Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

	"Mainline churches have experienced a decline and I think it's for
two reasons.  Perhaps the most important reason is that mainline churches
have dared to take bold stands on controversial issues.  They have tried
to grapple with the homosexual issue with sensitivity and compassion and
homophobic church church members have responded by leaving the membership
in large numbers.  Concern for environmental issues have also cost them
members because the evangelical community has often cast environmentalists
as 'New Agers.'

	Mainline churches have also been in the forefront of promoting a
Christian feminist value system.  This has also cost them dearly.  I contend
that the mainline churches have done the right thing and I applaud them for
not being willing to sell their souls just to pick up members."

					- Tony Campolo

	"I believe that the evangelical community has failed to stand
for social justice to the degree that it should and could, primarily
because it is caught up in the confusion between nationalism and biblical
faith.  The fact that Oliver North has become such a hero in evangelical
circles says it all."

					- Tony Campolo

	"It seems that situational ethics are wrong for evangelicals
when dealing with sex, but it's perfectly okay to lie and even to murder
if it's in the cause of patriotism."

					- Tony Campolo

    I *like* this Evangelical Christian perspective of Tony Campolo's.
    
    He's not hung up on reinforcing the status quo.  He's deeply concerned
    with the weightier matters of the Law: Justice, Mercy, Honesty.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

	"The answer, of course, is to preach a biblical Christianity.
The radical faith articulated by Jesus calls us away from our affluent
consumeristic lifestyle into a simple way of living in which we will
use our financial resources to meet the needs of the poor.  It also calls
us to be pacifists in a world in which war seems omnipresent.  It seems
to me that if we would just preach the Sermon on the Mount instead of
the American success story, the church would move in the right direction."

					- Tony Campolo

    

>	"Mainline churches have experienced a decline and I think it's for
>two reasons.  Perhaps the most important reason is that mainline churches
>have dared to take bold stands on controversial issues.  They have tried

    The single most important reason for a decline in mainline churches
    is a failure to preach the Gospel. Taking stands on controversial
    issues would not cause a decline in a church that considered their
    first and primary duty the spreading of the Gospel of Jesus. Churches
    that preach the Gospel grow. Churches that do not preach the Gospel
    do not grow. It's as simple as that and frankly I wonder what world
    an evangelical lives in if he thinks that there is a bigger factor
    in the decline of mainline churches.

    			Alfred

    .6  Thank you for expressing what is a common argument.  I do not
    agree with it, nor have I read any unbiased studies to back it up,
    but I have heard it stated over and over.
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .7 Have you read any unbiased studies to back up your notion?
    On what basis do you disagree with it?
    
    		Alfred

    Truth is, I've not read any studies, biased or unbiased, that would
    indicate people leave churches that don't preach the Gospel. ;-)
    
    You and I are on fairly equal footing in this area, Alfred. :-}
    
    I have seen studies on what helps a church grow and, surprisingly, it
    indicates results having very little to do with the content of the sermon.
    
    One of the largest and fastest growing churches in this region, a
    fundamentalist church, has not had it's Sunday morning message based
    on one of the 4 canonical Gospels (except once) in an entire year.
    The sermons are base on Paul or the OT (I know because they're
    published in the local newspaper the Saturday before).  Perhaps you
    mean Gospel in the broader sense.
    
    Richard
    

        
>    You and I are on fairly equal footing in this area, Alfred. :-}

    In the sense of having read studies you are correct. In the sense of
    having had serious conversations with a number of pastors of churches
    who grew in spite of taking controversial stands I suspect not. :-)
    
>    I have seen studies on what helps a church grow and, surprisingly, it
>    indicates results having very little to do with the content of the sermon.
    
    I should like to read one. Can you provide a pointer or a copy?
    
    >    mean Gospel in the broader sense.

    Correct. The Gospel is not the first 4 books of the New Testament.
    Rather those books record it. The Gospel is the message that Jesus
    came, lived, died and rose again for out sins and through that we
    have the opportunity of eternal life.

    			Alfred

Note 863.10

>    who grew in spite of taking controversial stands I suspect not. :-)

The fundamentalist church I mentioned earlier that's growing by leaps and
bounds has taken what you might consider controversial stands, too.  However,
the stands are hardly anything disquieting for a conservative church to take
a conservative stand on.

>    I should like to read one. Can you provide a pointer or a copy?

No, I can't.  It's been a number of years.  It was the result of a study
sponsored in part by the United Methodist church in the U.S..  The UMC, which
at that time was "graying" (The median age of UM members was 65), was seeking
ways to attract and keep a younger congregation, especially the so-called
baby-boomers.

>    Correct. The Gospel is not the first 4 books of the New Testament.
>    Rather those books record it. The Gospel is the message that Jesus
>    came, lived, died and rose again for out sins and through that we
>    have the opportunity of eternal life.

I've known of churches that preached just this very message that have had
to fold.  Is there an explanation for this?  Lots of explanations, but it was
not for lack of the Gospel message.  I wouldn't be surprised if you (or your
clergy family and friends) can think of examples of where this kind of thing
has happened as well.

Shalom,
Richard

>I've known of churches that preached just this very message that have had
>to fold.  Is there an explanation for this?  Lots of explanations, but it was
>not for lack of the Gospel message.  I wouldn't be surprised if you (or your
>clergy family and friends) can think of examples of where this kind of thing
>has happened as well.

I make no claim that preaching the Gospel is enough to make a church grow.
However, I've seen time and again a church growing while other churches
around it are shrinking. The difference seems to be that the growing church
is a Gospel preaching church. Even allowing for the Gospel church taking
stands that are contriversial for a conservative church to take. 

		Alfred

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 863.5          Tony Campolo - Evangelical Extraordinaire            5 of 12
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "I'm 2 sexy 4 my chair"            10 lines  19-FEB-1994 16:19
                                -< The answer >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	"The answer, of course, is to preach a biblical Christianity.
The radical faith articulated by Jesus calls us away from our affluent
consumeristic lifestyle into a simple way of living in which we will
use our financial resources to meet the needs of the poor.  It also calls
us to be pacifists in a world in which war seems omnipresent.  It seems
to me that if we would just preach the Sermon on the Mount instead of
the American success story, the church would move in the right direction."

					- Tony Campolo

    	When I was on holiday in Severna Park MD last October, I made
    	the following observation.
    	
    	There were 3 churches in the immediate vicinity (UU, Catholic --
    	which my sister attended -- and <I think> Methodist).
    
    	The all had parking lots bigger than most European Shopping Malls,
    	(this fact alone gave nme food for thought).
    	                                          
    	The UU church parking lot was being expanded: it will eventually
    	be considerably larger than the other two.
    
    	Unfortunately, I did not check out what was the difference in
    	their preached subject matter. (I did not anticipate this topic).
    	At the time, I concluded that, given the parking space, the
    	church will grow.  This could explain why no traditional church
    	in Austria is growing: they are all built in places where land is
    	at a premium.  :-)
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    .14
    
    Ease of parking is a factor, strangely enough -- especially in the
    present shopping mall culture of the U.S..
    
    Richard

I agree with Tony that taking controversial stands will weaken
a church's membership.

Even more importantly, pretending to be Biblically based or
oriented and preaching a message that contradicts the Bible
will certainly weaken a church's membership.

My own limited experience suggests that what Alfred says is
right on.  Even in the midst of a society that has moved away
from Biblical principles en masse, the growing churches
have been the charismatic and conservative churches that
offer the Bible as the standard of their faith - and really
mean it.

An even better indicator is to just count the *new* churches
in the last year or 5 years (not just in the U.S., but
throughout the world) and see what they preach.  (Latin
America and Africa have been overrun with new Charismatic
and conservative churches the past 10 years).

Finally, look back at all the existing churches.  What did
the people believe who started them (i.e. when they were
new).

I think that when this data is considered, the preaching
of the gospel and the reliance on the Bible will be seen as
one of the main features of these churches - particularly
when compared with the ratios of churches that do this
today.

  >They have tried to grapple with the homosexual issue with sensitivity and 
  >compassion and homophobic church church members have responded by leaving 
  >the membership in large numbers.

I notice the implication that those who disagree with Tony (which includes
the vast majority of Evangelicals) get an implied label of homophobic.

It's too bad that he feels a need to use labels which are often
wrong and, even worse, discount the *real* reason that people I
know of have left mainline churches - because they have taken a
stand that opposes the teaching God gave us through his prophets.

I agree with Tony that these churches are often sensitive and compassionate.

I totally disagree with Tony that those who leave are not sensitive and
compassionate - because I have been surrounded by people that see things
totally opposite of Tony in my last 4 churches who are filled with
sensitivity and compassion.  Mainline churches that have chosen to 
embrace the sex acts of homosexuals as acceptable are not the keepers
of sensitivity and compassion.

It sounds from what Tony is saying that he views sensitivity and compassion
as incompatible with taking a firm stand.  This is often the plea of
someone who disagrees with a firm stand - and in this case like all the
others, it is simply wrong.  God who is infinitely more sensitive and
compassionate than any of us has often taken such hard stands that many
people in this conference don't believe what God has actually done or
that God actually exists (as depicted through his prophets).

Collis

    I suspect we as a culture are experiencing an upswing of conservatism
    in general, and Christian conservatism in particular.  This was
    predicted to some degree many years ago in a book called "Megatrends."
    
    This is not the first time the U.S. has experienced such a swing.
    Many claim is it the hand of God at work.  Others claim other stimuli
    and influences cannot be discounted, though they frequently are.
    
    I believe the mainline churches will come around again, *IF* they
    can withstand the winds of our conservative times.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    I have yet to see how a liberal church conforms to the Word of God on
    various matters, i.e. homosexuality, secular humanism, etc.  I
    understand the arguments as I have heard them but the only two reasons
    I've heard for condoning a worldly belief were:
    
    1. That part of scripture wasn't inspired.
    
    2. That particular teaching was only appropriate for that time. 
    
    Reason two I can see from time to time.  Reason 1 can only come from
    our own human intellect, very shakey at best.
    
    I believe the local church is becoming more apostate every day.
    
    -Jack

    
>    I suspect we as a culture are experiencing an upswing of conservatism
>    in general, and Christian conservatism in particular.  This was

    I hope so but I'm not optimistic.

    			Alfred

RE:        <<< Note 863.18 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "I'm 2 sexy 4 my chair" >>>
                          -< Shifting cultural sands >-

   > I suspect we as a culture are experiencing an upswing of conservatism
   > in general, and Christian conservatism in particular.  This was
   > predicted to some degree many years ago in a book called "Megatrends."
    


    I suspect we as a culture are experiencing a falling away and of 
    having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof.  This was
    predicted many years ago in a book called "The Bible".





    Jim


    

Note 863.20

>    I hope so but I'm not optimistic.

How very droll.

Note 863.21

>    I suspect we as a culture are experiencing a falling away and of 
>    having a form of Godliness but denying the power thereof.  This was
>    predicted many years ago in a book called "The Bible".

This kind of thing has been said for generations.  Every generation seems
to think the Apocalypse is imminent.

Richard

    
>>    I hope so but I'm not optimistic.
>
>How very droll.
    
    I'm not attempting to be funny. I am seriously concerned at what
    appears to be a trend away from traditional values towards what
    appears to be a destructive lack of values. You perhaps see that as
    a good thing, I do not. I would like to believe that trend is slowing
    but see little hope of things getting better in the near term.
    
    			Alfred

re Note 863.24 by CVG::THOMPSON:

>     I am seriously concerned at what
>     appears to be a trend away from traditional values towards what
>     appears to be a destructive lack of values. You perhaps see that as
>     a good thing, I do not. I would like to believe that trend is slowing
>     but see little hope of things getting better in the near term.
  
        "Traditional values" is a code-word for a package of beliefs,
        attitudes, and doctrine which is a mix of the secular and
        particular religious traditions and, in most cases,
        conservative politics.

        Yes, there is some good, even a lot of good, in that package
        called "Traditional values".  However it is not and was never
        all good.  It is not and was never entirely of spiritual much
        less Christian origin.

        Thus I do not mourn the departure from the package
        "Traditional values" per se.  

        I do also decry a lack of values.

        In many ways the decay is due to to the flaws of "Traditional
        values".  By virtue of the conservatism of its proponents, the
        flaws of "Traditional values" are rarely fixed or even
        recognized.  Also, the proponents of "Traditional values"
        have so wrapped conservative politics, and its flaws, around
        some Christian morality that the entire package is often
        rejected out of hand.

        In today's society, at least in today's U.S., Christian
        teaching is usually accompanied by conservative political
        teaching.  This is clearly the fault of the liberals, who do
        not have enough of an emphasis on mission, teaching, and
        conversion.  It isn't liberal Christians who are shooting
        each other on our streets and molesting children.  On the
        other hand, the liberal Christians don't seem to try very
        hard to spread the considerable moral values which they do
        hold to a world desperate for moral guidance.

        It is also clearly the fault of the conservatives, who in
        their zeal to spread conservative politics package
        Christianity in such a way that it cannot reach many of the
        people who need it most, especially the urban poor.

        Both liberals and conservatives share some blame for not
        reaching out and teaching Christian values effectively. 
        (Oddly enough, it seems to be the conservatives who want the
        government to do this!!)

        Bob

    RE: .25
    
    Do you have some examples of destructive conservative values?
    Also, if conservative idea's are so bad for urban youth, why has the
    "great society" failed so many.....
    
    
    Marc H.

re Note 863.26 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     Also, if conservative idea's are so bad for urban youth, why has the
>     "great society" failed so many.....

        That's a lot like asking "if earthquakes are so bad why do
        floods do so much damage?"

  
>     Do you have some examples of destructive conservative values?

        Conservative values of the recent past include the right to
        practice racism and sexism in employment and housing.

        Conservative values that are preached to this very day
        include the primacy of private enterprise over "social
        concerns" such as health, safety, and environmental problems.

