Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    The heart of my faith is the feeling of Spirit.  It is a feeling of
    connection with a Power outside of myself that draws me to it and
    demands that I live the best life I know how.
    
    One year after my divorce, when I was at the low point of my adult
    life, I recognized that I did not have a clue regarding what
    spirituality was and that I was miserable because of it.  It was at
    this time that I first became connected to the recovery movement.  My
    initial connection was through a group at my UU church listening to and
    discussing John Bradshaws' theories of Family Systems.  After that I
    became involved in twelve step meetings briefly and in a twelve step
    notes conference.  The first step in 12 step recovery programs is to
    recognize that your life is out of control and meaningless.  The second
    step, which for me(along with the third) was the hardest was to accept that
    a power outside of myself could restore me to meaning.  THe third step is
    to let go of my need to control and to accept that power into my life.
    
    Struggling through those two steps is when I began to hear people
    speaking of Spirituality.  What was this spirituality.  I did not feel
    any connection with a God, higher power, or in fact much outside of
    myself.  I was pretty miserable.
    
    I asked people what spirituality was and I got some responses that were
    wonderful and meaningful to me.
    
    "It was a sense of connection with everything around me", one would
    say.
    
    "It is a sense of being part of the wonderful dance of the Universe"
    
    "It was a fulfilling, sustaining connection with the source of our
    being."
    
    Discovering that this sense of "The Holy" was missing from my life and
    actively listening to others experience, I participated in a UU course
    that helped me discover my own spirituality.  At the end of the course,
    I was writing my Creed.  I found a beautiful public garden on a warm
    spring days.  There was flowers, butterflies, birds all around.  I was
    all alone and totally at peace.  I felt connected to the garden, to the
    world and to a powerful force outside of me.  It was a wonderful
    feeling.  As I was leaving I heard bells that sounded like far off
    church bells.  To this day, I don't know whether the were real bells
    a ringing generated from my own being.  It was a wonderful serene
    feeling.    It changed my life.
    
    It was only after that that I could find any meaning in the Bible.  I
    gravitated toward the story of Paul, because my minister who was
    counselling me at the time, thought Paul was a terrific theologian, and
    because the story about Paul falling off his horse and feeling
    connected to this life changing power potrayed as a flash of life and
    identified by him as "the Christ", provided meaning to the sense of awe
    and connection that I had felt.
    
    The more I read and reread the Bible, the more gems I found.  Stories
    that do not have one unequivocal meaning but stories that are alive. 
    Stories that I can interract with and create meaning for myself from. 
    Stories that I am continuing amazed when I read about novel ways of
    relating too.  Stories that bring the Living Christ to me, with newness
    of meaning everytime I read them.
    
    Now how do I know that this spirit that I feel is the spirit of God and
    not some other spirit.  Because it is a spirit that makes me genuinely
    happy.  It is a spirit that forces me to examine all my actions, my
    thoughts, my feelings.  It is a spirit that challenges and questions is
    that the right thing to do.  Is it the loving thing to do.  I can hear
    Paul's words, "Does it build up community".  I add does it uplife. 
    Does it bring love, peace, acceptance, and joy into the world.
    
    I went to a self development program, which in many ways I did not
    agree with or like.  But one aspect of it really intrigued me.  We did
    a lot of yelling and screaming to get us out of the rational mind into
    the pre reflective.  What do you want?.  What do  you really want? We
    kept repeting these questions to each other.  
    
    What I really wanted and what most of the participants really wanted
    was to Love and be Loved.  In a secular setting, without any religion,
    when individuals were pushed into their innermost needs, this need to
    love and be loved was the most genuine need.
    
    And that to gave meaning to the commandment found in the Old Testament,
    found in Paul, and found most particularly in the words of Jesus, to
    love God with all our heart, soul, and mind, and to love our neighbors
    as ourselves.
    
    That is how I know when I am connected with the living Spirit of God.
    
    When it compells me to love God with all my heart, soul, and mind and
    to love others even as I love myself.
    
    From the core of my being, a cannot think of, or contemplate any more
    truthful and honest test of Spirit.
    
    
                                             AMEN 

    
    The Bible is replete with references to "spirit".  I believe that the
    Bible makes it rather clear and my own experience concurs that the
    expression of a spirit which denies Jesus Christ or even includes Him
    as one among several or many, is the spirit of the "sons of
    disobedience".  On the other hand, the spirit that testifies that Jesus
    Christ is the Son of God, the only begotten Son, and the only way to
    salvation, is the spirit which has been raised from death to life.
    
    jeff

    I'm not sure where to put this note, so anyone who thinks it should
    be moved, please do so. A few things:
    
    I have just returned to DEC from being out on disability, and I need
    to find a job in the next 4 weeks or I will be out the door. So if
    anyone knows of any technical writing or editing jobs, please let me
    know.
    
    I'm glad to see your notes, Patricia, and to get the impression from
    this and other files that things are going well for you.
    
    This note does have something to do with spirituality. I'm reading a book
    at the moment that I really like called The History of God, by Karen
    Armstrong. Apparently it has been a NY Times bestseller. It is about
    the images of God that people at various points in history have had
    and what these mean for spirituality. It covers all religions, and
    is fascinating. It is the approach that is so interesting. This
    woman has what I think of as genuine spirituality (a prerequisite
    of this for me is very high caring about others and also tolerance of
    differences) and it really comes across in this book.
    
    Eileen  
    

    Jeff,
    
    That has not been my experience.  I have friends who I would identify
    as spirit filled who are Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, and Native American,
    secular humanist, as well as Christian.
    
    There is a unique quality about a person who lives by Spirit that can
    be easily discerned.  THere is a grace, a goodness, a love.  I believe
    that those who truly are spiritual can discern others who are spiritual
    regardless of the Religous identification.
    
                                   Patricia

| <<< Note 1100.2 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| On the other hand, the spirit that testifies that Jesus Christ is the Son of 
| God, the only begotten Son, and the only way to salvation, is the spirit which
| has been raised from death to life.

	Didn't you forget that your belief also adds the disclaimer that one
has to believe the Bible is the inerrant Word of God too? 


Glen

    Ohh Glen get off of it already.   
    
    I believe the Holy Spirit cannot dwell within a person unless they
    believe in Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior.  FWIW.
    
    -Jack

re .1


i very much like your definition of spirituality, patricia.

three years ago, i had an intensely spiritual period. it lasted about 
eight months. all this happened after i had gone through my three year 
post divorce phase which was characterised primarily by bars, sex, alcohol 
and fun.

i had met the woman which i wanted to marry, have children by and for 
whom i wanted to conquer the earth.

in that time, i was filled with an intense sense of purpose about being.
answers to any and all questions which i ever had, just to dropped into
my lap. it was as if i lived on another plain. life was transparent, 
i could sense the world. i felt secure and so utterly filled with sense 
and purpose, it made me solid as a rock.

in this entire period, i could not tolerate any substance which would 
diminish my perpetual feeling of heightened spirituality. not only did 
i avoid all alcohol, i remained sexually absolutely pure over this entire 
period.

the "union" wasn't meant to be. at least not at the time. 

whilst this was painful to realise, i am glad for having known this intense 
spirituality.

as you can probably tell, i do my best to hold on to just a little of it! 



andreas.

>    The heart of my faith is the feeling of Spirit.  It is a feeling of
>    connection with a Power outside of myself that draws me to it and
>    demands that I live the best life I know how.
    
    by what authority are you able to declare that this is God's Holy
    Spirit?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>    That has not been my experience.  I have friends who I would identify
>    as spirit filled who are Hindu, Jewish, Pagan, and Native American,
>    secular humanist, as well as Christian.
    
    everyone has a spirit.  We trying to determine which one and by what
    authority we're able to positively declare it.
    
    Mike

    In Faith!

    Faith isn't an authority.  Is it an opinion, bad pizza, something else?

btw, i think it sounds pretty silly when trying to explain what spirituality
is all about... it's like trying to explain what you believe in, yet this is
quite irrational. 

i agree, it does come down to faith. 



andreas.

