Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    	Fair?  Considering that you haven't contributed anything to the
    	discussion other than "notions" that saturate you, I wonder what
    	your motive is here...

    	To answer the question in the basenote, though, I'll suggest
    	one word --
    
    	morality.

    accountability 

	.1 belongs in what's wrong with the Religious right.... 

    baloney again!
    
    
    In so far as the religious right has any monopoly on morality or
    accoutability.
    
    In fact, it is conceivable that what the religious right MAY have is an
    idolatrous excuse to condemn anything that it does not like, such as
    the equality of women, homosexuality, the rational pursuit of truth,
    multi-culturalism, freedom from the oppression of poverty.
    
    Do note that I do use the word "may".

    What is right with the religious right is a wonderful sense of
    fellowship and spiritual community for those "within" the community.
    
    Unfortunately the price of admission is very high.
    
    I do understand why it is so inviting though.
    
    I wonder how many within the movement have secret doubts about the
    Magical origin of the Bible but don't voice those secret doubts for
    fear of being ousted from the fellowship.
    
    Given the discussion of Men's responsibilities and women's role's the
    topic on home schooling, I wonder how many women within the movement
    truly believe that God created them to be subordinate to men which is
    clearly what a literal interpreation of the bible says

*    I wonder how many within the movement have secret doubts about the
*    Magical origin of the Bible but don't voice those secret doubts for
*    fear of being ousted from the fellowship.
    


    Pat,

    Knowing that you were raised Catholic, you might not know that 
    the Masonic, Eastern Star, DeMolay, and Rainbow religious organ-
    izations are based on the magic of the bible.  Whether present
    day members realize this is of question.  It is astonishing what
    happens when one realizes the magicical/mystical journey.

    justme....jacqui

    Patricia, I got a chuckle out of your reply (no condesention intended
    here).  Let's face it, as far as morality goes, it is a matter of the
    individual...and the political outlook of the individual.  
    
    Let's make no mistake here, The Clintons and every cabinet member of
    the Clintons ARE REAGANITES!  Yes Patricia, I hate to disappoint you
    but each one of them are biproducts of the evil 80's!  This ties in
    with what I find right about the right.  Within any party you are going
    to have differences of opinions.  I find the religious right at LEAST
    have a charter, and a common goal to strive for.  I see less dishonesty
    from the right and I give me directness and honesty any day over
    government programs and visions of utopia.  In contrast, I see the left
    as a group of well intentioned individuals...but willing to compromise
    the tenets of the constitution in order to better fit their agenda.  I
    see alot of unrealistic expectations and social engineering...the kind
    that thwarts excellence, causes divisions and distrust, and brings
    about dependency.  In short, it doesn't work.  I thank Lady Byrd
    Johnson for confirming this a few months ago.  Barbara Walters was
    floored.
    
     ZZ   such as
     ZZ   the equality of women, homosexuality, the rational pursuit of
     ZZ   truth, multi-culturalism, freedom from the oppression of poverty.
    
    
    Equality of women - Agreed.  Patricia, what about our women leaders
    who are shunned and ridiculed by the likes of Gloria Steinham and
    Patricia Ireland?  Ya see, the movement is an agenda...has nothing to
    do with honesty.
    
    Homosexuality - Are you talking about equal rights in regards to jobs, 
    housing, etc?  To this I agree.  If you're asking for conformity,
    that is up to the convictions of the individual.   
    
    Rational Pursuit of Truth - Let's stop kidding ourselves Patricia.  You
    are driven by your own agenda just like everybody else is.  I entered a
    discussion a few months back on how the AFDC has been an intrusion on
    the traditions of black Americans.  You immediately dismissed it as
    unreliable.  You set up your own paradigms and have as difficult a time
    as anybody of breaking the barriers.  
    
    Multiculturalism - Patricia, there is no such thing.  It doesn't exist
    anymore than it exists in Bosnia.  What you perceive as a good thing is
    just a bunch of groups...who disrespect one another, fighting over a
    slice of the pie.  I am ashamed to say that it is very much a
    Republican concept from years back.  With trust comes harmony Patricia.
    We do not have trust; therefore harmony will never exist in what you
    call multiculturalism.  I call this a rational pursuit of truth.
    
    Freedom from the oppresion of poverty - A welfare woman was quoted last
    week as saying, "How do they expect me to live like this?"  She
    directed this at the Republican party.  The answer is very simple
    really.  The answer is...We Don't Expect you to live like this!  We
    expect you to go through the hard times, make something of yourself,
    and be the very best you can be in life.  $600.00 a month to live in
    squalor IS NOT the vision I have for America.  That...Patricia, is a
    rational pursuit of the truth!
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

    Hi Jacqui:
    
    Quick question, Why do they call it Eastern Star.  If the wise men were
    coming from the East, then it would make sense that the Star was
    actually in the west...right?
    
    justme...jackie!!! :-)

    This is extracted, as you can see, from the Masonic notes file. 
    "Eastern Star" does indeed refer to the star that the wise men saw.  
    
             <<< CPDW::MLDEV_SYS01:[NOTES$LIBRARY]MASONIC.NOTE;3 >>>
                                  -< MASONIC >-
================================================================================
Note 15.19            Women's and Children's organizations              19 of 37
CYBORG::TREPANIER                                    37 lines  28-JUL-1988 14:32
              -< one person's opinion and some O.E.S. background >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mike,
    
    	The Order of the Eastern Star was begun around 1850 by Robert
    Morris, LLD.  He recognized a need for an organization for women
    which would afford them an opportunity to serve mankind in conjunction
    with their Masonic husbands, brothers, fathers, etc.  He invented
    the five degrees of our Order, based on five heroines from the Bible,
    the emblems, and wrote the ritual which is the foundation of our
    present day Order.  The Rite of Adoptive Masonry was what Brother
    Morris originally called his degrees.  It first eveolved into what
    was called The Constellation of the Eastern Star, and then The Order
    of the Eastern Star.  The Eastern Star in our title refers to that
    Star in the East, the Star of Bethlehem.   
    
    	The Order of the Eastern Star is the largest Fraternal 
    organization in the world which has both men and women as members.  
    Although the woman is the leader of the organization, both men and 
    women can be members.  The Star and the Masons are similar in 
    organization, and we all work for similar purposes; The 22 Shriner's 
    Hospitals throughout the country (where no patient pays for any
    medical care, whether at the Burn's Institutes, or at the Crippled 
    Chilren's Units), scholarships (the Grand Chapter of Massachusetts, 
    O.E.S. gave $48,000 worth of scholarships at our Grand Chapter Session 
    in May) We support an Eastern Star Home where members may retire with 
    affordable care (the Mason's also have a home for members), We also
    work within our own communities to make life better for all.  That is
    our stated purpose, to support our Masonic Brothers in spreading the 
    princlples of Brotherly Love, Relief, and Truth.  The Eastern Star
    is not a Masonic organization, but requires Masonic affiliation
    for membership.  In structure, we are similar, but very different
    in practice and ceremony.
    
    	As for Women being Masons, I don't know why Historically there
    is a reason excep that in the begining out this Fraternity, there
    were no women stone masons, and in my opinion, that is where you
    will find the beginings of this Fraternity.
    

      Reading from the first 4 replies, I can certainly suggest that
      the religious right read the prayers of the pharisee and the
      publican and by God's grace pray to be more like the publican.
    
      "We are moral...we are accountable."  Sounds like Laodicaea
      saying, "We are rich and increased with goods."
    
      But, that sure ain't the way Jesus looks at it.
    
      My main thoughts of the religious right is that the degree that
      we see them try to legislate morality is probably roughly pro-
      portional to the degree to which it becomes apparent that their
      gospel is impotent.
    
      Not that legislating certain things ain't bad, but where's that 
      army of Joel that will be like a fire in the midst?
    
      Have we given up on the power of loving as Christ loves?
    
    						Tony

	Part of the Right were at the Walk for AIDS yesterday. They kept
stating to everyone who walked by that they must be saved by Jesus. I asked how
did they know we weren't. I never got an answer.....

    Glen,
    
    Were they walking for Aids or just protesting?
    
                                         Patricia

I think there are several things to praise about the religious right.  Foremost
is its commitment to conserving traditional values (which happpen to be largely
Judeo-Christian in origin) which have served our country so well since its
inception.  Second, by the very act of being organized and vocal much of the
historical freedoms and value of religious life is being acknowledged and
hopefully reasserted.  Thirdly, the religious right's emphasis on the good
stewardship of God's monetary resources is forcing the govt to reassess its
practices over the past several decades and to make significant changes in
order to get the U.S. to sound financial standing.  Fourth, in general by
virtue of the religious right's voice (and other conservative groups')
all Americans can expect to enjoy less govt. intrusion into their lives.
Fifth, the fact that the religious right plants a stake in the ground 
concerning morality is important to our relativistic age where crime, abortion,
sexual immorality, greed, pride etc. are the accepted ideals and unfortunately
bringing so much grief to our country and citizens.

I view the religious right as a voice in the wilderness crying out that
God is alive and that He is not indifferent to evil and goodness.

jeff

    I think in their own way they were trying to say that though the walk
    for AIDS is indeed a noble and good work, it cannot be a substitute for
    what Jesus did on the cross.  It was probably assumed that there were
    unsaved people present.  I don't necessarily subscribe to this form of
    evangelism.  I find the one to one approach is most effective.
    
    There is also the possibility that people were putting on their
    pharisee hat and using Jesus as a tool for self righteousness.  If this
    be the case then one would have to wonder who is the greater
    sinner...the ones they are supposedly witnessing to or the messengers
    themselves.  There is one occasion in Pauls epistles where Paul is
    exhorting the church members for their mootives.  I would hope those
    witnessing at the walk really fasted and prayed before going!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1090.13 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>


| Were they walking for Aids or just protesting?


	Just protesting near the end of the Walk. Last year they were a larger
crowd, but I remember one woman who held the sign covering her face. This year
they were down to 2 people.


Glen

	I will have to say though, I believe that the followers of the Right,
for the most part, feel they are doing the correct thing. That malice is never
intended. 


Glen

    Another good thing about the Religious Right is that members can
    clearly articulate what their faith is and are comfortable discussing
    it.  I would challenge all people of faith to make sure they can do the
    same.
    
                                   Patricia

>    	To answer the question in the basenote, though, I'll suggest
>    	one word --
    
>    	morality.

I concur that the Right does believe this.  Moreover, the Right believes
the rest of us have lost it.

Richard

    I think it's more like....both parties believe in morality.  The RR
    believes in objective morality and the left believes that morality 
    is relative...which is why the left tends to support abortion, right to
    die, etc.  
    
    -Jack

	Jack, another broad brush was stroked by you. Just thought I would
point it out to you. :-)

	Now to the text.... many of the RR believe they have the absolute 
morality KNOWN to them while the rest of the people on the planet don't. The 
morality can't be objective as you stated though, it has to be cut and dry, 
doesn't it?

	The left seem to be a little more rrealistic on absolute morality. Many
tend to realize that being human, we can't possibly know forr sure if we have
the absolute morality in our grasps cuz only God can have anything absolute.

    Well Glen, this is why I am not a member of the Christian Coalition.  I
    believe that one who belongs should be likeminded in all things.  The
    left is in disarray these days because they don't all agree uniformly.
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1090.21 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Jack, another broad brush was stroked by you. Just thought I would
> point it out to you. :-)
    
    	Was that broad brush wrong?  Isn't abortion (or pro-choice, if
    	you insist) a concept most common to the left?  Same with right-
    	to-die issues, and so many other things.  Would you bet against 
    	my guesses regarding how any random liberal would stand on any
    	given divisive issue?

>	Now to the text.... many of the RR believe they have the absolute 
> morality KNOWN to them while the rest of the people on the planet don't. 
    
    	NOW who is using the broad brush?  And you are wrong regarding
    	others on the planet not knowing morality.  I'd bet you that
    	practically any right-winger would generally accept the MORAL 
    	tenets of Judaism, for example.  Same with many other world 
    	religions -- at least in their orthodox forms.  The faiths or 
    	religious practices are another story...
    
>	The left seem to be a little more rrealistic on absolute morality. Many
> tend to realize that being human, we can't possibly know forr sure if we have
> the absolute morality in our grasps cuz only God can have anything absolute.
    
    	Back to this again.  Sigh...  One man's "realism" is another's
    	fantasy, and vice versa.  The question posed in this topic is
    	"what is right with the Religious Right", and for some of us not 
    	having to rely on your "reality" is entirely what's right with 
    	the Religious Right.  You'll say that's what WRONG with the RR,
    	and that's your prerogative.  You are better off for yourself
    	where you are.

ZZ    The left seem to be a little more rrealistic on absolute morality.
ZZ    Many tend to realize that being human, we can't possibly know forr sure if
ZZ    we have the absolute morality in our grasps cuz only God can have anything
ZZ    absolute.
    
    People who truly follow the concept of objective morality are
    less likely to get into trouble Glen.  IMHO!

>The left seem to be a little more rrealistic on absolute morality
    >Many tend to realize that being human, we can't possibly know forr sure if
>  we have the absolute morality in our grasps cuz only God can have anything
>    absolute.
    
 
    Your statements are nonsense, Glen.  The left reject, in general, that
    there is an absolute morality.  They are not "realistic" in doing so,
    however.
    
    jeff

| <<< Note 1090.22 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>

| Well Glen, this is why I am not a member of the Christian Coalition.  I
| believe that one who belongs should be likeminded in all things.  The
| left is in disarray these days because they don't all agree uniformly.

	Jack, you can't possibly think the Right does, can you? I mean, these
loonies that go out and blow up, or shoot out abortion clinics have most, if
not all of the ideals, beliefs, etc that the Right has. The only major
difference is the length they will go to stop something. And then there are
those with those, God hates fags signs. They fall into the same catagory. The
Right and left have members that pretty much fall into place with the majority
of the stuff. But each side has a fringe group(s) that make it seem otherwise. 
imho


Glen

| <<< Note 1090.23 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| >	Jack, another broad brush was stroked by you. Just thought I would
| > point it out to you. :-)

| Was that broad brush wrong?  

	It was directed at Jack, only he can clear things up.

| >	Now to the text.... many of the RR believe they have the absolute
| > morality KNOWN to them while the rest of the people on the planet don't.

| NOW who is using the broad brush? And you are wrong regarding others on the 
| planet not knowing morality.  

	When I say the above, you will be correct. I did not, so you are wrong.
We all know of morality. No one knows absolute morality, or absolute anything.
Big difference there Joe.

| I'd bet you that practically any right-winger would generally accept the MORAL
| tenets of Judaism, for example.  

	I'm sure they would. But that's a different topic altogether.



Glen

| <<< Note 1090.25 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>



| Your statements are nonsense, Glen.  The left reject, in general, that
| there is an absolute morality.  They are not "realistic" in doing so, however.

	Jeff, the left does not reject there is an absolute morality. They do
reject that humans have it in their grasp. There is only one absolute in this
world. God. Anything else is far from absolute. Why? Cuz everything else
involves humans. 


Glen

    The Apostle Paul rejects in general that there is any such thing as an 
    absolute morality!
    
    "Regarding eating meat sacrificed to idols or not eating meat
    sacrificed to idols."
    
    He says "all things are lawful to those in Christ"  but "all things
    should be for the building up of the community"  He says that there is
    nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols but if meat
    sacrificed to idols will cause another to sin, then one should not eat
    meat sacrificed to idols.
    
    In this passage he indicates it is not the response to the moral
    delemma that determines what is right or wrong, but the impact that a 
    particular response will have on the community.
    
    
    I along with the apostle Paul believe that we should conform our
    conduct to what God wants from us.  following the law is not enough and
    will never lead to a Godly life.  Following scriptures alone is not
    enough and will never lead to a Godly life.
    
    What is required is a radical commitment to God and a radical
    commitment to God's community which is the interdependent web of
    existence to which we are all a part.  If our actions uplift the
    community, that is good.  If not, it is bad!
    
    The speech on eating meat sacrificed to idols can be found in Romans
    and 1 Corinthians.  Anyone who wants to find it, can easily locate it!
    
                                        Patricia

 ZZ   He says that there is
 ZZ   nothing wrong with eating meat sacrificed to idols but if meat
 ZZ   sacrificed to idols will cause another to sin, then one should not
 ZZ   eat meat sacrificed to idols.
    
    Patricia, you're right.  Glen would you pleas (For the sake of your
    weaker brother...Me), please live a chaste life and forsake homosexual
    living of any kind?  You are causing me and many others in the church
    to stumble!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1090.30 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>


| Glen would you pleas 

	Plea-ing won't help Jack. :-)

| (For the sake of your weaker brother...Me), 

	Gotta save this one for da box! :-)

| please live a chaste life and forsake homosexual living of any kind? 

	Not be myself? Talk about living a lie. BTW, if I live a chaste life,
according to your beliefs, wouldn't I be able to live somewhat of a homosexual
life?

| You are causing me and many others in the church to stumble!

	You're a little gay, huh? :-)


Glen

 ZZ   Not be myself? Talk about living a lie. BTW, if I live a chaste life,
 ZZ   according to your beliefs, wouldn't I be able to live somewhat of a
 ZZ   homosexual life?
    
    No Glen, you wouldn't be living a lie...anymore than a person would
    abstain from alcohol before coming to church every week if they happen
    to like a morning glass of wine.  
    
    So how about it.  Will you abstain from homosexual activity for the
    sake of you weaker loving brother...Hmmmmmmm???????
    
    -Jack

re Note 1090.28 by BIGQ::SILVA:

> | Your statements are nonsense, Glen.  The left reject, in general, that
> | there is an absolute morality.  They are not "realistic" in doing so, however.
> 
> 	Jeff, the left does not reject there is an absolute morality. 

Jeff and Glen,

        The "left" is hardly a monolith, especially when the
        religious liberal is so often confused with the political
        left (the same confusion often exists -- sometimes fostered
        for political gain -- between the religious conservative and
        the political right).

        There are undoubtedly people on both ends of the political
        spectrum who believe in absolute morality.  It is also true
        that of those who believe in absolute morality, not all
        believe in the God of the Bible.

        Bob

    Hi Bob,
    
>Jeff and Glen,

 >       The "left" is hardly a monolith, especially when the
 >       religious liberal is so often confused with the political
 >       left (the same confusion often exists -- sometimes fostered
 >       for political gain -- between the religious conservative and
 >       the political right).

