Conference back40::soapbox

    How sad.

 It is unfortunate that the day to day activities of the typical pastoral staff
 of a typical Christian Church (yes, including the "fundamentalists" that many
 sneer about) are not chronicled in the daily newsbriefs.  Heck, just the 
 typical day in my own pastor's life would fill many a note in here.  But, no,
 I expect we'll be treated to the stuff that even the mainstream, anytown USA
 Fundamentalist Pastors don't acknowledge as being Biblical or Christ like in
 this topic so certain individuals can squeal with delight as they share the
 "news" of what those hatemongering, murderous Christians are up to.


 Jim

    About a month ago a similar incident happened in Kitchener, Ontario.
    
    A 2 year old (?) girl died while her grandparent and mother tried to 
    perform an exorcism. Apperently the girl was tied to the bed with a
    rope across her neck. The cause of death was "brain swelling".
    
    
    Nuts are everywhere.
    The more radical/fundamental a religion is the more nuts they attract.
    
    
    Brian V
    (Mr squirrel)
    

    
    
    
    So are we to believe that all fundies are nuts and killers, Doug?  I
    challenge you to post articles about the good these people do as well
    as the negative.  Much much more good is done than evil.  Just like
    with the priests.  Of course I know this doesn't fit your agenda......
    
    
    
    Mike

    The first thing that came to my mind when reading the basenote.
    
    Religion in my my is identified as one who attempts to reach God.
    Since the foundation of Christianity is a Holy God reaching down to
    sinful man, thank goodness Christianity isn't a religion!
    
    -Jack

 The Bible tells us that there will be those who come along invoking Christ's
 name in this or that but their fruits, ie, their actions, will speak as to
 their origin.




 Jim

 A very good book on liberals and how they attempt to misinterpret the
 Bible is the Bible itself.



 
 Jim

re: .last few

The problem seems to be that the "normal" Christains here in the
'Box say things like "well, the bible is simple to follow" and "you
don't have to dig hard to find the real meaning" and "there's ONE
morality, the morality described in the bible" and other sweeping
generalizations.

Here we have a group of people who THEMSELVES claim to have found
the answers to their problems in the bible, and it includes exorcising
devils, beating people to cast out demons, etc.  What is clear is
that the bible, as written, has MUCH that's open to interpretation.
What's not clear is why "normal" Christians can't see that their
version is just as much interpretation as the fundies' version.

To recap: the honest answer is to say, "I believe your interpretation
is wrong, and mine is right because <blah>," not, "I have the REAL
answer, and yours is just an incorrect interpretation."

Oh, by the way, let's stop picking on the liberals for all their
faults and bad government ideas; what about the GOOD liberals, and
all the stuff they do?  Doesn't their compassion and caring about
people count for anything?  (Sounds dumb, eh?  Think about how dumb
it sounds when we can't examine what some Christains say because of
"all the good things other Christians do.")

\john

	I saw Doug post his note. My guess is he got it off the internet. Now
there are many people in here that may be fundies, who could also post some
stuff they feel is good. So why don't they?

	Jim mentioned that his pastor had done some things that would make many
a good note, but then ended with bitchin about Doug, and put nothing in here.
Why?


Glen

>	I saw Doug post his note. My guess is he got it off the internet. Now
>there are many people in here that may be fundies, who could also post some
>stuff they feel is good. So why don't they?


 First, I resent the label "fundies".  Second, the internet (as near as I
 can tell) isn't filled with the everyday activities that Christians are 
 involved in.  And, were I or any one to whom you assign the label "fundies"
 to post such activities, I doubt they would meet with your "approval".
 




>	Jim mentioned that his pastor had done some things that would make many
>a good note, but then ended with bitchin about Doug, and put nothing in here.
>Why?


 I have no intention of posting my pastor's activities in here.  I merely
was making a point, that in a topic about fundamentalism we are likely to
be treated to the extreme activities of those on the fringes of mainstream
Christianity.




Jim

	Jim, sorry about the fundies thing. I will refrain from using it in the
future. Sometimes I just don't feel like writing words out, so I abbreviate.
Again, sorry bout that.

	Now about the stories on the internet. Does it matter if it meets our
approval? If you feel it is something that is actually good, why not post it? I
mean, how can you complain that nothing good is being posted when you've stated
you aren't willing to post anything good?


Glen

    The only thing "fundamental" about .0 is that it was fundamentally
    wrong.
    
    Perhaps this group were anti-fundies?  Meaning, not following Biblical
    fundamentals.  I certainly can't remember any passage where Jesus beat
    demons out of folk with a stick/whatever.  
    
    
    -steve

    > I have no intention of posting my pastor's activities in here. 
    
    Then quitcher bitchin' about the one-sidedness of the portrayals 
    you're likely to see.  Iffen you can't be bothered to post examples 
    of fundamentalists who aren't wackos, you cede the field.
    
    DougO

            There will always be those who try to discredit any type of
    religon, but there will also be those who will question and criticize
    different religons in order to learn more about how they operate. My
    feelings as a Christian are that there are people out the that
    interpret the Bible diffrently, but my understanding is that the Bible
    teaches the love of God, and of your fellow man or women, not to beat
    out evil spirits . There will always be a fringe element who get a
    following , that may not represent who they claim to represent but go
    off on their own . This poor woman was definately murder by Ms. Parks
    and her followers .  

    seems to me, not so long ago, nancy posted a note about helping a 
    homeless family.  what did she get for it?  people accusing her of
    the posting as a means of patting herself on the back.   i can
    see why others would be reluctant to do such posting.  some folks 
    don't feel the need to open up something that personal to the inane
    commentary of the 'box gallery.  

>    > I have no intention of posting my pastor's activities in here. 
    
>    Then quitcher bitchin' about the one-sidedness of the portrayals 
>    you're likely to see.  Iffen you can't be bothered to post examples 
>    of fundamentalists who aren't wackos, you cede the field.
    
    

 Somehow if I were to post messages about the souls saved and the lives 
 changed through the message of Christ, they'd be met by messages from the
 anti Christian bigots speaking of "cramming it down their throats", or if
 I were to speak of the folks looking for food/money whom we help almost 
 daily, it would be met with "you just want to cram your religion down their
 throat".  


 No thanks.



 Jim

    "souls saved" rhetoric would get you some sneers, doubtless, 'cause you
    have not even a vague pretense of being able to prove such exist, much
    less need, want, or can demonstrably be "saved".  But about lives
    changed, if that's what you think is good about funamentalist religion,
    hey, post and let the box judge.
    
    DougO

      The simple thing I ask myself is, "Are they like Jesus?"
    
      I don't think they were.
    
      But, then again, I don't think I am!
    
      WHERE is Christianity?  Is it to be found?
    
      I don't know.  Us Christians are too much like the world and too
      little like Christ to really make much of an impact on this world.
    
      Someday...

    .19
    
    Right, DougO, let the box judge the way they did with Nancy.  She did a
    concrete, measurable thing that probably benefitted a homeless family -
    certainly helped their attitude, which is good in itself - and she got,
    basically, crapped on for trumpeting her own virtue.  Pfui.

>    "souls saved" rhetoric would get you some sneers, doubtless, 'cause you
>    have not even a vague pretense of being able to prove such exist, much
>    less need, want, or can demonstrably be "saved".  But about lives


     Just what I expected to read.  



>    changed, if that's what you think is good about funamentalist religion,
>    hey, post and let the box judge.
    
   No thanks.




 Jim

      <<< Note 347.18 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


> No thanks.


I don't blame you, Jim. You're a lot smarter than I am.

| <<< Note 347.18 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| Somehow if I were to post messages about the souls saved and the lives
| changed through the message of Christ, they'd be met by messages from the
| anti Christian bigots speaking of "cramming it down their throats", or if
| I were to speak of the folks looking for food/money whom we help almost
| daily, it would be met with "you just want to cram your religion down their
| throat".  

	First off Jim, then you can't really bitch about one sidedness. But
second, do you really consider them bigots? You sit here and complain about all
the negatives of what's could possibly happen, but don't even think about those
who you just might help out. How many people out there have had a good part of
their lives spent listening to all the negatives for Christianity? People who
might go either way on the religion scale, but are leary to be known as one of
"them". 

	So you can keep on bitchin about the negatives, but if you want change,
you could do it.


Glen

 re .24


 ?

    I didn't crap on Nancy, I was proud of Nancy. If there were more
    Christians willing to do what Nancy did in their day to day lives,
    more people would be willing to hear the message instead of berating
    the messenger.
    
    Glenn

	Jim, in other words, you could very easily help many people, inbetween
the barbs. Do you think Nancy helped anyone with seeing that Christians can be
different than they are portrayed? I think so. While she got jabbed a few
times, she also helped people as well. And as was said a couple of notes back,
the more good that people see of the Christians, the fewer jabs that will
actually be taken at them.

	But where you did say you are not willing to do this, then what I am
saying is you do not really have a legit bitch as you yourself are not willing
to provide any good pointers. 



Glen

    >Right, DougO, let the box judge the way they did with Nancy. 
    
    Nancy's story would go just fine in this topic.  And she got no flack
    from me.
    
    If the reasonable people don't speak up, they abdicate the field of
    argument to the extremists.  Seems Jim has chosen that path.  It
    matters not to me.
    
    DougO

RE:               <<< Note 347.28 by BIGQ::SILVA "Squirrels R Me" >>>



>	Jim, in other words, you could very easily help many people, inbetween
>the barbs. Do you think Nancy helped anyone with seeing that Christians can be
>different than they are portrayed? I think so. While she got jabbed a few
>times, she also helped people as well. And as was said a couple of notes back,
>the more good that people see of the Christians, the fewer jabs that will
>actually be taken at them.


 I'm sure few people come into the box looking for Christian testimonies.




>	But where you did say you are not willing to do this, then what I am
>saying is you do not really have a legit bitch as you yourself are not willing
>to provide any good pointers. 



I'm saying, that it would be nice if the "news sources" for such tragic tales
as posted in .0, printed articles about the good that Christians do.  That is
all.  As an example, I indicated that there are a number of things that my
church does and that there are countless other churches in the USA that do
the same.



 Jim

    
>    If the reasonable people don't speak up, they abdicate the field of
>    argument to the extremists.  Seems Jim has chosen that path.  It
>    matters not to me.
    
 
 And .0 is resonable in a topic on Fundamentalists?  



 Jim

    > And .0 is resonable in a topic on Fundamentalists?  
    
    I know you'd prefer the dirty laundry be swept under the carpet, but
    that isn't what its about, Jim.  These people shelter under the same
    hands-off tax laws, the same hands-off-they're-guaranteed-freedom-of-
    expression protection as those who don't harm others.  All sorts of
    fundamentalists wear the label.  Yes, its a real point on the spectrum
    of fundamentalism (as is the World Trade Center bombing) and it is
    quite reasonably included.
    
    DougO

 I have no desire to see any dirty laundry swept under the carpet, but thanks
 for asking.




 Jim

    
    RE: .34
    
    There are AIDS "activists"
              Feminist "activists"
              Environemental "activists"
    
              etc.
    
    
     but a Christian who is an "activist" is labeled a "fundamentalist"...
    
     go figure...
    

    
    RE: .19
    
    
    > post and let the box judge.
    
    
    Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaaaaaaaaa!!!!!
    

| <<< Note 347.32 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>


| These people shelter under the same hands-off tax laws, the same 
| hands-off-they're-guaranteed-freedom-of-expression protection as 
| those who don't harm others.  

	You know what would make for a real good story? Hearing that the
fundamentalists are getting together to fight against these people who 
take the tax law breaks/FOE stuff. Maybe distancing yourselves from these
people in a LOUD way, and not as an after the fact thing will make people see
the difference.


Glen

| <<< Note 347.35 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>


| There are AIDS "activists"

	Promoter of sex and drugs

| Feminist "activists"

	Feminazi's

| Environemental "activists"

	Al Gore :-)

| but a Christian who is an "activist" is labeled a "fundamentalist"...

	Your 1 & two are pretty much in the same boat as your Christian analogy
Andy. Only your #3 shows any difference. 


Glen

    
    In your no so humble opinion...
    

    
    re: .38
    
     
      Awwwww..... 
    
    
      Just go merrily along and sing...
    
    
       ".....me and my Arrow...."
    

| <<< Note 347.41 by SOLVIT::KRAWIECKI "Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap! Yap!" >>>


| In your no so humble opinion...

	No, it all depends on which side of the fence you're sitting on. Each
group knows how they view themselves. Each group knows how others view them. 3
groups you mentioned have a negative stigma attached to them. You can not deny
that. 


Glen

    
    Pay Attention!!!!
    
     I'm not talking about fences or stigmas or how each views the other...
    
    I'm talking about hypocrisy!!!
    
    
      The term "activist" basically means someone is doing something...
    whether good or bad is not the issue... 
    
      Those that are doers believe in fundamentals of their particular
    affiliation (negative or otherwise)...
    
      Why aren't they called:
    
      AIDS fundies or
      Feminist fundies or
      Enviro-fundies...????????????????
    
      

	Please don't say that word. (fundies) It upsets Jim.

	If one views those of the Religious Right as Fundamentalist Christians,
which I might add some of them also go by that name, then wouldn't many view
all Christians as fundamentalists? It is definitely not an accurate picture,
but one that is thought of by many. I know many Christians who want nothing to
do with the funamentalist groups of Christians. Are you one who believes that
the wackos are under that label by other people or by their own doing?
    
| Those that are doers believe in fundamentals of their particular affiliation 

	Many of the wackos call themselves fundamentalist christians. THEY are
calling themselves that.
    
	But for those cases where others apply it, why don't you just correct
them? 


Glen

.32>These people shelter under the same [...] hands-off-they're-guaranteed-
.32>freedom-of-expression protection as those who don't harm others.

How so? .0 says that the women who participated in the exorcism are facing
murder charges?

    
    re: .45
    
    Forget it... the rat hole you're trying to create is not worth
    correcting...

re: .21, Dick

>    Right, DougO, let the box judge the way they did with Nancy.  She did a
>    concrete, measurable thing that probably benefitted a homeless family -
>    certainly helped their attitude, which is good in itself - and she got,
>    basically, crapped on for trumpeting her own virtue.  Pfui.

Please help refresh my memory, as I don't recall which topic that was
discussed in, but I seem to recall Nancy mentioning that she got mail
from non-participants in the 'box accusing her of trumpeting her own
virtue. I do not specifically recall her having gotten crapped on
within the 'box. Am I mistaken? Can anyone point me to the string?

    no, not all christians are fundamentalists.  Fundamentalists are
    usually self-described as such, they proudly claim the label.  They are
    usually adherents to one of the religious traditions described as "of
    the book", meaning Jewish, Christian, or Muslim.  The self-description
    seems to imply that they are the only sect to be interpreting the
    book's doctrines correctly, down to its "fundamentals".  This usually
    means as literal an interpretation of the oft-translated 'book' they
    follow as they can justify.  And they try very hard.
    
    A difference from the other extremists Andy lumped them in with is that
    the other types are avowedly political.  Religious fundamentalists,
    while intruding often into the political arena, do so for religious
    reasons, and in a tolerant democratic society such as ours, with the
    protections granted to religions.  In doing so I consider that they
    abuse their privileges, and that their political shenanigans should be
    curtailed, but I recognize, reluctantly, that the 1st amendment
    prevents such for very good reasons.  I still think they abuse their
    privileges, but I don't advocate governmental actions against their
    right to interfere in politics, until they break other laws.
    
    DougO

> I do not specifically recall her having gotten crapped on
>within the 'box. Am I mistaken? Can anyone point me to the string?


	i can't point you to the string, but i believe you're correct.	
	the response in the 'box was mostly, if not all, supportive
	in nature.

    >.32>These people shelter under the same [...]hands-off-they're-guaranteed-
    >.32>freedom-of-expression protection as those who don't harm others.
    >
    > How so? .0 says that the women who participated in the exorcism are
    > facing murder charges?
    
    The state generally lets cults and other such do as they will until
    they break other laws, Jack.  That's what I'm talking about.  This lets
    the nutcases shelter in via the religious protection clauses in the
    BIll of Rights with more mainstream religious traditions, free to
    practise as they will.  No matter how nutty or dangerous.  And in
    general, so long as they only hurt themselves, I consider it evolution
    in action, and I'm perfectly willing to keep the government out of
    their affairs.  It is right and proper to lock up the perpetrators when
    they kill someone, though.
    
    DougO

    It matters not whether Nancy got crapped on here in the box (which
    neither she nor I said happened) or whether she was crapped on in mail
    by people who read here what she reported (which she said did happen).
    
    The fact remains that she was crapped on for telling what she'd done
    with her Christianity.  And I can understand why she or any other box
    believers might just be a little gunshy about getting up to be shot at
    some more.  The simple truth is that if someone does a good thing in
    the name of one's religion, it's thumpism, while if it's done in the
    name of getting a tax break or some other temporal benefit, it's the
    equivalent of manna from heaven, pardon the juxtaposition.

>>    It matters not whether Nancy got crapped on here in the box (which
>>    neither she nor I said happened) or whether she was crapped on in mail
>>    by people who read here what she reported (which she said did happen).

	you said "let the box judge the way they did with Nancy".  that's
	kinda misleading, at best.

    
    Interesting phenomena :  DougO, who is angry with someone
     apparently, thinks this note will have any effect other than
     making a lot of people, including complete strangers, angry as
     he is.
    
     Glen, a member of an extreme minority, often persecuted unfairly
    for their wacko outlandish behavior, takes such glee in bating
    members of another minority whose members perceive themselves as
    persecuted.
    
     And the defiant intolerance of the sure continues on all sides.
    
      bb

    .53
    
    SOMEBODY in the box judged Nancy, even if it might have been only some
    read-onlies.  Like it or not, read-onlies are part of the box
    population just as much as we who blather on and on here.
    
    Sorry you were misled.

>>    SOMEBODY in the box judged Nancy, even if it might have been only some

	i thought it was posted in more than one conference, but maybe
	not.  anyways, making it sound as though it's not safe to post
	such things here because one would be crapped on when there may not
	even have been one single note doing so is misleading.

    > DougO, who is angry with someone apparently, thinks this note will
    > have any effect other than making a lot of people, including complete
    > strangers, angry as he is.
    
    Eh?  Whence these erroneous assumptions?
    
    DougO

| <<< Note 347.54 by GAAS::BRAUCHER >>>


| Glen, a member of an extreme minority, 

	Extreme INDEED! Outlandish maybe. :-)

| often persecuted unfairly for their wacko outlandish behavior, 

	bb.... if I didn't know any better, I'd say you were trying to prove a
point here or get some sort of knee jerk reaction. :-)

| takes such glee in bating members of another minority whose members perceive 
| themselves as persecuted.

	Bating???? Why bb, what ever gave you that idea? I stand behind
everything I have said. Really.


Glen

	I know of one other conference it was in for sure, (Christian). It MAY
have been in CP. If it had been in others, I am unaware of that.


Glen

    lets work on a definition for fundamentalist.
    
    I envision 2 classes.
    
    1. Take a small section of the bible or a small verse and use that to 
       spinter a religious Faction.
    
    	Ex) Snake handlers
    
    2. Opt for a more literal translation of the bible. (which disagrees
       with most main line religions today).
    
    	Ex) Baptist, JW
    
    
    
    Any one got a problem with this definition.
    
    
    
    Brian V
    

    Slaying Suspect Was Once a Church Youth Leader
    She called TV `demonic,' pastor says 
    
    Tara Shioya, Chronicle East Bay Bureau 
    
    Eun Kyong (Jean) Park, the fundamentalist Christian missionary charged
    with fatally beating a young woman in a ritual to cast out demons, once
    frightened church youth group members by telling them to stop watching
    television, calling it ``demonic.'' 
    
    The Rev. Hoon Bae, pastor of the Richmond Korean Baptist Church where
    Park, 30, was a youth director last year, said in an interview
    yesterday that a concerned parent relayed what Park had said. Bae said
    he reprimanded Park, telling her he did not condone that way of
    thinking. ``I told her `never to say that because the Bible doesn't say
    that,' '' said Bae, shaking his head emphatically. ``And after that she
    stopped.'' 
    
    After that incident, Bae said he kept a ``close eye'' on her, although
    he acknowledged that he did not attend any of Park's youth group
    sessions during the time she worked there. He first met Park when she
    visited his church last February on a missionary tour. 
    
    Bae said he hired her without references or a resume because the
    position was only part time. He offered her a full-time job, but Park
    declined, saying she needed more time to carry on her missionary work. 
    
    The church paid Park $800 a month to work as a youth director, leading
    two-hour group sessions Saturdays and some Sundays from about March to
    August 1994. 
    
    Park received an additional $300 monthly to help support three young
    Russian women who were living with her then. One of the them,
    19-year-old Natasha Baboulina, is also charged with murder. 
    
    Bae said Park did not seem ``dangerous,'' and had good ``leadership
    qualities.'' But gradually it became evident that Park's religious
    beliefs differed from those of Bae's church. 
    
    ``We believe in the Bible, we follow the Southern Baptist doctrine,''
    Bae said. ``We don't follow demonism. I'm only preaching the Gospel --
    I never preach about demons.'' 
    
    Bae said he is at a loss to explain what theological beliefs might have
    led to last week's violent events. 
    
    Park, her mother and three other followers of her Jesus-Amen Ministries
    are charged with murdering 25-year-old Kyong-A Ha at Park's Emeryville
    apartment March 8. Ha died after Park and her followers allegedly
    struck her repeatedly on the face, ribs and abdomen. 
    
    Bae has instructed his congregation not to talk to anyone outside the
    church about Park, advising members to refer all questions to him. As a
    Chronicle reporter interviewed youth group members, a church elder
    politely asked her to stop, mentioning that the teenagers were shocked
    and ``possibly confused.'' 
    
    But some younger members of the 5-year-old church expressed their
    disbelief that the woman who had once taught them the Bible is now
    charged with murder. 
    
    ``She taught me how to be a true Christian,'' said a 13-year-old girl
    who did not want to be identified. She described Park as a gentle
    person, with a kind heart and a ``really strong relationship with
    God.'' 
    
    Others said at times Park's religious zeal was more than noticeable. 
    
    ``She was fine -- she was nice,'' said 14-year-old Dae Chung, somewhat
    reluctantly. ``She was always a little wired, though.'' 
    
    Published 3/20/95 in San Francisco Chronicle

       <<< Note 347.49 by SX4GTO::OLSON "Doug Olson, ISVETS Palo Alto" >>>

>    Fundamentalists are
>    usually self-described as such, they proudly claim the label.  
    
    	Did the people in .0 self-describe as such?  Why should you
    	get to decide who, from among those who don't self-describe
    	as such, also should be declared "fundamentalist"?

    
    On NPR today, there was a discussion stemming from this...topics
    discussed included
    
    What is a cult - what are the "business practices" of one, how does
    one guard against such manipulations and deception recruitment, what
    are a cult's characteristics etc. Based on the collective wisdom during
    the show, I understand why the Emeryville PD stops short of calling
    that group a cult, and instead settled for a "sect". One of the main
    id is deceptive recruitment which apparently didn't happen here, but
    that group does have a "prominent leader" and that the members of a
    cult takes up the value system, behaviour of that leader, and actually
    obeys the leader without question. That is a characterictic of a cult.
    
    It seems to me personally the murder was the result of cult
    worshipping. It just so happens that the cult bases and associates
    itself with the Christian faith.
    
    

	Joe, the fundamentalist part comes from this line of .0:


Park was ordained through the United Fundamental Church in Los Angeles and 
received further training in an evangelical church in San Francisco and a 
Baptist church in Richmond. Park incorporated the Jesus-Amen Ministries in Los 
Angeles in 1992, according to records on file with the secretary of state.
    

    
    Watching DougO I think it is fair to suggest that fundamentalists are
    those evangelicals who are very active politically.  That should narrow
    down the discussion considerably, making it manageable.
    
    jeff

    
     I think we should let DougO have his little note to himself...
    
     I get the distinct visual impression of this mad little scientist
    cackling to himself everytime he types reply filename.ext and then
    ctrlz

    This episode seems very extreme, even for a fundamentalist group.
    Although snake handling has been banned by law for quite some time;
    in most rural areas of Alabama, Georgia, Tennessee etc. it still
    goes on.
    
    About a month ago one of the night time shows, can't remember if it
    was 2020 or Dateline did an interesting article on snake handling.
    I had difficulty watching it because I HATE snakes!!  These groups
    are so small that it's hard to describe them as congregations of
    any church.  The belief is you can handle snakes (vipers) and come
    out unscathed if you have not sinned; you sin, you get bitten.
    
    The reporter who did the article followed one group for months. 
    They allowed him to video them when they were handling the snakes.
    He eventually got so caught up in it he handled a snake himself
    one night. At no time did this group try to FORCE the handling of
    the snakes upon the people present (at least they didn't do it when
    the camera was rolling).
    
    Authorities having been trying to stamp this practice out for decades,
    but haven't been able to do it.  Usually they only time they hear any-
    thing is when someone gets bitten and dies (happens all the time).
    
    I'm sure family members and "church" members to encourage people to
    handle the snakes, but the reporter indicated that after visiting
    with several groups he never saw any of them force someone to pick
    up a snake who did not want to.

    I would have been rattled by such an experience.

    I'm sure the Amway folks aren't disturbed by being compared to
    fundametalists either.  
    
    Brian, not a fundamental Amwayist

    
    Well, I'm out of the closet.  In my 20's, I kept a snake - a Boa
    named Fred.  I fed Fred mice and handled him daily.  When I moved,
    I had to sell him.
    
    If there is re-incarnation, I think I could go for the constrictor
    lifestyle.
    
      bb

   Glenn, I think thossssse people are absssssolutley ssssssssinisssssster.

Yesterday ATC had a story on the guy who wrote the snake handling book.
Sounds like the same guy that .67 talks about.

    I can't stand anyone on node CSLALL:: ... I sense a trend here ... 
                                           

    Speaking of religious nutters, the Tokyogassing may have been
    perpetrated by an obscure fanatical religious organization.  A raid on
    the organization turned up chemicals similar to those used in the
    gassing, according to NPR.  
    
    Brian

	BUCK'S BACK!!!!! BUCK'S BACK!!!!!!  YYYEEEEEEHHAAAAAA!!!!!

    
    BUCK'S FRONT!!!!!  BUCK'S FRONT!!!!!!
    
    
    Er, just trying to go with the flow and all that.

    I won't say BUCK'S BOTTOM!!!! I won't.

    The BUCK'S stop here by the way.

| <<< Note 347.79 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "KFC and tandem potty tricks" >>>

| I won't say BUCK'S BOTTOM!!!! I won't.


	You just did....

    Oh ya.

	Hey, seeing we're in this topic and praising Buck and all, does that
make him a religious fundamentalist?

    >Hey, seeing we're in this topic and praising Buck and all, does that
    >make him a religious fundamentalist?
    
    Well I, for one, worship his Peavey 5150 amp! :-)
    
    A sign! A sign! He's sent us a sign! :-)
    
    -b

    Juniper berries?

    1.  I have been in training and my job has kept me out of soapbox for
    quite a while now.  Having just caught up with this topic, let me
    emphasize that no-one trashed my note here in the box on the  homeless
    people.  I was written offline by someone who read it here.  
    I posted that note here and in YUKON::CHRISTIAN only.
    
    And I should say thanks for the encouragements that came from many of
    you.  However, I must agree with Jim that its risky posting positive
    notes about our Christianity in this forum.  Most of the time we are
    accused of "thumping"... the difference between the two notes; homeless
    vs testimonial is that it was an act of charity versus a conversion
    story.  I think most people respond to ACTIONS of LOVE versus TALK of
    LOVE. :-)  right?
    
    Secondly, since DougO asked for some testimonial type notes, I will be
    posting two... one is my own, which was posted last version... and one
    is not my own, but came via an email from a woman who I've never met,
    but was completely blessed by her testimony.  I don't believe she works
    at Digital anymore.
    
    Nancy

    I was only 2 years old when my parents divorced.  My father not knowing
    what else to do, promptly took me to live with his mother and father in
    Kentucky.  You see, my mother didn't want me.  For 6 years, my
    grandparents gave me the only "home" I ever had.  However, what happened 
    during summer visitations in Florida (with my parents) was a nightmare.
    
    My parents both lived in Tampa, Florida.  During the summer, starting
    at 4 years of age, my grandmother would put me on a plane to my parents.  
    In Florida, my father would pick me up and off we would go to his den of
    darkness.  My father's abode had pornography on the walls and in the
    bathroom.  At night he would molest me when he thought I was asleep.
    
    During the day we didn't acknowledge anything had happened between us. 
    I was so young (I know it started before 4) that I didn't know any
    different.  I remember by age 6 asking my friends if there fathers 
    visited them in bed.  They would all look at me shocked, so my shame 
    would stop me from talking about this.
    
    At age 6, my father (who I now know was an alcoholic) liked to stop at
    the bars and drink.  So, my Father would leave me in the car and have
    barmaids come out and bring me a grape soda and take me in the bushes 
    to relieve myself.  At closing, he would amble out drunk and somehow 
    only God knows we made it home!
    
    During this time, Mom was busy with her beaus.  She had met the man of
    her dreams and was not interested in me.  I saw her on weekends sometimes,
    but not a lot.  I usually stayed with a neighbor or my older sister, if she
    was there.  My sister lived with my mother's parents.
    
    Then 2 years later, at 8 years old, I began another transition.  My
    mother was pregnant and decided she wanted me to live with her.  She got
    married and my little brother was born.
    
    Having a stepfather and 3 stepsisters was more then difficult for me. 
    My stepsisters, as well as our "new baby brother", all slept in the same
    room. I had one stepsister who didn't like me or my mother.  She physically
    and verbally abused me whenever I was left in her care.  She was 8 years
    older than me.  Her abuse along with the *other* abuse made me feel very
    insignificant.  I became an uncooperative child.  It felt as though my
    very soul had been taken from me.
    
    Because of the amount of alcohol and dysfunction in our home, my
    stepfather and mother had frequent violent, drunken fights.  Sometimes my
    stepfather would go in the closet, pull out the shotgun, and shoot 
    up the house!  God only knows why no-one ever got hit by a stray bullet.
    
    It is impossible to describe the total emptiness in my heart when as a
    little girl I listened to them fighting.  To liken it to a cold, dark,
    pit with no escape, touches the surface.
    
    To further worsen matters, a year later when I was 9, my father met a
    woman who had a daughter my age, whom she willingly turned over to my
    father's bed.  I now had competition for the only "constant" person in 
    my life, my father.  
    
    When I was with my mother, there was a lot of verbal abuse.  She also
    consumed her fair share of alcohol, which worsened things.  I was angry
    that my mother never "protected" me.  My father's house was full of
    pornography everywhere for everyone to see.  But at this time, she took
    me there, faithfully, every weekend and left me with him.  She never
    questioned what kind of environment I was in.
    
    Then, though no-one else, not my sister, not my mother, not my
    grandparents, no-one picked up on an overly sexual 10 year old, except
    my stepfather who took notice, and was now making nighttime visits to my
    bed.
    
    All of my stepsisters had married and the only other person in the room
    besides me was my infant brother.  Therefore, it was safe *for him* to
    make his visits.
    
    But there was no safe place for me as a child.  This continued until I
    was 13.  I had become so rebellious and my mouth was rather filthy as
    well.  When my mother would request that I do something, I would shout 
    obscenities at her and tell her to do it herself.  I now hated this woman 
    who didn't protect me with every fibre of my soul.  I begged my mother to 
    spend time with me and she never did!  She didn't spend enough time with 
    me to gain confidence, so that I could tell her the pain I was carrying 
    around.
    
    Then finally, relief came.  My mother had called Juvenile Hall and
    fabricated a story that I was on drugs and skipping school (I was
    considered incorrigible).  The truth is I *never* took drugs, and I
    *never* skipped school.  I was on the honor roll!  But no-one asked me, 
    they just went to my school, on my 13th birthday and the Florida State
    authorities picked me up and placed me in their custody.
    
    When I was brought in front of the Judge who heard my mother's case, I
    was asked this question, "How do you feel about living with another family
    that is not your own?".  My response verbatim without blinking an eye was,
    "Anything is better then living with these people."  The last words I
    spoke in front of my mother for a very long time.
    
    Praise God, He had His hand on my life.  I went into a Christian foster
    home.  Once settled in (that took some doing), I resisted the plan of
    salvation for about a year.  Then my foster parents gave me a book to
    read entitled "Run Baby Run" by Nicky Cruz.  In that book when Nicky asked
    Jesus into his heart, I knelt on my bed and asked Jesus into my heart and to
    forgive me of my sins.
    
