Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

So, what does this have to do with this conference?

Wouldn't this be a better topic for the Religion conference?

The Christian Perspective is that God revealed himself through a particular
chosen people, the People of the Hebrews, and then completed his revelation
through the Incarnation of his Only Begotten Son Jesus Christ.

All other attempts by humankind to approach God are imperfect.

	**********************************************************
	* Hear O Israel, I am the Lord thy God.  Thou shalt have *
	* no other Gods before me.                               *
	**********************************************************

The Christian cannot, must not, disobey this First Commandment.  A topic
which seeks to disobey it is extremely offensive in a conference entitled
"Christian Perspective".

Why do you seek to offend Christians in a conference entitled "Christian
Perspective"?

/john

.0

Yes indeedy! Best kept secret of these past few millennia...

Stone's book was a real eye-opener for me. Other books I'm aware of on this 
subject include the one by Riane Eisler you mention, The Chalice and the 
Blade, as well as several by archaeologist Marija Gimbutas (originally from 
Lithuania but she spent her career mostly at UCLA), The Language of the 
Goddess and The Civilization of the Goddess. Gimbutas provides much 
evidence for Goddess-revering cultures during the Neolithic (7000-4000 BCE) 
but dating from periods much earlier, in what she calls Old Europe 
(southeastern Europe). Others have documented such cultures in the middle 
and near east. Gimbutas's main thesis is that these cultures were gradually 
destroyed over a period of thousands of years by pastoral invaders (she calls
them Kurgans) from the northeast, who came on horseback and imposed their
male warrior gods on the agriculturist natives, with what results we're
only recently beginning to realize... 

Also, there's a trio of films by Canadian director Donna Read that deal 
with this subject -- the first one, Goddess Remembered (1990), talks about 
Goddess sites in Malta, Crete, and England, and includes brief statements 
by several women scholars, among them Merlin Stone.

For an overall encyclopedic view of what happened to female-based religion,
see Barbara Walker's Woman's Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets. Patriarchy
will never look the same again...;-) 

Dorian

	RE: .0 I don't think that anyone ever suggested that there were no
	other religions. I think we were all, or most of us, taught about the
	ancient beliefs of the Greeks and the Norse who worshiped both male
	and female images of a god. What new is there in this book?

		Alfred

>Yes indeedy! Best kept secret of these past few millennia...

No secret at all -- in fact, the Old Testament is full of stories of the
People of the Hebrews turning away from God toward pagan goddess religions
and then being brought back to the one true God.

	*********************************************************
	* I am the Lord thy God.  Thou shalt have no other Gods *
	* before me.						*
	*********************************************************

    Precisely ... what difference does it make if God is a male or female?
    Does one worship the person or the "word"?
    
    Bubba

	Well, I guess it matters if one has a sexist view of the world.

		Alfred

    
    
    Whether God is identified as man or women makes a whole lot of difference
    if you are a woman and have always been told that God was a Man, a Father.
    
    It makes a whole lot of difference when the "only legitimate" faith
    stories begins and ends in a strongly patriarchal period of history
    with the old Testament beginning with the myth of Eve being blamed for 
    the Fallen nature of "mankind" and the new testament ending with Paul's
    diatrites against women not being created in the image of God.
    
    It makes a whole lot of difference when you search for the feminine
    aspect of God and you are called a heathen, evil, and preached at.
    
    I guess my real question is whether the second class position of women
    is part of the essence of Christianity or whether it is the cultural
    bias of the time.  The second class position of women is very much a
    part of the old and new testament.  A belief in the Bible as
    the word of God renders women as second class citizens.
    
    Anyone who thinks that it does not make a difference whether God is
    Male or Female can try using the word Goddess instead of God and feel
    how much resistance they internalize.  Goddess is the female version of the
    word God.  If it did not make a difference, each of us would be able to
    use the two terms interchangeably.
    
    
    

>    I guess my real question is whether the second class position of women
>    is part of the essence of Christianity or whether it is the cultural
>    bias of the time.  

    I always saw the second class position of women as being clearly
    contrary to Christianity.

    		Alfred

God the Father does not have human gender.

Therefore, He was never a woman.

