Conference yukon::christian_v7

	Topic 443 in TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 (started by Patricia Flanagan)
	seems to have a lot of bad things to say about Promise Keepers.

/john

    I'm sure Patricia is against for much different reasons than I. 

 Reminder:


 It is not a goal of this conference to conduct a "war of words" with
 another conference.  Those who are concerned with a discussion taking
 place in another conference are of course welcome to participate in
 such a discussion therein. 


 Second, concerns with the moderation of this conference should be
 taken up with the moderators of the conference, offline.



 Jim Co-Mod

    RE: .81  John Covert
    
    / Topic 443 in TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 (started by Patricia Flanagan)
    / seems to have a lot of bad things to say about Promise Keepers.
    
    The topic has barely begun, actually, but it does now contain 
    mention of your announcement in this file.  Just to let folks
    know.

| <<< Note 222.81 by COVERT::COVERT "John R. Covert" >>>


| Topic 443 in TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 (started by Patricia Flanagan)
| seems to have a lot of bad things to say about Promise Keepers.


	I was asked by a mod to do this, so if you would John, what do you mean
by the above note?


Glen

Topic 443 has bad things to say about Promise Keepers.

You may open TURRIS::WOMANNOTES-V5 and read Topic 443.  Anyone with
eyes to see will see that many replies to the topic, whose tone
is set by 443.0, say bad things.

/john

    RE: .92  John Covert
    
    So what?  Human beings often disagree with each other about various
    events, issues and ideas.
    
    Why is it important to announce a disagreement about PK in this file?

For once, I am pretty much in agreement with Suzanne.  What is the purpose
of bringing this up in here?  John, I think you should write your agreement 
or disagreement with what is being said in Woman notes in Woman notes.  If
you don't want to say anything there then don't, but what's the point of going 
on a mission to spread disagreement and hostility?  If you think someone here
could make a valuable contribution to the discussion there, then ask them if
they'd join the discussion there, but the way you've entered your note here
has at least the appearance wanting to stir things up for the sake of stirring
them up - just to generate controversy.  To my way of thinking that is not a
good thing to do.

Leslie

Why are you accusing me of spreading disagreement and hostility.

My note in this topic said what it said.  No more, no less.

It was intended as a "heads up" for anyone who might want to
respond to the bad things being said.

I don't know anything about Promise Keepers, so I can't say anything
in =wn= about them.  Maybe someone else can.

I will not discuss this further.

/john

It is not appropriate to discuss other notesfiles in this conference.
Any such discussion should be taken offline.

It appears that exception was taken to the word 'bad' used in 222.81.  It
was read as a value judgement on the discussion, rather than (as I believe
it means) its perspective on promise keepers.  Note that discussions in
this conference have also had to deal with a negative perspective of that
organisation, so that in itself is no condemnation of any other conference.
'Negative' rather than 'bad' might have avoided this ambiguity in 222.81.

						Andrew Yuille
						co-moderator

    I, for one, would like to thank John for letting us know that this
    subject was being debated in another notes file.
    
    Let's thank John, not persecute him.
    
    

The intent is not to persecute John, but to clarify that value judgements 
are not being made.  Also to request care in expression, so that such 
mistakes aren't liable to be repeated!

							Andrew

    	John's note does not surprise me.
    
    	I'd expect that there would be such a topic in WN for practically
    	any issue most of us hold dear here.  
    	
    	Discussion about John's entry is much ado about nothing.

| <<< Note 222.99 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>


| I'd expect that there would be such a topic in WN for practically
| any issue most of us hold dear here.

	Joe, what do you mean by the above? I know I took it with a negative
light, (like if you hold something dear, they would discuss it negatively there)
but I wanted to know right from your own mouth.


Glen

Isaiah 3:12  As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule 
    over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and 
    destroy the way of thy paths.

On the contrary, Glen, I took it to indicate that items of particular
interest here are likely to be of interest there.  But it's hardly
profitable to discuss here, as well as being off topic, so I request that
you take it offline, please.


						   Andrew
						co-moderator

    RE: .102 
    
    /               -< a nation was destroyed because of this >-

    / Isaiah 3:12  As for my people, children are their oppressors, and 
    / women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee 
    / to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.
    
