The Mote Archive - Religion and Philosophy pt. 1

Religion and Philosophy 1

Repent, all ye who enter here.

1. bloodnfire - 9/11/1999 9:21:38 PM

WELCOME EVERYBODY!! This is the thread where we explore matters of the heart as they affect our lives. We will include a discussion of the book "Anatomy of the Spirit" by Caroline Myss, PhD. (It's available from Amazon for about $14, and you will enjoy the discussion a whole lot more if you invest in the book).
Doctor Myss "Synthesizes the ancient wisdom of three spiritual traditions --The Hindu Chakras, the Christian sacraments and the Kabbalah's Tree of Life --to demonstrate the seven stages through which everyone must pass in the search for higher consciousness and spiritual maturity.

Jump in with both feet. If you have a spiritual issue which is on your heart and feel free to share it, we will try to help.

I will post a statement of Dr.Myss' daily, progressing through the book, hoping that it prompts some response.

If you are 'lurking' in The Moat for the first time, why not register and get a password. You'll be made most welcome !!

3. wabbit - 9/11/1999 9:54:54 PM

Post #2 should be gone now, as requested, bloodnfire. Let's see...

4. Angel-Five - 9/11/1999 9:57:57 PM

The real spiritual question is, where HAS it gone?

5. bloodnfire - 9/11/1999 10:12:12 PM

Thanks so much Wabbit. NEVER MIND Angel-Five!! It's gone where ALL my horrible mistakes go, into the forgetfulness of God !! (I actually posted the same post twice, so Wabbit very kindly helped me out).

So, welcome to The Mote! Do you have any 'Spiritual Issues' you would like to share with us ?

6. God - 9/12/1999 12:22:55 AM

Where's that lady in the red dress?

7. ethiopianeunuch - 9/12/1999 12:46:22 AM

Hello Bloodnfire: I am happy to see your gracious welcome here. I think that the spirit of Margaret Hamilton may be alive and well on some of the other threads.

8. pellenilsson - 9/12/1999 3:47:06 AM

Hello EE. Nice to see you back in the fold. Please give my best regards to your father. We want to see him too.

9. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 5:38:01 AM

Hi Ee and Pelle. Welcome. Margaret Hamilton...Hummmm....'The Wicked Witch of the North' as I recall. Perhaps the good humor of The Mote will have that evil spirit shriek...."I'm MELTING!, MELTING!" and (eventually) dissapear from sight.

ON THE OTHER HAND, vitriol and spice are two qualities which will very much enlighten the whole forum, so let's not have too much Billie Burke !! (CalGal would be so proud :-)

10. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 5:42:41 AM

God, you know we love You (or at least some of us do). It's easy for YOU to refer to 'That woman in the red dress' and know to whom you're referring. However, since the Internet informs me that at this moment there are 2,431,366 women wearing red dresses (see www.reddressestoday.com), you MUST try and be more specific. :-)

11. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 6:04:15 AM

Well now, let's throw into the 'mix' the first statement from Dr.Myss.
Having read the copyright disclaimer in the front of it, I trust her publishers (Crown) will be happy that we are publicizing her book, and encouraging its purchase, and not upset. I'll try and contact her and them this week and get her blessing, (which I'm actually meant to have in writing before putting any of this on the internet). Anyway, I think they'll be pleased with the publicity.

She refers to 'The Energy Field' and claims to be an 'Intuitive', someone who has acquired the skill of 'intuitive or symbolic sight'. The ability to 'interpret the language of energy'.
In her introduction (page 9) she writes of a Physician who told her..."I don't need medical intuition. I have enough of that. I want to learn about the family patterns and the deeper spiritual issues of my patients, because I know that's the information they need to heal. They need more than drugs, which only temporarily mask their symptoms." She goes on to say "The desire for a spiritual context and interpretation of life is universal. I believe that the language of energy and the practice of symbolic sight" (which she explains in fascinating detail later in the book) "can help bridge the gap between conventional medical and spiritual views of health and healing".

That's our exerpt for today Sunday September 12th. What do YOU think? (Please buy the book, or look for it in your public library).

12. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/1999 7:22:18 AM

bloodnfire, my guess is that God is referring to Jenerator when he asks where the lady in the red dress is. Not sure you were around back then when Jen posted a pic of herself in a red dress.

I'm afraid I'm not going to be much good here if we are going to study some book I can't get! I doubt the local library here in Namibia has the book you are referring to!

But when I read "the language of energy and the practice of symbolic life," I'm not all that bothered that I can't get the book. :-)

My greetings to Angel-Five, who from other posts looks to be someone I had an occasional "run-in" with in the past! Unless you already stated clearly who you are, I won't guess now until I see that you have divulged your identity.

13. SnowOwl - 9/12/1999 7:37:11 AM

Carolyn Myss gained her PhD in Intuition and Energy Medicine from Greenwich University, Hilo, Hawaii. That's not an institution I've heard of, does anyone else have any information about the place?

14. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 7:40:56 AM

Vic. I appreciate your input. I am 'leery' of New Age 'stuff', as I am sure are you. At the same time I ask that you be patient. There are many, like you, who will not be able to obtain the book. I will try to present topics which can be discussed with exerpts.
Dr.Myss writes in her preface (page 8 Middle) "While I had originally intended to focus this book "simply" on the human energy system" (which is her expression for 'the Soul' as I understand her), "on the philosophy and practices of energy diagnosis, and on medical intuition, I realized as I began writing that I could not accurately portray these energy concepts without this spiritual framework.
I believe we are meant to understand our body-minds as individual spiritual powers expressive of a greater Divine energy. We are meant to discover both our personal power and our shared purpose for being alive within a spiritual context".

It is in that open spirit, while (he emphasized) trusting God the Holy Spirit to guide us into all truth, and to help us be 'Berean' in our receptivity) I present her ideas. I believe some of them will bless you. With some of them, we will probably disagree. Please, Please stay tuned. Bless you in Africa today and always.

15. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/1999 7:52:10 AM

PhD in Intuition and Energy Medicine?

I'm already lost!

This one interests me:

"I believe we are meant to understand our body-minds as individual spiritual powers expressive of a greater Divine energy. We are meant to discover both our personal power and our shared purpose for being alive within a spiritual context"

Does Myss believe this "Divine energy" is personal, like a Being, or does she understand it more as some all-pervading "force" or "power," something like Mary Baker-Eddy and Christian Science? My guess is the latter.

16. KuligintheHooligan - 9/12/1999 8:00:43 AM

Angel-Five, ok, I saw elsewhere that you said you are Resonance. Greetings to you!

I'm still hopeful that you and I can have ONE discussion where we don't call each other names! :-)

17. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 9:02:30 AM

Let's call her 'Caroline' rather than get caught up with a discussion whether or not we approve of her Doctorate. She refers to 'The Divinity', and 'energy' as the Presence of that Divinity in every human being.
You and I might take issue with whether or not He inhabits every human being, but I am HOPEFUL (sigh) that looking courteously at some of that which she has to say regarding the parallels between the Sacraments of Christianity, the 'Tree of Life' and the Hindu Chakras, might prove edifying, and NOT OFF-PUTTING to our Atheist friends, of which AngelFive, if indeed he IS Resonance, IS CHIEF!! The purpose of this thread is to examine whether or not there is a 'spirit' in men and women, how that spirit functions, and how each of us deals with the 'Spiritual Issues' of our lives.

"AND NOW" (Said with the strong Yorkshire Accent sported by Stanley Holloway when rendering his hilarious monologues, long before most of you were born)..."LET TH'BATTLE COMMENCE!!!" :-)

18. phillipdavid - 9/12/1999 12:11:51 PM

bloodnfire
re msg 11

Seems like you have equated the author's concept and use of "energy field" with the concept of spiritual energy. That resonates with my own understanding/belief.

The human body is a conductor of energy. The brain alone is composed of over ten bilion nerve cells over which travel electrical impulses at speeds up to two hundred miles an hour. But energy flows in, through, and around the body in many forms-- from measurable electrical impulses to higher forms of energy sometimes referred to as vital force, spiritual light, chi, or prana.

I don't have the book in question, but it sounds like the fundamental underlying premise is that this spiritual energy influences man, and that it is a key to understanding (and maybe manipulating?) physical as well as spiritual health.

I am reminded of studies conducted years ago at Yale and Harvard with the Kirlian camera -- photographs of the human aura. This camera photographed the forcefield which surrounds every man, woman, and child, and medical researchers at Harvard and Yale concluded that the study of the aura can be an invaluable aid in the prevention of disease before it manifests in the physical form. (And underlying this concept is the belief that the Mind or Spirit preceeds body -- like Deprak Chopra would say, the connection between mind and body is evident in that if you want to wiggle your toes, first you think about it, and then will it to happen.)

If you accept the existence of an energy field, there are many pertinent questions: Where does it originate? What effect or control does it exert on the health of an individual? Does it influence human behavior? How does it relate to our spiritual growth?

And perhaps the most pertinent question of all: Can we control or influence it?

19. RickNelson - 9/12/1999 12:45:21 PM

Equating an energy field thesis with the soul? What can be postulated wrt the premise?

Agreed that the premise would include all of the questions phillipd avid presented.

The premise is grounded in belief. This is true because the Aura which is proven to exist, is being equated to a human soul. The human soul premise is a seperate argument. Existing only because of those who have chosen to accept the belief in the existance of a human soul.

20. acefranze - 9/12/1999 4:41:47 PM

It seems we've begun with the conclusion that what is meant by "energy" or "spirit" is some kind of Cartesian "soul", some "animating substance" which resides in our bodies. Maybe "spirit' should be regarded as more ephemeral than that. Maybe it is what exists in relationships between selves, i.e. between one human and another, between a human and divineness, between a human and an animal. And all these in plurals.

21. PsychProf - 9/12/1999 4:45:24 PM

I am confused...doesn't the Catesian doctrine of Dualism postulate a separation of body and soul? Descartes must be turning over in his grave.

22. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 4:58:45 PM

PhillipDavid. I'm actually wiggling my toes...in anticipation. I truly believe, based on the many exchanges we have had, that you will be really blessed by some of the ideas in Ms.Myss' book.
PsychProf, I welcome you to the thread, and you too Acefranze.
I believe the 'Energy' she writes of is that which we 'Thumpers' (and many Scriptures including the Judeo/Christian) call a soul. She speaks of the energy leaving at death, so my present understanding is that there is a 'separation'.
Forgive my ignorance, but why would Descartes 'turn over in his grave' PsychProf, and wouldn't 'energy' or 'the soul' have to be present in order for that to happen ? :-)

23. joezan - 9/12/1999 5:29:36 PM

Blood:

I will look for the book in my local library, and try to keep up with the discussion. It's a subject which has caught my attention lately, for 3 reasons:

1. My sister, who is Catholic, recently tried to get my wife, who's had some health problems, to see a friend of hers who is a practitioner of some sort of "energy field" healing - Raki - a Japanese practice which is linked to her Buddhist beliefs (which, apparently, she has no problem folding into her Catholicism).

2. One of my favorite Christian rock artists, Nicole Noordeman, recently released a song which has risen up the charts phenomenally. The song describes encounters with two people: a religious nut who claims to be Jesus, who preaches in one sock while drinking tequila, and with a woman who puts her faith in the healing powers of crystals and other "new age" things. I've been hearing this song on the radio for a couple of weeks now, but just a couple of days ago realized that in the song's final verse, Ms. Noordeman suggests that since people in Jesus' time also viewed him as a nut, then perhaps we should be paying more attention to these kinds of people.

3. I just returned from 3 days up in northern Michigan, for generations a bastion of Lutheranism and Calvinism. But reading a local newspaper, I was very surprised to see that there were ads on nearly every page for "Shamanic Healing", "Energy Flow Therapy", fortune tellers, etc. Just 5 years ago this same paper published a daily Bible verse on its front page, and about half the paper was devoted to religious concerns - your typical small town midwestern news.

And so I wonder...is this something which modern Christianity is ready to embrace?

24. SnowOwl - 9/12/1999 5:43:58 PM

Rick,

This is true because the Aura which is proven to exist, is being equated to a human soul.

Would you provide me with more information regarding this? My own readings suggest that the presence of an Aura has never been proven under test conditions.

25. joezan - 9/12/1999 5:50:16 PM

I thought those Kirlian camera photos - or, rather, the conclusions drawn from them, were debunked years ago. Not that the process does not, indeed, show what appears to be some sort of glow around every human. But that a similar glow has been shown to exist in several different inanimate objects.

I could be thinking of something else, but I don't think so.

26. Angel-Five - 9/12/1999 5:56:47 PM

Kirlian photography doesn't show some kind of 'soul' aura. Don't be ridiculous. Kirlian photography measures the electrical discharge -- the electrical field -- of an object in a high voltage field Any object. If an electrical discharge is a soul, then you had better not shut your computer off, ever. You'll be killing it.

27. Angel-Five - 9/12/1999 5:57:52 PM

Kirlian photographs are more complex in living things, because living things are more complex electrochemically than other, more uniform objects.

28. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 7:27:17 PM

Thanks JoeZan. I will welcome the sage, measured response. One of the things which appeals to me about this book, are the parallels she draws between Christianity, Judaism and the Hindu. You and I would agree that..."There is only one name under heaven given among men whereby ye must be saved", but "how" He chooses to reveal Himself to His Own in the world is His business. Anything we can do to understand our fellow men and women and ourselves better, I think can be very helpful.

29. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 7:37:56 PM

Ms. Myss writes..."We all share a type of physical body that becomes ill or heals for the same reasons. We also share emotional and psychological crises common to the human experience. Everyone fears abandonment, loss and betrayal; anger is as toxic within a Jewish body as it is within a Christian or Hindu body; and we are all drawn to love. When it comes to the health of our spirits and our bodies, we have no differences.
Thus the mind-body focus of this book is infused with the spiritual language of symbolic sight . Symbolic sight is a way of seeing and understanding yourself, other people, and life events in terms of universal archetypal patterns. Developing symbolic sight will enhance your intuitive ability because it will teach you a healthy objectivity that brings out the symbolic meaning of events, people, and challenges, most especially perhaps the painful challenge of illness. Symbolic sight lets you see into your spirit and your limitless potential for healing and wholeness."

What do you think ?

30. acefranze - 9/12/1999 8:40:45 PM

"I am confused...doesn't the Catesian doctrine of Dualism postulate a separation of body and soul? Descartes must be turning over in his grave."

As I understand it, he posits a *distinction* of body and soul, the *separation* of these distinct "substances" ends the animation of the body. bloodnfire says this wittily when he points out Rene's difficulty turning over after his animator has gone.

But, blood, part of my point is that we have gotten stuck in cartesian dualism just as he got stuck in Platonic dualism, but that no kind of dualism really catches the biblical notion of man. The biblical notion, I suggest, is that man lives in relationship with others, and it is this living-in-relationship which is spirituality.

In fact your Ms. Myss seems to be headed in this same direction:
"We all share a type of physical body that becomes ill or heals for the same reasons. We also share emotional and psychological crises common to the human experience. Everyone fears abandonment, loss and betrayal; anger is as toxic within a Jewish body as it is within a Christian or Hindu body; and we are all drawn to love. When it comes to the health of our spirits and our bodies, we have no differences."

Isn't this rather about relationships than "spiritual substance" (my awkward term, but you know what I mean)?

31. acefranze - 9/12/1999 8:41:13 PM

32. bloodnfire - 9/12/1999 10:39:34 PM

It is Ms.Myss' study on interpersonal relationships that I find most intriguing about her book, AceFranze, (and don't let the double post bother you, we've all done it !). Stay tuned.

34. ethiopianeunuch - 9/13/1999 1:00:16 AM

God: I agree. The gospel was delivered perfectly and will never need to me modernized.

35. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 1:06:35 AM

God, you're off topic. Watch it, or we'll have to move You. And don't be rude, it isn't like You.

36. God - 9/13/1999 1:10:58 AM

I forgive you, My Son.

37. ethiopianeunuch - 9/13/1999 1:34:20 AM

acefrance:I think that the biblical notion of spirituality that is manifested in our relationships with others is subordinate to our relationship with God. If we love Him and keep His commandments we will also treat others as we would have them treat us.

I'm not sure I want to rely on my own symbolic sight for anything.

38. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 1:58:05 AM

We have the distinct advantage of having the Holy Spirit indwelling us EE. So any 'symbolic sight' we might develop as and if He directs, will be one more gift which will only be used to the Glory of the Lord Jesus. Try and keep an open mind. I mentioned the Bereans, whom Paul identified as being..."More noble than those in Thessalonika, in that they received the Word with openness of heart, and searched the Scriptures, whether these things were true". There will be ample opportunity to compare Ms.Myss' theories with the Word of God. Good night all.

39. ethiopianeunuch - 9/13/1999 2:06:34 AM

I promise to try and keep an open mind. I used to be so open minded that my brain would fall out. I'm now at the other end of the spectrum, but always seeking spiritual growth.

40. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 9:08:06 AM

I have a question. Is this "Spiritual Issues" thread just going to be limited to the current topic, at least for now? Or can we discuss numerous things at the "same" time?

Also, do my eyes deceive me, or did bloodnfire have the audacity to delete a post from God??!

41. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 11:52:58 AM

I DID have the audacity to delete a post from 'God' for two reasons. I was not comfortable with the language describing the Lord Jesus, even though I appreciate that whoever (small case "w") is posting as God was joking. I want this thread to be fun, but there is an awfully fine line between fun and perceived blasphemy. I don't plan to joke with 'God' any more, and I will not delete any of his posts, if he tries to be civil. Not with me you understand? In speaking of any God.

Vic. I welcome other topics, as from time to time we consider Ms.Myss' thoughts. For example, regarding 'Spiritual Issues' can we talk about "Love". Not the 'Eros' love, physically based primarily, nor the 'Filios' love, as 'Brother for Brother'. I speak of the 'Agape' love, which (perhaps allegorically) I am told did not exist in Greek until two thousand years ago.
I haven't heard any professed Atheist address this kind of love. A love that 'just can't help it', that goes on loving in spite of pain, and rejection and abuse. A love which forgives, and, if given time, eventually changes people into the kind of people they are supposed to be. You are familiar with that kind of Love (upper case 'L') aren't you, Brother Vic ? In fact, you know Him quite well !! :-)

42. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 1:46:52 PM

Although shown that Love in great measure, bloodnfire, I rarely show it to others unfortunately!

Well, at some point I'd like to argue Christian theology with other Christians not of the theological persuasion that I am. I enjoy debates like that!

43. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 1:47:38 PM

I was talking to a friend the other day, who is a devout Catholic, and I mentioned that if he had been born in another family or culture that he would probably believe in a different religion. He agreed to this and said that he would likely get the same things from the other religion though. I then asked him if since the various elements of the story differ but the utility of the belief system remains the same, then what are the pertinent elements that religions or belief systems need to have in order to fulfill the spiritual/social function. He mentioned a sense of community, peace of mind, an outlet for spiritual feelings, etc. I can easily understand the need for all those things but this makes me wonder how many people feel like this. I mean, if the story and the ritual are interchangeable, and the function is what matters, then why is there so much contention over those details? It almost seems like the way people will choose a sports team and stick with it and root for it just because it’s their team and it fulfills the sports function.

44. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 1:51:31 PM

Winston, I wouldn't agree with your friend's assessment. Specifically, this part of your post:

"I mean, if the story and the ritual are interchangeable, and the function is what matters, then why is there so much contention over those details?"

I don't agree that the "story and ritual" are interchangeable. What I mean to say is, I don't believe that ALL the stories and ALL the rituals embody real, objective truth. Therefore, no matter how good they may make you feel, they are ultimately destructive.

45. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 1:58:42 PM

Vic,

It sounds like you are saying that some religions are true and others are not. How do you determine “real objective truth”. Can two religions that have antithetical tenets both be true?

46. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:00:46 PM

Vic,

It sounds like you are saying that some religions are true and others are not. How do you determine “real objective truth”. Can two religions that have antithetical tenets both be true?

47. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:03:08 PM

Vic,

It sounds like you are saying that some religions are true and others are not. How do you determine “real objective truth”. Can two religions that have antithetical tenets both be true?

48. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:05:46 PM

Ack, sorry about the triple-post. I hit refresh and somthing bad happened.

49. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 2:13:51 PM

WinstonSmith. It's so good to welcome you to the Spiritual Issues thread, and thank you for your pertinent questions.

Vic, I would be very happy to discuss 'Theological' differences we might have. I have certain differences with my own denomination (The Salvation Army) depending how one defines parts of the Doctrinal Statement.

Why don't we explore that. Allow me to interject Ms.Myss' thoughts from time to time (not necessarily as they relate to our discussion) so that this does not become an 'Evangelical Christian Thread'. You will appreciate as one 'Evangelical Christian' to another, my motives are without guile. I truly seek discourse with believers of other faiths, even if that faith is Atheistic.

I also hunger for 'wholeness', and am grateful that I believe I have that enviable quality of life. I don't want to lose it.

Do you agree that the words "Arminian" and "Calvinist" are shallow and speak of 'easybelievism' or 'slaphappyagape' ? With which denomination are you associated ?

50. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:28:33 PM

Winston, you sure are eager today! :-)

"Can two religions that have antithetical tenets both be true?"

I am not of this belief. For example, if an atheist says God does not exist, and a theist says he does exist, they can't be both correct in my view. The same could be said concerning something like Christianity and its view of Jesus Christ and Islam, which has a different view of JC. They can't both be correct views, either Jesus is "God of very God" or he isn't.

bloodnfire, whereas I see your point, I think that "labels" like Arminian and Calvinist can be very good shorthand to cut to the point of a discussion. I would have no problem being labeled a "Calvinist," for example, if one is using the term in its proper definition.

Of course, this doesn't mean that I believe "all people who follow Calvin will be saved!" But the term 'Calvinist' is a good shorthand to describe my soteriological POV.

Tell me what doctrines of the Army you are in disagreement with, if you don't mind.

51. ChristiPeters - 9/13/1999 2:29:02 PM

OK, God, since you've been posting here, I have a question -

WHY didn't I win the lottery Saturday night??! I even bought a ticket and everything! Was the sacrifice not to your liking? Did I leave something out of the spel - er ceremony?

(feet tapping)

WELL!??

52. KurtMondaugen - 9/13/1999 2:31:56 PM

"I want this thread to be fun, but there is an awfully fine line between fun and perceived blasphemy."

Not for nothing, but there's also a line between perceived blasphemy and actual blasphemy. Carry on.

53. ChristiPeters - 9/13/1999 2:34:53 PM

um, excuse me, it seems I was interrrupting.

(teach me not to read the backthread)

so.... never mind!

54. KurtMondaugen - 9/13/1999 2:37:53 PM

Christi:

Don't worry, #52 wasn't directed towards you.

55. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:38:16 PM

OK, fair enough. Are you also saying that any religion that does not "embody real, objective truth", such as Islam or Buddhism, is destructive?

56. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:39:20 PM

Post #55 is for Vic.

57. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:40:00 PM

Winston, if a religion teaches something false and misleading, then yes, I'd say that that religion is "destructive."

58. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:43:03 PM

Vic,

So, your particular variety of Christianity is the only true religion and all others are destructive even if they are an integral functional part of a healthy culture.

59. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:45:28 PM

I would say that any religion that is a healthy, functional part of society is just that, a healthy, functional part of society, however you define that.

But if that same religion has dire eternal consequences for its adherents, then yes, I'd say its destructive.

60. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:48:36 PM

I just preached Sunday on a passage from Titus. There Paul says that an unbeliever is "unfit for doing anything good."

I then "asked" in my sermon, "How can this be? How can Paul possibly say this? Don't we see nonbelievers who are honest, pay their taxes, provide for their families, love their spouses and children, and so on?"

But we have to understand that Paul is speaking of *spiritual* good in the passage. Just like Jesus said, "flesh begets flesh, but spirit begets spirit," as far as the spirit is concerned, those people are "unfit for doing anything good." In other words, in the end they will be unable to commend themselves to God, because they live apart from His Son.

61. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:50:21 PM

So to be clearer Winston, if Mormonism teaches it adherents to pay their taxes, raise honest, loving families, and obey the law, then from a societal standpoint it is okay.

But if Mormonism also teaches that one must obey the teachings of Joseph Smith even when those teachings contradict the teachings of Jesus Christ, then I'd say Mormonism is chaff and destructive.

62. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 2:50:25 PM

Vic,

Is the variety of christianity that you believe in the only religion does not lead to "dire eternal consequences".

63. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 2:53:23 PM

Nope

64. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 2:57:51 PM

Why not just get it out of the way, Kuligin. Please name the religions that in your definition are not "destructive."

In particular, please, consider and qualify these from your standpoint:

Catholicism (RCC)
Serbian Orthodoxy
Islam
Hinduism
Zoroastrianism
Buddhism
Mormonism
Judaism

Thank you in advance for your honest replies.

65. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:00:13 PM

All those who "profess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved."

I don't care what "religion" you are or "variety of Christianity."

66. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:01:34 PM

Fair enough. Thank you for your honest answer.

67. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:04:26 PM

Interesting that your cite includes "profess with their mouth" though. It means nothing what you have in your heart or mind, but if you parrot a phrase fed to you you're saved. I know you're being serious, and so am I, but this kind of belief explains to me a great deal of missionary activity that I have witnessed, read about and experienced through my family history. A shallow, coercive, head-counting activity more than anything else.

68. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:05:35 PM

Whoops, I take that back. Somehow I skimmed the quote. Sorry.

69. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:06:23 PM

Well marjoribanks, you conveniently missed "believe in your heart" in the verse I just quoted!

Which explains to me a great deal of why you have such a jaded attitude when it comes to missionaries! :-)

70. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:07:22 PM

x-post marjoribanks

Also, I was going to add that one would have to see what Paul means when he says "profess with your mouth." It isn't something empty and mindless, I assure you of that!

71. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:09:09 PM

Vic, you said;

"All those who "profess with their mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in their heart that God raised him from the dead shall be saved.""

Well, I think the Mormons believe this so can they go to heaven despite the destructive influence of Joseph Smith?

72. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:10:50 PM

No, Winston, a careful study of Mormon doctrine would prove otherwise, unfortunately.

73. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:13:12 PM

Vic,
I have friends who are Mormons and they believe that Jesus is the son of God and that he died for their sins and rose from the dead.

74. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:13:50 PM

Kuligin,

There are any number of mystical sects in places like Venezuela and Brazil particularly, where adherents believe wholly what you are talking about, and profess it openly and loudly AND believe in any number of other things as well including witchcraft and ritual sacrifice. Will these people be saved?

75. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:18:17 PM

Winston,

That's all fine and good, but when Jesus says 'A' and Joseph Smith says A is wrong and you must believe 'B' because I say so, who is "Lord" in this scenario?

The Mormons also say they believe in the Trinity but then when you dig deeper you find out that what they mean by "Trinity" is far from what the word historically means.

Like I said, you have to DIG DEEPER. Just because your friends say such and such doesn't necessarily make it so. Have *YOU* studied Mormon theology Winston?

marjoribanks, the question of syncretism and how far it goes before it takes away from the confession of Christ as Lord is a tough one. I'd have to have more info first before rendering my opinion, but as you are well aware, just because I say they are or are not saved isn't the ultimate issue. But you are looking for my opinion on the matter, and if you have more info on it, I'll think about it and let you know.

76. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:20:39 PM

Vic, No I have read some of the literature and spoken with friends about it. Thanks, BTW, for having this dialog with me. I am trying to understand your position but it seems complicated and illogical.

77. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:22:51 PM

Well, if you have more questions ask away and I'll attempt to explain it more fully.

I'd also be happy to discuss Mormonism - from the Mormon texts themselves - if you so desire.

78. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:26:42 PM

Kuligin,

In several sub-groups of Santeria or Orisha beliefs, there are people who profess with their mouths, and believe with their hearts, the things you cite from Paul. At the same time, they believe in witchcraft, powerful forces which sweep around the world, in the possibility of fending off evil through rites and sacrifices.

I was wondering whether these people would be saved, because I'd like to know if you can be a "saved" Christian AND something else as well. Maybe even a Buddhist and a Christian, I don't know.

79. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:30:52 PM

marjoribanks that is no different than, for example, the Herero here in Namibia and their holy fire. The issue is a "hot" one currently in the African Independent Church among the Herero here, the Oruuano Church.

The issue is "Jesus is Lord." Empty speaking of the words is meaningless, as you already pointed out (and by the way, my primary task as a missionary here in Namibia is to get my students to think for themselves, thank you very much!). So if a person says, "Jesus is Lord" but doesn't really believe it or evidence that by his actions, then one could properly question such a confession.

But I don't know the heart of any other person. Who knows who could be lying or faking it but God? So the decision is up to God, not me clearly.

80. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:33:42 PM

We have to also keep in mind that when Jesus said "believe in me" he didn't just mean some empty, mental assent, as if all I have to do is say, "I believe" and then I can go and do whatever I darn well please to do!

To "believe" means to trust and put one's faith in, fully. Jesus even talks about people that will come to him at the last day and say "Lord, Lord" and he will say, "Depart from me you evildoers. I never knew you!"

The issue isn't simply verbal assent but ACTIVE FAITH that Jesus is Lord. Is he Lord of the people you are asking about in SA? I don't know their hearts.

81. marjoribanks - 9/13/1999 3:34:09 PM

Well, thankfully he's available to us in this Forum. Speak up, holy one.

Okay Vic, I'll leave it for now. My interest in this type of thing is piqued by the increasing "Indianization" of the RCC church and rite in various parts of that country. A process the Pope isn't too happy with. He recently even banned a venerable writer for straying across the line.

82. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:37:05 PM

Vic, If you had been born into a very different religion, let's say Islam, do you think that you would have become an active member of the church? Do you think that you would believe that Christianity is destructive?

BTW, Did your parents belong to any religion? If so, if I may ask, what?

83. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:38:12 PM

LAST POST FROM ME TONIGHT

marjoribanks, it is like I said a very tough issue. I can sympathize with the Pope if he believes that the confession "Jesus is Lord" is becoming compromised by the events in the RCC in India. And as the head of the RCC, he has to make decisions which are meaningful given the confessions of that church.

Personally, I know Herero who believe it is okay to go to the holy fire, and those that think it is a sin and if you are a Christian you should most definitely not do it. From my POV, I lean more towards the latter and not the former, because the holy fire may potentially compromise the position of Jesus as Lord.

Good night!

84. KuligintheHooligan - 9/13/1999 3:40:00 PM

Winston, saw your post and will quickly respond.

My parents are Christians. Well, actually, my father at least seemed to be one during my childhood but has since turned from it. My mother still is.

As for being born elsewhere, I am not trying to be mean or anything, but I don't see much point in such hypotheticals, since I wasn't born elsewhere! Sorry Winston.

85. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 3:41:52 PM

Good night, Vic.

86. tckrulak - 9/13/1999 3:44:10 PM

Vic,

The last "Spiritual Issues" thread apparently shut down before I got a chance to see if you had replied to my post. Had you?

87. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 7:46:58 PM

Tckrulak !! Hey Hey the Gang's all here.....Well, getting here anyway. Now where's Jen and Marsha? And Stamper?

Enjoying the exchange between Vic and Winston very much. I would like to throw into their discussion the verses which I have 'thumped' on numerous occasions. Especially when a friend like Marjoribanks is trying to understand the difference in religions.

"This is the record, God hath given to us Eternal Life, and this Life is in His Son. He (or she) that hath the Son, hath Life, and he (or she) that hath NOT the Son of God hath NOT Life" (I John 5:11 and 12).

Those who subscribe to Santoria or Orisha beliefs as mentioned by Marjoribanks above, either 'Have the Son' or they do not. My present understanding of the verses I quoted is that there are two classes of people on the planet. Those who 'have the Son', and 'those who don't'
It is also my understanding that the vast majority of those who 'have the Son' aren't aware of Him yet !!

This, of course Vic, 'flies in the face of' "Inviting Him In". I am not convinced that "Inviting Him In" is precisely what is meant by 'Receiving Him' as mentioned in John 1:12. I have made the statement before in the old 'Frayed edges' that..."I invited the Lord Jesus Christ into my heart on 2nd December, 1967. I don't think I'd have ever done so if He hadn't been there all the time !! :-)

88. joezan - 9/13/1999 7:57:36 PM

Banks:

Santeria practitioners also believe in a whole host of gods, which to me disqualifies them as Christians, since Christianity is a monotheistic religion.

89. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 8:06:41 PM

Which brings us to "Anatomy of the Spirit". Some of the dearest, most gentle and gracious people I have ever met have been Hindu and Jewish. Some of the most ugly and offensive people I have known have called themselves 'Christian'. So we're back to "He that hath the Son hath Life", and that sometimes, often, perhaps always until He reveals Himself IN and TO a human being's heart, that same human being might "Believe" and "Confess" just about anything. I should add that among the gentle, kind and gracious people I have met have been any number of homosexual men and women.

You see, I prefer a 'revelational' type of Evangelism, than an 'invitational'. The Lord Himself said..."Seek and ye shall find".
The Apostle wrote..."Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith: prove your own selves, how that Jesus Christ is IN
you, except ye be reprobates. "Reprobates", now there's a frightening word, Vic. (Calvinist chum :-) "Lost without hope of Salvation" as I remember the Oxford Dictionary definition". NOT "Lost because He isn't there, and you'd better 'invite Him in' before you go to Hell !!

I personally feel that many denominations have made "Becoming a Christian", (Decisions for Christ, etc.) rather like 'Joining the Kiwanis'. Begging, pleading. As a member of a Denomination which sometimes proudly (yeuchhh!) claims its "Wesleyan Heritage" (a phrase which makes my stomach churn), I feel that this UNscriptural approach is the cause of much of the lethargy and malaise and lack of FIRE throughout much of the Evangelical church today, (including, I weep to say, The Salvation Army).

90. acefranze - 9/13/1999 8:07:21 PM

"I invited the Lord Jesus Christ into my heart on 2nd December, 1967. I don't think I'd have ever done so if He hadn't been there all the time !! :-)"

Isn't one implication of this statement (one which resonates with my thinking) that it is God who chooses us, so that attempting to define precisely what religious posture is "correct" is just beside the point? Jesus famously has "sheep not of this fold," why can't those other folds include Islam, LDSaints, etc.?

91. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 8:14:08 PM

Vic, dear friend. I never argue doctrine. I don't have to be correct, although I do want rightly to divide the Word of God. I simply share my present understanding, as you have seen expressed in my website.

I also see 'two edges' of the 'Sword of Truth', as It describes Itself. I know the verses which speak of the responsibility of Man in Salvation. I also know those which speak of the Sovreignty of God in Salvation. I feel both 'edges' are essential. It's a love relationship. Both parties give all they have. He's already given all He has. He waits for me to give all I have.

I am convinced that this phrase "He (or she) that hath the Son, hath Life" exactly describes the "Energy" (and her gracious explanation) of which Ms. Myss speaks in her book. Stay tuned. I'll let all this be part of Tuesday's discussion.

Finally, before bed Vic, I can stand on all eleven of The Salvation Army's Doctrines and say "Amen". But I reserve the right to explain that which I mean by the words expressed. I'll explain more in the days ahead.

92. WinstonSmith - 9/13/1999 8:21:47 PM

Ace, Blood,

This is a very interesting discussion. Blood, if some folks "Have the Son" in their hearts and others don't, are the folks that don't have it doomed. Is this something that is there or not there from birth?

93. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 9:29:18 PM

I don't know, Winston. That word "Reprobate" (from II Corinthians 13:5) is extremely ominous to me. I never joke about it, or use it to describe people.

One of the most wonderful and liberating things that have happened in my life, is that the Lord has impressed upon my heart that I cannot judge who "has the son" and who does not. It ties in with that lovely verse from John 10, (#16), where Jesus Himself said..."And other sheep I have, which are not (yet) of this fold: them also I MUST bring, and they SHALL hear My voice".
Incidently, Pelle, if you're 'lurking', that's one of the many promises of God which makes me 'Suffocatingly Tolerant' (See how I remember ? :-). I just can't tell by looking who are among those 'other sheep', and who are not. Oh! perhaps I can surmise those who are , "by their fruit"; I just dare not presume to judge those who are not . For all I know (and devoutly hope), every single person drawn to this thread (are you listening AngelFive ? :-) are among those "Other Sheep" who belong to Christ, and don't know it yet. (Shout HALLELUJAH !! :-)

94. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 9:31:56 PM

Pardon me, I got swept away by the thought ! :-)

95. Angel-Five - 9/13/1999 9:41:23 PM

Christianity isn't really a true monotheistic religion, though, what with the three aspects, the Virgin, the various Saints which are prayed to for intercession, the angels which are named... and, of course, there's Lucifer...

It's reasonable to group it with monotheism, but it isn't pure monotheism, in the opinion of this atheist mystic

96. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 10:12:34 PM

I agree with you, AngelFive, depending on one's understanding of 'The Trinity'.

How's that for a surprise ?

On the other hand (he said, vacillating) those who envision the Trinity as three 'manifestations' of the 'One True God' would differ.

97. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 10:20:19 PM

Regarding "Spiritual Issues" AngelFive, what experience have you had (if any) with the 'Agape' kind of love to which I refer in my #41 ? Do you see that kind of tenacious, doggedly determined kind of devotion as merely some sort of neurosis, or does it demonstrate 'spiritual maturity' in your opinion ? Or perhaps neither ?

As an atheist, what do you think of self-sacrificial love ?

98. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 10:30:41 PM

99. bloodnfire - 9/13/1999 10:32:11 PM

I have no idea how the double post happened! Please don't feel you have to answer the question twice :-)

100. ethiopianeunuch - 9/14/1999 1:44:27 AM

Vines expository dictionary defines reprobte as "not standing the test,rejected". I think the test of weather someone is reprobate comes in what he does in the body. How does one live his life? God gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth should not perish. God is no respector of persons.

101. ethiopianeunuch - 9/14/1999 2:59:02 AM

Blood: I hope the hurricane is not looking to affect you!

102. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 4:15:00 AM

Thanks, EE. Looks like a monster, doesn't it? We're in the Panhandle, up between Tallahassee and Pensacola. Whether it ends up in the Gulf of Mexico or not remains to be seen. It certainly looks as though Florida is in for a very rough few days, however.
It's a wonderful thing to know the Lord, isn't it ? To be confident that, indeed, "All things work together for good to those who love Him, who are the called, according to His purpose" (Romans 8:28).

Your dictionary's definition of 'Reprobate' is no more comforting than that other I quoted yesterday, as far as I'm concerned. 'Rejected' is 'Rejected'. It reminds me of the four most horrifying words in all Scripture to me..."Depart from me... I never knew you " (Matthew 7:23)

103. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 4:52:26 AM

104. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 4:59:00 AM

AceFranze. Your #90. I hope my subsequent posts affirm your point ?
He said..."You did not choose me, I chose you". I don't know of any theological premise that more quickly 'riles' some believers than 'The Sovreignty of God in Salvation'.
Naturally, to 'the mind which has not been subdued by grace' (Pink) it immediately prompts the response..."What sort of Justice is that?"
"How can God...?" Etc., as though we have so much higher a standard of righteousness and justice than He.
I truly do not want this thread to be devoted to Evangelical Christian topics. However, when discussing 'Spiritual Issues', they cannot be ignored, either.

105. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 5:22:37 AM

Let's start looking at the 'heart' of Anatomy of the Spirit. The parallels which Ms.Myss draws between the 'Symbolic Power' of the Seven Chakras of the Hindu, the Seven Sacraments of the Christian Church, and the Seven 'branches' of The Tree of Life, The Hebrew Kaballah comprising the Ten Sefirot. We'll look first at the Sacraments, and see if we agree with her definitions.

She writes (Page 70) "These seven sacraments were, and still are, sacred ceremonies that imprint the individual with -- to use Christian language--specific qualities of 'Grace, or Divine Energy':.
(I accept that, 'Divine Energy' as a pretty good definition of one aspect of Grace. Do you ?). "Symbolically, each sacrament also represents a stage of empowerment that invites the Divine directly into a person's spirit. The term sacrament itself means a ritual invoking the power of the sacred into the soul of the individual. They symbolic significance of the sacraments transcends their religious significance, and my references to them should not be misconstrued to suggest that people need literally to receive the sacraments from a Christian institution." Continuing....

106. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 5:34:41 AM

She goes on to define the seven sacraments as follows...
Baptism : to receive or bestow an expression of grace representing gratitude for one's life in the physical world.
Communion : to receive or bestow an expression of grace - in the form of a 'Host' - that represents holy union with God and with people in one's life
Confirmation : to receive or bestow an expression of grace that enhances one's individuality and self-esteem
Marriage : to receive or bestow a blessing making sacred a union with oneself, symbolic of recognizing and honoring the essential need to love and care for oneself in order that one can fully love another
Confession : to receive or bestow the grace to cleanse one's spirit of negative acts of will
Ordination : to receive or bestow the grace to make sacred one's path of service, and
Extreme Unction : to receive or bestow the grace to finish one's unfinished business not just before death, but as a daily part of one's life, thus allowing a person to love in 'present time'.

These seven stages of personal initiation represent inherent powers that we are meant to actualize, powers that we need consciously to utilize and employ through meeting the challenges that life presents."

Tomorrow, the Lord willing, we'll compare the seven branches of 'The Ten Sefirot', the 'Tree of Life'. Then, on Thursday, we'll add the third group, the seven Chakras of the Hindu. Any comments ?

107. SnowOwl - 9/14/1999 5:54:07 AM

Supposing God does exist, and supposing he did indeed behave in the way you describe, Bloodnfire, that is, choosing some and not others to receive the Son and thus everlasting life, in my view it is perfectly legitimate to ask the questions you deride in #104. We would, quite rightly, think very poorly of a parent who chose only some of of his children to be the recipients of love while punishing the others for things over which they had no control. Yet we are expected to adore and worship a God who denies the chance of salvation to some of those human beings he had a hand in creating.

I suspect I may not be understanding you properly, so I'd be pleased if you would explain to me how you can reconcile the concept of free will with your idea that those whom God has chosen must eventually be drawn into the fold, so to speak.

108. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 9:08:46 AM

tckrulak, I don't know what post you are talking about in the old Spiritual Issues thread, so if you asked me something there, ask it again.

Actually, the one post I did see from you to me was something about you being in my old stomping grounds. Is that what you were referring to? I told you to e-mail me at

V_Kuligin@yahoo.com

bloodnfire, I'm not sure why you said the "flies in the face of inviting him in" line to me, since I don't recall saying anything about "inviting him in." Did I miss something, or were you just "using" me as a foil for an aside?

Angel-5, surely you don't mean to imply that a belief in angels and demons (Lucifer included) negates one as being a monotheist? And don't forget, we Protestants don't pray to the saints or the Blessed Virgin anyway, but even for the Catholics that do, it strikes me as odd that you'd attempt to use that as "proof" that they aren't true monotheists. Please explain, as the last time I checked, the Blessed Virgin and the Apostles/saints were CREATED by the one true God in the first place, according to RCC theology.

109. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 9:13:14 AM

bloodnfire, also, I fail to see how one cut hold any respect for a definition of the Christian sacraments of baptism and communion without ANY reference to Jesus Christ, like Ms. Myss does in her book.

And what "qualifies" her to give us a scholarly, doctrinally solid definition of those Christian sacraments in the first place?

In short, I'm a bit wary of a person that "conveniently" leaves out Jesus Christ when speaking of things Christian!

110. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 9:18:41 AM

Just so I didn't misread anything, here's your comments A-5:

95. Angel-Five - 9/14/99 1:41:23 AM
Christianity isn't really a true monotheistic religion, though, what with the three aspects, the Virgin, the various Saints which are prayed to for intercession, the angels which are named... and, of course, there's Lucifer...

The reasons you give for Christianity not being, in your estimation, "pure monotheism," are:

"the three aspects" (which I assume you mean the Trinity, but if so, your choice of "aspects" is sloppy theologically)
the Virgin
praying to the saints
angels "which are named" (why do you add that phrase BTW?)
Lucifer

Could you please explain how each of these five reasons detracts from your understanding of "pure monotheism?"

111. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 10:25:13 AM

Not being Christian (Jewish agnostic fits far better), I have always been puzzled by how Christians can claim to be monotheistic and still pray for saints to provide the sort of assistance that divine beings can (healing, miracles, etc.). Indeed, the Catholic church seems to require this as a condition for sainthood. Are the saints supposed to be able to do this themselves and if so, does it mean that they are divine? If they merely act as intermediaries with God, does this mean that people do not have a personal relationship with God?

112. pellenilsson - 9/14/1999 10:32:22 AM

blood

Has the Myss book drawn any 'official' reaction from the Church (yes, I know 'the Church' has many parts, but still).

113. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:34:11 AM

WRT to RCC and saints- The communion of saints is the connection of all believers in prayer to the one, true and only God. Prayer to ask mother Thereasa (not a saint), or the Mother of God to pray for you is seen as similar to asking your living mother to pray for you. Saints are seen as being possessed of special graces and these graces can be bestowed on those who ask for them. Just as you might rather ask your saintly mother to pray for you when you are in trouble, rather than some blackguard, we pray for intercession by the saints.

114. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 10:35:09 AM

Dantheman,

As I understand it (not being Catholic) praying to the saints for intercession is much like asking someone here on earth, "Please pray for me, because ..."

The main gripe Protestants have with such a thing is NOT because it somehow takes away from monotheism or the view that God is God alone, but that it detracts from the position of Jesus as the SOLE Mediator between God and man.

Recall, Mary and the saints are creatures, created by God to serve Him. They are NOT "gods" or some such thing in the RCC.

115. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:45:39 AM

From the RCC cathechism:
957. "COMMUNION with the SAINTS. 'It is not merely by the title OF example that we cherish the memory OF those in heaven; we seek, rather, that by this devotion to the exercise OF fraternal charity the union OF the whole Church in the Spirit may be strengthened. Exactly as Christian COMMUNION among our fellow pilgrims brings us closer to Christ, so our COMMUNION with the SAINTS joins us to Christ, from whom as from its fountain and head issues all grace, and the life OF the People OF God itself'[LG 50; cf. Eph 4:1-6 .]:
We worship Christ as God's Son; we love the martyrs as the Lord's disciples and imitators, and rightly so because OF their matchless devotion towards their king and master. May we also be their companions and fellow disciples![Martyrium Polycarpi, 17: Apostolic Fathers II/3, 396.]"

961. "The term 'COMMUNION OF SAINTS' refers also to the COMMUNION OF 'holy persons' (sancti) in Christ who 'died for all,' so that what each one does or suffers in and for Christ bears fruit for all."

962. "'We believe in the COMMUNION OF all the faithful OF Christ, those who are pilgrims on earth, the dead who are being purified, and the blessed in heaven, all together forming one Church; and we believe that in this COMMUNION, the merciful love OF God and his SAINTS is always (attentive) to our prayers' (Paul VI, CPG # 30)."

116. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:46:07 AM

Catechism continued:
972. "After speaking OF the Church, her origin, mission, and destiny, we can find no better way to conclude than by looking to Mary. In her we contemplate what the Church already is in her mystery on her own 'pilgrimage OF faith,' and what she will be in the homeland at the end OF her journey. There, 'in the glory OF the Most Holy and Undivided Trinity,' 'in the COMMUNION OF all the SAINTS,'[LG 69.] the Church is awaited by the one she venerates as Mother OF her Lord and as her own mother.
In the meantime the Mother OF Jesus, in the glory which she possesses in body and soul in heaven, is the image and beginning OF the Church as it is to be perfected in the world to come. Likewise she shines forth on earth until the day OF the Lord shall come, a sign OF certain hope and comfort to the pilgrim People OF God.[LG 68; Cf. 2 Pet 3 10 .]"

117. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 10:47:15 AM

Jonesatlaw/KuligantheHooligan--
If you say so. The impression this non-Christian gets is that saints are able to perform the miracles themselves and not through God. For example, why are prayers said not to the saint to intercede with God, but rather for the act itself to be done? It sounds as if the saint is capable of performing the act to me.

118. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:53:34 AM

Forgive the odd capitals, they're part of the search results. The Offical Catechism is online and has a search engine: Official Catechism of the Catholic Church

119. pellenilsson - 9/14/1999 10:54:23 AM

If you want to continue to upset bloodnfire by disgressions you should really go for the Maria cult rather than the rather harmless saints.

120. pellenilsson - 9/14/1999 10:55:05 AM

.. digressions... I'm hopeless today.

121. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:57:18 AM

Dantheman- The prayers that most Catholics memorize include phrases asking for prayer or intercession, formal prayers always include this, except when addressed to one of the persons of the trinity. The only exceptions I can think of are some children's prayers and one to St. Micheal the Archangel.

122. JonesAtLaw - 9/14/1999 10:59:18 AM

Pellenilson- good point- this discursion has been brought to you by the Roman Catholic Church, we now return you to your regular programming, spiritual issues.

123. theDiva - 9/14/1999 11:01:35 AM

Jonesie

Don't forget the spontaneous intercessory prayers to the patron saints.....St. Christopher for safe trips, St. Jude for hopeless causes, St. Anthony for lost articles. BTW, the latter always comes through for me.

124. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 11:06:22 AM

Jonesatlaw--
You could be right. Even so, it seems strange why this is desirable or necessary as a theological construct. If God is sufficiently omniscient and omnipotent to be worthy of our worship, why does He need intermediaries? Moreover, it leads to a sense that one does not "matter" to God on an individiual basis, which does not seem to fit with many other pronouncements.

125. theDiva - 9/14/1999 11:20:32 AM

Hi Dan, welcome.

Let me have a stab at explaining this. Warning: I'm not a theologian, merely a cradle Catholic sharing belief.

God doesn't need the intermediaries....we do. And we don't need them because he doesn't care about us...he loves us with a love that we can't begin to comprehend. And, if the time is right, he will give us what we pray for without intercession from anyone, living or dead.

The NT teaches that 'where two or three are gathered in my name, there I shall be.' To me, this supports the notion of intercessory prayer. When we unite our prayers in worship, or at any other time, it's pleasing to God. It's kind of like when you're a kid and you do something nice to please your parents just because you love them.

Asking your friends and family to pray for you is a fairly understandable and acceptable notion, generally. Now, I believe that humans have both physical and spiritual presence - when someone dies, their body is gone but their spirit (soul) still exists. If you accept this, then asking the saints to pray for you is the same as asking your family and friends to pray for you.

I hope this makes sense.

126. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 11:29:56 AM

Diva,
Not really satisfying, but that may reflect my Reform Jewish background. If God created us, then why would he create us in a way that we need intermediaries? Why would we be encouraged to pray individually if it is ineffective? More germane to my concerns, asking saints to pray for you is very different than asking friends to pray for you. Saints appear to be "official intermediaries" who do not individually know you (and can't be expected to unless they are divine) and yet they are being asked to act and pray for you. this does not make any sense to me.

127. TheWizardOfWhimsy - 9/14/1999 11:39:42 AM

How dare we forget Saint Dymphna the patron saint of nervous breakdowns?

128. theDiva - 9/14/1999 11:42:40 AM

Dan

Hmmmmm.....you raise interesting questions. Your point about my previous post being unsatisfying is well taken. Sometimes certain belief systems, I think, are best understood with living them. My husband, reared Southern Baptist, converted to Catholicism about 7 years ago, and though he has accepted his new faith, his questions genuinely reflect his upbringing.

Let me answer, now, what I can, and think about/research the others. This is good for me, btw....forces me to think about what I believe. Thanks for being nice about it - things can sometimes get a little, er, testy on these issues.

I'm not so sure I can answer your first question. In fact, I know I can't. And your third question, concerning whether a saint knows the one requesting intercession, is a good one. I'll have to look into those....I'd like to know as well.

Now to your second question: I don't believe it's ineffective to pray individually, quite the contrary. We're taught and encouraged to pray with utter faith and conviction, and that such prayer is quite powerful....God answers every prayer. Now, we* may not like the answer, and we may not appreciate the fact that God takes his time answering, but we have to accept that he does answer us.

*(we meaning the body of believers)

129. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 11:54:47 AM

Diva,
Your posts in 128 regarding my second question are precisely why I said that it does not fit with other pronouncements. If 2 or more are required before it is "pleasing to God" to use your words in 125, they why are we encouraged to pray individually? Or is being pleasing to God different than being heard by God?
P.S. I am rarely testy on any issue, and see no reason why anyone should be testy if someone is in good faith trying to respond to their concerns.

130. theDiva - 9/14/1999 12:00:55 PM

Dan

I don't think I expressed myself well...it's not that 2 or 3 are required before it's pleasing. And it's not any more or less pleasing to God than solitary prayer. I suppose you could consider it another form of worship....and maybe God is pleased by the sight partially because worshipping with your fellow believers strengthens and enables you to live your faith.

To me, that's the main point....living your faith. I can sing my lungs out at Mass, but if I cuss out someone in the parking lot and cut them off, what's the point?

131. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 12:08:32 PM

Diva,
Interesting, although it brings to mind a discussion I recently had about my synagogue seeming to gradually increase the amount of Hebrew in the service. If most of the congregation does not really understand the meaning of the Hebrew words and are just mouthing them, then would such a service really be pleasing to God? The same question could be asked of Catholic services when they were primarily in Latin. What does that say about organized services in general as opposed to prayers from the heart?

Your last sentence reminds me of a line a college buddy of mine used, "Growing up as a middle class suburban Catholic meant sowing your wild oats on Saturday night and on Sunday morning praying for crop failure."

132. theDiva - 9/14/1999 12:21:27 PM

hahaha! Cute, I have to remember that one.

WRT Latin mass (and talk about opening a can of worms) - I believe that Vatican II did away with mass in Latin in order to make the prayers more accessible and understandable to the congregation. I'd love to, just once, attend a Latin (language) mass. And it's funny - when I was a kid the parts of the mass were just so many words to me. (Catholic masses, in case you've not been to one, feature a great deal of call-and-response, kneeling, standing, sitting...) Over the past few years I have really come to appreciate the depth and meaning of the prayers, particularly when I consider that the substance of the mass and the prayers haven't changed since the Church was born.

Oh, and I went looking for an explanantion of prayer to the saints....this ought to explain itt for you better than I have. link

133. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 12:45:36 PM

Dantheman asks some good questions, some of which hit upon why I don't agree with the RCC notion of praying to Mary and/or the saints. For starters, I don't think it can be supported by the NT.

But putting that aside, I'm bewildered at Dantheman's bewilderment concerning God wanting or needing or using intermediaries. Dan, you say you are sort of "Jewish," well, you don't have to look far at all to see the Old Testament Jehovah using intermediaries galore!

One reason off the top of my head for using an intermediary in the OT was because the people couldn't bear to approach God directly. They were scared to death to do so! Enter Moses, etc. The entire priestly/sacrificial system was an intermediary system. So I am somewhat confused why you think a Christian notion of intermediaries is so "strange."

And I don't know if I already did this, Diva, but greetings to you. Nice to see you posting here!

134. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 12:46:46 PM

Diva,
I had trouble linking, so I pulled it up myself. It doesn't really say much more to me than you did, and doesn't satisfy me as to why we would need any such intermediaries. Moreover, some of the saints lead very poor lives as individuals (the most famous that I can recall nasty things about being St. George) or did very little in their lives on earth (I am thinking specifically about the saints who were children found dead and the local authorities blamed Jews, who allegedly killed them to make matzo). Why should they have any position as intermediaries unless you accept that praying to them leads to miracles (i.e., it works, so it must be true)?

As to the Latin mass, you seem to be making the same point that I did, that prayers in another language (whether Hebrew or Latin) are less meaningful. One can at least argue that any prayer with words repeated by rote will be the same, even if the people praying understand the words. Doesn't this imply that organized prayer is less, not more, effective?

P.S. Jewish services also involve most of the same elements (no kneeling, though). They also add chanting, where prayers are "sung" by the cantor a capella in Hebrew, almost always to the same rhythm. More traditional Jewish services also have what strikes me as a very annoying part of the service, the Amidah, where everyone is praying using the same Hebrew words out loud, but each at their own pace, sounding like a mish-mash.

135. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 12:51:14 PM

Kuligan,
True, but at least the biblical intermediaries were living, breathing people who can have some comprehension of your problem. Praying to a person who has been dead for 15 centuries to be healed of a disease that he never heard of in his life strikes me as being very different.

Moreover, the biblical intermediaries were for God to pass his words to the people, not for the people to pray to God. I can accept your suggestion that people cannot handle contact from God, but why can't God handle contact from people?

136. theDiva - 9/14/1999 1:04:33 PM

Hi, Vic, thanks!

Dan, yes, I did mean to make the same point. In my experience, though, the organized prayers have become increasingly powerful and meaningful to me as my faith has deepened and matured. I suppose you get out of of the Mass what you put into it, as I so frequently tell my daughter.

137. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 1:17:08 PM

Diva,
Probably all true, but not much guidance to a person who leans towards agnosticism. It provides little reason for a person who does not have much faith to practice a religion whose rituals require faith to appreciate. Moreover, I suspect that even a religious person suffers from what economists call declining marginal returns to scale (i.e., that the increase in what you get out of it lessens with each additional time the same prayer is said).

138. theDiva - 9/14/1999 1:38:28 PM

Dan

Well, now you've hit my weak point....I'm not, in all honesty, very good at convincing agnostics (and Protestants, for that matter, as Vic may tell you!) as to the logic and soundness of Catholic beliefs and practices. Sometimes I know the reasons and can articulate them....other times I know the reasons on a level that goes beyond words.

As to your last point...I don't know that economic rules would apply to something so subjective. My personal experience refutes it, for one thing, though I may be atypical as I was away from the Church for so many years.

139. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 1:49:48 PM

Yesterday I asked Vic to consider whether he would have become an active member of the church if he had been raised a Moslem and whether he thought he would have, in that circumstance, considered Christianity to be destructive. Vic declined to speculate on this matter but I think it is an important consideration. A person tends to stick with the religion they were born into and if there is only one-way to heaven then a lot of folks are going to be left out in the cold. Does anyone else care to speculate what it would be like if they had been raised with a different religious tradition? Could the other religion fulfill the same role in your life? Could you go to heaven? Would you then consider your current religion false?

140. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 1:52:36 PM

Dantheman, well, if you are asking me to defend the Catholic notion of praying to saints, you've come to the wrong place, since I don't agree with the doctrine! I was merely pointing out that God has frequently worked through intermediaries.

And I don't think the problem is that God CANNOT "handle contact" with humans directly, but I think it goes back to the issue of sin and the Fall of mankind. At one point God DID deal directly with humanity, but then mankind fell and I believe intermediaries serve one purpose of pointing out to *us* that we are no longer allowed to deal with God directly.

Thus enter Jesus Christ, the ONE Mediator between God and man.

141. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 1:55:22 PM

Winston, just keep in mind that many, many people convert to religions other than the ones they were raised with.

Given your hypothetical, who knows, I could have been born a Muslim but still converted to Christianity at some point! That's why I think the hypothetical is ultimately pointless (albeit I suppose it IS fun to speculate at times!

142. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 2:03:16 PM

Vic,

I don't think it's pointless, it’s part of how we are able to understand and relate to other human beings. Put yourself in the shoes of another and imagine how you would feel, how you would act? Some people convert but most don’t. I can understand why you don’t want to picture yourself as a passionate adherent of a religion you consider false but it could have happened.

143. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:07:11 PM

Kuligan,
Please don't shout. I was responding to your comment in the spirit I thought it was intended and I would appreciate if you did as well.
Moreover, there are several thousand years between the expulsion from Eden and Jesus's appearance. As you pointed out, there are numerous persons chosen by God in the interim.to receive his commands and thereby act as mediator. This goes against your suggestion that Jesus is the one true mediator between man and God.

Winston,
It is questions like yours that led to me being agnostic. I would have trouble accepting any religion that would condemn a person for being born into the "wrong" religion and not leaving it, especially (as some Christian ones do) for not having accepted a savior who did not appear on earth as yet.

Even the Catholic Church is not immune to this. Earlier this year, I went to Rome on my honeymoon. In the Vatican Museum, near the entrance to the Sistine Chapel, there was a painting (I think by Raphael) of a counsel deciding a religious dispute in Heaven. The saints all had halos, while the Old Testament figures did not. If the Old Testament figures are sufficiently wise/faithful/etc. to have anything to contribute to this discussion, how can they not be in Heaven?

144. marjoribanks - 9/14/1999 2:07:39 PM

Kuligin takes too much pleasure in apologetics, and thinking within a "closed" system, to have ever remained anything other than a fundamentalist Christian or a fundamentalist Muslim. I don't mean it as an insult. He could never be a Hindu, or a Jew, or a Buddhist for example there's too much nebulousness in those religions for him.

Just my opinion.

145. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:08:05 PM

The point is, Winston, that it didn't.

I think it would be interesting to see what others say, "If only I was born ..." but because it didn't happen, all conjecture is simply that, conjecture.

"I can understand why you don’t want to picture yourself as a passionate adherent of a religion you consider false but it could have happened."

Well, it didn't. So I can "picture" myself all I like as an adherent of the New Age Movement if I want to, but what's the point really?

What religion are you Winston, and why don't you tell us what you think about the hypothetical. Tell me your current religion and I'll pick a hypothetical for you to comment on. How's that?

146. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:10:06 PM

Dantheman

"Please don't shout. I was responding to your comment in the spirit I thought it was intended and I would appreciate if you did as well."

I wasn't shouting, just having fun with the new fonts and such. Try not to be so over-sensitive, though.

marjoribanks, you are probably correct. I can't stand all that namby-pamby stuff.

147. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 2:15:19 PM

Vic,

I was raised in the Baptist church and became an agnostic when I was 11. The questions I am asking you are the ones I agonized over.

So, what would you like me to imagine?

148. theDiva - 9/14/1999 2:15:22 PM

Dan

Minor point - and you may ignore this if you were being tongue-in-cheek - generally the Church doesn't formulate doctrine based on paintings by Renaissance masters (g). Seriously, though, I don't think there's any question in any Catholic's mind that the OT patriarchs are in heaven. Of course they are.

(and congratulations on your marriage.)

149. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:20:17 PM

Dantheman

"Moreover, there are several thousand years between the expulsion from Eden and Jesus's appearance. As you pointed out, there are numerous persons chosen by God in the interim.to receive his commands and thereby act as mediator. This goes against your suggestion that Jesus is the one true mediator between man and God."

I forgot to comment on this part. No, it doesn't go against the notion of JC as the one true mediator. As you may or may not know, in the NT we are taught that the things in the OT were 'shadows and forms' pointing to what would be the substance to come, namely, the Mesiah. JC is now the ONLY Mediator between God and man, per the NT. Nothing contradictory there.

Winston, let me know what Baptist denom if you don't mind. Then I'll come up with something.

150. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:20:56 PM

Marjoribanks,
I think Kuligan could also be a fundementalist Jew, as well. He might not fit in with joyous types, like Lubuvitchers, but he seems to fit in well with the ones (like many in Israel) who want to impose a dull certainty of spiritual decisions made centuries ago for the lively and individual quest for answers. Hopefully he is less dangerous than some of them are, who throw dung and other, more harmful objects at people whose idea of worship does not match with theirs.

151. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:21:17 PM

I would agree with Diva about the OT patriarchs.

152. theDiva - 9/14/1999 2:22:02 PM

Winston

You raise interesting questions. Here's my contribution:

I often have wondered what it would be like to practice Judaism or Islam. I have dear friends of both faiths, and I find their beliefs to be fascinating. Moreover, our (small 'o') core beliefs tend to be similar....loving our brothers, being kind to one another, taking care of those who cannot take care of themselves, respect for each other's beliefs and practices.

As the belief that 'one must follow my religion in order to get to heaven' is alien to me, I doubt that I would feel that way were I to convert.

153. theDiva - 9/14/1999 2:22:34 PM

Praise Jesus! Vic and I agree on something! (g)

154. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:24:45 PM

Diva,
My point was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although there are Christian sects who do not believe Old Testament figures are in Heaven, because they did not accept Jesus. Also, what about the common persons in Old Testament times? If they lived good lives, would they be in Heaven, in spite of no showing of God's favor?

155. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:26:10 PM

Winston, OK, I gave in and began to think about the hypothetical! :)

Actually, even given my REAL upbringing (and that's not shouting Dantheman, just using the fonts for emphasis!), I am considerably different theologically than from my upbringing, albeit I am still a Chistian. So even there we would have to recognize changes even though we may have been raised a certain way.

156. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:27:12 PM

"My point was at least somewhat tongue-in-cheek, although there are Christian sects who do not believe Old Testament figures are in Heaven, because they did not accept Jesus."

Please name some of these sects if you don't mind Dantheman.

157. theDiva - 9/14/1999 2:28:15 PM

Dan

Certainly any of those to whom the 10 commandments were revealed, and who followed the commandments. This is indeed where the Church departs from the Protestant denominations. Let me see whether I can locate the exact teaching on this topic. Back in a flash.

158. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:29:42 PM

Dantheman, perhaps you ought to ask bloodnfire about his "dull certainty," since both of us find nothing dull about having our sins forgiven in the atoning work of Jesus Christ, and the FREEDOM & JOY we have experienced as a result!

Nope, nothing dull about that, unless you don't have "ears to hear" that is.

159. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:31:46 PM

My understanding is that Jehovah's Witnesses believe that. Possibly Seventh Day Adventists, as well.

160. marjoribanks - 9/14/1999 2:32:17 PM

Dan,

I don't think so. There is fundamental and continued questioning even in the most orthodox Hasidic traditions. Continued, tortured (and very reasonable if you ask me) assessments and reassessments, comparisons of one scholar to another, and even some mysticism. Kuligin (and again I don't mean it as an insult) would not be able to question and requestion things or even really leave matters open. According to him (according to me) he's pretty much figured it out, now it's dissemination and defense on the agenda. Very much like a fundamentalist Shi-ite, actually.

Also, I've been to that part of Jerusalem (can't remember the name right now) and was shouted at for wearing a short-sleeved shirt an for looking somewhat Arabic. Ironically, later in E. Jerusalem, two Arab shopkeepers wouldn't attend to me for looking somewhat Jewish. It was all rather interesting.

161. marjoribanks - 9/14/1999 2:34:18 PM

Vic, the fonts are highly distracting and make you look juvenile no matter what is the content of your posts. Use color and emphasis if you have to but for God's sake please keep the type the same size.

Actually, I don't know if God cares, he's in the PlayPen right now, but do it for everyone else's sake then)

162. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:36:47 PM

Again, marjoribanks, you are correct. I have "stumbled" upon the truth found in Jesus Christ, and at that point, there isn't any need for me to "keep on seeking."

Diva, you and I probably agree on a lot more than you think (and I KNOW that scares you!) :-)

Dantheman, no to the Seventh-Day Adventists, but as for the JWs, they *do* believe that the Patriarchs CAN be saved (in the 1000-year reign of Jesus they must still prove faithful), but I doubt very much that they actually believe any of the OT patriarchs will fall away during that time. I am quite familiar with the JWs too BTW.

Winston, I'll have to take up the hypothetical later unfortunately. Other matters await!

163. God - 9/14/1999 2:38:21 PM

Hey everybody! They just invented fire, come see!

164. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:38:30 PM

Marjoribanks,
While hasidic groups allow the rabbis to argue minutiae, they don't want the congregant to do so. Moreover, some the Jewish groups reach silly (i.e., the state of Israel can't really exist, since the Messiah has not come, so they can't use Israeli money) or dangerous (we need to restore the Temple, by removing the current occupant of the Temple Mount, i.e. The Dome of The Rock) conclusions, which they expect their followers to live with.
I'm sorry you had problems is Mea Shaarim (?). When we were there, they also said nasty things to my mom for wearing a shoulder length blouse.

165. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:38:54 PM

marjoribanks

"Kuligin (and again I don't mean it as an insult) would not be able to question and requestion things or even really leave matters open."

Actually, you have no idea how much questioning and requestioning I have done in the past. But once you come upon the Truth, there is no further need to seek it!

As for my fun with the new fonts

YOU CAN BITE ME!!!

Lighten up, man!

166. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 2:39:19 PM

Vic,

I believe it was called Conservative Baptist.

Diva,

I might have remained a religious person longer if the one I was raised in had beliefs more like yours

167. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 2:43:35 PM

Winston, I'm very familiar with them.

OK, try this one on for size. This may not be the greatest choice, but say you were born in Germany around the time of Martin Luther. Your family is Catholic Germans, but Luther has just begun his "reformation."

Now I am gone for the evening. See you tomorrow. I look forward to your answer Winston.

And for you marjori and Dantheman

GOOD NIGHT!!!

168. marjoribanks - 9/14/1999 2:49:18 PM

Dan,

I know. And Vic is the direct fundamentalist Christian version of a rabbi.

I've spent some time with the Lubavichers here in New York, and even have a dollar bill from the now-departed theorized-Moshiach Rabbi Menachem Schneerson. Many Hasidim have odd beliefs, no doubt, but there is a basic theoretical difference - in the very final analysis there is no dogma only interpretation. This is a redeeming feature of Judaism in my opinion, even among the wackos.

169. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 2:49:35 PM

Kuligan,
What if you were born shortly after that, and under the treaty that ended the Thirty Years War, you were forced to follow the religion of your local noble? What if you were born if France shortly after, after the Catholics massacred the Protestants on St. Bartholomew's Day? Would you still be willing to consider changing your religion, even under threats of death? Would you think that a religion that kills people for minor religious differences (as has been done by both our religions since their earliest days) is worthy of your faith?

170. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:06:00 PM

Dan

Well, I've looked until I am just about bug-eyed, and I can't find the exact passage I'm looking for. It's in the CCC, somewhere. I'll look more later when my eyes have rested. I hesitate to paraphrase for fear of mis-stating the teaching.

Vic

Naaaaahhhhh......similar beliefs, different methods to our madness (g)

Winston

Thanks. You're welcome to come to mass with me if ever you're in the DC area. Our gospel choir is quite lively - I promise you won't be disappointed.

171. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 3:12:04 PM

Marjoribanks,
I don't quite agree with you that Judaism is that much better, not when fanatically religious Jews physically attack Reform and Conservative ones for daring to pray with men and women together. I also believe that Kuligan could be a fanatical member of any religion. He is a fanatical Christian because it reached him, but the same force could be present (and is with many others) with any religion that did.

172. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 3:15:26 PM

Diva,
Don't blind yourself. I'll trust you on that difference.

173. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:16:28 PM

Dan

Thank you. At the moment I think I've even forgotten what my original point was, anyway.

174. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 3:22:39 PM

Vic,

I would like to think that I would have appreciated the tolerance of Luther but I might have stuck with the family religion if I was struggling to make a living and keep out of trouble. It’s certain that I would not have had any of the books that I read as a child so it is less likely that I would have been an agnostic.

175. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 3:29:15 PM

Diva,
I think you were responding to a somewhat humorous comment of mine regarding the Old Testament figures in a painting in the Vatican. Just out of curiousity, why is it only the Ten Commandments that the Church cares about for people who lived before Jesus? While I am not expecting that they would expect those people to follow all 613 religious rules that the Hasidim claim, surely there are others of some importance to them in order to be worthy of Heaven.

176. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:33:38 PM

Well, I'm glad one of us can remember that far back. My mind is going, I'm working and posting and talking to visitors to my office.....uuuhhhhhh.....

In answer to your question - the teaching goes something like this. Jesus came to abolish the old law. That doesn't mean that there was anything wrong or incorrect in the law; just that the reasons for those laws no longer applied. There's a passage in one of the Gospels that talks about this, and I'm reasonably sure I can find it without going blind.

177. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 3:37:07 PM

Diva,
Actually, I believe this is Paul's teaching, not from any of the Gospels. My understanding is that the Apostles were practicing Jews and that until Paul Christians followed Jewish law (and only accepted converts who were already Jewish).

178. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:39:08 PM

Jesus himself says it at some point, I think in connection with the Pharisees...lemme check, though.

179. theDiva - 9/14/1999 3:58:16 PM

That's what I get for relying on my memory. Ignore this part of my #176 "Jesus came to abolish the old law". How embarrassing. St. Matthew knows better than I do. Here when he refers to Law, he means the commandments. The Pharisees are a separate issue.

Mt 5:17-18
"Do not imagine that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete them. In truth I tell you, till heaven and earth disappear, not one dot, not one little stroke, is to disappear from the Law until all its purpose is achieved."

Jesus criticized the Pharisees for their adherence to the laws (small 'l') while ignoring the spirit of the Law. There are illustrations of this all through the Gospels.

Riv, are you here? Can you think of any?

180. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 4:07:21 PM

Diva,
This brings up an interesting point. The 613 laws the Hasidim claim to follow (I use that phrase because I have no desire to count them -- not because I am disparaging their degree of faithfulness in following them) derive generally from Leviticus. Why should they not be binding under your quote? Is there a distinction between the Ten Commandments and the remainder of the laws of the Old Testament? If so, on what basis?

181. theDiva - 9/14/1999 4:20:53 PM

Dan

You are probably the most challenging conversation I've had on line in a long time, and I'm thoroughly enjoying this. But I must tell you that now we're waaaaaay out of my depth here. I wish I could answer your questions fully and with the detail they deserve.

182. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 4:21:49 PM

Diva,

I can't think of any other illustrations of your point in the NT and don't have a bible at my immediate disposal.

Dan,

I'm not aware that the RCC makes any distinctions between the Ten Commandments and the rest of the laws of the OT insofar as it applies to people who lived before Jesus' time on earth. My understanding is that the RCC urges members of the church living in the present to follow the Ten Commandments and I am not aware of any other OT laws which carry the same weight.

183. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 4:47:11 PM

Rivendell,
I was not aware of any, either. That was just the impression Diva's post 179 left, by saying the Law meant the Ten Commandments, but the laws observed by the Pharisees was different.

184. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 4:47:51 PM

Diva,
Thanks for the compliment. I enjoyed this chat, too.

185. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 4:58:48 PM

Dan,

One distinction, that was emphasized oh so many years ago in parochial school, is that the Ten Commandments are supposed to have come directly from God. Whereas all the other laws are human written(divine inspiration notwithstanding). Therefore, Jesus was saying that the (L)aw would come to completion through him.

186. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:06:07 PM

Rivendell,
Interesting, as I believe Jewish tradition is the opposite (i.e., that God himself wrote the five Books of Moses). This was even an issue in the recent (1999) reformulation of the Reform Judaism spiritual guidelines. I will try to find a link.

187. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 5:09:35 PM

Dan,

That is interesting. I'm quite certain the RCC considers all the books of the bible to be human written via divine inspiration and guideance.

188. ElliottRW - 9/14/1999 5:15:51 PM

Religious Questions
Up for Grabs

Is God necessary...
...for there to be an objective moral code?
...for eternal life to be possible?
...for the world to exist?

189. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:17:01 PM

Rivendell,
The link is link. (Hopefully, this works, as it is my first try at linking). Under the description of Torah, it describes it as being the result of revelation. I remember from hebrew school the story of how if God dictated the entire Torah to Moses, how did it include the account of Moses's death at the end of Deuteronomy. The answer given was that God dictated the description of Moses's death to him, and then Moses left the camp and died.

190. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:21:34 PM

It worked!!

Elliott,
My answers are:
1)definitely not -- see no shortage of non-religiously based philosophers, starting with Kant.
2)possibly, although the Buddhists think otherwise. Something beyond this world is necessary if there is life after death in this world.
3)probably not -- I accept the scientific theories, without denying that it is possible that it was God who caused the Big Bang.

191. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 5:31:08 PM

Dan,

The link worked fine. And thank you for it.

Catholic teaching is that the bible (and in our case, particularly, the Gospels) are the word of God, but that the word had to be written down down by humans. So we are not all that far apart.

In Catholic versions of the Bible I have read, in the introductions to various books, scholarly speculation concerning the actual authors. So I feel fairly safe in saying we don't take too hard a stand on who wrote what if the book is not already attributed to a particular author. The emphasis is rather on how we can use the divine inspiration to determine how we should live, assuming we want to live lives pleasing to God.

That is, I think, the point Diva was trying to make.

192. ElliottRW - 9/14/1999 5:36:46 PM

DanTheMan--

We are in agreement. Dang.

193. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:42:12 PM

Rivendell,
I don't think we're far apart, either, although the Jewish belief in divine authorship asserts itself in some strange ways, including that one cannot touch an actual Torah with one's skin. To read from it, you need to use handles, pointers, etc. You also cannot let it touch the ground.

As to Diva's point, hopefully she can clarify it. I continue to read it as I posted in 183, that Jesus only required adherence to the Law (meaning the Ten Commandments) and not the laws (the remainder of the 613 laws the Hasidim count).

194. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:43:59 PM

Elliott,
You're disappointed that we agree? While they can lead to interesting discussions, I should think that most agnostics should agree on these.

195. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:44:26 PM

I have to leave soon. See you all tomorrow.

196. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 5:46:12 PM

ElliottRW,Dan

Yea, I agree with those answers too. Anyone else have other answers?

197. Dantheman - 9/14/1999 5:48:09 PM

WinstonSmith,
I'm sure our resident evangelist (Kuligan-the-well-named-Hooligan) does.

198. WinstonSmith - 9/14/1999 5:53:00 PM

Dan,

I suspect that Vic would say that God was necessary for all three.

199. Rivendell - 9/14/1999 5:55:51 PM

Dan,

I'm leaving too and so will check tomorrow for any response. I would say that Jesus wasn't referring solely to the Ten Commandments. Rather he was making the point that we should not get too hung up on how any law is written. He was saying that the letter of the law was not as important as seeking the intent. And that he was on earth to lead us to an understanding of the intent. That's my understanding of the quote, "I have come not to abolish [the Law or the Prophets] but to complete them."

I wasn't fully aware of guidelines for how the Torah should be handled. Yes, they do sound severe, but there is also a comforting bit of respect in them.

200. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 6:02:28 PM

No, Jesus followed the ENTIRE law, not just the 10 commandments, so I understand it.

And when he says he came to fulfill the Law, he meant the whole shebang.

dantheman, do you have a personal gripe with me? If you ask for a certain level of courtesy from me, I expect you to do the same too. If you want to take petty little jabs, that's fine, just don't whine when I use "BOLD FONTS" for fun and you complain that I am "shouting" at you!

201. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:02:33 PM

Dan

I am still trying to visualize "a shoulder length blouse."

202. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 6:03:15 PM

marshame, can it truly be you??!!

203. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:03:50 PM

Also... exactly where is it 10:02 pm? Not in my part of the world!

204. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:05:22 PM

It is, indeed, I. And contrary to popular speculation, I am not God, although at times I have been greeted with a response of "Oh, God!"

205. KuligintheHooligan - 9/14/1999 6:08:22 PM

marshame, given what God has said recently, I doubt anybody thinks you are God anymore!

I trust you are well.

206. SnowOwl - 9/14/1999 6:08:59 PM

marshame, The Mote's default time is GMT. You can change the time to show your local time under the Personal Preference link.

207. vonKreedon - 9/14/1999 6:09:55 PM

Marsha - Hi there good to see you. I also was struck by the description and not at all surprised at the reaction the blouse elicited.

208. SnowOwl - 9/14/1999 6:11:07 PM

Sorry, that should be Member Profile. One day I'll learn to look first and type next.

209. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:11:15 PM

Thank you Snowowl. Who would ever pick General Motors Time as the default, anyway? How econocentric.

210. marshame - 9/14/1999 6:13:14 PM

Hi Von K!

Sorry for my nonsequitorious entree into this thread, but it seemed to be breaking up, anyway.

211. ElliottRW - 9/14/1999 6:15:06 PM

Dan,

Oh, I do believe in God. I frequently communicate with God, and find his unwillingness to "come out" quite irritating. That said, I have little patience for those who use weak arguments to try to "prove" the existence of God. Especially when they're also asking for money.

212. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 6:38:02 PM

SnowOwl. Your #107. You write "I suspect I may not be understanding you properly, so I'd be pleased if you would explain to me how you can reconcile the concept of free will with your idea that those whom God has chosen must eventually be drawn into the fold, so to speak."
Firstly, I do not mean to 'deride' Snow owl. I must say I smile at anyone who dares to judge God with regard to justice and mercy. I submit that our standards are way below His, and He loves in a far more pure and perfect way than we do. Secondly, it's not MY idea. I quote two verses, which certainly speak very clearly to me, and to you also, apparently.
As for 'Free Will', I hear that phrase bandied around a lot. I also hear the phrase "Free Moral Agency" used in the same context. The Scriptures, however, indicate to me that far from being 'Free', mankind is born with a sin-sick disposition. Other Christians might disagree with this.
If indeed we are 'free', what did Jesus mean when He said..."If you continue in My Word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free".
(John 8:31 & 32). Perhaps you can explain to me the difference.
However, if you cannot, please don't tell me that you think He's a stinky, rotten old god, who should be ashamed of Himself. That may be your opinion, but the day He persuades you that He truly did love you enough to die in your place, your estimation of His justice and mercy will change.

213. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 6:43:01 PM

Hi Dantheman. Welcome to The Mote, and to the 'Spiritual Issues' thread.

Pelle, digression doesn't upset me. Providing we're still addressing 'Spiritual Issues' and getting a wonderful mix of all faiths (and lack of any faith) I'm happy. There isn't a 'Mary' thread, but she represents a very real spiritual issue to our Catholic Friends (and to our Evangelical friends as well, for different reasons), and there's no problem with discussing her on the thread that I can see.

214. marshame - 9/14/1999 7:02:36 PM

Hi blood'n!

Thanks to your encouragement, here I am!

Re God's chosing us: we never know the moment our eyes will be opened and our ears will hear. If you ask a person who became a believer as an adult (i.e. not a "cradle" Christian, as someone called it) I think you will almost always hear that they had previously rejected God, or been disinterested, thought it foolishness, had contempt for those whom they considered religious, etc. etc. And then, one day... without warning, words heard many times before suddenly are filled with meaning, and a mind closed to understanding suddenly is opened.

I agree with you that revelation might have the edge over evangelism. However, we cannot ignore the fact that Jesus said "Go and tell" and that "faith comes from hearing."

215. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:06:29 PM

Marjoribanks. Your #144. Whether our friend Vic could ever 'be a Hebrew' or a 'Hindu' will very quickly become apparent if we all 'stay tuned'. I posted the seven (predominantly) Catholic sacraments earlier today. Tomorrow (if you're all very good :-) I'll list the seven groups of the 'Ten Sefirot', the 'Tree of Life' of the Hebrew Kabbalah, which Ms.Myss suggests parallel the sacraments. Finally, on Thursday I'll list the seven Chakras of the Hindu, which also speak to these seven 'areas of power' in the human life.

216. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:08:04 PM

Dan, I don't think Vic meant to shout. He was playing with 'toys' which are designed to help us enliven and emphasize certain words. Vic is unfailingly polite.

217. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:10:32 PM

And IMMEDIATELY I keep scrolling on down, and find my brother Hooligan inviting you or someone to 'bite' him!! Well, Kuligan is always, unfailingly polite. The Hooligan occasionally forgets himself :-)

218. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:21:33 PM

Dan, for what it's worth, I don't recall any of your posts with which I have disagreed as I read them this evening. You are gracious and even handed. You may have missed my post early in this thread, or even a week or so ago, before we 'went public' in which I stated, with all honestly, that some of the dearest, kindest and most 'godly people I have ever met just happened to be Muslim, Hebrew, Buddhist, Catholic. It really isn't what we 'say' we believe. It's whether we demonstrate the 'Spirit of Divinity' in our lives. Even if we dont it doesn't mean that we never will.
I've met any number of Jews and Catholics who in my humble opinion demonstrated by their lives the 'fruit' of the Spirit of God. (He it was Who said that was how we could tell who belonged to Him, sometimes). I've also met a number of people who 'called' themselves 'Christian', who were ugly and meaner than junkyard dogs.
Same thing with Jews and Catholics. There are those who are 'just looking' or could care less. Godliness, as I understand things, is a gift from God Himself. You are truly most welcome on this thread.

You too ElliottRW. I rather hope you're the same Elliott we knew and loved back in the old 'Frayed Edges' ? :-)

219. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:34:10 PM

Rivendell. Welcome! Good to have you with us.

Marshame my Darling !! Thank you for joining in. Hope your excellent comments fall on open ears. Encourage Jen to try us before she leaves.

Diva the Divine. I have loved your posts on Catholicism this evening. Before I joined the Salvation Army, and after I became a Christian in 1967, though nominally a Protestant, I sang for 18 months in Holy Family Catholic church in Glendale, California. Every Saturday evening, following the Rosary, I would sing any sacred songs I liked, and then from 5:30 to 6:30 I would lead the music in the Mass.
I loved it, and I loved the people and the Priests. The first Easter, after I had been there for about six months, a young Irish priest came up into the Choir Loft, where I would position myself, and said..."Monseignor would like you to come down and receive Holy Communion". (I was flabbergasted. It is contrary to Catholic practice to extend Communion to 'Separated Believers' the gracious description they give to non-Catholics). "Are you sure the Pope won't mind, Father" I said, smiling. "We think the Holy Spirit suggested it, so you'd better get down there" he replied, smiling back. They really blessed me. You do too. :-)

220. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 7:54:22 PM

Marshame, I agree with you that Evangelism is a 'partner' with revelation. Two edges of the sword again. What a wonderful thing the 'Anointing' of the Holy Spirit is. And what intriguing verses there are that speak to this issue. I am reminded of that verse in Acts in which the writer tells of..."A certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us: whose heart the Lord opened, that she attended unto the things which were spoken of Paul" (Acts 16:14).
I can imagine SnowOwl might ask why God doesn't "open everyone's heart"? We'll ask Him when we see Him. :-)

I humbly consider that 'Anatomy of the Spirit' has a certain anointing. I'll be most interested to hear Vic's reaction and PhillipDavids, and yours 'down the road', after we have had an opportunity to consider her thoughts and implications.

221. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 10:37:14 PM

Okay, picking up on "Anatomy of the Spirit" for Wednesday 9/15, we'll now lay beside the seven sacraments of Christianity, the seven groups of 'The Ten Sefirot: The Tree of Life' of the Kabbalah.

Shekhinah The energy of the mystical community of Israel-- Symbolic of the mystical community of humanity.
Yesod The energy of the procreative force of God.
Hod & Nezah The energy of the majesty of God, and the energy
of the endurance of God.
Tif'eret The energy of compassion, harmony, and beauty.
Gevurah & Hesed The energy of the power of judgement and the
energy of the love and mercy of God.
Binah & HokhmahThe energy of the Divine mother, symbolic of
understanding and the intelligence of God, and the
energy of wisdom and the contact point between the
Divine mind and human thought, and finally
Keter The energy of the Divine that flows into physical
manifestation.

Comparing this with the Sacaraments, one can see a certain parallel between them. Tomorrow (Thursday) we'll present the symbolic power of the seven Chakras of the Hindu. Any comments RustlerPike ? Are you lurking ? I hope.....

222. bloodnfire - 9/14/1999 11:05:47 PM

223. ethiopianeunuch - 9/15/1999 12:58:36 AM

Blood: it might be helpfull for people to have a link to mssg.106 where you listed the 7 sacraments.

224. ethiopianeunuch - 9/15/1999 1:32:04 AM

This is what I think the Bible says to define the 7 sacraments listed in 106

Baptism: The way in which we enter the body of Christ 1Cor.12:13,Gal3:27

Communion: The Lords supper. What we are instructed to do on the first day of the week in remembrance of Him. Matt.26:26,1Cor 11:24

Confirmation ?

Marriage: a Holy union between a man and a woman, what Christ is to the church Genesis 2:24, Eph.6 Rev.19

Confession: Something we need to do to be saved Rom10:11, and to help keep ourselfs on the right path,1John1:9, James 5:16

Ordination ?

Extreme unction ?

225. ethiopianeunuch - 9/15/1999 2:03:30 AM

I understand that the trust behind this book is not biblical but when you start taking things as important as Confession,Baptism,Communion and Marriage and redefining them into something else I have a hard time disscussing them. I suppose my mind is not open enough.

Blood: No need to repeat 38,103 to me again I heard you the first time:-)

226. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 5:35:33 AM

EE, just don't give up on this particular subject Okay? I agree with your definitions, and am trying to understand hers. I am also trusting the Holy Spirit not to allow us to get seduced by error. He is the Spirit of Truth, after all.
I am hoping that today we might have a Jewish friend, perhaps Dantheman, or someone who is knowledgeable enough in Hebrew to comment on her definition of the 'Tree of Life'. The 'Ten Sefirot'.
I have not read all of her book yet, and I am interested to learn how the issue of SIN
is addressed, if at all.

Those who were challenging you and Vic and I think Winston and other Christians on Monday with the phrase..."So you are saying that your religion is the only true one, and how do you know?" or words to that effect, have not considered the issue of SIN.

I want to present that word to this thread today. I submit that all other religions but Christianity regard it as something with which the individual has to deal. To "WORK" to appease God and "ATTAIN" righteousness. Christianity teaches that no man can do that. That the "Wages of Sin is Death", 'separation from God'. That God 'So loved us all, that He came to die in our place'. (I John 3:16, the epistle, you notice).

227. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 5:44:33 AM

So that's the issue for today, friends, or at least one of them. What do you think of Sin ? I don't highlight the word to make it pretty. It isn't pretty. 'If sin wasn't such a pleasure it wouldn't be such a problem'. The Jewish Scriptures taught us God's attitude toward sin. That 'Without the shedding of blood there is NO remission" (Hebrews 9:22). It took God Himself to become, in a very real sense, His Own sacrificial Lamb. I realize that premise engenders scorn and derision in the mind, not 'subdued by Grace'. I submit that the Gospel story is so incredibly...what...Outrageous? Exquisite? Charming? and 'Disassociated' from any participation by lost mankind, other than their 'trusting' Him, that it argues in the likelihood of its being true. All other religions preach "DO! DO! DO!". The Gospel of Jesus Christ proclaims "DONE! DONE! DONE!"...

I feel another "HALLELUJAH" coming on !! :-)

228. Angel-Five - 9/15/1999 5:50:49 AM

I knew you'd crack under the strain of not preaching your one religion. Look at you. Pfft. Like an egg.

229. pellenilsson - 9/15/1999 5:54:46 AM

bloodnfire

Early on in the beta phase there was a long and partly heated debate about whether we should have thread hosts or not. Finally a consensus worked out. Among other things we agreed that although a host's personality and likes and dislikes would inevitably play a role in the way he or she moderates the thread, h/se should not use it to push a personal agenda.

This is called "Spiritual Issues" and its object now is to discuss a specific book. Yet it repeatedly lapses into the Religious, or more specifically the Christian thread. I know that we are an unruly lot but your are not, in my opinion doing enough about it. On the contrary, you are contributing to it. When snowowl brings up the teodicé problem you do not politely tell her that it is off topic. You feel obliged to quote chapter and verse from the Bible at her.

I don't want to go back to find other quotes or examples but in my opinion you are pushing your own agenda here. And I am not blaming you because I know about the importance of religion in your life.

But in my humble opinion you should either put a temporary restraint on your desire to proselytise or resign as host.

230. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 9:01:27 AM

I'd be willing to resign as host if there is someone else who would be willing to do it Pelle. I only 'push my own religion' as you put it in response to the questions or comments of other like minded individuals.
I am doing my best to bring the writings of an individual into the mix who covers a wide 'gamut', involving not only Christian dogma, but Hebrew and Hindu.
I would ask you, in that regard, have you purchased the book? Are you in a position to help me in this endeavor ? It is not easy to exerpt parts of a book in a way that can honor the intent of the author and at the same time communicate the gist of the books premises. You have not yet responded to any of the exerpts I have posted, as far as I can remember, so you don't help very much.
Additionally, I was not present at any conference when it was decided when the 'Rules of Hosting' were established.
I am seeking to be impartial and gracious, and to interest you as much as any others who might be like minded as you or me.
I actually welcome your criticism, and will pretend, at least for the next few days, that I am also agnostic. I HONESTLY will try to put myself in your position, and not moderate or respond in an evidently biased or persuaded way. Fair enough ?
If I find it impossible, then I will resign unless jjbeiner and CalGal say that they disagree with you and ask me to continue. Okay ?

231. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 9:02:06 AM

Good morning all!

Kuligan, I do have a gripe with you, but you seem to have insulted me early on without being aware of it, when you called me a "sort of Jew" (see post 133). Your use of large type and capital letters is the sort of conduct considered to be shouting (and therefore rude) in other communities I have been in, and I thought was also applicable here.

As to Kabbalah, my knowledge is distinctly limited. What little I have seen of it strikes me as little more than imaginative mysticism, which is of little use to an agnostic.

Bloodnfire, as to the concept of sin, I am intentionally (and provocatively) throwing out for discussion an old stereotype of Christians as being less concerned with dealing with the consequences of their sins, for they can be washed away by subsequently accepting Jesus as their savior without taking any actions to amke amends. Jewish tradition (especially with Yom Kippur -- the Day of Atonement (for sins) upon us) is that a sin is not truly absolved until you have made your peace about it both with God and the person harmed thereby.

232. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 9:02:57 AM

Forget the insults, Res. How about responding to the issues of 'The Anatomy of the Spirit' ?

233. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 9:03:02 AM

correction amke = make

234. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 9:23:41 AM

bloodnfire,

While occasional use of visual effects to emphasize a key word or phrase can be good, prolonged use of large fonts, italics, bold, color, etc. is ineffectual. Worse, it tends to turn people off and undermine credibility.

Re: Sin

From one perspective, sins are simply a category of mistake. To the extent that we can remedy our mistakes, we are obliged to do so. Evasion of such responsibility is, in itself, a mistake.

However, when mistakes are (truly) impossible to remedy, the Christian doctrine of forgiveness has immense value. It prevents debilitating chronic remorse, and it makes it more likely that a true believer will be able to acknowledge the mistake in the first place.

Do some (nominal) Christians use this doctrine as a "crutch", as a way of evading (temporal) responsibility for real sins? Surely. But in doing so they reveal either a central misunderstanding of the purpose of forgiveness, or some more serious self-delusion.

235. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 9:39:00 AM

Elliott,
Well said.

Bloodnfire, please note that Hebrews is a book of the New Testament, and not a Jewish Scripture.

Query to Bloodnfire: If Christian teaching is that all of our sins (past, present and future) have already been absolved by Jesus, what is the incentive to avoid sinning, as the person who sins will not need to pay any price for it? If your answer is that faith in Jesus is a necessary element to absolution of sins, then how is that a higher price for a person who has sinned to pay than a person who has never sinned or one who has sinned less greatly?

236. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 11:00:12 AM

Thank you, Elliot and Dantheman for at least (and at last) addressing one of the Spiritual Issues we are seeking to discuss here.
You are correct, Dan in that Hebrews is indeed a New Testament scripture, but it was written to the jews by a jew. A Christian jew to be sure, but for all that a 'Hebrew of the Hebrews'. There are other scriptures in the Old Testament which speak to subject of sin but I am posting this at my office, and rather than to misquote, I will wait until I am home to post a couple. You understand that for a few days I am trying to adopt a 'Pelleresonant' mindset, (which I am finding less than exhilarating) however, I do happen to have an extensive Christian library at home. :-)

Elliot, I agree with most of that which you say. A 'category of mistake' doesn't quite fit for me...... however. As far as your excellent question Dan regarding 'blanket forgiveness', and restraint from the committing of new sins, as a Pelleresonant I of course can only guess what a Christian would say. I believe they would say that the scriptures which state that someone who has been forgiven and returns to the same sin for which they have been forgiven are very much like a dog 'returning to its vomit'. (A very apt simile, I assume, if one is a true Christian). There is another which says that any one in whom Christ has revealed Himself who deliberately returns to that from which they have been delivered, and for which they have been forgiven...."Crucifies the Lord Jesus to themselves 'AFRESH' (the only time, in all of the K.J.V. of the Bible that word is used). Being Pelleminded, I'm not sure what that means. To a true Christian, who is in Love with the Lord Jesus (while I cannot imagine such a feeling), it must sound absolutely horrible. I guess it depends on how much one really loves Him. (As I'm told He Himself said in the Gospel of John).

237. pellenilsson - 9/15/1999 11:06:44 AM

bloodnfire

I only 'push my own religion' as you put it in
response to the questions or comments of other like minded
individuals.

1. In any debate one should be careful with the quotation marks. Your quote above is not accurate.

2. Do you consider snowowl a 'like minded individual'?

3. When you respond to those individuals instead of asking them to stay on topic you contribute to the disruption of the thread.