    Many miracles occurred in my life after my faith in Christ. 
    Immediately, the hate for my mother turned to love. My biological 
    father paid for me to go to a Christian School, where I was blessed to 
    hear the powerful preaching/teaching of Godly men like, Jack Hyles,
    John R. Rice, Bob Gray, and Lester Roloff.
    
    My life verse, that I have claimed since I was 14 is Psalms 27:10,
    
     "When my father and my mother forsake me, then the Lord will 
      take me up."
    
    
    

==============================================================================
From:	ELMAGO::ABENAVIDEZ   "I have decided to follow Jesus" 14-NOV-1994 18:25:00.37
CC:	ABENAVIDEZ
Subj:	RE: Call for papers

I never did get a paper in to you, but as one of the last things I do here
at Digital, I decided to give a brief testimony as to the miracle of salvation
in my life and just recently an answer to a mother's prayer. You don't have
to publish it if it is too lengthy. 

I would not be able to list all the things that God has done for me. But here
it is in a nutshell..... 
After what seems a lifetime of searching I really do feel like I've been 
awakened from a bad dream. I accepted Jesus Christ as my LORD and SAVIOR at
the age of 28 just after coming out of a long separation and not so messy 
divorce but a very bad marriage.  I had two young children, both boys.

The sins in my life leading up to my conversion are so many. I've been
forgiven so much...so I am very much grateful to what the Lord has done. It 
involved drugs, fornication, adultery, the occult. I can't believe that He
accepted me.

As a child I was molested in the back yard of my own home.  It was not 
a re-occurring thing, but I could never forget what happened and a hatred 
began to grow in my heart for men and even my parents for not realizing the 
danger and protecting me.  People sometimes remarked that I always looked so
sad. As I entered into adolescence I became rebellious. 

At thirteen I had found friends who could get me liquor and was drinking a 
fifth of vodka before school in the morning. At sixteen I fell into a 
relationship where I was routinely beaten, then raped. The thoughts in my
mind even turned to murder, not even thinking of consequences, just wanting a 
way out of it. Then it occurred to me that it would be easier to end my own
life. So one day, I was alone, I took a bottle of tylenol and couple of glasses
of whiskey and took it. Then I waited thinking it would be very quick,...
nothing happened.  That night I went to my room and fell asleep. I was awakened
in the middle of the night gagging and vomiting. My mother heard me and wanted
to take me to the hospital, not knowing what was happening. I refused. 
I began to shake and vomit and did so until the next morning.  God's grace was
upon me I believe, even then. I came out of this even more angry but decided
to never attempt this again.  If someone had to pay, it would not be me...

I went into a marriage at this time, not really caring whether it worked or
not. It was another abusive relationship, though not physically. There was
almost daily use of drugs and adultery in the marriage.  After six years, there
was nothing left to salvage (in the world's eyes at least) so I took my two
sons and quietly divorced.
 
The occult was very attractive to me, reading any occultic literature I could 
find, I was attracted to and attracted the same type of people to me, who 
wanted to "read my cards" or "show me a spell to get rid of my enemies". I 
had abstract dreams and found books to learn to interpret them. I began to 
sell my skills in hand writing analysis. People were so hungry to know the 
future and find out something about themselves. But I still couldn't find an 
answer for myself. I began to have dreams about demonic beings, sometimes not 
knowing if I was actually asleep or awake. I had whirlwind relationships, 
thinking this is the way everyone has to be (right?). There's just got to
be more to life than this..I began to think...

About this time, my younger brother gave his life to Jesus (in the Air Force
of all places!) He came home on leave and told me about Jesus. I listened and
told him "I already know" I know all about religion, but I knew about religion
without the power in the cleansing blood of Jesus Christ.  None the less, 
I went to church with him and not even intending to, practically leaped out 
of my chair at the altar call. Even though I had sat through an altar call 
before. I cried with JOY as my burdens were lifted from me!

It's been nine years since that day.  One year later I was married to a 
man who also loves God with all his heart in that same little church.  Along 
with my stepson two more little boys have been added to the family so that 
makes five sons.  We are now pastoring a small church. People sometimes tell
me that "I" needed to get saved, but the truth is ALL of us fall short of 
the Glory of GOD. 

God is still on the throne. He delivered me, gave me dignity, and healed my 
bitterness. He can change any impossible circumstance in HIS Grace, 
HIS timing and mercy, and still is changing lives with miracles. 

Just recently my oldest son came down with a deadly form of strep, called
Beta Hemulytic Strep (spelling may be wrong, basically a flesh eating strain
of strep)  Thinking it would go away (teenage logic???) he did not tell us 
about the ulcers that were growing around his ankle. I felt a stong burden 
for him especially him at this time to pray and fight for him spiritually and 
did so every morning, not know what was wrong. By the time we found out, 
cultures were in,...etc...tests positive...It had been three weeks and I was 
not even prepared for what it looked like.

The last word from the doctor is "You're a very lucky young man, For some 
reason, I don't understand, it did not go to the next level and stopped at
your skin". He is alive and did not lose his leg. I praise God every day for
walking me through this every step of the way.

Annabel   

[Annabel's last day at Digital is today (18th) as the ABO plant closes down.
After 11 years with the company, she says she is "very happy to be TFSO'd"
and will now have the opportunity to spend more time with her children
and help her husband in the ministry.  Her youngest is 2, the oldest 16.
Please pray for her, and thank and praise our Lord for plucking her out of 
the life that had enveloped her. He is SO GOOD!!! - Richard]
    

    RE: .88

    Ahem, well. Not to piss anyone off or anything, but why do
    Christians feel the need to parade the perennial losers
    and misfits who can do no more than admit their own lack
    of self-motivation, responsibility, or social adaptability?
    For people like the original author of .88, Jesus is the
    latest in a long list of mechanisms they use to deny
    responsibility for their own life.

    I'm hardly impressed with testimonies like .88. I'd be more
    impressed hearing from someone who managed to lead a decent
    life in the first place and for whom Jesus is the Savior, but
    not a crutch.

    -b

| <<< Note 347.89 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

| Ahem, well. Not to piss anyone off or anything, but why do Christians feel the
| need to parade the perennial losers and misfits who can do no more than admit 
| their own lack of self-motivation, responsibility, or social adaptability?

	Brian, I'm sure what I'm about to say will be useful for you...DUCK!

	I do understand what you are saying, but if someone had it easy, and
gave testimony, many might not be AS impressed. If someone went through literal
Hell before the conversion, it is much more impressive, and helps show what He
can really do in tough times. I do agree with you that both should be talked
about, as in real life you have so many different kinds of people in different
situations who were saved. 

| I'm hardly impressed with testimonies like .88. I'd be more impressed hearing 
| from someone who managed to lead a decent life in the first place and for whom
| Jesus is the Savior, but not a crutch.

	Brian, even for one who has had a decent life, Jesus would still be a
crutch. There is so much to go through once one gives their life to Jesus, that
leaning on Him is done as when one gives up their life for Him, they depend on
Him for answers, guidance and such. Does this make any sense?



Glen

    .90
    
    > even for one who has had a decent life, Jesus would still be a
    > crutch.
    
    If you had the faintest idea what Christianity is all about, you would
    understand that there's a difference between a crutch and a friend.  I
    do not lean on Jesus.  I am responsible for my actions.  Was your
    mother a crutch when she forgave you for unintentionally breaking her
    Limoges vase (or whatever)?  No.  You still broke the vase, and it was
    ENTIRELY your fault.  But she continued to love you, and she may have
    elected to punish you less, or not at all, because you were sorry.  Get
    the picture?

	Dick, if you read the rest of the note, you would see what it was I
refered to as a crutch. If you have a problem, do you ever ask Jesus for help?
I do. He's the first one I ask. If someone else has a problem, I ask Him to
help them out too. I depend on Him to get me through each and every day. Most
Christians I know also do the same. He is a crutch, as He is called upon first
by many to help with jams they might have gotten into, etc. He is more than
JUST a crutch, like you said, He is also a friend. 

	If I do something on my own, then I am responsible for it. But that is
a different subject altogether.


Glen

	Brian, did you try and fix your Mr to a Miss/Ms or Mrs?????? I saw it
me boy.....

    >	Brian, I'm sure what I'm about to say will be useful for you...DUCK!
    
    Nope, I said it, I'll take the heat for it. That's the difference;
    I didn't say, "I think this, I'm a nasty evil foul-smelling budgie
    for thinking it, but Jesus saved me so it's OK."
    
    I said it, I think it, and I'm %100 responsible for the content.
    
    Look, I think spirituality is a wonderful (and necessary) thing.
    My own spiritual journey indicates that there's some portion of
    people who "get it" and then there's some other portion of people
    who are just so dense that they wouldn't "get it" if it screamed
    at the top of its lungs while knocking them about the head.
    Mr .88 strikes me as a case in point. Christianity, like all
    Spiritual paths, attracts its share of cluelessness. Most
    religions, however, are wise enough to keep the idiots locked
    in the closet, and not parade them about for public viewing.
    
    -b

> Most religions, however, are wise enough to keep the idiots locked
> in the closet, and not parade them about for public viewing.

If the Libertarians could only learn this, we might be able to see the
end of this silly two_parties_are_one political system of ours . . .

:^)

| <<< Note 347.94 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>


| Mr .88 strikes me as a case in point. Christianity, like all Spiritual paths, 
| attracts its share of cluelessness. 

	Brian, you must be religious then. Mr .88 married a man. I don't think
Mr .88 is a man though. You're clueless Brian.... heh heh....

| Most religions, however, are wise enough to keep the idiots locked in the 
| closet, and not parade them about for public viewing.

	Like they did with some priests? No way pal. I'd rather have them deal
with their laundry, whether dirty or not, than to have them hide it away.
Hiding just gives a false outlook on the reality of any given situation.


Glen

    >Like they did with some priests? No way pal. I'd rather have them deal
    >with their laundry, whether dirty or not, than to have them hide it away.
    >Hiding just gives a false outlook on the reality of any given situation.

    I don't see the Catholic Church parading pedophile priests as
    an example of how effectively God can help sinners, do you?

    What I'm talking about is entirely different. I'm talking about
    the PR wisdom of using testimonies such as .88. I don't mean
    to pick on Nancy for posting that either. Turn on TBN or 700
    Club and the testimonies are skewed heavily in the direction
    of the losers. Are losers that common? Or has the church
    simply given up on the rest of the non-losers that they would
    risk alienating them by stressing the underbelly of civilization?

    Maybe _someone_ is impressed with stories like .88, but I'm
    certainly not.

    -b

	I know just what you mean, Bri.  

 Unfortunately TBN and to a lesser degree, the 700 club are not good sources
 for views on Christianity/testimonies.  Its the local everyday church where
 everyday people like you and me come to the realization that there is a
 separation between God and man, and the bridge (not crutch) is Jesus Christ.
 I've known people from all walks of life (including like .88) who have
 come to Christ.  

 I'm not saying folks on TBN/700 club are not truly Christians, but they tend
 to sensationalize the conversion almost to where the spotlight is on them
 and not Jesus Christ.

 I believe .88 is real.  Call her clueless/whatever.  But one cannot deny that
 a change has happened in her life and she is on a different track.




Jim

    
    
    This one's for you, Di....... ;')

    >I believe .88 is real.

    No offense, but I don't believe her. I sense she's full of something
    regarding her knowledge of occultism, and this makes me wonder if she's
    any less full of something after meeting Jesus...

    > Call her clueless/whatever.  But one cannot deny that a change has
    > happened in her life and she is on a different track.

    There's a fine line between a track and a rut, and given the
    history of .88, I'd be more inclined to believe the latter...

    -b

| <<< Note 347.97 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>


| I don't see the Catholic Church parading pedophile priests as an example of 
| how effectively God can help sinners, do you?

	It actually does Brian. It shows one, that even one who is like they
are can see the sin, and then deal with it. That says a lot about how God can
help sinners. But remember, I said dirty laundry, OR NOT. People can have
little quirks about them and still be great Christians. To hide them away
because of the quirks is a disservice to God, and the person. (imho)

| Turn on TBN or 700 Club and the testimonies are skewed heavily in the 
| direction of the losers. 

	I wouldn't call them, or anyone else for that matter a loser. Troubled,
maybe. :-)  But Brian, they are the stories that grip the most people. They are
the ones that get broadcast the most. But they are far from the only ones
mentioned.


Glen

RE: .101


	Brian, please correct me if I am wrong, but I was left with the
impression that you passed judgement on the validity of the womans story.
Is this true?

	For the record (not that anyone gives a rat's patoot), I _don't_ 
	agree with a lot of what Brian has said - just the part about
	not being particularly impressed with this type of story.  I'd
	rather hear accounts from regular types, if from anyone, though
	I can pretty much do without that too.  

    >	Brian, please correct me if I am wrong, but I was left with the
    >impression that you passed judgment on the validity of the womans
    >story. Is this true?

    Well, I am skeptical. I see a lot of dime-store occultism here,
    someone who would throw in with the New Age moment at the drop
    of a hat. That can be a useful clue barometer.

    With such nonsense comes a lack of credibility. Is credibility
    automatically reinstated when one finds Jesus?

    -b

    >	For the record (not that anyone gives a rat's patoot), I _don't_ 
    >	agree with a lot of what Brian has said - just the part about
    >	not being particularly impressed with this type of story.  I'd
    >	rather hear accounts from regular types, if from anyone, though
    >	I can pretty much do without that too.  

    The Lady Di, wisely sensing that I am moving closer and closer
    to self-destruction here, chooses to distance herself. Were
    it that I had the same wisdom... :-) :-) :-)

    -b

RE:    <<< Note 347.105 by MPGS::MARKEY "The Completion Backwards Principle" >>>

   
   > With such nonsense comes a lack of credibility. Is credibility
   > automatically reinstated when one finds Jesus?

    

   Good point, and I believe the answer to that is no, or at least not im-
 mediately.  "You shall know them by their fruit" it says in the Bible..some
 folks claim to have "found" Christ and you wouldn't know it by their lives..
 Larry Flynt, Publisher of Hustler Magazine for one.  Some get on their feet
 immediately and one can see the fruits of their conversion.  Others, get up,
 stumble, get up, stumble, but the truth of their conversion is evident.  
 Ultimately, its hard to judge, and I've learned (or I think I've learned)not
 to, though I don't believe examining one's fruit, so to speak, is judging.


 But, I've witnessed some significant changes in lives as a result of one's
 coming to Jesus Christ.


Jim

    >But, I've witnessed some significant changes in lives as a result
    >of one's coming to Jesus Christ.

    Most certainly. And those changes are usually for the better.

    It is not my goal to "judge" the validity of the testimony at
    hand... my original question relates to its value. I've gone
    down an unfortunate rathole here regarding my opinion of
    what she said, which is insignificant.

    But perhaps, even as Rome burns, I can redirect this... does
    this type of testimony "reach" a significant amount of people?
    As I said, it certainly does not have the desired effect on
    me... so, am I alone in that reaction (well, it seems Lady
    Di is with me, at least as far as that goes).

    -b

>    But perhaps, even as Rome burns, I can redirect this... does
>    this type of testimony "reach" a significant amount of people?
>    As I said, it certainly does not have the desired effect on
>    me... so, am I alone in that reaction (well, it seems Lady
>    Di is with me, at least as far as that goes).

 
  Generally speaking, I must admit that as a Bible believing, Baptist Church
  member, I will occasionally wonder about such things.  Why?  Not sure.  
  Perhaps because my own "conversion" was not quite as "spectacular" its 
  difficult for me to identify with the person.  However, knowing people
  personally who have experienced similar conversions, I know it happens.
  I don't put a limit on what Christ can do.  

  There are some groups of Christians who *all* seem to have come from
  similar backgrounds as .88, and as I said before the focus seems to be
  on the person, rather than Christ.


  Jim

    For the record, I'm more than a little offended that
    thre's a perception that if someone "read cards"
    and "analyzes handwriting" they've suddenly become
    capable of breaking into rituals idolizing 
    Satan at the drop of a hat.
    
    I read cards, runes, and analyze handwriting.  I do not 
    idolize Satan.  I will not perform acts which hurt other 
    people.  I am a member of a religion as old as the earth, 
    and I am proud of what I believe and what I have acomplished 
    with my life.
    
    This lack of understanding is what leads to violence
    and intolerance of all faiths.  
    
    Mary-Michael

    >I am a member of a religion as old as the earth, 
    
    Or as old as Gardner, whichever came later... :-)
    
    -b

So far the testimonies seem to suggest self-centered healing and read like: "I
was a lousy person, then I found Jesus and I no longer do the dumb things I used
to do."

I would like to see one that says: "I was an OK person, then I found Jesus, and
now I help at an interdenominational soup kitchen downtown, I provide safe
housing for battered wives, I donate to Goodwill without any concern for the tax
writeoff, ...".

Why does the Jesus salvation seem to only be selfishly applied?

-- Jim

>>Why does the Jesus salvation seem to only be selfishly applied?

	that's an extremely good question.

>I would like to see one that says: "I was an OK person, then I found Jesus, and
>now I help at an interdenominational soup kitchen downtown, I provide safe
>housing for battered wives, I donate to Goodwill without any concern for the tax
>writeoff, ...".


I take it you're certain that none who accept Christ do any of the above.  I
give, not as liberally as I'd like, but I give money and time, don't take
tax writeoffs for any donation (and I know many who do the same).  There are
many, many Christians who do the above and more.  Shall we wear hats and T
shirts that identify us as Born Again Christians so someone can keep score?


>Why does the Jesus salvation seem to only be selfishly applied?


  Unfortuntately I believe this to be true in some cases, but not as 
  much as you might think.  


 Jim

    I think the point made several times already is why are the testimonies
    we see and hear in the box and elsewhere always stories of despair and
    hopelessness?  Where are the folks that had okay, non-abusive,
    non-selfdestructive pasts that "saw the light"?  Where are the
    pedestrian stories of converts that got the holy V-8 slap? 
    
    Brian 

    I think the purpose of the sensationalistic-type conversion stories
    (mine not being one of them), is to show that no matter how far "gone"
    or how rotten a person you think you are, there is a loving God who
    will accept you and love you as you are.  This type of love changes
    people.  The more their life went astray, the more thankful and the
    more drastic the change will seem to be (there is a huge change,
    obviously, in Satan worshipers who come to Christ...and I have heard more
    than one story regarding this type of conversion).
    
    The point is not is saying 'I was a lousy person and now I'm great'. 
    If this is what you get from .88 then you are not reading it in the
    intended context.  The point is more like 'I was a rotten person, but
    God accepted me as I was ANYWAY'.  These types of conversions should
    give hope to anyone who feels they are too far away from God to be in
    His plan.  
    
    It is never too late to accept God's grace, His free gift to mankind.
    
    
    -steve   

RE:           <<< Note 347.115 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>

   > I think the point made several times already is why are the testimonies
   > we see and hear in the box and elsewhere always stories of despair and
   > hopelessness?  Where are the folks that had okay, non-abusive,
   > non-selfdestructive pasts that "saw the light"?  Where are the
   > pedestrian stories of converts that got the holy V-8 slap? 
    
    



   Here's one.  I grew up in a fairly normal family.  My mother died when I
   was 8, my Dad remarried, we lived in a nice suburban San Francisco area,
   and there was no abuse.  I came to know Christ rather simply, through a
   series of people that God put in my life.  I'd gone to churches much of 
   my life but had never heard the Gospel or the plan of Salvation.  But, 
   these people over a period of time gave me enough to the point one night
   laying awake I *knew* God was calling me.  I wasn't even attending a church
   at that time, but I knew I needed to be.  At the age of 27 my then wife and
   I found a church, liked it, met with the pastor and asked Christ into our
   lives..pretty simple.

   Like I've said before, every day in churches there are stories like mine..
   typical people, living normal lives who come to Christ.  There are those
   like .88, and like much else in our world, the sensational testamonies
   make news.  In the Bible we see everyday people coming to Christ and we 
   also see the "sensational".  God can, and does, work wonders in people who
   come to Him.  



 Jim

| <<< Note 347.115 by CONSLT::MCBRIDE "aspiring peasant" >>>


| Where are the pedestrian stories of converts that got the holy V-8 slap?

	Brian, that was too funny. Ya definitely got a way with words. :-)

>>   Like I've said before, every day in churches there are stories like mine..
>>   typical people, living normal lives who come to Christ.

	And like (we've) said before, it's inspiring to hear about those
	people, in fact to some of us, more inspiring than hearing about the
        up-from-the-pits-of-despair people.

    Thanks Glen and ditto what Di said.  
    
    
    
    

    How sad that one cannot see that God can restore a person to wholeness,
    and take a whole person and convince them of their brokenness.
    
    

 .121  Is that just a general lament or did you have any particular
       unseeing person(s) in mind?

    Guaranteed to set my BS detector off big time: someone prattling
    on about the occult, and especially "demonic beings".

    Unless there are some very specific "keywords" used in relation
    to the discussion, intended for those who are aware of the meaning
    of such keywords through initiated status in hermetic orders,
    what you have are one of two things: a liar or a fool.

    Either one is extremely unpleasant. Add to this a person who
    does this as "past tense", meaning that they were once a fool
    but now make wild claims regarding their foolishness, which
    presently makes them a liar.

    Yes, this is sad. Very sad, because this is the type of person
    that a lot of the more visible elements of the Christian faith
    tend to use as an example. And I question the wisdom of such
    examples, as have others.

    The norm, of course, is stories like Jim's. And that is where
    faith in God works its true miracles.

    The media stresses what most people consider the worst of the
    Christian faith... those whose doctrine can best be described
    as "live and let live as long as everyone lives in the manner
    of which I approve, because of course, the way _I_ live is
    exactly what God had in mind..."

    The flip side of the coin is the Christians themselves who
    have shown absolutely no PR savvy. With the mix of money-
    grubbing hucksters, reformed New Agers and bad hairdos
    that dominate the Christian media, it's no wonder the average
    person can't make any sense out of any of it.

    -b

    
    But Brian, Christianity is not a monolith.   And why would someone look
    to the media (of all places) for a fair/accurate representation of
    Christianity?
    
    jeff

    The truth is Jimbo was right in the very beginning of this note,
    stating that notes testimonial in nature would be trashed.
    
    All DougO asked for was testimonies showing how Christianity helped an
    individual.  That's what I put in here.. and take a look at the
    responeses! 
    
    I find it interesting and thankful that no-one took pot shots at my
    personal testimony.
    
    Nancy

    Di,
    
    re: .121
    
    God works in both ways.. what is beneficial to you, may not beneficial
    to another.  I believe to lament on the usefulness of the testimonies
    put in there thus far is to be somewhat shortsighted, while appearing
    to be all-knowing.
    
    Nancy
    

    >But Brian, Christianity is not a monolith.   And why would someone look
    >to the media (of all places) for a fair/accurate representation of
    >Christianity?

    I'm tempted to describe my role here as "devil's advocate", but
    I'm afraid the intended humor would be lost... :-)

    I seem to be doing a very poor job of making my point. As you
    are probably aware, I have very little trust of the media,
    _any_ media. Media == propaganda in my view.

    I want to get my information elsewhere... perhaps I'm a person
    searching for God's message. I come here, expecting to see
    something that will plant the seed of faith in my heart. So
    what do I find instead? An _extremely_ fishy story.

    _Maybe_ just _maybe_, that story reached someone and had the
    desired effect on them. On the other hand, it had rather the
    opposite effect on at least one other person.

    And therein, lies the point. The point is, when you're trying
    to present Jesus, I think it's worth putting a little thought
    into exactly what you're presenting. In the case of the
    testimony given here, one could conclude just as easily that
    Jesus has had _no_ effect on this person's life, that Jesus
    is in fact just the latest "thing", a passing phase... plus,
    such testimonies, as someone else mentioned, seem very self-
    centered and hardly have anything to do with the saving grace
    of Jesus Christ... it's mostly "poor poor pitiful me" kinda
    stuff.

    Nancy's previous story, about helping a homeless family,
    is more the type of PR I think Christians should be doing.
    On the other hand, the best effect of such PR is not in
    the telling, but in the doing.

    But for now, I think I've said pretty much all I have to
    say on the subject. I know I've come dangerously close to
    offending people, and that was not my intent... Just
    engaging in a bit of thought provocation...

    -b

    .128
    
    re: "poor, poor pitiful me"
    
    I've often wondered if that is what my own personal testimony sounds
    like.  I hope not.  But facts are facts, and I've not embellished one
    of them in my note.  The truth is that my testimony is mild compared to
    many abuse situations of which I am personally aware.
    
    I worked on the streets of San Jose, teaching young girls just prior to
    Jr. High how to stay out of gangs, sex and drugs by a commitment to
    Christ.  I could only do this because of my own upbringing, which has
    offered me insight that only one who has been there can really share.
    
    I am not unique, I am rather common place in most of Christianity
    today.  And most ashamedly, I am not unique in failure.  While my heart
    strives to do right, I've fallen short of my own personal standard far
    too many times.  
    
    I'm almost 37 years old, and I learn something new every day about
    myself, about life and about others.
    
    Nancy
    

    > All DougO asked for was testimonies showing how Christianity helped
    > an individual.  
    
    Well, not quite, but those certainly fit here.  What I want is a
    discussion of fundamentalist behavior of all types; testimonies,
    lawsuits, abusive situations, terrorism...Christian or whatever.
    Anything that carries the fundamentalist label is fit for this topic.
    
    I'm sure a few people choked when they read your statement, though!
    Can anyone imagine Covert reading that line with a straight face?
    Or Joe Oppelt?  Or Aristotle?  Those guys think I'm a church basher
    ;-).
    
    DougO

>>    How sad that one cannot see that God can restore a person to wholeness,
>>    and take a whole person and convince them of their brokenness.

    Nancy, do you not see how self-righteous this sounds?  What makes you
    think that anyone in here who believes in God "cannot see" that God
    can restore a person to wholeness, etc.?  No-one who questioned the
    testimony in .88 or its usefulness has said they can't see these things.    
    And if you weren't referring to anyone in here, then it must be
    a general lament, no?
    

| <<< Note 347.124 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| But Brian, Christianity is not a monolith. And why would someone look to the 
| media (of all places) for a fair/accurate representation of Christianity?

	I know, watching the 700 club and stuff really makes me want to puke
sometimes. 


Glen

 Are the bunch in Japan who may have been involved in the nerve gas attack
 considered fundamenalists?  Or are sects of buddhism exempt?




 Jim

>	I know, watching the 700 club and stuff really makes me want to puke
>sometimes. 


 So don't watch it..




 Jim

    RE: .133
    
    Jim,
     
    If they respond to terms like "thumper" and "fundies" then they fit the
    bill...
    

    RE: Nancy
    
    >I've often wondered if that is what my own personal testimony sounds
    >like.  I hope not.

    Not at all...

    >I worked on the streets of San Jose, teaching young girls just prior to
    >Jr. High how to stay out of gangs, sex and drugs by a commitment to
    >Christ.  I could only do this because of my own upbringing, which has
    >offered me insight that only one who has been there can really share.

    I see your point. If someone has had a difficult life, it is
    easier for someone who has had similar experiences to reach
    them. But this goes back to my point about understanding
    your audience. The readers of Soapbox for the most part are
    not people who are struggling with these issues in the same
    way an adolescent would be.

    >    I am not unique, I am rather common place in most of Christianity
    >today.  And most ashamedly, I am not unique in failure.  While my heart
    >strives to do right, I've fallen short of my own personal standard far
    >too many times.

    I think it is the "common place" ones who have potentially
    a greater effect. If I'm searching for an accountant,
    let's say, I would probably be skeptical of someone who
    told me they used to steal large sums of money, but now
    they're OK. Well, if I'm searching for spiritual guidance,
    I'm more inclined to want help from someone who wasn't
    a member of the "Religion of the Month Club", or who
    threw in with any and all forms of foolishness at the
    drop of a hat.

    >I'm almost 37 years old, and I learn something new every day about
    >myself, about life and about others.

    This is life itself; we all learn the same lessons, regardless
    of faith. Faith perhaps gives one a different "spin" on these
    lessons... but some people seem to be saying "although I've
    screwed up every single chance I've ever been given, I'm
    fine now because I'm saved." Uh uh.

    -b

    I don't believe they self-describe as fundamentalists, which I've
    previously described.  They don't seem to have a written doctrine,
    instead relying on the pronouncements of a select inner circle and a
    headliner.  If you want to include them, though, I wouldn't object;
    perhaps I should change the title of the basenote.
    
    DougO

>    If they respond to terms like "thumper" and "fundies" then they fit the
>    bill...
    
Bambi's friend responds to "Thumper."

| <<< Note 347.126 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| All DougO asked for was testimonies showing how Christianity helped an 
| individual. That's what I put in here.. and take a look at the responeses!

	Did you look at them Nancy? People stated they would like to see more
of the normal responses. Nothing wrong with that. The lady in the note kept
jumping from thing to thing, so it really is no wonder that people would say
it's just another stop along her journey through life. People may not have
worded things the way you might have wanted to, but the content of their notes
was that they wanted to see more of the normal savings, and that they
questioned the woman who says she is saved now. I mean think about it Nancy,
she has made so many changes, who is to say this is where she will stay? 

| I find it interesting and thankful that no-one took pot shots at my personal 
| testimony.

	Nancy, people know you. They know what you're like. If they have any
questions, they can ask you because you're here. They see your faith in you,
so it is easier to see it as being real. With the person in .88, they can't see
that as they are really just reading about where she is at this time.



Glen

| <<< Note 347.134 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>



| So don't watch it..


	Most of the time I don't Jim. 

 Only when you feel like puking?

    .138
    
    The woman who gave her testimony has been faithful to Christ for quite
    some time now over 5 years as I recall.  Doesn't sound like its passing
    any time too soon. :-)  I hope this helps.
    
    Nancy

    
    re: .138
    
    "thumper"   vs. "Thumper"
    
    
     I think Thumper knows he's a thumper without causing too much
    distraction...
    

| <<< Note 347.141 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>


| Only when you feel like puking?

	It helps get rid of the dry heaves, and helps promot puking. I guess a
finger would work for both. :-)

    re: .138
    
    To add to Nancy's last note, I think that the "jumping into this and
    that" is a common theme for many who are looking to fill a void in
    their life.  
    
    I liked the phrase (forget who said it): "There is a God-sized hole in
    everyone's heart."  At least, that's how I remember it (I've probably
    assassinated the phrase  8^) ).
    
    Those who earnestly seek God, will find Him.  That's why that void is
    there, to get us to search for Him in earnest.  Unfortunately, there
    are a multitude of cults waiting to snare the seeker.  The Bible has
    been given to us to help us sift out the truth, and keep us from the
    wrong path.
    
    
    -steve 

    why look outside of yourself ?
    there are so many questions about life that are unanswered and likely
    will always be unanswered. Making some arbitrary thing responsible for
    these things is not an answer it is merely a crutch designed by those
    that are unwilling to accept reality.
    
    If you have an emptiness in you heart it is because "you think"
    something is missing. Like a child that hopes for a horse for their
    birthday and is dissapointed with a Celebris.
    
    Try loving someone that is flesh and blood or get a job that you
    find satisfying.
    
    
    
    Brian V         

    .146
    
    way to go
    
    ric

    ZZ    Try loving someone that is flesh and blood or get a job that you
    ZZ    find satisfying.
    
    The 2nd greatest commandment was to love your neighbor as yourself. 
    This along with loving God was all summed up in the law and the
    prophets.
    
    Loving ones neighbor is a nice metaphor; but within its context there
    is a lot more involved.  Discipline for example is an element of loving
    flesh and blood.  Rebuking, exhorting, and admonishing are elements of
    love but to be exhorted for something can sting.
    
    Jesus is spoken of as the greatest teacher by many...yet when it really
    comes down to the rubber meeting the road, the same people reject alot
    of what Jesus said.  The greatest act of love Jesus did was to give his
    life as a ransom for the world.  Yet he explained over and over again
    that he had to do this because of the sin of man and the eternal
    separation man incurs through sin.  If this isn't the greatest example
    of loving flesh and blood, I don't know what is.  
    
    As far as finding a job that is satisfying, the majority do not.  And
    even if you do, remember that in light of eternity, it is a very short
    time.   Remember the movie Scrooge?  Under the shroud of the ghost of
    Christmas present, there were two children.  The ghost said to Scrooge
    "This boy and girl are called Ignorance and Want.  Beware of these two 
    children but especially the boy (Ignorance)).  We need to realize the
    whole picture of what true love encompasses.
    
    -Jack  

    Hey, take good advise where ever you can get it 
    
    But I'll give you a break.
    
    Take good advise from me and I wont make you worship me for the rest
    of your life or tell you that you are inherently bad.
    
    
    Brian V
    
    
    A small cheque will be sufficient.
    
    Remember it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle
    than for a rich man to get to heaven.
    
