There aren't that many places in the Bible where the Lord's own words are quoted verbatim. One would suspect that such words, where they appear, would carry the greatest possible weight. Moreover, where the Lord makes commands, one might be expected to obey. Muy pronto, if you get my drift.

Yet, the bulk of the books of Moses are made up of such commands and in spite of the fact that these commands are very clear, it is hard for me to understand how they affect how a Christian pays duty to God.

For example, in Leviticus 2 GOD says directly to Moses:

1 And when any will offer a meat offering unto the LORD, his offering shall be of fine flour; and he shall pour oil upon it, and put frankincense thereon. 2 And he shall bring it to Aaron's sons the priests: and he shall take thereout his handful of the flour thereof, and of the oil thereof, with all the frankincense thereof; and the priest shall burn the memorial of it upon the altar, to be an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD: 3 and the remnant of the meat offering shall be Aaron's and his sons': it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire. 4 And if thou bring an oblation of a meat offering baked in the oven, it shall be unleavened cakes of fine flour mingled with oil, or unleavened wafers anointed with oil. 5 And if thy oblation be a meat offering baked in a pan, it shall be of fine flour unleavened, mingled with oil. 6 Thou shalt part it in pieces, and pour oil thereon: it is a meat offering. 7 And if thy oblation be a meat offering baked in the frying pan, it shall be made of fine flour with oil. 8 And thou shalt bring the meat offering that is made of these things unto the LORD: and when it is presented unto the priest, he shall bring it unto the altar.

9 And the priest shall take from the meat offering a memorial thereof, and shall burn it upon the altar: it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savor unto the LORD. 10 And that which is left of the meat offering shall be Aaron's and his sons': it is a thing most holy of the offerings of the LORD made by fire. 11 No meat offering, which ye shall bring unto the LORD, shall be made with leaven: for ye shall burn no leaven, nor any honey, in any offering of the LORD made by fire. 12 As for the oblation of the firstfruits, ye shall offer them unto the LORD: but they shall not be burnt on the altar for a sweet savor. 13 And every oblation of thy meat offering shalt thou season with salt; neither shalt thou suffer the salt of the covenant of thy God to be lacking from thy meat offering: with all thine offerings thou shalt offer salt.

...and so on.

Now, some of the things NOT to do are fairly simple not to do, such as not burning any honey or leaven in an offering to the Lord. I don't think many Christians have much trouble complying with these sorts of prohibitions (although the shellfish prohibitions seem much harder).

My questions are:

How many of these commands should still be considered as positive injunctions laid upon Christians directly from the mouth of God?

Did the "new covenant" of Christ and the New Testament absolve Christians from all of the restrictions, injunctions and commands laid upon the Jews by God (through Moses and the prophets)?

If not all, then how can a Christian know with certainty which ones are still in force and which are not?

And if there is no certain method for knowing which are required and which are not, how can a Christian safeguard his soul from God's wrath, other than observing all of the Mosaic law (and rather becoming a Levite in the process)?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 10, 2001

Answers

A gentle nudge into Recent Answers - so I won't have to wait days for a reply.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 10, 2001.

Aaron and his sons had a good deal going for them!

-- Dan Newsome (BOONSTAR1@webnet.tv), April 10, 2001.

we as [gentile] beleivers are not UNDER mosaic-law. all the ceremonies we're signs=pointing to coming of MESSIAH. chill in grace and walk in love=end of law.

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), April 10, 2001.

Well it makes as much sense as Lars's thread about the Universe being formed by two membranes running into each other...

-- (@ .), April 10, 2001.

"...chill in grace and walk in love=end of law."

al-d, so where does that leave the 10 commandments? They are part of the Mosaic law, too, as far as I can see. Apparently they didn't make your cut.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 10, 2001.

>Did the "new covenant" of Christ and the New Testament absolve Christians from all of the restrictions, injunctions and commands laid upon the Jews by God (through Moses and the prophets)?

Yes. There are only two commands: Love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself.

Next question, please.

-- (anothertroll@para.loaf), April 10, 2001.

"There are only two commands: Love God with your whole heart and love your neighbor as yourself."

anothertroll, I am glad to hear it. Does this mean that Christians who cite Leviticus (or is it Dueteronomy? I forget) in order to damn homosexuals misunderstand God's intent?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 10, 2001.

Christians, like most other people, misunderstand God's intent quite often. Just my opinion, you would have to check with God himself to see if his intent was getting across.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), April 11, 2001.

Love God and Neighbor

By FATHER JOHN TRAN

In Sunday's Gospel, Jesus gives a twofold answer about the "great commandments." Jesus gives this answer by combining two quotations from the Hebrew Scriptures.

The first one is from the Book of Deuteronomy in the first reading: "You shall love the Lord, your God, with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength." The second is from the Book of Leviticus: "You shall love your neighbor as yourself."

In the first reading, at the end of the journey and just before the Israelites enter the Promised Land, Moses urges the people to be faithful to God. He reminds them of all the laws and regulations they must follow.