4. As host you can create a sub-thread called for example "Christian issues" to avoid 3 above.

I'm not asking you to pretend to be an agnostic or anything else. I'm asking you to keep this thread on track.

then I will resign unless jjbeiner and CalGal say that they disagree with you and ask me to continue

You have me utterly confused. What the hell (sorry) do JJ and CalGal have to do with this issue? I thought Wabbit as the supreme moderator appoints, and, I suppose, dismisses, thread hosts. Are you telling me that is not so? I'm very anxious to have this explained to me.

And rest assured, I'm not one of those who pursue an argument in absurdum. This is not a very important issue to me. But do cut down on those hallelujahs.

238. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 11:08:58 AM

Elliott. Further to your post about sin, I agree that remorse can be deadly. I try to teach our students the difference between 'Remorse' which I believe is carnal and self-centered, and 'Contrition' which is a gracious 'gift' (so I'm told by my Christian friends! Boy, it makes one wistful, being a temporary Agnostic). In fact, with a twinkle in my eye (or is it a tear?) I call the course I teach (Restorative Justice / Victim Awareness) "Contrition 101". I remember an old Jewish friend of mine quoting Old Testament Scripture (from David's Psalms, I believe) "A broken and a contrite heart, O Lord, Thou wilt not despise". Without true repentance and contrition there probably is NO forgiveness. (I'm guessing of course. Being Pellenistic, I don't have to worry about that bullspit).......

At least not today....unless....well, you know.

239. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 11:14:17 AM

To me, personally, sin boils down to
1)purposely harming another human being or
2)otherwise causing needless suffering.

Do I sin? Yes.

Do I try my best not to? Yes.

What do I do if I have sinned?
* First I do my very best to make amends for my sin.
* Then I do my very best to avoid that sin again.
* If I cannot make amends for harm I have done, I mourn for awhile over it, then I forgive myself and vow to do my very best to not do it again.

I would say that I make sure I never repeat a sin, but I try not to voice impossibilities.

Do I have a single objective TRUTH to point to in support of my beliefs about sin? No

Everything I have said is unabashedly subjective - it is what I believe is the right way for me to live.

247. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 11:38:03 AM

Christi,
It bothers me too. I think there is some middle ground (such as accepting punishment for your acts and trying to gain the forgiveness of your victims) between the extremes of deathbed conversion without more and no hope for a sinner.

248. theDiva - 9/15/1999 11:38:58 AM

Purgatory.

249. KuligintheHooligan - 9/15/1999 11:39:33 AM

Many years ago a friend asked me how I would feel if, upon dying, I saw so and so (a dreadfully public blasphemer) up in Heaven. My immediately reaction was to say, "That's not fair!" And as soon as the words fell from my lips, I realized my error.

I had made the mistake that somehow *I* deserved this salvation, but that guy didn't. The fact is, NOBODY deserves the GIFT of salvation given through the MERCY and GRACE of God. Nobody.

And when you realize that, issues of "unfairness" about forgiving some "God-awful sinner like HIM" fall away, when you humbly realize that God forgave a God-awful sinner like ME.

250. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 11:41:31 AM

I think I get your point, Dan. Is it that Christianity offers a sort of 'last minute parachute' from a 'burning plane' ablaze with the wickedness of a person's past ? I guess it does. Sniff. Doesn't sound like the sort of God I'd want, being Pellenistic.
But if, as those bloody 'Thumpers' keep insisting, "God's ways are not our ways", and if, as pathetically childish as it sounds to me, true repentance really is a gift, then, who can tell?

I need someone versed in Hebrew to addres the Kabballah for all of us sometime today please. RustlerPike, where are you?

ChristiPeters. I appreciate your post regarding your views on sin. As a Pellenist, I would tend to agree completely. If those 'thumpers' are correct, however, and if 'sin' really does separate us all from God eternally (potentially), well, that's a rather different kettle of fish, wouldn't you say ?

251. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 11:49:27 AM

Bloodnfire,
Your "thumper" answers do very little for those of us who do not have faith. They provide little reason to look to gain faith, as the result of it would be to become part of a moralistic system which leads to results we disagree with.

252. JonesAtLaw - 9/15/1999 11:51:26 AM

Catholics finese the deathbed conversion issue with purgatory. It seems somewhat disingenuous, but it fits as part of the overall view of sin. Sin has both a spiritual and temporal punishment. Purgatory is to purge us of our remaining sin and provide consequences for sins not fully attoned for in life. One can commit a mortal sin, murder for example. While a deathbed conversion and confession can save the murderer's soul from hell, it does not remove all consequences or punishment.

My personal view of purgatory is that one would feel the consequences of one's sins by feeling the same physical or emotional pain one caused others.

253. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 11:55:05 AM

Pelle. I have only been trying to imagine (or rather remember) what it is like to be Agnostic for about an hour, and I'm sick of it already.
I don't plan to have a 'sub-thread' on Christianity, for two honest reasons.
The first is I don't know how to do it !! :-)
The second is that, as I commented in my prior post, in this predominantly Judeo/Christian country, those responding to a 'Spiritual Issues' thread will predominantly do so from a Judeo Christian perspective. Consequently, the sub thread (or threads) would quickly outweigh the major thread.
I mentioned JJ and CalGal as being the two members of the 'Supreme Court' with whom I am acquainted. I respect Wabbit, but didn't realize that he or she was the one who was wesponsible (excuse me) Responsible for 'hiring and firing'. Since the pay that goes with this hosting responsibility is a very significant part of my present budget, NOT !!, I hope that he/she will wespect, (I'm sorry) Respect my efforts to spread the Spiritual Issues among all creeds, faiths and sexual orientations, and tweat me gently.

254. pellenilsson - 9/15/1999 11:56:24 AM

Dear blood,

Three options:

1. Create a sub-thread.

2. Start hitting that Delete button.

3. Stop pretending to discuss that book.

Of these I favour the third one. From what you have quoted it seems heretic to me. And I think it is kind of tragic to see how the church tries to reach out to the New Agers and how they, in turn, tries to put a quasi-christian gloss on their rantings in order to gain respectability.

And you will never become a true Pellenist. Unless you become de-converted and I understand that does not happen very often.

255. pellenilsson - 9/15/1999 12:00:38 PM

blood

Crosspost. 'Judeo-Christian perspective' doesn't equate religious belief. It's a cultural thing. I am born into a Judeo-Christian environment which forms the basis of my value system and my reference frame. But I'm not a believer.

256. God - 9/15/1999 12:00:46 PM

I agree with Pele

257. JonesAtLaw - 9/15/1999 12:02:13 PM

Pelle- I have contributed to the thread and have not read the book. As such I have been off topic, I suppose. I appreciate that the discussion has centered on Judeo/Christian approaches to the subject, but I fear that is more a result of the people populating the thread at present than any concerted effort to keep us on this track. I, for one, would welcome any others who are more knowledgeable than I to discuss a Buddist, Islamic or any other spiritual perspective. Where I can, I will try to inject as much of these perspectives as my knowledge allows and hope for others to post who will be more able as we go along.

258. God - 9/15/1999 12:12:51 PM

Don't sweat it Jones.

I have also contributed to this thread and I haven't read ANY books.

259. msgreer - 9/15/1999 12:13:45 PM

I don't believe bloodnfire is saying everyone SHOULD read the book. I believe the idea was to give all of us a reference to other ideas re Spirtual Issues.

It is a fascinating book if anyone is interested in reading it with an open mind. Who knows where the conversations would go if we read Anatomy of the Spirit.

260. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 12:19:35 PM

BloodnFire said:

"God's ways are not our ways"

While I think it is unlikely that Christianity is true, there are other reasons not to support it other than it's truth or falsehood.

Even supposing that the Christian god is a reality, is he worthy of worship? If he created us and if he could destroy us that only indicates that he is powerful, not good.

Many people have parents or bosses that are unworthy. If it turned out that we were created by a particularly nasty group of space aliens, should they be worshiped?

Here are my questions:

1. Supposing that Christianity is true, Is the Christian god worthy of our worship?

2. If we were created by some entity, however benevolent or malicious, should we worship it just as a matter of principle?

3. Should we look up to or admire any being that wants to be worshiped?

4. Is the concept of worship good? Should we worship anyone?

261. God - 9/15/1999 12:22:52 PM

Worship ME! Or I'll send you to HELLLLLL! Woof! Woof!

262. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 12:26:19 PM

God,

Is that the concise version of the bible?

263. God - 9/15/1999 12:28:22 PM

Pretty much. All you need to know. Bow down before me, suck on my toes, kill your first-born son for me, slaves, be obedient to your masters, women, be obedient to your husbands! Woof! Woof!

264. God - 9/15/1999 12:33:28 PM

Oh, and if you get bored, kill a bunch of non-believers for me. And if history looks unfavorably on what you do, make up some dumb excuse about how even though the leaders of this movement have been kooks from day 1, that still doesn't mean that the movement is kooky.

265. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 12:37:28 PM

Kuligin - I hear you. Did you hear all that I said?

At any rate, I have heard and fully understand the basic fundamentalist Christian stand on the subject that you are posting. That doesn't necessarily mean I believe it.

bloodnfire -

" 'sin' really does separate us all from God eternally (potentially), well, that's a rather different kettle of fish, wouldn't you say ?"

I truly do not understand what your statement has to do with what I posted. It seems to me that what I said was what constituted a "sin" and what I said is not inconsistent with most of Christian theology. It seems to me that your statement concerns the consequences of sin rather than what is sinful. Also, of course, you are presenting the consequences of sin as you understand the Christian Bible, right?

266. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 12:38:59 PM

WinstonSmith, (post #260)
Excellent questions which distinguish faith-based argument from reason-based argument.

267. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 12:40:24 PM

Dan,

Thanks, how would you answer?

268. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 12:41:16 PM

While I realize we are discussing the book, if it was stated that it is the only aspect of spirituality that can be discussed here, then I missed it.

Is it?

I apparently also missed Pelle's appointment as hall monitor in here.

269. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 12:48:12 PM

WinstonSmith,
1. I'll have to fudge on this by saying that the Christian God as propounded by Jesus is likely to be worthy of worship. The Christian God as propounded by his churches ever since the time of Constantine (i.e. when Christianity was a temporal force and not just a spiritual one) probably not
2 and 3. Twin sides of the same coin. Absolutely not.
4. There are psychological benefits of worship, even if one is worshipping something which doesn't exist, so probably so. However, I would want some sense that whatever worship I choose has at least some possibility of actually being correct.

270. God - 9/15/1999 12:57:39 PM

Dan

Some possibility? I'd say the odds of there being a God as represented in the Bible are at LEAST .00000000000000001% Isn't that good enough for you?

271. God - 9/15/1999 12:58:06 PM

Oops, forgot about that bug, sorry

==):-)

272. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 12:59:30 PM

O divine being,
The fact that you are posting to The Mote raises that chance far higher than the one you listed (ha ha).

273. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 1:00:35 PM

???

Hey! Wha' happened to the format of this place?

274. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 1:07:01 PM

It's due to "God"'s post, messing up the margins. If we post enough times, it will just go away (I hope)

275. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 1:07:31 PM

Dan,

With regard to #4, I have to weigh the price versus the benefit. I think that if one is going to selectively suspend the critical faculties that they use in everyday life, they need to be careful that they don't allow it to bleed into their general decision-making process.

276. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 1:09:21 PM

post

277. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 1:10:30 PM

Winston,
Probably true, although I'm not sure how one can tally the cost of the suspension of disbelief without an estimate of the likelihood of the worship being correct. If you have suggestions, please advise.

278. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 1:10:54 PM

What can be done about a margin blowout?

279. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 1:10:56 PM

Christi,
Any ante's before the post?

280. theDiva - 9/15/1999 1:11:17 PM

go away, bad margins

281. theDiva - 9/15/1999 1:11:28 PM

go away, bad margins

282. theDiva - 9/15/1999 1:11:37 PM

go away, bad margins

283. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 1:12:30 PM

And the foul beast was no more...

284. theDiva - 9/15/1999 1:12:56 PM

change the number of posts per page to 10. That'll do it.

285. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 1:22:06 PM

Dan,

As far as I am able to determine, there is not much difference in the likelihood of one religion versus another so I don’t even worry about that. I'm just saying that people should be careful not to become too comfortable suspending disbelief. If a person can be convinced that another person or group of people, have access to the absolute truth, then they can be susceptible to accepting their opinions in areas other than the spiritual.

286. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 1:35:10 PM

Winston,
I'll concede your point. I thought the issue was limited to whether there were beneficial aspects to worship, and assumed that the worshipper is able to "compartmentalize" his life into spiritual and non-spiritual dimensions. If this is not the case, it is a cost of worship. However, I suspect (with no information to support it) that the psychological benefits of worship are greater than the costs.

287. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 1:39:14 PM

Any other answers to Winston's questions? How about the author's views?

288. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 3:20:06 PM

Christi,

Re: Afterlife Fairness

Fairness is related to the very human desire for revenge. Fairness is the standard by which revenge is legitimized. Consider that if we did not desire revenge, fairness would be moot.

Now, it is hard to give up the desire for revenge. But giving up the desire for revenge is, arguably, what Christianity is all about. So, from the Christian viewpoint, fairness is an empty concept.

289. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 3:28:20 PM

Elliott,
I disagree with you. While one form of fairness is related to revenge in the sense that bad deeds should be punished, there are other forms of fairness which I feel should be goals of a decent morality (equality of opportunity, absence of discrimination,etc.), which go to the idea that good deeds are properly rewarded. While Christi's example went to the first type, I think your statement was too broad.

290. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 3:38:24 PM

In one of the many books concerning Near-Death-Experience, the person recounted that in his NDE, he relived every mean thing he had ver done and quite literally "felt their pain", then he "went into the light", etc, etc, and came back to life. Since that experience, reformed his life and started doing a lot of positive things. Then he had a second NDE and this time he once again had to experience all the pain he had ever caused others, but then he got to experience all the joy and happiness that others felt due to his reformed life and actions.

Now, I have no idea if what he said is an objective truth, a 'real' subjective experience, or just a great line he came up with that is making him rich from lecturing and published book/s.

However, I found it to be an interesting concept.

ElliotRW -

I understand what you are saying, but even when I post about my reactions to Christian concepts, I am not posting from the viewpoint of a Christian. I honestly do not think that I was looking at the issue from a revenge viewpoint.

291. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 3:40:59 PM

Look at it this way. I consider Life to be classroom in which I learn what I need to help me grow spiritually. What "lesson" is taught by the concept that it really doesn't matter how you affect humanity and the world around you (negatively or positively) as long as you accept Jesus Christ as you Savior.

292. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 3:54:08 PM

Christi,
Your post 291 is very similar to where I started this discussion at 231. Unfortunately, I don't think either of us are satisfied by the answers we got from the faithful Christians, which boil down to we cannot comprehend God's morality. Since, like I said in response to Winston's questions, I require a God I worship to be sufficiently good to be worthy of being worshipped, that answer will never satisfy me.

293. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 4:07:10 PM

Dan & Christi,

Ok, let's look at the issue of fairness a little more broadly. Suppose we define fairness as "getting what you deserve". Revenge, on the surface, deals only with fairness in punishment ("just desserts"). The flip side of fairness is equitability ("fair share").

However, we can transform a desire for equitability into a desire for revenge simply by denying it. So are a desire for equity and a desire for revenge really different?

From a Christian perspective, I don't think so. A preoccupation with fairness of either type interferes with Christian values of kindness and forgiveness.

***

I think I should say that I don't believe in the necessity of conversion for salvation. I find the notion repellent not because it is unfair (which it is), but rather because it suggests an ugly, narcissistic God. I think this is an important distinction.

294. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 4:11:39 PM

1. Supposing that Christianity is true, Is the Christian god worthy of our worship?

I don't see Christian philosophy as being the pinnacle of human ethical or philosophical thought but if someone is going to worship a god they could do worse.

2. If we were created by some entity, however benevolent or malicious, should we worship it just as a matter of principle?

No.

3. Should we look up to or admire any being that wants to be worshiped?

This is an area where I have a problem with the Christian god. I tend to think that an entity that WANTS to be worshiped is unworthy.

4. Is the concept of worship good? Should we worship anyone?

I agree that it can be psychologically beneficial to have a spiritual outlet and believe that some things are out of your control. I don’t really like the word worship but it is akin to the word reverence and I do have a reverence for life and the natural world.

295. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 4:13:37 PM

Elliott,
"So are a desire for equity and a desire for revenge really different?"
Absolutely. I can desire equity for future outcomes but not be interested in punishing those who had made the past inequitable (Martin Luther King Jr. is someone whose teachings come to mind on this subject).
I don't disagree with you on the narcissism issue, but the fairness one is more important to me.

296. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 4:14:22 PM

#294 is a reply to Dan's post #287, BTW

297. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 4:23:02 PM

Winston,
Thanks for the responses. I am not sure I agree with #3, in part because it is not limited to the Christian God (certainly the Jewish, Moslem, Zoroastrian, and pagan gods fit), but also because I don't find it to be disqualifying. An entity's desire to be worshipped does not disqualify it from being sufficiently good and powerful enough to deserve worship. I don't require it to be perfect, and a little bit of vanity doesn't disqualify it.

298. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 4:32:59 PM

Dan,

Ok, I'm beginning to get the picture. You advocate fairness as something to plan for, to strive for, but not something to enforce ex post facto. This is, in fact, distinct from the revenge motive in an important way.

Do you think that this undermines my original comments concerning Christi's observation of the unfairness of Christian salvation dogma?

299. WinstonSmith - 9/15/1999 4:35:45 PM

Dan,

Good points regarding #3. Of course Christianity is not alone in that. I think I find that particular vanity to be more distasteful than you do.

Really, the religions we are talking about seem to be reflections of our own psyches and the patriarchal cultures that that spawned them.

Every human flaw seems to end up woven into these stories.

300. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 4:41:34 PM

Elliott,
I suspect so. Not having ever been Christian (or even tempted to be), I cannot say for sure that the goal of future fairness is inconsistent with Christian salvation dogma. However, many Christian clergy certainly seem to make religious-based arguments in favor of future fairness, Examples include MLKing, Catholic churches in developing countries (especially the liberation theories pushed in Latin America), and abolitionists before the Civil War (who were substantially comprised of clergy).

301. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 4:44:10 PM

Elliot -

Where did I say I desired revenge? Dantheman's post#295 expresses what I feel very well.

302. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 4:46:19 PM

I think, also, that it should be pointed out (in all fairness &:oD) that "Christian dogma" does vary in different denominations.

303. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 4:47:25 PM

Christi,
Re:#301. Thanks.

304. theDiva - 9/15/1999 4:50:03 PM

to borrow a phrase from patsyrolph....huff...puff....

I'd gotten all caught up, and was about to begin posting responses to various things, when a request for info from a honcho made its way into my office. Long story short, will have to post long answers tomorrow.

Dan, I've not forgotten that I still need to answer you WRT Catholic notions concerning salvation, and law. I found the passages I was looking for on the latter, finally.

BNF, your very kind words and lovely anecdote made me smile. You're very sweet and I thank you.

305. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 4:53:09 PM

Dan,

Then I have oversimplified the "Christian Viewpoint". Please forgive me.

Still, this does not change my belief that "just God" and "merciful God" are concepts somewhat at odds with one another.

306. ElliottRW - 9/15/1999 4:58:02 PM

Christi,

I was the first person to use the word revenge.

I hope that I did not in any way mischaracterize your Post #245.

307. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 4:59:53 PM

ElliotRW -

Perhaps it depends on our definitions of "just" and "merciful"?

Clintonianly Yours,
Christi

&:oD

308. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 5:00:44 PM

Elliott,
I can agree that they are somewhat at odds, but they are not totally irreconciliable. I have heard the argument made that the distinction between the just God and the merciful God is the difference between the God of the Old Testament and the God of the New Testament. Any thoughts?

309. Dantheman - 9/15/1999 5:43:56 PM

Goodnight to all.

310. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 6:12:56 PM

311. ChristiPeters - 9/15/1999 6:24:51 PM

ElliotRW -

Well, I thought I made it clear in the post that I fully realized I was making inconsistent grumbling with the "I know Life isn't fair" etc remarks. I also pointed out that I recognized that if there was no hope for salvation once a person has done something really horrendous, then the person night have no reason to stop doing horrendous things.

OTOH, even though I was raised in the United Methodist Church, I really don't consider myself a Christian. I simply can't buy the whole line, and that's kind of required, isn't it?

So I really do not feel any incentive to become comfortable with all of the professed/declared tenants/doctrine/dogma of any particular denomination of the Christian Church. If I really believed, I wouldn't feel uncomfortable. If I wanted to believe, then I would want very much to reconcile any discomfort I felt as the discomfort would be interfereing with my belief.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I am not really all that vested in the Christian viewpoint. However, if you look at my "sin definition", you can see how revenge is totally inconsistent with what I believe. Revenge certainly is deliberately harming another human being - even if you believe that person "deserves it". I don't give myself that out. I believe it is wrong to deliberately harm another human being. period. no weasel words, outs, or justification allowed.

So I don't know where you got revenge as part of what I posted.

Hmmmmm...

I'm not sure I'm being very clear. I think about this and get back to you.

312. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 7:19:32 PM

ChristiPeters. fwiw The Book says the only unforgivable sin is that of 'Blaspheming God the Holy Spirit'. (Mark 3:28 and 29). I really appreciate your posts and participation.

313. phillipdavid - 9/15/1999 11:19:44 PM

acefranze,

A couple days ago I saw a post of yours which I am now belatedly applauding (sorry, don't rememeber the number). Your point was that relationships were what spirituality is really all about.

In the final analysis, our relationship with others is what matters. When we are old, on our deathbeds, reviewing our lives before death, what is going to matter and seem important then? I say it will be the quality of our relationships, and the tenor and energy of our interactions with others which will matter. And that is the essence of Jesus' message, is it not?

I once saw a near-death survivor being interviewed on Larry King (or some such) who said that when he was dead what happened was that he reviewed his life from the perspective of others. That is, every incidence in his life was replayed back to him, and he felt the feelings others had in his interactions with them. He was allowed to see how his quality of energy affected others, and he realized how much of an asshole he was! That was his judgemnt, in essence.

314. bloodnfire - 9/15/1999 11:40:37 PM

As usual, PhillipDavid, you're right on the money!! I certainly covet your attention for a little while tomorrow when I post the seven Chakras of the Hindu. Any comment you might have on them, and their being parallel (or not) to the Tree of Life and the Christian Sacraments would be most welcome.

315. ethiopianeunuch - 9/16/1999 12:59:24 AM

I know what it feels like to realize what an obnoxious jerk I have been and see my self through others eyes. It is a humbling experience.I've thought before that that could be what dying will be like but never seen it expresssed like ChristiP or PhillipD have,thank-you . I think it's a great thing to think about as I go through life.

316. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 5:21:19 AM

We can probably all identify with that, EE. PhillipDavid, that 'Quality of Energy' you mention describes The Human Spirit as I understand things, doesn't it?

Anyway, here are the seven Hindu "Chakras' or 'Power Centers' of the Hindu. Ms.Myss has a figure of a individual, sitting cross-legged. She writes..."The chakra system is an archetypal depiction of individual maturation through seven distinct stages. The Chakras are vertically aligned, running from the base of the spine to the crown of the head, suggesting that we ascend toward the Divine by gradually mastering the seductive pull of the physical world."
(The evangelical Christian would question that 'Ascent toward the Divine', but speaking for myself, I can certainly relate to 'The seductive pull of the physical world' :-)
She goes on..."At each stage we gain a more refined understanding of personal and spiritual power. Since each chakra represents a spiritual 'life-lesson' or 'challenge' common to all human beings. As a person masters each chakra, he gains power and self-knowledge that become integrated into his spirit, advancing him along the path toward spiritual consciousness in the classic her's journey. Continued....

317. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 5:22:46 AM

That's 'Hero' journey. I 'checked for dust', but its the wee hours of the morning, and I still have some in my eyes apparently.

318. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 5:25:30 AM

Oh, not in Greenwich, but I'm not in Greenwich!!

319. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 5:41:00 AM

Continuing with 'The Seven Chakras', the 'Seven Energy Centers' of Eastern religion, beginning at the bottom of the spine, and ascending to the top of the crown of the head. Ms. Myss feels that..."This sacred, ancient imagery is remarkably accurate in its depiction of the human energy system, its habits and its tendencies....

The First Chakra "Muladhara" - ('Root Support') Lessons related to the material world.
The Second Chakra "Svadisthana" - ('Her Special Abode') Lessons related to sexuality, work, and physical desire..(Better duck, Pelle, I feel another 'HALLELUJAH!' coming on...:-)
The Third Chakra "Manipura" - ('City of the Shining Jewel') Lessons related to the ego, personality, and self-esteem.
The Fourth Chakra "Anahata" - ('Not Struck' - the pure sound of creation) Lessons related to love, forgiveness and compassion.
The Fifth Chakra "Vishuddha" - ('Purified') Lessons related to will and self-expression.
The Sixth Chakra "Ajna" - ('Command' or 'The Qualified Absolute') Lessons related to mind, intuition, insight and wisdom.
and finally...
The Seventh Chakra "Sahasrara" - ('Thousand Petaled' or 'The Unqualified Absolute') Lessons related to spirituality.

PhillipDavid, placing these 'side by side' with the 'Symbolic Power' of the seven Sacraments and the seven 'branches' (ten Sefirot) of the 'Tree of Life' of the Kabbalah, do you have any observations ?

We'll continue with Ms.Myss thoughts tomorrow. For today, class, what do you make of her ideas so far...?

320. Dantheman - 9/16/1999 9:23:50 AM

Good morning all !!

PhilipDavid,
You say "it will be the quality of our relationships, and the tenor and energy of our interactions with others which will matter. And that is the essence of Jesus' message, is it not?"
I must respectfully disagree. If Jesus's message is limited to our interactions with other humans in the temporal world, then why is accepting Jesus as one's savior a necessary requirement for Heaven (and indeed, as much of yesterday's discussion centered on, a more important requirement than the quality of one's life prior to the acceptance of Jesus)? Were your comments truly the message sent by Christians to the non-Christian world, my objections to Christianity's use of its temporal power would be _far_ less.

Bloodnfire, while I recognize that post 310 is just a repeat of yesterday's post, you really should have changed the reference to the Book of Hebrews as being a part of Jewish Scripture. As I pointed out yesterday, it is not. It is Christian Scripture.

321. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 9:35:43 AM

I think phillipdavid and I are talking about the same guy, but I could be wrong.

I guess my "religious" feelings/beliefs are awful muzzy and in flux except for two very firm beliefs:

1)The is a "God" in charge of it all
2)We should be nice to each other or at the very least avoid being shitty to each other.

I'm also very sad about what happened in Ft. Worth last night.

322. ElliottRW - 9/16/1999 9:59:01 AM

Good morning!

Christi,

I have been using "revenge" in a narrow sense to mean "desiring another to suffer as one has suffered." This, I can argue, is not necessarily a bad thing, and not entirely incompatible with your belief system.

However, I am not going to argue this issue any more. Thank you for the lively debate.

PhillipDavid,

Good to see you again!

323. ElliottRW - 9/16/1999 10:09:31 AM

Christi,

Nice summary: God + Golden Rule.

Here's mine:
1. Life is intrinsically valuable, and living intrinsically meaningful.
2. God exists and loves life.
3. We subsist in God.

The system of ethics that stems from this, not surprisingly, includes
A. The Golden Rule.

But it also includes some others:
B. Spread life everywhere it can possibly go.
C. Choose kindness over fairness.
D. Cherish diversity of life.

324. ElliottRW - 9/16/1999 10:10:57 AM

bloodnfire

Nice use of bold in the "Chakras" post.

325. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 10:19:31 AM

ElliotRW -

That sounds like a fine way to live to me!

326. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:26:17 AM

That's lovely, Elliot. Your post reminded me of the words of Jesus in my favorite Gospel, John, 13:34 -

'I give you a new commandment: love one another; you must love one another just as I have loved you.'

327. Dantheman - 9/16/1999 10:31:31 AM

Elliott,
I can agree that your system of ethics is acceptable, although I would argue that fairness is a better goal than kindness. If there is no fairness, kindness may seem to be an empty gesture. Maybe I am misunderstanding your terms -- if you want to get into this discussion, let's agree on definitions. I'll start:
Fairness -- the condition where one's outcome is closely related to one's inputs.
Kindness -- treating others in a manner which does not offend them

Even if you do not want to go into the fairness/kindness issue, why is the existence of God a necessity for this system of ethics? Certainly a system more based on fairness would fit within a framework like Rawls Theory of Justice. I would like to discuss this aspect, anyway.

328. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 10:34:44 AM

Sometimes it is hard to be kind to someone who has been nasty to you. The way I handle it is to remember a phrase of my mother's

"Be kind to your enemies, it'll drive them crazy!"

That will get me through being kind in my actions even when I don't feel much like it inside. I have found, however, that if I can get myself to act kindly toward someone, regardless of my initial feelings, then I start feeling kindly toward them. At the very least, my feelings of rancor or resentment seem to go away, but most of the time it goes beyond that.

I found in interesting that it seems to work both ways for me:

Feeling kindness toward someone is translated into acts of kindness.

Acts of kindness toward someone is translated into feeling kindness toward that person.

329. bubbaette - 9/16/1999 10:47:17 AM

This depends on how you define kindness.

Kindness should not perpetuate a lie if that lie is injurious to the one telling or deceived by the lie.

330. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:51:07 AM

Dan

It seems to me that at some point we talked about salvation for those outside the Church. I've pulled together something on that, but first I just want to present what the CCC (839 - 845, edited a bit) has to say about the Church and non-Christians, because it's relevant to that discussion:

Those who have not yet received the Gospel are related to the People of God in various ways…When she delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People, "the first to hear the Word of God".

The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions, is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. (W)hen one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus.

The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind's judge on the last day.

The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place the common origin and end of the human race: All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the elect are gathered together in the holy city.

(more)

331. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:51:18 AM

The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search, among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved. Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life."

In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.

332. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:54:25 AM

Now, concerning the notion that "Outside the Church there is no salvation" (CCC 846 - 848)

How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body: Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door.

(comment from Diva - please note that the next sentence is extremely important, and critical to understanding what has gone before it. Emphasis added is mine.) Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

333. ElliottRW - 9/16/1999 10:54:44 AM

DanTheMan,

Fairness is important, even crucial, to the governance of civil society. Without striving for fairness, just institutions risk being capricious. The greater good is served by fairness.

Because I believe that all life subsists in God, I believe that goodness is its own reward, and wickedness its own punishment--in a spiritual sense. Thus, with a mind to my greater existence as an organ of God, I refrain from harming others, even when it may be to my (temporal) profit.

This concept is illustrated by my relationship with my three-year-old. She causes me (small) harm on a daily basis. She contributes nothing to the family income. She consumes lots of resources. She is utterly at my mercy. And I am merciful, even when, on some level, I'd rather be "fair". While I do, for example, give her time outs, I do so when I believe it is in her long-term best interest, not when I think she "deserves it".

In part, this is enlightened selfishness--my mercy today is likely to lead to more rewarding relationship tomorrow; but it also reflects my belief that kindness is more important than fairness.

334. theDiva - 9/16/1999 10:55:00 AM

This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church: Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve eternal salvation. Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel…

*****

Next, the Old Law.

335. Dantheman - 9/16/1999 11:09:44 AM

Diva,
Thanks for the posts. It does clarify the points we discussed in a positive manner.

336. ElliottRW - 9/16/1999 11:14:48 AM

Christi, Diva,

Thank you. While I (obviously) value Dan's criticism, your encouragement is also greatly valued.

337. Dantheman - 9/16/1999 11:16:24 AM

Elliott,
I will agree with you that your treatment of your child is the result of enlightened self-interest (though not selfishness). However, I part company with you on the kindness/fairness issue. If you believe that fairness is essential for a civil society, then why are you striving for a system of ethics (either personal or universal) which relegates it to a secondary role? Is it based on a temporal/eternal distinction (in which case I cannot argue with you other than by saying that it does not provide an incentive to act accordingly to those who are not convinced there is any world other than the temporal one)?

338. ElliottRW - 9/16/1999 11:26:13 AM

Dan,

Exactly. My system of ethics stems from my beliefs. Those who do not share my beliefs can reasonably arrive at other conclusions--as you have done. Should you adopt my beliefs, I am certain that you will adopt my conclusions.

I would like to note that fairness and kindness often, even usually, overlap.

339. Dantheman - 9/16/1999 11:26:26 AM

Sorry I can't stay for more. They just announced that the computers are being shut down as of 11:30 EDT (probably due the hurricane -- I work outside Philadelphia.

340. msgreer - 9/16/1999 12:27:13 PM

Yom Kippur<1A>

Click Holidays.. go to Yom Kippur. Enjoy all the site has to offer in
the rich tradition of the Jewish faith.

341. theDiva - 9/16/1999 12:43:22 PM

Thanks for reminding me, Ms. G....

Belated Happy New Year to my Jewish brothers and sisters!

342. msgreer - 9/16/1999 1:00:29 PM

Diva

Many thanks. When you have time she said with a cough... take sometime and read some of the different links. I think you will enjoy it.

Yom Kippur is the highest of holy days for the Jewish religion.

A Day of Atonement. This is the Spiritual thread so I thought I would spread abit of Jewish Spirit.

343. WinstonSmith - 9/16/1999 1:11:54 PM

Dan, Elliott, anyone

Speaking of fairness, It seems unfair that god would create us as sinners and then expect us to love and honor him for saving us from sin. It seems like a setup.

Imagine a scenario where God creates human beings that are crack addicts from birth and then magnanimously provides drug treatment programs. Only after the treatment are you allowed into heaven.

344. msgreer - 9/16/1999 1:17:31 PM

I do not believe in the concept of fairness. Fair"virtually pleasing and lovely, free and sunny, clear of blemishes, pure,favoring, impartial and pure" as defined in Webster's II.

If all things were "fair" my daughter would not have been born mentally challenged, my father would not have died of Alzheimer's and neither his sister and brother who now have Alzheimer's would be inflicted and my mother would not be dying a damn slow painful death.

There is no such thing as fair. Painful and hurtful things happen. It is only one more journey on this place we call Earth.

It doesn't mean I like it. But what is there to do?

God, grant me the Serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the Courage to change the things I can and the Wisdom to know the difference.

345. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 1:24:27 PM

"And He (God the Father) made Him, Who'd never taken any drugs in His Life to become a 'Crackhead' like us, and die the Crackhead's death in our place, that we, dumb Crackhads (by choice yet) might be made as Holy as He is" 2 Corinthians 5:21 (W.S.B.V.)(The 'Winston Smith Benefit Version') :-)

346. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 1:25:31 PM

Love that Jewish Spirit, MsGreer. So happy to hear you sounding refreshed and rested! Our love to your Moma.

347. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 1:31:19 PM

Dantheman. I acknowledge that my quote from Hebrews, though penned by a Hebrew, and addressed to Hebrews, was not included in Jewish Scripture.
How about (on this High Holy Day)..."And Aaron shall make an atonement upon the horns of it once in a year with the blood of the sin offering of atonements: Once in the year shall he make atonement upon it throughout your generations: it is most holy unto the LORD" (Exodus 30:10) ?

348. WinstonSmith - 9/16/1999 1:32:35 PM

bloodnfire,

LOL, but I still don't get it. God created us, sin, the whole system.

349. ElliottRW - 9/16/1999 1:35:59 PM

Re: fairness

Without addressing the question posed by WinstonSmith, I ask those who hold fairness up as an absolute, to please read "Harrison Bergeron" by Kurt Vonnegut. I think it will clarify my attitude towards fairness.

Thank you.

350. WinstonSmith - 9/16/1999 1:37:01 PM

bloodnfire,

LOL, but I still don't get it. God created us, sin, the whole system.

351. WinstonSmith - 9/16/1999 1:37:55 PM

Oops, sorry about the double.

352. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 1:41:41 PM

bubbaette #329 - Kindness should not perpetuate a lie if that lie is injurious to the one telling or deceived by the lie.

Well, by my book telling lies, deceiving, or injuring are by definition NOT kind.

Kindness can be as minimal as simply remaining polite.

Kindness can be lending a hand, offering a smile, or much more involved and demanding acts.

353. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 1:52:00 PM

Christi. Your #321. Right on !! The exact sentiments of the Lord Jesus as expressed by Diva in #326, (though not in quite the same words !! :-)

354. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 1:54:45 PM

bloodnfire -

I thought you were going to try to talk without evangelizing.

grumble, grumble

355. msgreer - 9/16/1999 1:57:29 PM

ChristiPeters

Very quick.

Keep bloodnfire honest.

356. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 1:58:04 PM

Thanks for your kind words Elliot. And Diva, for your excellent posts. Regarding the necessity for baptism which you mention in your #332, you are correct. Jesus Himself said..."He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved".. Do you feel that He was referring to baptism in water or "Baptism with the Holy Ghost and with Fire" (Matthew 3:11) ?

Not to patronize you, adorable Diva. Great posts today. Thank you.

357. KuligintheHooligan - 9/16/1999 2:14:31 PM

"Thanks for your kind words Elliot."

I NEVER thought I'd see the day when those words were uttered in a "Fray-related" community!!

No offense to you RW, but this tongue-in-cheek comment has to do with the "other elliot."

Sort of like the "other white meat."

358. God - 9/16/1999 2:16:00 PM

Hey Vic, interesting development in playpen. You might want to check it out.

==):-)

359. KuligintheHooligan - 9/16/1999 2:16:18 PM

Diva,

I, on the other hand, WILL patronize you! Those were very good posts from you today!

360. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 2:41:50 PM

You're right, WinstonSmith. He did. And I guess that gives some people the liberty to say..."Oh well, if that's the sort of God you are, forget it" and walk away.
I don't have that liberty, I am profoundly grateful to say. I am sure He is far more 'just' and 'fair' and 'wise' than any of can even begin to conceive, and I'm willing to trust Him and try to be as obedient as, together, He (in me) and I can become.
Hope this answer doesn't frustrate you. I seek to bless you.

361. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 2:43:46 PM

Pelle, don't you dare say one more word of criticism about my discussing Christianity, until you have posted a response to any of the multiple posts which have been made regarding 'Spiritual Issues', many of which have nothing directly to do with Christianity.

362. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 2:46:03 PM

bloodnfire -

it wasn't pelle

it was me

but I've been grumpy all day

363. WinstonSmith - 9/16/1999 3:00:19 PM

BloodnFire,

Your answer does not frustrate me. I'm glad you are willing address questions like mine.

364. theDiva - 9/16/1999 3:00:36 PM

Here is the discussion I promised DanTheMan concerning the Law. There was so much material that I didn't want to be piggy and post it all here.

365. theDiva - 9/16/1999 3:02:29 PM

thanks, guys. (I forgot what I said, I'd better go look.)

366. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 3:05:26 PM

I knew it was you, Christi. My comments were addressed to Pelle as a "Pre-emptive Strike" in case he was lurking. I am more than happy to have any Motie grumble grumble at me, providing they have made some effort to address some of the 'Non-Christian' ideas already expressed in this thread.
When someone, such as yourself, expresses an idea, as you did regarding not being unkind to fellow men, I hope it is encouraging to hear it reflected in Scripture. It somehow enhances the opinions expressed, I believe. Anyway, feel free to grumble at me all you like. I'd be happy to receive any criticism from Pelle or anyone else too, providing they are contributing to the thread and not just 'popping in' to criticize.

367. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 3:07:44 PM

PhillipDavid. Are you 'lurking' ? Do you have any comments on the Hindu Chakras I posted earlier today? I would very much appreciate your observations. I'll try to share some of Ms.Myss' ideas regarding the parallels tomorrow, all being well.

368. ChristiPeters - 9/16/1999 3:14:57 PM

bloodnfire -

OK

haarrrruuumppphhh!

369. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 3:30:26 PM

Great effort, Christi, I'm proud of you...but it's spelled..

H - A -L - L - E - L - U - J - A - H !!

:-)

370. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 3:37:24 PM

Great effort, Christi, I'm proud of you...but it's spelled..

H - A -L - L - E - L - U - J - A - H !!

:-)

371. ethiopianeunuch - 9/16/1999 6:39:10 PM

msgreer: Are you a friend of Bill W.?

372. msgreer - 9/16/1999 6:50:26 PM

I don't know Bill W.

Can you give me anymore information?

msgreer@home.com

373. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 7:03:39 PM

EE. Are < b>you a friend of Bill W.?

374. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 7:05:10 PM

Sorry, let me try that again...EE. are you a friend of Bill W?

375. ethiopianeunuch - 9/16/1999 7:12:09 PM

Blood: more like a casual aquaintance, but I still keep his book and know where to find like minded people

376. bloodnfire - 9/16/1999 7:26:52 PM

Congratulations EE. I admire Bill W. and all his friends very much. Do you think it would be okay to share with the others who Bill W. is?
Goodnight all. I'm off to get a good night's sleep. I wish you all the same.

377. phillipdavid - 9/16/1999 7:33:13 PM

DantheMan,
re 320

"PhilipDavid,
You say "it will be the quality of our relationships, and the tenor and energy of our interactions with others which will matter. And that the essence of Jesus' message, is it not?" I must respectfully disagree. If Jesus's message is limited to our interactions with other humans in the temporal world, then why is accepting Jesus as one's savior a necessary requirement for Heaven (and indeed, as much of yesterday's discussion centered on, a more important requirement than the quality of one's life prior to the acceptance of Jesus)?"

I was thinking of what I consider the essential teachings of Jesus himself -- his words in the so-called Sermon on the Mount. Others have written on the necessity of accepting Jesus as our savior, but Jesus himself stressed the quality of our interactions with others in the temporal world (to you your phrase).

378. phillipdavid - 9/16/1999 7:46:29 PM

And, DantheMan, considering what Jesus himself reportedly said about Heaven (the Kingdom), it is obviously a state of mind avaialable to us and accessed by us through our hearts when we have become the kind of person Jesus was, and the kind of person Jesus taught us to be in his so called Sermon on the Mount.

That is, by living "correctly," by qualifying all our energy and interactions with others with LOVE, we will have transformed ourselves (as Paul said, "from one degree of glory to another")into a person whom Heaven is available to.

379. ethiopianeunuch - 9/16/1999 11:35:24 PM

Blood: Absolutely! This is the place to disscuss spiritual matters right.

PD.I think Matthew 25 is amother good example of what Jesus said we need to be doing.

380. floater - 9/17/1999 12:22:49 AM

Things I'm grateful for -- a reasonably healthy body, material comfort, family members, friends, secure employment, the country I live in, the state of the economy, freedom of expression, great weather, peacefulness, and the love of Jesus.

I hope these random thoughts don't bore you all to tears, I just wanted to share and attitude of gratitude.

381. phillipdavid - 9/17/1999 1:18:39 AM

ee,

Just read Mat 25, and it got me to thinking of the unswerving generosity of a Muslim I know. He owns a restaurant that serves Lebanese and Mediterranean food (my favorite!), and he always feeds people without money who come there and ask for a meal. I have seen one particular guy eating there for free maybe 30 times.

Watching this happen always got me to thinkin'...

382. bloodnfire - 9/17/1999 4:08:30 AM

Welcome to The Mote Floater! Good to have you with us. Appreciate your testimony. Feel free to participate as much as you wish. You won't bore us at all.

PhillipDavid. Thanks for your input. Did you read the Seven Chakras I posted yesterday? What are your thoughts, so far, on Ms.Myss' writings? I know you see many parallels between Christianity and the Hindu.

EthiopianEuneuch. Well here goes...."Are you a friend of Bill W. ?" is a question members of the Alcoholics Anonymous ask, as a gracious way of reaching out to someone with whom they feel an affinity. Other members of AA would recognize the question and immediately relate. On the other hand it avoids the embarrassment of the blunt and insensitive "Are you an alcoholic?"
As you say, EE, what is perhaps more typical of the 'Spiritual Issues' with which many of us have to deal in this life than addiction? To alcohol...drugs...tobacco...etc. Anyone wrestling with this kind of spiritual issue? Don't be shy. We're all friends in this Forum.

383. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 8:41:52 AM

bloodnfire, what do you think about the similarities, if there are any, between the Christian sacraments and the Chakras?

384. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 8:54:00 AM

Good morning all. I survived what little of the hurricane passed through the Philadelphia area. Apparently our computers survived the leaks, although I understand they were not up again until 8PM.

I missed some interesting posts --
Bloodnfire #347 -- Thank you. That quote is a much better expression of the Jewish attitude towards sin and atonement.

PhilipDavid #377-78 -- I agree with you that they are Jesus's words, and would prefer that his churches consistently taught that view. They don't. The fact that they don't has been the source of much persecution and bloodshed throughout the centuries.

Diva#364 -- Thanks for the very interesting post. This is not to say I agree with it -- I don't. I have a very hard time interpreting the Old Testament as merely being a precursor of the New Testament. The contortions used in describing Christians' (again, not necessarily Jesus's) reinterpretation of the dietary laws at the end are almost humorous to me.

385. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 8:57:38 AM

Dantheman, what part of the Philly area do you live in? I grew up in Southern NJ.

386. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 9:04:32 AM

WinstonSmith #343 -- I agree with your example. This interpretation of God creating sin as a test for the beings he created is discussed at greater length in Gore Vidal's Creation, an excellent book discussing different philosophies and faiths. As Winston and Gore Vidal suggest, one can argue that a compassionate God would not have devised such a tortuous method of testing the purity of the beings he himself created, but would have instead created them pure had that been his desire.

msgreer #344 -- I agree with you that life is not fair. What I am questioning is whether the unfairness of life suggests either that God does not exist or that he is not entirely a force for good.
Have an easy fast (if your medical condition permits).

387. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 9:05:30 AM

Kuligan,
I grew up in Northeast Philadelphia and now live near Neshaminy Mall in Bensalem.

388. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 9:07:59 AM

I grew up around the Vineland area of Southern NJ.

389. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 9:09:09 AM

"What I am questioning is whether the unfairness of life suggests either that God does not exist or that he is not entirely a force for good."

Dantheman, can you elaborate?

390. msgreer - 9/17/1999 9:14:59 AM

Dan

I am not saying God does not exist. I am saying regardless of one's personal beliefs the reality is life is not always fair.

I define fair as "pleasing and lovely, sunny and clear, free of blemishes, pure, IMPARTIAL" Webster's II Dictionary.

Life is just not sunny and free of blemishes all the time. What is there to do about it? Accept it, make the best of the situation and move on.

Getting angry with your Lord will not help. I see it as another challenge or journey on what we call Earth.

It doesn't mean I have to like it. I find getting angry so destructive for me. It takes up so much energy and it is all negative.

Sure I hurt at times. I cry. I get frustrated and frazzled. I take sometime for myself, meditate, go for a walk on the beach, gain strength from my friends and move on.

Easier said then done.

391. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 9:28:47 AM

Kuligan,
If one accepts the proposition that an essential element of a good society is that it is fair (in that one's outcome is roughly determined by one's inputs), then if there is unfairness, the following are potential reasons for it (and I will concede this is not an exclusive list -- if you can suggest a better answer, I will listen):
1. The fairness of our society is not a goal of God (calling into question whether God is a force for good).
2. Our society is imperfect because we are imperfect. Possible reasons for this include:
a) God, who could have created us to be perfect, chose not to (again, calling into question God's goodness).
b) God did not create us, and we evolved naturally and therefore imperfectly
3. Unfairness in the present life will be balanced in a future life (an acceptable argument, but both Christians and others such as Buddhists who believe this need to present evidence of a future life)

392. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 10:04:06 AM

msgreer,
I understand your frustration and agree that life is not fair (using a different definiton of the word). My path of frustration (and I will not attempt to compare my suffering and yours) led me to doubt God's existence. I don't get angry due to unfairness, I simply do not believe that a God worthy of being worshipped would allow so much unfairness in the world.

393. msgreer - 9/17/1999 10:14:23 AM

Dan

It is all one big test here on Earth. I believe each of us have to conduct our lives in a way that works for us.

As for God making man/woman "perfect" I don't believe that to be true. If one believes the doctrine of many religions we are all sinners striving for perfection. But then again I don't believe in perfection either.

Are you Jewish? Just curious. I am. I plan to attend YomKippur services tonight.

In respect for my friends I will wear my mask as I don't want to spread bronchial pneumonia.

I checked with the Rabbi and he said do come.

394. pellenilsson - 9/17/1999 10:24:05 AM

Dantheman

On the assumption that you are a bona fide newcomer (which I have no reason to doubt) I would like to say welcome.

