Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    
    >that normal democratic channels have brought us to space warfare preparations.
    
    So you were protesting normal democratic channels?
    
    
    			Alfred

    .1
    
    I can only speak for myself, but normal democratic channels are not
    always enough.  The Civil Rights movement should provide sufficient
    proof of this.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    I guess the problem I have is that all to often people use "normal
    democratic process" as an way to tell people not to fight something.
    We all do it at one time or another depending on whose ox is being
    gored. I've just had it tossed my way so often by people of liberal
    persuasions that it seems ironic when I hear of people of liberal
    persuasions complaining about it not working their way.

    Make no mistake about it, I do not believe that "because it's legal"
    or because "a majority voted for it" makes something right. But since
    you and I agree with each other on that I will expect never to hear
    from you or anyone who supports the action reported in .0 that I should
    accept something because it was put in place through "normal democratic
    process." Can we agree on that as well?

    			Alfred

    .3  I think we can agree on this much.  Just because something is
    legal, it shouldn't automatically be assumed that it is right.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    
    
    Richard,
    
      
    What are they doing at Falcon?
    
    David

    .5  Much of it is classified.  Falcon operates under a black budget.
    (It's all too reminiscent of what Hazel O'Leary of the DOE has brought
    to light in recent weeks about things our government has done in the
    name of national security.)
    
    This much is certain, it is integral with the satellite technology
    used during the politically correct Persian Gulf War.
    
    Of course, they'll be more than happy to provide you with their
    "official" mission if you contact their Public Relations office.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    
    I never thought of the Persian Gulf war as pc, just a necesary evil.
    
    
    David

    .7  That's part of what made it politically correct.
    
    Richard
    
    

    I always thought the Persian Gulf War was about oil and nothing else.
    It had nothing to do with Saddam's gripe against Kuwait so I guess I'm
    not sure what makes it PC, although it could very well be.
    
    Richard, what were your thoughts on SDI in its purest form, i.e. being
    used strictly for its intent?
    
    -Jack

re: Note 821.9 by -Jack>>>

>    Richard, what were your thoughts on SDI in its purest form, i.e. being
>    used strictly for its intent?
    
Um, was that its intent as a 100% effective "umbrella of protection" over the
country, or its intent as a 100% effective "umbrella of protection" over major 
strategic targets, or its intent as a somewhat less than 100% effective 
"umbrella of protection" over a few strategic targets, or its intent as a 
financial sinkhole to drain the coffers of the Kremlin, or ...  ?

Cheers,

Jim

    Point well taken.  I always looked at SDI kind of like a NAS package.
    It had components to it mutually exclusive from one another.  I believe
    the Patriot Missle was part of SDI.
    
    Let's assume for the sake of argument that SDI was put together
    strictly as an umbrella of safety over the entire country.  Now we know
    that in our great wisdom, mankind can take anything meant for good and
    turn it into something bad.  The potential is there for SDI but the
    same argument can be applied for hospitals, schools, gun control, etc.
    Anything good can be exploited for bad reasons.  The question to
    Richard is this.  Would we be better off not going ahead with something
    like SDI in the event that it Might be turned into something bad? 
    
    -Jack

    SDI is officially dead.  In truth, it's simply been reconfigured.
    
    Richard
    

    I personally do not have a problem with the SDI program. 
    
    That being said, I also admire ( but don't agree) people who
    believe so strongly in their ideals that they will risk jail time.
    
    Marc H.

    I realize SDI is dead, maybe it was a big boondoggle, perhaps not. 
    What I'm wondering is if your organization believes the use of space
    strictly for a defensive posture is within the charter shall we say, of
    your ideology regarding space use and exploration.
    
    -Jack

    My "organization" is not terribly organized.
    
    I believe space belongs to God, that humans have already desecrated enough
    with the instrumentation of warmaking without contaminating the heavens.
    It's time for Christians and persons who are not motivated by gluttony
    and self-interest to say, "NO! Keep your stupid, petty warmaking confined
    to the Earth!"
    
    The heavens do not belong to any nation or alliance of nations.
    
    Richard
    

    I see where you are coming from.  Did you know however that there are
    many studies done in space that cannot be done on earth?  There is
    research done in the medical field that requires weightlessness and it
    is hopeful that cures for cancer and the like will be able to exist
    because of this effort.  I believe this was part of the vision John F.
    Kennedy had in this area of science.
    
    While I see your point, I'm afraid other nations do not and would not
    hesitate to use the heavens as the conduit for world domination.  I
    believe the space shuttle program is vital in the interest of national
    security.  The satellites for example were able to pinpoint areas of
    missile buildup during the Persian Gulf War.  Regardless of who was
    right or what motive existed, I believe this kind of technology saved
    numerous lives on both sides.  
    
    I must assume from your protest that you have information I do not
    have.  Would you be willing to share some examples of how we are
    misusing space travel or technology?  Or, are your efforts based on
    something else.
    
    Very interesting topic of discussion.
    
    -Jack

    
    RE: .6
    
    >.5  Much of it is classified.  Falcon operates under a black budget.
    >    (It's all too reminiscent of what Hazel O'Leary of the DOE has
    >    brought to light in recent weeks about things our government 
    >    has done in the name of national security.)
    
    Or what Hillary Clinton has done in the name of a Health Care 
    Crisis and Reform.
    
    RE: .15
    
    >    The heavens do not belong to any nation or alliance of nations.
    
    Ha, ha...and earth does?  I bet God has something to say about that
    one.
     

