Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

Mike,

The article certainly does speak for itself.  It admits near the end
that it is "possible to quarrel with many of these interpretations".

What response is appropriate for those who do not wish to discuss a
subject with intellectual honesty, but only wish to be Bible-bashers
(as Loren Petrich is)?

I don't think that these articles have any place in a Christian-Perspective
conference.  Or any conference that wishes to sincerely discuss what
"Christian is"

Collis

    
    re: .79 (Collis)
    
    Are you saying that the article had no intellectual honesty?  I'm 
    not saying that the article was right (who am I to judge?), but I
    think that the author was more honest by saying that it WAS "pos-
    sible to quarrel" with many of the interpretations.  How much more
    open and non-defensive can you get?  Just because someone admits
    that others may disagree with them doesn't mean that their ideas are
    suddenly worthless.
    
    And isn't it possible to quarrel with many of the interpretations
    of the Bible?
    
    Isn't that in fact the basis (to a large extent) of this conference
    (as evident by the presence of many quarrels over interpretations
    of the Bible....:-)?
    
    guy

    
    re: .0 (Mikie?)
    
    >Will proxy hate win?
    
    If fear is too powerful, yes....
    
    guy

    
    or unless you repent of it and trust in Christ to save you.
    
    Jamey

    RE: Basenote
    
    I think this topic is a little too deep for you, but I'll test you.
    
    First of all, Satan and Satanists have no original symbols of their
    own, they borrow/steal/plagerize symbols from most often righteous
    concerns and pervert/invert them and call them their own.  In that
    respect they become the enemies of those/any righteous concerns they
    take from.  As the scriptures say, "what fellowship have we?"
    
    Secondly, with your "proxy hate" concept, you insult every Christian by
    basically implying that we are "psychopathic".  When all the while it's
    a projection of your own makeup as you seek to propagate the notions of
    your faith, which is only to deceive.  What makes you think you aren't
    guilty of this same "proxy hate" thing?
    
    It's "satanic" for you to even bring it up!  Tell me how you feel this
    might benefit a Christian?  It seems to me that the only resolution to
    the conflict you've presented is to abandon the Christian faith and
    follow you.  
    
    You should know that even the mention of your "faith" (I use that term
    reluctantly) and the word "Satanic" is cause for any Christian to
    immediately throw up their guard.  To indulge you in conversation may
    very well be the downfall of a weak faith in Christ.  However, I
    believe I know how to deal with you...I just merely expose you to the
    true light and you disintegrate.  Now, I know one might suppose that
    you are already "separated into components; fragmented" being the
    harbinger of the same, but I know and you know that you have a unity
    about you, else you couldn't stand (a divided house will fall). 
    However, when I bust you in the brain with this truth "sparks will fly
    from your head", to borrow from another noter.  
    
    "Will proxy hate win?" when Satan can master Christ!  
    
    And you babes have no fear, just look silently to God with love and
    remember, "resist the devil and he will FLEE from you!"
      

    guy,
    
    I heard a message this past Sunday during worship that you
    have unwittingly paraphrased.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

    Re. 0
    
    Mikie,
    
    What do *you* believe Christians can do to reduce or eliminate
    proxy hate?  Do you know of any Christians who are engaging the
    issue of proxy hate, consciously or unconsciously?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    
    Dick Martell...I hadn't thought about him for quite a while.  I remember
    only a little about him.  Tell us more about your recollections of Dick.
    

    There is a good deal of information in the article I found I agreed
    with, that was thought provoking, and illuminating. It hasn't changed
    my beliefs (i.e. christian-influenced), but it has affirmed some of my
    suspicions.
    
    Pete.

    I remember Dick Martel, we 'spoke' on occaison through E-MAIL.
    Unfortunately, he was for more eloquent, and widely read than I am, so
    he could probably lose me quite easily. I was sad when I heard about
    his death.
    
