Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

I've noticed the recurrence of the number 12:

	12 tribes of Israel

	12 disciples (after Judas Iscariot committed suicide, he was
                      quickly replaced to bring the number back up to 12)

	144,000 mentioned in the Revelation is arrived at by multiplying
	12,000 by 12.

Richard

    Another big number is 40, i.e. Noah spent 40 days on the ark.  Jesus
    spent 40 days in the desert.  Moses spent 40 days on Sinai, there are
    probably a few others I can't think about.
    
    -Jack

    RE: the number 12 I read somewhere (where I don't remember) that some
    ancient civilizations used a base 12 numbering system. What this 
    implies in this context I'm not sure. Perhaps 12 was used because it
    was easy, as we use 10 today, and was the common number base. Or perhaps
    12 was picked as a number base because it had special meaning to
    someone. 

    		Alfred

    Would someone explain to this dumb country boy the meaning of the
    numbers "666".  They're supposed to be the "sign of the devil" or
    something of that nature.

    Thanks,
    Bubba

re: Note 636.2 by Jack

I've been told that "forty days and forty nights" was an idiomatic expression 
for "a long time", just as we may say "a month of Sundays" or "a year and a 
day".

Another 40 is the number of days in Lent, for those who follow a liturgical 
calendar.

Peace,

Jim

    .4
    
    It's in the Revelation of St. John the Divine.  It's code that
    would have been understood by the underground movement of Christians
    at the time the Revelation was written.
    
    I had a New Testament History teacher who gave a plausible explanation
    that "666" referred to Nero.
    
    Richard

Re:  .4

It is called the sign of the beast in Revelation.

Exactly what it means is unclear (to me, anyway).  There
are a lot of theories.  The reason for this is because
it is in literature which is highly figurative and
allegorical.  Interpreting such literature is a highly
speculative art, rather than a science.  (Those who
insist the Bible is very difficult to understand often
wish to understand it figuratively or allegorically which,
of course, does make it very hard to understand.  :-) )

An explanation that I like (but is probably not accurate
just like most explanations of this are probably wrong)
is that 666 is one away (each number) from 777 which
represents perfection (3 sevens, both 3 and 7 are *very*
popular numbers, each sometimes meaning perfection)
indicating that the beast is perfection warped (which,
I believe, is a very accurate portrayal).

Collis

    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
      
    The number, 666, is to be placed on the forehead on on the wrist.  This
    appears to be an identification not only to buy and sell goods during
    the tribulation, but also as a sign of citizenship.  I imagine anybody
    that doesn't take the mark not only will have a hard time functioning
    in society, but is also likely to be looked upon with scorn. (I'm
    speculating here on the citizenship aspect).  However, I stress
    citizenship as this mark of identification is mandated by the beast and
    the false prophet in Revelation 13 - the self made leaders of the world
    to come (quite shortly I speculate).  This synopsis is why many frown
    at things like the ECC and one world monetary/government system.  It is
    looked as part of the birth pains of this demonic system.
    
    I heard an interpretation that the forehead mark symbolizes our
    thoughts and the mark on the wrist symbolizes our actions.  I
    personally believe it is a visible mark.
    
    -Jack

    
    	An explanation of the number of the beast "666" is given
    	on note 235.32, it's under the opening of the third seal.
    
    			Juan

    
    
	[Getting back to the topic at hand, here is what I have read about
    	[ the meaning of numbers.       Juan
    
	An interesting thing about numbers is that the ancients considered
	"odd" numbers to stand for life or spirit, even numbers for form or
	substance.   While spirit remains on its own plane, always one, 
	undivided and changeless, so the even numbers may be divided into
	equal parts.  For this reason, odd numbers are declared to be "lucky". 

	TWO.
	Our manifested universe has a dual characteristic, being expressed in 
	pairs of opposites (positive and negative, male and female, good and 
	evil, light and darkness, spiritual and material, etc.).  For this 
	reason, the number 2 represents duality and the dual elements in 
	human nature which we must learn to balance and harmonize if we can
	enter upon the way of liberation.

	We find these constantly being referred to in biblical narrative as
	brothers and sisters, such as Mary and Martha, Leah and Rachael. This
	duality is also symbolized by the pillars at the entrance to King	
	Solomon's temple.  That the worshipper had to pass between these two 
	pillars in order to enter the temple, denotes a certain balance or
	poise required, the synthesis beetween the conflicting forces that
	must be reached before the gate of initiation can be opened and the
	entrance into a larger spiritual life accomplished.

	THREE.
	The number Three is the symbol of creation, the Trinity or mystic
	three-in-one. The birth of a child is the result of a male and a
	female, light is the result of a positive and a negative force acting 
	together, force and inertia create movement.  

	When the child Jesus was lost, he was found in the temple in the
	third day; his resurrection from the dead occurred in the third day.
	For this reason, the number three is the sign of new life, rebirth
	or resurrection.

	FOUR.	
	Four is symbolic of matter, solids.  The Bible refers to the four
	corners of the earth.  This quality of the Four in matter represents
	at the same time potential perfection.  If we add the numbers 1+2+3+4, 
	we reach the number 10, which is the number of perfection; this is an
	occult truth symbolically stated, for in matter there is all the
	potentiality of fully unfolded spirit.

	Similarly, the cross and its four arms denotes the crucifixion of
	spirit in matter and the method of liberation. The cross is the symbol
	of spirit inhibited, confined and suffering under those self-imposed
	limitations which are the very means appointed for its perfect
	unfoldment.

	FIVE.
	This number stands for half way between one and ten, it is the 
	number of humanity, in which consciousness is normally limited to
	the scope of the five senses.  The woman of Samaria who had five
	husbands symbolizes the soul linked to and recurrently dominated 
	by the sense life.

	The five wounds of Christ allude to those avenues of the senses
	through which the Higher Self in man ever suffers.  The nailing
	of the hands indicates the inhibition of the divine will, the 
	nailing of the feet the restriction of spiritual activity, while
	the spear-thrust in the side refers to the heart and the wounding
	of the divine Love by the lower nature.

	SIX.
	Of frequently occurrence in the Bible, this number denotes industry
	and patient labor towards perfection.  The six-legged ant is a very
	ancient symbol for industry, as is the six-sided cell of the bee, one
	of the most perfect examples of economy and efficiency displayed in
	nature.

	In the Bible we find the number six connected with labor or preparation
	Six steps led upwards to Solomon's throne.  In six days the heavens and
	the earth were created and man is instructed to work similarly: "Six
	days shalt thou labour". 

	Significant is the statement that six vessels of water were presented
	to the Master for his miracle of transmutation, indicating the work
	of the spirit on the whole nature of man.  Likewise, Jesus was
	crucified (his supreme labor entered upon) "about the sixth hour".

	SEVEN.
	Seven is the sacred number. We have 7 days of the week, 7 notes in the
	musical scale, seven colors of the spectrum.  In the Bible we read of
	the 7 spirits around the throne which are the seven great Creative
	Intelligences emanating from the Trinity.  

	In the Book of Revelations we have:

		7 angels  - 7 beasts  - 7 candlesticks  - 7 churches
		7 crowns  - 7 eyes    - 7 heads         - 7 horns
		7 kings   - 7 lamps   - 7 mountains     - 7 plagues
		7 seals   - 7 spirits - 7 stars	        - 7 thunders	
		7 trumpets- 7 vials   		

	Of course, the seven seals are the seven spiritual force centers in
	the human body, and these are again referred to as the seven churches,
	stars, lamps.  The number seven also indicates a completed work; thus
	to bathe in the Jordan seven times is necessary for complete healing,
	the city of Jericho had to be encompassed seven times before it could
	be taken, silver must be purified seven times, and on the seventh day
	of creation God rested in contemplation of his work.

