Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re: Note 863.117 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"

>    When was this Mr. Kirk?  

Please, call me Jim.  My friends do.  .-)

>I can only speak for the time I've been moderating and if this is 
>true of my tenure, I *DO* want to know about it.
    
It was around Jan-92.  The topic was evolution versus creation "science", 
topic 24 in whatever version of Christian was active then.  No, you were not a 
moderator at the time.

The word myth was being bandied about.  I entered an appropriate dictionary 
definition of the word, something like "a traditional story presenting 
supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in 
a primitive view of the world."

Looking at the book of Genesis we see supernatural beings (God), and many 
heroic ancestors (the Patriarchs).  I was not even calling the Bible a myth, 
.-), just looking to see how helpful a model that might be.  From my viewpoint 
there were no conference guidelines being broken, the moderators wanted to 
"protect" newcomers from such a conversation.  The notes were hidden.

Peace,

Jim

    From this point forward I will not discuss the attributes of the
    CHRISTIAN notesfile in this forum.  I believe it to be inappropriate. 
    As a moderator, I have stated the *facts* of YUKON::CHRISTIAN as it
    stands today.   Those who have experiences to the contrary are welcome
    to come into conference today and check the temperature.  It doesn't
    mean that beliefs considered heresy won't be challanged, but hopefully
    with proper moderation, the discussion will remain palatable.
    
    
    

p.s.  The deleted notes were in string 40.* somewhere.

Peace,

Jim

    .2
    
    Of 1992???? I didn't even know what notes was then... and I've been
    with the company since 1985!
    
    

    Mr. Richard,
    
    Are you going to move said notes out of 863 regarding this topic?

    I'm a read only in the CHristian conference. I wouldn't be able to
    discuss much......
    
    Marc H.

    .4  Ms. Nancy,
    
    I hadn't planned to move a bunch of notes.  I was just initiating
    a topic to redirect what folks in the world of notes call a rathole.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

re Note 867.1 by TFH::KIRK:

> The word myth was being bandied about.  I entered an appropriate dictionary 
> definition of the word, something like "a traditional story presenting 
> supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in 
> a primitive view of the world."
> 
> Looking at the book of Genesis we see supernatural beings (God), and many 
> heroic ancestors (the Patriarchs).  I was not even calling the Bible a myth, 
> .-), just looking to see how helpful a model that might be.  From my viewpoint 
> there were no conference guidelines being broken, the moderators wanted to 
> "protect" newcomers from such a conversation.  The notes were hidden.
  
        So you were the target of "Christian PC"?

        Bob

Personally, I don't think that this conference is the place
to discuss the moderation policies of any other notesfiles.

Notes guidelines generally request that these discussions be
offline with the moderators.

Whether something was handled poorly or not, I think a one-sided
discussion and presentation of the issues here reflecting
poorly on the C-P conference.

Collis

    It's probably in poor taste to discuss another conference here.
    But it happens whether there's a topic specific to it or not.
    
    C-P has been discussed in a variety of other notesfiles, some
    of which I am prohibited from naming.
    
    I actually didn't start this string for the purpose of discussing
    moderation policy, at least, not exclusively.  I intend to eventually
    enter a note chronicling our history, from my perspective, of course.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    Richard... 
    
    I see no competition between conferences here... do you?

    RE: .11
    
    My name is not Richard....but...Christian and Christian-Perspective
    are very different....very.
    
    Marc H.

September 17th, 1990, CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE was born.  Three and a half
years ago.

It had been discussed several times within CHRISTIAN that the guidelines
of CHRISTIAN were too prohibitive for some.  Anything that was perceived as
challenging conservative views of the Bible was censored.  I believe Glen
Silva and I still hold the record for most notes SET HIDDEN in CHRISTIAN.

Anyway, finally someone decided it was time to stop talking about it.  Bob
Fleischer invited several of the most vocal to moderate the new conference.
And so Bob Messenger, Mike Valenza, Karen Berggren, Bob Fleischer and I,
along with Bonnie Reinke serving as consulting moderator, nurtured, monitored
and encouraged this experiment named CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.

It's fair to say that all the original moderators were participants in
the CHRISTIAN notesfile.  And so were a large portion of our first
readers and participants.  I would like to acknowledge that Collis Jackson
has been with us since the beginning.

We've survived Mikie Morgan and Playtoe.

We've had two dinners to gather for fellowship and putting faces to the names.

The conference has been criticized and maligned since its inception, but
I think CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE has made a real contribution to the lives of
many.

Shalom,
Richard

    What's the point Richard?
    
    Do you believe that CHRISTIAN and CHRISTIAN PERSPECTIVE are in
    competition?
    
    

    Re :.14
    
    Very much so.....very much. They are in competition for just who is
    right and who is wrong.
    
    Marc H.

 re .15



 Interesting comment..

    Very interesting comment...
    
    If that is the case, I'm not surprised at the hostility towards myself
    in here.

    Nancy,

    Hostility? Toward you personally? It's just my opinion, of course, but
    I think the slings and arrows that you see, simply aren't there.

    On the other hand, in 863.98, you blame people like me for the
    veritable downfall of all morality and civilization. :^) 
    
    	Eric

    I sense the hostility towards inerrantists period, not just me
    *personally*.
    
    It seems that Richard's founding principles for this conference is
    still flowing through like a bad prejudice.
    
    My GREAT GREAT GREAT grandpappy may have owned slaves... but I never
    have and would never dream of it, but there are folks that still blame
    me for what my GREAT GREAT GREAT grandpappy did...
    
    I'd say Praise God for the division of the past and press towards the
    mark without further ado.

