Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

re Note 9.0 by EDIT::SMITH:

>     Use this string to question policies, etc., relative to how all other
>     strings are handled.  (If mods are open to this, that is!)  

        We are VERY open to this!

        (I had my doubts about the title "processing" -- it has none
        of the above connotations to me.  But I'm sure I can learn!)

        Bob

This note to deal with matters of concern and peripheral interactions
within this conference.

re Note 27.66 by CSC32::MORGAN:

        Mikie,

        Would you please refrain from using the term "Bible bangers"? 
        I personally find it offensive, and I can imagine others
        would, too.  (There is precedent for requesting the avoidance
        of certain terms, e.g., "Pro-abortionist".)

        Bob

        Mikie,

        It is not at all clear to me that your notes 27.62-27.68
        address the topic "Apparent Errors in the Bible" at all.

        Perhaps you meant to start a new topic?  It would seem that
        you are writing about common misconceptions about the Bible.

        (In any event, the title you've been using "Satanic Verses,
        part N of 7" is totally uninformative about the content of
        the notes -- perhaps it IS informative of where you are
        coming from?)

        Bob

I submit this question for general discussion: is it appropriate to discuss
Satanism in this conference?  Why or why not?  I have my own thoughts about
this but I'd like to hear what others have to say.  (Of course, a lot of
people have already voted with their feet, so to speak.)

				-- Bob

    I'm of the opinion that the wall of Christianity is able to withstand a
    few tomatoes hurled against it.  Mikie is one of my favorite tomato
    hurlers. 8-) He prods.  He pokes.  He makes us uncomfortable.  In this
    sense, Mikie is something of a prophet. (Sorry if that offends you,
    Mikie!)
    
    Let's do something different with this prophet.  Let's *not* stone him.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

re Note 27.72 by CSC32::MORGAN:

>     I didn't use the term "Bible Bangers." It was a quote of Loren. A short
>     look at the header will indicate who is responsible for the term. 

        A simple rule -- if you put it here, you're responsible for
        it.


>     Would you agree that apparent errors includes hypocracy [sic]?

        No.    
    
        Bob

re Note 27.74 by CSC32::MORGAN:

>     It is the current convention that where as articles over 100 lines
>     should be broken up they should also be numbered in order.
  
        No it isn't -- the current convention (in this conference) is
        that IF AT ALL POSSIBLE each participant in a discussion
        limit themselves to about 100 lines or less per exchange in a
        dialogue.  

        In fact, if you must use more than 100 lines for a single
        exchange, please keep it together in one note.

        Breaking a long monologue into multiple contiguous bits does
        nothing to maintain the flow of discussion.

        (Note that, if you are responding to more than one note or
        point, you may use separate replies, even in succession.)


>     Satanic Verses comes from Salmon Rushdie's book SATANIC VERSES. We all
>     know what happened to him.
>     But for those who haven't read the paper in the last two years Salmon
>     Rushdie published his book which contained an elightening commentary on
>     Mohammed's trip in a cave where he received instruction from Allah.
>     Because of this commentary his DEATH was ordered.
  
        Yeah, so what does that have to do with the text in your
        notes?

        Bob

    I agree with Richard.  We need to explore even those topics that make
    us feel uncomfortable.  If we live with our heads in the sand all we
    can really witness to is the qualities of sand, which don't necessarily
    apply to the myriad of gifts God has seen fit to grace our existence
    with.
    
    (But I'd call Mikie a "fiery prophet" rather than a "tomato
    prophet".)  ;-)
    
    Nanci

re Note 27.81 by CSC32::MORGAN:

>        ... -- the current convention (in this conference) is
>        that IF AT ALL POSSIBLE each participant in a discussion
>        limit themselves to about 100 lines or less per exchange in a
>        dialogue.  
>
>        In fact, if you must use more than 100 lines for a single
>        exchange, please keep it together in one note.

    Ok. I'll do that in the future or now, you decide.

        The future will be soon enough.

        (By "I'll do that", do you mean both "keep it together" AND
        "limit to about 100 lines or less per exchange"?  I hope so.)

        Bob

    Mikie,
    
    > Let's take the human mind out of the box.  Let's rev it up, squeel
    > the tires and see what it will do.
    
    It's apparent to me that you enjoy doing this Mikie and can do it
    rather well.  I've learned a lot from some of your notes in the past
    year, not that I agree with some of the ideas you put forth in them.
    
    > Let's put the human mind to good use and develop a Christian
    > philosophy worthy of the knowledge and power of the 21st century. 
    > Let's do it right, or not at all.
    
    If this is your intention, it is a surprise to me based upon the notes
    you've entered here thus far.   What interest would you, an agnostic, 
    have in developing a Christian philosophy for the 21st century?
    And how could an agnostic provide leadership in Christian philosophy?
    
    Karen
    
    p.s.  My opinion is that discussions of Satanism are appropriate
          for the Religion conference.
    

        I just moved a whole bunch of notes between Mikie Morgan and
        myself, in my moderator capacity, from the "Apparent Errors
        in the Bible" topic to this one (Processing).

        Bob

    
    The discussion of Satanism here does not seem totally out of place.
    
    If one was to go to counseling sessions trying to "get to the bottom"
    of his/herself, then would it be wise to simply ignore the shadow side
    of oneself?
    
    Jung (who some might say was a Christian mystic, as well as a psych-
    iatrist) would probably have been all for such discussions (FWIW).
    
    I think it's this inability to face this side of things that cripples
    Fundamentalist Christianity.
    
    This is not to suggest that we become Satanists - just that we be
    allowed to question with good intentions the firmly held convictions
    of old.
    
    Who's afraid of the big, bad wolf? :-)
    
    guy

    
      Here's a radical idea. Let's let those who wish to discuss
    Satanism have at it and those who don't want to can ignore
    the discussion can note around it.
    
    
    
    
    
    
                                                       Mike
                                                                                   

    re: .50
    
    >Blasphemy really isn't such a crime when viewed in a different light.
    ><Snicker>
   > 
   > I'd also like to remind you that Satanism, like every other religious
   > scheme in the U.S. is PROTECTED BY LAW.  I'd also like to remind you
   > that I am NOT a Satanist, but rather an agnostic. You could stick
   > around and try to convince this poor deluded agnostic of the error os
   > his ways.
   > 
   > My intentions here were not to destroy the Christian religion (I can't
   > do that anyway, it's *beyond* my power) but to expose hypocracy and
   > ignorance.
    
    Once again, I strongly protest the *tone* of this note, especially in
    this conference.  I especially protest it if Mikie's sarcasm and
    "smarter-than-thou" attitude is what is driving away those in
    3.47-3.49.  
    
    Those of us who espouse *Christian* perspectives that differ strongly
    with Barry's, Irena's, and Collis's have enough problems -- and cause
    enough problems to our more fundamentalist brothers and sisters -- 
    without tolerating Mikie's inappropriate and unacceptable notes.
    
    I just spent several months working successfully to remove an
    emotional abuser from my local church community.  It was our years of
    silent tolerance of his beahvior that kept our church from growing.
    
    Because of that experience and what we learned there, I cannot sit
    quietly by without speaking out against what I view as Mikie's
    harrassment of people in this file.
    
    I feel no Christian responsibility whatsoever to be hospitable to
    harrassment and abuse.
    
    I call on the moderators to take some kind of appropriate action and to
    then inform Barry, Irena, and Collis of that action (whatever it may
    be), in case Mikie's notes were the precipitating factor in their
    leaving.  
    
    Nancy Smith

re Note 9.22 by SA1794::SEABURYM:

>       Here's a radical idea. Let's let those who wish to discuss
>     Satanism have at it and those who don't want to can ignore
>     the discussion can note around it.
  
        That's certainly an option.

        It would also be an option to have a group of notes expressly
        for the discussion of Buddhism, or the stock market.

        Would either or both be appropriate here, especially when
        there are other conferences that expressly allow for such
        topics?

        Bob

    
    
    It seems to me that Satan and Satanism are concepts held by both
    Christians and Muslims (I think? - correct me if I am wrong on the
    Muslim faith).  Very often I read or hear Christians saying that
    Satan has control of the world, or this type of activity is 
    satanic.  IMO, a discussion of Satan and Satanism is very appropriate
    here.  There are many things in this world that are labeled satanic
    that have nothing at all to do with it.  Isn't it better to be able
    to have information shared on this and to have some clarity on the
    different perspectives?
    
    Regarding Mikie's presentation of his material and opinions - yes,
    I think that there are many different ways he could express what
    he has to share that would be less disruptive and "button-pushing".
    I understand what he is doing, but confrontation does not always
    go over well.  I must say that I always learn something though,
    and different feelings get stirred up - and this I appreciate.
    
    Carole
    

>   < I just spent several months working successfully to remove an
>   < emotional abuser from my local church community.  It was our years of
>   < silent tolerance of his beahvior that kept our church from growing.
>   
>    Congrats, you did something. Perhaps you'd like to read my Clergy Abuse
>    topic in ::Religion. If more persons were like you at least 200 major
>    crimes would have be averted.
    
    In case anyone cares, the person removed from office in our local
    church was a layman, not a member of the clergy.  In our church system,
    it is *much* easier to remove a pastor -- with or without cause -- than
    to affect the status of a lay member.
    

I'm still here.  I have been thinking the last day about how to respond
to Mikie's notes.  I *hate* so say that I won't respond, since I often
will.  But, in my mind, I think that I'm not very tempted to respond to
what Mike has to say anymore.  Because I don't think that he's interested
in an honest pursuit of truth.  Rather, he's interested (as far as I can
tell) in bashing this and bashing that.  (Or as he might say, "stirring
things up".)

Correct me if I'm wrong, Mikie (which distinguishes you from the other
"Mike's around).  You have yet to correct any of the perceptions of you
that I have offered, so I continue to believe what I have said.

Collis

re Note 9.26 by WILLEE::FRETTS:

>     It seems to me that Satan and Satanism are concepts held by both
>     Christians and Muslims (I think? - correct me if I am wrong on the
>     Muslim faith).  Very often I read or hear Christians saying that
>     Satan has control of the world, or this type of activity is 
>     satanic.  

        I said nothing against a discussion of Satan, just Satanism. 
        We have had such a topic for quite a while.

        Bob

    
    
    Hi Bob,
    
    I guess I don't see a distinction in discussion.  Could you explain
    for me what you see as the distinction, as far as discussion in
    this conference is concerned?
    
    Thanks,
    Carole

        Satanism, by my understanding, is a system or teaching and
        belief centered on the worship of and/or following of Satan
        as "Lord."

        I think that a discussion of "a system or teaching and belief
        centered on the worship of and/or following of Satan as
        'Lord'" is a non-Christian topic.

        Satan is a term used in the Bible for a personification of
        evil -- the enemy of the good.  As such is is unquestionably
        a Christian topic.

        While I can understand that you might not agree that the gulf
        is as wide as I think it is, certainly they are different.

        Bob

Re: .31 Bob

I agree that Satanism and Christianity are different religions.  However, I
think that Mikie and others are entitled to write notes countering
misinformation (as they see it) about Satanism entered by other people.

In a mail message Mikie agreed to move his Satanism notes to RELIGION and have
only a pointer to these notes in C-P.  However, since then he's written a note
which seems to indicate that he's dropping out of C-P.

				-- Bob

re Note 9.33 by CSC32::MORGAN:

>     I'm asking you to take the tape off the Turing Machine
>     and respond to me in genuine dialogue. I'm asking you to think.
  
        Mikie,

        I suspect that you misunderstand both Turing Machines and
        people.

        Bob

re Note 9.39 by CSC32::MORGAN:

>     My point is that it is sometimes difficult to
>     determine if I'm conversing with a human or an automation. Automations
>     are dull and gray. No life. Humans have spark, fire and passion. 
  
        But humanity, and all that is considered human, requires
        those "tapes", if by the tapes you mean the individual's and
        community's tradition, writings, legends, moral precepts,
        culture, etc.

        Certainly, those tapes should not be merely recited;  but a
        human who could not draw from the well of individual and
        community background would hardly be human at all!

        Bob

    re.25
    
          My guess is that any such rathole that is so very
       far removed from the basic purpose of this conference
       would soon die a natural death.     
          So, I guess you could say that my opinion about any
       digression from the intent of this forum would be. 
       "Don't worry it'll go away soon enough".
    
    
                                                       Mike
          

    RE: .44 Mikie
    
    >  I speculate that this is the real meaning of the Garden myth. But that
    >  wasn't a fall, it was an elevation from animal consciousness to human
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
    >  consciousness. A climb in status we haven't fully dealt with.
       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
        
    I have been thinking about a similar concept based on something
    I read recently.  That the so-called fall from the garden may have
    been a shift from something similar to 2-dimensional reality to
    3-dimensional reality.  A shift in consciousness - a shift to 
    self-awareness.  I also feel that humankind is very close to 
    another shift.
    
    Carole

    Carole (.45),
    
    Yes, Carole I very much agree with your perceptions.  
    
    Ro
    

    Carole,
    
      well, from my Christian perspective on your reasoning I guess that man 
    is headed for another low. I believe the Fall to be just that, a fall.
    I also believe that the Bible talks about a time great apostacy tat is
    coming. If you the Fall as a rising up, then perhaps the next rising up 
    that you refer to will be seen by me as another falling (apostacy).
    
    Gil

    To the mods,
    
      I just read the definition of Christianity that is to be used for
    this conference. Not bad.
    
    A question though, what about the teachings of Paul, John, Peter,
    James,etc. - are these to be considered since they are based on the
    teachings of Jesus?  What about the Old Testament from which many of Jesus'
    teaching have their basis?
    
    
    Again, I am not trying to tell you how to run this conference (I have
    enough to kepp tabs on in that "other" one:-) - but I find it hard to
    seperate the teachings of Jesus from the other parts of the Bible. They
    are intertwined like the threads of a banner proclaiming the Glory of
    God.
    
      I admire you for trying to set a usable standard. It's a tough call.
    
    Gil

Re: .48  Gil

I don't think "based on the teachings of Jesus" means "based *only* on the
teachings of Jesus".  That's why we said that we intended to interpret the
definition in an inclusive way.  Different Christian sects accept different
sources of authority.  I'd think that Mormonism, Gnosticism, etc. would be
suitable subjects for discussion, and of course the epistles etc. are very
much part of Christianity.

				-- Bob

    
    RE: .47
    
    Hi Gil,
    
    Yes, I understand that we are at "radically opposite views" on this
    topic.  For me, I don't necessarily accept the Genesis story in
    the Bible "as is", nor do I accept that humanity "fell".
    
    Actually, I ponder on some possibilities that most would feel are
    "way out there" ;-), and don't feel at this time that this is the
    forum where I want to get into any discussions about them.
    
    But I can fully accept where you are coming from on this, Gil.
    
    Carole

    I'd like to offer a few thoughts as a participant (not co-mod) on 
    the concerns Jamey noted in the first paragraph of 91.48: 
    
    > First, it seems to me that the level of tolerance for 'fundamental' 
    > Christian beliefs here is pretty low.  I don't mind the questioning 
    > and disagreeing with the, but the spirit seems to be more derision 
    > than anything else...
    
    Since this is a conference which welcomes differing viewpoints on 
    Christianity, questioning and disagreements will be very evident 
    in the discussions as we've seen.  If the questioning becomes a 
    ridiculing of one for their beliefs it does not serve anyone's best 
    interest.  I have not seen where derision or riduculing is the
    pervading spirit of this conference toward fundamentlist beliefs.  
    I have seen isolated instances where both conservative and liberal 
    viewpoints have contained language that can be construed as such.  
    With emotions running deep on some issues, I know I have come close 
    to writing derisively myself on occasion, although I hope and pray I 
    have not done this to anyone through my notes.
    
    > I find the label of intolerance offensive...
    
    This is a sincere question - is there another word you would prefer
    that isn't offensive?  Narrow?  Strict?
    
    > The lip service to valuing others beliefs is shallow and 
    > hypocritical.
    
    The corporate policy (speaking as a moderator now) we seek to adhere 
    to in this conference is to value others, to value differences, to 
    appreciate the richness a group offers through the diversity of
    hamanity that each person brings to this conference.  Some
    participants, myself included, also hold this as a personal value in 
    their hearts.  It is difficult, if not impossible however, to insure 
    that we can extend that policy to people valuing the *beliefs* of 
    others when those beliefs are contradictory.  
    
    I value *you* Jamey, (I think you *know* that I do :-)) and I know 
    your beliefs have value for you, but it would be hyprocritcal for me 
    to claim that I value them (all of them) because some of them are in 
    conflict with my own.  Regardless, I try to address you with the 
    respect and dignity we share as a brethren human beings.  
    
    > Most here really do not want to hear the 'fundmental' Christian 
    > viewpoints and sit in judgement of them.
    
    Speaking for myself, I _do_ want to hear the 'fundamental' Christian 
    viewpoints;  I try to be open to them; I listen, and think about 
    them, sometimes I've prayed to understand;  but yes, in the final 
    analysis, I do sit in judgement of them.  My judgement consists of
    determining/feeling whether or not they speak to me more than the 
    beliefs already in my heart.  If they speak to me more, I begin to 
    change.  I try my best to not judge _people_ however, and God sees 
    to it that I get a chance to work on this everyday.  Bless His and 
    Her Soul.
    
    My thoughts and prayers are with you Jamey and anyone else who feels 
    similarly.
    
    Love,
    Karen
     

   I am not pleased with myself!  I am not pleased with much of my noting in
   this conference.  It will take a bit to explain my thinking, so please
   don't jump to any conclusions until the end.  

   I came to this conference with false expectations:

	- I looked at GOLF::CHRISTIAN and saw (from *my* point of view) a
	  conference that created a "safe space" for conservative Christians!
	  I saw (again from *my* point of view) a conference that, because of
	  its stated beliefs, does not fully value the differences of Gays and
	  Lesbians, of New Agers, of liberal Christians, etc.  But it appeared
	  to be a place where people of like mind could share and grow.  I try
	  -- not always successfully!!! :-( -- to respect the principles and
	  foundations of that conference when I note there.  I sometimes
	  strongly state a totally opposite viewpoint, but I try to respect the
	  differences of the majority.

	- I looked at the WOMANNOTES conference and saw a conference that
	  attempts to create a "safe space" for women and their concerns.
	  (Its success varies a great deal, but it *does* try and has
	  guidelines to further that goal.)  I participate in that conference
          from time to time.

	- When I heard about C-P, I was thrilled at the prospect of a conference
	  that would be a "safe space" for "liberal" Christian sharing and
	  discussion.  At last I could talk about things in a way that was
	  forbidden in CHRISTIAN!  I could avoid, or overlook, challenges
	  from a Biblical-literalist position.  I could hear the experiences
	  of other Christians who also felt inhibited in the CHRISTIAN
	  conference.  I was excited at the prospects!  However, my hopes and
          expectations have been only partially fulfilled.

NOTE:
   By a "safe space," I mean a place where discussions from the specific
   perspective (whatever it may be) can take place without sarcasm, insults,
   or condemnations from people who are admittedly outside of that perspective.
   I mean a place where "outsiders" (those who *by their own admission* differ
   with the conference's perspective) recognize that they are there as "guests"
   and so *try* to be polite and considerate, even when they hotly disagree.

   Well, what I found here has been interesting (to say the least!).  I realize
   that many of my *expectations* were unfounded!!  What I have experienced
   here is *not* the fault of the moderators but of my having unrealistic,
   unfounded expectations. 

   I expected openness and the kind of behavior described above.  At times 
   when I found the opposite, I was quick to jump in and "defend" whatever
   group I felt was being "put down," in hopes of protecting that desired
   openness and "safe space."  It seems to have backfired nearly every time!!
   :-( 

   - When I felt that Mikie was being unfair to conservatives, I strongly
     protested -- only to have the person I was "defending" object to my
     criticism of Mikie!

   - When I felt that Gays and Lesbians were being denied a "safe space" 
     here, I spoke out, and again felt that other noters considered the
     objectionable comments to be proper.

   Well, who am I to be defending other folks anyway????  If, in fact, 
   this conference *isn't* a "safe space" for those at either end of the
   Christian spectrum, it also doesn't *feel* as "safe" for me!  :-(

   That *doesn't* mean I would stop participating!!  :-)  It has been too
   valuable for me to do that!  But it *does* mean that I need to rethink *how*
   I participate and that I need to let other folks fight their own battles.
   Unfortunately, that's something I can't quite figure out how to do!  It
   seems to me to be a part of my Christian obligation to do defend the
   persecuted.  But, I have to ask myself, "Whether they want it or not?  
   Maybe they don't feel persecuted!"

   Furthermore, I am *hearing* those of you who are defending free speech and
   limiting it only to the degree dictated by corporate policy -- you are
   right and I feel ashamed by comparison.  More questions that I ask myself:

   - How can I contribute with more grace and love (and less antagonism) and
     so witness more effectively to my faith?
   - How much energy do I want to continue to invest in defending *myself*
     in this space that is not as "safe" as I had expected?
   - How can I stifle my natural bent to argue and try to convince?
   - How can I treat with respect those whom *I* perceive as being
     disrespectful of others (and thus dangerous to the freedom of all)?

   [In short, how the heck do some of you (Richard, Karen, Mike) whom I admire
    so much do it??????] 

   All in all, I must rethink my expectations and my participation to bring
   them more in line with what C-P really *is*!

   Sigh,
   Nancy

    Nancy
    
    I believe that the vision you have/had of C-P is close to that
    of the founding moderators.
    
    The question is, is that vision possible.
    
    and I don't know.
    
    I too would like to see a file that is a place were people of
    the end of the spectrum of Christianity like yours and mine,
    can feel safe. I'd like to be sure that gay Christians could
    come here and note knowing they are loved and accepted.
    
    I'd like to see a file where there are not negative notes about
    Jewish people.
    
    Etc etc..
    
    and I don't know how to do that either, other than totally restrictive
    moderation, which I don't see as an option. The moderators can
    prune and encourage and fertilize ways of noting, but I don't think
    it is even possible, much less reasonable, to try to control the
    direction and content further than that.
    
    Maybe what we need to do is pray for the conference and it's vision?
    
    Bonnie

    Mike,
    I am not disagreeing with you!  I am just describing (a) how my
    expectations were inaccurate and (b) my personal shortcomings and (c)
    the issues I am rethinking. 
    
    BTW, is this a typo:
    >This notes
    >conference is a safe space for those who are not welcome in C-P in 
    								 ^^^
    >the sense that we establish no "standard" that excludes them.  
    
    
    I, too, want it to be "open to all points of view concerning
    Christianity."  (If my note conveys otherwise, then I failed once 
    again to communicate properly! :-( )
    
    But it hurts, nevertheless, when the expression of a point of view is
    harsh toward people who hold some other point of view.  And the debates
    that sometimes result are tiring and make it harder to find the wheat
    amidst the chaff.  Yet I participate in those debates.  And maybe I
    shouldn't.  (Or at least not so quickly!! :-\ )
    
    As to your last question:
    >Can we be true to corporate guidelines and
    >also censor views that we do not like (GOLF::CHRISTIAN
    >notwithstanding)?
    
    Yes, evidently you *could* (by adding other restrictions).  
    
    *Should* you?  No.
    
    Is there any other solution?  Probably not.
    
    Sigh (again),
    Nancy

Re:  Vision of this conference

Others had a different vision for this conference.  At least different
in some aspects.  Many of them have gone because they realized their
vision was not shared.

The vision you had, Nancy, is not the vision that I understood others
as having.  I never viewed this conference as a "safe haven" for "liberal
Christians".  I saw it as a meeting ground for liberal Christians, but
not as a safe haven.

The reason for that is because, although liberal Christians tend to rail
against what conservative Christians profess, they also want to be
"liberal" and allow the conservatives in.  Conservatives, on the other
hand, do not have a problem with telling a liberal that his/her
understanding is wrong because it is "clearly" against the Bible.

So, I'm not sure a "safe haven" for "liberal Christians" can exist,
at least without making it quite clear that it is to be a supportive
environment only.

It is interesting that liberals are pressing conseratives in the gay note
for a response to .3.  This is *exactly* what happened in Golf::Christian.
And it is *not* what is wanted here.  I think.  Because the conservatives
will restate how such a such an understanding is Scripturally unsound
and liberals will argue that it is in principle right.  Possibly a 
liberal will deal with the Scriptural basis (but not to the satisfaction
of the conservative) and possible a conservative will deal with the
liberal principle (like I am trying to do) and perhaps not get a response
or not be able to agree on a general understanding (much less a specific
understanding).

Re:  frustration

My frustrations lie elsewhere.  They are in a failure to communicate
(despite many notes - which happened in the situational ethics topic)
or in an inability to deal with the base issues (which has happened when
dealing with an understanding of Scripture) or an inability to get a
response (for example, the gay topic - both here and in Gol).  All frustrate 
me because we never get to understand *why* we disagree at the base level.

I am very appreciative of Mark Sorenson's replies because we *do* get to
this level and understand why we disagree.  It is because he chooses a
different interpretation on this verse because this word is interpreted
this way.  To reach that point in a discussion is fruitful for
me.  To reach a point that simply says, "I believe differently than you
do" and to not know what you are basing your belief on (worse yet, to
*know* what you are basing your belief on and be able to show that it
is inconsistent with other things you believe but not be heard) simply
results in frustration.  But it is only minor frustration.

Collis

Nancy (.52),

Your first line in your note states that you are not pleased with 
yourself, but I want you to know that I'm pleased with you!!!  Your 
note expressed exactly how I was feeling.  In fact, because I no longer 
felt that C-P was a 'safe space' I had intended to quietly walk away 
from it.  However, some kind messages from some people offline made me 
'rethink' my position.

From my involvement with women's groups, a couple of other notesfiles, 
and workshops I've attended, I too came into C-P with the expectation 
of having it be a 'space space' thinking this was becoming the norm.  
I believe someday it will be, but unfortunately we aren't there yet.

What to do in the meantime?!  ;')  Guess all I can do is, like you, 
rethink my expectations and my participation.  Perhaps by doing so and 
sticking around, we can bring C-P to a place of 'community' (as in F. 
Scott Peck's view of the term - getting through the pseudo-community, chaos,
emptiness, till we finally reach true community).

Love and Light to you,

Ro

P.S.  And hugs to Karen and Bonnie!!!

    Nancy,
    
    I have and continue to struggle with many of the same questions you
    brought up in .52, which the other moderators here can attest to. ;-)
    
    I feel the same way Mike does.  The reality of a "safe space" or refuge
    and "freedom of speech" or open forum are mutually contradictory.  I
    know for me personally, I feel I need a "refuge" on some days.  Other
    days I _thrive_ in an "open forum".  Unfortunately C-P is not able to
    accomodate my own personal mood swings. :-)  So I try to take stock of
    where I am on any given day, and if I know its a day that I need refuge, 
    I tend to seek it by sending a message off-line to a special friend(s)
    and share with them what my needs are.  I also take a few moments as I'm
    able and sit in quiet contemplation, but that's sometimes difficult in
    my job.  
    
    I really admire your willingness and courage to take a good long look 
    in the mirror Nancy, and your humbleness in sharing what you see.
    That takes a lot of heart.   
    
    Karen

Hi Karen,
    
	 
>    If the questioning becomes a  ridiculing of one for their beliefs it 
>    does not serve anyone's best interest.
    Applying any label essential boxes up a point of view for ridicule.
    Especially when the opposing viewpoint is generating the label. In the
    current example, the conservative viewpoint on homosexuality is
    opposite that of most participants in this file. Why must the liberal
    contingent apply the lable of 'intolerant' to somebody elses beliefs.
    The irony of this blows me away. Yes, we do have to judge beliefs of
    ourselves and others in establishing a framework for ourselves of what
    is right. But the hypocrisy of promoting free thinking and
    expression while applying labels that amount to judgement and
    condemnation is appalling. 
    
    Just look at the topic for tolerating the intolerant. One person's
    views (mine) were quoted from another topic, labeled as intolerant and
    then presented publicly for discussion. Give me a break. A conservative
    would have been crucified had he taken a liberal position on
    homosexuality, started a new topic, and asked the question: how do we
    deal with this 'sinful distorition of God's will'.
    
    
    
>    The corporate policy (speaking as a moderator now) we seek to adhere 
>    to in this conference is to value others, to value differences, to 
>    appreciate the richness a group offers through the diversity of
>    hamanity that each person brings to this conference.  
    I understand this policy. However, labeling the beliefs of
    conservatives as intolerant or anything else is contrary to this
    policy. There is also a clear distinction between sharing one's beliefs
    and acting in such a way as to violate corporate policy. For example, I
    may have some distinct views on homosexuality. However, corporate
    policy does not (I believe) prohibit me from having those beliefs, it
    merely prohibits me from treating a homosexual poorly (which I hope I
    would not do anyway). 
	
    >It is difficult, if not impossible however, to insure 
    >that we can extend that policy to people valuing the *beliefs* of 
    >others when those beliefs are contradictory.  
    I am not asking anybody to value my beliefs. I am just very aware of
    the tendency to label me (and others) as intolerant for sharing those
    beliefs. It is not a matter of tolerant or intolerant, it is simply a
    statement of belief about what is right and what is not.
    
    
    >I value *you* Jamey, (I think you *know* that I do :-)) and I know 
    >your beliefs have value for you, but it would be hyprocritcal for me 
    >to claim that I value them (all of them) because some of them are in 
    >conflict with my own.  
    If anything, I have demonstrated that I value people and their views
    both here and in CHRISTIAN (yes, I have gotten out of hand a time or
    two  ;).  I also know the sincere valuing of myself from most
    participants. The intolerant label just set me off a little. Unless
    every position desires to have an unflattering label applied to it, I
    suggest that it cease. My position on homosexuality does not need its
    own label beyond a conservative Christian perspective. If not, we will
    end up with the old pro-life/anti-abortion/pro-abortion/pro-choice
    situation on every single issue.
    
    Thanks, Karen for taking the time to address this.
    
    Jamey

    Big warm hugs to you Ro!
    
    Kb.xo

I, quite frankly, am ashamed of the attitudes that many of my conservative
brothers and sisters in Christ possess towards gays, lesbians, etc..
At the same time, I'm certain I'm seen as a heretic.  One person wrote
me offline that I was "spewing Satan's vomit" in response to some
entries I made in another conference.

I get the feeling that some are here as a kind of retaliation.  I
get the feeling some are here because because they believe it is
their "mission" to straighten us out.  Some, I know, are here to
learn, to share and to grow.  Others are here to observe (and I
consider that valid).

Hopefully, when the dust settles, C-P will be a deeply enriching
environment where respect and mutuality prevail.  May God grant it.
Amen.

Peace,
Richard

    
    
    Well, Richard, it's kind of hard to know who this is target towards. I
    hope you don't see my presence here as retaliation or to straighten you
    out. That would be inacurate. 
    
    Without beating around the bush, it has certainly seemed that some were
    in CHRISTIAN on their own little mission as well. And please don't be
    ashamed, it might be reciprocated.
    
    Jamey
    
    

    Those are tough questions, Nancy.  The goals of a "safe space" and
    freedom of speech are often mutually contradictory.  This notes
    conference is a safe space for those who are not welcome in
    Golf::Christian in  the sense that we establish no "standard" that
    excludes them.  But unless we want to censor views that we do not
    approve of, we cannot exclude the more intolerant or conservative views
    from being expressed here.

    I think that this is inherent to the nature of notes.  I don't believe
    that we can legitimately exclude opinions in order to form a "safe
    space".  To a certain extent, this is also true with Womannotes. 
    Womannotes tries to create a safe place by its use of FWO-FGD, and
    SRO-FGD notes.  Perhaps if we did more of that, we could approximate
    the same sort of thing.  Perhaps we need, for example, an SRO topic on
    gays, and another one for group discussion (FGD). 

    This conference was really not established with the intent of being
    just a mirror image of GOLF::CHRISTIAN.  Rather than being strictly for
    "liberal" Christians, we wanted it to be open to all points of view
    concerning Christianity.  Can we be true to corporate guidelines and
    also censor views that we do not like (GOLF::CHRISTIAN
    notwithstanding)?

    -- Mike

Note 9.62

>    Well, Richard, it's kind of hard to know who this is target towards.

No targets intended.  No darts in hand.

>    Without beating around the bush, it has certainly seemed that some were
>    in CHRISTIAN on their own little mission as well.

Doubtlessly.

>    And please don't be
>    ashamed, it might be reciprocated.

I know I've infuriated others.  I know I'm something of an embarrassment
to some who consider themselves the *real* Christians.  The "spewing
Satan's vomit" note made that clear.

Peace,
Richard

    Nancy,
    	when I heard of this conference I understood it would be a "safe
    place" for all manner of christians to discuss issues related to their
    beliefs. Some of us, you and I included, have occasionally violated the
    "safe" of the place, but it could be much worse. It IS hard for people
    of strongly held divergent opinions to discuss things and maintain a
    civil manner, but we can try. It is possible to segregate some strings
    into Conservatives, or Liberals, or Sympathetic Replies Only, but that
    limits the breadth of the intellect and learning applied to a subject.
    It would also greatly increase the feeling of a "safe place". 

    
    
    Thanks for the honest sharing here!  You know, building and
    maintaining community is *not* easy...it takes conscious effort
    and the willingness to look at ourselves and be honest.  It is
    usually very easy to have a community where everyone is like-
    minded and believes the same things.  But that does not truly
    reflect the reality we live in.  We are a diverse world, and
    this is a diverse community.  I applaud all of you for looking
    at what is really happening and honestly sharing about it.
    By doing so, you *are* creating "safeness"....you *are* creating
    an environment where people, maybe slowly at first, will be able
    to really share where they are at in such a way that it is a threat
    to no one.
    
    Carole

    I admit to being a little unusual (my wife calls me unique)
    but this conference has turned out to be just about what I
    expected. For me I find it "safer" then the conference of
    GOLF (and infinitely "safer" then WOMANNOTES). There is a lot
    of give and take here but, and this may relate to the topics
    I participate in and who I relate to, I find a lot of love
    here.

    I wonder it the mail people get offline are from read only Noters.
    Especially in the gay topics while there is great disagreement on
    the rightness of homosexuality there are strong statements of belief
    that gays are in fact good people and are no more sinners then anyone
    else. For myself I know I feel great personal affection for my gay
    friends just as I do for my heterosexual friends who participate
    in activities (sexual and otherwise) that I believe to be Biblically
    incorrect. I believe others feel the same way.

    There is no truly safe place for Christians BTW. I do believe that
    this place is saver for a wider variety of Christian than any other
    conference I have seen though.

    		Alfred

    I'd like to mention something I see occuring in this file that's 
    bothering me.  
    
    I don't like the continuing negative references I'm seeing to 
    GOLF::CHRISTIAN, sometimes simply referred to as the 'other conference'.  
    I do not see how comments such as these add value to the discussions 
    taking place here, or bring us closer to God or whatever we see as our
    highest, most compassionate ideals.  In fact, I feel they take something 
    away from us all and they are beginning to cut into my soul.
    
    Karen
    (community member) 

    Alfred,
    
    actually I agree very much with something you said in your note! ;-)
    
    If being a Christian is ever 'easy' then we aren't doing it right.
    
    hugs
    
    Bonnie

>    actually I agree very much with something you said in your note! ;-)
    
    Accidents will happen. :-)
    
    			Alfred

re Note 9.67 by CARTUN::BERGGREN:

>     I don't like the continuing negative references I'm seeing to 
>     GOLF::CHRISTIAN, sometimes simply referred to as the 'other conference'.  
>     I do not see how comments such as these add value to the discussions 
>     taking place here, or bring us closer to God or whatever we see as our
>     highest, most compassionate ideals.  In fact, I feel they take something 
>     away from us all and they are beginning to cut into my soul.
    
        I most definitely am in agreement with this!!!!!

        Bob

   Re: 104.26 XLIB::JACKSON:
    
    > You are right that different people have different objectives in 
    > sharing in the notes file.  I use it as a forum to discern truth.  
    > Others want a supportive environment where they may feel free to 
    > share without being questioned about their beliefs.  Maybe I should 
    > change my focus?  Possibly.  I'm willing to change if that is 
    > what's best.
    
    > I'll process this for awhile.  Comments welcome.
    
    I *really* admire your openness and willingness to 'change' in 
    considering the needs of others and striving towards an ideal of what 
    is best for all concerned, Collis.  I personally would not want to 
    see you change purely on my behalf.  I well understand you and I have 
    world views that, while probably overlapping in some areas, are 
    extremely divergent in others.
    
    I sense my notion of truth is different from yours as well.  
    I feel that truth is relative and is always emerging - I believe that 
    truth is found in everything, but our eyes do not always see it, our 
    ears do not always hear it.  If an 'absolute' Truth does exist, I 
    think it is beyond my logical mind to grasp and certainly beyond my 
    ability to bless others with it.  I guess I'll entrust that to God.  
    And yet, that doesn't make my life any less meaningful or chaotic.  
    Quite the contrary.  With all its mystery and wonder this world is 
    making a whole a lot of sense to me.   Strange huh?
    
    Therefore if and when we converse, these differences in world views 
    and belief systems will quickly rise to the surface of our 
    conversations.  But, <shrug>, so what?  Sure, it can lead to 
    frustration on both sides, (and it has before  :-)) but when the 
    impasses arise we can simply agree to disagree at those points and 
    then move on.  Nothing lost, but could be a lot gained.  But that 
    doesn't depend on you, it depends on me and the value I place on our 
    conversation and you will apply your own value to it.
    
    That's perfectly okay with me.
    
    So why change?  But change if you want to.  I don't care.  It's all 
    the same to me. :-)  Every experience is an opportunity to learn 
    whatever the 'form', whomever the teacher.  
    
    Thanks for being here :-),
    
    Karen

    Karen, I agree with your thoughts.  I think that debate can only go so
    far among people who don't share the same Weltanshauung.  But I also
    think it is valuable to understand someone else's Weltanshauung anyway,
    and that is where exposure to different ideas can be useful here.
    
    -- Mike

re Note 9.72 by CSC32::M_VALENZA:

>     I think that debate can only go so
>     far among people who don't share the same Weltanshauung.  

        Or the same language! :-}

    Mike .72,
    
    > I think that debate can only go so far among people who don't share
    > the same Weltanshauung.  But I also think it is valuable to understand 
    > someone else's Weltanshauung anyway, and that is where exposure to 
    > different ideas can be useful here.
    
    Absolutely!  That's why one of my _very_ favorite pasttimes is exposing
    myself to other people's Weltanshauungs, and them to mine.  I've learned 
    that contrary to the old saying, once you've seen one, you _haven't_ seen 
    them all.  8-)
    
    Kb                                      

    	My German is limited to "Hi, how are you" and "Thanks". Does
    Weltanshauung translate to mean about the same as what Collis means
    when he says Framework ?  (knowing enough to not starve in a couple of
    languages does NOT equate to being multi-lingual)

    The American Heritage Dictionary entry for Weltanschauung:

        A comprehensive world view, esp. from a specified standpoint.

    	Ah, so the answer is "yes, it means about the same as Collis's term
    'framework'". The AHD Office Edition didn't include the term. 

Note 162.78

>        I'm a Catholic (although admittedly a non-traditional one),
>        and I didn't find the above offensive, even though I disagree
>        with it.

Sometimes we "bleeding heart" types try too hard to look out for others,
don't I? *<8+}

Richard

Note 197.14

>    Ok, so what's all this silence about?

There have been notes I thought sure would just take off, but didn't.
It's difficult to predict.  And so, I have come to the conclusion that
the volume of responses is frequently not proportionate to the weight
or validity of the topic.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, "Don't let the silence lead you to
believe that nobody cares or that the topic is not an important one to
people."

Peace,
Richard

Note 197.46  -< No, don't do it...it is a sign of weakness to them... >-

I regret this allusion to an adversarial relationship.  Personally, I don't
consider this an "Us versus Them" conference!

Richard

Note 197.44

>    I am sorry I even got into this debate now that I have found I have
>    been debating with an idol worshipper.  Zen Budaism is the worship of
>    man.

