Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    	Great!  Thanks for giving me a platform to present
    	*my* Christian Perspective!

    	If this conference were named Christian-Bashing or 
    	Christian-heretics, it wouldn't be so pathetic.  Call 
    	a spade a spade.  It is Anti-Christian-Perspectives,
    	and you, J_CHRISTIE, are the leader of the pack.  Some
    	day, Richard, you will look back at your entries here
    	and wet your pants out of sheer embarrassment.  I
    	don't know what burr you have under you saddle, but
    	it sure makes you a sour "christian".  I agree with
    	Nancy.  You want to control this conference;  you draw
    	your identity from here;  you almost want to make your
    	own "god" as you go -- and that god is you.  My original
    	entry in this conference was not just directed at you --
    	there are quite a few like you in here -- but you are
    	the squeakiest wheel, thus I certainly had you in mind
    	when I dropped my first entry here, and was truly surprised
    	that you were not the first to take issue with it (though
    	in retrospect I'm not surprised as who was...)

    	So now you make your own topic to become a martyr.  For
    	what cause?  Your anti-Christian crusade?  You can have
    	it.  From the very inception of this conference it appears
    	that you have been fighting a battle to gain acceptance
    	of your warped "perspective" of Christianity along with
    	other warped and relativistic "visions" from others.
    	Big deal.  You can all have a big group hug and accept
    	each other's "differences".  That acceptance is only
    	limited to the skewed sense of truth found here.  You
    	want to pass off your heresies as mere "variants".  I
    	guess we all have different lines we draw where variants
    	become clear mutations -- totally different species.

    	The real Truth of Christianity is unbending.  You only
    	fool yourself to believe othersise.  I don't know why so 
    	many faithful Christians put up with trying to show you 
    	and your ilk the error of your ways.  You can't do very 
    	much by banging your head against a brick wall.  

    	So all I intend to bother doing is drop an electronic
    	turd in here and let you know how I feel about this
    	place.  I feel disgusted, and even a little afraid that
    	such thinking exists among (at least self-proclaimed)
    	Christians -- like a cancer waiting to consume the rest
    	of the body.  But at the same time I feel quite grateful
    	that this den of iniquity exists to provide you all a
    	haven -- a hideout, a brothel -- to keep you contained
    	and happy and busy so that you don't taint other conferences
    	with this junk.   And finally I feel quite amused that the
    	"perspectives" of orthodoxy and conservatism are not welcomed 
    	here.  But one only needs to look at who are the primary
    	cheerleaders here to understand the nature of this lair.

    	Aaahhh!  That sure felt good for me!

    	So do you feel better now, Richard?  Did you get what you
    	were looking for?  

    	Joe Oppelt

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 9.1466                   The Processing Topic                  1466 of 1479
CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!"                           1 line  19-AUG-1994 14:07
                 -< [string moved from 938.134 and following] >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	What a pathetic topic in an equally pathetic conference.

    .2
    
    It's clear you're here for no other purpose.
    
    I seem to recall that it was the insulted defenders of the one true faith
    who stoned Stephen.
    

re:  Note 960.1 by Nancy "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" 

>    I won't partcipate in here any further after this note.  I prefer to
>    deal with a body of people, not a one-man-show.
    
Nancy, I for one am sad to see you go, but I must question you about the 
perceived "one man show".  Richard is not the conference.  An active 
participant, yes, but why are you neglecting the rest of us?

Peace,

Jim

re:  Note 960.2 by Joe "decolores!" 

>    	So all I intend to bother doing is drop an electronic
>    	turd in here and let you know how I feel about this
>    	place.  

We will be known by our fruit.  Your self-described fruit in this conference 
is an "electronic turd".

>	And finally I feel quite amused that the "perspectives" of orthodoxy 
>	and conservatism are not welcomed here.  

Perhaps you have not read this file "from it's inception" so thoroughly as you 
think.  We have several orthodox and conservative participants who are well 
regarded anmd respected.

>    	Aaahhh!  That sure felt good for me!

Oh, so you are of the "if it feels good, do it" school.

You do not make it easy, but love you we must.

Peace,

Jim

By the way, Joe.  Your entrys in here could easily be called libelous.  
(Though I suppose you believe the rest of the conference to be libelous.)

Just a call to you to be careful with Digital's network, equipment, and 
people.

Jim  co-moderator

re:  Note 960.1 by Nancy:

>    I won't partcipate in here any further after this note.  I prefer to
>    deal with a body of people, not a one-man-show.
    
        Yesterday I did some quick studies of the amount of
        participation by the most active contributors to the
        conference, with some interesting results.

        I computed the total volume of material contributed to this
        conference since January 1 of this year by SILVA, KIRK,
        FLEISCHER, FLANAGAN, J_CHRISTIE (representing the
        "liberals"), MORALES_NA, KINSELLA, MNELSON, and COVERT
        (representing the "conservatives").  (My apologies if I've
        offended anyone by omission or by my classification!)

        Nancy is right -- the biggest contributor is Richard, with
        1.2 megabytes (MB) of contribution since January 1.

        The second biggest contributor is -- Nancy!  She has
        contributed .87 MB since the first of the year.

        The third biggest contributor is Patricia, with .74 MB.  The
        fourth biggest contributor is John, with .6 MB.

        Now it is true that the leading contributor is a "liberal",
        and he is one and a man, but it does not seem fair to me to
        characterize this as a "one-man-show".  It especially doesn't
        seem fair that this criticism comes from the woman who is in
        second place!

        It also doesn't seem fair to characterize this conference as
        "liberal", if by "liberal" you mean dominated by a particular
        theological point of view.

        On the other hand it is correct to describe this conference
        as "liberal" in its classic sense of fostering wide-ranging
        discussion by people from all points of view.

        This was certainly my personal goal as I helped set up this
        conference and co-moderated it over the years.  We really do
        have a conference where either side can write their position
        without restriction and where those who object are equally
        free to write their objections.

        (I do not consider the fact that liberals object to what
        conservatives write to make this into a "conference where
        conservative thought is unwelcome" any more than the fact
        that conservatives object to what liberals write makes this
        into a "conference where liberal thought is unwelcome.")

        Both liberal and conservative writers are welcome, but they
        will be scrutinized, and usually rebutted, by others.

        (This is not and has never been the "liberal support"
        conference, although some suggested that it should be that in
        its early years.  If you want to express liberal thought
        without conservative criticism, go elsewhere;  this isn't
        such a place.  This is likewise true for conservatives: 
        there are other conferences to which you can go where
        vigorous rebuttal by liberals can be avoided.)

        Thanks, Joe, for giving us a view of what the alternative is
        like (and thanks for giving me the impetus to make this
        study)!

        Bob

      re: .2
    
      If I were to consider how tenderly Christ would expose sin and
      restore a person, I believe by going 180 degrees from that, your
      reply would be quite representative.
    
                                                    Tony

Joe,

I would suggest that if your only purpose is to drop electronic turds (a very
eloquent description of your notes, btw) that you should return to that
conference where different views are not tolerated. (A similar turd in that
conference would, I'm sure, be set hidden). There you can surround yourself with
others that agree with your (narrow) point of view and pat yourself on the back
for being among the 'saved'. 

On the other hand, if you would like to defend your point of view from those
that don't agree, feel free to participate. But notes like you have been
entering serve no purpose that I can see. On the usenet these types of posts
earn an instant killfile rating for their posters.

Steve

P.S. Having read your notes in other forums I must admit to some
dissappointment. Although I do not often agree with your views, they were
usually well thought out and worth reading. 

On the other hand you are helping to prove my theory; the worst enemy of the
Christian religions are the Christian religions :^)

	Hello All:

	Well, it is Monday morning and apparently everybody is cranky.  
	We are going through an interesting circumstance in our own church.
	The areas we are trying to focus on are edification and 
	encouragement.  

	I call to mind a beautiful passage to Timothy.
	
	"Rebuke not an elder, but intreat him as a father; and the young men 
	as bretheren.  The elder women as mothers; the younger as sisters 
	with all purity."  1st Timothy 5:1,2.

	This epistle along with 2nd Timothy and Titus are filled with 
	wonderful gems of knowledge...edifying the body.  I think we need
	to keep this in mind!!

	Differences...yes...focusing on differences...in a manner that is 
	not becoming to the body of Christ...the illogic of waste, ladies
	and gentlemen.  I for one have seen it for quite some time and 
	yes, I myself have gotten caught up in it.  One has to ask the 
	question, "If varying opinions cannot be met with civility, then
	one has to ponder the profit of participation.  

	We apparently are all after different things.  Yes, I Do consider
	this the "Soapbox" of Christian notesfiles.  Christian exists to
	edify and build up.  Christian Perspective in my mind has been 
	established to spar, to debate, and through this process...To Learn!
	What a great opportunity to disagree, sometimes vehemently, yet 
	at the same time possibly plant seeds in another persons life.
	I know you have for me, if you hadn't, I wouldn't have participated 
	for the last two years.

	Apparently, the answer is there but conforming is impossible.  The
	trick is simply, comm-un-i-cate in a manner worthy of civility.  
	On the other hand...develop a thick skin and be ready to have 
	disagreement...BUT LEARN!!  Otherwise, this conference is pointless
	to the building of the body.  

	I try not to fingerpoint as usually I have to point to myself .  But
	I simply have to ask this question.  Read Crosspost.

      >>Thoroughly disgusted and frustrated by the fundamentalist faction, a
      >>Christian friend of mine is considering converting to Judaism.  Jesus
      >>was a Jew and the things Jesus taught were deeply rooted in Judaism.

        Richard, are you actually this person?  Probably not; however, you
   	get the C-P award for the most transparent member of this 
	conference.  Richard, you wear your heart on your sleeve and do a
	lousy job concealing it.   On the other hand, I can be direct, 
	flagrant, and quite outspoken.  I just happen to be of the school 
	that sometimes you have to cut deep to remove the poison.  
	Trying to draw flies with vinegar?  Perhaps I am.  But I react the
	way I do because I respect the writers here and don't feel like I 
	need to dance around my point.

	I would advise everybody to watch CSPAN some evening and look at how 
	the House of Representatives debates issues.  They refer to each 
	other as "The Gentleman from across the isle" or "My colleague from
	Kansas" (Insert Christian brother/sister).  Even in Great Britian,
	they refer to each other as the "Honorable...fill in name".  

	People, this isn't rocket science.  Think about it..I am referring 
	you to learn from worldly governing bodies on the art of
	communication.  Doesn't exactly make us look good does it.

	Maybe we need to enact a C-P covenant that all need to adhere to.
	Otherwise, they will be asked to leave.

	In Christ,

	-Jack

| <<< Note 960.2 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| Someday, Richard, you will look back at your entries here and wet your pants 
| out of sheer embarrassment.  

	I just wet my pants from laughing so hard! I guess I beat ya to it
Richard! :-)

| I don't know what burr you have under you saddle, but it sure makes you a sour
| "christian".  I agree with Nancy.  You want to control this conference;  you 
| draw your identity from here;  you almost want to make your own "god" as you 
| go -- and that god is you.  

	My chair is damp now..... Joe, if there is anything sour, it would be
the words in your reply. Maybe someday you'll notice how hateful you can
actually sound. Maybe you should reread your entries before you exit, and then
ask yourself, is this how Jesus would answer it? In the same wording and tone?
If the answer is no, then edit, if yes, well... I won't comment on that.

| So now you make your own topic to become a martyr.  For what cause?  Your 
| anti-Christian crusade?  

	Joe, you know that U2 song, "One"? The part where it says, "Have you
come here to play Jesus, to the lepers in your head?" This seems to apply to
you right now. I say this because it seems you know what Richard is doing,
thinking, everything. Correct me if I am wrong. Oh, and I suppose asking
Richard questions instead of telling him why is totally out of the question,
huh?



Glen

    Okay Glen, let's get into some communicating here.
    
    Question 1
    
    It is no secret in both CP and Soapbox that you are at enmity with Joe,
    particualarly over the gay issue.  Wouldn't it be fair for me as a 
    reader to draw the conclusion here that everything you respond to is
    going to be subjective?  Why not, I mean afterall, I have yet to see
    you exhort anyone other than conservative viewpoints.
    
    Question 2
    
    If you truly Truly don't want Joe to be condescending, then why are you 
    egging him on by responding with wetting your pants!!?  As a reader, I
    am now seeing you as not valuing diversity but pushind conformity.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 960.14 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>



| It is no secret in both CP and Soapbox that you are at enmity with Joe, 
| particualarly over the gay issue.  Wouldn't it be fair for me as a reader 
| to draw the conclusion here that everything you respond to is going to be 
| subjective?  Why not, I mean afterall, I have yet to see you exhort anyone 
| other than conservative viewpoints.

	Jack, when Joe and I talk over there, on any issue, what is it usually
about? It's about stating things without him having anything to back it up, it's
about him being condensending. We have hardly ever had a meaningful
conversation. Remember, Joe Oppelt was the one who said that noting is just a
game. How can I take him seriously? I will rebuke anything that I believe is an
untruth. He may believe it to be the truth, but how can we know? It's all a
game....

| If you truly Truly don't want Joe to be condescending, then why are you egging
| him on by responding with wetting your pants!!?  

	I'd rather respond with humor, than with what I was thinking Jack. But,
because you asked why I did it, you now know the reasoning behind it. So,
thanks for asking. I appreciate it.

| As a reader, I am now seeing you as not valuing diversity but pushind 
| conformity.

	Now that you know the real reason behind it, how do you see it?



Glen

    Well, Okay Glen, fair question.
    
    I don't think it is any secret my belief that liberalism is the biggest 
    enemy of American society.  It has been said that conservatism is in
    itself an exercise in conformity...restricting the free rights of
    others.  Glen, it is my belief that conservatives tend to be somewhat 
    more streetsmart.  The liberal philosophy is that you have the right to 
    play in a lake full of alligators.  The conservative viewpoint is that 
    you have that freedom but it is so ridiculous that it doesn't even
    deserve the discussion of merit.  Such examples are abortion, assisted 
    suicide, taxing to support wasteful ventures, and my favorite,
    Affirmative Retribution programs - an exercise in robbing the
    weakminded and concealed under the guise of compassion.
    
    I am in process of tying this in.  If I did have something to bellyache 
    over in this conference, it is this.  Injecting liberal theology into
    Christianity to me is like bringing a prostitute over while still 
    living with your parents.  I think that is why Israel was referred to
    as a harlot in the OT.  "...but refuse profane and old wives fables
    and exercise thyself rather unto godliness."  1st Tim, 4:7.  I believe
    this concept is not being followed in this conference.  I do see alot
    of liberal theology trying to be injected, and given the name,
    "Christian Perspective", which is not actually Christian at all.  I
    didn't say it lacked merit, I just said it wasn't Christian.  And my
    resentment isn't in the discussing of issues but that the word
    Christian is used so loosely under liberal theology.  
    
    Liberalism/Conservatism...they both have their pluses and minuses.  But
    liberalism is far more disingenuous; insulting to ones intelligence.
    
    If CP is going to be like a grocery store, where we can pick and
    choose, then we MUST expect to disagree.  We cannot achieve unity so we
    may as well try to achieve civility and edification, just like my
    Congress example!!
    
    -Jack

	.6
    
>We will be known by our fruit.  Your self-described fruit in this conference 
>is an "electronic turd".
    
    	At least I'm up fron about it.  What are the "fruits" of this
    	conference?
    
    	re .9
    
    	And how did Christ converse with Satan?
    
    	.11

>I would suggest that if your only purpose is to drop electronic turds (a very
>eloquent description of your notes, btw) that you should return to that
>conference where different views are not tolerated. 
>On the other hand, if you would like to defend your point of view from those
>that don't agree, feel free to participate. 

    	This is my only purpose, for I've seen how those who have attempted
    	to defend Chriatianity have been treated here.

>others that agree with your (narrow) point of view and pat yourself on the back
>for being among the 'saved'. 

    	I intend to do that.  

    	.13

>	My chair is damp now..... Joe, if there is anything sour, it would be
>the words in your reply. Maybe someday you'll notice how hateful you can
>actually sound. 

    	Well I guess you got the gist of my entry then.

>ask yourself, is this how Jesus would answer it? In the same wording and tone?
>If the answer is no, then edit, if yes, well... I won't comment on that.

    	This is a ton of CRAP.  First of all, I'm not Jesus.  

    	Secondly, you pull this ploy about once a week, but I've rarely 
    	seen you try to live by it yourself.  

    	Third, what are you looking for?  Is this your attempt to silence
    	what you disagree with?  Try something else.

>	Joe, you know that U2 song, "One"? 

    	No.  Next question.
    
    -------
    
    	re .14

    	Thanks, Jack, but I don't need your help slapping Glen around.
    
    -------
    
    	.16

>	Jack, when Joe and I talk over there, on any issue, what is it usually
>about? It's about stating things without him having anything to back it up, it's
>about him being condensending. We have hardly ever had a meaningful
>conversation. 

    	You have been corrected may times on this point.  You constantly
    	say "the word according to Joe" and "Joe never backs up what he
    	says".  You have been clearly bested there many times with FACTS
    	and STATISTICS, and I have shown repeatedly where you are wrong
    	on many points.  Somehow you conveniently forget that.  Your
    	hollow words rattle like little marbles in a coffee can.  They
    	are truly "the word according to Glen".  I think this particular 
    	point is best conducted in SOAPBOX, but I couldn't let it stand 
    	as you have presented it here.

re: Note 960.19 by Joe "decolores!" >>>

>    	At least I'm up fron about it.  What are the "fruits" of this
>    	conference?

So you are saying up front that your notes here are turds.  Fine.  

As for the fruits of this conference, I can only speak for myself.
I have learned a lot about Christianity, from many diverse perspectives.
I have gotten to know many people whom I can call friends, whether I agree 
with their views or not.  I have changed many preconcieved notions about 
"conservative" Christianity, thanks to Jack, Jill, Nancy, and others.
I have learned much about the struggle of the Christian relationship with 
God, especially from Patricia.  I have learned how several non-Christians
view Christianity.

I'm sure that others here have reaped similar fruit.

However, it takes good seeds to reap a good harvest.  You seem to be 
completely indifferent to planting with care.

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .8
    
    Bob,
    
    Volume of keystrokes may not be an indicator of control or personality. 
    I took a cue from your work and looked at how many base notes were
    written by both Richard and Nancy.
    
    	Richard - 438
    	Nancy -     2
    
    To me (and I may hold this opinion alone) this says a lot about who is
    setting the agenda.
    
    Kent
    

re Note 960.22 by MIMS::CASON_K:

>     Volume of keystrokes may not be an indicator of control or personality. 
>     I took a cue from your work and looked at how many base notes were
>     written by both Richard and Nancy.
>     
>     	Richard - 438
>     	Nancy -     2
>     
>     To me (and I may hold this opinion alone) this says a lot about who is
>     setting the agenda.
  
        The ability to enter a base note is available to all -- it is
        not a "control" like the steering wheel of a car or the
        rudder of a ship that is in the hands of only one or a few.

        All are welcome to start topics -- please do so if you really
        feel the "agenda" is lacking something.  If you feel that a
        topic is lacking and yet don't start a topic, how can you at
        all blame somebody else who has done so?