    Alan Turing died from eating a poisoned apple (did I get that right?).
    There was a play here in England about Alan Turing, his mathematics and
    his life.
    
    Pete.

	We should not only be talking of 'proxy hate' here, this is only a
	part of the story.
	We impart all or most of what we are/do/think/experienced to our 
	children to some degree or another. Sometimes we do it deliberately
	sometimes we do it without realising it.

	We should also be talking about proxy love, proxy fear, proxy XXXX,
	you name it. We just can't help it. And to the degree that we feel
 	love,fear,hate - that same degree will be passed to our children and
	to those around us to a similar extent.

	In all our thoughts words and actions we are somewhat conditioned
	by our experience and these shine through in our thoughts, words and
	actions.
	
	But however in all this Christ has given us the chance to escape, to
	cast all these chains from us, to cast off our yoke - by uniting us 
	to the source of ALL Love and drawing on that love. Our transformation
	doesn't happen overnight, many of our hates and fears are deeply
	rooted, and we are still prone to weakness. Christ knows this, he has
	experienced this - his is the way of Love, because there is no other
	way.
	What a world it would be if all we passed on was proxy love !

	Peace 


		Tom

re Note 69.6 by CSC32::MORGAN:

        Mikie,

>     I can agree to most of this. However I think the underlying concept is
>     Gnostic in flavor. I've had Satanist say to me that I must free myself
>     of that which imprisions me meaning that I must free the light of my
>     being from flesh. There are some similarities between Gnosticism and
>     intellectual (as opposed to dabbling) Satanism.
>     
>     It is my opinion that it is axiomatic that humans "steal" or
>     appropriate most of their symbols from others, even Gnostics do that.
>     What's the diff Griff?
  
        I would guess that my major concern, as moderator, is that
        the subjects you seem to want to pursue are only most
        tenuously related to Christianity.  Granted there are a lot
        of symbols in common between Christianity and other religions
        and philosophies, but I really don't think that that factor
        alone makes those other religions and philosophies related to
        Christianity.

             
        As I have indicated in my private communication with you, I
        am also dismayed by your manner.  You seem to belittle at
        every opportunity.  (Examples can be found in Note 69.6: 
        referring to Playtoe as "Playdoe";  asking "Is english your
        first language?";  a general taunting and teasing style,
        e.g., "And pick me up a sandwich at the store. No pickles.")

        If you really wanted to engage in a dialogue on issues, then
        why do you do everything possible to raise defenses and
        hackles?


>     (We're getting closer folks. Now I'm a Satanist for thinking and
>     talking about PROXY HATE, a Satanist for asking pointy questions.)

        If your point is to show that if you tease and insult enough,
        if you raise enough "red flags", then any but the most
        self-controlled person will respond emotionally, then you've
        made your point.  Can we move on?


>     Proxy hate. What a concept!

        The bottom line:  did you come here to reduce or eliminate
        "Proxy hate" or did you come here to inflame it?  Did you
        come to teach or to taunt?

        Bob

    
	For those who do not accept channeled information, this is a
	warning that the following is quoted from a channeled work -
	"Original Cause - The Reflection Lost Will Has To Give" through
	Ceanne DeRohan.  I suggest you hit NEXT UNSEEN if this concept
	is unacceptable to you.

        Carole
	---------------------------------------------------------------

    
	Bringing 'negative' emotions within love by accepting them without
	patronization is very necessary now, not only for personal happiness
	and wholeness, but also because the reflection of unlovingness on
	Earth at this time is directly related to Heart denials.  Unloving-
	ness is a direct result of loving essence being told that it is
	unloving.....There is no faster way to heal unlovingness on Earth
	than to feel your own hating, blaming rage move until you understand
	it and learn how to evolve it.

	Hating others for what you feel sure you would never do yourself is
	your starting point.  Let yourself hate them and let this hatred
	move in you until you are able to know that it is really you out
	there and no one else giving you the reflection of what you have
	not found acceptable in yourself.

