Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    I agree with you Jim.  The phrase bothered me as well.  It is
    condesending, judgemental and parental.  I hope it is never again 
    uttered in this conference. 
    
    Karen

    Yes, I agree with you Jim and Karen.  After reading John Bradshaw's
    books and watching his TV series, I'm especially sensitive to this as
    well.  However, I did a search through this notesfile to see if it had
    been me who foolishly or inadvertently wrote that phrase but I couldn't
    find it!!!  Perhaps the person has thought it over and since deleted the
    note or phrase where it was used.
    
    Ro

    Ro,
    
    The note you are looking for is 197.22.
    
    Karen

    Thanks Karen, apparently search is case sensitive and because the
    phrase was in all uppercase, it couldn't locate it.
    
    Ro
    

    
    Re: This string
    
    First, I'm wondering if this ought to even be in this notes file,
    because this sure isn't a Christian Perspective, but more a personal
    problem.  I don't think you can provide ANY scripture in support of
    this.
    
    Furthermore, "Shame on you" is an exhortation to reflect upon your
    actions, a form of "admonishment", and not "judgement".  The only ones,
    IMO who would possibly be offended by such a thing are those who plan
    to continue in that way...
    
    In the note that I entered it, it was in response to a statement that
    disrespected the "ministers and teachers of God's word", as my teachers
    and ministers are not just "flesh and blood" men, but the angels and
    the Holy Spirit itself.  So if someone feels that those who instruct me
    are not good enough for them, that I consider wholly unacceptable
    according to God, and that person calling themselves a Christian just
    ought to be ashamed of themselves....tears come to my eyes to hear you
    speak again telling people to have some sense of shamefulness for doing
    or saying certain things.  
    
    Then people have nerve to argue when I speak on the "freedom and
    arrogance" allowed in the youth these days...no self discipline...
    
    Playtoe

    RE: .5  Playtoe
    
                       IMHO your statement about removing this string is
    a reaction of your faith and not necessarily un-Christian.  What I try
    to do is ask myself "What would Jesus do about this?".  Would he demand
    that all written thoughts be disallowed or would he kindly explain his
    truth?
    
                     
    Dave
                                

    Re: 6
    
    Dave,
    
    What are you saying?  A reaction to my faith?  "Not necessarily
    un-Christian?  Have I demanded that all written thoughts be disallowed? 
    Do I not ask for explanation (scriptural support) for this position?
    
    Do you feel it is unacceptable to tell a person they ought be ashamed
    of themselves?  Would Jesus?  
    
    The note should be disallowed because it is 1)not Christian-Perspective,
    2)a personal attack on me, fostering animosity for my notes, and
    3)totally without social benefit.
    
    It was just on the news how companies across the nation are finding the
    young employee force "incompetant" to deal with the business operations
    they have.  I would say that lack of self discipline, and moreso their
    incapacity to "listen and take directions" which is closely related to
    the issue of "freedom and arrogance in child raising", has much to do
    with it...
    
    Playtoe 

Note 205.7

>    Do I not ask for explanation (scriptural support) for this position?

Scriptural support, although frequently valuable and useful, is not a
requirement here in C-P.
    
>    Do you feel it is unacceptable to tell a person they ought be ashamed
>    of themselves?  Would Jesus?  

I don't recall Jesus using the expression, "Shame on you."  But that is not
to say that Jesus wouldn't.

>    The note should be disallowed because it is 1)not Christian-Perspective,

Shame?  Guilt?  These are certainly at least a part of some Christians'
experience.

>    2)a personal attack on me, fostering animosity for my notes, and

Huh?  Do you mean because your use of the expression, "Shame on you," was
the inspiration for this string that it's a personal attack?

>    3)totally without social benefit.

That's moot.
    
>    Playtoe

I know this is not your given name.  May I be so bold as to ask how you
acquired it?

I'm curious about other aspects about you, also.  Feel free to answer only
those questions you are comfortable with answering, okay?

I might be wrong, but I sense you were raised in a culture other than within
the United States.  Is this correct?  If it is, what culture was it?  And,
also, when did you begin living in the U.S.?

I don't recall you sharing this elsewhere.  Forgive me if I'm being redundant.

Peace,
Richard

    RE: .8  (Playtoe)
    
                        I will admit that my .7 was something of a "knee-
    jerk" reaction.  I see this file as a unique opportunity to express
    to all who read this file how Christians can love and care for people.
    .0 in my mind stated a belief and an honest opinion.  I saw your reply
    (.6) as rather harsh.  With your obvious intelligence and your "flair"
    for writing (thats a sincere compliment) coupled with your zeal for
    Christ, I see your participation here as a big plus for the Christian
    point of view. To have the opportunity to witness to this many people,
    is unique.  As my mother used to say "its *not* what you say, but
    *how* you say it that is important".  Since what you say is truth, then
    how you say it is that much more important.
    
    
    Dave

re: Note 205.5 by PLAYTOE

Hi Playtoe,

>       -< This is not a Christian Perspective, and should be removed >-

I accept Christ as my Lord and Saviour, and the base note is a sharing of my 
perspective.  I say it *is* a Christian Perspective.  I stand by what I wrote 
and will not delete it nor set it hidden at this time.  Should you wish to 
bring this to moderator attention, then I will abide by their decision.

However, to paraphrase you in note 197.19, "if you deny that mine is a valid 
perspective, then you deny my existence."  Would you deny my existence?
    
>    Re: This string
>    
>    First, I'm wondering if this ought to even be in this notes file,
>    because this sure isn't a Christian Perspective, but more a personal
>    problem.  I don't think you can provide ANY scripture in support of
>    this.

Again, I say it is a Christian Perspective.  

Interestingly, having gone back and reread 197.22, this isn't the first time
you have perceived a "personal problem".  Frankly, in the contexts in which I
read that, it appears to me to be a way of dismissing the opinion and denying
the perspective. 

But if it is a personal problem to be grieved by what another says, to be so
open as to allow oneself to be moved by another, in pain or joy, then I
embrace that "problem".  Recall that Jesus wept. 

Indeed I made no secret in my base note that in fact much of what I now am is 
a result of "personal problems", personal problems that through the Grace of 
God have raised me to new heights.  I believe I made that quite clear as well.

Alongside grief and sorrow, I have known unexpressible joy and gladness.
I don't think I'd be quite human otherwise.
 
As far as providing scripture, my prayerful reading of Genesis through the 
Revelation of John has lead me to say what I say.
    
>    Furthermore, "Shame on you" is an exhortation to reflect upon your
>    actions, a form of "admonishment", and not "judgement".  The only ones,
>    IMO who would possibly be offended by such a thing are those who plan
>    to continue in that way...

Thank you for sharing your understanding of the phrase.  Recall that I shared 
*my* understanding in .0, and based my writing on that.  I did not intend to 
castigate you, Playtoe, it is simply a case that a chance expression you 
happened to use caught my notice, and I chose to share my perspective on it.  
Never once did I specify who said it or where, as that was not important to 
the purpose of that note.

