Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

 ZZ   So, I'm opening a
 ZZ   new topic to consider the question of why some of Jesus' teachings
 ZZ   supporting
 ZZ   doctrine are favored while others are given only nominal attention.
    
    In regard to eternal life, you are being overly generous.  Let me say
    unequivocally that Luke 6 isn't even nominally given attention.  Luke
    6:30 is an excellent passage on Jesus sermon in regards to being a
    witness for the Kingdom of God.  Jesus was not using the Sermon on the
    Mount as a spring board to being saved.  He was speaking on living a
    Spirit filled life.   
    
    John 14:6 was a response to Thomas after he had asked Jesus to show him
    the way.  In this context, Jesus is addressing the issue of inheriting
    eternal life.
    
    In each of their contexts, One focuses on discipleship and witness. 
    The other focuses on redemption and forgiveness.  Therefore, it would
    make sense that when addressing the issue of being a testimony, Luke 6
    would carry more weight and when addressing how one gets saved, John
    14:6 would be used.  On the other hand, using Luke 6 in response to
    somebody asking what steps are needed to get saved would
    be inappropriate.
    
    -Jack

    
    If you consider the teaching of the Bible in whole you see that one
    precedes the other.  One cannot hope to be charitable in the spirit
    of Jesus unless one knows Him first.  One cannot know Him following
    other spirits, ideals, and idols.
    
    jeff

 Could it be that "nominal attention" is a matter of perception?  Most 
 evangelical churches with which I'm familiar do not "ignore" the homeless/
 needy. My church doesn't publicize what we do for them, but I do know that
 we spend a lot of money each year helping those who need it.  We are occasion-
 ally "victimized" by those who go from church to church looking for handouts,
 and we rarely give out money any more because of that.  But we do provide
 food and clothing and arrange for shelter if needed.

 But we cannot overlook the need of their souls..



 Jim

| <<< Note 1138.2 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| One cannot know Him following other spirits, ideals, and idols.

	But you can follow a book.....

    Glen:
    
    We are very well aware that you don't believe the Bible is God
    Breathed, and that's fine.  We do.  Amazingly, you seem to have placed
    yourself in a higher authority than every Rabbi, every prophet and most
    Christian biblical theologians and scholars in the world but that's
    your perogatve.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Be reminded that there is a conference that holds the Bible as the God
    Breathed word of God.  I do not know who the "we" you are refering to
    in the "We do".  Your arguments here, to be taken seriously need to be
    different than  we believe this because the Bible says so.
    
     

| <<< Note 1138.5 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>



| Amazingly, you seem to have placed yourself in a higher authority than every 
| Rabbi, every prophet and most Christian biblical theologians and scholars in 
| the world but that's your perogatve.

	Take all those people you mentioned Jack. Will you find even two of
them that will agree on every single interpretation, every single word, and
just 1 version of the Bible? All three for two people? 



Glen

    Patricia:
    
    Sorry.  Glen, Jeff and I believe scripture is God breathed.
    
    
    Glen:
    
    Yes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were in total agreement regarding
    scripture since each message they gave said, "Thus saith the Lord..."
    These three were contemporaries of each other.
    
    Daniel, Hosea, Amos, Obadiah, Habbakkuk, also agreed with one
    another..."Thus saith the Lord"  Prophets get their direction from God.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1138.8 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Sorry.  Glen, Jeff and I believe scripture is God breathed.

	HUH? Where do I fit into that scenerio?

| Yes, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel were in total agreement regarding
| scripture since each message they gave said, "Thus saith the Lord..."
| These three were contemporaries of each other.

	Ahhhh you're gonna use people from the very book in question. Using the
very thing in question to prove a point is not a very accurate thing to do.


Glen

    How about this.
    
    Sorry Patricia.  Jeff and I believe scripture is God breathed.
    
    Is that better!?  It was a typo!

	Some typo there Jack!!!!  :-)


Glen

    Yes, back to the topic at hand.  Has anyone ever considered that the
    hungry and the homeless ARE in fact practicing the teachings of the so
    called material-less life?  If he were roaming the streets of Boston
    today, JC would probably be considered a homeless bum.  

>    Yes, back to the topic at hand.  Has anyone ever considered that the
>    hungry and the homeless ARE in fact practicing the teachings of the so
>    called material-less life?  
    
    No but it sounds ludicrous on the face of it.  Especially considering
    that insanity, drug and alcohol abuse, laziness, and many other sinful
    manifestations are the cause of the great majority of homelessness.
    
    >If he were roaming the streets of Boston
    >today, JC would probably be considered a homeless bum.  
    
    By whom?  Certainly not by His sheep which number in the tens of
    millions!
    
    jeff

    Jeff, Jack,
    
    It is interesting that the two of you who insist that the scripture is
    God breathed refuse to take Luke 6:30 seriously.  You prefer to make
    judgement regarding those asking for help rather than follow scripure
    and give to all that seek.
    
    Don't you realize that when you decide to follow or ignore scripture,
    it is all about you and not about the object of your giving?
    
    It does sound like pure hypocracy to me.  Both of you have severely
    criticized me for not believing that scripture is God breathed, but
    both of you make up excuses for not following it.
    
                               Patricia                                 
    

re .13


the thought occurred to me aswell. does anyone know what jesus and 
his twelve disciples lived from? were they given shelter and food 
by well meaning contemporary citizens or did they trade goods for
a living or charge fees for healing services?

also, are there different types of beggars? would you consider the
tens of thousands of begging monks in south east asia as homeless 
bums? how would you look at them if they 'evangelised' the US in the 
same fashion as travelling begging monks?



andreas.

    
    .15
    
    You're being presumptuous, Patricia.  I've made no comment directly on
    the Scripture at all.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    it was your .14 that caused me to make the connection.
    
    You describe those begging for money as sinful, lazy, unworthy!  The
    implication is that they are not worthy of your material support.

    Andreas,
    
    Without studying any further than the quote as written, I would assume
    as you have.  Let go of those things taken and don't ask for them back.
    
                                      Patricia

 Z   It is interesting that the two of you who insist that the scripture
 Z   is God breathed refuse to take Luke 6:30 seriously.  You prefer to
 Z   make judgement regarding those asking for help rather than follow
 Z   scripture and give to all that seek.
    
    On the contrary, I take Luke 6:30 very seriously just as I do the rest
    of scripture.  I explained this a few back...maybe I wasn't clear.
    
    Luke 6:30 is not a part of God's plan to inherit eternal life.  Luke
    6:30 are the fruits of planting seeds in the lives of others, but doing
    good works for our fellow men and women in no way addresses the issue
    of sin...which is paramount in becoming righteous in the eyes of a Holy
    God.
    
    Regarding how I handle the homeless??  Well, I support a missionary and
    give 10% of my income to the local church.  When I go into Boston, I
    bring gift certificates for Burger King or McDonalds so that I know the
    money is spent on food (so to speak).  What am I doing wrong?
    
    -Jack

    
    Well, Patricia, I can understand how one might make that connection but
    if you read what I was responding to you will see that the question is
    not to the point of the Scripture.
    
    Also, you should know by now that I would not rationalize my way out of
    a direct command of the Lord's written in Scripture.
    
    jeff

 On what basis is it presumed that Christians do *not* follow Luke 6:30?




 Jim

re .20

>	Let go of those things taken and don't ask for them back.
    

thanks for your view, patricia.

does the rest of the panel agree that the second phrase of luke 6:30
should be read thus?



andreas.

>    It is interesting that the two of you who insist that the scripture is
>    God breathed refuse to take Luke 6:30 seriously.  You prefer to make
    
    or Matthew 5:44-48.

    Re .14
    
    >No but it sounds ludicrous on the face of it.  Especially considering
    >that insanity, drug and alcohol abuse, laziness, and many other sinful
    >manifestations are the cause of the great majority of homelessness.
    
    Passing judgement on a whole grooup of people based on what you've
    observed from a few is prejudice, pure and simple!
    
    >>If he were roaming the streets of Boston
    >>today, JC would probably be considered a homeless bum.
    >By whom?  Certainly not by His sheep which number in the tens of
    >millions!

    Maybe not by all of his sheep, but probably by his sheep who tend to 
    prejudge and shun the homeless with 
    
     >insanity, drug and alcohol abuse, laziness, and many other sinful
     >manifestations
    
    Jeff, this is not an attack on you, your faith or your beliefs. Just 
    something to get everyone to think.  
    
    I'm usually not one to quote the Bible, but one of my favorites went
    something like..  "The first shall be last and the last first"
    
    -dave
    
    

    Dave:
    
    I recall the statement was qualified with "great majority".  Keep in
    mind that the ones who are bums are stealing from the needs of women
    and children who really need the help...they are also stealing from the
    men who really need it.
    
    -Jack

>								Keep in
>   mind that the ones who are bums are stealing from the needs of women
>   and children who really need the help...they are also stealing from the
>   men who really need it.
    
a beggar who is being given money is NOT stealing from someone else.

that's cheap rethorics, jack.



andreas.

    Yes I do.
    
    We are in the process of closing on our house.  Our realtor made a
    mistake that cost us 500 dollars.  She was deeply embarrassed and
    sorry.
    
    Hey, it's all going to burn anyway!  Apparently it was in Gods plan.
    As far as somebody stealing, yes I also agree with Patricia's
    interpretation of that.  That of course involves faith.  Consider the
    following.
    
    After I finished my carrier route last Saturday morning at 2 A.M., I
    stopped into Cumberland Farms to pick up a gallon of milk.  Upon coming
    out of the store, a man was hiding in the back of my van.  He was
    somewhat out of it, he had some blood on his knuckle and he again, was
    hiding in the back of my van.  The window was open and I stood back
    staring right at him.  This was the sequence of the conversation...
    
    Jack: Ahhh.....EXCUSE ME??...Please get out of my van....thank you?
    
    Guy: (Comes out)  Hey man could you please give me a ride to Bedford?
         I really need to get home and feed my pet monkey.  Yeah...I have
    this effin monkey as a pet and need to get home.  Come on...I'll give
    you 10 bucks...please?  Please...come on man.
    
    Jack:  Well, if you have ten bucks, then why don't you call a cab?
    Guy:  The cabbie wants 30 bucks and I only have ten.
    Jack:  Well, maybe you should call another company because a ride to
    the airport costs me 25 bucks and that's alot further away.
    
    Guy:  Hey man, I just need to get out of this effin town...please give
    me a ride?  Yeah, I know...I just got in a fight and need to get back
    to my old lady?
    
    Jack: Well...why don't we...
    
    Guy:  No...don't call the cops.
    
    Jack:  I was just thinking maybe they can give you a ride to the
    Bedford line...or maybe home.
    
    Guy:  No man....don't call the cops.  Please just give me a ride.
    
    Jack:  Well, I'm sorry but I don't know you and I'm going the other
    direction anyway.
    
    Guy:  That's fine...I'll go the other way too...I just need to get out
    of this effin town...please man please?
    
    Jack (Inching my way to the van and sincerely praying Lord give me
    wisdom and discernment here):  Look, you hide in the back of my van and
    you have a bloody knuckle.  What would you do if you were in my shoes.
    
    Guy:  I'd say, S*&t man next time just ask.
    
    Jack:  Well, I'm sorry but I don't know you...I just don't know you
    and am not willing to take any chances.  Sorry.
    
    As I got into my van and turned on the motor, he stared at me like the
    Cheshire cat staring at a mouse.  I kept a solid eye on him and made no
    moves to role up the window.  I drove away and flagged down a police
    officer for safety of the store employee.
    
    Now Andreas, let's apply this to Luke 6:30.  Here we have a guy who
    stole a seat in my van...yes, he stole a van in my seat.  I took it
    away, prudently I might add.  It is quite conceivable somebody might
    have found me on the side of the highway with a slashed throat.  He may
    very well have needed a ride to Bedford; however, my wife and children
    need me a whole lot more than this guy needs a ride home.  So how would
    you apply my situation to Luke 6:30?
    
    -Jack

 On what basis is it presumed that Christians do not follow, or emphasize
 Luke 6:30?



 Jim

    
    >No but it sounds ludicrous on the face of it.  Especially considering
    >that insanity, drug and alcohol abuse, laziness, and many other sinful
    >manifestations are the cause of the great majority of homelessness.
    
>>    Passing judgement on a whole grooup of people based on what you've
>>    observed from a few is prejudice, pure and simple!
 
    Good grief!  The details and statistics around the causes of
    homelessness have been available for several years now!  I'm not being
    prejudiced at all!
       
    >>If he were roaming the streets of Boston
    >>today, JC would probably be considered a homeless bum.
    >By whom?  Certainly not by His sheep which number in the tens of
    >millions!

    >>Maybe not by all of his sheep, but probably by his sheep who tend to 
    >>prejudge and shun the homeless with 
    
    >>insanity, drug and alcohol abuse, laziness, and many other sinful
    >>manifestations
    
    So what is the connection between shunning and prejudice and
    recognizing one's shepherd?  Am I supposed to accept the silly idea
    that non-Christians know Jesus better than His own?
    
    >>Jeff, this is not an attack on you, your faith or your beliefs. Just 
    >>something to get everyone to think.  
    
    Hmmm.  Sure sounds like it to me.  But no offense taken.
    
