Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

  Hebrews 4:12 is a good place to start.




 "For the word of God is quick and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged
  sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of
  the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of
  the heart".





 Jim

    Firmware ?
    
    		Alfred

I had a very good communications course a few years back.  The teacher
constantly asked the class, "Is meaning in words or in people?"

It seems that some in that class never quite got the hang of it.  Meaning
is never in words.  Meaning is in people.  The question was even asked on
the final exam and some people still got it wrong.

Without people, words are simply marks on a page.

Peace,
Richard

If, in fact, meaning is in people and not in words, then there must be
some measure of the subjective to one's processing of the Bible.

Peace,
Richard

    It's very rhetorical when we say meaning is in people and not in words. 
    After all we do have dictionaries that define word after word so that
    the words can be used properly.
    
    When we think of the Bible, the meaning comes from the Words, then into the
    heart of man, henceforth the words and their meaning now are in people,
    thus the statement above being true.  
    
    Interpretation is subjective, the Word of God is not.
    
    Nancy
    

There is subjectivity in processing the Bible.

When the meaning is too clear, those who are particularly
subjective in their processing often intentionally exclude
the passage as accurate or relevant.  Sometimes, they will
redefine the terms outside of the Biblical context to define
a new meaning.

For those who insist on understanding Biblical passages in
the context of the entire Bible, there is marked agreement
on what the Bible says.  I do admit that JW are an exception
to this - an exception, in my belief, because they start with
an inaccurate assumption and insist on interpreting the Bible
with that assumption.  (Of course, they believe differently.)

The discussion we are having in another topic about the meaning
of the resurrection is one area the Bible is very clear and
explicit about.  Those (in this conference) who accept the Bible 
as accurate, true and authoritative have all come to the same 
conclusion about the meaning of the resurrection despite our
vastly different backgrounds.  Is this surprising?  Not at all.
God *wants* to communicate to us all.  And those who are willing
to believe that He actually did communicate to us and simply
understand and accept the message are in agreement.  Those who
question God's communication with us or don't want to believe
the plain meanings of the words (if there is such a thing which
I believe there can be) are in disagreement with themselves and
others.

Communication is not only possible, it is essential.  And despite
our frailties as humans, we succeed at communication the vast
majority of the time.  If only we would believe that God succeeds
at this as well.

Collis

    I am far from a biblical scholar but from what I have read, the
    majority of biblical scholars attempt to comprehend the Bible as a
    unity.  The majority of Biblical scholars currently use the literary,
    historical methods of interpreting the Bible.  My own interpretation
    wants to go beyond these methods that is a different issue.  In 100% of
    the biblical literature that I have read there is an understanding that
    there are inconsistencies that cannot be explained away in the Bible.
    
    Those who believe in the innerrancy of the bible do the same
    reinterpreting of words and ignoring of difficult passages that you
    accuse the literary/historic scholars of doing.
    
    The ressurection theme is one that I am lost right now in trying to
    understand exactly what the Bible is saying.  I found it real
    interesting though in 1 Cor 15 Paul says how can some not believe in
    the Ressurection of the dead.  Twenty years after this central event
    that was plenty of disagreement over its meaning.  That is a amazing
    fact identified clearly in Paul right along with Paul's interpretation
    of what this event means.
    
    As a Unitarian beginning to seriously read the Bible I spend much more
    time trying to understand whether the Bible supports an image of God
    and Jesus as separate persons or as one person.  In my opinion there is
    conclusive evidence in the three synoptic Gospels and in 1 Corinthian
    that they are separate yet the doctrine of the Trinity is widely held.
    
    To me, which interpretation is correct is not even the significant
    issue.  The significant issue is that the Bible can be interpreted
    differently, skillfully by different smart, intellegient, spiritually
    discerned individuals.  Relying on Paul's inspiritation regarding
    Spiritual discernment rather than legalistic interpretations I would
    have to hypothesize that God deliberately gave us an ambiguous Bible so
    that we would struggle to discern God beyond the literal words -  That
    we would use the literal words to help point us to an only partially
    comprehensible reality beyond those words.
    
    Patricia
    
    

re Note 800.5 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     It's very rhetorical when we say meaning is in people and not in words. 
>     After all we do have dictionaries that define word after word so that
>     the words can be used properly.
  
        We have dictionaries not so much to ensure that words are
        used properly but rather to increase the probability that
        when one expresses oneself in words one is understood by
        others.

