Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Go ahead and "argue", Richard.

    God bless you, Patrick.
    
    Richard
    

    "Inerrantists", as you say, agree to a greater degree with one another
    about God. I think where there are differences there are differences
    in biblical interpertation. 
    
    Often a certain view of God will fit only if other portions of
    scripture are ignored; this has to be considered an incomplete view
    although there may certainly be some truth. What is needed is a 
    'seamless garment' view of God, a theology that does not need to 
    discard or explain away sections of scripture. 
    
    In these days, the Divine Mercy of God is accepted by many with the
    Divine Justice of God entirely discarded. This is unbalanced and it
    requires the believer to explain away entire blocks of the words of
    Jesus in the Gospel and much of the Old Testament. (as an example).
    The true vision of God must account for both, otherwise one can say
    that all scripture errs and that anyones vision of God is equal to
    another.
    
    There are a lot of very pleasing theologies to choose from in today's
    religious marketplace, ones that will make the buyer very comfortable
    with any lifestyle. But are these correct and do they reflect the true
    Mind of God?
    
    As for those who say that scripture is not Divinely inspired by the 
    Holy Spirit, upon what do they base their theology of God? Upon what
    do they base their teachings of their faith? Why do the views of God
    held by those who do not call scripture Divinely inspired and inerrant
    vary even more drastically than those who base their belief on 
    scripture?
    
    How are the differences ever to be resolved?  Does the Mind of God
    differ individually for each person in that case? Does this God tell
    one person that is is ok by him/her/it (sic) that it is ok to do "X"
    and tell another person that it is an offense against God to do "X"?
    
    There is, then, absolutely no argument for any kind of obedience in
    to God in this way since each person can claim to have God's blessing
    in any activity. The anarchy that will result from this theology will
    leave us without any God and will pave the way for a godless
    militaristic and authoritative dictator who will have no opposition
    to the 'theology' of what is best for the 'state'. 
    
    In my view, we are paving the way for the Antichrist right now and 
    the 'fruits' of our individually created theologies and refusal to 
    submit to any religious authority will be the means of his arrival.
    
    Mary
    

    
    Mary, you don't respond very often.  But when you do, I really
    appreciate your input.  I think your insights, especially about
    paving the way for the Antichrist, are relevant.   Thanks for
    sharing with us!
    
    Jill

Note 605.3

>    "Inerrantists", as you say, agree to a greater degree with one another
>    about God.

Perhaps, but not to any degree significant enough to prevent schisms.

>    I think where there are differences there are differences
>    in biblical interpertation. 

True enough.  Still, it boils down to an individual selection being made
in matters of faith.

>    There are a lot of very pleasing theologies to choose from in today's
>    religious marketplace, ones that will make the buyer very comfortable
>    with any lifestyle. But are these correct and do they reflect the true
>    Mind of God?

Are all the various interpretations of the Bible you spoke of above correct and
do they all reflect the true Mind of God?

And what make you think that those who are not inerrantists seek only
comfort?  It is, I believe, a very mistaken impression.

>    As for those who say that scripture is not Divinely inspired by the 
>    Holy Spirit, upon what do they base their theology of God?

I cannot speak for everyone and I do not say that the Bible is not Divinely
inspired.

>    Upon what
>    do they base their teachings of their faith?

First person experience, direct communion, the leadings of the Holy Spirit.

>    Why do the views of God
>    held by those who do not call scripture Divinely inspired and inerrant
>    vary even more drastically than those who base their belief on 
>    scripture?

Perhaps it is an illusion.  Perhaps the variance is not as drastic as we've
been led to believe.

>    How are the differences ever to be resolved?

I don't think they ever will.

>    Does the Mind of God
>    differ individually for each person in that case? Does this God tell
>    one person that is is ok by him/her/it (sic) that it is ok to do "X"
>    and tell another person that it is an offense against God to do "X"?

This, of course, varies even among inerrantists.  Some don't dance.  Others
do.  Some don't play cards.  Others do.  Some don't drink or smoke.  Others
do.

And to whom are you referring as "it"?  Celibates, perhaps?

Peace,
Richard

    I agree with Mary also and we need to realize that God is just as
    independent as we are.  If one claims a portion of scripture to be in
    error, than the belief of the error must be substantiated by some
    absolute standard.  In other words, the thought must come from God, or
    from humans.  If "Thou shalt not commit adultery" was in error, then
    "Thou shalt not kill" has equal potential to be flawed as well.  This
    is why human justification can be a dangerous thing.
    
    God Speed,
    
    Jack  

    .6  But it was by human justification that the inerrantist all-or-nothing
    position was arrived at in the first place.
    
    Richard
    

    Understood Richard...So in light of that analysis, the bottom line is,
    Where does our hope come from and how do we know the source of our hope
    is valid?
    
    -Jack

    .8
    
    Faith.
    
    Richard

    So is faith primarily based on anything that is concrete?  An example
    would be if I read the enquirer and the headline states, "Elvis sighted
    in Argentina".  God tells us to test the spirits; therefore, my faith
    must be based on a sound source.  I can believe by faith that Elvis is
    alive based on that report; however, is my faith based on a source of
    truth or a fabrication.
    
    The bible states that All scripture is inspired by God and is
    profitable...
    
    Do you believe that passage is God inspired in itself or is it
    erroneous?  Is the word "All" in that verse a truth or a lie?!
    
    -Jack

    I taught Church School Sunday to sixth graders.  We are doing a curriculum 
    titled "Why do bad things happen?"  We are exploring a number of
    religious perspectives on why bad things happen.  The last unit of the
    year will be a unit in which the children themselves develop their own
    thoughts on why bad things happen.
    
    I am doing the unit on 'Bad things happen because God/Gods are
    punishing us for being bad'.  Sunday we explored items from the
    Egyptian book of the dead regarding what is 'sin'.
    
    Killing, Stealing, Committing Adultery, Fouling the Water, Bearing
    False Witness, Easedropping, taking food from an infant, Cursing are
    all on the list.  The 12 year olds are more than capable of deciding
    for themselves which of those things are really bad.  They are also
    able to discuss exceptions.  Next Sunday we will discuss the Hebrew and
    Christian list which amazingly is quite similiar to the Egyptian list. 
    The children will also decide which of the 10 commandments they agree
    with and which they don't and the circumstances.  Finally the children
    will work in small groups and write their own ten commandments.  I have
    Faith that those children that are serious, will come up with a list
    every bit as inpired and divinely breathed as Moses' list.  My Faith is
    based on my belief that the Divine is within you and me and within each
    of the young people in the class.  The children will have been inspired
    by the Egyptian Code and the Ten Commandments and the hindu and other
    stories and they will draw from those sources and from their own
    experience and create their own commandments.
    
    That is exactly the same process I use when I determine what sources of
    inspiration I will use and how I will use those sources for personal
    guidance.  
    
    Patricia
     

Note 605.10

>    So is faith primarily based on anything that is concrete?

(You mean, it's not true about Elvis? ;-})

>    The bible states that All scripture is inspired by God and is
>    profitable...

I cannot base what I believe about the Bible on a single verse found in a
letter to Timothy.
    
>    Do you believe that passage is God inspired in itself or is it
>    erroneous?  Is the word "All" in that verse a truth or a lie?!

I know that when that letter was written the composition of the canon (what
we now call the Holy Bible) had not been established.  Besides, I do believe
the Bible to be God-inspired.  The question is, do I believe the Bible to
be free of cultural biases and that all portions of the Bible are unequivocally
relevant for all time?

