Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 931.1 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     This country was established in order to give God the glory to be able
>     to worship him freely without fear of punishment or persecution... and
>     now this country is also shutting God out and Christians will soon find
>     themselves back under persecution.  It's apparent in this file, that
>     Christianity of the Bible is non palatable to many.  Christianity is
>     being changed from right to wrong, as it is being redefined by the 
>     populous.  However, that does not change Truth, it only makes way for
>     the deceiver.
>     
>     Therefore, human rights for Christians is a misnomer... if we are to
>     give God glory, it means surrendering our rights over to Him.  And then
>     letting Him use us to minister to others.  

re Note 931.1 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     This country was established in order to give God the glory to be able
>     to worship him freely without fear of punishment or persecution... and
>     now this country is also shutting God out and Christians will soon find
>     themselves back under persecution.  It's apparent in this file, that
>     Christianity of the Bible is non palatable to many.  Christianity is
>     being changed from right to wrong, as it is being redefined by the 
>     populous.  However, that does not change Truth, it only makes way for
>     the deceiver.

        We must not confuse difference of interpretation or opinion
        with opposition.

        The founders of the US were incredibly wise to recognize that
        there was no way that the "right" religion or the "right"
        religious truth could be determined by government.

        Their solution was somewhat radical, and remains so to this
        day:  this government makes no such determination and takes
        no such position.

        If it is true that Christianity is being shut out in this
        country, if it is true that Christianity is being changed
        from right to wrong, it is because of the actions of the
        citizens as citizens, and not official government.

        In particular, it must be, at least in part, because
        Christians themselves are not communicating the message
        effectively, or truthfully, to their fellow citizens.

        In this country we can never blame the government for the
        failure of Christian principles and evangelization -- rather
        we must blame ourselves, or our message.

        (Here I differ with those who seem to blindly assume that the
        message of conservative Christians is unadulterated authentic
        Christianity -- I think its adulteration is precisely the
        reason for that message's failure.)



>     Therefore, human rights for Christians is a misnomer... if we are to
>     give God glory, it means surrendering our rights over to Him.  And then
>     letting Him use us to minister to others.  

        You can't surrender rights you don't have.

        Bob

                    EPISCOPALIANS IN APOSTOLIC MISSION
                                       
               DIOCESES AND CONGREGATIONS IN THE EPISCOPAL
                 CHURCH ASSOCIATED FOR APOSTOLIC WITNESSS
               (excerpt from the May 23rd, 1994 statement)

We agree with the fathers of our country and the framers of our Constitution
that the State and the Church are to be separate institutions and that no
institutional Church is to be established by law for all of our citizenry. 
We do, however, also believe that Christian ethical principles and Biblical
social commandments are important to the well-being of our and every society.
In fact we are convinced that apart from such principles societies will
collapse into warring factions or fall under totalitarian control.  We are
therefore committed to seek ways to help such principles and moral commands
find expression in the public life of our nation.

                    "Righteousness exalteth a Nation."

Re: Note 932.2            
LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish " 49 lines   6-JUN-1994 06:29

>>        If it is true that Christianity is being shut out in this
>>        country, if it is true that Christianity is being changed
>>        from right to wrong, it is because of the actions of the
>>        citizens as citizens, and not official government.

I agree with this.  In Revelation, Laodicea is the lukewarm church.  There is 
no reference to government.  I believe the church in general is lukewarm today
and many churches today offer apostate teaching.

>>        In particular, it must be, at least in part, because
>>        Christians themselves are not communicating the message
>>        effectively, or truthfully, to their fellow citizens.

Agreed.  The gospel is watered down by many people, so as not to offend the
masses, (no pun intended!)

  >>      (Here I differ with those who seem to blindly assume that the
  >>      message of conservative Christians is unadulterated authentic
  >>      Christianity -- I think its adulteration is precisely the
  >>      reason for that message's failure.)

Could you explain this in more detail please?

-Jack

    Bob in this country the society is supposed to be the government. 
    Attitudes permeating from government are supposed to be a reflection of
    the people of this country.
    
    As I have stated elsewhere the failure of government and the lack of
    morality in government is a direct failure of the churches and
    Christians who occupy those churches.  The voice of Christianity and
    morality in this nations wanes, not because it's not there, but because
    we are a silent majority.
    
    The Bible has stated that we are to render Caesar what is Caesar's and
    God what is God's.  And this phrase set the precendent in churches that
    Christians should not be politicians.  And subsequently, we do have a
    rather small voice.  The small voice does not mean the message wasn't
    or isn't valid.
    
    

re Note 932.5 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     Bob in this country the society is supposed to be the government. 
>     Attitudes permeating from government are supposed to be a reflection of
>     the people of this country.
  
        No, no, no, no!

        In some areas our constitution deliberately limits the will
        and power of the majority -- religion (and the companion area
        of speech) are one of those areas.

        If it is true that the overwhelming religious sentiment in
        this country at the time of its founding was Christian (and,
        in particular, Protestant Christian) then it was precisely to
        guard against that overwhelming religious sentiment that
        motivated the first amendment.