Perhaps in suggesting that this string be removed, you show that you have a 
personal problem?  .-) .-) .-)  (note the smily faces!  I don't use colons
'cause I'm blind in one eye.)  (but that's ANOTHER personal problem... .-) 
    
>    In the note that I entered it, it was in response to a statement that
>    disrespected the "ministers and teachers of God's word", as my teachers
>    and ministers are not just "flesh and blood" men, but the angels and
>    the Holy Spirit itself.  So if someone feels that those who instruct me
>    are not good enough for them, that I consider wholly unacceptable
>    according to God, and that person calling themselves a Christian just
>    ought to be ashamed of themselves....tears come to my eyes to hear you
>    speak again telling people to have some sense of shamefulness for doing
>    or saying certain things.  

Going back and reading the note you entered and the note you were responding 
to, et cetera, what I see this:

in note 197.19 you wrote

    "...I've been told by many ministers and teachers throughout my Christian 
     life, that if you read the bible and aren't convicted from time to time 
     you aren't reading it right.  So the bible itself challenges and conquers 
     us/our natural/carnal minds."

For what it's worth, I agree with that statement 100 %.  However, given no
overt mention of angels or the Spirit of God it seems a reasonable possible 
conclusion through those words that "ministers and teachers" refers to mortal
ministers and teachers.  I believe that THAT understanding is what the
comments in 197.20 are based upon. 

Then you (using your understanding of the term) exhort the writer to reflect 
upon their actions, claiming that their words were "disrepectful" to 
 'not just "flesh and blood" men, but the angels and the Holy Spirit itself'
as they are the "ministers and teachers" you referred to.

But that is an ad hoc argument!  Is it not better to clarify what you had
originally meant, than to say one's action was disrepectful to angels and the
Holy Spirit when in fact, in the note being responded to, there was no such
mention? 

Furthermore, I didn't read their comments as being disrespectful of ANY 
ministers or teachers, mortal or ethereal.  Simply that the specifics your 
teachers impart to you may not be the exact same specifics that apply to 
another. 

Yes, there is only "One Way", but we each have different feet with which to 
tread it.  (Admittedly, the tension was getting rather high in that
notestring.  Perhaps some of this was lost in the heat of the moment.) 

>    Then people have nerve to argue when I speak on the "freedom and
>    arrogance" allowed in the youth these days...no self discipline...

I'm not sure exactly which point in this string you are referring to, and
while I might disagree as to exactly what I perceive as arrogance, (not just
with your perceptions, Playtoe, but with those of Nancy, the several Mikes,
Ro, Collis, Karen, or ANYone) I most definitely agree, freedom is not a
license for chaos, and carries with it a responsibility for one's actions. 

And as we do have some measure of freedom in this notesfile to say what we 
wish, and we DO have the power to injure others with our words, whether by 
intent or not, therefore we also have a responsibility to see that our words 
are used wisely and with lovingkindness.

Peace,

Jim

    
    
    Gee, there are a few things that I've entered in this conference that
    are not from a Christian Perspective.  How could they be when I am not
    a Christian?  No one ever said that notes could not be entered here
    based on this premise.
    
    Carole

    Re: 9
    
    You are correct, in that it is how you say what you say, however, (this
    is not a reflection on your mother, please) I have always thought it
    untowards to say "It is not what you say" to precede that, because to
    it's both, what you say and how you say it.  To say that "It's not what
    you say," some take that too seriously and don't mind what they say and
    say foolish things 'in a nice way'.
    
    I to am blessed by this conference, even yesterday and last night I was
    blessed by your comments in the Piety note, see my response.
    
    It's a pleasure to find you here, forever stay :-)
    
    Also, I don't mind the topic focusing on my notes as long as the result
    doesn't cause me ill-report...let us deal with the subject of "Shame on
    you", and not with my supposed attitude, because if it's my attitude
    then this is an attack on me...I have no desire to fight, but to grow. 
    
    My zeal is great, my knowledge and understanding improving, my love is
    growing, all to the glory of God and the brotherhood of his children...
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 10
    
>However, to paraphrase you in note 197.19, "if you deny that mine is a valid 
>perspective, then you deny my existence."  Would you deny my existence?
 
    No, I will not deny your or anyone's existence, and that's why I will
    not report it to the moderators.  I feel we as brothers and sisters in
    Christ should handle this ourselves.
    
>Interestingly, having gone back and reread 197.22, this isn't the first time
>you have perceived a "personal problem".  Frankly, in the contexts in which I
>read that, it appears to me to be a way of dismissing the opinion and denying
>the perspective. 
    
    Well, if I perceive it a personal problem, it means simple that the
    person has to work this out themselves, it doesn't dismiss the opinion
    or deny the perspective, it merely says I shouldn't respond to that,
    lest I get in an argument.
    
>But if it is a personal problem to be grieved by what another says, to be so
>open as to allow oneself to be moved by another, in pain or joy, then I
>embrace that "problem".  Recall that Jesus wept. 
    
    Yes, Jesus wept, and this brought a tear to my eye.  That's about all
    that can be done in such cases, along with prayer.
    
>Perhaps in suggesting that this string be removed, you show that you have a 
>personal problem?  .-) .-) .-)  (note the smily faces!  I don't use colons
>'cause I'm blind in one eye.)  (but that's ANOTHER personal problem... .-) 
    
    God bless your infirmity...may it never cause you sorrow and grief, but
    ever joy in that you add a blessing to all of us with full sight, and a
    sense of humbleness to those who take sight for granted...God Bless
    YOU.
    
> 'not just "flesh and blood" men, but the angels and the Holy Spirit itself'
>as they are the "ministers and teachers" you referred to.

>But that is an ad hoc argument!  Is it not better to clarify what you had
>originally meant, than to say one's action was disrepectful to angels and the
>Holy Spirit when in fact, in the note being responded to, there was no such
>mention? 
    
    Yes, I see what you're saying.  You say you agree with the statement
    100%, which I would suppose any Christian would (being of one mind). 
    But the response to my note implies or ignores that truth and sort of
    slams those who taught it to me.  I said my ministers and teachers
    *include* the angels and Holy Spirit, only to counter the idea that the
    person rejects my statements based upon my ministers and teachers,
    which I've had done before because they suppose I mean Black ministers
    and teachers, whom they don't care to hear from.  But no only this but
    also that one person's teachers in Christ may not be good enough for
    another (which is understandable, but the ministers and teachers of
    must needs be received, because Christ is not divided), I listen to any
    Christian (and this is not a variable of race).
    
>teachers impart to you may not be the exact same specifics that apply to 
>another. 
    
    In some instances of personal problems yes, but in generalities
    no...it's like Black folks who use to say "The white man's ice is
    colder" or "The White man's coal burns hotter", it's all ice and coal!
    
>And as we do have some measure of freedom in this notesfile to say what we 
>wish, and we DO have the power to injure others with our words, whether by 
>intent or not, therefore we also have a responsibility to see that our words 
>are used wisely and with lovingkindness.
    
    As you have done so well, thank you.  I will try, no, I will be more 
    careful.
    
    Playtoe
    

    Re: 11
    
>    Gee, there are a few things that I've entered in this conference that
>    are not from a Christian Perspective.  How could they be when I am not
>    a Christian? 
    
    Incidently, you don't have to be a Christian to say and do Christian
    things, as Mr. Dawson points out the scripture Romans 10:?  "The word
    is nigh thee, even on thy tongue and in thy heart."  It just comes
    natural!
    
    The notes don't necessarily have to of Christian Perspective, I know
    this, but their is a perspective (that doesn't offend the rules) that
    is not good for this file...All things are lawful, but all things are
    not expedient!  I'm not the one however to say what stays or goes, but
    from experience I know this to be true.
    
