From: masimo@netcom.com (Michael Maas)
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: Into the highways and hedges
Date: 31 Jul 92 05:50:33 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <Jul.29.03.43.48.1992.25277@dartagnan.rutgers.edu> REXLEX@fnalf.fnal.gov writes:
>In article <Jul.26.15.48.36.1992.14908@dumas.rutgers.edu> masimo@netcom.com
>(Michael Maas) writes:
>>In article <Jul.21.03.58.32.1992.12218@dumas.rutgers.edu> masimo@netcom.com
>>(Michael Maas) writes:
>
>>Mike::Alas, I too am afraid that little if anything will come of this. I can 
>>certainly see that we are on opposite sides of the fence.  Still I think 
>>some of the assumptions you appear to make bear questioning.  

	Our esteemed and fearless moderator has made some very relevant 
	comments at the bottom of your last reply.  I think he has put his 
	finger quite on the problem.  I will try therefore, to stick to the 
	things that have to be said.  I hope to show you the profound 
	consequences of your way of thinking for anyone who does not agree 
	with you.  In addition I will be showing you how and why I disagree
	with your theology.

	I consider myself to be quite tolerant, but I am rabidly intolerant
	of intolerance itself.  I find a great deal of what you have to say
	to have this characteristic, and I cannot but point it out when I
	see it.

	I think I understand why you feel that my thoughts may threaten
	fellowship between us.  However, I do not feel that way at all.
	I am sure you have the best of intentions, and I am sure that we
	both fall short of the absolutely right answers.  I am also sure
	that when we are judged we will be judged on the fruit we bore more
	than on the thoughts we thought.  I am also confident that BOTH
	you AND I are right about some of the things we say and wrong
	about others.  In the end God will have to work with each of us
	to help us toward God.
	
	I have a difficult time believing that you could have carried the 
	theology you have for very long without having run into viewpoints 
	similar to mine.  If you have not, it may be symptomatic of the 
	closed world in which you live.  I do not say this with rancor but 
	rather with sympathy.  

	My estimation of your kind of theology, a theology which apparently
	begins by not only assuming that there is an absolute truth encompassed 
	in scripture, but also that there is no truth in anything outside of 
	scripture that may contradict it, is, I am sorry to say, one of profound
 	shock.  It is not that I have not encountered similar thinking before, 
	but to hear it from someone from a country as modern, cosmopolitan and 
	pluralistic as is the United States, leads me to think of the proverb: 
	"There are none so blind as those who will not see."


>-I've read your reply three times, even taking it home and discussing it with
>my wife, and I'm still trying to find an end to this.  I think there is a big
>misunderstanding happening.  I'd like to be a bit more blunt if I may,
>1)  I do not condemn, nor have I ever condemned the individual who chooses to
>practice homosexuality
>2)  I do condemn, and will continue to condemn the act/lifestyle of
>homosexuality on the basis of the reveal word of God.
>3)  I work with those who have AIDS  because I look over the sin to help the
>sinner, so don't put me down for being autocratic. "You shall know them by
>their works."  

	Rex, in 1 above you use the word "chooses".  Do you think this is a
	choice?  Did you choose to become a heterosexual?  I'm afraid that
	your very choice of words here betrays your attitude that gayness
	is something that is chosen.  Moreover, this appears to be a direct
	contradiction to what you said in your last post about following
	Paul in delivering them over to Satan.

	I understand that you sincerely believe the bible to say what it does
	and that what it says is to be taken as a commandment.  However, have
	you considered the consequences of your action on others or even on
	yourself.  When Jesus says love your neighbor, he isn't talking about
	an intellectual act, love is a verb.

	On 3, I congratulate you.  I think it is good that you are doing
	this kind of work.  I hope you will open yourself up to the lessons
	God has for you in doing so. 

	
>     These are human beings who like you and I who have been caught in our
>secular society and its pluralism.  On the one hand, it (usually the liberal
>press) says, hey come on out of the closet, we're all brothers, and on the
>other it (rednecks, ultra conservatives, racist, etc.) seeks them out to
>literally beat them to a pulp.  Society now operates without any transcendental
>ethic to guide it.  So much so that even the "church" believes that "what is,
>is right."  Sorry, but I don't buy that philosophy.