    I don't think there is any real confusion on this subject, your
    assertions notwithstanding.    The political left is the actual basis
    for the religious liberal if one accepts the history of liberal theology.
    Additionally, liberal theology has had to significantly distort the
    traditional meaning of words and ideas and the traditional
    understanding of reality to build their theologies and to accomodate
    their liberal politics.
    
    It cannot be said that religious conservatives have had to similarly
    distort the traditional meaning of words and ideas and the traditional
    understanding of reality to accomodate their conservative politics. 
    
>        There are undoubtedly people on both ends of the political
>        spectrum who believe in absolute morality.  It is also true
>        that of those who believe in absolute morality, not all
>        believe in the God of the Bible.

>        Bob
    
    I wonder if your first statement is actually true.  An absolute
    morality cannot truly exist without an absolute authority so I suspect 
    that those who believe in an absolute morality believe in some god of 
    some sort if not the God of the Bible. 
    
    jeff

    Jack,
    
    The actuality is that your assumptions about the sinfullness of
    homosexuality may have nothing to do with God's intentions or his plans
    and your judgement and oppression of that group of people is not only
    causing harm to the gay/lesbian community but may also be causing your
    own community to stumble in its self righteous idolatry and
    condemnation of a group of people based on a few isolated pieces of
    scripture.
    
    My guess is that if Jesus were here today he would stand on the side of
    the Gay/Lesbian community and not on the side who proclaims or allows
    to be proclaimed that "God hates Fags" or any other blashpemous
    utterance.
    
    My support for the Gay/Lesbian community may indeed surpass my passion
    for supporting the rights of women mainly because as a heterosexual
    woman I don't have to be concern about my own filters.
    
    Genuine love between adult partners is perhaps one of the greatest
    gifts that God has given humanity, regardless of the gender of the
    loving adults.
    
                                         
                                       Passionately,
                                      
                                       Patricia

    Okay Patricia, let's keep sexual predisposition out of it.
    
    Glen, fornication is sin so in the interest of not making me
    judgemental and oppressive, could you please remain chaste until you
    give of yourself to a spouse?  Thanks.
    
    How's that Patricia?
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    If I can't convince you that your judgmental attitude is unchristian,
    let me remind you the it is a clear violation of company Policy and
    procedures.  I'm proud that Digital is one of the companies that
    prohibits descrimination based on sexual orientation.
    
    

ZZ    If I can't convince you that your judgmental attitude is unchristian,
ZZ    let me remind you the it is a clear violation of company Policy and
ZZ    procedures.  I'm proud that Digital is one of the companies that
ZZ    prohibits descrimination based on sexual orientation.
    
    Patricia, I want you to put all differences aside here and listen to me
    very carefully.  The above seems to be a friendly warning that I am
    somehow not complying with company policies and procedures.  Asking a
    fellow brother in Christ to abstain from an activity in order to keep
    the church from stumbling IS NOT...I REPEAT...IS NOT judgemental. 
    Please keep all censorship thought prosesses in womannotes...a forum
    that continually reeks of it.  This is a voluntary forum where people
    can exchange ideas and disagree in like fashion.  It would be
    completely dishonest on your part to assume there isn't a major problem
    in a Christian walk when ones conduct is being questioned.  And in the
    context of a Christian Perspective, I stake my claim to the right of
    discussion in this matter.  And Glen has faced far worse believe
    me...and has held his own without the help of goderators and
    censorship.  
    
    Secondly, Unchristian as you define it because your use of the word
    Christian and unchristian is defined by your own subjective view of
    what is correct and what isn't correct.
    
 ZZ   I'm proud that Digital is one of the companies that prohibits 
 ZZ   descrimination based on sexual orientation.
    
    So am I Patricia...but this point is not at all germane to the
    discussion at hand.  I have people in my own organization who are
    alcoholics, teatotalers, straight, gay, nymphomaniacs, monogamous, drug
    abusers, cheaters, adulterer...so what.  They have to live by the
    edicts of their own conscience just as you need to live by yours and I
    need to live by mine.  My cynical reply was applied to your use of the
    scripture about eating meat offered to idols.  It would seem that it
    only applies if it doesn't cross the line of insensitivity.  
    
    Congratulations Patricia, you have just proven the fallacy of moral
    subjectivity.  Glen or anybody for that matter can do as they please. 
    Just remember that wearing the label "Christian" requires
    responsibility and at times can have a heavy price.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    To wear the label "Christian" does not give any member the right to 
    oppress any group.   
    
    Your cynical reply wasn't funny.
    
    Read Romans.  Nowhere does Paul say an individual should dictate to a
    person of conscious what is uplifting and what is not uplifting.
    
    I'm hoping that by pushing you personally on your prejudices against both
    women and Gays/Lesbians and against poor people, might lead you to
    repentence!  I am hoping that because I know that underneath your
    prejudices you are a wonderful guy.
    
    Your life would in my opinion be happier if you were not so sure that you
    were getting such a tough deal at the expense of others.  
    
                                           

                  <<< Note 1090.27 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

> | Was that broad brush wrong?  
>
>	It was directed at Jack, only he can clear things up.
    
    	What, Glen, a side step from you?
    
	No, it is not for Jack to clear up.  I was asking you if
    	you thought his use of that broad brush was wrong.  I gave
    	you several questions that indicated why I thought it was
    	not.  I ask you to agree or disagree with them.  See .23
    	if you forgot the questions.
    
>| >	Now to the text.... many of the RR believe they have the absolute
>| > morality KNOWN to them while the rest of the people on the planet don't.
>
>| NOW who is using the broad brush? And you are wrong regarding others on the 
>| planet not knowing morality.  
>
>	When I say the above, you will be correct. I did not, so you are wrong.
    
    	Splitting hairs, I see.  Correct, you specifically said that
    	many of the RR believe (etc.)
    
    	Then at the bottom of your reply you said:
    
> | I'd bet you that practically any right-winger would generally accept 
    > | the MORAL
> | tenets of Judaism, for example.  
>
>	I'm sure they would. But that's a different topic altogether.
    
    	So, which is it?  You have said contradictory things here.

        <<< Note 1090.29 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    The Apostle Paul rejects in general that there is any such thing as an 
>    absolute morality!       ^^^^^^^^^^
    
    	This is not true.  You use one SPECIFIC instance (which is
    	more a matter of religious practice than morals) to build 
    	your case of the GENERAL.
    
    	Paul was very clear about absolutes with regard to many moral
    	issues -- in particular sexual conduct.
    
>    In this passage he indicates it is not the response to the moral
>    delemma that determines what is right or wrong, but the impact that a 
>    particular response will have on the community.
    
    	In other passages he shows how even a "victimless crime" 
    	affects the whole community.  We are all parts of the same
    	body.  You cannot use this one passage in isolation as you
    	are trying to do.
    
>    I along with the apostle Paul believe that we should conform our
>    conduct to what God wants from us.  following the law is not enough and
>    will never lead to a Godly life.  Following scriptures alone is not
>    enough and will never lead to a Godly life.
    
    	But some use the argument you pose here to say that they can
    	IGNORE the law, and IGNORE the scripture.

<<< Note 1090.33 by LGP30::FLEISCHER "without vision the people perish (DTN 297-5780, MRO2-3/E8)" >>>

>        The "left" is hardly a monolith, 
    
    	To be fair, neither is the right, though it is being dscussed
    	here as if it were.

        <<< Note 1090.35 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    and your judgement and oppression of that group of people is not only
    
    	Jack (nor anyone else here) has neither oppressed nor sought the
    	oppression of people.  Nor judged them as people.  The focus is,
    	and always has been, on behavior.
    
>    based on a few isolated pieces of
>    scripture.
    
    	You have no room to accuse others of selective scripture use...
    
>    My guess is that if Jesus were here today he would stand on the side of
>    the Gay/Lesbian community and not on the side who proclaims or allows
>    to be proclaimed that "God hates Fags" or any other blashpemous
>    utterance.
    
    	Why do you make these be the only two choices?  I suspect that
    	Jesus would say to sin no more.  He would avert his eyes in
    	disgust at a gay pride rally just as he would a prostitutes
    	rally, or an adulterers rally.
    
>    Genuine love between adult partners is perhaps one of the greatest
>    gifts that God has given humanity, regardless of the gender of the
>    loving adults.
    
    	Nice sound bite.  Are you saying that such "genuine love" is
    	not an abuse of God's gift when used outside of His institution
    	of marriage?

        <<< Note 1090.37 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    If I can't convince you that your judgmental attitude is unchristian,
    
    	While this was not addressed to me, I'd be curious to know
    	why being judgemental is unChristian.

    	Jack --
    
    	I was going to send you something offline, but I think Patricia
    	has gotten totally out of hand and needs to see this too.
    
    	re .39, Patricia, you are being patently unfair to Jack.  You
    	flash "personnel" in fron of him, and you try to rebuke him for
    	being judgemental, but you have the gall to publically state
    	that he oppresses people, and is prejudiced, and you get rather
    	personal in your suggestion that he is unhappy and that he's
    	getting a tough deal.
    
    	Frankly I think you see yourself as losing ground here, and
    	now you try to gain the moral high-ground by making Jack defend
    	himself against your accusations.
    
    	I suggest a cooling off period.  This discussion should not
    	be going in this direction.

Re:  Note 1090.39          What's right with the Religious Right             39 of 39
POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"             19 lines   8-JUN-1995 13:21
    
ZZ    To wear the label "Christian" does not give any member the right to 
ZZ    oppress any group.   
  
Patricia, your right.  Live and let live.  However, as believers, we are 
expected and required to maintain a testimony and look out for the spiritual 
well being of our brothers and sisters.  We are commanded to admonish one 
another in works of righteousness.  What makes the young mans fornication in
1st Corinthians 5 any less righteous than fornication today?  Yes, now I am
admonishing all believers who practice works of unrighteousness, not just a 
certain group.
 
ZZ    Your cynical reply wasn't funny.
  
It was more of a statement or a request to Glen...and it didn't have a smiley 
face.  I'm challenging Glen because he claims to be a brother.  I am well 
within my rights as a co laborer to at least challenge him on this.  
  
ZZ    Read Romans.  Nowhere does Paul say an individual should dictate to a
ZZ    person of conscious what is uplifting and what is not uplifting.
  
Yes, Romans says to turn them over to a reprobate mind.  Not referring to gay 
behavior here.  This is people who are imprisoned by lust or in my opinion,
fornication.  Yes, this strikes a raw nerve in todays way of thinking because
we committed the sin of calling right wrong and wrong right.  Now we have to 
come to terms with this as a society and as a church.  Hezekiah King of Israel 
did the very same thing with the nation of Israel.  
   
ZZ    I'm hoping that by pushing you personally on your prejudices against both
ZZ    women and Gays/Lesbians and against poor people, might lead you to
ZZ    repentence!  I am hoping that because I know that underneath your
ZZ    prejudices you are a wonderful guy.
  
Let's touch on the women issue first.  In what way am I predjudice toward
women?  I wasn't aware of this and haven't heard this from anybody until now.

Poor people, again it is a matter of perception.  How have I been predjudice 
against poor people?  I wasn't aware of this and haven't heard anything until
now. 

Gays/Lesbians - Predjudice and tolerance of activity are vastly different 
things.  Had I been predjudice, I wouldn't respect the constitutional rights
of gays and their rights to housing, jobs, military service, etc.  I believe
in all these things.  However, as a brother in Christ I reserve the right to
admonish my fellow brother to live a life of holiness.  Fornication is 
contrary to an abundant holy life.
  
ZZ    Your life would in my opinion be happier if you were not so sure that you
ZZ    were getting such a tough deal at the expense of others.  
  
I think you meant at the benefit of others, right?  I reject the notion above.
I am quite content with my personal well being, my physical emotional well
being.  I'm happily married, we are likeminded, we have three healthy children
and I haven't a complaint in the world.  We have our money problems and all the 
garbage that happens in life...but we learn to overcome those temporal things
and continue to edify one another as a family.  I'm happy...no problem there.

What I detest Patricia, is reason without logic, discrimination of any kind,
continually utilizing proven failed method and achieving the same failed 
results, and the inability to break the paradigms we've established to drive
the individual toward excellence and independence.  I grieve over social 
issues Patricia because alot of them foster the wrong behavior.  I'm
flabberghasted that you don't see that!

-Jack  
                                           

ZZ    Yes, Romans says to turn them over to a reprobate mind.  Not referring to 
ZZ    gay behavior here.  This is people who are imprisoned by lust or in my
ZZ    opinion, fornication.  Yes, this strikes a raw nerve in todays way of 
ZZ    thinking because we committed the sin of calling right wrong and wrong 
ZZ    right.  Now we have to come to terms with this as a society and as a 
ZZ    church.  Hezekiah King of Israel did the very same thing with the nation 
ZZ    of Israel.  
    
    I copied and pasted my own comments to claify something here.  I do
    believe this passage is referring to those who practice sexual conduct
    that doesn't conform to holiness.  Man lying as one who lies with a
    woman.  I was using the passage though to point out that sexual
    activity of any kind outside its proper context is not beautiful.  It
    is sin.  
    
    By the way, I am guilty as charged!!!!
    
    -Jack

    Sexual morality is an area in which I do not recommend using the Bible. 
    It is an area with an extreme cultural bias toward upper class,
    heterosexual men and their sons.  To impose Biblical Sexual Morality
    would have an extreme negative impacts.
    
    The sexual morality identified in the Bible most specifically deals
    with limiting the sexuality of women and preserving the male sperm.
    
    Allowed is, using ones slaves to bear children.
    Having multiple wives,
    
    Not allowed is
    
    Withholding sex from husbands,
    Sex with women during their menstrual cycle
    Having sex before convocations with God.
    
    It is recommended that for greatest spiritual maturity, one remains
    celibate, but that if one cannot resist sex, they should marry instead
    of burn.
    
    Jesus proscription against divorce, in my opinion is based on the
    cultural assumption of women as property and the feud that would ensue
    if a man's property were misappropriated.  It is also based on the
    inability of women in biblical times to be financial secure outside of
    marriage except by prostitution.  Because all these cultural factors
    and because of a certain suspicion of sexuality inherent in early
    Christianity, the Bible cannot be used as a guide for sexual morality.

    Patricia:
    
    Sexual immorality is not cultural or class specific.  The Bible is in
    fact a guidebook toward holy living...and it clearly tells us what is
    youthful lust, what is love, and what is willing fornication.  Sin
    knows no gender nor does it apply to a certain class.  Incidently,
    Corinthians was very clear.  It says that the man's body is the
    property of his wifes and the husband is commanded to render to his
    wife what is due her.  Divorce was highly abused in the Israeli culture
    which is why Jesus said what he said.
    
    You told me a few notes back that I'd be happier if I didn't (to
    paraphrase) feel cheated by the benefits of others.  In your last note,
    it appears that you clearly draw lines between genders...throughout
    history.  If your ultimate goal is to bring equity and respect between
    genders, it would appear in your effort to do this you are actually
    driving a wedge between the genders.  This, to me is not healthy.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1090.32 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!" >>>



| So how about it.  Will you abstain from homosexual activity for the
| sake of you weaker loving brother...Hmmmmmmm???????

	Nope. I would have to view it as wrong in the first place. I don't. 

| <<< Note 1090.36 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Glen, fornication is sin so in the interest of not making me judgemental and 
| oppressive, could you please remain chaste until you give of yourself to a 
| spouse?  Thanks.

	Fine Jack. When you're around, so it will help you stay strong, I won't
fornicate. 




Glen

| <<< Note 1090.40 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| <<< Note 1090.27 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

| > | Was that broad brush wrong?
| >
| >	It was directed at Jack, only he can clear things up.

| What, Glen, a side step from you?

| No, it is not for Jack to clear up.  I was asking you if
| you thought his use of that broad brush was wrong.  

	Jack has to let me know if there was a broad brush. Then we (Jack & I),
can go from there. Your questions will become valid, possibly, at some point.
Right now, they are not.

| >| >	Now to the text.... many of the RR believe they have the absolute
| >| > morality KNOWN to them while the rest of the people on the planet don't.
| >
| >| NOW who is using the broad brush? And you are wrong regarding others on the
| >| planet not knowing morality.
| >
| >	When I say the above, you will be correct. I did not, so you are wrong.

| Splitting hairs, I see.  Correct, you specifically said that many of the RR 
| believe (etc.) Then at the bottom of your reply you said:

| > | I'd bet you that practically any right-winger would generally accept
| > | the MORAL
| > | tenets of Judaism, for example.
| >
| >	I'm sure they would. But that's a different topic altogether.

| So, which is it?  You have said contradictory things here.

	I stated both times it was KNOWN. Your origional note talked about
ABSOLUTE morality being known. Big difference

    .52  Good note.
    
    I think it captures the spirit of Paul's proscription of eating meat
    around the 'the weak'.
    
    Perhaps not the spirit of Paul's thoughts on fornication but then 1 out
    of 2 is not bad!
    
    

            <<< Note 1090.48 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Sexual morality is an area in which I do not recommend using the Bible. 
>    It is an area with an extreme cultural bias toward upper class,
>    heterosexual men and their sons.  To impose Biblical Sexual Morality
>    would have an extreme negative impacts.
    
    	I find this reasoning warped.  It is precisely the absence
    	of Biblical sexual morality in our society today that is the
    	cause of so may rapes, abortions, teen pregnancies, AIDS, etc.
    
>    The sexual morality identified in the Bible most specifically deals
>    with limiting the sexuality of women and preserving the male sperm.
    
    	Of course you realize that I dismiss this view as being the
    	illigetimate child of feminism and liberalism.  (as too, your
    	"list" of what the Bible allows and disallows.)
    
>    Jesus proscription against divorce, in my opinion is based on the
>    cultural assumption of women as property and the feud that would ensue
>    if a man's property were misappropriated.  
    
    	Jesus explained why the current cultural laws were wrong and
    	gave a clear message of God's plan.  You are way out of your
    	league in trying to reinterpret the Bible like this.
    
>    inability of women in biblical times to be financial secure outside of
>    marriage except by prostitution.  
    
    	How utterly sad that you believe this.

                  <<< Note 1090.53 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Jack has to let me know if there was a broad brush. 
    
    	Not according to the statement you made in .21.  
    