        Conservative values include the public and personal right to
        use fatal violence in the defense of one's person, property,
        or rights.  (I do believe that the youth of our inner cities
        are living out their interpretation of the "I'm the NRA"
        attitudes right now -- we are reaping what has been sown.)

        I could go on, but time does not permit...

        Bob

RE: Note 863.27         
LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish " 27 lines  23-FEB-1994 11:20

@@>     Also, if conservative idea's are so bad for urban youth, why has the
@@>     "great society" failed so many.....

>>        That's a lot like asking "if earthquakes are so bad why do
>>        floods do so much damage?"

I think the point here is that conservative viewpoint pushes the concept of
self reliance while liberal views tend to make society dependent; as we are
now seeing because of LBJ's policies.  By the same token, I also believe
the local church had a golden opportunity to make Christ known but allowed
the government to play their role.  
  
@@>     Do you have some examples of destructive conservative values?

>>        Conservative values of the recent past include the right to
>>        practice racism and sexism in employment and housing.

Excuse me, but I have documented proof that I have been discriminated against
because I am a white male.  What's more, this is government approved discrim-
ination.  Affirmative Retribution and Quotas are a liberal concept propogated
by the looney left.

>>        Conservative values that are preached to this very day
>>        include the primacy of private enterprise over "social
>>        concerns" such as health, safety, and environmental problems.

    New York does not preach the primacy of private enterprise.  In fact,
    New York is quite intrusive.  So what do we have...
    
    New York is the largest welfare magnet in the country.  When you have a 
    dependent society, you have crime and poverty.  Not very healthy or
    safe.  

Incidentally, Congress legislates the mandates for business practice in this
country, forty years democratically controlled I might add.  

>>        Conservative values include the public and personal right to
>>        use fatal violence in the defense of one's person, property,
>>        or rights.  (I do believe that the youth of our inner cities
>>        are living out their interpretation of the "I'm the NRA"
>>        attitudes right now -- we are reaping what has been sown.)

Property rights go back as far as our founding fathers and is the backbone of 
our country.  Relinquish this to the government and this spells chaos. 

As far as inner cities, this has to do with poor parenting on the part of one 
or both parents.  Typically, one of the parents abandons while the other
works her fingers to the bone and does her best.  Our children learn violence
in the streets because the parents can not or will not be there for them.
This is a whole wide spectrum of issues, not just parenting.  It involves
the schools, dysfunctionalism, selfishness, greed, lack of work ethics, 
poverty, THE GREAT SOCIETY, and many more.  Pray tell how is conservatism 
to blame when we are already paying our fair share?!!!

Rgds.,     

-Jack

re Note 863.28 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

> This is a whole wide spectrum of issues, not just parenting.  It involves
> the schools, dysfunctionalism, selfishness, greed, lack of work ethics, 
> poverty, THE GREAT SOCIETY, and many more.  Pray tell how is conservatism 
> to blame when we are already paying our fair share?!!!
  
        I never defended the "Great Society".

        To claim that five years of liberal social legislation undid
        traditional American society says a lot more about the
        weakness of traditional American society than about liberal
        social legislation.

        Bob

    re: Note 863.27 by LGP30::FLEISCHER

    > (I do believe that the youth of our inner cities are living out their
    > interpretation of the "I'm the NRA" attitudes right now -- we are
    > reaping what has been sown.)

    I don't believe the youth of the inner cities know *anything* about
    the NRA. 

    I believe they've been told over and over again that they will amount
    to nothing, that "the man" is out to get them, that you've got to take
    what's coming to you, that they're victims. That drugs == money, money
    == power, and power == respect. That a girl isn't a woman till she's
    had a baby and that a boy isn't a man until he's had a woman. That life
    is cheap.

    You're right though, we will reap what we sow.
                    
             Eric

    
    > (I do believe that the youth of our inner cities are living out their
    > interpretation of the "I'm the NRA" attitudes right now -- we are
    > reaping what has been sown.)

    I see what they're going as living out the "the world owes me a living"
    attitude that is part and parcel of the liberal agenda. Different
    perspectives I guess but I see what is happening in the inner cities,
    where I grew up, as being caused by the rejection of values of caring
    for other people (traditional) in favor of "others need to care for me"
    (liberal/progressive) values.

    			Alfred

    RE: Note 863.28 by AIMHI::JMARTIN

    > I think the point here is that conservative viewpoint pushes the
    > concept of self reliance...

    A concept I've heard many gang members express in interviews. 

    In fact, I believe that, in general, the under class feels quite
    strongly that they *can't* depend on society. They may, however, rely
    on the *government* for subsistence. 

    
    > Pray tell how is conservatism to blame...

    Well...
    
    > It involves the schools..., 

    Conservatism espouses the cut back of school funding... if not it's
    entire elimination.

    > ...dysfunctionalism, 

    "Dysfunctionalism"? I don't even know what you mean by this.
    
    Is this the conservative notion that a woman should stay with her
    husband, no matter what, in order to preserve the family unit? Or is it
    the conservative notion that there are specific "correct" roles for
    boy, girls, men and women and deviating from those roles is wrong and
    leads to dysfunctionalism and the breakdown of the family. You know the
    roles: Dad works and Mom stays home; boys should play team sports and
    girls play house (or be cheer leaders).
    
    My point is there are "dysfunctional" ideas at both ends of the
    spectrum. 

    > ...selfishness,

    The conservative notion of "I've got mine, go get your own." Don't
    expect me to help you... get a job. 

    >... greed, 

    See above.

    > ...lack of work ethics, 

    Work ethics, or ethics in general. You know like screw the Congress, I
    (we) know what's best for the country (ala O. North, et al.)

    > ...poverty,

    Opposing minimum wage laws. Opposing training initiatives. Opposing
    employee termination and plant closing laws.

    > ...THE GREAT SOCIETY,

    Working to make it fail rather that working to make it work... all in
    the name of partisanship.
    
    
    	Eric

    Re: .27
    
    Low blow with the "I'm the NRA" Bob. Not accurate either....
    
    You have also made mistakes with lumping conservatives into hate
    groups. To bad....I've always admired your other replies as being
    well thought out and accurate.
    
    Seems like you have a lot of stereotypes to get over.
    
    Marc H.

    re:  Note 863.31 by CVG::THOMPSON 


    > Different perspectives I guess but I see what is happening in the inner
    > cities, where I grew up, as being caused by the rejection of values of
    > caring for other people (traditional) in favor of "others need to care
    > for me" (liberal/progressive) values.

    Hold on a minute! Are you saying that liberals, either in here or
    elsewhere, are espousing the attitude of "others need to care for me?"
    I don't think so. Because some recipients of liberal programs may feel
    this way, that DOES NOT mean that liberals approve of that feeling.

    > ...values of caring for other people

    I always saw this as the liberal counterpoint to the conservative
    (traditional) view that people should pull themselves up by their own
    bootstraps. "Charity begins at home", "God helps those that help
    themselves", and all that.
    
    
    	Eric
    

    Mark,

    While I agree with your comments regarding Bob's reference to "I'm the
    NRA", I fail to see where he lumped conservatism in with hate groups.
    Could you elaborate, please.

    Eric

re Note 863.30 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     re: Note 863.27 by LGP30::FLEISCHER
> 
>     > (I do believe that the youth of our inner cities are living out their
>     > interpretation of the "I'm the NRA" attitudes right now -- we are
>     > reaping what has been sown.)
> 
>     I don't believe the youth of the inner cities know *anything* about
>     the NRA. 
  
        Of course you're right in that they don't know the NRA by
        name.  But as you later write they know they must rely on
        their own self.  In particular they rely on self for defense. 
        They rely on self and their own application of force for
        redressing wrongs as they perceive them.

        It's not perfectly identical to all NRA positions, and the
        NRA didn't invent it.  It's the wild west myth with a
        late-twentieth century urban flavor.

        (In fact I believe the urban poor only rely on government aid
        to the extent that it is there, if it were not there, they
        would find another way to get what they need.  They might
        even take a job, if one were available -- which might be a
        big "if".)

        And it's not just the urban poor who are prepared to use
        fatal violence to defend self and redress wrongs.  A recent
        spectacularly sad case local to the Boston area is one in
        which two motorists stopped by the side of the road after
        each was annoying the other with their driving.  One got out
        a cross-bow, fired, and killed the other.  (It's not just
        guns, it's the attitude I find offensive!)

        The person who fired is, I think, a respected church deacon. 
        He claims he didn't mean to kill the other person, that the
        cross-bow fired accidentally.  You know, I actually believe
        him.  But when one prepares to go to the brink of fatal
        force, one should know that one risks stepping, or falling,
        off.

        Bob

    Re: .35
    
    Eric (with a c, like Marc)
    
    Check out Bob's note with the "practice racism and sexism"
    That is hate in my book, and not even close to what I believe.
    
    Marc

    RE: .36
    
    Dead wrong on the link between the NRA and the Urban, Bob.
    
    The *only* thing that is a common string with NRA members, is an
    enjoyment of shooting a rifle at a paper target.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 863.33 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     You have also made mistakes with lumping conservatives into hate
>     groups. To bad....I've always admired your other replies as being
>     well thought out and accurate.
>     
>     Seems like you have a lot of stereotypes to get over.
  
        I'm sure we all do.

        I happen to be old enough to have followed the development of
        the civil rights legislation of the early '60s.  There was
        broad conservative opposition to any federal legislation of
        any type regarding racial discrimination (this was LONG
        before affirmative action).  It wasn't just hate groups and
        such that defended the right to discriminate.

        Bob

re Note 863.37 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     Re: .35
>     
>     Eric (with a c, like Marc)
>     
>     Check out Bob's note with the "practice racism and sexism"
>     That is hate in my book, and not even close to what I believe.
  
        You left out my words immediately before the above quote:
        "the right to".

        This is well substantiated by the history of the civil rights
        movement.

        Bob

    RE: .39
    
    So let me get this straight....since some conservatives in the 60's 
    were against equal rights for blacks, then all conservatives in the
    90's are bad?
    
    There was a legitimate question of States Rights vs Federal rights...
    but...to often that was lumped in with the discrimination argument.
    
    I don't know.......even I don't label all liberals as bad people.
    For that matter, I embrace many liberal idea's.
    
    Marc H.
    
    

    RE: .40
    
    No...It is not true. I'm also old enough to have lived through those
    times. I've also spent time in the deep south and have many family
    members who have lived through the 60's.
    
    Marc H.

    Bob,

    > They rely on self and their own application of force for redressing
    > wrongs as they perceive them.

    I won't pursue this any further except to say that this statement is
    counter to the NRA's philosophy. Your points on urban youth are well
    taken, but you appear to speak from ignorance with regard to the NRA.
    Just as the urban youth are acting out a "wild west myth with a
    late-twentieth century urban flavor", you seem to by reacting to some
    media/political legend with regard to the NRA's stance regarding street
    justice.
    
    Eric

    Marc,

    First of all, let me apologize for misspelling your name. I hate it
    when I do that.

    Now, I re-read Bob's reply -- specifically in the area that you pointed
    out -- and I don't agree that Bob was lumping conservatives in with
    hate groups. Generally speaking, I think conservatives believe that:
    married women should stay home and raise children rather than pursue a
    career; land-lords should be able to deny tenancy to homosexuals and
    minorities if they so desire; mixed race marriages are wrong. Am I
    wrong?

    Where hate groups believe in race supremacy, conservatives by and large
    do not. And the past that Bob is bringing up is not *that* long ago.
    He's not dredging up 18th century ideologies. 

    Just my opinion,

    	Eric

    
>    Hold on a minute! Are you saying that liberals, either in here or
>    elsewhere, are espousing the attitude of "others need to care for me?"
>    I don't think so. Because some recipients of liberal programs may feel
>    this way, that DOES NOT mean that liberals approve of that feeling.

    The liberal attitude seems to be that inner city poor, minorities, and 
    women can not take care of themselves so government must. This attitude
    has been communicated so effectively that it is pervasive in many
    groups.

>    > ...values of caring for other people
>
>    I always saw this as the liberal counterpoint to the conservative
>    (traditional) view that people should pull themselves up by their own
>    bootstraps. "Charity begins at home", "God helps those that help
>    themselves", and all that.

    I believe that caring for people means having a level of respect for
    them. That respect seems to be sorely missing in most liberal driven
    programs that effectively say "you can't do anything so we'll take care
    of you." It's the difference between the conservative who says "let
    me teach you, hire you, and help you be productive" and the liberal
    who says "we'll feed, house, and cloth you because we know you can't
    do it yourself."

    			Alfred

    RE: .44
    
    
    The connection to hate groups is rather straight forward. If you
    believe in racism, then you believe in a superior ranking and 
    hence, you can make the connection to hate very easily.
    
    If someone wants to label me ...a conservative would be the closest
    "fit".....and as such, any attempt to link me with racism will be
    considered a direct attack on me. period.
    
    Sensitive? Maybe too much so, but, I am sick and tired of being lumped
    in to a mold by people just because I am a member of the NRA.
    
    On national news...I'm part of the "powerful gun lobby" and see
    constantly an attempt to blame *me* for all of the violence that is
    occuring today. I am *not* the problem, guns are not the problem....
    the criminals are the problem.
    
    Bob, if you want the typical stereotype liberal images to be thrown at
    you, then keep throwing out the stereotype conservative labels.
    
    I'm pissed....
    
    Sorry about the ranting.
    
    Marc H.

re Note 863.41 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

    RE: .39
    
>     So let me get this straight....since some conservatives in the 60's 
>     were against equal rights for blacks, then all conservatives in the
>     90's are bad?
  
        I never said that!

        I said that SOME elements of "traditional values" are flawed
        -- sufficiently flawed that those flaws alone could account
        for much of society's problems.  I gave opposition to ALL
        civil rights protection as an example of a flaw that
        thankfully is more or less eradicated, although relatively
        recently.

        I never said any PEOPLE were "bad" -- I'm talking ideas.

          
>     There was a legitimate question of States Rights vs Federal rights...
>     but...to often that was lumped in with the discrimination argument.
  