I like your reasoned posts, and the discussion over the last score of posts has been generally very good.

I usually particpate rather actively in this type of thread but I find myself short of time right now. Those who have seen my rather prodigous output in the Mozambique sub-thread may find that hard to believe. But there is a great deal of difference between posting some mildly amusing observations and ramblings and posting to this thread.

395. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 10:27:38 AM

msgreer,
You clearly missed my earlier discussion with Kuligan where I referred to myself as a Jewish agnostic and got offended when he referred to me as "claiming to be sort of Jewish". I will attend Kol Nidre service Sunday night and will fast and attend services on Monday. I am a member of a Reform Jewish congregation. Our sysnagogue includes a prayer for the healing of the sick in each service, and I will think of you at that time.

396. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 10:29:53 AM

pelle,
I started watching (but never posting) to the old Fray shortly before its demise. For whatever technical reasons I could not post to Table Talk when people moved there, but am glad to be here. Thank you for the kind words.

397. msgreer - 9/17/1999 10:42:05 AM

DAN

Sorry I did miss your posts.

I also belong to a Reformed Synagague and will start my fast at sundown.

398. msgreer - 9/17/1999 10:49:16 AM

Dan

Thanks for remembering me in your services.

399. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 1:03:49 PM

Dantheman,

Thank you for the thorough response! Just a few questions:

1) Could you define "unfairness?" Is it possible that given your lists that what you or I would define as "unfair" isn't the way God sees things?
2)Your 2A is not according to Christian theology at least. God *did* create mankind "perfect" in the sense that man was a sinless being, possessed with the freedom of will to either obey or disobey God. Now then, if you are going to equate "imperfection" with "the possession of freedom of will," then you'd have to make that clear.

As for your #3, what "proof" would you need that an afterlife exists? In other words, what sort of proof would satisfy you?

400. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 1:06:24 PM

Here's a religious joke for you all from an e-mail I received:

> I was walking across a bridge recently. I spied this guy who looked
> like he was ready to jump off. So, I thought I'd try to stall him
> until authorities showed up (or at least until I had time to put
> film in my camera). "Don't jump!" I said. "Why not?" he said.
> "Nobody loves me."
>
> "God loves you," I said. "You believe in God, don't you?"
>
> "Yes, I believe in God," he said.
>
> "Good," I said. "Are you Christian or Jewish?"
>
> "Christian," he said.
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "Protestant or Catholic?"
>
> "Neither," he said.
>
> "What then?" I said.
>
> "Baptist," he said.
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "Independent Baptist or Southern Baptist?"
>
> "Independent Baptist," he said.
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "New Evangelical/Moderate Independent Baptist or
> Conservative Independent Baptist?"
>
> "Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or
> Lose-Your-Salvation Armenian Conservative Independent Baptist?"
> "Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic
> Conservative Independent Baptist or Historical Premillennial
> Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist?"
>
> "Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent
> Baptist," he said.
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "Against Women in Ministry Dispensational
> Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or For
> Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic
> Conservative Independent Baptist?" (cont)
>

401. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 1:07:15 PM

> "Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial
> Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in
> Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative
> Independent Baptist or Strict Separation of Church and State Against
> Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic
> Conservative Independent Baptist?"
>
> "Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational
> Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.
>
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed
> Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial
> Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Anti-Disney Boycott
> Pro-Choice Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry
> Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative Independent
> Baptist?"
>
> "Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist
> Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic
> Conservative Independent Baptist," he said.
>
> "Me, too!" I said. "KJV Only Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed
> Fundamentalist Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial
> Calvinistic Conservative Independent Baptist or Modern Versions
> Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist Against Women in
> Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic Conservative
> Independent Baptist?"
>
> "MODERN VERSIONS Pro-Disney Boycott Pro-Life Unashamed Fundamentalist
> Against Women in Ministry Dispensational Premillennial Calvinistic
> Conservative Independent Baptist" he said.
>
> "Auugghh!!! You heretic!" I said. And I pushed him over.

402. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 1:27:20 PM

I'd laugh, but I've really met peole like that

403. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 1:28:46 PM

So have I Christi! That's why I find it so "funny."

404. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 1:31:03 PM

Kuligan #399,
Fair questions.
Unfairness is the absence of fairness for _any_ person. Given the wiggle room in the definition of fairness (closesly related as opposed to equal) I see no reason to allow anything less.
As to God creating us perfect, I am less interested in whether we could have created a truly fair society in the Garden of Eden than whether we can create one now. You can view this as saying that God re-created us when we left Eden or as saying that we were created imperfect because we had the potential to commit such acts as led to our expulsion from Eden.
As to proof of the afterlife, 2000 year old writings by people who were never there doesn't cut it. While I would like proof under scientific methods with reproducable experiments, I don't see that happening, though. Out-of body experiences by people who are death's door intrigue me, but I'm not convinced. What else can you suggest?
Cute joke.

405. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 1:35:48 PM

Dantheman,

What else can I suggest? I agree, I don't expect any "scientific method" proofs to come by any time soon. The next best thing, in my mind, is to trust those people who prove themselves to be trustworthy when it comes to these things, like Jesus Christ for example.

There were certain "apologetical arguments" I read in the past about the afterlife, but I can't remember the arguments unfortunately.

Personally, I wouldn't say being created with the ability to disobey God made Adam and Eve "imperfect." I think it made them fully HUMAN though.

As for unfairness, I am willing personally to accept the "fact" that my measure of fairness may not equate with God's measure.

406. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 1:45:18 PM

Kuligan,
Trusting Jesus because he is trustworthy when it comes to these things seems like circular logic to me. What other things not of this earth has he been right about, and how would we know?
As to your last comment, saying our definition of fair is not the same as God's also seems circular. As I said earlier, the existence of unfairness in our world casts doubt in my mind as to whether God exists. Therefore, I cannot assume there is a God's measure of unfairness.

407. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 1:48:06 PM

But again, Dantheman, you'd have to give me very specific and reasonable arguments as to WHY the existence of "unfairness" in this world casts doubt in your mind that God even exists. Is it simply the "if he's omnipotent he'd be able to erase "unfairness"; if he's all-good he'd want..." argument?

408. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 1:57:40 PM

Kuligan,
That is more or less the argument. Phrased differently, why do bad things happen to good people and vice versa.

409. Rivendell - 9/17/1999 1:59:33 PM

I just received this in an e-mail. There does not seem to be any fast and furious discussion going on here and so I hope this is not too much of an interruption.

There are arguably other places to post this, but I don't care to figure out what they would be. And besides, it's easy to assume the habitués of this thread would appreciate it.

Apologies for its sappy sentimentality and apologies if this is something you have already seen.

410. KuligintheHooligan - 9/17/1999 2:00:08 PM

Dantheman, I have to run now, but I am most interested in continuing this discussion later.

Just for now, though, the argument ASSUMES that, because God hasn't ALREADY wiped out "unfairness," that he never will. And that I think is the fatal flaw in the argument.

Good night!

411. Rivendell - 9/17/1999 2:01:19 PM

The Interview

I dreamed I had an interview with God.

"Come in," God said. "So, you would like to interview Me?"

"If you have the time," I said.

God smiled and said: "My time is eternity and is enough to do everything; what questions do you have in mind to ask me?"

"What surprises you most about mankind?"

God answered: "That they get bored of being children, are in a rush to grow up, and then long to be children again. That they lose their health to make money and then lose their money to restore their health. That by thinking anxiously about the future they forget the present, such that they live neither for the present nor the future. That they live as if they will never die, and they die as if they had never lived..."

412. Rivendell - 9/17/1999 2:01:47 PM

God's hands took mine and we were silent for while and then I asked... " As a parent, what are some of life's lessons you want me to teach your children?"

God replied: "To learn that they cannot make anyone love them. What they can do is to let themselves be loved. To learn that what is most valuable is not what they have in their lives, but who they have in their lives. To learn that it is not good to compare themselves to others. All will be judged individually on their own merits, not as a group on a comparison basis. To learn that a rich person is not the one who has the most, but is one who needs the least. To learn that it only takes a few seconds to open profound wounds in persons we love, and that it takes many years to heal them. To learn to forgive by practicing forgiveness. To learn that there are persons that love them dearly, but simply do not know how to express or show their feelings. To learn that money can buy everything but happiness. To learn that two people can look at the same thing and see it totally different. To learn that a true friend is someone who knows everything about them... and likes them anyway. To learn that it is not always enough that they be forgiven by others, but that they have to forgive themselves."

I sat there for a while enjoying the moment. I thanked Him for his
time and for all that He has done for me and my family.

People will forget what you said. People will forget what you did...
but people will never forget how you made them feel.

413. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 2:10:50 PM

Kuligan,
Good night. In answer to your last post, several questions:
1. If God is omnipotent, why can't he wipe out unfairness now?
2. If God makes up for unfairness in one generation in a later generation, isn't that also unfair?
3. How can God compensate those whose lives were unfair and are now over for the unfairness during their lives?
I will not be in on Monday due to Yom Kippur, so I will have to wait until Tuesday to continue this.

414. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 2:20:47 PM

What is unfair?

Is it unfair that bad things happen in your life?

Have you never benefitted from a bad thing in your life. I mean, are you a better person, a kinder person, a more forgiving person because of bad things that happened and what you learned from living through it?

What is the value of inner spiritual growth? Is it more of an asset than the pain is a deficit?

How much of who you are would be different if you had not had bad, unfair things happen in our life?

(Please don't make assumptions about expected answers from the way I phrase these questions. I can think of circumstances where the answeres could be ye, no, maybe, or does not apply. I want to know what other people posting here think. I have had pain in my life due to my own stupid bad decisions and I have had pain in my life from sheer "bad luck". I have been thinking about the questions I have asked here. Frankly I haven't made up my mind yet on my answers)

415. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 2:39:33 PM

Christi,
My answers to your questions:
Unfair is the absence of fairness for any person within society. Fairness is the condition where one's outcomes are roughly related to one's inputs.
Many bad things have happened in my life. Some were my fault, and were therefore fair. Others were not.
There is no question that people learn more from bad things in their lives than good ones. The spiritual growth arising as a result is in part one's own input (by learning from one's mistakes, etc.), but it clearly makes one a better person. Nonetheless, bad things will still happen to one who has grown and they may be unfair.
Arguably, unfair things harms a person's ability to grow, either by leading to a conclusion that bad things may be undeserved and are therefore out of one's control and therefore one should not try so hard, or by leading to a conclusion that undeserved success (which is also unfair) was actually merited, and so avoiding the lessons learned from a merited failure.

416. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 3:14:23 PM

Interesting, Dantheman. My thoughts on this matter intersect yours a bit, but are by no means congruent or parallel.

For instance, one of the things the unfair disasters in my life taught me was to quit stressing over it. This was actually a very very hard lesson to learn. It got pounded in my head around the seventh disaster in an 18 month period. At that point I simply didn't have any energy left ot be angry or stressed over it. After awhile, I noticed that the only difference between dealing with the disaster while being angry and stressed over the unfairness of it all and dealing with the disaster without all that baggage was that the second way took much much less energy.

So as far as pain and misfortune in my own personal life is concerned, I have just gotten out of the habit of even considering whether what is happening is fair or not. I just consider what should/can I do about this - how do I fix it, or how do I move on.

417. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 3:18:00 PM

"Arguably, unfair things harms a person's ability to grow, either by leading to a conclusion that bad things may be undeserved and are therefore out of one's control and therefore one should not try so hard, or by leading to a conclusion that undeserved success (which is also unfair) was actually merited, and so avoiding the lessons learned from a merited failure"

I have not reached either conclusion you mention here.

418. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 3:18:27 PM

Christi,
If you do not consider whether it was fair, how do you consider what, if anything, is to be learned thereby? Put another way, if a bad thing happens for reasons entirely outside your control (as is therefore unfair) there is little if anything to be learned. If there is something you could have done (making it at least somewhat if not totally fair) then there is something to be learned.

419. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 3:19:00 PM

correction
(as is therefore unfair) should have been (and is therefore unfair)

420. bloodnfire - 9/17/1999 3:23:09 PM

Rivendell. Thank you for your #'s 211 and 212. I am very blessed by them, and I am sure others are too.

Christi. You're a wonderful lady. You are so candid and transparent, and I very much appreciate your participation in this thread. I'm still working out my answers to your questions too. There have been some awful things happen in my life, which I richly deserved as the result of irresponsibility. There have been some absolutely wonderful things happen in my life, none of which I deserved. The good things so far outweigh the bad, that I am humbled.

Dantheman. Have you ever noticed that if you insert a couple of /'s, the word "Atonement" becomes At/one/ment...The day when, by His Grace, His beloved people become 'At One' with Him ? All because He was (and is) willing to accept the death of an Innocent Substitute for you and me. Where's the 'fairness' or 'justice' in that, I ask you? :-) I wish you a very happy Yom Kippur, and joy for yourself and those you love.

I am very much enjoying your discussion with Vic. I am off to Mobile for the weekend with our Alabama kids. I'll look forward to your return on Tuesday, and I'm sure Vic will too. He very much enjoys a 'meaty' discussion.

Vic, please keep a friendly eye on the thread while I'm gone. I'll be back Sunday afternoon, all being well. Blessings to all....

421. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 3:33:06 PM

I guess the lessons learned are 1)not to get all hung up on whether or not something is fair 2)learn how to recover from disaster 3)learn that misfortune and disaster are not the end of the world 4)gain confidence in your ability to handle anything.

All of the things that I thought were the absolute worst things that could ever happen to me, the things I said "I could never take, or live through that.... happened.

Not only did I live through them, but I am actually in a better place now. I have more strength, more confidence, and less stress. I even have more of the mundane material things. I don't worry about the future because the worst has already happened and I lived through it.

Do you think the only way to "learn" and the only "lessons" are of the "if you do A, then B happens so do or don't do A depending on whether you want B" sort of lesson?

422. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 3:34:16 PM

#421 was in response to #418

423. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 3:34:37 PM

Bloodnfire,
Your Atonement -- at/one/ment example is the same sort of mysticism as kabbalism to me -- it is looking for patterns to justify what you already believe to be true.

424. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 3:36:05 PM

Christi,
No, but it is a prevalent way of learning.

425. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 3:37:40 PM

I have also learned to look for good in small places. I have learned what is and what isn't really important to me. I have learned how little I need things, even though I do like things. I have learned how many many wonderful there people are even when or maybe especially when they are very different than me. I have learned how very very horrible/abhorrent/unjustified/and to be eliminated cruelty is. I have learned how wonderful the smallest acts of kindness are and how much fun it is to perform them.

426. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 3:38:49 PM

Dantheman
Maybe unfair disasters are a way of kicking us in the head and forcing us to think outside the box?

427. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 4:18:24 PM

I have learned to do the things I think are worth doing and not worry over whether there is a reward for doing them.

428. ChristiPeters - 9/17/1999 4:20:29 PM

I have now exceeded my deep-thinking limit for the week.

Y'all have a great weekend!

TTFN
&:oD

429. JJBiener - 9/17/1999 4:53:16 PM

Dantheman - I have to be honest with you. Whenever I hear someone discussing fairness as if it were a serious subject for debate, I feel the urge to offer them a lollipop. To begin with fairness is completely subjective. What you would consider fair is likely very different from I would consider fair. Even if we agree, what difference does it make? Is it fair that I have to deal with multiple chronic illnesses? No, probably not. Does that mean I don't have to take the handful of medicine I take every morning? No, fair or not I take my medicine or I pay the consequences.

430. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 4:58:28 PM

JJBiener,
While I agree that expecting that life in this world should be fair is for children, in a world that a God who is both omnipotent and good created, the level of unfairness should be extremely low. To me that suggests that there is no God.

431. JJBiener - 9/17/1999 5:19:14 PM

Dantheman - It merely means you have to examine your assumptions. I don't believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnipresent let alone all three. He may seem so compared to humans, but I have trouble dealing absolutes. Good is also a subjective term like fairness. Is it good that young men die in war? No, but the freedom they preserve is good for the families they leave behind. God works from a much different perspective than we do. So much so that it is difficult or impossible for us to ever completely understand his motives.

The flaw in your reasoning is the assumption that you understand how God would or should act and concluding from that assumption whether he exists.

432. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 5:31:32 PM

JJBiener,
See Winstonsmith questions at 260 and my responses at 269. Briefly, my response is that is God is not omnipotent and good, I do not believe he is worthy of my worship (whether he exists or not).

433. Dantheman - 9/17/1999 5:34:35 PM

And now I have to say goodnight. I'll be back on Tuesday, after my Yom Kippur fast.

434. LadyChaos - 9/17/1999 7:56:35 PM

"not worthy of my worship" followed by "Yom Kippur fast" . . .

Am I missing something?

435. God - 9/17/1999 9:52:48 PM

A couple of testicles, as I recall.

==):-)

436. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:06:08 PM

Bloodnfire,

I returned a couple of days ago and needed a little time to clear my head. My mom's doing as well as can be expected, considering. I told her about your passages, and she appreciated it very much.

It's comforting to know that we can get beyond ostensible beliefs and just be human together. I appreciate all the good will that came my way last week, regardless of denomination. Thanks, it helped.

437. LadyChaos - 9/17/1999 10:07:09 PM

CatintheHat,

In your dreams.

438. AdamSelene - 9/17/1999 10:11:47 PM

Dan,

Of course God is not both omnipotent and all good by our standards. The simple fact that we don't like some aspects of our reality is clear evidence of that. Thus, we can't pretend to apply our subjective standards to Gods will.

So - the real question is, is suffering necessary in all possible realities? If not, then our God sucks for creating it here. If so -then we just have to grin and bear it. Can anyone think of any other alternatives?

439. msgreer - 9/17/1999 11:30:00 PM

Adam

I have been thinking about you and your mother. I hope the two of you are enjoying the time you have together. You are in my thoughts . I think of you often and look forward to you sharing what is going on with you whenever you feel comfortable.

As for fairness I have posted several times I do not believe in fairness. Fair does not exist. If it did your mother would not be ill and you would not be suffering. My mother would not be so ill. My daughter would not be mentally challenged.I don't spend much time on bickering about what is fair and what is not. Life deals us a hand and all I can think of to do is to handle it the very best I can.

What else is there to do?

IF these little "tests" we are going through as some folks say is Gods way so be it.

I do believe there are messages to learn from each experience in life. I do believe when I go through very painful times I come out stronger for it. I also find changes in who I am after some of these devastating experiences. Oftentimes I am a better person, a nicer person, for having been through Hell and made it back.

440. SnowOwl - 9/18/1999 12:00:52 AM

Adam,

#438 A universe without life would be a universe without suffering. Or a world in which the inhabitants had no free will would, it seems, be one in which God could order it so there was no suffering.

What I find hard to understand is the belief in a good God in a world in which there is no free will and there is still suffering, that is, in the world in which bloodnfire seems to think we live.

441. God - 9/18/1999 12:04:24 AM

msgreer

'Not believing in fair' is not the same thing as saying 'Life isn't fair.'

Of course fair exists, it is quite a useful concept. The fact that life isn't fair, surprises nobody.

442. KuligintheHooligan - 9/18/1999 4:00:51 AM

Dantheman, you said this:

"Good night. In answer to your last post, several questions:
1. If God is omnipotent, why can't he wipe out unfairness now?
2. If God makes up for unfairness in one generation in a later generation, isn't that also unfair?
3. How can God compensate those whose lives were unfair and are now over for the unfairness during their lives?
I will not be in on Monday due to Yom Kippur, so I will have to wait until Tuesday to continue this."

My answers are:

1) Who said he couldn't? You are making the false assumption that just because unfairness isn't wiped out NOW, that God cannot do so. That is a fals assumption whose root is basically, "Because God hasn't done something according to Dantheman's plans or desires, God mustn't exist!" Not trying to be rude or anything here Dan, but that is what it boils down to.

2 & 3) Sort of work together. If there is an afterlife, then God can EASILY "compensate" should he so desire.

As for the issue of suffering, I can't recall who brought this up, but God didn't create a world according to the Bible where suffering existed. Suffering came in due to the sin of mankind. God gave man the right to "lord" the earth and man blew it big time.

And as bloodnfire has so aptly pointed out before, God became a man and took upon himself this suffering too.

443. God - 9/18/1999 4:02:45 AM

Who DA MAN?

444. bloodnfire - 9/18/1999 7:26:51 AM

Well my wonderful, Mobile Son-in-Love has a computer, and so I can pop in for a moment to say 'hello' Great discussions going on, and I appreciate them all.

AdamSelene, welcome back. So happy to hear of your Mother's bright outlook. Love is the most wonderful 'Spiritual Issue' in all of creation, wouldn't we all agree? Give her our love when you speak to her. You see how many fellow-Moties are remembering her?

Dantheman. I realize you won't be back until Tuesday. You posted in your 406... "Trusting Jesus because he is trustworthy when it comes to these things seems like circular logic to me. What other things not of this earth has he been right about, and how would we know?"
I guess, even though I am 'of this earth', realizing how incredibly 'right' He was about me has given me confidence in all the rest of the things He has said. And all that He says, after all, has to do with 'Life and how to live it'.
When I listen to that which He says, and am obedient, life becomes very joyful.
I often say..."He hasn't lied to me about anything that I'm aware of so far, why shouldn't I trust Him on all of it ?" Shalom at Yom Kippur and always.

445. msgreer - 9/18/1999 7:33:37 AM

bloodnfire

How's the trip going? I am sure it is nice to be with your son.

I am quickly getting ready to go and do the errands I have to for mom. She arrives home between 10-11am today.

Enjoy your visit.

446. bloodnfire - 9/18/1999 7:35:27 AM

MsGreer. Your #439. "I do believe there are messages to learn from each experience in life. I do believe when I go through very painful times I come out stronger for it. I also find changes in who I am after some of these devastating experiences. Oftentimes I am a better person, a nicer person, for having been through Hell and made it back.".

I agree completely. If this world is a 'Schoolroom', which everything I have ever experienced, seen, heard and read about indicate that indeed it is, then your observation would explain why, perhaps, 'bad things happen to good people', wouldn't it?
It would also eliminate the 'need' for 'fair' or 'just', perhaps.
Shalom to you at Yom Kippur and always as well. Please give our love to your Mom also.

447. msgreer - 9/18/1999 7:40:37 AM

bloodnfire

Did you read the book "When Bad Things Happen To Good People?" I think that is the title. It was written by a father after his young son went through a painful death.

I happen to agree with you about this Earth being a "schoolroom". Very well stated.

I do know my experiences with my daughter had made me a nicer person. She has taught me to laugh more. She seems the world in it's perfection and generously takes me along with her.

Oftentimes people say to me poor msgreer, she has a mentally challenged daughter. I say not so fast. She is the best gift God ever gave to me.

Thank you God.

448. msgreer - 9/18/1999 7:41:52 AM

had=has

449. bloodnfire - 9/18/1999 7:54:15 AM

LadyChaos. Good to see you 'lurking' here. Feel free to post any observations you may have.

SnowOwl. You mention in your #440 that bloodnfire doesn't believe in 'Free Will'. This is a very interesting subject to me, and I hope we can discuss it in some depth.
I posted a while back that I hear the phrases 'Free Will' and 'Free Moral Agency' bandied about quite a lot. I don't see much of it in Scripture. Scripture shows us how sin has made human beings immoral agents, and rather than 'free', bound by selfishness, bigotry, unforgiveness and a tendency to poor choices.

I asked you, (I think it was you), in all innocence believe me, to tell me what difference you see in the 'Free Will' you perceive that we all have, and the "Freedom" which Jesus promised in John 8..."He or she that abideth in my Word shall know the Truth, and the the Truth shall make you "FREE". I would appreciate hearing from you on this, and from anyone else who has a comment.

VicKuligan. Do you have any 'input' on this 'Free Will' issue ? As for your question regarding my observations in re. the comparison between the Sacraments, the Tree of Life and the Seven Chakras, I am still trying to absorb all that Ms.Myss' has to say. I am intrigued by the book. I do feel that I can learn from it, and from my perspective, perhaps be helped in my counseling of boys and families by some of the ideas she has. I will be continuing the sharing of the book next week, all being well. Will appreciate your thoughts.

Incidently, HAS ANYONE SEEN RUSTLER PIKE!!?? I could certainly use some expertise with which to respond to Dantheman's disdain for The Kabballah. Anyone got any light to shine on this subject ?

450. msgreer - 9/18/1999 7:56:30 AM

bloodnfire

Perhaps you saw some of my posts in regard to fairness. I do not believe in fair. Life is not fair. Life is a journey full of many different experiences. It is the hand we have been dealt so to speak.

I have found the best way to grow and move forward in life is to tackle each experience as they come and move on.

Easier said than done,

SHALOM

451. msgreer - 9/18/1999 8:03:54 AM

LadyChaos

Nice to see you again.

Say hello to Jackson Memorial for me.

452. phillipdavid - 9/18/1999 12:10:22 PM

Human life is entirely fair...God created the mechanism of cause and effect which is the LAW of the universe we all live within. An iron law. We reap what we sow, which is unquestionably fair, imo.

453. equilibrium - 9/18/1999 1:03:27 PM

philipdavid

A man and his wife are asleep in their bedroom one nihgt and someone comes in to rob them. They wake up and the man shoots them both dead.

How is this fair? How did they "reap waht they sow?"

454. God - 9/18/1999 1:07:39 PM

The man shoots his wife and the robber dead? You're not making any sense, equi. That's CRAZY talk.

455. bubbaette - 9/18/1999 1:09:12 PM

No witnesses.

456. equilibrium - 9/18/1999 2:45:14 PM

THe theif shoots the husband and wife is what I meant. How do they deserve such a fate as that?

Or put it this way God. You walk out today and a truck whacks you dead. How is that "fair" and "reaping what you sowed?"

457. God - 9/18/1999 2:46:46 PM

equi

I've done some horrible things in my life. If it ended today, I don't think that would be particularly unfair.

458. equilibrium - 9/18/1999 2:51:30 PM

So you say that you'd desserve it God. But what does philipdavid say since he doesn't think there is ANY unfairness? Assuming that is what he meant by "human life is entierly fair." The husband and wife that got whacked by the theif deserved to die!

459. God - 9/18/1999 2:53:14 PM

Life is fair in the sense that a lottery is fair. Of course it's easy to gripe afterwards if your ticket was a loser.

460. Son of god - 9/18/1999 3:00:21 PM

Since I died for your sins, how can I allow life to fair??

461. God - 9/18/1999 3:04:17 PM

And whether or not I've done horrible things, I've lived a reasonably pleasant existence. I've had some great experiences. It wouldn't be the least bit unfair if that ended today. I've enjoyed my 28 years as a human far more than my boy, Hershey, enjoyed his 2+ years as a rat, for instance. Is that fair?

462. God - 9/18/1999 3:05:31 PM

Actually, that's not a good example, because Hershey was the most loved boy there's ever been, but take your friendly neighborhood cockroach, is it fair that you get to experience 80 years as a human and this poor creature has to be a cockroach?

463. equilibrium - 9/18/1999 3:06:18 PM

You had a rat named Hershey?

464. Son of god - 9/18/1999 3:07:18 PM

The hindoos were right.

The Catholics are sanitizing hell.

Better to let them be reborn as viruses oh my father!!

465. God - 9/18/1999 3:09:05 PM

His name was Hershey Bar. He was a good boy.

466. Lucky - 9/18/1999 3:09:49 PM

Equal, please don't try using the robber/rapist and sleeping husband/wife scenario anymore. You don't know what you're talking about, I fear. I've been there, and it is different.

467. God - 9/18/1999 3:11:08 PM

You shot a husband and wife while you were robbing their house, Lucky?

468. equilibrium - 9/18/1999 3:11:55 PM

Lucky >> explain what you mean. What's wrong with the example?

Either the husband and wife deserved for this guy to come in and shoot them dead, or they didn't.

469. Lucky - 9/18/1999 3:24:38 PM

I shot the robber/rapist with his own gun while he was finishing raping my wife. He had put the gun in my mouth, breaking teeth and tearing skin, forced me to sit and watch, and I saw a slow-motion event happen before me. There it was. I grabbed the gun he was not concentrating on and endangered my wife (and my son in the next room) with point blank mindless reaction. I don't particularly remember hearing the shots. I remember hearing the hammer fall on empty cylinders. Nothing survives that intact. After therapy, the marriage failed. The dead face lingers. There is no moral to the story. Who deserved to die?

470. Son of god - 9/18/1999 3:25:25 PM

The Hindoo belief of karma expalins it all.

I ordained it so.

471. God - 9/18/1999 3:27:20 PM

The rapist deserved to die, Shooter. Nice going!

472. equilibrium - 9/18/1999 3:28:09 PM

Is that shit true? Then lets use another example!

473. JudithAtHome - 9/18/1999 3:28:18 PM

Lucky:

Please don't take what these goofs are saying as representative of what most people think...if you've lived through such a horrific experience and maintained your sanity, you've done well.

474. God - 9/18/1999 3:30:55 PM

Notice that there were more spiritual issues raised in one poignant revelation by Shooter than in 1000 repetitive blatherings of the Commander in Chief of the Salvation Army.

475. Son of god - 9/18/1999 3:30:58 PM

lucky - a searing experience which you were hopefully able to transcend.

In Rwanda, they amputate to leave a lasting impression.

Who has a greater right to grief??

476. Lucky - 9/18/1999 3:33:21 PM

It's O.K. I just didn't care for the example, that's all. Carry on. And please don't call me "shooter." It's not something I would like to be known for, particularly.

478. Son of god - 9/18/1999 3:38:27 PM

And lucky - what emotional conflagrations did your raped wife have to douse??

Were you of help or did you wallow in your own self pity??

My celestial network is down and I do not have access to your records.

479. Lucky - 9/18/1999 3:57:46 PM

Nope. I'll not go further with this. Look for my records, God and Jesus. You might find that our eyes met, and his were not that much different than mine. I don't feel the need to find his family or wallow in self-pity, thanks. It does bother me, though.

This is "Spiritual Issues," right?

480. God - 9/18/1999 4:00:09 PM

Yes, Lucky, but the gossip hounds around here will have your story emailing everywhere in no time. I do thank you for sharing it with me, though.

481. Ace of Spades - 9/18/1999 4:01:13 PM

Lucky:

We are currently experiencing Juvenile Difficulties. You can discuss whatever you like with God, Son of God, and Equilibrium, but I'd suggest you wait until there are more seats at the grown-up table.

482. Son of god - 9/18/1999 4:02:17 PM

But what about the ache - physical, mental, emotional - that your violated better half had to endure?

You had the cathartic effect of shooting the sob?

What did she get to lean on??

483. marshame - 9/18/1999 4:57:30 PM

Lucky

Thank you for sharing that sad and touching story. From your moniker, I hope that means you maintain an optimistic and hopeful outlook on life, despite the experience of tragedy.

When the discussion about "fairness" was going on, I could not help but think of those teenagers who were killed at the Ft. Worth church this past Wednesday night. Two of them who were killed were only 14 years old. There is certainly nothing "fair" about some deranged person taking a gun into a church filled with youth, killing randomly, and then turning the gun on himself. There is nothing fair about that at all. The tragedy of it is more than I can begin to comprehend.

But I do know that God's perspective is much different than our own, and he is a good and just God. It will all be sorted out, in the end. When faced with senseless tragedy or the consequences of evil, as in your case, Lucky, and the situation in Ft. Worth, it comforts me to know that I will never have the answers to questions that seem important right now, but I do have one answer, and that is that God is a good, righteous and just God who hates sin and who comforts those who seek him.

484. bloodnfire - 9/18/1999 4:57:42 PM

For those who are interested, the Commander in Chief of The Salvation Army, (The 'General') is a delightful man named John Gowans, headquartered in London. He, I'm sure, could care less about this thread nor the efforts on one of the least of his officers to keep this (occasionally) foul mouthed kindergarten in order.

For those interested in living examples of that spiritual issue known as 'dirty heartedness', you have some tragic examples today of the fact that..."What's down in the well, comes up in the bucket". My apologies to any first time visitors who may be 'lurking'.

485. floater - 9/18/1999 4:57:45 PM

I think that we should pray for the families, including the Ashbrook's. It is a tragedy what happened, but thank the Lord that he wasn't able to unload the six remaining clips on his person.

486. floater - 9/18/1999 5:00:42 PM

bloodnfire, thank you for the big welcome in this thread. We have a mutual friend who told me about this place and mentioned you in particular. I may not post much, but you can rest assured I'll be lurking. As for the delinquents in here, I prefer to call them InNeed and Broken.

487. bloodnfire - 9/18/1999 5:09:44 PM

Welcome Floater. Glad you understand. Please feel free to post as often as you wish. We welcome any 'light' you may bring.

488. Lucky - 9/18/1999 5:19:27 PM

Bloodnfire,
If you were including me in the "dirty heartedness" comment, I will leave this place with no regrets. I was simply discussing an emotional and spiritual issue in my life. If this is not an appropriate thread, I apologize.

489. God - 9/18/1999 5:25:50 PM

Lucky

I too find bloodnfire's comment quite disturbing. Particularly when he has gone out of his way to welcome the only contributor who has clearly demonstrated 'dirty heartedness.'

490. God - 9/18/1999 5:27:00 PM

Where's Vic when you need him?

491. bloodnfire - 9/18/1999 8:06:39 PM

Lucky. Of course I did not include you. We have all been moved by your sad experience, and I respect your attitude.
I was referring to the gratuitous profanity which is unnecessary in any thread, most certainly in the Spiritual Issues thread.
My experience is that those who use foul language for shock value do so because they lack the ability to express themselves in plain English. Also because dirty hearts send up from the well that which we all are forced to see in the bucket. (Until the bucket is emptied, of course. Fortunately, that is a privelege I enjoy as host).

Whoever is using the name 'god' in this thread should refrain from the profanity if he or she wishes to continue posting.

494. God - 9/19/1999 1:30:26 AM

bloodnfire

Please point out any gratuitous profanity I have used here recently. I've gone over what I believe to be all my recent posts and I don't see any.

Thank-you.

495. God - 9/19/1999 1:34:12 AM

bloodnfire

I would also ask that you stop assigning motives to me (using profanity for shock value) when you don't me.

I find your attitude to be unhealthy and unChristian. If you feel uncomfortable that there are atheists who wish to discuss in this thread, perhaps you should step down and let a more suitable person, such as Vic, take the job.

496. God - 9/19/1999 1:34:34 AM

Sorry. 'when you don't KNOW me.'

497. God - 9/19/1999 1:39:18 AM

Ah, yes, now I recall the post in question, it seems to have been deleted. I put myself in the position of someone who was forced to watch my wife being raped by a stranger. I imagined what that would be like. If you think it is inappropriate to describe how you'd feel under those circumstances using profanity, I suggest you have some kind of imbalance. I can think of nothing that would make me angrier. And when I get extremely angry, like 99% of healthy people, I use profanity. It was used neither to shock nor to offend. I resent the fact that you seem to think you know whose opinions on such matters are valid and whose are invalid.

498. pellenilsson - 9/19/1999 5:49:06 AM

This is a copy of my #177 in the Mote Policy Discussion thread (a sub-thread under Suggestions).

In #169 G uses the terms 'conservative, inflexible, rigid, orthodox, intolerant' to describe bloodnfire. That is a long, long way off the mark. But he does not like profanity and does not want to see it in his thread which I find quite reasonable. We have agreed not long ago that hosts must have the freedom to set the tone of the thread.

It is also unfair to allege that bloodnfire should oppose participation of atheists in the thread. He has repeatedly made it clear that everyone is welcome. And several atheists, including myself, do post there.

You have to realise, G, that the universal purpose of the threads here is not to create room for your specific attitudes or your peculiar means of expressing yourself. If you cannot comment on a post in Spiritual without using language that is objectionable there, then don't comment. Or copy the post in question (you are good at that) and comment on it elsewhere.

I'm now going to copy this post into Spiritual and then take a walk in the sun.

499. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 6:33:52 AM

Is it only me, or does "son of god" remind anybody else of AzureNW?? She was the only person I knew from the old Fray that would continue to hammer on a person in a personal way, when that person had honestly bore their heart and soul about something (like Lucky did here).

As for the issue of foul language, although a noble thought to exclude it in this thread, I think it would be a mistake. Some people can't help but express themselves in that way. I certainly don't condone it of course. Perhaps some people could keep it down to a certain level?

The issue of "fairness" is an interesting one to me, since so often people seem to judge the actions of God based on THEIR definition of fairness. I for one think that is a mistake, as we are accountable to God and not the other way around.

equilibrium, I think PD would say that the "fairness" aspect in your examples comes about because those people in PREVIOUS LIVES had performed certain actions that required "retribution" or "repayment" for said acts in this life.

Lucky, your story is a highly disturbing one and I feel greatly for you. If that were to have happened to my wife, well, let's just say that you seem to have dealt with the anger much much better than I would have!

500. bloodnfire - 9/19/1999 6:42:19 AM

Thank you Pelle. Atheists are most particularly welcome in this thread, without exception. Profanity is not. I was in the United States Marine Corps, and I am in no way offended by profanity. I see it as indicative of one of the 'Spiritual Issues' of the individual using the profanity.
The reason it will not be tolerated on this thread, and will be deleted as soon as noticed, is primarily because this is a new forum, and we do not want to offend or disgust any who may be visiting and considering joining the discussions.
I don't expect to host this thread more than a month or so, and I am sure that Wabbit will be more than happy to have any who think they can do a better job apply.
Thanks again Pelle. I am now going to post this comment into 'Spiritual', and continue to take a walk with the Son. :-)

501. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 8:15:08 AM

bloodnfire you are after-all the host so its your call, but I'd like to see a distinction made between "gratuitous cursing" and just the occasional curse word.

Hey, and don't give up hosting the thread!

BTW, did you ever tell me what positions of the Salvation Army you had "difficulty" with, in line with how the positions were "interpreted?" I missed it if you did.

502. bloodnfire - 9/19/1999 8:29:25 AM

Well, one of our Doctrines states..."We believe that continuation in 'in a state of salvation' (or words to that effect, I don't have the actual doctrinal statement in front of me), depends on continued obedient faith in Christ." I agree with this, based on a number of Scriptures, most especially the "IF" found in the middle of Romans 11:22...("If" you remain steadfast to the end). However I am relying on God the Holy Spirit to keep me 'Steadfast to the end' :-)
That is not always made clear in discussing the issue.

I repeat, I am 100% able to affirm the S.A. doctrines. It is just that I like to be able to make sure that whoever I am discussing them with, (or teaching them to) understands my understanding of the words. You might have the same attitude to your own denomination's doctrines? Continuing....

503. bloodnfire - 9/19/1999 8:34:00 AM

Another states, that..."We believe that Jesus Christ has, by His suffering and death, made an atonement for the whole world, so that 'Whosoever will may be saved'. I am convinced that 'Whosoever will may be saved', I am equally convinced that it is God Who makes them willing !!
I can't explain it or Him, nor am I required to. I proclaim, or try to, and trust God the Holy Spirit to explain to those who's ears He opens (as He did Lydia's).

504. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 8:37:12 AM

I like your "explanation" there bloodnfire. The "perseverance of the saints" is a throny issue at times. Personally, I find it difficult to say "I WILL be saved" because one will only, truly know if one has persevered to the end, something the NT teaches often.

But kicker is where your strength comes to persevere to the end! If the Salvation Army means that through MY WORKS I do it, then they have nothing more than a "works righteousness" there.

I don't like the phrase "continuation in a state of salvation" because it smacks of rigid Arminianism. In other words, it at least implies that I can discontinue this "state" if I don't have enough good works, something many Arminians and Arminian denoms (like the Nazarenes for example) believe.

505. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 10:46:25 AM

"I think PD would say that the "fairness" aspect in your examples comes about because those people in PREVIOUS LIVES had performed certain actions that required "retribution" or "repayment" for said acts in this life."

I doubt that PD would say this. But if he did, I would disagree with it. The idea of karmic retribution has been one of the most poorly understood aspects of reincarnationism, and it seems to get especially twisted when spoken in Western terms. I think that it would be more accurate to say that we have spiritual lessons to learn in each of our physical lifetimes, and that when we fail to absorb a lesson in one lifetime, the need to learn that lesson may be passed on to a future lifetime. But this does not really go to the issue of "fairness," as it's been bandied about on this thread. All of us have experienced suffering, more often than not, over many lifetimes, and what's more is that all have inflicted or will inflict suffering, as well. In one life, we are the guard, in another, we are the prisoner. In one life, we are hungry, in another, we have comfort. But the basic spiritual lessons of love, forgiveness, tolerance, humility, etc., can be learned either way, whether we are the tormentors or the tormented.

506. msgreer - 9/19/1999 10:59:06 AM

LadyChaos

Very nice post.

I feel you have captured the true essence of mind, body, soul and spirit.

507. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 11:02:32 AM

msgreer,

Thanks. I'll be at home this evening. Give me a ring if you want to chat.

509. msgreer - 9/19/1999 11:05:06 AM

LadyChaos

I look forward to it.

510. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 11:05:10 AM

CatintheHat,

My guess is that, if you have been banned, it's more due to a cumulative sense of your obnoxiousness. No sympathy in this corner. Sorry.

511. phillipdavid - 9/19/1999 11:38:35 AM

equilibrium,
re 453

"A man and his wife are asleep in their bedroom one nihgt and
someone comes in to rob them. They wake up and the man shoots
them both dead.

How is this fair? How did they "reap waht they sow?"

You are not talking about the actions of God here, or how he set up things to work, but rather the actions of people. I was talking about how God set up things to work fairly.

The issue of fairness wrt God deals with matters like : Why am I born blind, in a poor family, when you are born with incredibly good health in a rich family?

512. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 11:40:52 AM

LadyC, I'm not sure, but I seem to recall PD talking in the distant past about an infant dying because of its "negative karma" accrued in the previous lifetime. PD, am I correct?

513. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 11:44:25 AM

LadyC

"All of us have experienced suffering, more often than not, over many lifetimes"

Could you give your reasons for believing this? What I mean is, how do you know that this is true?

PD

"The issue of fairness wrt God deals with matters like : Why am I born blind, in a poor family, when you are born with incredibly good health in a rich family?"

Just so I understand, since you and I have not had any discussions on these matters for quite some time...The guy born blind is born blind because of his "evil" deeds in a previous lifetime, right?

514. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 12:10:59 PM

"Could you give your reasons for believing this? What I mean is, how do you know that this is true?"

I get my belief from scientific case studies of past life memories, and from reports of past-life memories such as those found in From Ashes to Healing.

In all of the case studies I have read, the subjects report lives of crushing poverty, hunger, war and disease. Indeed, they report life in various centuries in remarkably plausible detail. I have not read a credible case study of a subject claiming to be Cleopatra or Napoleon; for the vast majority of past-lives, life seems to have been brutish and short. But mixed into those memories are times of grace and comfort.

515. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 12:18:30 PM

LadyC, thanks for the info and I'll check out the hotlink.

What about this, though:

"In all of the case studies I have read, the subjects report lives of crushing poverty, hunger, war and disease."

I don't get it. Why were they ALL like this? Weren't there any that reflected great lives of riches and so forth? And if not, why do you think this was the case?

516. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 12:26:44 PM

Kuligan,

I should try to be more clear. Most subjects report more than one past life memory. Just about all of the subjects report lives of poverty, hunger, etc., but most also report lives of comfort. Few reported lives of extravagant wealth, which only makes sense, because even in this century the vast majority of people on the planet have it pretty tough. In centuries past, only a handful of people really lived extravagantly.

I'm not on my home computer, now. Otherwise, I would link you to a site where a study was done of over a thousand subjects under hypnosis. In the meantime, though, you might want to also check out this link to a number of resources on the subject. While not exhaustive, it contains some of the major contemporary works.

517. phillipdavid - 9/19/1999 12:28:09 PM

I don't know, Kuligin (#533).

Let me explain my conceptual framework in a Christian context for you:

Remember the brothers Jacob and Esau (Gen 25:21-28) of whom God said, "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated."? God preferred one brother over the other. What is fair> about that!?

This question has reverberated through the centuries. Augustine, in response, basically said the God is free to save or damn anybody he pleases. This is the sort of thing that leads one to wonder about God's fairness.

And the question of those brothers can be applied to us: How can we be born in a lessor situation than our neighbor?

The answer is simple...and one that restores the God's righteousness and fairness in our conceptual framework. The Law of Karma and the fact of reincarnation. Origen said if you believe that God is righteous, then each person, "whether of heaven or earth or below the earth, may be said to possess within himself the causes of diversity antecedent to his birth in the body."

(continued)

518. phillipdavid - 9/19/1999 12:28:54 PM

(cont)
So the souls of the two brothers had made choices and committed deeds in some previous existence. There is no unrighteousness with God if we believe that by reason of his merits in some previous life Jacob had deserved to be loved by God to such an extent as to be worthy of being preferred to his brother.

Prexistence of the soul is the explanation for the inequality of circumstance. And this idea preserves for us the idea of complete and total impartiality and fairness -- the righteousness of God. As Origen said:

"In this way it is possible for us to understand that even before the present life there were rational vessels {souls}, either wholly purged or less so, that is, vessels which had purged themselves or had not, and that from this circumstance each vessel received, according to his measure of purity or impurity, its place or region or condition in which to be born or to fulfil some duty in this world. All these, down to the very least, God supervises by the power of his wisdom and distinguishes by the controlling hand of his judgemnt; and thus he has arranged the universe on the principle of a most impartial retribution, acording as each one deserves for his merit to be asisted or cared for.

"Herin is displayed in its completeness the principle of impartiality, when the inequality of circumstances preserves an equality of reward for merit." Origen, On First Principles, pp 133-137)

I suscribe to this conceptual framework.

I don't understand how the idea of God's righteousness or fairness can be maintained any other way, without resorting to the idea that we cannot understand the fathoms of God's purposes.

519. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 12:32:37 PM

I think that PD makes an important point. The conventional notion that we have only this life to determine our eternal fate makes about as much sense as a parent sending a misbehaving child to its room for life.

520. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 12:34:37 PM

LadyC

"Most subjects report more than one past life memory. Just about all of the subjects report lives of poverty, hunger, etc., but most also report lives of comfort."

OK, that clarifies it for me. I thought you meant that ALL recounting of past lives were wretched ones!

I'll have to look at the tests and see how they were conducted. Of course, many factors jump into my mind, like how can one REALLY know these weren't just hallucinations or tricks played by the mind and so on. Interesting stuff just the same.

521. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 12:39:25 PM

PD,

"Origen said if you believe that God is righteous, then each person, "whether of heaven or earth or below the earth, may be said to possess within himself the causes of diversity antecedent to his birth in the body."

He also said that in time even Satan would be saved!

"So the souls of the two brothers had made choices and committed deeds in some previous existence. There is no unrighteousness with God if we believe that by reason of his merits in some previous life Jacob had deserved to be loved by God to such an extent as to be worthy of being preferred to his brother.:"

But in the *Christian* context, this makes no sense, since Paul expressly tells us in that very passage that God's choice was done "before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad!" (Rom 9:11). So, you can maintain your position PD, but you cannot do it in a *Christian* context, not at least in using the example of Jacob and Esau. Because in the very passage your scenario is excluded!

"I don't understand how the idea of God's righteousness or fairness can be maintained any other way, without resorting to the idea that we cannot understand the fathoms of God's purposes."

I am quite happy with the latter option, as was the Apostle Paul and the biblical writers in general! :-)

522. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 12:42:42 PM

"I think that PD makes an important point. The conventional notion that we have only this life to determine our eternal fate makes about as much sense as a parent sending a misbehaving child to its room for life."

I would have to disagree LadyC. There is nothing "non-sensical" with the idea of God warning us about certain things, us infringing upon those commands, and then being punished for doing so.

Again, in the Christian framework, that is precisely what happened in the Garden of Eden.

In fact, the notion that you have several lifetimes to "get it right" BUT you can't even remember what you did in previous lifetimes strikes me as much more unfair than any "one-shot" scenario. In fact, since you can't remember your previous lifetimes anyway, that is what reincarnation amounts to anyway.

523. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 12:46:08 PM

"I don't know, Kuligin (#533)."

And I'm going to make darn sure I don't get post #533, else we will start hearing about how clairevoyant PD is!!

524. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 12:54:20 PM

Also, could I get some clarification on the "pre-existence of the soul" position? I have never understood entirely how the souls got to this "wretched place in the first place! And then I don't see how that fits in with the whole karmic thing either. What I mean is, the souls are all "with God" I assume, then they fall somehow. Did they all fall equally? So that in their FIRST embodied state, they were all of EQUAL status?

