Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

   RE:      <<< Note 890.0 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat" >>>
                        -< The letters of the historical Paul >-
    
    
    The list is not complete      (for some reason maybe ??)
    
    e.g: The letters to    "The society of":     Ephesians
                                                 Collossians
                                                 II Thessalonians
                                                 I  Timothy
                                                 II Timothy
                                                 Titus
                                                 Hebrews
    
    Regards  Alex

re Note 890.1 by JGO::ODOR:

>     The list is not complete      (for some reason maybe ??)
  
        Richard's point was "undisputed" authorship by Paul -- there
        is some disagreement about the ones you listed, especially
        Hebrews.

        Bob

    .1 by JGO::ODOR
    
    Bob has it correctly.  I listed the ones there isn't much
    controversy over.
    
    I read an interesting chapter just yesterday about Ephesians.  It
    seems the older manuscripts don't mention what church (by location)
    was being addressed, which suggests that it was more a general epistle
    than a church specific letter to begin with.
    
    Ephesians may have been written by one or more of Paul's disciples.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Re:  To Bob & Richard.
    
    Bob, 
    
    About Hebrew I have to do some Homework.
    
    Richard,
    
    About Ephesian, the letter to the ephesians starts with the name
    of Paul in the first verse.
    
    About Timothy, these letters are written by Paul and addressed to
    Timothy (his spiritual adopted son), to encouraged and correct
    him as a new installed Elder (presbyterian)of that congregation in Ephese.
    As far as I remember.
    
    Like I said to Bob, I need to do some indepth homework .
    
    regards,
    Alex

    .4 Alex,
    
    	Yes, I understand the traditional teaching about the authorship
    and I intend not to quibble.
    
    	Through our modern eyes we see using Paul's name in a letter as
    forgery and a gross misrepresentaion.  The ancients did not see it
    quite the same way.
    
    	Ascribing a letter to Paul (especially by someone who knew him and
    was thoroughly knowledgable of his teachings) was perceived as a way of
    honoring Paul.  Do we not have "ghost writers" even now?
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    re:  <<< Note 890.5 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>
    
    
    
       Yes, I understand the traditional teaching about the authorship
        and I intend not to quibble.
    
            Through our modern eyes we see using Paul's name in a letter as
        forgery and a gross misrepresentaion.  The ancients did not see it
        quite the same way.
    
    
    Richard,
    
    Here is where we totally differs.
    Doing research into my library ,It teach me different things. 
    
    Although Pual's name isn't mention in the bible book Hebrew, he certainly
    wrote this letter as he did with the ones I mention in my reply above.
    
    But like I already said, I have to differ with your opinion.
    
    I think it is right not to quibble about these things, but see through
    medition (deep and thouroghly thinking) of the bible, what's 
    the right answer. After all the Holy Scriptures is inspired and divine.
    Scripture is self-explainable, and reveal things within time.
    
    
    Regards,
    Alex
    
    
    
    
    

Note 890.6 ODOR

>    Scripture is self-explainable, and reveal things within time.

This is true, I also believe, to a certain degree.

Certainly there are scholars who, like you, will insist that Paul wrote
every letter that his name is attached to.  And I guess that doesn't
hurt anything.

There are other scholars who, realizing a lot more than I do about the
New Testament times, culture, language, and their intricate interplay,
cannot say Paul was the man behind the pen in all the letters that have
his name attached to them.  For reasons unclear to me, this possibility
represents a real threat for some.

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    I disagree with you on the statement that believing Paul wrote every
    word he did doesn't harm anyone.  If timothy is used to oppress people
    based on an assumption that it is a genuine Pauline letter, than that
    erroneous information does in fact harm the people it oppresses. 
    
    It does make a difference who wrote the books of the Bible.
    

    	Re: .8 Patricia, which was re: .7 Richard.
    
    	I understood Richard to mean that: since the books have been
    	canonised, they are to be seen as the unerring and inspired word
    	of God and that their authorship, per se, does not change things.
    	Richard was not agreeing with this, just resigning himself to it.
    
    	I feel the same, sometimes. I know that, even if a signed original
    	was found, it would not convince some.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.

    It is important for people who know that the Bible is not inerrant to
    speak out and to speak out as loudly as those who insist it is.  In my
    opinion, to identify the Bible as inerrant is to allow the Bible to be
    used as a tool for oppression.  The Bible clearly says that Slaves
    should do nothing to change their status, the women should be
    subordinate to men, divorce and remarriage is wrong, that sexual
    relations other than those narrowly prescibed are an abomination. I
    like many people cannot accept that a loving God would freeze these
    proclamations for all times.  God also speaks to us in other ways than
    in this Ancient Text.
    
        
    Many people leave Christianity because they have never heard that there
    is any other way than a literal interpretation to read the Bible.  That
    is a tragedy.  
    
    I admired Bishop John Spong's book on rescuing the Bible from
    Fundementalism because he clearly shows in language that non scholastic
    readers can understand, that the Bible cannot be considered inerrant.
    
    In my opinion, Christianity will remain a live vibrant religion only if
    men and women realize that you do not have to adopt a first century
    mentality to find meaning and  inspiration in this book.
    

    Religious Liberals need to be as vocal in spreading the God News as are
    the conservative evangelicals.
    
    
    Patricia

RE:             <<< Note 890.10 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

   >    like many people cannot accept that a loving God would freeze these
   > proclamations for all times.  God also speaks to us in other ways than
   > in this Ancient Text.
    

     There is nothing in this "tool of oppression" as you call it, that cannot
     be applied to life today (in terms of morality and general life).  That
     humans cannot life by these "ancient proclamations" is not the fault of
     this "tool of oppression" or of God. 


        
    >Many people leave Christianity because they have never heard that there
    >is any other way than a literal interpretation to read the Bible.  That
    >is a tragedy.  
    

      Many people leave or reject Biblical Christianity because they refuse
      to acknowledge their sin and wish to have the "feel good" part of the 
      Bible, and their sinful selfish desires filled at the same time.
    

>    Religious Liberals need to be as vocal in spreading the God News as are
>    the conservative evangelicals.
    
    
 
     What is this Good News?




 Jim

    It is important for people who know that the Bible is inerrant to
    speak out and to speak out as loudly as those who insist it is.  In
    my opinion, to identify the Bible as inerrant is to allow the Bible to
    be used as a tool for oppression which it clearly is not.
    
    
    

    The Bible can be used, and in fact, has been used as a tool of
    oppression.  You might not do use it as a tool of oppression, or
    you may not *think* you use it as such, but that does not negate
    that, clearly, justification for oppressive regimes and mindsets
    is what the Bible has been and continues to be used for.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    
    Re.10
    
    Well said, Patricia.
    
    Cindy

RE:         <<< Note 890.13 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>

   > The Bible can be used, and in fact, has been used as a tool of
   > oppression.  You might not do use it as a tool of oppression, or
   > you may not *think* you use it as such, but that does not negate
   > that, clearly, justification for oppressive regimes and mindsets
   > is what the Bible has been and continues to be used for.
    
    
     Certainly...doesn't negate the truth thereof, only the misuse of same.





 Jim    

    It is important to emphasize that I did not say the Bible is a tool of
    oppression.  The Bible has been USED as a tool of oppression. 
    Inerrancy forces the issue.  Applying inerrancy one would obviously
    support the Hierarchal dualist structures that were familiar to Paul. 
    Humankind would not be allowed to progress pass the bigotries of the
    1st century.
    
    To use the rule which is the ethical heart of the Bible, to love God
    with all one's heart soul and mind and to love thy neighbor as thyself
    is not a "feel good" theology.  If each of us loved every neighbor as
    ourself none of us would be enjoying the luxuries that we enjoy when we
    have neigbors all over the world dieing of hunger.
    
    Actually the Doctrine "Accept a particular belief about Christ" as the
    only rule to salvation can more easily lead to a "feel good" theology.
    
    Patricia

    It may be important to say here that no one is suggesting that the
    Bible is without value or that the Bible is unimportant.  No one is
    suggesting that the Bible cannot also be used for good.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

 Just get rid of that sin and salvation stuff, eh?

    No, just get rid of a narrow way of defining sin and salvation.

    .18  Who said *that*?
    
    It's the ones who think that sin and salvation is the whole picture
    that I have problems with.
    
    Richard
    

    God's made life very simple, we humans tend to complicate things.
    
    It is as simple as pushing a button.  
    
    Life 
    Death
    
    What happens in between determines happiness/unhappiness. 
    
    Sin causes eternal death
    Salvation causes eternal life
    
    The definition of salvation varies in this conference.  Us inerrantists
    believe that salvation is simple as well... simple as pushing a button.
    
    Faith in Jesus Christ as the Savior.  Simple.
    
    

RE:         <<< Note 890.20 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>

       
   > It's the ones who think that sin and salvation is the whole picture
   > that I have problems with.
    
   
     
     Well, I see your point..its after we recognize our sin, and accept
     our salvation through Christ, then everything else begins to fall into
     place.



    Jim    

.22  Well, that isn't exactly what I had in mind, Jim.

You see, I'm saying there's more to Christianity than personal salvation,
that all too many Christians never venture beyond this personal, privatized
aspect.  I believe the sole emphasis on accepting Christ as one's personal
savior does Christ and the gospel an enormous disservice.  It's a sin.

Shalom,
Richard

    .23
    
    I agree with you there is more.  It's called a relationship that goes
    beyond He's up there and I'm down here.
    
    Salvation is the beginning and oftimes only surface of the relationship
    that God wants with us.
    
    Look at it this way,  if you will, Salvation is the connection to God. 
    An eternal open line that is NEVER busy.  And we all know the more you
    communicate, the deeper the relationship becomes... heck, it works with
    our friends, spouses and family members.  Good communication is key to
    a good relationship.
    
    God can either be far away or very close depending on the time you
    spend with him.  This is of course has to do with spiritual awareness.
    God is always there we either move closer or farther away.
    
    

re Note 890.16 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN:

>     Inerrancy forces the issue.  

        I think that inerrancy doesn't force the issue, but it does
        give added weight to those who interpret and apply the Bible
        while claiming inerrancy.

        There's an aura of inerrancy that expands to include the
        preacher (or other interpreter) who "merely" claims inerrancy
        for the text.

        Bob

    .24  That's not what I'm talking about either.  You've read the
    sermon on the mount, haven't you??  How about the sermon on the
    plain??
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    26
    
    WELL, Richard, SPIT IT OUT! :-) :-)
    
    

What do the sermons I mentioned in 890.26 talk about?

Sin and salvation?  Yes, to some degree.  But the sermons also speak in favor
of living simply, and against the accumulation of possessions.  The sermons
talk about love for others, not love for just one's friends.

Jesus speaks to his followers against retaliation in any form.  He warns of
the pitfalls of judging others.  He says that people are like trees, that a
healthy tree brings forth good fruit, but not so all trees.

There's lots more, of course.

Shalom,
Richard

RE:         <<< Note 890.23 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>

>.22  Well, that isn't exactly what I had in mind, Jim.

>You see, I'm saying there's more to Christianity than personal salvation,
>that all too many Christians never venture beyond this personal, privatized
>aspect. 

 
 I used to think that too...til I discovered that there are a lot of Christians
 who do a lot for their fellow man, saved OR lost, who simply don't go around
 crowing about it.  Their actions may not include blocking military bases or
 things of that sort, but I see a tremendous amount of assistance, financial
 and otherwise, going to the needy.  For you to say that "all too many 
 Christians never.." is a gross generalization, though perhaps the social
 activity in which they are involved doesn't meet the acceptable critiera
 of some.



> I believe the sole emphasis on accepting Christ as one's personal
>savior does Christ and the gospel an enormous disservice.  It's a sin.


 "I have come to seek and save that which is lost" Jesus said.  Salvation
  is a key to the mission of Jesus Christ.  That some do not show the fruit
  of their salvation is another story.  That, in part, can be laid at the
  local church.



 Jim

RE:         <<< Note 890.28 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>


>Sin and salvation?  Yes, to some degree.  But the sermons also speak in favor
>of living simply, and against the accumulation of possessions.  The sermons
>talk about love for others, not love for just one's friends.


 How can you make such a statement "not love for just one's friends"? what does
 that mean?  Christians aren't out in the communities?  Aren't involved in
 things other than fellowship, potlucks and hayrides?  Would it be better
 if us fundamentalists started taking out ads in the newspapers crowing about
 what we are doing?  I know many..yes many non-liberal Christians who are
 involved in several different areas of assistance and they insist it remain
 anonymous.  If they went around crowing about it, we'd hear about that too.



Jim

    Re: .21 Nancy.
    
    >It is as simple as pushing a *button* (emphasis mine/derek)
    and
    >the definition of salvation differs in this conference...
    
    Thanks for using my name in connection with "simple" and allow me
    to return the compliment:
    
    Salvation is non divergence from moral(e)s!    :-) :-)
    
    Greetings, Derek.

>    It is important for people who know that the Bible is not inerrant to
>    speak out and to speak out as loudly as those who insist it is.

Do you believe that the volume (number or noise) of argument influences
truth, from either side?

-Steve

    > Do you believe that the volume (number or noise) of argument influences
    > truth, from either side?

    I believe it influences the *acceptance* of an argument as true.
    
    
    	Eric

Note 890.30

> I know many..yes many non-liberal Christians who are
> involved in several different areas of assistance and they insist it remain
> anonymous.  If they went around crowing about it, we'd hear about that too.

I know them, too.  Their witness is to support the 700 Club, to keep James
Kennedy on the air, and do what they can to see that gays receive no legal
protection against discrimination.

Guess they're keeping their lamp under a basket.

To God be ALL the glory,
Richard

RE:         <<< Note 890.34 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>


>> I know many..yes many non-liberal Christians who are
>> involved in several different areas of assistance and they insist it remain
>> anonymous.  If they went around crowing about it, we'd hear about that too.

>I know them, too.  Their witness is to support the 700 Club, to keep James
>Kennedy on the air, and do what they can to see that gays receive no legal
>protection against discrimination.



 No, Richard...they are out in nursing homes several times a week, in hospitals
 several times a week, in prisons and jails, in the homes of underpriveleged
 children who's biggest thrill in life is going to Mcdonalds for a hamburger,
 they're out shoveling snow for the elderly, bringing them food, giving money
 for food to those the government will not support, getting shut ins out for
 a while, opening up food pantries to the needy, providing clothing, seeing
 that the wife and ill daughter of a man dying of cystic fibrosis (and part of
 his $4800/month prescription bill) is taken care of...all of these things you
 love to point out that Christians are ignoring, while liberals toot their
 horns.

 And, at the same time they are supporting the likes of James Kennedy and
 those who stand for the truth.



>Guess they're keeping their lamp under a basket.



Right...rather than getting tossed in jail for blocking a military 
installation.


Jim

    .34
    
    Richard,
    
    That is outright inflammatory!  And you wonder why there is so much
    anger, frustration and anxiety in here.  But then again that is the
    effect you look for, isn't it?
    
    You no more KNOW that then the man in the moon.  You are not intimate with
    Christians in my church or in Jim's church... you KNOW nothing you
    ASSUME once again, A LOT!
    
    It's one thing to believe something from within to the point that it
    becomes intrinsic, its another to just blatantly be rude and
    condescending...
    
    

	But who's truth Jim? What you perceive to be God's truth? Also, I think
we both agree that there are many out there who do good (as in most to some
degree or another) but those aren't the ones grabbing the headlines. Like with
most things it's the ones who shout the loudest that get heard, and it's those
people that the norm is set by. A wrong way to do things (IMHO), but it seems
to be the way it is done all too often.


Glen

	Nancy, I reread Richards note. I don't see where you're coming from. I
wasn't even aware he was talking about your church or Jim's. In a previous note
he used the word many. I guess either you missed the note or glossed over it.
Not to fret Nancy, I think Richard is talking of the screaming minority instead
of the majority. (please correct me if I am wrong Richard, but that was the
impression I got)


Glen

    RE: .38 I see where Nancy is coming from and agree with her 100%.
    That's why I ignored Richard's note.
    
    			Alfred

RE:               <<< Note 890.37 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>




>	But who's truth Jim? What you perceive to be God's truth? Also, I think
>we both agree that there are many out there who do good (as in most to some
>degree or another) but those aren't the ones grabbing the headlines. Like with
>most things it's the ones who shout the loudest that get heard, and it's those
>people that the norm is set by. A wrong way to do things (IMHO), but it seems
>to be the way it is done all too often.


You know what I am talking about when I say truth and I'm not going to get
into that argument with you.  

Of course the media love to jump on the Robertson's, et al and show them to
be hate mongering bigots..they don't tell us about Chuck Colson's efforts in
prison with AIDS inflicted prisoners, they don't tell us the good that James
Dobson is doing trying to promote family values (MAN/WIFE/CHILD) in trying to
keep families together.

We hear about the Swaggerts and the Bakkers and the media's extra efforts to
make Christians look like bumbling fools or village idiots all the while ignor-
ing the good that is being done.



Jim

RE:               <<< Note 890.38 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>
       -< Look back for the word MANY Nancy, ya might become calmer... >-



>	Nancy, I reread Richards note. I don't see where you're coming from. I
>wasn't even aware he was talking about your church or Jim's. In a previous note
>he used the word many. I guess either you missed the note or glossed over it.


 Of course you realize I (and I assume Nancy) were speaking of examples..our
 churches are only 2...what I pointed out is that churches all over this country
 are out helping others more than you could possibly know.  



>Not to fret Nancy, I think Richard is talking of the screaming minority instead
>of the majority. (please correct me if I am wrong Richard, but that was the
>impression I got)



 That was most certainly not the implication.



Jim

    Re: .34
    
    That's a rather broad brush you are using there Richard.
    
    I'm no fan of the 700 club, and I don't know/care who James Kennedy
    is/was.
    
    Marc H.

    re: Note 890.39 by CVG::THOMPSON

    > RE: .38 I see where Nancy is coming from and agree with her 100%.

    I see where Nancy is coming from and agree with her 50%. That's why I
    read both her notes and Richard's... every word.

    Eric

    re: Note 890.35 by CSLALL::HENDERSON

    I was with you, Jim. I was pleased to read all the humble and selfless
    things folks in your church do. And then you went and spoil it all by
    saying, "...while liberals toot their horns." If you had omitted this
    last jab, you would have convinced me. I'm not saying Richard's a
    saint, but if you were looking for the moral high ground.... 


    > Right...rather than getting tossed in jail for blocking a military 
    > installation.

    Abortion clinics, however???


 	Eric
     

    .44
    
    Eric 50% huh... hmm I must be coming up in the world. :-) :-)

    re Note 890.36 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > But then again that is the effect you look for, isn't it?

    *wince*

    <in a paternal tone>
    Now Nancy, just because your brother starts a fire that doesn't mean
    you should fan the flames... I want you both to say you're sorry and
    give each other a hug.

    There, that's better. Play nice now...


    		Dad 

| <<< Note 890.40 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all" >>>


| We hear about the Swaggerts and the Bakkers and the media's extra efforts to
| make Christians look like bumbling fools or village idiots all the while ignor-
| ing the good that is being done.


	Jim, let me ask ya somethin as I won't watch the channels cause I get
upset every single time I do, but do any of the Christian tv stations or any
Christian newspapers ever talk positive about gays? 


