Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I don't see institutional church membership as a requirement of
    any kind.
    
    At the same time, I consider regular attendance in worship to
    be beneficial, at least, to many.
    
    I think it would be a wonderful thing if churches would make a
    deliberate attempt to work themselves out of business.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>    Isn't it possible for a "Christian" to be just as good as, or better
>    than, any Christian who goes to church every Sunday and Wednesday or
>    Thursday, etc ...

    Well I sure hope it's possible as I haven't attended regularly in
    a couple of years now. I also remember my college days when I took
    some flack for attending only once a week from my conservative friends.

    That being said:

>    What's the "big deal" with a different roof over one's head to do one's
>    prayin' and talkin' to God?

    I do my praying and talking to God at all times and in all places. I
    don't see a church as being required for prayer. On the other hand I
    do enjoy fellowship with other believers. Shared worship is a powerful
    thing. 

    Also there is strength in numbers. Not to deal with God of course but
    to deal with "the world." And a church is a good place to grow through
    shared experiences and teaching. I enjoy the sounds of grouped voices
    singing praise to God. I enjoy the sermons from good preachers open to
    the Holy Spirit. I enjoy the powerful oneness with Jesus that is
    Communion.

    There is also the feeling of a shared commitment. Of people working
    together towards a common goal. Or goals.

    			Alfred

    If you go back to the original greek, the word for "church" is ecclesia
    which means the local assembly.  If you notice the letters of Paul,
    they all start out with, "To the church of..."  Paul was the church
    planter for these regions and since it comes from Gods word and Paul
    was an apostle of Christ, I take this to mean that the local church is
    not only a gathering of people, but also Gods instrument for reaching
    the world for Him.  I think the big question which I am actually still
    seeking an answer for is this.  Was the great commission actually
    directed toward the individual believer, or was it mandated to the
    local church?  Jesus did say, "thou art Peter (Petros) and upon this
    rock (petras) I will build my Church" Matt 16.  Here, Christ says he
    will build the church upon himself.  Peter is referred to as Petros, or
    a small stone.  Nevertheless, the word church comes to play once again.
    
    You will also notice in 1st Timothy and Titus that Paul (keep in mind
    this is God's Word) lays the foundation of the building of a church,
    namely, the role and qualification of church leaders, elders, etc.
    The Bible also tells us "...not foresaking the assembling together, as
    is the habit of some, but encourage one another.  And all the more as
    you see the day approaching"  I have learned in the last few years the
    local church is vital and necessary; however, if the church is not with
    God, it is dead and we are feeling the effects of this today!
    
    Wanted or unwanted, my admonition to you is to join with a local church
    where Christ is preached.  We desparately need you to help fulfill the
    great commission.
    
    Godspeed,
    
    Jack

    "Why a Church"?

    Because Jesus gave us the reason:

    "Again, I tell you, if two of you join your voices on earth to pray
    for anything, whatever, it shall be granted you by my Father in heaven. 
    Where two or three are gatherer in my name, there am I in their midst."
    Mt 19:19

    
    RE: 604.0
    
    Hey Bubba!  How's the weather in Texas?
    
    I do believe church is critical for a christian.  This from a person
    who spent 6 of the last 8 years away from it.  So I have some pretty
    strong feelings about this.
    
    I would concur with Jack about Jesus introducing the concept of
    building his church and also of the epistles saying not to foresake the
    assembly of Christians.  The church is supposed to be a place where we
    (the body of Christ) build each other up.  A place where we lean on
    each other and meet each other's needs because of our love for each
    other which comes out of our love for God.
    
    For myself, while I never stopped believing in God, I suffered greatly
    from not being ministered to by other Christians and not using the
    gifts God gave me since spiritual gifts were given to build up the body
    of Christ.  If you are a Christian, God has given you a spiritual gift
    for service to His church....for no other purpose.
    
    Also, I've found that when I was away from church it was very difficult
    to keep God's principles clear.  The world's philosophies subtly
    started to creep into my beliefs and erode the foundation of my faith. 
    I started to lose "my salt" as a Christian which ruins your walk
    because you stop producing fruit.  The difference between me and a
    non-christian was becoming less and less.  It would be like if they
    never required the Reserves to keep up on their training, they wouldn't
    be much good when they were needed.
    
    I love being back in church.  I love worshipping God in a community of
    other believers.  It inspires me in my private worship.  I love
    serving.  I love the fellowship of other Christians.  That kind of
    caring just isn't found any place else.  Believe me, I looked. I love
    hearing the Word of God teached.  It ministers to my spirit and
    encourages me to get into the Word on my own.  It gives me
    accountability for the life that I lead.  It inspires me to always keep
    growing in Christ.
    
    I hope this helps Bubba.
    
    Jill

    I believe the church transcends any earthly institution one can join.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    The great commission was given to all Christians on earth, not some
    unearthly beings.
    
    Jesus appointed twelve  men to follow him in a special way, and they in
    turn were given the Holy Spirit on fifty days after the glorious
    ressurection of Jesus.  The Acts of the Apostles record their service
    to and leadership of the early Christian communities. An apostolic
    church was working in the 1st C. AD and the record of it survives to
    today.
    
    Jesus could have chosen to make His Word known to all by some
    miraculous means, but he didn't.  The Word was, is, and will be
    communicated to the world by ordinary people, and people who are
    organized into associations and communities for that express purpose,
    evangelization.

    It's an interesting thought, Bubba....
    
    I don't really know as personal experience what a Church means for a
    Christian.  My own experiences in synnagogue eventually turned me away
    from seeking the spiritual inside an organized structure.  It wasn't
    that the services were intolerable...it was just that I became accutely
    aware of the fact that I always felt a heck of lot closer to spiritual
    those Saturday mornings I left shul to take a walk in the woods nearby.
    
    Then I started thinking that if seeking God meant seeking something
    *SUPER*natural, that it seemed very strange to me to seek it out inside
    a *SYNNAGOGUE* which was a PEOPLE made building...how unnatural do you
    get?  So I just started looking elsewhere.
    
    On the other hand, I think a major function of *any* congregation,
    Jewish, Christian, Moslem, Hindu, etc, is to foster a sense of
    *community* among people seeking similar ends.  In that function, it
    seems worthwhile to me, but I never gained much in the way of
    spirituality from it.
    
    Daniel

    RE: .2
    
    Can't really improve on what Alfred said. 
    
    I go to church once a week because I want to. The shared fellowship
    is the main reason, and its on of the few family events all my
    family can do.
    
    Marc H.

The premise of the question, as I hear it, is wrong.

What I hear is, "what can I get out of [going to] church?"

The appropriate question is, "How can I encourage, support,
love, build up and nurture fellow believers?  How can I
accomplish the will of God here on earth in significant
ways that require more than one individual working by
himself/herself?"

I think that when the question is phrased this way, the
answer is obvious.

However, there is much more to consider.

As some have already noted, the Bible is not exactly
silent on this subject.  There is the command (Hebrews 9:24,25)
to fellowship together; there is the defining of church
officers (e.g. I Tim 3), there is the disciplining of church
members (I Cor 8 or 9 I think) where the *assumption* is that
*every believer* is a member and that disfellowship is an
extremely serious consequence to lead to repentance.

Have you prayed to God and asked Him whether He wants you to
avoid Christians?  What a foolish question!  Why should you be
receiving your insight, advice, morals, etc from those who
*oppose* God?  Did you become a believer because of those who
oppose God or because of His followers?  Are you adequately
equipped in all ways to do all things?  Or are you the nose
of the body which needs the feet, the hands, the eyes, the
head and all the other parts of the body.  What do you think
I Cor 12 is saying?!?!

Let's talk about worship.  That's what I love about church.  The
opportunity to worship with others, with many presenting their
gifts of worship to the Lord (particularly musical gifts). 

If you're not part of a church, who are you accountable to?
Accountability is critical to growth and correction.  (Admittedly,
many churches today do a poor job of this.  So, join a church
that does a good job of this.  :-) )

Just a few thoughts.  :-)  There are a lot more, but I think
the point has been made.

Collis

    I appreciated your note very much Collis.  Too many times our
    focus is inward on ourselves instead of outward.  Our spiritual
    gift(s) were given to build up the body of Christ, but if you're
    not with them, you can't do that.
    
    Just some additional thoughts...
    
    Accountability is a big part of being apart of the body.  In our
    Singles Ministry we have felt called to start up Cell Groups which
    are small groups of less than 7 people assigned to a Cell Group
    Leader.  The leader makes sure that their needs are being met and
    keeps them informed on what fellowships are going on.  In addition,
    we have accountability groups cropping up around the class.  For
    example, some of the guys (about 5 now) meet every Friday after
    work to talk about common issues they are struggling with.  It keeps
    them from feeling isolated in their problems and gives them prayerful
    support.  They are growing quite a bit.  As is our group as a whole.
    
    We are also actively seeking where we need to be meeting needs
    within our group.  Some examples of that would be: single parents,
    divorce recovery, older singles, college-age singles, singles in
    dating relationships or who are engaged.  We will also look to
    meet needs in the community.  Perhaps targeting specific groups
    that God lays on our hearts.   We're in our early stages of this
    ministry, but God is really bringing things together.  Our Core
    Leadership Group (CLG) are a great bunch of people who have a real
    heart to do God's will.  Our CLG is our own accountability group
    as well.  One of our rules is that anyone in the group can ask us
    an question on accountability and get a honest answer.  For example...
    "Have you been doing your quiet time everyday?"  or "How are you
    doing with "that problem" that we talked about last week?"  It
    really helps you grow when you're kept accountable.
    
    Jill

    Also see topic 135 "Do you need a church to be 'religious'?"
    
    Richard
    

              A SERMON PREACHED BY THE REV'D ALLAN B. WARREN III
                                      at
                           THE CHURCH OF THE ADVENT
            The Last Sunday after the Epiphany + February 21, 1993

"You are what you eat."  Perhaps you remember that.  If memory serves
me, it was the title of a play that had a fairly respectable run in New
York about twenty years or so ago.  I saw the play, I remember.  But
that's about it.  At this point I draw a blank and I can't recall
exactly what it was about.  But I think it was something silly made to
seem serious: psychedelic mushrooms or LSD -- one of those things that
everyone was "eating" in the sixties -- usually to no good end.

But, you know, it didn't take the sixties to introduce us to the
proposition: "You are what you eat."  On the physical level it is so
obvious as to be a truism.  You are what you eat and so shops like Bread
and Circus and the mega-vitamin and nutrition crowd cash in on it and
make a fortune.  On the psychological and spiritual level it is
something that people have always known and acted upon.  I call to
witness the complicated taboos and dietary laws that appear to have been
part of human culture from the beginning.  You are what you eat, and you
are not what you don't eat.  The distinction has, throughout history,
often been considered enormously important to people, vital, sometimes
even a matter of life or death.

We hear something surprisingly similar from Our Lord.  In St. John's
Gospel Jesus tells us: "Truly, truly I say to you, unless you eat the
flesh of the son of man and drink His blood, you have no life in you. 
He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me and I in Him." 
And that is why we are here today: to eat, to drink, and to abide.  That
is the point and the end of our worship, and it is/should be the center
of our lives as Christians: eating and drinking and abiding in Christ. 
You are what you eat.  But that's not the whole of it, for there is
another strain of thought in the New Testament which is just as
important, if not as explicit.  It goes like this:  You are and you
become what you see.  Again, this is not an intuition unique to Holy
Scripture.  To a certain extent it is something which everyone knows to
be true.  When I was a child my parents from time to time prevented and
forbad me from seeing films which they considered too violent and
inappropriate for someone young.  Of course, as soon as I was able, I
made a mad dash for the forbidden fruit.  Usually, it was a mistake.  I
had nightmares for a month.  What I saw had marked me and it haunted me;
it changed me.  And even now, I close my eyes, I cover my face, when
something violent happens in a film.

The eye is the soul's window.  That is what the ancients believed, and
it is an assumption of the New Testament writers as well.  They,
however, go a little further and teach us that there is a special kind
of spiritual sight which, enabled by grace, permits us to perceive truth
and meanings beyond just the here and now.  St. Paul calls this the "eye
of the heart."  St. John indicates it simply by distinguishing between
those who are blind and those who can see.  And the object of this
faculty, this spiritual sight -- the "eye of the heart" -- is GLORY. 
That is what it shows to us -- GLORY.  As St. Paul has it, "For it is
the God who said, 'Let light shine shine out of Darkness' who has shone
in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in
the face of Christ."  There's a faculty of spiritual sight -- a vision
through faith -- and what it sees is GLORY. 

This morning in the Gospel we heard the story of the Transfiguration of
Jesus -- or as the Greek original has it -- His metamorphosis.  Most of
us know the story -- it appears in the first three Gospels, and St.
Peter in his second epistle refers to the event.  Jesus took Peter and
James and John to the top of a mountain.  And there as He was praying
they saw Him in a new and different way.  This is how Peter describes
it:  He tells us "we were eyewitnesses of His majesty.  For when He
received honor and glory from God the Father and the voice was borne to
him by the Majestic Glory, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well
pleased," -- "we heard the voice borne from heaven, for we were with Him
on the holy mountain."

What they saw was His glory.  That's obvious, but there's more to it. 
The word for glory in Hebrew is derived from the word for weight.  And
so an implication of "glory" in Scripture is importance, significance,
even meaning.  Something glorious is something weighty -- (the
implication in English is the same).  And so the event of the
Transfiguration is more than some kind of divine display or supernatural
pyrotechnics.  He is dazzling.  He is glorious.  He is weighty.  And His
significance is revealed in that glory.  Beside Him stand Moses and
Elijah -- indicating that He is the summation and fulfillment of the
promises to Israel.  The voice of glory speaks, "This is my Son."  The
vision is a foretaste of Easter, and a prologue to that which is soon to
happen -- His Passion.

This is also a pattern of the basic Christian experience.  You and I are
called to see the glory -- to come more and more to understand the
significance of Jesus the Christ.  Our spiritual life is a progress of
inner transfiguration, as "the eye of the heart," the eye of the faith
sees ever clearer His dazzling glory.  And that vision changes us -- we
are transfigured.  Dostoyevsky the Russian novelist tells us, "In the
end the world will be saved by beauty."  This is not the simpering of an
aesthete.  The man knew a great deal about ugliness -- just read the
novels -- and he came to know the healing power of beauty.  He learned
this, of course, from Christianity.  Beauty, glory -- not a great deal
of difference, and what the New Testament says is that in the end the
world will be saved by glory -- for glory changes and transfigures.  As
St. Paul tells us: "we all, with unveiled face, beholding the glory of
the Lord, are being changed into His likeness from one degree of glory
to another."  And "we know that we shall be like Him for we shall see
Him as He is". 

You are what you see.  And you are what you eat.  What will happen in
this Church today is also a Transfiguration.  Bread and wine become the
bearers of His glory!  And to the eye of faith they are dazzling!  BREAD
AND WINE -- IT IS HE!!  Weighty!  And so brothers and sisters look up
and see -- the vision will change you.  Come forward, eat and drink --
and you will be made alive with His life.  "He who eats my flesh and
drinks my blood abides in me and I in him". 

"We know that we shall be like Him, for we shall see Him as He is".  Amen.

At some time you may experience:

  The death of a loved one -

  The loss of income -

  Divorce -

  A serious illness or injury -

Times of upheaval and crisis come to us all.  In those times, I have blessed
to have had a caring relationship already established with a church.  I have
been blessed by the practical, emotional and spiritual support I've received
in my hour of need.

Richard

| <<< Note 604.4 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>



| "Again, I tell you, if two of you join your voices on earth to pray
| for anything, whatever, it shall be granted you by my Father in heaven.
| Where two or three are gatherer in my name, there am I in their midst."
| Mt 19:19

	Patrick, does this mean anytime 2 or 3 (or more) people get together
to pray, discuss religion, God, etc, that they have actually formed a church?
I know the building itself has relatively little to do with the church itself
considering that all it really does is provide a place to worship.




Glen

| <<< Note 604.5 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>



| If you are a Christian, God has given you a spiritual gift
| for service to His church....for no other purpose.

	Jill, could you elaborate on this? I think what you are talking about
is ministering, helping loving others. Is this something that has to be done
just with other Christians or to those who are perceived to not be Christians
as well? Meaning, you may go to church and do this with other Christians, but
is this also done outside of the church? 

| Also, I've found that when I was away from church it was very difficult
| to keep God's principles clear.  The world's philosophies subtly
| started to creep into my beliefs and erode the foundation of my faith.