        Bob

re Note 932.4 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>   >>      (Here I differ with those who seem to blindly assume that the
>   >>      message of conservative Christians is unadulterated authentic
>   >>      Christianity -- I think its adulteration is precisely the
>   >>      reason for that message's failure.)
> 
> Could you explain this in more detail please?
  
        Sure.

        When we think of adulteration of the Christian message, we
        tend to think in terms of events and attitudes of the present
        or recent past.  There is an assumption that if only we could
        roll back the calendar 50 or 100 years then we would have an
        unadulterated Christianity.

        My point is simply that adulteration is not unique to recent
        human events -- we probably would have to roll back the
        calendar 2000 years to get "unadulterated" Christianity.

        Compared to that, the entire history of this country is one
        of relatively adulterated Christianity.

        (Of course each generation recognizes at least some of these
        problems and some members of each generation work to correct
        at least some of them.  I don't believe our current
        generation is any different in this regard, and I don't
        believe that such recognition and efforts to reform are solely
        the possession of "conservatives".)

        Bob

    re: .5
    
    Hi Nance,
    
      I just want to echo Bob's reply.
    
      Our government is NOT supposed to reflect the legal desires
      of present-day society.  It is supposed to reflect the 
      Constitution of the United States.
    
      If 90% of the people in the United States want to kill some
      ethnic group, a majority rule would ok such a desire, a 
      Constitutional rule would not.
    
      I used an exagerrated analogy to prove a point, but its not a
      small point to be made.
    
                                                   Tony

      Because I am a seventh-day Sabbathkeeper (i.e. sundown Friday to
      sundown Saturday), the following is a peeve of mine.
    
      There is some United States document that used to explicitly list
      protection by the government for those who keep the Christian 
      Sabbath (here they mean Sunday), the Jewish Sabbath, or the 
      Muslim Sabbath (sixth day of the week).
    
      This got changed to say only the Christian Sabbath.
    
      This is the kind of thing I don't like at all.
    
                                                   Tony

    Tony:
    
    This is why they should get rid of the Blue laws in Massachusetts, (No
    liquor sold on Sundays).  If I choose to have my Sabbath on Tuesday, it
    is my responsibility to stay away from the stores and not work.  It is
    not the governments job to protect me from myself!!
    
    -Jack

    I understand exactly what you are saying about the constitution and
    sorry that it appeared that I was contradicting this... let me assure
    I am not.
    
    Government of the people and for the people... no?
    
    Why do we vote?  Why do we have elections of government officials? 
    Whose voice is supposed to be heard in congress?
    
    When laws are being made and the ammendments are being ratified, whose
    voice should be present in those decisions?  
    
    governments?  or the people?
    
    

      re: .10
    
      Hi Jack,
    
        AMEN!
    
                                  Tony

    re: .10
    
    Jack,
    
    Exactly.  Well said.  True character can only be guarded by a person
    themselves.  If a person's morality is either enforced or dictated by
    the government then it isn't morality at all.  When individuals honour
    and take ownership for their personal faith and morality then society
    is the benefactor - not the dictator.
    
    Rob

    Correct.  As a disclaimer, I might also mention that one's morality and
    how they practice it MUST NOT cost society anything and MUST NOT cause 
    inconvenience or harm to that of another individual.  Unfortunately,
    many who practice moral relativism usually dig themselves into a big
    hole and yes, it usually costs you and me something.
    
    -Jack  

re Note 932.15 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     As a disclaimer, I might also mention that one's morality and
>     how they practice it MUST NOT cost society anything and MUST NOT cause 
>     inconvenience or harm to that of another individual.  

        Those strike me as rather strange, and arbitrary,
        restrictions on "morality".  It is as if the overriding
        priority of morality is that "it MUST NOT cost society
        anything and MUST NOT cause inconvenience or harm".

        I observe that moral reformers are *always* accused of
        threatening others and society as a whole.

        Bob

re: .15

What hole do 'moral relevatists' usually dig themselves into?

Steve

    Easy, glad to explain it to you.
    
    During the 60's, the youth of America; a good majority of it anyway,
    defined themselves as being members of the sexual revolution.  They
    have defined their moral base as they saw fit...Doing what was right in
    their own eyes as Israel did during the times of the Judges, a very
    dark time in the history of Israel.
    
    Can I make a law against their behavior...certainly not!  This would
    take away the free volition that God has bestowed upon the individual.
    Everybody has the right to enough rope to hang themselves I believe and
    I assume you believe the same.  
    
    It is now twenty years later.  The teaching of righteous living has
    fallen on deaf ears...what do we have?  Well, STD's are up 200%,
    suicide up 300%, Dysfunctionalism up dramatically, Broken homes up
    200%, (200% is not accurate but it makes the point...it may even be
    worse).  AIDS has all but wiped out Central Africa and will eventually
    wipe out the Bahamas and other remote areas.   All these little holes 
    society dug for themselves the fruits of moral relativism.   
    
    If this isn't a heavy price that we are paying, then tell me what is!
    