    
    BTW Richard, I'm glad to see you hung in there and got arrested.  The
    news made it look like you got too cold and went home before the
    sheriff arrived.  
    
    Jill

    .16  I'm not opposed to the use of space for peaceful and unselfish
    purposes.
    
    Perhaps I'll go further into detail later, Jack.  Thanks for the
    invitation.
    
    Richard
    

Note 821.17
    
>    >    The heavens do not belong to any nation or alliance of nations.
    
>    Ha, ha...and earth does?  I bet God has something to say about that
>    one.

I agree 100%.  But one has to first stop a runaway elevator before one can
reverse its direction.

Richard

Note 821.18

>    BTW Richard, I'm glad to see you hung in there and got arrested.  The
>    news made it look like you got too cold and went home before the
>    sheriff arrived.  

It was weird.  Though bundled for the weather, I did become very, very cold.
After conferring with the other four, I decided to get to my van where I'd
be warm or, at least, out of the wind.

As I rolled past the guard shack, a security officer shouted to the guard who
was with me, "Don't let that guy get away!"  I asked if that remark was about
me.  The guard said yes.  I said, "Funny, I thought that's what you wanted
me to do."  The guard said I was still under arrest, that I had "expressed
intent."  I said, "Fine, but in the meantime, I'm getting out of the cold
and into my van."  He mumbled something about feeling pretty cold himself.

I loaded into my van and waited...and waited...and waited.  Finally, a
sheriff's car pulled up behind my van.  A deputy came to the window and
told us to leave.  I told him I was under arrest and didn't want to be
charged with resisting arrest.  After going back to his car (with my ID)
and evidently getting on the radio to someone, he came back and said I wasn't
going to be charged and that we had to leave.

I seriously suspect that they (the Air Force and the county Sheriff) didn't
want the hassle of dealing with someone in a wheelchair.

It wasn't until about 2:00 the next morning that I completely thawed out.

Richard

Those wishing to write those still incarcerated on grounds of conscience
may send letters to:

Either
	Peter Sprunger-Froese

or
	Mary Lynn Sheetz

or
	Dee Buchannan

	El Paso County Sheriff's Office
	2739 E. Las Vegas
	Colorado Springs, CO
			80906-1522

Shalom,
Richard

    
>Those wishing to write those still incarcerated on grounds of conscience
>may send letters to:

    I recently read a paper buy a man convicted of armed bank robbery
    and attempting to break someone out of jail. He used similar terms
    to those above to describe his plight as well. He's an anarchist and
    resists banks and government on grounds of his conscience. From what
    you've said Richard, these people are in jail for criminal activity.
    There motives and intent may be good but using the term "incarcerated 
    on grounds of conscience" implies to me that they are in jail for
    beliefs rather than actions which is simply not true. (Based on what
    information I have from you.)

    			Alfred

    As I look at what they did, I'm embarrased and can only think of how
    many may get a strange idea of what christians are. First, we need to
    be light, what we say needs to be pure. Think of how Ester responded in
    reproving the king of an unrighteous decree. To act as aliens, as
    observers in the heavens is placing themselves as something which is
    not true. I'm not sure if those who did it were christians or
    non-christians using the occasion of the holiday. It may have been a
    "good idea", but was definitely not something which came from the holy
    spirit or the wisdom that is from above. Our pure message of the gospel
    may become polluted through a lack of respect and wisdom. 
    
    Often I try to check ideas that go through my head to be sure they are
    from the Holy Spirit. One simple check is 'would Jesus do this, would
    Paul do this?' Another check I make is with scriptures. Is this how
    Esther reproved? Is this how Daniel reproved Nebuchadnezzar(Daniel
    4:19-27). How did Jesus deal with the Roman empire, did he reprove them
    for all their unrighteous acts? 
    
    Sometimes we might think there are things the world need to know more
    than the gospel. But Jesus and Paul and the others thought otherwise.
    They gave their lives for the Gospel and I'm sure they are right. We
    need to align ourselves up with the holy spirit, that our works are
    wrought in God. Of ourselves we can do nothing, we can change nothing.
    It is so important to learn to live under the command of the holy
    spirit, under the Lordship in our lives of Jesus Christ and be his
    disciples. This is one example of many where people thought to have a
    brilliant idea to change things but were not lead by his spirit. God
    wishes to change the world through us. He is looking for Pauls and
    Peters in this generation. He is also looking for Esthers and Daniels,
    people who will truly represent Jesus to this generation.
    

    Rodger:
    
    By the way, I read in full your testimony and enjoyed it very much.  I
    will comment on it later in the appropriate string.
    
    I would now like to address your remarks on how you would use Paul as a
    role model and the issues of wisdom and a proper testimony.  I bring to
    you this passage.
    
    "And finding disciples, we tarried there seven days; who said to Paul
    through the Spirit, that he should not go up to Jerusalem."  Acts 21:4
    
    As we know, Paul did go to Jerusalem and the events of the trials, the
    shipwreck, and the riots ensued.  I personally believe that Paul
    disobeyed God because of his burden to share the gospel to his own
    people, perhaps.  He did the wrong thing for the right reasons. 
    Moreover, we see earlier I believe that he brought a gentile into the
    temple.  Surely he realized this would cause a major riot...which it
    did and bodily injury no doubt!!!  Wisdom might tell us this wasn't the
    most expedient thing to do.
    