Also, just for kicks:

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways," declares the Lord. "As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts." (Isaiah 55:8-9)

This is of course the God that Jesus, Paul, Peter, and others spoke about and worshipped.

And it is this same God that in that same Romans passage, after Paul used the Jacob/Esau example, he says:

"What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all!" [at this point, for PD's position to be true, wouldn't it be great if Paul would tell us why God isn't unjust by simply telling us that Jacob had done things in a previous lifetime to MERIT the favor of God? But Paul does no such thing!] He continues:

"For he says to Moses: "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion." It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy."

Paul then moves to his argument about God being the Potter and having the right to do whatever he wants with his "clay." All of this comes from Romans 9.

525. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 1:07:47 PM

"In fact, the notion that you have several lifetimes to "get it right" BUT you can't even remember what you did in previous lifetimes strikes me as much more unfair than any "one-shot" scenario. In fact, since you can't remember your previous lifetimes anyway, that is what reincarnation amounts to anyway."

But it does make sense. For one thing, if the past was not hidden from our conscious minds, we would probably go mad in each successive lifetime, so the point would be lost in a much more profound sense. Also, you have to get past the notion that our "ego" selves survive from one life to the next. Rather than the ego self, it is the "soul," which embodies something much more essential about us than the ego self, which seems to survive from one life to the next. It is the soul which must internalize the spiritual lessons through experience. We carry with us certain subconscious "spiritual memories," if you will, of love, loneliness, hate, anger, but we don't need a memory of a past ego self to grasp what these spirit memories mean to us.

"There is nothing "non-sensical" with the idea of God warning us about certain things, us infringing upon those commands, and then being punished for doing so."

But where does God "warn us" about these things? Reincarnation is a notion that has arisen independently, all over the world, and the doctrines have more similarities than dissimilarities. But the Christians insist that God's rules for all are contained in a book that most people probably don't get the chance to read. That makes much less sense to me. Sorry.

526. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 1:15:21 PM

LadyC,

Here is where I get lost. OK, I make choices each and every day with my conscious mind. Some of those choices are good, others bad.

Now then, my conscious mind doesn't remember any of my past lifetimes, so my conscious mind makes these choices with NO reference to the past lifetimes.

So I come to you and say, "LadyC, don't do that!" Now then, it doesn't matter if you have been told that twenty times in previous lives, or now for the first and only time, because since you can't remember the previous lifetimes, it is as if you have heard it for the first times anyway.

Put another way, please tell me the lessons you learned from previous lifetimes LadyC, such that you are now making conscious efforts to correct them or learn from them. You can't, and that is my whole point. Reincarnationists talk about how "fair" it is to have all these lifetimes to get it right, but since they can't remember any of those lessons and hence cannot affect their conscious mind with them, they in effect only have ONE SHOT.

527. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 1:42:43 PM

Kuligan,

Notwithstanding my argument that the ONE SHOT notion is highly contradictory to the notion of an all-loving, forgiving God, I'll try to put it into perspective.

I don't have any conscious memory of what lessons I've learned or failed to learn in my past lives. That much is correct. But to take this line of analysis assumes that one can arrive at spiritual truths through a reasoned analysis of past events - i.e., "If only he had done A, B wouldn't have happened," or, "Because she did this before and C occurred, then she ought to try D this time."

Spiritual truth rather comes to us from our intuition, which involves more fundamental aspects of our personality than our analytical abilities. The repository of these spiritual truths is, to some extent I believe, what we call our conscience, although that cannot be all of it. But we can access these inner truths if we only listen and heed our intuition. This is a major reason why meditation plays a large role in those religions which espouse a belief in reincarnation. We have all done things that were contrary to our conscience or intuition. I know that, for myself, the things I have done that were contrary to what my intuition was telling me was right were things that I later came to regret.

In many respects, I believe that this notion is very similar to the Christian teaching of "giving up one's self to God." The idea is to let go of your conscious rationalizations of events around you, and to simply accept that you are precisely where you are supposed to be. This in turn leads to a greater sensitivity to one's intuitive, or spiritual, self. When we follow this intuitive self, more often than not we have a much better sense of how to act when faced with choices than when we try to ignore our feelings and rationalize.

528. KuligintheHooligan - 9/19/1999 1:56:52 PM

LadyC, I don't mean to appear rude, but all of that is just too "convenient." What I mean is, you are appealing to "intuition," something I cannot control, and it is this intuition that I must yield to.

But ALL my decisions are made with my conscious mind!

"Should I get drunk tonight" would be dealt with how by you and this intuition scenario? Suppose in a former life I was a terrible sot. Are you saying that if I just yield to my "feelings," my intuition, that my soul will somehow relay to me the terrible lessons I learned in the previous lifetime about drunkenness?

I would also see a distinct difference between meditation as found in reincarnationist religions, and the "giving oneself up to God" engendered by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, a giving up to the will of a real, personal God. But that is another point altogether! :-)

529. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 4:53:46 PM

"'Should I get drunk tonight' would be dealt with how by you and this intuition scenario? Suppose in a former life I was a terrible sot. Are you saying that if I just yield to my "feelings," my intuition, that my soul will somehow relay to me the terrible lessons I learned in the previous lifetime about drunkenness?"

My point is that you know what you should do, and that this knowledge may be conscious, or it may be unconscious. In any case, real spiritual wisdom is not arrived at by an intellectual process; it is only found within. What you choose to do with your knowledge is a different matter entirely. We have free will.

"I would also see a distinct difference between meditation as found in reincarnationist religions, and the "giving oneself up to God" engendered by Jesus Christ and the Apostles, a giving up to the will of a real, personal God."

They are not so different as you think. As a Christian giving over your will to that of God, what you are really doing is letting go of the ego self, the self that seeks outer-sensory rationalizations for events and decision-making. But you still have free will, and you still must depend on your intuition, and you still must have faith that things are progressing as they should. Meditation is a vehicle for achieving a very similar purpose, which is to subsume one's ego self into the God within. Like the Christian giving himself over to God, it is also a process by which the believer unburdens him/herself of worries about the future, and of regrets about the past.

530. LadyChaos - 9/19/1999 4:54:20 PM

"What I mean is, you are appealing to "intuition," something I cannot control..."

That you seek "control" only reveals that you are unable to grasp some very important spiritual truths. Your ego gets in the way and blinds you from seeing what is really right before you.

"... and it is this intuition that I must yield to."

You don't have to "yield" to spiritual knowledge anymore than you have to "yield" to the fact that the sky is blue. It is simply there. Make of it what you will.

531. bloodnfire - 9/19/1999 5:07:29 PM

SnowOwl. You never did respond to my post of a few days back (it was#449 of only yesterday !! My, this thread has been humming..!!),
concerning "Free Will".

I asked you, (I think it was you), in all innocence believe me, to tell me what difference you see in the 'Free Will' you perceive that we all have, and the "Freedom" which Jesus promised in John 8..."He or she that abideth in my Word shall know the Truth, and the the Truth shall make you "FREE". I would appreciate hearing from you on this, and from anyone else who has a comment.

532. bloodnfire - 9/19/1999 5:50:51 PM

533. JonesAtLaw - 9/19/1999 6:38:00 PM

A while ago, we were discussing the justice of deathbed conversions etc. Today's gospel was the parable of the workers in the vineyard. In the morning the vineyard owner makes a deal with workers for the usual daily wage, he then adds to the crew over the day, with some workers working only one hour. The vineyard owner paid them all a day's wages. The early workers object. The vineyard owner replies that he paid the workers what they were promised, and did no injustice.

The point of the parable is that salvation is not justice, but a gift to us over and above what we justly deserve. It does not sit well with human nature, but that is a way of looking at deathbed conversions etc.

534. ethiopianeunuch - 9/19/1999 7:10:24 PM

Jonesatlaw: I think that someone else mentioned this parable(Matt 20:1-16) in referance to death bed conversions. I agree that this parable says a lot about the way God deals with us.His ways are not our ways. You see a lot of people saying "How can God allow this,or I can't worship a God that does this" and I think that attitude is backwards. I think we need to subscribe and not prescribe.

535. bloodnfire - 9/19/1999 8:29:26 PM

I agree !! What a wonderful day filled with really pointed discussions. I so appreciate everyone's input.

536. SnowOwl - 9/19/1999 8:37:53 PM

bloodnfire,

I'm sorry for not responding earlier, but it seems to me that you and I can really have no useful dialogue, since you simply retreat into the "we puny humans can have no conception of the nature of God's goodness and justice" corner, when asked to explain things that, at least on the surface, look anything but good and just. That just leads to the circular argument that because God is good and just anything he does is good and just. But what grounds do we have for deciding that God is good and just in the first place?

WRT free will, much earlier in the thread you said you believed that God was not only looking at the big picture but that he was painting it. I asked you then if that meant he painted in the Hitlers of this world, and if he did, did that mean that they were in fact carrying out God's will. I mean, if we aren't free to choose what we will do I can't see how, on any conception of justice, we can be blamed for our actions.

537. bloodnfire - 9/19/1999 9:22:09 PM

Now, SnowOwl. There are some things I can't explain, and I am the first to admit it. But you are avoiding my question aren't you ? What do you personally feel is the difference between the 'Free Will' you understand that we all have, and the "Freedom" promised by Jesus Christ to those who abide in His Word ?
Do you feel it is possible that the 'will' we exercise 'freely' before one 'abides in His Word and is made 'Free', tends to unwise choices based on selfishness, and that the 'Freedom' one enjoys after one is 'made free' is a freedom to be obedient ?

This isn't a trick question. I do believe He is painting the whole picture. He could have disposed of Hitler with a thought. Consequently He at least 'allowed' Hitler, and Himmler, etc....Why ?
I'm guessing, but it seems to me that it's all part of the schoolroom. I don't sense I'm 'retreating' into any 'corner'. I candidly admit that my standards at least aren't His. I stopped asking Him 'Why' years ago, because the answer is always the same.
"Because I love you". I'd then go through the same routine.."Oh no, if You loved me You'd never allow...." "You mean, if I loved as nobly, as purely and as truly as you do bloodnfire ? No, I love you, and I may or may not help you understand it bye and bye. In the meantime, keep marching and be obedient".
Rather than 'flip Him the bird' and turn away, I bow and obey, much to the sneering amusement of every atheist on the planet.

538. Lucky - 9/19/1999 9:39:53 PM

No sneering amusement here at all, just my inability to accept the leap of faith that allows belief in anything larger than this short, sometimes miserable, sometimes meaningless, and sometimes noble human life. No reincarnation, no afterlife, no higher power. This is it. If there is anything else, I'll find out eventually perhaps. Until then, I've seen no proof. I've seen death. You die and your eyes go blank. The usual human reaction is generally "No, wait, not
yet."

539. arkymalarky - 9/19/1999 9:50:30 PM

B&F,
If you do not believe in free will and human responsibility then you are making God responsible for every evil committed by man. The only way you can defend the justice and goodness of God is if you make man responsible for his own choices, including whether to accept the gift of the spiritual grace of God which all are offered with the stipulation that they accept and believe. For the person of faith, God gave man reason and judgment of what is good and what is evil. If we do not have free will to act on that knowledge with the reason He gave us, then spirituality and religion are meaningless. In attempting to circumvent that argument you are defending the indefensible by God and Jesus' own standard as reflected in Biblical teachings, beginning with the Ten Commandments, by suggesting that "his ways are not our ways." If I am misreading your position, please clarify, because in over a year of reading your posts I still do not have a clear understanding of your view on this.

540. AlDavis - 9/19/1999 10:26:19 PM

arky
If we accept that man has free will, and is responsible for his own actions, should that man be forced to accept the consequences of his actions, or should he somehow expect some sort of unmerited relief? My opinion would be that any relief he might be given would be a gift, undeserved, for which the person should express gratitude.

On a mundane level the above concept has much to do with social behavior. On a spititul level, I guess the Bible verse, "For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" says it best.

541. phillipdavid - 9/19/1999 11:19:01 PM

Kuligin,
521

"He also said that in time even Satan would be saved!"

He said he may be saved. Since we all fell away from God by free will, we can all strive back towards Him.

"But in the *Christian* context, this makes no sense, since Paul expressly tells us in that very passage that God's choice was done
"before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad!" Rom 9:11). So, you can maintain your position PD, but you cannot do it in a *Christian* context, not at least in using the example of Jacob and Esau. Because in the very passage your scenario is excluded!"

Sure it does! Paul taught prexistence of the soul, past and future lives, karma (and karma implies reincarnation). But wrt Romans, you must remember that Paul is addressing the saints(holy ones) which is a sectarian term used by the Qumran Essenes to distinguish themselves from those who were not called or did not choose to keep God's covenant. The saints are the chosen remnant. The term is similar to the "elect" but different from the term "pneumatic" (spiritual) which Paul also utilizes. Paul also addresses a group called the "faithful" who are presumably to be distinguished from the "saints." Paul, therefore, designates his followers under various levels or degrees of spiritual initiation, and his messages to each are specifically tailored for specific purposes. Talking to the saints in Romans, Paul is just using Jacob and Esau as an ancedote to reassure them that they have truly been called to be adopted as sons by Jesus, and that their destiny was known by God before the saints became, as it were, pilgrims on earth, i.e., before they become incarnate on earth.

542. phillipdavid - 9/19/1999 11:19:57 PM

cont)

But the original context of this was the question of God's fairness. I used the case of Jacob and Esau to point out that if you did not believe that we are responsible for our own conditions, in prexistence and the possiblity of past lives, then God appears to be very unfair in this instance. I don't think He is unfair, or unrighteous, and I can logically hold this belief because of my belief in karma, prexistence, and past and future lives -- the very things Paul taught!

Also, I just reviewed the Greek of Romans 9:11, and that passage can be read, imo, to mean that since Jacob and Esau hadn't been born yet, they haven't committed any acts in this life yet. You may enlighten me about proper Greek grammar (which you have done before!).

543. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 12:15:28 AM

"What do you personally feel is the difference between the 'Free Will' you understand that we all have, and the "Freedom" promised by Jesus Christ to those who abide in His Word ?"

You know, bloodnfire, when you write something like this I want to reach through the monitor and shake you.

IF you have established in previous conversation that the person you are addressing is Christian, then this question makes some sense. In that context, you are (perhaps) trying to establish that particular person's understanding of Christianity (after all there are so many!).

IF not, it is so much gobbledy-gook.

I haven't read every post of the backthread, and I do not know if SnowOwl has professed Christianity on this thread or not. I also realize that some of you may find this post to be not "contributing to the discussion", but you see, that's precisely my point.

If everything addressed to the moderator of the discussion has a reply that not only makes it clear the moderator is coming solely from a Christian perspective (something that I find perfectly ok) but also demands that the participant's answer comes from a Christian perspective, then how do you expect any participation from non-Christians???

How does a non-Christian compare their understanding of Free Will with "the "Freedom" promised by Jesus Christ to those who abide in His Word" ?

544. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 12:21:52 AM

So, to elaborate, I am not saying it is necessarily inappropriate to address that particular question to SnowOwl - that is not really my point.

It just seems to me that you address everyone this way all the time every time you post!!!!

I am very interested in "Spiritual Issues" and have been interested in several of the conversations here, even though I didn't have much to add to them. However, sometimes your style, bloodnfire, makes me feel very excluded and very much inclined to not post even when I feel that I do have something to say.

What I say may or may not have any reference to/in or anything to do with the Christian Bible. However, if I feel that the Christian Biblical perspective is the only one which will be addressed/discussed/expected/frame of reference phrased.....

sigh

545. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 12:24:17 AM

never mind

lurk

546. ethiopianeunuch - 9/20/1999 12:28:18 AM

Christipeters: I have felt encouraged by your posts. I thought your definition of sin and what a person should do where right on the mark.

547. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 12:46:21 AM

Thanks ethiopianeunich.

Sorry to post and run, but it's past my bedtime. G'night.

548. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 3:38:09 AM

ChristiPeters. I'm very sorry my answers make you feel 'excluded'. I don't want anybody to feel excluded.
When somebody makes a flat statement, as SnowOwl has in the past that....'we all have Free Will', then I feel 'moved', I suppose, to ask them, Christian, Athiest or Church-of-What's-Happening-Jack ? to give their authority for making that statement.
Most of the topics we discuss in this thread are addressed in 'The Christian Bible'. When there's something in it that has something to say about the topic, it will be mentioned, usually, of course, by a Christian.
Someone may feel that their much-worn copy of "I'm Okay, You're Okay" is just as much an authority as the Bible, and I respect their right to believe that. I asked a fairly simple question, I think, whether or not SnowOwl is a believer in Christ or not.
"If He once said that His Truth will make a person 'free', what would that statement of His imply regarding the 'Free Will' which SnowOwl appears to believe we all have?".
Don't worry about feeling like you would like to reach through your P.C. and shake me. My wife would tell you that she takes care of that many times during the day !! :-)
How about trying to answer my question ?

549. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 3:50:52 AM

Let's consider Ms.Myss' theories regarding the Seven Chakras of the Hindu, and see if they help anyone with regard to their "Spiritual Issues"...(I feel rather like Stanley hacking his way through the Congolese jungle in searth of Dr. Livingstone, who, for all I know also got his degree from some unknown University in Hawaii :-)....

She writes (Part 2, Chapter 1, Page 103)..."The energy content of the first or Tribal chakra is Tribal Power. The word 'tribe' is not only a synonym for family but an archetype, and as such it has connotations beyond its more conventional definition. Archetypally the word tribal connotes group identity, group force, group willpower, and group belief patterns. All of these meanings make up the energy content of our first chakra. The first chakra grounds us. It is our connection to traditional familial beliefs that support the formation of identity and a sense of belonging to a group of people in a geographic location.
To connect to the energy of your first chakra, focus your attention for a few moments on something tribal that triggers an emotional response in you.

550. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 4:06:02 AM

For example...(Continuing the First chakra)...

As you focus on the experience you choose, be aware that the area of your body generating the response is your Tribal Chakra.
Location: Base of the spine (at the coccyx)" (no jokes please, :-)
"Energy connection to the physical body: Spinal column, rectum, legs, bones, feet, and immune system...." She goes on to identify that which she sees as an 'Energy Connection', 'Symbolic/Perceptual connection...then she comes to the 'Sefirot/Sacrament' connection"

"The sefirah of Shekhinah, literally meaning the mystical community of Israel, is symbolic of the spiritual community of all humanity, and to the feminine spirit of the earth known as Gaia. The symbolic meaning of the sacrament of baptism is to honor one's biological family as sacred and divinely chosen as the appropriate tribe from which to begin one's life journey" (I suspect Vic might want to dispute that interpretation of 'baptism' but then, he's a dumb 'Thumper' :-).
Sacred TruthThe sacred truth inherent in the first chakra is that All Is One. We learn this truth and explore its creative power through experiences connected to tribal or group dynamics." Continuing....

551. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 4:18:53 AM

It's really not fair to Ms.Myss for me to present small 'snippets' of her work, and then expect anyone to be able to discuss it intelligently. Just remember that as you post, if you post, and don't disparage her, even though you might disagree with that which she is saying. You really should buy the book if you find any of her thoughts of potential value. In that regard, she ends the chapter on the first chakra by the following 'Questions for Self-Examination'....

1. What belief patterns did you inherit from your family ?
2. Which of those belief patterns that still have authority
in your thinking can you acknowledge are no longer valid ?
3. What superstitions do you have ? Which have more authority
over you than your own reasoning ability ?
4. Do you have a personal code of honor ? What is it ?
5. Have you ever compromised your sense of honor ? If so, have
you taken steps to heal it ?
6. Do you have any unfinished business with your family members?
If so, list the reasons that prevent you from healing your
family relationships.
7. List all the blessings that you feel came from your family.
8. If you are now raising a family of your own, list the
qualities that you would like your children to learn from
you.
9. What tribal traditions and rituals do you continue for
yourself and your family ?
10. Describe the tribal characteristics within yourself that you
would like to strengthen and develop ?

That's it for today. What do you think ?

552. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 4:29:10 AM

ChristiPeters. P.S. On re-reading your posts, I notice that it is my 'Style' which makes you feel excluded.
I Don't know what to do about that. I certainly want you to feel included, so I ask you to look beyond the 'way' I say things, and consider that which I say.
My function here is to 'keep things moving', and present ideas for discussion, period.
Be patient. Just a month or so more, and you'll have someone else sitting in this chair trying to be as courteous and kind as possible too.
Would you like to try ? (then perhaps I can grit my teeth and feel like reaching through my monitor to shake you for a change :-)

553. SnowOwl - 9/20/1999 6:58:59 AM

When somebody makes a flat statement, as SnowOwl has in the past that....'we all have Free Will', then I feel 'moved', I suppose, to ask them, Christian, Athiest or Church-of-What's-Happening-Jack ? to give their authority for making that statement.

Bloodnfire, I am fairly certain I did not make any flat statement of this nature. I asked you how you reconciled the notion of free will with your idea that those whom God has chosen must eventually be drawn into his fold. That said nothing about my personal beliefs at all. I asked this because of a basic confusion in my mind, that is, I mistakenly thought that most Christians believe that we do have free will, and thus through the choices we make we take part in our own salvation (or otherwise). If, however, we reject the notion of free will it seems to me that we must hold God responsible for all the evil in the world and to me this does not cohere with any possible conception of a perfectly good, just and loving God.

So, the basic answer to your question is simply that I don't know. I don't know because I have no idea what to be "free" in the sense you quoted it means. And this is not an attempt to evade the question on my part. If everything in the Bible was absolutely clear cut and unambiguous we would not have had committed and sincere Christians arguing for centuries over how we should interpret it. Therefore, your tendency to either answer or pose questions by simply quoting an out of context excerpt from the Bible renders any discussion meaningless for me.

554. SnowOwl - 9/20/1999 7:07:03 AM

I also take exception to your claim that all atheists sneer at your beliefs. I don't sneer at anybody's sincerely held beliefs. I may think they are mistaken, I may not be able to understand why anyone would hold particular beliefs, but that's very different from sneering at the person who does subscribe to any belief system different to my own. As it happens, I have felt "sneered at" in this thread by you, although I doubt very much that you would even begin to understand why.

I'm reminded of a couple of lines by Robbie Burns which we might all bear in mind.

Oh wad some power the giftie gie us
to see oursels as ithers see us.

555. Angel-Five - 9/20/1999 7:16:30 AM

hmm, sounds awfully familiar... almost makes me feel nostalgic....but, no, not really...

553 and 554 are good, well-worded posts and it is a shame that they will be so thoroughly misunderstood and unanswered in the name of psychological expediency. I'm being egotistical here -- I say they're good posts bvecause they're a lot like ones I have made to your opponent, except mine were (by dint of a longer association) much more rude.

556. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 7:51:57 AM

Well, Res might see me as your 'opponant' SnowOwl, but I certainly don't. I apologize if I have attributed to you some of the sneering which comes very evidently from others in this forum. I also regret any sense of 'sneering' you might have had in any posts to you. I have never intended any sneering in any of my posts, and I ask you to believe that, and to forgive me.
I do respect you, and I respect your questions.
It is true that many Christians 'bandy about' this question of "Free Will". If I'm not mistaken I saw PhillipDavid refer to it in one of his posts yesterday.
You write above..."I asked you how you reconciled the notion of free will with your idea that those whom God has chosen must eventually be drawn into his fold". Do you understand that the premise that 'those whom God has chosen must eventually be drawn into his fold' is not my idea ? It is the stated promise of John 10:16. Is that taken 'out of context' ? How do I reconcile that promise of Jesus with the 'notion' of free will ? I can't, other than, as I suggested earlier to you this morning, the possibility that the 'Free Will' most people talk about is somehow 'faulty' (for want of a better word), and that when the individual finds the 'Freedom' Jesus refers to in John 8, that Freedom then bacomes 'healed'. The believer able to make wiser and obedient choices.
I do not regard my feeble thoughts as the oracles of God. I am simply a poor sap trying to host a thread, and to give honest answers to very challenging questions. At the same time to make everyone feel welcome and not in any way 'sneered at' or excluded.
Do you understand my thinking regarding 'Free Will'. Does it make no sense to you ?

557. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 7:55:11 AM

Resonance. (Why would you want to use a new moniker ? Surely you're not ashamed of the old one ?).
I notice that you always 'pop in' to make a personal attack, but never address any of the 'Spiritual Issues' in this thread.
How about forgetting bloodnfire, and speaking about 'Free Will', or better yet, "Agape" love, that love which never gives up ?

558. ElliottRW - 9/20/1999 10:27:17 AM

Re: Free Will

bloodnfire, et. al.,

No discussion of free will is complete without giving consideration to reductionist determinism. It goes something like this: the universe is nothing but energy and chemicals and possibly other simple things interacting in space and time. The fate of compounded things is entirely determined by their component parts. Thus, while a person may perceive free will, her actions are actually a logical consequence of the interactions of mindless particles (be they physical or spiritual).

This suggests that free will is only meaningful from specific perspectives. Thus, we might say that God has given people free will by not interfering directly in the function of their brains or souls. Or, we might cut a finer grain, and stipulate that God is completely passive, granting all atoms and photons and tiny what-nots free will. We might also address the curious issue of whether or not God has free will.

559. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 10:59:32 AM

SnowOwl -

While I do not consider myself a card-carrying Christian, I was raised in the Methodist church. Not all Christian denominations believe as bloodnfire has stated. I was certainly taught that humans have free will. In fact, I was taught that it was that pesky free will that enabled Adam and Eve to disobey God in the Garden of Eden. I was taught that our free will is a source for much evil and much good in the world. Those were the answers to the "How could God allow Hitler, etc" in my Sunday School classes growing up. God decided to give Man free will. Sometimes humans choose to do rather nasty things with their free will, but God's not taking it back, we're stuck with it. In fact, the principal of free will ran throughout everything in my church - thus we were to choose, freely, of our own will to give ourselves to Jesus. He did take us, we gave ourselves. In fact, I was specifically taught that our deciding to give ourselves to God of our own free will was particularly valuable to God.

I do not consider myself a Christian because there are some Christian tenants I cannot reconcile with my conscience. However, many of the things stated by bloodnfire offend my sense of what little bit of Christianity that I do accept.

560. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 11:04:51 AM

bloodnfire -

I understand your zeal and your deep feelings and do not mean to suggest that you shouldn't feel or believe the way you do.

However, can you not see that to ask someone who is not Christian to reply from a Christian perspective makes no sense!

It's like you are speaking English to someone who only speaks German and asking them, "but what does that mean in English"?

If you want to ask an atheist the atheist perspective of free will - fine. Or a Muslim, the Islamic teachings of free will - fine. Or a Wiccan, what Wicca teaches about free will - fine. But why on earth would you ask any of these what Jesus says/feels????

Do you understand my point now?

561. ethiopianeunuch - 9/20/1999 11:58:58 AM

I think the fact on the matter is that we do have free will. If I decide to put my foot through the moniter in the next minute I'm going to be doing it of my own free will. We are guided spiritually by whatever it is that we believe. If we believe the Bible that is going to be our guide and we will live it as we see fit.

I think that God took a more active role in the the life of man in the OT times. He used Jacob and Esau in a specific way in order to fullill His will, that Jesus could come. After the cross and the completion of His revelation God has backed off divine intervention.
I'm not saying it never happens,just that He has given us the ball to see where we will run with it before the final whistle blows.

562. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 12:13:37 PM

"He did take us, we gave ourselves"

was supposed to be:

He didn't take us, we gave ourselves.

Of course, I was also taught that He has promised to accept us once we give ourselves.

563. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 12:26:50 PM

The idea of Free Will (and, yes, I do believe that we all have Free Will) came up recently in my discussions with Lil' Darlin' concerning the recent shooting in the Baptist Church in Fort Worth.

On Friday, one of the Dallas talk radio shows had "what do you say about this to your young child when your child asks why did this happen?" LD and I were both listening to this as we drove home. So it sparked a discussion. I told her that God does NOT make these bad things happen. Some people who are very angry or sick in their minds, do horrible things. God gave people free will. This means that people choose to do good things, choose to do bad things, choose to do silly things, choose to do stupid things.

That naturally led to what we can do about it. I said first and foremost, we can choose to do our best to do good things. I reminded her about when she was younger and we talked about and practiced what to do when you were angry. That it's ok to be angry, but it's not ok to hurt another person or any other living thing because you are angry. So we can practice that in our own lives and we can try as a society to find ways to teach other people better ways to act when they are angry or despairing. Second, we can try to find ways to make sure that people who are sick in their minds are identified and treated.

so, anyway, my answer to why bad things happen is twofold - some bad is due to "impersonal" sources, like hurricanes, tornados, earthquakes, etc; some bad happens because human beings have Free Will.

Perhaps if we did not have Free Will, fewer bad things would happen, but there is a second side to that coin, imo. I don't think you can create without Free Will. I am unwilling to give up the positive sides to Free Will just to get rid of the negative.

It's kind of like happiness and sadness to me. I don't think you can have one without the other.

564. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 1:50:45 PM

"I don't think you can create without Free Will. I am unwilling to give up the positive sides to Free Will just to get rid of the negative."

And I don't think that you or I had anything to do with it! :-)

PD,

"He [Origen] said he may be saved. Since we all fell away from God by free will, we can all strive back towards Him."

Actually PD, I think he said he would most definitely be saved, but then I’ll have to go digging for it and I don’t have the time and it is a small point here anyway.

"Paul taught prexistence of the soul, past and future lives, karma (and karma implies reincarnation)."

Oh, no, what can of worms am I opening?? :-) PD, can you show me where Paul taught the pre-existence of the soul and past and future lives? I recall some of your arguments for the karma matter.

"But wrt Romans, you must remember that Paul is addressing the saints(holy ones) which is a sectarian term used by the Qumran Essenes to distinguish themselves from those who were not called or did not choose to keep God's covenant."

I am curious on what basis you make this statement.

"I used the case of Jacob and Esau to point out that if you did not believe that we are responsible for our own conditions, in prexistence and the possiblity of past lives, then God appears to be very unfair in this instance."

Well, one could argue the point that just because he appears unfair to ME or to YOU doesn't make it so. But you will have to make a better case for why it is "unfair" for God to place one person in a lowly condition and another in a high condition. It seems to me that you are making a person's PHYSICAL condition of greater import than his SPIRITUAL one (in other words, a very poor person could be great spiritually, while a rich person awful [take the Rich Man and Lazarus account for example]).

565. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 1:55:53 PM

What I have never liked about the reincarnation/karma scheme is that it seems to equate earthly riches with spiritual maturity!

"See that rich man over there? He is living high off the hog today because in a past life he was a very good man."

"See that poor beggar over there? He has a pathetic life because he was a pathetic person in a previous lifetime."

Spiritual maturity is equated with material possessions and physical condition, something I am sure Jesus Christ never taught!

As for Jacob and Esau, PD, I think you missed my point. The passage expressly states that God chose one and not the other NOT based on anything the boys had ever done. Paul's argument is that EVEN BEFORE THEY WERE BORN God made his choice. Again, your argument that their condition resulted from activities they did in previous lifetimes doesn't accord with the words of Paul in the passage.

The passage is speaking in GREAT ways about the sovereignty of God, not in the pre-existence of the soul, karma and reincarnation, and whatever else you are trying to read into it.

566. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 2:18:00 PM

"See that rich man over there? He is living high off the hog today because in a past life he was a very good man."

"See that poor beggar over there? He has a pathetic life because he was a pathetic person in a previous lifetime."

Interesting. I am sure some people view it that way, but it is not the way I was taught.

Actually, the notion that your current physical existence is somehow deserved has run throughout much of religion and history. There has been a strong social notion that if you are poor or physically disabled or disfigured that somehow you deserved it - you did something wrong or your parents did something wrong. There seems to be this tendency in humans to believe this whether the notion is endorsed by religion or not. I think there have been historical times when the Christian church reinforced this viewpoint.

The reincarnation belief that I was taught was that while in the spirit world you know all your lives and the state of your "soul" or spiritual growth. So you choose the next life to be born into based on what you feel you need to learn. Being rich is not a reward and being poor is not a punishment. Your lives are not imposed on you by an outer being as punishment or reward. YOU pick what YOU think you need to grow to a 'higher' spiritual level. In fact, the process of choosing the "right" next life is also a learning process that "old" souls are better at than "new" souls.

NOTE: I was taught this, but I was also taught Christianity. Please do not assume explanations of this sort represent my own personal beliefs. Also, there are multiple reincarnation belief systems.

567. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 2:24:22 PM

Hmmmm, interesting ChristiP. I've never heard that one!

I have always heard that a "karmic law" determines the state of your next life, not your own personal choice.

568. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 2:26:35 PM

In other words, CP, after Hitler committed suicide, he didn't get to decide, "Um, and for my NEXT life, I'd like to be President of the USA!" His next life was dealt to him by the "karmic law or energy" that was accrued to him.

Or something like that.

569. ElliottRW - 9/20/1999 2:51:52 PM

ethiopianeunuch

Thanks for responding. Indeed, you do have free will in the sense that you describe. That is what free will means when a person is the unit of measure.

After all, the atoms, photons, etc. that cause your decision to evicerate your monitor are properly part of you. Therefore, you can be held accountable for what they do, much as you are held responsible for the behavior of, say, your left hand.

The question of interest here is the notion of fairness of judgement, particularly in the context of sin, damnation, etc. It is preposterous to talk about being fair to a molecule, so (if we buy the premise that people are simply collections of molecules) it is necessarily silly to talk of fairness in judging people.

570. ethiopianeunuch - 9/20/1999 3:09:34 PM

ElliotRW: In response to your Question "does God have free will". I base all my knowledge of God on what the Bible says. Hebrews 6:18 telss us that it is impossible for God to lie, and Psalm 92:15 declares that there is no unrighteousness in Him, so in some sense I think God has no free will to do things that go against His will.

I'm sure there is a more articulate way to say that.

571. tckrulak - 9/20/1999 3:45:25 PM

Christi:

"Actually, the notion that your current physical existence is somehow
deserved has run throughout much of religion and history."

However, Jesus refutes this notion in John when He is asked why a man was born blind, because of his sin or the sin of his parents. Jesus answered that it was neither but so that God might be glorified. So while you are right that the notion you mention has run through current history, I wanted to point out that Christ actually attempts to disabuse the Jews of His day of this worldview.

572. tckrulak - 9/20/1999 3:47:15 PM

EE

"in some sense I think God
has no free will to do things that go against His will."

Perhaps "...against His NATURE" would be a better way of phrasing this.

573. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 3:52:37 PM

tckrulak (#571) - "However, Jesus refutes this notion ... "

YES! I have always been taught that this is the great revolutionary thought that Jesus brings. It is also one of the reasons that I like Jesus.

I like Jesus, as described by His words and actions in the New Testament. I have a rather poor opinion of the organized Christian church, otoh.

574. tckrulak - 9/20/1999 3:55:23 PM

Christi,

"I like Jesus, as described by His words and actions in the New
Testament. I have a rather poor opinion of the organized Christian
church, otoh."

Good!! Then stick with the Jesus of the Bible because any organization filled w/ humans is bound to have flaws. Don't throw out the baby w/ the bathwater. Additionally, there *really* are a number of churches out there that *do* practice what they preach. Please do not denigrate all because of a few.

575. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 4:00:40 PM

tckrulak -

I don't denigrate any - or at least I try not to. I think it is wrong to denigrate. However, that doesn't mean I join. I just muddle my way, reading, and watching, and trying, and meditating, and praying, and doing my best.

I also don't insist that what I feel is my best is necessarily best for anyone else.

576. tckrulak - 9/20/1999 4:04:17 PM

Christi,

I didn't mean to make my message accusatory. That was not the message behind it. I am sure that you do not denigrate people or churches.

"I also don't insist that what I feel is my best is necessarily best for anyone else."

Could that be from a lack of depth of belief or surety or just a healthy dose of post-modern relativism? :-)

577. ethiopianeunuch - 9/20/1999 4:05:21 PM

Well said tckrulak, I like your referance to John 9 also.

Christi: I think the problem is with the disorganized (scriptuarly) christian church.Jesus is the example we need to folow.

578. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 4:15:01 PM

tckrulak - I think I was born with a relativistic point of view. All my life I have been able to see not two side to every question, but six, seven, more! and they all have valid points too! I have always been puzzled by people who don't see life that way.

The only thing I approach inflexibility on is: It's not OK to deliberately hurt another human being.

There are very few people who find this trait of mine charming. It drives most people straight up the wall.

&:oD

579. ElliottRW - 9/20/1999 4:42:15 PM

ethiopianeunuch

Actually, I think that's pretty well-put. It only appears circular because of the dual meanings of "will"--one being a defining characteristic of God: ultimate self-control (His Will), and the other being a particular choice (will).

Clearly, God's inability to be unrighteous (or, specifically, to lie) is not because of a lack of imagination, but rather because of God's character, because of God's honor.

Even so, I would say that God has free will; at least in the same sense and degree that a person who would never, say, eat pork rinds still has the freedom to do so.

580. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 4:51:13 PM

Which brings up an interesting point. I here many proponents of "free will" state than in order for a person to be totally free, they must act without any reasonable constraints.

But as we see, even with God, there is no such thing. God CANNOT act in certain ways, because he is constrained by his nature.

And the same can be said for sinful man. Apart from God's Holy Spirit, he cannot help but act a certain ways. And as Paul says in Titus 1, he is "unfit for doing anything good."

At times it is all I can do to not scream at the top of my voice when I hear people talking about it "not being fair" if I an unable, because of my sinful nature, to choose God. But as this discussion is showing us, not even God has the "freewill" that most humanists would like US to have!

581. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 4:54:58 PM

I prefer the term "reasonable self-determination." Do I have real choices to make in my life? And do those choices affect my life in some way? And will I be held responsible for those actions?

ALL of my choices are constrained in one way or another anyway.

582. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 4:55:10 PM

583. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 4:55:53 PM

Arky. Your #539. ". In attempting to circumvent that argument you are defending the indefensible by God and Jesus' own standard as reflected in Biblical teachings, beginning with the Ten Commandments".
The 'Ten Commandments' (of course there were many more than that), but they will suffice perhaps, once and for all to explain my present understanding regaring 'Free Will'.
No one obeyed the 'Ten Commandments'. Nor, I am sure, did God expect anyone too, since Christ was 'slain before the foundation of the World'. If anyone had, then Christ would not have had to have died on Calvary's cross. Everyone, exercising this 'Free Will' which we are discussing, BLEW IT!! .
"For the Law (the 'Ten Commandments') was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith" (Galatians 3:24)
So my understanding of the situation, is, that without the 'Freedom' which Jesus promises to those who 'abide in His Word' and who are 'made free' by the resulting knowledge of the Truth, 'Free Will' as practiced by human beings 'aint worth a barrell of spit', being tainted by sin.
While you may not agree with my understanding, Arky, do you at least understand what I am trying to say ?

584. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 5:17:24 PM

I suppose I might be able to summarize my understanding of 'Free Will' this way (not, I'm sure, that anyone really cares). The 'freedom' of choice which 'unclean hearts' enjoy is 'dangerous' being tainted by sin. The 'freedom' which The Truth imparts to the believer, somehow 'sanctifies' the choices they make. That, of course, is assuming that The Truth has actually made them 'Free'.

Drinks, anyone ?? :-)

I have yet to read, from all those posting in defence of "Free Will" an explanation of anyone's understanding of the difference between this 'Free Will' you defend, and that freedom which Jesus promises to those who 'abide in His word', and in consequence, 'know the truth'. (John 8).

585. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 5:44:50 PM

Well, to be perfectly truthful, bloodnfire, I have absolutely no idea what you mean when you say "that freedom which Jesus promises to those who 'abide in His word', and in consequence, 'know the truth'".

Would anyone who wasn't a Christian know what "that freedom which Jesus promises to those who 'abide in His word', and in consequence, 'know the truth'" means?

That kind of makes it hard to answer, doesn't it? and is why I posted to you about framing your questions that way. Of course if you only want to talk to the Christians here, that's ok with me.

586. KuligintheHooligan - 9/20/1999 5:50:18 PM

ChristiP

If I may interject, perhaps bloodnfire is referring to something St. Augustine wrote about. He said that human beings were created to serve God and have communion with him, but in falling, they lost the ability to do so. In Jesus Christ and through His Spirit, though, we are able to again be "free" in the sense of being able to do what we were originally created and intended to do, love and serve God.

And it is this freedom that bloodnfire may be referring to.

587. ethiopianeunuch - 9/20/1999 5:55:46 PM

I think that in John 8 Jesus was speaking to the Jews that believed that he was the Christ.He was telling them to continue in His word and they would be made free from the law.If the believed on Him and kept his sayings they would have the promise of eternal life.

588. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 6:05:48 PM

hmmmmm...

(smoke pours out Christi's ears as the wheels in her head turn very sloooowwwly)

bloodnfire - Is either what Kuligin or ethiopianeunuch said is what you mean by "that freedom which Jesus promises to those who 'abide in His word', and in consequence, 'know the truth'"?

589. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 6:10:50 PM

Shoot! I hate to post a question and then disappear, but it's time to blow this popsicle stand! (to borrow from bubba)

I don't know if I'll have time online tonight - it's ironing night, but I'll get back to y'all as soon as I can!

590. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 6:26:09 PM

591. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 7:23:03 PM

I agree with Vic, Christi, but I don't accept EE's interpretation. I take it as being written to me, and promising me that 'if I abide in His Word, I shall know the truth, and the truth shall make me free'.
Free to be obedient, as Vic says, and making wise and 'sanctified' choices, as opposed to unwise and unGodly choices, which are typical of those not made free by the Truth.

Of course I don't only want to talk to Christians. If I did, I certainly wouldn't spend a lot of time in The Mote. I enjoy talking to everyone.

You write..."Would anyone who wasn't a Christian know what "that freedom which Jesus promises to those who 'abide in His word', and in consequence, 'know the truth'" means? They would apparently, if they 'abode in His Word', i.e. continue to ponder the words Christ uttered. However, 'abiding' in those words, and learning the Truth, would, ipso-facto, pretty much result in one becoming a follower of His, don't you agree ?

Do you remember my understanding of the definition of 'A Christian'?
You'll find it in 2 Corinthians 13:5. It is those human beings who have the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ living within them. (Most of whom, as I understand things, are not aware that He is there....Yet.
Take Resonance, for example.....:-).....Please......(Rim shot).

592. SnowOwl - 9/20/1999 8:51:37 PM

bloodnfire,

In the interests of continued discussion I'm still struggling to understand your understanding of the nature of God and his relationship to man. This is what I think your position is, but I may very well be completely off the mark. If I am, I'd be grateful if you'd correct me.

1. God is all powerful, perfectly good and perfectly just.
2. With our limited human understanding we cannot comprehend fully God's justice and goodness.
3. Man is born with a sinful nature (I'm presuming here that you believe this is as a result of Adam and Eve's disobedience).
4. Salvation is a gift from God, given to those he chooses. We do not choose God, he chooses those of us whom he will. Once those chosen accept the gift of salvation they are freed from the burden of their sinful natures. Those not chosen by God cannot attain salvation.
5. This is perfectly just and good.

593. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 9:52:51 PM

SnowOwl. That's pretty 'cut and dried'. It's not quite that simple. There's the element of Love. Add that to the mix, and those verses which do speak to the 'responsibility' of man in his salvation, and you have the ingredients of Salvation, as I understand it.
Am I trying to be vague, or prevaracate ? No. If I quote the verses which remind me that.."We look in a dark mirror and see only in part", I am accused of 'retreating into a corner'.
Frankly, when one 'falls in love with Jesus Christ', all these technical questions tend to get washed away. He gave His all, He expects (requires) us to give our all. Period.

But, in all of this, I see 'Free Will' as being very tainted until one finds 'true' freedom in Him. I hope this answer doesn't make smoke come out of your ears as well ? :-)

594. bloodnfire - 9/20/1999 10:08:50 PM

No one picked up on that subject of the 'Agape' kind of love. The love that 'just can't help it'. The love which keeps on loving 'in spite of' abuse and neglect and indifference. The kind of love which eventually can change the one so loved into the kind of man or woman they are supposed to be. Anyone know what I'm talking about ?

595. arkymalarky - 9/20/1999 10:43:21 PM

Thanks for the response, B&F. It's been a crazy day. I'm beginning to understand your view, and I do disagree with it, partly because if what you said were true, once you are chosen by God you will "go and sin no more," imo. None of us, of course, achieves that, no matter what our faith. I also look to New Testament scriptures such as "Ask and it will be given to you, seek and ye shall find, knock and it shall be opened unto you." My belief is closer to EE's, and I would add that the revelation comes from Christ himself in the New Testament to any who accept His word as truth, and they do so of their conscious reasoned choice. Others find divine revelation from other sources and I do not attempt to judge or second guess their spirituality or relationship with God or lack of it, as the case may be. I speak only for my own faith.

"Everyone, exercising this 'Free Will' which we are discussing, BLEW IT!!"
They still do. Sincere repentance is a key no one seems to be looking at. I'm not talking about a license to exercise "Free Will" and apologize later, but truly to recognize when you "fall short of the glory of God" and turn from that action. Jesus says to forgive your brother seventy times seven if he asks forgiveness.

596. ChristiPeters - 9/20/1999 11:08:16 PM

Well, bloodnfire, if I understand you, I totally disagree with you and utterly reject God if God is as you describe. (Of course, I believe you are simply worng and that God is not as you describe.)

I still feel that I haven't quite gotten through to you on the communication point I have been trying to get accross. I'm sure by now, everyone else is bored with this so this is my last attempt.

" They would apparently, if they 'abode in His Word', i.e. continue to ponder the words Christ uttered. However, 'abiding' in those words, and learning the Truth, would, ipso-facto, pretty much result in one becoming a follower of His, don't you agree ?"

Well, DUH, as my daughter would say. That's my point.

If you are talking to a non-Christian. why the heck would they be pondering the words Christ uttered or abiding in His word!!!!????? So, if you want to find out the perspective of a religious non-Christian, an atheist, or an agnostic, why the heck do you insist they frame their answer from a Christian perspective???!!!!

597. ethiopianeunuch - 9/21/1999 3:10:37 AM

Blood: If someone had told me before I had been converted that God choose some and rejects others I am quite sure I would have agreed. I also would have been quite sure that He didn't choose me and never would. I would have happily accepted my old life was for me and God had made it that way.I think Romans 10 is just one place where election is contradicted.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

9
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
10
For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.
11
For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed.
12
For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him.
13
For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.

-

598. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 5:27:10 AM

Well, DUH, Christi, when I was 36 years old, and thought the Bible was 'just an old book, full of myth and fable', someone who cared about me encouraged me to start actually reading it, and 'Abide in His Word'. That's how, eventually, I came to 'know the Truth', and (even more eventually) was 'made free'. You've got the 'cart before the horse'. And you are ignoring the definition of 'A Christian' posted above.
"Someone who has the Spirit of God indwelling them, and who (until He reveals Himself through His Word), are not aware of it". One doesn't say.."I think I'm a Christian, so I'll start believing the Bible". To one's astonishment (in my case) you read the bible, the words persuade you that the Scriptures are true, the Holy Spirit reveals Himself in the heart, and one becomes a Christian.

EE. Of course, that's 'the other edge of the Sword of Truth'. However, as you know, "No man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me, draw him" (John 6:44, Jesus speaking). He also said..."All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son and he to whomsoever the Son WILL reveal him". (Matthew 11:27, emphasis added).
I am completely convinced that..."Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved". I am equally convinced that no one no one 'calls upon the Lord' unless the Lord Himself, in them eventually prompts them so to call.
However, we can't prove this either way. You practice your evangelism your way, and I will continue to practice mine my way. And let's all agree that we, together, are striving to live our lives HIS WAY !! Amen ?

599. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 5:29:33 AM

You might 'give up on me' in disgust Christi, but don't 'give up on' this thread. We all appreciate your posts, and respect your thoughts.
:-)

600. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 5:43:56 AM

Since no one has bothered enough, or shown enough interest in the book 'Anatomy of the Spirit' to buy it, I am no longer going to 'bust my asterisk' by posting extensive exerpts from it. I certainly meant well, and once again, thank Msgreer for recommending it to me. I am finding it most interesting, and while I don't agree with everything I read in it, am sure that parts of it will be very helpful to me.

601. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 5:47:43 AM

Christi, how about a 'crumb from your table'. One tiny little bit of warmth, for a change. It can be anything...a smiley face, a kind remark. Anything. I am somewhat tired of your constant critical spirit, and grieve for you more than for myself. You'll forgive me if I suspect that the Holy Spirit is dealing with you, and that you are 'hopping around' getting angry, trying to escape the 'Hound of Heaven'. :-) That's a 'smiley face', intended to show that I am partly teasing. Come on.... be pleasant. I'm sure you know how.

602. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 5:50:59 AM

SnowOwl. I am not sure I made myself clear on your excellent summary in your #592. I agree with all of the statements, except that I would add to #5..."This is perfectly just and good I'm sure, although sometimes I am as puzzled by His ways as everyone else."

603. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 5:56:37 AM

Arky. Your #595. All that you say is true, and all of it is part of the 'Full Gospel of Christ'. I have said that I see 'The Sovreignety of God' and 'The Responsibility of Man' as 'Two wings of the mighty eagle of Salvation' or 'Two edges of the Sword of Truth'. If one emphasizes one and ignores the other, as many Denominations tend to do, (including mine in some areas), the eagle 'flies around in circles'. Do you agree ?
Again, any small kindness, however you might pity your host, would be very gratefully received :-) (Christi has left me a little bruised).

604. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 7:22:57 AM

Yes, but I don't think predestination naturally follows through from the two. Again, I agree with EE in #597.

And hang in there. You're doing a great job as moderator, even if we don't see eye to eye on some things, and if sometimes getting a formulated answer from you is like trying to nail jello to the wall;-).

Y'all have a good day. Maybe I'll get time to play this aft.

605. Dantheman - 9/21/1999 9:22:44 AM

Hello to all!
I missed quite a lot over the long weekend and will not try to catch up with all.
Lady Chaos #434-- I describe myself as a Jewish agnostic. That means I follow Jewish rituals, including Yom Kippur fasting, for a variety of reasons, including a belief that Jewish culture is a large part of my life and that this is a necessary part of belonging to Jewish culture. I do not believe, because I do not know the answers.

SnowOwl #536 and ChristiPeters #596 -- Very good posts. I also reject entirely the God described by Bloodnfire's beliefs. If there is a God out there for whom I should stop thinking and turn over control of my will, for whom I should surpress my judgment and accept his, he will need to be both omnipotent and good, and the world he creates will need to be fair.

606. KuligintheHooligan - 9/21/1999 9:27:34 AM

I don't believe that the passage ethiopianeunuch quotes in his #597 contradicts election at all! I'd like to know how it does, if anybody is willing to explain it.

Also, don't forget that the passage in question lies smack dab in the middle of three chapters which probably speak more about the sovereign will of God in salvation than in any other chunk of verses in the whole Bible.

And those that think predestination/election is NOT a biblical doctrine, could you also explain to me then what you believe those words mean when used in the Bible? Because the words "predestine" and "elect" (and variants) are common ones in the Bible.

607. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:24:33 AM

Dan. Your #605 "If there is a God out there for whom I should stop thinking and turn over control of my will....". You don't seriously believe that I have 'stopped thinking', do you ? I am still working on 'turning over my will', but that is a part of 'growing in Grace' and the 'striving for holiness' with which His Church is involved,(and 'dying daily', as well). The moment one is actually able to do it 100% I think is the moment He comes to a person and says... "Congratulations, it's Graduation Day. Come with me...:-)"

Finally, He isn't only 'Out there', He's probably 'In there' (bloodnfire said, gently tapping Dan on the heart area of his chest), and if you will seek Him, you will surely find Him. (I have it in writing :-).

608. ChristiPeters - 9/21/1999 10:30:29 AM

sigh

bloodnfire -

I am not and have never said that I am disgusted with you. I now understand from your words that you are interested primarily in evangelizing Christianity here rather than having open discussions with people of all faiths and persuasions about spirituality.

As for "crumbs from my table", I have shared quite a bit about what I believe. I am sorry you have not read these posts but rather concentrate on the posts where I, admittedly, was criticizing your evangelizing.

I was doing so because I did not understand that as your primary purpose here. I will do so no longer and will continue to enjoy engaging people here in discussions on spirituality which may include the Christian Bible and their personal understandings of it, but do not insist that the discussion take place solely from that viewpoint.

609. ChristiPeters - 9/21/1999 10:32:27 AM

arky -

"nail jello to the wall"

I like that. Good imagery

610. Dantheman - 9/21/1999 10:39:14 AM

Bloodnfire,
If/when you turn over control of your will, then you will truly stop thinking, in the sense that you will no longer be able to critically assess the substance of the words said to you on their own merits, but only as they relate to their correlation to the system of beliefs provided to you by your God. Whether that is a good thing or not depends on your point of view.
As to having things in writing, I have seen many other, contradictory things in writing which have purported to be true from many different religions. I see no reason to take the Christian ones as correct, while ignoring those of other religions (and, yes, I know you can find reasons to take them as true. But as I told Kuligan on Friday, the words of human beings who lived roughly 2000 years ago just do not cut it for me). Indeed, judging the horrendous actions of people who have purported to follow those beliefs over the centuries provides Christianity with less, not more, reason for their beliefs to be taken as true.

611. Dantheman - 9/21/1999 11:13:25 AM

ChristiPeters,
If you are truly going, I will miss your presence. I do not see bloodnfire's posts as trying to evangelize, so much as he seems not to understand that there are people for whom the Christian scriptures are not persuasive evidence that Christianity has the exclusive handle on the truth.

612. ChristiPeters - 9/21/1999 11:58:28 AM

Dantheman

Who said I was going!!!

In #608, I said I "will continue to enjoy engaging people here in discussions on spirituality which may include the Christian Bible and their personal understandings of it, but do not insist that the discussion take place solely from that viewpoint."

What I am not going to do anymore is peck at bloodnfire. He is who he is, I misunderstood his purpose here and was trying to point out that his post were counter-productive to what I thought he was trying to do. It was meant as constructive and I was getting frustrated by what I felt as a disconnect - my bad. The disconnect was between what I thought was his purpose (impartial moderator) and what he has now clearly stated as his purpose "when I was 36 years old, and thought the Bible was 'just an old book, full of myth and fable', someone who cared about me encouraged me to start actually reading it, and 'Abide in His Word'. That's how, eventually, I came to 'know the Truth', and (even more eventually) was 'made free'.

This sounds like bloodnfire is really interested in evangelizing and convincing others to follow what he feels is the True Way. I actually have no problem with that. Anyone is perfectly free to try to persuade me that their sincerely held beliefs are the One True Truth as long as they confine their persuasion to words and don't try to tie me down if I don't want to listen.

Now that I know this is the only "place" bloodnfire is coming from, I will respond to him in that light. Like I said - my bad.

613. ChristiPeters - 9/21/1999 12:00:48 PM

bloodnfire -

I am going to be kind of busy for the next few days. So if I'm not around, please know that it is not because I am disgusted by you or anyone here (a little frustrated maybe, but that's over &:oD ).

I will try to pop in as I can and I hope to have some online time this weekend.

TTFN

614. Dantheman - 9/21/1999 12:33:34 PM

Christi,
Sorry, I misunderstood your post 608.

615. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 4:58:20 PM

Christi. I suppose the &:oD is the best I can hope for ? I feel that you spoiled it somewhat by having to endorse Arky's back-handed remark about 'nailing jello to the wall'. Not one word of kindness. At least she managed a compliment. You're the one who insists on discussing Christianity (which is primarily a Spiritual experience, and very difficult to articulate). Your deliberately characterizing me as having 'evangelizing as my primary purpose here' is patently unfair, imo. and designed as some sort of patronizing 'write off'. To my recollection, you have made absolutely no effort to discuss the Kabballah, or the Chakras, neither of which have to do with Christianity. I find your attitude most grievous. I would have been happy to settle for a 'Have a nice day', but please, from now on address the issues and ignore the host.

616. arkymalarky - 9/21/1999 5:56:31 PM

KtheH,
My personal reading of the election in the Bible is the election of the early apostles, evangelists, writers of the New Testament, etc, who laid the foundation of the Christian church and began to spread the gospel and later the New Testament. For that matter, I personally see true evangelists as elected even today. As for the rest of us poor souls, Peter said God wants "all to come to repentance." There are many examples in the New Testament of people making choices one way or another, and if there is an elect as referred to in the Bible that is the only group going to heaven, as you and B&F suggest, and the rest of us are doomed even though we have no responsibility for ourselves, then according to the New Testament that same elect can prove its election by handling snakes, healing, etc. Can you do that? B&F? If so, I might have to rethink my position.

617. marshame - 9/21/1999 6:43:21 PM

Dan

You said "If/when you turn over control of your will, then you will truly stop thinking, in the sense that you will no longer be able to critically assess the substance of the words said to you on their own merits, but only as they relate to their correlation to the system of beliefs provided to you by your God."

I must take issue with this, as it demonstrates an extremely facile and simplistic view of Christianity or any religion or deeply held set of beliefs. For example, Jesus said that we should love our neighbors as ourselves. Now doesn't that sound simple?

Now, go out into the world, endeavoring to live up to those simple words. Tell me how far you make it without thinking.

To the contrary, when I was just living for myself, I didn't waste any time thinking about what effect my words and actions might have or someone else, because it never occurred to me to think about anything but what *I* wanted, what was best for *me*, how I could stand to benefit from something, etc. etc. Trying to live up to the teachings o Jesus is tremendously challenging, and requires me to engage *all* of my mental capacities, especially when my "flesh" is telling me something different.

618. marshame - 9/21/1999 6:51:48 PM

For that matter, it really is a demonstration of the freedom that comes from knowing Jesus Christ. Before I was saved (and like Blood'n, I was a mature adult), I thought I was free to do anything I damned well pleased. And in fact, I was free to engage in all sorts of sinful and self-destructive behavior. I was free all right, or so I thought. But I didn't realize that I was NOT free, NOT to live that way. After a particularly bad night, at 8:00 the next morning I would sincerely promise myself that I would NOT drink that evening. But by the time 5:00 rolled around, and the headache had dissipated, my sin-filled mind would go to work, and I would soon convince myself that I was a free agent, that I could drink if I wanted to, what's more there wasn't anyone or anything to stop me, and besides, I *deserved* a drink after putting up with crap all day. And so the cycle continued, all the while telling myself that I could stop any time I wanted to. (I just didn't want to.)

I will not bore you with tales of controlled drinking, all the physical and psychological tricks I tried to curb/control my drinking, or at least the outcome of my drinking, etc.

My cure came when I realized I was powerless over alcohol and that only God could restore me to health and sanity if I would place my trust in him instead of in myself. And sure enough, sixteen years later, I'm sober as a judge! I am now, through Christ, free to drink, but also I am free NOT to drink, a freedom I didn't have before I had the power of the Holy Spirit in my life.

619. vonKreedon - 9/21/1999 6:55:43 PM

Blood wrote, "Finally, He isn't only 'Out there', He's probably 'In there' (bloodnfire said, gently tapping Dan on the heart area of his chest), and if you will seek Him, you will surely find Him. (I have it in writing :-)." But Blood, you say that God elects those who will be saved, so it is not enough that Dan should seek Christ, God has to have pre-selected Dan.

620. marshame - 9/21/1999 6:58:50 PM

ChristiP

Speaking of freedom, you are, indeed, free to believe anything you want. And as you said a few days ago, you usually can find six ways to look at anything. This capriousness is one of your most outstanding characteristics here on the Fray-Turned-Mote.

But one of these days, I hope you will quit shopping and settle on a coherant system of beliefs. You are never going to have all the answers you want. You are just going to have to have faith, even if it is something as concrete as believing your doctor when he diagnoses you. Whatever you may think about Blood'nFire, he has made a decision, and has molded his life to it. He has jumped in with both feet, rather than sitting on the sidelines looking for faults and flaws with everyone who has the courage and commitment to express their personal views.

Think of the model you present to your child. While you may see yourself as seeking and searching, she might see you as vacillating, indecisive and shallow.

Maybe it's time for you to fish or cut bait.

621. vonKreedon - 9/21/1999 6:59:19 PM

Regarding turning over ones will; if one has no room for doubt, and I take the Christian turning of ones will as a negation of doubt, then one has seriously limited what one is willing to consider thinking. If one maintains ones own will, then one can doubt and that is a neccessary condition for critical thinking.

622. vonKreedon - 9/21/1999 7:01:01 PM

Marsha - Or she might see her as flexible, appropriate, and deep.

623. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 7:18:42 PM

VonKreedon. Good to see you posting in this thread. You write in #619 " But Blood, you say that God elects those who will be saved, so it is not enough that Dan should seek Christ, God has to have pre-selected Dan".
God also said.."Seek and ye shall find"...I said yesterday, that it (salvation) is a 'Love Relationship'. He has His part, and we have ours. But if Dan will seek Him, He will find Him.
And if he does, it will be because God 'chose him (Dan) in Christ before He laid the foundation of the world' (Ephesians 1:4)

Now for heaven's sake get off Christianity and start discussing the Kabballa or the Hindu Chakras, or Christi is likely to start picking on you too :-)

624. Spiderman - 9/21/1999 7:29:18 PM

Christi

Please stop picking on bloodnfire. I'd hate to see a marine cry.

625. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 7:45:44 PM

"He that goeth forth and weepeth, bearing precious seed shall doubtless come again with rejoicing, bringing his sheaves with him".
Psalm 126:6

This Marine never cries for himself, Spiderman. What name were you using last week ?

626. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 7:46:37 PM

And what do you call yourself on Table Talk ?

629. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 8:04:53 PM

It isn't a 'moniker' that is banned from this Forum, it is an individual.

632. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 8:09:33 PM

Remember that 'hell' in your post is profanity, which is not allowed in this thread.

636. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 8:58:22 PM

I'm reminded of the idiots in the big cities who just go around spray painting graffiti on walls. Juvenile delinquents.

637. Lucky - 9/21/1999 9:10:52 PM

I have seen graffiti sprayed on walls in inner cities that contains obscenity as well as art, a strange new sense of truth, and assertions of identity that were worthwhile and meaningful.

I did not perceive the above (apparently offending) post as obscene, even if some young person may have stumbled upon this place. Surely they have seen worse. What is the deal here?

638. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 9:17:31 PM

Just following some juvenile 'elephants' with a bucket and shovel.
No problem.

639. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 9:23:56 PM

'Lucky'. You write..."I have seen graffiti sprayed on walls in inner cities that contains obscenity as well as art, a strange new sense of truth, and assertions of identity that were worthwhile and meaningful".
Me too. Since I host this particular 'wall' however, I get to decide what 'assertions of identity are worthwhile and meaningful', and what are not. If you don't like it, I suggest, most respectfully, that you join spiderman in other threads.

640. Saddam Hussein - 9/21/1999 9:45:47 PM

Dear Bloodnfire

647. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:05:32 PM

You're dear to me too, Sadam Hussein, but your dirty heart and mouth are not. You're out of here.

658. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:09:40 PM

Saddam Hussein and various aliases has been suspended from The Mote.
Concerning 'Spiritual Issues', there is nothing like destructive malicious mischief to illustrate the spiritual sickness which is abroad in our land. It is typified in 'Road Rage', and the kind of mindless profanity which, briefly, has been demonstrated here.
Pardon the intrusion, folks. Keep on with your discussions....

661. Aldavis - 9/21/1999 10:14:48 PM

bloodnfire
I am glad to see your rightous anger, for it seems to be justified. While I am a firm believer in freedom of speech in the area of ideas that thought, the kind of nonsense of children does not have to be tolerated by adults. It seems that some youn people think so, however. I don't post here often, but I read most of the posts.

marshame
So glad to see your post.

664. RosettaStone - 9/21/1999 10:17:30 PM

Jon, why are you doing this, especially in this thread? If you want to talk to me, go to the playpen. Okay?

666. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:20:12 PM

RosettaStone. Appreciate your reasonable tone, but I think you might be wasting your fingertips....I still appreciate your help.

669. Aldavis - 9/21/1999 10:21:33 PM

As I said, bloonfire, some children are only half civilized.

671. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:24:19 PM

He is under the impression that I have had a far more eclectic sex life than one can imagine !! From little boys to donkeys !! :-)

672. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:26:18 PM

His poor feverish brain is now frantically searching to come up with body parts and assorted profanity....It certainly would help to have a command of the language at a time like this wouldn't it, you poor dear man.

676. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:34:21 PM

My experience is that when the Holy Spirit is actively moving in any environment, there will always be a move of 'the enemy' to try and disrupt.
I appreciate the many kind and thoughtful posts of the over 600 which this thread has had during the past couple of weeks. Don't give up on searching for the Truth. He's worth finding.

678. RosettaStone - 9/21/1999 10:36:47 PM

Well, this may be a blessing since I'm now going to go to number one and read this thread.

Just yesterday I got in an argument with my son about spirtual matters..

680. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:37:28 PM

Is it my imagination, or do I hear a siren and see men in white suits with a net ? :-)

681. Uzmakk - 9/21/1999 10:38:18 PM

First time I've checked in on Spiritual for a while. Wow. Punkinhead is a real sophisticate.

685. Uzmakk - 9/21/1999 10:42:29 PM

A realsophisticate.

686. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:42:52 PM

You're right, for the first time this evening :-) But it doesn't SMELL like Swiss cheese. It smells like a malicious demented individual who was banned from The Mote just last Sunday. But at least while you're posting here, you're not out doing someone physical damage.

691. ethiopianeunuch - 9/21/1999 10:49:31 PM

Whoa what is this an aol snert

708. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 10:55:01 PM

Now where were we ?....Oh yes, the Ten Safirot vis a vis the seven Chakras. We've had an example here this evening of how, when someone's Chakras, one through seven, are severely messed up, that individual goes rather WILD!!. :-)

723. ethiopianeunuch - 9/21/1999 10:57:56 PM

Ignore the little fool, he gets beat up at school every day!

Poor little fellow

724. bloodnfire - 9/21/1999 11:07:52 PM

Well, it's been a very challenging evening. The Scriptures teach that we are to...."Comfort the feebleminded" (I Thessalonians 5:14), but it isn't easy when they're ranting and raving and frothing at the mouth.

I ask God to bless this poor individual. I hope he gets the kind of help he needs.

725. ethiopianeunuch - 9/21/1999 11:10:46 PM

Amen

768. alistairconnor - 9/22/1999 12:05:24 AM

Have you discussed Manicheanism yet? The Albigensian heresy?

769. Angel-Five - 9/22/1999 12:12:36 AM

What did you do?

770. ethiopianeunuch - 9/22/1999 12:44:06 AM

If you are seeing a lot of blank space try loading a large page (100) posts

771. ethiopianeunuch - 9/22/1999 2:50:27 AM

Blood: I'd like to offer you a word of encouragment on hosting this thread. It's been moving along well even if not in the direction you tried to steer it. Maybe you could come back to Ms Myss book later? At any rate keep up the good work my friend....Also thank-you for taking out the trash :--)

772. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 4:13:42 AM

Appreciate the kind words EE. I have been impressed with the wide variety of topics here.
Another good friend suggested yesterday that I involve another 'Host' or two on this thread. Perhaps have an avowed agnostic, (but one inclined to accept the concept of a 'Spirit' in men and women). Also, a Jew or a Muslim.
How about it ? I haven't 'run this' past Wabbit yet, but I will e-mail her with the suggestion today. If there is someone 'out there' who would like to come alongside me and co-host, I would be delighted.
It obviously shouldn't be another evangelical Christian, but who knows?

773. msgreer - 9/22/1999 4:18:42 AM

bloodnfire

Are you up this early?

774. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 4:19:47 AM

AlistairConnor. No we haven't. I'd have to depend upon someone else to introduce the topic, never having heard of it ! How about it ? Tell us what you know.
Incidently, I understand from Wabbit that you have worked hard with CalGal and JJ to establish and 'fine tune' this excellent forum. I personally want to thank you. I was very saddened when the old 'Frayground Playground' was told it was finished. The Mote is so far and away superior, imo, and the potential is wonderful. Congratulations.
Now, tell us about Manicheanism, 'The Albigensian heresy'...if you would.

775. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 4:34:37 AM

If one of the 'Powers that be' could take the time to eliminate the blank spaces from this thread sometime today, I would be very grateful.
As for the book 'Anatomy of the Spirit', EE, I would have to see some posts discussing the wide variety of exerpts from it that I have already posted before I would even begin to reconsider discussing it.
Just doesn't seem to be of general interest.
Are there any other suggestions as to a way in which we can 'Channel' this thread away from constantly being challenged to explain, 'pin down' and justify the Gospel ?
I'm going to give myself a rest from this, now, and read what people have to say. I'll 'lurk' and check in tonight.
Thanks again everyone for your patience.

776. msgreer - 9/22/1999 4:44:28 AM

bloodnfire

Since you are up could you do me a favor? I am now having problems with email. I came home to several but it seems my email indicator shows nothing with incoming. Could you just email me anything to see if I am receiving

Thanks.

777. msgreer - 9/22/1999 8:29:17 AM

Thanks, it is fine.

778. alistairconnor - 9/22/1999 8:52:17 AM

Well, I am not an authority, I've read a couple of novels on those themes, that's all. Mani was a Christian monk, about 4th century I think, who founded a sect, preaching that our life on earth was a permanent struggle between forces of good and forces of evil, and that the outcome was not a foregone conclusion. Stuff like that. Hence the adjective manichean, which is taken to mean seeing the world all in black and white, with no graduations between good and evil.

The Albigensian heresy flourished in southern France in (I think) the 9th or 10th century, and apparently picked up or descended from the Manichean doctrines. It found favour because it preached austerity for the clergy, whereas the Catholic church was profoundly corrupt. The Pope launched the first crusade against them, and the whole region was put to fire and the sword, and there was much loot to be had.

I tend to be a bit manichean myself, in the original sense, in that I recognise that there are forces for good and forces for evil in the world. And I am strongly opposed to the prevailing world view that tends to dilute, homogenise and ultimately deny moral values.

Having said that, I'm not religious. Not in the slightest, not even a tiny bit.

779. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 9:04:18 AM

Good morning all,
It seems there were a lot of deleted posts in my absence. Did they contain anything of substance?
As to marshame's questions to me, I agree with vonKreedon's responses. If one truly believes, there is no room to assess new facts which can lead to doubts. To me, this is the absence of thinking.

780. ElliottRW - 9/22/1999 9:24:40 AM

DanTheMan

It all turns on your definition of true belief. If you can show someone how to throw out the bath water (say, belief in vampires) without throwing out the baby (possibility of eternal life), you have a good chance of changing their minds.

Re: Manicheanism

I don't know much about this, either. It does, however, strike me as somewhat implausible, a simple dichotomy between good and evil.

From Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) (web1913)

Manichaean \Man`i*ch[ae]"an\, Manichean \Man`i*che"an\, Manichee \Man"i*chee\, n. [LL. Manichaeus: cf. F. manich['e]en.] A believer in the doctrines of Manes, a Persian of the third century A. D., who taught a dualism in which Light is regarded as the source of Good, and Darkness as the source of Evil.

781. ElliottRW - 9/22/1999 10:14:35 AM

Here is an interesting opinion peice on the Catholic church's recent reassessment of "Hell".

782. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 10:39:39 AM

ElliottRW #781,
Fascinating article. I would like to hear the views of some of our believers to the questions raised therein.

783. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 11:31:34 AM

bloodnfire -

I am sincerely sorry that you and I have stumbled onto the wrong foot here after a promising start. Even when I don't agree with your beliefs, I fully support your right to hold those belief and am very happy for you when seeing your evident joy in them.

It looks like I missed some fireworks in here last night and for that I am sincerely grateful.

&:o)

784. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 11:41:29 AM

marshame -

Please do not mistake my habit of seeing valid points in many sides to an issue for vacillation and indecision or lack of a coherent belief system. I have very firm beliefs - they just aren't the same as yours.

I have posted them at length before in TPWWDNMA, but I will recap them briefly here.

I believe there is one God in charge of everything.

I believe that many of the world's religions are simply different aspects of the one God

I believe that the principles taught by Jesus as recorded by His words in the Christian Bible are a good blueprint for a well-lived life

I believe that there is never any justification for deliberately harming another human being

I believe in helping those around me whenever and however I can

I believe in striving for harmony in the world around me

I believe in constantly seeking for more knowledge and spiritual growth and striving to understand the life and world around me

I believe that I am completely, fully, and irrevokably responsible for the results of my own actions

785. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 11:44:29 AM

Well, this morning I was informed that I am changing job positions. So as soon as I hear back from our facilities folks, I will be busy moving offices and learning about my new responsibilities.

I'll come back when I can and try to keep up.

786. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 11:47:45 AM

ChristiPeters,
I believe that most of your post #784 represents a good personal philosophy. I subscribe to most of it as well. However, I am not certain that a belief that there is a God is a necessary condition for your personal philosophy, as I believe you can get there in other ways.

787. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 11:59:19 AM

Dantheman -

A belief in God may not be necessary to a personal philosophy, but i have a very strong belief in God and have experienced the work of God in my life. I also very firmly believe that not only do I have a soul, but my soul existed before I was born and will continue to exist after I die.

I have no "hard and fast evidence" to support this belief. When asked why I believe this, I can only say because I feel it to be true. I fully admit that this is a very weak argument.

788. ethiopianeunuch - 9/22/1999 12:39:15 PM

The deleted posts in this thread were nothing more that graffiti removal. There was no sign of intelligent life.

789. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 1:20:43 PM

Christi. Thank you for your kind post. I agree with every single thing you say. :-) If, having posted that it's crazymaking because it might seem to conflict with some of the Scriptures I have posted, don't let it get to you, okay. I know that we have personal responsibility before God. He has His responsibilities too, and working out how they all 'tie in together', is what Life is all about imo.
I'm sure you're a great Mom, and please, please believe me that my prime intention in this thread is to have an open forum regarding Spiritual Issues.
Now, give me a hug, and let's get on with our day....(I'll think of you moving your office, and be grateful it's you and not I :-)

790. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 1:29:03 PM

Dantheman. Your #779 "If one truly believes, there is no room to assess new facts which can lead to doubts". I'm guessing (he said, tongue firmly in cheek, bound and determined to stay away from the Christian Ethic), that if one truly believes, there will never be any doubts.
That's because "True Belief", is much less an 'Intellectual Grasping' than it is a "Love Relationship". Assessing 'new facts' gives additional insight into the One so loved.
(I would think :-).

791. IdiotWind - 9/22/1999 1:29:48 PM

Life is too short
to dwell on my sorrows,
to harbour my grudges
in bitter tomorrows.

Life is too short
to dwell on my pain,
to play and re-play
some vengeful refrain.

Life is too sweet
to waste precious minutes
in nursing resentment,
self-righteousness in it.

Then, let me not dwell
on life's sorrow and sadness
O Lord, let me think
of life's blessings, with gladness!

792. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 1:38:37 PM

Bloodnfire,
Yes, I believe that if one truly believes there are no doubts. This whole discussion began with my comment at #605 and your question at #607 as to whether a true believer is able to think independently. I maintain that he cannot, and that is why I demand a high standard of proof before I would believe.

793. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 1:55:52 PM

Idiot Wind -

Thanks! I really like that.

Bloodnfire -

H U G

794. JJBiener - 9/22/1999 2:07:23 PM

IW - Is that poem yours? They would make decent song lyrics.

795. IdiotWind - 9/22/1999 2:13:18 PM

No, my xerox copy doesn't have any identification of who the author is. Sorry.

796. KuligintheHooligan - 9/22/1999 2:50:23 PM

This stupid site won't let me go back to previous posts, not at least beyond #768. It just gives me a blank page then. So, if someone posted anything to me before that, I can't read it.

797. CalGal - 9/22/1999 2:51:04 PM

Vic,

'Taint nothing from 723 to 768. Purged. Nothing you'd want to see.

798. KuligintheHooligan - 9/22/1999 2:52:28 PM

Purged?! What the heck happened??

799. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 2:53:59 PM

Kuligin - from the later comments I read, some juvenile vandals showed up for awhile. I wasn't here and missed all of it and frankly I'm glad about that.

800. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 2:54:09 PM

IdiotWind. Your name belies your message ! Welcome to the thread !!
You can't imagine what a 'breath of refreshing air' your poem brings to this thread this day. We are very happy to have you with us, and hope that you will post often.
What great sentiments your poem expresses. Just the sort of encouragement one needs to get through a 'crisis of the spirit'.

That HUG really helped too, Christi. I'm glad we're friends :-).

801. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 2:59:10 PM

Interesting stuff.

Christi

What is TPWWDNMA?

What do you mean when you say God is 'in charge'?

When you seem to say that many of the world's religions are valid, do you mean that all monotheistic religions are valid and all other are invalid?

When you say that there is never any justification for harming another human being, I take it that you oppose war and capital punishment?

Are you sure you want to be 'completely, fully, and irrevocably' responsible for the results of your actions? Actions can often have results that one could not be expected to anticipate. I think that one should be held accountable for one's actions, results notwithstanding.

802. ElliottRW - 9/22/1999 3:25:24 PM

DanTheMan,

The article raises several questions, which I excerpt and ennumerate here:

"If such powerful authorities as the pope and portions of the New Testament can present such disparate views on basic concepts such as hell and punishment, or deprivation vs.torture, this raises voluminous questions onthe nature of religion and belief itself.

"If fundamental religious concepts can evolve over time, who is at the helm here, man or God?

"The church believes God created man in his image, and in so doing gave man the capacity to choose between good and evil, right and wrong. But did God give man the ability to re-write biblical history?

"And if not, what is the church doing in re-imaging hell?

"A question often pondered by religious scholars and believers goes as follows: God is either all powerful or all good. If God is all powerful, then why did God create evil in the world? If God is all good, God cannot be all powerful, or God would not have allowed such things as murder, child abuse, and so on.

But church-tampering with basic religious concepts reveals yet another, even more fascinating question. Did God create man, or did man create God?

We can see that question #4 has already made the rounds in this forum. I'll also suggest that the other barbs are aimed specifically at fundamentalist religions--with questions 1 and 5 basically equivalent.

Obviously, if we are epistemologically humble¹, we are not bothered by questions 1|5, 2, & 3--we can accept that our imperfect understanding of God may evolve over time.

The question not posed by the article, but which is formost in my mind, is whether or not this important change of Catholic theology constitutes progress. I think it does.

¹ credit AlexKhan with the formulation of this term. It basically means that "there are some things we don't know".

803. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 3:32:39 PM

Elliott

I enjoyed the article, not because it contained anything new, but because it reinforced my own beliefs, which are based on rational thinking and not blind faith. The standard argument against it is that 'the Lord works in strange and wondrous ways' and who are you to question that which you are far too inferior to comprehend. Faith is not based on logic.

804. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 3:35:01 PM

Elliott,
I hope you are not expecting a reply from me. I have certainly made my position on #4 known -- I expect him to be both.
I am hoping that the other questions may lead to some interesting replies from the other people out there.

805. ElliottRW - 9/22/1999 3:43:03 PM

DanTheMan,

No need to rehash #4 unless your in the mood.

Still, I would like your viewpoint on this new notion of Hell as a kind of voluntary alienation from God vs. fiery eternal torment.

806. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 3:53:58 PM

Nostradamus -

What is TPWWDNMA? "The Place Which We Do Not Mention Anymore" the forum whose demise prompted the creation of this one

What do you mean when you say God is 'in charge'? Boss, Creator, Omniscient, Omnipotent, etc etc

When you seem to say that many of the world's religions are valid, do you mean that all monotheistic religions are valid and all other are invalid? Nope. I'm just hedging my bets. I'm not enough of a religious scholar to know about all of the world's religions. So I say many instead of all. I tend to think of the Gods of polytheistic religions as just more aspects of the one God.

When you say that there is never any justification for harming another human being, I take it that you oppose war and capital punishment? You got that right.

Are you sure you want to be 'completely, fully, and irrevocably' responsible for the results of your actions? Actions can often have results that one could not be expected to anticipate. I think that one should be held accountable for one's actions, results notwithstanding Poorly stated. I meant I am responsible for my actions. Period. That includes and intended and unintended effects. If my actions cause harm to someone, even unintentionally, I am responsible for that and for making whatever ammends are possible. Many times, when bad things happen as a result of someone's actions, the only thing it is possible to do is to regret it and learn how to do better in the future. However, if ammends can be made, they should be made.

807. ElliottRW - 9/22/1999 3:54:27 PM

Nostradamus,

No progress is made by not questioning. Those faithful who respond to doubts by thoughtlessly quashing them are not doing themselves a service. What beliefs of yours, if I may ask, were affirmed by the article?

808. Dantheman - 9/22/1999 3:55:28 PM

Elliott,
No desire to rehash #4 at this time.
Being raised in Judaism (where no concept of Hell exists) and being agnostic (where I will not accept the existence of Hell based on the words of the New Testament alone), this question is not up my alley. I am also not sure what the consequences of removing oneself from God would be.

809. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 3:56:11 PM

"ammends" = amends

810. KuligintheHooligan - 9/22/1999 4:10:55 PM

I am still having trouble with back pages, but I did see a few tidbits.

As for the freewill discussion, I think it is a huge error to say something like, "Because God has elected, there isn't anything I should do."

I think that is tantamount to saying something like, "Because God has predetermined that I should blow a hole in my head, I think I'll just go and do it now."

That is why I like the term "reasonable self-determination." Have you heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Then you are without excuse, and "God didn't elect me" is just a theoretical cop-out.

811. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 4:12:32 PM

Elliott

When I said that my own beliefs are reinforced by the article, I meant my own 'take' on organized religion. The fact that because each new generation of church leaders pulls the orthodoxy in a different direction, that is compelling evidence (at least to me) that there is no 'God' at the helm. For what kind of 'God' would deny the truth and the light of wisdom to his most fervent and devoted followers? One possible answer to that predicament is that the definitions of truth and righteousness shift over time and what constituted God-sanctioned behavior in the past (the Crusades or the Inquisition) wouldn't be acceptable to God today. But why one would want to worship such a fickle and indecisive 'God' is beyond me. If he's existed for at least 10 Billion years, took 9.999 Billion years to create something worth worhipping him, and then changes the rules every couple of hundred years, he's a bit of a fruitcake, imo.

Christi

Thanks for the clarification. Do you also oppose spanking children (is that child abuse?) Do you oppose using violent means to defend yourself?

I still don't get it when you say God is 'in charge'. Does God take an active role in the world (as opposed to just creating it and then letting the chips fall where they may) and if so, how?

812. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 4:26:08 PM

Nostradamus -

Thanks for the clarification. Do you also oppose spanking children (is that child abuse?) Relative as always, my answer is -it depends. I have spanked my daughter exactly once in her life. It was not a useful thing to do. Different children respond differently to various behavior modification techniques. I think, in general, that spanking is ineffective and is less effective the more it is done. However, it is possible that there are situations and children where spanking is necessary. I would prefer that if a child is spanked, they are spanked by the parent's open hand so the parent feels the force of the blow as well.

Do you oppose using violent means to defend yourself? God! this is a hard one! My mother always told me that she believed she would carry it to that extent, but was glad she had never been tested. I think that I would use violent means, if necessary, to defend myself, said defense aimed at escape rather than retribution. That is, I would struggle to break an attackers hold on me, for example, but once that hold is broken, I would run, not attempt to hurt the attacker further.

However, having said all that, I have recognised a deep well of violence in me since I have been a mother. The depths of my reaction to any threat toward my child seem to be immeasurable and I probably would get very violent should someone harm her or attempt to harm her. That doesn't however, stop me from striving to hold to an ideal of harm none.

(continued)

813. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 4:35:24 PM

continued to Nostradamus -

I still don't get it when you say God is 'in charge'. Does God take an active role in the world (as opposed to just creating it and then letting the chips fall where they may) and if so, how?

Well, to tell the truth, I am not really sure. Certainly, in my life, I have felt that God has taken an active role. Not to go into all the boring details, but I've had a bit of a train wreck of a life. Some of it has been the result of poor choices I have made. Some of it has been the result of what I would term "bad luck". Still, whenever things were at their lowest, something always happened to stave off "the worst". We were hungry, but we didn't starve. We were close to homeless, but always somehow found shelter. I was in tremendous pain, but learned to function anyway. etc etc

Of course, then I wonder about the people who do starve, the people who do end up homeless, the people whose pain drives them to suicide, etc...

Where is God in their lives??

The answer is I don't know. I don't know if God just set up the Universe and then let it run as it would or is actively intervening in the world. I would characterize both of those possibilities as God being "in charge".

I don't have all the answers, but I do think a lot about the questions.

814. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 4:36:05 PM

Nostradamus -

What do you think?

815. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 4:49:50 PM

Christi

I don't pretend to have the slightest idea about the age, origin, or nature of the Universe.

I do find myself drawn to 'pacifists', though. Although I must say that it troubles me that you exempt those most in need of protection from violence, namely, children, from your 'opposed to all violence' generalization.

816. ChristiPeters - 9/22/1999 5:21:01 PM

Nostradamus -

Once you've tried talking, time out, taking things away, blocking, and every other thing you can think of, what do you do to stop a child from a behavior that could be life threatening?

BTW, I have not personally been in this situation and am arguing a position I don't practice. I have been able to control Lil' Darlin's behavior without using spanking as a punishment. The one time I spanked her, it was 3 whacks of my hand across her bottom when I was appalled at her cutting off her cousin's hair. I regretted it immediately, and I doubt very much if that is the reason she never cut off anyone's hair again. I think seeing her Aunt burst into tears was probably more memorable to her.

However, I have seen parents struggle with a child's destructive and/or self-destructive behavior and do everything that I would consider "right" to no avail. So, I am reluctant to say that no one under any circumstances should ever spank a child.

However, if a bruise is left, it is child abuse, imo. I think a child should only be spanked as an absolute last resort, on the butt with the open hand - NEVER with any sort of paddle or switch or whatever. However, I don't have the right to dictate that to every parent in the world. So I settle for no physical damage (skin that is reddened for less than 5 minutes does not constitute physical damage, imo).

I should point out also that sometimes words can cut deeper and leave more permanent bleeding wounds than the most viscious blow. So, I wouldn't focus solely on physical hurts as child abuse.

817. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 5:24:37 PM

Christi

What about animal rights? Are you a vegetarian?

A group in San Francisco wanted to change the city's bylaws so that all references to animal owners would be changed to read animal guardians. What would your reaction to that be?

818. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 5:37:52 PM

Christi

Are you also opposed to abortion?

I'm also curious how you would propose that we stop people from breeding excessively once all poverty, war, and disease is eliminated.

819. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 5:41:21 PM

Christi

Alas, I must wait to read your answers. Thank-you for sharing your personal outlook with me. Mine is quite similar, except there isn't a 'God' in mine. Although should she wish to introduce herself to me one day, I've saved a spot for her. Bye for now.

820. arkymalarky - 9/22/1999 8:12:10 PM

Vic, My post to you is #616.

You did beautifully last night, B&F, and this is a nice discussion going today.

821. arkymalarky - 9/22/1999 8:18:46 PM

"That is why I like the term "reasonable self-determination." Have you heard the Gospel of Jesus Christ? Then you are without excuse, and "God didn't elect me" is just a theoretical cop-out."

And after you respond to #616, Vic, could you explain to me how one can be unelected and therefore bound for hell and still have responsibility for his fate? How can you argue that something is a Christian truth and a "theoretical copout"?

822. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 8:20:42 PM

Thanks Arky. Appreciate your kind words, and your question to Vic.

823. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 8:28:21 PM

Nostradamus. Your 811. ". If he's existed for at least 10 Billion years, took 9.999 Billion years to create something worth worhipping him, and then changes the rules every couple of hundred years, he's a bit of a fruitcake, imo."
I bet that got a laugh in heaven. It got one here in this little corner of earth, believe me.

I can imagine the Father turning to the Son, and saying..."Bit of a fruitcake ? Did you hear what he said...?", and the Son, with a smile, says.."Well Dad, it serves Us right for giving him Free Will!"

:-)

824. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 8:30:29 PM

Thanks to whoever got rid of all the empty space on this thread today. We still have a few 'gaps' which need eliminating, when you have time please.

825. tckrulak - 9/22/1999 9:04:46 PM

BnF:

"I can imagine the Father turning to the Son, and saying..."Bit of a
fruitcake ? Did you hear what he said...?", and the Son, with a smile,
says.."Well Dad, it serves Us right for giving him Free Will!"

Not to be heavy-handed, but I somehow doubt that God smiles at being mocked...at least, so says His Word, right BnF? Does God smile at blasphemy?

I realize that you were kidding around, but the fact is that God says He is grieved by this sort of thing, not amused by it. As a believer, I would hope that you would not make light of it. Thanks.

826. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 9:40:50 PM

tckrulak. You're probably right, and I shouldn't make fun. However, while 'blasheming the Holy Spirit' is the only unforgivable sin mentioned, I really do see the Father smiling sometimes, perhaps somewhat sadly, at the arrogant conclusions of the worldly wise (no offense Nostradamus).

At the same time, I somehow trust the Holy Spirit to correct Nostradamus (perhaps using His servant tckrulak, who can also be used to remind bloodnfire that there are times when humor should be held in check. Thanks).

827. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 9:50:49 PM

On the other hand, Tckrulak "The Kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers take counsel together, against the LORD, and against His anointed, saying
'Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us'.
'He that sitteth in the heavens shall LAUGH: the Lord shall have them in derision...." (Psalm 2:2-4)

He actually does get amused first (then gets angry as the Psalm goes on to mention). I actually was 'tweaking' Nostradamus' nose about 'free will', but it was rather clumsy and misplaced humor. I apologize, and receive your observation with thanks.

828. tckrulak - 9/22/1999 10:09:45 PM

BnF:

I am please that you took my post in the spirit in which it was given. No offense intended.

829. tckrulak - 9/22/1999 10:11:09 PM

that should be "pleased"

830. bloodnfire - 9/22/1999 11:12:11 PM

I always appreciate your spirit Tckrulak, and hope you'll stick around. Hosting this thread is not easy, and I welcome any and all help.

831. Nostradamus - 9/22/1999 11:42:55 PM

No, tckrulak, God doesn't like being mocked, and Santa Claus knows when you've been naughty and when you've been nice. Coal in the stocking for me this year.

I commend bloodnfire for momentarily acknowledging (perhaps unconsciously) that allowing the literal interpretation of an ancient document to dictate one's opinions and behavior doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Even if there is a God, she wouldn't have given us our brains and ability to reason if she didn't want us to use them. Or is it your contention that rational thought is a tool of Satan?

Yes, yes, I know. 'We don't know why God did what he did. But my Mommy and Daddy told me it was all true when I was little and/or I hit rock-bottom and desperately needed a crutch and faith in a higher power gave me the crutch I needed. So I've stopped questioning.'

It seems to me that those who truly have stopped questioning don't have much use for a thread like this. Go read your Bibles, eat your vitamins, say your Prayers, do your homework, wait for death and then experience nothingness. It's the rest of us who could benefit from a rational, thoughtful, discussion and/or debate without a laundry list of mind-boggling underlying assumptions and preconceptions.

832. tckrulak - 9/22/1999 11:59:35 PM

Nostradamus:

My, you certainly seem to think you know alot about me and my beliefs, my thoughts on rational discourse, exegesis, hermeneutics, etc. Perhaps, before berating me and my worldview, it would be helpful for you to actually ask questions of me about my beliefs. Not very "rational" of you to just jump to conclusions from a few posts now, is it?

833. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 12:10:23 AM

tckrulak

I notice your name is a whatchamacallit of krak cult, interesting.

Please tell me all your opinions, I'm dying to know how you justify to yourself the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful deity.

834. tckrulak - 9/23/1999 12:24:41 AM

Nostradamus,

You are on to me. I love krak!

I am dying to know from you how you justify to yourself the denial of the existence of an omniscient, omnipresent, all-powerful deity. Unfortunately, that will have to wait until tomorrow as I am heading off to bed. Good night all.

835. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 12:41:39 AM

tckrulak

Same way I deny the existence of Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, the Easter Bunny, ghosts, magic, vampires, the Loch Ness Monster, etc., etc.

Lack of supporting evidence.

Sweet dreams.

836. ethiopianeunuch - 9/23/1999 1:30:44 AM

Nostradamus: I'm curious just what spiritual matters you were interested in having a rational debate over?

837. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:09:46 AM

Doesn't it take more, I am at a lost for the right word, to deny the existance of something? Maybe the right word is faith. One says, God exists. The other, with as positive a tone, says, no He doesn't? Which ome is the true believer?

838. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:13:07 AM

Nostradamus
What I mean is, if you are positive that God has no more chace of existence than Santa Claus, are you on the right Thread? Or are you searching for that God in your life that you are so sure does not exist? If there were a discussion of Santa Claus, I might send my grandchildren over, but I would hardly waste my time with it.

I think you are searching.

839. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 3:59:34 AM

Nostradamus. Your #831 "Or is it your contention that rational thought is a tool of Satan?" Rather than trying to argue that one person's beliefs are fatuous as opposed to yours, how about commenting on the subject of "Love"?
I'm talking about the kind of Love which just 'never gives up'. A Love that loves 'through it all' because it 'just can't help it'. The kind of Love which (eventually) helps the drunkard, the wife beater,
the child molester, the chronically mean, the addict to find complete freedom from their 'bondage'.
The kind of Love which "Lays down its life for a friend". Got any thoughts ? Had any experience ? I most sincerely want to know.

840. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 4:16:17 AM

I don't know how much you have read 'that ancient document', Nostradamus, (The Scriptures of the Old and New Testament), but please believe me, I felt as you appear to for the first thirty-six years of my life. I too, thought it was 'just an old book'.
It honestly wasn't my reading IT that changed my mind and heart. It was the way It read ME!. Those 66 books contain some of the most perceptive, sensitive expressions of the way I had
been both feeling and behaving, that I became intrigued.
Did I 'need a crutch' ? Perhaps. Rather than a 'crutch', I certainly needed a 'vision'. A cognitive, 'rational (if you will) reason for my existence. 'Why I am here'. 'Where does everything lead ?'.
For me, the Bible began to provide many of those answers. I certainly respect your right to deride and mock it. Most especially in this thread. However, how do you feel about "Spiritual Issues" ??
Do you believe that there is no spirit in man"?

And finally, what about the unbelievably exquisitely designed body that you're walking around in ? Continuing.....

841. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 4:23:38 AM

The way you come across, (and it is only my perception, of course) in comparison with the way I see things, it's as though you and I are sitting at a table together, eating a delicious cake. (Forgive me if you saw this, perhaps feeble illustration before).
You find it 'delicious' because you know exactly what ingredients went into the cake and how, chemically and biologically, they effect the palate and the digestive system. You are persuaded that the cake just 'happened', somehow 'evolved' over millions and millions of years.
I, on the other hand, am not really concerned about the ingredients. I am enjoying it because a) It tastes delicious, and b) It was prepared for me by Someone Who, (to my amazement) loves me more than life itself.
I bet you'd rather be you. I'm glad I'm me. :-)

842. SnowOwl - 9/23/1999 5:34:53 AM

What I mean is, if you are positive that God has no more chace of
existence than Santa Claus, are you on the right Thread?

Aldavis, are you aware that the title of this thread is Spiritual Issues, not Christianity? Perhaps you don't realise that many people are interested in discussing religious and/or spiritual issues without
having any particular religious beliefs themselves.

843. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 6:06:23 AM

Snow Owl. What spiritual issues most interest you ?

844. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/1999 7:23:33 AM

arky, this is a response to your most recent post(s) to me. I don't have the time to go back to the #600s right now.

I should have said more clearly what I meant in my last post. Too often, people use the "sovereignty of God" and like issues as a cop out to do or not do what they should do. So, for example, certain Protestants might say, "Oh, well, because I am saved by faith and not by works, then it doesn't matter what I do, so I'll just go on sinning like a banchie." Stuff like that.

So in my opinion, what matters is what you are confronted with NOW. Far too often people like to waste time talking about the man in Borneo and what happens to HIM, when the truth is staring them in the face and they'd rather ignore it, because they know that ultimately to recognize it means they have to make a decision and hence possibly change their behaviour.

On the current topic at hand, a person can argue all day that IF election is operative THEN he has no real control over anything. Well, when you are faced with decisions, do you make them? And when you make them, are there consequences? So then, have you heard about Jesus Christ and the forgiveness for sins bought by him?

Then make a decision. Because when you stand before God, such petty arguments like "But, but, I can't possibly be held accountable..." won't be listened to.

