Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    My Bibles are bumpy, literally.  Mostly from use.
    
    But to respond to your question:
    
    I would say I see the gospels as most authoritative, particularly
    Luke, Matthew, and Mark.  The Acts of the Apostles I would include
    along with these gospels.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

 My Bible is holy..








Jim

    .2
    
    
    That's good Jim, cuz I have the same Bible. :-)

    From my own experience as a person who spent more than a decade
    as an agnostic/vague Christian:
    
    My bible was just about as bumpy as its content differed from my
    personal viewpoint of what was 'good' for me.
    
    Something amazing happened when I chose to submit myself to Jesus
    as not only my Savior, but also my Lord....
    
    My Bible began to flatten out and and then become alive and
    radiant. Yes, holy.
    
    Mary
    

 AMEN, Mary!  

    Great insight Mary!   

    Holy?  Separate, yes.  Set apart, yes.  But as bumpy as the Rocky
    Mountains and as richly interesting, unlike the miles of monotonous
    flatness of the plains.
    
    Holy?  As in, "I've got the correct handle on God and you don't"?  No.
    And frankly, I for one don't appreciate the attempt to invalidate the
    question.
    
    Thank you very much,
    Richard
    

    Regarding the "my Bible is holy" comments: I don't understand what that
    has to do with the question asked in .0.

    Given that your Bible is holy (I assume you mean *the* Bible is holy,
    not just your personal copy), is it holy and flat or holy and bumpy?

    Eric

    re: .7
    
    The base note used this relationship:
    
    flat = scripture is all authoritative
    bumpy = scripture is not uniformly authoritative [some parts not
    			inspired by God]
    
    Holy to me is another way to say authoritative, inspired by God, but
    it 'adds the halo'! It's like responding 'very flat' to the above
    analogy. I did not see it as an affront. Perhaps it was a response to
    the typical connotation that you yourself gave to the word 'flat' in
    .7, that is, uninteresting and monotonous. Therefore, it certainly
    is hard for one who loves scripture and believes it to be 'God
    breathed' to use in relation to it, as established by the base note.
    
    Peace!
    
    Mary
    
    
    

    
>    Holy?  As in, "I've got the correct handle on God and you don't"?  No.
>    And frankly, I for one don't appreciate the attempt to invalidate the
>    question.
    
 
      Sheesh..it was a little attempt at a pun, though of course I do view
      the Word of God as being Holy.


      


       Jim

     

    re:  Note 853.9 by JUPITR::MNELSON
    
    Thanks Mary. That clears up some of the confusion I had. In my mind
    "holy" could apply equally well to either view: flat or bumpy.
    
    Eric

My Bible is flat in some ways and lumpy in others.

It's flat in that all is equally true.

It's lumpy in that some truths are harder to discern correctly
than other truths - therefore I don't rely on them as much.
For example, I believe the Bible teaches that women should
not be pastors - yet I belong to a denomination that ordains
women.  Perhaps I haven't discerned this teaching correctly
as many Biblical conservatives disagree with my understanding.

On the other hand, salvation is by faith in the atoning death
of Jesus Christ.  I would never join a church that believed
differently since the Bible, church history and conservatives
have essentially unanimous agreement on this doctrine.

Collis

    FWIW Jim, I got the pun. :-)
    
    Sheesh
    Nancy

    HA! I just got the pun! What a thickie I am... Good one Jim.
    
    Eric

re: Note 853.7 by Richard "I'm 2 sexy 4 my chair" 

>    Holy?  Separate, yes.  Set apart, yes.  But as bumpy as the Rocky
>    Mountains and as richly interesting, unlike the miles of monotonous
>    flatness of the plains.
    
Hey!  I resemble that remark!

Jim, born and raised in Iowa

    .15
    
    I was afraid of that.
    
    My wife was raised in Kansas.  A very dear friend, in Indiana.
    
    My apologies to those who love the plains.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    I can't see the passages about Saul taking a dump in a cave as
    being as important and relevant to Christians as the Sermon on
    the Mount.
    
    Richard
    

    Not sure I've read of Saul's Dump could make for a very interesting,
    but gross Sunday School lesson. :-)
    
    However, I think they are both important... and yes equally so.  The
    sermon on the Mount would have no credance without the *humanity* of
    God.  Saul's dump [as I said I don't remember it] is an example of our
    humanity for which Jesus died.
    
    Hmmmm... did I say this right?  Oh well... gotta run to have lunch with
    Rafael and the boys.
    
    Nancy
    

.18
    
    I Samuel 24:3  And he came to the sheepcotes by the way, where [was] a
cave; and Saul went in to cover his feet [take a dump]: and David and his
men remained in the sides of the cave.

Richard
    

	I wonder how many "flat Bibelists" are also "flat earthers"?