	EIGHT.
	According to the ancients, this was the number of death and destruction
	but as death to the lower is ever the gateway to the higher life, so
	eight figures also as the number of regeneration. Noah and his three
	sons with their wives makes eight, which stands for the fourfold nature
	of man, manifesting on plane as a duality, positive and negative.

	"God... spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eight person, a
	 preacher of righteousness".  Regeneration or escape from the
	destructive "waters" of the desire life is thus particularly associated
	with the number eight.  Following this ancient tradition, many of our
	baptismal fonts are octagonal in form. 

	NINE.
	Through regeneration the cycle progresses to Initiation, of which the
	symbol is nine, a mystic number of profound significance. As the square
	of the sacred number Three, it represents Deity manifested in humanity
	and evolving through man till "squared", that is, until man has given
	full expression to the spirit in all three worlds of feeling, thought
	and activity.

	TEN.
	This number signifies perfection and is a number of most profound
	occult meaning.  In the line of One placed beside the zero, we have a
	symbol of the masculine and feminine aspects of Deity as Father-Mother-
	God, Creator and Preserver.  

	TWELVE.
	Here we have the one placed beside the two, signifying the One life
	appearing as a duality, a manifestation of Deity on the lower planes.
	Twelve is 4 x 3, matter (four) "raised" or energized by spirit,
	therefore a symbol of creation as seen from below.  Of course, we have
	the Zodiac with the 12 constellations, which is a natural symbol of the
	Divine manifestation.  
	
	In the Bible we have Jacob with his 12 sons, Jesus with the twelve
	disciples, the Holy City with the 12 gates, the Lamb being in the
	midst of it.  The Woman in the Apocalypse is clothed with 12 stars,
	the altar of the Israelites is built on 12 stones, and 12 jewels make
	the breastplate of the high priest, always, this number is used to
	denote a state of complete activity, such as the 12 labors of Hercules.

	FORTY.
	Four raised to the power of ten (perfection) gives us forty, a number
	constantly used in the Bible to denote a completed period of growth,
	something fully worked through or developed, giving access to a new 
	order of life.  Forty years wandering in the wilderness is followed by
	the entrance into the promised land.  

	Forty days temptation in the wilderness is followed by the beginning
	of the Master's public ministry.  Caleb was 40 yrs. old when he was
	sent by Moses to spy out the way into the land of Canaan.  Moses was
	40 yrs. old when it came into his heart to visit his brethren, a
	decision which eventually brought about their escape from bondage.
	Forty days intervened between the resurrection and the ascension.
	Forty weeks is the period of prenatal life required for the building
	up of the human body. 

    Juan:
    
    235.32
    
   >> The 'four horses' dramatically represent the four bodily principles of
   >> the human constitution -physical, emotional, mental (lower and higher),
   >> which are 'ridden' by (hu)man(s)
    
    Upon looking at 235, I thought the white horse represented the beast.
    A white horse which came to conquer and deceive the nations.  The other
    three horses followed the coming of the beast, representing the results
    of his reign over the world; namely:
    
    Red Horse - War - Blood
    Black Horse - Famine
    Pale Horse - Sickness and Death
    
    Juan, I think in light of the context of the ensuing chapters, the four
    horses represent God's judgement leashed upon the earth.  
    
    -Jack
    
    

    RE: .12
    
    >Juan, I think in light of the context of the ensuing chapters, the four
    >horses represent God's judgement leashed upon the earth.  
    
    	Jack,
    
    	     that is the prevalent opinion about the meaning of the horses
    	of the Apocalypse.  The note that I entered tries to convey the
    	message that the whole book is veiled in symbolism and hidden
    	truths which cannot be decyphered unless you have the proper key,
    	that's why my note explains in details what the symbols mean and
    	the general meaning which has to do with the process of Initiation
    	and the opening of the spiritual centers of force in the human body
    	in order to become perfected, which is the purpose of humankind.
    
    	     I have no intention to try to change anyone's mind, you are
    	welcome to your beliefs and I will never try to sway you one way
    	or the other; my only purpose in posting notes is to share what
    	I have found which has helped me understand what I believe is the
    	real meaning behind the veiled symbolism in the Bible.	
    
		  	Juan	

    I will agree with you on one thing Juan, Revelation's symbolism
    certainly ties in for the most part with Babylonian practices, (I
    noticed you mentioned things like the zodiak and new age philosophy)
    
    -Jack

    I have seen zodiac symbols on the walls of synagogues.  Does
    this mean my Jewish friends are New Agers?
    
    I don't think so.
    
    Richard
    

		Truth can be found in all religions, in all philosophies,
	in all beliefs, Christian or otherwise, no-one has exclusive rights 
	to the Truth, and that's the way it should be.  The same Truths can 
	be found everywhere veiled under different terminology and symbolism, 
	if you just know how to interpret them, only the names and descriptions
	are different, just like different languages have different ways and 
	use different terms to express the same idea.

	We are all children of God, we are all brothers and sisters, no matter 
	what we choose to believe, no-one is excluded from Heaven just because 
	he/she didn't believe in Jesus.

				Juan	

I disagree.

God has exclusive rights to truth and He shares it with
whom He chooses.  Fortunately, He has chosen to share much
Truth with all of us.  Unfortunately, we are often
unwilling to either listen or believe.

Satan uses Truth extremely well; much better than you or
I.  But he also uses lies.  One of his best is indicated
in your last sentence:

  >We are all children of God, we are all brothers and sisters, no matter 
  >what we choose to believe, no-one is excluded from Heaven just because 
  >he/she didn't believe in Jesus.

where the truth (according to the Bible) is that we are all
created in God's image (but only those who accept Him as Savior
and Lord are actually privileged to call Him Father since they
have become His children), we are indeed all brothers and sisters,
your choice and mine are critical in determining whether or not
we will live for eternity with God and, as such, our beliefs
(and the actions that follow from those beliefs as James notes)
are important as well.

But you know that this is what the Bible teaches and choose to
not believe it.  Do you think one of us is believing a lie
(perhaps both)?

Collis

re Note 636.17 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> I disagree.

        Which statement of Juan's are you disagreeing with?  Juan
        stated "Truth can be found in all religions" and "no-one is
        excluded from Heaven...."  Are you taking exception to both?

        Yet in your reply you state "Satan uses Truth extremely well"
        -- so it would seem that you probably must agree that "Truth
        can be found in all religions" (unless, of course, you really
        do mean to imply that only God and Satan use truth).

        So are you stating something quite different, perhaps "Only
        the Christian religion is completely true"?

        Do you really think that an objective observer who looked at
        the history of Christian religion would agree that "the
        Christian religion is completely true"?

        Bob

>	We are all children of God, we are all brothers and sisters,
    
    I'm with you 100% here.
    
    > no matter 
>	what we choose to believe, no-one is excluded from Heaven just because 
>	he/she didn't believe in Jesus.
    
    I wish I could believe this but there is no way in the world that I
    can. It's in direct contrast to what the Bible says as we've discussed
    elsewhere in this conference.
    
    			Alfred

There is truth and falsehood in every religion.

There is only truth in God and what He has revealed.

Of course, saying that there is truth and falsehood
in all religions is obvious as well as a totally
useless statement.  It is obvious since no one is so
deluded that he/she could come up with a religion based
entirely on only what is false.  Likewise, no one is so
perfect to perfectly understand the truth that God has
revealed (except Jesus, of course, but you know what
happened to Him).  It's useless become it moves one no 
closer to determining what is true and what is false.
In fact, it can be worse than useless because some are
deceived into thinking that this *does* move you closer
to determining what is true and what is false.

In terms of exclusion from Heaven, I (and expect you, too)
stand with the recorded statements of Jesus when he indicates
that few will go to heaven and that many will be gnashing
their teeth in those days.

