Conference yukon::christian

=============================================================================
Note 14.27                       Chit Chat                           27 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  4 lines  10-FEB-1997
06:56:02.44
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Just saw on the tube that more and more teens are turning towards
religion. That they are finding it 'cool'. That's a good thing!

=============================================================================
Note 14.28                          Chit Chat                        28 of 87
CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day"  10 lines  10-FEB-1997
09:00:06.52
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



 There are a lot of things out there today called "religion", some of which
 my teenaged son finds "cool".  It is anything but "cool" according to
 God's Word.



 Jim

=============================================================================
Note 14.29                       Chit Chat                           29 of 87
SUBSYS::LOPEZ "He showed me a River!"       13 lines  10-FEB-1997 09:02:03.37
                        -< Christ is all that matters >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


re.27

Hi Glen,

Well it's certainly better than drugs, immorality, mosh pits
or a host of other things kids get into nowadays. Though in
the end if they haven't turned to Christ their religion will
be to no avail.

Regards,
Ace

=============================================================================
Note 14.3                        Chit Chat                           30 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  5 lines  10-FEB-1997
09:11:17.03
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Jim, some were towards Christ, some were not.

        Ace.... can you say that in DEC?

=============================================================================
Note 14.31                       Chit Chat                           31 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  4 lines  10-FEB-1997
09:11:57.60
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Oh yeah.... one kid said right out front that she needs Jesus in her
life, which I thought was cool.....

=============================================================================
Note 14.32                       Chit Chat                           32 of 87
PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!"                     4 lines  10-FEB-1997
10:32:15.26
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    a lot of teens are smoking today too...

    At least if they are accepting Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior,
    that's encouraging.

=============================================================================
Note 14.33                       Chit Chat                           33 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                16 lines  10-FEB-1997 10:56:42.92
                                  -< RE: .30 >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Glen, what did Ace say that you thought DEC might not approve?

    Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto
    the Father, but by me." (Jn.14:6)

    Actually, Ace said nothing that could not have been said in (the old)
    DEC, but your point is well taken about (the new) Digital. :-)

    On earth Truth is regarded rarely, if ever, as "politically correct."

    As a matter of fact, Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to send
    peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to
    set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her
    mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man's
    foes shall be they of his own household (or company)." (Mt.10:34-36)
    Parenthetical comment mine. :-)

=============================================================================
Note 14.34                       Chit Chat                           34 of 87
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"  4 lines  10-FEB-1997
11:21:35.77
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I know that many of the "religions" of choice for teenagers today is
    in fact witchcraft.

=============================================================================
Note 14.35                       Chit Chat                           35 of 87
CSLALL::HENDERSON "Give the world a smile each day"  4 lines  10-FEB-1997
11:22:38.95
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------



 yep.

=============================================================================
Note 14.36                       Chit Chat                           36 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  7 lines  10-FEB-1997
13:11:30.91
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 14.33 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| Glen, what did Ace say that you thought DEC might not approve?

      Putting down another religion. I did not think that was allowed in DEC.

=============================================================================
Note 14.38                       Chit Chat                           38 of 87
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"  9 lines  10-FEB-1997
13:24:23.33
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Jimbo,

    I don't see Ace putting down anybody's religion.  I see him offering a
    word that states Truth versus truth.  Now anyone can say that they have
    Truth and someone else doesn't and I've heard it an enormous amount of
    times in other conferences against Christianity, however, I've never
    taken it as an insult, merely as someone elses view of things.

    Nancy

=============================================================================
Note 14.39                       Chit Chat                           39 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                  1 line  10-FEB-1997 13:49:31.39
                                 -< RE: .36 >-
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Did Ace "put down" another religion, or did he rather exalt Christ?

=============================================================================
Note 14.42                       Chit Chat                           42 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  5 lines  10-FEB-1997
14:29:15.86
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Nancy, for the same reasons one can't talk about certain subjects in
here is why that should not be allowed. While it may be something that you
believe to be true, DEC doesn't allow that kind of judgement.

=============================================================================
Note 14.43                          Chit Chat                        43 of 87
PAULKM::WEISS "To speak the Truth, you must first live it"  34 lines 
10-FEB-1997 14:55:38.93
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I know I probably shouldn't do this, but I'm really curious.....

Glen, I REALLY don't get your objection.  Actually, I do get it, but have
never seen you pursue it to this level before.

All Ace said was:

>in the end if they haven't turned to Christ their religion will be to no
>avail.

Yet you are objecting to that.  There is no specific put-down of any kind,
just a speaking of the Truth that Christ said He is "The Way, the Truth, and
the Life, and no one comes to the Father but by Me."

Glen, this is the very essence of Christianity.  In .42, you say this should
"Not be allowed."  What you are suggesting is that Christianity itself should
be totally barred from any mention within DEC.

I imagine (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you will say that we can talk
about Christianity, just not mention that anyone else might be wrong.  I'm
sorry Glen, much though you may like to, you can't take this part out of
Christainity.  For many years I tried.  I didn't want this exclusivity to be
part of Christianity.  But it just is.  And it's not just a peripheral piece,
it is the very ESSENCE of Christianity.  If you are suggesting that we can
talk about Christianity, but not make any mention of the fact that other
religions 'are to no avail,' then you are in fact saying we can't talk about
real Christianity, period.  I don't know what you'd call the 'religion'
without that essence.  It would be sort of like saying you can speak about
Marxist thought, except you can't ever contradict the idea that anyone can
amass as much capital as they want, even at other's expense.  You've taken
all the guts and soul out of it, and there's only a lifeless shell left, that
doesn't even resemble the real thing.

Paul

=============================================================================
Note 14.44                          Chit Chat                        44 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  56 lines  10-FEB-1997
15:25:05.01
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|<< Note 14.43 by PAULKM::WEISS "To speak the Truth, you must first live it" >>

| >in the end if they haven't turned to Christ their religion will be to no
| >avail.

| Yet you are objecting to that.  There is no specific put-down of any kind,
| just a speaking of the Truth that Christ said He is "The Way, the Truth, and
| the Life, and no one comes to the Father but by Me."

