Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

       Words like control and restriction are negative words in today's
       American society, except where the law specifies that certain
       restrictions and controls are necessary to protect the members of
       the community. In this case, controls and restrictions are for the
       benefit of the community and ultimately each individual in the
       community.

       Controls and restrictions help to ensure that others are safe from
       the unbridled actions of another. But it also helps to ensure that
       the person himself remains safe and comes to become a responsible
       adult.

       Rules are made to establish control and are implemented and governed
       by authority. Authority can either be accepted willingly or imposed
       forcefully.

       All people have had a problem with authority in their lives and have
       opposed it by breaking the rules (Romans 3:23). Difficulty with
       authority leads to a natural rebellion. And in the human sense, if
       we have had poor examples of authority figures in our lives, the
       rebellion to all forms of authority often sets in, and good
       (accepted) authority is thrown out with bad (imposed) authority.

       In the Christian life, there are several authorities, all of which
       lead to the Ultimate Authority: God.  The authority of God is
       expressed in His Word; not just the Bible, but in the Word that
       became flesh, Jesus Christ.

       The authority of God is also expressed in God's leaders (in the
       church), God's leaders (in the home), God's leaders (in the
       community). The person that has trouble (for any number of reasons)
       dealing with yielded authority also has trouble with God.

       All these things, rebellion, rules, restrictions, and authority are
       wrapped up in morality;  that is, things are good and bad (or
       neutral - amorality).

       Who decides whose morals are correct?

       To answer this question, we must first ask another question:  "Does
       God exist?"  If the answer is no, then every person defines what is
       good and what is bad. Societal morals then come from a consensus or
       plurality of individual personal morals.

       If the answer is that God exists, then we must also ask, "What is
       God like?" If God is dispassionate and disinterested in our lives,
       then we are left with the our own definition of morals and it is the
       same as there being no God, except for any "natural laws" He may
       have instituted from the beginning. These natural laws, in addition
       to personal morals, add good and bad to societal morals.

       If God exists, and He is a personal and all-powerful God, then how
       do we respond to *what He calls good and bad*?

       Ultimately, each one of us commits ourself to a faith statement
       about God that governs our morals. If there is no God, then morals
       have no real meaning since every person has individual morals; and
       so there is no absolute good nor absolute bad; its all relative; the
       concepts of good and evil (outside of the context of a personal and
       all-powerful God) are subjective at best.

       Even so, people do declare what is good and what is bad. And it is
       this declaration that sets up the societal morals which enacts the
       rules and restrictions, which creates the authority, which is
       rebelled against by people whose morals do not match the pluralism
       or consensus of society.

       Since good and bad have no [reasonable] context outside of God,
       people who declare their personal morals are god unto themselves;
       they have placed themselves in absolute authority by declaring what
       is [ultimately] good and what is [ultimately] bad; those who violate
       (rebel against) their personal morals commit sin against them.

       If God exists, and He is the God in the Bible, then it is He Who
       declares what is good and what is bad. By His definition, we are
       cast in the darkness of sin, or the light of righteousness, because
       He has Absolute Authority to do so.  We choose to align and submit
       our personal morality to the authority of this God or we choose to
       disregard it.

       For those who believe God exists and want to know Him, the rebellion
       to His rules and restrictions must be quelled, and we must
       surrender, submitting to loving authority, for the God of the Bible
       will not impose His authority on us until the Judgment Day. As we
       all know, submitting our personal morals to God's Absolute Morals is
       not easy and especially hard for those of us who have had a problem
       with authority on earth. It is not easy because it is in our nature
       to have our own personal morals (ideas about what is good and bad)
       and some of them do not align with God's morals. We can choose to
       keep ours (in rebellion to God, and He will be in rebellion to our
       personal morals), or we can choose to adopt God's morals,
       requirements, rules, and regulations.

       God has said, "I have set before you both life and death, and I
       would have you choose life."

       Now whether you believe God exists or not, you can continue on with
       your own personal ideas about what is right and wrong, good and bad.
       If you believe that God exists, then it may be important to know
       what God is like, for it may have impact on the consequences of the
       morals you have chosen (which govern your actions and attitudes).

       Will you live in rebellion to God? Will you cause God to live in
       rebellion to your morals?

       Will you yield to the authority of God and surrender to His morals,
       whatever they may be? Or will you be conquered and submitted on a
       day when authority is imposed?

       "Who is God that we might serve Him?"

       Before we can submit to any authority, we need to determine what
       morality is.  And towards this goal, we need to ask ourselves if
       there is an absolute morality.

       The word absolute carries a connotation of final, ultimate, and
       everlasting.  Therefore, an absolute morality *depends* on the
       consistency of the authority (God,
                                     self,
                                     society,
                                     others).

       Self is not consistent.  We change our ideas of good and bad all the
       time.  Society is not consistent and changes with the governments.
       Others?  Like what?  Reliance on another's authority?  Still
       changeable.

       If God exists, and He is the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent God
       we read about in the Bible, then He declares an Absolute Morality
       and He has been absolutely consistent with it.

       Now, with free will, each person also chooses the morality of their
       own.  As was demonstrated in .0, when any two moralities do not
       align, something may be good to one and bad to another.  The
       morality a person chooses may be in conflict with God's morality.
       This is why it is important to know what God is like, if He exists.

       When we begin to understand what God is like, we can also begin to
       align our morality (concepts of good and bad) with His.  So, many
       people "come to God" by placing themselves under His authority; that
       is to say, they adopt His morality, by doing what God has declared
       to be good and eschewing what God has declared to be bad.  (To
       Christians, this includes the acceptance of God's provision for
       salvation -  which is good).

       So we can see that morality and authority are intimately linked.
       Rebellion to authority (in absolute terms) is immorality.  (I should
       be quick to add that I mean that rebellion to God [the Authority] is
       indeed immorality, but it even works for atheists who declare there
       is no God. In essence, an atheist is his own god, or supreme
       authority.)

       Remember that there are two kinds of submission: yielded and
       imposed. God accepts yielded submission and responds in love.  Why?
       Because we willingly adopt His standard of good and bad - life is
       without resistance to the Absolute Authority.  God will not impose
       His authority until Judgment Day (exceptions being Judgments, such
       as the one on Herod Agrippa when he was struck dead.)  What I mean
       is that God will not impose upon the free will He gave us, to be
       "robots."  Free will enables love to be given as well as received
       (or rejected).

       If there is a God, and he is the God in the Bible, One Day He will
       impose His authority on all the rebellious and morality will be no
       more.  That is, only bad, or only good.  (Now, relative morality
       will still exist: I like chocolate ice cream better than butter
       pecan; so comparative goods will exist in heaven, and I believe,
       comparative bads will be in hell.)

       If there is a God, and He is the God of the Bible, Who is
       omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent, then this God is an absolute
       and ultimate authority.  Any morality contrary to His is immorality.

       Does God exist?  What is God like?

    Matthew 21:23-25  NIV

    Jesus entered the temple courts, and, while he was teaching, the chief
    priests and the elders of the people came to him.  "By what _authority_
    are you doing these things?" they asked.  "And who gave you this
    _authority_?"

    Jesus replied, "I will ask you one question.  If you answer me, I will
    tell you by what authority I am doing these things.  John's baptism -
    where did is come from?  Was it from heaven, or from men?"

    They discussed it among themselves and said, "If we say, 'from heaven,'
    he will ask, 'Then why didn't you believe him?' But if we say, 'From
    men,' - we are afraid of the people, for they all hold that John was a
    prophet.

    So they answered Jesus, "We don't know."

    Then he said, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I am doing
    these things."
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------

       What was the point of putting off the chief priests like Jesus did?
       I do not think that Jesus was afraid to put himself in a dilemma (if
       he said from God, they would accuse him of blasphemy and stone him,
       and it wasn't his time - perhaps).

       Instead, Jesus uses the same type of questioning on those who would
       use it on him.  Because of their unwillingness to be honest with
       their answer, (to say either that John was a prophet and they were
       wrong not to believe John, or to say that John was of men and stand
       up for what they believed was truth,) the priests waffled and said
       "we don't know." They had their ideas, but instead backed out of the
       debate rather than be proven false.  Not worthy of a direct answer,
       because they gave none themselves, Jesus does not disclose his
       authority directly to them.

       More to come...

    John 18:37b-38a

    Jesus answered, "You are right in saying I am a king.  In fact for this
    reason I was born, and for this I came into the world, to testify to
    the truth.  Everyone on the side of truth listens to me."

    "What is truth?" Pilate asked.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

       Like everyone's personal morality (their concepts of what is good
       and what is bad), truth can also be personally definable.  This is
       part of what Pilate was saying in a rhetorical question.

