Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

a related question to .0, which i find myself chewing on at the moment:

to which extent is dogmatism, self-righteousness and a tendency to be 
judgemental inherent to the christian faith and to which extent is it just 
a reserve of a zealous few? being in contact with christians every once in
a while, i find the question extremely difficult to answer.

my guess so far is that dogmatism, self-righteousness and judgementalism
are negative personality traits and not characteristics of the christian faith.
but that a faith, based on absolutes - an absolute god, the divinity and 
absoulte truth of the word in the scripture, the almost-infallability of the 
pope, all provides an all to easy trap to fall into, for acquiring the 
aforementioned negative traits.

    
andreas.

    I'm afraid the stereotype, though one I personally shun and attempt
    to counter, is one well-deserved.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Personally, I tend to be perceived more favorably by non-Christians
    than by a number of folks who claim the title of Christian.
    
    While a hospital chaplain a few years ago, I had occasion to serve
    Jews, Buddhists and even the non-religious.  As far as I know, those
    I served felt respected and honored, no strings attached.
    
    I pray I was a light through Christ to the patients, their families
    and friends, and to the hospital staff.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

Re: .0

>do you worry how you are perceived by non christians? how are you as a 
>christian being characterised by non-christians? is it important to you how 
>you come across?

An evangelist is not very different from a salesperson.  The evangelist
sells concepts, while the salesperson sells a product or service.  Now,
there's a philosophy that if a salesperson works on a commission basis,
that is, receives a percentage of each sale, then the vendor being represented
loses nothing if sales are lost through the ineffectiveness or ineptness of
the salesperson.

I don't buy this philosophy.  I say the wrong salesperson can ruin future
sales.

This issue is discussed somewhat in Topic 576, "The Responsibility of
the Messenger."

Shalom,
Richard

	Proverbs 22:1 NWT reads "A name is to be chosen rather than abundant
	riches; favor is better than even silver and gold."

 	We all like to be perceived favourably by others, but as the saying 
	goes "you can please some, some of the time but you can't please all, 
	all of the time."

	Therefore the name or favour that Proverbs 22:1 mentions that should
	be chosen, is the name we have with our Creator. So rather than
	question how others perceive oneself, a Christian would ask how does
	God perceive me?. Are the things I do pleasing to him?. For example,
	through Bible study one gets to know the character of Jesus, therefore
	before doing or saying something they may regret one could quickly ask 
 	oneself would Jesus say such or do such a thing?.

	The Bible mentions that Christians would be frowned upon for leading
	a life based on Bible principles, 1 Peter 4:3,4 "For the time that has 
	passed by is sufficient for YOU to have worked out the will of the
	nations when YOU when YOU proceeded in deeds of loose conduct, lusts,
	excesses with wine, revelries, drinking matches, and illegal idolatries.
	Because YOU do not continue running with them in this course to the 
	same low sink of debauchery, they are puzzled and go on speaking 
	abusively of YOU."

	A Christian will promote Bible principles, but shouldn't be done in a
	self-righteous way. It should be done in a way that helps the other
	person see how they can benefit themselves rather than putting them down
	for we are all imperfect and that includes the messenger. If a person
	does not want to listen then the wise course for the Christian would be
	to seek out someone who does have a listening ear.

	Phil.
	

>to which extent is dogmatism, self-righteousness and a tendency to be 
>judgemental inherent to the christian faith and to which extent is it just 
>a reserve of a zealous few?
    
andreas.
    
    Good question.  That is the question I finished up my last semester
    at Andover Newton with.  The Gospel of John, and the exegisis I did on 
    the Prologue to John, both lead me to answer yes to the question above.
    
    The Gospel of John, defines a  way that is dogmatic, self-righteous,
    and judgemental.  Christians who are the above can justify that
    behavoir by that Gospel.
    
    On the other hand, I was reminded by the instructor that the Gospel of
    John was written during a time of extreme persecution against a
    minority community, the Johanine Community.  The anger and self
    righteousness that comes through during a time of persecution does not
    need to be the same anger and self righteousness that comes through
    when the religion becomes one of the dominant world religions.
    
    Within Christianity there is what is identified as the "Scandel of
    Particularlity".  Jesus is seen as the Unique one time, particular
    revelation of God.  It is hard for Christianity to uphold this doctrine
    which may be a fundemental belief and not be self righteous and pushy.
    
    After many years as an atheist I have found my way back to my Faith.  I 
    can embrace Christianity in that the message is meaningful to me.  The
    symbols are powerful.  I cannot embrace only Christianity because of
    what is absent from Christianity.  A full blown feminine image of the
    divine to stand beside the Patriarchal image.  I also cannot embrace
    Christianity as the only way, knowing that many, many people in the
    world have achieved fully mature, wonderful spirituality other than
    Christian Spirituality.
    
    I believe that it is important for the wholeness of individuals and the
    world as a whole for every person to embrace a Higher Power outside of
    themselves that provides for their ground of being.  This can be
    abstract or concrete.  It can be the community of men and women.  It
    can be the Web of Existence. It can be the Divine Universe.
    
    I have found that most Christians resent it when I call myself
    Christian while seeking a balance between Biblical revelation, rational
    knowledge, personnal experience, and the growing tradition of the
    Community of Women and the community of Unitarian Universalism.
    
    WHat do we get if we add one to the Trinity?
    
    Father, Mother, Christ/Sophia, Great Spirit!
    
    four persons, One substance!  Each equally present one within another?
    
                                    Patricia
    

Note 1048.6

>    I have found that most Christians resent it when I call myself
>    Christian while seeking a balance between Biblical revelation, rational
>    knowledge, personnal experience, and the growing tradition of the
>    Community of Women and the community of Unitarian Universalism.

Hmmm...Sounds a little like the Wesleyan Quadrilateral:

	Scripture
	Reason
	Experience
	Tradition

Shalom,
Richard

    So does that make me a Quadrilaterialian. 
    
    
     That's hard to say!

always thought we have something in common, i am a quadrilingual!


german
english
french
italian

:-)

    Methinks there's a strain of silliness in the file today.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

i note with interest that none of the respondents to this topic so far, i would
have suspected of "dogmatism", "self-righteousness" and "judgementalism".

would anyone who *has* been perceived as "dogmatic", "self-righteous" or 
"judgemental" like to take a stab at this topic? 

this topic is adressed to you.


please?

andreas.

    Well Andreas, OK...I'll be honest....why not.
    
    To most non Christians, if they were to describe me in one word, it
    would mostly be...
    
    "Hey...whatever works for you"
    
    I try to present the gospel as a need...just like food, clothing and
    shelter.  If one were to use Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, one might
    place Christianity on the second tier (Safety/Social).  I position it
    as being the first tier (Physiological), a basic need of human
    existence.  It isn't necessarily correct but if I position it this way,
    I feel it will identify me, the messenger as one with equal need...to
    need my sin washed away just like everybody else.  Kind of eases the 
    tension.
    
    Now...here's the part that's probably going to open a can of worms but
    hey let's be honest.  I find the words dogmatism, self righteousness,
    and judgementalism directed toward me mostly by those who prescribe to
    the social gospel.  Okay...alot of my fellow searchers here in CP.  But
    listen, I believe we all wouldn't be here unless we were searching so
    I would expect peoples faith, including my own, to be challenged here.  
    I believe it is a healthy part of growing in ones faith.  It spurs us
    onto greater learning.   Sensitivity certainly has its place in the
    world but I find alot of times when I write something, it is
    misconstued and I have to spend 3 replies asking people to reread the
    original note...as in...I NEVER SAID...etc. etc.
    
    -Jack

jack, what a wonderful note! i am impressed by your personality!

i've never thought of faith as a physiological need, but the way you put
it, it sounds interesting. i'll ponder this one. 

thanks for giving me something to ponder!

andreas.

.13 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"
.14 DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have"

(.13)
    shelter.  If one were to use Maslows Hierarchy of Needs, one might
    place Christianity on the second tier (Safety/Social).  I position it
    as being the first tier (Physiological), a basic need of human
    existence.  It isn't necessarily correct but if I position it this way,
(.14)
    i've never thought of faith as a physiological need, but the way you put
    it, it sounds interesting. i'll ponder this one. 

