Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	The one who knows is Him. 

    Glen:
    
    While I rejoice in the fact that you believe that particular segment of
    the standard, and I really do, I also find it the height of elitism and
    paumpousness that you stick your nose up at most of the remaining
    thesis.
    
    -Jack

	Huh? The ONLY standard that is perfect is Him. There is no other part
of the thesis.

    Of course there is Glen!  The whole Thesis of the bible is split right
    in two my friend.  The first being the nature of God and the second
    being the nature of man.  What possible purpose would scripture have
    unless it portrayed and explained the need for a savior?  
    
    But I am glad you acknowledge it and are born again.  I'm happy to now
    understand that you and I agree...that one needs to be regenerated and
    redeemed from our sin nature.  It's refreshing considering the number
    of our brothers and sisters who actually believe humankind is basically
    good.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 195.22 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Of course there is Glen!  The whole Thesis of the bible is split right
| in two my friend.  

	No, He is absolute. I believe in Him. End of story for the absolutes.
He has many tools that are used to learn about Him, to get closer to Him, to do
what He wants us to do. But the common denominator is no matter what is used,
the end result is Him. Not a book, not a sign, not a person, just Him.

| What possible purpose would scripture have unless it portrayed and explained 
| the need for a savior?

	The Scripture, the street sign, the person on the street. They all can
be used by Him to help others. They are all on the same level of importance and
accuracy, when He chooses to use it. 




Glen

>	The Scripture, the street sign, the person on the street. They all can
>be used by Him to help others. They are all on the same level of importance and
>accuracy, when He chooses to use it. 




  How about the street signs that say "One Way" or "Stop" or "yield"..think
 maybe He's trying to tell you something there?  



Jim

| <<< Note 195.24 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>


| How about the street signs that say "One Way" or "Stop" or "yield"..think
| maybe He's trying to tell you something there?

	Could be. 

    Glen, what tool does God use to tell you that a person must be born
    again to get to heaven?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Glen:
    
    God has layed before you a tool for which you can understand the nature
    of God and the nature of man.  I am still thankful that you have
    acknowledged you are born again and that you seem to have a full
    understanding that humanity needs to be redeemed.
    
    -Jack

>    God has layed before you a tool for which you can understand the nature
>    of God and the nature of man.  I am still thankful that you have

    Yes. It's called life.  Without it, salvation is impossible.
    Oh, yeah.  The Bible helps, too.

    Tom

 Z    Yes. It's called life.  Without it, salvation is impossible.
 Z       Oh, yeah.  The Bible helps, too.
    
    Specify.  It is abundantly clear that mankind is depraved; but how does
    one in their depravity recognize a holy God through the tool of life?
    
    -Jack

"Cause w/out life, you couldn't recognize anything.

| <<< Note 195.26 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, what tool does God use to tell you that a person must be born
| again to get to heaven?

	He can use whatever tool He wants to get someone to believe in Him. I
don't think someone has to be Born-Again. I think all they need is a belief in
Him. Not some dramatic experience.

| <<< Note 195.27 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| God has layed before you a tool for which you can understand the nature
| of God and the nature of man.  

	Not tool, Jack. TOOLSSSSSS!!!!!!!

    
    jack,
    
    it is not "abundantly clear" to me that "mankind is depraved." this may
    be axiomatic in your system but it is most certainly not part of mine.
    
    to me this seems to be somewhat similiar to "man is born free, but
    everywhere he is in chains"...
    
    peter

|	He can use whatever tool He wants to get someone to believe in Him. I
|don't think someone has to be Born-Again. I think all they need is a belief in
|Him. Not some dramatic experience.
    
    Then everything you've proposed in this topic to this point is null and
    void.

|    it is not "abundantly clear" to me that "mankind is depraved." this may
|    be axiomatic in your system but it is most certainly not part of mine.
|    
|    to me this seems to be somewhat similiar to "man is born free, but
|    everywhere he is in chains"...
    
    then on what grounds does a Holy God allow one to enter His kingdom?

| <<< Note 195.34 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Then everything you've proposed in this topic to this point is null and void.

	According to you, yes. But I do not believe it is that way in reality.
If someone can call out to Him on their death bed, and He will take them into
Heaven, then when did they have time to believe the Bible was the inerrant Word
of God? 

 Belief in the Bible as the inerrant Word of God does not take one to Heaven,
 or reconcile one to God.  It is a)recogntion of the break in the relationship
 with God due to their sinful nature, b)recognizing that the penalty of their
 sin is eternal separation from God, c) acceptance of Jesus death as penalty
 for their sin, d)recognizing the above, asking God to forgive their sin,
 and asking Him to save them.

 The Bible is essential in one's growth as a Christian, and is used by the
 Holy Spirit to convince one of their sin prior to becoming a Christian.



 Jim

|	According to you, yes. But I do not believe it is that way in reality.
|If someone can call out to Him on their death bed, and He will take them into
|Heaven, then when did they have time to believe the Bible was the inerrant Word
|of God? 
    
    When you call out you acknowledge that
    
    - you are a sinner in need of a Savior
    - Ask God to forgive you of your sin
    - confess that Jesus Christ is the Son of God sent to die for you 
      and your sin and is your atonement
    - ask Christ to come into your heart and be your Lord and Savior, ruler
      of your life
    - thank Him for dieing for you and coming into your life
    
    If you sincerely pray a prayer like this (i.e., sinner's prayer), God
    seals you with His Holy Spirit and you are born again, a new creature
    in Christ.  The inerrancy of His Word is in the fact that everything
    you just prayed was revealed in His Word and the Holy Spirit now in
    your life make the pages come alive.  There is nothing so exciting as
    reading the Bible for the first time after accepting Christ as your
    personal Lord and Savior.  The new understanding and spiritual insight
    the Holy Spirit provides is powerful!
    
    If you've never prayed a prayer like this, pray it today!  For "today
    is the day of salvation!"
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 195.37 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>

| The Bible is essential in one's growth as a Christian, and is used by the
| Holy Spirit to convince one of their sin prior to becoming a Christian.

	Then please stop with all this talk like it is as important as Him.
Because it would seem it isn't. So it doesn't need to be a requirement. 

| <<< Note 195.38 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| When you call out you acknowledge that

	Oh yeah... on their death bed they are going to do all that. Uh huh.



Glen

>	Then please stop with all this talk like it is as important as Him.
>Because it would seem it isn't. So it doesn't need to be a requirement. 



 I pray one day you really understand, Glen.




 Jim

    Glen, it took me all of 1 minute to pray that prayer.

| <<< Note 195.42 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, it took me all of 1 minute to pray that prayer.

	That's great, Mike. I suppose it would be wrong to just call out to
Him, huh? Ya gotta go through a ritual, or a certain prayer, or some protocal,
huh? Too bad for those who just say help, huh?

 Z   He can use whatever tool He wants to get someone to believe in Him. I
 Z   don't think someone has to be Born-Again.
    
    Glen, the other discussions you and others have proposed are quite
    secondary to the above.  I personally find your statement above
    revealing and I would give this matter serious attention if I were you.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1263.29 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, the other discussions you and others have proposed are quite
| secondary to the above.  I personally find your statement above revealing 

	Revealing in what way, Jack?

    
    The Bible is the *only* source of revelation of God's will for
    humanity.  The Bible is the *only* source of the revelation of God's
    salvation, Jesus Christ.  God has chosen the method of preaching the
    gospel as it is contained in the Scriptures as the method for the 
    salvation of souls.  There is no other way to be saved or to know the
    will of God outside of the existence and message of the Bible.  Since
    the Bible is the Word of God, as God has attested, it must be inerrant
    in its message.  And it is very, very clear in many, many areas.
    
    If a person does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then a
    person will not respect the authority of its message.  If a person does
    not respect the authority of the Bible's message, then a person will
    not agree concerning their sinfulness, rebellion, and need of salvation 
    as God has explained in the Bible.  If a person does not believe they
    are sinful, condemned already, under the wrath of God, s/he will not
    repent and turn to God for salvation.  A person who does not repent and
    turn to God for salvation is dead in trespasses and sins and living in
    judgement moving toward eternal judgement, without hope of being
    reconciled to God.
    
    To lay claim to Christ and His salvation is to lay claim to the promise
    and integrity of God's Word in the Bible.  There is no alternative. 
    God gives all those who truly seek His righteousness, and not their
    own, the ability, which is absent in spiritually dead men, to trust in
    His Word, to hear the gospel, and to have faith in Christ's sacrifice
    for his/her sin, resulting in rebirth and everlasting life with God.
    
    jeff

>    The Bible is the *only* source of revelation of God's will for
>    humanity.  The Bible is the *only* source of the revelation of God's
>    salvation, Jesus Christ.  God has chosen the method of preaching the
>    gospel as it is contained in the Scriptures as the method for the 
>    salvation of souls.  There is no other way to be saved or to know the
>    will of God outside of the existence and message of the Bible.  Since
>    the Bible is the Word of God, as God has attested, it must be inerrant
>    in its message.  And it is very, very clear in many, many areas.

    This part doubtful.  Shout like ****.  IE: I disagree.
    
>    If a person does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then a
>    person will not respect the authority of its message.  

    Not necessarily so.  Do you *always* disrespect the message
    from an authority if he isn't God?  For example, the words
    of a chemist explaining that mixing certain chemicals can
    cause harm.  I certainly *hope* you'll respect him.

>    If a person does
>    not respect the authority of the Bible's message, then a person will
>    not agree concerning their sinfulness, rebellion, and need of salvation 
>    as God has explained in the Bible.  

    Muslims believe much the same.  Only, they don't believe in the bible.

>    If a person does not believe they
>    are sinful, condemned already, under the wrath of God, s/he will not
>    repent and turn to God for salvation.

    No.  They may decide to try harder to do better, though.

>    A person who does not repent and
>    turn to God for salvation is dead in trespasses and sins and living in
>    judgement moving toward eternal judgement, without hope of being
>    reconciled to God.

    So you say.
    
>    To lay claim to Christ and His salvation is to lay claim to the promise
>    and integrity of God's Word in the Bible.  

    This may be so.

>    There is no alternative. 

    This is not so.

>    God gives all those who truly seek His righteousness, and not their
>    own, the ability, which is absent in spiritually dead men, to trust in
>    His Word, to hear the gospel, and to have faith in Christ's sacrifice
>    for his/her sin, resulting in rebirth and everlasting life with God.

    Yes.  But S/He also gives those seekers other paths to the same
    destination.

    Tom

 ZZ    Revealing in what way, Jack?
    
    Since it was Jesus himself who made the claim that we must be born
    again, judging by your last statement it appears to me you don't hold
    God's opinion in high esteem, since it was God the Father who sent
    Jesus for this very purpose.  You talk the talk Glen but the statement
    re: rebirth from you shows a lack of commitment or conviction to God's
    belief.
    