In all fairness, I feel obligated to point out that the Buddha deplored
and spoke out in no uncertain terms against idolatry.  And, to the best
of my knowledge, Buddha never condoned the worship of humanity.

It has never been a secret that there is a Zen Buddhist within our midst.
Personally, I am honored to have Mike's interest and participation here.
Mike has not promoted his religion here, but has shared with us in such
a way as to allow us to see ourselves from outside in, rather than from
the inside out.

Peace in Christ, Who loves the Buddhist as much the Christian,
Richard

    Re.81

      Richard:
                That you feel honored by being stuck with me brightens
      my day a great deal.
                 I am sorry that there seems to be a considerable 
      misunderstanding about what I believe and that Marshall would
      leave this conference rather share his beliefs with all of here
      this conference both Christian and non-Christian. 
                 It has never been my intent to proselytize for my 
      personal beliefs here, but to gain a better understanding of
      the beliefs of others. 
                 I am in no way offended by what was written, a bit
      bewildered to be sure, but not offended. I will send Marshall
      mail and ask him to continue to participate here. I would not
      want to be the cause of him leaving because of a misunderstanding
      about what I believe. 


                                                               Mike

                                                                       

      

No one here has a corner on Truth.  Neither does anyone here fully comprehend
the nature of God.  This is important to keep in mind since some here speak
as though they have God and Truth contained in a neat little package.

Christian-Perspective, as our banner indicates, welcomes those who are
frequently not welcome elsewhere.  C-P is a noble experiment.  In the
beginning, it was hoped that C-P might become an inclusive haven, a place
where people of many varieties and levels of faith might share and learn
from one another.

It is very discouraging for me to I know that this vision of C-P has been
somewhat tarnished.  Some have decided to leave C-P primarily because of
the belligerent way in which notions were presented.  The notions themselves
were not the problem.  As far as I can determine, it was the way in which the
notions were presented which resulted in 2 noters exiting from C-P.

Another noter left because he judged he was keeping bad, possibly even demonic,
company by being here.  I'm not sure *what* to make of *this* situation! :-(
I do not like the idea of excluding fundamentalists, either.

Peace,
Richard

Recently I have felt particularly hurt by some who have left, because I
am part of this file and feel that all of us are being blamed for the
objectionable noting style of one or two people.  I hurt when people I would
like to be in dialogue with leave, directing anger at all of us, not just at
those who caused them pain.  It makes me feel helpless because I *couldn't*
protect them and frustrated because apparently they thought I (we) could and 
should!

I suppose people note here for a variety of reasons:  some come to express 
their Christian perspective, some to debate perspectives with others, and some 
out of curiosity or out of a desire to learn and grow.  I'd like to direct
the rest of these comments to those in the third category:

The difference between this file and GOLF::CHRISTIAN is that the *official*
position of this file is openness.  Simply stated, it means that there is
no exclusionary standard that defines "Christian perspective."  That, however,
does *not* guarantee that you will not encounter people whose "mode of being"
is exclusionary or closed-minded or offensive.  (Nor does it guarantee that you
will not encounter usually-open-minded people who happen to be feeling grouchy
or defensive on a given day.)

If you are new here, please understand that this file does *not* have a
standard of behavior that is different from the standard expected of all
Digital notes conferences!  This conference does *not* claim to have all the
right answers -- *nor* all the right behavior!  So please don't expect "better
treatment" here than people receive in other notes conferences.  That's
unrealistic and, in my opinion, very unfair.

It is impossible for the noters or the moderators to guarantee a safe or
comfortable place for you -- or for anyone.  So, if a particular noter offends
you, you have a number of options: you can simply choose to ignore and not
respond to the objectionable entries (hit NEXT USEEN), or you can tell the
person to back off, or you can state that you are not going to continue
discussion with that noter.  (You can also request intervention from the
moderators when a note violates DEC noting standards.) 

Nancy

    
    
                 I would like to echo Nancy in the previous reply.  My
    perspective of my faith, requires me to try to both understand and give
    loving care to those who are searching for truth.  Those "on the
    brink" of truth are fragile creatures and IMHO ought to be given the
    chance to find life thru careful study and thought. As a Christian,
    I am *required* to state my belief, but just as Jesus tried to "love"
    people into heaven and not "scare" them out of hell, so to must I
    respect and love my fellow human beings.  I can't help but think about
    the old-testament truth of "love thy neighbor as thy self" or "do unto
    others as you would have them do unto you".
    
    
    Dave

    I have come back simply to answer these points.  The reason I left this
    file was the amount of hate-mongering I saw going on.  My spirituality
    is not new, nor fragile, nor on the brink.  I am quite comfortable with
    my spirituality and the fact that I still have lots of growing to do.
    
    One of the reasons I left the Catholic Church was the insistance of
    that Church that I believe a set doctrine.  I didn't.  I left.  After
    many years of searching, I found the Friends.  Was I being intolerant? 
    No.  I was taking care of my spirit.
    
    If people want to get offended by the fact that I will not accept
    unacceptable behaviour, then people will get offended.  That doesn't
    mean that I have to accept the unacceptable behaviour.  This conference
    is not important enough to me to risk losing my serenity.  I like
    active discussion.  I don't even need everyone to agree.  But when
    people refuse to allow me my own beliefs, then it is time to leave.
    
    This note is probably very disjointed.  I'm sorry about that.  You see,
    I am angry, and that is not an emotion with which I have a lot of
    experience.  I feel that the messenger is being punished for the
    message.  I also feel that I was somehow not supposed to step out of my
    "sunny disposition", and now that I have, I am no longer credible, and
    that I have somehow betrayed people.  So, I'll just be leaving again.
    
    E Grace

Hugs and Love to you E Grace.  I support you in your decision, having been on
the brink of leaving a few times myself.  So far I've managed to stick it out, 
but that is me and how I feel today.  You are correct, you do not have to 
accept unacceptable behavior and I'm proud that you have the conviction to 
be true to yourself.

Cheers to you Friend,

Ro

    My reply .86 was not in response to any one note.
    
    E Grace

Re:  9.84

Nancy,

  >That, however, does *not* guarantee that you will not encounter people 
  >whose "mode of being" is exclusionary or closed-minded or offensive.  
  >(Nor does it guarantee that you will not encounter usually-open-minded 
  >people who happen to be feeling grouchy or defensive on a given day.)

It is clear for the above that you view "exclusionary" as being negative
and "open-minded" as being positive.

This is certainly true in some circumstances.  Likewise, it is certainly
false in many other circumstances.

I would like you to reconsider this, Nancy, in the area of religious
commitment (where you apparently think that "open-mindedness" is a
benefit and "exclusionary" is wrong).  The first and most important
commandment that God gave to all of us is that we be extremely
exclusionary about who we worship.

  I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the
  land of slavery.  You shall have no other gods before me.  You shall
  not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above
  or on the earth beneath or in the waters below.  You shall not bow down
  to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God,
  punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and
  fourth generation fo those who hate me, but showing love to thousands
  who love me and keep my commandments.  Ex 20:2-6 (NIV)

The issue, as I see it, is not that exclusionary is wrong and 
open-mindedness is right, but rather that following God is right and
disobeying God is wrong.  Sometimes this means being exclusionary and
sometimes it means being open-minded.  Do you agree?  

If so, I would ask that that you not use words such as "exclusionary"
only in negative contexts and "open-minded" only in positive contexts
since this tends to distort the truth you really believe and to put a
barrier between you and other Christians who strongly believe in the
need of being "exclusionary" at times.

Thanks,

Collis

    E Grace,
    
    You are one of the most credible and authentic persons I've had the
    privilege to meet.  Like Ro, I am also inspired by the woman you are!
    
    Karen                              

    I have felt much the same as E Grace at times.  Part of that could be a
    problem with my expectations of what this file was to be.  I had
    originally expected it to be a "safe haven" in which to exchange ideas,
    a place where I could talk about my own unconventional spiritual path
    and the problems I've encountered along the way without being judged by
    anyone or having anyone else's beliefs rammed down my throat.  As I
    have spent more time in this file I realize that I was both right and
    wrong.  
    
    On one hand I am free to talk about my spiritual beliefs here due to
    the open-mindedness of the moderators.  On the other hand, because I am
    free to discuss my beliefs, others are also free to discuss theirs. 
    Some belief systems are inherently exclusionary.  They are based on
    a belief system that does not allow for differences.  In order to
    follow the guidelines of this conference they must be allowed a voice
    just as I must be allowed a voice.  This may make me uncomfortable and
    conflict with my beliefs and how I choose to respond to that is *my*
    choice.  For some, leaving the file is the best choice.  To those who
    take that option I wish them the best.  For me, right
    now my choice is to stay but do more listening than sharing.  I don't
    feel safe sharing with some members of this file.  This is not a
    reflection on most of the membership, nevertheless, because of where I
    am I don't feel safe enough to share much here.
    
    Nanci                                   
    can freely share in a file where   

    re: .89, Collis,
    
  >That, however, does *not* guarantee that you will not encounter people 
  >whose "mode of being" is exclusionary or closed-minded or offensive.  
  >(Nor does it guarantee that you will not encounter usually-open-minded 
  >people who happen to be feeling grouchy or defensive on a given day.)

>>It is clear for the above that you view "exclusionary" as being negative
>>and "open-minded" as being positive.
    
    Your note goes on to attribute to me things I did not say.  My view
    that "exclusionary" is negative when applied to this Digital notes 
    conference still stands and I have no reason to reconsider it.  This
    notes conference is the *only* thing I was referring to.  
    
    I am sorry, Collis, but I do not feel like discussing my views on
    open-mindedness and exclusiveness "in other circusmtances" within this
    file on processing. (That *is* the string I writing it at the moment,
    isn't it?  I *do* get confused sometimes!)
    
    Nancy

    Playtoe,
    
    Re:  204.1
    
    > I am able to "discern the spirit/heart," as this IS one of several
    gifts I have received from God, and actually the very first, many years
    ago.  I use this gift to "admonish my brothers and sisters," and above
    all myself.<
    
    This is the crux of my discomfort.  Your noting style does not reveal 
    the presence of this "gift" you speak of.  Many times you have not
    accurately discerned the spirit/heart in me and have actually distorted 
    it as you have with Ro and others.  
    
    Furthermore it is not keeping in the spirit of this conference, to 
    "admonish" others.  Everyone is encouraged to state and discuss their 
    views openly, but I draw the line when one takes it upon him/herself 
    to "admonish" others for their views.
    
    I do admire your intelligence Playtoe and hope you will continue noting
    here, but I request that if you wish to continue "admonishing" people you
    will do so outside of this conference. 
    
    Thank you for your consideration,
    
    Karen
    (co-moderator)                    

Re:  9.92

  >Your note goes on to attribute to me things I did not say.

I am sorry, I did not mean to do that.  I was only interpreting what
you said as best I could.  What I wrote is what I hear you saying.

I am disappointed about your choice as I felt that a change in mindset
(which is what I had hoped for) would allow for a better appreciation
of each other.

Collis

Re:  9.84

  >Simply stated, it means that there is no exclusionary standard that 
  >defines "Christian perspective."  

Since all standards are exclusionary to some extent, this really means
that there is no (definable) standard at all that defines "Christian 
perspective".

I agree with you that this is true (if indeed you will accept that this
is what you said).  It is not only a strength of this notesfile, it is
ultimately the critical weakness.

Collis

    Re:  .95 - Strength and Critical Weakness 
    
    That's a paradox I can live with.
    
    DR

>I am disappointed about your choice as I felt that a change in mindset
>(which is what I had hoped for) would allow for a better appreciation
>of each other.
    
    Collis, *this* isn't the string to debate whether or not one's faith
    can or should be exclusionary -- or for you and I to come to "a better
    appreciation of each other."  Please don't feel rejected.  You were 
    asking questions of me that were beyond the scope of my note, which was
    directed at my feelings about this conference.  If you want to start
    another string, fine; I may participate.  But *for this time and place* 
    I have been trying to deal with very strong personal feelings that are 
    only tangentially connected with the questions you raised.

    re: .95, Collis,
    
  >Simply stated, it means that there is no exclusionary standard that 
  >defines "Christian perspective."  
>>Since all standards are exclusionary to some extent, this really means
>>that there is no (definable) standard at all that defines "Christian 
>>perspective".

    *For this notesfile* I believe that that is true.
    
>>I agree with you that this is true (if indeed you will accept that this
>>is what you said).  
    
    Huh?  I never denied saying it -- I only said that my statement was
    RESTRICTED TO THIS NOTES FILE!!!!
    
>>It is not only a strength of this notesfile, it is
>>ultimately the critical weakness.
    
    That, of course, has been debated here many times, especially when the
    conference first began (which is one reason I have no personal interest
    in resuming the debate).
    
    Nancy

Re: 91.405
    
>    Perhaps the definition of homophobia could be expanded to
>    include the belief that it is sinful to be homosexual and engage in
>    homosexual behavior.

Alfred,

	I reread 91.382.  I still do not see where you personally were
labeled homophobic.

	I can see where you *might* feel threatened by the suggestion
which appears above, if your identity is inseparable from your belief
system.  Is this what you are referring to?

	If so, it puts a curious spin on the argument about being tolerant
of the believer, but intolerant of the belief:

Note 34.133

>I do
>indeed desire to be tolerant in some situations - and intolerant (which
>in my mind is just as important) in others.  Not intolerant to the
>person, but totally intolerant to the belief.  Some might even consider
>it being "dogmatic".  :-)

Note 34.135

>             Sometime you'll have to explain how you can tolerate
>     a person and not their beliefs.

Note 34.138

>Re:  accepting the person, rejecting the belief
>God accepts me but rejects my sin.  I do it the same way He does.  :-)

Richard

>	I reread 91.382.  I still do not see where you personally were
>labeled homophobic.

    If someone were to describe homosexuals in general as "morally deficient" 
    would you tell a gay person that they personally were not being so
    labeled? Would you expect them to remain silent and not protest? I
    think not. Certainly the claim that homosexual sex is a sin has not
    gone unprotested in this conference.

>	I can see where you *might* feel threatened by the suggestion
>which appears above, if your identity is inseparable from your belief
>system.  Is this what you are referring to?

    Nope, I was referring to the fact that a person does not have to be
    named nor do they have to be directly addressed to be labeled unfairly
    or their position ridiculed and denigrated. 

    In the discussion of homosexual sex being or not being a sin the
    assertion that it is has to be made or there is no dialogue. Not
    permitting the assertion prohibits dialogue so must be allowed if
    dialogue is to continue. On the other hand labeling such a belief as
    homophobia adds nothing to the discussion. What it is is an ad homomin
    case of name calling. As such it acts as a barrier to dialogue just as
    repeated use of derogatory names for gays would.

    			Alfred

	I am deeply disturbed by the behavior that led to the deletion
of 217.5.  It is exactly this kind of behavior which has given Christianity
the hateful and homophobic reputation it presently possesses.

	I personally consider it harassment.  I've been on the receiving
end of harassment myself, and believe me, it is very distressing.

Richard

    I feel that the sort of attitude that led to the deletion of
    note 217.5 is the antithesis of the kind of vision that led to
    the founding of this file. Anyone who reads this file, just to
    take advantage of the open environment that people are attempting
    to create here, and to send nasty harassing mail to people
    who open up, is no Christian. They deserve to be reported to 
    personnel for harassment. If this happens in the future, *please*
    report this sort of harassment to the moderators and to personnel.

    I am disgusted that anyone who calls themself a Christian should
    act in such a hateful fashion.

    Bonnie

    I can't believe I missed it all. I haven't a clue of what the last
    two notes are about. I'm going to have to think about following the
    conference closer.
    
    		Alfred

Note 91.470

>    Re: 455 & .459

>    I don't understand either of these notes. It seems to me from these notes
>    that Christians judge not only homosexuals but each other. Are you supposed
>    to do that?

Collis and I do not see eye to eye in many areas.  We each believe that our own
position is the superior one.  Collis places a greater emphasis on the Bible
than I do.  I place a greater emphasis on what I believe to be the leadings
of the Holy Spirit in my life.

I love Collis.  And, I admire the convictions he demonstrates when he takes a
firm stand for the beliefs he holds.  Who knows, perhaps Collis holds me
and others here with a similar regard.

If you are asking if it is alright that Christians do not agree, I'd say the
answer is - yes.  If you are asking if is alright for Christians to make
personal attacks towards each other, I would say the answer is - no, but that
it happens anyway.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  .105

John,

I did not enter a note explaining judgment right away because

  1)  I have done this about 10 times over 1-1/2 years (and it gets
      tiresome)

  2)  I just wrote such a note about 2 weeks ago (although where it is
      is beyond me)

But I am aware that you have not read any of these notes and have a desire
to understand this area, so here goes again.

The Bible talks about judgment in two ways.  One way I'll call punishment
and the other way I'll call discernment.

The Bible also clearly gives responsibility to three structures of
authority (which are the church, the government and the family) and
gives a different type of responsibility to the individual.

The three structures of authority are not only allowed, but actually
instructed to judge and give punishment when the circumstances call for
it.  The individual is NEVER responsible for punishment (as an individual,
as an agent of authority from one of the three structures of authority
he/she may punish).

The individual is ALWAYS to be discerning and loving.

I haven't seen any "punishment" judgment going on in this notesfile.  :-)
Just "discernment" judgment.  You are right that these discernment judgments
should always be done in love.  I ask your and Richard's forgiveness for
failing to always do this.

Collis

(Scriptural references provided on request.)

>(Scriptural references provided on request.)

Collis,

	I *like* this! 8+}  I grinned ear-to-ear when I read it!

Peace,
Richard

Note 229.67

>    can I again echo what I've asked before, why don't Christians
>    carry on in here about people who work on Sunday, or dishonor
>    their parents, or steal, or .......

Bonnie,

	This has caused curiosity within me, as well.  Topic 111.*
attempts to explore this a bit.  What message is there when the
dominant notes concern sexuality, and by contrast, so little attention
is given to working for peace, healing and Christian service?

	Perhaps it doesn't say anything beyond the possibility that
sexual issues seem to easily set off our "hot buttons."  I don't know.

Peace,
Richard

    Richard,
    
    lets talk more about healing , and peace, and Christian service.
    
    
    love
    
    Bonnnie

    As a C-P moderator, I would like to re-emphasize that sometimes the
    moderators participate here as moderators, and other times as
    participants.  It is important to distinguish between these occasions,
    and normally when we are acting in the capacity as moderator we
    explicitly say so.  Otherwise, we are expressing ourselves as
    *participants*.  We would not be moderators if we were not interested
    in Christianity, and we thus cannot help but have opinions on many of
    the subjects being discussed here.  Thus we want to stress that merely
    expressing a strong opinion on a particular issue does not convey the
    force of authority; it is only when we state that we are acting as
    moderators that we are exercising moderator authority.

    -- Mike (co-moderator)

I seem to have struck a nerve in some of my notes about this notesfile.

Some apparently seem to think that it makes sense for me to not note
here if I think that this conference misses the mark.  And yet, what I
heard when many conservative Christians left (because they felt this
conference missed the mark) were expressions of regret and invitations
to stay.  Perhaps it's just me that you'd like to leave?

Several weeks ago, I tried to distinguish between the expectations of
this notesfile and the expectations of participants.  This notesfile,
as a notesfile, has a set of standards apart from the individuals
who participate.  They are outlined in the first topic.  I found out
by experience how important these standards were when I violated them
out of ignorance of what this conference holds as most important (which
is the right of all to proclaim what they believe without threat of
condemnation regardless of anything that God may say).  Perhaps it's the 
way I focus on uncomfortable issues and their implications which is 
found threatening?

No, I don't really think it is either.  I think that people simply
dislike that which disagrees with them and like what agrees with
them.  I know I do.  :-)

On another note, I do find it disheartening that so many of you have
reached a conclusion on the inerrancy of the Bible without knowing
the facts.  I definately plan on pursuing putting in some of the
facts for your perusal (even if it doesn't make a difference :-(),
but right now a move to a new house and new job interviews and
whatever are keeping my occupied.

God bless you,

Collis

re Note 9.112 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> Some apparently seem to think that it makes sense for me to not note
> here if I think that this conference misses the mark.  And yet, what I
> heard when many conservative Christians left (because they felt this
> conference missed the mark) were expressions of regret and invitations
> to stay.  Perhaps it's just me that you'd like to leave?
  
        I certainly would like you to stay, Collis!

        I am a bit perplexed by what appears to be almost an
        obsession on your part to discuss this conference as much if
        not more than you discuss Christ or Christianity.

        On the other hand, such an obsession is far less disturbing
        to me than an obsession with "fornication"!  :-}

        Bob

    Collis, I am always sorry when anyone leaves this notes conference
    when it represents a feeling that C-P doesn't suit their needs.  My
    reason for feeling that way is that I would like for C-P to satisfy
    people's needs; but if that is not the case for some individuals, I
    also believe it is best for them to leave.  I do recognize the fact
    that a notes conference cannot be all things to all people; and if so,
    it is reasonable (even if it is also unfortunate) that they should want
    to leave.

    In your case, I get the impression that you don't draw any value from
    C-P, and that it doesn't suit your needs, and yet you participate
    anyway.  Is it fair to say that you participate here, not in order to
    draw personal value from it, but rather to "correct" others or "set the
    record straight"--as a sort of proselytizer for your own viewpoint?  Is
    that why you feel the need to present us with the "facts" (as you see
    them), so that you can impart your Superior Knowledge to the rest of
    us?

    Frankly, Collis, I find it disheartening that so many people believe in
    inerrancy of the Bible without knowing the facts.  :-)  I have no doubt
    that you believe that you "know the facts", and that the rest of us
    don't, and I guess we should all feel honored by your tireless altruism
    in trying to get us to see things your way.

    -- Mike

    Collis,
    
    I do not wish you to leave this conference. However, I do wish that
    you would accept it as it was founded and stop nagging on that
    particular topic.
    
    You have a lot of value to offer.
    
    Bonnie

Collis:

I hope you stay, if only to stop certain people from becoming too complacent.
;^)

Mike:

Couldn't you have said the same about me and others about our participation
in CHRISTIAN a while back?  We complained about the conference rules and yet
we stayed in the conference anyway.

				-- Bob

    Bob, I never understood why many people participated in CHRISTIAN,
    other than the fact that before C-P was formed it was the only
    Christian notes file available.  Even when it was sole Christian notes
    file, I almost always stayed out of it, because it didn't satisfy my
    needs.  That was why I wanted to start an alternative Christian notes
    file, with a different set of rules.  There are now alternative
    Christian notes files, each with their own approach.  I suspect that
    many of those who are not satisfied with one of them will be satisfied
    with the other, and vice versa.  

    -- Mike

Mike,

One reason I participated in CHRISTIAN was that I said to myself "Why should
these people own the word 'Christian'"?  Another reason is that I like a
good argument.

I left because I got (a) bored, (b) annoyed, and (c) busy.

				-- Bob

Re:  9.115

  >However, I do wish that you would accept it as it was founded and stop 
  >nagging on that particular topic.
    
Bonnie,

In spite of the amount of discussion I've generated on this topic, we
(that is the particpants in this notesfile) still can't come to an
agreement on exactly what this notesfile is.  Personally, I think it
is *very* important to know what this notesfile is because it makes
*all* the difference in the world in terms of what is appropriate or
inappropriate to either say or expect of others.

I think you'll agree with me that there is quite a difference between
calling this a "Christian" notesfile and saying that this is not a
"Christian" notesfile.  And yet there is disagreement on even as basic
an issue as this.

The other reason that I want to get this issue dealt with is because
this notesfile does indeed have a standard of what is/is not acceptable
"Christianity".  The standard is that any Christianity is "acceptable"
Christianity (since all views are equally welcome).  This is a necessary
conclusion from trying to be an all-inclusive notesfile.  And yet, I
don't think that there is broad agreement about this either.

Ideally, what I would like is an up front disclosure in the introduction
topic to this notesfile either stating these truths to be the case or
perhaps stating that some (such as me) believe these assertions to be
true.

Collis

Re:  9.114

  >Is it fair to say that you participate here, not in order to draw 
  >personal value from it, but rather to "correct" others or "set the
  >record straight"--as a sort of proselytizer for your own viewpoint?

Certainly there is a desire to accurately present the Word of God
in this notesfile.  After all, that is the truth.  :-)  But I also
am stimulated to discuss and think and grow.

So, I plead guilty to be a proselytizer.  Perhaps this is inconsistent
with what I should do from the perspective of your beliefs?

  >Is that why you feel the need to present us with the "facts" (as you see
  >them), so that you can impart your Superior Knowledge to the rest of us?

If I participated here in the hopes of being admired for my "Superior
Knowledge", I think I failed.  But who knows, maybe I have a number
of secret admirers.  :-) :-)

  >Frankly, Collis, I find it disheartening that so many people believe in
  >inerrancy of the Bible without knowing the facts.  :-)  

I agree.  It leaves them open to attack from Satan and room for doubt.

Collis

    RE: .119  Collis,
    
                       I *HAD* thought to stay out of this but then again
    maybe I shouldn't.  In every notes conference I have ever looked at,
    there is a statement asking people to look and read 1.* containing the 
    policy's existing in the file.  It, with me, has become a habit
    everytime I enter a file that I don't often look at....I read 1.* just
    in case there is something different since the last time I went in.  
    
                       When I first entered C-P, I read the policy's
    concerening noting here....I wasn't confused in the slightest.  I felt
    it was pretty straight forward statement of policy.  Now as far as I
    know *ALMOST* every moderator has tried to explain what *exactly* this
    file is for to you.  It is for *ALL* people....including you. 
    
    
    Dave

Re: .119 Collis

>The other reason that I want to get this issue dealt with is because
>this notesfile does indeed have a standard of what is/is not acceptable
>"Christianity".  The standard is that any Christianity is "acceptable"
>Christianity (since all views are equally welcome).

Acceptable to whom?  Yes, all views (within the limits of corporate policy)
on Christianity are welcome in this file, i.e. the moderators will not (or
at least should not) censor them.  This does mean that we are taking a
position on whether those views are "acceptable" in any kind of absolute
sense.  The opinions expressed might be dead wrong - we aren't taking a
position on that one way or the other.

You're right that there is disagreement on many points.  For example, I don't
consider this a Christian conference (even though many or most of the people
who follow it are Christians).  If this was a Christian conference then I
wouldn't be a moderator.

>Ideally, what I would like is an up front disclosure in the introduction
>topic to this notesfile either stating these truths to be the case or
>perhaps stating that some (such as me) believe these assertions to be
>true.

IMO the place for individual noters to state their opinions is in the
processing topic or other world-writable topics, not in the introduction.

				-- Bob

    
    Collis,
    
    I know what this file is.  It just seems to me that you are not
    satisfied with how it has been defined so far.  Seems like it is
    only your issue.
    
    Carole

Note 9.112

>I seem to have struck a nerve in some of my notes about this notesfile.

Would it not strike a nerve within you if I stated that you "do not claim
to be a Christian person?"

Would it not strike a nerve within you if I said that you could not really
be a Christian because the only proof you have that you are a Christian is
your tenacity to an ancient book?

Please, note that nobody has said these things to you.  Why do you suppose
this is?

Richard

Yes, Richard, it would strike a nerve if you claimed that I was not
a Christian.

However, the subject here is not an individual but a notesfile.  As you
have already read, others believe that this is not a Christian notesfile
as well.  I don't know why this strikes a nerve with you or even why you 
believe that this is a Christian notesfile.  Perhaps I'll never know.

Collis

Re:  9.123

Carole,

You are right that it is an issue for me, but it is not "only" my
issue.  Obviously, when Tony was new to the file and expressed a few
opinions, it was an issue for him.  In general, I believe it is a
potential issue for any new reader and even sometimes for existing
readers (such as myself) who sometimes misconstrue (with much
attendant hoopla) just what this notesfile is all about.

I am glad that you (and many others) know just what this file is.  I
think I do too.  Perhaps our understandings are even similar.  :-)
(Perhaps not.)

Collis

Re:  9.122

  >Acceptable to whom?  

Acceptable to (the standards of) the notesfile.  Just as individuals
have standards, so do notesfiles.

The problem is that it is hard (perhaps impossible) to have an
"open" forum without an explicit or implicit standard.  Now that
standard could be for example the Bible (whatever that means) or
it could be no limitations (whatever that means) or it could be
something else.  But there is a standard.  And by being a standard,
it defines what is acceptable to say to others and expect others to
say to you.

There was intense opposition to me appealing to an outside standard
(i.e. God - or should I say my understanding of God :-) ) within
this notesfile because that is *NOT* the standard of this notesfile.
*This* is what I think should be explicitly stated up front.  I am
not the first one who has run into this and will not be the last.
But properly positioning this conference and the standards of this
conference should keep these problems to a minimum.

  >IMO the place for individual noters to state their opinions is in the
  >processing topic or other world-writable topics, not in the introduction.

I agree with you Bob.  An opinion in the introduction was not a very
good idea.

Collis

re Note 9.127 by XLIB::JACKSON:

> The problem is that it is hard (perhaps impossible) to have an
> "open" forum without an explicit or implicit standard.  Now that
> standard could be for example the Bible (whatever that means) or
> it could be no limitations (whatever that means) or it could be
> something else.  But there is a standard.  

        A text ultimately resolves to "whatever that means" and no
        further.  However, it may be very convenient to those in a
        power position (such as moderators) to make reference to the
        text as if it were unambiguous in significance, meaning, or
        application.

        The problem with simply regarding the Bible (or any other
        text) as the "standard" is that it derives its effective
        meaning from consensus of interpretation in a given
        community.  The moderators, and most of the participants, of
        another notes conference have convinced themselves that their
        standard is some objective text when in fact the standard by
        which they judge conference-related actions is their
        tradition of interpretation of that text.

        (This is very clear to those who come from a different
        tradition of interpretation.  It is quite clear that the
        standard in the golf::christian file, for example, is not the
        Bible but the Bible as traditionally understood by Protestant
        conservatives.  To a person from within that tradition, there
        is in fact no such distinction -- they are effectively blind
        to seeing that it could equally validly be some other way.)

        I believe that regarding a "tradition of interpretation" of
        the Bible as an unchanging objective reality is a fundamental
        error (pun intended) (it was also the Pharisaic error), and a
        very serious one at that.  The moderators of this conference
        may make other errors, perhaps equally serious errors, but I
        am glad that they are refraining from making that error.

        Bob

| > The problem is that it is hard (perhaps impossible) to have an
| > "open" forum without an explicit or implicit standard.  

	I actually thought it would make things even easier Collis. Reason
being is that if there isn't a standard that anyone has to meet, then it may
make more people stand up and speak. With this happening you end up with a
diverse notesfile, which is what I feel this is. Your views quite differ from
mine for example. Some of them may be similar at times, but for the most part
they are different. It still makes good noting to have BOTH styles and views in
here. 

Glen

Re: .127 Collis

>>>The other reason that I want to get this issue dealt with is because
>>>this notesfile does indeed have a standard of what is/is not acceptable
>>>"Christianity".  The standard is that any Christianity is "acceptable"
>>>Christianity (since all views are equally welcome).
>>
>>Acceptable to whom?
>
>Acceptable to (the standards of) the notesfile.

Fair enough, although this isn't quite accurate - not all beliefs are equally
acceptable to all of the moderators.  Ideally, though, you're right: all
varieties of Christian belief are equally acceptable under the conference
rules, and this is stated up front.

>And by being a standard,
>it defines what is acceptable to say to others and expect others to
>say to you.
>
>There was intense opposition to me appealing to an outside standard
>(i.e. God - or should I say my understanding of God :-) ) within
>this notesfile because that is *NOT* the standard of this notesfile.

Was there "intense opposition" from (a) the moderators, (b) individual noters,
or (c) "the notesfile", whatever that means?

>  >IMO the place for individual noters to state their opinions is in the
>  >processing topic or other world-writable topics, not in the introduction.
>
>I agree with you Bob.  An opinion in the introduction was not a very
>good idea.

What opinions do you think were stated in the introduction by (a) moderators,
and (b) individual noters?

				-- Bob

Bob,

The opposition was from individual noters who had a different understanding
of "the standards of the notesfile" than I did.

I have since adjusted my standards of this notesfile to more closely
conform to theirs.  It was, indeed, the standards of this notesfile
which I was violating.  It was not my intention to do this and it is
still not clear to me that I was wrong in doing this.

Please don't confuse the standards of the notesfile either with the
moderators or the individual contributors.  The standards of the
notesfile stand on their own whether or not anyone agrees with them.

Just thought that this needed to be stated.

I have no goal of changing C-P at all (at this time - I did a while
back).  I am certainly not persuing this to suggest that C-P should
be different than it is.

Some of you have noted that there is a different notesfile with
different standards related to Christianity and that is quite right.
We don't need another Golf::Christian.

But I strongly think that we need to be as clear as we can be about
what C-P is.  Doesn't this make sense?  Admittedly, if you are very
clear about where C-P stands on an important issue such as the authority
of God in this notesfile, some will be offended and will not join.
Of course, if you are not clear then others will join and offend
existing noters creating ill feelings (which have already caused
people to leave from opposite ends of the theological perspective).

As I see it, the choice has been clearly defined.  Do with it what
you will.

Collis

>But I strongly think that we need to be as clear as we can be about
>what C-P is.  Doesn't this make sense?  
    
    But Collis, it *is* clear to other people.
    
    If people are going to be offended no matter what you do then
    why don't we just drop this whole discussion?
    
    I have seen 'standards' used to drive people away instead of having
    healthy, honest, and tolerant communication.  There are two sides
    to every story.
    
    Carole

.133

But Carole, it *isn't* clear to other people.  I've referred to those
who it wasn't clear to.  Do you deny that this is true?

This notes conference has standards.  Period.  The only question is,
"what are the standards"?  That's what the introduction note is
all about.  It defines the standards.  All I'm saying is that it is
incomplete and that making it more complete will be a benefit both
to existing noters and new noters in the conference.  That's all.

Collis

	Collis, you first stated:


| This notes conference has standards.  Period.  

	You then go on to say:

| The only question is, "what are the standards"?  

	How can you say this conference has standards if you can't figure out
just what they are? It is my opinion that you wish there to be standards, but
as you have even told us yourself, "what are the standards?". If you don't
know, maybe there aren't any then. Maybe it's just a bunch of different people
telling others how they perceive God and His works, past and present, and
everyone joins in and compares their thoughts. I don't see any standard here.
Do you? If so, what is it?

	I know you take the Bible literally. Maybe this is the standard or
something like it that you wish to see here. It isn't going to work as not
everyone agrees with your logic on the subject. Many do, and many don't. Does
that make you wrong? Heck no! It's just your view of the world and God. Does
that mean you should never note in here? No, please keep noting. All it means
is you are expressing your view of the situation as how you see it, and that's
fine. We're doing the same as well. You must admit we're a very diversified
group. :-)



Glen

    re: .132
    
    "We don't need another Golf::Christian"
    
    
    AMEN to that, Brother Collis   ;>)
    
    peter

Collis,

I agree with Carole: C-P is made up a diverse set of people with different
expectations, so it's meaningless to ask what the standard of the conference
is.  You could ask what moderator A's standard is, or what individual noter
B's standard is, but there is no single conference standard.  That's why
I've been making a dictinction between the way rules are "ideally" applied
and the way they're applied in practice, or between the way the moderators
respond to the expression of a particular opinion and the way individual
noters might respond.

I don't think the conference introduction is misleading: it makes it clear
that we are not imposing a doctrinal standard on the conference.

				-- Bob

Re:  .135

Glen,

I've explained it 5 or 7 or 10 times.  Is one more time going to make
a difference?  I think not.  If you want my explanations, please reread
the notes I've written in the last week.

Collis

Since I've been on vacation for the past 10 days I managed to
read all of the notes you've written on the subject of C-P
and it's standards or lack of standards in a single shot!  Whew!

Collis, it's still unclear to me what your goal is by continuing 
your requests for the moderators to define standards for the notesfile.  
What exactly do you want?  What is your goal?  Are you objecting to the 
term "Christian" in the conference name?  An inanimate object, especially
one as nebulous as a public forum on a network can only be defined as the 
sum of it's parts.  Since all of us are the parts of this particular entity 
and since our viewpoints are so different I don't see how we can define
a standard other than that we are all here to discuss subjects according to
an amorphously defined "Christian" perspective.  So, in a way, I would agree 
with you in that there is no standard definition of what a "Christian" 
perspective as it pertains to this notesfile.  On the other hand, because of
the diversity of viewpoints and the conflict that inevitably arises between
those with different viewpoints, it provides a unique opportunity for one to 
hone and define his or her beliefs without the fear of a dogmatically based 
censorship.

So again, I ask you Collis, what is your goal in trying to define a set of 
standards for this notesfile?  What do you hope to achieve by setting and
understanding these standards?  If you could define the standards of this
notesfile, taking into consideration the multiplicity of beliefs of the 
readership and what has been said in 1.*, what would they be?

Nanci 

>Note 31.201
>COMET::HAYESJ "Duck and cover!"

>re:  .198  Richard

I don't know about Bob, but I consider this a compliment!

Richard

    re:  .201  Richard (the real one)
    
    I'm glad you took it that way.  I hope Bob did too.
    
    Sorry for the mix-up.  Must be this 3rd shift schedule getting to me
    again.  Or my age.  Or both.
    
    
    Steve
    

    What does "SRO" mean in this conference?
    
    How can the last few replies to Note 30 be described as supportive?

    
            I always treat "SRO" as "sensitive reply's only".  IE....state
    you own opinions remembering that others might not agree or even like
    what you say.
    
    
    Dave
    co-mod

    RE: 9.142 re:30.*  Mr. Sweeney,
    
                             
                    I just read over the notes you are refering to and
    really saw no problem except a discussion about the defination of sin.
    IMHO that is a *VERY* valid discussion.  I did not read any discussion
    that might be termed "hateful".  
    
                    I *DO* have a problem with the "Supportive" part of the
    "SRO" issue.  If that is really what it means then only those who agree
    with the basenotes premise would be allowed to respond.  I do dislike
    notes that are nothing more than "back-slapping" and agreement.  This
    file exists for discussion of *ALL* points of view as ling as you can
    respect others opinions....and IMHO thats being done there.
    
    
    Dave
    co-mod CP

    Looks to me like your moderators really ought to get together and agree
    if the "S" in SRO is for sensitive or supportive.
    
    Your note 8.1 here indicates that the "S" is supportive.  If you don't
    enforce the SRO policy then you might want to disavow it, or am I
    reading this wrong and the SRO designation is only a suggestion.

    RE: .145  SDSVAX::SWEENEY,
    
    
                               I read your note to say that "supportive"
    should, in your mind, mean all should agree.  There is *NO* notes file
    I know where this is true.  So rather than come in here and redefine
    our policy's, I suggest you look to your own motives.  The word
    "supportive" could well have the same meaning as "sensitive" in this
    context.   If all agree within a file string, then why have it at all?   
    Discussion of all points of view is the reason for this file.  I looked
    at the string you pointed out and did not find a problem, are we now to
    argue semantics?
    
    Dave

    No, we're not arguing semantics, I'm asking questions to understand
    exactly what is an what isn't "SRO" here.  Hey! It's your policy, not
    mine... And you're questioning my motives???

re Note 9.147 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

        Pat,

        I'm inclined to agree with you -- SRO was intended, IMHO, to
        mean non-critical responses only, as you say, supportive. 
        This is especially true for a topic that has two other
        companion topics:  SRO for the opposition, and general
        discussion!

        Bob

      I thought SRO meant Standing Room Only. Shows how much I know.

      The companion topic for follow-up discussion that has evolved
     seems to work pretty good. 


                                                                Mike 

    I have moved 30.45 through 30.57 to Note 31, which has been
    renamed from "Abortion Debate Note" to "Abortion Discussion &
    Debate Note."
    
    While the moderators were not in total unanimity, this action
    seems to reflect the consensus of the team.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    CoModerator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

I would have preferred to have left some (if not all) of my notes
where they were, but it's no big deal.

