Feedback requested on this Christian Acrostic; What do you think?

[Land Shark]

It's always great to venture to the DU zoo and see the occasional lions that patrol here. :) Today, I'm asking you all for get feedback on a Christian acrostic written by a 51 year old man who died of MS a few years ago. Some of you may act as though it were a poll on Christianity itself. I'd ask you not to do that (if you wish to respond to my request and the substance of this post), but instead to answer the actual question of whether or to what extent you believe the acrostic -- given the severe space limitations of all acrostics -- does a good job of summarizing the message of Jesus Christ.

Question: Do you think the following ACROSTIC does a good job of summarizing the message of Jesus, after putting the best possible construction on each word (in order to give it the best chance of meaningfully symbolizing the faith in the mind of an average believer)? When I say "best possible construction" I'm recognizing for example that the word "sinners" can be both narrowly understood, as it too often is, as reflecting a kind of 2-class system of the righteous (e.g. the best church-goers) and the non-religious "sinners" -- yet the "best possible construction" would recognize that the Bible itself says all are sinners and that Apostle Paul referred to himself as "chief among sinners."

“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God….” -- Romans 3:23

The Acrostic, involving one word for each of the letters of the name JESUS, originally written in 2006 by David Whyte, is as follows:

Joyously Expound Salvation Unto Sinners

or, arranged vertically as it most often would be with acrostics:

J

oyously

E

xpound

S

alvation

U

nto

S

inners

- David Whyte

My tentative thought is that the extent to which the acrostic speaks depends on (a) whether or not the message is "shut off" from the get go by thoughts such as "I'm not a Christian", and (b) whether "Salvation" is understood sufficiently broadly, like the example I gave for "sinners", above.

All thoughtful thoughts appreciated. Thank you.

[rd_kent]

1. Interesting...

As I do not agree with a single word in there, I will refrain from commenting, as I do not think you are looking for debate, right?

[Land Shark]

2. One can productively "debate" successful summarization, but not matters of belief

I asked a narrower question because it is amenable to a useful exchange of information: the narrower question being successful summarization in only 5 words, in the form of the acrostic.

In contrast, debate on matters of belief, or faith, seems inherently to be unproductive -- I don't think anyone arrives at their beliefs by debate per se (though they may possibly obtain information in a debate that later on is part of a reflective process that might affect their beliefs).

But, for those so kind as to try the acrostic on for size and evaluate it in good faith (sic) on the question of apt summmarization, doing me that favor may well call for a return favor if there is some other question you wish to discuss/debate or get a reaction on. Just send me a PM directing me to your thread and I'll try to oblige.

[Deep13]

29. Debate generally in nonproductive.

Finding the truth about anything requires an examination of the evidence and not an exchange of rhetoric. Frankly, there is no subject exempt from this. Beliefs about anything are open to criticism (in the scientific sense of that word) and examination.

[Better Today]

3. No I do not believe that is accurately displays the messages attributed

to a legend named Jesus.

Both the salvation (which indicates fixing of some kind) and sinners (which involves a certain amount of judgmentality from one to another) does not in any way reveal to me the ideas attributed to Jesus. In my understanding, Jesus's whole point was not only that we are all sinners, hence no one is in a superior position to be able to offer salvation, only the self can do that.

[patrice]

4. Aside from some semantic issues that are outside the frame you propose,

I think this is a pretty good summary, with one definite concern.

My understanding is not that we are to expound or evangelize the message. We are to live it, so this word might be exemplify, or elicit, or evoke, or something like that.

I do feel also that Salvation has a whole lot of baggage now, not the least of which appears to be a certain permissiveness implied by the fact that, as I see it, all "good" and "bad" are conserved, in other words who you are matters very materially, so it's actually the opposite of permissiveness, but I think that has been turned into license instead - as long as we pray and go to church, god's going to make up for all of errors, so I think the word Salvation does not stand well to represent the meaning of the life of Christ, without some pretty heavy footnoting.

[2 Much Tribulation]

5. This strikes me as an excellent response to the question posed. nt

[patrice]

7. Thanks, old fallen Catholic here. I have seen a lot of religion.

I don't think I need it anymore. I belong to the Church with No Walls now.

[Land Shark]

13. You broke my "semantic frame" because you're in the "church with no walls"? :)

THanks so much for your comments on the letter "E" - I'm sensitive to and appreciative of them, although to "expound" (to explain in detail) while in a state of utter hypocrisy (by living contrary not just on occasion but generally speaking) seems such an obvious wrong that expounding could fairly be deemed to carry within it the concept of consistency, non-hypocrisy, or "walking your talk." Nevertheless, I see your points.