    -Jack

     Hi Tom,

>    The Bible is the *only* source of revelation of God's will for
>    humanity.  The Bible is the *only* source of the revelation of God's
>    salvation, Jesus Christ.  God has chosen the method of preaching the
>    gospel as it is contained in the Scriptures as the method for the 
>    salvation of souls.  There is no other way to be saved or to know the
>    will of God outside of the existence and message of the Bible.  Since
>    the Bible is the Word of God, as God has attested, it must be inerrant
>    in its message.  And it is very, very clear in many, many areas.

    >>This part doubtful.  Shout like ****.  IE: I disagree.

     How and why is it "doubtful"?  What parts?
    
>    If a person does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then a
>    person will not respect the authority of its message.  

    >>Not necessarily so.  Do you *always* disrespect the message
    >>from an authority if he isn't God?  For example, the words
    >>of a chemist explaining that mixing certain chemicals can
    >>cause harm.  I certainly *hope* you'll respect him.

    The words of a chemist are not the words of God.  The subject is God's
    Word, not the word of a chemist, and the authority given based on it
    being or not being God's Word.

>    If a person does
>    not respect the authority of the Bible's message, then a person will
>    not agree concerning their sinfulness, rebellion, and need of salvation 
>    as God has explained in the Bible.  

    >>Muslims believe much the same.  Only, they don't believe in the bible.

     But the subject is the Bible as God's Word and its relevance to man.
     I am not positing the Koran as God's Word, indeed it cannot be since
    it is contradictory in so many ways to the Bible.

>    If a person does not believe they
>    are sinful, condemned already, under the wrath of God, s/he will not
>    repent and turn to God for salvation.

    >>No.  They may decide to try harder to do better, though.
	
     I don't understand your response here.

>    A person who does not repent and
>    turn to God for salvation is dead in trespasses and sins and living in
>    judgement moving toward eternal judgement, without hope of being
>    reconciled to God.

    >>So you say.

     No.  This is what the Bible says.  Anyone can read it any time in 
     many contexts.
    
>    To lay claim to Christ and His salvation is to lay claim to the promise
>    and integrity of God's Word in the Bible.  

    >>This may be so.

     It must be so.

>    There is no alternative. 

    >>This is not so.

     It must be so, regardless of your non-Christian assertion to the contrary.
     

>    God gives all those who truly seek His righteousness, and not their
>    own, the ability, which is absent in spiritually dead men, to trust in
>    His Word, to hear the gospel, and to have faith in Christ's sacrifice
>    for his/her sin, resulting in rebirth and everlasting life with God.

    >>Yes.  But S/He also gives those seekers other paths to the same
    >>destination.

     No, He does not.  He doesn't even acknowledge such a thing as "seekers"
     as you use the term.  The only "seekers" are those who seek Christ's
     righteousness, recognizing the absence of their own.
     
     God has defined the path, Jesus Christ, and no other.  It has always
     been true and it is the consistent unmistakable witness of the whole
     Bible.  Your assertion that there are other paths is simply that,
     an assertion, a pagan assertion.  The Bible says it is a false assertion.

    jeff

| <<< Note 1263.31 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| The Bible is the *only* source of revelation of God's will for humanity.  

	Yeah, I know that's what the thing claims. But it's funny that the only
way to prove the Bible is correct is to compare it to itself. Yet we don't
allow this for anything else.

| If a person does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then a
| person will not respect the authority of its message.  

	True and false. You can't make a blanket statement like that. If the
person believes God has led them to the Bible for guidance, then they would
respect the authority of the message. So at this point, what you said would be
false. 

| If a person does not respect the authority of the Bible's message, 

	This is where we differ. Regardless of how you want to look at it, the
ONLY message is God's. It is not the Bible's. Because then the Bible becomes as
important as God, which it is not. You can get to Heaven without the Bible, but
you can't get to Heaven without the knowledge of God. (and yes, you could have
knowledge of both, and not get into Heaven)



Glen

| <<< Note 1263.33 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Since it was Jesus himself who made the claim that we must be born again, 

	No, it was something in a book that claimed that Jesus made the claim. 

| judging by your last statement it appears to me you don't hold God's opinion 
| in high esteem, 

	The above is false. I don't hold the Bible in high esteem on it's
accuracy. 

| You talk the talk Glen but the statement re: rebirth from you shows a lack of 
| commitment or conviction to God's belief.

	False. It shows that I hold Him to be Right, not the Bible. Anything
but Him is going to have flaws. But anything used by Him will not.


Glen

 Z   the
 Z   ONLY message is God's. It is not the Bible's.
    
    Glen, in the years you've said this you have still failed to disclose
    where your revelation of God has come from.  Feelings is a legitamate
    answer...anything.  
    
    Note:  You can't say from God himself unless you disclose exactly how
    God communicated with you.
    
    -Jack  

>    Glen, in the years you've said this you have still failed to disclose
>    where your revelation of God has come from.  Feelings is a legitamate
>    answer...anything.  
    
 
     street signs.





    Jim

    The apostles had Jesus, the Pharisees had the Old Testament, and the
    prophets had direct verbiage or revelation from the Father.  Either
    Glen must prove himself a prophet or he must acquiesce to the belief
    that revelation of God came from the book.
    
    -Jack

    That's right, Jack.
    
    jeff

>    The apostles had Jesus, the Pharisees had the Old Testament, and the
>    prophets had direct verbiage or revelation from the Father.  Either
>    Glen must prove himself a prophet or he must acquiesce to the belief
>    that revelation of God came from the book.

    First, he doesn't have to prove anything to you.  What he
    believes is his business.
    
    Unlike you, I believe personal revelation is one of the
    ways to develope a personal faith.

    The path may not be as clear as a prophet claims, but if
    one listens carefully what s/he hears is meaningful.

    Tom

 Z   First, he doesn't have to prove anything to you.  What he
 Z       believes is his business.
    
    Err...well, I suppose one could say this...except Glen is in here
    claiming to be born again.  I would say it is more than prudent of me
    as a fellow brother in Christ to test the spirits here...as we are
    admonished to do this in the good book.
    
    So Glen, how about it.  We're waiting here with baited breath to find
    out if you are indeed a prophet or are you acquiescing that you know
    God via the book.  And Glen, I'm going to keep asking and asking until
    you give me an answer.
    
    -Jack

    Tom,
    
    By the way, I don't believe our different local church buildings wall
    us away from accountability toward one another.  
    
    Glen is accountable to the ecclesia but he is also accountable to the
    whole body of Christ, since he is a fellow ambassador.
    
    -Jack

|	False. It shows that I hold Him to be Right, not the Bible. Anything
|but Him is going to have flaws. But anything used by Him will not.
    
    Glen, the Bible is used by Him so thanks for finally admitting its
    inerrancy.  Even you stated it is one of His tools.
    
    Mike

|	That's great, Mike. I suppose it would be wrong to just call out to
|Him, huh? Ya gotta go through a ritual, or a certain prayer, or some protocal,
|huh? Too bad for those who just say help, huh?
    
    ...and what do you want Him to do for you and how do you want Him to
    help you?  Your rejection of Godly principles and His Word is starting
    to border on the ridiculous.  
    

| <<< Note 1263.37 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| Glen, in the years you've said this you have still failed to disclose
| where your revelation of God has come from.  Feelings is a legitamate
| answer...anything.

	Jack, I have said how God first entered my life on many occasions. It's
the Texas story. How He stays there is by showing me what is needed, whether it
be good or bad. He uses me to help others, or visa versa. Little subtleties, or
big events. My dreams, walking down a street, He is there.


Glen

| <<< Note 1263.39 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| The apostles had Jesus, the Pharisees had the Old Testament, and the prophets 
| had direct verbiage or revelation from the Father.  

	According to what the book said, yes. It still does not make the
statements made true, or it does not mean that what was written down was 100%
accurate. In other words.... it ain't inerrant.

| Either Glen must prove himself a prophet or he must acquiesce to the belief
| that revelation of God came from the book.

	What world are you from, Jack? :-)  That has got to be one of the
funniest things you have ever said! 


Glen

    Okay...so you know the nature of God through experiences.  You have
    never actually dealved into the sin aspect of humanity but feel you
    know Him by affirming in your heart he is there and by good works,
    helping others?

 Z   What world are you from, Jack? :-)  That has got to be one of the
 Z   funniest things you have ever said!
    
    You still must default to one of the two possibilities if you are born
    again.  
    
    Our works of righteousness for redemptive purposes are equated to a
    dung heap!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1263.42 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Err...well, I suppose one could say this...except Glen is in here claiming to 
| be born again.  

	Jack, I have called out to Christ. No, I did not use a default prayer. 
I used my heart.

| And Glen, I'm going to keep asking and asking until you give me an answer.

	Don't you wish you had that program I have? :-)


Glen

| <<< Note 1263.44 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, the Bible is used by Him so thanks for finally admitting its inerrancy.

	Yes, He uses it. He also uses a street sign, a person on the street.
Are all of them inerrant? Like the Bible, no. But when God uses the Bible, the
street sign, or the person, the message He wants to give IS inerrant, even if
the tool He uses is not. 

| Even you stated it is one of His tools.

	Yes, one of His tools. It holds the same weight and accuracy as all the
others. 100% when there is a message to get out, and under 100% otherwise.

| <<< Note 1263.45 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| ...and what do you want Him to do for you and how do you want Him to help you?

	I guess that would depend on the person's situation. For *me*, He saved
my life. 

| Your rejection of Godly principles and His Word is starting to border on the 
| ridiculous.

	No, not really. People can speak the words from your prayer, and it
isn't going to mean anything. People can say what is in their heart to Him, and
it can mean everything.



Glen

| <<< Note 1263.48 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| know Him by affirming in your heart he is there and by good works,
| helping others?

	Jack, good works and helping others are only part of what He does. Did
you miss the part where I said He shows me good and bad? 



Glen

>	Yes, He uses it. He also uses a street sign, a person on the street.
>Are all of them inerrant? Like the Bible, no. But when God uses the Bible, the



 So a street sign that says "stop" for example, could really mean "go"? or
 "maple street"?





 Jim

    How is a street sign errant when God isn't using it? 
    When does God not use the Bible, His own Word?

| <<< Note 1263.54 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>


| So a street sign that says "stop" for example, could really mean "go"? or
| "maple street"?


	I have to admit, it did make me smile. :-)  Jim, if you're walking down
a street trying to figure something out, and you're asking God for directon,
then you suddenly notice a sign that says, Church Street, or Wrong Way, etc,
you don't think that isn't God taking an object, and using it to get the
message He wants you to hear out to you? The Bible is such an object. If He
leads me there (which He has on many occasions) and wants me to hear a specific
message, then He is using a tool.


Glen

| <<< Note 1263.55 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| How is a street sign errant when God isn't using it?

	The street sign is not innerrant. The message is. 

| When does God not use the Bible, 

	When He uses something else.

| His own Word?

	According to you, yes. To me, no.

|	No, not really. People can speak the words from your prayer, and it
|isn't going to mean anything. 
    