        Paul.... I know you don't see an insult. But what of those that may be
reading this file who are not Christian? That right away tells them their
religion is worthless. Or do you think the words, 'their religion will be to no
avail' mean something else? You can't make that kind of judgement in DEC,
that's all.

| Glen, this is the very essence of Christianity.

        But this is a DEC notesfile. The rules were set forth in note 2 about
one such topic not being discussed due to Digital's policies not allowing a
judgement to be made. This is exactly the same thing. You can not make the
statement under Digital rules and your present set of rules seem to dictate you
just can't talk about it. This can't be a pick and choose thing ya know.


| What you are suggesting is that Christianity itself should be totally barred
| from any mention within DEC.

        No, I was not stating that. Christianity can be talked about. Other
religions can be talked about. But one can not put down anothers religion. Lets
use the following example:

You can say, "The Lord is the way to Heaven" as that is your belief, and it
fits under the DEC guidelines. But you can't add to that statement, 'any other
religion will be to no avail' as at that point you have just put a value, or
lack thereof, onto anyone elses religion. DEC does not allow that.

| I imagine (please correct me if I'm wrong) that you will say that we can talk
| about Christianity, just not mention that anyone else might be wrong.  I'm
| sorry Glen, much though you may like to, you can't take this part out of
| Christainity.

        If you want to note in DEC you will have to.

| If you are suggesting that we can talk about Christianity, but not make any
| mention of the fact that other religions 'are to no avail,' then you are in
| fact saying we can't talk about real Christianity, period.

        That is a false statement. You can talk about Christianity with
omitting certain things to remain in DEC guidelines. God is so out there today
doing wonderful things. He teaches us so much. He guides us, blesses us. How
can you say you can't talk about Christianity?




Glen

===============================================================================
Note 14.45                          Chit Chat                          45 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                  13 lines  10-FEB-1997 15:39:36.03
                                  -< RE: .44 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ah, if Ace had said, "Though the Bible teaches that in the end, if they haven't
turned to Christ, their religion will be to no avail," then that would be okay
because Ace was making no judgment, rather presenting what a book by another
author seemed to say to him.

If people disagreed, then they could offer a counter-opinion, or go check out
the Bible for themselves.

No problem, right?

Just trying to make sure I understand the rules.

Just curious, Glen, are you gonna turn Ace in to the PC police?

===============================================================================
Note 14.46                          Chit Chat                          46 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                   4 lines  10-FEB-1997 15:43:10.85
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Glen, in my opinion, forbidding someone to make a value judgment in a
    public forum is, in fact, a public value judgment.

    No?

===============================================================================
Note 14.47                          Chit Chat                          47 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  31 lines  10-FEB-1997
16:23:51.67
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 14.45 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

|Ah, if Ace had said,"Though the Bible teaches that in the end, if they haven't
|turned to Christ, their religion will be to no avail," then that would be okay
|because Ace was making no judgment, rather presenting what a book by another
|author seemed to say to him.

        Under Digital terms, I don't think so.

| If people disagreed, then they could offer a counter-opinion, or go check out
| the Bible for themselves. No problem, right?

        No, your own rules, or more the way they are enforced won't allow that.
You can not discuss things in here unless they are for Christianity, which
makes it impossible for someone to discuss their religion, nevermind defend it.

| Just curious, Glen, are you gonna turn Ace in to the PC police?

        Would *I*, no.... I don't have time to pursue it. But from what I am
seeing the policies of this file are not held accross the board. But that is
really what I had expected. Of course it doesn't mean that others who read this
file from the sidelines wouldn't make an issue of it to HR.

        For *me* I see it that this file sets rules but only adheres to them if
someone is 'perceived' as a Christian. Because you and I both know if someone
from a different religion came in and started complaining, their notes would be
set hidden/deleted. And to me it does not make sense to do that instantly, but
not also do it instantly for what is being displayed here.


Glen

===============================================================================
Note 14.48                         Chit Chat                           48 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  14 lines  10-FEB-1997
16:26:21.20
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 14.46 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| Glen, in my opinion, forbidding someone to make a value judgment in a
| public forum is, in fact, a public value judgment.

        Take it up with Digital. Look at it this way. I think there are a lot
of rules in this file that were made up that just don't make sense. Just as you
seem to feel about what Digital allows and doesn't allow. But we have to live
with it either way. So I would ask the mods to delete that note, and any others
that reference it.



Glen

===============================================================================
Note 14.49                          Chit Chat                          49 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                  12 lines  10-FEB-1997 16:41:24.88
                                  -< RE: .47 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Why would people want to discuss things in the notesfile titled
    CHRISTIAN that were not "for Christianity?"

    Would you expect people to come into the notesfile titled SOFTBALL and
    try to convince participants to NOT play softball?  Or that softball
    should be played by different rules than have been used from the game's
    inception?

    Me thinks you, not Digital, is holding the CHRISTIAN conference to a
    different standard for whatever reason.

    That, of course, is my opinion, Glen.

===============================================================================
Note 14.50                          Chit Chat                          50 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  30 lines  10-FEB-1997
16:47:15.06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 14.49 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| Why would people want to discuss things in the notesfile titled
| CHRISTIAN that were not "for Christianity?"

        Errr.... Wayne.... the statement about their religion might be one
reason that might want to make someone speak up. But they can't because it will
be set hidden/deleted. Yet people can carry on about the other people's
religions all they want.

| Would you expect people to come into the notesfile titled SOFTBALL

        Stop! We are discussing a SPECIFIC incident. The comment about other
religions. You stated a couple of notes back (.45, 2nd paragraph) that if
someone had a problem, they could just state it. That was when I brought in the
rules of the conference do not allow for that. So the softball scenerio does
not work here. It only works if you were discussing opening the conference up
for everyone to speak about their <insert whatever>. I'm not discussing that.
I am discussing one particular incident.

| Me thinks you, not Digital, is holding the CHRISTIAN conference to a
| different standard for whatever reason.