Collis

.151

Collis,

	I'll move the notes you want moved.  Just let me know which ones.
You also have the capability to move your own notes via the command
SET NOTE/NOTE=30.XX.

	I saw greater continuity in keeping the notes together.

Peace,
Richard

Note 91.738

>    If, after 737 replies, anyone believes that there is anything new to
>    this discussion that would increase the community's collective
>    understanding of the various points of view, then by all means please
>    share it with us.

I, too, doubt that new evidence, whether empirical, Scriptural or otherwise,
is likely to surface under topic 91 in the foreseeable future.

>    But
>    one can vigorously disagree with a position that one understands, and
>    understanding does not imply agreement.  It is acceptable to be morally
>    offended.

Verily.

>    There is only so much
>    that can be said before you repeat yourself.  Then what?  Butting one's
>    head against a brick wall?  From my perspective, you don't waste your
>    breath (or your fingers) trying to convince the unconvinceable.

I find the spiritual wrestling I do in 91 and other topics to be a worthwhile
thing in most instances.  I find the gymnastics I am put through, spiritually
speaking, strengthens and shores up the faith I possess.  I have no illusions
about my inability to change other people's minds.  If it ever happens that I
do, I will be shocked and surprised, and I will praise the Most High God.

Peace,
Richard

    Good point, Richard.  That is probably one reason why philosophy
    fascinates me; after at least 2500 years of wrangling over the great
    issues, philosophers in the West have not shown much success at
    producing any final answers.  But that is not really what it is all
    about.  It is the process of philosophizing that is often its own
    reward (Murray Code refers to this process as one of storytelling.)

    -- Mike

    Gee, I think philosophizing is discussing our *thoughts and beliefs*,
    in other words, the conclusions we have distilled from our experiences,
    our life-stories.  Story-telling is the telling of our experiences
    themselves rather than the conclusions we have reached as a result of
    those experiences.
    
    While I enjoy both, story-telling is usually much more powerful for me.
    
    Nancy
    

    Story-telling is more powerful for me too Nancy! :-)
    
    happy holidays,
    
    Karen

re Note 370.11 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE (and 370.10 by Pat Sweeney):

>     Pointers also have their value.
    
        Digital has it now! (well, almost)

        The latest version of the DECwindows interface for VAX Notes
        supports "linkworks" (a.k.a. Memex) -- Digital's hypermedia
        linking mechanism.

        However, the links are not associated and shared with the
        conference (by default), but are part of each user's private
        "linkbase" file.  LinkWorks (not sure of the proper
        capitalization of the trademark) does allow users to access
        additional, shared linkbases over DECnet connections.  As of
        today, VAX Notes does nothing to support shared link bases
        automatically.  We could, however, set up a shared linkbase
        to the Christian-Perspective conference.

        One BIG drawback would be that character cell users of VAX
        Notes, and indeed all users who did not use DECwindows VAX
        Notes 2.2 and do the setup for the shared linkbase, would see
        none of this at all, not even an indication of what they were
        missing.

        Bob

re Note 383.9 by AITE::WASKOM:

>     But my stand on this is not that taken by the rest of
>     the conference.  

        It really isn't appropriate to say this -- "the conference"
        is not an entity whose position on issues can be easily
        ascertained.  There are at least as many readers who never,
        or almost never, write as there are occasional writers.  And
        only a small percentage of the total readers and writers are
        frequent writers.

        Bob

Note 91.867

>You people be patient with me.  It's been a long long time since I've
>been in the House of the Lord ... but ... as your conference"welcome"
>message says ... you invited me here, although I am neither a prostitue
>nor a tax collector, I get the general idea :-) ...

And as long as I am employed by Digital Equipment Corporation and as long
as God grants that I may draw breath, your insights and participation will
*always* be welcome in this conference.

In all fairness to you, Jerry, I must also report, with no small degree of
heartache, that some participants here have driven a number of people away
from this conference and have done so without blatant infractions of Digital
policies.

Though I would like to think it an unnecessary precaution, I beg you to wear
your steel-toed shoes.

Peace,
Richard

Note 91.885

>	I had no expectation that the same people who complained about my note
>	would complain about Jerry's. That would have been hoping for fairness
>	that I do not believe exists. And I do not nor have I ever believed
>	that my comments equated gays and Nazi's. Jerry's note did seem to
>	equate the proposed law to Nazi laws. Thus if anything his comments
>	were more objectionable than mine.

Alfred,

	I agree that your comments have not equated gays to Nazis, rather
the one note that comes to mind tried to parallel the appreciation of gays
with an appreciation of Nazis.

	I did vote you, incidentally.  Because I do appreciate you and believe
you to be someone of responsibility and enormous integrity.

Peace,
Richard

.159> And as long as I am employed by Digital Equipment Corporation and as
.159> long as God grants that I may draw breath, your insights and participa-
.159> tion will *always* be welcome in this conference.

Thank you.  I appreciate your taking the time to say that.  I really do.

.159> In all fairness to you, Jerry, I must also report, with no small degree
.159> of heartache, that some participants here have driven a number of people
.159> away from this conference and have done so without blatant infractions
.159> of Digital policies.

I doubt seriously that I could be "driven away".  I, and I alone, will decide
whether or not I stay or leave.  I watched with utter disgust as some members
of Christian-Perspective were "driven", in no uncertain terms, from another
conference.  I will not enter notes in this aforementioned (and unnamed) con-
ference for the simple reason that there is a 'guilt by association' in par-
ticipating, not to mention the hypocrisy, unprofessional and rude treatment
of members, and blatant double standards.  I left.  I was not "driven away".

.159> Though I would like to think it an unnecessary precaution, I beg you
.159> to wear your steel-toed shoes.

You think right.  It is an "unnecessary" precaution.  I thank you for your
concern and "warning".

Bubba

    re .159.
    
    AMEN!
    
    Jamey

I am what is commonly called a Note-a-holic.  I love VAX Notes.  I love a
good thought provoking discussion.  I thrive on diversity for I feel that we
can all learn from each other.

I do not deny but that I entered this conference realizing that I may be "as
an ox goeth to the slaughter, or a fool to the correction of the stocks".  I
knew that there would be disagreement - sometimes emotional.  Yet, in the
very short time here I've received what I perceive to be a warm welcome:

9.159> .. your insights and participation will *always* be welcome in
9.159> this conference.

A misunderstanding with a prompt and sincere apology:

91.901> I'm sorry for misunderstanding you, then, Jerry.

A comment regarding my integrity:

91.889> It would be great if those involved could handle themselves with the
91.889> integrity that Jerry shows here.

At the same time I have clearly stated my opposition to a proposed political
stance - compared it to the Nazis, no less. Clearly stated that I haven't set
foot in a place of worship in nearly 20 years.  Do not subscribe to any
organized religion.... yet I feel welcome.  Incredible.  I'm impressed.
I'm pleased.  I'm flattered.

Oh, knowing VAX Notes and the type of discussions that can result, and, the
inadequacies of this electronic medium .. I'm sure that my trial by fire,
in this conference, will come.  Don't worry, Mr. Christie, this battered old
Marine has been shot at before.  They haven't got me yet.  Close, but, no
cigar.

In the meantime I feel welcome and just wanted to say 'thanks'.

Bubba

PS:  However, as George Washington said, "In times of peace, prepare for war". 

Re: "Driven away" versus "leaving."

People who are tender in the faith are less likely to withstand the
winds of aggression than those whose faith is more deeply rooted.

The person who enters a casino with $10 is less likely to risk and is
more like to depart earlier than the one who enter the same casino at
the same time with $1000.

So, strictly speaking, you are correct.  No one is really driven away.
At the same time, some people may leave because they have the feeling
that they can no longer afford to risk.  That's all I mean.

Peace,
Richard

>    Wrong! It's your topic, but you don't control nor own any replies. 

Yes, Steven (aka Playtoe).  You've got us there.  You can certainly disregard
whatever you choose to disregard.

Of course, you may neither win nor come to understand the hearts and minds
of others.  But, that's not really a priority for you, I gather.

Richard

>    Wrong! It's your topic, but you don't control nor own any replies. 

   Yes, Playtoe tis true.  They are your opinions, a truly personal part
   of yourself you have shared.  I respect that they are dear to you.
   I have done the same in sharing mine.  I was trying to reach the
   healing ministry of Christ.  I could continue the topic, but to what
   point, there is only one true light and we have been subjected to 
   yours, like a deer in a spotlight.  

   Peace,
   Allison

Bubba,

	Actually, I'm glad you're getting a glimpse of the broad range
of perspectives which Christians hold.

	Some Christians are supremely inclusive and reconciling, others are
less so.  Some Christians' lives are ruled by unselfish love, others are less
so.  Some will hold open the Bible to you in an expression of invitation,
others will beat you over the head with it.

	We Christians are not without our blemishes.  Neither is our history. 
Some of the worst atrocities ever committed have been done in the name of
Christ.  Some of the greatest and most compassionate works ever carried
out have been done in the name of the same Christ.

	I think Bob Fleischer said it eloquently and succinctly in note
91.1091.

Peace be with you,
Richard

    Thanks, Richard.  I have (for the most part) been of the mind that to
    be a "Christian" ... well ... I've got to fit into some sort of mold.
    Such is obviously not the case.  The diversity of Christian beliefs
    tends to boggle the mind.  Perhaps there is an outside chance that I
    may some day wonder back ... you never know.

    There is still once side of "religion" and/or Christianity that scares
    me though ... perhaps we'll get to that later.

    Bubba

    
    
    And some, Jerry, will water it down until it means nothing, pandering
    to every human whim and trying to make the Bible say that it is OK.
    Surely God would approve.
    
    Jamey

    Fortunately (or perhaps, unfortunately), Jerry, there's nobody here that
    fits the description in 9.170.
    
    ;-)
    Richard

I'm beginning to find statements that say, "I have the only true and correct
answer and your words are simply so much garbage!" unnecessarily
disrespectful and insulting.

I believe such remarks to be in violation of the spirit of corporate
values and policy.

I apologize for any similarly derogatory statements I may have made in the
past.  And I urge voluntary self-restraint on the part of all participants
in all future dealings within this notesfile.

Peace,
Richard

re Note 9.172 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> I'm beginning to find statements that say, "I have the only true and correct
> answer and your words are simply so much garbage!" unnecessarily
> disrespectful and insulting.
  
        Do you feel any differently about words such as "The Bible
        has the only true and correct answer and your words are
        simply so much garbage!"

        Bob

Note 9.173

>        Do you feel any differently about words such as "The Bible
>        has the only true and correct answer and your words are
>        simply so much garbage!"

Well, it depends.

What the above really says is, "*My interpretation (understanding, paradigm)
of the Bible* is the only true and correct answer and your words....."

But what really disturbs me is not this so much as the unqualified and
sweeping allegation contained in such statements as, "You have no
understanding of....(Christianity, the Bible, humanity, whatever)."

To me, this is creating disparity, not valuing diversity.

Peace,
Richard

Note 91.1217

>    This is amazing, Glen, that you would come to this realization...

There are at least two ways that this remark may be taken.  At least
one of the ways to interpret the remark is as an insult.

Would you please explain what you meant by this remark, Jamey?

Richard

    What I want to know is ... how's the petition drive going in the State
    of Colorady?  How 'bout an update.
    
    Bubba

Bubba,

Enough signatures were gathered.  The proposed amendment, as it appears in
91.844, will be on the November ballot in Colorado.

Richard

    
    
    Richard,
    
    To me, amazing is the appropriate word. So many folks, here and in
    other places, have tried to convey this concept to Glen over hundreds
    of replies. It truly stunned me to see him so succinctly verbalize it
    so well. It tells me that he indeed understands the concept. If he
    would take it just a step further, he would understand the implications
    for those who believe homosexuality to be sinful. The only point of
    contention would be that of the sinfulness of homosexuality. Once that
    is established, we would be in agreement. The rest of the 'rights'
    stuff would fall be the wayside. 
    
    
    Jamey

                I am going to add my voice to Richards and ask the the 
current community, within Christian-Perspective, exercise restraint when
discussions threaten to become heated.  The policy and purpose of this file
has been stated on numerous occasions.  As in all types of communications,
each individual is required to assume responsibility for what is related 
by him/her.  This includes the natural feelings of anger and frustration
associated with views contrary to your own.  In *THIS* file, and I speak
for this one alone, *ALL* views are allowed except when they cross the
boundries covering issues of entire entities such as an entire religious
organization (the Catholic Church), sweeping and derogatory statements
regarding a race or people (Jews, Blacks, or Women), or personal statements
that are insulting and combative to another.  This is a place to learn 
of other thoughts and ideas....discuss them and see what might come of them.

                I see Christian-Perspective as a place to learn about other
thoughts and religions.  I do not see it as a place to "cram" my religion
down someone elses throat, though I will and have discussed what *I* 
believe. 


Dave

So that there's no confusion, allow me to reiterate that there is a file
where the parameters are defined exclusively by the Bible.  This is not it.
    
Please see Note 7.3 for more information.

Peace,
Richard

Note 463.13

>     These have been great REPLYs.  Wish some of the other topics  (need  I
>     mention 91 :^/) could be as well mannered!

Alvin,

	Yes, Topic 91 has become pretty intense at times.  At the same
time, I feel positive about the fact that 91 has been a topic which *could*
be approached at all.

	Other sensitive topics which have been addressed fairly well here
include 352, Christianity and Naturism, and 229, Christianity and Sexuality.

Peace,
Richard

    This conference has actually inspired me.  I *think* (undecided as of
    yet) that I'm going to find me a Methodist church somewhere in my
    neighborhood ... and attend services next Sunday.

    Should I advise the pastor (in advance) that he should increase his
    insurance on the structure? I have been forewarned that the roof may
    indeed collapse when I walk in.

    Wish me luck.  There's a lot of things that I've lost.  I think that I
    may well go looking for them again and see if they've aged any in the
    last 20 years.  I don't know.  I'm almost scared.  Incredible isn't it,
    actually scared.

    Bubba

    Don't worry about it Jerry. You will move forward at your own pace.
    
    Marc H.

    Think of it as an opportunity to explore, to challenge yourself.

    Good for you Bubba!  Another adventure!  I'll be sending you 
    warm thoughts, and a hand to hold as you walk in. ;-) :-)
    
    Karen

    Alfred?  Alfred?
    
    
    
            I think Alfred has fainted.
    
    

    I think so too, Karen!

Bubba .182!

This is phenomenal news!  This is great news!  I can't help but suspect
that perhaps the Spirit has been nudging you for awhile.

Richard

PS  Of course you know that since you announced it you'll be expected to
report back to us on the experience.

.189> Of course you know that since you announced it you'll be expected to
.189> report back to us on the experience.

Well, perhaps in "announcing" it there's a certain element that will nudge
me closer toward doing it....sorta' like now_I've_said_it_I've_got_to_do_it.
Like I said, I'm *thinking* about it.  That is, in my opinion, a reasonable
first step.

As to "reporting back" .. Ha!  When Alfred hears of this he'll want a call
from the minister of the church, and, in all probability 8" x 10" photos of
everything!  I'm sure that he'll provide adequate "after action" reports.

Oh, and, if y'all hear of a magnitude 7 earthquake centered in Bakersfield,
on a Sunday ... don't get all excited ... it's probably God's way of saying
"Beeler, *what* are you doing *here*?"

Bubba

PS - we haven't heard from Alfred yet.  If anyone knows where he lives,
best call "911" and get the paramedics over there - quick.

	RE: .187,.188, .190

	OK, I'm ok now. I think. Actually  I was out most of yesterday. First
	with car trouble and then picking my mother in law up at the airport.
	So this was strong stuff to read first thing in the morning. But I'm
	opening my morning decaf Coke and trying the deep breathing to relax.

	Jerry, now don't worry. Attending a church will not automatically turn
	you into a sober, boring, Christian like myself anymore than attending
	graduation at Parris Island makes one a Marine. And the building will
	be fine. I make no such claim for the minister. :-) Though most likely
	he/she's seen lots worse come through the door. God BTW will know 
	exactly why you're there. Knowing things is his "thing." :-)

	I've been praying for you (as you know). Now I've got to start praying
	for some minister I don't even know. He may need it more then you.

			Alfred

    Hmm, the last time I walked into a church, my daughter's wedding, you
    see, the skies became dark and threatening, and eventually opened up
    with lightning and thunder as hadn't been seen in October for many a
    year.  Do you think somone was trying to tell me something, or was it
    just a coincidence?
    

    Mike

    Alfred .191,
    
    :-) :-)  
    
    Karen

I want to emphasize that topic 463 is in no way intended to bash or
slur either Catholicism or the Roman Catholic Church.  But I believe
the Catholic experience to be unique, and strongly suspect that there
is value in focusing on that unique experience.

I would not be opposed to a topic on "Recovering Fundamentalists" or
"Burned by the church."  In fact, I've been toying with the idea of
initiating a basenote on "Unitarian-Universalism as 'religious safety
net,'" which would doubtlessly raise eyebrows among UU's.

I would like to believe that this notefile honors its diversity and
is willing to consider difficult topics.

Peace,
Richard

I suspect there may exist some degree of unnecessary defensiveness towards
Collis, and that his feeling of being unfairly responded to may, to that 
degree, be accurate.

I would remind all that Collis Jackson has been a part of C-P practically
since its inception.  Though we've not always shared congruent perspectives,
Collis has never denounced anyone here as a heretic or worse.

I have to confess that I felt more than a little uneasy about Jehovah's
Witnesses being labeled a cult in Note 472.5.  The term "cult" is fraught
with less than favorable connotations.  However, after re-reading it several
times, I concluded that Collis was simply presenting the view of a segment
of Christianity, which may or may not reflect his personal views.

On the other hand, it is perfectly understandable to me that those of us
who've been confronted by zealous guardians of conservative doctrine in the
past may draw conclusions, which may or may not be accurate, based upon the
previous confrontation(s).  As Mark Twain once said, "A cat, having sat upon
a hot burner, will never sit upon a hot burner again...but neither will it
sit upon a cool one."

Peace,
Richard

Note 469.26
    
SDSVAX::SWEENEY "Gotham City's Software Consultant"   2 lines  22-JUN-1992 22:24
    
>                       -< Play games with someone else >-
    
>    I won't be baited into some sort of rhetorical trap by people who
>    claim to have a knowledge of things Christian and things Catholic.

I perceive no trap here, nor do I perceive a reason to flame on.

Agnus Dei, Dona nobis pacem!
Richard

    The rhetorical trap is to describe who is not saved.
    
    If we don't start from a premise that the Bible is the word of God, and
    that Jesus meant what is recorded in the Bible, then anyone who teaches
    what Jesus taught regarding sin is going to be as a crank or worse.
    
    Local orthodoxy in CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is all religions are good
    religions if they inspire good feelings: To feel good about oneself is
    the ultimate goal.
    
    Every question I enter is answered with a call to examine my own
    beliefs. Well, folks, start examining your own.

    RE: .197 Pat,
    
    
    		The premis of this file is to allow all peoples and beliefs
    a place to express, in public, what they believe.  The key word here is
    what "they" believe.  Statements of Christianity needs to be owned by
    the author.  I cannot remember when I convinced someone I was right by
    stating that they were wrong.  Its a matter of perspective.
    
    Dave

>>    I won't be baited into some sort of rhetorical trap by people who
>>    claim to have a knowledge of things Christian and things Catholic.
>
>I perceive no trap here, nor do I perceive a reason to flame on.

	I perceive no flame. The rhetorical trap Pat speaks of though is
	quite obvious to even to most casual of observers. Assuming they
	have any idea of what the Catholic church teaches about salvation.
	Or for that matter, what Jesus teaches.

			Alfred

    The question I posed in 469.25 about the possibility of salvation via
    other religions was a very sincere one.   Moreover, it was asked
    primarily due to Patrick's 'fundamental question' regarding the way to
    salvation in 469.14 and Mike's subsequent inquiries about the church's 
    written stand on salvation through other religions.  Therefore, I am
    very interested in finding out whether the Catholic church and
    individual Catholics believe that it is possible for people to realize 
    salvation via other religions.   The reluctance on the part of some to 
    state their opinions/beliefs at face value, and instead accuse others
    of playing games and setting traps, pretty much puzzles me.
    
    Paul
                                                 

	Paul, you have to understand that some of us have had others refuse
	to answer our questions while they at the same time demanded we answer
	theirs. One gets gun shy after a while until trust is re-built. 

	You claim to have been raised a Roman Catholic and yet not know the
	church's teaching on salvation. I'm skeptical of that claim. It's
	sort of like claiming you went to school but don't know how to read.
	Sure it happens that people go to school and don't learn how to read
	but it's not the normal case. So perhaps you were raised a Catholic
	and yet don't know one of the most basic teachings but it's hard to
	me to accept easily.

			Alfred

    I admit I was also quite taken aback by Pat's hostile response to Paul's
    questions, which struck me as heartfelt and sincere.  I suspect that
    Paul was simply trying to understand where Pat was coming from. 
    Simply because a person from a different perspective than asks
    a series a questions about one's beliefs, that doesn't necessarily
    mean that there is always a hidden motive, a desire to trap or bait,
    or otherwise attack.  The assumption of hidden motives seems
    unnecessary, and the overt hostility unfortunate.

    I admit that I am as confused as Paul was about the point of Pat's
    questions about salvation and other religions, and I was interested in
    hearing the answers to Paul's questions.  I honestly don't know what the
    point of Pat's criticisms are, so answering questions would help me (and
    others, I am sure) better understand what he is saying.  I'm pretty
    sure he is criticizing something--that much is clear.  It would seem,
    unfortunately, that further elaboration and discussion doesn't seem
    possible, since any questions by any of us for more information are met
    with hostility and sarcasm.  A give and take of dialogue doesn't seem
    to be the order of the day.

    Now I am hearing that the question of salvation for non-Christians is a
    trap.  The only reason I can fathom this view that is that Pat
    believes, as his church does, that salvation exists for non-Christians,
    but that he also believes, as his church does, in the primacy of
    Christianity; and perhaps he feels that when others ask about this
    belief in salvation for non-Christians, they are trying to "trap" him
    into agreeing to an acceptance of equal theological validity of all
    religions.  I don't see it that way.  I, for one, recognize that his
    church takes both of these positions--the theological truth of
    Christianity, and salvation for people of non-Christian faiths--and I
    understand why his church believes as it does. 

    Where the confusion lies is that his questions about Christ being the
    only source of salvation seemed to be directed criticizing at those who
    believe in tolerance of other faiths, as if this is a bad thing.  But
    since a belief in salvation for non-Christians implies a tolerance for
    other faiths--for example, the passage I cited from Vatican II shows
    great respect for the relationship with God that Moslems have--it isn't
    clear where the criticism is coming from.

    And Alfred, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression
    that you believe that non-Christians are denied salvation.  If so, then
    it would seem that you and Pat disagree on this point

    -- Mike

	>You claim to have been raised a Roman Catholic and yet not know the
	>church's teaching on salvation. I'm skeptical of that claim. It's
    
    So Alfred, are you calling Paul a liar?  Are you questioning the
    sincerity and motives of people who participate here?
    
    -- Mike

    The insincerity is in denying knowledge of the answer.

    Do you honestly think that I can write into this conference what the
    Roman Catholic Church teaches regarding salvation, and have people
    reply "Gee, I didn't know that"?

    No, the question is a rhetorical trap to trigger hostility towards the
    beliefs of Roman Catholics.  Many here know what the Roman Catholic
    Church teaches regarding salvation and lie in wait for a foil to
    mention those beliefs only so that they can be disparaged.

>    And Alfred, correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression
>    that you believe that non-Christians are denied salvation.  If so, then
>    it would seem that you and Pat disagree on this point

	I believe that anyone who has never sinned gets salvation. If one
	has ever sinned then Jesus is required for salvation. If Pat or the
	Catholic church teaches differently then, yes, we disagree. It would
	not be the only disagreement I had with the Catholic church.

			Alfred

>	>You claim to have been raised a Roman Catholic and yet not know the
>	>church's teaching on salvation. I'm skeptical of that claim. It's
>    
>    So Alfred, are you calling Paul a liar?  Are you questioning the
>    sincerity and motives of people who participate here?

	Not calling him a liar. That would require that I know he knows the
	church's teachings. Just expressing reasonable skepticism. I do not
	question the sincerity and motives of people in general in this
	conference. Though I do from time to time question the sincerity and 
	motives of some individuals here. I thought that was clear already.

			Alfred

    First of all, Patrick, it may surprise you, but not everyone who
    participates here is infinitely knowledgeable on Roman Catholic
    doctrine.  Many of us may very well be surprised by what we learn here.

    As for the following paragraph:

        No, the question is a rhetorical trap to trigger hostility towards
        the beliefs of Roman Catholics.  Many here know what the Roman
        Catholic Church teaches regarding salvation and lie in wait for a
        foil to mention those beliefs only so that they can be disparaged.

    Your attacks on the motives of the people who participate here is
    really unfortunate, not to mention offensive.  I honestly don't
    understand why you carry such a chip on your shoulder, and attack
    people here simply because many of us (but not all) have different
    opinions than you do.  The fact that others have different opinions
    than you do doesn't mean that their motives are all malicious when they
    discuss a subject with you, and such vehement attacks are uncalled for.

    Furthermore, I, for one, am not interested in "disparaging" Roman
    Catholic beliefs on salvation, particularly since they are generally
    more tolerant and respectful of other faiths than the views of many
    Protestants; so I actually have a certain degree of respect for the
    Catholic position, even if I don't completely agree with it.  You are
    certainly entitled to your views, and I respect your right to hold your
    views, but if you are interested in discussing the motives of people who
    participate here, there is no need to assume a priori that they are all
    malicious in intent.

    -- Mike

     RE: .201
    
     >> -< one can get burned in this conference >-
    
     >, you have to understand that some of us have had others refuse
     >to answer our questions while they at the same time demanded we
     >answer theirs.  One gets gun shy after a while until trust is
     >re-built.
    
     Give it a rest, Alfred.
    
    
     Carole

    Gee, can I say something???
    
    ;)
    
    Um, Patrick and Alfred, it is unfathomable to me that you think I am
    pretending ignorance, pretending to not know about present Catholic
    church positions regarding the salvation of non-Christians.  Plus
    I'm also baffled over how/why you think I am deliberately 'lying in
    wait' in an effort to trip you up or make you look bad or whatever it
    is you think I am doing.
    
    Alfred, I left the Catholic church in 1972, the year I turned 18.
    Back then, my understanding of the church's position on this matter --
    given impressions I received from my parish leaders and CCD and other
    Catholics in general during the 1960s, the era I grew up in the church
    -- was that even *protestants* would not realize salvation, let alone
    non-Christians.   This was my understanding back then, for better or
    for worse.
    
    I've been away from the church for 20 years, so I'm not familiar with
    its stances on this or that, in the form of written decrees or
    whatever, today.  I am not going to pretend to know something when I 
    really don't know, contrary to what you may surmise about me.   So, I 
    would *sincerely* like to know the church's position on the possibility 
    of salvation for non-Christians.  Is it possible?  If so, under what
    circumstances?
    
    As for deriving Truth and meaning from, and appreciating, the gospels
    and the teachings of Jesus, IMHO, one does not have to call oneself
    'Christian' in order to do so.
    
    Paul
    

    I don't know, Paul, perhaps it is easier to start from the assumption
    that you are lying unless you prove otherwise, than to start from the
    assumption that you are being honest.  Why give you the benefit of the
    doubt when instead one can assume ulterior motives and malicious intent?
    
    But the good side of this is that if you can convince Alfred that you
    are not lying, at least then you won't be on his blacklist of insincere
    noters--at least not for now.
    
    -- Mike

>    But the good side of this is that if you can convince Alfred that you
>    are not lying, at least then you won't be on his blacklist of insincere
>    noters--at least not for now.

	He convinced me. Wasn't too bad was it? Is making a list your goal
	Mike? 

			Alfred

Hey, Paul, I believe you.  :-)

    Hey Collis, don't worry.  We can remind you of what you don't 
    readily realize yourself.   8)
    
    Paul
    

    I'm calling for restraint from personal attacks and innuendo.  If
    the only way you can make your point in this forum is through insult
    and belittlement, then your argument carries very little integral
    strength of its own.
    
    If it bothers you to engage persons who do not necessarily share the
    beliefs you hold as wholly right and true, then I suggest that you
    consider a more suitable notesfile.  I will ask no one to conform to
    any orthodoxy.
    
    Richard Jones-Christie
    Co-Moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

     Let me rephrase Richard's comments for those of you did 
    not quite get his point:

                        Chill Dudes. 


                                                   Mike

     Geeze, play nice, OK ?

    RE: .47  Mr Sweeney,
    
    		That, Mr Sweeney, is the second time, that I know of, that
    you have accused this file with having a "clique".  I ask you now to
    state your reasons why believe such and name names.  Such volitile
    statements offends me and belittles a file whose intent and purpose it
    to give *ALL* people a voice.  Why you would choose to disrupt the
    harmony of this file I have no idea.
    
    		As for your accusations against Richard, I find them
    without any merit what-so-ever.  His tone was not one of ridicule, as I
    read it, but I do find that your last two notes in this string do.
    
    Dave  

Brother Sweeney 101.47,

>    The tone of ridicule isn't an invitation to debate opinion, it's an

I guess if you're referring to my note 101.43, then you're right.  It's
not an invitation for debate.  It's my own editorial commentary based on
my own Christian perspective.

>    Look, if you want to contend that people of New York City would be
>    better off _not_ to follow the advice for living Pat Robertson has than
>    _to_ follow it, that would be an interesting discussion.

I know very little of what it's like to live in New York City and so I
would be reluctant to initiate such a string myself, but you may feel free
to do so.

Peace,
Richard

    in re .47
    
    The only reason that there appears to be a clique here, is the same
    reason that people have been accused of such behavior in other files,
    i.e. that people have been noting here for some time and have come
    to know each other. There is no coordinated 'sub group' that plans
    actions off line against other people.
    
    We are a friendly group, and we try to be as welcoming as people
    will let us.
    
    Bonnie

    There is no clique here, as has already been discussed in top 479. 
    This is actually one of the warmer and more welcoming notes communities
    on the network.  Of course, if one approaches this or any other
    community with repeated hostility, sarcasm, and negatively charged
    language directed at others, they are not likely to get a positive
    response from the community.  That isn't cliquishness--that's just
    human nature.

    -- Mike

    This issue has popped up here from time to time, but it is worth
    repeating that not everyone who participates in this or other notes
    files is necessarily interested in debating.

    Debating has its place in the world, and for those who enjoy doing it I
    say more power to them.  But notes conferences are loosely structured
    forums for discussion, with few formal rules or procedures governing
    what gets said.  It thus leaves a lot of room for different styles of
    discussion, and people often have clashing motives or agendas implicit
    in their noting style.  I think there is often a macho ethic in notes
    surrounding the alleged superiority of "debates" versus informal
    discussion; it often attempts to shame or bait people into playing the
    game by one's own rules.  This often drives people away from notes
    files (including this one).

    Debates have winners and losers.  Consensus and reconciliation are
    irrelevant in debates.  Full exploration of the consequences of a world
    view or a belief system are discouraged when every step along the way
    is derailed.  Debates express a "me vs. you" mentality.  Debates
    encourage endless back and forth wrangling as each party tries to get
    in the last word.  There is nothing wrong with sharing one's feelings
    or perspective on an issue without having to back every single
    statement with a citation gleaned from the local public library, and
    there is nothing wrong with agreeing to disagree.  There is nothing
    wrong with starting from an assumption not universally shared by all,
    and then expanding on that assumption, without allowing the discussion
    to be derailed by the insistence of others that one must justify and
    explain to their satisfaction each detail of that assumption.  The need
    to argue each every point may satisfy some people, but for others it is
    a pointless and time-wasting exercise in futility. 

    -- Mike

    Thank you Mike
    
    

>    There is no clique here, as has already been discussed in top 479. 
>    This is actually one of the warmer and more welcoming notes communities
>    on the network.

	We must hang around in mostly different conferences. Not that this is
	as hostle as say SOAPBOX or worse yet WOMANNOTES but it is more hostle
	at times then most of the conferences I read regularly. It's often a
	warm and welcoming place, this conference, but it is often hostle 
	especially to minority ideas. Not that I'm saying that several sides
	don't get involved. But just because both sides (actually there is 
	often more than 2 sides) get hostle doesn't mean the conference is
	warn and welcoming. :-)

	And BTW perhaps the disagreement is about what makes a clique. A subject
	I don't have time to discuss today. Perhaps in a month when I get back.

			Alfred

    The use of ridicule is an intimidation tactic.
    
    You're free to ridicule a public figure like Robertson, but that's not
    a sign that this conference welcomes the expression of a diversity of
    ideas of Christianity in the United States and in the world.

    .220
    
    And, pray tell, what *would* be a sign, Brother Sweeney?  Are you
    suggesting that C-P should become more like GOLF::CHRISTIAN?  Or perhaps
    CATHOLIC-THEOLOGY?
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Alfred 9.225,

	First of all, let me say I hope your time off is just as relaxing
and rejuvenating as you anticipate it to be.  My prayers go with you.

	Secondly, I agree with you.  I've noticed that minority opinions
draw more responses here than majority opinions.  With this awareness,
I've withheld what I wanted to say a number of times simply because I
didn't want to appear to "dog pile on the rabbit," so to speak.

	Though you and I seldom share totally congruent perspectives,
I truly appreciate your input here in C-P.  I actually encourage dissenting
opinions, especially when those opinions are framed with ownership and when
those opinions refrain from attacking another noter or the integrity of
another noter.

Pax vobiscum,
Richard

    and Alfred, I strongly disagree that Womannotes is less welcoming
    than Soapbox.

    I am not sure how anyone knows which opinions are the minority ones
    here, unless they have taken some sort of secret poll that I wasn't let
    in on.  I see a great diversity of opinion expressed here, and while I
    know how certain individuals feel about certain specific issues, I
    wouldn't go so far as to characterize any of them as having minority or
    majority status among the (presumably) hundreds of people who read and
    write here.  Furthermore, except when corporate policies are in effect,
    the moderators don't formally enforce any theological or political
    opinion here, unlike other religiously oriented notes files.

    I therefore repeat:  there is no clique here.  No group of people are
    acting in concert here.  A lot of individuals express their opinions,
    and will respond strongly to opinions that offend them--would anyone
    expect otherwise?  But the fact that all opinions are not welcomed with
    open arms by everyone does not a clique make.  For one thing, every
    individual here has their own unique set of opinions, so the definition
    of who or who isn't in this alleged clique would have to change with
    the issue in question.  More importantly, disagreement, even strongly
    expressed, does not mean that anyone is excluded from participation in
    this community.  I repeat my earlier comment that anyone here who posts
    a prayer request, regardless of their opinions on other issues, gets a
    warm response from the community.  So much for the alleged clique.
    
    -- Mike

>    and Alfred, I strongly disagree that Womannotes is less welcoming
>    than Soapbox.
    
    I knew that you would. But I don't feel welcome in womannotes but
    concider SOAPBOX a friendly place. It often depends on where you're
    coming from.
    
    			Alfred

    While I feel very welcome in womannotes and find soapbox at least
    mildly hostile..
    
    Alfred, isn't it great that we can disagree on so much and still
    agree that we like each other a lot!
    
    hugs and have a good vacation.
    
    Bonnie

    Thank you, Friend Richard, for putting it so eloquently.

    I might add that the sorts of attacks against Unitarian Universalism in
    topic 473 have certainly been a common element of discussions in this
    notes file that I somehow suspect are ignored when allegations of
    cliques get bandied about.  It is interesting to note that Sister
    Patricia posted a note here at one time because she felt that *her*
    perspective, which is quite different from Alfred's, was not welcome
    here.

    -- Mike

Note 473.36

>            -< talk about the pot calling the kettle black >-

Brother Alfred,

	Let's all start on equal footing.  Let's just say that, for the
purposes of this conference, we're all black.

>    RE: .28 I don't see my note as being anywhere near as hostle as
>    those of Richard about Pat Roberson. And both of us pale by comparison
>    to your own hostility. Especially towards me.

	By your title in .25, you've admitted sarcasm (a form of hostility):

>                               -< Sarcasm alert >-

	And true to your title, it was.

>    	Oh, get with the program John. You don't have to believe in
>    anything to be a Christian. You just have to be a nice guy.
    
	It was, in part, this less-than-complementary remark to which
Friend Valenza was responding (or reacting, if your prefer).

	I don't recall anyone saying anything that would lead you to
draw your conclusion about just being "a nice guy" in order to be a
Christian.

	Now, there is difference between my editorial about Pat Robertson
and intra-conference criticisms.  As Brother Patrick Sweeney pointed out
in note 9.220, Pat Robertson is a public figure.  As such Robertson is
subject to severe scutiny and criticism (or ridicule, if you prefer).  It
is an occupational hazard of being in the public eye.  Like it or not, it
goes with the territory, as I'm sure Pat Robertson knows by now.  The
membership of CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE, on the other hand, is not made up of
public figures and therefore, at least in theory, participants are exempt
from the same kind of severe scrutiny and criticism (or ridicule, if you
prefer).

	In another part of .28, Friend Valenza addresses the perception of
C-P as a 'clique.'  Truly, Alfred, you've not come out and said "yay" or
"nay" on whether you share the position that it is (Note 9.225).  Friend
Valenza may have thought you did or perhaps presumed that you do.  In any
case, I believe Friend Valenza's motivation was more to affirm the validity
of the participation here of Sisters Patricia and Ro than to express hostility
toward you or any other member of the conference.

	But then, who knows?  I could be wrong! 8-}

Peace,
Richard

Re:  473.26

  >Give me a break, Collis.  

My feelings exactly, Mike.  You're insistence on wrapping my (shared)
beliefs into a little box and isolate them from other beliefs is quite
clearly a strategy (conscious or not) to undermine whatever I say.
It would be a pleasure if you actually addressed *the issues* that
were raised rather than continue this strategy (which you do in nearly
every reply to me).  Please, Mike, take the time to review your last
20 replies to what I've said.  Look to see if this is what you do.
I'm not making this up!

  >I insist that what you share here is a personal perspective precisely 
  >because you continue to present your own theological opinions as if they 
  >were the only conceivable theological formulations.  

Poppycock.  I do accept God's revelation from the Bible and it's claim
as being truth.  There are many issues that I don't have the answers to,
but how one can be saved is not one that God has been unclear on.

And because God has been clear on this is, again, no excuse for the
strategy that you continually use to attempt to discredit Biblical
claims.

  >You state that by pointing out that what you state is *your* opinion, I
  >am denying "the proclaimed truths of God in the Bible as well as the
  >validity of the beliefs of those who believe the same."  Well gee, if I
  >accepted your premise that your beliefs are the expression of God's
  >truths, then certainly I would accept your conclusions.

Well, then address the *issue* which is that I have misrepresented
the claims of God in the *Bible*.  Go ahead.  Please.

But the facts are that I *haven't* misrepresented the Bible, so that
point of attack is fruitless.  And to admit that the Bible (and Bible-
believing Christians) totally disagree (in some instances) with what you 
believe is not part of what you care to do.  Or else you might simply
say, "Yes, indeed the Bible says that and conservative and moderate
Christians accept that today and have accepted it over the centuries,
but I choose not to believe that."  What a breath of fresh air this
kind of statement would be!  Unfortunately, you instead choose to attack 
my reliability and integrity as one who has studied the Bible.

Collis

    Re: .218
    
    Very good Mike! I agree.
    
    Marc H.

    Collis, the reason I make a point of establishing that your beliefs are
    *your* beliefs is that you continue to use the fact that your beliefs
    are shared by others as a kind of argument unto itself.  The fact
    remains (and this is a fact that you seem to have considerable
    difficulty acknowledging) is that it is *your* decision to accept your
    interpretation of the Bible as the truth.  It is *your* opinion. 
    Whether or not others agree with you, even a whole large body of
    people, makes it no less *your* opinion.  Justifying your opinion by
    establishing it as the "conservative/moderate" point of view is not
    only unconvincing, but it simply adds an unnecessary dogmatic veneer to
    the discussion.

