand in some pretty good
    company.  In any case, my interest this topic has not been to tarnish
    some cherished icon of yours, and it certainly isn't to discuss whether
    or not my theological outlook meets your standards, but rather to
    discuss my own perceptions of the political and doctrinal struggles of
    the early church.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: 43
    
    If you aren't willing to examine your own opinions and change them if
    found in need of repair then why should you be offended by those who
    differ with you?  Seems like you've set yourself up for be offended.
    

>    While I think it's fine that you would not presume to question Paul's
>    integrity, one can say that since Paul himself questioned the integrity
>    of another apostle (accusing Peter of "hypocrisy" or "insincerity"),
<    then those who criticize apostles seem to stand in some pretty good
>    company.  
    
    On the other hand, it could be you've misinterpretted the whole point
    of the message in Paul's criticism.  Perhaps, it was just an allegory,
    and Peter never really did it at all, but Paul had to make up an
    example to make a point to us!  
    
>In any case, my interest this topic has not been to tarnish
>    some cherished icon of yours, 
    
    Surely the icon is Peter in this case, as being the first Pope of the
    Roman Catholic church.
    
    >and it certainly isn't to discuss whether
    >or not my theological outlook meets your standards, but rather to
     
    No, but it SHOULD relate to whether either of ours meets that of God's! 
    And to that extent and purpose we can no who's does by scriptural
    supports.  If we don't use that standard, we have no foundation for
    maintaining peace.  I'm willing to accept the Bible as a standard, are
    you?
    
    If I wanted to discuss my own perceptions of political and doctrinal
    struggles of the early church, and tell you how I as a black man feel
    about Alexander and the Romans and the Arabs and Persians and any body
    that has ever raided, plundered and killed a black African society,
    about the "Stolen Legacy", we'd really have a problem!  But I don't do
    that either, a few have heard my side of that story, but I curbed that
    to speak of the higher reality of God's Word implied for humanity in
    general...I would hope you'd set your personal perceptions of truth and
    reality to the side and at least accept for the sake of this file the
    foundation of Christian doctrine.  I really don't rest upon my PERSONAL
    FEELINGS, but I rest upon facts and evidences and proofs.  Whether
    Peter was actually guilty or not you only have a feeling and no proof,
    is all I'm saying...which it is hard for me to speculate in that
    manner.
    
    Also, I tried to generalize it, "THAT sort of attitude", because you're
    not the only person that tends to analyse the motives of apostles like
    that...if they were moved by God, then in effect you are analysing
    God's motives, and I REALLY can't relate to that when you assign unto
    God immoral or unrighteous acts!  Like I said, if someone must be
    offended between a man and God, I'm gonna choose to offend a man, ANY
    man rather than God EVERYTIME!  That's just the way I am.  
    
    So a don't mean to offend but I can't help it sometimes, and please
    forgive me!
    
    Playtoe

RE: -1

Hi.

>    Surely the icon is Peter in this case, as being the first Pope of the
>    Roman Catholic church.

I thought Peter was martyred long before the Roman Catholic church came into
being.  How could he be the first Pope if he was dead?  Not trying to cause 
trouble, just wanting some clarification.

Thanx,

Jim

    RE: 45
    
    THANK YOU!
    
    In case you haven't been reading the previous notes...Someone, not I,
    said that Catholics thought of "St Peter" as the first Pope...and that,
    I'm assuming, has bearings on certain Catholic Christian's bias and
    sympathy towards Peter when Paul criticized/checked him, saying "Maybe
    Paul was [wrong, because Peter is the head of our church!]."
    
    Which was turned around to make it seem as if *I* had some ICON to
    protect, when in actuality the only thing or person that qualifies as
    an icon in this discussion is "Peter as the first Pope" an icon of the
    Catholic Church...then they want to cry "personal offense" if you don't
    allow their icon to remain stain free...in which case I have to say I'd
    rather offend a man than God, if it comes to a choice!
    
    I could have said I was offended, being a Gnostic, that Catholics
    consider Peter their first Pope!  As such they sure have CHANGED!  I'm
    surely a little fiesty, but hey I get that way sometimes, I'm
    controlling the best I can...
    
    Playtoe
    Playtoe

    Actually, Playtoe, I think I *would* be more interested in you sharing
    your own feelings and interpretations on various issues than in picking
    on and berating the views of others.  In particular this is because
    these sorts of criticisms of others in this notes file often assume
    some sort of premise that the person criticized doesn't share.  I have
    mentioned my views of the Bible on many occasions, but in case you've
    missed it--no, I don't consider the Bible to be a theological standard
    for my own religious beliefs.