> Big difference
    
    	The big difference is that you are wrong (on many points in this
    	little tete-a-tete) and are too stubborn to drop it and let it be 
    	forgotten.

 ZZZ    Nope. I would have to view it as wrong in the first place. I don't. 
    
    An example of subjective morality.  Thanks Glen for your honesty.  What
    differentiates you from the man in 1st Corinthians Chapter 5?  Be it a
    true account or allegorical, it was obviously placed there for a
    reason.  Keep in mind, you are answering or judging yourself.  I am
    only asking the whys here.
    
    -Jack

    ZZ        I find this reasoning warped.  It is precisely the absence
    ZZ        of Biblical sexual morality in our society today that is the
    ZZ        cause of so may rapes, abortions, teen pregnancies, AIDS, etc.
    
    Bingo!  Moral relativism leads to consequences such as the above. 
    Incidently Patricia, I believe one not adhering to keeping their
    members (body parts) holy and to gloify God IS in fact contradictory to
    respecting women.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1090.56 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| >	Jack has to let me know if there was a broad brush.

| Not according to the statement you made in .21.

	Do you know what a :-) means?

| > Big difference

| The big difference is that you are wrong (on many points in this
| little tete-a-tete) and are too stubborn to drop it and let it be
| forgotten.

	Wow... I'll give you one thing... you're certainly full of
arrogance....

| <<< Note 1090.57 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZZ    Nope. I would have to view it as wrong in the first place. I don't.

| An example of subjective morality.  

	Gee Jack, if that were true, then anytime anyone had a different belief
than another regarding what is or isn't moral, it would have to be placed under
subjective. Now if this is a true statement, then you have helped show an
example of how no human can possible know what absolute morality is. 



Glen

    Sorry Glen, I thought we got our instruction on righteousness from the
    same book!
    
    -Jack

I can acknowledge that the Right does excel in some areas:

The Right tends to do a better job of raising money.

The Right tends to be better at rallying and mobilizing their numbers
for the sake of their objectives (not unlike the NRA).

The Right tends to be better at broadcasting their message, utilizing
the media (all the while denigrating the media), and adapting virtually
every form of communication.

Shalom,
Richard

| <<< Note 1090.61 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Sorry Glen, I thought we got our instruction on righteousness from the
| same book!

	Now there is a note with a reaction waiting to happen. :-)

Isn't morality all subjective?

Take the Thou Shalt not Kill commandment. Seems pretty clear to me. But wait,
does that include fighting wars? How about capital punishment? Protecting one's
family from an intruder? 

Steve

	Situational morality..... ONLY God has it right..... and Steve pointed
that out very clearly with his note.


Glen

    .64  Here comes the "murder" versus "killing" rationalization (even though
    one is just as dead either way)!
    
    Richard
    

 ZZ   Take the Thou Shalt not Kill commandment. Seems pretty clear to me. But
 ZZ   wait,does that include fighting wars? How about capital punishment?
 ZZ   Protecting one's family from an intruder? 
    
    Thanks Richard.  I was indeed going to get to that.  Even though you
    seem to ridicule the notion, facts are facts and it doesn't seem to me
    that we have the right or the authority to poo poo it.
    
    There was a distinct difference between kill and murder in the Old
    Testament.  It cannot be denied even by Pacifists that there were quite
    a few occasions where the death penalty was instituted under the Mosaic
    Law.  Among them would be adultery, working on the Sabbath,
    premeditated murder, etc.  As foreign or unthinkable as it may sound in
    our society, it would be an outright lie to each other and ourselves to
    simply ignore this point.
    
    It just pushes the notion even further that sin was a very serious
    issue with God.  As Psalm 103 states, "The Lord is merciful and slow to
    anger and plentious in mercy.  He will not always chide, nor will he
    withhold his anger forever."
    
    I believe this is something that we here in America had best start
    taking seriously.
    
    -Jack

re Note 1090.67 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     There was a distinct difference between kill and murder in the Old
>     Testament.  It cannot be denied even by Pacifists that there were quite
>     a few occasions where the death penalty was instituted under the Mosaic
>     Law.  Among them would be adultery, working on the Sabbath,
>     premeditated murder, etc.  As foreign or unthinkable as it may sound in
>     our society, it would be an outright lie to each other and ourselves to
>     simply ignore this point.
  
        Of course, it would be an equally egregious lie to ignore
        John 8:7.

        Bob

    No doubt Bob...and I'm not saying that this shouldn't be applied to our
    society as well.  Remember however, it was a two edged sword.  The
    Harlot was in a state of repentence.  
    
    Would you say that Nazi Germany as a nation displayed the same
    penitence this harlot did?  I am not a big advocate of war or the death
    penalty for that matter.  I simply state that it would be a lie for
    Pacifism to be revisionary of the history of Israel and the precepts of
    the Mosaic law.  The death penalty existed and IMO, came from the heart
    of a righteous holy God.  
    
    -Jack

re Note 1090.69 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     Would you say that Nazi Germany as a nation displayed the same
>     penitence this harlot did?  

        We waged war against Germany not to punish them but to rescue
        others.  I don't think the issue of "let those without sin
        cast the first stone" comes into play here.  The harlot's
        accusers weren't attempting to stone her for anybody's
        defense.

        Bob

    E.P. Sanders who wrote several of the historical Jesus books including
    the one titled, "The Historical Jesus" concluded that the pharasees
    plotted his death because he forgave sinners while they were still
    sinners.  Jesus forgave sinners without them needing to fulfill the the
    Jewish atonement system.
    
    Original thought just plopped right into my mind.  Jesus forgave
    sinners in his lifetime without them needing to fulfill the Jewish
    atonement laws.
    
    This contradicts those who claim that Jesus as the perfect sacrifice
    replaced that system.  He in forgiving sinners abolished that system in
    his lifetime.  Jesus, as God or as representative of God forgave sins
    directly without the requirements for a sacrifice.

| <<< Note 1090.67 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| There was a distinct difference between kill and murder in the Old Testament. 

	Jack, thou shall not kill. It does not specify murder, it just says
kill. If you ONLY apply it to murder, then that is your interpretation. It may
or may not be the correct one. But you could never say it was THE one.

| It just pushes the notion even further that sin was a very serious issue with 
| God.  

	I agree that sin is a very serious issue with God. But you mention the
OT laws, which don't apply to Gentiles in the first place. We are to go by the
10 commandmants +2. Kill is not specified as murder.



Glen

But these are the 10 COMMANDMENTS, not the 10 suggestions or the 10 good ideas
to follow. This is the *base* of Christian morality. If morality is not relative
then there should be no wiggle room in the base whatsoever. And the commandment
is quite clear, "Thou shalt not kill". In an inerrant document inspired by God,
these commandments must be clear, no? An omnipotent being ought to be able to
lay down the law without ambiguity.

Breaking killing into different kinds, no matter what the rationale, is
relativism. 

Steve

    No it isn't.  I will need a Hebrew concordance...which I don't have
    handy.  By what your saying however, my conclusion based on your
    teaching is that God is in fact ambiguous...considering He implemented
    the death penalty for the transgression of some laws.  My understanding
    is that the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", refers stictly to
    premeditated murder.  Any other explanation wouldn't make sense as God
    himself instituted the sacrificial system...multiple killing of
    animals.  God instituted laws such as...He who lies with his fathers
    wife shall surely be put to death, I am the Lord.  These types of
    passages simply cannot be thrown away.  It would be revisionism to do
    so.  
    
    The Ten Commandments were a broad brush portion of the Mosaic Law. 
    This is why they stand out amongst the other 300 plus laws.  These
    carried equal creedence within the Jewish culture.  Amazingly enough, I
    learned in my devotional this morning that the 70 year Babylonian
    captivity was in fact 70 years because the Israelites failed to give
    the land rest for 70 years.  Imagine that...an obscure law like that
    having such a detrimental effect on a nation.  
    
    So Glen, I am not interpreting scripture.  If the Hebrew text
    originally stated murder, it would imply malicious intent.  
    
    -Jack

 Z   This contradicts those who claim that Jesus as the perfect sacrifice
 Z   replaced that system.  He in forgiving sinners abolished that
 Z   system in his lifetime.  Jesus, as God or as representative of God forgave
 Z   sins directly without the requirements for a sacrifice.
    
    Interesting...and I don't necessarily disagree with you on this.  In
    Isaiah 1, God told the Israelites he abhorred their sacrifices and new
    moon sabbaths.  He also stated he desired mercy and not sacrifice.  I
    believe however that the sacrificial system of the old covenant was
    necessary as a picture or a "type of Christ" for the coming Messiah.  I
    also believe as it says in the Word that the blood of bulls and goats
    was merely a "Covering for sin".  It didn't say that sin was forgiven
    but that it was hidden from the eyes of a Holy God.   Also remember
    that it was God Himself who instituted the sacrificial system during
    the time of Moses and spelled out exactly what the process involved. 
    This would tell me it was necessary as an act of Holiness.  
    
    I do believe however he was the perfect sacrifice who replaced the
    system.  The letter to the Hebrews is again an excellent resource to
    explain this...particularly chapters 9 and 10.  There was nobody else
    qualified to do what Jesus did.  Also, as a symbol, the shroud that
    separated sinners from the Holy of Holies was torn just as Jesus died
    on the cross.  This is a message to me that atonement no longer came
    via the Levitical priesthood but now through the cross and the
    resurrection.  I find this method far more favorable over the covering
    of sin offered through the Levitical sacrificial system of the OT.
    
    -Jack

>    There was a distinct difference between kill and murder in the Old
>    Testament.  It cannot be denied even by Pacifists that there were quite
>    a few occasions where the death penalty was instituted under the Mosaic
>    Law.  Among them would be adultery, working on the Sabbath,
>    premeditated murder, etc.  As foreign or unthinkable as it may sound in
>    our society, it would be an outright lie to each other and ourselves to
>    simply ignore this point.

Of course it always gets left out that God gave the Israelites instructions
about the death penalty during a time when there were no prisons or holding
facilities of any kind.  And of course it always gets left out that there
are some sins for which applying the punishment seems simply too severe, even
to many of the most hardened death penalty proponents today.  And of course
the notion of cities of refuge always gets left out.

Richard

PS  Not all who oppose the death penalty are pacifists.  And probably not
all pacifists oppose capital punishment.

    	Relativists need controversy around even those commandments
    	which are clear to allow them wiggle room to convince themselves
    	that their behaviors in other areas MIGHT be OK.  The thing
    	is that they are only fooling themselves.

 Z Of course it always gets left out that God gave the Israelites instructions
   Z about the death penalty during a time when there were no prisons or holding
   Z  facilities of any kind.  And of course it always gets left out that there
   Z are some sins for which applying the punishment seems simply too
   Z severe, even to many of the most hardened death penalty proponents today.  
   Z And of course the notion of cities of refuge always gets left out.
    
   I imagine that if God spent numerous chapters instructing on the pure
    detail of the alter, the ark, the method of sacrifice, etc., then God
    would have also done the same with prisons had He intended law to be
    meted out in that method.  I agree completely with your second point. 
    I was careful to make that distinction a few replies back that this
    sort of justice simply wouldn't be tolerated in todays society. 
    However, it also solidifies my point of how abhorrent sin is to a Holy
    God.  This is the only logical explanation I can come up with as to why 
    God would put such stringent penalties on what appear to be trivial
    issues.  
    
    Regarding the cities of refuge, these cities were an example of Gods
    justice system.  The cities of refuge were a place somebody could elude
    the avenger of blood, until judgement was made.  The only ones who were
    exhonerated were those who killed somebody involuntary.  The example
    used in the law is if there are two cutting wood with axes and ones
    axehead falls off and strikes the other to death, then he can flee to
    the city of refuge to be protected by the next of kin who would try to
    avenge their relatives death.  Only if they were proven not to commit
    in premeditation would they be declared innocent.  It didn't apply to
    1st degree murderers.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1090.74 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| is that the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill", refers stictly to premeditated
| murder. Any other explanation wouldn't make sense as God himself instituted 
| the sacrificial system...multiple killing of animals. God instituted laws such
| as...He who lies with his fathers wife shall surely be put to death, I am the 
| Lord. These types of passages simply cannot be thrown away. It would be 
| revisionism to do so.

	That is a mouthful Jack. But I think you're confusing what God would
want man to do, and what He can do. He may not want humans killing, unless HE
deems it to be an ok situation. 

| The Ten Commandments were a broad brush portion of the Mosaic Law.

	Is it something you can prove? No. You can't possibly know that for a
fact. You could not possibly prove it. All you can do is believe that is the
truth. The questions are there, and still there are no answers.

| This is why they stand out amongst the other 300 plus laws. These carried 
| equal creedence within the Jewish culture.  

	And for the Gentiles? Are we the ones who do not kill ANYTHING then?
The other Laws are dribble to us as we are only to follow the 10 +2. Hmmmm

| So Glen, I am not interpreting scripture. 

	Oh, but you are. You have stated things, but you haven't proved
anything at all.

| If the Hebrew text originally stated murder, it would imply malicious intent.

	But it DIDN'T state that, did it? You have interpreted it to mean that.


Glen

    Jack,
    
    I don't believe any of your theories about the sacrificial system.  I
    am re reading second Isaiah, and the God of second Isaiah is a God who
    clearly forgives the sins of the Israelites without any need of
    sacrifices, human or animal.  As I was reading about the potter asking
    the creator about the pottery in second Isaiah, it became very clear to
    me that Paul had taken that text completely out of contexts in Romans.
    I think Paul has taken a lot of the old testament out of contexts and I 
    am ready to begin my serious study of the Old Testament as a way of
    evaluating the early Christian interpretation of the Hebrew Scriptures.
    
    So far, I like second Isaiah.  
    
                                  Patricia
    

| <<< Note 1090.77 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>



| Relativists need controversy around even those commandments which are clear to
| allow them wiggle room to convince themselves that their behaviors in other 
| areas MIGHT be OK.  

	Why is it that some people can constantly tell us why we are doing
something, when they are constantly wrong? The ONLY One who can possibly know
what anyone is really doing is God. A person can talk about killing meaning
just that, killing, without it having to do with proving some sort of behavior.
I guess the sooner some would realize this, the less foolish they would appear
to people. I mean, if we go by the words written above, then I guess the author
has to be God. And we know that ain't true. :-)

| The thing is that they are only fooling themselves.

	How can one fool themselves when you can't even get right what they are
doing in the 1st place?


Glen

    Joe,
    
    All morality is relativist.  It is not those who acknowledge that that
    are fooling themselves.  It is those who think there own morality is 
    absolute.   For instance it is typical of the religious right to make a
    huge deal out of some things they considered sexually immoral, why
    subtly supporting other areas of sexual immorality by ommision.  That
    is the height of moral relativism.  THe oppression of Gay and Lesbians
    is moral relativism on the part of the religious right.
    
                                      Patricia

    Patricia:
    
    Bad things happen to people...to everybody in fact.  It appears to me
    from sheer observation that although bad things can happen to anybody,
    very bad things happen to people who practice their own flavor of
    morality.  
    
    Do you deny that HIV is propogated through acts of moral relativism?  
    
    Joe, what are your chances of contracting HIV from your lifestyle?
    
    -jack

	Patricia.... very nicely put. No one has absolute anything, except God.
We can all strive to obtain it. I think by the willingness to learn, it helps
strengthen one's life with Him.


Glen

| <<< Note 1090.83 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Bad things happen to people...to everybody in fact. It appears to me from 
| sheer observation that although bad things can happen to anybody, very bad 
| things happen to people who practice their own flavor of morality.

	How true Jack. I'm sure many a Christian has been slugged over the
years practicing their own flavor of morality. 

| Do you deny that HIV is propogated through acts of moral relativism?

	Wow..... Jack, please be realistic about some things here. You can't say
what you did above and have it be true in all cases.

| Joe, what are your chances of contracting HIV from your lifestyle?

	If it were up to a lifestyle choice, you would have a point.

	Btw, hate, which IS touted by some Christians, seems to be part of
their lifestyle. Could you discuss that as well? 

re Note 1090.77 by CSC32::J_OPPELT:

>     	Relativists need controversy around even those commandments
>     	which are clear to allow them wiggle room to convince themselves
>     	that their behaviors in other areas MIGHT be OK.  The thing
>     	is that they are only fooling themselves.
  
        It takes two to make a controversy.

        One of the things I've come to learn from these discussions
        is that the so-called "absolute" traditional interpretations
        are just as relative and the result of as much "wriggling",
        and defended by as much "wriggling", as the positions of the
        so-called relativists.

        To paraphrase another member of this conference:  "You've had
        TWO THOUSAND YEARS to wriggle" (or, in the case of the OT,
        closer to 3000).

        Bob

                  <<< Note 1090.81 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

> | Relativists need ...
>
>	Why is it that some people can constantly tell us why we are doing
>something, when they are constantly wrong? 
    
    	Did I say in my statement that you quoted that you specifically, or 
    	anyone specifically, is a relativist?  The only one who said this 
    	about you is you yourself by implication in your above statement.
    
    	I wasn't looking for confessions, but thank you for admitting it 
    	all the same.

        <<< Note 1090.82 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    For instance it is typical of the religious right to make a
>    huge deal out of some things they considered sexually immoral, why
>    subtly supporting other areas of sexual immorality by ommision.  
    
    	How true.  I agree.  What's your point?  Are you saying that
    	hypocrisy on the part of individuals in the religious right
    	somehow make the sins of everyone else null and void?

>	Patricia.... very nicely put. No one has absolute anything, except God.
>We can all strive to obtain it. I think by the willingness to learn, it helps
>strengthen one's life with Him.



 Welcome class.  On your desks is an exam.  I know I haven't given you any
 material to study, and we haven't even discussed the subject matter in class,
 and I'm not going to bother to tell you what my expectations are for the exam,
 and I'm not even going to tell you what is passing or failing..you're on 
 your own.  You may pass, or you may fail.  I'll let you know after you've taken
 the exam.  Good luck!




 Jim

                  <<< Note 1090.85 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	How true Jack. I'm sure many a Christian has been slugged over the
> years practicing their own flavor of morality. 
    
    	As they should be.

> | Do you deny that HIV is propogated through acts of moral relativism?
>
>	Wow..... Jack, please be realistic about some things here. You can't say
>what you did above and have it be true in all cases.
    