        (As one who has done some work in computational linguistics,
        nearly every "fact" in the dictionary should have a
        probability attached to it.  In fact, it is far more complex
        than that -- the probabilities are conditional on context.)
          
>     When we think of the Bible, the meaning comes from the Words, then into the
>     heart of man, henceforth the words and their meaning now are in people,
>     thus the statement above being true.  
>     
>     Interpretation is subjective, the Word of God is not.
  
        I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "subjective" (and by "is
        not [subjective]"), but don't forget all those probabilities
        attached to each word!

        (Unless, of course, the "Word of God" first and foremost
        means something other than a literal text.)

        Bob

    What I mean is interpretation is subjective. :-)  Subjective to one's
    upbringing, predjudices, knowledge, education, etc.
    
    The Word of God is not subjective to those things.  It is Truth.
    
    If one wishes to know the Bible and its teachings intimately, one needs
    to get to know the author of the Bible intimately.  
    
    Nancy

re Note 800.9 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     If one wishes to know the Bible and its teachings intimately, one needs
>     to get to know the author of the Bible intimately.  
  
        I like that emphasis.

        Most conservatives seem to place an opposite emphasis, e.g.,
        "If one wishes to know the author of the Bible intimately,
        one needs to get to know the Bible and its teachings
        intimately."

        Bob

    .10
    
    Both work for me :-) :-)
    
    Actually, in truth I think that my statement and your statement is of
    the 4114 type. :-)
    
    Nancy

    
>I had a very good communications course a few years back.  The teacher
>constantly asked the class, "Is meaning in words or in people?"
>
>It seems that some in that class never quite got the hang of it.  Meaning
>is never in words.  Meaning is in people.  

    This doesn't sound like a good communications class to me. At least if
    the instructer couldn't communicate such a simple, though wrong, idea.
    
    I think I understand the intent of saying that meaning is in people not 
    in words but I disagree with it. And I think you do too Richard. At least 
    based on what you've said in debates over word usage here over the last 
    couple of years.

    			Alfred

    .12 Oh, but it's quite true, Alfred.  Words are meaningless without
    people, but people are not meaningless without words.
    
    You can say we have the dictionary, but the words used in the definition
    have no meaning to the reader, then they're just empty words.  Also,
    definitions change with time and usage; usage not by the dictionary,
    but by people.  This doesn't even include the subtle interplay between
    denotation, connotation, context, "noise," and a host of other factors.
    
    Whoever thinks meaning is in words, not in people, has not thought
    out the whole communication process very thoroughly.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Another palindrome statement...
    
    Words without people are meaningless
    and quite frankly people without words are meaningless...
    
    Now spiritually speaking this isn't true because of the value of human
    life... but would human life be viewed the same if speech or
    communication were not part of our lives.
    
    What separates us from the animals?  Our intellect, maybe, but I
    believe its our INTERACTION that separates us.
    
    Nancy

Note 800.14

>    and quite frankly people without words are meaningless...

This is very wrong.  People can communicate without words, and they do.
Words can't do diddlysquat by themselves.

If you think it through, you will see the truth, and the truth will set you
free.  The truth is that meaning is in people.  Meaning is not in words.

Furthermore, it is *not* a palindrome in the strictest sense.  You see,
meaning is in people, even when it's an inaccurate meaning.

Richard

    .15
    
    And my dear Richard when people sign what are they signing?
    The only place where words are not needed is with sex... just like the
    animals ... 

    .16  I'm not talking about signing, as for the deaf.
    
    Does a mother not know when a child is hungry or hurt without a
    word being uttered?
    
    Can an employee know when the boss is upset just by the way she walks?
    
    If you think it's all just sex, you are sorely mistaken.
    
    Here's another axiom to blow your mind:  You cannot NOT communicate.
    Yes, it's true.  Even silence communicates.
    
    Richard
    

    re Note 800.16 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > The only place where words are not needed is with sex...

    Marcel Marceau will be very put out when he hears this... Then again
    this may be a whole new dimension for mimes to explore. :^)

    Eric

    PS  What is this preoccupation with *sex*?

    WEll, hello there.. no preoccupation but it is an instinctual human
    reaction that is also found in animals... a *strong* drive.
    
    Why do you ask, are you hung up about the subject?  Make you
    uncomfortable?
    