	I understand where you are coming from on this. I do believe this
happens to many people. But does one need to go to a church to get the fruit?
Can't people meet together to help each other? 




Glen

    I mean church in the abstract, as each family and community is itself a
    small church.  The church, of course, is also the bricks and motar.
    Another kind of church is one that claims the characteristics of being
    united, being holy, being universal rather than limited in scope, and
    connected by succession to the Apostles.
    
    The church or Church (if we're case sensitive today) is the communion
    of all those who profess faith in Jesus Christ throughout the world.

    
    > Jill, could you elaborate on this?
    
    Sure Glen.
    
    I Cor. 12 is one of the passages that speak about spiritual gifts.
    Paul uses the analogy of the human body.  The body doesn't function
    quite the same unless all parts are working.   Gifts were given to
    build the body up, not that there aren't benefits outside the body
    because of that, but the purpose of the gifts are to minister to
    the body of Christ (the Church).  If someone is missing, the body
    doesn't function as well with those members.
    
    Jill

| <<< Note 604.17 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Patrick Sweeney in New York" >>>



	Thanks Patrick for explaining that to me.




Glen

| <<< Note 604.18 by CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers" >>>



	Interesting analogy Jill. I do see what you are saying. For the most
part I do agree with it. I think it comes down to what the church actually is.
As Patrick explained (and yourself) it is the people. How many people doesn't
really matter.



Glen

Whenever 2 or more are gathered in Christ, yes, that is the church.

And yes, there is the catholic (universal) church which is composed
of Christians who may or may not belong to an institutional church.

But I think Bubba's basenote question was specifically around the institutional
church.

Richard

    
    RE: .20
    
    Glen,
    
    I would say that how many people DOES really matter.  Say if there are
    just 2 people who meet on their own and aren't involved in their local
    church.  One has the gift of administration and the other discernment.  
    What is the one going to administrate?  While the other could use his
    discernment to make the other person aware of things, aren't both of
    their gifts being severly underused.  While you may be able to meet
    some of each others needs and certainly have spirit-filled sharing and
    prayer, you're not building up the church.  You certainly can't meet
    every need of that other persons.  
    
    What if we take a larger group of 5 people?  Add one with the gift
    of knowledge, one with wisdom, and the other with prophecy.  This
    is a group that could be severly crippled as they are missing the
    gifts of the heart like mercy, encouragement, shepherding.  It's just
    not complete.  You could have all that "know how" and not have
    complete teaching and the relational aspect and fail miserably.
    Or visa versa you could have a bunch a people with gifts of the heart
    that without any guidance just turns into a "bleeding hearts" club.
    
    I think you really need to think more about the value of being
    more apart of the church.  I think there is value in one-on-ones
    and small group, but not as a replacement for the church.  I
    personally enjoy both and feel that each serves a high purpose
    in the Kingdom.
    
    Jill

    The UU church has a principle that to me is similar to the 'Body of
    Christ' metaphor.  It is the interdependent web of existence to which
    we are a part.  The whole is important and holy.  If the purpose of the
    'Body of Christ is to include all of humankind in a community of love'
    then church is everywhere.  Isn't there a statement like whatever you do
    unto one of mine you do unto me.  We worship when we tend our children,
    when we engage in healthy play with one another, when we walk in the
    woods. When we work.  The more we obliterate the distinction between
    the spiritual world and the physical world by worshipping the Ground of
    our Being in our every act, the more we build the 'Body of Christ' or
    'web of existence' or that holy entity in which we commune, one with
    another.  The smaller church then is that group of people with whom we
    spiritually build ourselves up and continually rededicate ourselves to
    those principles which we hold dear.
    
    Patricia

================================================================================
Note 604.22                      Why any church?                        22 of 23
CSC32::KINSELLA "it's just a wheen o' blethers"      31 lines   5-MAR-1993 12:48

Jill, now I'm confused. According to you:

    
    I would say that how many people DOES really matter.  Say if there are
    just 2 people who meet on their own and aren't involved in their local
    church.  
    What if we take a larger group of 5 people?  Add one with the gift
    of knowledge, one with wisdom, and the other with prophecy.  This
    is a group that could be severly crippled as they are missing the
    gifts of the heart like mercy, encouragement, shepherding.  It's just
    not complete.  

According to Scripture though:


    "Again, I tell you, if two of you join your voices on earth to pray
    for anything, whatever, it shall be granted you by my Father in heaven. 
    Where two or three are gatherer in my name, there am I in their midst."
    Mt 19:19


	It would seem that according to Scripture, your analogy is wrong. I
guess what I am asking is, which is right and which is wrong?



Glen

Glen,

Re:  .24

Care to look at the whole context?  You're not alone,
many interpret this badly (IMO) because of their failure
to look at the context.

Collis

    
    Glen, (RE: .24)
    
    I guess I'm just not seeing any conflict.  There are verses that talk
    about the church and verses that apply to one-on-one situations or
    small groups.  Neither say that the other situation is not needed.  
    That to me implies that both should be desirable to a Christian 
    growing in grace.
    
    BTW...in my Bible, Matthew 19:19 reads "'honor your father and mother'
    and love your neighbors as yourself'."  ;^)
    
    Jill

Some keep the Sabbath going to
  church;
I keep it staying at home,
With a bobolink for a chorister,
And an orchard for a dome.

Some keep the Sabbath in
  surplice,
I just wear my wings,
And instead of tolling the bell
  for church,
Our little sexton sings.

God preaches - a noted
  clergyman,
And the sermon is never long;
So instead of getting to heaven
  at last,
I'm going all along!

		- Emily Dickinson

God can show Himself as He really is only to real men.  And that means not
simply to men who are individually good, but to men who are united together
in a body, loving one another, helping one another, showing Him to one another.
For that is what God meant humanity to be like; like players in one band, or
organs in one body.

Consequently, the one really adequate instrument for learning about God is the
whole Christian community, waiting for Him together.  Christian brotherhood is,
so to speak, the technical equipment for this science -- the laboratory outfit.
That is why all these people who turn up every few years with some patent
simplified religion of their own as a substitute for the Christian tradition
are really wasting time.  Like a man who has no instrument but an old pair of
field glasses setting out to put all the real astronomers right.  He may be a
clever chap -- he may be cleverer than some of the real astronomers, but he is
not giving himself a chance.  And two years later everyone has forgotten all
about him, but the real science is still going on.

If Christianity were something we were making up, of course we could make it
easier.  But it is not.  We cannot compete, in simplicity, with people who are
inventing religions.  How could we?  We are dealing with Fact.  Of course
anyone can be simple if he has no facts to bother about.

					-- C.S. Lewis
					   "Mere Christianity"

    
    RE:  604.28
    
    **God can show Himself as He really is only to real men.
    
    I guess that is the heart of it and also the reason I cannot accept
    this "UNIVERSAL" definition of god.

In the English language, especially at the time C.S. Lewis was writing,
there was no intent to exclude women from the term "men".

Thank you very much.

/john

    
    Well, since "woman" includes "man", I wonder why they didn't go with
    "woman" as the generic?
    
    Thank you,
    
    Dorian

At least you recognize that there is a generic.

It's because "man" is the less specific; "wo-" is the qualifier which
makes it specific.

/john

    Somehow, I really doubt that when people 200 plus years ago said "All
    men are created equal..." that they really *did* mean to include women
    in that...
    
    The right to vote took 72 years to secure from the 1848 Seneca Falls
    Conference to 1920.  Were women really included as equal to men in the
    language?  Were religious authors, writing in periods *before* the
    nineteenth century in times that were clearly *less* empowered for
    women, truly considering women when they wrote "men"?
    
    Somehow, I doubt it.  Language reflects social norms.  If the social
    and religious norms hold one category of people to be less empowered
    than another, no generic term will make up the difference.
    
    Daniel

    Thanks Daniel.
    
    As a woman, I expect my sisters to understand how excluded we are by
    the generic usage of the world 'man'.   I very much appreciate it when
    men also understand how symbols and images are important to the
    emotional, psychic, and spiritual development of women and men and they
    understand how common usage excludes women. The Bible, The Declaration
    of Independence, the Constitution, State Constitutions all treat women
    as 'other'.
    
                                Patricia
    
    Patricia

.34

Hear hear!


.33

Thank you.


.32

Goddess bless,

Dorian

 Why is it so difficult to accept that the Bible defines roles for both men
 and women, each with their own responsibilities?  That some have differences
 with these roles is certainly not the fault of the Bible, or God. And, that 
 some have abused these roles is likewise not the fault of the Bible or God.






 Jim

Why is it so difficult to understand that the phrase "Goddess Bless" is
at best highly offensive and at worst sacrilegious in a conference entitled
"Christian Perspective".

/john

    
    The Goddess has been set hidden/deleted; some might have a problem with
    that...

    Off the top of my head, I can think of at least a couple reasons why
    the imposition of these roles is offensive.

    First of all, suggesting that these roles are simply different, with no
    inferiority implied, is really an incredible assertion to make, and
    completely devoid of reality.  The role distinctions are not simply a
    matter of being equal but different--they are fundamentally *un*equal. 
    It would be like comparing the positions on a baseball team, and saying
    that the manager's role in relation to a shortstop is no different than
    the catcher's role in relation to a shortstop.  BUZZZZ!  Wrong. 
    Shortstops and catchers are different roles that make up the team, but
    the manager's role is one of authority over the rest of the team, and
    is therefore fundamentally different.  Taking an entire class of people
    and claiming that, a priori, they are denied the right to be managers,
    not because they lack the skills, but because the class they belong to
    requires that they automatically lack the skills necessary to exercise
    that authority well enough, would be the proper analogy.  To completely
    lock one group of people out of a position of authority, and then to
    claim that it is simply nothing more than a different role for them, is
    to mask the reality of what that role difference represents, and as
    such it is a dishonest justification for subjecting an entire class of
    people to subordinate roles.

    Which then suggests the other point which comes to mind, which is that
    merit becomes irrelevant.  It hurts those who are qualified, who know
    they are qualified, and who have something valuable to contribute to
    the rest of the community; and it hurts the community by denying itself
    qualified people. 

    Imposing sex roles that exclude women as a group from certain
    positions, and thus creating divisions that instead should work
    themselves out by merit and calling is sexist, misogynistic, and deeply
    offensive.

    -- Mike

    I am sure Goddess is not angry at those who are offended by the phrase
    "Goddess Bless".  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    .37  Why do *you* think it's so difficult to understand, John?
    
    I can't explain it, but I don't find my hackles raised by non-traditional
    terminology being applied to the Creator, Savior and Spirit.  And even
    though you've tried to explain why it raises your hackles, I still
    don't understand why it does.
    
    Richard
    
    PS  This should probably be addressed under another topic.
    

 Well, I'm not John, but I can explain why it raises my hackles, and perhaps
 the hackles of the rest of us who love and serve the God of Bible.  To me,
 particularly the way it was directed at John, it is a dileberate attemp at
 mocking that which he and many of us believe, and I find your question directed
 to John to be of the same tone.






 Jim

    Jim .42,
    
    	Is anyone saying you should address God in non-traditional
    terminlogy?
    
    	I do not understand what you mean by mocking.  Do you mean that all
    should cease and desist using non-traditional terminlogy simply because
    it fails to match some people's understanding of the God of the Bible?
    
    Richard

In addition, Our Miss Brooks has stated rather clearly that she does not
believe in Christianity.

>    	I do not understand what you mean by mocking.  Do you mean that all
>    should cease and desist using non-traditional terminlogy simply because
>    it fails to match some people's understanding of the God of the Bible?

    How about common courtesy and to not deliberately offend people?

    		Alfred

    
>    	Is anyone saying you should address God in non-traditional
>    terminlogy?
 
     no.  

   
>    	I do not understand what you mean by mocking.  Do you mean that all
>    should cease and desist using non-traditional terminlogy simply because
>    it fails to match some people's understanding of the God of the Bible?
    

  I hesitate to tell anyone what they should or should not say, however I would
  hope that people would at least refrain from saying things that are aimed at
  offending, as it appears was the case in this instance.






 Jim

    There is a reason why people favor some other faith over Christianity.
    Perhaps they found the "good news" wasn't so good after all.  Perhaps
    it's due to some negative experience(s) they've had with people who
    profess to be Christian.  Perhaps Christianity provides no relevance to
    them, or not enough truth to ring true for them.
    
    Perhaps we should banish such people?  Cut their tongues out?  Brand
    them with a B for blasphemer with a hot poker on their foreheads (like
    our predecessors might have done)?
    
    Richard

    .46
    
    But Alfred, is there not an element of courtesy in respecting
    divergent points of view?
    
    Richard

>    But Alfred, is there not an element of courtesy in respecting
>    divergent points of view?

	Richard your point seems to be that you and people you agree with
	can use any term you please no matter who it offends. You have 
	elsewhere suggested that people whom you disagree with avoid using
	words that offend you. Now which is it? May people here use words
	that offend others as long as one of those others is not you? Or
	are we to use a single standard for all? Pick one and stick with it.

		Thank you.

			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    	Uh-uh-uhh!  I asked you first!  ;-)
    
    	You're probably referring to the term "clique;" the use of which
    did not offend me, but which I asserted was false.
    
    	Perhaps you're saying that it's a lie to refer to God in terms
    which are other than manly or masculine?
    
    Richard

>   Perhaps you're saying that it's a lie to refer to God in terms
>   which are other than manly or masculine?

Ah, but if that were _all_ that "Goddess" implies, that would be one thing.

However, I happen to know that the usage of "Goddess" by Our Miss Brooks was
an explicit reference to the false deity of the pagan religions which existed
before the Hebrew people received God's revelation of Himself.

Saying "Goddess bless" is a flagrant anti-Christian statement, a deliberate
and conscious rebellion against the God of the Ten Commandments, the God of
Abraham, and the salvation brought by Jesus Christ.

/john

RE:            <<< Note 604.47 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Declare Peace!" >>>

       
   > Perhaps we should banish such people?  Cut their tongues out?  Brand
   > them with a B for blasphemer with a hot poker on their foreheads (like
   > our predecessors might have done)?
    
   

  I prefer to pray for them.





 Jim

Re: .51 John

>However, I happen to know that the usage of "Goddess" by Our Miss Brooks was
>an explicit reference to the false deity of the pagan religions which existed
>before the Hebrew people received God's revelation of Himself.
>
>Saying "Goddess bless" is a flagrant anti-Christian statement, a deliberate
>and conscious rebellion against the God of the Ten Commandments, the God of
>Abraham, and the salvation brought by Jesus Christ.

"Goddess bless" is a statement of religious belief, and is just as
legitimate as your own statements of religious belief.  Dorian may well be
just as offended by your remarks as you were by hers.  If Dorian's "Goddess
bless" was flagrantly anti-Christian, then your remarks are flagrantly
anti-pagan.

Dorian: don't be intimidated! You have just as much right to participate in
this conference as the conservative Christians do.

				-- Bob

Let's say you're right, John (.51).

First of all, does calling Dorian "Our Miss Brooks" somehow lend leverage to
your argument?  Are you playing the part of Mr. Conklin (Gale Gordon), Dexter
Boynton (Richard Crenna), or just giving away how long you've been watching
sitcoms on television? ;-)

Secondly, supposing Dorian is truly an adherent of a Diety other than the one
you embrace.  Would you be offended if a Muslim offered you a prayer for
blessings from Allah, even if the blessing was remark made in a Christian
notesfile?

Thirdly, rather than being said in sincerity, how might it be determined that
Dorian intended her remark to offend you?  Perhaps, I don't know everything
that's going on here.  Do you two have some sort of history?

Lastly, I'm afraid there are very few Suzanne Conlon's in the world of
Notes.  Rather than to risk further confrontation, it's far more typical
in Notes for a woman to just "blow it off," and perhaps, to just walk away
from the conference altogether.

Richard

    .54 (my own)
    
    Just peeked in on WOMANNOTES for the first time in awhile.  I think
    that what I read there would constitute you two 'having a history.'
    
    Richard
    

    Look at the bright side.  At least Our Mr. Covert is being magnanimous
    enough to allow people to reply to him here.  He isn't always so
    generous, y' know.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

>Secondly, supposing Dorian is truly an adherent of a Deity other than the one
>you embrace.  Would you be offended if a Muslim offered you a prayer for
>blessings from Allah, even if the blessing was remark made in a Christian
>notesfile?