	Hmmm! It occurs to me that there may be a parallel: the flat
	earthers incarcerated the first proponents of a "bumpy earth".
	I'll wager that (many of) the flat Bibelists would love to do
	the same with the "bumpy" school.

	FWIW: I'm flat-chested, but I do not regard my maleness to be
	100% authoritative.   :-)

	Greetings, Derek.

re .20

Derek,

It is only with the advance of science that the "flat earth" concept
has shown to be false. However, the premise that the earth is flat
did not come from the bible itself. Infact the earth is described
as being round, for Isaiah 40:22a RSV "It is he who sits above the 
circle of the earth,". Also there were many legends of how the earth
was held up, but Job 26:7 RSV reads "He stretches out the north over 
the void, and hangs the earth upon nothing.". The image ones protrays
from these two accounts, is a planet that is circular within a void
that hangs on nothing. Not quite the image of a flat earth, eh?.

So the belief that the earth is flat must have come from another source
other than the bible. 

Phil. 

    RE  Note 853.21 by RDGENG::YERKESS
    
    > Isaiah 40:22a RSV "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth"
                                                     ^^^^^^
    A circle is not a sphere.

re .22
	
	Are you reading too much into what I wrote? for I did not say 
	that a circle is a sphere. The point I was making was these two 
	scriptures paint a picture of a round earth, within a void, that 
	hangs on nothing. Rather like that which an astronaut would see 
	if he looked at earth from outer space. The bible writers must
	have been inspired to write what they did, especially if one 
	looks at the limited knowledge that they had at that time.

	Phil.

    	Hey!  I did not want to start a geometry lesson.  :-)
    
    	Phil, I knew the biblical reference to a round earth, of course,
    	but I did not state that the flat earthers got their scientific
    	info. from the bible (although I am sure that they felt supported
    	by the very texts you quoted).  The church was, after all,
    	prominent in the "pro-flat" movement.
    
    	On the other hand, I do not see any particular inspiration involved
    	for the biblical writers to designate the earth round. They would
    	simply need to turn on their heels looking at the horizon. The
    	impression would certainly be of a circular world.  They might also
    	observe that the shadow of their camel does non-linear things in most
    	places.
    
    	Neither does recognizing circularity imply insight into
    	sphericity (ugh! ???) *That* might have been inspired. It seems to
    	me to be a shame that, with all this inspriation being breathed,
    	they could not make that one small step from circle to sphere. 
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    The range of replies in here is interesting.  In my class at Andover
    Newton with predominantly UCC and American Baptist Christians 80 out of
    80 students replied that the Bible was bumpy.  Yes some of us found it
    more bumpy than others but everyone one agreed that all parts of the
    bible are not equally authoritative.  100% agreed that the bible has
    been used and still is used as a tool of oppression.
    
    Why is there very little serious attempt to engage this question in
    here?
    
    Patricia

Patricia,

Sorry but can you clarify what the question is, that you want answered?


Phil. 

 "Tool of oppression"?







 Jim

    In the nineteenth century some Christian churches supported slavery
    based on Paul's letters.  That was using Paul's letters as a tool of
    oppression.  I remember seeing a time magazine article a couple of
    years back on homophobia with a man carrying a sign saying "God hates
    'homosexuals'"  (I refuse to even quote the actual word)  That is using
    Paul's letters and Leviticutts as tools of oppression.
    
    In this notes file, it has been stated that God has created a natural
    order of men over women and therefore women should submit to men. 
    Women are still denied major roles in religious organizations based on
    Paul's letters. That is using the Bible as a tool of oppression.
    
       The Old testament concept of the "Chosen People" has
    been used to support Nationalism and the domination of one people over
    another.  
    
    Each of those instances are examples of where the Bible is used often
    by people who call themselves "Christian" as  a tool of oppression.
     
    
    That is why I believe that a Bible that is flat is not Holy.  A bible 
    where every word and sentence is equally judged by humans to be the word
    of God and authoritative is oppressive. 
    
    I agree that the Bible is Holy.  The Bible is also a product of human
    hands and is fallible.  Christians under the guidance of the Holy
    Spirit MUST discern for themselves and for their faith communities
    which parts of the Bible are bumpy and merit being discarded and which
    parts are holy.
    
    I think it has been clearly shown even by an example as silly as women
    wearing hats to church that all Christians determine which passages are
    more authoritative.  Some Christians are more upfront about their
    choices than others.

re .27

The devil uses the Bible as a tool of oppression.  And when he isn't doing
that, he makes people believe that God's service, which is perfect freedom,
is oppression because it requires radical change from self-centerdness to
obedience to God's revelation of himself.

Those who think there are bumps in their bibles often want to remove the
bumps.  They then end up with a holey bible, not a Holy Bible.

