Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    Wow,
    
    39 - 0 for satan !
    
    What will Your answer be Lord ?
    
    				L.B.W.
    

    And at the bottom of the 8th inning, it's satan 39, God 0. At
    times i wish God were more visible and active. Of course some of the
    media talking heads made sure to include the "evil" internet. 
    
    i have not heard much about the issue (try avoiding newscasts)
    but there was mention they were web developers or something
    like that. 
    
    What seems sad (to me) is that these people were probably not
    dopes, but were they that desperate to be saved from ths world
    that they would latch into as far out as concept as some benign 
    ET's were going to scoop them up. Perhaps the concept of
    Christian salvation through Christ was as alien to them as what
    they believed in is to me.
    
    i just hope God (in all his supposed infinite mercy and wisdom)
    is a big enough God to understand their true hearts.
    
    ray

    I'm inclined to doubt it.  Remember the ole line, "Not all who cry to
    me Lord Lord will enter the kingdom of heaven"?  These people
    worshipped another God named Ti...completely foreign to the God of
    Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
    
    One redeeming value they brought was the tremendous faith they had in
    what they believed.  Something the Church could garnish!!
    
    -Jack

    You mean the church should put parsely on it?  8^)
    
    Sorry, couldn't resist that one.

    Grrrrrr..... :-)

(see http://www.rsl.ukans.edu/~pkanagar/divine/faq.htm#10 for a 
 definition of viveka if you are unfamiliar with the term.  Or
 look at it anyway - the text there connects somewhat with the
 news)

More SoCal Suicde Info

From           ianrhett@aol.com (Ian rhett)
Organization   AOL http://www.aol.com
Date           27 Mar 1997 20:59:10 GMT
Newsgroups     alt.news-media
Message-ID     <19970327205900.PAA01241@ladder01.news.aol.com>

There are a number of websites which all reside on the same IP address:

206.16.160.120 = 

www.viveka.com
www.keepthefaith.com
www.highersource.com
www.tvfirst.com
www.pre-madonna.com
www.1800ussearch.com
www.websitesnow.com
www.1800harmony.com

The 206.16.160 IP range is given to www.websitesnow.com. Since all the
URL's are on the same machine, and that that machine belongs to
www.websitesnow.com, it's likely that www.highersource.com is not
directly affiliated with the other websites, although there are some
interesting comparisons with the content and people responsible for
maintaining them. Like there's a lot of overlap.  

One place you can go, though, is http://www.concentric.net/~Font. This
is the website for Higher Source Contract Enterprises.  Renee Sams is
the administrative contact for Keepthefaith.com. You get Renee's contact
information by doing a DNS lookup on www.keepthefaith.com, which gives
her email as font@cris.com. Well, if you go to www.cris.com/~font, you
get the Higher Source Contract Enterprises website.

The Domain Name www.keepthefaith.com belongs to TVFirst in Beverly
Hills, Ca, and lists Renee as the administrative contact.  The Domain
was created in Sept 96, and the record was updated on 11-Nov-96.

The Domain Name highersource.com belongs to Higher Source Contract
Enterprises at 1975 Bryant Street in Denver, Co., and lists Ben Guiat as
adminstrative contact.  Ben shares the same email address as Renee.  The
Domain was created in August of 96, and the record was updated on
12-Nov-96

So at first I thought that they were all related from a content point of
view - viveka means "discrimination" in Hindu, keepthefaith is a
religious site, and higher source is linked to the suicide, which a lot
of people are speculating as being cult related.  It all kinda smells a
little connected.  

As of last night, my inclination was that Higher Source was the public,
money earning arm of a cult, and that they were using the different
websites as a way of communicating with members. 

The latest site being reported is www.heavensgate.com.  That's
registered to Chris Knight at 25801 W. PCH Malibu, 310 829 6333.  The
domain was registered on 19-Apr-96, and updated on 28 Feb 97.  Chris'
Email is rep@heavensgate.com.

It will be interesting to see if these people are on the list of the
people who were in the house.
-------p--a--s--s--i--o--n-----n--e--e--d--s-----a-----f--a--c--e-------
"oncology recapitulates philately" --Mark Maxson    Robert M. Praetorius
"balance, not symmetry" --Mark Stanley    work: RPraetorius@AspenRes.Com
(attribution by Stigler)     fun & recreation: rmp@PopJ1.MA.UltraNet.Com

    It is a sad thing.  I don't believe Satan deserves the credit being
    given him here, however.  I suspect Satan chuckles over all the credit
    he's given without having to even lift a finger.
    
    It is very apparent that some of the commentary here is not based on
    media reports.
    
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 1339.7 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Spigot of pithiness" >>>

| I suspect Satan chuckles over all the credit he's given without having to 
| even lift a finger.


	Richard, he worked hard for that credit. It took a long time for the
brain washing to happen. It is sad that he won though.

In article <1339.2-970328-111559@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>,
	levasseur@usdev.enet.dec.com (Nothing New Under The Sun) writes:
> Title: Heaven's Gate
> Reply Title: A sad statement
> 
>     And at the bottom of the 8th inning, it's satan 39, God 0. At
>     times i wish God were more visible and active. Of course some of the
>     media talking heads made sure to include the "evil" internet. 

What a bunch of arrogant people you are.   This notes conference
is stuck under 'valuing differences' (at least via the usenet
interface), but you're all just bemoaning the fact that what they
did goes against YOUR religion.  Maybe they're right and you're
wrong? Ever think of that? oops, forgot, y'all KNOW the truth.
sorry.  The big problem with (almost) all religions is lack of
tolerance.  It's built-in.  Please don't misunderstand me, I happen
to think the heavens gators made a mistake, BUT if they're convinced,
and nobody has coerced them, then it's their RIGHT to decide how
to live, and end, their lives.

>     
>     i have not heard much about the issue (try avoiding newscasts)
>     but there was mention they were web developers or something
>     like that. 
>     
>     What seems sad (to me) is that these people were probably not
>     dopes, but were they that desperate to be saved from ths world
>     that they would latch into as far out as concept as some benign 

"far out" for YOU.  You wouldn't believe how far out the concept of jesus
dying for my sins is for ME.

>     ET's were going to scoop them up. Perhaps the concept of

The chance that they're crusing around with ET laughing at you now, is
just as great as the chance that their suicides made satan happy.

>     Christian salvation through Christ was as alien to them as what
>     they believed in is to me.

ahhhh. a glimmer of hope.