Re: .8 Mike

>    by what authority are you able to declare that this is God's Holy
>    Spirit?
    
I'm curious: by what authority are you able to declare that the Bible is
the word of God?

				-- Bob

>I'm curious: by what authority are you able to declare that the Bible is
>the word of God?
    
Revelation 19:10
And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not:
I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus:
worship God: FOR THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS IS THE SPIRIT OF PROPHECY.

    1 John 4
    
    Historical records, archaeological records, and the most important and
    powerful of all: my changed life.
    
    Mike

Mike,

If your changed life is your most important authority for declaring that
the Bible is the word of God, why isn't Patricia's changed life a
sufficient authority for her declaration that the Spirit that she feels in
her heart is God's Holy Spirit?


				-- Bob

    	Is this toopic about spirituality in general as the title
    	indicates?
    
    	Or is it supposed to be annother battle over the definition
    	of Christian spirituality -- which is already woven throughout
    	this and other conferences?
    
    	If the former, it is merely an awareness of something greater
    	than oneself.  All religions have spiritualities.  For others
    	their spirituality may be about someone whom they idolize, or
    	even their own egos.  Or perhaps it is a vice they have, or
    	an activity they follow.  (Art, music, dance, writing.)
    
    	If it is the latter purpose posed above, why bother?  We 
    	already know where each other stands.  This topic would just
    	be a reopening of the divisive wounds many of us must feel.
    	It would result in nothing more than further polarization,
    	accusation, mistrust.  Count me out.  I've had enough of
    	that.

>If your changed life is your most important authority for declaring that
>the Bible is the word of God, why isn't Patricia's changed life a
>sufficient authority for her declaration that the Spirit that she feels in
>her heart is God's Holy Spirit?
    
    One main reason is that it's not the only evidence, while with Patricia
    it appears to be.

Re: .17

>                    -< cult members have changed lives too >-

Thanks, Mike - I'll have to use that line sometime. :-)

				-- Bob

    Glad you liked it Bob ;-)
    
    Seriously though, a case could be made for their life change not being
    as permanent or satisfactory.  I've many tactics used by them that consist 
    of getting a wounded sheep away from the flock (isolating them from
    their families) so that they are dependent upon the cult for all its 
    needs.  Then they perform their hocus pocus.  I've heard all sorts of
    nightmarish experiences from people who were once duped.
    
    Mike

.19 OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!"

On the other hand, I heard interviews the other day with several
survivors of the Branch Davidians, and two years after the fact
(they have also been in separate prisons, away from other influence)
they seem to be as devoted to Koresh and believing in his word
as they have always been. 

Steve

.0

John 10:4-5  And when he putteth forth his own sheep, he goeth before
them, and the sheep follow him: for they know his voice.
And a stranger will they not follow, but will flee from
him: for they know not the voice of strangers.

John 10:26-27  But ye believe not, because ye are not of my sheep, as
I said unto you.  My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they
follow me:

After one becomes accustomed to hearing It, the Voice is enough.

Shalom,
Richard

| <<< Note 1100.17 by OUTSRC::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>



| One main reason is that it's not the only evidence, while with Patricia
| it appears to be.

	That's not entirely true there Mike. With Patricia, ONLY God is the
evidence. That is infinite. From noting with you, I have gooten the impression
that you include the Bible as a "must" item. I believe, from noting with
Patricia, that she will use the Bible, providing it is God who leads her there,
and she will use any vehichle that God puts in her path. 



Glen

    I feel a little sad that there are the sceptical responses to this
    topic.  Sad because each of us needs places where our spirituality is
    affirmed and nurtured.  This cannot happen when the sceptics keep
    saying, well how do you know that the Spirit you follow, is the Spirit
    of God. 
    
    Richard,  I liked the quotes from John that you included.  I believe it
    is fairly simple to truly discern the voice of God from other voices,
    thinking in those terms, spiritually is responding to the voice from
    God.  i also like the Matthew quotes that you can tell the good tree
    from the fruits that it bears.  The fruits of love, peace, joy,
    togetherness, hope are all good fruits and they come from the spirit of
    God.
    
    I believe in community, but in totally democratic community.  Inclusive
    community.  Every voice is invited to be a member and every voice
    deserves respect and to be listened too.  The spirit that emerges from
    true community is the spirit of love, respect, and tolerance.
    
    In my theology, I believe in one God and that God is the source of all
    love, all respect, and all goodness.  When these qualities emerge from
    a genuine, egalitarian, inclusive community they emerge, in my opinion,
    from that one Source.
    
    I do not believe in a literal Satan.  I do not believe in a hierarchy
    of good and bad God's  contending for our loyalities.
    
    I believe that all things were created by God and created for good
    purposes.   Satan is the name of the metaphor for everything that leads
    us away from those good purposes intended for us.  Coming together in a 
    community of love is a way to feel what is really important and to have
    the love and support to overcome everything that hurts.  A means to
    help us turn back toward God.

    Which is why I ask how one can blaspheme the Holy Spirit and I look
    forward to your answer!
    
    -Jack

SPIRITUALITY. 
1 spiritual character, quality or nature 
2 [often pl.] the rights, jurisdiction, tithes, etc. belonging to the church 
  or to an ecclesiastic 
3 the fact or state of being incorporeal

SPIRITUAL. 
1 of the spirit or the soul as distinguished from the body or material matters 
2 of, from, or concerned with the intellect; intellectual
3 of or consisting of spirit; not corporeal 
4 characterized by the ascendancy of the spirit; showing much refinement of 
  thought and feeling 
5 of religion or the church; sacred, devotional or ecclesiastical; not lay or 
  temporal
6 spiritualisitc or supernatural


quoted from webster's new world dictionary

    Jack,
    
    I had a long discussion in Christian about this topic and I don't want
    to repeat it here.
    
    I believe that the common "Christian" practice of calling that which
    they do not agree with as Demonic, Satanic, or of the Devil has the
    potential to be Blashemy, particularly when those very things that they
    are calling demonic, may in fact be directly from God.
    
    It seems to me, as evidenced in these responses and as evidnece of my
    conversations elsewhere that many who call themselves "Christian" have
    no experience of or no way to comprehend that God is powerful enough to
    break right through into humanity at any time and any place.  This
    denial of the continuous existence of the Holy Spirit is puzzling to
    me.  It shows a lack of faith in those who continue to insist that only
    their faith is strong enough.
    
    
    If any person relates to me that they are influenced by "Spirit" I
    listen eagerly to their stories.  I can only sense what "Spirit" is and
    can do for us.  I feel "Spirit" and its influence in my life.  I here
    Jack talking about that same spirit.  I here Richard talking about that
    same spirit.  Although the Bible helps me to understand what I feel,
    because it has recorded some of the most intense moments of Spirit in
    human history, I do not need the Bible to feel spirit.  Spirit exists,
    so it can be felt directly.  I honor every person telling how Spirit
    exists directly for them.  If the fruits of that persons life are good
    fruits then I  assume that the spirit is of God.
    
    To do less than honoring every person's telling of their story when
    there is also evidence of Good fruits, could very well be blasphemy
    against the Holy Spirit.

 Z   I believe that the common "Christian" practice of calling that
 Z   which they do not agree with as Demonic, Satanic, or of the Devil has the
 Z   potential to be Blashemy, particularly when those very things that
 Z   they are calling demonic, may in fact be directly from God.
    
    In that case, count John the epistle writer as a blasphemer, since his
    epistles give that very message.  I believe there are doctrines of men
    and demons that can and have infiltrated the true gospel.  For example,
    you don't believe in a literal hell or a literal Satan.  I find this
    interesting since Jesus very much believed in a literal Satan and made
    no bones about it.  It is recorded in all four gospels.
    
