Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

                 -< Soothsayers Of The Second Advent >-


    
      This book is by William Alnor. He is a writer for the Moody
    Monthly, Christian Herald and news editor for the Christian
    Research Journal which was founded by the late Dr. Walter Martin.
      In it he says he tries to "set the record straight on those
    who set dates for the return of Christ. Expose the danger of
    false teachings and show how some claiming to be Christians base
    their teachings on occult beliefs."
      The book is billed as a "Hard hitting journalistic expose".
     His specific targets are those who engage in: Antichrist naming, 
    rapture dating and tribulation speculating.
       Mr Alnor is clearly a conservative Christian intent on doing
    some house cleaning and eye opening. 
       The book is interesting and well written. The author provides
    references from Scripture to make his points and when pointing
    out what he believes to be errors. The author also has a good
    sense of humor which kept it from seeming like a very stern
    lecture. 
        I would venture a guess that both "conservative" and "liberal"
    Christians would find this worth reading. 
    
       It is by: Power Books, Fleming H. Revell Co.
                 ISBN 0-8007-5324-0
     
       
                                              
                                                       Mike

    I read "Against the Night," by Charles Colson last night.  It
    was what I expected:  How our great nation is falling into
    decadence, how the Promised Land is being lost by the unfaithful,
    etc..  It's not difficult to believe this man was in cahoots
    with Mr. Nixon.
    
    Richard

    I read Chuck Colson's first book "Born Again" in which he describes the
    political scene, the behind-the-scenes activities and his perspective
    of Watergate.
    
    Interesting book, I thought.
    
    Pete
    
    PS. I'm in the UK, so reading the book filled in a lot of details.

In _The Liberation of Christmas: The Infancy Narratives in Social Context_,
New Testament scholar Richard Horsley contends that the church has lost
the profound social implications of the traditional stories of the birth
of Christ in Matthew's and Luke's gospels.  Sentimentalism, privatization,
and consumption have covered over essential dimensions.

For example, as the Lucan story opens in a setting in which "all the
world should be taxed," the original audience would have been reminded
of the oppresive, three-layered burden which the people bore.  Taxes to
Rome, to Herod, and to the temple system frequently took over a third of
a Palestinian's income.

Further, as Horsley points out, the birth story in Luke is meant to declare
what was a heresy in the Roman world, namely, that the Savior who brings peace
is not the Roman emperor (Pax Romana) but Jesus, a lowly member of one of
the subjugated peoples.

Peace,
Richard

               
                "In Mormon Circles" by James Coates

    
   I read this over the weekend and would recommend it to someone
 wanting to find out more about the "Church Of Jesus Christ Of Latter
 Day Saints" or the Mormons as they are more commonly known.
   The first couple of chapters of the book are about Joseph Smiths's
 revelation and the early years of the church, Brigham Young's succession
 to the position of "Prophet and Seer" and the Mormon settlement of
 Utah. These are an excellent short course on the early history of the
 LDS church.
   Other chapters are about the organization of the church and how
 it's structure effects the lives of it's members. The missionary
 program that has made the Mormons the fastest growing church in the
 world. A interesting chapter about what could be called "Mormon
 networking" about Mormons in government and industry.
    The last few chapters of the book look at Mormon survivalists,
 fundamentalist Mormons who still practice polygamy and "Mormon
 Bashers" who are groups or individuals bent on trying to discredit
 and damage the church any way possible.
    Coates presents a pretty well balanced view of the LDS church and
 frankly admits that there is much about it that he finds admirable.
 However he doesn't let this prevent him from being willing to write 
 about things that are less than flattering. 
    I was left with the impression of a church that is struggling with
 many complex problems , but seems supremely confident that it will find
 solutions that will make stronger in the long run. 
    In spite of some of the more controversial things portrayed in the
 book the author, was struck by the faith, honesty and optimism of the
 Mormons he came to know during the writing of the book.
    This work would probably be interesting to anyone interested in
 book of an introductory nature about the Mormons. Having had a roommate
 who was a Mormon for about a year and working for two years for a 
 division officer who was a Mormon while I was in the service I found
 the book to be very interesting.
    James Coates is also the author of, "Armed And Dangerous: The Rise
 Of The Survivalist Right In America" which I read a couple of years ago.
 In that book are a couple of chapters about the "Identity Christian"
 movement which the doctrine of several white supremist groups. 


                                                              
                                                               Mike 
     
     

    Has anyone here read any of the works of Alan Watts?  If so,
    what were your impressions?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

                        "Making Saints"

                                       By: Kenneth Woodward

    
     This book gets four stars with a bullet in my rating scheme.
  I would consider this a "must read" for anyone wishing to understand
  what is one of the most misunderstood aspects of the Catholic church.
     This is not the book to read if you are looking for unquestioning
  praise of the church nor is it a sensational account that is bent on
  finding fault with the church. It is a very in depth detailed look a
  at the process and the people involved in work of beatification and
  canonization.
     This work really dots the I's and crosses the T's with regards
  to the who, what, when, where and why of how sainthood is conferred.
     Even though the subject matter has the potential to be devastatingly
  boring this work is a real page turner. The interviews with those who
  work for the Congregation for the causes of Saints are particularly
  interesting as are the interviews with the doctors who work with them
  in investigating miraculous cures and healings. 
      Ultimately this is a book about both ordinary and extraordinary
  people. Perhaps the message of the book is best summed up in words
  of an investigator at the Congregation for the causes of Saints:
      "All of us are called to sanctity, but the call to sanctity is
  is not the same for all of us." 
       What is found is not the story of people who transcended their
  humanity, but realized in their love, compassion and service to 
  others.
     

                                                             Mike
    
    
     P.S. Kenneth Woodward is the religion editor of Newsweek.

    Thanks for that interesting review, Mike.
    