>     
>     i just hope God (in all his supposed infinite mercy and wisdom)
>     is a big enough God to understand their true hearts.

And I hope she's more tolerant than you.

>     
>     ray

live and let live, or in this case, live and let die.
-rob
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Yeah.  They know the truth.  Right.

An ex-music teacher named "Do", and a higher being named "Ti".

Where are Re, Mi, Fa, So, and La?

/john

    Follow not strange doctines... doctrines of men.

>    Follow not strange doctines... doctrines of men.

     Rather, aliens.

     Remember, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
     from magic.

     Tom

    Did anyone see the "60 Minutes" spot on Heaven's Gate last night? 
    They interviewed 2 former members and the daughter of one of the
    members who died last week (also the daughter of one of the men being
    interviewed).  

    They seemed quite rational in demeanor anyway.  From the fragments I
    got from the interviews, it appears that they believed that a better
    "physical" life awaits them elsewhere.  They believe that the kingdom
    of God is not a spiritual place, rather it's a physical place.  Jesus
    was mentioned as a man who had news of this place to a people who were
    not yet mature enough to accept the message.  Jesus risen was Jesus
    risen to this physical kingdom of God.  They believed that their bodies
    were being "shed" (with what we called a suicide) as a necessary precursor
    to moving onto the next stage.  They seemed uncomfortable with equating
    the actions of the 39 with "suicide".  Not sure about this next part,
    but I think the space ship was a means of transportation to the kingdom
    of God.  They did mention that comets have always been signs of great
    importance... maybe a sign that their transportation to the better life
    was at hand.  
    
    The two men portrayed themselves as believers who left formal
    membership for reasons unmentioned.  They both seemed very complacent 
    about the events of last week.  They mentioned that they lacked the 
    strength to continue on and that they admired what the 39 did.  The
    daughter was abandoned by her parents at the age of 10 by her parents
    who joined Heaven's Gate.  SHe didn't seem resentful.  She didn't agree
    with what her mother did but respected her beliefs.
    
    Just passing on what I heard.  If anyone else saw the interviews and
    has more to add (or correct), please....
    
    
    -dave
    

    .12
    
    What does this have to do with following strange doctrines (defined, in
    context, as doctrines not compatible to the holy scriptures)?
    
    Well, actually, heaven's gate would seem to be a cultic group of UFO
    chasers (according to what I gleaned from the newsshow last night), so
    perhaps aliens have something to do with their rationale.  

    Rob:
    
    Try to understand that what you perceive as arrogance may not be
    intended this way at all.  
    
    The foundation of Christianity, to me, is based upon what I believe to
    be historical evidence as well as prophetic evidence brought about by
    the Old Testament.  Any belief is opened to scrutiny, as it should be.  
    You may find the belief is ridiculed because their is no supporting
    scientific nor cogent spiritual evidence to support that UFO's were
    following the latest dirty iceberg gliding through space.  This is a
    clear case of worshipping the created rather than the creator.  If you
    refer back to your Old Testament history, you will find that the
    prophet Elijah displayed the same arrogance when he taunted the
    prophets of baal.
    
    And as far as valuing diversity, just where did you ever conjure up
    such a notion?  
    
    -Jack

    From what I heard on 60 Minutes, I didn't get a clear picture of them
    worshipping any God at all.  They did state that Jesus rose to the
    physical kingdom of God.  And this seemed to be their objective as
    well.  For these reasons, I suppose you could saw that they aspire to
    the same heaven that Christian do.  I think it would be erroneous to
    claim that they worship comets, UFOs or Ti (one of their human
    leaders).
    
    -dave

re Note 1339.13 by SMARTT::DGAUTHIER:

>     They seemed quite rational in demeanor anyway.  

        There would seem to be a very fine line between rationality
        and irrationality, civilization and brutality, holiness and
        fanaticism.

        Human history shows this over and over again.

        Bob

    >There would seem to be a very fine line between rationality...

    Just trying to relate that they were composed, seemed intelligent,
    dressed normally, spoke to the questions they were given and stated
    their beliefs in an orderly, and civil way.  They didn't seem to fit
    the traditional mold of raving cultist fanatic.

    I'm not trying to position myself as a defender of these people or their
    beliefs.  But, they do/did not seem to intrude in the lives of others in
    the practice of their religion.  So, at least there's that.  I did not
    get a sense that there was any active proselytizing of their religion.

    Playing devils advocate a bit... they seemed to believe in a God
    insofar as they mentioned a "Kingdom of God".  They mentioned that
    Jesus rose to this "Kingdom of God".  They were aspiring to do the same
    thing.  Might a logical progression of this state that they believe in
    the God of Jesus?  Rob?  Are you still out there?  Can you clarify?

    The elements of UFOs and Hale-Bopp make it seem very bizarre.  The act
    of suicide makes it seem repugnant.  But, in all fairness, a literal
    interpretation of Revelation doesn't jive too well with mainstream
    "rational" thinking either.  

    Again, I don't condone what these people did or accept their beliefs.

    -dave

    It's amazing what people get into when they don't know the Scriptures.

.19

>    It's amazing what people get into when they don't know the Scriptures.

And it's amazing what they get into when they do.

Richard

			:-)

    |And it's amazing what they get into when they do.
    
    yes, this conference is a perfect example.

    So what course shold a good Christian take with regard to Heaven's
    Gate?  
    
    Let them believe what they will... comit suicide as they choose?
    
    Attempt to convert to Christianity... save their misguided souls?  
    
    Vote to legislate against the practice of religions which may advocate
    suicide?
    
    Pray for them?
    
    Shelter their innocent children from their misguided ways?
                                        
    Do nothing?
    
    
    

One cannot force belief.

But suicide is already illegal, and should remain illegal.  Encouraging
someone to commit a crime is also illegal.

Jesus called on his disciples to convert the whole world.

No special legisation is required; see above.

Christians are called to pray at all times and in all places for all
people.

There are already sufficient child-protection laws.

/john

    I pretty much agree with John.  Share the gospel with them and pray for
    them.  You really can't do much else.

    RE: .24  

    I think John pretty much summed it up.

    However:
>But suicide is already illegal, and should remain illegal.  Encouraging
>someone to commit a crime is also illegal.

    Just a nit..  Suicide is not illegal, but its attempt is.