        Besides, most responses are to other response, not to base
        notes -- the base notes number 960, a mere 2.5% of the 38538
        notes in the conference.  When a regular reader comes into
        this conference and hits "next unseen", they are far more
        likely to see one of Nancy's replies than one of Richard's
        base notes.

        Bob

    Kent:
    
    I don't think our Bro from Colorado has an agenda.  I think his
    basenotes have been what has kept the conference alive to this day.
    There is nothing wrong with that.
    
    -Jack

>As for the fruits of this conference, I can only speak for myself.
>I have learned a lot about Christianity, from many diverse perspectives.
    
    	Much of what you have learned about in here is not Christianity.
    	Diverse?  Sure.  But don't fool yourself into believing it all
    	fits under Christianity.
    
>So you are saying up front that your notes here are turds.  Fine.  
>However, it takes good seeds to reap a good harvest.  You seem to be 
>completely indifferent to planting with care.
    
    	I'm not planting.  I'm fertilizing.

    .24
    
    Jack,
    
    I would disagree.  I think his notes while  may be what "kept the
    conference alive", is exactly my point in that the conference is
    perceived to have the personality of RJC.
    
    Unfortunately, this translates perhaps into this is what has kept RJC
    alive?  
    
    Sorry to be so very frank about this... but that is exactly what I am
    referring.
    
    Where does RJC begin and the conference end?
    
    

    Bob/Jack,
    
    I don't recall anything in my reply that fixed 'blame' on anyone.  By
    agenda I was not implying some master plot to control the conference
    simply that Richard, more so than anyone else, sets the topic for
    discussion (if base notes are an indicator).  As to posting my own base
    note, you will find me mostly read only because of what I perceive to
    be strife are wars of words that are largely unprofitable.  Bob's
    response supports my perception.
    
    Kent
    

| <<< Note 960.17 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

| Well, Okay Glen, fair question.

	OK Jack, a lot of words, but you never addressed your remark. Here it
is again. :-)

________________________________________________________________________________
| If you truly Truly don't want Joe to be condescending, then why are you egging
| him on by responding with wetting your pants!!?  

	I'd rather respond with humor, than with what I was thinking Jack. But,
because you asked why I did it, you now know the reasoning behind it. So,
thanks for asking. I appreciate it.

| As a reader, I am now seeing you as not valuing diversity but pushind 
| conformity.

	Now that you know the real reason behind it, how do you see it?

________________________________________________________________________________


| If CP is going to be like a grocery store, where we can pick and choose, then 
| we MUST expect to disagree.  We cannot achieve unity so we may as well try to 
| achieve civility and edification, just like my Congress example!!

	Actually, CP is kind of like a Grocery Store, where you do have a lot
to see. Good analogy. No where though does it say anyone has to believe
anything another writes. There is no pick and choose method going on in here
Jack, but a variety of things to view. You don't always have this option when
viewing some religious conferences. Can you see that Jack?



Glen

| <<< Note 960.18 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Making it a "home" conference and making it "me" are two different things.  
| You can trash the CHRISTIAN conference, as you have done many, many times 
| and I don't take it personal.

	Gee, you've never said, "*I* get sick and tired..blah....."? Hmmm...
somehow I do remember seeing that many times..... but even putting that part
aside, can you provide examples where this has become the Richard Christie
conference? It might help make your position clear, or it could show you that
your position is false.


Glen

re: Note 960.25 by Joe "decolores!" 

>    	Much of what you have learned about in here is not Christianity.

In your opinion.  I am able to make up my own mind, with the help of the Holy 
Spirit.

>    	Diverse?  Sure.  But don't fool yourself into believing it all
>    	fits under Christianity.

Oh, I assure you I don't.  I can recognize turds when I see them.
    
>    	I'm not planting.  I'm fertilizing.

Really.  To follow your analogy, while manure is an ingredient to fertilizer, 
in it's unadulterated form it will burn the plant.  Why not edify us with 
reason and the Spirit?

Peace,

Jim

| <<< Note 960.19 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| re .9

| And how did Christ converse with Satan?

	How did Christ converse with people Joe? We're talking about people,
not the Prince of Darkness. You can see the difference, can't you? Or are you
one to think that those who write in here are Satan's children?




Glen

re: .19 CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!"

>others that agree with your (narrow) point of view and pat yourself on the back
>for being among the 'saved'. 

    	I intend to do that.  

Thank you.

| <<< Note 960.20 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| >ask yourself, is this how Jesus would answer it? In the same wording and tone?
| >If the answer is no, then edit, if yes, well... I won't comment on that.

| This is a ton of CRAP.  First of all, I'm not Jesus.

	Ahhhh.... but aren't you supposed to learn from Him? To be as much like
Him as possible? So reread the above question again, if you would, and answer
it.

| Secondly, you pull this ploy about once a week, but I've rarely seen you try 
| to live by it yourself.

	Uh huh..... now show examples to back your claim. Feel free to post
anything from any other conference....

| Third, what are you looking for?  Is this your attempt to silence what you 
| disagree with?  Try something else.

	What am I looking for? Well, to answer your question I guess what I am
trying to do is show you that possibly you're going about this in the wrong
manner. You said I got the jist of your reply, which I said sounded hateful, so
while I could be wrong, but hate is a word that God just doesn't care to have
thrown at other people. Unless you don't believe in the, "do unto others as you
would have them do unto you" part of the Bible.

| Thanks, Jack, but I don't need your help slapping Glen around.

	Good Joe. But seriously think about what you wrote. Is it how God would
say it?

| >	Jack, when Joe and I talk over there, on any issue, what is it usually
| >about? It's about stating things without him having anything to back it up, it's
| >about him being condensending. We have hardly ever had a meaningful
| >conversation.

| You have been corrected may times on this point.  You constantly say "the 
| word according to Joe" and "Joe never backs up what he says".  You have been 
| clearly bested there many times with FACTS and STATISTICS, and I have shown 
| repeatedly where you are wrong on many points.  Somehow you conveniently 
| forget that.  

	This is good Joe. But me thinks ya might want to reread what I said
Joe. Does the word HARDLY, which I clearly used, mean always? What you just
wrote above makes zero sense because of it. Spend less time on the defensive
and more time reading what is being written please. It would take a lot of the
misunderstandings out of the conversations.

| Your hollow words rattle like little marbles in a coffee can. They are truly 
| "the word according to Glen".  

	Ya might want to rethink this position Joe.



Glen

| <<< Note 960.22 by MIMS::CASON_K >>>



| Richard - 438
| Nancy -     2



	Kent, if you look at how long between times new topics have been
started, and look at how long the conference had gone with hardly anything
being talked about, then you might see why Richard starts a lot of the topics.
I feel it has more to do with trying to get activity going on several fronts
than it has to do with him having an agenda. Look at the varying range of
topics and you would see this as well. They are about different aspects of
Christianity AND other religions, not about Richard Christie. 


Glen

| <<< Note 960.26 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| I would disagree.  I think his notes while  may be what "kept the conference 
| alive", is exactly my point in that the conference is perceived to have the 
| personality of RJC.

	Go read all the basenotes he started. Once you have done that, come
back and give us a report.



Glen

	Jack, thanks for posting that.


Glen

   Glen:
    
    I'm mad!  I wrote a 40 liner and lost it.,....Arghhhhh!!!
    
    Suffice to say, we all know our hotbuttons and although unity appears
    inachievable, civility and edification does not!!
    
    -Jack

    Glen,
    
    Go back and read my note.  I have nothing to prove.  Once again your
    assumptive behavior lends only to poor communication.
    
    

| <<< Note 960.38 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| I'm mad!  I wrote a 40 liner and lost it.,....Arghhhhh!!!

	Jack, next time that happens, just do a reply/last and the note will
magically reappear. It does not matter if you are in the same note you were in
before, it does not matter if you are even in the same notesfile. All that
matters is that you do not exit past the notes menu.

| Suffice to say, we all know our hotbuttons and although unity appears
| inachievable, civility and edification does not!!

	Agreed.

Glen

| <<< Note 960.39 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>


| Go back and read my note.  I have nothing to prove.  Once again your
| assumptive behavior lends only to poor communication.


	I have reread your note. You do have something to prove. Jack, while
not taking sides, has shown you some of Richards basenotes that help prove your
theory incorrect.


Glen

    Glen,
    
    you are one irritating buzzard! :-)
    
    Read .1 AGAIN.  And you will see that my statement is that I believe
    that RJC has this conference to closely associated with himself.  "I
    believe", I have nothing to prove.  It is my choice to either believe
    in truth or believe my truth in a lie.
    
    As a result of said belief, I will not purposefully trash a person as I
    believe that is what RJC as asked for with this topic.
    
    I have nothing to prove... my pov is my pov.  Now you got another pov..
    have at it.

	.31

>| And how did Christ converse with Satan?
>
>	How did Christ converse with people Joe? We're talking about people,
>not the Prince of Darkness. You can see the difference, can't you? Or are you
>one to think that those who write in here are Satan's children?
    
    	This conference is a tool of the Prince of Darkness.




Glen

| <<< Note 960.1 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>




| Somehow Richard this conference is emotionally attached to you.  There
| is an umbilical cord likeness to how you participate, defend and worship 
| this place.

	This is a statement Nancy. This is not an I believe.

| You started this topic as though it's about the conference, but really
| I feel it's about yourself.  

	This is based on something you feel. See the difference? You do have
something to prove Nancy.

	.33

>| >ask yourself, is this how Jesus would answer it? In the same wording and tone?
>| >If the answer is no, then edit, if yes, well... I won't comment on that.
>
>| This is a ton of CRAP.  First of all, I'm not Jesus.
>
>	Ahhhh.... but aren't you supposed to learn from Him? To be as much like
>Him as possible? So reread the above question again, if you would, and answer
>it.
    
    	If we are to be as much like Him as possible, and if *YOU* believe
    	that to be the case, why are you such a proponent of homosexual
    	behavior?
    
>| Secondly, you pull this ploy about once a week, but I've rarely seen you try 
>| to live by it yourself.
>
>	Uh huh..... now show examples to back your claim. Feel free to post
>anything from any other conference....
    
    	Chase your own tail.  
    
>	What am I looking for? Well, to answer your question I guess what I am
>trying to do is show you that possibly you're going about this in the wrong
>manner. You said I got the jist of your reply, which I said sounded hateful, so
>while I could be wrong, but hate is a word that God just doesn't care to have
>thrown at other people. Unless you don't believe in the, "do unto others as you
>would have them do unto you" part of the Bible.
    
    	I threw my hate at the conference itself, and at what it can (and
    	has) done to people.
    
    	What "it" do you think I'm "going about in the wrong manner"
    	anyway?  All I'm trying to do is express what I think about 
    	this conference.  I'd say I've done that pretty clearly, don't
    	you?

>	Good Joe. But seriously think about what you wrote. Is it how God would
>say it?
    
    	There you go again.

    Perhaps I should apologize for initiating the lion's share of
    topics here.  Somehow it seems like silly thing to do.
    
    However, I am clearly guilty of the sinful, selfish, egotistical,
    wrongdoing of writing basenotes in C-P.
    
    Richard
    

| <<< Note 960.43 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| This conference is a tool of the Prince of Darkness.


	Thank you for being honest about it. Do you believe that the
participants are knowingly being used by the Prince of Darkness?


Glen

    	re .34
    
    	There are just as many topics of his that verge on apostacy.

| <<< Note 960.45 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| >	Ahhhh.... but aren't you supposed to learn from Him? To be as much like
| >Him as possible? So reread the above question again, if you would, and answer
| >it.

| If we are to be as much like Him as possible, and if *YOU* believe that to be 
| the case, why are you such a proponent of homosexual behavior?

	Nice deflection Joe. Answer a question with a question. How nice. Now
please answer what was asked....

	To answer your question Joe, it is simple. Like one Christian to
another, there are differences in their beliefs. On this subject, my beliefs
are different than yours. You know the reasons, as I went through the Scripture
about it in SOAPBOX. You can feel free to post it if you'd like. 

	Now, what I would like to know is are you one who believes we should be
like Jesus? Maybe that was a wrong assumption on my part. If the answer is yes,
then do you think you should be addressing humans in such a condensending,
hateful manner, or should you be more like Jesus? Remember when He had the
sword stuck into him? Was he condensending then?

| >| Secondly, you pull this ploy about once a week, but I've rarely seen you try
| >| to live by it yourself.
| >
| >	Uh huh..... now show examples to back your claim. Feel free to post
| >anything from any other conference....

| Chase your own tail.

	Thanks fer provin it....

| >	What am I looking for? Well, to answer your question I guess what I am
| >trying to do is show you that possibly you're going about this in the wrong
| >manner. You said I got the jist of your reply, which I said sounded hateful, so
| >while I could be wrong, but hate is a word that God just doesn't care to have
| >thrown at other people. Unless you don't believe in the, "do unto others as you
| >would have them do unto you" part of the Bible.

| I threw my hate at the conference itself, and at what it can (and has) done 
| to people.

	Yes, we have seen what it has done to you, but what has this conference
done to others?

| What "it" do you think I'm "going about in the wrong manner" anyway?  All I'm 
| trying to do is express what I think about this conference.  I'd say I've done
| that pretty clearly, don't you?

	Yup, in a very condensending hateful manner. You've done that quite
well.

| >	Good Joe. But seriously think about what you wrote. Is it how God would
| >say it?

| There you go again.

	Answer it and then it won't be asked.



Glen

    Yeah, Jack!  Apostacy!  And you know what happens to apostates,
    don' cha?
    
    I *know* you've read Fox's Book of Martyrs, Jack, and so you should
    know!
    
    Richard
    

    	re .47
    
    	Yes.

| <<< Note 960.48 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>

| re .34

| There are just as many topics of his that verge on apostacy.

	Prove it.

| <<< Note 960.51 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| Yes.


	Could you explain how you know this for us? Maybe you could err...
enlighten those who know they're being used by Satan.


Glen

    	re .52
    
    	Prove it.  Prove it.  Broken record.  Broken record.  

    re: .46
    
    Richard,
    
    The false humility routine belies your pride.
    
    Kent
    

    	re .53
    
    	Sorry.  I didn't see the word "knowingly" in your original
    	reply to which I answered Yes.

    This conference would be so much better off by having a chatty string,
    maybe a weight loss string, and most definately a string for issuing
    unchallenged disparagements about the current U.S. administration.
    
    Anyone care to start the basenotes??
    
    I can guarantee you, it won't be me. :-)
    
    Shalom,
    RJC
    

        Joe and Glen:

        I suggest that both of you take a cooling-off period from
        this topic.  Try to refrain from having the last word.

        Bob
        (as mod)

	.49
    
>	Nice deflection Joe. Answer a question with a question. How nice. Now
>please answer what was asked....
    
    	No I won't.  As I said before, I didn't come here to debate
    	"perspectives".  I only (originally) wanted to see what was
    	in here, and after seeing it, I only wanted to publically 
    	record how I felt about it.

>Remember when He had the
>sword stuck into him? Was he condensending then?
    
    	No.  He was dead.

>| Chase your own tail.
>
>	Thanks fer provin it....
    
    	Proving what?  That you like to "command" people with alot
    	of scavenger hunts?  Who listens to your commands anyway?

>	Yes, we have seen what it has done to you, but what has this conference
>done to others?
    
    	For starters it has reinforced your baseless beliefs.
    
    	And yes, it has quickly brought out the worst in me.

>	Yup, in a very condensending hateful manner. You've done that quite
>well.
    
    	Are those your two words of the day?

    	re .58
    
    	Here's my last word.
    
    	DELETE ENTRY CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.

    Glen,
    
    With all deference to Joe who has already stated that he needs no help
    in slapping you around, it seems more like Jesus and the money
    changers.  Or perhaps Jesus was too hateful and condescending to them
    as well.  When the holy is profaned there is a Scriptural precedent for
    reacting forcefully and directly.
    
    Kent
    

    .55  Yet another critic!  Welcome!  Do you anticipate offering anything
    constructive, uplifting, or worthwhile?  Or did you just drop in to "take
    a turd," to borrow a phrase from a true Christian?
    
    Richard
    

Re: .46  Richard

>    Perhaps I should apologize for initiating the lion's share of
>    topics here.  Somehow it seems like silly thing to do.
    
Your apology is *not* accepted!  I really appreciate the effort you've put
into this conference over the last few years, and I hope you'll continue
to participate for many years to come (note 67.378 notwithstanding).

				-- Bob

    :-)
    
    Once again instead of dealing with the "individuals" RJC brings up the
    "other conference".  Why?  What for?
    
    And why are you not addressing my notes to you Richard.  Hit close to
    home?  What pushes your wheelchair everyday?  What makes you get up in
    the morning?  In what lies your value?  How much of your value lies
    in this conference and it's audience?
    
    

re Note 960.61 by MIMS::CASON_K:

>     When the holy is profaned there is a Scriptural precedent for
>     reacting forcefully and directly.
    
        Kent,

        Do you really think a notes conference -- *any* notes
        conference -- is comparable in any way to the Temple in
        Jerusalem?
    
        In situations other than the Temple, how did Jesus interact
        with others?  Isn't this more comparable to an ordinary
        marketplace or meeting hall, or perhaps out in the open in a
        field?

        Bob

    Richard,
    
    No, not a critic, just an observer.  (Glen, does .62 represent the same
    hateful, condescending attitude that you have been accusing Joe of)  As I 
    stated earlier I've been RO because, in my opinion, most of the strings
    tend to be stife and unprofitable.  I stay around because occasionally
    there is something of value in here.  I didn't know that being RO 
    disqualified me from ever speaking or having an opinion.  While I 
    personally would not have used such a metaphor to describe my replies or 
    anyone elses I can appreciate Joe's anger.  My reaction to the false 
    humility defense was simply an observation, call it another perspective if 
    you like.  
    

    .66  Okay, Kent.  Though you're an observer and not a critic,
    your contributions have been of a largely negative nature thus
    far.
    
    I'd like to think it's not a trend.  Perhaps first impressions
    have gotten us off on the wrong foot.
    
    And of course, being READ ONLY is no more a sin than being prolific.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard

Hey!  I know how we can make C-P more genuinely Christian!

We can SET HIDDEN any sharply negative remarks made about the conference.
We can set up rules about what participants can say (or maybe even think, if
we're lucky).  We can forbid the discussion of certain issues, and even the
use of certain words, and then we can visit other conferences and accuse
them of being Politically Correct!

Any takers?

Richard

    .68
    
    Another avoidance of a direct statement/question to you.
    
    It's called defocusing Richard.  Let's discuss all the symptoms and
    never the root.
    
    

re Note 960.68 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> We can forbid the discussion of certain issues, and even the
> use of certain words, and then we can visit other conferences and accuse
> them of being Politically Correct!
  
        You know, Richard, sometimes your sarcasm even leaves me
        wincing, but in this one sentence you have perfectly
        expressed something I tried to address with a couple of
        pages -- the "pot calling kettle black" irony of some of the
        criticism addressed against the conference!