    
    
    The inerrantist in this conference including yourself use this
    conference as a place to preach that anyone who does not believe in
    inerrancy is damned.  The anyone who does not believe in inerrancy is
    not spiritual.  That anyone who does not believe in inerrancy cannot
    consider themselves a Christian.  The stated purpose of this conference
    is to create a environment where persons with a wide range of beliefs
    regarding Christianity including the authority of the Bible can safely
    discuss those beliefs.  There is another conference where inerrantists
    can find uniformity in this assumption.  A person who comes into this
    conference telling other Christians that they are not spiritual, or
    that they cannot be saved because of their beliefs in my opinion
    violates the purpose of the conference.  That is a great part of the
    liberal delemma.  We believe in free speach even when free speech
    subverts the freedom and liberty we are seeking.  There is no personal
    hostility here toward you or anyone else.  There is hostility towards
    statements that deliberately attach the foundation of our faith.
    
    I 100% agree with Eric's comments regarding .863.  It is belittling to
    all who do not share your perspective.   I would not suggest censuring
    any opinion, but I would strongly hope that the people noting in here
    would not belittle other peoples faith positions.  I would also hope
    that people not be overly sensitive when pushed for clarity.  Jack for
    instance was pushing me for my defintion of Grace.  I was not
    threatened by it.  Ultimately I gave the best description I knew how on
    my understanding of Grace.  I have pushed you on your opinion about
    wearing a hat and you challenge that I am calling you a hypocrite which
    I am not.  Jack in fact, whose answer I don't agree with was one of the
    few who clearly explained his rational for the choices he makes around
    that issue.  I believe each of us has to take responsibility for not
    attacking each others faith assumptions and each of us has to be
    careful about being overly sensitive.  Each of us also needs to take
    responsibility for supporting our brothers and sisters in here when
    they are being unfairly attacked regardless of which side of the
    ideological fence we sit on.
    
    Patricia

    >The anyone who does not believe in inerrancy is not spiritual.  
    
    Not true there are spiritual things going on everday that have nothing to
    do with Christianity.
    
    Spiritual does not imho equate with Christ.
    
    The Bible is clear that we war against other spirits all the time.
    Satan is known for being an angel of light, beauty...  
    
    What Spirit do you follow is the question to be asked... for we all are
    spiritual... not all are quickened.
    
    

    My definition of spiritual comes right from 1 Corinthians
    
    It is the genius of Paul.
    
    Where does your definition of spiritual come from?
    
    Patricia

    .... 
    
    Hmmm... now here is that put your armor on text? :-)

    No, it wasn't a surprise Richard, I expected it when you started this
    note. :-)  I just wanted to understand your point in doing it.
    
    My perspective on the notes conferences really resemble exactly what
    Collis has written.  Whilst I'm a moderator of YUKON::CHRISTIAN, I'm
    not blind to its strengths and weaknesses.... but those strengths and
    weaknesses lie in the individual contributors not the moderators nor
    set of defined blocks.
    
    I'm sure you realize that this conference isn't *you* Richard, it's not
    even an extension of you... the conference should be *all* who
    participate, just as CHRISTIAN isn't me.
    
    I have an affinity for many of the folks in CHRISTIAN and I have an
    affinity for many of the folks here, I do not see these conferences at
    odds with one another because I was not a part of the split... no doubt
    those who were around at the split, probably have left over pangs from
    the split... either the firmly planted conviction of leaving such an
    unaccepting conference or perhaps a bad taste in the mouth as a result
    of personal confrontation...
    
    But this is DIGITAL... a place of employment.... not a church.  And
    because of its multiple offices all over the world it is DYNAMIC.  
    Your roots are interesting, but the CHRISTIAN notesconference 
    no longer exists as it was and is very different....   
    there may be some old cronies around, but a whole new generation of DEC
    employees have come forward and are now moderating and/or
    participating.
    
    If your effect is nostalgia, so be it, but if your effect is root
    more firmly in... the roots are rottening....
    
    Christian-Perspective..... also has changed with each new participant
    that comes on board and with the leaving of participants due to
    attrition, TFSO or personal choice.
    
    In His Love,
    Nancy

    Nancy,
    
    	I've forgotten the note number, and I think there was more than
    one (.11 & .14  - found 'em), but my purpose in my earlier entry in
    this string was not to outline a competition between CHRISTIAN and
    CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.
    
    	Marc H. (.15) owns Marc H.'s perspective.  I'm certain he is fully
    aware of that.
    
    	My purpose in .13 was to provide a sense of history, a sense of our
    roots as a conference.  It should come as no surprise since I announced
    that I intended to do so in my reply (.10) to Collis in this string.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Note 867.25
JULIET::MORALES_NA

>    I just wanted to understand your point in doing it.

I certainly hope you don't expect me to have a point in everything I write.
    
>    If your effect is nostalgia, so be it, but if your effect is root
>    more firmly in... the roots are rottening....
    
Hmmm... I wonder how you might feel if someone were to say about your
favorite conference something like "the roots are rotting."

I cannot say what the effect will be.

It's a funny thing.  Because you're right.  I do not dictate this or any
notesfile.  Even the conference's most chronic and vocal critics make
up what CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is.  They criticize what they, too, are an
integral part of, sort of like telling the image in the mirror how ugly
it is!  :-)

Shalom,
Richard

re Note 867.13 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> It's fair to say that all the original moderators were participants in
> the CHRISTIAN notesfile.  

        In my case, 9 years ago, in the very first CHRISTIAN.NOTE:

             <<< ATLANA::DUB1:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN_V1.NOTE;1 >>>
                    -< Christian conference V1 - archived >-
================================================================================
Note 15.7                     Christian Scientists                       7 of 13
VIKING::FLEISCHER                                    27 lines  19-MAR-1985 13:33
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re .2:

In Luke's gospel, Jesus promises "paradise" to the thief, crucified with
him, who simply asks "remember me when you come into your kingdom".  As
far as one can tell from Scripture, the only "doctrine" that that thief
possessed was that "we are paying for what we did.  But this man has done
nothing wrong".

In describing "who is a Christian", I choose to err on the side of a broad
definition rather than a narrow definition.  A "Christian" is just what
the word means -- a follower of Christ.  The "good thief" was a Christian
at that final moment of his life.  He was not saved by doctrine.  His salvation
was not affected by any gross doctrinal errors to which he might have
subscribed.