    Do you think women and children are a threat capable of destroying
    our/your nation?

    
    	re .101
    
    	Andrew was close in his reply in .103.  But more specifically,
    	while there is interest in the many of the same issues, more
    	times than not te tenor in WN is opposite to that here.  Not
    	all times, to be sure, but most.
    
    	Abortion, divorce, Biblical authority, Christianity in general,
    	at-home mothers, same-sex partners, etc.
    
    	And now Promise Keepers.  I'm surprised that anyone is surprised
    	that Promise Keepers would not be well-received in WN.

>   Do you think women and children are a threat capable of destroying
>   our/your nation?
    
    Suzanne, 
    
    You miss the point entirely.  It is not "women and children" that are
    the threat, it is the turning away from God that will destroy us, if we
    do not turn back to Him.  "Those who do not learn from history are
    destined to repeat it." 
    
    /John

    RE: .107  John
    
    // Do you think women and children are a threat capable of destroying
    // our/your nation?
     
    / You miss the point entirely.  It is not "women and children" that are
    / the threat, it is the turning away from God that will destroy us, if we
    / do not turn back to Him.  "Those who do not learn from history are
    / destined to repeat it." 
    
    So, women and children are capable of turning MEN away from God (thus
    capable of destroying a nation)?

	Well, seeing I am not someone who reads =wn= on a regular basis, I
can't coment on if they are always at the oppisite end of the spectrum. But
thanks for being honest with your answer. 


Glen

Hi Suzanne,

In the Isaiah 3 case, I think you'll find that the men of the nation are
already apostate, and led Israel away from the LORD.   This is the result
of judgment beginning to fall on the nation. 

�         -< Women & children = evil? Or is it women who LEAD = evil? >-
The point doesn't lie in their sex, but in where they lead.  Whoever it is, 
if they lead towards the LORD, it is good; if they lead away from the LORD, 
they are bad.  There are examples of both in the Bible.  If you want a good 
woman leader, there's Deborah, for instance, in Judges 4:4...

						Andrew

    To think someone in here would claim that women and children are evil
    isn't amusing.  It shows a lack of understanding of Biblical
    masculinism.
    
    Mike

| <<< Note 222.111 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| To think someone in here would claim that women and children are evil isn't 
| amusing. It shows a lack of understanding of Biblical masculinism.

	Mike, maybe you could explain it to us then. I don't think anyone finds
women and children being evil amusing, but with that aside, it might do us all
good to have a better understanding of Biblical masculinism. 



Glen

    RE: .111  Mike
    
    / To think someone in here would claim that women and children are evil
    / isn't amusing.  It shows a lack of understanding of Biblical
    / masculinism.
    
    It was a question.
    
    The placement of this Biblical quote immediately after some comments
    about a file of mostly-women made it sound like a warning about the
    danger posed by women (when they lead in a particular place or forum.)
              
    It sounded to me like an opportunity to comment on another notesfile
    (and the people in it.)

 .116


 Sigh...

| <<< Note 222.118 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| .116
| Sigh...

	Sigh all you want Jim. Her feelings on the matter are just that, her
feelings. To try and get a clarification would be helpful, a sigh is anything
but. 


Glen

    
    Regarding the quota from Isaiah.  
    
    I did wonder what the purpose of posting it at the place it was 
    posted.  I know that everyone here have best intentions at heart.
    But it still made me pause.  
    
    Remember, we are admonished to say words that encourage one another.
    
    ;-)
    
    Thanks. 
    
    Mary Jo 

	RE: .120


	EXCELLENT note!!!!! Thanks for posting it.


Glen

    	re .119
    
    	Every clarification so far has been greeted with a twisting
    	of the words, prepended with "So what you are saying is..."
    	or words to that effect.
    
    	At this point about all one can do is sigh.

	RE: .121


		I loved the way you showed the 2 differences. Society certainly
has a lot more to learn about. GREAT NOTE!



Glen

| <<< Note 222.124 by CSC32::J_OPPELT "Wanna see my scar?" >>>

| Every clarification so far has been greeted with a twisting of the words, 
| prepended with "So what you are saying is..." or words to that effect.