    	I didn't see anything about "in all cases" in Jack's statement.
    	It is very true that HIV is propogated by immoral acts that
    	the participants try to pretend are not immoral.  And just 
    	because not ALL cases are transmitted this way, we cannot
    	ignore or excuse those that are.

> | Joe, what are your chances of contracting HIV from your lifestyle?
>
>	If it were up to a lifestyle choice, you would have a point.
    
    	In most cases, lifestyle choice (specifically behavior choice) 
    	*IS* the cause of the transmission.  Ignoring that fact because 
    	of the rare cases that don't fit the statement is unfair, if not 
    	dishonest.

    Jack,
    
    your last notes exemplifies my contention that the religious right is
    extremely relativistic.  You fit the mold with your targeting of 
    homosexual behavoir as the top of your sin list.
    
    HIV is not propogated through acts of moral relativism.  HIV is
    propogated through the HIV virsus.  HIV is declining in the Gay
    population while it is growing among heterosexual women and men.
    
    Jack, you remind me a lot of the pharisees in the Bible.  Spouting off
    exactly what they think is needed for salvation, all the while missing
    the point of love, mercy, justice, goodwill toward all.
    
    What lusts are you guilty of Jack.  I ask that question because you
    point the finger a lot at others.  What do you see when you look toward
    yourself?
    
                                    Patricia

 ZZ   Wow..... Jack, please be realistic about some things here. You
 ZZ   can't say what you did above and have it be true in all cases.
    
    But Glen is right though.  Glen, the disease propogates through sex
    and drugs.  It also must propogate through illicit sex since one of the
    parties contracted it through a third party.  The rest of the poor
    souls who got it through blood transfusions and the like are
    unfortunately casualties of war.  It is disingenuous Glen, to state
    that AIDS doesn't stem from somebodys choice of morality.  
    
    -Jack

 Z    your last notes exemplifies my contention that the religious right is
 Z    extremely relativistic.  You fit the mold with your targeting of 
 Z    homosexual behavoir as the top of your sin list.
    
    Either I'm miscommunicating or you're reading what you want to here.  I
    specifically based the whole discussion on fornication.  Apparently you
    forgot that I also wrote guilty as charged so please don't lay the pharisee
    trip on me.
    
    As far as stating who has salvation, again another knee jerk reaction.  
    I stated a few notes back that our only interest is to edify the body 
    and part of this process is to admonish one another toward holiness.
    
    What sins am I guilty of?  Well, let's see, how about committing
    adultery in my heart...stealing, backbiting, hypocrisy, envy, and a few
    others I'm sure.  So Patricia, I'm an open book and freely admit it. 
    How about you.  What do you think are your sins, on what authority or
    basis do you claim them to be sins, and most importantly, how can we as
    brother and sister in Christ help each other overcome these sins?
    
    -Jack

        <<< Note 1090.91 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    your last notes exemplifies my contention that the religious right is
>    extremely relativistic.  You fit the mold with your targeting of 
>    homosexual behavoir as the top of your sin list.
    
    	Jack's last note only spoke of lifestyles, not of sexual
    	orientation.  Your insistence of painting his words to
    	convey a message that was not there so that your anger at
    	him and his message can be reinforced exemplifies much of
    	what I've been saying about relativism.  Relativism needs
    	controversy in the clear issues to leave open the door to 
    	logical acceptability of chosen behaviors that are questionable.
    
>    HIV is not propogated through acts of moral relativism.  HIV is
>    propogated through the HIV virsus.  
    
    	How is the HIV virus propogated?  What contributes to its
    	spread?
    
>    HIV is declining in the Gay
>    population while it is growing among heterosexual women and men.
    
    	And, as Jack was saying, lifestyle choices of those heterosexual
    	women and men are the primary reason for that spread.  IV drug
    	use and multiple sexual partners are the primary reasons for the
    	spread among these people.  (I was going to go into a preemption
    	of the "what about widows and widowers" red herring, but most
    	people can see through that already.)
    
>    Jack, you remind me a lot of the pharisees in the Bible.  Spouting off
>    exactly what they think is needed for salvation, 
    
    	Were the pharisees wrong about what is needed for salvation?  Was
    	EVERYTHING (or even MOST things) said by the pharisees wrong? 
    	Is it wrong for a person to say what he thinks about salvation?
    	
    
>    all he while missing
>    the point of love, mercy, justice, goodwill toward all.
    
    	Now THIS was the problem with the pharisee, but I really don't
    	see that in Jack.  You do, because you have determined that he
    	is wrong.  You have not come out and said it, but I beileve you
    	see him as evil.  You certainly don't show much goodwill or love
    	towards him, and I have to wonder if that is also how you plan
    	to react to dissenting members of your congregation once you
    	become a minister...
    
>    What lusts are you guilty of Jack.  I ask that question because you
>    point the finger a lot at others.  What do you see when you look toward
>    yourself?
    
    	Jack has clearly and consistently admitted his weakness and
    	sinfulness.  What are you looking for -- full confessions?
    	Why should he do this for you when you are clearly hostile
    	to him and what he has to say.  At this time I would find
    	it foolish to risk exposing such things that I would fully
    	expect to have used against me later on.  I hope Jack is 
    	wise enough to see the same thing.

     ZZ       At this time I would find
     ZZ      it foolish to risk exposing such things that I would fully
     ZZ       expect to have used against me later on.  I hope Jack is 
     ZZ       wise enough to see the same thing.
    
    Well, I guess I'm not to smart! :-)  This was important Joe.  I am
    reflecting the handicap of humankind that causes everybody to lack the
    love and compassion needed to make the world a better place.
    
    I purposely challenge you Patricia because if you are going to be a
    spiritual leader some day, you must learn to be a servant of all.  A
    servant must recognize their position in order to empathize, be
    effective, and establish a powerful ministry.  I understand Peter, the
    great evangelist of Acts 2 stated he wasn't worthy to die in the same
    manner as Jesus; hence they crucified him upside down.
    
    Regarding love and candor; two women each had a son who was addicted to
    cocaine.   One mother pleaded and tried very hard to help the man see
    his ways.  The other thought the first was assertive and
    uncompassionate.  Consequently, the second mothers son died.  The first
    still didn't break the habit and consequently died.  Question:  which
    of the mothers loved her son more?
    
    -Jack

    Patricia:
    
    Does sin even exist?
    
    -Jack

.83>	Do you deny that HIV is propogated through acts of moral relativism?  

set note/flame=on

if a christian opinion is that "HIV is propogated through acts of moral 
relativism" then i am glad that i need not qualify as christian and that
i need not listen to such crap.

if you want to get on your moral high-ground, define morality first.

i scanned this conference and it looks like only topic 241 makes a serious
attempt to define christian morality. though what is written there has no
resemblence to your attempt in here of singling out and judging members of 
society by implying that leading an immoral life is the primary source for 
contracting HIV.

define what you mean by "morality" first before you stuff your morality
down everyone's throat.

set note/flame=off


andreas.

    Joe,
    
    I absolutely do not think that Jack is Evil.  I don't think anyone that
    I note with is evil.  Jack is just quite vocal about many things that I
    disagree with.  My question about lust was a rhetorical question.  I 
    believe each of us puts more emphasis on different material things than
    we should.  that is what lust is.  that is what idolatry is.
    

    re .96
    
    Sin absolutely does exist in each one of us.
    
    Sin is what keeps us from being all that we can be.
    
    Inside each one of us at the center of our being is a "wonder child"
    created in the image of the Divine.  sin is everything that wraps
    around that free, innocent, beautiful spontaneous inner child and keeps
    the person from acting out of that innocence, love, and beauty that is
    within.
    
    Original Sin is that sin that we inherit from our parents etc. 
    Original Sin is the systemic prejudice and dysfunctions that wrap
    themselves around that wonder child before the child ever has a chance
    to make decisions for themselves.  Sin is the prejudices that we
    inherit from our culture.  Sin is the assumptions that we inherit that
    causes us to limit others who are different than us.
    
    Redemption is breaking away from all those limitations and becoming the
    person God meant for us to become.  Redemption is a gift of Love.
    
    
                             Patricia

    snarf
    

    Andreas:
    
    Your propensity for anger is illogical here.  It is no mistake to even
    the liberal establishment that HIV is for the most part a behavioral
    virus.  If you abstain from free sex or drugs, then your chances of
    catching HIV, syphallis, gonnohrea, or herpes is impossible under
    behavioral impulses.  
    
    I'm not shoving morality down anybodys throat Andreas.  And frankly
    with all due respect, I claim the right to exhort the bretheren toward
    holiness just as they have the same ight to exhort me.  You need to
    remember that this is a Christian Perspective conference and such
    accusations of shoving my morality down somebody elses throat would be
    appropriate for another forum.  There is a vast difference between
    judging somebody and identifying what seems to be there, i.e. if it
    walks like a duck, swims like a duck, etc.
    
    I can only go by what I see Andreas.  People are dying primarily by
    there own personal choices.  Abortion, suicide, drugs, alcoholism,
    violence are all propogated by free will.  There are no more scape
    goats Andreas...it is now the age of personal responsibility and the
    sexual revolution is dead and rotting!
    
    -Jack

    I love .100.  The snarf disease spreads.
    
    ZZ    Original Sin is the systemic prejudice and dysfunctions that wrap
    
    Prejudice is only a fruit of hate.  Hate is actually the sin;
    prejudice is one of many biproducts of hate!
    
    -Jack

    
    > If you abstain from free sex or drugs, then your chances of catching
    > HIV, syphallis, gonnohrea, or herpes is impossible under behavioral
    > impulses.

    Just a point of fact: HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes are not
    spread by drugs. I believe your are thinking about the sharing of
    unwashed needles by some addicts which has been shown to transmit the
    AIDS virus. Furthermore, HIV is the anti-body not the virus. It is the
    virus that is spread, not the anti-body. Detection of the anti-body is
    however and indication of exposure to the virus.

    In the very particular case of AIDS, one may rightly conclude that
    sexual intercourse with multiple partners is an agent for the spread of
    the disease. However, to make the leaping judgement that all immoral
    activities lead to calamity is, to use your word, illogical.
    
    Eric

my flame in .97 was not directed exclusively at you jack martin.

it is directed at all those vocal hypocrites who call themselves christian
and who spread their self-righteous judgemental turd in non-christian public 
conferences with little regard to the protest of the other readers. 

i pick you, because when you get vocal you fit just the type.

you jack martin are not a danger to society. i do not consider you neither
conservative nor liberal. in my assessment you have retained sufficient 
individuality and humour to be likeable and your very vocal opinions serve 
little more than attention grabbing. in my assessment you hide behind an 
acquired opinion. this acquired opinion s*cks.

i shan't continue flaming in here. for this i have too much respect for 
the more enlightenend noters who have allowed me into some very valuable 
discussions.

my flame was very calculated and serves no other purpose than to remind 
you that the more you and your mates shoot your mouths off, the earlier you 
will be judged and invite a backlash from the not so christian minded.

i for one, will continue to oppose the judgemental, self-righteous christian
sort, as they invade *my* turf.

i've said my piece and feel better for it.

you can now throw me out of here, that's not going to change my opinion.



andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    I do not consider your input invalid by any means; and I find your
    participation here both useful and desirable.  
    
    I think we as Christians need to keep one another accountable,
    particularly if we are going to identify with each other as believers. 
    By the way, HIV, which causes the AIDS virus (Thank you Eric), can
    befall anybody.  It just so happens that people who contract HIV
    through behavior practice a certain breed of morality.  This is
    unequivocal.
    
    -Jack  

| <<< Note 1090.89 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

| Welcome class.  On your desks is an exam.  I know I haven't given you any
| material to study, and we haven't even discussed the subject matter in class,
| and I'm not going to bother to tell you what my expectations are for the exam,
| and I'm not even going to tell you what is passing or failing..you're on
| your own.  You may pass, or you may fail.  I'll let you know after you've taken
| the exam.  Good luck!

	How nice Jim. A test! How about bringing it in reality? God has
revealed stuff to various people. Whether they "got it" absolutely right is
another question. 



Glen

| <<< Note 1090.98 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>


| I absolutely do not think that Jack is Evil.  

	Patricia... I think Jack is evil.... heh heh.....



Glen

	Jack, there is one question that you really should answer. Andreas
asked it, and I'm gonna ask it again. Define the absolute morality. What is it?
Give us every single absolute morality parameter that there is. In detail
please. How can we say anyone has it, if no one can produce it? Thank you Jack.
    



Glen

                  <<< Note 1090.108 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>Give us every single absolute morality parameter that there is. In detail
>please. 
    
    	To what end?  To fill up a disk?  So that you can find fault
    	with minor points and therefore conclude that it is all invalid?
    
    	But OK.  How about considering the ABSOLUTE morality as defined 
    	by the Roman Catholic Church.  It is absolute, has been absolute,
    	and will continue to be so.  And all the pieces fit together and
    	work in concert.
    	

                     <<< Note 1090.103 by APACHE::MYERS >>>

>    Just a point of fact: HIV, syphilis, gonorrhea and herpes are not
>    spread by drugs. I believe your are thinking about the sharing of
>    unwashed needles by some addicts which has been shown to transmit the
>    AIDS virus. 

	I would hope that most anyone would know that "drugs" as used
	by Jack was implying IV needle exchange.  Anyone who has followed
	notes for a while would know what Jack meant.

>    Furthermore, HIV is the anti-body not the virus. 

	Uh, doesn't the V in HIV stand for virus?  When one is HIV-positive
	he tests positively for the antibody.

>    In the very particular case of AIDS, one may rightly conclude that
>    sexual intercourse with multiple partners is an agent for the spread of
>    the disease. However, to make the leaping judgement that all immoral
>    activities lead to calamity is, to use your word, illogical.

	I didn't see Jack make the leap to "all immoral activities lead
	to calamity."  Maybe I missed it...

    Glen:
    
    It would be an exercise in futility to do this.  However, I will focus
    on one particular issue if you would like me to.  Remember, you asked!
    
    Jesus stated that it is written, Do not commit adultery; but I tell you
    that he who looks upon a woman with lust commits adultery in his heart.
    
    Jesus is defining a moral absolute here.  When one looks at a woman as
    an object and somebody to be passionate with outside the bonds of
    matrimony, then you are in fact an adulterer.  As I stated a few days
    ago...guilty as charged.
    
    The whole crux of this conversation is repentence Glen.  When God
    stated He desired mercy over sacrifice, he wasn't kidding.  A repentent
    heart is far more favorable than an atoning sacrifice.  This is why
    Jesus always stated, "Your sins are forgiven.  Go your way and sin no
    more."  
    
    So now we come down to the question.  Is your outlook on sexual desire
    objective or subjective?  Are you willing to be enslaved by the
    passions of your desire or are you willing to offer your body as a
    living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God.  Are you even willing to
    consider this invitation?  Are you listening or are you going to accuse
    me of shoving my morality down your throat.  You can choose the latter
    and justify your own actions if you want to.  It's a free country and
    it's your choice.  Just remember that bearing the mark of a Christian
    carries a heavy price!
    
    -Jack

    
    
    > Uh, doesn't the V in HIV stand for virus?  When one is HIV-positive he
    > tests positively for the antibody.
    
    I was wrong. HIV is indeed the virus which produces the AIDS syndrome.
    I put my fingers in motion before my brain was in gear.
    
    Thank you.
    
    	Eric

    
    >	I didn't see Jack make the leap to "all immoral activities lead
    >	to calamity."  Maybe I missed it...

    From an earlier note by Jack..

    >> It appears to me from sheer observation that although bad things can
    >> happen to anybody, very bad things happen to people who practice their
    >> own flavor of morality.

    
    Eric


    PS. Jack, I'm not trying to pick on you, I'm just supporting a
        statement I made regarding my interpretation of your views. 

>   I imagine that if God spent numerous chapters instructing on the pure
>    detail of the alter, the ark, the method of sacrifice, etc., then God
>    would have also done the same with prisons had He intended law to be
>    meted out in that method.

God giving prison instructions to a nomadic society wandering in the desert
for 40 years?  What an obtuse and curiously irrelevant thing to do.

Richard

    So are you implying that gone forwent the idea of prisons because it
    wouldn't have been practical???  I admit we can only conjecture on this
    but it doesn't sound this way to me!  Your point is well made though.
    
    -Jack

    Eric:
    
    When I speed type, sometimes I just write what's going on in my head at
    that point!!!!
    
    To paraphrase, it is an observation I've made that when people poo poo
    standards of conduct and make impractical choices, it stands to reason
    that they will eventually heap misfortune on their heads.
    
    There are simply some things too predictable.  If I sleep around, I
    expect there is a relatively good chance I will get the clap.  I may
    not...but my chances are exponentially increased.  Even if I don't, I
    have cheapened what the act of love making was intended for!
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1090.109 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| To what end?  To fill up a disk?  So that you can find fault
| with minor points and therefore conclude that it is all invalid?

	Joe, if you're already admitting to minor points, then you have proven
that absolute morality is not possible. 

| But OK.  How about considering the ABSOLUTE morality as defined
| by the Roman Catholic Church.  It is absolute, has been absolute,
| and will continue to be so.  And all the pieces fit together and
| work in concert.

	Are Christians JUST from the Roman Catholic Church? If not, then we
can't use JUST that. Which in turn would also help prove that absolute morality
is not possible. 



Glen

| <<< Note 1090.111 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| It would be an exercise in futility to do this.  However, I will focus
| on one particular issue if you would like me to.  Remember, you asked!

	I asked for absolute morality, all the parameters. Not one point. But
thanks for trying.

| Jesus stated that it is written, Do not commit adultery; but I tell you
| that he who looks upon a woman with lust commits adultery in his heart.

	Jack, is that lust as in sex, or as in for the womans money, or for her
power, etc? Not so absolute. You apply one meaning.... do ALL Christians?

| So now we come down to the question. Is your outlook on sexual desire 
| objective or subjective? Are you willing to be enslaved by the passions of 
| your desire or are you willing to offer your body as a living sacrifice, holy 
| and pleasing to God.  

	According to who's belief Jack? Mine or yours?

| Are you listening or are you going to accuse me of shoving my morality down 
| your throat.  

	Answer the question above Jack. It should be self explainatory. We BOTH
have our beliefs. We BOTH live by them. We BOTH believe we are following God.
We both can SAY the other is wrong, but it does not make it so.

| You can choose the latter and justify your own actions if you want to.  

