Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re .0

        Richard,

        Jesus made these statements with good reason for many would claim
        verbally to be Christian but their fruit would bear witness wether
	they are or not.

        Eventhough it is a sign of the time we are living in, sadly many
        professed Christians have lost their lives in wars this century
        fighting and killing their own brothers in other lands. This is
        not the fruitage of those who would have intense love for one
        another, John 13:34,35, Matt 24:7. And yet nothing as changed today,
        Chaplins will still send out the troops pitting professed Christian
        against professed Christian, 1 John 3:11-15 shows the seriousness of
        how this is seen in God's eyes. One could say it's like the blind
        leading the blind. This would indicate that principalled love is
        not being taught by many of the churches as Jesus commanded that it
        should be, Matt 28:20, John 13:34.

        However, there must be some professed Christians who bear good fruit.
        Jesus did say he would be with them until "the conclusion of the
        system of things." Matt 28:20 NWT.

	Phil.

    It's a tough issue, that of Love, particularly in this world. Christian
    leaders do have criteria for a 'just war'; in the ultimate sense, all
    war is injust, but it can be a greater act of love to free a people 
    from extermination than to sit back and watch it happen without taking
    any effective action against it.
    
    Those who come to the aid of their fellow man and put their life on the
    line in doing so (police, military, family member) in a correct act of 
    force are doing as Jesus did in sacrificing themselves for their brother. 
    There is no greater love than such self-sacrifice to save another.
    
    I think, today, of the recent stories of 'Death Camps' in Bosnia where
    it is reported that thousands have died. I wonder how bad will it have
    to get, how many thousands of deaths, before it becomes a necessity
    to end the evil of this.
    
    The Christian should be vigilant in prayer and fasting and to avoid 
    and oppose unjust conflicts; on the other hand, we have to look at
    the violence happening against peoples of the world as if they were
    our family member or neighbor and do our best to stop the bloodshed
    and atrocities as best as possible, and sometimes this will mean war.
    
    If everyone were willing to live their lives producing the good fruit,
    the fruits of the Holy Spirit, then these conflicts would never be
    occuring in the first place. If everyone was converting, praying,
    and fasting than wars could be stopped without any interventions, but
    if people are not willing to do this with faith, then there will be
    the need for interventions. Also, without God in the people's lives,
    the peace that results will either be injust in itself or it will not
    be maintained.
    
    Mary
    

Note 9.271

>>As Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

>I suggest you read the rest of that chapter, where our Lord talks about false
>prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, casting pearls before swine, and the wide
>and easy road that leads to destruction.

Will we not know these, too, by their fruits?

I suspect so.

Peace,
Richard

We are called to love God and to love our fellow man.

Love does not mean simply being "nice."

Jesus was always loving, but was not always nice.  He was very clear about
what was right and what was wrong.

He called people to follow the narrow road.

/john

    .4 John,
    
    What a distortion!
    
    We're *still* known by the quality of our fruit.
    
    Richard

What is a distortion?

    It's a denial that one can love the sinner and hate the sin.
    
    We're called by Jesus to repent and to preach the good news that He has
    died for our sins.
    
    Is that common ground for this conference, apart from what is and isn't
    sin?

Note 505.4

>We are called to love God and to love our fellow man.

I presume you mean all human beings.

>Love does not mean simply being "nice."

Here's the distortion, John.  Nobody here has claimed that love means simply
being "nice."  Where are you getting this from?

>Jesus was always loving, but was not always nice.  He was very clear about
>what was right and what was wrong.

I'm not so certain that either of these statements are entirely correct.  But
I take it you are saying that in your own way you are demonstrating God's love,
correct?

And if so, you believe you are genuinely bringing forth good fruit even though
it may not come across as sounding very "nice."  Correct?

>He called people to follow the narrow road.

Jesus did not, however, call anyone to possess a narrow mind.

Richard

Jesus called people to follow the narrow road.

>Jesus did not, however, call anyone to possess a narrow mind.

It appears the "agenda" of this conference is to apply the label "narrow-minded"
to those who profess and proclaim that Christianity is defined by the belief
that Jesus is God.

I oppose that agenda.

/john

    .9  Wrong again, John.
    
    It is not the agenda of this conference to apply the label
    "narrow-minded" to those who profess that Christianity is defined by
    the belief that Jesus is God.  Neither is it the agenda of this
    conference to label anybody else!!
    