	Recognizing these patterns intellectually is not going to move
	them enough to stop what is happening on Earth.  You need to 
	move through anger and into the kind of rage that works you like
	a bellows to move the essence that has been denied here.  You
	need to move rage until you feel its loving presence as essence
	that seeks to protect you from threats to your own survival.


        ------------------------------------------------------------------

    
    One person's sarcasm is anothers completely valid intellectual banter.

re Note 69.12 by BTOVT::BEST_G:

>     One person's sarcasm is anothers completely valid intellectual banter.

        I am completely in agreement with this!

        However, if "one person" wants to engage in a genuine and
        fruitful discussion with "another", then they must work at
        avoiding even the appearance of personal attack and ridicule.

        And it goes both ways.

        Bob

    
    Bob,
    
    If it works both ways, then why does it seem that Mikie is being forced
    to use arbitrary rules of communication set up by other individuals?
    
    guy

re Note 69.14 by BTOVT::BEST_G:

>     If it works both ways, then why does it seem that Mikie is being forced
>     to use arbitrary rules of communication set up by other individuals?
  
        Pure practicality, I must admit.

        He comes in here, one of many participants.

        If he wants to succeed, he has one of two options:  
        	1) modify his style
        	2) modify everybody else's style

        Which approach is more likely to succeed?

        Bob

    Re: 6
    
    Aha, retreating already!  See Christians I told you so!

    guy,
    
      mikie is sio=mply being asked to employ some common courtesy. so
    what's the beef with that?
    
    gil

    
    re: .16 
    
    Yes, Bob, it depends on the objective - you said it all with your
    title. :-)
    
    guy

    
    re: .18 (Gil)
    
    I have no beef with common courtesies when they are edequate to achieve
    the desired goal.
    
    But sometimes actions and words that seem the most chaotic on the
    surface have the most compassionate intentions.
    
    guy

re Note 69.15 by CSC32::MORGAN:

        Mikie,

        Perhaps you are right, from your particular perspective. 
        Perhaps we are NO-FUN and NO-PLEASURE.  From your
        perspective, perhaps we engage in "poisoned fairytales." 
        Perhaps you sincerely think that we are xenophobic, afraid
        of the new, afraid of the strange, and perhaps even a little
        afraid of the potent -- victims of "subculture trance".  

        And we are the ones who hate?

        Bob

Re: .18  Gil

I have seen many notes in this conference (and in others), written by a variety
of people, which IMO violate the rules of common courtesy.  I think it would be
a hopeless task to try to force the rest of the world to conform to my idea of
what is courteous.  Instead, I try to set an example with my own notes.

				-- Bob

re Note 69.20 by BTOVT::BEST_G:

>     I have no beef with common courtesies when they are edequate to achieve
>     the desired goal.
>   
>     But sometimes actions and words that seem the most chaotic on the
>     surface have the most compassionate intentions.
    
        Guy,

        You are right, but I don't think that I, as a host and
        moderator of this conference, can simply let anything
        happen.  We live in a real environment -- Digital Equipment
        Corporation -- and certain rules of civility will be forced
        upon us if we don't discipline ourselves.  This equipment is
        not ours -- we are guests!

        Again, there is pure practicality.  I believe that the
        majority of the people who would otherwise participate will
        choose to leave if well-intentioned insults become the norm
        -- even if those insults are not directed against themselves,
        personally.

        (One of the problems I have always had with the CHRISTIAN
        conference is that, although I have never (well, almost
        never) been personally attacked there, I repeatedly felt the
        pain of others who have been the direct target of strong
        words motivated by compassion.  Some people can take it more
        than others -- I want to be sensitive to the others, as well. 
        It is certainly one of the reasons I have never been able to
        follow a discussion in SOAPBOX -- insult and put-down seem to
        be required to participate there!)

        Bob

    
    re: .25 (Bob)
    
    You have your perspective, I have mine - and I say that with utmost
    respect for yours.
    