       "We both have truths; are mine the same as yours?"  (Some of you
       will recognize this as a quote from Jesus Christ, Superstar.  I'm
       not here to debate its value.) The answer to this is also like
       personal morality: very often the answer is no, my truths are not
       the same as yours.

       And so we must ask, is there an Absolute Truth?  And again we see
       that absoluteness depends on the consistency of the truth for the
       person. If God exists, and He is the God of the Bible, omnipotent,
       omniscient, omnipresent, then God is absolute in His authority (He
       defines truth), He is absolutely consistent, and therefore
       absolutely Truthful.

       Jesus declares his purpose for becoming incarnate: to testify to the
       truth.  The fulfillment of the prophecies, God continues to
       demonstrate His consistency and authority to declare absolutes in
       morality (good/bad) and in truth.

       Jesus further shows that one who would be in truth must listen to
       him. The Christian faith places Jesus in the Godhead.  He declares a
       monopoly on absolute truth.  Pilate retorts from the understanding
       of personal truth.

       Is there an absolute truth?  And absolute morality?   Jesus said, "I
       am the Way, the Truth, and the Life."

       More to come...

    Mark 10:17-18 NIV

    As Jesus started on his way, and man ran up to him and fell on his
    knees before him.  "Good teacher," he asked, "what must I do to inherit
    eternal life?"

    "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered.  "No one is good - except God
    alone."
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

       In the passage transcribed in the previous note, Jesus declares
       himself to be the Truth.  Here, Jesus says no one is good except
       God.

       Several notes ago, absolute morality was determined only to exist in
       an absolute being (if one exists).   Jesus affirms this with his
       declaration that ONLY God is good.

       It is noteworthy here that Jesus never refuted the application of
       the word good to himself, especially pointed after his declaration
       that only God is good.  Jesus places himself in equality with God by
       declaring himself to be the Way, the Truth, and the Life.  The great
       "I am"s of the Bible are God's declaration of His character.

       Back to morality:  If God is the only one that is good, then all
       else is not good and we can never be good unless and until we align
       our morality to His absolute morality, align our truths with His
       absolute Truth, and submit ourselves to the absolute authority of an
       omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God (if one exists).

       More to come...

Romans 12:2 KJV
  And be ye not conformed to this world, but be ye transformed by
the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and
acceptable, and perfect will of God.
--------------------------------------------------------------------

       When we speak of a God that exists as a God that is all-powerful,
       always-alive, and all-knowing, we speak of a God Who is absolute in
       authority, morality, and love.

       In the verse above, we see the goal of transforming our minds is the
       good, the acceptable, and the perfect.  We see that our ideas of
       what is good and what is bad must be aligned with God's in order to
       be acceptable.  Perfection, as it relates to God, is an absolute.

       The renewing of one's mind is a conscious shift from one's personal
       morality (which each of us has; everyone of us) to another personal
       morality.  In the context of Christianity, the conscious shift is to
       adopt the Personal Morality of a God we believe to be shown to us by
       the Bible and our personal experiences with His Spirit.  (Since
       personal experience is something not understood by those who do not
       experience it, we can suffice to say that the God we believe is the
       God of the Bible.)

       It seems clear from a scriptural standpoint (at least) that a person
       cannot find what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect will of
       God on their own personal morality if the renewal of one's mind is
       necessary. But what if one's personal morality already aligns with
       God's?  If we  accept Jesus' words, no one is good except for God.
       If we accept Paul's words, all have sinned and fall short of God's
       morality.  Therefore, no one's personal morality begin perfectly
       aligned with God's perfect and absolute morality.

       And not to skim over an important word: acceptable.

       If God exists, and He is the God of the Bible, God has absolute
       authority which give Him the power to define an absolute morality
       which means that anyone's personal morality that does not align with
       His is _unacceptable_ to Him.  Where moralities conflict between two
       persons, immorality exists. Where our personal moralities conflict
       with God's absolutes, immorality  exists.

       On Judgment Day, those who transform themselves by the renewing of
       their minds, adopting the absolute morality as their own and
       aligning their ideas of good and bad with His, will be found
       acceptable.  God will then be able to accept you into His presence.
       If one is not acceptable (not aligned), the God will not be able
       (another interesting discussion in and of itself) to accept you;
       malignment and conflict with His morals is immoral.  If God is
       consistent, then God is just and holy and cannot be absolutely pure
       if impurity is present.

       Acceptability is another reason it is important to know what God is
       like,  if you believe that God exists.

Exodus 5:1-2 KJV

  And afterward Moses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, "Thus saith the
Lord God of Israel, 'Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in
the wilderness.'"

  And Pharaoh said, "Who is the Lord, that I should obey his voice and
let Israel go?  I know not the Lord, neither will I let Israel go."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Pharaoh was divine to his people, and to himself.  Pharaoh
       determined what was good and what was bad.  We know that Pharaoh was
       neither divine, nor consistent with his morality (what human is?).

       Pharaoh here epitomizes our own stand against another's morality.
       God deemed it good to take Israel out of Egypt; Pharaoh thought
       otherwise. Pharaoh epitomizes our own desire to set the course of
       our lives and determine good and bad, as a king and even as a god,
       deciding right  and wrong.

       Now, Pharaoh was a religious man.  He either believed he was a son
       of the gods, or readily accepted his position.  So we too place our
       own personal moralities in conflict with another.  On the human
       level, if I told you to eat lima beans because it was good for you
       to do so, you might rightfully say, "Who is Mark Metcalfe, that I
       should obey his voice? Who are you to tell me to eat lima beans?"
       (apologies to those who like lima beans.")

       This hearkens back to the question: Who is God?  What is He like?
       What authority does He have to declare absolute morality?

       Remember also that Pharaoh had free will and was given many
       opportunities  to yield to the Lord's authority.  He chose not to
       and in the end had God's authority imposed upon him.  Thus we see
       that God is the authority and established the right to declare the
       absolute morality.

Joshua 24:15 Amplified
  And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose you this
day whom you you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers
served on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites
in whose land you dwell; but as for me and my house, we will serve
the Lord.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

       Joshua knows all about personal morality and he so much as tells
       Israel to make their choice and be done with it.  It is very
       interesting that when Israel responds, "Why, of course we will serve
       the Lord!"  Joshua says, in verse 19...

------------------------------------------------
Verse 19 Amplified
"You cannot serve the Lord; for He is a Holy God;
He is a jealous God; He will not forgive your transgressions and
your sins, if you forsake the Lord and serve strange gods; then He
will turn and do you harm, and consume you, after having done you good."
------------------------------------------------

       Joshua makes it plain that playing church is going to be worse for
       those than for those who reject church altogether.  More than other
       sins, profaning the name of the Lord is very dreadful.  This is not
       just the utterance of God's name in vain; it is claim of adopting
       the morals of God while committing hypocrisy; it is moral adultery.

       Back to verse 15: Joshua makes a couple of distinctions: the god of
       your fathers (traditional morals) and the god of the Amorites in
       whose land you dwell (cultural or situational morals).  Both of
       these are distinct  from the absolute morals of an omniscient,
       omnipotent, and omnipresent God.

       "My family, or my church, taught me their truth since I was knee
       high to a grasshopper."  The god of your fathers has determined
       morals (what is good and bad).  Do they align with absolute morals?

       "Everybody's doing it."  Three words of excuse that echo down the
       ages. The god of the Amorites in whose land you dwell.  Do the
       morals of the  people in whose land you dwell align with the
       absolute morals of an Eternal God?

       Both of these (like Ignorance and Lack in Dicken's Christmas Carol)
       are authorities which we adopt and into which adapt our personal
       moralities. Which is the greater foe?  The warning to Scrooge was
       Ignorance. The warning to us is the same.  Both project an ignorance
       or unwillingness to see absolute truth embodied in an absolute God.

       Lot lived in Sodom and was nearly swept away by making his dwelling
       among the rebellious who, like Pharaoh, did not recognize the
       Absolute Authority, not His absolute morality.  It behooves us all
       to question our tradition and the environment in which we dwell in
       light of the questions, "Does God exist?" and "What is God like?"

       Joshua ends verse 15 with one of the greatest declarations of free
       will: As for me and my house (for Joshua was the authority in his
       house), we will serve the Lord.