    Richard

As a going away present, I got a gift certificate to a Christian Bookstore.
We decided to buy a Keith Green CD set and, hearing the Keith had died
in 1982 and that a book had been written about his life, bought the book
as well (titled "No Compromise").

I spent the rest of the day reading the book (couldn't play the music
because it turned out that we needed to order the CD version; they only
had cassettes) and I found it to be fascinating - and very inspirational.
Here was a man who was *determined* to find God and would accept nothing
less.  I wish that I could be as focused.

Collis

A book for everyone who wants to take Jesus seriously....

From the back jacket:

	"I used to say that Christians spend half their time explaining why
Jesus couldn't have possibly meant what he clearly said, but I'm afraid I
was mistaken.  We Christians don't have to explain away what Jesus said;
we don't notice it in the first place.

	Jesus talked about loving God with your whole being (which is beyond
imagining) and loving your neighbor as yourself.  He talked about taking up
your cross, about giving your cloak as well as you coat, about going a second
mile, and about loaning to those who ask.  He told us to exchange all for a
pearl of great price, and leave concern for our food and clothing to God.
But we just carry on.....

	In short, Christians operate mostly in the pragmatic realm of money
and power.  If we want to lead a full life, we expect to spend a lot of
money.  If we want to reform the world, we try to do it using money and
power.  It does not occur to us that the realm of darkness could better be
resisted by the weapons of another realm - by servanthood, weakness, prayer,
and truth.  For we fight not against flesh and blood.

	We attempt to negotiate from a position of comfort and strength.  The
suffering servant is a religious oddity, from another realm.  So we reject
that realm, thereby choosing shallowness and perpetuating hollowness.

	But for people concerned for the world or themselves, for people who
sense the inadequacy of our pragmatic efforts at improvement, wisdom from
another realm deserves to be explored - at least by Christians."

from _Your Money or Your Life_, John Alexander.  Harper & Row, Publishers.

Peace,
Richard

                       "Kingdoms In Conflict"

                         by Charles Colson



      A friend of mine asked me to read this and I did so over the 
     past few days. I found this to be a remarkably inconsistent book.
     I am not sure Colson knew what he was trying to get across in this
     book. It took better than 200 pages for him to start to get around
     to making some of the points he had been hinting at in the
     earlier sections.
      He tends to draw things in absolutes to make his points. For him
     the only choices are Christianity and nihilism. He also manages to
     misunderstand Neitzche and to give a pretty much incorrect overview
     of existentialism. 
      On the other hand he presents some interesting and insightful
     views on where he feels that Christianity has headed in the wrong
     direction over the past 10 or 15 years and where he feels it 
     should be heading. Colson feels that conservative Christianity risks
     becoming just another political special interest group because of
     it's relationship with new right politics. He also believes that many
     conservative Christians are losing the ability to distinguish between
     politics and religion and that this is is going to be detrimental
     to the Christian witness in the world.
      Colson thinks that Christians need to return to a focus on service
     and care for the sick, needy and elderly. He gives specific examples
     of work being done in these areas including that role that the prison
     fellowships he is part of has played in trying to improve prison 
     conditions.
      He also addresses the what he thinks the proper role of Christians 
     is in government and politics. This is one area where I sometimes 
     wondered if he had thought things out. He points out that a Christian
     in public office may need to lie to the press and public at certain
     times regarding military matters and issues of national security.
     Yet, he never questions the morality of war or the ethical considerations
     of national security versus democratic institutions. He dismisses 
     pacifists in very unflattering terms and totally ignores the long
     history of Christian pacifism and many denominations that currently
     espouse this view. I sure many Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses would
     be surprised to find out they are leftist, radical secular humanists.
      While he claims that Christians need to lead by example and to accept
     diversity within society he is apparently unable to find or at least
     write anything positive about those who do not hold to 
     conservative Christian beliefs. To me this undercut much of his message.
      This seems to be a book written by someone trying to find a direction
     for the future, yet reluctant to let go of the past. 



                                                               Mike 
        

                            "Voices Of Silence" 

                              by Frank Bianco.

                             Published by Paragon House
                             ISBN 1-55778-305-5

    The book is the authors own study of the lives of Trappist Monks today
    in which he lives among the monks in monasteries here in the U.S. and
    the mother house at Notre Dame, France.

    I've always had an interest in monasticism and how the rules of
    monastics could be applied to a lay persons life. I never thought that
    I would get to see the parallel between a Trappist spiritual growth
    with a lay persons growth. The two parallel in terms, however the monk's is
    deeper in degree and difficulty. Ever feel like you've been a fool to
    be a Christian ? A monk who has given up everything for Christ gets
    hit even harder with this temptation. They grow through it through
    prayer and sacrifice, just as we must.
     
    Great book !

    Peace
    Jim

Note 96.11

>     I sure many Quakers and Jehovah's Witnesses would
>     be surprised to find out they are leftist, radical secular humanists.

Actually, it doesn't surprise me.  These groups of Christians have never
possessed the greatest of reputations in the eyes of the world.

>     he is apparently unable to find or at least
>     write anything positive about those who do not hold to 
>     conservative Christian beliefs.

I have to confess that I wrestle with exactly the converse problem.

Peace,
Richard

    Did anyone happen to see the special Oprah show on Tuesday?  The guest
    was author Marianne Williamson who wrote A RETURN TO LOVE, REFLECTIONS
    ON THE PRINCIPLES OF A COURSE IN MIRACLES.  Apparently, Oprah had read
    the advanced copy of the book and liked it so much that she invited
    Marianne on the show.  Oprah bought everyone in the audience a copy of
    the book and stressed that she hoped all the homes viewers would read
    the book.
    