	First, I want to say that although I can't speak for others, it would
	not surprise me if they feel like they have been "beat to a pulp"
	on this network by you and a few others who have been so outspoken
	about them.  

	You don't have to buy any philosophy.  What you do have to do if you
	are going to be a responsible Christian is to encounter the world
	as it is.  If there is no absolute value in the world, arbitrarily
	setting up scripture to be that absolute value makes scripture into
	a God.  Please don't misunderstand me.  It is not necessary to either
	accept or reject scripture.  It is possible to use scripture by
	viewing it as what is obviously is , obvious to any impartial observer
	who has not sworn fealty to it to uphold it as the absolute truth,
	the experience of men and women who have experienced a relationship
	with the absolute whom they called God and Christ. It is a big jump
	to move from that to asserting that their expression of their 
	experience is infallible and one that most informed individuals will 
	not make.  Making such a jump was expected in the time of Paul, 
	although there were many skeptics then as well, and remained 
	acceptable through most of Christian history.  The fact that it was 
	understandable and acceptable did not make it right then but at least 
	it is under standable.  But, by some of us, such an attitude today is 
	considered to be truly sinful.
	
	I do not say this lightly.  Let me begin my explanation by pointing
	out to you a readily available example of the consequences of this
	attitude.  It is exhibited by your and others condemnation of the
	gay lifestyle based on the fact that there are some dubious references
	to it being sinful in the bible.  You have chosen to accept the
	bible as absolute and as a consequence you have chosen to condemn
	these people.  Dissembling hate in words of love does not make it
	any less hateful.  Gays and you and I are all God's children.  God
	does not disown God's creation, God wants God's creation to love
	God and God's creation.  When you put your understanding of the
	meaning of scripture in front of God's commandment to love as you are 
	doing, you do both God and God's creation a severe injustice. 
	Moreover, you are abrogating the right of God to decide what is 
	good for an individual, for God communicates those things to the 
	individuals in their personal "here and now".  One of the most 
	fundamental characteristics of personhood is individuality.
	To argue that God put into scripture hard and fast rules of 
	behavior for everyone denigrates individuality and turns the
	individual into a mere shell of the child of God that God created.  
	This is clearly not God's desire for God created man in God's own 
	image.  This is clear from scripture because the human storytellers 
	who wrote the creation story in the Bible knew that it is so from 
	their own individual experiences of God just as we do today.  It
	is not true because it is scripture but because it is an accurate
	reflection of the interaction between God and God's children.  

	Let me move on now to another area, one that is particularly near
	and dear to my heart: Local or Contextual Theology.  I don't want
	to get into in depth here but I want to point out a more obvious
	example of the results of the kind of theological thinking you 
	espouse.  

	Again, we begin by understanding that God is a relater, that God
	communicates through relating to God's creation.  We can understand
	how God wants to relate to us by our own relationships.  When we 
	are parents we can understand how God might feel about us as God's
	children.  When we are lovers we can understand how God can love
	us even in the most intimate way.  

	Next we look at the creation of God, it is not of a single type but 
	multifarious in color, culture language and of course gender.  Each 
	individual understands that Creation from a unique personal place.  
	No two understandings are the same.  Yet there are several levels of 
	commonality that allow the human experience to be understood across 
	time, gender, culture and space.  These levels move from the most 
	intimate, that between two lovers, to the most general, something 
	like parental love for example.  In between there are a lot of 
	different degrees of understanding and more importantly for our 
	discussion a lot of degrees of misunderstanding or inability to 
	understand.  For example, while I speak fluent Chinese and have 
	lived in and with that culture for almost 20 years, I still can't 
	think like a Chinese.  Of course I have a better understanding now 
	than I did before, but I am a caucasian American male and it is from 
	there that I relate to God and where/who I am is where God relates to me.
	Where am I going with this?  Simply put, part of my American
	heritage is Christianity, and bundled with that is a semitic/eastern
	understanding of God.  If I want to carry my Christianity to others
	it is necessary that they have at least something in common with
	me as relates to this background.  Hopefully, they will understand
	at least some of this because of what we share.  When I try to take
	this to the Chinese though I encounter a real stumbling block.  They
	don't share the necessary cultural presuppositions.  I have two 
	choices  I can either look for cultural analogues that may help
	me to convey what I wish to, or I can insist that they move over
	to where I am by adopting my American Christian semitic/eastern
	understanding of Christianity.  