Glen

RE:                      <<< Note 890.44 by APACHE::MYERS >>>

   
   > I was with you, Jim. I was pleased to read all the humble and selfless
   > things folks in your church do. And then you went and spoil it all by
    

     I wasn't talking specifically about my church..there are churches all
     over this country engaged in this activity every single day.


    >saying, "...while liberals toot their horns." If you had omitted this
    >last jab, you would have convinced me. I'm not saying Richard's a
    >saint, but if you were looking for the moral high ground.... 

     Well, when one occasionally responds to criticizm in the way it was
     presented, doesn't one.  
    

   > > Right...rather than getting tossed in jail for blocking a military 
   > > installation.

   > Abortion clinics, however???


     While I am against abortion, I do not agree with the manner in which
     some anti abortion groups do their thing.



 Jim     

RE:               <<< Note 890.47 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>



>| We hear about the Swaggerts and the Bakkers and the media's extra efforts to
>| make Christians look like bumbling fools or village idiots all the while ignor-
>| ing the good that is being done.


>	Jim, let me ask ya somethin as I won't watch the channels cause I get
>upset every single time I do, but do any of the Christian tv stations or any
>Christian newspapers ever talk positive about gays? 


 Do you mean to they indicate their support for the "in your face, we're here
 and we're queer" type stuff?  No.  

 Or do you mean do they indicate compassion for them in their sin?  Yes..


 

 Jim

    re Note 890.48 by CSLALL::HENDERSON 

    > Well, when one occasionally responds to criticizm in the way it was
    > presented, doesn't one.

    Yes. I am guilty of this myself on occasion. The point is it tends to
    detract from a message of humble servitude.

    > While I am against abortion, I do not agree with the manner in which
    > some anti abortion groups do their thing.

    We are in agreement here. I too am against abortion, but do not agree
    with blocking clinics. [BTW, Richard and his friends were trespassing.
    They were blocking nothing, from what I read.]

    	Eric                                      
       

RE:               <<< Note 890.47 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>	Jim, let me ask ya somethin as I won't watch the channels cause I get
>upset every single time I do, but do any of the Christian tv stations or any
>Christian newspapers ever talk positive about gays? 


BTW...allow me to dispel the general feeling that all Christians talk about
is some way to do away with gays, etc..there are plenty of good Christian 
programming where the subject is rarely mentioned (Charles Stanley, James
Kennedy).  

It is also extrememly rare to hear the subject mentioned in my church..I've 
been at this church for a little over a year, Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings
and Wednesday evenings and may have heard the subject mentioned from the
pulpit 3 times..



 JIm

RE:                      <<< Note 890.50 by APACHE::MYERS >>>

   
   > > Well, when one occasionally responds to criticizm in the way it was
   > > presented, doesn't one.

    >Yes. I am guilty of this myself on occasion. The point is it tends to
    >detract from a message of humble servitude.

     True...however, I have sat back and turned the other cheek while
     Christians are lambasted and ridiculed in here..I suppose I reached
     a point where I had had enough.



     Jim
           

    (.35 & .36 Henderson & Morales)
    
    It's the truth.  It's not liberal Christianity that's undergirding
    Kennedy, Falwell and Robertson.  It's "non-liberal" Christianity,
    as Jim euphemistically calls it, that does.
    
    Furthermore, Jim, let me clarify the situation for you.  Most liberals
    Christians also avoid witnessing against the status quo to the degree
    that God has called me.  I'm not looking for your praise, or anyone's.
    In fact, the more you ridicule my actions, the more certain I am of the
    rightness of my involvement(s).
    
    Richard

     Richard,
    
        Delude yourself all you want.  
    
    While I disagree with your ASSUMPTIONS, I was mostly referring to 
    your STYLE and APPROACH, which is RUDE  and OFFENSIVE.
    
        Nancy
    

    .54
    
    Nancy,
    
    	I'm not delusional, thank you for your concern.
    
    	I also disagree with your assumptions, which I'm certain comes as
    no surprise.  I'm sorry I didn't say what I said in a way you might
    find more innocuous and palatable.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

RE:         <<< Note 890.53 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>

   


 I have no further comment.




 Jim

    Richard,
    
    Inocuous never, palatable = occasionally.
    
    Rude = Most of the Time
    Offensive = Most of the Time
    
    You spend more time bashing CHRISTIANs, then I've ever heard in my
    entire life anyone denoucing homosexuality in my church...
    
    There is no balance in this picture... it is all lopsided.
    
    

    
    
    BTW, my ADAMANT dislike of your STYLE is no surprise, I've mentioned it
    before...
    
    But I'm becoming more convinced it's not a STYLE of noting at all, but
    a very caustic attitude being demonstrated.
    
    

    
>I'm sorry I didn't say what I said in a way you might
>    find more innocuous and palatable.

    Don't worry. It's not as if you've ever been critical of others
    for their approach not being innocuous and palatable.

    			Alfred

    As a conservative Christian it sometimes pains me greatly to see and
    admit that many of the people who have declared themselves to be my
    Conservative Leaders are very sad people indeed.  Many of them use this
    conservatism as a cover to justify actions which are not Biblical at
    all.  
    
    Sadly, many of these leaders use "justice" as a thinly veiled cover for
    unmittigated "hatred".  
    
    As a person trying to see the truth I must sadly admit that the
    Swaggert's and Bakker's were the Robertson's and Falwell's of
    yesterday.  It will be interesting to see what will be happening to the
    Robertson's and Falwell's of this world in the future for they have
    become proud and hauty and have elevated the sins of others above their
    own for social condemnation.  They have forgotten the humility of the
    Gospel of Christ.  They seem to have forgotten that the Holy Spirit
    speaks to us as individuals instead of through the mass media.
    
    Australia's most ardent and visible Morals Campaigner has also just
    fallen.  He has been on a campaign of Conservative Family Values, and
    as a politician passing laws around moral issues.  He elevated himself
    above the sinnful masses as an icon.  He has just been thrown into
    prison for sleeping with twelve year old girls over a period of several
    years.  
    
    I have come to the conclusion that those who point the finger
    vigorously at other groups and other sinners are trying very hard to
    hide something very sinful themselves.  The Bible is very clear about
    this phenomenon.  
    
    Give me Bill Bright any day.  He is out winning souls for Christ.  Give
    me Billy Graham any day for he is busy leading people to a saving
    knowledge of Jesus Christ instead of getting involved in politics and
    bashing groups he does not agree with.  
    
    We don't win spiritual battles in the court room, nor in the political
    realm, nor on syndicated TV programs.  We win spiritual battles in
    humility while in prayer, alone on our knees, in the dark.  
    
    Rob
    

| <<< Note 890.49 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all" >>>



| Do you mean to they indicate their support for the "in your face, we're here
| and we're queer" type stuff?  No.  

	Jim, one, I wasn't refering to this, but since ya brought it up.... how
is this different than the Christians coming on tv pushin' their stuff? Don't
others feel it is the, 'in your face we're saved' type-o-stuff? Me thinks so.
With both groups they are trying to get a message out. Whether we agree with
that message is yet another topic.... :-)

| Or do you mean do they indicate compassion for them in their sin?  Yes..

	You mean perceived sin... :-)  No, I didn't mean this either. What I am
talking about is this. If someone who is gay does something good, does it ever
get mentioned or do ya just hear about the so called "bad" stuff that we do?

	The point I am trying to get out is you could stick a lot of other
people in place of the word gay (say Clinton for example), and what would be
good is if ya ever hear when they do good or do ya just hear the bad. Reason I
ask is cause you were complainin about only hearing about the Swaggarts etc
crowd and never when someone does good.



Glen

| <<< Note 890.51 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all" >>>



| BTW...allow me to dispel the general feeling that all Christians talk about
| is some way to do away with gays, etc..there are plenty of good Christian
| programming where the subject is rarely mentioned (Charles Stanley, James
| Kennedy).

	Jim, I'm sure there is a lot of good programs where the subject of gays
is rarely mentioned. But when it is, is it positive or negative?



Glen

 Glen...see .56





 Jim

| <<< Note 890.51 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all" >>>





| It is also extrememly rare to hear the subject mentioned in my church..I've
| been at this church for a little over a year, Sunday mornings, Sunday evenings
| and Wednesday evenings and may have heard the subject mentioned from the
| pulpit 3 times..


	I meant to respond to this.... I went to a straight wedding a couple of
years back. The minister started talking about love and he said, "It does not
matter if you're gay, lesbian, bisexual or heterosexual. You are capable of
loving someone in any of these relationships" My friends came up to me
afterwards and apologized and said they did not know he would say that. I
looked at them and asked if they heard what he was saying? They took gay +
church = bad words. If only they listened..... I guess why I brought this up
was not all churches, even when the subject is brought up, thinks badly about
it. This is why I was wondering if the Christian newspapers/tv was along the
same lines.



Glen

| <<< Note 890.57 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| There is no balance in this picture... it is all lopsided.

	Time for a new haircut Nancy? One that is even? ;-)


Glen

| <<< Note 890.63 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all" >>>




| Glen...see .56


	I guess we can assume that they don't say anything good then.....


Glen

RE:               <<< Note 890.62 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>	Jim, I'm sure there is a lot of good programs where the subject of gays
>is rarely mentioned. But when it is, is it positive or negative?



 I strongly suspect, Glen, that you would find whatever the comments, if they
 did not embrace the homosexual lifestyle as being blessed by God, you would
 consider them negative.

 So, I'll just say the comments would be on the level of "hate the sin, love
 the sinner"...


 
 Jim

RE:               <<< Note 890.64 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>

>church = bad words. If only they listened..... I guess why I brought this up
>was not all churches, even when the subject is brought up, thinks badly about
>it. This is why I was wondering if the Christian newspapers/tv was along the
>same lines.



Oh well...there are plenty of churches that have abandonded God's commandments
for man's way of  doing things.




Jim

re: Note 890.68 by Jim "It will be worth it all" 

>Oh well...there are plenty of churches that have abandonded God's commandments
>for man's way of  doing things.

True, and I have the list.  .-)

Cheers,

Jim

	Jim H, like I said in my note, if you insert people like Clinton, are
there things said that are good? Is it the majority or very few? If the latter,
you should be able to see why they don't always mention the good Christians do.


Glen

.59
    
>    Don't worry. It's not as if you've ever been critical of others
>    for their approach not being innocuous and palatable.

Alfred,

	Would I be less a hypocrite in your mind if I retracted my apology?

Richard

Note 890.34

>Guess they're keeping their lamp under a basket.

Someone advised against this.  Lemme see, who *was* that?

Richard

    RE: .71 Sure.
    
    		Alfred

Okay, let me retrace the matter of the flare up.

I indicated that the gospel was more than just about personal sin and
salvation, that I believed that sole emphasis on accepting Christ as one's
personal savior does Christ and the gospel an enormous disservice. (.23)
I pointed to a few examples. (.26 & .28)

To which Jim Henderson replied .29:

> Their actions may not include blocking military bases or
> things of that sort, but I see a tremendous amount of assistance, financial
> and otherwise, going to the needy.  For you to say that "all too many 
> Christians never.." is a gross generalization, though perhaps the social
> activity in which they are involved doesn't meet the acceptable critiera
> of some.

suggesting, along with Note 890.30:

> How can you make such a statement "not love for just one's friends"? what does
> that mean?  Christians aren't out in the communities?  Aren't involved in
> things other than fellowship, potlucks and hayrides?  Would it be better
> if us fundamentalists started taking out ads in the newspapers crowing about
> what we are doing?  I know many..yes many non-liberal Christians who are
> involved in several different areas of assistance and they insist it remain
> anonymous.  If they went around crowing about it, we'd hear about that too.

that I somehow dismiss the more universally acceptable acts of charity
as invalid or unworthy, and also suggesting that I've done what I've done
solely to have something to boast about.

Up to this point, nowhere had I said anything about "non-liberal Christians"
versus "liberal Christians."

However, since it was brought up, I responded (.34) by pointing out a few of
the areas which I believe would not and could not exist without the extremely
generous and zealous support of "non-liberal Christians," areas which I know
no liberal Christian to support (though doubtlessly, there are exceptions.
There's always at least one.).  I realize now I should have ignored the bait,
for it served to derail any further discussion of the gospel being more than
simply sin and salvation.

In Note 890.35, I'm advised that saying what I said in .34 was "outright
inflammatory!"  And though I never said, nor did I ever intend to say anything
about Jim Henderson's or Nancy Morales' church, my statement is treated as
though I was talking specifically about people in their congregations:

>    You no more KNOW that then the man in the moon.  You are not intimate with
>    Christians in my church or in Jim's church... you KNOW nothing you
>    ASSUME once again, A LOT!

And further, I am "just blatantly rude and condescending..." for having
said it.

Then there were a bunch of entries.  The business about Swaggart, Bakker
and the horrible biases of the media was just another red herring.

In .53, I reiterate what I stated in .34.

In Note 890.54, I'm advised that I'm deluding myself and that my "STYLE
and APPROACH is RUDE and OFFENSIVE" (Caps copied exactly).

I still maintain, rude and obnoxious as it may sound, that televangelists
such as Kennedy, Robertson and Falwell, and campaigns such as Colorado's
Amendment 2 could not exist without the support of "non-liberal Christians."
That is *not* to say that *all* "non-liberal Christians" are dumping their
talents, time, and resources into such enterprises, as apparently some have
interpretted me as saying.

Shalom,
Richard

   Please see .56

    
    It is a fact that in WWII in Europe, the Christian churches were only
    helping 'their own' in the particular area that the minister emeritus
    was serving in the military as chaplain at the time (believe it was
    France).  People who were in need of medical assistance were going 
    without, based on their nationality and religious affiliation or lack 
    thereof.
    
    He formed a group, and using surplus US medical supplies (I believe he
    was in charge of them in his particular area of military responsibility), 
    gave these to all people who were in the most need of them without regard 
    for their religion, nationality, race, etc.  
    
    At the time he was using the medical supplies in this way, his commanding 
    officer turned a blind eye toward it and said that either he was going to 
    get a court martial or be honored for it.  Fortunately it turned out to be
    the latter.
    
    Eventually he went on to help form the Unitarian Service committee (now 
    the Unitarian Universalist Service Committee which assists all of humanity 
    without regard for religion, race, gender, sexual preference and so on.)
    Proselytizing is not part of their service, either.
    
    Cindy 

Note 890.76 Jim Henderson,

>   Please see .56

Yes, I noticed it before.

Richard

    .74  Alfred,
    
    	I don't see how I am less a hypocrite by retracting my apology.
    It appears to me I'm just as much a sinner either way.
    
    	But what the heck, consider it retracted.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Well, Richard, it's nice to know that you consistent, predictable and
    somewhat boring.
    
    It's sad to me that you would be leaving the moderatorship and possibly
    the conference with at least 3 folks in here thinking you are caustic
    and insulting... But I get the feeling you just don't care.
    
    While your lambasting others for not demonstrating "true" Christianity,
    your demonstration lacks the very same thing.
    
    Sadly,
    Nancy

        
>    	I don't see how I am less a hypocrite by retracting my apology.
>    It appears to me I'm just as much a sinner either way.

    One should only apologize for things they regret.

    			Alfred

    Nancy,
    
    I find it truly amazing that you would call Richard caustic and insulting.
    
    Don't you see that your reply contains just the elements that you
    consider caustic and insulting in Richard.
    
    In my opinion Richard has decided to be very courageous and stand up
    for what he believes is truth.  He stands up here in the conference
    even amidst lambasting from others for what he believes.
    
    Christianity needs more folks like Richard.  Ready to put themselves on
    the line for what they believe.
    
    

    
>    Christianity needs more folks like Richard.  Ready to put themselves on
>    the line for what they believe.
    
    I'm sure we'd all welcome Richard to Christianity. We just can't agree
    on if he's coming or here already. :-)
    
    			Alfred

    Alfred,
    
    The arrogance in your statement is outrageous.  It is statements like
    that which make me feel that what this world really needs is a post
    CHristian theology.  One that takes the loving, liberating, spirit
    filled messages of the Bible and leaves behind the arrogance, fear, and
    exclusivity.  Many, Many more people could be inspired by the message
    of Jesus if it wasn't so presented in such a exclusive, angry way.

RE         <<< Note 890.75 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>
  

>suggesting, along with Note 890.30:

>> How can you make such a statement "not love for just one's friends"? what does
>> that mean?  Christians aren't out in the communities?  Aren't involved in
>> things other than fellowship, potlucks and hayrides?  Would it be better
>> if us fundamentalists started taking out ads in the newspapers crowing about


   did you answer the question posed in .30?


>that I somehow dismiss the more universally acceptable acts of charity
>as invalid or unworthy, and also suggesting that I've done what I've  

>However, since it was brought up, I responded (.34) by pointing out a few of
>the areas which I believe would not and could not exist without the extremely


  As I re-read .34 it seems to me that you are implying that the only charitable
  acts engaged in by Christians are those you deem unworthy.



 Jim

    re .24
    
    nancy
    
    I was reading your note .24 
    
    I actually agree 100% with that note.
    
    Patricia

	Nancy, it is amazing how you can say all these things about Richard and
make it seem like they don't apply to you. 



Glen

    
    >    The arrogance in your statement is outrageous.  It is statements like

    Really? Why so? Do you dispute the notion that there is disagreement
    on what a Christian is in this conference? Is it arrogance to have an
    opinion that differs from yours? Please explain. BTW, I can't help but
    wonder how you'd have reacted if I'd left off the smiley face.

    >exclusivity.  Many, Many more people could be inspired by the message
    >of Jesus if it wasn't so presented in such a exclusive, angry way.

    The message of Jesus is that there is but one way to God - Jesus. If
    that's exclusivity it's hardly my fault. Blame God. But I don't see
    any anger in Jesus' message. Not the way the Bible relates it or in
    the way I describe it. You seem to be saying that more people would
    be inspired by the message of Jesus if it were a different message.
    Again, not my fault. I try to proclaim the message of salvation through
    Jesus. 

    			Alfred

    :-)  You folks are amazing...
    
    Of course it applies to me as it does to everyone...  
    
    The question is on INTENT. [sorry, but caps emphasize and call
    attention to certain words and that is why I use them, it's not
    SHOUTING. :-)]
    
    I believe Richard intends to be caustic, its on purpose.
    
    

    Alfred,

    I saw your smiley face and took your comment as a good natured barb
    toward Richard... not as a "I'm a Christian and he's a loony". Am I
    right?

    I do see where Patricia is coming from though. If Christianity were a
    large pasture, she and I would set the fence out rather wide, enclosing
    all the horses. Others would prefer to set up a small corral near the
    barn, keeping the herd pure of runts and non-thoroughbreds.
    
    Eric

    .80 Nancy,
    
    	Interesting that you choose to make disparaging remarks about
    me personally and apply criticisms to me instead of addressing the
    issue under examination.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    .81 Alfred,
    
      At the time I typed in the "I'm sorry" I *was* regretful.  The only
    reasons it was retracted is because you indicated I would be less a
    hypocrite in your mind if I did so and because it had not been accepted
    anyway.
    
    Blessings,
    Richard
    

    Alfred,
    
    Actually I did not see your smiley face.  But your message basically
    said, what makes you think the Richard is a Christian.  I'm certainly
    not sure of that.  That is a remark that a smiley face does not mask.
    