    Secondly, I find it interesting you mentioned you couldn't understnd
    why people reject there is a Holy Spirit.  Yet in the blasphemy note
    you seemed to reject the distinction that the Holy Spirit was a
    separate person from the Father and the Son.  I don't claim the trinity
    to be an easy concept to understand with our finite minds; yet I at
    least acknowledge it.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    >In that case, count John the epistel writer as a blasphemer, since his
    >epistles give that  message.
    
    That is the problem that I have with the Gospel of John and the
    Johanine literature.
    
    I am told, however to look at that literature as the literature of the
    oppressed and to understand, the anger and even hatred that comes out
    in a period of oppression is significant.  When the Roman non
    Christians were persecuting, killing, and torturing Christians because
    they were Christians, it is comprehendable that the Christian
    literature of the time, would call those who are not Christian as
    Children of Darkness.
    
    Those words cannot be transposed to a time and place when Christianity
    is the dominant religion, where Christianity has itself been at least
    complacent in oppressing others at times, and when non Christians are
    not torturing and killing Christians.  The Johanine literature needs to 
    be read in context.
    
                                      Patricia
    

  ZZ     That is the problem that I have with the Gospel of John and the
  ZZ      Johanine literature.
    
    My understanding was that John as a pastor of the Ephesian Church was
    attempting to oust gnosticism which was working its way within church
    doctrine.
    
    -Jack

>    I feel a little sad that there are the sceptical responses to this
>    topic.  Sad because each of us needs places where our spirituality is
>    affirmed and nurtured.  This cannot happen when the sceptics keep
>    saying, well how do you know that the Spirit you follow, is the Spirit
>    of God. 
    
    I'm not trying to be skeptical.  I really want to know how you (or
    anyone else) knows how you distinguish messages from God and messages
    from something else.  By what authority are you able to test and make
    distinctions.
    
    "Decision determines direction.  Direction determines destiny." -
    Howard Hendricks

	Those who rely strictly and solely on the Bible are hardly exempt
from error.  Those who look to reason, experience and tradition in addition
to Scripture also take a risk.

Richard
    

    Mike,
    
    If your question is sincere, then I will try to answer it once again. 
    If we believe that God is Love and that Love is God, then we can have a
    good sense of what is from God and what is not from God.
    
    If someone speaks of their spiritual path and I can see that first of
    all their spiritual path directs them in all aspects of their lifes and
    second that it directs them to live a life that is good, kind, loving,
    and justice filled then I discern that their spiritual path is from
    God.
    
    If a cultists claims they are following a spiritual path and that path
    leads them to abusing followers, raping children, beating children then
    I know that that path is not from God.
    
    I believe that God meets each one of us where we are at.  God provides
    different paths for each of us.  We can discern whether the path is of
    God by the direction that the paths lead and by the fruits of goodness
    that come from following the path that God gives to each of us.
    
    
                                     Patricia

        <<< Note 1100.32 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    If we believe that God is Love and that Love is God, then we can have a
>    good sense of what is from God and what is not from God.
    
    	Yet it is clear that among the participants in this conference
    	we can NOT agree on what is from God.
    
    	I do not see the promotion of what is traditionally considered
    	immoral to be from God.  And I see the promotion of it from
    	our religious leadership to be inherently evil and dangerous -- 
    	both for the leader and for the ones lead astray.
    
    	The question has been asked many times -- how do we know our
    	version of "what is from God" is really from God?  All we've
    	been able to do is express doubt in each others' source of
    	assurance in the Truth.

    Joe,
    
>  All we've
>  been able to do is express doubt in each others' source of
>  assurance in the Truth.
    
    Why is that and how do we get beyond it?

I think you've reached what I call the Exclusionary Principle of
Religion.

My truth says your truth is false.
My god precludes the possibility of your god.
My interpretation is inspired, yours is blasphpemous.

Christianity goes a step further with a precise formula of dos and don'ts
and specific or elses.

TTom

    
    There is no way to get beyond the problem...as it stands.  It's not
    that there are not acceptable standards and methodologies that would
    enable a meaningful discussion.  There are such methods.  I would like
    to suggest that orthodoxy is an acceptable and adequate standard by
    which to measure any Christian discussion.  Those who would argue for
    an unorthodox interpretation of Scripture, for example, should provide
    the reasons why the unorthodox interpretation makes sense.  Those who
    would argue for the orthodox interpretation would similarly argue why
    the orthodox interpretation makes sense.  Discussion, if not
    persuasion, could ensue.
    
    jeff

    	re .34
    
    	Why?  Human failings.
    
    	How?  I don't see an answer here.  What can be done has been done.

    Jeff/Joe
    
    Given that opinion,  i.e. anything that is not orthordox is wrong,
    
    Why do either of you note here in a conference which deliberately
    identifies itself as a place to discuss a number of different
    perspectives and a place that refuses to use one specific definition of
    orthordoxy.
    
    I don't agree with either of you that this discussion is futile.
    
    It may be futile between persons who believe in spirituality and
    persons who believe in the bible, but there are members who understand
    spirituality in similar ways.  Like many who have rejected somebodies
    flavor of orthodoxy, I don't really care if some, sect/ denomination
    /grouping
    disagrees with my opinion and with my right to hold my own opinions and 
    express my opinion.  
    
    I respect your opinion and your right to hold it.  I cannot respect
    your attempts to shut down the conversation if it doesn't use your
    rules of orthordoxy.
    
    

        <<< Note 1100.38 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Why do either of you note here in a conference which deliberately
>    identifies itself as a place to discuss a number of different
>    perspectives and a place that refuses to use one specific definition of
>    orthordoxy.
    
    	Because mine *is* one perspective -- rejected here as it 
    	may be...

    Patricia, if God told me that every woman should have at least 3
    husbands, is that love?  How would you confirm God spoke to me?
    
    I believe the most accurate picture of God's nature includes love as
    only one part of many in His nature.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1100.42 by OUTSRC::HEISER "National Atheists Day - April 1" >>>

| Patricia, if God told me that every woman should have at least 3
| husbands, is that love?  How would you confirm God spoke to me?

	Mike, this is the same kind of logic you used in 1082. I hope you do
respond to .106.

Glen

    
    You misunderstand my entry, Patricia.  My point was (in response to
    your question, "how do we get beyond this?") that if we really want to
    have a meaningful *discussion* there is a method for doing so.  I
    suggested that a standard be used.  There are not many flavors of
    orthodoxy and we can limit it to two if you like.  The Westminster
    Confession as the Protestant standard and some similar standard, which
    I'm sure exists, for the Catholic faith.  These two standards would
    probably not be too different in several areas.  Even where they differ
    we could have a meaningful discussion if we used them as the standards.
    
    jeff

    Mike,
    
    First of all, I don't think God speaks to us with that degree of
    exactness.  I do believe in the "still, small, voice, which needs to be
    nurtured and sought after.  this "voice" creates a humility that only
    takes on the appearance of arrogance when confronted with that which is
    "wrong".
    
    Let me use a more real example.  My spiritual journey, guided by meditation
    and prayer, study and thoughtfulness has lead me to search for an
    understanding of homosexuality, my own homophobia, and the evil that
    homophobia exerts on the world today.  That "still small voice" tells
    me that a loving, committed, long term same sex union is every bit as
    sacred as a opposite sex union.
    
    The proof of that to me, has been getting to know some gay and lesbian
    couples, being a good friend of at least one gay couple and seeing the
    fruit of there relationship.  Love, committment, goodwill, service to
    others.  Loving energy not only for each other, but loving energy that
    flows out to the community at large.
    
    The proof of that has also been seeing the opposite which I will call
    the wolves in Sheeps clothing.  Those pretending to be "Christian"
    waging a campaign of hate against Gays and Lesbians.
    
    I can see love for what it is and I can see hate for what it is.  Some
    persons, pretending they are "Christians" try to confuse others and
    tell others that we cannot really know what love is and what hate is. 
    It is one of our deepest and first formed intuitions to know what love
    is and what loves looks likes and feels like.
    
    If the fruit of a relationship is love, then the relationship is Sacred
    and God.  If the fruit of the relationship is not love, then the
    relationship is not sacred and is not good.  If the relationship is
    sacred and good, it should be affirmed and blessed.  If the
    relationship is not sacred and good, it should be disolved.
    