As to the rest, it's too bad that it takes so few words to agree and so many to disagree, as it can leave the impression that the balance tilts much further toward disagreement than 'tis the case!

Your other reply admits to probably breaking the semantic frame, which indeed you do given the references in the original post to Paul's admission that he's "chief among sinners". Given this and other such references in the Bible itself, the assertion or implication, that any person or persons in the post-Paul world have risen above the rank of "chief among sinners" seems very doubtful indeed, and thus those who go around alleging or implying they're superior as part of their "righteousness" have failed to fully grasp the gospels.

It seems undeniable from a New Testament perspective that salvation is a gift to the undeserving, so any self-righteous person has, basically by definition, departed from an intimate understanding or relationship with God. Given the awesome mystery of God, how could any RATIONAL person be anything but humbled?

I hope your presumably very bad experiences with the self-righteous don't turn you off to the truly righteous (a word which can also be translated from the Hebrew as "Justice", interestingly enough, and had it been so translated, might have avoided some of the difficulties alluded to here). They seem not to, but if they have, or would, then (to use your metaphor above about being a fallen Catholic and therefore having heard enough of religion) it would be analogous to having eaten a LOT of Italian food in the past, having gotten sick of it, and deciding that one's had enough food for forever, thank you very much. Not a very tasty proposition. :)

[patrice]

6. Salvation also connotes reward for righteousness and that is also the opposite

of the life of Yeshua, who resisted the coercion and violence of his church-state because that was the right thing to do and for no other reason, no reward. Being Saved, i.e. Salvation, has a lot of quid pro quo about it now. It's also highly associated with rising from the dead and eternal life, both of which are assumed to be me the particular person, that I am rising from the dead on judgment day and going to heaven, and that self-centered "Salvation" also is not necessarily true of the life of Christ or anyone else. The Creeds may say these things, but they don't say exactly what eternal life or heaven is. Whatever your soul is, it isn't necessarily the you that you know as you and there's nothing in dogma that contradicts that. It's us who added all of that stuff about Salvation being ME, ME, ME living forever, because that's what we want.

P.S. I think I have broken the semantic frame you proposed in this response, though, but there is a little justification in this, since the things I am thinking about here are sort of related to Gnosticism, which was part of the early Christian cultural context. Remember John the Baptist was part of a community of mystic Jews known as the Essenes.

[Joe Chi Minh]

8. Hi Land Shark. My short answer is that, yes, it encapsulates the matter very well. But,

the odd thing is that, as far as Jesus' joyous evangelisation is an example he left for us to follow, its not to the fore-front of my mind, as I find myself talking about God to anyone in the ordinary course of conversation, without consciously wanting to evangelise; I seem to assume God is as obviously real to them.

But I've noticed that many people are either uncomfortable with or resent the notion that evangelisation is central to the Christian faith. It does seem a vexed question in a way. Christ, himself, was emphatic that we would ultimately be judged on the practical compassion we show to those in need of help in some way, and the scriptures stress the need for our witness to be reflected in our person, who we are, how we appear to others. That, too, is to some extent confusing, as Paul states that, while they were respected, he and the other Apostles were regarded as the scum of the earth. Not a great incentive to zeal. But then neither would "Take up your cross and follow me", have been taken from Dale Carnegie's playbook.

In October, on the Guardian Online site, there was an article in their Comments/belief section, in which the author asks, 'Can you be good without God? Evidently in connection with the statement of John Denham, the Communities Secretary: 'It is not necessary to have faith to be deeply, morally and profoundly altruistic.'

On the face of it, it's obviously true, and indeed, we must all know people who have no formal religious belief, but whom who we consider exceptional human beings. Or, as they sometimes say, in horse-racing circles in the UK, of a particular, good-natured horse, 'He/she is a real Christian'! So, God's distribution of his supernatural grace is not something we 'have a really good handle on'.

On the other hand, you have to ponder why Christ spent the last three years of his life, actively preaching and teaching, praising and excoriating, and so on, if his Good News mattered little? He left behind quite a body of teaching, and despite at least one attempt on his life by the parishioners of his own local synagogue, we are left with the impression that he was a fully-observant Jew, to the last. So, however confusing the overall picture relating to evangelisation and church-observance may be, it is clear that Jesus considered it be fundamental, at the very least, as far as the institutional church and its own role are concerned.