    : )
    

    The problem is many people refuse to take responsibility for their
    lives. They become intrenched in a concept of authority, such as
    government or the god concept. This allows them to place the blame on
    others instead of examining reality and working for that which they
    desire. They use myth, fantasy and emotions, that have no basis in
    reality, and then complain when what they desire is unobtainable. They
    blame everything except themselves.
    
    ...Tom

<------- -.2

C- 

But welcome back, anyway, Tom. :')

    >                     <<< Note 347.152 by SHRCTR::DAVIS >>>
    
    >     <------- -.2
    
    >     C-
    
    >     But welcome back, anyway, Tom. :')
    
    Thanks, and I'll take the C- in this topic. Taken with my A+, that
    gives me a B average. Won't get me into medical school, but probably
    any Church sanctioned school around. :-)
    
    ...Tom

    .150
    
    It's funny you and I actually agree in principle on something, which is
    that accountability is a big issue.  It's also interesting that you
    throw God into the "blame" category for this one.  
    
    The reason I am who I am today is because of "accountability" as God
    defines it in the Bible.  It is my belief that we "individually" stand
    before God for judgement and therefore, my accountability is to Him for
    every choice I make in life.
    
    This accountability offered me the venue to escape from the harm of my
    parent's behavior towards me.  I no longer became an extension or
    reflection of them, but became an individual before God with the
    ability to change my life's direction and make better choices.
    
    Nancy
    

    Re: .150
    
    You have expressed a belief I've had for many years, far better than I ever
    could.
    
    Swaggart's tearful plea in front of his TV audience after getting
    caught sharing a motel room with a working woman comes to mind as an
    example of "It's not my fault".  If he had his head on straight, he 
    wouldn't have been there in the first place, or at least acknowledged
    why he was there.  
    
    Instead, he operates with: "I can go to the motel.  If I get caught,
    then I'll repent later, for I was born a sinner and its not my fault
    and God will forgive me, later."
    
    -- Jim

re: Swaggart

What he should be really sorry is who he got caught with. OOOGLEE in the
extreme. Frighteningly ugly!

And the guy's back on TV, too...

TTom

    
    ... and didn't he try to claim he was just having a wank
        anyway, so he wasn't really sinning _that_ badly.
        What a maroon!
    
    -b

    Really. If you're going to sin, you may as well make it worthwhile. ;-)

    
    
    My sentiments exactly Mark. :*)
    

    As far as I can see Swaggart is an extreme embarassment to Christ.  And
    furthermore, shouldn't be in a place of spiritual leadership. 
    
    I believe in forgiveness, but I also believe in accountability and God
    makes it clear that those who are in his position should suffer the
    consequences [natural] of his actions.
    
    I don't think there's a Christian in the group here that believes that
    accountability stops at the point of salvation.
    
    Nancy

    .159
    
    While this is certainly worth a BIG GRIN, it's also a dangerous way to
    think and live.  This simply igonores that God is not mocked, that
    whatsoever a man sows that shall he also reap. 
    
    One who sows little seed, reaps little harvest.
    One who sows MUCH seeds, reaps MUCH harvest.
    
    This goes for the bad as well as the good.

    
    Boston Globe 4/5/95 pg. 17 (World Briefs)
    
    Turk reportedly kills his sisters
    
    BONN - A 30-year old Turk shot and killed his two sisters, aged 20 and
    21, and then tried to kill himself out of shame for their Western
    lifestyles, German police said yesterday. Family members told police
    the man "felt his honor as the older brother had been deeply tainted by
    the overly-Western lifestyles of his sister." (Reuters)

     RE: Note 347.155
    
    >It's also interesting that you throw God into the "blame" category for 
    >this one.
    
    I don't blame "god". I simply think that one of the many reasons that
    God (and government) was invented by man was to escape
    personal/individual responsibility for reality. This includes those who
    knowingly use these authoritarian concepts to extract a living from
    those who are using god/government/or anything that presumes authority
    over the individual as a crutch.
    
    ...Tom

>    I don't blame "god". I simply think that one of the many reasons that
>    God (and government) was invented by man was to escape
>    personal/individual responsibility for reality. This includes those who
    
    I don't see how believing in God absolves one from individual
    responsibility.  The concept of individual responsiblility is
    tantamount to spirituality.
    
    
>    knowingly use these authoritarian concepts to extract a living from
>    those who are using god/government/or anything that presumes authority
>    over the individual as a crutch.
   
    I'm not sure I follow you here, but it sounds like you are condemning
    Pastors, Presidents, Senators, etc., for the positions they hold?
    
    Furthermore, lumping government and Christianity together is exactly
    why one of the founding principles of this country is to keep them
    separate.  Confuse me some more. :-)
    

    >I don't think there's a Christian in the group here that believes that
    >accountability stops at the point of salvation.
    
    
    Not only does it *not* stop, but those who know God's truth are held
    *more*  accountable than those who are ignorant of His word.  We are
    called to be the salt and light in this world, therefore we are to
    be above reproach.
    
    Swaggart fell hard.  Though God will forgive him, he should NOT be back in
    the ministry.  His witness is marred as a leader, and he should have
    stepped down from the pulpit.  Not that he should stop serving God,
    just that he should serve in a non-leadership position, IMO.
    
    
    -steve

Steve,
    You speak of Swaggart as if he were a bonafide man of the cloth.
    Do you believe that to be the case rather than that he is simply
   a money grubbing hack preying on folks through the media?
    How about Jim Bakker? Is he supposed to be for real, too?

	Jack, how about this one.... did they THINK they were a man of the
cloth? It's something I've always wondered about.

RE: Note 347.165
    
    >I don't see how believing in God absolves one from individual
    >responsibility.  The concept of individual responsiblility is
    >tantamount to spirituality.
    
    What responsibility do you have to look at the world and make a
    decision, based on the reality of it? Every time thoughtful effort needs 
    to be exerted the decision seems to be to see what the Bible says. So,
    now you can say that the decision is made and not make any
    effort or take responsibility for the result. 
    
    >I'm not sure I follow you here, but it sounds like you are condemning
    >Pastors, Presidents, Senators, etc., for the positions they hold?
    
    Yes!
    
    >Furthermore, lumping government and Christianity together is exactly
    >why one of the founding principles of this country is to keep them
    >separate.  Confuse me some more. :-)
    
    Who made this principle? Government and churches (mainly Christianity).
    Why did they do it? To perpetuate themselves. The reason I lump them
    together is because they both live by the same principle. They convince
    people that they are an authority (know more about what is good for the
    individual than the individual does) then use force, coersion or fraud
    to perpetuate their livelihood.
    
    Just IMHO.
    
    ...Tom

 FWIW Swaggart was booted out of the denomination he represented, so he went
 out on his own.  Any man in a position of leadership and who knows even
 the basic Biblical guidelines for such leadership, should know that, while
 God has forgiven him, he should step down from his place of leadership.

 Bakker is another one (and as far as I know he has not assumed any position
 of leadership). Leaders in the church, particularly pastors/preachers/evange-
 lists have an awesome responsibility for the people whom they pastor, I 
 believe God will take their respective failures/egos quite seriously one 
 day.




Jim

    Bakker and Swaggart were victims of the power they attained. They
    couldn't handle it.

    
    I doubt that people like Bakker or Swaggart fall from grace. I think
    they're con artists from the get go; their business is thumping. That's
    how they make their money.
    
    Who supports them?  Dummies, of course.

            <<< Note 347.169 by DASHER::RALSTON "Ain't Life Fun!" >>>

Well, it's nice to see that your sabbatical into the wilderness hasn't 
shaken your objectivist zeal, Tom!

You'll be happy to know I haven't changed much, either. So naturally...

...I think you've got it arse-backwards. You're all to happy to lay the 
blame for all of mankind's ills on institutions, instead of individuals. 
How is that being more responsible? Do you think that man is inherently 
good, and that only by the currupting influence of the institutions he 
creates is he lead astray? Isn't there some sort of logical disconnect 
there?

Regardless, you're just howling at the moon. You could no more remove these 
institutions from the human world than turn dogs into cats.

Tom jr

     RE: Note 347.174
    
    >Regardless, you're just howling at the moon.
    
    The basis of all religion, I should be able to con people into joining
    the "Church of Tom" in about 2000 years.  
    
    
    

>    The basis of all religion, I should be able to con people into joining
>    the "Church of Tom" in about 2000 years.  
    
With good reason, if you're alive then.

    re: .176
    
    One does not have to be alive to perpetuate a religion, as we all know.
    
    ...Tom

How does a dead person con people?

    RE: Note 347.178
    
    >How does a dead person con people?
    
    Christianity is based on this concept.
    
    ...Tom

Seems to me the whole point of conning people is to make some money.
That's why I question your use of the term.  Dupe, maybe.

    re: .167
    
    I give him the benefit of the doubt.  I can't sit here and judge a man
    I know very little about, as to whether he is/was "for real" or not.  
    Whether he is an authentic preacher or a crook is something that can only be
    determined by his intent- which only God and Jimmy know for sure.
    
    As far as Jim Bakker, I tread lightly as well.  It is not for me to say
    that he is/was not "for real".  My opinion is that he and Swaggart
    are not two people I care to watch/listen to.  I've seen them both on
    tv, so my personal choice is not made blindly (and this was before all
    the trouble started).
    
    Once a preacher falls in such a way, I feel he gives up his right to
    a leadership position.
    
    
    
    -steve

    FWIW, I just thought I'd throw in what the Curmudgeon's Dictionary says
    about teevee evangelists.  :-)
    
        evangelist, television, n.  A salesman and con artist whose
        business it is to prey upon others' masochism by extorting
        financial contributions in return for threatening them with
        hellfire and damnation.
    
            There is a certain class of clergyman whose mendacity is only
            equalled by their mendacity.
    
    				-- Archbishop Frederick Temple

      RE: Note 347.181
    
    >Seems to me the whole point of conning people is to make some money.
    >That's why I question your use of the term.  Dupe, maybe.
    
    Money, power, security, recognition, trying to increase self-esteem,
    love or any number of reasons can be the reason for a con. And then
    there are some who really believe they are the son of god. Just depends
    on what a person wants and what they are willing to do for it. Oh, I left 
    out insanity. I'll change to dupe though, if you would like. However,
    whatever you call it, con, dupe, swindle, cheat, fraud, doublecross,
    graft, they are all synonymous.
    
    ...Tom

>    The problem is many people refuse to take responsibility for their
>    lives. They become intrenched in a concept of authority, such as
>    government or the god concept. This allows them to place the blame on
>    others instead of examining reality and working for that which they
>    desire. They use myth, fantasy and emotions, that have no basis in
>    reality, and then complain when what they desire is unobtainable. They
>    blame everything except themselves.
    
>    ...Tom
    
    What is the context you are placing this comment in?  No doubt some
    folks eschew taking responsiblity.  Some folks do take responsibility. 
    Neither, alone, says anything about how one takes responsibility for 
    one's true guilt before a holy God or whether one can even take such 
    responsibility or if it makes a difference.
    
    jeff

    >What is the context you are placing this comment in?  
    
    Individual responsibility in the world.
    
    >No doubt some folks eschew taking responsiblity.  Some folks do take
    >responsibility.
    
    Right, note that I did say many, not all.
       
    >Neither, alone, says anything about how one takes responsibility
    >for one's true guilt before a holy God or whether one can even take
    >such responsibility or if it makes a difference.
    
    GUILT??!! What are we quilty of?? Unless I have committed some
    objective crime that results in force, threats of force, coersion or
    fraud against someone, I am guilty of nothing. Religious institution
    use the quilt concept to convince you that you owe some sort of
    debt for so-called sins, just because you are alive. And where does the
    payment for this debt go? Into their pockets. They steal peoples 
    money, time and lives with the use of deception. When all along they are 
    the thieves, they are the criminals because of this deception. We are
    the sinless ones, those of us who work and produce and are a benefit to
    human live, whether deceived by these self-proclaimed authorities or
    not. 
    
    Sorry, didn't mean to get off on a rant. I guess I do that sometimes.  :)
    
    ...Tom

    <-- Bad cold?

    Must be allergies  :)
    
    ...Tom

    >>                      -< This id SOAPBOX right? >-
    
    At least it's not an ego thing...
    
    Chris

    A Freudian reply?

             vvvvv
>    use the quilt concept to convince you that you owe some sort of
>    debt for so-called sins, just because you are alive. And where does the

This is only true of patchwork theology.

nnttm

    
    >        the quilt concept
    
    >This is only true of patchwork theology.
    
    Now that's funny! :) I'm trying to think of a rathole based on patchwork
    theology. I'll come up with one in time.
    
    ...Tom

    
    CAIRO (AP) - A 13-year-old girl was repeatedly beaten and then died of
    suffocation after a fundamentalist Muslim leader ordered her punished
    for uncovering her face in public, police said yesterday.
    
    Samar Imad-Eddin Yousef was ordered punished last week by Mohamed Aqil,
    the self-proclaimed "prince" of the Ancestors Group, a small fundament-
    alist Muslim sect.
    

    The normal outcome of religious fundamentalism. No one should be
    surprised.
    
    ...Tom

    A rather broad brush you got there, Tom.
    
    
    -steve

    Tom is displaying his usual categorization of religious fundamentalism
    most likely because some nun spanked him in front of the class when he
    was little...prolly did the emotional trauma thing to him or some
    such...

    >A rather broad brush you got there, Tom.
    
    I don't think so. History is full of the results of religious
    fundamentalism. If left unchecked, these fanatical movements always
    reach the normal evolutionary conclusion of such dogmatic righteousness,
    ultimately leading to oppressive, mass-murdering theocracies like Iran
    
    >Tom is displaying his usual categorization of religious fundamentalism
    >most likely because some nun spanked him in front of the class when
    >he was little...prolly did the emotional trauma thing to him or some such...
    
    Nice try Jack, though being spanked by a nun is your ultimate fantasy,
    I've never been in that situation. No, rational thinking and
    observations from history lead to the conclusion that religious
    fundamentalism leads to tyranny, manipulation, force and ultimately
    death for those who who dare not agree, when these fanatics come to
    power. 
    
    ...Tom

    
    Last I heard, religious fundamentalist, and religious fanatics were not
    the same thing.

    Of course I could be wrong, it has happened once or twice....

    :-)
    Dan

    >Last I heard, religious fundamentalist, and religious fanatics were not
    >the same thing.
    
    True, except for the normal evolution of one to the other.
    
    ...Tom

    Specificity may help the issue....
    
    :-)
    Dan
    

    ZZ    Nice try Jack, though being spanked by a nun is your ultimate
    ZZ    fantasy,
    
    Ho ho!

    >Specificity may help the issue....
    
    .193 was pretty specific and I mentioned Iran. We could talk about the
    obvious Salem witch trials, and extreme reactions like Jonestown. How
    about the crusades? Actually I can't find a society that evolved to
    being run by a fundamentalist that wasn't as I mentioned. It is
    interesting to note that the decline into the dark ages coincided with
    the rise of Christianity. 6th century Rome finally collapsed under the
    christian stranglehold and was repeatedly ravaged and looted. The
    population of about a million was reduced to about 50,000 and the city
    layed in ruins. The advanced hygiene, science and culture of rome was
    abandoned as Christianity took hold. I'd be interested in an example of
    a fundamentalist controlled country that didn't result in mass death
    and destruction of the populas.
    
    ...Tom

    re: .202
    
    BTW - There are indications that the individuals in the Salem witch
    trials had been exposed to a fungi that was the original source of
    LSD...
    
    Dan

    
    
    
    WHAT?!?!?!?!  We're talking here about 19 people that were brutally
    murdered for something they were not guilty of, and you're saying they
    were exposed to chemicals????
    
    
    What planet do you live on Dan??
    
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    .203
    
    Which individuals?  The hapless victims of religious fundamentalism
    or the folks that killed them?

Yep, there's a theory that moldy rye caused people to hallucinate.  A type
of mold that grows on rye (whose name escapes me) produces something similar
to LSD (maybe lysergic acid?).

    
    You f-ergot?

Of course.  Ergot is the mold.  Ergotamine is the hallucinogen.

    
    
    Ok, everyone repeat after me......
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    Ohhhhhhhh, Puhleeeeeeeeeze!
    
    
    
    :*)
    Terrie
    

    Thanks Gerald,
    I thought I was going to have to face an irate Terrie all by 
    myself....  whew !
    
    :-)
    Dan

    
    
    irate?  How do I rate? :*)
    
    
    
    Sorry Dan, I forgot the smiley....
    
    
    :*)
    Terrie
    

    
    
    RE:  Terrie, on a 1-10 scale, I'd say a 12.....

    
    
    
    Oh Mike, you're just rackin' up those brownie points today, aren't you?
    
    
    
    :*)
    Gotta love it....
    
    
    Terrie
    

    
    
    
    I'm a tryin, Terrie.  Anything you want me to do, just ask.....

    
    
    
    Oh, how the mind does a'wander..................
    

    
    Geeee Wiiiizzzz.....
    
    I turn my back on you two for a couple of minutes and you're at it
    again.
    
    :-)
    Dan

    How do you know the witches didn't kill the fundies at Salem?

    I recall having read the paper that hypothesized that ergotamine caused
    hallucinations among those who were tried as witches.  The writer made
    a good circumstantial case, as I recall.  The season (for bread-mold)
    and the climate were right, among other factors.
    
    None of which diminishes my admiration and support for ::RALSTON's
    position about religious fundamentalism of all stripes.  Look, if you
    need additional examples, at the "mishugas" perpetrated on the
    citizens of Israel by the hyper-orthodox Jewish clerics.  It ain't the
    exclusive province of Muslims, no, not by a longshot...
    

    .218
    
    > ergotamine caused
    > hallucinations among those who were tried
    
    Since most of said victims denied any witchcraft, and since there never
    was ANY reliable testimony even SUGGESTING witchcraft, perhaps you mean
    that there were hallucinations among their delators???

    Again working from old flaky backup archive tapes, my memory sez that
    the denials of witchcraft by the ACCUSED (for it was they, I believe,
    that the modern writer hypothesized were affected) mesh rather nicely
    with the hypothesis that 'twere ~LSD that bonked their heads & caused
    'em to do the kind of weird stuff that their neighbors took to be
    witchery.
    

    
    I read a report of a "witness"? whose testimony certainly sounded like
    he'd been trippin'.  Something along the lines of the accused had
    visited him in his bedroom... had appeared from a bright colorful
    ball... and performed unmentionable acts,... etc 

    :-)
    Dan

    .220
    
    Theories I've seen attribute the initial accusations to simple childish
    high jinks (jeez, she's such an ugly old biddy, and she was mean to us,
    let's call her names, "That old witch!"), which - once having caused
    action against their targets - had to be maintained in order to prevent
    parental retaliation.  Once rolling, it became a matter of hysteria.
    
    Another one I've seen suggests that it was the adult delators who had
    been tripping, as suggested in .221.  1692 was a year of partial
    famine, and everyone in Salem Village (n.b., NOT modern Salem but
    rather Danvers) was likely to have indulged in a spot of hallucinogen.
    
    I'd be interested to see your sources.

    >visited him in his bedroom... had appeared from a bright colorful
    >ball... and performed unmentionable acts,... etc
    
    This has happened to me before....  :)
    
    ...Tom

    
    <-- but then you wake up, all gooey like...
    
    -b

	You were probably visited by a form of psychic vampire known as a
	Succubus.
	
	(Where's Steve Kallis Jr when you need him?)    ;-)

    Stepfather 'hit boy with riding crop for giggling'

    By David Graves

    A JEHOVAH'S Witness beat his 11-year-old stepson with a riding crop if
    he giggled during Bible studies at home, a court heard yesterday.

    He also chastised the boy for supporting Lincoln City football team,
    because he claimed their mascot, the Lincoln Imp, was a symbol of the
    devil and they were "Satan's team", Lincoln Crown Court was told.

    The 46-year-old man, who cannot be named, was also said to have beaten
    his 14-year-old daughter with the crop for dating a boy who was not a
    Jehovah's Witness.

    Steven Lowne, prosecuting, told the jury: "The regime in this household
    went beyond reasonable punishment. Having a riding crop lurking in the
    background to cause pain is going beyond lawful chastisement. It
    amounts to assault and cruelty.

    "Sometimes they were hit with the metal part of the crop. The boy was
    struck so hard he was marked by the crop over 60 times."

    Mr Lowne added: "If the children cried in bed they were struck all the
    harder so they had a reason to cry." 

    The boy, who was allowed to befriend only other children of Jehovah's
    Witnesses, told the jury: "We would get hit for laughing when we should
    not have, like when we were studying the Bible.

    "We would have one warning and then the next time we laughed we would
    get the riding crop. Then if we carried on laughing it would get harder
    and harder."

    The boy claimed he was hit mainly on the hands, but sometimes on the
    legs if he was "really misbehaving".

    His stepsister told the court: "I had a boyfriend and that is really
    not allowed in the Jehovah's Witnesses. If I spoke to him I got the
    crop for that. He wasn't a Jehovah's Witness."

    When he was interviewed by police their father claimed the crop was
    used mostly as a sanction but occasionally as a punishment.

    He denies two counts of assault occasioning actual bodily harm. He and
    his wife, both from Lincoln, are also charged with cruelty.

    The case continues.
    
    The Electronic Telegraph  Wednesday 12 July 1995  Home News

    Why d'ye suppose the man "cannot be named"?  This is apparently a
    criminal case of child abuse, not a religious matter, despite the
    umbrella of "religion" that so often overshadows abuse by Jehovah's
    Witnesses of their children.

Maybe it's a privacy issue cause the kids are under age?

TTom

Sounds like England to me.  I believe their courts are more into privacy than
U.S. courts.

    
    Coulsd be a few reasons.
    
    If the prosecutor is still addressing the jury, it's still sub
    judice(?) and the paper may not be able to name him.
    
    The judge can instigate a gag order if he feels that there's a
    good chance the guy is innocent as charged and he should not suffer
    the glare of publicity.
    

This belongs here, not where it was posted originally. -DougO
================================================================================
Note 319.881                 The truth of the Bible                   881 of 881
TROOA::COLLINS "Gone ballistic. Back in 5 minutes."   9 lines  13-JUL-1995 09:57
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    "We have ruled that there is a biblical prohibition against evacuating
    Israeli army bases and handing [the West bank] over to the control of
    the goyim.  This poses a danger to lives, and a danger to the existence
    of the country. [For that reason], every Jew is forbidden to take part
    in the evacuation of a settlement, camp, or facility."
    
    					- Rabbi Chaim Druckman

    
    Itching to moderate, Doug?
    
    I thought about putting it here, but I decided that it might be 
    interpreted as an anti-semetic move on my part.
    
    Cross-post it as you wish, however.
    

    >Itching to moderate, Doug?
    
    not a chance.  
    
    >I thought about putting it here, but I decided that it might be
    >interpreted as an anti-semetic move on my part.
    
    I copied it here because it is so typical an example of
    intransigent fundamentalist zealotry in action.  No other
    interpretations need apply.
    
    DougO

    Of course the Rabbis are right, Rabin is giving away the country.  
    
    I wish they at least cool it until my pastor returns from there.

    	"Can't we all just get along?"
    
    	The answer, currently, is no of course.  In time traditions
    	and ethnic prejudices (on all sides) may fade, and maybe then
    	both sides will no longer have to worry about watching their
    	backs.  Until then it is foolish to assume that all is peachy.

>Rabin is giving away the country.  

Oh, baloney, Mike.  Rabin can not give away the West Bank; it isn't his.

The United Nations gave away the country when it partitioned the land
and gave half of it to millions of secular Europeans a great many of
whom do not practice Judaism.

Prior to that, a huge percentage of the population were indigent Jews
and those gentiles grafted into Israel by having joined the Church.
Some areas (Bethlehem, Nazareth) were more than 70% Christian Arabs,
who have a biblical right (by virtue of their grafting into Israel)
to share the land with faithful Jews.

The "troubles" have caused the Christian Arabs to emigrate in droves.
And thus the land has been lost to the biblical Israel, both Christian
and Jew.

The biblical solution would be for everyone there to live together,
sharing the land in peace, and forming a new people worthy of being
called God's sons and worthy of the promised land.

/john

    .237
    
    > The biblical solution would be for everyone there to live together,
    > sharing the land in peace, and forming a new people worthy of being
    > called God's sons and worthy of the promised land.
    
    What part of the book of Joshua did you miss reading, /john?

    Ai! That was a good 'un Jack!

    What's your source for this "Christian Arabs" claims?  I'm not saying I
    disagree, but I never heard of such numbers.
    
    Anyway, the eternal covenant between God and Abraham was for the Jews.  Not
    Christians, not Arabs, not even Christian Arabs.
    
    Mike

It's true that some small areas of the West Bank are mostly Christian,
but the vast majority of West Bank Arabs are Moslems.  Who is Arafat
talking to when he says he still believes in Jihad?

Thirty years ago the percentage of Christians in both Palestine and
Lebanon was dramatically higher.

Bethlehem, specifically, has shifted from 70% Christian to 70% Moslem
during that time.

/john

    The Trilateral Commission.

Cleveland, Roslindale, etc.

/john

    
    ANKARA (Reuter) - A Turkish mother and daughter have been shot dead
    by male relatives for dressing immodestly in the latest violent dis-
    pute over Islamic dress code.
    
    Emine Deniz, 40, and her daughter Hamide, 22, were gunned down in the
    street in the Black Sea province of Samsun by four male members of 
    their family for "dressing revealingly," the Milliyet newspaper said
    yesterday.
    
    Only last week an Islamist militant in the sleepy northern town of
    Gumushane killed the head of a legal association who refused to let
    female lawyers wear Islamic headscarves in court.
                         

    Oh boy, with family like that, who needs enemies?

    Wonder if Betty Friedan could anything with those dudes?
    

    >A Turkish mother and daughter have been shot dead by male relatives for 
    >dressing immodestly in the latest violent dis-pute over Islamic dress code.
    
    I've said it before and I'll say it again, mainly because it's fun to
    be a pain in the butt, that this is the normal outcome of religious
    fundamentalism. It wouldn't surprise me that, if things continue as they
    seem to be going in this country, it won't be long before shooting
    homosexuals on sight will be legal. By the way I don't think that the
    citizens of this country will allow this to happen, at least I hope.
    
    
    ...Tom

    >-< IYNSHO... >-
    
    Of course, if it makes you feel better>
    
    ...Tom

 Yeah, in my Fundamentalist Baptist Church we talk about shooting our kids
 all the time..why my pastor stands up there in the pulpit and pounds on it
 while telling us to shoot our kids if they don't behave.  We also meet weekly
 to make plans for the day when we can go out and shoot homosexuals



 Frankly, I can't recall the last time I heard the word "homosexual" or "gay"
 from the pulpit in my church.  We do hear a lot about the sin in our own lives
 and the need for folks to come to Christ, however.




 Jim

    .254
    
    Sounds like you should get out of there quick!
    
    ...Tom

       <<< Note 347.251 by DASHER::RALSTON "Idontlikeitsojuststopit!!" >>>

>    I've said it before and I'll say it again, mainly because it's fun to
>    be a pain in the butt, that this is the normal outcome of religious
>    fundamentalism. It wouldn't surprise me that, if things continue as they

And Stalin was the natural outcome of Athiesm. So what are you trying to 
say?

    .256
    
    Fanatic fundamentalists, including fundie athiests are dangerous to
    people who do not follow their teachings precisely.

    ZZZ    Fanatic fundamentalists, including fundie athiests are dangerous 
    
    What about fanatical feminists?  Sincerely asking!
    
    -Jack

    Fanatics of all kinds are dangerous, either to themselves or others.  

Atheists.  NNTTM.

    
    >...it won't be long before shooting homosexuals on sight will be legal.
    
    But much more interesting would be shooting liberals on site ! :-)
    
    I have a Bloom County comic strip about just that...  :-)))
    
    Dan
    

    
    	hehe...I remember that Bloom County strip...:)
    
    
    

    
    Do you remember it enough to know what was used as bait?
    
    								-mr. bill

    
    
    	"No Nukes! No Nukes!"
    
    
    :*)
    
    

    
    re: bait...
    
    Ummmmm...some old copy of some magazine? Was it Rolling Stone?
    

    "Nuke the unborn gay baby whales for Jesus!"

    
      Although Digital has no dress code, I have seen outfits that might
     justify the Moslem's actions.
    
      bb

    
    <rustle> <rustle>

    No Nukes, No Nukes

    <BANG>

    Gun Control ! Gun Control ! 

    I think I wounded him....

    OWWW, Socialized medicine...

    :-)
    Dan

    >And Stalin was the natural outcome of Athiesm.
    
    You are absolutely correct. I will restate:
    
    This is the normal outcome of absolute Thiesm. When the government
    evolves to being controlled by Thiests, dictatorships result with the
    corresponding elimination of freedoms and individual rights. This
    results in the allowance of executions for those who do not conform to
    the subjective laws established by that government. Hence, family
    members killing other family members, as has happened in the absolute
    thiesmistic state discussed.
    
    ...Tom

    >-< Better, but still somewhat YO >-
    
    Not somewhat, Totally MO.
    
    ...Tom

    
    Yeah.. but you are getting warmer....
    

    >Yeah.. but you are getting warmer...
    
    I think I'll stop then. It's already too hot around her.  :)
    
    ...Tom

    
    
    You in ZK????
    
    :)
    

    NO, NEVER!!!   :)
    
    ...TOm

    Well, hardly ever.

    never at dusk.

    
    Never on Sunday.
    
    

    Actually, this note clearly deserves to be reposted in this topic.
    
================================================================================
Note 319.1365                The truth of the Bible                 1365 of 1376
USAT05::SANDERR                                      15 lines   5-JAN-1996 17:12
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    
    Silva:
    
    All one can say about you is you'll get what you deserve...sooner or
    later.
    

	I couldn't agree more...really!

    
    Actually, according to the argument, you might get what you don't
    deserve. 

<--depends from who's angle you're looking at it from..... reality, or the
zealot's....

    
    Well, I'm looking at it from my angle.
    
    ;^)

    
    	That's "whose angle", Glen.
    
    	JTYLTK [Just thought you'd like to know]
    

	Uhh....ok....errr...thanks....

    > And what if his truths are not false?
    
    Hey, in that case, my opinions are incorrect.  We'll die and I'll 
    go to hell.  [I consider the prospect ridiculous, but you asked.]
    
    > Seems that you are making a value judgement on Covert's truth, to me.
    
    That's true.  But you'll notice that his insistence that he has the
    truth makes a similar value judgement about the beliefs of anyone who
    feels differently.  The rest of us have the courtesy in public
    discourse to label our opinions as such.  His monomania, his insistence
    that his opinions *are* true, not conjectures, is discourteous.  But
    over time, his shrillness obscures his message more than anything else
    he could do, so he'll get exactly what he has earned; a reputation for
    discourtesy, and no converts.
    
    DougO

Watchman Fellowship's 1995 Index of Cults, Occult Organizations, New Age
Groups, New
Religious Movements, and World Religion

By Rick Branch, James Walker, and the Staff of Watchman Fellowship, Inc.

Introduction

Annually Watchman Fellowship publishes an index issue of the Watchman
Expositor. The 1995 Watchman Expositor Index contains brief definitions,
descriptions or cross references on over 1,100 religious organizations and
beliefs. This year's index is expanded to include world religions
(including Christianity) and related doctrines. Watchman Fellowship is a
Christian apologetics and discernment ministry (please see "Publication
Information"). Thus, many references ("Jesus," "Gospel," "Christianity,"
etc.) contain definitions that reflect the beliefs of Watchman's staff.
While Watchman Fellowship does not hold to the beliefs of non-Christian
religions and doctrines, we also attempt to describe these beliefs
factually, fairly and accurately. Readers are asked to assist in this
effort by suggesting corrections or improvements (please read "A Word from
the President").

This is by no means a "complete list" of cults and religions. Watchman
Fellowship maintains over 10,000 files and a research library of over
25,000 books and periodicals on religions, cults, new religious movements
and related teachings. This index is not intended to be an exhaustive list.
The absence of a religious movement from this index does not mean that
Watchman Fellowship endorses the organization.

Entries include: world religions, new religious movements and entities
related to them, cults, occult groups, and organizations and businesses
linked to the New Age Movement. By using the terms "cult," "occult," and
"New Age," Watchman Fellowship is in no way implying that these individuals
(their followers or leaders) are necessarily evil or immoral people. It
simply means that such groups seem to promote doctrine or practices which
may be considered outside the realm of historic Christianity.