    Following that "still, small, voice" will always contain a humility. 
    But it also contains a tremendous power that will confront all forces
    of evil.
    
    Each of us needs to spend time and energy to find and follow, the
    voice.  
    
    Finding and following that voice, is what spirituality is to me.
    
                                      Patricia

    
    ...and an addendum...I didn't say that anything that is not orthodox is
    wrong.  I said that orthodoxy is an acceptable and reasonable standard for
    discussing all that would appeal to the name "Christianity".  We could
    have some very meaningful discussions with a few ground rules.
    
    jeff

    Patricia:
    
    Are you speaking of Eros love or Agape love?
    
    -Jack

re .45


patricia, whilst you promote a very noble ideal, ie. that everyone can 
(and should) seek and follow that "still, small, voice", as far as i can 
tell, the ideal has practical limitations.

what do you say to someone who hears more than one "voice"? conflicting 
voices? or what do you say to someone who has difficulty in seeking the 
"voice" (perhaps because of lack of confidence or a low self-esteem?)

for many people, clear rules (taken literally to avoid all misunderstading) 
fill the need for guidance very well. and here, it would be only "loving" to 
provide such rules.

did paul ever sense/see a need of many of the early christians to be given 
'rules'? i am just asking/curious.

cynical as it may sound, i cannot imagine that a community could function 
only based on the ideal of love and forgiveness as taught and lived by jesus. 
people are much too different to put this ideal into practice globally.
for the ideal of love and forgiveness to work, it would take a very charismatic
leader to lead by example and to hold all of the flock together.

with the leader gone, i can see the need for 'rule books' in order to 
prevent the flock from dispersing altogether. acknowledging this need, what 
alternatives (which can work for all) _can_ be offered to the bible being 
taken literally as a guide?

based on my observations, i just don't see that "inner guidance" as suggested 
by you (or paul?) as an effective medium for all.




andreas.

    I believe that the possibility is there if the flesh and the spirit are
    willing, to live in harmony...otherwise, Jesus would not have commanded
    it.  At the same time and as Andreas pointed out, our world is diverse
    and it seems impoissible that unless all proscribed to this teaching,
    it simply won't happen.  Even amongst the churches established through
    Asia Minor, each one had its flaws and inabilities to love
    unconditionally.  The Corinthian Church comes to mind because they made
    the mistake of listening to a small voice, and yet their display of
    love was not evident.  There was sin within the walls of the
    church...vile acts of affection such as the young man having an
    adulterous relationship with his fathers wife.  In his heart, he may
    have perceived this as true love when in truth it was a counterfeit.
    
    Paul a few chapters later states the rhetorical...that being if we give
    all our posessions to feed the poor and have have not love, we are
    nothing.  I believe true love is from the heart and from the intellect. 
    This is why I push the notion that an outward display of love, i.e.
    welfare and the like needs to be promoted from the local church as
    government is incapable of love.
    
    -Jack

    Jeff,
    
    orthordoxy is NOT an acceptable and reasonable standard for discussing
    all that would appeal to the name "Christianity".
    
    Orthordoxy is always defined by those invested in what currently is
    against that which might be.
    
    Perhaps you do not understand the difference between the two Christian
    conferences?
    
    This conference if for discussing all Christian Perspectives, not only
    those considered orthordox right now.  All Christian Perspectives are 
    welcome here, both the orthordox and the non orthordox.
    
    If you have a particular interest in discussing orthordoxy and why or
    why not individuals have chosen that approach, a Topic on orthordoxy
    would be appropriate.
    
    But given that this conference is for all perspectives, where
    orthordoxy can be discussed, why would someone who felt that non
    orthordox discussions should not be considered, want to note here.
    
    I can respect your orthordox orientation, as long as other orientations
    can also be discussed.  I guess that is the dilemma I face when I try
    to discuss from my Christian Perspective what spirituality means to me,
    and people seem to be saying, we cannot discuss that here.  It is not
    Orthordox.
    
                                             Patricia

    Jack,
    
    I am speaking of love in all its dimmensions.  caritas, Eros, Agape,
    and I even forget the fourth.  In some ways Greek is powerful in
    dividing them into four.  In some ways English is more powerful in
    recognizing that they all relate to each other.
    
    For instance "Eros" speaks to passion.  Not only sexual passion but all
    passion.  Also in some ways "Eros" is the highest form of love.  It
    contains all the other forms of love and more.  It is manifested in our
    relationship  in many cases only one other person.
    
    The erotic, may also be manifested in our relationship with the divine,
    particularly if we take Song of Solomon seriously.
    
                                 Patricia

    
    Apparantly I have misunderstood you, Patricia.  I thought that when you
    asked "how can we get past this?" (paraphrase) that you were asking an
    actual question.  I must have misunderstood you in that I thought you
    were seeking a way to carry on meaningful discussion, more meaningful
    than has occured to date.  I merely offered a methodology which I
    thought would clear things up a bit and would allow discussion to be
    more fruitful.  That's all.
    
    jeff

    Andre,
    
    I am not saying that there is not a need for rules.  There certainly
    is.  But in my opinion all rules are to some degree relative.  There
    are always cases where the rule not be followed because a higher good
    will be achieved by not following that rule.
    
    rules are also always in process.  They change.  with all the debate
    about abortion and right to die, deciding how to follow the "thou shall
    not kill" rule is much more complex than it has ever been.
    
    I am influenced by process though.  In it, the place of intuition is
    high.  Every human has some capacity to understand and follow what is
    right.  Process theology then asks, why do we need a adequate
    understanding of Jesus Christ.  The answer is that a understanding of
    Jesus Christ helps develop that intuitive understanding which in turn
    helps us appreciate the value of Christianity.  it is the same with
    laws.  It is a lot easier for me to start with a set of laws, say the
    ten commandments and identify my lack of respect for the "I am a
    jeolous God" and   The though shall not covet thy neigbors wife or cow"
    Other than that they provide an good basis for morality.
    
    So while we always need rules, I don't think rules ever take presidence
    over that "still small voice".
    
    When our conscience truly dictates that following the rules will lead
    to significant injury to ourselves or others, then a person of spirit
    is required to follow their conscience, regardless of what the penalty
    may be.  So its not doing without rules, it is putting rules in proper 
    perspective.
    
    In my opinion also, one of the major purposes of religous organizations
    is in  "Faith Development"  i.e. the development of that "Still Small
    Voice".  I agree that self esteem is a major part of it.  Parents and
    Religious organizations have the responsibility to develop that self
    esteem so the still small voice is powerful in the individuals.
    
                                 Patricia

    Jeff,
    
    More fruitful to whom?
    
                                Patricia

        <<< Note 1100.45 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    First of all, I don't think God speaks to us with that degree of
>    exactness.  
    
    	In so very many issues He most certainly does.  You have
    	demonstrated violation of many issues on which I think God
    	speaks with absolute exactness.  I contend that you need
    	the fuzziness you believe in because without it you cannot
    	continue to participate in things that I see as being clearly
    	defined as sinful.  You embrace other such issues in your
    	spiritual tent because you would appear the hypocrite without
    	them.
    
>    I do believe in the "still, small, voice, which needs to be
>    nurtured and sought after.  this "voice" creates a humility that only
>    takes on the appearance of arrogance when confronted with that which is
>    "wrong".
    
    	I see your insistence on fuzziness in certain areas as that
    	arrogance.
    
    	I, too, believe in that voice, and I think you hear that
    	very same voice, but muffle it with the fuzzy cotton of
    	human reasoning.
    
>    my own homophobia, and the evil that
>    homophobia exerts on the world today.  
    
    	Do you include under "homophobia" the belief that homosexual sex 
    	is sinful?
    
>    That "still small voice" tells
>    me that a loving, committed, long term same sex union is every bit as
>    sacred as a opposite sex union.
    