    As a long-time student of ACIM, I was enthused by the program.  
    Here is a description of the book taken from a flyer I picked up at the
    Little Professor book store:
    
    "A Return to Love reveals that by practicing love we can enrich our own
    lives and the lives of others.  Whether we're experiencing problems in
    our relationships, our careers, or our health, Marianne Williamson
    shows how love is the potent force that can lead to inner peace.  
    Her book explains how each of us can become a miracle worker by 
    expressing love and accepting the God within us."
    
    (Psychology) HarperCollins
    ISBN: 0-06-016374-7  Hardcover $20
    
    
    Ro

    From the introduction of A Return to Love:
    
    Love is within us.  It cannot be destroyed, but can only be hidden. 
    The world we knew as children is still buried within our minds.  I
    once read a delightful book called THE MISTS OF AVALON.  The mists of
    Avalon are a mythical allusion to the tales of King Arthur.  Avalon is
    a magical island that is hidden behind huge impenetrable mists.  Unless
    the mists part, there is no way to navigate your way to the island. 
    But unless you believe the island is there, the mists won't part.
    
    Avalon symbolizes a world beyond the world we see with our physical
    eyes.  It represents a miraculous sense of things, the enchanted realm
    that we knew as children.  Our childlike self is the deepest level of
    our being.  It is who we really are and what is real doesn't go away. 
    The truth doesn't stop being the truth just because we're not looking
    at it.  Love merely becomes clouded over, or surrounded by mental
    mists.
    
    Avalon is the world we knew when we were still connected to our
    softness, our innocence, our spirit.  It's actually the same world we
    see now, but informed by love, interpreted gently, with hope and faith
    and a sense of wonder.  It's easily retrieved, because perception is a
    choice.  The mists part when we believe that Avalon is behind them.
    
    And that's what a miracle is: a parting of the mists, a shift in
    perception, a return to love.
    
    Roey
    

    re: me (.14)
    
    A Return to Love is the #1 bestseller non-fiction book this week!!!
    It warms my heart to see that this message of Love is reaching such a
    wide number of people.  Wow!!!
    
    It is on sale for 45% off at the new Costco warehouse in Nashua (the
    book normally sells for $20 and is priced there around $11.something
    and no sales tax)!  ;')
    
    Ro
    

             "A Marginal Jew: Rethinking The Historical Jesus"
              
                          By: John P. Meier


      "The historical Jesus is not the real Jesus. The real Jesus
       is not the historical Jesus. I stress this paradox from the 
       start because endless confusion in the "quest for the 
       historical Jesus" arises from the failure to distinguish
       these two concepts clearly."

      
   With this statement Meier begins the the monumentally difficult
  task of try trying to reconstruct the historical Jesus using the
  tools of modern historical research. I say monumentally difficult
  because there very little material to work with in such an undertaking
  and what little there exists is fragmentary in nature

   Still I think the author does a credible job and goes about in thoughtful
  way that stresses objectivity and common sense. He begins by examining
  what historical documentation there is and to try to determine how much
  of it is authentic and how much and what parts are embellishment added
  in later times. Meier makes a reasonably convincing argument that the
  historical evidence compliments both Scripture and other historical knowledge
  when later additions are pared away.

   The author also examines Scripture with clearly defined and sensible
  criteria to find out how much of what it contains may have actually
  been taught by Jesus.

   Other sections of the work look at how much of the personal life of
  Jesus we can fill in with reasonable accuracy and try to answer questions
  about his social and family life and what his upbringing and education
  may have been like. 

   One example of how the author approaches these types of questions is the
  section on whither Jesus was literate. Meier presents a credible case
  that Jesus "native" language was Aramaic and that it was the language that
  he conducted most of his ministry in, but he also probably spoke
  "tradesman's Greek", that is he could bargain and conduct basic business
  in this language and was likely to have been taught to read Hebrew in
  the local synagogue during his youth. Meier builds this argument using
  both Scripture and current historical research on Palestine during
  this time.

    The last section of the book is an attempt to construct a chronology
  of Jesus' life that tries to make sense of the apparently disparate
  time lines of the gospels. In this section he frequently gets so wrapped
  up in detail, references and cross references that I found myself 
  having to backtrack to keep from losing the points he was trying to
  make.

    Notes and references abound in this book and I would say they make
  up about 1/3 of it's content. This book is not "lite" reading by any
  measure it is a very serious, very scholarly work. I enjoyed reading
  it and would recommend it to both conservative and liberal Christians.
  

  About The Author: John P. Meier is a Catholic priest, a professor of
                    the New Testament and Catholic University in Washington
                    D.C., a former president of the Catholic Bible Society
                    and general editor of the Catholic Bible Quarterly.
                    He is also considered to be one of the world's foremost
                    Biblical scholars.



                                                               Mike


    
   

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 87.169                  What is fundamentalism?                  169 of 169
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child"             19 lines  22-APR-1994 13:30
                  -< Fundamentalism: Hazards and Heartbreaks >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I've gotten my hands on a book entitled "Fundamentalism: Hazards and
Heartbreaks," by Rod L. Evans and Irwin M. Berent, forward by Steve
Allen, introduction by Isaac Asimov.

It is the most sympathetic book I've ever read that didn't embrace
the fundamentalist stance.

It explains that fundamentalism was never a denomination and that
fundamentalist tenets are now found to be embraced in widely varying
measure by members of nearly every denomination, including Roman
Catholics.

I'll be exploring some of the insights gained through this book here
in this file under a new topic:  Fundamentalism - The Problems of
Biblical Inerrancy."

Shalom,
Richard

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 87.170                  What is fundamentalism?                  170 of 170
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"    16 lines  22-APR-1994 13:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    It is sad...  have you ever heard that verse about a foolish woman
    tears down her own house...
    
    Why would anyone wish to tear down the authority of God's word??
    