        Bob

 I think this string is OK and in fulfilment, at least partially, of

 If you have something against your brother, go to him...(paraphrase of course)

 I hope no one is offended by being called a tool of the Prince of Darkness, 
 etc. Remember what Jesus said to Peter one time "get thee behind me Satan"

 Personally, I enjoy being intellectually stimulated by views that are different
 than mine.  Please do not consider closing this conference down! And no one
 should have the attitude "well Im gonna take my football and go home".

 All of the above is "my not so humble opinion" of course.

 
 Hank

| <<< Note 960.54 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>


| Prove it.  Prove it.  Broken record.  Broken record.

	I suppose if you proved it then it would not be a broken record. But
you are proving my earlier statement that you do make claims that you don't
back up....


Glen

| <<< Note 960.59 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!" >>>



| >Remember when He had the sword stuck into him? Was he condensending then?

| No.  He was dead.

	I had to laugh at this one. I guess I thought you knew what I was
getting at, I guess I was wrong.

| >	Yes, we have seen what it has done to you, but what has this conference
| >done to others?

| For starters it has reinforced your baseless beliefs.

	Joe, I bet you don't have a clue as to what my beliefs are.

| >	Yup, in a very condensending hateful manner. You've done that quite
| >well.

| Are those your two words of the day?

	When talking about how you're presenting yourself, yes.


Glen

| <<< Note 960.61 by MIMS::CASON_K >>>


| With all deference to Joe who has already stated that he needs no help in 
| slapping you around, it seems more like Jesus and the money changers. Or 
| perhaps Jesus was too hateful and condescending to them as well. When the 
| holy is profaned there is a Scriptural precedent for reacting forcefully and 
| directly.

	Kent, would you call the way Joe has presented himself in here as
edifying? I wouldn't.


Glen

      Hi,
    
        I am one who happens to believe that when Jesus cleared 
        the temple, there was not anger in the sense that we
        understand it.  I believe He was swift in action, at a
        high emotional (though controlled) level, and zealous.
    
        I believe that to be angry at people is sin, in fact is
        perhaps murder and I don't believe God is a murderer.
    
        Mark 3:5
        So when He had looked around at them in anger, being grieved
        by the hardness of their hearts...
    
        That is godly anger, to be grieved by the hardness of one's 
        heart.
    
        I believe that a word upon word, precept upon precept study 
        of the scriptures defines certain terms for us.  For example
        we are called to be perfect even as our Father in heaven is
        perfect.  This exhortation is given in the context of Jesus 
        calling us to love our enemies.  And yet, the Psalmist says that
        God hates workers of iniquity.  As far as I'm concerned, a line
        upon line study of the scriptures will give a very different
        definition of Godly hatred than will Webster and unless it did,
        I wouldn't know how to reconcile God loving and hating at the
        same time.
    
        But, anyway, the argument that it is 'divine' to hate people or
        be mad at people doesn't really do anything for me for I believe
        it is not divine rather it is pure satanic.
    
        I think Joe said something about not being Jesus and thus his
        response was different than Jesus' would be.  All I can say to 
        that is, aren't we called to be like Jesus and is not falling
        short of the glory of God sin?
    
        A lot of people have talked about Richard.  Well, I know I'm a
        sinner and I'm not sure his particular sins are such that we
        are called to shake dust off our feet.  If Richard suffers from
        a sin such that our involvement in the conference feeds it, well
        may I have the discernment to realize that.  But, I don't discern
        this.
    
        The main other thought I have is that Jesus ate with sinners.
        Some people here even thump in soapbox!
    
        I think by the grace of God, I'll allow Christ to make me more
        like Him and I'll 'dine' here once in awhile.
    
                                                        Tony

| <<< Note 960.64 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>



| Once again instead of dealing with the "individuals" RJC brings up the
| "other conference".  Why?  What for?

	You have to admit Nancy, he is getting better. Why for you to bring
this up it must mean he has stopped making this conference about him! Gee
Nance, can he talk about anything without an attack by you?

| And why are you not addressing my notes to you Richard.  Hit close to
| home?  What pushes your wheelchair everyday?  What makes you get up in
| the morning?  In what lies your value?  How much of your value lies
| in this conference and it's audience?

	Nancy, maybe he has addressed this later on, as I have not read the
notes after this one yet. But I will tell you something, I would not want to
answer your questions the way you're asking them. But that's just me.



Glen

| <<< Note 960.66 by MIMS::CASON_K >>>

| No, not a critic, just an observer.  (Glen, does .62 represent the same
| hateful, condescending attitude that you have been accusing Joe of)  

	Actually, no. He asked a question, and he used a phrase from one of the
participants of this conference. You slammed Richard, he was responding. I
think he wanted to know if you were gonna be just like Joe. At least that is
how I saw it.



Glen

 Re 960.75  

 Hi Tony,

 Our Father does things which He does not allow us to do (destroy the
 world with a flood, cities with fire and brimstone,etc). He is God, 
 we are not. He makes the rules. 

 He "hates" (psalm 15). But we are told "He that hates His brother is 
 a murderer".He slays the wicked but He is not a murderer. We are His creation. 
 We are His to do with as He pleases. 

 And this is the offense to the world, He is God, He is sovereign, He will
 ulimately have the last word and no one will dare speak against Him "every
 mouth will be stopped". 

 Tony, my brother, you are weak in a very important aspect of Our Father's
 personality "He is angry with the wicked all day long".

  Take heed to His Word. "Man does not live by bread alone, but by *every word*
  which procedeth out of the mouth of God"

 "our God is in the heaven, He does whatever He pleases".  Psalm 115.

  The words of His hate and anger are the Words which will bring a remnant of
  those who will not respond to His love to repentance. "The fear of the Lord 
  is the beginning of wisdom". "The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life 
  to turn one away from the snares of death". "Open rebuke is better than love
  carefully concealed", "Faithful are the wounds of a friend (Jesus), but the 
  kisses of the enemy (Satan) are deceitful"

  Do you see what Our Father is doing with the revelation of His hatred and
  anger for the wicked. It is a paradox. "God is not willing that any should
  perish".

  Hank

re: Note 960.71 by Hank

> Personally, I enjoy being intellectually stimulated by views that are different
> than mine.  Please do not consider closing this conference down! And no one
> should have the attitude "well Im gonna take my football and go home".

Since this conference was created (19-Sep-90 (hey, it's almost time for a 
birthday party!)) it has grown, shrunk, grown again, changed as people come 
and go, been challenged, and thrived.  I think shutting it down is quite far
from most people's minds. 

Peace,

Jim

        re: 960.65
        
        I tried to respond to this yesterday but the network partner exited 
        and I was logged out.  It is probably for the best since emotions 
        were very high and reason was very low.  I hope that today will be 
        different.  For my part, if I find myself getting into a button 
        pushing, hypersensitive mode I will simply log out so that God can 
        deal with me.
        
        >       Do you really think a notes conference -- *any* notes
        >       conference -- is comparable in any way to the Temple in
        >       Jerusalem?
        
        Actually, no, at least not the Temple itself.  I was referring to     
        Jesus reaction to the people and their actions.  The Temple, 
        although important in context, was incidental to my point.  I could 
        have just as easily pointed out other instances of Jesus responses 
        to the 'religious' of the day.
        
        >       In situations other than the Temple, how did Jesus 
        >	interact with others?  Isn't this more comparable to an 
        >	ordinary marketplace or meeting hall, or perhaps out in the 
        >	open in a field?
        
        Jesus interacted with three primary groups of people (this is, of 
        course my observation and open for debate).  He dealt with each 
        group uniquely.  My definitions and explanations are below.
        
        Multitudes -
           Characterized in Matthew 9:36, Jesus saw them as "scattered 
        abroad, as sheep having no shepherd".  They were, for the most 
        part, spiritually ignorant.  They were abused by the religious 
        leaders and lived under the heavy yoke of the Law.  The Jews were 
        looking for the Messiah but misunderstood the purpose for his 
        coming.  Whether Jew or Gentile, they acknowledged that Jesus was 
        sent from God.  They were open to his words and they received his 
        miracles.
           When refering to the multitudes we often see Jesus "moved with 
        compassion".  He treats them with gentleness, healing their sick, 
        cleansing the lepers and teaching them.  He does not debate or 
        reason but keeps his message simple, speaking mostly in parables.
        
        Disciples -
           This group is not limited to the twelve but we do see most of 
        his interaction with the twelve.  Within the disciples there were 
        varying degrees of closeness; expanding rings with Jesus as the 
        center.  The closest being Peter, James and John, then the twelve.  
        Beyond that the rings get a little fuzzy.  We could consider the 70 
        that were sent out to be one ring.  We could consider the 120 that 
        ultimately joined together in the upper room at Pentecost to be 
        another.  Another might be the 500 to whom he appeared after his 
        resurrection.  The numbers here are not nearly as important as the 
        way he related to them.
           With the disciples, Jesus was direct, straightforward.  He 
        explained the parables and taught them much more deeply than the 
        multitude.  When necessary, he would rebuke them for not 
        understanding or for their faithlessness.  In the end, the 
        disciples were recognized as those "who had been with him".  They 
        reflected Jesus' characteristics and the authority with which he 
        spoke and acted.
        
        Religious -
           This would include, but is not limited to, the scribes, 
        Pharisees, Sadducees, the chief priests, and the those "exchangers 
        of money" at the Temple gates.  They can be characterized by Luke 
        18:9, "they trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and 
        despised others."  They loved to debate, not so that they could 
        learn but so that they could show him up.  They would provoke him 
        in a futile attempt to trip him in his own words so that they would 
        have something to accuse him with.  They were more concerned with 
        their own rightness than they were with true righteousness.  They 
        consistently disregarded the word of God and killed the messengers 
        who brought it.  They deluded the people and led them away from God 
        and
           Jesus dealings with them varies from event to event depending on 
        the circumstances.  On some occasions he would simply answer the 
        questions posed and move on.  I believe that this was for the 
        benefit of the disciples and the multitudes more than for the 
        religious.  Other times he would come against them vehemently 
        reflecting God's wrath against those who would destroy his beloved 
        (here I speak of the beloved as the people and not as Jesus).  On 
        these occasions Jesus used words like "fools", "hypocrites", "blind 
        guides", "blind leaders of blind", "whitewashed graves", 
        "generation of vipers", "wicked and adulterous generation", "evil 
        and adulterous generation" and he spoke plainly of their desire for 
        self exaltation.
        
        
        In my opinion all three groups are represented in this conference, 
        as they are in CHRISTIAN.  I would in no way hold up CHRISTIAN as a 
        model of perfection just as I would not paint every member of this 
        conference with a broad brush.  What Joe reacted to, however 
        indelicate the wording, was the religious faction of C-P who call 
        themselves Christian but are destroying the flock.  
        
        Kent
        

re Note 960.80 by MIMS::CASON_K:

>         Multitudes -
> ...
>         Disciples -
> ...
>         Religious -
> ...
>         In my opinion all three groups are represented in this conference, 
>         as they are in CHRISTIAN.  I would in no way hold up CHRISTIAN as a 
>         model of perfection just as I would not paint every member of this 
>         conference with a broad brush.  What Joe reacted to, however 
>         indelicate the wording, was the religious faction of C-P who call 
>         themselves Christian but are destroying the flock.  
        
        Kent,

        I really appreciated the thoughtfulness of your reply.

        Of course one problem we have is that if all three groups are
        represented in this conference, who is identified with which
        group?

        (I suspect, for example, that you would find sharp
        disagreement about who should be identified with the
        religious establishment, the keepers of religious tradition. 
        It would seem bizarre to me to identify the "keepers of
        religious tradition" with the liberals in this conference.)

        Perhaps more importantly, who is identified with Christ --
        the essential fourth party and the only one of the four who
        is a wise and true teacher?
        
        Bob

    Bob,
    
    I did not define the religious establishment as the keepers of
    religious tradition.  My definition was that they "trusted themselves
    that they were righteous, and despised others".  Yes, they were in fact
    the keepers of religious tradition but even among themselves they could
    not agree on what that was.  There was sharp controversy between the
    Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians but on one point they agreed, they
    all believed themselves to be counted among the righteous because of
    who they were and what they had done.  And Jesus upset their apple
    cart.  It could just as easily have been the pantheistic Romans.  In
    Pilates interview of Jesus, he asks the question, "What is truth?" but
    doesn't bother to wait for an answer.  He didn't really want to know. 
    
    There was a time, not too long ago, that I would have loved to
    participate actively in a conference like this.  I would invite Mormons
    and JWs over to the house just to debate theology.  Every time we
    finished both parties walked away apparently unchanged.  But I could
    sit back and say I'd won the argument (sometimes this was real,
    sometimes this was self-delusion).  But a few years ago God changed my
    way of thinking on this and I don't enjoy the strife involved in such
    debate.  I have a pet saying that means something to me: It's better to
    win a soul than to win an argument.  Sometimes that means cutting
    through the smokescreens which may require some direct confrontation
    but I TRY not to get bogged down in the mire.
    
    I think the more important question than which group are we in is which
    group do you want to be in.
    
    Kent
    

I would agree that this conference is a one man show.

That one man is Jesus Christ.

Praise God!

Richard

Note 960.70  Bob,

>        You know, Richard, sometimes your sarcasm even leaves me
>        wincing,...

You've always been more even-handed than I.  It's an admirable quality.

Shalom,
Richard

      Hi Hank,
    
        The way I understand it is that there is a spiritual reality
        which is a result of God's character of love.
    
        I do believe that in the last days light will make manifest.
        When God lightens the universe with an unveiled revelation
        of His love, the condemnation INHERENT TO SIN will be made
        manifest for lightmakes manifest.  The unsaved will suffer
        an anguish that indeed is incredibly fearful.  And only 
        the perfect love of God abiding in the heart can dispel fear
        for perfect love casts out all fear.
    
        In the eternal sense, God's light simply makes manifest.  The
        same fire that Daniel's friends basked in is the same fire
        that the Babylonian guards were destroyed by.
    
        With sin in the heart, there is ample reason to fear the purity
        of God.  Even Isaiah's experience in Ch. 6 is a fearful one
        and he was a man of faith.  Without that faith, when one begins
        to really see God's love, one will cry for rocks to fall on
        him.  The despair caused by the revelation of one's own sin-
        fulness coupled with the unbelief that God still loves the
        person (though He does)...that despair will be all encompassing.
    
        I am not suggesting universalism or any reason to not fear.
        There is a fear awaiting the unsaved that will be absolutely
        engulfing and final and is essentially caused by realizing to
        the core the essence of who you are.
    
        It will be truly horrifying.
    
        I do suggest that what awaits the unsaved will be horrible and
        that God causes His rain to fall on the just and the unjust and
        treats the man with rich garments the same as the man with 
        filthy garments (James - in the spiritual, the garment refers
        to character), and that He is no respector of persons.
    
                                                Tony

 Re .85 Tony

 Hi Tony, How did we get here in this note ?? :-)

 > the perfect love of God abiding in the heart can dispel fear for perfect
 > love casts out all fear

 No disagreement at all. I think you lump the two agents of His redeeming love
 into one entity. The love of God.  I see a dichotomy, (propitiation,cleansing)

 These are both the fruit of Our Fathers Love and He supplies it all.

 They are two sides of the coin of agape : Propitiation : expiation of guilt
                                           cleansing    : of sin in our members 

  The biblical word propitiation (hilasmos) :

  And the tax collector standing afar off would not so much as raise his
  eyes to heaven, but beat his breast saying, God be *merciful* (propitious)
  to me the sinner   Luke 18:13 NKJV.

  His guilt needed to be expiated (removed), He stood afar off unable to
  approach the God who loves him, after propitiation then can go into the 
  temple for cleansing (immediate and long term).

  
  This word is also used in the following passages :

  Romans 3:25
  Hebrews 2:17
  Hebrews 9:5
  I John 2:2
  I John 4:10

  The word (or a form of it) is used in the Septuigint of the Mercy seat
  in the Holy of Holies within the sanctuary. The word is propitiatory or 
  the propitiatorium (the place of expiation of guilt-the Mercy Seat). 
  In Romans 3:25 and I John 2:2, I John 4:10 that same word is used of 
  Jesus Christ (The propitiatory) it means that Jesus Christ took not only
  our sins in His body but suffered the guilt for them in our place.

  I have to leave early. see you tomorrow.

  Hank  

re: .85 STRATA::BARBIERI

        The unsaved will suffer
        an anguish that indeed is incredibly fearful. 

This is love? I still maintain that if I am unable to find God it is a direct
result of the way He made me.

        The
        same fire that Daniel's friends basked in is the same fire
        that the Babylonian guards were destroyed by.

Did his friends also sin or were they, too, suffering for Daniel's sin?

        It will be truly horrifying.

This sounds like a vengeful and horrible God to me, not a gentle loving God.

Steve

    Steve:
    
    You are looking at the glass half empty instead of half full.  God is
    showing tremendous love in that he is revealing to us the outcome of
    sin and warning us of the judgement to come.  
    
    Yes, the greatest love possible!!!
    
    -Jack

re: .AIMHI::JMARTIN

Acutally, Jack, I can't even see a glass :^)

Steve

      Hi Steve,
    
        The horrifying reality ultimate has as its basis God's
        character of love.  Because He made us with the capacity
        to discern variation in morality, spiritual reality is
        that to have sin in the heart and to behold its contrast
        is what causes the suffering.
    
        It may be a mystery, but I do believe that God cannot help
        that some choose sin to Him.  All he can do is draw people
        to Him by His love.  But, somehow, some choose selfishness
        to God.
    
        As far as the fiery furnace is concerned, I was referring
        to what I believe its symbolic meaning is.  I am sure that
        the fire was literal, but I believe it is a lesson book
        opening to us a spiritual and apocalyptic reality.
    
        I appreciate the kind of questions/concerns you have.
    
                                                   Tony

re: .90 STRATA::BARBIERI

Tony, we should move this to the atheist thread, unless we want to trash the
conference at the end of each message. :^)

        It may be a mystery, but I do believe that God cannot help
        that some choose sin to Him.  All he can do is draw people
        to Him by His love.  But, somehow, some choose selfishness
        to God.

My responses to this have been fairly well documented there, but I will go over
them again (in that thread) if you wish.

Steve

      Hi Steve,
    
        Just show me the way to the atheist thread.  But, by the
        grace of God, I hope it does not bid me: "This is the way,
        walk ye in it!"  ;-)
    
        By the way, I am still going to send you that manuscript.
        I'm working on it.
    
                                             Tony

	Jeff, could you clarify what you meant in .93?  I think .83 IS what
this is all about, Jesus. 


Glen

    .83
    
  >  I would agree that this conference is a one man show.
  >
  >  That one man is Jesus Christ.
  >
  >  Praise God!
    
    I agree with line 2 and 3.  I respectfully differ on line 1.  Jesus
    spoke out against gnosticism, pagan worship, New age philosophies, and
    doctrines for itching ears.  This shouldn't be insulting.  Lets face
    it, we don't all acknowledge the Son of God in the same way.
    
    -Jack 

    Amen Jack.  Jesus Christ is God.  You're either 100% for Him or you're
    not.  Jesus Christ didn't give us a gray area to accept Him in.

    Amen, Jack.  And you're right in tacitly affirming that Jesus is not
    the Bible.  Nor did Jesus leave us any writings of his own hand.
    