/john

.9> God the Father does not have human gender.
.9> Therefore, He was never a woman.

And by the same token "He" was never a man.

Bubba

    John,
    
    I agree with you that Goddess/God does not have human gender.
    
    It is the metaphors we choose to use for the divine which have gender. 
    The term father has a gender.  Merlin Stone's point in the book WHEN
    GOD WAS A WOMEN is that for thousands of years the metaphor used was
    Queen of Heaven, or Mother, or some such feminine term.
    
    Merlin Stone's further point is that there is a correlation between the
    gender of the Divine  metaphor and the way men and women behave and are
    treated in society.
    
     
    Patricia
    in society.

The revealed way to refer to God is as "Father".

God himself told us to call him "Our Father".

/john

    And, of course, Jesus may have used "Father" as a directive to be
    used exclusively for all time.  And then again, perhaps not.
    
    Relationship is more important than terminology.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>God himself told us to call him "Our Father".
    
    That's funny, because God tells me to call her Gertrude (but only on
    Tuesdays after every other full moon; at all other times I use other
    convenient names.)
    
    -- Mike

Yet another topic in this so-called "Christian Perspective" conference to
present views contrary to Christianity and to ridicule the revelation of
God given by his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

    I recently got into a related discussion in the RELIGION notes
    file with respect to the word "Lord" as a name for God.  I don't use
    the word "Lord" because its theological implications are strongly
    patriarchal, in two senses:  first, because of its implications of
    strict hierarchy and authoritarianism, and secondly because the term
    expresses a male metaphor for God.
    
    Of course, a lord in royalty is one with authority and power over
    others.  The implications of royalty that come from the word "Lord"
    seems to fit well with a strictly authoritarian paradigm for the deity. 
    I don't view God as someone who lords over us, but rather as one who
    supports us, and stands with us (or even under us as the ground of
    being) as friend, lover, and co-creator.  Note that these concepts are
    very much in line with feminist theologies (Judith Plaskow, a Jewish
    feminist author, speaks of God in these non-authoritarian terms.)

    Of course, lords are also male, and that's the other problem that I
    have with the word "Lord" as a name for God.  If we wanted to grant
    equal time to the male and female metaphors for God, we could borrow
    the equivalent term from peerage and refer equally to God as both Lord
    and Lady.  Televangelists could shout "Praise the Lady!" at us from
    their television studios, and one could paraphrase the opening verse to
    23rd Psalm as "The Lady is my Shepherd".

    Of course, even if we give equal time to male and female metaphors for
    God, I prefer to use neither "Lord" nor "Lady" to describe God because
    of the authoritarian theology that both terms connote.

    -- Mike

>Yet another topic in this so-called "Christian Perspective" conference to
>present views contrary to Christianity and to ridicule the revelation of
>God given by his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.
    
    That's funny.  I thought this was yet another topic in this conference
    for those having a superior intelligence and understanding to lecture
    condescendingly and with dogmatic finality to the rest of us about what
    to believe.
    
    -- Mike

    John,
    
    My purpose is not to present views contrary to Christianity or to
    ridicule revelation.  My purpose is to understand Christianity and to
    determine for myself whether it is expansive enough to provide guidance
    for living in the twentieth century.
    
    Your definition(and several others here) define Christianity in a way
    that keeps it trapped in the prejudices of 2000 years ago.  I would
    like to know whether Christianity is great enough to break out of those
    bonds and provide a living religion for today. 

.15> -< Brought to you by moderators Pat, Richard, and Jerry >-

No, brought to you by people who use that gray matter between their
ears which distinguishes them from lower forms of life - the brain -
and the ability thereof to use it.

To quote my hero, General George S. Patton, Jr.: "If everyone is thinking
the same - no one is THINKING".

.15> Yet another topic in this so-called "Christian Perspective" conference
.15> to present views contrary to Christianity and to ridicule the revelation
.15> of God given by his only-begotten Son, Jesus Christ.

I'm beginning to think that this conference needs only one note ... 

		For the Christian Perspective or interpretations
		thereof please contact COVERT::COVERT.  Note, no
		humor allowed.  Philippians 4:8 and the phrase
		"..think on these things" is hereby declared null
		and void - no thinking allowed.