    Nancy

    Re: .20
    
    I think you are over-reacting...Nancy.
    
    Marc H.

    re: Note 800.20 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    >> but it is an instinctual human reaction that is also found in
    >> animals... a *strong* drive.

    So is the drive for food and for self protection - preservation... all
    of which are continuous and ongoing instinctive behaviors, unlike the
    sex drive (if you can call it that in animals) which usually occurs
    only once a year in the animal kingdom. I don't mean to speak for you,
    but I am more concerned about sustenance and staying alive than I am
    about sexual gratification. 

    >> Why do you ask, are you hung up about the subject?  Make you
    >> uncomfortable?

    I'm not uncomfortable with sex... most of the time I find it quite
    confortable :^) It's just not a top priority for me. That's why when I
    see the subject of sex appear more often that the subject of helping
    the needy or feeding the hungry I feel that person may have a
    preoccupation with sex... as opposed to a preoccupation this helping
    others.
    
    Eric

re Note 800.22 by HURON::MYERS:

>     That's why when I
>     see the subject of sex appear more often that the subject of helping
>     the needy or feeding the hungry I feel that person may have a
>     preoccupation with sex... as opposed to a preoccupation this helping
>     others.
    
        Eric,

        Could it sometimes be quite the reverse -- a person may speak
        strongly against sexual sins because it is the speck they
        see in another's eye, while the beam in their own eye might
        be some other sin?

        Perhaps sins such as gluttony (in all its forms) are so common
        that hardly anyone could speak out against them without also
        condemning themselves?

        Bob

    re  Note 800.23 by LGP30::FLEISCHER

    >>  Perhaps sins such as gluttony (in all its forms) are so common
    >>  that hardly anyone could speak out against them without also
    >>  condemning themselves?


    I was thinking of this myself. Is it part of the pick-and-chose
    approach to what is sinful? 

    There is no hue and cry about one being filled with pride, or jealousy
    or envy. No warnings of damnation for people who cheat on their income
    tax, or who don't return the money when a clerk gives too much change.
    No charges of abusive parenting when a father teaches his son to fight,
    to take what is his and defend it with physical violence. No calls for
    repentance when a conversation begins, "Did you hear the latest dirt
    on..." or other forms of gossip, rumor or insinuation.

    Is sex an easy target because it is the easiest to control? I mean in a
    given day I am have MUCH more opportunity to be jealous, to steal,
    cheat, lie, and stuff my face than I have opportunities to have sex.
    
    Eric

 I'd invite you to my church and hear the messages on gossiping, gluttony
 in its various forms, and other sins that you mention that we hear.  I'd
 also point out that it is rare to see these sins tossed at us day and night
 on television and other media.  They don't use gluttony or gossip to sell
 us beer, cars, cameras. Does (whatever the name of that bunch on Married
 with Children is) tease the audience with innuendos about gluttony or
 gossip or stealing? (i wouldn't know as I don't watch).  When I stand in
 line at a grocery store and look at the glossy magazines at the checkout
 counter is gluttony glorified on the covers?


 The sins you discuss are talked about in many churches and each of us struggle
 with them..



 Jim

    > There is no hue and cry about one being filled with pride, or jealousy
    >    or envy. No warnings of damnation for people who cheat on their
    >income  tax, or who don't return the money when a clerk gives too much
    >change.
    >    No charges of abusive parenting when a father teaches his son to
    >fight,to take what is his and defend it with physical violence. No calls
    >for repentance when a conversation begins, "Did you hear the latest
    >dirt on..." or other forms of gossip, rumor or insinuation.
    
    Remember that 2.7 quake from the AMENS in my church Sunday night..
    well, guess what it was for? :-)
    
    BTW, there really was a 2.7 quake here on Sunday. :-)
    
    Nancy

    BTW, I don't think sex is sinful. 
    
    Nancy

    > I'd also point out that it is rare to see these sins tossed at us day
    > and night on television and other media.

    You're kidding, right? Precocious, disobedient children abound in
    primetime... as do vain women, lying men, and violent people of both
    genders. All this is in addition to sex, but I don't include a shot of
    a beautiful woman or a hunky man as "sex". 

    > They don't use gluttony or gossip to sell us beer, cars, cameras.  

    Pride, envy, superiority, and violence are used in addition to good
    looking women (which I guess you see as slutty).