    >>I'm usually not one to quote the Bible, but one of my favorites went
    >>something like..  "The first shall be last and the last first"
    
    >>-dave
    
    Do you care anything about context or are you satisfied to throw around
    phrases outside of their context to make a point?
    
    jeff
    

    	Luke 6:30 is not the whole Gospel.  For each snippet you care
    	to use to tell me to indiscriminately give to beggers, I can
    	provide you with more that tell me to be a good steward with
    	the gifts God has given me.
    
    	This Christianity-by-snippet can really get out of hand.

    John 14.6 is a snippet also.
    
    Richard
    

    Joe,
    
    It is only those who would like to ignore the main messages of Luke and
    Matthew that would call it "Christianity by snippet".
    
    Some construct a Christianity based on Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and
    Revelations.
    
    Others prefer to emphasize Matthew, Mark, Luke.
    
    Others find ispiration in other books.
    
    We all pick and choose what is redemptive for us.
    
    Some are more intellectually honest about the not choosing, then others. 
    I can tell you which versus I choose not to consider sacred!  
    
    I challenge you to do the same!
    
                                        Patricia

re .30


i have given and will give rough looking individuals lifts, post-midnight.
before deciding on the spot however, i do calculate my chances just in 
case things get rough, as a fall-back strategy since i know that a calm and 
cordial approach is the best way of avoiding trouble... but i wouldn't know 
how i'd have reacted if i found someone in my car without my permission. 
instinctively, i would probably have reacted completely wrong and quite 
aggressive.

i realise that giving lifts readily, means taking unnecessary risks, though.
i haven't had any bad experiences, quite the opposite. also, as a teenager, 
i used to hitch lifts myself alot so i know the problem from both sides. the 
way you described the situation it sounds to me like the guy was sincere 
though i don't think anyone would blame you for not having given the man a 
lift. these are difficult situations to judge, and i think when in doubt
it's best to refuse, the situation is sure to come up again.

thinking about it, i find the first part of the quoted luke 6:30 easier to
deal with than the second. when jesus said don't go after what is taken 
could he have meant avoid getting into brawls or don't be vindictive when 
recovering stolen possessions?




andreas.

    Patricia:
    
    Scripture in order to be understood accurately must be taken into
    context with other scripture.  What really sold me on John 14:6 is that
    his coming and the purpose of his mission was foretold by the prophets.
    I find Luke 6:30 not to conform to the context of other scripture in
    light of inheriting eternal life.  
    
    Using Luke 6:30 or the sermon on the mount in this context is
    inconsistent with what the prophets foretold and the typos offered
    throughout the Old testament.  
    
    Re: John 14:6 being a snippet.  Yes, it is...however, John 14:6 is one
    of many snipets and putting them in context, spells out the plan of
    salvation.  The sermon on the mount is beautiful.  The social gospel as
    a gospel to eternal life is in my opinion, not of God.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    It seems like you divide the Bible by those things that you think lead
    to eternal life and those things that have other objectives.  
    
    then you seem to be saying that some parts of the Bible are more important
    than others.
    
    It even seems like you are saying that those parts that will provide
    you eternal life are more important than those parts that tell you how
    to live righteously.
    
    That could be construed as Selfish!  A what's in it for me approach to
    the Bible!.
    
                                 Patricia

.37

>                            when jesus said don't go after what is taken 
> could he have meant avoid getting into brawls or don't be vindictive when 
> recovering stolen possessions?


or perhaps he meant simply don't be such a materialist, don't give material
possessions too much value?

i really must have a read of this tonight. the section (and presumably 
the matthew 5:44-48, thanks mike) looks interesting!


see you tomorrow,

andreas.

    Re .32
    
    >> Hmmm.  Sure sounds like it to me.  But no offense taken.
    
    It really wasn't my intention to offend.  It's not my nature.  
    
    >> Do you care anything about context or are you satisfied to throw
    >> around
    
    Of course I care.  Just that there aren't any keys on this keyboard to 
    reflect the subtleties of intention that we take for granted in spoken 
    language. I apologize if I offended you in any way.  That was not my 
    intent then or now.  
    
    >I'm not being prejudiced at all!
    
    I was taught that if you judge anyone based on anything but specific 
    knowlege of that  individual, then you're prejudging.  I'm talking about 
    individuals.
    
    Are "insanity, drug and alcohol abuse, laziness, and many other..." the
    cause of homelessness or is it the other way around?  Doesn't matter
    because we're all guilty of all of these things from time to time. 
    It's human nature.  Point is we're really not much different than the 
    homeless, we just think we are because we frive cars, live in houses,
    eat well and expound philosophy in notes conferences :-).
    
    >>So what is the connection between shunning and prejudice and
    >>recognizing one's shepherd?  
    
    Not sure what you're asking here.  But let me say that the last time I
    can remember a homeless person assuming a major leadership role was
    when Mahatma Ghandi was doing his thing.  Point there is that the
    homeless are rarely given much consideration, at least while they're
    alive.  When the great professor Einstein proposed his theory of 
    relativity, it was praised as profound wisdom.  When Van Gogh was 
    painting, his work was considered a waste of canvas by everyone but his 
    brother.  And most (read "most" not "all") considered Jesus a false 
    prophet or social renegade or blasphemer (or whatever) at the time. 
    Credibility and social status go hand in hand I'm afraid.  Sometimes it 
    takes years, decades and even centuries before people recognize the 
    brilliance of the words/works of the poor where it's given instantly
    those higher on the social ladder.  
    
    >>Am I supposed to accept the silly idea
    >>that non-Christians know Jesus better than His own?
    
    Correct me if I'm mistaken, but I think "his own" includes everyone all
    the time.  right?  wrong?  Again, no sarcasm or attack here. Just
    trying to establish where I stand.
    
    But I still maintain that in today's society, Jesus might be
    considered:
    
    "homeless" -> didn't live in a building
    "jobless"  -> unemployed
    "uneducated" -> no HS diploma or formal secular education
    "dirty" -> probably wore rags and didn't bathe very often
    maybe even "lazy" -> depends on your definition of lazy I suppose
    
    Not sure what the definition of a "bum" is.  Maybe it fits, maybe not.
    
    I've heard it said that this sort of social position is "EXACTLY" where
    Jesus wanted to be in the eyes of men, thus stating the error in what
    men value.  Drove the point home better than if he had professed poverty 
    from the throne of a king.
    
    -dave
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    Actually, my motives are totally selfless.  There are parts of the
    Bible FARRR more important to eternal life than others.  And there are
    parts of the bible FARRR more important to living the Spirit filled
    life.
    
    My objective is twofold.  One, I personally don't like to see the Word
    of God misused or misinterpreted.  This leads to false religion or
    acting under false suppositions, i.e. oppressing women, etc.  If
    somebody uses scripture to oppress for example, then it is due to a
    misguided understanding of scripture.  Same with eternal life.  That's
    why I believe the social gospel is fallable...as a method of obtaining
    righteousness before a Holy God.
    
    Secondly, we are called to make disciples of all nations.  You may
    remember the Corinthian Church followed different messiahs.  Some
    Apollos, some Paul, some Jesus.  My objective is to better understand
    and make known who Jesus was...not a martyr...not just a moral teacher,
    but also a sacrifice, a savior, a redeemer.
    
    It is not selfish at all to want to spend eternity with Christ and not
    selfish to want to get the right message out.
    
    -Jack

>    My objective is twofold.  One, I personally don't like to see the Word
>    of God misused or misinterpreted.  This leads to false religion or
>    acting under false suppositions, i.e. oppressing women, etc.

Like it was by Christopher Columbus and his travelling salvation show?  Like
it was by those saved Christians who bought into the notion of Manifest
Destiny?  Like it was when the saved maintained strong social order through
the lynching of American Blacks?

Need I bother with the intolerance with which Quakers, Roman Catholics, Jews
and many others were received by Christians living in the so-called New World?

>    Secondly, we are called to make disciples of all nations.

And how can one be a disciple while virtually ignoring the teachings of the
Master?

Richard

Matthew 23:23 (KJV) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye pay tithe of mint and anise and cummin, and have omitted the
weightier [matters] of the law, justice, mercy, and faith:
these ought ye to have done, and not to leave the other undone.
[Jesus Speaking]

Richard
    

    
    re: .42

    > One, I personally don't like to see the Word of God misused or
    > misinterpreted.

    Ah, but one man's misinterpretation is another man's faith (as this
    conference proves daily.) And one woman's oppression might be another
    man's spiritual leadership :^)

    I'm not sure the *main* point of the Bible is personal salvation. I
    think it has as much to do with how to live as how to believe. I don't
    see a hierarchy, like some divine flow chart, of salvation, faith, and
    living.

    But then again my entire view on the nature of the Bible is different
    from my more conservative friends.
    
    Peace,
    
    	Eric

since i now read luke 6 (and the related section in matthew 5 and 6)
i am curious if you think that the *giving* of luke 6:30 is for giving's 
sake?

at least i assumed it should be if it is giving in a spirit of love.

what prompts the question is luke 6:38 where it says something along
the lines of 'give and you will be given, the measure of which you give
will be the measure of how you will be given'.

doesn't this suggest a reward system, something like: give now and you
will be given later? this idea of reward system seems also to be supported
by the relating sections around matthew 5 or 6 where it says that those 
who boast about their giving have had their reward and need expect no more,
only those who don't let the left (right?) hand know what the other hand
is doing are eligible for reward. 

to me it's disheartening if the giving was puerly to pick up the reward
at some later stage, though it seems the case for such purposeful giving
can easily be made from the quoted texts.



andreas.

Z    Like it was by Christopher Columbus and his travelling salvation show? Like
Z    it was by those saved Christians who bought into the notion of Manifest
Z    Destiny?  Like it was when the saved maintained strong social order
Z    through the lynching of American Blacks?
Z    Need I bother with the intolerance with which Quakers, Roman Catholics,
Z    Jews
Z    and many others were received by Christians living in the so-called New
Z    World?
    
    I make no excuses for them...and if they claimed to be Christians, then
    obviously they did not understand scripture; otherwise, these things
    would not have happened.  Is your entry above intended to try and
    weaken the stance that scripture is God breathed?  
    
    >    Secondly, we are called to make disciples of all nations.
    
ZZ    And how can one be a disciple while virtually ignoring the teachings of
ZZ    the Master?
    
    They would be carnal believers.  Never in my replies did I imply that
    Luke 6:30 was to be ignored.  Am I not communicating this properly?
    
    -Jack

.47

>    I make no excuses for them...and if they claimed to be Christians, then
>    obviously they did not understand scripture; otherwise, these things
>    would not have happened.

Easy to say in hindsight, ain't it?

>    Is your entry above intended to try and
>    weaken the stance that scripture is God breathed?

No.  I believe Scripture is God-breathed.  I don't believe God-breathed means
what you believe that snippet in the letter to Timothy means.

>    They would be carnal believers.  Never in my replies did I imply that
>    Luke 6:30 was to be ignored.  Am I not communicating this properly?

Tell me more.

Richard

    I don't really know how I can expound on the subject further.
    
    Works of righteousness are as filthy garments.  They cannot satisfy the
    judgement of sin in our lives anymore than bringing flowers to a
    girlfriend makes the two married.
    
    The human heart is deceitful and above all things despately wicked. 
    John 14:6 applies here as we need a redeemer.
    
    Once redeemed, Luke 6:30 now comes into play.  Without redemption, Luke
    6:30 is meaningless in light of eternity.
    
    -Jack

so the only point of giving, as asked for in luke 6:30, ist to be given
as you have given (luke 6:38) later on, jack?




andreas.

    Give as your heart tells you to.  Charity as a way of life exists
    amongst all.
    
    Just don't do it with the attitude, "Surely I will inherit eternal life
    because of my charity."  This is a fallacy.
    
    -Jack

i am probably understanding this all wrong but there _seems_ at least 
a reward system proposed in luke 6 as i tried to point out in .46
it seems strange that you jack, don't see that, yet follow a similar 
flowchart logic with your 'salvation first and then all the rest'!




andreas.

    Ooops...didn't address that.  Sorry.
    
    "But be faithful even unto death, and I will give you the crown of
    life."  Revelation 2: someplace.
    
    Andreas, I believe that those who are redeemed can receive rewards for
    their faith.  Mentioned among others are the crown of righteousness and
    as mentioned, the crown of life.  I believe these rewards are over and
    above eternal life.  I believe your observation is correct...that there
    is a reward system that God has placed.  I also believe we are
    eventually going to lay our crowns before the judgement seat of Christ.
    I believe we will do this as naturally as we breathe.
    
    -Jack

    
    > Works of righteousness are as filthy garments. 

    I disagree. I think that good deeds, done selflessly and with no
    expectation of personal gain, are always pleasing to God.

    > The human heart is deceitful and above all things despately wicked.

    The human heart *can* be deceitful and wicked, but I don't go for this
    sort of self deprecation that I (and all mankind) am wicked.

    > Once redeemed, Luke 6:30 now comes into play.  Without redemption, Luke
    > 6:30 is meaningless in light of eternity.

    I disagree that there is cause and effect relationship, or any other
    sort of hierarchy between redemption and selfless charity. 

    Eric

    Eric:
    
    Enjoyed meeting you today.
    
    When dealing with Christianity and faith issues revolving it, we
    sometimes have to see beyond our senses.  Regarding our works.  All
    good works have value, no matter what faith one belongs to have nothing
    but good to add to society.
    
        > Works of righteousness are as filthy garments. 
    
 ZZ       I disagree. I think that good deeds, done selflessly and with no
 ZZ       expectation of personal gain, are always pleasing to God.
    