Doctrine has a place -- a very important place.  I believe that God inspired
the Scriptures and sent his Son to live among us in part to teach us many
things about Him.   The fact that God did so means that he wishes us to
have knowledge about Him.  But the knowledge doesn't save.  Jesus' sacrifice
saves.  Following Jesus saves.  (By "following" I mean a very deep commitment,
not just an interest in his teachings.)

For the thief on a cross, "Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom"
was all it took for salvation.  That's all it took to be a follower of Christ.
That's all it took to be a Christian.

Bob Fleischer

re Note 867.9 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON:

> Personally, I don't think that this conference is the place
> to discuss the moderation policies of any other notesfiles.

        I agree with this completely assuming that they can be
        discussed in the appropriate conference.

> Notes guidelines generally request that these discussions be
> offline with the moderators.

        Which discussions?  Discussions of THIS conference?  Or of
        others?  I do not agree that discussions of THIS conference's
        moderation policies should be offline (unless the individuals
        involved request it) -- that is what the Processing topic
        (9.*) is for.

        (On the other hand, I don't think anyone has the right to
        insist that the moderators discuss a particular issue within
        the conference, but a participant should always, within the
        bounds of corporate policy, have a place in a conference to
        present their side of a moderation dispute.)

> Whether something was handled poorly or not, I think a one-sided
> discussion and presentation of the issues here reflecting
> poorly on the C-P conference.
  
        Sometimes it is impossible to be what one is, or in this case
        what this conference is, without certain others taking
        offense or objection.  But I agree that we shouldn't discuss
        other conferences' moderation policies IF they can be
        discussed in those other conferences.

        Bob

RE: History
    
    
		For those of you who have not been in this file for very long,
I feel maybe its time to explain a few things.  Christian-Perspective grew out
of some dissatisfaction with the other Christian or Religious conferences.  One
of the issues were actual issues that were not allowed in certain other 
conferences.  So, rather than fighting the issue there, it was decided to start
another conference where all issues and sides were allowed.  It is interesting
to note that while many other conferences feel that their file is in danger
if some of these issues are discussed, C-P has openly discussed many of these
issues without any of these percieved dangers coming true.  

		This file *HAS* come under attack by individuals around issues
like the name.  Some consider it irreverent to call it "Christian"-Perspective
when we allow *ALL* beliefs to be discussed.  Others have asked why we have
had *SO* many moderators.  Others have expressed the belief that we "cater"
to the Gay community.  And on and on and on.  Since our file has had its 
roots from the Christian notes file, I believe its very proper to discuss how
this all came about and how far *BOTH* conferences have grown and matured 
since that volatile time.  

		Today, I see this file working as I envisioned it.  Consider
this unique opportunity for the fundamentalist Christians to identify those
who need witnessing to while all the other faiths are allowed space to examine
their faith with the multitude of other beliefs.  In other words, this file
is *NOT* a second cousin to the Christian file anymore, but a file whose 
purpose is different and yet important in and of itself.


Dave

Re:  .20
    
   >The inerrantist in this conference including yourself use this
   >conference as a place to preach that anyone who does not believe in
   >inerrancy is damned. 

I've never preached this and never will.

  >The anyone who does not believe in inerrancy is not spiritual. 

I don't believe this either.

  >That anyone who does not believe in inerrancy cannot consider 
  >themselves a Christian.

Not a belief of mine.

   >A person who comes into this conference telling other Christians
   >that they are not spiritual, or that they cannot be saved because 
   >of their beliefs in my opinion violates the purpose of the 
   >conference. 

It seems to me that the problem will exist whether or not a
specific person is addressed.  Therefore, the problem is really
with the *idea* (or *theology*) being presented.

The C-P conference cannot both be an open conference for theology
while totally rejecting the presentation of classical Christian
theology down through the ages.  I think you need to reconsider
what is right or appropriate in this conference.

   >There is hostility towards statements that deliberately attack
   >the foundation of our faith.

Since what is seen as an attack on someone's faith is defined
solely by the individual who feels attacked, this seems like
very hard ground to define.  I agree that we should avoid
attacks on other people.  However, I also think that presentation
and defense of theology should be allowed even if someone feels
threatened by it.  This, in fact, is the policy this conference
has adopted (although at times I have disagreed with the
application of this policy).

It is true that sometimes people feel attacked simply because
others do not acknowledge that they are saved.  I have tried
very hard not to make direct statements about whether any
individual is saved during my time noting here - but some people
still get upset when I present the *theology* of what is
required for salvation - requirements that they clearly do
not meet.

There is no easy solution for the problem.  But the solution
is not to muzzle Biblical truth (which provides the opportunity
for salvation).

Collis

   >It is interesting to note that while many other conferences 
   >feel that their file is in danger if some of these issues are 
   >discussed, C-P has openly discussed many of these issues without 
   >any of these percieved dangers coming true. 

I don't think that this is a fair analysis of what is thought
by CHRISTIAN, for example.  The standards of the CHRISTIAN
notesfile (not the standards of individuals) implicitly contain
a position which views homosexual behavior as sinful, a
position that is not acceptable to Digital.  Therefore, in
order to keep a notesfile, this issue is not discussed in
that forum.

Since this notesfile has no standards (whatsoever), there
is no danger to this notesfile in discussions.

Does that make the issue clearer?  The problem is not simply
the discussing of issues.  The problem is the notesfile itself
taking a stand on an issue which is counter to Digital's
allowed stand.

Collis

    Re: .31
    
    Collis,
    
    I agree with you regarding the topic of the open discussion of
    Homosexuality.  I have seen comments in this notes file that I think
    are counter to company policy which affirms that no one will be
    discriminated against based on Race, Sex, National Origin, or
    Sexual Orientation.  I am personally proud that Digital is forward
    thinking enough to have such an affirmative action .