    How can you insult God like this?  You are grieving the Holy Spirit. 
    Read what God spoke through Isaiah the prophet:
    
    55:6  Seek ye the LORD while he may be found, call ye upon him while he is
          near:
55:7  Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and
 let him return unto the LORD, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God,
 for he will abundantly pardon.
55:8  For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,
 saith the LORD.
55:9  For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than
 your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
55:10  For as the rain cometh down, and the snow from heaven, and returneth not
 thither, but watereth the earth, and maketh it bring forth and bud, that it
 may give seed to the sower, and bread to the eater:
55:11  So shall MY WORD be that goeth forth out of MY MOUTH: IT SHALL NOT
 RETURN UNTO ME VOID, but IT SHALL ACCOMPLISH THAT WHICH I PLEASE, and it shall
 prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
    
    *ANYONE* who prays for salvation according to His Word will be heard by
    God.  It means enough to Him that He said His Word will not return void!
    
    Mike

>	I have to admit, it did make me smile. :-)  Jim, if you're walking down
>a street trying to figure something out, and you're asking God for directon,
>then you suddenly notice a sign that says, Church Street, or Wrong Way, etc,
>you don't think that isn't God taking an object, and using it to get the
>message He wants you to hear out to you? The Bible is such an object. If He
>leads me there (which He has on many occasions) and wants me to hear a specific
>message, then He is using a tool.




 <shakes head in wonder/amazement>

    |	The street sign is not innerrant. The message is. 
    
    You didn't answer the question.  How is the message errant when God
    isn't using it?
    
    

| <<< Note 1263.58 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| How can you insult God like this?  

	It is not an insult to God. If you really think that the only way to
communicate with God is through a default prayer, then it is you who is
insulting God. 

	Talking to God on a One to one basis is a better approach for some.
There is nothing wrong with your approach if it works for you. But for many, is
it better to say what is in their hearts, or just say a default prayer? I think
both work just as fine for the right people.

| You are grieving the Holy Spirit.

	No, I do not believe I am. 




Glen

| <<< Note 1263.60 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| You didn't answer the question. How is the message errant when God isn't 
| using it?

	If God isn't using it, then it has no real meaning to Him. Take the
Bible. It's a history book. Parts could be right, parts could be wrong. In the
end, when God uses something to get a message out to you, he could take someone
who is lying to you and use that as a tool. That is how he can take something
errant and make the message ineerant.

|	It is not an insult to God. If you really think that the only way to
|communicate with God is through a default prayer, then it is you who is
|insulting God. 
    
    It is not a default, ritualistic prayer.  I offered up the scriptural
    guidelines from which you pray from the heart.

|end, when God uses something to get a message out to you, he could take someone
|who is lying to you and use that as a tool. That is how he can take something
|errant and make the message ineerant.
    
    Do you really think God uses sin for good?

 Z   Jack, good works and helping others are only part of what He does. Did
 Z   you miss the part where I said He shows me good and bad? 
    
    Glen, you have missed the point.  The above is true; however, it is not
    germane to the question or point I was making.  What I said was, so YOU
    believe that it is YOUR good works which bring eternal life to YOU...am
    I correct in this assumption?

| <<< Note 1263.63 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| It is not a default, ritualistic prayer.  I offered up the scriptural
| guidelines from which you pray from the heart.

	You offered up a specific prayer.

| <<< Note 1263.64 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>


| Do you really think God uses sin for good?

	Yes. Just as I think the devil uses good for sin. 



Glen

| <<< Note 1263.65 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| believe that it is YOUR good works which bring eternal life to YOU...am
| I correct in this assumption?

	No, you are dead wrong. I don't have any "good works". If anything good
results from anything I do, it is because of Him, not me. I may do the action,
sometimes without even realizing it at the time....but the end result is it all
came from Him. I was just a tool. I guess Jim would say I am a street sign! :)

> Do you really think God uses sin for good?

    All the time.  He's God.  She can do that.

    This, however, is not an excuse to sin ;^)

    Tom

>| Do you really think God uses sin for good?

>	Yes. Just as I think the devil uses good for sin. 



  Then, my friend, you need to carefully examine just exactly who/what
 God is.  He is not a traffic cop, nor is He a maker of road signs and
 neat little coincidences.  And, you aluded earlier that He saved your
 life.  That does not equate to salvation.



 Jim

Z    No, you are dead wrong. I don't have any "good works". If anything good
Z    results from anything I do, it is because of Him, not me. I may do the
Z    action,
Z    sometimes without even realizing it at the time....but the end result
Z    is it all
Z    came from Him. I was just a tool. I guess Jim would say I am a street sign!
Z     :)
    
    Ahh...now we are making progress.  The above is most definitely the
    case.  We have nothing good to offer God and all good things come from
    God.  As Jesus himself stated, "Why callest me good?  There is no good
    except my Father which is in heaven."  Well answered Glen.  This helps
    clear up half the puzzle.  Now this brings us hopefully to the next
    plateau of understanding.
    
    You made two statements recently.  The first was that you are born
    again.  This is goodness.  You also stated that one does not have to be
    born again to inherit eternal life.  What differentiates you as a born
    again believer from one who is not born again...or as Jesus taught to
    the disciples, what seperates the sheep who are in the fold from the
    goats who are not in the fold to whom Jesus said, "Truly I say unto
    you, I never knew you."?  
    
    Or better yet, answer this question...to whom was Jesus referring to as
    the goats?  And how does one distinguish a sheep from a goat in the
    context of Jesus' teaching?  I ask this in the context of your base
    presupposition...that none of us have anything good to offer God, to
    which I am in full agreement.
    
    -Jack

    |	You offered up a specific prayer.
    
    Not even close.  A specific prayer is surrounded by these: " "
    Guidelines are presented by bulleted items like these: -
    
    

    Okay, if God uses both righteousness and evil to perform His will, and
    Satan uses both righteousness and evil to perform his will, then how do
    we tell the difference in who's doing what?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

>    Okay, if God uses both righteousness and evil to perform His will, and
>    Satan uses both righteousness and evil to perform his will, then how do
>    we tell the difference in who's doing what?

    Why do we have to know?  Is it always *right* for us to know?
    For example: the tale of Job.

    Tom

    Tom, because you don't want to contribute or serve darkness.  You want
    to be within the will of God.  How do you know what you are doing or
    what you are subjecting yourself to is right?  Prove your answer
    without using the Bible.
    
    Mike

    In .74 I was refering to actions being done.  Not to what I am
    doing.
    
    But to answer your question, I look at my motives.  If I do 
    something for revenge then by being vengeful I sin.  Bad thing
    to do.  If I do something to *show* that I am good then it
    is being boastful and it's also a bad thing to do.  If I do
    something and it makes me feel closer to God then there's a
    fair chance that it was a good thing to do.

    Over the years we gather experience about what feels right and
    what leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.  These things are 
    frequently easier to discern after one has been spiritually
    awakened in part or in whole.
    
    Prove my answer?  I don't need to prove it to you.  I know it
    works for me.
    
    You *can't* prove it with the Bible because I don't accept the
    Bible as *proof*.
    
    Tom

| <<< Note 1263.70 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>

| Then, my friend, you need to carefully examine just exactly who/what
| God is.  He is not a traffic cop, nor is He a maker of road signs and
| neat little coincidences.  

	No kidding? And here I thought all came from Him. I guess I stand
corrected. 

| And, you aluded earlier that He saved your life. That does not equate to 
| salvation.

	It led to it.

| <<< Note 1263.71 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| You also stated that one does not have to be born again to inherit eternal 
| life.  

	Jack... born-again by a default prayer was what I was talking about. It
is not the tell all way. One needs to know they want Him to lead them, and then
talk with Him. If they want to use a default prayer, fine. If they want to
speak their heart, fine. I am the latter. 

	I don't think someone has to use a defualt-prayer to become born-again.

| Or better yet, answer this question...to whom was Jesus referring to as
| the goats?  

	If this is something out of the Bible (heh heh) then please don't waste
my time. You are trying to find out my beliefs based on your own. The two are
not compatable. You can either find out my beliefs from them, or don't bother.
Trying to get to them through your own isn't going to do anything. 



Glen

| <<< Note 1263.73 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Okay, if God uses both righteousness and evil to perform His will, and
| Satan uses both righteousness and evil to perform his will, then how do
| we tell the difference in who's doing what?

	Because He wins out every time if we listen. We will only go wrong if
we don't. Let's use the Bible as an example. Look at all the wrongs that were
done in the name of the Bible. In the name of Christianity. In the name of
Jesus. How many of those people do you think actually listened to what He had
to say? They had the Bible to go by, but still got it wrong. This is why it
makes no sense to say you use the Bible to know what is right/wrong, or as a
standard. Because it is only as good as the person reading it. History shows
that.

	It all comes down to Him.

Glen

| <<< Note 1263.75 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Prove your answer without using the Bible.

	History shows that you can't prove the answer even WITH the Bible.

|    In .74 I was refering to actions being done.  Not to what I am
|    doing.
|    
|    But to answer your question, I look at my motives.  If I do 
|    something for revenge then by being vengeful I sin.  Bad thing
|    to do.  If I do something to *show* that I am good then it
|    is being boastful and it's also a bad thing to do.  If I do
|    something and it makes me feel closer to God then there's a
|    fair chance that it was a good thing to do.
    
    This is nice, but you didn't answer the question.  I asked about the
    wills of God and of Satan, not your actions.  How do you know who is
    doing what?  How do you know if Satan or God is behind your revenge if
    they both use sin for their will?  How do you know you are growing
    closer to God if they both use good things to attract you to them?  How
    do you know if your are closer to God or Satan posing as God?
    
|    Prove my answer?  I don't need to prove it to you.  I know it
|    works for me.
    
    you haven't shown that it works for you.  You haven't even shown who
    you are serving or worshiping.
    
|    You *can't* prove it with the Bible because I don't accept the
|    Bible as *proof*.
    
    Not a problem.  This is just plain common sense.  
    
    Mike

|	Because He wins out every time if we listen. We will only go wrong if
|we don't. Let's use the Bible as an example. Look at all the wrongs that were
|done in the name of the Bible. In the name of Christianity. In the name of
|Jesus. How many of those people do you think actually listened to what He had
|to say? They had the Bible to go by, but still got it wrong. This is why it
    
    Who wins out?  They both use evil and righteousness according to you
    and Tom.  Going by your example, we don't know who was behind what.
    
|makes no sense to say you use the Bible to know what is right/wrong, or as a
|standard. Because it is only as good as the person reading it. History shows
|that.
    
    The Holy Spirit disagrees with you.  He makes the difference in the
    person reading it.
    
|	It all comes down to Him.
    
    Who?

| <<< Note 1263.82 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Who wins out?  They both use evil and righteousness according to you
| and Tom.  Going by your example, we don't know who was behind what.

	Of course you do.... eventually. He will always set you down on the
right path.... providing we let Him.

| The Holy Spirit disagrees with you.  He makes the difference in the
| person reading it.

