Conference yukon::christian_v7

    Paul,
    
    I want to add my compliments to your document.  It is very good until
    you change your tune in the case of rape and life of the mother.  This 
    deviation from logic makes it all appear as nonsense.
    
    jeff

I believe God's Word *can* be used as a basis for secular law [politics].

The idea of people misconstruing the Bible to legislate morality is moot when
people misconstrue secular documents today to legislate their morality.

I understand Paul's Libertarian views to want government only to protect
people['s freedom] from the impingement from other people.

I suppose the objection comes in the Bible where God declares what is 
wrong and harmful to the community that isn't altogether evident to the
community.

For example, Levitical laws says: "Exodus 22:18  Thou shalt not suffer 
a witch to live."

The libertarian point of view would say that a witch who keeps to him 
or herself and doesn't "do" any harm to another person should not be 
affected by a secular law such as this religious edict.  And while I
can go from action to attitude (OT to NT) and give a witch no place in 
my life (putting a witch to "death" in regards to my mind,action, attitude,
being, etc - without physically removing the witch from the earth) - there
are some who would interpret this literally (as did Israel) and exterminate
professing and suspected witches.  (Tangent: does modern Israel hold to 
Levitical law?  Are [professing] witches aloud inthe Nation of Israel?)

Back to the point:  We don't have a problem with "thou shalt not steal"
because it impinges on another's right to own something without fear of 
it being stolen.  But we do have a problem with the legislation of some
things based on what God says is bad for the community because we can't
either see the harm or misinterpret (and twist) what the Word says.

But absent the misinterpretations and misperceptions, if we acknowledge
that God is absolute, even though some people don't, then we can assent
to the concept that a Theocracy as a "secular" government has in theory
a plausible basis.

Out of the theory and into the world of men, with vices, perceptions,
and rebellion, and government is not ruled by God or His Word, but by
men who twist things (the Bible, the Constitution, whatever) to suit 
themselves.)

So what am I saying?  To sum:

God's Word can be used as a basis for secular politics, if it can be 
applied as God intended it.

I do not think any man, except Jesus, can apply the Bible to governmental
function without missing the perfect application of God's Word, and this
includes the wisest of the wise and the purest of the pure of men.

The Bible says that Jesus will come again and set up such a government.
Maranatha!

Until then, I'd like to see the secular world practice what it preaches
and stop using THEIR moral base to define government and politics.  I guess
this leans me towards libertarian, I don't know.

Some ramblings...

MM

[Reformatted for 80 columns.  Mark L - co-mod squad]

================================================================================
Note 181.4         God's Word as a basis for Secular Politics?            4 of 5
FUJISI::PHANEUF "On Your Knees! Fight Like A Man!"   62 lines  25-JUN-1993 13:51
                  -< Dr James Dobson's Perspective - Part 1 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


              The balance of this reply is second half of Dr James Dobson's
              March 1993 Focus on the Family Newsletter (the first half was
              not pertinent to this discussion), and is Used by Permission.
              All emphasis included in original. 


    ...the advice of some religious leaders... - that Christians should
    withdraw from the public arena and yield the decision-making process to
    those who reporesent a secular- humanistic point of view. I believe
    their perspective is wrong, although it is obviously well-intended.

    Perhaps they have not thought through the position they have taken.
    Consider this: Even if our inclination is to hide in the coming days,
    it will be impossible to do so.  We will not be *permitted* to exercise
    our beliefs in private. The Church will not be *allowed* to protect its
    precepts. Consideer, for example, a recent development  in Maine. The
    legislature there passed a law in 1992 that required every hospital in
    the state, including Cathoic institutions, to perform abortions. Of
    course,  Catholics have led the fight against abortion, based on their
    deep moral convictions. No matter. The law has spoken and they must
    comply.

    So it will be in other settings. Our Christian enclaves will be
    invaded. You home, in fact, will be the next battleground as Hillary
    Rodham Clinton cranks her "children's  rights" agenda into action.
    Thus, most of us will be faces eventually with one of two choices:
    We'll either speak up or submit in silence. Why not use our voices now,
    while the memory of Judeo-Christian ethic still lingers like rare
    perfume within our culture?

    Furthermore, to whose who suggest we retreat to our Christian enclaves,
    I would ask a  few important questions:

      1. At what point *will* you rise to defend what you believe? Is
         there *anything* worth putting your reputation or life in
         jeapordy? Will you object if your children are indoctrinated in
         homosexual ideology in the public schools? Will you object if
         imperfect babies are killed in our hospitals? Will you object if
         involuntary  euthanasia becomes widespread in nursing homes? Will
         you object if the State tells  your pastor or priest what he can
         say from the pulpit? (In Sweden, an evangelical pastor who
         preached on Sodom and Gomorrah was convicted of "verbal violence"
         against homosexuals and sentenced to a four-week prison term.)Will
         you object if the church  loses its non-profit status and is
         heavily taxed? Will you object if the State  assumes "ownership"
         of children and tells parents how they must raise them - under
         penalty of losing custody? Will you object if boys and firls are
         given a wide range of "rights" that override the wishes of their
         mothers and fathers? Will you object if every teenager in America
         is given immoral advice and a supply of condoms to  implement it?
         Will you object if each family is permitted only one baby, as is
         the official policy today in China?

         Will you object if Christian business people are required to
         satisfy a quota of  homosexual and lesbian employees? Will you
         object if churches are not excempt from  that quota obligation?
         Will you object if universities refuse to grant degrees to 
         outspoken Christian students? Will you object if daughters or
         sisters or wives are drafted into the military and required to
         fight in combat? Will you object if  obscenity laws are repealed
         and child pornography is ignored by the government? Will you
         object if the schools teach "death education" classes to students
         beginning in  elementary school? Will you rise to speak if every
         tenet of your faith is legislated against in Congress and in your
         home state?

         Are these changes coming to Western nations? I don't know. Some of
         them are already well-entrenched. Others appear to be right around
         the corner. Anything can happen to  the losers of a civil war. To
         rephrase my question to those who oppose Christian political
         involvement, just where *will* you draw the line? Is there any
         freedom or principle you would defend with your life?