Cult,
by its primary dictionary definition, the term cult just means a system of
religious beliefs or rituals. It is based on a farming term in Latin
meaning cultivation. Sociologists and anthropologists sometimes use the
term cult to describe religious structure or belief patterns with meanings
(usually non-pejorative) unique to their disciplines. In modern usage, the
term cult is often used by the general public to describe any religious
group they view as strange or dangerous. Thus, cult can describe religious
leaders or organizations that employ abusive, manipulative, or illegal
control over their followers' lives. In addition to these usages,
Christians generally have a doctrinal component to their use of the word.
Cult in this sense, is a counterfeit or serious deviation from the
doctrines of classical Christianity. Watchman Fellowship usually uses the
term cult with a Christian or doctrinal definition in mind. In most cases
the group claims to be Christian, but because of their aberrant beliefs on
central doctrines of the faith (God, Jesus, and salvation), the
organization is not considered by Watchman Fellowship to be part of
orthodox, biblical Christianity. Research material available.

Occult, the term, "occult" come from the Latin occultus or "hidden." Generally 
the word is used of secret or mysterious supernatural powers or magical,
religious rituals. The word "occult" in this publication is used to
describe any attempt to gain supernatural power or knowledge apart from the
God of the Bible. Generally it refers to witchcraft, satanism,
neo-paganism, or various forms of Psychic discernment (astrology, seances,
palm reading, etc.). Research material available.

New Age, New Age is a recent and developing belief system in North America
encompassing thousands of autonomous (and sometime contradictory) beliefs,
organizations, and events. Generally the New Age borrows its theology from
pantheistic Eastern religions and its practices from 19th century Western
occultism. The term "New Age" is used herein as an umbrella term to
describe organizations which seem to exhibit one or more of the following
beliefs: (1) All is one, all reality is part of the whole; (2) Everything
is God and God is everything; (3) Man is God or a part of God; (4) Man
never dies, but continues to live through reincarnation; (5) Man can create
his own reality and/or values through transformed consciousness or altered
states of consciousness. Research material available.

CULT INDEX
A Choice Experience
A Course In Miracles
Abbey of Thelema Old Greenwich
Academy For Guided Imagery
Adelphi Organization
Adeptco
Qabalah teachings.
Advanced Organization of Los Angeles (AOLA)
Adventism/Adventist
AEgis at the Abode of the Message
Aetherius Society
Agasha Temple of Wisdom, Inc.
Agon Buddhism
Ahmadiyya Movement
AION
Alamo Christian Foundation
Alan Shawn Feinstein Association 
Aletheia Psycho-Physical Foundation
All Souls Unitarian Church
All Ways Free Madison
Allah: See "Islam."
Alphabiotic New Life Center Dallas, TX
Alphasonic International Los Angeles, CA
Amalgamated Flying Saucer Clubs of America
Ambassador University Big Sandy, TX
Ambassadors For Christ Tustin, CA
Ameba San Francisco, CA
American Babaji Yoga Sangam New York, NY
American Fellowship Services
American Foundation for the Science of Creative Intelligence
American Gnostic Church
American Imagery Institute Milwaukee, WI
American Leadership College, Inc. Osceola, IA
American Society for Psychical Research, Simon Newcomb New York, NY
American Study Group UT
American West Publishers Tehachapi, CA
American Zen Center
AMOOKOS
Ananda Marga Denver, CO
Anchor of Golden Light, Dorothy and Henry Leon Grants Pass, OR
Ancient Wisdom Connection N. Myrtle Beach, SC
Answers Research and Education
Anthroposophical Society, Rudolf Steiner Chicago, IL
Apostolic Overcoming Holy Church of God, Inc. Birmingham, AL
Aquarian Academy, Robert E. Birdsong Eureka, CA
Aquarian Age Teaching, Ruby Focus Sedona
Aquarian Church of Universal Service, Paul Shockley Portland, OR
Aquarian Educational Group, Torkom Saraydarian Sedona, AZ
Aquarian Foundation, Keith Milton Rhinehart Seattle, WA: Universalist,
Yoga, Spiritism, theosophical philosophy.
Aquarian Minyan Berkeley, CA:
Aquarian Perspectives Inter Planetary Mission Montgomery, AL
Aquarian Tabernacle Church Index, WA
Ar nDraiocht Fein, P.E.I. Bonewits Nyack, NY
Arcana Workshop Manhattan Beach, CA
Arcane School, Alice Bailey
Arete Truth Center, Paul Lachlan Peck Las Vegas, NV
Arizona Light Phoenix, AZ: New Age periodical.
Arizona Metaphysical Society, Frank Alper Phoenix, AZ
Arizona Network News Scottsdale, AZ
Arm of the Lord Warren, OH
Armstrong, Garner Ted
Armstrong, Herbert W.
Armageddon Time Ark Base Operation, O.T. Nodrog Weslaco, TX
Aromatherapy Seminars Los Angeles, CA
Arunachala Ashram, Bhagavan Sri Ramana
Asatru Free Assembly Denair, CA
Ascended Masters
Ascended Master Teaching Foundation Mt. Shasta, CA
Ascended Masters School of Light, Toni Moltzan Carrollton, TX
Ascension Week Enterprises Santa Fe, NM
ASCENT Foundation, Larry Jensen Sedona, AZ
Asheville Meditation CenterAsheville, NC
Assemblies of the Called Out Ones of "Yah,"
Assemblies of Yahweh, Jacob Meyer Bethel, PA
Assemblies of Yahweh (7th day) Cisco, TX
Assembly of Scientific Astrologers,George Cardinal LeGrosoplin, MO:
Assembly of YHW YoshuaPueblo, CO
Associated Readers of Tarot International Carbondale, IL
Association for Christian Development, Kenneth Westby Auburn,WA
Association for Past-Life Research and Therapies, Inc. Riverside, CA
Association for Research and Enlightenment, Edgar Cayce Virginia Beach, VA:
Association for the Understanding of Man Austin, TX
Association Sananda & Sanat Kumara, Inc. Mt. Shasta, CA
Astro Computing Services San Diego, CA
Astrology and Psychic News N. Hollywood, CA
Atlantic Pagan Council
Aum Shinri Kyo, Shoko Asahara Tokyo, Japan
Author Services, Inc.
Avanta Network Palo Alto, CA
Avatar Flagstaff, AZ
Awareness Research Foundation, Inc. North Miami, FL
Ayurvedic Lifestyle Center, Pearl Miller Reno, NV
Baba, Sai
Baha'i; Mirza 'Ali Muhammad; "the Bab"
Bear Tribe Medicine Society Spokane, WA
Bet Hashem - The House of YHWH New Haven, IN
Beth El Shaddai, Dick Amos Plano, TX
Beth HaShem, Jacob Hawkins Odessa, TX
Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh
Bhakti Yoga
Bible Believers, Inc.: See "Branham, William."
Bible Studies Fellowship San Diego, CA
Bible Way Publications Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Biblical Church of God Santa Cruz, CA
Biblical Research Centers
Bioenergy
BioEnergetic Synchronization Techniques
Biointegration, Ross Algelo Dallas, TX
Bio-Magnetics
BioPsciences Institute Minneapolis, MN
Black Moon Publishing Cincinnati, OH
Black Muslim
Blavatsky, Helena Petrovna
Blue Lotus Wilmot, WI
Blue Mountain Center of Meditation, Eknath Easwaran Petaluma, CA
Blue Rose Ministry, Robert Short Joshua Tree, CA
Blue Star, May Thunder West Point, TX
B'nai Noah
Body, Mind and Soul Houston, TX
Body, Mind and Spirit Providence, RI
Book of Changes
Book of Mormon
Bookmark Santa Clarita, CA
Borderland Science Research Foundation Garberville, C
Boston Church of Christ, Kip McKean Boston, MA
Bradshaw, John
Brahma
Branch Davidians, Benjamin Roden
Branhamism, William Branham Jeffersonville, IN
British Israelism
Brotherhood and Order of the Pleroma, Richard Duc de Palatine Sherman Oaks
Brotherhood of Eternal Truth New Albany, IN
Brotherhood of SeTh Ellsworth, ME
Brotherhood of the White Temple, Inc., M. Doreal Castle Rock, CO
Buddha's Universal Church San Francisco, CA
Buddhism
Builders, Norman Paulsen Oasis, NV
Builders of the Adytum, Ltd., Paul Foster Case Los Angeles, CA
Cantillation Research Foundation, John Diamond Valley Cottage, NY
Castle Rising Denver, CO
Catholicism
CAUSA
Center for Action and Contemplation Abuquerque, NM
Center for Advanced
Communication and Training Carrollton, TX
Center for Alternate Realities Durango, CO
Center for Personal and Planetary Empowerment Austin, TX
Center For Spiritual Awareness, Roy Eugene Davis Lakemont, GA
Center for Wisdom Spirituality Paradise, PA
Center for World NetworkingSoguel, CA
Center of the Light Great Barrington, MA
Centric Houston, TX
Cesar San Antonio, TX
Chakras
Champaign-Urbana Church of Christ
Channeling
Chapel of Prayer, Eleanor Button Houston, TX
Chi
Chinmaya International Foundation, Swami Chinmayananda Piercy, CA
Chinmoy, Sri
Chinook Learning Center, Fritz and Vivienne Hull Clinton, WA
Chiromancy
Choosing Light, Inc. Mill Valley, CA
Chopra, Deepak
Christ Cathedral for Divine Abundance
Christ-Consciousness
Christ Family, Charles McHugh
Christ Light Community
Christadelphians, John Thomas
Christian Community
Christian Foundation Canyon County, CA
Christian Millennial Fellowship Hartford, CT
Christian Renewal
Christian Rose Cross Church Olympia, WA
Christian Science
Christianity, Jesus Christ
Chrysalim
Chuang-tzu
Church at San Diego
Church For Positive Living, Dean Davis Bedford, TX
Church in York, Bernar
Church of All Worlds, Otter ZellBerkeley, CA
Church of Christ: See "Churches of Christ."
Church of Christ-Consciousness
Church of Christ Jesus
Church of Christ, Scientist
Church of Christ, Temple Lot, Granville Hedrick Independence, MO
Church of Christ with the Elijah Message, Otto Fetting Independence, MO:
Church of Cosmic Origin, Inc., Hope Troxell June Lake, CA
Church of Divine Influence
Church of Essential Science Scottsdale, AZ
Church of E Yada di Shi-ite, 
Church of God and True Holiness, Robert Carr Raleigh, NC
Church of God Evangelistic Association, David J. Smith Waxahachie, TX
Church of God, Faith of Abraham Wenatchee, WA
Church of God Family Counseling Cente
Church of God General Conference Oregon, IL
Church of God, International, Garner Ted Armstrong Tyler, TX
Church of God Philadelphia Era, David Fraser Pasadena, CA
Church of God, Seventh Day Caldwell, ID
Church of God (7th Day) Salem, WV
Church of God, The Eternal, Raymond C. Cole Eugene, OR
Church of Hakeem, Hake
Church of Illumination Quartertown, PA
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City,UT 
Church of Jesus Power, E.S. Cooke, Sr. Boulder City, NV
Church of Light, Elbert Benjamin Los Angeles, CA
Church of Metaphysical Christianity, Russell Flexer Sarasota, FL
Church of Perfect Liberty,
Church of Satan, Anton Szandor LaVey San Francisco, CA
Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard
Church of Seven Arrows Wheatridge, CO
Church of the Brigade of Light Charlotte, NC
Church of the Final Judgement
Church of the Great God, John Ritenbaugh Charlotte, NC
Church of the Living Stone Mission for the Coming Days, Bang-ik Ha Seoul

Church of the Most High God Marvel, TX
Church of the Most High Goddess, Mary Ellen Tracy Los Angeles, CA
Church of the Movement of Spiritual Inner Awareness
Church of the New Birth
Church of the New Jerusalem
Church of the Plains Indians
Church of the Tree of Life San Francisco, CA
Church of the Trinity, A. Stuart Otto San Marcos, CA
Church of the White Eagle Lodge, Jean LeFevre Montgomery, TX
Church of Universal Love, Linda Foreman El Paso, TX
Church of Unlimited Devotion
Church of Y Tylwyth Teg Smyrna, GA
Church Universal and Triumphant, Mark Prophet (CUT) Corwin Springs, MT
Churches of Christ
Circle Network News Mt. Horeb, WI
Circle of Life, Dorothy Espiau Houston, TX
Circle of Light Dallas, TX
Circle of Light, Inc. Honolulu, HI
City of the Sun Foundation Columbus, NM
Clifford E. Hobbs Foundation Newport, WA
Cole-Whittaker, Terry
College of Divine Metaphysic, Joseph Garduno Glendora, CA
Collegiate Association for the Research of Principles
Comfort Corner Church Lawrenceville, GA
Common Boundary Chevy Chase, MD
Communion Letter San Antonio, TX
Community of Jesus Orleans, MS
Conciliation Ministries, Dusean Berkich Lawrence, KS
Confraternity of Deists Homosassa Springs, FL
Confucianism, Chiu King
Congregation of God San Jose, CA
Congregation of God Seventh Day, John Pinkston
Congregation of the Firstborn, Raymond Glenn Grapeland, TX
Congregation of Yahweh Pittsburgh, PA
Conscious Living Foundation Drain, OR
Consciousness Connection Las Cruces, NM
Constellation, Elton Powers Dallas, TX
Contemplations, Inc., Ed Heinemann Durango, CO
Continuum Foundation Chino Valley, AZ
Cooneyites
Cosmerism
Cosmic Awareness Communications Olympia, WA
Cosmic Communication Commune Decorah, IA
Cosmic Light of Peace Center
Cosmic Science Research Foundation, Edward Palmer Portland, OR
Cosmic Wisdom, Clark Wilkerson Honolulu, HI
Council of Light Honolulu, HI
Council of the Magickal Arts Austin, TX
Coven Gardens Boulder, CO
Covered Bridge Canyon Spanish Fork, UT
Creation Calendar, Verlis W. Johnson Kermit, TX
Creme, Benjamin
Crossroads Church of Christ
Crowley, Aleister
Crusade of Innocence
Chrysalis Foundation Durango, CO
Crystals Consciousness, Warren Klausner San Diego, CA
Crystals Horizons Santa Barbara, CA
Crystal Pathway Denver, CO
Crystals
Daily Word
Dalai Lama
Dallas Fellowship, Inc. Arlington, TX
Davera Mission Church Korea
David, John, Learning Institute
David, Moses
Davis, Hayiland Albany, NY
Dawn Bible Students East Rutherford, NJ
Dayspring Resources, Leonie Rosenstiel New York, NY
Delphi School Sheridan, OR
Denver, John
Deseret Shadow Church
Devil
Di Mambro, Joseph
Dianetics
Discover Seminars Irving, TX
DiscoveryWest Valley City, UT
Divali
Divination
Divine Light Center, Swami Omkarananda
Divine Light Mission, Maharaj Ji
Divine Science Denver CO
Divine Science of Light and Sound Marina del Rey, CA
Divine Word Foundation Warner Springs, CA
Dixon, Jeane
Doctrine and Covenants
Dominion Press San Marcos, CA
Dorene Publishing Arlington, TX
Door, The, Wayne Mitchell Prescott, AZ
Dowsing
Druid
Druidism
Dual Covenant
Dualism
Dungeons and Dragons
DuPage Church of Religious Science, Donald E. Burt Naperville, IL
Dyer, Wayne
Dynamic Monarchianism
Eagle's Cry Denver,CO
Eadie, Betty
Eagle's Path Grand Junction, CO
Earth Church of Amargi St. Louis, MO
Earthmother Therapy Center
Earthsong, Wendy MossDallas, TX
East West Journal Syracuse, NY
Eastern School Press Talent, OR
Ebon, Martin
Ecclesia Athletic Association, Eldridge Broussard, Jr.Los Angeles, CA
Eckankar, Paul Twitchell
EcstasyOjai, CA
Eddy, Mary Baker
Effective Learning Systems Edina, MN
Elmwood Institute, Fritjof Capra
Emmanuel, J. David Davis Athens, TN
Emerald Circle
Enneagram
Epiphany Bible Students Association Mount Dora, FL
Esalen Institute, Michael Murphy Big Sur, CA
Esoteric Order of Dagon, Soror Azenath 23rd Abita Springs, LA
ESP
ESPress, Inc. Washngton, D.C.
Essene Gospel of Peace, Edmond Bordeaux Szekely
Essene Light Center, Mary L. Myers Charlotte, NC
est, Warner Erhard
Eupsychia Austin, TX
Evangelical Christianity
Evolutionary Kingdom Level Above Human Richardson, TX
Exaltation
Extrasensory Perception (ESP)
Faith Assembly Church, Raymond Jackson Jeffersonville, IN
Faithbuilders Fellowship San Diego, CA
Faithful Word Chicago, IL
Faith Temple, Rosemary Cosby Salt Lake City, UT
Family, The, Charles Manson
Family, The, David Berg
Family of Love, The
Farm, The, Stephen Gaskin Summertown, TN
Farrakhan, Louis
Fate Marion, OH
Fellowship For Spiritual Understanding, Marcus Bach Palos Verdes Estates
Fellowship of Isis
Fellowship of Universal Guidance Glendale, CA
Fellowship Press Noblesville, IN
Feminism
Feraferia Eagle Rock, CA
Fifth Epocal Fellowship Chicago, IL
Fitch, Joseph
Firewalking Institute of Research and Education Twain Harte, CA
First Church of Christ, Scientist, Mary Baker Eddy Boston, MS
First Demonic Church, Efrem Del Gatto Italy
First Temple of the Craft of W.I.C.A.South Chicago Heights, IL
First Universal Church of God-Realization, Bhagavan Sri Babajhan-Al-Kahlil
First World Conclave of Light San Diego, CA
FirstZen Institute of America New York, NY
Flirty Fishing
Flying Saucer Information Center Pasadena, MD
Form Criticism
Fort Worth Bible Students Fort Worth, TX
Fortunetelling
Forum, The
Foundation Church New York, NY
Foundation Church of Divine Truth Washington, D.C.
Foundation Church of the Millennium
Foundation Church of the New Birth
Foundation Faith
Foundation Faith of the Millennium New York
Foundation for Co-Creation, Barbara Marx HubbardGreenbraie, CA
Foundation for Higher Spiritual Learning Centreville, VA
Foundation for Inner PeaceFoundation for Life Action, Tara Singh Los Angeles, CA
Foundation for Shamanic Studies, Michael Harner Norwalk, CT
Foundation for Unlimited Consciousness, Rain Morgan Orcas, WA
Foundation of Human Understanding, Roy Masters Grants Pass, OR
Foundation of Light and Metaphysical Education Hurst, TX
Foundation of Revelation San Francisco, CA
Fox, Matthew
Fraternity of Light Philadelphia, PA
Free Soul Sedona, AZ
Free Spirit Brooklyn, NY
Freewinds Relay Office Clearwater, FL
Friends Review Hillsboro, OR
Fundamental Christianity
Gabriel Society, Ruth Harders Western Springs, IL
Gaia
Gandhi Memorial Center, Swami Premananda Washington, D.C.
G.A.P. Ministries Elm Grove, WI
Garvey Center Witchita, KS
Gateway To Light, Lloyd G. Sellman Dewey, AZ
Gateways Institute, Jonathan Parker Ojai, CA
Geller, Uri
Germain
Global Church of God, Roderick Meredith Glendora, CA
Global Family Palo Alto, CA
Globalism
Gnostic Catholic Church of Canada Edmonton, Alberta
Gnosticism
Goddess
God's House of Prayer for All People, Samuel T. Allen Dallas, TX
Golden Association, Ann Rogers San Jose, CA
Golden Book of the Theosophical Society, The
Golden Dawn, John Phillips Palmer Lumberville, PA
Golden Dolphin, Sheila Balenger Greenback, WA
Golden Eagle Sanctuary Hot Springs, AR
Golden Lion, Ann Alexander Houston, TX
Golden Quest, Hilda Charlton Lake Hill, NY
Golden Wheel, W.E. Reeve England
Good Cheer Press Boulder, Co
Good, Joseph
Grail Foundation of America, Abd-ru-shin Binghamton, NY
Grand Canyon Society Scottsdale, AZ
Great Invocation
Great Lakes Fellowship
Great Lakes Pagan Association Techumseh, Mi
Great Lakes Society for Biblical Research Jenison, MI
Great White Brotherhood
Greater Grace World Outreach, Carl H. Stevens, Jr. Baltimore, MD
Group for Creative Meditation
Grove of the Unicorn, Galadriel Atlanta, GA
Guardian Action International Deming, N
Guided Imagery
Guideposts
Guild For Hermetic Revelation Houston, T
Gunvik, Sigurd
Gurdjieff, George I.
Guru
Guru Devy San Francisco, CA
Halloween
Halpern, Steve
Hare Krishna
Harmonic Convergence
Harr, Brian Rochester, NY
Hartley, Harriette Arlington, TX
Hatha Yoga
Hatikva Ministries, Joseph Good Port Arthur, TX
Hawkwind, Charla Hawkwind Hermann Valley Head, AL
Hay, Louise
Healing Arts Expressions Solvang, CA
Healing Center Sarasota, FL
Health and Wealth Gospel
Health Conscious Services, Christ Singh Khalsa New Yor
Heart Consciousness Church Middletown, CA
Heart Dance Mill Valley, C
Heaven and Earth Gloucester, MA
Heaven's Magic
Heresy
Heretic
Heritage Institute Plainfield, WI
Hermit, Jan Moody Topsham, MA
High Point, Vance Harris Willard MO
High Wind Association Milwaukee, WI
Hinkins, John-Roger
Himalayan International Institute of Yoga Science and Philosophy, Swami
Rama Honesdale, PA
Hinduism
Hippocrates Health Institute West Palm Beach, FL
Hoffman, Teri Dallas, TX
Holiness Tabernacle Dyer, AR
Holistic Health
Holistic Life University San Francisco, CA
Hollyhock, Rex Weyler Blaine, W
Hohm Community, Lee Lozowick Tabor, NJ
Holy Body of the Coming Jesus Christ Mission in New Yor
Holy Grail Foundation, Leona Richards Santa Cruz, C
Holy Order of MANS, Earl Blighton
Holy Shankaracharya Order Stroudsburg, P
Holy Spirit Association for the Unification of World Christianity
Homeopathy
Homewords, Susan Johansen Salt Lake City, UT
Horoscope
Horus/Maat Lodge
House of Divine Bread, J.L. Mociulewski Bayonne, N
House of Prayer for All People, William Blessing Denver, C
House of Yahweh Abilene, TX
House of Yahweh Odessa, TX
Houston, Jean
Hubbard, L. Ron
Hunger Project
Hyperborea, Mark Roberts Dallas, T
Hypnosis
I AM Movement, Guy Ballard: Occult, New Age, pantheism
I Ching
I DO Twin Falls, I
Identity Movement
Iglesia Ni Cristo, Felix Manalo
Imagery
Imagine, Nora Jennings Springfield, MO
Impossible Possibilities, Marshall Lever Annapolis, MD
Infinity Institute International Royal Oak, MI
Inner Connection Lewisville, TX
Inner Light New Brunswick, NJ
Inner Light Foundation, Betty Bethards Novato, CA
Inner Light Institute, Christina Thomas Memphis, TN
Inner Peace Movement, Francisco Coll
Inner Space Center
Inner Technologies, Richard Daab Fairfax, CA
Inner Vision Brooklyn, NY
Inner Way, Bruce Derby Homeland, CA
Insight magazine Washington, D.C.
Insight Transformational Seminars, John-Roger Hinkins
Institute for Advanced Perception, Harold S. Schroeppel Oak Park, I
Institute for Bio-Spiritual Research Coulterville, C
Institute for Family and Human Relations Los Gatos, C
Institute for the Advancement of Human Behavior Stanford, C
Institute of Divine Metaphysical Research, Henry Kinley Los Angeles, CA
Institute of Esoteric Study Milwaukee, WI
Institute of Greater Awareness, Steve Mazzarella Denver, CO
Institute of Judaic-Christian Research, Vendyl Jones Arlington, TX
Institute of Mental Science Nashville, T
Institute of Mentalphysics, Edwin Dingle Los Angeles, CA
Institute of Noetic Science, Edgar Mitchell Sausalito, CA
Institute of Sorcery Hillsdale, I
Institute of Spiritual Unfoldment
International Assembly of Wizards Brooklyn, NY
International Association of Scientologists England
International Church of Christ
International Community of Chris
International Fundamental of Astrological Sciences New York, N
International General Assembly of Spiritualists, Fred Jordan Norfolk, V
International Mahayana Yoga Association, Bo-In Lee Jamaica Plain, M
International Meditation Society
International Metaphysical Association New York, NY
International Religious and Magical Order of Societe, La Couleuvre Noir
International Society of Divine Love, H.D. Prakashanand Saraswati Austi
International Society for Krishna Consciousness
International Space Science Foundation, Rick Ardyn Salt Lake City, UT
Into the Light Tahlequah, O
Intuitive Explorations Quincy, 
Invisable Fellowship Boulder, CO
Inward Bound, Alexander Everett Arlington, TX
Iridology
Isis New Age Center Denver, CO
Isis Unveiled
ISKCON
Islam, Muhammad
Isthmus Institute Dallas, 
Jainism, Mahavira
Jamilian University of the Ordained, Gene Savoy Reno, NV
Jehovah's Witnesses
Jesus
Jesus Christ
Jesus Only
Jihad
Johannine Daist Communion, "Da Free John." a.k.a. Franklin Jone
John-David Learning Institute Carlsbad, CA
Jones, Jim
Jones, Vendyl
Jouret, Luc
Joy Lake Mountain Seminar Center Reno, N
Joy of Living Roosevelt, N
Judaism
Kabbalah
Kairos Foundation
Karma
Karma Yoga
Katherine Brooklyn, NY
Kemp, Daniel Patchogue, NY
Kerista Consciousness Church San Francisco, CA
Keys College, Ken and Penny Keys Eugene, OR
Keys To Understanding
Kingdom Voice Publications, Joseph Jeffers St. James, M
Kirpal Light Satsang, Sant Thakar Singh Kinderhook, N
Klassen, Frank Ft. David, T
Knight, J.Z.
Koresh, David
Kosmon
Krastman, Hank
Krieger, Dolores
Kripalu Yoga Retreat, Amrit Desai Summit Station, PA
Krishna
Krishnamurti Foundation of America Ojai, CA
Kundalini
Kunz, Dora
L. Ron Hubbard Gallery Hollywood, CA
Laksmi
Laodicean Home Missionary, John Krewson Ft. Myers, FL
Landmark
Lao-tzu
Laughing Dove Albuquerque, NM
Laymen's Home Missionary Movement, Raymond Jolly Chester Springs, PA
Lazaris
LDS
Lectorium Rosicrucianism Bakersfield, C
Lemurian Fellowship Ramona, CA
Liberal Christianity
Liberation Theology
Life Enhancement Systems Houston, TX
Life Training Dallas, TX
Life Understanding Foundation Santa Barbara, CA
Lifespring
LightCanal Winchester, OH
Light Connections Cardiff, CA
Light of the City Ministry Renton, WA
Light of the Holy Spirit, Harry Lee Holmberg Bativia, I
Light of the Universe, Maryona Tiffin, OH
Light of Truth Church, Fra Zarathustra Pasadena, CA
Light of Truth Church of Divine Healin
Light of Yoga Society Cleveland Heights, O
Light Speed, Zavi and Zava Sedona, A
Lighted Way Santa Monica, C
Lightworker Azel, TX
Literary Criticism
Little Flock
Lively Stones Fellowship Palatka, F
Living Waters, Lois Roden Waco, TX
L/L Research Louisville, K
Llewellyn New Times St. Paul, MN
Lor'd Industries Hancock, WI
Lotus
Louis Foundation, Louis Eastsound, WA
Loving Relationships Training, Sondra Ray
Lucifer
Lucifer Trust
Lucis Trust
Lumen Foundation San Francisco, CA
Lumin Essence Productions Oakland, CA
Luna Astrological Services Flint, 
MacLaine, Shirley: New Age, seminars
Mafu
Magi Center, Inc. Paradise, CA
Magic
Maharishi Ayur-Ved Foundation
Maharishi International University, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi Fairfield, I
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Mahavira
Mahikari, Kutama Okada Houston, TX
Malcolm X
Mandragore New York, NY
Mantra
Marah Madison, NJ
Mark-Age Miami, FL
Martindale, Craig
Master of Life, Dick Sutphen Agoura Hills, CA
Masters, Roy
Matagiri Sri Aurobindo Center, Inc
Maya
Maya Factor, Jose Arguelles
Mayan Order San Antonio, TX
McKean, Kip
Meditation
Meditation Group for New Age Ojai, CA
Mega
Megiddo Mission Church, L.T. Nichols Rochester, NY
Meridians
Messianic Assemblies of Yahweh North Warren, PA
Metaphysics
Metaphysical Institute for Research and Development Dallas, TX
Metaphysical Union, Hank Krastman Encino, CA
Meyer, Aleta Albuquerque, NM
Michael, Sandra
Midwest Research of Michigan, Owen Stitz Walled Lake, M
Miller, William
Mind Power Technique
Mind Science
Miracle Distribution Center Fullerton, CA
MISA, John-Roger Hinkins
Mo Letters
Modalism
Mohammed
Monarchianism
Mon-Ka Retreat and Universal Mother Mary's Garden of Healing, Energy
Monotheism
Monroe Institute, Robert Monroe Faber, V
Moon, Sun Myung
Moonies
Mormonism
Moyer, Bill
Muhammad
Muhammad, Elijah
Muscle Testing
Music Square Church
Muslim
Mysteria Products Company
Narconon Los Angeles, CA
Nation of Islam, Elijah Muhammad
Nation of Yahweh, Yahweh ben Yahweh,a.k.a., Hulon Mitchell, Jr. Miami, FL
National Council for Geocosmic Research Westchester, I
National Institute for Clinical Application of Behavioral Medicine
Mansfield Center, CT
National Spiritual Science Center, Alice Tindalli Washington, D.C
National Spiritualist Association of Churches Cassadaga, F
Native American Spirituality
Natures Sunshine, Kristine Hughes Spanish Fork, UT
Necromancy
Nelson, Bernard San Antonio, TX
Neo-Orthodox Christianity
Neo-Paganism
Neo-Pythagorean Gnostic Churc
Neuro-Linguistic Programming
New Age
New Age Church of The Christ, Thomas Printz Long Island, NY
New Age Church of Truth, Gilbert Holloway Deming, NM
New Age Community Church Phoenix, AZ
New Age Journal Brighton, MA
New Age Medicine
New Age Music
New Age Symposium Houston, TX
New Age Teachings Brookfield, MA
New Church
New Dimensions Foundation San Francisco, CA
New Life, Vernon Howard Boulder City, NV
New Realities Washington, D.C.
New Thot Free Thot, Bill Greenhouse Los Angeles, CA
New Thought
New Times Seattle, WA
Nichiren Shoshu of America (NSA), Daisakqu Ikeda Santa Monica, CA
Nightingale-Conant Chicago, IL
Nirvana
Niscience Glendale, CA
Nizhoni School of Global Consciousness Galisteo, NM
NLP
Noahides
Nova 8 Pueblo, CO
Nova Mystery School
Numerology
OAHSPE, John Newbrough
Oasis Fellowship Florence, AZ
Occult
Occult Americana Panesville, OH
Olcott library Wheaton, IL
Omega Institute for Holistic Studies Hudson River Valley, NY
Omega Press New Lebanon, NY
One to Grow On, Trenna Sutphen Malibu, C
Oneness
Order of Rhea Chicago, IL
Order of the Cross, J. Todd Ferrie
Order of the Solar Temple
Order of the Star
Ordo Adeptorum Invisiblum Chicago, IL
Ordo Templi Ashtart (OTA) Pasadena, CA
Ordo Templi Baph-Metis (OTB), James M. Martin Corpus Christi, T
Orr, Leonard
Orthodox Christianity
Ouija Board
Our Lady of Enchantment, Sabrina Danville, C
Out-of-Body Experience (OBE
Pacific Institute, Louis Tice Seattle, WA
Pacific West Fellowshi
Pagan Spiritual Alliance, Selena Fox Mt. Horeb, WI
Pagan Way Philadelphia, PA
Paganism
Palm Reading
Pan-American Indian Association
Panentheism
Pantheism
Papa Jim San Antonio, TX
Parapsychology
Parascience Institute Evanston, I
Past Life Regression
Pastoral Bible Institute Milwaukee, W
Path of Light Charlotte, N
Pathways: Ramana Maharshi Sarasota, FL
Patripassianism
Peace Community Church Washington, D.C.
Peace Pole
Peacevision Houston, TX
Peale, Norman Vincent
Pearl of Great Price
Peck, M. Scott:
Pelley, William D.
People House Denver, C
People's Temple Christian Church, Jim Jones Jonestown, Guyana
Peyote
Peyote Way Church of God, Anne L. Zapf Willcox, AZ
Phanes Grand Rapid, M
Philadelphia Church of God, Gerald Flurry Edmond, OK
Philadelphia Congregation of Yahweh, William Scampton Philadelphia, PA
Philosophic Community Center Denver, CO
Philosophical Publishing Co. Quakertown, PA
Philosophical Research Society, Manly P. Hall Los Angeles, CA
Plain Truth, The
Planet Health Arlington, TX
Plural Covenant
Polytheism
Positive Confession
Potter's House
Power for Abundant Living
PPPANA Macan, GA
Prana
Process Church of the Final Judgement, Robert de Grimston
Process Theology
Proclus Society and Neo-Pythagorean Gnostic Church Chicago, IL
Project X
Prophet, Elizabeth and Mark
Prosperity Doctrine
Prosperos, Thane Santa Monica, CA
Prosveta U.S.A., Omraam Mikhael Aivanhov Los Angeles, CA
Protestantism
Prout Northampton, MA
Psionics
Psychedelic Venus Church San Francisco, C
Psychiana, Frank Robinson
Psychic
Psychic Healing
Psychic Learning Center, Martha Woodworth Rockport, M
Psynetic Foundation Anaheim, CA
Puranas
Pursel, Jach
Pyramid Power
Pyramidology
Quartus Foundation, John Price Boerne, TX
Quest For Excellence Dallas, TX
Quimby, Phineas P.
Radiant School, Kenneth Wheller Mount Shasta, C
Radical Feminism
Rainbow Dallas, TX
Rainbow Charlotte, NC
Rainbow Earth Dwelling Society, J. Christine Hayes San Antonio, T
Rainbow Group
Raja Yoga
Ram Dass, a.k.a. Richard Alpert
Ramtha
Rastafarianism, Marcus Garvey
Ray, Sondra
Rebirthing
Rebirthing International, Leonard Orr
Redactor
Redfield, James
Reflexology
Reformation
Reiki
Reincarnation
Religious Science, Ernest Holmes
Reorganized Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (RLDS)
Reverend Ike, a.k.a., Frederick Eikerenkoetter, II
R I Research New York, NY
Rice, Anne
Rice, Nancy Broomfield, CO
Roberts, Jane
Robins, Anthony
Rock of Ages, The
Rocky Mountain Institute of Yoga and Ayurveda Denver, CO
Rocky Mountain Research Institute Fort Collins, CO
Rocky Mountain Spiritual Emergence NetworkBoulder, CO
Roman Catholicism
Ro-Hun Therapy
Rosicrucian Anthroposophic League, S.R. Parchment New York, N
Rosicrucian Fellowship, Max Heindel Oceanside, CA
Rosicrucian Foundation, Swinburne Clymer Quakertown, PA
Rosicrucian Order (AMORC), H. Spence Lewis San Jose, CA
Rosicrucianism, Christian Rosenkreutz
Rowan Tree, Paul Beyerlf Minneapolis, MN
Rune
Russell, Charles 
Sabellianism
Sabo, Sandra Gloucester, MA
Sacred Cycles, Bette Barr-Glover San Juan Capistrano, CA
Sacred Mushroom and the Cross, The, John Allegro
Sacred Name
Sacred Order of Mystic Christianity Mountain View, CA
Sadhana Society Prescott, AZ
Sage Center, Ann Garner Arlington, T
Sage Woman Point Arena, CA
Saint Germain
Saint Germain Foundation Schaumburg, IL
Salvation by Grace
Salvation by Works
Samhain
Sanctuary of Gaia Santa Cruz, CA
Sanctuary of Revealing Light, Mildred Smith
Sankirtana
Santeria
Satan
Satanism
Savior of All Fellowship Montclair, CA
School for Esoteric Studies New York, NY
School of Ageless Wisdom Arlington, TX
School of Alchemy Boulder, CO
School of Metaphysics, Dennis Rodgers Norman, OK
School of Natural Order, Ralph M. deBit Baker, N
School of Thought, Hope Troxell June Lake, CA
Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures
Science of Mind Church, Lunn Gardner Mobile, A
Scientology
Scripture Research Association College Park, M
Scully, Nicki Eugene, OR
Search and Prove St. Paul Park, MN
Second Adventist Movement
Secret Doctrine, The
Secrets, Norma Cox Marshal, AR
Seeing Beyond Capitola, CA
Self-Realization Fellowship, Paramahansa Yogananda Los Angeles, CA
Self-Revelation Church of Absolute Monism, Swami Premananda Washington
Serpent Seed
Seth
Seven Oaks Madison, VA
Seventh Day Adventists
Shafenberg Research Foundation, Ernest Shafenberg Kingfisher, OK
Shaman
Shamanism
Shambhala Institute Asheville, N
Shambhla Publishing Boulder, CO
Shared Heart Foundation, Joyce and Berry Vissell Aptos, C
Shenoa Retreat Center Philo, CA
Shepherding
Shintoism
Shiva
Siddha Yoga Dham of America, Swami Muktananda Paramahansa South Fallsbur
Siegel, Bernie
Sikhism, Nanak
Silva Mind Control, Jose Silva
Silver, Marshall Tempe, AZ
Singer, David
Singh, Sant Thakar
Sino-American Buddhism Association San Francisco, C
Smith, Joseph
Societas Rosicruciana In America, Palmer New York, N
Society of Pragmatic Mysticism, Mildred Mann New York, N
Solar Quest Seneca, MD
Soka Gakkai International (SGI)
Solar Temple
Songs of David Marvel, TX
Sons of Noah
Sophia
Soul Sleep
Soulmates
Sovereignty, Inc. Eastsound, WA
Spangler, David
Spiritism
Spiritual Advancement of the Individual Foundation, Sai Baba Los Angeles
Spiritual Advisory Council Orlando, FL
Spiritual Frontiers Fellowship, Author Ford Evanston, IL
Spiritual Hierarchy Information Center Ft. Lauderdale, FL
Spiritual Horizons Church Houston, T
Spiritual Research Society, Edward Cain Grand Rapids, M
Spiritual Science Institute Santa Barbara, CA
Spiritualism
Spring Hill Institute, Robert Gass and Judith Gass Tierr
Stallone Astrology Center, Jacqueline Stallone Toluca Lake, CA
Star Center for the Americas Montgomery, TX
Starlight Mystic Awareness School, Diane Tessman Poway, CA
Star Quest Argyle, TX
Starshine Center Corpus Christi, T
Stelle Group, Richard Kieninger Stelle, I
Steps to Awareness Telluride, CO
Sterling Management
Stil-Light Retreat Center Waynesville, N
Students International Meditation Societ
Subliminal Messages
Sufi Order of the Sons of the Green Light New York, NY
Sufism
Summit Lighthouse
Summum Salt Lake City, U
Sun, The Chapel Hill, NC
Sundoor, Peggy Dylan Twain Harte, CA
Superet Brotherhood for mankind, Josephine C. Trust Los Angeles, C
Supersensonic Energy Technologies Boulder Creek, CA
Sutphen, Dick
Sweat Lodge
Swedenborg Foundation, Emanuel Swedenborg New York, NY
SYDA
Synchronicity Foundation Faber, V
Taff, Signe Quinn Sedona, AZ
Taj Mahal Agra, India
Talisman
Tao Te Ching
Tao Tsang
Taoism, Lao-tzu
Tara Center, Benjamin Creme North Hollywood, CA
Tarot Cards
Teachers of Light
Technicians of the Sacred Burbank, C
Temple of Danann, Michael Ragan Hanover, I
Temple of Kriya Yoga, Goswami Kriyananda Chicago, I
Temple of Set, Michael Aquino
Temple of the Ascended Master, Ted M. Pierce Yarness, A
Temple of the People, William Dower Halcyon, C
Temple of the Psychedelic Light and the Church of the Realized Fantasy
Temple of the Universe, Amrit Desai Alachua, F
Temple of Truth
Teresa, Joan Power Products Mars Hill, NC
Teutonic Temple, Clarence Bartholomew The Dallas, O
Texas Wholistic Network Azel, TX
Therapeutic Touch
Theosophical Society in America, Helena Blavatsky Wheaton, IL
Theosophical Society - International Pasadena, CA
Theosophy, Madame Helena Petrovna Blavatsky
Theosophy Company Los Angeles, C
Third Eye
Thought Trends Roswell, GA
Tibetan Buddhism
TM
Torres, Penny
Touch for Health
Touch Stone San Francisco, CA
Touch Therapy
Trance Channeling
Transcendental Meditation, Maharishi Mahesh Yogi
Transformational Seminars
Tree of Knowledge Westchester, IL
Trick or Treat
Trinity
Tritheism
Triumph Prophetic Ministries Church of God, William Dankenbring Altadena
Triumph Publishing
True Mother and True Father
Tucson Tabernacle Tucson, AZ
Two by Twos
UFO
UG Farmingdale, NY
Unarius Academy of Science, Ruth Norman El Cajon, C
Unarius Education Foundation, Ernest Norman El Cajon, C
Understanding Inc., Daniel Fry Tonopah, AZ
Unidentified Flying Objects (UFO)
Unitarianism
Unitarian-Universalist
United Lodge of Theosophists New York, NY
United Pentecostal
United Research, James V. Goure Black Mountain, NC
Unitology Thought Indianapolis, IN
Unity of Knowledge Foundation, Edith May Custard Arlington, V
Unity School of Christianity, Charles and Myrtle Fillmore Lee's Summit, MO
Unity Villag
Universal Christian Movement Glencoe, IL
Universal Faithists of Kosmon, George Morley
Universal Harmony Foundation Seminole, FL
Universal Life Church, Kirby Hensley Medesto, CA
Universal Life Church of the Seven African Powers Miami, F
Universal Life Temple New Port, MI
Universal Light of Christ Church, Pat RaimondoAzle, T
Universal Mother Mary's Garden, Mary Pacquette Grass Valley, CA
Universal Network Aztec, NM
Universal Spiritualist Association Chesterfield, IN
Universal Temple of Divine Light, Don Slocum Baton Rouge, LA
Universalism
Universariun Foundation, Inc. Portland, O
University of the Christ Light Charlotte, NC
University of the Trees, Christopher Hill Boulder Creek, C
University of the 12 Rays of the Great Central Sun
Upanishads
Upper Triad Manassas, VA
URANTIA Brotherhood Chicago, IL
Vedas
Verse 1 of Psalms 91 Marvel, TX
Virgin Birth
Vishnu
Vision Quest
Visions Travel Los Angeles, C
Visualization
Voice of Reality Phoenix, AZ
Voice of the Olive Tree, Inc., Bernard Harland Monrovia, C
Voodoo
Waldorf School
Warren Bible Students
Watchtower
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, Charles Taze Russell Brooklyn, NY
Way Corps, The
Way International, The, Victor Paul Wierwille New Knoxville, OH
Western Nath Order Seattle, W
Whirling Dervish
White Dove International, Stuart Wilde Taos, NM
White Dove Partridge
White Eagle
Whitelights Westlake Village, CA
Whittaker, Terry Cole
Whole Life Network Santa Cruz, CA
Wholistic Innerworks Foundation, Randy Barns Durango, CO
Wicca
Wikima Arlington, TX
Wilde, Stuart
Williamson, Marianne
Willow Keep Wilton, N
Windsong Explorations, Bonnie Simrell Nederland, CO
Wisdom Institute of Spiritual Education Dallas, TX
WISE International Los Angeles, CA
Wise Woman Center, Susan Weed Woodstock, N
Witchcraft
W.J. Publishers, Brother Stanley Toronto, Ontari
Woman's Circle El Prado, NM
Women's Federation for World Peace, Hak Ja Han Moon New York, N
Womyn Healing, Sandra Boston de Sylvia Greenfield, M
Word-Faith Movement
Word Over the World
World Community, J.E. Rash Bedford, VI
World Tomorrow, The
Worldwide Church of God, Herbert W. Armstrong Pasadena, CA
WOW
Yahweh ben Yahweh
Yahwehism
Yahweh's Assembly in Messiah, David Barnard Rockport, MO
Yang
Yes Education Society Washington, D.C
Yi King
Yin and Yang
Yoga
Yoga Journal Berkley, CA
Yoga Research Foundation, Jyotir Maya Nanda Miami, FL
Yoga Research Society Phildelphia, PA
Yogi
Zen Buddhism
Zen Master Rama, a.k.a. Frederick P. Lenz
Zendik Farm, Wulf Aendik Boulveard, C
Zentech, Don Mead Surry, ME
Zerubbabel, Inc. Hopkinsville, KY
Zodiac
Zoroastrianism, Zoroaster
Zygon International, Dane Spotts Issaquah, WA

