Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 1249.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> With such a rationale, one can easily evade any sense of responsibility
> by simply affirming that "So-and-so was not speaking to me" throughout
> nearly the whole of Scripture.
  
        I think that one of the biggest dangers in orthodoxy -- any
        orthodoxy -- is that it allows one to feel confident (or is
        it "smug"?) that one has it all understood (or at least the
        parts that they need to understand) and can confidently
        dismiss the rest (at least to the point of shrugging off
        challenges to their own personal behavior).

        Bob

    Yes, I've often noticed this.  I think it's one thing to first try to
    understand the intended context, then see how it applies to your
    situation or opinions... as opposed to "custom interpreting" the
    passage(s) to suit one's desires.  

    The one that has stood out and still stands out in my mind is "Sell all
    you have, give the $$ to the poor then follow me".  Was Jesus talking
    to an individual who placed too much value on money or was he speaking
    to the whole of humanity?  I don't know.  And I begin by admitting that
    I don't know.

    -dave

    .2
    
    I don't see a problem with understanding the original context.  The
    problem arises when content is forever and always discounted beyond a
    mirror image of the original (which is invariably debatable anyway).
    
    It's sort of like playing a C chord on the piano and limiting one's
    hearing only to the C notes played.  The E and G notes, the overtones,
    must be deliberately disregarded.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    Hi Richard,
    
>    .2
    
>    I don't see a problem with understanding the original context.  The
>    problem arises when content is forever and always discounted beyond a
>    mirror image of the original (which is invariably debatable anyway).
    
     I think you're exaggerating the frequency with which such a scenario
     is presented.
        
>    It's sort of like playing a C chord on the piano and limiting one's
>    hearing only to the C notes played.  The E and G notes, the overtones,
>    must be deliberately disregarded.
    
    I think the greater frequency of error (certainly in this forum) is when 
    the E and G notes, the overtones, are deliberately over-regarded, 
    drowning out the C note.  I mean a C chord is called a C chord for a
    reason.
    
    jeff

Z    With such a rationale, one can easily evade any sense of responsibility
Z    by simply affirming that "So-and-so was not speaking to me" throughout
Z    nearly the whole of Scripture.
    
    Interesting.  How then would this account for the sacrificial system
    being totally ignored by modern Judaism?
    
    -Jack

    ...or their current plans to re-implement the sacrificial system in the
    near future...

    There's no question about it.  Numerous cases occur where specific
    messages are directed at specific people...the example of women wearing
    a covering over their head being one of them.  This is not to say, as
    Richard infers, that people do in fact abuse truth by trying to deflect
    a universal truth from their responsibilities.
    
    In the context Richard posted in .0, I believe it was my comment about
    welcoming the foreigner and sojourner.  I stand by that simply because
    the text of that command was directed at Israel as a people.  How can a
    command directed at a theocratic people be applied to a republic such
    as ours?  It cannot; however, we as a people can individually practice
    the command of congeniality and servanthood toward those who are not of
    this nation.
    
    -Jack

>    How can a
>    command directed at a theocratic people be applied to a republic such
>    as ours?  It cannot; 

    You're not trying...

>    however, we as a people can individually practice
>    the command of congeniality and servanthood toward those who are not of
>    this nation.

    Oh!  Like abortion.

    Tom

  ZZ      You're not trying...
    
    Be a little more specific please.  How does this statement apply to me
    directly, since you don't really know what ministries I am involved
    with.  The abortion comment went over my head.  I didn't understand the
    connection.  Were you saying I should be congenial to hypocritical
    thugs...is that what you are saying?  I thought this was about
    foreigners and sojourners.  You're trying to include people who make
    choices in life contradictory to the mores I have acquired.  This isn't
    about choice, this was about immigration.
    
    -Jack

.5

>    Interesting.  How then would this account for the sacrificial system
>    being totally ignored by modern Judaism?

Applying the rationale in the basenote?  All the modern Jews need say is
that the ancient system was "spoken to" their ancestors, not to them.

But c'mon, Jack.  You and I both know the real story is a more complicated one.

I, for one, am rather glad they ceased the practice of ritual animal
sacrifice.  I've heard (here) there are, but I don't personally
know of any Jews eager to embrace such a practice again.  And I would
speculate that a significant portion of modern Jews disbelieve that
"the sacrificial system" is what Yahweh requires of them.

Richard

    Some facts (off the top of my head) about the resurrection of the 
    sacrificial system that you can verify at the Temple Institute's WWW page:
    
    - 200 men are currently in training to be Levitical priests.
    - All Temple elements and priestly garments have been made.
    - They've been breeding Red Heifers for about 7 years now.
    - The Ark of the Covenant has been found.
    
    There's more, but these are the significant highlights.  As soon as the
    nail the original site of the Temple they will start rebuilding it. 
    btw - contrary to popular opinion, ground penetrating radar photos show
    the original site doesn't necessarily conflict with the Dome of the
    Rock.
    
    Mike

    We can hardly wait for the festivities to begin.
    
    Richard
    

    Me too!  I'll be gone before then! ;-)

    Remember, friends!  The post-Rapture party for people West of the
    Mississippi will be at my house.
    
    Bring munchies to share!
    
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    Are you roasting the Heifer?
    
    
    

    Have fun while it lasts (which will be very short).

    EAt, Drink, and Be Merry, for tomorrow you may Die!
    
    
    I wouldn't want to not take that commandment literally! (;-)
    
    
    Richard, should I bring the wine?
    