        I want Christian to hold the same standard for everyone, regardless of
whether they are perceived as Christians or not.




Glen

===============================================================================
Note 14.51                          Chit Chat                          51 of 87
PAULKM::WEISS "To speak the Truth, you must first live it"  23 lines 
10-FEB-1997 16:48:38.02
                     -< "Here I stand, I can do no other" >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Glen, we have always, and always will, proclaim the Truth that Jesus Christ
is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, and the only way to Salvation.

If the day comes when we are no longer allowed to do that in a file dedicated
to the honoring of Christ, then I for one will not participate.

Speaking as a moderator, but not for all the moderators:

No, Glen, I will not hide or delete that note.  And if it comes to a point
where it must be hidden or deleted, I will resign as a moderator and sadly
delete CHRISTIAN from my notebook.

The Truth is The Truth, and I will proclaim it here as long as I am allowed
to do so.  But I will not shamefully remain silent about the VERY ESSENCE of
the truth so that I'm allowed to speak the meaningless, empty shell that is
left.

The Truth is that Jesus Christ, through His death on the Cross, is the only
way of salvation.  All other attempts at salvation are doomed to failure.
Eternal failure.  And I will stand on that Truth as long as I have breath to
speak it.

Paul

===============================================================================
Note 14.52                         Chit Chat                           52 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                   6 lines  10-FEB-1997 16:54:41.68
                                  -< RE: .50 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    So why not start a notesfile entitled <insert your own religion here>,
    rather than struggling with Christians?

    I don't understand Silva logic--that is my opinion, of course! :-)

    Have your say, Glen.  I'm done.

===============================================================================
Note 14.53                         Chit Chat                           53 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  15 lines  10-FEB-1997
16:57:54.90
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------



        It really is amazing to see that a file that has set up a ton of rules
to keep people from speaking their views doesn't honor them when it applies to
anyone who is not a Christian. You live by a double edge sword and can't even
see it.

        No one has to give up their beliefs. But with what you said in your
last note and what was said by Ace, you are passing judgements onto other
people's religion and that can NOT be done in Digital.



Glen

===============================================================================
Note 14.54                         Chit Chat                           54 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                    1 line  10-FEB-1997 16:59:40.25
                                  -< RE: .53 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you for sharing your opinion, Glen.

===============================================================================
Note 14.55                          Chit Chat                          55 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  18 lines  10-FEB-1997
17:01:19.87
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 14.52 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| So why not start a notesfile entitled <insert your own religion here>,
| rather than struggling with Christians?

        It has nothing to do with that. Why you can't see that I don't know.
One particular topic is not allowed to be discussed in here. Why? Well read
note 2.3, 3rd paragraph for the answer. Yet Paul's and Ace's notes do just what
that says can not be done. It is hypocrisy at its best (or worst).

| I don't understand Silva logic--that is my opinion, of course! :-)

        It's your own conference logic. The conference set the rules. Now they
need to uphold them.



Glen

===============================================================================
Note 14.56                         Chit Chat                           56 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                   2 lines  10-FEB-1997 17:06:19.57
                                  -< RE: .55 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Okay, now that we know what your real issue is, what does the 4th
    paragraph say?

===============================================================================
Note 14.57                          Chit Chat                          57 of 87
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"  2 lines  10-FEB-1997
17:14:09.49
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    No-one's notes in this string reference homosexuality.  Color me
    confused, Glen.

===============================================================================
Note 14.58                          Chit Chat                          58 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  12 lines  10-FEB-1997
17:17:23.04
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 14.57 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| No-one's notes in this string reference homosexuality.  Color me
| confused, Glen.

        Are you saying that Digital does not also include other religions under
their belt? Are you saying that you can make value statements against anything
else except that one subject?

===============================================================================
Note 14.59                          Chit Chat                          59 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  20 lines  10-FEB-1997
17:21:34.36
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 14.56 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| Okay, now that we know what your real issue is, what does the 4th
| paragraph say?

        Wayne... talk about making your case worse. That paragraph shows the
conference just can't discuss certain issues due to Digital's rules. Other
people's religions is just one of them.

        I'm curious, Wayene. When you stated that people who disagreed with
what was said could just speak up, where were you thinking it was going to
happen? Not in this file, that's evident.

        Hypocrisy is what it is. Either you honor all of the Digital Umbrella
by not passing value judgements on anything Digital covers, or you pass them
for all. You can't have it both ways and not expect it to be brought up every
single time.


Glen

===============================================================================
Note 14.60                         Chit Chat                           60 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                   4 lines  10-FEB-1997 17:57:43.24
                                  -< RE: .59 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Okay, Glen, I'm an ignoramous.  Now you won't have to say it, and I
    can't take offense.

    I honestly see no validity to your argument.

===============================================================================
Note 14.61                         Chit Chat                           61 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  39 lines  10-FEB-1997
19:35:20.78
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| <<< Note 14.60 by ROCK::PARKER >>>

| Okay, Glen, I'm an ignoramous.

        One, why do you think you are that? And two, I don't view you as that.
And three, to not know about something that is going on is not an insult.

| I honestly see no validity to your argument.

    Of course not. You can correct me if I am wrong, but what I see is this:


1) You feel it is ok to speak of all Christianity in here as it is the
   Christian notesfile.

2) The only thing that should be discussed here is Christianity.

3) You feel there is nothing wrong in stating your belief about other religions
   in here even though they can not respond due to the rules.



        What I see that is missing is:

1) The rules state that because of a certain topic is under the Digital
   diversity umbrella, it can not be discussed.

2) Other religions also fall under the Digital diversity umbrella. Why are they
   not treated the exact same way as any other subject when they are all under
   the same umbrella?


        The rules basically show that the notes need to be deleted. They pass a
value judgement on other religions.



Glen

===============================================================================
Note 14.62                         Chit Chat                           62 of 87
ROCK::PARKER                                   3 lines  10-FEB-1997 22:48:21.00
                                  -< RE: .61 >-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We obviously don't see the rules the same way.  And this subject has
    been discussed by you with others many times before.  I have nothing to
    add.