It isn't. A physiological need is one that you cannot *live* without. Obviously
it's not. Extremely important to some folks, and something they might consider
worth dying for, certainly, but not (as Jack does point out) a true first tier
need.

Steve

    
    As I have been shown by God, once He has touched you in the most
    intimate way, once He has known you and you have been known by Him,
    once you have been made His bride, His wife, then He becomes all you
    would ever want and need and His love fills you beyond anything that
    one can know and experience in this world.  He becomes all to you.  He
    becomes your beloved.  You know what it is to love Him and you are made
    complete in His intimate Love.  Your only desire is for Him.  You see
    Him and know Him.  You as a human being are fulfilled and the Word is
    made clear, everything becomes crystal clear, in the presence of His
    incredible Love.  His Love consumes you it fills you.  You walk away
    from every material thing, all the desires and hopes that you held onto
    fall away for in comparison to His indescribable Love they become
    nothing.  People will look at you and what they see is not what they
    think but they see the light and love of your precious Lover coming
    forth.  You surrender all for you see Him as He is, He is Love.  You
    abandon yourself in Him and you become the person you always desired to
    be.  You become perfect.  Jesus the Christ Is the I am and I am because
    He is in me and I am in Him.  First death then Resurrection to New
    Life, even Jesus Christ for He is Life.
    
    All the things of the world and all the understandings of the mind and
    all the words ever written or any thought that has been conceived
    become nothing when His love is known.

.15> It isn't. A physiological need is one that you cannot *live* without. 

of course you may want to ask the lover if he can live without his new found
earth moving love... ;-)


andreas.

    Interesting topic.  Perceptions are based on personal interpretation of
    the incoming data.  Some people perceive red and green as being the
    same (color-blind...oops, I mean 'color-determination challenged'). 
    Some people think getting drunk every weekend is a good thing, nothing
    at all wrong with it.  Some people feel that having one drink is a sin. 
    Some people view sex as a sport, nothing wrong with a little romp in
    the hey with a willing partner; some see sex outside the confines of
    marriage as wrong; still others view any form of sexual expression with
    any number or same sex partner(s) as being natural sexual expression.
    
    Who's to say who's perception is right?  The only one capable of doing
    this is He who defines truth.  Red and green are not the same,
    regardless of how many people perceive it to be the same.  There is
    truth, and we can find it in God's word to mankind.
    
    The trouble with perceptions is that they can easily be wrong.  When
    you hear something that goes against your beliefs- or more
    specifically, what you WANT- you are forced to look at your belief,
    even challenged to defend it (the defense mechanism) if it is something
    of importance to you.  What *should* happen, is the "challenge" should be
    looked at logically, weighed against your current belief, then a value
    judgement made on it.  What *usually* happens, is that the defense
    mechanism wins out, causing a hostile reaction (I don't mean violence,
    FWIW, though this is certainly a possibility in dealing with some
    people  8^) ).  The hostile reaction causes a shut-down of thought
    process, a white-knuckled death grip on the current belief, and an
    outright rejection of what is proposed.
    
    When people do not want to hear that their lifestyle/actions/whatever
    are wrong, such a message is viewed in a very biased way.  This bias
    usually takes the form of "who are THEY to tell me I'm wrong!", which
    gives the messenger- in the eyes of the hearer- a 'self-righteous'
    appearance, even if the message was given in a very humble way.
    
    People do not want there to be absolutes.  Absolutes mean that they
    cannot rationalize any action based on situation or relative personal
    criteria.  'Right is right and wrong is wrong', is not an acceptable
    thought to a world that tries to make everything a shade of grey. 
    Stating that their are abosolutes will only make you an unpopular
    person, who will be viewed by the world as "self-righteous", "dogmatic"
    and "holier-than-thou", regardless of the manner the message is given
    (generally speaking).
    
    When sharing God's word- especially in areas of conduct- you cannot
    avoid a reaction of some type.  In my experience, the majority of the
    reactions start with "but..but.." followed by rationalizations on why
    such behavior (their current behavior) is not wrong.  I do not usually
    argue at this point, but merely bring up scriptural reasons as to why
    God is against certain behaviors (unless I'm in a notesfile, in which
    case I like to be more thorough in my answers  8^) ).
    
    Let's face it, telling people that their behaviors are wrong, based on
    the Bible, will cause reactions- most negative, because people will do
    anything to defend the things that they wish to do.  Merely suggesting
    that there are moral absolutes, is likely to get you pegged as being
    "self-righteous" or somesuch.  It is much easier to name-call, than to
    weigh the value of a personal system of values/morals, and make
    correction- I know this from personal experience.  Only by the grace
    of God was I opened up to even a small understanding of God's truth. 
    It is very hard to admit that you are wrong- especially when it means
    that you need to change the way you conduct your life.  
    
    Jesus said that whoever tried to save his life would lose it, and he
    who would lose his life for Christ's sake, would save it. 
    
    
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    The question of what is truth and what is absolute is an excellent
    question.  The question of of what/who is God and what does God want
    from me, is the essential theological question.  It is the question
    central to all expressions of faith.
    
    The quest for absolute knowledge is central to original sin.  Absolute
    knowledge will not be achieved by humanity.  Adam and Eve were in
    paradise in the Garden of Eden, without knowledge of good and evil.
    Knowledge of good and evil was reserved for God.  They ate of the tree
    of knowledge and were subsequently banished from the garden.
    
    Faith for me is a acceptance of my limitation as a human being and my
    belief that God will let me know what God wants me to know.  
    
    I truly believe that it is sinful to attempt to make the Bible
    absolute.  The Bible if worshipped for itself is like the statues of
    gold, bronze, and silver worship for the power inherent in them.  The
    Bible, when worshipped for itself is just another rationalization for
    enforcing sinful social structures and moral codes.
    
    If God wanted humanity to have absolute knowledge of good and evil, God
    would have made absolute knowledge unequivocally known.
    
    The charges of arrogance levied against those who believe they have
    absolute knowledge of what God requires is based on Faith in one's own
    spiritual path and annoyance at those who insist that their spiritual path
    is the only enlightened path.
    
    The Bible can be used as a great gift of God's revelation to the world
    or it can be used as an idol and a tool of oppression.
    
    I have personally rediscovered the gift of the Bible as the revelation
    of God's love for humanity.
    
    I have also personally experienced people using the Bible as a tool of
    oppression against me, against my sisters, and against my Gay and
    Lesbian friends.  I have seen in the history of slavery in the United
    States and the history of apartheid  how the Bible has been used as
    a tool of oppression against people of color.
    
    The Bible is powerful.  It's power can be for good or for evil.  I
    believe that it is imperative that every Christian honor the Bible and
    make sure that it is not used for evil purposes.
    
    So if I object to what you have identified as an absolute truth or an
    absolute piece of knowledge, it is not because I refuse to accept
    absolutes, but because I believe that humanities understanding of
    absolutes is limited and a failure to understand that limitation can
    and does lead to Evil.
    
    Remember, that it was not until after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden
    fruit, that they knew that they were naked.  Paul was perceptive when
    he said that all things that are precede from conscience are good. 
    That which does not precede from conscience is not good.
    
                                  Patricia

    Hi Patricia, thanks for your thoughtful reply.  I respectfully disagree
    with you on certain points, though.
    
>    The quest for absolute knowledge is central to original sin.  Absolute
>    knowledge will not be achieved by humanity. 
    
    This is different from the absolutes I am speaking of.  No, mankind
    will not achieve absolute knowledge (as in knowing ALL or understanding
    ALL that there is to be learned from His Word), but this does not mean that
    mankind is in the dark on things that are right and wrong- which are
    moral absolutes.  Why give us His word- which clearly defines certain
    rights and wrongs- if He really didn't mean it?  We cannot pick and
    choose what we like and benefit from it fully.
    
    I think everyone can agree that murder is wrong (not to be confused
    with the execution of a criminal- that's another subject).  We can all
    agree that rape is wrong.  We can all agree that child molestation is
    wrong (and really goes under "rape", in my book).  Although determining
    absolutes do not depend on mankind's opinions, the above examples help
    to make the point that some behaviors/acts are simply wrong.
    
