Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Jesus is not as flat as some would have you believe.  Differing slants
    do not neccessarily contradict each other.
    
    It is my perception that is considerable resistance to unorthodoxy.
    At least as much as there is here.
    
    Richard
    

    
    I would proffer that in our day and age, after a long period of
    materialism, naturalistic philosophy, and self-centeredness and their 
    results, people (especially aging baby boomers) are seeking something
    different, something metaphysical.  Most of Jesus's teachings are
    "beautiful" and they are all true, of course.  God has spoken and
    people notice.
    
    I would say that the appeal of some of these unorthodox treatments are
    their stripped down flavor.  The offense of the cross, sin and
    judgement, are largely removed or ignored or minimized therefore making
    Jesus palatable.
    
    jeff

    Each generation must find God on their own.

    God is ever new.  The telling of the story gets old and so
    must be reborn after it's gotten stale.   This is why people
    must read the Bible and think for themselves.
    
    I can't grow in my father's religion.  I have to discover
    God for myself, as my children must do.

    Tom

    Re .3 (Tom)  
    
    Yes, I tend to think the same way.  I wonder if that's the way it was
    meant to be.
    
    
    
    Re .1 (Richard)
    
    >Jesus is not as flat as some would have you believe.
    
    Apparently not.  I'm amazed at how well these authors get the image and
    teachings of Jesus to fit their respective disciplines.  Each is guilty
    of picking and choosing the passages that support his/her view while
    conveniently ignoring the rest.  But that sort of thing is nothing new
    in any interpretation.
    
    
    Re .2 (Jeff)
    
    I don't think people are really that much more self centered than in
    the past (in general at least).  Greed and selfishness seems to be
    human attributes which have stood the test of time.  
    
    Your mention of materialism is interesting.  I suppose we're more
    materialistic now due in part to events like the industrial revolution 
    which gave us a lot of "things" to be materialistic about.  And these
    are all resluts of what I'm really trying to mention here, that being
    science.  People have microwave ovens, medical science and computer
    networks to communicate over, all of which are the fruits of the
    practical application of science.  This same science which they've
    grown to know and trust in their everyday lives is telling them that
    traditional biblical stories almost certainly didn't happen.  So how
    does one make the Bible work in the 20th (soon to be the 21st) century?  
    Compromise, reinterpretation, retranslate, and rethink the roots of
    traditional wisdom.  In essense, they may be striving to "fine tune"
    biblical interpretation given the new facts at hand in much the same
    way a scientific theory would be tuned.
    
    
    -dave

>    Each generation must find God on their own.

>    God is ever new.  The telling of the story gets old and so
>    must be reborn after it's gotten stale.   This is why people
>    must read the Bible and think for themselves.
    
>    I can't grow in my father's religion.  I have to discover
>    God for myself, as my children must do.

>    Tom
    
    This is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible.  Throughout
    the Bible God instructs parents to teach their children the truth.
    Indeed God has designated the family as the primary place where His
    truths are propogated from generation to generation.  While my children
    must believe, their instruction in the Christian faith is my
    responsibility and God promises results from my efforts.
    
    God is not ever new.  God never changes - there is no shadow of
    turning with Him.
    
    jeff

>    I don't think people are really that much more self centered than in
>    the past (in general at least).  Greed and selfishness seems to be
>    human attributes which have stood the test of time.  
    
    Oh, I think they are.  The current view of the individual's purpose and 
    role in life and society is thoroughly modern.  Pre-modern civilization
    emphasized and valued country, community, and family significantly more 
    than in our day.
    
    >Your mention of materialism is interesting.  I suppose we're more
    >materialistic now due in part to events like the industrial revolution 
    >which gave us a lot of "things" to be materialistic about.  
    
    We're materialistic because we are naturally materialistic.  Our
    Christian spiritual capital is all spent in our post-Christian society.
    
    >And these
    >are all resluts of what I'm really trying to mention here, that being
    >science.  People have microwave ovens, medical science and computer
    >networks to communicate over, all of which are the fruits of the
    >practical application of science.
    