    IMHO, because the Word of God convicts behaviors that we hold near and
    dear to our hearts.  People interpret the word of God as condemnation
    versus everlasting life....
    
    Salvation is so simple it is freely given to all who receive... The
    Bible is the book of life, hope and love.... to tear it down, tears
    down all of Christianity... 
    
    Woe to those who destroy the foundation on which the very world was
    created.
    
    

    BTW .18
    
    the book in this note is not TRUTH ... it is a lie to the living God to
    place it under a topic stating it is truth.
    
    

    > the book in this note is not TRUTH ... it is a lie to the living God to
    > place it under a topic stating it is truth.

    Richard stated the truth of what the book was about, not that what the
    book was about was true. The word "truth" wasn't even used in .18, nor
    is there any indication that Richard is questioning the word of God
    (although I'll grant you that he may be questioning an *approach* to
    viewing the word of God as manifest in the Bible).

    I understand that you view only the KJV Bible, your pastor, and a few
    others as possessing the truth. So I imagine you would feel the same
    contempt for books written by John Spong, Andrew Greeley, and many
    other authors.

    In my opinion, your accusation (calling Richard a lair to the living
    God) is harsh and ill founded. 


    	Eric

    Again it is like a fingerprint... our opinions.
    
    I didn't call Richard a liar, I called putting a book with obviously
    questionable truth in a NON-FICTION topic is a lying or deceiving if
    that word suits you better.
    
    While there are those who agree that the Bible is not inerrant would
    find this aligned with their beliefs.... it is not so.
    
    IMHO,
    Nancy
    
    

    RE: .22
    
    I too agree with Eric. Why is it impossible to have a discussion
    without throwing out the "mud" first?
    
    Really! Lets have a discussion for a change......
    
    Marc H.

    Your fingerprints are smudged, or at least confusing. 

    You called what Richard did (placing the book in this topic) as a lie
    against the living God... then you say "I didn't call Richard a lair."
    This is what I refer to as Mobius twist reasoning... you run in a
    straight line but somehow end up on the opposite side. My dad would
    calling it talking out of both sides of your mouth. My mom would say
    you want to have your cake and eat it too.

    I don't think you understand the literary term "non-fiction". It is
    not bound to any particular theology or doctrine. A book on how to
    commit suicide isn't considered fiction just because it goes against
    the word of God.

    Eric

    Where you guys the other night when Richard accused me falsely??
    
    

    Oh yeah and before I forget..
    
    :-)  Thanks.

    > Where you guys the other night when Richard accused me falsely??

    Pointer, please. I can't comment unless I know what the heck you're
    talking about.

    If I agree with you I'll give Richard a tongue lashing he'll not soon
    forget! :^)
    
      	Eric
    
    
    PS. Check out 890.?? where I lampooned Richard for being a little
        too... well too Richard. :^)

    Re: .25
    
    I think that I have been consistant in my approach, but, lets get back
    to the subject at hand.
    
    Marc H.

    .28
    
    Cooda fooled me. :-)
    

    .28  I would affirm that Marc H. has demonstrated a consistently
    balanced and even-handed approach within this file.  Someday he
    may even come around on the gun control issue, but I'm not holding
    my breath.  ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Note 96.27 by APACHE::MYERS

>    Pointer, please. I can't comment unless I know what the heck you're
>    talking about.

See 890.250 through 890.260.

>    If I agree with you I'll give Richard a tongue lashing he'll not soon
>    forget! :^)

I'm braced.
   
>    PS. Check out 890.?? where I lampooned Richard for being a little
>        too... well too Richard. :^)

890.102.  One of my favorites!

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    I refused to put a pointer online for anyone because it seems childish
    to me...
    
    The truth is there is a
    one-sided-I'll-defend-you-no-matter-what-you-say kinda mentality in
    here that leaves out fairness to all noters.
    
    When you have wronged me, no-one has come in and said online, now
    Richard, that was unkind.  But when it is reversed many pile in...
    
    The point is we all err.  I forgive you your errors before you even
    ask.. I care about you as a person, as an eternal being and as an
    overcomer....  Blessed are the overcomers.
    
    May God's light rest on you Richard... may His loving arms hold you
    close to his bosom, I believe He has touched your life... His hand is
    on you... hold tight as I know you have.
    
    

    RE:.30
    
    Well, thanks for the complement. As far as gun control...well, lets
    lets just say that we have a couple of differences on the subject.
    
    Good choice on the "breath" part.....:) :) :)
    
    Marc H.

    
    Re.32
    
    That's not correct, Nancy.
    
    I did, at least once that I can recall.  And Richard changed his 
    note because of it.
    
    Cindy

    .34
    
    Perhaps VOLUME speaks louder.

    
    Re.last
    
    I was merely referring to your claim that "no-one has done...online",
    when in fact it *has* been done, by me, at least once.
    
    Enough...I'm not taking this any further.  Continue on.
    
    Cindy
                                         

Checked out a couple of books at the library yesterday:

	"Christian Perspectives on Politics," by J. Philip Wogaman

and

	"Civil Disobediance and the Christian," by Daniel B. Stevick.

I'll let you know if I find either of them interesting.

Shalom,
Richard

My current reading materials include:

"Apocalypse: On the Psychology of Fundamentalism in America,"
by Charles Strozier.

"Who Wrote the Bible?"
by Richard Elliott Friedman.  (Thanks for bringing it to my attention,
Bob Messenger!)

"From Warism to Pacifism: A Moral Continuum,"
by Duane L. Cady

"Not by the Sword,"
by Katheryn Watterson.  This is the true story of how, through the love
of a cantor and his family, Klansman Grand Dragon Larry Trapp of Lincoln,
Nebraska, came to repentance and conversion to Judaism.

Shalom,
Richard

 ZZZ    came to repentance and conversion to Judaism.
    