	Gee... now it sounds like morality according to Jack. Sorry Jack, you
ain't God.

| Just remember that bearing the mark of a Christian carries a heavy price!

	I wonder how much heavier people make it than what it should be?


Glen

.116>	Even if I don't, I have cheapened what the act of love making was 
.116>	intended for!

what is the act of love making intended for?

"to offer your body as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God" you 
say in .111

if god is anything to do with "love" the statement above leaves many 
possibilities open. how does one offer ones body as a living sacrifice, holy 
and pleasing to god? what precisely pleases god?

noone [outside the catholic church, as it seems] can tell precisely what god 
is like. therefore, it is up to you to find your relationship to god and to
find *your* way of how to make this holy and living sacrifice.

what do *you* think of those who have the audacity to pass judgement of how
you make this holy and living sacrifice.

i would like you to answer this question.

if you think having many sexual relationships, being bisexual, being homosexual
is "immoral" then you are applying your very own morality to others. you judge
others by the way *you* chose to make this holy and living sacrifice and you
have the audacity to assume, that for others the act of love making is not holy.

you are the one who most often asks about who is to throw that first stone, 
yet you are the one who is most apt to accuse the lover of living an immoral 
life-style. just what do you know about making love?!

you could justify your views by pointing to a book on morality which is being 
followed by your community of faith and say "this is the objective norm which 
we in my community have chosen to follow." 

or you could justify yourself by explaining your own morality.

in either case, your morality is relative. relative to your faith community
or relative to yourself. 

if you can't admit to this relativism, or if on the other hand, you can't 
provide an absolute morality and proof why it should be so, then you are 
no more than a hypocrite.



andreas.

re .116 and AIDS

>   There are simply some things too predictable.  If I sleep around, I
>   expect there is a relatively good chance I will get the clap.  


not if you practice safe sex.



andreas.

    Andreas:
    
    There is no such thing as safe sex.  Safe sex is a myth!
    
    -Jack

    ZZZ       According to who's belief Jack? Mine or yours?
    
    Yours of course.  I'm challenging your claim that you adhere to the
    teachings of Jesus.  
    
    I never claimed to be God or to have established what objective
    morality is.  I was quoting the man you appear to have believed in as
    your savior.  So now I am asking you, do you believe in Jesus teaching
    that fornication is sin Glen?
    
    -Jack
    

    Andreas:
    
    We cannot determine whether or not I am a hypocrite until I get an
    answer from Glen.  I agree that morality is relative...relative to ones
    ideologies and mores...which is why I am trying to determine if Glens
    morality is subjective or objective.  His answer to my last inquiry
    will help.  One either believes in the words of Jesus or one does not. 
    I cast no judgements on anybody who does not..I celebrate your freedom
    to choose.  However, if you are going to take on a label, you must be
    accountable.
    
    -Jack 

| <<< Note 1090.122 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| ZZZ       According to who's belief Jack? Mine or yours?

| Yours of course.  I'm challenging your claim that you adhere to the teachings 
| of Jesus.

	I believe I am. And seeing you did say my beliefs, then the subject is
closed, is it not?

| I was quoting the man you appear to have believed in as your savior.  

	From where Jack? From a book that I don't think was written by Him, but
by mere men? If so, then you are still trying to tie my beliefs in with yours.
I believe in HIM, not in a book.

| So now I am asking you, do you believe in Jesus teaching that fornication is 
| sin Glen?

	Love or lust Jack?

| <<< Note 1090.123 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| We cannot determine whether or not I am a hypocrite until I get an answer from
| Glen.  

	Jack, my answers have to do with MY beliefs. How will MY beliefs prove
whether or not you are or aren't a hypocrite?

| I agree that morality is relative...relative to ones ideologies and mores...
| which is why I am trying to determine if Glens morality is subjective or 
| objective. His answer to my last inquiry will help. One either believes in the
| words of Jesus or one does not.

	Jack, correct me if I am wrong, but how you wrote the above makes me
think that if one does not believe in the Bible, that they have subjective
morality. This makes it look like ya gotta believe as Jack does in order to
have it right. 

	Now Jack, before we go down the subjective/objective hole too far, what
happened to your absolute morality? Did it suddenly disapear?

| I cast no judgements on anybody who does not..I celebrate your freedom to 
| choose. However, if you are going to take on a label, you must be accountable.

	Again Jack, you have what you feel a Christian should be. You have now
said the label has accountability. That's fine, and it is something I agree
with. But accountability with what you believe the label means or
accountability with Him? If the latter, I fully agree. If the former, then it
sounds more like the word accounding to Jack. If it's something else
completely, please state it. 



Glen

what is the act of love making intended for?

"to offer your body as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God" 
    
    In process theology, the assumption is that God knows each one of us
    from the inside and feels each one of our feelings from the inside.
    
    This provides a new meaning for me to the Cross of Jesus.   God suffers
    with me, exactly as I suffer and suffers with everyone else exactly as
    they suffer.  Anything that we do that causes another to suffer or does
    not alleviate suffering as it could, causes God to suffer.
    
    The opposite could be implied about love making.  Sex that is without
    love causes pain to at least one of the partners.  Even if the pain is
    not conscious to the partner it is conscious to God.
    
    Love making that is truly intimate and truly love is the most wonderful
    expression of giving and receiving between two people.  According to
    process thought, God would feel these wonderful feelings of love and
    joy, just as the two partners feel the feelings.
    
    So let us all find real love, intimate love, the true and genuine
    giving and receiving between two people.
    
    When we do then we are also offering" our bodies as a living sacrifice,
    
    
                                       Patricia

    Jack,
    
    Glen is giving you the same answer that I have given you.  We worship
    God as revealed in Jesus and not in the Bible.
    
    Jack using your own argument, then it is necessary for you to find out
    exactly what can be known about Jesus and what cannot be known.  Then
    base your religion on what can be known about him.
    
    Ultimately, if you want to believe that the Bible accurately reflects
    who Jesus is, then know that that is a Faith position.  A faith
    position shared by your own religious community, maybe, but not a faith 
    position shared by most Christians.  Mainline Christianity, and
    mainline Christian seminaries do not accept the Bible as the inerrant
    word of God.
    
    Every person who accepts the Bible as revelation but not as absolute
    truth, then figures out how to discern truth from falsehood in that
    book.  You and I may share a Faith in the man name Jesus.  You and I do
    not share a Faith in how we can know Jesus.
    
                                         Patricia
                                       Patricia

Z    The opposite could be implied about love making.  Sex that is
Z    without love causes pain to at least one of the partners.  Even if the pain
Z    is not conscious to the partner it is conscious to God.
    
    I agree and that's why I was telling Andreas that there is no such
    thing as safe sex.  Meaning that sex involves alot more risk than the
    physical.
    
    -Jack

.123> I celebrate your freedom to choose.  

saying that you respect each individual's freedom to choose would sound 
a lot more convincing.

you *do* make 'being christian' sound so very hard, jack. do you lament a 
lack of freedom? where's the appeal of christianity?

imo, jesus is one of the wisest humans, if not the wisest that humanity has 
produced. i am convinced that his wisdom is of relevance to all, whatever 
their beliefs may be.

even i know that all we know about the founder of christianity spans a period 
of six months to three years at best. because of the impact jesus has had on
our history is it absolutely taboo to question how jesus might have lived his 
life before that period? he could have had many intimate and unconventional
relationships with women, he could have even had more than that. how are we 
to know. 

it certainly seems like jesus was "street-wise", he didn't move predominantly
in elitist circles, did he? i am also dobtful that such wisdom grows out of 
meditating in the desert for hours on end or from living a sheltered life. 

i just think the man must've been pretty inconventional for his days standards,
to have such an impact, and i guess he wouldn't pass by today's prevailing 
moral standards either.



andreas.

re Note 1090.128 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     I agree and that's why I was telling Andreas that there is no such
>     thing as safe sex.  Meaning that sex involves alot more risk than the
>     physical.
  
        And you'd be right much of the time even on the physical
        level:  where one partner is infected with an STD, the usual
        suggestions for "safe sex" are far from 100% effective.

        Bob

 Z   saying that you respect each individual's freedom to choose would sound 
 Z   a lot more convincing.
    
    Okay, I respect your freedom to believe as you do.  I scrutinize
    individuals who hold to the label of Christian just as I should be
    scrutinized by them...and make no mistake about it, I have been
    scrutinized and am being scrutinized right now as we speak.  
    
 Z   you *do* make 'being christian' sound so very hard, jack. do you lament
 Z   a lack of freedom? where's the appeal of christianity?
    
    I don't lament freedom at all.  I am a strong proponent of it if you've
    seen my entries in Soapbox.  And accepting Jesus as Lord and Savior is
    not easy.  There is alot to be considered and it requires much.  Kind
    of like when a person gets married.  It is not something to be taken
    likely. 
    
    However, it is the right choice in my opinion.  The cost is definitely
    there.  Good book to read is Foxes Book of Martyrs.  Chilling stuff!  
    
    -Jack

patricia, jack,


looking at it from a secular perspective, sex is safe if it is 
between consenting adults who have taken the necessary precautions
against foreseeable physical and psychological damage. safe sex doesn't 
exclude risk of damage 100%, it minimises it.

by driving safely you also minimise risk, you are never risk free.



andreas.

    I agree with your analogy about driving safely...which brings us to the
    origin of this conversation.  It seemed I was saying the same thing
    then you stated that safe sex would eliminate risk!
    
    -----------------------------------------------------
    >   There are simply some things too predictable.  If I sleep around, I
    >   expect there is a relatively good chance I will get the clap.  
    
    
 ZZZ   not if you practice safe sex.
    
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

um, it really does depend who you 'sleep around' with and how you do it.

saying that the risk of contracting AIDS increases with the number of sexual
partners is only right if all other factors contributing to the risk are equal.

just one hypothtical example

A.  in a year, you go steady with one partner, drop one precaution 
    (ie. use no condom) and trust that your partner stays steady with you.

B.  you have two or three sexual relationships in a year, though you keep
    all precautions.


assuming that in each case these are mature sexual relationships, you cannot
say a priori that with B. you run the higher risk. in A. you the risk is 
potentially much higher for you, as it is out of your control.



andreas.

Morality IS relative, period. It varies amoung people. If my definitions of
moral vary from anyone else's in the world, then it is relative, by definition.

What you are really arguing when you say that morality is not relative is that
your definition of morality is right, and all others are wrong. But if I
believe in my definitions as strongly as you believe yours, then it is still
relative, mine to yours. 

So rather than arguing whether morality is relative, you should be arguing
that my morality is right and yours is wrong. A nit, perhaps, but I think that
it puts a slightly different spin on the subject.

That being said, I believe that you would be lucky to get the same definition
of morality, from the Bible, even at a fairly high level, from any two
randomly selected Christians.

Steve

| <<< Note 1090.131 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| However, it is the right choice in my opinion.  

	Jack, at one point I thought I knew what the right choice was in your
mind, to believe in Him. But from this note, I see there is more to it than
just that with you. Progress is being made and a clearer picture is developing. 
BTW, I agree with the words you wrote above, but I bet we don't agree on what
the right choice is. 



Glen

yep. someone who's enthusiastic is easily mistaken for something else.

jack has certainly retained his enthusiasm about his choice. that is 
something very precious and i am glad for him.



andreas.

.111 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

    Jesus stated that it is written, Do not commit adultery; but I tell you
    that he who looks upon a woman with lust commits adultery in his heart.
    
    Jesus is defining a moral absolute here.  When one looks at a woman as
    an object and somebody to be passionate with outside the bonds of
    matrimony, then you are in fact an adulterer.  As I stated a few days
    ago...guilty as charged.

Jack, why is this a moral absolute, down to your private thoughts, but "Thou
shalt not kill" is open to interpretation?
-------------------------
.116 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

(Must be national pick on Jack day :^)

In the case of VD's of various types, they are a potential consequence of
sleeping around. This particular punishment may also be visited upon the
guiltless if their mate was unfaithful. And there have undoubtably been mass
murderers who have lived long and happy lives while indulging in their
depravity. 

To me it seems that 'retribution' for actions is pretty random and capricious,
which would kind of rule it out as a form of divine justice, wouldn't it? 

    not...but my chances are exponentially increased.  Even if I don't, I
    have cheapened what the act of love making was intended for!

In your personal opinion.

Steve

Z    not...but my chances are exponentially increased.  Even if I don't,
Z    I have cheapened what the act of love making was intended for!
    
Z    In your personal opinion.
    
    Steve, I am using datum available to us today.  Illigitimate births
    exponentially higher than in previous years.  Divorce rate...higher,
    suicide...higher, broken families...higher, Child and spousal
    abuse...higher, crime....higher.  The list goes on.  My opinion is well
    grounded.
    
    I agree that morality is relative.  Our morality has to be molded
    somehow...and it is obviously molded differently.  What I am discussing
    is actually subjective vs. objective within Christian circles.  The
    idea that sleeping around for me is wrong but sleeping around for my
    colaborer in Christ is okay...seems illogical to me.  Not that the
    other party can't feel this way but that I cannot feel two different
    ways about one topic.  In my mind, fornication is fornication is
    fornication.  Fornication is a definitive teaching of Jesus Christ.  We
    cannot disqualify this.
    
    American Heritage Dictionary:
    
    Fornication - Sexual intercourse between persons not married to each
    other.
    
    Be is lust or love or whatever, it seems pretty straight forward to me
    and it isn't difficult to understand.  
    
    I agree with Patricia that as Christians, we tend to place alot of
    emphasis on certain "sins"...fornication being the case here.  I pick
    fornication as an example because this practice is highly condoned
    amongst adults, teens, the media, and many other outlets.  It has been
    a 30 year experiment in changing the mode of thinking of common
    society.  
    
    It can be dealt with in two ways.  One can become convicted and stop. 
    This is self sacrifice or what I call, "...offering your bodies as a
    living sacrifice to God.", or secondly, choosing to ignore or
    dispelling the teaching Jesus gave us about adultery or fornication. 
    Not the morals according to Jack mind you; these were the teachings of
    the great teacher.  We can all choose what we want, and we don't have
    to please or adhere to each others teachings.  We can only share
    perspectives and hope the other is listening.
    
    Rgds.,
    
    -Jack

	Jack, even with all that you said in your last note, it still comes
down to, "In your opinion".

    Correct!

    Jack,
    
    Open sexual standards have been around since the beginning of time.
    
    How can anyone who has read about David and Solomon say that the
    openess to sex is a new thing.
    
    what is truly new and revolutionary is that women are claiming the same
    right to decide their own sexual practices as men.
    
    I for one applaud the increase in Divorce Rates in so far that for
    every woman who decides to divorce her husband, there is another woman
    who has taken responsibility for getting out of an unhappy, dangerous,
    violent, or unfullfilling relationship.
    
    As far as illegitamacy goes, some of the most prominent figures in the
    Bible were illegitamate! :-).

	Thanks Jack... like I said... the picture is getting clearer and
clearer. 

    Re: Divorce.  It depends on ones subjective view of divorce.  Jesus was
    asked about the decree of divorce and he replied by saying that Moses
    decreed a law of divorce because of hardness of heart.  I happen to be
    of the belief that divorce is necessary for some; however, I find that
    a 50% rate of divorce shows a total lack of maturity and prudence in
    our society.  As I explained to you this morning, lack of prudence is
    inherent in ALL, including myself.  Nevertheless, the problem still
    exists.  And I feel the institution of marriage is being trivialized by
    the high divorce rate.  
    
    Re: Illigitamate children, I personally have no problem with
    illigitimate children as nobody should have this problem. 
    Statistically however, children from broken homes are more likely to
    drop out of school, turn to crime, and have illigitimate children
    themselves.  Certainly you must agree that this kind of societal trend
    will only increase the social misery index and promote the need for
    government intervention.  This is unhealthy for any society and
    furthers the very diseases that cause the mistrust and prejudices we
    are trying to combat.
    
    You are right though about David and Solomon amongst others; and as a
    man I offer no defense for their actions...and they ended up paying
    dearly for the misuse of their power...particularly David.
    
    -Jack

.139 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal"

Jack, 

I suspect that my note wasn't clear (note in haste, apologize at liesure?). My
in your opinion comment was aimed only at the last sentence, "Even if I don't,
I have cheapened what the act of love making was intended for!"

I have known couples that have lived together in a loving union forever without
the benefit of marriage, and have also known married couples living in absolute
hell. If a couple sleeps together in love, with or without a formal marriage, I
simply don't see it cheapening anything, hence my comment. As to the
consequences of irresponsible sex that you've mentioned, I don't disagree.

Steve

    Steve,
    
    I agree. 
    
    Whether sex is responsible or irresponsible has nothing to do with the
    marital status of the partners.
    
    Responsible sex is about love, mutual concern, commitment,
    responsibility.
    
    Irresponsible sex is about sex as power over, Sexual pursuit of status
    symbol,  sex as a substitute for love, sex without concern for one's
    partner, sex without concern for birth control or children, sex as
    substitute for committment and intimacy.
    
    Irresponisible sex is harmful to the self, the partner, and to children
    who result.  Focusing on the marital status of the partners distorts
    the subject and the issue. 

    ZZ    Responsible sex is about love, mutual concern, commitment,
    ZZ    responsibility.
    
    Well, there was certainly no minister there to officiate a wedding in
    the days of Adam and Eve I will certainly agree.  I say this to show
    you that I know a ceremony is not the central hingepin.  It is the vows
    a man and woman make to each other.  The ceremony just makes it legal.
    
    And yet this brings me to the next question.  If two can live together
    and have mutual love and commitment, then what is the driving force
    that keeps them from marrying.  I believe the exact opposite of love is
    fear and not hate as so many believe.   
    
    I'm going to make this a little more difficult.  Exclude financial
    considerations.  I know of people who live together because it is
    economically more feasable.  Let's talk about young people who don't
    have to worry about losing their Social Security benefits as a single.
    Let's talk about people who are economically stable!
     
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    I don't think it matters why people make the choices they do.  I
    believe that they should be respected for those choices.  The world we
    live in today is different than the world that Adam and Eve lived in
    and different from the world Jesus lived in. 
    