Muslims worship the God of Abraham, as do Christians and Jews.

/john

    Well, John, then how about if a Hindu or Buddhist offered a prayer of
    blessing here? 
    
    I must admit I find it rather odd, John, that you, who is not loath to
    comment negatively upon alleged "political correctness" in society, is
    getting yourself so wound up over the *words* Dorian chose.  Isn't one
    of pc's "sins" the controlling of thoughts and words?
    
    By the way, I have always thought that Dorian was her *OWN* Ms.
    Brooks....
    
    Daniel

>    Well, John, then how about if a Hindu or Buddhist offered a prayer of
>    blessing here? 

I think they would have more integrity than to do that.

Spong was on a trip to Japan and tried to get the Buddhists to pray with
him.  They wouldn't.

/john

>    What it really boils down to is a kind of hierarchical scale of bigotry
>    against other faiths.

No, Mike, it's not that simple.  Christianity is either true or not true.

Jesus is either God or not God.

The Christian Perspective is that Jesus is God.  And that He rose from the
dead.  That He is God Incarnate is the central doctrine; that He rose from
the dead is the central fact.  This is the Christian theology.

Either He is God and his teachings -- that we should love the Lord our God
with all our heart and with all our soul and all our mind and that we should
have no other Gods but Him -- is true, or else He was as crazy a lunatic as
David Koresh.  There is no inbetween.  This is the Christian theology.

----

A great many of the ideas about God which are trotted out as novelties today
are simply the ones which real Theologians tried centuries ago and rejected.
To believe in the popular religion of modern England is retrogression, like
believing the earth is flat.

For when you get down to it, is not the popular idea of Christianity simply
this: that Jesus Christ was a great moral teacher and that if only we took
his advice we might be able to establish a better social order and avoid
another war?  Now, mind you, that is quite true.  But it tells you much less
than the whole truth about Christianity and it has no practical importance
at all.

It is quite true that if we took Christ's advice we should soon be living in
a happier world.  You need not even go as far as Christ.  If we did all that
Plato or Aristotle or Confucius told us, we should get on a great deal better
than we do.  And so what?  We never have followed the advice of the great
teachers.  Why are we likely to begin now?  Why are we more likely to follow
Christ than any of the others?  Because He is the best moral teacher?  But
that makes it even less likely that we shall follow Him.  If we cannot take
the elementary lessons, is it likely we are going to take the most advanced
one?  If Christianity only means one more bit of good advice, then Christianity
is of no importance.  There has been no lack of good advice for the last four
thousand years.  A bit more makes no difference.

But as soon as you look at any real Christian writings, you find that they are
talking about something quite different from this popular religion.  They say
that Christ is the Son of God (whatever that means).  They say that those who
give Him their confidence can also become Sons of God (whatever that means).
They say that His death saved us from our sins (whatever that means).

[Read C.S. Lewis' "Mere Christianity" to find out what that means.]

	Good morning!

	Re: .51: Covert

	>Saying "Goddess bless" is a flagrant anti-Christian statement, a
	>deliberate and conscious rebellion against the God of the ten
	>commandments [Jewish], the God of Abraham [Jewish] and the
	>salvation brought by Jesus [a Jew] Christ.

	Surely, John, you mean "anti-Jewish".

	That the Christian view - that Jesus is God - is an affront to the
	Jewish religion (for which they have endured endless suffering)
	does not seem to enter into your view of the world. Time do a
	little "other cheek" turning, I guess. You let (Our!!!) Miss Brooks
	have her Goddess and the Jews will let you have your Christ.

	Re: .60: Covert

	>Either He [Jesus] is God and [AND] his teachings -- * -- is true,
	>or else He was as crazy a lunatic as David Koresh. There is no
	>in between.

	I guess a moments thought would show you that there is quite a
	large spectrum of "in betweens": Islam springs immediately to
	mind, and Ba'hai. Both accept Jesus as a prophet, but not as
	God.

	I am reminded of a German poem, by Morgenstern, about a picket-
	fence. It describes how an architect removed the spaces which
	surrounded the pickets. The fence, of pickets without its "in
	between" (spaces), looked so stupid that the council dismantled
	it. In denying that, between the binary extremes of Christian
	theology, there is no middle ground, you are tending to attract
	the attention of an aestetically oriented council.

	Personally, I am not a Christian; but it pains me to see how
	Christains themselves do more to dismantle their religion than
	any "outsiders" have ever done.

	If I owned a beautiful tract of land, I would not surround it with
	barbed wire and shoot at anyone who came near. I would put up
	welcome signs and serve refreshments to attract people. Why
	do (so many) Christians need barbs to defend their territory?

	Sad, sad! Some of my best friends are Christian!

	Greetings, Derek.

>Christianity is either true or not true.
    
    That's one way of looking at it.  Not the way I look at it, but it is
    certain *a* way.
    
    In any case, your response to my deleted note doesn't address the
    fundamental point that I was making, which was that the bigotry against
    other faiths that you promote here is hierarchical in nature.  Paganism
    is, according to you, a "false religion" that you mercilessly attack in
    this notes file.  On the other hand, you are willing to pray with
    Moslems because they worship the God of Abraham, despite the fact that
    the binary "Christianity is either true or not true" theology which you
    advocate here implies that Islam is also a false religion.  
    
    -- Mike
    
    [Since there was a reply to my deleted note, I will repost it here:]
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 604.60                      Why any church?                        60 of 60
DEMING::VALENZA "Nouvnote riche"                     23 lines  26-APR-1993 23:28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Yeah, what a violation of integrity it would be for a Buddhist to pray
    with a Christian.  :-)

    Actually, my understanding of Buddhism is that it is largely an
    agnostic religion that does not address the existence of God.  Many
    varieties of Hinduism, on the other hand, are monotheistic.  Hindus, or
    at least many Hindus, believe in God.

    The completely arbitrary distinction between which believers in God one
    can legitimately pray with and whom one cannot is really pretty
    amusing.  It appears to be okay to pray with someone who agrees with
    you that that God revealed himself (sic) historically to one historical
    personage even though your respective religions may strongly disagree
    over the existence or nature of theologically crucial revelations to
    other historical personages. 

    What it really boils down to is a kind of hierarchical scale of bigotry
    against other faiths.  Certain faiths, by virtue of the fact that they
    sort of resemble one's own, are semi-respectable, even if not quite
    true.  Others are simply "false" religions, and should be attacked with
    all the narrow-minded intolerance that one can muster.

    -- Mike

>    	Uh-uh-uhh!  I asked you first!  ;-)

    Yes there is an element of courtesy in respecting divergent points of
    view. Does that excuse deliberately offensive statements? I think not.
    You obviously believe that it is ok to offend people you disagree with
    but not people you agree with. I can understand that but request that
    you at least be honest about it.

>    	You're probably referring to the term "clique;" the use of which
>    did not offend me, but which I asserted was false.

    Wrong. Your memory is too short. Perhaps you remember topic 91? And
    there have been other times as well. The use of the term "goddess" to
    refer to the one true God is at least as offensive as using the term
    "baby killer" for abortionists, "queer" for Gay and Lesbians, and on
    and on. If you expect people to use non-offensive words for somethings
    you should expect that of everyone.

>    	Perhaps you're saying that it's a lie to refer to God in terms
>    which are other than manly or masculine?

    No. I view it as a lie to refer to God in terms that explicitly point
    to a single gender. I see "God" as generic and gender neutral. "Goddess"
    is neither - it is gender specific. Thus it is incorrect.

    			Alfred

    RE: .63
    
    Alfred, 
     Your points are valid........Richard, he is right.
    
    Marc H.

    Of course, there do exist Christians who are not offended by the use of
    the term "Goddess".

    In any case, there is a big difference between offending someone
    through name calling (such as calling someone a "queer" or a "baby
    killer") and offending someone simply by affirming a statement of
    theological belief.  While I can agree with criticizing the former, the
    latter is a completely different matter.  To merely affirm what one
    believes, without making negative comments about another religion, is a
    right that I believe that everyone should have.  It seems to me that
    people ought to be free to express such own theological beliefs, and if
    someone else is offended because those beliefs clash with their own
    cherished dogma, well, frankly, that is their problem.  It is an
    expression of extreme theological intolerance to claim the right to
    suppress theological affirmations different than one's own and which do
    not overtly attack one's own beliefs, simply because one finds those
    beliefs offensive.  By the same token, I *do* find it offensive to go
    beyond affirming one's own faith and actually attacking other faiths by
    claiming them to be "false religions", as one individual here recently
    did.

    -- Mike

    RE: "Goddess"
    
    			We (Christians) can choose to take offense or not.
    For me, it seems a bit silly to believe that Christianity "needs" all 
    this protection.  On the broader view, I doubt that God has gender so 
    both would seem, to me, to be wrong.  When I say the word God, I don't
    associate any particular gender with it.....and yet because of my
    history in Christianity I do refere to God as a "He".  The sensitivity 
    to the male pronouns I think are valid.  So when women say "Goddess" I
    see it as a statement against a male dominated world rather than any 
    intended slight to our maker.
    
    
    Dave

>	>Saying "Goddess bless" is a flagrant anti-Christian statement, a
>	>deliberate and conscious rebellion against the God of the ten
>	>commandments [Jewish], the God of Abraham [Jewish] and the
>	>salvation brought by Jesus [a Jew] Christ.
>
>	Surely, John, you mean "anti-Jewish".

Certainly it is both, for Christians worship the God of Israel.

Of course, it is politically correct to make anti-Christian statements,
even in a conference called "Christian_Perspective".  It's even supported
by the moderators of this conference.  I have, on a few occasions, asked
why none of these pagans ever goes into the BAGELS conference to talk
to them about the Goddess.  I'll tell you why: it would not be allowed.

>	That the Christian view - that Jesus is God - is an affront to the
>	Jewish religion (for which they have endured endless suffering)
>	does not seem to enter into your view of the world.

Again, this is the "Christian_Perspective" conference.  It's not a conference
where we have to avoid Truth in deference of those who have not received the
Gospel of Christ.  The participants in the BAGELS conference all know that I
believe that Jesus is God, but I don't write notes in the BAGELS conference
blessing them in the Name of Christ.

/john

    Hello John!
    
    Thank you for your (half) reply to my .61
    
    I came to this conference as a non-Christian (as opposed to an anti-
    Christian) hoping to learn something about Christian Perspectives,
    but I am not quite sure if my objective is being reached.
    
    If you were my only teacher, I would certainly draw the conclusion
    that love is an intrusion upon the Christian perspective, tolerance
    must be done away with at any price and that the Bible's only use
    is as a door-stop or, at best a source of quaint quotes: not to be
    used as a guide to how to behave towards my fellow human beings,
    especially those in disagreement.
    
    I would be interested in your response to the second half of .61
    
    Greetings, Derek.

    Topic 97 contains a long discussion about the "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic"
    theory that John Covert espoused in this topic (actually, what he
    espoused here was just "Lord or Lunatic"--he left out the liar part, so
    it isn't clear if he meant to imply that also or not.)  I have to admit
    that I was interested to hear him claim that the elimination of all
    logical alternatives but "Lord(, Liar), Lunatic" represents *the*
    Christian theology.  Not that he doesn't often set himself up here as
    the final word on what constitutes Christian theology, but here we are
    getting beyond merely affirmations of theology into official
    theological pronouncements upon logical discourse.  It would be one
    thing to say that it is *the* Christian theology to believe that Jesus
    is Lord; it is another thing altogether to claim that it is *the*
    Christian theology to assert that Jesus cannot logically be anything
    but Lord, Liar, or Lunatic.  Since, by definition, the Liar and Lunatic
    options are ruled out from his theology anyway, it is rather strange to
    add those other two options into an official Christian theology that
    turns right around and rejects them a priori.

    -- Mike

    By the way, Derek, as one who has come to appreciate many good and
    loving Christians, I think it is important not to judge all of them
    negatively based on the behavior of certain ones.
    
    -- Mike

RE:  <<< Note 604.61 by VNABRW::BUTTON "Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !" >>>
    

>	If I owned a beautiful tract of land, I would not surround it with
>	barbed wire and shoot at anyone who came near. I would put up
>	welcome signs and serve refreshments to attract people. Why
>	do (so many) Christians need barbs to defend their territory?


        What could possibly be more attractive than the gift of eternal life
        and forgiveness of sin as granted by God the Father?  I don't see 
        anyone "shooting" at anyone who comes near.  God has said in His word
        that we should have no other gods but him.  We are told to always be
        ready to provide a defense for our beliefs.


        Unfortunately too many people judge Christianity by the human actions
        of Christians who love their God, rather than by that which God has
        given us.  As a Christian I, and others, will do all we can within our
        human limitation to serve Him, to defend our faith, and to share and 
        hopefully exhibit His love to others.  Exhibiting His love does not 
        mean, IMO, that we are to stand idly by while others bash, ridicule or
        otherwise assault our beliefs.


        To quote a preacher I respect "Being Christlike may not be the perfec-
        tion in my life, but it is the direction of my life"




      Jim

>As a Christian I, and others, will do all we can within our
>human limitation to serve Him, to defend our faith, and to share and 
>hopefully exhibit His love to others.  Exhibiting His love does not 
>mean, IMO, that we are to stand idly by while others bash, ridicule or
>otherwise assault our beliefs.

I agree with this response to the second half of .61.

/john

    
    		Turn the other cheek???  A novel idea.
    
    
    Dave

Note 604.60

>Jesus is either God or not God.

Note 604.57

>Muslims worship the God of Abraham, as do Christians and Jews.

Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?

Richard

Are you looking for a contradiction?

Muslims and Jews do not accept the revelation of God in Jesus Christ, but
they worship the same God as Christians in the first person of the Trinity,
God the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth.

Christianity calls for the conversion of all people to worship God and to
follow His Son, Jesus Christ.

Muslims and Jews share our belief in God the Father Almighty.  Our common
belief in God's revelation of himself through nature and the prophets
makes them closer to us, part of what is called the Abrahamic Ecumene.

/john

    Actually, a number of Jews believe in God, the CREATOR Almighty...

As I read over these replies, I find myself, first of all, saddened, and 
not a little surprised. There are any number of things I could say in 
response; I'll confine myself to a few.

It all started with a passage (.28) that stated, "God can show Himself as 
He really is only to real men."

More than one person besides myself had a problem with the sexism in the 
language here. Others chose to deny this could be a problem. I find it sad 
that those in the latter category are unable to imagine how it feels to be 
in the group excluded by such masculine language. It's even sadder when the 
same people immediately do feel excluded, and take offense, at the feminine
gender implications of the phrase "Goddess bless." I could paraphrase
John's statement about C.S. Lewis, and say that there was no intent in it
to exclude God from the word Goddess; and I might, if I thought this would
help make the point clear. 

As for a "Christian Perspective" on the Goddess, I would have thought -- 
given that there is another Christian conference known to be fundamentalist 
-- that that perspective would not be limited to outright denial. To put 
this another way, unless you simply refuse to accept that religions evolve, 
or unless you don't read history books, you must be aware that the dominant
religions of our time and culture -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- all
have roots in the ancient Goddess traditions of the Near East and Old
Europe, which date back many thousands of years. It is true that until
recently, most of the aspects of these traditions have been suppressed, but
a few persist. In Christianity, for example, the figure of Mary and the
reverence she elicits are continuous with a reverence for a female deity
that is much older than Christianity. (Books on this subject I can think of
off the top of my head include The Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai; The
Gnostic Gospels, by Elaine Pagels; Alone of All Her Sex (about Mary), by
Marina Warner; The Goddess Obscured, by Pamela Berger; and The Time Falling
Bodies Take to Light: Myth, Sexuality and the Origins of Culture, by William
I. Thompson.) So when people refer to the Goddess as "the false deity of
the pagan religions which existed before the Hebrew people received God's
revelation of Himself," I can only think I've stumbled into the wrong notes
file; and if I haven't, I feel sad that such people are depriving 
themselves of the full richness available to them in the religious
tradition they embrace. 

Regarding my own beliefs, I don't think they're really relevant here, 
except insofar as my not having described myself as a Christian seems to be 
drawing hostility from some noters. Does this mean that only Christians can 
note here? I didn't think this was the case, but if it is, I hope someone
will tell me directly. If it's not the case and it is okay for non-
Christians to note here, I'd have hoped for a little higher level of
tolerance. Certain statements have reminded me a bit too sharply that the
Inquisition, during which several million people -- mostly women -- were
murdered, with the sanctioning of Christian authorities, wasn't all that
long ago. 