We in the UK are currently experiencing the results of the political marginalisation of the Christian faith, as we sink into an abyss of ever more incredible depravity, and yet older generations do remember a saner world, wicked beneath the surface no doubt, as it has always been, but in which at least vice paid tribute to virtue in significant ways, as only now we are able to fully appreciate. You don't know what you had until you lose it.

In the US, the matter has been desperately complicated by fundamentalist charlatans, who as well as providing ammunition for the relatively small minority of militant and highly vocal atheists, have scandalised many great, agnostic people.

[Land Shark]

14. Thanks for this thoughtful response. Some good points to ponder. nt

[darkstar3]

9. It can be looked at in more than one way,

but either way I'd have to say "no."

The first way to view this acrostic is to think of it as applying directly to Jesus himself. As such it should somehow summarize his life, deeds, teachings, or sacrificial death. I don't believe that it does any of this well, first and foremost because I think "expound" is the wrong word to apply to Jesus' actions (especially his death, which was the source of salvation). I also think that Jesus did what he did without joy. If you'll recall, he asked that "this cup pass" from him, and frankly if the story were true I wouldn't blame him one little bit.

But that's just one way of looking at it. The other way, and more likely the way the author intended, is to apply this acrostic to the followers of Jesus. If viewed through this lens, it comes much closer to reaching its goal of summarization, but it still falls a little short. Now this is just the way I was taught, but my reasoning here is simple: Christians can't give salvation to others. To put it another way: Those who joyously expound about salvation have no way to deliver that salvation unto others, as that salvation can come only from Jesus himself.

In short, I think either way you go, this acrostic stretches the word "expound" a bit too far. I also agree with you that the word "sinners" bring its own baggage, especially in context of the second lens I discussed, because it makes it sound as if Christians should be expounding salvation unto a separate, other group.

[Land Shark]

10. Regarding the connection between Joy and Jesus...

I can understand folks who have the impression that "joy" and Jesus don't seem to naturally go together. This is likely due in no small part to the fact that the gospel testaments were written within years after Jesus' death and thus some key facts regarding joy -- while present in the gospels -- are nevertheless underplayed, such as:

(a) Jesus' first miracle was in bringing wine to a wedding party that had no wine, and (b) Jesus' is reported to have been regularly followed by children. This is not an exhaustive list of examples, but it would be hard to believe, indeed, that a joyless person would have children following or coming to him regularly...

(b) Using resources like STrong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible will reveal numerous citations to Joy, Joyfully and Joyful - in both testaments.

(c) "Joy" in the happy sense is impossible to maintain in the face of extended torture (crucifixion) followed by murder (lance to the heart) as occurred with Jesus. In terms of "taking it well" -- or as well as it can possibly be taken -- it seems clear that Jesus accepted the torture pain and death better than anyone could. In this, I submit, more realistic sense, I can't agree that the story of the crucifixion is utterly inconsistent with the concept of Joy.

(d) In any event, "Joyfully" modifies expound (meaning, to set forth in some detail) and refers to followers of Jesus in the acrostic, not directly to Jesus himself. Nevertheless, above I've adopted your interpretation of the acrostic and responded to it off the cuff. A better response might be had given more time.

[patrice]

17. I think the word Joy, not just happiness, but profound intrinsic Joy is characteristic of

Jesus. That Joy is of the Truth that Jesus lived so completely and, because his manifestation of the Truth was so pure, Truth expressed itself in him completely, hence his equally profound and intrinsic suffering and death. He was Human afterall; He submitted himself to what God had made him and a Human truth is that there is no Joy without Pain, no Pain without Joy.

This relates to another fault in common understandings of Salvation, "I am a good Christian person, ergo I deserve to be happy. I do not deserve unhappiness (trouble, inconvenience, discomfort . . . )." And though I agree that no one deserves Injustice and the pain and suffering it delivers, I fear Salvation has been unconsciously extended to include things such as "Aren't we blessed that the war on Iraq is happening over there and not on American soil." "Because I (can) make $$$$$$$$$$$$, I have a right to and others who do not make $$$$$$$$$$ have no claim on any part of mine - not even the children who are working for pennies a day, or others who can't get a living wage, so that you can make $$$$$$$$$$$$. There are other extrapolations of these assumptions about what being Good means, such as: if the American Dream is not that our children and our children's children will wear $70.-$100. jeans and not the $30 jeans we wore, then we have failed as a nation; if I can pay the bills to run my air-conditioner for a 4K sq foot house at 65 degrees on 100 degree days, it's an injustice for anyone to say I shouldn't; we the Righteous know what others should die for and anyone who resists that is not committed to Faith and Values; the waitress made a mistake, so she deserves my rudeness; this idiot cut me off on the on-ramp, so he deserves my obscene gestures; others . . . .