    Anyway, why aren't you a Christian?  
    
    Playtoe
    Pl

Playtoe -

I think I'm beginning to understand where we took a wrong turn in the discussion. 
When your teachers' and ministers' teachings were rejected by another noter
you seem to have assumed it was because they were black not because the noter
disagreed with the ideas.  From my perspective I don't think that's a fair 
assumption to make without checking first with the author to clarify what
was meant.

Nanci

Playtoe, 

I thank you for your reply (205.13).  It was truly a blessing to read.

May your love of God burn hot as coals, 
and be as refreshing as ice-chilled water.    .-)

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .14 Playtoe
    
    >Anyway, why aren't you a Christian?  
    
    Hmmm....do you have a few hours?   Just kidding...;^)!
    
    First, here is just a little bit of my background.  I was born and
    raised a Roman Catholic.  Went through 8 years of parochial school, and
    many more years of attending church every week, going to confession,
    receiving communion, praying the rosary, etc.  I reached a point where
    that just wasn't fulfilling for me.  I like where I am right now...
    being able to be open to a variety of ideas and experiences, letting
    them go when they don't work anymore, and inviting something new in.
    
    What I want to be now is more of who I am.  To be as fully the being
    that God created me to be as I can.  Structures and labels, to me,
    mean nothing really.
    
    I came across this little story in a book that I am currently reading.

    'There is a story about Martin Buber, the great Jewish philosopher,
     ...  It seems that one day it dawned on him that if he ever got to 
    heaven, the Lord would probably not ask him, "Martin, why were you 
    not more like Moses?" but rather, "Martin, why were you not more 
    like Martin Buber?"

    
    Carole Ann Fretts

    re 8
    
>Scriptural support, although frequently valuable and useful, is not a
>requirement here in C-P.
    
    Yes I know, but among brothers and sisters it would be nice.
    
>>    The note should be disallowed because it is 1)not Christian-Perspective,

>Shame?  Guilt?  These are certainly at least a part of some Christians'
>experience.
    
    Yes, I hope I can get this sort of consideration as well...
    
>>    2)a personal attack on me, fostering animosity for my notes, and

>Huh?  Do you mean because your use of the expression, "Shame on you," was
>the inspiration for this string that it's a personal attack?
    
    If mines is the only one referenced, and the discussion is a negative
    one YES...as I said return this consideration to me Richard, I'm gonna
    note this.
    
>I know this is not your given name.  May I be so bold as to ask how you
>acquired it?

    About 10 years ago, 2 years after studying with a certain man of God
    for two years, I was walking at the beach meditating on the Lord, and
    this name came to my mind...I thought to myself "how is it spelt?"
    (because you have toe, tow or Pla-to) and the spelling came to my mind
    P L A Y T O E.  I looked up the words "Play, is the spontaneous
    activity of Children," and "toe, is to stay within the prescribed
    limits or boundaries, as in "to TOE the line".  It represents the
    manner or character I expressed while going through an experience with
    the Lord.  In other words, "I'm a playful person, but I toe the line".  
    It's a name I believe was given to me by God, it is a perfect name for
    me, and I am PLAYTOE, a son of God.  As it is written in Revelations
    "To those who overcome I will give you a name, which no man knoweth
    save him that receiveth it."  I can tell you about the name, but noone
    will ever know it like me, because I am Playtoe...that's my faith in
    this name.  If I deny that God gave it, I'd have to deny ever message
    that I have received in the manner in which I received this name (i.e.
    it was spoken into my conscious mind, I did not consciously contrive
    the name, it just came as I was meditating on the Lord)...that's
    enough of that.
    
    My given name is Steven James Dothard, which I also find Christian
    correspondence in.  Steven/Stephen was "full of faith", Stephen spoke
    mainly of "Joseph being sold into Egypt", Joseph was sold into Egypt at
    the city of Dothan (i.e. Doth=does, an is a suffix, so is ard).  The
    book of James is written to the Tribes scattered abroad, the only one
    so addressed.  I am of the tribe of JOSEPH, an Israelite.  
    
    I am my father's FIRSTborn, my mother's THIRD son of SEVEN sons
    altogether she had.  Thus, 1-3-7, there is but ONE God, manifested in
    THREE aspects/persons, radiating/emanating SEVEN spirits in men.  As my
    father's firstborn I am naturally dedicated to the service of the
    Lord....this is my faith concerning father's firstborns.
    
>I'm curious about other aspects about you, also.  Feel free to answer only
>those questions you are comfortable with answering, okay?

    Yes, I will, and I hope you receive the answers as faithfully as I
    offer them.
    
>I might be wrong, but I sense you were raised in a culture other than within
>the United States.  Is this correct?  If it is, what culture was it?  And,
>also, when did you begin living in the U.S.?

    No, I was born and raised in Lansing, MI.  It's just that I have made a
    serious commitment to God and myself to "go to heaven".  I made this at
    a very young age and have never repented of it.  I believe we are
    aliens in the world, as Christ says, and I view this world as a
    temporary place for me.  I look forward to the transformation.  I am
    occasionally asked this sort of thing.  Once a woman, who was
    apparently very spiritual, talked with me a moment, and immediately
    sensed what you've sensed, she asked me, "How do you get along with
    people?"  She made me know she was referring to what she thought, that
    I had evolved spiritually so much that material reality must be
    difficult for me to cope with.  I told her, that you can't live on the
    mountain top, you just go there for instruction and confirmation.  Once
    you get to the top you must come back to reality and readjust according
    to your new spiritual state...if you understand what I'm saying.  In
    other words, after you "Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven" and have
    found it, you still have to live out your life on earth, for this is
    promised.  It used to be different before Christ however.
    
>I don't recall you sharing this elsewhere.  Forgive me if I'm being redundant.
    
    No I hadn't shared this before because I didn't want that to influence
    the noters.  I wanted my words and ways to testify of my faith...and
    not my credentials.
    
    God bless..
    
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 15
    
>I think I'm beginning to understand where we took a wrong turn in the discussion. 
>When your teachers' and ministers' teachings were rejected by another noter
>you seem to have assumed it was because they were black not because the noter
>disagreed with the ideas.  From my perspective I don't think that's a fair 
>assumption to make without checking first with the author to clarify what
>was meant.
    
    No, I am black.  When the person rejected my ministers and teachers, or
    moreso the teachings of my ministers and teachers, 1)it is my belief
    that any Christian teacher or minister (that is truly sincere) is as
    good as another, so I don't know why the person would disrespect mine,
    when Christ is not divided, 2)if one thinks that race is a factor in
    the ability of one to minister and teach the Word of God to them, that
    is a personal problem, and 3)the person's statement was quite clear. 
    The statement is clearly one of arrogance...IMO.
    
    If you knew me better, which you will come to know me if you keep
    questioning why I do what I do, you'd know I'm only helping the
    Christian be a better Christian...there was no need for one to say what
    was said about my ministers and teachers, they need only discuss their
    teachings.  The moderator told me that I should focus more on the
    theology and my experiences and not criticize....yet no one told this
    person that.  Why?
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 16
    
    
                             ooooo     oooooo
                             o   o     o    o
                             ooooo     ooooo
    
                                    o
    
                             (              )
                              (            )
                                ~~~~~~~~~~
    
                   This is suppose to be a happy face!
    