    I don't think any person has the right to question another person's
    faith.  Whether anyone of us will be judged righteous enough is between
    each of us and God.  Do you not acknowledge that God's plans are
    mysterious.  That none of us can truly know God's plan for salvation. 
    
    Even if I were to believe the Bible is t he word of God, it still is
    not clear in the Bible what God wants.  I'm doing my exegesis on Romans
    5:18-21.  That passage makes it absolutely clear that salvation is for
    all humanity.  Even salvation through Jesus Christ is for all humanity. 
    It says that "Just as one man's disobedience  made ALL men sinners, so one
    man's obedience made all men righteous.  Then it says wereever Sin
    abounds, Grace abounds all the More.  There is no ambiguity in the
    passage.  I agree that it does appear to conflict with some of Paul's
    more exclusive statements, but there is enough ambiguity within Paul's
    letters  for me to know that neither you or I can be certain of what is
    required of us and what is God's plan.  The best each of u s can do is
    to seek our own relationship with God through meditation, prayer,
    ritual, celebration.
    
    Patricia
    

Note 890.85

>   did you answer the question posed in .30?

There were several of them.  No, I did not address any of them.  They
seemed to be rhetorical questions to me.  What I addressed was your answer
to your questions.

>  As I re-read .34 it seems to me that you are implying that the only
>  charitable
>  acts engaged in by Christians are those you deem unworthy.

I was not talking about Christians, but "many non-liberal Christians," a
phrase you introduced.

Pax,
Richard

    Like Eric in .90, I saw the playfulness in Alfred's barb.  I did
    not resent it.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard,
    
    I did address your claim... but then expressed a *sincere* dislike for
    your caustic attitude towards Christians.
    
    You know I don't like televangelists... I just don't..
    
    But I also don't condemn all Christians based on a few.
    
    Your notes reek of condemnation Richard, albeit in a very subtle way.
    I guess you can dismiss this even though its coming from more then one
    direction... 
    
    Denial is powerful... 
    

    
    Nancy,
    
    Whether you agree or not, to call the lifestyle of a certain group of
    people 'perverted' also is about condemnation.  It could also be
    interpreted as a 'caustic attitude' toward them as well, whether in
    your heart you mean it that way or not.
    
    Cindy

re Note 890.89 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     Of course it applies to me as it does to everyone...  
>     
>     The question is on INTENT. [sorry, but caps emphasize and call
>     attention to certain words and that is why I use them, it's not
>     SHOUTING. :-)]
>     
>     I believe Richard intends to be caustic, its on purpose.
  
        Intentions are peculiar things:  we (can) KNOW what OUR
        intentions are but we can only surmise what the intentions of
        another are.

Note 890.96 Nancy,

>    I did address your claim...

I must have missed it.

>    but then expressed a *sincere* dislike for
>    your caustic attitude towards Christians.

Again, my remarks were not concerning the actions of *all* Christians,
though I've apparently been construed as taking potshots at all
Christians.

>    You know I don't like televangelists... I just don't..
    
There are a couple televangelists who I appreciate.
    
>    Denial is powerful... 

Indeed, it is.  And I don't think anybody's denying that.
    
Pax,
Richard

re: Note 890.98 by Bob "without vision the people perish"

>        Intentions are peculiar things:  we (can) KNOW what OUR
>        intentions are but we can only surmise what the intentions of
>        another are.

I believe there is also a tendency to apply our own intentions onto others,
for right or wrong.

Peace,

Jim

    .98  Thank you, Bob.  Though not always successful, I continually
    try to avoid making assumptions about a noter's internal motivations.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    I am amazed at the amount of defensiveness and over reaction displayed
    in the string. 

    Richard expressed his concerns about confining the entire message of
    Christ into too narrow a scope, missing the message of humility and
    selflessly serving our fellow man.

    Nancy expressed her views (quite well, I might add) regarding salvation
    and social mission and the relative priority and order of things. 

    Jim H. said that Richard was just upset because fundamentalist like him
    didn't "block entrances to military bases" (an obvious personal jab at
    Richard's anti-military views). He said "non-liberal Christians do a
    ton of social work, you just never hear about it."  

    Richard said "Oh yeah, well a bunch of non-liberal Christians in this
    country think sending money to televangelsist and lobbying against
    gay's is their social ministry. A bunch of them think that as long as
    their butt is 'saved' it's tough noogies for the rest of 'em. These
    people think the underprivileged and handicapped are all a bunch of
    liberal, whining sinners -- God helps those who help themselves, and
    all that." Setting himself up for being viewed as someone who believes
    anyone who supports the 700 Club or James Kennedy (whoever he is) --
    nay *any* conservative -- is some sort of fascist elitist.

    Nancy pipes in saying "How dare you say that about my church. You don't
    know diddley about MY church... HOW can you SAY such VILE things like all
    conservative Christians are storm troopers." And that Richard is a
    "CAUSTIC, rabble rousing, INCONSIDERATE, lout." 

    Jim H. says "Yeah, you don't know spit. Your makin' it all up, you
    liberal, boastful, glory-hound. Non-liberal Christian are the most
    loving, giving, selfless, anonymous people on the face of the Earth.
    You liberal types always running around saying 'look at me, look at
    me'. Well any Christian worth his salt doesn't let *anyone* know he's
    done a good deed. Lamps and baskets, indeed!"

    .
    .
    .

    Richard made the mistake of not qualifying his generalization to
    exclude present company. He was also a *little* sweeping in his
    characterizations of *groups* -- he never alluded to anyone personally,
    as far as I could tell.

    Jim H. and Nancy made the mistake of lashing at Richard personally and
    taking his comments as personal criticisms -- which clearly they were
    not.

    Each only further entrenched the other and furthered the polarization
    and alienation. Richard tried to calm the fever pitch of the dialog,
    but others would have none of it. The matter wasn't helped by other
    noters taking sides, so to speak.   

    I've lost interest in hearing about who is the biggest victim of abuse
    and intolerance and who is the biggest jerk.

    	Eric

    PS All quotes are actually paraphrases based on what I thought I read.
    

    Cindy,  
    
    I agree with you. 
    
    Let's take a look here though at whether I started a string titled the
    perverted lifestyles... or responded to a string already in progress.
    
    It makes a difference and intent can be defined when strings are
    constantly started in this manner.
    
    But I'm sure you won't acknowledge the difference... [Now that was
    intended caustic]
    

    .102  Eric,
    
    	You have me laughing myself silly (at myself)!  If I ever need
    a good parody written, I'm calling on you!
    
    %^}
    
    Richard
    

    RE: .102
    
    Pretty accurate.....
    
    Marc H.

    Eric,
    
    You've left out the TWO most important notes of this string, which were
    not at all confrontational, but expressive from Jim Henderson.  Then
    came the 700 CLUB remark from R-JC!!!! 
    
    It was R-JC who started the insults... 
    
    Check out .28 .29 and .30 and .34
    
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am amazed at the amount of defensiveness and over reaction displayed
    in the string. 

    Richard expressed his concerns about confining the entire message of
    Christ into too narrow a scope, missing the message of humility and
    selflessly serving our fellow man.

    Nancy expressed her views (quite well, I might add) regarding salvation
    and social mission and the relative priority and order of things. 

    ********** STOP ! ******* This is where you err... check out .29, .30
    and .34
    Now you get this note...
    
    Jim H. said that Richard was just upset because fundamentalist like him
    didn't "block entrances to military bases" (an obvious personal jab at
    Richard's anti-military views). He said "non-liberal Christians do a
    ton of social work, you just never hear about it."  
    
    ****** STOP! *********
    AGAIN WRONG...  Nancy piped in with frustration at .34's caustic and
    inflammatory tone.  

    ---------
    Nancy pipes in saying "How dare you say that about my church. You don't
    know diddley about MY church... HOW can you SAY such VILE things like all
    conservative Christians are storm troopers." And that Richard is a
    "CAUSTIC, rabble rousing, INCONSIDERATE, lout." 

    >Jim H. and Nancy made the mistake of lashing at Richard personally and
    >taking his comments as personal criticisms -- which clearly they were
    >not.
    
    WRONG AGAIN!  I took once AGAIN as SWEEPING statement... of general
    insults towards Christians..  BTW, as usual from RJC.
    
    You read wrong... go back check the string.
    
    

    .107
    
    Exactly my point, By George you picked it up!!! 
    
    I wondered who'd be the first to point it out. 
    
    :-) :-)
    
    

RE:                      <<< Note 890.102 by HURON::MYERS >>>
   
   > Jim H. and Nancy made the mistake of lashing at Richard personally and
    >taking his comments as personal criticisms -- which clearly they were
    >not.

    I took nothing personally.  I took what Richard was saying as sweeping
    indictments against Christians many of whom DO NOT SUPPORT the Robertson's
    and Falwells (I have yet to understand why there is a problem with James
    Kennedy, one of the most honorable men of God today).

    

    Jim  
  


 

         

    re Note 890.106 by JULIET::MORALES_NA

    > It was R-JC who started the insults...
    > 
    > Check out .28 .29 and .30 and .34

    "No sir, he started it."

    I don't care. 
    
    I reread the notes you point out and I don't know what your talking
    about. I am not going pick through these notes -- again -- like some
    junior law clerk looking for hidden code-words and reading between the
    lines.. 

    If your intent was to communicate something other than what I cited in
    .102, then you failed to communicate it effectively. Rather than
    looking for ways to improve your communication skills you prefer to find
    fault in my ability to read and comprehend. Hmmm :^) 

            Eric
    
    PS. By the way that's RJ-C not R-JC :^)

    re Note 890.109 by CSLALL::HENDERSON 

    > I took nothing personally.  I took what Richard was saying as sweeping
    > indictments against Christians...

    ...Of which you are one and therefore took his comments personally. 
    
    I don't see where Richard was indicting all Christians, unless of
    course you consider all Christians to be that narrow group to which
    Richard was referring. As I said before, my definition of the Christian
    community my be broader than yours.
    
    	Eric

    
>    I don't think any person has the right to question another person's
>    faith.  Whether anyone of us will be judged righteous enough is between
>    each of us and God.  Do you not acknowledge that God's plans are
>    mysterious.  That none of us can truly know God's plan for salvation. 

    I'm not sure what you mean by questioning anothers faith in this
    context. I have no doubt that Richard is a man of great faith. I
    just don't happen to think we believe the same things.

    It will be for God to judge who is "righteous enough" but the Bible
    is pretty clear that none of us are in and of ourselves righteous
    enough for salvation.

    You are of course correct that I do not believe "That none of us can 
    truly know God's plan for salvation." For me to believe that I would have
    to first reject what I believe Christianity to be all about. Are you
    asking me to reject (what I believe) Christianity is? I think so. Do
    you think that suggestion might be considered arrogant by some?

    			Alfred

    
    Ah well, Nancy, if you're sure about something then it'd probably
    be a waste of my time to convince you otherwise.
    
    Cindy

    Alfred,
    
    I am asking you to reject that you have a right to decide whether
    someone else is or is not a Christian.  

	Wow.... a ton of notes over this. Hey Nancy, I think it's time to take
that log out of yer eye.... I'm surprised you didn't even know it was there!


Glen

    Gleeeeennnnn...
    
    Don't make me come over there and smack you around... :^) There's
    enough wood to go around for everyone, bucko. 
    
    Eric

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 890.29  The undisputed letters of Paul & miscellaneous ramblings  29 of 104
CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all"          37 lines  11-APR-1994 22:02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



RE:         <<< Note 890.23 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>

>.22  Well, that isn't exactly what I had in mind, Jim.

>You see, I'm saying there's more to Christianity than personal salvation,
>that all too many Christians never venture beyond this personal, privatized
>aspect. 

 
 I used to think that too...til I discovered that there are a lot of Christians
 who do a lot for their fellow man, saved OR lost, who simply don't go around
 crowing about it.  Their actions may not include blocking military bases or
 things of that sort, but I see a tremendous amount of assistance, financial
 and otherwise, going to the needy.  For you to say that "all too many 
 Christians never.." is a gross generalization, though perhaps the social
 activity in which they are involved doesn't meet the acceptable critiera
 of some.



> I believe the sole emphasis on accepting Christ as one's personal
>savior does Christ and the gospel an enormous disservice.  It's a sin.


 "I have come to seek and save that which is lost" Jesus said.  Salvation
  is a key to the mission of Jesus Christ.  That some do not show the fruit
  of their salvation is another story.  That, in part, can be laid at the
  local church.



 Jim


    
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 890.30  The undisputed letters of Paul & miscellaneous ramblings  30 of 104
CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all"          23 lines  11-APR-1994 22:13
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



RE:         <<< Note 890.28 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child" >>>


>Sin and salvation?  Yes, to some degree.  But the sermons also speak in favor
>of living simply, and against the accumulation of possessions.  The sermons
>talk about love for others, not love for just one's friends.


 How can you make such a statement "not love for just one's friends"? what does
 that mean?  Christians aren't out in the communities?  Aren't involved in
 things other than fellowship, potlucks and hayrides?  Would it be better
 if us fundamentalists started taking out ads in the newspapers crowing about
 what we are doing?  I know many..yes many non-liberal Christians who are
 involved in several different areas of assistance and they insist it remain
 anonymous.  If they went around crowing about it, we'd hear about that too.



Jim

    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 890.34  The undisputed letters of Paul & miscellaneous ramblings  34 of 118
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child"             15 lines  12-APR-1994 12:01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 890.30

> I know many..yes many non-liberal Christians who are
> involved in several different areas of assistance and they insist it remain
> anonymous.  If they went around crowing about it, we'd hear about that too.

I know them, too.  Their witness is to support the 700 Club, to keep James
Kennedy on the air, and do what they can to see that gays receive no legal
protection against discrimination.

Guess they're keeping their lamp under a basket.

To God be ALL the glory,
Richard

    

    Eric, I put up what I read...
    
    Now show me where I erred.

    
    >Wow.... a ton of notes over this. Hey Nancy, I think it's time
    >to take
    >that log out of yer eye.... I'm surprised you didn't even know it was
    >there!
    
    Spending a lot of time patting yourself on the back for that one,
    Glen????? 
    
    :-)
                           
    

    And for posterity sake... please take a look at the last paragraph.
    
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 890.36  The undisputed letters of Paul & miscellaneous ramblings  36 of 118
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"    17 lines  12-APR-1994 12:29
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    .34
    
    Richard,
    
    That is outright inflammatory!  And you wonder why there is so much
    anger, frustration and anxiety in here.  But then again that is the
    effect you look for, isn't it?
    
    You no more KNOW that then the man in the moon.  You are not intimate with
    Christians in my church or in Jim's church... you KNOW nothing you
    ASSUME once again, A LOT!
    
    It's one thing to believe something from within to the point that it
    becomes intrinsic, its another to just blatantly be rude and
    condescending...
    
    
    

    >    I don't see where Richard was indicting all Christians, unless of
    >    course you consider all Christians to be that narrow group to which
    >    Richard was referring. As I said before, my definition of the
    >    Christian community my be broader than yours.
    
    Where was that note where Patricia said she and others of her kind
    should speaker LOUDER and more OFTEN so that the REAL message of truth
    can get across???
    
    Well, imo, Richard is the best example said theory... and that is why
    the strong response...
    
    Consider it like twisting your ankle and then having someone kick it
    over and over and over and over again.
    
    Pretty soon, you just wanna punch that someone right in the nose...
    
    :-)
    

>    It was *** who started the insults... 
    
        Yes, but who will END the insults?

        Bob

    .122  Nancy,
    
    Could you point out to me in .122 where you addressed the issue, rather
    than making criticisms about the note and the noter?  Or was it another
    note in which you did that?
    
    Richard
    

    Nancy,

    Didn't you read .110? I'm not going to engage in this sophomoric folly
    of who is more caustic than whom... of who is the lamb and who is the
    wolf. My ego is not wrapped up determining a victor and victim of this
    little shoving match. I simply don't care! There's enough dirt for
    everyone I think.

    Methinks thou does protest too much...
    
    	 Eric

    Well, I reread the reposted notes and .102 still seems to me to be a
    fairly accurate assessment.  Downright funny, too!  :-)
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
    PS I'll pose the question about the value of reposting notes in the
    same string in Topic 9, The Processing Topic.
    

    .126
    
    Protest... heck no, it just amazes me how when its in a written forum
    that it can be twisted around.. no wonder this world lacks in intimacy,
    we can't even get it right where it can be accounted for.

    reply
    
    Richard see previous reply.

    .129  I saw it.
    

    This note is *NOW set nowrite for a cooling off period!  In the morning
    I will set this topic write again.
    
    
    		Now please listen to this....Stop the finger pointing and
    childish behavior.  *AND* do *NOT* take this discussion to other
    strings or they will also be set nowrite even if it takes the whole
    conference set that way!  
    
    		If you think or believe that I am angry...your right!  Why
    do I have to take this kind of action toward supposed adults?  Offline
    I even had a friend say that our title should read "For people over 21
    only!".  *HOW* can Christians act this way toward each other?  People
    this conference has an obligation to allow all points of view *WITHOUT*
    rude and inappropiate behavior from everyone else.
    
    		Think about trying this....When you write a note and before
    you press return to enter the note, look at it and pretend that someone
    wrote it to you.  How would you feel?  If it would make you angry or
    feel bad then *DON'T ENTER IT*!  Find a beter way, through love, to
    make your point.  Think about it!
    
    
    Dave Dawson
    C-P co-mod

    Ok, I've set this file write again.  Please, lets at least act like
    adults...ok? :-)
    
    
    Dave
    C-P co-mod

        
>    I am asking you to reject that you have a right to decide whether
>    someone else is or is not a Christian.  

    I do not decide who is and who is not a Christian. However, if someone
    states that they believe things that are incompatible with what I
    believe Christianity is I reserve the right to say so.

    			Alfred

Re: 890.88 
    Alfred,
    
    Your message really does get to the heart of the matter.  And I took
    your message to Richard personally as I find myself theologically
    aligned with Richard and actually more theologically liberal than
    Richard.
    
    I made the decision to stop calling myself a Christian Unitarian
    Universalist because of the messages from this file that I heard as
    saying that" my theology is not good enough to call myself a Christian".
    
    That may not accurate reflect the messages given but it was the message
    I heard.  My response was essential, "Well if that's how Christians are
    going to define themselves, well 'screw it' I don't need to call myself
    a Christian.  Jesus certainly did not need to call himself a Christian
    so neither do I.  I am fortunate enough to belong to a faith community
    where I am support and nurtured for my own spiritual beliefs regardless
    of what they are.
    
    >Do you dispute the notion that there is disagreement
    >on what a Christian is in this conference? Is it arrogance to have an
    >opinion that differs from yours? Please explain. BTW, I can't help but
    >wonder how you'd have reacted if I'd left off the smiley face.
    
    Through my involvement in the 12 step program, I meet many people who
    have no idea of what spirituality means and are miserable because of
    it.  The message that all of us who have grown up in dysfunctional home
    have gotten all of our lifes is "You are not good enough".  That is the
    exact message that I hear "Christians" giving to those searching for
    their own spiritual connnection in a way that is not Orthodox
    Christianity.
    