Note 573.5

>    Precisely ... what difference does it make if God is a male or female?
>    Does one worship the person or the "word"?
    
Bubba,

	Actually, this is an *excellent* question, one worthy of more time and
attention than I can give it.

	There seems to be a correlation between how a society perceives
itself, how it structures itself, and the gender associated with the dominant
deity.  Privilege and status are often granted to those whose gender matches
the one attributed to the Supreme Being.  Others are frequently relegated to
lesser roles.  It is no coincidence that patriarchal religions perpetuate
patriarchy.

Peace,
Richard

>I'm beginning to think that this conference needs only one note ... 
>
>		For the Christian Perspective or interpretations
>		thereof please contact COVERT::COVERT.

Baloney, Beeler.

There are legitimate "Christian Perspectives" that are different than mine.
For example, Collis Jackson and I disagree on many points.

But denial of Christ's revelation of God is not a Christian Perspective.

/john

    .21
    
    There are even legitimate Christian perspectives beyond the two mentioned.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

You mean different than either John's or mine?

It's hard enough trying to accept John's as legitimate.
Now you want me to embrace a third?  :-)

Collis

RE: Mr. Covert,


>Baloney, Beeler.

>There are legitimate "Christian Perspectives" that are different than mine.
>For example, Collis Jackson and I disagree on many points.

>But denial of Christ's revelation of God is not a Christian Perspective.
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	As I am sure you are aware Mr. Covert, there are several denominations
that do deny that Christ's revelation of God was truly a revelation of God and
yet they still call themselves Christian.  Whether you agree or not is 
irrelevant.  Those people *DO* have a voice here and will be allowed to voice
their opinions here because it is indeed a "Christian Perspective".  I and the
other moderators will not sit in judgment on what is or is not a "legitimate"
Christian Perspective within the bounds of this file's noting policy.  

	As I am sure you are also aware, the term "Christian" has not *OR* do
I believe it ever will in this forum, be defined to encompass all "Christian"
beliefs.  Therefore your last statement can only be considered, in this forum,
as an opinion.  


Dave

>>But denial of Christ's revelation of God is not a Christian Perspective.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>	As I am sure you are aware Mr. Covert, there are several denominations
>that do deny that Christ's revelation of God was truly a revelation of God and
>yet they still call themselves Christian.

I think you went off the deep end here.  Name one group which calls itself
Christian that denies that Christ revealed God.

/john

In my Christian-perspective, God is revealed to me in multifaceted 
ways; both the masculine and feminine aspects of the Divine have 
meaning to me in my life as a Christian.  So for me, the base note is 
not only pertinent but crucial to my understanding and faith.

Ro

Suggestion:

Crosspost this topic, and the notice about the presentation on Goddess
Religions, in the Bagels conference and see what sort of response you
get there.

/john

    For someone who has such vastly superior knowledge over the rest of us,
    I am surprised that you are unaware of the existence of Jewish feminist
    theology.
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .27  Mr. Covert,
    
    
    >      -< Oh, but it's PC to subvert Christianity... >-
    
    
    
    		Its really beyond me why someone like you who obviously
    hates this conference so much and *STILL* stays.  Do you really believe
    that your attitude converts anyone?  I cannot recall "snideness" being
    part of a Christians life as commanded by the very Bible you profess.
    
    
    Dave

Note 571.66

>     It's a false God that I am negative about.. Did your Female Goddess
>    die for our sins? Did she admit that she was Jesus?  what are her
>    commandments? Please do not confuse my skepticism for negativism..
    
David,

	Interesting question.

	Let's assume that nobody seeks a false God, at least, not deliberately.

	You're quite accurate about Jesus.  There's no denying that Jesus was
a male; a male of Hebrew heritage, at least, on his mother's side. ;-)

Peace,
Richard

    
    
    Richard,
    
      I wonder why God decided to send a son instead of a daughter?
    
    David

    
    
    > lets assume know one seeks a false God
    
    
       Agreed.. What I mean is I will scrutinize everything presented to
    me about God/Goddess's ....
    