    Correct me if I'm wrong Richard but your organization is secular and
    doesn't identify itself as a Christian group anyway, is that correct?
    If so, then the testimony issue..is not really an issue!!
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    Thanks for your note(again). You seem to be pretty active here. I have
    been with Digital and have never looked at this conference until
    the last days because the 'pressure' was not so great and I am writing
    documentation, which I must admit, is hard for me.
    About my view of Paul, yes, I do esteem him very highly. Next to Jesus,
    in the new testament I think I take him as someone I wish to follow.
    Sometimes it is simpler for me to relate to Paul, since he was also a
    man, a believer as I am. I cannot count how often I have read his
    letters in the bible, which have always proven to me to be helpful in
    guiding my life to be as pleasing to God as possible. There are many
    areas of my life where I could only find answers in his letters. 
    Also, the experience that Paul had with Jesus is not too much different
    than mine, but definitely more dramatic. He never lived directly with
    Jesus as he was on the earth, just as I never have.
    In Acts 23:11 the Lord spoke directly to Paul and told him:
     Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem,
     so must thou bear witness also at Rome.
    But Paul had already known this earlier. In Acts 19:21 he said,
     ...After I have been there, I must also see Rome.
    He wrote the same thing in the letter to the Romans in 1:10-15.
    Now I do see it differently, but I see your point and you may be right
    that God might have planned to do it differently. However, it is also 
    a possibility that this was exactly what God had planned, since prophets
    were telling him the whole way that bonds were awaiting him(Acts 20:23)
     Save that the Holy Ghost  witnesseth  in  every  city, saying that
     bonds and afflictions abide me.   
    Now if the prophets were speaking from the Holy Ghost that the Lord did
    not want him to go, it would be clear that he was disobedient. But
    instead, it was the people who were saying it (Acts 21:11-14). If Paul
    had not gone up, then what the prophets were foretelling would not have
    come to pass(One of the signs of a false prophet). They were not speaking 
    conditionally, but telling what the future held.
     Thus saith the Holy Ghost, So shall the Jews at Jerusalem bind the man
     that owneth  this girdle, and shall deliver him into the hands of the
     Gentiles.
    
    Anyway, one way or the other, I see your point and am comforted that
    Paul did make mistakes as I know that I have. Yet still God's grace and
    honor were so strong upon him. If there is anything which I want that
    Paul had, it is the abundance of Grace he received and how he pleased
    God. 
    
    About my organization. I was in a very good and God-given christian
    organization. I poured my life into building it and as christian
    organizations go, am convinced it was and is very good. 
    
    But what I came to separate is the christian organization and the
    church of Jesus Christ. While in the organization, I was told by God
    that I would one day leave it (even from the first months in it). Over
    20 years later God sovergnly took me out of it. But as I left it, I was
    in an even more real way aware of my commitment and position in the 
    Church of Jesus Christ. For weeks I was full of Joy and the Holy Spirit
    so glad that I was in the church which I knew God would never take me out 
    of the rest of my life. But this is not an organization. If anything,
    I am so glad to serve Jesus outside of the organization that I really
    am not looking at all to ever building a christian organization. 
    
    Jack, there are a lot of things which I don't yet understand.
    Everything is presently being 'rearranged' so I cannot yet say too
    much. The main things I am now seeing:
       1. Living under the direct command of Jesus Christ. This means
    everything, when to speak, what to do, where to go, etc. It is like
    enlisting in the army where you work, live and sleep in it, where you
    breath it and it takes up everything. In my heart even in the
    organization I was a disciple, but somehow the freshness of it, the
    fullness of it was missing. And there were always a lot of ties
    connected to it. In a christian organization are found often a mixture of 
    the heavenly Jerusalem and things of the world. Things which are not
    Godly often might happen there, like seeking after position, pleasing
    men rather than God. As I first left, I saw the pouring out of God's
    Spirit a little like opening a combination lock. In organizations you
    may be able to use 5 numbers without any problems, but there may be 2
    numbers where you will 'cause problems'. If the Spirit leads in some
    ways you have no confrontations, but the Spirit cannot lead in any
    direction and you are not free to have the Spirit's guiding as the
    highest authority. It is as if Jesus in not directly Lord of the
    christian organizations. He may say things which the people in the
    organization decide against. He has to work in this framework and he
    does. But being outside of this framework allows his Lordship to have
    an even greater meaning.
       2. My vision of the Church was partially impaired while in the
    christian organization. I judged according to how good the doctrine of
    an organization was as well as how much love the people had for Jesus.
    I somehow saw myself separate from them, not in the same church. But
    being outside of the christian organization has renewed my view of the
    true church. Yes, I am outside of all christian organizations, but I,
    as well as many who are in the organizations, are in Christ's church. I
    want my life to be fully invested in the eternal church of Jesus
    Christ, and not partially in the temporal organization and partially in his
    church.
       3. Many teachings which used to be important have become secondary
    and others which used to be secondary are now more important. Loving
    Jesus and following him, obeying him, loving and having grace towards
    his people, sharing the Gospel to those he tells me to speak to, these 
    are becoming more important, and sunday or other meetings, tithing, 'work 
    relationships with people', positions in churches, houses or meeting
    halls are becoming less important. Especially if they require financial
    commitments, which endangers the freedom of having his Spirit be able
    to move me physically where he wishes.
    
    Anyway, I am encouraged that you enjoyed my testimony. I am looking
    forward to any comments you may write.
    
    Your brother in Christ
    
    
    Rodger Dusatko  

Note 821.23

>   From what
>   you've said Richard, these people are in jail for criminal activity.

Yes, the kind if criminal activity that landed Paul, Jesus, George Fox,
Martin Luther King, Jr., and Gandhi in jail, the three young men in the
fiery furnace and Daniel in with the lion.