    

[Reformatted for 80 columns.  Mark L - co-mod squad]

================================================================================
Note 181.5         God's Word as a basis for Secular Politics?            5 of 5
FUJISI::PHANEUF "On Your Knees! Fight Like A Man!"   72 lines  25-JUN-1993 13:52
                  -< Dr James Dobson's Perspective - Part 2 >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

      2. Let me ask another series of questions to the church leaders who
         believe we should  stay out of the political fray. What would have
         been your teachings about slavery  and abolition if you had lead a
         congregation in 1855? The bloodiest war in American history was
         rapidly approaching. Especially as a minister in the South, would you 
         have avoided the divisive slavery issue? Would you have even addressed
         its evil?

         What would you have done if you had lived and worked in Germany during
         the late 1930's and early 1940's? How well would your philosophy of
         non-involvement have held up against the terrors of the Nazi regime?
         If you had known Hitler was  responsible for exterminating people in
         concentration camps, would you have  focused only on local
         responsibilities? In Dachau? Would it have been appropriate to take an
         apolitical posture?

         That is precisely what the mainline church did in Germany as World War
         II approached. It chose not to confront the evils of the Third Reich.
         History tells us, sadly, that in 1933, the Lutheran Church in Germany
         actually passed a resolution condemning Jews and excluding them from
         their worship services. They looked the other way for more than a
         decade, while millions of Jew, Gypsies, Poles, homosexuals, the
         mentally  impaired and physically handicapped were systematically
         murdered. Let me cite the history record as expressed in the
         publication *Christian History:*

              During this period, many Christians within Germany had adopted
              Hitlers National Socialism as part of their creed. Known as
              "German Christians," their spokesman, Herman Gruner, made it
              clear what they stood for:

              "The time is fulfilled for the German people in Hitler. It is
              because of Hitler that Christ, G_d the helper and redeemer, has
              become effective among us. Therefore, National Socialism is
              positive Christianity in action...Hitler is the way of the Spirit
              and the will of G_d for the German people to enter the Church of
              Christ."

              By September 1933, the conflict was out in the open. In the
              "Brown Synod" (so  called because many of the clergy wore brown
              Nazi uniforms and gave the Nazi  salute) that month, the church
              adopted the "Aryan Clause," which denied the  pulpit to ordained
              ministers of Jewish blood...

         Thank G_d for Dietrich Bonhoeffer (author of The Cost of Discipleship,
         et al), who refused to go along with this wickedness. He protested
         loudly, to his own peril. Let me quote again from *Christian History:*

              Finally [Bonhoeffer] declared that the Church should "jam the
              spokes of the wheel" of the State, should the persecution of Jews
              continue. (Sounds like  Operation Rescue, doesn't it?) Many of
              the gathered clergy left in a huff,  convinced they had heard
              sedition. (Bonhoeffer and friends) pledged to fight  for the
              repeal of the Aryan Clause, and by leate September, they had
              obtained  2,000 signatures. But to Bonhoeffers disappointment,
              the church's bishops again remained silent.

         Their silence will echo throughout eternity! So will the words and
         deeds of Dietrich Bonhoeffer. He was rejected as a pastor, ridiculed
         and hounded by the Nazis. He was arrested April 5, 1943, and chared
         with "subversion of the Armed Forces." On April 9, 1945, he was hanged
         with six other resisters at Flossenburg concentration camp. What  a
         man of consummate courage!

         Now admittedly, there are many differences between the oppression of
         the Nazi regime and the policies of today's Western governments. I
         would no weaken the point by  overstaing it. But there are striking
         similarities, too. Hitler murdered 6 million Jews; we in the United
         States have killed nearly 30 million preborn babies. And what have
         many denominations done in response? THey have passed resolutions
         defending and even encouraging the killings, thereby granting
         religious sanction to the horror. They have assigned "study groups" to
         produce sophisticated reports that whitewash perverted sexual behavior
         the Bible calls "an abomination." And millions of believers have sat
         passibely in their pews and uttered no protest. G_d help us!

         More than 450 years ago, Martin Luther wrote: "If I profess with the
         loudest voice and the clearest exposition every portion of the truth
         of G_d, except precisely that little point which the world and the
         devil are at that moment attacking, I am not  confessing Christ,
         however boldly I may be professing Christ. WHere the battle rages,
         there the loyalty of the soldier is proved, and to be steady on all
         the battlefield besides is mere flight and disgrace if he flinches at
         that point.

    

Date:	21-JUN-1993 16:03:12.95
From:	KALI::WIEBE        "Garth Wiebe, MLO3-3/U39, pole 10A, 223-0654"
Subj:	your presentation in 109.59
To:	EVMS::WEISS
.
.
.
Finally, I want to express my disappointment that you compromised your
position in two areas, making exceptions for the case of rape and for the
case that the life of the mother is in danger.
.
.
.
Garth

Date:	21-JUN-1993 16:34:56.90
From:	EVMS::WEISS "Trade Freedom for Security-Lose Both  21-Jun-1993 1634"
Subj:	RE: your presentation in 109.59
To:	KALI::WIEBE

I realize that the exceptions that I make may be something of a compromise.  And
as I noted, I *do* make a distinction between what can be morally considered an 
imperative - as stated by the Word, and what can be ethically considered an 
imperative.  As I mentioned at the beginning, much though I would like to impose
*my* interpretation of what God wants on the rest of the country, and much 
though I believe we'd all be better off if I could, until Christ comes back to 
lead us I don't think we'll be able to do it.  History is riddled with people 
who were sure they were doing God's will as they horribly oppressed other 
people.  There are plenty of other Christians that I wouldn't want making laws 
based on their view of God, let alone non-chistians.  But that's another 
looooong topic.

Paul

Date:	22-JUN-1993 10:00:05.71
From:	KALI::WIEBE        "Garth Wiebe, MLO3-3/U39, pole 10A, 223-0654"
Subj:	more...
To:	EVMS::WEISS

I looked up "ethical" and "moral" in the dictionary and could not tell the
difference.