RE: .31 Collis,

			No...can't say as I truly understand.  Whether or 
not a file believes homosexuality is a sin or not shouldn't preclude them
from discussing the issue.  In fact I would think it would be a redeemable
attribute for people to discuss an issue that they do not agree with.  To 
me, and I am not talking about notes files but our entire social culture,
I find it sad that so many Christians have given up on the Gay community.
According to the Bible, you go where the "field are full".  

			Back to notes conferences.  If a conference believed
that woman couldn't be preachers, for example, wouldn't that preclude them
from discussing that issue because of the same fear?  For many women that
"smacks" of discrimination.  So why one and not the other?  And then how
about lies?  And all the other sins that this company doesn't allow?  Seems
to me that Christians want to discuss anything *EXCEPT* sins of a sexual 
nature and are hiding behind company policy to ignore the issue.  That I find
very interesting.  I remember a sign on a Church that stated "For hypocrites
only....".   Perfect people don't need Church...only sinners.


Dave

Note 867.30 Collis,

>The C-P conference cannot both be an open conference for theology
>while totally rejecting the presentation of classical Christian
>theology down through the ages.

True.  But has "classical Christian theology" been prohibited in C-P?
Have any notes been SET HIDDEN because they contain elements of
conservative theology?  Where is the censorship?

>There is no easy solution for the problem.  But the solution
>is not to muzzle Biblical truth (which provides the opportunity
>for salvation).

Indeed, let us not muzzle biblical truth.

Peace,
Richard

(Note 867.31 Collis)

>Since this notesfile has no standards (whatsoever), there
>is no danger to this notesfile in discussions.

Alas, another ping.

The truth is CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE does have standards, unless you're
saying Digital has no standards (whatsoever), either.

Richard

    -.36
    
    That is correct.

    Dave,
    
    I have sent you offline mail in regards to your note about conference
    discussions.
    
    The truth is homosexuality can be expressed as long as there are no
    complaints to personnel about said discussion.  
    
    Once complaints to personnel have been made, the discussion can risk
    the shutting down of said conference.  
    
    Valuing differences works one way..

    Nancy,
    
    		And as I responded (offline) its people...not policy that
    creates the problem.
    
    Dave

    The policy creates the problem because of how it is enforced by the
    corporate representatives of this company who originated the
    policy...yes they *are* people.
    
    The PEOPLE who logged complaints against CHRISTIAN shut down the
    communication in there... the mods complied with personnel.
    
    

    BTW,
    
    Richard... you are correct the roots of CHRISTIAN would be rotting if
    they were based on anything other than the Bible.
    
    CHRISTIAN will not rot unless the current moderators turn over the
    moderatorship to folks who do not hold the Bible inerrant.  Then it
    could be merged with this conferene and YUKON::CHRISTIAN would die
    alltogether.  
    
    

    (.37 MORALES_NA)
    
    So, Digital has no standards, Nancy?  How do you feel about working
    for a company that has no standards?  What does that say about your
    own standards and your willingness to compromise your standards?  Just
    out for the money?  To Hell with the "Orangebook"?  To Hell with the
    corporate philosophy?  They're works of the devil?
    
    Richard
    

Note 867.41 JULIET::MORALES_NA
    
>    Richard... you are correct the roots of CHRISTIAN would be rotting if
>    they were based on anything other than the Bible.

A highly subjective opinion disguised as an objective fact.
    
>    Then it
>    could be merged with this conferene and YUKON::CHRISTIAN would die
>    alltogether.  
    
A snowball would have a greater chance in Hell.

Richard

    .42
    
    
    Believe me Richard, when I signed on with Digital 9 years ago, I never
    dreamed I'd end up having my Christian values considered invaluable...
    but that is where it stands.  I base this on my experience with
    corporate personnel... now you're question about "out for the money",
    is a good one.  I have actually been in prayer about just what I should
    do here because as Digital accepts the redefinition of the family and
    defines my ability to be a Christian [inerrantist] in the workplace,
    it's becoming difficult to reconcile the two.
    
    If you aren't too bitter at me, I'd appreciate prayer, because it's
    important to me.
    
    I have a meeting also scheduled with my Pastor.

    P.S.
    
    This ain't easy... cuz jobs is hard to find and I'm a single Mom with a
    mortgage... I could lose everything.

Please, to all of the above:  could we please refrain from making this 
Yet Another Bickering Topic?

Bob, as co-mod

    .46  I yield.
    
    Thanks for the gentle prod.
    
    Richard
    

    
    
    Gee, Nancy, you really got me thinkin', and I hate that on Friday!
    Maybe I need to reconsider my employment with Digital Equipment
    Corporation.  After all, they employ people that believe me to be
    perverted, damned, an abomination before the Lord.  I don't know if I
    can work in such an awful environment.  
    
    
    Think about it.
    
       GJD

    (.44 & .45  Morales)
    
    Okay.  I can respect that, even though I strongly disagree with the
    assertion that Digital has no standards.
    
    And I shall pray that God guides your course of action, Nancy, and makes
    known the Divine will for you.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;1 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 91.3400                  Christianity and Gays                 3400 of 3400
JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze"     7 lines   4-MAR-1994 14:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    GJD,
    
    You won't find me ever hurting your person... you will find me stating
    that homosexuality is not FAMILIAL... if that hurts you emotionally
    which I believe it might, there isn't much I can do about it.
    
    

    

    
    
    You didn't get it, Nancy.  I work for a company that allows opinions
    such as yours to be expressed.  That is oppressive.  I find it
    reprehensible.  Yet, I would never consider leaving the company for
    that reason.  The people that express those opinions aren't, in my
    opinion, worth the bandwidth expended to banter back and forth and
    thus, I don't frequently take part in discussions like this.
    
    Have a nice life -- you obviously love and worship a very different
    Lord and Savior than I.
    
       GJD

    .53
    
    No bitterness on my part towards you for expressed opinion GJD.
    