    I understand that what I expressed counters some strongly held beliefs
    of yours; but "correcting" me as if I hadn't thought of the
    implications of my views with respect to the Bible and the apostles
    just insults my intelligence.  I am willing to concede the possibility
    that if I had shared your outlook on the Bible and the apostles, then
    your "correction" might have scored points with me; but then if I were
    in that position I probably would not have written what I did in the
    first place.  In any case, your "correction" simply doesn't give me
    credit for having thought about what I wrote.  What you wrote in your
    reply to me expressed nothing new to me, but it did so in a
    condescending manner. 

    Maybe you feel that you have served God by doing that.  However, you
    surely can't believe that by "correcting" me on the basis of an
    assumption of yours that I don't share, I will see the "error" of my
    ways and then view things like you do.  The theological diversity of
    this notes file means that there is a broad spectrum of views on the
    Bible here.  You certainly must know this.  If you want to preach at
    others here, that is your right, of course; the openness of this notes
    file implies that.  But others have just as much right to be offended
    by such preaching.

    This discussion repeatedly comes up in this notes file.  There are
    those who want to share and discuss theology in a context that
    recognizes the diversity here; and there are those who reject not only
    the validity of such diversity but even engage in discussions as if its
    existence were untrue.  This clash of styles is fundamental and,
    unfortunately, it may be unavoidable.

    I would hope that I am open to my own mistakes.  I often qualify my
    assertions with "I think", or "I could be wrong but", precisely because
    I recognize my own fallibility in matters of knowledge.  I certainly
    have much to learn about many things, and I don't want to be unwilling
    to learn from others; however, in matters of faith, I am much more
    interested in a process of mutual and respectful exchange of ideas than
    in preaching or being preached at.  I realize that some people
    fundamentally disagree with this, as a matter of principle.  This being
    another example of the clash of styles, it appears that it won't go
    away.  But I think it is important to explain that I am offended by
    this, and why.  Now it may be true that  recognizing the diversity of
    perspectives here is recognizing this diversity in styles and attitudes
    about preaching and sharing ideas; thus the fact that some of us are
    offended by this preaching (some even so offended that they left the
    conference altogether) is not going to matter to those who think it
    important to continue this style of noting.

    -- Mike

    Re: .46

    Playtoe, it appears you are confused.  You refer to your discussion
    with me as if I were a Catholic.  First of all, I am neither a Roman
    Catholic nor an apologist for the Catholic Church, as you *seem* to
    somehow have inferred. This truly surprises me, if true, because I
    don't think I have ever been confused for an advocate of Roman
    Catholicism before.  I am, in fact, a Quaker, and if you had paid
    attention to my earlier notes in this discussion you would have seen
    that I was not defending the  Church's claim to doctrinal
    infallibility.

    Neither Paul nor Peter are icons for me; you seem to be suggesting that
    Peter is some sort of icon for me who I want to remain "stain free".  I
    don't know how could you have possibly gotten that impression from me;
    I simply pointed out that the two people were involved in a personal
    and political struggle over a doctrinal issue, and that, as it turns
    out, we only have the word of one of the parties.  To me, neither party
    in that dispute is an icon, but then that is because I don't put the
    apostles in general on any sort of pedestal.  The fact that there are
    two sides to a story means that Peter no doubt had his own position in
    that dispute.

    You then responded by stating, "How can you suppose that men lead by
    the holy spirit would have such self serving motives.  I could never
    even question question Paul's integrity in this manner?"  So it was
    you, and not I, who was aghast at the notion that an apostle's
    integrity should be called into question.  That was where my reference
    to Paul as an icon of yours came into play.  Since neither Peter nor
    Paul holds any special honor for me, it isn't a matter of one party in
    that dispute being "better" in any sense than the other.  I suspect
    that both parties had their own point of view, and what little has been
    transmitted to us about their dispute suggests that the early church
    was characterized by disputes, perhaps bitter ones, on matters of
    doctrine.  My suggestion of this seemed to bother you because it
    suggested something negative about Paul, as a man "led by the holy
    spirit".

    May I suggest that before you start criticizing the Catholics in this
    discussion, you at least get straight which ones of us are Catholic?

    -- Mike

    RE: 47
    
>    missed it--no, I don't consider the Bible to be a theological standard
>    for my own religious beliefs.
    
    AHA!  Then if you don't, HOW is it that you are the one offended by my
    comments which appropriately take the bible as a standard in this
    "Christian Perspective" notesfile?  If the bible isn't your standard,
    what standards are you *subtlely* trying to impose on me and this
    conference?
    
    I think you inhibit the positive growth and interchange of ideas if you
    don't at least share the centrality of the Bible in Christians
    concerns...
    