    We have already discussed ad nauseam the differences of opinion with
    respect to how the Bible should be interpreted.  But you simply cannot
    accept the existence of these disagreements.  You cannot agree to
    disagree, because that would not coincide with the extreme dogmatism of
    your religious views.  You implicitly and repeatedly present your
    opinions as God's truth, and when people call you on it you accuse them
    of a strategy.  We never see an "I believe X" from you on matters of
    theology, do we?  No, it is "God has clearly revealed X".  As long as
    you continue to write notes in that dogmatic fashion, I will continue
    to respond as I do.  I will call you on your own implicit strategy,
    which is to implicitly present your dogmatically held beliefs as fact.
    That is the issue at hand, one that I have addressed in response to
    your notes because your notes continue to make the unstated assumptions
    that need to be brought out into the open.  What you call a "strategy"
    is simply my attempt to get to the root of what you are saying, and if
    that unmasks your own strategy, that would explain why it irks you
    off so much.  That's too bad, but it appears that you are clearly not
    interested in communicating with others here.  Communicating is a
    two-way process, but when you are so busy preaching at others by
    presenting your opinions as fact, then communication shuts down.

    -- Mike

Re:  9.235

  >Collis, the reason I make a point of establishing that your beliefs are
  >*your* beliefs is that you continue to use the fact that your beliefs
  >are shared by others as a kind of argument unto itself.

I use this fact simply as a response to the argument (which you
continually argue) that what I say is simply my opinion.

  >The fact remains (and this is a fact that you seem to have considerable
  >difficulty acknowledging) is that it is *your* decision to accept your
  >interpretation of the Bible as the truth.

If this is what's bothering you, I'll clear it up for you.  I, now
and forevermore, firmly acknowledge that it is my decision to accept
my interpretation of the Bible as the truth (except where I'm wrong
and, in those instances, the Bible is correct).

  >It is *your* opinion. 

Firmly agreed.

It is *also* *more* than my opinion.  Agreed?  Good.  Then stop
trying to *limit* it to my opinion.  Thank you.

  >We have already discussed ad nauseam the differences of opinion with
  >respect to how the Bible should be interpreted.  But you simply cannot
  >accept the existence of these disagreements.

Again, you are wrong.  Again, I will cheerfully say that there are
many disgreements as to how the Bible should be interpreted. 

  >You cannot agree to disagree, because that would not coincide with the 
  >extreme dogmatism of your religious views.

I understand that your viewpoint forces you to this conclusion of
my unwillingness to "agree to disagree".

Actually, what I am unwilling to do is accept "B" as truth when it
contradicts "A" which God has revealed as truth.  Many in this conference
are more than happy to ignore contradictions (or somehow explain them
away as not contradictions).  I am not.  I also would claim that
Jesus was not.

  >You implicitly and repeatedly present your opinions as God's truth..

I explicitly claim the God's revelation through the Bible to be truth 
and my opinions are truth as far as they align themselves with God's
revelation.

  >...and when people call you on it you accuse them of a strategy.  

I thought I explained what *you* do very well.  A few others have
once in a while done the same thing, but it is you and you alone who
respond consistently avoiding the issue of what the Bible says and
concentrating your full efforts on attempting to prove that what I
say is simply an individual's opinion devoid of any substance beyond
any other opinion.  I deny that this is the case and will *continue*
to deny that this is the case.  You know full well that my opinion
is:

  - based on what the Bible says
  - almost always in agreement with what conservative scholars
    interpret the Bible as saying

Really, Mike.  If you don't like what I express, it is only a simple
matter of logic to see that you don't like what conservative scholars
express and that you don't like what the Bible says.  If indeed you
*do* like what the Bible says and you *don't* like what I say, then
we have an opportunity to discuss - not me - but your differing understanding
of what the Bible says.  You (usually) choose not to do so.  That
would actually lead to fruitful discussion.

  >As long as you continue to write notes in that dogmatic fashion, I will 
  >continue to respond as I do.

So will I.

  >That's too bad, but it appears that you are clearly not interested 
  >in communicating with others here.  

:-)  :-)  :-)

Collis

    Actually, Collis, I have never claimed that your opinion is devoid of
    any substance beyond any other opinion.  What I *have* done is point
    out that what you often present here implicitly as God's truth is in
    fact not accepted by everyone here as God's truth.  It's as simple as
    that.  Other people in this notes file have just as much right to their
    understanding of God as you do.  It is one thing to say, 'Let me share
    with you my understanding of God's truth.'  It is another thing
    altogether to chide others for having a different understanding of
    God's truth than yours.  It is the difference between sharing your
    theology and attacking that of others.  The former approach is much
    more likely to get a positive response than the latter.

    The first step to fruitful discussion is to keep it on track.  I think
    it is a common phenomenon in this notes file, and perhaps in notes
    files generally, for a discussion on one subject, which peripherally
    relates to another topic, to get bogged down or derailed by arguments
    over the secondary subject.  The whole point of the original discussion
    gets lost.  It is one thing to debate endlessly the underlying
    conceptual differences on some issue; it is another to say, okay, given
    a set of premises that we may or may not accept, where do we go from
    here?  How do our assumptions drive us in this way or that? 
    Unfortunately, the latter kind of analysis continually gets turned into
    an argument over various premises.  Some people would rather argue than
    analyze, it seems.  Higher level, meta-discussions never get off the
    ground, because everyone wants to go back to square one and argue over
    the premises.

    You already know fully well what my views on the Bible are.  Restating
    them in the context of another discussion serves no purpose, other than
    perhaps the satisfaction of arguing over a favorite topic at the
    nearest convenient excuse.  You say that you are unwilling to accept
    "B" as truth when it contradicts "A" which (you think) God has revealed
    as truth.  The fact is that no one is asking you to accept what you
    don't accept as truth.  The problem is that you feel the need to tell
    everyone else what they should think is the truth also.  In other
    words, you are forcing other people to do what you yourself
    resent--namely, you are trying to get other people to accept as God's
    truth that which they strongly feel is not.  The shoe is on the other
    foot.  Remember the Golden Rule?  Why not do unto others here, and
    consider how others might feel about being chided for their sincere
    beliefs about God? How do you think that makes them feel?  How would
    you feel about that?  And if you give yourself an honest answer, you
    might then realize why people are offended.

    But presmuably the difference, of course, is that you *know* you are
    right and that they are wrong.  So that makes it okay.
    
    -- Mike

Some may wonder what I mean by "opinions framed with ownership" in 9.226.
As an example, I have modified the first paragraph of Note 496.4 and include
it below to demonstrate ownership:

   (It is my understanding that) The divinity of Jesus is a defining
   attribute of Christians.  (I recognize that) Those who believe it are
   Christians.  Those who do not (to my mind) are not Christians.

Peace,
Richard

Re:  9.237

  >Actually, Collis, I have never claimed that your opinion is devoid of
  >any substance beyond any other opinion.  

True enough.  Then again, you insist that it not be considered in
the light of what the Bible says and what conservative scholars say.
You insist that it be treated as simply another opinion rather than
an informed exposition of what the Bible says.

  >What I *have* done is point out that what you often present here 
  >implicitly as God's truth is in fact not accepted by everyone here 
  >as God's truth.  It's as simple as that.  

No it is not.  I recognize already what you are "pointing out".  I
acknowledge this.  You need not make any more replies to inform me
of this fact.  :-)

  >Other people in this notes file have just as much right to their
  >understanding of God as you do.

God, indeed, gives everyone the right to believe what they will.

  >It is another thing altogether to chide others for having a different 
  >understanding of God's truth than yours.

Indeed, I understand why you desire that everyone say, "Oh isn't 
that different expression of Christianity wonderful" or "I hope
they are comfortable with the god they have chosen".  

I also understand that God as He has revealed Himself says something
quite different.  You have acknowledged in the past that the revelation
in the Bible does indeed have a very different picture of God (particularly
in the Old Testament) than you want.  Applying this perspective of
God today makes you (and others) feel uncomfortable.  Yes, I know.

  >The first step to fruitful discussion is to keep it on track.  

Agreed.  Are you willing to acknowledge that you *invariably* take
the discussion off-track by focusing on disassociating my statements
from the Bible and conservative scholars?

  >You already know fully well what my views on the Bible are.  Restating
  >them in the context of another discussion serves no purpose, other than
  >perhaps the satisfaction of arguing over a favorite topic at the
  >nearest convenient excuse.

Perhaps you have nothing relevant to say then?

  >The problem is that you feel the need to tell everyone else what they 
  >should think is the truth also.  

I was sharing my general reaction to what revolts me and I understand
as revolting God.  If you're not interested in a typical conservative
reaction, then this notes conference should not invite conservatives to
participate.  

  >In other words, you are forcing other people to do what you yourself
  >resent--namely, you are trying to get other people to accept as God's
  >truth that which they strongly feel is not.

I hardly expect Patricia or Ro to change their opinions.  The problem
is that you are unhappy with my sharing my opinion based on the Bible
in such a way that it is proclaimed as truth.  Well, my framework includes
the acceptance of the Bible as God's revealed truth and opinions which
are Biblically-based *are* truth (to the extent that they are Biblically
based).  You may (and I'm sure will) continue to object to the noting
style if you wish.  There is an absolute standard which has been
revealed to us.  I know that doesn't sit well with you.

It's not politically correct to refer to absolute standards in a notes
conference which desires to welcome all opinions and beliefs pertaining
to Christianity.  However, one of those beliefs (in fact, one of the
predominant beliefs) is that there is indeed an absolute standard given
to us.  And being politically correct was never a goal of mine.  Being
faithful to my God is.

Collis

Note 9.239

I would like to affirm that Collis has consistently maintained that
"There is an absolute standard which has been revealed to us."

I would further affirm that Collis believes that opening a notes conference
which welcomes all opinions and beliefs pertaining to Christianity is a
politically correct (in the negative sense of the term) thing to do.

I would further affirm that Collis believes he is being faithful to his God
by taking the stance that he does.

Please correct me wherever I've misrepresented you, Collis.

Peace,
Richard

    Collis, I realize that you think you are being faithful to God.  
    
    -- Mike

Re:  .240  politically correct

Indeed, there are two sides to being "politically correct".

Since it is primarily a liberal agenda where p.c. is important,
this notesfile fits in well with politcal correctness (in the
positive sense of the term).

On the other hand, you can if you wish also claim that this
notesfile was not well received at all by many in the
conservative camp.  The main problem being not politcal
correctness, as I see it, but rather the constant denial of
many essential truths of the Bible that define true followers
of Jesus.  As the foreign auto mechanic told Columbo as he
looked over his 15 year old Peugot, "There are limits, man".

Collis

    I think Collis has summarized here why we are such an impasse.  Collis
    believes that what I and others would describe as intolerance are in
    fact expressions of God's will.  Thus he feels called to do--he feels
    he *must* do--what others here just as strongly find deeply offensive.
    
    There appears to be no resolution of this issue.  So the arguments will
    continue unabated here.
    
    -- Mike

True enough.

Now maybe we can resolve your strategy of isolating
everything I say as simply my opinion?

Collis

re Note 9.243 by JURAN::VALENZA:

>     There appears to be no resolution of this issue.  So the arguments will
>     continue unabated here.
  
        I appreciate the fact that they may continue.

        In many other places and at many other times, the argument
        would be settled through political or physical force.

        Bob

    Gee, Collis, do you mean to say that what you write isn't your opinion?

    So much for my attempt at trying to summarize both sides of the issue
    as a way of "agreeing to disagree".  I forgot who I was dealing
    with--someone who doesn't believe in agreeing to disagree, and who will
    let no stone unturned as long as there is anyone with a different
    opinion than his own.  Let's just continue this discussion endlessly,
    shall we?

    When you repeatedly write the same types of notes, well then,
    maybe--just maybe--they will get the same kinds of responses.  And when
    you get the same kind of response to various instances of a particular
    type of note you then call that response a "strategy".  The question
    is, of course, who is continually writing those notes that evoke the
    response in the first place?  Perhaps that is what we should be looking
    at when we talk of "strategies."

    Now that we've settled that issue, perhaps we can return to the more
    important issues at hand, the ones that really matter, like "why my
    religion is great and your religion sucks."

    -- Mike

>    Gee, Collis, do you mean to say that what you write isn't your opinion?

He said "simply my opinion."

Deliberately ignoring the word "simply" is something you should apologize for.

/john

Thank you, Mike, for your response.

I accept your answer of no.

Collis

Are 496.8 and 22.137 slams against Jehovah's Witnesses?  I confess ignorance.
I have a feeling that a line has been crossed, but I'm not knowledgeable
enough to say for certain.  I pray this feeling of mine is inaccurate.

Peace,
Richard

    Come now, Collis.  Your question was just as bogus as when the
    politician is asked when they stopped beating their spouse.  Given the
    fact that I rejected your premise (for reasons I stated), I therefore
    gave you the appropriate response.
    
    -- Mike

    Uh, /john, I did not "quote" Collis (I see no quotation marks in that
    note, nor did I use the noting convention of preceding anything he
    wrote with a ">".)  The sentence that you objected to was a tongue in
    cheek response to his false accusation of a "strategy". 
    
    I would think that false accusations, such as Collis's, are deserving
    of apologies, if anything.
    
    -- Mike

It is not necessary to use quotation marks or other symbols to quote
someone.

In any case, I'll accept that your misrepresentation of what he said
was tongue-in-cheek.

/john

    Well, I did not represent, "mis-" or otherwise, what he said, but I'll
    accept that you accept that what I wrote was tongue-in-cheek.
    
    -- Mike

Note 101.64

>    Jesse Jackson and our own moderator are not adverse to making a cheap
>    shot aganist Vice President Dan Quayle.
    
>    What motivates the ridicule of Dan Quayle?

	My first inclination is to respond to your questions, Brother Sweeney,
as well as you do mine.  But upon further reflection, I decided to go ahead
and respond to this one anyway.

	I see Quayle not so much as a Herod, but more as one of the Pharisees
to whom Jesus spoke when he said:  "You put onto people's backs loads which
are hard to carry, but you yourselves will not stretch out a finger to help
them carry those loads.  How terrible for you!"

	Of course, some may say Jesus' words were not words of ridicule.
Luke 11.45 seems to indicate that they were indeed insulting, however.

	Oh, as kind of a PS, would you prefer it if I stepped down as
moderator?  Or perhaps if Jesse Jackson resigned from the ministry?

Peace,
Richard

    In Luke 11.45 Jesus is delivering a rebuke.  He is not attempting to
    evoke laughter.
    
    We have a matter of interpretation of the Bible, as Jesus describes a
    "burden".
    
    Taxes are a burden to rich and poor alike.  In our nation's largest
    city our liberal Democratic Mayor David Dinkins didn't file taxes for
    three years while taking that political position that they should be
    raised. That's a more literal application I think, and you don't have
    to be a partisan Republican to see it so.  Real prosperity is created
    by economic activity not by political advocacy.
    
    Jesus loves taxpayers, tax collectors, and even the tax evaders.
    
    The government is filled with hypocrites, I don't think Dan Quayle is
    one of them.  If you have a good Republican tale of hypocrisy.  I'm
    here to listen to it.
                         
    I'm not arrogant enough to give advice to the Rev. Jesse Jackson nor
    the moderators here.  I'll pray for you.

    .255  How right you are.  How wrong I am.  Thanks for clearing things
    up for me.  I'm certain it's what Jesus would have you do.  And thanks
    for the prayers.
    
    Pax vobiscum,
    Richard

.255
        
<<    I'm not arrogant enough to give advice to the Rev. Jesse Jackson nor
<<    the moderators here.  I'll pray for you.
    
    Hmmm, could have fooled me!   ;')
    
    Ro
    

		I write this note with a very heavy heart.  Just today we,
in CP, have lost two people because they have the belief that Christians
cannot show love and tolerance to them.  How can we truely call ourselves
Christians and ask others to listen and believe when we are unwilling to
return that same consideration?  I once heard a very respected and 
knowledgeable preacher/pastor talk about fanaticism in Christianity.  He
believed, and I agree, that there is as much danger in fanatic beliefs 
as there are in atheism.  

		Our policy in this file is that each and every person "owns"
what they write and believe.  We will not, and should not, tolerate persons
who continuously try to put down and call absolutely wrong other belief 
structures.  For myself, I believe that Christ is so powerful and loving that
my witness is better served, as well as Christianity as a whole, by showing 
patience and love to those who do not have the same knowledge as I have.


		For several months now I have watched several people in this 
file use there beliefs to belittle and chastise this file for the very 
openness most of us value so much.  To you Christians I ask; What better 
opportunity is there than a file like this to share your witness and love?
Bible "thumping" has long proved ineffective in witnessing situations.  For
myself I have to say that I have had much better luck *SHOWING* the love in my
heart and expressing the care God has for me.

		Beyond all that, Digital *requires*, by policy, that we value
differences.  There have been several instances which I belive that the line
between valuing and prejudice has been crossed.  Since this is a Digital network
and Digital system, that policy will, in the future, be adhered to strictly.


Dave Dawson
CP co-moderator

The affirmation that Jesus is God is a defining characteristic of
Christianity.

DEC policy requires its employees to value the differences of others.

However, DEC policy does not require its employees to value a difference
which asks Christians to give up their belief that Jesus is God.

When a group claims to be Christian and claims in a forum titled "Christian-
Perspective" that Jesus is not God, Christians must point out that such a
claim is erroneous.

/john

Note 9.259

>However, DEC policy does not require its employees to value a difference
>which asks Christians to give up their belief that Jesus is God.

No one has asked you to give up any belief, John.

>When a group claims to be Christian and claims in a forum titled "Christian-
>Perspective" that Jesus is not God, Christians must point out that such a
>claim is erroneous.

Rest assured, your mission has been accomplished!

I, too, believe Christ to be the Incarnation.  However, I am not so compelled
to thrust upon others the beliefs I hold.

Peace,
Richard

    > The affirmation that Jesus is God is a defining characteristic of
    Christianity. <
    
    In _your_ belief system, John, and for some other Christians as well, 
    but not all Christians.
    
    Please review the standards and guidelines of this conference outlined 
    in 1.0.
    
    You will see that, by purposeful design, there is an obvious absence of 
    such a defining characteristic of Christianity in this conference.  
    
    > DEC policy does not require its employees to value a difference which
    asks Christians to give up their belief that Jesus is God. <
    
    No one here has said anything to you even remotely resembling a 
    suggestion, nevermind asking you to give up your belief that 
    Jesus is God.  
    
    In fact, it is quite clearly the opposite.  
    
    You have been actively _imposing_ your belief upon others that 
    Jesus is God -- an activity that the moderatorship and the 
    foundation of this conference does not support you in.
    
    Karen
    Co-Moderator, Christian-Perspective  
    

In reply to:

;an inclusive definition of Christianity should not require that Christians 
;believe that Jesus is God.

Phil wrote:

>Jehovah's Witnesses would say that those professing to be Christian would
>recognize that Jesus is not God.

If we allow the above two statements, then we have to allow the statement

"Christianity is defined by the belief that Jesus is God."

I have not attempted to silence, through use of policy or other threats,
those who make the above statements.  Nor have I claimed any knowledge of
their eschatological fate, for God is more merciful than you or I can
imagine.  This is no Inquisition.  I do not seek banishment of these people.

All I have done is countered statements like the above by classifying them
according to theological terms assigned to them by respected theologians.

You may continue to claim what you wish.  And so may I.

Avoid the Arian heresy.  Stay clear of all-inclusive syncretism.
Christianity is defined by the belief that Jesus is God.

/john

John,

You may voice your opinion, there is nothing wrong with that, in fact this
is encouraged from my understanding by those who moderate this Digital 
employee interest notes conference. Where you over step the mark is when
you insist that a certain group makes an Arian claim and it is quite clear
that this group makes no such claim.

How would you feel if someone made a similar attack on your religion?.

Phil.

re Note 9.259 by COVERT::COVERT:

> When a group claims to be Christian and claims in a forum titled "Christian-
> Perspective" that Jesus is not God, Christians must point out that such a
> claim is erroneous.
  
        There is no such "group" in this conference.

        All are participating here as individuals.

        It is clear that there are a number of individuals who
        espousing the "Jesus is not God" claim, there are more
        individuals who are simply declaring tolerance of the "Jesus
        is not God" claim, and there are several active writers who
        denounce the "Jesus is not God" claim.

        This conference exists precisely to allow the above to
        occur.

        Jesus (and Christ) most definitely is the centerpiece of our
        discussions.

        Bob

    Re: .264
    
    Well said Bob. I'm of the camp that believes in the trinity....but...
    after stating it, I don't have the need to continue to "fight" against
    other noter's who have a different opinion.
    
    Make your point once....then leave it be. Continuing to make THE SAME
    POINT AGAIN AND AGAIN , quoting the Bible or other figures again
    just comes across as brow beating.
    
    I thought that this file was different from the other files....
    it always seemed like a nice, polite gathering of friends.
    Lately, it has taken on the flavor of "Sapbox" where one upmanship
    and making points is important.
    
    Lets return to the polite gathering of friends.
    
    I'll go to "sapbox" when I want to...
    
    Marc H.

		Most of the people in this file know that I am Southern 
Baptist and do some fill ins for preachers and teachers.  With that said,
let me further state that I am a Christian first and a Southern Baptist
a long distant second.  My inclusion to the moderatorship of this file was
based mainly on the fact that I am part of a "fundamentalist" denomination.
The moderators at that time believed that all segments of religion needed
representation.  That is one reason this file carries so many moderators.
Far more that the normal file.  

		So to those who would criticize the policy's here, I would 
say that your viewpoints are taken into account as much as possible while
keeping the purpose of this file intact.  Some of you have used, what I 
would consider, derisive comments about this file and its stated purpose.
My answer to you is that there are files who purpose is to discuss Christian
issues within a purely Christian atmosphere.  I invite you to those files.

		To those who have the purpose of "purifying" this file to
what you might consider a Christian conference, I say don't.  This file 
has a purpose and even the other Christian files admit that this file meets
a need.  Too many people in this country have been "left" behind in the
witnessing  efforts of most Churches.  This file invites all to discuss
their beliefs without fear of condemnation.  If my belief structure cannot
stand on its own and "win" people to Christ, then it would be time to give
it up, but quite the reverse is true.  By showing love and patience, I have
seen many who say "Maybe I need to take a closer look".  And they have!


Dave

>you insist that a certain group makes an Arian claim and it is quite clear
>that this group makes no such claim.

The claim that Jesus is not God is historically classified as an Arian claim.

It is not a claim compatible with Christianity, for it strikes at the root
of almost twenty centuries of what Christianity teaches.

Christianity teaches that Jesus is God.

/john

| My answer to you is that there are files who purpose is to discuss Christian
| issues within a purely Christian atmosphere.  I invite you to those files.

	Dave, I know all about this one. I have been told by many in the
Christian file that I should come in here for the same reasons. Funny how
they don't always seem to practice what they preach.

| To those who have the purpose of "purifying" this file to
| what you might consider a Christian conference, I say don't.  This file
| has a purpose and even the other Christian files admit that this file meets
| a need.  Too many people in this country have been "left" behind in the
| witnessing  efforts of most Churches.  This file invites all to discuss
| their beliefs without fear of condemnation.  

	Dave, I think this says it all. Thanks for reminding us.



Glen

67.133> I'm signing out, indefinitely.  It doesn't feel good to be here with
67.133> people showing such intolerance to others' beliefs.

    Well, since this is somewhat of a "Christian" conference I guess that
    it's appropriate to quote Scripture.

    Consider (one of my favorite): "He that troubleth his own house shall
    inherit the wind...". 

    I don't deny that there are conferences (that I have walked away from)
    because they are intolerant - they preach understanding, acceptance,
    tolerance, and all the appropriate words.  They practice reverse hate,
    non-acceptance of opposing views and are resolutely intolerant of any-
    thing but the "politically correct" stance.  There is little question
    in my mind but that they will most assuredly and ultimately "inherit
    the wind".

    It is my considered opinion as a long-time participant in VAX Notes
    that C-P is at this point in time TOLERANT of and RESPECTS others
    opinions.  I may not personally agree with everything that I read, but,
    I am free to state an opposing opinion without fear of massive personal
    attack.  There will be those who disagree with me, and, there will be
    those who agree with me.  There are those who are going to be tolerant
    of me and those who will be intolerant.  This is called "reality".

    I do not seek out those who are tolerant of me and my opinions.  I do
    not seek out those who agree with me and my opinions.  To do so is to
    stagnate and cease the learning process.  This, in my opinion, is
    equivalent to death.

    "And ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free".  I
    don't know what the "truth" is ... I keep looking.  Who knows where
    I'll find it.

    Then again ... one cannot attack my faith because I have none.  One
    cannot attack my God, because I'm not all that sure that I believe in
    one.  One cannot attack my Church because I have none.  One cannot
    attack my "Christian" beliefs because I do not profess to be a
    Christian.  Perhaps I am spiritually dead?  For that reason I feel
    comfortable in this forum?

    Well, I don't intend to "inherit the wind".  Not just yet.  Perhaps I
    find peace in adversity.  There are those who do not.  I can only urge
    the author of 67.133 to be part of the solution and not part of the
    problem.

    Rambling.

    Sorry.

    Bubba

Yes, it seems there are some vocal individuals who have identified a number
of what they consider problems with this particular conference.

Not one solution has been offered.  So, I'm forced to conclude that these
negative criticisms are nothing more than so much noise.  An unpleasant
clanging of gongs, to be sure, but that's all.

As Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

Peace,
Richard

>As Jesus said, "By their fruits ye shall know them."

I suggest you read the rest of that chapter, where our Lord talks about false
prophets, wolves in sheep's clothing, casting pearls before swine, and the wide
and easy road that leads to destruction.

"For the gate is narrow and the road is hard that leads to life, and there
are few who find it."  -- God.

    .262:
    
>Phil wrote:

>Jehovah's Witnesses would say that those professing to be Christian would
>recognize that Jesus is not God.

>If we allow the above two statements, then we have to allow the statement

>"Christianity is defined by the belief that Jesus is God."
    
    
    Sorry, John, that doesn't follow.  What *would* be comparable is a 
    statement similar to the following:
    
    "John Covert and many other Christians would say that Christianity
    is defined by the belief that Jesus is God."
    
    No one that I know of in this conference would object to *that*
    statement. 

>    "John Covert and many other Christians would say that Christianity
>    is defined by the belief that Jesus is God."

Many?  Try "over one and one half billion Christians".

In fact, does any group _other_ than the Jehovah's Witnesses claim to
be Christian yet deny that Jesus is God?

/john

    re: .273
    

| >    "John Covert and many other Christians would say that Christianity
| >    is defined by the belief that Jesus is God."

| Many?  Try "over one and one half billion Christians".

	John, not to say that jesus isn't God (I believe He is), but to use 
numbers as any type of defense is a pretty weak defense. Remember, there were 
many Christians who also thought that burning witches was the correct thing to 
do.



Glen

Witch burnings were a local phenomenon.

Belief that Jesus is God is the worldwide belief of ALL Catholics and
Protestants.

Belief that Jesus is God is that which defines Christianity.

Are Jehovah's Witnesses the only group which applies the name "Christian"
to their organization while denying that Jesus is God and claiming that
all of Christendom is mistaken in their belief?

    John,
    
    A "local phenomenon?"  That's a most interesting way of defining 
    it.  That "local phenomenon" was responsible for the deaths of 
    approximately 8 _million_ people, 75% of which are estimated 
    to have been women....nevermind how many countless others were 
    torturted and disfigured as a result.
    
    Karen

    Re: .277
    
    Karen, surely you are not just talking about the Salem Witch Trials?
    
    Marc H.

Witchcraft was then and still does remain incompatible with Christianity.

Burning of witches was done in a time when punishments for almost any crime
were, by today's standards, barbaric.  In addition, it was done in a time when
"innocent until proven guilty" was not a popular idea.

In Salem, Massachusetts, witchcraft was, indeed, being performed, though not
by all the people who were accused and convicted of it.

Witchcraft is psychological terrorism, and deserves to be punished if it is
used against other people.

A major difference between Witchcraft and Jehovah's Witnesses is that witches
(actual witches) do not claim to be Christian.

/john

    
    		The Crusades and Spanish Inquisition doesn't look well for
    the early church.  I believe that Karen is refering to the witch trials
    in Europe as well as the U.S.
    
    
    Dave

Bad things done in the name of a Truth do not invalidate the Truth.

| <<< Note 9.276 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>

| Witch burnings were a local phenomenon.

	Does that make it any less of a sin? There are many other things that
have been done to inocent people in the name of God. Like I said, using numbers 
doesn't make a good defense as the numbers aren't all to good against the past
of some Christians.



Glen

    RE: COVERT::COVERT,
    
    		
    >Bad things done in the name of a Truth do not invalidate the Truth.
    
    
    			Thats true but wondering why people have a "bad
    taste" in their mouth because of some of the horrific things done in
    the name of Christ is only natural.  Even in my own denomination I have
    seen people abused for a variety of reasons.  When a Church has a
    pledge card signed by a member and then that member loses their job and
    is unable to pay, for the deacons to arrive on their doorstep and
    demand something of equal value is not Christian in my opinion.  And if
    you think that this is an isolated case come on down to the so-called
    Bible belt and I'll show you some things.  Too many Churches have
    decided to "become" a government and "rule" over their people instead
    of loving them.  
    
    		
    
    Dave

>    seen people abused for a variety of reasons.  When a Church has a
>    pledge card signed by a member and then that member loses their job and
>    is unable to pay, for the deacons to arrive on their doorstep and
>    demand something of equal value is not Christian in my opinion.

No, it certainly isn't.

But we aren't talking about little behavioural problems.

We're talking about the central thesis of Christianity:  "Jesus Christ is God,
and by being God reveals God to us."

    RE: Witchcraft is psychological terrorism
    
    
    John, I believe you do not have any idea what witchcraft (aka Wicca)
    is all about.
    
    Carole

    Marc .278,
    
    > Karen, surely you are not just talking about the Salem Witch 
    Trials? <
    
    You're right.  As Dave Dawson kindly indicated, .277 refers to the 
    majority of "witch trials" which occured in Europe and the millions 
    of people who lost their lives as a result.
    
    John .279,
    
    > Witchcraft was then and still does remain incompatible with 
    Christianity. <
    
    Curiously enough, Matthew Fox, a Dominican priest, does not share 
    this opinion.  He appointed Starhawk, a modern-day "witch," to the 
    faculty of the Institute for Culture and Creation Spirituality at 
    Holy Names College in Oakland, CA several years ago.  Since then he's 
    been having an on-going "discussion" with the Catholic Church about 
    the compatibility of witchcraft and Christianity.  His books 
    _Original Blessing_ and _The Coming of the Cosmic Christ_ touch upon 
    this issue in more depth.
    
    > Witchcraft is psychological terrorism, and deserves to be punished 
    if it is used against other people. <
    
    This view has been manufactured over the centuries and a little 
    objective research will show that it is more a product of religious 
    propaganda and bigotry, with very little basis in fact.  However, 
    your statement contains a degree of truth, though not exclusive to 
    Wiccans.  
    
    Any belief or belief system can, is, and has been used, as psychological 
    terrorism by some against others.  Some Wiccans have most clearly done 
    this, as well as some Christians, some Muslims, some Jews, etc.
    
    However, speaking of "psychological terrorism," did you know the idiom 
    "getting the third degree" has its origins in the activities of the 
    Inquisition?  Purported "witches" would be interrogated in attempts 
    to force them to confess their witch identity.  Torture was used to 
    not only help "encourage," but to insure the confession.  If they did 
    not confess that which the inquisitioners were seeking during this 
    "first degree" of interrogation, they were then subjected to the second 
    degree, which as you might suspect, involved an increased level and 
    intensity of torture.  Those who hadn't yet confessed through this 
    first and second degree were then subjected to the "third degree," an 
    experience from which many did not survive, a result, however, which 
    was the essential intention of the "third degree." 
    
    A profound example of psychological terrorism at its finest, I'd say.
    
    > Bad things done in the name of a Truth do not invalidate the Truth.
    
    True, they just obscure and render it unintelligible....at best, 
    temporarily -- at worst...
    
    Karen

    .273
    
    The majority is always right?  I think not.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

>    The majority is always right?  I think not.

We're not just talking about the majority here.

We're talking about all of Christianity, save the Jehovah's Witnesses (noone
has yet named another group calling itself "Christian" and denying that Jesus
is God).

/john

    Thank you, Brother John .288, but I refuse to allow you or anyone else to
    tell me what I am talking about.  I would encourage an increased
    measure of perceptivity if there is a genuine interest in understanding
    what I am talking about.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

              <<< Note 9.276 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>
            -< Localized in time and place to actual problem sites >-

>Belief that Jesus is God is the worldwide belief of ALL Catholics and
>Protestants.
    
    Please be more careful/accurate in your statements.  This simply
    is not true.

I'm sorry to see that people are dropping out of the conference.  I'm no
longer a moderator here, but I can relate to the dilemma the current
moderators are facing.

People have sharply differing beliefs about religion - that's obvious.
Since people feel so strongly about their religious beliefs they tend to
feel threatened or become belligerent when opposing religious views are
expressed.  Without intervention from the moderators the natural course of
events (as far as I can tell) is that some people will become angry or fed
up and will drop out of the conference.

What should the moderators be doing?  In the past there have been two main
ideas about the kind of conference CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE should be: some
have felt that C-P should be an open forum where anyone could state their
opinions about Christianity and point out the flaws in opposing opinions,
while others would like C-P to be a safe haven where liberal Christians
and non-Christians could be protected from criticism of their beliefs.

It seems to me that for the most part the "open forum" approach has won
out.  One reason for this is that C-P was founded as a reaction to the
excesses of the GOLF::CHRISTIAN conference, where the moderators imposed a
doctrinal standard on the conference.  In order to make C-P a "safe haven"
the moderators would similarly be imposing a standard on the conference,
perhaps by requiring that statements of beliefs be preceded by disclaimers
such as "in my opinion..." or "others may disagree, but...".  In effect
the moderators would be imposing a doctrinal standard that religious truth
is relative rather than absolute.

An open forum works both ways: conservatives are free to criticize
liberal beliefs and liberals are free to criticize conservative beliefs.
It appears that neither side likes having their beliefs criticized!
Conservatives complain about the liberal slant of the conference (because
most noters here are liberal) and liberals complain about being preached
at by the conservatives. It doesn't seem to be possible to satisfy both
sides.  Personally I hope that C-P continues to be an open forum, even
though some people have regrettably decided to drop out of the conference,
because I am interested in seeing the free exchange of ideas.

Still, the conference rules do impose restrictions on the form in which
opinions can be expressed.  From the John Sims memo of 30-Jan-1992 (note
8.11) "Statements that attribute improper, illegal or immoral motives or
actions to others; statements that cast aspersions on the character or
integrity of others or that amount to libel or slander are not permitted.
... Comments that degrade, devalue or discriminate against others are
also prohibited.  ... Employee interest notes files and conferences
provide an electronic forum to share ideas and opinions about matters of
common interest.  In supporting these conferences, the company understood
that there would be occasions where employees would disagree on issues
being discussed, but we believed and continue to believe that it is
possible to disagree without being disagreeable."

IMO, the moderators may have to enforce this policy more vigorously.  I
hope they will continue to apply it equally to all noters: liberal,
conservative, in between, or none of the above.

				-- Bob

    I like to think I'm open, but sometimes I'm the one who asks -- or
    appears to be asking -- for a "safe haven."  Some comments from those
    who differ strongly with me are written in a way that I find dismissive
    and a put-down -- and thus they are exactly opposite to any kind of
    "open" forum.  Openness, like lack of discrimination, can sometimes be 
    in name only.
    
    I am accused of "not knowing what I'm talking about" or of "denying the
    implications" of this or that.  Or blanket black-and-white statements are 
    made in such a way as to allow for *no* disagreement, i.e., "ALL
    Christians believe such-and-such!"  Those who differ are not given the 
    human respect or courtesy of acknowleding that they have honest,
    thoughtful beliefs that differ.  
    
    C-P does not have to be as "safe" for liberal Christians as the other
    conference has become for fundamentalist Christians, but surely there
    must be a way to allow absolutists to maintain their integrity
    without insulting the intelligence or honesty of others?  If not, then
    how can this be considered even an "open" forum?
    
    I don't know the answer, but I truly hope that there *is* one!
    
    Nancy

    Thank you Nancy (.292)!  As always, you have a way of getting to the
    'heart' of the matter.  You've put your finger on exactly what I've
    felt has been happening the last few weeks.  
    
    BTW, Collis, I believe your noting style is different than Mr. Covert's
    and Mr. Sweezey's.  I don't sense that you carry the animosity that
    their notes indicate that they harbor.
    
    Ro
    

Re: .292 Nancy

>    I am accused of "not knowing what I'm talking about" or of "denying the
>    implications" of this or that.

Notes like that could be deleted, but for C-P to be an "open forum" a
policy of deleting hostile notes would need to be applied consistently.
It isn't just conservatives who write hostile notes.  Even some notes
written by present or former C-P moderators might need to be deleted under
that standard, and who would do the deleting?

Once you start deleting notes it is all to easy to cross the line into
censorship of ideas rather than just the expression of those ideas.
Personally I'm not always sure I know the difference.

>    Or blanket black-and-white statements are 
>    made in such a way as to allow for *no* disagreement, i.e., "ALL
>    Christians believe such-and-such!"  Those who differ are not given the 
>    human respect or courtesy of acknowleding that they have honest,
>    thoughtful beliefs that differ.  
    
So you'd like to make it a rule that any time someone states a belief
they must acknowledge that others who disagree with that belief have
honest, thoughtful beliefs that differ?  If I say "I am opposed to genocide"
I have to add "but I'm sure that those who favor genocide have honest,
thoughtful reasons for their position"?

The question I have for you, Nancy, is:  why does it bother you when
someone says "ALL Christians believe such-and-such"?  You can present
arguments to show that person why they are wrong, and if they remain
unconvinced you can just ignore them.  Isn't that enough?

>    C-P does not have to be as "safe" for liberal Christians as the other
>    conference has become for fundamentalist Christians, but surely there
>    must be a way to allow absolutists to maintain their integrity
>    without insulting the intelligence or honesty of others?  If not, then
>    how can this be considered even an "open" forum?
    
An open forum means that everyone is free to state their opinions.  It
does not necessarily mean that people are free from having their
intelligence or honesty challenged.  Not everyone will feel comfortable in
an open forum, and some will drop out.  In my opinion (you may disagree)
this does not mean that the forum is not open.

However, it could well be argued that notes which question another noter's
intelligence or honesty should be deleted in conformance with the
conference rules, and in particular the John Sims memo.  Maybe if the
moderators did this, and did it consistently, the conference would become
more pleasant for most noters while still remaining "open".  Considering
some of the hostile notes that have been written recently and the fact
that people are dropping out, perhaps it's time for the moderators to start
doing this.

				-- Bob

    Collis,
    
    	I, too, consider your contributions to be positive ones - well, at
    least, *most* of them.  I considered most of Alfred Thompson's entries
    to be valuable.
    
    	I think a key element is the degree of respect with which an entry
    is perceptably infused.  And, I suppose I, too, am guilty of neglecting
    to speak with respect at times.  Hell, I ain't perfect!  8-}
    
    Peace & love in Jesus,
    Richard

    re: .924
    
    Gee, Bob, seems like you came down pretty hard on me for expressing
    how some notes affect me.  Notice that I haven't left the conf. (though
    I don't note as much as when it first started due to work).  And,
    frankly, it never entered my mind when I wrote .292 that any notes
    should be deleted (at least not at this point)!  I was assuming that
    if additional **acceptable** guidelines **could** be added, folks
    would abide by them! (Was that naive of me?)
    
>So you'd like to make it a rule that any time someone states a belief
>they must acknowledge that others who disagree with that belief have
>honest, thoughtful beliefs that differ?  If I say "I am opposed to genocide"
>I have to add "but I'm sure that those who favor genocide have honest,
>thoughtful reasons for their position"?
    