	There are some problems though if I attempt to take this second 
	alternative of insisting that they move over to my understanding.   
	One of those problems is that they can never understand it the 
	way I do, this is true for any two individuals, but much more true
	for those who do not share a cultural mythos.  Time and desire can
	go a long way towards mediating this difficulty if the content of
	what I am trying to convey allows that to happen.  However, if, as
	is the case in many missionary efforts, I try to insist that in
	order for them to be Christian they must accept part and parcel
	my mythos many difficulties result.  First of all, there is the
	question of what to do when the two mythos conflict with one
	another.  If the answer is to throw out the conflicting part of
	the foreign (to Western Christianity) mythos, a significant 
	problem immediatley raises its head.  The unique person that God
	created is torn asunder from their mythos, and having been so
	torn loses much of their ability to relate.  In doing so the
	missioner has taken away the personhood of God's creation and the
	possibility that the individual will be able to relate to God in
	the most profoundly personal way is severely reduced if not
	eliminated.  Unfortunately, this answer is the only one that is
	provided when scripture is made absolute in the way you have
	chosen to do.  So, the result of your theology, which you intended 
	bring someone closer to God and truth actually destroys their
	ability to to just what you hoped they could do.  

	This is just as true, though not of the same degree, of the gay 
	culture as it is of the Chinese culture. By asking them to give up 
	who they are you are inhibiting their ability to relate in the most 
	profoundly personal way they can to God.

	The alternative, of course, is to teach the basic truth of 
	Christianity, Love, Love of God and of neighbor and of self.
	This will be most easily done by finding cultural analogues.
	Indeed, analogues is probably not the right term at all, for
	wherever love is, there is God and wherever the work of
	Christ is being done there is Christ.  So the goal is not
	to discover analogous situations, but to discover and elucidate
	God and Christ already at work in that Culture.

	I hope that this further example will help you to see why I and
	many others cannot accept your view of scripture as in any way
	absolute.  When you commit to that kind of a world view, you 
	eliminate a great deal if not most of God's creation and Christ's
	work in the world.

>>Mike::To begin with, what do you mean by "synthetic reasoning" and "God's
>>revelation
>>(sic) is propositional?"  

>-Def.:  the combination of partial truths of a thesis and its antithesis into a
>higher stage of truth.  cf. dialectic:  the principle of change which takes
>place by means of triadic movement:   thesis  -  antithesis  = synthesis which
>in turn becomes  itself a thesis -  antithesis  = synthesis which in
>turn.....well I'm sure you get the idea.  

	I have always understood that to be dialectical reasoning.  Yes I
	do understand it.  In fact it is often the way God seems to work
	with humans.  God tells us something, we reply with our understanding,
	and God replies again etc.

>Eventually everything is relative. 
>However, society will not operate this way for long, for as I've said before,
>"freedom without form soon becomes form without freedom."  

	Ironic words coming from you.  I can think of no better example of
	"form without freedom" than that of the theology of sola scriptura
	you espouse.

>Of course we're
>talking about something much broader than the issue of homosexuality when we
>get to this level. But the Scripture that reads, "As a man thinketh, so he is"
>applies not only to the individual, but also to the community.

	

>>Mike:: Let me explain my attitude toward scripture as I am sure this will be a
>>very big difference between the two of us.  I see the Bible as a collection of
>>historical records of a small segment of the world's experience with God.

>-It is precisely here that you lose me, or maybe, we part company.  You say you
>are Xian, and yet you toy with His word.  

	What do you imagine God's Word to be?  Are you confusing the bible
	with the Word of God. They are not the same.  The bible contains
	some of the Word of God but not be any means is it all the Word
	of God nor is it exclusively so.  Take off your blinders, look
	elsewhere, the world is full of the grandeur and glory of God.
	If Christ is the word of God as stated in the prologue of John, then
	wherever Christ is, there is the word of God.  And Christ is surely
	in more than the Bible.