	And it doesn't matter if it is a prayer, or words. He will know what is
true in your heart.

 Z   Jack... born-again by a default prayer was what I was talking about.
 Z   It is not the tell all way.
    
    Okay...I'm not necessarily disputing that.  I'm talking about the
    essence of your statement that you were born again.  Also, I did not
    surmize any particular doctrine in my question...I didn't use my own
    filters, I simply asked you a question and the question is still
    awaiting an answer.  Jesus spoke of the sheep and the goats.  What in
    your belief system constitutes a goat as opposed to a sheep?  I'm not
    trying to coerce anything here...I'm simply looking for your point of
    view on what the book, errant or inerrant has to say.
    
    -Jack
                                                                         

|	Of course you do.... eventually. He will always set you down on the
|right path.... providing we let Him.
    
    Glen, let's use your example where someone is on their death bed.  You
    don't have time to wait and figure things out.  You need absolute,
    concrete truth and evidence *NOW*!  Explain how we know who, God or
    Satan, is behind what and the person is not being led into deception.
    
|| The Holy Spirit disagrees with you.  He makes the difference in the
|| person reading it.
|
|	And it doesn't matter if it is a prayer, or words. He will know what is
|true in your heart.
    
    This was in response to what you said about a person reading the Bible,
    not praying.
    
    Mike

    So, the only way you can use the Bible is if it's inerrant?
    
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 1263.84 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| awaiting an answer.  Jesus spoke of the sheep and the goats.  What in
| your belief system constitutes a goat as opposed to a sheep?  I'm not
| trying to coerce anything here...I'm simply looking for your point of
| view on what the book, errant or inerrant has to say.

	Jack, when you say, "Jesus spoke", and then say you're looking for my
view on the book, you cancel it out. You can't say that Jesus spoke when I
don't believe He did.


Glen

| <<< Note 1263.85 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| Glen, let's use your example where someone is on their death bed.  You
| don't have time to wait and figure things out.  You need absolute,
| concrete truth and evidence *NOW*!  Explain how we know who, God or
| Satan, is behind what and the person is not being led into deception.

	Errr.... if you are on your deathbed, how are you going to figure out
deception? Be real, Mike.

| This was in response to what you said about a person reading the Bible,
| not praying.

	To reading the Bible? No. I don't consider the Bible anything but a
book. So because of that, I wouldn't consider anyone reading it anything else
but reading. 



Glen

    RE: .81

>    This is nice, but you didn't answer the question.  I asked about the
>    wills of God and of Satan, not your actions.  How do you know who is
>    doing what?  

    You don't have to know.  It's not up to you to know.  I don't
    even think, at times, it is right for you to know.  Have faith.

>    How do you know if Satan or God is behind your revenge if
>    they both use sin for their will?  How do you know you are growing
>    closer to God if they both use good things to attract you to them?  

    Oh.... So you want to know when it's alright to seek revenge?
    In a phrase: it ain't.  But God knows us and sometimes uses our
    weaknesses in His plan.  So, what should we do?  Do the best
    we can, make the best decisions we can, pray for guidence and
    have faith.

>    How
>    do you know if your are closer to God or Satan posing as God?

    Pray.  Have faith.  Is that so hard?

    Tom

 ZZ    I don't believe He did.
    
    And therein lies the problem with your religious system Glen.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1263.90 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| And therein lies the problem with your religious system Glen.

	Jack, if what you said above is true, then how can you also say that
one does not need the Bible to get into Heaven? You're contradicting yourself
here.

    Selective believeing Glen.  The very elements of faith that created
    Ghingus Kahn, Hitler, and other humanists of history.
    
    -Jack

>    Selective believeing Glen.  The very elements of faith that created
>    Ghingus Kahn, Hitler, and other humanists of history.

C'mon, Jack.  Don't be silly.  Glen's beliefs, selective
(as opposed to indescriminate) as they are, aren't going
to "inspire" him to try to oppress and dominate the world.

Tom

    Didn't say that.  But as I've said before, it is people with this
    selective philosophy that have caused most of the oppression in the
    world today...the inquisitors being amongst that group.  
    
    How depraved and sad it is to believe in Jesus Christ and yet lack the
    faith to believe his warnings of the upcoming judgement.
    
    -Jack

|	Errr.... if you are on your deathbed, how are you going to figure out
|deception? Be real, Mike.
    
    This is a life and death decision.  You don't have time for deception,
    you must choose the truth and insure your salvation.  Obviously you
    don't know how this is done.

|	To reading the Bible? No. I don't consider the Bible anything but a
|book. So because of that, I wouldn't consider anyone reading it anything else
|but reading. 

    I guess you're involved in too many threads because this completely
    misses the context of the discussion.  I'll let it drop until you have
    time to go back and review.
    
    Mike

re Note 1263.94 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Didn't say that.  But as I've said before, it is people with this
>     selective philosophy that have caused most of the oppression in the
>     world today...the inquisitors being amongst that group.  
  
        Since I believe that *everyone* practices a "selective
        philosophy" as you call it (even if they deny it), I guess
        I'll have to agree with you.

        Bob

|    You don't have to know.  It's not up to you to know.  I don't
|    even think, at times, it is right for you to know.  Have faith.
    
    Have faith in what?  who?  It most certainly is your right to know. 
    God's Word says it is (try 1 John 4).

|    Oh.... So you want to know when it's alright to seek revenge?
    
    not at all.  You've missed the point again.

|>    How
|>    do you know if your are closer to God or Satan posing as God?
|
|    Pray.  Have faith.  Is that so hard?
    
    Who are you praying to?  who is your faith in?  It's hard because there
    must be a way of establishing and knowing spiritual direction and
    having the assurance that you are in God's Will instead of being tossed
    to and fro between warring supernatural powers.

    It's obvious to me that you and Glen have no idea who you are serving,
    who you pray to, who you worship, and where you will spend eternity. 
    If you were a missionary and I was interested in joining your religion,
    you have provided nothing concrete to sway my decision.
    
    Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.
    
    Mike

    For lack of a better description, I find it a bastardizing of scripture
    to hold dearly to Jesus words on the Be Attitudes and disbelieve his
    parables regarding the judgement day.  They are both equally important
    but apparently one simply doesn't fit in people's belief system.
    
    -Jack

>|    Oh.... So you want to know when it's alright to seek revenge?
>    
>    not at all.  You've missed the point again.

    Then be clearer in your replies.

>    Who are you praying to?  who is your faith in?  It's hard because there

    That's:  Whom are you praying to?  Whom is your faith in?  etc.

    And stop playing dumb.  You know very well to Whom I refer.

>    must be a way of establishing and knowing spiritual direction and
>    having the assurance that you are in God's Will instead of being tossed
>    to and fro between warring supernatural powers.

    It seems you're very big on belief but very short on faith.

    Tom

| <<< Note 1263.92 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Selective believeing Glen.  The very elements of faith that created
| Ghingus Kahn, Hitler, and other humanists of history.

	Jack, please explain how this addresses .91. 

| <<< Note 1263.94 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| How depraved and sad it is to believe in Jesus Christ and yet lack the
| faith to believe his warnings of the upcoming judgement.

	So smarten up already!

| <<< Note 1263.95 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| This is a life and death decision.  You don't have time for deception, you 
| must choose the truth and insure your salvation.  Obviously you don't know 
| how this is done.

	Mike.... you take the pie (just ate pumpkin pie, yum) on this. But to
play the game... faith in Him. Simple enough, huh?




Glen

>>    Who are you praying to?  who is your faith in?  It's hard because there

 >   That's:  Whom are you praying to?  Whom is your faith in?  etc.



   Actually, its "to whom are you praying" and "in whom is your faith".




 Jim  

>                              -< hope this helps >-

    Actually, it does.  I was just going to correct one thing
    at a time.  Either way :-)

    Glen:
    
    It's not that the Bible isn't totally inerrent.  The real issue here is
    that you don't believe.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1263.105 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| It's not that the Bible isn't totally inerrent.  The real issue here is
| that you don't believe.

	I don't believe the Bible is the Word of God, yes. If this is not what
you were getting at, please respond.

    What I was getting at, Glen, is that you adherred to a teaching of
    Jesus Christ..."Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom
    of God."  I was trying to understand how you reached this conclusion
    for yourself.  
    
    Your doctrine is very sparse and incoherent.  I judge you not on your
    salvation but I still have no idea as to why you claim to be born
    again.  
    
    It need no longer be discussed.
    
    -Jack

John 3:3  Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say
          unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the
          kingdom of God.

In how many Gospels did the author feel it was important to record
these words of Jesus?

Richard

    Glen,
    
    	Let me ask you what you haven't been asked yet.  Why do you believe
    Jesus didn't in fact speak these words?
    
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 1263.107 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| What I was getting at, Glen, is that you adherred to a teaching of Jesus 
| Christ..."Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."  

	I don't think I adhere to it in the same manner as yourself. I think
someone has to know Him in order to get into Heaven. I think someone has to
accept Him in order to get into Heaven. Because if you don't know and accept,
how can you get there? 




Glen

    Is it just plain possible that some of the people who contributed
    to the history in the Bible, might, just might, have had a
    personal agenda?  That most of the stuff in there is very useful
    and wise, but perhaps a few beliefs that crept in were not 
    necessarily spoken by Jesus but were beliefs widely held among
    that community.

    BTW: Does Paul or James quote from any of the Gospels?

    Tom

 Z   In how many Gospels did the author feel it was important to record
 Z   these words of Jesus?
    
    The three synoptics gave accounts of the incidents during Jesus
    ministy.  They were each directed at different peoples.  The gospel of
    John is more doctrinal in nature and devulged in the testimony of God's
    plan of salvation.  This would make sense since John was one of Jesus'
    closest apostles.  
    
    Besides, the amount of times it is addressed is a non sequitor.  The
    word Church is only mentioned a few times yet church is the most
    prominent sign of a countries faith in Western culture.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1263.109 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Psalm 85.10" >>>

| Let me ask you what you haven't been asked yet.  Why do you believe Jesus 
| didn't in fact speak these words?


	Good question, Richard. People have said because the Bible is the Word
of God, that Jesus spoke these words. For them, that is fine.

	I do not believe the Bible is the Word of God. And because of that I
can't accept that He said those words, just because a book said He did. 

	We have seen how our history books have been revised over the years
because whoever was keeping track got it wrong. I can't base what is supposed
to be Truth on such a possibility. To *me*, God is Perfect Truth. If I am to
hold to that, then only things He shows me can be perfect. I can't trust a book
written by men who claim Jesus said this or that, is true. The book is only
proven by using itself. That is not a good gauge.



Glen

 Z  I don't think I adhere to it in the same manner as yourself.
 Z   I think someone has to know Him in order to get into Heaven. I think someone
 Z   has to
 Z   accept Him in order to get into Heaven. Because if you don't know and
 Z   accept, how can you get there?
    