     Marriage is very
    different and I believe much better today than at either of those two
    times.  Marriage today really is theoretically about love, while in
    Jesus' time it was about political alliances.  Marriage today really is
    about the union of two equal partners and not about the giving of the
    woman to the man.  The equality, the partnership, and the requirement
    for love all do make marriages less stable today.  They are less stable
    because the subordinate woman is not given for life to the man. 
    
     I will gladly take the high divorce rate as a price for the freedom and
    equality and well being of half the population.

Z       I will gladly take the high divorce rate as a price for the freedom
Z   and    equality and well being of half the population.
    
    Patricia...merely a challenge.  It very much matters why because the
    reason is most likely based on fear and apprehension.  Fear is NOT pure
    love.  If anything, remember that.  Fear is NOT stemmed from pure love;
    therefore, the very thing you strive to desire is unattainable.
    
    -Jack

    Jack,
    
    "Fear is just as likely to be the motivation for getting married as for
    not getting married!"
    
    "To be married or not married means nothing"!  As long as all things
    are for the building up of the Community."
    
    
                                     (From the Epistles of Pauline)

    I agree and don't condone shot gun weddings either.  I acknowlege
    people get married for the wrong reasons and that isn't pure love any
    more than the former.  We still have the problem though.  If perfect
    love casts out all fear, then people who won't marry out of fear cannot
    have pure love.   They can have love but it won't be agape love.  
    
    Then again, agape love is not easy to attain...even in healthy
    marriages.
    
    -Jack

    
    > The equality, the partnership, and the requirement for love all do make
    > marriages less stable today.

    I disagree. I think the instability of marriages as to do selfish
    desires, immaturity and lack of dependency (emotionally, not
    economically) on each other.


    > I will gladly take the high divorce rate as a price for the freedom and
    > equality and well being of half the population.

    I think the high divorce rate is the price of selfishness, not
    equality; of non-commitment, not freedom. 
    
    
    	Eric

    
    I don't follow the argument of fear being the opposite of love. Fear may
    not be a quality of love, but it is not the antithesis either.
    
    Eric

    "Perfect love casteth out all fear."  I find the two analogous to
    matter/antimatter.
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1090.117 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Joe, if you're already admitting to minor points, then you have proven
> that absolute morality is not possible. 
    
    	Not at all.  I've shown that universal agreement among humans
    	is not possible, but because some (or most, or even all) humans
    	can't agree with an absolute morality does not mean that it
    	does not exist.
    
    	To be more accurate in your argument you should be arguing that
    	there is not absolute agreement on morality, not that there is
    	no absolute morality.
    
    	There *IS* an absolute morality.
    
    	Continued propogation of the notion to the contrary is merely
    	a tool of those who seek to deviate from what is most commonly
    	held in an effort to erode room for self-justification.
    
>| But OK.  How about considering the ABSOLUTE morality as defined
>| by the Roman Catholic Church.  
>
>	Are Christians JUST from the Roman Catholic Church? If not, then we
>can't use JUST that. 

    	Why not use that?  You simply asked for an example of an
    	absolute morality.  It has been absolute.  It has not changed.
    	True, even among those who claim communion with Catholicism
    	there has been disagreement, but that doesn't change the
    	truth that it has been absolute throughout history, and still
    	is today.

                  <<< Note 1090.118 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	Gee... now it sounds like morality according to Jack. Sorry Jack, you
> ain't God.
    
    	Jack is not trying to sell his own brand of morality.  He is
    	supporting a broadly-held belief that he also holds.  You try
    	to minimize it by attributing what he believes to him alone,
    	where in fact the real one-man morality being pushed here is
    	your own, by your own definition.

>	I wonder how much heavier people make it than what it should be?

    	This is the real crux of the matter, isn't it, Glen?  You are
    	unable to stand up to the Biblical morality, so you must shoot
    	it down, ridicule it, minimize it, desecrate it.  It is too
    	much effort to take it at face value, so it takes an Isaiah 5:20
    	to give you the comfort zone you want to continue to justify
    	to yourself what you would rather be doing.

                  <<< Note 1090.124 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| I was quoting the man you appear to have believed in as your savior.  
>
>	From where Jack? From a book that I don't think was written by Him, but
> by mere men? 

    	How else can you know what Jesus said?  Where else is anything
    	at all written?  This notion is preposterous.
    
>	Love or lust Jack?
    
    	This is trite, and bunk.  First of all, how much fornication today 
    	is truly for love, Glen?  This is only a valid argument to people 
    	like you who need such concocted grey areas to help appease what 
    	would  otherwise be guilt.  Sin is sin.  I can imagine your response 
    	to this, and frankly I don't care.  You have chosen to hang all 
    	your hope on this, and I wish you luck.  

        <<< Note 1090.126 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    The opposite could be implied about love making.  Sex that is without
>    love causes pain to at least one of the partners.  
    
    	What if neither partner has love?  What if sex is a 10-person
    	orgy, none of which is in it for love?  Who is being caused
    	pain?  I have my own answer, but I'm curious how you see it...

        <<< Note 1090.127 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Glen is giving you the same answer that I have given you.  We worship
>    God as revealed in Jesus and not in the Bible.
    
    	I asked Glen this, and now I ask you.  Revealed in Jesus where?
    	In your imagination?  By feminist anti-christians?  Bt gay
    	activists who want nothing more than to see the established
    	Church brought down because its traditions and morals do not
    	accept the behaviors they want to practice?  Sure morality
    	is relative -- on this plain -- and that's what I and others
    	have been saying all along.  That doesn't mean that there is
    	no absolute right and wrong.  Sorry, but just as Glen's 
    	"explanation" has been rejected (bu some of us at least) I
    	reject yours too.  When your fuzzy "God as revealed in Jesus"
    	leaves room for out-of-wedlock sex, and abortion, and can
    	say that we should applaud the increase in divorce rates, I
    	simply cannot be swayed to even give it consideration, for 
    	what you applaud is clearly evil as manifested in the social
    	cancers we face today.
    
>    Ultimately, if you want to believe that the Bible accurately reflects
>    who Jesus is, then know that that is a Faith position.  A faith
>    position shared by your own religious community, maybe, but not a faith 
>    position shared by most Christians. 
    
    	What Christians are you talking about.  This is not a statement
    	to make if you are looking to establish credibility.
    
>    Mainline Christianity, and
>    mainline Christian seminaries do not accept the Bible as the inerrant
>    word of God.
    
    	Baloney.  And don't go trying to tell us that you are attending a
    	mainline Christian seminary.

   <<< Note 1090.129 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>it certainly seems like jesus was "street-wise", he didn't move predominantly
>in elitist circles, did he? i am also dobtful that such wisdom grows out of 
>meditating in the desert for hours on end or from living a sheltered life. 

    	Uh, maybe it came from being God Himself...

   <<< Note 1090.132 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>looking at it from a secular perspective, sex is safe if it is 
>between consenting adults who have taken the necessary precautions
>against foreseeable physical and psychological damage. 
    
    	Great.  So how often is this accomplished?  This is the 
    	exception today, not the rule.

        <<< Note 1090.142 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    Open sexual standards have been around since the beginning of time.
    
    	So?  Does that make them right?  Have they been around throughout
    	time to the degree that we see today?  Is it good that the
    	consequences of the loosened standards today parallel that
    	looseness?  Slippery slope.  
    
>    How can anyone who has read about David and Solomon say that the
>    openess to sex is a new thing.
    
    	How can anyone who has read what happened to biblical figures
    	who violated sexual standards say that it was a good thing?
    	How can you trivialize it with a comfortable term like "openness
    	to sex"?
    
>    what is truly new and revolutionary is that women are claiming the same
>    right to decide their own sexual practices as men.
    
    	And now we face twice the problems.  What you are seeking (by
    	you logic, for I disagree with your premise in the first place)
    	is for women to be allowed to sink to the depths that men did
    	in the past.  Terriffic.  Following biblical morals -- for
    	both men and women -- would eliminate the social pathologies
    	we face today.  Instead you want to double the rate of 
    	degeneration.
    
>    I for one applaud the increase in Divorce Rates in so far that for
>    every woman who decides to divorce her husband, there is another woman
>    who has taken responsibility for getting out of an unhappy, dangerous,
>    violent, or unfullfilling relationship.
    
    	I think this is purely evil.  I'm sure that your seminary is
    	not promoting this.  I can only hope that you come to your
    	senses before you are thrust into a position of authority
    	and you infect a whole flock with such virulence.  I hope
    	you come to regret ever thinking this way.
    
>    As far as illegitamacy goes, some of the most prominent figures in the
>    Bible were illegitamate! :-).
    
    	Does this somehow make all illegitimacy OK?  Are you blind to
    	the reports that show us for the general case illegitimacy is
    	detrimental to the child?  I see the smiley that you added to
    	your statement, but it cannot mask the tenor of your entry, or
    	that of your other entries in this conference and elsewhere.
    
    	Your agenda magnifies certain details that blind you to the 
    	beauty of so much in this world that have always been pillars
    	of society.  Your statements MUST be challenged to expose the
    	underlying dangers you are unwilling to see.  

| <<< Note 1090.155 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| >	Joe, if you're already admitting to minor points, then you have proven
| > that absolute morality is not possible.

| Not at all.  I've shown that universal agreement among humans is not possible, 

	Errr.... that is what I have been saying all along Joe. 

| but because some (or most, or even all) humans can't agree with an absolute 
| morality does not mean that it does not exist.

	As I have said all along Joe, ONLY He can have absolute morality. All
this note has done is confirm by you what I have been saying all along. Thanks!

| >| But OK.  How about considering the ABSOLUTE morality as defined
| >| by the Roman Catholic Church.
| >
| >	Are Christians JUST from the Roman Catholic Church? If not, then we
| >can't use JUST that.

| Why not use that?  You simply asked for an example of an absolute morality.  

	I asked for ALL of the parameters of absolute morality Joe. Not one
example, which isn't consistant to begin with due to the humans who make up the
church.

| True, even among those who claim communion with Catholicism there has been 
| disagreement, but that doesn't change the truth that it has been absolute 
| throughout history, and still is today.

	Joe, it ain't absolute as long as there are people involved. The ONLY
One with a grasp on absolute morality is God.


Glen

| <<< Note 1090.157 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| First of all, how much fornication today is truly for love, Glen?  

	You tell me Joe. I couldn't possibly give you an answer. 

| This is only a valid argument to people like you who need such concocted grey 
| areas to help appease what would otherwise be guilt.  

	Joe.... someday you may actually realize that one can believe in
something without it justifying something else. My hope is it won't take you a
lifetime to figure that out.



Glen

	Well.... you'll have to correct me on this.... but it seems like you
are doing your best to get as many derogatory notes in before you leave the
company. But only you can tell us that.

re .161

>>looking at it from a secular perspective, sex is safe if it is 
>>between consenting adults who have taken the necessary precautions
>>against foreseeable physical and psychological damage. 
>    
>    	Great.  So how often is this accomplished?  This is the 
>    	exception today, not the rule.


i presume you refer to sex outside wedlock?

what makes you think that sex between adults, outside wedlock,
is mostly unsafe?


andreas.

ZZ    | First of all, how much fornication today is truly for love, Glen?  
    
ZZ            You tell me Joe. I couldn't possibly give you an answer. 
    
    Glen, I wrote the definition of fornication in another string...or
    perhaps earlier in this string.  Fornication is mutually exclusive from
    love or lust for that matter.  Fornication is the act of sexual
    intercourse before marriage.  
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1090.167 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>


| Glen, I wrote the definition of fornication in another string...or perhaps 
| earlier in this string. Fornication is mutually exclusive from love or lust 
| for that matter. Fornication is the act of sexual intercourse before marriage.

	Jack, what you consider to be fornication and what I consider it to be
seems to be different. 


Glen

    No...what you consider fornication and what the American Heritage
    Dictionary consider fornication are somewhat different.
    
    -Jack

| <<< Note 1090.169 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| No...what you consider fornication and what the American Heritage
| Dictionary consider fornication are somewhat different.

	Jack..... it would seem you hold that version above God's? I mean, the
dictionary is not the Bible. The dictionary is not nearly as inerrant as you
believe the Bible to be. So why would you use a book written today, to help
prove what something meant centuries ago?


Glen

 ZZ   to help
 ZZ   prove what something meant centuries ago?
    
    Exactly...but just to be open and fair, could you somehow get hold of a
    greek or hebrew concordance and see exactly what fornication means?
    I would like to here your confirmed definition of what fornication
    meant in the Bible.
    
    -Jack

	I gave you my interpretation of fonication. Lust. 

    Joe, 
    
    re .158
    
    I think Sex without love causes pain to both partners.
    
    It becomes senseless, meaningless, and ultimately addictive.
    
    I'm not talking about the simple experimenting and learning about what
    and who we are as sexual people.  I'm talking about people who never
    love enough and never trust enough to experience the total sexual
    communion with another person.  This total sexual communion, I believe
    is much more about love, trust, and giving than about physical release.
    
    the problems we have with sex in our society is when sex is used as a
    way of having power over, when sex is forced, even if emotionally
    forced, when sex is violent or violating.  The opposite side of the
    problem is when people have been so violated or brutalized by sex, that
    they cannot enjoy it or cannot give themselves to another person in
    the union of love and sex, body and spirit.
    
    My theology is one in which love, sexuality(passion), and spirituality
    are totally entwined.
    
                                Patricia

    RE .159.
    
    
    Joe, 
    
    Those who are in Christ, in the sense defined by Paul thoughout his
    letters but particularly in first Corinthians, don't need everything
    written down to know that they are in Christ.  As Paul says, "they have
    the mind of Christ".   Those who cannot fathon how someone could be "In
    Christ" without following the exact teachings of the Bible, may pass
    human credal tests, but they are probably not "In Christ" in the sense
    defined by Paul.
    
    I would like to understand why fundementalist Christians are so much
    invested in controlling the fornication of others, particularly of
    women and Gay and Lesbians.  I would think those invested in being the
    best Christians they can be, would have better things to do.
    
                                    Patricia

                  <<< Note 1090.163 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	As I have said all along Joe, ONLY He can have absolute morality. All
> this note has done is confirm by you what I have been saying all along. Thanks!
    
    	What does "have absolute morality" mean to you?  For that matter,
    	what does "absolute" mean?
    
    	To me it means consistent, unchanging, not relative to anything
    	else, certain.
    
    	We agree that there is an absolute morality in God's eyes.  We
    	agree that all humans will never agree to what that is.  But 
    	we do differ.  I disagree with you in your treatmenmt of
    	human disagreement.  You revel in that human disagreement.  You
    	think it is OK for each individual to try to formulate his own
    	morality.  I say that humans must formulate their morality from
    	outside sources (OK, you probably say that too,) and the best
    	sources are directly from their religion.  They can't formulate
    	their own religion to suit their whims.  They must conform to
    	religion.  If that religion is Christianity, or Judaism, or
    	Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever, so be it.  The basic tenets of
    	all of these have been relatively unchanging (except as of late
    	in some cases -- Christianity in particular).

>| >| But OK.  How about considering the ABSOLUTE morality as defined
>| >| by the Roman Catholic Church.
>
>	I asked for ALL of the parameters of absolute morality Joe. Not one
>example, which isn't consistant to begin with due to the humans who make up the
>church.
    
    	And of course your request for ALL parameters was duly dismissed
    	by anyone who botyhered to answer you because it is nothing more
    	than an attempt at a wild goose chase.
    
    	You are gravely mistaken about the consuistency of the Catholic
    	Church.  True, there are INDIVIDUALS within the Church that
    	promote apostacy and teach thing counter to what the Church as
    	an institution holds, but the institution in itself has never
    	changed in matters of theology or morals.

>	Joe, it ain't absolute as long as there are people involved. 
    
    	Individual people cannot change the absolutes except for
    	themselves and those they mislead.  The Catholic Church has
    	not changed in maters of morals or theology.

                  <<< Note 1090.164 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>| First of all, how much fornication today is truly for love, Glen?  
>
>	You tell me Joe. I couldn't possibly give you an answer. 
    
    	But you speak as if you know that much of today's fornication
    	is truly for love.  You use that example to support your
    	argument.  If you don't know, then you are arguing from a
    	position of ignorance.
    
>	Joe.... someday you may actually realize that one can believe in
>something without it justifying something else. 

	Oh, I beileve that one *can* do this.  I just don't believe
    	that in your case you are.

    Joe,
    
    Can you be specific regarding what you mean by absolute morality.  Can
    you provide an example.  What do you mean by morality?  Thanks,
    
                                        Patricia

    	re .165
    
    	You see them as derogatory, Glen.  I see them as pointed and
    	truthful.  I am holding up a mirror for you.  If you see that
    	as derogatory, that says much.

   <<< Note 1090.166 by DECALP::GUTZWILLER "happiness- U want what U have" >>>

>i presume you refer to sex outside wedlock?
>
>what makes you think that sex between adults, outside wedlock,
>is mostly unsafe?

    	The growing spread of disease, out-of-wedlock pregnancy,
    	abortion, divorce, and the social ills that parallel these.
    	I may have been stretching it a bit to say that unsafe sex
    	is the rule.

    	re .170
    
    	He is not holding the dictionary above the bible.  He is trying to
    	come down to your level to find something you will relate to.  
    	Had he used the bible you would be all over him for that too.
    	So what should he use to find some common ground with you?

.179>	I may have been stretching it a bit to say that unsafe sex
.179>	is the rule.

i agree with you on this one.



andreas.

        <<< Note 1090.173 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    I think Sex without love causes pain to both partners.
>    
>    It becomes senseless, meaningless, and ultimately addictive.
    
    	Great!
    
>    I'm not talking about the simple experimenting and learning about what
>    and who we are as sexual people.  
    
    	But this is such a major part of our society's sexual experience!
    	How can you simply turn a blind eye to it?  You hint that it is
    	not good.  You know the social ills caused by it.  Surely you
    	cannot believe that 14-year-olds having sex are doing it for love!
    	Or those hopping the bars looking for the one-night-stands.  Or
    	those in extramarital affairs.
    
>    I'm talking about people who never
>    love enough and never trust enough to experience the total sexual
>    communion with another person.  
    