===============================================================================
Note 14.63                         Chit Chat                           63 of 87
BIGQ::SILVA "http://www.ziplink.net/~glen/decplus/"  15 lines  11-FEB-1997
00:00:26.06
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


        Yes, we don't seem to look at the rules the same.

        But, if one group of people who fall under decs umbrella can not be
talked about as value judgements can't be made.... then guess what? No group
under the dec umbrella can be talked about because of the same value judgement
rule.

        Because if it is under the dec umbrella, does it matter what group it
is? The answer is no. Not if you are going to make value judgements and not if
you restrict one group, but not the other.


Glen

The replies between here and 43.114 have been moved from Chit-Chat (with one
note moved from Note 30 "Letter to an Atheist").  The original note number is
posted in the note title.

Paul
Co-Moderator

>Forgive me for 'jumping in' but I wanted to point out an alternate view. 

>The reason you folks are having so much trouble with Glen is that he is
>right, dead right.  
    
    Glen is not right, he is dead wrong.  He is wrong in his interpretation
    of DIGITAL's valuing diversity program.  He is wrong in his
    characterisation of this conference's standard.  He is wrong in his
    solution to what he doesn't like here.  He is wrong in the way things
    generally occur here.  He is simply wrong.
    
    >I would recommend a review of Matt 5:25-etc. about
>settling things quickly with your adversaries.  
    
    >The mark of a Christian is that they will know you by your love, 
    >love that is willing to die for our enemies.   
    
    Is the immediately above sentence supposed to be a summary of Matt 5:25
    etc?  
    
    First off, the message is that Christian's will be known for their love
    *for one another*.  Glen's faith is not based upon the Bible as he will
    tell you.
    
    Secondly, there is no such biblical link between loving our enemies and
    dieing for our enemies.  There is no biblical principle or mandate for
    a Christian to die for an enemy.

>Jesus was asked about the greatest commandment, and I believe we know what
>He said.   Well I would like to turn your attention to the DEC commandments
>in these notes files:
    
    Love the Lord your God with all your heart, your soul, your strength;
    and love your neighbor as yourself.
    
    I'm quite certain that the members of this conference practice these
    commands.

>RE: 2.4 from Sims
>    Finally, employees should remember that it is never appropriate to
>    spend working time in employee interest notes for non-work
>    purposes.  

>Search your hearts on that...
    
    I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but it feels in general
    to be antagonistic or at least defensive of Glen generally.  You do
    Glen no favors by pointing this out, I assure you.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 43.115 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Glen is not right, he is dead wrong.  

	Gee.... a guy could get a complex here.

| He is wrong in his interpretation of DIGITAL's valuing diversity program.  

	How is it interpreted wrongly, Jeff? I would imagine you have some sort
of specific area that shows me where I have gone wrong, right?

| He is wrong in his characterisation of this conference's standard.  

	Let's look at that one particular rule that I talked about:

********************************************************************************
Digital gives homosexuals minority status as a group and as such, value  
judgments for nor against this lifestyle cannot be made.  

The position of this conference stands in opposition to the value Digital has 
chosen to embrace on this issue and so this conference will not violate the good
will of the company for the use of its resources for this employee interest 
conference.  Other conferences have no such restriction and you are free to 
debate it there.

All value judgments on the topic of homosexuality, either for or against, will 
be censored from this conference.  This is a Digital Employee Interest Notes 
Conference on Digital resources and not a public street corner.  First Amendment
rights do not apply as they would in public *because* this is a Digital-owned 
resource which is provided from the benevolence of our company.
********************************************************************************


	Now lets look at the same rule when applied to other's religions:


********************************************************************************
Digital gives people's religion minority status as a group and as such, value 
judgments for nor against this lifestyle cannot be made.  

The position of this conference stands in opposition to the value Digital has 
chosen to embrace on this issue and so this conference will not violate the good
will of the company for the use of its resources for this employee interest 
conference.  Other conferences have no such restriction and you are free to 
debate it there.

All value judgments on the topic of other religions either for or against, will 
be censored from this conference.  This is a Digital Employee Interest Notes 
Conference on Digital resources and not a public street corner.  First Amendment
rights do not apply as they would in public *because* this is a Digital-owned 
resource which is provided from the benevolence of our company.
********************************************************************************


	The rule applies to any of the things you want to make value judgements
against in this company WHEN you won't allow discussion to go on. So if you
allow discussion, then you can have it. Otherwise, your own rule says you
really can't.




Glen

    
    Our own rule says we choose not to, it does not say we can't.
    
    jeff

    Glen why is it so important to you that we discuss homosexuality in
    this conference? 

| <<< Note 43.117 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Our own rule says we choose not to, it does not say we can't.

	Jeff, read the rest of it and it states WHY that route was chosen. 

| <<< Note 43.118 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| Glen why is it so important to you that we discuss homosexuality in
| this conference?

	Nancy.... please do me a favor and read what is written.

	I am NOT saying bring back homosexuality. What I HAVE been saying is
the same reasons you chose to not talk about homosexuality are the same reasons
there are OTHER topics that you can't talk about.

	It is the OTHER topics that I am talking about. NOT homosexuality.



Glen

    
    It does not matter what it says, Glen.  Homosexuality has been
    discussed in so many conferences with dissent and disapproval that it
    makes no sense to suggest that we are forced by some rule to not
    discuss it here.  We choose not to, that's all.
    
    Furthermore, if we actually could not disapprove of homosexuality by a
    strictly enforced rule, we still could if we wanted to.  Of course,
    there would be consequences.  While it may be all you live for,
    homosexuality and its status and particulars is not the center of our
    universe here.
    
    jeff

    and as someone has already stated very well, we have every freedom
    within our moderated conference to discuss what the standard, the
    Bible, says about non-biblical religions.  This is a religion
    conference and all religious discussion refers to other religions as
    contrasts and comparisons concerning the great themes of their
    religion.  The great theme of our Christian religion is the revelation
    of the truth about the universe and man's destiny and what God requires
    of us.  The great theme is fleshed out in details surrounding our lives
    and what is wrong and what is good in God's eyes.  Furthermore our
    religion explains the existence and relationship of non-biblical
    religions to the great truths God has revealed.
    