I'll just add that as a feminist, I have every sympathy for Christian women 
who are trying to reclaim the feminine elements of Christianity that they 
feel have been suppressed, and to initiate reforms in practices that they 
feel are discriminatory, including linguistic. (On March 21 I attended a
service in a Unitarian Church that was totally focused on the Goddess; last
time I checked the Unitarians were Christians?) Certainly the teachings of
Christ himself on love and peace and tolerance sound good to me. I hope I
don't offend anyone by saying that I've often seen such values put into
practice by -- among others -- human mothers, Christian and non. 

G <fill-in-the-blank> Bless,

Dorian

>Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here?
    
    No, Richard, you are not.  I also noticed the contradiction, and that
    was the point I was trying to make in my deleted note which I reposted
    in reply .62.
    
    -- Mike

    re 604.77
    
    Dorian
    
    I too am saddened by the response here.  If God is really genderless
    like many people here claim then Goddess Bless is a equivalent
    statement to God Bless.  It is interesting that many are offended by
    the possibility of a feminine image of God.
    
    I fortunately have reached the point of enlightenment where I am very
    offended by the idea and symbolism that God could only be a man.  
    
    Patricia

    
    
    	Why any church ?.
    
    	Because God/Goddess/Whatever name anyone chooses to use, is
    	Universal, He/She/It/Whatever, is not confined, like we humans
    	are, to anyone particular race or religion.  If "enter your name
    	of preference here" is Universal, then " " encompasses everything
    	that exists, and does not exclude anyone or anything, and that
    	includes other planets and other galaxies which may possess life
    	and religions incomprehensible to us humans.
    
    	To limit " " to one particular religion only is to limit its glory 
    	and its omnipotence.  Need I say more ?.
    
                        Juan
                                      

Re: .77
SPARKL::BROOKS

> It's even sadder when the same people immediately do feel excluded, and 
> take offense, at the feminine gender implications of the phrase "Goddess 
> bless." 

The basis for the reaction received to the phrase "Goddess bless" has nothing
to do with a feeling of gender exclusion. Both men and women react negatively
to that 'phrase' because it assaults us with untruth. It presents to us
a political agenda disguised as theological truth which has NEVER been defined
or accepted in nearly 2000 years of Christianity. 

> I could paraphrase John's statement about C.S. Lewis, and say that there 
> was no intent in it to exclude God from the word Goddess;

Perhaps not, but it tried to INCLUDE that which is NOT GOD into God. Therefore
it is to be rejected by all Christians. 

> As for a "Christian Perspective" on the Goddess, I would have thought -- 
> given that there is another Christian conference known to be fundamentalist 
> -- that that perspective would not be limited to outright denial. To put 
> this another way, unless you simply refuse to accept that religions evolve, 
> or unless you don't read history books, you must be aware that the dominant
> religions of our time and culture -- Judaism, Christianity, Islam -- all
> have roots in the ancient Goddess traditions of the Near East and Old
> Europe, which date back many thousands of years. It is true that until
> recently, most of the aspects of these traditions have been suppressed, but
> a few persist.

When the God of Abraham revealed Himself to His people He immediatly and
decisively rejected all pagan gods, including these ancient goddess. He
rejected these because He was giving to Abraham and all of His people that
followed THE PERFECT revelation of Himself.

For one thing, God made clear that we are not to worship that which He
created, but rather the Creator. These pagan gods and goddesses were 
dieties of earthly things, fertility, harvest, corn, the earth itself,etc. 
and it is wrong to worship that which God created and which God provides. 
It is not earth dieties that give us fertility, rain, sun, the harvest; it 
is God the Creator Himself. Therefore, this form of worship and all that 
comes from it is placing other Gods before the True God.

Secondly, God the Father gave us His most PERFECT revelation of Himself
in Jesus Christ, true God and true Man. To consider that we must import
pagan goddesses to further reveal God is really blasphemous and certainly
a form of idolatry. 

The only true way to reconcile the importation of goddesses or goddess
elements and forms into the revelation of God is to lessen and change or
redefine God's revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ. Scripture must be
considered nothing more than a political deception rather than the precious
Word of God. This, my friend, to Christians who understand their faith, is 
Apostacy. 

	"This is how you can know the Spirit of God: every spirit 
	that acknowledges Jesus Christ comes in the flesh belongs 
	to God, and every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus 
	does not belong to God. This is the spirit of the antichrist 
	that, as you heard, is to come, but in fact is already in
	the world."    1 John 4:2-4

Christians must understand that those who most require the adoption of
a feminist 'goddess' into the revelation of God have already given ample
evidence through their very words that they do not affirm the revelation
of Jesus Christ. The radical leaders of this movement have even described
Him as being unnecessary and in some cases a hinderance to the Feminist
cause. (The book, Ungodly Rage amply documents this position through the
words of leaders in the WomanChurch movement given at their own conventions.)


> In Christianity, for example, the figure of Mary and the reverence she 
> elicits are continuous with a reverence for a female deity that is much 
> older than Christianity. (Books on this subject I can think of off the top 
> of my head include The Hebrew Goddess, by Raphael Patai; The Gnostic 
> Gospels, by Elaine Pagels; Alone of All Her Sex (about Mary), by Marina 
> Warner; The Goddess Obscured, by Pamela Berger; and The Time Falling Bodies 
> Take to Light: Myth, Sexuality and the Origins of Culture, by William I. 
> Thompson.) 

This is offensive and untrue. Mary is NOT considered to be a diety and she
is not worshipped or considered some sort of substitute. I have never known
a person truely devoted to Mary and who prays the rosary to assert that she
was anything more than a human like the rest of us. We have never claimed
her to be in any way divine. I doubt that ANY of the writers of these books
have ever had a devotion to Mary or have prayed the rosary with attention
to the teachings contained therewithin.

It is more likely that the writers of these books see a political advantage 
to be gained from misinterperting (probably out of ignorance) devotion to 
Mary as some unfulfilled goddess worship. 

God does have a role in Salvation History for Mary and for all women, but
it is not that which is promogated by the Feminist movement. The serpent
in the garden decieved Eve to take the forbidden fruit by planting in her
mind the idea that God was withholding diety from His creatures and that if
they ate of the forbidden fruit then they would 'be like God'. 

I have a great devotion to Mary, but I would be the first to reject that
she was herself divine. I also reject attempts to introduce clearly pagan
dieties into Revelation of God. These have been and are today totally
unsupported God's revelation in scripture, the Person of Jesus Christ,
and 4,000 years of church teachings and doctrine.

There is a great treasure that God has given His church in Mary and in
her all women can discover all the blessings that He wishes us to have in
our womanhood. God is all Good and our greatest happiness, no matter our
gender, will be in fulfilling His perfect will for us. Right now, so many
women are rebelling against God's Will for them, and they are therefore
unhappy, bitter, and agressive to take what they feel has been denied them.
They do not trust God and they reject the very message to us that God has
given us through Mary. I reject attempts to redefine Mary for the political
ends of the feminist movement; even if successful, it will not bring 
true happiness and peace to women if it is not in God's will.


> I feel sad that such people are depriving themselves of the full richness 
> available to them in the religious tradition they embrace. 

I feel the same way when Mary is redefined for political purposes and misused
rather than discovering God's true gift to us in her.


> Regarding my own beliefs, I don't think they're really relevant here, 
> except insofar as my not having described myself as a Christian seems to be 
> drawing hostility from some noters.

Non-Christians who wish to accept pagan gods and goddesses as their gods and
goddesses certianly may worship as they please. You may even consider Jesus
to be a good guy. You may wear crystals and pray to the earth if you like, 
just don't call yourselves Christians or your religion as Christianity. 

Christianity is based on the testimony that Jesus Christ is both God and Man 
and that He was born of a woman, lived, and died on a Cross for our sins. He 
rose from the dead, ascended into heaven and lives with God the Father. He 
sent us His Spirit and He will come again in Glory and His kingdom with have 
no end. We are Baptised into life with Jesus Christ. This is absolutely the 
core affirmations, although there are more that can and are made in different 
Christian faiths. 

The name Christian is to make an affirmation that Jesus is the Christ and
that we are his followers. Those who do not affirm Jesus as the Christ yet
wish to be known as Christians do so with other purposes in mind such as
status, power, or subversion. (Who wants to be considered a pagan?).

If you cannot affirm Jesus as the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, then
'Christian' is misleading. Become 'Prophetians' followers of Jesus the
Prophet, or 'GoodGuys', follower of Jesus the Good Guy. Under these names,
feel free to re-write scripture to YOUR revelation, dropping out all that
you feel is not of God. The leaders of WomanChurch has suggested just this
thing, but refrains from it because the real issue is power; it is better to
gain power in an existing structure than to gain adherents from the grass
roots level. Unfortunatly, deceiption is what is necessary to gain this
power, and that is not a gift of the HOLY Spirit.


> Certain statements have reminded me a bit too sharply that the Inquisition, 
> during which several million people -- mostly women -- were murdered, with 
> the sanctioning of Christian authorities, wasn't all that long ago. 

Million??!! Mostly women! Come on now!! This is ludicrous and an example of
lies that the Deciever uses to spread division and to deceive others. 


> (On March 21 I attended a service in a Unitarian Church that was totally 
> focused on the Goddess; last time I checked the Unitarians were Christians?)

Not exactly, Unitarians have made a religion on not making a decision about
Jesus Christ. (Yes, this is a little sarcastic, but I'm a bit burned by
some of the outrageous and untrue arguements here.)

> Certainly the teachings of Christ himself on love and peace and tolerance 
> sound good to me.

Jesus also said that it was better for those who mislead others if a millstone
were placed around their neck and they were dropped into the ocean rather than
to face their destiny at the last judgement. You have every right to write in
this conference, but having the right to express your 'perspective' does not
mean that any person must accept your perspective; it does not prohibit any
other person from stating their own perspective. You may defend your statements
and beliefs just as I may defend mine. 

I have not read the other notes in this series yet and I am responding only
to the points made in .77, therefore, I'm not defending any other person's
remarks.

Peace (eventually) of Jesus, true Christ,

Mary

    Is it not just a teensy bit possible that some Christians do, in fact,
    hold an evolutionary perspective of religion, including Christianity,
    that looks into the influence of surrounding religions upon the
    development of what we know today?
    
    just a teensy, teensy bit?  I know a lot of my fellow Jews are open to
    lloking at *our* faith this way...
    
    Why does the religion have to be seen as immutable and dropped
    unchanging from heaven 2000 years ago to have truth in it?
    
    Or better yet, why do you want to deny some people from the right to
    discuss THEIR CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVES on that topic?
    
    this is depressing as hell...maybe its time to sign outta here for the
    time being.
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel                         

    My perspective is not the same as Mary's.  Despite her assertion
    to the contrary, it is Christian and I will continue to call it Christian.
    
    Richard
    

.81 -

Well.

For the moment, I'll only add that a) I did not claim that Mary is divine;
and 2) estimates of the number of people murdered as witches during the
"Renaissance" (14th-17th centuries) do indeed get up into the millions - the
high figure is nine million, and of those, 85% were women. Numerous books
exist on the subject. I invite you to rent the 1990 film "Burning Times"
(National Film Board of Canada) for a moving, scholarly account of this bit
of history, which, for reasons I'd best not speculate on, often doesn't
make it into the standard textbooks. 

Dorian

    Daniel, there are Christians who view their faith from an evolutionary
    perspective.
    
    It is a shame that Nancy Smith is no longer with the company.  She
    often offered some valuable insights from that point of view.
    
    -- Mike

                            
A friend has highly recommended this book to me and since it touches 
on what both Dorian and Daniel are eloquently trying to point out, 
I'm posting it here.  

"Marianne Williamson, author of the number one bestseller, A Return to
Love, now turns her attention to what it means to be a woman today in
her new book "Woman's Worth".  Drawing on her own experiences and
reflections, as well as her interaction with thousands of women across
the country, Marianne Williamson gives us a unique and very personal
view of the feminine spirit.  She looks at family, work, sex, love,
power -- and speaks to the dilemmas, spiritual and emotional, that
women face in today's world.  She also examines the enduring power of
female archtypes, from women healers to women who run with the wolves."

    
    			Juan

    Very good Mary! I hope that others read the reply. There are some basic
    fundamentals to being a Christian. Either you are or aren't.
    
    Note: I have no problem with reading about other religions.....i.e.
    pagan or new age. Indeed, I'm very respectful of the peoples motivation
    towards these alternative...but...they are not Christian.
    I really hope that folks like Ms. Brooks understand this.
    
    Marc H.

    Mike, Richard--
    
    Thank you.  I want to clarify a little:
    
    I note here for two reasons:
    
    1) As a non-Christain, I want ot interact and learn more...I do wish to
    understand a whole variety of Christian Perspectives
    
    2) This file, from its stated purpose, is open to a much wider range of
    discussion materials than GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  I would not DREAM of trying
    to discuss some of the subjects I have broached here in that file which
    seems to be much stricter in allowable discussion material.  The
    focus of C-P is such that I feel I can note here without violating file
    policy.
    
    If people disagree with non-inerrantist perspectives, don't hold them
    as part of their world view, of course that is fine and dandy.  But the
    furor and rush to condemn people and declare that they DON'T have a
    Christian P.O.V. or to tell people they have no business discussing
    certain topics is painful to listen to.  It says to me, that there is
    not going to be any room to say simply "we disagree" and then stand
    aside and let whoever wants to discuss something, discuss it.
    
    It also strikes me as rank hypocrisy that some who rail against
    "P.C.ism" are so quick to declare people have no business writing about
    the Goddess and her pssible influence over the development of modern
    theology.  That stinks royally.
    
    WHy not simply say "I disagree -- here's my perspective" and avoid the
    "you have no business...etc" garbage -- and then LET PEOPLE TALK ABOUT
    WHAT THEY WANT TO.  You already have GOLF::CHRISTIAN -- I want to be
    able to discuss Christianity here in the open way I've grown accustomed
    to...is that really so much?
    
    regards,
    
    Daniel

    >You already have GOLF::CHRISTIAN -- I want to be
    >able to discuss Christianity here in the open way I've grown accustomed
    >to...is that really so much?

    Aye, there's the rub.  Ever since this notes conference was created,
    there have been people who object to its policies and who would like
    nothing more than to mold it into the image of GOLF::CHRISTIAN (which,
    of course, would make this notes file redundant.)

    -- Mike

>    Is it not just a teensy bit possible that some Christians do, in fact,
>    hold an evolutionary perspective of religion, including Christianity,
>    that looks into the influence of surrounding religions upon the
>    development of what we know today?
    
 
     My Bible says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever.
     I wouldn't want to put my faith in a God that would change *anything* in
     His Word for any purpose, particularly due to political winds.  To me,
     I could have no faith in any of His promises as they too would be subject
     to change.  People move away from God, not vice versa.





    Jim




    

    Jim,
    
    And nobody (I hope!) would deny you the right to believe that -- would
    you deny others the right to believe otherwise and still call
    themselves Christians?
    
    More importantly, would you tell them they had no right to do so on
    this file?
    
    Daniel

RE        <<< Note 604.91 by BUSY::DKATZ "I touch the future - I TEACH" >>>

      
  >  And nobody (I hope!) would deny you the right to believe that -- would
  >  you deny others the right to believe otherwise and still call
  >  themselves Christians?
    
   
     I believe I can best answer that by saying I subscribe to the definition   
     of Christians that Mary put forth in .81
      


  >  More importantly, would you tell them they had no right to do so on
  >  this file?
    
   
     While I must say that I disagree with these folks using the term Christian
     and to be honest get angered and dismayed with same, I'm not sure I have
     the right to tell them not to do so.  But I certainly retain the right to
     disagree when I feel the name of Christ is being misused.




  Jim

    re: .82 and .91
    
    I don't wish to restrict anyone's right to note in this or any other
    conference. 
    
    What is your definition of "Christ", the root of the term, "Christian"?
    
    Upon what grounds should the term 'Christian', associated from the 
    beginning as recorded in ACTS as people following Jesus and bearing 
    witness to him as the Christ prophesized in the Jewish scripture, be
    overturned in favor of a concept which actually denys Jesus as Christ?
    
    On what history of holy writings, upon what history of tradition, 
    upon what history of the majority of believers through all ages are
    we to adopt that which is contrary to all that is written, all that is
    in church teachings, all that is in tradition, and all that has been
    affirmed by nearly 2000 years of Christianity?
    