    
    David

    .31 David,
    
    My speculation is that nobody at the time would have even listened to
    a woman.  I've wondered what form Christ will take at the time of the
    so-called second coming.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

.31> I wonder why God decided to send a son instead of a daughter?
    
    Incredibly good question ... I wonder .... any substantive answers as
    opposed to "speculation"?
    
    Bubba

    
    
    
                           Possible Answers
    
    
    1.) God is a man and had a son.
    2.) Jesus was Adam.
    3.) A woman would not have been taken seriously  because they're seen
    as 2nd class..
    4.) A woman is second class.
    
    
    David
    5.)

    5.) God flipped a cosmic coin and it came up XY
    6.) Since women suffer all the time anyway because of their station in
    life, he didn't want to add insult to injury by having a woman suffer
    on the cross for our sins.
    7.) God sends saviors to all the planets in the universe, and out of
    fairness half of the planets have female saviors and half have male
    saviors.  When it was Earth's turn for a savior, the previous planet
    had a female, so Jesus was made to be a male.

    -- Mike

    
    		I think the most believable reason would be the times
    themselves.  It was a period when (and it hasn't much since) women were
    considered as "second best".  And yet when Christ ministered, he did it
    to all (women included).
    
    
    Dave

    Perhaps Goddess/God did send a daughter at some time in history too.  Only
    no one recognized her.
    
    

Actually, he gave us a mother, Mary Most Holy, Mother of Jesus and thus of
His Body the Church and of all of us who are members of the Body.

/john

P.S.: "Penultimate" means "next to the ultimate" -- just so there's no
confusion, as sometimes happens over this particular word.

| Perhaps Goddess/God did send a daughter at some time in history too.  Only
| no one recognized her.


	Maybe it was because she didn't have a beard! ;-)



Glen

... or, as Freud might say, it has to do with the age-old story of the war
between the fathers and the sons...the story of the mothers and the
daughters having long since been superseded. 

D.

>yoohoo, Demeter, Persephone, you in here?

Are these pagan invocations appropriate here?

    
    Sorry, I was under the impression that "perspectives" included
    historical awareness?
    
    D.

    Not if "historical awareness" contradicts someone's dogma.  Thinking is
    not allowed, you know.

I feel no great need to keep this conference "pure," to inhibit the expression
of wider concepts and consideration which might be relevant.

The book, "The Story of Christianity," ties the influence of many ancient
religions and of religious thought contemporary to Jesus, Paul, and the
apostolic age to the doctrines of Christianity.

Shalom,
Richard

Is there a difference between "historical perspective" and "invocations" of
pagan gods?

/john

    Maybe we need a separate topic for pagan god invocations, then.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    
    penultimate means "next to last". the most usual phase i've heard
    is to describe the meter in poetry as in "the accent is on the
    penultimate syllable".
    
    yes, it does refer to being near to the ultimate but not in the
    sense of ultimate meaning the highest. rather in the original Latin
    the meaning of the furthest or last.
    
    peter

Geesh, I named my car Persephone (actually she named herself!) and my  
husband bought be a beautiful Persephone (Prosepina) print by Dante 
Gabriel Rossetti for Christmas.  Hmmm, I wonder if that is against the 
rules to give someone a present of a pagan Goddess as a Christmas 
gift.  Oh well, I gave him a Green Man sculpture so I guess we're both 
sinners.  However, John we don't idolize them, we just appreciate the 
beauty of the artwork and the mythology behind them.

Ro

I'm sure everyone understands the difference between

	the influence of pagan religions in our culture

and

	suggesting pagan religions as alternatives to or as
	components of Christianity.

Christianity does not have to accomodate "The Goddess" -- Christianity
has transcended and replaced all untrue religions.

/john

    Isn't that what this note is about... proselytizing Christians with
    dogmatic views of goddess religions?  or am I mistaken?

    As far as the intent of this note is concerned, I can't comment,
    Patrick. 
    