	Explaining how I took it, and asking for clarification does not equal
twisting. In the note with the sigh, I expressed my opinion from what I saw. A
sigh doesn't help.


Glen

Glen, I refuse to join you in dragging this note down a rathole of why it is
not wise for any man and woman to have a deep, private relationship outside
of marriage.

I would encourage everyone else to so refuse.

Paul

    	re .127
    
    	The sigh wasn't in response to your note.  Nor did my statement
    	say that clarifications were twisted by you.

 .128 was written by me, and deleted.





 Jim

>    	Every clarification so far has been greeted with a twisting
>    	of the words, prepended with "So what you are saying is..."
>    	or words to that effect.
>    
>    	At this point about all one can do is sigh.
    
    Joe, you must be mistaken.  We're the only ones that say things without
    asking questions first.
    
    Mike

    Isaiah 3:12 speaks of how a nation was lead to ruin.  One of the
    reasons was because men were not assuming their Godly roles as PK is
    encouraging men to do.
    
    Mike

    RE: .135  Mike

    / Isaiah 3:12 speaks of how a nation was lead to ruin.  One of the
    / reasons was because men were not assuming their Godly roles as PK is
    / encouraging men to do.

    Godly roles?  Does this mean 'to be like God' (or does it mean 'as
    designated by God' or 'God-given')?

    In any case, it sounds as if the Biblical quote is saying that if men 
    do not assume their proper roles, then women lead instead (which can 
    lead a nation to ruin).  This does sound as if women are supposedly
    dangerous in leadership positions.

    If this is not what is meant, please clarify.

    Thanks.

>    Godly roles?  Does this mean 'to be like God' (or does it mean 'as
>    designated by God' or 'God-given')?
    
    Roles prescribed by God.

>    In any case, it sounds as if the Biblical quote is saying that if men 
>    do not assume their proper roles, then women lead instead (which can 
>    lead a nation to ruin).  This does sound as if women are supposedly
>    dangerous in leadership positions.
    
    Within the context of the family home, yes.  I haven't studied the
    passage enough to know if this applies to political or other areas. 
    The family roles are clearly outlined in the Pauline epistles.  This is
    one good thing that PK is trying to get men to grasp.

    Mike

| <<< Note 222.129 by PAULKM::WEISS "For I am determined to know nothing, except..." >>>



| Glen, I refuse to join you in dragging this note down a rathole of why it is
| not wise for any man and woman to have a deep, private relationship outside
| of marriage.

	Again, there are those who are weak in the flesh, and maybe they should
not have this kind of relationship with someone of the oppisite sex. Maybe if
one has a jealous spouse, that might be another reason to not have this kind of
relationship. But if your marriage is really thru God, these two things should
be minimal. (imho)


Glen

| <<< Note 222.134 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>



| Joe, you must be mistaken.  We're the only ones that say things without
| asking questions first.

	How edifying.... 

I still refuse to join you in that rathole, Glen.

Paul

Since people seem intent on following Glen into that rathole, could a
moderator perhaps move it to it's own note?

Paul

| <<< Note 222.151 by ICTHUS::YUILLE "He must increase - I must decrease" >>>



| If a marriage exists, there is no room to question whether it is 'of God' or 
| not. 

	Agreed. The actions of the people who are married would clearly show
that.

| The marriage has been established via a promise - a contract - between the two
| people and God. 

	Not all marriages are this way Andrew.

| The marriage is the commitment by both parties.

	This is what you would hope for, but reality says because the divorce
rate is so high, either the commitment wasn't taken seriously, or that
somehwere along the lines, one or both parties forgot about God.

| Only a side issue, but a very important one.  Just because a marriage is
| difficult, or going through apparently insuperable difficulties, it doesn't
| mean that it was 'a mistake', either in man's eyes or in God's.  

	Agreed. Sometimes the marriage can become better when both parties get
past the struggles, with God's help.


Glen

    RE: .156  Karen
    
    Does the Promise Keepers encourage men (or women) to be hostile to
    people who don't agree with some of the principles of PK?
    
    Do you think it's right to show such hostility (whether PK encourages
    people to show such hostility or not?)
    
    

    .161
    
    Pardon me Suzanne, but that's a hook and line question.  The
    appropriate question might be,
    
    "Is hostility okay at any time?"
    