2 Corinthians 5:17 Amplified

  Therefore if any person is (engrafted) in Christ,
the Messiah, he is (a new creature altogether,) a new creation;
the old (previous moral and spiritual condition) has passed away.
Behold the fresh and new has come.
-----------------------------------------------------------------

       When we adopt another's morality and take theirs as our own, we  do
       not nor cannot act solely upon our personal morality.  It becomes a
       shared morality but in the same sense that two people become one
       flesh and not in the sense of each bringing pieces for the whole;
       completeness versus compromise.  (Marriages are human and have an
       inherent compromise, but the mystical union of one flesh is what I
       am hitting and not the personal moralities of a couple.)

       If one shares a morality with an absolute God, then it is we who
       share His morality by the fact that God abides by His own morality,
       and then we do too, therefore the two moralities, (our personal and
       His absolute) become one.  Because an absolute God has an absolute
       morality, His morality is not corrupted by the mingling of another's
       personal morality.  (This is where acceptability comes in again.)

       Outside of the spiritual realm, this holds true in that if we adopt
       the morality of another we share the same values.  Trouble is,
       personal moralities shift and change all to easily and we will soon
       find ourselves being immoral (on the personal level) even if we do
       nothing different, because another's view of good and bad may
       change.

Acts 17:16-23 NIV

  While Paul was waiting for them in Athens, he was greatly distressed to see
that the city was full of idols.  So he reasoned in the synagogue with the
Jews and the God-fearing Greeks, as well as in the marketplace day by day
with those who happened to be there.  A group of Epicurean and Stoic
philosophers began to dispute with him.  Some of them asked, "What is
this babbler trying to say?"  Others remarked, "He seems to be advocating
foreign gods."  They said this because Paul was preaching the good news
about Jesus and the resurrection.
  Then they took him and brought him to a meeting of the Areopagus, where
they said to him, "May we know what this new teaching is that you are
presenting?  You are bringing some strange ideas to our ears, and we
want to know what they mean."  (All the Athenians and the foreigners who
lived there spent their time doing nothing but talking about and listening
to the latest ideas.)
  Paul then stood up in the meeting of the Areopagus and said: "Men of Athens!
I see in every way you are very religious.  For as I walked around and looked
carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this
inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD.  Now what you worship as something unknown
I am going to proclaim to you.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

       Paul adopted the morality of an absolute God, a morality that
       created a  dispute among people in a city full of idols.  Each idol
       represented an authority, an authority as dependable and consistent
       as the god itself. The Good that Paul proclaimed was different
       enough for some to sneer and call him a babbler (one who utters
       nonsense); they did not understand it.

       However, some were curious enough to want to know more.  Alas, it
       seems that they wanted to add to their intellectual library instead
       of possibly finding what God is like so that they can align their
       morality (be justified) with God.  They "spent their time doing
       nothing but talking about and listening to the latest ideas."  This
       might be well and good for Ben Franklin and Thomas Edison if they
       spoke of the possibilities of electricity.  Remember the context
       here is many idols, many gods, and an unknown god.

       It is extremely important to note that Paul understands that these
       men  are very religious; not merely philosophers, but religious
       philosophers. Each philosopher had an idol, or perhaps themselves
       (or their intellect) were the object of worship.

       The men of Athens brought Paul in to hear the morality of the
       Authority  that Paul adopted.  It conflicted with some of the
       moralities they adopted for themselves.  Paul proclaimed the unknown
       God in verses 24-31 and like the parable of the soils, it yielded
       some fruit while others rejected it, while still other withheld
       their judgment and said they wanted to hear more.

       I wonder if those others got to hear more.  The Scripture says Paul
       left  Athens in the next paragraph.  We don't know the time between
       the events but of those people who hadn't made their mind, or simply
       wanted to  continue stocking their intellectual library, had they
       passed their  opportunity.  (For the Christian, we believe that God
       can enable the  proclaimed word of God to live on in the minds of
       those who are ready to accept it, but hasn't taken root yet.)

    Acts 19:13-17 NIV

    Some Jews who went around driving out evil spirits tried to invoke the
    name of the Lord Jesus over those who were demon-possessed.  They would
    say, "In the name of Jesus whom Paul preaches, I command you to come
    out."

    Seven sons of Sceva, a Jewish chief priest, were doing this.  The evil
    spirit answered them. "Jesus I know and Paul I know about, but who are
    you?"  Then the man who had the evil spirit jumped on them and
    overpowered them all.  He gave them such a beating that they ran out of
    the house naked and bleeding.

    When this became known to the Jews and Greeks living in Ephesus, they
    were all seized with fear, and the name of the Lord Jesus was held in
    high honor.
    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

       Authority belongs to those who can wield its power.  This is a
       passage that speaks of a spirit world, so it does not ask the
       question, "Does God exist."  This passage does speak a bit about the
       authority structure of spirit world where morality has taken sides
       in Good versus Evil.  It shows that Good has rule over Evil, and
       Evil has rule over stupidity.

       Rightfully, as can be demonstrated in Scripture, the name of Jesus
       has the power to cast out demons.  So why is it the seven sons of
       Sceva could not?  They invoked the name of Jesus whom Paul preached.
       Authority must be bestowed by a higher authority.  The Sceva seven
       plied their trade with a prescription but no responsibility to its
       Prescriber.  It brings God down to the level of circus performer,
       making the writhing crazy man sane again.  God had no part of it.

       Absent the authority given from a higher authority, its seven
       against one and the seven are out-matched.  "Jesus I know" [the name
       with authority] "and Paul I know about" [the man given authority]
       "but who are you?" [Who are you that have no authority over me?]

       The story goes on to say that God was glorified because many
       believed in the name of Jesus and burned their sorcery scrolls.
       Even the demons know the authority, the Absolute Authority God has
       to grant.

       Because authority is only as powerful as the higher power that
       grants it, the Sceva seven had no power because they had no
       authority.  Those of us empowered by God's authority have the power
       He grants us. (A lesson should be taken from Moses who struck the
       rock against God's command to speak to the rock.  Moses went beyond
       God's granted authority.  We should do no less and no more than God
       requires.)

       If God is the absolute authority, and authority is only as good as
       its higher authority, then who or what is God's higher authority?

       The answer is obviously that an Absolute Authority is the end of the
       chain.  In Scripture God swears by himself with binding covenants
       because there is no greater authority on which to establish the
       contract between God and man or God and nation.  By doing so, He
       uses Himself as collateral in the deal.  It is only as valid as His
       consistency and His power to follow through.

       If God is a disinterested god, then perhaps he doesn't care.

       If God is the God of the Bible, then He has demonstrated an absolute
       consistency, and absolute power, and an absolute authority to do
       exactly as He says.  Absolute Authority has the power to declare and
       enforce an absolute morality.

Luke 16:27-31 NIV

He answered, "then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father's house,
for I have five brothers.  Let him warn them, so that they will not also
come to this place of torment."

Abraham replied, "They have Moses and the Prophet; let them listen to them."

"No father Abraham," he said, "but if someone from the dead goes to them,
they will repent."

He said to him, "if they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they
will not be convinces even if someone rises from the dead."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

       In this passage of Scripture we understand that a rich man no longer
       has to rely on a faith statement to know what happens to mankind
       after  death.  With this reality, he takes pity on himself and also
       realizes his brothers are headed for the same danger.  (It is
       interesting that compassion flows from this man in torment.)

       The rich man calls Abraham, father twice.  He is identifying himself
       as one of the "in" crowd and yet find himself cast into the
       compartment of  torment while Abraham and Lazarus exists in the
       compartment of comfort where there is a fixed chasm between.
       Although he has identified with Abraham (the father of the faith),
       he evidently did not heed Moses and the Prophets himself, or he
       would not be in this place of torment.

       That Abraham, through Jesus, says for the five brothers to heed
       Moses and the Prophets places the written word in authority for
       right living. The written text has authority to test the spirits
       that would speak to you and counterfeit His voice.

       I will be quick to point out that Moses and the Prophets point to a
       Messiah, by which we can test Jesus as Messiah through the
       prophecies.

       Some people wonder why God spoke directly to Abraham, and Moses, and
       the Prophets and why they were recorded, and how the Bible was
       chosen from many parts of literature.  Moses and the Prophets are a
       starting point.  They were accepted as Scripture.  (Those who do not
       believe God  exists don't have to concern themselves with this.)
       Literature that was consistent with Moses and the Prophets and was
       believed to be inspired writings as well were added by a group of
       religious men to make up our Bible.  If all we had was Moses and the
       Prophets and a plethora of other writings, we could make our own
       assessments as to which pieces of  literature meets the criteria.
       We would find that the gospels of Jesus Christ are perfectly
       consistent with Moses and the Prophets.

       But some of us do not want to rely on the writings, especially Old
       Testament stuff like Moses and the Prophets.  That's storybook
       material.  Yet, it  was accepted as Scripture, which pointed to a
       Messiah, showed the absolute morality of God, and portrayed God's
       authority.