    -Jack

    It is now twenty years later.  The teaching of righteous living has
    fallen on deaf ears...what do we have?  Well, STD's are up 200%,
    suicide up 300%, Dysfunctionalism up dramatically, Broken homes up
    200%, (200% is not accurate but it makes the point...it may even be
    worse).  AIDS has all but wiped out Central Africa and will eventually
    wipe out the Bahamas and other remote areas.   All these little holes 
    society dug for themselves the fruits of moral relativism.   

All of that from the sexual revolution! Wow. May I ask how you manage to tie all
of the ills of society to this moral relativism? It seems a bit of a stretch to
me. 

This society has a lot of problems, and some may even be traceable to the
symptoms that you've pointed out, but to blame everything you listed above on
people not choosing the arbitrary set of morals that the bible lists (inferred
from your comment around the righteous living) is a bit simplistic, don't you
think?

Steve

    No, not just the sexual revolution by any means.  I was using that as
    an example of what happens when we become our own god.  
    
    If you look at the OT strictly as a history book and nothing more, than 
    you will find that everytime Israel did what was right in their own
    eyes, they would fall as a nation.  There are many factors to why
    society falls.  
    
    -Jack

    The tie between the two is in the attitude not the act.  The attitude
    permeates in every facet of life and effects society on the whole.
    
    IMHO, I call it character deficit disorder.

I know I've seen this discussion in here before...

Religion is *NOT* the only source of morality. One of the things that bothers me
about Christians in general is the unwavering belief that unless I get my
morality from the same source that you use (the bible in this case) mine is
automatically inferior. In fact, for most cases, my beliefs will be very similar
to yours. 

I am 'my own god', as you put it. Does this automatically make my morals
inferior to yours? If I have the SAME morals as you (excepting that parts that
relate directly to God) are mine still inferior since they aren't divinely
inspired? I guess then (according to .21) I would have a character deficit
disorder, even if I live a 'righteous' life. This is even more insidous since it
doesn't matter how nicely I behave, I am still morally inferior. (Similar
arguments are used against minorities). It also implies that no matter how
reprehensibly I act, if I have accepted (and broken) my morals from your source
I am still OK.

There can be good atheists and bad Christians, and history has plenty of
examples of both (as well as the reverse). In short, people are people and will
behave as such, no matter what their underlying morals are.

Steve

    Awoman, Steve.
    
    

    .22
    
    I happen to agree with most of what you have written as well!
    
    That is why we needed Christ.  Our moral condition whether good or bad
    does not make one Christian or entitle one to heaven.  It is through
    only the righteousness of Christ that God sees good in humankind.
    
    

    Steve:
    
    You must be thinking of some other notes conference.  I agree with you
    100%.  If the Kuran says don't kill and the Bible says don't kill, then
    the message is the key and the source is irrelavent.
    
    >>One thing that bothers me about Christians in general is the
    >>unwavering belief that unless I get my morality...
    
    I don't believe anybody here ever made that claim regarding the source
    of morality and I have openly said there are very moral atheists and
    immoral Christians.
    
    To acknowledge the need for a savior requires one to reach a point of
    humility and admit they're not moral by their natural state.  To state
    that I am superior in morality to you is a misnomer since I have openly
    admitted my sin separates me from God.  On the other hand, I believe to
    not acknowledge a sinful self to a holy God is the pinnacle of self-
    righteousness; something I came to grips with 15 years ago.  If this is
    what is really bothering you, then we have something to talk about.
    
    My eternal security and belief in this is based on what Christ did, I
    am garbage compared to that.  AMEN to this.
    
    By the way Patricia, I assume you are doing this AWomen thing as a
    parody joke...amuzing.   Amen is a Hebrew word and is not a male
    conspiracy to exclude women from the word.
    
    See ya,
    
    -Jack

    .22  Steve Bittrolff!  I've been wondering about you and if you
    were still about.  I'm glad you are.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

      Hi Steve,
    
        My 2 cents on moral relativism as a contrast to absolute 
        morality...
    
        I believe that love of self is the root of all sin of which
        other sins are manifestations (sort of like branches or leaves).
        Love that flows outward is the root of righteoussness.
    
        I'm not saying that to appreciate good things that happen to
        someone is wrong, but I do suggest that if a person has the
        choice to indulge himself or to help a person in need...well
        that indulging of self is sin.  Or worse yet, if a person were
        to consciously victimize someone in any way for personal gain,
        that is sin.
    
        But, whatever right and wrong are (regardless of what they are),
        right is right inherently and wrong is wrong inherently.  
    
        And the main thing I want to say is that just as we are sensitive
        to variation in temperature, we are sensitive to variation in
        morality.  We can discern differences in each.  So, for example, 
        if one were to be out in a cold winter day and get his hands real
        cold and then rush in the house and place them in real hot dish-
        water, the pain would be enormous.
    
        I suggest that if 'wrong' is a principle in the heart, there is
        a destruction inherent to that wrong on the basis of what it is.
        This destructive capability is anesthetized because 'right' (its
        contrast) has not been seen to a certain fulness.
    