    All we have, at best, is second hand God-breathed stuff, eh?
    

Note 960.96

>    Jesus
>    spoke out against gnosticism, pagan worship, New age philosophies, and
>    doctrines for itching ears.

You're confusing Paul for Jesus, as many fundamentalists do.  Not only that,
but you're confusing the dubiously letters of Paul, like I & II Timothy
(which emphasize correct doctrine), with the real Paul of the undisputed
letters, Romans and I & II Corinthians (Which emphasize faith). 

Shalom in Christ,
Richard

    Doesn't matter.  Jesus met of on the road to Damascus but could have
    used anybody.  Also, whether or not Paul wrote Timothy doesn't
    precipitate the content to be false.  On the contrary, it is true.
    
    "And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us...."
    
    I believe Pauls opinions reflect the very message Jesus wanted us to
    follow.
    
    -Jack

re Note 960.100 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I believe Pauls opinions reflect the very message Jesus wanted us to
>     follow.
  
        Some of us don't regard what you personally believe as the
        message of Jesus, and some of us don't regard what Paul is
        said to have written as the message of Jesus, but you do, as
        is your choice.

        It is another one of those patently obvious things that a
        person could regard, respect, obey, and even worship Jesus
        without regarding, respecting, obeying, or even worshiping
        every part of the Biblical text and every traditional
        Christian doctrine.

        Bob

>    Jesus
>    spoke out against gnosticism, pagan worship, New age philosophies, and
>    doctrines for itching ears.
    >>
    >>You're confusing Paul for Jesus, as many fundamentalists do.  
    
    Rich, I find it hard to believe that you feel Jesus never addressed the
    above issues.  Paul didn't confirm anything that Jesus didn't. Jesus just 
    about covered all the bases in the letters to the 7 Churches in Revelation 
    1-3.  Then there's John 14:6, Matthew 24:10-14, and Matthew 7:13-23.
    
    Mike

>        person could regard, respect, obey, and even worship Jesus
>        without regarding, respecting, obeying, or even worshiping
>        every part of the Biblical text and every traditional
>        Christian doctrine.
    
    I find that if you worship Him, you desire to want to know more about
    Him.  What better book than the Bible is there for that?
    
    Mike

      To put a twist on this, I believe according to _my_ understanding
      of 1 John, that to believe Jesus came in unfallen rather than
      fallen flesh is to have (at least in part) the spirit of anti-
      Christ.  And believing that Jesus came in unfallen flesh would
      embrace Walter Martin's views quite accurately.
    
      Thus I am (according to Martin) a cultist.  And he was considered
      cult source numero uno (perhaps).
    
      My point?  I think we all see through a glass dimly and we all
      carry baggage of who we think Christ is to be (in part) pretty
      shabby.  And I'm not saying that some beliefs aren't pretty 
      grandiose (as far as how bad they are), but is fingerpointing 
      and heaping insult always going to be the way to draw others 
      into truth?
    
                                                   Tony

    Tony, does the word "flesh" here mean sinful nature or physical flesh? 
    I'm asking because I haven't checked the Greek word for it yet.  Would
    be nice to have LOGOS here at work ;-)
    
    BTW - Walter Martin was an awesome man of God!

    .105  LOGOS *is* at work here.
    

re Note 960.104 by STRATA::BARBIERI:

>       My point?  I think we all see through a glass dimly and we all
>       carry baggage of who we think Christ is to be (in part) pretty
>       shabby.  And I'm not saying that some beliefs aren't pretty 
>       grandiose (as far as how bad they are), but is fingerpointing 
>       and heaping insult always going to be the way to draw others 
>       into truth?
  
        Agreed.  I think we all need to keep a certain tolerance (I
        did not say "acceptance") of other people and their ideas if
        they are sincerely trying to understand God and especially if
        they are trying to understand Jesus.  Otherwise,
        communication *either way* is impossible.  So whether you
        want to learn from another or just proselytize them, you need
        to be able to listen to them with respect -- I don't think
        you can achieve either end by insulting them and their
        beliefs.

        (Yes, I admit that at times I have been guilty of this myself
        -- I do ask for forgiveness.)

re Note 960.103 by FRETZ::HEISER:

>     I find that if you worship Him, you desire to want to know more about
>     Him.  What better book than the Bible is there for that?
    
        I certainly agree with this, Mike.  The Bible *is* my primary
        spiritual resource book, in many ways the only one that
        really counts to me.

        Nevertheless, we can and do disagree on the attributes of the
        Biblical text.

        Bob

| <<< Note 960.97 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>

| Amen Jack.  Jesus Christ is God.  You're either 100% for Him or you're
| not.  Jesus Christ didn't give us a gray area to accept Him in.


	The gray area came from man. You know, the ones when some say they have
accepted Him, they come back and say no you haven't. 


Glen

| <<< Note 960.100 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| I believe Pauls opinions reflect the very message Jesus wanted us to follow.

	But then it still comes down to being Paul's opinion in a book that is
supposed to be God's Word.


Glen

| <<< Note 960.103 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>




| I find that if you worship Him, you desire to want to know more about
| Him.  What better book than the Bible is there for that?


	Mike, for a historical view, yeah, that is probably a place where one
can learn about the Jesus of old. But to learn about Jesus here and now, I
believe MORE THAN JUST the Bible is used to find out about Him. Remember, there
is more to Jesus than a history. He shows us how He loves us day in and day
out. He does that by using us, helping us, and by showing us His great
creation. Ever wake up to an ending rain storm when the sun starts to peek out?
The birds chirping? The color of the leaves? The rolling hills? I believe all
things are used to help us know Jesus. 


Glen

| <<< Note 960.111 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>



| Seeing God in nature is fine, but I'm talking about the supernatural 
| transaction that takes place in reading and study His Word.  

	Nature is only part of what He has for us Mike. I thought I had
mentioned it in my other note, maybe I didn't. How He uses us, how He helps 
us, how He shows us the way to grow our Spiritual lives. These things are also
involved. The Bible, IMHO, is also a tool that He uses to allow us to see what
he has done, and what He can do. It allows us to see how much He cares and
loves for us. God gave up His only Son for us. How much more loving can anyone
be? But the Bible can only give us a history of what happened. By believing in
Him, we can get to see how He still loves us, and how He is still hear today.
While I do believe the Bible is ONE tool He uses, I do not think it is the only
one. I also do not hold that above any other tool He may use. 

| Hebrews 4:12 says His Word is alive.  

	I believe the Bible can be alive today, as it is a guide that shows us
how things were then, our belief in Him shows us that things have not changed,
and that similar things happen today that happened in the Bible.

| As you read it, God speaks to you through it and it nurtures/edifies your 
| soul.  That's when you get on the personal relationship level with your Savior
| and Creator.  

	Mike, I don't think we are that far apart. I believe what you wrote
above. But I also believe He could use any number of tools which will also show
the same thing. God has used the Bible on MANY occasions to show me things.
These things have helped me grow to love Him even more. To get closer to Him.
But it is not the only thing He used, and I don't hold any tool as greater than
another, or greater/as great as Him.


Glen

    Greg:
    
    A very good quote and worthy of our respect.
    
    This too is a favorite of mine.
    
    " If thou bringest a gift to the alter but have an issue with thy
    brother, then leave the gift at the alter and reconcile with thy
    brother..."
    
    Practical application:
    
    "If thou hast an axe to grind from with said individual from another
    land (conference), please approacheth this person off line!!"   Jack
    
    

    Greg:
    
    I agree that nobody should be trashing anybody.  However, you must
    realize Greg, that the two conferences have two different purposes.
    
    Christian is a conference available for the edification and promoting
    of likemindedness of Bible believing Christians.  It is a good source
    of retrieving biblical doctrines more on a conservative/fundamentalist
    point of view.  
    
    Christian Perspective is a forum where those of different points of
    view or philosophy exchange their beliefs and are challenged to justify
    the same.  I personally appreciate this conference and its
    participants, though we heatedly disagree on some issues.  Something
    draws each of us here every day, that's what is important.  
    
    As far as your remarks in the last reply, I don't disagree with what
    you said.  What I do have a problem with is twofold:
    
    1. You came in when the movie was 3/4 over.  You don't really have the
    authority to determine the validity or invalidity of Richard and
    Nancy's personal dialog anymore than if I moved next door to you and
    started giving you advice on your marriage.  
    
    2. I am speculating but I have this feeling that for some reason you
    have an axe to grind with a certain individual from the past.  Greg,
    we're not here to observe this.  Please take the dirty laundry
    someplace else.  
    
    That's all my brother!!  Said in love, have a good one!!
    
    -Jack

    >>  So... whaddya think - 'the party is over', and all
    >>  the 'hit and run' drivers can go home now?  Mr. Kirk raised a
    >>  complaint of libel a long time ago which was quite valid.
    
    Well, Jim may be very right on that point.  The attendants of the party 
    have either apologized, left the party, or agreed to disagree.  So the 
    answer to the question is Yes, the party is over...we can all go home
    now.  
    
    -Jack

RE: .121

	Greg, I couldn't agree any more with your note. It really puts things
into the correct perspective.

RE: .122

| I agree that nobody should be trashing anybody.  However, you must realize 
| Greg, that the two conferences have two different purposes.

	Jack, as long as no one trashes another is what Greg was talking about.
REGARDLESS if the conferences are different, no trashing should happen.

| 1. You came in when the movie was 3/4 over. You don't really have the 
| authority to determine the validity or invalidity of Richard and Nancy's 
| personal dialog anymore than if I moved next door to you and started giving 
| you advice on your marriage.

	Jack, reading the replies in this note will enlighten anyone to what's
been going on, don't you think?

| 2. I am speculating but I have this feeling that for some reason you have an 
| axe to grind with a certain individual from the past.  Greg, we're not here 
| to observe this.  Please take the dirty laundry someplace else.

	Jack, I have a problem with this. You mentioned what you did in point
1, but then your point 2 does the same thing that you don't want anyone doing
in point 1! Isn't that being a little hypocritical?



Glen

RE: Note 960.121    
YIELD::GRIFFIS                                       19 lines  19-SEP-1994 09:19
    
>>			Between the accusations of idolatry, and the direct
>>	personal attacks against Richard, - I see some really down and dirty
>>	hardball game playing here.  

Okay, so what is your interest in this?

   >>   Anyone acquainted with psychology
   >> 	knows that a hardball game player plays to *win*, and does not care
   >> 	about the cost.  Hardball games have a winner, and a loser.  But,
   >> 	it is never win-win.  Some one usually ends up getting trashed. I	
   >> 	simply don't like the way in which some people here have tried to
   >> 	trash Richard, and vent personal frustrations.
    
Agreed, did Richard write you off line and ask you to come to his defense?
Incidentally, one of the hardball players left the conference, remember?

   >> 			Anyways... the point is: if one preaches 'no per-
   >>	sonal attacks', yet, does not practice 'no personal attacks'; then
   >>	this is known as hypocrisy.  I.E., not practicing what one preaches.
   >>	As far as the Matthew 18 principle is concerned, well.. that is fine
   >>	in a private issue/domain.  
    
Here's the thing Greg, You're doing the commentary to the play by play 
announcer when the ninth inning came to a close a while ago.  The only one
listening now are the crickets and a few of the watchdogs that guard the
ballpark from trespassers.

Greg, if you want to trash the YUKON conference, you are well within the
parameters to do so.  However, you do not have the liberty to come in and stir
up the pot between two individuals.  Richards silence here tells me he has the
integrity to let sleeping dogs lie.  If you have an axe to grind with an
individual, then the two of you need to reconcile and pray about it, or don't
reconcile and don't talk about it anymore.  

-Jack

    Sure Greg...Gladly:
    
    First of all, I have no secrets to keep from anybody here.  Since I
    don't have the original note, let me paraphrase for our readers.
    
    **The Christian Perspective conference is made up of different
    individuals.  This conference is made up of Secular Humanists, Gays, 
    Astrologists, New Agers, and Bible Believing Christians.**   
    
    Greg, I have been here a bit longer than you.  All who practice these
    philosophies are very open about their beliefs.  Ya see Greg,
    unlike yourself, I admire the individuals who note here because above
    all disagreements, they have the tenacity and the conviction to stand
    up for what they believe.  And I have made no bones in being up front
    with them about my feelings vs. their feelings.  To continue:
    
    **from note: Greg, as a brother in Christ, I want you to realize that 
    there are a few of us in here that see Christian Perspective as a 
    ministry, a seed planting ministry if you will.  I have learned that 
    any participants here require balance and fortitude.  I respectfully 
    request that if you are to participate here, please be sure your
    entries are Spirit lead and properly balanced. ****
    
    Greg, my dialog with you is minimal, but from what I have read and 
    your last entry, I am having a difficult time seeing the balance or
    reason you can offer to this type of forum.  
    
    I think it might be a wise idea if you delete CP from your directory, 
    build up your faith alittle more and get your walk with whomever your
    god is, then feel free to come back here and offer your dialog with us.
    I for one look forward to it!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    Glen,
    
    I actually agree with Jack in his last few notes and am glad he chose
    to mediate this issue.
    
    If each of us takes responsibility for this conference then we must
    speak up when something is astray.  In retrospect, I'm not sure my own
    response(or lack of response) to the disputes mentioned were the best they
    could be.  
    
    Many of us do have a standard of excellence in this conference. 
    Because we value diverse opinions, are standards are different.  Free
    speech is something most of us hold dear and as a moderator I am very
    uncomfortable with the idea of censureship.  Therefore it takes a lot
    for me to recommend setting hidden or deleting a note. I did recommend
    and concur with setting hidden the notes that were set hidden.
    
    THis particular note string is a valuable note string.  It is pointed
    and it it is sarcastic.  It is open.  It is bitter at points.  It very
    clearly demonstrates the primary liberal delemma.  It clearly
    identifies how difficult it is to walk the Christian walk.  Live and
    let live is not an acceptable response for people of faith.  Each of us
    is accountable for what we do not do as well as what we do do.  But how
    does any of us know when we are being prophetic and when we are
    responding to a  personal grudge?  How does any one of us know when we
    are responding negatively to someone who is being prophetic or when we
    are calling someone to responsible behavoir.
    
    Patricia

    Slight note crash here.
    
    Jack,
    
    I do think you have come across a little to strong in note .129 .
    
    Greg is as welcome to participate here as anyone else.  If he has a
    personal gripe with Nancy, then he and Nancy need to take it off line.
    
    All of us can learn something by reflecting and meditating on this
    string.
    
                                          Patricia

    Okay Patricia:
    
    Perhaps I was a bit strong on the young guy.
    
    Greg, my apologies...just keep your dirty laundry on your own
    clothesline...that's all!
    
    -Jack

	Maybe I'm not seeing something Patricia. Jack has sent me mail about it
being a conflict between Nancy and Greg. I brought up that POSSIBLY it could
come down to Greg, being new to this conference, read the note string and
offered his opinion/views of it all. To the people that have been noting in
here it could very well be taken that he is trying to rehash old wounds, when
in fact it just could be he came into it all after the main discussion
happened, but still wanted to share. Isn't that how topics that seem like they
have been put to sleep become resurected again? As I mentioned to Jack, we
can't really know the intentions behind the person unless we ask. It may be
just as you have thought, but it may not. Sooo.... with that in mind, Greg, why
did you offer your opinion to all this? 


Glen

    Greg and others may rest assured that parties and issues under
    consideration are very probably being kept abreast of the activity
    in this string via the FORWARD command.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Glen:
    
    I was quite careful about my wording.  I didn't ask him to leave the
    conference.  I stated that it might be a wise idea for Greg to delete
    the conference, then come back when he reaches some sort of spiritual
    maturity...one way or the other.  This isn't 180 degree Glen.  It was
    merely a suggestion.
    
    Greg:
    
    Since this is a conference of diverse forms of worship (not
    perjorative), you didn't avail yourself of the introductions string.
    Since I don't know which god you actually serve, I made a general 
    statement...offense not taken I hope.  See, that's another thing Greg,
    if you are to participate here, it is necessary to have a thick skin
    because we aren't always going to see things eye to eye.  
    
    Yes, the Colossians were into mysticism, the Ephesians lost their first
    love, and the Corinthians were spiritually immature.  Are you saying
    you follow the precepts of Paul to those churches or are you saying you
    follow the practices of those churches?
    
    Just wondering.
    
    -Jack

    
>    I wonder what he thinks of all your hidden notes! ;-)

I imagine Jesus knows what it's like to have a message prohibited. 8-}

    Goodbye Greg

    No Greg:  
    
    Spiritual Milk - Scripture Memory
    Spiritual Meat - Faith, Likemindedness, Character, Love.
    
    The ability to leave well enough alone Greg...that's what really
    impresses me as a reader.  The ability to discern when two adults have
    resolved an issue on their own and not needing to be a third wheel. 
    
    Remember Antipas and others who try to divide the bretheren...and learn 
    from their mistakes, that you and I will not repeat them!
    
    -Jack

    Naww...that came from a guy named Tipasto!!!

    Greg,
    
    I find nothing funny in your humor.
    
    Are you trying to stir up a fight in here?  Why?  
    
    I will reinterate Glen's Question.  What is your purpose in here?
    
    What would you like to find in here?  What answers are you seeking? 
    What edification?  What enlightenment?  What sense of spiritual
    community?  What sense of honest discussion?  What contribution will
    you make in here?
    
    
    All are welcome in this conference.  All are accountable in here as
    well even if accountability is too yourself and the principles you hold
    most dear.
    
                                        Patricia
    

    Yes, excellent verse and quite inspiring.  I like this one too!!
    
    "For we hear that there are some which walk among you disorderly,
    working not at all but are busybodies.  Now them that are such we
    command and exhort by our Lord Jesus Christ that with quietness they
    work and eat their own bread..." 2nd Thess. 3:12,13
    
    Sir Jack-a-lot of thee high horses!!

    Greg,
    
    I agree with that.
    
    Humor is often used as an excuse to get away with saying something that
    is not appropriate.  When it offends the convenient retort is "Can't
    you take a joke", Didn't you see my smiley face, or where is your sense
    of humor.
    
    Patricia

    But I still love 972.7.
    
    When I use the page up and page down command the tongue goes in and 
    out.
    
    Patricia

    Greg:
    
    A lie?  A lie??  Ho ho....
    
    Greg, if you were sitting next to me and had halitosis, I'd proclaim it
    from the rooftops.  I have nothing to hide!!!! :-)
    
    

    I think "proclaiming it from the rooftops" is being a little spiteful.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    Naww....I'm just injecting the same type of harmless humor that Greg
    would have written to me.  Spiteful???  Nawww.

    Intentionally lying about another prson to harm their self-esteem or
    their reputation is truly dispicable.
    
    There are few people I know who would intentionally lie about another
    person to harm them.
    
    There are a lot of misguided people I know who unintentionally do damage
    to the self esteem and/or reputation of others out of motives which
    they consciously think are holy motives.
    
    I believe that is why the Bible is so strong against judging others. 
    As fallable humans we can never be totally sure of our motives or of
    the inspiration behind our motives.
    
    I don't literally believe in Satan or a Devil, but if that is a
    metaphor for all the destructive impulses within each of us, then there
    is a real danger of any of us believing that we are inspired by the
    "Holy Spirit" and yet really being influenced by our baser impulses.
    