    Thanks for you're comment, it brought a serious smile to my heart.
    
    Playtoe

Playtoe - 

What *I* read was that the person was not being disrespecful to the source
of the ideas but that there was disagreement with the validity of those 
beliefs in terms of his/her personal beliefs.  This is not disrespect, it's
merely a difference of opinion.  I didn't hear anyone saying "your teachers
are wrong/bad/untrue".  It seemed to me that your response indicated that
this *is* what *you* heard.  Maybe we've just got a miscommunication loop
going here.

Nanci

    RE: 17
    
    Carole,
    
    So, you were raised a Catholic, I would suppose that you have been
    baptised in the name of Jesus and have at sometime in the past accepted
    Christ as your saviour, have you?
    
    If you have, here's my question;
    
    I believe in once saved always saved, do you?  If you were once a
    Christian you are always a Christian.  We backslide, but God is married
    to the backslider.
    
    Anyway, I was raised in the Baptist Church, but at the age of 24 I too
    felt I needed what is called "strong meat", because I was seriously
    tired of the milk diet.  So I said or prayed to God, to "make yourself
    more real in my life, or I'll have to give this Christian thing a
    rest."  And God made himself more real to me at that time, and also
    lead me to where I could get some "strong meat".  
    
    Which being raised a Baptist took so doing.  Because the first thing I
    begin to be lead to was a man who was hard pressed to teach me about
    Astrology, and the planets and the harmony of the spheres, and Egypt
    and a whole lot of esotericism, which I was totally against.  But God
    said "Go ahead, I am with you".  As the scripture say, "you shall not
    be confounded, just love God."  So I did, and I know that Astrology and
    the stars their cycles and angles and seasons and signs were all placed
    in ORDER by God.  And this is necessary for me to know, the order and
    cycles in the heavens, in order to relate to the universiality of God's
    power and Word...for the same thing is seen in the behavior of Atoms.  
    
    You don't know how much against Astrology I was before I came into the
    knowledge of it, or the Occult Sciences, or the Kabala, or any thing
    like that, the doctrine of the Pyramids, etc.  But now I know it is
    part of the strong meats.  As Hebrews 7 or 6 says, "Now leaving the
    principles of the doctrine of Christ let us go on to perfection." or
    something like that...
    
    Anyway, may the Holy Spirit guide to a knowledge of God and a place in
    his kingdom suitable to your own mind....God bless you.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 21
    
    Nanci, 
    
    Well if the person didn't agree with the teachings, they should speak on
    that (like the moderator told me).  But to say "your ministers and
    teachers...whatever", is offensive.  If you told you something like
    that how would you feel?
    
    Anyway it's no problem really, I said what I had to say about it "Shame
    on you" was my admonishment...did I really do something that bad it
    responding like that, such that it carries on this far...making it look
    like I'm an oddball, trouble maker....I'm definitely not the only
    outspoken person in this notes file and not the first or last to offend
    someone...
    
    If you were me you could understand why I interpret things as I do, and
    if I were you vice-versa.  But "Shame on you" is commonly said in the
    Black community, and I find it good to cause a person to reflect on
    self...some people just don't want nobody to tell them nothing...that's
    a personal problem, no man is an island.
    
    Playtoe

    
    RE: .22
    
    Playtoe....yes, I was baptized.  But I never specifically, in so many
    words, accepted Christ as my saviour.  Not in the way that a person
    going through the 'born-again' experience does anyway.  I accept that
    a precious aspect of the Christ Consciousness exists in my heart and
    has been flowering in its own way and in its own time.
    
    I am really enjoying reading the last few replies you have entered in
    this string, as well as a couple of other notes.  There is a tenderness
    coming through that I haven't seen before.
    
    I too have studied astrology for quite a number of years and basically
    feel about it very similarly to the way you have described your
    feelings.
    
    Here's another excerpt from that book (by Alice O. Howell) I'm reading....

	
	"Astrology, mother of astronomy in ages past, gives us one great
	talisman as we venture into the unknown.  It is the secret assurance
	that underneath the bewildering confusion of our lives there abides
	a cosmic order, a majestic and transcendent beauty so great that it
	bespangles the heavens with one sweeping arc, fearing not at the 
	same time to miniaturize itself in the infinitesimal universe of an
	atom, or in the incoming gasp of a newborn infant, or the outgoing
	gasp of one dying.  The study of astrology should remind us that,
	though we share the process of creating, we ourselves and our 
	wondrous worlds within worlds are created.  We did not create 
	ourselves.  Even our bodies were created by our parents and theirs...
	and on and on back to whom?  Who created our psyches?  The answer
	to that surely is a paradox.

	...as Jungian psychology and its equivalents are intended teleo-
	logically to lead to spiritual unfolding, so too is astrology.  It
	pays to remember that astrology began thousands of years ago when
	science (based on observation) was one with religion (based on awe).
	When the two split, astrology's role in uniting them was repudiated;
	religion lost its objective proof and science lost its sense of the
	sacred.  However, the resulting tension and polarity may yet have a
	constructive outcome:  a greater consciousness of how astrology
	might serve in bringing about a new and deeper awareness of the
	essential affinity of these two.  The human race will live in deadly
	and daily peril until religion and science are reconciled and 
	reunited, both within us as individuals and collectively on our
	fragile and lovely planet.  The great trap for many religions today
	is the emphasis on "being good".  Being good is the natural by-
	product, not the goal, of being kind and loving to the Divine Guest
	within oneself and others.  As with innocence, the minute you try
	to achieve it, you lost it!  A shift of emphasis seems required.

	We need to remember that astrology itself is neither a religion
	nor a science.  Like mathematics and geometry, it is simply a
	built-in characteristic of the cosmos as we know it.  Dane Rudhyar
	defined astrology as "an algebra of life".  To pursue its study for
	me is like reaching out into the darkness and void and touching
	the face of God.

	Once I wrote a little poem:

	STARS

	Each star
	is a kiss
	I would give you -
	should others
	wake to a starless night
	you would be lying
	in my arms
	covered with light.
                             A.O.

	...So many in the world are reaching for higher consciousness,
	unaware and unremembering that the angels descend as well as ascend.
	It is only fair, therefore, that we remember them as we wait in line
	at the supermarket or bend over our desks in the office or walk the
	nightwatch on an aircraft carrier or with a child sick with a fever.
	The fair exchange would be to do it for the angels, in the same way
	that they in their dimension are doing it for us.  We just might
	turn our mortality into a privilege, something as precious as the
	golden ring of quiddity."

    
    
    	Carole

Maybe it is just a difference in background, Palytoe.  If somebody said
"Shame on you" to me I would perceive it as a judgement that I am bad in
some way.  This is because of some of the things that happened to me when I 
was a growing up.  There are many people who were raised to feel ashamed of
themselves to the point of feeling shame for their very existence, as if 
they didn't have the right to exist.  Some of this was fostered by our parents
and some of this was fostered by the church and its' teachers and teachings.
To me, and to many people who are trying to heal the blame and 
shame they were given as a child, this would be one of the most offensive and
unkind things anyone could say.  It would be perceived as a personal attack.
I understand that you felt that saying it was a kindness, meant to foster
growth.  To me, growth is better nurtured with honey and bread than with 
fire and judgement.  I guess what I'm trying to do here is to acknowledge
that your heart was in the right place and try to help you to see why you
got the response you did and that it didn't have anything to do with racism.
I'm trying to acknowledge *your* intent and I want you to acknowledge mine.