    So you do agree then that there are people who know him and people who
    do not know him?  Okay, we are on the same understanding there.  I
    think you and I are also in synch with everything above except your
    first statement.  Also, if you believe there are some who know him and
    some who do not, then what is so hard to believe about the sheep and
    the goats?
    
    -jACK

 z   To *me*, God is Perfect Truth. If I am to
 z   hold to that, then only things He shows me can be perfect.
    
    This belief of course would have to be manufactured, since you are not
    a prophet.
    
    -Jack

.112

>    The three synoptics gave accounts of the incidents during Jesus
>    ministy.  They were each directed at different peoples.  The gospel of
>    John is more doctrinal in nature and devulged in the testimony of God's
>    plan of salvation.  This would make sense since John was one of Jesus'
>    closest apostles.

The Gospel of John has an audience in mind, too.  The late date in which it
was written may have had more to do with what Tom has already suggested.

That John the disciple and the author of the Gospel are the same individual
is more a matter of tradition than of fact.

The Gospel of John met with no small resistance regarding its inclusion in
the canon.
    
>    Besides, the amount of times it is addressed is a non sequitor.  The
>    word Church is only mentioned a few times yet church is the most
>    prominent sign of a countries faith in Western culture.

I wouldn't be inclined to dismiss either matter so off-handedly.

Richard

    So from what I hear you saying, it is quite viable in your mind that
    the doctrine put forth by John the apostle is a sham?  Do you reject
    John 3, or any of the gospel for that matter?
    
    -Jack

I can't understand why, in your mind, something is either
100% accurate or a "sham".

The rest of the world operates somewhere inbetween these 
two extremes.  Why the "black and white" attitude?

Tom

    I don't have a black and white attitude.  I take into account who it
    was written to and the struggles that particular audience is trying to
    cope with.
    
    My contention is that Richard, who believes that Jesus is Lord and
    Savior seems to go out of his way to defend the position of non belief
    and skepticism.  My inquiry is geared to understand what he really
    believes regarding the gospel of John.
    
    -Jack

    Paul, through the Holy Spirit, wrote in 1 Corinthians why this is such
    a "black & white" issue.  If the scriptures are false (and Paul does
    refer to the synoptic gospels as scripture), then our belief is in
    vain.
    
15:1  Moreover, brethren, I declare unto you the gospel which I preached unto
 you, which also ye have received, and wherein ye stand;
15:2  By which also ye are saved, if ye keep in memory what I preached unto
 you, unless ye have believed in vain.
15:3  For I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, how
 that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures;
15:4  And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to
 the scriptures:
15:5  And that he was seen of Cephas, then of the twelve:
15:6  After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom
 the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.
15:7  After that, he was seen of James; then of all the apostles.
15:8  And last of all he was seen of me also, as of one born out of due time.
15:9  For I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an
 apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.
15:10  But by the grace of God I am what I am: and his grace which was bestowed
 upon me was not in vain; but I laboured more abundantly than they all: yet not
 I, but the grace of God which was with me.
15:11  Therefore whether it were I or they, so we preach, and so ye believed.
15:12  Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among
 you that there is no resurrection of the dead?
15:13  But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:
15:14  And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith
 is also vain.
15:15  Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified
 of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead
 rise not.
15:16  For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:
15:17  And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your
 sins.
15:18  Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.
15:19  If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men most
 miserable.
15:20  But now is Christ risen from the dead, and become the firstfruits of
 them that slept.
15:21  For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the
 dead.
15:22  For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.
15:23  But every man in his own order: Christ the firstfruits; afterward they
 that are Christ's at his coming.

|    Is it just plain possible that some of the people who contributed
|    to the history in the Bible, might, just might, have had a
|    personal agenda?  That most of the stuff in there is very useful
|    and wise, but perhaps a few beliefs that crept in were not 
|    necessarily spoken by Jesus but were beliefs widely held among
|    that community.
    
    Christianity was too unpopular in the community for that to happen.  In
    addition, scribes were very meticulous and perfectionists in
    reproducing scrolls.  The life and artistry of a scribe is a
    fascinating study of its own.
    
    Mike

    |    It seems you're very big on belief but very short on faith.
    
    Tom, the difference between you and I here is that I don't have faith
    for faith's sake.  The object of faith is what is important.  The
    object of your faith is faith itself and some unknown goddess.  The
    object of my faith is the only true living God with whom I have a personal 
    relationship and who provides the baseline.
    
    Mike

    Mike the fact that you can't see god(dess) as gender neutral is an
    issue with me as to how well you know him or her, or tomato for that
    matter. 
    
    If she in her feminine form is as foreign to you as he in his masculine
    form is not to me, I somehow don't think either of them is as confused
    about gender as humans are.
    
    

You say that the goddess is gender neutral, yet you describe a consort and
sexual activity as part of the rituals of the Craft?

/john

| <<< Note 1263.114 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| So you do agree then that there are people who know him and people who
| do not know him?  

	I agree that there are people who know Him, but really don't "know
Him" as well.

| Also, if you believe there are some who know him and some who do not, then 
| what is so hard to believe about the sheep and the goats?

	Because of the source of the information. 


Glen

re Note 1263.115 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>  z   To *me*, God is Perfect Truth. If I am to
>  z   hold to that, then only things He shows me can be perfect.
>     
>     This belief of course would have to be manufactured, since you are not
>     a prophet.
  
        Well, you have to begin by "manufacturing" (your word)
        *something* -- be it "God is Perfect Truth" or "the Bible is
        Perfect Truth".

        You are not on superior ground here -- and I humbly submit
        that "God is Perfect Truth" is much more a priori plausible
        than "the Bible is Perfect Truth" (and in fact the latter
        would make no sense unless the former were *also* true).

        Bob

re Note 1263.119 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     My contention is that Richard, who believes that Jesus is Lord and
>     Savior seems to go out of his way to defend the position of non belief
>     and skepticism.  

        Count me in this camp as well.

        For me, personally, faith is strengthened and tested and
        defined by inquiry and reason.  I fully understand that this
        doesn't work for everyone, and that for many "just accept it"
        is the true definition of faith.  

        As long as there can be good faith and bad faith, faith in
        truth and faith in lies, faith in substance and faith in
        fictions, then for me faith must be examined.

        Bob

    ZZ       Count me in this camp as well.
    
    Well, I seem to recall Jesus speaking of the church as the light of the
    world and the salt of the earth.  While there is certainly nothing
    wrong with inquiry and prudence in following a belief, the two of you,
    from what I've seen, have already subscribed to belief in Christ. 
    Therefore, it is my contention that your skepticism as believers is
    simply not producing any fruit.  
    
    As crude an analogy as it is, I as a Toyota Sales Rep would consider it
    ludicrous for one of my colleagues to speak to a customer and degrade
    the act of buying foreign cars.  Seems to me like said colleague would
    want to work at a GM dealership or some such.
    
    -Jack

Re .121 (Mike)

>    Christianity was too unpopular in the community for that to happen. 
In
>    addition, scribes were very meticulous and perfectionists in
>    reproducing scrolls.  The life and artistry of a scribe is a

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the gospels are recollections, or recollections
of recollections of the life and teachings of Jesus.  A more secular view
might question how well someone could recall what a teacher said decades
earlier, or, what someone told someone a teacher said.  The transcription to
paper is not what's in question so much as the human factor between the life
and times of Jesus and the point when it was all written down.  I just
mention the fact that some of these gospels were discarded in the
canonization (a form of editing in it's own right).  As for everything after
the gospels, the authors might very easiliy be seen as having an agenda. I'm
sure that what was written down was accurate, it's the objectivity of the
authors that seem questionable.

If you believe that the bible was divinely inspired, and truth cover to
cover, then the whole discussion is moot.

Re .123 (Meg)

>I somehow don't think either of them is as confused about gender as humans
>are.

A quote I think you'll enjoy...

"If God made man in his own image, man has certainly returned the favor"
 -Voltaire

-dave

    RE: .122

>    Tom, the difference between you and I here is that I don't have faith
>    for faith's sake.  The object of faith is what is important.  

    You haven't been paying attention.


>    The
>    object of your faith is faith itself and some unknown goddess.

    That is simply a lie.

>    The
>    object of my faith is the only true living God with whom I have a personal 
>    relationship and who provides the baseline.

    Yeah, right....

|    Mike the fact that you can't see god(dess) as gender neutral is an
|    issue with me as to how well you know him or her, or tomato for that
|    matter. 
|    
|    If she in her feminine form is as foreign to you as he in his masculine
|    form is not to me, I somehow don't think either of them is as confused
|    about gender as humans are.
    
    Meg, you are absolutely correct.  I don't know your god and you don't
    know my God.  We worship vastly different deities.  My God has revealed
    Himself in His Word.  I know nothing about your god and you have
    provided no concrete evidence so that we may know this god.
    
    Mike

    Re: Tom
    
    If you believe I've misrepresented you, then explain it to me.  What
    you have presented so far only shows that the object of your faith is
    faith and an unknown god.
    
    Re: Dave
    
    I'd recommend you get a copy of "Evidence that Demands a Verdict, vol.
    1" by Josh McDowell (ISBN 0-918956-46-3, Here's Life Publishers).  A
    third of the book is devoted to the Bible: its uniqueness, its
    preparation, the canon, its reliability (historical & archaeological
    tests).
    
    Mike

>    Meg, you are absolutely correct.  I don't know your god and you don't
>    know my God.  We worship vastly different deities.  My God has revealed
>    Himself in His Word.  I know nothing about your god and you have
>    provided no concrete evidence so that we may know this god.

    Ya know, Mike?  I'm starting to agree with you on part of this.

    God created and permeates the universe, is loving and ever
    present.  He sent Jesus and many others to help straighten 
    us out and show  us how to get ourselves out of our mess.  
    This is the God I worship.  This is the God Meg worships.  
    You've made it clear that this isn't the god you worship.

    God is inclusive, almighty and Her essence is Love.  S/He
    is not petty or elitist.  She makes the sun to shine and
    the wind to blow.  He brings the warm weather and the
    driving snow.  S/He brings love and patience and wisdom
    into the hearts of those who seek Him.
    
    It's ok, Mike.  God is very patient.  He'll wait for you
    as long as necessary for you to get it right.  In the
    mean time, it's frightful to think what it must be like
    in the world you've created.

    Tom

    Mike:
    
    Keep in mind two things.  First there was God. All other forms of
    worship stemmed off from the one true God.  
    
    Tom, your last speech was very scriptural.  It is likened to the book
    of Job.  Jobs three friendsused much of the same jargon you
    used...mixed with humanist philosophy.  God is all powerful, he is
    every place.  Yes, I remember reading those passages.  It sounds nice
    on paper and all, but it's half truths and as the old metaphor goes, it
    only takes one bad apple to ruin the whole barrel.
    
    -Jack

    Tom, tell me more about your Jesus.  

    Tom:
    
    Understand I don't mean to enter condecending notes.  I am so firmly
    convinced that the human condition is inherently bad, that the mere
    suggestion of inheriting eternal life through good works...or the idea
    that Jesus died as a martyr is...well, very foreign to me.
    