    If you use the Bible as your standard, then a good study of its pages
    will reveal many things that are *absolutely* wrong, and things that
    are *absolutely* right.  I don't view these things as limitations on
    behavior, but as the proper way to conduct life to get the most out of
    it.  God isn't a domineering, spitefully strict being, He is a loving
    God who wants us to be all we can be (to steal the "Army" theme  8^) ).
    He knows the best way for that to happen- thus His "rules".  These
    rules are for our benefit, not God's.  When we don't understand them or
    think they are unfair, we tend to rationalize those actions we wish to
    participate in.
   
>    I truly believe that it is sinful to attempt to make the Bible
>    absolute.  
    
    This depends on what you mean by "absolute".  You can certainly find
    absolutes in the Bible (God created the universe, God created man, God
    is good, God is loving, etc.), including behaviors that are wrong (thou
    shall no murder, thou shall not steal, thou shall not commit adultery,
    etc.).
    
>    The Bible if worshipped for itself is like the statues of
>    gold, bronze, and silver worship for the power inherent in them.  The
>    Bible, when worshipped for itself is just another rationalization for
>    enforcing sinful social structures and moral codes.
 
    Define sinful social structures and moral codes, as you see them.  I
    really can't address this without a bit more information.   
       
>    If God wanted humanity to have absolute knowledge of good and evil, God
>    would have made absolute knowledge unequivocally known.
 
    Absolute knowledge is still beside the point.  God DID make known an
    absolute behavioral code.  He did say that some things are *absolutely*
    wrong.  This was my point in the previous post.  There are things
    absolutely defined as being wrong in the Bible.  People who do not wish
    to change their behavior will reinvent moralality to suit themseleves. 
    This is why "personal morality", without a good basis in the Bible, is
    not always a good thing. 
      
>    The charges of arrogance levied against those who believe they have
>    absolute knowledge of what God requires is based on Faith in one's own
>    spiritual path and annoyance at those who insist that their spiritual path
>    is the only enlightened path.
 
    Parroting what Jesus said is not being arrogant.  You are free to
    ignore the litteral teachings of the Bible- that is your choice (please
    note that these are generic "you"s).  You cannot argue that such a
    teaching does not exist, or reinvent the passage on some abstract, out
    of context basis, and be theologically sound.  Jesus said He is the only
    way to the Father.  If you believe the Bible, then you have to accept
    this.  If you don't believe the Bible, then this should be of no
    consequence to you.  [still using generic "you"s]
    
>    I have also personally experienced people using the Bible as a tool of
>    oppression against me, against my sisters, and against my Gay and
>    Lesbian friends.  
    
    I am curious about hese experiences.  Would you be willing to
    elaborate?  The Bible should not be used to oppress anyone, it should be
    used as a guide to life.  However, there is something "offensive" in it
    to all of us, since it tells us that by nature we are a fallen race- 
    that our natures are vile and corrupt.  It also tells us that we are
    responsible and accountable for our actions (something that is very
    unpopular in the modern world), and that not all behaviors are
    acceptable to God (something people really hate to hear).
    
    Defining right and wrong behavior is not oppressive, any more than
    having laws against murder is.  In either case, you choose to accept or
    reject the laws and are fully responsible for the consequences.
       
>    So if I object to what you have identified as an absolute truth or an
>    absolute piece of knowledge, it is not because I refuse to accept
>    absolutes, but because I believe that humanities understanding of
>    absolutes is limited and a failure to understand that limitation can
>    and does lead to Evil.
 
    Stating that certain behavior is absolutely wrong, because the Bible
    clearly says so, is not the stuff that evil is made of.  Tossing out the
    obvious truths in the Bible is not the answer to the problems of
    abusive usage of those who confuse the sin for the sinner.  All you are
    doing is neutering the Bible by watering it down relativisticly.  Not 
    everything is a grey area, as many would like to believe.  There are 
    absolute rights and wrongs, and we don't have to be God to know a few of 
    them, as He has made such things known to us.  
    
    The problem comes when the Bible is not read in context-
    in which case, nearly anything can be judiciously twisted to condone
    whatever behavior is desired.
       
>    Remember, that it was not until after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden
>    fruit, that they knew that they were naked.  
    
    The word translated as "naked", in this passage, means more than just
    physical nakedness.  It means emotional nakedness, as well (openness,
    no secrets).  In an earlier passage, it reads that both Adam and Eve
    were naked, and they were not ashamed, which helps to put this in
    context a bit better.
    
    Until the fall, they were both physically and emotionally "naked" with
    each other, sharing in a deep relationship beyond what (I imagine) we
    can understand today.  Even more importand was their "nakedness" before
    God that was lost in the fall.
    
    But I digress...
    
    
    -steve

    
    >This is different from the absolutes I am speaking of.  No, mankind
    >will not achieve absolute knowledge (as in knowing ALL or understanding
    >ALL that there is to be learned from His Word), but this does not mean that
    >mankind is in the dark on things that are right and wrong- which are
    >moral absolutes.
    
    >I think everyone can agree that murder is wrong (not to be confused
    >with the execution of a criminal- that's another subject).  We can all
    >agree that rape is wrong.  We can all agree that child molestation is
    >wrong (and really goes under "rape", in my book).  Although determining
    >absolutes do not depend on mankind's opinions, the above examples help
    >to make the point that some behaviors/acts are simply wrong.
    
    Everyone may agree that murder is wrong, but people cannot agree on
    what is murder.  abortion?  Euthanasia?  War?  Execution?  Self
    Defense?  Today most people believe that rape is wrong, but
    traditionally there have been many cases where rape was not considered
    wrong.  And for most of history, the wrong was not considered the harm
    done to the woman but the deterioration of property value of the women
    to the father or husband.  Today many people do not agree that it is
    wrong for a husband to rape his wife for instance.
    
    >If you use the Bible as your standard, then a good study of its pages
    >will reveal many things that are *absolutely* wrong, and things that
    >are *absolutely* right.
    
    People who use the bible as a standard of morality tend to be
    conservative reactionary people who use the cultural biases located in
    the Bible as an excuse for continuing the cultural biases.  The eternal
    in the Bible is often set aside in favour of the limited.  The Bible is
    not a unity.  It is a collection of writings.  One can easily argue
    almost any position based on the writings in the Bible.  Everyone who
    uses the bible selects those passages that support his/her point.
    
>  You can certainly find
>    absolutes in the Bible (God created the universe, God created man, God
>    is good, God is loving, etc.),
    
    I agree
    
    > However, there is something "offensive" in it
    >to all of us, since it tells us that by nature we are a fallen race- 
    >that our natures are vile and corrupt.  It also tells us that we are
    >responsible and accountable for our actions (something that is very
    >unpopular in the modern world), and that not all behaviors are
    >acceptable to God (something people really hate to hear).
    
    There is something offensive in the theology that human nature is vile
    and corrupt and humanity can do nothing about it, but humanity is still
    accountable for being corrupt and vile.  
    
    Again I do not believe that this accurately potrays what the Bible has
    to say.  It is a certain theological understanding of the Bible.
    
    >Defining right and wrong behavior is not oppressive, any more than
    >having laws against murder is.  In either case, you choose to accept or
    >reject the laws and are fully responsible for the consequences.
    
    I agree with Paul, who tells us to live by our own conscience and our
    own faith.
    
    >Stating that certain behavior is absolutely wrong, because the Bible
    >clearly says so, is not the stuff that evil is made of.
    
    It certainly can be.  The clearest current example is in using the
    Bible to oppress gay and lesbians.  That is evil.  The is very little
    in the way of specific moral codes that the Bible is clear on.  Most
    who use the Bible to oppress, ignore the warnings in the Bible about
    behavoir that they participate in, and use the Bible to judge the
    behavoir of others instead.  the most appropriate use of the Bible is
    in using the inspiration to guide one's own life and action.  Keeping
    the focus on oneself and not on the evils of others.
    
>  Not 
>    everything is a grey area, as many would like to believe. 
    
    THere is very little in the world that is binary.  Good or Bad.
    