Nanci

Playtoe,

You seem to have two complaints:

    1. This topic is an attack on you because it is in response to your
       saying "Shame on you" in another topic.

    2. In another topic someone attacked your ministers and teachers
       without being warned by the moderators about it.

Is this true?  Regarding the second point, is this the note you are
complaining about:

197.21>    The Bible is only one source of religion for me.  Don't tell me I'm
197.21>    wrong and don't tell me how to live my life.  Your ministers and
197.21>    teachers tell you what works for them, and maybe something else works
197.21>    for me.
    
I don't see this passage as being an attack on your ministers and teachers;
it's simply a statement of the author's belief that a teaching that works
for one person may not work for someone else.

In regards to the first point, I think the note is legitimate because it
expresses someone's feeling that they were being attacked in another topic.
It's not an attack on you; it's a reaction to an attack that they thought you
were making on them.  I hope the note has at least made you more aware of
the (possibly unintended) effect your notes have on other people.

Perhaps all sides in this dispute can put this behind them now and move
on to more positive subjects.

				-- Bob (co-moderator)

    RE 24
    
    Carole,  
    
    Truly a precious aspect of the Christ Consciousness exists in your
    heart, else how could it be shared and received as I have now from you?
    
    The passage on Astrology is beautiful and indeed reflects how I have
    come to perceive the heavens.  Cosmic Order, yes, reflects the
    "majesty" of God.  So much to see and know, and an eternity to discover
    it, all we need is Immortality, or Eternal Life, and that's what I want
    more than anything...more than riches and social status.  Each day I
    try to find a way to improve the chances of me making it through the
    change, without too much being "burned in the fire".
    
    I'm moved to the thought "You must come to attention before you can
    come to 'at ease'".  The men were at ease before the captain came in,
    but he called them to 'attention', then said "at ease, as you were",
    Why?  Why doesn't he just let them remain "at ease, as they were"?  Why
    must he call them first to "attention"?  This is a serious concept to
    me, in regards to Cosmic Order.  The Cosmos was before me, and I came
    into it doing this and that, paying it no mind.  Then when it called me
    to "attention" and I saw it standing there before me, in all its
    majesty and glory I was in "awe", then it said "at ease, as you were",
    but how could I ever again be "as I was"?  That's something special.
    
    Nanci, just for the record I'd like you to go to a church, any one you
    want, just one time, and have yourself baptisted properly, if you never
    go back to that church again, it'll be on record...just a thought.
    
    Playtoe, In the Spirit of Truth

    Re: 25
    
    You know, I do realize what you're saying about the circumstances of
    some peoples childhoods and the things they were told and how they
    perceive themselves, perhaps that's why I'm so totally willing to
    submit to the Lord's will, because in Him ALL THAT CRAP is HEALED.  And
    the all caps isn't "flame on" but "REJOICE ON"!  
    
> To me, growth is better nurtured with honey and bread than with 
>fire and judgement. 
    
    If there's one seriously wrong thing about being mistreated as a child
    you grow up and never want to be hurt again.  But, I'm telling you, God
    "chastises" those he loves (I'm not saying I'm God, but God uses me and
    you and others, so) and when you come to God he and/or the angels may
    test you and try you to establish you.  Trust the brotherhood and their
    admonishing, and come to the fullness of the stature of Children of God
    in Christ...surely the hurt/chastisement received in the name of the
    Lord has a greater reward and outcome than the chastisement of this
    world....
    
    gotta go, will continue later.
    
    
    Playtoe

    Re: .18
    
    Thank you.

Playtoe - 

FYI - I was baptized when I was a baby and confirmed in the Episcopalian church
when I was 12.  My association with mainline Christianity did me (and most of
my family) more harm than good.  I don't believe in performing a ritual act
just to hedge my bets.  To me, this is the vilest form of hypocrisy.  Given
what I have learned about and experienced of mainline Christianity in my adult
years I would not choose to go back and do it again.  

I think it's time for me to bow out of this conversation.  There seems to be
no way that you can even come to any kind of acceptance of or respect for
my beliefs.  

Nanci

    RE: 30
    
    How or why should I come to an acceptance of beliefs like "Christianity
    did me (and most of my family) more harm than good"...how can I respect
    that?
    
    If you told this to Jesus, would he accept and respect this?  The bible
    teaches us that those who believe no benefit has come to them from
    knowing Christ do not look back and discern what God has given them.  I
    am sure if you reexamined your life, in the right perspective, you'd
    find great benefit in your having come into the knowledge of
    Christianity.
    
> I don't believe in performing a ritual act just to hedge my bets. 
    
    Then you really don't understand "ritual".  We have "sales rallies",
    this is a ritual performed to "psyche us up" to do our business.  In
    the same way, all rituals have this purpose, to "psyche us up" for the
    task ahead.  I hope you can see that we all perform "rituals" and they
    do serve to "hedge our bets" as you say.
    
    So you go ahead and bow out if you think our disagreement warrants
    it...but where will that leave us?  Or don't you care?
    
    Don't get mad JUST because we disagree, what is the nature of the
    disagreement (i.e. it's not how I'm saying what it is that we disagree
    upon, it is what I'm saying that is important).
    
    Nanci, are you still there?
    
    Playtoe
    

Re: .31

Playtoe,

If you don't respect Nanci's beliefs, why do you expect her to respect yours?

Just a thought.

				-- Bob

Playtoe - 

The reason that I am unwilling to continue discussing this with you is that
what I hear from you is that there is ONE perspective on all issues, YOURS. 

How can I possibly discuss anything with you when my perspective is discounted
as invalid since it does not agree with yours?  Yes, my beliefs are different
than yours because my background and experiences are different.  I have not
lived your life, nor you mine.  I am perfectly willing to hear and consider
your viewpoint.  Why should I share mine when the only response that I get is
"you're wrong, and here's why you're wrong, because you're not like me".

One thing this discussion has done is force me to evaluate my calling myself
a Christian.  After the discussions that have gone on here in the last week
I no longer wish to be associated with the group labelled "Christian".  To me
Christian means "Christ-like".  Judgement, name-calling and labelling does
not seem Christ-like to me.  From my point of view, we are all children of God
regardless of our backgrounds, our racial, religious, societal heritage, we are
all siblings in that we come from the same source.  To me, each person should
be equally valued and honored by the othersfor our common source as well as
their uniqueness.  Maybe I'm just terribly naive to allow this sort of dishonor 
of mine and others' spiritual beliefs and paths hurt me.  Maybe I'm wrong for
allowing it to silence me.  But, at this time I really don't feel I have the
emotional strength to follow through any more than I've already done.  I don't
expect agreement but I do expect acknowledgement and an honoring of that which 
I believe and that which I am.

I think Bob said it more succinctly.

Nanci

    RE: 32
    
    I respect everyone's right to have beliefs of whatever nature, but I
    don't respect ALL beliefs.  Some beliefs are wrong.
    
    I think we have to have some level of discernment for righteousness and
    wickedness.  I don't ask anyone to respect my beliefs to the
    disregarding of truth, right and wrong.  If I'm wrong TELL ME/SHOW ME
    I'm wrong, so I can get right...that's love.  If you let me continue in
    ignorance you don't love me.  So where does respect come into to all
    this?
    