    I trust you won't raise too big a fuss for quoting you again...  :-)

    
    Tom

    Every time I hear that suicide is illegal, I always wonder what they
    plan to do.  Jail the corpse, not bury, burn, embalm or whatever it?
    
    kind of tough to imprison a spirit in the mundane world.
    
    meg
    

In article <1339.15-970331-103046@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>,
	martin@asgmka.enet.dec.com (Concerto in 66 Movements) writes:
> Title: Heaven's Gate
> Reply Title: (none)
> 
>     Rob:
>     
>     Try to understand that what you perceive as arrogance may not be
>     intended this way at all.  
>     
>     The foundation of Christianity, to me, is based upon what I believe to
>     be historical evidence as well as prophetic evidence brought about by
>     the Old Testament.  Any belief is opened to scrutiny, as it should be.  
>     You may find the belief is ridiculed because their is no supporting
>     scientific nor cogent spiritual evidence to support that UFO's were
>     following the latest dirty iceberg gliding through space.  This is a
>     clear case of worshipping the created rather than the creator.  If you
>     refer back to your Old Testament history, you will find that the
      ^^^^^^^^^^ this is redundant.

>     prophet Elijah displayed the same arrogance when he taunted the
>     prophets of baal.

I'm an NOT a christian, so I don't refer to the bible.  What I mean by
arrogance is the assumption that everyone is going to refer the bible.

"cogent spiritual evidence" huh? Hmmmmmmm.  I suspect cogent spiritual
evidence is in the eye of the beholder.  I don't find the above a "clear
case" of anything, except another belief that I'm not interested in
following.  I cannot see any difference between believing that UFOs
are surfing in comet dust and jesus died for your sins. sorry.

>     And as far as valuing diversity, just where did you ever conjure up
>     such a notion?  

If you read this conference via usenet, the 'newsgroup' is called:

	dec.notes.valuing_diffs.christian-perspective

that's where I conjured up such a fantastic notion.

rob
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

	http://www.grimmy.com/images/pol/pol73.gif

 Z   I'm an NOT a christian, so I don't refer to the bible.  What I mean by
 Z   arrogance is the assumption that everyone is going to refer the bible.
    
    Rob:
    
    Just as an FYI, the scripture I referred to is from the Old Testament
    and applies to the Jews as well.
    
    But you need to understand.  This is a Christian Perspectives
    conference.  It is the claim by many in here that scripture is the
    final authority...in here.  Understand?  In other words, if I were a
    socialist and went into a conference that promoted American government
    and ideals...and randomly referred to them as arrogant for believing
    the Constitution was the final authority of law, well, this would just
    be proposterous.  I would be out of my element.
    
    In other words Rob, you as a self professed non Christian come into a
    conference where Christian issues are discussed and randomly proclaim
    that some are arrogant for continually stating scripture is the final
    authority??  Am I understanding this correctly??  The next obvious
    question is...where do you get off doing such a thing? 
    
    Re: The diversity thing.  You make a tactical error Rob.  You can no
    more get anybody to value one's diversity anymore than you can force
    somebody to like chocolate ice cream.  Like national gun laws, you can
    pronounce diversity policies both corporately and federally up the ying
    yang, but you cannot legislate a pure heart.
    
    The value of diversity is based, and only based upon ideas.  If the
    idea is plausible, it is valued.  If the idea is not plausable, it is
    devalued.  You can paint a pretty, empathetic smile with a quivering
    lip and a listening ear at any valdiff class, but I can tell you that
    human nature dictates it to be among the greatest of corporate
    hypocritical acts in any organization.  I prefer good, heartfelt
    honesty...like right here in the notesfile.  This way you know who your
    friends are and you are not being condescended to.  I value you enough
    to speak to you plainly...and you should consider this the height of
    compliment.
    
    -Jack

>I'm an NOT a christian, so I don't refer to the bible.  What I mean by
>arrogance is the assumption that everyone is going to refer the bible.

    As Jack pointed out, this is the Christian Perspective notesfile.

    We may not agree on what scripture means, but by necessity it
    is part of the discussion.

    Tom

|following.  I cannot see any difference between believing that UFOs
|are surfing in comet dust and jesus died for your sins. sorry.
    
    the Aliens can.  They all allegedly travel light years to insult the
    person, work, and nature of Jesus Christ.  Why do you think they do
    such things in their encounters with humans?  It's a slam dunk when you
    consider their source.

    re .33
    
    Say Huh?
    
    I didn't understand your wrods/  
    
    

.29

Rob,

>I'm an NOT a christian, so I don't refer to the bible.  What I mean by
>arrogance is the assumption that everyone is going to refer the bible.

I appreciate your being up front.

Many if not most discussions here become reduced to bantering about the Bible,
as if that were the most important thing about Christianity.  I find this
unfortunate.

Even though we don't often all agree, we, Christians of all stripes, all
understand the Bible to be our holy book.  It's therefore bound to be
referred to.
    
....
    
>If you read this conference via usenet, the 'newsgroup' is called:

>	dec.notes.valuing_diffs.christian-perspective

>that's where I conjured up such a fantastic notion.

Valuing differences.  Something of which I'd like to believe I am a proponent.
Unfortunately, many times all it means is listening to some things I may not
like or agree with and then trying to find something of value in it.  A *lot*
of Christians debase and demean whatever is not analogous to the doctrine they
believe to be the sole correct and true doctrine.

Jack Martin and I almost never see eye to eye.  But there's one thing I've
noticed.  Whenever Jack isn't active here, there's a drop in the vitality of
the conference.  Jack sparks controversy.  So now, after several years,
though I still practically never agree with what Jack has to say, I sometimes
actually find myself feeling glad he's here saying it.

And yes, I, too, would give him a big wet smooch.

Richard

|    Say Huh?
|    
|    I didn't understand your wrods/  
    
    From the reports and studies I've read, the vast majority of alien
    encounters include conversations about Jesus Christ.  They consistently
    downplay the person, work, and nature of Jesus Christ.  Why do you
    think this happens?

    Mike,
    
    Never read anything about aliens and yeshua, and I know a lot of people
    who are into UFO and alien encounters.    Could you elaborate on your
    sources of information please?
    
    meg

    "UFOs in the New Age - Extraterrestrial Messages & The Truth of
    Scripture" by William M. Alnor, Baker Book House, ISBN 0-8010-0226-5.
    
    Bill Alnor is a former award-winning investigative reporter for the 
    Philadephia Inquirer (major metro newspaper) and a professor of
    journalism at Temple University.  He spent several years writing this 
    book, conducting many personal interviews , and examining hundreds of 
    documents of Alien communication transcripts with humans.  I picked it 
    up after hearing Bill speak in person.  It was a fascinating read. 
    Well documented scholarly work with footnotes/references galore (as you
    would expect from a journalist).
    