    	Would you also see as sacred the same type of long-term union
    	between adult brother and adult sister?  Why or why not?
    
    	I do not deny that love and commitment between incestuous or
    	same-sex couples can be as real and as strong as that of 
    	traditional couples, but I contend that they are clearly
    	immoral, certainly not sacred, and are rightly subject to 
    	societal disdain.
    
>    I can see love for what it is and I can see hate for what it is.  Some
>    persons, pretending they are "Christians" try to confuse others and
>    tell others that we cannot really know what love is and what hate is. 
    
    	You make it seem like standing up for one's morals is the same
    	as hate.  You portray the two choices here as loving-gay-couple
    	vs hateful-christian.  These are unfair lines, and are NOT the 
    	real issues in the spiritual struggle in this society.

    
    Process theology is synonymous with process philosophy which argues for
    the existence of God but a panentheistic god, not Jesus Christ or any
    person of the Holy Trinity.
    
    I now understand how it is that your "theology", Patricia, enables you
    to draw the heretical conclusions from the Bible.  I was confused
    earlier in that I thought there was actually some orthodoxy left in any
    "Christian seminary's" theology studies.  I sure have been awakened by
    watching your entries and finally understanding your basis.
    
    jeff

        <<< Note 1100.53 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    It is a lot easier for me to start with a set of laws, say the
>    ten commandments and identify my lack of respect for the "I am a
>    jeolous God" 
    
    	I am not surprised that you interpret this Commandment this way.

    Jeff,
    
    Process Theology and Process philosophy are related but different.
    
    Process theology is a school of Christianity.  Process philosophy is
    not necessarily Christian.
    
    Process theology is specifically trinitarian.  God the parent,the
    transcendent God,  Jesus Christ, the human incarnation of divine responsive l
    love, and the Holy Spirit, God's creative Love imminent in all
    creation are all part of Process Theology.
    
    Can't you disagree with me without attempting to belittle my beliefs?

>	Mike, this is the same kind of logic you used in 1082. I hope you do
>respond to .106.
    
    I did today, Glen.  I've been pretty busy lately so I'm in catch-up
    mode.
    
    Mike

>    First of all, I don't think God speaks to us with that degree of
>    exactness.  I do believe in the "still, small, voice, which needs to be
>    nurtured and sought after.  this "voice" creates a humility that only
>    takes on the appearance of arrogance when confronted with that which is
>    "wrong".
    
    Patricia, is your God the same God that is in the Bible or a different
    god?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>    This conference if for discussing all Christian Perspectives, not only
>    those considered orthordox right now.  All Christian Perspectives are 
>    welcome here, both the orthordox and the non orthordox.
>    
>    But given that this conference is for all perspectives, where
>    orthordoxy can be discussed, why would someone who felt that non
>    orthordox discussions should not be considered, want to note here.
    
    Maybe this conference is inappropriately named then.  Christ was
    orthodox and didn't tolerate non-orthodoxy.
    
    Mike

    Joe,
    
    I don't believe any beliefs in themselves are evil.  Actions that
    follow beliefs can be evil.
    
    the belief that homosexuality is sinful is not in itself evil.
    
    What is evil is the persecution of people which often results from 
    religious furvor against homosexuality.
    
    "Christians" usually don't persecute unmarried adults who profess to have
    sexual relationships with other unmarried adults.  Many "Christians" do
    persecute unmarried adults who have sexual relationship with other
    unmarried adults of the same gender.
    
    The Christian belief that homosexual relationships are particularly
    sinful, does in fact often lead to persecution and oppression.  It is
    not the belief that is evil however that belief can leads to
    evil.

    The pharisees were orthordox!
    
    Christ was not even Christian!
    
    
                                         Patricia

>    The erotic, may also be manifested in our relationship with the divine,
>    particularly if we take Song of Solomon seriously.
    
    If you take a class on Hebrew culture and figures of speech, one
    quickly realizes that Song of Solomon is the Bible's sex manual (even
    to the point of making you blush).  This has nothing to do with Agape.
    The context here is God's counsel to a man and woman under the covenant
    of marriage.  Anything else is eisegesis.
    
    Mike

>    The pharisees were orthordox!
    
    so was Christ.  He upheld and fulfilled every letter of Judaism.
    
>    Christ was not even Christian!
    
    How is that?  He took Judaism to the next level.  What do you prefer to
    call Christianity?
    
    Mike

re .53

>   When our conscience truly dictates that following the rules will lead
>   to significant injury to ourselves or others, then a person of spirit
>   is required to follow their conscience, regardless of what the penalty
>   may be.  So its not doing without rules, it is putting rules in proper 
>   perspective.

absolutely, patricia!

this is why, imo, jesus christ and the early christians were true 
revolutionaries!

we had that discussion in 1028.*


andreas.

    
>    Process Theology and Process philosophy are related but different.
    
    Process philosophy was first and bred process theology.  Therefore, it
    explains your pan(en)theistic beliefs almost completely, in my opinion.
        
>    Process theology is a school of Christianity.  Process philosophy is
>    not necessarily Christian.
 
    If the things you espouse here are process theology, then they indeed
    are not orthodox Christianity.  
       
>    Can't you disagree with me without attempting to belittle my beliefs?
    
    Your beliefs are based upon nonsense, Patricia.  If I find you espousing 
    anything valuable to the Christian perspective, I'll be sure and
    encourage you in that.  As it is, your beliefs are as synthetic and
    private as any other pagan belief system trying to pass as something
    respectable these days.
    
    jeff

        <<< Note 1100.62 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    "Christians" usually don't persecute unmarried adults who profess to have
>    sexual relationships with other unmarried adults.  
    
    	I don't like your use of "persecute", but Christians SHOULD
    	abhor unmarried sex in all forms.
    
>    The Christian belief that homosexual relationships are particularly
>    sinful, does in fact often lead to persecution and oppression. 
    
    	True oppression and persecution are wrong, regardless of the
    	aberrant behavior, but you know I question what you claim to
    	be oppression given the agenda you've already expressed here.
    
    	You ignored the question before, so I'll ask it differently:
    	How should a community treat incestuous relationships?

    re .65
    
    Jesus was a Jew!
    
                              Patricia

    
>    	You ignored the question before, so I'll ask it differently:
>    	How should a community treat incestuous relationships?
    
     A community should be inclusive, loving, and supportive.
    
    A community would listened to the partners in the relationship and
    encourage each partner particularly the weaker of the partners.  If
    obvious harm was being done by the relationship or if the relationship
    involved children or others not capable of comprehending the choices
    that were being made, the community should intervene.  Other wise the
    community should support each partner and ultimately let the partners
    make the choice.
    
    A community encourages every individual to grow.  All difficult issues,
    if worked patiently and lovingly by a community causes the community to
    grow.
    
    If the relationship was between adults and was not harmful to either of
    the adults, the community should let the adults involved make their own 
    choices.  If the relationship was harmful to one or both of the adults,
    then the community should support, listen to, and consel the adult or
    adult being harmed by the realtionship.
    
    
    Now let me ask you a question.
    
    What should a community do if a man is intimidating his wife and
    children?
    
    What should a community do if a man was using physical punishment on
    his children and the children were showing signs of being abused?
    
                                     Patricia

re Note 1100.39 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>         <<< Note 1100.38 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>
> 
> >    Why do either of you note here in a conference which deliberately
> >    identifies itself as a place to discuss a number of different
> >    perspectives and a place that refuses to use one specific definition of
> >    orthordoxy.
>     
>     	Because mine *is* one perspective -- rejected here as it 
>     	may be...

        I must observe that *every* perspective that has been ever
        offered by somebody in this conference has been rejected by
        somebody else in this conference.  Certainly Patricia's has
        been rejected, and over in another active string Glen's is
        being rejected by a team of three or four.

        At least as far as rejection is concerned, there is nothing
        special about your particular perspective.

        Bob

       
>    Can't you disagree with me without attempting to belittle my beliefs?
    
>>    Your beliefs are based upon nonsense, Patricia.
    