    I have not labelled you "narrow minded," as you have implied I have,
    anymore than you were labelling me as a false prophet, a wolf in
    sheep's clothing, etc., in note 505.3.
    
    Furthermore, my voice is hardly "this conference."
    
    I merely made the observation that the narrow road does not necessitate
    a narrow mind.  You apparently agree, but God forbid that you should admit
    such a thing.
    
    I did notice how the rest of my note was evaded.
    
    Richard

    My $.02,

   The title of the base note, if using strict interpertation out of
   context then:

   	Fruit is ripened seed bearing part of the plant.  It is also 
   	used to refer to the outcome of our labors. 

   Using that concept as the base then, the quote is referencing either
   how our children turn out or how WE(the collective world) have raised
   them.

   Peace,
   Allison

    Re: .9,
    
    > It appears the "agenda" of this conference is to apply the label
    "narrow-minded" to those who profess and proclaim that Christianity is
    defined by the belief that Jesus is God. <
    
    You're grasping at straws, John.
    
    Karen

    Allison,
    
    	It could be construed that "fruit" somehow refers to children.  I've
    never understood it to pertain strictly to children or their upbringing,
    but I know some do.
    
    	A placard where I used to chaplain uses it in the sense I understand
    it:  God wants spiritual fruits, not religious nuts!
    
    ;-)
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re: .-1 "religious nuts"
    
    Is this the sort of hostility that people are complaining about here?

    RE: .7  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    >It's a denial that one can love the sinner and hate the sin.
    
    	
    	I am in a bit of shock at this statement.  If God created all souls
    and God loves all of them then how can we set ourselves up as thinking
    that we cannot love as God loves.  We are commanded to.  No, we don't
    always succeed but try we must.  It also bothers me a bit to not love
    someone that God loves....it's almost as if I know more than God if I
    take that attitude.
    
    
    Dave

    I do not understand your "shock".  I do not understand the point you
    are raising by replying "...how can we set ourselves up as thinking
    that we cannot love as God loves".  I do not understand what "bothers"
    you in the context of my statement here.
    
    I love God. I love my neighbor.
    I love the sinner.  I hate the sin.
    God loves the sinner.  God hates the sin.

    RE: .16  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    		Now I am confused.  Your "it's a denial..." and your .16
    seem to me to be at odds with each other.  If I am understanding you
    wrong then could you explain it further?  BTW...I agree with your .16.
    
    
    Dave

    Patrick,
    
    re: .7:
    
    > It's a denial that one can love the sinner and hate the sin.
    
    re: .16:
    
    > I love the sinner. I hate the sin.
    
    These statements don't make sense unless you are communicating that
    you are in denial.... ??
    
    Karen 

        Jesus called the Pharisees "hypocrites" and "vipers" because they
    were not properly shepherding His people and were spiritually proud.
    He also ransacked the temple courtyard.
    
        Jesus demonstrates that even strong words and a bit of disruption is
    still an act of love if it is counteracting sin and done with the
    intention of returning the sinner to God. It is a tough love, to be
    sure, but it is love to admonish and correct the sinner. 
    
        God does not allow sin to be in His midst, but He always welcomes back
    the repentant sinner. We are the ones that establish 'roadblocks' to
    His love through our sin; St John the Baptist told us to prepare for
    Jesus' coming through repentance and conversion so as to welcome Him.
    If this were not important in order to receive God more fully then
    why is it a highlighted and major event in Christ's life?  St. John
    was beheaded by Herod because his call to repent was so disturbing
    and unaccepted.
    
        Spiritual pride does not recognize any other authority and therfore
    easily rejects the need to be obedient. Herod rejected God's authority
    outright; the Pharisees were deaf and blind when they encountered Jesus
    who fulfilled their Law. 
    
        Therefore, the fact that one person attempts to correct another
    should not warrent criticism; what should be the focus is if the
    correction was a valid one based on our Christian teachings. Scripture
    and the teachings of our religions should be the guides here, not the
    natural emotional response to corrections. The emotional response will
    always be negative to any correction, but a Christian should go beyond 
    the emotion and discern the Christian merits. It is always love which
    brings Truth, even if it is intially painful. 
    