    This phenomena, which is international in scope (Russia, Mexico, and
    Israel are current hot spots), has one of several common bonds that all
    reject or downplay the person, work, and nature of Jesus Christ.  Inspect
    the messages being relayed from the aliens and you'll see what I mean.
    
    He stated that he's the type of person that has to do his own
    investigations when writing a book and never takes anyone's word for
    anything.  He interviewed several authors who have written about this
    subject and every one of them warned him to get out while he had the
    chance.  These secular writers all admitted to heavy poltergeist and
    demonic activity because of their involvement in this research.  The
    fact that Mr. Alnor is immune is quite a testimony to the blood
    covering of Yeshua our Messiah.
    
    When you read Ezekiel 1 and Ezekiel 28, it becomes clear who the cherub
    is that appears as an angel of light in the sky.  It is also no
    coincidence that UFO-ology is the hottest thing in New Age circles and
    conventions right now.
    
    I thought UFOs were a fad of this century, but there are over 300
    documented sightings/contacts in history prior to the 1900's.  The
    earliest one documented was in 1480 B.C. in Egypt during Thutmose III's
    reign.  Also, Columbus recorded a sighting 4 hours before hitting land
    in 1492.
    
    Why does an "alien" travel all the way to earth just to insult the
    person, work, and nature of Jesus Christ?  Why are they so eager to
    discuss religion and feel the need to correct us about Christ?  I knew
    going into this book that aliens were just demons in disguise.  This
    book confirms it, bigtime!  You get to read for yourself many channeled
    quotations from them.  You also get to see their many lies and
    prophecies that never come to pass.
    
    Even New Agers, like Strieber (wrote "Communion"), say their demonic,
    sometimes evil, sometimes even sexual, yet they continue to propagate
    the lie.  
    
    Many of the religious writings of cults and false religions (new and
    old) also record visitors from outer space: Hinduism, Buddhism, Mormonism, 
    Shintoism, Shamanism, etc.
    
    If you have an interest in this area, I highly recommend this book.

    Don't be deceived by false signs and wonders.  Do not be seduced by the
    supernatural.  This is why studying the scripture is so important.  So
    that you may be able to test the spirits and know the enemy!
    
    -Jack

    .39
    
    I'm sorry, Jack, but this kind of thing happens even among those who
    study and embrace Scripture.  Don't think that it don't.
    
    Richard
    

    Applewhite didn't seem to have anything more than a superficial grasp
    of Christ's words.  Their web page makes that obvious.  So does his
    remarks on their farewell video.  Nothing but bizarre to the extreme.
    There is absolutely nothing in the gospels that would cause you to
    condone UFO-ology.  

    Seek and you will find.  Knowck, and the door shall be opened unto you.
    
    Scripture can be ineffective you one starts out with the wrong premise.
    
    -Jack

>    Scripture can be ineffective you one starts out with the wrong premise.

Yeah, the ones who've obviously got it wrong must've understood Scripture
wrong.  There can be no other acceptable, or even possible answer, can there?

Richard

    Richard:
    
    If one studies scripture with bias or baggage from a previous faith,
    then yes this can be the case.
    
    The Corinthian Church is unfortunately a prime example.  In coming into
    a personal relationship with the one true God, they carried alot of
    baggage with them and Paul spent two epistles exhorting them unto
    stronger faith.  The Corinthian church still carried a festival
    mentality and in doing so, held their fellowship meetings in a festival
    atmosphere.  They were broken into factions, misused the gifts of the
    Spirit, sanctioned adulterous relationships, and didn't keep their
    vows.  They were labeled by Paul a carnal church because of the
    previous baggage they carried from their idolatrous religions.
    
    It isn't a matter of one group smugly stating the other group is wrong. 
    There is absolutely no gratification in this...so far as I'm concerned. 
    I believe for one to present a thesis or hypothesis on a certain
    belief, there has to be a proponderence of historical or prophetic
    evidence to support said belief.  It is this which gives ANY
    participant the right to say, "This is bunk...this is incorrect...this
    is not supported, etc."  So based on this methodology, Goddess Worship
    is a sham.  There is obviously nothing Christian about it and it should
    be revealed in that light.  Is Meg an honest, decent, caring, loving
    individual??  Does Meg have the best of intentions?  Well sure she
    does...but while it has alot to do with the social gospel, the gospel
    of loving our neighbor, it is based on humanistic thought.  
    
    If the goodness we conjure up from ourselves is all we have to go on,
    it will provide temporal blessings for all but eternal blessings for
    none.  
    
    Not to pick on Meg but she is a living example and directly involved in
    the conversation!!
    
    -Jack

    .44
    
    You can't count the Corinthians.  They had no idea the letters Paul
    issued would be included in the canon. ;-}
    
    Sometimes it takes someone outside Christianity to help us gain some
    insight about ourselves.  Sometimes apparently nothing helps.
    
    Richard
    

|    You can't count the Corinthians.  They had no idea the letters Paul
|    issued would be included in the canon. ;-}
    
    Maybe not, but they considered them important enough to preserve.  Even
    Peter called Paul's letters "Scripture."

1339.44

>    Is Meg an honest, decent, caring, loving
>    individual??  Does Meg have the best of intentions?  Well sure she
>    does...but while it has alot to do with the social gospel, the gospel
>    of loving our neighbor, it is based on humanistic thought.  
    
>    If the goodness we conjure up from ourselves is all we have to go on,
>    it will provide temporal blessings for all but eternal blessings for
>    none.  

Apparently the version of God that some self-identified Christians here
worship is perceived not to give a rat's fanny about how one treats others.
Apparently the version of God that some self-identified Christians here
worship cares only about whether or not one embraces certain doctrines and
embraces them with a great degree of uniformity.  I find this version of God
to be obtuse and petty.

Richard

    jack,
    
    It seems that many have forgotten the two commandments one of your
    greatest teachers gave.  Loving ones god with all ones heart and
    treating others as you would be treated.  We have a similar saying only
    it is that you get back threefold what you give.  (In other words
    wishing a boil on Jack's butt might work, but I would wind up with
    three on mine, whereas if I wished him well I would get that same wish
    back three times, A violation of conservation of matter in this world,
    but she is all powerful)  
    
    I doing unto others is now a social gospel rather than real words of
    your son of god, then I think I read the wrong bible growing up.
    