    Seeing that your answer is no, then there is no point in our noting
    with one another.

Z    If the relationship was between adults and was not harmful to either of
Z    the adults, the community should let the adults involved make their
Z    own choices.  If the relationship was harmful to one or both of the
Z    adults, then the community should support, listen to, and consel the adult
Z    or adult being harmed by the realtionship.
    
    Patricia, personally, I see alot of harm in the decisions society is
    making today.  Fifteen years ago, my wifes sister and her husband got
    married.  He is Jewish, she was Catholic.  They are presently going
    through one of the nastiest divorces I will probably ever see.  There
    is alot of money involved as well as children.  There was no physical
    abuse on the part of anybody but alot of verbal abuse from both sides.
    Hence comes the word of God, "Be not unequally yoked with non
    believers..."   I am utterly amazed in our society that the community
    is supposed to have a responsibility for one another.  But when the
    rubber hits the road, common sense takes a back seat to sensitivity and 
    practicalitly is stifled.  Hence we have three poor children succumbed
    to the disasterous lives of two dysfunctional adults.  Michele and I
    are doing our best to support her sister...no judgement at all or
    anything like that.  But make no mistake, her choice HAS effected
    everybody around her.  
    
    Just as societies choices effect me, you, and everybody else.  As a
    community member, I started on a role a few weeks ago extolling the
    virtues of chastity before marriage.  I was subsequently told by some
    to mind my own business.  Therefore I pose the question to you.  If a
    community member attempts to support somebody as I tried to and is told
    to mind my own business, then how can said community member help
    without being sensored?
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Help doesn't mean telling another person what to do.
    
    Help means listening, understanding, being supportive to the person.
    
    If two people share values, then you can refer to the values shared. 
    If two people do not share the same value then it makes no sense to
    refer to the value shared.
    
    Helping another implies a large amount of faith.  It implies doing the
    best you can to help, but ultimately letting go and letting the
    individuals make their own decisions even if you disagree with the
    decision.  It means staying their for the person, even if you do not
    agree with the decision they made.
    
    Unfortunately many divorces are nasty.  One of the most successful
    marriages that I know of is between a Jewish Man and U.C.C. woman.  I
    believe that compatability of religious beliefs present their own
    issues, but ultimately are just one more issue.
    
                                         Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    I agree on the support part...and I believe it is the case many a time
    for a parent with a prodigal child.  In the context of my challenge to
    somebody in the file, I have never told anybody what to do.  I have
    suggested that certain actions shouldn't be as they are not edifying to
    the body of Christ or to the person him/herself.  As I shared earlier,
    John the Baptist told Herod it was not lawful for him to lay with his
    brothers wife.  He was thrown in prison and consequently beheaded.  
    It is human nature to disregard admonishment or exhortation...which is
    a big reason why the church today has run amuck.
    
    Remember the exile.....Remember the exile....he who does not learn from
    history is condemned to repeat it!
    
    -Jack

        <<< Note 1100.70 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>>    	How should a community treat incestuous relationships?
>    
>     A community should be inclusive, loving, and supportive.
    
    	Supportive?  Of INCEST?
    
    	One has to wonder how much you are willing to compromise...
    
>    A community would listened to the partners ...
    
    	Listen for what?  Excuses?  Rationalizations?  Incest is
    	wrong.  Period.
    
>    What should a community do if a man is intimidating his wife and
>    children?
    
    	What is "intimidating"?  I have to ask, given your disdain for
    	(and re-interpretation of) biblical family structure.  I really
    	hope you are not trying to place "head-of-household" per biblical
    	standards on a par with incest...
    
    	But where real abuse and intimidation is concerned, we have
    	laws (sometimes impotent as they seem) and we have social
    	standards that (attempt to) forbid such behavior, and rightly
    	so.  And in cases where the law is ineffective, I think that
    	friends and church should bear pressure on the abuser to change
    	or leave.
    
>    What should a community do if a man was using physical punishment on
>    his children and the children were showing signs of being abused?
    
    	Do you consider all physical punishment abuse?  As far as I'm
    	concerned, you have asked two different questions here.  Abuse
    	should never be condoned.  PROPER physical punishment should
    	be allowed.

.76 CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'"

    	Listen for what?  Excuses?  Rationalizations?  Incest is
    	wrong.  Period.

Tell that to the children of Adam and Eve...

Steve

    Steve:
    
    Are you condoning incest or are you just playing devils advocate here?
    
    -Jack

.78 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    Are you condoning incest or are you just playing devils advocate here?

Actually, I was just curious how in the biblical account of creation we get
from Adam and Eve to the rest of the world without incest. I'm sure this is
accounted for, but I don't know how.

Steve

>    Are you condoning incest or are you just playing devils advocate here?

I think Steve is just thinking.

Richard

    Well, obviously I can't go against you on this one.  I actually have no
    idea how mankind started breaking out into individual family units. 
    There is no question that incest (in the positive connotation) had to
    have taken place at some point.
    
    Interestingly enough, I have a cousin on my mothers side who married
    one of her own cousins on her fathers side (if you follow this).  I see
    this kind of incestuous relationship as a civil wrong.  It is foreign
    to our culture but more importantly, she does have a child now.  The
    child appears to be healthy but my understanding is genetically, it is
    not good at all to procreate amongst the same gene pool.  
    
    When I was alot younger, in my early teens perhaps, I had a cousin whom
    I thought was beautiful...and we got along real well...as cousins.
    I can understand how it can be difficult to consciously make the
    distinction between family and non family...as in Gee, I wish she
    wasn't my cousin.  Enfatuation can turn into love and therefore it is
    best to flee the potential situation before anything happens.  By the
    way, my cousin never knew I thought this way.  It's probably more
    common than we think.  I do believe though that incest is wrong and
    should be avoided (As in two consenting cousins falling in love).  The
    other incest such as a father molesting a daughter...even if the
    daughter is above 18 and approves...is in my mind a mental infirmity
    and the father needs to get help.  I believe the daughter needs help
    too and now that I think about it, that kind of incest is considered
    sin under the Mosaic law.
    
    -Jack

      re: .61
    
      Hi Mike,
    
        I'm not sure if anyone responded to this, but this is an
        interesting reply.
    
        I'm sure the collective religion of Jesus' day considered
        orthodoxy to be something other than what Jesus' considered
        it to be.
    
        How do we know exactly what His orthodoxy was?  How do you 
        know?
    
        I suspect that if we _really_ knew Christ's orthodoxy, we'd
        be ready for translation.
    
        I strongly suspect that Christianity today has elements of
        a pretension of having Christ's orthodoxy, all the while its
        behavior isn't all that far from the worlds AND all the while
        it is the truth that sanctifies.
    
        I'm of the position that our misunderstanding of the orthodoxy
        of Christ is quite pathetic being proportional to the extent
        to which our characters are unlike His.
    
        Its a blessing to approach the word and trying, by His grace,
        to really believe "if any man thinks he knows anything he knows
        nothing yet as he ought to know" and (as Christ said to Laodicaea)
        "Thou knowest not."
    
        I know I often hammer this idea, but thinking to know is what
        just destroyed Israel during the 1st coming and is what will
        destroy most of Christianity prior to the 2nd.
    
        "For ALL THESE THINGS happened as examples..."
    
    							Tony

    Also see topic 960.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 1100.61 by OUTSRC::HEISER:

>     Maybe this conference is inappropriately named then.  Christ was
>     orthodox and didn't tolerate non-orthodoxy.

        Go tell that to the Pharisees, then!  Jesus was condemned by
        the conservative religious establishment precisely because he
        violated their traditional understanding of Scripture and
        God.

        Bob

.81 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    There is no question that incest (in the positive connotation) had to
    have taken place at some point.

Jack,

What is the positive connotation of incest?

Incest is indeed a very strong social taboo, due primarily to the problems
of interbreeding. (A favorite put-down line for comedians for years to 
people in the audience heckling them is "Isn't it sad when cousins marry?)