        Yes, of course:  that was part of the flawed lesson taught by
        traditional values of our recent past:  it was more important
        to protect rights of political subdivisions than rights of
        people to even the most basic commerce.


>     For that matter, I embrace many liberal idea's.
  
        Of course, and even I embrace many conservative ideas.

        The point was that there is no single "package" of ideas in
        American society that is without its significant flaws.  In
        particular, a package that wraps the sacred in with the
        secular is not sacred, although the parts may still be.

        Bob

    RE: .47
    
    I read carefully, .47 and the others.
    Marc H.

    RE Note 863.46 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT

    > If someone wants to label me ...a conservative would be the closest
    > "fit".....and as such, any attempt to link me with racism will be
    > considered a direct attack on me. period.

    ... or maybe "conservative" isn't the best fit for you. :^) Things
    don't have to be bipolar... I view myself as a moderate, for example.

    Maybe we're (all of us) are getting hung up on the term "racism." I
    mean one persons view of racism may be another's view of property
    rights. One persons view of sexism may be another's view of traditional
    family values.  

    By the way, you didn't really respond to any of the examples that I
    gave in .44. Do you think these examples reflect conservative ideas?


    	Eric

    RE: Note 863.45 by CVG::THOMPSON 


    Thanks, Alfred, this helps me understand your position much better. If
    I understand you correctly, you see the "liberal" point of view going
    beyond offering a helping hand to becoming patronizing. This, I think,
    is quite possibly true... just as some on the receiving end see
    themselves as professional victims.

    > I believe that caring for people means having a level of respect for
    > them. 

    I think caring for people goes beyond merely respecting them. Jesus
    didn't say respect the naked and the hungry... He said to clothe them
    and feed them. This, of course, can be done in a respectful and
    non-patronizing way.
    
    	Eric

re Note 863.50 by APACHE::MYERS:

> Jesus didn't say respect the naked and the hungry... 

        Well, for some people, even that might be an improvement. :-)

        Bob

re Note 91.3389 by HURON::MYERS:

>     You're right though. Generally speaking Roman Catholics don't make it
>     up as they go along; it's not a "feel good" theology. I hear that the
>     UU church is more open to personal theology though.
  
        You probably didn't intend it, but this could be read as an
        insult to the UU church -- I don't think THEY consider their
        beliefs to be based upon what "feels good" but upon what, to
        them, is right based upon reason and experience.  

        On the other hand, UU's seem to take offense less often than
        the average Christian.  :-)  It almost seems a measure of
        depth of conviction in our culture to take offense -- if one
        really holds something to be true they will take offense if
        it is insulted or slighted, right?  If one doesn't take
        offense then they lack conviction, right?

        (I think this also relates to the discussion on why the
        violent breakdown of society -- we have a right, almost a
        duty to take offense, and sometimes act to redress that
        offense, when we or our principles are attacked -- "I'm mad
        as hell and not going to take it any more.")

        Bob

re Note 863.46 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     Bob, if you want the typical stereotype liberal images to be thrown at
>     you, then keep throwing out the stereotype conservative labels.
  
        Most if not all stereotypes of all kinds are based upon
        some truth.

        The problem with a stereotype is not that it is based upon
        falsehood but that what might be true of some in a group is
        not necessarily true of all members of the group.

        That is why stereotypes are so hard to fight -- they have an
        element of truth.

        That is why stereotypes are so harmful -- when applied to
        individuals, they may very well be false.

        Bob

re Note 863.43 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     > They rely on self and their own application of force for redressing
>     > wrongs as they perceive them.
> 
>     I won't pursue this any further except to say that this statement is
>     counter to the NRA's philosophy. Your points on urban youth are well
>     taken, but you appear to speak from ignorance with regard to the NRA.
    
        I'm sorry, Eric, I really thought that the NRA endorsed the
        principle of the keeping by private citizens, and the using
        if necessary, of firearms for protection of persons and
        property.

        I stand corrected.

        Bob

  >...married women should stay home and raise children rather than pursue a
  >career

I think it's better expressed that the priority of the wife and mother
is the home.

  >...mixed race marriages are wrong.

Where do they come up with these stereotypes???

  >...land-lords should be able to deny tenancy to homosexuals and
  >minorities if they so desire

If by minorities, you mean discrimination based on the color of skin,
I think you are dead wrong.

Personally, I think the current laws (landlord in a 2 or 3 family
house can discriminate in some ways) are a good compromise.

Collis

    re Note 863.54 by LGP30::FLEISCHER

    > They rely on self and their own application of force for 
    > redressing wrongs as they perceive them.
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    This is vigilanteism, not self defense, and is expressly counter to NRA
    philosophy. It is also illegal.

    > I really thought that the NRA endorsed the principle of the keeping by
    > private citizens, and the using if necessary, of firearms for
    > protection of persons and property. 

    While this may be a closer characterization of the NRA position, do you
    really think this is endorsing vigilante behavior? I see you two
    statements as incongruous. I think you are twisting definitions and
    intents. 

    Eric

    RE: .46
    
    Eric,
     I don't agree that the examples sited are accurate for conservatives;
    with the one exception of property rights. I agree that as the owner of
    a house or apartment, you should be able to rent to whom you want. Its
    your place.
    
    Marc H.

    Re: .54
    
    Twisted thinking again, Bob. Try reading more carefully the entries
    that Alfred and myself entered about the NRA in the past.
    
    This constant linking to urban violence and the NRA is really not your
    style. 
    
    Marc H.

    >>...mixed race marriages are wrong.
    
    > Where do they come up with these stereotypes???
    
    My father, grand-father, and some self described conservatives that I
    know personally.
    
    Eric

    One must be careful in extrapolating from one area to others when
    characterizing groups. For example, many here support the KKK position
    on gun control. They are for it and in fact the case most often cited
    as support for gun control is one the Klan won. I would try to avoid
    characterizing gun control supporters as KKK supporters however.
    Usually. :-)

    Characterizing the NRA as a conservative organization is an other
    example of a mistake. I consider them a liberal organization because
    they are so deeply committed to civil rights and equal treatment for
    minorities and women. Also because they support the liberalization of gun
    laws. Those who would restrict rights, treat the poor differently from
    the rich, and allow arbitrary discrimination against minorities and
    women, such as supporters of every gun control law I am aware of, I 
    would classify as conservative.

    Most people have both conservative and liberal views.

    			Alfred

re Note 863.58 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     Twisted thinking again, Bob. Try reading more carefully the entries
>     that Alfred and myself entered about the NRA in the past.
>     
>     This constant linking to urban violence and the NRA is really not your
>     style. 
  
        I agree that the NRA denies that there's any similarity.

        I agree that the violent urban youth know nothing of the NRA.

        I see a similarity of underlying attitude that a person ought
        to be able to use violent means to protect oneself and what
        one "owns".

        If it is "twisted" for me to think that way and express that
        thought, so be it.

        Bob

    
>        I see a similarity of underlying attitude that a person ought
>        to be able to use violent means to protect oneself and what
>        one "owns".

    So you agree with the KKK?
    
>        If it is "twisted" for me to think that way and express that
>        thought, so be it.
    
    No more twisted then linking you to the Klan. :-)
    
    			Alfred

    RE: .62
    
    Good one Alfred. 
    
    Doesn't look like there is much point in a discusion here.
    
    Marc H.

Note 863.57

>   I agree that as the owner of
>   a house or apartment, you should be able to rent to whom you want. Its
>   your place.
    
Marc H.,

	I would agree to have this policy extended to small business landlords.
I don't think it should be extended carte blanc to Sheraton Inns, Inc., etc..

	I'm reminded of the time I was about 10 years old, I met Jerry Lewis.
He was staying at the Biltmore in Phoenix, Arizona, at the time.  He would
have preferred another hotel closer to where he was appearing.  But at the
time, the accomodations he preferred were "restricted." Jerry Lewis is Jewish.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .64
    
    There is a difference between the motels/hotels that are in the
    business of being open to anyone...vs a homeowner who is renting
    out a room.
    
    That sure is strange about Jerry Lewis......Although I don't like his
    movies, his heart sure is in the right place.
    
    
    Marc H.

    .65  Then we're pretty much in agreement.  I would say, offhand, that
    anyone who rents out 5 or fewer living units should be exempt from
    discrimination laws which apply to larger concerns.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Nice to find agreement...........
    
    Marc H.

Re:  conservative religious views

I would suggest that instead of one or two people who
hold a view, a better way to characterize the "conservative"
view is to look at surveys, conservative church and seminary
doctrinal statements and the like as well as the actual
actions taken by these institutions and their representatives.

Actually, the treatment of blacks is not a religious conservative/
liberal issue.  If you look back 150 years, you'll see that this
issue split many churches, both conservative and liberal.  I
think you'll find that the conservative/liberal distinction is
somewhat more appropriate in the political rather than the
religious arena (although even then positions are not always
all that clear).

Collis

    Good point(s), Collis. 

    Speaking personally, my views of what are conservative or liberal ideas
    come from observations of the world around me rather than empirical
    study. Also my balance point about which I divide "conservative" and
    "liberal" may be different than another person's... and theirs
    different from someone else, and so on. 

    Eric

    jumping in late.
    
    The Unitarian Universalist Congregations areexperiencing a wonderful growth
    spurt right now.  That certainly is not based on Biblical Preaching.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    The "Albion Institute" should be a good source of statistics regarding
    church growth.
    
    Amazingly its been the very liberal and the very fundementalist
    churches that have experienced growth.
    
    Patricia

re Note 863.70 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     The Unitarian Universalist Congregations areexperiencing a wonderful growth
>     spurt right now.  That certainly is not based on Biblical Preaching.
  
        Well, clearly then that is an example of the depravity of the
        end-times.  :-}

        Bob

        P.S.  I do hope UU's are as slow to anger as I think they
        are!  :-)

    >The Unitarian Universalist Congregations areexperiencing a
    >wonderful growth
    
    So did the Branch Dividians, Moonies, etc.
    
    Growth is not a *sign* of Truth.
    

    But I believe that the Growth of Unitarian Universalism is a sign of
    Truth.  I think I will identify myself as an Evangelical Unitarian
    Universalist.  Called to preach the Good News of Unitarian
    Universalism.  I may even qualify myself as a UU who can preach that
    Good News from a biblical perspective.  I can emulate Paul.  With the
    people of The Covenant I will use Covenant material.  With the modern
    day Gentiles I will use other materials.  Perhaps I can be an apostle
    to the modern day Gentiles.
    
    See what one sermon does to me.
    
    But I am not throwing anything at Bob!
    
    Patricia
    
    

     1.   Whats the good news of Unitarian Universalism?  
    
     2.   How can you emulate Paul when both your doctrinal and social 
    	  ideologies are totally opposite?
    
     3.   How can you preach UU good news from a biblical perspective when 
          you disagree with that perspective?  Live and let live is highly
          preached in the non biblical world.
    
     4. In order for you to be an apostle at all, you would have to get
        direct revelation from Jesus himself.
    
        -Jack
    

re Note 863.75 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>      4. In order for you to be an apostle at all, you would have to get
>         direct revelation from Jesus himself.
  
        I would note that many Christians, in particular Roman
        Catholics, consider bishops to be true successors to the
        apostles.

        (Of course, Patricia might find other obstacles in the way to
        ordination as a bishop! :-{)

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I know.  I am missing the most essential ingredient. (%^$^~)
    
    

    Again, I repeat...An apostle is an individual who is called by God and
    is given direct revelation by God.  If you recall, Jesus initially
    chose the 12 apostles, "Come follow me...".  If you recall, Paul
    referred to himself as an apostle out of season.  
    
    To be a successor of the apostles is one argument.  Being an apostle is
    an entirely different matter.  Incidentally, during the last supper,
    you may recall that immediately following Jesus'proclamation that he
    was to be betrayed, the apostles argued amongst themselves which one
    will be the greatest.  Although these men were godly and died for their
    belief, it isn't wise to hold them up as the epitomy of virtue!!
    
    -Jack

    Actually the point is that in Acts, one of the criteria for apostleship
    is to have known Jesus(in the flesh so to speak)  Paul does not
    qualify.  Paul is a self proclaimed apostle.  He truly believed himself
    to be called by Jesus  Christ to be an apostle.  Whether Paul was
    called to be an apostle or not is subjective and a matter of faith.
    
    As I consider becoming a UU minister, I am confronted with the Christian
    conception of a call.  Called to be a apostle, called to be a minister. 
    It is subjective and a  matter of faith.  Not everyone who believes
    that they have been called are in fact called.  My faith allows and
    demands a healthy skepticism.  Perhaps noone who considers themself called
    is actually  called. All I know is that I don't understand the passion
    that I feel for studying theology and contributing to  my church.  What
    is a healthy passion and what is addictive behavoir.
    
    I have more questions than answers.  I have Faith that when the time is
    right, I will know the answer.
    
    Patricia

re Note 863.78 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     To be a successor of the apostles is one argument.  Being an apostle is
>     an entirely different matter.  

        That's not how I read the word "successor" -- "a person who
        succeeds another in an office, position, or the like" -- a
        successor to an apostle who doesn't hold the office of
        apostle is not a successor to an apostle.

        Bob

    And what about Paul's confrontation with Christ on the road to
    Damascus, does it not qualify in your estimation Patricia?
    

    It's an interesting story.  It is not one of the revelations that Paul
    talks about in his letters though.  He heard a voice, fell off his
    mule, saw a flash of light and developed temporary blindness.
    
    Paul does however talk about some interesting revelations in his
    letters.  I don't believe that the nature of revelation is tangible
    enough that it can be proved or qualified by another.  It is
    subjective.   
    
    The Act's story correlates with the mythical worldview of the day.
    
    Faith is believing in that which cannot be seen not what can be seen.
    
    Patricia

    Acts 9:1  And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter
    against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest,
      2  And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if
    he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring
    them bound unto Jerusalem.
      3  And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: and suddenly there
    shined round about him a light from heaven:
      4  And he fell to the earth, and heard a voice saying unto him, Saul,
    Saul,why persecutest thou me?
    
