DB> To some considerable degree, it is an example of the lack of true
 DB> clarity in the Bible, that there are so many interpretations of a
 DB> document that says, as most of you do seem to agree, is the 'word of
 DB> God'.  If it is so clear, then why in heaven's name, is it so, that so
 DB> many who ascribe to it, do not understand it?  If it were the word of
 DB> God, it would be much more believeable to the rest of us, if you all
 DB> would agree on just what it says.
 AC> The Bible is clear.  People like Mark Bloss don't care what the Bible
 AC> clearly says.  When the Bible clearly condemns homosexuality because it
 AC> is unnatural for a man to booger another man, Bloss is the type of
 AC> person who would argue that the verse only applies to heterosexuals
 AC> because it is natural for a homosexual to booger another man.  Clarity
 AC> cannot stand against such reason.
 AC> Cult leaders distort the Bible for their own gain.  Liberals like Bloss
 AC> simply distort the Bible to destroy it.  None of this has anything to do
 AC> with the lack of clarity of the Bible.
   Andrew, I really dislike getting into "Holysmoke" type of arguments here 
n
PHIL but you can't rationally maintain that "liberals" try to distort the
"bible" because then you're caught up in a maelstrom of contrary beliefs, 
ust
as Day has pointed out.
   President Carter pointed out the "bible" taught that ALL men are 
dulterers
and according to the Southern Baptist teaching in which he was steeped, he 
as
quite right.  It DOES indicate that in the famous passage in which Jesus
warned that "looking after a woman to lust after her" is committing adultery
with her "in his heart."   Likewise, the teaching of "original sin" is quite
clear in making ALL OF US criminals and I happen to think, myself, that
philosophically we HAVE to consider the reality of what is SYMBOLIZED by
"original sin."  I've lived around people and looked at myself sufficiently 
o
know that such HAS to be taken seriously.  I see nothing in YOUR 
nderstanding
of Christianity that smacks of the typical "sinners saved by grace" humility
that Christianity (as Nietzsche fully understood) teaches at it's base.  
   The problem with the "bible" being "true" or "false" is simply the TRUTH
that the "bible" always was and remains, except for the believer who blinds
her/him/itself to any other but a rather curious magical view, a LIBRARY of
many different books produced at different times and in widely divergent
cultural, political and social milieus.  By definition, there are points in
one book that do not necessarily agree with those made by other books written
for different purposes.  This does NOT in and of itself lessen the spiritual
value of most of these books when they are taken and studied in THEIR 
especti
ve contexts.  Even under the aspects of the first of the Ten Commandments,
however, it is IDOLATRY to construct ONE spiritual movement through which 
ach
book and thought expressed in it must have COMPLETE agreement.  ALL of the
genuine Christian mystics (Eckhardt, Chardin, et al) have realized that while
holding a kind of philosophical appreciation of the surface meaning which may
be the only one available to the ordinary believing layman.  You rail against
evolution yet Chardin as a Christian mystic could not only embrace the
scientific efforts along that line but even in his own mind sanctify 
volution
as "hominization" which to him meant a Christlike suffering of cosmogensis
with a power drawing the cosmos toward God.  Now I'm not by any means asking
you to take Chardin seriously (he needs no defense from me) but he was a
scientist, evolutionist and believer all in one personality and yet not even
demanding for himself anything we'd call "personal salvation" in any beyond.
I would not advise assuming that all of those who might embrace an open,
searching attitude on matters in which YOUR mind might be closed, are simply
charletains or fools.  
   I may not agree down the line with EVERYTHING Day Brown says but I'd weigh
what he has to say quite carefully before dismissing it wholesale. 
   I can personally assure you that I have followed a pilgrimage OUT of the
organized Christian church and have not been pestered AT ALL by anybody 
rying
to force me back into a mold.  People, even CHRISTIANS, pretty generally 
on't
care much what happens to the next guy.  That is a curiosity because of all
people, CHRISTIANS are supposed to do just that.  But there are INDIVIDUALS
all around us who DO care for the next guy.  That is simply a paradox.  There
IS, I think, a spiritual life because that is the way we are made (created or
evolved, whichever).  
   I reject a definition of Christianity by either the fundamentalist OR the
atheist.  
Sincerely, 
                                     Frank
                                                                              
                                                       
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------