Fidelity to God's law will bring them reward, will bring them the divine blessings of long life, fruitfulness and fulfillment.

Within the Torah, there are more than 600 religious laws and regulations. Because of their great numbers one might get lost in keeping one and forgetting another. Even the most earnest person would fail sometimes to keep them all.

From the midst of these laws and ordinances, Jesus pointed out the greatest one to the one who asked him,"Which is the first of all the commandments?" To the man's surprise, Jesus went on to answer the unasked question: "The second is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' "

Later Jesus made this second commandment far more powerful: "Love one another as I have loved you." For Jesus, love of God and neighbor is not two separate commandments, indeed they are one. He himself joined them into one.

According to legend when St. John was a very old man, he consistently preached only one message: "Love God; love your neighbor." When some of his disciples asked him why he persisted in this message, he replied, "Because if we follow it, that will be sufficient."

Loving God and neighbor is the fulfillment of all the commandments. And if we keep this commandment of love, then the kingdom of God and all his blessings are already present in our lives.

-- (hope@this.helps), April 11, 2001.

That was a very nice homily. I enjoyed it. However, it fails to answer the important question about how a Christian can be certain that loving God and loving one's neighbor are "sufficient", as the homily asserts.

It cites Jesus as calling these the "first" and "second" in importance among God's commandments, but this does not preclude there being a third or fourth, or a 600th in importance. It further cites a "legend" about John the Baptist. But it doesn't say how a Christian can be sure that John said this or (more importantly) that God inspired John to say it.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 11, 2001.

lil nipper,the law was given to =point us to our need for a saviour [called a schoolmaster]GOD already knew we can,t/don,t/won,t keep the law perfectly.read the book of galation's-and get a clue as to why paul called them''oh foolish galations'' who has bewitched you!! ONLY CHRIST kept/keeps the law perfectly. do you understand the difference between=standing & state????? our standing[in salvation] is a done deal[by] CHRIST-------our state [walk] is another deal!!--------there's million's of moral--self satisfied folk's who ARE NOT SAVED!!

-- al-d (dogs@zianet.com), April 11, 2001.

"we can,t/don,t/won,t keep the law perfectly"

Hi, al-d! That's a pretty obvious conclusion to me, too. My questions have more to do with whether God expects us to even try to keep those commandments, or whether He has given up on getting any kind of obedience from us. After all, he drowned a lot of people (Noah) and fried a lot of others (Sodom & Gomorrah) who didn't obey. And, if teachings can be trusted, He still seems intent on damning some souls to eternal hellfire for various infractions.

So, if you value your eternal soul, it seems you had better be pretty sure you are keeping God's laws. Right? So, these laws seem to come and go and to be fairly unclear about what is required and what is optional.

If it all boils down to God's mercy, and we don't know how to get that, then it all starts to look like there is no point to paying attention to any of it, since it makes no difference to how God treats us in the long run.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 11, 2001.

Little Nipper, it's easy to argue over theology and nearly impossible to prove any of it. Don't worry about following this law or that one -- remember that there are many religions with many laws, not just the ones in the Bible -- most of the world religions emphasize common practices among their adherents in order to impose an order to their society. It's a stabilizing process WITHIN the religious group. (I know, I know, the Jihad, the Crusades, etc. Forced conversions are a human invention.)

Just do your best to be a humane person. You're gonna die some day, and there's no point in obsessing over what happens afterward. You'll find out. If there's nothing on the other side, if this is all there is, why spend any time worrying? Why not make this side heaven?

-- helen (not@theology.school), April 11, 2001.

"...nearly impossible to prove any of it"

I'm not asking for proof about, say, whether God exists. All I am asking for is some sense of what Chriastians believe ans why. My questions are confined to the contents of a book that many Christians accept as God's revealed word. I want to know how they make sense of it. Or if they even bother to try to make sense of their religion.

If you simply threw away the Bible and started over, you could easily come up with the same morality and object lessons from other literature, without the burden of believing in a revealed religion. But Christians believe otherwise. They believe that the Bible reveals God's laws, purposes and intent. It is purposeless to demand WHY they believe this.

What I am wondering about is how they reconcile the contradictions within their beliefs. IOW, how they can believe one thing at one moment and simultaneously believe another thing that makes no sense in light of the first belief.

Don't you ever wonder the same thing, whether or not you are Chriatian?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 11, 2001.

The precepts about loving God and loving your neighbor sound nice, but are left undefined. Once one realizes this, one is still left not knowing what to do in order to be a good Christian. This is one of many reasons why there are thousands of Christian denominations, sects and cults -- each with their own views on this.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 11, 2001.

I need help understanding God's word

You probably do. The best help you can get is by asking God to show you whatever it is you need to know.

I might mention that the Bible is words from God, but Jesus Christ is the living Word. Beware of those who think they're 'Christians' because they've memorized verses and chapters. A Christian should be motivated by a growing understanding of the principle of love demonstrated by God in Jesus Christ.