        In other words, if one saw God without a Mediator, if one saw the
        fire of God's love and if sin abides in the heart...one would 
        realize a contrast as fully as with the temperature analogy.
        The pain inherent to discerning the contrast and realizing that
        one is that evil person he sees himself to be would arouse such
        a sense of alienation and guilt that despair would result.  Such
        a person would experience such an onslaught of psychological
        destructive force that his physical self would destruct (I believe
        heart attacks, aneurisms, and strokes).
    
        All I am saying is that right and wrong are not arbitrary.  They
        follow a science as surely as does temperature or gravity.  If
        one can consider that there is an unarbitrary science about it
        then the notion of moral relativism begins to not make sense.
        
        And I hope I can say this and it has plausibility without my 
        needing to say exactly what right and wrong are.  I merely suggest
        that they are absolute and that there is in fact a scientific
        unarbitrary reality involving them.
    
                                                   Tony

re Note 932.27 by STRATA::BARBIERI:

>         All I am saying is that right and wrong are not arbitrary.  They
>         follow a science as surely as does temperature or gravity.  If
>         one can consider that there is an unarbitrary science about it
>         then the notion of moral relativism begins to not make sense.
  
        Better watch those comparisons to gravity, Tony!  The
        scientific understanding of gravity today is far different
        than the scientific understanding of gravity in Newton's
        time.

        I'm not sure that you've made the point that "moral
        relativism" makes no sense, but I think you've just made the
        point that the "science of right and wrong" will develop over
        time -- while the object of study is certainly not changing,
        the understanding of it most certain does, and should,
        change.

              
>         And I hope I can say this and it has plausibility without my 
>         needing to say exactly what right and wrong are.  I merely suggest
>         that they are absolute and that there is in fact a scientific
>         unarbitrary reality involving them.
  
        If you want to discuss this as a "science" then you must
        distinguish the phenomena being studied (which are real and,
        as far as we can determine, unchanging) and the
        understanding, which changes, generally towards more
        accuracy.

        "Science" refers to the task of understanding, not the
        phenomena itself!

        Bon

Firstly, an apology. I believed that we had talked about this before, but
apparently it was somewhere else (maybe the net). Just ignore that part of my
tirade :^)

Pick out the response to the note you are interested in from the list below...

re. .23 
I completely missed what you were getting at until I read note .25. I thought
you had just missed the space and meant "A woman, Steve". :^0

re. .24 
I'm not sure how to respond, as we are on totally different pages here. One
question, though. If I am a really rotten person, but truly repent before death,
do I get heaven? What if I *truly* repent after death (and perhaps some time in
hell). Is it too late then, ie. is death some sort of a deadline here (pun
intended).

re. .25
    >>One thing that bothers me about Christians in general is the
    >>unwavering belief that unless I get my morality...
    
    I don't believe anybody here ever made that claim regarding the source
    of morality and I have openly said there are very moral atheists and
    immoral Christians.

Probably true, and again I must recant my ranting. I have, however, heard it
from a number of Christians from other places. (This conference is very mild
compared to the internet conferences on atheism and religion). 

    On the other hand, I believe to
    not acknowledge a sinful self to a holy God is the pinnacle of self-
    righteousness; something I came to grips with 15 years ago.  If this is
    what is really bothering you, then we have something to talk about.

I don't totally understand. I acknowledge that I am far from perfect. I don't
see the relationship to God, and I certainly don't *feel* self-righteous. I
can't say that this is what bothers me, then, because I am not totally sure what
you are getting at.

re. .26
Thanks, Richard. I'm still here, but (as we all know) this place gets crazier
all the time and time to peruse this file ebbs and flows...

re. .27

        I believe that love of self is the root of all sin of which
        other sins are manifestations (sort of like branches or leaves).
        Love that flows outward is the root of righteoussness.

I can agree to a point. Love of self to the exclusion of compassion for others I
can agree with, but you must at least like yourself in order to be able to give.
If your love flows completely outward, you would soon die as you gave away all
of your food to others...

        I'm not saying that to appreciate good things that happen to
        someone is wrong, but I do suggest that if a person has the
        choice to indulge himself or to help a person in need...well
        that indulging of self is sin.  Or worse yet, if a person were
        to consciously victimize someone in any way for personal gain,
        that is sin.

No real argument here, within the limits I alluded to above.

        But, whatever right and wrong are (regardless of what they are),
        right is right inherently and wrong is wrong inherently.  

And here is where it gets hard. I have had this discussion many times, and it is
very hard to explain. I would ask you to show me these absolute moral laws.
(Saying the Bible is not really acceptable, since it is too nebulous in many
cases to support, although I can discuss it if you wish. Saying something like
the ten commandments is better, but there are lots of holes there, also). If you
don't know the whole code just give me a few examples. If you do I will take the
opportunity to explore some 'gray' areas with you. 



        All I am saying is that right and wrong are not arbitrary.  They
        follow a science as surely as does temperature or gravity.  If
        one can consider that there is an unarbitrary science about it
        then the notion of moral relativism begins to not make sense.
        
        And I hope I can say this and it has plausibility without my 
        needing to say exactly what right and wrong are.  I merely suggest
        that they are absolute and that there is in fact a scientific
        unarbitrary reality involving them.