>    of yours; but "correcting" me as if I hadn't thought of the
>    implications of my views with respect to the Bible and the apostles
>    just insults my intelligence.  I am willing to concede the possibility
>    that if I had shared your outlook on the Bible and the apostles, then
>    your "correction" might have scored points with me; but then if I were
>    in that position I probably would not have written what I did in the
>    first place.  In any case, your "correction" simply doesn't give me
    
    Now isn't that exactly what I'm saying, if you shared my outlook,
    specifically that the Bible is a standard here, you may not have
    written that...so you did, introducing an idea that was actually
    offensive as a posture for examine scripture, IMO, and I responded to
    that and you were offended because I did!  But you KNEW that you were
    subject to evoke such a response from someone here, it seems.  WHY?
    
    
>    Maybe you feel that you have served God by doing that.  However, you
>    surely can't believe that by "correcting" me on the basis of an
>    assumption of yours that I don't share, I will see the "error" of my
>    ways and then view things like you do.  The theological diversity of
    
    No you've got me wrong.  You see I realize that no just you and I are
    involved here, but MANY "Read Only" Noters are hear, I think I'm
    obligated to speak the truth and speak to all untowards statements.
    
    So don't take it personally, but think of the others here please.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 49
    
    Let me add this...
    
    When I ask what standards are you subtly trying to impose, I would ask
    the same of our "resident Zen" noter if instead of commenting on
    compatibilities or contrasts, he tried to impose Zen standards on the
    file and became offended when challenged.  In terms of intra-christian
    debates, ie Catholic vs Gnostic we both have the bible as a standard
    and we can at least relate to that as our foundation.  But the Zenist
    or the Agnostic or the Hindu or the Jew, who don't necessarily share
    the foundation of New Testament Bible ideas as a foundation, must walk
    a narrower rope here in Christian Perspectives.  
    
    Again, I don't mean to be offensive but you also must be mindful of the
    domain you are addressing within.
    
    Playtoe

RE: .46

Playtoe,

>    In case you haven't been reading the previous notes...Someone, not I,
>    said that Catholics thought of "St Peter" as the first Pope...and that,

You're right, I hadn't read all the replies up to now.  I picked up the 
discussion around .42.  Sorry for misinterpreting your position...

Jim

    Over the last year and a half or so that this notes file has been in
    existence, I have been one of the more active participants here.  I
    have come to know a lot of other people here, electronically and
    sometimes in person.  Over time you come to know where others stand on
    a variety of issues, and you come to know their religious beliefs. 
    Sometimes people surprise you on specific issues, but in general you
    do come to associate certain beliefs with certain identifiable
    individuals.

    For example, I have learned that Mary Nelson, Jim Richard, and Bob
    Fleischer are Roman Catholics; that Richard Jones-Christie is a member
    of the Metropolitan Community Church; that Dave Dawson is a Southern
    Baptist; and that our resident Zen Buddhist has a name, and it is Mike
    Seabury.  This notes community isn't some amorphous mass of people, but
    a set of identifiable individuals with unique personalities and
    religious perspectives.  Now we all know that notes personas can often
    be inaccurate caricatures of the flesh and blood reality; but at least
    in some fashion we *can* come to identify the participants as unique
    individuals.  Sometimes these individuals anger, amuse, or inspire; in
    most cases, though, as long as we are listening and not just preaching
    to a crowd of faceless and anonymous noters, it is difficult not to
    form some kind of conception about them as individuals.

    As an active noter here in the past, I have reiterated many times my
    religious perspective and my views on the Bible.  I have perhaps taken
    for granted that other active participants here would know this
    implicitly, and I supposed I should be a little more humble and not
    assume that other regular contributers so easily associate my name with
    the views I have expressed here often.

    -- Mike

    inre .51
    
    The Roman Catholics and the Anglicans and other faiths as well do
    indeed regard Peter as the first 'head of the church' after the
    crucifixtion and resurection. This is from the statement by Christ
    when he said to Simon - "thou art Peter and on this rock I shall
    establish my church". Peter was also given the power/right what
    ever you call it to forgive sins... 'what you bind on earth shall
    be bound in heaven, and what you lose on earth, shall be losed in
    heaven'.
    
    and as to Mike and what ever standard he is imposing here, since he
    was one of the founders of the file, he is only maintaining the
    standard which was inherant in the file since the beginning. One thing
    that has been actively resisited since the file began is to impose
    a particular oreintation either theologically or Biblically on
    this file.
    
    Bonnie
    
    

    Re: .44
    
    Playtoe......your style in writing sure makes you sound bombastic.
    I've been trying to follow your thoughts....but.........
    