    To me there is no conflict between Christianity and Goddess worship. 
    Instead I see honoring the Goddess as an acknowledgement and praise of
    specific aspects of the whole of the Divine character.  To me, over all
    is the Divine Mind or Spirit from which everything was created.  Within
    that Divine Being are different aspects which, in my opinion, more
    modern religions, such as Christianity, have failed to honor as part of
    that Source.  A case in point is Gaia or the earth Goddess.  Because of
    certain passages in scripture which order Christians to "subdue (the
    earth and that in nature)" I think that much of modern Christianity has 
    taken that to mean that we don't need to honor or care for the earth or
    the other creatures that live here.  To me, honoring the earth
    mother/Gaia/Goddess is a reaffirmation of my connectedness with the
    rest of creation.  This does not take the divine out of the equasion. 
    It just emphasizes that which needs the focus.
    
    Nanci
    
    
    

The proper way for a Christian to care for God's creation is through
understanding of the stewardship He has given man over creation, which
belongs to Him, as do all things.

Creating an "Earth Goddess" is contrary to both Judaism and Christianity,
for it is a manifest disobedience to God's command to have no other gods
but Him.

The Christian must worship the Creator, not the creation.

/john

    Nanci, I agree with your comments.  I especially like you statement, "I
    see honoring the Goddess as an acknowledgment and praise of specific
    aspects of the whole of the Divine character."  I think most Christians
    who have an interest in the Goddess view it as an aspect of the divine
    whole--not as an alternative deity, but as an aspect of the greater and
    infinite deity that is God.  Thus we are talking about a monotheism
    that manifests itself in various ways.

    That reminds me of how, although people from Western religious
    traditions often think of Hinduism as a polytheistic religion, this is
    not really true.  Hinduism, or perhaps I should say the family of
    religions that fall under the name "Hinduism", is generally a
    monotheistic faith in which its various gods are really manifestations
    of God.

    -- Mike

Proselytizing Christians?  I've not been proselytized.  Has anybody else?

Richard

    
    
    Nanci has a bit more elegantly stated what I have been trying to
    communicate and Mike did a good job of further clarifying it.  The
    beauty of a Pagan ceremonony is not the honoring of different Deities but
    the recognition that the Goddess is a more full expression of the
    feminine aspect of the Divine.  An aspect that has been disguised and
    minimized in the old and new testaments. 
    
    Just as there is much in the Bible that I find inspirational and sacred
    even though there are other aspects that are not inspirational, so too
    with Pre biblical mythology which reflected even more primitive
    understandings of human nature.  There is however much to find
    inspirational in pre biblical religions.
    
    I accept that the process of choosing what went into the bible was a
    fully human activity. Reflecting the culture of the time and the fact
    that men did all the choosing, the Bible potrays women as less than fully
    human.
    
     Has Christianity frozen that process for all time?  Why?
    
    If each of you were on a team to choose what comprised  modern
    scriptures, what would you select?  
    
    I am called back to look at Christianity because of an evolving belief
    that there is an essence of Christianity that is very profound and very
    compelling.  Within Christianity itself is a revolutionary spirit that
    allows it to continually reform itself.  From my feminist perspective
    this can not happen until Christianity accepts a full equality
    between the Male and the Female aspect of the Divine.
    
    Patricia

"Like Copernicus, who suggested the earth was not the center of the 
universe, work on the goddess is challenging the entire order of things, 
the whole sense of divinity and God on which everything else is based. It's 
liberating the spirituality and creativity of women, which is no small 
contribution.

"It's an extraordinary finding for the psychology of women because the 
concept of being dominated by hierarchies that have a sky god at [the] very 
apex has been part of patriarchal civilization forever. It's what allowed 
kings to rule by divine right. It's what allowed men to feel they have a 
right to dominion over the planet, women, children, nature. Women have 
grown up feeling that only men are created in the image of God, thus that 
women are less divine than the other sex and can be treated as lesser 
beings. It is empowering to women when they find out that the divinity was 
seen in a feminine form for 25,000 years."

		 -- Jean Shinoda Bolen, M.D., Jungian analyst and author 
		of Gods in Everyman, quoted in East West Magazine, December 1990

If you'd listen to the true teachings of Christianity, you wouldn't have
any need for this pagan mumbo-jumbo.

It is wrong to use the revealed nature of God against women.

It is also wrong to deny God's revelation of himself.

Christianity does not accept that man chose the Bible; it posits that this
choice was done under the guidance of God the Holy Spirit.