    Peace,
    
    Mary
    
     

    RE: .19  Mary,
    
    
    			Your right, but how about all the times he redeemed
    with love and caring?  There are far more times when he showed love
    with compassion and understanding.  Why is it so important to take only
    the times he showed anger?  
    
    
    Dave

    I agree, Mary .19.  And I agree, Dave .20.
    
    Surely a parent who only corrects builds no positive bond with the child.
    
    A solid and healthy bond is the fruit of a good relationship, is it
    not?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    A lot of .19 is, I believe objectively wrong because it isn't
    recounting the Bible correctly, and I believe more strongly
    subjectively wrong because of the emphasis of conflict (anger and
    disruption) over dialog.

    For the objective part, 20th century readers of the Bible love to hate
    villains and see the Pharisees as great villains.  They weren't.  The
    Pharisees as a whole devout and dedicated themselves to the
    preservation of the Jewish faith when many Jews adopted Greek ways, and
    later Roman ways. Joseph of Arimathea was a Pharisee and a disciple of
    Jesus as well.

    Jesus uses the word "hypocrite" to address all people many times, and
    specifically to address the Pharisees who acted in fulfillment of
    prophecy and put him to the test.

    It is not devotion or defense of faith that makes one a hypocrite, but
    the hypocrisy itself, and in particular quibbling over the will of God
    (Matthew 15, for example, where Pharisees do not support their aged
    parents.)

    Unwinding from a earlier misunderstanding, I characterized the
    insistence upon absolute acceptance of sin and sinner a denial of the
    belief that we can love the sin and hate the sinner.

    It's subjectively wrong to use coercion.  Everyone wants to clean out
    the temple, but the temple is not the world.  Before a Samaritan town
    that refused to welcome Jesus, the Apostles James and John asked Jesus
    "Lord, would you not have us call down fire from heaven to destroy
    them?"  (Luke 9:54)

    Such a suggestion from James and John earned a rebuke from Jesus, and
    the only thing that Jesus otherwise rebukes were demons...  Jesus does
    not forgive the townspeople but just moves on.
                                                  

    re: last few
    
        I brought up the statements of Jesus, "hypocrite, viper", etc., not 
    to focus on them, but to show that they exist and that it is sometimes
    a necessary act of love to challenge and reprove another. The early
    entries in this topic did not seem to accept that this could be the 
    case.
    
        Of course, I believe that Jesus maintained the dialogue even as He
    corrected others; he did not make these statements as a 'curse' and
    he did not 'write off' these people. In fact, he went out of his way
    to be in the company of sinners. When he corrected others he tried to
    make them understand. 
    
        In a sense, the divisions between the Pharisees' views of God and 
    those of Jesus and His disciples are similar to the state of our own
    religious differences today. Jesus tried to help them understand but
    they were free to be open to him or not. Jesus did not ignore their
    mis-understandings or say that it was unimportant what they believed.
    The words, "hypocrites" and "vipers" are not soft or conciliatory nor
    are many of the corrective lessons of Jesus.
    
        I hear, in these things, Jesus' emphasis that the things that he
    says are important and need to be taken seriously. The Pharisees needed
    correction for the sake of their flock; we also need correction from
    the errors of our ways which is why St. Paul tells the Christian 
    community that scripture is useful to correct and reprove one another,
    as needed. This should always be done with the loving intention to 
    bring a person from error rather than as a means of condemming the 
    person.
    
        (I don't have anything personal against the Pharisees; they were a
    ready example!)
    
    Mary
    
    
    

    Mary,

    You still don't get it.  Read the Bible and see what the Pharisees were
    as a group, distinct from the larger Jewish population, they were
    devout, believed in the law, and were righteous.  That defines the
    Pharisees and they are known today by the name Hassidim.

    Jesus address hypocrites several times as _all_ people.  Those people
    who sought to test Jesus in the law, had to know the law, just as the
    people who seek to denigrate 20th century Christians and Christian
    Churches of our time have to know it.

    Devotion to God, the characteristic of the Pharisees, is not hypocrisy.
    Hypocrisy is the false pretense of virtue.  Both the devout and the
    irreligious can be hypocrites.

RE: .24  Mr. Sweeney,

			
>You still don't get it.  Read the Bible and see what the Pharisees were
>as a group, distinct from the larger population, they were
>devout, believed in the law, and were righteous.  That defines the
>Pharisees and they are known today by the name Hassidim.