    Repentance without redemption.  I find this disconcerting!
    
    -Jack

re Note 96.39 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>  ZZZ    came to repentance and conversion to Judaism.
>     
>     Repentance without redemption.  I find this disconcerting!

        Some people believe that the Jews are God's chosen people,
        and that God will save God's people.

        Bob

    
    The Jews will be grafted back in at the appropriate time but its not
    now and it will never be on the basis of the Law rather on the basis of
    Jesus Christ's atonement.  And it won't do a thing for those living
    under the Law today or yesterday.
    
    jeff

    And yet Jeff, with your push for morality and orthordoxy, you would
    institute a new emphasis on "Law".
    
    Compliance with morality for the sake of compliance  and rote adherence
    to orthordoxy will not save anyone.  What will save, is letting go of 
    material concerns, loving, and trusting in God and in God's love.
    
                                          Patricia

>    Repentance without redemption.

Thank God you aren't the one who makes that determination.

 ZZ   Thank God you aren't the one who makes that determination.
    
    Agreed, I don't make that determination since I am not the messiah, but
    a sinner myself...coequal in sin with everybody else.
    
    The Jews do not believe Jesus to be the messiah so who am I to be
    Politically Correct in avoiding assumptions?  Unless you believe there
    is another way to eternal life Richard?
    
    -Jack

>    And yet Jeff, with your push for morality and orthordoxy, you would
>    institute a new emphasis on "Law".
 
    You don't understand the law of God, Patricia.  The Law (the Decalogue)
    is good and a delight to the Christian.  It is the Christian's standard
    of morality.  I have no where hinted that one may gain eternal life
    through the observance of the law.  But that doesn't mean the law is
    useless.  In fact it is indispensible!
       
>    Compliance with morality for the sake of compliance  and rote adherence
>    to orthordoxy will not save anyone.  What will save, is letting go of 
>    material concerns, loving, and trusting in God and in God's love.
    
 >                                         Patricia
    
    Save anyone from what?  
    
    According to the Bible, what will save is being born again of the Holy
    Spirit.
    
    jeff

    Jeff,
    
    Letting go, loving, Trusting in God and God's love is "being born
    again"!!
    
    
    Patricia

>    Jeff,
    
>    Letting go, loving, Trusting in God and God's love is "being born
>    again"!!
    
    
>    Patricia
    
    
    Maybe that's the definition in your book, Patricia.  The Bible knows
    nothing of such a definition.
    
    Again the problem, your equivocation.  You use a biblical term, 
    "born again", yet you change the meaning from the biblical meaning.
    
    Equivocation is one of the several fallacies which falsifies an
    argument.  You can't hope to convince any thinking person that your
    beliefs are within the area of consideration, much less true, until you
    eliminate the equivocation in your arguments.
    
    jeff

    Equivocate:  To use language ambiguously!
    
    Now who would ever equivocate with language such as 
    
    "To be born again"
    
    And he sayeth, how do you expect me an adult to be born again from the 
    mothers womb.
    
    if you don't know that letting go, loving, trusting in God and in God's
    love is precisely what is meant by being born again, then perhaps you
    have never experienced the depth of despair in trying to controls one's 
    life, and the joy and freedom of letting it Go and trusting God.
    
    I can feel that phrase, much better than I can articulate it!

>    Equivocate:  To use language ambiguously!
 
    In logic, arguments which employ equivocation are "fallacies of
    ambiguity."  Equivocation is specifically when the several meanings of
    words become confused - accidentally or deliberately.  I have to assume
    you are equivocating deliberately, invalidating your arguments, since
    the orthodox understanding of the words "born again" in the Bible are
    so well known and accepted.
       
    >Now who would ever equivocate with language such as 
    
    >"To be born again"
    
    >And he sayeth, how do you expect me an adult to be born again from the 
    >mothers womb.
    
    And Jesus then made it clear that He did not mean "physical birth".
     
    >if you don't know that letting go, loving, trusting in God and in God's
    >love is precisely what is meant by being born again, then perhaps you
    >have never experienced the depth of despair in trying to controls one's 
    >life, and the joy and freedom of letting it Go and trusting God.
    
    >I can feel that phrase, much better than I can articulate it!
    
    If you can't be persuaded maybe another reader can so I'll enter
    Jesus's comments.  Anyone can easily see that being born again is not
    "letting go, loving, trusting in God (for what, I ask?)", and so forth. 
    Which actually sounds pretty much like a talk at a twelve-step program.
    
    John 3:1-6
    
    "Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
    Jews; this man came to Him by night, and said to Him, 'Rabbi, we know
    that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these
    signs that You do unless God is with him.'  Jesus answered and said to
    him, 'Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot
    see the kingdom of God.'  Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born
    when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb
    and be born, can he?'  Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you,
    unless one is born of water [physical birth - jb] and the Spirit
    [spiritual birth - jb], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  That
    which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
    Spirit is spirit.'
    
    jeff

re Note 96.49 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     words become confused - accidentally or deliberately.  I have to assume
>     you are equivocating deliberately, invalidating your arguments, since
>     the orthodox understanding of the words "born again" in the Bible are
>     so well known and accepted.
  
        Probably 99.999% of all human communication is *not* formal
        logical argumentation, so it is quite possible that Patricia
        has no concern about "deliberately invalidating her
        arguments", since it is very likely she isn't offering
        logical formalism.

        Bob

    "And Jesus then made it clear that He did not mean "physical birth"."
     
    Sounds like he was equivocating then!
    
    
    
">  Anyone can easily see that being born again is not
    >"letting go, loving, trusting in God (for what, I ask?)", and so forth. 
    >Which actually sounds pretty much like a talk at a twelve-step
    >program."
    