/john

re: Note 853.0 by Patricia "honor the web" 

I believe in a bumpy Bible.

To me, the peaks are the words and deeds of Jesus, as expounded in the 
gospels.

I also rank Genesis and Exodus quite highly, as a mythological explanation of
our place in Creation. 

Then the epistles, somewhat bumpy on their own.

The Wisdom books I'd put next, followed by The Law and Prophets, which, after 
all, were summed up in the Gospel.  (Though Isaiah has some beautiful scenery 
of its own.)

Of course one grouping's peak may be higher than another groupings valley, and 
the landscape isn't carved in stone ( .-) )  My view of the landscape is more 
fluid than that, though not, I think I must add, based on a foundation of
sand. 

I don't expect anyone else to choose my particular ranking.

Peace,

Jim

p.s. Even the lowest valley of the lowliest passage is miles higher than most 
other books I've read.

re .28

Patricia,

Solomon under inspiration of the holy spirit wrote "Man has dominated man
to his injury." Ecclesiastes 8:9 NWT. Through the centuries man has 
oppressed others using what ever tool is at his disposal.

The bible promises a time when mankind will be set free from oppression.
However, this freedom is relative and it is only God who has absolute
freedom. Do you think it is right to subject oneself under God's authority?.

Phil. 

    Phil,
    
    I think it is essential to subject oneself to the authority of the
    Divine.  I think it is essential that one does not subject themself to
    human authority called divine.
    
    
    Patricia

    Richard,
    
    How does cover one's feet get interpreted taking a dump?

    re Note 853.33 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > How does cover one's feet get interpreted taking a dump?

    The NIV translation uses the phrase "...to relieve himself." Goes to
    show the human hand involved in translations. Especially when it
    comes to that which is not usually discussed in polite company.
    
    Eric

    .33
    
    "Excuse me, but...
    
    	I've gotta see a man about a duck."
    
    	I'm going to visit Mrs. Murphy."
    
    	I've gotta use the head."
    
    	I've got to whiz like a race horse."
    
    Even "taking a dump" is a euphemism.  What, pray tell, do you think
    "cover your feet" means?  Putting on your shoes??
    
    Richard
    

re Note 853.35 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     Even "taking a dump" is a euphemism.  What, pray tell, do you think
>     "cover your feet" means?  Putting on your shoes??
  
        Yes, but the particular phrase "cover your feet" conjures up
        images of a particularly messy accident!

        Bob

    .36
    
    Agreed :-)!!!
    
    Actually thought it meant he was cold.

re: Note 853.35 by Richard "I'm 2 sexy 4 my chair" 

>                                -< Euphemisms >-

I like 

>    "Excuse me, but...


          ...I need to ride the porcelain pony..."
    
.-)   .-O   .-)

Jim

	Re: Last few.

	So how about zipping up for a while and giving some thought to
	the basenote.  I think it presented a very good question in
	a challengely novel way.

	I for one would be very interested to read a few more "insider"
	perspectives on this.

	Greetings, Derek.

    
    .39
    
    Jesus saw certain portions of the Law as weightier than others,
    and certain commandments as greater than others.  Seems his Bible
    was a bit on the bumpy side, I'd say.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

Re:  .40

From everything Jesus says and does, He viewed everything
written in the Bible [read Old Testament] as authoritative.

Even Saul's dump.

Collis

    Jesus primarily quoted Deuteronomy, Isaiah, and the Psalms.
    
    Funny, I don't recall Jesus mentioning Saul's bowel movement.
    
    Richard
    

    .42
    
    Jesus was the Word and Word was made flesh..

    The Word, Divine Wisdom, Sophia, Logos,  made flesh.  I agree with
    that.

Note 853.43
    
>    Jesus was the Word and Word was made flesh..

I've always understood John 1.1-14 in just that way.

Yet, I get the feeling you think I'm saying something to the contrary.
Forgive me if, in actuality, you are affirming what I've said.

Shalom,
Richard

>    The Word, Divine Wisdom, Sophia, Logos,  made flesh.  I agree with
>    that.

Excellent!

And in the beginning the Word was with God, and the Word was God!
And the Word was made Flesh and dwelt among us!

/john

    
    A vibration in the form of the Word (Om) was set from the Unmanifest 
    and made the manifest Flesh and dwelt among us.
    
    Cindy

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    "And the Word was made flesh".
    
    "And the only way to God is through the Word made flesh".
    
    "And what you do to the least of my brothers and sisters you do to me".
    
    "In Christ, you are by adoption, sons and daughters of God"
    
    
    I have been reflecting on these lines for quite a while now.  
    