My favorite is "The Church of Unlimited Devotion"

They worship Jerry Garcia. They believe that Garcia's guitar is a channel for 
God

>And they are all right, too!

What do you mean by this?  That all of the cults listed are "right"?

/john

    i think he means right as in correct.  like you always are,
    john.

So is he saying that these groups are "right" simply because the
Watchman organization lists them as being "wrong"?

/john

 I think he is saying that all of the groups claim "they are right".




 Jim

So many groups, so many who know what is right, errrr correct, errrr valid
errrrr well you know.

 ZZ   I didn't say that, you did.  I didn't even imply it.  What I said was
 ZZ   | you are limiting your effectiveness.
    
 ZZ           Then they must be too, right?
    
    Wasn't sure where else to post...but since I'm a fundamentalist...
    
    Glen, my belief, has been documented a few times in this forum and should
    be of no surprise to anybody.  
    
    The Holy Spirit can only dwell in a regenerated, redeemed individual. 
    The Holy Spirit cannot dwell within the life of an individual unless
    they are MADE righteous.  As you eloquently stated, goodness and
    righteousness can ONLY come from God, correct?  Therefore, since the
    Holy Spirit can only dwell in a person who has been redeemed by the
    righteousness bestowed from God, I would challenge you to answer your
    own question...since by your logic, and Jesus for that matter, no good
    comes except that which is from God.
    
    Jesus is the redeemer, you believe this correct...since redemption can
    only come from God.  Remember, by your logic, the goodness within us
    comes only from God...and I commend you on this position.  If one
    denies this redemption, how does one allow themselves to be utilized by
    their full potential by God.
    
    -Jack
    
    P.S. Remember Glen...GOD ONLY USES people...the power doesn't come from
    people but from God alone.  Congratulations on acknowleding this point.

    By the way...two notes...
    
    I repeated in same paragraph and used comma inappropriately.  My
    apologies to the grammer crackpots.
    
    Secondly, I pounded this point over and over...that being goodness only
    comes from God because I don't want Glen to suddenly come down with one
    of his amnesia acts.

   Okay, now apologize for .297, Jack. ;>

    Ooops....that's right...you are.....I sorry!!!!!

    Crackpot wacko zealous snarf!

    Glen, please address .296!

>        <<< Note 347.299 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

>    Ooops....that's right...you are.....I sorry!!!!!

	I didn't meant the crackpots comment - I meant the writing
	errors. ;>

    OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHH....(Edith Bunker voice!)....
    
    Me vewy sorry kimosabee!

    >The Holy Spirit can only dwell in a regenerated, redeemed individual.
    >The Holy Spirit cannot dwell within the life of an individual
    >unless they are MADE righteous.
    
    
    Jack Martin, a man possessed.   :)

    I think he really deserved that. :-)

| <<< Note 347.296 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

	Jack, with all you wrote, it was based on beliefs, not on the Bible. So
I would have to answer my question as no, as my question was based on your view
of me and the Bible.


Glen

    
    > my question was based on your view of me and the Bible.
    
    Through a glass, darkly. Just like me and the Bible.

<---so you wear glasses to read the Bible? :-)

 Glen, that's good.  I assume your "no" answer is in regard to the question
    of people of other faiths living up to their full potential.  
    
    Now, to my next question....
    
 Z   Andy, if a glass house is why one should not judge, then no one should
 Z   judge, PERIOD. We all sin. Each thing we do wrong is a sin. No sin is
 Z   greater than another. 
    
    Glen, John the Baptist was beheaded for the crime of uttering these
    words....
    
    "Herod, it is not lawful for you to have your brothers wife"  
    
    Was John the Baptist Judging and was John the Baptist within the realm
    of correctness by doing so?
    
    -Jack

    .309
    
    > John the Baptist was beheaded for the crime of uttering these
    > words....
    
    > "Herod, it is not lawful for you to have your brothers wife"
    
    > Was John the Baptist Judging and was John the Baptist within the realm
    > of correctness by doing so?
    
    The answer to the first question is NO.  He was merely citing the LAW,
    not making a moral judgment of any kind.  Therefore, the second
    question is meaningless because it assumes an affirmative answer to the
    first.

    Dick, John the Baptist was making an indictment on Herod...this is why
    he was thrown into prison.  Herod was having relations with the wife of
    his brother, Phillip.  The reference is Matthew 14, 1-5.  You will find
    in scripture that most indictments against sinners were based on
    scripture...since the Mosaic law was the hingepin of their society.
    
    Therefore, I continue to query Glen on this matter.  Was it proper for
    John the Baptist to give a judgemental indictment such as this?  If so
    then how does this practice pertain to the church today?

    .311
    
    > John the Baptist was making an indictment on Herod.
    
    It's accepted among believers that John disapproved of Herod's boffing
    Herodias in terms of its being a sin.  But the indictment he actually
    delivered wasn't in those terms.  He didn't say, "You're sinning
    against the LORD your God."  He certainly could have said that, but
    what he did say was, "You're breaking the law."  Where the law came
    from is immaterial, the same as it's immaterial where the law against
    driving 75 in a 55 MPH zone came from.  A cop doesn't expound his or
    her personal feelings on the speed limit, he or she cites the LAW. 
    Which is what John did.

    I think the apostle Paul would disagree with this...considering the law
    as they understood it had powerful ramifications.  Consider the
    incident that happened in Corinth where a young man was
    disfellowshipped for having an elicit affair with his father's wife.  
    
    Paul as both an apostle and a prophet understood the actions of this
    young man were not in harmony with the nature of God, and took it upon
    himself to admonish the church for its approval of this behavior.
    I as a fellow believer claim this authority to admonish my brother in
    Christ just as it is your obligation to do so.  And by the way Dick,
    you have done such a thing in the past.  
    
    So Glen, hopefully you have been following along and have a clearer
    understanding...although I have told you this time and time again and
    you in response have, as you are now, maintaining your silence.  
    Glen, are we called to admonish our brother and sister in faith toward
    righteousness...just as Paul the apostle did and just as John the
    Baptist did?!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 347.309 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, that's good.  I assume your "no" answer is in regard to the question
| of people of other faiths living up to their full potential.

	The no is that I can't know if they do or not. I don't think the Bible
has anything to do with living up to one's potential. So in their religions,
where the Bible is not part of it, the non belief of the Bible is not keeping
them from reaching their potentials.

| "Herod, it is not lawful for you to have your brothers wife"

| Was John the Baptist Judging and was John the Baptist within the realm
| of correctness by doing so?

	Telling someone they are doing something wrong is not judging them in
the sense that I thought people were talking about. It's none of John's
business what Herod does. 


Glen

    .313
    
    > incident that happened in Corinth
    
    Citation, please?  Surely you couldn't mean 1 Corinthians 5, which is
    about as hazy as one could get - Paul says "it is reported that there
    is fornication among you."
    
    Bear in mind that in 1 Corinthians 5, Paul enjoins the congregation to
    deliver a man who boffs his father's wife to Satan for destruction of
    the flesh in order that the soul might be saved.  In other words, kill
    the perp so he can go to heaven.  Yeah, right.

| <<< Note 347.313 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I think the apostle Paul would disagree with this...

	Yes, he probably would. But he was a man with many opinions..... so it
is expected. 

| Glen, are we called to admonish our brother and sister in faith toward
| righteousness...just as Paul the apostle did and just as John the
| Baptist did?!

	You can try and direct someone to what YOU feel is the correct path. If
a person does not follow that path, you can no more say they aren't living up
to their potential than anyone else. Because at that point you have judged
them. And that is the type of judging I am talking about.


Glen

Did they do it in the back seat of a car with fine Corinthian leather?

 Z   Telling someone they are doing something wrong is not judging them in
 Z   the sense that I thought people were talking about. It's none of John's
 Z   business what Herod does. 
    
    In that society, it was very much John's business...considering the
    Mosaic law was the hingepin of that culture...or it was supposed to be.
    
    Glen, the church is not a libertarian organization.  If you are living
    in sin, you need to turn from it...Repent and change your ways.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 347.317 by NOTIME::SACKS "Gerald Sacks ZKO2-3/N30 DTN:381-2085" >>>

| Did they do it in the back seat of a car with fine Corinthian leather?

	If you had that note in .318, it would have been quite the
accomplishment. Chrysler had the 318 engine, afterall. :-)

    Dick,
    
    The destruction of the flesh is not necessarily referring to death. 
    Whatever the destruction of the flesh was referring to, it worked
    because the young man repented and was brought back into fellowship.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 347.318 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, the church is not a libertarian organization.  If you are living
| in sin, you need to turn from it...Repent and change your ways.

	Jack, once again... you can try to lead someone away from what you
believe is a sin. But you can not say that they have not reached their
potential if they don't. Because at that point you have judged them.


Glen

 Z   Jack, once again... you can try to lead someone away from what you
 Z   believe is a sin. But you can not say that they have not reached their
 Z   potential if they don't.
    
    Why's that?

    .322
    
    Because you are making judgments of their potential, and you  are
    basing those judgments on your religious beliefs rather than on any
    objective criteria.  Judgment, pure and simple.

    I think two different converstaions are being mixed up here.  Glen was
    stating to Andy that we should not judge...this was one exchange.  Then
    Glen and I had an exchange as to how his lack of faith in scripture as
    an authority is stunting his potential...which by the way is a bonafied
    observation and I stand by it.  Glen then said "Oh great...then myself,
    moslems, and Jews are going to hell..." or some wacky reply out from
    left field which had nada to do with the conversation.  It was then
    that I said something to the effect of..."If Righteousness comes from
    God alone, and the Holy Spirit can only dwell within a believer, then
    I believe somebody not of the faith is not living up to the potential to
    which God can use them....since as Glen concurred, righteousness can
    only come from God and the Spirit of God can only dwell within a
    believer.  
    
    See Dick, the basic problem with Glen, and I speak of this as an
    observation, is that Glen like much of the populace has fallen into the
    clap trap of relativism.  Translation...God is the rock in your back
    yard...if you so choose it to be.  God is nature...if you so choose it
    to be.  Truth is subjective to the belief of the individual and truth
    as an element of reality does not exist.  Now this observation will
    most likely be challenged as flawed...I'm sure of it.  But that is
    certainly the impression I'm getting.
    
    -Jack 

    Jack, you are still judging Glen.  You are saying, "If *only* you would
    put your faith in scripture, you would be a better person."  The real
    truth is that if he did put his faith in scripture he would be more
    like the kind of person *you* think he should be.  But he might be a
    less spirit-breathed person for doing that - you simply have *no* way
    to tell what is really in his heart or how the Paraclete is working in
    him.  You are, therefore, passing judgment on him.

| <<< Note 347.322 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Why's that?

	Read the rest of the note you took that from.

    .326
    
    Uhmmm....
    
    Let me see if I can add anything to this circular discussion.
    
    As Christians who believe the Bible, we also believe the judgement to
    which we submit is from God.  In order to submit to this judgement we
    must understand His ways, and His criteria for success.  We also
    believe that this criteria for success is the same for everyone.  So,
    the very stick by which you say Glen is being measured is the very same
    stick by which Jack himself is measured.  It is not a question of what
    Jack THINKS, but what Jack BELIEVES is that criteria.
    
    

| <<< Note 347.325 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I think two different converstaions are being mixed up here.  Glen was
| stating to Andy that we should not judge...this was one exchange. 

	And you should now look as to why Andy was judging. Try it.

| Then Glen and I had an exchange as to how his lack of faith in scripture as
| an authority is stunting his potential...

	Which by the way is a bonafied example of areas you should not judge.

| Glen then said "Oh great...then myself, moslems, and Jews are going to hell...

	If you're gonna quote me, at least get it right. I asked you (which you
never answered) if my not believing the Bible makes me not live up to my
potential, does it also make the ones you listed above not live up to their
potential. Could you answer it now?

| is that Glen like much of the populace has fallen into the clap trap of 
| relativism.  

	No, reality. 



Glen

| <<< Note 347.328 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| So, the very stick by which you say Glen is being measured is the very same
| stick by which Jack himself is measured. It is not a question of what Jack 
| THINKS, but what Jack BELIEVES is that criteria.

	And that is what we are talking about. Jack may believe something is
right, or something is wrong. He may be right, he may be wrong. 

	No one gets upset if Jack says X is wrong to him. But people get upset
if Jack says someone is not reaching their potential because they don't do what
Jack believes. 


Glen

    .330
    
    Okay, now what?  You know that Jack is not convinced that what he
    believes is his own.  That it is God's criteria.  You KNOW that Jack
    measures himself by this criteria as well.
    
    So, there is no hypocrisy in the above.  And furthermore, in Jack's
    mind there is no judgement that he owns because the criteria is the
    Bible.
    
    From where comes your criticism towards Jack?
    

    .328
    
    It is an axiom that what Jack (or anyone else) BELIEVES are God's
    criteria is not the same thing as the criteria themselves.
    
    	For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now
        I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.
     
    				- 1 Corinthians 13:12, KJV

| <<< Note 347.331 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Okay, now what?  You know that Jack is not convinced that what he
| believes is his own.  That it is God's criteria.  You KNOW that Jack
| measures himself by this criteria as well.

	Partially right. Are you willing to say that everything that Jack
believes in is 100% correct? I don't think you will make that statement about
him, be, or yourself. I do think Jack's, your, and my beliefs are believed to
be true by individual selves. But that doesn't mean we are really right. As we
humans find out time and time again, we can be wrong.

| So, there is no hypocrisy in the above.  

	Only if Jack is God, as one would have to be perfect in order for what
you just said to not be true.

| From where comes your criticism towards Jack?

	Reread my notes. 



Glen

 Z   Only if Jack is God, as one would have to be perfect in order for what
 Z   you just said to not be true.
    
    Oh ye of little understanding!

| <<< Note 347.334 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Oh ye of little understanding!

	I like it when you are looking into your mirror. :-)

    .330
    
    Some people do not like it when others believe in absolutes, and speak
    out on it.  Some folks have an aversion to this kind of concrete
    reality that can  unravel their rationalizations, and reveal their
    futile way of thinking for what it is.  Better to argue
    against absolutes than to do an indepth self-analysis using the
    scriptures as a filter; it is much easier than forcing one to face the
    truth about themselves.  Better to believe that God gave us nothing
    concrete upon which we can stand, so we can continue in our persuits of
    the flesh.  After all, nothing is absolute, so how can we be certain
    that what we do is wrong.
    
    This isn't directed specifically at you, Glen, it just so happens that
    your philosophy of morality (and your .330  8^) ) has prompted my
    comments- which, of course, are based upon the same criteria as are
    Jack's comments- the Bible.  God speaks very clearly on this, in
    warning, of following one's own ways rather than God's ways.
    
    Although there are certainly grey areas in the Bible, there is also a
    concrete message of good and evil- of sin and righteousness.  There is
    no confusing the two, though society is doing its best to do this very
    thing.  Because one thing is grey, they try to broad brush it all to be
    gray, even those portions that are crystal clear.  Rationalizations
    serve no one (except a certain entity that many do not believe exists).
      
    
    You KNOW from what perspective Jack is coming, as do all who note here. 
    Taking him to task for judgeing is unfair (though I think that is was
    Mr. Binder who did this, not you), as you KNOW his comment are
    rooted in his beliefs- it is too obvious to ignore.  If you feel his 
    beliefs are wrong, fine, but don't be getting upset when he discusses 
    things in this way.  I see no judgement but one screened through God's
    Word.  You do not believe the Bible is God's word.  Fine.  You
    disagree.
    
    If you don't believe the Bible to be authoritative, none of this should
    bother you a bit.  Of course, being a Christian, I wonder how you can
    trust the Bible's account of Jesus (a bit of irony, IMO).  If it was 
    written by faulty humans, certainly a story as wild as God coming to 
    earth to die for mankind to remove sin, is rather fantastic.
    
    Without a solid foundation, faith is like a building
    - when hard times (powerful storm) come, it tends to fall apart.
    
                                   
    -steve  

    .328
    
    Acknowlegement made.  But your preaching to the choir with me, Dick.
    
    Nancy

    .337
    
    I assume you were responding to my .332, which was a response to your
    .328?  :-)
    
    > preaching to the choir
    
    As I well know.  I'm not sure Jack understands the difference between
    his perceptions and reality, however.  :-)

| <<< Note 347.336 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>

| Some people do not like it when others believe in absolutes, and speak
| out on it.  

	Steve, can a human being achieve an absolute? I think not (imho). There
is always a tweak here, or there..... and that is endless. Only God can achieve
an absolute.

| Although there are certainly grey areas in the Bible, there is also a
| concrete message of good and evil- of sin and righteousness.  

	It's all grey..... 

| You KNOW from what perspective Jack is coming, as do all who note here.
| Taking him to task for judgeing is unfair (though I think that is was
| Mr. Binder who did this, not you), as you KNOW his comment are
| rooted in his beliefs- it is too obvious to ignore.  

	It does not matter if it is his beliefs or not. It does not make it an
absolute, so he can not state someone is not getting the most out of their life
if they don't match what Jack believes is right. 

	Someday it may even come to pass that you or I were wrong on this
homosexuality thing. We both don't see that day coming, but only God knows.

| If you don't believe the Bible to be authoritative, none of this should
| bother you a bit.  

	Errr..... Steve, I believe that you can't reach your full potential
because you think a mere history book called the Bible is the inerrant Word of
God. 

| Without a solid foundation, faith is like a building when hard times 
| (powerful storm) come, it tends to fall apart.

	This is bull dooties. People who believe the Bible fall apart under
pressure everyday. And they are supposed to have that solid foundation you talk
of. A book isn't going to cure this. Only Him.



Glen

    >After all, nothing is absolute, so how can we be certain that what we do 
    >is wrong.
    
    Absolutes do exist, just not in the mystical world of religion. As a law 
    of nature expressed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, facts 
    asserted as truth are never certain. But, principles contextually 
    determined through integrated and honest knowledge are always certain. 
    For example, one can have certainty about the Heisenberg Uncertainty 
    Principle without paradox or contradiction. Metaphysically one can be 
    certain that any particle always has an exact position and momentum at 
    any exact time. But, epistemologically one can be certain that exact
    position and momentum cannot be simultaneously measured, at least not
    directly. Measurements can be validly done in Euclidean/Galilean/Newtonian
    coordinate systems or in noneuclidean/relativistic/quantum-mechanical 
    systems, depending on the object measured and the accuracy desired. And 
    finally, the indeterminate and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics 
    does not negate the laws of identity, noncontradiction, or cause and 
    effect. The decay of radioactive atoms, for example, are both indeterminate
    and probabilistic. But, each decay has an identifiable, noncontradictory 
    cause. Working within the realms of fact, as opposed to unfounded
    mystical illusions, always leads to the discovery of absolutes.
    Religions, in order to foist their mystical illusions upon the masses,
    need to assert that absolutes do not exist.
    

    tom:
    
    whatcha been smokin?

    re.340::
    
         Very impressive. What did it all mean?
    

| <<< Note 347.342 by MFGFIN::E_WALKER >>>

| Very impressive. What did it all mean?

	It means he was right... there are absolutes.... cuz he was absolutely
wrong! :-)  (sorry, couldn't resist)

    It's really up to the photons you perceive as you read his note.

    
 >   Absolutes do exist, just not in the mystical world of religion.

   Of course, this is your assertion.  Others disagree.

 >   As a law of nature expressed by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle,
 >  facts asserted as truth are never certain.

   This is not a correct encapsulation of Heisenberg, who is often
   garbled.  He says you CAN know either the EXACT position or EXACT
   momentum of a particle, but not BOTH.  Thus, facts CAN be certain.
   Just not all the ones you need.
   
 >    But, principles contextually determined through integrated and honest
 >  knowledge are always certain. For example, one can have certainty about
 >  the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle without paradox or contradiction.
 >  Metaphysically one can be certain that any particle always has an exact
 >  position and momentum at any exact time.

     No fair !  ANYTHING can be "certain" if you allow "metaphysics".
    But no system of metaphysics is demonstrable to others' satisfaction.
    And people profoundly disagree, both as to whether there is any such thing
    as a valid metaphysics, and among those who believe in it, what it is.

     The only statements one can actually demonstrate deductively can all
    be shown to be one or another sort of tautology, e.g. 2+2=4.  Any other
    "truth" requires observation or dependence upon axiomatic assertions.
    And in the ballgame you are playing, an atheist's axia can carry no
    more weight than a theist's, without special pleading.