    The context of my comment above is in reference to peple attempting to 
    earn eternal life through the merits of their own works.  It is these
    individuals who IN FACT DO have expectation of personal gain, i.e. I
    was charitable and therefore God owes me.  So in the context of Isaiah 
    64:6 where I got the verse on filthy garments, these people are
    charitable on the basis of selfishness and personal gain.  Did I
    explain my opinion clearly?!
    
    Regarding the human heart, it depends on your outlook of sin.  If a
    child came into my store and stole a candy bar, then to you and I it
    might be a call to the parents or a slap on the hand.  But the
    important thing to grasp here is that it is sin...falling short of
    God's perfection...that seperates us from God eternally.  "The soul
    that sinneth, it shall die."  Sin is not something that is learned
    Eric.  Sin comes very easy to all mankind.  God's look upon sin is that
    it is desparately wicked.  It required the death of a perfect messiah
    to nullify it.   It sounds harsh but it is true.  The heart of man is
    wicked, by nature.   It is not self depracation.  It is just dealing
    with the reality of our situation.
    
    If one is unredeemed, then charity is still of use to society.  But is
    one is facing eternal hell and judgement, then what does it prophet to
    love and stand lost?
    
    -Jack

.35>    John 14.6 is a snippet also.
    
    	Yup, in isolation it sure is.  And once I looked it up to see
    	what it was I could see that it is one of the many pieces in
    	the whole message.
    
    	Since you were responding to my reply, Richard, I wonder why you
    	though it was important to bring this particular snippet to my 
    	attention...  Do you get the impression that I use this snippet
    	as a club?
    
    	re .36 -- Patricia --
    
>    It is only those who would like to ignore the main messages of Luke and
>    Matthew that would call it "Christianity by snippet".
    
    	Since I was speaking out against using Luke 6:30 so heavily, are 
    	you suggesting that Luke's main message is this snippet?
    
>    Some construct a Christianity based on Timothy, Titus, Hebrews, and
>    Revelations.
>    
>    Others prefer to emphasize Matthew, Mark, Luke.
>    
>    Others find ispiration in other books.
>    
>    We all pick and choose what is redemptive for us.
    
    	And the proper course is to take it as a whole, and not to pick
    	and choose.  That is what I'm saying -- not just to you, but to
    	practically everyone in here who all seem to be able to answer
    	anything with a single snippet.
    
>    Some are more intellectually honest about the not choosing, then others. 
>    I can tell you which versus I choose not to consider sacred!  
>    
>    I challenge you to do the same!
    
    	And I can also tell you which verses I choose not to consider
    	sacred -- absolutely none.  Challenge accepted and accomplished.

 I'd asked in an earlier reply  (.31) on what basis can it be 
 determined that Christians do not emphasise Luke 6:30.  I hadn't 
 seen an answer.  However, we have a specific commandement from Jesus
 to preach the gospel (of which I believe John 14:6 to be a part) to
 all nations (Matthew 28:19) and a specific commandment not to toot
 our horn about the good works we do. 

 I'd still like to know on what basis it can be determined that Christians
 do not emphasize or follow Luke 6:30, if we are not supposed to be 
 sounding a trumpet about our works?  Are some folks following Christians
 around and keeping a survey?  I believe that if Bible believing, funda-
 metalist Christians, many many of whom quietly provide financial and
 other types of assistance to the needy, were to stop tomorrow, we would
 see many more homeless, many more welfare recipients and many more 
 tragedies on the streets of our cities than we do today and that many
 if not most Non Christian related charitable organizations woujld
 collapse under the weight of the extra mand.




Matthew 6:1  Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of 
them: otherwise ye have no reward of your Father which is in heaven. 
 

 2  Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before 
thee, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and in the streets, that they may 
have glory of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. 

  3  But when thou doest alms, let not thy left hand know what thy right hand 
doeth.



 

    Jim,
    
    Welcome back to Christian Perspectives!  It appears that your ability
    to stay away from a good argument is almost as weak as mine!
    
    My comment about some Christians not following the main message of
    Matthew and Luke, was based on peoples discussion in here particularly
    those discussions that were very judgemental against those who were
    beggars.    Not only does the Bible call us to give to those who are in
    need, but it also calls us to not judge others.  Particularly  not to
    brand a group of people as lazy, sinful, less than based on their
    appearance and their begging.  Jesus as an example befriended just this
    group of people.  Those who were considered social outcasts by the more
    affluent.
    
    The main message within the Bible, the whole bible is the message of
    God's love for humanity revealed in the Hebrew Scriptures and revealed
    in the life, death, and ressurrection of Jesus CHrist.  The bible is
    very clear that the most important thing we can do is to love God and
    to love Neighbors(even enemies).
    
    Members of this file, Jack in particular have made statements that
    seem to indicate that Jesus' message of love is secondary to the
    acceptance of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice.  
    
    I believe that that is an inappropriate ranking of scripture.  It is
    picking and chosing and stating that those few snippets that appear to
    justify the atoning sacrifice theory are more important than what I
    consider to be the central message of the whole Bible, i.e. that God is
    a God of love and Jesus Christ is the Incarnation of God's
    Creative/Responsive love.  I believe that Jesus saves by providing us a
    living example of what a life of creative/responsive life looks like
    and God and Jesus call us to imitate the creative/responsive love
    revealed in and by Jesus.
    
                                   Patricia
    

    ZZ    Members of this file, Jack in particular have made statements that
    ZZ    seem to indicate that Jesus' message of love is secondary to the
    ZZ    acceptance of Jesus as an atoning sacrifice.  
    
    The crux of what I am saying Patricia is that without the Holy Spirit,
    Agape love cannot exist.  Love is a gift and God is a manifestation of
    love.  The ultimate act of love was Jesus' death on the cross.  Without 
    Jesus as our savior, the love we have is not a redeeming love.  We are
    separated by sin, and therefore cannot stand in his mercy.  
    
    I am not making love secondary.  I am putting the two categories in
    their appropriate places.  As scripture says, "If we give all our money
    to feed the poor but have not love, then we are nothing."  Without
    Jesus, Agape Love does not exist.
    
    -Jack

    Be a little more specific Jack.
    
    Are you saying without Jesus or without a specific understanding of
    Jesus as an atoning sacrifice.
    
    Jesus reveals to us what God's love means!
    Jesus lives a perfect emodiment of God's love!
    As humans we must attempt to love as Jesus loved!
    
    I believe that you would say that that is not enough!  That
    "Christians" must accept and believe that Jesus on the Cross redeemed
     humankind from sins which humanity could not pay the price for.  I
    believe that you have said that God could not forgive humanity for
    humanity's sins without Jesus paying the ultimate price on behalf of
    humanity.
    
    It is that concept, taken from shreds of biblical evidence, that I
    believe you have made the central and highest priority in scripture and
    read everything else as secondary to it.  I believe that you are not
    alone in this Jack, but that it is the dogma of conservative Christians
    to pick, chose, and order scripture in this way.
    
    I have absolutely no problem with picking, chosing, and ordering
    scripture.  I have a real problem in being judged "not really a
    Christian" because I am up front about claiming some scriptures are
    more important than others. 
    
                                   Patricia
    from sins
    

Re: .59 Jack

>    Without Jesus, Agape Love does not exist.
    
In other words, Faith, hope and love abide, these three, and the greatest
of them is faith.

				-- Bob

    Re -1
    
    Bob,
    
    Good point!.
    
                               Patricia

    
    > The crux of what I am saying Patricia is that without the Holy
    > Spirit, Agape love cannot exist.

    This is where I disagree to some extent. I would say that where we find
    selfless, unconditional love we also find the Holy Spirit. That is to
    say, the Spirit and grace of God can be found in those whom we do not
    consider "Christian" or "saved." So although "agape" love cannot exist
    without the Holy Spirit, I don't think one needs to profess Christ as
    their personal savior, or claim to be a Christian in order to be moved
    by the spirit of God. The grace and love of God is *unconditional*.

    Eric

    Z    I have absolutely no problem with picking, chosing, and ordering
    Z    scripture.  I have a real problem in being judged "not really a
    Z    Christian" because I am up front about claiming some scriptures are
    Z    more important than others. 
    
    Patricia, when a lion hunts, they don't realize they are perpetuating a
    violent act on another animal.  They act upon instinct and according to
    their nature.  Likewise, humanity acts within sin because we act from
    our own nature.  We measure ourselves by human terms and that can be
    deceptive.  
    
    Whether you be a Christian or not is between you and God.  One can hear
    the message and accept or reject the message based on how one perceives
    truth.  However, truth is not fluid.  It is constant and never
    changing.  Therefore, what somebody may draw as a conclusion in regards
    to your eternal destiny should not be a problem...because it makes
    absolutely no difference anyway.  Truth is truth and truth will one day
    be revealed.
    
    And you are correct in determining how I think.  In order for our love
    for humanity to be pleasing to God, we must first reconcile with God
    ourselves.  To use the marriage analogy, giving my children flowers and
    candy will not in any way minister to my wife if we are out of
    fellowship.  First I must reconcile with Michele and then the love I
    bestow upon my children will be deeply appreciated by her.
    
    -Jack 

         <<< Note 1138.58 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>
    
>    Not only does the Bible call us to give to those who are in
>    need, but it also calls us to not judge others.  
    
    	Where does it call us not to judge others?  Are you again relying
    	on a snippet?

    Jack,
    
    My search for truth is not hindered by those who think I am on the
    wrong path.  Like you, I believe that truth is "Truth" and all who
    genuinely seek Truth will find it.
    
    Some people think I use you Jack as an example because I pick on you. 
    I think you know that I use you as an example because our dialogue with
    each other over these years of noting makes us each aware of the
    theology of the other.  I am pleased that I accurately represented your
    theology even though I don't agree with it.
    
    My example though does show that you do order scripture and do identify
    some scripture as more important than other scripture.  That is all
    that it was meant to show.
    
    
                                     Patricia
    
    

    Joe,
    
    Of course.
    
    "My snippet's better than your snippet"
    
    
    Paul does speak from both side of the mouth regarding judging, but
    early in Romans, perhaps Romans 5, he makes it clear that we are not 
    too judge others.  Jesus tells us to take the brick out of our own eye
    before we judge the speck in someone elses.  Jesus also tells us to sit
    with the person of poor and dirty dress rather than the well groomed
    churchgoer.  In imitation of Jesus himself, we are called to be brother
    and sister of the outcast.
    
    What psychologists say when they advice each of us to keep the focus on
    ourselves and our own issues, is fully consistent with the words of
    Jesus.

Z    My example though does show that you do order scripture and do
Z    identify some scripture as more important than other scripture.  That is all
Z    That it was meant to show.
    
    Well I said that, but there was another part to it.  
    
    What I said was in the CONTEXT of being a witness and a testimony, Luke
    6:30 is far mor important than John 14:6.  In the CONTEXT of inheriting
    eternal life, John 14:6 takes precedence over Luke 6:30.
    
    To put it another way, if my son stole a candy bar, I would not speak
    to him on the merits of "Thou shalt not Kill".  Although that
    commandment is of equal importance, it simply doesn't apply to the
    situation.
    
    If somebody asked me how to inherit eternal life, I would be more apt
    to show he/she John 14:6.  You may remember ther rich man 
    asking how to inherit eternal life.  Jesus told him to follow the law.  
    The man said "All these things I have done from my youth"  Jesus said, 
    "Yet one thing you lack.  Go, sell all your posessions and follow me."  
    The man was grieved because he had much.  His relinquishment with the 
    world was simply too much for his lack of faith.  He wanted eternal life but
    wasn't willing to count the cost.  And the cost is forsaking all and
    following Jesus Christ.  This is where John 14:6 comes in.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I rest my case! :-)

    Yes but my logic has a flow to it and fits like a puzzle.  The social
    gospel contradicts the claims Christ made of himself.
    
    -Jack

    re .58
    
    >Where does it call us not to judge others?  Are you again relying on
    >a snippet?
    
    
    Romans 2 is my snippet
    
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 869.1                           Romans                              1 of 27
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                     37 lines   4-MAR-1994 10:11
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Romans 2

What can be known about God is plain.

Therefore you have no excuse whoever you are when you judge
others.  for in passsing judgment on another you condemn
yourself because you the judge are doing the very same things .
 You say We know that God's judgment on those who do such things
is in accordance with truth.  Do you imagine whoever you are
that when you judge those who do such things and yet do them
yourself you will escape the judgment of God.  Or do you despise
the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience?  Do
you not realize that God's kindness is meant to lead you to
repentance. 



When the Gentiles who do not possess the law do instinctively
what the law requires these, though not having the law are a law
to themselves.  They show that what the law requires is written
on their hearts to which their own conscience also bears witness.



But if you call yourself a Jew( or Christian) and rely on the
law(or Bible) and boast of your relation to God and know his will
and determine what is best because your are instructed in the
law(or Bible) and if you are sure that you are a guide to the
blind, a light to those who are in darkness a corrector to the
foolish, a teacher of children having in the law(or Bible) the
embodiment of knowledge and truth you then that teach others,
will you not teach yourself?

ZZ    and rely on the law(or Bible) 
    
    Nonsequitor and fallable.  The only other source we can rely upon is
    human intellect stemming from sinful man...remember?
    