[Land Shark]

20. Good observations about Joy -- i tend to highly agree and, beyond that....

I'd add that true Joy seems to necessitate following a period of time where the object of Joy is at least highly unlikely or unexpected, if not seemingly impossible, and/or following a period of severe trial and/or tribulation, the breaking-through of which opens the gates of Joy.

yes, this is why Jesus' human form was so necessary - to teach us to live completely via our hearts in this world (even while spirit does often contemplate the spirit world). As a God not in human form, how well could God teach us about our own human nature? One must communicate in terms the "audience" as it were will understand, that is at "their level." So I echo your comments Patrice about Joy in your first paragraph as relates to Jesus.

As to your second paragraph, it sounds in the "problem" of evil things happening to "good" people. this is always difficult in the sense that pain and evil always are, but is not so insoluble a theological problem as many have supposed, in that the Bible and even other religious sources quite often expressly state that trials and tribulations are the crucible for making a better person. In order to transcend the evil, one must either rise up (toward union with God) or else draw down to smallness (humility as to one's place in the universe) but in either case that is route to greater intimacy with God. IN THIS WAY, it can be seen, painful though it be, that affliction, trials and/or tribulations are routes to a better spiritual relationship with God UNLESS WE STUBBORNLY REFUSE TO CHANGE -- refuse to rise higher or relax into humility...

Interestingly, and perhaps just by accident (though I guess not), a couple lines from a Michael Jackson song happen to capture this idea almost perfectly -- of what happens to someone affected by affliction but who refuses to change:

Too high to get over, {read, unable/unwilling to transcend}
Too low to get under, (read: unable/unwilling to humble one's self)
You're stuck in the middle, (read: result of the above)
And the Pain is Thunder. (read; enuf said.)

Provided, then, that we are not too stuck on ourselves and our own ideas of what's best, affliction is then wonderful evidence of God's love, in that "all routes away from it lead to a closer relationship with God" and, in addition, all long-term affliction unmitigated by God's mercy is, at some important level, an affliction of one's own choosing -- one has chosen to stay "stuck in the middle", and "the pain is thunder." Thus seen, hell is not even arguably unjust, at least if someone freely chooses that situation for themselves.

[patrice]

18. Excellent point about the limitations on "giving" Salvation to others.

Re the relevance of the acrostic to Jesus:His Followers.

As I understand it, if there is such a thing as a "Risen Lord" it is in that we ARE literally him to all others, not just to ourselves, not just to those who are like us or who agree with our values and beliefs, for where would be the life in something that cannot exist outside of its own hothouse? We are to BE his presence in the World and his presence was such that he allowed himself to be killed rather than try to "give" them Salvation, i.e. force/coerce/or pressure/or manipulate directly or indirectly (e.g. through a revolt against Rome) others to conform with him and his. He knew God made us Free, so that we could CHOOSE right or wrong and, no matter how much others were doing so, he chose not to violate that Freedom. That's why the truth is, as you say, through him and only him, though I also fear error here to in that some apparently think the letters J - e - s - u - s are enough, when in fact that is only a human label for a Truth that transcends ALL words.

[Land Shark]

21. xlnt point:: "only a human label for a Truth that transcends ALL words." nt

[OffWithTheirHeads]

11. Well, I think you presume that the New Testament, in its current form

is the only interpretation of the teachings of Jesus. In fact, the current and most accepted version of the new testament was primarily promulgated by a guy named Irenaus, archbishop (about 150 C.E.)of what we now call Lyons who decided that the only Gospels included would be Matthew, Mark, Luke and John and all of the other Gospels should be destroyed and anyone who preached otherwise should be eliminated. Irenaus felt so strongly about this that he didn't even want the common folk reading the Bible lest they arrive at a different interpretation. His version of the "Truth" was pretty much canonized by Constantine in about 300 C.E. at the council of Nicea.

There were others, at that time, who viewed the teachings of Jesus similarly to the teachings of Buddha.

I don't have the time or the energy to engage this debate right now but if you are interested, I highly recommend Elaine Pagels book "Beyond Belief, the secret Gospel of Thomas"

[Land Shark]

12. Sorry you got the impression that I presumed "the only interpretation" ....

Indeed, having been a lawyer I know full well that any word, phrase or sentence is subject to multiple interpretations (though often not of equal weight or plausibility).