Richard

Indeed, Patricia, you are teaching them by example that their
ideas/beliefs are as true and correct as God's ideas and
beliefs.  My commentary on that position is obvious and need
not be belabored here.

Collis

re Note 605.13 by CLT::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Indeed, Patricia, you are teaching them by example that their
> ideas/beliefs are as true and correct as God's ideas and
> beliefs.  My commentary on that position is obvious and need
> not be belabored here.
  
        The impression I got from what Patricia described was that
        she was teaching the children that it was VERY important for
        them to discover God's ideas on morality, and that there was
        no "pat" answer to this, but it was one of life's important
        works.

        Bob

    Patricia:
    
    By asking the children to make a list of what commandments they agree
    with or disagree with, is your intent to show the children that there
    are no moral absolutes, or that there are moral absolutes?  In other
    words, aside from how culture changes and permisiveness changes, that
    the Ten Commandments have or have not changed and have the same
    application as they did during the times of Moses?
    
    -Jack

    Richard:
    
    Would you be willing to admit that history (I.E. Sodom and Gommorah,
    Babylon, Rome, and many other cases) show what horrible consequences
    happen when a society or country deviates from the biases of Gods word?
    
    -Jack

    In the conservative Protestant church I was raised in, I was taught
    that only nine of the ten commandments are still valid.  The one that I
    was told no longer applied was "Remember the Sabbath and Keep it Holy". 
    
    -- Mike

re Note 605.16 by MSBCS::JMARTIN:

>     Would you be willing to admit that history (I.E. Sodom and Gommorah,
>     Babylon, Rome, and many other cases) show what horrible consequences
>     happen when a society or country deviates from the biases of Gods word?
  
        Jack,

        Perhaps I shouldn't respond to a question directed to
        Richard, but do you really believe that history shows a clear
        pattern that distinguishes societies that adhere to "Gods
        word" and those that don't?

        You mention Rome -- Rome flourished over 1000 years, yet it
        never adhered to the God of the old or new testaments (with
        the possible exception of towards the very end).

        Do you have some compelling examples of what happens to a
        country that does adhere to "Gods word"?   If they prove your
        point, they should have fared much better than Rome.

        Bob

    RE: 605.11
    
    > Next Sunday we will discuss the Hebrew and Christian list which
      amazingly is quite similiar to the Egyptian list.
    
            I would think they would be.  After all Christianity
            is based on Judaism and the Israelites where in captivity
            in Egypt for some 200 years, so they would have plenty
            of time to influence that society.
    
    I'll be praying for the kids that the Holy Spirit will move to show
    them what God has deemed correct.
    
    Jill

    Jill,
    
    I realize that the Israelites were held in captivity in Egypt prior to
    the Moses legend.  So you are agreeing that the Egyptian Code is the
    basis of the 10 commandments?
    
                                    Patricia 

    Collis,
    
    Just as strongly as you are convinced that the Bible is the word of
    God, I and most UU's are convinced that the bible is the word of men.
    
    The purpose of religious education in the UU church is to teach the
    children how to question and reason for themselves.  We challenge the
    kids to define morality and define how they will live their lifes
    according to that morality.
    
    We even challenge the kids to define who and what God/Goddess means to
    them.
    
    As I mentioned before, the day my daughter came home from church
    angry after the Eve story and the Pandora's box story and said, "Do you
    know that women have been blamed for all the bad things that happen?" I
    knew the UU RE program was working.
    
    
    Patricia                        
    

Note 605.16:
    
>    Would you be willing to admit that history (I.E. Sodom and Gommorah,
>    Babylon, Rome, and many other cases) show what horrible consequences
>    happen when a society or country deviates from the biases of Gods word?

What portion of the Scriptures that now we call the Holy Bible are you saying
was available and commonly known to the people of these ancient city-states?

Richard

    Jack,
    
    Well actually I'm thinking of reading them the story also in Exodus
    about how moses instructs the tribe to kill each other after the golden
    calf and ask them how they think that relates to "thou shall not kill".
    We will talk about war, capital punishment, and assisted-suicide. 
    Again the kids will decide for themselves how they stand on each issue.
    
    I think I will pass on asking them "What does, thou shall not commit
    adultery?"  mean to David and Soloman?
    
                                   Patricia
    
                           

    Patricia:
    
    I am glad you brought those up.  Make sure when you are teaching the
    kids that in the original Hebrew, the commandment actually reads, "Thou
    shalt not murder".  That is very important as it distinguishes the
    difference between what Moses was told to do by God (Justifiable) and
    what a criminal does (Unjustifiable)  Make sure you make that
    distinction or they will be robbed of the entire context of the truth.
    
    Best,
    
    Jack

    Patricia:
    
    I forgot to mention: David and Solomon payed dearly for the SIN they
    committed even though David was a man after Gods own heart.  His
    adulterous relationship brought misery and death to both him and his
    child.
    
    As for Solomon, have your students look at verses from Ecclesiastes
    and see how vain and empty his life became due to his having foreign
    wives which by the way, grieved the Holy Spirit.  The students need
    more than anything to hear this otherwise again they will be robbed of
    the whole picture.
    
    Best,
    
    Jack

    Ecclesiastes is often attributed to Solomon, but it's doubtful that
    Solomon actually wrote it.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    As it states in Hebrews 1, God provided the law and more importantly,
    the prophets.  These are just some examples of how countries were
    verbally warned and reaped the wrath of disobediance.
    
    1. See Isaiah, Ezekiel, and many minor prophets re: Babylonian Exile.
    2. See Jonah for repentance of Ninevah, only to have them fall later
       in Obediah (I believe)
    3. See prophecy re: Ishmael and of how the hands of the world will be
       against him.
    4. See Sodom and Gommorah - Jesus said it will be more tolerable for
       them than for us.
    5. Jesus prophecy of the fall of Jerusalem (Read Josephus) Horrible
       time.
    
    Really, I'm sure both you or anybody could probably find many more
    examples.  The point being that God reveals his will and we are without
    excuse.  
    
    -Jack

    I submit that 'murder' and 'kill' were indistinguishable terms in the time
    of Moses.  What the commandment meant to the people of Moses' time was
    "Do not kill (any of your own people)."
    
    Richard
    

    .28
    
    I submit that what you are talking about is other than the inerrancy of the
    Bible in it's present form and composition.
    
    Richard
    

    
    Actually Patricia...I would imagine that the Egyptians feared the
    Israelites' God as He wiped out their army in a mighty and amazing 
    way.  I would imagine they would send someone to investigate
    who their God was and what they believe.  When you come up against
    that kind of force it's hard to deny an Almighty God.  
    
    Jill

    re: .11
    
    Patricia,
    
        If your class was composed of street children from LA Gangs or the
    two 10-year old boys in Liverpool who beat to death the 2-year old
    then their list of 10-commandments would be much different than those
    of your 6th graders, the Book of the Dead, or the Bible. 
    
        Neither children nor adults know the Mind of God by fishing around
    in themselves. It is certainly a good method of reducing God to our own
    limited concepts of Him and to attribute our values of righteousness
    to Him, but it is not knowing God.
    
        Sin is being justified in these means and the true righteousness of
    God is being degraded (in the eyes of humans, not His real
    righteousnessm, of course) because so many are trying to find 'the god
    within'. 
    
        You may say that the children I mentioned have been corrupted, but
    who has corrupted them? People who do not fear the Lord and those who
    design their own god to reflect their own 'theology' and desires.
    
        The image of God matters.
    