    Our discussions are all natural, though certainly too narrow for your
    tastes.
    
    jeff

    
    Regardless, Glen, you are not the arbiter here of what is right or
    wrong.  And your assessment of what is required just doesn't bear any
    weight here. I believe your current harangue is completely baseless.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 43.125 by ALFSS1::BENSONA "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>

| and as someone has already stated very well, we have every freedom within our 
| moderated conference to discuss what the standard, the Bible, says about 
| non-biblical religions.  

	Then you can best believe I will call you on it every time. If you are
going to have rules, at least be consistant.

| and as someone has already stated very well, we have every freedom within our 
| moderated conference to discuss what the standard, the Bible, says about 
| non-biblical religions.  

>>	Then you can best believe I will call you on it every time. If you are
>>going to have rules, at least be consistant.
    
    Why?  You will never be heard here under the circumstances.  If only we
    can consistently remember to ignore your "calling"!!
    
    jeff

Notes .120 and .124 set hidden by moderator action.

Paul
Co-Moderator

    Glen,
    
    What you seem to be so forgetful of is that homosexuality is the only
    discussion NOT allowed in this conference from both sides.  So, this
    continual accusation towards this conference makes me consider that you
    possibly are lobbying for opening up this discussion.
    
    All else is discussed here.  It is evidenced by the archives of this
    forum.  All flavors of beliefs have been expressed here.  
    
    

| <<< Note 43.130 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| What you seem to be so forgetful of is that homosexuality is the only
| discussion NOT allowed in this conference from both sides.  

	And what you keep failing to see is that there are other topics in here
you ALSO won't be able to talk about because they fall under the same clause
that homosexuality does.... making value judgements against something that is
covered by Digital's diversity umbrella. IF you allowed them to FULLY express
their views when another person starts the conversation (in this case when one
said, "Any other religion is doomed"), then there is NO problem. 


Glen

    Glen,
    
    This has not been a problem in this conference, you are creating a
    conflict merely through conjecture and supposition.  Many others have
    come in here and brought there religious views which are in conflict
    with this conference's stated beliefs with no reprise.
    
    You seem to forget that value judgments happen in every other
    conference on this network and when it comes to Christianity, I can
    tell you that VD had no effect on stopping the slander, hatred and
    disparity lended towards Christians.
    
    
    

| <<< Note 43.132 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| come in here and brought there religious views which are in conflict
| with this conference's stated beliefs with no reprise.

	Nancy, you seem to forget those who state anything AGAINST the Bible,
which their religion may not believe in, would have their notes deleted. So
when you throw the Bible at them, they can not respond.

| You seem to forget that value judgments happen in every other conference on 
| this network and when it comes to Christianity, I can tell you that VD had no 
| effect on stopping the slander, hatred and disparity lended towards Christians

	Nancy, the difference between every other conference and this is one
can bring up both sides of the conversation is all the other files. They can
not always do that here.

	Now if someone comes in and starts saying things against the Bible,
then yes, you have the right to censor that as you have stated in your premise
what can and can not be talked about. 

	BUT.... when someone who is a member of this file and who is Christian
brings up something that all other religions are lost, but then you don't allow
them to really talk about their religion in defense, then that is one sided.
And it is at the one sided view is where you run into problems. IE, you can
make all the value judgements, but people can not really defend their religion.
It should not be that way....period.

	So if you want the rules you have... that is fine. But then at the same
time, you can't bring up something that another can not defend. 


Glen

    Glen,
    
    I both agree and disagree with you.  I disagree in regards to noting
    being only one-sided.     You cannot show me one time in which a
    moderator has deleted a note because it goes against the Bible in the
    history of this conference.  You can cite circumstances where the
    authority of the Bible has been attacked and argumentative discussions
    ensued for more than what we deemed as appropriate use of time and disk
    space and we've stopped the discussions.  But that is it.
    
    Disagreements about interpretation, etc., happen ALL THE TIME.
    
    However, I do agree with you that conference guidelines should not be
    used to silence others once a topic has been established.  However,
    remember we cannot control the noters in this forum, their opinions are
    their opinions.  The noting standard was established to minimize
    conflict and to agree to what the standard of this conference is; i.e.,
    Bible based. 
    
    We were also the first conference to state a policy around personal
    attacks and you yourself have been a recipient of that moderation, if
    and when you have been personally attacked in this conference by a
    noter.
    
    I believe we do our best to be fair minded and not to use policy in the
    wrong way.
   
    Love in Him,
    Nancy    
    
    
    

| <<< Note 43.134 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| You cannot show me one time in which a moderator has deleted a note because 
| it goes against the Bible in the history of this conference.  

	Of course I can't. They have all been deleted! :-)  But you leave
yourself too wide open. I have had several notes deleted when talking about the
Bible. Just for saying what I believe. 

| You can cite circumstances where the authority of the Bible has been attacked 
| and argumentative discussions ...etc

	No.... this is not entirely true. I have seen and been involved in
both. 

| Disagreements about interpretation, etc., happen ALL THE TIME.

	On this I agree.

| However, I do agree with you that conference guidelines should not be used to 
| silence others once a topic has been established.  However, remember we cannot
| control the noters in this forum, their opinions are their opinions.  

	I agree with the above to a degree. You most certainly DO step in if
someone goes against the conference guidelines. But you don't step in when
someone from here starts a conversation that leads to someone going against the
guidelines. And the conversation about someone elses religion being doomed is
one in particular.




Glen

Thank you, Glen, for expressing your opinion.  I still disagree, but will no
longer continue in this discussion.

Paul

      Say Glen, lets assume you are correct in what you are saying.
      Evidently, most of us presently lack the discernment to perceive
      your new wine.
    
      Ultimately, the cross is the power.  The cross, drunk in the
      heart, gives a keener discernment as to what is right and what
      is wrong.  It sensitizes the character with its revelatory
      power.
    