      5  And he said, Who art thou, Lord? And the Lord said, I am Jesus
    whom thou persecutest: it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks.
    
      6  And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me
    to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it
    shall be told thee what thou must do.
      7  And the men which journeyed with him stood speechless, hearing a
    voice,but seeing no man.
    

    My whole point in initiating this string was to share my consciousness
    that there are a precious handful of evangelicals who do not embrace
    all the common notions of conservative Christendom.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Yes, and I believe these diversions are addressing the issue.  Any
    doctrine that is embraced calls for some qualification, either faith
    based or historical.  Common notions, as you put it, are no exceptions.
    
    Like any evangelists, any notion that is preached has to have a point
    of origin.  For example, a woman and I were discussing Jesus and she
    was firmly convinced that Jesus had intercourse with Mary Magdeline.
    I asked her why she believed this.  Her reply was that he couldn't
    possibly have controlled himself all his life, especially being the
    influencer he was.  Typical humanist thinking, unfounded and
    incongruent to what the Bible teaches of the nature of Jesus.  No
    foundation at all.
    
    I find many of the disagreements in this conference are not based on a
    logical pattern or an apologetic way of thinking, but because of how we
    set paradigms in our life and have restricted ourselves to them.
    
    If truth can be ferreted with reason, I strongly urge all to follow it.
    I include myself in this by all means.  As Patricia said and I echo
    this, I too have more questions than answers.  
    
    -Jack 

    >that there are a precious handful of evangelicals who do not embrace
    >all the common notions of conservative Christendom.
    
    Oxymoronic phrase :-) :-)
    
    They can't be evangelics and not embrace the fundamentals of
    Christendom [as you put it]

    I believe they prefer to be call evangelicals, rather than evangelics.
    And fundamentalists should not be confused with evangelicals, or so
    Collis keeps telling me.
    
    Personally, I see their theological differences as slight, and their
    social differences as indistinguishable, except for this Campolo fellow.
    
    Richard
    

I agree with, Richard, that there are some Evangelicals
who disagree with the majority concensus on some important
issues.  Tony Campolo has become very well-known because
of this.

Some of the important issues that Evangelicals have more of
a balanced split (not the 95-5 type of split where Tony
Campolo champions the 5%) include:

  - ordination of women

  - some issues related to abortion (for example, Dr. Rev.
    Timothy Johnson has had a number of public debates with
    former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop where he argues
    that compassion for the women should at times allow
    abortion whereas C. Everett Koop is against abortion
    options)

It is not surprising that in this notes conference the
differences that Evenagelicals have are not well-known.  The
differences between the conservatives/liberals/non-Christians
are much greater and therefore occupy the vast majority of
the discussion.  (Besides, how many liberals really give a
hoot whether Evengelicals ordain women based on understanding
the Bible when they don't believe the Bible is God's Word
to start with.)

Collis

    Actually I am very interested in how evangelicals believing the Bible
    is the word of God come up with the same human diversity of opinions on
    major issues as non errantists do.  I firmly believe that it is our own
    human prejudices that allow us to accept one interprestation or
    another.  Else Evengelicals, inspired by the spirit reading the
    innerant word of God would all come up with the same interpretation.
    
    Patricia

    See note on Peter and Paul that I wrote... Same applies here.
    
    

    Patricia:
    
    I agree with you to a point.  In a way, our environment can mold the
    way we perceive things to be.   That is why certain parts of the
    country are uppity and other parts are welfare magnets.
    
    There are issues however, that aren't open to interpretation and one
    of Paul's letters affirms this.  Take the atonement issue for example.
    Since there are some in this conference who deny that Jesus death and
    resurrection are necessary for redemption, I would be interested to
    know what their interpretation is of the very many passages throughout
    the New Testament proclaiming this teaching.
    
    Some examples:  
    
    "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes
    unto the Father but by me."  John 14:6
    
    "Neither is there any other; for there is no other name under heaven
    given unto men whereby we must be saved"  Acts someplace.
    
    "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe
    in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
    Romans 10:9.
    
    "He that believeth on the son has life, but he that doesn't believe in
    the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth unto him."
    John someplace.
    
    These are just four of many many verses.  How do you interpret these?
    
    Thanks,
    
    -Jack

    Jim:
    
    Call it what you want but that is the perception that is being
    portrayed.  Some individuals use the Word of God only when it suits
    their need.  They meet God on their terms and not His.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I grew up on welfare and I find the term "welfare magnet" to be very
    insensitive and offensive.
    
    Patricia

    I believe that people who insist in Bible as the absolute word of
    God, interpret it that way because it suits them not because it is
    God's desire.  I believe that people who insist of interpreting the Bible
    that way like the hierarchical power structure implied in the Bible.
    
    I believe that the people who insist on interpreting the Bible that way
    choose for themselves in the Bible those passages that support their
    conservative social and political positions and ignore the passages
    that are truly egalitarian and revolutionary.
    
    I believe in these statements not as they relate to Conservative
    Christians who use the Bible as the absolute word of God for their own
    behavoir and actions but for those who insist that others including me, 
    use "their" interpretations of the Bible as the absolute word of God for the
    behavoir of others.
    
    I believe that in doing this and insisting that others do, many
    evangelicals use the Bible as a tool of oppresion. Evangelicals using
    the Bible this way jeopardize some very basic Democratic principles
    that I hold dear.  This is a position I have developed as a direct result
    of noting in this notes conference where I have seen oppression against 
    women, gay men and lesbian women, and against non Christians.  I hold this
    position based on personal witness in this conference.  I have been called
    evil, misguided, unspiritual, (not guided by the Holy Spirit) in this
    conference because of my deeply felt believes in a Universal God of Love.
    
    The Bible is very clear on not judging others.  Early in Romans(I
    believe Romans 3) is very clear about not calling oneself a teacher and
    judging others while we still do evil ourselves.  I do not understand
    how any conservative christian could have enough confidence in their
    own biblical exegisis to condemn another for their beliefs.
    
    This month I am studying Romans.  It is becoming clear to me that Paul
    really did begin to develop the theory of the sacrificial atonement
    through the death of Jesus Christ.  Anselem is the theologian who more
    fully articulated this theology drawing on Paul's letters.  Collis has
    helped me understand conservative exegisis and I appreciate that.  From
    what I know about paganism and Judaism I can begin to understand the
    cultural understanding of blood sacrifice common to all religions in
    the first century.  One cannot begin to understand the concept of
    sacrificial atonement without understanding the relevants and
    importance of blood sacrifice in the first century.  So using what I
    have learned from Collis, I would ask then what does this theology
    based on the widespread acceptance of blood sacrifice relate to the
    twentieth century abhorrence of the idea of blood sacrifice?  So using
    conservative approach to exegisis I could interpret that Paul's
    understanding of Jesus' death  is based on a cultural understanding of
    blood sacrifice that is no longer applicable to our culture.  Not all
    would agree with my argument, but the argument has merit.
    
    I have been clearly told in this conference that I personally cannot be
    "saved" unless I accept the theology of sacrificial atonement.  How
    does this mesh with Paul's demand not judge others.  How does it mesh
    with Jesus' command to take the brick out of our own eyes before we
    tackle the speck in the eyes of our brothers and sisters.  
    
    
    
    

Note 863.94

>Perhaps there's a lot of liberals out there
>who really care about this.  I just don't happen to believe that
>this is the case.

	The truth surfaces.

Richard

    I believe that people who insist that the Bible is not the absolute
    work of God, interpret it that way because it suits them, not because
    it is God's desire.  I beleve that people who insist on interpreting
    the Bible that way like the feel good, do it, structure that is in
    rebellion against the Bible.
    
    I believe that the people who insist on interpreting the Bible that way
    choose for themselves a lifestyle of moral relativism that support their
    liberal social and political positions and ignore the fallout of
    increased abortions, unwanted children, and crimes of violence that
    accompanies such relativism.
    
    I believe in these statements as they relate to individual
    Liberalists who use their position to further their personal agendas
    and for those who subtly insist that others including me, use "their" 
    interpretations of moral relativism as the absolute way to accept the
    behavior of others.
    
    I believe that in doing this and insisting that others do, many
    Liberalists use their own agenda as a tool of oppression. 
    Liberalists pushing their moral relativsim on society jeopardizes
    some of very basic Christian principles that I hold dear, like being
    able to walk my children around my neighborhood without fear of attack,
    or not having to hold onto my children's hands still at age 11 for fear
    of them being stolen, or that by sitting on my front porch my child
    won't be in danger from guns from gang wars.  This is a position I have 
    developed as a direct result of walking the streets of our inner cities
    trying to reach the people who live there with the Gospel of Christ. 
    My firsthand knowledge of seeing with my own eyes parents giving drugs
    to their children, gangs lining up to fight, 11 year olds pregnant from
    incest, bruises, and broken bones from abuse.  I've learned something
    as well from noting in this notes conference where I have seen oppression 
    guised in enlightenment against the moral authority of written word of
    God and against Christians. I hold this position based on personal 
    witness in this conference and others.  I have been called hypocrite,
    and misguided by folks in this conference and others because of my 
    conviction of belief in a God of Love and redemption.
    
    The Bible is very clear on not judging others.  The Bible is very clear
    on discerning spirits and to rightfully divide the truth. I do not
    understand how biblical exegisis can be confused with convictions.
    I do not understand condemnation as your word declares for God sent not
    his son into the world to condemn the world, but that the world might
    be saved.  Why?  Because the world was condemned already.  No, I don't
    understand those who would reject the free gift of salvation for a
    *feeling* which only satisfies for a season and then dwindles to wait
    for another euphoric *feeling*. 
    
    When Christ shed his blood on calvary, he did that because it was what
    God required as the sacrifice for sin.  It was established throughout
    God's people as early on as Cain and Abel.  It was not a sign of the
    times to offer a blood sacrfice, it was the sign of the ages for
    evermore, as God is the same regardless of the age in which we live.  
    
    This not just an *interpretation* issue, it is the very essence of the
    price of our sinfulness and the payment of Christ in *our* stead.  It
    renders *all* sinful, including Mary the mother of Jesus.  There should
    be no finger pointing towards anyone, as we all are in the same sinful
    state.  My God is not a respecter of persons. He says that each person's 
    way is right in their own eys, but he looks into the heart.    
   
    What does he look for in the heart?
    
Romans 10:10  
    
    For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with
    the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
        
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    

    
    nancy,
    
    if, indeed, liberal christian are forcing their interpretation
    of the Bible on you and society and are insisting that you
    modify your beliefs...then explain to me why it is possible
    for you to express your beliefs in this conference but that it
    is impossible (given the rules of CHRISTIAN) for me to express
    my beliefs there?
    
    peter

RE:             <<< Note 863.96 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

   
    
>    I have been clearly told in this conference that I personally cannot be
>    "saved" unless I accept the theology of sacrificial atonement.  How


     If, while in Romans you read 6:23 and 5:8 you'll find that Paul tells
     you the same thing.




Jim    
    

    863.98 (Nancy Morales)  Would that the truth were so simple.
    
    I believe the Bible.  I'm considered a liberal (not a liberalist) by
    most.  Actually, I consider myself way to the left of most liberals.
    
    I'm accused of conforming the Bible to my own agenda by reading it
    selectively (picking and choosing).  I've pointed out that *everyone*
    applies or discards the instructions of the Bible selectively, even
    biblical inerrantists.
    
    Collis, at least, admits it.  He defines it as a third way to the
    all-or-nothing approach to the Bible.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    .99
    
    I'm not sure I understand, the only subject not allowed in CHRISTIAN
    is homosexuality... and the reason for that is to keep in line with
    personnel, policies and procedures.  Since the Bible is very clear
    about God's position on homosexuality [for those who hold the Bible
    inerrant], experience is that in the CHRISTIAN notesfile, some peoples 
    have gotten very upset with the discussion in CHRISTIAN [tho the same
    discussion can go on elsewhere] and called personnel to complain.  In
    an effort to maintain the existence of CHRISTIAN and keep within the
    policies of Digital, the moderators before the current set of
    moderators and the current moderators do agree that this subject is
    best left out... there are other liberalist views discussed.
    
    Nancy

    .102  Well, that settles that!
    
    NOT!
    
    :-}
    

    Richard,
    
    What are you saying?

    .101
    
    I think oftimes in notes conferences that discuss spiritual things, we
    get to hung up on the *doctrines* of men versus the saving knowledge of
    Jesus Christ... I admit falling into this as well.
    
    However, regardless of the doctrines of men, the most important thing
    is salvation.  A heartfelt belief in the deity of Christ, his death,
    burial and resurrection as the blood sacrifice for our sinfulness.
    
    Beyond that... exegeet [sp] all you want and without Christ it will be
    mere babble.
    
    

    I was under the impression that if I tried to discuss any of the
    spiritual issues that are of interest to me in an open, honest, and
    questioning manner, my note would be censured in the Christian note
    conference.  Have I been mislead?
    
    Patricia

    RE: .106
    
    Patrica
    
    No....you have not been mislead.
    
    Marc H.

Re: CSC32::J_CHRISTIE 
Note 863.94

@@>Perhaps there's a lot of liberals out there
@@>who really care about this.  I just don't happen to believe that
@@>this is the case.

>>	The truth surfaces.

I haven't found Collis to be vague in the past.  In fact, I find him to be 
quite direct and concise.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: Note 863.95         
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                      6 lines   2-MAR-1994 09:58

@@    Jack,
    
@@    I grew up on welfare and I find the term "welfare magnet" to be very
@@    insensitive and offensive.