    Mary
    

    Well, I wrote this at noontime when this note topic was still in single
    digits and will post it anyway :
    
    
    My only response is that we must remember about whom we speak and in
whose name we instruct others. We are not discussing the attributes of
a political canidate or his or her 'program' for us. Through our discussions
we are presenting what we believe is Truth about God Almighty. God DOES
hold us accountable for how we influence others concerning belief in Him.

    Therefore, this is serious for the sake of our own souls and those of
others. It would be better for us not to speak about Him at all rather than
to take what we say lightly. It should also cause us to seriously examine
what we believe and why concerning the Mind of God and His Truth. 

    Church teachings about Jesus is that He is the Son of God, born as a
Man and who paid the price for our redemption on the Cross and it is through
acceptance, in faith, in Him that we have salvation. Acceptance, i.e. faith,
requires that we believe in Him, His works, and in His Word. 

    If we hold to ANY of the above (which seems to be essential if we consider
ourselves to bear the name of Christ) then we should seriously consider the 
basis upon which we reject any other element of this theology. Jesus teaches
in scripture that in Him, the Father is perfectly revealed. He also says 
that if if we profess faith in Him then we will keep all that he has 
revealed through His Word. We should also consider upon what basis do we
reject the church that Jesus himself found it good to establish.

    It is easy to score debating points, but that will mean nothing towards
our salvation or our ability to form a peaceful life in this world. Without
Christ there is no salvation or peace. When each person decides that they
march to their own drum and have all rights to do so, then the criminal and
evil ones in this world can claim the same rights. They do already today
and we have no peace. 

    The Christian community, the church, that Jesus Christ founded was one
that had leaders of authority, the apostles, and the people who became
Christians 1) obeyed the apostles because they trusted Jesus and His
establishment of their authority, 2) gave totally of their wealth and
selves within the Christian community, holding nothing as their own,
(self-sacrifice), and 3) accepted martyrdom rather than accept a accomodation
or dilution of the True Faith. 

    They were not suspicious of the Word of God or even of God Himself and
they did not spend their time trying to find the loopholes or ways to 
meet the bare minimum of Jesus' teachings. They immersed themselves in
his teachings more and more and tried to live them out to the fullest extent.
Although there were difficulties in the early Church with authority, it is
clear from Jesus' teachings in the Gospel and that of God the Father that
we are to be obedient.

    The Christians did not seek individual rights or interpertations, but
sought a life of sharing and communion in peace. This could only be done by
accepting authority and One Truth/One Faith. They, just as Jesus, did not
put their own lives over that of God and Truth; like Jesus, they became
martyrs rather than accept compromises to the Gospel. 

    Pluralism today is truely nothing more than compromise and a sense that
Truth, in God's eyes, is relative. It is a view that says that God does not
mean what he says; his mind can be swayed as easily as ours. When any 'truth'
becomes acceptable then there is no Truth.

    Again, the extreme fruits of this can be seen in the mind, attitude, and
actions of criminals. Less pronounced examples can be seen every day in the
work and home environments where people profess to be 'on board' when it comes
to projects and goals but then go their own way or they disagree outright and
insist beyond all group efforts to fight decisions. The individual's view,
first no longer accountable to God, is now certainly not accountable to another
human in the community, workplace, and family.
    
    God who gives us free will, but that means the choice of good or evil,
    truth or falsehood, self or God. How we view God and His authority over 
    us determines how we live amongst ourselves. Unfortunatly, all of humanity is
    running full tilt over the precipice.

Mary

    
    An addition to my .31 note:
    
    BTW...the previous note is an assumption on my part.  It's not based on
    any documentation.
    
    I remember in my World Religions class that Mohammed didn't just come
    up with the idea of monotheism for Islam on his own in some cave by 
    Divine revelation.  But when he was a youth he travelled quite often 
    to Israel and was introduced to this concept.
    
    Now the Egyptians did have the 200 years with the Israelites which gave
    them a basis of what they believed in.  Plus the Egyptians had to have
    sent someone out to investigate the troops disappearance.  Also, word
    would have eventually gotten back to them that Moses and his people
    survived and how their army was destroyed.  It was common place to send
    out people to investigate what was happening in other regions.
    
    Jill

Note 605.33

> God DOES
> hold us accountable for how we influence others concerning belief in Him.

I wholeheartedly agree!

>    Church teachings.....

This topic is about the inerrancy of the Bible rather than Church teachings.

>    If we hold to ANY of the above (which seems to be essential if we consider
>ourselves to bear the name of Christ) then we should seriously consider the 
>basis upon which we reject any other element of this theology.

Throw out the baby with the bath water?

>    Again, the extreme fruits of this can be seen in the mind, attitude, and
>actions of criminals.

I beg to differ, but this is another topic.

Richard

    Your anecdote left out what _is_ the lesson of the story of the Fall of
    Adam and Eve?

    Of course it isn't that women are responsible for evil in the world.

    Is it

    (1) that the Genesis account is a meaningless myth cribbed from older
    Babylonian or Egyptian myths.

    (2) a profound story about human nature, namely that we are full of
    pride and given the choice between obedience to God and rebellion, we
    choose rebellion.

    RE:.16
    
    Actually, one reason for the downfall of the Roman Empire was the
    conversion to the Christian faith. The invadors from Germany didn't
    have the same attitudes.
    
    Before this turns into a debate on the rise and fall of the roman 
    empire.....this was only a "factor".
    
    Marc H.

    Patrick:
    
    I submit to you that there is a geneology of Adam to the twelve sons of
    Jacob listed in 1st Chronicles.  Had Adam not existed, the writer
    would've been a fool to take the time to write out such a complete
    lineage.  Therefore, I conclude that since there is specific
    information available in other books of many of the individuals in that
    lineage, the whole account of Genesis to Jacob could not have been
    fabricated to the point as it is written.  Too many of the puzzle
    pieces fit too well together!  Not only that, mere man wouldn't have
    the wisdom to write it on their own.  They would have to know the mind
    of God.  Adam and Eve did exist, no myth!!
    
    Richard, if the command, "Thou shalt not kill" was directed
    only to the Israelites killing their own,then why would God have commanded 
    the death penalty for such things as working on the Sabbath, etc?   
    
    -Jack

    Re: 18  -  Bob
    
    Bob,
    
    You make a valid point regarding the Roman Empire.  They were in power
    for quite a long time.  I tried to give that some serious thought this
    morning as I question why such a corrupt nation was in power so long.
    
    The only conclusion I can come up with is what was explained in Daniel
    chapter 2. If you recall, Nebuchadnezzar the King of Babylon had a
    dream and Daniel interpreted it.  There was a great image.  The head
    was made of fine gold (Represents Neb.), his breasts and his arms of
    silver (Medo Persians), his belly and thighs of brass (Greek Empire),
    His legs of Iron and his feet of partly iron and partly clay (ROMAN
    EMPIRE).  This is important because as Daniel interprets the dream, he
    mentions that the fourth empire which ended up being the Roman Empire,
    was iron and as it states in verse 40, "And the fourth kingdom shall be
    as strong as iron, forasmuch as iron breaketh in pieces and subdues all
    things..."  This nation shows to be the most powerful of the four and
    although they were a corrupt nation, God allowed them the longevity
    they had. 
    
    I could be wrong, I realize that.  I have studied a few commentaries on
    this and historians come up with this conclusion.  Incidentally, you
    may recall the verse stating the toes were part iron and part clay. 
    This is the passage where some interpret the toes as a return to
    Romanism (Roman Empire).  In other words, the end times.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack 
              

  >The impression I got from what Patricia described was that
  >she was teaching the children that it was VERY important for
  >them to discover God's ideas on morality, and that there was
  >no "pat" answer to this, but it was one of life's important
  >works.