   > The problem comes when the Bible is not read in context-
   > in which case, nearly anything can be judiciously twisted to condone
   > whatever behavior is desired.
   
    I agree.  But then who decides who is reading the Bible in context and
    who is twisting it?
    
    >The word translated as "naked", in this passage, means more than just
    >physical nakedness.  It means emotional nakedness, as well (openness,
    >no secrets).  In an earlier passage, it reads that both Adam and Eve
    >were naked, and they were not ashamed, which helps to put this in
    >context a bit better.
    
    >Until the fall, they were both physically and emotionally "naked" with
    >each other, sharing in a deep relationship beyond what (I imagine) we
    >can understand today.  Even more importand was their "nakedness" before
    >God that was lost in the fall.
    
      The Adam and Eve story is a powerful story because of its many
    differing interpretations.  I donn't believe that there ever actually
    was a time of paradise when everything was bliss.  I believe that it is
    an alegory for the dawn of consciousness in the evolution of humankind.
    
    >But I digress...
    
    But I too digress.
    
    Patricia

    re: .21
    
>    Everyone may agree that murder is wrong, but people cannot agree on
>    what is murder.  
    
    The most accepted definition is the wrongful killing
    of an innocent person.  We can agree on this definition, I imagine.
    We can obfusicate by bringing up whether the unborn is a person or not,
    but I'd rather not go down that road here.  The death penalty is not
    murder, but meting of punishment for specific crimes (the one killed is
    not innocent).  Euthenasia is another rathole I'd rather avoid for now.
    
>    Today most people believe that rape is wrong, but
>    traditionally there have been many cases where rape was not considered
>    wrong. 
    
    Which only furthers my point about a wishy-washy morality.  Just
    because you feel it isn't wrong, does not mean it isn't.  
        
>    People who use the bible as a standard of morality tend to be
>    conservative reactionary people who use the cultural biases located in
>    the Bible as an excuse for continuing the cultural biases.  
    
    This is quite a generalization (a negative one, to boot) for those who
    use the Bible as their standard of morality.  FWIW, I have yet to find
    in my church a Bible-believing Christian that fits your generalization. 
    In fact, I don't know ANY Christian who fits your view, at least not
    personally.
    
>    The eternal
>    in the Bible is often set aside in favour of the limited.  The Bible is
>    not a unity.  It is a collection of writings.  
    
    I disagree here.  It is very interconnected.  The more I learn of it,
    the more I see this.  This is fodder for another discussion, though.
    
>    One can easily argue
>    almost any position based on the writings in the Bible.  Everyone who
>    uses the bible selects those passages that support his/her point.
 
    I've said as much myself.  This is why you cannot pick and choose what
    you wish to believe.  Accept the whole, in context, or don't bother
    with it.  Sound bites will only lead you astray, for the most part.
        
>    There is something offensive in the theology that human nature is vile
>    and corrupt and humanity can do nothing about it, but humanity is still
>    accountable for being corrupt and vile.  
 
    You ignore the other half of the equation.  By accepting Christ as our
    savior, we *can* live a Godly life (not a perfect life, as we
    will continue to sin, but we will be viewed by God through the
    righteousness of Jesus), as we then become empowered to do so by the
    Holy Spirit.  We are free of the bondage of sin, as well as the
    ultimate price of sin- spiritual death.  
     
>    Again I do not believe that this accurately potrays what the Bible has
>    to say.  It is a certain theological understanding of the Bible.
 
    But this is exactly what the Bible portrays (man's sinful nature).  The
    whole purpose is first to show us that we all have fallen short of the
    glory of God, that we need intervention outside ourselves (we can't
    save ourselves).  Then it tells us how Jesus sacrificed Himself for
    our sakes so that we need not be condemned.  Next in importance, it
    shows us how to live a victorious life in Christ- outlining how we
    should behave, etc.
    
    Missing hell is the easy part.  The hard part is living the good life,
    gaining treasures in heaven as we go (hopefully).  I don't know about
    anyone else, but I want Jesus to say to me- when I come before Him-
    "well done my good and faithful servant".  I do not want to come before
    Him without at least giving life my best shot- to try to follow Him the
    best I can with what I am given.  
       
>    >Defining right and wrong behavior is not oppressive, any more than
>    >having laws against murder is.  In either case, you choose to accept or
>    >reject the laws and are fully responsible for the consequences.
    
>    I agree with Paul, who tells us to live by our own conscience and our
>    own faith.
 
    Paul does not tell you to live by "your own" faith- as in make up your
    own doctrine.  He is speaking to Christians when he mentions "following 
    conscience", if I remember correctly.  We are to live by faith, yes,
    but we cannot ignore God's word, replacing it with our own feelings.  
    
    I don't have a Bible handy, so I cannot put this in proper
    context, currently.  What you post seems to be taking a "sound bite"
    form the Bible.  I believe you leave out much context in this instance.
       
>    >Stating that certain behavior is absolutely wrong, because the Bible
>    >clearly says so, is not the stuff that evil is made of.
    
>    It certainly can be.  The clearest current example is in using the
>    Bible to oppress gay and lesbians.  
    
    Oppress?  Who is oppressing gay and lesbians?  Do Christians say that
    these types or relations are outside God's will for mankind?  Yes.  Do
    they say that homosexual/lesbian sex is wrong?  Yes.  This is stating a
    very clear and simple Biblical position.
    
    I think we will have to define "oppress" before continuing, however. 
    We may be on two different wavelengths here.
    
>    That is evil.  The is very little
>    in the way of specific moral codes that the Bible is clear on.  
    
    Idolotry is wrong.  Murder is wrong.  Stealing is wrong.  Adultery is
    wrong.  Fornication is wrong.  Etc.   Rights and wrongs are defined
    throughout the Bible via examples and direct verbiage.  I find it
    interesting that you do not see this.  
    
>    Most
>    who use the Bible to oppress, ignore the warnings in the Bible about
>    behavoir that they participate in, and use the Bible to judge the
>    behavoir of others instead.  
    
    We are to judge behaviors.  We are to state right from wrong.  What
    would be wrong is judgeing a person (condemnation of person, rather
    than behavior).  If I was doing something that was wrong, that I wasn't
    aware of as being wrong, I certainly hope some Christian would tell me
    that I am not heeding God's word in my behavior (in effect, they would
    be judgeing my behavior).
    
    Stating right from wrong is not evil in any sense of the word.  To
    suggest that it is evil, is simply not Biblical.
    
>    the most appropriate use of the Bible is
>    in using the inspiration to guide one's own life and action.  Keeping
>    the focus on oneself and not on the evils of others.
 
    Actually, I agree until you get to the "focus on oneself" part.  This
    is actually part of the problem of human nature, and why God say to
    focus on Him.  If we focus on God, putting him first (above self), then
    we can really start making some progress.
      
>    THere is very little in the world that is binary.  Good or Bad.
 
    I disagree.  I suggest that this is a worldly view of right and wrong,
    and not a Biblical view. 
           
    
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    You and I have different beliefs about the nature of the Bible, how it
    should be studied, and how it should be applied to our lives.
    
    Based on that difference we come to different conclusions on almost all
    the items listed.
    
    Both of us are passionate about our individual faiths and both of us
    are convinced that our own way of perceiving reality is the correct
    way.
    
    Interesting, in spite of that difference, there are areas where we do
    agree.
    
                            Patricia

    <---  We agree again.  8^)

    In that case Richard, what do you think of the man who wanted to be
    executed and yet Governor Cuomo from New York would not allow him to be 
    sent to Texas in order to have the sentence carried out?  I imagine you
    would take the stand that Governor Cuomo made a mistake here.
    
    God referred to some as murderers and some as manslayers...and our
    penal code recognizes these differences as legitamate.  Now, my other
    question is this.  If you give a beggar money and he buys a drink with
    it and dies, are you a murderer, a manslayer, or was it the beggars
    choice?  If it was the beggars choice, then what differentiates the
    beggar from the soldier who dies in battle considering the soldier made
    a choice of his own free volition as well?
    
    -Jack

    .25  I deleted my entry, Jack.  Wrong topic.
    
    Let's face it, Jack.  You aren't going to convince me and I'm not going
    to convince you of anything.  So why bother?
    