    In regard to judging, Paul also tells us more than once we are to
    admonish and exhort one another in the Word of God.  1st Corinthians 5
    is a good example, about the young man sleeping with his father's wife. 
    I would call what Paul stated a severe judgement, "And hand such a one
    as this over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh."
    
    Romans 2 was directed at Jewish believers who had a difficult time
    reconciling their new faith with the law of Moses...so in essence the
    Law is the Old Testament but not the whole Bible by any means.  If you
    live by the law then you will be judged by the law.  If you live under
    grace then you are born to freedom.  
    
    The Galatian Church had the same problem and Paul made an allegory to
    explain the difference.
    
    Abraham had two wives.... Sarah the free woman and Hagar the
    bondservant.  Sarah represented grace and freedom and Hagar the
    bondservant represented the law.  Once Christ died and rose again, we
    became free under the power of grace but those who chose to stay under
    the law became bound to sin, for when the law came, sin was revealed
    and death followed (Romans 7).
    
    Justification by good deeds is of the law.  The law reveals sin and sin
    brings about death.  
    
    -Jack

    By the way, thank you Patricia for spending the time in writing what
    you did.  I don't mean to digress all the time from what you are saying
    but I simply believe Romans 2 is speaking on a different matter...that
    being those under the Mosaic law judging those who chose to live by
    grace.
    
    -Jack

    How about those under the "Christian" law judging those who chose to
    live by grace?

    There must be some miscommunication on my part.  There is no Christian
    law.  The Christian law does not exist.  The Only way a Christian can
    be a Christian is by grace.
    
    I believe you are thinking that there is a methodology to getting saved
    and that is the case.  One must hear of the gospel...the Jesus is the
    way.  Then one must believe (intellectually accepting what has been
    said), then one must receive (ask Jesus to come into their life as
    their Lord and Savior.  Is that what you are calling the Christian law?
    
    Jesus asked everybody that question, "Dost thou believe?"  This was a
    prerequisite for everybody.
    
    -Jack

    Living by Grace means to feel and respond to the living presence of
    God.  It means to devote time and energy to quiet centering in order to
    discipline oneself to hear that "still small voice" of God and living
    by that direction.
    
    Living by Law means that one has a checklist of things they should and
    should not do, say, believe.  Living by law is to not trust the spirit. 
    To not trust the "still small voice".
    
    That is the definition I use, and that is the decision I make to live by
    Grace and to not live by law.
    
                                 Patricia

    There are a few holes in that.  First, I would assume that "still small
    voice" you refer to is your conscience.  Again, as a matter of opinion,
    a conscience is conditioned to respond as it is taught.  An example
    would be the Nazi death camp soldier who had no problems throwing
    children in the fire only to go home to his family life.  Our
    conscience is open to many filters and therefore cannot be trusted.
    
    Secondly, you are right, living by the law is keeping a checklist of
    things to do and say.  The crux of grace is....DOST THOU BELIEVE?
    Or, do you trust in the Spirit...as you put it.  Accepting Christ is an
    act of faith just as getting married is.  
    
    -Jack

         <<< Note 1138.67 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    Joe,
>    
>    Of course.
>    
>    "My snippet's better than your snippet"
    
    	I guess you just don't see that I'm advocating a retreat from
    	snippet-use, not trying to say that my snippet (of which I have
    	none) is better than yours.  
    
>    Paul does speak from both side of the mouth regarding judging,
    
    	Exactly (though I wouldn't use such an accusatory phrase as
    	"speaking from both sides of the mouth".  Still, you make my 
    	point.)  Even from the same author we can find dueling snippets,
    	so we can see the problem with the granularity of theology-by-
    	snippet.  Life itself in so many ways is contradictory.  You
    	can expect, therefore, to find scriptures which address these 
    	various contradictions to seem contradictory themselves when
    	taken out of context.
    
>    Jesus tells us to take the brick out of our own eye
>    before we judge the speck in someone elses.  
    
    	Ah, but even your example says "before we judge others" meaning
    	that there is a time and propriety for such judging.  If you
    	continue on in that passage (and not snip it off where convenient
    	for your point) Jesus clearly says that once you have removed
    	the board from your own eye you will then be able to see so that
    	you can help your brother.

re Note 1138.77 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Secondly, you are right, living by the law is keeping a checklist of
>     things to do and say.  The crux of grace is....DOST THOU BELIEVE?
>     Or, do you trust in the Spirit...as you put it.  Accepting Christ is an
>     act of faith just as getting married is.  
  
        I believe that the crux of grace is DOST THOU ACCEPT -- THE
        GRACE!

        I do believe that one can accept God's goodness in general
        and God's salvation in particular without any particular
        knowledge (doctrine) of either (e.g., I can accept the "good
        gift" of rain without knowing *anything* about how rain comes
        about).

        Bob

>    First, I would assume that "still small
>    voice" you refer to is your conscience.
    
    The "still small voice" that I refer to is God within each of us!
    
    > Again, as a matter of opinion,
    >a conscience is conditioned to respond as it is taught.  An example
    >would be the Nazi death camp soldier who had no problems throwing
    >children in the fire only to go home to his family life. 
    
    The question is How does "that still small voice" within us get lost so
    that our consciences are corrupted.  One way that it easily gets lost
    is by External Conditioning that external authority is superior to the
    "still small voice".   At the time of Nazi Germany that external
    authority was Hitler and his Regime.  One needs to ask, what was the
    relationship between an authoritarian fundementalist interpretation of
    the Bible and the ability of a authoritarian regime to subvert that
    "still small voice" so totally within the German Culture.  One has to
    ask, how did the culture and society that created the majority of
    Christian Theologians also create a Nazi regime!.  
    
    
    >Secondly, you are right, living by the law is keeping a checklist of
    >things to do and say.  The crux of grace is....DOST THOU BELIEVE?
    
    I agree, Doth thou believe? is the Crux of it.  Dost thou believe in
    the goodness of God?  Dost though believe in the infinate nature of
    God's love for all humanity? Dost thou believe that humanity is created
    in God's image? Dost thou believe that God can be present for all women
    and men?  Dost thou believe that God can accomplish miracles
    today in this world for humanity?
    
    >Or, do you trust in the Spirit...as you put it.  Accepting Christ is an
    >act of faith just as getting married is.  
    
    Are you asking Dost thou believe or dost thou trust in the Spirit.
    
    Yes!  I do believe and Yes I do trust in the Spirit!
    
                             Patricia

 1138.78
    
    >	I guess you just don't see that I'm advocating a retreat from
    >	snippet-use, not trying to say that my snippet (of which I have
    >	none) is better than yours.  
   
    Joe,
    
    I understand what you are saying is that "My theology(patricia's and
    others) is a theology of snippets. whereas your theology (joe's) is
    not.  It is offensive when you reduce my theology to snippets.  Perhaps
    I did retort back in kind by jesting. "My snippets better than your
    snippet."   I believe that the fundementalist position is based on the
    emphasis of those sections of the Bible describing a wrathful God and a
    degenerate humanity over those sections of the Bible describing a
    loving, merciful God and a humanity created in God's image.
    
    That is the message that I try to get across playfully with "My
    snippet's better than your snippet."  I can summarize the main message
    of the Bible to.
    
    "God is all Loving and God wants all humanity to live in Love of God and
    Love of all brothers and sisters everywhere."
    
    I know of no summary of the Bible that captures the essence of the Bible
     so well and proclaims the Good News of God so well. Call it a snippet if
     you like.  It is the heart of my Theology.
    
>>    Jesus tells us to take the brick out of our own eye
>>    before we judge the speck in someone elses.  
    
  >  	Ah, but even your example says "before we judge others" meaning
  >  	that there is a time and propriety for such judging.  If you
  >  	continue on in that passage (and not snip it off where convenient
  >  	for your point) Jesus clearly says that once you have removed
  >  	the board from your own eye you will then be able to see so that
  >  	you can help your brother.
    
    No Joe,  If you remember the passage  All those who would condemn the
    woman, leave when asked, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first
    stone"   The message is "Judge oneself"  Look inwardly to one's own
    shortcomings and repent and atone for those short comings.  Each of us
    can only change ourselves.  By each of us changing ourselves and being
    more loving, we can collectively change the world.
    
    Since all of us fall short of the perfection that we could be, each of
    us never gets passed the looking inward and learning to treat others
    with more and more respect and love.

    ZZ    The "still small voice" that I refer to is God within each of us!
    
    From whence does this teaching come from???
    
    -Jack

    ZZ    The "still small voice" that I refer to is God within each of us!
    
>>    From whence does this teaching come from???
    
    -Jack
    
    It comes from Faith, Jack.  I'm sorry that you cannot comprehend or
    accept that!  I am committed to living by Faith and not by human
    teachings!
    
                                 Patricia
    
    
                                      Patricia

  ZZ   I am committed to living by Faith and not by human
  ZZ   teachings!
    
    I asked because I believe that God being within each of us IS in fact a
    human teaching.
    
    God is NOT within each of us.  Our bodies are the Temple of the Holy
    Spirit.  The Holy Spirit only dwells with those who choose to invite
    the Holy Spirit in.  This is based on faith Patricia.
    
    -Jack

    You cannot accept the GRACE mentioned in the Bible without first
    accepting the author of that GRACE, Jesus.  Without Him, there is no
    GRACE to accept- as He made GRACE available by dying for us.
    
    Sin leads to death.  All mankind has sinned at one time or another and
    have fallen short of the glory of God.  We have been given the
    opportunity to avoid death by accepting Jesus as our replacement (so to
    speak)- our sacrificial offering that covers our sin debt.  This is
    something that all have to actively accept to be covered- a free gift,
    certainly, but one that is not forced on anyone.  We must make a choice
    to accept what is offered.
    
    We cannot trivialize this sacrifice, nor generalize it away as simply
    being God's GRACE.  We cannot know this GRACE without knowing He who
    took our sins upon Himself, so that we could be reconciled to God.
    
    Perhaps I'm reading a few replied in this topic wrongly (wouldn't be
    the first time 8^) ), but I see the implication in some notes that a
    generic belief in God is good enough.  Following one's conscience is
    good enough.  GRACE is a given, not something we have to consciously
    and prayerfully accept.
    
    If you do not admit you are a sinner; do not ask for forgiveness; do
    not recognize the Savior who sacrificed His life for ours- then we
    cannot know Him and are not under GRACE.
    
    Jesus wan't *just* a good teacher or an example for us to follow.  He
    is God, and savior of mankind- at least those who accept this
    sacrifice and call Him Lord.
    
    
    Perhaps I'm going off on a tangent here?  If so, just ignore me.  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    God's love is unconditional!
    
    It is amazing how conditional some humans would make God's love!
    
    
    The "Still Small voice" lives within each of us.  Each of us does
    choose how we respond to that voice.  The more time each of us takes to
    listen to that voice, the more effective it becomes in aiding us to
    live a spirit filled life.   That still small voice is
    always present.  That voice can be identified by the fruits that it
    bears.  It can be identified by the fruits of Love.
    
    A person who lives their life in tune with that Voice, lives a life of
    love.   Everyone lives their life with the need to love and be loved. 
    That voice, continues to unconditionally call out to each person
    offering new possibilities no matter how sinful one's life has been. 
    A person can choose at any point to listen to and respond to that
    voice.  
    
    To hear that voice for the first time, and respond to it, is to be born
    again.  
    
    To continue to listen for that voice, respond to it and develop
    new appreciation for it moment by moment is to allow oneself to be
    transformed:  To be a New Creation, day after day! 
    
    For Christians, to be a New Creation in Christ. 
    
    For a Budhist, perhaps it is to let one's life flow like a river!
    
    For a Pagan, it is to live one's life in alignment with the wheel of
    Life.
    
    In all cases, it is my belief that the source of that Grace is the
    same.
    
                                Patricia
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    Scripture tells us that NOTHING can separate us from the love of God.
    Therefore, I believe as you that love is unconditional.  However, I do
    believe that soverignty and judgement are mutually exclusive from
    unconditional love.  One can be eternally judged and yet still be
    unconditionally loved by God.
    
    I believe God is calling ALL to repentence.  However, I also believe,
    as in the case of Pharoah, that the human heart reaches such a point of
    depravity that God turns over an individual to Satan for the
    destruction of the flesh...just as God did to Pharoah.
    
    The Book of Revelation is also a very good illustration.  Although God
    called a sinful world to repentence, the people continually cursed God
    and worshipped the beast.  
    
    -Jack

    > God's love is unconditional!
    
    I agree with you 100%.
    
    However, being loved and being saved are two different things.  Jesus
    said "none come to the Father but through me", he made no bones about it-
    there is no second guessing or reinterpreting his statement.  The only
    choice we have to make are to either believe Him or to ignore Him.
    
    The Bible is very clear on salvation.  Salvation is based on faith in
    God's Son, Jesus, not in works.  Works are the result of faith, and
    those who are faithful in their works will be blessed for their faith
    in heaven (rewards- those not faithful, but who have accepted Jesus'
    salvation, will have few or no rewards).
    
    God's word says to test the spirits, not to believe blindly any voice
    or teachings, but to test them with the scriptures.  
    
    I'm not saying that God does not speak to us in "that little voice",
    but that we should filter what that voice says through scriptures, as
    God says to, to make sure of its origin.  Such calls for having faith
    in God and His word.  "Voices" are not necessarily reliable.
    