    Having myself taken the twelve steps very seriously I Understand that
    the theological message behind the 12 step program is basically a
    Christian message.  The message is that each of us find our lives
    unmanageable and without meaning.  We come to believe that a power
    outside of ourselves can restore us to sanity.  We come to believe that
    that power outside of ourself will restore us to sanity.  We let go and
    learn to believe.  We have a spiritual awakening.  we commit ourselves
    to bringing that message to others. 
    
    That is the heart of the Christian message.

    
    >The message of Jesus is that there is but one way to God - Jesus. If
    >that's exclusivity it's hardly my fault. Blame God. But I don't see
    >any anger in Jesus' message. Not the way the Bible relates it or in
    >the way I describe it. You seem to be saying that more people would
    >be inspired by the message of Jesus if it were a different message.
    >Again, not my fault. I try to proclaim the message of salvation through
    >Jesus. 

    I struggle with the Bible trying to understand who Jesus is and what
    does Jesus mean to me and what does the Bible mean to me.  The Jesus of
    the synoptic Gospels is different than the "logos" of John and different
    than the risen Christ of Paul.  
    
    So how do I interprested the statement "Jesus is the only way to God"
    and that is John's message.  John who took feminine divine wisdom and
    converted it to the masculine 'Logos'.
    
    How did abraham, and moses, and ester, and Miriam find God?  Without or
    without Jesus.  Jesus the Divine Logos?  Jesus, Divine Wisdom?
    
    If the only way to God is through Jesus, what does that mean?
    
    That Jesus is a mediator and we should pray to Jesus, and not directly
    to God?
    
    That we must believe in Jesus including all the Miracles and mythically
    stories?
    
    That we must believe that Jesus was physically and literally a human
    sacrifice to appease the wrath of God?
    
    That we must live our lifes like Jesus lived his life, in harmany with
    the Divine will?
    
    That we must accept the incarnation of God in humanity and look for
    "Jesus" in each one of our brothers and sisters?
    
    I struggle with these questions and feel that the struggle is the
    essense of a spiritual or religious life.  I get very impatient with
    the message that I am not good enough, or my spiritually is not good. 
    I truly believe that God made each one of us, you and I, for Good and
    Holy purposes.  I do react when I hear the message from one Christian
    to another that either I, Glen, Richard or anyone else is not Good
    enough to consider themselves a Christian.  Perhaps I overreact of bit
    because of my personal background.
    
    Patricia

    I do not understand where you get the notion of "good enough" to
    be a Christian. If you think that I think that one has to be
    "good enough" to be a Christian I am flabbergasted and have no
    logical reply. Please explain.

    I think that Richard is a good person. What has that to do with being
    a Christian? Jesus came for those who are not good enough of
    themselves. I'm not sure that Richard is too good to need Jesus. I
    know I'm not. I also don't presume to call someone elses religion
    good or bad. A religion that does not agree with what I believe
    Christianity is not by my definition bad or good. It's just not the
    way to God. So it doesn't meet my needs. Your needs may vary.

    			Alfred

    >my theology is not good enough to call myself a Christian"
    
    Patricia this phrase both encouraged me and discouraged me.  Let me
    explain.  First of all, it shows you place value on the term Christian
    and are respecting the fact that your theology doesn't align with 
    what the term Christianity truly means.  Thank you.
    
    And then discouragingly, there is a sharpness to this entry.  I need to
    ask do you have resentment for the above?
    

Note 890.133

>    I do not decide who is and who is not a Christian. However, if someone
>    states that they believe things that are incompatible with what I
>    believe Christianity is I reserve the right to say so.

	I reserve the same right.

	However, I doubt that you'll ever see me telling someone whether or
not they're a real Christian.

	Shalom,
	Richard

    .137
    
    Richard,
    
    One must have knowlege as to what a real Christian is prior to telling
    anyone else about it....  There is nothing wrong with explaining
    Christianity to someone who's definition is lacking understanding.
    
    There is wrong with condemnation as the tone for said discussion.
    
    And of course, it must be established what is the foundation of your
    belief about Christianity prior to the discussion or you could just be
    running in circles.

    Nancy in response to .138
    
    >my theology is not good enough to call myself a Christian"
    
    >Patricia this phrase both encouraged me and discouraged me.  Let me
    >explain.  First of all, it shows you place value on the term Christian
    
    Yes I do find value in the term Christian.  Perhaps a value similiar to
    the value Jesus found in Judaism.  He was born a Jew and lived his life
    as a Jew.  He had objections to what the Pharasess were making of
    Judaism.  He felt they were missing the simple messages of Faith, Hope,
    Love, Mercy, and Justice and equating Judaism with the ritualistic
    observances of the Law.
    
    >and are respecting the fact that your theology doesn't align with 
    >what the term Christianity truly means.  Thank you.
    
    That is the part of your message that consistently feels offensive.  I
    respect that my theology doesn't align with what you mean by the term
    Christianity.  I truly believe that you must define for yourself what
    Christianity means for you.
    
    When you state that I don't align with what Christianity truly means,
    then you are overstepping what I feel are bounds of mutual respect. At
    that point I hear you say, I Nancy know what Christianity means and you
    Patricia do not.  I know what it truly means.  What you think it may
    mean is not good enough.
    
    I believe that God chose that his wisdom should remain hidden.  The
    meaning of Christianity is not so fully revealed to you or I that
    either one of us should dare to say, I know what God has revealed for
    you!  I feel that all either of us can say is, I believe what God wants
    for me!
    
    I do not believe that my definition of Christianity is in any way
    inferior to yours.  I believe that I am acting out of what God has
    revealed to me.  I believe that God is the God of all humanity which
    include you and I and everyone else in here.  God has chosen to reveal
    himself/herself differently to each of us.  I accept that as part of
    the mystery of god.  I do not think that your definition of
    Christianity for  yourself is inferior to mine.  
    
    The objection is that your message seems to tell me that I should not
    listen to what God seems to be revealing to me, but I should listen to
    what Christianity truly means as defined by Nancy.
    
    
    >And then discouragingly, there is a sharpness to this entry.
    
    And that is where the sharpness comes in. It feels like you want me to
    accept your definition of the spiritual life, rather than the
    definition that has been revealed to me by God.  And it feels that you
    can't even imagine why I would feel it objectionable. 
    
    >I need to ask do you have resentment for the above?
    
    Yes, there is resentment.  It feels like you are trying to dictate to me
    what I should believe.  I do not feel that is appropriate.  
    
    I hope this helps you understand more about why I react the way I do to
    some of your notes.  
    
    Patricia
    
  
      

    Alfred,
    
    Re .135  Also read reply to Nancy because that response also applies
    her.
    
    >I do not understand where you get the notion of "good enough" to
    >be a Christian. If you think that I think that one has to be
    >"good enough" to be a Christian I am flabbergasted and have no
    >logical reply. Please explain.
    
    I was using good here not strictly in a moral sense but in the sense of
    accurate.  the right answers.  To be good enough in the comprehension
    of what it means to be a Christian.
    

    >I think that Richard is a good person. What has that to do with being
    >.a Christian? Jesus came for those who are not good enough of
    >themselves. I'm not sure that Richard is too good to need Jesus. I
    >know I'm not. 
    
    If none of us can be a good person without Christ, then the fact that
    Richard is a good person is proof that he is in Christ.
    
    >I also don't presume to call someone elses religion good or bad. 
    
    What do you suppose the purpose of any religion is?  I suppose it is to
    lead a person to God.  I believe that there is one God.  Therefore I
    look to my religion to lead me to the one God.
    
    >A religion that does not agree with what I believe Christianity is not 
    >by my definition bad or good. It's just not the way to God.
    
    Perhaps this is where our disagreement begins.  Since I look at the
    purpose of my religious quest as leading me to a right relationship
    with God, and I think Richard in his religious quest is looking toward
    a right relationship to God. Then your saying "It's just not the way to
    God"  sounds like an absolute value judgement that attempts to
    invalidate my religion and Richard's religion.
    
    > So it doesn't meet my needs. Your needs may vary.
    
    My needs are to be in right relationship to God.  Is that different
    than your needs?
    
    I hope this helps.
    
    
    Patricia

    
    >    If none of us can be a good person without Christ, 

    I never said that and hope never to in the future. One can be good,
    in a relative sense, without Christ. One just can't be good enough
    to attain salvation on their own merits.

>Then your saying "It's just not the way to
>    God"  sounds like an absolute value judgement that attempts to
>    invalidate my religion and Richard's religion.

    Value judgment? Perhaps but no more then saying that if one is driving
    there car faster then the legal limit they are speeding. I will not
    lie to you and say that there are other ways to God then Jesus. I'm
    disappointed that you'd want me to be dishonest.

    			Alfred

    > I'm disappointed that you'd want me to be dishonest.

    Alfred,

    Do you really think Patricia is wants you to be dishonest? You think
    that little of her character? I don't. You're saying that without a
    doubt you know what the speed limit is, and she's saying the speed
    limit isn't so clearly posted that we make such refined, absolute
    judgments. She's not asking you to be dishonest, she's just suggesting
    that you may not see the sign as clearly as you think.

    I'm bothered that you would questions Patricia's ethical character:
    asking you to be dishonest. It looks to me that you're trying to poke
    the embers just a bit.... Maybe I'm wrong.
    
    	Eric

    
>    Do you really think Patricia is wants you to be dishonest? You think

    I'm not sure but I do get the distinct impression that she wants me
    to deny what I've believed for 30 years. That would be dishonest. Now
    perhaps she doesn't want me to say that there are other ways to God 
    then Jesus but I think she does.

>You're saying that without a
>    doubt you know what the speed limit is, and she's saying the speed
>    limit isn't so clearly posted that we make such refined, absolute
>    judgments. She's not asking you to be dishonest, she's just suggesting
>    that you may not see the sign as clearly as you think.

    She seems to be saying that I should not say that there is a limit
    that is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt to me. Frankly, my hope is
    that she sees and reads the sign. It's clear enough for me and just 
    because she does not see it is no reason for me to deny that it's
    there.

    			Alfred

    Patricia,
    
    Thanks for your note.  I really does help me understand.
    
    Hopefully you will gain some understanding of me with what I am about
    to write.
    
    I do not define Christian.  I get my definition of the term Christian
    from the Bible.  I consider the Bible to be an absolute authority in my
    life.  I understand that we have differing views of the Bible's
    authority.  However, the term Christian comes from the Bible. 
    Therefore, to define Christian outside of the Bible to me is inconsistent
    and in error.
    
    I hope we are getting somewhere with this... honestly.  For me, I do
    appreciate your points of view, whether I agree with them or not.
    
    
    

    re Note 890.143 by CVG::THOMPSON 

    > Now perhaps she doesn't want me to say that there are other ways to God
    >                                    ^^^
    > then Jesus but I think she does.

    Ahhh. I see. I don't thing she want's you to just *say* anything. She
    may wish that you come around to see things and believe things as she
    does... just as you are asking her to see and believe things as you do.
    I don't think either of you are asking the other to lie. But then again
    maybe all she is concerned about is that you recite empty words.:^)

    Let's pretend for a moment that each of us are acting with some sort of
    ethical integrity. And though we may wish to sway another's opinion,
    let's assume we aren't asking anyone to goose-step along, blindly
    spouting some party-line creed just for the sake of conformity.


    > She seems to be saying that I should not say that there is a limit
    > that is clear beyond any shadow of a doubt to me. Frankly, my hope is
    > that she sees and reads the sign. It's clear enough for me and just 
    > because she does not see it is no reason for me to deny that it's
    > there.

    A perfectly valid response, without calling into question anyone's
    character. I think you hit on the crux of the matter: How do we know
    that our understanding of what we know is infallibly correct?

    Peace,
    	Eric

    Good Nancy,
    
    Then we are getting somewhere.
    
    You are saying based on my(Nancy's) Faith in the authority of the
    Bible:     	-I can define Christianity
    
    Because you and I view Biblical faith differently we may come to
    different conclusions about what Christianity means.  I allow you 100%
    responsibility for determining what it means for you.  That
    determination is based on your Faith in the authority of the Bible and
    also on how you interpret things in the Bible that may appear
    contradictory.
    
    I also demand for myself 100% responsibility regarding how I define the
    term or how I define my relationship with God. 
   
    It would be helpful to me if you did show that you understood that not
    everybody defines Christianity as you do.  If you want you can
    discourage those people from attending your church but I don't think
    you should be discouraging them from calling themselves Christians. 
    Maybe you are not doing that.  That is what it sounds like to me
    sometime. 

    Alfred,
    
    I would never ask you or anyone else to lie about your beliefs.  I
    wouldn't expect that you would want me to lie about my beliefs either.
    
    Paul says it clearly for me when he says faith in what we know would
    not be faith but knowledge.  Faith is believing in what we cannot know. 
    Not only would I be much happier if you identified what you believe as
    faith and not knowledge, but it is Biblical.
    
    So given that our faiths are very different how should we dialogue with
    each other?
    
    Patricia

    Eric,
    
    Your notes accurately potray the points I am trying to get across.
    
    Thanks
    
    Patricia

    Patricia,
    
    Why would you want to use a term that does not define accurately your
    beliefs?
    
    How can Christian be defined outside of the Bible when outside of the
    Bible it doesn't exist?

(Note 890.138 by MORALE_NA)
    
>    One must have knowlege as to what a real Christian is prior to telling
>    anyone else about it....  There is nothing wrong with explaining
>    Christianity to someone who's definition is lacking understanding.

Weeelll, in theory, I go along with this.
    
In practice, I think nothing will chase seekers away faster than uninvitedly
imposing doctrinal correctness on them, thereby ousting their erroneous
beliefs (for their own good, of course).

I will give my opinion (definition, understanding, point of view) in such
matters, if my opinion is sought.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .150 Nancy,
    
    			What I am reading from Patricia is that she uses
    the Bible to define her Christianity but intreprets it differently than
    do you.  So her use of the term "Christian" when relating to herself is
    just as valid as your's because it is based on what she reads and
    believes the Bible says.  
    
    			This is an issue that even far right wing
    Christians are having trouble with.  Take the "once saved always saved"
    issue.  Now there's one that will run you in circles. :-)  In my own
    part of the country we have the "Church of Christ" who don't believe in
    using instruments when singing praises to God.  So the differences
    between denominations is roughly the same as the differences between
    you and Patricia.  While you might see it as pivitol, Patricia might
    not and vice versa.
    
    
    Dave

(Note 890.150 by Morales)

>    How can Christian be defined outside of the Bible when outside of the
>    Bible it doesn't exist?

??!  Anything else that doesn't exist outside of the Bible?  God, maybe?
The church, perhaps??

Richard

    .152  I think you nailed it, Dave Dawson.
    
    Richard
    

    .153
    
    Richard you are twisting what I mean.
    
    The root beginnings of the word comes from the Bible.. as named by the
    folks in Antioch, as recorded.
    
    That was all I meant... please be careful to not attach more or put
    words in my mouth!

    Dave,
    
    Why does everybody keep stepping in and speaking for Patricia?
    
    I'd prefer to hear her say that she's defining it from the Bible.  It's
    already been established she doesn't consider the bible inerrant.  Why
    put a term on yourself as defined in an errant work.

    (.155 by Morales)
    
    	Yes, originally the term "Christian" was a derogatory one applied
    by outsiders, not unlike the terms Quaker and Methodist.  I'll not
    bore you with the details.
    
    	I was actually hoping that was what you meant, Nancy.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    (Morales .156)  Whoops!  Well, I think I'm going to let it pass this time.
    
    Richard
    

    .158
    
    Richard, if you were truly going to let it pass, you wouldn't be
    tooting your horn about it... 
    
    Conditional at best.

    >In practice, I think nothing will chase seekers away faster than
    >uninvitedly imposing doctrinal correctness on them, thereby ousting 
    >their erroneous beliefs (for their own good, of course).
    
    First off this makes no sense to me.  Differences wouldn't be known
    should said discussion not be in progress.  Therefore, your supposition
    is based on a moot point.  If discussion is going on in regards to the
    subject, why would pointing out doctrinal differences be obtrusive?  Of
    course, again the ATTITUDE behind it truly speaks the loudest, not the
    differences.
    
    
   

    .160
    
    My first inclination in .158 was otherwise.  But I changed my mind,
    leaving open the option to change it back.
    
    So in saying what I said, it does convey disagreement with .156.
    At the same time, I hoped to convey my willingness to disengage
    from further dispute at this time.  If that's tooting my horn,
    then it is far from the worst of my sins.
    
    Blessings,
    Richard

    Richard,
    
    We do not understand each other?  If I'm going to let something pass,
    it passes silently...there's no reason to reserve the right to speak,
    that right is ever-present.
    
    By making the statement that you are going to let it pass, you are in
    fact not letting it pass.  You've made known that you disagree and
    therefore you've chosen to "not get into it", but it certainly isn't
    let go.
    
    That's my view... and since it was directed at me it is a valid view,
    agree or not.

    (.160 Morales)
    
    I disagree.  And if what I said in .151 makes no sense to you, I seriously
    doubt that any further explanation that came from me would help.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Afterthought...
    
    I think the best analogy I can come up with or oxymoronic statement is
    this:
    
    a LOUD silent agenda.

    .163
    
    That is your choice to make.  I can agree to disagree with you,
    Richard... No problem.
    
    God Bless and have a GREAT weekend.

    .162 Nancy Morales,
    
    No, I don't think we do understand each other.  But that aside,
    thanks for your free and unsolicited analysis.

    Shabbot Shalom,
    Richard

    .166
    
    Your welcome... but it was directed to me... wasn't it?
    
    That one really concerns me Richard... I mean really.. you address me
    in a note, when I respond, it was an unsolicited response...
    
    Wow... think I need a break from this for a while.
    
    God Bless and Joy Abundant,
    Nancy

    .165
    
    And a wise choice I hope and pray it is.
    
    Shabbot Shalom,
    Richard
    

    .167 Nancy,
    
    Your response is always welcome.  However, inclusion of your unsolicited
    analysis (especially of another noter's purposes or intent) in your
    response might not always be so well received.
    
    In trying to comply with a request in the Processing Topic, I
    frequently supply the name of the author along with note number of
    the note to which I am responding.  If I put the name in brackets or
    parentheses, I'm *not* looking for a response from anyone in particular.
    It's just a pointer.
    
    Shabbot Shalom,
    Richard
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 9.892                    The Processing Topic                   892 of 1090
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Pacifist Hellcat"                 10 lines   2-MAR-1994 15:53
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My snag is that sometimes I'm not addressing the writer whom I'm
    referencing in my reply.  If I use a name, it might be interpreted
    as a request for a response to my reply -- which I'm not always
    looking for.
    
    So, what I'll start doing is putting the note number and name within
    parenthesis if I'm not looking for a response, and leave same off
    if I am.  Howzat?
    
    Richard

    .169
    
    Understand exactly what you mean...  Again I guess we just have to
    disagree.  You put my name, reference my note and raise a question or
    an eyebrow and guess what you'll get my response... I believe it's
    solicited... not unsolicited.
    
    BTW, all I did was call you on what was obvious... at least to me.

    .152
    
    Dave,
    
    I went back and re-read both .139 and .147 of Patricia's looking for
    where she says she uses the Bible to define Christianity... didn't
    find it.
    