    Richard
    

    That's what notes is all about Richard.  My question is a good one
    because it forces you to consider that perhaps...just perhaps...your
    definition may not be as black and white as you want it to be.
    
    So why bother?  Because it may force you to reconsider your position
    and I believe this is vital to anybody's ability to learn.  Otherwise,
    we stay within our own paradigms...our own caccoons...and we come out
    with the same uninformed opinions that we had years ago.  That's why!
    
    -Jack

    By the way, I wasn't implying you are uninformed.  Just merely pointing
    out that as an example, a white separatist remains so because they
    don't broaden their horizons of learning.  Likewise, people will love
    Kennedy and McGovern to the grave.  No difference.
    
    Murder is not as black and white as you would make it.  Especially in
    light of scriptural and historical evidence.
    
    -Jack

    I don't think that's what notes are all about.  I do think it's what
    some noters are all about.
    
    One of the chief beefs the fundamentalists have with me is that I'm
    not an absolutist -- not having things black and white enough!
    What's it they call me?  Oh yeah, "a relativist."  I guess it all
    depends on whose bull is being gored.
    
    Richard
    

>    Murder is not as black and white as you would make it.  Especially in
>    light of scriptural and historical evidence.

But apparently it's as black and white as you would make it.

Richard

    It's a waste of energy, Jack.  "Matter and anti-matter."  Your own
    articulation!
    
    Richard
    

    
    Seems like your having a bad day, Richard. :^) But I do realize how
    passionately you abhor state sanctioned murder.
    
    	Eric

    Richard, if it is a waste, then why don't you become a read only in
    these matters instead of starting a discussion then pulling this stuff!
    
    -Jack

    
    >  Murder is not as black and white as you would make it.

    Funny I feel this way about homosexuality and mixed marriages, but
    not murder.

    Eric

>    Richard, if it is a waste, then why don't you become a read only in
>    these matters instead of starting a discussion then pulling this stuff!

Some solution, Jack.  Based in Scripture, no doubt.

Richard

    Richard, I can see there is a lot of pent up anger within you.  This is
    the appearance you are portraying to me right now.  Resentment over
    something...who knows what.  
    
    Getting pissed off at the world and everybody who disagrees with you is
    no way to maintain dialog.  Cynicism also tends to erode serious
    stimulating conversation.
    
    Now, would you care to address the issue of murder I raised with the
    beloved Mario Cuomo or will this weaken the web you have so easily
    tangled yourself with.
    
    -Jack

    .36
    
    I deleted my entry before I read yours.  I've stated my position in
    many other entries.  You already know what it is.
    
    Been down this road repeatedly with you before.  Ain't no use in
    pretending like we haven't.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Richard, since you deleted .24, I can't claim you spurred the
    conversation.  
    
    You may not want to go down the road again but you can't deny that your
    position on murder has grey areas.  I think it's too bad you don't wish
    to answer these points.  I suspect you don't really have a clear answer
    to give.
    
    -Jack

>    Richard, since you deleted .24, I can't claim you spurred the
>    conversation.

You'd be wrong to claim it even then, since the matter had already been
'spurred' by someone before me.
    
>    You may not want to go down the road again but you can't deny that your
>    position on murder has grey areas.

Not black and white enough for you, eh?

Richard

thank you for coming into this topic, steve leech! 

it will not be difficult for you to tell that i consider those vocal
christians a nuisance, who go into notes conferences to impose their 
religious views with little regard for the preferences of discussion 
topics and habits of the noting community in the particular conference. 

moreover, such vocal exponents are giving their religion a bad name.


.20>	Parroting what Jesus said is not being arrogant.  

when a servant attempts to 'fill the shoes' of a great and perfect
master, the parroting by the servant quickly risks becoming ridiculous 
and cheapening to the message of the master.

a servant with theological qualifications or a good standing (a priest, 
a bishop) will find listeners amongst unbelievers. an extraordinary servant 
who shines through good deeds such as mother theresa, will also find
willing listeners. but one who spouts about the message of jesus, is being
irreverant in my opinion.

i have respect for anyone who lives by his/her convictions. i have even 
more respect for those who dedicate their life to the service of their 
faith. 

one of the difficulties of the christian faith as i see it, is measuring
up to the master's perfection. aren't you called upon to follow in the 
footsteps of your lord jesus? this must open anyone who attempts to do 
so to the dillemma of realising their own imperfection. how can you, in 
this field of tension caused by your own imperfection and your master's 
perfection, assure that you use your master's words in wisdom?




andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    You have just made an excellent case.  The fact is that we CANNOT
    measure up to the masters perfection...we cannot.  And this is the
    message that is continually mentioned by me along with others in this
    conference.  
    
    Since we cannot measure up to a Holy God, redemption and
    sanctification, i.e. salvation and being made Holy and clean, are
    ingredients we need to have bestowed upon us.  Mankind is basically
    sinful and in need of these things, including Christians.
    
    Jesus recognized this fact...that throughout the life of a Christian
    there was always going to be a battle between the flesh and the Spirit.
    Where the flesh wins the battle, the blood of Jesus cleanses.  However,
    the war has already been decided and even if a believer falls into
    temptation, the person is victorious only through grace and mercy.
    
    -Jack

    Jack
    
    Re -1
    
    One of the unfortunate theological stances within Christianity is the
    separation of Body and Spirit.  Body and Spirit are one.  The body is
    good.  The spirit is good.  All persons fall short of perfection.  I
    agree.  That does not mean that either Body or Spirit are bad.  In fact
    redemption may be the holy union of body and spirit.  The union of our
    sexuality with our spirituality.
    
    I personally like to think of sex as a sacrament!
    
    
                                       Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    It does seem unfortunate...then again, poverty, war, hunger, and death
    are also unfortunate.  I don't like any of these elements of society or
    the world and yet I must accept them as fact.  I believe separation of
    body and spirit is fact because this fact is verified by the words of
    Jesus, the Psalms, and the prophets.
    
    Jeremiah for example, stated that the heart of man is deceitful, and
    above all things desparately wicked.  Who can know it?  
    
    Both the Apostle Paul and King David, both prophets in their own right, 
    have stated that the spirit of man is dead.  "For I am dead in sin and
    yet it is not I who live but Christ who lives in me.  And the life I
    live is by the one who loved me, and gave himself to me."  
    
    Christianity teaches that we are separated from God and that the flesh 
    will return to dust just as it came from dust.  The spirit is dead
    and it is the Spirit of God who needs to dwell within us.  This is why
    our bodies are the temple of the Holy Spirit.
    
    -Jack

jack, are you suggesting in all earnest that the holy spirit 
is speaking through *YOU*? ;-)




andreas.

    Jack,
    
    the separation of Body and Spirit is not a fact!
    
    It is a philosophical/Theological stance arising out of Hellenistic
    philosophy and incorporated into much of Christianity.  Biblically it
    can be argued, but I'm not interested in doing that.
    
    The philosophical/Theological separation of body and spirit is harmful.
    
    
                                           Patricia

    Andreas, as crazy as it sounds, I believe it is God who inspires us
    when we discuss Christian issues.  Remember, when Paul was writing to
    the Corinthian church, he said, "I planted, Apollos watered, but God
    causes the growth."  The scripture also teaches that No man comes unto
    the Father except the Spirit of God draw him.  
    
    I believe we speak of our own volition, which obviously gives us the
    ability to screw up, to speak out of turn, to put our foot in our
    mouths.  However, when somebody asks me how to get saved, I believe
    that what I say is prompted by God...it is not Gods voice as he would
    use a prophet, but it is my thought, my voice driven by the Spirit of
    God.  We are to be God's witnesses throughout the world.  
    
    -Jack

  ZZ    Biblically it
  ZZ    can be argued, but I'm not interested in doing that.
    
    I know your not, and I believe that is very harmful.
    
    -Jack

.46> Andreas, as crazy as it sounds, I believe it is God who inspires us
.46> when we discuss Christian issues.  

yep, we're all a bunch of crazies! :-) now turn this bunch lose on unbelievers 
and see what you get! :-)




andreas.

.45> the separation of Body and Spirit is not a fact!
    
