Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    True confessions!  Phew!
    
    Waaaaal, I think the word 'agenda' is overused and usually employed as
    a way to avoid addressing the subject matter or engaging someone in
    honest debate.   To say that someone is pushing a personal or political
    'agenda' via the expression of his/her own spirituality is a way of
    avoidance by getting personal.
    
    P.
     

 

   There is something wrong with having an agenda ?  It is curious
 that conservative Christians who are so vocal about and so diligent
 at working their own agenda act so outraged that liberal Christians
 also have an agenda of their own.

   Is it possible for someone to be a Christian, either liberal or
 conservative, and not have an agenda ? 

   Somehow the word, "agenda" has picked up a very negative connotation
 in the past few years. It is pretty funny to be accused of having an
 agenda if you think about it. Basically you are being accused of having
 a list of things to accomplish. As if there were something unethical
 about planning and organization. 

    Personally I would prefer that those groups whose views I oppose
 did not have an agenda. I would feel much better knowing that they
 were not very well organized.

                                                            
                                                               Mike
 

    I thought an agenda had to do with whether you were male or female. 
    :-)
    
    -- Mike

    re  .2
    
    'Agenda' becoming a dirty word.  That has happened, I agree.  Much like
    the word 'rhetoric,' which has also become a negative word.
    
    P.
    

    Re.4

    Paul:
    
         Considering that rhetoric is the art of using language effectively
        I am actually flattered when I am accused of, "rhetoric". Not too
        long ago is was considered to be a gap in your education if you
        hadn't studied rhetoric.
         
          Public Speaking ( Rhetoric ) was a required freshman core course
        at the college I attended. The ability to speak to speak eloquently
        and persuasively was stressed as vital skill that we would need in
        our careers and this has in fact turned out to be quite true. 

                                                               Mike

    re  .5
    
    Yup, Mike, this is what I was getting at, and I agree completely.
    
    Thanks
    Paul
    

    My agenda is to share that good news that we have all been saved by the
    death of Jesus who is God and who will come again in glory.

    RE  .7   Thank you, Patrick, I have read the gospels, and more than
    once, and if you have anything else to share, I'm all ears.  Share
    away.
    
    ;)  Paul
    

It has become increasingly apparent to me, Mr. John Covert, that you have an
agenda that is less than supportive of CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE, its concept, its
purpose, and its composition.

If, indeed, that is the case, may I ask why?

Peace,
Richard

Why?

Christians are called to proclaim the Good News that Jesus is God.

/john

        John, re: Note 482.10      

| Christians are called to proclaim the Good News that Jesus is God.

  Wasn't it the good news of the kingdom that Jesus told us to preach?
    see Matthew 24:14
    
      robin

    .10  In other words, you'd be happy as a clam and change your tone in
    this conference to a more benevolent one, if only all would share your
    doctrine about the divinity of Jesus?
    
    Something tells me that that is not entirely true.
    
    No further questions though.  Thanks, anyway.
    
    Richard
    

>| Christians are called to proclaim the Good News that Jesus is God.
>
>  Wasn't it the good news of the kingdom that Jesus told us to preach?
>    see Matthew 24:14

The Good News of the Kingdom is this:  God became incarnate flesh, died
for our sins, was raised from the dead, and took our human nature with
him into heaven.

/john

               John,      re:Note 482.13 
      
|    >| Christians are called to proclaim the Good News that Jesus is God.
|>
|>  Wasn't it the good news of the kingdom that Jesus told us to preach?
|>    see Matthew 24:14

|The Good News of the Kingdom is this:  God became incarnate flesh, died
|for our sins, was raised from the dead, and took our human nature with
|him into heaven.
    
    John, this is going way off base for this base note. I just want to
    say I disagree with your definition.  
                                            robin

>|The Good News of the Kingdom is this:  God became incarnate flesh, died
>|for our sins, was raised from the dead, and took our human nature with
>|him into heaven.
>    
>    I just want to say I disagree with your definition.  

You're right.  Concerned with the Christology, which is our dispute, I left
off the thing we agree on:  Because of Jesus's life and death, we are able to
inherit the kingdom and have everlasting life.