>This comes very close to a test of 
>fellowship I'm sorry to say.  Of course it would involve further examination,
>but to set aside the didactic teachings of the Scriptures as you have is  the
>beginning of heresy.  

	What do you mean by the "didactic teachings of the Scriptures"?

>I can remember going door-to-door in Chicago sharing the
>Gospel with those who were interested.  

	And what is the "Gospel"?  What were you sharing?

On one occasion, I remember coming to
>this nice, sweet young lady  who invited me in to discuss Christianity.  She
>prefaced our discuss with a statement much like yours saying, "I don't believe
>in Bible."  

	Let's be fair, I didn't say I don't believe in the Bible, I said it
	is a toolbox.  It is not a black and white either/or question.

>What she meant was that it wasn't prepositional truth to her.  It
>was a book among books.  

	Sounds reasonable to me.  Of course it means more to me than most
	other books, but there are other books that are near to it in
	importance.  It clearly is a product of humans who are writing
	of their experience of God.  Since it is a very prominent part of
	who I am as a Western Christian it is very important.  I do not
	accord it the position of God however.  The box is just too small
	to hold God.

>I was alittle more taken back then than I am now
>however.  Yet that being said, I still am somewhat of a loss for a basis to
>communicate.  

>>Mike:: 
>>As a consequence the writings are by virtue of their human origin incomplete
>>and often incorrect interpretations of God and God's relating and revealing of
>>Godself.

>-If their origin is human, then they can only be as you say, a relative
>influence to those who read them.  By incomplete, do you mean inadequate,
>non-exhaustive, not finished, imperfect, or what?

	All of the above at various times and places.  But I would choose
	non-exhaustive and not finished as the best of the choices you
	have presented.

>>Mike::                                                
>>Nevertheless they have much of value to offer as well.  When I read the Bible
>>there are certain things I ignore, certain things I disagree with and certain
>>things that literally bring tears to my eyes.  But while reading it I always
>>read it as the experience of humans in relation to God.

>-You sound like the Beatles song, "I, Me, Me, Mine."  How can you place "value"
>to a finite book?  I mean of course, transcendental value, true truth.  If you
>reduce the Scriptures in this way, what do you do with Christ's establishment
>of them?  He didn't say that this part was incorrect and that part was just
>man's wrong interpretation of the facts and therefore the text is wrong at that
>point.  If there was such room for error in the Scriptures, then He was
>unfaithful in not pointing it out.

	First, I don't know the song to which you refer.  Second you are
	confusing two kinds of truth "transcendental truth" with what I will
	call "propositional truth". (I'm not sure this is the right term
	for it, so please pay attention to the description as opposed to the
	term.)  Here are some of the differences:

	Transcendent truth is transcendent.  In other words transcendent
	truth transcends.  What does it transcend?  It transcends human
	experience at least as it can be expressed in language.  You may
	recall that at the beginning of this discussion I expressed a 
	preference for apophatic expression.  This is because you can never
	say what transcendent truth is, only what it is not.  It is not
	anything that can be expressed by language, ie it is ineffable, by
	virtue of the fact that language simply cannot do the job.

	Propositional truth on the other hand, asserts that there exists
	some a, b, and c such that it can be said that a,b&c are related
	in some verifiable way.   The bible is full of propositional truths, 
	few if any of which take on the attribute of absolute which is 
	reserved for the transcendent truth.
	
	It is not at all clear what parts of the sayings of Jesus in the
	bible are actually his words, and which are put there by the writers
	either as sincere attempts to reproduce actual events or as sincere
	attempts to reproduce actual teachings or perhaps as honest 
	misunderstandings.

	For example, you and I both think we know what we are talking about,
	yet we disagree on almost everything.  Certainly both of us are 
	in error.  What would make you assume that the writers of the
	scripture would be any more accurate?

>     Though the Scriptures are not compilation of science, or history, or
>anthropology, or psychology, it still does not allow you to reduce to being
>untrue.  For when it does speak in the area of science, of history, etc., it
>speaks truthfully.  