There can be no discussion of good vs. bad without an absolute standard.
Absolute standards point to the existence of God.  Therefore, there can be
no discussion of good vs. bad without bringing God into the picture.  This
was the other bone I had to pick with you.  You cannot succeed in your 
arguments with a purely secular (i.e. ungodly) approach.  Your opponent can
change the rules any time he wants.  Yet God's word and principles are final
and not up to debate.  When God speaks, the argument is over.  The best you
can do is say to the abortionist, "even by your ungodly standards you lose,
and have become a hypocrite".  This is where I think you have done such a 
fine job.

In any case, the fact that some people have abused a system does not invalidate
the system.  Jim and Tammy Bakker do not invalidate Christianity.  The prospect
of a tyrant abusing a governmental system does not invalidate the system. 
Therefore, a theocracy is better than a democracy.  The governmental system
*should* appeal to God's word as the highest authority.  It doesn't, and that's
a weakness of our present system.  In the days of Noah, "every inclination of
the thoughts of [man's] heart was only evil all the time" (Gen 6:5).  In that
day, a democracy wouldn't have worked any better than a "theocracy" headed up
by David Koresh today.  You do not know that those days won't come again.

Date:	22-JUN-1993 10:29:51.26
From:	EVMS::WEISS "Trade Freedom for Security-Lose Both  22-Jun-1993 1029"
Subj:	RE: more...
To:	KALI::WIEBE

The distinction between ethical and moral is not a common one.  It may be just 
me, in fact.  There are two parts to a moral or ethical code - external rules, 
which govern interactions with other people, and internal rules, which govern 
personal behavior that does not affect others, or personal behavior with others 
that is not covered by the external rules.  For my own understanding, I divide 
the two, and refer to the external rules as ethics, and the internal rules as 
morals.

Yes, there is an absolute truth.  But people can't agree what it is.  I'm 
certain that God's Word is absolute truth.  So are you.  Many others are 
*equally* convinced that the Koran is God's absolute truth.  Others believe in 
other sources of absolute truth, and quite a few don't believe in any absolute 
truth at all.  If we are justified in using our certainty that God's Word is the
absoulte truth to formulate laws, then so are the Muslims.  They are just as 
certain as we are.  One of us is wrong, but I can see no objective basis to 
declare which of us it is.  The only way I can see for truth to win out is to 
declare that *no one* can use force on another, to make them do anything.  *No 
one* can impose any unchosen obligation on another.  The rules of ethics, in 
this context, don't change.  They are not God's absolute truth, but they are the
only way that we can be free to FIND God's absolute truth.

I think the whole topic of "should there be a theocracy" is deserving of a 
completely separate note.  It happened to come up in this abortion issue, but 
applies to many other issues as well.  Should our government put adulterers to 
death, as the Word of God requires?  You may argue - and rightly so - that the 
NT supercedes this command.  But other Christians may disagree.  What if they 
control the government?

Paul

Date:	22-JUN-1993 11:34:06.14
From:	KALI::WIEBE        "Garth Wiebe, MLO3-3/U39, pole 10A, 223-0654"
Subj:	RE: more...
To:	EVMS::WEISS

>Yes, there is an absolute truth.  But people can't agree what it is.  I'm
>certain that God's Word is absolute truth.  So are you.  Many others are
>*equally* convinced that the Koran is God's absolute truth.  Others believe in
>other sources of absolute truth, and quite a few don't believe in any absolute

...etc.  This talk is also futile.  The truth can be known.  God has made it
plain.  God is right.  The Koran is wrong.  The Koran records that Jesus didn't
die on the cross.  The New Testament records that he did.  It doesn't matter
how convinced a person is, if they are wrong.  There is both an objective and
subjective basis to declare who is right and who is wrong.  You and I stand on
faith that Jesus died on the cross and rose again.  We declare that faith and
live as though he did (..because he did!).  We don't live as though nobody can
know the truth.  Is there a question in your mind whether Jesus died on the
cross?  If not, then live and act accordingly!

>declare that *no one* can use force on another, to make them do anything.  *No
>one* can impose any unchosen obligation on another.  The rules of ethics, in

I abandoned this as futile thinking also, a few years back.  You can 
legitimately use force on another, if you have the authority to do so.

>this context, don't change.  They are not God's absolute truth, but they are
>the only way that we can be free to FIND God's absolute truth. 

We can be free to FIND God's absolute truth regardless of whether we are 
obligated by another to do something or not.

Your essay, as I have repeatedly said, was excellent and well thought out, and
I have learned a great deal from it.  But now I am beginning to wonder if your
motivation for writing it was wrong.  It appears to me that you feel the need
to justify your position apart from God's absolute standards, falsely thinking
that this is the only way you can reason with the masses and win them over.

You don't need to apologize for taking an unwavering stand on God's word and
principles.  You don't need to apologize for living what God says and 
consequently imposing on others who don't believe.  Let me give you an example:

>applies to many other issues as well.  Should our government put adulterers to
>death, as the Word of God requires?  You may argue - and rightly so - that the
>NT supercedes this command.  But other Christians may disagree.  What if they
>control the government? 

Putting adulterers to death as a matter of law would be appropriate.  God's 
standards and principles don't change.  Either it is appropriate, or God 
acted inappropriately when he commanded the Israelites to do so.  We may not
be under the Law of Moses, but the coming of Christ in the flesh does not 
change the standards of right and wrong.  Neither does eternal grace negate
the need for temporal justice to be meted out in this age.

Reply .1 has been reposted.

It is a posting of an off-line discussion, and contained a reference to this
conference's 'forbidden topic'.  That reference has been changed to an 
equivalent reference, since the reference to the 'forbidden topic' was purely
incidental and had nothing to do with what is actually being discussed.  If I
were having that discussion in this file, I would not have used that example,
though I did use it in the offline discussion.  I didn't think of re-editing the
mail when I posted it here.