       Abraham says, if they don't believe this, then they cannot and will
       not believe the miracle of someone rising from the dead.  In other
       words, they have made up their minds.

       Some people who call themselves Christians, like the rich man
       identifying with Abraham as those Jews in front of John the Baptist
       declared "we are sons of Abraham, cannot be followers of Christ
       unless the are consistent with Christ.  How do we know what text to
       believe to tell us about the Christ?  How do we know that Moses and
       the Prophets point truly to Jesus as the Messiah?

       The fact of the matter is that we do not know.  Neither did the rich
       man until after he had descended.  What we have is a preponderance
       of evidence that enables us to make the faith statement, "I
       believe."  We can say I believe based on the testimony of millions
       of people who have tested the Scriptures of Moses and the prophets
       and found Jesus to be the Messiah. We can say I believe, based on
       the fulfillment of the prophecies and promises God makes.

       To say, I believe in a God that demonstrates himself to be
       inconsistent  with the written text is to believe in a different god
       altogether.  If  God is inconsistent, then there may as well be no
       God.  Every man should follow Joseph Campbell and follow their bliss
       for no one can know for  certain whether their personal morality
       aligns with God's inconsistent morality.  Make the best of it, close
       your eyes real tight and wish as hard as you can, hoping to align
       your morality with an inconsistent God.

       Rather, I choose to align myself with an Absolutely Consistent,
       Absolute Authority.

Malachi 3:5-6 KJV

And I will come near to you to judgment; and I will be a swift witness against
the sorcerers, and against the adulterers, and against the false swearers,
and against those that oppress the hireling in his wages, the widow, and
the fatherless, and that turn aside the stranger from his right, and fear
not me, saith the Lord of hosts.  For I am the Lord, I change not; therefore
ye sons of Jacob are not consumed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

       God did not wholly consume Israel in their sins because of the
       hireling who was unjustly oppressed, the widow, the fatherless, and
       the cheated stranger.  God justice is absolute.  When he comes to
       judge, He will judge each person and the whole community is not
       consumed for the sake of even the vast majority of sinful people.

       Look back to Genesis 18:23-33 (selected verses from this passage):

       [Abraham said to God] "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the
       wicked?... Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

       And the Lord said, (v32) "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."

       We live in a society where personal morality reigns supreme.  And
       many of us  wonder when judgment will come upon our land.  To be
       sure it has already and will continue to come until the people who
       are called by His name will humble themselves and pray.  (2 Chron.
       7:14)

       That is, people who claim to have God must humble themselves by
       discovering God's absolute morality and aligning their personal
       morality to it.

       How do we know what God's absolute morality is?  The Christian
       answers according to the authority of Scripture from the faith
       statement that  God's morality is contained therein based on the
       preponderance of evidence  for its consistency and validity.  Other
       faith statements have less sure footing for lack of means by which
       to test their hypothesis.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
       There are two types of morality not yet discussed:  contextual
       morality and non-morality (amorality).  They are almost the same.

       Contextual morality says that something is moral or immoral
       depending on the context.  The sun melts wax and hardens clay.  Here
       morality is dependent on the object to which it is applied. and
       demonstrates the interdependent relationship between personal and
       absolute morality.   Without a two-person interaction between moral
       authorities, there is no agreement nor conflict.  Without the Law,
       there can be no breaking of the Law.  (Where is the law written?  On
       our hearts, so ignorance will be no excuse when we match our
       personal morality to His absolute morality.)

       Amorality says that something is neither moral nor immoral; no value
       is placed on it; it does not depend on a context.  Non-moral things
       often are used in contextual morality and are sometimes confused
       with being good or bad themselves.  Inanimate objects are best
       understood to be neither moral nor immoral; they retain no implicit
       moral value.  For example, alcohol is non-moral, possessing neither
       good nor bad properties *unless used* (action) for a purpose that is
       deemed of benefit (good) or detriment (bad).  A gun possesses no
       moral value unless used for killing for food (good; morally
       dependent) or for killing another (bad; generally thought so,
       anyway) or for war (morally dependent).

       Actions are less understood because actions can have concepts of
       "good" and "bad" placed on them because of their consequence.  But
       it is the consequence of an action that makes it good or bad.
       Sometimes the action is neither good nor bad, except in context.

       For example, eating meat may offend someone.  For others it is a
       non-issue. The value (good/bad) is placed on the action, not the
       meat.  The meat is the object on which the action occurs.  The
       reason the action of eating meat is bad is the moral judgment that
       killing animals is wrong.  The reason the action of eating meat is
       good is the moral judgment that killing animals is not wrong, nor
       right, but permissible and meat tastes good (another value).

       Another example: the act of sex is condoned and encouraged only
       inside the marriage bonds but explicitly condemned outside of the
       marriage bonds.   The Bible understands contextual morality by
       spelling this out in explicit terms. To say that lustful sex is
       wrong but loving sex is right flies in the face of the context which
       is the marriage bond.  By definition, all sex outside of marriage is
       lustful and none of it loving.  Why? Because it conflicts with the
       moral authority of the Bible and its God.  Conflict with a morality
       is an immorality. Therefore in context of the Bible's moral
       statement, there is no such thing as loving sex outside of marriage,
       no matter how much the two people  who participate agree in their
       personal moralities; the two people exist in conflict to the other
       morality.

       Are people who commit immoral acts immoral people?   Remembering
       that immorality is something in conflict with another's morality,
       immorality is like dirt that clings to a person.  The conflicting
       moral act is immoral. While the dirt is not part of the person, the
       dirt remains on a person unless removed.  By aligning with the
       morality of another, the immorality disappears because the
       moralities become the same.  In actuality, either two become dirty
       in the same way or two become clean in the same way.

       If one believes in a Holy God, who is absolutely clean, then we can
       only become clean like God in our actions, so as not to conflict
       with His morality. So again we see how important it is to know what
       God's morality is.

       Is God such a Person not to make his morality clear?  If the
       Absolute Authority does not make morality clear, then we are
       abandoned to our personal moralities and must all cross our fingers.
       This would not be a God of love.

  Guilt.

  I've heard several people describe their upbringing in religious
  organizations as having been based on guilt feelings.  And I
  discovered for some, this was more than humorous anecdotes of
  childhood but actual impaction on their lives.

  Modern society has chosen to deal with the guilt feelings,
  stemming largely from these childhood persuasions of religion.
  But modern society, especially through psychology, has thrown the
  baby out with the bath water, dismissing all guilt.

  There are several kinds of guilt.  One is the condition of guilt
  which is completely devoid and separate from feelings.  It doesn't
  matter how anyone feels, because a person is either guilty or innocent.
  Another kind is the guilt we feel, a "remorseful awareness of
  having done something wrong."

  Dealing with guilt feelings, we need to understand the difference
  between "appropriate guilt" and "inappropriate guilt."
  Appropriate guilt should be felt when we do something wrong.
  Inappropriate guilt is felt because we think we [may] have done
  something wrong, when in fact we have not.

  Psychology tends to paint all guilt as inappropriate guilt,
  especially by saying that there is almost nothing that is *wrong*
  to feel guilty about.  This is the message of moral relativism: we
  define right and wrong and therefore if something is "right for
  us," there is no need nor room for guilt feelings.

  But this is not something the Christian needs to be involved in.
  A properly balanced person feels guilt when something wrong is
  done.  An unbalanced person has his conscience desensitized
  (seared).  And we have desensitizing influences all around us.

  The fact is, we are ALL guilty.  "All have sinned and come short
  of the glory of God."  We cannot be made innocent; we can only be
  declares "not guilty" by reason of pardon.   "The wages of sin is
  death, but the gift of God is eternal life."  Eternal life is a
  gift not meeting with out just desserts.

  So how do we know which wrongdoings we've done (guilt condition)
  for which to feel remorse (guilt feeling)?  You cannot know unless
  you have an Absolute Morality (See note 31.*) as a point of
  reference: "for by the law is the knowledge of sin.  But now the
  righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being
  witnessed by the law and the prophets; Even the righteousness of
  God which is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them
  that believe: for there is no difference: - Romans 3:20b-22"  The
  Absolute Morality that was bound up in the law is based in the
  "righteousness of God" Who is the Absolute Authority.

  Getting close to God, (and He has provided a way for us to be
  intimate and personal with Him), will make us more sensitive to
  Right and Wrong, Good and Evil.  And we will (and should) feel
  guilty (because we are) when we do wrong, sinning against God
  first, and against others secondarily.