    Moderate as you see fit and I'll do my best not to judge.
    
    guy

Guy,

Do you agree that the article is not written to help understand
Biblical Christianity better?

The article is written to bash.  Pure and simple.  There is no desire
for fairness.  It is filled with some truth, some lies, and a propenderence
of half-truths/half-lies.  That is what I think it is inappropriate in
this conference.

Collis

re Note 27.82 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> It is filled with some truth, some lies, and a propenderence
> of half-truths/half-lies.  That is what I think it is inappropriate in
> this conference.

        Collis,

        Please don't think that the moderators have the time or
        ability to verify the truth of everything that appears in
        this conference.  We rely on the participants to call a spade
        a spade, as they see it (but with civility -- I thank you
        Collis that you maintain a civil manner!).

        Why not write one or more notes countering or refuting what
        you think are the most egregious lies?

        Bob

    
    re: .82 (Collis)
    
    I don't think it's entirely possible to ascertain the writer's motives
    without more information from him/her directly.  Like sitting down and
    having tea with them.
    
    I also don't think that you can say that there is no desire on the 
    author's part to be fair.  Perhaps the author's idea of fairness 
    involves having the word of God a little less contradictory and
    frustrating.  Maybe they tried to live up to the ambiguous and
    sometimes imperceptible moral code presented there and went nuts
    trying!  Who are we to say?
    
    guy

    You know, that if the only way that Christians can deal with
    the sort of material enterted here by Mikiey is to get mad at
    it and say it is inappropirate to discuss then I think we are
    in trouble.
    
    Bonnie

    re: -1
    
    I agree, Bonnie.  I think we all have a tendancy to want to retreat
    into that which is familiar when our cages are being rattled.  Maybe
    what we need is to examine the cage and whether we might want to step
    out of it for a moment or two and get a fresh perspective.
    
    Nanci

    RE: .82 Collis
    

>Do you agree that the article is not written to help understand
>Biblical Christianity better?

>The article is written to bash.  Pure and simple.  There is no desire
>for fairness.  It is filled with some truth, some lies, and a propenderence
>of half-truths/half-lies.
    
    Why is it that the very long extract from Constance Cumby's book
    on the New Age was ok with many Christians?  It did exactly what
    you are stating above.
    
    Carole

    	Is there a topic in this particular string or is all this Mikie?-
    bashing and counter-bashing an example of what Proxy-Hate is? There
    have been two DOZEN replies in this string TODAY that seem unrelated to
    the supposed topic and to the notes file itself only as a discussion of
    how we ought to do things here and why - and all with a strong
    undercurrent of tension and/or anger and/or nastiness. Perhaps some of
    us ought to step back and regain our perspectives, this dissension is
    not becoming.

    If the shoe fits, wear it.
    
    If the article was written to bash (which I thought was part of its
    intention), why then is there so much material with which to 'bash'
    with? A lot of what I read in it made me more aware of the glaring
    problems with the Bible - problems that before I was unable to
    articulate before reading the article.
    
    I can see now my christian mentor telling me I should dismiss the
    article out of hand, simply because it's not "glorifying to god".
    
    Pete.

        If we want to continue discussing the article quoted above,
        could we at least include a few references to its content?

        Bob

re Note 69.34 by DELNI::MEYER:

        I would propose deleting this entire topic, with the
        concurrence of the participants.

        Bob

    
    
    
    It's a pity that this appears to have (de-)generated into this mess.
    Mikie has brought up a topic worthy of debate. However the way that you
    wrote it Mikie, (not knowing some of the background conversations that
    would appear to have taken place - or am I assuming) would appear to me
    to be provoking the reactions we have seen throughout this note.
    
    	If you seriously want some debate on the topics you raise then I'd
    suggest you say so and don't revert to what seemed to me to be sarcasm.
    You raise some fine points - when I eventually got to all the replies,
    so lets' put this to bed, and if you still would like debate -serious,
    flippant or whatever please give me (us) a clue as to what kind of
    discussion you would like to have - otherwise all is misunderstanding.
    