    Jesse Jackson spoke at my church here in LA yesterday (applause,
    applause!).  His opening statement really stuck to me.  He said,
    
    	"If God is omnicient, or all knowing, then we ought to know
    something.  If God is omnipotent, or all powerful, we ought to have
    some power.  If God is omnipresent, or everywhere, we ought to be
    somewhere."
    
    And truly if God is all these things, we his Children, ought to have
    some of these qualities too.
    
    Playtoe

    RE: 33
    
    Then go, and quit Christianity Nanci, if you expect I or anyone should
    honor you as a Christian making statements contrary to the Christian
    faith...
    
    And if you honestly feel that you should be so honored, then why do you
    attack my "racial" or other beliefs?  
    
    If you had love for me now your emotions would not be draining now!
    
    Playtoe

Re: .34 Playtoe

>    If I'm wrong TELL ME/SHOW ME
>    I'm wrong, so I can get right...that's love.

I'm not sure if I'm speaking for Nanci, but...

There are some of us who don't think that it's possible to provide proofs
for religious beliefs.  We may think that you are probably wrong, but we can't
*prove* that you are wrong.  We are quite willing to let you go on believing
what you believe, and we hope that you will extend the same courtesy to us.

>    So where does respect come into to all this?
    
You may not agree with what Nanci believes, but you should at least be polite
about it.

				-- Bob

Playtoe - 

I feel grief and sorrow that you can't see that I can look beyond the color
or your skin and that no matter how many times I say this or how true my
words are you cannot perceive me as anything but part of "them"  I grieve
not only for you as an individual, but for all of those who still carry the
wrongs that were done in the past by generations long buried and who fan 
the flames of hatred by assuming that each person that they meet thinks 
in terms of "us and them".   I could not grieve what I do not love.

I honor your heritage and I would right all of the wrongs if it was in my 
power to do so.  But it is not.  All I can do is be true to my belief that
we are all equal in the eyes of God.  I think what I was looking for is for
you to see, just for a minute, that equality, not our differences.

Nanci

    RE: 37
    
    Nanci,
    
    Looking beyond "colors" takes more than just a decision to do so, it
    requires that you study and know all the ways or expressions which
    emanate from the "racist mind set" that has influenced the minds of the
    people of this country.  
    
    You know, only after reading books like Kenneth Stampps's Peculiar
    Institution, did I realize just how much slavery has effected my
    present behavior.  I perceived that some of the ways in which it has
    effected me have come down to me from my parents and the black society
    in general as things that have always been done that way.  I find
    myself continuing in those ways unawares.  Only having had them pointed
    out to me did I perceive them and I was totally blown away.  I was
    thinking I was doing fine in overcoming racism, until I learned what
    racism really was and its deep-seated effects in America...if you have
    elliminated "color" from you perception you are special.  But I don't
    think you have, and that's my opinion, take it or leave...nor have I. 
    But one thing I do, is whenever I find myself doing those things that
    I am compelled to do by racism, I try to do something about that.
    
    You're talking a whole lot of stuff that I could tell you better than
    you tell me...and that's for sure, Nanci.  Damn the sorrow and the
    grief and let's get ourselves back right with God...that's my motto, no
    matter how much it hurts me, I'm gonna change for God.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 39
    
    You're a moderator aren't you Richard....aren't you suppose to be
    better than this?
    
    Let me work out and implement my approach to communications, please. 
    If I break the rules or you wish to expell me from notes please do so,
    God will judge with justice, I have no fear of what may come of me for
    doing as I have done...I've done this, this way, for years, and it
    works for me and those who don't reject me receive great benefit by the
    way I do what I do...those who reject me, however, do great detriment
    to themselves...we can wait and see!  Please stop being against me,
    because I am for you in Christ.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: .40
    
    I am for you in Christ, too, as are others here; though you
    continue to treat them as though they were not.
    
    I was not speaking as a moderator.  If I was, there would be no
    doubt in anyone's mind.  I would mark it as such.
    
    Richard

    re: .34, Playtoe,
    
>    I respect everyone's right to have beliefs of whatever nature, but I
>    don't respect ALL beliefs.  Some beliefs are wrong.
    
    We have been saying that som  of *your* beliefs are wrong and that many of
    them have been set forth in an unloving manner.
    
>    I think we have to have some level of discernment for righteousness and
>    wickedness.  I don't ask anyone to respect my beliefs to the
>    disregarding of truth, right and wrong.  If I'm wrong TELL ME/SHOW ME
>    I'm wrong, so I can get right...that's love. 
    
    People have done this; you refuse to acknowledge it.  There is no *one*
    standard for truth in this conference, yet you insist that *you* have
    *THE truth.*
    
    Nancy

    re: .33, Nanci,
    
>One thing this discussion has done is force me to evaluate my calling myself
>a Christian.  After the discussions that have gone on here in the last week
>I no longer wish to be associated with the group labelled "Christian".  To me
>Christian means "Christ-like".  Judgement, name-calling and labelling does
>not seem Christ-like to me.  From my point of view, we are all children of God
    
    I often find it difficult to continue to claim the label Christian
    because so many of my non-Christian friends associate that label with
    the *worst* among Christians and with the kinds of pain you yourself
    have alluded to.
    
    But I can only do my little bit to define -- by my life and love, the
    best I can -- that which really *is* Christian.  I refuse to give in
    and let others co-opt the label and make it into something that
    dishonors Christ "And they'll know we are Christians by our love, by
    our love..."
    
    Hoping you will consider this option,
    Nancy
    

    I belong to a denomination (Religious Society of Friends) that has
    never practiced baptism.  I support the right of others to choose, on
    account of their own religious preferences, to be baptized as part of
    their faith; but that is not what I would choose to do at this time in
    my life.  As it turns out, much like Nanci, I was baptized at an
    earlier phase in my life.  In my case, this happened when I was a young
    attender of a conservative Protestant church.  This, of course, means
    that I'm deprived of the ability to proclaim that I have never been
    baptized (which a part of me wishes that I could do).  Well, I suppose
    I could say it, but that would violate my Quaker testimony of honesty
    :-).  Anyway, though I have technically been baptized, that event is
    irrelevant to my current faith, so I normally don't even think about
    it.

    The point is that there is much diversity in Christianity; the issue of
    baptism is one simple example of how this diversity manifests itself.

    -- Mike

    RE: 45
    
    I don't think "baptism" is an option for any one who calls themselves a
    Christian.  Jesus did it and said that we should do it "to fulfill all
    righteousness".  I was reading in the "Lost Books of the Bible", just
    last night on baptism.  It said that when you go down into the water
    you go as a "dead man", a natural man, but when you come up you are a
    new man, a spiritual man, a living man."  It said, some come up with
    signs (i.e. speaking in tongues), some don't, but all are saved.
    
    I suggested that Carole be baptised, 1)because she says she's open and
    trying to experience other religions, 2)she was raised a Christian in
    the Catholic Church.  So I suggested she get baptised so that she would
    have all her Christian bases covered, and could experience all that
    Christianity has to offer.  
    
    It's one thing to have tried all that a Religion has to offer and
    determined it not enough to feed you.  It's another thing to not have
    tried all things of a religion and to determine it not enough to feed
    you.  If you haven't given the whole religion a try you can't honestly
    say that it is not enough.  But more than this, I was offering a
    suggestion that would enhance and enrich her religious experience.
    