    Patricia,
    
    Are you using the Bible as the authority for the term Christianity of
    which you wish to apply to yourself?  If so, could you give me
    scripture to back it up?
    
    We've been this route before, and that is how Patricia came to the
    conclusion that the term Christian didn't apply to herself.  But then
    I'm definitely open to having misinterpreted that dialogue... please
    help clarify, would you Patricia?
    
    

    Very well.  In the future, I shall leave off the note number and
    name to any note to which I am replying and not seeking further
    response from that particular individual.
    
    This is an announcement only.  Any response to it is unsolicited.
    
    Thank you,
    Richard
    

Here's an image that came to mind which may shed some light upon the
current discussion and some of the reasons why people respond as they do.

  Liberal Christian View            Conservative Christian View
       Us and Them                          Us vs. Them
-----------------------------    --------------------
|                           |    |                  |
|  Liberal Christianity     |    |  Conservative    |
|                           |    |  Christianity    |
|  ----------------------   |    |              ----|----------------- 
|  |  Conservative      |   |    |              |   |                |
|  |  Christianity      |   |    --------------------  Liberal       |
|  |                    |   |                   |      Christianity  |
|  ----------------------   |                   |                    |
-----------------------------                   ----------------------

    890.174 Painter
    
    Thank you, Cindy.  Actually, you may have germinated the seeds of
    a whole new topic.
    
    Shalom, my friend,
    Richard
    

    Cindy,
    
    The term Christian is still at odds, therefore, the model imho doesn't
    have much validity.
    
    Assuming that the term Christian can be agreed upon by definition, and
    assuming that definition is one that shows a CHRISTian is one who
    accepts Christ as the ONLY way to salvation... then your model would
    still be at odds with my view.
    
    Conservative Christiantiy and Liberal Christianity based on the
    definition is not at odds with one another for salvation therefore the
    inclusive model would be appropriate.
    
    There is no liberal Christian outside of Christ, there is antiChrist.
    
    

    Well, Cindy, that would certainly seem to illustrate your model.
    
    ;-}
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

RE: .176 Nancy,
    
    
>    The term Christian is still at odds, therefore, the model imho doesn't
>    have much validity.
    
	As you say...only in your opinion.

>    Assuming that the term Christian can be agreed upon by definition, and
>    assuming that definition is one that shows a CHRISTian is one who
>    accepts Christ as the ONLY way to salvation... then your model would
>    still be at odds with my view.

	Now I am very confused with this paragraph.  If she accepts that
	Christ is the only way to salvation then how is that at odds with
	your view?  Has free will somehow been done away with?
    
>    Conservative Christiantiy and Liberal Christianity based on the
>    definition is not at odds with one another for salvation therefore the
>    inclusive model would be appropriate.

	Ok.
    
>    There is no liberal Christian outside of Christ, there is antiChrist.
    
    	This thought, one held by many scholors that I know, I believe 
	to be one of the most dangerous and Pharasitic that I've heard.  
        In and of itself it makes a lot of sense...right up until you 
        try to put it into practice.   It draws a *VERY* defined line 
	between saved and unsaved...something we Christians cannot know.
	Its God that saves...not some good and dynamic preacher.  When
	we try to discern Christians we are told that we will know them
	by their works...ok...what if a Christian doesn't have any works?
	Well they say that faith without works is dead...ok...what kind 
	of works is important?  We read to do our works in private so
	God can bless us for them otherwise its only the worlds praise
	that we get.  So if we do that, works in private, its possible
	that Christians could call us "antichrist" when we are really
	only doing as God asks us to do.  Deciding who is and isn't a 
	Christian is Gods provence...not ours.  We are even told that 
	some who we think will be in Heaven, won't be, and some who we 
	don't expect, will be.  I believe thats its time to let God do
	the deciding and judging.



Dave

    .178  A mighty powerful message you've delivered to us this morning,
    Deacon!  A message we all needed to hear.
    
    Allelujah!  Amen!
    
    Richard
    

    Your sermon though is very good is based on a misunderstanding of my
    point.
    
    The point being that discernment or judgement of one's heart is not
    present in said discussion, for the heart has already been confessed.
    
    Cindy, and others have implicitly said they do not see Christ as the
    THE way but A way, therefore, no guessing is needed.
    
    Again, I use the Bible to define Christianity, I don't need to read
    hearts, I can ask.  If the person's confession of Christianity doesn't
    align with God's word, then it's clear.
    
    Why do I get the impression that it is frowned upon to known Truth and
    rightly divide it?
    
    II Tim 4:3
    
    For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but
    after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having
    itching ears
    
    v4. and they shall turn awaytheir ears from the truth ans hall be turned
    unto fables.
    
    v5. But watch thou in all things endure afflictions do the work of an
    evangelist make full proof of they ministry.

    Well the last gazillion have been quite interesting...
    
    As a (mostly) reader of this note I will have to say that I really am 
    learning a lot.  Some good, some bad, and some painful.
    
    From a *strictly* theological viewpoint I am probably most closely 
    aligned with the conservative viewpoint given here - even though a lot
    of what they say, and  sometimes the way it is said, makes me cringe. 
    Being rather  conservative myself, I must ask when reading anyone's
    reply to another  person: "Is this how Jesus would have answered the
    question?", "Is this  how Jesus would talk to a human being?".  So
    sometimes I go back and  pretend that Jesus is answering the previous
    note and when I read the  note I pretend that Jesus is saying it.
    
    Even though I am conservative I haven't shut my mind down completely.  
    When I read a note I try to learn something from it for my own personal 
    use.  In this note in particular I am painfully reminded of how 
    arrogant my faith can sometimes become.  I was trained well to believe 
    that if other people don't believe the way we conservatives believe 
    then they have to be wrong.  I have been told how and what to think and 
    then had all this ascribed to the Bible.  If anyone challenges - just 
    say that it is in the Bible and quote some quick Scripture.  That'll 
    either shut 'em up or make 'em mad.  
    
    What is arrogance?  Arrogance is like drug addiction or alcoholism.  
    The people who have it don't realize that they have a problem.  It is 
    self defeating and circular.  Even worse, the arrogant are too arrogant 
    to realize they are.  It is almost incurable.  
    
    Thank you Cindy for your diagrams in note 890.174.  They really helped 
    me to understand where I sit.  I think that a huge majority fit 
    Diagrams A and B.  I have the unenviable position of being a 
    Conservative Christian who fits in the "Conservative Christianity" box 
    BUT under the Liberal Christian View.  As a "CC" I fully expect to see 
    my "LC" brothers and sisters in Christ in Heaven.  
    
    I have finally realized that the Christian Conservative understanding 
    of God is not big enough.  It is too limiting.  It is much too small.  
    For our view of God is often that He is only big enough to speak to me 
    (and other conservatives of course) and then it is our God given right 
    to tell other people what to do.  Liberal Christians are of course 
    wrong and we can know that God isn't speaking to them if they disagree 
    with "we in the know".  How did this disgusting sin of arrogance 
    descend so effectively upon our conservative ranks?  Well, wrong is
    wrong regardless of whether a conservative or liberal does it.  
    
    I have decided to make my God bigger - the biggest in fact.  I am going 
    to make Him so BIG that He actually fits the description of the God in 
    the Bible.  This is really painful for me.  I will have to abandon my 
    arrogance which has served me so faithfully.  The MOST painful part is 
    that I will have to finally admit that God is so big that He can speak 
    to everyone directly.  I will have to admit that other people are truly 
    seeking God even if they don't agree with me.  I will have to get rid 
    of the attitude that if *you* think that you are seeking God and don't 
    agree with my interpretation of the Bible then you *really* can't be 
    seeking God at all.  
    
    This hurts me because it transfers the power and control from me back 
    to God where it belongs.  It transforms the Bible from something akin 
    to a Police Officers Rule Book, to a living breathing vital document 
    which we can read and let the Holy Spirit minister to our hearts in an 
    individual way.  It is a beautiful thing to know that an Ethiopian 
    woman with six children, or a policeman in Moscow, or a gay cattle 
    rancher in Boise, Idaho can read the same portion of Scripture and the 
    Holy Spirit will minister to them and make it personal, and real, and 
    individual.  That is one of the beautiful mysteries of the Christian 
    experience.
    
    Now that I give this power back to God, its rightful owner, I can learn 
    and grow from the testimony and experiences of both my liberal and 
    conservative siblings.  I can go back to notes 890.134 and 890.139 and 
    be blown away with Patricia's thirst and understanding of God and for 
    her incredible ability to convey spiritual concepts.  For Cindy's 
    reminders that sometimes our Biblical truths are ingrained in other 
    religions too. For Dave's comments in .178 that it is only God that 
    truly knows our hearts and it is not for us to judge other people (lest 
    we be judged ourselves), or for Richard's translation of what God has
    shown him in the Bible into social concerns.  
    
    So for all you liberals out there, please don't give up on us 
    conservatives.  We have much to learn about trust and letting go - and 
    that we are even wrong sometimes.
    
    Rob
    
    

                                                
    Re.176
    
    Nancy,
    
    The model is not about definitions, but rather about how people who
    refer to themselves as Christians typically view and respond to one 
    another, given their vantage points.  
    
    As Richard mentioned, you have indeed fit the model of the typical 
    Conservative Christian view of "Us vs. Them" (the right-hand model)
    by the very nature of your reply.  
    
    However, if you would prefer that the Liberal Christian and the
    Conservative Christian boxes do not intersect at all, then I can
    draw it that way too.
    
            Typical Conservative Christian view
                      Us vs. Them
    
          ------------------    ----------------
          |  Conservative  |    |  Liberal     |
          |  Christian     |    |  Christian   |
          ------------------    ----------------
    
    Cindy 

    
    Re.180
    
    Actually, Nancy, I do believe that Christ *Consciousness* is the only
    way to salvation.  So in that I can call myself a Christian too - under
    your definition - and there's no conflict whatsoever.  
    
    At the very same time, I know that Christ Consciousness = Buddha 
    Consciousness = Krishna Consciousness = (and so on).  So, I also call 
    myself a Buddhist, a Hindu, (and so on).  For you, there is a conflict,
    but for me - having had the nondual experience which transcends all
    religion - the conflict is not there for me.  
    
    Back in the Hindu topic, I entered a note on how Swami Vivekananda
    thought it absolutely ludicrous that 'everything is God'.  But then his
    guru touched him on the forehead, sent him into a state of awareness or
    consciousness where he realized and experienced firsthand that
    everything is the same - there is only One God that is both all
    manifest and unmanifest - and no longer did he think the 'everything is
    God' statement as being ludicrous after that.  I have also had this
    experience, though it was at a far lower level than what Swami V. went
    through.  That's why I know.  And at the very same time, I know you
    have *not* had this experience, so I fully expect that you and I will
    never meet on this until/unless it happens to you too.  And that's
    OK with me.
    
    Perhaps now, hopefully, you will begin see that while choice of Christ/
    Christianity over Buddha/Buddhism, for example, is core to your
    spiritual foundation, while for me, there is absolutely no choice to
    make because there just isn't.  I respect your choice.  But the
    necessity to criticize the choices of others is what bothers me about
    the typical Conservative approach.  For example, the majority of Hindus 
    aren't, for the most part, out there condemning the Christian religion 
    as being the 'anti-Krishna'.  The *actions* of some of the Christian
    missionary workers in their country, yes, but not the path itself.  Nor
    will you find a Buddhist condemning Christianity as being 'anti-Buddha'.   
    
    Cindy

    
    Re.181
    
    Rob,
    
    I am truly touched and humbled by your note.  Thank you, especially 
    for being the bridge-builder here.
    
    With Love,
    
    Cindy (your sister from the North)

    Thank you very much for the words of encouragement Rob.  They have
    encouraged me to be very careful what I let in my ears, eyes and heart
    for anyone who thinks they stand can fall.
    
    There comes a time when standing is necessary, even if it's unpopular. 
    There comes a time to sit, even if it's on tacks.  There comes a time
    to let go and let God do His work.
    
    Rob it appears as though in paragraphs on arrogance that you have left
    the conviction of Truth somewhere... can you tell me where?  Is there
    no Truth in this world, is there no absolute?  Shall we sit silently
    while watching the Truth be perverted?????
    
    My name is Nancy Morales, my maiden name was Bradshaw.  If someone took
    my name and gave it to an animal, I'd be rather upset.  I'm not an animal
    and I don't want my name associated with said animal. And I'd be
    defensive of my family's name.
    
    That is exactly how I feel about Christian.  
    
    This is where exclusivity comes into view... and yes I believe heaven
    is exclusive, for those who believe in Jesus Christ as the *only*
    Savior and that there are no others gods before Him.  
    
    Let me explain something... Cindy I've told you this over the phone. 
    The difference between you and I is that in your belief model no-one
    goes to Hell...all are included in the kingdom of heaven.  I don't
    believe that... if I get adamant [NOT ARROGANT] about this subject it
    is because I see it as ICU.  One heartbeat away from everlasting
    damnation or salvation.
    
    You don't have this concept... I do.... and it grieves me deeply to see
    Christianity being redefined... for in my pov this is perilous.
    
    There is no arrogance, no winning, no joy in knowing that
    Christ-conciousness does not equal salvation... it merely runs
    parallel... but not on.
    
    
        
    In His Love,
    Nancy
    
    

	Re: .181 Rob

	Thanks for that, Rob. IMO that's what is meant by "Gob-breathed".
	
	I immediately deleted Pagan_Perspectives from my notebook and
	resumed my search here: There is hope!

	Greetings, Derek.

    Christian: One who believes and follows the teachings of Jesus Christ.

    Any further refinement is doctrinal. This is why we find ourselves with
    soooo many different Christian denominations.

    Arrogance is when my friend and I read the same book and I insist that
    my interpretation of its message is *THE* interpretation of its
    message. To be adamant without humility is arrogance. We must be
    careful not to confuse our fallible human understanding with God's
    infallible wisdom, or truth.

    Thank you Cindy, Dave, and Rob for some thought provoking notes in this
    rather lengthy, but barren, stream. 

 "..and when he had found him he brought him to Antioch.  And it came about
 that for an entire year they met with the church, and taught considerable
 numbers; and the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch"..
 
 Acts 11:26 (NASB)


 Who were the disciples?  What were they taught?  The entire book of Acts
 (the validity of which some question, of course) up to this point is filled
 with the preaching of the Word of God, salvation through Jesus Christ, the
 Apostles doctrine (which was about salvation through Jesus Christ).  We
 are told of thousands who were saved through the teaching of the apostles,
 and the teaching which was received by the disciples who were called what?
 "Christians".  


 It is not up to me to judge who is and who is not Christian.  However, the
 Word of God seems to be saying that those who claimed the name of Christ,
 who called themselves Christians, fit a particular, specific criteria.




 Jim

re Note 890.188 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  However, the
>  Word of God seems to be saying that those who claimed the name of Christ,
>  who called themselves Christians, fit a particular, specific criteria.
  
        You are certainly right.

        But please note what neither the Bible nor you (if the above
        is what you are claiming) are saying:  neither you nor the
        Bible are saying that if you don't fit the particular
        pattern found in Acts then you are not a Christian.

        It is human logic that made the above exclusive rather than
        inclusive.

        It is one thing to report that "the Christians said and did
        this".  It is quite another thing to say that "if you are a
        Christian then you must say and do this."

        Bob

    > Who were the disciples? 

    Well? Are disciples different than the garden variety Christian? Does
    it imply missionary or teaching work? Yes who were the disciples? Was
    it the entire body of "considerable numbers" or was it the group of
    Christians, like Barnabas and Saul, who were out preaching?

    Who coined the word "Christian"? Was it the disciples themselves... the
    converted... the unconverted? Did the disciples use the term as a badge
    of inclusion... a litmus test of sorts?

    > However, the Word of God seems to be saying that those who claimed the
    > name of Christ, who called themselves Christians, fit a particular,
    > specific criteria.

    Specific to the extant that they believe and follow the teachings of
    Jesus Christ. It is not as particular and specific as Mosaic Law.
    
    	Eric 
    
     

RE:                      <<< Note 890.190 by APACHE::MYERS >>>

   > > Who were the disciples? 

    >Well? Are disciples different than the garden variety Christian? Does
    >it imply missionary or teaching work? Yes who were the disciples? Was
    >it the entire body of "considerable numbers" or was it the group of
    >Christians, like Barnabas and Saul, who were out preaching?


     I'm no Greek scholar, however, it is my understanding that the word
     translated "disciple" means "learner or "one being taught"..I am a
     disciple for example..
     
     Paul and Barnabas would be considered missionaries (which is derived
     from the greek word for "Apostles" or "sent ones").

>    Who coined the word "Christian"? Was it the disciples themselves... the
>    converted... the unconverted? Did the disciples use the term as a badge
>    of inclusion... a litmus test of sorts?


     I understand the word "Christian" was coined by those who witnessed
     the disciples..it can be translated "little Christs" from the Greek.


>    > However, the Word of God seems to be saying that those who claimed the
>    > name of Christ, who called themselves Christians, fit a particular,
>    > specific criteria.

 >   Specific to the extant that they believe and follow the teachings of
 >   Jesus Christ. It is not as particular and specific as Mosaic Law.
    
  

    Reading the book of Acts one sees actions of the Apostles immediately
    after the ressurection and then the ascension of Jesus Christ.  The 
    message of repentance and salvation is preached from chapter 2 all the
    way through the book.  Chapter after chapter there are lives being 
    changed, conversions taking place..the teaching of the apostles, the
    gatherings and actions of the early churches.


    Again, one has to ask who and what were the disciples..who was teaching
    them, and more importantly, what were they learning?  Who taught the
    Apostles?  Whom did the Apostles teach?


 Jim    
     

>    Arrogance is when my friend and I read the same book and I insist that
>    my interpretation of its message is *THE* interpretation of its
>    message. To be adamant without humility is arrogance. We must be
>    careful not to confuse our fallible human understanding with God's
>    infallible wisdom, or truth.
    
    Moral relativity is not truth... it is a state of mind.  Truth remains
    constant regardless of one's state of mind.  While I agree with you
    about God's infallible wisdom or truth and that humanity is fallible, I
    must challange you on one point, in God's wisdom why would he make
    *salvation* too difficult to understand?  What kind of God would do
    that?  
    
    I believe he has made salvation very simple, we humans in our fallible
    understanding make it difficult or add to it because that "just couldn't
    be all there is to it."  
    
    Eric, I respect what you have said and see some merit in it... but I
    just can't believe that your statement is the absolute of truth.  I
    believe God has given us the ability to know truth, His Truth and it's
    not relative.
    
    
    

    The Painter model confirmed.
    

    -1
    
    Value added :-)

    > Moral relativity is not truth... it is a state of mind.

    Which is fine, but has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I am
    talking out your ability to interpret ancient writings from people of
    another time and another culture. For one the claim, with no humility,
    to know with absolute infallibility the one and only truth of the
    writings is, in my opinion, arrogance.  


    > I must challange you on one point, in God's wisdom why would he make
    > *salvation* too difficult to understand?
    >
    > I believe he has made salvation very simple, we humans in our fallible
    > understanding make it difficult or add to it because that "just couldn't
    > be all there is to it."  

    I do not claim to understand the mind of God to the degree others do.
    There are many things around me that I don't understand. In God's
    wisdom why is Richard in a wheelchair... why are children born with
    birth defects... why do Christians slaughter Muslims... ? Indeed, what
    kind of a God is this?
                             
