Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re: Note 957.0 by Jill "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." 

Hi Jill,

Many good questions.  One quick thought of mine is that freedom demands 
responsibility.  It doesn't work in society without it.  I think that the USA
(if not other countries) are getting into big trouble because of neglecting 
the responsibility freedom demands.

On a more humorous (but slightly cynical) note, I'm reminded of the poem by 
Piet Hein:

			Freedom means you're free to do
			Just whatever pleases you
			Provided that, that is to say,
			That what you please is what you may.

Peace,

Jim

    
    Thanks for responding Jim.  I was worried that it was too lofty a 
    topic for most to want to think about on the downhill side of a week.
    
    Okay responsibility.  I can grasp that, but is it important to have as
    much freedom as we do?  I mean there are people in fallen communist
    countries who do not like having to make so many decisions all of a
    sudden.  And by contrast there are people in this country who feel that
    some of their freedoms are being taken from them and are extremely
    upset.  Which way is better?  Less or more?
    
    Jill

  
  Freedom implies "from" or "to" something.

  From a Christian perspective :

  We are free from the Law (I'll get flak for this) and its demands
  Most christians dont fully realize this.

  "Or do you not know brethren (for I speak to those who know the law)'
   that the law has dominion over a man as long as he lives? For the 
   woman who has a husband is bound by the Law to her husband as long 
   as he lives. But if the husband dies, she is released from the Law
   of her husband. So then if, while she lives, she marries another man
   she will be called an adultress, but if her husband dies she is free
   from that law so that she is no adultress, though she is married to 
   another man.

   Therefore my brethren, *you also have become dead to the law* through the
   body of Christ

   that you may be married to another, to him who raised from the dead
   Romans 7:1-4 NKJV

   The realtionship of the christian to the Law (the Torah) is the same as 
   That of a woman to her dead husband. She is free from him. She may marry
   another.

   "if the husband dies, she is released from the law of her husband"  

   but free to do what?

   "that we should bear fruit to God"  Romans 7:4b.

   "But the fruit of the Spirit is Love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness
    goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control, against such there is
    no law" Galatians 5:22-23


    Hank

re:  Note 957.2 by Jill "A tree with a rotten core cannot stand." 

Hi Jill,

>    Thanks for responding Jim.  I was worried that it was too lofty a 
>    topic for most to want to think about on the downhill side of a week.

.-)

I remember many years ago hearing what the difference was between the USA's 
and the (then) USSR's philosophy of legal justice.  (Whether this is actually
true or not is another debate.)  Basically, the way the argument went was 
out of a hundred people, would you rather free 99 criminals so that one 
innocent person was free, or would you rather imprison 99 innocent people so 
that one criminal was incarcerated?  No system (except God's, of course .-) is
100% just and merciful.

I agree with you that after years of oppression, sudden freedom is a scary
thing. I remember when I finally had the freedom to drive a car.  It was a
very scary.  For quite a while as a high school senior, I didn't want to get a
driver's license, I was afraid of the responsibility.  (I can now drive better 
than the average Boston driver, thank you .-)

I think a more gradual process is easier to cope with, but turning the tables 
and gradually decreasing freedom is something many would call gliding down the 
slippery slope.  

Which way is better?  I agree with Thomas Jefferson who was afraid that a 
"Bill of Rights" could be easily construed to allow *only* those rights which 
were listed.  Less or more?  Only God knows.

Another thought is that in Western culture, we have blurred the division 
between children and adults.  At 16 you can drive, at 18 you can be sent to 
fight a war, but you can't drink till you're 21.  In many other, more 
"primitive" cultures, there is a distinct ritual which brings children into 
the adult world, with the freedom and responsibility that demands.

Peace,

Jim

re: Note 957.3 by Hank
  
>  Freedom implies "from" or "to" something.

An excellent point.  Several years ago my pastor gave a sermon on the topic of 
from and to.

In the USA there is much talk of being free from ____, but the more important 
side is what we are free to.

Peace,

Jim

    
    I think based on what I know of the former USSR, the paranoia of
    of their leaders, the lack of the accused rights in the legal system,
    this is most likely true.  However, I feel in our country we have gone
    to the other extreme.  I have a real problem with information being
    thrown out because some cop screwed up on procedure. How can you expect
    to get to justice based on the truth when you can't use all the
    evidence.  I prefer the European way of punish the law enforcement
    people for their wrongdoing; but allow the evidence. Most Americans are
    sick of how many crooks are getting off on technicalities.
    
    Hmmm...interesting comment about the coming of age differences between
    cultures.  I'd have to agree the lines have been blurred in this
    country thus the arguments over trying and sentencing juveniles as
    adults.
      
    Another question...are the freedoms that you have important to you or
    would you mind them being taken away?  And I guess I mean even just
    beyond political, but how about if your physical freedoms were taken
    away.  One question I love to ask people is if you could only keep
    2 of your 5 senses (sight,hearing,smell,taste,touch) which would you
    choose?  I mean a handicap definitely takes freedoms away.  What
    freedoms (any kind) would you be able to give up?
    
    Jill

For me it's fairly simple.

If what I do does not physically harm you or your property, I should be free to
do it.

I realize that there are a LOT of gray areas here. Driving drunk does not harm
anything in and of itself, but it sure does increase the chances. There are
certain actions I can perform that are very intrusive but that probably don't
hurt you (loud music, for example).

The losses that bother me are laws that are passed to catch perpetrators in a
large net, rather than the ones that actually break the law. A curfew is an
example of this. Another is a law that puts an arbitrary limit on something. For
instance, in Colorado Springs you may keep only four cats in a house. The number
four is arbitrary. In some cases one may be too many, in other cases 10 may be
just fine.

I also dislike laws around victimless crimes, or those that are designed to
protect us from ourselves. (This type of regulation is where I find most of my
problems with organized religion). Mandatory helmet laws for motorcycles, seat
belt laws, blue laws, etc. On the other hand, if you do something that is self
destructive, society should not be expected to bail you out. This goes back to
the concept of responsibility.

Steve

    
    Keep up the good work gentlemen.  I'll be back to check in hopefully
    on Monday.  I'm leaving tomorrow to go soak in the Hot Springs for a
    few days up in Glenwood Springs.  Ahhh....I can't wait.  I'll think
    about you guys.  Not!  Have a wonderful weekend.  I know I will.
    
    Free at last.  (at least for the weekend)  ;^)
    
    Jill