    > Does (whatever the name of that bunch on Married with Children is) >
    tease the audience with innuendos about gluttony or gossip or stealing?  
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

    No teasing or innuendo... it's right up front and in your face and I
    think it rots.

    > When I stand in line at a grocery store and look at the glossy
    > magazines at the checkout counter is gluttony glorified on the covers?

    How about vanity? Self pride? 

    I think you're looking too hard and seeing only what you want to see
    while missing the rest.


    I'm glad that they're discussed in your church... I don't see them
    discussed much here, however.


    	Eric

                       <<< Note 800.28 by HURON::MYERS >>>


>    > I'd also point out that it is rare to see these sins tossed at us day
>    > and night on television and other media.

 >   You're kidding, right? Precocious, disobedient children abound in
 >   primetime... as do vain women, lying men, and violent people of both
 >   genders. All this is in addition to sex, but I don't include a shot of
 >   a beautiful woman or a hunky man as "sex". 

    It is rare that I watch network television, even more rare that I watch
    the sitcoms or dramas..I do know that the "teasers" I see for sitcoms
    seem to be laced with sexual innuendo, and the drama teasers are usually
    somebody getting shot,stabbed, or blown up, or somebody sleeping with 
    somebody else's husband/wife or whatever.




 >   > They don't use gluttony or gossip to sell us beer, cars, cameras.  

  >    looking women (which I guess you see as slutty).


       no, I do not.


 >   > Does (whatever the name of that bunch on Married with Children is) >
 >   tease the audience with innuendos about gluttony or gossip or stealing?  
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 

 >   No teasing or innuendo... it's right up front and in your face and I
 >   think it rots.

     Well, I don't watch that program either, but the teasers I see are loaded
     with sexual innuendos.



 >   > When I stand in line at a grocery store and look at the glossy
 >   > magazines at the checkout counter is gluttony glorified on the covers?

 >   How about vanity? Self pride? 


     Oh, sure I see that as well..but I don't see a large person on the cover
     of cosmopolitan or Redbook with content teasers talking about the latest
     breakthroughs on potato chip flavors..what I do see are rather attractive
     women with significant portions of their anatomy exposed and at least 1
     headline teaser having something to do with sex.  

     Yes vanity and self pride are presented as well.


 >   I think you're looking too hard and seeing only what you want to see
 >   while missing the rest.

     No...what I see touted is "self, self, self, self" with "sex" as a
     significant drawing card.

 >   I'm glad that they're discussed in your church... I don't see them
 >   discussed much here, however.


     So, start a topic and lets discuss..I'll share my struggle with my
     weight, I'll share my struggle with the daily battle to satisfy desires
     of self, I'll share my struggle with overcoming addictions..




 Jim

    
    
    Eric M.
    
    > sex is a much
    
    > gluttony
    
      Not that many gluttons claiming God made them that way and therefore
    the bible or fundemental christians are wrong for thinking otherwise.
    
    David

    .30  Most gluttons do not acknowledge their gluttony to begin with.
    Take a guess on which is the most gluttonous country in the world.
    Guess what is being done to curb that country's gluttonous appetite.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    
    > gues what is being done to curb that country's gluttonous appetite
    
    ..uhhhhmmmm, let me guess, the liberals have opted to redefine it
    as acceptable and are now waging a campaign against those
    fundamentalists that still see it as sinful;-)
    
    David 

	David, you take someone who is in a church who is overweight and see
how many times fire and brimstone come out towards them from the preachers. You
could put a lot of different type of people who they may consider sinful in
front of the same preachers and that fire and brimstone will be a flying! The
way it should come down is seeing no sin is greater than another, then they
should talk about all sin, including being overweight, and not just the pick
and choose method of which sin they want to talk about that is being done by 
some churches.


Glen

 Glen, how many fund...er, conservative churhces have you been in recently?





 Jim

| <<< Note 800.34 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| Glen, how many fund...er, conservative churhces have you been in recently?


	Gee Jim, I had to laugh.... sorry. :-)  But to answer your question, I
like going to different churches from time to time. It's been about a month
since the last time, but they do keep saying the same thing. 


Glen

    
    
    Glen,
    
     You admit that homosexuality is a sin and I will send you a tape
    from a preacher talking about obesity as a sin.
    
    
    Daivd

    Obesity is a sin??  Are we assuming that gluttony is the same as
    obesity?  The slim are not gluttonous??  It's not difficult to
    prove the wrongness of this kind of thinking, you know.
    