That is what I meant arky. I'm happen to clarify further if you so desire.

845. ChristiPeters - 9/23/1999 9:52:31 AM

What about animal rights? Are you a vegetarian Nope. Steak is the perfect food, imo. I think it is ok to kill an animal for food, but it is not ok to kill them in a way that causes undue pain and suffering. As someone who grew up in a hunting family, I find a bullet to the head works.

A group in San Francisco wanted to change the city's bylaws so that all references to animal owners would be changed to read animal guardians. What would your reaction to that be I paid $200 for my daughter's Pomeranian. Damn right we own her. However, ownership confers responsibility too. We love her, train her, provide for her physical, medical, dental, and emotional needs, and in return, she gives us much joy.

846. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 10:16:42 AM

'We love her, train her, provide for her physical, medical, dental, and emotional needs, and in return, she gives us much joy.'

Sounds like you're her guardian to me. If I own something, I sure as hell don't have to do all those things you just mentioned.

I'm curious how someone can be so 'anti-violence' and yet not have a flicker of remorse where the killing of animals is concerned. We are all made of meat, after all. And no, steak isn't the perfect food, environmentally, nutritionally, ethically, or morally, imo. Did your family eat everything it shot or was hunting a sport? Quite a barbaric one, imo, although I fish, and that's probably just as barbaric.

You skipped the question on abortion, if you'd rather not answer, that's cool.

And btw, I love to eat meat, too. But I prefer to avoid eating other mammals, for a variety of reasons.

847. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 10:28:00 AM

bloodnfire

I don't know about you, but my body isn't all that 'unbelievably exquisitely designed.' I can't fly. I can't swim very well (like a seal, for instance). I can't lift more than three times my own body weight. I only live for the flicker of an eye. If I go more than 2 minutes or so without oxygen, my brain gets damaged. 5 minutes and I'm a vegetable. 10 minutes and I'm dead. Water? I need to drink lots every day or I die. I've got to run around eating stuff all the time, often killing other life forms in the process. My memory isn't perfect. I get angry and sad far more often than I need to. I'm susceptible to disease, cold, fire, trauma, sharp objects, etc. The list goes on and on.

Have I ever loved like that? I love my ex-wife like that. Sure as hell hasn't done me much good. Made for a lot of superfluous suffering, as a matter of fact.

848. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 10:38:32 AM

Hate to post and run.

Have a fantastic day, all.

849. ChristiPeters - 9/23/1999 10:49:52 AM

Nostradamus -

Yes, my family ate everything it shot. That was the purpose, after all. We also fished. Biologically, human beings are omnivores. I see no reason to live as if this isn't true.

Yes, I do own my dog. I can sell her and I can kill her - she exists at my whim. The fact that I was raised to feel that what I am doing is right and proper when owning a living thing doesn't change the fact of ownership. We treat her differently than I treated my dairy goats or my meat rabbits because she has a different purpose as well as because she's meltingly cute.

I didn't mean to skip the abortion question. My response is I wouldn't have one. That is not a hypothetical response. I was faced with this choice when I was pregnant. I became pregnant after becoming disabled. The doctors were very worried about further damage to my spine being caused by carrying an infant to term. I decided to trust that God would either keep that from happening or teach me how to cope if it did happen. I was lucky. No further damage was done to my spine. I have a happy, healthy, wonderful daughter who I love very very much.

850. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/1999 11:49:31 AM

arky, ok, I went back to see your #616 to me.

"My personal reading of the election in the Bible is the election of the early apostles, evangelists, writers of the New Testament, etc, who laid the foundation of the Christian church and began to spread the gospel and later the New Testament."

I don't think this is broad enough, though. I'd have to look at the word "elect" and its use, but off the top of my head, Jesus for example speaks about the elect in the end times (Matt 24), so that couldn't possibly leave "elect" limited to NT people like the early apostles and so on. One of Peter's epistles is addressed to God's elect, so if your definition is correct, we would only be able to apply his words in that epistle to JUST the "elect" as you have defined it above. I think the "elect" in the NT means ALL the believers.

"...if there is an elect as referred to in the Bible that is the only group going to heaven, as you and B&F suggest, and the rest of us are doomed even though we have no responsibility for ourselves..."

I don't understand "even though we have no responsibility for ourselves." Again, do you have choices in your life and make them, "suffering" the consequences as well? Then you have REAL choices. And you and I can talk all day about God ordaining this or that, but when God commands me to not steal and I go and do it, who can I blame but myself? I certainly won't be able to stand before God and say, "God made me do it!" :-)

851. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 12:40:55 PM

B&F wrote, in message 840"Did I 'need a crutch' ? Perhaps. Rather than a 'crutch', I certainly needed a 'vision'. A cognitive, 'rational (if you will) reason for my existence. 'Why I am here'. 'Where does everything lead ?'.
For me, the Bible began to provide many of those answers."

Why do you need to have a reason for your existence, why is existence not enough? Why does everything have to lead to something, why can't existence simply exist?

852. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 12:47:41 PM

Vic - Why do you need God to tell you not to steal? I don't steal and God has nothing to do with it; I don't do it because of my relationship with other humans, to steal is to take something from another.

If God has pre-selected those who are eligible to be saved (and is this a correct interpretation of what you are saying? Or is it that God pre-selects those who will be saved does that mean that the will be saved?)then what happens to those who do their best to follow the way of the Lord, but are not elected? Or is this an impossibility, that only those elected will actually make the attempt? What if God has elected me and I go through my life living a Christian life in all ways except not accepting Christ? My understanding is it's the pits of Hell for me, correct?

853. Sargasso Sea - 9/23/1999 12:54:25 PM

Good Afternoon Spiritual Beings!
I'm new to the mote. How/who are you all? any one care to give the new being a run down?

854. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 1:42:11 PM

Sargasso Sea. Welcome to The Mote, and particularly to this thread. We are trying to discuss "Spiritual Issues". Some folk get really frustrated (and I don't blame them) because the conversations tend to 'slide' almost inevitably toward Christianity.
I myself am a practicing Buddhist, recently returned from Israel, where, at the Hebrew University there, I earned a Doctorate in "Theology and The Torah"....Actually, I'm teasing. I am a Christian, but I honestly am trying to steer this 'battered old ship' into eclectic waters. We WELCOME any topic you might like to discuss regarding Spiritual matters. You will find that we have a 'motley crew' here. Quite a lot of atheists and agnostics. A few 'Fundamentalist Thumpers' as we evangelical Christians are irreverently called by the others. Several of the Jewish faith, and several jewish Moties who aren't very 'religious' by their own definition. Where are you in the total scheme of things ?

855. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 1:44:26 PM

Welcome SargassoSea,
I'm a Jewish agnostic (who has only been around 1 week), but this thread runs the gamut of beliefs from evangelical Christian to Catholic to atheist. It's been a little slow here now, but I'd like to throw out an issue I've referred to at times, but none of the Christians have ever replied to: Does the history of Christian temporal power being used to promote goals in contradiction to Jesus's teachings (i.e., persecution of heathens and heretics, accumulation of wealth by the Church, etc.) cast doubt on the correctness of Christian theology.

856. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 2:00:34 PM

Von Kreedon. Your 851. "Why do you need to have a reason for your existence, why is existence not enough? Why does everything have to lead to something, why can't existence simply exist?"
Well you see, Von K, I was beginning to panic ! I mean, the cosmos was so vast, and I was so tiny, and the fear of death was just driving me crazy. Naturally, being very poorly educated, and somewhat superstitious, I was in despair, looking around for some 'crutch', something I could pretend I believed in, so that I wouldn't be so scared............:-)

As I understand things, you life 'just IS, while mine has meaning and purpose. You are very happy with your life the way it is,
and I am very happy with my life the way it is. Things couldn't be more perfect for both of us, could they ? :-)

857. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 2:15:39 PM

Nostradamus. Your #847. Thank you for doing me the honor of answering my questions. I guess we look at the human body differently. 100 trillion (give or take a few billions, coming and going) cells, each interdependent on its neighbor. Thousands of miles of blood vessels. Two eyes, placed 'just so', so that you don't miss your breakfast when you reach out with your fork. A brain which is able to rationalize and create. I think you've got a wonderful body.
Sure you can't breath underwater (unless you're into scuba as I am learning how to be), you can't fly, (although other human beings have created ways of helping you do so). It is true that without oxygen, you'd be damaged after just a few minutes. Of course, I'm so dumb, I think that the very fact that we have a self-sustaining source of oxygen, this relatively thin layer surrounding our planet, is a miracle in itself.

I am truly sorry the object of that love I mentioned, and which you still feel, didn't 'stick around' long enough to learn to love you the same way. Many people never know the pain of loving like that, nor the joy that's a part of it either. Your ability to love that way will help tremendously, when someone 'comes along' who will love you in the same way. I ask God to prepare her for you, if that is what you would like to happen. I was married once, and it didn't work out. Neither of us loved each other in that way. Then I met a woman who did love me that way, and who, forty-one years later, still does.

858. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:29:19 PM

SnowOwl
Could you be polite enough to point out where I mentioned Christianity? In your mind, is the mention of the possibility that God exists mentioning Christianity, or is it a spiritual issue. I certainly do not mind being corrected but it is nice when done correctly.

859. Aldavis - 9/23/1999 2:33:04 PM

SnowOwl
I think you missed my point. I find it curious that people who insist that god has no more possibility of existance than Santa Claus and yet insist on deep discussion of such might not really mean what they profess but are in the searchiing mode Maybe you are too.

860. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 2:34:33 PM

B&F wrote, "As I understand things, you life 'just IS, while mine has meaning and purpose." I am not saying that my life is meaningless, it has meaning to me and it has meaning to those around me, but rather that I do not understand the drive to bring a universal meaning to existence itself, to life in general.

To get snarky back at you, As I understand things, your life is dependent on a theoretical extra-natural being for meaning, while mine is dependent only on myself to have meaning and purpose.

861. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 2:36:53 PM

vonKreedon #860,
I don't think that is "snarky", but rather an entirely legitimate reply.

862. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/1999 2:37:16 PM

vonKreedon

"Why do you need God to tell you not to steal? I don't steal and God has nothing to do with it; I don't do it because of my relationship with other humans, to steal is to take something from another."

Um, this is sort of off-track from why I made the original statement, but I'll say this. IF God exists, then it is supremely kind of him to tell us "dos and donts" so that we know what he likes and doesn't like. Fact is, ALL have sinned in some way against God, including you and I vonK, and I'll make a very bold statement that you HAVE done things against other human beings for no other reason than you are a selfish human being, like we all are. So you have even broken your OWN "ethical code" vonK. And God knows that we are all sinners and so gave us a means by which we can be forgiven by him, through his Son Jesus Christ.

But again, your comment above goes far afield from what I was stating earlier.

As for the rest of your post, God will save ALL people that honestly seek him: "everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved." Have you done this vonKreedon, put your faith and trust in God's provision of salvation through his Son? You've heard the Gospel, am I correct? Then wondering if you are elect or not is a very moot point indeed. YOU have the choice to make RIGHT NOW. And YOU will be judged based on the choice YOU have made.

863. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/1999 2:41:52 PM

OK, a fun aside, I hope.

I'm teaching a Cults class right now to my students. For those of you somewhat offended by the term "cult" I apologize, but it is a good technical term and must be used. Anyway, here's one "short answer" section of a test I am giving them, and I figured it would be fun to throw it in here as well.

OK, for this section the cults we studied were Jehovah's Witnesses, Baha'ism, the Unification Church (the Moonies), Christian Science, and the New Apostolic Church. You may not be familiar with this last one since it is originally from Europe but over 50% of its members are on the African continent.

Each of the following statements could easily be said by one or more of the above cults. For each, name the correct cult:

A) "It is unchristian to believe that pain and sickness are anything but illusions."

B) "There is no literal Hell."

C) "God is not complete unless he is loved."

D) "Dead people still have a chance to be saved."

E) "God has only ONE representative on earth and you must obey *him* to be saved." (2 possible answers, give both of them)

Answers tomorrow!

864. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 2:42:08 PM

Vic - Yes, I have done things that violate my ethical code, though less and less often has I mature. I learn, make amends, and continue to mature. Occasionally the violation causes me to learn that my ethical code needs alteration.

Anyway, I'm just confused by the idea that God could have pre-selected people for salvation, yet we should all adhere to God's Law or else. If only the pre-selected will escape Hell, then what is the incentive to do other than live a good life on ones own? If I do not hear God calling to me, and if only those called by God will be saved, then I would assume that I'm on my own anyway.

865. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 2:47:11 PM

Vic - My informed guesses
A - Christian Science (an interesting version of cult)
B - Jehovah's Witness (yet another interesting version of cult)
C - Baha'i (still yet another interesting version of cult)
D - No idea
E - Unification & New Apostolic

Could you also provide the definition of cult that you are using?

866. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 2:47:59 PM

Hey Vic - You could also post that quiz in the Quiz Thread, that would be a kick!

867. KuligintheHooligan - 9/23/1999 2:48:17 PM

vonKreedon

More good questions! The "incentive" is simply to heed God and in so doing to regain what was lost in the Fall, namely, communion with God and peace with our Maker.

I am probably not being clear enough I guess, because I feel like I am repeating myself. But whether God elects or not is MOOT in the sense that we *DO* have real choices to make. Some people say that God preordains EVERYTHING that we do. Well, if that is true, all I know is that TODAY, at this moment, I could pick up a gun and put a hole in my head and end my life. The choice is mine to make and should I choose such a thing, the consequences are mine as well. Whether God preordained said action or not is really secondary, because all I know is that my life is full of choices and consequences, REAL choices and REAL consequences.

The Gospel is preached and all who believe shall be saved. There it is, right before us. We have the choice to make. Do we humbly make the choice, or do we thumb our nose at God and reject him?

I have to run now, I'll check back tomorrow!

868. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 2:53:28 PM

Von Kreedon. your #860 "To get snarky back at you, As I understand things, your life is dependent on a theoretical extra-natural being for meaning, while mine is dependent only on myself to have meaning and purpose." I honestly didn't mean to be 'snarky' (whatever that means, I assume it is negative?). That's how you understand things, and I respect that. Of course, that word 'theoretical' is nonsense, but forgetting that....I repeat,'You are very happy with your life the way it is,
and I am very happy with my life the way it is. Things couldn't be more perfect for both of us, could they ? :-) Let's not try and change each other.....I might get accused of evangelizing !! :-)

869. Sky - 9/23/1999 3:36:25 PM

Aldavis wrote:"I find it curious that people who insist that god has no more possibility of existance than Santa Claus and yet insist on deep discussion of such might not really mean what they profess but are in the searchiing mode. Maybe you are too."

Why must one believe in 'God' to be spiritual? To want to discuss spiritual issues? Can't one believe in a 'higher power/force', beyond comprehension without anthropomorphising it into a 'being', i.e., Elohim/Yahweh/Allah.

Do you think that Buddists and Taoist are really 'searching' for your God when they are discussing their own spiritual beliefs?

870. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 3:38:32 PM

Hi Sky! (I at first, inadvertantly, typed, High Sky!)

Good point, one does not have to believe in a creator or personal God to be deeply spiritual.

871. Sky - 9/23/1999 4:02:58 PM

VonK:"Anyway, I'm just confused by the idea that God could have
pre-selected people for salvation, yet we should all adhere to God's
Law or else. If only the pre-selected will escape Hell, then what is the incentive to do other than live a good life on ones own? If I do not hear God calling to me, and if only those called by God will be saved, then I would assume that I'm on my own anyway."

Kuligin:"The "incentive" is simply to heed God and in so
doing to regain what was lost in the Fall, namely, communion with
God and peace with our Maker."

But if we don't believe in God we have no desire to regain that communion. And again, apparently 'heeding' God does not necessarily guarantee you a place in heaven, anyway. You still have to have been pre-selected.

Doesn't sin enter in to this anywhere? Or is it only belief?

872. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:04:50 PM

Sky - According to standard Christian orthodoxy we have all sinned, so sin is a given.

873. Sky - 9/23/1999 4:14:06 PM

VonK:"Sky - According to standard Christian orthodoxy we have all sinned,
so sin is a given."

Yeah, yeah.. I meant as far as entrance through the great golden gates. Christians spend so much time talking about sin and it's relationship to ones entry into Heaven, but when pinned down many of them end up admitting that the most pious of Jewish Rabbis would be cast to the depths of firey Hell while a deathbed repentance by Jeff Dahlmer (sp?) would whisk him past a smiling St. Pete.

874. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:18:10 PM

Sky - Pretty much correct, at any rate since sin in a given the only thing that matters is acceptance of the salvation offered by Christ.

Now the Jews are a slippery point for this, as they were God's Chosen for quite a while. So Christian Orthodoxy is, AFAIK, silent on the subject of Jews and Heaven.

875. SnowOwl - 9/23/1999 4:26:33 PM

Aldavis,

I apologise. You didn't mention Christianity, but you certainly referred to God, not G-d or Allah or Shiva or Zeus any of the other myriad gods people have believed in, so I made an assumption that it was the Christian God you were referring to.

876. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 4:28:02 PM

Sky,
Some is this is ground we covered (but reached little agreement on -- start at my post 231). The evangelists answer was God's ways are not our ways, and we cannot understand them, a most unsatisfactory view IMHO.
vonKreedon,
When this issue was discussed last week, the Christians of all stripes tended to think that pre-Jesus Jews could get to Heaven, since they did not know Jesus existed, whereas post-Jesus Jews could not without accepting him.

877. Sky - 9/23/1999 4:32:18 PM

VonK:"Now the Jews are a slippery point for this, as they were God's
Chosen for quite a while. So Christian Orthodoxy is, AFAIK, silent
on the subject of Jews and Heaven."

Depends on the Christian. Remember, 'Christian' is like saying 'American'. There are just *so* many denominations and sects and their beliefs vary pretty widly. Compare a Baptist to a Catholic to a Quaker to a Unitarian. There is almost more that they disagree about than agree! Most of the fundys that I've talked to feel that Jews are headed to the big fire pit for the erroneous but commonly held belief that the Jews crucified Christ. But then, a lot of them believe that the Catholics are going there, too, for following the Pope instaed og Jesus and for being idol worshipers. Religion is a strange, strange thing to me.

878. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:33:20 PM

What are those jews that worship Jesus called?

879. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 4:35:04 PM

Nostradamus,
Christians.

880. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 4:36:45 PM

Sky - Agree about Christian being like American, that's why I refer to Christian Orthodoxy. I used to refer to Christian Orthodoxy (N. Am. variant) which is more accurate, but sounds snarky so I stopped.

881. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:37:00 PM

Nope, there's a special name for them. I just can't remember it. Anybody else?

882. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 4:37:49 PM

Nostradamus,
They call themselves Messianic Jews, but they are Christians.

883. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:39:33 PM

Christi

Thanks for taking the time to answer my questions. I found myself agreeing with almost everything you had to say.

884. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 4:40:11 PM

Thanks Dan, that's what I was looking for.

885. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 4:43:37 PM

Nostradamus,
I am not sure which I find stranger, the "Messianic Jews" or those Christians who ignore St. Paul and follow all (or at least many) of the 613 laws that Orthodox Jews follow. Any thoughts?

886. ChristiPeters - 9/23/1999 5:23:49 PM

Dantheman -

"Does the history of Christian temporal power being used to promote goals in contradiction to Jesus's teachings (i.e., persecution of heathens and heretics, accumulation of wealth by the Church, etc.) cast doubt on the correctness of Christian theology"

While I have stated that I am not a Christian, I want to take a stab at that. To me, the history of Christian temporal power being used to promote goals in contradiction to Jesus's teaching merely shows how people will tend to use anything that works to serve their own goals and ends and desire for power. ie it is indicitive mostly of human nature.

(Forgive me if this has already been said or I am interrupting a conversation that has moved on. I haven't been on the Net most of the day and have only read this far.)

887. Dantheman - 9/23/1999 5:26:19 PM

Christi,
You did not repeat anything; in fact you're the only one who answered it. I agree with you that it shows they are human, but do you think that their failures reflect on their church and their beliefs?

888. ChristiPeters - 9/23/1999 5:26:45 PM

Nostradamus -

You're Welcome

889. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 7:41:02 PM

Sky. Welcome to the thread !! You post in your #851 "Why must one believe in 'God' to be spiritual? To want to discuss spiritual issues? Can't one believe in a 'higher power/force', beyond comprehension without anthropomorphising it into a 'being', i.e., Elohim/Yahweh/Allah?:"

Absolutely !! Is this where you feel that you are, spiritually ?

890. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 7:45:22 PM

Sorry Sky, that was your #869. I'm going too fast....:-) Welcome again.

Dantheman. I believe it was your #851...where you asked why I felt a need to have a reason for my existence. I came back with the fact that I was happy having a reason and meaning for my existence, and that I understood that you were happy with the fact that you had no need for meaning. You then thought I was being 'snarky', and said that indeed you do have meaning for your existence.
Just so long as we're both happy...:-)

891. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 8:28:39 PM

Anyway, Jesus Himself said that "By their fruits ye shall know them" (Matthew 7:20, referring to the 'Fruits' of the indwelling Spirit, i.e. Love, Joy, Peace, Patience, Gentleness, Goodness, Faith, Meekness and Temperance) and "Every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth forth evil fruit" (Matthew 7:17).

I've observed before, 'Counterfeitors do not repoduce phony $1 or $5 bills...It is only the truly precious, $50's and $100's, which are counterfeit. I realize that to the agnostic, the 'Forces of Evil' might seem pathetically childish, but if there were such an individual as Satan, one wouldn't be surprised if he were to dress his 'wolves' in sheeps' clothing and send them out masquerading as true believers, would one ?

892. Sky - 9/23/1999 8:30:02 PM

bloodnfire:" Absolutely !! Is this where you feel that you are, spiritually ?"

I guess you could say that.

893. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 8:34:07 PM

my 891 follows this thought, which somehow I wasn't able to post...

It all depends on how you define the word "Christian". If you mean someone or people who 'Identify with Jesus Christ INTELLECTUALLY, then you can see that 'temporal power' in the hands of such people will often if not always be used to try and accomplish personal, selfish ends by wicked, unGodly means. Perhaps the so-called 'Christian Democrat' party of the Nazi Third Reich is one of many horrible examples of this.
If, on the other hand, one accepts the definition of Scripture, that a 'Christian' is 'An individual indwelt by the Holy Spirit of God', (2nd Corinthians 13:5), then that is an entirely different matter. Such an individual will be demonstrating Christ's 'Fruit' in their lives.

894. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 8:35:43 PM

Well Sky, that's just fine. Welcome again, and share with us whatever is on your heart.

895. msgreer - 9/23/1999 8:36:50 PM

You want to talk spiritual feelings and ideas? Forget about all you have learned in organized religion. Think from the heart. Look into the eyes of the ones you love and just be able to see their hurt and do the right thing. Take time on this Universe to be kind and loving and nuturing. My father use to say if you can look in the mirror every morning and like who you see and like how you treated your fellow man the day before you are on your way.

It doesn't take knowing whether there is a God or not. Spirituality is in the heart. Spirituality is how we treat one another. I believe one's spirit grows when we all just go abit out of our way to help the other guy.

And growth comes and empowernment comes when we make sure we are basically kind human beings.

896. Sky - 9/23/1999 8:37:06 PM

bloodnfire - I realize that to the agnostic, the 'Forces of Evil' might
seem pathetically childish, but if there were such an individual as
Satan, one wouldn't be surprised if he were to dress his 'wolves' in
sheeps' clothing and send them out masquerading as true believers,
would one ?

This isn't some sort of confession, is it? ;-)

897. Sky - 9/23/1999 8:43:38 PM

msgreer! A kindred sole!

Hear, hear!

Religion is the institutionalization of Spirituality. It takes from it from the heart and forces it into blind adherence.

898. msgreer - 9/23/1999 8:58:22 PM

Sky

Nice to know you too.

899. vonKreedon - 9/23/1999 9:01:41 PM

To speak to Dan's question about the teachings of Christ vs. the actions of Churches:

What I take from actions, such as the Albigensian Crusade ("Kill them all, God will know his own") and the Spanish Inquisition, actions taken in the name of Christ, is the danger of giving your will over to a morality that is outside of yourself and absolute. If you place your moral center outside of yourself then you are out of balance. If your faith in your moral center is absolute then any action, any action, that you take in support of that center is righteous no matter how monstrous.

There is no escape from ones subjectivety; if one claims to have found absolute truth outside of oneself then one has already committed a momentous self-deception, from there attrocity is a short journey.

900. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 9:34:04 PM

I'm with msgreer. There's far too much intellectualizing and not enough loving.

901. ChristiPeters - 9/23/1999 9:46:19 PM

Dantheman -

I agree with you that it shows they are human, but do you think that their failures reflect on their church and their beliefs

No, I think it reflects on their failure to live up to their professed beliefs or their failure to incorporate the teachings of Jesus into their hearts and actions.

When I look at organized churches - their structures (I don't mean the buildings), and their actions - many times I do not see things I like, nor do I see in action what I understand of what Jesus taught.

When I look at what Jesus taught and concentrate on Jesus' words alone, not later interpretations or instructions, I see a lot of good.

So, while I don't see me joining a Christian church anytime soon, I have no problem practicing what Jesus preached.

I don't, however, see myself limiting myself to that alone.

902. msgreer - 9/23/1999 9:57:43 PM

ChristiPeters

Sorry for the spam but I just wanted to say hello to you.

Keep posting. You are great. I appreciate your honesty.

903. ChristiPeters - 9/23/1999 10:08:17 PM

Thanks, msgreer, but I'm done for tonight. It's time to hit the sack!

G'night

904. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 10:09:59 PM

Christi. So do I.

Sky. Your #896. No.

VonK. Your #899. You completely ignore my comment about 'Counterfeit Christianity, and instead post some intellectual
garbage. That's your right. However, there is far too much intellectual stuff in this thread, imho, as I have alrady said.
Perhaps I'm part of the problem. You post... "There is no escape from ones subjectivety; if one claims to have found absolute truth outside of oneself then one has already committed a momentous self-deception, from there attrocity is a short journey".
Give me a break !! Ignore all the wonderful good done by the 'Authentic' Church of Jesus Christ if you can. I still feel that your intellectualizing is just a meager effort to escape the claims
of the cross on your life.

You'll be pleased to hear that I will be out of town all next week, and I plan to leave this 'barge' without a host (there having been no
rush to offer to co-host with me). If I see it goes well, then perhaps it would be better off hostless.

Most of the time "Spiritual Issues" are absolutely ignored, and when they are, this thread sucks dead rats in my opinion.

905. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 11:24:17 PM

A shame that bloodnfire feels that way, but not everyone is suited to host.

I'm really enjoying reading Christi, msgreer, sky and VK.

906. bloodnfire - 9/23/1999 11:27:26 PM

I just e-mailed Wabbit that I feel a change is desirable too, Nostradamus. How do you feel about hosting? I plan to withdraw quietly at 1,000 posts.

And suitability to host is hard to determine until one has tried it.
I've regarded it as a privilege.

907. CalGal - 9/23/1999 11:35:14 PM

What I take from actions, such as the Albigensian Crusade ("Kill them all, God will know his own") and the Spanish Inquisition, actions taken in the name of Christ, is the danger of giving your will over to a morality that is outside of yourself and absolute.

That's actually a bit silly. The danger comes from the degree to which one gives over one's will and the nature of the law one is following.

If you are devoted to your own internal morality, never alter it, and that morality says it's okay to kill people, then you're just as dangerous as anyone who kills in the name of God.

There is nothing objectively better about setting your morals by an objective, rather than subjective, method. Logic is not objectively preferable to faith. It's just different. Both are of equal value, and both can be equally dangerous.

908. Nostradamus - 9/23/1999 11:39:21 PM

bloodnfire

I'm new here. I don't think they'd let me host. But thanks for thinking of me and I am truly sorry that this experience hasn't suited you. This can be a rough place, from what I can tell.

909. msgreer - 9/24/1999 12:02:30 AM

bloodnfire

Where are you young man?

910. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 5:21:43 AM

This is an open call. Come post #1,000 on this thread there will a
vacancy in the host chair. It is a wonderful and very challenging opportunity. Please e-mail Wabbit if you would like to give it a try.

911. msgreer - 9/24/1999 5:31:32 AM

bloodnfire

I will hate to see you leave this thread as host. However I do know you have worked your knucles to the bone making a go of it. You have done a great job. We will miss you. I hope you still plan to post even if not as the host.

912. SnowOwl - 9/24/1999 6:13:47 AM

bloodnfire,

You sound discouraged, and I'm sorry about that. I think there are some good and interesting discussions in this thread. They may not always be along the lines you would like but the sharing of ideas is always good and even when we disagree we should be able to learn something from each other's points of view.

I'm sure you were disappointed that there was not much response to your attempts to discuss the Myss book. It is fairly hard to have any sensible discussion about something you haven't read though, and from what I had read about the book and her ideas I wasn't really keen
enough to spend any money on buying it. If it had been available at my local library I'd certainly have read it and joined in the discussion then.

You asked me sometime previously what spiritual issues are important to me. I didn't answer at the time as I honestly don't really think much about such things. I don't sit around and introspect about the meaning of life, for me it has the meaning I choose to give it. A lot of that meaning is in the relationships I have with family and friends and in the sheer pleasure of living each day as it comes.

913. msgreer - 9/24/1999 6:30:00 AM

Oh little baby of mine
Come here and let me hold you.
Feel my arms around you as I rock you back and forth.
Close your eyes, sweetie.
Let me take your pain from you.
Let me stroke your hair and forehead and
sing softly to you.
I love you my dear sweet child.
And it will be okay.
Mommy promises it will be okay.
Close your eyes and feel my warmth
and love
coming to you.
Mommy is here and it will be okay.

915. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 6:46:33 AM

Msgreer, that lovely poem reflects the kind of "Spiritual Issues" around which this thread is hopefully going to revolve eventually.
I'm guessing that it was written with your lovely daughter in mind,
am I right ?

SnowOwl. Thanks for your response.

916. msgreer - 9/24/1999 6:48:25 AM

bloodnfire

I just read your post and came back to it and it is gone with the wind. How does that happen? You have a good day yourself.

As for my daughter I hold her near to my heart and soul.

917. pellenilsson - 9/24/1999 7:29:04 AM

bloodnfire

It is really very difficult to keep religion, specifically Christianity, out of a thread like this. But, to be mildly critical, you have not denounced such posts as being off-topic, have you?

Tonight I will put together some lines about what I have understood about the debate parameters, which are at play between believers and atheists, and why there is virtually no chance to find a common ground. It will not be an attack on anybody, just an attempt to explain.

If I succeed I will post it tomorrow morning my time. It is 1.25 pm here now.

918. Sky - 9/24/1999 8:34:49 AM

904. bloodnfire:Most of the time "Spiritual Issues" are absolutely ignored, and when
they are, this thread sucks dead rats in my opinion.

Granted, I've haven't been here very long but it seems as though the intellectual/philosophical debating of the many spiritual views of the participants here isn't what you had in mind for this forum. This is the third or forth 'Religion/Spiritual' discussion group I've participated in and this one seems to be pretty much the same as the others. So I ask, what did you have in mind for discussion here? With so many varying views how can a place like this help but turn into a debate forum?
Being a newbi here I look forward to pellenilsson's debate parameters post. But perhaps you could give your vision of what you, bloodnfire, had hoped would happen here.

I must say that I've enjoyed seeing the back and forth between you and VonK.

BTW, I *was* just kidding with #896. I hope you realized that.

919. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 9:00:13 AM

Good morning all!! Much to comment on.
bloodnfire, let me echo Snow Owl's #912. I appreciate the work you are doing on this thread and enjoy it, even if it does not go in the directions you want.
Sky #897, I couldn't agree more.
vonKreedon#899/CalGal#907 -- I agree with both of you. The difficulty is that the level of giving over of one's will required by the view of spirituality often advocated here and elsewhere often leads one over the edge and into horrifying acts.
bloodnfire, post #851, which you attributed to both Sky and me, was actually written by vonKreedon. I did not use the word snarky to describe your response, but rather said I did not think vonKreedon's reply was snarky.
#890-893 I was actually using the word Christian as someone who identified himself as such, often as a leader of the Church. If as in post #904 you believe that the "Authentic" Church (whichever one that is) has done much good (which I will concede), then you should also acknowledge that it has done much evil, including the examples vonKreedon gave, and numerous others.

920. RustlerPike - 9/24/1999 9:46:25 AM

Blood'n:

I really know next to nothing about the sefirot. Kaballa and mysticism are subjects I do not really take an interest in. Do you have any specific question regarding this?

921. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 10:32:11 AM

pellenilsson -

It is really very difficult to keep religion, specifically Christianity, out of a thread like this. But, to be mildly critical, you have not denounced such posts as being off-topic, have you?

Personally, I don't think discussions of religion are off-topic in a discussion of spirituality. I don't want to see the thread focus solely on religion, let alone one particualr religion. However, since religion is a big part of many people's spirituality I don't see how it can be excluded here, nor do I think it should be excluded.

922. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 10:34:29 AM

"particualr" = particular

(ever since I started using more than two fingers to type, I've been reversing letters and doing other strange things. The other day, I thought "time" and my fingers typed "emit". sheeeeesh!)

923. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 10:40:14 AM

Christi

Good morning.

Thanks for clarifying that. I was racking my brain trying to figure out what you could possibly mean by 'particualr'. :)

I think you mentioned yesterday that you used to spend a lot of time with horses. Were you disabled in a riding accident? Sorry if I'm being too nosy.

924. KuligintheHooligan - 9/24/1999 10:40:17 AM

Great answers on the little quiz on cults, from both threads. Here's the answers:

"It is unchristian to believe that pain and sickness are anything but illusions." CHRISTIAN SCIENCE

"There is no literal Hell." JEHOVAH'S WITNESSES

"Dead people still have a chance to be saved." NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH (and MORMONS too as someone said, although not a valid answer for this quiz)

"God is not complete unless he is loved." the MOONIES (UNIFICATION CHURCH)

"God has only ONE representative on earth and you must obey him to be saved." (NEW APOSTOLIC CHURCH and the MOONIES

925. wabbit - 9/24/1999 10:45:32 AM

As you have all noticed, bloodnfire will be stepping down as host of this thread when it reaches 1000 posts. I will put up an RIP tag, which I will take down if someone wants to take over the hosting duties. Otherwise, the thread will be retired. We can always have another thread on religion or spiritual issues in the future.

Thanks for all your hard work, bloodnfire!

926. KuligintheHooligan - 9/24/1999 10:48:36 AM

vonKreedon,

I have used two working definitions for cults for our class. They are:

"A cult is a perversion, a distortion of biblical Christianity and/or a rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian church."

"A cult is a group of people polarized around someone's interpretation of the Bible and is characterized by major deviations from orthodox Christianity relative to the cardianl doctrines of the Christian faith, particularly the fact that God became man in Jesus Christ."

We are dealing with *Christian* cults in this class, not just any old cults. But, for example, we cover Baha'i even though it originated from Islam, because many Baha'i adherents call themselves Christians too, since Baha'i "allows" them to do so.

But since we can't deal with ALL the cults that exist, I also cover ten general characteristics of cults, so that the students can recognize these traits. They are:

1) New Truth
2) New Interpretation
3) Non-biblical sources of authority
4) Another Jesus (denying the deity really)
5) Rejection of Orthodox Christianity - involved with this is isolationism and exclusivism
6) Double Talk - what they say they believe and what they REALLY believe are two different things (a good example is the Mormons and the doctrine of the Trinity)
7) Changing Theology
8) Authoritarian Leadership
9) False Prophecy
10) Salvation by Works

If you have any questions about what is meant by the above, please ask!

927. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 10:49:32 AM

If noone else wants to do it, I'll host. Hopefully someone else will volunteer, though.

928. KuligintheHooligan - 9/24/1999 10:49:36 AM

I should have also noted that "there is no LITERAL hell" could also pertain to Christian Science and I suppose Baha'ism as well.

929. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 10:50:35 AM

Kuligan,
Under that definition, was Christianity a cult of Judiasm in its first century?

930. KuligintheHooligan - 9/24/1999 10:53:52 AM

Dantheman,

If what you are asking is what Christianity a Jewish "cult" then I would say I guess so, given the perspective of Judaism at that time.

931. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 10:58:16 AM

Kuligan,
I agree. This should provide food for thought for all on whether cults are intrinsically evil.

932. KuligintheHooligan - 9/24/1999 11:01:42 AM

You are right Dantheman. It could be that one of the cults is actually an improvement on Christianity, much like from my perspective Christianity was on Judaism.

However, I am much more inclinced to trust someone like Jesus Christ than I am, say, Rev. Moon, or Mary Baker Eddy, or Charles Russel, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh, or ...

933. KuligintheHooligan - 9/24/1999 11:11:11 AM

As for hosting of this thread, I hope bloodnfire reconsiders his positions, but if he does not, I really don't care who hosts this thread.

934. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 11:25:44 AM

Nostradamus -

"I think you mentioned yesterday that you used to spend a lot of time with horses. Were you disabled in a riding accident? Sorry if I'm being too nosy"

I have a degree in Equestrian Science and was a professional for over 20 years. I mostly taught riding, but also trained and judged and had a small breeding operation. I used to ride 3-day-event and had some spectacular cross-country jump falls. In addition, the first few horses I had as a beginning trainer were ones nasty enough that the other trainers wouldn't touch them. In spite of all that, I did NOT get injured riding. (Knowing how to fall right is an important skill, btw)

I was first injured while sitting on a bench visiting a stable. A sweet calm kids horse spooked at nobody knows what and against all horse instincts spooked toward a barrier insteand of the open ground ahead of her. On the way, she jumped over the bench I was sitting on through me, landed on me, turned around on top of me and then continued on her panicked way. I was kicked in the head, had ribs broken, 3 vertebrae in my thorascic (sp?) spine messed up, and my liver and right kidney damaged. Six years later I was in a traffic accident. A 15 yr-old-kid broadsided me at about 50 mph, sending me down the road sideways with his daddy's car in my left hip, bouncing my head off the left doorpost, totalling my car and giving me personal experience with the jaws of life.

I have been in constant pain for 16 years, but it's getting better. I have learned to cope and I can walk without a cane most of the time now and use my left arm and hand again, too.

935. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 11:29:58 AM

The hardest part was not the physical pain, but the loss of my dreams. All my life, I wanted a life spent with horses. At the time of the accident, I had been using horseback riding lessons as therapy for kids with problems and every day was filled with intense fulfilling joy. I was making plans to expand so I could take on students with physical handicaps, too. It was very very very hard to admit that I no longer had the physical resources to continue what I was doing.

936. Sky - 9/24/1999 11:34:07 AM

926. KuligintheHooligan
I have used two working definitions for cults for our class. They are:

"A cult is a perversion, a distortion of biblical Christianity and/or a
rejection of the historic teachings of the Christian church."

Who decides which denominations teachings is a distortion of biblical Christianity? Are the Quakers a distorted teaching? Baptists? Catholics?

932. KuligintheHooligan -
I am much more inclinced to trust someone like Jesus
Christ than I am, say, Rev. Moon, or Mary Baker Eddy, or Charles
Russel, or Joseph Smith, or David Koresh, or... the Pope?

937. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 11:42:35 AM

Christi

Thank-you. You are a truly remarkable woman.

938. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 12:24:27 PM

Nostradamus -

I don't know. I think most people would say damned unlucky, but thanks anyway!

&:oD

939. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 12:27:27 PM

Christi

Damned lucky and damned unlucky from what I can tell. Congrats on your daughter's report card. Not much of a surprise, though.

940. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 12:27:36 PM

I'm hoping now that I am in somewhat improved shape (and hopefully still improving) that I can get back in the lesson as therapy business in a part-time way. I can use my knowledge and experience to teach and use some of my Engineering salary to pay someone to do the hard physical chores I am not up to doing anymore.

Well, I'll be gone for awhile due to our server going down in addition to getting busier than I have been lately.

TTFN

941. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 12:28:38 PM

Nostradamus -

Thanks for the congrats, I'll pass them on to her tonight.

942. RustlerPike - 9/24/1999 1:23:43 PM

Here's a link regarding Kabalah that seems interesting, blood.

943. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 1:55:49 PM

Thanks Rustler...I look forward to 'checking it out' when I get home (I'm at the office right now). Appreciate your time and effort. Even though we'll have a new host, I look forward to lurking and posting, especially as I continue reading "Anatomy of the Spirit". Who knows, I might get more response as a non-host than I ever did hosting !!

Dan the man...You've got only 57 posts left in which to drive me crazy !! :-). You post in 919 ......

"The "Authentic" Church" (whichever one that is, you say) "has done much good" (which you will concede), "then I should also acknowledge that it has done much evil, including the examples vonKreedon gave, and numerous others".

I have tried very hard to have you understand what kind of 'Christian' is an 'Authentic One'. Read my lips. "An Authentic Christian is one who is INDWELT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. If you see EVIL being performed by someone CLAIMING to be authentic,
then you can be fairly sure that that individual is COUNTERFEIT !!!
You might remember, if you read my posts, that I cited the so-called
'Christian Democrat Party' of the Nazis ?
HOWEVER, DON'T GO AROUND ACCUSING people of not being authentic. Jesus Himself warned us not to judge ANYONE. Get it ?

944. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 2:07:36 PM

Bloodnfire#943,
Let my try to drive you crazier. The quotation marks around Authentic were yours, from post #904.

Your doctrine appears to be that any professed Christian who does evil acts is counterfeit and not a real Christian. This would include such luminaries of the Christian world as St. George, Cardinal Torquemada and most of the Renaissance-era popes. If that is the case, has can a person tell if someone is a true Christian (especially in light of your belief that mankind can never comprehend God's ways, and thus it is unreasonable to expect God to be good and fair by our standards)?

P.S. The Nazis were the National Socialist Party, not the Christian Democrats. The Christian Democrats are still a legal party in Germany, and held the Chancellorship until last year.

945. Sky - 9/24/1999 3:03:35 PM

943. bloodnfire "An Authentic Christian is one
who is INDWELT BY THE HOLY SPIRIT OF GOD. If you see
EVIL being performed by someone CLAIMING to be authentic,
then you can be fairly sure that that individual is COUNTERFEIT !!!

A definition I can applaud.
However, define 'evil'....
Where I live there is an ongoing battle over adding Gay/Lesbian to our states 'Equal Rights' amendment. Are those of us who support equal rights for Gay/Lesbians 'evil', as we have been called by the Christian Right, or are the conservative Christians 'evil' for trying to take away these rights from an oppressed minority?

Now, I don't want to get into a 'how does the Bible view homosexuality' discussion! Goddess knows I've been through enough of those! My point is that 'evil' is defined differently by different people. Many 'born again' conservatives consider the Pope to be 'evil'. Many Catholics, at least at some points in history, considered Jews to be inherently evil. Are the people who get abortions evil or are those who blow up the clinics evil?

A mighty slippery slope.

946. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 3:16:07 PM

Bloodnfire,
Does your injunction about accusing people of not being authentic apply to Kuligan's reference to me as sort of Jewish?

947. RustlerPike - 9/24/1999 3:22:30 PM

If anyone is considering becoming a Jew - here are the first 50 of the 613 mitzvot (commandments, rules) as the rambam (Maimonides) lists them:

1: Believing in God
2: Unity of God
3: Loving God
4: Fearing God
5: Worshiping God
6: Cleaving to God
7: Taking an oath by God's Name
8: Walking in God's ways
9: Sanctifying God's Name
10: Reading the 'Shema' prayer twice daily
11: Studying and teaching Torah
12: Wearing Tephillin of the head
13: Wearing Tephillin of the hand
14: To make Tzitzit
15: To affix a Mezuzah
16: Hakhel during Sukkos
17: A king should write a Torah
18: Everyone should write a Torah
19: Grace after meals
20: Building a Sanctuary for God
21: Revering the Beit Hamikdash (Temple)
22: Guarding the Mikdash
23: Levitical services in the Mikdash
24: Ablutions of the Kohanim
25: Kindling the lamps by the Kohanim
26: Kohanim blessing Israel
27: The Showbread
28: Burning the Incense
29: The perpetual fire on the Altar
30: Removing the ashes from the Altar
31: Removing tameh (impure) persons from the camp
32: Honoring the Kohanim
33: The Priestly garments
34: Kohanim bearing the Ark on their shoulders
35: The oil of the Anointment
36: Kohanim ministering in watches
37: Kohanim defiling themselves for deceased relatives
38: Kohen Gadol should only marry a virgin
39: Daily Burnt Offerings
40: Kohen Gadol's daily Meal Offering
41: The Shabbos Additional Offering
42: The New Moon Additional Offering
43: The Pesach Additional Offering
44: The Meal Offering of the Omer
45: The Shavuot Additional Offering
46: Bring Two Loaves on Shavuos
47: The Rosh Hashana Additional Offering
48: The Yom Kippur Additional Offering
49: The Service of Yom Kippur
50: The Sukkot Offering

948. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 4:00:13 PM

Dantheman. Kuligan, I thought very graciously, indicated to you when you questioned him about his reference to a 'sort of jewish person' that he was only reflecting a comment you personally had made, describing yourself, as 'jewish by ethnic origin, but not very religious'. Do I recall that correctly ? To be honest, I am also rather unsure of the difference between 'Reform' Jewry and the
other "sorts of Jews". I'm not sure how one defines 'An Authentic Jew'. In fact, the whole question of the Jewish Tribes and the descent from Judah is quite a 'Puzzlement' to me (as Anna's King of Siam would say).

I have known and respected KuligantheHooligan for over 18 months. He has never struck me as being judgemental. He knows perfectly well how the Lord deals with people who judge other people.

I have defined my understanding of "An Authentic Christian". How would you define your understanding of "An Authentic Jew" ? (Stand
by RustlerPike. We'd like a second opinion :-)

P.S. My Father's Father was the son of two jewish people in Germany.
Does that make me a little bit Jewish ?

949. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 4:10:21 PM

Bloodnfire,
While Kuligan may have tried to explain it, I was (and am) still insulted by the reference to me as sort of Jewish. No apology has been offered to date. I view myself as Jewish agnostic, but still Jewish, and would be insulted by anyone, Jewish or gentile, who views me as not Jewish. I also suggest that you not refer to the branches of Judaism as "sorts of Jews" for the same reason.
As to your P.S., under orthodox Jewish law, you are not Jewish, since Judaism follows matrilineal descent (i.e., you are Jewish because your mom is Jewish). Reconstructionist Jews (and to some extent Reform Jews) would say you would be Jewish if you actively participated in Jewish life. Under the Nuremberg laws of the Nazi's, you are Jewish.
Jews are all descended from Joseph, not Judah. The 12 tribes were named for his sons.
I will post an explanation of the branches of Judaism later today.

950. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 4:16:29 PM

Well I'm sure Kuligan didn't mean to insult you by the phrase 'sort of Jewish', and I certainly didn't. However, if you feel insulted, I apologize, and ask you to forgive Kuligan and me.
I don't mean to correct you, but the twelve tribes were named after the sons of Jacob, later renamed Israel by God. Isn't that true ? Joseph only had two sons, Manassah and Ephraim, and in fact they each became the heads of a half tribe in order to inherit their Father Joseph's inheritance.

951. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 4:19:12 PM

Bloodnfire,
I accept your apology. Kuligan will need to apaologize for himself and not rely on yours.
You are correct on Jacob, not Joseph. My error.

952. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 4:25:05 PM

Sometimes, Dantheman, it's very gracious to forgive someone when they haven't asked for forgiveness. That's the kind of Spiritual Issue I hope to see discussed after my leaving the Host's chair. It sort of ties in with an issue I have been discussing with the students at our school. The need for everyone to learn to treat everyone else with respect, most especially those who don't deserve it. It falls under "The Golden Rule", which I believe is a dogma of all the worlds major religions, including Judaism ?

953. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 4:34:50 PM

May I add one final note, with the utmost respect. I would have been honored to be considered a Jew by the Nazis. The Apostle Paul (himself a Hebrew of the Hebrews, of the Tribe of Benjamin, a Pharisee) asked the question..."What is a Jew ?" He answered it (we believe inspired by God) "For he is not a Jew, which is one outwardly; neither is that circumcision, which is outward in the flesh:
But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter..."(Romans 2:28 and 29).

I guess his definition of an Authentic Jew differs from yours.