Of course, you and the other two critics won't agree with this, because,
as I see it, you've made peace with not accepting personal responsibility.
After all, the world is going to Hell, God is going to take care it, and
there's nothing to do except to stand back and watch it all happen.  You've
done all you think you need to do.  You've accepted Christ dying for your sins.
You've been saved.  All you need to worry about is to get as many others
as you can saved, and your job is done.

I invite you *not* to write any of the three.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    Since Jesus himself never got involve in the politics of his day, would
    it be safe to say that speaking the words of salvation are paramount to
    anything else, (political that is)?
    
    Remember, it must have taken the wind out of the sails of the Jews when
    Jesus didn't overthrow the Roman government.
    
    -Jack

    RE: .27 Ah, Richard, you see what you want to see not what is there.
    You missed the point of my note. Why am I not surprised?

>Of course, you and the other two critics won't agree with this, because,
>as I see it, you've made peace with not accepting personal responsibility.

    You know better then this. I think you're just ticked off that not
    everyone agrees that you are a wonderful martyr.

    		Alfred

Note 821.28:
    
>    Since Jesus himself never got involve in the politics of his day, would
>    it be safe to say that speaking the words of salvation are paramount to
>    anything else, (political that is)?

You're so right!  Omigod, they must've crucified him on a lark!

Truth is, Rome used crucifixion primarily for crimes against the state.  Why?
Because it added dishonor and humilitaion to the punishment.
    
>    Remember, it must have taken the wind out of the sails of the Jews when
>    Jesus didn't overthrow the Roman government.

This is a complicated issue.  *If* you really want me to address it, you'll
have to wait.

Please note, though, the paragraph in the declaration included in .0 about
Herod's fear, that it was not our mission to overthrow the government.

Peace,
Richard

Note 821.29

>    You know better then this. I think you're just ticked off that not
>    everyone agrees that you are a wonderful martyr.

Maybe I am, Alfred.

I do know you try to make a difference in the world and that you love
God and others.  Mine was a sweeping statement.  Sorry to have lumped you
in.

Yes, I felt a little attacked by your attempt to draw a parallel with
a bank robber.  My friends are not bank robbers, murderers, thieves,
embezzlers, or persons of *any* kind of malevolence.

Yes, they broke a law.  Did Nelson Mandella not break a law?  Did Paul
of Tarsus not break a law?

Somehow it seems a little too safe to express one's faith in ways that
one's culture endorses and which never makes any waves.

I'm visiting one of them this evening.  I'll tell them they've been compared
to a bank robber.

Richard, the martyr

    Richard,
    
    I think personal responsibility is extremely important.  I'm just
    not sure exactly what crime Paul was arrested for except for talking
    about his faith to others.  He didn't illegally enter a place he
    wasn't supposed to be.  I understand that you don't agree with what
    is going on out at Falcon, but couldn't you have protested outside
    the gate?  I'm sure if you had tipped Kevin Maki from 5/30 News he
    would have shown up.  That's the kind of story he loves.  Is it
    just that it brings more publicity to the issue by entering?  If so,
    your group weighed your options, took your risks, and lost on the
    arrest bit.  But you won in that you got on the airwaves and
    reminded people of what you believe in.  Of course, their response
    is up to them.
    
    Jill

Note 821.32

>    I think personal responsibility is extremely important.

I know you do.  I really appreciated your entry awhile back on living
simply and detachment from possessions.

>    I understand that you don't agree with what
>    is going on out at Falcon, but couldn't you have protested outside
>    the gate?

There's a vigil (and bannering) held regularly at the main gate of Falcon.
Also, though the media may have used the term "protest," but to declare the
Epiphany of peace and good will to those who've either not heard it or
accepted it.

>    I'm sure if you had tipped Kevin Maki from 5/30 News he
>    would have shown up.

I did not notify the media.  To my knowledge, neither did the other four.

Peace,
Richard

My three friends were released from jail yesterday on 5 minutes notice
and without explanation.

Thanks to all who held them up in prayer.  And praise the living God!

Shalom,
Richard

    Cindy:
    
    I am so happy that you are happy that they were released from jail.
    
    Now I'm going to play devils advocate here and do a little exercise on
    Political Correctness.
    
    Say, I entered a reply that went something like this.
    
    [To my fellow noters, I am pleased to report that although we were
    incarcerated last week for chaining ourselves to an abortion clinic,
    we were released last evening without explanation.  Thanks to all for
    your prayers and support.]
    
    I would be very interested to know if you would respond to this as
    favorably as you did to Richard's note.  Be honest now!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    Jack,
    
    Your notes to me come across as so condescending at times.  .36
    was no exception.
    
    Anyway, I would prefer to comment on a real incident where I knew 
    more of the specifics of the people involved, along with what they 
    were doing.  If you can provide such an example, I will comment on 
    it.    
    
    I have no idea what your 'Political Correctness' exercise was in
    reference to.
    
    Cindy
                     

    Condescending...Me??!!!  Never!  Cindy, I am just curious.  Let me
    explain more clearly.
    
    I think it's safe to assume that there are certain issues in society
    that are politically expedient while others are quite incorrect.
    This topic has questioned the ethics of taking the law into our own
    hands and whether the acts of this group are warranted or not.
    
    My question to you is simple and isn't condescending.  It might be
    offensive in its nature but certainly asked with grace and sincerity.
    Your reply in .35 indicates to me anyway that were happy that Richard's
    organization members were released from prison.  Let me say that I too
    am happy about this.  Now for the sake of argument, let's say that
    Richard and his organization chained themselves to an abortion clinic.
    It was late in the evening and they were unchained and arrested before
    opening hours.  The question is would you show the same approval toward
    this action as opposed to their cause?  What if it was Save the Whales or 
    Save the Spotted Owl?  
    