Again, although I don't believe right and wrong are completely arbitrary,
neither are they absolute. I can give you the laws of gravity, and many laws
relating to thermodynamics. I do have a need for you to give me at least a laws
of morality in order to explore this theme, even though you asked me not to :^)

re. .28
        I'm not sure that you've made the point that "moral
        relativism" makes no sense, but I think you've just made the
        point that the "science of right and wrong" will develop over
        time -- while the object of study is certainly not changing,
        the understanding of it most certain does, and should,
        change.

Well said.

I do miss this conference when I can't read it for long stretches. It is always
a joy to come back, although there is more than a little sadness this time at
the voices that are absent due to the recent attempts to cap the employee
population (cap-sizing).

Steve

Well you asked Nancy, but I'm going to answer.

>If I am a really rotten person, but truly repent before death, do I get
>heaven?

Your salvation through Christ's atoning sacrifice is guaranteed; all you
need to do is repent, ask forgiveness, believe, and not fall again into
unrepented sin.  Christ has taken your human nature into Heaven, and by
your incorporation into His Body through Faith and Baptism (even if by
desire only) you will enjoy eternal life in the Presence of God, knowing
and loving him perfectly.

I would expect all who call themselves Christian to agree so far; some
will disagree with some or all of the remainder.

Though you have been saved from death, there may be consequences of your
sin that you will have to endure.  C.S. Lewis describes it something like
washing up before going into God's Presence.  Living with the consequences
of sin (broken family) may be part of that washing up.  Learning to love
God more perfectly is also possibly part of it.

>What if I *truly* repent after death (and perhaps some time in hell). Is
>it too late then, ie. is death some sort of a deadline here (pun intended).

We know that you can repent before death.  We are not sure whether you will
get a chance at or after the moment of death.  We are not sure whether hell
is endless torment or "being made to be not" or both, but we don't think you
get a chance to repent after judgment day.  We don't know about between death
and final judgment.  There is a body of speculative theology.

We believe that God is infinitely just and infinitely merciful and can do
whatever He wants, but that He makes final decisions.  We believe that He
answers prayers for those who ask Him on their own behalf or on behalf of
others, which is why we pray for friends.  Some of us believe that this
means that He answers prayers on behalf of those who have died.  We believe
that God desires not the death of a sinner.

You do not know when your soul will be demanded of you, thus you should always
be ready, and not bet your soul on things that aren't revealed in the Bible.

/john

    The thief on the cross is a good example of deathbed repentence.
    I believe as stated in 1st Corinthians 3 that one who has not built his
    life up on a solid foundation will still be saved, yet as by fire, i.e.
    running out of a burning building if you will.
    
    -Jack

re: .last few

OK, how about the opposite.

Someone lives an exemplary life, gives to the poor, helps people, etc., but
doesn't believe. Does this person go to heaven, or to hell with the real sinners?

Steve 

 Has this person *ever* sinned?  Has he followed the OT law to the *letter*?

 


 Jim

    .33  I think a lot of people who think they have all the right
    answers about who is going to make it are going to be shocked
    and distressed to find out who actually did.  It's been my
    experience concerning this kind of doctrine that just when you
    think you've got a handle on it, you haven't.
    
    Jesus never promised it would be a rational and orderly process.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Steve:
    
    If you read the text of the Bible from cover to cover in its context,
    the key points are as follows.
    
    1. Man was created to have fellowship with God.
    2. Man sinned and became spiritually separated from God.
    3. All Goodness and Holiness comes from God.
    4. Sin is personified through our nature and free will.
    5. The only thing that pleases God is faith.  Without faith it is
       impossible to please God.
    6. Justification before God can only come by faith. 
    
    Steve, I am not married to my spouse because I treat her right and
    do wonderful deeds for her.  I did not earn my mothers love because I
    did my chores and was an exemplary child, (I wasn't anyway! :-)), 
    I am married to my wife because of a vow we made to one another, before
    both God and the State.   I am my mothers son because I was born by her
    33 years ago.
    
    You will find from the scriptures that unfortunately good works do not
    bring us to God but our sin definitely separates us from God.  Believe
    me, how I wish it were the other way around but I believe it is clearly
    revealed to us otherwise.  It is now a matter of whether one believe it 
    or not.  
    
    Instead of looking at the glass hald empty, I suggest you look at it as
    half full.  Since I am in the same boat as everybody else, I have no
    choice but to rejoice in Jesus my savior.  His death and resurrection
    took away the guilt and now I can stand before God shadowed with HIS
    righteousness, not my own.  
    
    Steve, sins (plural) are only the manifestation of sin (our nature).
    It is our sin (nature), that separates us from God eternally, not our
    sins.   Therfore, if I spend my whole life helping the poor and living
    an exemplary life, unfortunately, it is of no effect.  God requires
    nothing less than sinless perfection...something I am not strong enough
    to give.  Jesus became sin for me that I may be presented guiltless
    before God.  To implement, I must believe in him.
    
    -Jack
    
    

    Richard:
    
    Why distress?  I for one would be delighted and would apologize to alot
    of people for my misinterpreting.  
    