I don't know if Pat was teaching that it was VERY important to
discover God's ideas on morality from what she said or not.
Certainly it had some importance.

I agree that Pat was teaching that there was no "pat" answer.
She was also teaching much more than this.  She taught them
where the answer could be found.  By implication, she also taught
them that the answer differs for different people.  She also
taught them that there is no substantive difference between who
we are as humans and who God is as God since God lives in all
of us.  As someone who believes the first commandment is still
valid, this teaching grieves me.

The acid test is whether or not Pat will show them the implications
and meaning of her teaching and give them a *true* choice of
believing the first commandment (that we are *not* God and never
will be) or whether she is content to shape their minds to her
own beliefs.

Collis

    re: .38 -> .36 -> .22
    
    Jack,
    
    "Patrick", that's me, is a Roman Catholic who believes what his Church
    teaches. What his Church teaches about the Bible is it is inerrant on
    matters of faith and morals.  I believe Jesus is the Answer.  Jesus is
    the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
    
    "Patricia" is the author of .22 and her religion, in her own words, the
    emphasis is on the question.  My .36 is a question to her.
    
    Pat

      
    
      >The impression I got from what Patricia described was that
      >she was teaching the children that it was VERY important for
      >them to discover God's ideas on morality, and that there was
      >no "pat" answer to this, but it was one of life's important
      >works.
    
    Richard's interpretation of my entry is close.  
    
    I believe in a universal Goddess/God that is available to and 'saves'
    all people.  I believe in the Holy Spirit which is everywhere.  Within
    all things and within each of us.  I believe that  the Holy Spirit
    within us  allows us to discern true teachings from false
    teaching.  When I read the bible and I read the command to love God
    with all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as
    yourself, I know with my whole being that that is truly inspired.  In
    the same book when I read about Jesus saying there will be weeping and
    gnashing of teeth, I also know with my whole being that this is a first
    century distortion of the teachings of a Universal God of love.  I
    believe in a unifying Power that is available to each of you, to me ,
    and to all the children.
    
    I am regularly accused of worshipping false Gods in this conference. 
    My only hope is that those who are so sure that I am mislead will look
    to themselves and perhaps understand their own idolatries.
    
    Patricia

    RE: .42
    
    The conflict is really the UU belief verses the more conservative/
    catholic faiths.  Discusion is useful, but, I don't believe that
    full agreement is ever possible.
    
    Marc H.

.38
 
>    Richard, if the command, "Thou shalt not kill" was directed
>    only to the Israelites killing their own,then why would God have commanded 
>    the death penalty for such things as working on the Sabbath, etc?   

God was having a bad day that day.  You'll notice that neither we nor the
Jews adhere to such an obtuse command as putting someone to death for
working on the Sabbath anymore.

Richard

    .42
    
    To further complicate things, Patricia, that was Bob who said that,
    not Richard.
    
    ;-)
    Richard
    

> You'll notice that neither we nor the
>Jews adhere to such an obtuse command as putting someone to death for
>working on the Sabbath anymore.

	There have been a number of cases of people being stoned to death
	for driving (a form of work) through a particular Jewish district
	of Jerusalem over the last 20 years or so. It would be naive to
	suggest that this law (and punishment) is being ignored by all.

			Alfred

    Richard,

    Why is obedience to the commandments of God, as one is given the grace
    to understand them, "obtuse"?

    Pat 

    Richard,
    
    Thanks for the correction and sorry Bob for acknowledging Richard and
    not you.  It does feel good to have several person in the conference
    who do not distort my views.
    
    
    Patricia

    The Meyer Sheharim community in Jerusalem is well-known as in their
    strict adherence to the letter of the Law.
    
    It is also well known that they are almost totally alone, even among
    the most Orthodox of Jews, in their extreme position.
    
    Daniel

    Richard,
    
    God was obviously not having a bad day.  The death sentence was
    implemented in many parts of the Mosaic law.  This includes adultery,
    worshipping false Gods, etc.
    
    Patricia:  Your views haven't been distorted.  You present what you
    feel is fact sometimes with little or no evidence to support your
    premise.  Also, you blatently seem to refuse to acknowledge God as a
    God of Holiness, Righteousness, and Judgement.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

Note 605.50,
    
>    God was obviously not having a bad day.  The death sentence was
>    implemented in many parts of the Mosaic law.  This includes adultery,
>    worshipping false Gods, etc.

About God having a bad day, perhaps I wasn't clear that it was a facetious
remark.

Are you indicating that because it says so in the Bible you *do* advocate the
death penalty for working on the Sabbath, that you don't find anything
wrong with it, at all?

>    Also, you blatently seem to refuse to acknowledge God as a
>    God of Holiness, Righteousness, and Judgement.

In all fairness to Patricia, I don't think she has denied the very thing you're
claiming she refuses to acknowledge.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    I figured you were being facetious on that.  As far as advocating this
    law.  The answer is that I would dread it as I would've been put to
    death 500 times over!  I think it's interesting to note that King
    David, a man after Gods own heart, committed adultery and was a
    conspirator to murder, yet was not put to death.  In Psalm 103, David
    says, "The Lord is merciful and gracious, slow to anger and abundant in
    mercy. (This is the Universal Love Patricia alluded to).  He will not
    always abide, or hold his anger forever.  He hath not dealt with us
    after our sins, nor rewarded us according to our iniquities."  The last
    part of this passage indicates Gods love, tempered with Holiness.  This
    is the rest of the message people need to convey to others.  
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

Richard:  

When I challenged (Not attacked) Patricia's stance on the Holiness aspect of 
God, you stood in her defense and said she made no such denial of this teaching.
Attached please see entries from 571 (Fear and Scare Tactics), .41 and reply in 
.42.  I will attempt to attach the two together here.

Rgds.,

Jack        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 571.41                  Fear and Scare tactics.                   41 of 241
CSTEAM::MARTIN                                       18 lines  28-DEC-1992 14:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Hi Pat:
    
    The Divine is also a God of Holiness.  He has set himself apart from
    sin.  Since the Divine has repeatedly repeatedly repeatedly told us
    that we are sinners and the wages of sin is spiritual death and hell,
    then the Divine's Love for us must be exceedingly great as the Divine
    has told us the way and provided the way through a horrible death on
    the cross.  
    
    Its not a matter of my truth being better than your truth or any such
    thing.  God has redeemed us with a heavy price and it is up to us to
    accept it or reject it!  For me to reject his death as payment for my
    sin would not be a reciprocal act of love, but rather contempt and
    hate.  Do you agree or disagree?
    
    Godspeed,
    
    Jack



	<<< LGP30::DKA#)):[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
		 -<Discussions from a Christian Perspective>
================================================================================
Note 571.42		    Fear and Scare Tactics.		       42 of 241
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "waiting for the snow"		      6 lines  28-DEC-1992 15:09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jack,

    I disagree!


    Patricia

    .53
    
    Paricia can answer for herself, of course.  But I've a hunch that she
    is in disagreement with something other than the part about "God is a
    God of Holiness."
    
    Richard
    

    Jack,
    
    I worship Goddess/God as a God of Holiness, Righteousness, and Love.  I
    have a much more difficult time with the God of judgement part.  God
    does want us to be as perfect as we can be but she pulls us toward
    perfection by her love for us and not by threats of torture. 
    
    Love and torture are contradictory qualities.
    
    Patricia

    Patricia,
    
    God is love.
    
    A God of judgment and a God of love are not contradictory.
    
    Why do link the concepts of judgment and torture?
    