    

    RE: .44 Jack,

    Good note.  You've managed to state your point of view and 
    actively tried not to be nasty.   I wish we could all proceed
    with such intent.

    Of course, I don't agree with everything you said. :-)

    I'd be surprised if Goddess religions were just based on
    human thought.  I think there must be some genuine inpiration,
    probably divine, that lead to their current beliefs and
    doctrines.

    Tom

    Hi Meg:
    
    No, actually I am well familiar with the two greatest commandments. 
    Looking at the whole picture, you should realize the person of Jesus
    Christ, from my perspective, plays a key role in the obedience of the
    1st commandment.  From where I sit, it is impossible and inconceivable
    to love God with heart, soul and mind and reject Jesus Christ as Lord
    and savior at the same time.  Jesus referred to this as a blaspheming
    of the Holy Spirit, which is a hate crime against God.
    
    -Jack

>    to love God with heart, soul and mind and reject Jesus Christ as Lord
>    and savior at the same time.  Jesus referred to this as a blaspheming
>    of the Holy Spirit, which is a hate crime against God.

    Where does Jesus say that not accepting Him as lord and savior was
    blaspheming the Holy Spirit?

    Tom

    jack,
    
    You and I have a disagreement there, I regard Jesus as a teacher
    who like many of the great teachers was not listened to, particularly
    by his own purported followers.  If you truly love god(dess) how can
    you hate or mistreat his/her creations?
    
    To me love is so obvious that it goes without saying.  Abuse is not
    love, nor is hating a person, wanting vengance on a person, or a host
    of other things because of his or her gender, religion, willingness to
    rock the boat, pigmentation or whatever.  Now I tend to avoid noisy
    boisterous people in my own home, as it is my sanctuary from the world,
    however when I leave it, I do need to be able to deal with them, the
    people who are certain I am going to hell (nothing to worry about, as
    most of the people I prefer to associate with will be their as well,
    according to those who believe I am going), and people who will try to
    convert my daughters behind my back while espousing "family values." 
    None of that behavior to me is listening to Yeshua's doctrine, but more
    the doctrine of what one would like for him to have said.
    
    meg  

    Tom:
    
    A challenge worthy of a response for sure!!
    
    Jesus said, "Wherefore I say to you, all manner of sin and blasphemy
    shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
    shall not be forgiven unto men."  Matthew 12: someplace.
    
    So, by the words of Christ, there is definitely an act of the will here
    that is not forgiven.  Interestingly enough, it later goes on to say
    that blasphemy against the name of the Son of God is forgivable but
    against the Holy Spirit is unforgivable.
    
    So what is the role of the Holy Spirit in regard to the believer?  Well
    amongst others, reviewing Ephesians 1:12,13.....
    
    "That we should be to the praise of His glory, who first trusted in
    Christ.  In whom ye also trusted, the word of truth, the gospel of your
    salvation: in whom also after that ye believed you were sealed with the
    Holy Spirit of promise."
    
    In the days of Rome, the word seal had very significant meaning.  A
    seal signified ownership of property.  Anything with the mark of the
    seal meant that it was automatically the property of Rome.  (This by
    the way is why I find the taxation of churches so utterly disdainful
    and would rebel to the umpteenth degree).  Nevertheless, the people
    within the Roman Empire knew fully well what it meant.  Being Sealed
    with the Holy Spirit was a mark of ownership God had for his people. 
    Looking back at the verse above, how is one sealed....
    
    Hearing the word of truth.
    Trusting the word of truth, the gospel of salvation
    Believing the word of truth.
    Becoming sealed with the Holy Spirit.
    
    The only way we can reject the Holy Spirit is by rejecting the Son of
    God.  The way we reject the son of God is by rejecting his redemptive
    power of forgiveness through his death and resurrection.  There are
    countless other passages that are in harmony with this teaching.
    
    Tom, rather than telling me you disagree with what I am saying, you
    would do yourself a great service by breaking down the paradigms you
    have and spend the next year or so studying the scriptures with the
    possibility you may leave your comfort zone and actually grasping a
    belief you thought you never would.  If you've been reading between the
    lines of what I've been writing, I'm trying to hint that the baggage
    you might possibly be carrying from previous experiences in Eastern
    religion may be hindering you instead of helping!  
    
    -Jack

    RE: .53  Jack

>    The only way we can reject the Holy Spirit is by rejecting the Son of
>    God.  The way we reject the son of God is by rejecting his redemptive
>    power of forgiveness through his death and resurrection.  There are
>    countless other passages that are in harmony with this teaching.

    Somehow I don't get the same message.

    I don't agree with 100% of what Richard, for example, says.  Yet
    I wouldn't say, nor would he, likely, say that I reject him.

    I get the impression that Meg is quite impressed by Jesus the
    man and teacher.  I believe she feels that many of His "followers"
    abuse His teachings and blaspheme all she holds dear - "in the name
    of the Lord."

    I submit that it was "christians" who drove Meg from christianity.
    
    Personally, I can't blame her.   And I'm glad she's found a 
    religious discipline that directs adherants to follow many of
    the tenents that Jesus laid down.  Most specifically, Love.
        
>    Tom, rather than telling me you disagree with what I am saying, you
>    would do yourself a great service by breaking down the paradigms you
>    have and spend the next year or so studying the scriptures with the
>    possibility you may leave your comfort zone and actually grasping a
>    belief you thought you never would.  

    You could be right.  I'd still be amazed (aghast? :-) if I ended
    up like you. :-)

    A periodic reexamination of one's beliefs is healthy and necessary
    if one's spiritual life is to grow properly

    But whatever I come up with, love is/must be the central tenent.
    I  had an experience of love awhile ago.  There was a reason for it.
    It is something I must work for.

    I cannot discount love the way some in this conference have.  Love,
    I believe, is the center of christianity.  Everything else flows from
    it.
    
    By the same token, I hope you try on the idea that love is central.
    And that loving, even if you can only muster eros (not just lust)
    or brotherly love (Philosomething) it's better than not loving at
    all.  The more you love, the better you get at it.  Through life
    and discipline and open conversations and work, your self will be
    honed and cleansed so that Jesus can inspire you with/to AGAPE, and
    you can be with Him.  His will.  Not ours.
    
>    If you've been reading between the
>    lines of what I've been writing, I'm trying to hint that the baggage
>    you might possibly be carrying from previous experiences in Eastern
>    religion may be hindering you instead of helping!  