    C'mon, Bob, that's not what I said -- and you don't usually put words
    in other folks' mouths!  Your analogy would be a more accurate one if 
    you stated: "ALL Americans are opposed to genocide."  (Probably some 
    are not opposed to it in every case.)  
    
    In fact, when *anyone* says "I..." that's fine with me -- great!!  It's
    the arrogance that states that "ALL Christians believe thus-and-so"
    that I -- please note that this is a personal-feeling-statement here -- 
    find personally offensive (as well as intellectually dishonest and untrue).
    
    I don't even object to someone saying, "I don't consider anyone who
    doesn't agree with me to be a Christian."  That's fine -- but that's a
    lot different from saying "All Christians agree with me."  
    
    In .292 I said I find that personally objectionable and offensive and 
    rude and, for that matter, factually incorrect.  I was expressing some 
    painful feelings about it -- perhaps I didn't do it very well.  I know 
    how difficult it must be to moderate this conference, and I value having 
    it open.  
    
    If you remember, I raised the question of whether there might be *some*
    way to *preserve the integrity of absolutists* while creating a more
    "non-absolutist-friendly" -- and there *IMO* more open -- file. 
    (Frankly, I doubt that there *is* a way, and I'm pretty much resigned
    to that.  I'll probably resort to read-only soon.)
    
    But maybe you'd prefer that I keep my feelings and objections to
    myself?
    
    Nancy

    I'm not sure if this is the right place but...
    
    I've stopped noting here - for various reasons. One of them being my
    feeling of distance between myself and christianity and the other the
    feeling that this notesfile is heading down a path I no longer tread.
    
    Pete.

Nancy .296,

	Some of the recent interactions and exchanges here have truly grieved
my soul.  I, too, wish we could find a way to preserve the integrity of
absolutists while creating a more non-absolutist-friendly environment.

	I have attempted to address the situation by suggesting that notes
be "framed with ownership:"

>Note 9.226

>	Though you and I seldom share totally congruent perspectives,
>I truly appreciate your input here in C-P.  I actually encourage dissenting
>opinions, especially when those opinions are framed with ownership and when
>those opinions refrain from attacking another noter or the integrity of
>another noter.

	Genuinely, I think it would improve things if we could avoid the
communication pitfalls created by polarity; generalizations spoken as
absolute truths.

	I have also tried planting seeds, such as initiating the "When
Christianity is confrontational," "How to make CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE more
hospitable," and the "Homogeneity" topics.

	Other times, I have just plain gone toe-to-toe with another noter.  I
am least proud of these entries of mine; so much so, in fact, that I have even
gone back and deleted some of my notes later.

	Somewhat ironically, I find often myself philosophically at odds with
some people in C-P with whom I communicate extremely well!  And I find myself
theologically alligned with others who have nothing positive to say about me,
the conference, and most other noters here!

	At this point, I'm simply saying a prayer for this conference.  I, too,
am grateful for the existence of this file and its premise.  However, I may
go read-only for awhile myself.

Peace,
Richard
    

    Pete,
    
    	Good to hear from you.  I hope you'll continue to browse through
    and respond occasionally.
    
    	I'm curious about the path you longer tread.  What path is that?
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

Re: .296 Nancy

>    Gee, Bob, seems like you came down pretty hard on me for expressing
>    how some notes affect me.

Sorry, Nancy, I wasn't trying to "come down hard" on you.  I was trying to
analyze what you wanted out of the conference to see whether it would be
possible to make the conference both "open" and "safe" (as seen by you and
others).

>    I was assuming that
>    if additional **acceptable** guidelines **could** be added, folks
>    would abide by them! (Was that naive of me?)
    
I wouldn't say that it's naive, but my own personal opinion is that you
(generic) aren't going to be able to change people's noting styles just by
announcing new guidelines, unless you're willing to enforce those
guidelines.  That's where "deleting" comes in.

>    In fact, when *anyone* says "I..." that's fine with me -- great!!  It's
>    the arrogance that states that "ALL Christians believe thus-and-so"
>    that I -- please note that this is a personal-feeling-statement here -- 
>    find personally offensive (as well as intellectually dishonest and untrue).
    
OK, noted.  When someone says "ALL Christians believe thus-and-so" then you
find it personally offensive.  But the other person may be just as offended
that you said that you felt that their statement was intellectually
dishonest and untrue.  You might ask that person as a favor not to make
such sweeping statements, or the moderators might ask people not to make
such sweeping statements, but if the moderators start enforcing that
policy by deleting notes then they'll be letting you dictate the content of
the other person's notes.  They'll be deleting notes based on the ideas that
are expressed.

>    If you remember, I raised the question of whether there might be *some*
>    way to *preserve the integrity of absolutists* while creating a more
>    "non-absolutist-friendly" -- and there *IMO* more open -- file. 

Well, what the moderators *could* do would be to start deleting notes that
are hostile or question another noter's intelligence or character.  Maybe
if they struck the right balance between ruthlessness and tolerance the
character of the conference could be preserved.  But based on what you've
written this might not be enough from your point of view, unless I've
misunderstood you: you'll be offended if another noter says "All
Christians believe xxx" even if he stops insulting you.

>    But maybe you'd prefer that I keep my feelings and objections to
>    myself?
    
Not at all!  Just because I disagree with you doesn't mean that I don't
want to hear what you have to say.

				-- Bob

    re .301 - Bob,
    
    For the record, I was musing about "openness" and *not* asking for the
    conference to be made "safe."
    
>OK, noted.  When someone says "ALL Christians believe thus-and-so" then you
>find it personally offensive.  But the other person may be just as offended
>that you said that you felt that their statement was intellectually
>dishonest and untrue.  
    
    Well, I suppose you have a point that I should consider.  To my
    understanding, saying "ALL Christians believe thus-and-so" violates
    a very basic rule of logic, which is why I said it is intellectually 
    dishonest and untrue.  It's like saying that Dobermans are dogs, that 
    all Dobermans I've ever seen are black, and that therefore all dogs 
    are black.
    
    I had supposed that this understanding of logic was accepted by others, 
    but perhaps I was mistaken.  I don't have a basis for communicating with 
    those who don't accept that that kind of logic is false -- perhaps that 
    is a weakness of my own.  In any case, it's clear that I cannot do it
    and so should keep quiet.
    
>Well, what the moderators *could* do would be to start deleting notes that
>are hostile or question another noter's intelligence or character. 
    
    I'm *not* asking the mods to delete anyone's notes.  You keep
    referring to that, as though you are convinced that that would be the
    only way to do it.  If you are right, then probably it cannot be done.
    
    I do want to emphasize, though, for the sake of others reading this,
    that *you* are the one who keeps talking about the deleting of notes.
    I have not asked for that (and in fact, wasn't even thinking of it till
    you brought it up) and am still not asking for that.
    
    I'm not sure exactly what you disagree with me about, since feelings
    just *are* and aren't to be agreed or disagreed with and since *I* 
    did not ask for other's notes to be deleted.  Maybe you disagree with
    me on logic -- or maybe just the manner in which I expressed myself.
    
    In any case, it *is* ok with me that you disagree with whatever it is 
    you disagree with me about! :-)
    
    Nancy

    Nancy .302 & Bob .301,
    
    	I see a kind of parallel going on here with a situation I have come to
    recognize in my marriage. :-)
    
    	One of the partners will be in "relational" mode, while the other is in
    "problem-solving" mode.  Needless to say, as long as we continue without
    recognizing what is going on, we don't really communicate.  We just
    wonder at what's is going on in the other's mind and why we can't get
    through to the other.
    
    	I'll butt out now.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Re: .303 Richard

>    	One of the partners will be in "relational" mode, while the other is in
>    "problem-solving" mode.

Oh, so *that's* what's going on.  Thanks.

>    	I'll butt out now.
    
Sounds like a good idea.

				-- Bob

    I wish my grandmother was around ... she'd read this string and head
    for the peach tree to find a switch ... and *wow* do they sting.  You
    boys would be ah' droppin youah' britches and grandmother would cure
    this "argument" right quick!
    
    Bubba

    Since I can't figure out which mode Richard thinks I'm in, and since
    I didn't intend to *argue* with anyone (in this string, that is), I'll
    butt out, too!
    
    Nancy

re Note 496.80 by JUPITR::HILDEBRANT:

>     This series of replies by the "Biblical" Experts, nit pickers, and spell
>     checkers, is yet another example of why this notes file is turning
>     people *away*.
>     
>     More and more, people are becoming "read only's" while the self
>     proclaimed keepers of the faith continue to argue away and make points
>     for themselves.
  
        Well, it usually takes two sides to sustain a continuing
        series of points and counterpoints.  Either side should be
        able to stop it, no?

        Bob

re Note 505.9 by COVERT::COVERT:

> It appears the "agenda" of this conference is to apply the label "narrow-minded"
> to those who profess and proclaim that Christianity is defined by the belief
> that Jesus is God.
  
        John,

        Would you please give us a break here?

        There is no "agenda" to this conference!  Never was, never
        will be.

        Individuals who participate in this conference may or may not
        have a personal agenda in so doing.  For some the agenda may
        be simply to have a challenging discussion about Christianity. 
        For others the agenda may very well be to call to question
        the traditional majority Christian doctrines.  For yet others
        the agenda may be to defend traditional Christian orthodoxy.

        All are welcome to participate regardless of their agenda as
        long as that agenda is consistent with Digital corporate
        guidelines for such conferences.

        If it is fair to infer that the '"agenda" of this conference
        is to apply the label "narrow-minded" to those who profess
        and proclaim that Christianity is defined by the belief that
        Jesus is God', then it is equally true that the agenda of this
        conference is to 'proclaim that Christianity is defined by
        the belief that Jesus is God', since there are very active
        participants who have been doing just this.

        Bob

    Correct Bob,
      However, if I want to add something to the conversation, and its
    being dominated by these type of people, I will most likely *NOT*
    respond...that is what I mean.
    
    Marc H.

    As someone who falls into the camp that has sometimes been labeled as
    "narrow-minded", I've been doing a lot of thinking about the dialog
    between both sides, especially given the Republican National Convention
    this past week.
    
    I see on one side, folks who believe in absolutes that apply to all
    people in all times.  On the other side are the folks whose only
    absolute is that no one should tell them that there are absolutes.  The
    folks on the absolute side feel they have to confront every example of
    an absolute being trashed in order to preserve truth.  The folks on the
    non-absolute side take it as an insult that someone else insists that an
    absolute applies to them.
    
    I believe that there can be dialog but it takes work on both sides. 
    The disagreement is often much deeper than the issue being discussed
    since the fundamental assumptions about the world, man, God, etc. are
    so different.  We need to make those assumptions explicit where we can
    to reduce additional misunderstanding of where we're starting from.
    
    The problem comes when folks on both sides feel insulted or that they
    aren't respected.  Speaking as someone on the "narrow-minded" side that
    sees myself as fundamentally flawed and sinful, I have to remember that
    folks who don't accept what to me is a fundamental assumption are not
    necessarily going to cheerfully embrace the distinction I make between
    the person and their actions.  I can say, God's love for an individual
    is the ONLY thing that gives them worth, all other sources of
    self-worth will eventually let them down, and then say "that action is
    wrong", without meaning to insult.  The person on the receiving end of
    my "point", may see any condemnation of their actions to be a
    condemnation of their worth as an individual, which is not what I
    intend or condone (sp?).
    
    Both sides, I think see the other as arrogant.
    
    Although I'm not sure we can have a dialog between the two sides, I'm
    willing to try.  I'm also willing to try to bend over backward to not
    insult without being false to what I see as the truth, hoping that
    those on the receiving end will cut me a little slack for my "handicap"
    of being stuck with absolutes. 8-)
    
    Peace,
    Paul
    
    

re Note 9.310 by YAMS::FERWERDA:

        Thanks, Paul; that was quite thoughtful.

        Bob

    Re .310,
    
    I agree with you, Paul.  Both sides, the absolutist and non-absolutist,
    _must_ enter into dialog.  It might help if both sides could identify
    a reason they both share as to why this dialog is important.  This
    would help to address the arrogance you speak of and foster a more  
    "listening and open heart" in both.
    
    Currently in the socio-political arena, that shared reason, or common 
    ground, has not yet been created or articulated.  Instead, it seems 
    we're polarizing to even further extremes.  Given that this country 
    is composed primarily of a two-party body politic, perhaps polarization 
    is inevitably the nature of the beast?  
    
    Still, I pray for personal courage and Divine Grace to dialog openly, 
    honestly and respectfully with one another.  
    
    *Thanks* for your thoughts,
    
    Karen 

        The issue has come up, from time to time, that it is unfair
        to "ridicule" the beliefs of particular denominations.

        "Ridicule", as define by the dictionary I have at hand, is
        "speech or action intended to cause contemptuous laughter".
        "Ridicule" is therefore defined by intention, and therefore
        cannot be directly observed.

        The unabridged dictionary I am using (Random House) goes on
        to give usage notes.  It states that "TO RIDICULE is to make
        fun of, either sportively and good-humoredly, or unkindly
        with the intention of humiliating" (there goes that word,
        "intention", again!).

        Thus, to ridicule is not always to be unfair or intend harm.

        What is the boundary between ridicule and mere criticism?  I
        observe that in the U.S. political field, the most common and
        apparently successful form of criticism does appear to be
        ridicule.  Is it unfair?

        Bob

    We're not called by Christ to be "successful".  So while we can discuss
    if ridicule is successful criticism, that's really besides the point.

    The point is that making a person or the beliefs a person the object of
    laughter is immoral.

    Recall the last sin of men against Jesus was not the crucifixion.
    No, after Jesus was on the Cross and dying, he continued to be mocked
    to the end.

 
   Patrick,

   While you have expressed your indignation you have done little else
   to defend the Catholic Church.  Rather than point out a specific way
   to not defend the faith I will suggest how you could and do it in an
   enguaging fashon as well.

   I would suggest presenting us with a copy of "In Humane Vitae" which
   I understand is the clear statement of the Church regarding several
   issues here.  While I may disagree with Catholic Churches stance on 
   many things I would be inclined to regard serious presentation of 
   same as valid and worthy of discussion.  Replies generally without 
   prior substance stating that's just the way it is are uninformative
   and devoid of scriptures as backup.  By using that document as an
   example you would have presented the Catholic interpretation of the
   Bible and how it supports the faith.  A defense of this kind is logical
   and sincere and bridges many Christian faiths.  It is likely to be
   interesting to those that don't believe as well.

   Regarding Menchen, A simple explanations of who he was and what he
   is known for would have been informative.

   Peace,
   Allison

   PS:  AHD: Bemuse; to confuse, stupify.  My comment in 508.37 was not
   	of amusement, but born out of bewilderment!

re Note 508.47 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     Since you asked, the quotation in .27 is not an invitation to
>     respectful discussion of the Christian perspective on birth control,
>     but a mocking wisecrack of an anti-Christian and anti-Catholic bigot.
>     
>     It makes Roman Catholic belief the object of laughter.
  
        Pat,

        Would it have made any difference if Mike had made a similar
        observation to Mencken's in his own words?  (In fact, I and
        others have done this in the Catholic-Theology and Christian
        conferences over the years.)

        Bob

    When you are presented with an ridiculous claim, it's a simple matter
    to dismiss it and move on.  What serious view of birth control has been
    presented in that note that merits a discussion, perhaps Richard's
    assertion that natural family planning is also contrary to God's will.
    
    As for the message versus the messenger:  It would not be possible for
    me to judge the intent of a participant here.  Mencken's life was full
    of contempt, hatred, and bigotry for Christians, especially Catholics,
    Jews, Blacks, Jews, women, in fact, everyone except the native-born
    irreligious Americans of whom he is the saint.

<    When you are presented with an ridiculous claim, it's a simple matter
<    to dismiss it and move on.  What serious view of birth control has been
<    presented in that note that merits a discussion, perhaps Richard's
<    assertion that natural family planning is also contrary to God's will.

   Patrick,

   Responses like that are why some will never be taken serious.  To me
   there are the sins of religious vanity:

   	Rather than answer that I'll pray for you...  
   	Because, it says right here...
   	that ridiculous claim, I'll dismiss that.

   Those statements are offensive, rude, contemptous, and condesending
   but I've heard them much too often.  It contributes nothing to any
   discussion, save maybe to send the searcher on their way unanswered.

<    As for the message versus the messenger:  It would not be possible for
<    me to judge the intent of a participant here.  Mencken's life was full
<    of contempt, hatred, and bigotry for Christians, especially Catholics,
<    Jews, Blacks, Jews, women, in fact, everyone except the native-born
<    irreligious Americans of whom he is the saint.

   Are you sure you really wanted to post that last sentence?  It is rather
   hateful and bigoted.  


   peace,
   Allison

    When a claim is made that is ridiculous I will dismiss it.
    When a claim is made that I consider to be of merit to discuss, I will.
    
    What standard do you apply to Notes?
    
    Readers can judge for themselves if the claim is serious, ridiculous,
    or an appeal to bigotry.

Note 9.320

>    Readers can judge for themselves if the claim is serious, ridiculous,
>    or an appeal to bigotry.

Verily, most readers and most of the time.

Richard

Note 9.317
>    What serious view of birth control has been
>    presented in that note that merits a discussion, perhaps Richard's
>    assertion that natural family planning is also contrary to God's will.

What I actually said in Note 508.48 was:

>	Practicing NFP, after all, could be considered choosing to deny
>life also, could it not?  I mean, perhaps I have a false notion of what NFP
>is all about, but NFP seems to me to be a pretty contrived way of
>controlling reproduction.

By introducing the possibility of my own misconception I practically paved the
way for you to explain why you believe NFP is the will of God.  You may choose
to ignore that opportunity.  It's your decision.

But, please hear this:

I don't hate Catholics.  I won't bother with the 'some of my best friends' line,
even though it's true.  The last Marriage Encounter weekend my spouse and I
were on was Roman Catholic.  I take pride in having served 2 years as a chaplain
in a hospital owned and operated by the Sisters of Charity.  I have exchanged
hand written correspondence and had phone conversations with Bishop Thomas
Gumbleton.  I have worked closely in conjunction with the Roman Catholic
diocese of Colorado Springs on a number of issues of mutual concern.

We don't hate Catholics here.  But I get the distinct impression that you
believe most of us here do.  I get the distinct impression that you believe
that one of our primary objectives here is to persecute either Catholicism
or the Holy Roman Catholic Church.  If that is so, then you are most
profoundly in error.

That is all.

Richard

    Re: Pat and catholic bashing....
    
    Pat, you are wrong...period. There is no hidden agenda. Its in your
    own mind, really.
    
    I think that you have the feeling that C-P is the same as soapbox.
    It isn't. 
    
    Marc H.

re Note 9.320 by SDSVAX::SWEENEY:

>     When a claim is made that is ridiculous I will dismiss it.
>     When a claim is made that I consider to be of merit to discuss, I will.
>     
>     What standard do you apply to Notes?
  
        I am really confused, then.

        As I pointed out elsewhere, I too questioned whether the
        choice of technologies involved in NFP vs. chemical vs.
        barrier made any substantial difference.  Mencken's
        statement, as quoted, states what I wrote more concisely but
        uses no words or phrasing that is generally used to taunt or
        mock.  (I confess next to no knowledge of Mencken, thus I
        judges his words without reference to his heart, life, or
        reputation.)

        Mencken's statement is in no way a prima facie ridiculous
        claim (in fact, the quote is literally a claim that the
        church was making a ridiculous claim -- but that in itself
        isn't ridicule or mockery).

        Bob

Note 508.108

>    The overall context here for CP participants to take shots at Roman
>    Catholic teaching on marriage and family life.

Allegations of persecution again, eh??

Were it true you could take comfort from Jesus' words about being persecuted.
But you can't.

So, are you ready to propose some constructive suggestions yet?

Pax Christi,
Richard

    I would quote a very famous phrase by Harry Truman .. but it would
    serve no purpose other than to alienate people .. so ... you can fill
    in the blanks.

    Bubba

It's just not PC here in CP to claim that there is any moral or theological
standard associated with Christianity.

If you do so, people take pot shots.

Jesus commands the faithful believer to stay in the kitchen and face the
heat.

/john

re Note 9.326 by COVERT::COVERT:

> It's just not PC here in CP to claim that there is any moral or theological
> standard associated with Christianity.
  
        Ah, com'on!  If there is a Catholic-related issue in these
        recent discussions at all, it is whether the Roman Catholic
        teaching authority is to be taken as inerrant and binding
        without question.

        If that's PC, then Martin Luther and Calvin were PC.

        Bob

    Was Christ "PC"?
    
    Bubba

    Christ was actually a bit of a revolutionary, methinks.

    Christ was not PC 2000 years ago. He is not PC now either.
    
    		Alfred

    Precisely my point, Mr. Thompson.
    
    Bubba

Nanci 91.1555,

	I understand and appreciate your intent, but if we didn't represent
such an enormous threat, Patrick wouldn't say anything!

	He's providing an invaluable service for us as a barometer.  And so,
I'd really rather keep him here.

Peace,
Richard

    Disparagement and ridicule of Christianity is routine in
    CHRISITAN-PERSPECTIVE.  It certainly seems "welcome" when the
    moderators set the tone for the conference.

    I am simply a commentator.  I don't claim to be objective.  Much of what
    I say is supposed to be funny and I believe is funny.  My calling is
    simply to call into question to the conservative Christian's smug
    satisfaction with the status quo.

    If I was Rush Limbaugh doing the "disparagement and ridicule", Patrick
    would be cheering me on.

    Peace,
    Richard

    I disagree, Patrick, that Christianity is routinely ridiculed here.
    
    Certain doctrines are examined, cross-examined, and/or commented upon, 
    as well as various Biblical passages, and demoninations such as UU's, 
    JW's, Quakerism, and Catholicism, to name a few.  
    
    Sometimes emotions run high in certain topics and are reflected thusly 
    in notes written with tones of sarcasm and, yes, sometimes, ridicule.  
    But from what I've seen, you're no stranger at lapsing into these 
    types of comments from time to time yourself...as am I.  
    
    Karen

    I believe Richard has it right.  Christianity is the target of
    contempt, humor and sarcasm here.
    
    I respect Christianity and the sincere beliefs of others.

    Patrick - 
    
    I was merely suggesting that perhaps your expectations of the purpose
    of this conference are unrealistic.  I see some people who disagree
    with what you say and they are called "disparaging and ridiculing
    Christianity" and yet I don't see those who disagree with you levelling
    the same charges on you.  So the conclusion that I came to was that the
    reality of what C-P is is not in alignment with your expectations of
    what you think it _should_ be.
    
    There are several different ways in which to resolve this misalliance,
    so to speak:
    
      1.  You can change your expectations of what C-P is.
          (In MHO, unlikely given what I've read, but possible.)
    
      2.  We can change the nature of C-P to align with your personal
          belief system.
          (Highly unlikely since, as I see it, C-P in reality is very
          closely aligned with the intent of those who conceived it.)
    
      3.  You can find a conference that fills your expectations.
          (GOLF::CHRISTIAN)
    
      4.  We can leave you here, you can make C-P what you think it
          _should_ be and we can all go someplace else and recreate the
          intent of this conference elsewhere.
          (A little ridiculous, don't you think?)
    
    
    I'm sure there are other alternatives but this was all I could come up
    with at the moment.
    
    Patrick, I respect your faith.  It is obvious that you hold it with
    great fervor and passion.  There are others of us who hold our own
    faith with no less commitment and passion as you hold yours.  I would
    not have you change your faith any more than I would change the nature
    of God as I understand Him.  And I would ask for the same respect for
    my faith from you.  Granted, you have the right to refuse to honor me
    in this request.  That is your right.  However, as someone once said, 
    I am not in this world to live up to your expectations and you are not
    in this world to live up to mine.  
    
    And as for God's expectations?  Well, I think the best any of us can do
    in this world is to live up to what we *believe* God's expectations of
    us are as we *perceive* them to be.
    
    Nanci
    

    Perhaps the reason that I am not "charged" with disparaging and
    ridiculing Christianity by the people I disagree with is because as a
    factual matter I do not disparage and ridicule Christianity.
    
    My expectations of CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE are irrelevant.

    .336
    
    You are wrong.  But I'm sure there is nothing I could say that would
    convince you of that.
    
    Richard
    

Note 9.338
    
    >    Perhaps the reason that I am not "charged" with disparaging and
    >ridiculing Christianity by the people I disagree with is because as a
    >factual matter I do not disparage and ridicule Christianity.
    
    Correction.  You do not disparage or ridicule traditional perspectives.
    
    Richard

Chrisitianity is a historical religion.

The new secular religion that is not based on the bible or the traditions
of the historical Church is not Christianity.

/john

    Thank you, /john (.342).  That is one possible perspective.  To me
    Christianity has a rich history; a history of triumph, of turmoil,
    of tragedy.  We have much to gain from our history, and much to
    avoid repeating.
    
    I believe God *is* Mother, Lover and Friend, among other descriptors.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Mr. Sweeney,

		Someday, perhaps soon, I would love to have the opportunity
to witness to you about the Jesus Christ I know.  The love and care he 
brought to the world.  The one who came not to condem the world but that
through him it might be saved.  The one who commanded that we love our
neighbors as ourselves and show that love to the world.  Jesus, who 
though reviled continue to love and witness to a lost and dying world.
Ridiculed for his words, he returned hate and condemnation with love and
truth.  Who spoke to all of us about turning the other cheek.

		Seeing what you have written over the last several months
I feel inclined to ask you if I could witness to you.


Dave

    Re: .333
    No, YOUR version of what YOU think Christianity is is being discuss,
    and YOU think its being ridiculed.
    
    
    Marc H.

    After being away from this notes file, I have a few reflections to
    offer.

    It is not the moderators per se, but *all* of the participants who set
    the tone of this conference.  In GOLF::CHRISTIAN, where the moderators
    are heavy handed and rigidly control what can and can't be said, the
    situation is probably different, but here the conference is shaped by
    everyone who participates.

    Noting styles vary considerably.  Some styles are warm and friendly,
    others cold and hostile.  To what extent various notes personalities
    mirror the actual flesh-and-blood personalities probably depends on the
    individual.  And when a lot of people who are nice to each other get
    together into a notes community, they can form a warm and caring
    community.  On the other hand, when someone comes into that community
    with a predisposition of hostility, that also sets a tone--a negative
    one, in this case.

    It is sometimes hard to judge whether or not those who are impersonal
    and unfriendly to others in notes are actually that way in real life. 
    It is also difficult to judge people who come from different parts of
    the U.S. or the world.  For example, there is a stereotype among many
    Americans about New Yorkers being brusque, rude, and obnoxious.  I
    think that to a certain extent you have to get beyond superficial
    appearances and realize that the stereotypical New York style of
    interacting may not be meant to be as obnoxious as it might appear.  On
    the other hand, I have met my share of nice New Yorkers, so maybe it
    isn't fair to the nice ones to say of the others, "Oh, he's not a jerk,
    he's just from New York".

    But how noting styles affect others in a community is worth
    considering.  For example, there is one noting style that I will
    call--let's see, oh, for want of a better name, the Sweevert style of
    noting.  It can be characterized by the following traits:

        o Identify certain people as the enemy, based on the fact that they
          have different opinions than your own.

        o Once you have determined who your enemies are, make sure that you
          do not engage in any behavior that would break the ice, make the
          discussions more personal, acknowledge your enemy as a feeling
          human being, or otherwise build a sense of community with them.
          Jesus may have said that you should love your enemies, but that
          doesn't mean you have to be nice to them.  Specifically:
        	-  Avoid all forms of small talk or banter.  And NEVER use
		   a smiley face (it is optionally permissible to use smiley
		   faces with sarcastic comments, but if smiley faces are not
		   your style then you should just avoid them altogether.)
        	-  Refuse to address your enemy directly by name. That would
		   be far too personal and friendly.
        	-  Refuse to engage your enemy directly in a dialogue. 
        	   That includes asking no questions of them, and
        	   responding to any questions that they put to you by
        	   accusing them of baiting you or of putting down your
        	   faith, or at best giving them a brusque one-sentence
    		   reply (see below).  It doesn't matter what they say to
    		   you, this always works.  For example, if someone says to
    		   you, "Hi, how's the weather down where you live?", accuse
    		   them of ridiculing your religion, or tell them that the
    		   weather is not relevant, or that your own opinion of the 
    		   weather is not relevant.

        o Cast all notes in the form of theological or some other kind of
          pronouncements.  This means using paragraphs with only one or two
          sentences at most, thus giving each sentence greater impact and
          meaning.  This will also lend an air of talking down to others. 
    	  When responding to an individual comment (although not addressing
    	  the author by name) with a simple one sentence paragraph, you
    	  also indicate to them that one sentence is all their comment
          deserves.
    
    I think the key point about the Sweevert mode of noting is that a notes
    file is not viewed as a community in which you wish to take part.  Your
    job is to deliver a message, as pointedly and directly as possible, and
    you have no time for social interaction with the boors who participate
    there.  It is spreading your message of the Truth to a wider audience
    that matters.  The other people in the notes file are sources of
    opinions to differ with, no more and no less.  Any personal side to the
    discussions here are to be dispensed with as irrelevant.
    
    -- Mike

re .344

Do you plan to witness to what Jesus Christ taught about obedience to
God and living a life of holiness, or do you plan to witness to the
modern American secular "anything goes" religion?  The Church of What's
Happening Now?

Permissiveness towards sin and a denial of the truth of the Holy Scriptures
are not in accordance with the commandment to love thy neighbor as thyself.

/john

    Re: .346
    
    Well said Mike! Right on target.
    
    Marc H.

    RE: .347  Mr. Covert,
    
    			   I would plan to witness to what the Bible really
    said about obedience and judgements.  They were/are directed at the
    individual and not to be "forced" on groups.  In other words....We are
    to deal with ourselves as individuals.  Kinda like the mote in my eye
    while I look at the splinter in other's eyes.  The biblical lifestyle
    directly refers to the individual.  I would witness to the saving grace
    of Jesus Christ and not worry about what my prejudices are.  I believe
    that Jesus can change the individual if its needed if the person has a
    relationship with Christ based on love and truth.
    
    
    Dave

	Dave, that was really nice. Thanks for posting that. 



Glen

You're absolutely right, Dave.

What makes you think that Pat Sweeney does not see Christ exactly the same way?

/john

    RE: .351  Mr. Covert,
    
    			   Forgive me for not answering before now...Busy
    ya know.
    
    
    		To answer your question, I really wish Mr. Sweeney had
    deemed to answer, but since your his surrogate so-to-speak, I'll say
    this to you.  I have sensed a lot of anger in his answers and his many
    claims of persecution.  I would love to see a change to a more positive
    aspect of Christianity....sharing the witnes of Christ for example.
    
    
    Dave

Dave,

What do you think the witness of Christ is?

Certainly it is that God loves you and provides salvation to all.  That's
the easy part though.  Salvation is a free gift, but it requires a response.

The witness of Jesus is that the required response is living a life in
accordance with God's commandments.

Those who bear this witness are often subject to ridicule (and the Bible
even says that this will be so) by those who would prefer to follow their
own definition of God and morality, rather than the commandments of God.

/john

Note 519.81

>    In any case, is the new dialog
>    suppression tactic for CP to doubt the sincerity of people one
>    disagrees with?

I thought you said you didn't engage in ridicule and disparagement.

>    You're own position is supported by citing your references and
>    diminished when don't.

Thanks for the tactical advice, but I'm not interested in debate.  This is
*not* SOAPBOX.

Richard

>Note 516.12

>                         -< The Christian Perspective >-

There you go again, /john, defining for us all what the one true Christian
perspective is.

It's an interesting approach.  But I'm of the firm belief that readers and
contributors in C-P are intelligent enough to make such determinations for
themselves.

In Christ's light,
Richard

>                         -< The Christian Perspective >-

   John,

   My understanding of this is you are saying this is how I percieve
   it from the Christian perspective as I know it.  I am of course
   substituting "My" for the "The".  I am not saying your alone in your
   views either, only that I would expect you speak for yourself not as
   the spoksman for everyone.

   	A sampling of similar statements:
   	
   		A Christian(s') perspective
   		One Christian(s') perspective
   	        From a Christian(s') perspective

   	And we have:

   		The Christian Perspective

   It is easier for me to respect you and your personal views over
   someone espousing the official view even if they are the same.

   Am I being harsh?  Yes, a bit.  For that I apologise.  The strident
   tone is to harsh to me and next_unseen is tempting.  You have said 
   important things and I'm not always receptive to the presentation. 
   I have to listen hard to hear, why make it harder to be heard?

   I bid you well,
   Allison

.357> It's an interesting approach.  But I'm of the firm belief that
.357> readers and contributors in C-P are intelligent enough to make
.357> such determinations for themselves.

Thank you.  My first "impression" of this conference was that of 
a great deal of diversity in opinions.  Quite frankly, as of late
I've seen a lot of "this-is-the-way-that-it-is" that you reference
Richard.  You're right.  I have a brain and I intend to use it.

.358> Am I being harsh?  Yes, a bit.  For that I apologize.  The strident
.358> tone is to harsh to me and next_unseen is tempting.

Am I being harsh?  Yep.  I don't apologize.  I'm sick of it.  Sure, I
respect it, just that I'm sick of it.  <NEXT UNSEEN> is not only tempting
but comes in quite handy as of late.

Bubba

Is it not the Christian Perspective that there is One and only One God?

Not MY perspective, but THE CHRISTIAN perspective.

    .360
    
    It wasn't just that particular note, /john.
    
    It's not about monotheism, /john.
    
    Are you saying you have no idea to what we're referring, /john?
    
    Richard
    

    Agenda:
    
    How much of what has been taught for nearly 20 centuries in support of
    Christ and His Church can be rejected...
    
    How much of what has been taught for nearly 20 centuries in opposition
    to Christ and His Church can be accepted...
    
    in order to have a Christian perspective 
    

    RE: .362
    
    A Christian's perspective cannot be validated or invalidated by measuring
    some quantity of teachings.  *Most* who note here are interested in
    discussing the *meaning and value* of various different Christian
    perspectives (note the use of the plural!), not in counting them and 
               ^
    assigning them to various "camps."  You seem to be interested only in
    fighting -- almost literally at times -- for one very narrow and
    specific set of beliefs.  Thus you frequently alienate others who
    might otherwise listen to, and learn from, *your* perspective.
    
    

re Note 522.1 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

> Prompted by Note 23.77:
> 
> >For those of you foolish enough to contest this,
> >it's not worthwhile going into details and/or discussions.
> >Can't you see?!  Are you so blind?!
> 
> I got the impression that some wanted to go into detail and/or discussion
> concerning the creation story.
  
        I think Collis was pulling our leg by giving us his
        impression of how some of the other participants have been
        noting as of late, but I might be wrong.

        Bob

The creation account is a case where there may be several perspectives
that could all be considered "The Christian Perspective," positions that
one could hold and not be in serious conflict with the historic teachings
of Christianity.

However, there are definitely non-Christian perspectives.

"The Christian Perspective" (and for that matter, the perspective of Judaism)
is that a pre-existing, transcendent God created _everything_ that exists
_out_of_nothing_.

How he did it, and how literal (not how true) the biblical account is can lead
to different Christian Perspectives.

Perspectives that make creation a part of God, that have God actually giving
birth to the universe, are not a Christian Perspective.

Re:  9.357

  >But I'm of the firm belief that readers and contributors in C-P are 
  >intelligent enough to make such determinations for themselves.

Ah, but intelligence is not the only (or even the most significant)
part of the equation (which is not a comment on John or his noting, 
but only a comment on Richard's response).

Collis

    re: .366 (/john)
    
    > Perspectives...that have God actually giving birth to the universe,
    are not a Christian Perspective. <
    
    Oh, I'm not so sure about that. :-)  There's many well-known Christian
    mystics who'd disagree with you.  (i.e. Meister Eckart, Hildegard of 
    Bingen, Teresa of Avila, Fr. Matthew Fox)  
    
    Does the word "birth" somehow emasculate your image of God?
    
    Karen

    Oh I get it.

    When the tradition of nearly 20 centuries of teaching about Christ and
    his Church is rejected is it "questioning" and "seeking validation".

    When the tradition of nearly 20 centuries of teaching about Christ and
    his Church is defined and accepted it is "fighting".

    In context, the word "birth" as used by these Christian mystics affirms
    the Christian perspective of creation as an act of the Divine Will from
    nothing and only by distortion can be used to support pantheism.

    Fr. Matthew Fox, as I understand it, has made a formal renunciation of
    his Dominican vows, has been released from his order, and is seeking a
    release from his obligations as a Roman Catholic priest.

>"The Christian Perspective" (and for that matter, the perspective of Judaism)
>is that a pre-existing, transcendent God created _everything_ that exists
>_out_of_nothing_.
    
    That's one man's opinion.
    
>Perspectives that make creation a part of God, that have God actually giving
>birth to the universe, are not a Christian Perspective.

    That is also one man's opinion.  In certain ways process theology
    presents a conception of God that is closer to the Bible's portrayal
    than the theistic philosophy of Anselm and Aquinas does.
    
    -- Mike

    >In context, the word "birth" as used by these Christian mystics affirms
    >the Christian perspective of creation as an act of the Divine Will from
    >nothing and only by distortion can be used to support pantheism.
    
    No one here that I know have has advocated pantheism.
    
    -- Mike

    Re: .369
    
    > Oh I get it.
    
    No, I don't think so, Patrick.  
    
    (Are you even remotely interested in "getting it?")
    
    Curiously,
                                                 
    Karen         

    We're dealing here with the inherent ambiguity of "birth" applied to
    the denial of Christian belief of God who created everything from
    nothing.
    
    What belief system is affirmed by such a denial?
    
    In my reading of works opposing Christianity it is pantheism.  Once
    people get back the simple denial of Christian beliefs, we'll both see
    what beliefs they hold.

    The distinction is between pantheism and panentheism.  While I would
    describe myself as a panentheist, I would definitely not describe
    myself as a pantheist.
    
    -- Mike

    <--- And panentheism is both biblically-based and supported.
    
    another panentheist 

    The point being that there is not necessarily ONE Christian Perspective
    that is recognized and embraced by all of the noters in this file. 
    Patrick and John, YOUR Christian Perspective is YOURS.  It does not
    necessarily belong to the rest of the noters here.  When C-P was begun
    the moderators purposely left a definition of "Christian Perspective"
    out of the file's guidelines so that all could present their OWN
    Christian Perspective and learn from and share with each other.  THAT
    is the purpose of this notesfile, not to silence voices or convert or
    to define that term for the rest of the noting public.
    
    I don't know if I can be any clearer.
    
    Sigh!
    
    Nanci

Note 525.2

>    Too many terms have been co-opted by the religious right; I fight each
>    attempt... "Born-again" has taken on a connotation that it did *not*
>    have 20-30 years ago; "Christian" as defined in the notesfile of that
>    name makes be cringe -- but I *refuse* to give up that identity!

	I stand proudly beside you in this effort, Nancy.

	I guess it's no secret that there are a few who resent the existance
of this conference and would like to see it undone.  They're not hard to spot.

In Christ,
Richard

>	I guess it's no secret that there are a few who resent the existance
>of this conference and would like to see it undone.  They're not hard to spot.

	This same is of course true of the other conference. That has been
	true since long before this one was created. 

				Alfred

>    Patricia,
>    
>    i don't believe that your definition of normal and moral reflect a
>    Christian perspective at all.  If you think it does then how does it?
>    
>    thanks!
>    jeff

Jeff, you don't seem to have figured out that in this conference, the
perspective on morality is the morality of today's hedonists.

Sort of "If it makes me feel good and I don't think it separates me from
God, then it won't, so it's not immoral."  Everyone has their own personal
"Goddess/God" and life is just all hunky-dory.

Forget anything Judaism and Christianity have taught for 4000 years.
That's old fashioned and sexist.

/john

    .47
    
    Well, that's certainly one possible perspective.  Not a particularly
    benign one or one that would encourage the participation of others,
    but one that's possible, nevertheless.
    