    -Jack

>    Tom, tell me more about your Jesus.  

    I've tried but you persist in your folly.

 ZZ   I've tried but you persist in your folly.
    
    You have spoken solely of his attributes but you have never really
    addressed the issue of sin and redemption.  It is a given that God is
    omnipotent, omnipresent, and loving.  
    
    -Jack

>    convinced that the human condition is inherently bad, that the mere

    Without God to raise us up, I'm inclined to agree.

>    suggestion of inheriting eternal life through good works...or the idea

    Eternal life is through awakening.  Good works may not be absolutely
    necessary, but they make the process a lot more reasonable.

>    that Jesus died as a martyr is...well, very foreign to me.

    I don't know as I ever claimed that.

    Tom

    RE .132 (Mike)
    
    That's the second time inside a week that someone's recommended that
    book to me.  Sounds like it'll be good reading while I'm on the
    Vineyard this weekend.  But I've got to warn you, I've read "Genisus
    and the Big Bang" and found oodles of problems with the science used
    and claims made.  But, I'll keep an open mind, bread the book and see
    what happens.
    
    Re .132 (Jack)
    
    Mysticism with overtones of (God=Nature) is well rooted in parts of 
    many well established christian churches.  Sometimes I think it's more
    a matter of definition than anything else.  If you define "Universe" as
    "All that there is", and God "is", then God is part of the universe. 
    Also, if a person "is" then both God and the person are part of the
    same thing... the Universe.  It's a systems approach to the problem.
    
    -dave

    No, you haven't.  But I have talked to others here who have.
    
 ZZZ    Without God to raise us up, I'm inclined to agree.
    
    In this instance I am in disagreement with you on inclusiveness. 
    Decision of God to raise us up is a requirement of our own free
    volition.  This is why I asked Glen repeatedly what is meant when Jesus
    teaches on the sheep and the goats.
    
    -Jack

>    You have spoken solely of his attributes but you have never really
>    addressed the issue of sin and redemption.  

    Ok.  Sin is  whatever moves us from God.  Once awakened whenever
    we sin we have a good chance of becoming aware of it.  We say
    "oops", acknowledge we feel bad about it and set about to do
    better.  By confessing our sins we can then let them go because
    we know they are forgiven.

    's funny.  The first time I really felt the grace of forgiveness
    and acceptance was at a service I attended where the sermon was
    on homosexuality.  The basic message was that we all fall short
    of the mark.  Why pick on gay people?

    The burden of having to be perfect all the time was lifted.  God
    accepts me for who I am.  I didn't have to be gay to get that
    message.  I can't do my best while carrying that burden of
    trying to be perfect and holding my sins to myself.

    Jesus has shown us the way of this. 

>    It is a given that God is omnipotent, omnipresent, and loving.  

    Yes.  Then whom is Mike worshipping?

    Tom

>    In this instance I am in disagreement with you on inclusiveness. 
>    Decision of God to raise us up is a requirement of our own free
>    volition.  

    In order to get the full benefit of God's help and love, we
    have to work with it, seek it.  Heck (!) We at least have
    to be *open* to it!

    There is one unifying God.  He has many faces and many forms,
    some masculine and some feminine.  Where we seem to disagree
    is that I believe that all forms of God will respond to
    any that call out to Her.  I think you believe that only one
    form will do.

    May you always be close to God, in whichever form you perceive
    Him to be.

    Tom

Z    Ok.  Sin is  whatever moves us from God.  Once awakened whenever
Z    we sin we have a good chance of becoming aware of it.  We say
Z    "oops", acknowledge we feel bad about it and set about to do
Z    better.  By confessing our sins we can then let them go because
Z    we know they are forgiven.

Now this is a very good explanation of the redemptive process of a believer.  
This is how we come back into fellowship with God.  I think we both agree on
this.  However, there is one little aspect of faith involved before this 
process can take place.  

Communication with a Holy God requires a knitting together with God.  
Surely by now you are familiar with the seperation fact; as you alluded to 
below, we all fall short of the glory of God.  How then would you propose one
who is seperated from God to be able to communicate with God?  A rhetorical 
question that calls for the obvious answer...one cannot.

Therefore, a redemptive process MUST take place before communication can result.
I very much like the verse written by the same apostle who wrote "God is love."
He stated, "My beloved children, my prayer is that you do not sin ; but if 
you do sin, you have an advocate with the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ.  

A very good allegory is likened to one standing before a judge.  Our judicial 
system uses advocacy as the tenet for defending a person.  It is always the 
lawyer who is paramount to the decision of the court.  What better defender 
Jesus, who not only advocates but is also in total likemindedness with the 
Father.  Talk about family connections.

Now, what is your opinion of the concept of advocacy here?  If you still want
to know who the God is that Mike worships, then I would say this is the God.
Yes without doubt a God of mercy and love, but also a God of Holiness and 
Righteousness, who cannot communicate with one who is unredeemed.

Do you believe an advocate is necessary to achieve redemption?


Z    's funny.  The first time I really felt the grace of forgiveness
Z    and acceptance was at a service I attended where the sermon was
Z    on homosexuality.  The basic message was that we all fall short
Z    of the mark.  Why pick on gay people?

Tom, I can't disagree at all here.  The only point I would make on the issue 
of our inherent nature is that sin is not something we should cleave to just
because God accepts us for who we are.  Gay people should not be picked on...
that's condecending foolishness.  However, sexual immorality is NOT something
we have license to just because of who we are.  And yes, I am making this a 
sexual issue because afterall, being gay is not the willful sin here but 
succumbing to our nature is.

-Jack

    Jack (if I may intrude)....
    
    I find this confussing.  You pose God as Judge, Jesus as the lawyer and
    the person as the defendant.  Yet it's said that God=Jesus.
    
    It's not a family connection, more like the Judge and defeding lawyer
    are one in the same. 
    
    Is there a spurious disconnection being made here between Jesus and
    God?
    
    -dave

>How then would you propose one
>who is seperated from God to be able to communicate with God?  

    Yell as loud as you can, "GOD!  HEY GOD!  I NEED TO TALK TO YOU!"

>A rhetorical 
>question that calls for the obvious answer...one cannot.

    :-) see above.  God can do anything.  But, can the person
    *hear*?  I'm in networking so these points are important :-)

>lawyer who is paramount to the decision of the court.  What better defender 
>Jesus, who not only advocates but is also in total likemindedness with the 
>Father.  Talk about family connections.

    Not only is He good when you're in a rowe with God, He's good
    when you're in a rowe with yourself.  Day to day, I face more
    of my own judgement with myself than God's direct judgement.

>Now, what is your opinion of the concept of advocacy here?  

    I don't tend to look at it like that but I'm comfortable with
    the concept.

>If you still want
>to know who the God is that Mike worships, then I would say this is the God.

    Well, that's Whom I'm talking about.  But Mike keeps telling us
    It's not.  What am I supposed to say?

>Yes without doubt a God of mercy and love, but also a God of Holiness and 
>Righteousness, who cannot communicate with one who is unredeemed.

    Even with a burning bush?  I try not to put bounds on God.  I find
    it doesn't work :-)

>Do you believe an advocate is necessary to achieve redemption?

    No.  God can do it.  I'm sure He's up to it.  But an advocate sure helps!
    Especially when dealing with your own stuff.

>of our inherent nature is that sin is not something we should cleave to just
>because God accepts us for who we are.  

    I think you mean "cling to".  Anyway, good heavens, no!  Sin is
    it's own reward.  A fast ticket into misery.

    Some sin/addictions are easier to give up than others.  We continue
    to suffer from the sin that we can't let go of until we are strong
    enough.  Good works may not help you get into heaven, but they'll
    certainly make your life here much better.

>However, sexual immorality is NOT something
>we have license to just because of who we are.  

    I'll leave this for another notes string. :-)

    Tom

RE: .145 Dave

>    I find this confussing.  You pose God as Judge, Jesus as the lawyer and
>    the person as the defendant.  Yet it's said that God=Jesus.

    That one sweet heart deal, isn't it  ;^)

    One way my beliefs differ from Jack, though, is that I don't believe
    that Jesus is the only possible advocate.

    Tom

|    That's the second time inside a week that someone's recommended that
|    book to me.  Sounds like it'll be good reading while I'm on the
|    Vineyard this weekend.  But I've got to warn you, I've read "Genisus
|    and the Big Bang" and found oodles of problems with the science used
|    and claims made.  But, I'll keep an open mind, bread the book and see
|    what happens.
    
    What was it in Dr. Gerald Schroeder's book that you had problems with?  

|>    Tom, tell me more about your Jesus.  
|
|    I've tried but you persist in your folly.
    
    Is your Jesus God?
    Is your Jesus the only name under which we can find salvation?
    Is your Jesus the propitiation for the world's sin?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

    Tom:
    
    Well, just as an FYI, God has put limitations on himself.  You speak
    correctly in that God can do anything; however, I would submit to you
    that praying soft or very loud will still produce the same effect. 
    Until the redemptive process takes place, we are at enmity with God and
    enemies of the most high.  I know this is a foreign concept to you but
    there you have it.
    
    In regard to advocacy, it has become clear to me that the the only
    advocate between God the Father and man would have to be without sin. 
    Good works as a redeemer is as a bandage is to a head cold...it is a
    non sequitor.  Therefore, the advocate would have to be a supernatural
    being of some sort.  
    
    "Why callest me good?  There is none good except my Father in heaven." 
    Jesus was claiming his deity here by entrapping the pharisees with a
    question.  If you pharisees call me good, and only God is good, then
    you are affirming my deity.  From their own mouths.  
    
    I believe God has a plan of salvation.  From a biblical perspective,
    the belief in other advocates indicates a misunderstanding of the
    redemptive process.  Since God is the only good being, and since only a
    good being can redeem us, then we apply the Associative Property here.  
    If A =B and B=C, then A=C.  Jesus, the encompassing of God the Father,
    is the only one who can redeem sinful man.  God does not accept
    imitations.
    
    -Jack

    Re .147 (Tom)
    
    >That one sweet heart deal, isn't it  ;^)
    
    Depends on where He's sitting... next to you or on the bench :-O
    
    I've heard Jesus described as a lens through which people can see God.
    The lens is ground to correct for the flaws inherent in the people and
    culture for which it was made.  That lens works great for some, fair
    for others, not at all for others still.  They need different lenses
    which God provided.
    
    Interesting analogy anyway.
    
    I wanted to comment on something you said earlier about "good deeds".
    In light of the eastern approach, my interpretation is that good deeds
    flow from one who is enlightened, or reborn, not out of any effort or
    intention on their part.  They just happen because that sort of thing
    has become part of that person's nature.  The deeds are not perceived
    as being "good" or "bad" by the doer.  They're like breathing or
    walking.
    