    There's nothing wrong with these things, they are all useful and they
    improve our lives.  It is the materialism which is the primary goal
    of life which is spiritually and emotionally bankrupt for most people.  
    
    >This same science which they've
    >grown to know and trust in their everyday lives is telling them that
    >traditional biblical stories almost certainly didn't happen.  So how
    >does one make the Bible work in the 20th (soon to be the 21st) century?  
    >Compromise, reinterpretation, retranslate, and rethink the roots of
    >traditional wisdom.  In essense, they may be striving to "fine tune"
    >biblical interpretation given the new facts at hand in much the same
    >way a scientific theory would be tuned.
    
    The science which created the microwave is not the science which says
    biblical stories didn't happen.  The science which creates technology
    does not require at all the presuppositions of naturalistic philosphy,
    which says the biblical stories didn't happen.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1334.5 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| This is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible.  Throughout
| the Bible God instructs parents to teach their children the truth.

	Jeff, I took what Tom said differently. Say you instruct your kids
about Christ. One of your kids rejects that at some point in her/his life. You
can still teach, but that person has to accept Christ on their own. 

	This also works with you teaching, and your son/daughter accepting
Christ. They made the decision. Yes, God used you to help in all this, but they
made the decision themselves.

	About materialistic things. Yeah, it does exist. I have this wonderful
FREE 386, 350 mb hard drive, 16 meg of ram. It is slow, annoying and I keep
wanting to get rid of this free thing. Even though it does everything that I
want it to. Just not as fast as I would like it to. My master plan was to buy
one with my tax returns. Then an opportunity came up where I could move to a
better apartment, better location (ie safer), for $25 more a month. Hmmmm.... 
so I asked God what to do. I said if the apartment was meant to be, let it
happen. If He wants me here, I'll stay here. I got the apartment, so I put the
computer on the back burner. I guess God thought the apartment was the more
important thing. But deep down inside I want both. But that isn't going to
happen. So yeah... materialistic things do happen. 



Glen

    Z    This is why people
    Z    must read the Bible and think for themselves.
     
    This is true.  At the same time we are also called to discipleship and
    the building of the local body.  This means teaching others and being
    taught from others.  There must be likemindedness and God's word must
    be the central focus of that teaching...my opinion of course.
       
    Z    I can't grow in my father's religion.  I have to discover
    Z    God for myself, as my children must do.
    
    This of course is subjective.  No doubt while Solomon would need to
    follow his father's religion, it is also doubtless that Rehoboam would
    want to follow Solomon's religion.  Solomon took on idol worship when
    he married outside the faith.  
    
    -Jack

>    This is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible.  Throughout
>    the Bible God instructs parents to teach their children the truth.

    Teaching is one thing.  Realizing is another.  The words and
    lessons are the same, but the have to be learned fresh by
    everyone.  My language cannot communication fully with my
    children.  They have to find things out for themselves.

>    God is not ever new.  God never changes - there is no shadow of
>    turning with Him.

    You don't understand because you don't want to understand.

    Tom

>    This is diametrically opposed to the teaching of the Bible.  Throughout
>    the Bible God instructs parents to teach their children the truth.

>>    Teaching is one thing.  Realizing is another.  The words and
>>    lessons are the same, but the have to be learned fresh by
>>    everyone.  My language cannot communication fully with my
>>    children.  They have to find things out for themselves.
    
    Realizing follows teaching.  But you've clarified yourself.

>    God is not ever new.  God never changes - there is no shadow of
>    turning with Him.

>>    You don't understand because you don't want to understand.
    
    Or you aren't communicating well or I'm misunderstanding you.  If
    that's not the case, it is not that I don't understand the context from
    which you speak and from whence your ideas and beliefs come, Tom.  I
    understand it quite well.  I reject it because it is pagan, not
    Christian.
    
    jeff

    Hebrews 13:8  
    Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

>    Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

    Did I say otherwise?  If something doesn't change, then it doesn't
    get old, does it?   People discover it afresh all the time.  The
    same fresh Christ, the same fresh God.

    *WE* get old.  Our way of looking at things gets old.  Without
    fresh eyes our vision  gets stale.  God stays the same.  We
    get stale,  unless we renew ourselves.