Hope this clarifies.

Collis

    Damn....should my family stop paying dues at our synnagogue since we're
    apparently sh*t-out-of-luck anyway?
    
    Daniel

>    Damn....should my family stop paying dues at our synnagogue since we're
>    apparently sh*t-out-of-luck anyway?

	I didn't think that Jews believed that one bought their way into
	heaven by paying synnagogue dues. Is this new?

		Alfred

    No...but at a large place like ours, they do get you a guaranteed
    place to sit at the High Holidays....Yom Kippur is standing room only
    for non-members...then again since apparently accepting Jesus as your
    savior is a prereq. for the afterlife, why bother with any other faith?
    
    Yes, I'm being sarcastic.  I've heard others on this file assure me
    that Christianity, in general, does not say you have to be a Christian
    to be saved.  The kind of narrowness I hear expressed in Collis'and
    your note (sorry, but that is how it reads to these ears) is something,
    IMHO, that contributes to tensions between different faiths.
    
    Just how much useful interaction is there when you know the other
    person is thinking "Oh well, you're doomed anyway"?
    
    Daniel

>then again since apparently accepting Jesus as your
>    savior is a prereq. for the afterlife, why bother with any other faith?

	Good question. I guess you'll have to answer that for yourself as I
	don't have one.

>I've heard others on this file assure me
>    that Christianity, in general, does not say you have to be a Christian
>    to be saved. 

	I'm sure you have. It is a major point of contention in this conference.
	Until recently I had never heard someone who claimed to be a Christian
	say they believed that one could be saved unless they were a Christian.
	I have always believed that being a Christian was and is the only way
	to be saved. I'm sorry but that's as much truth to me as that I am
	alive.

>The kind of narrowness I hear expressed in Collis'and
>    your note (sorry, but that is how it reads to these ears) is something,
>    IMHO, that contributes to tensions between different faiths.

	So I should lie? I realize that my opinion can create some tension.
	Just like saying that women or blacks should have equal rights creates
	tension. Should I stop saying that to reduce tension? I think not. Let's
	think about this idea for a minute. My saying that one must believe
	in Jesus doesn't create any more tension then your saying that one need 
	NOT believe in Jesus. So who should stop? 

>    Just how much useful interaction is there when you know the other
>    person is thinking "Oh well, you're doomed anyway"?

	Ah, but you don't know that. In fact I do not think that anyone is
	doomed. Anyone and everyone is welcome to accept Jesus as Savior. I
	hope with all my might that everyone will. It would only be out of
	extream hate that I would tell someone they didn't need to believe
	in Jesus.

			Alfred

	
	Re: Juan's Reply

>>	Truth can be found in all religions, in all philosophies,
>>	in all beliefs, Christian or otherwise...

        There are certainly elements of truth in every religion, granted.
	But keep in mind that a little bit of truth mixed with a good portion
	of falsehood is a dangerous thing!

>>      The same Truths can be found everywhere veiled under different 
>>	terminology and symbolism,if you just know how to interpret them, only the names and descriptions
>>	are different.

	In dealing with Christianity, you won't see too many Moslims, for 
	example, proclaiming Christ as Lord under any symbolism.  They claim
	he was a prophet (which is true), but by leaving out other parts of
	the picture, any religion can unknowingly be living under deception.

>>	We are all children of God, we are all brothers and sisters, no matter 
>>	what we choose to believe, no-one is excluded from Heaven just because 
>>	he/she didn't believe in Jesus.

	The Word states that Jesus is the only begotten son of God the father
	"For as many as received Him, to them He gave the right to be the
	 children of God, even to them that believe in his name." John 1:12
	To become a child of God requires a decision on your part; and only then
	are we His adopted sons and daughters.

	-Jack
				

    Re: 1.6 Richard

>>    I have seen zodiac symbols on the walls of synagogues.  Does
>>    this mean my Jewish friends are New Agers?
    
>>    I don't think so.
    
>>    Richard
    
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Funny you should mention this Richard.  I have been going to a Baptist Church
for the last few years.  On the side of each bench (pew...whatever), there
is a symbol carved in the wood of a cross with a circle around it.  I
recognized this as a pagan symbol from a book I read called The Two Babylons
I think.  Evidentally, Constantine who pronounced the whole world Christian
after the Roman empire, was a worshipper of the Sun god, Rah.  This symbol was
his way of mixing idol worship into christianity.  I never told anybody about
this as they may not have known about it and to me, it was just a decoration
and didn't bother me in the least.  

So my reply to you regarding synagogues is this.  If they have zodiak signs up
strictly for decor, no problem.  If they have it up because the zodiak has
some significance in their worship, I would certainly question what the God of
Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be!

-Jack

    .24
    
    No, Alfred, by all means don't lie...if it's what you believe, it is
    what you believe.
    
    In all honesty though, it makes me sad everytime and from everyplace I
    hear that kind of perspective.  There's been too much pain in the past,
    present and probable future dished out in the name of "the True Faith."
    
    * The Hebrew Bible out and out endorses wholescale genocide in the name
    of the "True Faith"  A lot of the mishigas going on between Israelis
    and Palestinians today is rooted in the same philosophy.
    
    * Islamic Jihads haven't exactly done much for World Peace.
    
    * And let's be honest, Christianity's history on that score isn't
    exactly prisitine either...
    
    Holding that *any* faith has a claim on Truth (capital "T" capital
    "Ruth"), is, in my opinion, an open invitation to oppression, hatred,
    resentment and war.  History bears it out time after time after time,
    and I only hope that some day, our species will just get fed up with it
    once and for all.  I'm sure your personal philosophy is much more
    charitable, Alfred, but there's an undercurrent in insisting upon
    "truth" that honestly frightens me. 
    
    I have no plans to accept Jesus as my savior any time in the future. I
    am quite satisfied with my cosmology as is, and there is really no room
    in it for Jesus as savior.  I think there is a lot to learn from the
    philosophy of love expressed in Christianity, but I feel no great need
    for Messiah, so I suspect that "doomed" is applicable.  I don't really
    see how *anyone* is supposed to get around that.
    
    Daniel

Re:  .27

You are quite right that to claim to know the Truth is
historically dangerous - often to those who claim to
know the truth.

John claims that he knows the truth, that we can know the
truth and that, because of this, we can have assurance
that someday we will be with Jesus.

I agree with you that knowledge of the Truth can and does
get misused all the time.  However it also gets properly
applied as well.  Should we exclude Truth because it is
misused?  Or should we seek it because it is Truth?

I fall very definately on seeking it because it is Truth.
Despite the misuse.  Despite the rejection from those who
claim that it is impossible (or essentially impossible) to
find or to know the Truth.  Despite my own shortcomings.
I believe that we should strive to know and follow the
Truth.

From what I have read about Jesus, I think that He believed
knowing and acting on Truth (and its corollary, avoiding
and not believing falsehood) was extremely important.  He
even indicated that the Truth would set me free!

In a Christian Perspective notesfile, I think it is a little
unfair of you to expect people to not proclaim the
truth that has been revealed to them as truth.  I agree that
this is often not appropriate in other notesfiles.  But Jesus
indicated that we are not to hide our light under a bushel.
Part of the light is our actions, certainly, but another part
is the *message*.  We must both walk the walk and talk the
talk.

We serve a pro-choice God.  God will allow you to choose just
as He has allowed me to choose.  I choose life.  I pray that
you will choose the same.

Collis

    RE: .28
    
    Makes sense to me. Your statements, on Good Friday, are even more
    compelling!
    
    Marc H.

>Note 636.28                      
>TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON 
    
>In a Christian Perspective notesfile, I think it is a little
>unfair of you to expect people to not proclaim the
>truth that has been revealed to them as truth.  
    