I'd like to express here my disappointment that whoever was offended by this
side-reference never posted anything here, nor contacted me as the author of 
the note, nor the moderators of this file, but went straight to personnel with a
complaint.  I would have gladly changed the reference; as I said, it had nothing
to do with the topic under discussion but was only used as an illustration.  And
I do apologize for posting a note which references this topic in the first 
place, since it is against this file's policy.  Again, I did't think of it, I 
was just reposting a mail conversation.

It is precisely this sort of badgering of personnel without ever even exploring
resolution that is making the company consider closing down the employee 
interest notesfiles.  Personnel has better things to do than waste their time
tracking down things that could have been settled by a single mail message.

I'd like to leave with 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 (RSV)

"When one of you has a grievance against a brother, does he dare go to law 
before the unrighteous instead of the saints?  Do you not know that the saints
will judge the world?  And if the world is to be judged by you, are you
incompetent to try trivial cases?  Do you not know that we are to judge angels?
How much more, matters pertaining to this life!  If then you have such cases,
why do you lay them before those who are least esteemed by the church?  I say
this to your shame.  Can it be that there is no man among you wise enough to
decide between members of the brotherhood, but brother goes to law against
brother, and that before unbelievers?

To have lawsuits at all with one another is defeat for you.  Why not rather
suffer wrong?  Why not rather be defrauded?  But you yourselves wrong and 
defraud, and that even your own brethren."

The passage continues, but verse 9 references the 'forbidden topic' again, so I
guess the Word of God will have to stop here.

:-(

Paul

>It is precisely this sort of badgering of personnel without ever even exploring
>resolution that is making the company consider closing down the employee 
>interest notesfiles.  Personnel has better things to do than waste their time
>tracking down things that could have been settled by a single mail message.
    
    Amazing, Paul. Some people have very little backbone.
    
    Thanks for the explanation. 

    I hate it when people like Dobson appropriate the words and actions
    of people who would have been their polar opposite had they been alive
    at the same time.  I suppose someday Dobson will annex the words and
    actions of Jesse Jackson and William Sloane Coffin should he outlive
    them!
    
    Richard

Richard,

> I hate it when people ... appropriate the words and actions of people who
> would have been their polar opposite had they been alive at the same time.

Being somewhat well read on the writings of Deitrich Bonhoeffer, I am rather
curious why you would make such a statement. While the two gentlemen might 
have disagreed regarding specific liturgical matters, I fail to see any 
disagreement between them regarding ethical issues or on how Christian ethics
should be lived out in an anti-Christian society.

What's you point here, besides rabble rousing?  Moreover, thou I perceive you
to be near the opposite end of the spectrum, I never raise a such a stink
when you quote the Newer Covenant, so, why are you moaning and groaning?

Brian

    I heard Falwell quoting Martin Luther King the other Sunday as if ol'
    Jerry would've been at the good doctor's side in Selma.  What a lie.
    
    I *hate* it when people do this.
    
    Richard
    

    .12  Frankly, Brian, ol' sport, I don't care what you would raise
    a stink about.  In spite of the smugness, neither you nor anyone else
    here has a corner on the Truth, the Way and the Life.
    
    And you sure as Hell don't have a corner on the Bible.
    
    Richard
    

    What's a "corner on" something mean?
    
    (I'm from Australia)

>>  What's a "corner on" something mean?

I think, in this sense, it's meant to indicate the typical scenario of
an American boxing tournament.  e.g. in that "corner" we have Brian Phaneuf
and this "corner" we have Richard Christie.   8^)


This could be a very constructive topic if we could agree to actually discuss
the topic.  To (re-)start thing off, I'd have to say I'd side with Mark in
believing that no single human will ever be able to perfectly apply God's
word.  Why should I expect a government to?  8^O

Further, I've always been inclined to keep my distance from the political
scene since I can always see other matters which I would think are more
important on the Lord's agenda.  For instance, would I be inclined to go
to a political rally aimed at legislating the "end of hunger" or would
I rather just go down to the local food pantry and roll up my sleeves?  And
I tend to apply this thinking to most other subjects.  I'll say more on this
later when I've had some time to cogitate what I want to say.
(I'm entering this discussion hoping to either strengthen or correct my
predispositions.  Feel free to let me have it here. 8^)


By the way, I've read some of Bonhoeffer's writings too.  Dobson and
Dietrich may differ by degree (yeah, as if any of us could hold a candle
to Bonhoeffer) but I wouldn't consider them to be diametric opposites.
Granted, I probably don't have a corner on either of them.

I think I'm going to walk down the road where there's some wild raspberries
growing and have some dessert.  Back in a while.
(Even in Massachusetts, there is such a thing as free lunch.)

Rick

    Re: Note 181.14 by 3H0914::kennell
    
>>>  What's a "corner on" something mean?
>
>I think, in this sense, it's meant to indicate the typical scenario of
>an American boxing tournament.  e.g. in that "corner" we have Brian Phaneuf
>and this "corner" we have Richard Christie.   8^)
    
    Oh.  OK.  Is it also another word for monopoly-of-authority?
    
    James

I don't think the analogy comes from boxing - that would merely denote
extremes of opinion; sides of the coin.  I think it comes from marketting,
very much parallel to having a monopoly. 

If you 'have a corner' in something, in the market context, it means you 
have enough of the lions share to control the price etc.  No-one else has 
enough to count.

In the context of this string, I believe it means having a monopoly of 
knowledge, rather than authority, but it  works out the same, especially 
when others disagree... ;-}

							Andrew

.10:

>What's you point here, besides rabble rousing?

.12:

>    Frankly, Brian, ol' sport, I don't care what you would raise
>    a stink about.  In spite of the smugness, neither you nor anyone else
>    here has a corner on the Truth, the Way and the Life.
>    
>    And you sure as Hell don't have a corner on the Bible.

Aparrently, there is no point other than rabble rousing.