    On the other hand, I can (if I had the time) dig up Counsel and 
    Doctor of the Church that has refuted as heresy and apostasy the
    'perspectives' that have been much of this string.  
    
    Words MEAN SOMETHING and the word Christ and Christian means something
    historically and in documented writings and it is opposite of what some
    people are trying to introduce. What do you EXPECT when someone who
    does not even affirm belief in Christ comes along and wishes to
    introduce a meaning that is anti-Christ [and I do mean anti-Christ,
    like it or not] as something that believers in Christ should accept.
    
    Personally, I don't care WHERE people post this stuff; begin a 
    PAGAN-PERSPECTIVE notesfile and I will still enter and say that it is
    not right to use the term Christian when defining certain beliefs.
    I do not stop anyone from writing these things in any forum, but I
    do feel that I have the right to respond when it is presented under
    the term 'Christian'.
    
    Mary
    

re: Note 604.90 by Jim "When will I ever learn?" 

I think you are comparing oranges to Daniel's apples.  You are talking about 
Jesus Christ, Daniel is talking about religion.  Two different things.
I agree that the Divinity is the same "yesterday, today, and tomorrow",
however my own understanding/relationship/knowledge does change.  Religions, 
as they are composed of congregations of people, have the same attribute of 
change.  Direct that change in a mostly improving and adaptable framework, 
while keeping the focus on the Divine, and I'd call it religious evolution.

Peace,

Jim

RE:                <<< Note 604.94 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>


>I think you are comparing oranges to Daniel's apples.  You are talking about 
>Jesus Christ, Daniel is talking about religion.  Two different things.

 I'm talking about Jesus Christ, the faith in whom being the basis for my
 "religion".  If He changes, Christianity changes.  If Christianity changes,
 He changes.




>change.  Direct that change in a mostly improving and adaptable framework, 
>while keeping the focus on the Divine, and I'd call it religious evolution.



 God and His Word being the framework, I see nothing for Him to improve upon,
 or adapt to.  As I said before..it is people who have moved away from God, not
 vice versa.




 Jim

    .93
    
    Mary,
    
    I don't *have* a personal definition of "Christian."  I am not a
    Christian.
    
    I've learned a lot on this file, both from people who take the inerrant
    position and from people who do not.  I wouldn't want to see either
    perspective disappear from here. I've had many fruitful discussion with
    both Collis Jackson and Jill Kinsella -- both of whom have a radically
    different perspective on the Biblical texts than I do. I have great
    respect for their ability to *discuss* their viewpoints and I value the
    interaction.
    
    But I am distressed by what seems to be an increasing devolution into
    *not* discussing. I see a great *increase* in saying "THAT ISN'T
    CHRISTIAN" and declaring great offense at someone DARING to post such
    notes here.
    
    But the file's purpose, as I've understood it, is to *encourage*
    diverse perspectives -- even ones that won't fit *your* definition of
    Christianity.
    
    What's been going on lately doesn't produce discussion.  It greatly
    increases the noise to volume ratio.
    
    Daniel

As much as people would like to feel that they do, nobody has a monopoly
on God.  God cannot be contained in anything finite, even a Book.  The reason
we call God 'God' isn't because it's a proper name.  It's basically shorthand
for the One Who is Ineffable.

Just because my understanding of God is incongruent with tradition or
conservative doctrine doesn't automatically mean that I have it wrong
and others have it right.  To me, it's upsetting to be identified with the
Robertsons, the Falwells, the Swaggarts and the Dobsons of the world simply
because we all profess to be Christians.

I personally would hesitate to lean on tradition for support.  The last
2000 years are riddled with sinful atrocities which have hardly brought
glory to the name of God.

Richard

    .93  Christ actually means the Anointed One.  Christ is Greek for
    the Hebrew word Messiah.
    
    Richard
    

		For the last several months now something has really got me 
bugged!  Whenever there is an honest discussion around a pertinent subject,
it seems to always fall into the abyss of intellectual gymnastics.  Semantics
becomes such an issue that the original question is obscured beyond 
recognition.  I cannot help but wonder what God must think about our actions
toward each other.  Its almost as if its an exercise in "point scoring". 
The last time I looked this was not a game, but a serious eternal question.

		Is it possible to understand intent rather than go through 
the convolutions of academic exercise?


Dave

    re: .98
    
    The Anointed One
    
    The Messiah
    
    Both of these definitions Mean Something which becomes refuted by such
    'Christian' theologies promulgated by people who do not even profess
    to BE Christians. 
    
    Why shouldn't I point out that these beiefs go against scripture, 
    church teachings and church doctrines?
    
    Why is it not proper for us to ask such proponents of Gaia worship,
    etc. to substantiate their theology, particularly as to how these
    teaching conform to Jesus Christ as the Anointed One, as the Messiah?
    
    What do you suppose would be the response of a Moslem if I went around
    saying that in my Islamic Perspective, Mohammed must have eaten pork
    and that he was not a prophet; instead, my Islamic perspective wants
    Islam to accept as Islamic this pork god(ess) discovered by
    archeologists and writers in the employ of the Hog Lobby of America?
    
    So, too, it is offensive for Christians who hold a 2000 year belief
    in Jesus as the Christ, to hear from non-Christians that we need to
    accept a goddess-figure. It is even more revolting when only a small
    amount of research into the teachings of the leaders of this movement
    demonstrates a true rejection of Christ.
    
    I'm sorry about the discomfort my Christian perspective produces in 
    others, we are both suffering discomfort over these issues, but some
    things need to be said. I accept all rejection to either myself or
    to my perspective that I know in advance will occur here. Those who
    do not want to see any Christian Perspectives other than the ones
    they agree with can easily figure out which notes and responses to
    avoid here.
    
    Mary
     
    
    
    

    RE: .100  Mary,
    
    			It seems to me that calling a "term" as going
    against scripture can be dangerous.  Semantics varies from denomination
    to denomination.  When we do what you suggest, we run the risk of
    forgetting the real "commission" and alienating the very ones we are to
    convert.  Why is it *SO* necessary to take offense when scripture
    clearly states to rejoice when people revile you for my sake.  When you
    begin to delve into intent rather than semantics you might find far
    more common ground than you relize.  Its this common ground that
    provides opportunity for real understanding and conversion.  I just see
    all this legality as Pharasitic.
    
    
    Dave

    re: .99
    
    The meaning of words and terms is important. The Communists were
    masters at assigning new definitions to words so as to subvert
    the concepts described in their long-held meanings. In this way
    they made the original meanings corrupt, suspect, and meaningless.
    This also became the means of indoctrinating younger people into
    Communistic ideology as children were taught new meanings while
    the older generation though they were still learning the old
    concepts. It created confusion and a delayed reaction to the
    corruptions that were taking place.
    
    When ANY concept or theology needs to be accepted under the term,
    Christian, then it corrupts the definitions and concepts. As Jim
    said in an earlier note, it changes people's ideas of Christianity
    and Christ. 
    
    I, and many many others, are not going to let the teachings of Jesus
    Christ, incarnate as God and Man who suffered and died for our sins,
    and who is resurrected into eternal life with God the Father, and who
    will come again in Glory be lost through this corruption of the term
    Christian, at least not in silence.
    
    Words, terms, and definitions mean something.
    
    SOME (not all) of the perspectives in this conference are just outright
    incompatible with the basic and long-established proclaimations of 
    Christian faith. 
    
    
    These same beliefs would be inconsequential as a faith if they had to
    be evaluated and professed on their own merits. Let those who cannot
    affirm Jesus as the Messiah, but who wish to accept some of his
    teachings start their own religion with well-defined doctrines :
    
    
    	Prophetism
    
    We believe :
    
    1.	Jesus was a prophet who had some good ideas of how people should
    	act.
    
    2.  God is both female and male and we call Him/Her Geraldo and Oprah.
    
    3.  The earth is a living creature called Ghia.
    
    4.  The conference has gotten together in 1993 and wrote our
    	holy scriptures :
    
    		Woman is Free   by  Jennie Smith
    		Susie has Two Mommies by the Rainbow curriculum
    		The Whole Earth Catelogue
    		WomanStories	by the leadership of WomanChurch
    		The following books and chapters of the
    			Bible (very short list)
    		The Power of the Pyramids	by Guru Swammie
    		UFOs the Coming Saviors		by Outer Fringe
    
    
    Do this, and I'll leave you at peace with your religion. I'm certain
    there are plenty out there right now close to this. At least they
    grow in membership on their own forthright doctrine and they do not
    subvert the name and meaning of an existing and highly defined faith
    by misappropriating their name. 
    
    Mary
    

Luke 9.49-50

	John spoke up, "Master, we saw a man driving out demons in your
name and we told him to stop, because he doesn't belong to our group."

	"Do not try to stop him," Jesus said to him and to the other
disciples, "because whoever is not against you is for you."


And so we see, the problem of who is not one of us and whom we should attempt
to exclude is not a new one.

Richard

    re: .101
    
    I realize that we have common ground in our desire to be good in our
    lives and to create good things for ourselves and one another and
    to treat each other well. I know this is pleasing to God and it is 
    what we all desire. This is what I would have for all of the people
    in this conference.
    
    I respect the goodness and intentions of all people, Moslems, Hindu,
    Buddists, and athiests. I respect their rights to believe in Mohammed,
    Buddah, or no God. I respect the rights of those who worship Ghia to
    do so in freedom and in peace. 
    
    I would say that it would be wrong for me or anyone to go to a Hindu
    and say to them that because I had the idea that Jesus fits my concept
    of Hinduism that they should accept that, too, particularly if I
    could not support this assertion through the illumination of their
    holy writings. 
    
    The early Christians tried to show to the Jewish people how Christ 
    fulfilled their Old Testament prophesies of the Messiah. Jesus tried
    to do this, too. They did not tell the Jewish people to refute their
    holy scripture. Rather they tried to illuminate the meanings by citing
    the actual writings and pointing to how Jesus fulfilled the prophesy.
    
    By all means, Ghia worshipers, bring forth your holy books, doctrines,
    teachings, etc. and make the attempt to illuminate us as to why we
    should accept Ghia as a truely Christian concept. Accept also, my right
    to respond with the reasons why this belief is incompatible with 
    this teaching. I will be happy to still love you and to wish the best
    for you and to treat you with respect with the right to have this 
    belief that I do not accept. 
    
    When Jesus Christ was not accepted by the Jewish people, His followers
    accepted their differentiated faith and were identified and known as
    Christians. From the earliest times, certain professions of faith 
    have defined the Christian faith and these should be respected; to do 
    otherwise is to act with force, violence, and subversion, hardly an act 
    of dignity and respect for the beliefs of others.
    
    The reason for Christian sects is because there are different
    professions of faith. You are not ready to abandon your profession
    in favor of mine are you? You are not ready to accept EVERY concept
    and definition of Christianity as most imtimatly practiced and believed
    by you. If indeed you were ready to accept this, then you would 
    convert to my particular faith, because in doing so you would be in
    communion with the greatest uniformity of belief (Christian belief,
    that is). Why don't you do this?  Because you do not have the same
    profession and it matters enough to you to maintain a separation.
    
    Why do you not introduce Ghiaism, Crystal Power, and Luciferism into
    your church and demand that it be accepted under the same principle of
    God's desire for us to love him and each other? If everything was 
    accepted then nothing could be rejected. 
    
    It's because it matters to you and to the people that you unite with
    in belief. More than anything else, it matters because we all know that
    it is our creaturly responsibility and joy to know, love, and worship
    God above all else and to put no other gods before Him. None of us
    wishes to have a god that we do not recognize as God forced upon us
    against our will. 
    
    We should all respect this and not force this before it is freely
    given. Separated, and without this conflict, we can INVITE others to
    share our beliefs rather than demand that they accept them. 
    
    Mary
    
    
    
    
    
     You, like myself, are probably willing to accept that others
    believe differently that yourself and to allow them to have those
    beliefs. That does not mean that you must accept them.
    
    

    re : .103
    
    The demons were being driven out in the name of Jesus Christ.
    This is quite a different thing than telling Christians that it
    is acceptable and the same to drive out demons in the name of
    Ghia, Sophia, or Mother/Goddess.
    
    The crux of the matter here is that people who do NOT acknowledge
    Jesus Christ are pressing the Christian faiths to acknowledge all 
    these other unsupported variants.
    
    Mary
     

 >I'm talking about Jesus Christ, the faith in whom being the basis for my
 >"religion".  If He changes, Christianity changes.  If Christianity changes,
 >He changes.

    That is not necessarily correct.  You assume two things: that
    Christians have never made mistakes in their formulation of their
    dogma, and that Christians developed an immediate, complete and
    comprehensive understanding of theological questions from the
    beginning.  An evolutionary perspective on religion assumes neither of
    those things.  Typically it assumes that it is not God that changes,
    but human understanding of God.

    -- Mike

    >Why is it not proper for us to ask such proponents of Gaia worship,
    >etc. to substantiate their theology, particularly as to how these
    >teaching conform to Jesus Christ as the Anointed One, as the Messiah?

    I think it is this repeated process of demanding that others justify
    themselves here that is the most offensive and insidious tendency in
    this notes file.  I have friends whose presence here I valued, who were
    driven away from this notes file because of it.  Such behavior simply
    turns this notes file away from a place where people can share their
    beliefs openly and honestly to one where they have to be put on the
    continual defensive, where their beliefs are attacked and where sharing
    and discussing is replaced by parlor room debating.  It is offensive in
    the extreme.  It is truly shameful that sharing one's faith must turn
    into attacking the faith of others, and it is this more than anything
    else that has harmed this notes file.

    >When ANY concept or theology needs to be accepted under the term,
    >Christian, then it corrupts the definitions and concepts. As Jim
    >said in an earlier note, it changes people's ideas of Christianity
    >and Christ. 
    
    No one here is suggesting that ANY concept of theology needs to be
    accepted under the term Christian.  You are suggesting that there must
    necessarily be only two alternatives:  Christianity is a rigidly
    defined concept, or Christianity means nothing.  But this kind of
    binary thinking is not the way human language works.  Your comment
    "words, terms, and definitions mean something" is true, but what does
    it really mean to say that? 

    I have brought up Wittgenstein here before, and I'll bring him up now
    once again.  One of this twentieth century linguistic philosopher's
    great insights was his understanding that those who want to propose
    rigid, precise definitions on words are often mistaken in their
    understanding of human language.  He argued that words are more like a
    rope, which each strand of meaning intertwined with other strands, and
    that concepts often express family resemblances rather than precise
    terms that can be explicitly identified.  There is a passage in his
    book "Philosophical Investigations" where he argues, for example, that
    any attempt at proposing a single, comprehensive definition of a word
    as simple as "game" is fraught with difficulties, if not impossible. 
    And if this is true for "game", imagine how it is so with the word
    "Christian".

    >These same beliefs would be inconsequential as a faith if they had to
    >be evaluated and professed on their own merits. Let those who cannot
    >affirm Jesus as the Messiah, but who wish to accept some of his
    >teachings start their own religion with well-defined doctrines :

    You presuppose that a religious faith must necessarily be defined in
    terms of "well-defined doctrines", and what necessarily distinguishes
    one religion from another is the laundry list of beliefs that you can
    spell out.  While this is a neat, tidy definition of religion, it is
    not what characterizes all religions.  Some religions are non-creedal. 
    Quakers have no creed, and Unitarian Universalists have no creed. 
    Quakers have survived as a denomination for the last 350 years, with a
    strong self-identity, yet without imposing a formal and rigidly defined
    laundry list of beliefs as the definition of the faith.  We don't have
    a laundry list.  Given the laundry-list definition of religion that you
    are proposing, this would be impossible.  But the fact that it does not
    view religion in this manner makes it no less a religion; it simply
    reflects the fact that it views the very nature of religion in a
    slightly different way than you do.

    Because this paradigm for religion does not conform with your own
    understanding of what a religion must necessarily be all about, you
    insist on re-imposing your own paradigm upon it by asserting that
    others must somehow spell out this specific laundry list of tenets that
    must clearly and distinctly characterize it in distinction from what
    you have spelled out as your own and which you have identified with
    "Christianity".  Would that it were that simple.
    
    -- Mike

RE: .104  Mary,   
    
   > I realize that we have common ground in our desire to be good in our
   > lives and to create good things for ourselves and one another and
   > to treat each other well. I know this is pleasing to God and it is 
   > what we all desire. This is what I would have for all of the people
   > in this conference.
	