    I agree, Collis, and I apologize if that was the impression I gave.
    
    I hope, however, that it is not overstepping my bounds to express
    the concern and honest grief I feel about the issue.
    

>We serve a pro-choice God.  God will allow you to choose just
>as He has allowed me to choose.  I choose life.  I pray that
>you will choose the same.

    As odd as it may seem, I believe I have.  I am ultimately responsible
    for everything in my life.  It's how I was raised.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    RE:
    
    636.16
    
    Juan,
    
    I completely agree with you.  None of us know what the truth is.  Some
    Christians just think they know what the truth is.  Some Christians
    think that they can contort the bible and history to make the system
    look like an iron clad system of truth.  Most Christians do not believe
    that.  Unfortunately we live in a time when those who think they are
    one of the precious few with a grasp of truth speak the loudest.
    
    I believe that Salvation is Universal and is available to everyone. 
    Alfred said that until recently he never heard any Christian saying
    that.  Universalist have been around as a denomination since the
    1700's.   Universalists believe that God is too good to condemn anyone
    to hell.
    
    The salvation I believe in is in this world.  Salvation is finding a
    sense of meaning and connected in community.  salvation is finding a
    sense of relationship to that which is greater than us.  A sense of
    relatedness to the source and ground of being. 
    
    Salvation as a relatedness to the source and ground of being is
    available univerality through any religious expererience including
    secular religious experiences.  For instance, the Peace Corp could be a
    profound religious experience even for someone who defined him/herself
    as an Atheist.
    
    I do not and cannot know what will happen after I die.  I personally
    think reincarnation is a more believable theory than a heaven in the
    sky theory.  I am comfortable waiting until I die to find out what
    awaits me on the other side.
    
    Many Christians believe in universal Salvation.  My own interpretation
    of Salvation through Jesus Christ is in using Jesus Christ as a
    metaphor of the incarnation of the holy spirit within each of us. 
    Salvation is through seeking within ourself that which is divine.  We
    find it when we get to our true "IAMness" whether we call that Jesus
    Christ, Holy Spirit, That of God,The Gods and Goddesses within, or
    anything else.
    
    Patricia

    Re:  636.21
    
    Daniel,
    
    I honor you and respect you for your noting here.  I am angry for you
    and for every Jewish Person and for every Non Christian that has to
    tolerate the abuse of Christianity which tells non christians that they
    will be damned for not believing in the Christian God.  I hope that
    most Christians can get past that belief and affirm every person for
    their own beliefs.
    
    Patricia

    re: 636.31 Patricia,
    
    People who believe what the Lord taught to be the truth know what the
    truth is.

    Some people believe "some Christians think that they can contort the
    Bible and history to make the system look like an iron clad system of
    truth."  If that were true, then one could proceed to argue that
    Christianity is hate.

    This Christian believes: The Bible is true.  The Bible is the revealed
    word of God.  The Bible contains the plan that God wants to live our
    lives according to.

    Salvation is available to everyone.  Jesus died on the Cross for all.
    Those who are denied the Eternal Presence of Our Lord are only those
    who have rejected in life what the grace of God granted them to lead a
    good life.  God loves us all.  Sin is the rejection of God.

    Patricia, if you believe salvation, in the form of the Lord's Prayer
    "deliver us from evil. Amen" can be accomplished on Earth, then please
    explain that as Christian perspective.
    
    Pat
                                                               

    Daniel, I appreciate the depth of your feelings, and I believe you are
    right to be angry at the narrow-mindedness that often passes for
    Christianity in the world.  I think it is important not to judge all of
    Christianity on this basis, though, because certainly not all
    Christians believe that non-Christians are automatically doomed to hell
    simply because they have the "wrong" theology.
    
    -- Mike

    .32  .34
    
    Patricia, Mike -- thank you very much.
    
    I do realize that all Christianity cannot be placed in that mold...like
    I've said before, it's the ideas expressed in the quote I entered from
    1 Corinthians that sparks my interest in learning more of Christian
    philosophy.  Thank you again.
    
    Daniel

Re:  .34

  >because certainly not all Christians believe that non-Christians 
  >are automatically doomed to hell simply because they have the 
  >"wrong" theology.

Some (like me) believe that it has more to do with a relationship.  :-) 

>    Alfred said that until recently he never heard any Christian saying
>    that.  Universalist have been around as a denomination since the
>    1700's.   
    
    What I said was that I'd never heard who called themselves a Christian
    say that. I had heard of the Universalist church but was not (am not?)
    aware that they called themselves Christians. I still haven't heard a
    Christian say it because I believe that to be self contradictory.
    
    			Alfred

    Re: .31 - Pat		
	    
   >> I completely agree with you.  None of us know what the truth is.  Some
   >> Christians just think they know what the truth is.  

     Ahhh but if a christian doesn't really think they know what truth is,
     then one would not be able to proclaim the way of salvation with
     the authority Jesus gave us in the great commission!  My personal
     conviction of what truth is comes from a source.  Since you are the
     bold one here, I would challenge you to tell me what your source of 
     truth is.

  >>Some Christians think that they can contort the bible and history to make 
  >>the system look like an iron clad system of truth.  

    This is true.  Again Patricia, I have read your entries time after time
    and I have still yet to see your apologetics on your philosophy of
    eternal life.  Perhaps if you could reveal your source of truth, 
    people (like myself) would come to your way of thinking!
   
  >>  Unfortunately we live in a time when those who think they are
  >>   one of the precious few with a grasp of truth speak the loudest.
  
    Yeah and I think Jesus had that same hang up!!
  
  >> I believe that Salvation is Universal and is available to everyone. 
 
     AVAILABLE!!  I wholeheartedly agree with this!  It is available to
     all who want it!!

. >> Universalist have been around as a denomination since the
  >> 1700's.   Universalists believe that God is too good to condemn anyone
  >> to hell.
     
     Is God too good to allow sin in His presence?  If so, how do we deal 
     with this?  Does God condemn us or do we condemn ourselves?    

  >>  The salvation I believe in is in this world.  Salvation is finding a
  >>  sense of meaning and connected in community. . 
    
      I'm surprised that after 4000 years of what human history has proven 
      that some think we will one day reach utopia in our human condition.
      Are we justified by works?

  >>  Salvation as a relatedness to the source and ground of being is
  >>  available univerality through any religious expererience including
  >>  secular religious experiences.  For instance, the Peace Corp could be a
  >>  profound religious experience even for someone who defined him/herself
  >>  as an Atheist.
    
      Patricia, God is just as independant as we are.  We shouldn't mold him
      into our image.

  >>  I do not and cannot know what will happen after I die.  I personally
  >>  think reincarnation is a more believable theory than a heaven in the
  >>  sky theory.  

      Read The Two Babylons, by Hislop.  Interesting commentary on Nimrod,
      the founder of Baal worship and the architect of the reincarnation
      theory.

  >>  Many Christians believe in universal Salvation.  My own interpretation
  >>  of Salvation through Jesus Christ is in using Jesus Christ as a
  >>  metaphor of the incarnation of the holy spirit within each of us. 
     
      Patricia, the impression I get from your entries is when you express
      a point of view, somebody else questions it with contrary evidence. 
      When a "christian" expresses a point of view with a source, they are
      a hatemonger and holier than thou.  I guess the bottom line question is:
      What's the Beef??!!!!!!

      Respectfully,   

      Jack

    Daniel,

    I honor you and respect you for your noting here.  I am angry for you
    and for every Jewish Person and for every Non Christian that has to
    tolerate the abuse of Christianity which tells non Christians that they
    will NOT be damned for not believing in the Christian God.  I hope that
    some Christians can get past that belief and affirm every person
    needing Jesus in their life so that they too can be saved.