    I don't doubt what you're saying exists though, David.  There are
    many very stupid preachers out there.
    
    Richard
    

Obesity is a result of the sin of gluttony.  This was discussed by Fr. Pettway
in "The Roots of Sin" posted in note 611.5 in this conference.  The relevant
extract follows; I recommend reading all of topic 611.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

God has given us appetites of hunger and thirst, and He has attached pleasure to
the satisfying of these appetites.  He has done this so that we will nourish our
bodies and preserve our physical life, so that we can serve Him in this world. 
Pride develops in us a self-centeredness that produces the sin of gluttony: an
inordinate, excessive desire for food and drink, not for the nourishment they
give, but as ends in themselves.  Gluttony is the root of overeating, which
impairs our health and vigor by making us too fat.  It leads also to mental
dullness, uncleanness, repulsive manners, and also to drunkenness and all the
evils that result from that.  To overcome gluttony, we must grow in temperance;
meditate on the evil consequences of overeating and drunkenness; and follow the
Church's practice of fasting and abstinence.

    Obesity is *sometimes* the result of the sin of gluttony.  Not always.
    It is also quite possible to be gluttonous and slim.
    
    Poverty causes obesity, too.  Starchy foods are cheap and more easily
    acquired.
    
    Age causes obesity, too.  The metabolic rate slows as one ages.
    
    I really thought you were more intelligent than this, John.
    
    Richard
    

>    I really thought you were more intelligent than this, John.

I thought you knew the difference between "a" and "the".

/john

Note 800.40
    
    "Obesity is (tacit 'always') a result of gluttony."
    
    I do know the difference.  An "a" or a "the" doesn't change the
    message.
    
    "Ignorance is a result of stupidity."
    
    "Ignorance is the result of stupidity."
    
    Neither of the above is true in every instance.  Are we not interested
    in truth?
    
    Richard
    

The "tacit `always'" is yours, not mine.

    .42  That doesn't mean it's not there, just that you don't see it.
    
    Richard
    

I wrote the sentence; I didn't put it in there, seen or unseen.

/john

Note 800.44

>I wrote the sentence; I didn't put it in there, seen or unseen.

And I'll bet you've been speaking English most of your life, too.

Richard

| <<< Note 800.36 by COMET::DYBEN >>>



| You admit that homosexuality is a sin and I will send you a tape from a 
| preacher talking about obesity as a sin.


	David, why would I admit to homosexuality being a sin when I honestly
don't believe it is? I would be lieing if I did, and there I guess would be the
sin.


Glen

    What is a sin?
    
    Sin is brokeness, sickness, addictive behavoir.  How are we freed from
    sin and sickness and addictive behavoir.  By accepting a power greater
    than ourselves to restore us to health.  Grace is what Christians call
    it.  Other religions may have other names for it.
    
    Overeating is as much addiction as alcholism, Nacortic, Gambling,
    Cleaning, Compulsive Religion, compulsive sex,  and other compulsive
    behavoir can be.
    
    Obesity when it is caused by compulsive eating is brokeness.  Each of
    us affected by overindulging in food or anything else can turn to our
    higher power for freedom from this addiction.
    
    Compulsive addictive sex whether heterosexual or homosexual, monogamous
    or not is brokeness.  
    
    Sex as an intimate, caring part of any honest committed mature adult
    relationship is beautiful and can be a significant part of one's
    spirituality.

    
    
    -1 -2
    
    Glen,
    
      You miss the point better than anyone i've known.
    
    Patricia,
    
     No it is not brokeness, that is the result of sin..
    
    David

    DAve,
    
    Wholeness and brokeness work much better for me.  Wholeness is life in
    God; Brokeness is life without God.  Life without God, leads us to put
    to much emphasis on our self centeredness.  Life with God leads us
    toward our higher purposes, here in this life.  Anything that leads us
    to turn away from our own self centerness and toward a higher purpose
    is life in God regardless of the creed that supports it.

    
    
    Patricia,
    
     Define the higher purposes and tell me what it allows you to do.
    
    
    david

    Higher Purpose.
    
    To love God.  to love our neighbors as ourselves.  To care.  To be 
    instruments of the Divine.  to create heaven on earth. To care for the sick, the
    widowed, and orphans. To seek Peace and Justice. To Love.
    
    It's really simple.
    