      In lieu of our darkness (assuming your perspective) in this area 
      and in consideration that it is better to be well rounded and 
      speak of righteousness in a myriad of different ways, I have a
      suggestion for you.
    
      Why don't you open a topic on the cross and share with all of
      us what it means to you?  Surely, your verbosity would be better
      spent on showing us the cross instead of something as seemingly
      peripheral as this!   Especially given our darkened minds!
    
      And if you show us the cross in fresh lines for us, perhaps we
      will acquire, by that revelation of the cross, the wisdom to
      better see the wisdom of your words in here!
    
    					Take Care and God Bless,
    
    					Tony                    

| <<< Note 43.137 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>


| your new wine.

	That would be whine, not wine. 

    Tony is 100% correct.  Glen, if you have come to a strong personal
    conviction on one side of a doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege 
    of first seeing how it has helped you to become more Christ-like in your 
    nature, and then we will judge whether we need to come to that same 
    persuasion.  Let us always be certain to look at the fruit of the 
    teaching and the fruit it has born in your life.

    thanks,
    Mike

      Hi Glen,
    
        Peace brother!  WOW!
    
        Yes, I admit that what I wrote has a message of admonishment
        for you!  I am QUITE a sinner.  I YOKE up WITH you (not AGAINST
        you!!).  My goodness!
    
        It has 'dawned' on me that you voice a concern over a certain
        matter.  You also don't spend a whole lot of time preaching
        the cross, i.e. yours is, relatively speaking, a peripheral
        issue.  It gets to the point where its like straining for
        gnats.
    
        The cross is the ultimate source of all discernment.  I believe
        that were I 'made' to see the full revelation of the cross, I
        would see unrighteousness in ALL of its subtle forms.
    
        I tried to give you all the benefit I could.  Hypothesizing that
        you are correct.  But, even assuming that, concluding on suffi-
        cient evidence, that we don't see.
    
        Fine, help us see.  Show us the cross.  Help us behold the cross
        less dimly and believe me, we will, if we drink that revelation
        in by faith, see more clearly.
    
        Paul wanted to know NOTHING among peoples save the cross.  Sure,
        he would get to peripheral issues, but the kernal of all his 
        writings was the cross.
    
        What is your kernal Glen?  The cross or the peripherals?  And if
        the peripherals, is that not quite Pharisee-like?  You know, the
        guys that strained the gnats all the while they lost sight of
        weightier matters of the law.
    
    						*Peace*,
    
    						Tony

| <<< Note 43.139 by PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| Glen, if you have come to a strong personal conviction on one side of a 
| doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege of first seeing how it has 
| helped you to become more Christ-like in your nature, and then we will judge 
| whether we need to come to that same persuasion.  

	You will judge? Uh huh.

    Glen, I meant that we will judge ourselves to see if we can benefit
    from your fruit.
    
    Mike

	Can I start with the other religions being doomed stuff? 

>Can I start...

It's obvious you can't stop.

    |	Can I start with the other religions being doomed stuff? 
    
    Again Glen, if you have come to a strong personal conviction on one side 
    of a doctrinal issue, please grant us the privilege of first seeing how 
    it has helped you to become more Christ-like in your nature, and then we 
    will judge whether we need to come to that same persuasion.  Let us always 
    be certain to look at the fruit of the teaching and the fruit it has born 
    in your life.
    
    Show us how this has helped you in light of the cross and the teachings
    of Christ.  Show us what scriptures God laid on your heart in helping
    you arrive to this conviction.

    thanks,
    Mike
    

| <<< Note 43.144 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| It's obvious you can't stop.

	I have to admit, I did find that quite humorous....

	Ahhhh..... now I get it... no thanks... it would definitely go against
the premise on 2 counts.

    re: .145
    
    Actually, Mike, I was thinking about something else.  Not how this
    issue that Glen has concern with has profitted his overall Christian
    experience/spirituality, but rather the investment made on this
    topic in contrast on other themes (i.e. the cross).
    
    I meant it from an emphasis perspective.
    
    						Tony

    I know, Tony, but I think the fruit is the same either way.

    In reflection, you realize that that Glen is arguing from the point of
    anticipation versus reality.  This conference has never deleted a
    person's note for any reason other then personal attack.  Authors of
    memos that have broken guidelines have deleted their own notes when
    refusing to comply with guidelines... and on occasion we've cleaned up
    hidden notes on which the author refused to re-write.
    
    So, quite honestly, I am content to just let him continue on without
    further discussion from me.   It is my opinion he argues from
    conjecture and not reality.
    
    No notes in the history of my moderatorship were ever deleted in
    reference to challenging the Bible.  In fact we have an entire note
    topic on this in a previous conference.
    
    But I am most certainly interested in how Glen's life has been changed
    by the gospel to which he clings.  Come to think of it, I don't recall
    Glen ever sharing in here from that perspective.  Glen, can you point
    me to any notes in which this sharing has happened?
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

| <<< Note 43.150 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| This conference has never deleted a person's note for any reason other then 
| personal attack.  

	This is false. *I* can attest to that.

| Authors of memos that have broken guidelines have deleted their own notes when
| refusing to comply with guidelines... 

	I think out of any note I had deleted on me, I only deleted a handful.
Please don't try to pass this off as something that never happens, as it does.

| It is my opinion he argues from conjecture and not reality.

	That's the same thing as religion. There is no reality. Faith can be
real. But faith doesn't mean it is equal to reality. Religion is full of faith,
and full of false reality. 

| No notes in the history of my moderatorship were ever deleted in reference to 
| challenging the Bible.  In fact we have an entire note topic on this in a 
| previous conference.

	Yes, let us talk about that. It used to be called, "Why believe the
Bible?" After a while the meaning of that topic was changed. No longer could
you take it to mean, "Why should I believe the Bible?", but the meaning was,
"Why shouldn't I believe the Bible?". And at that point the new rule of 2.5 was
born. 

	Now lets look at note 2.4.....