    		Alfred

    Regarding the existence of Christians who don't believe that
    non-Christians are doomed to hell, Christian Quakers have traditionally
    not accepted this doctrine about salvation.  If you want a reference, I
    suggest you go to your local library and read D. Eltron Trueblood's
    book, "The People Called Quakers", written in 1966.
    
    -- Mike

    Thank you, Alfred.

    Another book that discusses religious pluralism positively from a
    Christian perspective is "Christianity and the World Religions",
    co-authored by Hans Kung and representatives from other major religious
    faiths.
    
    The reality is that there are many Christians who do not subscribe to
    an exclusivist view on salvation, however uncomfortable that may be for
    some Christians to accept.
    
    -- Mike

Ah, but are they Christians?  :-)

Collis

-Jack, (.26)

<<So my reply to you regarding synagogues is this.  If they have zodiak signs up
<<strictly for decor, no problem.  If they have it up because the zodiak has
<<some significance in their worship, I would certainly question what the God of
<<Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob would be!

What would the problem be with someone incorporating a 'zodiak' into 
their worship?  While in England, we attended a service at the White
Eagle Lodge which is a Christian church.  In the temple dome in the 
interior of the building the symbols of the zodiac are carved.  This 
church considers esoteric astrology to be valuable in their
interpretation of the bible and the life of Jesus. 

My astrologer friends are some of the most 'spiritual' people I know.

Ro

>Ah, but are they Christians?  :-)
    
    Obviously not, since the clear definition of a non-Christian is for the
    speaker to define it as "anyone who disagrees with *me*".  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Re 636.38
    Jack,
    
    You ask me my sources of truth.  These are the sources.
    
    I affirm the UUA covenant and its definition of the sources of a Free
    Faith.  These are the sources of my Faith. 
    
    
    o Direct experience of that transcending mystery and wonder,
      affirmed in all cultures, which moves us to a renewal of spirit
      and an openness to the forces that create and uphold life;
    
    o Words and deeds of prophetic women and men which challenge us
    to confront powers and structures of evil with justice,
    compassion, and the transforming power of love;
    
    o Wisdom from the world's religions which inspires us in our
    ethical and spiritual life;
    
    o Jewish and Christian teachings which call us to respond to
    God's love by loving our neighbors as ourself.
    
    o Humanist teachings which counsel us to heed the guidance of
    reason and the results of science and warns us against idolatry of mind
    and spirit.
     
    
    
    Patricia
    

    Heeding the guidance of reason?  Patricia, you mean that people are
    expected to *think*?  Now *that's* a radical concept.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

re Note 636.39 by CVG::THOMPSON:

> "the abuse of Christianity which tells non Christians that they will NOT be
> damned for not believing in the Christian God."

        Of course, Jews DO believe in the Christian God (or, to put
        it another way, the same God that Christians believe in) --
        this is a Biblical teaching.

        The God Jews know is the saving God, and was so long before
        any mortal knew the name or historical person of Jesus.

        Bob

    
	The Bible was never designed to be an open book for the un-initiated,
	the stories depicted therein are all alegories which were designed
	to convey spiritual truths and lessons to those who have the key to 
	them. Trying to interpret them literally is what causes all these 
	misunderstandings.  

	The Master Jesus represents the Higher Self in each and everyone of us,
 	through Him we return to our Father in Heaven, so in that sense, we 
	have to accept Jesus, not as a physical being, our Savior, but our own 
	inner Higher Self, the only begotten Son of God which unites us all, 
	who represents the divine life active in all of us, no matter which 
	religion, creed or belief we choose to accept.
	
	Salvation is not outside but inside us, look deep inside your heart
	and your intuition and you will find the Truth there.  That's easier
	said than done, for it takes a long time to purify our imperfect
	human bodies (physical, emotional and mental) before we can become
	united and guided by our inner Higher Self.

	In the meantime, isn't it more sensible to assume that a loving God
	would have intended for all his children to choose as they please
	tolerate what others may believe, cooperate and live in peace with
	eath other rather than continuously fight and quarrel over which 
	religion or belief is better.
    
    			Juan

Re: Ro's Input from .44

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 636.44                          Numbers                            44 of 47
ROKEPA::REINKE "Formerly Flaherty"                   18 lines   9-APR-1993 13:37
                         -< speaking of offending... >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ro:  First of all, I'm curious.  The title of your entry above; I don't under-
     stand it.  Are you saying that my response to Richard was offensive or
     are you saying I am one of the culprits in this conference that just 
     offends people in general? (I really want to know, I'm a big boy and can
     take it!)

>>What would the problem be with someone incorporating a 'zodiak' into 
>>their worship?  While in England, we attended a service at the White
>>Eagle Lodge which is a Christian church.  In the temple dome in the 
>>interior of the building the symbols of the zodiac are carved.  This 
>>church considers esoteric astrology to be valuable in their
>>interpretation of the bible and the life of Jesus. 

>>My astrologer friends are some of the most 'spiritual' people I know.

Ro:  I am trying to respond from a historical perspective.  The tower of Babel
in the days of old was set up for the purpose of observing the stars.  They
believed that with this tower they could reach the gods.  The God of Abe, Isaac,
and Jacob, found this as an abomination and confused their languages.  This 
was actually the founding of what the Old Testament calls, Baal Worship, of
which astrology is a major element.  Excellent sources are "The Two Babylons"
by Hislop and another book called, "Babylon, Mystery Religion" 

Ro:  I will be the first to admit, I don't have the answers!  And, I learn alot
from reading entries in this conference.  I do insist on myself to learn the
"why's" of everything, i.e. if you say your friends in astrology are very
spiritual and Old Testament history condemned Babylon for it's Baal worship,
then WHY do these two facts contradict?  Was God overreacting or is 
spirituality not also a good thing?  What are the answers?  

-Jack

	Re: 49 - Juan

>>	the stories depicted therein are all alegories which were designed
>>	to convey spiritual truths and lessons to those who have the key to 
>>	them. Trying to interpret them literally is what causes all these 
>>	misunderstandings.  

	Not Supported By Scripture

>>	The Master Jesus represents the Higher Self in each and everyone of us,
>>        ... we 
>>	have to accept Jesus, not as a physical being, our Savior, but our own 
>>	inner Higher Self, 

        Very interested..But Not supported, in fact, contradictory to many of
        Christs teachings and the prophecies of the Old Testament.

>>        the only begotten Son of God which unites us all, 
>>	who represents the divine life active in all of us, no matter which 
>>	religion, creed or belief we choose to accept.

	Help me out Juan - What about atonement and Redemption??!!!
	
>>	In the meantime, isn't it more sensible to assume that a loving God
>>	would have intended for all his children to choose as they please
>>	tolerate what others may believe, cooperate and live in peace with
>>	eath other rather than continuously fight and quarrel over which 
>>	religion or belief is better.
    
        "Behold, I lay in Zion a stumbling block and a rock of offense; and 
         whosoever believeth on Him shall not be ashamed."  Rom. 9:33. 

	Juan, does the source of offensiveness stem from people or from
        God himself, taking into account this verse?  

	-Jack

    
    	RE: .52
    
    	Jack,
    
    		if you didn't understand what I entered I am at a loss
    	for words, I don't how to make it any clearer.
    
    			Juan

    Ok Juan:
    
    I understand what your saying, I'm just saying that I disagree based on
    evidence.  We'll just agree to disagree.  
    
    Peace,
    
    Jack

-Jack,

<<  First of all, I'm curious.  The title of your entry above; I don't under-
<<     stand it.  Are you saying that my response to Richard was offensive or
<<     are you saying I am one of the culprits in this conference that just 
<<     offends people in general? (I really want to know, I'm a big boy and can
<<     take it!)