    God, if you know him, is NOTHING to play with, do not take his name and
    his Son in vain.  Either we do as God says, in the spirit that he says
    we must do it, or we don't.  I may sound like I'm saying MY OWN TRUTH,
    only because I claim it as mine, but it is God's truth.
    
    Playtoe
    

    Obviously, Playtoe, Quaker Christians disagree with you that Christians
    must be baptized.  Your opinion of what Christians "must" do is not
    something that all Christians agree with.
    
    -- Mike

    Re: 47
    
    All Christians don't know how to serve God as Christ has shown, nor
    want to, but they call themselves Christians.  And there are many false
    prophets as well...so many are mislead.
    
    It is not my *opinion* that all Christians, those who follow Christ,
    should be baptised.  The command comes from the top, I only repeat it.
    
    That all us Christians are entitled to our own opinions is a lie.  If
    we don't do as the God through Christ has asked, then how shall we
    complain in the end of whatever end we come to.  If you can have any
    opinion and expect God to honor it, he will, but in kind.
    
    I'm not into the "denominations" (i.e. Quakers, Baptists, Catholics),
    there's only one Christ, as Paul says.  Thus, that the churches is
    divided is a lie in Christ...and they MUST stop this, and this is not
    my opinion either.
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe, I am afraid that I disagree with your claim to be speaking for
    God when you present your views to the people in this notes file.  I
    would suggest that you might want to try looking at the log in your own
    theological eye before you spend so much time concerning yourself with
    the motes in everybody else's.  I don't believe that such a posture of
    intolerance towards other variants of Christianity very conducive to a
    spirit of ecumenical dialogue.  Neither, I might add, is calling
    someone else's opinion a "lie", nor accusing someone who disagrees with
    you of being "misled".

    -- Mike

Strangely enough, I find myself agreeing with some of what Playtoe is
saying.

As Playtoe has said, he believes that the Bible is God's Word and that
the Bible takes a clear position on the matter at hand.  Given that this
is the case, it is not too far a reach to say that those who disagree
with the position the Bible takes (and that Playtoe holds) are wrong 
on this matter.

I note that there has been no discussion of how Playtoe's understanding
of the Bible is wrong (if indeed it is).  If there is to be disagreement
with what Playtoe says, perhaps it should focus on this area (Playtoe's
interpretation of the Bible)?  (And not on Playtoe "playing God" or
"being intolerant" on this issue?)

    RE: 49
    
    Thanks for your opinion Mike.
    
    If you don't believe that "such a posture of intolerance towards other
    variants of Christianity very conducive to a spirit of ecumenical
    dialogue," than you are right, because I haven't heard that there was
    such a "spirit".  But according to God's word, SOMEBODY's got it wrong
    out here, and we better find out who it is before we jump into things
    don't you think?  You keep saying "my opinion" but it is not my
    opinion, and you can keep calling it that, because it really is my
    opinion and belief and whatever, now that I've claimed it.  
    
    You sit up here and tell me what you think is correct and it's your
    opinion, and you imply that I'm wrong and do lie, what makes you think
    you've got it right?  Whatever reason that is, allow me that liberty.
    
    To say that I don't tolerate other variants is too harsh, because I do
    tolerate them, but I don't agree with them...God will do away with
    them, not me.  It is a sign of faithlessness to reduce my comments to
    human opinion, when they agree with or are directly quoted from
    scripture.  You seem to overlook, put no weight or credence on the fact
    that what I say is in agreement with the Word of God, as if there is no
    REAL God....Do believe there is a REAL GOD?
    
    Playtoe

    I hope that this discussion can continue,in the "spirt" of this
    notes' file. Playtoe's ~style~ is alittle hard to take at times...but..
    I always thought that Baptism was stated in the bible as needed for
    salvation. I'm open to the discussion though from the Quaker side.
    
    But....how about a discussion,not a preaching?
    
    Marc H.

    RE: 50
    
    Yes, Collis, thanks.  I'd welcome the discussion and examination of
    God's Word.  
    
    Playtoe

    If participants want to discuss baptism in detail, I suggest that we
    start a new topic.
    
    -- Mike (co-moderator)

    Re: 52
    
    Why can you be open enough to accept God's Word regardless how it
    comes, in discussion or preaching form...what's the difference?
    
    I believe that it makes no difference whether one preaches or takes a
    weaker position of "suggesting", I'm interested in learning.  I'd
    rather have knowledge spoken to me with authority, it establishes
    itself better in me.  As a suggestion I can easily dismiss it, easy
    come easy go.  TELL me how you feel with confidence.  Don't worry just
    be able to change when corrected and speak that with authority.  That's
    one of the reasons the people rejected Jesus, because he spoke with
    authority as one who KNEW what he was talking about.  (That I'm
    persecuted for speaking authoritatively, as a preacher or teacher, is
    surely no reason to quit it...that's what makes me a better Christian.)
    
    Playtoe

    Playtoe .50,
    
    > If you don't believe that "such a posture of intolerance towards
    other variants of Christianity very conducive to a spirit of ecumenical
    dialogue," than you are right, because I haven't heard that there was
    such a "spirit".<
    
    Apparently you have not read the conference guidelines for the
    Christian-Perspective notesfile Playtoe.  The "spirit" is presented 
    there.  I request that you read 1.0 and *abide* by the guidelines 
    which were designed by the moderators specifically to encourage *all* 
    Christian perspectives, not stifle them in favor of one.
    
    Karen
    (co-moderator)

    RE: 56
    
    You must have overlooked the fact that I said I don't have
    "intolerance" for variants, because that's for God to decide.  I've
    read the rules and I don't mention them because again I'd be accused of
    trying teach and preach.  But it is clear that some others haven't paid
    any mind to them.  
    
    It becomes a personal preference thing when they are used and mentioned
    anyway...in my experience, and this is not a charge of racism, but some
    of us don't treat strangers as equally as they do their friends...and
    you never know it could be an angel whom you are entertaining.
    
    Playtoe

    I should point out, Playtoe, that I (for one) disagree with your
    contention that the Bible is the "Word of God".  Secondly, many
    participants accept that the Bible is the Word of God but interpret
    that concept differently from you and thus don't accept biblical
    inerrancy.  This notes conference imposes no Biblical standard as the
    one on GOLF does; thus it is not at all implicit here that your quoting
    of scripture means that you are speaking for God.  I am one example of
    a participant who doesn't agree that quoting Scripture automatically
    expresses God's will.

    This gets back to the alternatives of Debate versus Discussion.  I
    prefer discussion over debate.  But even if debate takes place, I
    believe that taking an active interest in what others believe so as to
    "correct" them to your way of thinking can easily, aside from being
    pretentious and condescending, disrupt an ecumenical environment (as I
    have already mentioned).  And this *is* an ecumenical environment,
    with a wide variety of viewpoints on God, Jesus, the Bible, and various
    other aspects of Christianity.  Not everyone here who you decide to
    chide accepts the premises from which you base your "correction"; thus
    what is accomplished by this "correction" for those who disagree over
    premises is not a correction at all, but rather little more than
    antagonism and resentment.

    -- Mike

    RE: 58
    
    So am I allowed to express my faith that the bible is the Word of God
    in confidence without those who are offended by that belief getting
    attitudes?
    