Seriously, Richard, The thing Bonhoeffer is most remembered for is standing firm
on God's Word and on the principles of Christ, in the face of his culture and in
the face even of his own church, to the point of persecution and ultimately,
death.  My perception, at least, is that Dobson is doing very much the same
thing.  Obviously you have a different perception of Dobson.  Why do you think
that he is so different from Bonhoeffer?

I smell a rathole coming.  My guess is that this Dobson string is going to need
its own note soon.

Paul

Quit nagging at each other, guys. 

Paul, in answer to that heartfelt cry, I've started you & Richard another
note to go away and discuss the comparative theologies of Dobson &
Bonhoeffer together.

Any further mention of them here is likely to result in a very moving
moderator response.

								Andrew
								co-mod

RE: The original .1 and the reposted .1

>I'd like to express here my disappointment that whoever was offended by this
>side-reference never posted anything here, nor contacted me as the author of 
>the note, nor the moderators of this file, but went straight to personnel with a
>complaint.  I would have gladly changed the reference; as I said, it had nothing
>to do with the topic under discussion but was only used as an illustration.  And
>I do apologize for posting a note which references this topic in the first 
>place, since it is against this file's policy.  Again, I did't think of it, I 
>was just reposting a mail conversation.

	I can understand how somebody would not feel safe responding
	directly to you, based on the opinions expressed.
	If somebody posted a note that said "all red-headed people
	should be put to death" would you feel comfortable talking
	to this person?  What if your mother or father, brother or 
	sister had red hair? Lets say you have black hair but your son
	or dauther had red hair.  How would you feel?  

	How about if somebody said "all blue-eyed people should be
	put to death".

	"All left-handed people should be put to death"

	"All jewish people should be put to death"

	Once you start singling out groups of people, based on
	some characteristic you will soon find that YOU have
	been singled out too!

>It is precisely this sort of badgering of personnel without ever even exploring
>resolution that is making the company consider closing down the employee 
>interest notesfiles.  Personnel has better things to do than waste their time
>tracking down things that could have been settled by a single mail message.

	I'd also hate to see all employee interest notes files closed
	down but the company has a responsibility to make all employees
	feel safe.  If all these files do get shut down, I hope you
	can look back and accept your own responsibility in the matter.
	After all, you posted the note.  You made the original statement.
	Blaming everything on the person who went to personal is not
	realistic.

.19

Don't lose the perspective of context.  Please.

Feeling safe, given the context, is a slimmer possibility to 
a knee-jerk reaction that could have been better handled by
pause for the assessment of the context of the remark.

MM

As Christians, we are obligated to submit to our present government, its
laws, and its authority.  As it is written,

	"Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for
	there is no authority except that which God has established.  The
	authorities that exist have been established by God.  Consequently,
	he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God
	has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves."
	(Romans 13:1-2)

As subjects of our present government, we have the right to vote, but the
majority of us do not have the authority to directly legislate or enforce. 
In any case, we are certainly bound to the letter of the civil law.

Sadly, our present laws condone many activities which God condemns.  To use an
acceptable example of such an activity, having sexual relations with an animal
is evil, and brought about the death penalty under the Law of Moses, which God
instituted for the nation of Israel following their exodus from Egypt. 

There are a couple of things that Steve Mailman said in 181.19 which are worth
commenting on:

>	I can understand how somebody would not feel safe responding
>	directly to you, based on the opinions expressed.

As already shown, no believing Christian has the authority to act on his own
accord outside of the law.  So in this respect, one should feel "safe" in
responding to anyone who subscribed to the tenets of this conference.  In 
principle, however, it was not intended that a person engaging in an activity 
which God condemned would feel "safe".  The Law of Moses made several
statements predicting the effect of instituting the various penalties, such as
"the rest of the people will hear of this and be afraid, and never again will
such an evil thing be done among you."  (Deut 19:20) 

Steve continues by saying,

>	If somebody posted a note that said "all red-headed people
>	should be put to death" would you feel comfortable talking
>	to this person?  

Of course, there is no evil in having a certain color of hair.  But God says
that certain kinds of behavior are evil.  His say in the matter is final and
not up for debate, because he is God.  The thing worth noting is that it is not
any man issuing the kind of judgments we see in the Law of Moses cited by Paul
Weiss in reply 181.1, but God himself.  Therefore, the above statement can be
reworded as follows: 

	"If God posted a note that said 'all people who have sexual relations
	with animals should be put to death', would you feel comfortable 
	talking to Him?"

The answer is, obviously, "No."  If I purposed to have sexual relations with
animals, I would not feel comfortable talking to God, unless I was doing so to
seek His forgiveness for having committed such an act.  

Relating this back to the issue of government, how much better it is for
us when we fall under the wrath of human governments, compared to God!  What I
mean by this is that one ought to fear the wrath of God more than the wrath of
men. The consequences of breaking the civil law might be the death penalty, at
most, which ironically enough is the eventual end of every citizen that ever
lived anyway.  Indeed, the scripture says:  "Do not fear those who can kill the
body.  But fear him who, after killing the body, can throw the soul into hell."
In stark contrast to civil penalties, the consequences of sin is eternal
condemnation, apart from the salvation of our Lord, Jesus Christ. 

In conclusion, I would think it better that human governments follow God's
example.  In doing so, many would come to fear God through the authority He has
instituted among men. 

I kind of started this and then let it drop, let's see if I can pick it up 
again.

There's something of a scale as to how you view "truth."  There are two basic
components to "truth."  One component is the specifics of what that truth is.  
Christians believe that truth is revealed by Jesus Christ and by the Bible.  
Muslims believe that it is revealed by Mohammed and by the Koran, and there are 
many others.

The other component is how you view that truth in relationship to other people
and THEIR view of truth.  The scale starts with denying that there is any sort
of absolute truth anyway, and ends with claiming that we have the only truth and
that everyone else must abide by it.  I'd break the scale down something like
this:

1) There is no God, nothing but a material universe, therefore there is no such
   thing as absolute truth.  What is true for one person may not be true for
   another, and this applies to all aspects of life, not just whether you like
   ice cream or not.  Under this view, any sort of evil can be rationalized as
   not being evil, since there really is no such thing as evil anyway.