    Patricia

| <<< Note 800.48 by COMET::DYBEN >>>


| Glen, You miss the point better than anyone i've known.



	David, do you really mean miss it or don't agree with? 

	Patricia, as usual, another wonderful note. Thanks for writing that!


Glen

    
    
    > David, do you really miss it or
    
     Glen it would not be worth the explanation. It's like arguing with
    Jello.
    
    David

| <<< Note 800.53 by COMET::DYBEN >>>


| It's like arguing with Jello.


	David, I resent that! Yes, I have gained a couple of pounds.... but I
am taking them back off!!!! :-)  


Glen

    
    
    > no my stomach does NOt move like Jello
    
     How about your soul?
    
   
    
    
    

    
    ..> no my stomach does NOt move like Jello
    ..
    .. How about your soul?
    
    	What a loving, Christian, comment......
    
            gag me.............................
    
    
    

    
    
    -1
    
     > gag me
    
     
    I think I know why Paul said " and act like men". This reaction gets
    real old( and I have chosen to put it lightly)....
    
    
    David

    And Paul wasn't addressing no limp-wristed hanky-wavers either,
    Pilgrim!
    
    And John Wayne's real name was MARION!! :-)
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    > and Paul wasn't addressing no limp-wristed hanky-wavers
    
    ..yuh huh pardner, Paul did however predict the little fellows
    would make an appearance towards the end times.
    
    
    smoke that pilgrim:-)
    
    David

    .59  Cite that apocalyptical Pauline passage, Pardnuh!
    
    Jes' call me Clint
    

    
    
    OK, your Clint:-)

    Where that Pauline passage y'all was chawin' about, ya big galloot!?
    
    Are you tryin' to chap my hide?
    
    Clint
    

    
    
    -1
    
      I left my sword at home Clint. Patience. From memory I think
    it is Romans, goes something like
    
     ...and men will lay with men as if with woman etc etc
    
    
    Wyatt Earp

    .63  Why, that passage has nothin' to do with the "end-times,"
    ya slimey, yellow-bellied, spit-suckin' varmint!
    
    Git a rope!!
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    ..did to yah uneducated back slidden new age liberal scum:-)
    
    
    peace,
    David

    Thems FIGHTING words, Pilgrim!  High noon at the Pauline epistles, if
    y'aint a coward, too!
    
    Be there!
    
    The good, the bad and the ugly <ptooey!>
    

    
    
    ok, but I need directions and you know you bad you liberals are at
    that, what with your preference for emotions and all :-) :-)
    
    
    sincerly,
    low blow ike

    OK (corral), Dude!
    
    Check out Romans 1:18-32, which is the chunka Scripture ya be speakin' of.
    Ain't about the "end times," ya' erroneous, tight-sphintered sodbuster!
    
    Call me Mr. Eastwood
    

    
    
    ok thanks. I still think it condemns the haymoysexual lifestyle,
    ptooey:-)
    
    
    
    this is fun,
    |David

    Ya know, David, the Bible really doesn't speak in terms of lifestyle.
    And I'm not sure what a lifestyle is, except that everybody's got one.
    
    I know you're on a crusade here, to stop us heathens from perverting
    traditional Bible teachings about same-sex sexual activity, to make
    sure nobody says it says anything positive about gays.  If it were not
    so, you'd not keep bringing it up.
        
    Richard
    

	
    Oh, by the way, (though you've not asked yet) *my* soul is probably
    made of silly putty.
    
    Richard
    

>    Ya know, David, the Bible really doesn't speak in terms of lifestyle.

Certainly it does.  Jesus makes it very clear that Christians are to
observe a lifestyle characterized by love of God and neighbor, a lifestyle
of denying oneself for the sake of the Gospel.

/john

    .72  Agreed, but what I was trying to say is that the Bible doesn't 
    express such marks of discipleship in terms of a "lifestyle."
    
    Richard
    

  Guidelines are given for various human relationships, however guidelines for
  homosexual relationships are not there.





 Jim

    
    
    > Ya know,David, the Bible really doesn't speak in terms of lifestyle
    
    ..yeah I know, they just talked about right and wrong, not PC or the
    latest lingo, lifestyle..
    
    
    David

    But, David, it wasn't me who brought up the term "lifestyle."  It
    was you.  Were you just being PC when you used it?
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    > it condemns the haymoysexual lifestyle
    
     Yep, I sure did! Guess the next note I enter should be in the " Prayer
    request topic " .......Oh Lord cleanse me of this PC lingo :-) :-)
    
    
    David

    Being PC is not a sin.
    