    Richard
    

    I'd rather place my beliefs in the words of the patriarchs, prophets,
    apostles, and saints of 4000 years than in the trends of the moment.
    
    That's my perspective.

    It is obvious that John Covert neither understands the perspectives of
    those he disagrees with in this notes file, nor is he interested in
    doing so. 
    
    -- Mike

>    It is obvious that John Covert neither understands the perspectives of
>    those he disagrees with in this notes file, nor is he interested in
>    doing so. 
 
	This is obvious and at least as true about Mike Valenza. I
	do not believe it is true about John Covert. 

			Alfred

    Unfortunately, Alfred, his comments in reply .381 show that he clearly
    does not understand what he attacks.
    
    -- Mike

>    Unfortunately, Alfred, his comments in reply .381 show that he clearly
>    does not understand what he attacks.
 
	I would argue that .381 shows that he clearly *does* understand
	what he attacks.

			Alfred

    Then you also clearly don't understand it.
    
    -- Mike

>    Then you also clearly don't understand it either.

	Explain it to me.

			Alfred

    Maybe some other time, Alfred.  While I would be interested in
    discussing my own religious perspective with those who are interested
    in serious and respectful dialogue with people from other perspectives.
    
    Given the tone of .381, a note you have already said that you agree
    with, this is clearly not the place for that type of discussion.
    
    -- Mike

>    Maybe some other time, Alfred.  I am always interested in discussing my
>    own religious perspective with those who are interested in serious and
>    respectful dialogue with people from other perspectives.
 
	I wish I could believe you but given the tone of your notes
	throughout this conference I do not believe you have respect
	for people who disagree with you.

			Alfred

Oh, but I do understand it:

   The sinner must admit to himself that he has done wrong; he must face
   the fact that he is a sinner.  So long as the sinner refuses to
   recognize what he did was wrong, he naturally does not ask for
   forgiveness.  The sinner has rationalized his actions, and has
   convinced himself that his evil is not evil but good.  Since he has
   lost the sense of the difference between good and evil, he is not
   sorry for what he has done.
   
   Sex sinners sometimes are an illustration of this, whether sin be
   adultery or homosexual practices, or some other form of sex sin.  The
   adulterer rationalizes his sin something like this: "I deserve
   happiness is this life, and I am not happy with my wife, because she
   doesn't do what I want her to do.  Now, this other woman is sweet to
   me, she wants to please me, she really devotes hersolf to making me
   happy.  She makes me happy, and I really love her.  Therefore, even
   though the Church calls our relationship adultery [or homosexual sin,
   or fornication, or whatever] it is really a good thing because it
   makes me happy.  It is not really sin, even if it is contrary to one
   of the Ten Commandments [or other constant teachings of the Church
   for 4000 years]."
   
   				-- The Episcopal Church, Fr. Roy Pettway

    Alfred, you obviously haven't been paying much attention to my notes,
    then.  Since you have admitted that you don't even read the user names
    of notes when you read them, that is hardly surprising.
    
    -- Mike

>    Alfred, you obviously haven't been paying much attention to my notes,
>    then.  Since you have admitted that you don't even read the user names
>    of notes when you read them, that is hardly surprising.
 
	This reply shows that you don't read mine with any attempt
	at understanding as it misstates what I said.

			Alfred

    Alfred, I find it interesting that when I pointed out that Mr. Covert's
    note was nothing but a gross caracature, and an inaccurate attack
    against people he disagreed with--even though this did not concern you
    directly any sense, you felt the need to rise to his defense by
    attacking me.
    
    The Christian love you display in this notes file is enough to make me
    want to go down on my knees and say, "Puh-rayze the Loh-ud!  Ah've been
    say-uved!"
    
    -- Mike

>    Alfred, I find it interesting that when I pointed out that Mr. Covert's
>    note was nothing but a gross caracature, and an inaccurate attack
>    against people he disagreed with--even though this did not concern you
>    directly any sense, you felt the need to rise to his defense by
>    attacking me.
 
	Your unfair attack aroused my sense of justice.

		Alfred

    Sorry, but John did not "show" that his note was not inaccurate.  All
    he did was "support" his caricature of views he disagreed with by
    quoting from someone else who also shared his views.  Note .392 was not
    in any sense a "support" for his gross characterization of what those
    who disagree with him allegedly believe.

    Since unfair attacks arouse your sense of justice, then obviously you
    should be aroused by Mr. Covert's vicious attack in note .381.

    -- Mike

	There has been no evidence that what John said was either
	unfair or untrue.

			Alfred

    Let's start from the beginning, Alfred.  (May I call you Alfred?) 
    Dialogue means making an honest effort at understanding what another
    party believes, and a willingness to be corrected if one is wrong.  It
    doesn't preclude offering tentative speculation on what others might
    believe, in an attempt at further understanding--as part of the overall
    dialogue.  But for that to happen, you have to offer your speculation
    to the party you disagree with.  (Of course, if one is smarter and
    knows more than the rest of us, perhaps there is no possibility of him
    ever being wrong in any tentative speculation.)

    Here's a clue.  If Mr. Covert were interested in understanding what
    Patricia or others here believed, he could have directly addressed her,
    posed a question containing his own interpretation of her views, and
    said, "Is this an accurate assessment of what you believe?"  But he
    didn't address her, did he?  He instead addressed a third party, and
    offered his own characterization, beginning with the words, "you don't
    seem to have figured out that..."

    Telling a third party "you don't seem to have figured out that..." is a
    time honored tactic for initiating a put down of another set of beliefs
    and the people who subscribe to them.  The whole point of the note is
    to engage in a put down of what people X believe, by offering an
    interpretation of where they *really* are coming from, by offering a
    negative slant on it.  There is no need for dialogue when you have
    already offered your snide conclusions to a third party, is there?
    
    Alfred, since you criticize me for being disrespectful of other points
    of view, do you really believe that the contents of note .381 are in
    any way respectful of the opinions he characterizes?

    -- Mike

    re 9.381
    
    This note is a snide, offhanded attach against me.  I am not a
    Hedonist.  Many of The messages and examples in the bible regarding human
    sexuality can certainly be debated.  They are absolutely sexist and
    some have more regard for male property rights over woman than sexual
    moralitly.  None of the replies to my note had much to do with the
    issue.  The typical answer is well that certainly is not a Christian
    Perspective, you Patricia certainly are  a heretic and a hedonist and
    definately not a Christian.
    
    And what is the purpose of a Christian perspective.  To attack others
    whom are determined to be less Christian.  Unfortunately there
    has been a lot of that in the 2000 year history of Chistianity.
    
    If I don't interpret the bible exactly the way someone else does than I
    must be less Christian than they.
    
    Is dialogue really possible?  Is Christianity really one unified
    religion.
    
                            Patricia        
    
    This is clearly name calling and attack and a complete disregard for my
    perspective. 

    Patricia,
    
    I also take Covert's notes as attacks against my beliefs as well.
    As an Episcopalian, I find his words harmful as he implies he speaks
    for all Episcopalians as well.  The quotes he site in .392 which
    speaks about adulterers implies that those of us with a different
    Christian-Perspective are advocating adultery.
    
    Why when I read his notes do I never feel compassion, concern, caring,
    or love all the while he is professing his Christianity?  Makes me sad
    to feel his heart appears to be so hardened.  He is in my prayers.
    
    Please continue sharing your Christian perspective here, Patricia. 
    Many of us honor, respect, and often, share those views...
    
    Ro
    

    RE 9.385
    
    Alfred
    
    "I do not believe it is true about John Covert"
    
    Does John's reply to me seem to either understand my perspective or
    be interested in understanding my perspective.  Are you interested in
    understanding my perspective?  You said you agreed with John's
    response. Do you think his response was insulting to me?  
    
    Did his response ridicule my relationship with Goddess/God?
    
    Do you think it is OK for him to insult me here? 
    
    Do you respond out of a impartial sense of justice  or only justice to those
    who share your views?
    
    Please reread 9.381 before you respond.
    
                               Patricia

    
    I believe Ms. Flanagan answered my original reply by saying that it was
    not a Christian perspective but a human perspective or something like
    that.  That is enough for me.  
    
    jeff 

    The position of moral relativism that you advance as a Christian
    perspective justifies hedonism.

    You personally may not equate the pursuit of pleasure with submission
    to the will of God, but if you argue that each person defines morality
    according to their own desires and their own idea of the will of God,
    they then may reason in this frame of reference that their pleasure is
    the primary end of life.
    
    God loves a good party.

>    Why when I read his notes do I never feel compassion, concern, caring,
>    or love all the while he is professing his Christianity?  Makes me sad
>    to feel his heart appears to be so hardened.  He is in my prayers.
   
   We are called to love sinners, not to condone their sin or explain
   it away with modern hedonistic ideas.
   
   In the sermon preached last Sunday at Trinity Episcopal Church in Rutland,
   Vermont, the Rector recalled the words of another Rutland clergyman, a
   Roman Catholic Monsignor, who had just been buried last week.  When
   asked what is necessary to be a member of the Church, the Monsignor
   replied, "all that is necessary is to be a sinner."
   
   Condoning denial of the Church's teachings on sin is not love. 
   Compassion, concern, caring, and love are the call to obey God's
   commandments.
   
   /john

>    Does John's reply to me seem to either understand my perspective or
>    be interested in understanding my perspective.  

    	Yes. John's reply was very much a restatement of how I interpreted
    the perspective you and others have stated. 

>Are you interested in
>    understanding my perspective?  

    	Of course. I would welcome a discussion that explains how what John
    said does not reflect your opinion. Or that of others here. Obviously
    what John said is how some peoples perspective is coming across to more
    then one reader here.

>Do you think his response was insulting to me?  

    	Insulting is often in the eye of the person being insulted. I do
    not believe that John's response was flattering. I do not believe that
    insult of a person was intended. John tends, in my experience, to use
    a somewhat strident form at times. This tends to make some people feel
    uncomfortable. And I do not believe that John's note singled out any
    individual. Not you but a pervasive idea that runs though this
    conference was criticized. Ideas not people.

>    Did his response ridicule my relationship with Goddess/God?

    I think John implied that the idea that there was no universal constant 
    for morality was not one that he believed to be correct and/or Christian. 
    But no I don't believe he ridiculed anyones relationship with their own 
    particular idea of God.

>    Do you think it is OK for him to insult me here? 

    It appears to be ok for people to insult him, or me for that matter. If
    you are asking if I feel you should have special privilege I would have
    to answer no. Do you feel it should be more ok for people to insult him
    or me than to insult you? If the answer is no, have you criticized
    people who have insulted people you disagree with?

>    Do you respond out of a impartial sense of justice  or only justice to those
>    who share your views?

    A sense of justice is based on ones belief in right and wrong. I
    respond when I believe justice is wronged. Certainly I respond when
    when people who disagree with me are wronged. I would ask you the same
    question.

>    Please reread 9.381 before you respond.

    Several times.
    
    			Alfred

.47> Jeff, you don't seem to have figured out that in this conference, the
.47> perspective on morality is the morality of today's hedonists.

Thank you, most omnipotent one, for this thumbnail summary of this
conference:  "... in *this* conference ... *the* perspective .. *is* ...".
From all external appearances I need not read the conference, just ask
you for periodic summaries.  Mea Culpa.

.47> Sort of "If it makes me feel good and I don't think it separates me from
.47> God, then it won't, so it's not immoral."  Everyone has their own personal
.47> "Goddess/God" and life is just all hunky-dory.

Indeed.  And from what I've seen as of late from some of the so-called
"Christians" in this conference - it's the same IDENTICAL way.  You pick
and choose from the Bible whatever you want - use that to justify whatever
suits your fancy - and ignore the rest - and life is just all hunky-dory.

To use your own words ... "you don't seem to have figured out" ....

My sympathies.

Bubba

>The quotes he cites in .392 which speaks about adulterers implies that those
>of us with a different Christian-Perspective are advocating adultery.

The quote is very clear that it speaks to sexual sinners, which is what
much of this conference is about; .381 it was first posted in a topic
advocating tolerance for homosexual sexual intercourse and moved here by
a moderator.

The official position of the Episcopal Church is that the only acceptable
expression of sexual love is within the lifelong union of husband and wife.
This position was affirmed at the last General Convention.  Many Episcopalians
are shocked that the moral relativists were able to get a codasyl added which
states that the experience of many members is otherwise.  That experience
does not change the constant teaching of the church; it merely shows how
much control the liberals have gained.

/john

The official position of the Episcopal Church is that the only acceptable
expression of sexual love is within the lifelong union of husband and wife.
This position was affirmed at the last General Convention.  Many Episcopalians
are shocked that the moral relativists were able to get a codasyl added which
states that the experience of many members is otherwise.  That experience
does not change the constant teaching of the church; it merely shows how
much control the liberals have gained.

/john

   Is that proof the liberals are in force or that the conservatives are
   now trying to impose their law?   

   Polarization is easy to achieve, you have proven that repeatedly.

   Pax Roma,
   Allison

    Are you agreeing with the position that I entered earlier, namely that
    the affirmation of moral relativism is inclusive of hedonism?

    >But no I don't believe he ridiculed anyones relationship with their own 
    >particular idea of God.
    
    Yeah, right, that note was extremely respectful of the views he
    characterized.  How could I have missed that?  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    Ro,
    
    Thanks for the support.
    
    
                      Patricia

>Thank you, most omnipotent one, for this thumbnail summary of this
>conference:  

    Actually, Jerry, I think the word you are looking for is "omniscient",
    not omnipotent.  Just because he is so much smarter and more
    knowledgeable than the rest of us, that doesn't mean that he claims to
    be all-powerful.  :-)

    -- Mike

    Mike ...
    
    
    Mea Culpa.
    
    
    Pastor Bubba

    Okay, Pastor.  :-)

    A further example of the lack of attempt at serious understanding of
    the issues involved is the use of the term "moral relativists" to
    characterize those with a different position than their own.  Along
    with "hedonism" (which has been used despite the fact that no one here
    has called him or herself a hedonist, and one--Patricia--has explicitly
    denied being a hedonist), these terms are used as a kind of
    intellectual shorthand.  By attaching these labels, which the people so
    labeled don't use to describe themselves, with the intended negative
    connotation, people are thus boxed into categories and the depth of
    their views ignored.

    Who is a moral relativist?  The way it is being bandied about here, it
    would seem to be "anyone who doesn't share the exact same views on
    morality that I do."  I don't know of anyone here, including the
    alleged "moral relativists", who think that all morality is relative,
    that whatever people think is right is okay, or that the pursuit of
    pleasure is the highest principle.

    For one thing, the basis of the sexual morality that is being attacked
    here is a belief in love and compassion.  Others may disagree that this
    morality is truly loving and compassionate, but the point is that there
    *is* a firm principle involved, even if it is one that the critic
    disagrees with.  This is anything but a morally relative position that
    says that everything is okay.  In fact, it says just the
    opposite--that what hurts is anything but okay, but in fact is very
    much in the wrong.  Far from an "anything goes" morality, this is a
    morality which condemns certain actions as being morally wrong.  Now
    not every Christian need agree with this morality, and in fact many do
    not.  But for those who disagree with it to condemn it as "moral
    relativist" and "hedonism" is to grossly caricature it and to fail to
    understand that it, too, is founded on firm principles.

    I come from the Midwest, and some conservative Protestant congregations
    think (or used to think) that dancing and playing cards were evil. 
    Perhaps they label as "moral relativists" those who think it should be
    left up to the beholder whether those activities are okay or not.  The
    fact is that people often identify CERTAIN activities as up to the
    individual, and OTHERS as having strong moral content.  As a pacifist,
    I have my own strong moral beliefs about killing.  I do, however,
    respect and understand the views of those who are not pacifists and who
    believe that killing is a necessary act in certain circumstances.  I
    don't endorse the idea of going around tossing labels at them and
    saying, "you haven't yet figured out that these people are moral
    relativists who think blah blah blah..."

    The reality is that many of us have a set of firmly entrenched values
    in some areas, and a less firmly entrenched set of values in other
    areas.  When my set of firm values coincides with yours, there is no
    problem; but when there is a partial overlap and also a disjunction of
    these two sets, that is when problems arise.  My firm values are in
    some cases the same, and in others different from those held by various
    Christians.  What I am firmly opposed to in some cases they are not so
    firmly opposed to.  And vice versa.  But somehow *I* am the moral
    relativist, and they are not.  That is, of course, complete nonsense,
    and to accuse people of moral relativist in those instances, and in
    particular to accuse them of hedonism even when they explicitly deny
    that is what they believe, is to engage in petty name calling and to
    attack without attempting to understand.

    -- Mike

    A further example of the lack of attempt at serious understanding of
    the issues involved is to begin a reply with...
     
    "A further example of the lack of attempt at serious understanding of
    the issues involved ..."
    
    What you deny to be moral relativism seems to be moral relativism. What
    defines the boundries of beliefs that you do not hold but nevertheless
    "respect and understand".

Maybe we should stop using terms like "moral relativist" and "hedonist" and
just use the one we all understand: "sexual sinner."

/john

    I don't know the answer to your question off the top of my head.  How's
    that for an answer?  I suppose it comes from the fact that I recognize
    that many moral questions are complicated and difficult to resolve, and
    in some cases I sympathize with the reasoning that may have lead
    someone to come to a different conclusion than I have.  In other cases,
    I don't feel that way at all.  I can see no reason for sympathizing
    with or respecting the morality of mass murder, for example.
    
    However, I stand by my point that if I hold a firm set of values on
    certain subjects, and you hold a firm set of values on certain
    subjects, but those set of views are not completely identical, then
    that does not make me a moral relativist simply because you don't like
    what I believe, any more that you are a moral relativist simply because
    you don't agree with all of *my* firmly held notions.
    
    -- Mike

              -< in reply to .409, by John Covert, an Episcopalian >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<<This position was affirmed at the last General Convention.  Many Episcopalians
<<are shocked that the moral relativists were able to get a codasyl added which
<<states that the experience of many members is otherwise.  That experience
<<does not change the constant teaching of the church; it merely shows how
<<much control the liberals have gained.
    
    Many Episcopalians were pleased to see that the experience of many
    members is being validated by the Church by the addition of this codasyl.
    The members (and pastors) of the Episcopal churches I attend in both
    Nashua and Athol that I spoke to about this subject were among those
    in support of this codasyl.  But then perhaps I only spoke to the
    liberals...   ;')
    
    Ro
    
    

    Patrick .405,
    
    > The position of moral relativism that you advance as a Christian 
    > perspective justifies hedonism.
    
    I have to be very honest.  This issue of Christian moral absolutism vs 
    relativism has always confounded me.  I have a difficult time understand
    -ing how anyone can claim to be, not only a moral absolutist but a Biblical 
    absolutist.  Here's a few examples why...
    
    About 300 years after the death of Christ, a council of the 
    "Christian fathers" took place.  One of their items of business was 
    to determine whether or not women possessed souls.  This was a grave 
    *moral* issue of their time, for it affected how women were treated,
    and how they "should" be treated.  Some of the council members argued 
    that women did have souls, others that women did not.  Both camps used 
    the Bible and Church doctrine to support their positions.  
    
    Finally after all the debating was done a vote was taken on the issue 
    and counted up.  Women were declared to have souls.  It had passed by a 
    margin of one vote.  It seems almost unbelievable, doesn't it?
    
    In later centuries, the same issue came up again.  It was about 
    ensoulment again, but this time it was not only about women - it 
    included men as well.  But this time it was about other races of
    people, for it was generally believed that blacks and other indigenous 
    people did not have souls either.  And because of this, (as with women 
    of their own race) people's whose ensoulment was in question were treated 
    little more than animals and "property."  Is this moral?  Again, the 
    Bible and church doctrine was cited to support the belief that
    indigenous people possessed no souls.  (I mean, all you had to do was
    consider their obvious lack of self-consciousness and shame around their 
    own nudity, right?  Even Adam and Eve were ashamed of their nakedness,
    weren't they...?)
    
    Then we have the Creation story (which was discussed recently in 
    another topic) and how scientific discovery has contradicted some 
    passages of what was recorded in the Bible as to how the universe 
    is "arranged" and "worked."  
    
    The Church had also taught that the earth was the center of the 
    universe.  Science later proved it was the sun.  Some people who 
    first aligned with this heretical scientific theory were burned at 
    the stake (i.e. Giordano Bruno).
    
    Anyway, the point is, how can anyone be an absolutist when it comes 
    to God, the Bible and matters of faith?   Does anyone here adhere to 
    any of the above early conclusions once found to permeate the Christian 
    church and most devout of Christian faith?  
    
    Looking back over these examples, and there are others, I'm sure, it 
    seems to me that deeper truths are always being revealed.  Our 
    understanding of the Bible is always changing, is it not?  If so, are
    we getting "closer" to God or further away, I wonder?  (I feel we're
    getting closer.)  
    
    That these examples demonstrate "truths" that were once acceptable, 
    but are now generally viewed as errors of interpretation, do you ever 
    wonder what Biblical truths still remain hidden to us today by our 
    current "relativist" interpretations?   
    
    I also have to say I'm genuinely perplexed by how can anyone claim to 
    know an absolute truth, absolutely, unless they are the Absolute 
    themself...?  If an Absolute anything exists how can any person's 
    interpretation and understanding of it be anything BUT relative?
    
    Does moral relativism justify hedonism?  As much as moral absolutism 
    does.  We are basically comfort and pleasure seeking creatures, no 
    matter how profane or pious our faith or "perspective," are we not?  
    There is the hedonist in each and every one of us.  But in either the 
    profane or pious person's case, we oftentimes wind up shutting the 
    door in God's face in our zeal to be comfortable and secure.  And for 
    the pious it is doubly unfortunate.  For the profane person intends 
    to shut the door.  The pious person believes they are not, that they 
    are in fact sitting at the feet of God.
    
    Karen

    Karen (.422),
    
    Your note touched me deeply.  Eloquent and well-thought out.
    
    Thank you,
    
    Ro
    

    Are you referring to the Council of Nicea?

    That this council would discuss whether or not women possessed souls
    seems bizarre.  What is your source for this claim?

    The Church has always taught that men and women possessed souls and were
    made in the image and likeness of God.

    I don't why you answer questions I raise about what you believe and why
    by introducing irrelevant and fictional claims that I have not
    asserted.

    I would like to go on record as one who not "absolutely relativistic."
    
    I have said in this conference that rape is wrong, that rape is always
    wrong.  That's pretty absolute, isn't it?
    
    I dare say, even our absolutists would say that telling a lie, under
    some circumstances, may be morally justifiable.
    
    Peace,
    Richard
    

    >But in either the  profane or pious person's case, we oftentimes wind
    >up shutting the  door in God's face in our zeal to be comfortable and
    >secure.  And for  the pious it is doubly unfortunate.  For the profane
    >person intends  to shut the door.  The pious person believes they are
    >not, that they  are in fact sitting at the feet of God.
    
    That is a truly profound statement, Karen.  Thanks for writing that.
    
    -- Mike

Although .422 may be eloquent, it is an obvious work of fiction.

The assertion that any of the ecumenical councils discussed a question of
whether women have souls or not, or whether other races have souls, is
clearly a fabrication designed to ridicule Christianity.

"My soul doth magnify the Lord, and my spirit hath rejoiced in God my
 Saviour"...

/john

    Patrick,
    
    I assume .424 was written to me.  
    
    > What is your source for this claim?
    
    I believe it is in _The chalice and the blade_ by Eisler, but I'll
    check and let you know.
    
    > I don't know why you answer questions I raise about what you believe
    > and why by introducing irrelevant and fictional claims that I have not
    > asserted.
    
    Nice side-stepping, Patrick. :-)  I've come to recognize this as a 
    way you "address" questions which either make you uncomfortable, or you 
    have no answer to.  
    
    If you're uncomfortable with the information I offered on the
    ensoulment issues, put it aside, then, for the moment.  What remains is
    the basic question for me -- what is the thought process involved on how 
    one views oneself as a moral and/or Biblical absolutist while taking into 
    account the ultimate relativistic nature of that position?
    
    How have you, if you think of yourself as a moral and/or Biblical 
    absolutionist, come to reconcile this?
    
    Karen                                

    Side-stepping??  I was asking the question and letting you know that I
    thought your answer was an evasion.  We're discussing the linkage
    between morality and sin, or at least I thought we were.

    My "comfort" isn't the issue.  The truth is.  We can examine claims
    made here based on outside sources by looking it up.

    Is this council critical to your worldview of morality?  Are you saying
    that your position would be reversed if I were to demonstrate to you
    that that council which you allege discussed whether or not women had
    souls, in fact, did not have any such discussion?
    
    My answer: I believe that Jesus Christ has revealed to us the one way,
    the one truth, and the one life.  I believe the on the great moral
    issues of our time, the Bible and my Church are the source of
    inspiration and my teacher which I follow by the grace of God in my
    life.
                                                     

    It seemed to me that Karen was addressing the general question of moral
    relativism, and how we determine what is true and what isn't.  It
    struck me as very much relevant to the discussion at hand.  All this
    focus on the existence or non-existence of those council proceedings
    seems to be missing the overall point she was making with respect to
    the process of discerning theologically based moral standards.
    
    -- Mike

    Mike,  
    
    You're exactly right.
    
    Patrick .429,
    
    > Side-stepping?? I was asking the question and letting you know that
    > I thought your answer was an evasion.  We're discussing the linkage
    > between morality and sin, or at least I thought we were.
    
    Your note .405 which I already highlighted and your note .411
    where you reiterated your original question is what I responded 
    to.  The specific issue you raised was moral relativism and it's
    linkage to hedonism: 
    
    from .411,
                                              
    > Are you agreeing with the position that I entered earlier, namely
    > that the affirmation of moral relativism is inclusive of hedonism?
    
    I offered both my views and confusing in understanding the relationship
    between moral relativism and absolutism in .422;  in the last paragraph 
    I addressed your question directly, offering my perspective of the 
    relationship between moral relativism and hedonism.
    
    Now, would you care to answer the questions I raised to you directly on
    how a moral and/or Biblical absolutist reconciles the relativism of his
    or her position;  would you prefer to pass;  or would you prefer to
    think on it and get back to me?             
    
    Karen 

Re:  .417

Well explained, Mike.  I agree with most of your
objections.

Collis

    /john .427,
    
    > Although .422 may be eloquent, it is an obvious work of fiction.
    
    No, believe it or not, I wrote it myself.  I have witnesses.  Therefore, 
    thank you for the compliment.  This is BIG coming from you, /john. 
    
    :-)
    
    Karen   

    Thanks, Collis (you've been awfully silent here lately, by the way--I
    was wondering what happened to you!).
    
    -- Mike

But it is important.

If Pat and I maintain that absolute Truth is found by the process of
Revelation through Holy Scriptures and the work of the Holy Spirit
in Ecumenical Councils, and Karen maintains that those councils
determine whether women have souls or not by slim majority vote,
then we have to determine who is right before we can have a meaningful
dialogue.

/john

Re:  9.422
    
  >I have a difficult time understanding how anyone can claim to be, not
  >only a moral absolutist but a Biblical absolutist.  Here's a few
  >examples why... 

O.K. Karen, let's take a look.
    
  >Women were declared to have souls.  It had passed by a 
  >margin of one vote.  It seems almost unbelievable, doesn't it?

Yup.  What does this have to do with the Bible being accurate?
Assuming that the facts are as you presented, this has not stopped
people from misinterpreting (whether intentionally or unintentionally)
the Bible.

Personally, I think the Bible is clear on this issue.  It sure would
be interesting to hear the Biblical "reasons" why women do not have
souls.
    
  >In later centuries, the same issue came up again.

And the same answer applies.

  >Then we have the Creation story (which was discussed recently in 
  >another topic) and how scientific discovery has contradicted some 
  >passages of what was recorded in the Bible as to how the universe 
  >is "arranged" and "worked."  

I thought the readership of this conference was too educated to
take seriously Richard's "dome" arguments.  I honestly mean that.
It wasn't even worth effort refuting - but I guess it is.

Where has Richard shown that the Hebrew word in Genesis means
exactly what you and I think of when we hear the word "dome"?  And
must this be interpreted as a dome in the sense of a dome on a
domed stadium?  Does the atmosphere provide a "dome" around the
earth?  I hear that spaceships returning to earth have to enter
at a specific angle.  I still don't know if this is true or not
(although I think it is).  If it is (and they could bounce away
if entering at the wrong angle), could we then say that there is
a "dome" around the earth - even if Richard can't see it?

  >The Church had also taught that the earth was the center of the 
  >universe.  Science later proved it was the sun.  

They're both right.  They're both wrong.  The center is whatever
you wish to define it as.  Because it is easier to consider one
or the other as the center (whether for calculating orbits or
for viewing stars) does not *make* it the center.

  >Anyway, the point is, how can anyone be an absolutist when it comes 
  >to God, the Bible and matters of faith?

The question boils down to whether or not you are willing to believe
the claims that the Bible makes - claims that are consistently assumed
and supported by all the prophets including God's own Son.  I choose
to believe BY FAITH, despite the few difficulties that I have not 
explained.  You choose not to believe BY FAITH what the Bible says
about its own accuracy.

  >Our understanding of the Bible is always changing, is it not?

Personal understanding is always changing.  The church's understanding
tends to grow upon the building blocks of previous generations.

  >If so, are we getting "closer" to God or further away, I wonder?  (I 
  >feel we're getting closer.)

Clearly (in my view), we as "Christians" are getting further away
since more "Christians" are denying what God has revealed.

  >That these examples demonstrate "truths" that were once acceptable, 
  >but are now generally viewed as errors of interpretation, do you ever 
  >wonder what Biblical truths still remain hidden to us today by our 
  >current "relativist" interpretations?   

Indeed, all interpretation by individuals is biased to some extent.

One advantage of the many factions of the church today (different
denominations as well as spread out over the world) is that it becomes
easier to recognize some biases.  For these reasons, I tend to have
more confidence in the interpretations of Scripture made in the
past 100 years than those made 1000 years ago (when made by those
that accept the Biblical claims of inerrancy).

  >I also have to say I'm genuinely perplexed by how can anyone claim to 
  >know an absolute truth, absolutely, unless they are the Absolute 
  >themself...?

If the Absolute tells someone the absolute truth and tells someone 
that it is the absolute truth, why would someone claim to know less than
the absolute truth?

Collis

    Karen, I had already answered .431 in .429:
     
from .431 
    Now, would you care to answer the questions I raised to you directly on
    how a moral and/or Biblical absolutist reconciles the relativism of his
    or her position;  would you prefer to pass;  or would you prefer to
    think on it and get back to me?             
    
from .429:
    My answer: I believe that Jesus Christ has revealed to us the one way,
    the one truth, and the one life.  I believe that on the great moral
    issues of our time, the Bible and my Church are the source of
    inspiration and my teacher which I follow by the grace of God in my
    life.

    RE: 9.435  Mr. Covert,
    
    				Part of the problem here is that very few
    people that I know...in fact none....would go and "dip themselves seven
    times in the river Jordan" if a blemish showed up on their face.  Most
    women don't "cover" their heads while in church anymore so as humanity 
    matures I believe that the scriptures are revealed more and more to us.
    So placing yourself in the position of having the absoulute truth is 
    unrealistic at least.  
    
    
    Dave

    Say..uh...Dave .438,
    
    	Doesn't overlooking those injunctions sound a lot like "picking
    and choosing"?
    
    	Since it's likely someone besides Dave will answer, this question
    should not be construed as ridiculing Christianity, but rather questioning
    the ideas that some people hold of Chrisitanity.
    
    Peace,
    Richard

Karen,

I went to the library tonight and picked up a copy of "The Chalice and the
Blade" by Eisler.  I spent some time looking for a reference to ecumenical
councils, and even with the help of the index, I couldn't find it, or any
other reference to women's or other races' souls.  Please let me know where
it is.

The book is openly hostile to Christianity.  It proclaims that time still
remains to repent and regain the favor of The Great Mother Goddess.  It
calls Mary Magdalene a prostitute and uses such spurious works as "The Gospel
of Thomas" and "The Gospel of Mary" -- works not recognized by the Church --
to make its points rejecting Christianity!

I also read a review of the book in the October 4, 1987, New York Times.
The book purports to be history, yet in the review, Elizabeth Fox-Genovese
writes, "the absurdities of `The Chalice and the Blade' have less to offer
than Isaac Asimov's avowedly speculative `Foundation Trilogy'".

If your perspective of history and creation is formed by reading such strange
books, then it's no wonder it is so far from the Christian Perspective.

Read some C.S. Lewis.  It could change your life.

/john

Note 9.440

>Read some C.S. Lewis.  It could change your life.

And Karen,

	You may not even need to pick up any books by C.S. Lewis in order to
read C.S. Lewis:

>Note 473.40

>    I knew C.S. Lewis, and Bonnie, if there's a C.S. Lewis in this
>    conference, it's me, not you.

8*)

Richard

    RE: .439  Richard,
    
    			Well nuts!  :-)  I guess you caught me out.  These
    and many other strictures have confused many Christians thru the years.
    Yes....There are answers and I believe I have the right one but I was
    hoping that our esteemed Mr. Covert or Mr. Sweeney would deem to
    answer.  Many of the "traditional" values present in the Church today
    can be brought right back to these kinds of topics in the Bible.  Now
    that doesn't make the Bible wrong...just richer and maybe a little more
    complicated than most people would like to think.
    
    
    Dave

    .442,
    
    Dave,
    
    	I tend to agree!  :-}
    
    Pax,
    Richard
    

re Note 9.439 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     	Doesn't overlooking those injunctions sound a lot like "picking
>     and choosing"?
  
        I certainly agree with your observation that we all "pick and
        choose" from the Bible.

        I would add that what makes a Christian perspective,
        historically, is that the picking and choosing is done from
        the Bible.

        I would also add that what makes a conservative Christian is
        that once the picking and choosing is done, nobody gets to do
        it again.

        A liberal Christian is one who believes that we must continue
        to go back to the Bible and each generation gets to pick and
        choose.

        I don't know which is the more risky and error-prone, but I
        believe that Christians are guided by the Holy Spirit in the
        above (guided, not forced), and that the liberal approach, to
        me, would seem to be more able to recover from error than the
        conservative.

        Bob

    I have a lot of respect for both Mike and Alfred. Both seem to have a 
    clear, straight insight into a topic and have given me a lot.
    
    Hay, even John C. has his moments!!!
    
    Alfred, Mike V. is right this time.
    
    Marc H.

>    Alfred, Mike V. is right this time.

	About what?

			Alfred

    RE: .446
    
    Sorry......reference 9.400.
    
    Marc H.

    I've not been able to keep up here lately, but I hope to. :-)
    
    Collis .422,
    
    >>Our understanding of the Bible is always changing, is it not?
    
    > Personal understanding is always changing.  The church's 
    > understanding tends to grow upon the building blocks of previous 
    > generations.
    
    Yes, I agree.  What we are both saying, essentially, is that everyone 
    is a moral relativist, including the church, whether or not some are 
    aware or care to admit it.
    
    > What does this have to do with the Bible being accurate?  
    
    The accuracy or inaccuracy of the Bible was not my point, but I can 
    see where you might have construed this, both from my note and our 
    "acquaintance."  :-)  Actually I find it fascinating that the Bible 
    has remained constant over the centuries, while _some_ of the 
    Church's interpretations of morality, and perhaps MORE importantly, 
    the actions taken by the church to enforce their interpretions of 
    morality have changed.
    
    [Hmmm...then again, <Digression Alert> maybe things haven't changed 
    that much.  I was just thinking of the Church's sanction of the death 
    penalty for a variety of offenses, and how regularly it was enforced 
    in centuries gone by.  Does the church put anyone to death today?  
    No, I guess that's left to the state.  But then again....as the 
    interview with the imprisoned gay bashers pointed out, (which was 
    entered in topic 91) many of them said, ITO, their church and clergy 
    condoned, and even encouraged (?) their "gay bashing" actions....so 
    perhaps SOME churches still believe they should be issuing death 
    penalties for certain interpretations of moral infractions, and do 
    so, in a covert sort of way.  (Errr...no pun meant there, /john.)]
    
    > Assuming that the facts are as you presented, this has not stopped 
    > people from misinterpreting (whether intentionally or 
    > unintentionally) the Bible.
    
    A big statement with major implications, Collis.
    
    If individuals and the Church, (as you say and to which I agree) tend 
    "to grow" in their understanding, that suggests to me their 
    _interpretation_ of what they are reading (in this case, the Bible) 
    changes.  So looking back over Church history, and looking into our 
    own personal lives at these changes, a conclusion may be drawn that 
    at any point in time, understanding -- at best -- is a mixture of, 
    what you might say, falsehoods and truths...
    
    But considering that our understanding grows and changes, doesn't 
    that beg the question of what things we accept or are told to be 
    morally right today, we may grow to understand are not?  (Or vice 
    versa?)
    
    Yet some people, denying the relativity of their understanding, (and 
    hence the inherent incompleteness of it) to the Absolute, go to great 
    lengths to convice others, but more importantly, themselves I think, 
    that their understanding IS the Absolute Truth, or that they are 
    <oxymoron alert> moral absolutists.  I think that's because for some, 
    security, (of the existential type) is found there in this notion of 
    Absolute Truth, which has to be respected, for we all need certain 
    types and levels of security and stasis and others find their 
    security in other beliefs and concepts.
    
    So when I hear people, or the church, make pronouncements of Absolute 
    Truth, I see such pronouncements like a cloak one uses to tightly 
    wrap around oneself to weather the inevitable storm of life's 
    ambiguities and paradoxes, as best as one can.  Though sometimes the 
    cloak never seems to come off...
    
    > If the Absolute tells someone the absolute truth and tells someone 
    > that it is the absolute truth, why would someone claim to know less 
    > than the absolute truth?
    
    Actually Collis, if the truth really be told, I think that person 
    would probably be one of the WISEST people on earth.  For to make 
    such a claim, s/he would realize that to be _told_ the truth and to 
    _know_ the truth are two different things, indeed.  
    
    Karen

RE: Karen and Collis,
    
    
		Another aspect of this question might be the "Temporal" 
blessing of the Bible Scriptures.  For those of you that haven't heard of this 
before the simplest explanation of this occurance is after reading a particular
verse and then waiting for a period of time (week or so) and the rereading
it, many times the meaning is different.  In Christian circles, we believe
that it is the Holy Spirit that interprets the scripture according to 
individual needs at that moment.  


Dave

    Thanks Dave, for that.  I've experienced that before, many times.  
    I didn't know there was a name for it. :-)
    
    Karen

    Hello /john.  Hope you didn't think I'd forgotten you. :-)
    
    re: 440,
    
    I'm really glad you went to the library, picked up a copy of the 
    highly acclaimed _The chalice and the blade_ and perused it for that 
    reference.  I haven't found it either, btw, but appreciate your effort.  
    Your cursory glance at the book, however, has given rise to a few 
    assumptions about the author's treatise which aren't very accurate.
    
    The book is not openly hostile to Christianity, per se, as Eisler 
    believes Jesus Christ presented Christianity, but rather to the 
    "dominator model" of social organization orthodox Christianity has 
    embraced -- the very same model which has suppressed and oppressed 
    women in practically every sphere of life.  The very same model that 
    equated women to little more than men's personal property, and a 
    recepticle for their sperm, (despite a woman's willingness to be or 
    not.)
    
    If you read more deeply into the book, you'll find how the author 
    identifies with and _highlights_ the teachings of Jesus and his 
    approach, which clearly views and treats women as equals to men.  Her 
    treatise also states this is what orthodox Christianity has not only 
    lost, but DELIBERATELY suppressed, contrary to Christ's teachings.
    
    Let me provide a few citations from her book while also answering 
    the following (negatively implied) charge of yours:
    
    > It calls Mary Magdalene a prostitute....
    
    	In Luke 10:38-42, we read how Jesus openly included women among 
        his companions - and even encouraged them to transcend their 
        servile roles and participate actively in public life....And in 
        every one of the official Gospels we read about Mary Magdelene 
        and how he treated her -- presumably a prostitute -- with respect 
        and caring.
    