    -dave
    
     

>    I wanted to comment on something you said earlier about "good deeds".
>    In light of the eastern approach, my interpretation is that good deeds
>    flow from one who is enlightened, or reborn, not out of any effort or
>    intention on their part.  They just happen because that sort of thing
>    has become part of that person's nature.  The deeds are not perceived
>    as being "good" or "bad" by the doer.  They're like breathing or
>    walking.

    Rebirth is the precursor to enlightenment, I believe.  It is
    the first step from being self willed to Self willed or
    God willed.  It's not that you end up with God's powers it's
    that, after all of your sin is washed away you understand
    that there is no distance between you and God and that you
    *realize* you are just an extention of God - no personal
    will.  God has taken over.

    Rebirth happens all the time.  Enlightenment doesn't happen
    very often.

    Along the path it helps to have help.  Sometimes it's outright
    necessary.  The obsticle can be your circumstances or it can be
    yourself.  You'll do well to have a guide, an advocate.

    If this sounds different from what I've noted before, please 
    realize that I consider these things to be simply two sides
    of the same coin.

    Tom

>    >That one sweet heart deal, isn't it  ;^)
>    
>    Depends on where He's sitting... next to you or on the bench :-O
>    
>    I've heard Jesus described as a lens through which people can see God.
>    The lens is ground to correct for the flaws inherent in the people and
>    culture for which it was made.  That lens works great for some, fair
>    for others, not at all for others still.  They need different lenses
>    which God provided.

And it's all so wonderful and clear.  To use whichever lens
works.  It's all so simple.  Why do we argue on and on about
stuff?  Doesn't it get in the way of looking, seeing, rejoicing
and worshipping?

As I said, some sins are easier to give up than others.....

Tom

|works.  It's all so simple.  Why do we argue on and on about
|stuff?  Doesn't it get in the way of looking, seeing, rejoicing
|and worshipping?
    
    Because we worship a different Jesus, God in the flesh.

    It's said that Jesus is the only begotten son of GOd.  Yet...
    
    "Blessed are the peacemakers for they shll be called the children of
    God"
    
    How many children can God have?  
    
    What is really meant by the word "son" , "children"?
    
    So vague and ambiguous.
    
    -dave

    Dave, read Romans 8.

re Note 1263.119 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     My contention is that Richard, who believes that Jesus is Lord and
>     Savior seems to go out of his way to defend the position of non belief
>     and skepticism.  

I believe my first loyalty is to the truth.  I don't think the truth should
detract from the work.  If it does, where does that suggest the problem is
really located?

I believe the Gospel of John is an extraordinary and inspired work.

Richard

>I believe my first loyalty is to the truth.  I don't think the truth should
>detract from the work.  If it does, where does that suggest the problem is
>really located?
    
    I believe your first loyalty is to what you believe, not to the truth. 
    To use the word "truth" as a thing which all can discuss and agree or
    disagree with is to imply and require a non-subjective system for
    establishing truth in the first place.  You have no such system that
    I'm aware of.
    
    jeff

re Note 1263.158 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     I believe your first loyalty is to what you believe, not to the truth. 
  
        I find this shocking.

        Some of us feel quite the other way around (loyalty to truth,
        with what we believe necessarily driven by the search for
        truth).

        This may be the crucial distinction behind the irreconcilable
        differences that often appear in these discussions.

        Bob

    
    Yes, Bob, there is no doubt that the issue of "truth" is pivotal to
    most differences here.
    
    jeff

	Jeff, the way you carry on it would appear you are the only one in here
that knows what the total truth is. Because you spend so much time telling
everyone they are wrong!

    Glen:
    
    Suffice to say that when a doctrinal hypothesis is stated, it needs to
    meet the test of scriptural standing.  Humanism, which appears to be
    your belief system, is obviously contrary to that of a fundamentalist. 
    Therefore, what would you expect?
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1263.162 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Suffice to say that when a doctrinal hypothesis is stated, it needs to
| meet the test of scriptural standing.  

	Jack, you haven't yet stated how you tested the Scripture to get its
validity in the 1st place. Oh wait... you did before.... you said the Bible
states it is the Word of God. No benchmark there....

| Therefore, what would you expect?

	Reality?

	Why is it that the one person who talks about other people's truth
hasn't addressed their own? Seems kind of hypocritical to me.


Glen

.158

>    I believe your first loyalty is to what you believe, not to the truth. 

Believe what you will, Mr. Benson.  My first loyalty is to the truth, the truth
as I have been able to discern it.  Like you, I do not make it up.  Neither,
however, do I expect the entire weight of truth to be confined to any single
external object, institution, doctrine or system.  Nor has it been exhibited
to me that doing so is somehow superior.

Richard

>    I believe your first loyalty is to what you believe, not to the truth. 

>>Believe what you will, Mr. Benson.  My first loyalty is to the truth, the truth
>>as I have been able to discern it.  Like you, I do not make it up.  Neither,
>>however, do I expect the entire weight of truth to be confined to any single
>>external object, institution, doctrine or system.  Nor has it been exhibited
>>to me that doing so is somehow superior.

>>Richard
    
    The "truth as you have been able to discern it", Richard, implies a
    subjective approach without *any* less-subjective approaches.  But
    that's the nature of our times.
    
    jeff

re Note 1263.167 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     The "truth as you have been able to discern it", Richard, implies a
>     subjective approach without *any* less-subjective approaches.  

        No it doesn't, jeff!

        That's the best you or I or any human being can do.

        Do you claim that you can do otherwise?

        I suppose you insist on your self-delusion that since you
        call the Bible "truth", and since the Bible (according to
        your reading) says that it itself is truth, that therefore
        you haven't had to "discern" anything.

        jeff, you are still discerning what is true.

        If you call Richard's approach "subjective", then your
        approach is "subjective", too.

        Bob

    >Humanism, which appears to be your belief system, is obviously contrary
    >to that of a fundamentalist. 
     
    >-Jack
    
    
    Jack,
    
    What do you think you gain by making hasty generalizations about
    someone else's belief system?
    
    What do you know about humanism to make such generalizations?
    
    Do you worry about your own bearing of false witness by oversimplifying
    and overgeneralizing on someone's belief system.
    
    
    There is nothing that I read in Glen's noting to make me think of Glen
    as a secular humanist. 
    
     Christian Humanism or other Religios Humanism is very different. 
    
    Christian humanism  is based on Jesus' warning that whatever we do or do
    not do to the least of his, we do to him and we will be accountable as if
    we do it to him?
    
    Is that belief contrary to that of a fundementalist?
    
    

Z    Jack, you haven't yet stated how you tested the Scripture to get its
Z    validity in the 1st place. Oh wait... you did before.... you said the
Z    Bible states it is the Word of God. No benchmark there....
    
    Actually Glen, you are correct as it would be somewhat irresponsible
    for somebody to blindly follow a text or a source that self affirms
    itself.  
    
    Understand Glen that Pauls statement was written at the very end of his
    life...after years of study and devotion to scriptural texts.  Also I
    consider the fact that he was an apostle of Jesus Christ and a prophet
    as well.  Pauls missionary journeys turned the world upside down and
    hence he became an enemy to Rome, his homeland, and his people.  This
    in my book qualifies the writings of Paul as inspired by your
    standards, and God breathed by my standards.  
    
    I find your responses to be somewhat cynical regarding the authority of
    scripture and I can understand this considering some of the conflict
    you have with it.  Nevertheless, truth is a constant and is never
    changing, no matter how insensitive you may perceive it.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1263.170 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Understand Glen that Pauls statement was written at the very end of his
| life...after years of study and devotion to scriptural texts.  

	Paul.... the opinion man. Takes credit for an idea in a book about
God's Word. The Holy Spirit was supposed to have been with him at the time, but
he still said what he was about to say is not from God. That leaves us with
a couple of options:


	1) Paul wasn't listening to the Holy Spirit and took credit for 
	   something that was supposed to come from God. This could also
	   mean that other human influences were involved with the other
	   authors, so the Bible can not be inerrant, or the Word of God.

	2) Paul just flat out came up with the idea, and said what it was. 
	   This would mean that his human opinion is in the book that is
	   supposed to be God's Word. This also means that human influence 
	   is in the Bible. This leads to the Bible not being inerrant (due
	   to human influence) and can't be God's Word (due to human opinions).


	I know, I know... it doesn't go against Scripture. So what? If
something is not from God, and it is in the book of God's Word, then you
have a contradiction.

| I find your responses to be somewhat cynical regarding the authority of
| scripture and I can understand this considering some of the conflict you have 
| with it.  

	I never have conflict with the Bible. Everytime God leads me to it the
reason is His. And when that happens, it's perfect.

	I do have a problem with how some interpret the Bible, or hold it up
there equal to God.



Glen

 do you ever actually read what people write Glen?  Particularly that
 passage in 1Corinthians which has been explained to you so many times
 I'd think you'd have it memorized by now.



 Jim

 Z   Christian humanism  is based on Jesus' warning that whatever we do or
 Z   do not do to the least of his, we do to him and we will be accountable
 Z   as if we do it to him?
        
 Z       Is that belief contrary to that of a fundementalist?
    
    First may I say Patricia, it is good to have you back...and of course
    it is always awakening to be challenged on my intent.  I was careful to
    use a qualifier in my statement.  I said it APPEARS.  I do this because
    I am looking for accountability in our dialog.  You will find this to
    be a key tool of proper debate and what's more, we learn from it. 
    Bearing false witness by the way infers an underhanded desire to lie
    about somebody's character.  My comments have to do with the integrity
    of one's belief system.
    
    I believe the quote Jesus gave is very much appropo not only to
    believers but to non believers.  I do believe however that the end
    result of negative actions are differing.  To the non believer, "Truly
    I say, it will be more terrible for Sodom and Gomorrah in those days
    than it shall be for you."  Amazing the emphasis Jesus puts on the
    simple act of disbelief.  To the believer, we are exempt from such a
    wrath because we are in a redeemed condition.  It isn't anything to be
    prideful over but it is something to be extremely thankful for.
    
    Patricia, I see...I observe you mixing up the components of tolerating
    sin and valuing diversity.  Remember, it is not who we are that
    shouldn't be tolerated...we all are cut from the same cloth.  It is
    what we do with our gifts or what we do with the thorn in our side that
    counts.  Remember 2nd Thessolonians 3...the responsibility of a
    church member walking circumspectly and how they are to be seen if they
    do not.  Not hated but loved and admonished as a brother or sister.
    
    -Jack 

| <<< Note 1263.172 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>



| do you ever actually read what people write Glen?  Particularly that
| passage in 1Corinthians which has been explained to you so many times
| I'd think you'd have it memorized by now.

	Jim... using the thing in question to prove itself does not make it 
valid. And yes, I read what people wrote. Saying it doesn't go against
Scripture does not change the fact that it was Paul's opinion.

 So context is of no value, is that correct?




 Jim

    I really think the problem is that acceptance of the Bible as God's
    Word forces one to allow it to filter your life, resulting in changes
    that one isn't willing to accept.
    
    Mike

 

  You mean like Hebrews 4:12, Mike?