    "Neither is there any other, for there is no other name under heaven 
     given among men whereby we must be saved."  Acts 4:12
    
    Yes, I do put all my hopes in a book...Gladly and unequivocably!
    
    -Jack

    .37  I knew that, Jack. ;-}
    
    Richard
    

The "Freedom from Religion" organization filed suit in Federal Court yesterday
to have "In God We Trust" removed from all money and other government logos.

/john

    Sounds good to me.  "In God we trust" does not belong on government
    coins.
    
    Patricia

Well, it's officially the motto of the United States.

/john

 re .40


 Agreed...should say "In God we used to Trust"




Jim

    RE: .40
    
    Why?
    
    Marc H.

    God is a generic term and thus shouldn't be a threat to anybody.  Even
    an atheist can acknowledge they are their own God.  
    
    I think you will offend alot more people by taking the slogan off the
    coin rather than catering to the synsytyvytyies of the few.  
    
    -Jack

re: Note 932.44 by Jack

.    I think you will offend alot more people by taking the slogan off the
.    coin rather than catering to the synsytyvytyies of the few.  
                                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Does this mean something, or is your "Y" key stuck?

Peace,

Jim

re: .34
Define sin. And he has not followed the OT to the letter. He is an above average
person, but he is not perfect.

re: .33
If it turned out that there was a God I would really like to think you are
correct. Someone (Heinlein?) did a short story on that topic that was quite good.

re: .36
Jack, even if you could show me absolute proof of the God you describe, I could
never worship someone like that. I don't understand how anyone could worship a
being that created the person and gave them 'free will' for the SOLE purpose of
getting adulation back, which is what your description sounds like to me. 

re: .39 .41
Have we covered this one here, or was it elsewhere also?

The original motto of the US is 'E Pluribus Unum' (Of Many, One), chosen by John
Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. In God We Trust was added to
paper currency in 1956, under the influence of McCarthyism. It was on some
coinage earlier, but so were other phrases such as 'Mind Your Own Business'.
BTW, Iran bills itself as 'One Nation Under God'. Would you want to live there?

This kind of verbiage has no place in our government. I totally agree that you
should be free to worship as and whom you choose, without interferance from the
government (or anyone else, for that matter), and I should be free to NOT
worship, if I choose, under the same conditions. Is this really too much to ask?

Steve

re: Note 932.46 by Steve "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" 

.The original motto of the US is 'E Pluribus Unum' (Of Many, One), chosen by 
.John Adams, Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. 

That's what I thought.

.In God We Trust was added to paper currency in 1956, under the influence of 
.McCarthyism. 

Interesting.  Sort of like the Pledge of Allegiance.

Peace,

Jim

    Fine...not really a big issue with me, I mean, why be hypocritical
    right?  We don't really trust God so I agree with you, let's remove it.
    
    As far as adulation goes, I know that is a hard issue for many people.
    I believe that God the Father is worthy of our worship.  I know this
    strikes hard on human pride but I firmly believe when we are in our
    glorified state, worshiping God will be as natural as breathing.  We
    won't even give human pride a thought because sin will be non existent.  
    Just my opinion of course.
    
    Jim, yes, I wrote synsytyvytyies on purpose.  As you may be aware,
    I find Political Correctness as abhorable as racism and bigotry.
    This is another cog in the wheel of PC thinking.
    
    -Jack

"In God We Trust" has been on most coins since the 1850s.

/john

    In addition to the reasons cited I also remind you of the Jesus story
    where he asks the pharasi's to see a coin and says,
    
     "Render under Caesar, the things that are Caesar's and unto God the things that are
    God's"
    
    It doesn't seem consistent with that message to inscribe "In God we
    Trust" on the coin.
    
    But of course it may be symbolic "In God(The Coin) we trust".
    
    Patricia

    Very good point Patricia regarding the possible symbolic meaning!!
    
    -Jack

re: .46

>Define sin. And he has not followed the OT to the letter. He is an above average
>person, but he is not perfect.


 you used the term "sinners" in your .33, so I was responding to that..James 
 2:10 says that whoever keeps the whole law yet stumbles in one point is 
 guilty of the whole.  My understanding of the Bible is that we are all 
 sinners, we've all sinned and fall short of God's glory and unless our
 sins are covered by the blood of Jesus Christ we are doomed to an eternity
 apart from God.  We can stand before God and say "but I was an above average
 person (based on what yardstick?)" and He will say "I gave my son as the
 atonement for your sin...what did you do with that?"



Jim

/john,

Interesting. Do you have a reference? The topic (currency) seems interesting, if
you can point me somewhere it'll give me a head start on the research. Thanks.

-Jack,
God might be worthy of worship, and if he were out there in the trenches
slugging it out, I might even do so. But you are talking about an omnipotent
being that created us SOLEY for the purpose of adoring him. And you talk about
*human* pride?

Steve

    What I actually said was that we were created to have fellowship with
    God.  Whether Adam and Eve spent all their time worshiping God, who
    knows.  
    
    I believe God is somebody we won't fully appreciate until we see Him
    face to face.  As I said, worship will be a natural function in Heaven.
    