    
    -steve 

    A better way of testing the "Still Small Voice" is the fruits that it
    bears.  The Gospel is very clear that only a good tree bears good
    fruit.  A person of spirit can be identified by the kind of life she
    lives.  Love is of God.  If love is the fruit of a person living in
    accordance with the "Still Small Voice" than that voice is from God.
    
    This principle can even be used to test scripture.  If love is the
    fruit of the application of scripture, then the scripture is revelatory
    in its application.
    
                                 Patricia

re Note 1138.85 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     You cannot accept the GRACE mentioned in the Bible without first
>     accepting the author of that GRACE, Jesus.  

        Wrong.

>     Without Him, there is no
>     GRACE to accept- as He made GRACE available by dying for us.

        True, but that is like saying that without evaporation there
        is no rain.  One does not have to "accept" evaporation before
        one can accept the grace of rain.

        Bob

    >     You cannot accept the GRACE mentioned in the Bible without first
    >     accepting the author of that GRACE, Jesus.  
    
 ZZ           Wrong.
    
    >     Without Him, there is no
    >     GRACE to accept- as He made GRACE available by dying for us.
    
 ZZ           True, 
    
    So which one is it?  I understand your analogy of the rain but the two
    still contradict.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Read what Bob wrote again!
    There is no contradiction.
    
                              Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    This presupposes the idea of unlimited biblical atonement, i.e. once
    Jesus died, forgiveness was bestowed upon all mankind regardless of how
    all mankind responds to it.  
    
    If this is the case, this would contradict the parables of Jesus,
    particularly the parable of the Ten Virgins, the sower and the seeds,
    the parable of the wedding feast.  It would also contradict the text of
    Pauls letters to the Romans, the Galatians, Hebrews, and the whole Book
    of Revelation.  It can't be put into harmony with what Jesus taught.
    
    -Jack

===
    
RE Note 1138.90  BY LGP30::FLEISCHER--------------------------------------------
re Note 1138.85 by CSOA1::LEECH:

>     You cannot accept the GRACE mentioned in the Bible without first
>     accepting the author of that GRACE, Jesus.  

>>        Wrong.
    
    I would identify God, not Jesus as the author of Grace.  I also
    acknowledge that God, by any other name is still God.  Regardless one
    can accept the free gift without accepting the author.  Even more one
    can accept the free gift without the belief in a lot of Dogma about the
    author.

>     Without Him, there is no
>     GRACE to accept- as He made GRACE available by dying for us.

    
    >    True, but that is like saying that without evaporation there
    >    is no rain.  One does not have to "accept" evaporation before
    >    one can accept the grace of rain.
    
    True without the author of Grace, there can be no grace.  Personally I
    do not believe that the Grace comes as a result of Jesus dying for us. 
    That is a particular Doctrine.  The doctrine is true or false
    regardless of what I believe or don't believe.  But the Grace if
    available because it is a gift of God and it is unconditionally
    available.  Our accepting the Grace as an unconditional gift, means
    that we do not have to profess any particular set of beliefs to accept
    the Grace.  God's Grace allows us to live by Spirit.  Living by Spirit
    does required that we Trust in Spirit enough to make decisions based on
    our trust of Spirit.
    
                                   Patricia

        Bob

re Note 1138.93 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Patricia:
>     
>     This presupposes the idea of unlimited biblical atonement, i.e. once
>     Jesus died, forgiveness was bestowed upon all mankind regardless of how
>     all mankind responds to it.  
  
        I did write that one had to accept it (leaving open the
        possibility of rejecting it, much as, in some regions, the
        dry ground is so packed that rain just runs off).

        In a way, though, you are right:  God does will all to be
        saved, God's forgiveness does rain down on all *all the
        time*.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I understand two different dimensions of Salvation, both of which are
    discussed in the Bible.  Salvation as a present reality and Salvation
    which will be realized at the day of judgement.
    
    I tend to focus on Salvation as a present reality.  I do this because I
    cannot know what will happen to me after I die, but as I believe in a
    God of unconditional love, I trust that whatever happens will be OK. 
    Because I believe in a God of unconditional love and unconditional
    persuasive power, I believe that the final destination of all people is
    the same.  Ultimately every person will accept God's Grace.
    
    I do know that Salvation as a present reality is conditional and not
    unconditional.  We either live our lifes by the power of God's love or
    we live our lifes out of our own pain.  Salvation as a present reality
    is living one's life out of Love.  I do know that no matter what kind
    of wrong decisions we have made in the past, we can at any time decide
    to live our lives out of Love.  God's grace as a present reality is
    always available to us.
    
    I do also know that some people really do die without the peace and
    serenity available through Grace.  Some people hit bottom, see the
    light and repent.  Other people hit bottom, and die without ever
    recovering.  In this lifetime, those people never experience salvation
    as a present reality.
    
    I do not believe that God ever gives up on those persons, even after
    their first death.  Whether through reincarnation, purgatory, or any
    other unforseen means, I believe that God's Grace ultimately succeeds.
    
                                Patricia

Note 1138.96 (Patricia)
       
     
>    Because I believe in a God of unconditional love and unconditional
>    persuasive power, I believe that the final destination of all people is
>    the same.  Ultimately every person will accept God's Grace.
 
    Being a Bible scholar, you have to realize that this belief is
    completely unscriptural.  You have to basically ignore MANY scriptures
    to come to this conclusion, as well as much of Jesus' own ministry.
       
>    I do know that Salvation as a present reality is conditional and not
>    unconditional.  
    
    Salvation is unconditional- except in the fact that it must be actively
    accepted.  
    
>    We either live our lifes by the power of God's love or
>    we live our lifes out of our own pain.  Salvation as a present reality
>    is living one's life out of Love.  
    
    Salvation and how we live our lives are mutually exclusive (though
    accepting Christ as savior certainly should prompt us to live holy
    lives).  This would be salvation by works (living life in a certain
    way), and is not scriptural.  Salvation comes by faith in Jesus'
    sacrifice and atonement- in accepting it because we know we have fallen
    short of the minimum requirement to reach heaven (sinlessness). 
    
    How a Christian has lived their life is proportional to rewards/lack of
    rewards recieved in heaven.  I believe there will be many "skin of
    their teeth" Christians who will have no reward once they reach heaven-
    but at least they believed in Jesus and avoided destruction.
    
>    I do know that no matter what kind
>    of wrong decisions we have made in the past, we can at any time decide
>    to live our lives out of Love.  God's grace as a present reality is
>    always available to us.
 
    I agree, within context of those who have accepted Christ.  There are
    people outside of grace- those that are headed for destruction.  This
    is the very reason why Jesus told us to share the good news.  Jesus
    talked more of hell than heaven, warning all to avoid the second death.
    "What good is it for a man to gain the world, but lose his eternal
    soul?"
    
          
    
    -steve                            

    
    > Salvation is unconditional- except in the fact that it must be actively
    > accepted.

    Salvation is unconditional - except in the event that it is actively
    rejected.

    Ironically, I was thinking of the same rain analogy that Bob mentioned
    before I read his note. I think this notion that the transaction of
    gift giving isn't complete until it is actively accepted, doesn't make
    sense. I think it trivializes God's love and the life and death of
    Jesus.
    
    Eric

    If that's the case then it seems to me it would be safer not to share
    the gospel at all.  If they don't know the gospel, they can't reject
    it.  
    
    See...that just doesn't flow with what Jesus taught.  He taught that we
    are to preach the gospel and make disciples of all nations.  This to me
    would fit in with the belief that mankind stands unredeemed.
    
    -Jack

    Teachable methodology snarf!

    re .96 (Steve)
    
    The Theology that I have stated is fully supported by scripture.  The
    most conclusive support comes from an exegisis of Romans 5:18-21.  
    
    (See topic 1040)
    
    I see myself as one member of the interconnected web of existence to
    which we are all a part.   I do not trust or believe in any theology
    that is exclusive to a small group of chosen people.
    
    
                                                Patricia

 ZZ   I see myself as one member of the interconnected web of existence
 ZZ   to which we are all a part.   I do not trust or believe in any
 ZZ   theology that is exclusive to a small group of chosen people.
    
    "Enter the narrow gate; for wide and broad is the gate that leads to
    destruction and many are those that enter through it.  Narrow is the
    gate that leads to life and few are those who find it."
    
    Some theologian/spiritual leader mentioned this about 2000 years ago. 
    Probably some radical!
    
    -Jack

    The same theologian also said that it is easier for a camel to fit
    through the head of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom
    of heaven.  When further asked, then who could enter the kingdom of
    heaven, he answered, with God, all things are possible.
    
    In the Gospel, Jesus speaks for emphasis using exaggerated language.
    But the hope and promises, that with God, all things are possible is
    never forgotten.  With God, the inclusion of all humanity is certainly
    possible.
    
                              Patricia

    	re last few:
    
    
    	See?  Dueling snippets.  What does it get you?  And should
    	we be ignoring the snippets that do not support our position?
    
    	Also I want to point out that the camel snippet says "all
    	things are POSSIBLE", not "all things are guaranteed".  So
    	what does it take to turn the possibility into reality?

>    	Also I want to point out that the camel snippet says "all
>    	things are POSSIBLE", not "all things are guaranteed".  So
>    	what does it take to turn the possibility into reality?

         <<< Note 1138.80 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    The question is How does "that still small voice" within us get lost so
>    that our consciences are corrupted.  One way that it easily gets lost
>    is by External Conditioning that external authority is superior to the
>    "still small voice".   
    
    	The External Authority is God Himself, and we know Him and his
    	authority through His Church here on earth.  Even Jesus himself
    	spoke of His Church, so how can we deny its existence?  Anything
    	outside of the Church's authority is subject to human
    	rationalization.  I see your attempt to demonize the Church as
    	your rationalization to soothe your "still small voice" that 
    	chastizes you for ignoring the Church.
    
>    At the time of Nazi Germany that external authority was Hitler ...
>    ... One has to
>    ask, how did the culture and society that created the majority of
>    Christian Theologians also create a Nazi regime!.  
    
    	You told me you were insulted that I was accusing you of
    	theology-by-snippett.  (I'll address that later.)  Let me 
    	assure you equating the "external authority" of the Church
    	to that of Hitler has to be about the most insulting thing
    	one can say to a believer in the Church.  And it is especially
    	painful to hear it from one who is a self-proclaimed Christian.

         <<< Note 1138.81 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    I understand what you are saying is that "My theology(patricia's and
>    others) is a theology of snippets. whereas your theology (joe's) is
>    not.  It is offensive when you reduce my theology to snippets. 
    
    	I am not making your theology into one of snippets.  You are.
    	And worse, you are only using your favorite ones and ignoring
    	others that don't suit your agenda.  See the title of this
    	topic.  That's what this topic is all about!  We cannot ignore 
    	those that don't fit our vision!
    
    	No, Patricia, it's not your theology I am complaining about (at
    	this time) but your method of expressing/supporting/using it.
    
    	And I wasn't even speaking to you as much as I was to the Jeffs,
    	and Mikes, and others in here.  I was speaking about the priests
    	and preachers and the televangelists.  That you took issue/offense 
    	with my statement is rather curious to me.
    
>    I believe that the fundementalist position is based on the
>    emphasis of those sections of the Bible describing a wrathful God and a
>    degenerate humanity over those sections of the Bible describing a
>    loving, merciful God and a humanity created in God's image.
    
    	And it takes a snippet theology to do that.
    
>    I can summarize the main message
>    of the Bible to.
>    
>    "God is all Loving and God wants all humanity to live in Love of God and
>    Love of all brothers and sisters everywhere."
    
    	That might be a summary of your theology, but it is not that
    	of the Bible, for the Bible's focus is on Jesus.  That should
    	be evident to even the casual reader of the New Testament, and
    	it doesn't take much study to see that the Old Testament is
    	the "set-up" for the New.
    
>     It is the heart of my Theology.
    
    	I'll agree to that.
    
>  >  	Jesus clearly says that once you have removed
>  >  	the board from your own eye you will then be able to see so that
>  >  	you can help your brother.
>    
>    No Joe,  
    
    	Yes, Patricia.  I didn't make up what I said.  It is clearly
    	there, so I don't see how you can say, "No Joe" to it!
    
>    No Joe,  If you remember the passage  All those who would condemn the
>    woman, leave when asked, "Let he who is without sin, cast the first
>    stone"   The message is "Judge oneself"  
    
    	In your "brick in the eye" example I showed you where you missed
    	the completeness of the passage so you jumped to this incident.
    	Now I'll do the same for this one.
    
    	The incident does not end with Jesus simply dismissing everything.  
    	He then tell the woman, "Go and sin no more."  Far too often we 
    	are eager to end the snippet where the words stop supporting our 
    	arguments.  You have done that here.

    Joe,
    
    Perhaps I should let the most exclusive Men's Club in the world
    organize all my snippets and tell me exactly what and how to believe!

re Note 1138.104 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	See?  Dueling snippets.  What does it get you?  And should
>     	we be ignoring the snippets that do not support our position?
  
        Joe, 

        I'll give you no argument that theology by snippet is
        incomplete, and will be found to have contradictions.

        The alternative you seem to offer, "theology by humans who
        have read and digested the Bible and will tell you what it
        means", is a product of human intellect, warts and all.  It
        is certainly useful, but in no way is it infallible.

        Even if we all agreed that the text of the Bible were
        inerrant, I can assure you that we would never all agree that
        the product of theologians is infallible.

        Bob

    	re .108
    
    	Ask Mother Angelica on EWTN about that.
    
    	It seems that you have more of a personal problem than a 
    	theological one.