 >    But, epistemologically one can be certain that exact
 >  position and momentum cannot be simultaneously measured, at least not
 >  directly. Measurements can be validly done in Euclidean/Galilean/Newtonian
 >  coordinate systems or in noneuclidean/relativistic/quantum-mechanical 
 >  systems, depending on the object measured and the accuracy desired. And 
 >  finally, the indeterminate and probabilistic nature of quantum mechanics 
 >  does not negate the laws of identity, noncontradiction, or cause and 
 >  effect. The decay of radioactive atoms, for example, are both indeterminate
 >  and probabilistic. But, each decay has an identifiable, noncontradictory 
 >  cause.

     This is correct.

 >  Working within the realms of fact, as opposed to unfounded
 >  mystical illusions, always leads to the discovery of absolutes.

     You have not demonstrated this.  I don't believe it.  You "think" that
    your observations lead to "absolutes", but others, observing exactly
    the same facts, reach diametrically opposed absolutes.

 >  Religions, in order to foist their mystical illusions upon the masses,
 >  need to assert that absolutes do not exist.

     Religions vary in this regard.  Some assert axia, some do not.  And
    for that matter, so do atheistic philosophies vary in this regard.
  
     You've used a lot of big words, but your contention fails at being
    non-mystical, in the sense of appealing to logic alone.  I see this
    constantly in your notes on this and similar subjects - an apparent
    inability to see that your contentions, which you rush through, appear
    to be completely unsubstantiated to anybody who has no initiation
    into them.  One can only conclude you are propounding a philosophy
    which differs little from a religion.  In fact, some abstract theists
    write almost exactly this sort of thing themselves.

     bb
    

    .345
    
    > axia
    
    What is this "axia"?  The plural of axiom is axioms - if you're trying
    to be cute and take it back the the Latin neuter plural you're showing
    your ignorance because the Latin word is axioma (plural axiomae).

  <crowd contemplates this hideous blunder in shocked silence>

    
      Yes, it's axioms, Mr. Binder.  And yes, it wuz a poor cuteness.
    
      I sort of like "postulates" better, as a word I think, as Euclid
     is often translated.
    
      The Greeks had all these arguments millenia (there !) ago.  You
     really only get three ways to "prove" anything :
    
      (1) Assert it.  Axion, postulate, assumption, etc.
      (2) Deduce it.  Demonstrate it follows from axioms.  That is, that
         it is a tautology, no matter how complicated.
      (3) Observe it.  This cannot be absolute, because it is inductive
         and probabilistic.  Observed "facts" are depended on all the
         time, even though we know they aren't sure bets.  They do have
         the property that as more random observations repeat the
         conclusion, they approach certainty as a limit, but never reach
         it.
    
      bb

    I love it when bb's hair raises on the back of the neck.  :)
    
    Let me simplify. Knowledge is knowable and once known becomes an
    absolute. Religions don't like absolutes because the ever increasing
    knowledge within society continually disproves their mystic theories.

   .345  very astute, as usual.

    
     We're actually not as far apart as you think, Tom.  I'm sure you
    are reacting hostilely to the "revealed", prophetic religions as
    popularly practiced - the faithful are preached to, and are inured
    to unsettling observations.  I am reminded of the handwaving of the
    "young earth" theists in here.  I can't accept philosophies that
    clash so strongly with my own reasoning from my own observation.
    
     In my experience, these can be just as unbelievable when atheistic.
    Marx expounded the "Labor Theory of Value", according to which things
    must be of equal value if equal labor was put into them.  But this
    clashes so starkly with what I see in every store window, I can only
    conclude that Marx tried to "will it to be true", rather than actually
    going and looking at costs, prices, or utility to a customer.
    
     Sure, ever since data got stored, observation has been cumulative,
    and complex deduction once done and verified, is also stored.  The
    effect is overwhelming over eons, and "science" becomes a religion,
    of sorts.  Yet, science has its limitations as to applicability.
    I mean that it's really more a tool or method for dealing with
    observations when these become very numerous, complex, and apparently
    contradicting.  But about matters we cannot approach through
    observation, such as aesthetics, or ethics, science is useless.
    
     Thus, many people, even scientists, have no difficulty speaking of
    a realm of "God".  In its least assertive form, this means merely
    those areas of life where we seem to see a truth but can find no
    means but assertion to "prove" it.  At the limit, I see theism as
    not so vary different from what you write in your notes.
    
     bb

    All this postulation has my head spinning. Tom you'll never get it like
    this.  :-) :-)
    
    
    

    
    Well, OK. I can't accept philosophies that clash so strongly with my 
    own reasoning from my own observation either. But I mean that
    personally, not universally. I conduct my life along the lines of my
    own personal philosophy and often voice my opinion. However, never
    would I take steps to force my philosophy on others. My perception may 
    be incorrect but the christians in the BOX seem to use whatever tools
    are available to force their "morals" upon me and everyone else. We all
    remember Joe Oppelt. 
      
    I would appreciate it if you would explain this statement.
    
    >At the limit, I see theism as not so vary different from what you write 
    >in your notes.
    
    I personally consider my thinking to be as far from theism as one can get. 
    The confusion may be that it is difficult to write in full context. 
    Replies in the BOX are like political sound bites. A point gets
    presented but is never the entire story.
    
    Perhaps I should start a Personal Philosophy topic. Over time a person's
    entire thinking would become evident. 

    >All this postulation has my head spinning. Tom you'll never get it
    >like this.  :-) :-)
    
    I just need someone to draw me a picture.  :)
    

    .349
    
    In the realm of morality (which is what I was talking about in my
    previous note, BTW), it is religion that claims there ARE moral
    absolutes, therefore your statement is false (that religions do not
    like absolutes).
    
    
    -steve  

 Z   I conduct my life along the lines of my
 Z   own personal philosophy and often voice my opinion. However, never
 Z   would I take steps to force my philosophy on others. My perception
 Z   may be incorrect but the christians in the BOX seem to use whatever
 Z   tools are available to force their "morals" upon me and everyone else. We
 Z   all remember Joe Oppelt. 
    
    I find this interesting.  First you state that the Christians in the
    BOX....then you qualify this by stating we all remember Joe Oppelt. 
    This is of course a fallacy that we all make from time to time.  Don't
    worry, I forgive you Tom, for putting all the Christians into a box so
    to speak...no pun intended! :-)
    
    Typically I will not force my morals upon you or anybody else...why
    would I?  I'm short on them myself! :-)  I will however engage in
    dialog with others who claim for themselves to be believers...to which
    I openly exercise the free right to point out to them when I perceive
    them as right on or summarily full of crap.  I find alot of this in the
    box because I see doctrine spoken of here that is unqualifiable by the
    standards of scripture.
    
    Whenever I engage in discussion with somebody who doesn't believe in
    God or Christianity...I usually am in response mode.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 347.356 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| Typically I will not force my morals upon you or anybody else...why
| would I?  

	Why would you say the above, but tell me that because I don't believe
the Bible to be the Word of God, I haven't reached my potential? 




Glen

    
      A promise not to use force does not constitute a promise not
     to preach.
    
      Two different things.
    
      bb

    Tom, 
    
    
    
    
                            \_/  \_/
                              \__/   
                              (oo)   
                            +--\/--+
                           /)\ SC /(\
                           \| \  / |/
                            ~ /  \ ~
                             /    \
                            /______\
                              || ||
                              ~   ~
    

 Z    Why would you say the above, but tell me that because I don't believe
 Z   the Bible to be the Word of God, I haven't reached my potential?
    
    Sorry Glen...you're fair game.  From what I've seen of you, and I say
    this with respect, I see you compromising God's holiness for your
    personal gain.  Your ideas regarding the validity of scripture tell me
    you either lack understanding in what the basis of Christianity is all
    about...or you aren't what you really claim to be.  In my eyes, you
    place a heavy importance on your identity...and you campaign that
    identity for all to see.  I personally don't have a problem with that
    until it crosses the line of compromising God's holiness.  It is then
    that I see potential being stunted....
    
    Sorry Glen, attending another church doesn't exempt you from being
    exhorted.  Lord knows I've gotten mine from people in these
    conferences!
    
    -Jack

    It is my opinion that this kind of noting does more harm than good for
    the cause of Christ, Jack.
    
    Your note did not have a semblance of "respect" that I could see
    towards Glen, but more respect for your beliefs in God.  If you had
    stated the direction of your respect correctly, I wouldn't be so hard
    on you.  But the truth is you've confused it.  You say you are
    respecting Glen with your exhortation, but in reality your note was
    more in correcting perceptions about God's holiness.
    
    One can feel rather good about having run 200 miles for God, but if
    along the way you punched people as you passed them, I dare say your
    win would not be pure. 
    
    Take care Brother,
    Nancy
    

| <<< Note 347.360 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>


| Sorry Glen...you're fair game.  From what I've seen of you, and I say
| this with respect, I see you compromising God's holiness for your
| personal gain.  Your ideas regarding the validity of scripture tell me
| you either lack understanding in what the basis of Christianity is all
| about...or you aren't what you really claim to be.  In my eyes, you
| place a heavy importance on your identity...and you campaign that
| identity for all to see.  I personally don't have a problem with that
| until it crosses the line of compromising God's holiness.  It is then
| that I see potential being stunted....

	Then Jack, you DO force your morals onto others. If they aren't the way
you believe is the correct way, you put them in their place.




Glen

    Glen, as a fellow brother in Christ, it is your responsibility to
    understand scripture in order for us to better understand the direction
    God wants us to pursue holiness.  You have failed in this...time and
    time again.  I used the word "respect" only to say if you are in fact a
    believer, then I do not refute your claim.  I do challenge it but I do
    not refute it.
    
    As far as foisting my morality upon you...sorry, I disagree.  I have
    done no such thing.  What I have said was that if in fact you are
    living in such a manner not in harmony with God's plan toward
    sanctification, then repentence is in order.  I make no apologies for
    this and I reject the notion that this is the judging Christ warned us
    against in the gospels.  We are called as a church to be a holy and
    sanctified people.  There are things in my life as well that I need to
    work on...but I have identified and isolated these areas to myself.  I
    do not wear them proudly on my sleeve.   
    
    You are fair game Glen, because you identify with believers.  Being a
    Unitarian Universalist does not exempt you from the tenets of
    scriptural exhortation.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 347.363 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Glen, as a fellow brother in Christ, it is your responsibility to
| understand scripture in order for us to better understand the direction
| God wants us to pursue holiness.  

	According to your beliefs, yes. But not mine. If you say just what you
did above, everything is cool, as it is your beliefs and my beliefs being
discussed. 

	When you say I am not living up to my potential, you then are forcing
your beliefs onto me. Something you say you try not to do. 



Glen

 Z   When you say I am not living up to my potential, you then are forcing
 Z   your beliefs onto me. Something you say you try not to do.
    
    Glen, think of it kind of like your ghastly diversity training.  
    
    It isn't something that is foisted upon you.  It is something that we
    as two employees have in common.  As employees, we are required to
    follow the policies and guidelines Digital has set forth.  So in a way,
    you see tenets of scripture somewhat as I see your diversity training.  
    Something being forced upon me.  
    
    Incidently, I am not forcing anything.  My expounding of scriptural
    tenets is nothing that can't be countermanded with middle finger
    extended to the heights or simply ignoring me...or refuting me with
    scripture which by the way you haven't done ever since I can remember!
    
    -Jack

>        <<< Note 347.365 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
    
>    Incidently, I am not forcing anything.

	Agreed.

    Jack:
    
    I used Joe Oppelt because I knew him personally to involve himself with
    religious and political movements. The goal of these movements was to
    manipulate the laws so as to force his "moral" values upon the populas.
    This type of action fits my own personal definition of immoral.
    
    
    Steve:
    
    I am interested in a list of moral attributes, accepted by religions.
                                                  

    Tom:
    
    only one way to heaven...not your road, bud...

    .367
    
    That had to be the most blatant conglomeration of hypocrisy ever
    uttered out of your lips Tom Ralston.  I take it you have no morality
    or value system, because that is the only way your paragraph there
    ain't the horse calling the kettle black.

         Uh... I think you're a bit mixed up there. Isn't it the pot
    calling the kettle black? And he didn't actually say anything; he just
    typed it. Don't let your temper take control of your noting. 

| <<< Note 347.365 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| Incidently, I am not forcing anything. My expounding of scriptural tenets is 
| nothing that can't be countermanded with middle finger extended to the heights
| or simply ignoring me...

	Nice try, Jack, but you're wrong again. If you tell someone they aren't
meeting their full potential because their religious beliefs are different than
yours, then you are telling me basically that I am wrong. Once you do that, you
then are trying to force your beliefs onto me. And to use the guilt factor... 
well, that's to be expected.

	But why would I give you the middle finger? And me, ignore you? HA! I
luv ya man!

| or refuting me with scripture which by the way you haven't done ever since I 
| can remember!

	I could take things out of any history book I suppose.... 



Glen

    
      No, Glen, you are wrong.  If you tell me my beliefs are idiotic
     you are forcing nothing on anybody.
    
      Force is force.  Talk is NEVER force.  The difference between
     arresting somebody and telling them they are nuts is stark and
     clear.  You aren't even thinking when you say it isn't.
    
      bb

| <<< Note 347.372 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

| No, Glen, you are wrong.  If you tell me my beliefs are idiotic
| you are forcing nothing on anybody.

	I did say trying, didn't I? 

Glen

    
      Well, sure, he's "trying" to change your beliefs.  Good luck to
     him.  That's what Soapbox, the First Amendment, and any sort of
     debate from Plato on is all about.  But I don't think "force" is
     a useful choice of words.  He is trying, and so are you, to change
     a point of view through argument.  All a reference to "force" does
     is cause confusion.  It adds nothing to anything.
    
      bb

    .362
    
    Eh?
    
    What does one have to do with the other?
    
    Forcing morals != correction.  And if you disagree with Jack on the
    fundamental source of that correction, what difference does it make to
    you?  You do not believe that the Bible is the Word of God and
    authoritative, therefore, you and Jack will never see eye to eye.  You
    use different rulers of morality.  

    .370
    
    There was no temper in my note, sorry you read it that way.  I used
    strong words to get a strong point across.  However, I knew it wasn't a
    horse, but couldn't remember what it was, so figured, oh well. :-)
    
    

    .376
    
    Now that's a pot of a different colour.

    .367
    
    Many moral values are forced upon society.  Murder is illegal.  Why is
    it illegal?  Because society considers such a thing to be
    wrong/immoral.  Theft, rape, etc. are all considered immoral/wrong, and 
    laws are made against them.  Is it immoral to force such values upon
    society by making laws agaisnt these acts?  It is, according to your
    definition of "immoral".
    
    
    As far as moral traits accepted by religion (and I'll stick with
    generic Christianity on this one- though Jedaism and others are likely
    to follow suit):
    
    Love God.  
    Love your neighbor.
    Do not steal.
    Do not commit adultery.
    Do not fornicate.
    Do not lie / bear false witness.
    Practice charity.
    
    
    This is not a complete list, of course.
    
    
    -steve

>    Now that's a pot of a different colour.

besides red, gold, green or brown?

    re: .369
    
    >I take it you have no morality or value system, because that is the only 
    >way your paragraph there ain't the horse calling the kettle black.
    
    How so luv? Joe and I have had these conversations via e-mail. He felt
    very strongly that the political system was there to be used for the
    purpose I mentioned. I feel the political system is for the protection
    of individual and property rights.

Re: .378, Steve:

    >Many moral values are forced upon society.  Murder is illegal.  Why is
    >it illegal?  Because society considers such a thing to be
    >wrong/immoral.  Theft, rape, etc. are all considered immoral/wrong, and 
    >laws are made against them.  Is it immoral to force such values upon
    >society by making laws agaisnt these acts?  It is, according to your
    >definition of "immoral".
    
Murder IS force, Theft IS force, rape IS force. These are objective laws 
with no need of written statute. Unwanted force is the only immoral act. 
    
    >Love God.  
    >Love your neighbor.
    >Do not steal.
    >Do not commit adultery.
    >Do not fornicate.
    >Do not lie / bear false witness.
    >Practice charity.
    
IMO, only two of these are absolutes. I think you know which two. The 
remainder are subjective notions based on unproven, and IMO mystical beliefs.


Question: What if there was a person who desired to die. This person wanted 
that to be accomplished by another's hand. What if there was a person who
desired to kill and the two got together and made a mutually agreed upon 
contract for the killer to kill the person wanting to die. Should this be
illegal? Is this immoral?

    yes
    

    .381 (Tom)
    
>Murder IS force, Theft IS force, rape IS force. 
    
    This is irrelevant.  They are laws- based on morality- that are forced
    upon society.  
    
>    These are objective laws 
>with no need of written statute. Unwanted force is the only immoral act. 
 
    They may be objective, but they are also moral laws that restrict
    immoral behavior, thus they meet your criteria of moral laws being
    forced upon the populace.  
       
>    >Love God.  
>    >Love your neighbor.
>    >Do not steal.
>    >Do not commit adultery.
>    >Do not fornicate.
>    >Do not lie / bear false witness.
>    >Practice charity.
    
>IMO, only two of these are absolutes. I think you know which two. The 
>remainder are subjective notions based on unproven, and IMO mystical beliefs.

    Just two?  That's a shame.  Every one is proven to make positive
    differences in the lives of those who practice them.  The benefits of
    each are obvious, so perhaps there just may be something to these
    mystical beliefs after all?
    

>Question: What if there was a person who desired to die. This person wanted 
>that to be accomplished by another's hand. What if there was a person who
>desired to kill and the two got together and made a mutually agreed upon 
>contract for the killer to kill the person wanting to die. Should this be
>illegal? Is this immoral?
    
    Yes.  I'll save you the explanation, though, as it has to do with
    "mysticism".  8^)
    
    
    -steve

    .380
    
    The law reflects a moral code and value system.  Even what you have
    mentioned is a moral code or value system.  Protection of anything
    comes from this attitude.
    
    

    .384
    
    Moral code and value system.  Right you are.  Here it is, in its
    entirety:
    
    	Your fist ends at my nose.
    
    Robert Heinlein put into the mouth of his character Lazarus Long what I
    consider the best one-line definition of sin ever written:
    
    	Sin hurts another person.  All else is peccadillo.

>         <<< Note 347.385 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat" >>>

>    	Your fist ends at my nose.

	That seems to be lacking something.

	Blood?

    
     "Sin hurts another person".  Horsepuckey.  Everything you do
     hurts some other people, helps others.  You aren't even thinking.
    
      And "Your fist ends at my nose" sounds garbled.  What meaning, if
     any, are you trying to convey ?
    
      bb

    .386
    
    Not if you look at it thoughtfully.  It doesn't say your fist ends IN
    my nose.  Your fist ends at the EXACT angstrom of space in which it
    comes into contact with my nose.  You can cuddle right up close to me,
    in a legal sense, but you have no right whatsoever to push me.

>                                         It doesn't say your fist ends IN
>    my nose.

Nostril fisting?

    .388
    
    > Everything you do hurts some other people, helps others.
    
    Like that time I dug a hole in the woods and used it for a latrine and
    covered it up when I was done?  Whom did that help?  Or hurt?
    
    There are things you can do that do not affect other people.  There are
    things you can do that help other people without hurting anyone.  There
    are things you can do that hurt other people.  If the hurt is not
    outweighed, in YOUR PERSONAL VALUE SYSTEM, by a benefit to others, you
    have sinned.

>         <<< Note 347.389 by SMURF::BINDER "Uva uvam vivendo variat" >>>
    
>    Not if you look at it thoughtfully.

	I could stare at it pensively all week and it would still
	seem to be lacking something, I'm quite sure.

    
      It just isn't so.  Consider a parking space.  If I take it, a
     minute before you, I damage you, because you have to park far away.
     But there is no sin.  On the other hand, if it says "Reserved for
     Dick Binder", I hurt you exactly as much, but there IS sin.  If there
     is no sign, but you have been waiting for the other person to pull
     out, and I sneak in ahead of you, using his pull-out as a shield,
     I hurt you in exactly the same way, but the sin is subjectively
     debatable.  And HOW DO YOU EVEN KNOW that when you buried anything
     in the woods who you hurt, if anybody ?  You don't.  Your definition
     does not even include "knowingly" or "intentionally".  It's brain
     dead.  Nobody except a fool would base a moral or legal sysytem on
     any such silly definition.
    
      And since a fist cannot fit in a nose, my fist ends at your nose
     by defition.  Ali's fist ended at Liston's nose, too.
    
      bb

    .393
    
    > If I take it, a minute before you, I damage you, because you have to
    > park far away.
    
    Your picture of damage is rather less severe than mine is.  I suppose
    you have a liability lawyer in your hip pocket, to make sure you don't
    ever frown at anyone for fear of damaging your victim's delicate little
    psyche.
    
    > On the other hand, if it says "Reserved..."
    
    ...you have actually damaged me, because you have deprived me of
    something that is by rights mine.
    
    > If ... I sneak in ahead of you...
    
    ...you have won the game, and I may be momentarily pissed, but I am not
    damaged.
    
    > And since a fist cannot fit in a nose...
    
    ...you understand incredibly little about the malleability of the human
    body.  Or, more likely, you are being deliberately obtuse.

    
      I picked Ali-Liston for a reason, Dick.  When Ali's fist ended
     at Liston's nose, there was no sin, unless you consider a prize
     fight a sin.  I don't.
    
      In fact, if Ali had taken a secret payment NOT to end his fist at
     Liston's nose, and took a dive for a bribe, he WOULD have sinned.
    
      And as your previous note shows, your notion of "hurting" someone
     is so vague as to be meaningless.  You have to walk the same long
     way, in the rain, from a distant parking space in all the cases.
     In fact, you are damaged just as much each time, exactly.  But in
     some cases, I have a right to damage you, while in others, I don't.
    
      And in extreme cases, I have no right NOT to damage you.  To fail
     to damage you would be a sin.
    
      bb

    .393
    
    One more thing...
    
    > Your definition does not even include "knowingly" or "intentionally".
    > Nobody except a fool would base a moral or legal sysytem on any such
    > silly definition.
    
    Nobody except a fool or the entire Jewish community.  Videte Exodus
    22:12, in which restitution is required of a person in whose custody
    another's ox is given if the ox is stolen.  There is no qualification
    about whether the custodian made a fair attempt, or even any attempt at
    all, to protect the ox.  Or check out Numbers 15:22 et seq., in which
    atonements are prescribed for UNINTENTIONAL transgressions.

    .395
    
    > I picked Ali-Liston for a reason, Dick.
    
    Okay, fine, if you wish to ignore the obvious aphoristic character of
    "Your fist ends at my nose," who am I to attempt to elicit common sense
    from you?  I suppose "a stitch in time saves nine" applies only to
    sewing, in your tiny world.
    
    Unlike the Wicked Witch of the West, I will not melt if exposed to
    rain.  Your taking a parking space that I wanted does NOT damage me. 
    It may annoy me, but that is not damage.  Only if the space was
    rightfully mine am I damaged.

    
      Not ignoring (which implies perception).  It seems to me Ali's
     fist actually did end at Liston's nose.  If aphoristic, I'd give
     it a 3.7 on a 1-10 scale.  Third grade level, mebbe.
    
      So, you're saying, if there's a "reserved for Dick Binder" sign
     on the space, but it's completely overgrown and obscured by a bush,
     then I've still sinned.  Although, unless you take extrtaordinary
     measures, I'll never even know I did.  Sounds like a barbarism.
     Fortunately, that's not the system on which our society is based.
    
      bb

>    Nobody except a fool or the entire Jewish community.  Videte Exodus
>    22:12, in which restitution is required of a person in whose custody
>    another's ox is given if the ox is stolen.  There is no qualification
>    about whether the custodian made a fair attempt, or even any attempt at
>    all, to protect the ox.

I think you've got your cite wrong.  Perhaps you mean 22:13.  I borrow
something from you, it's damaged, I make restitution.  I don't see how
anybody can have any problem with this.  The borrower has full benefit,
so he should have full responsibility.

>                             Or check out Numbers 15:22 et seq., in which
>    atonements are prescribed for UNINTENTIONAL transgressions.

ALL sin offerings are for unintentional transgressions.  The punishment for
intentional transgressions is typically corporal or capital.

    .399
    
    > Perhaps you mean 22:13.
    
    I mean 22:12.  Which says, in context:
    
    10 If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or
    any beast, to keep; and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man
    seeing it:
    11 Then shall an oath of the LORD be between them both, that he hath
    not put his hand unto his neighbour's goods; and the owner of it shall
    accept thereof, and he shall not make it good.
    12 And if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the
    owner thereof.
    
    			- Exodus 22:10-12, KJV
    
    > ALL sin offerings are...
    
    I didn't say "sin offering."  I said atonement.  To atone is to make
    amends.  The atonement for goofing is not as severe as the atonement
    for bashing your neighbor's head in because he pisses you off, but it
    is nonetheless a payment for failing to obey the law.

Interestingly, your Bible has different verse numbering that the Chumash
I have here.  According to my Chumash, those are verses 9-11.  I'll have
look up commentators on that verse.

>    I didn't say "sin offering."  I said atonement.  To atone is to make
>    amends.

That's only part of what atonement is.  If I punch you into [sic] the nose
and I pay the doctor bills, that's not atonement.  I have to be sorry that
I did it, and I have to try to refrain from doing it again (which might be
difficult in your case.)

    
    	I thought the expression was
    
    	"Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose."
    
    	

    
    	.401
    
    	thanks for the chuckle
    
    

    .401
    
    Just paying the doctor bill is not making amends in the spiritual
    sense.  Repentance is, as you say, an integral part of the atonement
    process.  But my assertion stands that "consciously and intentionally"
    is not required for a sin to be a sin; that was Herr Braucher's absurd
    point.  And the law of this country agrees with me, by stating that
    ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it.  You need not know
    you are committing a crime in order to be convicted of having done so.

    
      If I could help to design, manufacture, sell, and service a
     set of Digital Equipment Corporation servers so good and cheap
     as to put the server group of Sun out of business, throwing
     that group out of work, defaulting on their mortgages, throwing
     their spouses and kiddies on the street, I'd throw a party to gloat
     at how badly I'd harmed them.  (Unfortunately, don't hold your
     breath waiting for invitations...).  I'd feel proud of such a
     wonderful accomplishment, would expect to be rewarded by our
     company and our society.  That's goodness.
    
      But if I achieved the same result by sabotaging Sub's projects,
     and got caught, I'd expected to be fired, jailed, and ashamed.
    
      It is not the result, but the means and the intent which matter.
    
      In its simplest form, "sin" is nothing more than anything you
     are ashamed of, but did anyway.  (There are a few problems with
     this definition, as well, howsomever).
    
      bb

  .402  We must have grown up in the same general vicinity, Karen. ;>

    .405
    
    > That's goodness.
    
    Only in a capitalistic society.  In certain other societies, you would
    be viewed as a greedy son of a female dog and deserving to have your
    own life ruined for what you had done, even more especially because you
    were glad you'd done it.
    
    Look for a moment at Christianity.  A basic tenet of some versions of
    the faith is that if you are given the opportunity to accept Jesus as
    your Lord and Savior but refuse to do so, you need not be sorry or
    ashamed for your refusal - you are still going to burn forever for your
    sin of refusing to acknowledge the One True God.

>    ignorance of the law is no excuse for violating it.  You need not know


    I didn't know that either!


     

    .408
    
    God isn't even that mean, huh Jim? :-)

    
    	RE:  "Ignorance of the law is no excuse"
    
    	Well, yes and no.  In Braucher's "'Dick Binder parking only'
    	sign covered by bushes" argument, there was no malice intended
    	when Braucher parked there, and no way that he could have known
    	he shouldn't do it.
    
    	If Dick Binder were so worried about keeping his parking space,
    	maybe he should make sure that his sign is clearly visible so
    	that he can avoid any entrapment charges from Braucher.
    

    If that famous "Dick Binder" parking space is a designated handicap
    space, and the paint has worn off and the sign has been stolen, you can
    still be ticketed and towed for parking there unless you can prove that
    you have the proper aurhorization.  Ignorance is no excuse.

    re: .405
    
    >  If I could help to design, manufacture, sell, and service a
    >  set of Digital Equipment Corporation servers so good and cheap
    >  as to put the server group of Sun out of business, throwing
    >  that group out of work, defaulting on their mortgages, throwing
    >  their spouses and kiddies on the street, I'd throw a party to
    >  gloat at how badly I'd harmed them.
    
			Yuck.
    
    				Robert.

    
      Let me ask you this, Dick :  Do you believe we should repeal
     the laws making "attempted murder" a crime ?
    
      bb

| <<< Note 347.413 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>


| Let me ask you this, Dick :  Do you believe we should repeal the laws making 
| "attempted murder" a crime ?

	I hear that the democrats want to send them to school so they will do a
better job next time. Then hire them as pages for the Clinton administration.
People seem to keep quiet this way.... or well.... lets just say that these
people do better than attempt.....

    I hold that there is no situation in the universe, in all of time, which
    permits one to morally initiate force against another. 

   .415  "morally initiate force"?  Is that intentionally abstruse or
	 am I not getting your meaning due to my apparently diminishing
	 reading skills? ;>

    
    	RE: .411
    
    	How is 1 to know that it's a handicap space if there's no indic-
    	ation of same?
    

    You know, like in spanking.

>    You know, like in spanking.

	Are you claiming that spanking is "morally initiated force"?
	Or that _some_ spanking may be?

>    I hold that there is no situation in the universe, in all of time, which
>    permits one to morally initiate force against another. 

Leaves some big holes open for a lot of fun things, like revenge, nuking
the guy from orbit, etc...

TTom

    Di, yes. 

 .421  yeah, i figured you'd say that.

    For some, the former may always be true.  For others, it might be more
    selective depending upon the circumstances.  I happen to agree with
    Tom on this in general. 

    
    	re .406
    
    	Well, you know what they say, di ...
    
    
    
    
    
    	Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus
    
    	;-)
    

  .423  Yes, for instance, if your child keeps running out into the
	street and you don't want one his attributes to be "planar",
	the spanking wouldn't be morally initiated, methinks.

	Thanks for acknowledging that there may be a distinction.

    >"morally initiate force"?  Is that intentionally abstruse or
    > am I not getting your meaning due to my apparently diminishing
    > reading skills? ;>
    
    I don't understand what's not to understand.  :)
    
    No person, group of persons or government can morally initiate force, 
    threat of force, or fraud against any individual's self or property. Force 
    may be morally used only in self-defense against those who do initiate
    force.
    
    This is IMO the only measure of morality.

    
      So, Tom, does that mean I can, or I can't, have Dick's parking
     space ?
    
      bb

    Tom you don't know what you are saying... honestly.  I read this crap
    you've written and am perplexed as to how you can be so myopic.
    
    The laws we have today to govern behavior are a moral code.  The only
    way your statement can be true is if we abolish all laws.  Or would
    that only be abolishing laws that YOU disagree with. :-)

    
      In a world of scarce parking spaces, some competitors will get
     to park, and others will not.  In the absence of any moral system,
     all strategies are allowed - watch a bird feeder.  You'll see many
     different tactics, some of which succeed, others of which, fail.
     There is no "natural ethics" - collusion, deception, flight,
     direct violence, enslavement, clever subversion, teamwork : all occur.
    
      It is up to us what parking strategems we choose to allow, which
     we do not.  However we do it, some are hurt.  What Tom proposes is
     a "meta-rule", a rule about making rules, that "violence" is to be
     unnaturally suppressed, other strategems not.  But this is so vague
     as a guideline as to be little help.  I cannot tell from Tom's
     "meta-rule", what the parking rules ought to be.  There is a sign
     that says "Visitor" on a space near the door.  Can I, an employee,
     use this space ?  Can Dick, on his own, with no societal permission,
     put up a "Reserved for Dick Binder" sign on one prime space ?
    
      If two drivers arrive when only one space is left, what protocol
     should our society support for allocating it ?  "Force", for a
     physicist, is merely a term for expending energy to effect a result.
     Is it "force" to gun my engine and cut Tom off from the last space ?
    
      I'm not saying Tom's "non-initiation of force" meta-rule doesn't
     make any sense.  If people are shooting each other for the spaces,
     I suppose all of us drivers would band together and try to suppress
     that particular strategem.  It's just that I don't see any deep
     philosophical divide over "force" or "harm" - cars all use force,
     the loser is always harmed.  I do support having a comprehensible
     parking protocol, so at least everybody knows what is OK.
    
      bb

>      In a world of scarce parking spaces, some competitors will get
>     to park, and others will not.  In the absence of any moral system,
>     all strategies are allowed ...

So Darwin was right...

    
    	If people are shooting each other for parking spaces, I suggest
    	we ban guns.
    

    We must go to the root of the problem.  Ban cars.  Without cars, there
    would be no need for parking spaces hence the elmination of people
    shooting each other over them.  

    
    	Or we could just ban people.
    
    	Covers all the bases.
    