    Marc H.

    Playtoe,
    
    Perhaps you just can't see how bigoted your remarks on women are.  I
    suggest you try substituting the word black for women in those
    paragraphs to get an idea of how it feels to read them.
    
    I'm writing this a friendly way, Playtoe, because I really don't believe
    you realize how biased you are being.  Sometimes it takes being in
    someone else position to know.
    
    Ro
    

    Re: .47
    
    Well said Mike. My thoughts too...
    
    Marc H.

    .41
    
    Playtoe,
    
        The ideal of papal authority is not 'entrenched' in my life. I have
    made a conscious choice to be obedient to my church as part of my
    obedience to God. Where my ideas have been different than the church,
    I have sought to understand the church's positions and then accepted
    them. This may sound weak to you, but I believe it is what Christ 
    calls us to do and it has given me great peace.
    
        I don't believe the issue is really the papacy; the real issue is
    that anyone has a claim of authority, particularly in the areas of
    morals. It's easy to go "shopping" these days for moral relativism 
    where God's Word can be explained away into something more pleasing
    to one's desires for earthly pleasures. 
    
        The Pope, and the Roman Catholic Church is not willing to redefine
    the Word of God to make it easier for people to take the wide road to
    Hell without a twinge. Jesus said that His way was a narrow one. Left
    to ourselves, we would define Christian life in the way that is most
    pleasing to us; it takes a God-given authority to withstand the earthly
    pressures which even Christians adopt.
    
        Peace,
    
        Mary
    

    re: 53
    
    It just stands out the concern for "individuals" as opposed to the
    "collective"...you see how you give Mike certain consideration because
    of his "individual" role in starting the file, overriding the nature of
    the file that was started.  It shouldn't even be a point that Mike
    started the file, it belongs to the "collective"...just making an
    observation.
    
    I don't seek to "orientate" the file to any particular theology, or
    interpretation of Scripture, BUT being a Christian Perspective file the
    Bible MUST be a standard here, else we might as well call this file
    "Soapbox, Part II"!
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 54
    
    I understand that.  And considering the normal Western styles I'd have
    to agree.  But if you get over the "bombasticity" of the style or the
    context, and deal with the content, you'll be better able to follow,
    but still the ideas will be sort "bombastic" in themselves in
    comparision to traditional Western thought, and in that case, you'll
    need to deal with the "context" of Western thought vs others.  
    
    To help you, there are three classes of thought "Linear/Western",
    "Wholistic/African&some Oriental", and "Integrated/Egyptian&Early
    Greek(to a certain extent)".  Though the West has begun to move into
    the "Integrated" mode, with the development of "Systems", the masses
    and most schools haven't incorporated that modality into their
    educational programs, it's in the future though.
    
    People argue with me often because they don't think "systematically or
    integratedly", not because what I'm saying isn't true...they don't see
    things as I do...that sounds bombastic doesn't it?  But's it's true!
    
    Playtoe

Note 411.58

>    I don't seek to "orientate" the file to any particular theology, or
>    interpretation of Scripture, BUT being a Christian Perspective file the
>    Bible MUST be a standard here, else we might as well call this file
>    "Soapbox, Part II"!
    
Playtoe,

	It's a small thing, but it's a pet peeve of mine: the word is 'orient',
not 'orientate'.

	The Bible is *a* standard here, as I see it.  However, the Bible is
not *the* standard here.  There is a file where that is the case, if you'd
care to look into it.  Just press KP7 or type ADD ENTRY GOLF::CHRISTIAN
at the prompt.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: 55
    
>    I'm writing this a friendly way, Playtoe, because I really don't believe
>    you realize how biased you are being.  Sometimes it takes being in
>    someone else position to know.
    
    Sometimes it takes looking at it from the view of the collective effect
    it has!  See your concern for the "individual(s)" care, regardless of
    who it's good for, it's hurting "so and so" so it must cease...
    
    Black women, who've become Westernized agree with you, no doubt, but
    those who don't don't bother with the whole issue...so.  I've studied
    this for sometime and I'm not just speaking off the top of my head. 
    I'm showing clear examples of what I'm saying, it happens naturally
    everyday, but Western society has gone beyond the natural and created a
    world beyond...for the mere fact that it is not based on things natural
    it shall have to dissipate!  So it's not that anyone WISHES bad times
    on America, it's a warning against an inevitable reality.
    