    The living Word of God is made flesh in Jesus Christ.  By acceptance of
    the Divine Spirit each of us become by adoption Sons and Daughters of
    The Holy One.  To be in Christ does not mean to accept doctrine about
    Christ but to accept that living Spirit of Christ in our everyday life.
    in  acts of Love, Kindness, Mercy, and Justice.
    
    The Living Word remains flesh in the human capacity for
    acts of holiness.  The only way to God is through our manifold acts of
    love toward each other.  God speaks to humankind not through angels and
    books but through the simple acts of kindness, love, and goodness of
    others.
    
    The only way to God is through the living Word of God, made manifest in
    our relationships with one another.
    
    To be in Christ does not mean to identify ourselves with TC
    doctrine(Theologically Correct) but to live a life committed to loving
    God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and to loving our neighbors
    as ourselves.
    
    Amen
    
    
    Patricia
    

    >To be in Christ does not mean to identify ourselves with TC
    >doctrine(Theologically Correct) but to live a life committed to loving
    >God with all our hearts, minds, and souls, and to loving our neighbors
    >as ourselves.

You cannot have one without the other.

You cannot love God and love sin.  You must love one and
hate the other.  No woman can serve two masters.

You cannot love truth and love lies.  You must love one and
hate the other.  No woman can serve two masters.

Doctrine (i.e. important truths about God, Jesus, you and
me) is not something that is irrelevant to God.  How could
important truths be irrelevant?

It is *so* easy for us to pervert the truth (or believe
perverted truth) and move away from God.  *That* is why
truth (correct doctrine) is *so* important.  We deceive ourselves,
believe a lie and move away from God.

The truth of God's Word is inextricably linked to God and
all He is.  If we can't trust what God says, what (or who)
do we trust?

Collis

    Collis,
    
    you can only answer those questions for yourself.
    
    Patricia

Note 853.49

>You cannot have one without the other.

Personal observation seems to contradict this.  Persons who seem to be
most rigidly doctrinaire (orthodox, theologically correct) often seem
to exhibit relatively little of the qualities which you seem to indicate
are absolutely inextricable (love, mercy, justice, kindness).

I fully expect to be told I'm judging by the wrong criteria, but all I
believe I'm doing is knowing others by their fruit.

Shalom,
Richard

    It may be a question of semantics for me, but I believe that the Bible
    is the innerrant Word of God.  Now for those who "pick and choose"
    certain verses and then "oppress" others, I believe utilizing the Word
    of God in this sort of fashion is wrong, just as getting the family
    bible and thumping it over the head of an unbeliever declaring "accept
    this Word of God" is totally wrong and unacceptable.
    
    Anyone can pick and play any kind of game they want by taking one
    particular verse out of context and basing a whole doctrine around it. 
    Just as anyone can play with statistics and try and form any arguement
    they want.
    
    To me, I was taught that when it comes to Bible Study and Research,
    that many problems could occur:
         1. There may only be one specific reference about any particular
    topic.  Using that one reference without studying the context in which
    it was used, the Eastern Culture and anthropological reasons for it's
    use is wrong.
         2.  Not studying or getting an interpretation from the original
    Greek or Hebrew when the literal meaning is 'fuzzy', like the "taking
    a dump" comment, is wrong.
         3.  Not trying to find parallel passages which either explains in
    further detail or augments the original is wrong.
    
    When I first became a believer, I was unsure of many passages, etc.,
    but the key for me was further study, asking many questions and prayer. 
    Yes, prayer.  I have found that when confronted with a passage(s) that
    is unclear to me, praying about it and pondering over its context
    helped the message that God wanted me to have come real clear.
    
    I may have read the entire Bible, cover to cover about 10 times in the
    8 years I've been saved.  Even though I feel I know abundantly more now
    than I did years ago {one reason why I felt I couldn't teach Sunday
    School before last fall}, I am constantly learning more and more and
    hopefully God and my pastors' preaching from the pulpit and listening
    to other Christians will help broaden my knowledge and understanding.
    

    I guess this is the place.
    
    
    I was reading the Old Testament Book "Numbers" last night. I came
    across a passage, where a Man had been gathering firewood on the
    Sabbath. Moses and some others brought him to the Lord and said, what
    should we do with someone who gathers firewood on the Sabbath? The Lord
    said that he should be stoned *TO DEATH*, and *HE WAS*!
    
    For Catholics and many others, this passage represents the OLD
    Covenant and was replaced with the New Covenant that the 
    New Testament shows.
    
    My question is, to those that claim that all in the Bible is true
    and binding today ( i.e. no sex during the monthly cycle), do you
    gather wood on Sunday?
    
    Marc H.

    Jesus fulfilled the Law Marc.  Whether or not you gather wood is up to
    you... will  you be judged for breaking the sabbath? Yes!  Will you go
    to hell for it?  Not if you've received Christ as Savior... he already
    paid for that sin.