    There is no right or wrong answer.  Let's be real, we all have our own
    political agenda!!
    
    -Jack
    
    P.S.  I know I know...the grammer!!!!! 

    
    
    > Anyway, I would prefer to comment on a real
    
     ..boooooo

I am not entirely unsympathetic to Operation Rescue.  I commend them for
their courage in taking non-violent action for the sake of deeply-held
beliefs.

At the same time, I'm less sympathetic when there is a resounding silence
when a abortion clinic doctor is murdered or threatened or has their
possessions vandalized.

Randall Terry, OR spokesperson, has said some truly outrageous things:
The floods of 1993 is God's punishment for allowing legalized abortion.

Richard

    I too am against vigilante justice, although sometimes I can understand
    it.  I think it is a bad testimony to harrass the doctors.
    
    -Jack

Fortunately, there was not a resounding silence.  Operation Rescue
clearly stated that murdering doctors was despicable.

/john

    I seem to recall some murmur about how, by the death of a doctor,
    many unborn babies may been spared.  I seem to recall some of these
    voices claimed to represent Operation Rescue.
    
    Richard
    

    The problem is the very thing O.R. fights against, they became.  Was the
    killer actually a member of O.R.?
    
    -Jack

The killer was not a member of O.R.

And Richard's recollection of someone claiming to represent O.R. justifying
the killing is faulty.

/john

    
    Re.38
    
    Jack,
    
    OK then, if they were silly enough to chain themselves to an abortion
    clinic, then I'd say take away their keys and just leave them there.  (;^)  
    
    More seriously though, if they were not harassing anyone, shouting, or
    preventing anyone from entering or exiting (or similar threatening
    actions - just covering myself here), then I don't really care one way 
    or the other what they do.
    
    I do, however, specify on my PETA survey that they send on occasion,
    that I am generally not in favor of taking illegal actions to save the 
    lives of animals, particularly if legal options are available.  Yet, 
    I would think nothing of breaking a car window to save the life of an 
    animal if some stupid owner left them in a car where the temperatures 
    were beyond what the animal could tolerate and the animal was clearly 
    suffering/dying.
    
    David,
    
    I find it easier to comment on real cases.  To each their own.
    
    Cindy

    
    PETA - People For The Ethical Treatment Of Animals.

    Thanks...just curious!!!

    
    Jack,
    
    Can you answer my outstanding question - have you ever read
    parts of, or all of, "Autobiography Of A Yogi"?
    
    Cindy

    
    
    Cindy,
    
    > To each their own
    
     Well I must say you are true to your new age beliefs :-) :-) Or
    atleast that's my reality.
    
    David

    Oh Cindy...I'm sorry...the answer is No, I haven't.  I have read a few
    commentaries on it some time ago and as I alluded to in another topic,
    found that alot of Rock groups from the 70's received alot of their
    inspiration from these writings.  
    
    How does this book tie in or relate to Christianity in its purest form?
    I assume you believe their must be some compatibility, yes...no...??
    
    -Jack
    
    P.S.  "Christianity in its purest form" - Jesus' death and resurrection
    as an atonement for the sanctification of all who accept and receive
    his grace!!

Note 821.51
    
>    P.S.  "Christianity in its purest form" - Jesus' death and resurrection
>    as an atonement for the sanctification of all who accept and receive
>    his grace!!

Methinks you've filtered out too much in your distillation process.

Peace,
Richard

    Me understands where thou comest from.
    
    What I meant by Christianity in its purest form was being a Christian,
    not acting Christian.  The object of our faith, that being Jesus and
    him crucified!!!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    David,
    
    And here I thought that avoiding situation ethics was a conservative
    trait. (;^)
    
    Jack,
    
    I think it would be best if you read the book, probably.  You may not
    agree with it, however it would give you a good perspective from which
    to comment.  Kind of like me reading some commentaries on the Bible,
    verses reading a translation or two directly, and forming opinions and
    beliefs based on commentaries.  I'm sure you'd prefer that I read the
    actual Bible before entering into discussions about it.   It's better 
    to go to the source.
    
    Actually, if you would like a copy of "Autobiography", I'd be happy to 
    send you one.  As a gift.  A peace offering, even.  (;^)  If you don't
    agree with the spiritual side, it's still a fabulous historical account
    of both the US and India, and provide much insight.  
    
    The book is dedicated to Luther Burbank, and there are pictures of 
    Yogananda being received by a US president, by Therese Neumann the 
    Catholic Stigmatist (fascinating account), along with chapters on very 
    famous people from India including his meeting with Mahatma Gandhi and 
    scientist J.C. Bose, inventor of the plant crescograph.
    
    Cindy

    
    
    > And here I thought that avoiding situation ethics was a conservative
    > trait. (;^)
    
     ..perhaps your a closet conservative :-)
    
    David

    Does Paul not advocate situational ethics when he says eating meat is
    nothing and not eating meat is nothing, but everything should be done
    for building up.  I interpret what he says as in many instances there
    is not a definitive right or wrong in the action itself but only in the
    impact that action has for the building up of the community?
    
    Is that not what Paul says?
    
    Am I interpreting it incorrectly?
    
    Is that not situational ethics?
    
    By the way, I totally agree with Paul in this.  In many cases good and
    bad are not absolutes but relate to the situation.  Actions are
    interpreted both by intent and by outcome.
    