    
    Mark,
    
    Did you study philosophy in college, by any chance?
    
    Cindy

I don't know about Mark, but I sure did.

What a breath of fresh air, Mark.  Thank you for entering
clear, concise messages that are thorougly grounded both
in the Bible and reason.

Collis

I did not study philosophy (as a major).  Had one class (B-, I think).
Balance was the one word the professor wanted his students to understand.
Let's see, college was some 10-17 years ago.  ;-)  (I got married and
postponed some of my studies to start a family)

I graduated with a BA in Computer Science.

However, Cindy, college is not the only learning ground, as you well know.

    Proverbs 1:7a  The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge.

Mark

    
    I was asking for a different reason, Mark.  Next semester I'm taking
    PH101 at Rivier College, and given that you live in the area, I was
    wondering if perhaps you had attended there...and taken that course.
    (So, did you?)
    
    Yea...it's been about that long for me too.  (;^)  Though I've been
    back off and on through the years.
    
    Cindy

Re: .1 Mark

>       Rules are made to establish control and are implemented and governed
>       by authority. Authority can either be accepted willingly or imposed
>       forcefully.

... or successfully evaded, or overthrown.

>       The authority of God is also expressed in God's leaders (in the
>       church), God's leaders (in the home), God's leaders (in the
>       community).

Does God have leaders in every church, home and community or just in some
of them?

>       To answer this question, we must first ask another question:  "Does
>       God exist?"  If the answer is no, then every person defines what is
>       good and what is bad. Societal morals then come from a consensus or
>       plurality of individual personal morals.

Would you agree that societal morals in this situation (i.e. where God
doesn't exist) are relative rather than absolute?

>       If there is no God, then morals
>       have no real meaning since every person has individual morals; and
>       so there is no absolute good nor absolute bad; its all relative; the
>       concepts of good and evil (outside of the context of a personal and
>       all-powerful God) are subjective at best.

Yes, if there is no God then morals and relative and concepts of good and
evil are subjective.  This doesn't mean that they have no real meaning,
though.  They are extremely important because they determine the actions of
every person on the planet.

>       Since good and bad have no [reasonable] context outside of God,
>       people who declare their personal morals are god unto themselves;
>       they have placed themselves in absolute authority by declaring what
>       is [ultimately] good and what is [ultimately] bad;

This might be true of a sociopath.  It's not true of most people.  We are
influenced by what society says is moral, as well as by several other
factors.

>       those who violate
>       (rebel against) their personal morals commit sin against them.

That's an odd way of looking at it, but I guess it's consistent with your
claim that we are gods unto ourselves.

				-- Bob

>    PH101 at Rivier College, and given that you live in the area, I was
>    wondering if perhaps you had attended there...and taken that course.
>    (So, did you?)

Nope.  Eastern Nazarene College.  Liberal Arts.

re: Note 798.15 by Mark "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" 

>  Psychology tends to paint all guilt as inappropriate guilt,
>  especially by saying that there is almost nothing that is *wrong*
>  to feel guilty about.  

References?  My experiences with the world of psychology paints a far, far 
different picture.  True, they generally use slightly different terms, guilt 
and shame instead of appropriate and inappropriate guilt, but as far as saying 
that there is almost nothing that is *wromg* to feel guilty about.  Quite the 
contrary.  While a therapist may oftentimes appear to have little to say on 
such a subject, it is usally because they are tying to help a client *figure 
it out be themselves*.  It is far more helpful to learn about oneself than 
to be told about oneself.

Peace,

Jim

.20  Bob M.

>First two questions

It seems as if you are asking whether one colored pixel colors the 
whole screen.  When one describes a room full of furniture, it doesn't
help to ask whether it is actually full with no room for air, carpet,
or light fixtures.  Your questions, as are the following, are addressed
in the text. 


>Would you agree that societal morals in this situation (i.e. where God
>doesn't exist) are relative rather than absolute?

I have always said as much... in the very next sentence:

>>       If there is no God, then morals
>>       have no real meaning since every person has individual morals; and
>>       so there is no absolute good nor absolute bad; its all relative;...

>Yes, if there is no God then morals and relative and concepts of good and
>evil are subjective.  This doesn't mean that they have no real meaning,
>though.  They are extremely important because they determine the actions of
>every person on the planet.

Ah, but it does have no real meaning, where real is applicable to all.
If something isn't applicable to me, then it isn't real.  It's *your*
reality.  Yes, we can all have our realities, Bob.  And yes, our
personal morals have ALL the meaning in the world to us.  But that 
[meaning] ONLY exists inside our personal universe, and happenstancely
coincides with those who share our personal morals (thereby giving a shared
meaning - or societal morals).

>>       Since good and bad have no [reasonable] context outside of God,
>>       people who declare their personal morals are god unto themselves;
>>       they have placed themselves in absolute authority by declaring what
>>       is [ultimately] good and what is [ultimately] bad;
>
>This might be true of a sociopath.  It's not true of most people.  We are
>influenced by what society says is moral, as well as by several other
>factors.

But influence is the dynamic of the greater power defining what is good
and bad, and enforcing that definition, which can be changed if greater
power is exerted to enforce a different definition.  This can only
be done if individuals are collected by some common definition to proclaim
and enforce that definition.  Each individual has declared what is good
and what is bad.  They may have adopted the definition of another (through
influence or coercion) or (unlikely as it may be) vreated their own
definition.  While ALL people are influenced by other definitions, especially
societal and cultural ones, you know as well as I that most people test
these definitions, especially during adolescence (the onslaught of 
independence), and sometimes reject them for other definitions.

>>       those who violate
>>       (rebel against) their personal morals commit sin against them.
>
>That's an odd way of looking at it, but I guess it's consistent with your
>claim that we are gods unto ourselves.

Is it?  Sin is merely rebellion against a known definition.  If I know that
you think it is bad to brush my teeth at the dinner table, and I do so
at your dinner table, I commit and offense (rebellion) against you.  
A sin.  Perhaps you think it odd because of the context in which you 
usually see the word "sin" (which is usually found in religious terminology,
or in colloquiallism about chocolate cakes).

Further, sinning against another has little to do with [what I think you
think about the phrase] being gods unto ourselves, except when
you consider that the term "god" is ultimate authority.  In other words,
we determine our destiny, especially if God does not exist.  In the 
Christian faith (strict Calvinist predesintationalists, notwithstanding),
this remains true with the God of the Bible; we choose our destiny.
The variation is that with the God of the Bible, we have a multiple choice,
and not whatever we want, but this is a matter of ultimate authority and
power.  

Mark

>>  Psychology tends to paint all guilt as inappropriate guilt,
>>  especially by saying that there is almost nothing that is *wrong*
>>  to feel guilty about.  
>
>References?  My experiences with the world of psychology paints a far, far 
>different picture.  True, they generally use slightly different terms, guilt 
<and shame instead of appropriate and inappropriate guilt, but as far as saying 
>that there is almost nothing that is *wromg* to feel guilty about.  Quite the 
>contrary.  While a therapist may oftentimes appear to have little to say on 
>such a subject, it is usally because they are tying to help a client *figure 
>it out be themselves*.  It is far more helpful to learn about oneself than 
>to be told about oneself.

No text references; second-hand experience and reference with some of the 
products of the profession, on both sides of the couch.  I'll be glad to 
take your word for it, though, because I also know some (really just a few)
psychologists in whom I would have confidence.  It is the *tendency* to which 
I have been exposed, especially in the area of certain moral definitions.

Mark

    Having been very intimate with both psychologists and Christian
    counselling, I can say that Mark is not far off with his statement.
    
    In psychology guilt is passed onto others, in Christianity guilt is
    appropriately placed.  
    
    Nancy
    

re: Note 798.25 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

Having been very intimate with both psychologists and Christian
counselling, I can say that Mark is rather far off with his statement.
    
In psychology guilt is usually appropriately placed, in Christianity guilt is
usually appropriately placed as well.

My issue with Mark's statement was it's sweeping nature.

Nancy presents anecdotal evidence of the direction of psychology.
I as well am all too familiar with pastoral cunselors,  therapists, 
psychologists, and psychiatrists, having had numerous client relationships 
with quite a range of care givers and can supply a wealth of anecdotal 
evidence as well.  Basically, Your Mileage May Vary.  Be careful, prayerful,
and discerning when employing the services of such. 

Yes, there are psychologists who may suggest that the client is never guilty
of anything.  Then again there exist "Christian" professionals who insist that
a wife stay with her abusive husband, blaming her for the abuse.  NEITHER
exteme is likely to be helpful and NEITHER extreme should be exemplified to
characterize an entire profession. 