    Thanks for being open and honest.
    
    

    re  .51
    
    nancy, your reply amounts to I won't abuse you physically but I will
    abuse you emotionally.  I know that you know that emotionally abuse is
    just as devastating as physical abuse.
    
    Your note further states that "I don't have to be responsible for my
    emotional abuse as long as I think it is in the name of God."
    
    Not only is that oppressive, but it is using the name of God to
    oppress.
    
    Patricia

    
    
    .54
    
    Wish I'd said that......................
    
    

    .54
    
    Patricia,
    
    You can equate it that way... no doubt.  But it simply isn't true.  I
    work with at least 10 homosexuals that I know of.. .and never once have
    I ever emotionally nor physically abused them.
    
    I treat each human with dignity and respect regardless of their
    homosexuality and how that fits in with my belief of the *family
    system*.
    
    You err greatly in assuming that which is not there.
    
    If someone does something that I don't like, it is my choice to either
    be angry or let it hurt me, I am the one who chooses to suffer.  If I
    believe truly that I am without blame, then I have to make the effort
    to not allow bitterness, anger or resentment to creep in... because
    that hurts me and me alone.
    
    If you or anyone else feels that my belief system is inadequate for
    you, then you have the God-given ability to reject it.  It is your
    choice...  Discussing my belief system shouldn't cause you any harm
    unless you allow it.
    
    

    
    nancy,
    
    i will try to express this as gently as i'm able...
    
    i've heard this sort of rationalization from others before..
    that the person who is on the receiving end of some hurtful
    remark is responsible for whatever harm that it does..and that
    the author of the remark is merely expressing their opinion.
    
    while it is true that all of us do have some control over ourselves
    i don't believe that knowingly causing another person hurt is
    ever justified.
    
    (not that you have done these things)..calling for the deaths of
    gay people because that was written in the OT can never be justified..
    de-humanizing gay people by calling them possessed by evil spirits/
    demons is harmful even though this is someone's belief...
    misrepresenting gay people as rich, self-centered, hedonists who
    prey on traditional families is harmful...characterizing gay people
    as perverts and comparing them to alcoholics and pedophiles is
    hurtful and wrong..
    
    ...and pardon me, but you did not participate in CHRISTIAN when these
    things happened and could only possibly know what happened second-hand
    since the offending notes have all been deleted, so i find it strange
    that you can presume to tell folks the "truth" of these past events
    
    peter

    .57
    
    I'm not pretending to know anything about what happened with the original
    CHRISTIAN... I'm saying I don't know and therefore cannot speak for
    it... the only thing * know * is that it is much different today.
    

    Patricia,
    
    I believe I'm an expert at knowing emotional pain...  My feelings may
    not show what you want them to show... but nonetheless they are valid
    and real... just as yours and whoever else reads in here.
    
    I accept that.. .I have no problem with that... why do you insist that
    I do?
    
    If you are feeling a need to see Nancy be put in her place... I
    understand... 
    
    Love must be tough at times... ask my kids who are GREAT kids about
    love that's tough...  So many times as a parent I've wanted to give in
    to my kids because my heart just didn't want to see the disappointment
    in their faces.... but wisdom dictates that their disappointment will
    cause them to grow and become responsible adults... even though it
    hurts at the time of the discipline...
    
    Love isn't all gooey... it isn't all coddling, it oftimes comes with
    firmness....  
    
    Don't assume there's no love Patricia.  This medium cannot show my
    facial expressions of the heart... if you only knew how it grieves me
    and hurts me [self inflicted] that the love I have for *all* is there.
    
    Just because I don't agree with a lifestyle choice, doesn't mean there
    is hate....  
    
    

    RE: .85 Patricia,
    
    			I read this reply and reread it to find the "abuse"
    you claim.  I am sorry but for me it just isn't there.  Nancy stated
    her belief (something we all are encouraging) and even expressed that
    it might hurt you.  I truly believe that we need to be careful not to
    censor someone just because it conforms to a fundamentilist belief.  
    
    Dave

Re:  standards in this file

I was referring to standards about truth.  None exist
in this file (as a file).  I argued strenuously that this
should not be the case several years ago and my argument
was disagreed with by all the moderators (that wrote which
was all of them, I think).  

Since there are no standards about truth, right/wrong
or anything like that, I view this as a notesfile without
standards.

I was (obviously) not attempting to state that this
file deviates from such standards as are outlined
in DEC notesfile guidelines or that such standards
do not exist.

I made no comment about standards in Digital.

Amazing how this one statement has gotten so twisted
in such a short time.

Collis

    .63
    
    It's time to do some definitions statement:
    
    tolerance = the ability to allow others to live their life regardless
    	        of lifestyle
    
    acceptance = embracing another's lifestyle 
    
    I have tolerance, I do not have acceptance.
    
    

Re:  .63

Patricia, 

Your question comes down to, "How can a Christian
possibly stand up for truth in a way that might alienate
someone else."

My answer is, if the truth itself alienates, so be it.

If the presentation of the truth is alienating, then
something needs to be changed.

And, yes, there is a time and a place for the truth to
be discussed - or not discussed.

Here in C-P, I'm not sure if it is never the time or
place   or   always the time or place.

Collis

    .62  You see, I think we do have stardards.
    
    You didn't use the phrase "stardard of truth," Collis.  You
    used "no standards (whatsoever)," 867.31, a far cry from what
    you now say you were referring to.  It seems to me that you
    own a portion of the problem of miscommunication, if there truly
    was one.
    
    I believe the Digital Policies and Procedures book, which we adhere
    to (or try to anyway), are full of high and decent standards.
    
    Richard
    

    Let me also acknowledge Alfred Thompson's presence and witness
    since close to the beginning of the conference.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Re:  .66

Yes, I acknowledge that this notesfile has Digital Policies
and Procedures book standards.