    I don't want America to die...but who am to change the world, all I can
    do is what I am doing, in my small way.
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe (.59)
    
    I was going to enter this under the gender topic, but since you are
    saying you view things wholistically in your reply (.59), I'll enter it
    here!  One source regarding women's way of viewing community is found in
    Irene Claremont de Castillejo's KNOWING WOMAN:
    
    	Most children are born with, and many women retain, a diffuse
    	awareness of the wholeness of nature, where everything is linked with
    	everything and they feel themselves to be part of an individual whole. 
    	It is from this layer of the psyche which is not yet broken into parts
    	that come the wise utterances of children.  Here lies the wisdom of
    	artists, and the words and parables of prophets, spoken obliquely so
    	that only those who have ears to hear can hear, and the less mature
    	will not be shattered.
    
    Described in psychologial terms in de Castillejo's Jungian book this
    perspective of wholeness is observed as that of feminine consciousness, a 
    diffuse awareness, as opposed to the masculine consciouness, a focused
    consciousness.  Of course, the makeup of all human beings includes     
    both these consciousnesses, in general however, diffuse awareness is most 
    common in women.  Women tend to be more concerned with life's relation-
    ships, men with the hows and whys of various aspects of life.  Both 
    approaches are inadequate without the other.  Not viewing the world with 
    a sense of wholeness have brought our world into its present dilemmas. 

 	"The feminine half of the individual and of mankind has been in
	subjection to the masculine half, and is only now beginning to be
	liberated."

    Ro
    

    re 60 
    
    Thanks, I've added it.  Truly though not *the* standard, because we use
    the Apocrypha, Gnostic writings, etc, but necessarily *Christian*
    Perspectives, is this right?  Not Zen or Hindu or Agnostic writings, at
    least not as standards, right?
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe .63,
    
    	Well, I just re-read Note 1, and it doesn't even mention the
    Bible.  So, it is quite possible to have an exchange here without
    bringing in *any* outside texts, including the Bible.
    
    Richard

    Re: 64
    
    Ok, so no specific text is required;-)  Is that to say that the
    standard is not necessarily Christian either? 
    
    Does this file have any distinction from the Religion conference?
    
    Don't cut off your nose to spite your face now! ...just kidding.
    
    I mean just because #1 doesn't say the bible or any text, I think the
    term "Christian" automatically establishes the domain of texts which
    can be used as standards, but the Bible is invariably a centerpiece
    implied by Christian...right or wrong.
    
    And personally, I have only addressed "ideas".  If I get excited/upset
    it's over ideas and not persons.  Some people attach themselves to
    their ideas, yet on the contrary ideas attach themselves to me, I
    either hold them or let them go...but they by no means are me, just
    like a garment I put them on and off.  And I think in scripture "being
    naked" or "clothed" by God means wearing his ideas/principles etc.
    
    If you don't like my ideas/clothes you don't like my tailor...I don't
    take it personally though...I might just need a new tailor!

    re 57 
    
    Mary:
    
    With all respect and love for you as a Christian and of the body of
    Christ, I want to ask you a question.
    
>    obedience to God. Where my ideas have been different than the church,
 >   I have sought to understand the church's positions and then accepted
>    them. This may sound weak to you, but I believe it is what Christ 
>    calls us to do and it has given me great peace.
    
    In light of the above, if you had a "vision" which you sincerely
    believed to be given to you by God, (and in fact it was, though you were
    still unsure), and you went to the Bishop/Pope/head of the Catholic
    Church/any church leader for that matter, and they said to you that
    what you saw was a dream and the meaning is not compatible with the
    teachings of the Church, thus you are to disregard the vision.  What
    would you do?  
    
    Would you accept the position of the church?
    
    What do you think happens to the memory of the vision in your heart?
    
    Do you understand what schizophrenia is caused by?  The "unsolved
    riddle", the struggle between opposing ideas.  When I was coming up I
    use to hear it said quite often that if you get to far/deep into
    religion you'll go crazy...because it seems that a good number of black
    ministers used to seem bonkers in their later lives, and I'd say it was
    true.  But inspite of that, I got into religion deeply anyway.
    
    What I've found to be the reason for the insanity is the choices we
    make at the "crossroads", when God's Word in our own individual heart
    and understanding comes in conflict with society/traditional church and
    we abandon our personal truth for that of the society and/or
    traditional church.  We MUST stand on our "personal convictions"
    against ALL odds, and in the end we'll be allright, if for nothing that
    we faithfully held onto to what we honestly believed to be God's will. 
    Which if we changed because [anyone] else says so, we fail to follow
    our own hearts.
    
    Playtoe
    

Re: .65

>    Ok, so no specific text is required;-)  Is that to say that the
>    standard is not necessarily Christian either? 
    
Playtoe, there is no "standard" for this conference other than the conference
rules.  It's individuals that have standards, not the conference as a whole.
You are free to believe in the Bible as a standard and others are free to
disagree with you.