2) There is some sort of cosmic consciousness, which desires "good," but what is
   "good" is very ill-defined, and can include almost anything.  This is 
   virtually indestinguishable from 1), except that it attempts to identify some
   things as evil.  With no real basis to decide what is evil, though, this is
   difficult.  Any concept of "good," from whatever source, is to be examined
   and possibly accepted.

3) There is a real God with a personality and with desires for us.  But his only
   real standard of value is love, tolerance, and acceptance of everything.
   Under this concept, there are no actions that are evil or wrong in 
   themselves, but evil only comes from the spirit in which the actions are
   undertaken.  Any action can be done in such a way as to honor God.  We are
   open to any claim that any action done specifically to honor God - regardless
   of what the action is - is truth. 

4) God has some standards for us to follow, but they are summed up completely in
   "Do onto others as you would have them do onto you."  Actions which directly
   hurt others are forbidden, but any and all actions which do not involve 
   active harm of other people are acceptable to God, if done in love.  Anything
   which does not harm others is to be accepted as truth.  About this point in
   the scale there begins to be members of this file who accept this view.

5) God has standards for us in our personal actions, actions which do not
   directly harm others.  But we can't really tell for sure what any of them
   are.  We have some ideas from various sources, but we don't really believe
   that they are directly from God, or if we do believe then it is only doubtful
   belief.  We are cautious about what we accept as truth, but we have no real
   basis for discernment beyond our "feelings" of what is right.  There's a fair
   amount of people in this file who are here.

6) God has standards for our personal actions, and He has revealed those
   standards to us clearly.  We personally are convinced beyond doubt of these
   standards.  However, we recognize that humanity in general cannot agree as to
   what those standards are.  We are not open to accepting other standards of
   truth beyond that which God has revealed, we do believe that we are right and
   they are wrong - we don't accept a relativistic scale of truth.  But neither 
   are we willing to force others to abide by that truth, so long as they do not
   prevent us from clinging to the truth.  This is where I hang my hat. 

7) God has standards for our personal actions, and He has revealed those
   standards to us clearly.  We personally are convinced beyond doubt of these
   standards.  Anyone who does not agree with us is just wrong, and should be
   forced for their own good to accept the true standards of God which we hold.
   This is where I take Garth to be.

There are two facts, which I believe are not disputable, that prevent me from
making the step from 6) to 7):

1* Regardless of whether there is an absolute truth or whether I have the
   correct version of it, as human beings we cannot agree on what that absolute
   truth is, or even as to whether absolute truth exists at all.  I may be
   totally convinced that they Bible is God's perfect word and truth, yet 
   another person may be *equally* (and this is important) *equally* convinced
   that the Koran is God's perfect word and truth.

2* I am not a superior form of human being from that person who is convinced of
   something completely different from what I believe.  I have no right to force
   him to accept my version of truth, any more than he would have the right to
   force me to accept his version of the truth.

Please, please, please note that I am not raising the question of relativism, I
am not questioning whether other versions of truth are in fact correct.  I am
simply accomodating two facts into my decision making process about how to
interact with someone who believes that the truth is something else:

- We're equal human beings
- we disagree.

In this context I think Garth's comments in reply .1:

 "God is right. The Koran is wrong."  

miss the point.  Yes, God is right, God is always right.  And I agree that the
Koran is wrong.  But can you prove to an outside observer, someone who is 
neither a Christian or a Muslim, that the Bible is God's word and is right, and
that the Koran is wrong?  If it were a matter of proof, then the whole world
would be Christians.  But it's not a matter of proof.  It's a matter of faith,
as has been discussed at length in other notes.  How can we use force to make
others accept our faith?

I don't think that prior to Christ's return, that we as humans will be able to
set up a government that will ultimately last.  The world is fallen, and people
find ways around whatever system is put up.  But I do believe that the best
chance at stability, the longest a government can last, is if it outlaws the use
of force by any person on another.  Another big problem I have with Garth's view
is this: If we set the precedent that whoever is in power can force everyone
else to accept their view of God and the truth, then what will happen to use 
when some other religious group gains the majority?

The fly in the ointment, so to speak, is the acceptance of evil in our midst.
This is what Mark alluded to in .3.  How can we allow evil in our midst and 
retain our values?  This is part of why I don't think we will make it work until
Christ returns, because I don't think we can do this.  Yet a look at history
shows that as soon as a group of people makes the step from 6) to 7) on the
scale above, horrible persecution, evil, and suffering follow.

Arguing for Garth for a moment (correct me please, Garth), the nation of Israel
suffered many trials, exile and ultimately destruction precisely because they
did NOT hold to the truth that God had given them, and allowed the presence of
"other truths" in their midst.  How does that relate to us?  I honestly don't
know.  In the 1600's we had witch-burnings and other persecutions, now we have
a total moral decay.  Which is worse?

Regarding the Dobson notes:

I agree with everything Dobson wrote.  I agree that at every turn, we should
fight against the forces in our society that seek to prevent us from exercising
our faith.  I agree that we should fight against the forces in our society that
murder innocent unborn children.  But I do not agree that we should then take
the next step, and do onto the secular humanists what we abhor them doing to us:
forcing us to accept what they view as truth.

Paul

Re:  181.22  (Paul)

Your choice:

>6) God has standards for our personal actions, and He has revealed those
>   standards to us clearly.  We personally are convinced beyond doubt of these
>   standards.  However, we recognize that humanity in general cannot agree as
>   to what those standards are.  We are not open to accepting other standards
>   of truth beyond that which God has revealed, we do believe that we are
>   right and they are wrong - we don't accept a relativistic scale of truth. 
>   But neither are we willing to force others to abide by that truth, so long
>   as they do not prevent us from clinging to the truth.  This is where I hang
>   my hat. 

Somehow I fail to understand your logic and motivation.  If you are convinced
without doubt, then what difference does it make whether some people agree with
each other or not?  Does the fact that people disagree have any bearing on the
truth of God's word? 