	Well....I don't "get it" either.  I have read the Bible and delved
into some of the historical facts regarding the Pharisees and how you 
portray them is 180 degrees out from my understanding.  At least during 
Jesus's time.  This is a group that planned and schemed the death of Jesus.
This is the group that tried Jesus and sent him to the Romans that they might
put him to death.  Chaiphus (sp) was the son of Anus and interestingly the
next 5 high priests were either sons of Anus or grandsons.  A more pollitically
astute organization, you could not have found during this time.  I cannot find
or could I imagine, Jesus calling them "righteous".  They believed they were
but belief alone is not necessarily truth.


	When does the kind of virtue that blinds the truth become 
hypocrisy?   		

Dave

    If you don't agree that it is an incorrect generalization to call the
    Pharisees "hypocrites", then I suggest that you read the Bible again. 
    You certainly should to learn that the Pharisees named in the Bible,
    Nicodemus (Jn 3:1-21, 7:45-48) and Gamaliel (Ac 5:34) who were
    witnesses for Christ and righteous.

    As for Caiaphas, the Bible identifies him as high priest, and Annas as
    his father-in-law (Jn 18:13) not as members of the Pharisee party or
    sect.

    Your final point in also answered in the Bible.

    Mt 15:7  (to Pharisees) they honor with lips not heart
    Mt 22:18 (to Pharisees) taxes to Caesar  
    Mt 23:13 (to Pharisees) creating stumbling blocks
    Mt 24:51 the presumption of mercy
    Lk 6:42  specks 'n planks
    Lk 12:56 against weather forecasters
    Lk 13:15 healing on the Sabbath
    Jn 12:6  (to Judas) love of poor v. love of Jesus

re Note 505.16 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     God loves the sinner.  God hates the sin.

        I raised this question before -- is the above statement
        Biblically supported?

        In the Bible, God appears to hate the sin much more than God
        loves the sinner.  We are quite assured that God will hate
        our sin with no exception.  We are quite assured, and given
        ample examples in the Old Testament, that God will ultimately
        destroy us if we are sinners with one significant exception.

        God hate for sin seems to have much higher priority than
        God's love for sinners.

        Bob

    
    
    
    
    
    Re: Note 505.27 by LGP30::FLEISCHER
    
    Bob,
    
    Well, he sent his son to die because he loved the world.  I know that
    I'm most upset when I'm blamed for something with which I had nothing
    to do, and I'm convinced that Christ's death on my behalf was enough of
    an indication of God's love for me. He doesn't owe me anything.
    
    As far as sin goes, I'm just realizing how holy God really is.  I
    realize that the verse in the Gospels that goes "if you hand causes you
    to sin cut it off, if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out..."
    should be taking more literally than we're used to. Of course the eye
    and the hand don't cause us to sin.  But, the verse is saying that if
    they did, it would be more important to lose them than to continue
    sinning.  I certainly don't yet have that view of sin.  I tend to see
    sins as deplorable and things I have to stop, but I'm just beginning to
    get a glimpse of how terrible sin really is.  God is love but he is
    also holy.  If he isn't holy then the death of Christ wasn't such a big
    deal, just a little jaunt to cover over some indescretions rather than
    a life-saver to people who need it.
    
    Jesus said he came for those who knew that they desperately needed him.
    I'm realizing that without a recognition of the seriousness of sin and
    my absolutely desperate condition as a sinner, I'm not really seeing
    the depth of his love for me.  It is strange that the first leads so
    strongly to the second.  There is nothing that can separate me from his
    love for me, and best of all, there is nothing I can do to earn it
    which means I have self-worth that isn't tied to my achievments, or to
    which people love me.  It is a pretty liberating thought.
    
    Stuff that has been on my mind recently... 8-)
    

    A wonderful phrase from C.S. Lewis's Narnian Chronicles that sums up
    for me the terrible love of God is  the response by one of the
    characters to a question about Aslan (who represents Christ).  The
    answer was "He's not a tame lion".  The idea that he isn't "safe" like
    I want him to be.  His wrath is real and it is terrible. But his love
    is just a real.
    
    Paul
    

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity
been on trial.  What has been its fruits?  More or less, in all places,
pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity;
in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

					-- James Madison

 "Let he that is without sin cast the first stone"...



                                   Jesus Christ

    .31
    
    I cannot vouch for Madison's state of sinlessness.
    
    Richard