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

    regarding point .176 and .177
    
    Those points are equally true regardless of whether one holds the bible
    to be innerrant or not.
    
    A person committed to God's truth let's God's truth filtar thru their
    life.
    
    The question remains as to what is God's truth and how we know what is
    God's truth.
    
                            Patricia

    .168
    
    Hi Bob,
    
    I don't know why you feel the need to offer a defense of Richard.
    
    Epistemology is apparently so poorly understood by most here so as to
    make it almost impossible to discuss the subject of truth.
    
    In a nutshell, those who argue from external-to-themselves standards
    and/or systems for determining truth offer more objective arguments than 
    those who do not.
    
    jeff

re Note 1263.179 by ALFSS1::BENSON:

>     I don't know why you feel the need to offer a defense of Richard.
  
        It isn't Richard I'm defending -- I'm offended by your
        reasoning.

          
>     In a nutshell, those who argue from external-to-themselves standards
>     and/or systems for determining truth offer more objective arguments than 
>     those who do not.
  
        A couple of observations:

        This is hogwash -- pure poppycock.  The mere fact that
        something is external to oneself does not make that thing
        inherently any truer or better as a guide to truth.  It may
        facilitate argumentation, but don't mistake that for truth.

        You imply that those who do not use the Bible as inerrant
        standard have no external standard.  This is also hogwash --
        pure poppycock.  There is good deal more to creation than the
        Bible, and it all bears God's fingerprints and all expresses
        God's nature.  (If anything, an examination of non-literary
        creation is more reliable, since unlike a written work there
        is no possibility of coloration by a human author.)

  
>     Epistemology is apparently so poorly understood by most here so as to
>     make it almost impossible to discuss the subject of truth.
  
        Regarding epistemology -- what is the source of your external
        standard or system for that?

        Bob

|    Those points are equally true regardless of whether one holds the bible
|    to be innerrant or not.
|    
|    A person committed to God's truth let's God's truth filtar thru their
|    life.
    
    How do the errantists verify that God's truth is filtering their lives?
    
|    The question remains as to what is God's truth and how we know what is
|    God's truth.
    
    The inerrantists know the answer to this question.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 1263.175 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Every knee shall bow" >>>

| So context is of no value, is that correct?

	When dealing with the validity of the Bible, if the context is not a 
direct result of God, you are correct.

| <<< Note 1263.176 by PHXSS1::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| I really think the problem is that acceptance of the Bible as God's Word 
| forces one to allow it to filter your life, resulting in changes that one 
| isn't willing to accept.

	Mike, there wouldn't be any changes I would need to make if I followed
the Bible. 

| <<< Note 1263.179 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| In a nutshell, those who argue from external-to-themselves standards and/or 
| systems for determining truth offer more objective arguments than those who 
| do not.

	And what of those who hide the truth?

>     <<< Note 1263.183 by BIGQ::SILVA "quince.ljo.dec.com/www/decplus/" >>>
>
>	Mike, there wouldn't be any changes I would need to make if I followed
>the Bible. 
    
    Praise God, Glen!  I sure hope to be able to say that some day.  God
    continues to shine His light in areas of my life that need to be
    changed.  As I continue on down sanctification road, I yearn for the
    day, like Paul, when I shed this shell for the full glory God intended
    for me.
    
    Mike

.167

>    The "truth as you have been able to discern it", Richard, implies a
>    subjective approach without *any* less-subjective approaches.  But
>    that's the nature of our times.

I wouldn't say my "approach," as you call it, is entirely subjective.
Neither am I so deluded as to believe that my approach is purely objective.

If your "approach" is superior, you've failed to demonstrate it.

Richard

>    The "truth as you have been able to discern it", Richard, implies a
>    subjective approach without *any* less-subjective approaches.  But
>    that's the nature of our times.

>>I wouldn't say my "approach," as you call it, is entirely subjective.
>>Neither am I so deluded as to believe that my approach is purely objective.
    
    Your approach is completely private as far as I can tell.  You use
    words which imply a subjective approach and you reveal nothing of any
    other approach.  So I draw a conclusion.  There's a big distance
    between "not entirely subjective" and "purely objective".  Are you
    willing to reveal anything concerning standards you use for identifying
    truth?

>>If your "approach" is superior, you've failed to demonstrate it.

>>Richard
    
    It is impossible to compare my approach with your approach since yours
    is not stated.

    jeff

| <<< Note 1263.187 by ALFSS1::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Are you willing to reveal anything concerning standards you use for 
| identifying truth?

	Are you?

>     I don't know why you feel the need to offer a defense of Richard.
  
>>        It isn't Richard I'm defending -- I'm offended by your
>>        reasoning.
    
    Why are you offended?

          
>     In a nutshell, those who argue from external-to-themselves standards
>     and/or systems for determining truth offer more objective arguments than 
>     those who do not.
  
>>        A couple of observations:

>>        This is hogwash -- pure poppycock.  The mere fact that
>>        something is external to oneself does not make that thing
>>        inherently any truer or better as a guide to truth.  It may
>>        facilitate argumentation, but don't mistake that for truth.
    
    What I'm trying to say, Bob, is that truth claims are tested not by
    bare assertions but by argumentation.  Bare assertions are subjective.
     
    Identifying truth in this conference always requires argumentation.

    >>    You imply that those who do not use the Bible as inerrant
    >>    standard have no external standard.  This is also hogwash --
    >>    pure poppycock.  
    
    This may be true.  I've no evidence that those who do not believe
    the Bible to be the Word of God have any external standard. Is there
    any evidence here to the contrary?  If so, please point me there.
    
    >>   There is good deal more to creation than the
    >>    Bible, and it all bears God's fingerprints and all expresses
    >>    God's nature.  (If anything, an examination of non-literary
       >> creation is more reliable, since unlike a written work there
       >> is no possibility of coloration by a human author.)
    
    I haven't a clue about what you mean by "non-literary creation".

  
>     Epistemology is apparently so poorly understood by most here so as to
>     make it almost impossible to discuss the subject of truth.
  
        >>Regarding epistemology -- what is the source of your external
        >>standard or system for that?
    
      Rational argumentation - the rules of logic.
    
    jeff

    

.187
    
>    It is impossible to compare my approach with your approach since yours
>    is not stated.

Very well, then.  I'll take you at your word.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    If you were in Stephen's position as he was in Acts, would
    you go out on a limb like he did?  
    
    Vague answers do not always consititute nobility.
    
    -Jack

.191

>    If you were in Stephen's position as he was in Acts, would
>    you go out on a limb like he did?

Or might I hold the cloaks of the righteous ones who stoned him?
    
>    Vague answers do not always consititute nobility.

Have I ever claimed to be striving for nobility?

Richard

    
>    It is impossible to compare my approach with your approach since yours
>    is not stated.

>>Very well, then.  I'll take you at your word.

>>Richard
    
    I should have said that it is impossible to formally compare my
    approach with your approach since yours is not stated.  It does not
    prevent me from informally comparing your approach to my approach. 
    The probability of your approach is reasonably apparent from your words
    here.
    
    jeff

 ZZ   Or might I hold the cloaks of the righteous ones who stoned him?
    
    Well...maybe...you tell me.  It still leaves the question unanswered. 
    I for one believe you are a man of certain convictions, and based on
    your activist background I certain believe you are capable of it.  I
    guess what I'm asking is do you carry the same passion as Stephen had.
    
    -Jack

.193

>    I should have said that it is impossible to formally compare my
>    approach with your approach since yours is not stated.  It does not
>    prevent me from informally comparing your approach to my approach. 
>    The probability of your approach is reasonably apparent from your words
>    here.

I anticipate that you'll do whatever you think you should be doing.

Richard

.194

>    Well...maybe...you tell me.  It still leaves the question unanswered. 
>    I for one believe you are a man of certain convictions, and based on
>    your activist background I certain believe you are capable of it.  I
>    guess what I'm asking is do you carry the same passion as Stephen had.

Oh, maybe.  Or maybe I'm waiting for a time that, like Stephen, I'll get a
nice little write up in the Bible. ;-)

Richard

    Yes indeed....makes one think twice before promising such a response!
    :-}

    .199  
    
sl>     It all comes down to what you believe.  I believe it (the Bible) is God's 
sl>     word, and thus authoritative.  You believe it is the ramblings of man, and 
sl>     not authoritative.  Because of your belief, you can choose parts of the
sl>     Bible that you find attractive and study then, and ignore or
sl>     rationalize the rest.  
  
      
>        You present the alternative to "the Bible is entirely God's
>        word" as if that allows a lazy, pick-and-choose basis for
>        rationalization -- with the implication that your position is
>        the position of honesty, rigor, and intellectual strength.

    I'm not sure how you read this into what I said, especially since I was
    reacting to Glen's method of interpretation, specifically. 
    
    The above was not a blanket statement to all who do not hold the Bible
    to be God's word to mankind. 
    
>        Since it would seem that you believe that the message the
>        Bible conveys (as you read it) is true, perhaps your
>        insistence that "it's all 100% true" is a sign of *your*
>        intellectual laziness -- 
    
    It could very well be.  Unless you know the particulars of my path to
    this understanding, this may not be too difficult a conclusion to jump
    to.  I'll not bore you with details on my studies/search, but I will say
    that intellectual laziness plays no part in this belief, and leave it
    at that.  You are free to take my word for it or not.
    
>    you don't have to defend any
>        position you take in this (or any other forum) as long as you
>        can say "it's in the Bible".  
    
    Yet I'm in here, Soapbox, Christian, etc. defending my particular
    beliefs on specific dogma (though admittedly, in Christian we all start
    with the premise that the Bible is God's revelation to mankind, and
    my argumnets are usually around things like prophesy).
    
>    You don't have to defend
>        genocide, you don't have to defend slaughter of women and
>        children (including the unborn) -- nothing! -- as long as you
>        can quote a verse.

    You are right, I don't have to defend these things... nor would I wish
    to.  They are indefensible, when taken at face value.  The Bible doesn't 
    defend them, either, merely reports them.  In specific cases, for reasons 
    I can only guess at, God sent a decree to wipe out certain peoples.  I 
    don't ignore this, nor do I attempt to sit in judgement of God on this 
    matter.
    
>        How lazy you are!

    Well, this is certainly true at times, I'll admit.  8^)
    
>        How you can ignore any meaningful defense of so much with
>        just a blanket "If it's in there, I believe it is so"!

    I'm still waiting for a meaningful defense from Glen.  8^)
    If you have something you'd like to add to this back and forth between
    Glen and I, please feel free to make your points known.
    
>        Your high horse died long ago, would you please cease trying
>        to beat it!

    I don't have a high horse.  I suppose at one time I did, but I simply
    find it difficult to play the moral high ground card these days.  I
    have my own problems and my own sin to deal with; but one thing that
    this will no stop me from doing is definding God's word.  If this is
    perceived as sitting on a high horse like a jockey with a golden whip,
    then so be it.
    
    
    -steve