    Didn't take too long to get to Darwin this time did it?

I think banning people is a little harsh and I don't know how you'd
enforce it...

I think the whole provocation came about due to work. So let's just ban
that.

TTom

     >So, Tom, does that mean I can, or I can't, have Dick's parking
     >space ?
    
    If it's not marked it's yours.
    
    
    >The laws we have today to govern behavior are a moral code.  The only
    >way your statement can be true is if we abolish all laws.  Or would
    >that only be abolishing laws that YOU disagree with. :-)
    
    
    This is total BS. These laws are for control of the people under the
    assumption that they will commit some subjective "immoral" act, unless
    some authority protects them from themselves. Who's moral code are we
    using here anyway? The only law required is that which makes illegal,
    initiatory force, coersion or fraud. All other laws are pure political 
    policy. So, I assume that without the written statutes against murder,
    rape, robbery, and assult you would personally be a murdering rapist,
    or perhaps just an armed robber? I don't think you would and neither
    would 99.99% of everyone else. Those that would do these things would
    be considered criminals under only one moral law:
    
    		No person, group of persons or government may
    		initiate force, threat of force or fraud against
    		the person or property of any individual. 
                                                                         

Not to mention that declaring the laws to be a moral code leads to such
silliness as loitering or driving with a taillight out being not only
illegal, but immoral.

I really don't think that's what anyone believes...

    
      But, Tom.  How is your definition any less "subjective" than
     any other.  It simply isn't - there is no basis for it but assertion.
    
      Nor, if I got to make "one moral law" would I choose the one you
     suggest.
    
      OF COURSE our moral system is political - what else could it be ?
     How do you expect people with greater power to eschew using it ?
     By the peruasiveness of your exposition ?  No, the only way to
     maintain the "moral law" you assert is by policing it.  And the
     only way to police anything is through political power.
    
      Political power requires a preponderance of power in the society.
     So your moral rule, if it is ever instituted, which I doubt, can
     only come to prominence through politics, of some sort.
    
      bb

    Could someone put definitions of the following words in here:
    
    Laws -
    Moral [as in code] -
    Values [as in code] -
    
    
    

>          <<< Note 347.439 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
>                             -< round in circles >-

Indeed.
    
>      OF COURSE our moral system is political - what else could it be ?
>     How do you expect people with greater power to eschew using it ?
>     By the peruasiveness of your exposition ?  No, the only way to
>     maintain the "moral law" you assert is by policing it.  And the
>     only way to police anything is through political power.

So in order to check one person's greater power, you propose to give someone
else (police) even greater power that that? Who checks them?

How about a moral (and legal) system where morality is simple and obvious to
everyone without attending law school for years and years?

    
      By the way, Tom - I think when making "meta-rules", rules about
     rules, a la Constitution, it pays to distinguish between an
     "operational" rule and a "guiding principle".  Here's a, imho,
     good "operational" rule : "Laws ought to require the support of
     the society they govern."  Here's a good "guiding principle" :
     a law ought to have benefits that exceed it's costs.
    
      Right now, Digital Equipment Corporation cannot ship its equipment
     in violation of FCC noise emission restrictions.  If we tried to
     circumvent the feds (we don't), then they would "initiate force"
     against us, to shut us down.  Quite right, too.  The society as a
     whole overwhelmingly supports such FCC power and its enforcement.
     And the "right to make electronic noise" which the government takes
     from us, costs less than the value of the benefit to society of
     knowing that all US electronic equipment meets the rules.
    
      The same could be said of most of the laws you disparage.  The
     members of the society, or their representatives, imposed them
     through majoratarian politics, because they thought they would
     lead to the greatest good for the greatest number, although many
     of them do indeed require government initiation of force.
    
      Your "moral law" fails on both counts.  It is not approved by the
     members of the society it is proposed for, and they (correctly)
     perceive that its cost exceeds its benefits, for society as a whole.
    
      bb

>          <<< Note 347.442 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
>     "operational" rule and a "guiding principle".  Here's a, imho,
>     good "operational" rule : "Laws ought to require the support of
>     the society they govern."  Here's a good "guiding principle" :
>     a law ought to have benefits that exceed it's costs.

Hitler's final solution passes both tests, using the twisted logic of that
time and place.

And that's what happens when you have no simple, obvious standard of right
and wrong, i.e. morals. By making "the greater good" your standard, any
attrocity is possible.

IMO, here's a good guiding principle: respect of human life and dignity.
::RALSTON already gave some good operational rules.

    Can you explain to me how Hitler "passes both tests" ?

    I will maintain that even NO morality equals a morality. :-)  
    
    Laws regarding abortion, murder, stealing, seatbelts, etc., all are
    moral codes.  Can you really deny it?
    
    
      
    
    

Murder and stealing, yes. But seatbelts? Moral?

    Yes.  Seatbelts have nothing to do with any moral code.  

   Thou shalt buckle up, lo even though it wrinkleth thy dress.

    OH really seatbelts aren't moral?
    
    It was implemented under the guise of "saving lives", how much more
    moral can you get?

I thought it was implemented under the guise of "screw states rights",
how much more immoral can you get?

    
      Although I opposed "seatbelt laws", I agree that the argument
     for them, and the argument against them, were both arguments
     based largely on differing views of morality.
    
      On the Hitler : the same could be said of the Civil Rights Act
     of 1964, which obviously fails Tim's moral law, but passes both
     of mine.  Under that Act, the governmentcan initiate force to
     compel employers not to discriminate.  Tom's moral law might be
     viewed by some (although not by me) as mere racism.
    
      Ultimately, there is NO moral system that will stop a whole
     society bent on its own descent into depravity.  You can only
     wait, and it will self-correct, or self-destruct.  I can easily
     imagine a Hitler-like purveyor of Tom's moral law.  No problem -
     they started it, he'd claim.
    
      bb

    Seat belts are not moral.  Seat belt useage is a choice.  To choose not
    to use one is not a moral decision.  It might be one of evolutionary
    proportions but it is not a moral choice.  Not all states have seat
    belt laws just as not all states require helmets for motorcycles.  Is
    it immoral to not wear/use one of these in a state that requires it but
    morally okay in a state that doesn't?  
    
    Take it a step further and you can paint any activity that could cause
    bodily injury or death as being immoral.  Think about that the next time 
    you step off the curb, get on a bicycle, go swimming, or eat a chicken
    sandwich.  
    
    Brian

    
    .452
    
    I would beg to differ.
    
    If, for example, a parent were to choose not to secure a small
    child (passenger) with a seatbelt, I think there's a very real sense
    in which that's a moral failing.
    
    To a large extent, the same logic applies to self.
    

    .452
    
    Obviously, it would be of no benefit to banter this about further as
    you have dismissed any 'semblance of morality to a seatbelt law.
    
    As far as I know, all states require seatbelts.   I don't think its a
    state law at all anymore, could be wrong.
    
    Nancy
    
    

    
    religious fundamentalists, fanatics, zealots, seatbelt wearers.

re .453:

BIG difference between compelling something for someone who cannot make a
decision for himself and compelling something for someone who can.

    
      "Am I my brother's keeper ?"
    
               - Cain
    
       "WHAT HAST THOU DONE, CAIN ?"
    
               - Daddy-o
    
      bb

So if'n you have no choice in the matter than it ain't morality?

re .454:

>    As far as I know, all states require seatbelts.

All but 2.  NH and (? Maine Vermont?)  NH requires seatbelts for children
under the age of (?), the other probably does as well.

    .455
    
    Bawaahahahahahahahahahahahahaha, when you put it that way. :-) :-) 
    
    I see the disconnect now [pun intended].  Seatbelts are NOT moral in
    themselves.  It was the  reasoning behind the "law" that created the
    morality around seatbelts.
    
    
    
    

    It is not a federal law to wear safety belts.  Not all states require 
    them to be worn.  Seatbelt laws are about money.  They are about 
    insurance companies trying to reduce their exposure.  Legislators have
    not taken it upon themselves to take your best interest to heart when
    deiciding whether or not to require you to wear them.  BTW, I don't
    think you ever really articulated why you believe seatbelt laws have a 
    moral foundation.  

    .461
    
    > Seatbelt laws are about money.
    
    Well that has no morality attached to it, now does it...

    Okay, you are right.  There is morality attached to seatbelt laws. 
    They are based on greed and therefore immoral.  

    .463
    
    THUD.... And just when I was ready to let you be. :-) :-) :-)

    Nancy, I am willing to listen to your reasoning behind the assertion of
    morality with regards to seat belt laws.  

>      Ultimately, there is NO moral system that will stop a whole
>     society bent on its own descent into depravity.  You can only
>     wait, and it will self-correct, or self-destruct.  I can easily
>     imagine a Hitler-like purveyor of Tom's moral law.  No problem -
>     they started it, he'd claim.

You folks are incredible. I propose a morality based on human dignity, and
next you claim I could use this to justify genocide. How, pray tell, would
that preserve the life and dignity of the humans being slaughtered? How could
this society not be obviously hypocritical?

Your "greater good" philosphy could easily be so twisted: <hated minority of
the decade> are causing all the trouble, we must exterminate them for the
greater good. All good citizens approve of it. Go ahead, tell me Hitler
didn't do it.

 Z   You folks are incredible. I propose a morality based on human dignity,
 Z   and next you claim I could use this to justify genocide
    
    Joseph Goebbels made propoganda films in Germany equating Jews with
    rodents.  In the earlier history of our countries history, blacks were
    considered non persons and therefore treated appropriate to their view
    of moral law.
    
    Even today, our own view of dignity brings millions of unborn non
    persons to their death.  Something that not only is in vogue but is
    also sanctioned by our government, compulsory paid by our tax dollar,
    and is encouraged in our community.  
    
    Moral law must be absolute because as humans, we are fickle.
    
    -Jack

    
    re, .466 - So I'm incredible, am I ?  I state, as well as I can,
    the bourgeois utilatarianism of 19th century English philosophers,
    like Bentham and Mill, "the greatest good of the greatest number",
    the cost-benefit calculus, etc - exactly the philosophy adopted by
    a long line of American theorists and politicians from Jackson to
    FDR up to today.  And I get told I'm a Nazi.  Yeah, right.
    
      Meanwhile, mystical libertarians espouse lofty-sounding self-
    righteous "moral principles" that if adopted would end the capacity
    of a modern society to regulate itself, in the name of what ?  The
    freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road ?  And as soon as I
    point out that making a distinction between government "initiating"
    force and "responding" with it might not be a very good deal for a
    lot of folks, and is sure liable to abuse by a tiny band of the
    powerful, I'm told I'm incredible.
    
      Well, sorry - count the votes.  People in the US overwhelmingly vote
    to have the government initiate force against many non-conformers.
    Quite right, since the government, eager for their votes, is acting
    in the majority interest, while the oddballs are acting against it.
    Your "moral law" is a dog that won't hunt.
    
      bb

>          <<< Note 347.468 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
>                          -< "incredible" to whom ? >-

   to meeme, for one.  in a good way though. ;>

>          <<< Note 347.468 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
>    the bourgeois utilatarianism of 19th century English philosophers,

Just a second... you're arguing Constitutional questions based on 19th
century philosphy?

>      Meanwhile, mystical libertarians espouse lofty-sounding self-
>    righteous "moral principles" that if adopted would end the capacity
>    of a modern society to regulate itself, in the name of what ?  The
>    freedom to drive on the wrong side of the road ?  And as soon as I

Oh, don't be ridiculous. The benefits of simple traffic rules are obvious.
What I'm arguing here is our absolute standard of right and wrong. You say
"greater good". I say that philosphy has and will be the basis of incredible
abuse. I say "human life and dignity" is the only standard that makes sense.
Killing, violence, stealing, fraud for no good reason ("initiation of force")
are detrimental to human life and should be illegal. All other things are
pretty much no-ops.

Obviously, some little rules need to be followed unless we want total chaos.
Our problem of today is when government loses the distinction between "little
rules" and true criminal behaviour. If Johnny 17-year-old drinks a beer on my
private property with my and his parent's permission, are any of us
criminals? Who has been forced to do what against their will? If noone, why
is this a problem? If own a machine gun and only shoot it for the sheer hell
of it, on my private property way out in the woods, am I a criminal then? If
I ride my motorcycle without a helmet on, who am I harming? If I want to put
on a small fireworks display for my 4th of July cookout? If my parent and I
have agreed to not let the other suffer thorugh a horrible terminal illness?
And so on and so on...

>      Well, sorry - count the votes.  People in the US overwhelmingly vote
>    to have the government initiate force against many non-conformers.

Yes, ironic, isn't it? The country founded on the freedom of the individual
is now a country where the government is called upon to "save US from THEM".
Too bad for THEM, even if they're pretty much harming noone.

>    Quite right, since the government, eager for their votes, is acting
>    in the majority interest, while the oddballs are acting against it.

Also known as mob rule. See above.

    >I say that philosphy has and will be the basis of incredible abuse. I
    >say "human life and dignity" is the only standard that makes sense.
    >Killing, violence, stealing, fraud for no good reason ("initiation of
    >force") are detrimental to human life and should be illegal. 
    
    Is an unborn baby a human life?  What constitutes human life to you?
    
    

>    <<< Note 347.471 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>
>    Is an unborn baby a human life?

Since we have no way of determining this non-ambiguously beyond the arbitrary
"after the first trimester", the law should leave it up to each individual to
decide for themselves. Personally, I'd have great difficulty with the thought
of a child of mine being aborted. Does this answer your question?

> What constitutes human life to you?

Apart from the above, the answer to this is fairly obvious.

    >Personally, I'd have great difficulty with the thought of a child of
    >mine being aborted.
    
    But even so you support abortion as a choice because you have bought
    into a politically correct [just another phrase for a moral system]
    scientific view.  
    
    
    

Since morals and morality require conscious choice man is the only animal who 
can be moral or immoral. Man is the only animal who can consciously or 
purposely make moral choices, to think or not to think, to be mystical or 
nonmystical, to produce or usurp, to benefit or hurt oneself and others. The
meaning of moral IMO is simple and direct. Whatever is consciously done to 
help fill human biological needs is good and moral (e.g., the productive 
actions of honest people). Whatever is consciously done to harm or prevent
the filling of human biological needs is bad and immoral (e.g., the destructive
actions of mystics and dishonest people). Honestly using one's reasoning 
nature is always beneficial and moral. Dishonestly using one's reasoning 
nature is always harmful and immoral. Volitionally harmful acts always arise
from mysticism, from dishonesty, rationalizations, evasions, and defaults.
Yet, acting on  honesty, fully integrated with reality, not reason itself, is 
the basic moral act. Example is when a military general choses to use 
reasoning for a specific military move, then in an out-of-context sense, he 
choses to act morally by protecting himself and his troops (thus filling human 
biological need). But in the larger sense of honesty, fully integrated with 
reality, his's total actions are grossly immoral in choosing to use aggressive 
force in becoming a mass murderer (thus negating human biological needs. The 
highly destructive, irratation immorality of offensive military actons far 
outweigh any narrow, out-of-context "moral" actions. Genghis Khan, Stalin, 
Hitler, Mao, Castro, Pol PoL were all enormously evil/immoral due to these 
types of actions. All initiatory force is to a lesser extent just as evil 
and immoral.

> If I want to put on a small fireworks display for my 4th of July cookout?

While I don't realistically disagree with you on most of what you say, Tom,
the above raises a very interesting dilemma for me.

Keep in mind that I'm a VERY strong proponent of freedom to use class C (or
even B) fireworks free of legal restraint.

However, at the same time, I recognize the value benefit of at least having
a legal restraint in place (hopefully without active enforcement.)

I live in the woods. If a neighbor decides to light off a gross of bottle
rockets in early July when the tundra is crisp, and he happens to establish
a forest fire which licks at my house, I feel a lot more comfortable from
a financial liability standpoint knowing that he wasn't legally sanctioned
in his actions.

    
      On the 19th century utilitarians vs. the Constitution - yes, the
     Constitution is an "Enlightement" document, not based directly on
     utilitarianist philosophies.  I did not say it was utilitarian in
     intent.  Note, however, that the 1787 document giving the government
     enumerated powers, is NOT libertarian.  The Bill of Rights IS more
     or less libertarian.  The Constitution itself was opposed by the
     libertarians of the day, such as Patrick Henry, who were called
     anti-federalists.  They lost everywhere.  People had had almost a
     decade of the Confederation, a government that COULD NOT initiate
     force.  It was a failure in every sense - it went broke, commerce
     among the states declined, the economy and currency were disasters,
     violence between the citizens reached the level of defiance and
     anarchy.  Shay's Rebellion was used as an argument AGAINST the
     libertarians, with telling effect.  And the states were unable to
     produce a credible defense to foreign powers.  The citizenry
     overwhelmingly approved of giving the government teeth - the power
     to tax, by force.  The power to regulate commerce, by force.  The
     power to take any property, by force, with just compensation.
    
      You would not have an interstate highway system if the government
     could not take land against the owner's will.  You would not be free
     if you could not be mustered for the common defense.  You would have
     no law or justice without the government having the power to levy
     taxes and collect them by force.
    
      Yes, society has both the right, and the power, to suppress your
     fireworks, on your own property.  Yes, they have the right to require
     you to wear a helmet on your motorcycle.  Yes, they have the power
     to restrict your use of alcohol.  No man is an island.  Civilization
     requires duties, order, conformity.  Rights are precious, but none
     are without cost, and they exist only because we are civilized.
    
      bb

Laws are either moral or immoral. That determination can only arrise from 
proper integration of the facts of reality. Any law which compels a positive 
obligation upon a person is an immoral violation of an individual's right to 
his own life (though shalt put thy poor neighbor's kids through school and 
finance their lunch programs and their health care; and their familiy leave; 
and their food stamps, etc.).

The only objectively moral laws place negative obligations upon individuals
(thou shalt not steal, for example).

    
      There are NO "objective moral laws", Tom.  You made them up
     out of thin air.
    
      And if you plan on competing in the "assertion" league against,
     say, the Ten Commandments, the Koran, and the Sermon on the Mount,
     I suggest you take up playing against Michael Jordan at basketball
     instead.  Your odds would be better.
    
      bb

     >There are NO "objective moral laws", Tom. 
       
    
    So, then all laws are subjective?

    Z    But even so you support abortion as a choice because you have bought
    Z    into a politically correct [just another phrase for a moral system]
    Z    scientific view.
    
    Nancy, not to be a troublemaker or anything...but what did you say your
    position was on this again???
    
    -Jack

    Yes.  In your own list of examples, you chose not to list people like
    Churchill, Haig, or perhaps Calley.  You made a subjective interpretation
    of the relative morality of different systems of belief, based on your
    own beliefs.   Had you been totally objective, you would have
    recognised that your own system/society/culture has no unique claime to
    right over the wrongs of others.
    

>    <<< Note 347.473 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

>    >Personally, I'd have great difficulty with the thought of a child of
>    >mine being aborted.
>    But even so you support abortion as a choice because you have bought
>    into a politically correct [just another phrase for a moral system]
>    scientific view.  
    
I don't give a damn whether it's politcally correct or not. It's fair and
just, given the current circumstances. If circumstances change, my opinion
may change, but just because I have an emotional problem with it doesn't give
me the right to force my views on everyone else.

The same principal applies to many, many situations. I don't approve of drugs
and only use alcohol once in a while. Doesn't give me the right to tell
everyone else what they can't do... it's basically none of my business if it
doesn't affect me.

It's as simple as that, really. Doesn't affect you? - mind your own business.

    
      re, .479 - the short answer is, of course, yes - "morality" is
     not physical, it is a CONCEPT.  No matter, no energy, no event.
     Just a set of thoughts, a view, a "paradigm" (ouch).  How can
     any such thing be "objectively derived" ?   Only two ways : deduction
     and induction.  Otherwise, it's just another assertion, which by
     definition, is meant a statement NOT objectively derived.
    
      But, as we all seem to agree, morality is not derived from the
     observed behavior of other organisms, nor from observed actions
     of humans.  Moral systems, after all, differ around the world.
     Derivation from the observed is called induction.  It fails to
     derive any uniform moral standards at all.
    
      What about "deduction" ?  That is, can we derive a moral system
     from logic, starting with what we know about humans ?  After all,
     we would not say, "Bivalves should be aggressive," since bivalves
     are sessile.  Can we show that humans, by their nature, are best
     suited to living within a moral system of particular construction ?
    
      Humans are gregarious, supposedly intelligent, and they seem to be
     engaged in intense manipulation of their environment, towards ever
     newer forms, unnatural in character, unprecedented so far as they
     know - they are innovators, destroyers, changers, team formers.
     Perhaps you can do something with that.  But it certainly doesn't
     suggest that human groups ought never to impose discipline of group
     members - quite the contrary, it suggests that humans come to rely
     upon "standards", universal protocols to handle common "moral"
     situations.  What this means is that in the tradeoff between
     "freedom" and "order", there're costs and benefits on both sides - that
     as a practical matter, humans need to balance group powers (the
     Constitution) against individual rights (the Bill of Rights).
    
      But that's an American view (and my own), and worldwide, is not the
     most prevalent one.  To me, it seems more an assertion about human
     nature, unsupported by knowledge, rather than a deduction from
     known facts.  Do you at least see what I mean by "objectively derived"
     or not ?  You really have to start with something we agree on, or
     you haven't derived it.
    
      bb
    

>        <<< Note 347.475 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>

> I live in the woods. If a neighbor decides to light off a gross of bottle
> rockets in early July when the tundra is crisp, and he happens to establish
> a forest fire which licks at my house, I feel a lot more comfortable from
> a financial liability standpoint knowing that he wasn't legally sanctioned
> in his actions.

Yep, I have no problem with this. However, banning fireworks won't solve
anything. You've seen what happens - people get them anyway, and usually
people who aren't awful caring about how they use them.

Target the inappropriate behaviour, rather than whatever object your neighbor
chose to implement it. I dunno - criminal negligence? Wreckless endangerment?
Non-stupid people are left to enjoy their fireworks in peace, and the idiot
pays.

 Z   it's basically none of my business if it
 Z   doesn't affect me.
    
    This is a fallacy.  Ultimately, it does effect you!
    
    Example:  All those aborted children would have paid your social
    security when you retire.  Alas you will not enjoy that little perk!

>	You've seen what happens - people get them anyway, and usually
> people who aren't awful caring about how they use them.

But, if they were legally available - legal to sell, possess and use -
the same idiots would still be getting their hands on them, and the
financial/liability exposure that society (local government, for example)
would have could be outrageous. I'm all for a reduction in frivolous
suits and going after those who are really responsible, but consider
the case where someone's $200K house is destroyed by some unemployed
neighbor with a net value of a dollar-eighty-nine. If his stupidity is
"legally sanctioned" by local laws which permit possession and use of
Class C, guess who the burned-out homeowner is going to sue, and who the
courts are going to find responsible?

    
    re .482
    
    	So, if someone shoots his wife, as long as it doesn't affect
    	you, it's okay ?
    
    	Should that then be legal ?
    
    

    >Do you at least see what I mean by "objectively derived"
    >or not ?  You really have to start with something we agree on, or
    >you haven't derived it.
    
    
    No I'm not sure what you mean still. But, I have a question. Is there
    more than one reality? I think not. Objective thinking is always based
    on real provable reality. Unwanted force hurts human beings by
    definition. No emotion, no fantasy, no fairy tales required. You seem
    to imply, and I may have this wrong, that reality depends on the local.
    On this we will never agree.

>          <<< Note 347.476 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>
>     intent.  Note, however, that the 1787 document giving the government
>     enumerated powers, is NOT libertarian.  The Bill of Rights IS more
>     or less libertarian.  The Constitution itself was opposed by the

Why enumerate powers, then? Because government was intended to be limited to
specific activities, because the framers of that government were afraid of
what would happen given unlimited power. We've long since gone way over those
limits, and they were right. 

>     produce a credible defense to foreign powers.  The citizenry
>     overwhelmingly approved of giving the government teeth - the power
>     to tax, by force.  The power to regulate commerce, by force.  The
>     power to take any property, by force, with just compensation.

Perhaps the citizenry approved, but the framers did not. Again, why enumerate
if your intent is to simply allow government a free hand? You'll note that
the specific problem areas were explicitly fixed, and adventures outside
those specific powers were strongly discouraged:

 10th Amendment
 The powers not delegated to the United States by the
 Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are
 reserved to the states respectively, or to the people. 

>      Yes, society has both the right, and the power, to suppress your
>     fireworks, on your own property.  Yes, they have the right to require
>     you to wear a helmet on your motorcycle.  Yes, they have the power
>     to restrict your use of alcohol.  No man is an island.  Civilization
>     requires duties, order, conformity.  Rights are precious, but none
>     are without cost, and they exist only because we are civilized.

Even if I harm noone with these things? Then I say such a society is immoral,
even evil.

    > Yes, society has both the right, and the power, to suppress your
    > fireworks, on your own property.  Yes, they have the right to require
    > you to wear a helmet on your motorcycle.  Yes, they have the power
    > to restrict your use of alcohol.  No man is an island. Civilization
    > requires duties, order, conformity.  Rights are precious, but none
    > are without cost, and they exist only because we are civilized.
    
    Totalitarian governments also require "sheep", who think just like
    this.

>        <<< Note 347.486 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> neighbor with a net value of a dollar-eighty-nine. If his stupidity is
> "legally sanctioned" by local laws which permit possession and use of
> Class C, guess who the burned-out homeowner is going to sue, and who the
> courts are going to find responsible?

Well, that's a problem with the courts then, isn't it?
You could climb to the top of Royalston High Falls in Royalston, Mass. and
jump off, killing yourself. Does that mean it's a good thing if your family
sues, and the courts decide that Royalston was negligent? No one in that town
did *anything*, you did.

>         <<< Note 347.487 by CNTROL::JENNISON "It's all about soul" >>>
>    	So, if someone shoots his wife, as long as it doesn't affect
>    	you, it's okay ?
>    	Should that then be legal ?

Just dipping into this string? Go back and read what we've all written for
the past couple of days.

    .490
    
    Vast amounts of western currency supports certain totalitarian
    states like Saudia Arabia.  But your perception of reality and morality
    choosed to pass over this and focus on the "sheep".   Or maybe my
    perception of reality is flawed.

    
      "Real provable" means "what we agree on".  If we agree on nothing,
     we can deduce nothing, so deduction is hopeless before you start.
     Induction, your only other non-assertive choice, requires that you
     observe the universality of what you claim, and is disproved by
     counter-observation.  In this case, no morality can be extrapolated
     from mere observation, since some humans violate any rule you care
     to name.  If I cannot get there by induction or deduction, I cannot
     derive.  I can only assert, a la The Ten Commandments.
    
      Sure, actions hurt people.  So what ?  You haven't shown that
     hurting people is "morally wrong".  All you've done is assert it.
     When the government collects my taxes, it hurts me.  Good - it's
     SUPPOSED to hurt me.  To show this is immoral, you have to start
     with something I agree with you on.  Well, I don't agree with your
     assertion that it always wrong to initiate force.  I think it's
     just an underivable assumption by you.  It certainly isn't the law
     of the United States.  Go ahead - start with something we agree on,
     and derive your "moral law".  Or compete with Moses in the assertion
     league.
    
      bb

>Well, that's a problem with the courts then, isn't it?

Sure it is.

Now which is easier? Changing the mindset of society with respect to courts,
laws, lawyers, civil suit and responsibility? Or keeping a legal restraint 
on Class C (while allowing enforcment to turn a blind eye)?

All I'm saying is that that's why we have some laws which we probably 
shouldn't, if it were a perfect world. Which it isn't. And removing all 
of the laws simply won't make it so. Changing how people look at things 
is a primary requirement. And we both know that the likelihood of that 
is nil.

    
    	No, I'm not just dipping in.  I've been reading along as
    	much as I can. 
    
    	I was questioning your reasoning that if something
    	doesn't harm you, you shouldn't involve yourself in 
    	prohibiting it for someone else.
    
    
    	

    re: .495
    
    On the point of suing:  I happened to be home on Tuesday
    afternoon suffering with a sinus headache.  I was lying on
    the couch watching, of all things, "The Partridge Family"
    (and thinking to myself, "you loved this show when you were 9.
    Think.  WHY did you love this brain-dead program?") when I 
    was struck by the fact that *every* single commerical break
    contained at least one person injury law firm commercial.
    And they were manipulative commercials designed for the person 
    whose intelligence falls on the wrong side of average.  Things 
    like "Do you trust a large insurance company to be fair with you?  
    Wouldn't you do better with a trained lawyer?"  and "If you are 
    injured you have a RIGHT to compensation." and (IMO this was my 
    favorite) "This lawyer got my friend a large cash settlement!! 
    Call today!"  I don't recall seeing this type of hard sell two
    or three years ago.  Is this new or do I just not watch much
    tv?
    
    Mary-Michael 
     

    
    .476
    
    
    >  You would not have an interstate highway system if the government
    > could not take land against the owner's will.  You would not be free
    > if you could not be mustered for the common defense.  You would have
    > no law or justice without the government having the power to levy
    > taxes and collect them by force.
    
    I suppose highways couldn't be privately owned.
    
    I suppose I wouldn't leap to my own defense of my property and that of
    my neighbors and friends.
    
    I suppose justice comes at the gunpoint of taxation.
    
    I also suppose that you are single minded in the area of social
    constricts.

>        <<< Note 347.495 by MOLAR::DELBALSO "I (spade) my (dogface)" >>>
> Now which is easier? Changing the mindset of society with respect to courts,
> laws, lawyers, civil suit and responsibility? Or keeping a legal restraint 
> on Class C (while allowing enforcment to turn a blind eye)?

Yah, and that's the hell of it.
It's very easy for a politician to ban this and that to the approval of the
voters, while the real problem continues, and no one has the stones to face
it.

    Half Millineum snarf!

    MM:
    
    A few years back, it was unethical for lawyers to advertise on
    Television and was poo poo'd in the profession.  James Sokolov crossed
    the line about ten years ago and said to hell with ethics.  
    
    Look in your Yellow Pages.  You'll see the vile scum on each page
    beginning with "L".
    
    -Jack

>         <<< Note 347.496 by CNTROL::JENNISON "It's all about soul" >>>
>    	No, I'm not just dipping in.  I've been reading along as
>    	much as I can. 

Well, then you know that I've been promoting a morality based on human
dignity, in which shooting your wife is immoral, and therefore should be
illegal, no?

> I don't recall seeing this type of hard sell two or three years ago.

Years ago, in most locales, professional people (doctors, dentists,
lawyers) were prohibited (or at least strongly discouraged) by their 
professional associations from using public advertising.

Of course, that was in the days when their occupations were professions,
rather than businesses.

    
     re, .498 - you're right.  I think a private interstate highway
     system never would happen.  I think without the feds, the USA
     would never have survived WWII.  And yes, a system of cops, courts,
     jails, etc costs money, and the Confederation that preceded 1787
     demonstrated conclusively that without forceful taxation, the
     government will get no money, and so there would be no justice.
    
      I did, however, overstate the extent of the disparity between the
     main body of the Constitution (certainly NOT libertarian, in
     general) and the Bill of Rights (mostly libertarian).  For example,
     the takings provision, by which the Interstate Highway System was
     built, is in the Fifth Amendment.
    
      Recall the preamble : "We, the people of the United States, in order
     to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic
     tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general
     welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
     posterity do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United
     States of America."
    
      I believe in this purpose.  That the people can impose order on
     all of themselves for the general good.  In particular, I think
     the Federalists were very wise in Article 1, Section 8 : "The
     Congress shall have power (1) To lay and collect taxes, duties,
     imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
     defense and general welfare of the United States;..."
    
      The government intentionally hurts me with a form 1040, backed up
     by the IRS.  It initiates force, and it does so specifically on the
     grounds that the country as a whole, the "general welfare" is
     helped by hurting me.  Good.  It should do this.
    
      bb

    .474
    
    > Since morals and morality require conscious choice man is the only
    > animal who can be moral or immoral. Man is the only animal who can
    > consciously or purposely make moral choices...
    
    Documentation for this profoundly unsupported statement, please?
    
    That Homo sapiens is the only species capable of conscious, self-aware
    thought is in fact unprovable and has been clinically shown to be
    highly unlikely.

    
       hmmm, suppose there were a Moses among the cats ?  What sort
     of commandments would be on the tablets she brought down ?
    
       bb

    .506
    
    Capability to do something does not imply accomplishment of that
    something.  Without wishing to rekindle a discussion that flamed back
    and forth in another topic some months ago, I will point out that
    various individuals of the Great Ape persuasion have, through long
    contact with humans, learned to deal in abstract concepts such as
    morality.  Somebody had to teach it to them, just as somebody has to
    teach morality to human children - but once taught, the apes were able
    to manipulate the concept of morality in a conscious and obviously
    intelligent fashion.