<<< Note 1138.109 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>        I'll give you no argument that theology by snippet is
>        incomplete, and will be found to have contradictions.
>
>        The alternative you seem to offer, "theology by humans who
>        have read and digested the Bible and will tell you what it
>        means", is a product of human intellect, warts and all.  It
>        is certainly useful, but in no way is it infallible.
    
    	First of all I do not agree with your assessment of the Church,
    	but I'll let that difference pass.
    
    	You seem to imply that "my alternative" (as if it were mine)
    	is less valuable than the first one.  "My alternative" results
    	in a single theology (or even in a limited number of theologies
    	derrived through concerted effort.)  "Your alternative" results
    	in an infinite number of ad hoc theologies, well-demonstrated
    	here in our midst in this conference.
    
    	I'll take "my alternative", TYVM.
    
>        Even if we all agreed that the text of the Bible were
>        inerrant, I can assure you that we would never all agree that
>        the product of theologians is infallible.
    
    	Each product taken individually, yes I agree with you.

>    	It seems that you have more of a personal problem than a 
>    	theological one.
    
    
    Joe,
    
    Are you equally insulting to everybody or just women!

    ZZ    Perhaps I should let the most exclusive Men's Club in the world
    ZZ    organize all my snippets and tell me exactly what and how to
    ZZ    believe!
    
    Patricia:
    
    When you make remarks like the above you erode your credibility as a
    theologian.  You are only supporting the notion your outlooks and
    opinions are biased due to a social crusade you have...that being the
    oppression of women.
    
    I would have to believe if every one of my replies was tainted with the
    oppression of equal rights for white males, then my credibility would
    be shot in this forum.  I do at times crusade for equal rights for
    white men but it doesn't come across as one issue encircling my life.
    
    I do have other concerns in life!  I hope you have the same.  I
    actually know you do but you apparently for some reason have women
    and equality closest to your heart.  Care to share with us why this is
    the case so as to add credibility to your biases?
    
    -Jack 

re Note 1138.113 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I would have to believe if every one of my replies was tainted with the
>     oppression of equal rights for white males, then my credibility would
>     be shot in this forum.  I do at times crusade for equal rights for
>     white men but it doesn't come across as one issue encircling my life.
  
        Well, Jack, to read your notes in here, sometimes it *does*
        seem that way!

        (...but you sure don't come across that way in person!)

        Bob

| <<< Note 1138.112 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>


| Are you equally insulting to everybody or just women!

	He seems to be an equal opportunity insulter. He does that to me all
the time. Oh.... maybe it is tied to women... :-)


Glen

Re: .110 Joe

>    	It seems that you have more of a personal problem than a 
>    	theological one.

Why should anyone take you seriously when you write garbage like this?

				-- Bob

    Bob M:
    
    Now now...let's not be PC here.  Let's hit these issues face on and
    call them for what they are.
    
    Patricia considers herself a champion for battling the oppression of
    women...and although I do not deny this is a worthy cause, I don't
    believe it is healthy to over shadow our outlook on everything in life.
    
    Same goes for the anti abortion individual.  There still has to be
    some balance in the way we think and how we act upon things.
    
    -Jack

Jack,

This isn't a question of political correctness.  Joe has attempted to
discredit Patricia by saying that she has a personal problem.  This is an
ad hominum attack - a logical fallacy.  As far as I'm concerned, Joe has
only succeeded in discrediting himself.

				-- Bob

	Jack, if you could get past what you think Patricia is doing for a
moment, and look at what Joe said, it is pretty clear he is trying to discredit
Patricia. If he isn't, I hope he will explain what he meant by it. 

	Jack, you're almost hopeless. :-)


Glen

    No...If you are a third party reading an exchange between two people,
    you will see that person A is again making a common issue a gender
    issue...and I believe this is not healthy to do.  Biased responses that
    offer little credibility of creedence.  
    
    -Jack

    Another thing Glen:
    
    If you remember, I used the term Senorita as a perjorative remark on a
    man last week in Soapbox...to which the whole Soapbox community with
    the exception of a few became a mob and I was consequently devoured.
    
    I believe the term, "Men's Club" is used in the same light.  I was big
    enough to write DougO off line and admit I was wrong...and that my use
    of Senorita was mistakingly but truthfully a slant on women.  I would
    like to see Patricia do the same thing I did!  
    
    -Jack

    Patricia:
    
    Re: My supposed slant on Meg in the Dobson conference...I'm not sure
    where I did this.  If you mean my calling Hillary Clinton "Evita" and
    Bubba, then that's not a slant on Meg.  I also used the term "Witch" to
    which she took exception and I apologized off line.  And as far as the
    conference goes, that wasn't a slant.  I was asking proper questions as
    to how sexual freedom policies can be enforced on American soil.  Never
    got an answer by the way.
    
    -Jack

    I'm sorry, Patricia, but Joe's comment seems to hold water.  You may
    take it as an insult, but in light of your .108 (posted below), it's
    hard to discredit his comment outright.
    
>    Perhaps I should let the most exclusive Men's Club in the world
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^
>    organize all my snippets and tell me exactly what and how to believe!
    
    The underlined portion specifically shows your "problem" (or bias)
    against the church due to the leaders being male.  Let's face it, you
    could have just as easily said "Church" in place of the underlined. 
    Instead, you chose to point out gender (in a very negative light), which 
    in this case is irrelevent.  You comments work equally well without 
    turning the "church" into a "men's club".
    
    Of course, I don't agree with the comment, but would have let it pass
    had you not gone out of your way to show bias.
    
    If you combine these comments with your .112, one could certainly come
    to the conclusion that you have a gender-chip on your shoulder.  To
    suggest that Joe's "insult" was related to your gender is a bit much.
    
    
    -steve

    Bob:
    
    What do you think about .125???
    
    -Jack

    Steve,
    
    for what it is worth to you, I do not equate the Catholic Church with
    leadership of the Catholic church.  The Vatican Fathers are no doubt
    the worlds most exclusive men's club.  And one of the most important
    topics for this men's club is the reproductive rights of women.
    
    Joe in his argument regarding the use of the Bible states that one must
    follow the teachings of the church and its defined leaders.  Not that
    he Joe must because it is his church, but that I must.  Any
    interpretation of the Bible, soley by men is going to be biased.  If
    that is where he wants to turn for theological authority so be it.  I
    choose to turn for theological authority to the "still small voice"
    within me.  
    
    Its a cheap shot when persons cannot carry on an intellegient
    discussion without  reverting to insults.  It's unfortunate  when others
    defend insulting behavoir simply because you share political outlooks
    that believe women should be submissive to men.
    
    I don't accept that model, don't believe that model, and don't live
    that model.
    
    Fortunely, I am deeply encouraged that more and more men don't buy into
    that model either.  It is great to have men like Bob, Bob, and Glen
    around when bigotry raises its ugly head.
    
     

    Why is it that some people condemn certain churches for male leadership
    and yet seem to avoid do the same thing for other groups.  The Nation
    of Islam immediately comes to mind!
    
    -Jack

Re: .126 Jack

>    What do you think about .125???
    
I think Patricia responded well to .125 in her .127.

Clearly the Vatican is controlled by men, not by women, and I don't think
it shows "bias" (as Steve said) for Patricia to object to this.  Since she
disagrees with the Church's position on the role of women, it's
understandable that she'd also disagree with the Church's position on
other issues.

Yes, the role of women is a hot button issue for Patricia and something
that she focuses on quite a bit, but don't we all have our own hot button
issues?

				-- Bob

    I must assume since my Church also believes that men should speak from
    the pulpit that we are simply a subset of the exact same group the
    Vatican is put in.  
    
    I could sit here and make negative remarks regarding Unitarianism but I
    don't...because I still need to respect a members position that they
    choose to be a part of that community.  Likewise, if myself or Joe or
    anybody firmly believes in the positions stated in Timothy and Titus, 
    I would expect a person and particularly a theologian to respect a
    persons choice adhering to the teachings of their own church.  I don't
    think the phrase, "Largest Men's Club" is necessary regardless of what 
    Patricia thinks of Church Hierarchy.  Patricia??  Right???
    
    -Jack

    Do we have professional theologians in this discussion? 
    ( i don't know).

    	My comment was not meant to be an insult.  Patricia's personal
    	problem as I see it is her inability to overcome the gyno-
    	repression self-flagellation chip on her shoulder.  I didn't
    	take her "men's club" as an insult, though I judged that
    	was her intention, and I mistakenly expected her to be able 
    	to see beyond her (as I see it) personal problem, once
    	challenged with it.
    
    	Glen, stay out of this.  It is clear to me that your only
    	interest in this is to jab at me at any opportunity and not 
    	to add value to the discussion.  You've got a piece of me
    	elsewhere, so why don't you just stick to that.

| <<< Note 1138.132 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| Glen, stay out of this.  

	Nope. If I see someone making another upset, I will speak up.

| It is clear to me that your only interest in this is to jab at me at any 
| opportunity and not to add value to the discussion.  

	You really flatter yourself too much Joe. My life is not spent trying
to jab you. I got Jack for that! :-)

| You've got a piece of me elsewhere, so why don't you just stick to that.

	Again, you flatter yourself too much.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    That's what I'm put on this earth for!!! :-)
    
    Personally, I believe Patricia can stand up for herself.  I simply
    cannot fathom her contacting you off line crying...."Glen....Joe hurt
    me....please help!!!!"  No...Patricia has proven her ability to stand
    up to the best and the worst.  So don't flatter yourself with your
    Florence Nightengale Syndrome.  She will endure.
    
    -Jack

    I'm not taking any sides here, but if someone calls you a
    'snippet theologian' you are in good company. Jesus was an
    'OT snippet theoligian' as was Paul and the other NT writers.
    
    jay 

    
    
    I certainly can stand up for myself, but in the case of concerted
    gender based bigotry it is comforting to have men taking a stand
    particularly in a file where few women are noting anymore!

    Florence Nightingal syndrone?
    
    Some people never learn, do they!

   ZZ     Florence Nightingal syndrone?
        
   ZZ     Some people never learn, do they. 
    
    Did I spell Nightengale incorrectly?
    
    

| <<< Note 1138.134 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| That's what I'm put on this earth for!!! :-)

	Ahhh... so there is a purpose! :-)

| Personally, I believe Patricia can stand up for herself. I simply cannot 
| fathom her contacting you off line crying...."Glen....Joe hurt me....please 
| help!!!!"  

	You're right, she never has done that. But ya know what? It's always
nice to know that there are people who support you. I mean, I have stuck up for
you and you never once asked me to stop. :-) But you have written notes saying
that some people will stick up for certain people, but not for others, even if
the ones they won't stick up for are right. Was that you crying out for help or
was it just a general statement. 

| So don't flatter yourself with your Florence Nightengale Syndrome.  

	Too funny. When I start to flatter myself, I'll let you know. At that
time I will be about 20 lbs lighter. :-)



Glen

    It was actually a general observation.  I know people don't disagree
    with me all the time.  However, when I am in a deep discussion with
    somebody and the other person says something everybody agrees with,
    then people slobber all over them.  Every so often when I make a good
    point, many times the silence is deafening.
    
    A good example would be my writing of the Cumberland Farms
    incident...the man who broke into my van and asked for a ride.  I was
    making the point that one who truly wants to help the "needy" would
    possibly risk their life had they been in my shoes and gave him a ride.
    I asked for opinions, heard from Andreas...and again, the silence was
    deafening.  Therefore, I had to assume by default everybody agreed with
    me.
    
    -Jack

	ahhhhhh...... now I understand. Thanks for clearing it up.

    
    RE: The "Cumberland Farms Incident"

    Jack,

    I probably would have done the same thing you did, I don't know. I
    guess the higher questions is not what I would do, but what would Jesus
    do. It seems to me that Jesus continually risked his life to help
    others. Even the most lowly. It was through his example of selfless
    giving that the hearts of others were changed. 

    Speaking strictly hypothetically, if you gave this man a ride, would he
    he have found you were a Christian by your love; would the Holy Spirit
    be with you? When you washed your hands of this vagrant were you acting
    more like Jesus or Pilot? Were you concerned enough about this man to
    call the police, or did you just drive on?

    I'm not passing judgment on you. God knows I'm in no position for that.
    I'm just asking the eternal question "what would Jesus do?"

    Peace,

    	Eric

i certainly missed the action by being out of the office yesterday.

reading up on one and a half day's worth of notes, this is how the picture
presents itself: joe oppelt seems to have had quite a field day!

letting joe be joe for the moment, i was more suprised to read reply .113 
from our widely respected and dearly beloved friend jack martin where he 
writes 

>   When you make remarks like the above you erode your credibility as a
>   theologian.  You are only supporting the notion your outlooks and
>   opinions are biased due to a social crusade you have...that being the
>   oppression of women.

now *i* read patricia's remark of the exclusive men's club as a sigh of despair 
when confronted with a bull-dozing joe oppelt who was clearly having a bad day
and who was in a mode of being insulting to almost anyone who crossed his path.

patricia as both a feminist and a student of theology would have every reason 
to enrich this male dominated forum that C-P is with a feminist perspective.
personally, i would wish to hear *more* about feminist thought on theology.
or are only male (or worse, white male) theologies supposed to be represented 
in this forum?

don't most of us wish for a more even balance between male and female 
contributions in this forum? i think we can all easily acknowledge that this 
forum much like many churches and theological institutions has a strong male 
bias. as long as female perspectives are underrepresented, we as males are 
called upon to actively encourage any and all female perspectives instead of
squelching any explicit female thought at the onset!

for in the long run, those who's credibility erodes, are those who fail to 
adress this obvious gender imbalance.




andreas.