Possibly the case is that you are not actually convinced without doubt, and
that these variant beliefs count for something enough so that they are able to
influence your course of action.  Or, possibly you are unsure of your own
ability to discern truth as God has revealed it.  James 1:5-8 applies here. 
You should ask for wisdom, believe, and not doubt, lest you receive nothing and
be called double-minded and unstable.  Remember that faith is "being sure...
certain..." (Hebrews 11:1) 

Regarding forcing others to abide by God's truth, read the accounts of the
Kings of Israel and Judah in 2 Kings and 2 Cronicles.  Note that some kings
turned away from God, other kings themselves followed God but did not impose
God's standards upon others, and still other kings followed God and imposed his
standards upon others.  Read the account of King Josiah, beginning in 2 Kings
22 and 2 Chron 34.  He imposed the Law of Moses upon his kingdom, and outlawed
the other religions, proactively seeking out and destroying their places of
worship and doing away with their priests.  Of him it is written, "Neither
before nor after Josiah was there a king like him who turned to the Lord as he
did -- with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his strength, in
accordance with the Law of Moses."  (2 Kings 23:25) 

But you are not like King Josiah.  You advocate being like the kings in the
second catagory -- those who themselves did what was right in God's eyes, but
did not impose their belief upon others.  Is this Libertarianism, then?  

>There are two facts, which I believe are not disputable, that prevent me from
>making the step from 6) to 7):
>
>1* Regardless of whether there is an absolute truth or whether I have the
>   correct version of it, as human beings we cannot agree on what that absolute
>   truth is, or even as to whether absolute truth exists at all.  I may be
>   totally convinced that they Bible is God's perfect word and truth, yet 
>   another person may be *equally* (and this is important) *equally* convinced
>   that the Koran is God's perfect word and truth.

Again, what does it matter what other people's motivations or apparent level of 
convictions are?  For example, as I alluded to before, the Koran states:

	"They denied the truth and uttered a monstrous falsehood against Mary.
	They declared: 'We have put to death the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary,
	the apostle of Allah.'  They did not kill him, nor did they crucify 
	him, but they thought they did."  (Surah 4:157)

We stand on the historical and unalterable fact that Jesus was crucified for
our sins, was buried, and rose from the dead on the third day (1 Cor 15:1-4). 
The Koran is wrong, Mohammed is not a prophet of God, and Islam is null and
void as a valid witness of God's truth.  Islam therefore does not warrant
governmental consideration for any purpose whatsoever.

>2* I am not a superior form of human being from that person who is convinced
>   of something completely different from what I believe.  I have no right to
>   force him to accept my version of truth, any more than he would have the
>   right to force me to accept his version of the truth. 

You are not superior, but God is superior.  So what God says, goes.  Since all
authority is from God, then if you are in a position of authority, you had
better act upon that authority as God's minister of justice, since he appointed
you there.  You have a right.  Read that account of King Josiah and then come
back and tell me you don't have a right. 

>In this context I think Garth's comments in reply .1:
>
> "God is right. The Koran is wrong."  
>
>miss the point.  Yes, God is right, God is always right.  And I agree that the
>Koran is wrong.  But can you prove to an outside observer, someone who is 
>neither a Christian or a Muslim, that the Bible is God's word and is right, and
>that the Koran is wrong?  If it were a matter of proof, then the whole world
>would be Christians.  But it's not a matter of proof.  It's a matter of faith,
>as has been discussed at length in other notes.  How can we use force to make
>others accept our faith?

You don't have to prove anything to anybody, because you are in government and
you have the authority to act.  However, you are more likely to convince an
onlooker if you live by your convictions, and act as though you are sure about
what God says.  It's a matter of faith, but faith is evidenced to the world by
what we do. 

You can't use force to make others accept your faith, but if you are in a
position of authority, such as government, you have a responsibility to live
out your faith in the decisions you make.

>I don't think that prior to Christ's return, that we as humans will be able to
>set up a government that will ultimately last.  The world is fallen, and people
>find ways around whatever system is put up.  

A defeatist attitude.  We might as well all die.

>But I do believe that the best chance at stability, the longest a government
>can last, is if it outlaws the use of force by any person on another.  

What difference does it make whether a government lasts?  That is irrelevant.

Also, if government outlaws the use of force, then how can it enforce a law
against force without using force?  The concept is self-contradictory.  What
becomes of the police force, and the judicial system?  Is government now
reduced to a group of people who merely give suggestions and opinions? 

>Another big problem I have with Garth's view is this: If we set the precedent
>that whoever is in power can force everyone else to accept their view of God
>and the truth, then what will happen to use when some other religious group
>gains the majority? 

Again, abusers of a system don't invalidate the system that they abuse.  That
is a logical fallacy.  But I will tell you what happens when "some other
religious group" gains power.  God brings judgment on them.  It happens every
time.  You can read about that in the Bible, too. 

>Somehow I fail to understand your logic and motivation.  If you are convinced
>without doubt, then what difference does it make whether some people agree with
>each other or not?

Simple, Garth - I am not omniscient.  It is perfectly possible for any human
being - including me, and you - to be *absolutely* convinced of something, and 
yet still be completely wrong.  The examples are too numerous to mention.

You point to the kings of Judah and Israel, but their context was completely
different.  They were God's chosen people - all of them, the whole nation.  They
were set apart by God to be His own.  God's law for them was a law given in 
Love, and received in love.  The laws were not to be applied to those outside
God's chosen people.  The Israelites did not try to impose the law given them
by God on other tribes, nor did God instruct them to.  They either left the 
surrounding tribes alone, or exterminated them completely to clear the promised
land.

When the Bible speaks of King Josiah and the other kings who followed the Lord,
it speaks of him purifying the *Israelites*, - those who had agreed to follow
the Lord and who had committed their lives to him, not the whole surrounding 
world, not all the people who didn't even know who the Lord was.