There's never been a better example in history of what love really is and what it can do than Jesus. And just as someone can come to understand a new principle in math, it's still possible 2000 years later to come to an understanding about love that changes your life and the lives of those you encounter.

-- Practicing the presence (in@the.present), April 12, 2001.

I'd say a complete reading of the new testament would be in order. Here is an excerp from the Acts of the apostles:

"10 He became hungry and wanted something to eat, and while the meal was being prepared, he fell into a trance. 11 He saw heaven opened and something like a large sheet being let down to earth by its four corners. 12 It contained all kinds of four-footed animals, as well as reptiles of the earth and birds of the air. 13 Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." 14 "Surely not, Lord!" Peter replied. "I have never eaten anything impure or unclean." 15 The voice spoke to him a second time, "Do not call anything impure that God has made clean." 16 This happened three times, and immediately the sheet was taken back to heaven."

Remember, the jews thought they could keep the law, Jesus pointed out that there was NO WAY they could...by pointing out that lustful thoughts were adultery, hating your brother is no dif than murder, etc etc etc.

Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it.

-- Pastor Biblethumper (pastorbiblethumper@hotmail.com), April 12, 2001.

Pastor,

Well, here's what I see as the essence of the question -- exactly what then, if anything, does the New Testament God expect us to be able to do, and to actually do, to gain Heaven?

We need SPECIFICS, please.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 12, 2001.

Pastor, thank you for your comments.

If I understand these things correctly, the Christian theory is that Jesus was God and Jesus chose the twelve apostles as his representatives on earth, so that a vision by one of the twelve apostles such as the one Peter had is accepted as having come straight from God - or at least an angel speaking on God's behalf. Since all this is at least internally consistant, then it is clear to me that a Christian is assured by the Bible that God specifically absolved Christians from the necessity of distinguishing between clean and unclean food. That knocks off a goodly chunk of the OT laws, but not all of them by any stretch.

"Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."

I hear this said and, as best I can make out it seems to mean something like this: that by being a "perfect" human, Jesus finally satisfied God's need to have humans follow his laws and once that need was satisfied God started to feel differently about the matter of sin.

But it also seems to say that the OT laws were never abolished, as such. Which strongly implies that any OT laws(such as the dietary laws) that have not been specifically rescinded by God (or by one of His prophets, apostles or angels) still hold good and must be obeyed.

So, what you seem to be saying is that God still fully expects everybody to strictly observe a somewhat abridged set of OT laws (please read the codicil and appendixes carefully, everyone) and yet God fully understands that He is demanding a level of compliance that can never be delivered (we are born in sin and sinners all).

In other words, God still enforces laws that are the equivalent of laws against breathing or blinking, knowing full well that they are impossible to follow. Then God turns around and gives everyone a big Get Out of Jail Free card in His celestial Monopoly game - by saying that all you have to do is "believe in Christ" and even though you are a notorious lawbreaker, you don't have to pay any price for your crimes. Instead, it is as if they never happened.

This new sort of law creates a system with two very different sorts of people and ONLY TWO SORTS. You are either saved or damned. Period. Eternal bliss or eternal suffering. No in between. And eternal damnation is meted out for what crimes? Essentially, for blinking and breathing - and for not being shrewd enough to call on Jesus' name to get you out of jail when God busts your ass for blinking and breathing.

Except most Christians don't really seem to believe it all that simple. Many of them insist that crimes mean something to God - that there are sins and then again there are SINS, if you know what I mean. They seem serenely confident that you can't always get of jail free just by calling on Jesus to save your sorry ass when judgement comes.

How does that work?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 12, 2001.

"Then a voice told him, "Get up, Peter. Kill and eat." "

Well, that certainly does it for me. Garcon!! A round of T-bones and rib-eyes for everyone!!

Deano

-- Deano (deano@luvthebeach.com), April 12, 2001.

Little Nipper, first ask yourself why developing a personal religious dogma matters to you. Then ask yourself why you are drawn toward or repelled by a certain form of religion. What do you want out of it? What are you hoping to gain from it?

-- helen (floating@serenity.edge), April 12, 2001.

Helen:

Just my opinion here, but I don't think LN is really looking for a religion. IMO, he's trying to make sense out of something that makes no sense. I'm not a Christian, but I've read the Bible twice, as well as the Koran, the Torah, and the books that inspire other religions. The basic tenets are the same in all religions, and, yeah...it's the stuff that make societies function.

My dad used to comment on the ability of the mafioso in Chicago to execute people ONE day and then go to confession the next and be absolved of all sin. I see LN's questions in the same vein. If one can be absolved by simply accepting JC as one's savior, why not just kill, steal, etc. and in one's dying breath do the "I accept!"? There's no logic to folks who have spent their entire lives doing good things, loving their neighbors, etc., if they're to ultimately be seen in the same [or lesser] view by God as those who spent their entire lives thwarting the rules of society but at the end gave a hearty "heave-ho" to salvation.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 12, 2001.

"Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill it."

I hear this said and, as best I can make out it seems to mean something like this: that by being a "perfect" human, Jesus finally satisfied God's need to have humans follow his laws and once that need was satisfied God started to feel differently about the matter of sin.

In case you weren't aware of the concept previously, let me briefly elaborate on it. The old way was commandments about, say, lying or stealing or murder; but if a person learns how to love their neighbor, then the thought of lying to or stealing from one's neighbor will never even cross the person's mind.

Coming to an understanding of Jesus Christ's love and purposes empowers a person to follow the commandments without having to give the commandments as much thought. And, salvation is not just a one- time event -- it's the seed for a process of discovery and journey that eventually leads us to heaven.

-- Practicing the presence (in@the.present), April 13, 2001.

Practicing,

“...but if a person learns how to love their neighbor...”

I ask again...how do we “love” our neighbor? What do we do?

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 13, 2001.

"And, salvation is not just a one- time event -- it's the seed for a process of discovery and journey that eventually leads us to heaven."

I would very much tend to agree with this. Yet I am not a Christian and many Christians would greatly disagree with you about this - most especially those who believe they are "born again in Christ".

The difficulty most Christians would have with your analysis is that it works about equally well with the Bible or without it, with Jesus or without Him. Once begun, loving one's neighbor, God and God's creation becomes a self-propelled, self-informing process. This directly contradicts the beliefs of many Christians, whose bedrock is the Bible and who favor such quotes as "No man comes to the Father but through me."

Both your position and theirs can be supported by reference to the Bible, but the only way to accept the milder version you favor seems to be to allegorize many parts of the Bible and to turn it into a guide book rather than a rule book. Sadly, much of the Bible appears to be written as a rule book and many believers think I will be cast into hell fire if I take God's word in the nature of suggestion rather than command.

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 13, 2001.

eve, OT--

Did you see the 2 hour profile on Bravo last night of Ayn Rand? Very well done, but I looked away for 5 minutes and during that time she had changed from a romantic screen-play writer to a philosophical novelist. I never was clear on how she came to her Objectivism.

And in 2 hours I saw no mention of Nathanial Brandon. Weren't they collaborators and lovers? The show made it seem that she had an ideal marriage to O'Connor(?) for 50 years.

-- lars (larsguy@yahoo.com), April 13, 2001.

Really, Lars? I hope it comes on again soon; I'll check the listings. Thanks for the notice, though.

Your questions open up vast vistas for discussion, but for now...

Rand's Objectivism started to congeal early on -- with her novels "We the Living" and "The Fountainhead" major aspects of it became evident. The culmination came in 1957 with "Atlas Shrugged" which contains the first through statement of Objectivism (although it wasn't yet so named) in a ninety-page-long speech by John Galt near the end of the book. I mean literally -- it took about 90 pages in the paperback -- very small print, too.

Rand and Branden WERE both collaborators and lovers. And it was a wild, roller-coaster-ride of a tale, too! When he realized he could no longer handle the relationship -- well -- I don't want to give it away, but it resulted in an explosive break-up, with ramifications that spread throughout the movement. He details all this in his book "Judgment Day." In fact, I think he's coming out with an updated version of it. And there definitely were problems in her marriage with O'Connor. She was quite frustrated with him from an intellectual standpoint, although these issues were kept pretty much under wraps. Besides, Her affair with Branden took place while she was married to O'Connor. As I recall, she revealed this to O'Connor early on, who apparently somehow -- outwardly, anyway -- came to terms with it as a part of being "Mr. Ayn Rand".

A lot of those details are kinda hazy right now, though, as it's been many years since I read these things.

Sorry for the OT, y'all...

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 13, 2001.

Little Nipper, the question "is there continued self-identity after death?" may be answered in binary: yes or no.

If the answer is no, then you're living the only life you will ever have. Does it make sense to accumulate possessions? Since you can't take anything with you, what will you leave behind? Should you waste your limited time on negative emotions? Should you waste the time of others in a negative way?

If the answer is yes, then the next set of questions involve the nature and duration of continued self-identity. Do you have any way to discover the answers to these questions short of dying? Do you want someone else to tell you what to believe about the questions and answers? If you seek the opinions of others about life after death, are you seeking the "truth" or are you seeking a dogma that makes you feel comfortable?

In my personal philosophy, the only thing I care about is seeing my deceased loved ones again. Since I can't be certain that I will be able to do that, I make sure to create as many living loved ones as possible. That's my definition of loving my neighbor, Eve. :)

-- helen (ima_guru@times.too), April 13, 2001.

I ask again...how do we “love” our neighbor? What do we do?

Eve, you and Little Nipper are wondering about the law and how we know what we need to do. Something from Jeremiah in the Old Testament:

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts."

and a few lines down:

"For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

-- Practicing the presence (in@the.presence), April 14, 2001.