    I've certainly been dealt quite a lot of hostility in Womannotes from
    participants now in this file.  I'd say that hostility is not secluded
    from any human being who feels their ideals being threatened.
    
    

    RE: .162  Nancy
    
    Hostility doesn't help much when one is trying to pass along Christ's
    'good news' in other notesfiles, though.
    
    People are likely to be hostile in return or simply 'tune out'
    (and resent certain groups of Christians.)
    
    It's something to think about.  (You, too, Karen.)

	re: .163


		GREAT note! Why anyone would want to use hostility when
	they trying to get Christ's message out is beyond me. Seems to me
	it would defeat the purpose, not make it happen.


	Glen

 Who the heck is being hostile?

    We are Jim.  Even when we aren't, we still are.

    Actually, people who regard themselves as having a monopoly on the
    truth are not popular.
    
    The truth itself never goes out of style.

 No kidding..Jesus said as much to the 12 as he sent them out (though of course
 He didn't refer to the "monopoly on Truth).





 Jim

      re: .52
    
      Boy, can I ever echo the thought that truth isn't popular!!!   ;-)

| <<< Note 771.52 by OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall" >>>

| We are Jim.  Even when we aren't, we still are.

	I believe 2 people's names were mentioned. I don't think yours, or
Jims, were included in that list. I guess I wonder why one would not want the
word "all" applied to them when an extremist Christian group does something,
yet they apply the word "all" when talking about what others are thinking.



Glen

| <<< Note 771.55 by YIELD::BARBIERI >>>


| Boy, can I ever echo the thought that truth isn't popular!!!   ;-)

	Tony, sometimes I think some of your views wouldn't be included in that
perceived truth...... ;-)


Glen

 The question, Glen, is "who is being hostile?"  You seem to agree that 
 somebody is (note I said "seem"), I'm just curious as to whom.  



 Jim

	Jim, I believe you need to read a few back and reread sues note. it
says it all.

 What does it say, Glen (note .47)  All I see is a note with a question, and
 a comment based on what appears to be the author's assumption of the answer.


 So, again, I ask, who is being hostile?  


 Mike's answer to the question is a corporate "we".  Christians sharing the
 love of Christ and their desire to see souls saved are often viewed as
 "hostile".




 Jim

    It's just called the pointy fingers syndrome.  The don't do as I do, do
    as I think God says you should do.  And the best part is they don't
    even hold to the premise of this conference in beliving the Bible to be
    inerrant.  But they'll use the Bible to point fingers... 
    
    me shaking my head,
    Nancy
    

    RE: .60  Jim
    
    /  So, again, I ask, who is being hostile?
    
    Members of the Christian notesfile who go to other notesfiles to
    preach in a hostile manner (as I mentioned in an earlier note.)

 Then perhaps you should take it up offline with that individual rather than
 dragging the issue into this conference where 99.9% of the participants
 do not go into those other conferences.  Surely you know that we have no
 control over who goes into what conference.



 Regards


 Jim

    People do have control over themselves (even when they've been directed
    to another conference.)
    
    My comments were just a heads up.  Take them or leave them.

>    People do have control over themselves (even when they've been directed
>    to another conference.)
 

      WHAT?!?!  are you saying that someone directed someone into another 
      conference to "preach"?  You're *got* to be kidding.


   
>    My comments were just a heads up.  Take them or leave them.


     Heads up for what?

    Well, actually, 'preaching' seems to be a default condition in some
    religions (even when it comes across as hostility.)

| <<< Note 771.60 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>


| So, again, I ask, who is being hostile?

	It states it there Jim. And based on that I made my generic comment
about being hostile is not going to get anyone to come to Christ.

| Mike's answer to the question is a corporate "we".  Christians sharing the
| love of Christ and their desire to see souls saved are often viewed as 
| "hostile".

	I agree. Sometimes it is not true, sometimes it is.


Glen

| <<< Note 771.61 by JULIET::MORALES_NA "Sweet Spirit's Gentle Breeze" >>>

| And the best part is they don't even hold to the premise of this conference in
| beliving the Bible to be inerrant.  

	Why is it you can bring beliefs that are not allowed in this
conference, but if I said what you did above it would be deleted?

| But they'll use the Bible to point fingers...