The parallel for today is the Church, not the government.  Yes, we are 
absolutely called to preserve the purity of God's church as King Josiah did, and
I have become actively involved in my denomination in defending the church 
against those who would tear us away from God's standards.  Yet just as King
Josiah was not called to subdue the surrounding kingdoms and impose worship of
a God they did not know upon them, so we are not called to subdue our entire
society and impose worship of God upon them.

You pick one line from the Koran, state that it is false, and then conclude that
all of Islam is null and void.  Yet people do exactly the same thing with the
Bible.  They pick one passage out of context, partake in none of the scholarship
which may resolve the contradiction, and immediately conclude that the Bible is
just folklore and all of Christianity is null and void.  I'm not defending the
Koran, it may have precisely the error you point out.  I'm just pointing out 
that you would be quite indignant if someone did exactly the same thing to the
Bible, and would - quite rightly - point out the error in their reasoning.

>You are not superior, but God is superior.  So what God says, goes.  

Absolutely true.  And you and I absolutely know that the Bible contains "what 
God says."  But not everyone knows that, and now we're right back where we 
started.  We are claiming superiority because our judgement that the Bible is
God's word is correct, and their judgement that it is not is wrong.

I will fight tooth and nail within my church and denomination to adhere to the
truth of God's word, to the point of expelling people who would deny the truth
that they church must adhere to.  But I can't impose that upon people who don't
even know God, and for whom it would not be a law of love but a law of rules 
only. 

>A defeatist attitude.  We might as well all die.

"For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God."  A defeatist 
attitude?  Absolutely.  Christians are those who recognize and admit their
certain and utter defeat at the hands of sin, and who call upon reinforcements
to turn the tide of the battle.  Is it defeatist to believe that we will not be
able to set up a lasting, just government before Christ returns?  Possibly it
is, but that makes it no less true.  Come, Lord Jesus!  

Paul

    I think that originally, our forefathers *did* use God's law in secular
    society...of course, according to all the information I've dug up so
    far, there was a general consensus from the people that this is indeed
    the was it should be.  We were created as a Christian nation.
    
    Somewhere we made a wrong turn.  Now we are a secular nation with
    secular laws overidding the previous "stuffy" and "personally limiting"
    laws based on Biblical morals. 
    
    We have done such a complete turn around in the name of progress, that
    there is no way to go back to Biblically based laws that we once held
    in this country.  The mindset of the general population would be
    against such laws.  We are now too varied, with too many differing
    religions to even consider laws based on any one doctrine- even if it
    was the same doctrine that founded this country to begin with.
    
    It's a shame, really, because the more we get away from that doctrine
    and the moral principles therein, the more freedom we seem to loose. 
    
    
    -steve

Re: .24  (Paul)

What I am trying to get across is that our faith in the God of Israel, the
Lord Jesus Christ, is not merely a religion to practice -- a system of worship
which we do on Sunday.  I have come to realize that it penetrates every area of
our lives and becomes not just a part of it, but the basis for it -- at home,
at work, in government -- everywhere. 

In government, a "godly" official who does not apply God's principles in the
decisions that he makes is a hypocrite.  If God says X is wrong, and the
official makes a legislative decision which condones X, then by his actions he
has made a mockery of his supposed faith in God. 

>>Somehow I fail to understand your logic and motivation.  If you are convinced
>>without doubt, then what difference does it make whether some people agree
>>with each other or not? 
>
>Simple, Garth - I am not omniscient.  It is perfectly possible for any human
>being - including me, and you - to be *absolutely* convinced of something, and 
>yet still be completely wrong.  The examples are too numerous to mention.

However, God has given us his Holy Spirit, and told us that he will guide us
into all truth.  Those who seek, find.  In any given issue, we can find God's
perfect will.  By faith, you should seek the will of God in every area of your
life.  You can't know everything, but you can know the things which God has
revealed to you, and apply them to every area of your life (not just church).

>You point to the kings of Judah and Israel, but their context was completely

The point was that the most righteous kings imposed God's laws upon the people
in Israel, even those who preferred a different religion.  We may not be under
the Law of Moses, but that is besides the point of the principle of imposing
God's righteous standards on others.  I don't need King Josiah of Israel.  I
could as easily use King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon as an example.  If that will
keep you from from arguing "Israel vs. church", then I will.

>>A defeatist attitude.  We might as well all die.
>
>"For all have sinned, and fall short of the Glory of God."  A defeatist 
>attitude?  Absolutely.  Christians are those who recognize and admit their

We were discussing our ability to put into effect godly governments.  The fact
that we admit that we have sinned does not mean we are obliged to continue in
sin.  Rather, we press on towards the goal even as we wait for our Lord. 

You are right.  We won't achieve the goal of a perfect government.  But let's
do the best we can, okay? 

Have wanted to get in here any number of times.  Good discussion.

Now consider this.  In the last few years I have come to the belief
that the change in attitude in the country was not political as much
as the success of societal attacks by humanists.  The key point to
consider is that at one point in our history all debates, laws, etc.
were formed in the context of an overwhelming acceptance of the
HISTORICAL fact of the resurection of Jesus.  Think about what a plain
acceptance of that means, or the many ramifications of having lost
that knowledge.

Lew

    
    I found this verse a few weeks ago and thought it was pretty
    good for a political context.
    
    Ecclesiastes 10:2 "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, 
    but the heart of the fool to the left."
    
    <Disclaimer>
    This is meant for the humor.  I realize that not all Christians
    are concservative right-wingers and my intention is not to bash
    the moderate and more liberal bent Christians.
    
    
    

Ha Ha Ha Ha

I laughed for a bit on this one.

Hee, Hee I'm still giggling.

Thanks.

Paul

    me too... :-)

    
    me too...let's see what soapbox has to say about that!
    
    jeff

    interesting....
     
    8^)

    Does anyone have a break down of the Republican candidates' stances on
    moral issues?  I haven't seen anything yet on it from the Christian
    Coalition or Concerned Women for America.
    
    thanks,
    Mike

 Check http://www.buchanan.org





 Jim

    Be sure to check out http://sandh.com/keyes/index.html