    	Even more astonishing, we learn from the Gospels that it is to 
        Mary Magdalene that the risen Christ first appears.  Weeping in 
        his empty sepulcher after his death, it is Mary Magdalene who 
        guards his grave.  There she has a vision in which Jesus appears 
        to her "before" he appears in visions to any of his much- 
        publicized twelve male disciples.  And it is Mary Magdalene whom 
        the risen Jesus asks to tell the others that he is about to 
        ascend (p 122).
    
    In John 4:7-27 Jesus violated the androcratic customs of his time by 
    openly talking to women.  Even Jesus' male disciples "marveled that 
    he should talk to women at all, and then at such great length...or 
    that he would not condone the customary stoning to death of women 
    who, in the opinion of their male overlords, were guilty of the 
    heinous sin of having sexual relations with a man who was not their 
    master."
    
    And Eisler goes on to mention other women Christian leaders:  such as 
    Tabitha or Dorcas, a disciple of Jesus mentioned in Acts 9:36, and in 
    Romans 16:7 "we find Paul respectfully greeting a woman apostle named 
    Junia, whom he describes as senior to himself in the movement...
    'Salute Andronicus and Junia my kin and my fellow prisoners, who are 
    of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.'"  
    
    Eisler's conclusion:  "So, clearly, despite the very strong social 
    pressures of that time for rigid male dominance, women took leading 
    roles in the first Christian communities."
    
    And yet the Christian legacy adopted and still very much in place 
    today, is CONTRARY to Christ's clear teachings on women's equality 
    and involvement in Christian spiritual affairs:
    
    	"Despite the previous public activity of Christian women," Pagels 
        observes, "by the year 200, the majority of Christian communities 
        endorsed as canonical the pseudo-Pauline letter of Timothy, which 
        stresses (and exaggerates) the anti-feminist element in Paul's 
        views:  'Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I 
        permit no woman to teach or to have authority over men: she is to 
        keep silent'...	By the end of the second century, women's 
        participation in worship was explicitly condemned:  groups in 
        which women continued on to leadership were branded as 
        heretical."
    
    [Hence, one of the primary reasons for the Christian's intense 
    "dis-affection" toward the Gnostics, where men and women alike 
    participated equally as priest, bishop, or prophet.]
    
    > ...and uses such spurious works as "The Gospel of Thomas" and "The 
    > Gospel of Mary"  -- works not recognized by the Church -- to make 
    > its points rejecting Christianity!
    
    Have you ever wondered WHY these works were not recognized by the 
    Church, /john?  Eisler explores why and this is her conclusion:  The 
    suppressed gospels show time and time again the importance of women 
    to Jesus Christ, and his consideration of them as EQUALS to the men 
    in Christian discipleship and spiritual leadership.  They also show 
    that Mary Magdalene was one of the most important figures in the 
    early Christian movement:
    
    	In the Gospel of Mary we again read that she was the first to see 
        the risen Christ....[and here's part one of the REAL rub, imo] 
        Here we also read that Christ loved Mary Magdalene more than all 
        the rest of the disciples, as is also confirmed in the Gnostic 
        Gospel of Philip.  But just how important a part Mary may have 
        played in the history of early Christianity only comes to light 
        in these suppressed scriptures.  What we read in the Gospel of 
        Mary is that after the death of Jesus, [and here's rub #2, 	 
    	the most important one, imo]  Mary Magdalene was the Christian 
        leader who had the courage to challenge the authority of Peter as 
        the head of a new religious hierarchy based on the claim that 
        only he and his priests and bishops had a direct line to the 
        godhead.
    
    Let's face it, /john.  After Christ's death, as Christianity entered 
    "adolescence" it's culture reverted back to misogyny, and though there's 
    been some improvements since then, it still remains largely that way 
    today.  And we ALL suffer for it, men and women alike.  
    
    Eisler's essential criticism of orthodox Christianity can be summed 
    up in the following:
    
    	Jesus' recognition that our spiritual evolution has been stunted 
        by a way of structuring human relations based on violence-backed 
        rankings (the dominator model) could have led to a fundamental 
        social transformation.  It could have freed us from the andro- 
        cratic system.  But as in other times of gylanic (egalitarian) 
    	resurgence, the system's resistance was too strong.  And in the 
        end the church fathers left us a New Testament in which this 
        perception is often smothered by the superimposition of the 
        completely contradictory dogmas required to justify the Church's 
        later androcratic structure and goals.
    
    /john, if I were you, I'd put C. S. Lewis down for awhile and read 
    Eisler's book and others like it, _thoroughly_.  It could change your 
    life.
    
    Karen
    
    p.s. I'm looking through Fr. Matthew Fox's _The coming of the Cosmic 
    Christ_ for that reference on women's souls....

    RE: .451  Karen,
    
    			Thank you Karen!  You have really set my mind to
    working and wondering.  
    
    
    Dave.....who is a bit dazed...

>    /john, if I were you, I'd put C. S. Lewis down for awhile and read 
>    Eisler's book and others like it, _thoroughly_.  It could change your 
>    life.

Karen,

Apparently you are unaware that I have, in fact, read quite a few books
on feminism and misogyny.  You seem to be unaware that it was not that
long ago, about seven or eight years, that much of what I wrote on the
network was about the sin of sexism.  My watchword was and still is:
"In the world, we must treat men and women exactly the same, exactly as
equals, except where their physical procreative roles are concerned."

Eisler's book perpetuates the myth/misunderstanding that the Catholic
Faith is misogynist.  That is not true at all.  The Church is full of
stories of the holy lives of both men and women.  Look at the names of
Roman Catholic and Episcopal churches.  Look at a Kalendar of Saints'
days.  Look at the great works done by great women of God throughout
the ages.  Their works are so great that it completely compensates for
the fact that God Incarnate was, by God's own choice, a man, and that
those who act as his hands and mouth consecrating his Body and Blood
making his sacrifice present for us should, at least for now, also be
men.  I think that might change, but if it changes, it will change
quietly and naturally, and not in response to demands from people seeking
power or seeking to reconcile us to Eisler's "Great Mother Goddess".

The world and the Church are full of so many wonderful and important
roles for women.  Noone should demand the seat at the head of God's table,
for, in the words of Mary, God exalts the humble and meek.  Jesus echoes
Mary's words in the parable of the guests at the dinner party:  Take the
lowest seat, and wait to be called to sit with the host in the place of
honor.

/john

RE:  525.38
    
>COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                       5 lines   6-OCT-1992 10:23
>         -< Begin by considering the position of women in society... >-
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   I can provide you with libraries full of substantiation.
>   
>   You can start in the Judaica section of Brandeis.
>   
>   /john
    
    I find this incredibly condescending.  I haven't replied
    previously because I simply didn't know how to reply to what I perceive
    as rudeness.  A long explanation is unnecessary, I believe.
    
    I don't want to get into a joust with you, so even if you have some
    smart comeback, I will probably let it go after this reply.  Just so
    you understand in the future, that if I ignore such condescension, it's
    not because I agree with you, but just that such exchanges leave a bad
    taste in my mouth. 
    
    Laura

There was no rudeness intended, and you should not have taken offense.

I made a statement about the relationship between Judaism and Christianity
being closer than the relationship between either of them and Islam.

You asked for substantiation.  Since you have often expressed distrust of
the Christian Perspective on Judaism and other religions, I suggested the
Judaica section of the library at Brandeis, an excellent library, I may add,
as a place to look for such substantiation.

One of the best ways for us to live in better harmony in this conference
is to not take offense when none is intended.  I would suggest that noone
else reply within the conference to this reply or to Laura's, and that it
be handled in mail, offline.

/john

Re:  9.448
    
    > Personal understanding is always changing.  The church's 
    > understanding tends to grow upon the building blocks of previous 
    > generations.
    
  >Yes, I agree.  What we are both saying, essentially, is that everyone 
  >is a moral relativist, including the church, whether or not some are 
  >aware or care to admit it.

No, that is *not* what is being said.

A moral relativist believes that morality changes.  The Bible teaches
the exact opposite.  Morality does not change - regardless of what
we may or may not believe is moral/immoral at any given time.  In
other words, you can and should deny being a moral relativist if
you believe that morality does not change - even as your understanding
of God's morality does change.
    
  >But considering that our understanding grows and changes, doesn't 
  >that beg the question of what things we accept or are told to be 
  >morally right today, we may grow to understand are not?  (Or vice 
  >versa?)

Certainly that is possible.  Somehow or other, inerrantists today seem 
to be in violent agreement on the *vast* majority of moral issues.
The reason?  I expect it is that God has told us clearly what is
right and what is wrong - and we choose to believe it.

     >>If the Absolute tells someone the absolute truth and tells someone 
     >>that it is the absolute truth, why would someone claim to know less 
     >>than the absolute truth?
    
  >Actually Collis, if the truth really be told, I think that person 
  >would probably be one of the WISEST people on earth.  For to make 
  >such a claim, s/he would realize that to be _told_ the truth and to 
  >_know_ the truth are two different things, indeed.

Good point.  I revise my statement to contain the idea that someone
knows the truth well enough to tell someone else the truth that he/she
was told.

Collis

re Note 9.455 by COVERT::COVERT:

> One of the best ways for us to live in better harmony in this conference
> is to not take offense when none is intended.  

        Actually, one almost never knows for sure whether offense was
        intended.

        I think the best policy is just not to take offense.

        Bob

    From _Original Blessing_, Fr. Matthew Fox:
    
    	Whether we are listening to reasons why women are put down, or 
    homosexuals, or Jews, or Native Americans, or blacks, the invariable 
    argument is that in some way these people are or do something against 
    nature.  They are "naturally below" those who pronounce their fate.  
    
    	For example, the notion that women are to be submissive to men is 
    given by Paul and Deutero-Paul as the "order of creation" (1 Cor. 
    11:2-16).  The hierachy of male over female is the order of nature, 
    we are told.  After all, women are "misbegotten males" (Aristotle and 
    St. Thomas Aquinas) who are "made of blood without souls" (John 
    Marston) and, unlike men, are not made in the image and likeness of 
    God (St. Augustine).
    
    	And the question that preoccupied the theorists while Native 
    Americans were being slaughtered and enslaved was whether Indians are 
    human (i.e., have souls) or not.  As Native Americans put it, the 
    Spanish conquistadors reached
    
    	a conclusion that Native peoples did not have "souls," and 
        therefore it was perfectly all right to enslave or murder them.  
        Much of that same kind of thinking is alive and well today in 
        such countries as Paraguay, Brazil, Chile and others where Native 
        peoples are still hunted down and killed....The question at this 
        point that needs to be addressed is, what kind of theology were 
        the institutionalized churches propagating that could lead to 
        such a dehumanizing analysis of missions of peoples?  And, is 
        that kind of theology still functioning in the churches in the 
        1980's?
    
    	A missionary in Brazil told me the story of a bounty hunter in the 
    Amazon who was paid to kill Indians.  In a recent interview about his 
    work, he said he once shot an Indian who did not die at once but 
    appeared to be in pain and suffering, "just as if he were a human 
    being"  (Fox, 1983, p. 268).
    

    /john .453,
    
    I must admit to not having picked up on your advocacy of sexual 
    equality in your writings before.  I do not note reguarly in other 
    conferences, so I wouldn't have bumped into you elsewhere.  However, 
    I have difficulty seeing your advocacy in light of the following two 
    statements.  
    
    > My watchword was and still is: "In the world, we must treat men and 
    > woman exactly the same, exactly as equals, except where their 
    > physical procreative roles are concerned."
    
    > ...that God Incarnate was, by God's own choice, a man, and that 
    > those who act as his hands and mouth consecrating his Body and 
    > Blood making his sacrifice present for us should, at least for now, 
    > also be men. 				^^^^^^
      ^^^^^^^^^^^
    Why do you believe only men "should" be allowed to perform the types 
    of clerical roles described above, and why "at least for now"?  It 
    may not be your intention, but that statement as it is, reveals a 
    bias favoring men. It implies incompetence, and/or perhaps an 
    intelligence disparity between the genders in performing the same 
    clerical role.  Is that your belief?
    
    Also a comment:
    
    > I think that might change, but if it changes, it will change 
    > quietly and naturally...
    
    It hasn't changed in almost 2000 years, /john.  Jesus was, amongst 
    other things, a radical social activist and transformer.  He set the 
    precedence for women's equal involvement in relgious affairs and 
    spiritual leadership.  I believe it would be hard to submit a 
    convincing argument that Jesus intended Christianity to be anything 
    other than egalitarian:  to honor, respect, and value all people 
    equally.  But after his death, Christianity unfortunately reverted 
    back to a male-based hierachical order, which, advocated by the 
    church, subsequently installed an impenetrable "glass ceiling" for 
    women.   
    
    > The world and the Church are full of so many wonderful and 
    > important roles for women.
    
    Oh yes, to be sure.  All beneath the glass ceiling, however.
    
    I wish I could agree with you, but I can't:  I don't think it 
    would've changed quietly and naturally.  Injustices never do -- do 
    they...?  Besides, I think it's too late to see if you would've been 
    right anyway.  
    
    Karen

It does not imply incompetence.  It takes no special intelligence and not much
competence to stand at the altar and recite a prayer.

It merely means that in order to fully represent Jesus Christ (which is what
a priest does at the consecration), the celebrant must be male.

I don't know if this can change.  As long as we have people concerned that
the role of an Asian in Miss Saigon must be played by an Asian, as long as
people care about such things, then I think people are incapable of ignoring
such differences, regardless of how unimportant they seem to me.

Why do you want women to be priests?  Why can't women do other important
leadership roles?  Teach, counsel, lead important organizations.  Do roles
which _do_ require intelligence and competence!

Everything but be Jesus's hands and mouth at the consecration.
Everything but be the Bridegroom at the Wedding Feast of the Lamb.

/john

    Many Conservative Catholics don't even want girls acting as altar
    servers during liturgical ceremonies.  I can remember when I got to be
    an altar boy my sister feeling quite keenly the sense of unfairness
    that she couldn't be one, too. 
    
    Although, in all fairness, I must say this was hardly a defining issue
    for me, and apparently it wasn't for her, either, as she is still a
    practicing Catholic.  But it does seem a bit unfair, though.
    
    Mike

re women acolytes

Yep, that seems pretty silly.  My Episcopal parish (which would not like to
ever have Bishop Harris exercise her office within the parish) uses adult men
and women as servers, torchbearers, crucifers, thurifers, etc.

Since serving a priest may help a young man to discern his calling to be
a priest, and since the Roman Catholic church is having a shortage of men
feeling the calling, I think I understand the reasons for it.

But Roman Catholic women can be readers and even Eucharistic ministers.

/john

    The argument that boys might use their experience as altar servers to
    consider a priestly vocation would make a bit more sense, I think, if
    out of the thousands of altar boys who have served, more actually
    tried to become a priest.
    
    On the other hand, were it not for my experience as an altar boy, I may
    very well have not gone to seminary, although my classmates there were
    by no means all ex-altar boys. 
    
    Mike 

    I'll state it again, women should be allowed to be priests.
    There just isn't any reason to deny them. I don't understand,/john
    why you take your position.
    
    Marc H.

    I don't understand /john's position either, especially since the
    Episcopal church allows woman to become priests.  That there were two
    women priests at the Episcopal church in Nashua was one of the reasons
    I came back to my Episcopal roots.
    
    Do you not agree with the church's decision to allow women to become
    priests in your religion, /john?
    
    Ro
    

Unless you completely understand the significance of the Eucharist, you
can't understand the significance of the priest.  The Eucharist is not
just a memorial, it is a "making present", a "re-presenting" of the
sacrifice of Christ on Calvary.

I do not completely understand why the sex of the person re-presenting
Christ is as important as the Church believes it to be.

I would like to see the Church decide that it isn't important -- that a
woman being the Bridegroom doesn't change the sex of the Bridegroom from
male to female.  But there does seem to be a problem for a lot of people.

Some men cannot ignore the sex of a woman if she stands and acts as Christ
stating "This is my Body".

Some women want to change the sex of Christ when they say "This is my Body."

I think we have to get beyond that, on both sides.  I think I am beyond
that, but I know other people aren't.  Once we get beyond it, maybe women
can be priests.

There is no such thing as "The Episcopal Priesthood".  Page 526 of the
1979 Book of Common Prayer says:  "... we present you to be ordained
a priest in Christ's holy catholic Church."  One small part of the holy
catholic Church really did not have the authority to change the nature
of the historic presbyterate and episcopate without agreement, at least
in principle, from the whole Church.  A General Council.  Not just a
local council.

I visited a parish in Vermont last weekend which uses women's ministry
in a way that does not cause a problem for the historic priesthood and
episcopate.  There is a woman who is an ordained deacon, and there is a
woman who is a "lay pastor".  Both are important roles of responsibility
and leadership.  But they do not involve standing as Bridegroom before
the congregation.

/john

    /john -1,
    
    Thanks for offering your views, and the way in which you offered 
    them.  That note shows a different side of you, and it was edifying
    on other levels as well.  I appreciate that.  I also agree with much 
    of what you wrote.
    
    I can't say the same for .460.  If I was a priest I'd probably be
    very angry and highly insulted, and down on my knees praying for you, 
    and me.
    
    Karen

    RE: .467
    
    Agreed....../john's view on Woman in the church seems to be a
    refreshing change from the "party line" that I received in the Roman
    Catholic faith.
    
    The Congregational Church that I belong to has an interim Pastor
    who happens to be a woman. Having a woman in the church service after
    42 years of Roman Catholic men sure was "strange" at first, but
    today, it just seems normal.
    
    Marc H.

    Previous note 9.469 through 9.486 re: Matthew Fox have been moved
    to topic 12.
    
    Karen Berggren
    Co-Moderator/CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE

    Enough time has passed that I now can reveal one of my deep, dark
    secrets.
    
    
    
    I voted for Alfred Thompson in the DCU elections.
    
    Yes, that indeed makes me part of a select, albeit *extremely* small,
    company of people.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

>    Yes, that indeed makes me part of a select, albeit *extremely* small,
>    company of people.  :-)

	Well, it may not have been enough to win but it was still over 
	3000 people. All of whom I offer my thanks for your support.

			Alfred

So did I, but then I doubt that surprises anyone.

    So did I.
    
    Nanci

    Mike 546.28,
    
    As you know, I've struggled with the same issue of some Christians
    considering their chastisements and corrections of others to be a
    "virtue."  I've found it offensive as well at times, and so can
    empathize with you.  
    
    As moderators, and when you were one yourself, we struggle with this
    issue regularly, and frankly, we're discussing it again off-line.  We 
    want to encourage and support dialogue, and yet it invariably leads to 
    people offending one another, sometimes intentionally, other times
    unintentionally.  Some people, we realize, are not interested in
    dialogue, or to respect others opinions and beliefs.  
    
    So what do we do...?
    
    I feel that name-calling can be easily interpreted as a violation
    of Digital's Policies and Proceduces, which we as moderators need to
    enforce;  so, imo, it would probably be best to find other ways to 
    communicate frustration and offenses one experiences in this conference.
    
    Peace,
    Karen

    Karen, you are of course correct, and I was wrong to use that term.
    
    My frustration and my anger had reached the boiling point, and as such
    I exceeded the proper bounds.  My apologies to all concerned.
    
    -- Mike

    There are some opinions that can not be expressed without saying
    something that someone will take offense at. In fact, some will be
    insulted by someone else merely disagreeing with them.
    
    			Alfred

    Jill 546.36,
    
    > For people who value critical thinking and valuing all opinions, you
    > sure censor alot of opinions.
    
    I've observed some people objecting to ways in which other people express 
    their beliefs and opinions, and sometimes disagreeing with the opinions
    themselves, but I've yet to see an opinion "censored" here. 
    
    Karen       

>but I've yet to see an opinion "censored" here. 

I spent several hours last night dissuading a moderator of this conference
from complaining to personnel about an opinion I had expressed of this
conference.

/john

    RE: .478  Mr. Covert,
    
    				First, your opinion was *NOT* expressed
    "here" but in another conference not related to this one.  I backed
    off *ONLY* because of your adherrence to the "worlds" legalisms.  Seems
    to me to be very contrary to you professed faith as I stated in my last
    "offline" letter to you.  I resent *VERY* much you bringing up a
    subject that had been taken out of the public eye so-to-speak.  I am
    even beginning to wonder at the "practice" of a faith you so loudly
    profess.
    
    Dave....not a moderator at this moment.

    /john,
    
    Censoring would take place here, and in other conferences as well
    *if* said "opinion" is interpreted by the moderators as infringing 
    upon or violating Digital's Policies and Procedures.  In some
    conferences certain subjects are censored - they're not even open to
    discuss.  That doesn't happen here.  
    
    I don't believe the situation you're referring to took place in C-P,
    and if so, probably should not be discussed here, unless you'd like to?
    
    Karen

>I am even beginning to wonder at the "practice" of a faith you so loudly
>profess.

You don't say!

OK, let's process this:

In "Things to Hate Today" in SOAPBOX, I had grumbled that Jerry had written
a note that claimed that "wife" didn't clearly mean a "female wife".  I was
accused of being sanctimonious and a few people suggested that I should
delete that note, which follows:

                     -< SOAPBOX: Not So Humble Opinions! >-
================================================================================
Note 12.5028*                 Things to Hate Today                  5028 of 5102
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                       2 lines   1-NOV-1992 16:32
       -< Biblical support for homosexual marriage, according to Bubba >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 91.1866 in LGP30::Christian-Perspective written by Jerry Beeler, claiming
that when Jesus says "wife" in Mark 10:7, he must mean a male "wife".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In reply to that, I wrote:

|If your definition of sanctimonious includes getting angry about a bunch of
|self-professed neo-Pagans, non-Christians, and others creating a conference
|called "Christian-Perspective" and using it to ridicule the Bible and many
|of the beliefs and moral teachings of main-line Christianity, then YES, I'm
|sanctimonious.  Thank you very much.
|
|That conference has an even larger army of moderators than this.
|
|I'll delete my note when CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is deleted or has its
|name changed to RELIGIOUS-SKEPTICISM.

Dave Dawson, who has never written a note in Soapbox, became aware of the
above note and asked me to delete it, as it was contrary to company policy.
I disagreed with him on that point, replying:

Now, let's take the parts that reference CP piece by piece:

>a bunch of self-professed neo-Pagans, non-Christians, and others

I can't see you having a problem with this statement.  There are notes
in CP where various people claim to be neo-Pagans or non-Christians, and
then there are others.  I trust you are one of the others.

>using it to ridicule the Bible and many of the beliefs and moral teachings
>of main-line Christianity

Is it not a fact that some of the people, some of whom are neo-Pagans,
some of whom are non-Christians (by their own explicit descriptions of
themselves) and others, find CP a good forum to make ridiculous statements
about the bible (e.g. "wife doesn't mean female")?  Is it not a fact that
there are many statements which ridicule many of the beliefs and moral
teachings of main-line Christianity?

>That conference has an even larger army of moderators than this.

CP has more moderators than Soapbox.  "Army of moderators" is a standard
Soapbox phrase; I doubt you think it violates policy.

>RELIGIOUS-SKEPTICISM.

Don't so many of the notes in CP fall much more in the category of skepticism
than in the category of edification of Christianity?

Where is the violation of company policy in the note you are complaining
about?

/john

Dave then sent me some more information on how company policy was
violated, but still was not specific about what parts of my note were
a violation of company policy.  I replied:

>    letters, making defamatory statements, disclosing private facts about any
>             -----------------------------

Whom, specifically, have I defamed?  What statement defames whom?
In short, what statement is not true and obvious to any reader of CP?

>    statements that one may disagree with but statements with the intent
>                                              -------------------------- 
>    of provoking anger, persistent insulting language, or ridicule.
>   ----------------------------------------------------------------

This must be a reference to notes in CP about the Bible, right?

>    behavior, or compromise the personal integrity of Digital employees.
>                 -------------------------------------------------------

Show me the statement and explain which employee's integrity is compromised
and how.

>Your last statement concerning the "name" of C-P

(RELIGIOUS-SKEPTICISM)  Is there not an awful lot of skepticism, even some
hostility, to mere belief in God and traditional morality, expressed in an
overwhelming number of notes in C-P?

>Now I am perfectly willing to let an outside, objective group decide this
>matter.

Now wait a minute.  We're talking about a note in Soapbox.  A note in the
"Things to Hate Today" topic.  A topic where people gripe about things that
are annoying them.  Sort of like a "Primal Scream" topic.

Are you really thinking about getting someone else (in your other note you
mentioned personnel, I think) involved in this, like, during their working
hours?  Over a note in Soapbox?  You think a single note in Soapbox is
worth the risk that someone in Personnel might decide to delete not just
my note in Soapbox but half the notes in CP?  You really want to involve
that group of people?  You want to bring employee interest religious noting
to their attention?  Are you serious?

I've never understood why people want notes deleted.  It has always seemed
to me that if you don't like a note, you just write a better note, showing
the error in the one you don't like.

You can prove me wrong by future notes in CP.  You could write notes that say
things just like what Jill Kinsella says.  She's brilliant.  You could try to
develop convincing arguments for Christianity.  Follow the Great Commission.
Call others to do likewise.  That would be a real Christian Perspective.

/john

After this, Dave decided to abandon his plans to complain to personnel.

/john

    
    
    
    Here is what I wrote back to Mr. Covert and I stand by it.   
    
    
    
    _____________________________________________________________________
Mr. Covert,

			Ok.  I am going to let the matter drop.  I suppose
within the "legalisms" of this world, a case may be made for your point of view
about the note you entered.  But you and I know different.  Your intent was to
hurt and you succeeded.   So you win a victory but at what expense?  You say
that you believe in the cause of Christ but did that note really inculcate
the patient love that Christ commands us to have?  

			You seem unable to understand the very people you are
talking to in C-P.  Many of them have been hurt badly by missguided Christians
and their Church.  You seem to not be able to understand that fact, either that
or you really don't care.  There is a terrific book out called Evangelism 
Explosion written by Dr. Kennedy.  I would strongly suggest you read it.  It
gives you a beautiful way to witness the cause of Christ.  Most people do not 
know how to witness.

			Well, at any rate this is my last communication offline
with you unless I truely see a change of attitude.  I am sure you will believe
that "the truth hurts".  I remind you that its a two edged sword.



Dave Dawson

	John, what if we put in notes about how you view Christianity, how we
may perceive you, whatever? What would it accomplish? No more than what your
note did. Sure, you may actually believe that you didn't do anything wrong, but
unless this is how you treat yourself, then just maybe you should relook at
what was written.

	Remember, the way you wrote it the outcome is false. Your explaination
of what you wrote would be great if you could just take part of a sentence
here, part of one there, then everything is great. I've seen you do that with
Scripture too. But let's look at the ENTIRE picture, without the sentences
standing by themselves, but as a whole, what you wrote paints a false picture,
period. Is being false how you really are? Is it what God would want you to be?





Glen

    I can see why Dave objected to that attack against this notes file.

    However, it does show exactly what Covert's agenda is here.  His snide
    attack against C-P illustrates that his purpose for participating here
    is anything but amicable--as if there were any doubt about that.  If he
    wishes to see C-P deleted, as he suggested, then he clearly and
    explicitly expresses once and for all his hostility to this notes file
    and its participants.

    To set the record straight:

>>a bunch of self-professed neo-Pagans, non-Christians, and others
>
>I can't see you having a problem with this statement.  There are notes
>in CP where various people claim to be neo-Pagans or non-Christians, and
>then there are others.  I trust you are one of the others.

    What, pray tell, are the "others" that he refers to?  Could that be a
    euphemism for "Christians"?  The system host of C-P, without whom this
    file could not exist, is a Roman Catholic and a Christian.  A phrase
    like 'self-professed neo-Pagans, non-Christians, and others' could just
    as easily have been phrased as "a group of Christians and
    non-Christians".  Phrasing it the way he did was clearly a deliberate
    slight against the Christians who have been involved with the creation
    of this notes file, and as such is inflammatory.  Yes, there are notes
    here by people who are non-Christians.  The same could be said about
    GOLF::CHRISTIAN, for that matter--this is a Digital notes file, and
    must be open to all.  His use of the word "others" rather than
    "Christians" in his sneering description of the spectrum of people who
    participate here speaks for itself.

>(RELIGIOUS-SKEPTICISM)  Is there not an awful lot of skepticism, even some
>hostility, to mere belief in God and traditional morality, expressed in an
>overwhelming number of notes in C-P?

    While there are many participants who disagree with Covert's moral
    beliefs, the only skepticism I have seen expressed here towards a
    belief in God has been stated by Bob Messenger, who infrequently
    contributes here, and possibly also Jerry Beeler.  I don't know of any
    other frequent and regular contributor here who has expressed disbelief
    in God.

    -- Mike

> If he wishes to see C-P deleted, as he suggested, then he clearly and
> explicitly expresses once and for all his hostility to this notes file
> and its participants.

I did not suggest deleting CP until it was suggested that a note I had
written be deleted.

/john

    
    
    		To clear the record Mr. Covert, I did *NOT* ask that your
    original note be deleted.  Only the one in which you expressed what you
    thought of the people who note here, the very same note in which you
    asked for this entire conference to be deleted.
    
    Dave

I did not, I repeat, did not ask that this conference be deleted.

I said, and you can read that that is what I said, that I would delete
my note (the one various people suggested should be deleted) if this
conference were deleted or changed its name.

I did not, I repeat, did not ask that this conference be deleted.

    
    		Why don't you just "delete" this conference from your 
    notebook and then you can say its been deleted.
    
    
    Dave

    Naw, it's so much more fun to participate in a notes file that you hate
    so that you can trash it and the people who participate there.
    
    -- Mike

   John,

   Yes your right.  You did not say to delete the file, your words were
   to rename it.  

   Renaming the file is effectively deletion from the notes client point
   of view as the file searched for wounld not exist.  Subtle difference,
   or implied meaning?  

   Serious request.  Though others may disagree in part or whole, your 
   opinions are valued by many here.  If you dislike the file so much 
   that you made those comments why note here?

   In search of Peace,
   Allison

I did not, I repeat, did not ask that this conference be renamed.

I said, and you can read that that is what I said, that I would delete
my note (the one various people suggested should be deleted) if this
conference were deleted or changed its name.

I did not, I repeat, did not ask that this conference be renamed.

|
|I'll delete my note when CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is deleted or has its
|name changed to RELIGIOUS-SKEPTICISM.

  John,

   Is this not a direct extraction from your note posted by you in an
   earlier note?

   You either want it deleted or renamed as is it a condition to
   delete another note.  Either that or you don't want it renamed
   or deleted and it is not a condition.

   You only defended something you believe is in error.  There was a
   question placed before you.  Why do you note here if you dislike it so?


   Allison

    I've deleted my previous warning, but I will say that whining in
    another conference about this one is both cheap and childish.  I
    know because I used to be critical of GOLF::CHRISTIAN in this file
    until someone pointed out the unworthiness of such actions to me.
    
    Neither do I wish to see CP become a dumping ground for discussions
    occuring in other conferences.
    
    Richard
    

>   You either want it deleted or renamed as is it a condition to
>   delete another note.  Either that or you don't want it renamed
>   or deleted and it is not a condition.

Allison, you and I have had this problem before.  Obviously we don't
speak the same version of English, because you claim I say things I
haven't said, and I can't parse your sentence above.

I said what is written in ones and zeroes.  What stands before says that
I will delete x _if_ y is deleted or renamed.  It does not say that I
want anything to happen to either x or y -- it is a response to a demand
that x be deleted.

>Why do you participate here?

For the same reason that Jill, Collis, Alfred, and Pat participate here:
To present the central truths of Christianity: death to sin and new life
in Christ, in the midst of what is claimed to be a Christian Perspective
but which denies millenia of teaching on the calling of Christ.

/john

    Well, hurt feelings and/or disparaging comments aside, I must say I 
    think /john was well-baited with a topic named "Things to hate today." 
    
    :-)  
    
    And so weren't we.    
    
    Karen 

    /john .496,
    
    You're splitting hairs here now.  Anyway, I think we understand the 
    basic gist of your message.
    
    Rest yourself.  It's been a loooong day.
    
    Peace,
    
    Karen

   John,

   Since my native language is assembler, binary will do.

   Of course I could resort to Pascal and forget a semicolon or
   two... ;-)

   Allison

.482> I've never understood why people want notes deleted.

If that's the case please help me to reconcile this with your commentary
in SOAPBOX .. Note 12.5034.   In 12.5034, your response to an individual
who asked you to delete a note: "...if Bubba offered to delete C-P
91.whatever..."

It appears that you will delete a note if someone named Bubba offered to
delete C-P 91.whatever.  Why in the world would you want note 91.whatever
deleted?  I've never understood why people want notes deleted.

.482> seemed to me that if you don't like a note, you just write a better
.482> note, showing the error in the one you don't like.

I agree ... why would you want C-P 91.whatever deleted?  Why not just write
a better note showing the error in the one that you don't like, 91.whatever?

.482> That would be a real Christian Perspective.

One thing that I have learned from this conference is that there is more
than one Christian Perspective.  For this I am forever thankful.  I have
learned that my actions speak louder than words - and those actions seem
to label me as a Christian.  There are a number of people in this conference
- people that by all reasonable measures would be considered "Christians" ...
that have told me that I exhibit the qualities of a Christian.   That made 
me feel good.  Darned good.

Don't ask me to explain "why" it makes me feel good because if you have to
ask ... you wouldn't understand the answer.

Now, you personally can (and probably will) rant and rave all you want.
Believe it or not I will defend to the death your right to do that ... but
guess to what end it effects me - personally?  Try ... a hill of beans.  I
am proud to be called a Christian and that's what matters to me.

If the hallmark of Christianity is rooted in lack of common courtesy and
lack of respect - I want nothing to do with it.  This conference (and I use
the term 'conference' in the global sense has) shown me that this is NOT
the case.  Christianity is indeed rooted in respect and understanding.

Such is the case in my refusal to even respond to the not-so-veiled request
that you made in SOAPBOX for me to delete 91.whatever in C-P.  To have
responded to such a pusillanimous request was to give it dignity.  This, I
refuse to do.  I was not afforded the simple courtesy of correspondence
which would indicate dissatisfaction with the 91.whatever note.  I was
not afforded those simple elements of professionalism, and courtesy.  I do
not and will not respond to such a decided lack of even minimal professional
and social graces.

If such deficiencies are elements of your "Christian perspective" you
may rest assured that I wholeheartedly and resolutely reject your Christian
perspective.  Without reservation.  Without hesitation.  Without fear.

My personal perspective:  You may with all your heart and soul - defile
C-P and/or me.  You may do it in any forum that you so desire.  You may,
within the limits of P&P, do so in any language that you so desire.  For me,
personally, the "hill of beans" syndrome comes to mind.  For other participants
of this conference ... I'm sure that they'll pray for your rapid recovery.

John, take a look at St. Luke 23:34.  I'm sure that that Jesus will include you
in His request.

Bubba

    Bubba A Christian, and proud of it?
    
    God has *surely* wrought a miracle.
    
    Amen.  I DO believe!
    
    Seriously...I have an inkling as to how big a statement that is
    for you to make, Bubba.  Wow.  
    
    Karen

>I agree ... why would you want C-P 91.whatever deleted?

I don't want any notes deleted.

You know I don't, because you are the author of C-P 91.whatever, and I never
asked you or any one of the moderators to delete C-P 91.whatever.  I do not
want it deleted.  I have never wanted it deleted.  The note was just a "Thing
to Hate Today" one day.  There was no request for you to do anything about it. 

>to label me as a Christian.

'Lujah, sag i, lujah!

/john

.501> Bubba A Christian, and proud of it?
.501> God has *surely* wrought a miracle.

Now .. hold youah' horses there mah' little magnolia.  I said that people
had pinned the label on me and I'd be proud to wear it.  Yep', I'd be
right proud to wear it ...  all this time I thought that I had to do
something special or be something special .. and here I find out that
I don't need to do nothin' but be myself and pretty much keep doin'
things that I've always done.  That do make me feel good.

Then again .. I gotta' be real careful right now for I am ..well..
NUI (Noting Under the Influence).  Tonights elections results have
caused me to partake in a number of Michelob "Golden Draft" to try to
dround my sorrows.  Fure not for I has not done it to excess .. I'm
in fall cuntrol of my facalties - and that's what I tole the ossifer
what brunged me home.

Bubba

    It seems to me, given the sometimes open admission of hostility to this
    notes conference, that it might be worth considering the usefulness by
    those of us who value it to simply ignore what its attackers write
    here.

    I know that it is always difficult to remain silent in the face of
    absurd or simply obnoxious attacks against one's own beliefs. 
    Nevertheless, ignoring those individuals who are disruptive and hostile
    would have the benefit of making for valid and useful discussions among
    the rest of us.

    One possible response to this is to simply take note of those authors
    who clearly have a hostile agenda against this notes file and its
    mission; then, when you are reading notes, simply check the author
    before reading the text.  If the note is from one of those people who
    clearly hate this notes file, simply ignore the note.  Don't even read
    it.  Its content will probably only get your dander up, and responding
    to it will accomplish nothing because those individuals have clearly
    eschewed any interest in legitimate dialogue and honest communication. 
    We are their enemy, and their have made clear that consider it a virtue
    and a calling from God not to respect theological differences of
    opinion with us.

    I understand the obvious objection to this approach. By ignoring
    them--as hard as I know it must be to let their offensive comments go
    without a response--we are not somehow conceding victory to them.  That
    is a macho way of looking at notes, that implies that one must somehow
    always have the last word.  By simply choosing to ignore them, we can
    build this into the kind of notes file we wish it to be, without
    allowing ourselves to be dragged down by such disruption.

    Comments?  Is this a good or a bad idea?  How many people would be
    willing to take a vow towards that end?

    -- Mike

    Re: .500
    
    Excellent Jerry!
    
    Marc H.

.504> One possible response to this is to simply take note of those authors
.504> who clearly have a hostile agenda against this notes file and its
.504> mission; then, when you are reading notes, simply check the author
.504> before reading the text.

I always do this .. as a matter of "habit".  It makes reading notes much
easier and faster and at times a lot easier on the blood pressure.  Indeed,
the NEXT UNSEEN or NEXT REPLY gets quite a workout at times.

.504> I understand the obvious objection to this approach. By ignoring
.504> them--as hard as I know it must be to let their offensive comments go
.504> without a response--we are not somehow conceding victory to them.

Not at all!  I well (WELL) remember the day my first-born used a very
healthy swear word.   The wife and I took a very deep breath and didn't
crack a smile, didn't say a word.  Totally ignored the incident.  Worked
like a charm - she never tried it again.

Same in notes.  Some people limply like to be seen and heard and they
use notes to draw attention.  The more attention they draw .. the more
they pontificate.  

.505> Re: .500
.505> Excellent Jerry!

Thank you, Sir.

Bubba

    re .504
    
    Excellent idea Mike.  There are lots of questions I sincerely want to
    dialogue about.  Since I cannot dialogue with those who reject free and
    open dialogue, I too choose not to.  
    
    Patricia

In article <9.504-921104-083102@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, valenza@juran.enet.dec.com (Master of time, space & notes.) writes:
X-Note-Id: 9.504 (504 replies)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 08:31:02 EST

Title: The Processing Topic
Reply Title: (none)

>    It seems to me, given the sometimes open admission of hostility to this
>    notes conference, that it might be worth considering the usefulness by
>    those of us who value it to simply ignore what its attackers write
>    here.
>
>    I know that it is always difficult to remain silent in the face of
>    absurd or simply obnoxious attacks against one's own beliefs. 
>    Nevertheless, ignoring those individuals who are disruptive and hostile
>    would have the benefit of making for valid and useful discussions among
>    the rest of us.

[posted by Notes-News gateway]

re Note 545.36 by CSC32::KINSELLA:

>     I believe it's vanished.  It was moved from 546 to 23.  Now my note
>     is no more.  <weeping, sobbing>  No notification or explanation of 
>     why, it's just non-existent.  Maybe I anger a moderator or two, so
>     the gods that be, deleted me.  I don't honestly know where it is
>     or it's replies.  I imagine it didn't fit in with genre.  Maybe it 
>     was relocated again.  Oh well.
    