.45> It is a philosophical/Theological stance arising out of Hellenistic
.45> philosophy and incorporated into much of Christianity.  

the french philosopher des cartes (pre-enlightenment) also held on to 
this stance.



andreas.

    Much of Western Civilization and Philosophy holds onto this stance. 
    The stance right now is being challenged most strongly by Feminist
    philosophers and theologians.  The separation of Body and Spirit has
    been most detrimental to women as the Spiritual and Intellectual has
    been associated with the Male and the light.  The Bodily and Emotional
    has been associated with the Female and the dark.  Wholeness comes when
    each of us unite all of our faculties.  Body, Soul, Mind, and Heart. 
    All good.  All created in the image of the divine.  All represented by
    the Incarnation of the Divine Jesus Christ.

    re .49

    I thought Descartes believed that although the Body and Soul (his
    word for spirit, I believe) were distinct entities, they were,
    nonetheless, inseparable in humans. 

    	Eric 

i'll be checking up on descartes. as far as i recall, his view was
on spirit/body running in 'parallel'. though this is definitely a rathole 
in this topic.


have a nice weekend all!

andreas.

    re: .50
    
    That's an...interesting way of looking at the subject.  I've personally
    never associated women with darkness (even in the roundabout way you
    list), but perhaps I am unique amoung all my Christian brothers? 
    Perhaps, but I seriously doubt it.
    
    I understand where you are coming from on this one, FWIW, I merely disagree
    with your conclusions.  I must also admit that I have a problem with 
    "feminist philosophers and theologians".  Christian theology is not male 
    nor female, but Godcentric.  To me, "feminist theologians" sounds as if 
    those theologians have an agenda of their own making, outside of God's
    revelation in His word.  Such agendas- whether feminist or patriarchal-
    will only get in the way of the Holy Spirit's revelation of wisdom
    and understanding within the word of God.
    
    
    -steve

    Steve,
    
    Most scholars who study the bible recognize that the Bible is written
    from the perspective of men.   Simple things like the covenant between
    God and the Hebrews in which "God" told the hebrews that in preparation
    for the convenant they must sustain from sexual relations with their
    wifes in order to prepare the Hebrews (men) for their meeting with God,
    show that women are not fully included within the Biblical texts.
    
    The Bible is patriarchal.  It shows the history of Biblical Men with a
    few women thrown in.  Often we do not even know the names of the women. 
    Usually they are identified as wives or mothers.  Their roles are
    usually to give birth to or mother children for the heroes of the
    stories, the men.
    
    Feminist Scholars start from the assumption that the bible is flawed in
    showing only one side of the story.  Feminist Scholars accept that this
    is true for all historic writings.  Throughout history women have been
    consider "other than" and "less than" man.  Feminist Scholars view the
    Bible with a "Hermeneutic of Suspicion" a term defined by Elizabeth
    Schusser Fiorenza.
    
    With its flaws, the Bible is still the most complete record of God's
    activity with humankind.  It is not God who ordained the Bible to be
    one sided, but the men who wrote it based on the cultures of the day. 
    The bible is not above the androcentric (male centered) nature of the
    cultures.
    
    By addressing these flaws Feminist Scholars ask questions about the
    Bible that men never thought to ask.  New meaning is found for both
    women and men.  THe amazing thing is that even when women approach the 
    bible with suspicion and ask very critical questions of the Bible, the
    Bible itself, and particularly the Gospels reveal themselves as
    liberation texts.  Jesus' interaction with women, as only hinted at in
    the texts was absolutely revolutionary for the time.  Even Paul, who is
    a chauvanist, reveals in his writing the extraordinary role played by
    women apostles in the early Christian movement.
    
    I am a feminist and I aspire to be a Feminist Theologian.  THis does
    not mean that I am looking for special treatment of women or to reverse
    the traditional roles.
    
    It means for me, that all literature, all history, all culture, all
    speech needs to address the role of gender.  Women and men have both
    been systematically oppressed, and spiritual growth for women and men,
    means recovering our full personhoods.
    
                            Patricia
    
    address the role of gender.

   Z     Their roles are
   Z     usually to give birth to or mother children for the heroes of the
   Z     stories, the men.
    
    It's a good thing you said usually. Esther's acts of faith saved the
    nation of Israel from extinction!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I did say usually.  I am aware of the handful of women heroes in the
    Bible.  
    
    A handful of allusions to women does not make the work balanced!

    ZZ    A handful of allusions to women does not make the work balanced!
    
    Well, rewriting the Bible is not an option and we can't turn back the
    clock and rewrite history.  Therefore, how would we be able to achieve
    such balance?
    
    -Jack

    Feminist Theologians are striving to achieve balance by acknowledging
    the Bible as a onesided document, analyzing what is said, and what is
    missing about women and their lifes, and investigating items that have
    not previously been considered important enough to investigate.
    
    some women are actually writing parts of the Bible from a woman's
    perspective.  One example I have seen is an attempt to encourage women
    to rewrite the story of Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice from
    Sara's perspective.
    
    There is a vast amount of  very good literature available from feminist
    theologians and Biblical scholars.
    
                                     Patricia

    That is all well and good; but what will feminist theologians do with
    all the information once they collect all of it?  I mean, no doubt
    there may come some excellent books and sources of information out of
    it; however it seems it wouldn't be able to go any farther.
    
Z    some women are actually writing parts of the Bible from a woman's
Z    perspective.  One example I have seen is an attempt to encourage
Z    women to rewrite the story of Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice from
Z        Sara's perspective.
    
    Hmmm, I would be very interested in the accuracy of these writings.  Do
    they have any documentation to back up their writings as credible
    sources or is it more fictitious?  I don't use fictitious
    perjoratively.  I for example, believe Ben Hur to be one of the
    greatest movies ever made; and yet it was fictitious.
    
    If these theologians are actually writing these as part of a new
    version of the Bible, I would strongly recommend avoiding them. 
    
    -Jack

.57> we can't turn back the clock and rewrite history. Therefore, how would 
.57> we be able to achieve such balance?
    
"you read out of history what place into it", paraphrasing hegel.

history is being rewritten continually as our knowledge of historical
facts increase and as our perspectives change.



andreas. 

    The problem is Andreas, that the Bible is not just a history book.  The
    Bible is God breathed and is penned by prophets.  
    
    Also, remember that the Israelites considered the Torah something to be
    looked upon divinely, since the Torah came from God on Mount Sinai.  It
    would stand to reason that the Israelites followed the Torah closely
    and therefore women would not have had the opportunities in that
    culture to take leadership roles.  Therefore, very little if any
    history would exist to bring the equality feminist theologians would
    hope for.
    
    -Jack

>   The problem is Andreas, that the Bible is not just a history book.  The
>   Bible is God breathed and is penned by prophets.  

that may be so, jack. it doesn't change the fact that you'll only ever find 
in it, what you're looking for in the first place. therefore, feminist 
theologians may well be finding and accumulating biblical evidence in support 
of a more even balance between men and women. and their biblically supported
views may one day become the mainstream view; who knows.



andreas.

    The bottom line is this.  God is the potter, we are the clay. 
    We are molded by God and used as vessels for his purposes.  Therefore,
    in the long run, balance is a chasing after the wind.  It kind of
    reminds me of that bumper sticker:
    
    "Capitalistic Proverb:  He who dies with the most toys, wins."
    
    -Jack

.63>  The bottom line is this.  God is the potter, we are the clay. 
.63>  We are molded by God and used as vessels for his purposes.  

if the only way of knowing god is through the bible then i don't see
how this gets you out of the 'fix'...



andreas.

    What fix?!

see .62

    
    Hegel is just one voice among many.  If history is not knowable then
    much of science (especially geology) is a farce.  This conclusion is
    inescapable.  
    
    jeff

    re: .54
    
    If the Bible was truly patriarchal, there would be no women heroes in
    it, IMO.  Since God inspired it, however, there are female heroes in
    it.  God uses the lives of those who came before us as examples- both
    good and bad.  He does not pull any punches, or gloss over the sin of
    the many male heroes.  Neither does he allow the exclusion of the
    female heroes whom he deems to be good examples for future generations.
    