The interesting thing about your response is that I've heard of, and read, the Gospel of Thomas, but am not familiar at all with Irenaus by name, though I've always known there were votes or some process by which the canonical gospels were arrived at. The Gospel of Thomas, rediscovered in full as part of the 1945 discovery in the desert of Egypt, seems not to have been effectively suppressed either then, or now. Back then, the Gospel of John addresses the Thomas community generally with respect, albeit trying to correct the Thomas community on a couple matters of doctrine (see Story of Doubting Thomas). Any attempt to totally suppress Thomasine thinkers or followers would have likely expunged such references in the Gospel of John. In fact, the book you recommend to me supports this point regarding the gospel of John addressing the Thomas community.

The Gospel of Thomas as I recall is nothing more (not that this is insignificant) than a collection of sayings or aphorisms attributed to Jesus, about half of which parallel Synoptic gospels and half not doing so. SPECIFICALLY because no details of Jesus' life are contained in Thomas, only sayings attributed to Jesus, whatever the value of Thomas may be, it is irrelevant to any question that touches upon the personal behavior or life of Jesus, just as any list of sayings any of us might publish would shed zero direct light and only the vaguest indirect light on whether we lead a joyful life, etc.

The very first saying or logion in Thomas says that salvation is gained through the experience of discovery of the meaning of Jesus’ teaching. See Thomas, Logion 1.

Based on this first saying in THomas, it seems that "expounding" or explaining in some detail would certainly assist in the "discovery of the meaning of Jesus' teaching." Therefore, even from a Thomasine perspective, I yet see a conflict between the acrostic and the gnostic gospel of Thomas. Do you?

A real conflict would mean that Thomas disfavored joy in things spiritual, spurned exposition in favor of something else (even while compiling numbered sayings attributed to Jesus), was unconcerned with Salvation (despite its mention in Logion 1 and thereafter) or didn't consider "sinners" to be a meaningful categorical description of humanity and instead identifies non-sinners walking amongst us today.

Iraneus's censorship and suppression (as you describe it) was totally wrong but it wasn't completely successful by any stretch, given the survival of both the full Thomas text itself as well as references to it in John. This brings us round to the original question, which I perhaps should have more aptly phrased:

"Does this acrostic, given the severe limitations on length, capture a correct understanding of Jesus' teachings AS YOU UNDERSTAND THEM?" (with the CAPS phrase allowing in Thomasine perspective for those inclined to favor it).

The existence of "multiple interpretations" is irrelevant to the task at hand since I only ask for one's own interpretation. Besides, most people are extremely weak on the task of fairly stating their opponent's positions or arguments, many can barely articulate their own... Therefore, whenever someone sets out to critique SOMEONE ELSE's belief structure, they're nearly always on weak grounds. Mostly people just set up straw men as opponents, and thus True Dialog is all too rare.

If the mere existence of multiple interpretations were some kind of a show-stopper, then whenever a person believing multiple interpretations were confronted with, say, a STOP sign, they'd stop (of course) but then they'd never "go" after that because the sign would still, of course, say "stop". This kind of permanent stop is one of the multiple interpretations of a stop sign, and it is not an unreasonable one, since a person could rationally think that if the law meant to say "stop, look, then go" it could easily print the same on the same-sized sign.

So, if you believe in the Thomas Gospel, feel free to assess the acrostic from that perspective, or whatever perspective you believe in.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

15. Huh? All I'm saying is that you could look at Christianity from a different viewpoint

But I do respect that you have actually looked into alternate theories. Most, so called Christians have no idea how their religion came to be. They, like my Brother and sister in law just accept that the new testament is the word of God. Like he dictated an MP3 or something.

I don't know about stop signs. I do know about Irenaus. You should too.

[Land Shark]

16. I thought it was Constantin, not the mystic Iraneus (sp?) of Lyons, but anyway....

My recollection of Iraneus (sp?) is only of being a full-fledged Gnostic. Thomas would reside somewhere between full-fledged Gnosticism and NT Christianity, the debate being as to precisely where. Unless Iraneus was part of Constantin's regime or something like that, is it possible that the two are being confused here? What power did or would a mystic like Iraneus have to ban a work worldwide (as to the then-known world...)?