    	      Peace,
    
    			Tom
                 
    

If any of you are willing to post a particular problem or two whether
gleaned from the article or not, then I will be happy to discuss it.

However, I don't have the itme or energy to discuss 100 points of
contention which are not for discussion but for bashing the Bible.  I
also don't think that a basher is looking for an honest discussion, hence
I don't attempt to engage in one.

It is clear to me that when *always* takes the most negative inference
possible from a source, then one is NOT looking for an honest discussion.
Perahps I misread the article?  No, I think not.  Actually, I just
quickly scanned it and looked at the bottom for the comments.  The
author seems to freely admit at the bottom what his motivation is.

Collis

Carole,

I'm not sure what extract from Constance Cumby's book you're talking
about.  But it wouldn't surprise me if I took a different approach to it.
It is only recently that I have determined that it is wiser to refrain
from discussing issues that the other party has no interest in "discussing".

Collis

Re:  .85 and .86

Actually, I'm not mad.  A little sad, perhaps.  And I *do* think that
this is inappropriate in this conference.  Would you please be more
specific as to why it is appropriate?

Collis

I honestly believe I see a double-standard here.  Not in the notes
conference, but in the minds of the participants.

Many of you in the past have taken offense at being "preached at" by
those with a "narrow" perspective.

And yet you can't see the offense of being "preached at" in a ridiculing
way from someone with a "broad" perspective.

Perhaps I'm wrong.  I'm really not entering this note to justify
myself or my thoughts.  It's just an observation.  Perhaps I'm wrong.
If so, I sure someone will help me clarify me thinking.

:-)

Collis

    I concur (somewhat ruluctantly).
    
    Richard

    Collis,
    
    I don't agree with what Mikie entered, (notes .62 to .68 have been
    deleted by the way). What I'm saying is that rather than say
    "no we must not discuss this, there is only one way to discuss
    the Bible, the Bible is inerant, etc" if we can look at criticisms
    of this sort and decide that some of it is hogwash, some of it
    is nasty, but some has truth in it, then we have better come
    to understand our own faith and how to deal with those who
    challenge it.
    
    I seem to see the same, open standard here. We have resisted
    those who would straight jacket (in my mind) the definition of
    Christianity, and have been willing at the same time to look
    unpleasant criticisms from the other side in the face rather
    than simply dismiss them as 'bashing'.
    
    I get very frustrated with people who say essentially 'my
    interpretation of Christianity is right because that is
    the way I interpret the Bible and I know that my interpretation
    of the Bible is right because God told me so. Espcially when
    their interpretation is very different from what I've come
    to believe and what my minister preaches. Then of course if I
    object that my minister says something contrary I get the
    reply 'well he's not a real Christian either then'.
    
    My reasons for leaving Mikie's notes in are the same reason I
    felt that long piece of misinformation about Halloween should
    be left in the file. So people can read it, discuss the places
    it appears to be valid and refute the obvious errors.
    
    Bonnie

    re: .94, Collis,
    
    In another string, I drew specific parallels showing (IMO) the 
    equivalent offenses that occasionally come from *each* end of the
    spectrum.  I do agree with you that some noters seem to be much
    more receptive to notes from one polarity than to the other -- 
    and which polarity is favored differes from noter to noter.  I do not
    object to the inclusion of views from both polarities provided that
    some reasonable standards of "noting etiquette" are established and
    followed. 
    
    It is sad, however, that "standards of noting etiquette" *need* to be
    established rather than being self-evident!  :-(
    
    Nancy

Re:  27.95

Bonnie,

  >What I'm saying is that rather than say "no we must not discuss this, 
  >there is only one way to discuss the Bible, the Bible is inerant, etc"...