	One thing you should understand is this. Your beliefs are the Bible is
the inerrant Word of God. Holding you to your beliefs using the very tool you
use to begin with should have nothing to do with others beliefs, cuz they are
just holding you to your own.


Glen

| <<< Note 771.63 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Learning to lean" >>>

| Then perhaps you should take it up offline with that individual rather than
| dragging the issue into this conference where 99.9% of the participants
| do not go into those other conferences.  Surely you know that we have no
| control over who goes into what conference.

	Jim, maybe God wanted it brought up over here so the issues can be delt
with within the Christian community. The outcome could be that the people
realize that they were wrong, or it could mean that the author realized they
were wrong. Both could learn how to get past it, and Spiritual growth can take
place. 



Glen

>    Well, actually, 'preaching' seems to be a default condition in some
>    religions (even when it comes across as hostility.)



   It is a commandment of the Lord and Saviour whom we in this conference 
 worship.  If you find it "hostile", I have to ask what draws you to this
 conference when it is obvious you do not share the beliefs in which we
 believe..who then, I ask, is hostile?




 Jim

    RE: .70  Jim Henderson
    
    // Well, actually, 'preaching' seems to be a default condition in some
    // religions (even when it comes across as hostility.)

    / It is a commandment of the Lord and Saviour whom we in this conference 
    / worship.  
    
    Others follow the commandments of the Lord without being hostile.
    
    / If you find it "hostile", I have to ask what draws you to this
    / conference when it is obvious you do not share the beliefs in 
    / which we believe..
    
    Just trying to understand some things about the view here.
    
    / who then, I ask, is hostile?
    
    You sound kinda hostile at the moment, Jim.

    children, children!  Boy that makes me feel old.  I would
    like to point out that this stream sounds like kids fighting.
    He did it, no she did it first.  He called me a bad name, she
    called me a bad name first.
    
    I would like to point out that it takes two to tangle.
    So, if you agree that this kind of note does nothing
    to help us learn more about the subject of the conference,
    simply STOP replying.  Then it will stop real fast.
    
    I feel better now.
    
    Jill2

        <<< Note 771.71 by BSS::S_CONLON "A Season of Carnelians..." >>>
    
>    / who then, I ask, is hostile?
>    
>    You sound kinda hostile at the moment, Jim.

    	Then it is clear to me that this is all a matter of perception,
    	for at the current time in this conversation I sense the
    	hostility coming from Glen and Suzanne, not from Nancy, Jim,
    	et. al.  Yes, that's *MY* perception, which further supports
    	my contention that the hostility in this discussion is all a
    	matter of perception.  
    
    	Now the issue is how I choose to deal with that hostility.  I
    	suppose I could pop over into Glen's and Suzanne's favorite
    	notesfiles and start complaining about my perception of their
    	hostility and Christian bashing and all, but what would it serve
    	other than to be disruptive and probably get me perceived as
    	being hostile...
    
    	I can think of more productive things to do though.

    .73
    
    :-) :-)  You got that right.
    
    

	Wow.... he hides quite the message in that note. Funny though.... the
same can be said about any one's interpretation of any part of Scripture.... 


Glen

    
    

	Hmmm... That last reply sounds a bit
hostile and judgemental to my ears, Glen...

    RE: .73  Joe Oppelt

    / I suppose I could pop over into Glen's and Suzanne's favorite
    / notesfiles and start complaining about my perception of their
    / hostility

    People from this conference go to some other files to make
    negative comments about the files in general (and the people 
    who frequent those files).

    It seems like a strange way to spread the 'good news' about 
    Christ (and it really seems to push many people away from the 
    religious view being promoted in this way.)

    The angry way people are responding to criticism about PK 
    in some other files can be just as non-productive (and can
    push people away from the idea of adopting the messages of
    PK for our whole society.)

  Enough!  This topic is write locked.  



  We have no control over who goes into what conference.  As suggested 
 before, anyone having an issue with someone from this conference appearing
 in another conference, or the tenor of such appearance, please take it
 up offline with the "offender". 

 
 Any further mention of such "offenses" in this conference will be returned
 to the author.


 
 The Moderators.