Italics off.

-- (It@lics.off), April 14, 2001.

Practicing,

"This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts."

So the Christian automatically knows what are the right things to do, and how much -- and without reference to the Bible?

"For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

So they're wicked; that is, for the most part, they're unable to do the right thing.

Do you see how your two quotes appear to contradict each other?

Hi, helen -- good to see ya back; thought-provoking post, btw. I'm still unclear as to precisely HOW we are to love our neighbor, though.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 14, 2001.

Eve, this is how to love your neighbor: hold a door for someone, help someone merge into traffic ahead of you, smile at a clerk, pick up trash even if it isn't yours, find something true to compliment someone else about, say thank you, say please, say you're sorry, say I love you, accept apologies and forgive offenses even when no apology is offered. Offer unto others the caring that you hope will be shown to yourself. Offer it even when you don't feel like it, and offer it even when it won't be returned.

-- helen (one@a.time), April 14, 2001.

And to Helen's thoughtful list, I would add, be aware of other's needs. Take a moment to hold the door for the mom with the stroller and the arm full of packages. The world doesn't stop at the end of our noses.

For those who are observing religious traditions, have a blessed day/weekend!

-- kb8 (kb8um8@yahoo.com), April 14, 2001.

helen and kb8,

Oh, yes -- I agree with those things, and more -- pretty much always have. And for the most part, it comes naturally with me; without the Bible. What I meant was -- what does the Bible tell us or imply -- about how we love our neighbor?

I'm sorry if I hadn't been clear about it.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 15, 2001.

Eve, the New Testament instructions were pretty simple: love your neighbor as yourself. Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. All you really have to give someone else is your time. (Money is representative of your time spent making it. Sometimes it's appropriate to donate money or goods, but sometimes nothing substitutes for hand-holding.) Take some of your precious time to slow down and help in every little way you can find. Loving your neighbor is not a grand gesture, it's a process of little actions over time.

-- helen (H@ppy.easter), April 15, 2001.

So they're wicked; that is, for the most part, they're unable to do the right thing.

Do you see how your two quotes appear to contradict each other?

It's a contraduction only if you assume the wickedness continues in a person even after God writes his law on that person's heart. When God writes his law on someone's heart and that person forgives his neighbor, that person is being forgiven as they forgive their neighbor.

So the Christian automatically knows what are the right things to do, and how much -- and without reference to the Bible?

I know you're educated, Eve, and would guess you're familiar with the mystical or contemplative traditions in other religions, such as Sufi in Islam or Buddhism and Zen. Is it so hard for you to imagine that there are also Christians whose spirituality amounts to more than what they've read? As a person sets aside pride and lets objective awareness motivate their actions, many things once difficult to understand -- including things in the Bible -- become clearer.

I'm still unclear as to precisely HOW we are to love our neighbor, though.

Sometimes it's said that we are to love our neighbor as Jesus Christ loves us. But I also agree with helen that often loving your neighbor is not a grand gesture but a process of little actions over time. Often it's simple patience that makes such a difference. Co- dependency is what sometimes happens when love is not true.

If you're still unsure about how to love your neighbor, though, then ask Jesus Christ, the living Word.

-- Practicing the presence (in@the.present), April 16, 2001.

helen and Practicing,

Again – most of what you’re saying regarding what we can/should do makes wonderful sense. But I still don’t see how we need the Bible for any of it. In fact, I understand the Golden Rule itself is extra-Biblical. We can discover these things on our own, with our own minds. We see that here’s someone who may have only this life, and their life (of course as well as our own) suddenly seems all the more precious. When I recognize this, it makes me naturally WANT all the more to provide assistance, compassion, charity, nurture, etc. I just don’t understand why I need the Bible to tell me these things – assuming it does, which, in large part I have yet to see.

And I see other things there that make no sense at all -- for example, loving your enemies. Why should I love Hitler? And even if I felt I was being forced to, how does one force an emotion -- especially love?

I also don't understand why we should set aside pride. Isn't a Christian proud of being a Christian? Shouldn't I be proud of an achievement? And I don't mean being a braggart -- mainly feeling good about it -- guilt free.

I hope y'all had a nice Easter, too. (btw, thanks for the kind words, Sheeple)

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 16, 2001.

Eve, millions of people don't need the Bible. They belong to other religious traditions. The common thread to most religious dogma is the notion of treating people (each other, at least) in a certain way. Religious rules stabilize local society. A stable society is more likely to successfully raise another generation. Human beings nearly always end up making rules for themselves, even when their original purpose is to live in freedom. Written guidelines serve as examples of the experience of others as interpreted within that religious context.

Your questions about love confuse me. Maybe we're not talking about the same thing. Loving actions toward people in general don't require the emotive content that loving one's child or spouse would carry. Love may be shown to a total stranger for a brief period of time without even knowing the name of the other person. Love is taking care of a need for someone else. Doing this requires the only thing you have: time.