    Tom

    RE .6 (Jeff)
    
    Pre-modern civilizations may have placed more emphasis on their
    country and community because they were less distracted by all the
    material "things" available to us today.  And teh fruits of a strong
    sense of nationalism and community are not always good (e.g. Nazi
    Germany). 
    
    As Glen mentioned, thoughts and priorities can dwell on a whole realm
    of things which could not have been a concern to a pre-modern people. 
    He mentioned a computer, what about automobiles, medical
    treatment/tests, TV, cellular telpphones, the latest fashions,
    nutritional suppliments and vacation plans, just to mention a few. 
    Someone living in a 17th century agrarian society wasn't "burdened"
    with all of this.  IOW, they had less to be materialistic about and
    fewer distractions.  Yes? No?
    
    
    >The science which created the microwave is not the science which says 
    >biblical stories didn't happen.
    
    I agree that these are the results of different disciplines of science,
    but they are all the results of science.  I guess I'm speaking of the
    scientific method as it is used to focus in on the truth.  The method
    apparently works so well in all other ascpects (technology).  People
    ask why they should believe that it is inaccurate when predicting the
    truthfullness of biblical stories.  
    
    -dave

| <<< Note 1334.10 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Realizing follows teaching.  But you've clarified yourself.

	Jeff, I agree with you, but not as an absolute. I believe one has to
hear of God in order to call out to Him. And yes, that is teaching. But, I
don't think there has to be a major teaching for God to reach anyone. Do you
agree or disagree with this? I'm curious.

| <<< Note 1334.12 by THOLIN::TBAKER "Flawed To Perfection" >>>


| *WE* get old.  Our way of looking at things gets old.  Without fresh eyes our 
| vision  gets stale.  God stays the same.  We get stale,  unless we renew 
| ourselves.

	Tom.... thanks for clarifying. I believe what you say is absolutely
true. Sometimes people show great emotion. Sometimes they don't. When you see
someone excited about Christ, it does pick you up a notch or two. 



Glen

>    Pre-modern civilizations may have placed more emphasis on their
>    country and community because they were less distracted by all the
>    material "things" available to us today.  And teh fruits of a strong
>    sense of nationalism and community are not always good (e.g. Nazi
>    Germany). 
    
    Materialism is the common culture of humanity, always has been.  It has
    not always been that materialism was the supreme value, relegating
    everything else to a lesser status.  Belief in God and God's morality was 
    the supreme value which relegated materialism to a lesser status.
    
    >As Glen mentioned, thoughts and priorities can dwell on a whole realm
    >of things which could not have been a concern to a pre-modern people. 
    >He mentioned a computer, what about automobiles, medical
    >treatment/tests, TV, cellular telpphones, the latest fashions,
    >nutritional suppliments and vacation plans, just to mention a few. 
    >Someone living in a 17th century agrarian society wasn't "burdened"
    >with all of this.  IOW, they had less to be materialistic about and
    >fewer distractions.  Yes? No?
    
    Humanity has been innovating relentlessly from the beginning.  There
    has always been something new to have or believe.
    
    >The science which created the microwave is not the science which says 
    >biblical stories didn't happen.
    
    >I agree that these are the results of different disciplines of science,
    >but they are all the results of science.  I guess I'm speaking of the
    >scientific method as it is used to focus in on the truth.  The method
    >apparently works so well in all other ascpects (technology).  People
    >ask why they should believe that it is inaccurate when predicting the
    >truthfullness of biblical stories.  
    
    There was much technology innovation prior to "science".  And the
    scientific method requires only one philosophy - the belief that
    what is observable (the universe) and logic reflect reality.  These
    presuppositions are actually theistic.
    
    Naturalistic philosophy does not begin with the scientific method at
    all.  It begins with the presupposition that the whole of life occurs
    randomly without design or purpose.
    
    jeff

    
    Re .16
    
    >Humanity has been innovating relentlessly from the beginning.
    