    	And I believe that this can only be achieved in a lifelong
    	marriage.  I believe that the "love" experienced by newlyweds
    	doesn't even begin to approach that which can be attained by
    	a lifelong marriage that has overcome the disillusionment of
    	losing the puppy-love of newlywed romance.  But far too many
    	couples never get to experience this because of a societal
    	mindset (into which you have fallen) that once the initial
    	romance has faded, the relationship becomes unbearable.  So
    	you say that women should feel empowered to "escape" from
    	this oppression.  What you don't realize is that you are
    	dooming women (and men) to never experiencing TRUE love and
    	trust and romance and sexual fulfillment.  I'm only now after
    	15 year beginning to understand this.  I see it in those
    	few couples who manage to slip through society's gauntlet
    	that looks to tear them apart.  I see that what I have now
    	is so much better than what I had 15 years ago.  I look
    	forward to the next 15 years.
    
>    the problems we have with sex in our society is when sex is used as a
>    way of having power over, when sex is forced, even if emotionally
>    forced, when sex is violent or violating.  The opposite side of the
>    problem is when people have been so violated or brutalized by sex, that
>    they cannot enjoy it or cannot give themselves to another person in
>    the union of love and sex, body and spirit.
    
    	Agreed.  I doubt that you'll agree with me, though, when I 
    	say that the violation begins with premarital sex.  You see
    	it as empowerment.  I see it as one of many dominoes falling.
    	The first step for some onto the slippery slope.

| <<< Note 1090.175 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| What does "have absolute morality" mean to you?  

	No human being can have it due to free will, and the fact that we CAN
NOT EVER be perfect in this form. Without perfection, absolute morality is not
something human beings will ever have. Does it exist? Yeah. Will we ever be
able to grasp the absolute morality as human beings? No. You even stated that
there are differences among people. 

| For that matter, what does "absolute" mean? To me it means consistent, 
| unchanging, not relative to anything else, certain.

	Pretty much as I would have said it. And that is why human beings can
not ever possess it. We are far from absolute on ANYTHING.

| We agree that there is an absolute morality in God's eyes.  

	Yes.

| We agree that all humans will never agree to what that is.  

	Yes.

| I disagree with you in your treatmenmt of human disagreement. You revel in 
| that human disagreement.  

	Joe, this may be something that you believe, but it is not something
that is true. Pointing out the obvious is not reveling in it. Telling the truth
of it all (that we aren't capable of knowing what absolute morality is) is not
reveling in it all, it's telling it like it is. Who has a better clue as to why
I do anything? You or me? I sometimes get the impression that you feel you know
why I do things more than I do. That is not the case.

| You think it is OK for each individual to try to formulate his own morality. I
| say that humans must formulate their morality from outside sources (OK, you 
| probably say that too,) and the best sources are directly from their religion.

	For me, religion is the best way. 

| They can't formulate their own religion to suit their whims.  

	Joe, please tell me, what is the ONLY religion one can be then? If it
is Christianity, can you tie it down to ONLY one denomination? This way
everything has a better chance of being the same. 

| They must conform to religion. If that religion is Christianity, or Judaism, 
| or Muslim, or Hindu, or whatever, so be it. The basic tenets of all of these 
| have been relatively unchanging (except as of late in some cases Christianity 
| in particular).

	Joe, tie everything down to one religion, one denomination. I seriously
don't think you will do that. If you don't, then do you really stand by your
own convictions?

| And of course your request for ALL parameters was duly dismissed by anyone who
| botyhered to answer you because it is nothing more than an attempt at a wild 
| goose chase.

	It is merely showing that all of the parameters can not be known by
humans. Plain and simple. 

| You are gravely mistaken about the consuistency of the Catholic Church. True, 
| there are INDIVIDUALS within the Church that promote apostacy and teach thing
| counter to what the Church as an institution holds, but the institution in 
| itself has never changed in matters of theology or morals.

	Didn't the church go through some major changes in the 60's? Haven't
they also gone into major changes now? (Charsmatic, etc)

| >	Joe, it ain't absolute as long as there are people involved.

| Individual people cannot change the absolutes except for themselves and those 
| they mislead.  

	You may disagree with their views, but only He knows for sure. You can
not know for sure because you are not capable of being absolute because you are
still just a human being.



Glen

| <<< Note 1090.176 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| But you speak as if you know that much of today's fornication is truly for 
| love.  

	I never have said that. I don't think we agree on what it is, and
either of our definitions could be right/wrong. 

| >	Joe.... someday you may actually realize that one can believe in
| >something without it justifying something else.

| Oh, I beileve that one *can* do this. I just don't believe that in your case 
| you are.

	Well, why change from always being wrong now? 


Glen

| <<< Note 1090.180 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| He is trying to come down to your level to find something you will relate to.

	Both the Bible and the dictionary are not inerrant, so he could have
used the one he thought was the true choice.

| Had he used the bible you would be all over him for that too.

	It's not in the Bible, is it Joe?


Glen

    ZZ        It's not in the Bible, is it Joe?
    
    Glen, I think you're using the word fornication incorrectly.  By what
    authority do you make this claim that the meaning of fornication is
    lust?  Had we been discussing envy or covetousness, then I would agree
    with you.
    
    Right now you are in my eyes a revisionist of the English language. 
    Care to correct yourself?
    
    -Jack

	No. 

    Which proves my point.  Truth is unimportant to you.  Thanks for
    clarifying this.
    
    -Jack

                  <<< Note 1090.184 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	No human being can have it due to free will, and the fact that we CAN
>NOT EVER be perfect in this form. 
    
    	Which is why I say that we must rely on the morality as defined
    	by something larger than ourselves.
    
>| For that matter, what does "absolute" mean? To me it means consistent, 
>| unchanging, not relative to anything else, certain.
>
>	Pretty much as I would have said it. And that is why human beings can
>not ever possess it. 
    
    	But the Catholic Church has been absolute by the criteria described
    	above.  The Church is not a human being.
    
>I sometimes get the impression that you feel you know
>why I do things more than I do. That is not the case.
    
    	You say this, but your indignance is transparent.  I believe
    	that many times you do this you are only denying yourself.
    	I'm not the only one you respond to in this way.  You can
    	be read like a book, Glen.  I don't believe you here.

>	For me, religion is the best way. 
    
    	WHAT religion, though?  So far you have only espoused a religion
    	of your own making that is convenient to your desired way of
    	life.

>| They can't formulate their own religion to suit their whims.  
>
>	Joe, please tell me, what is the ONLY religion one can be then? 
    
    	I already listed below that there doesn't have to be an "only
    	religion", and you even quoted the statement, so why do you
    	ask this question?
    
>is Christianity, can you tie it down to ONLY one denomination? 
    
    	You need this confusion, don't you?  Don't you know that ALL
    	of the Christian faith expressions are a direct result of
    	human disagreement over just the last few centuries?  And
    	that the current splintering of Christianity is progressing as
    	unprecidented proportions today?  You like that.  You need
    	it.  I see it as a tragedy -- especially seeing what some
    	of the newer "differences" are all about.
    
>	Joe, tie everything down to one religion, one denomination. 
    
    	Why?  Unchanging is unchanging is absolute.  You want to see
    	absolutes, but now you can't accept it.  Any one of the
    	religions I listed are bigger than man.  Many of today's
    	splinter religions are the ego of individuals.  You need
    	that to continue to hold up the mask you are trying to hide
    	behind.

>	Didn't the church go through some major changes in the 60's? Haven't
> they also gone into major changes now? (Charsmatic, etc)
    
    	In matters of rite and ceremony, yes.  In matters of faith and
    	morals, not at all.  Your premise continues to vanish.  Your
    	arguments are transparent.

| <<< Note 1090.189 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Which proves my point.  

	No.

| Truth is unimportant to you.  

	False.

| Thanks for clarifying this.

	Nothing is clarified.

    Well then answer my question please!

| <<< Note 1090.190 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| >	No human being can have it due to free will, and the fact that we CAN
| >NOT EVER be perfect in this form.

| Which is why I say that we must rely on the morality as defined by something 
| larger than ourselves.

	I FULLY agree with this concept Joe. But where we probably differ is
how this morality is defined. BTW, it would be different not just between you
and I, but between you, I and the rest of the world. We all may think we have
it right, but only He does.

| But the Catholic Church has been absolute by the criteria described above. The
| Church is not a human being.

	The church was FORMED by human beings, so it can not be absolute.

| You say this, but your indignance is transparent.  

	How so Joe?

| I believe that many times you do this you are only denying yourself.

	Like I said, you can believe what you want, but in this case, you are
false. 

| I'm not the only one you respond to in this way.  

	That's just it Joe. Many respond, not nearly as many ask. 

| You can be read like a book, Glen.  I don't believe you here.

	Well how nice. 

| >	For me, religion is the best way.

| WHAT religion, though?  So far you have only espoused a religion of your own 
| making that is convenient to your desired way of life.

	Joe, you have stated that no human being can possess absolute morality.
That means there is no religion that is absolute. The reason for both is due to
humans being involved. If they make the policy, it does not mean it is correct.

| >| They can't formulate their own religion to suit their whims.
| >
| >	Joe, please tell me, what is the ONLY religion one can be then?

| I already listed below that there doesn't have to be an "only religion", 

	You stated people can not formulate their own religion to suit their
whims. That must mean that there can only be one religion that is perfect,
while all others are flawed. I'm just wondering what this perfect religion is.

| and you even quoted the statement, so why do you ask this question?

	Because only ONE can be correct, with the others working off of various
whims that suit their needs. Kind of like denominations. You can't have more
than one perfect religion, can you? You can't have more than one perfect
denomination within that religion, can you?

| >is Christianity, can you tie it down to ONLY one denomination?

| You need this confusion, don't you?  

	You mean the facts? Yeah.

| Don't you know that ALL of the Christian faith expressions are a direct result
| of human disagreement over just the last few centuries?  

	Yes I do. I wasn't sure you did though. So what is the ONLY
denomination within the Christian umbrella that is THE one? Or isn't
there ONE that is?

| And that the current splintering of Christianity is progressing as 
| unprecidented proportions today?  

	You may view it as that. I kind of view it differently. That religion
is becoming what He intended it to be, humane.

| You like that. You need it.  

	If you say so.... you do know more about me than I do....

| >	Joe, tie everything down to one religion, one denomination.

| Why? Unchanging is unchanging is absolute. You want to see absolutes, but now 
| you can't accept it.  

	It does not mean the premise is in line with the absolute morals God
wants us to have. Without being able to place it in with that line, regardless
of whether it has changed has nothing to do with it. If it can't be proven to
match God's absolute morals, then it can not be absolute. It can just be
repiticious of what man thinks it should be.

| Any one of the religions I listed are bigger than man.  

	In quantity of people, maybe. But whether they have the message right,
any human could have it more correct than any church. A church is made of of
individuals. Mere human beings. Nothing more, nothing less.

| Many of today's splinter religions are the ego of individuals. You need that 
| to continue to hold up the mask you are trying to hide behind.

	Joe, I could easily say that the religion you seem to put forth has a
lot of hate to it. But that would be stupid to say, because it is not something
I know for sure. According to my beliefs, it has a lot of hate with it. But it
does not mean that this is really the case. What you wrote above falls into the
same catagory. Why not let Him judge, and you be content that you believe you
are doing the right thing.

| >	Didn't the church go through some major changes in the 60's? Haven't
| > they also gone into major changes now? (Charsmatic, etc)

| In matters of rite and ceremony, yes.  In matters of faith and morals, not 
| at all.  Your premise continues to vanish.  Your arguments are transparent.

	No, they actually grow stronger. People who make up the church have
made the changes. Plain and simple. From the time the church came into life,
until now, it's had one common theme.... people formed it.



Glen

| <<< Note 1090.192 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN "I press on toward the goal" >>>

| Well then answer my question please!

	I actually did a few notes back Jack. Back when I stated our beliefs
are different.


Glen

    Joe,
    
    There are many areas even with regard to human sexuality where you and
    I  are very much in agreement.  The biggest area of disagreement for me
    is to allow only two choices.  Only have sex as part of a life long
    committment or not at all.  I don't believe in this kind of dichotomous
    thinking.
    
    The UU church provides a AYS Class(About your sexuality) to 7 and 8
    graders.  In this class, the adults consciously do not impose sexual values
     on the young people.  The class is an environment in which any answer
    to question the young people ask are answered, and the young people
    discuss and in that process identify their own values around sexuality. 
    Actually the class deals a lot more with human relationships with
    sexuality as an aspect of the human relationships.  the focus is making
    the kids comfortable talking about sex with each other in a mixed group
    and thereby comfortable talking with their future partners about sex.
    
    The idea is if you are too young to talk comfortably with your partner
    about sex, then you are too young to engage in it. ( Of course with that 
    rule, many adults would be too young to engage in sex.)
    
    Our youngsters are expected to arrive at that own conclusions regarding
    when the engage in sex and with whom.  The classes are taught with the
    expectation that approximately 10% of the class will be Gay, Lesbian or
    Bisexual and both gay and straight sex is discussed.  There will always
    be at least one man and one woman teaching the class.  I personally
    would prefer that at least one heterosexual adult and one homosexual
    adult were teaching each class, but since the class is a major
    committment on the part of the adult time, we can not always accomplish
    that.  I expect and believe it appropriate that very few people will
    wait until marriage to become sexually involve.  i Personally hope that
    the kids will wait until they are fairly mature(18,19 etc) and in a
    serious relationship before becoming sexually involved, but they make their
    own decision based on their own ethics.  The church provides them with
    continuous encourage to identify and discuss their own ethics(all inclusive ethics).
    
    It has been shown that kids taking this  class are more likely to wait
    before becoming engaged in sex than those who do not take this class or
    those who take a class where "adult ethics" are passed on to the kids.
    
    My own sexual ethics are consistent with my theology and consistent
    with the direction of my church.  I am more than willing to discuss my
    sexual ethics with my own teenage children and with young people from
    my church.  As far as I am concerned, that is all I need to be
    concerned about regarding any ethical decision that I make or recommend
    to others.  I also struggle to be comfortable with allowing my two
    teenagers to take control of their own bodies and make their own
    choices about their own sexuality.
    
    Joe, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions.  My opinions
    however on many areas are different.  I have the most respect for you
    because I beleive that you live out your own ethics as you preach them. 
    There is something beautiful in that.  You challenge me.  I am sure
    that I would not be ordained in your church.  I have no problem with
    anyone choosing to limit sex to one life long partner.  There is
    something beautiful in seeing two people who have spent there lives
    together and still love each other.  I also have no problem with people
    ending relationships after they have determined that there is nothing
    more they can do to make a relationship work. 
    
    I do not believe in casual sex.  I do not believe in giving up on any
    important relationship without a lot of hard work.  It is not an either
    or decision.
    
                             Patricia

        <<< Note 1090.195 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    The UU church provides a AYS Class(About your sexuality) to 7 and 8
>    graders.  In this class, the adults consciously do not impose sexual values
>    on the young people.  
    
    	That's 'strike one' for the UU church then.  (Strike 10, really,
    	but who's counting?)  You make the word "impose" seem so sinister.
    	In reality it is the guidance that kids NEED.  "As the twig is
    	bent, the tree is inclined."
    
>    when the engage in sex and with whom.  The classes are taught with the
>    expectation that approximately 10% of the class will be Gay, Lesbian or
>    Bisexual 
    
    	Not even the gay community (except the fringes) accepts this
    	number, so why does the UU church?
    
>    I personally
>    would prefer that at least one heterosexual adult and one homosexual
>    adult were teaching each class, 
    
    	And what would you expect that homosexual adult to say when 
    	confronted with the biblical admonitions against homosexuality?
    	The same anti-bible rhetoric posted in this conference?
    
    	Strike two.
    
>    I expect and believe it appropriate that very few people will
    		  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>    wait until marriage to become sexually involve.  
    
    	For the sake of those kids, I hope you are not one of those
    	adult leaders.  You are stirring a recipe for disaster.  Just
    	look around you at today's society for proof.
    
>    but they make their own decision based on their own ethics.  
    
    	The problem is that their ethics are seriously warped when
    	molded with ideals like yours.
    
>    It has been shown that kids taking this  class are more likely to wait
>    before becoming engaged in sex than those who do not take this class or
>    those who take a class where "adult ethics" are passed on to the kids.
    				   ^^^^^^^^^^^^
    
    	So what you are saying here (and all throughout your discussion
    	of this program) is that kids ethics are superior to adult
    	ethics.  How utterly absurd.  When they are given the expectation,
    	and are even told that it is appropriate BY THEIR CHURCH LEADERSHIP 
    	that they will engage in sex before marriage,  how can you expect
    	anything but disaster?
        
>    My own sexual ethics are consistent with my theology and consistent
>    with the direction of my church.  
    
    	I can see the consistency with your theology.  That's exactly
    	what I've been saying all along -- that we are apt to formulate
    	our own theology to fit our lives.  When you say "my church",
    	are you referring to some new sect that you have formed?  If so,
    	fine.  If you are saying "the UU church" then I can only shake
    	my head in disbelief.  Strike three.
    
>    Joe, I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions.  
    
    	Well, Patricia, I can respect you, but I simply cannot respect
    	your opinions.  I'm not willing to pull punches as you seem to.
    	To me, wronmg is wrong, and much of what I've challenged from
    	you is flat out wrong -- even absent a spiritual dimension they
    	are wrong for the proven social harm they lead to.
    
>    I do not believe in casual sex.  I do not believe in giving up on any
>    important relationship without a lot of hard work.  It is not an either
>    or decision.
    
	I agree with you on these.   Where I take issue is that in this
    	society, the lax position you take leads directly to both of
    	these, and more.

                  <<< Note 1090.193 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

>	I FULLY agree with this concept Joe. But where we probably differ is
>how this morality is defined. BTW, it would be different not just between you
>and I, but between you, I and the rest of the world. We all may think we have
>it right
    
    	I *KNOW* I don't have it right, thus I defer to my Church for
    	moral guidance.

>	The church was FORMED by human beings, so it can not be absolute.
    
    	The Church was instituted by one single human being -- Jesus
    	Christ.  As for being absolute, we previously agreed on a
    	definition for absolute, and the Church meets those criteria.

>	Joe, you have stated that no human being can possess absolute morality.
>That means there is no religion that is absolute. 

    	Did I state that?  No matter, we've already agreed to a definition
    	of absolute, and at least one religion (and I'll bet others)
    	meet it.
    