    I too believe God made salvation very simple, more simple than you
    would agree He has. 

    > Eric, I respect what you have said and see some merit in it... but I
    > just can't believe that your statement is the absolute of truth.
    
    Good heavens, you didn't think I was billing myself as possessing
    absolute truth, did you!? 


    	Eric

>    Which is fine, but has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. I am
>    talking out your ability to interpret ancient writings from people of
>    another time and another culture. For one the claim, with no humility,
>    to know with absolute infallibility the one and only truth of the
>    writings is, in my opinion, arrogance.  
    
    Yes, I know with absolute infallibility that the Word of God is true
    regardless of the debate in here.  Why is this arrogance?  I know many
    who would define it as someone with character enough to stand up for
    what they believe.  So you're stand of not knowing for sure is taking a
    stand albeit one of inclusivity.  
    
    My stand is one of exclusivity but includes all.  Paradoxical, I don't
    think so.  Salvation is AVAILABLE to all, this makes my pov very
    inclusive, but those who reject Christ as Savior are excluded from
    eternal life.
    
>    I do not claim to understand the mind of God to the degree others do.
>    There are many things around me that I don't understand. In God's
>    wisdom why is Richard in a wheelchair... why are children born with
>    birth defects... why do Christians slaughter Muslims... ? Indeed, what
>    kind of a God is this?
    
    I don't know... does that suprise you?  I don't know why God allowed
    the abuse and abandonment in my life either?  What purpose did God have
    in my hearing my mother tell me she tried to abort me?  I don't know,
    but I do know that none of those variables takes away the Deity of Him. 
    All knowing God will provide our answers in eternity.  The *most*
    important thing he has left us with is the knowledge of salvation. 
    This above all else must not be changed... this is the absolute, again
    imho.
    
    >I too believe God made salvation very simple, more simple than you
    >would agree He has. 
    
    Perhaps...  

    >Good heavens, you didn't think I was billing myself as possessing
    >absolute truth, did you!? 
    
    How can you be so sure that what I've written is not Truth, are you not
    absolutely certain that I cannot absolutely interpret God's word in
    regards to being born again? :-)
    
    Honestly, Eric, I keep putting my POV or IMHO in all of my notes..
    someone said this would help, but it hasn't I'm still getting the "You
    think you know everything!" notes.
    

    There is God's word, there is the Biblical text, and there is our
    understanding of the Biblical text. These three things are
    distinct and individual, as far as I can see, although there may
    be a varying degree of overlap among them. I continually use the
    phrase "our understanding of the Bible" and you continually
    respond using the phrase "the Word of God." 

    This is making it difficult on me because I don't see the two as
    the same, but I gather from your notes you do. To me it sounds
    like you're arguing about something I'm not talking about. I'm not
    arguing whether God is infallible (I'll save that for another
    discussion) I'm arguing whether our *understanding* of God is
    infallible.

    Arrogance, like truth, is not a relative term. It doesn't imply
    lack of correctness, it just implies lack of humility. Since you
    view your understanding of the Bible to be equivalent to the Word
    of God, then I can see why you speak with such assurity of
    infallibility. However, this is what I was referring to when I
    spoke about blurring the line between the infallibility of God's
    word and the falliblility of human understanding.

    > Honestly, Eric, I keep putting my POV or IMHO in all of my notes..
    > someone said this would help, but it hasn't I'm still getting the 
    > "You think you know everything!" notes.

    Hmmm...
    	"Yes, I know with absolute infallibility that the Word of God
    	is true regardless of the debate here."

    I must have missed the IMHO... :^) 

    Anyway, there's no need to be upset or cast false accusations,
    because I never suggested you were claiming to know everything. If
    it makes you feel better, I don't thing you know everything
    either. :^) Or maybe you're saying in your humble opinion you do
    know everything... :^)

        Eric

    >    Anyway, there's no need to be upset or cast false accusations,
    >    because I never suggested you were claiming to know everything. If
    >    it makes you feel better, I don't thing you know everything
    >    either. :^) Or maybe you're saying in your humble opinion you do
    >    know everything... :^)
    
    Nice Eric, very nice. :-) :-)
    
    
    

    In talking with Dave offline I need to clarify some things:
    
    1.  Liberal Christianity needs to be defined in order to understand my
    response.
    
    I was reading Liberal Christianity as equalling the Christ-conciousness
    definition that Cindy was talking about... I believe placing herself
    in the Liberal Christian pov.
    
    Since I do not believe that Christianity is about Christ-conciousness,
    but about faith, placing other religious leaders equal with Christ,
    does not deem one Christian... IMHO.
    
    Therefore the model showing Liberal and Conservative as versus each
    other would be correct... 
    
    However, if using the pure definition of Christianity = followers of
    Christ ONLY, then I'd deem it incorrect.  I believe that whether
    liberal or conservative if Christ is the center of your belief,
    faithful to Him [faithfulness is very key theme in the Bible], then the
    inclusive model is correct.
    
    Again Cindy whether you want make it a definitions issue or not, it is
    definitely definitions that divorces the diagrams.. :-)
    
    I tried to think up some good d words there.
    
    

    P.S.
    
    Thanks for helping me understand some things Eric.

    I'll be back with another model.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    
    Hi, Dave!!
    

most liberal                                                  most conservative
V                                                                             V
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
  |   |                          \            /                               |
  |   Quaker                   Mainline Churches                    Independent
  |                               |  |
  Unitarian Universalist          |  United Methodist
                               UCC
                            Disciples of Christ

                                                                          |___|
                                                                            |
                                                                  Range of truth
                                                          Anything else is false

One's range of truth may vary in how far it will stretch and which direction
it is allowed to move, if at all.

Some may look like this:

		   |________________________________________|

Or this:

     |__________________________________|

Or this:

     |______________________________________________________________________|

    Who determines what range of truth applies where?

    It is not me who decides where each individual's brackets go.
    
    I realize that dialogue between you and me is futile at this point,
    Nancy.  I may be foolish, but I'm not stupid.
    
    Blessings,
    Richard
    

    :-) :-) :-)
    
    

Re: Note 890.181   
SNOC02::LINCOLNR "No Pain, No Gain..."               86 lines  17-APR-1994 22:33

   >> even though a lot
   >> of what they say, and  sometimes the way it is said, makes me cringe. 
    
     Interesting...could you give a few examples of what makes you cringe?

    >>Being rather  conservative myself, I must ask when reading anyone's
    >>reply to another  person: "Is this how Jesus would have answered the
    >>question?", "Is this  how Jesus would talk to a human being?".  So
    >>sometimes I go back and  pretend that Jesus is answering the previous
    >>note and when I read the  note I pretend that Jesus is saying it.
    
    Amazingly enough, it depended on his audience.  If you were Jesus, would 
    you have openly condemned pharisees in the synagogue?  Would you have told 
    them their place was where there was weeping and gnashing of teeth? 
    Jesus did this, and pulled no bones about it because his audience was
    extremely arrogant.  Would you have exhorted the churches as Paul did?
    Would you have admonished Peter as Paul did?  

    >>In this note in particular I am painfully reminded of how 
    >>arrogant my faith can sometimes become.  I was trained well to believe 
    >>that if other people don't believe the way we conservatives believe 
    >>then they have to be wrong.  I have been told how and what to think and 
    >>then had all this ascribed to the Bible.  If anyone challenges - just 
    >>say that it is in the Bible and quote some quick Scripture.  That'll 
    >>either shut 'em up or make 'em mad.  
    
    Paul was stoned and left for dead on his first missionary journey and
    incidentally, he spoke with humility, love, and authority.  Being
    mad at the message of the gospel, as Stephen's audience was, isn't 
    something that can always be avoided. 

    >>What is arrogance?  Arrogance is like drug addiction or alcoholism.  
    
    I agree.  It is one horrible deceptiveness.  I find compromising 
    the nature of God even more distasteful.

    >>Thank you Cindy for your diagrams in note 890.174.  They really helped 
    >>me to understand where I sit.  I think that a huge majority fit 
    >>Diagrams A and B.  I have the unenviable position of being a 
    >>Conservative Christian who fits in the "Conservative Christianity" box 
    >>BUT under the Liberal Christian View.  As a "CC" I fully expect to see 
    >>my "LC" brothers and sisters in Christ in Heaven.  
    
    Amen.  If one is a Christian, then I don't think anything otherwise 
    has been stated here!

    >>I have finally realized that the Christian Conservative understanding 
    >>of God is not big enough.  It is too limiting.  It is much too small.  
    >>For our view of God is often that He is only big enough to speak to me 
    >>(and other conservatives of course) and then it is our God given right 
    >>to tell other people what to do.  Liberal Christians are of course 
    >>wrong and we can know that God isn't speaking to them if they disagree 
    >>with "we in the know".  How did this disgusting sin of arrogance 
    >>descend so effectively upon our conservative ranks?  Well, wrong is
    >>wrong regardless of whether a conservative or liberal does it.  
    
    I'd be interested in seeing some pointers here.  Who said liberals were
    right or wrong, and vice versa?  

    >>I have decided to make my God bigger - the biggest in fact.  I am going 
    >>to make Him so BIG that He actually fits the description of the God in 
    >>the Bible.  This is really painful for me.  I will have to abandon my 
    >>arrogance which has served me so faithfully.  The MOST painful part is 
    >>that I will have to finally admit that God is so big that He can speak 
    >>to everyone directly.  

    Congratulations brother.  As conservatives have stated over and over and
    over and over, the gift of eternal life is available to all.  I admire 
    you confessing this.  It is the first step to greater things.

    >>I will have to admit that other people are truly 
    >>seeking God even if they don't agree with me.  I will have to get rid 
    >>of the attitude that if *you* think that you are seeking God and don't 
    >>agree with my interpretation of the Bible then you *really* can't be 
    >>seeking God at all.  
    
    I truly admire somebody who even though they differ in what they feel
    the meaning of scripture to be, it is brought forth with substance, and
    logic.  I thrive on this and that's why I enjoy interacting with many
    in this forum.  Likewise, I find mushy theology to be distasteful.

    >>This hurts me because it transfers the power and control from me back 
    >>to God where it belongs.  It transforms the Bible from something akin 
    >>to a Police Officers Rule Book, to a living breathing vital document 
    >>which we can read and let the Holy Spirit minister to our hearts in an 
    >>individual way.  It is a beautiful thing to know that an Ethiopian 
    >>woman with six children, or a policeman in Moscow, or a gay cattle 
    >>rancher in Boise, Idaho can read the same portion of Scripture and the 
    >>Holy Spirit will minister to them and make it personal, and real, and 
    >>individual.  That is one of the beautiful mysteries of the Christian 
    >>experience.
    
    Paul the Christian killer, Moses the Murderer, David the Adulterer, 
    Jacob the deceiver, Nebudchadnezzer the self proclaimed god; it brings
    tears to my eyes when I read of how these men who stood condemned 
    before the living God received eternal life through faith in the one
    true God.

    >>    So for all you liberals out there, please don't give up on us 
    >>conservatives.  We have much to learn about trust and letting go - and 
    >>that we are even wrong sometimes.
    
      Rob my friend, I say this with respect and with love...Speak for 
      Yourself.  First of all, you state, "...please don't give up on us...
      what is it that liberals are trying to do?  Secondly, letting go 
      of what?   Thirdly and this is mainly where I say speak for yourself..
      I haven't seen a conservative in this forum that ever said they were
      never wrong.  I won't speak for others but you can start your new
      journey by refraining from putting words in other peoples mouths!!

      In Christ,

	-Jack
                                                                      
    

re: Note 890.196 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    Yes, I know with absolute infallibility that the Word of God is true
>    regardless of the debate in here.  
    
>    Honestly, Eric, I keep putting my POV or IMHO in all of my notes..
>    someone said this would help, but it hasn't I'm still getting the "You
>    think you know everything!" notes.

Perhaps this is why.
Peace,

Jim

    .207
    
    It doesn't wash... everyone has a pov even the one's who state their
    pov isn't the only pov, has a pov. :-)
    
    Spending too much time on semantics, play the game with someone else, I
    won't play it anymore.
    
    Jesus Christ is the Only Way for Salvation and I won't apologize for
    saying it...
    
    

re: Note 890.208 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    It doesn't wash... 

...in your opinion.  I was simply pointing out an instance that you claimed 
doesn't exist, in the very note you make the claim.  

>    everyone has a pov even the one's who state their
>    pov isn't the only pov, has a pov. :-)

your point being...?
    
>    Spending too much time on semantics, play the game with someone else, I
>    won't play it anymore.

Nope, just calling 'em as I see 'em, in an effort to help you communicate 
better, perhaps less offensively to some, in style.
    
>    Jesus Christ is the Only Way for Salvation and I won't apologize for
>    saying it...

I didn't ask you to.
    
Peace,

Jim

    RE: .181
    
    Good stuff there Rob.....Good.
    
    Marc H.

    re .181
    
    Rob,
    
    Thank you for hearing me and the validation.
    
    My struggle is an honest struggle and it is very fulfilling and
    rewarding.
    
    I am writing an exegisis on Romans 5:18-21.
    
    That essentially says,
    
    THru one man's disobedience, we  are ALL made sinners, but through one
    man's obedience we were ALL made righteous.
    
    It goes on to say that were sin abounds Grace abounds all the more.  
    
    If all humanity participates in Adams sin, than certainly all humanity
    particates even more in Christ's act of obedience.
    
    The all is very predominant in those versus.  If Christ's grace is more
    powerful than Adam's sin, than everyone must share in Christ's
    salvation. 
    
    In writing my paper I have about 10 commentaries on Romans from Martin
    Luther, Erasmus, C.K Barret, Barclay, Karl Barth etc.  It is
    interesting how many of the writers noteably Martin Luther qualify
    Paul's "All".  Paul does not say all who believe, or all who have faith
    or anything else.  He says "All"  unconditionally.  Why cannot
    humankind accept the unconditionality of God?
    
    I really like your image of a really big, really powerful God whom we
    can let go of our need to narrow and allow to work his mystery for all
    humanity.
    
    Patricia
    
    

    Nancy,
    
    I choose not to get involved in direct dispute over what is Christian
    with you.  
    
    I don't agree with the way you interpret scripture.  I find
    overwhelming evidence for my beliefs from scripture.  I do not find
    scripture to be inerrant.  The Biblical writers did not find scripture
    to be innerrant either.  Paul for instance, used scripture extensively
    to support his point of view.  He was very good at picking and
    choosing and even reinterpreting and reconstructing.
    
    I truly love studying scripture.  It is a lot more complex and
    beautiful and engaging than I ever imagined.
    
    Patricia
    
    

RE:            <<< Note 890.211 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

       
       
   > If all humanity participates in Adams sin, than certainly all humanity
   > particates even more in Christ's act of obedience.
    
   > The all is very predominant in those versus.  If Christ's grace is more
   > powerful than Adam's sin, than everyone must share in Christ's
   > salvation. 
    
   > In writing my paper I have about 10 commentaries on Romans from Martin
   > Luther, Erasmus, C.K Barret, Barclay, Karl Barth etc.  It is
   > interesting how many of the writers noteably Martin Luther qualify
   > Paul's "All".  Paul does not say all who believe, or all who have faith
   > or anything else.  He says "All"  unconditionally.  Why cannot
   > humankind accept the unconditionality of God?
    


     At times its unfortunate that they put chapter divisions in the Bible.
     Assuming that these verses are telling us that the "all" is unconditional,
     one reads farther into Romans and encounters 10:1-3 "Brethren, my heart's
     desire and my prayer to God for them is for their salvation.  For I bear
     them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with 
     knowledge.  For not knowing about God's righteousness, and seeking to
     establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteous-
     ness of God"

     Paul prays for their salvation..if the "all" is unconditional, why pray
    for their salvation?


     10:9-10 "That if you confess with your mouth Jesus as Lord, and believe
     in your heart that Jesus raised him from the dead, you shall be saved.  For
     with the heart man believes, resulting in righteousness, and with the mouth
     he confesses, resulting in salvation

   

    It seems from reading the above, that the "all" is not unconditional, 
    that there is something that must take place to be included in the "all"
    described above.    
    


    Jim

| <<< Note 890.136 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| >my theology is not good enough to call myself a Christian"

| Patricia this phrase both encouraged me and discouraged me.  Let me
| explain.  First of all, it shows you place value on the term Christian
| and are respecting the fact that your theology doesn't align with
| what the term Christianity truly means.  Thank you.

	That's an interesting approach Nancy. I took it mean something in the
line of G*d, where the person is doing something to please another's request.
It may not be something they believe in, but they are trying to accomodate
another for argument sake. (and possibly a whole host of other reasons)

| And then discouragingly, there is a sharpness to this entry.  I need to
| ask do you have resentment for the above?

	No more than you have when someone says they don't view you as a "real"
Christian. 


Glen

| <<< Note 890.138 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| One must have knowlege as to what a real Christian is prior to telling
| anyone else about it....  

	Then I suspect that everyone in here will allow God to decide then and
we as humans will stop telling people they are or aren't Christians? I mean,
only God can TRULY know what is in the hearts of each and every one of us. Only
He can really know the true definition of Christian. Only He needs to decide. 

| There is nothing wrong with explaining Christianity to someone who's 
| definition is lacking understanding.

	I'm not so sure that each and everytime someone is explaining that the
reason really is due to lack of understanding or due to a different
interpretation of what was read. Would everyone agree that the only person who
could possibly know everything that there is would be God? Would everyone agree
that we as humans can not have 100% assurance that what we believe is the in
line with what God wants? If we can then I think it would be safe to say we can
tell each other that our OPINION(s) on Christianity could be different, and we
could explain the differences, but we can't say that this is the absolute
version of Christianity and can't really say someone is lacking anything.



Glen

| <<< Note 890.144 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| I do not define Christian.  I get my definition of the term Christian
| from the Bible.  

	Nancy, aren't you then saying that your definition of Christian is only
as good as your interpretation of the Bible?



Glen

| <<< Note 890.185 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| Is there no Truth in this world, is there no absolute?  

	Nancy, there are no absolutes in this world. God is THE absolute, but
He ain't OF this world, He rules over it. Humans can not possibly have truth
that is absolute, as that is only as good as what one heard, what one read, how
one interpreted. If humans could have absolute truth while still being human,
then we would be on the same level as God (for truth, anyway). That is an
impossibility for a human (imho).

| Shall we sit silently while watching the Truth be perverted?????

	Reread the above. You can go out and tell someone that what YOU believe
the truth to be is being perverted, but I suspect that even you believe if you
were to die today and go to Heaven, God would still be able to show you now
that all the truths you hold dear, the ones you thought all were in alignment
with His, aren't all correct. 

| This is where exclusivity comes into view... and yes I believe heaven
| is exclusive, for those who believe in Jesus Christ as the *only*
| Savior and that there are no others gods before Him.

	If it would only stop there Nancy. One can easily believe what you
wrote above, but then you will add other things to the list. 

| You don't have this concept... I do.... and it grieves me deeply to see
| Christianity being redefined... for in my pov this is perilous.

	Again, do you believe you have the absolute version of Christianity in
your belief system?




Glen

RE:               <<< Note 890.217 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>




>| Is there no Truth in this world, is there no absolute?  