    Pat

    .52
    
    Thee has answered wisely, friend.  However, thee makes me glad thee
    is *not* a law enforcement official! ;-)
    
    Richard
    

    Patrick,
    
    The bible links Judgement with violence and torture in many places.  
    Noah's Ark, Sodom and Gommorah, The Weeping and gnashing of teeth.
    
    I agree that judgment and love do not have to be contradictory.
    
    I maintain that ((torture or violence) and love) are contradictory.

    Patricia:
    
    Gods judgement is totally our decision.  God has never forced anything
    upon us.  It is our decision.  Remember the cross.  He (Yes Jesus was a
    man), was tortured and killed for you.  What an act of Love..huh!
    
    Jack

     I've only been able to catch a few notes here and there so if this
    was already touched on... well... repetition can't hurt.
     The last batch of notes here I read reminded me of a few verses in
     Romans 11 we should keep in mind; particularly 33-36. Take a few
    minutes to look this up. It seems clear to me to point out how we owe
    all to GOD and should never try to presume to know what he should or
    shouldn't do/have done.
    
       robin

    Robin,
    
    	I've not tried to presume to know what God should do or have done.
    Neither am I saying that the Bible presents a blemishless portrait of God.
    
    Richard
    

RE: Note 605.61             CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Rise Again!"               
  
      Richard,                                                                
    
   > 	I've not tried to presume to know what God should do or have done.
   > Neither am I saying that the Bible presents a blemishless portrait of God.
    
    I was not directing any accusations in .60  I hope you did not take it
    that way. As a matter of fact, now that I've looked back through a few
    notes I can point to notes .56 SWEENEY and .58 FLANAGAN as the two
    notes in particular that prompted me to enter note .60
    
     robin
    Richard
    

    Robin,

    All I wanted out of this thread was to know if Patricia (from .22)
    thought that Gn 2-3 was a profound lesson from God on human nature or a
    meaningless myth.

    She said it was it was a meaningless myth.

    Romans 11:30-32 "Just as you [the Christians in Rome] were once
    disobedient to God and now have received mercy through their [Jews who
    oppose the followers of Christ] disobedience,

    so they have become disobedient - since God wished to show you mercy -
    that they too may receive mercy.

    God has imprisoned all in disobedience that he might have mercy on all.
    ---

    So why, then, is anyone disobedient to God?  It is because our human
    nature is full of pride and disobedience to God.  We don't deserve to
    exist, but because of God's love we are given eternal life. That act of
    God's will is mercy.

    We know the mind of God to the extent he has revealed himself.  Robin,
    only a few writing in CP are willing to accept the hard lessons of the
    Bible. CP is full of notes which dismiss the Bible as a revealed word
    of God: his intent for the human race, his mind.
    
    Pat
                        

    RE: .63
    
    Your self assured smugness with regard to judgements on people in this
    notes file is out of line. Its even more upsetting during this holy
    time of lent.
    
    Why can't you see that others might disagree with you?
    
    Marc H.

	RE: .64 What note is that a reply to? I don't see a relationship
	in it to anything in .63. To the contrary, .63 strongly indicates
	that people disagree with the author while .64 asks the author why
	they can't see that people disagree.

	Also I saw no smuggness in .63. Actually when I read .64 several names
	came to mind as to who it might be a reply too. Pat was not one of 
	those names.

			Alfred

    RE: .65
    
    Last paragraph of .63.....
    
    Marc H.

    If I am wrong and many writing in CP are willing to accept the hard
    lessons of the Bible, then I regret the error.

    It was my observation not my judgment.  I mentioned only to let Robin
    know that Romans 11 may be part of the "myth", "distortion", etc. that
    others consider to the Bible, or parts of the Bible to be.

    I thought the recognition that participants in CP may or may not
    accpept the Bible as the inerrant word of God was the essence of CP.

    I can't speak for Marc, but this was the comment that I found smug and
    characteristically offensive:
    
    >only a few writing in CP are willing to accept the hard lessons of the
    >Bible. 
    
    The presupposition is that the reason people disagree with Sweeney is
    that they are not "willing to accept" what he describes as "the hard
    lessons".  It isn't that people sincerely and thoughtfully disagree
    with him, but rather the lessons are too hard for them to swallow so
    they don't accept them instead.
    
    -- Mike

    So this is a semantic quibble over "agree" and "accept", then?
    
    Pat

    No, Sweeney, it is not a "semantic quibble".  Is it your assertion that
    the reason people don't "agree" with what you characterize as the "hard
    lessons of the Bible" is that it is too hard for them?
    
    -- Mike

    *sigh*  "Semantic quibbles"?
    
    This accusation from a man who accuses others of carrying "agendas"
    because of words they use...
    
    If I had a mirror...
    
    Daniel

>    >only a few writing in CP are willing to accept the hard lessons of the
>    >Bible. 
>    
>    The presupposition is that the reason people disagree with Sweeney is
>    that they are not "willing to accept" what he describes as "the hard
>    lessons".  It isn't that people sincerely and thoughtfully disagree
>    with him, but rather the lessons are too hard for them to swallow so
>    they don't accept them instead.
 
	So if Pat had left out the word "hard" it wouldn't have been smug?
	
				Alfred 

    RE: .67
    
    Speaking for myself....its a fine line, this particular notes
    file. I entered into this file, not having the answers to God,
    Bible,Religion, etc. I entered into this file because I wanted
    to learn by having discussion with people about the Christian
    Life.
    
    I am still learning and growing...but...in this file, I tend to 
    "let my guard down" when I talk about what God/Christ/Holy Spirit
    means to me. As such, I'm hoping for careful, thoughtful, replies
    that don't try to score debating points, but, try to guide me
    towards finding an answer.
    
    When I see a reply that puts down the beliefs of others, or says
    that most people here are wrong and I have the correct answer...
    then I tend to "see red" and fire off a quick reply. It bothers
    me.
    
    I really don't agree with some of the comments by Richard or Ro,
    or others....but...I can respect them . The problem that I have
    with a comment like Pat's is that it comes across as "I know the
    true answer and you and others are wrong to question me".
    The respect isn't their.
    
    Now...I'm far from perfect in this regard, and I regret any reply
    that might offend another. If I am wrong in describing you,
    Pat Sweeney, then I apologize.
    
    Marc H.

    >So if Pat had left out the word "hard" it wouldn't have been smug?

    Maybe less strongly smug, although the word does seem to fit into the
    overall context of what essentially comes across as a smug and
    condescending sentence.  Saying that people are "unwilling to accept
    lessons" is similar in offensiveness to saying that people are
    "unwilling to accept the hard lessons".  The overall context, that
    sentence and the surrounding text, comes across similarly
    condescending.  But perhaps if Sweeney wants to clarify what he wrote
    for our benefit, and if he wants to explain that he really didn't mean
    that people who disagreed with him on the Bible did so not out of
    sincere disagreement but out of lacking the will to apply hard lessons
    to themselves, then this matter would be cleared up once and for all. 
    Otherwise, we can sit here all day and play games considering the
    implications of what Sweeney didn't write instead of what he did write,
    by adding words to and deleting words from his sentences.

    -- Mike

    As somebody who may certainly be wrong at times and has learned much
    from others here, I pose a challenge to all of you that any philosophy
    or teaching that is heard in this conference have some sort of
    scriptural backing.  An example.
    
    Jesus is a cry baby because the gospels say Jesus wept.
    
    Obviously the verse is taken out of context; however, this will give
    somebody the opportunity to disagree and pose their biblical evidence.
    Let's say you can support a position either by quoting verse, passage,
    or biblical historical evidence.  Sound fair to everyone?!
    