I found it offensive as I know there is at least one astrologer who is 
a member of C-P.

<<was actually the founding of what the Old Testament calls, Baal Worship, of
<<which astrology is a major element.  Excellent sources are "The Two Babylons"
<<by Hislop and another book called, "Babylon, Mystery Religion" 

From the albiet limited knowledge I have of the science of astrology, 
I find what I do know to offer a wealth of knowlege in understanding 
myself and others' in a spiritual way.  I'm not talking about the junk 
horoscopes in newspapers or these 900 telephone numbers.  I'm 
referring to people who spend years studying the subject as a spiritual 
science.  To me it is a tool, similar to psychotherapy, helpful in 
understanding oneself and humanity.  I see no inerrent *evil* in it 
and if it brings people closer to God then I see no harm in it nor 
would I suspect does God.  

Ro

    Ro:
    
    There is evidentally much more I have to learn about astrology.  I
    always thought it was the observance of constellations and stars
    and how an astrologer can be a prophet/prophetess of one's 
    astrological sign.  I am going to start a new string on this subject 
    to help me better understand what it is!
    
    -Jack

Re .50

Jack, does Hislop draw more upon biblical sources than established archaeology?
I suspect so, because I only see this line of historical reconstruction in
literalist christian publications.  I don't think any serious archaeologist would
argue that, unless (s)he was first a biblical literalist.

/Mike

    Hislop draws mostly on Hislop's imagination in his discussion of
    Nimrod.

    Patrick:
    
    I can see why you would say that and although I don't agree with 
    everything Hislop states, (many of his views on the RC church),
    I do believe that we have adopted some babylonian practices and have
    incorporated them into our current religious systems.  
    
    Would you agree that Nimrod and his mother were a bad combination back
    then?!
    
    Much of Hislops work is based on archeological and historical evidence
    to show the decreped state of the babylonian system of the O.T.
    
    -Jack
    -Jack

.4

"There is a need for shrewdness here; anyone clever may interpret the number
of the beast: it is the number of a human being, the number is 666."

Revelation 13.18 NJB

Here's the verse you asked about, Bubba.

Richard

    .61
    
    Yep, food.  A list of "clean" or edible creatures is included in
    Leviticus, as I recall.
    
    Richard
    

    The discrepancy comes from the fact that Genesis weaves together two
    separate accounts of the flood, from two different authors who produced
    accounts of the same flood legend.  I don't remember which authors they
    are--it might be J and E, but I'm not sure.  Friedman gives an account
    of this in his book "Who Wrote the Bible?"
    
    -- Mike

    >    and was it male or female?
    
    	Probably.
    
    			Alfred

Re: .61 Wallie

>    why the discrepency?
    
In "Who Wrote The Bible?", Richard Friedman says that the story of the
Flood comes from two different documents, "J" and "P", which later were
combined into the account of the Flood we have today.

The "J" account was (according to Friedman) written in Judah some time
before 722 B.C.  It has God telling Moses to take seven pairs of each of the
clean animals and one pair of each of the unclean animals.  The "P"
account was most probably written (again according to Friedman) by an Aaronid
priest of Judah some time between 722 B.C. (the year Israel was conquered by
Assyria) and 587 B.C. (the year Judah was conquered by Babylonia).

Why is there a discrepency?  According to Friedman:

	  In P, there are no sacrifices in any of the stories until the
	last chapter of Exodus.  There, the first sacrifice in P is the
	story of the sacrifice on the day that Aaron is consecrated as
	High Priest.  After all, all sacrifices in P are performed by
	Aaron or his sons.  The author of P, it seems, did not want to
	promote the idea that there was a precedent for anyone besides an
	Aaronid priest to offer a sacrifice.  In JE, there are stories
	that involve sacrifices by Cain, Abel, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, and
	Jacob, among others.  But the author of P either left the
	sacrifice out of the story or, in some cases, left the story out
	altogether.
	  Recall that in the twin stories of the flood that I separated
	in Chapter 2, the J version said that Noah took seven pairs of all
	the clean (i.e. fit for sacrifice) and one pair of the clean
	animals on the ark.  Why?  Becuase, in J, at the end of the story
	Noah offers a sacrifice.  He therefore needs more than two of each
	of the clean animals or his sacrifice would wipe out a species.
	In P's perspective, however, two sheep and two cows are enough
	because there will be no portrayals of sacrifices until the
	consecration of Aaron.

>    was the seventh for sacrifice or was it for food?
>    and was it male or female?
    
I think most translations say there were seven pairs of the clean animals,
not just seven animals.

				-- Bob

    
    	To follow along the same lines, for those who take the story of
    	Genesis literally...
    
    	4:17 And Cain knew his wife; and she conceived...
    
    	Where did Cain's wife come from ?.  Weren't Adam and Eve the only
    	2 people on Earth who fathered Cain and Abel ?.  
    
         			Juan

.67  Juan
    
       >Where did Cain's wife come from ?.  Weren't Adam and Eve the only
       >2 people on Earth who fathered Cain and Abel ?.  

Gen. 5:4, 5 shows that Adam became father to sons and daughters, and lived to
be 930 years old.  So Cain and Abel weren't his only children.  And in all the
time he lived, he probably had a *lot* of sons and daughters.  Logically, Cain
married one of his sisters or nieces.  Since humans were not far off from per-
fection at that time, genetics wouldn't have presented the problem it does now.
It wasn't until some time later that Jehovah prohibited relations between close
relatives.

Steve

	RE: .68

	Steve,
		that's a very reasonable assumption, but don't you find
	it very curious that when Adam and Eve were cast out of the
	Garden the Bible doesn't mention the name of the land where they 
	went to, and on 4:16 it specifically mentions that Cain went to the 
	land of Nod, on the east of Eden, implying that Adam, Eve, Cain & Abel 
	were not on the land of Nod at the time, and yet, that's where Cain 
	knew his wife.  So who founded and peopled this land of Nod ?.

		And isn't it also curious that Cain's wife name is not given,
	yet on 4:19 it says that Lamech took 2 wives and their names are 
	given.  Cain's wife is only the second female mentioned after Eve, 
	so I think her name would be very important.

		The reason I'm bringing this up is because I know that the
	story is not to be taken literally.  Others have also mentioned here
	other things like a snake that talks and walks upright only to be
	condemned to crawl on its belly after the transgression of eating 
	from the tree.   These are just a few thoughts to keep in mind when
	considering taking the story literally.  This is not the proper place
	to talk about this, so I'll stop it here in order not to create a
	rathole.

			Juan

Re:  636.66
    
  >I have been trying to find out why Cain's offering o'fruit of the
  >ground' was unacceptable to the Lord.

The Bible doesn't explicitly say.  It is the consensus of most conservative
scholars that it was unacceptable because it did not conform to what God
had told him was expected.

  >was Abel eating flesh at this time?

I don't believe so (according to Genesis 9:3).  However, who knows whether
or not they were obedient in this area?

  >Genesis 4:7 "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if
  >thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be]
  >his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
    
  >was the 'his' and 'him' in respect to 'sin' or 'Abel'?

The NIV says "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted?  But
if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires
to have you, but you must master it."  Does that help?

  >when Cain slews Abel, -o- says, "the voice of thy brother's blood
  >crieth unto me from the ground." does not all shed blood cry the
  >same way? 

Actually, I don't think blood makes any sound at all.  I would interpret
this as symbolism referring to Abel's spirit.

  >what was the mark of Cain?

Who knows?  What difference does it make?
    
  >when Cain went into the land of Nod, does that not suppose that there
  >were other 'peoples' other than the literalist Adam and Eve?

I didn't know Adam was a literalist.  :-)  And no, it doesn't.

  >And why did he go east of eden? 

Why not?