>	Nancy, there are no absolutes in this world. God is THE absolute, but
>He ain't OF this world, He rules over it. Humans can not possibly have truth
>that is absolute, as that is only as good as what one heard, what one read, how



  So then...its all just a big guessing game, eh?  Maybe we get it right..maybe
  we don't?  Where one spends eternity is determined on a coin toss?




 Jim

    re .213
    
    Jim,
    
    I am very well aware that there are inconsistencies in the Book of
    Romans.  It is a letter written by a fallable human being.  Paul is as
    capable of inconsistencies as I am or as Nancy is or as anyone else is. 
    We don't have Paul here to ask why the inconsistencies either.  When we
    multiply the inconsistencies in one letter by one author by the number
    of letters and number of authors we have quite a conglomerate of
    divergent views.  
    
    Romans 5:18-21 are a very inportant set of verses.  ALL is ALL.
    
    Those verses will by definition be interpreted differently depending on
    our faith assumptions about the Book as a whole.  I don't need to read
    the book as a unified consistent whole so I can interpret "All" to mean
    all.  You need to reconcile that "All" with a "Some" that is written
    elsewhere.  Therefore you have to prove that "all" does not mean "all"
    
    You will not convince me though that "all" does not mean "all".  I do
    not believe that to believe in the mystery of God I have to believe
    "all" can mean "some" and "some" can mean "all".
    
    Patricia
    
    Patricia
    

| <<< Note 890.218 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "It will be worth it all" >>>





| So then...its all just a big guessing game, eh?  Maybe we get it right..maybe
| we don't?  Where one spends eternity is determined on a coin toss?


	Not at all Jim. It is based on what is in our hearts. God knows what
goes on in there. He knows why we do this or that, he knows who we are trusting
in our lives, etc. He will be the one who makes the final decisions on who goes
to Heaven or not. This to me makes much more sense that saying anyone who is
not a Christian is going to warmer climate. Oh, but then ya get to describe
what is the definition of Christian, and then ya get to argue over the
difinition, etc. There are many guides in this world that He put here for us.
Sometimes it's people, sometimes it's an object, it could be anything. But it
is up to us to use these things.


Glen

    
    		Interesting discussion. :-)  For me, I believe that it is
    Jesus Christ as the determining factor.  Far and above anything else,
    a belief in Christ as the lord and Savior is paramount.  Other issue's
    are not nearly as important as this one except to provide an
    understanding of why Jesus did what he did.  I believe the Old
    Testiment pointed right at Jesus Christs coming.  Many issues in the
    Bible I have been able to clear up for myself by going into the Greek
    and understanding the circumstances around the scripture.  The Pauline
    scriptures are particularly difficult to deal with because of the
    issues in the individual Churches.  For example one Church might have
    dificulty with a certain subject so Paul advised *THEM* to react to it
    in a way that might be different for another Church that didn't have
    the same issues.  Clear as mud? :-)  I just try to remember that issues
    and doctrines are different.  And while it may appear to be a doctrine,
    it actually was an issue that needed a different set of rules to keep
    the Church looking in the right direction.  Like the issue around women
    being officers and preachers.  There is nothing in the Bible that truly
    precluds this but if it becomes a stumbling block then it is better to
    let it go.  After all an eternity with God is better than one without.
    
    		
    Dave 

re Note 890.218 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

> >| Is there no Truth in this world, is there no absolute?  
> 
> >	Nancy, there are no absolutes in this world. God is THE absolute, but
> >He ain't OF this world, He rules over it. Humans can not possibly have truth
> >that is absolute, as that is only as good as what one heard, what one read, how
> 
>   So then...its all just a big guessing game, eh?  Maybe we get it right..maybe
>   we don't?  Where one spends eternity is determined on a coin toss?
  
        Jim,

        Even your question assumes acceptance of some theological
        framework -- that "Where one spends eternity" is determined
        by how correctly one does or thinks something.

        What was your point?  Are you saying that the uncertainties
        of this world are too much for you to live with, and since
        they are, God MUST have done something to remedy that
        situation for you, and therefore a particular physical object
        MUST be an absolutely certain guide for you?

        I'm sorry, Jim, I don't believe the reality of God conforms
        to your emotional and intellectual demands.

        Bob

    Halelujah Anyhow
    I never let my troubles
    get me down [get me down]
    when my troubles come my way
    I hold my head up high and say
    Halelujan anyhow!! :-) :-)
    
    This is the most wonderful day that God has made... Praise God for Paul
    and for his love of God that he fought a good fight,  he finished his
    course, he remained faithful to Christ.
    
    He preached the needs of the hour, he chastised through the Spirit of
    God those who would bicker over doctrines and preached Jesus Christ!
    
    Praise the Lord I'm saved on my way to heaven.  Praise the Lord that
    though I don't understand all things about God, I know Jesus Christ.  I
    know about Love, Hate, Anger, Forgiveness and Healing.  I know about
    disconnects and reconciliation.
    
    Forgive me folks for losing sight of what is most important and getting
    caught up in the intellectual drivel of scripture.
    
    The single most important factor isn't how you comb your hair, or cross
    your ts, it's Christ Jesus and Him alone.
    
    Christianity is at stake here.  I won't compromise the term, the Savior
    or the Cross to make someone feel accepted.  I'd rather they BE
    accepted versus feeling so.  This life and eternity at risk here... It
    is important to be faithful to the word of God.
    
    I hope you all have a joy-filled and glorious day.
    
    God Bless,
    Nancy

Note 890.206 by AIMHI::JMARTIN

>    Amazingly enough, it depended on his audience.

Jesus *was* particularly hard on the arrogant asses who believed they were
already in possession of all the right answers.

>    Would you have exhorted the churches as Paul did?
>    Would you have admonished Peter as Paul did?

Paul was extremely pliant and adaptable.  Did he chastise the people of
Athens for having false gods?  Or did he made use of their belief in an
unknown god?

At the end, where you asked Rob to speak for himself, I thought he did exactly
that, and did so eloquently.  Rob built a bridge over which other noters were
invited to walk.  And judging by the reaction, several readers did just that.
Would that you and I could reach out and touch the hearts of others so well
with the gospel message.

And if you decide to respond to this, Jack, please keep an eye on the length.

Shalom,
Richard

 Re .219 (Patricia)




 Okee doke..





 Jim

 RE .220 (Glen)



 Okee doke..






 Jim

    Derek
    re: 186
    
    I do have a theory about neo-Paganism which I will have to find the
    time to research sometime.  It is based on reading Bultman who talks
    about demythologizing Christianity.  Sometimes I think that
    neo-paganism is Christianity demythologized and then remythologized. 
    
    My thought is the neo-paganism may be more related to Christianity than
    to historic paganism.  
    
    Of course Neo-pagans are as diverse as Unitarian-Universalists. 
    

RE: Note 890.224   
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child"             25 lines  19-APR-1994 12:35

>    Amazingly enough, it depended on his audience.

>>Jesus *was* particularly hard on the arrogant asses who believed they were
>>already in possession of all the right answers.

Absolutely correct.  However, his hardness again was because the Pharisees
were stiffnecked people who based their authority on traditional views and 
not on scripture.  Again as it was posted a few replies back, even Pauls plea
in Romans 10 fell on deaf ears..."My prayer for the Jews is that they be 
saved, for they have a zeal for God but it is not based on knowledge."
If you recall Paul's words in Acts 18, Paul states, "May your blood be on your
own heads.  From now on I will deal with the gentiles."  What a strong 
statement to make to his kinsmen.  

>    Would you have exhorted the churches as Paul did?
>    Would you have admonished Peter as Paul did?

>>Paul was extremely pliant and adaptable.  Did he chastise the people of
>>Athens for having false gods?  Or did he made use of their belief in an
>>unknown god?

No, he spoke boldly about the unknown God.  Incidentally, the people screamed 
for two hours, "Long Live Venus of Ephesis".  Paul would have probably been
left for dead had it not been for another individual calming the angry mob
down.  However, to those who weren't pagan worshippers, he spoke to them
harshly just as Jesus did.

>>At the end, where you asked Rob to speak for himself, I thought he did exactly
>>that, and did so eloquently.  Rob built a bridge over which other noters were
>>invited to walk.  And judging by the reaction, several readers did just that.
>>Would that you and I could reach out and touch the hearts of others so well
>>with the gospel message.

Richard, I am a firm believer in consistency.  I believe that in some areas
there is no room for compromise, I believe as Paul did that this is vital to
ones Spiritual growth.  I have cross posted three notes below just as an
example of the inconsistency that befuddles the mind.  The first two are from
a person to remain nameless and, I might add, value her right to believe what
she wants...whatever it is.  The third posting is from you Richard.  I hold
you to a higher standard because you are the moderator.  See below.


>>        Re.180
    
>>    Actually, Nancy, I do believe that Christ *Consciousness* is the only
>>    way to salvation.  
>>   *******So in that I can call myself a Christian too - under
>>    your definition - and there's no conflict whatsoever.********
    
>>    At the very same time, I know that Christ Consciousness = Buddha 
>>    Consciousness = Krishna Consciousness = (and so on).  So, I also call 
>>    myself a Buddhist, a Hindu, (and so on).  For you, there is a conflict,
>>    but for me - having had the nondual experience which transcends all
>>    religion - the conflict is not there for me.  

Okay, no conflict...so why the posting below.
        
>>    Jack,
    
@@>    What baffles me more than anything is your motive for proclaiming to be
@@>    or identifying yourself as a Christian.....perhaps you can set me
@@>    straight. 
    
>>    The crux of the problem, at last.  Jack, I do NOT identify myself as a
>>    Christian...not even as a Unitarian Christian.  I've stated that many
>>    times, both here and in the CHRISTIAN conference.
    
This is the problem I have with liberal religion...mixed messages that are
incoherent.  IMHO, I see a danger of mixing eastern religion with 
christianity.  You will find in the Joshua and Judges the historical
consequences of this.

Richard, some in this forum call others arrogant for taking a stand on what 
they believe.  My challenge to you is this.  Does your statement below 
from the following string put you in the arrogant category?

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 895.5                  Christianity and Buddhism                     5 of 6
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Most Dangerous Child"              9 lines  12-APR-1994 11:47
                               -< No comparison >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    .4  I don't view them so much as diametrically opposed as too unlike
>>    to even compare, like comparing football with skiing.  They're both
>>    sports, aren't they?  They both require athletic skill and ability,
>>    don't they?
    
>>    But ultimately, they are too different.
 
So if the two cannot be compared, why do you seem to defend so hard those 
that insist on mixing the two together?  Sure, I value anybody's right to
believe what they want.  People should however, not expect their doctrinal
statements to go unchallenged.

Rgds.,

-Jack
   

    Jim:
    
    Interesting..I too don't hold myself to 100% consistency nor have I
    ever.  But I have been falsely accused by others of doing just that.
    
    I believe I am a mental midget compared to the awsome wisdom of a
    powerful God and I have no doubt that much of this will be revealed to
    me in the end when I stand before the judgement seat of Christ.
    
    Meanwhile, I do know one thing, Jesus Christ has given us great and
    precious promises.  I rejoice in this.  I believe it is the utmost
    importance to carve one's beliefs in life and to have them challenged
    regularly, that one will build in knowledge, wisdom, perseverance,
    and character.
    
    By the way, the pharisees were very narrow minded and used scripture
    to their power and benefit.  It does show that knowledge is power.
    Their problem was this.  They so perverted the Word of God and did 
    not use it properly.  I believe, for example, that their trial of
    Jesus broke about 17 of the Mosaic laws.  Again, their zeal was not 
    based on true knowledge but on their own selfish conceit.  I might 
    also point out that they most likely didn't believe much of the
    scripture to be God's word, otherwise, they would not have threatened
    Jesus so much had they really believed it.
    
    "...Narrow is the way to eternal life, and few are those who find it."
    I believe the words of the master.
    
    Peace to You Also,
    
    -Jack

My gosh, Jack, we are in agreement!  .-)

Wonders never cease,

Jim

    Naww, wonders will never cease!!! :-)  By the way, try to answer this 
    as objectively as you can.  The note I put in, .228 I believe, do you
    see how things can be inconsistent here from time to time?  One person
    agrees with person A but will defend to the hilt the belief of person
    B.  Person B implies one thing, then says the opposite.  That's 
    confusing theology to me!!!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    re .228
    
    jack,
    
    I'm missing something.  I don't see any inconsistencies in either
    Cindy's or Richard's position. Where do you see the inconsistencies?
    
    
    I personally hope that I can hold inside my heart and soul and mind an image
    of God big enough to be the God of Christians, Jews, Pagans, Budhists,
    Moslems, Hindu's, Humanists, etc.  An image of a God big enough for all 
    humankind.
    
    An image of God Big enough for all creation.
    
                             Patricia
    
    

    .233
    
    Patricia,
    
    God is Big enough and is God of all peoples and races... the crux of
    the matter is punningly the *cross*.
    
    That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, every tongue will
    confess the He is Lord... 
    
    Many God's pluralism is not acceptable to the God of all.  He has
    required us as a lover to be faithful to Him.
    
    In His love,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    I agree,
    
    The crux of the matter is the cross.  
    
    But just what  that symbol mean is where there are world's of
    interpretive differences.
    
    It may in fact be the most powerful symbol in human history.
    
    
    Patricia
    
    

    Hmmm... that's GREAT! That we agree diversely. :-)
    
    That's a beginning point for us I think.  Perhaps to remember this
    would be for me a great benefit at further communication.
    
    I know I started the faithful topic, so perhaps I should put this
    question there, but the thread does silkenly flow through this topic as
    well.
    
    When you put Jesus, Mohammed, Buddha, etc., on a plain and faithfulness
    is a requirement of God's.  How do *you* decide to whom you are
    faithful?

    Sorry Cindy, I forgot you are/were a mod!!
    
    -Jack

    .237  Cindy is not a mod.
    
    Richard
    

    Yeah but Cindy used to be a mod, right?

    How is this relevant to the topic at hand?j

Note 890.228

>Absolutely correct.  However, his hardness again was because the Pharisees
>were stiffnecked people who based their authority on traditional views and 
>not on scripture.

The end product is the same.  The ones who believe they possess the truth,
most likely don't.  The truth cannot be possessed, it can only be pursued.
"Blessed are the poor in spirit,..."

>Richard, I am a firm believer in consistency.  I believe that in some areas
>there is no room for compromise, I believe as Paul did that this is vital to
>ones Spiritual growth.

Paul compromised at times.  Small stuff, maybe.  But compromise nevertheless.

>I hold
>you to a higher standard because you are the moderator.

This ill-founded, nay, obtuse, notion expressed to me by one whom you would
probably find like-minded, I suspect, is the very reason I've submitted my
resignation as moderator of this fine conference, effective May 22.  I hate
submitting to other people's prejudices, but I've got bigger fish to fry.
 
>So if the two cannot be compared, why do you seem to defend so hard those 
>that insist on mixing the two together?

I obviously do not consider one a threat to the other.  You obviously do.

Please note that I also stick up for Roman Catholics, Jehovah's Witnesses,
Unitarians, gays, New Agers and a lot of others folks with whom I don't
always agree.

Shalom,
Richard

    .239  Cindy was asked at the outset of C-P to be a mod, but she
    declined at that time.
    
    Richard
    

    .240  It falls under the assorted ratholes portion of the topic
    as mentioned in the title.
    
    :-)
    
    Richard
    

    The choice is easy.
    
    Faithfulness to God.
    
    Patricia

    Richard:
    
    You'll be alot more happier in life if you'll get off the fence and
    take a stand for something.   And if you want to call my last reply
    predjudice, fine.  I still hold you to a higher standard because you
    are in essence, the role of a mediator in this conference.
    
    Nevertheless, it is apparent there will be other big changes in this
    company within the next few months.  I don't know where God will lead
    us but I want to thank you for your interest as a moderator over the
    last few years.   It has been interesting to agree/disagree with 
    a variety of Christian/Non Christian views in the conference.  
    
    IMHO, I look at C-P as a two year litmus test.  I remember its
    inception when Mr. Valenza wanted to start it.  Did the harmony he
    sought after really exist in this forum?  I challenge you with this
    question and state that without likemindedness or a common foundation,
    a house will fall.  You can poo poo it if you want to, that's your
    choice.  
    
    I pray that we all find the abundant life Jesus promises us in John
    10:10.  Remember that a house divided will ultimately fall.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    	I've been called a lot of things, but never a fence-sitter, a
    middle-of-the-roader, or a moderate.  I am hardly lukewarm.
    
    	I don't believe I'm betraying God.
    
    	Moderators need not be moderates.
    
    	As far as the litmus test goes, you'll find thorns in every rose
    garden, you'll find pits in every bowl of cherries, and if you look
    for it hard enough, no matter where you look, you'll find imperfection.
    
    	Harmony, even in music, is not always appropriate or desirable.
    Growth and strength often result from encountering resistance.  And
    so, I owe you and a host of others here a debt of gratitude.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Ahhh, ha ha ha... Richard? A fence sitter..? ahhh, ha ha ha...
    
    Tell *that* to the judge with a straight face :^)
    

    Could I please bring attention back to my .236.  Richard would you care
    to answer?

    .248  You'll find my answer in another topic.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    To give the place of God to anyone but Christ is real different then
    talking to another woman who isn't your spouse.
    
    Can you see this?

    To accuse me of doing something I haven't is a sin.  Can you see this?
    

    No accusation, I thought we were talking suppositionally.
    
    

    Why do you insist on being negative with me in every conversation
    Richard?  I try to note in here with integrity, calmness of spirit and
    you come forth with such tasty little bites such as this lastest one.
    
    I think it is I who should say there is no fruit in talking with you.

    .250 suggests, implies - nay, makes an accusation - that someone (most
    likely me, since that is to whom it is addressed) is embracing some deity
    or deities other than God in Christ; that someone is jumping into bed, so
    to speak, with false deities.
    
    I suppose if I was perfect I would have just blown it off.  I may
    *try* to do just that in the future.
    
    Richard
    

    So it is impossible to have a conversation and discuss a topic and take
    it to its deepest level without you believing your being accused of
    something in the process?????
    
    Well as honestly as I can tell you Richard, I didn't accuse of one
    thing, never was the intention.  You an insist all you want,but it just
    wasn't in my heart.
    
    

    BTW, are you avoiding the discussion ?
    
    

    Are you?
    

    No, but thanks for setting me up for my favorite snarfaroo number!

    .255
    
    If I have misunderstood you, Nancy, I am sorry.
    
    I can only go by what you say and the way you say it, and not by what you
    mean.  If you want it known what you mean, you'll to have to say what
    you mean.  Mindreading is not among my very few talents.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Apology accepted.
    
    Now the question is can we continue the discussion?

    The undisputed letters of Paul?  Or one of the assorted ratholes?
    
    Shalom and good night!
    Richard
    

    Of course the rathole we were on!
    
    Sheesh why would I change ratholes or go back to topic?

RE: .245 Jack,
    
    
>    Richard:

	      Jack, I hope you don't mind but I really wanted to answer this
	reply.    


>    You'll be alot more happier in life if you'll get off the fence and
>    take a stand for something.   And if you want to call my last reply
>    predjudice, fine.  I still hold you to a higher standard because you
>    are in essence, the role of a mediator in this conference.