    Best,
    
    Jack

    RE: 606.63
    
    Patrick,
    
    You misinterpret me again.
    
    I never said the Adam and Eve Story was a meaningless myth.
    
    No cultural or Psychological Archetype of that sort could be considered
    meaningless.
    
    I have also heard many different interpretation of that story all of
    them having archetypal meaning.  
    
    That particular myth has had more impact of the relationship between
    women and men then perhaps any other myth.  I would not say it was
    meaningless.
    
    
    Patricia

    RE: .75
    
    Jack, some people would say that the evidence comes from prayer
    and help from the Holy Spirit....how would that fit in?
    
    Marc H.

    Marc:
    
    Absolutely.  Both prayer and the Holy Spirit are revealed to us in the
    Word of God.  Also since John 1:1 states that the Word is God and since
    the Holy Spirit is God, the two go hand in hand.  Remember King David's
    words, "Thy Word have I hid in my heart, that I may not sin against
    thee."  David, a man after Gods own heart, used the Word (The Mosaic
    law at the time) as his standard.  Even though he didn't always live by
    it, he knew the Word was from God and was God's standard for living and
    was the true way.
    
    Promoting God's way, not my own,
    
    Jack
    
    

    Patricia:   
    
    A little more food for thought on the issue of "Thou shalt not kill".
    According to the way God set up the law, the blood of a man/woman was
    on their own head if they were killed while in the process of
    committing a crime.  As an example, say I broke into a house and
    starting destroying and robbing the place.  Now if the owner of the
    property came up from behind me and hit me on the back with a shovel,
    and then I died, my blood is not on his head.  It is on my own.
    
    If you want to portray truth when teaching the children and adding
    input regarding the death penalty, you may want to study this yourself
    to see if it is true so you can give the students the proper
    perspective.

    I believe you are "projecting" (whose favorite word was that, anyway?)
    the "smugness" of the Bible on me.  OK, I am smug to the extent that
    the Bible is smug.  I can live with that.  A call to repent is going to
    understood by some of the unrepentant to be smug.  A call to to repent
    by a hypocrite is going to be understood by all to be hypocritical.
    
    Quibble time:
    
    Does the Bible contain lessons or moral instruction applicable to all
    today?
    
    If so, are those lessons hard?
    
    If so, do some people writing in CP not accept them.
    
    To add to the quibble over "accept" and "agree", one might add
    "consider relevant to one's life".
    
    I'll concede that one may call oneself a Christian and simply consider
    every book and verse of the Bible irrelvant.

    As for Genesis 2-3, Patricia is it that you see it as a meaningful myth
    not in that it teaches a profound lesson that the nature of human
    beings is pride and rebellion to God, namely what 20 centuries of
    Christian teaching have taught to be original sin, but as a myth, is a
    sort of "original sexism".

    The question is whether those who disagree with Sweeney do so out of
    sincere and heartfelt conviction, or simply out of convenience? 
    Sweeney apparently asserts that it is out of convenience. 
    
    If that is what he believes (and his "clarification" in note .80 makes
    no effort to suggest that it isn't), then  this kind of assertion would
    be both smug and offensive.  Of course, if that isn't what he is
    asserting, then he could always just come out and say it, just as he
    could always come right out and say that I am not a great evil.
    
    -- Mike (the great evil who believes things out of convenience)

    Mike, 

    I am not holding out myself as the standard.  The standard I attempt to
    live by and refer to is whether one considers the Bible to be inerrant
    in matters of faith and morals.  This isn't a new problem in
    Christianity or in CP.

    The emotion I feel is one of sincere surprise that merely raising this
    as an issue in this note is "both smug and offensive". I am smug and
    offensive only to the extent that one reads the Bible and finds it to
    be smug and offensive. I deny that I have said that you are a great
    evil.

    The great distraction is to identify who is and isn't evil while losing
    sight of what is evil in the first place.  However anxious one may be
    to cast stones at people one thinks are casting stones, I won't engage
    in that.

    I believe what I believe out of obedience to God.
    
    Pat

    Pat, thank you for your sincere response, and thank you for clarifying
    what you meant.  I apologize if I misconstrued what you were saying.
    
    -- Mike

At first I wondered what the past two dozen or so notes had to do with
"The image of God", and then I remembered that we are all "The image of God".

This discussion must be an image of God.

Bob

    Well, to get back to the "Image of God", I beieve it is referring to
    man as having a Spirit, just as the Bible states that God is not a God
    of flesh and bones, but of Spirit.
    
    In Chapter 1 of Genesis, man is created in the image of God.  In
    chapter 2, man is formed from the dust of the earth.  Image isn't
    referring to the actual physical make up of man but rather the essence
    of man.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    Jack

There's a wonderful book by artist/former Benedictine nun Meinrad
Craighead, called *The Mother's Songs: Images of God the Mother.* 
(I also have a calender of her paintings -- some from this book -- 
on my wall) 

Very powerful & moving, her images are,

Dorian

    
    Actually it's interesting to note that the Bible said Adam was
    created in the image of God and Eve from Adam.
    
    Then after the fall...
    
    Seth was created in the image of Adam and Eve.  
    
    Still in His image but blocked from Him by the penalty of sin.

	The Scriptures indicate that "God is a Spirit"(John 4:24) and that
	Adam was made of dust (1Corinthians 15:47) hence the physical makeup
	as it were is different. Man is made in the image of God in that all
	men can display to some degree the fine qualities that Jehovah God
	displays. The four major qualities, symbolized by the four living
	creatures, as I remember are Love, Justice, Power and farsighted
	wisdom (I hope the last one is right). Mankind as I say are capable
	of displaying these qualities, however being imperfect it is done
	in a inbalanced way. Eg justice is meted out without love or mercy,
	or power is harnessed without the quality of farsighted wisdom hence
	we have a poluted earth. However, Almighty God is perfect so all of
	mankind would be wise to look to him for direction (Deut 32:4,5) for
	"I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong.
	It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step."
	Jeremiah 10:23 NWT.

	Phil. 

       RE: 88 Phil

     >> Man is made in the image of God in that all
     >>	men can display to some degree the fine qualities that Jehovah God
     >>	displays. The four major qualities, symbolized by the four living
     >>	creatures, as I remember are Love, Justice, Power and farsighted
     >>	wisdom (I hope the last one is right). 

        Phil,  

	Refresh my memory, are these four creatures from Revalation or from
	Ezekiel?  I would like to read that passage to understand the 
	symbolism.

	Also, I still maintain that we are made in the image of God in that
	we are flesh but also spirit.  Unlike animals who live on instict, we
	humans have been given the gift of reason and conscience.  If we
	turn from God, our spirit can be convicted just as Cains was when he
	killed Abel.  The law had not yet been written although he knew he
	had done wrong.  A dog can be trained to be devoted, loving, and loyal
	which are the same fine godly qualities of Jehovah we posess; however,
	is a dog made in the image of God?  I would say no because a dog is
	not a spiritual being.

	Rgds.,

	Jack
	

Note 605.80

>    I believe you are "projecting" (whose favorite word was that, anyway?)

I used the word once only.  It was you who then made a big deal out of it.
Furthermore, you're not using it in the same sense as I used it.

Richard

re: Note 605.89 by Jack

>	A dog can be trained to be devoted, loving, and loyal which are the 
>	same fine godly qualities of Jehovah we posess; however, is a dog 
>	made in the image of God?  I would say no because a dog is not a 
>	spiritual being.