This is an interesting question, though. There is no doubt that the concept
bothers me, and the more closely related the parties the more it bothers
me. It isn't entirely genetics, however, as I am not disturbed in the same
way by couples that marry knowing that they are genetically incompatible. 

I guess for me the bottom line is that it would be their business. It may
bother me, but I have no right to infringe on them if they are not doing so
on me. However, if they choose to have children then I could see that as
being considered the same as an attack to maim a child...

It is questions like this that sometimes make me envious of people with 
religious convictions. You can say it is wrong because (insert religious
authority here) says so, period, and it sort of relieves you of the need to 
think about difficult subjects like this. (I am truly not being sarcastic
here). This is something that I will have to try to integrate into my 
discomfort around this topic, and my conviction that people should be free
to do what they choose if they do not directly impact others. For me, the
concept of gay couples raising children result in the same conflict.

(*Sigh, it hurts to think this early in the morning :^)

Steve

    Steve,
    
    That is the same ambivalence that came through as I answered the
    question.
    
    What if a brother and sister did make the adult decision to have a full
    relationship with each other.  Although I too am uncomfortable with the
    idea, but if they made that decision, and specifically made the
    decision not to have children, then why should anyone else condemn the
    relationship.
    
    The relationship between parent and child is different because I
    believe that there is always a parent/child relationship between them.
    
    No matter how old the individuals are, I cannot see that as a healthy
    relationship.
    
    On the other hand, incest involving children, or sexual abuse involving
    children is one of the most hideous crimes, I can think of.
    
    I believe that it is a good rule to stay out of other peoples sexual
    choices as long as no one is being abused by the relationship.
    
    

 Jim rubbing eyes in disbelief of second paragraph.

>     Maybe this conference is inappropriately named then.  Christ was
>     orthodox and didn't tolerate non-orthodoxy.

>        Go tell that to the Pharisees, then!  Jesus was condemned by
>        the conservative religious establishment precisely because he
>        violated their traditional understanding of Scripture and
>        God.

>        Bob
    
    	Are you claiming to be Jesus or to have similar authority as Jesus? 
    
        jeff

    
    >  Are you claiming to be Jesus or to have similar authority as Jesus?

    I think Bob is claiming an ability to read the Bible at least as
    accurately, or more so, as you.  Are you claiming that only Jesus is
    more knowledgeable than you?

    Eric

Z    Although I too am uncomfortable with the
Z    idea, but if they made that decision, and specifically made the
Z    decision not to have children, then why should anyone else condemn
Z    the relationship.
    
    Well Patricia, the physical relationship of a brother and sister is a
    transgression of the law; therefore, I believe the act would be sin
    since Moses was given the law by God.  IMO.  
    
    When I stated incest in a positive way, I meant incest other than a
    father with daughter.  It would stand to reason that descendents of
    Adam would had to have procreated.  
    
    -Jack

    Bob:
    
    The pharisees were opportunists who used the law to their own ends and
    to their advantage.  In essence, they were revisionists of the law and
    this is what Jesus condemned along with their self righteousness.
    
    To not acknowledge sin in ones life would be an act of self
    righteousness correct?  
    
    -Jack
    

    
    I'm with Jack on this incest thing. Incest is not a gray area of sexual
    morality for me. 

    Regarding the proliferation of the human race, I've heard it
    postulated that God spontaneously created other humans besides Adam
    and Eve. The thought is that Adam and Eve were the genesis of human
    creation, but not the entirety of it. This would allow the species to
    procreate without having to have the kids get along a little *too*
    well.

    Personally, I few the creation story as allegorical so I don't see this
    as a conundrum. 
    
    	Eric

<<< Note 1100.85 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

>It is questions like this that sometimes make me envious of people with 
>religious convictions. You can say it is wrong because (insert religious
>authority here) says so, period, and it sort of relieves you of the need to 
>think about difficult subjects like this. (I am truly not being sarcastic
>here). 
    
    	I didn't take it as a sarcastic statement, nor as an insult.  I
    	hold this very notion to be a cornerstone in support of holding
    	a consistent moral code in society.  Within a given moral code,
    	if all precepts are followed, then most/all social ills are 
    	avoided.  Compromising just one guideline causes ripples that
    	compromise others.  And the more that we are willing to bend,
    	the more likely the whole system crumbles.
    
    	Some will look upon this as being without thought, and I cannot
    	argue against them.  About all I can say is, "Well, think about
    	something else!  This code doesn't preclude thought in other
    	areas..."  Why should we want to think about eroding society's
    	moral code?  Do we also want to think about how to kill our
    	next door neighbor?  Of course not!  (Or at least we should
    	not, though it is now OK to think about how to kill the unborn,
    	or the terminally-ill who are a burden to us...  The ripples
    	ARE growing...)
    
    	Even absent a spiritual framework, COMPLETE traditional Christian 
    	morality makes social sense.  But when we try to look at it with
    	some of the pillars removed, it becomes difficult to support, and
    	is easily undermined by "what if" erosion.

    
    I think actually that Bob is suggesting that the religious
    conservatives (i.e. Jews) are comparable to religious conservatives
    (i.e. Christians) today and that just as Jesus rebuked the Pharisees,
    He would rebuke the religious conservatives today.  It's a strange
    argument but I've heard it before.
    
    Orthodox Christianity is based upon Jesus' revelation, not the
    practices of the Pharisees and Scribes of Jesus' time.  Jesus is truth
    and loves the truth.  He revealed God to us truthfully.  The sound
    teachings which originate in the Bible where the record of Jesus' life
    exists are the basis for orthodoxy.  To the extent that today's
    religious conservatives adhere to, teach, and follow the sound teachings 
    of Jesus and the apostles, they cannot be considered like the
    unbelieving Jews of Jesus' time.
    
    When people criticize Christian orthodoxy as an analogy to Jesus'
    criticism of the Pharisees, they are in effect assuming the same 
    authority of Jesus' in their criticism.  This is, of course, an invalid 
    step.
    
    jeff

    Also keep in mind that we can confuse compassion with tolerance.  The
    two are NOT alike.  Jesus showed both non tolerance at times as well as
    tolerance.  He showed compassion to those who were suffering and to
    those who were repentent.  He showed intolerance to a lack of a
    contrite heart and to a lack of repentence.
    
    -Jack

    
>    When people criticize Christian orthodoxy as an analogy to Jesus'
>    criticism of the Pharisees, they are in effect assuming the same 
>    authority of Jesus' in their criticism.  This is, of course, an invalid 
>    step.
 
    
    I for one criticize the practice of trying to lock in truth under the
    pretention of orthodoxy.  I see no difference between a rigid
    fundemental Christianity of today and those practices of the Pharasees.
    
    I believe that it is an appropriate use of the Bible to understand the
    thinking and actions described therein and use it to point us toward
    the truth for today.  That is not pretending to be Jesus.  That is
    studying and understanding Jesus to be able to understand how he might
    act today under modern conditions.
    
    
    Jesus and Paul criticized a dead reliance upon law instead of a
    spiritual acceptance of God's freely given grace.
    
    I see a dead reliance on doctrine rather than a spiritual acceptance of
    God's freely given grace as very similar to that which is criticized in
    the Bible.

>        Go tell that to the Pharisees, then!  Jesus was condemned by
>        the conservative religious establishment precisely because he
>        violated their traditional understanding of Scripture and
>        God.
    
    Bob, their interpretation wasn't what Christ intended it to be when He
    gave them the Torah.
    
    Mike

 Z    I see a dead reliance on doctrine rather than a spiritual acceptance of
 Z    God's freely given grace as very similar to that which is criticized in
 Z    the Bible.
    
    Had you replaced doctrine with the word law, we would be in total
    agreement.  Since everybody goes by a doctrine in life, even an
    atheist, then dead doctrine is subjective to a point of view.  The law 
    on the other hand is a particular doctrine...one in which Jesus was the
    fulfillment of.  Following the law as a mode of pleasing God is
    goodness.  Following the law as a mode of reaching eternal life is not
    of grace and would therefore be null and void.  
    