It is such broad characterization with which I take issue.

Now back to the topic...

Peace,

Jim

Psychology covers a lot of beliefs.

However, my impression is that popular psychology misses
the mark quite a bit when it comes to guilt and how to deal
with it.  I think it is often misdefined and rarely
does the need for confession and forgiveness from God
find its way into the list of action items.

Collis

re: Note 798.27 by Collis "DCU fees?  NO!!!" 

Collis, thank you for sharing your impression.
A question:  what do you mean by the term "popular psychology"?
(As opposed to, say, serious clinical psychology.)

This reminds me also of the several "12 Step" groups which exist based upon 
Alcoholics Anonymous and might well be included under the umbrella of 
"popular" psychology (many therapists recommend joining such groups as an 
important adjunct to conventional one on one therapy).  AA borrows much from
psychology as well many facets of religious thought. 

Two of the major steps is making an accounting of all the times you've hurt
people (sinned)  And sharing that accounting with another person.  After that
it is suggested that one make amends to those you have injured (without
injuring them further.)  A step after that is to become more aware so that you
can make more immediate amends, or avoid the hurtful behavour in the first 
place.

Considering the sheer number of people involved in these groups, I would not 
call this area of belief "rare".

Peace,

Jim

I agree with you, Jim, that 12 step groups do indeed
address this issue.  I had not considered them and
perhaps my statements were too harsh.  I was thinking
much more of typical secular, one on one counseling
and the (admittedly few) books written by such people
that I have read.

Collis

    Collis,
    
    Try Scott Peck's book, The Road less Travelled.
    
    The book is truly inspiritational.
    
    Patricia
    

                     
    Collis,
    
    Try also John Bradshaw's works, if they haven't already been mentioned.
    Highly recommended is:  Bradshaw On: The Family.  For a preview of what
    he talks about, you can read excerpts from this book in the DEJAVU
    conference, note 688.  He is a former Catholic priest, actually.
    
    Psychology, as you have described it, is changing rapidly.  The
    movement began with Carl Jung back many decades ago, when he broke 
    from Freud's teachings.  The 'at large' western psychological
    society is still back in the dark ages in many ways, as is western
    medicine.  But you're going to see a rapid shift in the coming years.
    Stay tuned.  (;^)
    
    Cindy

    .31
    
    John Bradshaw is a heretic.  He's a psychologist first, a spiritual
    time warp second.
    
    His teachings are humanistic from every point of view and very
    dangerous.  He encompasses mysticism as part of his healing
    prescription and God could be the ant in the ground should you so
    decide that is your higher power.
    
    I think he is dangerous because his psychological assessments are right
    on, but his lack of true spirituality strays so far from the course, I
    fear he himself has become a god of sorts to many.
    
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    I find John Bradshaws spirituality as discussed in "Homeward Bound" to
    be wonderful.  I love his image of when we strip away all of our
    defenses we get to the Core of our own being our "i am-ness" our wonder
    child inside.  When we find our authentic self,  we get to participate in
    the Big "I AM Ness".  
    
    Yes  Bradshsaw is mystical.
    
    Do you think mysticism in general is errant?
    
    Patricia

 "The Big I AM ness"?





 Jim

    Define mysticism for me so that I know we are talking about the same
    thing, if you will.
    
    Nancy

    See topic 39 "Mysticism."
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    I do not like Bradshaw, but for none of the reasons mentioned so far
    (And I do not care to elaborate on my reasons).
    
    I don't find Bradshaw heretical, nor are his books and lectures
    completely valueless.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    My maiden name is Bradshaw. :-}

 Well, I wouldn't say you're heretical....




:-)


Jim

    .39
    
    I wuv u 2 Jimbo! :-)
    
    I know, most folks in notes think I'm some hispanic woman, and I'm as
    white as snow. :-) Freckles and all!
    
    hee hee.. oh yeah you've seen me.
    
    Nancy

    Richard,
    
    I'm asking for her particular definition not the topic's message... and
    it will make for a better flow in the string if it's here, so if you'd
    like to repost something, please feel free to put it in here should her
    name be attached to the note.
    
    Thanks,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    actually your personal name appears mystical to me.  "Sweet Spirit's
    Gentle Breeze."  Mystical for me means that we can know God directly. 
    That we can participate in the divine through our everyday activities
    and reflections.  That God is all about us and can be felt and known
    all about us.  Like a Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze.  Like the mist on a
    fall day.  
    
    I asked the Church school class one day "What does holy feel like"  One
    boy answered it feels like when you are in the lake water on a summer
    day and try to pick up the water.  You can touch it, it flows all
    around you but you cannot hold onto it.  That is a mystical answer.
    
    Patricia

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 39.4                           Mysticism                            4 of 37
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "A Higher Calling"                  9 lines   3-OCT-1990 11:04
                              -< Divine Presence >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The most useful definition I've encountered is that mysticism
    is the direct and immediate awareness of the Presence of God.
    
    It sneaks up on me, too.  At the same time, I've made deliberate
    efforts to become more sensitive to the Presence which I believe
    have been worthwhile.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    
    Based on your definition, No, I do not find mysticism in general as
    being errant.  However, for me, that is not the definition of
    mysticism... lessee what Webster says [now where is that
    dictionary!?]
    
    Ah here it is...
    
    Websters
    
    Mysticism - A spiritual discipline aiming at direct union or communion
    with god or with ultimate reality in a trancelike contemplation or deep
    meditation.
    
    "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" is based on the Biblical description of
    the Holy Spirit being like the wind.
    
    It is also the words to the chorus of a song I've composed.
    
    
    
    

>    "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" is based on the Biblical description of
>    the Holy Spirit being like the wind.

And as an aside, it must be remembered that not every blast of air is from
the Holy Spirit.

    .45
    
    hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee hee
    
    Rolling!

    re .45
    
    Is not God creator of all things?
    Does that not include every blast of air?
    
    I am surprised at the Polytheism in here being described as
    Christianity.

God did indeed create air.  However, that does not make Him
responsible for every blast thereof.

I can understand your confusion considering the society we
live in.  :-)

Note 798.45

>And as an aside, it must be remembered that not every blast of air is from
>the Holy Spirit.

Yes, that's been amply evident.  But, we don't restrict anyone's participation,
orthodox or otherwise.

We reserve the right to minister to anyone.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 798.35

>    Define mysticism for me so that I know we are talking about the same
>    thing, if you will.
    
Note 798.41

>    I'm asking for her particular definition not the topic's message...

Note 798.44

>    Based on your definition, No, I do not find mysticism in general as
>    being errant.  However, for me, that is not the definition of
>    mysticism...

If you're just going to toss out somebody's definition in the next breath,
why did you even bother to ask?
       
>    Websters

If you're going take the dictionary definition as the only one that is
legitimate, again, why bother to ask?  Why not just go to the dictionary
and skip asking?  Why not just give us the 'correct' answer?

Look, the dictionary has its place, but in some instances it captures
only a superficial or incomplete description.  Besides, I can find
dictionaries which would agree with Patricia's definition, if you want
to play that game.

>    Mysticism - A spiritual discipline aiming at direct union or communion
                                                  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    with god or with ultimate reality in a trancelike contemplation or deep
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    meditation.

While the above is not incorrect, neither does it encompass encountering the
living Christ outside the parameters of "a spiritual discipline" (which could
include prayer or going to church), or outside a "trancelike" state of
consciousness.

Mysticism, as I use the term, refers to the portion of the definition I've
underscored.

Richard

    
    
    
    > I am surprised at the Polutheism
    
    Huh, how did you get that?

    .50
    
    Richard,
    
    Do you have a beef with me that we can just duke out once and for all? 
    Why do you say something so critical about my noting with Patricia?  I
    wasn't throwing out her definition, I was "coming to terms" with *OUR*
    definitions so we could properly communicate. 
    
    I even answered her question to me based on her definition, and so that
    we completely understood each other, explained mine.  Sheesh!
    
    I gss good communication is something less then desired for you, eh
    Richard?  Again, you got a problem with me, let's just go ahead and air
    it and either get over it, or at ast stop the constant breakdown of
    every little thing I write!
    
    Nancy

    .52  I'm a lover, not fighter.  ;-)
    
    That doesn't mean I won't call you, to use a poker expression.
    
    Thanks for explaining your previous entry, Nancy.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    .53
    
    Poker expression, as I'll poker every time I get the chance! :-) :-)
    
    Yeah, well I was married to one of those Richard, you do like a good
    fight, come on admit it! :-):-)
    
    Nancy

    .54
    
    The one thing you and I seem to share in common is a sense of humor,
    bad puns and all.
    