    Yes but not like over the past couple centuries.  There has been a
    veritable explosion in the area of science and technology recently. The
    bottom line is that it seems to work.  The fruits of science and
    technology work now much more than ever before.  And it's method of
    ferreting out truth seems to be very valid.  IOW, you'll be hard pressed
    to convince the guy who's microwaving a bag of popcorn that science and
    technology can't get at the truth.  In effect, he "believes" in science 
    to a degree today more than his counterpart in the past.
    
    How does all this relate back to .0?  Well, with more and more
    wonderful innovations coming from science/tech, the confidence levels
    in that source rise.  Challenges to traditional beliefs which are
    founded on this science/tech are given much more respect as a result. 
    Copernicus almost lost his ass for challenging traditional church
    wisdom using the science of his day.  Science wasn't given as much
    repect then as it is now.  But it's base is a lot wider and more
    respected now.  When it challenges Genesis stories, people do more than
    listen, they actually believe science over the literal biblical
    interpretations. 
    
    Is science pushing religion out in other areas?  Something I pondered
    on my lunch break...  Imagine a farmer of the year 1000 who had just
    planted a field, literally praying to God that it would rain that
    summer to provide him with a good harvest.  Consider a farmer in the
    Midwest today who plants the field and then sets up the irrigation
    system, having more confidence in the technology to provide rain than
    prayers.  Consider someone a century ago having an injury which became
    infected, praying to God that (s)he wouldn't die from it.  Today we'd
    just go to the clinic and get it taken care of, praying to God that
    you'll be home by dinner time.  Yes, God may be the source of the
    technology... the one responsible for the iron ore which were used to
    build the components of the irrigation pump.  But look at all the
    indirection that's been introduced.
    
    How are people integrating their faith in science with their religious
    faiths?  
    
    -dave
    

    Dave (re .17), it's sort of ironic but you confirmed the fulfilling of
    one of my favorite prophecies.  It's happening right before our eyes. 
    Some might argue that this applies only to knowledge of the book of
    Daniel (which is also happening), but I think it is yet another example
    of several dual-application prophecies in the Bible.

Daniel 12:4  (KJV)
    But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the
 time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.

Daniel 12:4  (NAS)
    But as for you, Daniel, conceal these words, and seal up the book until
    the end of time; many will go back and forth, and knowledge will increase.

.8

>    This of course is subjective.  No doubt while Solomon would need to
>    follow his father's religion, it is also doubtless that Rehoboam would
>    want to follow Solomon's religion.  Solomon took on idol worship when
>    he married outside the faith.

Solomon honored his father's last wishes, as I recall, by having certain
individuals killed.

Fine fellows, this father and son pair.

Richard

    RE .18 (Mike)
    
    OK Mike, I give up.  What's your personal interpretation of Daniel
    12:4?

    Good point Richard.   Both David and Solomon certainly had their dark
    sides...however, you will also find that Judah, to whom the tribe Jesus
    came from had an affair with a prostitute only to find out it was
    Judah's daughter n law.
    
    The lineages of these tribes are filled with dysfunctionalism.  David's
    greatest weakness in my opinion was his inability to take on a
    spiritual leadership role with his own family...same with Solomon!
    
    -Jack

    Rabbi Plotkin once told me that the majority of OT characters were
    quite a dysfunctional group.  Nice to see we haven't changed much over
    the last 6,000 years.

    |    OK Mike, I give up.  What's your personal interpretation of Daniel
|    12:4?

    In general, I believe the verse applies to both the book of Daniel as
    well as overall knowledge.

    In the ancient Near East important documents were "closed up" and
    "sealed."  The original document was kept in a secure place to conserve
    the interests and rights of all parties to the transaction.  In
    Mesopotamian cultures these "documents" were clay tablets whose
    veracity was attested to by the cylinder seals the scribes rolled over
    the bottom section of the tablets.  Once a document was sealed, it
    became official and unchangeable.  The second tablet, the official
    copy, likewise was witnessed to by seal.  Daniel was to certify by his
    personal seal to the faithfulness of the foregoing text as an exact
    transcript of what God had communicated to him through His angel.  This
    record would be preserved to the day when all the predictions would be
    fulfilled.