This care need not be acknowledged. You can do something loving for someone else without the other person even knowing it. In this spirit, you are neighbors with every human on the planet now and all those who will be born after your time here is ended. You were born into the world others before you left behind them. Every action or inaction on your part creates the world for everyone in your world and in the world you leave behind.

That's what it's all about, Charlie Brown! :)

-- helen (scr@tching.ticks), April 16, 2001.

helen,

Again, I passionately agree with practically everything you've said! But you sense a confusion in me -- and you know, you're right. My confusion is where the Bible (or any other religious book, for that matter) comes in with its "love rules". So, I don't see how we need religion to understand love; apparently it just confuses the issue.

helen, when I STOP thinking about what religious books tell us to do regarding love -- that's when all I know and understand about love starts really make sense all over again. The answer is not to spread it so thin that there's practically nothing of ourselves left - - but to open our hearts up at the right moments, in the right places, to the right people -- and to try to let it all flow naturally. And, know what? I believe for the most part -- it will flow naturally -- the way it was meant to be.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 17, 2001.

Eve, you and I may not need the bible. Great for us! But some people desperately need it. It was written for those people who can't live a day without reading it for some inspiration. And I say great for them too! That they found something, some way to make their lives better. For we're all looking for inner tranquility and inner peace and how we get there doesn't matter.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), April 18, 2001.

Maria, that was well said. Inspirationally speaking -- I would say pretty much whatever helps to gets you through the day is fine.

As long as they don't become overly dependent on the Bible for all -- or even most -- of their decisions, and that they can use their minds to discover so much more that life has to offer -- including moral principles. I say this because I see the Bible's (I'm not very familiar with the other religious books) rules as very confusing, contradictory and unclear; and over-reliance on them could very well lead to a life of guilt, fear and a loss of self-esteem. In other words -- in effect -- the loss of your life.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 18, 2001.

A great thread from the old TB2000 forum....

The Great Deception - What if what we know was chosen deliberately to deceive us?

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=002Hae

-- (also@see.this), April 19, 2001.

also,

Yes! That "Great Deception" thread is, IMO, is one of the greatest threads I've ever been involved with. I think it's probably the longest ever, as well. Thanks for the link.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 19, 2001.

Well, I'm sorry I lost track of this thread! If I had known how many thoughtful questions would be asked, I would have made it a point to keep a closer eye on it. Lets see if I can answer some of the questions, and then make some brief statements.

Eve,

Simply put....BELIEF. We are required to believe that Jesus Christ paid the price for our sin on the cross....to believe that through His atonement, we will reach heaven....NOT by any "works" we have done.

Simple enough?

little nipper,

You are trying to mix many different theologies and schools of thought that just don't....jibe. I don't know where you are getting your info from, but God absolutely does not expect anyone to observe an "abridged set of OT laws" to obtain salvation....just the opposite. In the book of James it is clearly recorded, "2:10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it. 11 For he who said, "Do not commit adultery," also said, "Do not murder." If you do not commit adultery but do commit murder, you have become a lawbreaker. 12 Speak and act as those who are going to be judged by the law that gives freedom, 13 because judgment without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment!"

You need to seperate a few things, not the least of which is how we are saved vs. what our response to salvation is. You are totally correct on the view of 2 classes of people, though....saved and lost. Period. No in-between.

The point of there being sins and then SINS is simple....sin is sin to God. Period. He is holy and perfect and no sin can ever come into His presence. So even the smallest sin would keep us away from Him. Jesus took care of that by paying the price for sin on the cross. We either accept that or reject it. Period. OTOH, the consequences for sin in this life are varying. The cost of being angry with someone might be a broken relationship that could be restored over time. If that anger led to murder, the cost may be your own life is forfeit. By looking at pornography, a husband might cause a problem in his relationship with his wife, but if he actually slept with another woman, he might lose his wife forever. Different consequences for us, but sin in the eyes of God either way. Does that help at all?

As for people who think "They seem serenely confident that you can't always get of jail free just by calling on Jesus to save your sorry ass when judgement comes." It depends on what you mean by that. If a believer is willfully sinning, God may correct them because He disciplines His own children. If they don't really believe (not born again) then they fall into the category that Jesus outlined in Matthew, "7:21 "Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. 22 Many will say to me on that day, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?' 23 Then I will tell them plainly, 'I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!'"

Some people just play at religion and never accept that it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that saves us. Period.

Anita,

I know you didn't ask me a direct question but I would like to comment on what you said. You speak of the mafia killing and then confessing....you need to remember you are talking about catholicism NOT christianity. Two very VERY different things. You said "If one can be absolved by simply accepting JC as one's savior, why not just kill, steal, etc. and in one's dying breath do the "I accept!"?" For one, no one knows when that dying breath will come. Most people think they have lots of time left, and so never think about death. More importantly, if one knows the truth, one cannot go on sinning willfully AND call themselves a follower of Christ. It doesn't work that way at all. It is possible to be saved at the end of ones life...if one truly believes (the thief on the cross who hung next to Christ was saved), but the whole "deathbed confession" thing is a hoax, mostly. For some people it is the first time in their life they really and truly have thought about death....and they want some fire insurance. Sorry, game over. By and large that mentality falls under the "easy believism" category. Its religion, nothing more. Man made rules to try and appease a far away god that no one really knows. Bunk. Don't fall for it.