    I think that if you are determined to see something in the Bible-
    whether it be there or not- you will find it.  Unfortunately, many
    deceptions have come about in this manner.  History is littered with
    those who use the Bible to push an agenda that is not quite Biblical.
    
    "Feminist" shows bias, IMO, and studying it with a bias may mislead.  You 
    must look at it neutrally- neither man nor woman centric, but as being 
    both "mankind" centric (history and a guide for living) and Godcentric 
    (being God's word for mankind and His history and future with mankind).
    Don't read anything into it that isn't there; do not "expand" the
    stories other than to clarify the context (with historical facts from
    that time).
    
    To me, magnefying the scriptures in specific ways seems to have been
    the cause for our past sins of treating woman as second class citizens. 
    ymmv.
    
    
    -steve       

>    "Feminist" shows bias, IMO, and studying it with a bias may mislead. 
    
    Feminist believe that it is impossible to study any document without a 
    bias.  We believe that we are more honest in identifying our bias than
    those who think they are neutral.
    
    >
    > You 
    >must look at it neutrally- neither man nor woman centric, but as being 
    >both "mankind" centric (history and a guide for living) and Godcentric 
  >  (being God's word for mankind and His history and future with mankind).
    
    THere is nothing neutral in those assumptions.
    
    1. You assume that it is not biased in favor of man nor woman,
    therefore you will not see any biases that do exist.
    
    2.  You assume that it is God's word for mankind and his history and
    future with mankind.  Therefore you will not see in the Bible those
    elements that are clearly not redemptive.
    
    You have explicitly stated your biases while claiming to be neutral in
    your interpretation.
    
    >Don't read anything into it that isn't there; do not "expand" the
    >stories other than to clarify the context (with historical facts from
    >that time).
    
    The details of the lives, aspirations, dreams, and religious practices
    of women are not contained in the document except in fragments. 
    Feminists suggest that we all open our minds and imaginations to do the
    best job we can of filling in the missing detail, knowing that our
    accomplishment will not be perfect, but also knowing that it will
    provide pathways to truth not accessible through other techniques.  It
    is unfortunate that the majority of the human race needs to reconstruct
    their history which has been neglected and lost.
    
                                Patricia
    To me, magnefying the scriptures in specific ways seems to have been
    the cause for our past sins of treating woman as second class citizens. 
    ymmv.
    
    
    -steve       

Z    Feminists suggest that we all open our minds and imaginations to do the
Z    best job we can of filling in the missing detail, knowing that our
Z    accomplishment will not be perfect, but also knowing that it will
Z    provide pathways to truth not accessible through other techniques. 
    
    Could you expound a little bit on the last part?  How can we provide
    pathways to truth by using our imaginations?  Consider Charles Manson.
    He kills the Tates, blacks get blamed, race warfare begins, white man
    loses, black man cannot cope with leadership, Manson comes along and
    governs the world.  Now there is an example of using ones imagination
    to find truth...and he FIRMLY believed in this truth.
    
    No doubt this is a heavy example to use; however, when one tries to
    canonize fabricated "truth" with scripture, you may very well be mixing
    light with darkness.  Which is why I asked, When feminist theologians
    put together these truths, what are they intending to do with the
    information?
    
    -Jack

    re: .69
    
>    Feminist believe that it is impossible to study any document without a 
>    bias.  We believe that we are more honest in identifying our bias than
>    those who think they are neutral.
 
    I disagree.  If you recognize your own natural biases, you can
    effectively neutralize them.  Identifying your bias is a good thing,
    IMO, but to continue to study the Word- based on your bias- is not.
    
    It's like when you read that certain things are a sin (thing you do,
    things you like to do).  You can use your bias to read into other
    scriptures that it is not indeed sin (rationalization), or you can
    accept the fact that the Bible calls it sin.  Though your biases CAN
    affect the way you study the Bible, if you are intellectually honest
    with yourself, you can overcome your biases and read the scriptures
    neutrally.
       
    
>    > You 
>    >must look at it neutrally- neither man nor woman centric, but as being 
>    >both "mankind" centric (history and a guide for living) and Godcentric 
>  >  (being God's word for mankind and His history and future with mankind).
    
>    THere is nothing neutral in those assumptions.
    
>    1. You assume that it is not biased in favor of man nor woman,
>    therefore you will not see any biases that do exist.
 
    And if I see that no biases exist, what then?  I guess I will not read
    into the Bible that women are second-class citizens.  You fail to see
    that since I read no biases into it, I will get none out of it, either
    (...and isn't this the very problem you denounce?  using the Bible as a
    tool for patriarchy?).
       
>    2.  You assume that it is God's word for mankind and his history and
>    future with mankind.  Therefore you will not see in the Bible those
>    elements that are clearly not redemptive.
 
    Define "not redemptive".  I don't want to assume your point here, so I
    will need a bit of clarification before I can respond.
       
>    You have explicitly stated your biases while claiming to be neutral in
>    your interpretation.
 
    And what bias have I stated?  The bias of looking at the Bible
    neutrally?  That's quite a stretch of the term, don't you think?
       
>    The details of the lives, aspirations, dreams, and religious practices
>    of women are not contained in the document except in fragments.
    
    What do such details have to do with purpose of scripture?  What
    difference does it make if the Bible had included these things? 
    Aspirations and dreams, outside of God's purpose, are irrelevent.  What
    WE, as humans, WISH to do is irrelevent.  Following God's lead is what
    is relevent.  Examples (mostly of men, I grant you) in the Bible show a
    consistent theme- following God = successful and meaningful life;
    turning from God = disaster.  How many of the male "heroes" felt
    disaster?  How many times do you read about the utter stupidity of the
    male heroes?  
     
>    Feminists suggest that we all open our minds and imaginations to do the
>    best job we can of filling in the missing detail, knowing that our
>    accomplishment will not be perfect, but also knowing that it will
>    provide pathways to truth not accessible through other techniques.  
    
    Perhaps, but perhaps it can lead to deception.  I question the wisdom
    of using imagination in place of historical facts.  Perhaps some
    interesting and spiritual novels (fiction) can be written on such
    details, which I think is a good idea.  It has to be labelled as
    fiction, though, when there is a lack of historical facts to back it
    up.  Even fiction can be used by God to inspire/bless people.   
    
    I still do not think it wise to be <insert political agenda> Bible
    Scholar.  I think "Bible Scholar" (generic) is the best way to go. 
        

    
    -steve       

re .68



attempting to read the bible from a neutral perspective and clarifying
context with historical facts sounds like a wise approach.

since historical fact is not a static body of knowledge but a dynamic
(growing) body of knowledge, how do new historical facts influence your
reading of biblical texts?

when you say you take a 'neutral perspective' do you mean to imply independent
of gender, age, period, ethnicity, educational and social background and 
so on. if your personal god speaks to you through the bible then i can 
imagine that all these factors which make up your person would also determine 
how you read the words. to be neutral would then be a goal, though perhaps 
a goal which one would always strive for though could never hope to achieve?

if a feminist says "i am taking a feminist perspective" then i would say
she's saying nothing new. isn't everyone somehow limited by perspectives
and aren't we all trying to some extent to take a more neutral approach.
in my experience that's easier said than done and overcoming limiting
perspectives, is what feminism is all about.




andreas.

    If I may...I know the question is directed to Steve. 
    
    Deviance from truth is usually based on two things.  One being a lack
    of understanding and the other being intellectual dishonesty. 
    Sometimes this dishonesty is not malicious...sometimes one is in
    essence being dishonest with themselves.
    
    In my case, I try very much not to be dishonest.  Many times I am
    ignorant of fact due to lack of understanding, but if something is
    there, I cannot simply avoid it.  I find impatience sometimes with
    people who don't practice intellectual honesty because they are being
    deceptive to others but more importantly to themselves.  
    
    Jesus was quoted in John 10 as saying, "I and the Father are One."
    Therefore, it would be easy for me to exploit this verse to claim Jesus
    is God.  However, this would be intellectually dishonest.  The sentence
    is in the neuter form implying that Jesus and the Father are one in
    purpose.
    
    Moral:  Reading the Bible neutrally involves intellectual honesty.
    