    Andreas,
    
    Thanks for sharing your observations.  I was left yesterday not knowing
    exactly How I wanted to respond.  It is days like yesterday that I go
    home feeling, why the h*ll do I put myself in a position where my
    theology is routinely trashed.
    
    I accept that the oppression of women is a given and that all major
    religions have contributed to the oppression of women and to some
    extent justify the oppression of women.   I have no desire to argue
    with those who refuse to see the obvious.  My sisters who have come
    before me have done the work of showing that oppression.  The work to
    be done now, is given where we are, how do we each define an adequate
    spirituality and theology for ourselves, men and women.  I am also
    convinced that the oppression of women is also the oppression of men,
    discernable to those men enlightened enough to see it.  To name the
    oppression, and  seek and find wholeness for ourselves as
    women and men in spite of it, is what is important.
    
    I am not going to look for spiritual authority from the Pope and the
    college of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church and I am not going to
    look for spiritual authority from a God breathed, innerrant Bible. 
    Members of this conference should not be constantly harranged and
    challenged on those two issues.  I would like to engage in the serious
    discussion then of since those two sources of authority are not the
    source of absolute authority for many of us here, how do we find truth.
    
    Where do we turn for authority.  That discussion is retarded by the
    lack of respect routinely shown here.
    
    Jack, given you believe in the absolute authority of the Bible why are
    you noting here and harassing us as you do.  Is it somehow safer for
    you to note here than in the Yukon Conference where your own beliefs
    might have to be compared with those of other innerrant Christians?
    
    Joe, Why are you noting here and Harrassing us rather than in the
    Catholic Theology Conference.  I respect you own reliance on the
    Catholic church as YOUR source of inspiration, but that is not
    something you can impose on me or others.
    
    It is a game to suggest that respect for different Christian
    Perspectives includes allowing those with certain perspectives to
    harrass others.  There is a huge difference in respecting someone for
    something they believe for themselves and not respecting a person for
    trying to force their beliefs on others.
    
    ANd since I know that I can only change myself and not others, how am I
    suppose to deal with a Joe or a Jack whose only discussions with me is
    to trash my beliefs.
    
    There is a huge positive gain that I have had from noting in here.  I
    am slowly working out for myself a pretty inclusive systematic
    theology.  That theology has been formed in dialogue with much of that
    dialogue here.
    
    There has been a negative side of it too.  I have adopted a
    defensiveness to Christianity.  A tension and readiness to defend
    myself even when that may be dysfunctional.  A fear that the loudest
    and most clear voice of Christianity is really about a religion that I
    reject at the same time I am in dialogue with myself regarding what
    Christianity really does mean to me.  Grasped and inspired by the life,
    teaching, death, and ressurrection of Jesus Christ and repelled by the
    notion that a God who is all good and all loving would choose some
    people for God's own and other people for damnation. Repelled by the
    notion that some are called God's chosen people and others are
    rejected.  Repelled by the notion that a God that is good and loving
    would sit idly by while the majority of humanity chose destruction and
    then was tortured for that choice.
    
    Obviously I will struggle with the question of my relationship with
    Christianity for a long time and I will grow as a result of that
    struggle.
    
    I will however choose what relationships I am involved in and I will
    only stay involved in healthy relationships.  A healthy relationship is
    not one in which I routinely have to defend myself against attack, so
    somehow I need to either change those relationships or get out of them. 
    I am sensitive.  I am a feeling oriented person.  I do know how to numb
    up, push my feelings inside, and give it back with the best of them. 
    Fortunately for me right now, that is not what I am about.  Somehow I
    have to find a way of noting that is healthy for me or stop noting. 

if i may be allowed one more observation...

it seems that besides you patricia, there is one more who feels deeply 
misunderstood recently (re .140), that is, jack.

interesting because the two of you, are easily amongst the most open 
and transparent noters in this conference (at least as i see it).

i think that hugs are in order here and that we should resume the 
discussion and make the effort not to run over eachothers sensibilities.




andreas.

        <<< Note 1138.144 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "let your light shine" >>>

>    It is days like yesterday that I go
>    home feeling, why the h*ll do I put myself in a position where my
>    theology is routinely trashed.
    
    	I don't know why you do it either, but I can tell you why
    	"your theology" is routinely trashed -- because it is so
    	full of holes and inconsistencies and downright mistakes
    	that it cannot go unchallenged.  Expect those challenges to
    	continue.
    
>    I accept that the oppression of women is a given and that all major
>    religions have contributed to the oppression of women and to some
>    extent justify the oppression of women.   I have no desire to argue
>    with those who refuse to see the obvious.  
    
    	Sure you have that desire, and you have it on a daily basis
    	if your entries here are to be taken as any indication.
    
>    I am not going to look for spiritual authority from the Pope and the
>    college of cardinals of the Roman Catholic Church and I am not going to
>    look for spiritual authority from a God breathed, innerrant Bible. 
>    Members of this conference should not be constantly harranged and
>    challenged on those two issues.  
    
    	I suppose that you fail to see that your style of participation
    	here is viewed by people like me as constant harrassment on
    	your part.  This is not a one-sided battle here, Patricia, in
    	spite of the message you might be getting from your supporters
    	here.
    
>    Jack, given you believe in the absolute authority of the Bible why are
>    you noting here and harassing us as you do.  
>    
>    Joe, Why are you noting here and Harrassing us rather than in the
>    Catholic Theology Conference.  
    
    	Why then, Patricia, do you harass the Yukon conference?  Quite
    	a hypocritical stand you are taking here!
    
>    It is a game to suggest that respect for different Christian
>    Perspectives includes allowing those with certain perspectives to
>    harrass others.  
    
    	Take this to heart, Patricia!

| <<< Note 1138.146 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| I don't know why you do it either, but I can tell you why "your theology" is 
| routinely trashed -- because it is so full of holes and inconsistencies and 
| downright mistakes that it cannot go unchallenged. Expect those challenges to
| continue.

	Joe, you do realize many feel the same exact way about your theology,
right? And you won't be making a fuss anymore when people continue to point
that out to you, right?

| I suppose that you fail to see that your style of participation here is viewed
| by people like me as constant harrassment on your part.  

	That's bunk, Joe. This is a file where people aren't tied into a little
corner and driven one way. This is a file that allows many perspectives to be
talked about. I know you know this, so if you continue to note here, how can it
be considered harrasment when you know the rules going into it? Sorry Joe, you
make no sense here.

| Why then, Patricia, do you harass the Yukon conference? Quite a hypocritical 
| stand you are taking here!

	Joe, she does not harass in the YUKON file. She is not being
hypocritical. What you did above was to bear false witness. Why?




Glen

Hello Patricia:
    
    This took the course of the hour.  I have not read the last few replies 
    yet...
    
    
ZZ    Jack, given you believe in the absolute authority of the Bible why are
ZZ    you noting here and harassing us as you do.  Is it somehow safer for
ZZ    you to note here than in the Yukon Conference where your own beliefs
ZZ    might have to be compared with those of other innerrant Christians?
    
Patricia, perceptions and reality are two different things.  We need to 
objectively think before we draw a conclusion.  

Let's start off with the very first indictment...that being, "...why are you
noting here and harrassing us as you do?"  Patricia, I truly am not interested
in harassing anybody here.  What I am interested in is defending what I believe
to be the fruits of true faith.  Now if the title of this conference were 
changed, the need I have for this would most likely wane considerably.  Let's
face it, the heart beat of this conference is more a Unitarian Universalist
bias with other readers who react alot and exegete minimally.  That's perfectly
fine; however, if the title "Christian Perspective" is going to be used, then
balance becomes necessary. 

Secondly, your first sentence also made an assumption.  You used the plural 
"us", signifying that I am harassing everybody...or I am harassing you and 
somebody else.  I'm not really sure what it is but other than yourself, I have
not been accused of this by anybody else.  A pain in the neck...perhaps but
harassing, I think not.  Please feel free to share this with me if I am.

Third, and this will hopefully get to the meat of the matter.  Patricia, your
heart is in the right place, and there are interesting things I have learned 
from you.  There are many notions you bring forth that I believe, however, are
blasphemous and are not of sound doctrine.  You accuse me of avoiding the
obvious.  Well, perhaps...perhaps not.  My walk in life holds many changes 
as time goes on; and perhaps God is using you in my life to seek these
changes.  We are all searching for truth; and I have never been in a 
Unitarian dialog before and actually find it quite interesting.  The notion that
Paul was gay...that Jesus might have been a non practicing homosexual, that 
Jesus was an illigitimate child fathered by an unknown Israelite, that Paul
was a homophobe, an oppressor of women, that certain epistles are heretical...
these are just a few of the elements of your way of thinking I find though
blasphemous, also interesting.  Can't help it...sorry.

Patricia, you wear your heart on your sleeve...and make no secrets as to where 
your burdens in life are.  Now your question above might stem from some sort
of frustration with me...I'm like an annoying gnat that won't simply go away.
I may fall off the face of the earth but I can assure you that the assertions
you make in this conference will always be challenged.  This puts you in kind
of a bind as I have no doubt you will aspire to turn the world upside down 
just as Peter and Paul did.  Just remember they both died as martyrs and Paul
was stoned and left for dead on three occasions.  Standing for beliefs has a 
price to it.  My price is to have to endure what I consider to be false
doctrine.  Your price is that you will have to defend your beliefs.  They will
ALWAYS be put to the test because in my opinion, many of them don't conform to
the nature of God.

Causes are important but no cause is worth overshadowing truth.  Be it prolife,
womens rights, gay rights, gun rights, each one is proper within it's proper
context; however it is equivalent to prostitution when doctrines are molded
around them as it's base.  

Now, in regards to Yukon.  No, your inquiry as to why I don't participate has 
nothing to do with fear of challenge to my core beliefs.  I find myself to be
in tune with many people in that conference in regard to doctrine.  Our 
outlooks on life can be different for sure; but I don't purposely shun Yukon.
I am read only there and simply don't feel led to contribute much to the
conference.  

Jesus told the pharisees that it is not the healthy who need a physician but 
the sick.  I believe this comment was also a challenge to us to bring his 
his message to a dying world.  I believe you are called to this just as I am;
however, I believe some of the doctrines of C-P need to be addressed and 
Yukon does not afford me the luxury or the audience in some cases.  This may 
seem arrogant but it is just my heart telling me where I am needed.  You may
feel the same.  Let's put it this way Patricia, you and I experience alot of 
the same things.  You get lambasted in Yukon and quite often I get lambasted 
here.  The doctrine of the cross, the frailty of humanity, humanities wicked-
ness and propensity to sin...all these things will be ridiculed here.  But I 
am not here to get positive strokes.  I am here to try and minister truth
to people I consider dear to my heart.  Otherwise, I wouldn't be here right???

Respectfully, Sincerely, Warmly,

-Jack 
  

    Jack,
    
    you know it is hard to dislike you, even when I would like to strangle
    you!.

 ZZ    What you did above was to bear false witness. Why?
    
    Well Glen, again it is all a matter of perception.  Kind of like the
    onld saying, "One persons trash is another persons treasure."  The
    bottom line is if you are going to participate in conferences dealing
    with faith issues, then pride has to take a back seat and vulnerability 
    unfortunately may be prevalent...especially when dealing with
    diametrically opposed philosophies under one name...that being
    Christian Perspective.
    
    I have no doubt that perhaps Patricia is being portrayed as an agitator
    and not so much a harrasser.  I personally believe this to be goodness.
    Jesus did some agitating as well...and I believe it spurs people on to
    greater learning.
    
    

re .146

>    	I don't know why you do it either, but I can tell you why
>    	"your theology" is routinely trashed -- because it is so
>    	full of holes and inconsistencies and downright mistakes
>    	that it cannot go unchallenged.  Expect those challenges to
>    	continue.


do not forget though, that it is a theology IN THE MAKING. 

if i was you, the time that i'd get worried is, when the system of
thought is refined, when the holes are filled and when the theology 
gains a wider appeal.

the stronger the appeal of a theology, the more profound the criticisms 
will have been, which went into the making of it.

i would think that a wise approach to a controversial theology in the
making, is to criticise it via discourse and thereby to influence the 
making of it as opposed to merely "trashing" it. trashing has got be 
not only ineffective but is also a sign of helplessness, an admission 
of the inability to participate in intelligible discourse due to lack 
of knowledge (or strength) of the own theology.




andreas.

 ZZ   you know it is hard to dislike you, even when I would like to
 ZZ   strangle you!.
    
    Funny...that's exactly how Michele responds to me too!! :-)  
    
    One of the areas I am recently trying to work on is that of being
    rash.  This has been pointed out to me on occasion by my better half.
    
    -Jack
    

| <<< Note 1138.150 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Well Glen, again it is all a matter of perception. Kind of like the onld 
| saying, "One persons trash is another persons treasure." The bottom line is 
| if you are going to participate in conferences dealing with faith issues, 
| then pride has to take a back seat and vulnerability unfortunately may be 
| prevalent...especially when dealing with diametrically opposed philosophies 
| under one name...that being Christian Perspective.