  >isn't this in contrast to what he says in verse 4:14?

No, people don't always do what they say.

Collis

A question for you.  Why is it so important to try to find holes
in this story where they don't exist?  You're not really just
trying to understand it better, are you?   

Re:  .69

  >The reason I'm bringing this up is because I know that the
  >story is not to be taken literally.

Indeed, you reject a perfectly reasonable explanation because
you believe that it doesn't mean what it says.  You are not
alone.

Collis

| <<< Note 636.71 by TLE::COLLIS::JACKSON "Roll away with a half sashay" >>>




| Indeed, you reject a perfectly reasonable explanation because
| you believe that it doesn't mean what it says.  You are not
| alone.

	I'm right here Collis.... but in RO mode.... ;-)


Glen

Re: .66 wallie

I'm not sure that this belongs in the "Numbers" topic, but...

>    I have been trying to find out why Cain's offering o'fruit of the
>    ground' was unacceptable to the Lord.

That's an interesting question.  Isaac Asmimov had this to ssy in
"Asimov's Guide to the Bible":

	  Cain and Abel seem to represent the farmer and the herdsman (or
	nomad) respectively.  The early histories are written from the
	standpoint of the farmers, the settled city-men, and in them the
	nomads are viewed as barbaric raiders, ruthless and bloodthirsty.
	  It was the farmers who multiplied, however, and it was
	civilization that spread.  Nomads could triumph when internal
	dissensions weakened the city-men, but in the long run,
	civilization had the men, organization, and the advanced weapons
	that could be produced in quantity only by an elaborate
	technology....
	  In the end civilization won completely. and that eventual and
	inevitable victory must have been forseen long before it came to
	pass.  The tale (briefly and obscurely told) of how Cain grew
	jealous of Abel and killed him may be, in part, a remnant of some
	nomadic lament over the all-encroaching tentacles of settled
	civilization.

>    Abel's offering of the
>    'firstlings of his flock and of the fat thereof' means, imo, that
>    he had to kill the  sheep, possibly drain their blood (no ritual was
>    as of yet instituted), cook them, drain the fat, and package it as an
>    offering.
>    
>    Genesis 1:29 says that all "herb bearing seed, which [is] upon the
>    face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which [is] the fruit
>    of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat."
>    
>    was Abel eating flesh at this time?
    
I think you're right that if Abel offered a sacrifice of sheep it implies
that he was eating (presumably cooked) sheep, which would seem to
contradict God's command in Genesis 1:29.  That command was given before
the fall of Adam and Eve, though.  Genesis 1:30 states that "to every beast
of the earth... I have given every green plants for food", so even lions
were eating plants rather than animals.  Things may have changed after the
fall.  It's not clear, though, that God gave permission for people to eat
or sacrifice animals.  In Genesis 3:17-19 God tells Adam "..cursed is the
ground because of yo; in toil you shall eat of it all the days of your
life;thorns and thistles it shall bring forth to you; and you shall eat
the plants of the field.  In the sweat of your face you shall eat
bread...".  Nothing there about eating or sacrificing animals.

>    Genesis 4:7 "If thou doest well, shalt thou not be accepted? and if
>    thou doest not well, sin lieth at the door. And unto thee [shall be]
>    his desire, and thou shalt rule over him."
>    
>    was the 'his' and 'him' in respect to 'sin' or 'Abel'?
>    was 'his desire' the desire to be acceptable unto the Lord? Cain
>    already expressed that desire. Was 'he/him' the Jacob and Esau,
>    Moses and pharoah, Jesus and Satan, your mind and your spirit?
    
The Revised Standard Version translates this verse "If you do well, will
you not be accepted?  And if you do not do well, sin is couching at the
door; it's desire is for you, but you must master it."  If the RSV
translation is correct, 'his' and 'him' are referring to sin, not to Abel.
The RSV translation is easier to understand, but I wonder how close it is
to the original Hebrew?

>    when Cain slews Abel, -o- says, "the voice of thy brother's blood
>    crieth unto me from the ground." does not all shed blood cry the
>    same way? why doesn't sacrificied blood cry? is the blood of violence
>    different from the blood of non-violence. what is the difference?
>    does not the consciousness of the lamb recognize the glint of the
>    blade? and to say that lambs are dumb doesn't excuse the consciousness
>    of doves, pigeons, oxen, calfs, etc. man's consciousness can't be
>    higher/better than the animals, for -o- said also to the animals,
>    "be fruit-ful and multiply."
    
Well, clearly the Bible places a higher value on human life than it does
on the lives of animals.  In Genesis 1:28 God gave humans dominion over
every living thing that moves on the earth.

>    what was the mark of Cain?
    
Good question.  Another good question is, why did God protect the murderer
Cain by putting a mark on him and saying that "if anyone slays Cain,
vengeance shall be taken on him seven-fold"?  Later on Cain's
great-great-great grandson Lamech used this as a precedent: "I have slain
a man for wounding me, a young man for striking me.  If Cain is avenged
sevenfold, truly Lamech seventy-sevenfold."

>    when Cain went into the land of Nod, does that not suppose that there
>    were other 'peoples' other than the literalist Adam and Eve?

I think so, but I suppose Adam and Eve could have had a lot of children
other than Cain and Abel.  To me the whole story is obviously allegorical.
With regard to the "land of Nod", by the way, Asimov says this:

	No one has tried to identify the "land of Nod" with any specific
	region and it is usually taken to be a metaphorical expression.
	The Hebrew word "Nod" is related to the term meaning "wanderer";
	therefore to dwell in the land of Nod is taken to mean that one
	takes up a wandering life and becomes a nomad.

>    And
>    why did he go east of eden? isn't this in contrast to what he says in
>    verse 4:14?
    
In Genesis 4:14 Cain says that he will be a fugitive and a wanderer, and
whoever finds him will kill him.  God says "Not so!"  A footnote in the
RSV says that "Not so!" comes from the Septuagint (Greek), Samaritan and
Vulgate (Latin) versions of the Old Testament, and that the Hebrew word is
"Therefore".  Then God goes on to say that no one will kill Cain, and puts
a mark on him.  If "Not so!" is correct, does it refer to Cain's statement
that he will become a wanderer or to his statement that whoever finds him
will kill him?  I suppose it's reasonable to conclude that Cain had to
leave the area as punishment for his crime, but to mitigate Cain's
sentence God put a mark on him so that no one would kill him.

				-- Bob

    'The world in which Eve bore children does not seem very different from
    the world in which we bear children today, a world where most of the
    foundational images of God are of a being who has the right to do and
    say *whatever*.  Amen.  No explanation given.  We bear children in a
    world where blind obedience to this God is expected of us, no matter
    how unjust this may be.  And upon these foundational images, we have
    built elaborate hierarchies, teaching our children both to obey their
    "superiors" and to demand obedience from their "inferiors."  It is
    difficult to imagine a world without hierarchy.  What would a religion
    of justice and mutuality be like--mutuality among people, mutuality
    between human beings and God?  It is difficult to imagine a world where
    the so-called ordinary tasks such as child rearing were understood as
    sacred.  What would a religion of celebration of the ordinary, the
    repetitive, the mundane be like?

    'It is difficult to imagine this, but we *must* imagine it, else our
    world will never become "fit for human habitation."

    'And we *are* imagining this new world.  From those at the bottom of the
    hierarchies there is motion and speech of such power that the whole
    structure is trembling.  The pictures of God as arrogant and willful
    are being shaken.  Women and other "inferiors" are celebrating the
    reality of their own experience and re-imaging Christianity, learning
    from other traditions, from Wicca, from native American, and African
    spirituality.  Standing on the earth together, arm in arm, raucous and
    joyful and disruptive, we are learning what mutuality means.  Lillian
    Smith says, "Freud said once that woman is not well acculturated; she
    is, he stressed, retarded as a civilized person.  I think what he
    mistook for her lack of civilization is woman's lack of _loyalty_ to
    civilization."  We will no longer be loyal to the images that have made
    our world not fit for human habitation.