	I agree....this is a very good statement. 
   
   > I respect the goodness and intentions of all people, Moslems, Hindu,
   > Buddists, and athiests. I respect their rights to believe in Mohammed,
   > Buddah, or no God. I respect the rights of those who worship Ghia to
   > do so in freedom and in peace. 
   
	Ok.
 
   >I would say that it would be wrong for me or anyone to go to a Hindu
   > and say to them that because I had the idea that Jesus fits my concept
   > of Hinduism that they should accept that, too, particularly if I
   > could not support this assertion through the illumination of their
   > holy writings. 
    
	Again...ok.

   > The early Christians tried to show to the Jewish people how Christ 
   > fulfilled their Old Testament prophesies of the Messiah. Jesus tried
   > to do this, too. They did not tell the Jewish people to refute their
   > holy scripture. Rather they tried to illuminate the meanings by citing
   > the actual writings and pointing to how Jesus fulfilled the prophesy.
    
	Yes...this is also as I understand it.

   > By all means, Ghia worshipers, bring forth your holy books, doctrines,
   > teachings, etc. and make the attempt to illuminate us as to why we
   > should accept Ghia as a truely Christian concept. Accept also, my right
   > to respond with the reasons why this belief is incompatible with 
   > this teaching. I will be happy to still love you and to wish the best
   > for you and to treat you with respect with the right to have this 
   > belief that I do not accept. 
    
	Uh....now I'm a bit confused.  Since this note was/is pointed at mine,
     I fail to understand what this has to do with me.

   > When Jesus Christ was not accepted by the Jewish people, His followers
   > accepted their differentiated faith and were identified and known as
   > Christians. From the earliest times, certain professions of faith 
   > have defined the Christian faith and these should be respected; to do 
   > otherwise is to act with force, violence, and subversion, hardly an act 
   > of dignity and respect for the beliefs of others.
    
	Yes? 

   > The reason for Christian sects is because there are different
   > professions of faith. You are not ready to abandon your profession
   > in favor of mine are you? You are not ready to accept EVERY concept
   > and definition of Christianity as most imtimatly practiced and believed
   > by you. If indeed you were ready to accept this, then you would 
   > convert to my particular faith, because in doing so you would be in
   > communion with the greatest uniformity of belief (Christian belief,
   > that is). Why don't you do this?  Because you do not have the same
   > profession and it matters enough to you to maintain a separation.

    
	No, Mary.  I will not abandon my profession of faith.  I am however,
     at a loss as to what you believe my profession truly is.  And what makes
     you believe that I haven't already accepted the one and only true faith?

  
   > Why do you not introduce Ghiaism, Crystal Power, and Luciferism into
   > your church and demand that it be accepted under the same principle of
   > God's desire for us to love him and each other? If everything was 
   > accepted then nothing could be rejected. 
    
	Why introduce what I do not believe?  I suggest you investigate my
     previous notes in this file to discover what I do believe.  You might
     start with my testimony written elsewhere in this file.

   > It's because it matters to you and to the people that you unite with
   > in belief. More than anything else, it matters because we all know that
   > it is our creaturly responsibility and joy to know, love, and worship
   > God above all else and to put no other gods before Him. None of us
   > wishes to have a god that we do not recognize as God forced upon us
   > against our will. 
 
	Ok.
   
   > We should all respect this and not force this before it is freely
   > given. Separated, and without this conflict, we can INVITE others to
   > share our beliefs rather than demand that they accept them. 
    
	I agree.       
        
  >   You, like myself, are probably willing to accept that others
  >  believe differently that yourself and to allow them to have those
  >  beliefs. That does not mean that you must accept them.
    
    	Some might disagree with this assertion about me. ;-)


Dave

    Mary,
    
    		I forgot to tell you where my personal testimony is.  Its
    290.2 if you wish to read it.
    
    
    Dave

	Good morning!

	Re: .70 Valenza

	>By the way, Derek, as one who has come to appreciate many good
	>and loving Christians, I think it is important not to judge all
	>of them based on the behaviour of certain ones.

	Thanks Mike. You may be assured that I do not. As I said, some
	of my best friends are Christians. The only case - that I am
	aware of - that I tend to generalise is:  Beetroot!!!  Having
	once tasted one, I never want to see another in my life.

	Re: .71 Henderson

	>I don't see anyone "shooting" at anyone who comes near.

	God's greatest error?: He created the human eye with a blind spot.
	
	>We are told always to be ready to provide a defense for our
	>beliefs.

	I thought that I illustrated the most effective defense possible:
	Put up welcome signs and offer refreshment.

	>Exhibiting His love does not mean, IMO, that we are to stand idly
	>by while others bash, ridicul or otherwise assault our beliefs.

	I would not ask you to be idle: Serve the refreshments; tear down
	the barriers and bastions; guide the visitors through your wonder-
	land.  The missiles and weapons of assault serve no purpose when
	there are no opposing walls.  It's called the Peace Bonus!

	Re: .74 J_Christie

	>Am I the only one who sees a contradiction here.

	You are not alone, Richard.

	Re: .77 Brooks

	Dorian, you have a right to be saddened. Not the least because
	you have been driven by some here to modify your salutation to
	a non-committal G<fill-in-the-blank> Bless.

	Shame on you: If *they* have the right to stand up and fight, so
	do you.

	There are many forms of salutation in these notes, each springing
	from the individual's *very own* belief set. I have not detected
	an anti-Christian bias in your notes and see no reason to project
	one into your salutation. It is not anti-Christian to fight for
	an end to sexist attitudes. You are carrying the same banner that
	the Jesus of my Bibles carried. Carry it proudly.

	Re: .81 MNelson

	>For one thing, God made clear that we are not to worship that
	>which He created, but rather the creator.

	Is it not tantamount to worshiping the created when one goes to
	the extent of vilifying those who encroach on ones sensibilities
	in relation to the interpretation of (mere) words?

	Re: .90 Henderson

	I think you are saying "No" to Richard's point that there are
	Christians that view their faith from an evolutionary perspective.

	Quite apart from the fact that there *are* such Christians, I
	find an alternative view to be absurd. The fact is that Christianity
	itself evolved from Judeo-Christianity - driven by Paul initially -
	which, in turn evolved from Judaism - driven by Jesus's brothers -
	which, in its turn evolved from Paganism - driven mostly by the
	traditions of Moses and Abraham. Paganism itself evolved in response
	to early mans' search for meaning in his environment.
	
	Greetings, Derek.

RE:         <<< Note 604.106 by JURAN::VALENZA "My note runneth over." >>>

 
 >   That is not necessarily correct.  You assume two things: that
 >   Christians have never made mistakes in their formulation of their
 >   dogma, and that Christians developed an immediate, complete and
 >   comprehensive understanding of theological questions from the
 >   beginning.  An evolutionary perspective on religion assumes neither of
  
     
     Well, here we have the major difference in that I accept the Bible as 
     the inerrant Word of God.  And since early Christian theology came from
     the teachings of those who walked with Jesus, I accept that we have what
     He wanted us to know.

     What would change in our understanding of God?  Would you see Him being
     more tolerant of sin, for example, or redefining sin?




 >   those things.  Typically it assumes that it is not God that changes,
 >   but human understanding of God.

  

     Perhaps its due to my viewpoint on the sinful nature of man, but I suspect
     that changing our human understanding of God would seek to justify our
     sin or other activities/behavior not pleasing to Him.





 Jim

    I realize that you accept the Bible as inerrant.  I was pointing out
    that an evolutionary perspective does not believe that the evolution
    implies a changing God, but rather a changing human perspective of an
    unchanging God.  You are free to disagree with this perspective, but it
    is important to at least understand what you are disagreeing with.
    
    -- Mike

RE: <<< Note 604.110 by VNABRW::BUTTON "Do not reset mind, reality is fuzzy !" >>>
                             -< Divers responses. >-

>	Good morning!



       And good morning to you, sir!  A beautiful morning in New England!




>>	Re: .71 Henderson

>>	>I don't see anyone "shooting" at anyone who comes near.

>	God's greatest error?: He created the human eye with a blind spot.
	

        Forgive me...self defensive "shooting" perhaps?




>>	>We are told always to be ready to provide a defense for our
	>beliefs.

>	I thought that I illustrated the most effective defense possible:
>	Put up welcome signs and offer refreshment.

        I invite you to attend any Bible believing church in your area, where
        I am sure you will be welcome and greeted with a smile and a handshake,
        and perhaps a cup of coffee, as I'm sure you would were you to attend 
        mine.  But, the message, I believe would still be the same as that 
        put forth by those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible and salva-
        tion through Jesus Christ.
        



>	I would not ask you to be idle: Serve the refreshments; tear down
>	the barriers and bastions; guide the visitors through your wonder-
>	land.  The missiles and weapons of assault serve no purpose when
>	there are no opposing walls.  It's called the Peace Bonus!

        Which "barriers and bastions" would you like us to tear down?  Those
        (which some refer to as barriers) that form the basis for our beliefs?






>>	Re: .90 Henderson

>	I think you are saying "No" to Richard's point that there are
>	Christians that view their faith from an evolutionary perspective.

        Actually, it was Daniel's note.



>	Quite apart from the fact that there *are* such Christians, I
>	find an alternative view to be absurd. The fact is that Christianity
>	itself evolved from Judeo-Christianity - driven by Paul initially -
>	which, in turn evolved from Judaism - driven by Jesus's brothers -
>	which, in its turn evolved from Paganism - driven mostly by the
>	traditions of Moses and Abraham. Paganism itself evolved in response
>	to early mans' search for meaning in his environment.
	


        And, there we have another basic difference, as I don't view Christian-
        ity as having "evolved".







 Jim

    By the way, the idea that the disciples got everything right simply
    because they walked with Jesus is rather interesting in light of the
    ways in which Jesus himself was recorded as having rebuked the
    disciples for being rather dense at times or not getting things quite
    right.  In Mark 7:18, he expresses his disappointment to them that they
    did not understand the meaning of a parable.  At another point he tells
    Peter, "Get behind me, Satan!" in rather notable expression of
    exasperation at Peter's cluelessness.  There were many other examples
    as well.  (Of course, Paul, who had a major role in formulating
    early Christian theology, didn't even know Jesus while he walked on
    this earth.)

    The idea that the early disciples were incapable of error in
    formulating Christian doctrine after Jesus was gone assigns to them a
    perfection that I personally would only assign to God.

    Of course, I cited two issues in religious evolution:  accuracy and
    comprehensiveness.  As far as I know, even the Catholic Church, which
    claims to be the sole true inheritor of an unbroken Christian tradition
    going back to Christ, while not admitting to having made doctrinal
    mistakes, does recognize that its understanding can grow over time with
    the guidance of the Holy Spirit--so even Catholicism recognizes that
    there is an evolution of understanding.  So while that perspective
    would not seem to accept one of the two issues that I cited as issues
    in religious evolution--accuracy--it does accept the other one--a lack
    of comprehensiveness.

    Quakers also believe in an evolutionary perspective on religion, and
    even have a term for it: "continuing revelation".

    -- Mike

    I read in yesterday's Worcestor Telegram that the Dalai Lama offered a
    prayer at a Holocaust memorial.  I wonder if he was violating his 
    Buddhist integrity by praying at a Jewish memorial?  Gee I hope no Jews
    were in attendance when he did that.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

The only valid evolution of understanding is that which remains true
to the historic deposit of faith, of which Holy Scripture is the most
central part.

Anything which contradicts this deposit of faith is not of God.

/john

re: Note 604.95 by Jim "When will I ever learn?" 

> I'm talking about Jesus Christ, the faith in whom being the basis for my
> "religion".  If He changes, Christianity changes.  If Christianity changes,
> He changes.

Certainly if the Divinity changes, then our understanding changes, but I do 
not see that our evolving understanding of the Divine necessarily changes God.

Did the orbit of the earth suddenly change after Copernicus?  No.  Did the 
universe change when Einsteinian rules replaced Newtonian physics?  No.
Neither does our changing understanding of the revealed nature of our Lord 
cause God to change.

> God and His Word being the framework, I see nothing for Him to improve upon,
> or adapt to.  

Me either, we are in agreement with that.  However I must confess that my 
perception of God and His word has not attained a level of perfection, 
therefore I am willing for my perception to change and adapt as I increase 
my understanding and awareness.

>As I said before..it is people who have moved away from God, not vice versa.

No disagreement here at all, but a question...why do you suppose people move 
closer to or away from God?  *Something* must be changing!  And here we come 
back to the apples and oranges.  We agree that it is not God.  Perhaps it is 
people's perceptions.

Peace,

Jim

re Note 604.116 by COVERT::COVERT:

> The only valid evolution of understanding is that which remains true
> to the historic deposit of faith, of which Holy Scripture is the most
> central part.
> 
> Anything which contradicts this deposit of faith is not of God.
  
        What do you mean by "faith" in this context?

        I believe that each and every believer (I will side-step for
        now the definition of believer) has received a gift of faith
        from God.

        Is that the "deposit" you mean?

        Or do you mean some other "faith"?

        Bob

Inherent parts of the sacred deposit of faith are:

	The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
	as the revealed Word of God

	The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the
	Christian Faith

	Baptism and the Holy Eucharist

	The teachings of the Apostles and their successors,
	in so far as they are consistent with the remainder
	of the deposit.

The Christian faith is consistent and must remain consistent; our
understanding may grow but may not contradict that which has gone
before.

/john

re Note 604.119 by COVERT::COVERT:

>           -< Valid interpretation of faith only occurs in community >-
> 
> Inherent parts of the sacred deposit of faith are:
> 
> 	The Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament
> 	as the revealed Word of God
> 
> 	The Nicene Creed as the sufficient statement of the
> 	Christian Faith
> 
> 	Baptism and the Holy Eucharist
> 
> 	The teachings of the Apostles and their successors,
> 	in so far as they are consistent with the remainder
> 	of the deposit.
> 
> The Christian faith is consistent and must remain consistent; our
> understanding may grow but may not contradict that which has gone
> before.
  
        And where did this "meta deposit of faith" come from?

        You mention "Valid interpretation of faith only occurs in
        community" -- how does one determine the community?

        Bob

    
.116

>   The only valid evolution of understanding is that which remains true
>   to the historic deposit of faith, of which Holy Scripture is the most
>   central part.

>   Anything which contradicts this deposit of faith is not of God.


...I'd say your reasoning's a bit fossil.

Dorian

RE:                <<< Note 604.117 by TFH::KIRK "a simple song" >>>
                             -< where's the beef? >-

>Me either, we are in agreement with that.  However I must confess that my 
>perception of God and His word has not attained a level of perfection, 
>therefore I am willing for my perception to change and adapt as I increase 
>my understanding and awareness.

  Well, I suppose for that matter neither has mine.  Each day as I read the
 Bible or hear His word preached I sit in awe of how accurate His word is, and
 how magnificent His plan is, and just how "awesome" if I may use the term, His 
 love is..  All serving to draw me closer to Him and wanting to serve Him more.


>No disagreement here at all, but a question...why do you suppose people move 
>closer to or away from God?  *Something* must be changing!  And here we come 
>back to the apples and oranges.  We agree that it is not God.  Perhaps it is 
>people's perceptions.


 Well, speaking for myself..I was separated from God for 27 years til I accept-
 ed Him as Lord 15 years ago.  I had convinced myself that I was a good person,
 that I didn't need a "saviour", etc.  Upon a closer reading of the Bible, and
 prayer, I realized yes indeed, I was a sinner and no way was I "good" enough.
 Then, as  crisis hit my family, my faith weakened and I slipped away eventually
 fallingn into a lifestyle that, while not horrible, was certainly not Godly.
 A few months ago I woke up and returned to the fold..

 I attribute my 4-5 of years of being away from God as me wanting to persue 
 what *I* thought was the right life for me, doing what I wanted to do and try-
 ing to justify it and bend the Bible to support it.  Didn't work.


 
 Jim

    The idea that "the Christian faith is consistent and must remain
    consistent; our understanding may grow but may not contradict that
    which has gone before" is another way of stating the belief that I
    cited earlier, namely that the early Christians were supposedly
    incapable of making theological errors, but they were capable of
    lacking a comprehensive theological vision.  Of course, according to
    the assertion that *any* change implies a changing God, even this sort
    of evolution would be impossible.