>	Because only ONE can be correct, 
    
    	And so you are telling us that you think you are more likely
    	to be correct on your own than you are following a long-established
    	religion.  How nice.
    
>	Yes I do. I wasn't sure you did though. So what is the ONLY
>denomination within the Christian umbrella that is THE one? Or isn't
>there ONE that is?
    
    	You are barking up the wrong tree.  My point is to question
    	your apparent belief that you are more likely to be correct
    	than any of these other religions already established.
    
>	It does not mean the premise is in line with the absolute morals God
> wants us to have. 
    
    	But it is more likely to be right than you as an individual are.
    
>| Any one of the religions I listed are bigger than man.  
>
>	In quantity of people, maybe. But whether they have the message right,
>any human could have it more correct than any church. A church is made of of
>individuals. Mere human beings. Nothing more, nothing less.
    
    	And this is proof that you place your chances as an individual
    	above those of established churches.  You make yourself a god.
    	Any respectable church is more than just individuals.  Those that
    	are not aren't worth their salt.  How sad that you see churches
    	this way.

>| In matters of rite and ceremony, yes.  In matters of faith and morals, not 
>| at all.  Your premise continues to vanish.  Your arguments are transparent.
>
>	No, they actually grow stronger. People who make up the church have
>made the changes. Plain and simple. 
    
    	What changes?  Again, at least in the case of the Catholic Church,
    	there have been no changes in matters of faith and morals.  Any
    	further argument you base on the contrary are automatically without
    	merit.
    
>From the time the church came into life,
>until now, it's had one common theme.... people formed it.

	Again, Jesus formed it.  I don't believe that point should be
    	trivialized as you might like to do.

| <<< Note 1090.197 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>



| I *KNOW* I don't have it right, thus I defer to my Church for moral guidance.

	And that's what you believe is best, and you do it. I don't have a
problem with that. I myself choose God Himself.

| >	The church was FORMED by human beings, so it can not be absolute.

| The Church was instituted by one single human being -- Jesus Christ.  

	Instituted, but from that point on, it all changed. 

| As for being absolute, we previously agreed on a definition for absolute, and 
| the Church meets those criteria.

	It is your belief that yes the church does meet this criteria. It is
not my belief.

| >	Joe, you have stated that no human being can possess absolute morality.
| >That means there is no religion that is absolute.

| Did I state that?  No matter, we've already agreed to a definition
| of absolute, and at least one religion (and I'll bet others) meet it.

	Try adding one more thing to absolute when dealing with morality. Try
perfect. Maybe that is our hang-up here. No church is perfect. Not
Christianity, any of it's denominations, or any other religion in this world.
So a church could have the same rules it had a million years ago, but it does
not mean that the rules are correct to begin with. 

| >	Because only ONE can be correct,

| And so you are telling us that you think you are more likely to be correct on 
| your own than you are following a long-established religion.  How nice.

	Wow.... talk about twisting. I follow God Joe, not myself. Whether or
not you want to believe that is not my problem.

| >	It does not mean the premise is in line with the absolute morals God
| > wants us to have.

| But it is more likely to be right than you as an individual are.

	Oh.... a group is more likely to have it right than an individual? Then
you agree that seeing Clinton got more votes than anyone else, the country made
the right choice.... how nice.

| >| Any one of the religions I listed are bigger than man.
| >
| >	In quantity of people, maybe. But whether they have the message right,
| >any human could have it more correct than any church. A church is made of of
| >individuals. Mere human beings. Nothing more, nothing less.

| And this is proof that you place your chances as an individual above those 
| of established churches.  You make yourself a god.

	No, you make me a god. I follow God, which I have said all along. You
are the one who have told me what I have been doing..... again. Of course you
are wrong..... again.

| >From the time the church came into life,
| >until now, it's had one common theme.... people formed it.

| Again, Jesus formed it.  I don't believe that point should be trivialized as 
| you might like to do.

	In reality, whether or not you want to believe it, the people formed
it. How? By their interpretation of what they thought Jesus wanted. Look at the
many Catholic churches in the world. Are any two the same? 



Glen

    "In those days there was no king in Israel: every man did what was right
    in his own eyes."
     

    re .196
    
    Joe, you totally miss the point, but I love you anyway.
    
    Fortunately, I good deal of the emphasis in all our religious education
    class nurtures and nourishes self esteem and the worth and dignity of
    every human being.
    
    We have faith that if we teach our young people to be loving human
    beings, to love others and to love themselves, and if we provide them
    with a nurturing environment where many different adults are available
    as role models and to answer any question the kids have, then a healthy
    mature sexual ethic will follow.
    
    I believe that one of the real faults in Classical Christianity,
    particularly in the writings of Paul, is an unhealthy attitude about
    human sexuality.  It is   likely that  the dysfunctional sexual
    practices rampant in our society  results in part from Biblical Hierarchical
    thinking that devalues women.(note 938 has many examples)  and about
    the failure of scriptures to present a positive view of sexuality.
    rebellion against unjust authoritarianism can lead to negative acting
    out.  
    
    by the way, the philosophy behind not imposing adult values  on the
    children is based on the fact that 13 and 14 year old children are
    pretty rebellious of adult values.  When they are put in a program
    where the adult role is to facilitate discussion and answer questions
    as asked, it is amazing the values that arise from the young people
    themselves.  When young men and young women opening discuss
    relationship issues and what is important to them in there
    relationships with each other, the caring, warmth, and trust that
    arises gives rise to the development of a warm, caring, attitude
    about human sexuality.
    
    It is also fortunate for me Joe, that I don't need to seek approval
    from you regarding my own theology, my ethics, my child rearing
    practices, or my role in nurturing the young people in any church I
    attend.  I'm a UU because I believe that the trusting caring community
    that we are creating together provides for the spiritual needs and
    feedback we all need.  Adult and children alike.  Obviously it is not a
    community that meets your needs.
    
    Perhaps I am silly enough to believe that what humans need, even more
    than biblical authority, is loving, caring, community.  I can see that
    that is what the religious right provides to those thoroughly within
    the community and I am glad.  Unfortunately, communities can sometimes
    do great disservice to those half in and half out.  I do feel bad for
    any free spirited, self directed individual forced to conform to
    authoritarian community values.  

                  <<< Note 1090.198 by BIGQ::SILVA "Diablo" >>>

> I myself choose God Himself.
    
    	How do you know?

>| The Church was instituted by one single human being -- Jesus Christ.  
>
>	Instituted, but from that point on, it all changed. 
    
    	In what way?  

> No church is perfect. 
    
    	How do you know?  You yourself have said that only God can
    	know.  You must think you are god.
    
>So a church could have the same rules it had a million years ago, but it does
>not mean that the rules are correct to begin with. 
    
    	And nothing says that it cannot be correct either.  Well, that's
    	not entirely true.  *YOU* say that it cannot be.  You, the judge,
    	jury, and executioner.
    
>| And so you are telling us that you think you are more likely to be correct on 
>| your own than you are following a long-established religion.  How nice.
>
>	Wow.... talk about twisting. I follow God Joe, not myself. Whether or
> not you want to believe that is not my problem.
    
    	No twist at all.  Just listen to yourself.  As for it not being
    	your problem, if you are wrong you have a MAJOR problem.
    
    	Again, how do you know you are following God?
    
> | But it is more likely to be right than you as an individual are.
>
>	Oh.... a group is more likely to have it right than an individual? 
    
    	The Church is more than just a "group".  We've been through that.
    	As long as you rely on that faulty reasoning you are destined
    	for the confusion you demonstrate here.
    
> Look at the
> many Catholic churches in the world. Are any two the same? 
    
    	In matters of faith and morals, they are the same.  You can't
    	stand to hear that though, can you...

        <<< Note 1090.200 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    with a nurturing environment where many different adults are available
>    as role models and to answer any question the kids have, then a healthy
>    mature sexual ethic will follow.
    
    	Since we disagree on what a "healthy, mature sexual ethic" is,
    	I doubt you can expect this argument from you will have value 
    	to me.
    
>    I believe that one of the real faults in Classical Christianity,
>    particularly in the writings of Paul, is an unhealthy attitude about
>    human sexuality.  
    
    	Ditto.
    
>    It is   likely that  the dysfunctional sexual
>    practices rampant in our society  results in part from Biblical Hierarchical
>    thinking that devalues women 
    
    	I've also rejected your premise on this point, so I find
    	no value in this argument either.
    
>    the failure of scriptures to present a positive view of sexuality.
    
    	Ditto the first statement.
    
>    It is also fortunate for me Joe, that I don't need to seek approval
>    from you regarding my own theology, my ethics, my child rearing
>    practices, or my role in nurturing the young people in any church I
>    attend.  
    
    	Oh, I don't pretend that you need my approval, nor do I expect
    	that I'll change your mind on anything.  I speak out to ensure
    	that your position does not stand unchallenged.  Consider me
    	a counterweight.
    
>    Perhaps I am silly enough to believe that what humans need, even more
>    than biblical authority, is loving, caring, community. 
    
    	I believe that positions you have put forth here are not in the
    	best interest of the individuals or the society, and therefore
    	cannot be loving and caring, no matter what the intentions
    	behind them.

re .190

>   	You need this confusion, don't you?  Don't you know that ALL
>   	of the Christian faith expressions are a direct result of
>   	human disagreement over just the last few centuries?  And
>   	that the current splintering of Christianity is progressing as
>   	unprecidented proportions today?  You like that.  You need it.  

you forget to mention that in the time in which christianity was 
unchanging, the "world" aswell remained essentially the same. that is,
the european world experienced little technological and social change 
from the decline of the roman empire to the invention of the paper press.

the splintering of christianity came about as an effort to save the 
religious faith in response to a new world which was no longer ruled by god, 
but by reason (the turning was the discovery that the world is not flat).

what is unchanging with religion is, that it is our continuous attempt 
to remove the "confusion" (about the meaning of our existance).



andreas.

re .182


you will be surprised to hear joe, that on the whole i agree with you
with what you write about marriage and family.

yes, i am old fashioned in many ways.

i don't take marriage lightly. it is a life-long commitment. i have
remained committed to my responsibilities as family father despite 
the divorce. 

due to backward divorce laws (no mutual custody at the time), i was not 
awarded custody of my children. they live 600 miles and two countries away
from me. i visit them every five weeks, my telephone bill is three times 
the average house-hold's bill and i financially support my former spouse 
voluntarily, to the extend that she need not work.

as much as my parents have done, i pass on those assumed family values 
to my children. being there, being close as family and nurturing a strong 
identity are very central and "unchanging" in our tradition.

hopefully, when the children have grown up, they will be strong enoguh 
to withstand societies whims. you know the concern.

i am a very strong supporter of family values. just that i think that FVs
go further than a particular religion's morals. FVs apply as equally to jews, 
muslims, buddhists and non religious people. i see them as something very
central to humanity.



andreas.

ps. and btw, divorce was the best thing that ever happened to my children, 
    my wife and me. without it, IN *MY* CASE, we would have had a very sick
    setup. the problem from the outset was that my wife and i lacked a common 
    base of values. despite EVERYONE saying so before the marriage...

	Joe.... you know.... you take what is said and twist it all to hell.
When you stop, I'll answer your questions. Otherwise, I'm not going to waste my
time.

    	Well that's a relief.  Anyway, it's better for you to take some time
    	and really think about what you are saying rather than just reacting
    	as you do.

| <<< Note 1090.206 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| Well that's a relief.  Anyway, it's better for you to take some time and 
| really think about what you are saying rather than just reacting as you do.

	Uh huh....

what i'd like to know from you joe, is divorce bad in _all_ cases?




andreas.

    	I do recognize, Andreas, that there are hopeless circumstances
    	where divorce seems to be the only option.  I can't imagine
    	that under such circumstances the marriages would not be
    	found to be invalid in the first place, and if a Catholic
    	marriage not be annulled.
    
    	Only a small fraction of today's divorces are because of 
    	circumstances like these, though.

    JOe,
    
    what percent of people that apply for annulment in the Catholic church
    have there request denied.  
    
    Just curious.  I don't understand this concept of annulment at all!
    
    
                                         Patricia

>    what percent of people that apply for annulment in the Catholic church
>    have there request denied.  
    
    	I have no idea.
    
>    Just curious.  I don't understand this concept of annulment at all!
    
    	It has to do with whether the marriage was truly valid in the
    	eyes of the Church or not.  Priests who perform marriages are
    	as human as anyone else, and bad barriages that were never valid
    	by Church criteria are performed anyway.  An annulment is an
    	official review (and if annulled) rejection of the marriage
    	from the beginning.  The couple is declared to have never been
    	married.  In being so declared, the individuals are free to
    	marry others as if they were never married in the first place.
    
    	The real goal is not to get annulments to work, but to never
    	have to get to that point in the first place -- mostly by
    	preventing marriages that are destined for this.

    It sounds like a legalism to get around the prohibition of divorce.

.211 CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'"

If the marriage was anulled but had been consummated,
doesn't that make the couple guilty of fornication?
----------------------------------------------------
.212 POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am"

    It sounds like a legalism to get around the prohibition of divorce.

It is. Although the practice may not be as prevelant as it once was,
it can also be bought.

Steve

    
    I'm very pleased that Dr. Foster's nomination for Surgeon General was
    disapproved.  I believe that now it should be quite clear to President
    Clinton that Republicans insist that some other type of person be
    nominated for this post; someone more like Koop and less like Elders.
    
    jeff

	Jeff, the repubs did it for pure political reasons. Notice who the 2
that spearheaded it? Why the 2 front runner repub candidates for president of
course. Hey... maybe it's a coincidence.... but maybe not.....

    Probably...but I resent Clinton using abortion as a political wedge to
    gain votes.
    
    Clinton is losing his 43%...it is dwindling.  He desparately needs the
    ultra feminist vote and the civil rights votes.  What better way than
    to pick a nominee who was rejected because of his lack of
    forthrightness on how many abortions, etc.  Clinton's just as bad Glen.
    
    -Jack

>	Jeff, the repubs did it for pure political reasons. Notice who the 2
>that spearheaded it? Why the 2 front runner repub candidates for president of
>course. Hey... maybe it's a coincidence.... but maybe not.....
    
    Of course they did it for political reasons.  They are representing an
    important constituency which demands it.  It's all the more important
    to please their constituencies as they move toward an election.  I
    think it's a good move on their part and also a good result for all
    citizens.
    
    jeff

    
    > Probably...but I resent Clinton using abortion as a political wedge to
    > gain votes.

    Phil Gramm said that no one who performed an abortion would be
    approved, but it's *Clinton* that using abortion as a political
    wedge??? And don't even get me started with that *(^&! Bob Smith!

    	Eric

    
    > They are representing an important constituency which demands it.

    Unfortunately they are not representing the majority opinion of
    Americans. But there's no denying the importance of the constituency
    to whom they do kowtow. Importance to their campaign machinery.
    
    	Eric

    	re .219
    
    	By the numbers you choose to use, you could support your argument.
    	I could also provide equally compelling numbers to show that you
    	are wrong.

        <<< Note 1090.212 by POWDML::FLANAGAN "I feel therefore I am" >>>

>    It sounds like a legalism to get around the prohibition of divorce.
    
    	If that were it, all annulment requests would be granted.  They
    	are not.

    

<<< Note 1090.213 by TINCUP::BITTROLFF "Creator of Buzzword Compliant Systems" >>>

>If the marriage was anulled but had been consummated,
>doesn't that make the couple guilty of fornication?
    
    	No, for at the time they consummated the marriage, they 
    	thought they were married.
    
    	I don't see a lot of benefit in getting into extreme what-if
    	scenarios, for I don't want to play a role for which I have
    	no qualification.  There are theologians who could unravel
    	the most convoluted situation for you (as far as Church teaching
    	goes) but I do not pretend to be one of those people.
    
>    It sounds like a legalism to get around the prohibition of divorce.
>
>It is. Although the practice may not be as prevelant as it once was,
>it can also be bought.

    	"Buying" an annulment has only been a practice of man.  Church
    	leaders who have allowed it have been as much the hypocrites
    	as thy look.  Buying (and selling) an annulment is an affront
    	to the principles held by the Church.

   >>If the marriage was anulled but had been consummated,
   >>doesn't that make the couple guilty of fornication?
    
   >         No, for at the time they consummated the marriage, they
   >         thought they were married.
    
    
    Isn't this situational ethics. :-) 
    
    	Eric

>the splintering of christianity came about as an effort to save the 
>religious faith in response to a new world which was no longer ruled by god, 
>but by reason (the turning was the discovery that the world is not flat).

The discovery that the world is not flat occurred before the birth of Christ.
Middle Eastern scientists had quite accurately measured the Earth's
circumference by observations of the shadows cast by the sun long before
1492.

/john

| <<< Note 1090.217 by USAT05::BENSON "Eternal Weltanschauung" >>>


| Of course they did it for political reasons.  They are representing an
| important constituency which demands it.  It's all the more important
| to please their constituencies as they move toward an election.  I
| think it's a good move on their part and also a good result for all
| citizens.

	Jeff, there is a very good chance that if it was not an election year,
it never would have happened. 

| <<< Note 1090.220 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>


| By the numbers you choose to use, you could support your argument.
| I could also provide equally compelling numbers to show that you
| are wrong.


	Joe, your numbers are absolute dribble. Why? Because you say over and
over that not everyone who claims to be Christian, is (iyo). So if you use any
numbers where you haven't personally talked to each and every person, they're
bogus and do not represent what you believe to be Christians. 



Glen

    	Huh?  Where did Christianity come into this?  We're talking about 
    	political ideologies.  
    
    	What's your purpose in attacking me like this?

| <<< Note 1090.227 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "He said, 'To blave...'" >>>

| Huh?  Where did Christianity come into this?  We're talking about
| political ideologies.

	I am giving an example of you and your numbers. You have stated many
times how in some survey that was taken, most Americans have said they were
Christians. You have used that to prove this very nation is mostly Christian.
Yet there are many who you have told who have made this same claim, that they
are not Christians. In other words, you may provide numbers, but it does not
mean they are accurate.

| What's your purpose in attacking me like this?

	If you took it as an attack, there is nothing I can do about that. It
was not meant as one.

re .224, .229


.203 refers to the prevailing view of the "world" (ie. the christian world)
in the period "from the decline of the roman empire to the invention of the 
paper press."

i quite agree, the prechristian ancients were ingenious.


andreas.