    I think what's hindering me the most at times is this conference.
    I hear so many wrongheaded attitudes.  Where scripture is used as
    a means of manipulation (you gotta do this 'cause the Bible sez so).
    Where love is belittled, respect for others is unknown and people
    proclaim that they're the only ones who should be allows to speak.

    I know I have blind spots when looking at the Bible.  Everyone does.
    Some other's blind spots are different from mine.  But as the  verse
    comes down at me in anger, I look away as someone about to be
    hit by a ball of mud.

    Yes, I want to reexamine and study scripture.  But being hit over
    the head by it so many times I sometimes hesitate to pick up the
    Bible.

    Thank you,
    Tom

Ephesians 4:15  
    But speaking the truth in love, may grow up into Him in all things, which
    is the head, even Christ:
    
    I think this is something we are all still dealing with.  God is still
    working on Jack, Jeff, and myself.

Note 1339.46
    
>    Maybe not, but they considered them important enough to preserve.  Even
>    Peter called Paul's letters "Scripture."

A lot of stuff gets "preserved."  We don't know which letters the author of
the general epistles attributed to the Galilean fisherman named Peter was
refering to.

I'm certain not everything Paul might have written should be called
Scripture, except in the generic sense.

Richard

 ZZ    I submit that it was "christians" who drove Meg from christianity.
    
    I submit you may very well be correct!  However, in my view, this is a
    matter of one rejecting the shed blood of Christ either because of the
    incorrect attitudes of Christians, or because said person simply
    doesn't believe in a personal God, the sin state of humanity, and the
    resurrected Christ.  I suspect in this case it is a mixture of both and
    bad Christians are merely the vehicle used to justify one's actions.  
    
    My propensity is to look above others stupidities and get to the meat
    of the issue...that being regardless of shortsightedness of the
    followers, what was the leaders mission, did said leader accomplish it,
    and what do I need to do to partake of the blessings said leader
    offers?  I've met in this cold New England landscape many a stoic
    Christian.  They don't concern me whatsoever because I have assurance
    in the leader.  Looking at the followers will likely dissappoint!
    
    Yes, all must be centered on love...which is what the ransom Jesus paid
    is all about.  However, love is very ambiguous and must be well
    defined.  Jesus displayed love by rebuking the High Priests and
    Pharisees.  
    
    -Jack

Meg, this was written this morning....
    
Z    You and I have a disagreement there, I regard Jesus as a teacher
Z    who like many of the great teachers was not listened to, particularly
Z    by his own purported followers.  

Yes, polarized to a great extent.  I find the notion of Jesus even being merely
the greatest teacher in the world to be the height of condescention toward
a person who created all things.  Yes I am referring to Jesus Christ himself
but of course Meg this is just a simple fact of us believing different things.

Z   If you truly love god(dess) how can you hate or mistreat his/her 
Z   creations?
   
Meg, this question is obviously loaded with ambiguities.  For example, you will
find a large segment of our society to consider abortion to be the greatest
unspoken crime in our century.  You of course might disagree because of your
own paradigms.  Somebody else may consider the World Wars the greatest 
travesty of the 20th century.  Others Capital punishment.  Some consider
Nixon to be the greatest criminal in the executive branch while others
consider him the best foreign policy president of our times.  It's all 
perception Meg.  You think Jeff is a sexist lying egotistical bigot...or 
whatever label you think fits.  Personally I prefer honesty to flattery.  
You think I'm violent against women, minorities, whatever,,,,because I'm
inclined to express what is politically faulty in our current coddling system.
Well, sorry Meg but you cannot label me or countless others because we express
what we believe as fact.   
 
Z    To me love is so obvious that it goes without saying.  Abuse is not
Z    love, nor is hating a person, wanting vengance on a person, or a host
Z    of other things because of his or her gender, religion, willingness to
Z    rock the boat, pigmentation or whatever.  

No...love comes in many different forms Meg, and sometimes it is disguised in
good old honesty and candor.  If I tell the town drunk whose been getting 
hand outs that he's always going to be perceived as a bum unless he develops
a vision for his life, who's showing more love...me, or Meg sitting on the 
sidelines telling Jack Martin what a slime he is for hurting Crusty's feelings?

Z    and people who will try to
Z    convert my daughters behind my back while espousing "family values." 
Z    None of that behavior to me is listening to Yeshua's doctrine, but more
Z    the doctrine of what one would like for him to have said.
 
Maybe not to you, but Yeshua himself stated that he did not come to bring 
peace but a sword.  He said that the day will come when he will put enmity 
between mother and daughter, father and son, mother n law against daughter n
law.  He knew that his covenant would cause more trouble, and ultimately 
persecution for the church.  

This notion that Jesus expected us to all be in a sixties mentality is...
well absurd Meg.  Were you not aware that Christianity is a devisive faith?

-Jack  

>    Yes, all must be centered on love...which is what the ransom Jesus paid
>    is all about.  However, love is very ambiguous and must be well
>    defined.  

    True, but not yet.  Love of any kind is the training wheels we
    must use before we can fly.

>    Jesus displayed love by rebuking the High Priests and Pharisees.  

    True.  But, what sometimes gets under my skin is that you
    seem to emphasize this kind of "hard love."  I, as a reader,
    am getting an unbalanced view.  I don't know if it's you or
    your arguing style.

    Tom

    You have it wrong.
    
    Fundie Churchians convinced me the churches have little or nothing to
    offer people really seeking and questioning, the bible itself lead me
    away from christianity.  Why should I deal with an "inerrant" book that
    says women are not real participants and try to blame them for every
    evil in the world?  There was no juice in the mystery of the bible for
    me.  I found it instead in her and her creations, including me!
    
    Jack, I am not sure what you mean by saying I don't have personal diety,
    unless you are trying to read through the same jet-colored crystal ball
    others have tried to look through in divining what my mind has.  Since
    devination is not permitted by your own book, I think I would stop
    attempting to read my mind and ask what I am saying instead.  You would
    get further and you won't be violating your own religious beliefs.  

>    Why should I deal with an "inerrant" book that
>    says women are not real participants and try to blame them for every
>    evil in the world?  

    Err...  That's not what my church believes.