	Jack, be real. Just for once! :-)  Anybody can make form a perception
of a person. If the person who formed the perception tells others this is how
it really is, then the person may be right/wrong. That person, based soley on
their own perception, can't know for sure that what they are spreading as some
sort of fact, is just that. There are only two people who know if it is true.
The person (in this case Patricia), or God Himself. I know Patricia is not
going into the Christian notesfile to harass. So what Joe did, was bearing
false witness. Why can't people stop telling other people what they really mean,
and start asking them instead?



Glen

    Well, I have to believe Patricia would not maliciously go into a
    conference to harass...that would be counterproductive.
    
    I do believe however a person can bait other people to spur
    conversation.  I do that from time to time and have gotten lengthy and
    interesting dialog from doing it.  However, I've been asked why I come
    in here and harass the population at large and I deny this as well.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1138.151 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER:

> i would think that a wise approach to a controversial theology in the
> making, is to criticise it via discourse and thereby to influence the 
> making of it as opposed to merely "trashing" it. trashing has got be 
> not only ineffective but is also a sign of helplessness, an admission 
> of the inability to participate in intelligible discourse due to lack 
> of knowledge (or strength) of the own theology.

        andreas,

        Some people think that they already have all the answers, or
        at least a better answer than anyone else is going to get; 
        from their perspective, the only reasonable thing to do with
        other theologies is to trash them (or ignore them).

        It certainly can be hard to discuss anything with such
        people.   In those areas in which you disagree with them, the
        only thing they are likely to tell you is that you are wrong!

        Bob

   <<< Note 1138.151 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

> do not forget though, that it is a theology IN THE MAKING. 
    
    	Great.  Consider my criticisms as the fire to test the steel 
    	of her theology.  Without pruning, the tree will grow wild.

| <<< Note 1138.154 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Well, I have to believe Patricia would not maliciously go into a conference to
| harass...that would be counterproductive.

	Then if that is the case, do you see where it looks like Joe was
bearing false witness?

| I do believe however a person can bait other people to spur conversation. I do
| that from time to time and have gotten lengthy and interesting dialog from 
| doing it.  

	You bait? NO WAY!!! REALLY??? :-)  I don't see Patricia doing that
either, but only she could answer that one. 

| However, I've been asked why I come in here and harass the population at large
| and I deny this as well.

	Oh no, Jack..... you DO come in here to harass! :-)


Glen

   ZZ         Some people think that they already have all the answers, or
   ZZ         at least a better answer than anyone else is going to get; 
    
    Bob:
    
    Of course some people think they already have the answers.  That's what
    faith is all about.  I admit it.  I think I have the answer.  Now it is 
    up to you or anybody else to prove me incorrect to which I will
    acquiesce when convinced.
    
    Scripture tells us to test the spirits.
    
    
    -Jack

    
    Re.156
    
    >Great.  Consider my criticisms as the fire to test the steel
    >of her theology.  Without pruning, the tree will grow wild.
     
    Goes exactly the same for those who make wild and inane 
    interpretations of the Bible of the more conservative bent, and 
    expect others to take them as inerrant God's Word.  
    
    Somebody, please pass me another cup of hot cocoa...this is
    gonna be a long night!
    
    Cindy
                                           

    
    >  Scripture tells us to test the spirits.

    By accusing people of having "personal problems?"  By saying that a
    woman suffers from an "inability to overcome the gyno-repression
    self-flagellation chip on her shoulder."?

    I don't support everything Patricia says; quite frankly as a man
    she does hit a raw nerve sometimes with gender generalities. But that
    does not excuse the visceral, angry, nasty to the point of embarrassment
    attacks on her mental state, sincerity and character. I've said it
    before, if that's what it means to be a "Christian" than count me out.
    This is not the fruit I wish to bear.
    
    
    Eric
     
    	

    	Eric, my statements had nothing to do with testing the spirit.
    	They were merely my observation of her noting style.  In your 
    	own way you supported it, though I'm less willing than you seem 
    	to be to sugar-coat my statement.
    
    	It has nothing to do with being a Christian.  It is merely 
    	calling a spade a spade.

| <<< Note 1138.161 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| though I'm less willing than you seem to be to sugar-coat my statement.

	Again, how can you know his intentions are to sugar-coat it? Please ask
what a person is doing, don't tell them. 


Glen

    	Bye, Glen.

    
    > Eric, my statements had nothing to do with testing the spirit.
    > They were merely my observation of her noting style.

    That's nice. It's good to know your statements were merely meant to
    ridicule and berate an individual for their noting style and not their
    faith.

    > though I'm less willing than you seem to be to sugar-coat my
    > statement.

    "Sugar-coat?" I don't know. That sounds like I'm being weaslely (which
    I'm sure you didn't mean, but others might have misread you, again).
    I'd rather look at it as being cordial, non-threatening, friendly,
    civil... After all, unlike some noters (not you), I really would like
    the Patricias and Jacks to take listen to me and not dismiss me out of
    hand as a crotchety old curmudgeon (which you are not).

    > It has nothing to do with being a Christian. 

    Phew... That's a relief.

    > It is merely calling a spade a spade.

    Yeah, my mistake. Glad someone has some backbone around here. 

    Bye, Joe.

    	Eric                                               

    Eric:
    
    Actually, my comment on testing the spirits was a general statement to
    Bob's entry that some of us feel we have the right answer all the time.
    
    Sorry, but I believe that God has given us some things as
    absolutes...moral absolutes and absolute truths regarding doctrine. 
    What I was saying is if I claim I am correct on a matter, then test me
    to see if I be misinformed, a liar, or a truth teller.  Sometimes I
    don't pass the test but then we all learn.
    
    What I find annoying is when people's only participation is to find
    something that off-end-ed them and do nothing but go blah blah instead
    of offering anything of substance.  This is a general statement to
    contributors of other conferences...not necessarily this one (all the
    time).
    
    -Jack

ZZ    Again, how can you know his intentions are to sugar-coat it?
ZZ    Please ask what a person is doing, don't tell them. 
    
    Okay Glen.  Why do you keep insisting in Soapbox that scientific
    testing for the AIDS virus is 100% accurate...in other words...
    
    
    
    YOU LIE...WHY DO YOU LIE!!??? :-)

	sigh...... no lie jack....

    Truly amazing.  When it comes to ministries and interpretation of
    scripture, then it is we fallable humans.  When it comes to ELI LILLY
    providing testing for AIDS and safe sex, THEN IT IS IN-FALLABLLLE...
    (Insert Echo Voice here!!!!)

    
    > Actually, my comment on testing the spirits was a general statement to
    > Bob's entry that some of us feel we have the right answer all the time.

    Yeah, I was kinda mixing my notes. I used your statement merely as a
    jumping off point to vent on something that got under my skin. The
    result was, I gave the impression that I was addressing your note
    specifically and not just the general notion that was raised in your
    note.

    > Sorry, but I believe that God has given us some things as
    > absolutes...moral absolutes and absolute truths regarding doctrine.
    > What I was saying is if I claim I am correct on a matter, then test me
    > to see if I be misinformed, a liar, or a truth teller. 

    The problem is that you're not simply saying "test me," you're saying
    "test me, but all you can use is the Protestant Bible and oh by the way
    you must treat it as the literal inerrant word of God." Too me that's
    like asking someone to prove something mathematically, but restricting
    them to integers.      

    Eric

   <<< Note 1138.164 by APACHE::MYERS "He literally meant it figuratively" >>>

>    I'm sure you didn't mean, but others might have misread you, again
    
    	Thanks for agreeing that I didn't mean what others claimed
    	I did.

    	I would like everyone to re-examine what happened in this
    	note.  My participation in this was totally focused on 
    	theology-by-snippet (and my argument was directed at no 
    	one in particular -- and I stated that) up until reply 
    	108 or so. 
    
    	I did not derail this topic.  I did not start the insults
    	(and I did not intend .110 to be an insult either -- and I
    	fully explained that later on.)  I also did not start up the 
    	claims of harassment (or insults.)  Patricia and Glen started
    	that too.
    
    	I will not allow to go unchallenged the double standards that 
    	lay the blame for this rathole at my feet.

    Eric:
    
    Catholic Bibles are welcome in my book, not just protestant.  
    
    As far as infallability, well...point taken.  However, if a person is
    Catholic, then it is assumed they follow the precepts of the Catholic
    doctrine.  Since they see the Bible as infallable, and if you by chance
    are Catholic, then I should make no apologies for assuming you follow
    the precepts of the Church.  If you don't follow the precepts of the
    church, then why blame me???  I am not a mind reader as you all well
    know.
    
    -Jack

    ZZ    Truly amazing.  When it comes to ministries and interpretation of
    ZZ    scripture, then it is we fallable humans.  When it comes to ELI
    ZZ    LILLY
    ZZ    providing testing for AIDS and safe sex, THEN IT IS
    ZZ    IN-FALLABLLLE...(Insert Echo Voice here!!!!)
    
    Glen, your silence is deafening!!!  
    

 Problem is Joe, you're a heterosexual white male, who happens also to be
 Catholic, which makes anything you say immediately suspect and worthy of
 ridicule.



 Jim

    Hey...does anybody else here believe Glen's silence is deafening???
    
    Ooops...harassment....sorry!  :)

    I guess the Yukon troops are here to defend the Faithful.
    
    

    No...just making sure that all things are considered!
    
    
    -Jack

    
    re .174

    That's it! You hit the nail on the head. People in C-P just can't stand
    straight, white catholic men. Give us a lesbian, black, secular-
    humanist woman any day. Yessirie. That's the ticket. :^)

    Eric

    
    > Since they see the Bible as infallable, and if you by chance are
    > Catholic, then I should make no apologies for assuming you follow the
    > precepts of the Church.  If you don't follow the precepts of the
    > church, then why blame me???

    Jack, my friend, you lost me here. I don't know where you're going with
    this. I follow no earthly church with 100% blind allegiance. If you
    don't know my views on the nature of the Bible, I can provide you with
    pointers. I blame you for nothing.
    
    > I am not a mind reader as you all well know.
    
    Of course not. You'd be the demonically posessed if you were :^)
    
    Eric
    
    P.S. I don't believe the Roman Catholic church believes in a literal
    interpretation of scripture. 

    Hmmm....Last time I looked we had three (or more) straight, White,
    Roman Catholic men and zero Black, lesbian humanists.
    
    Richard
    

re .171


joe, i took your invitation to re-examine this topic to heart.

having done that i think you owe someone an apology for .132

that's one filthy note.



andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    Why bother??  I mean we're looking at 40 replies previous and Patricia
    I'm sure has gotten over it.  We've eulogized it enough.  
    
    -Jack

i was just responding to a note 10 replies back, jack. that's all.

this topic has been derailed enough, which is why i have created 
a new topic where the typical "brick before the eye" problems 
of us male types when communicating with women can be discussed.

hopefully we'll learn something there! :-)



andreas.

| <<< Note 1138.174 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>




| Problem is Joe, you're a heterosexual white male, who happens also to be
| Catholic, which makes anything you say immediately suspect and worthy of
| ridicule.

	There's a blanket statement if I ever heard one. I guess we don't need
people who some consider non-believers making blanket statements, cuz we got
the so called believers doing it for them! Unbelievable.


Glen

	Jack, is there a difference between being silent and not being at work?
Yup.... there is. 



Glen

	Now to address your point. I stand corrected.


Glen

 ZZ   Jack, is there a difference between being silent and not being
 ZZ   at work?  Yup.... there is. 
    
    Prove it!!! :-)   (That you work that is!!!)
    
    No...only kidding.
    
    -Jack

>| Problem is Joe, you're a heterosexual white male, who happens also to be
>| Catholic, which makes anything you say immediately suspect and worthy of
>| ridicule.

>	There's a blanket statement if I ever heard one. I guess we don't need
>people who some consider non-believers making blanket statements, cuz we got
>the so called believers doing it for them! Unbelievable.



   Apparantly you hadn't read 9.1881 when you posted the above.  Either that,
 or you read it but would like to continue to beat this to death, in which
 case I will not participate.




 Jim

	Jim, I had note read 9.1881 before I posted that. But even if I had, I
would have written the same thing. It isn't the first such posting of that type
you put into notes.


Glen

 Gee, Glen, aren't you always droning on about people saying what they mean
 rather than someone else telling them what they meant?  So, it appears when
 one discloses what they mean, you're going to disregard it anyway and
 go on ahead and tell them what they meant?



Jim

now ain't it hard to just say: 'sorry, i was wrong'



andreas.

>I mean we're looking at 40 replies previous and Patricia I'm sure has gotten
    > over it.  We've eulogized it enough.  
    
    Jack, 
    
    I would appreciate it if you did not attempt to speak for me!  It is
    always difficult to speak for another, but particularly when two people
    think as differently as you and I.
    
                                      Patricia
    

| <<< Note 1138.190 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| Gee, Glen, aren't you always droning on about people saying what they mean
| rather than someone else telling them what they meant?  

	Yes I am.

| So, it appears when one discloses what they mean, you're going to disregard it
| anyway and go on ahead and tell them what they meant?

	That is bad. I should not do that. 

that's one cool note glen!



andreas.

ps. watch this topic here, jack is reving up for a teachings snarf! ;-) :-)

 ZZ    but particularly when two people
 ZZ       think as differently as you and I.
    
    Sometimes your disposition leaves alot to be desired!
    
    -Jack

    I actually think Patricia is a good mirror.  I have found her to be so
    in other spaces.  
    
    meg