    I believe that the principles and standards advanced in the Bible are
    according to God's Word.  The Bible, IMO, is the Word of God for all
    practical purposes however, such that it cannot be reduced to being the
    product of men alone.  If that were true we'd probably have more than
    one bible, I don't constitute translations as "more than one".  In
    regards to the Bibles of other faiths, they are what the are claimed to
    be.  I cannot dispute any of that without proof.  Prove that the Bible
    is not the Word of God and I'll kick it to the side like a dead dog. 
    But that would be impossible wouldn't it!
    
>    chide accepts the premises from which you base your "correction"; thus
>    what is accomplished by this "correction" for those who disagree over
>    premises is not a correction at all, but rather little more than
>    antagonism and resentment.
    
    I can't do anything about that.  They suffer because of what they
    believe.  I too am bothered by beliefs, like your's for instance
    regarding the Word of God, but you have the right to it...do I have the
    right to mine and to speak it confidently?  If they call themselves
    Christians, and don't believe the bible is the Word of God, are they
    indeed Christians?  And though this notes file doesn't have standards
    on this, if I speak from the Christian perspective and we have those
    who are not Christians arguing we me over direct quotes from scripture,
    which they do not believe is the Word of God, WHAT SHOULD I DO?
    
    You don't need to answer that because I know what I am to do, I'm here
    as an advocate from Christianity, not for the other perspectives.  So
    when I enter a note people should know who I am before they start
    accusing me being pretentious and condescending, why not consider it my
    faith in God instead of an attack on you or whomever?  Some see me as
    quite involved and faithful and knowledgeable in the Word of God. 
    Others reject me.  But those who accept me, I say it's to God's glory. 
    Those who reject me, I can't take it totally personal, but have to put
    God in it as well because it is his Word that I speak, not mine.
    
    Playtoe

    Re: 205.58
    
    Excellent Points!  
    
    This conference has the potential to be very helpful for me in my
    faith,I hope we can continue a discussion..rather than a ~preaching~
    mode.
    
    Marc H.

    RE.59

     Playtoe:

              I rather think that you have one point turned around 
     backwards and that it that it is up to those who disagree with
     your personal interpretation of Scripture to prove that the 
     the Bible is wrong. 
              As you are the one making the claims that it is the
     word of God the burden of proof falls upon you. Since you are
     the one claiming to speak and teach with authority it is your
     responsibility to provide us with your credentials, in this case
     you say it is the validity of Scripture, rather than for us to
     to prove that you lack credentials.
              If I were selling you a car and I claimed that it got 1000
     miles per gallon it would fall upon me to prove this to you and not 
     upon you to prove me wrong.
              So, Playtoe as you keep telling us that we must prove you
     wrong before your will change you personal opinions I just wanted to
     let you know that until you offer some proof for your claims, some
     of them quite outrageous I might add, that I will regard them as no
     more or no less than simple personal opinion.  Your's is just one
     voice among many here and your opinions carry no more or less weight
     than those of anyone else in this conference. If you expect me to
     give any special credence to your claims about the Bible or the
     authority that you claim to speak with then you had best get busy
     and start coming up with the proof that it is your responsibility
     to provide to those of us in this conference that you are making
     your claims to. 


                                                               Mike
             

    Re 61
    
    Well, Mike, I can prove the bible is the Word of God, because I tried
    it and it worked for ME.  To prove the existence to God to another is
    impossible for me to do, one must try it themselves.  I could only seek
    to prove that it worked for me, by which I conclude that it is the Word
    of God.  But this won't prove to another that there is a God, if they
    believe that I am perceiving correctly about the working of the Word.
    
    Then again one could believe that what I said was true and did work,
    but still deny the existence of God, for the "Laws of Nature".
    
    A person doesn't need credentials, or valid doctrine to speak and teach
    what they believe with authority.  Truth doesn't need credentials, I
    believe that when I speak the truth it sinks in to whomever I speak and
    sometimes immediately, sometimes later, but always the Truth effects
    the hearer.  This is why the hearers of truth either love or hate the 
    messenger of truth, and never remain neutral.
    
    God's Word is not a question of credibility, and scholarly
    investigation, but applicability and scientific experimentation. 
    You've got to try it (do it), not just read it and determine its
    source.  What difference does source make anyway if it WORKS!
    
    The debate between the unbeliever and the believer is futile, they have
    no fellowship.  I speak and the disbeliever howls at my words, in
    Christ, and they scream "Prove IT?" but they shall not receive a
    sign...only miracles and wonders...praise the Lord.
    
    The thing is this, I don't ask for anything from anybody.  I don't
    impose my beliefs and opinions on anyone, but submit them as my
    contributions to the particular issues.  Although I speak my truth with
    authority, one cannot say that I impose my words on them, I speak with
    force but I do not force them any place particular, just out into the
    world and mines of men.  They can surely resist and escape the sound
    and force of my words, by not hearing or reading them.  But if they do
    hear or do read them, they must deal with the force with which I speak,
    and reject my words with as much force as they entered into them. 
    Perhaps, those who are weak and don't have the force to counter my
    force may say I am imposing upon them, if so, this can surely be no
    crime, because then many things could be determined an imposition and
    an offence...even the sun and the moon.
    
    Playtoe

re Note 205.51 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

>     But according to God's word, SOMEBODY's got it wrong
>     out here, and we better find out who it is before we jump into things
>     don't you think?  

        It could also be that ALL have got it wrong to one degree or
        another -- after all, "ALL have sinned..."  Perhaps we need
        to get it together (and not hinder the fulfillment of
        Christ's prayer "that they all might be one") precisely so we
        can put the incomplete pieces together to see the whole
        puzzle.

>     You keep saying "my opinion" but it is not my
>     opinion, and you can keep calling it that, because it really is my
>     opinion and belief and whatever, now that I've claimed it.  
  
        Some of us say "my opinion" not because we got it from thin
        air, but because even though we got it from Scripture or
        "inspiration", we nevertheless acknowledge our human
        fallibility in interpreting the message even though we may
        believe that it comes from God (or represents the Truth).
          
>    You sit up here and tell me what you think is correct and it's your
>     opinion, and you imply that I'm wrong and do lie, what makes you think
>     you've got it right?  Whatever reason that is, allow me that liberty.
  
        You have the liberty to tell us that, but do you really think
        that you therefore have the liberty to use the most forceful
        words to convey it?  The guidelines of this conference, and
        the Digital policies on which they are based, allow you to
        say almost anything, but they do place restrictions on how
        you say it.

        Bob

re Note 205.59 by SWAM1::DOTHARD_ST:

> >    what is accomplished by this "correction" for those who disagree over
> >    premises is not a correction at all, but rather little more than
> >    antagonism and resentment.
>     
>     I can't do anything about that.  They suffer because of what they
>     believe.  I too am bothered by beliefs, like your's for instance
>     regarding the Word of God, but you have the right to it...do I have the
>     right to mine and to speak it confidently?  

        Playtoe, 

        I see some significant difference in HOW Mike presented his
        disbelief in the Bible, and how you present your belief.  You
        convey it with words and expression that speak condescension,
        whereas Mike does not (even if he does, in his heart, think
        his belief is far superior to yours and that therefore you
        are a deluded fool -- if he does think that, he simply keeps
        it to himself, and simply presents the facts of his belief).

        Don't you see that there is a difference between HOW you are
        presenting your beliefs and WHAT they are?  You can do
        something about HOW you present your beliefs without denying
        or altering those beliefs!

        Bob