It's hard for me to believe that people really thought I was
saying that this conference doesn't attempt to conform to
these standards (which all Digital notesfiles are supposed to
conform to), but stranger things have happened.  I do own
the responsibility for not being as clear as I could have.

This conference has no standard about Christ, Christian
or Christianity.

Collis

    RE: Note 867.68 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON
    
    > This conference has no standard about Christ, Christian or
    > Christianity.
    
    So it's a pretty good reflection of the global Christian commnity(ies)
    
    Eric
    

    .69
    
    No it's not... It's a reflection of global religion.
    
    Religion doesn't = Christianity.

    I perceive two brands of Christianity.
    
    1.  An ecuemenical brand of Christianity.
    2.  A fundmentalist brand of Christianity.
    
    This conference has good ecuemenical standards.  Fundementalists don't
    recognize Ecuemenical Christianity as legitimate.  Therefore
    fundementalist don't recognize the values and standards honored in this
    conference.

    Very good judgemental comments, Ms. Flanagan.
    
    Ron

    Ron
    
    Which piece do you not agree with?
    
    The only judgmental word I used was good to describe the ecumenical
    standards.
    
    Ms Flanagan

    Ms. Flanagan:
    
    "Fundamentalists don't recognize Ecumenical Christianity as
    legitimate."
    
    Guess you've been to every fundie church, heard the standard party
    line, and you can give this blatant blanket judgement on all fundies.
    
    That's what I have a problem with.
    
    Ron
    

    I do not see ecumenical and fundamental as, necessarily, being in
    conflict. Perhaps you can give us a definition of terms?

    			Alfred

(Note 867.68 JACKSON)

>It's hard for me to believe that people really thought I was
>saying that this conference doesn't attempt to conform to
>these standards...

Actually, when someone says C-P has "no standards (whatsoever)" I figure
that that's what they mean.

Richard

    .75  It has been my observation, too, that the most conservative
    (fundamentalist) churches generally avoid engaging other churches,
    sometimes including social service.  They seem to want to avoid
    'contamination.'  Some avoid this conference for the same reason.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    >>It's hard for me to believe that people really thought I was
    >>saying that this conference doesn't attempt to conform to
    >>these standards...

  >Actually, when someone says C-P has "no standards (whatsoever)" I figure
  >that that's what they mean.

O.K., I'll amend my statement.

It hard for me to believe that people (other than Richard) thought
I was saying that this conference doesn't attempt to conform
to these standards...

:-)

Collis

    
    I agree for the most part with Patricia in .71, and would add
    the potential clarification as follows:
    
    	fundamentalist - conservative, orthodox
    	ecumenical - liberal
    
    Cindy

    I do realize that their are some in here who object to the term
    fundementalist but that is the term that in my opinion best describes a
    group a people who believe that Christianity has a number of
    fundemental principles which strictly define who is a Christian and who
    is not.  Ecumenical Christians believe that there is a number of
    different ways by which people identify themselves as Christian.
    
    Most of my knowledge about fundemental Christianity comes from this
    notes file.   There seems to be a consensus amongst many of the
    participants here that I cannot consider myself a Christian if I do not
    believe in some fundementals  i.e. the total humanity and total
    divinity of Christ, The actual sacrifice of Christ for the atonement of
    the sins of humankind, the physical resurrection and probably other
    beliefs.  Ecumenical CHristians tend to believe that each person or
    each church decided for themselves what qualifies them or the members
    of their church as Christian.  There is acceptance and affirmation of a
    wide variety of beliefs.
    
    I for one would  very much like to see voluntary standards identified
    for this conference.  The standards would be around acceptance, mutual
    respect, and ecumenical spirit.  
    
    I sincerely believe that liberal Christianity needs a major evengelical
    movement to spread the Good news of liberal Christianity.
    
    

re .80

Patricia,

Something you wrote caught my eye...

;Ecumenical CHristians tend to believe that each person or
;each church decided for themselves what qualifies them or the members
;of their church as Christian.  There is acceptance and affirmation of a
;wide variety of beliefs.

Sounds like you want your route to God on your own terms. In contrast
Jesus was not like that at all, "I can do nothing on my own authority,
I judge; and my judgment is just, because I seek not my own will but
the will of him who sent me."  John 5:30 RSV. Peter said that Jesus
was an example for Jesus' disciples to follow his steps closely 
(1 Peter 2:21), hence I don't understand how you reason above unless
this is something you feel personally.


;I for one would  very much like to see voluntary standards identified
;for this conference. The standards would be around acceptance, mutual 
;respect, and ecumenical spirit.


Mutual respect would be excellent, but please don't set a standard of an
ecumenical spirit for this would be forcing conversion and not voluntary. 
Surely, persons have alreay set their own voluntary standards ie keeping 
to Bible principles or something other. Personally, if an ecumenical 
spirit was set as a standard here then I would not hesitate in stopping
participation in this conference right away. 

BTW I enjoy participating here. 

Phil.

re Note 867.81 by RDGENG::YERKESS:

> ;Ecumenical CHristians tend to believe that each person or
> ;each church decided for themselves what qualifies them or the members
> ;of their church as Christian.  There is acceptance and affirmation of a
> ;wide variety of beliefs.
> 
> Sounds like you want your route to God on your own terms. 

        There seems to be a logical fallacy here.

        To say that one accepts people with a wide variety of beliefs
        is not the same thing as saying one advocates a "route to God
        on your own terms."

        What Patricia, myself, and ecumenical Christians in general
        accept is each person's understanding of the route they are
        to follow.  We accept it as theirs, this doesn't mean we
        embrace it as our own.

        We have observed examples, including testimonies in this
        conference, of how certain persons studied the scriptures for
        years before being certain of their current understanding of
        their "route to God."

        If it can take so much human toil and effort to discern this,
        even given a common starting point (the scriptures), it is
        to be expected that different people will reach different
        understandings of their "route to God."

        Ecumenical Christians understand this, and thus tolerate
        understandings different from their own.