    'Let us imagine a story about two siblings who bring to God their
    offerings.  And God has regard for one offering, and for the other God
    has no regard.  By their example and by their words, the parents
    of these siblings had taught them well about justice; and so the one
    whose offering was accepted says, "Now wait a minute--that's not fair! 
    What's so special about me, and why is my sibling rejected?"  God has
    no answer for this, so the favored sibling turns to the rejected one
    saying, "Come on.  Let's go fishing."  But the siblings see that God's
    countenance has fallen and that God is cast down.  So they return and
    invite God to go fishing too.'

                         Alice Hildebrand Rudiger
    	From the article "Cain & Abel", in the October 1989 issue of 
    	"Friends Journal"

Re: .74 wallie

>    in Genesis 32:28 Jacob 'becomes' Israel.
>    thereafter he is referred again as Jacob, until 32:10, "And God said
>    unto him, Thy name [is] Jacob: thy name shall not be called anymore
>    Jacob, but Israel shall be thy name: and he called his name Israel."
    
You mean 35:10, not 32:10.  Yes, Jacob is given the name Israel twice.
According to Richard Friedman in "Who Wrote The Bible?", Genesis 32:28 is
part of the "E" source and Genesis 35:10 is part of "P".

>    and why did Jacob hide 'all the strange gods' under an oak tree?
>    Genesis 35:4
    
So that God wouldn't see them?

Re: .77 wallie

Interesting symbolism.

				-- Bob

Next they came to Elim, where there were twelve springs and seventy palm
trees; there they camped by the water.  Exodus 15.27, TEV.


Exodus 15.27 mentions 12 springs and 70 palm trees.  Since I don't normally
count such things as palm trees where I am staying, I'm guessing that these
numbers meant something to the Isrealites.  I suspect that 12 recalls the
number of children of Jacob and that 70 is a magnification of 7 (x 10);
the 7th day representing the Sabbath.  However, I don't know that the ancient
Hebrews used a 10-based numbering system.

I know I could go to a commentary, but I get more interesting answers here.

Peace,
Richard

Re: .79 Richard

My sources don't have much on this, other than the fact according to
Friedman Exodus 15:27 was added by the Redactor, and thus is considerably
newer than the preceding verses.  According to Friedman, the account of
water in the wilderness was from J for verses 15:22b to 25a and from R for
verses 22a and 27, while verses 25b-26 which discuss commandments were
from E.

My speculation is that 12 and 70 were considered nice, round numbers,
without necessarily any religious significance.  Maybe Elim is described
as having 12 springs and 70 palm trees so that the reader would understand
that it was a big oasis capable of providing enough water for the people
of Israel.

				-- Bob

And I thought there were 12 springs and 70 palm trees.
Perhaps 1 spring per tribe?  5 or 6 palm trees per
spring?

Oh, I must be wrong.  There couldn't possibly have been
12 springs and/or 70 palm trees.  After all, what would
a redactor hundreds of years later know about where Moses
and the people were camping?

Collis

Re: .81 Collis

>And I thought there were 12 springs and 70 palm trees.
>Perhaps 1 spring per tribe?  5 or 6 palm trees per
>spring?

The oasis was there before the Israelites arrived, so it would be a
coincidence if there were exactly one spring per tribe.  I'm not saying
that there weren't exactly 12 and 70, just that those numbers might have
been approximations.

>Oh, I must be wrong.  There couldn't possibly have been
>12 springs and/or 70 palm trees.  After all, what would
>a redactor hundreds of years later know about where Moses
>and the people were camping?

Maybe 12 and 70 were the number of springs and palm tree in the redactor's
time, rather than in Moses's time.

				-- Bob

  >Maybe 12 and 70 were the number of springs and palm tree in the 
  >redactor's time, rather than in Moses's time.

Of course.  How silly of me. 

Collis 

Re: .83 Collis

>Of course.  How silly of me. 

I'm glad that you've finally seen the light. :-)

				-- Bob

613 laws are recorded in Hebrew Scripture.

Shalom,
Richard

	During the showing of supporters for the guy who killed 2 people at 2
different abortion clinics, someone had a sign up that said, Numbers 25:13. I
looked it up to see how this supported his killing these people, and it doesn't
make sense. Can someone point out how one could say this supports this guy?


Numbers 25:13 


	And he shall have it,  and his seed after him,  even the covenant 
    	of an everlasting priesthood; because he was zealous for his God, 
	and made an atonement for the children of Israel. 



Glen

 I believe by using the "Zealous for his God" and "atonement for the
 children" phrases these guys can come up with "justification"...however,
 I believe Romans 12:19 "Vengeance is mine, I will repay, sayeth the Lord",
 is rather clear (along with preceding verses about repaying evil for evil)
 that we are not to be in the business of revenge.



Jim

> 	During the showing of supporters for the guy who killed 2 people at 2
> different abortion clinics, someone had a sign up that said, Numbers 25:13. I
> looked it up to see how this supported his killing these people, and it
> doesn't make sense. Can someone point out how one could say this supports
> this guy?

This is my conjecture.

There is a perverse heresy running around certain Protestant circles, a
doctrine I believe is called "blood atonement."  It is the justification used
by Paul Hill.  It is an attempt to implement a distorted view of the Mosaic
laws of justice, laws which nevertheless no longer apply to Christians.  In
other words, it is an attempt to bring back the kind of justice system of
the Old Testament; such an attempt is not only wrong since the old system of
justice no longer applies to Christians, but they don't even understand the
system correctly in the first place.

It has to do with a concept of "bloodguiltiness"; the theory is that God will
punish the community for a murder which is never brought to justice until
the "blood guilt" is purged by the punishment of the guilty.  The perversion
which Paul Hill and, no doubt others, are involved in is first of all 
teaching that when this punishment is not enforced by the State, it is
justified for the individual vigilante to mete it out, and second of all that
the only way that the bloodguiltiness can be purged is by the shedding of
the blood of a guilty perpetrator.

Those who endorse this mode of operation commit the grave error of anarchy
and rebellion, taking the law into their own hands and appointing themselves
judge, jury, and executioner.  They believe that unless they avenge the deaths
of the unborn children, then God's wrath will be manifested upon the nation.
No doubt that our nation is going to suffer God's wrath for this holocaust of
the holy innocents.  But it is not up to the individual, self-ordained, self-
appointed vigilante to carry out the justice: it has to be done by the
authority which God has set up, that is, the State.

An excellent refutation of Paul Hill's theological errors in this regard, an a
stern condemnation of his immoral actions, was written by a well-known
Evangelical author, Gary North, and distributed electronically.  It is 
available online from my workstation:

kolbe::"pub/haShem/gary-north"
anonymous ftp: irenaeus.dechub.lkg.dec.com:/haShem/gary-north
WWW ftp://irenaeus.dechub.lkg.dec.com/haShem/gary-north

It is 1252 lines, 65k.  Distributed with permission.

It seems to me that this Numbers passage is quoted as evidence of this
principle of the supposed necessity of avenging bloodguiltiness.  It talks
about "making atonement for the children of Israel", which I believe these
people are perverting into suggesting that the blood of abortionists has to
be shed in order to make atonement for the blood of the innocents.  But they
forget that only Christ's sacrifice on the Cross atones for sins in this
manner and that no other shedding of human blood or animal blood is
necessary anymore for the atonement of sins, only repentance and confession.

Eric

	Jim, Eric, thanks. It now makes sense. They're wrong, but at least I
now understand where they are coming from.




Glen