    As people of faith, each of us needs to give others the benefit of the
    doubt.  If I am injured by another, I always prefer to believe that it
    is because of a misguided soul and not because of intentional injury.
    
    As I know that I am capable of unintentionally injuring others, I pray
    that when another feels so injured by me, that they are also gracious
    enough to give me the benefit of the doubt.
    
    Patricia
    
    

>    I believe that is why the Bible is so strong against judging others. 
>    As fallable humans we can never be totally sure of our motives or of
>    the inspiration behind our motives.
    
    Actually we're called to judge the world righteously.  Jesus blasted the
    Pharisees in Matthew 7 because they judged the world unrighteously.  
    Romans 14 speaks against judging fellow believers.
    
    What really bothers me is seeing what Mr. Set_Hidden is saying here.
    
    Mike

    Mike,
    
    I suspect you won't believe this, but Paul was actually quite unsure of
    himself regarding whom he wanted Christians to judge and whom he did
    not want Christian's to judge.  At one point he chastised the Christian
    community for not judging the man who slept with his Fathers Wife(1 Cor
    5) and at another point he suggests that we not judge others.  Perhaps 
    what that means is that we have to be really careful before deciding to
    fix someone else.
    
    Jesus' warns against the hypocracy of trying to judge others while we
    cannot see the bricks in our own eyes.  Paul was very unhappy though
    about "Christians" airing there arguments in front of non CHristians,
    especially about bringing disputes to the heathen courts.
    
    It is safe though to know, that each of us will do better with self
    reflection on our own behavoir and motives.  Yom Kippur is such a
    wonderful holiday in that respect.
    
    Patricia

| <<< Note 960.138 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| I was quite careful about my wording. I didn't ask him to leave the conference
| I stated that it might be a wise idea for Greg to delete the conference, then 
| come back when he reaches some sort of spiritual maturity...one way or the 
| other.  This isn't 180 degree Glen.  It was merely a suggestion.

	Jack, add in what you said above with this:

| Greg, my dialog with you is minimal, but from what I have read and
| your last entry, I am having a difficult time seeing the balance or
| reason you can offer to this type of forum.


	Not very good Jack. What followed this was you making the suggestion
that he delete the conference (which I'm not sure what the difference between
that and asking him to leave is) based on what you thought, which you never
waited to see his response.

| <<< Note 960.151 by YIELD::GRIFFIS >>>


| I heard a great proverb from the LB. It says that he that spreads lies about 
| another and says I was only joking is like a mad man that throws firebrands 
| and hot arrows.

	Greg, I really wish you'd take this opportunity that's being given to
you here. You know that many will assume without knowing the why. You have even
stated many times yourself that people should not bear false witness. I did ask
you what was the reason that started you to respond to this note. This would be
a great time for you to clear up any misconceptions that anyone could have had
about your intentions. Doesn't it make more sense to do that than to go off on
a non-humor tangent leaving everything unanswered? Here is your opportunity to
set the record straight. Why won't you take the opportunity to do this?


Glen

    Greg:
    
    As I stated previously, my participation in Christian is minimal.  I
    enjoy the conference for various reasons but because I note
    infrequently, I consider myself a non-prejudiced observer.
    
    Therfore, I must challenge you with this question.  There was a time
    when you started entering notes in Soapbox.  Consequently, alot of your
    entries were set hidden there as well.  When this happens, especially
    in a file known for its scum and villany, logic dictates that there has
    to be a serious problem in the way the writer (you in this case)
    communicates.  Would you care to comment on this please?
    
    -Jack

 I'd suggest that comments regarding the mental health of another Digital
 employee are not appropriate in a Digital notesfile and may in fact be
 of questionable legal status.



 Jim

    Greg,
    
    There is truth in what you write but there also seems to be  personal
    vendeta in what you write.
    
    First of all, I assume that you do not have pschotheraputic training
    and therefore should not be using this note to try to analyze anyone. If
    you did have such training, you would not be doing your analysis in a
    public place.  If you are trying to alude to specific individuals it is
    entirely innappropriate.  If you have a dispute with a brother or
    sister, resolve it before the sun goes down with your brother or
    sister.
    
    The truth of what you are saying goes much beyond the individuals and
    the moderators of the other Notes File.  It is a Philosophical and
    perhaps even Theological Truth. 
    
     Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    
    The idea of censureship is incompatible with our democratic and
    philosophical ideals.  It is incompatible with my Theological ideals.
    
    Any theology that believes that there is only one way to truth and one
    way to God will take unfortunate measures in attempting to preserve
    that truth and that way.  Fallible Human beings therefore are put in
    positions too heavy for fallible human beings.  There is no way mistakes
    will not be made.  When any person thinks they are working exclusively
    under the authority of God, a god, or a holy spirit, then they can feel
    compelled to go to any length to make their point.  They may even
    justify it as "spiritual warfare" on behalf of their god.
    
    In my opinion, which may not be the opinion of everyone here, but that
    is alright, this note file exists because many of us are skeptical
    about our own abilities to always discern when we know the absolute
    way.  This leads to an acceptance and respect of others and others
    opionion.  It leads to real honest humility.  We stand in various
    degrees of humility before God and each others.
    
    There are lots of instances in here where most of us have not liked
    what someone else was saying.  Where there have been disputes.  Most of
    us cherish freedom of speech so much, that we hate the idea of
    censureship and therefore prefer to leave the disputes right where they
    were recorded.
    
    I have  had some offline discussions with others where I have
    learned that I  have to trust the process.  If "A" is abusing "B" in
    here, we have some trust that "B" will be supported.  We each use our
    own consciences as a guideline in deciding when we will jump in and
    get in the middle of a confrontation.
    
    I personally am a big fan of Richard and am inspired by a lot of his
    noting.  Richard is inspiring to me partially because he is comfortable
    being provocative.  He has shown us that he will go as far as getting
    arrested for what he believes.  He certainly will and has at times
    taken a  heat for his provocative nature.
    
    Greg, you too seem to enjoy being provocative.  Are you willing to take
    the heat that comes with that?  Are you sure of your own motivation for
    being provocative.  I ask that question because sometimes I am
    comfortable with my own provocativeness and others times I question my
    own motivation.
    
    I believe that this notes file is a reflection of how each of us lives
    in the real world.  I believe that in the real world and in this notes
    file that we must first of all fully examine ourselves and our own
    motivation.  
    
    Patricia

    I would still like Greg to answer my .166!!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 960.165 by YIELD::GRIFFIS >>>

Hi Greg!

| This note is supposed to be a discussion of C-P problems; but really, why 
| would anyone care to note here? Isn't it because there is something that is 
| drastically wrong with the Yukon note?

	For some, yeah, that is their reason for being here. For others, the
reason's differ. I have known people to note here because it is a good place to
share ideas, hear about different perspectives. I can't say for sure, but my
gut feel leads me to believe that those reasons will fall into most people's
reasons for noting in here. I'm sure they aren't the only reasons, but part of
them. Maybe we could find out by starting a note about why people note in here. 

| Isn't it obvious? How many times have you run into situations where folks 
| intentionally provoked you, sarcastically criticized you, or personally 
| insulted you on node Yukon?  

	Many times Greg. Too numerous to count. But you know something? For
some it is their beliefs that trigger this. I believe differently than they do.
If I mention most of my beliefs in their, yeah, they will be set hidden. They
can freely defend theirs, but others can not. So I can see your frustration.
I've been there! heh heh... but you know, some of the best things I learn about 
in there is about human behaviour and how it deals with Christianity. But does 
that mean I will leave YUKON? No, as there are still things that I learn about 
in there, and as long as that is happening, I'll stay. If it were to ever
get too stagnant, I would probably move on. 

| Yet, if you made the slightest defense of yourself, didn't your note get 
| suddenly hidden? 

	Oh, I believe there is a lot wrong with that file. BUT, it is just my
belief. It may be right, it may be wrong. I've prayed about the file, and to be
honest with you, I think at this point it's all we really can do. (btw, I pray
about this file too) I see some very loving people in there, and others I see
have hardened hearts towards certain individuals. Not much we as humans can do
about it Greg except pray.

	Let me ask you, while you write in there, do you learn anything?

| The censuring on that note is incredibly opportunistic, and particularly so, 
| on behalf of the moderators, the notes' reputation, and certain folks who have
| more influence with the moderators than others. 

	You know, I'm not sure of your interaction with the mods, but I have to
say that the ones who have delt with me, most always done so in a very good
fashion. I may not have agreed to the why's all of the time, but they pointed
out the reasons for the deletion, or set hidden, and through dialogue we were
able to clear up an awful lot of confusion. It ain't perfect, but I have to say
for *me*, anyway, most of the mods have been fair and very upfront and honest.

| At times, it has seemed quite like a bunch of cheap shot artists, taking pot 
| shots from behind the rocks; and using set hidden privileges to try to protect
| themselves from anything that resembled a protest, censuring the note, and 
| trying to build up their own reputation, personal power, influence, etc.

	I've noticed the cheap shots, but hadn't noticed the set hidden stuff
for power and influence. And the cheap shots for the most part did not come
from the mods, but participants. When I see a cheap shot, I will respond to it.
Everything usually ends up getting set hidden anyway. :-)  But again, all we
can do is pray that eyes open. Sometimes it ends up being our own.

| I've seen situations where it has been insinuated that I am some kind of false
| prophet. I've seen situations over there where some really good preachers have
| been called cult leaders, heretics, etc. And, now, here is a situation where a
| new accusation of 'idolatry' has been raised against Richard Jones-Christie.  
| You see? The modus operandi is the same, the type of insult is the same. The 
| only difference? There are no 'set hidden' priv's to hide behind.  

	Your last line brought a smile to my face. :-)  Greg, something to try
and do is remember your relationship with God is between you and Him. Not
between you and Him and the people of Yukon. If they feel you are X and you
can't convince them otherwise, well, leave it to God to handle. You allow
yourself to let Him handle your relationship, and let Him work with them. In
the end there can be no losers. We may argue all along the way, but the end has
the same results. If we believe that God is our Savior, and believe that in our
hearts, entrance into Heaven will happen.

| One moderator who was angry at me once sent me 32 mail messages in a row.   

	That's bizzare. I think 10 would have done the trick. :-)  

| One of the reasons why I started to avoid that note was because I began to 
| suspect that moderator of having a serious mental 'problem' for which 
| psychotherapy might be able to help him.

	Greg, this worries me. What is the difference between someone thinking
you're a false prophet and you thinking this guy needs therapy? Both were based
by what was posted, right? Do you see a difference between the two
circumstances?

	OK, let me see if I got this straight. You responded to this notes
string because you see that the things that happen in Yukon have happened in
here as well, and you don't want to see this notesfile go that route without
saying something about it. Is this correct, or at least partially correct?

	Oh, one last thing. Did you respond to this notes string to slam an
individual, or to refute what people were saying about Richard?


Glen

    I read both conferences. I admit that I'm far more active a participant
    in Christian, but I think that this is partly because you seem to
    discuss things that are more relevant to the US here and I get a bit
    lost. It's true to a certain extent with the other conference, of
    course, but there I am joined by other Brits whom I know pretty well
    and we can have our "alternative culture" bit going :-). 
    That's not to say that I don't find this notesfile interesting. I'm
    often fascinated by the theological arguments that take place here and
    find them very helpful. I have a great deal of respect for all the
    participants of this conference and I value their notes. I suppose I
    lean a little more to the liberal side, if the truth be told, but I
    have been swayed by some of the fundamentalist arguments.
    I see Richard's new topics as being thought-provoking and designed to
    promote discussion. 
    I suspect that this is the true reason for the existance of this
    conference. 
    Where I feel MOST uncomfortable is when things get heated in here.
    Comments are taken too personally, participants are accused of having
    "a hidden agenda" (I loathe this phrase), snipers abound and the whole
    tone gets very nasty.
    I believe that people forget that we are typing notes, not talking face 
    to face. There is no tone of voice, no body language, no facial 
    expression, just words. Did you know that this constitutes 7% of our 
    communication? It's no wonder that there are mis-understandings and
    upsets. Can you hear me talking to you now? I wonder what "voice" you
    are imagining for me? Scolding, perhaps? Angry? Pleading? Humorous?
    Patronising? Read my note again with each of those voices and just see
    how my words will change for you!
    With reference to bringing up touchy subjects in Christian, well I
    remember arguing with all and sundry about the benefits (or otherwise!)
    of having a female minister (we've got one, you see). Of course I
    thought that the others were shortsighted because they wouldn't see my
    point of view no matter what, but then I'm sure they felt the same
    about me! I don't remember having a single note deleted or hidden, 
    however. I DO remember having an interesting and thought-provoking
    discussion, both online in the conference and also offline with Nancy
    (who incidently disagreed with me!).
    I see strengths in both conferences and will continue to participate in
    both.    

 NOTES> add entry yukon::christian
 NOTES> Open Christian
 NOTES> DIR/TIT="BASH CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE"
 NOTES> no such note




 

    Glen:
    
    Remember...two distinct purposes.
    
    Christian - People of like faith exchanging information and edification
    for the purpose of building the body. 
    
    Christian-Perspective - To exchange information from a variety of
    beliefs and perspectives under the guise or title of Christianity.
    
    If they don't want to discuss gay issues for example, this is their
    perogative.  Therefore, I go to C-P.
    
    -Jack

Re: .172 Julie

>    Where I feel MOST uncomfortable is when things get heated in here.
>    Comments are taken too personally, participants are accused of having
>    "a hidden agenda" (I loathe this phrase), snipers abound and the whole
>    tone gets very nasty.

Yes, that's a problem for me too.  Sometimes I think it might be time for
the C-P moderators to get tough, as the mods did in the RELIGION conference
a few years ago:

               <<< GRIM::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]RELIGION.NOTE;1 >>>
                            -< Religion Conference >-
================================================================================
Note 1.1                          Introduction                            1 of 4
REGENT::BURGESS                                      29 lines   9-FEB-1987 15:02
                                 -< Addendum >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          ADDENDUM #1 TO THE POLICIES OF THE RELIGION CONFERENCE
        **********************************************************

1. THIS CONFERENCE WILL BE HEAVILY MODERATED BY THREE MODERATORS.

2. ALL OFFENSIVE NOTES WILL BE DELETED AND RETURNED TO THE NOTER.

3. ALL NOTES USING A NEGATIVE AND DISRESPECTFUL TONE WILL BE DELETED AND 
   RETURNED TO THE NOTER.

4. If you find it necessary to enter into other subjects in order to further
   illustrate certain points, YOU SHOULD GENERATE A NEW TOPIC AND DISCUSS THAT
   SUBJECT THERE AND SIMPLY REFER TO IT BY A POINTER.

5. If a REPLY does not pertain to the topic of the original note, it will be 
   deleted and returned to the noter. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE, WHETHER YOUR  REPLY 
   IS APPROPRIATE OR NOT, PLEASE CONTACT THE MODERATORS OF THIS CONFERENCE AND 
   SEEK THEIR SUGGESTION.

6. IF YOU ARE NOT SURE, WHETHER A TOPIC IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS CONFERENCE, 
   PLEASE CONTACT ONE OF THE MODERATORS OF THIS CONFERENCE AND SEEK THEIR 
   SUGGESTION. 

7. It is better if the participants use this conference as a medium for
   exchanging scholarly views on religion, by preparing commentaries and
   articles that are well thought out, instead of sharing flashes of thought
   as it comes to their mind.

    Bob:
    
    I see the merit you are bringing forth; however...
    
    You are proposing big brother here...the thought police if you will.
    Womannotes is under this ball and chain and it has fallen under the
    realm of ridiculous.  Womannotes is laughable to alot of people I know.
    People who would add alot but simply refuse to play the conformity
    game.
    
    No...I think it is a part of Christian maturity that needs to be
    developed in each of us.  Married couples have to grow up and resolve
    their differences.  The same should apply to the participants here.
    Besides, it may get uncomfortable from time to time but it isn't
    unbearable!!
    
    -Jack

    >>    Christian-Perspective - To exchange information from a variety of
    >>    beliefs and perspectives under the guise or title of Christianity.
    
    I would like to clarify this statement as it may have been worded 
    inappropriately.  I use the word "guise" pretty much like I use the
    word umbrella.  Although Christ is the focal point of Christianity, 
    there are different flavors...somewhat similar to UNIX.  
    
    A better term may have been umbrella, or "...under the Christian
    Umbrella."  The word guise does not connote deceit!!
    
    -Jack

>    		that I am some kind of false prophet.  I've seen situations
>    		over there where some really good preachers have been called 
>    		cult leaders, heretics, etc.   And, now, here is a situation
    
    I see you still haven't researched the evidence for yourself yet.  Why
    not do your homework and save everyone the strife?

    Greg:
    
    I took the liberty of cross posting something you wrote in SOAPBOX...
    a philosophy I highly agree with.
    
>>    The prejudism and bigotry between Catholics and Protestants
>>    needs to be layed down, because the bottom line is that we are 
>>    supposed to love each other as Christ loved us, and we cannot be beating
>>    each other up and calling that the love of Christ.  The real
>>    church is the body of people who have Jesus Christ as their Lord.  Its 
>>    that simple.  If we are picking on Catholics, we need to repent.  If 
>>    we are picking on Protestants, we need to repent of it because its 
>>    sin.
    
    I guess what I'm trying to point out here is that the exact same
    principle must be carried over to these two conferences...even if it
    is one sided.  
    
    Greg, there is no constructive purpose in bantering over Yukon vs CP.
    All it does is cause strife.  If Richard is being maligned, well, this
    is Sir Richards battle and no doubt he is capable of taking care of
    himself.  I honestly believe that if you continue to get involved in 
    the fight (which has been resolved), it is in my observation sin!
    
    -Jack

Re: .176 Jack

>    You are proposing big brother here...the thought police if you will.

Well, I only "sometimes" think that way.  In the past when I was one of
the moderators of C-P I was generally in favor of letting people say what
they wanted because I wanted to encourage people with a variety of points
of view to participate.  Some people have a lot of interesting ideas but
have very provocative noting styles.

What the C-P mods did in the past was to make a distinction between the
free expression of *ideas*, which is encouraged, and personal attacks
against other noters, which is against the rules.  I think this is fine,
although sometimes it's hard to agree on what constitutes a "personal
attack".  It's important to find a balance that will allow the free
exchange of ideas without allowing topics to generate into an exchange of
insults.

I don't want to spend too much time talking about the moderation policies
of other conferences, but to illustrate what I'm talking about, I think
WOMANNOTES goes too far in the direction of limiting the ideas that can be
expressed (e.g. the restrictive rules in the abortion topic) and doesn't
go far enough in suppressing rapid-fire exchanges of insults.  Several
times I've ended up hitting "Next Unseen" so often in that conference that
I've given up in disgust.

Anyway, no, I'm not proposing the policing of thoughts, just the policing
of personal attacks.

				-- Bob

    Maybe it would be a good idea then that if a person feels violated,
    simply send a message to moderator stating..."So and So is going too
    far".  Then mod can get involved with nice reminder...kind of like when
    you get a second notice for a bill...just before they foreclose!! :-)

re Note 960.176 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     You are proposing big brother here...the thought police if you will.
>     Womannotes is under this ball and chain and it has fallen under the
>     realm of ridiculous.  Womannotes is laughable to alot of people I know.
>     People who would add alot but simply refuse to play the conformity
>     game.
  