    So when a alcoholic gives up alcohol, Learns to Trust in God to
    maintain sobriety, and recreates his/her life, you don't think that is
    being "born again"
    
    John 3:1-6
    
    "Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
    Jews; this man came to Him by night, and said to Him, 'Rabbi, we know
    that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these
    signs that You do unless God is with him.'  Jesus answered and said to
    him, 'Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot
    see the kingdom of God.'  Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born
    when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb
    and be born, can he?'  Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you,
    unless one is born of water [physical birth - jb] and the Spirit
    [spiritual birth - jb], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  That
    which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
    Spirit is spirit.'"
    
   The twelve step programs have done nothing other than to translate the
    concept in John  into modern language.
    
    All one needs to do is let go of one's need to control, accept that
    there is a God that will provide, and learn to Trust in God.  It's
    really simple and quite beautiful.  To be born again is to be a new
    creation under the influence, presence, and the guiding 
    power  of the Divine.
    

    Bob,
    
    Thanks for helping me understand where Jeff was coming from!
    
    I've never studied formal logic.
    
    My role model had a habit of speaking in parables!  It wasn't always 
    perfectly clear what he was saying, but what he did say sure did have
    the power to persuade people.
    
                                 Patricia

    ZZ    So when a alcoholic gives up alcohol, Learns to Trust in God to
    Z    maintain sobriety, and recreates his/her life, you don't think that
    ZZ    is being "born again"
      
    I think there is more a problem of ambiguity here.  Patricia, you are
    in the right direction...but perhaps on the wrong side of the road and
    facing imminent danger.  The term, "Letting Go" without context has
    little meaning, so to put it in context; we are called to sacrifice the
    old flesh and take upon ourselves the Spirit of God.  When you are not
    born again, your spirit is dead...and entangled in a perpetual
    condition of sin.  Dying to self is giving yourself to Jesus Christ and 
    yielding to the Spirit of God.  
    
    "For I am dead to sin and it is not I but Christ who lives in me.  And
    the life I live I life by the power of the one who died for me, and
    gave himself for me."
    
    You speak as if one has the ability within themselves to conquer sin,
    hence being born again.  This unfortunately is a fallacy.  Furthermore,
    I might suggest that one who follows this belief is changing the nature
    of humans and God...making humans the savior of themselves whereas God
    becomes secondary.  This simply cannot be done.
    
    One may stay on the wagon and refrain from drinking all their life. 
    But the truth is and is acknowledged by the person that they are ALWAYS
    an alcoholic...and will always BE an alcoholic.  Being born again takes
    away the condition of sin but staying on the wagon does not take away
    the condition of alcoholism....correct?
    
    Know Jesus...know peace.  No Jesus....no peace!
    
    -Jack  
    

    
    
    >"letting go, loving, trusting in God (for what, I ask?)", and so forth. 
    >Which actually sounds pretty much like a talk at a twelve-step
    >program."
    
>    So when a alcoholic gives up alcohol, Learns to Trust in God to
>    maintain sobriety, and recreates his/her life, you don't think that is
>    being "born again"
 
    Absolutely not!  Stopping drinking is no more a saving act that
    stopping spitting.  As the passage says, being born again is a
    spiritual rebirth, not stopping bad habits.   
    
    John 3:1-6
    
    "Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the
    Jews; this man came to Him by night, and said to Him, 'Rabbi, we know
    that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these
    signs that You do unless God is with him.'  Jesus answered and said to
    him, 'Truly, truly I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot
    see the kingdom of God.'  Nicodemus said to Him, 'How can a man be born
    when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb
    and be born, can he?'  Jesus answered, 'Truly, truly, I say to you,
    unless one is born of water [physical birth - jb] and the Spirit
    [spiritual birth - jb], he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.  That
    which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the
    Spirit is spirit.'"
    
>   The twelve step programs have done nothing other than to translate the
>    concept in John  into modern language.
 
    According to who?  Certainly not according to the Bible.
       
>    All one needs to do is let go of one's need to control, accept that
>    there is a God that will provide, and learn to Trust in God.  It's
>    really simple and quite beautiful.  To be born again is to be a new
>    creation under the influence, presence, and the guiding 
>    power  of the Divine.
 
    This is false.  We are saved by the blood of Jesus Christ only.  This
    is orthodox Christianity.  You are far from the truth, Patricia.
    
    jeff   

  
>        Probably 99.999% of all human communication is *not* formal
>        logical argumentation, so it is quite possible that Patricia
>        has no concern about "deliberately invalidating her
>        arguments", since it is very likely she isn't offering
>        logical formalism.

>        Bob
    
    
    	All argumentation is a form of logic regardless of the arguers
    understanding of formal logic.  Any propositional statement may be
    tested for truth vis a vis noncontradiction.  If any statement is made
    which is contrary to some other statement which is true, the contrary
    statement is false.
    
    Patricia's statements are most often contrary to the sound teaching of
    the Scriptures, making her propositions false.
    
    jeff

    
  >  Patricia's statements are most often contrary to the sound teaching of
  >  the Scriptures, making her propositions false.
    
  >  jeff
    
    My statements may be contrary to YOUR understanding of Scripture, but
    that does not make them false!
    
    

    
>>    So when a alcoholic gives up alcohol, Learns to Trust in God to
>>    maintain sobriety, and recreates his/her life, you don't think that is
>>    being "born again"
 
<    Absolutely not!  Stopping drinking is no more a saving act that
<    stopping spitting.  As the passage says, being born again is a
<    spiritual rebirth, not stopping bad habits.   
    
Learning to trust God as a way to maintain sobriety and recreate one's life
    certainly is a spiritual rebirth!!!.
    
    Or would you prefer somebody wading in a swimming pool with a 
    flamboyant preacher!.     

                                    Patricia

    
      
 >   My statements may be contrary to YOUR understanding of Scripture, but
 >   that does not make them false!
  