    -Jack

    There's another group trying to get the slogan changed to:
    
    		"In the God of the Bible We Trust."
    
    More accurate:
    
    		"In Militarism We Trust"
    
    		"In Power We Trust"
    
    		"In Wealth We Trust"
    
    I know of no atheist who says, "I am my own god."  What a crock.
    
    Richard
    

    Richard:
    
    You're right.  The word "god" is offensive to most atheists.  
    I believe atheists don't revere a personal God; I also believe that 
    an atheist in essence looks upon themselves as they are the only source
    for their existence.  Ever read the humanist manifesto?
    
    -Jack

    Actually the humanist manifesto can be considered on of the scriptures
    of my Faith Community. Along with the Christian Bible, the Hebrew
    Bible, The Koran, etc, etc, etc.
    
    are you saying that there is nothing inspiring in the humanist
    manifesto?
    
    
    Patricia
    

Of course I have a reference.  The Red Book of United States Coins, available
in any library or almost any bookstore.

/john

re Note 932.48 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Jim, yes, I wrote synsytyvytyies on purpose.  As you may be aware,
>     I find Political Correctness as abhorable as racism and bigotry.
  
        How can you compare being aware of the connotations of the
        words one uses to racism and bigotry?

        Bob

    Bob:
    
    The United States is in the middle of this movement toward "isms",
    sensitivity, and just plain paranoia at best.  The UMASS mascot is 
    considered racist and I'm sure "In God We Trust" is no doubt
    insensitive to some weak willed dependents out there.  Somebody will
    eventually no doubt conjure up an excuse for racism or some other ism
    to remove it from the coin.  Something like:
    
    Farrachem:  Jesus was white and we don't trust whites, therefore it is
                racism.
    
    An example of the silliness that goes on these days.
    
    Patricia:
    
    It would be interesting to post the Humanist Manifesto and see if it is 
    in harmony with the Hebrew/Christian Bible or the Kuran.  I believe you
    will find them opposite.  One relies on saving ones self while the
    others rely on God saving us.  Diametrically opposed!
    
    -Jack

Note 932.56

>    The word "god" is offensive to most atheists.

Any atheists on board care to address this??  Steve?  Bob?

>     Ever read the humanist manifesto?

No, and I doubt most atheists have either.
    
Richard

-Jack,

What do you mean, then, by fellowship in this sense?

On your other note, I am not offended by the word god. I look upon my parents as
the ultimate source of my existence, but the impetus for my actions come from
within and from society as a whole. What is the humanist manifesto, it sounds
interesting.

I tend to agree with you on PC in general. I am not sure if the words on our
currency falls under this category (PC is in the eye of the beholder?), but I
don't feel religious slogans of any kind belong. On the other hand, it doesn't
particularly offend me as long as I don't have to swear to believe the
principles printed on the money before I spend it. (Does this make me a 'weak
willed dependant, whatever that is?) Out of curiosity, would you be offended if
the money said something like, 'Separation of Church and State', or 'Every God
for Themselves'?

As a semi-related aside, McDonalds ran into a problem with their bags in (I
think) England. Apparently the bag had many flags on it. One of the flags was
that of Saudi Arabia, and the Saudi flag has a slogan from the Koran (currently
un-PC spelling, but I can never remember the other way). This upset Muslims
because the bag was obviously meant to be discarded after use, but it was
considered sacrilege to discard the words from their holy book, leaving the
faithful with a bit of a quandry.

/john,

Cool! Thanks for the reference. Is it a history of coins, or more of a price
guide. I'm most interested in the history, if it is a catalog then I might be
better served by another book.

re: Note 932.48 by Jack

>    Jim, yes, I wrote synsytyvytyies on purpose.  As you may be aware,
>    I find Political Correctness as abhorable as racism and bigotry.
>    This is another cog in the wheel of PC thinking.
    
So the letter "Y" is "politically incorrect"?  "Y" is that?  Is it similar to 
the K in Amerika?  Why not any letter?  Seems pretty silly to me.

Jim  (with an "i")

    ::bittrolff
    
    Didn't you just recently get into a debate about God or no God with
    Mark Metcalfe?  What was the result?  Did you come to any
    understanding offline?  I remember this, I think started either in this
    conference a short while ago... or another conference... can't remember
    which...
    
    I believe it was you... your user name seems to ring a bell.
    
    

    See you guys Monday.  8:00 P.M.  Have a good weekend.
    
    Jim:  "Synsytyvytyes...My version of an effeminate demasculated
          individual with no backbone for the real world.  Stereotype?
          perhaps!
    
    -Jack 

re Note 932.65 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     Jim:  "Synsytyvytyes...My version of an effeminate demasculated
>           individual with no backbone for the real world.  Stereotype?
>           perhaps!

Sometimes it takes far greater backbone to operate on principle in the face of
ridicule.

Bob

Re: .60 Jack

>    It would be interesting to post the Humanist Manifesto and see if it is 
>    in harmony with the Hebrew/Christian Bible or the Kuran.  I believe you
>    will find them opposite.  One relies on saving ones self while the
>    others rely on God saving us.  Diametrically opposed!
    