        Perhaps from your perspective you see this, Jack.  But I read
        in Womannotes occasionally, and I think that the discussion
        of religion's relationship to societal issues as they have
        conducted there (over the past couple of months) has been
        excellent -- minimal personal attack, but lots of information
        presented from a variety of views.  It may, in fact, be a
        better place to discuss certain issues related to Christian
        beliefs than this conference (or ::Christian).

        On the other hand, I wouldn't want to have the intense
        moderation the way they do it.  I'm not proposing it for
        here.

        Bob

re Note 960.177 by AIMHI::JMARTIN:

>     I would like to clarify this statement as it may have been worded 
>     inappropriately.  I use the word "guise" pretty much like I use the
>     word umbrella.  


        Thanks, Jack.  If you hadn't offered this clarification, I
        would have offered one of my own, along the lines:

    Christian - People of like faith exchanging information and edification
    under the guise of building the body. 
    
        But of course, now I don't have to!

        Bob

    Greg:
    
    Remember 2nd Thessolonians 3, about busybodies...yeah, heed the words.
    I am publicly exhorting you to stop meddling in their affairs.  As far
    as I can see, the subject was closed a while ago.   Reconciliation was
    made already as far as I know so stop it, now. 
    
    And another thing Greg, it is most certainly not sinful for me to hold
    you accountable for your own statements, just as you hold me
    accountable for mine.  
    
    -Jack

    First of all, your .185 is good but doesn't it belong in the Hell
    string?
    
    Secondly Sir Greg, what makes me the busybody here?
    
    

    Way to beat that dead horse, Greg!

| <<< Note 960.173 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "I'm the traveller, He's the Way" >>>



| NOTES> add entry yukon::christian
| NOTES> Open Christian
| NOTES> DIR/TIT="BASH CHRISTIAN_PERSPECTIVE"
| NOTES> no such note


	Of course not Jim, that note is in here! :-)  But how many times have
people said go discuss X in CP, and give it a very negative tone, as if CP was
a lower class place with people who say they are Christians, but really aren't?
It goes on in there Jim, they just don't have a single note called bash CP.


Glen

| <<< Note 960.174 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>


| Christian - People of like faith exchanging information and edification for 
| the purpose of building the body.

| Christian-Perspective - To exchange information from a variety of beliefs and 
| perspectives under the guise or title of Christianity.

	Guise Jack? It's the thinking like this that goes on in that file. Real
Christians over there? Yup. And real Christians here too. 



Glen

| <<< Note 960.177 by AIMHI::JMARTIN >>>

| >>    Christian-Perspective - To exchange information from a variety of
| >>    beliefs and perspectives under the guise or title of Christianity.

| I would like to clarify this statement as it may have been worded
| inappropriately.  I use the word "guise" pretty much like I use the
| word umbrella.  Although Christ is the focal point of Christianity,
| there are different flavors...somewhat similar to UNIX.

	Jack, does this apply to the word title that was used?



Glen
	

	Greg, does this mean you won't be addressing .164?

RE:               <<< Note 960.194 by BIGQ::SILVA "Memories....." >>>


>	Of course not Jim, that note is in here! :-)  But how many times have
>people said go discuss X in CP, and give it a very negative tone, as if CP was
>a lower class place with people who say they are Christians, but really aren't?
>It goes on in there Jim, they just don't have a single note called bash CP.


 Glen, it has been suggested that folks discuss X in CP, as this conference
 invites discussion on the errancy/inerrancy of the Bible, as well as other
 issues.  The CHRISTIAN conference, as you are well aware, is based on the 
 premise that the Bible IS the Word of God, that it is inerrant and that folks
 who believe such are welcome to share that belief therein.  Discussion 
 counter to that premise is not invited, because the conference is intended to
 be a place where those who DO believe that, may gather and share.

 Would you barge into a public meeting of Bible believing Christians where
 the purpose of said meeting was published clearly, and challenge/argue
 their beliefs?



 Jim

	Jim, I'm talking about how this conference is viewed in there, and the
negativity that is put forth by some who try to suggest they should note here.

    Glen:
    
    For cryin out loud...who cares?  I mean think about it.  I used to
    watch the news and I would see Iran burning American flags on the
    street.  The point is...they didn't burn the flags in our country but
    they did in theirs!  
    
    Taking insults on a personal level may be one thing.  I believe that
    should be addressed offline.  Bantering about whose conference is
    better...well, it's like a beautiful woman married to an ugly man...
    beauty is in the eyes of the beholder!  
    
    Focus on what you want to accomplish here....never mind what is going
    on in the other country!
    
    Regarding the word "guise", like I said, different flavors of UNIX, yet
    UNIX just the same!!!
    
    -Jack

 What negativity, Glen?  I'd be happy to review examples, which I'm 
 sure you'll provide.


 Maybe we should discuss those offline.



 Jim

    The truth of the matter is that it's no surprise that there are few
    entries in ::CHRISTIAN blatently critical of C-P.  The narrow parameters
    therein squelch much.
    
    Richard
    

 Frequently I wonder why I continue to participate here...

 .202 has convinced me its time to go.  




 Adios

    .203
    
    I'm history too, Jim.

 NOTES> add entry yukon::christian
 NOTES> Open Christian
 NOTES> DIR/TIT="BASH CHRISTIAN"
 NOTES> no such note
    
    this note doesn't exist either.  
    
    Mike (who's not ready to leave yet but is getting close)

| <<< Note 960.201 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "I'm the traveller, He's the Way" >>>



| What negativity, Glen?  I'd be happy to review examples, which I'm
| sure you'll provide.

	Jim, go back and read the notes where people have told me to go to CP.
It's a very negative light that it portrayed about this file.

	Jack, sorry if I gave you the impression that it was a who's conference
is better thing. I think both are very useful in similar and different ways.
But I am glad you consider both under the same umbrella. :-)


Glen

	Mike, do the same here, find anything?

    I must confess that I snuck into Yukon::Christian and put two notes in
    there.  Neither was deleted or set hidden.  Nancy even extended me a
    warm welcome.  
    
    I deleted the conference though because I like typing open CH and getting
    this conference.
    
    
                                          Patricia
    
                                      

>    I deleted the conference though because I like typing open CH and getting
>    this conference.

Notes> add entry yukon::christian/name=cn

/john

    Thanks John,
    
    I appreciate the tip.
    
                            patricia

    >	Mike, do the same here, find anything?
    
    yeah I found this topic where members can trash their own conference.

re Note 960.203 by CSLALL::HENDERSON:

>  .202 has convinced me its time to go.  
  
        My first reaction was:  you are easily convinced.  (.202 is
        so short, and there's nothing in it you couldn't have
        guessed.)

        Second reaction:  if the discussion in this topic bothers
        you, why did you take part in it?  NEXT UNSEEN is so easy to
        do.

        Bob

    Now...now...now...
    
    	Jim Henderson is not to be hastily swept away without regret.
    I have appreciated many of his contributions here, not all of which
    have been disparaging toward this conference.
    
    	Fortunately for us, Jim has departed from our midst before and has
    eventually reappeared.  May he repeat his pattern.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

        I don't think it is appropriate that this becomes the
        "Official trash each other" topic.

        Bob

    I took care of it....

One might ask, "Why create a topic bashing the very conference it is contained
within?"

Well, criticisms of C-P have been going on a long time anyway.  Why deny it?

This topic is a place that authors of entries such as .2 may vent.

If a note appears elsewhere in this file bashing C-P, a moderator may chose
to move it here rather than deleting it, thus creating something of a notesfile
compost heap.  An environmentally sound practice.  ;-)

Shalom,
Richard

                         oooo$$$$$$$$$$$$oooo
                      oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o
                   oo$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o         o$   $$ o$
   o $ oo        o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$o       $$ $$ $$o$
oo $ $ "$      o$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$o       $$$o$$o$
"$$$$$$o$     o$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$o    $$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$      $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$  """$$$
   "$$$""""$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     "$$$
    $$$   o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     "$$$o
   o$$"   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$       $$$o
   $$$    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$" "$$$$$$ooooo$$$$o
  o$$$oooo$$$$$  $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$   o$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  $$$$$$$$"$$$$   $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$     $$$$""""""""
 """"       $$$$    "$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"      o$$$
            "$$$o     """$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$"$$"         $$$
              $$$o          "$$""$$$$$$""""           o$$$
               $$$$o                 oo             o$$$"
                "$$$$o      o$$$$$$o"$$$$o        o$$$$
                  "$$$$$oo     ""$$$$o$$$$$o   o$$$$""
                     ""$$$$$oooo  "$$$o$$$$$$$$$"""
                        ""$$$$$$$oo $$$$$$$$$$
                                """"$$$$$$$$$$$
                                    $$$$$$$$$$$$
                                     $$$$$$$$$$"
                                       "$$$""""

    .222
    
    That graphic is really making the rounds here.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    There is humor in this note.
    
    I started writing a note about it a few times and deleted it as I
    question my own motives.  This string has personally impacted me for
    the better perhaps more than any other note in this conference.  In
    noting in here many persons have revealed themselves in there best and
    in there nerdiness.  Richard is right.  This string has given a forum
    to some like in .2 truly letting it all out.
    
    It has also shown me that sometimes it is OK to let someone be their
    nerdiess and love them anyway.  Sometimes the best reaction to an 
    inappropriate note is just to ignore it.  This note string has shown me
    how much I care about this file and all the people in it.
    
    This file is a reflection of how we react in the real world.  It is a
    good place to practice how we do it better.
    
    For me I am trying to learn how to deal with my own nerdiness instead
    of focusing on how others may be behaving.
    
    So, Richard, I thank you for starting this note.
    
    Patricia
    

    After rereading .1 and in light of the fact that I have apologized to
    this conference, I thought it best to delete the note.  See 9.1650.
    
    Wise counsel is not to be unheeded - THANKS!
    
    Nancy

    Greg:
    
    Golly, how have we managed without you all these years!!?
    
    -Jack

    All the time Mr. Kimball!!  

    I have been noting in YUKON::Christian for the last few weeks and as of
    yet I have not had one note set hidden.  It is a pleasant environment
    to note in.
    
    Yes , I admit I am a minority voice in there but the people are all
    very respectful even if they do disagree with me.
    
    I'm convinced that its time to downplay any rivalries  between the two
     conferences.
    
                                      Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    I will say this, your points in Christian have been substantive,
    backed, and qualified...I have read alot of your entries in there.
    In fact, sometimes I would say, "Hmmmm, Patricia has a good point....
    well, what about it Andrew, Mark, etc.? "
    
    As a read only for the most part, I have always seen this and that's 
    why I was getting annoyed a few weeks ago when certain individuals 
    were coming in here after the fact and trying to stir up trouble.
    
    Keep it up, it promotes quality discussion!
    
    -Jack
    
    

    .232
    
    Yes, I've had many entries allowed to stand without being SET
    HIDDEN in "CHRISTIAN" over the years.  So has Glen Silva.
    
    I've also had many notes SET HIDDEN.  But, you are right.  It is
    possible to avoid having entries SET HIDDEN there.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    God blessed Andrew with a large portion of gentleness in his spirit. 
    If we all learned from his example, there would be no rivalry at all.
    
    Mike

Forgive us, the incorrigible, illiterate and misguided, for our distorted
religion and relationship with God.  Thanks for trying to set us straight.

Richard

    Richard:
    
    Am I to assume this was a Tongue in Cheek?!! :-)

    .237
    
    Not entirely.  It is also an acknowledgement.
    
    Some doubtlessly thank God that they are not like us sinners.
    
    Richard
    

    	Are you trolling for bashing, or what?
    
    	I don't get it.
    
    	Are you entering pre-emptive bashing because this topic has been
    	idle too long and must surely be due for activity anyway?  :^)

Note 960.240

>    	I don't get it.

Some will get it.  Some will not.

Shalom,
Richard
    

RE:          <<< Note 960.238 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Unquenchable fire" >>>

       
   > Some doubtlessly thank God that they are not like us sinners.
    
    
   Most, however, recognize their own sinfullness and pray 




 Jim    

    	Well I guess that as long as you aren't mad at me, I don't really
    	care, and probably would prefer not to know.
    
    	Joe

    .243
    
    No, I'm not angry.
    
    Blessings in the New Year!
    Richard
    

	217.223
    
>In fact, I have witnessed this absence of difficulty in pronouncing
>judgment with confidence.  Note 960.2 comes to mind as an example.

	And I still stand behind that entry, or else I would have deleted
    	it.  So does it strike close to home, Richard?  I hope it does.
    	You too, Patricia (217.226).  My faith is attacked and mocked daily 
    	here,  and you two stand as primary beacons of judgement of my faith.  
    	You and others such as your sainted Mike Valenza (author of such 
    	Christian Perspectives as topic 237) whose absence is frequently 
    	bemoaned in here, were the source of inspiration behind 960.2.  
    	You'd better believe that I'm going to attack back from time to 
    	time!  I'm not afraid to voice my opinions and feelings.  Maybe
    	you have been able to railroad out of here many others who are
    	offended by the entries of participants in here, but I don't
    	back down so easily.
    
    	In saying I am judgemental, you yourself are judgemental.  In fact,
    	religion is often about being judgemental.  It is about determining
    	right from wrong.  It is about accepting or rejecting ideas.
    
    	So now you are faced with someone new who will be expresing his
    	Christian Perspectives here.  Live with it.  From your writings
    	in here it is evident that you've been able to ignore in your
    	own lives up until now some of the doctrines, precepts, guidelines
    	and moralities that I choose to follow.  I don't see why suddenly
    	you expreience such angst because I have the guts to stand up to
    	you and resurface those things you've been ignoring all along!
    	
    	So go ahead and try to hold 960.2 against me.  I wear it with
    	pride.  I've already said that I have no problem admitting that
    	I am judgemental (as are all of us), so confirming that claim
    	to me merely adds support to what I said!

| <<< Note 960.245 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>



| So go ahead and try to hold 960.2 against me.  I wear it with pride. 

	Joe, what does the Bible, a book you believe to be the inerrant Word of
God, have to say about pride? You should see there is something wrong with
960.2 just from this one part of your entry. 

| I've already said that I have no problem admitting that I am judgemental (as 
| are all of us), so confirming that claim to me merely adds support to what I 
| said!

	Actually, if you KNOW you are judgemental, shouldn't you be working
towards changing that, not holding onto it? Joe, just think about it for a
minute. Reaaaaally think about it. Is it right to be prideful about your entry?
Is it right to be judgemental? Aren't you supposed to be as close to God for
perfection as possible? Look at 960.2 and ask yourself, would Jesus have said
what you did. (I fully understand that you may believe He would)  But just look
at it.


Glen

    > My faith is attacked and mocked daily here,  and you two stand as
    > primary beacons of judgment of my faith.

    I think you are confusing faith with actions.

    Seldom have I seen such anger and hate in a note in this conference. I
    am dumbfounded by the visceral contempt, the violent tone, expressed in
    this message. 

    	"strike close to home"
    		"attacked and mocked"
    			"attack back"
    				"railroad out of here"
    					"live with it."
    						"the guts to stand up"
    							"wear it with pride"

    I wonder when the next "holy war" will begin... it's clear the
    inquisition is well under way.
    
    May the Spirit of Christ bring us peace,
    
    	Eric

	.264

>	Joe, what does the Bible, a book you believe to be the inerrant Word of
>God, have to say about pride? 
    
    	So I guess that throws "Gay Pride" out the window, huh?

>	Actually, if you KNOW you are judgemental, shouldn't you be working
>towards changing that, not holding onto it? 
    
    	We make judgements every day.  To deny that is a lie.  To refrain
    	from judgement means death, literally.
    
>Reaaaaally think about it. Is it right to be prideful about your entry?
    
    	Why not?
    
>Is it right to be judgemental? 
    
    	Why not?
    
>Aren't you supposed to be as close to God for
>perfection as possible? 
    
    	Is God not judgemental?
    
>Look at 960.2 and ask yourself, would Jesus have said
>what you did. 
    
    	We've been through this before.

    That is primarily what polarizes this conference from Yukon and this is
    what also brings certain value to both conferences.  Yukon is typically
    likeminded believers.  There are some differences but mainly they are
    reasoned out.  They will either continue to debate on soem of the big
    issues...or they will agree to disagree.  
    
    Christian Perspective can actually be a diamond in the ruff if one
    chooses to look at it this way.  It all comes down to this...
    
    	Group A				Group B
    
    	Bible is errant			Bible is inerrant
    	Bible is wonderful guide	Bible is wonderful guide
    	Bible is traditional		Bible is God breathed
    	Bible is great guide		Bible is authoritative
    	Passages can be biased		Passages convey absolutes
    	Social consequences are		Eternal consequences are
        preeminent                      preeminent
    
    I see most participants here falling into one of the two groups. 
    Because of this likemindedness goes out the window, hence the harmony 
    is also jeopardized.  
    
    I will say this though.  I do NOT see diversity being valued at all in
    this conference.  I see it being tolerated and at times congenial, I
    believe this is good.  I think the only real pet peeve I have is that
    when all logic fails, many times we tend to default to the cry trap...
    The old standby like, YOU OFFENDED ME...or You sexist egotistical lying
    self centered hypocritical bigot..homophobe!  This is a form of
    labeling and promotes victimization.  I think we're all over 21 now!!
    
    Peace,
    
    -Jack

    Joe:
    
    Next time use the famous Dan Quayle line...
    
    "I wear your scorn with honor!"
    
    This will avoid the ratholes.
    
    Glen, the sin of pride is to have a haughty attitude, like the rich man
    who owned the vineyard and built bigger barns.  It is when pride
    becomes your god that it is sin.  I think what Joe was saying is that
    he finds no shame regardless of how scornful somebody might be toward
    him!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 960.248 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| >	Joe, what does the Bible, a book you believe to be the inerrant Word of
| >God, have to say about pride?

| So I guess that throws "Gay Pride" out the window, huh?

	Nice diversion. Now if you would, answer the question I asked. 

| >	Actually, if you KNOW you are judgemental, shouldn't you be working
| >towards changing that, not holding onto it?

| We make judgements every day. To deny that is a lie. To refrain from 
| judgement means death, literally.

	Joe, look at the judgements you passed in note .2. Are those judgements
that would have meant your death if you didn't make them? Will they prevent the
people of who you are talking of from dieing? And as I asked, would Jesus have
made those same comments?

| >Reaaaaally think about it. Is it right to be prideful about your entry?

| Why not?

	It goes back to what the Bible says about being prideful Joe. The book
you believe in, remember? 

| >Aren't you supposed to be as close to God for perfection as possible?

| Is God not judgemental?

	Would God make the same assertions you did in .2?

| >Look at 960.2 and ask yourself, would Jesus have said what you did.

| We've been through this before.

	Joe, nice diversion. I guess I could assume that means He would not,
but maybe you really believe He would...

Glen

| <<< Note 960.249 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| I will say this though. I do NOT see diversity being valued at all in this 
| conference. I see it being tolerated and at times congenial, I believe this is
| good.  