Patricia, I am sorry you are offended and I fully realize that welfare is
necessary and has been since the times of Christ.  We will always have the
poor.
Welfare is something that needs to be addressed.  It is one major element that
is causing the breakdown of society and breaking the country economically.  
New York and Massachusetts have notorious reputations for pandering to the
leeches in our society and it has to be dealt with.  It puts a damper on those
who really need it and thats regretable.  By the same token, I believe that
Affirmative Retribution programs are offensive to me, yet I as a taxpayer am 
still mandated to help fund this government mandated discrimination.   For the
love of Pete lets stop the PC nonsense and address these disasterous programs
as they really are!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Re: Note 863.99        
RDVAX::ANDREWS "child of St. David"                  11 lines   2-MAR-1994 12:37

>>    nancy,
    
>>    if, indeed, liberal christian are forcing their interpretation
>>    of the Bible on you and society and are insisting that you
>>    modify your beliefs...then explain to me why it is possible
>>    for you to express your beliefs in this conference but that it
>>    is impossible (given the rules of CHRISTIAN) for me to express
>>    my beliefs there?
 
Peter:

This is the danger of the ecumenical movement.  One could equate it to
Bosnia, (C-P that is).  It is a forum of different churches with diverse 
opinions, sometimes discussing, sometimes clashing.  It is a good forum for
debate and promoting thought, even if you disagree.  I can hardly go a day
without getting my doses of Patricia, Collis, Richard, Nancy, Jim and the
rest of the gang.  I wouldn't be here if I didn't care for them, even if we
blatantly disagree from time to time.

Christian is a forum for Bible Believing Christians and is created for Prayer,
fellowship, and answering Biblical exegisis based on the atoning death of
Christ and his resurrection.  Everything revolves around this.  I believe
the two conferences have different roles.

Re: Note 863.96         
AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web"                     

>>    I believe that people who insist in Bible as the absolute word of
>>    God, interpret it that way because it suits them not because it is
>>    God's desire.  I believe that people who insist of interpreting the Bible
>>    that way like the hierarchical power structure implied in the Bible.
  
Patricia, I accept both the unpopular and the popular views, you do not!
  
>>    I believe that the people who insist on interpreting the Bible that way
>>    choose for themselves in the Bible those passages that support their
>>    conservative social and political positions and ignore the passages
>>    that are truly egalitarian and revolutionary.
  
I provided five verses from four different authors stating Jesus is the only
way.  I will be glad to provide more.  You focus alot on the social issues
but if you recall, Jesus never got involved in the politics of his day.
He preached forgiveness, atonement, and redemption.
  
>>    I believe that in doing this and insisting that others do, many
>>    evangelicals use the Bible as a tool of oppresion. Evangelicals using
>>    the Bible this way jeopardize some very basic Democratic principles
>>    that I hold dear.  This is a position I have developed as a direct result
>>    of noting in this notes conference where I have seen oppression against 
>>    women, gay men and lesbian women, and against non Christians.  I hold this
>>    position based on personal witness in this conference.  

Remember what I said about AA and taxation?  Am I a victim too?  
Remember what Jesus said, "One cannot serve two masters, for he must love one 
and hate the other..."  By the way, when did any conservative believer ever 
oppress a non Christian in this conference?  
    
>>    The Bible is very clear on not judging others.  Early in Romans(I
>>    believe Romans 3) is very clear about not calling oneself a teacher and
>>    judging others while we still do evil ourselves.  I do not understand
>>    how any conservative christian could have enough confidence in their
>>    own biblical exegisis to condemn another for their beliefs.
  
Are you talking about judgement regarding salvation or judgement on Godly
living?  Remember 1st Cor. 5, when Paul condemned the young man for commiting
adultery with his stepmother?  Paul said, "Send him off that he may be 
handed over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh."
  
>>    This month I am studying Romans.  It is becoming clear to me that Paul
>>    really did begin to develop the theory of the sacrificial atonement
>>    through the death of Jesus Christ.  

Paul was smitten with this doctrine and accepted it on the road to Damascus.
He heard Stephen's testimony in Acts and denied it, martyring the young man.
He was converted on the road and stated later in the book that his memory
of stoning Stephen would haunt him throughout his life.

>>  So using
>>    conservative approach to exegisis I could interpret that Paul's
>>    understanding of Jesus' death  is based on a cultural understanding of
>>   blood sacrifice that is no longer applicable to our culture.  Not all
>>    would agree with my argument, but the argument has merit.
  
Only if Paul was a moral relativist.  Jesus great commission in Matt 28 states
that Jesus is with us, even to the end of the age.  Jesus blood sacrifice
for the atonement of that time only would have to have a stronger basis of 
fact.  
  
>>    I have been clearly told in this conference that I personally cannot be
>>    "saved" unless I accept the theology of sacrificial atonement.  How
>>    does this mesh with Paul's demand not judge others.  

Since Paul was a big proponent of this doctrine, I think it safe to assume 
he didn't believe it was judging.  He believed it to be a warning of the wrath
to come.  Noah is a very good analogy of this.  He warned and warned and 
warned and yet they scoffed at him.  He didn't judge at all, he invited them
to repent and turn back to God.  They refused.

   >>How does it mesh
   >> with Jesus' command to take the brick out of our own eyes before we
   >> tackle the speck in the eyes of our brothers and sisters.  
    
Nobody ever claimed to be more righteous so this doesn't apply.  The claim made 
has been that although I am a sinner deserving of hell, I rejoice that I have
been bought with a price.  I invite you as a fellow human being by telling you
the great news of the cross.  If you reject it, you judge yourself, I don't.

-Jack



    
 

    .108
    
    As a moderator, I think I am best equipped to answer this question.
    
    No, Patricia you will not.  The only topic not allowed is homosexuality
    for the reasons stated before.
    
    Remember folks, the moderatorship of CHRISTIAN today is *new*.  The
    only oldie is [apologies rew :-)] is Andrew Yuille, who had not been a
    moderator for a substantial amount of time prior to taking on his
    current role of approximately 6-8 months.  
    
    Jim Henderson
    Mark Lovik
    Andrew Yuille	The moderatorship of CHRISTIAN...
    Nancy Morales
    
    We expect for the conversations to be kept clean from personal inuendos
    and or insults, and as previously stated the topic of homosexuality is
    off limits, NOTHING is censored.
    
    

    Sorry Collis, I meant to say that you HAVEN"T been vague in the past!!

    Remember that different conferences have different guidelines. I
    suspect that I could not discuss all my opinions about Judaism in
    BAGELS. I know that one can't harangue in favor of gun control in
    FIREARMS though one may do so to their hearts content in
    FIREARMS_ISSUES (I know because I moderate both :-)). I could go
    on and on. I can't discuss abortion in an open, honest, and
    questioning manner in WOMANNOTES. Though I can here. So what?
    That's the way of Notes.

    				Alfred

Re: 863:105
        
   > However, regardless of the doctrines of men, the most important thing
   > is salvation.  A heartfelt belief in the deity of Christ, his death,
   > burial and resurrection as the blood sacrifice for our sinfulness.
    
    
    Nancy do you believe that the whole Bible is equally authoritative or
    are some parts more authoritative than others.
    
    Your comment suggests that those four doctrines identified above are
    the most important part of the Bible.  Are you suggesting that they are
    more authoritative than other parts?  Can you provide the reference and
    say these sections are more authoritative than others?  Is that
    equivalent to saying that these parts are more important for our
    salvation than other parts?
    
    Have I heard correctly when you say that not wearing a hat to church or
    preaching a service will NOT impact our salvation but not believing in
    the blood sacrifice of Jesus Christ will impact our salvation.  Am I
    hearing you correctly?   Do you believe in a bumpy bible?  A bible with
    some passages more important than others?
    
    Nancy, it does seem like you and I have much more agreement on
    spiritual matters than is at first apparent.
    
    Patricia
    
    

 The premise of the CHRISTIAN conference is that the Bible is the inerrant
 Word of God, and the discussions are based on that premise.  If one enters
 the conference with a viewpoint that differs, that is fine, however the
 basis of the conference should be understood.


 If one were to go into the Non Harley Motorcycle conference and wish to 
 discuss the wonderfulness of Harleys, while their presense is welcomed,
 there is a significant difference in viewpoints, and discussions of Harleys
 are invited to go to another conference.  It is quite similar in the Christian
 conference.




 Jim

re: Note 863.102 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    I'm not sure I understand, the only subject not allowed in CHRISTIAN
>    is homosexuality... 

I made entries in CHRISTIAN that were hidden beacuse I used the words "myth" 
and "Bible" in the same sentence.  I was not calling the Bible a myth, I was 
inviting people to explore what the word myth really means and it's relation 
to some stories in the Bible.  

Not one speck of homosexuality was mentioned.

Peace,

Jim

    Jack,
    
    I am not being politically correct.
    
    If it were not for welfare I would have starved to death as a child.
    
    If it were not for welfare I would not have had a home or cloths.
    
    If it were not for public education I would not have a elementary or
    high school education.
    
    If it were not for the state and federal financial need programs I
    would not have gone to college.  I would not have the opportunity to be
    working here today.  I also would not be paying thousands of dollars in
    federal and state taxes as all you are.  I would not be promoting the
    GNP by being a consumer.  I would not be able to state first hand the
    class prejudice is just as devastating as other kinds of prejudice.
    
    Jack, I don't really want to rail against you personally.  I have spent
    most of my life listening to how bad welfare is and how bad people on
    welfare are.  It was my 'secret' until I learned just recently as a
    result of 12 step program work that I like many people who transcend 
    difficult childhoods should be proud of our accomplishments and not
    ashamed of them. 
    
    The term "welfare magnet"  should not be used particularly in a
    Christian Perspective note conference.
    
    Patricia
     
    
    So lets relate to persons we individually know.  Where is the evil in
    the system and how do we really adress the evil.
    
    

    .112
    
    I do not even separate the word of God in that manner.  However, the
    *importance* of eternity, imho, takes precedence over wearing a hat or
    eating pork. :-)
    
    

    .114
    
    When was this Mr. Kirk?  I can only speak for the time I've been
    moderating and if this is true of my tenure, I *DO* want to know about
    it.
    
    

re: Note 863.109 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    Remember folks, the moderatorship of CHRISTIAN today is *new*.  ...

Perhaps.  I'll grant you that.  However "once bitten, twice shy".

Peace,

Jim

    I suggest that a new topic be created to discuss the issues which have
    arisen in the last 10 or so.
    
    I guess I'll have to start it myself.
    
    Richard
    

    Patricia:
    
    First, I applaud your honesty and openness.  I pray I do not need
    welfare some day.  I am not invincable, I admit it.  
    
    In order to address this issue and keep in in context, let me first say
    that a big part of the blame I place on the lukewarmness of the local
    church.  As I've stated, I believe the local church indifferently
    relinquished its ministry to the government, as far back as FDR.  
    
    Patricia, let me ask you a question.  No right or wrong answer...If you
    could have gotten your welfare payments from the government or from 
    the local church that preached about Jesus, his ministry, and his 
    sacrifice, what type of impact would that have made on your life as
    opposed to now?  We are called to be the salt of the earth but our
    primary focus is to have the biggest building with the biggest parking
    lot and the most members.   I believe the world would be far better 
    if Uncle Sam was taken out of the game.  I would be giving twice as
    much to my church because I would have it to give.  They in turn would 
    do a far better job than the government ever could in dispersing that
    money.  What's more, many would be exposed to the gospel.  Why did so 
    many follow Jesus from town to town?  Because he healed them of their
    infirmaties and preached salvation.
    
    As a member of a local church, I hold myself as accountable.  That's
    why I vote against beurocracy.  
    
    Having laid the groundwork, what would you do if you were in Panama
    City and saw this sign at the airport:
    
    "Go to Massachusetts - Free Money"
    
    This sign was posted there in the early 70's.  It may still be there
    for all I know.  Patricia, these leeches robbed from you and me.  As
    far as I'm concerned, you would've been far better off if Mass. had
    lost this reputation earlier.  This is the context of my using the 
    term, Welfare Magnet.  I can omit the phrase further and I will...but
    it still doesn't solve the problem.  Mass and N.Y. are still the same
    thing!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    	Was the early Christian church capitalistic or socialistic?
    I believe there are clues in the book of Acts.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    re 863.116
    
    Nancy,
    
    I am not in any way suggesting that wearing a hat or not eating pork
    are important.  I don't wear a hat to church and I eat pork.
    
    My question is, how can you say that the Bible is 100% innerant, 100%
    authoritative and then say some items are not important.  What is the
    mechanism that you use to decide what in the Bible is important for
    salvation and what is not.
    
    Do you agree that some things in the Bible are more important than
    others?
    
    If I were asked to identify what is the absolute most important, most
    authoritative passage in the Bible, I would say that Jesus clearly
    tells us.  The first and most important commandment is to love God with
    all your heart, soul, and mind, and to love your neighbor as yourself.
    
    I don't always succeed but I try to live my life according to that
    passage.
    
    You seem to indicate that you believe that some passages are more
    important than others but the most important relates to believing in
    the Divinity of Christ, the Death, burial, and ressurrection, and the
    blood sacrifice of Jesus to atone for the sins of humankind.
    
    ARe we not both agreeing that some passages are more important than
    others and each of us then deciding what is the fundemental passage
    important for our own salvation?  Where do we differ?
    
    Patricia 

    Patricia:
    
    You omitted a part of the quote, unintentionally I'm sure.
    
    "For you are to Love the Lord your God with all your heart...soul...and
    mind.  The second is that you are to love your neighbor as yourself.
    This is of the law and the prophets."
    
    When you study Galatians or if you have already, you may recall in
    chapter three where Paul states that Jesus was a fulfillment of the
    law, having become a curse for us.  The prophets of old foretold of the
    coming Messiah.  If we are to love our neighbor as ourself, we are to
    bring the message of eternal life to them, otherwise, we do not show
    love but hate.
    
    -Jack

    .122
    
    Patricia,
    
    No where does it say loving your neighbor with all of your heart gets
    you eternal life... EVERYWHERE in the Bible, faith in Christ is the key
    to salvation.  John 3, The entire books of Romans indicates this. 
    Isaiah....  
    