The Humanist Manifestoes are more than 100 lines long, so I'd rather not
post them.  Anyone who is interested, though, can find them in the first
three replies to note 10 in GRIM::HUMANISM (KP7 to select).

"One relies on saving ones self while the others rely on God saving us."
But God saves those who save themselves, right? :-)

Yes, it's a central tenet of Humanism that humankind should save itself
through its own efforts without relying on a supernatural power such as
God.  It's our belief that if everyone followed this philosophy the world
would be a better place.

If the two chief commandments of Christianity and Judaism are to love God
and to love your neighbor as yourself, we are at least in agreement about
how we should treat our neighbor.  We are diametrically opposed only in
our attitude toward God.

Re: .61 Richard

>>    The word "god" is offensive to most atheists.
>
>Any atheists on board care to address this??  Steve?  Bob?

I don't find the word "god" offensive.  I'm mildly annoyed at being told
that I'm my own god, since I don't believe this.

Re: .63 Jim K.

>So the letter "Y" is "politically incorrect"?  "Y" is that?

Some feminists prefer to spell the word "women" as "womyn", so that "men"
won't be embedded in "their" word.  Anti-PC types love to parody this.

				-- Bob

re: Note 932.67 by Bob 

*Some feminists prefer to spell the word "women" as "womyn", so that "men"
*won't be embedded in "their" word.  Anti-PC types love to parody this.

Thanks for the info.

Jim  "Politically Different"

re .64
Nancy,

Mark offered to prove, logically, the existance of God. We went back in forth
over it but in the end his logic seemed completely baseless to me, and he
couldn't understand why I couldn't see what was obviously foolproof logic (sound
familiar? :^) We eventually agreed that each was honestly and equally puzzled
over the inability of the other to grasp even the most basic facts of the
discussion. I am now looking at a series of anti-evolution notes in the
Christian notesfile, so our discussion may continue at a different level.

Steve 

"Politically Indifferent"

    .69
    
    Thanks for the insight.  The reason I asked is because it seems that it
    would be a rather unwise use of time to continue that same discussion
    here.  I know Mark rather well and if he cannot present it to you in an
    understandable fashion, then I certainly could not engage in the same
    debate.  Mark's ability to write, present and be incredibly logical far
    surpasses my more emotional felt spirituality.
    
    :-)
    May you find answers, if you are truly looking.
    
    Nancy

    .71
    
    How can it be?  You mean that this nation actually had a moral majority
    with a voice at some point?  You mean this nation actually recognized
    God as Jehovah?  Wow, to hear history stories these days, you'd think
    that this was godless nation from the start... wow... :-)
    
    Read with sarcastic humor.

re Note 932.72 by JULIET::MORALES_NA:

>     How can it be?  You mean that this nation actually had a moral majority
>     with a voice at some point?  

        I'm not sure -- let the results speak for themselves:  we've
        had slavery, a bloody civil war, monopolistic robber barons,
        ....

        Perhaps *someday* we will have a moral majority with a voice
        -- is that what you're thinking of?


>     Wow, to hear history stories these days, you'd think
>     that this was godless nation from the start... wow... :-)
  
        You're right, Nancy, the fact that the nation puts "In God We
        Trust" on its currency has had little or no relationship to
        the personal or public morality of the nation.

Bob

    "In God We Trust" was used in the Civil War to boost the moral of
    Union soldiers so that they might more willingly continue the slaughter
    against their brothers to the South.

    It fell in and out of favor after that until the Cold War. Then it was
    used as a rationalizing bit of propaganda to bolster the American
    resolve to crush the Godless commies.

    What? Me cynical?

    Eric 
    
    PS. The more history I read, the more I believe "the more things
    change, the more they remain the same."

re .74

You say "it fell in and out of favor".

I don't have the red book handy at the moment, but it's my recollection
that as it was added to each newly designed coin, it remained permanently
on that denomination.

I may be mistaken, but I don't recall it ever being removed from a coin
once it was put on.

/john

    John,

    All I know is what I read in the World Almanac:

    "[the motto] disappeared and reappeared on various coins until 1955"

    I gather "In God We Trust" was not an all consuming national vision
    between the Civil War and the Cold War.

    Eric

    Re .72 Nancy.
    
    >..., you'd think that this was godless nation from the start...wow.
    
    Nancy, nowhere in the Bible does it say that God crossed the Atlantic.
    ;-)
    
    Greetings, Derek.

    
    Ignorance can be blissful and further demonstration of ignorance can be
    amusing... but ignorance leads into untruth.
    
    
    

| <<< Note 932.78 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Ignorance can be blissful and further demonstration of ignorance can be
| amusing... but ignorance leads into untruth.


	Nancy, I agree with this 100%! Great note!


Glen

How it got there, while interesting, is kind of beside the point. 

I would be more interested in determining if it belongs there. If you believe
that our government is neutral toward religion, and should not condone or
persecute any specific religion or religious belief, then this should not be our
motto (I still prefer E Pluribus Unum despite reality :^).

The only argument I can see supporting it is that which says that we are (or
should become) a Christian nation.

Comments?
Steve