    -Jack

jack, you sure are keen to answer questions today but do you read 
them at all?! :-)

i don't really see how your .73 answers what i asked steve in .72
in a nutshell i asked him how does changing (new) historical fact 
affect his method of reading the bible and how does he avoid being
stuck with one or a set of perspectives.




andreas.

    Yes, I probably didn't answer exactly as you asked.  I was merely
    suggesting that in order to read the Bible neutrally, one has to break
    down the paradigms they have in order to accept new ideas or truth if
    you will.  If a person reads the Bible with an agenda, they are more
    apt to be intellectually dishonest and therefore their study of the
    Bible would not be neutral.
    
    -Jack

thanks jack. that's a quality answer!

i look forward to replying to it though i hope that steve will first 
find a moment to reply to .72



andreas.

    Jack,
    
    Are you suggesting, that to study the Bible, one should begin with no
    paradigms or assumptions about the Bible?
    
                                   Patricia

 Z   Are you suggesting, that to study the Bible, one should begin with
 Z   no paradigms or assumptions about the Bible?
    
    Not necessarily although I believe that would be ideal.  It stands to
    reason that we will have some paradigms; however, what I'm saying is
    that if one is truly seeking after truth...I mean truly seeking it as
    one in the desert searches for water, then one must be open to the
    possiblility that what they find may not meet the expectations they
    started with.  For if we did, we would have a world of stubborn
    Christians with no ability to glean truth.
    
    Consider Paul the Apostle.  Once blinded on the road, his second
    question was, "What will you have me to do?"  Paul's paradigm shifted
    immediately from one of violence toward Christians to one of Christ's
    followers.  Only the Holy Spirit could make such a transformation.
    
    -Jack

    Note 1048.72  
    
>since historical fact is not a static body of knowledge but a dynamic
>(growing) body of knowledge, how do new historical facts influence your
>reading of biblical texts?

    Usually, when such facts relate to scriptures, they help me with both
    context and in bringing the Bible 'to life', so to speak.  Knowing the
    conditions/social structure of the times and places that a passage
    takes place in can really help in bringing home a point or pointing out
    something I may have missed previously.
    
>when you say you take a 'neutral perspective' do you mean to imply independent
>of gender, age, period, ethnicity, educational and social background and 
>so on. 
    
    When I say neutral, I mean taking the Bible as a whole.  I do not use
    select passages to promote an agenda, nor to rationalize my own sins. 
    
    For example, I do not read patriarchy into the Bible.  I do not see
    anything that *promotes* such a structure.  It records history, but does
    not actually promote the continuance of this structure.  If anything, I
    find that the values of men and women are equal, when looking at the
    Bible as a whole.  There are different roles for men and women, which
    shouldn't be surprising since men and women were created in different
    forms (not to mention with differnt ways of thinking).  Neither is more
    valuable or superior than the other, but they are meant to compliment
    one another. 
    
    Those who read the Bible and get a patriarchal view that women are
    second class citizens, or that men are to lord over women, are reading it 
    with bias (and I do not consider being "spiritual head of the family" as 
    being lord of the roost, FWIW).
    
    I also do not see *promotion* of slavery (the Bible was used by some to
    rationalize the morality of slavery), it merely recorded it (and
    mentioned not skin color, FWIW).  Those who wanted to own slaves, who
    felt a need to rationalize this, read the Bible in a very biased way to
    come to the conclusion they wished.
    
>    if your personal god speaks to you through the bible then i can 
>imagine that all these factors which make up your person would also determine 
>how you read the words. to be neutral would then be a goal, though perhaps 
>a goal which one would always strive for though could never hope to achieve?

    Am I perfectly neutral?  No.  I don't think any one of us can be
    "perfect" at anything.  I do try to be aware of my own biases and take
    them into account when reading God's word, though.  I also pray for
    understanding and discernment.
    
>if a feminist says "i am taking a feminist perspective" then i would say
>she's saying nothing new. 
    
    Saying you are taking a feminist perspective is honest.  However,
    studying the Bible *purposefully* with this bias, is not conducive to
    garnering the truth from it, IMO.
    
    
    
    -steve

    RE: .79
    
    >>since historical fact is not a static body of knowledge but a dynamic
    >>(growing) body of knowledge, how do new historical facts influence your
    >>reading of biblical texts?
    >
    >   Usually, when such facts relate to scriptures, they help me with both
    >   context and in bringing the Bible 'to life', so to speak.  Knowing the
    >   conditions/social structure of the times and places that a passage
    >   takes place in can really help in bringing home a point or pointing out
    >   something I may have missed previously.
    
    
    What happens when historical fact conflicts with scriptural fact?
    
    
    /Greg

re .75

>						         I was merely
>   suggesting that in order to read the Bible neutrally, one has to break
>   down the paradigms they have in order to accept new ideas or truth if
>   you will.  

if you break down the paradigms you have prior to reading the bible, then
aren't you opening yourself to brainwashing this way?




andreas.

 Z   if you break down the paradigms you have prior to reading the bible,
 Z   then aren't you opening yourself to brainwashing this way?
    
    Yes, in essence you are having your brain washed.  Scripture does teach
    us that we are to test the spirits...and a certain teaching must
    conform to scripture as a whole.  You will find that most cults have a
    root verse or passage they use to base the whole monument of their
    doctrine upon.  This is not prudent.  
    
    Scripture tells us that the apostles and disciples studied the
    scriptures continually day and night to see if these things were so. 
    Coming from Jewish backgrounds, the disciples were really banking the
    farm.  They were most likely considered outcasts in their society but
    the Word of God brought forth the Spirit and truth.  And they relented
    to this truth.  They studied the scriptures with the neutrality needed
    to change their paradigms.  Peter had a difficult time with this.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1048.80 by nand.amt.tay1.dec.com::SCHULER "Greg, DTN 227-4165" >>>


| What happens when historical fact conflicts with scriptural fact?


	One flips a coin. :-)

    > What happens when historical fact conflicts with scriptural fact?
    
    I haven't had a problem with this happening.  Do you have any examples?
    
    
    -steve

    My guess would be something like the Genesis story and the reliability
    of Carbon 14.
    
    -Jack

re .82


jack, could you perhaps reiterate what you're saying, this time in 
non-scriptural terms? i am having difficulty with understanding.

also, are you sure you mean "brain-washing"?

to be sure, let me state what i understand as brain-washing:

it's a process of self-humiliation and self-mutilation. the former as 
you need to strip yourself of all that is yours, the latter as you need 
to cut off all capability to stand on your own spiritually, thereby 
surrendering/submitting unconditionally to a spiritual entity.




andreas.

from 1136.17 by Jay McCanta


>   It would seem to me that the more important question is "How are you
>   perceived by NON-Christians?"  Are the people you encounter in your
>   life more or less interested in Christ by meeting you?  
    

in my case the encounters with christian zealots in various notes files and 
on street corners have been counter-productive.

whereas in the past, i considered myself a christian, i now take a very 
critical view of christians. as a matter of fact, confronting people who 
appear to have a dogmatic bent on religion and whom i perceive as being far 
removed from reality has actually driven me from a relatively unreflected 
christian position toward a well formed atheist position.

there are, fortunately, many shades of christianity. this conference is a 
case in point. and the better salespersons are likely not the vocal few. 
seeing the various christian factions, i am now more careful with my judgement
on christianity, ie. not to 'spill the baby with the bath-water'.

it is unfortunate however, that, as i have observed, the majority of the 
'christmas-christians' or non-christians seems more likely to be completely
turned off christianity when confronted with religious fervor.




andreas.

    Sorry.  The answer is that you must draw your own conclusions from
    reading scripture.  Brain-Wash was my cute way of saying that the Word
    of God helps you have a clean mind.
    
    In reading the Bible, one must be open to learning...which may force us
    to change the wall we have encased ourselves with.  If we are
    unneutral, then our understanding of scripture is based only on how it
    fits into our agenda.  
    
    This is why I asked Patricia what feminist theologians are going to do
    with information they get from their imaginations.  Truth is open to
    distortion because a bible can be rewritten to put a feminist within
    their comfort zone.  To me, this is selling ones soul but that's just
    my opinion.
    
    -Jack