    "For whosovever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" 
    And in context of that scripture..
    
    "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life
    through Jesus Christ our Lord."  
    
    

    re 863.120
    
    Jack, I prefer a society that believes that every child should have a
    home, clothes, food, an education, without sacrificing any of the
    freedoms that are invaluable to us as citizens of this country.
    
    I was very fortunate growing up that the Boylston Congregation church
    in Jamaica Plain was a large part of my life as a child.  I did not
    have to depend on the church for subsistence, there for I always had my
    religious freedom including the freedom to leave that wonderful
    affirming church when I could no longer accept the doctrines preach. 
    Fortunately today most UCC churches do not require the reciting of the
    Apostle's Creed.  That church and the Boston City Missionary society,
    sponsored me to go to a wonderful camp each year for four years during
    the critical adolescent years.  That camp had a birch bark cross
    overlooking lake Winnesquam.  I believe that I experienced true
    Christianity at that camp.  Other than the fact that the Director was a
    minister and we had a brief chapel service on Sunday, there was no
    doctrinal component of the camp accept as a place where everyone was
    loved, accepted, and affirmed.  I believe that I learned about the true
    essence of Christianity at that camp.
    
    But my point is, that there is a place for both government welfare
    programs and church missionary activity.  Both are vital.  One provided
    me with subsistence while the other provided me with my spiritual well
    being.  If the church provided me with subsistence, it would not have
    been religious freedom and would not have been as effective in feeding
    my soul.
    
    Patricia

    .125 My own note
    
    In context of the process of salvation:
    
    Knowledge - knowing intellectually what God says about Salvation
    Wisdom - Accepting Christ as Savior
    Works - Following the commandments i.e., "Love your neighbor"
    
    

    I believe that the authentic sayings of Jesus are more authoritative
    than Paul's Gospel.  I don't believe that every saying in the 4
    Gospels are authentic.  I believe the Gospel of John to be more
    Symbolic and less historically true than the other Gospels.
    
    I believe the 2 Corinthian letters to be more valuable than Romans. 
    There is considerable difference between 1 Corinthians and Romans
    particularly in the relationship between body and spirit.  I
    Corinthians is much more positive about the body where Romans may even
    be interpreted as being more in line with the gnostic split between
    body and soul.  I really do love studying the Bible.  It is
    fascinating.  While not being the innerant word of God, the Bible is a
    wonderful source that can point us to the authentic word of God.
    
    There is even wisdom in John's statement that the only way to God is
    through Jesus.  The word made flesh.  Jack has asked me how I reconcile
    that statement.  Not being an innerantist I don't need to but I believe
    that statement in a sense.  Jesus is the incarnation of the living
    word of God.  Jesus, the living word of god, isincarnate in each of us 
    through the holy spirit of love.   The only way to God is through
    loving relationships with our brothers and sisters.  There is no
    salvation without loving relationships.  The world is hell without
    love.
    
                                    Patricia

Re:  .96    
    >I believe that people who insist in Bible as the absolute word of
    >God, interpret it that way because it suits them not because it is
    >God's desire.  I believe that people who insist of interpreting the Bible
    >that way like the hierarchical power structure implied in the Bible.
    
    >...

I'm no longer surprised that people can't/won't see the hundreds
and hundreds of claims in the Bible that it is TRUE.

Nevertheless, my eyes and mind have been opened enough to
recognize what the Bible actually claims about its own truth.

It does not surprise me anymore that people such as Patricia
take this acceptance of the Bible's claims and put (what are
often) false premises under it.  I believe that this is because
they simply cannot (or refuse to) see what the Bible actually
says.

Collis

re: Note 863.129 by Collis "DCU fees?  NO!!!" 

>Nevertheless, my eyes and mind have been opened enough to
>recognize what the Bible actually claims about its own truth.

Ah, but that's self-referential.

Peace,

Jim

    Patricia
    
    John 3 is from Jesus himself.

    >I've pointed out that *everyone* applies or discards the 
    >instructions of the Bible selectively, even biblical inerrantists.

    >Collis, at least, admits it.  He defines it as a third way to the
    >all-or-nothing approach to the Bible.
 
I certainly don't call interpreting the Bible a "third way"
to an all or nothing approach of the Bible.  As such, I think
you are attempting to put spin on an issue instead of state
what I said clearly.

Collis

    Patricia:
    
    Again you are presenting what you believe on your own terms.  You
    appear to have drawn conclusions based on what books you feel are
    important and what books are not.  Take John for example.  John is
    a gospel that directfully and forcefully confronts the question of who 
    Jesus is and why he came to earth.  Even in Luke, Jesus openly
    proclaims that he came to seek and to save that which is lost.  
    
    Jesus came to seek me out because I was lost.  I still have sin but am
    excluded from God's judgement because of the cross.   It seems as
    though you ignorw the holiness aspect of God.  It seems as though you
    refuse to acknowledge that the world is stained in sin.   
    
    -Jack

Re:  .106

    >I was under the impression that if I tried to discuss any of the
    >spiritual issues that are of interest to me in an open, honest, and
    >questioning manner, my note would be censured in the Christian note
    >conference.  Have I been mislead?
    
One of the purposes of the CHRISTIAN notesfile is to allow you
to discuss any issue based on what the Bible says.

If you wish to discuss the issue based on something else, you
are free to discuss it in another notes conference (such as
C-P or Religion).

It has nothing to do with being open, honest or questioning.
It has everything to do with being based on the Bible.

I hope that clarifies the issue (and straightens out the awful
stereotype that you have about CHRISTIAN).
  
Collis

    re .127
    
    > Knowledge-knowing intellectually what God says about Salvation
    
    Can one intellectually know what God says about Salvation or can one
    only know what God says about salvation by Faith.  This may be an
    important question since Paul is adament that the only way to salvation
    is through faith.  Do we agree that faith and intellectual knowledge
    are quite different?

    Jack,
    
    .  I don't deny the holiness aspect of God.  How do you interpret that
    from my note.
    
       I don't deny that the world is stained with sin.  How do you
    interpret that.
    
       I do agree that I make conclusions about the various books of the
    bible and passages within the books based on studying the bible and
    reliance on Biblical Scholars.  This is based on my stated assumption
    about the human authorship of the Bible.  I acknowledge that as
    different than your basic assumption about the Divine authorship of the
    Bible.  The evidence that I have from this conference has shown me
    that adherence to the assumption of the Divine authorship of the Bible
    do often assume that some sections are more Divine than others.  The
    refusal to wear a hat to church or insist that woman family members
    wear a hat to church although a somewhat irrelevent point in my
    opinion, is the best example I have seen to date.  Innerantist seem to
    me to have come to the same conclusion that I have that this Biblical
    dictate is irrelevent.

    If you recall, I mentioned it's irrelevance to today for two reasons.
    
    A.  The wearing of hats applied only to the Corinthian Church to cover
    the shame of a prostitute.  You seemed to disagree with me on this but
    you didn't back up your disagreement with historical fact.
    
    B. The fact that Paul doesn't speak on this issue to any of the other
    churches confirms that it was directed toward the Corinthian women for
    a specific reason...I believe the reason above.
    
    The reason I inferred that you don't believe the world to be stained
    with sin is because you don't acknowledge that there had to be a
    payment/sacrifice for our sin.  The love aspect is deeply important but
    the sanctification/redemption issue holds precedence.  You seem to
    disagree with this.  You are communicating to me that the sin aspect is
    not that important or relavent!  
    
    -Jack

    >Can one intellectually know what God says about Salvation or can one
    >only know what God says about salvation by Faith.  This may be an
    >important question since Paul is adament that the only way to salvation
    >is through faith.  Do we agree that faith and intellectual knowledge
    >are quite different?

Faith and intellectual knowledge are certainly differenct.

One can know what God says about salvation by reading the
Bible (which God wrote :-) ).  One can also know what God says
about salvation by faith in a like manner.

Most importantly, one can experience salvation (only by
faith, though - not be knowledge) by seeking forgiveness
for his/her sins, accepting the payment of Jesus for those
sins by his death on a cross and asking Jesus to be the
Lord and Savior of his/her life.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Is  your claim that God wrote the Bible based on Faith or do you think
    it can be intellectually proven?
    
    

 Gee, that wearing a hat to church thing sure keeps coming back, eh?






 Jim

Note 863.133 Jack Martin

>    Again you are presenting what you believe on your own terms.

And you don't?  Who do you think you're fooling?

Richard

    Jack,
    
    so let me clarify exactly what I believe.
    
    I believe that the world is stained by sin.
    
    I believe that God forgives our sins through God's gift of Grace to us.
    
    I do not believe that God sacrificed his son as a blood sacrifice for
    our sin.  I do believe that Jesus gave his life because his ministry
    was more important than his life.

re Note 863.125 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     No where does it say loving your neighbor with all of your heart gets
>     you eternal life... EVERYWHERE in the Bible, faith in Christ is the key
>     to salvation.  John 3, The entire books of Romans indicates this. 
>     Isaiah....  
  
        Well, James 2:21 says:  "Was not Abraham our father justified
        by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?"

        And James 2:23:  "And the scripture was fulfilled which
        saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for
        righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God."

        Salvation is NOT just a matter of faith and it is faith in
        God, NOT in one's knowlwdge of Jesus in particular.

        To say "faith in Christ is the key to salvation" is a gross
        simplification -- just because Jesus says that the way is
        narrow it does not follow that such a narrow interpretation
        is the correct one.

        "Obedience to God" or "faith in God" is still quite narrow --
        and more Scriptural.

        Bob

    Richard:
    
    Who do I think I'm fooling?!!!  Ohhh, come on.... What are my terms
    that I'm pushing so hard.  
    
    Patricia:
    
    Jesus acknowledged in the synoptic gospels that his ministry WAS TO
    GIVE his life as a ransom for many.  Jesus WAS NOT A martyr!  Jesus was
    a willing sacrifice.  
    
    By the way, if we are saved by grace, how is grace imputed to us?
    
    -Jack

    .143
    
    The example of Abraham is most definitely an action of works, it was
    prior to Christ's death... shall we read on?
    
    Faith without works is dead... which is exactly why I agreed with
    Patricia's further disection of the knowledge/wisdom definitions.
    
    Those who clain to have the saving knowledge of Jesus Christ *must*
    produce fruit or be pruned.  
    
    John 15:1  I am the true vine, and my Father is the husbandman.
      2  Every branch in me that beareth not fruit he taketh away: and
    every branch that beareth fruit, he purgeth it, that it may bring forth 
    more fruit.
      3  Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.
      4  Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of
    itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me.
      5  I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I
    in him,the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do 
    nothing.
      6  If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is
    withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
      7  If ye abide in me, and my words abide in you, ye shall ask what ye
    will,and it shall be done unto you.
      8  Herein is my Father glorified, that ye bear much fruit; so shall
    ye be my disciples.
      9  As the Father hath loved me, so have I loved you: continue ye in
    my love.
     10  If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love; even as I
    have kept my Father's commandments, and abide in his love.
     11  These things have I spoken unto you, that my joy might remain in
    you, and that your joy might be full.
    

    Grace is given to us as a free gift from the Divine.

    .144
    
    Jack,
    
    	You say that Patricia presents what she believes on her own terms
    (863.133) I say that you, whether you recognize it or not, *also* present
    what you believe on your own terms.  If you cannot see that that is
    what you do, then you're fooling yourself.
    
    Richard
    

    re .127
    
   >>> Knowledge-knowing intellectually what God says about Salvation
    
    >Can one intellectually know what God says about Salvation or can one
    
    Yes, absolutely.
    
    >only know what God says about salvation by Faith.  This may be an
    >important question since Paul is adament that the only way to salvation
    >is through faith.  Do we agree that faith and intellectual knowledge
    >are quite different?
    
    Yes, we do.. .which is why wisdom is defined as the application or
    ability to have faith in God's word and Christ.
    

    .146 Nancy,
    
    	Are you attempting to enlighten (teach) a man?
    
    :-)
    
    Richard
    

    Ahhhh... I see you noticed that I was not .147 :-)
    
    Enlightenment ... :-)  Not yer usual spade for spade kinda calling, now
    is it?  Why dontcha say "teach" and get it over with. :-)
    
    

    Hmmm... as I was thinking about the concept of God and people who
    cannot see the justice of God, I begin to wonder about said person's
    upbringing.  My experience has been that people from very abusive
    childhoods typically grow up looking at God as the Supreme Judge of
    Eternal Damnation versus the loving God of restoration.
    
    When one finally takes the step from either agnosticism or atheism as a
    result of this "judge" view of God, it typically swings the pendumlum
    to the other side of the map... to a virtual loving God who would never
    *judge* anyone.
    
    The distortion of the view of God is an emotional reaction to the
    turmoil in one's life.  
    
    When one begins to reconcile that accepting the loving God with the
    whole view in tact including the God will judge hearts, He becomes more
    real and more complete.  The very thing that *emotional survival* mode
    keeps us from, is oftimes the very thing that will make us whole.
    
    God is *just* and he will judge accordingly.  Faith without works is
    dead and intellectual knowledge without faith is dead.
    

    Richard:
    
    I repeat, how have I been believing on my own terms?  If I'm fooling
    myself, I am interested in knowing how this is.
    
    Patricia:
    
    Grace is a free gift given by God, this is true.  We have a starting
    point.  You still haven't hit the point of disagreement.  
    
    I expound by saying that grace is obtained through faith in Jesus
    Christ' death and resurrection.  (God's terms)  I didn't say it, Jesus
    did.
    
    You expound by saying that grace is obtained through....(complete
    sentence please...and please be specific)
    
    -Jack

    Grace is obtained by acceping the free gift of God.
    
    It's simply.  

    re .152
    
    There is truth in your note although I don't agree with all your
    conclusions. 
    