	Not so.  Your assertion here is merely blind faith in the worst
	sense of the phrase.

>You reveal your faith when you say that Scripture at this
>pt or that pt is merely putting forth a mythological picture.  Even if you hold
>that it only puts forth TRUTH in the area of the religious, you are faced with
>the inescapable problem of, "When does it speak forth religiously and when
>doesn't it?"  Your reduction of the Scriptures does not allow us to continue
>our discussion because your position will be much like bobbing for apples,
>ducking here and ducking there.  
	
	This is a decision each individual must make for themselves.  Certain
	aspects of the bible and the teachings of Christ are more meaningful
	for different individuals.  That is why there are so many deominations,
	and why even within a single denomination you will find many different
	ways of believing and understanding God.  Certain parts of the bible
	speak much more to me than do others.  I have a difficult time making
	myself subject to God, I could never do it to the bible.

	Moreover, if I duck and bob, you are forced to put everything into 
	that box you call the bible, if it doesn't fit you are either forced
	to ignore it or to deny its validity.  You do yourself a great
	disservice and God an even greater one in so doing.

>>MIKE::  
>>Because of this I cannot take the Bible as a wholly consistent document, a
>>blueprint on which to build a religion as it were.

>-Then you are to be pitied.  At best you stand with those of Heb. 6, and
>nothing I say will win you back.  God must reveal to you that you've made a big
>mistake here.  My wife makes a simple statement that goes like this: "The New
>in the Old proclaimed, the Old in the New explained."  To say as you have that
>there is no link or thread through out the scriptures really calls your
>exegesis into question.  It is Christ that ties it all together.

	Pardon me, I said "not wholly consistent", not "wholly without 
	consistency" which is what you seem to think I said.

>>MIKE:: 
>>Now, I don't know who is twisting what scripture

>-How can you? Your scripture is relative to your interpretation and you have to
>gall to say that the writers where mistaken in what they wrote.  You're making
>the very same error that you are accusing them of!!!
 
	You've lost me here.

>>MIKE::                                                                
>>I only know that what I read of the actions of Jesus in the world of man, and
>>what I know of the actions of the risen Christ in my own life lead me to
>>believe that some of the scriptural prohibitions laid down in the far distant
>>past are incorrect, at least for our time.   

>-Says who?  What is you basis for placing yourself in a position of authority
>over the Scriptures to say that this one applies and that one does not.  I
>really don't thing that you've thought through your conclusions.  I'll even bet
>that you don't live by your conclusion.  This could lead us into a discussion
>of "world-views" and how we come to have them and how we live them out and
>change them, most often unconsciously.  However, I'm not going to get into that
>now.

	My basis is God, who has communicated to me in no uncertain terms,
	who I am in relation to God and to Christ and what my role in his
	Creation is to be.  Lest you be curious, I did not have a vision
	nor did I hear voices.  God will speak to you too, if you will
	open your heart to God and listen.  But as long as you let a rigid
	predetermined understanding of God and Scripture stand in the way
	it will.  

>>MIKE::
>>As regards elders of the Church, they would do well to look at the 
>>relationship of Jesus to the pharisees and saducees in the bible.  These 
>>people were good Jews, proper, upstanding, law abiding citizens but like 
>>most of us they focused on propriety and appearance instead of the Love 
>>which they were called to.  

>-"Law abiding."  hmmmmm.  Is this what you really think.  The Scriptures teach
>that the Law is cold and hard.  It's not that it's untrue, but it like I have
>said, theological answers are not always the correct answers at the time.  I'm
>not talking about content, I'm talking application.  Christ came to fulfill the
>Law, and Paul states that the Law is good, but only in regards to the fact that
>it points out, or teaches us what is sin and what isn't.  It gives no power to
>over come sin, this is where it was inadequate.  But of course, I don't know if
>you accept those scriptures as being true to day or not!

	Actually, I meant by the words "law abiding" to show a similarity to 
	the "law abiding" attitude that you take toward scripture.  You seem
	to have placed it in front of your own relationship with God and
	also in front of allowing others to have their own relationship with
	God.