    In case you haven't been listening, there's more than one
    way to interpret the Bible.  :-)

    Tom

    jack,
    
    so I gather you will send you kids to talk to me or someone like me
    when they hit about 13-15 and start questioning their religious
    upbringing?  We do disagree on a lot of things, Jeff is not a bigot, he
    is merely misguided and willing to remain that way, as are you.  You
    and a few others here  seem to me not to understand love unless you
    have to fear it as well.  I left a marriage like that over 17 years
    ago, and I am much healthier and happier in my relationships for it as
    are my children.  Now you seem to like this sort of belief and love
    system, I don't it isn't healthy for women IMO.  
    
    meg

    >Why should I deal with an "innerrant" book that 
    >says women are not real participants and try to blame them for every
    >evil in the world?
    
    That's not what any Bible-believing church holds as true, nor is it
    what the Bible itself says.
    
    Perhaps your view is blurred by the more extreme elements of the
    feminist movement... those who blame the Bible for previous misconduct
    by males who have interpreted it for their own ends.
    
    
    -steve

    No, actually I believe in way of life witnessing.  This means taking
    advantage of opportunities day to day as opposed to door knocking. 
    This is why the notesfile is such a nice target...though I also see an
    entertainment value to the forum as well.
    
    -Jack

     Z   True.  But, what sometimes gets under my skin is that you
     Z   seem to emphasize this kind of "hard love."  I, as a reader,
     Z   am getting an unbalanced view.  I don't know if it's you or
     Z   your arguing style.
    
    Your perception is probably accurate.  It isn't this way in my day to
    day life though.  You would find me more tuned to listening in face to
    face.  I see it as necessary here because I see very little in the way
    of honoring Christ's true mission here, to give his life a ransom for
    many, and more on projecting a love emotion that is universal to all
    religions.  The true meaning of Jesus' resurrection is avoided or lost.
    
    -Jack

    Steve and Jeff,
    
    Then you have no problems with women teaching men in the church?  You
    find some of Paul's statements about women to be archaic, and a
    reflection of the culture of early civilization, rather than something
    god(dess) wanted?  somehow, from the notes I have read here by several
    participants and their reactions to Patricia, as well as others I doubt
    it.
    
    tom, I am aware that not all organized churches treat women badly,
    however those who take the bable as the inerrant word of god, and
    accept the warts of an ancient culture as relevant for today are those
    that I grew up in and those that I live with for the most part here.  I
    have also found happiness in a religion that more geared toward the
    gentle love of a mother that was totally unavailable and remains so to
    women in an inerrant belief system of the bible.
    
    meg

>    Why should I deal with an "inerrant" book that
>    says women are not real participants and try to blame them for every
>    evil in the world?  
    
    My wife would object to this.  Every member of CWA (Concerned Women of
    America) would too.

RE: .63 Steve

>    Perhaps your view is blurred by the more extreme elements of the
>    feminist movement... 

I was thinking more along the lines of:

>>    Perhaps your view is blurred by the more extreme elements of the
>>    fundamentalist movement.

    <--- Maybe both statements are true.

    Meg,
        
>    Then you have no problems with women teaching men in the church?  
    
    Divine roles for men and women are different.  The two are
    complimentary, and *equally* important.  Men have been given the
    responsibility of spiritual leadership.  Scripturally, it would go
    against these roles for women to be head of the church (pastors).
    
    Somehow, in our confused way of modern thinking, we have come to the
    conclusion that unless women are offered every position a man has in
    the community and church, that they are second class citizens.  We
    forget that it is God who assigns the roles, and He did so for a
    reason.
    
    The abuse of these scriptures has brought great trouble to this nation.
    
>    You find some of Paul's statements about women to be archaic, and a
>    reflection of the culture of early civilization, rather than something
>    god(dess) wanted?  
    
    I'd need to know which statements you are talking about in order to
    answer this.
    
    
    -steve        

    Meg:
    
    Regardless of what you think is unfair, antisocial, or oppressive, do
    you believe Jesus died on the cross for your sins and rose from the
    grave to redeem you?  This is all that will matter in the end.  This is
    all that really counts.
    
    -Jack

    
    Love means helping those you love avoid destructive behavior that they
    are bind too.

    An abused woman often believes the abuse is their own fault. It is out
    of love for this woman that you try to alter her beliefs. You aren't a
    bigot for lovingly encouraging her to realize she is mistaken in her
    beliefs. 

    Eric

re Note 1339.70 by ACISS2::LEECH:

>     Somehow, in our confused way of modern thinking, we have come to the
>     conclusion that unless women are offered every position a man has in
>     the community and church, that they are second class citizens.  

        Well, perhaps.  But I'll take that "confused modern thinking"
        any day over the confused traditional thought that says that
        regardless of one's talents, regardless of one's interests
        and enthusiasms, one's acceptable roles are determined by
        which sex organs one possesses.

        (Remember that sentiments such as "all men are created equal"
        are relatively modern thinking -- and I'm sure considered
        rather confused by some at the time.  Even the person who
        penned that in 1776 didn't fully comprehend what it must mean
        in his own life.)

>     We
>     forget that it is God who assigns the roles, and He did so for a
>     reason.

        Many of the people who argue for an equal role for women in
        the church wouldn't disagree with you.  What they would
        disagree with is your position that the roles are assigned
        not to individuals but to genders.  For example, women who
        seek ordination seek it because they believe God has assigned
        them that role (and that in doing so God considered their
        heart, mind, and soul rather than their genitals).

        Where they (and I) would disagree with you is in the
        traditional picking-and-choosing of what Scripture to apply
        literally and for all time vs. what Scripture is symbolic or
        just for a particular time.  That traditional
        picking-and-choosing has almost always been done by males.

        Bob

    I have moved notes .74 to .78 to note string 531 "Women in the clergy".

    Tom

>    So what course shold a good Christian take with regard to Heaven's
>    Gate?  
    
    I can tell you the course I have taken.  My oldest son, Graham (9), is
    aware of the Heaven's Gate cult through newscasts and discussions we
    have had at home.  He's not really capable of grasping too deeply the
    philosophical system which underlies the cult's actions.  Graham has
    had systematic instruction in the Christian faith all of his life and
    has a credible profession of faith.  He realized the falseness of the
    beliefs immediately, such as they were stated, and they seemed extemely
    wierd to him and actually unbelievable.  Because of his strong
    knowledge of and belief in the truth,  he has trouble accepting and
    understanding that people (adults especially) can fall for such ideas
    and to such extremes.  He'll grow out of this of course with more
    experience.
    
    An understanding of the underlying philosophies which inform such cults
    is imperative to resist their allure.
    
    >>Let them believe what they will... comit suicide as they choose?
    