        Traditional Christians do not accept those who reached
        different conclusions, no matter how long and sincere the
        study.  They seem to believe that since they have reached a
        particular understanding after much work, anybody who reaches
        a different understanding is insincere, illogical, deceived,
        and just picking or choosing "on their own terms."

        Bob

    RE: .80 As I understand what you are saying, there is no one thing
    that separates Christianity from any other religion. That is to say
    that someone who disagrees 100% with everything I believe is part
    of Christianity could still call themselves a Christian. And that
    an ecumenical person would agree that both persons are Christians
    while a fundamentalist would not. I see a difference between an
    ecumenical Christian dealing with Christians and an absolute ecumenical
    who accepts all religions are true and (in effect if not actually)
    the same.

>There seems to be a consensus amongst many of the
>    participants here that I cannot consider myself a Christian if I do not
>    believe in some fundementals  i.e. the total humanity and total
>    divinity of Christ, The actual sacrifice of Christ for the atonement of
>    the sins of humankind, the physical resurrection and probably other
>    beliefs.  

    I would agree with that. My understanding of what an ecumenical
    Christian is that such persons, and I consider myself one, believe 
    that outside some fundamentals there is a wide range of other issues
    on which Christians may reasonably disagree and yet consider each
    other part of the body of Christ.

    			Alfred

re .82 


Bob,

Sorry it was the "decided for themselves what qualifies them" that I picked
up on and my logic says "it's what Jesus decides what qualifies them". 
The Bible says not to lean on ones own insight but in all his ways
acknkowledge him (Proverbs 3:5,6). But I guess that using the Bible as
a standard and guide is a decision in itself. Within my own religion we
have all individually made this decision and this gives us unity & trust.

I know your all sincere for you wouldn't be participating here if you weren't. 
But I'm not sure what standard or type of foundation your beliefs are founded
on. If your beliefs are based on your own understanding then how do you
know that you are being influenced from the right source?.

Correct me if I'm wrong but ecumenical refers to differing faiths coming
together in fellowship.

Phil.

BTW I feel that everyone should choose their own religion and should not
force anyone to change. In the end, we are accountable for ourselves and
yet many are born into their religion and never make a personal choice
ie what's good for the goose is good for the gander. 

              
    Re.83
    
    Alfred,
    
    I do not believe that 'all religions are true' and therefore 'all
    religions are the same'.
    
    It's much like the statement that 'all roads lead to Rome'.  The 
    destination is the same, however the *roads* are different.  Some 
    are more different than others.  Then, the Protestant path is, in
    the grand scheme of things, only slightly different from, say, the
    Catholic path (both Christian).  However the Buddhist path is 
    drastically different from the Christian path.  Still, though, in
    the eyes of an ecumenist, the end point is the same (all religions
    are true.)
    
    Hope this is an adequate example.
    
    Cindy  

    I personally embrace interfaith dialogue, harmony and acceptance.
    
    Interfaith is even more expansive than Ecumenical.  Ecumenical refers
    to the acceptance of either all Christians or of all Christian and
    Jewish Congregations.  I believe that Ecumenical is a good start but we
    also must go further.
    
    Different Christian groups have different fundemental beliefs that are
    important to them.  When I was a teenager I left a Congregational UCC
    church because I no longer believed in God the Father Almighty...etc. 
    In the local UCC church the affirmation is that "I believe in the
    Goodness of God, etc.  I was very comfortable with the affirmation of
    the second UCC church.  I criteria for calling myself Christian is
    first of all whether I desire to call myself Christian, and secondly
    whether I would feel comfortable with the dogma and creeds of any
    Christian church.  Since I feel comfortable with the dogma and creeds
    or the local UCC church I could if I desired call myself Christian.
    Interestingly I do not feel comfortable with the one UU Christian
    worship that I attended until they began recite a creed.  The creed
    being recited said, I believe in the Universal fatherhood of God.  I
    left.  This was a bicentenial celebration of Universalism so they may
    have been using a dated creed.  I felt it was insensitive and not
    congruent with the UU standards of inclusive language.
    
    I strongly believe that ultimately, each one of us is personally
    responsible for our own believing.
    
    Patricia

    RE: .85 That is pretty much what I meant. You just expressed it better.
    
    			Alfred
    

>I believe that Ecumenical is a good start but we
>    also must go further.
    
    I believe that ecumenical is a good thing but that going further
    means eternal death for billions.
    
    			Alfred

    Thus we agree to disagree.
    
    Patricia

    
    Patricia,
    
    I'm under the impression that 'ecumenical' includes interfaith
    dialogue, since the book "Christianity, and Paths To Dialogue with
    Hinduism, Buddhism, and Islam", by Hans Kung, refers to the ecumene.
    My dictionary supports this as well.
    
    Cindy

RE:             <<< Note 867.86 by AKOCOA::FLANAGAN "honor the web" >>>

       
   > I strongly believe that ultimately, each one of us is personally
   > responsible for our own believing.
    
   

 I would agree with that.  I also believe that we will be personally responsible
 for the consequences of our beliefs.




 Jim

| <<< Note 867.38 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| The truth is homosexuality can be expressed as long as there are no
| complaints to personnel about said discussion.

	Nancy, it can, but not in CHRISTIAN.

| Once complaints to personnel have been made, the discussion can risk
| the shutting down of said conference.

	Nancy, have there ever been complaints to personell?


Glen

    RE: .92
    
    Glen...write a note in Christian and see what happens. Time to 
    put up or .......
    
    Marc H.

| <<< Note 867.40 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| The PEOPLE who logged complaints against CHRISTIAN shut down the
| communication in there... the mods complied with personnel.

	Nancy, if memory serves me correct, you weren't part of CHRISTIAN when
homosexuality became a taboo subject. I do remember that as soon as the memo
Ron Glover sent out that CHRISTIAN said no more homosexuality. There were no
protests to personnel that I heard about, just the mods referring to the memo
wanting to avoid problems that hadn't occured.