    You would do much better, Patricia, to drop the idea that MY
    understanding of Scripture is somehow unique.  It is not. My
    *experience* will differ to some small, personal degree but that
    doesn't change the meanings of the words which are written.  Nor does
    it change the sound teaching of the words in the Bible.
    
    Your whole context of reading and understanding the Scriptures is
    irrational.  On the one hand you study and quote the Scriptures as if
    it had authoritative meaning but on the other hand you deny the
    clear teaching of the Scriptures.  On the one hand you attempt to
    convince people that what you believe is true while denying what the
    Bible says is true.  I'd be real interested to know what
    presuppositions you use to justify calling your approach "rational".
    I believe you'd find them contradictory from the start thus
    invalidating all following arguments.
    
    jeff 
    
      
    

 
<    Absolutely not!  Stopping drinking is no more a saving act that
<    stopping spitting.  As the passage says, being born again is a
<    spiritual rebirth, not stopping bad habits.   
    
>Learning to trust God as a way to maintain sobriety and recreate one's life
>    certainly is a spiritual rebirth!!!.
 
    Do I have to enter the text again?!  "learning to trust God as a
    way..." is contrary to the text we have reviewed.  The Scripture makes
    it clear that being born again is not a learning process but an act of
    the Holy Spirit of God.  You are in contradiction with the clear words
    of Scripture.
    
>    Or would you prefer somebody wading in a swimming pool with a 
>    flamboyant preacher!.     

>                                    Patricia
    
    I guess you're trying to be funny by equating baptism with a
    twelve-step program.
    
    jeff

  ZZ      Or would you prefer somebody wading in a swimming pool with a 
  ZZ      flamboyant preacher!.     
    
    Well, I wouldn't necessarily call John the Baptist Flamboyant although
    he was the greatest prophet of all time...symbolically referred to as
    the second Elijah.  And I would hardly call the Jordan a swimming pool.
    The baptism of Jesus showed significance...it would for you if you were
    standing there and heard, "This is My Beloved Son, in Whom I Am Well
    Pleased!"
    
    Re: Jane Roe..I find her act an act of faith if it was done with the
    right heart attitude.  I also find the condescention of the misguided 
    pro choice camp similar to that of Saul of Tarsus.  Fair weather
    friends might be a good way to describe it.
    
    -Jack

    Jeff,
    
    No matter how many times you repeat that I am irrational and wrong does
    not make one iota of difference.
    
    Because a group of fundemental Christians decided to rally around the
    phrase, "to be born again" does not mean that their understanding of
    the phrase is superior to any other understanding.
    
    To learn to trust God, is a heartfelt learning.  It is taking that step
    into the void of giving up our sense of security in all that has made
    us feel secure and open our hearts and soul and mind to God's love and
    God's guidance.  The new birth is a spiritual awakening to a different
    kind of living.  A kind of living, one day at a time, with God as a
    constant companion.  Christ is the incarnation of God's love in
    humanity.  When we accept God's love, we accept Christ into our hearts
    and Soul.  We become part of one Body of Christ.  We live within the
    forcefield  of God's love and the community in which it is incarnate!
    
    
    There is no Dogma defined in the Bible.  There are stories and
    teachings.  Dogma and Doctrine is necessary to convey Religion ideas
    and religious truth.  Dogma and Doctrine are tied to a world view. 
    When world views change, the Dogma and Doctrine also have to change.  
    For instance, how does the phrase Kingdom of God speak to a people who
    have never had a King!  Does that statement imply that Monarchy is the
    best form of Government for all times, or does that phrase imply that
    God communicated with humanity in terms that made sense to the day and
    time.  The stories and teachings of Jesus are eternal.  The Dogma and
    Doctrine in which the Church surrounded these teachings, need constant
    evaluation and reinterpretation in the language and worldview of the
    people.
    
    I  reinterpret what I read in the Bible in terms that apply to
    our lives today.  I allow the Bible to speak to me through my own life
    and my own experiences. 
    
    I know what rebirth is because I have experienced rebirth.  I know what
    a spiritual awakening  is because I have seen its impact on other people.
    To be Born again, to have a spiritual awakening, to be New Creation in 
    Christ.  They are powerful images which I will not leave to the use or 
    misuse of any one group or Cult.
    
    

>    Jeff,
    
>    No matter how many times you repeat that I am irrational and wrong does
>    not make one iota of difference.
 
    I realize this, Patricia. And you're among a good deal of company,
    I'm afraid.  Just don't be surprised when your message and beliefs are
    ridiculed by thinking people for you said it yourself; you don't care
    that you're irrational.
    
    jeff

    >No matter how many times you repeat that I am irrational and wrong
    >does not make one iota of difference.
    
    Jeff, it does not make one iota of difference because I don't value you 
    opinion in that area.
    
    As far as I'm concerned all you are doing is jumping up and down like a 
    spoiled child yelling Your Wrong, Your Wrong, Your Irrational, Your
    Irrational, Listen to me, I know the answer, and Your wrong.
    
    There is nothing rational about your whole conversation!
    
    
                                       Patricia
    

    Patricia:
    
    Remember, Drunkeness is not the problem.  It is only a condition or the
    end result of the problem.  The problem is the propensity to drink, or
    alcohomism if you will.
    
    A drinker can indeed trust the Lord to help overcome his/her drinking.  
    The sad fact which has been condirmed by the secular world is that the
    person will ALWAYS....ALWAYS...ALWAYS be an alcoholic...until the day
    they die.
    
    Overcoming specific sins is evidence of a Spirit filled life. 
    Overcoming sin, allegorical to alcoholism is impossible.  Therefore, to
    be "born again" as Jesus put it is putting holiness upon yourself, not
    maintaining holiness as you appear to believe.
    