    I believe someplace in Romans it say, "What shall we say then, shall we
    continue in sin that grace may aboud?  God forbid, for how shall we who
    are dead to sin continue to live therein?"
    
    The day will come when we will all stand before the judgement seat of
    Christ.  As Christians, I believe Jesus will ask us to give an account
    for our lives.  I believe Paul made a great analogy to the
    Corinthians...our works will be tested with fire.  The wood hay and
    stubble will be burned away and what will remain is the precious
    stones...all the ways you glorified God with your gifts.  I for one
    would like to have more than just a foundation.  I believe that by
    trying to flee sin is the way to do this.
    
    -Jack

    
>    I for one criticize the practice of trying to lock in truth under the
>    pretention of orthodoxy.  

     Sound teaching (orthodoxy) is not pretention.

>I see no difference between a rigid
>    fundemental Christianity of today and those practices of the Pharasees.
 
    You choose to not see the difference.  For to do so would require you to
    face your own trespasses against the law of God.  But for the record, the
    difference between the Pharisee and the orthodox Christian is that the
    Pharisee was self-righteous (i.e. attempted to save himself by his
    own deeds and works) and the orthodox Christian is not self-righteous
    (i.e. believes that only Christ's righteousness imparted to him can
    save him).
        
>    I believe that it is an appropriate use of the Bible to understand the
>    thinking and actions described therein and use it to point us toward
>    the truth for today.  

     And this is exactly where you begin to fashion your religion.  God's
     truth is eternal, not temporal.  There is no modern situation which is
     outside of the truth of Jesus' time, as if truth were subject to time.
    
>    Jesus and Paul criticized a dead reliance upon law instead of a
>    spiritual acceptance of God's freely given grace.
 
     At times Jesus and Paul criticized a dead reliance upon law, however,
     they praised and promoted a living reliance upon law.  You conveniently
     overlook this aspect consistently.  Plus you show your ignorance of
     the actual Bible in such a statement.  No orthodox Christian relies
     upon the law to save since Christ's and Paul's teaching is grace outside
     of the law.
   
>    I see a dead reliance on doctrine rather than a spiritual acceptance of
>    God's freely given grace as very similar to that which is criticized in
>    the Bible.

     The doctrines of orthodox Christianity are simply the teachings of Christ
     and the apostles.  It is right and correct to rely on the teachings of
     Christ and the apostles since Christ is the foundation of Christianity.
     
     It's clear that you don't understand "God's grace freely given" at all,
     Patricia.  Grace is God's giving sinful humanity what they do not deserve,
     which is forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy Spirit, the promise
     of eternal life in His presence - all at Jesus' cost and for His sake.

     jeff

 
    > You choose to not see the difference.  For to do so would
    > require you to face your own trespasses against the law of God.  
 
    > You conveniently overlook this aspect consistently.  Plus you show
    > your ignorance of the actual Bible in such a statement.
   
    > It's clear that you don't understand "God's grace freely given" at
    > all, Patricia. 

    Thank you for showing my how fundamentalist Christians are not
    self-righteous. :-(

    	Eric

    Eric:
    
    I don't get it.  Jeff just said that orthodox Christianity is
    recognizes we aren't righteous and that Jesus' righteousness must be
    imparted on us.  One note later your thanking him for proving that
    Orthodox Christians are self righteous.
    
    thud!

    
    Jack,

    I should have remained silent, but I had to go and open my big mouth.
    My reply was an attempt at sarcasm. I found Jeff note, the one
    asserting that orthodox Christians were not self righteous, to be very
    condescending and self righteous.

    My reply included three examples I what I thought were condescending
    and self righteous statements and then concluded with a sarcastic,
    "Thank you for showing my how fundamentalist Christians are not
    self-righteous. :-("

    While I regret Jeff's tone, I even more regret that I was too weak to
    let it pass.
    
    	Eric

    
    Well Eric, I'm quite certain that your equivocation on the term
    "self-righteous" caused your failure at sarcasm.  Under the
    circumstances you should have kept silent rather than create an 
    opportunity to insult me.
    
    jeff

    
    > Under the circumstances you should have kept silent rather than create
    > an opportunity to insult me.

    And I said as much in my last reply. But thank you for publicly
    confirming your judgment of my action. 

    May God give me strength.

    	Eric

      The point of my reply appears to have been missed (or perhaps
      avoided?).
    
      How do we know we have all of Jesus' orthodoxy?
    
      Jesus said, "By your fruit ye shall know them."
    
      The word also says that He doesn't come until the time of 
      harvest, i.e. when the grain is ripe.  Isaiah 5 clearly
      states that God has done all He can to produce good grapes
      and yet wild grapes resulted.  (And ALL THESE THINGS happened
      as examples.)
    
      If God already did all He could do to produce the situation
      that results in ripened grain, it follows that (as a corporate
      body) the church has resisted His work in us.
    
      NOW, the following is a KEY POINT.  One metaphor describing the
      final spiritual work of Christ in His people (that happens to
      be very appropriate to the metaphor of grain) is the latter
      rain - an outpouring of the Holy Spirit.
    
      Now, I can see some saying that we have all the doctrine.  That
      we understand the gospel just fine thank you.  BUT, there is a
      verse in Deuteronomy that describes the rain as coming WITH
      WINE.  
    
      And WINE is understood to stand for DOCTRINE.
    
      In terms of wanting to hasten the final scenes, the position I
      see here is absolute suicide.
    
      How can we possibly be able to drink in more wine when we
      approach the Lord with the attitude, "I already know the 
      gospel."
    
      Absolute suicide.  An absolute repetition of the demise of
      Israel.
    
      Nothing short of the abomination of desolation.  Rejecting 
      deeper light in favor of perpetuation of the old.
    
      "We already understand the gospel."
    
      Thats a death cry if I ever heard one.
    
      Why can't we just hear what the council of the Angel to the
      Church of Laodicaea is???
    
      WE DON'T KNOW.	WE DON'T KNOW.	WE DON'T KNOW.
    
    						Tony
                                                    

    Without a doubt.  Fully understanding the gospel can take a
    lifetime...even for one who is mature in the faith.
    
    However, Jesus also clearly teaches, as is in the epistles that Satan
    comes as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour.  I believe God
    gives clear signs to indicate what is and what is not of God.  
    
    I believe it is a Godly thing to test the spirits, and prudent in a
    time where much false doctrine creeps into society and even the local
    church.  We are commanded to be on watch.
    
    -Jack

.93 CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'"

Joe,

Everytime I get ready to write you off you come up with a note 
like this... :^)

Thank you for a well written response, and another piece (I think)
of my understanding believers puzzle clicks into place...

Steve

    Eric,
    
    Thank you for your support in 1100.100.
    
    It is irritating to have people constantly disparaging my Faith
    as false, sinful, ignorant, and all the other adjectives.
    
    I do find it hard to know how to be strong and
    courageous in  support of an inclusive Christianity which is a important
    cornerstone of my Faith without being unjustly critical of a Faith
    position that condemns inclusive Christianity.
    
                                   Patricia
    
                                       

    
    ZZZZ                          -< Inclusive Christianity >-
    
    If this is to mean that all inherit eternal life after death, then this
    concept is not supported by scripture.  Just my opinion.
    
    -Jack

    This notes file is an experiment in inclusive Christianity.  It includes
    many different Christian perspectives.  It also includes those
    interested in Christianity without any requirement for credal
    acceptance.  It is how I use the term, inclusive Christianity. 
    
    It includes people with differing beliefs on all doctrinal matters
    including life after death.

    Yes, and I am very much interested in a variety of opinions.  Tunnel
    vision is dangerous because tunnel vision requires no form of
    experimentation or hypothesis.  One simply decides what they believe
    and sticks with that belief...stubbornly sometimes.  (That wasn't
    directed at anybody in particular...just society in general).
    
    I believe scipture is God breathed...just as God breathed life into man
    in the beginning.  It is this which molds my opinion.
    
    -Jack