    I attended a seminar titled "Images of God"  Part of the seminar was on
    replacing dysfunctional images of God.  One of the points stressed was
    that our images of God our formed between 6 month prenatal to 3 years
    based on the quality of the parenting relationship.  I believe that
    this is and always has been true.  The images of God captured in the
    Bible are based on parenting patterns just as much as our images are
    based on parenting patterns.  The image of God defined in the Bible is
    based on a distant, Conditional, Authoritarian father. It is based on
    the culture of the time.  That is what makes the Bible being defined as
    the word of God reactionary.  There are alternative images of God both
    within the Bible and external to it.  The images of God we hold, can
    either help us transform society or stiffle transformation.  I seek an
    image of God that will transform society.
    
    Patricia

    re Note 863.153 by AIMHI::JMARTIN
    
    > I expound by saying that grace is obtained through faith in Jesus
    > Christ' death and resurrection.  (God's terms)  I didn't say it, Jesus
    > did.
    
    Where? I can't find this.
    
    Eric
    

    Eric:
    
    I recopied this from a previous reply to Patricia.  Like I said...On
    God's terms.
    
    I will be more than happy to add more if you would like me to, from
    many other books and sources to boot!
    
>>    Some examples:  
    
>>    "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes
>>    unto the Father but by me."  John 14:6
    
>>    "Neither is there any other; for there is no other name under heaven
>>    given unto men whereby we must be saved"  Acts someplace.
    
>>    "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe
>>    in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
>>    Romans 10:9.
    
>>    "He that believeth on the son has life, but he that doesn't believe in
>>    the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth unto him."
>>    John someplace.
    
>>    These are just four of many many verses.  How do you interpret these?
  
    -Jack

    Patricia:
    
    Yet another plateau has been reached.  We both agree that we need to
    accept the free gift of God.  It is very simple.
    
    Accepting is through faith...faith in what?  It is also written, "You
    believe...you do well.  The devils also believe and shudder."
    James someplace.
    
    So grace is obtained by accepting the free gift of God.  Tell me,
    how can one reject the free gift of God?
    
    -Jack

    Faith in the free gift.  Still very simple

    Not good enough Patricia.  I hate to be picky, but you are studying in
    a seminary and I assume you are striving for spiritual excellence.  I
    applaud you in this.  By the same token, you are going to be
    accountable to your flock for spiritual guidance.
    
    Say a teenager comes up to you after service and says, Pastor Flanagan,
    I really appreciated your message on the grace of the devine, but how
    would one accept or reject this grace?
    
    Patricia, it will happen and you need to have an answer.  What you gave
    me was a cop out and I'm only saying this because I really DO like you
    and appreciate you...so take it as a brotherly challenge, not as a
    criticism!  
    
    -Jack

    What is the free gift Patricia?

    .151  You didn't answer the question, Nancy.
    
    As you know, I don't have a problem with women serving as teachers
    to men.  But then, my understandings of the Bible are based on my
    own agenda rather than anything systematic or reasonable, or so I've
    been told.
    
    Salaam,
    Richard
    

863.153 Jack,

    .156 Points out a pretty good example, Jack.  You *say* you're not
presenting what you believe on your own terms, but you are.  You *imply*
you're basing what you believe on what God says, which is to say, a more
perfect understanding of the Bible (superior to Patricia's and possibly
mine).

    But ultimately, you present what you believe based on what you judge
to be God's terms, which is, in fact, your own understanding of the Bible:
your terms.

    I cannot explain it any better.  If you refuse to see it, so be it.
Jesus had problems with people not understanding what he was trying to tell
them, also.

Richard

    Richard,
    
    This is an open forum of discussion, learning can happen in discussion,
    but that hardly places me in the position of teacher.

    Well Richard, you missed with this one.  First of all, I never claimed 
    my understanding of the Bible was superior to Patricia's or yours.
    In fact, I have learned some interesting things from you in the past
    few years.
    
    Re: .156.  Eric challenged me and I provided an answer.  Whether it be
    right or wrong, you could at least give me credit for referencing why I
    believe what I believe, and I gave Eric 4 passages with the invitation
    to provide more if he wanted them.  If Jesus blatent claims are not
    God's terms, then fine but what is?  I have yet to receive an answer.
    
    Now to help you better understand why I'm getting microscopic with
    Patricia.  Patricia has put herself under a microscope in two ways.
    
    1. She stated the premise to start with and I was inquiring more
    information.
    
    2. She claims to be a Christian and I claim to be a Christian.  She is
    studying to take on a church leadership role and I am not.  Just like a
    President of the country, a Senator, a Pastor, or any other servant of
    the commonwealth or body of Christ, this person is going to be held to
    the highest of standards, both in living, in teaching, and in doctrine.
    Perhaps thats why James wrote, "Let not all of you become teachers,
    lest you incur stricter judgement."  Quite frankly, this verse has
    often made me wonder if I could maintain a higher standard.  Regardless
    of views of womens roles in the church, I hold Patricia in high regard
    for her aspiration to grow in faith.
    People who seek the role of Pastor/Teacher will sooner or later have to
    get off the fence and provide concrete answers and alternatives for
    others.   I bring to you the message of Christ crucified and risen.  I
    believe the Word of God to be representative of God's terms.  If I am
    wrong, I expect to be taught by you on the right way to salvation.
    
    I humbly continue to await Patricia's reply as she will be an instructor of
    righteousness.  How do I accept or reject the free gift of God's grace?
    
    -Jack

    .164
    
    Ummm, I think you're splitting hairs.  But what the Hell, it's not
    my problem.
    
    Richard
    

From Note 863.156 regarding 863.153 by AIMHI::JMARTIN
    
>    > I expound by saying that grace is obtained through faith in Jesus
>    > Christ' death and resurrection.  (God's terms)  I didn't say it, Jesus
>    > did.
    
>    Where? I can't find this.

From note 863.157 JMARTIN

>>    Some examples:  
    
>>    "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes
>>    unto the Father but by me."  John 14:6

This says nothing about about grace being obtained through faith in Jesus
Christ's death and ressurection.  (see above)  Furthermore, it's quite
possible, as Patricia has indicated, that the historical Jesus never uttered
these words.
    
>>    "Neither is there any other; for there is no other name under heaven
>>    given unto men whereby we must be saved"  Acts someplace.

This says nothing about about grace being obtained through faith in Jesus
Christ's death and ressurection. (see above)
    
>>    "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe
>>    in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
>>    Romans 10:9.

This was not something Jesus said.  This is attributed to Paul.  You said,
and I quote, "I didn't say it, Jesus did." (see above)  How often did
Paul quote Jesus in his letters?
    
>>    "He that believeth on the son has life, but he that doesn't believe in
>>    the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth unto him."
>>    John someplace.

This says nothing about about grace being obtained through faith in Jesus
Christ's death and ressurection. (see above)

Eric, who sounds fairly biblically literate himself, has not had his
question addressed squarely by you.  Perhaps you meant to say something other
than what you stated originally and which Eric asked you about.  I cannot
say.

But, Jack, it's clear you're making assumptions based on your own filters,
which is to say, you are presenting what you believe in your own terms.

Richard

Note 863.132

>    >I've pointed out that *everyone* applies or discards the 
>    >instructions of the Bible selectively, even biblical inerrantists.

>    >Collis, at least, admits it.  He defines it as a third way to the
>    >all-or-nothing approach to the Bible.
 
>I certainly don't call interpreting the Bible a "third way"
>to an all or nothing approach of the Bible.

Note 122.68 PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON "DCU fees?  NO!!!"

>  >Which biblical instructions do you "pick and choose" by either ignoring or
>  >rationalizing away?

>What about the third option?  Good exegesis leading to a good understanding
>leading to acceptance of all Biblical instructions meant for us today?

Excuse me, Collis said third option, not third way.

Richard

    .166
    
    Richard if you only knew.... this natural curly hair stuff splits all
    the time... and to top that off, my *nails*... whatsa girl to do? :-)

    For by grace are ye saved throught faith, it is a gift of God not of 
    works, lest any man should boast.  Ephesians, I believe.

Re:  .139

    >Is  your claim that God wrote the Bible based on Faith or do you think
    >it can be intellectually proven?

I came to this conclusion based on an intellectual process (since
I am highly driven by logic - although certainly not completely
driven by logic).  I concluded that it was much more likely
that the Bible was what it claimed to be than that it was not
what it claimed to be.

Since that decision, I have seen the results of trusting,
believing and acting upon God's Word in my life and it has
reinforced my belief.  It has come to the point where I seriously
doubt that I will ever change my belief about the truthfulness
of the Bible.

Some see this as close-mindedness.  I see it as clinging to
truth and rejecting falsehood.

Collis
 

Re:  .168

   >>I certainly don't call interpreting the Bible a "third way"
   >>to an all or nothing approach of the Bible.

   >>What about the third option?  Good exegesis leading to a good understanding
   >>leading to acceptance of all Biblical instructions meant for us today?

Richard,

I apologize for being so harsh in disagreeing with you assessment
that there is a "third way" when I did, in fact, open the door
by calling this a third option.

In actuality, I don't view this as a black/white take-it-or-leave-it
proposition.  And I bet neither does anyone else in this conference
(as I understand the issue).  It is a continuum from:

100%: Everything in the Bible applies to me today just as it applied
      to the original person God said it to

  

 50%:




  0%: Nothing in the Bible is relevant to me today

Since the two options you presented (100% and 0%) are, in my mind,
not viable, I presented the "third way" (the way that everyone
actually uses).  It is not actually the "third way", but it is
the way that we all use.  The meaning question is, where does
someone fit on the continuum - and *why*.

Collis

Re: Note 863.167      
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat"                 51 lines   2-MAR-1994 20:21

@@@>>    Some examples:  
    
@@@>>    "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes
@@@>>    unto the Father but by me."  John 14:6

>>This says<<nothing>> about about grace being obtained through faith in Jesus
>>Christ's death and ressurection.  (see above)  Furthermore, it's quite
>>possible, as Patricia has indicated, that the historical Jesus never uttered
>>these words.

Well Richard, we can get in depth into this if you want.  Assuming this is an 
accurate quote from Jesus, we then know Jesus intent was to proclaim he is the
way.  Taken into context with many verses from the synoptic gospels, we also
learn that he proclaimed he was to give his life as a ransom for many.  I have
the ability to cite many of the verses but somehow I believe they will fall
on deaf ears.  

John is the author of 5 books in the New Testament and was one of Jesus'
closest apostles.  Patricia's theory holds no water.   It is baseless to say
it and for John who suffered greatly for the cause of Christ to misrepresent
    Jesus words is ludicrous.   Incidentally, it is also a slap in the face
    to the apostles martyred for their great faith.
  
@@@>>    "Neither is there any other; for there is no other name under heaven
@@@>>    given unto men whereby we must be saved"  Acts someplace.

>>This says nothing about about grace being obtained through faith in Jesus
>>Christ's death and ressurection. (see above)

I'm still waiting for the Unitarian outlook of these passages.  So far you 
have made your argument from silence.  Again, if he is the way, how is the 
free gift obtained?  
  
@@>>    "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe
@@>>    in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
@@>>    Romans 10:9.

>>This was not something Jesus said.  This is attributed to Paul.  You said,
>>and I quote, "I didn't say it, Jesus did." (see above)  How often did
>>Paul quote Jesus in his letters?
  
Well, let me ask you something Richard.  Is Jesus the Word?  
  
@@@>>    "He that believeth on the son has life, but he that doesn't believe in
@@@>>    the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth unto him."
@@@>>    John someplace.

>>This says nothing about about grace being obtained through faith in Jesus
>>Christ's death and ressurection. (see above)

Did he not give his life as a ransom for many?  Again you are avoiding the 
question?

>>Eric, who sounds fairly biblically literate himself, has not had his
>>question addressed squarely by you.  Perhaps you meant to say something other
>>than what you stated originally and which Eric asked you about.  I cannot
>>say.

I'm sorry Eric, I thought I was citing passages in context with others.
Apparently I have not.  Could you please ask the question more definitive 
and please set out the rules.  Richard is also guilty of splitting alot of
hairs on this one.

>>But, Jack, it's clear you're making assumptions based on your own filters,
>>which is to say, you are presenting what you believe in your own terms.

It would be an assumption if I took a few verses out of context.  In this case, 
I have not.  Richard, to be truthful, I would much rather, as a human being,
have it on your terms.  It would be nice to obtain the gift of grace by being
a nice person because I have judged myself and I think I'm nice.  That is not
reality though, and quite frankly, this affirms to me that the sin issue is
not being dealt with in this conference.  

-Jack                                              

>   Richard if you only knew.... this natural curly hair stuff splits all
>    the time... and to top that off, my *nails*... whatsa girl to do? :-)

Use European nail treatment - great stuff.  However, if you use it on your hair,
make sure you don't wear a hat to church.  :-)

/Mike

    .172  Total agreement.
    
    I sometimes think you and I are like adjacent keys on a piano (C and
    C#, for example); very close, but dischordant when played together.
    
    Salaam,
    Richard
    

    Re: .167
    
    Jack,
     I'm pretty good at logic, and following abstract stuff, but, I really
    can't follow the replies her. Especially al the >>> and @@/>>.....
    Is the whole point hear around if you believe that Jesus died on the 
    cross "for our sins"? or if Jesus died as past of his ministry?
    
    Marc H.

    .176  Yeah, it's kinda confusing.  I'll be adding more to the confusion
    later.
    
    ;-)
    Richard
    

    Grace is not equal to salvation or everlasting life. Grace is Gods
    divine love and compassion which is bestowed freely to all humankind.
    We all receive the gift of God's grace *unconditionally*. While it is
    through the grace of God that we may *also* receive salvation and
    eternal life, we receive His grace simply because we -- all men and
    women -- are his children (good and bad).

    I do not think your biblical citations show that Jesus said the grace
    of God only falls upon those who have faith in his death and
    resurrection. Either you see grace as being something different than I
    do or tell me where Jesus says God's grace is conditional.
    
    Eric
    
    I thought I was asking a simple and straight forward question. :^(

    Question...
    