    Richard
    

Obeying the world rather than God definitely is.

    PC == obeying the world?
    
    Anti-PC == obeying God?
    
    I don't think so.
    
    Richard
    

    .80
    
    Very good Richard, now you're getting it! :-) :-) :-)
    

    The Denver Ku Klux Klan should certainly win approval for being
    anti-PC.  Last Friday they held a counter PC rally to dishonor
    M.L. King, Jr. Day.  The KKK referred MLK to as Martin Lucifer King.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    Richard,
    
     Good answer to your own question. Nobody here said that through and 
    through anti-pc means obeying God. We would like to suggest however
    that the road to hell is paved with good intentions and the Pc crowd
    certainly has alot of them thar intentions,pitooey! :-)
    
    
    David

re Note 800.83 by COMET::DYBEN:

>     We would like to suggest however
>     that the road to hell is paved with good intentions 

        So are "bad intentions" the way to heaven???!!!

        (That would explain a lot....)

        Bob

    
     
    
    > so are bad intentions " the way to heaven????!!!"
    
    
      Granted that potential exists, thus we need the Holy Spirit to guide
    us throught the pitfalls of self something or other..
    
    David

    The Spirit of the Living God is my compass.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    
    > The spirit of the Living God is my compass
    
     Then why do we disagree so much?

Note 800.87
    
>    > The spirit of the Living God is my compass
    
>     Then why do we disagree so much?

Perhaps this is not the right question.  Perhaps the question should be,
"Why don't we disagree more than we do?"

Christ never promised we'd never have disagreements.  Paul and Peter butt
heads at times.  Paul and Barnabas got into quite a tiff.

Perhaps we're wrong in thinking that in the Kingdom there exists no conflict.

Peace,
Richard

    
    Perhaps the verse that goes something like, "In God's house there are
    many mansions", applies here.
    
    Cindy

    
    
    -1-2,
    
     No. This disagreements are to profound. This is not Gods idea of
    diversity.  He will not say to one that the truth is x and then to
    another on the same topic say that the exact opposite is truth.
    
    David

    David,
    
    So what is your conclusion?
    
    If two people both trying to follow the example of the living Spirit
    arrive at two different conclusions, what does it mean?
    
    Patricia

    
    
    Patricia,
    
     Well your assuming that both poeple are hearing the Holy Spirit. I
    would conclude that two people cannot reach opposite conclusions
    about, lets see, stealing, and both be right. 
    
    A.) Person a says stealing is ok
    b.) Persons b says stealing is wrong
    
    
      I will concede that there are some ares that are in a grey area( very
    small category)...
    
    David

    so David,
    
    If you and X reach an opposite conclusion.  You think you are hearing
    the Holy Spirit.  X acts as if he thinks he is hearing the Holy Spirit.
    
    Specifically what conclusion do you come to?
    
    That you are really hearing the Holy Spirit and X is not?
    That is a natural human tendency.  Could you be wrong?  How would you
    know?  And what if you are wrong?  What if X is right?  What if both of
    you are wrong?  What if both of you are right?
    
    How does the Holy Spirit help you resolve the delemma?  How does the
    Holy Spirit instruct you to behave toward X whether you assume he is
    wrong or accept the possibility that he may be right and you wrong?
    
    Patricia

    
    
    Patricia,
    
     The Holy spirit is the tie breaker:-) I will also bounce my ideas
    off the bible and repsected elders,parents,pastors,and friends.
    
    David

    It's an interesting debate right and wrong.  I've been doing it since a
    toddler. :-)
    
    Hebrews 12
    
    Hebrews 12:1  Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so
    great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which
    doth so easily beset us, and let us run with patience the race that is set
    before us,
      2  Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith; who for
    the joy that was set before him endured the cross, despising the shame, and is
    set down at the right hand of the throne of God.
    
    >let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us,
    
    If you look at this portion of verse 1, you see that God is very clear
    that there is sin that easily besets us.. you have one and I have one,
    but they probably aren't the same thing...
    
    And lets be clear about the fact that there may be sin in one's life,
    where the same thing isn't sin to another person... self discipline is
    the key in many circumstances, i.e., TV.
    