                                           Patricia

 Z     EAt, Drink, and Be Merry, for tomorrow you may Die!
        
        
 Z       I wouldn't want to not take that commandment literally! (;-)
    
    Actually this is a belief by a sect called Epicurianists.  It wasn't a
    commandment of God but more a credo lived by humanists.  The response
    by God was, "Thou fool, tonight thy soul shall be required of thee."
    
    Sorry to rain on the party!! :-)
    
    -Jack
    

    Jack, that is an interesting verse considering what some believe about
    the soul and afterlife.

 Didn't the people in Noah's day have the same attitude (mocking
 and denying) when warned of the impending flood?



 Jim

    jack,
    
    i believe that we've spoken before about this verse, its source
    and Epicurus and his followers. it seems to me that you have confused
    a branch of Stocism (a Greek philosophical system) with the rather
    more ancient verse from a Biblical source. perhaps you missed class 
    the day the professor was covering Ancient Philosophy.
    
    by the way, Epicurus's tenets for living were hardly the hedonism that
    you have characterized them as being.
    
    peter

    Hello Andrew:
    
    While I am not big on the knowledge of Epicurus, I do know a few
    things.  Epicurus was born about 342 BC and resided in the Salmas
    Islands in the Aegean Sea.  At about 306 BC, he started a school in
    Athens and focused mainly on Ethics and Physics.  Epicurus actually
    developed the Atomic theory.
    
    Epicurus believed God was dead; however he also believed humans came
    from divine origins.  This Andrew, sounds to me like the New Age
    Movement we so proudly hold today as our invention.  One of his beliefs
    was that we are all here to seek pleasure; it is a standard of
    goodness, however, he also realized that not all pleasure had the same
    standard of value.  
    
    This to me defines humanism at it's very core.  Seeking pleasure as a
    standard of goodness and yet recognizing the laws of civility.  
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    Perhaps you missed the ambiguity and irony of my comment about Eat,
    Drink, and be merry, for tomorrow you may die.
    
    That quote is from the bible.  From the book of Eclessiastics.  The
    book of Eclessiastics is a very existential book.  It is truly amazing
    that this book is in the canon.
    
    Goddess/God certainly has a sense of humor in leading the ancient rabbi's
    in incorporating this puzzling work into the sacred scripture.
    
    Eclessiastics gives new meaning to the question of why the
    contradictions or at least apparent contradictions within scripture.
    Even if we assume that God, masterminded the canonization process, why
    would s/he produce a set of scripture that was puzzling and ambiguous
    rather than more direct and clear?
    
    why is there not just one Gospel with a more precise definition of
    Christ and a more precise description of his life.
    
                                      Patricia
    
                                
    
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    Thanks for pointing this out.  Didn't realize this was in the OT but
    from what I see, it would appear to make sense.
    
    My conjecture on the meaning of the book is that Solomon, after
    obtaining all his wealth and notariety; and yes after disobeying the
    commands of God by taking for himself a wife from a Pagan nation, not
    to mention many other women in his life, he concluded his life
    experiences by saying that all is vanity, a chasing after the wind.
    This would really bring forth in my mind the reality that comparing our
    relationship to the world with a relationship with God is fruitless in
    light of eternity.
    
    -Jack

    
    thanks Patricia for pointing that out to our Jack...
    
    my point, Jack, was that the verse has _nothing_ to do with Epicurus
    and his school. it isn't even close to their teachings. you apparently
    have forgotten that you and i went over this ground once before.
    
    if i were to characterize Epicureanism in today's terms i would guess
    that its adherents would be closer to modern day Buddhists than any
    other group.
    
    peter

 Z   it isn't even close to their teachings. you apparently
 Z       have forgotten that you and i went over this ground once before.
    
    Peter, I remembered it was somebody and was hoping they had been
    TFSO'd.  :-)  I knew there was some question regarding this and figure
    it is just as well I find out now.
    
    -Jack

    I think it was Solomon's 1000 wives that did it to him ;-)

    Re: .23
    
    I think the scripture and gospel you are searching for is there.  It is
    spiritually discerned.  "Let him who has ears to hear..."

>     Eat, Drink, and Be Merry, for tomorrow you may Die!
        
Patricia's claim notwithstanding, this is _not_ what Ecclesiastes says.
Instead, the teacher says:

	I commended enjoyment, for there is nothing better for
	people under the sun than to eat, and drink, and enjoy
	themselves, for this will go with them in their toil
	through the days of life that God gives them under the
	sun.

WITH THEM IN THEIR TOIL!

/john

>	I commended enjoyment, for there is nothing better for
>	people under the sun than to eat, and drink, and enjoy
>	themselves, for this will go with them in their toil
>	through the days of life that God gives them under the
>	sun.
>
>WITH THEM IN THEIR TOIL!


	IT'S MILLER TIME!

    
    or perhaps the verse is meant to be Isaiah Chp 22 vers 13
      "Let us eat and drink; for tomorrow we die"
    
    or even the part of the parable in Luke..."take life easy, eat, drink,
    and enjoy yourself"
    
    whichever it is clear that this phrase's source is the Bible.
    

The verse in Isaiah is clearly referring to a depraved time.

And the parable in Luke is the one previously mentioned, where God's
response is "what if tonight your soul is demanded of you."

Not every snippet from the bible is intended to be recommended behaviour;
much of God's teaching is a warning.

/john