Glen

    .94
    
    The moderator record was kept...
    
    

| <<< Note 867.59 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| I'm not pretending to know anything about what happened with the original
| CHRISTIAN... I'm saying I don't know and therefore cannot speak for
| it... the only thing * know * is that it is much different today.

	Nancy, today you have rules for everything one is not supposed to say.
All that is eliminated is that you can't talk about these things. The views are
still the same. Remember the reason? It was because of image. You wanted to
present the notesfile as a loving caring place for everyone. The sad part is we
are all humans, we don't all agree with everything that everyone else says or
believes, but you have taken a large part of the humaness out of the conference
for image. I never quite understood the reasoning behind that. I thought only
God was perfect, and for us to show our human side from time to time showed one
of the differences between us and Him.



Glen

    Glen,
    
    I am only one of four moderators... gimme a break.
    
    We want Christian to be a solace to "like-minded" believers... but also
    an informative place for those who have questions.
    
    Let's not forget the human element, but let's also remember that there
    are billions of *other* topics to discuss.
    
    Let's not rathole the rathole. :-)

             <<< Note 867.93 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT "I'm the NRA" >>>


	Marc, I write in there all the time. Go read what happens. Can you say
preconceived notions? 



Glen

| <<< Note 867.95 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| The moderator record was kept...


	And were there any people who went to personnel on CHRISTIAN? No need
to mention names, but just if people have done what you claimed.


Glen

| <<< Note 867.97 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| We want Christian to be a solace to "like-minded" believers... but also
| an informative place for those who have questions.

	As long as they are like minded questions though.

| Let's not forget the human element, but let's also remember that there
| are billions of *other* topics to discuss.

	I really wish you would do what you have said above in that file.


Glen

 Welcome to the saltwater fishing conference.  In this conference we 
 talk about saltwater fishing of all types.  Should you prefer freshwater
 fishing, please refer to IFISH::FRESHWATER_FISHING.




 Note X.0


 Hey, I caught a beautiful rainbow trout in the abcd river!



 Note X.1


 That's nice, but this is the SALTWATER FISHING CONFERENCE.  Please refer
 to IFISH::FRESHWATER_FISHING conference..



 Note X.2

 Hey, that thing was a foot long and weighed about 7 pounds. I've caught some
 beauties in there..I also went to this stream up the road where I caught 
 a couple more.



 Note X.3

  This is the SALTWATER FISHING CONFERENCE.  We talk about saltwater fishing
 in here..please see note x.1



 note x.4

 Hey, what's the difference? Its still fishing? Why can't I talk about
 fresh water fishing..why are you guys so intolerant?

    .101
    
    :-)
    
    Yes, Glen there have been complaints to personnel.  And furthermore,
    since I've been a moderator as well.. for a *missed* reference in 300
    line note that had the word homosexual in it...
    
    :-) I'm serious..

    <<< Note 867.102 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



	Nancy, was that before or after it was decided that homosexuality could
not be talked about in there? It would make a difference....



Glen

    The decision to not discuss homosexuality was before my time.
    
    The complaint was this in late 1993 over a very ambiguous reference to
    homosexuality...  all of us mods missed it. Eeeeps... and the bizarre
    part was the complaint came after the note had been entered some months
    prior... it was a bizarre complaint.
    
    BTW, there was also warning sent out about it by someone who wrote to
    me under the guise of Corporate Systems Security about the CHRISTIAN
    notes conference being scrutinized.
    
    Sometimes, Glen, you have to go with the flow regardless of whether
    your in the *know* or not.  The guidelines weren't just thunked up to
    discriminate against anyone... the topic itself is taboo due to the
    careful perusal of some individual[s].
    
    
    

Re: .101

> Welcome to the saltwater fishing conference.  In this conference we 
> talk about saltwater fishing of all types.  Should you prefer freshwater
> fishing, please refer to IFISH::FRESHWATER_FISHING.

Interesting analogy, Jim.  Of course the name of the saltwater fishing
conference would be FISHING rather than SALTWATER_FISHING, and the
official position of the conference would be that fresh water fishing
isn't really fishing, and that fresh water fishers are most likely going
to hell!  :-)

It's OK to say that only certain types of fishing are suitable for
discussion in the conference, but in that case why is so much bandwidth
taken up by people condemning other types of fishing?  (Or at least it was
the last time I checked.)

				-- Bob

    .105
    
    Hey these are fast times at Digital Equipment Corporation ... or
    haven't you noticed the attrition/tfso rate in the last 2 years?
    
    :-)  Check again.
    
    There will always be opposing sides in any religious conference, but
    what we try to moderate is personal attacks...
    
    

Again,

If you wish to discuss the moderating policy of another
conference, can't you do this off-line with the moderators
of the other conference!  This is not the place.

PLEASE!

Thank you.

| <<< Note 867.104 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| The complaint was this in late 1993 over a very ambiguous reference to
| homosexuality...  all of us mods missed it. Eeeeps... and the bizarre
| part was the complaint came after the note had been entered some months
| prior... it was a bizarre complaint.

	Bizzarre? Or was the person who complained wanting to make sure that no
reference to homosexuality was discussed.... pro or con?

| BTW, there was also warning sent out about it by someone who wrote to me 
| under the guise of Corporate Systems Security about the CHRISTIAN notes 
| conference being scrutinized.

	That's a little vaigue, isn't it Nancy? Was it because of homosexual
issues or for other reasons? If it was about homosexual issues then yes, your
point makes perfect sense, but if it was about other things, how does that tie
in with the question I asked earlier? (that question being have there been any
incidents where personell was brought into things because of homosexual
topics... or something like that)



Glen

 I think Collis made a good point in .107






 Jim

    RE: .108
    
    Glen,
     Give it a rest, please.
    
    Marc H.

    Glen,
    
    Write me offline if you wish to continue this discussion.  I don't have
    much time today to devote to such, but will make an effort to address
    your concerns.