    Patricia

    
    
    > I agree with Paul
    
      On this you do. Where it conflicts with your lifestyle( pc again) you
    choose otherwise. Regarding Paul and situational ethics, no, Paul was
    showing us a higher perspective to view the triviality of our
    arguements from.
    
    
    David

    
    Re.55
    
    God forbid!  (;^)
    
    Actually though, there are those on the more liberal side who
    would probably agree with you. 
    
    That's the problem when you try to walk in balance...
    
    Cindy

    
    
    Cindy,
    
    > try to walk in balance
    
     Hey you oughta try walking in righteousness and see what happens :-_
    
    
    David

Situational ethics as I understand it implies that there
is no ultimate right/wrong answer.  If that is the case,
I think Paul disagrees with that.  

If by situational ethics you simply mean that your
actions are somewhat dependent on the situation, I
think Paul (and myself) agree with you.  This is not
because an ultimate truth does not exist (which it does),
but rather because being true to that truth demands a
different action in one situation than another.

Paul lays out the ultimate truth:  what you eat or not
eat does not have a bearing on whether you are clear or
not.  However, he recommends that our actions be dependent
on the situation in order to help those who are weak in
their faith (not because the truth changed).  

Collis

re Note 821.60 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

A> Situational ethics as I understand it implies that there
A> is no ultimate right/wrong answer.  If that is the case,
A> I think Paul disagrees with that.  

B> If by situational ethics you simply mean that your
B> actions are somewhat dependent on the situation, I
B> think Paul (and myself) agree with you.  

        I wonder why, when conservatives use the phrase "situational
        ethics", they almost always mean definition A, when the
        phrase to me suggests only definition B.

        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I agree with you and Collis' alternative definition.  Situational
    ethics means that actions are somewhat dependent on the situation.
    
    Another way of saying the same thing which Paul would also agree with
    is that there is a higher standard than the law.  That does not mean
    that the law is bad, just that there is a higher standard.
    
    In fact, I would say that Paul offers some wonderful advice when it
    comes to situational ethics.  Some real solid guidance regarding how to 
    make those tough ethical choices.
    
    Patricia

I think the reason that I think situational ethics
means that there is no ultimate truth is that this
is how I was taught in college.  What is right (or
true) is NOT dependent on an ultimate truth, but is
dependent on the situation.

In the sense that you define situational ethics, it
seems to me that everyone is a situational ethicist
(the only difference being the extent) and, as such,
this term loses a lot of meaning.  Yes, actions change,
but the *ethics* (ultimate truth, rightness) does not
change according to the situation (in my belief and
my understanding of the Bible).

    
    Hm...in the past when I've looked at the CHRISTIAN conference and the
    phrase 'situational ethics' was mentioned, it was always in reference
    to a 'What if...?" question, as opposed to talking about a real life
    situation.
    
    Cindy

    Hi Cindy,
    
    In regards to situational ethics, check out 800.? and Mark's to follow,
    how's that for a pointer? :-) :-) :-)
    
    Nancy

    
    Nancy,
    
    But...there are 102 replies in 800!  (;^)  And I'm pressed for time. 
    
    What's the 'Mark's to follow' mean?
    
    Signed,
    
    Puzzled

Three of my friends arrested on Epiphany (January 6) and mysteriously
released from jail a week later are scheduled to have their trial on
February 22.

Please remember these three in your prayers.

Shalom,
Richard

Judge Rebecca Snyder Bromley
20 E. Vermijo
Colorado Springs, CO 80903


Dear Judge Bromley,

	I was present in your courtroom on Tuesday, February 22nd.  I was
the one who joined Peter Sprunger-Froese, Mary Lynn Sheetz and Dee Buchanan
at the defendants' table at the time of sentencing.  Having been present and
in solidarity with the defendants on Epiphany (January 6, 1994) at Falcon Air
Force Base, I am just as guilty or as innocent of any wrongdoing as they are.
Since protocol prevented my speaking at the trial, allow me these few comments
here.

	Before passing sentences, you cited in your remarks to the
defendants a faith tradition which sanctifies military duty.  What you
may not realize is that for the first three hundred years, Christianity
was virtually pacificist.  Believing that the moral teaching of their
master forbade killing, the earliest Christians categorically refused to
participate in the taking of human life through militarism.  It was not
until the time of Constantine that the church compromised itself and
began acquiescing to the interests of the state.  This is the root from
which the tradition you spoke about originated.

	In your remarks, you also paid homage to Gandhi and Thoreau.  And
then you advocated the utilization of conventional political channels to
bring about change.  Gandhi and Thoreau apparently believed that conventional
channels were not always sufficient.  Were they alive today, Gandhi and
Thoreau would doubtlessly agree that conventional channels are often choked
and convoluted with the self-perpetuating ills which are at the very heart
of the problem in the first place.

	You indicated that it was your sworn duty to uphold the law.  Rest
assured, the law was upheld.  But I wonder, did justice prevail?  Did truth
triumph?

	You appeared to me to be visibly distressed as you left the courtroom.
What is to be made of a trial where the judge exits the courtroom clearly
burdened, and where the defendants are escorted from the courtroom in
handcuffs feeling utterly guilt-free?

	You sentenced the defendants to punitive jail terms.  I ask the
court to temper its judgment with mercy.  I ask that you suspend the balance
of the sentences of the three.  If this is unacceptable, I ask that you
at least reduce their sentences by the amount of time already served.

Respectfully,
<my signature>
    

    RE: .68
    
    Noble effort Richard.
    
    Brings to mind discussions during my college days.
    
    Marc H.