	Jack, i thought you would have understood from what you wrote why
diversity is not always practiced. It had to do with likemindedness. To take it
a step further, sometimes people just get others upset. Sometimes it's done on
purpose. But it's much easier to have diversity in THIS conference when one is
allowed to discuss things, than it is when you can only talk about one way of
doing things. Try to remember though, differences of opinions does not always
equal no diversity. But let me ask you, does .2 sound very diverse to you?

| I think the only real pet peeve I have is that when all logic fails, many 
| times we tend to default to the cry trap...

	I know what you mean Jack. Like the time you cried about me calling you
a homophobe, when I didn't. The time you cried that I am a democrat, when I
voted for both, etc. I'm glad you noticed this of yourself, as well as others. 

| The old standby like, YOU OFFENDED ME...or You sexist egotistical lying
| self centered hypocritical bigot..homophobe!  

	Uh huh....


Glen

| <<< Note 960.250 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


	Jack, to be proud of someone else or their accomplishments is ok. To be
prideful about yourself, is not.

    .245
    
    Except for Glen, I think we all got the message.
    
    There's nothing I can add, except to praise God.
    
    Richard
    

	.251
    
>| >	Joe, what does the Bible, a book you believe to be the inerrant Word of
>| >God, have to say about pride?
>
>	Nice diversion. Now if you would, answer the question I asked. 
    
    	You (sort of) answered it in .253, so I know you already know
    	there are different meanings to the word pride.

>	Joe, look at the judgements you passed in note .2. Are those judgements
>that would have meant your death if you didn't make them?
    
    	I never said they would.
    
>And as I asked, would Jesus have
>made those same comments?
    
    	And I already said that we've been down that road before.

>	Would God make the same assertions you did in .2?
    
    	We've already been down that road before.

>| We've been through this before.
>
>	Joe, nice diversion. I guess I could assume that means He would not,
>but maybe you really believe He would...

    	No, it means that we've been down that road before and it's a
    	waste of time to continue with that question.

| <<< Note 960.255 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>


Re-Edited after looking back at some notes

| >	Nice diversion. Now if you would, answer the question I asked.

| You (sort of) answered it in .253, so I know you already know there are 
| different meanings to the word pride.

	Joe, back a few notes you stated that YOU wear your .2 entry with
pride. A note that you placed in, a note written by you. In .253 I talked about
having pride for other people and pride for yourself. So I guess by what you
wrote above, I need to know one thing. By you stating that you take pride in
your own entry, doesn't that put you into the group of people who take pride in
their own deeds? How does that match up with the Bible, a book you believe to
be the inerrant Word of God?

| >	Joe, look at the judgements you passed in note .2. Are those judgements
| >that would have meant your death if you didn't make them?

| I never said they would.

	Then why all this stuff about death without judgement then?

| >And as I asked, would Jesus have made those same comments?

| And I already said that we've been down that road before.

	And you still never answered. I know why you won't, and it's
understandable that embarrasment will prevent you from EVER answering
the question. Anyone can see that the comments you made never should have 
been written.



Glen

    Glen:
    
    Jesus tailored his messages appropriate to the audience.  He didn't use
    the same approach to the pharisees that he did when he spoke to the
    5000.  Or how would you like to have gone to the Jordan to be baptised
    and have the greatest prophet point a finger at you and say, "You Brood
    of Vipers.  Who hath warned you of the wrath to come?"  Sorry Glen, the
    New Testament heroes were not always politically correct.
    
    -Jack

	Jack, no one says he has to be politically correct, just if Jesus would
have said the same things to those people he talked about in .2  Do YOU think
He would have put it the same way Jack?


Glen

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 960.2       The Official 'Trash CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE' Note        2 of 258
CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!"                         60 lines  20-AUG-1994 19:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>    	Great!  Thanks for giving me a platform to present
>>    	*my* Christian Perspective!

>>        And finally I feel quite amused that the
>>    	"perspectives" of orthodoxy and conservatism are not welcomed 
>>    	here.  But one only needs to look at who are the primary
>>    	cheerleaders here to understand the nature of this lair.

================================================================================
Note 960.46      The Official 'Trash CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE' Note       46 of 258
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Luke 1.78-79"                      8 lines  22-AUG-1994 16:04
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>    Perhaps I should apologize for initiating the lion's share of
>>>>   topics here.  Somehow it seems like silly thing to do.
    
>>>>    However, I am clearly guilty of the sinful, selfish, egotistical,
>>>>    wrongdoing of writing basenotes in C-P.
--------------------
Glen:

.2 is a very strong message.  Perhaps Jesus wouldn't have stated it the same
way, although he did refer to the pharisees as dogs and that was considered 
the highest form of insult in the Jewish culture of that time.      
    
I posted the above to show that .2 was actually used to accomplish a purpose. 
If you look at my entries earlier in this string, you will see that I too did
some soul searching as well!

-Jack

| <<< Note 960.259 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| .2 is a very strong message.  Perhaps Jesus wouldn't have stated it the same
| way, although he did refer to the pharisees as dogs and that was considered
| the highest form of insult in the Jewish culture of that time.

	Jack, do you think the people in .2 should be considered in the same
light as the pharisees? I would think that could be the ONLY way it could
possibly be said, but then I would also think it would have to come from Jesus
Himself, and not any human in order for the judgement to be correct. But if you
could answer my first question, that would be cool. :-)

| I posted the above to show that .2 was actually used to accomplish a purpose.
| If you look at my entries earlier in this string, you will see that I too did
| some soul searching as well!

	Jack, I agree that the results of .2 had some good effects. But I guess
we would need to look at the intent that was given by the author, wouldn't we?
God can take any bad situation, and make it come out good if we follow Him. But
it does not change the intent from the author. Seeing you had to go from .2 to
.46 to find an encouraging note, and you didn't list the discussion that ensued
from .2 on, you skipped right over the intent part, didn't you?


Glen

    Glen, Considering the title of this string, did you expect anything
    less volatile?  
    
    Your first question calls for a subjective response.  If you go back to
    the first three or four of my responses in this string, you will see
    that I identify as one who was getting hot tempered over stupid things.  
    To answer your question though, I will reiterate what I said some
    relpies back.  I do not see my fellow CPers as self righteous.  What I
    do see though is twofold!
    
    A.  I see acceptability and tolerance crossing the line of scripturally 
        backed doctrine.
    
    B.  I most definitely see a lack of tolerance or a shunning of
        fundamentalism.  
    
    Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, just as Joe is exercising
    his 1st ammendment right of free speech!
    
    -Jack

    	As typical, Glen, it's just more of the same.  A shotgun of 
    	angry questions, and either the inability to get it, or a 
    	refusal to do so.  Nevermind.

| <<< Note 960.261 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Glen, Considering the title of this string, did you expect anything less 
| volatile?

	Jack, are you saying that a title will be enough to make what was said 
ok? Wouldn't that be like saying Queer Nation was right when it stormed all the 
churches they did? You have me confused on this one Jack. 

| To answer your question though, I will reiterate what I said some relpies 
| back. I do not see my fellow CPers as self righteous.  

	Ok, now maybe you can answer the question. :-)  Do you believe that all
of the things said about the "Anti-Christian Perspectives"? Who is the ring
leader, etc? Jack, is there ANYTHING in that note that rings true? I don't think
so. How about you? 

| B.  I most definitely see a lack of tolerance or a shunning of fundamentalism.

	Is a disagreement = to shunning in your book Jack? I remember when
Collis used to write in here. I do not ever remember anyone ever shunning him.
I think it may have to do with how a fundamental message is sent. One such as
in .2 is not what I would call the proper way to get an edifying response. 

| Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, just as Joe is exercising his 1st 
| ammendment right of free speech!

	I agree with this 100% Jack! But now you SEEM to be trying to justify
what was said in .2 by the Bill of Rights? I'm talking PURELY on a spiritual
level. Under THAT catagory, do you think .2 should have been written??? Yes or
no will do. :-)

Glen

| <<< Note 960.262 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?" >>>

| As typical, Glen, it's just more of the same. A shotgun of angry questions, 
| and either the inability to get it, or a refusal to do so.  Nevermind.

	Joe, you are so predictable. When you find that you can't answer
asomething which would show you're wrong, you write the stuff like above. 
At least you're consistant with that one thing.


Glen

Note 960.259

>I posted the above to show that .2 was actually used to accomplish a purpose. 

I'll bite.  What purpose was that, as you see it, Jack?

Shalom,
Richard

    Richard:
    
    Well, .2 brought about over 200 replies.  It caused some people to
    reflect on their purpose here.  It got some participants to leave the
    conference all together.  .2 and the subsequent replies have helped me
    to realize that we all have our pasts to deal with at times and that we
    aren't all from the same mold.  I believe God can use all things for
    good!
    
    -Jack

	Jack, while you are right and God may have used that for a purpose, it
does not change in intent from the author.


Glen

    Glen:
    
    And just what was the intent of the author?
    
    -Jack

	Jack, as far as his intent goes, only he can tell us. But from what I
have read, it appeared to me that comes in and calls the file the
Anti-Christian-Perspectives, tell someone they are the leader of the pack who
will someday wet his pants out of embarrassment, call that same person a sour
Christian, accuse him of "almost wanting to make his own "god" with that god
being himself, to make assertions that he started the topic to become a martyr,
that he is on an anti-Christian crusade, to go on and compare the conference to
a cancer, is hardly a Christian view imho. From reading his note, I sensed a
real anger, accusations that were made, but as usual, never backed up. 

	So Jack, will you now answer .263 for me? 


Glen

	

Jack,

	Thank you for your perspective in Note 960.266.

Glen,

	I doubt your approach in .264 will have the effect I believe
you sincerely desire.

Shalom,
Richard

Note 960.261

>    What I do see though is twofold!
    
>    A.  I see acceptability and tolerance crossing the line of scripturally 
>        backed doctrine.

I suggest what you are seeing is an absence of bibliolotry and unexamined
dogma.  I rather expect you'll disagree, however.

>    B.  I most definitely see a lack of tolerance or a shunning of
>        fundamentalism.  

Lack of tolerance?  As in setting hidden or prohibiting fundamentalist
doctrine?  I doubt you mean this.

Shunning?  As in disengaging and cutting off communications?  I doubt
you mean this, either.

I don't think what you're seeing is actually a lack of tolerance or shunning,
Jack.  I suggest what you're seeing is a lack of unchallenged embracement (by
some, not all) of fundamentalist promulgations.  And of course, that cuts
both ways, hard as that may be to believe.

Shalom,
Richard

PS

>    Glen, Considering the title of this string, did you expect anything
>    less volatile?

Inspired, wasn't it?  ;-}

Note 960.0:

>All you who bear the Truth and correct doctrine and feel obliged to make
>certain there are no variants thereof, enter your disparaging remarks,
>rebukes, and reproofs about the woefully errant, embarrassingly heretical,
>and inclusive nature of CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE here.

>Have a ball.

        <<< LGP30::DKA300:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 960.2       The Official 'Trash CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE' Note        2 of 244
CSC32::J_OPPELT "decolores!"                         60 lines  20-AUG-1994 19:50
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	Great!  Thanks for giving me a platform to present
    	*my* Christian Perspective!

    	If this conference were named Christian-Bashing or 
    	Christian-heretics, it wouldn't be so pathetic.  Call 
    	a spade a spade.  It is Anti-Christian-Perspectives,
    	and you, J_CHRISTIE, are the leader of the pack.  Some
    	day, Richard, you will look back at your entries here
    	and wet your pants out of sheer embarrassment.  I
    	don't know what burr you have under you saddle, but
    	it sure makes you a sour "christian".  I agree with
    	Nancy.  You want to control this conference;  you draw
    	your identity from here;  you almost want to make your
    	own "god" as you go -- and that god is you.  My original
    	entry in this conference was not just directed at you --
    	there are quite a few like you in here -- but you are
    	the squeakiest wheel, thus I certainly had you in mind
    	when I dropped my first entry here, and was truly surprised
    	that you were not the first to take issue with it (though
    	in retrospect I'm not surprised as who was...)

    	So now you make your own topic to become a martyr.  For
    	what cause?  Your anti-Christian crusade?  You can have
    	it.  From the very inception of this conference it appears
    	that you have been fighting a battle to gain acceptance
    	of your warped "perspective" of Christianity along with
    	other warped and relativistic "visions" from others.
    	Big deal.  You can all have a big group hug and accept
    	each other's "differences".  That acceptance is only
    	limited to the skewed sense of truth found here.  You
    	want to pass off your heresies as mere "variants".  I
    	guess we all have different lines we draw where variants
    	become clear mutations -- totally different species.

    	The real Truth of Christianity is unbending.  You only
    	fool yourself to believe othersise.  I don't know why so 
    	many faithful Christians put up with trying to show you 
    	and your ilk the error of your ways.  You can't do very 
    	much by banging your head against a brick wall.  

    	So all I intend to bother doing is drop an electronic
    	turd in here and let you know how I feel about this
    	place.  I feel disgusted, and even a little afraid that
    	such thinking exists among (at least self-proclaimed)
    	Christians -- like a cancer waiting to consume the rest
    	of the body.  But at the same time I feel quite grateful
    	that this den of iniquity exists to provide you all a
    	haven -- a hideout, a brothel -- to keep you contained
    	and happy and busy so that you don't taint other conferences
    	with this junk.   And finally I feel quite amused that the
    	"perspectives" of orthodoxy and conservatism are not welcomed 
    	here.  But one only needs to look at who are the primary
    	cheerleaders here to understand the nature of this lair.

    	Aaahhh!  That sure felt good for me!

    	So do you feel better now, Richard?  Did you get what you
    	were looking for?  

    	Joe Oppelt

================================================================================
Note 3.144                        Introductions                       144 of 154
CSC32::J_OPPELT "Oracle-bound"                       10 lines  15-NOV-1994 19:15
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    	Just dropping a note to announce that I'm back after a nice
    	retreat to cool off and collect my thoughts.
    
    	Different attitude.  Different expectations.  Different goals.
    
    	More interested in discussion than in "fertilizing".
    
    	It'll be cool.
    
    	Joe

================================================================================
Note 960.245     The Official 'Trash CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE' Note      245 of 254
CSC32::J_OPPELT "Whatever happened to ADDATA?"       34 lines  10-FEB-1995 13:07
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	217.223
    
>In fact, I have witnessed this absence of difficulty in pronouncing
>judgment with confidence.  Note 960.2 comes to mind as an example.

	And I still stand behind that entry, or else I would have deleted
    	it.  So does it strike close to home, Richard?  I hope it does.
    	You too, Patricia (217.226).  My faith is attacked and mocked daily 
    	here,  and you two stand as primary beacons of judgement of my faith.  
    	You and others such as your sainted Mike Valenza (author of such 
    	Christian Perspectives as topic 237) whose absence is frequently 
    	bemoaned in here, were the source of inspiration behind 960.2.  
    	You'd better believe that I'm going to attack back from time to 
    	time!  I'm not afraid to voice my opinions and feelings.  Maybe
    	you have been able to railroad out of here many others who are
    	offended by the entries of participants in here, but I don't
    	back down so easily.
    
    	In saying I am judgemental, you yourself are judgemental.  In fact,
    	religion is often about being judgemental.  It is about determining
    	right from wrong.  It is about accepting or rejecting ideas.
    
    	So now you are faced with someone new who will be expresing his
    	Christian Perspectives here.  Live with it.  From your writings
    	in here it is evident that you've been able to ignore in your
    	own lives up until now some of the doctrines, precepts, guidelines
    	and moralities that I choose to follow.  I don't see why suddenly
    	you expreience such angst because I have the guts to stand up to
    	you and resurface those things you've been ignoring all along!
    	
    	So go ahead and try to hold 960.2 against me.  I wear it with
    	pride.  I've already said that I have no problem admitting that
    	I am judgemental (as are all of us), so confirming that claim
    	to me merely adds support to what I said!

       <<< LGP30::RJF$DISK:[NOTES$LIBRARY]CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.NOTE;2 >>>
                 -< Discussions from a Christian Perspective >-
================================================================================
Note 1339.22                      Heaven's Gate                         22 of 25
PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!"                           3 lines  31-MAR-1997 15:30
                     -< enough knowledge to be dangerous >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    |And it's amazing what they get into when they do.
    
    yes, this conference is a perfect example.

         
    > - Reposting or transmitting material without the moderator's or
    > author's clear consent. 

    The note was reposted by a moderator.

.285

Since this is not the first time you've leveled the accusation of my
committing the infraction, Mike, and therefore may come up again, I would
really like to get a ruling on the issue before proceeding.

I'll tell you what.  As a gesture of good faith, I'll SET HIDDEN all my
own replies (which I'll do voluntarily as a participant, not as a moderator)
from 960.276 to this one until the matter is settled.

Richard

    Mike,
    
    I fail to ssee why you are raising this.  I bnelieve it exactly fits
    the format of .0.  Of course the mod's could do what other mod's in
    other conferences do and set trashnotes hidden or delete them without
    calling attention to them.  
    
    Couldn't be that you are embarrassed by your own statement could it?  I
    thought it bore excellent witness.
    
    meg

    .287
    
>    Well I'll save you the time on the ruling.  The moderators of other
>    faith-oriented notes conferences always request permission of the
>    authors before cross-posting a reply.  CHRISTIAN is an example where
>    this is routinely done.  It is common courtesy and is also corporate
>    policy as outlined in the previously mentioned document.

    I will remind you, Mike, since you seem to be ignoring what I said in
    the currently SET HIDDEN notes and in 960.286, that I didn't do what I
    did as a moderator, but as a participant.  (Um, do you suppose you
    could repeat it back to me so I know you heard it?)
    
    Further, I think it says a lot that, to present, you apparently aren't
    willing to reciprocate by making your own replies since 960.276 SET
    HIDDEN.
    
>    This isn't a matter that should be subjected to a kangaroo court. 
>    Precedent and corporate policy will prevail.
    
    As previously stated in .281, I believe inTRAconference reposting
    - in part or in whole - is widely accepted and routinely done in
    Notes.  You do it yourself.  I've done it here in this note.  The
    only difference is that in 960.276 I let your posting speak for
    itself without comment.
    
    Note 960.276, a verbatim copy of your 1339.22, is presently SET
    HIDDEN.  And therefore, it seems to me, you really have very little
    to complain about.
    
    Richard

.289

>    violating corporate policies are a serious matter.

Agreed.  No argument here.

I'm only looking for an interpretation.  Note reposting is something
you frequently do yourself.  Why, you even did it in the the very note
you're complaining about!

Richard

        Corporate rules in no way restrict cross-posting of notes in
        NON-restricted notes conferences (which is what C-P is) or
        require author permission.  (They cannot, however, be posted
        *outside* of Digital, e.g., in News groups, without
        permission.)

        Posting of E-mail (unless clearly intended for a
        corporate-wide distribution) and notes in restricted
        conferences does require the author's permission.

        It is just plain silly to think that material shouldn't be
        cross-posted in the *same* conference without permission.

        Common decency requires that copied material be attributed to
        the original author (and, I would add, the original
        discussion context).

        Bob

This rule has been completely reworded in the new version of policy 6.54.