As far as your brother and sister in law go, think of it this way: the second one believes that X is the will of God, they'd be hard pressed (foolish would be an understatement) to consciously and intentionally take the contrary position. Thus, people either avoid thinking about it, rationalize any seeming discrepancy, or otherwise duck and dodge. But once they can't do those things anymore, like anyone else under the same circumstances, their "personal" opinions change. This is the subject of an interesting, albeit deeply flawed, brand new study in a thread here I just posted a reply to at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=227401&mesg_id=228272 This study showed that people's beliefs in God's will were always extremly close to their own personal opinions, and then goes on to suggest that God's therefore a product of our own egocentric imaginations. As one might guess from the above, this conclusion conflates the truly faithful who seek "thy will be done" instead of "my will be done" with the more egocentric rationalizers who seek God's approval for whatever they were going to do, or believe, anyway...

There are lots of important subjects like Law, Calculus, Relativity, and Logic that are complex, and widely misunderstood, yet most everyone thinks "the Law is on their Side" kind of like most everyone tends to think God is on their side. Even if one sees with their own eyes ten thousand people who have really messed up ideas about Law, Calculus, Relativity or Logic, it would not follow that Law, Calculus, Relativity or Logic do not exist, are not useful, or don't have any form of truth in them. Ditto (on steroids) for Religion.

And LAW, especially, (not Religion, as is often stated) has been the cause of more misery and strife in world history than anything else-- because Law includes religious law/wars plus entire fields of non-religious-based evil beyond that... Yet extremely few indeed have ever suggested that "there is no Law" or that we could get by without any Law at all - as is sometimes said about God... But I suspect that since you're still looking around, you already know that.

[OffWithTheirHeads]

25. O.K. Ive read your post three times ans it makes no sense to me

So lets start with some basics.
1. Do you believe that the new testament is the unadulterated word of God?
2. Do you believe in one God, or do you believe that there are a host of Saints and Angels that work with/for God?
3. If you believe #2, where did they come from?
4. Could the phrase "Let there be light" possibly refer to the big bang?

We will start there as some ground rules of understanding need to be established prior to continuing this discussion.

[Land Shark]

26. We were speaking about Constantin v. Iraneus - or whatever determined the gospel content....

Your reply above broadens the questions to be off topic. I'd be glad to take them up if you start another thread but don't want to take advantage of the kicks to my own thread of such an off topic discussion (the OP's original scope asked for a question of "fit" between the acrostic and Christianity and did not ask for the truth of the matter, since as important as that question is it might take forever to get to the point of my asking for the advice or input of others...)

But so as not to dodge TOO much, to answer #1 it depends upon what is meant by "Unadulterated." I believe the new testament is fully inspired by God. However, humans, for example, translated the NT from the original Greek text or texts and in any translation, losses and imperfections occur. So at the very least, "translation caution" is required by any serious reader of the NT.

As to #4, I believe the answer is quite possibly Yes. In fact, the stories of the origin of the universe in Genesis (and some other religious creation stories, in fact) and the story of the origin of the universe contained in the Big bang theory are now remarkably parallel, i.e.

"In the beginning all was darkness and void and then out of some impossibly small cosmic egg of some sort, a creative force, not explained by physics but said by Genesis to be God, first caused light to appear. In the vacuum of space there would be nothing to transmit sound, so light would be the first order of creation, not sound per se."

But, as I said, send me a PM if you set up a thread and if there's a desire for real and respectful discussion on both sides, which so far seems true, then I am happy to dialog.

[Land Shark]

27. Joyfully Expound Salvation Unto Sinners

I believe I accidentally wrote "Joyously" above instead of "Joyfully" though the meaning is essentially exactly unchanged by using Joyfully: Joyfully Expound Salvation Unto Sinners is thus the correct original acrostic for JESUS as described in the original post.

[patrice]

19. 1++

:hi:

[Land Shark]

22. always good to give support, but do read the rest of the subthread if haven't already... nt

[patrice]

23. I read it fast. Will have to return when I have time to read and google.

Must get some housework done Now!

Thanks for the Michael Jackson bit; I am ignorant of him and I do love finding the Truth wherever I can.

Later. :hi:

[Land Shark]

24. You're welcome, hope to see you later (and soon, that means housework is not so much).

But if not, then perhaps housework is more exciting than theological discussion which is entirely possible for some given that it's one of the two things traditionally to stay away from (religion and politics). But, alas, one's presence on DU and in the religion forum seems to mean both you and I are members of the Discussion Group With No Walls (to echo a prior phrase of yours). :)

[Deep13]

28. Naturally, it would be "shut off" by non-Christians.

Christian dogma has no real meaning for nonbelievers. As a nonbeliever, I reject the idea of sin and, therefore, the idea we need to be saved from it.