All of this and more is important, but "Jesus is God" is the litmus test for
Christianity.  "Jesus is God" is the essence of Christianity.

/john

    re: .15, John,
    
    Your admitted agenda of imposing a "litmus test for doctrine" on
    others in this file is a violation of the spirit, if not the letter,
    of this file.    I suggest that the mods add something like "openness"
    as a requirement -- or at least a guideline... just as 
    GOLF::CHRISTIAN has Biblical supremacy as a guideline -- that cannot 
    even be questioned in that file.
    
    I have no problem with *your* believing in a litmus test; but I
    strongly object to your repeated attempts to browbeat everyone here
    into agreeing with you (and with all those others throughout history
    who share your doctrinal point of view).
    
    Oh, and by the way, it sure doesn't sound like *good* news the way
    you present it here.
    
    Nancy

    John .10,
    
    re: your agenda.
    
    > Christians are called to proclaim the Good News that Jesus is God.
    
    In case you haven't noticed, people are rapidly walking out or turning
    a deaf ear to your style of preaching the Good News.  There is indeed 
    good news in the Good News (!), but imo, your style of delivery is 
    totally eclipsing it.  
    
    If you have a truth and the Good News to share, I strongly recommend 
    adjusting your delivery -- balance your directness and passion with 
    compassion, before you wind up sharing your good news with dead air 
    and no one, save God, as your witness. 
    
    Karen   

    Re: .17 &.16
    
    Well said! I agree totally.
    
    As a point of imformation, I tend to agree with most of the comments
    made by Covert,Collis, and Pat S., however, I find their delivery
    and "attack dog" style turns me off to the message.
    
    Can't you see that people can disagree with you and *still* have a
    Christian Perspective?
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .16, .17, .18
    
    			Let me add my voice to the last three comments. 
    Though I do tend to agree on content, I wonder at the delivery also.
    Any information about Christ that cannot be coupled with love and
    compassion, IMHO ought to be kept within the confines of your Church.
    Without a doubt, these styles have 'turned' several people off from
    what is important.  I cannot imagine why "tough love" seems to be the
    accepted way for witnessing.  It has long proved ineffective and was
    not practiced by Christ in the Bible *I* read.  I do suggest a book 
    and system called "EE".
    
    
    Dave

Re:  482.18
    
  >As a point of imformation, I tend to agree with most of the comments
  >made by Covert,Collis, and Pat S., however, I find their delivery
  >and "attack dog" style turns me off to the message.

For some reason, I believed my style to have signifcant differences
from John Covert's.  Perhaps I'm wrong.

Collis

    RE: .20  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    			 Oops...sorry! :-)  EE=Evanglism Explosion by Dr.
    Kennedy.
    
    Dave

    
    I appreciate Patrick's and John's style.  They are straightforward,
    direct and brief.  Lighten up folks.  There are different types of
    people in the world with different styles.  Please value this
    difference (what you perceive as a difference).
    
    Richard, I do not appreciate your style at all.  You consistently make
    sarcastic remarks and then act bewildered if anyone brings them to your
    attention.  In effect, you say nothing since you'll be accountable for
    nothing.  However, I would not shut you up nor even suggest it.
    
    There are many others whose styles I do not appreciate.  Again, it is
    not something I would try to change about them for it is fruitless
    anyway.  If anything is apparent, people in this conference (or any
    other) do not change anything at any time publicly.
    
    If someone did an objective study of the complaints concerning replies, 
    tenor of replies, kindness expressed, etc. in this conference I believe
    that there first acknowledgement would be that there is a difference
    between those that are Bible-based Christians and those that are not.
    Then they would find, IMO, that those that are not Bible-based Christians
     have a hard time disecting, discussing and examining facts.  Then they
    would find that overwhelmingly the nonBible-based  Christians have
    adopted relativism as their philosophy and are generally concentrating
    on feelings, social issues, past grievances with the church and so on.
    