        I'm not 100% sure what your getting at, Jill, but in this
        conference I found several notes of yours written since
        26 October addressed in part to Dave:

        	300.83, 300.85, 544.47, 546.47

        Bob

    Thank you Bob. 

.509 & 510,
    
    I concur.  No notes have been lost or deleted.  500.55 explains.

    The notes could easily be found by using the command:
    SET SEEN/BEFORE=03-NOV-1992<CR> then pressing next unseen <kp",">
    through the day's activity.

Richard

	I recognize my brother in Christ, "Bubba" Jerry Beeler, and welcome
him into the family of God.

Peace,
Richard

PS  Actually, I was beginning to wonder, Jerry, if you would ever notice the
family resemblence. ;-)

.512> Actually, I was beginning to wonder, Jerry, if you would ever notice the
.512> family resemblance. ;-)

"family resemblance" ... between who and who?

If you're talking resemblance between me and you ... Richard .. whatever
you're sippin' ...  it's gotta' be better than any Texas moonshine that I 
ever tasted.  Hey, save me a quart or so ...
    
Bubba

    Re: 545.62
    
    Patrick,
    
    The original note you're querying Richard on was directed to Jill, not
    you, in case you hadn't noticed.  Richard never claimed you used any 
    labels, but rather was describing the ones he used and why.  
    
    "Projecting" a C-P speak term?  On the slim chance you aren't joking,
    it's a common psychological term, the meaning of which you'll 
    find in any dictionary:  to ascribe one's own feelings to others.   
    
    Karen
    
    p.s.  Richard, you forgot the label "sick."  Oh, and "heathen" is 
    an accurate term, and not just mere projection on your part:  We do 
    have self-professed non-Christians who contribute here regularly.

    Re: .513
    
    I didn't think that Texan's knew how to make shine....
    
    Marc H.

    re: 545.62

    I have no idea what is meant by "the original note".  To me and I hope
    to other readers, 545.62, 545.60, 545.58, etc. form a discussion of
    the Christian perspective.

    What motivates a reply like 9.514 with the snide personal comment "in
    case you hadn't noticed...", Moderator Karen?

    Is the "projection" here I'm too stupid to notice something?  Is this a
    campaign to intimidate me by insults scattered through the conference
    without connection to a discussion of the Christian Perspective?

    I write here for myself.  I ask direct questions to understand or
    disambiguate the statements of others.  I do not label, I do not
    project, I do not attribute my own opinions into others.  This is an
    example that others would do well to follow. 

    Patrick,
    
    It's obvious you're having a "bad" day.         
    
    I wish you well.
    
    Adieu,
    
    Karen

Newsgroups: dec.notes.valuing_diffs.christian-perspective
Distribution: dec
Followup-To: 
References:  <9.503-921104-013233@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective> <9.504-921104-083102@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>
From: ferwerda@loptsn.zko.dec.com (Paul Ferwerda)
Reply-To: ferwerda@loptsn.enet.dec.com
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Nashua, New Hampshire
Subject: Re: The Processing Topic
Keywords: 
-=-=-=-= Enter your text below this line (don't delete this line) =-=-=-=-
In article <9.504-921104-083102@valuing_diffs.christian-perspective>, valenza@juran.enet.dec.com (Master of time, space & notes.) writes:
X-Note-Id: 9.504 (504 replies)
Date: Wed, 4 Nov 92 08:31:02 EST

Title: The Processing Topic
Reply Title: (none)

>    It seems to me, given the sometimes open admission of hostility to this
>    notes conference, that it might be worth considering the usefulness by
>    those of us who value it to simply ignore what its attackers write
>    here.
>
>    I know that it is always difficult to remain silent in the face of
>    absurd or simply obnoxious attacks against one's own beliefs. 
>    Nevertheless, ignoring those individuals who are disruptive and hostile
>    would have the benefit of making for valid and useful discussions among
>    the rest of us.

.
.
.
>    -- Mike

Mike,
	It was my understanding that John Covert felt that it was "difficult
to remain silent in the face of absurd or simply obnoxious attacks against
one's own beliefs." and that his note in SOAPBOX reflected that. I should
say as someone who as only looked in on SOAPBOX once or twice in the last
few years that it was very apparent to me that the "THINGS I HATE TODAY"
note is clearly a steam-venting note and not to be taking seriously.

	The difficult things about this conference is that both
"sides" see the other as carrying out absurd or obnoxious attacks.
The folks who plant themselves in the "orthodox" camp see the
characterization of non-orthodox beliefs as orthodox as an insult
against God.  The folks who don't plant themselves in the orthodox
camp see the constant harping of the "orthodox" on a narrow view of
truth as insulting because it implicitly (or explicitly) dismisses
their views as non-truth.

	Both sides see the others' statements as devaluing their beliefs.

	The answer?  I'm not sure, but as I've said in other notes I'm
trying to figure out how to dialog when the other side rejects and demeans
some of my fundamental assumptions about the world.

PS.  In a conference like this you have to have thick skin.  I try to listen
to what folks say, and think about it.  If it doesn't fit then I try not
to get worked up about it as the other person is most likely wrong anyway. 8-)

--
---
Paul		ferwerda@loptsn.zko.dec.com
Gordon		ferwerda@clt.enet.dec.com
Loptson		clt::ferwerda
Ferwerda	Tel (603) 881 2221



			

re Note 9.518 by YAMS::FERWERDA:

> it was very apparent to me that the "THINGS I HATE TODAY"
> note is clearly a steam-venting note and not to be taking seriously.

        I thought that was true of just about everything in SOAPBOX!


> The folks who plant themselves in the "orthodox" camp see the
> characterization of non-orthodox beliefs as orthodox as an insult
> against God.  

        Paul,

        Are you saying that those who present non-orthodox beliefs
        here try to imply that they are actually orthodox beliefs?  I
        can't recall any examples of that.  On the other hand, I have
        seen examples of where a non-orthodox belief is presented
        with the claim that the orthodox belief is wrong or
        incomplete.

        I can see that that is challenging, but why is it taken as so
        threatening -- can't the holders of orthodox beliefs simply
        refute or deny the non-orthodox beliefs without being
        offended or worse?

        They seem to forget that Christianity in its early years was
        unorthodox in its entirety.

        Bob

Patrick 9.516,

>    What motivates a reply like 9.514 with the snide personal comment "in
>    case you hadn't noticed...", Moderator Karen?

I've known Karen long enough and well enough to know when she might be being
snide or not.  And she's not this time.  If one reads the sentence without the
tag "in case you hadn't noticed," the statement comes across as brutal and
unforgiving; two qualities which "Moderator Karen" seldom, if ever,
exhibits.  And further, why did you put the tag "Moderator" in front of
Karen's name??  Do you have a problem with women in positions of authority?

>    Is the "projection" here I'm too stupid to notice something?

What motivates you to ask something as insulting as this??

>   Is this a
>   campaign to intimidate me by insults scattered through the conference
>   without connection to a discussion of the Christian Perspective?

I see no evidence of any campaign to intimidate you by insults scattered
through the conference.  There is no conspiracy of any kind.  There is
an effort here by the moderators to maintain some semblance of order and
continuity.  If a topic is becoming derailed, it is not unusual for the
derailing notes to be moved to a more appropriate topic or perhaps placed
under an entirely new topic.  Parallel topics are frequently combined.  I
know that as a moderator yourself, you already know about these kinds of
things.

Furthermore, the inference that there exists something called "C-P Speak"
is simply bizarre.  What motivates you to make such an inference??

Richard

>>    What motivates a reply like 9.514 with the snide personal comment "in
>>    case you hadn't noticed...", Moderator Karen?
>
>I've known Karen long enough and well enough to know when she might be being
>snide or not.  And she's not this time.  
    
    Alas not all of us know Karen that well. I though she was being snide.
    
>And further, why did you put the tag "Moderator" in front of
>Karen's name??  Do you have a problem with women in positions of authority?
    
    Gee, are you projecting your own sexist feelings on Pat? Would you
    assume that using the tag in front of your name suggested a problem
    with men in positions of authority?
    
    		Alfred

    
    		No Alfred, I don't think so.  I believe that Richard was
    only using Mr. Sweeney's own tatic of questioning motives.
    
    
    Dave

    Yes, but when Mr. Sweeney questions people's motives, I am sure that it
    is done only in the spirit of Christian love.  :-)
    
    -- Mike

    A reply like 9.523 is never examined by Karen or Richard or the other
    moderators in the processing topic.

    I am sure that Mr. Sweeney's questioning of the moderator's motives is
    done in the spirit of Christian love and compassion.  :-)
    
    -- Mike (who Mr. Sweeney has characterized as a great evil)

   Mike,

   Please be aware.  Patrick did not question the moderators.  I saw
   no question asked, though I did read the notes in question.  ;-)

   Allison

    My motive in .514 was to resolve a conflict by being clear and concise.  
    Snideness was not intended, and I thought for several minutes how I should 
    word my note to be clear and concise.  The following is how I saw the 
    "conflict" unfold which eventually resulted in my note, 9.514:
    
    Richard to Jill in 545.46:
    
      > ...you may feel it your mission to stay and make sure us "heathens"
     			   ^^^^
      > don't get away with saying anything even slightly heretical or 
      > extra-biblical.
    
    Richard is _specifically_ addressing _Jill's_ mission, (i.e. motives) 
    here, no one else's.  
    
    Patrick to Richard in 545.58:
    
      > In sincerity, what motivates your description of participants here as 
      > "heathens and "slightly heretical or extra-biblical"?
      
      > I reject such motives imputed to me.
    					 ^^
    Patrick reads Richard's note, removes Jill and replaces her with himself
    as the recipient of Richard's comments.
    
    Richard to Patrick in 545.60:
    
      > I suppose I'm projecting what I suspect are the perceptions of some.  
      > I suspect the mere existence of this conference is a source of 
      > enormous consternation for some.  
    
    Patrick to Richard in 545.62:
    
      > I don't have a clue what's meant by CP-speak term "projection."
      > As for labels, it is you rather than me who has chosen to apply 
      > labels, to me and then to yourself.  You yourself commit the fault you 
      > accuse me of.
    
    Patrick is absolutely correct in saying Richard has "choosen to apply 
    labels," but incorrect in saying Richard "accused him" of using them.
    
    Again, the labels "heathen" and "slightly heretical or extra-biblical" 
    were in the original note to Jill.  Richard plainly owned them and 
    clarified, when asked by Patrick what his motivations were for using 
    them.  Richard did mention two other labels in 545.60 he's seen used in 
    C-P such as "A Great Evil" and "Wicked" to describe some participants and 
    what they share;  but I do not read where Richard does what Patrick states, 
    and that is to accuse Patrick of using them.  
    
    So at this time I entered .514, to point out the one detail that 
    apparently Patrick missed -- a detail which could "potentially" resolve 
    this escalating conflict, which was that Richard specifically addressed 
    _Jill_ and _her mission_ in his original note 545.46.  I then followed 
    with "Richard never claimed you used any labels, but rather was describing 
    the ones he used and why."  
    
    Bottom line, .514 was not written to be snide -- it was written to be 
    clear and concise, with the hopes of illuminating the point at which a
    conflict ignited.  I am definately open to suggestions as to other ways 
    I could have said the same thing without having appeared "snide" to some.  
    If anyone has other alternatives, please write them here or send them to 
    me off-line.  More than likely we'll encounter a similar situation again.
    
    I freely admit what I suspect is obvious to all.  
    
    ...I did dip .514's p.s. in a bath of salt and satire.  Though perhaps 
    obvious to all, I'm sure it wasn't appreciated by some.  But I think 
    that's a quality I share with everyone here, I don't always do or say 
    what's appreciated.   
    
    Karen

    A self-deprecating reference to this notes file with words like
    "heathens", "slightly heretical", and "extra-biblical" can be seen as a
    response to a recent pejorative description of this notes file as
    having been founded by "neo-Pagans, non-Christians, and others".

    -- Mike (the Great Evil)

    .527,
    
    That is one of the most *thorough* explanations I've ever seen in Notes!
    8*)
    
    Richard

I think it's very interesting that Richard, when copying news articles
from GOLF::CHRISTIAN to this conference, as he does almost daily, skipped
the Globe article posted there yesterday.

    Re: .530
    
    Why don't you copy it? I don't read Golf::Christain
    
    Marc H.

I didn't copy it because Richard usually copies them all.

    Still....Why don't you copy it? I'm curious now...
    
    Marc H.

Done.

    Thanks /john. Soundbite noted. :-)  Btw, I didn't think Richard copied
    these over from GOLF::, rather that he posts them directly from CLARInet.  
    Was this article distributed by that news service?
    
    Karen

I have good reason (and evidence) to believe he copies them from
GOLF::CHRISTIAN.

/john

    Thanks /john...interesting article. Interesting quote you gave too.
    
    Marc H.

    .536,
    
    If he does /john, then he also missed a couple other recent postings
    there as well, so I wouldn't automatically feel slighted.  I did notice 
    that CLARInet didn't distribute yours;  but knowing Richard as I do, if
    he had read your posting and seen your soundbite in it, he would've 
    been sure to post it here and recognize your contribution.
    
    In any event, please feel free to post news items yourself in the
    future.
    
    Karen   

I do gleen the news items that I post from GOLF::CHRISTIAN Topic 29.  It's
mostly because I've never been able to successfully access CLARInet directly.
And even those extracted from Topic 29 in GOLF::CHRISTIAN are done so
selectively.  After checking topic 29, in recent days I've simply been doing
a SET SEEN.

I regret having missed the article which included John Covert's statement.
It was not intentional.  My apologies for any hard feelings my oversight
may have caused.

Peace,
Richard

>                           -< It wasn't in Topic 29 >-
>Richard

?????

    .540
    
    Okay.  I missed it.  No excuses.
    
    It wasn't deliberate.  It's probably due to some malady related to
    aging, waning eye-sight, or overall incompetence on my part.
    
    Richard

Well, maybe it wasn't deliberate last time, but it was this time:

From CHRISTIAN:
================================================================================
Note 29.466                   Religion in the News                    466 of 468
                 -< Church of England voting on women priests >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: clarinews@clarinet.com (PETER SHADBOLT)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 29.467                   Religion in the News                    467 of 468
COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert"                       5 lines  11-NOV-1992 14:32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It passed.

It still has to be approved by Parliament and given royal assent.

/john
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 29.468                   Religion in the News                    468 of 468
                 -< UPI: Tilton sues ABC-TV, Prime Time Live >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And in here:
================================================================================
Note 41.270                   Religion in the News                    270 of 274
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Strength through peace"           78 lines  11-NOV-1992 18:54
                 -< Church of England voting on women priests >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Note 41.271                   Religion in the News                    271 of 274
CSC32::J_CHRISTIE "Strength through peace"           42 lines  11-NOV-1992 18:55
                   -< Tilton sues ABC-TV, "Prime Time Live" >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    You know ... I checked note 41 and much to my amazement replies are
    enabled.  What this means is that anyone can enter a reply in note 41.
    Truly a revelation!

    I also checked the basenote of 41.  I read each and every word and
    carefully analyzed both the spirit and the letter of what was said.
    I found no commitments, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy,
    timeliness, or relative content of the "news" notices which were to be
    posted in the string.  Truly a revelation!

    I diligently searched basenote 41 and could not find any indication of
    commitments with respect to any detailed comparisons between news items
    posted in another conference and similar news items posted in this con-
    ference.  Truly a revelation!

    Perhaps the author of 9.543 takes joy in his folly?  Ah ... I recall
    Proverbs 15:21 (the first part) ... now I understand.

    Bubba

    .543  Yes, it was deliberate this time.
    
    Richard

    John Covert,
    
    	You do exceptionally well at pointing out the faults of
    CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE.  There *is* some edifying purpose to it,
    isn't there??
    
    	The message I get is that your chronic trashing of C-P is
    either for its own sake or because the conference fails to embrace
    your particular brand of Christianity.
    
    Richard

This conference fails to embrace what any Church which is a member of the
National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA would call Christianity.

References to "Goddess" are extremely offensive in a conference which
claims to represent a Christian Perspective.

/john

    John,
    
    I suspect you fail to grasp what CHRISTIAN-PERSPECTIVE is all about.
    
    I regret that you are offended by the term "Goddess," but it's use is
    not prohibited here.
    
    Richard
    

    
    		Be it known that I will not be a member of *ANY* church
    which belongs to the National Council of Churches of Christ or its "big
    brother" the World Council of Churches.  Read their "agenda" and you'll
    know why.  
    
    Dave

Note that I was not affirming the NCC, but merely using that as an easy
way of listing a large number of Churches.

Yes, Richard, I know what this conference is all about.  It is about
putting forward a theology which is contrary to historic Christianity
as it is received by Baptists, Catholics (Anglican/Episcopal, Roman,
or Orthodox), Methodists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, or any other mainstream
Christian Church.

/john

    .550
    
    John,
    
    	That is your perception, and perhaps some others, of what this
    conference is all about.  However, it is certainly not my perception
    of what this conference is all about.  Neither do I believe it is what
    a number of others who note here preferentially perceive this conference
    is all about.
    
    Richard

    John .. if you wish I'll send you the VAX Notes documentation which
    will tell you how to start your own conference.

    Personally ... I don't stay in conferences that I don't like.  It never
    ceases to amaze me that others do.

    Bubba

   John,

   Since when does reference to Goddess, or many other things represent
   the global view of the conference?  We do allow the airing of divergent
   views but that is not represent endoresment.  You are assigning someones
   personal belief or outlook to the conference, we cannot do that.

   Regards,
   Allison

    > References to "Goddess" are extremely offensive in a conference which
    > claims to represent a Christian Perspective.
    
    Think again /john.  "Goddess" simply refers to the feminine aspect of
    God.  Have you read about Sophia in the Bible?  That's another name for
    God's feminine aspect.  And may I remind you of Pope John Paul I's
    pronouncement shortly before his untimely death:  "God is both mother 
    and father, but God is more mother than father."
    
    Imagine if this visionary Pope had lived longer.  What a wonderful 
    renaissance the church might have experienced.
    
    sigh.
    
    Karen 
         

>"Goddess" simply refers to the feminine aspect of God.
>Have you read about Sophia in the Bible?  That's another name for
>God's feminine aspect. 

Nonsense.  Holy Wisdom (Sophia) is generally referred to as "she" but is never
referred to as "Goddess".  Just because you might have some masculine aspects
does not mean we can refer to you as Mr. Berggren.

>And may I remind you of Pope John Paul I's pronouncement shortly before his
>untimely death:  "God is both mother and father, but God is more mother than
>father."

References?  The Holy Father contradicting Jesus?  Unlikely.

/john

    Unfortunately /john, we have no name that would embrace both the
    masculine and feminine aspects of God.
    
    Pope John Paul I's statement is originally cited from _In God's 
    name: An investigation into the murder of Pope John Paul I_ 
    (Yallop, 1984).  
    
    I have a feeling most things you don't agree with are shrugged off 
    as "probably spurious."  I guess I can understand that reaction.
    
    Karen

I wonder about the authority of a book entitled "An Investigation into the
Murder of John Paul I".

Clearly someone with an axe to grind.

What is his source for the quote?  When did John Paul I say it, and who
else heard him say it?  What independent sources quote it?

/john

    > Clearly someone with an axe to grind.
    
    Yes, perhaps that's all there is to it.
    
    Karen

    /john.......For someone who is as smart as you are, I'm surprised you
    have just a warped view of this conference. I don't believe for one
    moment in the Goddess labeling and I have a very hard time with
    abortion..but....what is the problem with listening to different points
    of view? 
    
    Marc H.

re Note 9.548 by CSC32::J_CHRISTIE:

>     I regret that you are offended by the term "Goddess," but it's use is
>     not prohibited here.
  
        Actually, I am a bit bothered (I wouldn't say "offended") by
        the term "Goddess" as well because to me it implies that the
        Godhead has gender, which I do not believe.  I personally do
        not interpret the English word "God" to imply male gender
        (although I can understand that some would read the record of
        tradition as saying that "God" is a male term).

        Bob

    It is true that there are individuals here who express theological
    points of view that others might find offensive.

    It is untrue that this conference is "about" putting forward any
    theology, particularly one that anyone happens to disapprove of.  The
    reality is that anyone who writes a note here objecting to a theology
    expressed here is too a participant of this conference, and therefore
    is is part of what this conference is "about".  The conference has no
    theology, and it puts forward no theology; it is the individuals who
    participate here who have theologies.  The conference offers a forum
    where people of diverse theologies, including those being trashed by
    certain individuals here, can express them.

    -- Mike

>    Unfortunately /john, we have no name that would embrace both the
>    masculine and feminine aspects of God.

	Fortunately Karen, we have a name that embraces both the masculine
	and feminine aspects of God. It is "Father." Only the most sexist
	or those ignorent of the role of father would deny that role having
	both masculine and feminine aspects. Or those trying to insult.

			Alfred

If this conference has no theology, then why is it called
"Christian-Perspective"?

The Christian Perspective is that worshipping a Goddess is
mortal sin.

/john

    Perhaps you are confused over the distinction between content and
    subject matter.  The subject matter of this conference is Christianity;
    the content is up to the individuals who participate here.  Individuals
    can adhere to whatever theology concerning Christianity they want, and
    in fact freely do so.  There is a notes file that conflates content and
    subject matter--it is located on GOLF.  In that notes file, not only is
    the subject matter controlled by the moderators, but only certain
    theologies *about* that subject matter are allowed to be expressed
    there.

    If you have a problem with the name of this conference, that's
    unfortunate, but the fact remains that this conference has no theology. 
    "This conference" does not worship a Goddess; individuals who
    participate here have every right to do so.  While we all appreciate
    your opinions on what constitutes "The Christian Perspective" on
    Goddess worship, this conference exercises no censorship over people
    who feel otherwise.  If you want to participate in a notes conference
    that does exercise this kind of censorship, press keypad 7.

    -- Mike

Perhaps you confuse my rebuttal of and disapproval of non-Christian statements
by moderators of Christian Perspective with censorship.

    Since your "rebuttal of and disapproval of" allegedly non-Christian
    statements by partipants was made in the context of your false
    assertion that this notes file has a theology, it was reasonable to
    infer that you wish for the notes file to have a different theology
    than it currently has.  Since the only way for the notes file to "have
    a theology" would be through censorship, such as implemented by the
    moderators of GOLF, then your complaints about a non-existent theology
    of this notes file could only be addressed through censorship.
    
    But perhaps you now admit that this notes file has no theology.  If so,
    then there is no disagreement.
    
    -- Mike

I think it can be quite confusing for people as to whether the discussions in
this conference are to represent primarily a Christian Perspective or not.

Especially considering what 1.0 says -- especially about non-Christian topics.

If we agree that "the Goddess" is a non-Christian topic, maybe we should
consider how _repeated_ references to this pagan concept can and should be
reconciled with 1.0.  Especially coming from a moderator.

/john

    Whether or not discussions in this conference represent primarily what
    you consider to be a Christian Perspective or not is entirely up to the
    theological composition of its participants.  

    Allow me to fill you in on a little history.  This notes file was
    created in no small part in response to the censorship exercised by the
    moderators of GOLF.  That notes file imposes certain theological
    "standards" that determine which opinions on matters of theology can be
    expressed there.  For you to wish for this notes file to impose
    precisely the censorship that was the purpose for this notes file's
    creation would be to eliminate that purpose; this conference would
    simply be a GOLF clone.

    What you seem to want this notes conference to do is contrary to its
    purpose.  If you want the imposition of a theological standard, I once
    again offer you the opportunity to press keypad 7; I am sure that you
    will be happy participating in GOLF.  If your complaint is that this
    notes file exists at all, that's unfortunate, but the moderators are
    not going to impose a theological standard here simply because you want
    it.  That would defeat the reason for its existence.

    If you don't like the charter and purpose under which a notes file
    operates, you are always free to create your own.  Carrying out a
    guerrilla war against it, in the hopes that it will someone become what
    it was precisely created not to be, is not going to get you anywhere. 
    We've been through these discussions from the moment it was created;
    participants from GOLF wanted to mold this file in the image of GOLF. 
    Well, that just isn't going to be--at least I hope not!  If it ever
    does, I'll be among the first to leave.

Can you find any notes by me that there should be censorship in this
conference?  (Maybe you can; I'm not sure.)

What I have done is deplored the fact that this conference, under the
name "Christian Perspective" and under the charter in 1.0, has become
a forum for certain people in positions of authority in this conference
to present very non-Christian views -- views that most of us can agree
are non-Christian.

The censorship I see is your call for me to go elsewhere when I complain
that certain things being presented here (especially references to "the
Goddess") are manifestly contrary to Christianity, and not just to the
practice of Christianity which I practice, but to _any_ historic definition
of Christianity.

The Christian (and Jewish or Moslem) Perspective is that such a drastic
reformulation of the nature of God is not only not Christianity, but is
paganism, a serious violation of the First Commandment.

/john

    You say that you are not in favor of censorship, yet you complain that
    people present what you consider "non-Christian" views.  Your objection
    is over the existence of these opinions that you disagree with, here in
    this notes file.  Since this conference exists in no small part to
    allow a wide range of views to be expressed here, then how do you
    propose to prevent those opinions from being expressed here, except by
    censorship?  What is the purpose of complaining about the existence of
    certain opinions you disagree with being put forth, if not to wish for
    those opinions *not* to be expressed here?
    
    It is hardly censorship to ask people who object to hearing opinions
    that they don't like to simply NOT LISTEN TO THEM.  If you don't like
    the contents of a magazine, my suggestion is that you don't buy it.  If
    you don't like the opinions expressed on a television show, change the
    channel.  And if you don't like the fact that opinions you don't like
    are expressed here, go to another notes conference, or else create your
    own.  Not liking opinions that you hear is simply a null and void
    complaint against a notes conference (with the exception of those
    expressions that violate P&P).  What do you propose for people to do
    about this?  Not express those opinions?  If not, if you accept the
    right of various opinions that you object to being expressed here, then
    what's the complaint?
    
    It's really very simple.  Either these opinions that you object to
    should be allowed here, or they shouldn't.  If you agree that they
    should be allowed here, then there is no problem.
    
    -- Mike

Note 1.0 was written by one of the original moderators, Bob Fleischer, and
reflects his perspective.  (It's his workstation so he got to write 1.0).
Bob also chose the conference title.  But there are other perspectives
here besides Bob's.  Even though the moderators agree on many things,
probably each moderator has a slightly different idea of what this
conference is about.  For example, Bob Fleischer doesn't seem to be
comfortable with the word "Goddess", while other moderators freely use it.

Yes, it's confusing when there is a mixed message from the moderators, but
diversity is one of the most important virtues (as I see it) of this
conference.

				-- Bob

    Alfred .562,
    
    > Fortunately Karen, we have a name that embraces both the masculine
    > and feminine aspects of God. It is "Father." Only the most sexist
    > or those ignorent of the role of father would deny that role having
    > both masculine and feminie aspects. Or those trying to insult.
    
    Alfred, then you have here an opportunity to enlighten.  Please do so
    without the disparaging comments.  I don't know if the insights you
    have on the word "Father" have been presented here before.  I am
    interested in hearing them, but I would greatly appreciate you doing 
    so without pronouncing me as the most sexist or ignorant, or as 
    deliberately trying to insult, just because I do not see things as 
    you do, nor had the chance to.  
    
    Thank you.
    
    Karen                         

    RE: .562  Alfred,
    
    
    			Again, we slide down into a semantics issue. 
    Actually "Abba" is more closely translated into "daddy", however
    thinking God has only the masculine traits is fostered by the use of a
    term associated with a specific gender...."Father".  This is why
    English is not a very good language to translate into as I have
    mentioned many times.  These issues constantly arise due to our lack of
    sensitivity toward other's.  I like Supreme Being.
    
    Dave

As a member in good standing of a mainstream church (Episcopal) I am happy to 
say that I see a healthy mix, for myself, of ideas both within and without my 
Christian knowledge and experience.  Those within my purview serve to bolster 
my foundation and strengthen what is helpful while those without help me to 
examine that foundation for cracks that need repairing, and to broaden that 
foundation.

I particularly welcome entries that share of the participants' love, pain,
grief, experience and knowledge, especially when presented as their personal
perspective, whether or not they claim to be Christian.  For those who share
burdens which have alienated them from Christianity, I would seek, though
imperfectly at times, to demonstrate the love that Christ brought to the whole
world, not focusing on converting that person to Christianity, but simply to
show the love of Jesus in the world. 

Many times in the Gospels, Jesus answers questions about what one must do to
follow him, but there are also many times when he takes a person's burden upon
himself with no admonition of "I've done this for you, now you'd better follow 
me".  Unconditional love, with no strings attached, can be very hard to come 
by.

People read what they read and hear what they hear, and then they decide what 
speaks more directly to them.  It is a function of both the content and the 
tone of the words.  Lies can be sugar coated, the Truth can be wrapped in 
bitterness.  Neither serves to allow Love into the world.

Here's a thought.  What we have in this conference is basically a collection 
of letters to one another.  Imagine that they might someday be canonized in a 
book that will be read for centuries to come.  What missives would you keep, 
what would you discard?  What would you do differently?

Peace,

Jim

    RE: .570
    
    Well said!
    
    Marc H.

.555 and others -

As I understand it, the Goddess is very much a part of Christianity, in the
figure of Mary, albeit in greatly diminished form. 

I believe this is discussed in Marina Warner's recent book Alone of All Her
Sex, for one. Also Matthew Fox talks about it in the 1990 film "The Burning
Times." 

Dorian

    RE: .572 Perhaps you did not mean to suggest that father didn't
    cover both female and male aspects of God. But it looked that way.
    I was of course insulted by that suggestion. Being a father myself
    I don't see a difference in roles of father and mother beyond those
    obvious physical ones (giving birth and providing milk). There are no
    aspects of being a mother beyond those physical ones that I don't
    associate with a father as well.

    			Alfred

re .573

It's my understanding that "Abba" is not "Daddy", but a very respectful
form of "Father".  Can anyone confirm or deny?

re .576

Mary is completely human, not a goddess.  As the Mother of the most important
Man that ever lived, she is the spiritual mother of us all, but she does not
give birth to the universe in the manner of the pagan Goddess.

/john

    RE: .578  
    
    
    			"Abba" is the "diminutive" for of father in the
    Greek.  Most translate it as closest to "daddy".
    
    Dave

re Note 9.569 by COVERT::COVERT:

> a forum for certain people in positions of authority in this conference

        The only authority that the moderators of this conference
        have and exercise is the authority to enforce Digital
        corporate policy -- period.

        There is NO ONE who in this conference has or exercises
        teaching, theological, or religious authority -- period.

        When a moderator -- or anybody else in this conference --
        writes on a religious topic they are not doing so from a
        position of authority.

        Do not regard any moderator in this conference as having any
        religious authority over the religious content of this
        conference -- they don't have any such authority.

        Bob

    Most Biblical scholars agree that Aramaic was Jesus' native 
    language.
    
    One of the challenging aspects of this language, (which is still 
    used today in areas of the Middle East) is that the root word(s)
    can have several different meanings, and all can apply;  i.e. the 
    root "shm" (pronounced schem) means:  name, light, sound, experience, 
    and atmosphere that extends through all things.  
    
    When the original Aramaic texts were translated into Greek, much 
    of the full aramaic meanings were lost because of the inequities 
    between the two languages, and to make the translation task 
    easier, the Greek translators chose only one interpretation.  
    (For example the root "shm" appears numerous times in the original 
    text.  One of the Greek translations for it was the phrase "Pray 
    in My name", however, its meaning expands greatly when one considers 
    the full meaning of "shm" referenced in the above paragraph.)
    
    Perhaps even more importantly, many Aramaic roots have _both_ 
    masculine and feminine genders identified with them, such as "Abw" 
    from which the Greek "Abba" is derived.  One definition of the 
    Aramaic root "Abw," for example, is "all sources of parenting."  
    But the Greek translations, having no gender inclusive terms, 
    chose the masculine gender for those Aramaic words which were 
    gender inclusive.  (And according to Aramaic scholars Klotz and 
    Errico, the Greeks choose to transliterate most feminine gender 
    Aramaic words into a Greek word with neutral gender.)  The end 
    result is that most of the gender inclusive aspects of God which 
    are obvious in the Aramaic language, get lost as they were 
    converted into strictly masculine terms in the Greek.
    
    For further reading:  Prayers of the Cosmos:  Meditations with the 
    Aramaic Jesus -- Neil Douglas-Klotz.
    
    Karen

.578

Nevertheless, in the persistence of such pronounced reverence for Mary over
so long a period of time -- and in the proliferation of cathedrals dedicated
to Mary during the Middle Ages -- there are strong parallels with the
reverence for the Pagan Great Mother Goddess. 
    

re .579

>"Abba" is the "diminutive" for of father in the
>Greek.  Most translate it as closest to "daddy".

Sources, please.  What is the non-diminutive form?

This doesn't seem to agree with Karen in .581

/john

    Actually it is very compatible /john.  One definition of the Aramaic 
    "Abw" as mentioned is "all sources of parenting."  The Greek "Abba" 
    meaning "daddy" captures, probably as close as possible, the Greeks
    translation of this ultimate "parenting" activity.  Again, since they 
    do not, have a gender inclusive word for "Abw", they opted for daddy 
    over mommy, and instead of daddy and mommy.  
    
    It's common for people to conceptualize God in anthropomorphic terms, 
    therefore it would've been a challenge to present God as both daddy and
    mommy.  The Aramaic people did not have that issue, apparently.  Notice
    too, that many translations of Aramaic language are highly nuanced and
    rich in metaphors.  Abw, the "source of all parenting" has a more
    poetic nature than anthropomorphic.  Thus, this points to just some of 
    the innate challenges, I think, inherent in rendering a comprehensive
    translation of some of the old Aramaic texts.
    
    Karen

    p.s. non-dimunitive form of daddy -- father.

    Such "strong parallels" need to be elaborated upon.  

    The devotion that Roman Catholics and other Christians have to the
    Blessed Virgin Mary and to the other saints is not the worship that is
    due to God alone.

    It is insulting to have my beliefs characterized in such a way so as to
    support the idea of a "Pagan Great Mother Goddess".  Such a
    characterization is pagan by definition and not Christian.

    RE:  .586
    
    		
    >the devotion that Roman Catholics and other Christians have to the
    >Blessed Virgin Mary and to the other saints is not the worship that is
    >due to God alone.
    
    
    >It is insulting to have my beliefs characterized in such a way so as to
    >support the idea of a "Pagan Great Mother Goddess".
    
    
    		Ok.  Lets talk about insults.  I find it offensive that a 
    person would believe that *ANYONE* other than God needs to be prayed
    to.  Then you talk about pagan....ok....Catholics pray to "icons" the
    Greek word for idol...explain that to me.
    
    Dave

    RE .587
    
    		Let me explain that I am not belittling *ANYONE'S* belief here
    and certainly not the Roman Catholics.  But I am trying to point out
    that words can be misleading unless you investigate what is meant by
    them.  God by *ANY* other name is still God and there is only one.
    I have heard *NO ONE* claim to be pagan and yet you insist on putting
    that label on them.  
    
    
    Dave

re .587

Doesn't this conference have a "Prayer request" topic?

I don't know anything that Catholics do that you described in .587 that
is different than what you do in this conference when you ask (pray)
that someone might pray for you or for an intention.

Christians believe that we can ask other Christians to pray for us.
The Bible says that "not even death will separate us" (this is the
communion of saints), thus, even though someone is no longer alive
in this world, we believe s/he is alive in Christ, and that through
Christ we can pray that s/he pray for us or for our intentions.

"icon" does not mean "idol", it means "picture" or "represenation".

/john

>    p.s. non-dimunitive form of daddy -- father.

Very funny.

Though I may be wrong, it is my understanding that "Abba" is a respectful
title for "Father", and not a dimunitive.

If "Abba" is a Greek diminutive, as it is claimed, I would like someone
to provide a linguistic source documenting this.  We've just had someone
claim that "icon" means "idol" (which it doesn't) and that "angel" is a
Hebrew word (which it isn't); so I think you can see why I'm skeptical and
am asking for sources.

/john

BTW, I didn't expect to find it in my dictionary, but it's there:

    Abba [Middle English, from Late Latin, from Greek, from Aramaic abba]
    FATHER -- a title of honor given variously to the Deity in the New
    Testament, to bishops and patriarchs in many Eastern Churches, and
    to Jewish scholars in the Talmudic period.

I submit the claim that "Abba" is a diminutive is spurious.

/john

    
    		Well I haven't seen anything from you either but I will 
    check with my Strongs Exhaustive Concordance.  Chuck Swindoll, John
    McArthur, Dr. Charles Criswell and other agree about "Abba".  And I
    think your mincing words with the word Icon....but we'll see.
    
    
    Dave

    You insult Catholics and myself by claiming that we pray to "icons".

    Icons are images of God and the saints and serve the purpose that
    photographs and paintings do and in a pious way allow the mind to
    focus on prayerful thought.

    You used insulting language "icons the Greek word for idol" without even
    being certain.  The words are distinct in meaning and etymology.

    What motivates you to accuse Catholics of praying to idols?  Do you
    sincerely believe this?

    RE: .593  Mr. Sweeney,
    
    
    				So.....you may insult other beliefs but no
    one can yours?  Interesting.  What you fail to see is that your
    (Catholics) praying in front of icons can be thought of as "praying
    to".  Doesn't feel very good does it?  But non-the-less its there and
    your constant desire to place your belief above all others at their
    expense is also insulting.  Am I certain of icon being "idol"?  Yes I
    am!  But thats my belief, supported by a priest of your own faith that
    I interviewed while I looked into the Catholic Church.  But its *MY*
    belief and you cannot take that away from me, just as your's is yours.
    
    		My *ONLY* motivation is to point out that accusations can
    also be made against your beliefs just as you do against others here in
    this file.  Your calling those who use the word "Goddess" as pagan is
    also insulting and yet you still do it.  Why?  Because you believe that
    your right?  Ok...have you ever thought that they might think that they
    are right?  
    
    		As a rule I do not discuss others beliefs but I had to in
    this case because of your "insulting" statement about "pagans".  What
    you have been seeing in others, you do.  
    
    
    Dave

>And I think your mincing words with the word Icon....but we'll see.

Icon and idol have different Greek roots.

"eikon" means an image or represenation.

"eidolon" means a phantom, shape, type, image of God.

Both the 2nd Council of Nicea (787) and the Council of Trent forbade both
the worship of icons and the desecration of images of saints.  Both Councils
differentiated the forbidden worship from the practice of creating images of
saints to recall them and their devotion to God.  It is false to claim that
Catholics worship icons; instead, they are used as means of calling ourselves
to imitate their holy lives.

The Eastern Orthodox view, specified by St. John of Damascus, is:  "Just as
in the Bible we listen to the word of Christ and are sanctified, ... in the
same way through the painted icons we behold the representation of his human
form ... and are likewise sanctified."

St. Basil wrote: "The honor shown to the icon passes to the prototype."  It
guides us to a vision of the divine Kingdom where past, present and future
are one.  It makes vivid our faith in the communion of saints.  From the
2nd Council of Nicea: "The more frequently [icons] are seen, the more those
who behold them are aroused to remember and desire the prototypes and to
give them greeting and the veneration of honour; not indeed true worship
which, according to our faith, is due to God alone."

/john

    
    		This little exercise has been useful and yes I did it on
    purpose because its the only way I could think of to show you what your
    doing.  
    
    		What I neglected to share was what the Priest said to me
    when I asked the question "why do you pray to icons?".  He related that
    "to" was the wrong word, but it was a reminder of what is in your
    heart.  A beautiful illistration of where you mind and heart should be.
    This is a also professed by Christ.  Its not enough to *NOT* do
    something but you need to not *WANT* to do these things.  Its what is
    in your heart and not what seems to be physical.  The same thing go for
    words....its the meaning and not what *YOU* think the meaning is thats
    important.  
    
    
    Dave