    Statements that attribute improper, illegal or immoral motives or 
    actions to others; statements that cast aspersions on the 
    character or integrity of others or that amount to libel or 
    slander are not permitted. PERIOD.  In this regard, it does not 
    matter whether the individuals subject to the comment are elected 
    public officials or directors of organizations disfavored by the 
    author.   There is no "Public Figure" exception in these systems.


	If one says anyone from another religion is doomed, doesn't the above
come into play? The integrity and character issues play in here, right? 

| Glen, can you point me to any notes in which this sharing has happened?

	Why yes... in the last version of this file, and I believe in the
version before that, I had shared how I came to Christ. I have also done so in
some other areas as well, but they were turned around against me. I believe
Tony and a few others would attest to this.... the, "because Glen said it then
it is false" attitude comes to mind. I know Tony has made several corrections
in here on that very subject. Others have as well, but I see Tony all the time
so I remember him doing it quite often.



Glen

      Hi Glen,
    
        Yup, I think you've been untreated unfairly at times, jmo.
    
        I also really think you could get something out of the idea
        I offered here.  Ultimately, any Christian contribution should
        be a savor of life unto life.  A revelation pointing to Christ,
        which when received, can cleanse the heart to be more like that
        revelation of Him.
    
        I don't think your inputs here are having that effect.  I really
        don't.
    
        I don't know what it means to say "Your religion is doomed."  I
        happen to believe that if anyone receives any revelation of the
        love of God (and thus such revelation is truth) by faith, that
        person cannot be doomed.  Even a Buddhist, who is sincerely 
        ignorant of much truth, if beholding the word of creation, 
        appreciates that word by faith (as coming from his Creator) is
        changed by that same word.
    
        So anyway, if I say that someone who despises God and worships
        Satan is doomed, did I contradict conf. guidelines?
    
        I don't know.
    
    						Tony
                                                    

 
  I don't know if there are any people left who read this conference for
 encouaragment and edification..I suspect they are long gone as those 2
 qualities certainly don't appear here much anymore.

 But, I would sure like to have this conference back where perhaps we
 can at least attempt to return to that goal.  Sharing our love for the
 Lord Jesus Christ, His Word, and the fellowship of His people.


 I suppose that is too much to ask, however.


 Jim who has been silent on this topic and will return to same.

    Amen Jimbo.

 RE: .153

 
>  I don't know if there are any people left who read this conference for
> encouaragment and edification..I suspect they are long gone as those 2
> qualities certainly don't appear here much anymore.

Me too has been seen that things have been changed, many people left
Digital (Including Irena Pulkstenis, who have been writing with me for
quit some time and who has been more encouraging to me than you can
imanging.)
Sometimes it looks to me that there's also a change in value, that the
Word of God is a good thing to argue about as long as it not comes to
close.
But our God never changes, His values will never change because of our
atitude, He still has Love and He still Has a plan for everybody
who is willing to take His offer that He personaly paid for with the
dead of His only beloved Son Jesus Christ.
For everybody who love Him and live as He commands ask whatever you
need and God will give you.
If you need encouragment ask your heavenly Father and He will give
you.
The only problem I personaly have, and I suppose I'm not the only one,
is that I think I know how God will give the things I need, but in
real life I'm amazed the way God is doing what I have asked Him for.


> But, I would sure like to have this conference back where perhaps we
> can at least attempt to return to that goal.  Sharing our love for the
> Lord Jesus Christ, His Word, and the fellowship of His people.

Like I said ask your Heavenly Father and He will give you!
And if I read this note I read a desire for God's love seen in others,
start being a member of the Body and share your love and glorify
the Lord.
Than you are wakening others, who will start to encouraged you.


> I suppose that is too much to ask, however.

Too much to ask!!! Don't you know God's Power.
Revival is comming, but it not starts in Pensacola or Toronto,
it starts in your own heart and than it doesn't matter if you
are in Pensacola or Toronto or even in the middle of Africa.
We are often looking for great miracles, but God is seeking
for a pure heart which can show His holiness and mercy.

> Jim who has been silent on this topic and will return to same.
Return from what: Pensacole or............


						L.B.W.

    .153
    
       Me gonzo too for a number of reasons, none having to do with the
    faith or faithful in here. There are other forces at work in here 
    that, like everywhere else in the world, have an agenda....to belittle
    and make a mockery of Christianity.
    
       There is also a truckload of very discouraging and depressing stuff
    going on in my own world right now, which has prompted me to cut off
    more and more of the outside world.
    
       May the good Lord bestow "his" good graces, blessings
       and wisdom on those who ask for and are open to same.
    
       ray

      re: .155
    
      Hi L.B.W.,
    
        (Sorry, don't know your first name!!)
    
        I really appreciate the spirit of your reply, but just
        want to come to the defense of Brother Jim.  Jim was just
        being a little sarcastic.  I am sure that Jim believes
        God is mighty to save and to revive and I also don't think
        God's idea of revival need be going to a place like Pensacola.
        But, that God can revive our own individual hearts and enable 
        us to bloom right where we are planted!
    
        I've met Jim and he's a pretty decent guy!!
    
    						Take Care and God Bless,
    
    						Tony

 re .155


 I believe you may have misunderstood my concern, but thanks for your
 comments.


 Jim

Ray,

Sorry to hear that things have been a little dark and difficult in your
life right now. I shall pray for calm in the midst of the storm, for 
light shining in the darkness, and for God to be a rock of strength for
you. 

Leslie

    
    
      RE: .157
     
        
>      Hi L.B.W.,
>    
>      (Sorry, don't know your first name!!)

	Not really inportant, but the name is Wim.
    
>      I really appreciate the spirit of your reply,

	I hope it's not my spirit, only God's Spirit will bear fruit.

>      but just want to come to the defense of Brother Jim.

	I'm sorry if I have defended brother Jim, it was really not 
	my meaning.

>      Jim was just being a little sarcastic.

	Personaly, I see nothing wrong in this, because it can stop
	people from being silent and speak out what is on there hearts.