		It makes me very uncomfortable to be held to a higher 
	standard solely on being a moderator or not.  We are just 
	ordinary people like yourself who try the best we know how,
	sometimes with help from above.  I personally prefer the role
	of moderator rather than a mediator as it has been lately.
    
>    Nevertheless, it is apparent there will be other big changes in this
>    company within the next few months.  I don't know where God will lead
>    us but I want to thank you for your interest as a moderator over the
>    last few years.   It has been interesting to agree/disagree with 
>    a variety of Christian/Non Christian views in the conference.  
  
		Yes, Richard has given an immense ammount of time and
	effort and I personally thank him.
  
>    IMHO, I look at C-P as a two year litmus test.  I remember its
>    inception when Mr. Valenza wanted to start it.  Did the harmony he
>    sought after really exist in this forum?  I challenge you with this
>    question and state that without likemindedness or a common foundation,
>    a house will fall.  You can poo poo it if you want to, that's your
>    choice.  

		The stated purpose, and the primary one for Mike, was
	to have a place where spirituality could and would be discussed
	freely and openly.  I can't tell you that I ever heard him speak
	of harmony with regards to this file.  He knew and experienced
        some of the anger and frustration he knew would result from 
	free and open discussions between Christians and non-Christians.


>    I pray that we all find the abundant life Jesus promises us in John
>    10:10.  Remember that a house divided will ultimately fall.
    
		Since this file is neither a Church or a house I wonder
	at the application of this scripture.  Nor was it ever intended
	to be.  Division is a natural result of such a divergence of
	opinions...and in my estimation, rightly so.   While this idea
	may differ to your desires for this file, I believe very strongly
	that this file is needed.  You may be also surprised to find out
	that I believe that ::CHRISTIAN is also needed. 



Dave

re:  Note 890.232 by Jack

>    Naww, wonders will never cease!!! :-)  

We agree.  (read my closing carefully:  "wonders never cease" )

> By the way, try to answer this as objectively as you can.  The note I put 
> in, .228 I believe, do you see how things can be inconsistent here from 
> time to time?  

Yes, I see inconsistencies in here.  I think it's a sign that people are 
struggling, reaching, growing.  What's the old saying, If someone never 
made a mistake, they probably aren't doing much.

To help overcome the confusion, I try to look at the conversations in here as 
a process.  Someone bounces an idea about, others play with it, helping to 
form and reform it into something more solid.

Another aspect is that people sometimes put different emphasis on things.
It's sort of like denominations putting different emphasis on things, you can 
see it in their names...

		Catholics:  the one universal church
		Baptists:   the sacrament of baptism
		Lutheran:   the theology of Martin Luther
		Episcopal:  the bishopric of the church

and so on...yet they are all Christian at the core.

Does this help?

Peace,

Jim

    >             Baptists:   the sacrament of baptism
    
    Could you explain what this emphasis entails.  As a member of a Baptist
    church, I'd be interested in your understanding.

re: Note 890.265 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

As I understand it (please correct me if this is wrong) the sacrament 
of baptism and the way it is done is, how shall I say, more important 
than most other denominations view it (not that they think it is 
unimportant).

Peace,

Jim

p.s. I hope you understand that I was not taking any swings against the
     denominations I mentioned.  I even included my own.  I also realize 
     I was painting with a rather broad brush in making my point.  
     Within any denomination there are likely to be differences from one 
     parish to another.  YMMV

    .266  It's my understanding that Baptists, if you follow the branch
    back, came from the Anabaptists.  The Anabaptists took a stand against
    the practice of infant baptism.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Jim,
    
    Thanks, I took NO offense at your note.  I was just curious what you
    thought it meant.
    
    Yes, the AnaBaptists were the antecedants to Baptists today.  The
    AnaBaptists took a stand that Baptism was by immersion and after
    salvation.  Baptism DOES NOT save was probably a rather frequent
    statement made by our predecessors.
    
    Total immersion.. with Baptism symbolizing the DEATH, BURIAL and
    RESURRECTION of Jesus Christ.
    
    The water being the baseline, the person standing in the water
    represents a picture of the cross or death of Jesus, the immersion
    under the water symbolizes the death and of course the resurrection is
    the person coming up out of the baptismal.
    
    
    
    

Okay.  Now, back to the previous tangent, already in progress... .-)

Peace,

Jim

Quick exegesis of Romans 5 (English only)

Romans 5 immediately follows (surprise!) Romans 4 where Paul goes
to *very* great lengths to explain that Abraham was justified by
faith and by nothing else.  He starts in Romans 5:1 by saying,

  "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have
  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Crhist through whom we have
  gained access by faith into this grace in which we not stand."

In verse 6 and 8b, he continues,

  You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,
  Christ died for the ungodly...  While we were still sinners, Christ
  died for us.

And immediately again, Paul affirms that we are justified by faith in
verses 9-11 three more times:

  Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall
  we be saved from God's wrath through him!  For if, when we were
  God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son,
  how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his
  life!  Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our
  Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.

Discussing the grace of God, Paul says starting at verse 15,

  But the gift is not like the trespass.  For if the many died by the 
  trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift
  that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the
  many!  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's
  sin:  The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but
  the gift followed many trespasses and brough justification.  For if, by
  the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, how much
  more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the
  gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

Read that last sentence again.  Note that it is those who RECEIVE God's
abundant provision of grace who get the gift.  Who is this?  According
to Paul's numerous statements just preceeding this, it is those who have
accepted their justification from God by faith through Jesus Christ.

More at verse 18:

  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for
  all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification
  that brings life for all men.

Are all justified?  YES!  Do all accept the gift of justification?  It doesn't 
say in this verse.  Continuing with verse 19

  For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made
  sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be
  made righteous.

Who will be made righteous?  The many.  Are they all righteous now?  Apparently
not since some will be "made righteous".  How?  Paul has already said time and
time again that we are made righteous through faith in Jesus Christ.

Finishing off the chapter,

  The law was added so that the trespass migh increase.  But where sin
  increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in
  death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal
  life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Righteousness comes through Jesus Christ our Lord.  How is this appopriated
for each person?  Through faith.

Patricia, I have a hard time seeing *any* justification in these verses for
universal salvation.  Yes, God has paid the penalty.  But like the defendant
who stands convicted and guilty, he can choose to pay the fine himself
rather than accept the money another has offered.  Being justified is only
HALF the story.  Applying the justification is the other half - and nowhere
in Romans 5 do I find even the slightest hint that anyone other than those
who accept Jesus Christ by faith have justification APPLIED to them.  The
statements to the contrary are explicit and numerous.  

What do you think?

Collis

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1-----------
Quick exegesis of Romans 5 (English only)


  "Therefore, since we have been justified through faith, we have
  peace with God through our Lord Jesus Crhist through whom we have
  gained access by faith into this grace in which we not stand."

    (PDF -  justified through faith.  Justified through the faith of Jesus
    Christ.
    
    Gained access by Jesus' Faith.)
In verse 6 and 8b, he continues,

  You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless,
  Christ died for the ungodly...  While we were still sinners, Christ
  died for us.

And immediately again, Paul affirms that we are justified by faith in
verses 9-11 three more times:

  Since we have now been justified by his blood, how much more shall
  we be saved from God's wrath through him!  For if, when we were
  God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son,
  how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his
  life!  Not only is this so, but we also rejoice in God through our
  Lord Jesus Christ, through whom we have now received reconciliation.
    (again, since we were all justified when we were sinners through Jesus
    death, how much more having been reconciled shall all by saved through
    his life)

Discussing the grace of God, Paul says starting at verse 15,

  But the gift is not like the trespass.  For if the many died by the 
  trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift
  that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the
  many!  Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's
  sin:  The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but
  the gift followed many trespasses and brough justification.  For if, by
  the trespass of one man, death reigned through that one man, how much
  more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the
  gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
    
(PDF  Note the parallel structure between 
    "the MANY 
    died by the trespass of the one man, 
    how much more did God's grace and the gift   that came by the grace of the
    one man Jesus Christ, overflow 
    to the MANY!"  The same many that died to the one man's trespass
    received the grace of the one man Jesus Christ.)
    
>Read that last sentence again.  Note that it is those who RECEIVE God's
>abundant provision of grace who get the gift.  Who is this?  According
>to Paul's numerous statements just preceeding this, it is those who have
>accepted their justification from God by faith through Jesus Christ.
    
    (All receive the the gift of Grace through the Faith "of" Jesus
    Christ.)
    

More at verse 18:

  Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for
  all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification
  that brings life for all men.

Are all justified?  YES!  Do all accept the gift of justification?  It doesn't 
    
    (If all are justified then all receive the gift of justification.)  All
    is All.)
    
say in this verse.  Continuing with verse 19

  For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made
  sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be
  made righteous.
(Again the same MANY who are made sinnesrs are the MANY who are made
    righteous in this tight parallel structure)
    
Who will be made righteous?  The many.  Are they all righteous now?  Apparently
not since some will be "made righteous".(Actually none are righteous now. 
    All will be made righteous in the future according to the grammar here
    and your argument)
    
      How?  Paul has already said time and time again that we are made 
    righteous through faith in Jesus Christ.
    
    (I agree that Paul is not always consistent.  You are stating that the
    all in these verses relate to the some in some other verses.  And to
    boot, are you sure that they are " made righteous through faith 'in' Jesus
     Christ." or made righteous through faith 'of' Jesus Christ.  And using
    the term "Faith"  are you using the definition of faith in Romans, 
    Corinthians, Galatians, which defines Faith as obedience to the mystical 
    presence of Christ, or the "Faith" as defined in the Pastorals defined as faith in
    a body of doctrine.
    
    
Finishing off the chapter,

  The law was added so that the trespass migh increase.  But where sin
  increased, grace increased all the more, so that, just as sin reigned in
  death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal
  life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

>Righteousness comes through Jesus Christ our Lord.  How is this appopriated
>for each person?  Through faith.
    
    Our faith or Jesus' Faith?

>Patricia, I have a hard time seeing *any* justification in these verses for
>universal salvation.  and nowhere
>in Romans 5 do I find even the slightest hint that anyone other than those
>who accept Jesus Christ by faith have justification APPLIED to them.  The
>statements to the contrary are explicit and numerous.  

What do you think?

    Nowhere in Romans 5 do I find even the slightest hint that
    justification is not applied to ALL men(and women I assume).  The
    parallelism with Adam is clear.  God created all for Goodness, All fell
    with Adam(Eve's role unclear  here) and all are made righteous by the
    faith of Jesus Christ.

    I love this verse from Acts that Paul spoke it appears to be rather
    arrogant though so read with caution:
    
    Acts 13:9  Then Saul, (who also is called Paul,) filled with the Holy
    Ghost, set his eyes on him.
    
    Acts 13:10  And said, O full of all subtilty and all mischief, thou
    child of the devil, thou enemy of all righteousness, wilt thou not cease to
    pervert the right ways of the Lord?
    
    People speak of being *more* Christian, and during some really GREAT
    preaching [which blew my face off BTW] this past week, this text was
    used...  
    
    I'd say that the Holy Spirit is bold and while it may appear to
    arrogant to some, it is the tongue of life for others.
    
    
    

    re Note 890.272 by JULIET::MORALES_NA 
    
    > [which blew my face off BTW]
    
    Ouch! 'Bet that stung for a while... :^)
    
    Eric

    -1
    
    :-) It felt good though!  
    
    God has a way of using things to bring us under submission to Him, if
    we only listen... too often we rebel and then he must chastize.  I
    don't like being chastized... so I try to listen the first time.
    
    :-)

Hi Patricia,

You seem to be saying that we are justified by Jesus' faith,
not our faith in Jesus' works of justification.  Yes, I
haven't see your Scriptural argument that this is indeed
the case.  I'll present a miniature argument that this is
not the case.

Let's look back to Romans 3, verse 22.

  "This righteousness from God comes through faith IN
  Jesus Christ to all who believe."

The faith of Jesus Christ is not mentioned.  The faith
of the believer is mentioned.  Let's look at some more.

Romans 4 discusses how Abraham was justified.  It opposes
"works" and "faith".  Now, the works it talks about are not
the works of Jesus Christ, they are the works of Abraham.
Likewise, the faith it is talking about is not the faith of
Jesus Christ, it is the faith of Abraham.  Verses 4-5:

  Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him
  as a gift, but as an obligation.  However, to the man who
  does not work but TRUSTS God who justifies the wicked,
  HIS FAITH is credited as righteousness.

Back in Romans 3:25, we are told that "God presented him
as a sacrifice of atonement, through faith in his blood."
Whose faith in Jesus' blood.  Jesus?  But this makes no
sense.  Jesus needs no faith (and certainly does not need
faith in his own blood) to be considered worthy and
acceptable.  (If you disagree, please show where in the
Bible it says Jesus needs faith.)  Jesus is and was perfect.
He needs no atonement for sin.  He is acceptable just as
He is.  This was proved by His resurrection from the dead.
No, the context (as well as logic) clearly show us that
it is *our* faith in Jesus' blood that is needed for our
righteousness and our acceptability before God.

This same theme is echoed throughout the New Testament.

I'm disappointed that your interpretation of Scripture has
shown a decided tendency to avoid interpreting Scripture 
against Scripture (instead simply finding "contradictions"
that many don't even see in the first place).  I'm truly
amazed if you really think Scripture teaches that we are
saved by Jesus' faith and not be our in faith in Jesus'
work.  I can honestly say that I've never heard this theory
before - and I can't think of anywhere in Scripture that
supports it.  Everywhere that faith is clearly defined, it
is shown to be our faith in Jesus' work, not anything else.
Isn't it?

Collis

    The "in" "of" contradiction comes from the alternative translations
    listed in the NSRV Bible.  Probably not all cases but some.
    
    Jesus faith is clearly demonstrated when he is tempted in the desert,
    when he enters Jerusalem knowing he may be assassinated, at Getsemine. 
    Jesus as fully human had human choices to make and he choose
    obedience to his father.  As you say, he was a willing sacrifice.
    
    An acceptance of the Faith of Jesus, is an appropriate alternative to
    the doctrinal faith in Jesus.  It is the difference between the
    unconditional gift of grace, that God offers, and the conditional gift
    of grace that some grasp for themselves and those who belief like them.
    
    Patricia

Re:  Faith of Jesus

Yes, indeed, Jesus believed in God the Father and aligned His
Will with the Father's Will.  I will willingly call Jesus'
trust and reliance on His Father as faith in His Father's
knowledge, wisdom, truthfulness and Jesus' belief that the
Father's Will was what was best and right.

I'd still maintain, however, that Jesus is not justified
by faith - Jesus needs no "justification" whatsoever.  Only
those who have sinned need to be justified.  There is no reason
whatsoever that Jesus was not entitled to stay on the throne
of heaven (where He returned to) for He did nothing to
deserve to be cast out of heaven (as, for example, Satan did).
But, he came down so that you and I could be "justified" -
because we ARE dead in our sins.

Re:  in/of

It is true that Romans 3:22 does not contain a preposition and
that it must therefore be assumed.  For this reason, it was not
the best verse for me to use (although I didn't realize that from
the English translation).  I'd like to pursue this from several
angles:

  1)  find more verses which are clearer

  2)  explore context to determine what makes sense

  3)  assign percentages (which is the probability of this
      meaning "of" as opposed to "in"

It will take a little time for me to do (1).  However, I have
already entered quite a bit of context for (2) in .275 which
you failed to comment on at all.  Please comment on Romans 4
which I think clearly shows that it is the faith of the man
that credits righteousness.  Is this true or isn't it?  Does
Romans 4 make any sense with a different meaning?

Let's look at a broader sense.  You wish to claim universal
salvation is taught by Paul.  But Paul also clearly teaches
a number of contradictory beliefs such as hell and some
saved/some not saved.  How does this interpretation stack up
against other Pauline teachings?  Against the teachings of
other prophets (i.e. John or Peter).

Good exegesis demands that *all* the evidence be fairly looked
at and weighed before coming in with a final determination.
Have you done this?

Finally, what are the probabilities that Romans 3:22 means
"of" vs. "in".  How do you assign those probabilities?  One
rule of good interpretation is that you give the least weight
to those texts which are less clear.  Assuming you take the
"of" meaning, how much weight are you giving this verse?  How
well does it reconcile with the immediate context?

Looking forward to our discussion,

Collis

    Collis,
    
    My argument never says that Jesus needs to be justified.
    
    The question is whether humankind is justified by Faith "in" Jesus or
    justified by the Faith "of" Jesus.  
    
    The "in" required the active works of each individual in their
    believing.  If the believer has to do something in order to receive
    grace(i.e. believe) then grace is not unconditional and God's love is
    not unconditional.
    
    The "of" requires no active work on the part of the individual.  It is
    Jesus' faith that justifies.  The new creation that  is created in
    humanity by the active work of God through Christ is a result of the
    unconditional gift of grace.  It is Jesus' Faith that justifies
    humanity and not the individual's faith in Jesus that brings
    justification to the individual.
    
    Patricia

Re:  .278

Hi Patricia,

I understand your position.  The points I made earlier
are just as applicable after you supplied more detail:

  1)  Jesus *had* faith in God, but you have not provided
      any Biblical evidence that he *needed* any faith in
      God

  2)  You continue to be very quiet regarding the Biblical
      justification for your position.

  3)  You are totally quiet on the passages I have explained
      (such as Romans 4) which is totally contrary to your
      position.

  4)  So, what is the probability that the implied preposition
      in Romans 3:22 should be "of" instead of "in"?

  >If the believer has to do something in order to receive grace
  >(i.e. believe) then grace is not unconditional and God's love is
  >not unconditional.
   
I think that this is just flat out and out wrong.  Whether
someone chooses to accept the grace offered has NOTHING to do
with whether the grace is offered unconditionally or if the
giver of grace has unconditional love.

I can think of two possible scenarios that conform to what I
hear you saying.  Please let me know if you believe one of these
(or supply your own correct scenario).

  1)  People don't have free will with regards to being freed
      from sin.  This is something outside of their control that
      only God can do and God sovereignly chooses whether or not
      to do it.  In your scenario, God has sovereignly chosen
      to free people from sin because of the faith of Jesus (in
      God? in something else?) and, because of this, all people
      will be saved.

  2)  People do have free will up to a point, but God can force
      them to accept his unconditional grace in regards to being
      free from sin.  In fact, if God didn't force them to be
      from from sin, He would not be unconditionally loving.  If
      an individual actually had to consciously accept the gift,
      then God is proven to have not offered an unconditional
      gift but only a selective gift.

Finally, here is what I understand the Bible to say:

  People are slaves to sin.  This started with Adam and Eve and
  their choice to disobey God.  This corrupted their spiritual
  nature and every person since created has had a corrupted
  spiritual nature (much the same way that a genetic mutation
  passes from generation to generation).  God, in his unconditional
  love for us, sent his Son down from heaven to live a perfect life
  and to die a substitionary death for all of us.  He freely allows
  anyone to apply Jesus' death as payment for the sins that we have
  committed *and* promises to indwell us and establish a new nature
  that will be totally perfected after we die and live in heaven
  with God.  However, we each have free will and can choose to
  not accept this unconditional gift.  God honors our choices although
  he grieves for those who love their sin more than His perfect gift
  and Himself.

Collis