    You can give your own scenarios about the Bible-based Christians as I'm
    sure mine would not measure up ;)
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 482.23 by FATBOY::BENSON >>>



| Then they would find, IMO, that those that are not Bible-based Christians
| have a hard time disecting, discussing and examining facts.  Then they
| would find that overwhelmingly the nonBible-based  Christians have
| adopted relativism as their philosophy and are generally concentrating
| on feelings, social issues, past grievances with the church and so on.

	Jeff, I really like your style. You are so to the point! It's too bad
it seems to be under the word judging. I guess I find it difficult to imagine
how you can come to this conclusion based on your replies to other people. To
say what you did above makes me wonder if there is any compassion for your
fellow person. If this is love, then please, let me out. 

	I think you've pretty much insulted anyone who you feel isn't a Bible
based Christian, who's left?




Glen

    Glen,
    
    Thank you!  
    
    A narrow reading of my entry does not imply judging on my
    part (as if judging were a sin or something).  I have an opinion.  I
    know myself and my "style".  As long as I am free to express it I will
    (but within the context that I will be accountable for my words to God,
    in person, after I die).  Some I'll be ashamed of but it won't be
    because I called a spade a spade or because I ruffled the feathers of
    the "everything implied or even said that might be unpleasant to someone 
    must be avoided" people.
    
    jeff
    
    

    Suddenly I have this image of the Tower of Babel and of all the
    different tongues - and out of the masses, coming floating over all is
    Lennon's song, Lennon's song so sweetly sung - "Imagine all the people
    ... imagine all the people if there wasn't a God, Oh Oh"
    
    And what a calming came over me as I pushed aside my keyboard, closed
    my eyes and listened to the message ...

    Good to see you again, Ron!  I was just thinking of you and Dot but
    a half hour ago. :-)
    
    Karen

    RE: .24
    
    Glen, Jeff insulted non-Bible believing people in several exchanges he
    made with me.  I realize that he is a Bible-Believing Christian, and
    recognize that, as such, he does not have the faculty to do any
    different.  It seems to come with the territory.  However, because I
    recognize that quality about him, I have decided to ignore it as much
    as I can, and just try to listen to whatever else he has to say, as he
    is obviously being sincere.  It might help if you can find it in you to
    do the same.  
    
    Mike
                    

	Jeff, reread my note. I never said that it did imply judging, but it
seemed like it did. I was hoping you would clear it up.



Glen

    .29
    
    You're so kind Mike!
    
    jeff

    Jeff .19,
    
    I'd like to comment on the same text Glen highlighted:
    
    > If someone did an objective study....they would find, IMO, that 
    > those that are not Bible-based Christians have a hard time 
    > disecting, discussing and examining facts.
    
    First, I don't believe it's accurate to divide the Christians in C-P 
    into two camps called Bible-based and not Bible-based.  All Christians 
    (that I know of) in this file are "Bible-based," by that I mean the 
    Bible plays a central role in their theological understandings.
    We've discussed this at great length in this conference, what name 
    would be accurate in describing these two groups.  Liberal and 
    Conservative (or mainline) seem to be the general consensus. 
    
    Now regarding your point...
    
    If someone did conduct an objective study, they'd find that both
    these groups display _equal_ ability at disecting, discussing and 
    examining facts.  This person would note, however, that each side 
    differs in their frames of reference, or context in which the 
    examination is performed:  one group favors biblical absolutism, the 
    other biblical relativism. 
    
    > Then they would find that overwhelmingly the nonBible-based 
    > Christians have adopted relativism as their philosophy and are 
    > generally concentrating on feelings, social issues, past grievances 
    > with the church and so on.
    
    One's theology, whether one is liberal or conservative, is 
    inextricably woven throughout one's feelings, the social issues one 
    experiences, and past grievances, with the church and any other person 
    or institution one may have grievances with.  This is what it is to 
    be human.  
    