    I may be a bit of a rebel, but I'm not itchin' for a fight.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .55
    
    Okay, Richard, peace.  I'll only fight when you start it. :-)
    
    Nancy

Richard throws a jab and then backpeddles, Nancy.  How
far he backpeddles depends on how far you are willing to
pursue.  After his last jab at me, he backpeddled out
of the ring stopping the bout.

Collis

    How many teenagers today have morality and authority in their lives?
    
    Think of the consequences of a society that instilled these values into
    our youth... I can still remember when it was the norm and I'm only 35. 
    I never dreamed in my lifetime that this world would be as it is
    today.... my neighborhood just was so atypical American tradition.  
    
    Nancy
    

      
    >>How many teenagers today have morality and authority in their lives?
    
    I believe the majority of them still do, quietly.  The "bad kids" just
    get all the press and attention.
    
       GJD

    My teenagers have morality and authority in their lives.  Some might
    say even too much.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Are we blind?  I work in the streets as a ministry in neighborhoods
    with highest density of people.  I can attest to the fact that 1 out of
    20 have morality and authority in their lives... Those kids that do
    have at least one VERY strong authority in their lives... either a
    parent or guardian.  And I don't be strong discipline, I mean an
    authority that is respected.  The discipline is merely a fruit of that
    individual's ability to train the child.
    
    Tell me how many neighborhood's have spent time in, really getting to
    know the teens there?  Most of the kids I work with are pre-gang era
    and some are in gangs.
    
    All the teens I talk to that are in gangs, again *ALL* the teens I talk
    to say that the gang is their *family* because their own families don't
    really care for them.  Is this simply a state of mind and not a reality
    for teens who say this?  Partially, yes.  The parents I meet love and
    care for their kids... but they don't know HOW TO PARENT... Many are
    addicts of all kinds and some even introduced the drugs to their
    children themselves.  They figured it part of parenting to smoke pot
    with their teen... sorta like safe sex, safe drugs...  
    
    I'm not kidding about this... this is TRUTH and REALITY in the streets
    of America.

Boy, miss a few days and the topic replies double!

Note 798.28   TFH::KIRK 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
! A question:  what do you mean by the term "popular psychology"?
! (As opposed to, say, serious clinical psychology.)

  "...when the Eysenck study was released at the University of London, there
  was a furor.  Eysenck's study simply showed that among neurotics divided
  50/50, those that underwent psychoanalysis had no better recovery rate than
  those who just lived life and saved the massive therapy fees.  The recovery
  was the same, plus or minus a .02 percent statistical error factor.  In other
  words, psychoanalysis did nothing.  Eysenck drove home the fact that
  psychoanalysis was anything but scientifically proven.  All it could do was
  hide behind its terminology and verify itself by its own closed definitions
  of reality.  Freudian psychoanalysis became discredited among all but the
  most loyal followers and/or those who had spent $20,000 in training to become
  highly-paid psychoanalysts."

     "When the World Will Be As One"  -- Tal Brooke

================================================================================
Note 798.31 TNPUBS::PAINTER 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Psychology, as you have described it, is changing rapidly.  The
    movement began with Carl Jung back many decades ago, when he broke 
    from Freud's teachings.  The 'at large' western psychological
    society is still back in the dark ages in many ways, as is western
    medicine.  But you're going to see a rapid shift in the coming years.
    Stay tuned.  (;^)

I've been reading about this (rapid shift - stay tuned) in a book over the
vacation entitled "When the World will be as One" by Tal Brooke.  In reference
to Carl Jung and his parting from Freud, he says:

  In the end, the gurus of human nature, the psychotherapists, are forced to
  generalize.  They must play the role of wise pundits, and so they claim to
  be.  But when they disagree, as when Carl Jung parted ways with Sigmund
  Freud, what court of wisdom is able to prove which one is right?  Again,
  psychotherapy is no science at all; it is a battleground of different schools
  of belief.  Inevitably, it comes down to a faith issue about the nature of
  human identity and ultimate reality.

It goes on to say that Jung was only in the "Second Force" psychology; Freud
being in the first force.  Jung had no spiritual connection that the humanists
brought into the third force psychology.
    

More:

  As Barbara Ehrenreich observed in her article entitled "The Psychology of
  Growth," which appeared in _Mother Jones_, April 1983: "If the human
  potential was intrinsically good, then there was no firm ground left from
  which to attack the deviant or nonconformist.  All trajectories were possible
  as each unique and groping 'self' reached toward fulfillment."  Thus there
  were no standards left to judge what desirable growth was.  As long as self
  was doing its own authentic thing, it was okay.  Growth and fulfillment were
  life's new ideals."  ...

  ..."The creed of the Third Force psychology indeed sounds like the slogans of
  the sixties... Christopher Lasch's _The Culture of Narcissism_ spells them
  out:  nonbinding commitments, freedom of guilt or failure, personal
  fulfillment, the neurotic need for affection, reassurance, and gratification,
  as well as the inability to internalize clearly defined criteria of right and
  wrong.  Under these new rules what you end up with is manipulators who are on
  the take.  They quickly assess how to use others to get what they want from
  them, then dump them as soon as they have used them.  Loyalty is not their
  strong point..."

And still more:

  One of the psychologists at the conference commented that it (_Profound
  Simplicity_) was a great book.  He too was in the business of past-life
  therapy.  (William) Kilpatrick was not so sure.  He relates:

      I asked if he thought there was anything of value in the Western
      tradition or in Christianity.  Christainity, he explained with an amused
      smile, makes people feel guilty; guilt is a crippling emotion.  The
      others at the table nodded assent, and the psychologist settled
      comfortably back in his chair.  It was an open and shut case.

         --William Kirk Kilpatrick, _The Emporer's New Clothes_ (Westchester:
           Crossway Books, 1985), p. 27.

    

    Oh, and Happy New Year!

    .64
    
    Happy New Year to you, too, Mark!  A prosperous and blessed one, also!
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

re:  Note 798.63 by Mark "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers" 

Mark,

I have heard of _Mother Jones_, but I don't know much about it in re 
psychiatry.  How does it compare to, say, _The American Journal of 
Psychiatry_?  (official journal of the APA.)  What sort of paper review 
process do they have?  Editorial slant, et cetera?  (I wouldn't deny that the
AJoP has its own particular bias as well.)

As I've said previously in this string, "your mileage may vary".  I have not 
denied that there is some amount of error in the world of psychiatry, only 
pointing out the use of a very broad brush (which you have previously 
acknowledged, thanks). 

I wouldn't pursue this, as it's rather a tangent from the basenote, but I 
noticed that it is your string, so I don't feel so guilty about continuing the 
thread, though at this point it seems to me that bashing psychiatry had taken 
over the focus.

As far as the other sources you cite, I'd ask the same questions of them.

Peace,

Jim


           <<< YUKON::DISK$ARCHIVE:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN.NOTE;1 >>>
                                  CHRISTIAN-V7
Created: 16-FEB-1993 10:04         379 topics         Updated: 19-JAN-1994 13:35
                     -< There's room at the cross for you >-

================================================================================
Note 31.15                   Morality and Authority                     15 of 15
TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers"       75 lines  12-JAN-1994 13:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                    -< The Word is the Absolute Authority >-

    John 1:1-3 ------------------------------------------------------------  
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
    was God.  The same was in the beginning with God.  All things were made
    by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
    -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    For weeks now, I have been thinking about these verses, and most
    especially the Word.  In discussing the philosophies of morality and
    authority we now understand that the greater power defines what is
    right and what is wrong; that in the absence of an absolute authority
    (God), morality is based on the integrity of the greatest (power)
    authority until that authority is usurped, rendering it a weaker power
    than the one that usurped it. 

    However, in the presence of an Absolute Authority, the definition of
    right and wrong is based on the integrity of the absolute, and
    therefore is defined absolutely as right and wrong.

    Upon this foundation we have the Word.  We refer to the Word of God as
    the Bible in some cases, as the spoken word of God, and in John 1 it
    refers to Jesus, the second Person of the Godhead, the Word.

    The Word is the defining power.  Nothing is defined (made) without Him;
    and everything is defined (made) by Him.  Definition by the Word is the
    beginning of creation.

    It is extremely important that we see the Word not only as a defining
    mechanism, or a communication of an idea, but as that which comprises a
    comprehensive attribute of God: Absolute Authority to define all
    things, whether it be material or invisible things, or the definition
    of ethics, morality, contrast, power, dimension, and so on.

    "The Word was God."  God's creative power speaks worlds into existence.
    "And God said, 'Let there be light.'  And there was light."  There is
    no way we can comprehend this beyond what it says: God spoke and it was
    so.  We can never know what generates God's creative power as if God
    was a specimen to be studied.  