    Contrast this with Revelation 22:6,10; 1:1,3; where John is instructed
    by God to not seal his visions.  Daniel's prophecy refers to a distant
    time, and is therefore obscure for the immediate future, where John's
    was to be speedily fulfilled.  Israel, to whom Daniel prophesied after
    the captivity, with premature zeal sought after signs of the predicted
    period.  Daniel's prophecy was designed to restrain this.  The Gentile
    Church, on the contrary, for whom John wrote, needs to be impressed
    with the shortness of the period, as it is, owing to its Gentile
    origin, apt to conform to the world, and to forget the coming of the
    Lord.

    "Will go here and there" depicts movement like the strokes of an oar or
    a swimmer's arms.  The verb stem connotes an intensity that may imply
    eagerness in moving quickly and excitedly back and forth.  Here the
    meaning seems to be that many of God's people who pay heed to these
    prophetic sayings will eagerly seek to understand how they are
    presently being fulfilled or how they are going to be fulfilled in the
    future.  As the predictions concerning the Persian and Greek kings are
    carried out during the 4th, 3rd, and 2nd centuries B.C., and those
    referring to the Roman conquest during the 1st century, so the
    distinction between the typical tribulation under Antiochus Epiphanes
    and the antitypical Great Tribulation in the end time will become
    clear.  From this standpoint the knowledge of the Bible students
    greatly increased between the time of Daniel's 6th century
    contemporaries to the period of Jerome, whose epoch-making commentary
    appeared around 400 A.D.  Since Jerome's time there has been a
    corresponding increase of knowledge, especially with the rise of
    archaeology and the knowledge of ancient linguistics, to say nothing of
    the amazing developments leading up to the return of the Jewish people
    to their ancestral land since 1948.  The advances of science not only
    catered to better Biblical knowledge, but also mankind in general.  The
    past few decades have seen tremendous advancements in both areas.

.21

>    Good point Richard.   Both David and Solomon certainly had their dark
>    sides...however, you will also find that Judah, to whom the tribe Jesus
>    came from had an affair with a prostitute only to find out it was
>    Judah's daughter n law.

The tribe on Jesus' mother's side, I take it.
    
>    The lineages of these tribes are filled with dysfunctionalism.  David's
>    greatest weakness in my opinion was his inability to take on a
>    spiritual leadership role with his own family...same with Solomon!

The reigns of David and Solomon are often considered the golden age of Israel.
A period of less than 50 years.  50 years out of a supposed 6,000.

Richard

Z    The reigns of David and Solomon are often considered the golden age of
Z    Israel.  A period of less than 50 years.  50 years out of a supposed 6,000.
    
    David had seven wives and numerous concubines.  Women are the greatest
    blessing to man or the greatest archilles heal...depending on how weak
    the man is!!!  David wasn't very strong.
    
    Solomon was worse for sure...a man with wisdom that is noncompetitive
    with any other!!  Yet the paganistic wives he brought into his life had
    resounding effects on the whole nation!
    
    -Jack

.25

>    David had seven wives and numerous concubines.

I know this is topic drift, but which was Bathsheba, the mother of the
future monarch?

>    Solomon was worse for sure...a man with wisdom that is noncompetitive
>    with any other!!  Yet the paganistic wives he brought into his life had
>    resounding effects on the whole nation!

Weren't these marriages largely political?

And weren't Solomon's ambitions supported through forced slavery?
Of course, that's not necessarily a sin, is it?

Richard

re: Solomon

He had so many wives do to his lust. Eventually, this was his undoing.

ace

Z    Weren't these marriages largely political?
    
    My understanding was that Solomon simply had a problem in this area of
    his life....much like his old man!!  The apple doesn't fall far from
    the tree!!
    
Z    And weren't Solomon's ambitions supported through forced slavery?
Z    Of course, that's not necessarily a sin, is it?
    
   Ahh...a continuation of our Jeff Benson dialog!! :-)  I do know that
    Solomon will go down as the Michael Dukakis of the OT, since he was
    notorious for raising taxes!!  Forced slavery if I ever saw it!! :-)
    
    -Jack