In Christianity, God is revealed using primarily masculine imagery (except
for Holy Wisdom, which is generally considered feminine).

God's Creation is often considered feminine.  The feminine aspect is there,
in us, in creation, in his Bride the Church.

/john

    "If each of you were on a team to choose what comprised  modern
    scriptures, what would you select?"
    
    That is a *very* interesting question, and could serve as some valuable
    food for thought.  Thanks for posing that.
    
    Perhaps another interesting question might be, if you set out to write
    a scripture, what would you write?
    
    -- Mike

    RE: .21
    
    Sorry /john......Bubba got it right this time.
    
    Marc H.

    Sorry Marc, Bubba has got it wrong.                    
    
    Unless Bubba denies that Jesus Christ has revealed Himself to us, then
    "speculation" is contradicted by what he revealed.
    
    As I wrote some time ago, this is the common CP reasoning of "Jesus
    Christ existed but..."
    
    (a) he didn't reveal anything substantial about himself while he was
    here
    
    or (b) nothing is known about this man with any degree of certainty
    
    or (c) what Christians claim to know about him is false

re Note 573.63 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

        I don't know what you mean by "the common CP reasoning" BUT
        there is at least one other alternative:

        -  the objective of Jesus's teaching is for people to seek a
        relationship with and rely upon the living God.  All
        teaching, all doctrine, is towards that end and is not an end
        in itself.  As a result, absolutely certain true facts are
        not essential and the demand and search for such facts is
        at best distracting from the purpose of Jesus' life.

        Bob

    Bob,

    By what means do you claim to know that?
    
    Is this something that was revealed to all and accepted by you, or was
    this revealed specifically to you?

re Note 573.65 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     By what means do you claim to know that?
>     
>     Is this something that was revealed to all and accepted by you, or was
>     this revealed specifically to you?

        I didn't "claim to know that".  However, I BELIEVE and, more
        importantly, I RELATE to the living God.

        I really don't know why I BELIEVE this, but it seems right to
        believe this.

        I don't know if "revelation" as the word is commonly used
        applies to this or not.  For example, I know certain things
        about my wife, I believe certain things about my wife.  I am
        not consciously aware of "revelation" in the sense of
        disclosure of facts -- although obviously I can recall
        certain points at which certain facts about here were
        "revealed" to me, that almost seems irrelevant.  Rather, I
        know her and have a relationship with her -- that far
        surpasses any disclosure of facts in relevance.

        I would rather forget all the facts I know about my wife and
        still have my relationship with her than know all facts about
        her but not have her.

        Bob

.63> As I wrote some time ago, this is the common CP reasoning ...

I'm not sure that "common CP reasoning" is .. or whether it's
percieved to be "good" or "bad" ...

.63 ..."Jesus Christ existed but..."
    
.63> (a) he didn't reveal anything substantial about himself while he was
.63> here

Perhaps he did .. perhaps he didn't.  I really don't know to any degree
of certainty.  What we have here are some documents which are a few
thousand years old .. translated and translated and analyzed and analyzed,
the bottom line of which is that we are not sure WHERE these documents
even originated!
    
.63> or (b) nothing is known about this man with any degree of certainty

This is a true statement.
    
.63> or (c) what Christians claim to know about him is false

I suspect that human emotions and devotion to a "cause" were no less
prevalent then (during the life of Christ) as they are now.  Who is to say
that there are not (or was not) some documentation which was not exactly
... "nice" toward this guy named "Jesus Christ" and in this documentation
was hidden or destroyed?

Did a guy named "Jesus Christ" walk the face of this earth?  Probably.
Dit this guy named "Jesus Christ" have some pretty neat things to say?
Probably.  The rest is speculation.

Bubba

    Bob,

    I believe that you are being a bit disingenuous in denying that we lack
    a common meaning for the word "revelation" apropos to this discussion. 
    For you, what is the source of your beliefs regarding Jesus, the will
    of God, and so forth?  Did it all spring spontaneously from nowhere?