>    Does this file have any distinction from the Religion conference?
    
Yes.  RELIGION is for the discussion of all religions, and C-P is for the
discussion of Christianity, or topics related to Christianity.  That does
not mean that non-Christian points of view are not welcome here, or that
the opinions of Christians are given greater weight than the views of
non-Christians *as a matter of conference policy*.

				-- Bob

    re: 53
    
    >It just stands out the concern for "individuals" as opposed to the
    >"collective"...you see how you give Mike certain consideration because
    >of his "individual" role in starting the file, overriding the nature of
    >the file that was started.  It shouldn't even be a point that Mike
    >started the file, it belongs to the "collective"...just making an
    >observation.
    
    
    No, the point I was making was that Mike helped define the nature of
    the file that was started, he didn't over ride it.

    Re: 67
    
    You've neatly put your response in a context which makes it correct but
    you have changed the nature of the issue at hand in doing so.  Of
    course I realize that non-christian points of view are welcome here, as
    I spoke of the "resident Zen" noter, and the weight of any opinion is
    in it's coherence and truth, but as this is a basically Christian file,
    necessarily certain standards are implied, 1)in starting topics, 2)in
    the general progress of a discussion, for instance if we start out
    Christian and veer into UFO's you'll say take it to UFO's.  Now you
    might say that this is based upon conference rules in general, but
    necessarily you perceived the unChristian-related nature of the
    discussion because you do not find those ideas in any "Christian" central
    text, or as Christians we do not deal with say "the Seven Chakras".
    
    I think many arguments arise because people fail to understand or
    identify each others context...
    
    So much for this....
    
    Playtoe

    re: .66
    
    If I had a vision and took it to the Bishop, or a even my parish Priest
    and he said that it's contents were against Church teachings I would
    ask how it violated church teachings. I would seek to understand the
    church's teachings first and if the vision was contrary to church
    teachings (even if I did not accept the teachings), I would abandon
    the vision as something not from God. 
    
    Satan can also induce visions and ideas and therefore discernment is
    necessary. I do agree with you that Christians are given the Holy
    Spirit, but just as Jesus had to gain in wisdom, so do we. Therefore,
    it is good to have a spiritual advisor who is knowledgable in their
    faith and has wisdom.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    

Re: .70 Playtoe

>    So much for this....
    
OK, if you don't want to pursue this any further I won't try to rebut what
you said in .70.

				-- Bob

    RE: 71
    
    Then I reject your statement that it is not a question of "Papal
    Authority"!  I, personally, would have to leave that church, "Let every
    man be a liar, but God true".  And if *I* can't tell the difference
    between a satanic vision and a vision of God's then I really do need
    someone else to tell me what's going on in MY life.
    
    I might have peace with you, and peace with my family, and peace with
    my minister and church, but if I don't have peace within my soul I have
    not peace at all.  Heaven comes from within, not without.
    
    So, Mary, my topic here centers around the very thing you've admited
    to.  And that same scenario plays out not only in Catholic churches but
    in all the churches that separated from it.  Thus, I started this topic
    "Lingering Influences".  I have not intended to offend Catholics,
    though inadvertently they may be.  I have intended to inform Christians
    of all kinds of the influences that may possess them unawares,
    lingerances from the +1200 year domination of Christianity by the Roman
    Catholic church.
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth 

    Re: 72
    
    Bob, if you rebut it within the context that I'm speaking of then fine,
    but if you don't and I feel it will lead to greater disparagements then
    I may or may not respond.  If we're learning and growing I'll pursue it
    to the end, but if we're stuck in the mud, we're stuck in the mud take
    the foot off the gas, somebody's got to get out and start pushing or
    call the tow truck!
    
    Playtoe
    

    
	RE: .62 Ro
        
    
 	"The feminine half of the individual and of mankind has been in
	subjection to the masculine half, and is only now beginning to be
	liberated."

    
        Yes, and this liberation may come with a lot of upsetment for many
        people, but it has to occur for creation to continue.
    
    
    
    	Carole    

    
> 	"The feminine half of the individual and of mankind has been in
>	subjection to the masculine half, and is only now beginning to be
>	liberated."

	An interesting idea to be sure but not one that seems likely.

			Alfred

    
    
    Which part doesn't seem likely Alfred, the subjection or the
    liberation?
    
    Carole

>    Which part doesn't seem likely Alfred, the subjection or the
>    liberation?

	The subjection.

			Alfred

    RE: 75
    
> 	"The feminine half of the individual and of mankind has been in
>	subjection to the masculine half, and is only now beginning to be
>	liberated."
    