Well thats all I have time for now. I will try and check in later for more comments.

-- Pastor Bible Thumper (pastorbiblethumper@hotmail.com), April 20, 2001.

Mornin' Pastor,

You said,

"Simply put....BELIEF. We are required to believe that Jesus Christ paid the price for our sin on the cross....to believe that through His atonement, we will reach heaven....NOT by any "works" we have done.

Simple enough?"

Not in the least. To begin with, James insists that faith without works is a dead faith; and strongly implies you will not be saved if you choose faith alone. Please review James 2:14-26.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 20, 2001.

Pastor, your summary of Catholicism is incorrect.

-- helen (gro@n.ing), April 20, 2001.

Eve:

Your right. A saving faith will generate good works on the part of the believer....but those works do not save us. They are evidence that we have been born again, and want to do the will of our Father. James says (somewhat mockingly) 'show me your faith...oh....you mean you can't prove you have faith when you act just like the world around you? bummer. I'll show you my faith by the things I do and the way I act....'

That's just my paraphrase of what James was teaching, but you get the point. Faith generates good works in the believer, but not the other way around....works can never lead to salvation.

helen:

I don't recall summerizing catholicism. I just made a distinction for the benefit of clarity. I take it you disagree.

-- Pastor Bible Thumper (pastorbiblethumper@hotmail.com), April 23, 2001.

Pastor,

You said,

"A saving faith will generate good works on the part of the believer..."

I'm sorry, but I'm still unclear on where we're going with this.

Do works come automatically/naturally, once you have faith? Or does the believer still have to study, think, reason and judge what to do and how much?

If works come automatically or naturally (once we have faith) -- why, then, is the New Testament full of teachings? And why does James take many passages to caution us about making sure we do good works?

If, on the other hand, the believer still has to think through these things to be saved, faith could not do it alone.

-- Eve (eve_rebekah@yahoo.com), April 23, 2001.

pastor,

As near as I can make out, you are saying that salvation is not dependent on anything actions we take, but depends solely upon what we believe. OK.

Then again, you say [emphasis mine]: "If a believer is willfully sinning, God may correct them because He disciplines His own children." But you do not say how it is that this correction bears on the all-important question of salvation.

If one can believe and by God's adverse judgement not be saved, that would mean something very different than if one can believe and by God's adverse judgement one is still saved but may be "corrected" or "disciplined". Or so it would seem.

Could you clarify that, please? What is the practical difference between saved-yet-disciplined and not-saved?

In another place you make the distinction that "it is a personal relationship with Jesus Christ that saves us. Period." You say more or less that once this relationship is established, we naturally want to follow Christ and to do God's will and that this desire naturally expresses itself in actions that conform us to God's will.

This strikes me as very strange. Because, according to this interpretation, a person could be following God's will from their own free desire - loving their neighbors as they love themselves, rejoicing in God's creation, showing mercy and avoiding willful sin - and still not be saved.

It gets right back to the problem of Christ witholding salvation based solely on a consideration - whether or not the sinner accepted Christ as his personal savior - that seems to have no intrinsic value. Christians who have accepted a personal relationship with Him are no less sinful than other good, devout and loving people. I would expect Christ grant His grace to all who follow His will in the correct spirit, not just "Christians".

All else being equal, why would a loving and generous God impose this strange and ungenerous precondition on the granting of His grace? Why not look into the heart of the person and show mercy to the loving and merciful? What is it about that idea that doesn't work for Him?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 23, 2001.

Who are you oh man to talk back to God? Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay some vessels for nobel service, and some for ignoble?

Just a lump of clay, speaking up.

-- Calvinist Major (not@talking.back.to.God), April 24, 2001.

"Does not the potter have the right to make from the same lump of clay some vessels for nobel service, and some for ignoble?"

Yup. Sure thing. Got your drift.

But what that seems to mean is that it doesn't mean shit what we mere lumps of clay do or don't do. God is calling the the tune and we are jerked about like so many puppets to conform to His whims. If that is true, why bother doing anything but what you feel like doing and morality be damned? Eh?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 24, 2001.

Pastor, you said Catholicism is not Christianity. Catholics are Christians. They practice a form of Christianity that may not be to your taste, but it IS Christianity.

Little Nipper, why not do whatever feels good? If you believe that your role in the universe is nothing, will that make you feel better? Do you blame this belief on God, or on interpretations of God you've been convinced are real? Do you look for some higher meaning for your existence than mere biological coincidence? Do you WANT to count for something to God? Go ahead and do everything you ever thought about doing and disregard issues of morality or kindness or restraint. At some point you will engage in an excess that will make you miserable, and at that point perhaps God will look less like a jerk and more like a creator. You are free to choose your course.