    Who is Jesus?
    What did he do?
    Was there atonement in the shedding of his blood?
    What is free?
    What must be accepted?
    What does born again mean?
    
    

 Grace is God's unmerited favor..a gift we don't deserve because of our
 sin and rebellion against Him, given us through Jesus Christ.  Romans 5:12-
 21 provides a good description.  The gift is there, but we have to accept it.
 There is an action required on our part.  Romans 5:8 says that while were
 yet sinners, Christ died for us..paid the penalty for sin that is spoken of
 in Romans 6:23..the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal
 life through Christ Jesus..we are all sinners, deserving of paying the wages..
 God, through Jesus Christ paid the penalty..that is God's grace..unmerited
 favor..not some wonderful neat warm feeling of happiness and knowing that 
 God loves us all and all will be just fine..he does love us..its our sin 
 and rebellion he hates..and until we take that step of faith and accept 
 his grace..unmerited favor..in the death of Jesus Christ on our behalf, we
 are lost..eternally.




 Jim

    Also see topic 431 "Grace"
    
    Richard
    

Note 863.173 AIMHI::JMARTIN

>I have
>the ability to cite many of the verses but somehow I believe they will fall
>on deaf ears.  

All I'm pointing out, Jack, is that the verses you cited were not verses
which directly support your premise, which was:

(Note 863.153 by AIMHI::JMARTIN)   
>    > I expound by saying that grace is obtained through faith in Jesus
>    > Christ' death and resurrection.  (God's terms)  I didn't say it, Jesus
>    > did.

>John is the author of 5 books in the New Testament and was one of Jesus'
>closest apostles.  Patricia's theory holds no water.   It is baseless to say
>it and for John who suffered greatly for the cause of Christ to misrepresent
>Jesus words is ludicrous.   Incidentally, it is also a slap in the face
>to the apostles martyred for their great faith.

John, the Gospel writer, might be the same a the epistle writer.  Maybe not.
Most who have done indepth research (scholars) agree that the Revelation is
by a different John.  Some scholars believe the Gospel was written by more
than a single hand.  Do you know in what year (approximately) John's Gospel
is believed to have been written?

Incidentally, I do not believe the author of John's Gospel was trying
to misrepresent Jesus or his words.

>I'm still waiting for the Unitarian outlook of these passages.  So far you 
>have made your argument from silence.  Again, if he is the way, how is the 
>free gift obtained?

I'm not a Unitarian.  And I doubt you could get two Unitarians to agree.
  
>Well, let me ask you something Richard.  Is Jesus the Word?

Yes, Christ is the Logos.  However, the Logos is not the Bible.
  
>Did he not give his life as a ransom for many?  Again you are avoiding the 
>question?

There is some biblical support for this.  Your quotes were not the ones
which would support it.

>It would be an assumption if I took a few verses out of context. In this case, 
>I have not.  Richard, to be truthful, I would much rather, as a human being,
>have it on your terms.  It would be nice to obtain the gift of grace by being
>a nice person because I have judged myself and I think I'm nice.  That is not
>reality though, and quite frankly, this affirms to me that the sin issue is
>not being dealt with in this conference.  

I have said nothing about being a nice guy in order to recieve grace or
salvation.

Sin?  Dwell on it if you prefer.  I shant stop you.

Salaam,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    All of the verses that Jack quoted from God's Word had to do with God's 
    saving grace.  "For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith 
    - and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God - not by works, 
    so that no one can boast."  Eph 2:8;9 
    
    I believe that supports his premise:
    
    > I expound by saying that grace is obtained through faith in Jesus 
    > Christ' death and resurrection.  (God's terms)
    
    I would add that I think God does give all men a certain degree of
    grace. After all He does makethe rain to fall and the sun to shine on
    both the wicked and the righteous.  He also gave the gift of His Son to
    all mankind if only they would accept it.  But grace plays a much
    larger role in a Christian's life because God is working with you. 
    It's like the story of the Potter and the clay.  We are molded by Him
    through His grace.  We are his adopted children and He patiently and
    lovingly sculpts us.  That's not grace that just anybody has.  It's
    specifically for His children which everyone has the option of
    becoming, but which not everyone has chosen.
    
    Jill  

    Jill,
    
    	How ya doin'?
    
    	Can't respond right now.  I'll be back later.
    
    Richard
    

    Welcome back Jill,
    
    By the way I was reading the Romans description this morning about God
    as the Potter and humans as the clay.  I did think parts of it were
    awful.  God the Potter sculpting some of us only for destruction while
    sculpting others for Glory.  I visualized as I was reading God the
    scultture smashing the clay people destined from birth for their
    destruction.  I do not believe that God plays with people's life that
    way.  Even latter on in Romans this image is contradicted.  It is
    really difficult to tell from reading Romans whether Paul supports this
    image of predestination or whether he supports Universal Salvation. 
    What is clear from this Potter image is that those created for
    destruction cannot do anything to obtain their own salvation. 
    
    Patricia

>    What is clear from this Potter image is that those created for
>    destruction cannot do anything to obtain their own salvation. 
    
 

   People who reject God's grace as offered through Jesus Christ make their
   own path to destruction.  God did not create them for destruction.





Jim

    Then are you saying Romans is not the word of God or do you disagree
    with my interpretation of Romans?

    Now we are flirting with Calvanism, probably best in another topic.
    
    Richard, I hear most of what your saying.  Cross reference of previous
    notes have gotten quite detailed.  I will say now that some of us
    cannot agree because the foundation to one is not the foundation to the
    other.  I realized this when you stated that Jesus is the logos but he
    is not the Bible.  I personally believe John 1:1 affirms the scriptures
    to be fully inspired by God.
    
    To touch on another previous comment by Mr. Myers; I do not believe any
    of the Bible supports the belief that we are all God's children.  Jesus
    was the only begotten son of God and as John 1:12 so aptly puts it; 
    But as many as received to, to them he gave the power to become the
    children of God, even to those who believe on His name."  I believe
    that all the saved are the adopted sons of God.  However, I also
    believe that before such a time, the Bible refers to us as being at
    emnity with God and enemies of the most high.  This is because we are
    born in a condition that God cannot allow before Him...namely, SIN!
    
    Best Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

>   I realized this when you stated that Jesus is the logos but he
>   is not the Bible.  I personally believe John 1:1 affirms the scriptures
>   to be fully inspired by God.

Oh?  Quite an original theology.

It does demonstrate how persons filter the Bible through their own belief
systems, even when they see themselves as pointing to an objective, external
source.

We all do it to some degree.  Some do it consciously, some not.  Nobody can
be completely objective, nor should they be.  Such is the nature of faith.
Such is the nature of our humanity.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 863.183  CSC32::KINSELLA 

>    All of the verses that Jack quoted from God's Word had to do with God's 
>    saving grace.
    
>    > I expound by saying that grace is obtained through faith in Jesus 
>    > Christ' death and resurrection.  (God's terms)
    
From note 863.157 JMARTIN

>>    "I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man comes
>>    unto the Father but by me."  John 14:6

This saying contains no mention of grace.  It says nothing about grace being
obtained through faith in Jesus Christ's death and ressurection.
    
>>    "Neither is there any other; for there is no other name under heaven
>>    given unto men whereby we must be saved"  Acts someplace.

This says something about the conditions of salvation, but nothing about
about grace being obtained through faith in Jesus Christ's death and
ressurection.  It mentions not Jesus Christ's death or resurrection at all, nor
the necessity of believing in said death and resurrection.
    
>>    "For if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and believe
>>    in thine heart that God raised Him from the dead, thou shalt be saved."
>>    Romans 10:9.

Here again, salvation is mentioned, but not grace.  Furthermore, you left
off the part where Jack said something like "I didn't say it, Jesus did."
Jesus didn't say this.  Paul did.  It is recognizably Pauline theology.
    
>>    "He that believeth on the son has life, but he that doesn't believe in
>>    the son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth unto him."
>>    John someplace.

This isn't talking about grace.  It is talking about life, fully-alive living
is what I make of it.

Mind you, I believe in Jesus' death and resurrection.  So, you need not
convince me.

What I was attempting to demonstrate to Jack was how we all express our
biblical understandings through our own filters (paradigms) to some degree.

Pax vobiscum,
Richard

During one of the seminary classes (The Old Testament
in the New), we spent 1-1/2 classes (3 hours) looking
at Romans 9 and corresponding Old Testament verses and
contexts.

I agree with you, Patricia, that this can be a very hard
teaching to deal with.  Does God create people simply so
that they can be condemned?  Well, the Bible tells us
that it is God's desire that everyone be saved (I forget
the reference, but it is a well-known verse).  So, I would
say that this interpretation is not the accurate one.

Rather, an interpretation that seems to fit all that is
written (at least in my eyes) is that God prepares people
for destruction at the point where they have irretrievably
chosen to go their own way and rebel against God.  

Now, how does this fit in with the possibility that we can
always turn to Jesus?  I'd say that we, as people, don't
know when someone can turn back to Jesus and when they
can't.  I believe that there are people (only God knows
who) that are still living that have turned their back
on God irretrievably.  There is some support for this in
Scripture (outside of these verses) when Jesus talks about
the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit.

Finally, I would point out that our priorities tend to be
all wrong.  We think that *people* are the highest priority.
No.  The Bible clearly teaches us that *God* is the highest
priority.  If God is proclaimed and glorified, this is good.
God can and does use people who were doomed to destruction to 
glorify Himself (as He used Pharoah in Egypt).  This is a
hard teaching to accept, but I believe it is accurate.

If you start to feel small and insignificant, you should.
Then is the time to remember that the God of the universe
cared so much for *you* that he chose to give his *only*
son that you may live with Him eternally.  What a God of
love we have!!!

Should we then blame God that those who choose evil over
good, who choose darkness over life, who choose lies over 
truth are judged for their choices?  Should not God even
use *these* lives to glorify Himself bringing goodness
out of evil?

Collis

    I agree that God does not create anyone for destruction.  That is why I
    believe that Romans 9 is false.  Your basic assumption about the
    consistency of the bible intellectually blinds you to the message of
    Romans 9.  Not only is Romans 9 inconsistent with other books of the
    Bible, but Paul is inconsistent himself through his writing. 
    
    Paul is a human.  He was not able to think through the implications of
    everything he wrote when he wrote them and was not consistent
    throughout the 10 or more years that he was writing.  He still is a
    genius.  I doubt any writer can maintain absolute consistency over 10
    years of writing.  

However, I believe that God could create someone for
destruction.  I just don't believe that he does.

Collis

    Richard:
    
    Let's look at three different verses, within context of each other, from
    the same chapter of the same author.
    
    "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
    was God.  He was the same in the beginning with God."  John 1:1,2.
    
    " And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us.  And we beheld His 
    glory."  John 1:10
    
    "He was in the World, and the world was made by Him, but the world 
    knew him not."
    
    This is how my filters come to a conclusion.
    
    1. The Word is God - Documented.
    2. The Word is Jesus - Documented
    3. The Word has been since the beginning - Documented
    4. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us. - Documented 
    5. The World was created by Him - Documented
    6. The World did not recognize Him - Documented
     
    Richard, everything perceived in life goes through a filter.  Some
    people look at the positive sides of a horrible situation while others
    look at the bad side.  I was reading a very interesting commentary by 
    Corrie Ten Boom (sp?).  Corrie was in a German concentration camp
    during WW2.  She stated that the infestation of lice in her hair kept
    the guards from raping her and the other prisoners.  Her filter told
    her that a potentially bad thing was a good thing.
    
    Filtering is necessary in life if we are to draw conclusions.  
    The whole point of this exercise in my mind is to teach one another
    and build one another up.  My filter on John 1 has helped me to draw
    the COMMON belief that Jesus is the Word and Jesus is God.  To date
    I am Still waiting to see how others filter this passage and how others
    justify that the Word of God is errant, being from God and all.  
    
    My conclusions are certainly not unreasonable and don't deserve to be
    belittled.  If you or anybody has a better answer, I'm all ears!
    
    -Jack

Note 863.194 AIMHI::JMARTIN

Jack, I never said having filters was a bad thing.  I did wish to point out
how you do the same thing for which you were criticizing Patricia.  I confess
frustration, which may have come across in my vehemence as belittling.  If
it was my remark about your theology, it was not a criticism.  I regret my
strident tone.

Interesting that you left out John 1:9.  One of my favorites.

Anyway, allow me to share my present assessment of the verses you selected:
    
    1. The Word is God - Not the document.
    2. The Word is Christ - Not the document.
    3. The Word has been since the beginning - Not the document.
    4. The Word was made flesh and dwelt among us - Not the document.
    5. The World was created by (or through) the Word - Not the document.
    6. Much of the World did not recognize the Word - Not the document.
     
The Logos, the Word, as used in the prologue of John contains implications
point to what might be called "the creative principle."

John (the Gospel) has been suspected of being well disguised Gnosticism.
It was almost left out of the canon.

Salaam,
Richard

    re Note 863.188 by AIMHI::JMARTIN
    
    > To touch on another previous comment by Mr. Myers; I do not believe any
    > of the Bible supports the belief that we are all God's children. 
    
    
    Speaking to "great multitudes of people from Galilee" Jesus said:
    
    Mat 7:11  If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your
    children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good
    things to them that ask him?
    
    He clearly identifies this great multitude as "being evil" and
    certainly not saved by your definition (faith in Jesus' death,
    resurrection, blood..) and yet he refers to God as their father in
    heaven. 
    
    	Eric

| <<< Note 863.117 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| .114
| When was this Mr. Kirk?  I can only speak for the time I've been
| moderating and if this is true of my tenure, I *DO* want to know about
| it.


	Nancy, you also can not speak of the Bible being inerrant, so there is
another topic that is tabboo in CHRISTIAN.


Glen

  >...you also can not speak of the Bible being inerrant...

Sure you can.  Just write:

  The Bible is inerrant
  The Bible is inerrant
  The Bible is inerrant

  I really mean it, the Bible is inerrant.

and see what response you get.  :-)

Collis