    I don't know, but I'd argue the opposite.  The Masculine has been in
    subjection to the feminine and is now beginning to be liberated.  Even
    from Adam and Eve, when Adam decided to stick with Eve after having
    caused the Fall (I'm saying this because that's the way the story goes
    in the Bible, not because I'm trying to grind an axe), man has been in
    subjection to the women.  He was bound by love to her, "flesh of my
    flesh, bone of my bone", and regardless of what the women does, the man
    is bound to accept her with "due benevolence"...I mean after a causing
    a problem like that, I've always have a problem with why Adam didn't
    ask for a new mate!  But the bible is a book of love and that was LOVE
    that made Adam continue with her...God bless his soul.  As a result, it
    seems likely that from that point on the women felt an advantage over
    the man, knowing that he ultimately loved her so much she could get
    away with anything, thus the man was in "subjection" to the woman.
    
    In another light, the ancients have always spoke of the physical body
    in the "feminine" and the inner man/spiritual man in the "masculine",
    and this is equatable with the masculine God, in that "God is a
    Spirit".  As such the Spirit of Man has been in subjection to the
    flesh, the physical body, the "feminine" part...and only now, through
    Christ is the Spirit gaining "liberation" from the Flesh, "Sin is
    condemned in the Flesh", is equatable to the statement in the NT, where
    it speaks something about "Adam did not sin, Eve sinned, being beguiled
    by the serpent," therefore condemning the Fall of Man in Eve...all of
    this being an allegory of the first principles of life, positive and
    negative energy.
    
    So again I say that Paul, God, and whomever in scripture speaks of the
    male and female are doing so on a level beyond the mundane reality of
    which we partake of today, in "modern times" or in history.  These
    things have cosmic implications and whether you agree with them in your
    personal life, we should still believe them on a cosmic and universal
    level.
    
    Playtoe

Playtoe,

	I understand and accept that you reject the authority of the
Roman Catholic Church.

	At the same time, I understand and accept that Mary embraces
the authority of the Roman Catholic Church.

	I will not attack nor defend either position.  On this issue,
I shall not attempt to sway or change anyone's mind.  And I encourage all
others noting here to do the same.

Richard

    Hmmmm, Playtoe, so you really believe that mankind is in subjection to
    the feminine.  Is that why in Africa and other countries (as you admit
    yourself in the following quote) are mutilating women by the millions?
    
<<    sex we are born with, and that is why (in Africa at least) we have
    circumcision and excision, to cut the male part off of the female and
    female part off the male, which helps the individual make the
    adjustment.<<
    
    That brutality to me symbolizes just how great the fear of the feminine
    is that it has to be completely cut out (circumcision does not cut off
    the male organ, to my knowledge) with excision.  Seems to be those
    cultures are deciding the way God created women was wrong and they're
    taking it in their hands to change it or in many cases destroy it by
    the bleeding to death of these women!!  All in the name of religion,
    you say???   
    
    Ro
    
    

    re: .83
    
    Playtoe,
    
        I do believe that I would know the differences between a satanic
    vision and one from God. I was going by your premise that there would
    be a case where whatever pleasing (I take it) vision that I had was
    contrary to Church teachings.
    
        In a way, I believe this does happen all the time (now that I think
    of it). It happens by enjoying something that is pleasing to the flesh
    and being duped by that into thinking that God must be equally pleased.
    ("How can _______ be wrong if it makes me so happy?")
    
        In fact, I've known and lived such "visions" and stood fast against
    God on many things all the while my life, full of 'pleasure' went
    downhill fast in every way. It was only when I accepted obedience to
    God's Word (as interpreted by my Church) did I discover true liberation.
    
        I know in my own personal experience all the reasons to be against
    Church authority. There was the time when I looked upon the Church and
    it's hierarchy as a bunch of puritanical old men who only wished to
    imposed their own hang-ups on everyone else. I insisted on my own ways
    and an extremely liberal view of Christianity. All the freedoms that
    I game myself eventually brought me only misery and into a deep
    personal crisis.
    
        It was at that point that I accepted Jesus as my Lord and Savior
    and allowed Him to have the ability to define my freedoms. For several
    years I was still not that open to the Church or it's authority. In
    reading the Bible, I was convicted again and again and sought
    forgiveness and strength for conversion. During this time I considered
    myself Christian yet I was still wary of all Churches.
     
        Finally, however, I was given another conversion experience when I
    read about the apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary in Medjugorje,
    Yugoslavia. During prayer, I heard the Lord say one word, "Obedience",
    and with that word came everything that I needed to know in an instant.
    I had 'tailored' Christianity to my own liking, but what God
    wished was for me to return to my Church and to be obedient to Her.
    