	"What's this?" Chico Marx inquires, scrutinizing the legal document
before him.

	"Oh, that's the sanity clause," explains Groucho.

	"Hey!  You can't fool me!" insists Chico with no small sense of
indignation.  "There is no sanity clause!"

	And know something?  Chico was right.

	On February 22nd, Judge Rebecca Bromley in El Paso Court determined
Commission members Peter Sprunger-Froese, Mary Lynn Sheetz, and Dee Buchanan
to be guilty of 2nd degree trespass.  Sprunger-Froese and Sheetz each received
jail sentences of 60 days.  Buchanan received a jail sentence of 30 days.  Why
were these three sentenced to jail terms?  Because there is no sanity clause.

	On January 6th, Sprunger-Froese, Sheetz and Buchanan, who were joined
by Brian Gravestock and Richard Jones-Christie, entered Falcon Air Force Base
east of Colorado Springs with the message that peace cannot be waged in tandem
with the continued technological exploitation of space for purposes of military
dominance.  The five chose the date to bring their message to Falcon AFB in
commemoration of Epiphany, a time associated on the Christian calendar with
the emergence of new realizations and monumental shifts in paradigm.  Bearing
a banner quoting the A.J. Muste affirmation: "There is no way to peace - Peace
is the way," the Epiphany five were intercepted by base security personnel
inside the main gate entrance where it intersects with Hahn.  Three of the
five were arrested and, upon refusing to sign personal recognizance bonds,
were jailed for seven days.  Gravestock was arrested and released.  His trial
is scheduled to be held in April.  Jones-Christie was released without being
charged.

	During the trial, defendants Sprunger-Froese, Sheetz and Buchanan
offered no legal defense.  Instead, they explained the imperatives guiding
their actions.

	"We don't need Falcon for our global well-being," asserted Peter
Sprunger-Froese, a bicycle mechanic and builder of solar ovens.  He then
wove together an articulate tapestry connecting the history of deception
and cover-ups by government officials, the enormous profits derived through
U.S. weapons sales, and the violence acted out by our children.  "These are
seen as episodic and not systemic, which they are," Sprunger-Froese told the
court.  "We've bought the myth of redemptive violence.  Violence is the real
religion of America."

	"Every time in my life I've heard the government use the argument,
'Trust us.  We must be secretive in the interest of national security,'
something evil has been going on," claimed Mary Lynn Sheetz in her statement
to the court.  Sheetz, a graphic artist and Bijou House coordinator, recounted
her lifelong efforts to "bring attention to what to what our government tries
to keep in the dark.  I believe it is the truth -- not secrecy -- that makes
us free."  Sheetz charged Falcon Air Force Base with involvement in satellite
technology for worldwide spying, including U.S. citizens, and in the
development of first strike weapons systems.

	"I feel no guilt for my action," stated Dee Buchanan, a community
service volunteer. "You define trespass as a crime *against* society.  At
Falcon, our intent was a gesture for the betterment of society."

	These three were found guilty of breaking the law.  They broke the
law by reason of sanity.  But alas, in the law there is no sanity clause.
    

    
>east of Colorado Springs with the message that peace cannot be waged in tandem
>with the continued technological exploitation of space for purposes of military
>dominance.  

    I suppose that if I agreed with this "message" I could be supportive of
    this protest. But I do not. I believe that only those who are prepared
    to fight will ever know peace. Thus I do see your protest as an act
    against peace and society. An complete disconnect and unreconcilable
    difference I guess.

    		Alfred

    Einstein said, "It is impossible to prepare for peace and prepare for
    war simultaneously."
    
    But Einstein wasn't a Christian, was he?
    
    I agree that there is a level of peace which is brought about by threat
    and coercion.  Pax Romana was such a peace.
    
    Richard
    

    
>    Einstein said, "It is impossible to prepare for peace and prepare for
>    war simultaneously."

    Someone else once said, "If you would have peace, prepare for war."
    Einstein always struct me as rather naive and the logic of his
    statement escapes me.

    		Alfred

Note 821.73

>    Someone else once said, "If you would have peace, prepare for war."

Obviously a Christian, unlike Einstein.

Richard

    .74
    
    I find your constant batter against Christians and snide remarks in
    rather poor taste.  If you have an opinion state it, but taking
    potshots is rather adolescent.
    
    

    Re: .75
    
    Oh, I don't know Nancy. Richard likes to make his points in an
    interesting way....they really aren't to anger.....just to think.
    
    By the  way, I disagree with a good number of them too.
    
    Marc H.

    .75
    
    It's funny what rouses one's ire.
    
    Christianity is not without its blemishes.  We can choose to ignore
    them.  We can choose to acknowledge them.  We can choose to rationalize
    or explain them away, saying, in effect "Oh, those people didn't have the
    correct handle on God.  If they had, they wouldn't have been so wrong."
    
    In keeping with the topic, I will say that I'm more in agreement with
    Einstein (a Jew) than Alfred (a Christian).  This will come as no
    surprise to Alfred, and Einstein may never know.
    
    It's already been alluded to in another string that God's ways
    frequently turn ordinary logic and critical thinking upside-down.
    God's way can appear downright foolish to pragmatists and "realists".
    The "logic" escapes them.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

    Richard,
    
    I have no problem in accepting the blemishes of humanity regardless of
    belief system.  I take issue with the pointing of fingers towards any
    specific group [yes even homosexual] as though they *are* the reason
    for blemishes period.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    Okay comma, Nancy comma, but I'm really not saying anything very different
    than you are.
    