    Theology, in its transcendental aspect, imo, is intended to _infuse_ 
    these mundane realities with a presence and awareness of the Divine 
    in order to resolve, reconcile, and heal any wounds which exist that 
    seperate or fracture one's relationship with God, which is also 
    realized through our relationship with others.  (...When you do this 
    to the least of my brethren, you do it to me...)  Revelation and 
    inspiration, two basic cornerstones of all theologies, also seek to do 
    the same -- infuse an experience of the Divine into and throughout the 
    mundane world of human affairs.
    
    The very heart of Jesus' teachings brought this Divine presence to bear 
    into a mundane world of human activity 2000 years ago.  The primary 
    "mission" of Jesus, then and now, imo, is to establish God's Kingdom 
    on earth, and the way He chose/has chosen to accomplish this is to 
    help infuse feelings, social issues, past grievances, and all 
    relationships with an experience and awareness of the Divine.  
    
    Only then is radical transformation into the Spirit possible.  Only 
    then is the deeper meaning of the Eucharist revealed and understood.  
    Only then can the establishment of _God's Kingdom on Earth_ be 
    realized.
    
    Imo,
    
    Karen

    Jeff, I call them as I see them.  Notice I didn't say you are a bad
    person, or that everything you have to say is not worthwhile reading.
    Nothing as mean-spirited as that.  Your obvious love for the Bible and
    what it represents comes shining through quite clearly, as does your
    desire to teach.  All I did was point out that you have a clear
    preference for people who are Bible-believing Christians, and your
    writings tend to indicate that you don't think as much of people who
    aren't of the Bible-believing persuasion.  If that offends you, then I
    am sorry.  That was not my intent.
    
    Mike
                                      

   RE: .23   Jeff,

<    If someone did an objective study of the complaints concerning replies, 
<    tenor of replies, kindness expressed, etc. in this conference I believe
<    that there first acknowledgement would be that there is a difference
<    between those that are Bible-based Christians and those that are not.

   I do not accept that is true.  I does stand up to some to reasoning as
   that already identifies a point of difference.  It however attributes
   the behavours to the wrong things.  It is pre-conclusion with study to
   support that conclusion.

<    Then they would find, IMO, that those that are not Bible-based Christians
<     have a hard time disecting, discussing and examining facts.  Then they
<    would find that overwhelmingly the nonBible-based  Christians have
<    adopted relativism as their philosophy and are generally concentrating
<    on feelings, social issues, past grievances with the church and so on.
    
   I acknowledge there are significant differences of opinion between
   strict Bible based theology and any other that may exist.  I'm surprized
   that you would opine that non-Bible based people are incapable as a group
   of disecting and discussing facts.  That statement while your opinion is
   a rather hard generality to accept and labels people badly.  

   It comes down to simple things like believing the english translation(s)
   Bible are infalable.  If you don't believe that, it opens up what one
   calls facts to scrutiny.  Facts are always debatable, several that come
   to mind are; the world is flat and the speed of sound cannot be exceeded.
   Those were believed to be facts at one time and there was data as it 
   was understood then as proofs support it.  This has been the core of
   many a discussion here.  The idea that we would support that dissenting
   discussion here is the foundatation of this Notesfile.

   Peace,
   Allison

    .28 Karen,
    
    	That entry was *outstanding*!
    
    Richard

| <<< Note 482.29 by SOLVIT::MSMITH "So, what does it all mean?" >>>




	Mike, I do agree with what you said in .29 and I will try and take your
advice.



Glen

    My agenda:
    
    I believe in God, the Father almighty,
       creator of heaven and earth.
    
    I believe in Jesus Christ, his only Son, our Lord.
       He was conceived by the power of the Holy Spirit
          and born of the Virgin Mary.
       He suffered under Pontius Pilate,
          was crucified, died, and was buried.
       He descended to the dead.
       On the third day he rose again.
       He ascended into heaven,
          and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
       He will come again to judge the living and the dead.
    
    I believe in the Holy Spirit,
       the holy catholic Church*,
       the communion of saints,
       the forgiveness of sins,
       the resurrection of the body,
       and the life everlasting. Amen.
    
    *meaning the universal Christian church - all believers in Jesus Christ
    
    --------------------------------
    
    Well, ideally that's my agenda.
    
    Eric