        In the years since, I have discovered true liberation, true
    happiness and the truth of my faith beyond any expectation or hope.
    Perhaps I wish this too intently for others and it comes out in
    unintended debates and notesfile 'arguements'. I am still learning
    how to defend the Faith and Church I love in the best way.
    
    Peace of Jesus,
    
    Mary
    
     
    

    Re: 80
    
    If the truth in my ideas "sway" another to change, that's expected, but
    I do not harass and repeatly chase people.  I'm a warner and informer.
    That is my right and DUTY as a Christian.  I backed away once she made
    it clear that she understood where I was coming from but wanted to do
    it as she has been doing...that's OK.  
    
    I do appreciate your comments, and I do take them seriously.
    
    Playtoe

    I am persuaded by the UU Theologian James Luther Adams(who is one of
    the 20% of UU's who considers himself a liberal Christian) who
    identifies God with the "creative, redemptive, transforming, judging"
    force with the universe.  I personally experience this force as being
    available to me.  Adams also uses the terms "the Intimate" and the
    "Ultimate" to define two aspects of this force.  I interpret that as
    the Divine who resides within each of us and the Divine who is beyond
    each of our individual identities.
    
    I believe that all gods are One God and all Goddess are one Goddess. 
    That this divine force, both male and female and neither male nor
    female.  This "I am" that humans can never truly know.  Depending on
    our culture and when in History we live and what sacred books we use
    for our standard, we have the allegory, the metaphor, and the myth
    available to help us understand and relate to the divine.  Because one
    aspect of the Divine resides in each of us, if we are truly centered
    and seek through prayer, meditation, yoga, whatever, we can allow this
    higher power to transform our lives. There is much debate about the
    true nature of the divine but there is really very little debate about
    the true nature of "Goodness"  honesty, acceptance, kindness, respect,
    peacefulness, love etc are universally accepted.  "By the fruits ye
    shall be judged."
    
    I know that the Divine resides within me.  To me it is indifferent
    whether I call this Divine, God, Christ, the Holy Spirit, my conscious,
    my super ego, my wonder child, my higher power or any other term.
    This force within me needs to be cultivated and made available to me at
    all times.  It is the same thing whether I look to my inner most self
    for answers or I look to my inner most "God"
    
    As I believe that this force participates also in "the Ultimate"  I
    know this force is also greater than the self as well.  
    
    This "Intimite Force" is the standard upon which I measure both
    Church "authority" and  Scripture.  That is the standard by which I can
    accept parts of Scripture as sacred and inspiring and other parts as
    being false and not deserving of inspiration.  
    
    This does not sound too different to me than Paul's describing the Holy
    Spirit as available to him.  The direct revelation of the Holy Spirit
    to each of us that truly seeks it.
    
    Pat
    

    RE: 84
    
    
>    This "Intimite Force" is the standard upon which I measure both
>    Church "authority" and  Scripture.  That is the standard by which I can
>    accept parts of Scripture as sacred and inspiring and other parts as
>    being false and not deserving of inspiration.  
    
>    This does not sound too different to me than Paul's describing the Holy
>    Spirit as available to him.  The direct revelation of the Holy Spirit
>    to each of us that truly seeks it.
    
    That's all I'm saying.  The ultimate authority lies within us, and not
    outside of us.  Every man is just as limited as the next to comprehend
    the infinite reality of God's Word...there's just no sense in putting
    100% credibility in another person...the ultimate decision is mine to
    make.  I don't care how many guns are too my head, how jobs I'm
    threatened with loosing, *I* make the decision to succeed or fail. 
    Others may offer advice and guidance, and I'm take that into
    consideration, but I will not make any decision based upon fear, fear
    of excommunication, or imprisonment, or death, but only out of love for
    God and my Self and the brotherhood.
    
    It's simple ...
    
    Playtoe

re Note 411.83 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

>     I do not harass and repeatly chase people.  I'm a warner and informer.
  
        Speaking as a moderator:  if you say it once, that's
        consistent with "I'm a warner [sic] and informer."

        If you repeat it, you are chasing.

        If you repeat it over and over with increasingly strong
        language, that's harassment per se regardless of the content.

        Bob

    re 86
    
    Wow...seems like everyone is a mod or co-mod.
    
    I tell you, signing that title really has no effect on me...I'm a mod
    as well in another file.  I know the rules, why do you think you folks
    have such a hard time determining the legitimacy of my notes!  I've
    broken no rules, but if you can find a way that "implies" that I did
    you will and that's what you search for...I'm waiting.
    
    This is so petty!  And doesn't help matters one bit...nor do I plan to
    stop noting here!  
    
    God bless..
    
    Playtoe