    Quite frankly, I'm surprised you resist this.  Putting on holiness as
    in accepting Jesus as savior is far easier than trying to maintain
    holiness as a mode of being born again.  It would be like standing on
    the shore of Cape Cod and attempting to throw a rock on the shore of
    Spain. 
    
    -Jack

    I have an idea,
    
    Why don't the two of you continue this discussion without me.
    
    
                                          Patricia

    
    Re.62,
    
    Patricia,
    
    >    Jeff,
    >    No matter how many times you repeat that I am irrational and wrong
    >    does not make one iota of difference.
    
    It's just his way of being a Sensitive New Age-kinda guy, you know.
    Can't you tell?  (B^}
                         
    Cindy

    
    Btw, the acronym is: SNAG
    
    Cindy

re Note 96.55 by USAT05::BENSON:

>     Patricia's statements are most often contrary to the sound teaching of
>     the Scriptures, making her propositions false.
  
        So on what propositions do you base your belief that your
        interpretation of the "sound teaching of the Scriptures" is
        correct, or even that the teaching of Scriptures is, in all
        cases, sound?

        Bob

re Note 96.58 by USAT05::BENSON:

>  >   My statements may be contrary to YOUR understanding of Scripture, but
>  >   that does not make them false!
>   
>     You would do much better, Patricia, to drop the idea that MY
>     understanding of Scripture is somehow unique.  

        Remember, Patricia, that the difference between your beliefs
        and Jeff's is that Jeff is correct, and you are wrong.  Jeff
        is rational, you are irrational.  All sincere godly people
        agree with Jeff, whereas only the demonic (knowingly or
        unknowingly) agree with you.

        Good.  Now perhaps we can make some headway in these
        discussions now that we have common ground.

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    You are a well known advocate in this file for defending those you
    consider to be victims of intellectual attacks.  I find it interesting
    that you have never come to my defense on anything.  Patricia, please
    do something to change your style so that I can reap the benefits of
    Bob's defending of other peoples faith. (Obviously sarcasm exists!)
    
    So Bob, instead of coming to the defense of others, I would be
    interested to know how Patricia's beliefs in Panentheism jive or are in
    harmony with the Catholic Church.  I thought you were Catholic but if
    you aren't, I'd be interested in how they correlate with the faith
    statement of your fellowship.
    
    -Jack

    
    Re.71
    
    Oh gosh...I'd been struggling with that one for years now.  But at
    last, an answer has been put forth.
    
    Thanks for finally clearing that up, Bob!  (;^)
    
    Cindy

re Note 96.72 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     So Bob, instead of coming to the defense of others, I would be
>     interested to know how Patricia's beliefs in Panentheism jive or are in
>     harmony with the Catholic Church.  I thought you were Catholic but if
>     you aren't, I'd be interested in how they correlate with the faith
>     statement of your fellowship.
  
        What purpose would be served by my comparing and contrasting
        beliefs of an individual with a group of individuals?  I see
        no reason why Patricia has to be compared to the position of
        the Catholic Church.

        If you see a reason for this, please go ahead and do so.

        Bob

>    The Jews will be grafted back in at the appropriate time but its not
>    now and it will never be on the basis of the Law rather on the basis of
>    Jesus Christ's atonement.  And it won't do a thing for those living
>    under the Law today or yesterday.
    
    God said in His Word that He will always have a remnant in Israel.

    
    But as we've discussed that remnant will never be justified before God
    outside of Jesus Christ.
    
    jeff

    Correct.  The 144,000 for example, will be from the twelve tribes of
    Israel and will be witnesses for Jesus Christ.
    
    -Jack

>    But as we've discussed that remnant will never be justified before God
>    outside of Jesus Christ.
    
    I don't believe the remnant is outside of Christ.  There have been
    Messianic Jews since Abraham.  First century Jewish historian Neander
    wrote that there was 1,000,000 Christian Jews in Israel by the year 100
    A.D.!
    
    Mike

i am currently under the influence of "the antichrist" written by 
the german philosopher/writer friedrich nietzsche.

i love this writer despite all his hates and idiosyncracies - he
is insulting to women, republicans, socialists, priests, polish jews
and most of all, germans. yet his treatment of the history of christianity 
and psychology of religion is the best yet that i have come across.

the intellectual brilliance and genius of this man, son of a lutheran
pastor, stands in stark contrast to what must have been a morbid and 
lonely existance. 

one nietzsche's life long battles was his crusade against the church, 
which he accuses of having turned up-side-down all the original meanings
of christianity. the intensity of nietzsche's battle with the church 
shines through in "the antichrist", which was written in 1888, two years 
before he lost his mind.

it's quite a book to read!





andreas.

Currently reading:

"Care of the Soul," by Thomas Moore

"The Politics of Meaning," by Michael Lerner

Shalom,
Richard

re Note 96.80 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> "Care of the Soul," by Thomas Moore
  
        Nancy's been reading this for the last couple of weeks -- she
        likes it.

        Bob

    
    > "Care of the Soul," by Thomas Moore

    I've started this book, but didn't really connect with it. I'll finish
    it some time, though.

    Right now I'm reading "The Journey of the Mind to God" by Saint
    Bonaventure, a 13 century Franciscan. I find him similar to Plotinus,
    but coming from a Christian perspective.

    I'm also reading "Walden" by Thoreau. While not a Christian work, more
    transcendentalist if anything.

    Eric

    
    I'm currently reading "Living Faith," by Jimmy Carter. 

    President Carter shares how his Christian faith was formed and how it
    has affected his actions in both his personal and public life. A very
    intimate and humble sharing of belief and self-examination from someone
    who has worked hand-in-hand with world leaders and the world's outcasts
    alike. Inspiring.

    I recommend this book for anyone who is *NOT* looking for a scholarly
    and sterile exegesis, but rather the reflections of a lifetime.

    Eric