>>Mike::
>>It is difficult to say what is false, and it is a great temptation 
>>to turn the decision over to someone or something else.  I suspect that this
>>is what lies behind the understanding of the Bible as inerrant.  

>-"If you have no absolute by which to judge society, then society is absolute."
> Let me ask you this,  "How effective is your witness?"  I mean to say, if
>everyone believed as you do, you would have no basis for truth.  When a laywer
>argues a case, he prepares a brief, but the only briefs that you have are the
>ones that hide your nudity.  If you have no absolute truth by means of an
>inerrant Scripture, then you havent a leg to stand on when challenged by the
>question, "Why should I believe you?"  Why should a non-believer believe your
>relative, religious gospel.  

	Because, among other things, it is relevant to where most people
	who are truth seekers find themselves.  Those who want an easy and
	absolute answer are usually quite threatened by it.

	There is an absolute transcendent truth, but we, as imperfect, humans
	are not directly privy to it.  I guess, that you think you have access
	to it, but I assert that your very thinking so prevents you even more
	from perceiving any evidence of it.  As I said, get rid of your
	prejudices and your preconceptions, and open yourself to the actions of
	God in the world.

>>>REX>Again, again and again, its "either/or" not "both/and." 

>>MIKE::
>>Well, this really states it succinctly doesn't it?  I would say exactly the
>>opposite of what you have said here.  What is needed in the world is a lot 
>>more "both/and" and a lot less "either/or".  

>-Christianity is exclusive not inclusive as our age is.  

	I guess that is evidenced by the parable of the Good Samaritan, 
	right?

>Yet our society cries
>out for "either/or"ness.  I think it was Dag Hamer...(sp?) of the UN who said
>it best, "We don't care whether he be from God or Satan, we need a man to
>straighten us out"  or something to that effect. (anyone know of what I'm
>speaking and can quote it as said?)  Our youth, our families, our schools, our
>cities, our western society cries against the fruit of your "both/and"
>philosophy.  And yet you continue to espouse it.  

	Relationship and relating, two of the most important phenomena we 
	humans possess with which to communicate among ourselves and with
	our God and which our God values extremely highly, are built on
	inclusiveness not exclusiveness.  In order to communicate with
	others it is necessary to embrace them; and where we conflict to
	be able to perceive our own relative stance and then be able to
	say to one another yes it is both/and and not either/or.  If it
	were either/or the opportunities for communication would be reduced
	to those of a slave-master relationship where relationship only
	occurs in a subservient obsequious sycophantic manner.  

>>>By repent, do you admit, yes or no, that homosexuality is wrong as revealed by
>>>God? 

>>MIKE::
>>I think you know better.  Repent means to reflect on your sinful nature and
>>come again to a state of metanoia where you are willing and able to accept the
>>Love and teaching of God. 

>>-You have missed an important part in repenting.  Yes it means to turn back to
>>the truth, but this necessarily involves turning away from the sin.  When we
>>are asked to repent, we turn to Christ and away from our sinful behavior.  Can
>>we accomplish this perfectly, no because we still have the stains of sin with-
>>in us, and we live in a fallen cosmos.  But there can be appreciable healing. 

	Of course, I guess I thought that was self-evident from the rest
	of what I have said.

>>>If God's love is in harmony with His other attributes, which by definition
>>>they
>>>have to be, then God can love someone that is going to be sent to hell because
>>>His justice, righteousness, holiness, truthfulness demand it. 

>>MIKE::
>>I suppose this is true but I don't really have an opinion about hell.  In any
>>case, I find it unlikely that many go there if there is such a place.

>-Mike, reread your Gospels and count the number of times Christ talked of hell
>and the number He talked of heaven and you'll notice about a 4 to 1 ratio.  If
>hell is illusionary to you, then what is your basis for heaven?

	I really am not prepared to deal in this area right now. Indeed, I
	may never be.  But I am willing to accept that and deal with it
	rather than make a bold assertion about it.  I guess I think it's
	ok to say "I don't know."

>>MIKE::
>>Ever heard of evolution?  The story of Adam and Eve is a myth.

>-Unfortunately I hear you sounding like some of the physicist that I work
>beside.  They dedicate their lives to studying the unity and the diversity of
>the universe, to find its origin, its beginning, that which lies behind it all.
> And yet, all they have to do is read the first verse of Scripture.  