I would rather believe there is a God and be wrong than believe there is no God and be wrong. Don''t worry too much about finding the "right" version of God. She may be Hindu, you know.

-- helen (ah@oy.vey), April 24, 2001.

helen, cripes you ask a lot of questions!

Little Nipper, why not do whatever feels good?

Is this what you were taught was the ultimate moral imperative? I was taight that what feels good to me is not always compatible with what is good for others. Sometimes others count, don't you think, especially since you are not me, and technically, this makes you "other" than me?

If you believe that your role in the universe is nothing, will that make you feel better?

I suppose you meant "would" that make me feel better. No. How could it?

Do you blame this belief on God, or on interpretations of God you've been convinced are real?

Which belief is that?

Do you look for some higher meaning for your existence than mere biological coincidence?

Meaning is tricky. But, yes, I do.

Do you WANT to count for something to God?

My wanting things that are beyond my control has never been a decisive factor in getting them. What would it matter? I would mean the same to God in any event.

Go ahead and do everything you ever thought about doing and disregard issues of morality or kindness or restraint. At some point you will engage in an excess that will make you miserable, and at that point perhaps God will look less like a jerk and more like a creator.

God looks like a jerk to you? That's not what I would have guessed. God does not appear so to me.

You are free to choose your course.

Yes. I am. What made you think I lacked that information?

There. I have turned about and asked you as many questions you asked me, which is fair play. Care to answer them?

-- Little Nipper (canis@minor.net), April 25, 2001.

Here is a site that might offer some help

http://www.truinsight.com/BIBLE%20DOCTRINE%20HOME%20PAGE.htm

Margaux

-- Margaux (margaux2001@hotmail.com), April 25, 2001.

"But what that seems to mean is that it doesn't mean shit what we mere lumps of clay do or don't do. God is calling the the tune and we are jerked about like so many puppets to conform to His whims. If that is true, why bother doing anything but what you feel like doing and morality be damned? Eh? " -- Little Nipper

I don't remember all the questions you asked me, but the first line was a repetition of the question I thought you asked...why not do whatever you want? The answer to that question may be found by looking at the lives of people who do. As a life strategy, doing whatever feels good at the moment doesn't work very well for most. That's all I meant.

There's a lot of angst out there in America about finding the "right" version of God. Arguments about how best to serve God get nasty, and that's a good reason to avoid them. Have a lovely tomorrow, Nipper, and forget whatever it was you thought I meant...I have forgotten already. :)

-- helen (helen@hand.basket), April 25, 2001.

Lord, make an instrument of your peace.

When there is hatred, let me sow love;

Where there is injury, pardon;

Where there is doubt, faith;

Where there is despair, hope;

Where there is darkness, light;

And where there is sadness, joy.

-

O Divine Master; Grant that I may not so much seek to be consoled as to console;

To be understood as to understand;

To be loved as to love;

For it is in giving that we receive;

it is in pardoning that we are pardoned;

And it is in dying that we are born to Eternal Life.

http://www.hsuyun.org/Dharma/zbohy/Sruti-Smriti/Prayers/a- prayer.html

-- (+@-.+), April 26, 2001.

Saint Francis has a good understanding there of what it really means to be a Christian.

-- (+@-.+), April 26, 2001.

I thought St francise was a sissy? JK

pastor never said cath weren't christian. YOU responded in typical cath fashion, feeling like you were attacked i've seen it before.

caths pray to mary (bible says no other gods but jehova), say she was born without sin (bible says ALL have sinned and fall short of the glory of god), claim the pope is infallible, claim mary is co-reddemer with christ (jesus said *I* am the way truth life, no gets to heaven but through *ME*), claim evolution and the bible are compatible, claim confession to a priest cleanses you from sin, etc

bogus all way round.

caths belong to a cult

-- (not@cath.oholic), April 28, 2001.

"....you need to remember you are talking about catholicism NOT christianity. Two very VERY different things. " -- Pastor

-- helen (t@ke.another.look), April 28, 2001.

Interesting point, Helen, and one I understand all too well. My son has been debating evolution versus creation with a friend of his since they were both about 5 years old. On hearing of this, I asked my son about Mark's faith base. My son said, "He's Christian." This was probably about 12 years ago, and I'm sure my son has learned since that there are different denominations of Christianity that oftentimes differ from each other in beliefs, but Mark [at 18 now] continues to simply call himself Christian, as though the other denominations are chopped liver.

-- Anita (Anita_S3@hotmail.com), April 28, 2001.

huh?

-- Yo speak in english (are@you.al-d?), April 29, 2001.

Oh Brother. The world tries to get "spiritual".

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end, leads to destruction. - The Holy Scriptures of God Almighty

-- (caths@in't.xian), July 05, 2001.