    Jerry,

    We agree on at least one level, namely, we really can't conduct dialog
    about Christianity when there's such little common ground regarding we
    can accept regarding Jesus.  Perhaps in your view, man _does_ live by
    bread alone and not by every word that comes from the mouth of God.
    By your creed, that's a possible Christian perspective too.

    Bob,

        >-  the objective of Jesus's teaching is for people to seek a
        >relationship with and rely upon the living God.  All
        >teaching, all doctrine, is towards that end and is not an end
        >in itself.  As a result, absolutely certain true facts are
        >not essential and the demand and search for such facts is
        >at best distracting from the purpose of Jesus' life.

    Interestingly enough, this belief has been the core of Quakerism since
    George Fox founded the movement in the 1600s.  Fox believed that "There
    is One, even Christ Jesus, who speaks to my condition."  He believed
    that no institution, no priest, and no dogmas should come between an
    individual and God.  The scriptures were seen to be interpreted in the
    light of the same Spirit that they were written, a Spirit that speaks
    to us today in our own direct relationship with God.

    -- Mike

.68> We agree on at least one level, namely, we really can't conduct dialog
.68> about Christianity when there's such little common ground regarding we
.68> can accept regarding Jesus.

For the sake of discussion .. what "common ground" would you consider
acceptable so that we could at least conduct dialog on this issue?

Bubba

    Though perhaps admirable, why is a common ground among all the
    participants here even necessary?  If there is no single common ground,
    then no big deal--discussions will simply revolve around the many
    smaller common grounds that will exist among various people
    participating at various times.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike, I'm in COMPLETE agreement with you .. but .. as I said, "for the
    sake of discussion".  I'm very interested to know more but find it
    incredible that (perhaps) there is one "thing" that I must agree on
    before even *beginning* to discuss the subject matter.

    This is characteristic of one thing that constantly drove me further
    and further away from the "church" and organized religions - given that
    I am an inquisitive person I would ask (I guess) what some consider to
    be embarrassing questions.  I absolutely HATE it when there's no answer
    or attempt at explanation, but, the so called "Christians" simply say
    (how I have come to despise these words) ... "I'll pray for you".

    Fine .. carry on with the prayin' but .. at least TRY to answer my
    questions.

    Bubba

    Dialogue,  I see great dialogue here.  Common Ground,  I also see
    plenty of common ground.  I guess it must be a matter of definition.
    
    
    Patricia

   RE: of general annoyance to me.

   Seems throughout history the only path to common ground and potential
   agreement is dialogue.  It seems foolish to me to insist there be 
   common ground for discussion to occur, that is the pretext for winning
   an arguement.

   Example: If common ground was really required we could start with a
   historical fact Jesus did indeed exist and at a minimum was a Jew.
   There is common ground.  Now does that mean the 25,000 plus years of 
   history before then are meaningless or didn't occur?

   Allison

    OK, Allison, what is your proof to me and to the skeptics that Jesus
    did exist?
    
    What do you know about him and how can you be certain that it's not all
    a creation from the imagination of a group of heretical Jews in the 1st
    century?
    
    At least Jerry is on the sidelines without faith and doubts everything
    so I know where he stands.  I believe in the Bible and all that is
    taught by my Church; you know where I stand and therefore you know
    where to direct hostility to 20 centuries of Roman Catholicism.

   I would start with Roman history and known facts of that time period.
   Then add corolation to other historical events of the time.  Essentally
   the proof would be that Jesus did exist during that time as a man.

   Of course I didn't set out to prove he was God's son only that there is
   historical evidence beyond the Bible.  Of course the rest is a matter
   of faith and belief and not open to the kind of challenge issued.

   I was making a point, it was seperating belief/faith from historically
   supportable facts.  Can we prove it?  Well, sometimes you have to accept
   provable things first.  That is common ground.

   What I cannot figure out is why you challenged me in the way you did? 
   It comes across as very angry to me.  Personally I am not hostile to
   Roman Catholicism, I miss certain aspects to this day.  It is simply
   not my belief.  Time and my life may have seperated me from the church
   it did not seperate me from a faith in a God that is for me and strong
   in my heart.  If you should insist Catholicism should be my belief and
   paractice, we will disagree.  I am sure on many other things of
   importance we do agree and share common ground.


   Sincerely,
   Allison