<Sigh>

It appears we have a failure to communicate here.  I do not say and
have never said that we should not "discuss the Bible".  What I did
say is that bashing for the purpose of bashing is inappropriate in this
notes conference as well as other notes conferences.  In my opinion,
those notes were bashing for the purpose of bashing.

Again, I have no problem with discussing issues, even issues raised by
the (now deleted) notes if someone here wants to discuss them.  The issue
was never "these issues are not suitable for discussion".  Issues *are*
suitable for discussion.  They have been discussed here and they will
continue to be discussed here.  And I will participate (assuming I have
the time and desire).

  >unpleasant criticisms from the other side in the face rather
  >than simply dismiss them as 'bashing'.

I don't dismess them as bashing either because they are "unpleasant" or
because they are "criticisms".  I call them bashing because of the way
the criticisms were presented.  For example, a Christian stance on
MANY of these issues (I bet I have a response to EVERY ONE of the things
he mentioned - I know I have a response to every one that I read) is
well known.  What Christians believe and why is not hard information
to get.  What effort did the author make to take into account some
of these explanations?  If you're answer is "absolutely none", then
you and I see eye to eye on this.  There is more.  The "tone" of the
notes.  But I'll stop here.

Collis

    	I agree with Bob, could somebody PLEASE reference the note in
    question ?  Or was it one of those deleted ?  And why was it deleted if
    it is the essense behind a major discussion ?  I'm totally lost here
    and haven't seen anything instructive in too long.  I'm also getting
    the feeling that Collis is feeling bashed due to an unintentional
    polarization.  There seems to be enough mis-understanding in this
    string to suggest that somebody call a "Time Out" so that the
    participants can regroup and re-evaluate. It is so moved, do I hear a
    second to the motion ?

    	That wasn't quite what I had in mind but it may be the best
    solution. If Mikie? were planning to stick around - and he has stated
    otherwise - and wanted to deal with it then I would object. As it is, I
    suspect that leaving it around will serve no benefit to anyone except
    those who sell bigger disk drives.

The notes were .62 through .68.  I extracted them when they first appeared
(since they were long), skimmed through the extraction (about 30 seconds
worth - enough to see how the author handled about 50 points of Scripture)
and then looked at the last note for some comments from the author.  Sure
enough there were some.

Since I didn't feel they were worth my while, I deleted my copy.  At this
point, I'm simply tring to help others understand why I think they
were inappropriate.  As I already mentioned to you, I'm not easily
offended.  I'm really just expressing an opinion about what I think the
limits of the conference should be and how to, in the future, determine
when the conference limits have been exceeded.

Collis

Re: .98  Dave

Mike Morgan deleted all his notes in the conference, apparently of his own
volition.  I think it was an unfortunate decision because it leaves a lot
of topic, like this one, with replies that refer to Mike's deleted notes/

Now that Mike has left, I don't think there is much point in arguing over
who was bashing who.  Let's move on to other things.

				-- Bob

    re .101
    	Nancy, that was not nice. And I'm not sure if a smiley-face would
    be "correct" here.
    
    Bob,
    	I'm sorry to hear he carried out his threat. That action poses
    several problems for us. Perhaps our best response is to simply cease
    any discussion generated by his input ?  Unless, of course, the
    participants are insistent ?  

Re: .102 Dave

I think it depends on the topic.  If there is a discussion that Mikie started
but which other people have joined, the discussion between those people doesn't
have to stop just because Mikie has left.  All I'm saying is that there is
little point in referring to notes that have been deleted.  If you have
something to say that is independent of what Mikie wrote, then say it.

				-- Bob

        I am going to move the notes from "Apparent Errors in the
        Bible," which were a response to the deleted "Satanic Verses"
        notes, to follow this one.

        My intention is that all of this will eventually be deleted
        (and I will set it nowrite), but it will be here for a while
        so that authors may recover any material they wish (some of
        the discussion might belong under "Processing", but I can't
        sort it out).

        My suggestion is that authors delete their own notes from
        this as soon as they wish.

        Bob