>      I am sure that Jim believes God is mighty to save and to revive

	This is very uncarefull to say it this way, because satan not
	only believe this, he also know this and he do everything to get
	people far away from salvation.
	But I read in this that your sure that Jim not own his life
	anymore but he handed it to God by the acceptence of the
	sacrifise of Jesus.
	That's good, because his life is safe there.

>      and I also don't think God's idea of revival need be going to a
>      place like Pensacola.

	I have been writing this, because I have just heard to much
	stories about Pensacola and Toronto from people who are saying
	that this can't be from God and It's not good to be in a place
	like this.
	I personaly think this is from God, but it will not be seen by
	people who only come to check if it's really from God.
	God give His Power to everybody who ask for this.
	and for God it doesn't matter if you are in Pensacola or at
	home with the door locked.
	God will give you, because you ask Him for it, He will not
	give everyone who goes to look in places like Pensacola.
	He know your heart, He know the reason for your comming to a
	place like Pensacola.
	I personaly believe that God can touch only one person in a
	crouded place with millions of people and afterwards everybody
	accept this onlyone will say: "This wasn't God, Satan was working
	there, good we went away on time when we still could!"

>      But, that God can revive our own individual hearts and enable 
>      us to bloom right where we are planted!

	I too believe this and revival not starts whith your or mine
        neigbore it starts with you and me.
    
>       I've met Jim and he's a pretty decent guy!!

	That's good, but this not counts in God's Kingdom, only salvation
	does.
    
    						Take Care and keep close
						to the Tree of Live.
    
    						L.B.W.

 re .158


> I believe you may have misunderstood my concern, but thanks for your
> comments.

	If you believe I misunderstood your concern,
	you must be right about this, 'cause your
	the only one to know.

	I'm glad you apriciate my comment,
	and I thank you for giving me a reason
	to speak out.



					L.B.W.

|  I don't know if there are any people left who read this conference for
| encouaragment and edification..I suspect they are long gone as those 2
| qualities certainly don't appear here much anymore.
|
| But, I would sure like to have this conference back where perhaps we
| can at least attempt to return to that goal.  Sharing our love for the
| Lord Jesus Christ, His Word, and the fellowship of His people.
    
    I've been wondering lately if we would be better off as a members-only
    conference.  

	Even with a members only situation, you can't deny anyone from
entering.


Glen

    You could if they didn't know about it ;-)

Can we please not get into speculations - and worse - about the possibilities
of being a members-only conference?  That's not under consideration at the
moment.

Thanks,

Paul
Co-Moderator

	Well, the standard things should all come to a close tomorrow, anyway.
I got a call for a conference call with 2 people I don't know, and then that
was changed to a face to face meeting with someone I met once. :-)  I think
Nancy sent her mail! :-)


Glen

    Well it is a shame you had to bring it to this point instead of showing
    us the cross as Tony suggested.  What good will it do you to get your
    way and note in here by yourself?

    .167
    
    Amazing to me that you feel defeated before anything has been resolved
    Mike.  Come on, Bro, I know you know, but God is God no matter what.
    
    I love you Mike, thanks for being a friend over all these years.  I've
    enjoyed watching you grow and change.
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

    /me wonders how hard it would be to set up a list-server

    Dunno what even a list server is.

    like the DCF distribution list...  Dick Binder wrote the software it
    uses.

	I don't know why you even think it is a defeat to begin with. I didn't
plan this meeting. :-)



Glen

	I don't know why you even think it is a defeat to begin with. I didn't
realize this was a war or something. And I didn't even plan this meeting. :-)



Glen

Who said anything about defeat?

    I would like to suggest that we should all pray that God's will be done
    in this conference.  That this conference will evolve into whatever He
    has planned for it.  I think prayer at this point would be more useful
    than further bickering or gloating or despair.  
    
    Philippians 4:4-8 
    4Rejoice in the Lord always. I will say it again: Rejoice!  5Let your
    gentleness be evident to all. The Lord is near.  6Do not be anxious
    about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with
    thanksgiving, present your requests to God.  7And the peace of God,
    which transcends all understanding, will guard your hearts and your
    minds in Christ Jesus.  8Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever
    is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely,
    whatever is admirable--if anything is excellent or praiseworthy--think
    about such things.
    
    
    Jill
     

    Notes have been set hidden in which a personal situation from another
    conference has been discussed.  Please would those involved in this
    discussion take it off line or to that conference.
    
    Thank you,
    Nancy
    co-moderator Christian

    Glen,
    
    Other conferences, members-only conferences, have prohibited membership 
    to those conferences.
    
    So I'm curious, how can an assertion that members-only conferences
    cannot prohibit membership be true?
    
    jeff

    It is quite wrong Jeff.  All conferences regardless of membership
    status cannot refuse memberships or ban anyone from participating.  If
    a disagreement between moderators and an individual occur which cannot
    be resolved, it may be elevated to personnel for handling, but banning
    is prohibited.  That is my current understanding.
    
    Regards,
    Nancy

    
    So a member-only conference (which I am not suggesting or promoting) is 
    not an alternative which would enable, for our purposes, a freer, 
    less-hassled environment.
    
    jeff

    Correct Jeff.  That is should someone want to harass the participants
    of this file enough to ask for membership.  Membership only basically
    is only an inhibitor but is certainly not a "protector".
    
    Quite honestly, I'm not interested in a members only conference, that
    goes against the inclusivity of the gospel message in my humble
    opinion.  Christianity is  NOT EXCLUSIVE.
    
    Love in Him,
    Nancy

The current discussion taking place is fine.  However, please refrain from
mentioning the names of specific conferences as discussion of the moderation
of those conferences is inappropriate.


Jim Co Mod

    
    Hi all,
    
    To me it looks like being a christian is for MEMBERS only,
    
    and the price is high too, but because nobody will ever be
    able to pay, God pay for us all with the Blood of His
    Beloved Son Jesus Christ.
    
    And because of this every body who want can become a MEMBER
    but only by accepting that Jesus is the Way, the Truth and
    the Live and without Him there can never be salvation.
    
    							God bless
    
    							L.B.W.

    
    RE: .189
    
    Amen!
    
    Count me in as a MEMBER.