    When Moses asked about God, God responded by saying, "I AM THAT I AM." 
    There are no comparisons that could convey the unique and vast nature
    of God.  There is no amount of time that could be spent in describing
    all there is to know about the Infinite and the Absolute; the Absolute
    Infinity.

    When God initiated covenants, He swore by His own name because there
    was no higher authority to back up His claim.  God staked His covenants
    on the integrity of absolute authority.  And this is why we have
    assurance, often in the face of earthly opposition to God's
    definitions.

    Hebrews 11:3 and 6 say, "Through faith we understand that the worlds
    were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not
    made of things which do appear.  But without faith it is impossible to
    please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that
    he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him."

    Tying back to the very first note, we ask "Does God exist?"  The Bible
    accepts this as fact but acknowledges that the reader may or may not.
    "He that comes to God must believe that He exists..."  This is not to
    say that God existence is dependent on my believe; that if I do not
    believe, he will not exist.  This is as foolish as a child who hides
    under a blanket thinking that the child is hidden from the view of
    others.  This is saying that answering the question "Does God exist" in
    the affirmative is the _first_ step.  And Hebrews 11:6 defines what the
    next step is!  "God is a rewarder of them that _diligently_ seek Him."

    God exists.  Whether you believe it or not doesn't change the fact.
    However, believing is the first step; only the first step, but the most
    important step to make. 

    "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that
    whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting
    life." John 3:16

    He is the Absolute Authority; the Word.

    
    Very interesting.
    
    I believe that 'the Word' is Om.  Not as a word, specifically, or
    belonging to any particular religion, but as a reference to a
    vibration.  Amen, Amin...all the same idea.  Om just happens to
    be older.
    
    Everything that is manifest, vibrates at some level.  To bring
    something into existence, is to set up a vibration - a 'second'.
    Using vibration, God created the manifest universe.
    
    We have the delineation of time as a 'second', because it is only 
    when there is a 'second' that time exists.  1,2,3...  In the
    unmanifest, there is no time, no space, no 'second'.  God is One.
    
    Cindy 

    The word is Jesus. :-)
    
    The Bible declares  "and the word was with us" and "the word became
    flesh" ... the word was referring to Jesus.
    
    Nancy

    The word is not defined as Jesus.  The Word is the preexisting divinity
    that became incarnate in the Historic Jesus.  The Word, the preexistant
    Christ, Divine Wisdom, Om, Sophia, Holy Spirit, Divine Spirit, in my 
    opinion all express that same idea.  The power of God to become physically
    and actually alive in the human world of space and time.  And the Word 
    became flesh.  And the Word continually becomes flesh in the form of the
    Holy Spirit entering each one of us.
    
    Patricia

	Pat, how do you consistantly do it? Thanks for writing that note. It
was not only very informative, but so well written too! :-)


Glen

    The word becomes flesh is referring to Christ.   The Holy Spirit wasn't
    poured out to man until after Christ's resurrection.
    
    Nancy

    The word being translated Word in the Gospel of John is Logos.  And
    there is such a thing as "Logos theology" in which I am not well enough
    versed to be able to articulate.  Know that it exists, anyway.
    
    "Logos" has a whole glorious spectrum of meaning.  At the same time, as
    John uses it here, it's clear that he is pointing to Christ.
    
    Richard
    

    Post resurrection though, the Holy Spirit is the way that the Divine
    breaks into human life.
    
    I'm not clear on the difference between the post ressurection Christ
    and the Holy Spirit.
    
    Patricia

    >   I'm not clear on the difference between the post ressurection Christ
    >   and the Holy Spirit.
    
    Hi Patricia, according to Scripture, the Holy Spirit is the conduit
    through which our 6th sense is activated in Truth, Comfort, Conviction
    and Guidance.  There are counterfeits that activate this sensitivity as
    well.
    
    Nancy

    
    Hmm.....6th sense...6th chakra...thanks, Nancy!  (;^)
    
    More on 'Om' - last night I was at dress rehearsal for an upcoming
    concert this weekend, and came across 'omnis' in Latin.  Underneath,
    the English translation for the 'om' syllable was 'all'.  I thought
    that was interesting.
    
    Cindy

    .76
    
    chuckle, grumble, grumble, chuckle
    
    Okay what is a CHAKRA... define 6th... help!! I'm lost in a world of
    mysticism [lets not get off on that topic again]. :-)
    

                                                                            
    Nancy,
    
    It's really not mysticism, although using funny terms like that, it
    could sound that way.
    
    Like the physical body with it's nervous system, circulatory system,
    skeletal system, etc., we also have an energy body that surrounds us. 
    This energy body extends past the physical body, and like the physical
    body, it has its own 'systems' too.  Whether you believe in the
    existence of the energy body or not, it makes no difference since it's
    there anyway.  Some people can 'see' it, and others can 'feel' it.  I
    can feel it, to some degree.
    
    In one of the energy body 'systems', there are things called  'energy 
    centers'.  Of the thousands of energy centers that we have in this 
    system, there are typically 7 major energy centers that are referred to
    as 'chakras' (I believe this is a Sanskrit word.)
    
    The first chakra is around the base of our spine.  
    The second is below our naval.
    The third is around the solar plexus.
    The fourth is around the heart.
    The fifth is around the throat.
    The sixth is at the forehead.
    The 7th is at the top of your head.
    
    At the 'healing' level, what all this means is if you have blocked
    chakras, these blocks may eventually work their way into the physical
    body and cause disease.  Although it is not always the case, a blocked
    heart chakra, for example, can eventually cause blocks in the arteries.
    And so on.
    
    A 'healer', using techniques as the Christian 'laying on of hands', for
    example (to use a model you may be familiar with), actually helps to
    straighten out and clear blocks in the energy field, this helping the
    patients to heal their own selves.  [That should have been 'thus'
    helping....]
    
    All alternative medical techniques, such as accupuncture, accupressure,
    chiropractic, (the list goes on an on), and even *prayer* is based on
    the existence of the energy body.  
    
    Things like, 'if you feel in your heart that it's true' - it's not the
    physical heart, but the 4th chakra, that is actually producing real
    feeling/sensations.
    
    I became absolutely convinced, and helped greatly, by someone who
    worked on my energy field a few years ago, cleared out my 6th chakra,
    and for the first time in many years I was completely free of any
    traces of migraine pain (which is something I live with, though
    fortunately it's been infinitely better in the last few years).  Now,
    the center closed up later on, and I still rely on 'modern medicine' to
    control them through medication when necessary, however I still go back 
    and get it worked on, on occasion which also helps.  I don't advocate
    tossing our current medical profession out the window, but it would be
    nice if they would work with those in 'alternative medicine' more than
    they do.  
    
    To make this story short, when you have a direct experience like this, 
    it makes all this 'mysticism' stuff quite real, tangible, and practical.
    
    Cindy

    .78
    
    I have absolute no trouble believing in chakras... I am proponent of
    holistic health as long as it doesn't cross over into a religion of its
    own... which I have seen in some "health centers".  I've heard the
    term chakra before, but have not had an expnation.  For instance, I do
    something called muscle testing to demonstrate to children that what we
    think, put in our minds, effects our body.  If you say hate hate hate
    and do the muscle test, muscles are weak and easily over powered, if
    you say love love love and perform the muscle test, you are not easily
    over powered.  Its not magic and it works.  Muscle testing also helps
    to determine what organs in the body or areas in the spine that are
    weak.  And yes I do believe that someone filled with the Holy Spirit
    produces a power or energy that can heal. :-)
    
    Nancy

    p.s.
    
    I believe also this is supported by the Phillipians verse where God
    tells on what we should be mediating, pure, lovely, of good report,
    Truth..
    
    In another verse in the Bible, it says that we are to "SET OUR MINDS on
    things ABOVE"...
    
    I'd say God's word is definately supportive of holistic medicine as
    well... again as long as we continue to worship the CREATOR, who
    created our magnificent bodies. :-)

    Re.79,.80
    
    Nancy,
    
    If you ever want to read up more on these things, there is a wonderful 
    book on this kind of healing entitled, "Light Emerging", by Barbara 
    Brennan.  She is a former NASA physicist.  A friend of mine is
    attending her school in NYC, and has worked on me several times.  He
    does a great job. 
    
    Another good book is "Vibrational Medicine", by Dr.Richard Gerber. I've
    met Richard, actually.  Really nice person.  He's a medical doctor who
    has a practice out in the midwest.
    
    We do agree...it should not become a religion of its own.
    
    Cindy