    Well, it's really a moot point since most cults are reclusive and do
    not enable situations where a loved one or friend can discuss the cult
    with them.  I think Hank Hannegraff did a good job on Larry King the
    other night explaining the concepts to the public and the consequences,
    which are all to evident.  Nettle's daughter was on the same show, a
    Christian, pointing the public to the true way to the next level,
    Jesus.
    
    >>Attempt to convert to Christianity... save their misguided souls?  
    
    Of course Christians who have the opportunity should share the gospel
    with such folks in hopes of saving their misguided souls.
    
    >Vote to legislate against the practice of religions which may advocate
    >suicide?
    
    There may be laws already on the books which make suicide illegal;
    they'd be hard to enforce of course.
    
    >Pray for them?
    
    Of course!!
    
    >Shelter their innocent children from their misguided ways?
    
    Absolutely!  But the shelter ought to be in the form of solid teaching
    in the Christian faith leading to a true faith which can resist the
    lies of the devil such as consumed the Heaven's Gate cult.
                                        
    >Do nothing?
    
    Hardly.
    
    Heaven's Gate is no more than a form of Gnosticism which was raging in
    the first century and is prevalent today in many "new age" beliefs and
    ideas.
    
    I saw Rio DiAngelo on Larry King last night.  He was the former member
    who was contacted and then found the bodies.  He consistently referred
    to his body and the physical aspects of life as "the vehicle".  He left
    the cult on a "strong urge" that he needed to.  Life in the cult was
    "the class".  He does not believe he would have taken his life had he
    still been a part of the group at the time because he did not feel that
    "he is ready to graduate to the next level".  He stated that the cult
    could not continue because the teacher is gone - so Applewhite was the
    personality around which the cult revolved.  Those who were "not ready"
    but who had taken their life would be reincarnated.  Those who were
    good enough would inhabit another body at the next level.  He did
    believe God was where the folks were.  He said that what Applewhite
    taught was what Christianity was originally.
    
    He is a very lost man who needs Christian prayers.
    
    jeff
    

     STARDATE 10357.22     (March 28, 1997)
            
     To:  Applewhite & Co.
            
    DUE TO EXTENSIVE TAIL WINDS CAUSED BY THE COMET HALE-BOPP, PICKUP OF
    THE 39 PASSENGERS HAS BEEN DELAYED UNTIL 3024 WHEN WE PASS THE PLANET
     AGAIN.
            
              DO NOT EAT THE PUDDING AT THIS TIME
            
               *** REPEAT ***
            
              DO NOT EAT THE PUDDING AT THIS TIME

    Something came to mind about Heaven's Gate and the Ascension recently.
    
    There are two or more instances in the Bible where someone rose
    to heaven and disappeared.  I'm thinking of Elijah and Jesus.
    Now if heaven is a spiritual rather than physical realm, where did
    these two physically go?  Does it not seem reasonable to the modern
    technological mind that they were actually "beamed up"?  How else might
    we explain it?
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    It is hard to understand.  Jesus clearly has a body and always will.
    When Jesus revealed his glory to some of his disciples, there were
    several distinguishable people revealed; Moses among them.  How were
    they distinguishable without a body?  Even before Christ's incarnation,
    there's reason to believe he was present with Shadrach, Meschach, and
    Abednigo in Nebuchednezzar's fiery furnace.  Whoever was present had a
    form that was like a body.
    
    I think the problem is that modern man (and definitely new age,
    Gnosticism, eastern religions, etc.) have a false view of the body/soul
    relationship, dualism.
    
    The body/soul are eternally related and impossible to separate.
    
    jeff

    Enoch was another that was raptured.

>    The body/soul are eternally related and impossible to separate.

    So, when a body burns, as in cremation, the soul also burns?

    When the body rots, the soul also rots?

    If someone is physically deformed, is that simply a reflection 
    of the soul?

    Tom

>    The body/soul are eternally related and impossible to separate.

>    So, when a body burns, as in cremation, the soul also burns?
    
    No, I don't think so.  But that doesn't mean that an eternal
    relationship has been altered.

>    When the body rots, the soul also rots?
    
    Same as above.

>    If someone is physically deformed, is that simply a reflection 
>    of the soul?
    
    Bodies are subject to things which the soul may not be subject to and
    vice versa.  But they are still eternally related.  Christians who have
    died in faith will have bodies which are their own but glorified by the
    power of God.  Unbelievers will have bodies of some sort but I don't
    expect they will be glorified like believers' bodies will be glorified.
    It is hard to imagine and Christ says that we can't even imagine the
    extent of the power and majesty of heaven and eternal life in his
    physical presence.

    jeff

    So, despite the fact that a body may be vaporized, it's atoms
    scattered throughout the atmosphere, reabsorbed into some plant
    and consumed by some other critter, the soul is still "related"
    to the body?

    You can't say how.  The only thing you "know" is that gnostics 
    and Eastern religions are wrong.

    Hmmmm...  Self-evident to anyone who really wants to believe
    a certain set of dogma?


    Tom

>    So, despite the fact that a body may be vaporized, it's atoms
>    scattered throughout the atmosphere, reabsorbed into some plant
>    and consumed by some other critter, the soul is still "related"
>    to the body?
    
    Yes, because the Bible says so.  God made man body/soul.  Jesus was
    present with those whose bodies had died at his transfiguration yet the
    people were recognizable by other people.  Jesus teaches that what
    is done to, in, and for the body is eternally important (as a direct
    counter to those who believe in the unimportance and destruction of the
    body).  The Bible teaches that the body is to be raised from the dead
    without regard to its method of demise.  And so on.

    >You can't say how.  The only thing you "know" is that gnostics 
    >and Eastern religions are wrong.
    
    I can say how - through the power of God, the same power which raised
    Jesus from the dead giving him his human body (though glorified) which 
    he took to heaven and will forever have.  The power of God is no secret
    and knows no bounds.

    >Hmmmm...  Self-evident to anyone who really wants to believe
    >a certain set of dogma?
    
    God's creation of man as an eternal being is clear.  God's power over
    and control of physical death and its consequences is complete - He is
    the Lord after all, the maker of all things, the everlasting Father. 
    The dogma of the eternal nature of the body/soul relationship is as
    firmly established and supported by the Word of God as is the dogma of
    the Trinity, Christ as both man and God, and other dogmas.  I believe
    them every single one, by the grace of God, and they are the reasonable 
    standard for the truth on the subjects they address.
    
    jeff


    Tom