Hmmm, From the dogs I've personally known, they can be trained to sit, fetch, 
lie down and roll over; but devotion, love, and loyalty is something they come 
by naturally.  In fact, sadly, dogs will suffer a great deal of abuse before 
those core qualities can be beaten out of them.

I've known dogs who were far more spiritual than many people close to my life.

Peace,

Jim

re .89

	Jack,

	It is near time to go home hear in the UK, so all  being well I'll 
	let you know the passages on Monday with a little explanation of 
	there interpretation. Also I would like to respond to your comments
	in .89.

	Phil

	

Re: 91 by Jim

>>Hmmm, From the dogs I've personally known, they can be trained to sit, fetch, 
>>lie down and roll over; but devotion, love, and loyalty is something they come 
>>by naturally.  In fact, sadly, dogs will suffer a great deal of abuse before 
>>those core qualities can be beaten out of them.

>>I've known dogs who were far more spiritual than many people close to my life.

Jim:

If you are talking about dogs having the attributes of the fruits of the Spirit,
I.E. Peace, Patience, Kindness, etc., I will certainly agree with you.  If
some of the people we are stuck with in this world had one ounce of what a dog
has, it would be a far better place.

I would like to make a distinction here.  All people are created as a Spirit 
being.  Remember the battle for the mind; your flesh against your spirit.  To
be spiritual as you stated is not a condition, it is an action.  Sometimes this
action isn't always godly either.  Witchcraft, Satanism, New Age, these are all
spiritual actions and, based on scriptural insight, demonic at best.

To be filled with the Spirit is an action on the part of the believer and we are
challenged to be filled with the Spirit in Ephesians Ch. 5.

Take Care,

Jack

	I got these next two replies from an outside source and thought you
    would find them interesting.
                                 
                                
    
                   God's Great Provision - A "Tree of Life"

                                    Root:
                        God's grand plan of Salvation
                     so we may enter his eternal kingdom

          "Jesus answered, 'I amd the Way, the Truth, and the Life.
           No one comes to the Father except through me.  John 14:6



     Truth                God                  Death               Spirituality
     defined             defined              defined                 defined

God is truth and       God is Creator        Consequence of sin.  Man is a
is revealed truth      and Sustainer of                           spiritual
                       the universe and      Satan's domain.      being.
Scripture contains     is separate from
God's moral code       it.  God created      To be feared by the  Communion
                       man in His image.     unrepentant.         with God.
Good and evil exist
                       God is personal.      Appointed once to    Meditation on
There are absolutes;                         man.                 God's word.
10 Commandments are    Man cannot save
not recommendations.   himself; God can.     Precursor to final   Holy Spirit
                                             Judgment (reward or  is our guide.
Must shun all forms    Man is made steward   punishment).
of evil.               of earth's resources.                      Must shun
                                             Forbidden to try     practices
Knowledge of truth     Man is to worship     contacting the dead. that opens
brings responsibility  the Creator, not the                       one to Satan
for actions.           created.                                   and his
                                                                  spirit world.
                       Godless global
                       activities are
                       forbidden.

                       God establishes
                       male authority.

                   Satan's Grand Lie - A "Tree of Death"

                                    Root:
                            Satan's grand plan for
                              a New World Order
                                     |
                                     |
               "You surely shall not die! For God knows that in
              the day you eat from it, your eyes will be opened,
               and you will be like God knowing good and evil."
                                     |          Genesis 3:4-5
                                     |
   __________________________________|_____________________________
   |                   |                      |                   |
   |                   |                      |                   |
Relativism          Pantheism            Reincarnation        Esotericism

Truth is         God is redefined.       Death is redefined.  Spirituality is
redefined.                                                    redefined.
                 God is all - all        Evolution.
Good and evil    is God - God is                              Feelings and
are illusions.   cosmic force.           Survival of the      experience is
                                         fittest.             truth.
Situational      Nature is divine.
ethics.                                  No judgment (No      Transformation of
                 Human is divine.        good or evil).       consciousness.
No moral
absolutes.       Man can and must        Karma.               Enlightenment.
                 save himself by:
Elimination      (a) saving planet;      Transmigration of    Inner guides -
of censorship.   environmentalism,       souls.               channeling.
                 animal rights.
Pornography.     (b) global education;   Promotes: suicide,   Drugs.
                 world peace, world      euthanaisa,
Gay rights.      food supply, world      abortion.            Astrology -
                 currency, disarmament,                       predictions.
All value        abolition of            Studies in death
systems are      nationalism.            and dying.           Occultism.
equal.
                 Earth is "Mother" -     Channeling -         Satanism.
Rock music.      Gaia - Goddess worship  communication
                 - witchcraft - Wicca    with spirit          Out-of-body
Television.      - paganism - feminism.  world.               experiences.

Politically      Secular humanism.       Near-death           Transcendental
correct speach.                          experiences.         meditation.

                                                              Mysticism -
                                                              eastern religions

                                                              Science of mind
                                                              - visualization

                                                              Extraterrestrial

Let us take note that the tree of death has some "good" elements in it.  Who
wouldn't want to be responsible ecologically, for example?  The problem with it
is that it removes God from the equation.  Man will solve the world's problems
without God.  Sin is abolished.  "There is no such thing as sin."                                                   travel - UFOs
                                                             

    
    jack,
    
    in my opinion it is not the Wiccan or New Agers who are
    the demons of this time. the ones who are truly possessed
    by the devil are the zealots of the religious right. 
    
    peter

    Peter,
    
    I agree with you totally and completely.  This kind of propaganda is
    dangerous. 
    
    
    Patricia
    

Indeed, those who believe what the prophets of God have
revealed and act on it are the dangerous ones.

    I didn't realize that the prophets of God revealed that rock music is
    an instrument of Satan.  Which book of the Bible is that revelation
    contained in--the book of "Good Golly Miss Molly"?
    
    -- Mike

It is true that many who play and follow hard rock music are very
anti-Christian.  You are right in noting that this does not
necessarily mean that all rock music (or all hard rock music)
is bad.

Collis

>    I agree with you totally and completely.  This kind of propaganda is
>    dangerous. 

	Why do you say that? Are there untrue things in it or do you object
	because the note in question states that those ideas are wrong or 
	is it something else again? Thanks.

			Alfred 

  >God establishes male authority.

I much prefer "God establishes male responsibility".  It
puts the focus where it should be.  (Note that I don't
believe males have authority to the extent that the author
of this list probably believes they do.)

Collis

re.95

Interesting.

ace

    re: .95 Jack,
    
    I've seen such lists before.  In one I saw "indifferentism" was added
    to the list.  What was your source?
    
    re: .96 Pete,
    
    Do you have facts and reasoning that you'd like to share with us that
    support your opinion regarding who is posessed by the Devil.
    
    re: .99 Mike,
    
    Aren't you using ridicule to make a point here?  Why are you making the
    belief of someone an object of humor?
    
    Pat

     
    pat,
    
    thanks for the invitation but i doubt that we can agree on
    enough to have any meaningful discussion. i base my refusal
    on the fact that you and i have been unable to bridge the
    chasm that separates us previously.
    
    ...as alfred prefers alfred to al..i prefer peter to pete..
    
    peter

    Peter:
    
    Again, if you use the word of God as a standard, there is plenty of
    evidence to support the fact that New Age philosophy as well as wiccan
    practices are an abomination.  (I didn't say it, the Bible did!)  
    
    Patricia, a house built on sand will fall.  Think about it!!
    
    Jack

Note 605.106

Jack,
    
>(I didn't say it, the Bible did!)  

At what point do you take responsibility for what you say here?
    