	Science deals with "how" rather than "why".  Most scientists 
	know this including, I would bet, your physicist colleagues.

	The answer to the why question is always a leap of faith.  That is
	why there are atheists, Buddhists, Muslim and Christians among
	others.  If you don't realize that you are making the leap, and
	assume that you know otherwise, you run a great danger of again
	doing a disservice to God and to God's creation.  I don't want to
	go through showing this again, but you should be able to figure
	it out from the examples above.

	On the other hand, religion does involve itself with proposing answers
	to the why's.  When answers to the how questions appear in religious
	texts which they frequently do, it is almost always a mistake to
	take them as literal explanations rather than figurative truths.
	This is all the more true where they conflict with science as 
	they do for example in the first part of Genesis.  I personally
	side with science and frankly the only reason I can think of 
	than any 20th century educated American would choose not to side
	with science is because they have locked themselves into a belief
	system that is untenable with science, and the threat of allowing
	that belief system to be undermined is too great regardless of the
	cost.  And the cost is much greater than they generally realize,
	as they cannot see the forest of God's work in the world for the
	trees of their theological bastions.

>>MIKE::
>>Now it is my turn to ask a question?  Do you believe that you are now, have
>>ever been or ever will be without sin?  

>-The answer to this could be very involved as I talk about practice and
>position,  state and standing.  In Christ I am without sin as the Father looks
>at me.  I'm clothed in white garments washed white by the blood of the lamb,
>through no merit of my own.  It is by His good pleasure that I now stand this
>way before Him.  Yet that being said, I am a sinner.  If salvation only
>involves the forgiveness of sins, then the very next moment I'm right back in
>the place I had been originally, because I continue to sin.  This involves
>willful as well as unknown sin.  I do not white wash this.  But salvation also
>involves the forgiveness of all *sin* and *sins* (past, present and future) and
>the act of putting on the righteousness of Christ in what ever terminology you
>wish to couch it in. 

	Well, I am glad to hear part of what you said.  I guess we could go
	into "blood of the lamb", words which bring tears to my heart, not
	only because of the ignominious and shameful death of Jesus, for which
	I feel personally responsible, but also because of the horrendous 
	implications of the theology which often underlies such words.

>>>As a fellow Christian I can love an individual who has come to Christ carrying
>>>his homosexual sins.  However, when that individual refuses to acknowledge
>>>that this lifestyle is sinful and to repent, turn from it, then I will do as 
>>>Paul did it I Cor. -"{I have decided} to deliver such a one to Satan for the
>>>destruction of his flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord
>>>Jesus." (1 Cor. 5:5)  Harsh, I think not.  When my child willfully disobeys,
>>> he is disciplined.  

>>MIKE::
>>This doesn't appear to be very charitable.  Why not try imitating Christ 
>>instead of Paul?

>-Michael, you decide what is charitable.  When my child, through natural
>exploration, comes across a box of razor blades, is it more charitable to take
>them away or is it more charitable to say,  "You know, you really shouldn't be
>playing with those"  and then to go about my business?  

	This is hardly an apt analogy.  You seem to think of gayness as
	something extrinsic, but I'll bet if you ask some of our netfriends
	you'll find that it is a very intrinsic and personal part of who
	they are as God's children.  To compare such an intrinsic aspect of
	human beingness with razorblades is offensive.  I am sure you didn't
	intend it to be so, but if you think about it you will probably
	agree.

>>>The man who is asked by another what he thinks of his work, is put to the
>>>torture and is not obliged to speak the truth."  Samual Johnson
>
>>MIKE::
>>I hope you can take this in a spirit of love.  It is what I intend.

>-It is commanded of me.  (Jn 13 & Jn 17)  I hope to post later an article
>addressing this very point, as it has been noted of late.  I will post it under
>the title "Mark of a Xian" and I ask you to kindly take the time to read it.  I
>have written out 6 pages, put have no idea what its length will be in type. 
>But I feel it is most important to all of us who call ourselves Xians and our
>posting here on the board.

>because He first love me,
>Rex
>