Incidently, that definition, including the 'Circumcised heart' exactly describes an "Authentic Christian" as well. It is my experience that one can find 'circumcised hearts' in all the worlds religions. (And not a few uncircumcised ones too !! :-)

954. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 4:41:32 PM

Sky. Your #945 "My point is that 'evil' is defined differently by different people." I agree. That is why, before God, I have NEVER told another human being that what they were doing is 'sinful'. That's the busines of God the Holy Spirit, (and, having had lots of practice, He is very good at it, may I add).

It's for that very reason that Jesus warned us all not to judge each other. There are two kinds of homosexual, Sky. "Those who have the Son, and those who do not" (I John 5:11 & 12). There are the same two categories of heterosexual as well. Those humans who 'Have the Son', are brothers and sisters in Christ. He it is Who will correct and guide where and as necessary.

955. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 4:45:27 PM

A few random thoughts on forgiveness -

I am divorced. I am divorced because life with my husband was intolerable. My ex-husband hates me for divorcing him.

I have forgiven my ex-husband for all the pain he caused me. He didn't ask for my forgiveness. He doesn't believe that I don't hate him. He doesn't believe that I have forgiven him. He refused to speak to me from March 1994 until December 1998. He still only speaks to me in monosyllables and grunts.

You know what - none of that matters, because I feel better for having forgiven him. I no longer waste any energy on anger at him or hurt feelings over how he is.

IMHO, Forgiveness is for the benefit of the one doing the forgiving not the one being forgiven.

956. ElliottRW - 9/24/1999 4:47:53 PM

ChristiPeters

Right on.

957. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 4:48:28 PM

Dan, thanks for correcting me regarding the 'Christian Democrats'. You owed it to me for correcting you regarding Joseph and his Father.
(;-)

I hope the German 'Christian Democrats' are acting more like authentic Christians (and Jews) than the Nazis did ??

958. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 4:50:48 PM

Christi

What made life with your ex so intolerable?

959. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 4:51:44 PM

Christi. You're absolutely right, and I adore you. :-) And pity that poor ex-husband. It is his loss.....

960. ChristiPeters - 9/24/1999 4:55:37 PM

Nostradamus -

Well, I don't really want to talk about it right now.

I will only comment that I intended "until death do us part" when I married. I was married for 15 years. I was happy for three. I tried to "fix" things without his cooperation for 9 years and we went to counseling together for 2 years.

I am nothing if not stubborn.

In the end, when I finally gave up, I was very grateful that he kept backing out on having a ceremony with vows. So when I left, I had made no promises to break.

961. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 4:58:16 PM

So it wasn't related to your becoming disabled, then? I can imagine how horrible it would be to see the woman I love in constant pain.

962. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 4:59:43 PM

Dan. Your #944.."Your doctrine appears to be that any professed Christian who does evil acts is counterfeit and not a real Christian. This would include such luminaries of the Christian world as St. George, Cardinal Torquemada and most of the Renaissance-era popes. If that is the case, has can a person tell if someone is a true Christian (especially in light of your belief that mankind can never comprehend God's ways, and thus it is unreasonable to expect God to be good and fair by our standards)?".

You can't, that's why the Lord Jesus told us not to judge each other.
He knows who is authentic and who isn't. Just don't forget Paul's phrase..."Christ IN you, the hope of Glory" (Colossians 1:27).

963. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 5:07:33 PM

Rustler. Great link regarding the Kaballah, and the Tree of Life !!
Thanks. He writes..."Ein Sof and the Ten Sefirot
To give you an idea of the nature of Kabbalah, I will briefly discuss one of the better known, fundamental concepts of kabbalistic thought: the concept of G-d as Ein Sof, the Ten Sefirot, and the kabbalistic tree of life. This explanation is, at best, a gross oversimplification. I do not pretend to fully understand these ideas."

I always love gross oversimplifications myself, although if the author doesn't understand them how is he qualified to discuss the subject ?

964. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 5:12:05 PM

Bbloodnfire,
A couple of notes before going into the definitions of the branches of Judaism.
#953 -- It is hardly surprising that my definition of an Authentic Jew differs from St. Paul's.
#962 -- If we humans cannot tell who is an Authentic Christian and who is not and our ways of defining good and evil are not necessarily God's, then how can you (or any other human) say that anyone who does evil acts is a counterfeit (see your post #943)

965. ElliottRW - 9/24/1999 5:13:45 PM

Hey! This thread just got R.I.P.ped.

My thanks to everyone who tried to be reasonable. For all its faults, this thread was sincere and I really appreciate that.

So long, S.I. thread.

966. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 5:25:47 PM

Dan. Your #964 " how can you (or any other human) say that anyone who does evil acts is a counterfeit (see your post #943)". I can give that as a definition, but I DAREN'T accuse someone of being counterfeit, even though I might sadly suspect it. Hey, I'm still working out my own Salvation with fear and trembling(Philippians 2:12), without becoming preoccupied with other peoples'.

967. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 5:27:07 PM

Bloodnfire,
The first branch of Judaism is Orthodox. This is the branch that beliefs that every word of the Torah is God's law and believes that all 613 rules within the Torah must be followed in order to be an "Authentic Jew" (your phrase, not mine or theirs). They study extensively the commentary on the Torah and the remainder of the Old Testament performed by rabbis (the Talmud). Since many of the rules in the Torah are premised on the Temple continuing to exist, they also follow guides for living in a non-Temple, diaspora environment (the Midrash). To a lesser extent, they study later rabbis and wise men, especially Moses ben Maimon (aka Maimonides or Rambam).
Orthodoxy had a bit of a split in the 1600's (I think), with a group moving towards a few different, more conservative rules on style of living outside of the requirements of Jewish law. They are called the hasidim. Ironically, they adopted the hair styles of the local (Polish) rulers of the time (especially never cut sideburns), who were notoriously anti-semitic. A specific branch of hasidim is the Lubavitchers (named for the town in Poland where they originated), which have expanded rapidly in the last 20+/- years, due to a very charismatic leader (now deceased) and an interest in emphasizing the more joyous portions of Jewish ritual to gain converts from within Judaism. (continued)

968. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 5:27:07 PM

Oh oh Sorry.

969. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 5:28:15 PM

My fault, Dan. I haven't even learned to 'put my toys away' properly. No wonder this thread is R.I.Peeing :-)

970. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 5:32:19 PM

Thanks for the description of the different 'persuasions' of Judaism,
(is that an okay word ?). Where, exactly, do you fit ?

Elliot, thanks for your kind words. Only 30 more posts, and this thread is hostless.

971. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 5:39:20 PM

(continuation of #967)
The second branch (I am using a historical perspective) of Judaism is Reform. Reform started in Germany in the 1700's (my father's family was Reform before they came to this country in the 1910's). Many of the issues that divide Orthodoxy and Reform are similar to the ones that divided Catholicism and Protestantism before Vatican II (and even after), including use of the vernacular in the liturgy and disapproval of hierarchical religious establishment. In addition, following the 613 laws was made into a matter for individual conscience. By and large, an "Authentic Jew" to the Reform movement is anyone who sincerely believes himself to be Jewish, although if you were not born Jewish, you would need to undergo a conversion ritual. This last is of some importance in understanding current Israeli politics, in that much of the struggle between the Orthodox and non-Orthodox movements is that the Orthodox will only recognize conversion using Orthodox rituals, including immersion in a mikveh (probably the source of the Christian practice of baptism, but we are getting far afield). In the last 10 or so years, the Reform movement has added more of the Conservative (see below) practices, so that at services these High Holy Days at my synagogue, most of the men wore yarmulkes, many wore tallit, and more and more Hebrew is being used in the liturgy. When I was a child, few Reform synagogues employed a cantor, but now almost no synagogues are without one. (continued)

972. Dantheman - 9/24/1999 5:48:23 PM

(continuation from #971 -- I'll try to wrap it up here)
The Conservative movement began in the U.S. in the late 1800's as a way of fitting between Orthodoxy and Reform. There is more ritual and nearly the entire service is in Hebrew. They believe that at least some of the laws are mandatory and not matters of conscience, so to be an "Authentic Jew", you would need to follow those.
The Reconstructionist movement is a relatively recent phenomenon, although its roots can be traced to the 1930's. They follow very different laws than the Orthodox (more egalitarian, not hierarchical and attuned to living in an assimilated world), but believe strongly in those laws.
I belong to a Reform congregation, which is the largest branch in the U.S., followed by Conservative, Orthodox and Reconstructionist, in that order. In much of the rest of the non-Israeli world, the Conservative branch is larger. In Israel, about 20% of the Jews are Orthodox, very small numbers are the other branches, and the rest are secular, which means they are irreligious in nature.
I need to leave the office soon, but if this thread is still around on Monday, I'll answer questions.

973. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 5:54:59 PM

Thank you Dan. I am enjoying the explanation. Have you been to Israel yet ? The oldest Synagogue in the world is on top of Massada and I have a yalmukah which I wore in it. Treasured memories. At the same time I met the President of Israel, who was very gracious.
While I suppose it is true that your definition and ('saint' yeuuch!)Paul's would differ, don't you agree that the thought that 'Authenticity' when it comes to human beings,in everything, not only religion,, having to do with 'Circumcision of the Heart' has a certain appeal ?

974. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 6:01:31 PM

Nostradamus. Thank you for offering to host this thread. I wish you well, and will be a loyal 'lurker' assuming that Wabbit approves your becoming host. I'm sure you'll do a great job.

975. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 6:05:03 PM

Thanks bloodnfire. I'm glad you'll continue to post and perhaps sometime in the future you'll give hosting another shot.

976. SnowOwl - 9/24/1999 6:08:47 PM

Thanks, bloodnfire. for the work you put in to hosting this thread, and thank you too, Nostradamus, for volunteering to be our new host.

977. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 6:13:11 PM

My pleasure, SnowOwl. I look forward to the opportunity to be your host.

978. ee - 9/24/1999 6:13:35 PM

Hello all, Blood I haven't really caught up on this thread as I have been suffering through technical troubles (hence my abreviated moniker). I'm sorry to see you leaving the thread but I can understand why. I hope you will still be an active poster, Not just a lurker.

979. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 6:30:04 PM

Thanks SnowOwl, Ee and Nostradamus for your kind words. Most of the time it has been wonderful fun. The more I think about it, the more 1,000 posts sounds like a good 'term limit' for a host. However, that's just my humble opinion. I want to thank everyone for their input and patience.

980. ee - 9/24/1999 6:31:22 PM

I am a little confused, Is Nostradamus going to be hosting this thread or is being R.I.P.ed. I think there are to many interesting disscusions happening to R.I.P. it.

981. ee - 9/24/1999 6:37:30 PM

Aha question answered by looking at the home page. Good. Welcome to the new host Nostradamus

982. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 6:39:50 PM

Well, it's official. Thank-you bloodnfire for your hard work as the Mote's first Spiritual Issues host (trivia question someday).

I'm taking over hosting duties for a while. I agree with bloodnfire that, particularly in this thread, the hosting duties should be rotated (or shared) on a regular basis to avoid highlighting one worldview over another. I don't intend to overstay my welcome.

Also, as host, I will endeavor to refrain from offending any who post here. If you have any suggestions for me, feel free to email me @ motenost@yahoo.com Thank-you.

983. ee - 9/24/1999 6:40:55 PM

Nostradamus: Do you know what a millenial run is?

984. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 6:43:27 PM

I know how it's spelled. :) For the benefit of any newbies/lurkers, what is a millennial run?

985. ee - 9/24/1999 6:45:05 PM

You are a better speller than me.

986. ee - 9/24/1999 6:45:57 PM

the object is simple

987. ee - 9/24/1999 6:47:41 PM

You try the post ending in 1,000

988. ee - 9/24/1999 6:48:43 PM

I mean , you try to get that post.

989. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 6:53:34 PM

I feel like the wicked witch of the East..."I'M MELTING !! I'M MELTING !!...Only eleven, ten, nine...I'm mmmmmmmmeelllll...:-)

990. ee - 9/24/1999 6:55:31 PM

Hey Blood ,this thread started with a referance to the
Wizard of Oz

991. ee - 9/24/1999 6:57:42 PM

Remember There is no place like home

992. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 6:57:52 PM

Where's that rascal 'God' when you need him? :)

Hopefully we can return to some substantive dialogue once the millennial passes.

993. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 6:59:13 PM

Mine?

994. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 6:59:27 PM

Not yet...

995. ee - 9/24/1999 6:59:27 PM

Substansive dialogue?

996. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 6:59:37 PM

...but soon...

997. ee - 9/24/1999 6:59:49 PM

Take it to the play pen

998. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 6:59:52 PM

...it will be..

999. ee - 9/24/1999 7:00:01 PM

now

1000. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 7:00:02 PM

MINE

1001. ee - 9/24/1999 7:00:12 PM

missed?

1002. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 7:00:24 PM

I think I deserve it....

1002. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 7:00:25 PM

YES!

1003. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 7:01:03 PM

Yes, B&F deserved it, but life is not fair.

1004. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 7:01:23 PM

Congratulations, VK on the 1st Spiritual Issues millennial post (another trivia question.)

1005. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 7:01:25 PM

I'm MELTED.....sob...Okay, for the atheists, s.o.b. :-)

1006. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 7:02:05 PM

Well, I could always delete posts 1000 & 1001. :) (j/k)

1007. ee - 9/24/1999 7:02:38 PM

sniff

1008. vonKreedon - 9/24/1999 7:03:05 PM

Wait a minute! How can there be two post number 1002?

1009. ee - 9/24/1999 7:04:19 PM

Do you know what caused the dark ages?

Y1K

1010. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 7:05:19 PM

Someone had better take the power to delete away from me immediately, or I will be sorely tempted to award myself a millenial run as a small token of my consummate respect and admirati....oh, never mind.

1011. ee - 9/24/1999 7:06:04 PM

Vonk: It happens when posts are simultaneous. Those 2 were 1 sec off I've had one exactly the same.

1012. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 7:09:08 PM

Anyone who wants a second shot, (don't hate me PP) Sports is almost at the millennial. :)

1013. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 7:09:43 PM

Seriously, Nostradamus, God bless you. Looking at the headlines on this evening's t.v. news, "Spiritual Issues" might be the most pressing topic of the hour.

1014. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 7:27:31 PM

Are you referring to the Kip Kinkel case, bloodnfire? I lived in Eugene for a year. Quite a tragedy. Still, I am deeply troubled by any society that condemns a 15 year old child to life in prison.

1015. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 7:33:35 PM

That and others Nostra. Suppose there is such a thing as 'Spiritual Sickness'. Suppose that treating it with Freudian Psychology 'adds gasoline to the fire' ? It would explain the present nightmare perhaps, do you think ? I agree with you that condemning a 15 year old to life in prison is tragic and disgraceful. It is an admission that we don't know what to do to heal the situation.
And we can't build penitentiaries fast enough to keep up.....Ha! Penitentiaries. That's a joke...A not funny joke.

1016. ee - 9/24/1999 7:37:29 PM

He hasn't been sentenced yet. I would think that life without parole is likely though.

Blood, How is the boy who was cutting himself doing?

1017. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 7:43:19 PM

I don't know this specific case well enough, although from what I can gather, this lad's parents were extremely demanding. He got expelled (it doesn't say why) and rather than face his parents' rejection and condemnation, he killed them. Having committed one set of murders, I would imagine he saw nothing to lose by killing the people at school who he felt had mistreated him in some way. It's very difficult to say whether this individual was born with a 'spiritual sickness' or if he just wasn't loved enough. I know it sounds corny, but I think that many of these problems would never appear if more parents loved and cared for their children properly. And I don't mean to speak ill of the dead. It's entirely conceivable that Kipp's parents were wonderful with him and he just had insurmountable biological mental problems.

1018. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 7:45:42 PM

ee

You'll have to forgive me, I don't watch the news regularly, who is the 'boy who was cutting himself?'

1019. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 7:46:13 PM

Sorry, never mind, I can see you were addressing bloodnfire.

1020. ee - 9/24/1999 7:47:25 PM

Biological mental problems or indwelt spiritual problems? Could they be the same thing? Could they be differant things?

1021. ee - 9/24/1999 7:52:27 PM

Bloodnfire had a young man in the residential facility where he works who was mutilating himself. He tried ministering to him and asked for advice in the old forum. He got crucified for his efforts there.

1022. ee - 9/24/1999 7:53:18 PM

Correct me if my memory is wrong Blood.

1023. SnowOwl - 9/24/1999 7:54:14 PM

Biological mental problems or indwelt spiritual problems? Could they be the same thing? Could they be differant things?

ee, this sort of thing makes me very angry. Are you saying that people develop mental problems because they have spiritual problems? Are physical illnesses also "indwelt spiritual problems"? If not, why would you assume that mental illness are?

1024. ee - 9/24/1999 7:56:48 PM

I am not saying that I believe that. I don't know. Just throwing some fuel on the fire :-)

1025. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 7:57:10 PM

ee

I'm sure that for a brain to develop properly, it requires lots of worthwhile stimulus. Clearly this young man's head is messed up. It's just a question of whether it was messed up from birth or became that way due to deficient nurturing.

Incidentally, folks, it is my hope that this place be quite warm and inviting and not require a doctoral degree in theology to wade through. You are, of course, more than welcome to carry on highly technical discussions of any matter of religion or spirituality that interests you. If you find yourself frustrated by what strikes you as an excessive amount of fluff in the main thread, I would be happy to ask wabbit to create a sub-thread for you where you can carry on your specific discussion uninterrupted by us 'normal' folks. :)

I don't intend to be quite as strict as bloodnfire with respect to profanity, but my patience is not infinite and I would encourage you to take it to the playpen if you require more than one post in which to vent your anger/frustration/disapproval/bickering.

1026. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 8:01:15 PM

SnowOwl

I'm sorry, I'm not quite sure I understand your anger at ee's comment. Could you clarify your objection for me? It seems to me that if a child is psychologically and physically abused by his parents (for instance) that such an upbringing might well result in some sort of chemical imbalance in his brain.

1027. SnowOwl - 9/24/1999 8:03:44 PM

Well, you've certainly fueled my fire, ee. I suggest you go read up a bit on mental illness before you start speculating like that. The major mental illness are considered to be genetic in origin. I understand that Christians are quite happy with the idea of the sins of the father being visited on future generations, so to speak, but quite frankly that disgusts me. Do you think that conditions such as Downs Syndrome might also be a sign of "indwelt spiritual problems"? If not, you should not even consider the possibility that biological mental problems are indicative of such a thing.

1028. ChristinO - 9/24/1999 8:06:31 PM

N'damus,

I think it was the implication that lack of religious instruction causes mental illness although I don't think that was exactly what ee meant to imply.

1029. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 8:11:49 PM

Hi Christin, welcome. Thanks.

1030. ee - 9/24/1999 8:11:58 PM

I can understand why you are offended. Looking at it from another perspective it seems idiotic. Do you understand the perspective I was looking at when I posed the question? I apologize if I upset you.

1031. ee - 9/24/1999 8:14:29 PM

I was thinking of the force of evil in the world.Pure evil, left unchecked and alowed to overwelm a troubled lost young person

1032. ee - 9/24/1999 8:15:12 PM

I have to go now, be back later.

1033. SnowOwl - 9/24/1999 8:22:27 PM

Nostradamus, re #1026 I really have no idea. I know that the sort of parenting you describe can damage children to the extent that their heads become messed up, but whether that's the result of triggering some chemical imbalance or whether it's something else I simply don't know.

ee, if I misundertood you I'm sorry, but it seemed to me that you were suggesting that the people who suffered from mental illness might, in fact, be suffering from some sort of spiritual malaise which manifested itself in the form of their mental illness. That's something I totally reject.

1034. ChristinO - 9/24/1999 8:25:20 PM

ee,

To the extent that there are ways to help people with biological disorders I can agree with you. Clinical depression, bi-polar disorder and schizophrenia all have a marked tendency to begin manifesting during puberty. Because this is a traumatic time for most teens even if they are developing normally true abnormalities can often go unrecognized. Untreated these illnesses can ruin lives.

Do I believe that any of this is the result of "evil"? No. Absolutely not.

1035. SnowOwl - 9/24/1999 8:30:00 PM

Christin,

Thanks. I get angry at the misconceptions about mental illness because it's something very close to home for me. One of my daughters has severe, treatment-resistant manic depression. She's been in hospital for over a year with her latest episode of serious depression
and my patience tends to wear a little thin when talking to people who really have no knowlede of the causes of these illnesses.

1036. ChristinO - 9/24/1999 8:30:36 PM

What concerns me in this instance is that Kinkle had a reputation with his peers for torturing animals. While not a rock-hard guarantee that the person will move on to people it is certainly a red flag.

This doesn't happen all at once. This means either his parents knew and did not seek help for the boy or they did not know which leads me to believe they were neglectful.

It also makes me wonder about abuse.

1037. ChristinO - 9/24/1999 8:35:50 PM

SnowOwl,

Yes, I do understand. There is a history of depressive disorders on both sides of my family tree that has only been opened as a topic for discussion in the last couple of years and even then it isn't talked about enough. Had there been more understanding, less shame, more talk and less denial our family would have been much better off.

1038. SnowOwl - 9/24/1999 8:44:58 PM

Christin,

That's of course one of the problems in dealing with this sort of thing. Too much has been kept hidden, out of shame or fear or a combination of both. Even now, as far as we are aware there's no history of manic-depression in either my husband's family or my own, although we both know of relatives who were not talked about openly. If they had been, it might have helped with my daughter's diagnosis.

One of the very few good things that's come out of my daughter's illness is that we've met a number of wonderful people and have come to learn just how "normal" most of the mentally ill really are. It's actually been a learning experience I would have happily gone without but I hope as a result of our experiences I'm a little more sensitive to others these days.

1039. CalGal - 9/24/1999 8:55:14 PM

Nostradamus,

Could you do me a favor? If you are interested in the Bible Gateway link for this thread, could you move it in here? Over this weekend, I will be changing the way the front page is formatted--it was designed before we had the ability to provide thread links. Most of the links there will be disappearing.

I realize this isn't a Christian thread per se, but it's apparently a good Bible reference. If you decide you don't want it, it will be going away. Please email me if you need help creating thread links, or post in Tech or Toys.

1040. ChristinO - 9/24/1999 9:04:52 PM

I'd like to not that it's an excellent link for citing chapter and verse from several different translations of the Bible. You can actually do a search on key words which is great for those of us who never can remember if they read it in the Bible or learned it on Captain Kangaroo.

1041. ChristinO - 9/24/1999 9:05:18 PM

note note note note

1042. CalGal - 9/24/1999 9:50:00 PM

Dan,

The difficulty is that the level of giving over of one's will required by the view of spirituality often advocated here and elsewhere often leads one over the edge and into horrifying acts.

In general, it only leads those who are capable of the acts in the first place. While I do think it is possible for societal norms to be set radically askew, you will generally find a psychopath at the root of such a situation (Hitler, Pol Pot, etc.).

Far too much is blamed on religion. It's just one method, not the cause itself. If it is one of the more popular methods, consider that the fault of people themselves, who are more prone to be drawn to spiritual solutions that offer certainty.

1043. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 9:59:23 PM

CalGal

My first official function as host has been executed as per your request.

1044. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 10:01:17 PM

Incidentally, if anyone else has any links they'd like to suggest for inclusion in the butterscotch bar, let me know @ motenost@yahoo.com or just post them here and absent any objection I'll include them.

1045. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 10:04:02 PM

SnowOwl

I'm very sorry to hear about your daughter. I've had loved ones who struggled with depression and I know what a painful ordeal that can be for everyone concerned. I apologize if I acted insensitively.

1046. CalGal - 9/24/1999 10:05:58 PM

Kip Kinkle: This defense story is utter, um, hogwash. (nod to thread standards.)

Kinkle's parents were actively involved with him. They weren't perfectionists; they realized early on that there was something seriously wrong with their child. They had him in therapy, they agonized long and hard about his obsession with guns. They weren't obsessed with making him perfect, they weren't demanding. They were struggling with a kid who really wasn't quite human anymore.

The kid was broken inside. Not mentally ill, not schizophrenic, not manic. Something early on went awry. The best thing to do with these people is figure out a way to identify them early, because anything that can be done to minimize their disability is done in the first 6 months.

If Kip Kinkle's case proves anything, it proves that it doesn't matter whether these broken kids have actively involved, concerned parents or the more average "hi, honey, did do your homework? that's nice, I'm off to the gym." sort of suburban teen supervisors that work very nicely for most kids.

Why the Young Kill, a Newsweek article that explains this as well as I've ever seen it covered.

1047. CalGal - 9/24/1999 10:09:58 PM

Nos,

You can also put your email adddress in a link. This will be done by the system later (the software is nearly complete), but the tag looks like this:

a href="mailto:motenost@yahoo.com"

Then you can create the title--email the host, or something.

It doesn't work for everyone (if you don't have your default email set, for example), but for enough that it's an efficient way of getting the info out.

1048. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 10:26:07 PM

EE. Thanks for remembering 'the boy who used to cut himself'. I say 'used to' because he's been with us for three months now, and he hasn't cut himself once. He struggled to settle in for the first six weeks, then, in late August, he seemed to start blooming. Now he is fast becoming one of the School's leaders. One of the things we have discovered is that he is an excellent worker. The first time we discovered that was on a 'Car Wash', where the students earn money to help pay their restitution. He so impressed the supervisors who
were with him, that they publicly praised him that evening, and something seemed to 'take hold' (or someOne :-). Anyway, he's doing fine, and we are very proud of him. Thanks again for asking.
Incidently, his family appear to love him very much. It's one thing to be loved, it's sometimes another thing to feel loved.
His relationship with his family is being strengthened tremendously too. For many of the kids, it's the first time (during visitation) that they really have 'eye to eye and heart to heart' talks with their folks.

1049. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 10:27:11 PM

CalGal

Did I set it up my email link wrong or are you saying that it's not supposed to work yet?

Thank-you for that article, interesting reading.

1050. phillipdavid - 9/24/1999 10:30:42 PM

Nostradamus,

A couple links to consider are:

• The Blue Letter Bible.
• Christian Classics Ethereal Library.
• Catholic Website.
• The Orthodox Tradition.
• Gnosis Archive.
• The Noble Eightfold Path.

1051. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 10:34:46 PM

bloodnfire

It's wonderful to hear that your organization has had such a positive influence on this young man. I, too, have had to contend with just such a behavioral issue in a loved one. It's quite maddening, almost like watching a loved one play Russian Roulette.

1052. CalGal - 9/24/1999 10:35:09 PM

Nos--wow, I could have sworn that wasn't there when I posted. No, good show. BTW, feel free to delete these posts if they clutter.

1053. Nostradamus - 9/24/1999 10:37:20 PM

phillipdavid

Thank-you. I'll have those up in a jiffy.

1054. phillipdavid - 9/24/1999 10:48:35 PM

This one probably isn't worthy of being an official link, but it's worth checking out if you have free time: Nazarene Nirvana.

1055. bloodnfire - 9/24/1999 10:51:57 PM

CalGal. I also appreciate your link to the Newsweek article. The author writes.." Instead, the picture is more nuanced, based as it is on the discovery that experience rewires the brain. The dawning realization of the constant back-and-forth between nature and nurture has resurrected the search for the biological roots of violence.

I suppose that phrase 'experience rewires the brain' is a biologist's
explanation for that which I would call 'spiritual sickness'. The spirit, attitude, emotions of the individual become crippled, and pressure builds. In your #1046 you state that..."The kid was broken inside." It seems to me that most delinquent kids are 'broken inside' to varying degrees. Would you agree ? The question is, how to repair the damage ?
My experience is that love, applied liberally, understanding, compassion and attention works wonders. Along with the encouragement not to look back at the past, but to assume responsibility now, today, for all areas of our lives.

1056. phillipdavid - 9/24/1999 10:58:53 PM

bloodnfire,

"My experience is that love, applied liberally, understanding,
compassion and attention works wonders."

A few more: structure and integrity.

1057. CalGal - 9/24/1999 11:46:37 PM

It seems to me that most delinquent kids are 'broken inside' to varying degrees.

No, there is a difference between wounded and broken, IMO. (and consider these two terms shorthand, rather than official diagnoses.)

Delinquent kids are caused by a variety of factors--many times abusive parents, but not always. And while some delinquent kids may be "broken", there is only a correlation, not a causality. In fact, many kids who were abused and some kids who are "broken" might not have any history of delinquency.

When you speak of children who have been severely wounded by abusive parents, then I do think love, structure, integrity, and support can work wonders. You can call the recovery spiritual, emotional...whatever.

But the kids that are under discussion here--no, I don't think they can be.

1058. msgreer - 9/25/1999 12:11:03 AM

SnowOwl

You show so much love and compassion for the ones with mental illness. You are right about the stigma. It keeps alot of people
in the closet" and that is not a good place to be.

Only an extremely sentive and insightful person could write as you havd. Thank you for your post. Thank you very much.

1059. Moneo - 9/25/1999 12:14:06 AM

Hi.

I think that in modern times the classification of psychological disorders is a process that pays more attention to appearances than truth. We now say that conditions are actually diseases, and patterns of behavior are symptomatic of diseases instead of causes of conditions. Perhaps some are, but to my way of thinking, it all depends on what you want to accomplish when you define the behavior. If you are a psychiatrist who wants a more credible occupation, or a patient who would like to distance themselves from the cause of their problems, you label psychological abnormalities as treatable diseases. If you are a social engineer you label them, at best, as treatable symptoms (not curable diseases) and sometimes as undesirable conditions which it's best to lock away. Surely sometimes a psychological condition is akin to an autoimmune disorder. Other times it is surely the result of maladaptive behavior. The fine lines drawn today between disorders, maladaptive behaviors, and diagnosable conditions are clearly arbitrary, and symptom-oriented rather than cause-oriented.

I don't like the notion of applied religion as a cure for being 'broken'. It seems like a surface dressing for an impaling wound. Everybody responds to love. Some just treat it as a resource to be exploited and not a gift to be cherished and spread. And the idea that love is the cure for dysfunctional minds is certainly suspect (for one, if you think that's so, you've never met my nephew) and when it's tied to evangelism I find it only a convenient excuse to spread the faith, not a means of 'curing' the 'broken'.

1060. CalGal - 9/25/1999 12:17:53 AM

The fine lines drawn today between disorders, maladaptive behaviors, and diagnosable conditions are clearly arbitrary, and symptom-oriented rather than cause-oriented.

Oh, absolutely. Aggravates me to no end.

Nice post. And "hi" back.

1061. ee - 9/25/1999 12:21:33 AM

Bloodnfire: Hearing of that young mans progress sent a shiver of joy up my spine. It's good to hear of recovery and I hope good things for him. It seems to me that his improvement started about the time that you were doing a lot of work with him and giving him a lot of love. What a coincidence;-)

1062. Moneo - 9/25/1999 12:22:15 AM

If a person staggers through the desert for a few days, becoming severely dehydrated, sunburned, and a little delusional, if you find them and give them a pitcher of iced wine they will want to drink it all down as fast as they can. They will guzzle it and seem a bit restored. But if they drink too much of it they will become ill. It doesn't mean that a pitcher of iced wine can't be a lovely thing, or that it is a horrible thing. It just means that someone who is very thirsty and not thinking clearly will want to drink too much of it at first, and suffer ill effects later.

If you'll let me apologize for the horrid analogy, the same is true with religious conversion and people who feel that their lives are empty and meaningless.

1063. msgreer - 9/25/1999 12:24:09 AM

havd=have

1064. Moneo - 9/25/1999 12:26:07 AM

Hi, CalGal. I'm new here.

1065. ee - 9/25/1999 12:28:38 AM

Moneo: Interesting analogy it reminds me of the parable of the sower Luke 6. Welcome to the Mote.

1066. CalGal - 9/25/1999 12:32:43 AM

Yes, I figured. The "hi" was a dead giveaway. Seriously, welcome!

If you'll let me apologize for the horrid analogy, the same is true with religious conversion and people who feel that their lives are empty and meaningless.

My standard argument is that anything that people fiercely lock onto as the answer to everything meets that analogy. I think religion is just a popular antidote. But it doesn't cause the behavior or the loss of self, or the total devotion to the cause, or...whatever else the standard complaint is.

In other words, religion isn't responsible for the desire for answers and certainty.

1067. Moneo - 9/25/1999 12:35:05 AM

ee:

Yes. I think Jesus might have had a similar idea at the time. In fact, I think that's one of the reasons people say he used parables -- the message is a means, in itself, of making sure that it is transmitted only to the people who are ready to hear it.

1068. Moneo - 9/25/1999 12:43:13 AM

CalGal:

Well, maybe. I think that religions prosper if they get people to do the things you talk about. It's the old question of whether people kill people, or guns kill people. People must pick up the gun and shoot someone with it, but they wouldn't be able to do that if there weren't people who made guns and found uses for them.

Naturally, the discussion focuses on the negative aspect of behavior, and not the positive aspect. People can use a gun to hunt for sustenance. People can use religion to answer their questions and make their lives happier. I am not a believer, and I remember being a lot happier when I was young enough to believe without having the questions which led me away from belief. I'm a questioner and so religion doesn't work well for me.

1069. CalGal - 9/25/1999 12:57:38 AM

I think that religions prosper if they get people to do the things you talk about.

Religions prosper when they meet the needs of a substantial group of people. If a religion that offers certainty answers the needs of a large group of people, then how can you blame the religion?

I notice many people blame religion as if it is a "thing". Like a gun. A religion is a system of beliefs. Anything beyond that is done by the people who accept the beliefs. And it's not the leaders--they wouldn't have power if people didn't give it to them.

So I disagree that the guns analogy holds up. Although, to be fair, I am a subscriber to the "people kill people" theory in many things, including gun control discussions.

I don't see a correlation between questioners and agnosticism/atheism. Religion/spirituality has to do with desire for certainty at some level. Most atheists have a desire for certainty--that's why they say "There is no God". And many spiritual people don't have a driving need for certainty--just a solid feeling of comfort with a belief system that includes a higher power.

The only population that has no real desire for some level of certainty are agnostics. Who may or may not question.

1070. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 1:16:12 AM

Welcome, Moneo, your first post was most impressive. Thank you for joining us.

1071. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 1:27:29 AM

This atheist has very little desire for certainty, I'm glad that CalGal hedged a bit with the 'most' qualifier. As I've said here before, I haven't the foggiest idea about the 'true' nature of reality. But I have 5 senses and a somewhat rational mind, and I intend to follow them wherever they lead, right or wrong. And to me, sticking a deity into the equation just because my even more primitive ancestors invented one to explain to themselves how everything works just doesn't make sense.

That being said, I am mindful of my role as host and will endeavor to keep my pro-atheist bias to a minimum.

1072. CalGal - 9/25/1999 1:47:56 AM

Nos,

Perhaps we are disagreeing on definitions. I think Bertran Russell's definitions work best.

Are agnostics atheists?

No. An atheist, like a Christian, holds that we can know whether or not there is a God. The Christian holds that that can know there is a God; the atheist, that we can know there is not. The agnostic suspends judgement, saying that there are not sufficient grounds either for affirmation or for denial. At the same time, an agnostic may hold that the existence of God, though not impossible, is very improbable; he may hold it is so improbable that it is not worth considering in practice. In that case, he is not far removed from atheism.

As you can see, an atheist is certain there is no god. An agnostic's beliefs can be placed on a spectrum. In a practical, operational sense there is no real difference between an agnostic and an atheist. As a belief system, there is a huge difference between "There is no god" and "I have no idea whether there is a god or not".

It seems intuitively obvious when comparing the two beliefs that an atheist has a need for certainty that the agnostic does not.

Most atheists I know think that distinctions between agnostics and atheists are absurd and a waste of time. You will rarely if ever find an agnostic who thinks so--the difference to them is very clear.

The atheist's need for certainty does not have to be a spiritual need, although I suspect it often is. But the difference between an agnostic and an atheist may also be one of personality.

1073. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 2:27:30 AM

CalGal

I suppose by your definition, there are virtually no atheists. I don't know how anybody could say that the possibility of a higher power existing is exactly nil. But I don't think that's a particularly useful definition, or a commonly accepted one.

I just looked up atheist in Webster's online. It says one who denies the existence of God. Therefore, I am an atheist.

Agnostic has 2 definitions, one of which fits me.

Definition #1 (which fits): a person who holds the view that any ultimate reality (as God) is unknown and prob. unknowable.

Definition #2 (which I think most people think of when they hear the term agnostic, and which doesn't fit): one who is not committed to believing in either the existence or the nonexistence of God or a god

But since you made the initial statement, I will allow you to define the terms as you intended them. I'm curious, by your definition, do people who 'believe in God' but would concede that there is an infinitesimally small possibility that God doesn't exist also qualify as agnostics?

1074. CalGal - 9/25/1999 2:58:07 AM

But I don't think that's a particularly useful definition, or a commonly accepted one.

Hmm. Both Bertrand Russell and the dictionary provide the same definition, and you don't think it's a useful or common definition? I believe it is. As I said, atheists don't think the distinction has purpose--but that there is a distinction made is undeniable.

You don't know atheists who say there is no God--and yet you deny the existence of God?

I don't know how anybody could say that the possibility of a higher power existing is exactly nil.

People do all the time. It is no different than saying that there is a God, after all. But if you want a reasonably large group of anybodies:

American Atheists test.

God is a myth. Humanity's future is in its own hands.

When a person dies, his/her life is over forever. Only ideas can survive.

Sounds like certainty to me. Now, I grant you, this is just a test from a propaganda site, and not a very good one at that. But you didn't set a high burden of proof when you said "But I don't think that's a particularly useful definition, or a commonly accepted one. "

1075. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 2:58:51 AM

CalGal

I think Russell called himself an agnostic rather than an atheist because the former tends to be regarded as a far more acceptable state of mind (particularly in 1953). You'll also notice the gratuitous pot-shot at the Soviet Union (this being written in the midst of the Red Scare/McCarthyism). However, everything else that he said rang true to me and if you wish to embrace his definition, far be it from me to try to convince you otherwise.

1076. CalGal - 9/25/1999 3:07:15 AM

I think Russell is wrong about one thing. Neither Christians or atheists can know there is a God.

I think there are many people who understand that the existence of God can't be completely denied--but that is their logical mind speaking. As far as their beliefs go, they believe without question that there is no God. This is similar to the quandary of scientists who believe in God.

But I don't think this gives any atheist an "out" into agnosticism. Just because an atheist says it can't be known doesn't mean that he or she doesn't believe with a faith equal to that of a Christian's that there is no God.

Atheism is nothing more than a belief structure that provides certainty without God. It says, there is no God. Be certain. Live that way.

This is fundamentally different from an agnostic, and indicates a far greater need for certainty.

As for your own beliefs, I can't see how you can both deny the existence of God and also hold either of the two agnostic beliefs. You either say there is no God or you do not.

I'm curious, by your definition, do people who 'believe in God' but would concede that there is an infinitesimally small possibility that God doesn't exist also qualify as agnostics?

No. If you believe in God, you're not an agnostic. If you deny the existence of God, you're not an agnostic.

I think the debate between atheists and agnostics is a form of the the debate between evangelical Christians and the Theism that we call Christianity here in the States. Both evangelical Christians and Theist/Christians call themselves Christians, and both believe the other is not practicing the real thing.

Atheists want to subsume agnostics and deny any difference.

But in both cases, the issue is over what is the real belief system.

1077. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 3:13:31 AM

CalGal

And I would also be comfortable making the statements: 'God is a myth. Humanity's future is in its own hands. When a person dies, his/her life is over forever. Only ideas can survive.

But because I wish to add the following statement: There is an infinitesimally small (but metaphysically significant) possibility that I am wrong, you want to call me an agnostic. That's okay. I'm an agnostic atheist, how's that?

And incidentally, it wasn't Russell's definition of agnostic that troubled me, but his definition of atheist, which certainly doesn't jive with the Webster's version.

Anyhow, I hope there's enough room, given the flexibility of our language, for you to call yourself an agnostic and me to call myself an atheist, even though our 'spiritual worldview' is very similar.

1078. CalGal - 9/25/1999 3:17:04 AM

Nos,

?????

I am unsure what we are discussing. If you wish to deny that there is a difference between agnosticism and atheism, then it's not me who is going against conventional standards, but you.

If, on the other hand, you feel that it is somehow a put down to be told that atheists have a similar need for certainty that Christians do, well, stand in line. Atheists rarely like hearing that. Alas, they operate at a real disadvantage in this debate, since the entire premise of their belief system--as validated by any definition you'll ever find--is certainty.

This puts them at a serious disadvantage in any conversation with an agnostic, who generally sees no real difference between religions and atheism.

Caveat: Some agnostics may approve of atheism more, because they think that atheism is less likely to do harm than religion. But that belief--which is wrong--stems from the tendency to attribute harm to religion, rather than the people who adhere to the belief system. The only thing stopping atheists from trying to rule the world is that they aren't a very successful religion.

But most agnostics will say, as I do, that atheism is just religion without God.

1079. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 3:20:43 AM

I'll let you have the last word on the subject. Thank-you CalGal. Good-night.

1080. CalGal - 9/25/1999 3:20:45 AM

Ack--add to my previous post:

"Most agnostics, whether they prefer atheists to certain religions, will agree..." etc.

Next set of responses:

But because I wish to add the following statement: There is an infinitesimally small (but metaphysically significant) possibility that I am wrong, you want to call me an agnostic. That's okay. I'm an agnostic atheist, how's that?

?????

I have no desire to call you an agnostic. None. You are most assuredly an atheist. If for no other reason than you don't see the difference. I covered your "infinitesimally small" issue in #1076.

, I hope there's enough room, given the flexibility of our language, for you to call yourself an agnostic and me to call myself an atheist, even though our 'spiritual worldview' is very similar.

Oh, but that's what we disagree on. Our spiritual world view is very different.

1081. pellenilsson - 9/25/1999 3:23:19 AM

Welcome as host Nostradamus. I'll try to be a little more active in two weeks or so.

As to the atheist question. I think we must distinguish between a god and a God. It is indeed impossible to prove or disprove that a creator god exists. But the step from that to the Christian God as described in the Bible is very big and not one I am prepared to take.

I promised yesterday a few lines on the atheist-Christian debate.

First my apologies to ChristiPeters. I wrote that it is difficult to keep religion out of a discussion like this. Christi correctly pointed out that religion is important in many people's spiritual life. What I meant to refer to was discussions about religion as such, for example atheists criticising the basic tenets of Christianity. And such criticism and the futility of the ensuing debates are the real subjects of this post.

What we atheists have to realise is that believers do not arrive at their faith through a logical act. They don't sit down at the kitchen table with a legal pad and list "pros and cons of believing" and take a decision based on that. How the thing happens is not important for this discussion, but it is not the result of some kind of utilitarian calculation.

Faith is not based on logic; it transcends logic.

1082. pellenilsson - 9/25/1999 3:24:12 AM

Atheists question Christianity on logical grounds. They point to contradictions such as the existence of evil although God is all good and all powerful. The believer finds such arguments shallow. He intuitively knows that there is a deeper truth. He does not know that truth, but he is seeking for it. That is why people try to strip themselves of desires, chastise their bodies, spend hours in meditation and prayers to be allowed a glimpse of the truth, to become enlightened, to be in communion with God, if only for a fleeting moment. An that, I think, is the believer's vision of Heaven: to be in communion with God.

Because the atheist attacks on the logic play ground, the believer feels he must fight back there. But because faith transcends logic he must fail. Even the most famous Christian logician, Thomas ab Aquino, failed. And the believer makes the mistake of quoting the Bible at me without comprehending that I reject the premise that the bible has anything to do with a god. It is as if I would quote Darwin at a convinced creationist or Marx at a libertarian.

And that is where communication breaks down: at the barrier between logic and transcendence.

1083. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 3:29:48 AM

Well, there you have it folks. I've linked the Russell article on the sidebar. I'd be very curious whether you think he is an atheist or an agnostic, or if it's possible to be both. And if you think this is a silly waste of time arguing over semantics, let us know that, too.

1084. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 3:30:45 AM

Oops, hi Pelle, didn't see ya. Welcome.

1085. Nostradamus - 9/25/1999 3:39:11 AM

Pelle

I couldn't agree with you more about the futility of many of the atheist-Christian debates. We speak different languages and have different underlying assumptions. But it's naive to expect that these debates will end (not that I'm suggesting that you expect them to end) and as much as I'd like to see us devote our energy to more fertile territory, we always seem to return to that fundamental battleground.

Unfortunately, you've arrived just as I was leaving, although I'm sure you're used to that by now. Good-night Pelle.

1086. CalGal - 9/25/1999 3:42:38 AM

Nos,

I said, earlier:

In a practical, operational sense there is no real difference between an agnostic and an atheist.

If you notice, Russell makes no distinction between an atheist and an agnostic after the first question. Why? Because in answers to the specific questions he asked, there is no difference. Atheists and agnostics would answer all those questions the same way.

The difference is in the belief system.

So does that mean there is no difference between the two? After all, if they act the same way, why is there a need for distinguishing them?

Well, consider that there is very little difference in how a non-evangelical Christian would answer the questions Russell asks, either. And yet there is a difference in the belief system there as well.

Operationally, many belief systems can lead to the same actions. That is irrelevant when assessing the difference between the belief systems.

1087. Angel-Five - 9/25/1999 3:47:46 AM

Pelle:

Those two posts, while they've been (in essence) made many times throughout this community's existence, are nonetheless of an excellent quality. My hat is off.

Nevertheless, I have encountered several ex-theists who claim that they lost their faith because it could no longer sufficiently answer their logical questions, and there are atheists who become converted by religious appeals, so there has to be some viable middle ground for the form of communicaion which you eschew. I am tempted to agree with your notions, so long as you qualify them to reflect the fact that logic can in some instances sway believers and faith can in some instances sway unbelievers.

1088. pellenilsson - 9/25/1999 3:56:10 AM

Angel

Thank you.

logic can in some instances sway believers and faith can in some
instances sway unbelievers.

No doubt you are right. My post was in the context of those on-line discussions we have had so many of. I have never seen anyone give an inch or to admit that "there may be something in what you say".

1089. KuligintheHooligan - 9/25/1999 4:34:50 AM

Sky, your #936, an excellent question:

"Who decides which denominations teachings is a distortion of biblical Christianity? Are the Quakers a distorted teaching? Baptists? Catholics?"

In my class, I go through a sort of "debate" on what constitutes "essentials" versus "non-essentials" of the Christian faith. Now then, if we were all a bunch of "fundamentalists" this would be a major task, but since we are "evangelicals," the task is really rather simple. For example, ALL three main branches of Christianity (Protestant, Orthodox, Catholic) adhere to the proclamations of the first four ecumenical councils (Nicaea, Constantinople, Ephesus and Chalcedon) concerning the person of Jesus: fully God, fully man, one person, two natures. To deny these proclamations is to deny historic Christianity in its most basic form.

And as we see, groups like the Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unification Church, and so on, do just this. They deny the deity of Jesus.

Just keep in mind too, Sky, that those definitions I gave were working definitions. We flesh out much more in the class times what is meant by them, like the 10 general characteristics of cults I provided earlier.

1090. Angel-Five - 9/25/1999 5:12:19 AM

The obvious answer to the 'who decides' question is 'whoever wants to'. Most believers have a guess as to what's right and what's wrong. Some of them dogmatize that guess. But the bottom line is that every believer makes their own decision as to what is legitimate and what is not, and every believer's guess is equally unfounded. It doesn't matter how much reasoning is poured into the guess, for it starts with a premise that is absolutely unknowable.

I would allow that in some circumstances you can differentiate between believability of certain creeds, based upon the degree of leaps of faith necessary to arrive at the creed. For instance, though in absolute essence the beliefs 'there is a god' and 'there is a god named Scooter and his purview is grilled foods and bungalows' are equally unknowable, pragmatically speaking we can assign one a lower likelihood due to the additional leaps necessary to accept it as true.

The problem is that in most Christian sects, for example, the believers tend to hold their core beliefs as inviolable and obvious and the core beliefs of other sects as at best misguided and at worst heresy or Satanism. And people are therefore less likely to differentiate fairly between their belief systems and those of others based on this pragmatic yardstick. Their gut knowing of right and wrong for them trumps the logical realization that their own premises are as unproven as anyone else's, and they therefore abuse the logic.

1091. Angel-Five - 9/25/1999 5:23:03 AM

Pelle:

The problem with examining a Religion thread in an OL forum is that it is not a fair sample of believers. It is instead a self-selected sampl