>Patricia, a house built on sand will fall.  Think about it!!

I've never met Patricia.  But I suspect she is intelligent enough to
realize the practicality of not constructing a lasting structure in
the sand without pondering it at great length.

Richard

    Jack - 
    
    Just what is "New Age philosophy"?  Can you define it?  I can't and I
    think you'd probably call me a new-ager.  How can a term that nebulous
    be an "abomination" of anything?  Could you site verses to back up your
    claim and define your terms please?
    
    Thanks.
    
    Nanci

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 91.120                   Christianity and Gays                  120 of 2631
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Industrial Strength Peace"        10 lines  24-JAN-1991 19:01
                   -< Proper use of the term "abomination" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Hebrew word which is translated "abomination" is "to'ebah".  Used
throughout the Old Testament, it is always (read ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS)
used to designate either idolatry or Jewish sins which involve ethnic
contamination.

It is painfully inaccurate to associate anything other than the foregoing
in connection with the term "abomination" as it is used in the Old Testament.

Peace,
Richard

     jack,
    
     i just don't believe that we get off as easy as 'using the word
    of God as a standard'. i believe that should use the Word of The
    Lord along with the Holy Spirit and right Reason to reach towards
    some sort of standard.
    
    myself, i find it very difficult to even begin to consider whether
    someone else's beliefs are an abomination or not. as Richard wrote,
    to my way of thinking we must take the responsiblity for what we
    write and not merely cite Scripture at one another.
    
    peace of the Lord,
    
    peter

    Hi Andrew:
    
    Andrew, let me start off by saying (as I have stated in the past), I
    consider my participation here strictly a privelage and also readily
    admit my need to be saved...saved from sin and judgement.  In other
    words, I do not claim to be holier than thou and never will be.  Being
    holy and being made holy are two different things.
    I agree 100% that the word of God is not something to be used as a
    manipulation tool.  The wisdom that comes from the Bible must be
    tempered with the Holy Spirit.  Look at what's happening in WACO Texas.
    This man claims to be Jesus and because of his delusion, four people
    have died in the last few hours.  The Word must be used in context and
    is to be used in correction, training in righteousness, doctrine, etc.
    The way I see it is humankind has relied on two different ways to
    attempt to reach God.  One is by the Bible and another is by man-made
    tradition.  Jesus himself said "By your tradition you nullify the word
    of God"  Tradition in itself has great qualities but when it is used as
    a source to try to reach God or get to heaven, it will fail you. 
    Therefore, there has to be some sort of standard God has for us to
    receive eternal life.  If God's word is not the standard, please tell
    me what it is so that I may seek the right way.  In other words, where
    does our hope come from other that God's Word?
    
    In Christ,
    
    -Jack
    

Re: .109 Richard

>>The Hebrew word which is translated "abomination" is "to'ebah".  Used
>>throughout the Old Testament, it is always (read ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS)
>>used to designate either idolatry or Jewish sins which involve ethnic
>>contamination.

>>It is painfully inaccurate to associate anything other than the foregoing
>>in connection with the term "abomination" as it is used in the Old Testament.

"These six things the Lord hates, yea even seven which are an ABOMINATION to
him: a proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart
that devises wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief, a 
false witness that speaketh lies and he that soweth discord amongst the 
bretheran."  Proverbs 6: 16-19

These sins go far beyond ethnic contamination although I agree with you that
Israelites marrying foreigners was an abomination to God as well.

Richard, let me ask you this.  Do you think the worshipping of self could be 
considered idolatry?  To be specific, claiming to be your own god and to save 
yourself?

Peace Back,

Jack

    To Patricia:
    
    Patricia, how did your Sunday School class go on Sunday?
    
    

    We had a special service for the children this Sunday so it will be
    postponed until next Sunday.  Thank you for the inquiry.
    
    
    Patricia

re .89
	Jack,

	I think we need to define what image means, it can be defined as 
	"Any representation or likeness of a person or thing."

	We will just have to disagree whether or not man is a spiritual
	being. Looking at Scripture it would indicate that Adam was not
	created a spiritual being, for Genesis 2:7 NWT reads "And Jehovah
	God proceeded to form the man out of the dust from the ground
	and to blow into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man
	came to be a living soul.". Notice that Adam was not given a
	soul but, when the life force was blown into the nostrils of
	the model made of dust, he became a living soul. The Hewbrew word
	used here rendered "soul" is ne'phesh. Animals are also spoken
	of as being souls in the Bible for Leviticus 24:17,18 NWT "And in 
	case a man strikes any soul(ne'phesh) of mankind fatally, he should 
	be put to death without fail. And the fatal striker of the soul 
	(ne'phesh) of a domestic animal should make compensation for it, 
	soul for soul."  So you can see that the Bible teaches that both 
	mankind and animals spoken of as being living souls. 

	So mankind does not have the same physical structure as those in
	in the heavenly realm but is in line with the other earthly 
	creatures (Genesis 2:19). Adam was Jehovah's God's crowning glory 
	of earthly creatures, who was given the task of being God's 
	administrator here on earth having in subjection other earthly 
	creatures. Adam was created with, as you say, a conscience and 
	reasoning but also with the qualities of love,justice,power and 
	wisdom hence he also had a sense of morality involving his conscience.
 	Adam, and his degenerate offspring to a much lesser degree, possesed 
	mental powers and abilities far superior to all other earthly 
	creatures.

	An important point to make in this discussion is that though Adam
	was made in God's image, man is NOT to be made an object of worship,
	or veneration.

	Regarding my mention of the four living creatures, this is not 
	important for you would no doubt agree that Love, Justice, Power
	and Wisdom are main qualities that Jehovah God displays, there
	appearance as mentioned in Revelation 4:7 evidently highlight
	these fine qualities of Jehovah God. The first is like a lion, 
	a lion is a symbol of courage, especially in pursuit of justice 
	and righteousness (2 Samuel 17:10; Proverbs 28:1) in this case
	it evidently represents courageous justice (Deuter 32:4 ; 
	Psalm 89:14) The second a young bull, a bull was seen as a powerful
	animal by the Israelites ( Proverbs 14:4, see also Job 39:9-11 ).
	It is likely to represent power, dynamic energy as supplied by
	Jehovah God (Psalm 62:11 ; Isaiah 40:26). The third has a face
	like a mans, this represents godlike love. Why? well, of the earthly
	creatures, man alone was created in's God's image with the ability
	to display the superlative quality of love, the comparison Scriptures
	are Genesis 1:26-28, Matthew 22:36-40 and 1 John 4:8,16). Now some
	have that animals can display love but not in the way it acts as
	mentioned in 1 Corinthians 13:4-7. And lastly, the fourth is like 
	a flying eagle, God makes mention of an eagles great vision in 
	Job 39:29 NWT "far into the distance its eyes keep looking" . Hence 
	the eagle could well symbolise far sighted wisdom, for Jehovah is 
	the source of wisdom (Proverbs 2:6; James 3:17) This godly quality 
	of farsighted wisdom was displayed, right back in the garden of Eden 
	when the rebellion took place. For back then in his wisdom Jehovah God
 	saw the need for a "seed" , Genesis 3:15. So as you can tell this is 
	an interpretation and as such one cannot prove whether the appearance 
	of the four living creatures trully symbolise God's fine qualities, 
	however their proximity would highlight that they tell us something 
	about our Creator.

	Phil.

	Reference material: 

	Insight on the Scriptures - Volume 1 Pages 44,45, 1184 and 1185.

	Revelation Its Grand Climax is at Hand! Pages 80 and 81.