Why?

/john

    Goodness!  What's the fuss about?

    We quote and requote and rehash other people's notes *ALL THE TIME*.
    I get "blasted" with my own words as I blast others with theirs.

    "How dare you quote me!?"

    Looking at the original "infraction" I see the quote in its entirety.
    It includes the note number where it originated.  If it doesn't apply
    the "victum" can simpley state that he was quoted out of context.
    
    Tom

    We cut and paste notes all the time within a given notes conference. 
    I don't really see a problem with this.  My interpretation of simple
    noting etiquette is that this is okay, but it is not okay to post a note 
    from one conference to another without permission.  I haven't read the
    latest policy, so I won't comment from this standpoint.
    
    Perhaps Mike's note wasn't really intended to be a "trash C-P" note,
    and this is why he does not appreciate his note being posted in this
    topic.  If this is the case, I feel it would be better for Mike to clarify 
    on his point (I think I understood where he was coming from, but I can
    also see how his note can be read to belong in this topic), than to
    take the posting to task.
    
    My advice, which is certainly not asked for  8^) , would be to clarify,
    rather than complain about a note being reposted.  Or, if it was a
    statement that really wasn't intended, say so, and ask that it be
    deleted.
    
    My two pennies... 
    
    
    -steve

|        Common decency requires that copied material be attributed to
|        the original author (and, I would add, the original
|        discussion context).
    
    This sums it up well.  Maybe this is why other conferences follow this
    corporate policy to the letter.
    
    This isn't quite the same as quoting a reply within the same
    thread/topic for context purposes.  An entire reply was reposted in
    a totally different topic, without permission.

re Note 960.297 by PHXSS1::HEISER:

> |        Common decency requires that copied material be attributed to
> |        the original author (and, I would add, the original
> |        discussion context).
>     
>     This sums it up well.  Maybe this is why other conferences follow this
>     corporate policy to the letter.
>     
>     This isn't quite the same as quoting a reply within the same
>     thread/topic for context purposes.  An entire reply was reposted in
>     a totally different topic, without permission.
  
        The note was quoted with the entire notes header, giving
        topic and note title and note number -- that is certainly all
        the context one could expect to convey when quoting.

        Note I did not say (nor mean to imply) that an extract
        shouldn't be used in any context other than the original.

        Bob

    So you agree that quoting someone is OK if credit is properly
    given.  Your problem here is a note, complete or not, was 
    copied to another notes string.

    Well, what if the person who moved it thought that it belonged
    in this other string?  He didn't claim it was his note.  He
    didn't make it look like you entered it there.  *ALL* the header
    information of the original note was still there.

    If you feel you've been quoted out of context, just say so.
    You won't be the first person to object to having words put
    in your mouth :-)

    Tom

    Why is this note set hidden?!

    Nevermind...I got the gist of it.  I missed the previous 20 replies.
    
    I recall a situation about a year ago when Patricia cross posted some
    replies from Womannotes trying to prove Sexism is alive and well....I
    believe this is the string title here.  I wrote her off line and in a
    friendly manner reminded her that typically we shouldn't cross post
    without the author's permission.
    
    My personal feeling is permission is a courtesy from one noter to
    another and it is proper to ask.  On the other hand, I also believe
    that regardless of the conference, unless members only, your notes
    become public domain even though it is really supposed to be Digital
    proprietary.
    
    I'm still not sure who is the plaintiff here, but I believe and hope
    the replies get crossposted so we can have a feud over them!! :-)
    
    -Jack

Re: .297 Mike

>    This isn't quite the same as quoting a reply within the same
>    thread/topic for context purposes.  An entire reply was reposted in
>    a totally different topic, without permission.

That's common practice in SOAPBOX, with entire notes or parts of notes
being copied to notes such as "Pot and Kettle", no doubt without the
author's permission.  Of course just because something is done in SOAPBOX
doesn't necessarily mean that it conforms to corporate policy.

Actually there are some corporate policies that I hope are *not* enforced
strictly to the letter, because IMO they would mean the death of open,
free-wheeling employee interest noting.  That's partly the reason that I
resigned as a C-P moderator a few years ago, because I was confronted with
"if you don't want to enforce this policy [note 8.11] you should resign".
Depending on how strictly you want to interpret it there are probably a
lot of notes conferences that don't enforce that policy, and I dread the
day when it *is* enforced.

Anyway, Mike, if I were you I'd just be a sport and create a new topic
where I could cross-post some of Richard's notes that I objected to.

				-- Bob

| <<< Note 960.297 by PHXSS1::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>


| This isn't quite the same as quoting a reply within the same
| thread/topic for context purposes.  An entire reply was reposted in
| a totally different topic, without permission.

	I've seen people split hairs over absolutely nothing before, but this
takes the cake! Mike, you are making something out of nothing....as usual.

|Anyway, Mike, if I were you I'd just be a sport and create a new topic
|where I could cross-post some of Richard's notes that I objected to.
    
    This is childish.  I hope this wasn't Richard's motivation.
    
    btw - doing thing's the SOAPBOX way isn't something Richard would seem
    to be proud of either.
    

I have decided (as a participant, not as a moderator) to unhide .281, .282,
and .284.

I will leave .276 voluntarily SET HIDDEN forever as kind of a monument.

The entry following this one will be a modified version of .276.  The
format has been changed.  Hopefully its message rather than its
presentation will be the focus of subsequent entries.

Richard

>Note 1339.22

>                    -< enough knowledge to be dangerous >-

>    |And it's amazing what they get into when they do.
    
>    yes, this conference is a perfect example.

This conference?  It sounds like you might see it in a less than positive
light.

Richard

     http://www-server.mso.dec.com/hrxxx/hr006-54.htm
    
    Human Resources Policy Set (HRxxx-yy)
    
    Policy Title: HR006-54 -- Proper Use of Digital Computers, Systems and
    Networks
    
    Examples of inappropriate use include:
    
    - Promoting discrimination, disrespect for an individual, or making 
      personal attacks 
    - Reposting or transmitting material that has been deleted or hidden
      by a conference moderator or author 
    - Reposting or transmitting material without the moderator's or
      author's clear consent. 

    When referring to "reposting" it usually means posting it
    in another conference.

    You started trashing this conference so Richard moved the note
    to a more appropriate string.  Why do you have such a problem with
    that?

    Tom

    And more violations:

    Mike.  Why are you posting *any* messages during business
    hours if you are such a stickler for rules?

    Also:
    Reposting, transferring material from external sources 
    (eg. web, newsgroup, bulletin boards) etc. if contrary 
    to the owners, or authors copyright or expectation of
    confidentiality.... is frowned upon.

    I recall some very long quotes of copyrighted material.
    Should we disallow that, too?

    Tom

    Tom, read the entire policy with comprehension and you'll have your 
    answer.  

    As I have posed before, will it be the letter or the spirit?
    
    It's almost an allegory of numerous other exchanges here, is it not?
    
    Are you saying, Mike, that you are offended by .307?
    
    Tell you what.  I'll voluntarily move my own note so that it appears in
    the same string as your original, even though it strays from the topic.
    Would that be okay with you?
    
    Richard
    

    The entry formerly numbered 960.307 has been moved voluntarily by the
    author to 1339.28.
    

    Tom, if you were as intelligent as I am, you would see things as I do.

    .303
    
    I always wondered about your decision, Bob.  That clears up a lot for
    me.
    
    Richard
    

    |    Are you saying, Mike, that you are offended by .307?
    
    I've been offended since you posted .276 and continue to be so.  I see
    no compromise, only the actions of a kangaroo court.

    I have read the policy *WITH COMPREHENSION* and find that
    there is nothing wrong with a moderator moving a note into
    a more appropriate string.

    We see things differently.  We interpret things differently.
    If you read the policy to mean that a moderator can't move
    a note, then it's plain to me why we can't agree on what
    the Bible says.

    Richard's actions were fair and reasonable.  He has even gone
    so far as to try to appease you.

    There is no kangaroo court.  We are not judging your actions.

    I cannot for the life of me figure out why you feel wronged.

    Tom

.316

>    I have read the policy *WITH COMPREHENSION* and find that
>    there is nothing wrong with a moderator moving a note into
>    a more appropriate string.

Um, Tom.  Two things.  I didn't *move* Mike's note.  And I didn't do
what I did (copy an entry within the same file) as a *moderator.*

Neither did I do anything wrong.

Richard

    - Reposting or transmitting material without the moderator's or
      author's clear consent. 

Note 960.315

Well, Mike, I voluntarily SET HIDDEN .276, which I was not required to do.
Yet you see no compromise.

I voluntarily left SET HIDDEN .276, which I was not required to do.
Yet you see no compromise.

I put .276 into what I thought to be a more conventional format in .307,
which I was not required to do. Yet you see no compromise.

I moved 960.307 to 1339.28 to suit the way you seem to think things
should operate in 960.29, which I was not required to do.

Note 960.29

>|    Notes.  You do it yourself.  I've done it here in this note.  The
>|    only difference is that in 960.276 I let your posting speak for
>|    itself without comment.
    
>    This isn't quite the same as quoting a reply within the same
>    thread/topic for context purposes.  You reposted an entire reply in
>    a totally different topic, without permission.

I believe I have met your criteria to the letter now.
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yet you say you see no compromise.

(Kangaroo court?  Blimey!!)

Richard

>    - Reposting or transmitting material without the moderator's or
>      author's clear consent. 

    The implication is that the note should not be reposted to another
    conference.

    Tom

    Since you weren't acting as a moderator, when did you ask permission? 
    I looked all around my mailboxes (VMS, Exchange, etc.) and see nothing
    from you.  I checked my voicemail and there were no messages from you.
    I checked in here and didn't see the request either.  Did you forget to
    ask again?  The first time this happened I let it slide and thought maybe 
    you just forgot.  Could you have really forgotten to ask again?
    
    When did you offer to delete the offending replies?  I extended the
    offer in exchange for you doing the same.  It was ignored.  Instead
    you seem to prefer arguing about it.  I stated that I would prefer to
    work it out here instead of running to HR like others do.  You act as
    if you want it escalated!  

    Mike,
    
    Is it the principal that you are ranting about, or is it because you
    had written before you thought?  Just a bit curious, as you seem to be
    more prickly than necessary over a perceived or real slight.
    
    meg

.321

Mike,

>    Since you weren't acting as a moderator, when did you ask permission?

I didn't ask.  Neither did I try to sneak something you had written into
another conference secretly or behind your back.  I have yet to see how
repeating something posted within the same conference is a dishonest or
dishonorable thing to do.

Can you tell me *why* you feel wronged?  Is it solely because its against
the rules as you see them?  Or is there some other reason?  Something you
haven't mentioned yet?

>    I checked in here and didn't see the request either.  Did you forget to
>    ask again?  The first time this happened I let it slide and thought maybe 
>    you just forgot.  Could you have really forgotten to ask again?

I didn't forget, Mike.  The first time this happened I sent you the following
message offline (note the date of it):
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From:	CSC32::J_CHRISTIE   "Ps. 85.10"  7-NOV-1995 16:18:04.48
To:	OUTSRC::HEISER
CC:	J_CHRISTIE
Subj:	Intraconference Crossposting

Mike,

	I have honored your request.

	However, I don't believe it's a requirement to request permission to
copy entries within the same conference.

Richard Jones-Christie
CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

(attached was a copy of your Note 1064.16)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>    When did you offer to delete the offending replies?

I didn't make such an offer, but responded to your suggestion through
the compromise of making the note in question voluntarily SET HIDDEN.

>    I extended the
>    offer in exchange for you doing the same.  It was ignored.  Instead
>    you seem to prefer arguing about it.  I stated that I would prefer to
>    work it out here instead of running to HR like others do.  You act as
>    if you want it escalated!  

Oh, Mike, I do not!  Where do you see a desire for escalation on my part?

I haven't stubbornly held my ground.  The note you objected to is
concealed forever!  I yielded.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I yielded not because I was pressured into doing it.  I yielded not because
I believe I was in the wrong.

I yielded out of regard for you -- the same as the first time.

I'm not wholly clear why you were so taken aback by 690.276, but I am
sorry that you were.

What else would you have of me?

Richard

	Mike, when I read your notes of late, one song keeps coming to me... it
is Andrew Loyd Webber's, "Don't cry for me Argentina".

|Can you tell me *why* you feel wronged?  Is it solely because its against
|the rules as you see them?  
    
    Partially.  It's also standard operating procedure in other conferences
    (not including ones I moderate).
    
    If I want a reply under a certain topic, I'll put it there myself.

    The letter killeth.
    

960.276 has been deleted by the participant.

I have decided to delete 960.276, which was a duplicate of 1339.22.

The whole thing has been overblown.  Who needs a monument to such a thing?

The entries that were SET HIDDEN are no longer SET HIDDEN.

Richard

.325
    
>    If I want a reply under a certain topic, I'll put it there myself.

A word to the wise:  It might be a good idea not to post anything you
wouldn't have repeated in another string in the same conference.

Richard

    Or just understand that notes is not a proprietary tool...as we thought
    it was!!
    
    -Jack

    .329
    
    Would you care to elaborate, Jack?
    
    Richard
    

Note 960.305

>|Anyway, Mike, if I were you I'd just be a sport and create a new topic
>|where I could cross-post some of Richard's notes that I objected to.
    
>    This is childish.  I hope this wasn't Richard's motivation.
    
>    btw - doing thing's the SOAPBOX way isn't something Richard would seem
>    to be proud of either.

The point is that it's not against the rules for participants to crosspost
any note within the same conference.
    
Richard

.302
    
>    I recall a situation about a year ago when Patricia cross posted some
>    replies from Womannotes trying to prove Sexism is alive and well....I
>    believe this is the string title here.  I wrote her off line and in a
>    friendly manner reminded her that typically we shouldn't cross post
>    without the author's permission.

I think you see the difference between the above and the present situation
because you go on to say....
    
>    My personal feeling is permission is a courtesy from one noter to
>    another and it is proper to ask.  On the other hand, I also believe
>    that regardless of the conference, unless members only, your notes
>    become public domain even though it is really supposed to be Digital
>    proprietary.

A better match to the present situation.

Richard

.292

>    Despite what Meg says, my witness is to seek resolution here instead of
>    running to HR like some do.  You have even admitted that this is your
>    second offense.  We need to come to an agreement here so that it
>    doesn't happen again.  Your actions imply some attempt at trying to 
>    ridicule instead of seeking resolution.

Meg is also a moderator of notesfiles in addition to being a participant.

And I didn't say this was my second offense.  What I said was:

(from .286)

>Since this is not the first time you've leveled the accusation of my
>committing the infraction, Mike, and therefore may come up again, I would
>really like to get a ruling on the issue before proceeding.

>I'll tell you what.  As a gesture of good faith, I'll SET HIDDEN all my
>own replies (which I'll do voluntarily as a participant, not as a moderator)
>from 960.276 to this one until the matter is settled.

Perhaps I'm a poor judge, but this doesn't sound like ridicule to me.

Richard

    Well, as far as elaborating....I'm scared! :-)  I've been watching this
    discussion and felt my entries thus far...well, I've tried to be as
    neutral as I can possibly be and will try to continue.  
    
    I would say in the case of many conferences, mispostings are a common
    occurance..simply because a discussion can  go off on many different
    tangents.  I personally feel this is okay and healthy, as long as
    dialog continues on a civilized tone.  I think it is obvious to all
    that the intent of entries can and are misunderstood.  
    
    As a suggestion in the spirit of arbitration, I would point out to both
    individuals here the following...
    
    Person A:  I see why you cross posted and I know you are somewhat
    thorough in being sure that topics try to stay on target.  As a rule of
    procedure, just drop the other person a line, as you have done with me
    in the past, suggesting a reply should be moved.  It is not lacking
    merit or value necessarily, but it should be moved.  This will save
    future problems.  Your efforts in past years are appreciated.        
    
    Person B:  I can understand there are policies and procedures that are
    supposed to be followed.  I also understand it can be annoying when
    another party may misunderstand a posting which you feel is appropo to
    the subject at hand.  I was slapped in the hand two years ago for
    openly criticizing the Digital ads in the Digital notes file.  My
    defense....THIS IS PROPRIETARY DIGITAL INFO.  My managers reply, Jack,
    if I can print it out, it is not proprieatry...plain and simple.  (They
    were concerned about my entries getting back to the press believe it or
    not, and corporate called my management and read them the riot act!  No
    big deal but an ordeal nonetheless.  Translation:  Expect all data and
    opinions expressed in notes to become public domain.  This way, you
    will not be surprised when something like this happens.  It can be
    copied, printed, moved, whatever!!  If corporate held us to the actual
    standards we should comply with, I would venture to guess all employee
    interest notes files would be shut off simply under breach of
    compliance.  
    
    Personally, I prefer to put up with the free weilding of data in order
    to have the ability to speak my mind!! :-)
    
    For the sake of protecting me, the innocent, I will not convey who A
    and B are!! :-)
    
    -Jack

    Well said, Jack.
    
    And, amazingly, I agree with you.    (thud  <- sound of me fainting)
    
    Tom

re Note 1341.72 by ALFSS1::BENSONA:

>     It is a charade, and deliberately deceitful, to have a conference called 
>     "Christian Perspective" when those whose voices are loudest, Tom's for 
>     example, cannot reasonably be called Christian at all.  What
>     perspective, aside from that held by the principals of this conference, 
>     would rise to such pretense?
  
        One can't go changing the name of a conference to reflect
        somebody's evaluation of the position of whomever is most
        active in the conference at the time.

        I picked the name "christian perspective" and my motivation,
        in part was a conviction that another conference with
        "christian" in it's name was often anything but.  So in that
        sense I can understand from where you are coming.  Instead of
        going into that other conference and repeatedly harping on
        their faults, was to help establish an alternative that at
        least addressed my biggest complaints.  (I have not set
        (virtual) foot in that conference for years, so perhaps it
        has changed.)

        Bob

re Note 1341.115 by COVERT::COVERT:

> >I have a perspective on Christianity
> 
> Suggestion for the moderators:  Please change the name of the conference
> to "Perspectives on Christianity."
> 
> That is something totally different than "Christian Perspective" and more
> honestly represents the direction the moderators seem to wish for this
> conference to take.
  
        In ordinary English, while a "perspective on something" is
        not exactly the same as a "something perspective" -- it is
        not vastly different, as you're trying to imply.

        Also, collating near the name of another conference that
        claims to be about "Christian" topics is considered important
        as an aid to those looking for conferences.  I don't know why
        some are noting here if they find it so disagreeable, but
        believe it or not the founders and the moderators came here,
        and those who are still around come here, to discuss
        Christian topics.  Some of those topics, such as the nature
        of God, are topics of interest to non-Christians and
        non-Christian religions as well.  So, for example, it is
        quite reasonable to call the discussion of the nature of god
        a "Christian topic" even if some of the participants describe
        their personal, non-Christian conception of god as part of
        that one discussion.

        Besides, I'm the only person (among the moderators) who has
        the access necessary to change the name of the conference
        file, and I'm not going to do it.

        (Anyone who wants their notebook entry to read differently
        can change it --  you can make it read "Satan-Worshippers",
        if that's how you see it.)

        Bob