    The idea that these early Christians made no mistakes is a convenient
    way of putting a clamp down on thinking, since it prevents people from
    revisiting a whole range of issues once they are deemed "settled".  By
    declaring certain subjects as taboo and forbidden from further
    investigation and consideration, one can manage to make Christianity a
    religion for automatons.  If you instead view the faith as a process
    and a relationship rather than a mindless adherence to a set of
    principles established by a group of dead people deemed to have been
    incapable of making logical errors about a set of theological
    questions, then of course the whole matter becomes much more complex. 

    I am also sure that a lot of devoutly Christian Quakers would be
    interested to see "Baptism and the Holy Eucharist" defined as inherent
    parts of the Christian faith.  If that is meant to imply a literal
    baptism of water and a literal ritual of sharing wine and bread, then
    they would view things quite differently; on the other hand, if it
    means a baptism of fire and a figurative communion of people sharing in
    their worship, then there would be no disagreement.  The word Eucharist
    is also interesting; in the conservative Protestant church of my youth,
    that word was not, as far as I can remember, used to describe
    communion.

    -- Mike

    What is the thread on "goddess"?  Is anyone defining and declaring it
    to be a Christian perspective?  Or is the issue whether or not it is
    insulting to some Christians? (which of course it is)  Or the need to
    accept such a belief, and in fact, all beliefs, an essential part of
    Christianity (with the dictum when blasphemed on the right cheek, turn
    and offer the left)
    
    What's the common ground shared between Christians who believe in the
    what the Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, and Orthodox Churches teach
    and a Christian who addresses "goddess" in heaven?

	Re: 113::Henderson

	Good morning again, Jim: (In Vienna, too, Spring has come and the
	sun shines).

	>Forgive me ...self defensive "shooting" perhaps?

	That presupposes an attack. We differ on whether or not your faith
	was under attack: It is, of course, a personal perspective. I saw
	it as a case of shoot first and open a rathole later. I do observe
	generally in CP that, frequently, questions are raised in a genuine
	attempt to find a Christian Perspective and the question(er) is
	put immediately on the defensive by use of one of a few standard
	tactics:

	"It depends on what you *mean* by "scriptomogglebus" or
	"Where are your sources: show me chapter and verse" or
	"If you're saying what I think you're saying..." (in response to
	a totally unambiguous statement, giving the responder the *right*
	to put words into the mouth of the noter) or
	"What's his scholarship?"
	These observations are not necessarily directed at you: they are
	comments of what I see here as shooting.

	>I invite you to attend any Bible believing church...

	I do so, quite frequently. And you are right, I am usually made to
	feel welcome even when I make clear that I am not a Christian.
	And then, over coffee and buns the questioning starts.
	"Why do you hate Jesus so?" (two weeks ago in an Evangelical
	church); "What's it like to be an Atheist?" (a little over a month
	ago in a Catholic church). Neither of these suppositions can be
	justified: nor are they correct.
	When I asked: Why should an eternal, omnipotent all-powerful God
	want to add something like man/woman to his creation?  (a question
	which really bothers me) the barriers go up. "That's blasphemy",
	someone makes the sign of the cross (praying for me? or warding
	off contamination?), the coffee runs out and the atmosphere becomes
	frosty. Why?
	Once, several years ago, I asked a Catholic Priest why it was so
	important for him/his church to believe that Jesus was not married,
	or that he had no brothers/sisters. His answer: "Son, if you hold
	such heretical opinions of Our Dear Lord, I suggest you go away
	and pray for forgiveness; but don't do it in this church, we are
	proud of our love for the real Christ.
	Admittedly, these are isolated incidents and certainly not the
	view of most Catholics or other Christians. But, put yourself in
	my place: I am looking for answers and get arrows.

	No, I don't want you to tear down the foundations of your beliefs.
	I do not - no one - has that right.  But make it accessible: that
	was the theme of my note. "On this rock I will build my church."
	If you believe that - which I think you must - then what are you
	afraid of? (read "you" as 2nd person plural, please). Even your
	worst-case scenario - where all "outsiders" are anti and in pact
	with the Devil - should not be a threat. Or do I misunderstand
	your faith?
	Most of us do not come close to being worst-case.

	>Actually it was Daniel's note.
 
	Even non-Christians can err. Sorry Daniel; excuse me Richard; thank
	you Jim.

	>..another basic difference, as I don't view Christianity to have
	>"evolved".

	This is one of the rare occasions where I feel an urge to do some
	conversion work rather than to merely discuss. However; Get thee
	behind me Satan!  Jim, would it be a problem for you to explain to
	me how you think the chain: Pagan Gods - Hebrew "one" God - Jesus -
	Christ - Christiany got here without evolving. Maybe the secret
	is hidden in the ".." in which you encased *evolved*?
	
	(I know that this sentence has a sarcastic ring to it, but I have
	genuinely tried to formulate it without any such flavour: but I am
	not master of my mother tongue). I am also aware that it sounds a
	bit like my scriptomogglebus thing, above. It's different: I am
	unarmed and seeking knowledge.
	
	Maybe we should start a new string: this rathole is so deep, I 
	can't see daylight any more.

	Greetings, Derek.

    The substance of 604.124 as I wrote it. Does anyone define and declare
    addressing "goddess" to be a Christian perspective?
    
    And it one does, what common ground does that person share with what 
    Catholic, Anglican, Protestant, and Orthodox Churches teach regarding
    beliefs about Jesus Christ?

    RE: .126
    
    Derek...you have raised some interesting questions. Honest, searching
    questions *should* be meet with a loving/christian answer. The examples
    you cited were not, in my opinion.
    
    I think that, while painful, this discussion is useful because it
    really has me and others searching into our souls as to just *what*
    we really believe. I know that I have benifited from the exchange.
    
    I think that the big fuss over the word "christian" really revolves
    around peoples's core beliefs....using the word "goddess" just
    hits many of us right at the root of what we believe....hence the
    emotion. I admit that I have reacted in an emotional way.
    
    People have every right to believe what they want, and I really do
    learn from alternative ideas....hey...even the UU's have important
    concepts of much benifit to me ( just using the UU's as an example
    here).
    
    Marc H.

	Comment inspired by .128::Henderson & two off-line mails.

	I guess the responses that I have given in this string hold a
	kind of "Watermark" message. That's a message which you can read
	if you hold the text up to the light which is an intentional
	allegory to Word and Light which is familiar to Christians.

	What I'm saying is: I *really* do not believe that anyone comes
	into CP with the *intention* of putting Christians/non-Christians
	down. Some are searching; for truth, companionship or simple
	mental athletics. Others are attracted by the opportunity to
	discuss these subjects in a forum which extends a little wider
	that the four churches in the six block around their homes; some
	come with the hope of leading others to their particular brand of
	truth.

	But NONE - I really believe this - WANT to hurt others!

	Occasionally, they will do so. Well they're not noteing in
	NODX::STAMP_COLLECTING where emotions may lower the values.
	They're in CP where emotions are part and parcel of the perspective.
	If you can't stand the heat....

	So! If the occasion does arise - as it inevitably will - that you
	feel insulted, ok get up and say: "I feel insulted." Leave it that.
	Don't add "or...".  Maybe the "insulter" will apologise, maybe
	not: that's culture, not religion. When it boils down to it,
	we are each of us responsible for our own emotions. It's your
	choice to be insulted or not. The choice is made easier if you
	remember that no one here *wants* to hurt you.

	The choice for Christians -IMO - should be easier still. If you
	want to know why, look at the watermark in the pages of the Bible.

	Greetings, Derek.

Re:  604.123

  >...namely that the early Christians were supposedly incapable of making 
  >theological errors, but they were capable of lacking a comprehensive theological 
  >vision.  

It is the Bible's contention that it is true and written by God.  This, of
course, does not make the early Christians incapable of making theological
(or other kinds of errors), however it does mean that the Holy Spirit was
directing (breathing) the writing when that happened.  I certainly agree
with you that many early Christians lack a comprehensive theological
vision.

  >The idea that these early Christians made no mistakes is a convenient
  >way of putting a clamp down on thinking, 

Let's be specific, Mike.  You don't need to generalize in order to make your
point more effective; it only makes it less effective since you imply something
different than the Bible claims.  We're not talking about "early Christians",
we're talking about prophets of God during their (His) writing of Scripture.

  >By declaring certain subjects as taboo and forbidden from further
  >investigation and consideration, one can manage to make Christianity a
  >religion for automatons.  

Likewise, by declaring all subjects and opinions equally worthwhile, it is
impossible to make any progress (is there really a god?).  Where do we draw
the balance?

As I see it, we can draw the balance anywhere we like - or we can believe
what the prophets of God say about the balance.  Other people may have other 
criteria that they believe is more accurate than the prophets of God.  The 
prophets disagree with them (and so do I).

  >If you instead view the faith as a process and a relationship...

Yes!!!!

  >...rather than a mindless adherence to a set of principles...

No, this is not faith.

  >...established by a group of dead people...

(by God)

  >...deemed to have been incapable of making logical errors about a 
  >set of theological questions...

(God thinks he understands these things...)

  >...then of course the whole matter becomes much more complex.

Faith is so complex that our example is a little child.

Collis

>We're not talking about "early Christians",
>we're talking about prophets of God during their (His) writing of Scripture.

    Maybe *you're* only talking about the authors of the Bible (whom you
    term "prophets of God"), but when I referred to "early Christians", I
    was describing not only to the authors of the Bible, but also the
    "Church Fathers" who defined the official interpretations of the Bible
    and the early Christian traditions, e.g., and which defined what is
    heresy and what is not (e.g., the Nicene Creed, doctrines about the
    Trinity, etc, which were spelled out in an earlier note as being the
    unchanging foundation of the faith.)

    In any case, I think most people would consider Paul a Christian.

>Likewise, by declaring all subjects and opinions equally worthwhile, it is
>impossible to make any progress (is there really a god?).  Where do we draw
>the balance?

    I was referring specifically to subjects, not opinions, and I didn't
    say anything about declaring all opinions equally worthwhile.  I did
    say that it is a convenient way of shutting down discussion to make
    certain subjects taboo from *ever* being reinvestigated at a later
    time.  That sort of attitude is not what characterizes my faith. It
    isn't a matter of establishing a "balance"; it is a matter being at
    least open to the possibility of reinvestigating theological questions
    at a later time.  I have explained that this is because I subscribe to
    an evolutionary perspective on religion.  There is probably nothing in
    the realm of religious faith that I find more offensive than the
    notions of "Blasphemy, Heresy, and Sacrilege", which are simply the
    tools of suppressing thought and making religion mindless.

    -- Mike

	I concur with Derek (.129).  I don't believe anyone comes to
CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE with malevolent intentions.

	If a note is found to be offensive, there are recommended ways
of dealing with the situation in Note 8.8.

Peace,
Richard

In article <604.123-930428-131512@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>,
valenza@juran.enet.dec.com (My note runneth over.) writes:
|>
|>    The idea that "the Christian faith is consistent and must remain
|>    consistent; our understanding may grow but may not contradict that
|>    which has gone before" is another way of stating the belief that I
|>    cited earlier, namely that the early Christians were supposedly
|>    incapable of making theological errors, but they were capable of
|>    lacking a comprehensive theological vision.  Of course, according to
|>    the assertion that *any* change implies a changing God, even this sort
|>    of evolution would be impossible.

	I expect that part of someone's perspective on this is their view
of how involved God through the Holy Spirit is involved in the earlier
definitions of Christianity.  If God is sovereign then presumably he is able
to make sure that the earlier formulations of Christianity are consistent
and sufficient with respect to the things that are really important. Along
this line of thought, one would say that Paul and the other early
Christians had a Christianity that was sufficient in its understanding of
the essentials.  We may add to theology but we're not necessarily adding
anything to the essentials that are required for individual's to relate to
God and for the church to function as Christ's body on earth.

	If God isn't sovereign, or doesn't choose to get directly involved
then the argument that Christianity is evolving or devolving makes more
sense and is much more likely to be correct.

	I believe that the first is true, ie that God is sovereign and is
big enough to reach people and change lives with what was revealed through
the prophets, even if the prophets hadn't always spelled out the details of
every theology. Theology is important but the essentials are understandable
without having to understand "the context of the times", or the exact way
that free will and predestination tie together.  After all, it is the Holy
Spirit that make God's Word come alive and have meaning for us.

|>    The idea that these early Christians made no mistakes is a convenient
|>    way of putting a clamp down on thinking, since it prevents people from
|>    revisiting a whole range of issues once they are deemed "settled".  By
|>    declaring certain subjects as taboo and forbidden from further
|>    investigation and consideration, one can manage to make Christianity a
|>    religion for automatons.  If you instead view the faith as a process
|>    and a relationship rather than a mindless adherence to a set of
|>    principles established by a group of dead people deemed to have been
|>    incapable of making logical errors about a set of theological
|>    questions, then of course the whole matter becomes much more complex. 

	Again, how big is your God?  Is he able and has he been willing to
work in people's lives through the Holy Spirit?  Is he big enough to
overcome all of our sinfulness and our tendency to head down the wrong path?
Or am I missing the basic assumptions that are sending folks off on 
divergent paths?

|>.
|>.
|>.
|>
|>    -- Mike
|>

Paul

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

Hi Mike,

I'm glad we're in agreement, then.

We should (and are) free to research any subject.  We are even
free to believe and/or not believe anything we want.  Isn't this
what you want?  God has granted it to you.

However, God has given the Church as His representatives on
earth a different task.  The Church is NOT free to believe or
disbelieve whatever they want.  The Church has a responsibility
before God to cherish, protect, defend, uphold, love, explain,
(etc.) His revelation to us (which includes the Bible).  Again,
you may object to the Church doing this - God even allows this!
But realize that the Church is attempting to do (however poorly
it sometimes does it) one of the tasks that God has given it.

As such, certain subjects have been deemed by the Church to NOT
be worthwhile to reinvestigate.  Again, the alternative is to
explore every subject when someone has doubts or wants to, etc.
There will *always* be those with doubts.  And, again, as an
individual, you can explore any subject to your hearts content.
Just don't expect the Church to explore subjects which are already
clearly defined by God - the Church wants to build on the past
(and did this very effectively until the 18th century) rather than
to question and destroy what has already been built up.

I agree with you that there needs to be a balance here and that the
Church does not necessarily always choose the best balance.  However,
the balance that is chosen is a *whole* lot better than simply
being willing to question everything.

Collis

re Note 604.133 by QUABBI::"ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com":

> 	I expect that part of someone's perspective on this is their view
> of how involved God through the Holy Spirit is involved in the earlier
> definitions of Christianity.  If God is sovereign then presumably he is able
> to make sure that the earlier formulations of Christianity are consistent
> and sufficient with respect to the things that are really important. Along
> this line of thought, one would say that Paul and the other early
> Christians had a Christianity that was sufficient in its understanding of
> the essentials.  We may add to theology but we're not necessarily adding
> anything to the essentials that are required for individual's to relate to
> God and for the church to function as Christ's body on earth.

        Paul,

        You must admit that as eminently "reasonable" as your writing
        above is -- and I'm sure that it is a reasoning shared by
        many others -- it is human reasoning.  Any conclusion based
        upon this -- even a conclusion that the Bible is God's own
        word -- is built on the sands of human reasoning, human
        perspectives, and human wants.

        Even if one were to allow a circularity as a proof, note that
        the Bible does not, in clear language, put forth the above
        proposition.

        It also raises the interesting question:  if "we may add to
        the theology" in ways that go beyond the "mere" essentials,
        couldn't Paul and the other evangelists and church fathers
        done likewise?  If so, then even their writings (including
        the new testament) may go well beyond the essentials.

        In fact, there is some hint in the new testament that there
        is a kernel of essentials -- the "gospel."  As apparently
        central as the concept of "gospel" is, it is never completely
        defined in Scripture (or is it -- perhaps I've missed it?) --
        or perhaps doctrine is not at the core of the Christian
        faith.

        (If it is conceivable that we benighted "liberals" of the
        20th century are so misled and so in error, then it is equally
        conceivable that the "Christian establishment" of the past
        20 centuries could also be misled and in some error.  Perhaps
        the first century Christian writers would have agreed with
        none of us.)

        Bob

    >However, the balance that is chosen is a *whole* lot better than simply
    >being willing to question everything.