    I'm not saying any specific group (yes, even gays) is without blemish.
    And I'm not saying any specific group is the reason for all blemishes.
    
    The peace of Jesus,
    Richard
    

    .79
    
    Okay comma, Richard comma, it appears to *me* that you tend to pick on
    CHRISTIANITY the *most*... sticks out like a sore thumb.. like my sore
    thumb at the moment.
    
    Now that we're related, what shall *we* do???
    
    Richard comma
    Nancy comma 
    
    :-)

    .80  Marc was essentially correct, Nancy.
    
    To me, I poke.  I prod.  To you, I "pick on."
    
    But Christianity is not some helpless individual to whom someone needs to
    come to the rescue.  And if the wall cannot withstand a few tomatoes
    hurled against it, then it wasn't built with much substance to begin with.
    
    I am a Christian.  This is CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.  It would seem less
    appropriate to explore the subtleties of trout fishing in North America
    (except, maybe the book).
    
    Shalom in the Holy Cod, er, God,
    Richard

    .82  ;-)
    

						April 2, 1994


	Dear Peter,

		The weather stayed nice enough for me to stay with the Good
	Friday "Way of the Cross - Way of Justice" event from beginning to end.
	You'll recall from our Epiphany action, my body's ability to function
	tends to be climate sensitive.  It is snowing today.

		Through the stations, the gathering of about 100 people were
	reminded of many of the unloving, blind and selfish acts we continue
	to perpetrate nearly 2000 years after they nailed the Preacher from
	Nazareth to the tree.  It's so much easier to ignore, to relinquish
	responsibility, to acquiesce.  We trust others are doing the more
	distasteful work to which Jesus calls us, while we concern ourselves
	with the lawn, the economy, the job situation and how much more the
	government will gouge from us in taxes.

		Attending to the unprestigious and undesirable labors, I see you
        as being one of Jesus' janitors.  You are an agitator and a nuisance --
	an agitator to the conscience (including mine) and a nuisance to the
	status quo.  They've crucified people for less, you know.

		Truly your accommodations rank among the least luxurious.  The
	mats are hard and the walls so inhospitably dense.  Your captors and
	fellow captives, the ones who bother to know you, might see you as an
	oddity.  Perhaps they even distance themselves from you because of that.
	This unhip, unmacho thing you possess just might be contagious.  Yet
	as you sit there in jail, you are very possibly the freest man I know.
	And I'm not beyond feeling just a little envious of that.

		I pray you a joyous Easter.  My church and I are keeping you
	in prayer.

	Shalom,
	Richard

Peter Sprunger-Froese and Mary Lynn Sheetz are due to be released from
jail tomorrow morning.  Thank you for your prayers and letters of
support.

Shalom,
Richard

    Please keep Brian Gravestock and me in your prayers this day.
    I am on my way to attend his court trial.  I am to be the only
    witness he calls.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    9.1147  The court diddled around and finally rescheduled Brian's trial
    for mid-June.  The poor man waited there since 9:00AM only to hear this
    at 3:30PM!!
    
    Thanks for asking,
    Richard
    

    ER: .88
    
    Typical.
    
    Marc H.

    "Justice delayed is justice denied."
                         -Somebody Smart
    
    	Eric

    .90  The somebody smart was Martin Luther King, Jr..
    
    Richard
    

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 781.24                 Christianity and violence                   24 of 62
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "War is costly, Peace priceless"   20 lines  10-DEC-1993 13:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 781.23:
    
>    This is a clear example of your lack of understanding of the nature of
>    God.

It's either my lack of understanding or yours.  You claim it is mine.  I
claim it is not.

>    You identify as a Christian to this very same God, the God of
>    Moses, right?

I identify myself as a Christian of the God of Jesus Christ.

As for Joshua, I can't say what I'd do living in his time and wearing his
"shoes".  I have a hard enough time knowing what I'd do all the time even
in my own shoes.

Shalom,
Richard
================================================================================
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 781.26                 Christianity and violence                   26 of 62
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "On loan from God"                 17 lines  13-DEC-1993 18:46
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your question, Jack, seems to hold up a hoop for me to jump through, a sport
of which, I must admit, I'm not very fond.

I believe I worship the same God who led the Isrealites out slavery in Egypt.
I also believe in the teachings of Christ Jesus, whom I consider the Source
and the Sovereign.

Do I believe that Jesus would command Joshua to take possession of a piece
of real estate through the utter annihilation of its owners?

Now there's a question!

:-)

Peace,
Richard
================================================================================
        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 781.30                 Christianity and violence                   30 of 62
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "On loan from God"                 23 lines  14-DEC-1993 13:28
                      -< So I don't match your paradigm >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, you've not linked up to a biblioloter or one who frequently provides
unqualified answers, if that's what you were hoping.

I believe in the uncomfortable teachings and example of Jesus Christ.  Part
of that means that I believe Christians are called to refrain from violating
any and all neighbors born on this planet.  In fact, Jesus calls us to love
our neighbor, no exceptions.  This understanding of God's nature as expressed
through Christ -- who is supposed to be the closest resemblance of God the world
has ever known, who is supposed to be "God-with-us" -- goes very much against
my own reason and basic sensibilities at times, especially in such cases
as Ted Bundy, Geoffrey Dahmer and Adolph Hitler.

It would be very wrong to accuse me of saying that God's thoughts are
indentical to my own thoughts, if that's your underlying question - which
you've just about said it is.

I can understand why you might think I don't take the God of the OT seriously,
but I doubt that you would understand why I might think you don't take *Jesus*
seriously.

Peace,
Richard