>          <<< Note 347.504 by GAAS::BRAUCHER "Welcome to Paradise" >>>

>      I believe in this purpose.  That the people can impose order on
>     all of themselves for the general good.  In particular, I think
>     the Federalists were very wise in Article 1, Section 8 : "The
>     Congress shall have power (1) To lay and collect taxes, duties,
>     imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common
>     defense and general welfare of the United States;..."

So you approve of the usurping of power and ignoring of the 10th amendment
that's occured since all that was written and ratified?

    
    	re .502
    
    	Ok, but isn't that inconsistent with your position on
    	abortion ?  Is abortion immoral ? 
    
    

>         <<< Note 347.509 by CNTROL::JENNISON "It's all about soul" >>>
>    	Ok, but isn't that inconsistent with your position on
>    	abortion ?  Is abortion immoral ? 

The only thing I can say is "I don't know".

Since there's no unambiguous way for me to decide that "this is a human life,
starting now", there's no good way to decide when to start applying morals,
other than some appeal to emotion.

This being the case, I can't reasonably expect others to conform to my views.

     >Documentation for this profoundly unsupported statement, please?
    
    On further considering this Dick, I think you are correct. I think that the
    evolution of consciousness is eternal. It may even be that countless 
    conscious societies exist throughout the universes with endlessly higher 
    levels of knowledge with millions or billions of years more advanced 
    societies than ours. Of course this is conjecture on my part. As far as
    our world is concerned there are probably many animals on the
    consciousness evolutionary path. But, I think that you would agree that 
    humans are the furthest advanced, here on planet earth.
               

    Hmmm.  Humans are conscious and sometimes choose to murder other
    humans.  Apes may be conscious but do not murder other apes.  Who has
    the advanced sense of morals and values again?

    
      Wrong.  Murder in chimpanzees is well documented.  By Jane
     Goodall, of all people.
    
      bb

>    Hmmm.  Humans are conscious and sometimes choose to murder other
>    humans.  Apes may be conscious but do not murder other apes.

Chimpanzees have been observed killing other chimps, apparently out of revenge.

-Madman

    .511
    
    > It may even be that countless
    > conscious societies exist throughout the universes...
    
    It is in fact highly probable.  The more we learn about how our
    Universe is made, the more we come to understand that a star without
    planets is probably an anomaly.  Given the countless numbers of stars,
    then, and even weeding out all but the G0 stars, we find a monstrously
    high probability that evolution has produced nonterrestrial sentient
    species in the past 12 billion years and will continue to do so in the
    future.

    Opinion is Wrong?.  Goodall observed that some chimpanzees appeared to
    kill others for reasons that she chose to interpret in anthropomorphic
    terms such as murder and territorial disputes.  Other interpretations
    have been offered which are equally plausible, such as the fact that
    animals develop behavioural problems as a result of neurological
    deficits - in the same way that humans develop some psychoses.  
    
    Goodall also observed and labeled behaviours as cannibalism,
    infanticide.  Many other researchers observe the same phenomena and
    choose not to label them in terms of human behaviour.
    
    

    
    .514
    
    Most animals kill over territorial disputes.  Even the guard bees
    at the entrance to your hives will kill their own sisters if they
    don't get the right chemical message, and all the drones regardless.
    Stags kill in the rut. Older males kill younger males to stop them breeding.  Lions kill all
    cubs when they take over a pride.    
    
    What they don't do is kill for reasons that are not directly related to
    the survival of their own genes, which humans do frequently.  

>    What they don't do is kill for reasons that are not directly related to
>    the survival of their own genes, which humans do frequently.  

Yeah, but we got a gene that makes us do that...

    That must be in the 2% of genes that we don't share with Chimps.
    

re .517:

I know how most animals kill others of their own kind for genetic or territorial
reasons.

But "by revenge" I meant what was an apparently a planned attack by a tribe
of chimps on another tribe over an incident that took place some time
earlier, not the usual territorial or "dominant male" type attacks.

    When do humans kill when it is not for the survival of their own
    genes?

    How can we honestly say that non-survival killing is not as significant
    as that of survival? Perhaps it is a behaviour that is also necessary
    for the survival of the species. We know that it is not that rare a
    behaviour.

    Perhaps what seems to be senseless killing actually equates back to the
    very basic instincts of survival. Take postal workers for example.

    
    > Take postal workers for example.
    
    	Not without a backup.

> <<< Note 347.521 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Person to person contact laughing." >>>

>   Perhaps it is a behaviour that is also necessary
>   for the survival of the species.

	I don't know - taking a thirteen year old girl somewhere and
	murdering her doesn't seem necessary for ensuring the species
	survives.

    
    > I don't know - taking a thirteen year old girl somewhere and
    > murdering her doesn't seem necessary for ensuring the species
    > survives.
    
    You don't have any teenage kids, do you ?
    
    ;^)

    If you want to stick to anthropomorphism, we call that territorial
    defence "war" not murder, and apply different morality.
    
    Territorial disputes are between groups of closely-related individuals
    that share more than 50% of their genetic material (usually).  They
    generally persist for as long as the groups contact each other at their
    territorial boundaries.  Expanding territory maximises foraging ranges
    and increases the chances of survival for a group.  During frequent
    forays into each other's territory, there is evidence that chimps
    can learn and identify the weak spots in the other group.  Small wonder
    that then may develop a "target" animal and a persistant attack
    strategy.  On the other side, a persistant response will develop. 
    It looks like a tit-for-tat or vendetta is happening, but only if you
    choose to report in in human terms rather than neutral behavioural
    terms.
    
    This is no different from a Cheetah's ability to pick up certain
    behaviour in antelope and "learn" successful attack ploys.
    
    
    

    How about bombing a village full of 13 year old girls? How does this
    seem necessary for survival of the species?

> <<< Note 347.526 by POLAR::RICHARDSON "Person to person contact laughing." >>>

>    How about bombing a village full of 13 year old girls? How does this
>    seem necessary for survival of the species?

	I give up - how?

    I wasn't going to jump back in to this conversation as it appeared to
    be going rather circular, however... :-)
    
    I cannot believe that we are honestly equaling human behavior with ape
    behavior.  Are there similarities between the two, yes.  But I wouldn't
    hand over my children to a monkey to raise, would you?
    
    There are similarities between a fish and an amoeba, but I don't think
    anybody is frying up amoebas for dinner. :-) 
    
    All of this posturing regarding monkey and humans is merely a platform
    for cerebral minded homosapiens to practice their onomatopoeia ability.
    
    :-) :-) x ?
    

re .525:

The chimps that attacked the other tribe weren't interested in their territory.
Nor was it a defense against them encroaching on their own territory.
They sought them out and after they had their blood lust left what was left
alone.

re .523:

>	I don't know - taking a thirteen year old girl somewhere and
>	murdering her doesn't seem necessary for ensuring the species
>	survives.

Chimps have been known to do something similar.  One female killed the infant
of another 3 separate times.  She was specifically after the infant each time.
In human society she'd be considered a serial murderer.

Nancy,

Maybe you can show your focus group this discussion. It's just the kinda
things a good partnership needs, eh?

TTom

    I think we need to value ape diversity.

    or tug on superman's cape...

    You don't pull..the mask off the ole Lone Ranger and....

    |<<< Note 347.527 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>
    
    |        I give up - how?
    
    This may sound awful, but, they won't be having children. We are
    threatening our own existence by the rate at which we are procreating.
    So, wether an individual can kill a 13 year old girl or bomb a whole
    bunch makes no difference, the instinct to just simply kill for
    whatever reason is there and it is this behaviour which will be the
    cause of the deaths of countless millions in the not too distant
    future. If we all survive we will all die so we can't all survive. I
    wonder what the world population would be like if there hadn't been a
    WWII.
    
    We live in a world which is, by its very nature, violent.

 ZZ    We live in a world which is, by its very nature, violent.
    
    Correct.  We are a depraved species!

    >I know how most animals kill others of their own kind for genetic or
    >territorial reasons.
    
    Humans seem to kill for unearned power as well. For example,
    Most Germans and many others in the 1930s were duped into admiring
    Hitler's Odysseus-like courage as one of the bravest soldiers in
    World War I and the strutting "glory" he bestowed on the Third Reich.
    Thus, most Germans and many others blinded themselves to the obvious
    fact that popular, glory-talking Hitler was nothing more than a
    criminal mass murderer for his own parasitical livelihood and glory.
    Like most politicians, Hitler increasingly committed destructive
    acts so he could increasingly feel big, important, and powerful.
    
    

>							a star without
>    planets is probably an anomaly.  Given the countless numbers of stars,
>    then, and even weeding out all but the G0 stars, we find a monstrously
>    high probability that evolution has produced nonterrestrial sentient
>    species in the past 12 billion years and will continue to do so in the
>    future.

Wait a minute!

I buy that entirely. But wasn't it you, yourself, who presented in here the 
contradictory premise within the last year or so? That the likelihood
of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe was infinitessimally small?

Or were you just mentioning it as an aside proposed by others?

| <<< Note 347.518 by HBAHBA::HAAS "more madness, less horror" >>>

| >    What they don't do is kill for reasons that are not directly related to
| >    the survival of their own genes, which humans do frequently.

| Yeah, but we got a gene that makes us do that...

	Haag never made anyone kill!

| <<< Note 347.528 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| But I wouldn't hand over my children to a monkey to raise, would you?

	It worked for Tarzan. :-)

| <<< Note 347.531 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>

| I think we need to value ape diversity.

	But do we stop just at apes? What about Gorillas, Chimpanzies? Spider
Monkeys, etc? Each is unique in their own way. To classify them as all apes, or
to just single out the apes themselves, would be wrong. I expected more out of
you AJ. Much more! :-)

         Animals kill all the time for no apparent reason. My cats are
    proof of that; they kill mice, birds, and even squirrels just for the
    hell of it. They don't eat their victems; just kill them and drag them
    into the house to show them off. They are not protecting territory or
    assuring the survival of their genes but rather showing off. I have
    noticed that they take greater pride in more difficult prey like
    hummingbirds than easy pickings like field mice.

|        <<< Note 347.536 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "Madison...5'2'' 95 lbs." >>>
|
| ZZ    We live in a world which is, by its very nature, violent.
|    
|    Correct.  We are a depraved species!

    No, we live in a violent ecosystem where life forms live off other
    life forms. Never mind the deadly weather and geologic nasties.

    .538
    
    The principal characteristic of science is that when new information
    appears, science - unlike religion - re-evaluates conclusions it may
    have drawn and revises them if they no longer seem valid.
    
    In this case, we have still the evidence that I posted last year of
    chaos theory, suggesting that the creation of an Earthlike biospere is
    statistically unlikely.  (Out of all the planetary systems in
    existence, the percentage on which an Earthlike biosphere can exist is
    very, very, very small - but obviously not nonzero.)  Now, however, the
    new evidence suggests that a vastly greater number of planetary systems
    probably exist than was believed a year ago to be likely.  Hence, if
    the nonzero percentage of planets capable of supporting Earthlike life
    remains constant, the number thereof must inevitably be seen to be
    greater than was earlier believed likely.

    
      Um, this topic isn't "zoology 101".  All I pointed out was that
     the two Toms and I, arguing about other matters, at least agree
     that it is useless to try to derive moral systems from nature.
    
      No, organisms do not obey Tom's moral law, about not initiating
     force.  No, they don't obey the Ten Commandments, either.  But
     that is not a good argument against all moral systems.  Animals
     don't build computers, either - so we shouldn't ?  Sorry, bad
     argument.
    
      Neither Tom nor I was saying that.  We both argue for competing
     UNNATURAL moral systems, not derived from nature.  He tries to
     justify the non-initiation of force, and claims he can "objectively
     derive" this law.  So far, I've seen no such derivation.  In my
     view, if the benefits of initiating force greatly exceed the costs,
     then initiating force is the most moral choice.  I do NOT base this
     argument on the behavior of animals, but on logic.  But I admit that
     I can't "objectively derive" my claim either, because my claim
     contains the hidden assumption that "the greatest good of the
     greatest number" is a worthy goal.  I'm sorry, but I have to admit
     that this goal is not objectively derivable either.
    
      bb

re: .544, Dick

> Now, however, the new evidence suggests that a vastly greater 
> number of planetary systems probably exist than was believed 
> a year ago to be likely.

Was this Hubbel(sp?)-related evidence, or has something else come to light?

    
    >>    No, we live in a violent ecosystem where life forms live off other
    >>    life forms. Never mind the deadly weather and geologic nasties.
    
    The spankings!  Don't forget the spankings!

    .546
    
    Hubble provided the impetus.  I saw an article recently that remarked
    to the effect that *everywhere* we turn our telescopes we find that
    nascent main-sequence stars possess the accretion disks that are the
    precursor to planetary systems.  The older the young stars are, the
    better formed the planetary systems become.  Thus, in contrast to the
    previously held opinion that planetary systems are rare, it turns out
    that almost every main-sequence star probably has one.  This hypothesis
    is bolstered by the fact that one of the planets found by Hubble orbits
    a neutron star, which is the last phase of a star's life.  Any planet
    of a neutron star has long since ceased to be habitable - if it ever
    was so - but the presence of such planets is strong evidence.

>    Hubble provided the impetus.

That is indeed good news. It's "discoveries" of this nature which 
tend to fully justify the great expense and difficulties that have 
characteristically surrounded Hubble (IMO). Makes the whole thing
very worthwhile. 

    My thinking is that the nonforce as objective morality theory only applies 
    to completely conscious beings. Only beings that are capable of
    planning and carrying out their futures come to the objective
    conclusion that what is best for themselves and society is to prolong
    conscious life as long as possible, maybe even indefinately. Why,
    because the good of the species is in knowledge. Since new knowledge is
    derived from past knowledge, those that have discovered/created the
    past knowledge and have the capability of discovering/integrating/
    creating knew knowledge, are of infinite worth to everyone. With this
    knowledge, death and destruction becomes illogical for all conscious
    beings.
    
    In regards to other conscious being inhabited worlds I think of it this
    way. Anything that has even the remotest probability of happening, will
    happen an infinite number of times in infinite time. Since the creation
    of universes appears to be eternal, one can almost be certain that
    other worlds inhabited by conscious beings exist.

re .546:

>> Now, however, the new evidence suggests that a vastly greater 
>> number of planetary systems probably exist than was believed 
>> a year ago to be likely.
>
>Was this Hubbel(sp?)-related evidence, or has something else come to light?

They've also found a lot of actual planetary systems recently.  Must be nearly
a dozen or so.  They've recently (within the last few days) announced finding
evidence of 2 Jupiter-sized planets around a star (forget its name) only 8
light years from Earth.

-Madman

    The reported 'murder' of a chimp by others in the tribe ganging up on
    him was later resolved by a Grad student at the U of Arkansas carefully
    reviewing the records of the event.
    The chimp that was murdered was an Amway chimp. Evidently the chimp
    society has evolved in a significant manner which in this instance
    surpasses our own.

Multi Level Monkey, eh?

Re: Ray

<chortle> <snort> <major_grin>

  ZZ    The chimp that was murdered was an Amway chimp.
    
    The chimp was murdered because of class envy.  It had become a
    millionaire by the time it reached 30.
    
    

    A positive obligation is an obligation to do something, as opposed to not 
    do something. If one accepts the premise that an individual has a right 
    to his own life (and correspondingly, the derivative rights necessary for 
    one to sustain the life he has a right to), then only laws carrying 
    negative obligations are objective and moral.
    
    A law which states that I must wear a helmet, a seatbelt, take my medicine,
    etc., is a positive obligation and immoral because it violates an 
    individual's right to his own life.
    
    A law which states that I must not remove your helmet, unbuckle your seat
    belt, or flush your medicine is a negative obligation which is objective 
    and moral because it upholds an individual's right to his own life, which
    right, in itself, implies that an individual's right to do as he wishes 
    with his life extends to the point where it conflicts with that same 
    right of every other individual.
    
    

    
      But whether an obligation is "negative" or "positive" is a
     matter of mere language.  "If you sell food, then you must list
     the ingredients on the package," is positive.  "You may not sell
     food products without listing the ingredients," is negative.
    
      The same can be done with most rules - "You must not operate a
     motorcycle without wearing a helmet." v. "You must wear a helmet
     when operating motorcycles."  Is requiring a license a negative,
     or a positive, regulation ?
    
      No, there is no getting out of the fact that none of our rights
     are absolute, as indeed, neither are any of us ourselves.  We, and
     our rights, are relative in value.  If it is necessary to prevent
     the spread of an infectious disease which will kill us all, we can
     forcibly innoculate everybody, whether they agree to it or not.  In
     fact, in an extreme case, only killing the disease carrier may be
     practical as an alternative to societal extinction.  To claim
     otherwise is to leave only absurd alternatives, when values conflict.
    
      bb

>					If it is necessary to prevent
>     the spread of an infectious disease which will kill us all, we can
>     forcibly innoculate everybody, whether they agree to it or not.  In
>     fact, in an extreme case, only killing the disease carrier may be
>     practical as an alternative to societal extinction.

Riddle me this, then, Batman - what about when the disease is one that's
not infectious, but hereditary?

Case in point - one of my oldest and best friends is of a family that
carries Huntington's Chorea - very nasty neuro-muscular disease which
generally hits people in their 40's, disables them within ten years
and puts them in the grave within 15 to 20. It's transmitted only
genetically, and seems to be dominant, especially in males.

This guy's father had it, as did his grandfather, great grandfather, etc.
uncles, some aunts - all died of it if they didn't die of something else
(related or otherwise) first. Chances of carrying the gene for transmission
exceed 95% in both sexes, even if the carrier isn't personally affected.

He got married in 1970 and had a couple of daughters. He's been disabled
for the past six years.

Should he have been allowed by society to procreate? Should his daughters?

Personally, I don't think that it (procreation) is a very responsible activity
given the knowledge that you're going to pass along and thereby help perpetuate
such a tragedy. Should society help enforce that? Should folks known to carry
such genes (it's now actually detectable) be sterilized by the state?

    Re .557:
    
    > If it is necessary to prevent the spread of an infectious disease
    > which will kill us all, we can forcibly innoculate everybody, whether
    > they agree to it or not.
    
    Innoculating yourself is sufficient to protect yourself, so it is
    certainly not necessary to innoculate everybody, forcibly or otherwise. 
    So you do not have any right to do it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    Just keep your grundle to yourself...that's all!!!

>								so it is
>    certainly not necessary to innoculate everybody, forcibly or otherwise. 
>    So you do not have any right to do it.

If the Salk vaccine hadn't been forcibly administered to just about
everybody under the sun in this country in the 50's and 60's, we'd
likely still have hundreds of thousands of cases of poliomyelitis
each year. Is "protecting yourself" enough, when those who haven't had
the opportunity yet to protect themselves can be infected by someone
else who may have "chosen" not to protect themselves?

RE: 347.559 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> Innoculating yourself is sufficient to protect yourself

In a black and white world,  this would be true.  In the real world,  it's
not.  It varies,  depending on the disease and the vaccine used and the
time since inoculation.

And what about children too young to inoculate?  They can be protected by
inoculation of enough adults.


Phil

    Re .563:
    
    > They can be protected by inoculation of enough adults.
    
    Indeed, all you need is "enough".  A disease can't spread if it can't
    propagate from host to host.  So there's no reason to forcibly
    inoculate everybody.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

RE: 347.564 by RUSURE::EDP "Always mount a scratch monkey."

> Indeed, all you need is "enough".  A disease can't spread if it can't
> propagate from host to host.  So there's no reason to forcibly inoculate
> everybody.

Unless not "enough" get inoculated.


Phil

    Do you force everyone to get flu shots next? 
    
    What about those of us who have suffered allergic reactions to them in
    the past? 

What's the percentage of folks who get flu who actually die or are permanently
disabled from it?

| <<< Note 347.566 by ACISS2::LEECH >>>

| What about those of us who have suffered allergic reactions to them in
| the past?

	Hey.... one sickness at a time.... :-)

      ___                       ___                                
     /\__\                     /|  |                               
    /:/ _/_       ___         |:|  |           ___           ___   
   /:/ /\  \     /\__\        |:|  |          /\__\         /|  |  
  /:/ /::\  \   /:/__/      __|:|__|         /:/  /        |:|  |  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::\  \     /::::\__\_____   /:/__/         |:|  |  
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \/\:\  \__  ~~~~\::::/___/  /::\  \       __|:|__|  
  \::/ /:/  /   ~~\:\/\__\     |:|~~|     /:/\:\  \     /::::\  \  
   \/_/:/  /       \::/  /     |:|  |     \/__\:\  \    ~~~~\:\  \ 
     /:/  /        /:/  /      |:|__|          \:\__\        \:\__\
     \/__/         \/__/       |/__/            \/__/         \/__/
      ___                       ___           ___     
     /\  \                     /\  \         /\__\    
     \:\  \       ___          \:\  \       /:/ _/_   
      \:\  \     /\__\          \:\  \     /:/ /\__\  
  _____\:\  \   /:/__/      _____\:\  \   /:/ /:/ _/_ 
 /::::::::\__\ /::\  \     /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/ /\__\
 \:\~~\~~\/__/ \/\:\  \__  \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/ /:/  /
  \:\  \        ~~\:\/\__\  \:\  \        \::/_/:/  / 
   \:\  \          \::/  /   \:\  \        \:\/:/  /  
    \:\__\         /:/  /     \:\__\        \::/  /   
     \/__/         \/__/       \/__/         \/__/    
      ___           ___           ___           ___           ___     
     /\__\         /\  \         /\  \         /\  \         /\__\    
    /:/ _/_        \:\  \       /::\  \       /::\  \       /:/ _/_   
   /:/ /\  \        \:\  \     /:/\:\  \     /:/\:\__\     /:/ /\__\  
  /:/ /::\  \   _____\:\  \   /:/ /::\  \   /:/ /:/  /    /:/ /:/  /  
 /:/_/:/\:\__\ /::::::::\__\ /:/_/:/\:\__\ /:/_/:/__/___ /:/_/:/  /   
 \:\/:/ /:/  / \:\~~\~~\/__/ \:\/:/  \/__/ \:\/:::::/  / \:\/:/  /    
  \::/ /:/  /   \:\  \        \::/__/       \::/~~/~~~~   \::/__/     
   \/_/:/  /     \:\  \        \:\  \        \:\~~\        \:\  \     
     /:/  /       \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\        \:\__\    
     \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/         \/__/    

    Re .565:
    
    > Unless not "enough" get inoculated.
    
    Then it seems like there's a sizable fraction of the populace who
    disagrees with you.  So what gives you the right to decide your opinion
    is correct and gives you the right to overwhelm the others with force?
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      Well, edp, the short answer "what gives you the right" is "power".
     In a constitutional representative democracy, power comes from
     an enumerated list, and goes to the bigger numbers.  The power to
     "provide for the general welfare" or "regulate interstate commerce",
     is power to force innocent people to do what they do not wish to do.
    
      The long answer is, that good policy choice is always a tradeoff.
     The technique of cost-benefit analysis is to list choices across
     one side of the chart, and list all "relative" costs and benefits
     of each, quantify, do a sensitivity analysis, and emerge with a
     policy best suited to achieving "the greatest good of the greatest
     number".
    
      The exceptions would be, if the proposed policy exceeds the powers
     the Constitution enumerates, or treads upon rights of minorities held
     to require a supermajority to override.  However, in a democracy,
     there must be provision for a sufficient supermajority to do anything
     it pleases, or the system will lose its legitimacy and collapse.
    
      bb

    Re .571:
    
    > However, in a democracy, there must be provision for a sufficient
    > supermajority to do anything it pleases, or the system will lose its
    > legitimacy and collapse.
    
    No such necessity exists.  If a sufficient supermajority pleased to
    paint every building purple or to enslave every person in the minority
    yet some supernatural force stopped them, the world would not end.  The
    system would not lose its legitimacy, and the supermajority and the
    minority would get along without collapsing.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      Nonsense.  They should, and would, overthrow that system, shoot
     those who were running it, and the minority who opposed them for
     good measure, then start over.
    
      In fact, it was just this power of the people to overthrow any
     entrenched minority which created our country.
    
      bb

  Billbob, I agree with you, but don't forget that there are
  supernatural forces involved in Mr. Postpischil's scenario,
  so all bets are off. ;>

    Re .573:
    
    > They should, . . .
    
    Why?  Why should the majority overthrow the government just for the
    pleasure of having purple buildings?  Why should the majority overthrow
    the government just for the power to enslave the minority?
    
    > . . . and would, . . .
    
    How do you overthrow a supernatural force?
    
    > . . . the minority who opposed them for good measure, then start over.

    I didn't say the minority opposed them.  Unless you are interpreting
    disagreement as opposition.
    
    The point is the majority can live perfectly well without having all
    their pleasures satisfied.  People should distinguish between needs or
    rights and pleasures.  Government need not satisfy pleasures to be
    successful -- it suffices to satisfy needs and rights.  If the _rights_
    of a majority, or even a minority, are being infringed, then they
    should oppose the infringement.  But if it is merely their pleasure
    that is being thwarted, then they should learn to live with it.
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

    
      Looked at Iran lately ?  If the radical paint-it-purple cult
     converted, say, 95% of the USA, they would elect a paint-it-purple
     President and Congress, governors, state legislatures, etc. They
     would pass a law dictating that "all inanimate objects shall be
     painted purple".  No doubt, some of we 5% minority would sue,
     claiming our constitutional rights had been violated.  Now in the
     first place, it isn't so clear that our rights HAVE been violated.
     And in the second place, so what if we convinced SCOTUS ?  The
     purples could just amend the Constitution, and SCOTUS would go
     away.
    
      What power do you propose the 5% use to thwart the 95% ?  All the
     options I can think of are fraught with peril.  If you really can't
     stand purple, I would suggest running away.
    
      More importantly, what sort of political system that would thwart
     such an occurrence could possibly be stable ?  Throw out the US
     Constitution - try to imagine a system in which the 5% rational
     people can thwart the rabid 95% true-believer fanatics.  I can't
     think of any such system that doesn't have any even worse flaw
     than having to paint all your possessions violet.
    
      bb

    Re .576:
    
    > What power do you propose the 5% use to thwart the 95% ?
    
    Minorities have defeated majorities before.  Sometimes with
    persistance, sometimes with force, sometimes with shame, sometimes with
    hunger strikes, sometimes with reason.  But my argument is not about
    how, but about why.  There is no justification in any number of people,
    majority or otherwise, imposing their pleasures on unwilling people.
    
    > More importantly, what sort of political system that would thwart
    > such an occurrence could possibly be stable ?
    
    A system that _represents_ people not by taking elections at every
    choice but by selecting a few among them to go and meet and study a
    problem and make decisions based upon what they learn.  A system in a
    country where people have been taught about reason and freedom and
    respect these values and believe that their neighbor's freedom is more
    important than their own personal pleasure.  A system where rules are
    made and adhered to for the ages, not for the moment.  A system where
    some decision makers are independent of the whims of the day, secure in
    their posts and answerable to their consciences rather than the current
    fashion.  A system where there are many opportunities to deny the
    imposition of a rule, where a new rule must run a gauntlet of
    challenges before becoming law.
    
    > Throw out the US Constitution - try to imagine a system in which the
    > 5% rational people can thwart the rabid 95% true-believer fanatics.
    
    You should be ashamed to paint Iran as 95% rabid fanatics.  It is not
    so.  No political system merely hands power over to the majority. 
    Emotions are hot -- they burn and then fade.  Reason is cool.  So a
    system of law-making that requires time and many levels of procedure
    filters some emotions and strengthens reason.  Maybe we do not have
    enough filters.  But we know they exist, and a political system need
    not be a mob rule.             
    
    
    				-- edp
    
    
Public key fingerprint:  8e ad 63 61 ba 0c 26 86  32 0a 7d 28 db e7 6f 75
To find PGP, read note 2688.4 in Humane::IBMPC_Shareware.

   Is it my imagination, or is this getting off the point?  Certainly
   innoculation of people isn't considered a "pleasure".  Except for
   by a few sickos out there, prolly.

    You and the Doc seem to like needling each other.

	pointlessly though, Colin.

| <<< Note 347.578 by PENUTS::DDESMAISONS "person B" >>>


| Is it my imagination, or is this getting off the point?  

	Di, we can't have people think they are reading the same notes again if
we stay on the subject. It's gotta make a full circle!

    In any civilization, the only legitimate or beneficial function of
    government is to protect individual and their property rights. The only
    legitimate use of force is self-defense in protecting those rights. By
    contrast, criminal-controlled governments, such as we have in the world
    today, including the United States, depend on political-agenda laws, 
    ego "justice", initiatory force, threats, coercion, fake compassion, and 
    fraud to survive. They survive by draining the producers of value and 
    violating property rights. 
    
    

    
      Lady Di, aka Josephine - actually the rat-hole has tunneled full
     circle back to the topic.  Recall how the discussion got here - Tom
     and I agree that in setting up a society, as our founders did in 1787,
     it is useful to have some sort of principles upon which the
     definitions of various rights and powers are based.  He tried to
     make a distinction between "objectively derived" moral principles,
     and "revealed" or "mystical" moral principles.  I replied this
     distinction is imaginary, because no moral principles have ever
     been objectively derived - they are all justified by their advocates
     by unprovable assertions, not by either logic or observation, and in
     every case they are opposed by other people who reject those assertions.
     Ethics, as Aristotle (our oldest source on the subject) knew, is HARD.
    
      Tom's assertion is this : "Neither individuals, nor groups, nor
     the whole society, should under any circumstances, initiate force
     against an individual."  Now at first glance, that appears reasonable.
     None of us would enjoy living in a society in which force was
     initiated against individuals in almost every situation.  Yet in
     examining first principles, it is essential not only to look at the
     easy cases, but also at the most common ones, and at the pathological
     cases, to see if the first principle can lead to an absurdity.  I
     maintain this "first principle", so reasonable-looking, is in fact
     both absurd, and in extremis, pathological.
    
      Clearly, Tom's rule WAS NOT the first principle of the founders of
     the USA : they gave Congress the power to tax, a power the Continental
     Congress did not have.  They did this with their eyes wide open.
     Make no mistake : Tom's "law" means taxes should be voluntary.  There
     is no escape from the logic of it.  Yet, in fact, voluntary taxes
     were tried in the Confederation, and simply weren't paid.  Without
     the power to tax by force, government cannot provide for the general
     welfare, cannot provide for the common defense, and can insure no
     justice or security.  So in the common case, Tom's law is anarchism.
    
      And in the pathological case, where one individual possesses the
     sole antidote to a disease, which he refuses to share, Tom must die
     for his principle, along with everybody else in the society except
     the possessor of the cure.  Which is NOT reasonable.  In fact, it
     suggests behavior which real humans never could be expected to
     follow.  Some real humans would overpower the guy and cure themselves,
     abandoning Tom's law whether they believed it or not.
    
      As an alternative, I proposed the principle of the utilitarians :
     the greatest good of the greatest number.  Now, turnabout is fair
     play - I have to defend MY principle, which is also a mere assertion,
     in pathological cases.  edp has suggested just such a pathological
     case - suppose that the vast majority are fanatics with an irrational
     concept of "good".  Doesn't the utilitarian principle mean that I, a
     rational member of the non-fanatical minority, must ultimately
     aquiesce in the irrational wishes of the fanatic majority ?  In the
     ultimate Nazi case, must I not volunteer for Auschwitz ?  This is
     a real dilemma for utilitarians, just as oligarchies/monopolies are
     a real problem for "libertarians" who follow Tom's principle.
    
      I'm not sure I can find a way out.  Edp has pointed out several
     possibilities.  I agree with him that the freedom of speech is our
     most important freedom.  If we are going to be majoritarian, it
     certainly helps if the minority gets to argue and whine.  Maybe
     they can talk the irrational majority out of their insane couse.
    
      I also agree with edp that a certain amount of "inertia" in the
     system is useful, to allow fanaticism a chance to fade with time.
     Our founders thought this too, hence the laborious amendment process
     and the US Senate and Supreme Court, bodies that they hoped would
     be able to stand against irrationality at least for a while.
    
      But I disagree with edp about "committees of experts".  This idea,
     which I've heard from many others in here from Phil & DougO, etc,
     is ultimately "Platonic" - the philosopher kings will save us.
     They, the few wise people, those who count, should ultimately
     have the power to thwart the people.  It is a form of "Aristocracy",
     and it is certainly not American.  I recognize that expertise can
     exist.  But I cannot stomach the notion that the few can dictate
     to the many.  Advise yes, but in the ultimate, the "experts" must
     capitulate, and the people get their way.  I cannot go further,
     without abandoning the utilitarian assumption of egalitarianism.
     And I refuse to trust the wisdom of any experts, no matter how they
     are chosen, as the ultimate power in society.
    
      bb