    I am not suggesting a willingness to question everything so much as
    criticizing an unwillingness to question anything.  What I vehemently
    oppose is the suppression of all new inquiry on anything that has ever
    been deemed "settled" by people of a previous age.  To refuse to
    reinvestigate anything that someone with a different understanding than
    one's own deemed settled is highly irresponsible.  Science certainly
    does no such thing, and I think it is just as wrong for this to occur
    in the realm of theology.  If, in the light of new understandings,
    questions thought previously settled need to be reopened, then most
    certainly they should be.  This does not necessarily involve revisiting
    the same arguments, either--new understandings may necessarily create
    new viewpoints which in turn define new arguments.  To suppress inquiry
    is to commit theological suicide.

    The other side of it is that the process of "settling" an argument is
    often itself highly unfortunate, since it often defines "truth" in
    terms of a circular process.  In this process, the truth is defined by
    those who, perhaps by an accident of historical circumstance, may have
    sufficient political strength to make a theological declaration; those
    who come out as the losers are deemed heretics and must accept this
    "truth" or be booted out of the faith community.  If they then become
    excommunicated, they are outside the faith community and are therefore
    deemed incapable of participating in the discernment of God's truth;
    but the reason they are excluded from the community in the first place
    is that their discernment was considered unacceptable.  So the idea
    that people outside the faith community cannot discern God's truth
    becomes tautological.  It is convenient to exclude people with the
    "wrong" views and then say that since they are outside the faith
    community they can't participate in divine discernment.

    Collis, with your description of the Church's institutional role, you
    sound like you would make a good Catholic.  Actually, you seem to
    misunderstand what I advocate.  I do believe in the role of a faith
    community as an important element in shaping theological inquiry.  I do
    not advocate, and have never advocated, individuals simply going on
    their own and questioning everything.  What I advocate is a mutual
    process, where the individual and his or her faith community mutually
    explore divine revelation together.  I suspect that solitary
    explorations of theological questions are unlikely to be very fruitful,
    and I don't advocate that for myself or for others.

    -- Mike

>	Again, how big is your God?  Is he able and has he been willing to
>work in people's lives through the Holy Spirit?  Is he big enough to
>overcome all of our sinfulness and our tendency to head down the wrong path?
>Or am I missing the basic assumptions that are sending folks off on 
>divergent paths?

    I have stated elsewhere in this notes file that I do not believe in
    divine omnipotence.  However, that really isn't the point there.  Even
    if God is omnipotent, there is one principle that is reiterated over
    and over again by Christian apologists, particularly when discussing
    the "problem of evil"--namely, that humans on this earth have free
    will.  Well, do they or not?  To suggest that God operates by
    controlling our wills operates contrary to everything that I believe
    about God and about the the way people relate to God; and it runs
    counter to what Christianity says about the relationship between God
    and humans.  God can offer her guidance to us through the Holy Spirit,
    but humans may not understand that guidance, and certain as free human
    beings can accept or reject it as they choose.

    If it were really as simplistic as is being suggested, then there would
    never be any differences between Christians on theological questions. 
    The Holy Spirit would simply insure that Christians got their dogma
    down pat, and that would be it.  Yet differences do exist, and most
    Christians today accept that, for example, Catholic beliefs and
    Protestant beliefs about communion or baptism are not significant
    enough to warrant disenfranchisement by one side or another from the
    Kingdom of Heaven.  There is obviously some static between the Holy
    Spirit's guidance and the way Christians interpret theological
    questions.  We all know that this is the case.  Yet we turn around and
    hear the claim that the Holy Spirit insures theological accuracy on the
    part of God's followers.  Well, which is it? 

    Thus we have two problems here.  First, the doctrine of free will defies
    the idea that divine sovereignty imposes accuracy upon God's followers;
    and second, empirical evidence and the acceptance of this evidence on
    the part of Christians demonstrates that this is not the case.

    -- Mike

    re .137

    >>God can offer her guidance to us through the Holy Spirit, but humans
    >>may not understand that guidance, and certain as free human beings can
    >>accept or reject it as they choose.
     

    Mike,

    I think we miss the point a lot.  We make form more important than
    content.  We offer our fellow humans poison from the gilded cup of
    religion.  We make being right more important than being Love.

    It is my belief that if anyone truly wants Love to be the outcome of
    any situation they need only ask their Source for this.  The solution
    will appear, and it will be "right" for that particular problem.

    To me, this is one of the wonderful things about Christianity.  It is
    based on this idea that one can connect to the Spirit of God and know
    Truth from an experiential level.  Instead of perceiving, we can *know*.

    Our human underachievement is that once we *know* we tend to
    disconnect from our Source, freeze our experience by describing it with
    words and symbols from the world of perception.  Then, we measure
    others against our own experience--we judge them, their worthiness
    before God.  In doing so, we condemn ourselves.

    Ruth

    Ruth, that was very well put.  Thank you.
    
    -- Mike

In article <604.135-930429-135747@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, fleischer@lgp30.enet.dec.com (without vision the people perish (381-0899 ZKO2-2/T63)) writes:
|>
|>        Paul,
|>
|>        You must admit that as eminently "reasonable" as your writing
|>        above is -- and I'm sure that it is a reasoning shared by
|>        many others -- it is human reasoning.  Any conclusion based
|>        upon this -- even a conclusion that the Bible is God's own
|>        word -- is built on the sands of human reasoning, human
|>        perspectives, and human wants.

	True, anything any of us think is human reasoning.  Its congruence
to theological truth presumably is dependent wholly upon God's grace. The
fact that it "built on the sands of human reasoning" doesn't say anything
about its truthfulness.  It may or may not be truthful depending upon it's
congruence to Truth.

|>        Even if one were to allow a circularity as a proof, note that
|>        the Bible does not, in clear language, put forth the above
|>        proposition.

	Also true. I don't recall a verse explicitly defining how it works.
On the other hand, I feel that a very strong case can be made for the
proposition given Jesus' words about the role the Holy Spirit was going to
fulfill and God's consistency.

|>        It also raises the interesting question:  if "we may add to
|>        the theology" in ways that go beyond the "mere" essentials,
|>        couldn't Paul and the other evangelists and church fathers
|>        done likewise?  If so, then even their writings (including
|>        the new testament) may go well beyond the essentials.

	Their writings may go beyond the essentials, but I have faith (aha,
there it is 8-) ), that under the Holy Spirit's guidance the folks in Paul's
time had everything they needed for godliness as do we.  In fact Paul says
that in Ephesians.  The other stuff may be good but I'm not sure it is
essential for godliness.


|>        In fact, there is some hint in the new testament that there
|>        is a kernel of essentials -- the "gospel."  As apparently
|>        central as the concept of "gospel" is, it is never completely
|>        defined in Scripture (or is it -- perhaps I've missed it?) --
|>        or perhaps doctrine is not at the core of the Christian
|>        faith.

	The first chapter of Ephesians has something to say about the "gospel".

|>        (If it is conceivable that we benighted "liberals" of the
|>        20th century are so misled and so in error, then it is equally
|>        conceivable that the "Christian establishment" of the past
|>        20 centuries could also be misled and in some error.  Perhaps
|>        the first century Christian writers would have agreed with
|>        none of us.)

	If the Holy Spirit is consistent then if we were being led by
the Holy Spirit and the writers of the Bible were being led by the Holy
Spirit, then I would expect that we would both agree on the essentials because
it was the same Holy Spirit in both cases.  Sometimes we add too much
complexity, I think.  Folks say "What is God's will for me?" when they
are confronted by a choice.  Paul says that God's will for us is that
we pray without ceasing, give thanks in all circumstances, etc.  I suspect
that if I was walking moment by moment dependent upon the Lord (which is
certainly not my natural inclination), then I would know the will of God
for me more certainly.  Sometimes the things we need to focus on are the
basics and not the nuances of the basics.

	On the other hand, 8-), G.K. Chesterton makes the case that
Christianity is different from paganism because it holds things together
that are in furious opposition. He says that paganism is pink and Christianity
is both red and white.  He says one reason the creeds are simple but each
word in them matters and wars were fought over them is because Christianity
is this delicate balance of furious opposites.  If you give one side more
weight you threaten to bring the whole thing crashing down.  His image is
of this giant ungainly rock balanced on a single point.  So we struggle
with the paradoxes of God's holiness and God's mercy which to us seem to
be in furious opposition but which can both be found in scripture.


|>        Bob
|>

	Paul

-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re Note 604.140 by QUABBI::"ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com":

> 	On the other hand, 8-), G.K. Chesterton makes the case that
> Christianity is different from paganism because it holds things together
> that are in furious opposition. He says that paganism is pink and Christianity
> is both red and white.  He says one reason the creeds are simple but each
> word in them matters and wars were fought over them is because Christianity
> is this delicate balance of furious opposites.  If you give one side more
> weight you threaten to bring the whole thing crashing down.  His image is
> of this giant ungainly rock balanced on a single point.  So we struggle
> with the paradoxes of God's holiness and God's mercy which to us seem to
> be in furious opposition but which can both be found in scripture.
  

In article <604.137-930429-144305@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, valenza@deming.enet.dec.com (My note runneth over.) writes:
|>    Thus we have two problems here.  First, the doctrine of free will defies
|>    the idea that divine sovereignty imposes accuracy upon God's followers;
|>    and second, empirical evidence and the acceptance of this evidence on
|>    the part of Christians demonstrates that this is not the case.

	Why can't free will and God's sovereignty both be true?  The Bible
teaches both, doesn't it? If it didn't we wouldn't have the
Calvinist/Arminian (or was it Augustine/Pelageus 8-) ) differences.  Given
that the Bible holds both then both must somehow, in some mysterious way
be true (but only if you believe that the Bible is true 8-) ).  I don't see
any reason for coming down on one side of the debate or another.  God
holds us responsible because we have free will and a choice and at the
same time the heart of the king is in God's hands.  He hardens hearts and
people harden their own hearts.  Christianity is made up of paradoxes,
these furious opposites, that I mentioned in an early reply.  In some cases
I can conceive of a perspective in which the paradoxes wouldn't be paradoxes
and in other cases I can't. It does feel strange to be urging mystery to
a Quaker. 8-)

	I don't think your second point necessarily has anything to do with
disproving God's sovreignty.  If you take as an assumption that God is
omnipotent (which I realize you don't, but if you did), then there is no
reason why God couldn't influence things such that the catholic (ie universal)
invisible church (which crosses denominational lines) is generally true to
His will.  We're told his purposes will be accomplished, but we also have
the example of the churches in Revelation, most of which were majoring in
the minors or running after ideas or things other than God.  As Collis
mentioned in a note, invidivually we're sinners, but the catholic church is
the bride of Christ that will be presented spotless at the end, or at least
I think that is what he was saying. 8-)

	I realize that you and I are coming from a very different set
of assumptions, but these are good things to talk about. 8-)


|>    -- Mike
|>

	Paul



-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317



			
[posted by Notes-News gateway]

    Paul, I agree that an omnipotent God can influence the church to make
    it generally true to his will.  An omnipotent God can do anything he
    pleases, after all.  But I also believe that if God, assuming he is
    omnipotent, were to *guarantee* that the church will conform to his
    will, that would contradict that other principle that God is said to
    respect, namely human free will.  Free will means that people are able
    to choose or reject what is offered to them.  God influences us by
    offering his/her guidance to us, but the price you pay for human
    freedom is that you cannot control how they will respond to what is
    offered to them.   For God to guarantee that humans, acting either
    individually or in concert with other people of faith, will come up
    with the right theology, means that God is controlling the choices that
    people are making, and this is a direct violation of human free will.

    -- Mike

    As a Quaker, I believe that there is that of God in everyone, so that
    would certainly include those who are in the Church.  As a panentheist,
    I believe that God is in us and we are in God--so, from that
    perspective also, I would agree that the Church is both divine and
    human.

    As one who believes in human free will, I also believe that God does
    not control our wills, which is what he or she would have to do to
    insure that we defined theological answers exactly as he wanted us to. 

    -- Mike

re Note 604.144 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     The statement of Jesus (Mt 16:18) after Peter's confession of faith and
>     in founding the Christian Church doesn't equivocate over free-will.
  
16:18  And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon
this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall
not prevail against it.
16:19  And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of
heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound
in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be
loosed in heaven.
16:20  Then charged he his disciples that they should tell no
man that he was Jesus the Christ.
16:21  From that time forth began Jesus to show unto his
disciples, how that he must go unto Jerusalem, and suffer many
things of the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be
killed, and be raised again the third day.
16:22  Then Peter took him, and began to rebuke him, saying,
Be it far from thee, Lord: this shall not be unto thee.
16:23  But he turned, and said unto Peter, Get thee behind me,
Satan: thou art an offence unto me: for thou savourest not the
things that be of God, but those that be of men.

    Thanks for the confirmation of my point.  It's a visible church, it is
    an apostolic church, it is human, and it was founded by Jesus.

	Four people, each very shortsighted who can only see 3 inches
	away from their faces, each with a different size and color cup 
	approach the Sea.

	The first person dips his cup into the waters, takes it out and
	says:  The Sea is red, it is round, it is 5 inches high.

	The second person dips his cup into the waters, takes it out and
	says:  You are wrong, the Sea is yellow, it is square, it is 7 
	inches high..

	The third person dips his cup into the waters, takes it out and
	says:  You are both wrong, the Sea is green, it is a hexagon, it 
	is 4 inches high.
	
	The fourth person dips his cup into the waters, takes it out, but
	his cup has many holes in the bottom, so all the water leaks out, 
	he looks at it and says:  You are all wrong, there is no Sea.
		
	If you substitute the Sea for God, and the cups for religions, 
	you can see many similarities with what has taken place with our
	religious beliefs. 

				Juan

Re:  604.136                     Why any church?                      136 of 139

  >Collis, with your description of the Church's institutional role, you
  >sound like you would make a good Catholic.  

Why thank you, Mike.  My goal is to be a good Christian.  

  >What I advocate is a mutual process, where the individual and his or her 
  >faith community mutually explore divine revelation together.  

In one sense I agree with you.  There are issues which are not resolved.

In another sense I strongly dissagree with you.  I suspect you advocating
the questioning of that which God has already provided answers that He has
given the church responsibility for proclaiming, not discussing.

Collis

In article <604.126-930429-063133@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective> you
write:

Derek,

|>	When I asked: Why should an eternal, omnipotent all-powerful God
|>	want to add something like man/woman to his creation?  (a question
|>	which really bothers me) the barriers go up. "That's blasphemy",
|>	someone makes the sign of the cross (praying for me? or warding
|>	off contamination?), the coffee runs out and the atmosphere becomes
|>	frosty. Why?

	Ephesians 1.12 comes to mind.  It says "we who first hoped in Christ
have been destined and appointed to live for the praise of his glory".  That is
why I figure I am here and that should be my ultimate and consuming goal
in life. I don't know if it exactly answers your question but it is the
answer that came to mind.

|>
|>	Greetings, Derek.
|>

Paul


-- 
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.nuo.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@databs.enet.dec.com
Loptson		databs::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 884 1317

Kenneth Ferraro, a medical sociologist at Purdue University, notes that 36%
of those who said they regularly attend church serives considered themselves
to be in excellent health.  Only 4% reported being in poor health.

In contrast, only 26% of those who said they don't regularly attend church
services claimed to be in good health, while 9% said they were in poor
health.

Peace,
Richard

    Well, I guess that means that churches should be required to
    provide handicapped access...

    ;^)

    I once called a church I was hoping to visit to ask about wheelchair
    accessibility.  The secretary advised me that the building was
    inaccessible.  So I asked, "Don't you have anybody in your
    congregation who is handicapped?"  She said, "No."  I said, "Guess
    what?  You won't."
    
    Richard
    

The Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts has required all parishes to install
handicapped access; our parish has been working with St. Hilda's Fellowship
(a fellowship of elderly and handicapped people) to find a a way to provide
access to our 125 year old building in the Beacon Hill historic district.

At the present time, ushers lift wheelchairs up the four steps from the
sidewalk.

/john

	The United Methodist Church in Colorado urges local churches to make
their buildings accessible, but (last I heard) didn't require it.

	The denomination offers a limited number of small grants ($500) each
year to help ease the financial burden to local churches of implementing plans
for accessibility.  Plus the Conference recognizes local churches that have made
any improvements to accessibility during the previous year.

	Churches and certain other institutions are except from the ADA, the
Americans with Disabilities Act, which President Bush signed into law awhile
back.

Richard

    My church is wheelchair-accessible and one Mass has a person who signs
    for hearing-impaired people in the congregation.