    TV [although questionable these days] is not sinful in and of itself,
    if it has become your god and prohibits you from doing other things
    like going to church or reading your Bible or praying, then it becomes
    sin.  Perhaps you have a problem with pornography and with cable you
    have now all the pornography you want in your home or on the VCR... 
    
    get the drift here?
    
    While God has placed some absolutes about certain things being sinful,
    he has also recognized that there is a *sin* that easily besets us [or
    that we easily commit] that may not be a part of the absolutes.
    
    You may call it situational ethics, I call it Omniscient.
    
    Nancy
    

>    And lets be clear about the fact that there may be sin in one's life,
>    where the same thing isn't sin to another person... self discipline is
>    the key in many circumstances, i.e., TV.

This has been the source of confusion to many Christians who want to
have a list of do's and don'ts to follow for their righteousness.  After
all, who wants to walk around in a rice patty full of land mines, not
knowing what is a sin and what is not?

Let's trot out and dust off some old, old text from Exodus 20:3:
"Thou shalt have no other Gods before me."

When a person puts anything ahead of God,it is sin.  In this example, (TV), 
a person can ignore God's definitions to keep away from illicit material.
One can watch TV without sinning; one can also sin while watching TV, because
they have placed more value, more importance on the TV and its effects
(such as personal gratification, feeding the mind swill and pap, sapping
the mind of cognitive prowess, etc, etc, etc).  And so this issue is not about
TV but about the priotities you set in your life.

When a person puts anything ahead of God,it is sin.  

Mark

	David, I'm confused when you say the HS is the tiebreaker. Could you
explain that a little more? I had thought the HS is where one would go first.




Glen

    .97 Glen,
    
    I think it boils down to this.  David claims to heed the Holy Spirit.
    So do I.
    
    David claims that if we reach other than homogenous conclusions, one
    of us is wrong.  David could very possibly be right on this issue.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    re .98
    
    What concurrence!

    
    
    Glen
    
    > David, I'm confused
    
     I know :-) 
    
    > I thought the HS is where one would go first
    
     Somewhere in the bible Paul says " Your conscious either accuses you
    or defends you". The holy spirit is that something that lets you know
    if something is wrong even if you do not understand. I do not pray to
    the Holy spirit for guidance, I pray to God and he speaks to me through
    the HS..
    
    hope that helps,
    David

	David, thanks for writing that. I now understand what it is you were
trying to say. Could you list some ways that the Holy Spirit has guided you?



Thanks in advance!


Glen

    
    
    > COULD YOU LIST
    
     Why?
    
    David

    Cindy,
    
    See 800.95 and 800.96. :-)  Hope this helps.

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 122.84               The Great Portionalizing Myth                 84 of 84
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat"                 25 lines   4-MAR-1994 12:40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 122.81 PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON

>Even after I've read the Bible, it is *still* external
>to me.  Some of the principles and beliefs are indeed
>internal.

Truly, the *hardware* called the Bible, the bound pages printed with
symbols remains external to you, just as the Bible or any book would be
for anyone who cannot read.

But if you can read, and you do read the Bible, it is taken in, at
least, to some measure.  This is not unlike booting (loading memory)
a system from a disk, though not nearly as clean and simple.

I think the casual reader of this file can see the (forgive me) logic
of this.

Incidentally, it works this way for me, too.

I do notice a pattern, though.  It seems you are looking for differences
and exclusivities while I am looking for similarities and inclusivities.

Shalom,
Richard

re Note 800.104 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

        Clearly it's "firmware".

        Bob

    .105
    
    I confess ignorance.  Is firmware pre-loaded software that comes up
    immediately when the system is powered on?  Nobody has ever explained
    it to me.
    
    Can I get a short definition?
    
    Richard
    

    Firmware is more then just preloaded software. Basically it's
    software that is embedded in hardware. Often it is "burned"
    permanently into some sort of silicone chip. Once there one
    can often change it only by replacing the hardware. Though that 
    isn't always the case as we get more sophisticated.

    			Alfred

    .107 Thompson
    
    Yes, I recalled that you identified it as a firmware before, Alfred.
    I guess I should have asked sooner.
    
    Richard
    

Here's some Zen-like thoughts:

If you can read this, it is because your mind is interpretting these symbols.
The message is no longer external to you.  The equipment upon which this
message appears is and will always be external to you.

If you cannot read this, it is only mysterious code, meaningless without
an interpreter.  The message remains external to you.

You are not the same as before you read this.